Great Lakes Council Community Research · 2015-11-06 · Great Lakes Council Community Research September 2012 2 Background & Methodology Prequalification Participants in this survey

Great Lakes Council

Community Research

September 2012

Prepared for:

Prepared by:

ABN 14 003 179 440

10/1 Bounty Close Tuggerah, NSW 2259

Postal address: PO Box 5059, Chittaway Bay NSW 2261

Telephone: (02) 4352 2388 Fax: (02) 4352 2117

www.micromex.com.au

[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

Great Lakes Council

Community Research

September 2012

The information contained herein is believed to be reliable and accurate. However, no

guarantee is given as to its accuracy and reliability, and no responsibility or liability for any

information, opinions or commentary contained herein, or for any consequences of its use, will

be accepted by Micromex Research, or by any person involved in the preparation of this report.

Great Lakes Council

Community Research

September 2012 Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Introduction

Background & Methodology 1

Sample Profile 3

Key Findings 4

Summary of Critical Outcomes & Recommendations 15

Results

Section A – Detailed Findings: Importance of, and Satisfaction with, Council Services & Facilities

Importance of, and Satisfaction with, Council Services & Facilities 16

Engineering 19

Planning 27

Corporate and Community 32

General Manager 37

All of Council 41

Overall Satisfaction with the Performance of Council 45

How Council can Improve Satisfaction with its Performance 47

Section B – Contact with Council

Contact with Council in the Last 12 Months 49

Satisfaction with the Way Contact was Handled 50

Satisfaction with Council’s Current Level of Communication with the Community 52

Sourcing Information About Council 54

Section C – Demographics

Age group 55

Town or area lived in 55

Gender 55

Appendices

A. Data and Correlation Tables 56

B. Questionnaire

Great Lakes Council

Community Research

September 2012 1

Background & Methodology

Great Lakes Council sought to examine community attitudes and perceptions towards current

and future services and facilities provided by Council. Key objectives of the research included:

o To assess and establish the community’s priorities and satisfaction in relation to Council

activities, services and facilities

o To identify the community’s overall level of satisfaction with Council’s performance

o To identify the community’s level of satisfaction with regards to contact they have had with

Council staff

o To identify trends and benchmark results against the research conducted previously

To facilitate this, Micromex Research was contracted to develop a survey template that enabled

Council to effectively analyse attitudes and trends within the community.

Questionnaire

Micromex Research, together with Great Lakes Council, developed the questionnaire.

A copy of the questionnaire is provided in Appendix B.

Data collection

The survey was conducted during the period 2nd – 7th August 2012 from 4:30pm to 8:30pm,

Monday to Friday and 10am to 4pm Saturday.

Survey area

Great Lakes Council Local Government Area.

Sample selection and error

The sample consisted of a total of 400 residents. The selection of respondents was by means of a

computer based random selection process using the electronic White Pages.

A sample size of 400 residents provides a maximum sampling error of plus or minus 4.9% at 95%

confidence.

The sample was weighted by age to reflect the 2011 ABS census data.

Participants

Individuals in the household, 18 years or older, were selected using the ‘last birthday’ selection

procedure.

If the person was not at home, call-backs were scheduled for a later time. Unanswered calls were

retried to a maximum of three times throughout the period of the survey.

Interviewing

Interviewing was conducted in accordance with IQCA (Interviewer Quality Control Australia)

Standards and the Market Research Society Code of Professional Conduct.

Great Lakes Council

Community Research

September 2012 2

Background & Methodology

Prequalification

Participants in this survey were pre-qualified as having lived in the Great Lakes Council area for a

minimum of six months.

Data analysis

The data within this report was analysed using SPSS. To identify the statistically significant

differences between the groups of means, ‘One-Way Anova Test’ and ‘Independent Samples T-

test’ were used. ‘Z Tests’ were also used to determine statistically significant differences between

column proportions.

Ratings questions

The unipolar scale of 1 to 5, where 1 was the lowest importance or satisfaction and 5 the highest

importance or satisfaction, was used in all rating questions.

Mean rating explanation

Mean rating: 1.99 or less ‘Very low’ level of importance/satisfaction

2.00 – 2.49 ‘Low’ level of importance/satisfaction

2.50 – 2.99 ‘Moderately low’ level of importance/satisfaction

3.00 – 3.59 ‘Moderate’ level of importance/satisfaction

3.60 – 3.89 ‘Moderately high’ level of importance/satisfaction

3.90 – 4.19 ‘High’ level of importance/satisfaction

4.20 – 4.49 ‘Very high’ level of importance/satisfaction

4.50+ ‘Extremely high’ level of importance/satisfaction

Note: Only respondents who rated services/facilities a 4 or 5 in importance were asked to rate

their satisfaction with that service/facility.

Errors: Data in this publication is subject to sampling variability because it is based on information relating

to a sample of residents rather than the total number. This difference (sampling error) may occur

due to imperfections in reporting and errors made in processing the data. This may occur in any

enumeration, whether it is a full count or sample.

Efforts have been made to reduce the non-sampling error by careful design of the questionnaire

and detailed checking of completed questionnaires.

Great Lakes Council

Community Research

September 2012 3

Sample Profile

Summary

Base: n=400

12%

12%

13%

13%

14%

37%

51%

32%

17%

48%

52%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Pacific Palms - Blueys Beach - Coomba Park

Nabiac - Failford - Darawank - Rural North

Hawks Nest - Tea Gardens - North Arm

Cove - Pindimar

Bulahdelah - Central Rural

Stroud - Rural West

Forster - Tuncurry

55 years and over

35 - 54

18 - 34

Male

Female

Age

Gender

Town/Area

Great Lakes Council

Community Research

September 2012 4

Key Findings

Overview (Overall satisfaction)

Overall, the research has found a generally positive result for Great Lakes Council, with 27 of the

39 services/facilities/criteria rated as being of ‘moderate’ to ‘very high’ satisfaction.

At an overall level, residents expressed a ‘moderate’ level of satisfaction with the performance of

Council, with 47% of the respondents giving a rating of ‘satisfied’ to ‘very satisfied’, whilst 21%

were ‘dissatisfied’ or ‘very dissatisfied’.

18 - 34 35 - 54 55+ Male Female Overall

Satisfaction mean ratings 2.93 3.08 3.50 3.18 3.35 3.27

Hawks Nest - Tea

Gardens - North

Arm Cove -

Pindimar

Pacific Palms -

Blueys Beach -

Coomba Park

Nabiac - Failford

- Darawank -

Rural North

Bulahdelah -

Central Rural

Stroud - Rural

West

Forster -

Tuncurry

Satisfaction

mean ratings 3.23 3.16 3.18 2.86 3.28 3.48

Mean ratings: 1 = very dissatisfied, 5 = very satisfied

= A significantly higher level (by group)

= A significantly lower level (by group)

Base: n=400

7%

14%

32%

39%

8%

0% 20% 40%

Very dissatisfied

Dissatisfied

Neither

Satisfied

Very satisfied

Great Lakes Council

Community Research

September 2012 5

Key Findings

Overview

Satisfaction with the level of communication Council has with the community

There was a ‘moderate’ level of satisfaction with the level of communication Council currently

has with the community.

Residents aged 55+ expressed a significantly higher level of satisfaction with the level of

communication Council currently has with the community than did those aged 18-34 and 35-54

(3.65 vs. 3.27 and 3.31).

Females were more satisfied with the level of communication than were males (3.59 vs. 3.35).

Forster – Tuncurry residents were more satisfied than were Bulahdelah – Central Rural residents

(3.68 vs. 3.07).


Mean ratings 3.27 3.31 3.65 3.35 3.59 3.47

Hawks Nest - Tea

Gardens - North

Arm Cove -

Pindimar

Pacific Palms -

Blueys Beach -

Coomba Park

Nabiac - Failford

- Darawank -

Rural North

Bulahdelah -

Central Rural

Stroud - Rural

West

Forster -

Tuncurry

Mean ratings 3.29 3.34 3.47 3.07 3.57 3.68




Base: n=400

5%

9%

31%

45%

10%

0% 20% 40% 60%

Very dissatisfied

Dissatisfied

Neither

Satisfied

Very satisfied

Great Lakes Council

Community Research

September 2012 6

Key Findings

Comparison to LGA Benchmarks

Great Lakes Council residents are more satisfied than the LGA Benchmark score for only 3 of the

24 comparable measures, equal for 5, including ‘overall satisfaction with the level of

communication Council has with the community’ and below the Benchmark for the remaining 16

comparable measures, including ‘overall satisfaction with the performance of Council’.

Service/Facility Great Lakes Council

Satisfaction Scores

Satisfaction

Benchmark

Above the Benchmark

Overall satisfaction with the way contact was handled - In person 4.2 4.0

Waste collection and disposal 4.1 4.0

Provision of information on Council and community services 3.3 3.2

Equal to the Benchmark

Library services 4.2 4.2

Overall satisfaction with the way contact was handled - Phone 3.8 3.8

Overall satisfaction with the level of communication Council has with the

community 3.5 3.5

Protection of the natural environment 3.5 3.5

Public car parking 3.1 3.1

Below the Benchmark

Sports fields 3.6 3.8

Parks and reserves 3.6 3.8

Public halls/community buildings 3.5 3.6

Support to arts and culture 3.5 4.0

Protection of heritage 3.4 3.6

Swimming pools 3.4 3.8

Overall satisfaction with the performance of Council 3.3 3.5

Streetscaping/town beautification 3.2 3.4

Planning for the future of the community 3.0 3.1

Opportunities to participate in Council decision making 2.9 3.0

Stormwater drainage 2.9 3.2

Town planning 2.9 3.1

Development assessment/planning controls 2.8 3.1

Footpaths and cycleways 2.7 2.9

Road maintenance - sealed 2.3 2.6

Road maintenance - unsealed 2.2 2.6


Great Lakes Council

Community Research

September 2012 7

Key Findings

Identifying Priorities via Specialised Analysis (Explanation)

The specified research outcomes required us to measure both community importance and

community satisfaction with a range of specific service delivery areas. In order to identify core

priorities, we undertook a 2 step analysis process on the stated importance and rated satisfaction

data, after which we conducted a third level of analysis. This level of analysis was a Shapley

Regression on the data in order to identify which facilities and services are the actual drivers of

overall satisfaction with Council.

By examining both approaches to analysis we have been able to:

1. Identify and understand the hierarchy of community priorities

2. Inform the deployment of Council resources in line with community aspirations

Step 1. Performance Gap Analysis (PGA)

PGA establishes the gap between importance and satisfaction. This is calculated by subtracting

the mean satisfaction score from the mean importance score. In order to measure performance

gaps, respondents are asked to rate the importance of, and their satisfaction with, each of a

range of different services or facilities on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 = low importance or

satisfaction and 5 = high importance or satisfaction. These scores are aggregated at a total

community level.

The higher the differential between importance and satisfaction, the greater the difference is

between the provision of that service by Great Lakes Council and the expectation of the

community for that service/facility.

In the table on the following page, we can see the 39 services and facilities that residents rated

by importance and then by satisfaction.

When analysing the performance gaps, it is important to recognise that, for the most part, a gap

of up to 1.0 is acceptable when the initial importance rating is 4.0+, as it indicates that residents

consider the attribute to be of ‘high’ to ‘very high’ importance and that the satisfaction they

have with Great Lakes Council’s performance on that same measure, is ‘moderate’ to

‘moderately high’.

For example, ‘litter control’ was given an importance score of 4.44, which indicates that it is

considered an area of ‘very high’ importance by residents. At the same time it was given a

satisfaction score of 3.43, which indicates that residents have a ‘moderate’ level of satisfaction

with Great Lakes Council’s performance and focus in this area.

In the case of a performance gap such as for the ‘library services’ (4.05 importance vs. 4.23

satisfaction), we can identify that the facility/service has a ‘high’ level of importance to the

broader community, but for residents who feel that this facility is important, it is providing a ‘very

high’ level of satisfaction.

Great Lakes Council

Community Research

September 2012 8

Key Findings

When analysing performance gap data, it is important to consider both stated satisfaction and

the absolute size of the performance gap.

