2018 COMMUNITY SURVEY - City of Tea Tree Gully …...This report outlines the results of 2018...

2018 COMMUNITY

SURVEYMay 2018

Prepared bynewfocus Pty Ltd

nf:8945-ldl/ep/am/ks

PA

GE

2Table of Contents

Background and Objectives 3

Executive Summary 4

Methodology & Sample 5

Sample Accuracy 7

Interpretation of Report 8

Key Findings – CATI & Social Media 9

Full Results – CATI & Social Media 22

Key Findings – Panel 46

Full Results – Panel 52

Council’s Response to Key Results 75

PA

GE

3

The City of Tea Tree Gully has conducted an annual Community Survey for over 15 years. The survey seeks to

measure the community’s perception of Council’s performance and service delivery, and the level of satisfaction

residents have with key services.

For the last nine years members of Council’s Community Panel have been given the opportunity to complete the

survey. This is administered at the same time as the Computer Assisted Telephone Interviews (CATI) survey with

results reported separately.

The survey questions focus on the following areas:

• Service awareness, usage and value

• Satisfaction with key services

• Community wellbeing

The questionnaire was revised in 2018, with several questions removed and new questions added to measure the

level of community satisfaction with hard waste collection and to provide insight into the reasons behind residents

being satisfied or dissatisfied with hard waste collection. The majority of questions remained unchanged in order to

allow for comparison of results over time. The changes introduced in 2018 resulted in a shorter survey than in 2017

(from approximately 14.5 to 13 minutes on average).

This report outlines the results of 2018 Community Survey.

Background & Objectives

PA

GE

4

newfocus (a market and customer research company) was engaged to conduct the 2018 annual City of Tea Tree

Gully Community Survey. This report presents findings from this wave of research and tracks results over time. A

total of 400 random members of the City of Tea Tree Gully community were surveyed, with a further 338 surveys

completed by members of the Council’s Community Panel.

Key results from this round of research (excluding panel results):

• Waste services continue to be the most recalled and used services, with satisfaction very high (ranging from 89%

to 92%). The exception to this was the hard waste collection service, which received moderate satisfaction (65%)

• Satisfaction with Council overall has improved by 2% from 2017, with 74% satisfied or very satisfied with Council’s

performance

• Further, satisfaction with specific services has improved or remained on par with 2017 results, with no major

declines recorded

• The areas seeing the most improvement in satisfaction (increasing by 8% or more) were all areas identified in

2017 as the key areas for improvement

• While roads, footpaths and roadside verges all saw large increases in satisfaction and over the last 12 months,

they are still areas with lower satisfaction

• Overall, City of Tea Tree Gully residents have a positive wellbeing score of (79.4), which is higher than the state

average of 75.8

Executive Summary

PA

GE

5

Methodology & Sample

A sample of 400 surveys was collected by newfocus. A mixed methodology of CATI (phone) interviews and online surveys were

conducted, advertised through social media and hosted by newfocus. CATI surveys were conducted by from 15th – 27th March 2018

and ran for an average of 13 minutes. The online social media surveys were collected on 19th and 20th March 2018 and also took an

average of 13 minutes to complete.

For the CATI interviews, respondents were randomly selected from postcodes within the Council area using random telephone

numbers sourced by newfocus. For the online surveys through social media, respondents were randomly selected based on their

location and screened as residents of the City of Tea Tree Gully.

To ensure that the sample was demographically representative, quotas on age and gender were used (in line with the City of Tea

Tree Gully demographic profile). The sample was stratified by Council Ward to assure relatively even representation from the six

Wards within the City of Tea Tree Gully council area.

A further 338 surveys were collected through City of Tea Tree Gully’s Community Panel.

All data was collected in line with international standard ISO:20252.

Segment Total

18-39 years 138

40-59 years 138

60+ years 124

Total 400

Age

Segment Total

CATI 300

Social Media 100

Total 400

Methodology

Segment Total

Steventon 68

Pedare 68

Hillcott 66

Drumminor 64

Balmoral 63

Water Gully 71

Total 400

Council Ward

Segment Total

Male 193

Female 207

Total 400

Gender

PA

GE

6

Methodology & SampleThe use of social media in 2017 and 2018

In 2017, newfocus recommended that City of Tea Tree Gully consider reaching out to its residents through a social media

methodology. The main reasons for this included:

Current trends in social media usage: According to the Sensis Social Media Report 2016, 87% of Australians access the

Internet daily, and 69% of Internet users are using social media sites. With these numbers continuing to trend up, it’s crucial to

adapt and innovate to ensure that Council is able to communicate and engage with residents. The landscape of social media

users is becoming more representative of main-stream society.

newfocus has found in recent research with multiple local councils, that social media is increasingly the most popular method

of interaction with their Council (particularly among the younger age groups, 18-44 years of age). Young people are

increasingly becoming harder and harder to reach with traditional interviewing methods (i.e. CATI). Therefore the social media

sample was mainly targeted towards the younger age groups (18-39 year olds).

CTTG currently uses social media to communicate with its residents on a regular basis. Surveying residents through social

media is another way to reach out to those residents who already currently engage with CTTG through social media – it allows

residents to complete the survey ‘on their terms’ – newfocus has found respondents through this method to be more honest

and open about their feedback, eliciting rich results.

Being proactive and moving with the time: This method is increasingly being adopted across the nation within the market and

social research industry as well as local government and will only become more prevalent over time – it is important not to

leave adoption of new methods too late in order to compare and contrast responses from the different methods to understand

how tracking data can be impacted

In 2018, for continuity, comparability and for the above reasons, the same methodology was adopted.

Mainly there was little difference between respondents via CATI vs social media (SM). Differences were as follows:

• SM respondents tended to have higher unprompted mention of road maintenance and development approvals as services that

Council provides, while CATI respondents had higher mentions of waste services, aesthetic maintenance (i.e. street tress, verges,

etc.) and the Library. SM respondents also tended to rate events as important more than CATI respondents.

• SM respondents were less satisfied with control of litter and rubbish, their ability to have a say with Council and on wellbeing

metrics.

For the most part, where there are significant differences between the responses from the two methodologies, this is due to

demographic effects as a result of social media sampling skewing younger.

This suggests that social media is a reliable sampling method that should be considered in the future waves of the Community Survey.

PA

GE

7

Sample Accuracy

*Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2016 Census data – Tea Tree Gully LGA

Notes about accuracy levels

Error margin refers to the accuracy of results should you take a sample of the member population now compared to if you had

results for every single member. Calculation of the level of accuracy is based on the size of the population that your sample is drawn

from. The level of accuracy increases as the size of the sample approaches the size of the population. For example, if the level of

accuracy at one point in time is quoted at ±4.90%, this means that the measurement of items in the survey accurately represents the

measurement of these same items in the population, within a range of ±4.90%.

The calculation of error margin over time is based on the sample size taken at each point in time. This accuracy level illustrates the

percentage difference that is required between this study and the last study before a statistically significant difference will be found

with the sample size selected. Accuracy over time is generally quoted in the form of ±x%. In this instance, where the sample at each

point in time is 400, and is quoted as accuracy over time of ±6.92%, this means that there must be a difference of ±6.92% between

the last study and this recent study for a statistically significant difference at the .05 level to be found. Some figures that have seen a

change over time may be expected to be significant yet are not highlighted as such. This may be because they are only significant at

an accuracy level of 90%. newfocus will report on significant differences only when they are at 95% or 99% and where the ‘n’ value

is a minimum of 30 in each wave of research.

Population* Sample Error MarginError Margin Over

Time

Residents of the City of

Tea Tree Gully97,734 400 ±4.90 ±6.92

Sample Accuracy

PA

GE

8

Tables and charts are reported in percentage results. Due to rounding

some scores may range from 99% to 101%.

n = value

The n= value in the tables and charts represents the total number of

respondents included in the study and the number of respondents that

answered a specific question (excluding ‘don’t know’ responses except

where noted).

n ~ value

In some cases n~ is used. This represents the average number of

respondents across two or more questions.

Use of top/bottom-two box terminology

• top-2-box (T2B) refers to combined responses of somewhat/very

satisfied, agree/strongly agree, somewhat/very important etc

• bottom-2-box (B2B) refers to combined responses of somewhat

unsatisfied/not satisfied at all etc

Interpretation of ReportHow results are reported

Statistically significant differences

Between segments

A cross-tabulation or chi-square statistic is a common method of

describing whether a relationship exists between two or more variables,

ie it allows us to statistically test whether the differences we note in the

sample are genuine differences or simply chance occurrences.

Relationships are said to be statistically significant (referenced later in

the report as “stat. sig.”) if the P value (chi-square statistic) is less than

the chosen significance level. For example, if .05 (5%) is selected as

that level, a P value less than .05 implies that there is a relationship

between the two variables that have been cross-tabulated. The only

outcomes which have been reported on are those found to be

statistically significant at P< .05.

Over time

These symbols have been used on the charts to

identify where a statistically significant difference

over time (between 2017 & 2018) was found, and ↓

or ↑ used in tables.

Satisfaction: combined ‘top-2-box’

scores

(T2B – satisfied + very satisfied)

Very high 90%+

High 80%-89%

Relatively high 70-79%

Moderate 60-69%

Relatively low 50%-59%

Low 49% or less

Dissatisfaction: combined ‘bottom-2-

box’ scores

(B2B – dissatisfied + very dissatisfied)

Minimal 4% or less

Low 5%-9%

Moderate 10%-14%

Relatively high 15%-19%

High 20% or more

Legend for satisfaction and

dissatisfaction with services and aspects

of CTTG:

Reporting of results

This report outlines results for the combined CATI and Social

media sample and separately reports results for the panel sample.