Performance Gap Ranking

Ranking

2012 Service/Facility

Importance

Mean

Satisfaction

Mean

Performance

Gap

1 Road maintenance - sealed 4.52 2.29 2.23

2 Planning for the future of the community 4.62 2.97 1.65

3 Encouraging employment growth 4.35 2.82 1.53

4 Road maintenance - unsealed 3.61 2.18 1.43

5 Assisting local business operators 4.29 2.92 1.37

6 Consultation with the community 4.41 3.07 1.34

7 Development assessment/planning controls 4.07 2.75 1.32

8

Protection of waterways 4.69 3.41 1.28

Promoting safety and preventing crime 4.57 3.29 1.28

Town planning 4.17 2.89 1.28

11 Public toilets 4.15 2.98 1.17

12 Promotion of tourism in the area 4.44 3.30 1.14

Stormwater drainage 4.05 2.91 1.14

14 Litter bins in public places 4.43 3.30 1.13

Opportunities to participate in Council decision making 4.06 2.93 1.13

16 Footpaths and cycleways 3.78 2.73 1.05

17 Protection of the natural environment 4.49 3.45 1.04

18 Animal control 4.12 3.10 1.02

19 Litter control 4.44 3.43 1.01

20 The way Council employees interact with the public 4.27 3.31 0.96

21 Provision of information on Council and community services 4.19 3.28 0.91

22 Kerb and guttering 3.64 2.84 0.80

23 Support to community groups 4.27 3.50 0.77

24 Public car parking 3.81 3.12 0.69

25 Street lighting 3.92 3.24 0.68

26 Parks and reserves 4.16 3.57 0.59

Protection of heritage 3.99 3.40 0.59

28 Waste collection and disposal 4.65 4.09 0.56

29 Streetscaping/town beautification 3.74 3.19 0.55

30 Bridge maintenance 3.98 3.53 0.45

31 Public halls/community buildings 3.94 3.53 0.41

32 Playgrounds 3.77 3.40 0.37

33 Swimming pools 3.74 3.40 0.34

34 Boat ramps/wharves 3.57 3.28 0.29

35 Sports fields 3.82 3.58 0.24

36 Support to arts and culture 3.66 3.45 0.21

37 After school and school holiday programs 3.37 3.34 0.03

38 Library services 4.05 4.23 -0.18

Cemetery services 3.70 3.88 -0.18

Mean ratings: 1 = not at all important and very dissatisfied, 5 = very important and very satisfied

NB. This table is in Appendix A, sorted by level of importance and by level of satisfaction.

Great Lakes Council

Community Research

September 2012 9

Key Findings

When we examine the 10 largest performance gaps, we can identify that all the services or

facilities have been rated as ‘moderately high’ to ‘extremely high’ in importance. Resident

satisfaction for all of these areas is between 2.18 and 3.41, which indicates that resident

satisfaction for these measures is ‘low’ to ‘moderate’.

Ranking

2012 Service/ Facility

Importance

Mean

Satisfaction

Mean

Performance

Gap








8

Protection of waterways 4.69 3.41 1.28

Promoting safety and preventing crime 4.57 3.29 1.28

Town planning 4.17 2.89 1.28

The key outcome of this analysis would suggest that, while there are opportunities to improve

satisfaction across a range of services/facilities, ‘road maintenance - sealed’ is the area of least

relative satisfaction.

Note: Performance gap is the first step in the process, we now need to identify comparative

ratings across all services and facilities to get an understanding of relative importance and

satisfaction at an LGA level.

Step 2. Quadrant Analysis

Quadrant analysis is a useful tool for planning future directions. It combines the stated needs of

the community and assesses Great Lakes Council’s performance in relation to these needs.

This analysis is completed by plotting the variables on x and y axes, defined by stated importance

and rated satisfaction. We aggregate the mean scores for stated importance and rated

satisfaction to identify where the facility or service should be plotted. For these criteria, the

average stated importance score was 4.09 and the average rated satisfaction score was 3.23.

Therefore, any facility or service that received a mean stated importance score of ≥ 4.09 would

be plotted in the higher importance section and, conversely, any that scored < 4.09 would be

plotted into the lower importance section. The same exercise is undertaken with the satisfaction

ratings above, equal to or below 3.23. Each service or facility is then plotted in terms of

satisfaction and importance, resulting in its placement in one of four quadrants.

Great Lakes Council

Community Research

September 2012 10

Key Findings

Quadrant Analysis

Road maintenance - sealed

Planning for the future of the community

Encouraging employment growth

Assisting local business operators

Consultation with the community

Town planning

Public toilets

Animal control

Promoting safety and preventing crime

Protection of waterways

Promotion of tourism in the area

Litter bins in public places

Protection of the natural environment

Litter control

The way Council employees interact with the public

Provision of information on Council and community services

Support to community groups

Parks and reserves

Waste collection and disposal

Road maintenance - unsealed

Development assessment/planning controls

Stormwater drainage

Opportunities to participate in Council decision making

Footpaths and cycleways

Kerb and guttering

Public car parking

Streetscaping/town beautification

Street lighting

Protection of heritage

Bridge maintenance

Public halls/community buildings

Playgrounds

Swimming pools

Boat ramps/wharves

Sports fields

Support to arts and culture

After school and school holiday programs

Cemetery services

Library services

IMPROVE MAINTAIN

NICHE SECONDARY

Great Lakes Council

Community Research

September 2012 11

Key Findings

Explaining the 4 quadrants

Attributes in the top right quadrant, MAINTAIN, such as ‘promoting safety and preventing crime’,

are Council’s core strengths, and should be treated as such. Maintain, or even attempt to

improve your position in these areas, as they are influential and address clear community needs.

Attributes in the top left quadrant, IMPROVE, such as ‘planning for the future of the community’,

are areas where Council is perceived to be currently under-performing and are key concerns in

the eyes of your residents. In the vast majority of cases you should aim to improve your

performance in these areas to better meet the community’s expectations.

Attributes in the bottom left quadrant, NICHE, such as ‘development assessment/planning

controls’, are of a relatively lower priority (and the word ‘relatively’ should be stressed – they are

still important). These areas tend to be important to a particular segment of the community.

Finally, attributes in the bottom right quadrant, SECONDARY, such as ‘street lighting’, are core

strengths, but in relative terms they are less important than other areas, and Council’s servicing in

these areas may already be exceeding expectation. Consideration could be given to

rationalising focus in these areas as they are not community priorities for improvement.

Recommendations based only on stated importance and satisfaction have major limitations, as

the actual questionnaire process essentially ‘silos’ facilities and services as if they are independent

variables, when they are in fact all part of the broader community perception of Council

performance.

Residents’ priorities identified in stated importance/satisfaction analysis often tend to be in areas

that are problematic. No matter how much focus a Council dedicates to the issue of roads, it will

often be found in the IMPROVE quadrant. This is because, perceptually, the condition of local and

state roads can always be better.

Furthermore, the outputs of stated importance and satisfaction analysis address the current

dynamics of the community, they do not predict which focus areas are the most likely agents to

change the community’s perception of Council’s overall performance.

Therefore, in order to identify how Great Lakes Council can actively drive overall community

satisfaction, we conducted further analysis.

Great Lakes Council

Community Research

September 2012 12

Key Findings

The Shapley Value Regression

We recently finalised the development of a Council Satisfaction Model, to identify priorities that

will drive overall satisfaction with Council.

This model was developed by conducting specialised analysis from over 30,000 LGA interviews

conducted since 2005. In essence, it proved that increasing resident satisfaction by actioning the

priorities they stated as being important does not necessarily positively impact on overall

satisfaction with the Council. This regression analysis is a statistical tool for investigating

relationships between dependent variables and explanatory variables.

What does this mean?

The learning is that if we only rely on the stated community priorities, we will not be allocating the

appropriate resources to the actual service attributes that will improve overall community

satisfaction. Using regression analysis we can identify the attributes that essentially build overall

satisfaction. We call the outcomes ‘derived importance’.

Correlation Between Stated Importance and

Derived Importance Is Low

If you only focus on stated importance, you are not focusing on

the key drivers of community satisfaction

Coles

89%

S

t

a

t

e

d

I

m

p

o

r

t

a

n

c

e

D e r I v e d I m p o r t a n c e

Road maintenance -

sealed

Stormwater drainage


Street lighting

Swimming pools

Town planning


Planning for the future of

the community

Development

assessment/planning

controls

Encouraging employment

growth Assisting local business

operators

Promotion of tourism in the

area

Protection of the natural

environment

The way Council

employees interact with

the public

Opportunities to

participate in Council

decision making Provision of information on

Council and community

services

Consultation with the

community

3.3

3.5

3.7

3.9

4.1

4.3

4.5

4.7

2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0

In the chart above, on the vertical axis of ‘stated importance’, all the facilities/services fall in

relatively close proximity to each other (i.e. between approximately 3.7 & 4.7), however, on the

horizontal axis the attributes are spread between 2 and 9. The further an attribute is found to the

right of the horizontal axis of ‘derived importance’, the more it contributes in driving overall

satisfaction with Council.

Great Lakes Council

Community Research

September 2012 13

Key Findings

Key drivers of satisfaction with Great Lakes Council

The results in the chart below provide Great Lakes Council with a complete picture of both the

extrinsic and intrinsic community priorities and motivations, and identify which attributes are the

key drivers of community satisfaction.

These top 10 services/facilities account for over 60% of overall satisfaction with Council. This

indicates that the remaining 29 attributes we obtained measures on have only a limited impact

on the community’s satisfaction with Great Lakes Council’s performance. Therefore, whilst all 39

service/facility areas are important, only a minority of them are significant drivers of the

community’s overall satisfaction with Council.

Coles

89%

These Top 10 Indicators Account for over 60%

of Overall Satisfaction with Council

Community engagement/interaction is a key pillar, accounting

for over 28% of overall satisfaction

4.0

4.5

4.5

4.6

4.8

7.2

7.3

7.7

8.2

8.4

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0

Town planning



Stormwater drainage







These 10 services/facilities are the key community priorities and by addressing these, Great Lakes

Council will improve overall community satisfaction. The score assigned to each area indicates

the percentage of influence each attribute contributes to overall satisfaction with Council.

In the above chart, ‘town planning’ contributes 4.0% towards overall satisfaction, while ‘the way

Council employees interact with the public’ (8.4%) is a far stronger driver, contributing more than

twice as much to overall satisfaction with Council.

Community

engagement

and

interaction = 28%

Great Lakes Council

Community Research

September 2012 14

Key Findings

Clarifying priorities

If Great Lakes Council can address these core drivers, they will be able to improve resident

satisfaction with their performance. In the chart below we can see that, for many of the core

drivers, Council is already performing reasonably well. There are clear opportunities, however, to

improve satisfaction with the services/facilities that fall below the diagonal line.


Stormwater drainage


Street lighting

Swimming pools

Town planning


Planning for the future of the

community

Development

assessment/planning

controls

Encouraging employment

growth

Assisting local business

operators

Protection of the natural

environment

The way Council employees

interact with the public

Opportunities to participate

in Council decision making

Provision of information on

Council and community

services

Consultation with the

community

2.1

2.3

2.5

2.7

2.9

3.1

3.3

3.5

3.7

2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0

Mapping Stated Satisfaction and Derived Importance Identifies the Community Priority Areas

The key drivers of overall community satisfaction with Council revolve

around community engagement/interaction, planning and

encouraging employment growth

IMPROVE

CONSOLIDATE

D e r I v e d I m p o r t a n c e

S

t

a

t

e

d

s

a

t

i

s

f

a

c

t

i

o

n

Promotion

of tourism in

the area

The key outcomes of this analysis indicate that ‘the way Council employees interact with the

public’, ‘consultation with the community’, ‘encouraging employment growth’, ‘development

assessment/planning controls’ and ‘road maintenance – sealed’ are key priority areas for the

community.

Great Lakes Council

Community Research

September 2012 15

Summary of Critical Outcomes

The summary table below combines the outcomes of the regression analysis with the stated

importance and satisfaction outcomes of the performance gap and quadrant analysis.

In developing future plans and strategies, Great Lakes Council should consider the implications

raised by each form of analysis.

Shapley’s

Analysis

Gap

Analysis

Quadrant

Analysis

The way Council employees interact with the public 8.4 0.96 Maintain

Development assessment/planning controls 8.2 1.32 Niche

Consultation with the community 7.7 1.34 Improve

Provision of information on Council and community services 7.3 0.91 Maintain

Encouraging employment growth 7.2 1.53 Improve

Opportunities to participate in Council decision making 4.8 1.13 Niche

Stormwater drainage 4.6 1.14 Niche

Planning for the future of the community 4.5 1.65 Improve

Road maintenance - sealed 4.5 2.23 Improve

Town planning 4.0 1.28 Improve

Recommendations

Based on the key findings from this research study, there are potentially a number of areas that

require action or further community consultation.

Whilst currently some of these may not be feasible, based on the outcomes of this research we

recommend that Great Lakes Council considers the following:

1. Focus on developing and maintaining Council’s current consultation and engagement

strategies, identifying methods and mediums that could better inform/engage/involve

the community, as these are the main issues that drive residents’ overall satisfaction with

Council

2. Clarify expectations/issues regarding development assessment/planning controls, as well

as the condition and maintenance of local roads

3. Explore and contextualise the residents’ perceptions of Council’s role in encouraging

employment growth and assisting local business operators, as well as Council’s

positioning in terms of their future planning

4. Ensure Council staff are cognisant of the effect that quality of

communication/consultation has on resident perceptions of Council’s overall

performance

Section A

Detailed Findings Importance of, and Satisfaction with,

Council Services and Facilities

Great Lakes Council

Community Research

September 2012 16

Importance of, and Satisfaction with, Council Services

and Facilities

The Unipolar Scale of 1 to 5, where 1 was the lowest importance or satisfaction and 5 the highest

importance or satisfaction, was used in all rating questions.

Interpreting the mean scores

Within the report, the mean ratings for each of the criteria have been assigned a determined level of

‘importance’ or ‘satisfaction’. This determination is based on the following groupings:

Mean rating:

1.99 or lower ‘Very low’ level of importance/satisfaction

2.00 – 2.49 ‘Low’ level of importance/satisfaction

2.50 – 2.99 ‘Moderately low’ levels of importance/satisfaction

3.00 – 3.59 ‘Moderate’ level of importance/satisfaction

3.60 – 3.89 ‘Moderately high’ level of importance/satisfaction

3.90 – 4.19 ‘High’ level of importance/satisfaction

4.20 – 4.49 ‘Very high’ level of importance/satisfaction

4.50 + ‘Extreme’ level of importance/satisfaction

Participants were asked to indicate that which best described their opinion of the importance of the

following services/facilities to them. Respondents who rated services/facilities a 4 or 5 in importance were

then asked to rate their satisfaction with that service/facility.

We Explored Resident Response to 39 Service

Areas

Engineering

Road maintenance - sealedRoad maintenance – unsealedBridge maintenanceStormwater drainageKerb and gutteringFootpaths and cyclewaysPublic car parkingStreetscaping/town beautification

Street lightingSports fieldsParks and reservesPlaygroundsSwimming poolsBoat ramps/wharvesPublic toilets

Planning

Litter bins in public placesTown planningProtection of heritageDevelopment assessment/planning controls

Animal controlLitter controlWaste collection and disposalProtection of the natural environmentProtection of waterways

General Manager

Encouraging employment growthAssisting local business operatorsPromotion of tourism in the area

All of Council

Planning for the future of the communityThe way Council employees interact with the publicOpportunities to participate in Council decision makingProvision of information on Council and community servicesConsultation with the community

Corporate and Community

Public halls/community buildingsCemetery servicesLibrary servicesAfter school and school holiday programsPromoting safety and preventing crime

Support to community groupsSupport to arts and culture

Great Lakes Council

Community Research

September 2012 17


and Facilities

Key Service Areas’ Contribution to Overall Satisfaction

By combining the outcomes of the regression data, we can identify the derived importance of the different

Nett Priority Areas.

Contribution To Overall Satisfaction With

Council’s Performance

5.9

12.0

22.3

27.2

32.7

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0

Nett - Corporate and Community

Nett - General Manager

Nett - Planning

Nett - Engineering

Nett - All of Council

The ‘All of Council’ banner (33%) is the key contributor toward overall satisfaction with Council

performance.

The services and facilities grouped under this banner included:






This is not to indicate that the other priority areas are less important, but rather that some of the services and

facilities grouped under the banner of ‘All of Council’ are core drivers of resident satisfaction.

Great Lakes Council

Community Research

September 2012 18


and Facilities

Interpreting Performance Gap

Within the report, the mean ratings for each of the criteria have been assigned a determined ‘level of

importance or satisfaction’. To identify the performance gap, we subtract the rated satisfaction mean

score from the stated importance mean scores:

Performance gap

1.50 or higher Extremely high gap between importance and satisfaction

Requires Immediate Action – Code Violet

0.90 – 1.49 Moderately high – Very high gap between importance and satisfaction

Requires Immediate Investigation – Code Red

0.20 – 0.89 Moderately low – Moderate gap between importance and satisfaction

Monitor – Code Grey

0.00 – 0.19 Minimal gap between importance and satisfaction

Monitor – Code Blue

Less than Zero Negative performance gap between importance and satisfaction

Revisit/Reconsider Resource Allocation – Code Green

Correlations – definitions

We have run analysis across 3 areas of interest:

Age

Gender

Town or area lived in

Great Lakes Council

Community Research

September 2012 19


and Facilities Engineering

Services and facilities explored included:

Road maintenance – sealed

Road maintenance – unsealed

Bridge maintenance

Stormwater drainage

Kerb and guttering


Public car parking


Street lighting

Sports fields

Parks and reserves

Playgrounds

Swimming pools

Boat ramps/wharves

Public toilets

Contribution to Overall Satisfaction with Council (Regression Data)

Council’s performance in the areas below accounts for over 27% of overall satisfaction, based on the

regression analysis.

Coles

89%

Engineering –Over 27% of Overall Satisfaction with Council

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.3

1.6

1.8

2.4

2.5

3.2

4.5

4.6

27.2

0.0 4.0 8.0 12.0 16.0 20.0 24.0 28.0

Boat ramps/wharves

Sports fields

Bridge maintenance

Public car parking


Playgrounds

Parks and reserves

Public toilets


Kerb and guttering

Swimming pools


Street lighting


Stormwater drainage

Nett - Engineering

Great Lakes Council

Community Research

September 2012 20



Overview of Rating Scores

Importance – overall

Extremely High Road maintenance - sealed

High Parks and reserves

Public toilets

Stormwater drainage

Bridge maintenance

Street lighting

Moderately high Sports fields

Public car parking


Playgrounds


Swimming pools

Kerb and guttering


Moderate Boat ramps/wharves

Importance – by age

Residents aged 18-54 deemed the importance of ‘road maintenance – sealed’ (4.73 and 4.66 vs. 4.37),

‘road maintenance – unsealed’ (3.80 and 3.96 vs. 3.33), ‘sports fields’ (4.27 and 3.98 vs. 3.57) and

‘playgrounds’ (4.13 and 3.99 vs. 3.51) to be higher than did those aged 55+.

Those aged 55+ considered the importance of ‘kerb and guttering’ to be higher than did those in the two

younger age groups (3.91 vs. 3.30 and 3.40).

Importance – by gender

Females attributed higher importance ratings than did males to 9 of the 15 criteria, including:

Stormwater drainage (4.21 vs. 3.88)

Kerb and guttering (3.83 vs. 3.43)

Footpaths and cycleways (4.03 vs. 3.52)

Public car parking (3.99 vs. 3.62)

Streetscaping/town beautification (3.89 vs. 3.59)

Street lighting (4.16 vs. 3.66)

Parks and reserves (4.26 vs. 4.06)

Swimming pools (3.93 vs. 3.54)

Public toilets (4.32 vs. 3.97)

Great Lakes Council

Community Research

September 2012 21



Importance – by town or area lived in

Residents living in Forster - Tuncurry attributed higher levels of importance to:

‘Footpaths and cycleways’ than did those living in Bulahdelah – Central Rural and Stroud – Rural

West (4.11 vs. 3.41 and 3.26)

‘Public car parking’ than did those living in Bulahdelah – Central Rural (4.13 vs. 3.51)

‘Street lighting’ than did those living in Pacific Palms – Blueys Beach – Coomba Park, Nabiac –

Failford – Darawank – Rural North and Bulahdelah – Central Rural (4.30 vs. 3.58, 3.58 and 3.50)

Residents in Forster – Tuncurry considered the importance of ‘road maintenance – unsealed’ to be lower

than did those in Pacific Palms – Blueys Beach – Coomba Park, Bulahdelah – Central Rural and Stroud –

Rural West (3.23 vs. 4.04, 3.99 and 4.09).

Residents living in the Stroud – Rural West area rated ‘bridge maintenance’ higher in importance than did

those who live in the Pacific Palms – Blueys Beach – Coomba Park and Bulahdelah – Central Rural areas

(4.34 vs. 3.64 and 3.57), whilst attributing lower levels of importance to:

‘Parks and reserves’ than did those living in Pacific Palms – Blueys Beach – Coomba Park and Forster

– Tuncurry (3.79 vs. 4.40 and 4.27)

‘Boat ramps/wharves’ than did those in the Hawks Nest – Tea Gardens – North Arm Cove – Pindimar,

Pacific Palms – Blueys Beach – Coomba Park and Forster – Tuncurry areas (2.87 vs. 3.85, 4.25 and

3.57)

Those who live in Hawks Nest – Tea Gardens – North Arm Cove – Pindimar deemed the importance of ‘road

maintenance – sealed’ to be lower than did those living in all other areas (3.95 vs. 4.47 to 4.82).

Residents living in Hawks Nest – Tea Gardens – North Arm Cove – Pindimar and Foster – Tuncurry rated ‘kerb

and guttering’ higher in importance than did Nabiac – Failford – Darawak – Rural North, Bulahdelah –

Central Rural and Stroud – Central West (4.00 & 4.08 vs 3.08, 3.20 &3.20).

Great Lakes Council

Community Research

September 2012 22




Satisfaction – overall

Moderate Sports fields

Parks and reserves

Bridge maintenance

Playgrounds

Swimming pools

Boat ramps/wharves

Street lighting


Public car parking

Moderately low Public toilets

Stormwater drainage

Kerb and guttering


Low Road maintenance - sealed


Satisfaction – by age

Residents aged 18-34 and 55+ were more satisfied with ‘bridge maintenance’ (3.90 and 3.64 vs. 3.14),

‘public car parking’ (3.60 and 3.21 vs. 2.75) and ‘playgrounds’ (3.82 and 3.52 vs. 3.03) than were those

aged 35-54.

35-54 year olds expressed a lower level of satisfaction with ‘footpaths and cycleways’ than did those aged

18-34 (2.37 vs. 3.29) and with ‘swimming pools’ than did those aged 55+ (3.15 vs. 3.63).

Those in the 55+ age group attributed a higher level of satisfaction with ‘road maintenance – sealed’ than

did those in the 18-34 and 35-54 age groups (2.57 vs. 1.90 and 2.12).

Satisfaction – by gender

Females were more satisfied with ‘road maintenance – sealed’ (2.47 vs. 2.09) and ‘footpaths and

cycleways’ (2.87 vs. 2.52) than were males.

Great Lakes Council

Community Research

September 2012 23



Satisfaction – by town or area lived in

Residents living in Forster - Tuncurry expressed higher levels of satisfaction with:

‘Road maintenance – sealed’ than did those in Pacific Palms – Blueys Beach – Coomba Park and

Stroud – Rural West (2.63 vs. 1.77 and 1.92)

‘Road maintenance – unsealed’ than did those living in the Nabiac – Failford – Darawank – Rural

North area (2.55 vs. 1.62)

‘Stormwater drainage’ (3.57 vs. 2.02 to 2.76) and ‘kerb and guttering’ (3.67 vs. 1.66 to 2.57) than did

those residents living in all other areas

‘Footpaths and cycleways’ than did those living in Hawks Nest – Tea Gardens – North Arm Cove –

Pindimar, Pacific Palms – Blueys Beach – Coomba Park, Bulahdelah – Central Rural and Stroud –

Rural West (3.23 vs. 2.43, 1.85, 2.29 and 2.28)

‘Sports fields’ than did those living in Hawks Nest – Tea Gardens – North Arm Cove – Pindimar and

Pacific Palms – Blueys Beach – Coomba Park (3.91 vs. 3.20 and 3.06)

Nabiac – Failford – Darawank – Rural North and Stroud – Rural West residents had lower levels of satisfaction

with ‘bridge maintenance’ than did Hawks Nest – Tea Gardens – North Arm Cove – Pindimar, Pacific Palms

– Blueys Beach – Coomba Park and Forster – Tuncurry residents (2.91 and 2.82 vs. 3.64, 3.81 and 3.92).

Those who live in Bulahdelah – Central Rural were less satisfied with ‘streetscaping/town beautification’

than were those who live in Hawks Nest – Tea Gardens – North Arm Cove – Pindimar, Stroud – Rural West

and Forster – Tuncurry (2.35 vs. 3.23, 3.43 and 3.42).

Residents in the Stroud – Rural West and Forster – Tuncurry areas expressed higher levels of satisfaction with

‘street lighting’ than did those who live in the Pacific Palms – Blueys Beach – Coomba Park, Nabiac –

Failford – Darawank – Rural North and Bulahdelah – Central Rural areas (3.48 and 3.60 vs. 2.79, 2.79 and

2.53).

Pacific Palms – Blueys Beach – Coomba Park residents were less satisfied with ‘playgrounds’ than were

Bulahdelah – Central Rural, Stroud – Rural West and Forster – Tuncurry residents (2.67 vs. 3.64, 3.64 and 3.65).

Residents living in Stroud - Rural West were more satisfied with ‘public toilets’ than were those living in

Nabiac – Failford – Darawank – Rural North (3.46 vs. 2.63).

Residents living in Nabiac – Failford – Darawank – Rural North were less satisfied with ‘swimming pools’ than

were residents living in Hawks Nest – Tea Gardens – North Arm Cove – Pindimar, Bulahdelah – Central Rural,

Stroud – Rural West and Forster – Tuncurry (2.21 v 3.42, 3.52, 3.98 & 3.64).