SECTION 1

Key findings

CATI & Social Media Data

PA

GE

10

Most important Council services remain

unchanged over the past 7 years1.1 Council services

Q29, Q8, Q10

Importance(all mentioned)

Unprompted

awareness(first mentioned)

Unprompted

stated usage

2017 2018 2017 2018 2017 2018*

Waste/garbage collection 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st

Roads/maintenance 3rd 2nd 4th 3rd 7th 6th

Parks & reserves 2nd 3rd 3rd 2nd 3rd 4th

Library 4th 4th 2nd 4th 2nd 3rd

*In 2018, other services ranked high in terms of usage were as follows:

2nd Green waste

=5th Hard waste collection

=5th Recycling

» As seen for the past seven years, waste collection is the most important service provided by Council. It’s also the

most recalled service provided and the most used (general waste collection as well as specifically green waste,

hard waste and recycling)

» Roads, parks & reserves and the Library are the other most important and most recalled services provided by

Council

PA

GE

11

Residents continue to be most aware of waste

collection services provided by Council1.2 Unprompted awareness of Council services

Changes in awareness of services over the past 12 months

» The most recalled services did not change from 12 months ago, with waste/garbage collection once again most top-of-mind. After recall of

this service dropped significantly in 2017 (down 10% from 2016), awareness has remained the same in 2018. However, more specific

waste collection services have all seen increases in recall, with recycling and hard waste both recording statistically significant increases:

» The increase in awareness recorded for recycling was seen across the board and was particularly large among females (stat. sig.) and

older respondents (particularly those aged 60+ (stat. sig.)

» Similarly, the increase in awareness of the hard waste collection was seen in older age groups (statistically significant for 40-59 year olds),

however decreased slightly among younger residents. Awareness increased for both males and females.

» The only other significant changes from 2017 were for street trees/maintenance (22%, up from 16%) and the Commonwealth Home

Support Program and other health/aged care services (7%, up from 3% in 2017)

– When broken down into demographics, the sample sizes for both street trees/maintenance and Commonwealth Home Support

Program were too small to run statistical analysis on. However, increases were seen across all demographics for both services.

Waste/garbage

collectionLibraryParks &

reserves

Roads/

maintenance

Most recalled services

(total mentioned)

80% 48% 37% 33%

2017 2018

Waste/garbage collection 81% 80%

Green waste 26% 31%

Hard waste 22% 29%

Recycling 16% 24%

PA

GE

12

Statistically significant differences in awareness by demographics

» Younger residents (18-39) were less likely than older residents to name a waste collection service

– Statistically significantly less likely to be aware of the green waste service, recycling, hard waste collection

and general waste/garbage collection

» Females were also less likely then males to have listed general waste/garbage collection as a Council service

» 18-39 year olds were less likely than older residents to be aware of the Library, but statistically more likely to be

aware of Council Events

» 40-59 year olds were the most likely to be aware of parks and reserves

Younger residents less aware of the Library

and waste collection, more aware of Events1.2 Unprompted awareness of Council services cont/d

PA

GE

13

Stated usage of all waste collection services

has increased over past 12 months1.3 Usage of Council services

The top four services with the highest stated unprompted usage are the same as 12 months ago, however, green waste has

increased to be the second most used service (where previously it was the Library, followed by parks and reserves, and then

green waste – all after general waste/garbage collection).

Changes in stated usage of services over the past 12 months

» Stated usage of all waste collection services has increased since 2017, with general waste/garbage collection, green waste and

recycling all seeing statistically significant increases

» Other statistically significant changes include the increase in stated usage of roads, which reflects the significant increase in top of

mind recall of this service (ie the service mentioned first, unprompted)

» Residents aged 40-59 years seem to be more engaged with Council, generally stating higher usage of Council services than those

aged 18-39 and 60+, particularly with regard to waste services, with 18-39 year olds the least likely to use these services

» 40-59 year olds were also the most likely to use parks and reserves, while males were statistically more likely to use the

waste/garbage collection service

Total Aged 18-39 Aged 40-59 Aged 60+ Males Females

2017 2018 2017 2018 2017 2018 2017 2018 2017 2018 2017 2018

Waste/garbage collection 67% 74% 52% 55% 78% 87% 70% 80% 66% 78% 67% 70%

Green waste 24% 34% 18% 15% 31% 47% 21% 39% 29% 31% 19% 36%

Recycling 16% 27% 11% 16% 21% 33% 14% 32% 22% 25% 9% 28%

Roads/maintenance 10% 14% 9% 15% 11% 16% 8% 13% 13% 16% 7% 13%

Waste/garbage

collection

LibraryParks &

reserves

Most used services

74% 31% 28%34%

Green waste

collection

PA

GE

14

15% 16% 13% 19%

60% 56% 59%55%

17% 20% 20% 17%

4% 6% 6% 5%

2% 2% 1% 4%

2015 (n=401) 2016 (n=410) 2017 (n=403) 2018 (n=397)

Very dissatisfied

Dissatisfied

Neither satisfied nordissatisfied

Satisfied

Very satisfied

Almost 3 in 4 residents are satisfied with Council,

increasing slightly from 20171.4 Satisfaction with Council performance overall

There was a statistically significant increase in those

who are very satisfied with Council

» While overall satisfaction has increased slightly (by

2%), almost 1 in 5 were very satisfied with Council,

which is a statistically significant increase from 2017

(and is the highest proportion since 2011)

» This increase was particularly high among females

(from 10% in 2017 to 18% in 2018)

Q11/Q12

67%

63%65%

69%

76%

72% 72%74%

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

T2B satisfaction

Reasons for dissatisfaction with Council performance

overall (n=35)

» Similarly to 2017, the main reason for dissatisfaction with

Council related to poor maintenance of verges/ parks/

reserves/ litter/ broken glass/ dying grass/ plants/

overhanging trees (mentioned by 6 people)

» The next most frequently mentioned reasons included

(both mentioned by 4 people):

– Footpaths/poorly maintained/uneven/lack of/none on

either side of the road for years

– Poor response time/need to follow Council up/no

action taken

76% 72% 72% 74% 71%54%

2015(n=401)

2016(n=410)

2017(n=403)

2018(n=397)

SA CouncilBenchmark

NationalCouncil

Benchmark

% T

2B

sati

sfa

cti

on

Very satisfied

PA

GE

15

Drivers of overall satisfaction with Council

performance1.4 Overall satisfaction with Council performance cont/d

Higher statistical analysis was conducted to

identify which services/areas are most

strongly contributing to overall satisfaction

with Council performance. In order of

influence, the following services/areas were

found to have the strongest influence on

whether someone is satisfied with Council

overall.

#1

Opportunity to have their

say

#2

Waste collection services

#3

Maintenance of parks, reserves

and playing fields #4

Provision of arts, cultural performance

and activities

Overall

satisfaction

with Council

Other drivers with less

influence on satisfaction

with Council overall

» Satisfaction with major

events

» Satisfaction with

appearance of roadside

verges

» Satisfaction with

maintenance of footpaths

PA

GE

16

Improvements seen from 2017, with no services

classed as areas of ‘low satisfaction’1.5 Satisfaction with Council Services

Areas of very high satisfaction

• Waste collection service overall

• Green waste collection

Areas of high satisfaction

• Recycling services

• Provision of parks, reserves and

playing fields

• Maintenance of playgrounds

• Major events

• Council's Library services

Areas of relatively high

satisfaction

• Maintenance of parks, reserves

and playing fields

• Provision of playgrounds

• Control of litter and rubbish

• Council's Recreation Centres

• Waterworld

• The provision of community

centres, services and programs

Areas of moderate satisfaction

• Provision of street trees

• The provision of arts and cultural

performances and activities

• Hard waste collection

Areas of relatively low satisfaction

• Condition of main roads

• Condition of local or residential roads

• Provision of footpaths in your local area

• Maintenance of footpaths in your local area

• Appearance of roadside verges in your local area

• Maintenance of street trees

• The opportunity to have your say

Areas of low

satisfaction

NONE

Top

performing

areas:

Areas for

improvement:

Council Services

» All Council services have been classified into categories based on satisfaction scores (T2B – combined very

satisfied or satisfied)

» The top performing areas all relate to waste services

» In 2018 there are no areas of low satisfaction, with all services classified as low in 2017 improving in 2018

PA

GE

17

The largest changes in satisfaction over the past

12 months1.6 Largest changes in satisfaction with Council Services over the past 12 months

Largest declines

There were no major declines in satisfaction with services

among residents in 2018.

In fact, ALL services improved, with the exception of the following which saw

no change or minimal decline:

» Green waste collection (90%, down 1%)

» Recycling services (89%, down by 1%)

» Waterworld (78%, down 1%)

» Library services (87%, no change)

» Council’s Recreation Centres (76%, no change)

Largest improvements

2017 2018Diff

T2B% T2B%

Provision of footpaths in your local area 49% 59% +10

Maintenance of footpaths in your local area 43% 53% +10

Control of litter and rubbish 66% 75% +9

Appearance of roadside verges in your local area 43% 52% +9

Maintenance of street trees 49% 57% +8

Condition of main roads 51% 59% +8

The improvements seen across the majority of Council services reflects the

improvement in satisfaction with Council overall (74%, up from 72%).

Positively, the areas recording largest improvements were services identified

previously as having ‘low’ satisfaction:

PA

GE

18

The largest changes in satisfaction over the past

12 months (improvements)1.6 Largest changes in satisfaction with Council Services over the past 12 months

Significantly, the largest rises in satisfaction came from some of the services highlighted in the 2017 community survey

with low satisfaction (where less than half of residents were satisfied). As well as seeing an increase in satisfaction

(ratings of very satisfied/satisfied), there was a decrease in the number of dissatisfied/very dissatisfied ratings.

Rise in satisfaction with footpaths

» Increased across all demographics, with significant improvement among those aged 18-39 in particular

» With regard to the provision of footpaths, a statistically significant improvement was seen among females

» Satisfaction with the maintenance of footpaths saw a statistically significant improvement among males

Rise in satisfaction with the control of litter and rubbish

» The increase in satisfaction was seen across both males and females, and all age groups (particularly those aged 60+ - stat.sig.

increase)

Rise in satisfaction with appearance of roadside verges

» Increased across the board, with statistically significant increases seen among those aged 60+ and males

Rise in satisfaction with the maintenance of street trees

» Increased among both males and females (significantly so for males) and those aged 18-59 (with those aged 60+ declining by just

1%)

Rise in satisfaction with the condition of main roads

» Increased across the board with males and those aged 18-39 recorded the largest increases in satisfaction (stat. sig.)