Great Lakes Council

Community Research

September 2012 24



Part 1

Road

maintenance

- sealed

Road

maintenance

- unsealed

Public toilets

Stormwater

drainage

Footpaths and

cycleways

Kerb and

guttering

Public car parking

Street lighting

Performance

gap

2.23

1.43

1.17

1.14

1.05

0.80

0.69

0.68

2012

Mean

Ratings

4.52

2.29

3.61

2.18

4.15

2.98

4.05

2.91

3.78

2.73

3.64

2.84

3.81

3.12

3.92

3.24

Base: Importance n=400, Satisfaction n=219 – 353

Mean ratings: 1 = not at all important and very dissatisfied

5 = very important and very satisfied

Extremely high gap Minimal gap

Moderately high – very high gap Negative gap

Moderately low – moderate gap

11%

9%

12%

8%

31%

12%

27%

12%

24%

7%

14%

6%

39%

12%

33%

15%

6%

15%

7%

13%

7%

16%

7%

15%

4%

24%

24%

11%

26%

27%

15%

34%

22%

13%

24%

26%

17%

21%

15%

26%

16%

23%

22%

25%

8%

30%

23%

27%

21%

27%

19%

19%

20%

29%

24%

25%

21%

8%

14%

10%

19%

16%

47%

12%

42%

16%

38%

12%

44%

12%

49%

11%

54%

6%

41%

6%

70%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Importance

Not at all

important

Not very

important Neither

Important

Very

important

Satisfaction

Very

dissatisfied Dissatisfied

Neither

Satisfied

Very

satisfied

Great Lakes Council

Community Research

September 2012 25



Part 2

Parks and reserves

Streetscaping/town

beautification

Bridge maintenance

Playgrounds

Swimming pools

Boat ramps/ wharves

Sports fields

Performance

gap

0.59

0.55

0.45

0.37

0.34

0.29

0.24

2012

Mean

Rating

4.16

3.57

3.74

3.19

3.98

3.53

3.77

3.40

3.74

3.40

3.57

3.28

3.82

3.58







7%

9%

10%

14%

12%

11%

9%

10%

7%

6%

10%

8%

6%

9%

5%

14%

7%

12%

10%

13%

6%

10%

5%

16%

8%

9%

26%

20%

32%

22%

23%

17%

28%

21%

29%

22%

31%

23%

26%

19%

36%

24%

27%

20%

28%

20%

28%

22%

30%

19%

29%

27%

37%

29%

23%

41%

17%

36%

24%

42%

22%

41%

23%

48%

13%

35%

21%

48%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Importance

Not at all

important

Not very

important Neither

Important

Very

important

Satisfaction

Very

dissatisfied

Not very

satisfied Neither

Satisfied

Very

satisfied

Great Lakes Council

Community Research

September 2012 26



Quadrant Analysis

Recommendations

Based on the stated outcomes analysis, Great Lakes Council needs to improve resident satisfaction with:


Public toilets

Additionally, Great Lakes Council needs to foster and maintain resident satisfaction with:

Parks and reserves


Public toilets Parks and reserves


Stormwater drainage


Kerb and guttering

Public car parking


Street lighting

Bridge maintenance

Playgrounds

Swimming pools

Boat ramps/wharves

Sports fields

IMPROVE MAINTAIN

NICHE SECONDARY

Great Lakes Council

Community Research

September 2012 27


and Facilities Planning



Town planning



Animal control

Litter control





Council’s performance in the areas below accounts for over 22% of overall satisfaction, based on the


Coles

89%

Planning –Over 22% of Overall Satisfaction with Council

0.5

0.6

0.7

1.5

1.7

2.4

2.7

4.0

8.2

22.3

0.0 4.0 8.0 12.0 16.0 20.0 24.0



Litter control

Animal control




Town planning


Nett - Planning

Great Lakes Council

Community Research

September 2012 28





Extremely high Protection of waterways


Very high Protection of the natural environment

Litter control


High Town planning

Animal control




Residents aged 35+ deemed the importance of ‘town planning’ to be higher than did those aged 18-34

(4.18 and 4.32 vs. 3.70).

Those aged 55+ considered the importance of ‘development assessment/planning controls’ to be higher

than did those aged 18-34 (4.15 vs. 3.77).



Litter bins in public places (4.53 vs. 4.33)

Town planning (4.32 vs. 4.00)

Protection of heritage (4.18 vs. 3.77)

Animal control (4.33 vs. 3.90)

Litter control (4.55 vs. 4.33)

Protection of the natural environment (4.69 vs. 4.28)

Protection of waterways (4.83 vs. 4.54)


Nabiac – Failford – Darawank – Rural North residents attributed a higher level of importance to ‘town

planning’ than did Stroud – Rural West residents (4.45 vs. 3.75).

Residents living in Bulahdelah – Central Rural rated ‘development assessment/planning controls’ with a

lower level of importance than did residents in Hawks Nest – Tea Gardens – North Arm Cove – Pindimar and

Pacific Palms – Blueys Beach – Coomba Park (3.67 vs. 4.47 and 4.37) and with ‘animal control’ than did

residents in Pacific Palms – Blueys Beach – Coomba Park (3.76 vs. 4.48).

Great Lakes Council

Community Research

September 2012 29





High Waste collection and disposal

Moderate Protection of the natural environment

Litter control




Animal control

Moderately low Town planning



Residents aged 35-54 were less satisfied with:

‘Litter bins in public places’ than were those aged 18-34 and 55+ (2.99 vs. 3.61 and 3.40)

‘Town planning’ than were those aged 55+ (2.69 vs. 3.07)

‘Litter control’ than were those aged 18-34 (3.21 vs. 3.65)

‘Waste collection and disposal’ than were those aged 55+ (3.90 vs. 4.23)

18-34 year olds were more satisfied with ‘protection of heritage’ than were those in the two older age

groups (3.78 vs. 3.26 and 3.34).

Residents aged 55+ expressed a higher level of satisfaction with ‘development/assessment/planning

controls’ than did 18-34 year olds (2.90 vs. 2.39).


Females attributed higher levels of satisfaction to ‘town planning’ (3.07 vs. 2.67) and ‘development

assessment/planning controls’ (2.90 vs. 2.58) than did males.


Residents living in Forster - Tuncurry expressed higher levels of satisfaction with:

‘Animal control’ than did residents in Pacific Palms – Blueys Beach – Coomba Park (3.36 vs. 2.65)

‘Litter control’ than did those living in Nabiac – Failford – Darawank – Rural North (3.59 vs. 2.90)

‘Waste collection and disposal’ than did Nabiac – Failford – Darawank – Rural North residents

(4.25 vs. 3.64)

‘Protection of the natural environment’ than did those living in Bulahdelah – Central Rural

(3.73 vs. 3.13)

Residents who live in the Hawks Nest – Tea Gardens – North Arm Cove – Pindimar area were less satisfied

with the ‘protection of waterways’ than were those who live in Pacific Palms – Blueys Beach – Coomba

Park, Nabiac – Failford – Darawank – Rural North, Stroud – Rural West and Forster – Tuncurry (2.46 vs. 3.45,

3.34, 3.60 and 3.79).

Great Lakes Council

Community Research

September 2012 30



Development

assessment/

planning controls

Protection of

waterways

Town planning

Litter bins in public

places

Protection of the

natural

environment

Animal control

Litter control

Protection of

heritage

Waste collection

and disposal

Performance

gap

1.32

1.28

1.28

1.13

1.04

1.02

1.01

0.59

0.56

2012

Mean

Ratings

4.07

2.75

4.69

3.41

4.17

2.89

4.43

3.30

4.49

3.45

4.12

3.10

4.44

3.43

3.99

3.40

4.65

4.09







4%

5%

7%

7%

15%

4%

6%

8%

13%

5%

7%

19%

6%

4%

14%

4%

12%

16%

4%

10%

15%

21%

6%

13%

20%

13%

5%

36%

18%

29%

11%

28%

18%

35%

6%

30%

10%

37%

11%

32%

6%

36%

18%

37%

17%

29%

26%

35%

26%

25%

24%

32%

18%

31%

24%

20%

22%

29%

13%

14%

23%

42%

76%

17%

45%

17%

61%

15%

50%

17%

70%

16%

62%

8%

56%

19%

79%

10%

50%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Importance

Not at all

important

Not very

important Neither

Important

Very

important

Satisfaction

Very


Neither

Satisfied

Very

satisfied

Great Lakes Council

Community Research

September 2012 31



Quadrant Analysis

Recommendations


Town planning

Animal control





Litter control


Town planning

Animal control




Litter control


Development assessment/planning controls Protection of heritage

IMPROVE MAINTAIN

NICHE SECONDARY

Great Lakes Council

Community Research

September 2012 32


and Facilities Corporate and Community



Cemetery services

Library services






Council’s performance in the areas below accounts for almost 6% of overall satisfaction, based on the


Coles

89%

Corporate and Community –Almost 6% of Overall Satisfaction with Council

0.4

0.4

0.6

0.6

1.0

1.4

1.5

5.9

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0


Cemetery services

Library services





Nett - Corporate and Community

Great Lakes Council

Community Research

September 2012 33





Extremely high Promoting safety and preventing crime

Very high Support to community groups

High Library services


Moderately high Cemetery services


Moderate After school and school holiday programs


Residents aged 55+ deemed the importance of ‘library services’ higher than did residents aged 18-34

(4.21 vs. 3.63).

Those in the 18-34 and 35-54 age groups rated the importance of ‘after school and school holiday

programs’ higher than did those in the 55+ age group (3.73 and 3.57 vs. 3.13).



Cemetery services (3.84 vs. 3.54)

Library services (4.25 vs. 3.83)

After school and school holiday programs (3.57 vs. 3.17)

Promoting safety and preventing crime (4.74 vs. 4.38)

Support to community groups (4.46 vs. 4.07)

Support to arts and culture (3.99 vs. 3.31)


Residents living in Stroud – Rural West considered the importance of ‘public halls/community buildings’ to

be higher than did those living in Nabiac – Failford – Darawank – Rural North and Forster – Tuncurry (4.40 vs.

3.71 and 3.69).

Forster – Tuncurry residents attributed a higher level of importance to ‘library services’ than did Bulahdelah –

Central Rural and Stroud – Rural West residents (4.24 vs. 3.57 and 3.61).

Great Lakes Council

Community Research

September 2012 34





Very high Library services

Moderately high Cemetery services

Moderate Public halls/community buildings






Residents aged 55+ were more satisfied with ‘library services’ than were those in the two younger age

groups (4.43 vs. 3.82 and 4.06).

Those aged 18-34 and 55+ expressed higher levels of satisfaction with ‘after school and school holiday

programs’ than did those aged 35-54 (3.59 and 3.49 vs. 3.01).


There were no significant differences between the genders.


Residents living in Bulahdelah – Central Rural were less satisfied with ‘library services’ than were residents

living in Hawks Nest – Tea Gardens – North Arm Cove – Pindimar, Pacific Palms – Blueys Beach – Coomba

Park, Stroud – Rural West and Forster – Tuncurry (3.49 vs. 4.14, 4.20, 4.29 and 4.51).

Forster – Tuncurry residents expressed a higher level of satisfaction with ‘after school and school holiday

programs’ than did Bulahdelah – Central Rural residents (3.73 vs. 2.76).

Great Lakes Council

Community Research

September 2012 35



Promoting safety

and preventing

crime

Support to

community groups

Public halls/

community

buildings

Support to arts and

culture

After school and

school holiday

programs

Cemetery services

Library services

Performance

gap

1.28

0.77

0.41

0.21

0.03

-0.18

-0.18

2012

Mean

Ratings

4.57

3.29

4.27

3.50

3.94

3.53

3.66

3.45

3.37

3.34

3.70

3.88

4.05

4.23







7%

4%

13%

10%

19%

4%

8%

5%

5%

7%

5%

6%

4%

6%

10%

11%

8%

7%

13%

6%

12%

12%

13%

14%

22%

21%

33%

19%

40%

28%

27%

20%

36%

17%

38%

10%

31%

20%

42%

19%

28%

13%

35%

25%

36%

27%

31%

26%

31%

15%

50%

53%

29%

41%

18%

37%

13%

32%

20%

41%

18%

53%

12%

73%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Importance

Not at all

important

Not very

important Neither

Important

Very

important

Satisfaction

Very


Neither

Satisfied

Very

satisfied

Great Lakes Council

Community Research

September 2012 36



Quadrant Analysis

Recommendations

Based on the stated outcomes analysis, Great Lakes Council needs to foster and maintain resident

satisfaction with:



Nil Promoting safety and preventing crime


Nil




Cemetery services

Library services

IMPROVE MAINTAIN

NICHE SECONDARY

Great Lakes Council

Community Research

September 2012 37


and Facilities General Manager






Council’s performance in the areas below accounts for 12% of overall satisfaction, based on the regression

analysis.

Coles

89%

General Manager –

12% of Overall Satisfaction with Council

2.4

2.4

7.2

12.0

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0




Nett - General Manager

Great Lakes Council

Community Research

September 2012 38





Very high Promotion of tourism in the area




Residents aged 18-34 deemed the importance of ‘assisting local business operators’ higher than did those

aged 55+ (4.57 vs. 4.14).


Females considered ‘encouraging employment growth’ (4.48 vs. 4.22) and ‘promotion of tourism in the

area’ (4.55 vs. 4.32) to be of higher importance than did males.


There were no significant differences by town or area lived in.


Moderate Promotion of tourism in the area

Moderately low Assisting local business operators



Residents aged 55+ were more satisfied with ‘encouraging employment growth’ (3.03 vs. 2.50) than were

those aged 18-34 and with ‘assisting local business operators’ (3.10 vs. 2.70) and ‘promotion of tourism in the

area’ (3.50 vs. 3.11) than were those aged 35-54.


Females were more satisfied than were males with all 3 of these criteria:

Encouraging employment growth (2.95 vs. 2.68)

Assisting local business operators (3.10 vs. 2.72)

Promotion of tourism in the area (3.42 vs. 3.15)


Residents living in Bulahdelah – Central Rural were less satisfied with ‘encouraging employment growth’

(2.37 vs. 3.14) and ‘assisting local business operators’ (2.47 vs. 3.25) than were those living in Hawks Nest –

Tea Gardens – North Arm Cove – Pindimar and with ‘promotion of tourism in the area’ than were residents

living in all other areas (2.46 vs. 3.23 to 3.51).

Great Lakes Council

Community Research

September 2012 39



Encouraging

employment

growth

Assisting local

business operators

Promotion of

tourism in the area

Performance

gap

1.53

1.37

1.14

2012

Mean

Rating

4.35

2.82

4.29

2.92

4.44

3.30







9%

11%

4%

14%

15%

22%

26%

31%

12%

37%

14%

34%

13%

28%

18%

22%

19%

16%

18%

17%

66%

8%

60%

10%

63%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Importance

Not at all

important

Not very

important Neither

Important

Very

important

Satisfaction

Very


Neither

Satisfied

Very

satisfied

Great Lakes Council

Community Research

September 2012 40



Quadrant Analysis

Recommendations







Assisting local business operators Promotion of tourism in the area

Nil Nil

IMPROVE MAINTAIN

NICHE SECONDARY

Great Lakes Council

Community Research

September 2012 41


and Facilities All of Council








Council’s performance in the areas below accounts for almost 33% of overall satisfaction, based on the


Coles

89%

All of Council –Almost 33% of Overall Satisfaction with Council

4.5

4.8

7.3

7.7

8.4

32.7

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0






Nett - All of Council

Great Lakes Council

Community Research

September 2012 42





Extremely high Planning for the future of the community

Very high Consultation with the community


High Provision of information on Council and community services



There were no significant differences between the age groups.


There were no significant differences between the genders.


Nabiac – Failford – Darawank – Rural North residents attributed a higher level of importance to ‘planning for

the future of the community’ than did Bulahdelah – Central Rural residents (4.79 vs. 4.40).

Those living in Forster – Tuncurry deemed ‘the way Council employees interact with the public’ to be of

higher importance than did those living in Bulahdelah – Central Rural (4.38 vs. 3.90).


Moderate The way Council employees interact with the public



Moderately low Planning for the future of the community



Residents aged 55+ expressed higher levels of satisfaction with:

‘Planning for the future of the community’ (3.17 vs. 2.70) and ‘consultation with the community’

(3.25 vs. 2.89) than did those aged 35-54

‘The way Council employees interact with the public’ (3.58 vs. 2.79 and 3.16) and ‘prov ision of

information on Council and community services’ (3.52 vs. 2.78 and 3.15) than did those in the 18-34

and 35-54 age groups

‘Opportunities to participate in Council decision making’ than did those aged 18-34 (3.14 vs. 2.55)


Females were more satisfied with ‘planning for the future of the community’ than were males (3.10 vs. 2.84).


Residents living in Forster – Tuncurry expressed higher levels of satisfaction with ‘planning for the future of the

community’ than were those in Nabiac – Failford – Darawank – Rural North and Bulahdelah – Central Rural

(3.21 vs. 2.61 and 2.55) and with ‘the way Council employees interact with the public’ than were those in

Nabiac – Failford – Darawank – Rural North (3.57 vs. 2.87).

Great Lakes Council

Community Research

September 2012 43



Planning for the

future of the

community

Consultation with

the community

Opportunities to

participate in

Council decision

making

The way Council

employees interact

with the public

Provision of

information on

Council and

community services

Performance

gap

1.65

1.34

1.13

0.96

0.91

2012

Mean

Rating

4.62

2.97

4.41

3.07

4.06

2.93

4.27

3.31

4.19

3.28







9%

11%

4%

15%

6%

11%

12%

13%

14%

20%

5%

17%

20%

34%

18%

30%

13%

34%

15%

36%

13%

37%

5%

28%

30%

24%

24%

21%

25%

24%

20%

21%

17%

15%

48%

21%

57%

10%

49%

11%

63%

11%

75%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Importance

Not at all

important

Not very

important Neither

Important

Very

important

Satisfaction

Very


Neither

Satisfied

Very

satisfied

Great Lakes Council

Community Research

September 2012 44



Quadrant Analysis

Recommendations











Opportunities to participate in Council decision making Nil

IMPROVE MAINTAIN

NICHE SECONDARY

Great Lakes Council

Community Research

September 2012 45

Overall Satisfaction with the Performance of Council

Summary

Overall, the research has found a generally positive result for Great Lakes Council, with 27 of the 39

services/facilities/criteria rated as being of ‘moderate’ to ‘very high’ satisfaction.

At an overall level, residents expressed a ‘moderate’ level of satisfaction with the performance of Council,

with 47% of the respondents giving a rating of ‘satisfied’ to ‘very satisfied’.

Residents aged 55+ expressed a higher level of satisfaction with Council’s performance than did those in

the two younger age groups (3.50 vs. 2.93 and 3.08).

Forster – Tuncurry residents were more satisfied than were Bulahdelah – Central Rural residents (3.48 vs. 2.86).

Reasons provided for dissatisfaction varied, with issues surrounding ‘road maintenance’ (23%) and

‘communication and consultation with the community’ (18%) predominant.

Q. Overall, for the last 12 months, how satisfied are you with the performance of Council, not just on one or two issues,

but across all responsibility areas?



Hawks Nest - Tea

Gardens - North

Arm Cove -

Pindimar

Pacific Palms -

Blueys Beach -

Coomba Park

Nabiac - Failford

- Darawank -

Rural North

Bulahdelah -

Central Rural

Stroud - Rural

West

Forster -

Tuncurry

Satisfaction

mean ratings 3.23 3.16 3.18 2.86 3.28 3.48




Base: n=400

7%

14%

32%

39%

8%

0% 20% 40%

Very dissatisfied

Dissatisfied

Neither

Satisfied

Very satisfied

Mean rating: 3.27

Great Lakes Council

Community Research

September 2012 46


Q. Overall, for the last 12 months, how satisfied are you with the performance of Council, not just on one or two issues,

but across all responsibility areas?

Q. (If dissatisfied or very dissatisfied), what is your main reason for giving that rating?

n=100

Road maintenance, lack of 23%

Communication and consultation with the community, lack of 18%

Unhappy with Council's performance overall 13%

Provision/maintenance of services and facilities 12%

Council inaction/lack of response to residents' requests 11%

Council spending and wastage 9%

Lack of attracting/supporting new and existing business 5%

Development 5%

Distribution of services 3%

Confidence in Council, lack of 1%

Great Lakes Council

Community Research

September 2012 47

How Council can Improve Satisfaction with its Performance

Overview

Using regression analysis, we identified the variables that have the greatest influence on driving positive

overall satisfaction with Council.

0.4

0.4

0.4

0.5

0.5

0.6

0.6

0.6

0.6

0.7

0.8

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.3

1.4

1.5

1.5

1.6

1.7

1.8

2.4

2.4

2.4

2.4

2.5

2.7

3.2

4.0

4.5

4.5

4.6

4.8

7.2

7.3

7.7

8.2

8.4

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0


Cemetery services

Boat ramps/wharves


Sports fields


Library services

Bridge maintenance


Litter control

Public car parking



Playgrounds

Parks and reserves

Public toilets



Animal control



Kerb and guttering

Swimming pools






Street lighting

Town planning



Stormwater drainage







Great Lakes Council

Community Research

September 2012 48

How Council can Improve Satisfaction with its Performance

These 10 services/facilities are the key community priorities and by addressing these, Great Lakes Council

will improve community satisfaction. The score assigned to each area indicates the percentage of

influence each attribute contributes to overall satisfaction with Council. For example, in the chart below

‘the way Council employees interact with the public’ contributes 8.4% towards overall satisfaction.

Coles

89%

These Top 10 Indicators Account for over 60%

of Overall Satisfaction with Council

Community engagement/interaction is a key pillar, accounting

for over 28% of overall satisfaction

4.0

4.5

4.5

4.6

4.8

7.2

7.3

7.7

8.2

8.4

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0

Town planning



Stormwater drainage







Based on the regression analysis, Council performance in the areas listed above accounts for over 60% of

overall satisfaction.

Outcome

If Great Lakes Council can address these core drivers, they will be able to improve residents’ overall

satisfaction with their performance.

Section B

Contact with Council

Great Lakes Council

Community Research

September 2012 49

Contact with Council in the Last 12 Months

Summary

42% of residents have been in contact with Council in the last 12 months.

Residents aged 35+ were more likely to have made contact with Council in the last 12 months than were

those in the 18-34 age group (46% and 44% vs. 27%).

Phone is the most common method for residents to contact Council (51%), followed by ‘in person’ (48%).

Q. Have you had contact with Council in the last 12 months?

Base: n=400

Q. How did you make contact?

Base: n=166

Yes

42%

No

58%

10%

12%

48%

51%

0% 20% 40% 60%

Mail

Email

In person

Phone

Great Lakes Council

Community Research

September 2012 50

Satisfaction with the Way Contact was Handled

Summary

Satisfaction with the way the contact was handled was ‘very high’ for those who had done so ‘in person’

and ‘moderate’ for those who had made contact by phone.

Satisfaction with ‘in person’ contact is significantly higher than with ‘phone’ contact.

Q. How satisfied were you with the way your contact was handled?

2012

Mean

Rating

4.24

3.84

18 - 34 35 - 54

55 years

and over Male Female

In person 3.33 4.15 4.43 4.34 4.10

Phone 2.50 3.72 4.34 3.66 4.00

Hawks Nest - Tea

Gardens - North

Arm Cove -

Pindimar

Pacific Palms -

Blueys Beach -

Coomba Park

Nabiac - Failford -

Darawank - Rural

North

Bulahdelah -

Central Rural

Stroud - Rural

West

Forster -

Tuncurry

In person 4.43 3.92 4.42 3.00 4.72 4.29

Phone 4.25 4.32 4.08 3.18 4.03 3.66




Note: It is important to note that due to the small sample size for mail and email, the mean ratings are not statistically

valid and have not been included in correlations.

16%

11%

8%

5%

6%

13%

17%

26%

16%

21%

23%

35%

32%

42%

44%

32%

49%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Email

n=19

Phone

n=85

Mail

n=16

In person

n=79

Very dissatisfied Dissatisfied Neither Satisfied Very satisfied

Great Lakes Council

Community Research

September 2012 51



Q. (If dissatisfied or very dissatisfied), how could the way this contact was handled have been improved?

n=36

Ensure residents’ requests/enquiries are responded to 14

Council staff need to be more interested and less rude when dealing with residents’ requests/enquires 6

Council staff need to be well informed so they can provide accurate responses, rather than opinions 8

I would like to receive a detailed response to my issues, not a generic response 4

When making a complaint or request, it is difficult to find the correct person to speak to 4

Great Lakes Council

Community Research

September 2012 52

Satisfaction with Council’s Current Level of

Communication with the Community

Summary

There was ‘moderate’ satisfaction with the level of communication Council currently has with the

community.

Residents aged 55+ expressed a significantly higher level of satisfaction with the level of communication

Council currently has with the community than did those aged 18-34 and 35-54 (3.65 vs. 3.27 and 3.31).

Females were more satisfied with the level of communication than were males (3.59 vs. 3.35).

Forster – Tuncurry residents were more satisfied than were Bulahdelah – Central Rural residents (3.68 vs. 3.07).

Of those who were dissatisfied with the current level of communication, suggestions to improve Council’s

communication centred around an increase in frequency and making the communication more direct

(e.g. direct mail, flyers, newsletters).

Q. How satisfied are you currently with the level of communication Council has with the community?


Mean ratings 3.27 3.31 3.65 3.35 3.59 3.47

Hawks Nest - Tea

Gardens - North

Arm Cove -

Pindimar

Pacific Palms -

Blueys Beach -

Coomba Park

Nabiac - Failford

- Darawank -

Rural North

Bulahdelah -

Central Rural

Stroud - Rural

West

Forster -

Tuncurry

Mean ratings 3.29 3.34 3.47 3.07 3.57 3.68




Base: n=400

5%

9%

31%

45%

10%

0% 20% 40% 60%

Very dissatisfied

Dissatisfied

Neither

Satisfied

Very satisfied

Mean rating: 3.47

Great Lakes Council

Community Research

September 2012 53




Q. (If dissatisfied or very dissatisfied), how do you think Council could improve its communication?

n=83

Increased communication/consultation with the community 43

Direct correspondence to residents, e.g. direct mail, newsletters, flyers 21

Have better response times and information supplied 11

Customer service, i.e. the availability of staff, attitude 3

Staff knowledge 3

Council transparency 2

Great Lakes Council

Community Research

September 2012 54

Sourcing Information About Council

Summary

Residents are most likely to indicate that they currently receive information about Council through

‘newspapers’ (75%) or via ‘word of mouth’ (73%).