PA

GE

19

Community wellbeing has generally improved over

the past 12 months1.7 Community wellbeing

2017 2018T3B% change

from 2017T3B% B3B% T3B% B3B%

Your personal relationships 77 1 80 2 +3

Life as a whole 75 2 77 2 +2

Your standard of living 72 0 75 1 +3

How safe you feel 69 1 74 2 +5

Your health 67 2 68 2 +1

What you are currently achieving in life 66 2 68 2 +2

Your spirituality or religion (if applicable) 67 5 67 3 -

Your future security 62 2 61 3 -1

Feeling part of your community 49 3 47 5 -2

Some positive changes recorded in 2018, particularly in regard to feeling safe

» Further improvements were seen in 2018 for a number of wellbeing measures, with only a few remaining the same or decreasing

from 2017

» Males and females recorded relatively similar satisfaction results, while there were quite a few differences by age group

» As seen in 2017, there were also some differences by sampling methodology (Phone vs Social media). For the most part, where

there are significant differences, this is due to differences seen by age group, given that the social media sample was weighted

towards younger demographics. However there is still a prevalence for those responding via social media to be less satisfied than

those sampled over the phone. As noted in the 2017 report, in newfocus’ experience, responses via social medial tend to elicit

richer results, suggesting that respondents may be more comfortable in responding more honestly than when speaking with

someone over the phone

» Breakdowns by age, gender and sampling methodology are provided on the next slide

PA

GE

20

Age impacts certain wellbeing factors1.7 Community wellbeing

%T3B response

Gender Age

Male Female 18-39 50-49 60+

Phone SM Phone SM Phone SM Phone SM Phone SM

Your personal relationships 84 70 79 76 84 74 76 73 87 73

Life as a whole 83 62 79 63 79 61 80 58 84 77

Your standard of living 81 56 75 74 77 66 76 58 82 69

How safe you feel 77 72 77 63 86 69 75 69 74 54

Your health 68 75 69 59 72 66 70 82 65 54

What you are currently achieving in life 65 60 77 56 64 55 73 64 72 69

Your spirituality or religion (if applicable) 68 58 67 77 72 66 59 60 74 100

Your future security 68 57 63 43 66 46 60 54 71 62

Feeling part of your community 50 43 48 37 41 42 45 31 58 38

Age

%T3B response

Combined phone and Social media

sample

18-39 40-59 60+

Your standard of living 71 74 81

Your health 69 71 64

What you are currently achieving in life 59 72 72

Your personal relationships 79 76 85

How safe you feel 77 74 72

Feeling part of your community 41 44 56

Your future security 55 59 70

Your spirituality or religion (if applicable 69 59 76

Life as a whole 69 78 83

Note: text in blue indicates result is statistically significantly higher then other sub-groups.

Text in red indicates result is statistically significantly lower than other sub-groups.

Age differences:

» There were some differences in wellbeing across age, with older residents more satisfied

with life as a whole, their future security and feeling part of the community, and younger

residents being less satisfied with what they are currently achieving and life as a whole

Sampling methodology differences:

» Although overall differences by sampling

methodology could be explained by differences

in results by age group, when broken down

further, there were still some differences by

methodology (as noted on previous page).

» Sub-groups (ie males, females and age groups)

who completed the survey via social media were

less satisfied with some elements of their lives as

outlined below:

PA

GE

21

The wellbeing of City of Tea Tree Gully residents is

higher than the state average1.7 Community wellbeing cont/d

NORTERN

TERRITORY

75.5

TASMANIA

76.1

SOUTH AUSTRALIA

75.8

WESTERN

AUSTRALIA

74.8

QUEENSLAND

75.4

NEW SOUTH

WALES

75.0VICTORIA

75.7

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL

TERRITORY

75.8

CITY OF TEA TREE GULLY

PHONE/Social Media

79.4


COMMUNITY PANEL

79.9

(2017 = 77.9)

(2017 = 79.6)

SECTION 2

Full resultsCATI & Social Media

PA

GE

23

Waste collection services continue to be most

recalled, all increasing in awareness from 20172.1 Unprompted awareness of services provided to residents

Q8/Q9

Note: 0% represents n=2 or less

Only responses of 7% and above for All mentioned in 2018 are shown

% response

First mentioned Others mentioned All mentioned

2015

(n=402)

2016

(n=412)

2017

(n=405)

2018

(n=399)

2015

(n=379)

2016

(n=407)

2017

(n=381)

2018

(n=380)

2015

(n=402)

2016

(n=412)

2017

(n=405)

2018

(n=399)

Waste/garbage collection 55 53 50 60 28 38 33 30 81 91 81 80

Parks & reserves 9 5 8 18 44 43 40 41 50 47 46 48

Library 10 11 10 15 38 37 34 28 47 48 42 37

Roads/maintenance 6 7 6 16 24 20 27 27 29 27 31 33

Green waste 1 4 2 4 18 24 26 30 19 28 26 31

Hard waste collection 5 4 2 7 20 24 22 27 24 27 22 29

Recycling 1 1 - 3 13 23 17 24 14 24 16 24

Street trees/maintenance 1 - 2 3 17 14 14 23 17 14 16 22

Footpaths 1 2 1 8 22 17 23 17 22 19 23 19

Verge maintenance 1 1 2 4 17 10 19 17 17 10 20 18

Street sweeping 2 3 2 3 15 11 12 13 16 14 13 14

Events (eg Civic Park Carols,

Australia Day, Civic Park

Movies)

0 0 1 4 6 7 13 13 6 8 14 12

Dog registration/control 0 1 1 4 9 8 10 11 9 8 10 11

Playgrounds - 0 0 2 10 7 8 8 9 7 7 8

Community Bus/Transport

Service1 0 1 2 4 6 6 7 5 7 7 7

Commonwealth Home Support

Program (formerly HACC)0 0 - 1 3 5 4 7 3 6 3 7

PA

GE

24

As with awareness, usage of waste services has

increased and continues to be most used service2.2 Services used

Q10

Only responses of 3% and above for 2018 are shown

% response

2015

(n=391)

2016

(n=408)

2017

(n=395)

2018

(n=387)

Waste/garbage collection 69 76 67 74

Green waste 22 28 24 34

Library 39 41 34 31

Parks & reserves 34 32 30 28

Hard waste collection 24 29 23 27

Recycling 12 21 16 27

Roads/maintenance 14 13 10 14

Events (eg Civic Park Carols, Australia Day, Civic Park Movies) 4 6 6 7

Playgrounds 6 7 6 7

Footpaths 9 8 8 7

Dog registration/control 4 7 5 5

Waterworld 3 5 3 5

Street trees/maintenance 6 6 4 4

Verge maintenance 5 3 4 4

Immunisation service 5 4 4 3

Street sweeping 4 3 1 3

Environmental awareness/Enviro care day/mini muncher compost

bins/enviro care Sunday2 1 4 3

Dog parks 2 2 2 3

Ovals and sporting grounds 3 2 2 3

None/in particular 2 2 3 3

PA

GE

25

15% 16% 13% 19%

60% 56% 59%55%

17% 20% 20% 17%

4% 6% 6% 5%

2% 2% 1% 4%

2015 (n=401) 2016 (n=410) 2017 (n=403) 2018 (n=397)

Very dissatisfied

Dissatisfied


Satisfied

Very satisfied

Almost 3 in 4 residents are satisfied after a significant

increase in residents rating very satisfied2.3 Satisfaction with Council’s performance overall

Q11

76% 72% 72% 74% T2B

Very satisfied

PA

GE

26

Poor maintenance on visual aspects of Council

area continue to be main reason for dissatisfaction

Q12

Note interpret with caution due to small sample sizes

% response

2015 (n=27) 2016 (n=34) 2017 (n=31) 2018 (n=35)

Poor maintenance of verges/parks/reserves/litter/broken glass/dying grass/plants/overhanging trees 15 24 32 17

Footpaths/poorly maintained/uneven/lack of/none on either side of the road for years 19 24 10 11

Poor response time/need to follow Council up/no action taken 4 12 3 11

High council rates/poor value for money/regardless of property value/increased for business/vacant

blocks- - 10 9

Roads/poorly maintained/designed/flood 11 24 6 9

Don't do enough/what they say they will/only the bare minimum/all talk no action 7 3 6 9Communication/poor/don't keep us informed/no information/feedback provided regarding

issues/complaints7 3 10 9

Distribution of resources/should do so more effectively/unequal/given to newer areas for

maintenance/older/rural areas forgotten4 3 - 9

Rates are high/have gone up/but the services provided have remained the same/reduced/do not

equate- 6 - 9

Services received minimal/does not justify rates paid/only service received is garbage collection - 9 - 9

Don't spend money wisely/waste on executive pay packets/poor decision making/travel 11 15 3 6

Don't collect all the rubbish/green waste/hard refuse - - - 6

Don't listen to the community/not consulted on key issues which affect us 4 - - 6

Will not accept responsibility for trees/removal/pruning/trees not replaced 4 - - 6Poor development decisions/no regard for environment or existing residents/should not develop

farm land into residential zone/subdivision/rezone to allow multi-storey buildings- - - 6

Neighbour disputes/issues not resolved/unfair - - - 3Street cleaning/maintenance not often enough/should be done after storms/rubbish collection not

before4 - 10 3

Street lighting/lacking/poorly maintained - - - 3

Customer service/poor/unhelpful/rude 4 12 3 3

Overall maintenance/presentation of area/poor - - - 3

Quality of life - - - 3

Not enough activities for youth/farmers markets - - 3 3

The rates we pay are higher than other council areas but the services provided are the same/less - 3 - 3

Website lacking/not enough space to write to Council - - - 3

2.4 Reasons for dissatisfaction with Council’s performance

PA

GE

27

Waste collection services continue to perform

well, with the exception of hard waste collection2.5 Satisfaction with services - waste collection services

Q14

Waste collection services

However satisfaction differed for hard waste:

» Statistically significantly higher among males compared to females

» Dissatisfaction statistically significantly higher among those aged 40-49

The most common reason for dissatisfaction with the hard waste service related to feeling that

the service was not frequent enough

» This was also the case among those who rated the service highly – while they were satisfied with the service

when they received it, a large number also wanted the service to be more frequent.