When asked how they would prefer to obtain Council information, preference was spread over a number

of media types, with ‘direct mail’ (65%), ‘resident newsletter’ (61%) and ‘newspapers’ (60%) predominant.

Q. Through which of the following sources do you get your Council information?

Q. How would you prefer to get your Council information?

Base: n=400

Base: n=400

Other preferred means

Town meetings 3

Community focus groups 2

I'm not interested in receiving Council information 2

Our Stroud Community Web 2

Billboard in the main park 1

Notices in the local hall 1

Phone calls 1

2%

22%

29%

54%

64%

73%

75%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

None of these

Social media

Council website

Resident newsletter

Direct mail

Word of mouth

Newspapers

Current Means of Sourcing

Information

3%

2%

3%

20%

28%

29%

38%

60%

61%

65%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

Other

Television

Radio

Social media

Council website

Email

Word of mouth

Newspapers

Resident newsletter

Direct mail

Preferred Means of Sourcing

Information

Section C

Demographics

Great Lakes Council

Community Research

September 2012 55

Demographics

Q. Please stop me when I read out your age group.

Q. Which town or area do you live in?

Q. Gender.

70 17%

128 32%

202 51%

400 100%

18 - 34

35 - 54

55 years and over

Tot al

Count Column %

148 37%

56 14%

51 13%

50 13%

48 12%

48 12%

400 100%

Fors ter - Tuncurry

St roud - Rural W es t

Haw ks Nes t - Tea Gardens - North Arm Cove - Pindimar

Bulahdelah - Cent ral Rural

Nabiac - Failford - Daraw ank - Rural Nort h

Pacific Palms - Blueys Beach - Coomba Park

Tot al

Count Column %

193 48%

207 52%

400 100%

M ale

Fem ale

Tot al

Count Column %

Appendix A

Data and Correlation Tables

Great Lakes Council

Community Research

September 2012 56

Performance Gap Ranking – Sorted by Level of

Importance

Ranking


Importance

Mean

Satisfaction

Mean

Performance

Gap

8 Protection of waterways 4.69 3.41 1.28



8 Promoting safety and preventing crime 4.57 3.29 1.28












8 Town planning 4.17 2.89 1.28





14 Opportunities to participate in Council decision making 4.06 2.93 1.13

12 Stormwater drainage 4.05 2.91 1.14


26 Protection of heritage 3.99 3.40 0.59




35 Sports fields 3.82 3.58 0.24



32 Playgrounds 3.77 3.40 0.37



38 Cemetery services 3.70 3.88 -0.18







Great Lakes Council

Community Research

September 2012 57

Performance Gap Ranking – Sorted by Level of

Satisfaction

Ranking


Importance

Mean

Satisfaction

Mean

Performance

Gap



38 Cemetery services 3.70 3.88 -0.18

35 Sports fields 3.82 3.58 0.24








8 Protection of waterways 4.69 3.41 1.28

26 Protection of heritage 3.99 3.40 0.59

32 Playgrounds 3.77 3.40 0.37






8 Promoting safety and preventing crime 4.57 3.29 1.28










14 Opportunities to participate in Council decision making 4.06 2.93 1.13


12 Stormwater drainage 4.05 2.91 1.14

8 Town planning 4.17 2.89 1.28








Great Lakes Council

Community Research

September 2012 58



Importance 18-34 35-54 55+ Male Female Overall

Road maintenance - sealed 4.73 4.66 4.37 4.45 4.60 4.52

Road maintenance - unsealed 3.80 3.96 3.33 3.63 3.60 3.61

Bridge maintenance 4.10 3.99 3.94 3.92 4.04 3.98

Stormwater drainage 3.80 4.10 4.11 3.88 4.21 4.05

Kerb and guttering 3.30 3.40 3.91 3.43 3.83 3.64

Footpaths and cycleways 3.57 3.96 3.75 3.52 4.03 3.78

Public car parking 3.60 3.82 3.88 3.62 3.99 3.81

Streetscaping/town beautification 3.47 3.81 3.80 3.59 3.89 3.74

Street lighting 3.73 3.85 4.03 3.66 4.16 3.92

Sports fields 4.27 3.98 3.57 3.86 3.79 3.82

Parks and reserves 4.27 4.23 4.08 4.06 4.26 4.16

Playgrounds 4.13 3.99 3.51 3.65 3.89 3.77

Swimming pools 3.70 3.86 3.68 3.54 3.93 3.74

Boat ramps/wharves 3.67 3.67 3.48 3.64 3.52 3.57

Public toilets 4.20 4.20 4.10 3.97 4.32 4.15

Importance

Hawks Nest -

Tea Gardens

- North Arm

Cove -

Pindimar

Pacific Palms

- Blueys

Beach -

Coomba

Park

Nabiac -

Failford -

Darawank

- Rural

North

Bulahdelah

- Central

Rural

Stroud -

Rural West

Forster -

Tuncurry









Street lighting 4.08 3.58 3.58 3.50 3.72 4.30

Sports fields 3.67 4.02 3.61 4.13 3.96 3.73


Playgrounds 3.88 4.03 3.75 3.75 3.95 3.60

Swimming pools 3.55 3.60 3.80 4.02 4.09 3.61


Public toilets 4.25 4.13 4.02 4.25 4.22 4.10

Mean ratings: 1 = not at all important, 5 = very important

= A significantly higher level of importance (by group)

= A significantly lower level of importance (by group)

Great Lakes Council

Community Research

September 2012 59



Satisfaction 18-34 35-54 55+ Male Female Overall









Street lighting 3.47 3.00 3.32 3.29 3.21 3.24

Sports fields 3.88 3.47 3.53 3.56 3.60 3.58


Playgrounds 3.82 3.03 3.52 3.31 3.48 3.40

Swimming pools 3.28 3.15 3.63 3.29 3.49 3.40


Public toilets 2.83 2.79 3.15 3.05 2.92 2.98

Satisfaction

Hawks Nest -

Tea Gardens

- North Arm

Cove -

Pindimar

Pacific Palms

- Blueys

Beach -

Coomba

Park

Nabiac -

Failford -

Darawank

- Rural

North

Bulahdelah

- Central

Rural

Stroud -

Rural West

Forster -

Tuncurry









Street lighting 3.06 2.79 2.79 2.53 3.48 3.60

Sports fields 3.20 3.06 3.54 3.45 3.76 3.91


Playgrounds 3.23 2.67 3.15 3.64 3.64 3.65

Swimming pools 3.42 2.97 2.21 3.52 3.98 3.64


Public toilets 2.83 3.33 2.63 3.01 3.46 2.83


= A significantly higher level of satisfaction (by group)

= A significantly lower level of satisfaction (by group)

Great Lakes Council

Community Research

September 2012 60



9 2% 5 1% 33 8% 74 19% 279 70% 400 100%

48 12% 44 11% 89 22% 54 14% 165 41% 400 100%

23 6% 22 5% 87 22% 78 19% 191 48% 400 100%

26 7% 18 4% 61 15% 97 24% 197 49% 400 100%

48 12% 27 7% 97 24% 75 19% 152 38% 400 100%

47 12% 28 7% 68 17% 80 20% 178 44% 400 100%

33 8% 28 7% 87 22% 85 21% 167 42% 400 100%

31 8% 30 8% 91 23% 107 27% 141 35% 400 100%

36 9% 25 6% 61 15% 90 23% 188 47% 400 100%

37 9% 22 5% 81 20% 94 24% 166 41% 400 100%

14 3% 5 1% 75 19% 117 29% 190 48% 400 100%

41 10% 25 6% 82 21% 88 22% 164 41% 400 100%

42 11% 39 10% 70 17% 80 20% 170 42% 400 100%

57 14% 28 7% 90 22% 81 20% 145 36% 400 100%

23 6% 11 3% 65 16% 85 21% 216 54% 400 100%

Road maint enance -

s ealed

Road maint enance -

unsealed

Bridge maintenance

Stormw at er drainage

Kerb and gut tering

Foot paths and cyclew ays

Public car parking

St reets caping/tow n

beaut ificat ion

St reet l ight ing

Sport s fields

Parks and reserves

Playgrounds

Sw im ming pools

Boat ramps/w harves

Public t oilet s

Count Row %

Not at all

important

Count Row %

Not very

important

Count Row %

Neit her

Count Row %

Important

Count Row %

Very important

Count Row %

Tot al

118 33% 92 26% 87 25% 37 10% 20 6% 353 100%

85 39% 53 24% 50 23% 18 8% 13 6% 219 100%

18 7% 27 10% 78 29% 80 30% 62 23% 266 100%

69 24% 44 15% 60 21% 84 29% 36 12% 293 100%

69 31% 30 13% 30 13% 60 27% 36 16% 227 100%

69 27% 42 16% 67 26% 48 19% 31 12% 257 100%

31 12% 37 15% 86 34% 69 27% 30 12% 252 100%

26 10% 39 16% 77 31% 73 29% 32 13% 248 100%

32 11% 42 15% 75 27% 83 30% 46 16% 278 100%

19 7% 22 9% 66 26% 93 36% 59 23% 258 100%

19 6% 29 9% 79 26% 114 37% 65 21% 307 100%

23 9% 32 13% 71 28% 69 28% 55 22% 251 100%

31 12% 29 12% 57 23% 70 28% 60 24% 247 100%

21 10% 31 14% 71 32% 61 27% 38 17% 222 100%

40 14% 70 24% 78 26% 75 25% 34 11% 298 100%

Road maint enance -

s ealed

Road maint enance -

unsealed

Bridge maintenance

Stormw at er drainage

K erb and gut tering

Foot paths and cyclew ays

Public car parking

St reets caping/tow n

beaut ificat ion

St reet l ight ing

Sport s fields

Parks and reserves

Playgrounds

Sw im ming pools

Boat ramps/w harves

Public t oilet s

Count Row %

Very diss at is fied

Count Row %

Dis sat is fied

Count Row %

Neit her

Count Row %

Sat isf ied

Count Row %

Very s at isf ied

Count Row %

Tot al

Great Lakes Council

Community Research

September 2012 61




Litter bins in public places 4.57 4.54 4.32 4.33 4.53 4.43

Town planning 3.70 4.18 4.32 4.00 4.32 4.17

Protection of heritage 4.10 4.05 3.91 3.77 4.18 3.99

Development assessment/planning controls 3.77 4.11 4.15 4.06 4.09 4.07

Animal control 3.90 4.20 4.15 3.90 4.33 4.12

Litter control 4.47 4.48 4.41 4.33 4.55 4.44

Waste collection and disposal 4.63 4.61 4.68 4.59 4.70 4.65

Protection of the natural environment 4.50 4.50 4.49 4.28 4.69 4.49

Protection of waterways 4.70 4.72 4.67 4.54 4.83 4.69

Importance

Hawks Nest -

Tea Gardens

- North Arm

Cove -

Pindimar

Pacific Palms

- Blueys

Beach -

Coomba

Park

Nabiac -

Failford -

Darawank

- Rural

North

Bulahdelah

- Central

Rural

Stroud -

Rural West

Forster -

Tuncurry


Town planning 4.40 4.12 4.45 3.89 3.75 4.26


Development assessment/planning

controls 4.47 4.37 4.30 3.67 4.00 3.93

Animal control 4.13 4.48 4.27 3.76 4.04 4.11

Litter control 4.50 4.45 4.45 4.40 4.43 4.44







Great Lakes Council

Community Research

September 2012 62





Town planning 2.63 2.69 3.07 2.67 3.07 2.89


Development assessment/planning controls 2.39 2.69 2.90 2.58 2.90 2.75

Animal control 3.20 2.94 3.17 2.95 3.22 3.10

Litter control 3.65 3.21 3.49 3.50 3.37 3.43




Satisfaction

Hawks Nest -

Tea Gardens

- North Arm

Cove -

Pindimar

Pacific Palms

- Blueys

Beach -

Coomba

Park

Nabiac -

Failford -

Darawank

- Rural

North

Bulahdelah

- Central

Rural

Stroud -

Rural West

Forster -

Tuncurry


Town planning 2.82 2.50 2.71 2.72 3.00 3.11


Development assessment/planning

controls 2.69 2.63 2.68 2.35 2.64 3.02

Animal control 3.11 2.65 2.95 3.12 2.92 3.36

Litter control 3.45 3.36 2.90 3.51 3.41 3.59







Great Lakes Council

Community Research

September 2012 63



7 2% 7 2% 42 10% 96 24% 249 62% 400 100%

22 5% 25 6% 42 11% 87 22% 224 56% 400 100%

28 7% 15 4% 73 18% 102 26% 181 45% 400 100%

24 6% 13 3% 72 18% 93 23% 198 50% 400 100%

16 4% 17 4% 72 18% 96 24% 201 50% 400 100%

4 1% 5 1% 45 11% 102 26% 244 61% 400 100%

7 2% 1 0% 21 5% 67 17% 305 76% 400 100%

12 3% 11 3% 25 6% 73 18% 280 70% 400 100%

4 1% 4 1% 22 6% 52 13% 318 79% 400 100%

Lit ter bins in public places

Tow n planning

Protect ion of herit age

Development

ass es sment /planning

controls

Animal cont rol

Lit ter control

W ast e collect ion and

dispos al

Protect ion of the nat ural

environment

Protect ion of w at erw ays

Count Row %

Not at all

important

Count Row %

Not very

important

Count Row %

Neit her

Count Row %

Important

Count Row %

Very important

Count Row %

Tot al

29 8% 52 15% 102 30% 106 31% 54 16% 343 100%

41 13% 66 21% 113 37% 62 20% 26 8% 308 100%

13 5% 38 14% 100 36% 81 29% 48 17% 281 100%

55 19% 58 20% 102 36% 39 14% 30 10% 284 100%

45 15% 46 16% 83 28% 75 25% 45 15% 294 100%

24 7% 41 12% 101 29% 119 35% 59 17% 344 100%

16 4% 14 4% 47 13% 138 37% 157 42% 371 100%

19 6% 36 10% 122 35% 111 32% 61 17% 349 100%

25 7% 47 13% 115 32% 107 29% 70 19% 365 100%

Lit ter bins in public places

Tow n planning

Protect ion of herit age

Development

ass es sment /planning

controls

Animal cont rol

Lit ter control

W ast e collect ion and

dispos al

Protect ion of the nat ural

environment

Protect ion of w at erw ays

Count Row %


Count Row %

Dis sat is fied

Count Row %

Neit her

Count Row %

Sat isf ied

Count Row %

Very s at isf ied

Count Row %

Tot al

Great Lakes Council

Community Research

September 2012 64




Public halls/community buildings 4.10 3.94 3.89 3.93 3.95 3.94

Cemetery services 3.73 3.62 3.73 3.54 3.84 3.70

Library services 3.63 4.02 4.21 3.83 4.25 4.05

After school and school holiday programs 3.73 3.57 3.13 3.17 3.57 3.37

Promoting safety and preventing crime 4.57 4.55 4.58 4.38 4.74 4.57

Support to community groups 4.27 4.30 4.25 4.07 4.46 4.27

Support to arts and culture 3.53 3.67 3.70 3.31 3.99 3.66

Importance

Hawks Nest -

Tea Gardens

- North Arm

Cove -

Pindimar

Pacific Palms

- Blueys

Beach -

Coomba

Park

Nabiac -

Failford -

Darawank

- Rural

North

Bulahdelah

- Central

Rural

Stroud -

Rural West

Forster -

Tuncurry




After school and school holiday

programs 3.49 3.62 3.10 3.01 3.80 3.31

Promoting safety and preventing

crime 4.54 4.45 4.58 4.52 4.50 4.65






Great Lakes Council

Community Research

September 2012 65







After school and school holiday programs 3.59 3.01 3.49 3.19 3.44 3.34

Promoting safety and preventing crime 3.22 3.20 3.37 3.26 3.31 3.29



Satisfaction

Hawks Nest -

Tea Gardens

- North Arm

Cove -

Pindimar

Pacific Palms

- Blueys

Beach -

Coomba

Park

Nabiac -

Failford -

Darawank

- Rural

North

Bulahdelah

- Central

Rural

Stroud -

Rural West

Forster -

Tuncurry




After school and school holiday

programs 3.35 3.16 3.09 2.76 3.06 3.73

Promoting safety and preventing

crime 3.39 3.25 3.02 3.25 3.58 3.27






Great Lakes Council

Community Research

September 2012 66



19 5% 25 6% 81 20% 108 27% 166 41% 400 100%

51 13% 26 6% 83 21% 76 19% 165 41% 400 100%

29 7% 25 6% 56 14% 79 20% 211 53% 400 100%

78 19% 44 11% 77 19% 54 13% 148 37% 400 100%

6 1% 5 1% 39 10% 59 15% 292 73% 400 100%

8 2% 6 1% 70 17% 105 26% 212 53% 400 100%

33 8% 26 7% 113 28% 101 25% 127 32% 400 100%

Public halls /community

buildings

Cemetery s ervices

Library s ervices

Aft er s chool and school

holiday programs

Promot ing safet y and

prevent ing crime

Support t o com munit y

groups

Support t o art s and

culture

Count Row %

Not at all

important

Count Row %

Not very

important

Count Row %

Neit her

Count Row %

I mportant

Count Row %

Very import ant

Count Row %

Tot al

13 5% 35 13% 74 27% 98 36% 53 20% 273 100%

9 4% 9 4% 52 22% 98 42% 68 29% 236 100%

3 1% 15 5% 38 13% 89 31% 143 50% 288 100%

19 10% 19 10% 63 33% 54 28% 34 18% 189 100%

24 7% 42 12% 133 38% 106 31% 42 12% 346 100%

9 3% 37 12% 114 36% 97 31% 56 18% 313 100%

9 4% 18 8% 91 40% 81 35% 29 13% 228 100%

Public halls /community

buildings

Cemetery s ervices

Library s ervices

Aft er s chool and school

holiday programs

Promot ing safet y and

prevent ing crime

Support t o com munit y

groups

Support t o art s and

culture

Count Row %


Count Row %

Dis sat is fied

Count Row %

Neit her

Count Row %

Sat isf ied

Count Row %

Very s at isfied

Count Row %

Tot al

Great Lakes Council

Community Research

September 2012 67




Encouraging employment growth 4.47 4.47 4.24 4.22 4.48 4.35

Assisting local business operators 4.57 4.36 4.14 4.23 4.34 4.29

Promotion of tourism in the area 4.43 4.46 4.43 4.32 4.55 4.44

Importance

Hawks Nest -

Tea Gardens

- North Arm

Cove -

Pindimar

Pacific Palms

- Blueys

Beach -

Coomba

Park

Nabiac -

Failford -

Darawank

- Rural

North

Bulahdelah

- Central

Rural

Stroud -

Rural West

Forster -

Tuncurry








Satisfaction

Hawks Nest -

Tea Gardens

- North Arm

Cove -

Pindimar

Pacific Palms

- Blueys

Beach -

Coomba

Park

Nabiac -

Failford -

Darawank

- Rural

North

Bulahdelah

- Central

Rural

Stroud -

Rural West

Forster -

Tuncurry





= A significantly higher level of importance/satisfaction (by group)

= A significantly lower level of importance/satisfaction (by group)

Great Lakes Council

Community Research

September 2012 68



12 3% 10 3% 53 13% 72 18% 252 63% 400 100%

14 4% 13 3% 56 14% 77 19% 239 60% 400 100%

6 1% 12 3% 48 12% 71 18% 264 66% 400 100%

Encouraging

employment grow t h

As sist ing local bus iness

operators

Promot ion of tourism

in the area

Count Row %

Not at all

important

Count Row %

Not very

important

Count Row %

Neit her

Count Row %

Import ant

Count Row %

Very important

Count Row %

Tot al

43 14% 81 26% 108 34% 51 16% 30 10% 313 100%

34 11% 68 22% 113 37% 66 22% 24 8% 304 100%

28 9% 50 15% 104 31% 94 28% 56 17% 332 100%

Encouraging

employment grow t h

Ass ist ing local bus iness

operators

Promot ion of tourism

in t he area

Count Row %


Count Row %

Dis sat is fied

Count Row %

Neit her

Count Row %

Sat isf ied

Count Row %

Very s at isf ied

Count Row %

Tot al

Great Lakes Council

Community Research

September 2012 69




Planning for the future of the community 4.67 4.70 4.56 4.56 4.69 4.62

The way Council employees interact with the public 4.33 4.26 4.26 4.20 4.34 4.27

Opportunities to participate in Council decision making 4.07 4.02 4.07 4.06 4.06 4.06

Provision of information on Council and community

services 4.20 4.10 4.24 4.10 4.27 4.19

Consultation with the community 4.53 4.32 4.43 4.35 4.47 4.41

Importance

Hawks Nest -

Tea Gardens

- North Arm

Cove -

Pindimar

Pacific Palms

- Blueys

Beach -

Coomba

Park

Nabiac -

Failford -

Darawank

- Rural

North

Bulahdelah

- Central

Rural

Stroud -

Rural West

Forster -

Tuncurry


community 4.74 4.78 4.79 4.40 4.60 4.57

The way Council employees interact

with the public 4.19 4.29 4.33 3.90 4.33 4.38

Opportunities to participate in

Council decision making 4.08 4.10 4.21 3.96 4.18 3.97

Provision of information on Council

and community services 4.29 4.20 4.10 3.99 4.25 4.23





Great Lakes Council

Community Research

September 2012 70




Planning for the future of the community 2.97 2.70 3.17 2.84 3.10 2.97

The way Council employees interact with the public 2.79 3.16 3.58 3.25 3.36 3.31

Opportunities to participate in Council decision making 2.55 2.81 3.14 2.80 3.04 2.93

Provision of information on Council and community

services 2.78 3.15 3.52 3.23 3.33 3.28


Satisfaction

Hawks Nest -

Tea Gardens

- North Arm

Cove -

Pindimar

Pacific Palms

- Blueys

Beach -

Coomba

Park

Nabiac -

Failford -

Darawank

- Rural

North

Bulahdelah

- Central

Rural

Stroud -

Rural West

Forster -

Tuncurry


community 3.00 2.86 2.61 2.55 3.10 3.21

The way Council employees interact

with the public 3.33 3.23 2.87 2.87 3.36 3.57

Opportunities to participate in

Council decision making 3.12 2.70 2.84 3.01 2.90 2.95

Provision of information on Council

and community services 3.35 3.37 3.05 3.24 3.36 3.29





Great Lakes Council

Community Research

September 2012 71



5 1% 6 1% 22 5% 69 17% 298 75% 400 100%

16 4% 9 2% 53 13% 94 24% 228 57% 400 100%

24 6% 19 5% 61 15% 100 25% 195 49% 400 100%

8 2% 9 2% 72 18% 119 30% 191 48% 400 100%

7 2% 7 2% 53 13% 80 20% 252 63% 400 100%

Planning for the future

of the community

The w ay Council

employees int eract

w ith t he public

Opport unit ies t o

part icipate in Council

decision making

Provis ion of informat ion

on Council and

community services

Consultat ion w it h t he

community

Count Row %

Not at all

important

Count Row %

Not very

important

Count Row %

Neit her

Count Row %

I mportant

Count Row %

Very import ant

Count Row %

Tot al

45 12% 71 20% 132 37% 75 21% 38 11% 360 100%

35 11% 43 14% 94 30% 78 24% 67 21% 318 100%

42 15% 57 20% 100 34% 61 21% 29 10% 289 100%

27 9% 40 13% 105 34% 87 28% 47 15% 306 100%

37 11% 55 17% 118 36% 79 24% 37 11% 326 100%

Planning for the future

of the community

The w ay Council

employees int eract

w ith t he public

Opport unit ies t o

part icipate in Council

decision making

Provis ion of informat ion

on Council and

community services

Consultat ion w it h t he

community

Count Row %


Count Row %

Dis sat is fied

Count Row %

Neit her

Count Row %

Sat isf ied

Count Row %

Very s at isfied

Count Row %

Tot al

Great Lakes Council

Community Research

September 2012 72


Q. Overall, for the last 12 months, how satisfied are you with the performance of Council, not just on one or two

issues, but across all responsibility areas?