CATI + Social Media 2015 2016 2017 2018T2B%

change

from 2017

T2B% B2B% T2B% B2B% T2B% B2B% T2B% B2B%

Green waste collection 90 3 88 3 91 2 90 3 -1

Recycling services 88 2 87 4 90 2 89 3 -1

Hard waste collection - - - - - - 65 15 N/A

Waste collection service overall 91 1 90 3 91 1 92 2 +1

Hard waste

collection

There were no statistically significant differences by demographics in rating of green waste, recycling or waste

collection service overall.

PA

GE

28

Overall satisfaction with waste services has

held steady2.5 Satisfaction with services - waste collection services cont/d

Q14

0% represents n=2 or less

56% 54% 55% 56%

34% 36% 37% 36%

8% 7% 8% 7%

1% 3% 1% 2%

2015 (n=402) 2016 (n=412) 2017 (n=405) 2018 (n=400)

Very dissatisfied

Dissatisfied

Neither satisfiednor dissatisfied

Satisfied

Very satisfied

0% 0% 0%

Waste collection services overall

60% 53% 55% 58%

31%35% 36% 32%

7% 9% 8% 8%

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

2015 (n=393) 2016 (n=409) 2017 (n=398) 2018 (n=394)

Green waste collection

58% 54% 54% 57%

30% 33% 36% 32%

10% 9% 8% 8%

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

2015 (n=398) 2016 (n=412) 2017 (n=402) 2018 (n=396)

Recycling services

Hard waste collection

39%

26%

20%

12%

3%

2018 (n=353)

Satisfaction with hard waste is much lower

than other waste collection services. This

is due to a large proportion of residents

responding that they are neither satisfied

nor dissatisfied – which may be due to

lower usage. There is also a higher

proportion of dissatisfaction, which relates

to the frequency of the service. This

suggests that the service itself is

performing and that there is an argument

for potential consideration of more or extra

collections or increasing awareness of the

at-call collection.

PA

GE

29

There is a desire among residents for more

hard waste collections2.5 Satisfaction with services - reasons for rating for hard waste collection services

Q1N18

New question in 2018

0% represents n=1

% response – Q14 – Hard waste collectionVery

satisfied/satisfied

(n=230)

Neither satisfied

nor dissatisfied

(n=71)

Very

dissatisfied/dissat

isfied (n=52)

Don't know

(n=47)

Efficient/prompt service/no issues 57 6 - -

Useful/saves effort of going to dump 20 - - -

Customer service/helpful 20 1 - -

Not enough collection days a year/wait time too long 11 45 56 4

Positive word of mouth (e.g. neighbours) 4 - - -

Haven't used the service/not for a long time 4 14 - 70

Other Council's don't provide service/charge for it 4 - - -

Two pickups per year is suitable 3 - - -

Late/delayed/inconsistent time 1 4 6 -

Size restrictions/difficult to judge/cut to right size 1 6 2 -

Leave rubbish behind 1 1 6 -

Only take specific items 1 8 19 -

Website/easy to use 1 - - -

No set dates 1 - 4 -

People put out too early/unsightly 1 1 - -

Difficult/hassle to organise 0 1 6 -

Loud/noisy 0 - - -

People add to pile/make over-size 0 * 2 -

Missed our street/no pickup - 3 4 -

Costs too much/can't afford - - 2 -

Don't have a need for the service - - - 15

Don't know - 3 - 2

Don't know enough information - 8 12 13

Bad experience (unspecified) - 1 - -

No confirmation received from Council - 1 4 -

Poor customer service - - 2 -

PA

GE

30

Large improvements in satisfaction were

recorded for footpaths and roads2.6 Satisfaction with services - roads and footpaths

Roads and footpaths


change

from 2017


Condition of local or residential roads 50 15 54 17 54 18 59 16 +5

Condition of main roads (generally dual

lane roads and high traffic roads)58 14 60 14 51 15 59 13 +8↑

Provision of footpaths in your local area 46 27 43 29 49 31 59 18 +10↑

Maintenance of footpaths in your local area 38 30 39 32 43 33 53 22 +10↑

Appearance of roadside verges in your

local area46 24 43 28 43 26 52 21 +9↑

Q15

PA

GE

31

11% 9% 12% 18%

35% 34% 32%34%

30% 29% 31%28%

17%15% 15% 13%

8% 13% 11% 8%

2015 (n=397) 2016 (n=407) 2017 (n=399) 2018 (n=400)

11% 10% 12% 16%

38% 44% 42%43%

35% 29% 28% 25%

10% 11% 13% 13%

5% 6% 5% 4%

2015 (n=401) 2016 (n=411) 2017 (n=405) 2018 (n=399)

Satisfaction trending upwards for roads and

footpaths2.6 Satisfaction with services - roads and footpaths cont/d

Q15

Condition of main roadsCondition of local or residential

roads

Provision of footpaths in your

local area


local areaMaintenance of footpaths in your local area

13% 10% 14% 19%

33% 33%35%

40%

27% 28% 21%

23%

16% 14% 19%9%

11% 15% 11% 9%

2015 (n=398) 2016 (n=400) 2017 (n=401) 2018 (n=395)

10% 8% 12% 17%

28% 31%31%

37%

31% 29% 24%

25%

17% 16% 19%13%

13% 16% 14% 9%

2015 (n=394) 2016 (n=401) 2017 (n=397) 2018 (n=391)

Very dissatisfied

Dissatisfied


Satisfied

Very satisfied

T2B

T2B

T2B

11% 16% 10% 15%

46%45%

41%44%

28% 25%34%

28%

11% 12% 11% 9%

3% 3% 3% 4%

2015 (n=401) 2016 (n=408) 2017 (n=405) 2018 (n=397)

T2B

PA

GE

32

Large improvements recorded for control of litter

and maintenance of street trees

Parks, playground and trees

2.8 Satisfaction with services - aspects of the local area

CATI + Social Media 2015 2016 2017 2018

T2B%

change

from

2017


Provision of parks, reserves and playing fields 85 5 77 6 83 4 86 3 +3

Maintenance of parks, reserves and playing fields 76 8 73 8 78 7 79 5 +1

Provision of playgrounds 73 9 70 11 78 6 79 5 +1

Maintenance of playgrounds 68 8 70 8 75 7 81 4 +6

Provision of street trees 62 13 57 17 62 13 66 14 +4

Maintenance of street trees 49 20 49 25 49 23 57 21 +8↑

Control of litter and rubbish 69 9 70 11 66 12 75 9 +9↑

Q16

PA

GE

33

24% 28% 29% 32%

44% 43% 47%49%

24% 22% 18%16%

4% 6% 6% 3%

4% 2% 1% 1%

2015 (n=360) 2016 (n=360) 2017 (n=374) 2018 (n=351)

18% 22% 22% 22%

36%41% 36% 40%

30%25%

25%25%

12% 9% 12% 9%4% 4% 5% 5%

2014 (n=396) 2015 (n=400) 2016 (n=409) 2017 (n=400)

Provision of street trees

Very dissatisfied

Dissatisfied

Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied

Satisfied

Very satisfied

Satisfaction has increased in most areas relating to parks,

playgrounds and street trees2.8 Satisfaction with services - aspects of the local area cont/d

Q16

0% represents n=1

39% 34% 36% 36%

46%44%

47% 50%

10%17%

13% 11%4% 4% 4% 3%

2% 2% 0%

2015 (n=400) 2016 (n=406) 2017 (n=403) 2018 (n=389)

Provision of parks, reserves and playing

fields

Maintenance of parks, reserves and playing

fields

29% 27% 28% 31%

47% 46% 50% 48%

17% 20% 16% 17%5% 5% 6% 3%

3% 2% 1% 2%

2015 (n=399) 2016 (n=404) 2017 (n=399) 2018 (n=390)

Provision of playgrounds Maintenance of playgrounds

29% 26% 28% 32%

44% 44%50% 48%

18% 19%16% 16%

6% 8%6% 4%

4% 3% 1% 1%

2015 (n=369) 2016 (n=371) 2017 (n=379) 2018 (n=364)

PA

GE

34

Satisfaction has increased in most areas relating to parks,

playgrounds and street trees2.8 Satisfaction with services - aspects of the local area cont/d

Q16

Provision of street trees Maintenance of street tress

Control of litter and rubbish

22% 22% 22% 25%

41% 36% 40%41%

25%25% 25% 21%

9% 12% 9% 9%

4% 5% 5% 5%

2015 (n=400) 2016 (n=409) 2017 (n=400) 2018 (n=398)

Very dissatisfied

Dissatisfied


Satisfied

Very satisfied

16% 16% 15% 17%

33% 33% 34%39%

31% 26% 29%22%

13%15% 16% 16%

7% 10% 7% 5%

2015 (n=400) 2016 (n=406) 2017 (n=399) 2018 (n=398)

23% 20% 20% 26%

46% 50% 46%50%

22% 20% 22%16%

5% 6% 9% 7%

3% 5% 3% 2%

2015 (n=401) 2016 (n=408) 2017 (n=404) 2018 (n=399)

T2B

T2B

PA

GE

35

Satisfaction with the provision of community

centres is moderate, improving from 20172.9 Satisfaction with services - provision of community centres, services and programs

20% 17% 18% 23%

50%46%

50%48%

27%32%

28% 26%

2% 5% 3% 2%

1% 1% 1% 1%

2015 (n=347) 2016 (n=327) 2017 (n=325) 2018 (n=314)

Very dissatisfied

Dissatisfied


Satisfied

Very satisfied


change

from 2017


Provision of community centres,

services and programs70 3 63 6 69 3 71 3 +2

Q18_1, Q2n17

Note that in 2017 provision of community centres, services and programs asked as a

separate question (Q2n17) and not included as part of Q18

PA

GE

36

Satisfaction with the provision of arts and cultural

performances remained at a similar level to 2017

Arts, leisure and community orientated programs and services

2.10 Satisfaction with services - arts and leisure


change

from 2017


The provision of arts and cultural

performances and activities, for

example art exhibitions, theatre

shows and events at the library

58 7 56 8 63 6 65 7 +2

Major events, for example Civic

Park Carols, Australia Day, Touch a

Truck and Civic Park Movies)

75 6 76 4 83 4 86 4 +3

Council's Recreation Centres 72 3 67 6 76 4 76 2 -

Waterworld 81 3 81 3 79 3 78 4 -1

Council's Library services 90 1 86 1 87 1 87 2 -

Q18

PA

GE

37

Satisfaction with the provision of arts and cultural

performances remained at a similar level to 20172.10 Satisfaction with services - arts and leisure cont/d

Q18

0% represents n=1

The provision of arts & cultural

performances & activities

16% 12%19% 25%

42% 44%44%

40%

34% 36%32% 28%

6% 7% 5% 5%

1% 1% 1% 2%

2015 (n=337) 2016 (n=301) 2017 (n=309) 2018 (n=266)

29% 29% 34%45%

46% 47%48%

41%

19% 20%14% 10%

4% 3% 2% 2%

1% 1% 1% 1%

2015 (n=376) 2016 (n=357) 2017 (n=353) 2018 (n=334)

Major events Council’s Recreation Centres

22% 19% 25% 26%

50%48%

51% 50%

26%28%

21% 22%

2% 5% 3% 2%

0% 1% 0% 1%

2015 (n=351) 2016 (n=323) 2017 (n=313) 2018 (n=287)

35% 32% 33% 33%

45% 49% 46% 45%

16% 16% 18% 18%

2% 3% 2% 3%

1% 0% 1% 1%

2015 (n=339) 2016 (n=311) 2017 (n=298) 2018 (n=287)

Very dissatisfied

Dissatisfied


Satisfied

Very satisfied

Waterworld Council’s Library services

51%42% 47% 50%

39%44%

41% 37%

9% 13% 11% 10%1% 1% 1% 2%

0% 0% 1%

2015 (n=375) 2016 (n=356) 2017 (n=348) 2018 (n=326)

PA

GE

38

Almost 3 in 10 residents neither agree nor disagree

they have opportunity to have a say; suggests level of

disengagement exists2.12 Agreement that you have opportunity to have a say on issues that affect your area

Q26a

12% 12% 15% 10%

46% 50% 39% 44%

28% 25%29% 29%

10% 10%13% 12%

4% 3% 4% 5%

2015 (n=391) 2016 (n=408) 2017 (n=387) 2018 (n=385)

Strongly disagree

Disagree

Neither agree nordisagree

Agree

Strongly agree


change

from 2017


Opportunity to have your say on

issues affecting your area58 15 62 13 53 17 54 17 +1

PA

GE

39

Waste/garbage collection is the most important service

provided by Council, followed by road maintenance2.17 Most important services provided by Council

Q29

Note: only responses of 4% and above in the 2018 total column are included

0% presents n=2 or less

% response

Total Most important 2nd most important 3rd most important

2015

(n=402)

2016

(n=412)

2017

(n=404)

2018

(n=400)

2015

(n=402)

2016

(n=412)

2017

(n=404)

2018

(n=398)

2015

(n=374)

2016

(n=395)

2017

(n=388)

2018

(n=394)

2015

(n=333)

2016

(n=380)

2017

(n=367)

2018

(n=371)

Waste/garbage collection 66 68 70 70 47 50 48 47 14 10 15 14 8 9 8 9

Roads/maintenance 29 33 36 40 8 9 14 15 13 15 15 16 11 10 9 9

Parks & reserves 39 36 37 35 9 7 6 6 17 16 17 17 16 14 16 13

Library 26 20 15 17 6 5 3 4 10 8 5 7 12 8 8 7

Footpaths 12 13 9 14 1 3 0 2 6 6 3 5 7 6 6 7

Street trees/maintenance 5 - 9 12 1 - 1 2 2 - 4 5 1 - 5 6

Events (e.g. Civic Park Carols,

Australia Day, Civic Park Movies)6 8 13 11 1 2 1 2 3 2 4 3 3 5 8 6

Don't know 2 - 9 8 2 - 3 1 - - 2 2 - - 5 5

Recycling 4 11 4 8 1 1 1 1 1 6 2 5 3 5 2 2

Playgrounds 4 7 3 8 0 0 0 2 1 3 2 3 4 4 2 4

Green waste 4 14 7 7 0 4 1 1 2 6 3 2 2 4 3 4

Hard waste collection 7 9 4 6 2 3 0 1 3 4 2 4 2 2 1 2

Street sweeping 3 3 5 5 0 1 1 3 2 1 3 2 2 2 2 1

Verge maintenance 4 5 8 5 1 0 1 1 2 2 3 2 2 3 5 2

Commonwealth Home Support

Program (formerly HACC) (Home

Assist, Indigenous program, Respite &

Carer Support Program, Lifestyle Links

Program)/health/aged care services

6 4 3 4 2 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 2

Community Centres (Holden Hill,

Surrey Downs, Jubilee & Greenwith)4 6 1 4 1 1 0 1 2 2 - 1 2 3 1 1

Recreation Centres/facilities (Golden

Grove, Turramurra, Burragah)7 8 5 4 1 1 2 1 2 2 2 1 4 6 1 2

PA

GE

40

Reflecting importance of services, prioritising road

maintenance is the main suggestion for improvement2.18 Suggestions for improvement

Q30

Note: 0% represents n=1

Only responses of 2% and above for 2018 are shown

% response

2015

(n=402)

2016

(n=412)

2017

(n=401)

2018

(n=400)

Road maintenance/line marking/median strips with access gaps/prioritise maintenance needs/lobby for

repairs on State roads7 6 6 11

Nothing/happy with everything 8 9 7 10Communication/kept updated/what they are doing/promote their services/more newsletters/emails/use of

social media9 5 15 6

Verges/better maintain verges/alternative to grass/council trees/clear branches overhanging footpaths/better

rubbish control3 2 6 5

Rubbish/green waste/recycling/reliable/collected more frequently/have larger/split/more public bins/offer free

dump runs/more environmentally friendly trucks2 5 3 5

Footpaths/on all roads/maintain/seal/not just those on main roads/make paths wheelchair/pram friendly 8 9 8 5

Listen to/consult with ratepayers/community forum/understand our needs/co-operate/be honest/transparent 7 5 4 5

Council rates/reduce/user pays system/find other ways to raise funds 1 5 4 5

Tree maintenance/employ good arborists/monitor dangerous trees/significant trees/change laws/more

leniency3 3 3 4

Parks and reserves better maintained/environmentally friendly/provide facilities such as turf/toilets/fountains 2 3 7 4Recreational facilities/provide more/maintain/upgrade/playgrounds/bike trails/paths/BBQ facilities/dog off the

lead areas/wheelchair swings/shaded areas/hiking trails3 5 5 3

Community events/programs/raise awareness/better variety/on weekends/appeal to all

demographics/wheelchair access2 1 2 3

Hard waste/more collections/have a depot/waste transfer station/coordinate bookings within the same area 3 1 3 3

Parking/improve residential areas/near sports facilities/schools/parks/off street/be flexible with residents 1 1 1 2

Street sweeping/more frequently/all roads 2 1 1 2

Plantings/look after/improve selection of trees council plant/native/replace dead trees/plan appropriately 1 0 1 2

Traffic control/stop hoon driving/roundabouts/reduce speed signs/advance notice for roadworks 1 1 2 2

Customer service/improve/remember who they serve/be more available/helpful/follow up/ensure staff are

adequately trained1 3 1 2

Don't know/can't think of anything 19 10 12 6

PA

GE

41

Community wellbeing has improved from 12

months ago2.19 Wellbeing - resident satisfaction with areas of their life

Q1N14

0% represents n=1


79.4


change

from 2017


Your standard of living 76 0 68 0 72 0 75 1 +3

Your health 71 1 66 1 67 2 68 2 +1

What you are currently achieving in life 68 2 66 2 66 2 68 2 +2

Your personal relationships 81 1 82 1 77 1 80 2 +3

How safe you feel 77 0 74 0 69 1 74 2 +5

Feeling part of your community 52 2 46 3 49 3 47 5 -2

Your future security 60 2 61 1 62 2 61 3 -1

Your spirituality or religion (if applicable) 66 3 64 7 67 5 67 3 -

Life as a whole 81 - 77 1 75 2 77 2 +2

Up from 77.9 in 2017

PA

GE

42

81% 82% 77% 80%

18% 17% 22% 18%

1% 1% 1% 2%

2015 (n=390) 2016 (n=404) 2017 (n=387) 2018 (n=382)

72% 66% 64% 67%

27%32% 29% 28%

1% 3%7% 5%

2014 (n=196) 2015 (n=219) 2016 (n=226) 2017 (n=209)

Your spirituality or religion (if applicable) Dissatisfied (rating 0-2)

Neutral (rating 3-7)

Satisfied (rating 8-10)


months ago2.19 Wellbeing - resident satisfaction with areas of their life cont/d

Q1N14

0% represents n=1

76%68% 72% 75%

24%32% 28% 24%

0% 0% 0% 1%

2015 (n=400) 2016 (n=411) 2017 (n=397) 2018 (n=394)