Hawks Nest - Tea

Gardens - North

Arm Cove -

Pindimar

Pacific Palms -

Blueys Beach -

Coomba Park

Nabiac - Failford

- Darawank -

Rural North

Bulahdelah -

Central Rural

Stroud - Rural

West

Forster -

Tuncurry

Satisfaction

mean ratings 3.23 3.16 3.18 2.86 3.28 3.48




31 8%

155 39%

130 32%

57 14%

27 7%

400 100%

Very s at isf ied

Sat isf ied

Neit her

Dis sat isfied


Tot al

Count Colum n %

Great Lakes Council

Community Research

September 2012 73


Q. Have you had contact with Council in the last 12 months?

166 42%

234 58%

400 100%

Yes

No

Tot al

Count Column %

19 27% 59 46% 89 44% 84 44% 82 40%

51 73% 69 54% 113 56% 109 56% 125 60%

70 100% 128 100% 202 100% 193 100% 207 100%

Yes

No

Tot al

Count Column %

18 - 34

Count Column %

35 - 54

Count Column %

55 years and over

Count Column %

M ale

Count Column %

Fem ale

21 42% 21 44% 19 40% 16 32% 28 51% 61 41%

29 58% 27 56% 29 60% 34 68% 27 49% 87 59%

51 100% 48 100% 48 100% 50 100% 56 100% 148 100%

Yes

No

Tot al

Count Column %

Haw ks Nest - Tea

Gardens - North

Arm Cove -

Pindimar

Count Column %

Pacific Palms -

Blueys Beach -

Coomba Park

Count Column %

Nabiac - Failford -

Daraw ank - Rural

Nort h

Count Column %

Bulahdelah -

Central Rural

Count Column %

Stroud - Rural W es t

Count Column %

Fors ter - Tuncurry

Great Lakes Council

Community Research

September 2012 74


Q. How did you make contact?

85 51%

79 48%

19 12%

16 10%

166 100%

Phone

In person

Email

M ail

Tot al

Count Column %

9 50% 40 69% 35 39% 40 47% 45 55%

0 0% 5 9% 11 12% 9 10% 8 9%

5 25% 8 13% 7 8% 14 17% 5 6%

7 38% 25 43% 47 53% 47 55% 32 40%

19 100% 59 100% 89 100% 84 100% 82 100%

Phone

M ail

Email

I n person

Tot al

Count Column %

18 - 34

Count Column %

35 - 54

Count Column %

55 years and over

Count Column %

M ale

Count Column %

Fem ale

8 38% 9 41% 9 48% 13 83% 21 74% 25 41%

3 14% 3 12% 2 9% 0 0% 2 8% 7 11%

2 9% 3 15% 4 18% 3 17% 3 11% 5 8%

11 53% 16 77% 8 41% 3 19% 8 29% 33 54%

21 100% 21 100% 19 100% 16 100% 28 100% 61 100%

Phone

M ail

Email

I n person

Tot al

Count Column %

Haw ks Nes t - Tea

Gardens - North

Arm Cove -

Pindimar

Count Column %

Pacific Palms -

Blueys Beach -

Coomba Park

Count Column %

Nabiac - Failford -

Daraw ank - Rural

Nort h

Count Column %

Bulahdelah -

Central Rural

Count Column %


Count Column %

Fors ter - Tuncurry

Great Lakes Council

Community Research

September 2012 75



Overall

In person 4.24

Phone 3.84

Mail 3.94

Email 3.65

18 - 34 35 - 54

55 years

and over Male Female

In person 3.33 4.15 4.43 4.34 4.10

Phone 2.50 3.72 4.34 3.66 4.00

Hawks Nest - Tea

Gardens - North

Arm Cove -

Pindimar

Pacific Palms -

Blueys Beach -

Coomba Park

Nabiac - Failford -

Darawank - Rural

North

Bulahdelah -

Central Rural

Stroud - Rural

West

Forster -

Tuncurry

In person 4.43 3.92 4.42 3.00 4.72 4.29

Phone 4.25 4.32 4.08 3.18 4.03 3.66




Note: It is important to note that due to the small sample size for mail and email, the mean ratings are not

statistically valid and should be viewed from an interest point only and have not been included in

correlations.

2 2% 1 1% 12 16% 26 32% 38 49% 79 100%

9 11% 4 5% 14 17% 19 23% 37 44% 85 100%

0 0% 1 6% 4 26% 6 35% 5 32% 16 100%

3 16% 2 8% 3 13% 4 21% 8 42% 19 100%

In person

Phone

M ail

Email

Count Row %


Count Row %

Dis sat is fied

Count Row %

Neit her

Count Row %

Sat isf ied

Count Row %

Very s at isfied

Count Row %

Tot al

Great Lakes Council

Community Research

September 2012 76





Mean ratings 3.27 3.31 3.65 3.35 3.59 3.47

Hawks Nest - Tea

Gardens - North

Arm Cove -

Pindimar

Pacific Palms -

Blueys Beach -

Coomba Park

Nabiac - Failford

- Darawank -

Rural North

Bulahdelah -

Central Rural

Stroud - Rural

West

Forster -

Tuncurry

Mean ratings 3.29 3.34 3.47 3.07 3.57 3.68




41 10%

181 45%

123 31%

36 9%

19 5%

400 100%

Very s at isf ied

Sat isf ied

Neit her

Dis sat isfied


Tot al

Count Colum n %

Great Lakes Council

Community Research

September 2012 77


Q. Through which of the following sources do you get your Council information?

298 75%

293 73%

254 64%

216 54%

116 29%

88 22%

6 2%

400 100%

New s papers

W ord of mout h

Direct mail

Resident new s lett er

Council w ebsit e

Social media

None of thes e

Tot al

Count Column %

44 63% 91 71% 163 81% 145 75% 153 74%

23 33% 43 33% 50 25% 57 30% 59 28%

16 23% 29 23% 43 21% 49 25% 39 19%

44 63% 90 70% 120 59% 123 64% 131 63%

33 47% 67 52% 116 57% 116 60% 99 48%

63 90% 99 77% 131 65% 140 72% 153 74%

2 3% 1 1% 3 1% 4 2% 2 1%

70 100% 128 100% 202 100% 193 100% 207 100%

New s papers

Council w ebsit e

Social media

Direct mail

Resident new s let t er

W ord of mout h

None of thes e

Tot al

Count Column %

18 - 34

Count Column %

35 - 54

Count Column %

55 years and over

Count Column %

M ale

Count Column %

Fem ale

43 85% 34 71% 31 63% 43 87% 28 50% 119 80%

17 33% 20 43% 13 28% 19 39% 18 32% 29 19%

11 23% 13 28% 11 23% 12 25% 12 22% 28 19%

31 61% 29 60% 35 72% 42 84% 44 79% 74 50%

33 65% 33 70% 21 43% 32 65% 28 50% 69 47%

43 84% 33 69% 36 75% 37 74% 48 87% 96 65%

0 0% 0 0% 1 2% 0 0% 1 1% 4 3%

51 100% 48 100% 48 100% 50 100% 56 100% 148 100%

New s papers

Council w ebsit e

Social media

Direct mail


W ord of mout h

None of thes e

Tot al

Count Column %

Haw ks Nes t - Tea

Gardens - North

Arm Cove -

Pindimar

Count Column %

Pacific Palms -

Blueys Beach -

Coomba Park

Count Column %

Nabiac - Failford -

Daraw ank - Rural

Nort h

Count Column %

Bulahdelah -

Central Rural

Count Column %

Stroud - Rural W es t

Count Column %

Fors ter - Tuncurry

Great Lakes Council

Community Research

September 2012 78



258 65%

245 61%

241 60%

154 38%

117 29%

114 28%

79 20%

10 3%

8 2%

12 3%

400 100%

Direct mail


New s papers

W ord of mout h

Email

Council w ebsit e

Social media

Radio

Television

Other

Tot al

Count Column %

37 53% 67 52% 137 68% 113 59% 128 62%

23 33% 44 35% 46 23% 58 30% 56 27%

19 27% 24 18% 37 18% 43 22% 36 18%

49 70% 85 67% 124 61% 114 59% 145 70%

44 63% 70 55% 131 65% 114 59% 131 63%

42 60% 45 35% 67 33% 74 38% 80 39%

21 30% 49 38% 47 23% 56 29% 61 29%

2 3% 4 3% 6 3% 10 5% 3 1%

2 3% 0 0% 8 4% 2 1% 8 4%

0 0% 1 1% 7 3% 1 1% 7 3%

70 100% 128 100% 202 100% 193 100% 207 100%

New s papers

Council w ebsit e

Social media

Direct mail


W ord of mout h

Email

Other

Radio

Television

Tot al

Count Column %

18 - 34

Count Column %

35 - 54

Count Column %

55 years and over

Count Column %

M ale

Count Column %

Fem ale

Great Lakes Council

Community Research

September 2012 79



32 63% 25 52% 29 60% 38 76% 26 47% 92 62%

17 34% 13 28% 11 24% 23 46% 23 42% 25 17%

10 19% 9 19% 8 17% 18 35% 9 16% 26 17%

29 57% 21 44% 32 67% 42 85% 44 78% 91 61%

22 43% 23 48% 30 62% 42 85% 40 72% 89 60%

12 24% 14 29% 17 34% 32 63% 30 55% 50 33%

10 20% 15 32% 18 37% 24 49% 23 42% 26 17%

0 0% 2 4% 0 0% 2 5% 2 3% 6 4%

0 0% 1 2% 1 2% 0 0% 0 0% 8 6%

0 0% 1 2% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 7 5%

51 100% 48 100% 48 100% 50 100% 56 100% 148 100%

New s papers

Council w ebsit e

Social media

Direct mail


W ord of mout h

Email

Other

Radio

Television

Tot al

Count Column %

Haw ks Nes t - Tea

Gardens - North

Arm Cove -

Pindimar

Count Column %

Pacific Palms -

Blueys Beach -

Coomba Park

Count Column %

Nabiac - Failford -

Daraw ank - Rural

Nort h

Count Column %

Bulahdelah -

Central Rural

Count Column %


Count Column %

Fors ter - Tuncurry

Appendix B

Questionnaire

Great Lakes Council

Community Survey

June 2012 1

GREAT LAKES COUNCIL - COMMUNITY SURVEY 2012

a. Which town or area do you live in?

Hawks Nest - Tea Gardens - North Arm Cove – Pindimar O

Pacific Palms - Blueys Beach - Coomba Park O

Nabiac - Failford - Darawank - Rural North O

Bulahdelah - Central Rural O

Stroud - Rural West O

Forster – Tuncurry O

Other (please specify) O…………………………

Section 1 – Contact with Council

1. Have you contacted Great Lakes Council in the last 12 months?

Yes O No O (If no, go to 4a)

2. When you made contact with Council staff was it by:

Phone O Mail O Email O In person O

3a. How satisfied were you with the way your contact was handled? Prompt

Very satisfied Satisfied Neither Dissatisfied Very dissatisfied

O O O O O

3b. (If dissatisfied or very dissatisfied), how could the way this contact was handled have been

improved?

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………...

4a. How satisfied are you currently with the level of communication Council has with the community?

Prompt


O O O O O

4b. (If dissatisfied or very dissatisfied), how do you think Council could improve its communication?

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………...

Great Lakes Council

Community Survey

June 2012 2

Section 2 – Importance of, and satisfaction with, Council services

5. In this section, I would like you to consider the following 39 different Council services or facilities. For

each of these, please indicate that which best describes your opinion of the importance of the

following services/facilities to you, and in the second part, the level of satisfaction with the

performance of that service. The scale is from 1 to 5, where 1 = low importance and 5 = high

importance and where 1 = low satisfaction and 5 = high satisfaction.

Importance Satisfaction

Low High Low High

1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 N/A

1. Road maintenance - sealed O O O O O O O O O O O

2. Road maintenance - unsealed O O O O O O O O O O O

3. Bridge maintenance O O O O O O O O O O O

4. Stormwater drainage O O O O O O O O O O O

5. Kerb and guttering O O O O O O O O O O O

6. Footpaths and cycleways O O O O O O O O O O O

7. Public car parking O O O O O O O O O O O

8. Streetscaping/town beautification O O O O O O O O O O O

9. Street lighting O O O O O O O O O O O

10. Sports fields O O O O O O O O O O O

11. Parks and reserves O O O O O O O O O O O

12. Playgrounds O O O O O O O O O O O

13. Swimming pools O O O O O O O O O O O

14. Boat ramps/wharves O O O O O O O O O O O

15. Public toilets O O O O O O O O O O O

16. Litter bins in public places O O O O O O O O O O O

17. Public halls/community buildings O O O O O O O O O O O

18. Cemetery services O O O O O O O O O O O

19. Library services O O O O O O O O O O O

20. Town planning O O O O O O O O O O O

21. Protection of heritage O O O O O O O O O O O

22. Planning for the future of the community O O O O O O O O O O O

23. Development assessment/planning controls O O O O O O O O O O O

24. Animal control O O O O O O O O O O O

25. Litter control O O O O O O O O O O O

26. Waste collection and disposal O O O O O O O O O O O

27. After school and school holiday programs O O O O O O O O O O O

28. Promoting safety and preventing crime O O O O O O O O O O O

29. Support to community groups O O O O O O O O O O O

30. Support to arts and culture O O O O O O O O O O O

31. Encouraging employment growth O O O O O O O O O O O

Great Lakes Council

Community Survey

June 2012 3

9.

Importance Satisfaction

Low High Low High

1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 N/A

32. Assisting local business operators O O O O O O O O O O O

33. Promotion of tourism in the area O O O O O O O O O O O

34. Protection of the natural environment O O O O O O O O O O O

35. Protection of waterways O O O O O O O O O O O

36. The way Council employees interact with the public O O O O O O O O O O O

37. Opportunities to participate in Council decision

making O O O O O O O O O O O

38. Provision of information on Council and

community services O O O O O O O O O O O

39. Consultation with the community O O O O O O O O O O O

6a. Overall, for the last 12 months, how satisfied are you with the performance of Council, not just on one

or two issues, but across all responsibility areas? Prompt


O O O O O

6b. (If dissatisfied or very dissatisfied), what is your main reason for giving that rating?

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………...

Section 3 – Specific questions

7a. Through which of the following sources do you get your Council information? (Prompt)

Newspapers O

Council website O

Social media O

Direct mail O

Resident newsletter O

Word of mouth O

7b. How would you prefer to get your Council information? (Prompt)

Newspapers O

Council website O

Social media O

Direct mail O

Resident newsletter O

Word of mouth O

Email O

Other (please specify) O ………………………………………...

Great Lakes Council

Community Survey

June 2012 4

Section 4 – Demographic questions

The following questions are used for demographic purposes only.

8. Please stop me when I read out your age group.

18 – 34 O

35 – 54 O

55 years and over O

9. Gender (determine by voice):

Male O Female O

Documents

Great Lakes Council Community Research · 2015-11-06 · Great Lakes Council Community Research September 2012 2 Background & Methodology Prequalification Participants in this survey