Your standard of living Your health

71% 66% 67% 68%

27% 32% 31% 30%

1% 1% 2% 2%

2015 (n=399) 2016 (n=410) 2017 (n=391) 2018 (n=394)

68% 66% 66% 68%

30% 32% 32% 30%

2% 2% 2% 2%

2015 (n=398) 2016 (n=406) 2017 (n=388) 2018 (n=391)

What you are currently achieving

in lifeYour personal relationships

PA

GE

43

77% 74% 69% 74%

23% 26% 30% 24%

0% 0% 1% 2%

2015 (n=401) 2016 (n=411) 2017 (n=400) 2018 (n=398)

52% 46% 49% 47%

46%51% 49% 49%

2% 3% 3% 5%

2015 (n=397) 2016 (n=406) 2017 (n=397) 2018 (n=395)


months ago2.19 Wellbeing - resident satisfaction with areas of their life cont/d

How safe you feel Feeling part of your community Your futures security

60% 61% 62% 61%

38% 38% 35% 36%

2% 1% 2% 3%

2015 (n=392) 2016 (n=403) 2017 (n=394) 2018 (n=390)

72% 66% 64% 67%

27%32% 29% 28%

1% 3%7% 5%

2014 (n=196) 2015 (n=219) 2016 (n=226) 2017 (n=209)

Your spirituality or religion (if applicable) Dissatisfied (rating 0-2)



66% 64% 67% 67%

32% 29% 28% 29%

3% 7% 5% 3%

2015 (n=219) 2016 (n=226) 2017 (n=209) 2018 (n=209)

Your spirituality or religion (if applicable)

81% 77% 75% 77%

19% 23% 23% 22%

1% 2% 2%

2015 (n=398) 2016 (n=409) 2017 (n=394) 2018 (n=393)

Q1N14

0% represents n=1

Life as a whole

PA

GE

44

Resident profile2.20 Demographic profile of residents cont/d

Q32

0% represents 2 or less

Suburb of residence

% response

2015

(n=402)

2016

(n=412)

2017

(n=405)

2018

(n=400)

Wynn Vale 9 10 9 13

Greenwith 7 14 10 12

Highbury 7 9 7 8

Modbury North 5 6 6 7

Redwood Park 6 5 6 6

Golden Grove - West of Golden Grove Road 9 2 7 6

Hope Valley - East of Reservoir Road 7 2 5 5

St Agnes 5 7 6 5

Modbury 4 3 6 5

Banksia Park 2 3 4 4

Dernancourt 2 4 5 4

Fairview Park 3 4 3 4

Modbury Heights 7 7 7 4

Golden Grove - East of Golden Grove Road 5 2 4 4

Holden Hill 3 3 2 3

Ridgehaven 4 5 4 3

Tea Tree Gully 3 4 2 2

Surrey Downs 2 2 1 2

Valley View 1 1 1 2

Gilles Plains 2 2 1 1

Hope Valley - West of Reservoir Road 1 1 0 1

Vista 1 - 0 1

Houghton 0 0 0 0

Para Hills 0 0 1 0

Yatala Vale 0 0 0 0

Paracombe 0 - - 0

PA

GE

45

7%

8%

7%

21%

20%

20%

17% 18 to 24

25 to 34

35 to 39

40 to 49

50 to 59

60 to 69

70 plus

Resident profile2.20 Demographic profile of residents cont/d

Q5, Q4, Qward

48%

52%

Gender

(n=400)

17%

18%

16%

16%

17%

17%

Ward

(n=400)Age – CATI (n=300)

Age – Social Media (n=100)

28%

31%

15%

7%

6%

8%5%

18 to 24

25 to 34

35 to 39

40 to 49

50 to 59

60 to 69

70 plus

SECTION 3

Key findings

Panel Data

Note: Panel members, by nature of their membership,

have an increased familiarity of Council and its

services due to the Council surveys they participate

in, as well as (for some) a higher level of involvement

in their community. Panel members also often join

with specific areas of interest, such as the

environment, and this may contribute to their

differing responses. It is also felt that panel members

often have higher expectations of Council’s

performance, which may explain a trend for panel

members to sometimes be less inclined to provide

‘top 2 box’ or very satisfied ratings in some areas.

PA

GE

47

Waste/garbage collection continues to be the

most important service that Council provides3.1 Council services

Q29

As seen with the results for the general public (phone and social media), waste collection, roads, parks & reserves,

footpaths and the Library were among the most important services provided by Council

» Waste/garbage collection is the standout service in terms of importance, cited by almost half of panel residents surveyed (49%).

The next most important service was roads, mentioned by just 14%, followed by parks and reserves (6%) and footpaths and the

Library (both 4%)

» The top 3 most important services provided by Council remained unchanged over the past 12 months, however footpaths and

the Library increased over the past 12 months

» In 2017, the overall appearance/street maintenance/tidiness of the local area was the 4th most important service provided

(which was a change from previous years). In 2018, although it was mentioned by a similar proportion as in 2017 (3% in both

years) it achieved a lower, 5th, position. This could reflect the positive change in satisfaction with factors relating to the

appearance of the local area (maintenance of verges, street trees, control of litter and rubbish etc), suggesting that if res idents

are more satisfied with this service, it may not be as top of mind. However it’s important to note that whilst satisfaction w ith

these elements has improved, they are still classed as ‘low satisfaction’.

Importance(first mentioned)

2017 2018

Waste/garbage collection 1st 1st

Roads 2nd 2nd

Parks & reserves =3rd 3rd

Footpaths =6th =4th

Library =7th =4th

PA

GE

48

6% 7% 11% 14%

57% 51%55%

56%

25% 33%24%

22%

11%7% 8% 6%

2% 2% 2% 1%

2015 (n=329) 2016 (n=269) 2017 (n=387) 2018 (n=338)

Very dissatisfied

Dissatisfied


Satisfied

Very satisfied

7 in 10 are satisfied with Council’s performance, with poor

verge maintenance the main contributor to dissatisfaction3.2 Overall satisfaction with Council performance

Overall satisfaction with the performance has

continued to improve

» 70% of panel members are satisfied overall with

Council’s performance, increasing from 67% in 2017

(after a significant increase was recorded in 2017)

Reasons for dissatisfaction (n=24)

» As seen in 2017, poor maintenance of verges/

parks/ reserves/ litter/ broken glass/ dying grass/

plants/ overhanging trees was the main reason

provided for being dissatisfied with Council’s

performance (mentioned by n=6 panel members)

» Other reasons included:

– Don't spend money unwisely/waste on

executive pay packets/poor decision making/

travel (mentioned by 5 people)

– High council rates/poor value for money/

regardless of property value/increased for

business/vacant blocks (mentioned by 4

people)

63% 58%67% 70% 71%

54%

2015(n=329)

2016(n=269)

2017(n=387)

2018(n=338)

SA CouncilBenchmark

NationalCouncil

Benchmark

% T

2B

satisfa

ction

69%65%

62%

71%

63%58%

67% 70%

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

PA

GE

49

Footpaths and verges continue to be main

areas for improvement3.3 Satisfaction with Council Services

Council Services

» All Council services have been classified into categories based on satisfaction scores (T2B –

combined very satisfied or satisfied)

» The top performing areas for panel members relate to waste services, while footpaths and roadside

verges are the main areas for improvement

Areas of very high satisfaction

• Waste collection service overall

• Green waste collection

• Council's Library services

Areas of high satisfaction

• Recycling services

• Provision of parks, reserves

and playing fields

• Maintenance of parks,

reserves and playing fields

Areas of relatively high

satisfaction

• Provision of playgrounds

• Maintenance of playgrounds

• Major Events

• Council's Recreation Centres

• Waterworld

• Opportunity to have your say

• Provision of community centres,

services and programs

Areas of moderate satisfaction

• Condition of main roads

• Provision of street trees

• Control of litter and rubbish

• The provision of arts and

cultural performances and

activities

• Hard waste collection

Areas of relatively low

satisfaction

• Condition of local or

residential roads

• Provision of footpaths in your

local area

• Maintenance of street trees

Areas of low satisfaction

• Maintenance of footpaths in your

local area

• Appearance of roadside verges in

your local area

Top

performing

areas (Panel):

Areas for

improvement

(Panel):

PA

GE

50

The largest changes in satisfaction over the

past 12 months3.4 Largest changes in satisfaction with Council Services over the past 12 months

Largest

improvements

2017 2018 Diff

Provision of footpaths in your local areaT2B 44% 56% +12

B2B 38% 28% -10

The provision of arts and cultural performances and

activities, for example art exhibitions, theatre shows and

events at the library

T2B 59% 68% +9

B2B 4% 5% +1

Control of litter and rubbishT2B 59% 68% +9

B2B 19% 14% -5

Appearance of roadside verges in your local areaT2B 36% 44% +8

B2B 43% 34% -9

Maintenance of street treesT2B 46% 54% +8

B2B 29% 22% -7

Maintenance of parks, reserves and playing fieldsT2B 73% 80% +7

B2B 12% 10% -2

Maintenance of footpaths in your local areaT2B 40% 45% +5

B2B 37% 29% -8

Largest declines

There were no major declines in satisfaction with services among

panel members in 2018.

As seen with results for the general public (phone and social media sample), ALL services

improved, with the exception of the following which saw no change or minimal decline:

» Condition of main roads (60%, down by 3%)

» Condition of local or residential roads (56%, down 1%)

» Opportunity to have your say (70%, down 1%)

» Waste collection service overall (92%, no change)

» Provision of community centres, services and programs (71%, no change)

And there were a number of services that saw large improvements in satisfaction, as well as

smaller numbers of dissatisfied responses:

PA

GE

51

Satisfaction with spirituality or religion the only

wellbeing element to increase3.5 Community wellbeing

Once again, feeling part of the community continues to be the lowest area of satisfaction among panel residents

» As noted in 2017, this lower level of satisfaction is not due to high levels of dissatisfaction, rather a large neutral proportion.

This wellbeing factor continues to be higher among panel members than the general community (phone and social media

respondents)

– Residents aged 60+ were statistically significantly more likely to feel part of their community

» All factors aside from spirituality or religion have decreased in satisfaction over the past 12 months, however due to the large

increase seen for spirituality or religion, the overall wellbeing index score is up slightly from 2017 (79.9, compared to 79.6)

» Despite the declining factors, panel residents continue to be happier overall compared to the general community (79.9

wellbeing score, vs 79.4 among the general community)

» As seen with the general community, there were some differences by age and gender, with females being more satisfied with

their health, while older respondents (60+) were more likely than younger respondents to be satisfied with their life as a whole,

their personal relationships and feeling part of the community

2015 2016 2017 2018 T3B% change

from 2017T3B% B3B% T3B% B3B% T3B% B3B% T3B% B3B%

Your standard of living 69 2 73 1 75 1 74 1 -1

Your health 60 2 62 1 68 2 62 2 -6

What you are currently achieving in life 69 2 67 1 71 1 71 2 -

Your personal relationships 79 1 77 2 81 1 80 1 -1

How safe you feel 65 2 72 1 69 2 68 2 -1



Your spirituality or religion (if applicable) 66 1 69 2 68 1 75 2 +7

Life as a whole 74 1 76 1 77 1 75 1 -2

SECTION 4

Full resultsPanel data

PA

GE

53

6% 7% 11% 14%

57% 51%55%

56%

25% 33%24%

22%

11%7% 8% 6%

2% 2% 2% 1%

2015 (n=329) 2016 (n=269) 2017 (n=387) 2018 (n=338)

Very dissatisfied

Dissatisfied


Satisfied

Very satisfied

Satisfaction with Council has improved over

the past 12 months4.1 Satisfaction with Council’s performance overall

Q11

70% T2B67%58%63%

PA

GE

54

Main reason for dissatisfaction relates to poor maintenance

on visual aspects of the area

4.2 Reasons for dissatisfaction with Council’s performance overall

Q12

% response

2015

(n=37)

2016

(n=24)

2017

(n=37)

2018

(n=24)

Poor maintenance of verges/parks/reserves/litter/broken glass/dying grass/plants/overhanging trees 22 17 27 25

Don't spend money wisely/waste on executive pay packets/poor decision making/travel - - 11 21

High council rates/poor value for money/regardless of property value/increased for business/vacant

blocks14 25 14 17

Roads/poorly maintained/designed/flood 3 8 5 13

Poor response time/need to follow Council up/no action taken - - 14 13

Services received minimal/does not justify rates paid/only service received is garbage collection - - 3 13

Footpaths/poorly maintained/uneven/lack of/none on either side of the road for years 14 17 14 8

Don't listen to the community/not consulted on key issues which affect us - - 11 8

Customer service/poor/unhelpful/rude 8 - 8 8

Communication/poor/don't keep us informed/no information/feedback provided regarding

issues/complaints5 17 3 8

Distribution of resources/should do so more effectively/unequal/given to newer areas for

maintenance/older/rural areas forgotten8 21 11 8

Poor development decisions/no regard for environment or existing residents/should not develop farm land

into residential zone/subdivision/rezone to allow multi-storey buildings5 4 3 8

Ongoing issues with neighbourhood dogs/not resolved - - - 4

Neighbour disputes/issues not resolved/unfair - - - 4

Rubbish bins/split bin system are too small/taken too long to update system - - - 4

Waste removal not available/frequently enough - - - 4

Street cleaning/maintenance not often enough/should be done after storms/rubbish collection not before 14 4 3 4

Don't do enough/what they say they will/only the bare minimum/all talk no action 3 13 14 4

Poor financial management/debt council is in/too high/affects completion of projects/selling off land - - - 4

Hard refuse collection/would like more frequently - - - 4

Overall maintenance/presentation of area/poor - - - 4

Animal control/stray cats/council should collect once trapped - - - 4

Parks lacking in this area 3 4 - 4

Building approval process/takes too long 3 - - 4

Rubbish removal/requests for rubbish removal unheeded - 4 - 4

Rates are high/have gone up/but the services provided have remained the same/reduced/do not equate - - 5 4

PA

GE

55


well, with the exception of hard waste collection4.3 Satisfaction with Services - waste collection service

Q14

» As with the general community results (phone and social media sample), satisfaction with hard waste collection was lower than

other waste services. This is due to a large portion of neutral respondents (perhaps suggesting lower usage), as well as a larger

portion of dissatisfied respondents

– Dissatisfaction comes from frequency of collections, with many believing there should be more frequent collections

Panel2015 2016 2017 2018 T2B%

change


Green waste collection 89 6 91 6 90 6 92 3 +2

Recycling services 89 5 88 4 88 5 89 2 +1

Hard waste collection - - - - - - 60 18 N/A

Waste collection service overall 93 4 91 3 92 4 92 3 -

PA

GE

56

41% 42% 42% 38%

48% 45% 47% 51%

6% 8% 6% 9%2% 4% 3% 2%

2% 1% 2% 1%

2015 (n=328) 2016 (n=267) 2017 (n=387) 2018 (n=335)


well, with the exception of hard waste collection4.3 Satisfaction with Services - waste collection service cont/d

Q14

44% 47% 44% 41%

49% 44% 48% 50%

4% 6% 4% 5%2% 2% 2% 2%

2% 1% 1% 1%

2015 (n=330) 2016 (n=269) 2017 (n=389) 2018 (n=338)

Verydissatisfied

Dissatisfied


Satisfied

Very satisfied

Waste collection services overall

44% 45% 44% 42%

45% 46% 46% 50%

5% 4%3%

5%4% 5%

5% 2%2% 1% 2% 1%

2015 (n=325) 2016 (n=267) 2017 (n=385) 2018 (n=337)

Green waste collection

Recycling services

22%

38%

22%

12%

6%

2018 (n=312)

Hard waste collection

PA

GE

57

Residents praise an efficient service, but want

more frequent collections4.3 Satisfaction with services - reasons for rating for hard waste collection services

Q1N18

0% represents n=1

New question in 2018

% response – Q14 – Hard waste collection

Very satisfied/

satisfied

(n=186)

Neither

satisfied nor

dissatisfied

(n=69)

Very

dissatisfied/

dissatisfied

(n=57)

Don't know

(n=26)

Efficient/prompt service/no issues 55 10 2 -

Not enough collection days a year/wait time too long 12 25 49 8

Two pickups per year is suitable 10 3 - -

Other (unrelated to hard waste) 7 6 5 4

Useful/saves effort of going to dump 6 - - -

People put out too early/unsightly 5 3 5 -

Other Council's don't provide service/charge for it 4 - - -

Haven't used the service/not for a long time 4 42 - 88

Customer service/helpful 3 - 2 -

Only take specific items 2 4 9 -

Don't know 2 1 - -

Positive word of mouth (e.g. neighbours) 2 1 - -

Late/delayed/inconsistent time 1 - 4 -

Difficult/hassle to organise 1 3 5 -

Don't know enough information 1 12 2 8

Don't have a need for the service 1 - - -

Size restrictions/difficult to judge/cut to right size 1 3 28 -

Leave rubbish behind 1 3 7 -

Missed our street/no pickup 1 - 2 -

No set dates 1 - 2 -

People add to pile/make over-size 1 - 5 -

Poor customer service - - 5 -

Bad experience (unspecified) - 1 - -

PA

GE

58

Significant increases in satisfaction seen for

footpaths and verges4.4 Satisfaction with Services - roads and footpaths

Q15

2015 2016 2017 2018 T2B%

change


Condition of local or residential roads 59 20 58 19 57 21 56 24 -1

Condition of main roads (generally dual

lane roads and high traffic roads)65 18 61 20 63 20 60 23 -3

Provision of footpaths in your local area 47 36 46 33 44 38 56 28 +12↑

Maintenance of footpaths in your local area 35 36 41 35 40 37 45 29 +5


local area30 44 32 37 36 43 44 34 +8↑

PA

GE

59

7% 10% 9% 10%

58% 51% 54% 50%

17% 20% 17% 17%

14% 14% 16% 19%

4% 6% 4% 4%

2015 (n=330) 2016 (n=269) 2017 (n=388) 2018 (n=338)

4% 8% 7% 8%

55% 50% 50% 48%

22% 23% 22% 20%

15% 16% 18% 18%

4% 4% 4% 6%

2015 (n=330) 2016 (n=269) 2017 (n=389) 2018 (n=336)

Significant increases in satisfaction seen for footpaths

and verges4.4 Satisfaction with Services - roads and footpaths cont/d

Q15

Condition of local or residential

roadsCondition of main roads Provision of footpaths in your local area

Maintenance of footpaths in your local area Appearance of roads and verges in your local area

3% 6% 8% 6%

33%35% 32% 40%

28%24% 23%

26%

22% 22% 25%20%

14% 13% 12% 8%

2015 (n=328) 2016 (n=265) 2017 (n=376) 2018 (n=334)

Very dissatisfied

Dissatisfied


Satisfied

Very satisfied

5% 4% 7% 7%

26% 28% 29%37%

25%30% 21%

22%

26%22%

29%23%

18% 15% 15% 11%

2015 (n=328) 2016 (n=267) 2017 (n=385) 2018 (n=335)

5% 9% 9% 8%

42% 37% 35%47%

16%21%

18%

17%

21% 21%24%

17%

16% 12% 14% 11%

2015 (n=329) 2016 (n=266) 2017 (n=385) 2018 (n=334)

T2B

T2B

PA

GE

60

Aspects of the local area have all improved,

particularly the control of litter and rubbish4.6 Satisfaction with Services - aspects of local area

Q16

Panel

2015 2016 2017 2018 T2B%

change

from

2017T2B% B2B% T2B% B2B% T2B% B2B% T2B% B2B%

Provision of parks, reserves and playing fields 80 8 81 7 83 4 84 4 +1

Maintenance of parks, reserves and playing fields 69 15 72 10 73 12 80 10 +7↑

Provision of playgrounds 69 11 73 9 75 7 77 5 +2

Maintenance of playgrounds 68 7 70 7 72 5 75 5 +2

Provision of street trees 58 19 58 19 62 19 64 17 +2

Maintenance of street trees 42 32 45 25 46 29 54 22 +8↑

Control of litter and rubbish 58 21 60 14 59 19 68 14 +9↑

PA

GE

61

12% 9% 12% 13%

50% 50% 46% 49%

19% 22% 23% 19%

13% 15% 14% 13%

5% 5% 4% 6%

2014 (n=277) 2015 (n=329) 2016 (n=267) 2017 (n=388)

Provision of street trees

Very dissatisfied

Dissatisfied

Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied

Satisfied

Very satisfied


particularly the control of litter and rubbish4.6 Satisfaction with Services - aspects of local area cont/d

Q16

Provision of parks, reserves and playing

fieldsMaintenance of parks, reserves and

playing fields

Provision of playgrounds Maintenance of playgrounds

18% 26% 28% 23%

62%55% 56% 61%

12% 12% 13% 12%6% 5% 3% 3%2% 2% 1% 1%

2015 (n=328) 2016 (n=267) 2017 (n=387) 2018 (n=334)

11% 22% 23% 20%

58%51% 50% 60%

16%17% 16% 11%

12% 8% 10% 7%

3% 2% 1% 3%

2015 (n=327) 2016 (n=269) 2017 (n=385) 2018 (n=333)

13% 19% 24% 21%

56%54% 51% 56%

20% 18% 18% 18%10% 7% 6% 4%

1% 2% 1% 1%

2015 (n=308) 2016 (n=257) 2017 (n=369) 2018 (n=319)11%

18% 23% 22%

58%52% 49% 53%

25% 23% 23% 21%

6% 6% 4% 3%2% 1% 1% 2%

2015 (n=302) 2016 (n=250) 2017 (n=362) 2018 (n=310)

T2B

PA

GE

62


particularly the control of litter and rubbish4.6 Satisfaction with Services - aspects of local area cont/d

Q16

Provision of street trees Maintenance of street trees

Control of litter and rubbish

9% 12% 13% 16%

50% 46% 49% 49%

22% 23% 19% 19%

15% 14% 13%13%

5% 4% 6% 3%

2015 (n=329) 2016 (n=267) 2017 (n=388) 2018 (n=332)

Very dissatisfied

Dissatisfied


Satisfied

Very satisfied 5% 9% 10% 11%

36% 36% 36%43%

26%31% 25%

24%

24%19%

22%17%

9% 6% 7% 5%

2015 (n=329) 2016 (n=265) 2017 (n=387) 2018 (n=334)

7% 11% 9% 12%

51% 48% 50%57%

21%26% 22%

18%13%

9%14%

11%

8% 5% 5% 3%

2015 (n=330) 2016 (n=267) 2017 (n=385) 2018 (n=336)

T2B

T2B

PA

GE

63

Satisfaction with the provision of community

centres remains moderately high4.7 Satisfaction with Services - provision of community centres, services and programs

2015 2016 2017 2018 T2B%

change


Provision of community centres,

services and programs69 2 65 5 71 3 71 3 -

Q18_1, Q2n17

Note that in 2017 provision of community centres, services and programs asked as a

separate question (Q2n17) and not included as part of Q18

0% represents n=1

12% 13% 15% 16%

58% 53%56% 55%

29%30% 26% 26%

2% 3% 3% 3%

2% 1% 0%

2015 (n=298) 2016 (n=240) 2017 (n=337) 2018 (n=282)

Very dissatisfied

Dissatisfied


Satisfied

Very satisfied

PA

GE

64

A significant improvement in satisfaction with the

provision of arts & cultural activities, however still an

area for improvement4.8 Satisfaction with Services - Arts & Leisure

Q18

0% represents n=1

2015 2016 2017 2018 T2B%

change


The provision of arts and cultural

performances and activities, for

example art exhibitions, theatre

shows and events at the library

59 3 57 8 59 4 68 5 +9↑

Major events, for example Civic

Park Carols, Australia Day, Touch a

Truck and Civic Park Movies)

70 3 66 5 74 3 78 4 +4

Council's Recreation Centres 71 2 69 3 68 0 75 1 +7

Waterworld 70 3 66 3 68 3 71 3 +3

Council's Library services 88 1 85 1 89 0 91 1 +2

PA

GE

65

11%11% 15% 20%

60% 58% 53%54%

27% 29% 31% 25%

2% 3% 0% 0%0%

2015 (n=294) 2016 (n=236) 2017 (n=334) 2018 (n=272)

14% 17% 23% 26%

56% 48%51%

52%

28% 29%24% 18%

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

2015 (n=309) 2016 (n=248) 2017 (n=351) 2018 (n=299)

8% 11% 12% 19%

51% 46% 48%49%

38% 35% 36%28%

2% 6% 4% 3%

1% 2% 1% 2%

2015 (n=291) 2016 (n=237) 2017 (n=329) 2018 (n=279)

A significant improvement in satisfaction with the provision

of arts & cultural activities, however still an area for

improvement4.8 Satisfaction with Services - Arts & Leisure cont/d

Q18

0% represents n=1

Provision of arts and cultural

performances and activitiesEvents and entertainment Council’s Recreation Centres

Waterworld Council’s Library services

17% 20% 21% 23%

54% 45% 48% 48%

27% 31% 29% 26%

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

2015 (n=271) 2016 (n=211) 2017 (n=315) 2018 (n=249)

Very dissatisfied

Dissatisfied


Satisfied

Very satisfied

43% 45% 44% 46%

45% 40% 45% 45%

11% 14% 11% 8%1% 1%

0% 1%0%

2015 (n=305) 2016 (n=249) 2017 (n=355) 2018 (n=309)

T2B

PA

GE

66

7 in 10 community panel members agree they

have the opportunity to have a say4.10 Agreement that you have opportunity to have a say on issues that affect your area

Q26a

0% represents n=1

2015 2016 2017 2018 T2B%

change


Opportunity to have your say on

issues affecting your area70 13 71 11 71 13 70 10 -1

16% 15% 17% 17%

54% 56% 54% 53%

17% 18% 15% 20%

11% 9%10% 8%

2% 2% 3% 2%

2015 (n=327) 2016 (n=263) 2017 (n=375) 2018 (n=335)

Strongly disagree

Disagree

Neither agree nordisagree

Agree

Strongly agree

PA

GE

67

Waste collection the most important service

provided by Council4.15 Most important services provided by Council

Q29

Note: only responses of 1% and above in the 2018 total column are included

0% represents n=1

% response – Most important service

2015

(n=326)

2016

(n=269)

2017

(n=380)

2018

(n=338)

Waste/garbage collection 48 50 50 49

Roads/maintenance 12 12 10 14

Parks & reserves 4 4 4 6

Footpaths 2 1 1 4

Library 4 3 0 4

Overall appearance/street maintenance/tidiness of the local area 2 4 3 3

Safety/security/law and order/emergency mitigation 3 2 3 2

Community Centres (Holden Hill, Surrey Downs, Jubilee & Greenwith) - 1 0 1

Street trees/maintenance 1 - 1 1

Infrastructure/maintenance 2 0 3 1

Street lighting 0 2 - 1

City planning/urban design/strategic direction 2 - 1 1

Community services/programs/support 3 - - 1

Green waste 1 0 2 1

Commonwealth Home Support Program (formerly HACC) (Home Assist, Indigenous program, Respite &

Carer Support Program, Lifestyle Links Program)/health/aged care services1 1 1 1

Playgrounds - - 0 1

Recycling 0 1 1 1

Council rates/allocation of rate payer's funds/value for money 1 2 2 1

Community Bus/Transport Service 1 - 0 1

Development Approvals - - 0 1

Recreation Centres/facilities (Golden Grove, Turramurra, Burragah) 0 1 1 1

Events (e.g. Civic Park Carols, Australia Day, Civic Park Movies) - 1 1 1

Verge maintenance 1 1 1 1

Hard waste collection 1 1 1 1

Governance/budget management/financial sustainability/advocacy for residents 1 - 2 1

Effluent systems/septic tanks/removal 0 1 - 1

PA

GE

68

Road maintenance also highly important to

residents4.15 2nd and 3rd most important services

Q29

0% represents n=1

2nd most important service 3rd most important service

PA

GE

69

Roads, trees and parks broad themes mentioned

for improvement4.16 Suggestions for improvement

Q30

PA

GE

70

Community wellbeing has dropped off across

most metrics4.17 Panel member satisfaction with areas of their life

Q1N14

2015 2016 2017 2018 T3B%

change


Your standard of living 69 2 73 1 75 1 74 1 -1

Your health 60 2 62 1 68 2 62 2 -6

What you are currently achieving in life 69 2 67 1 71 1 71 2 -

Your personal relationships 79 1 77 2 81 1 80 1 -1

How safe you feel 65 2 72 1 69 2 68 2 -1



Your spirituality or religion (if applicable) 66 1 69 2 68 1 75 2 +7

Life as a whole 74 1 76 1 77 1 75 1 -2

PA

GE

71

Community wellbeing4.17 Panel member satisfaction with areas of their life cont/d

Q1N14

Your standard of living Your health

69% 73% 75% 74%

29% 26% 25% 25%

2% 1% 1% 1%

2015 (n=324) 2016 (n=261) 2017 (n=377) 2018 (n=334)

60% 62% 68% 62%

37% 37% 30% 36%

2% 1% 2% 2%

2015 (n=321) 2016 (n=261) 2017 (n=379) 2018 (n=334)Dissatisfied (0-2)


Satisfied (rating 8-10)What you are currently achieving in life

69% 67% 71% 71%

29% 32% 28% 27%

2% 1% 1% 2%

2015 (n=318) 2016 (n=257) 2017 (n=369) 2018 (n=332)

Your personal relationships

79% 77% 81% 80%

19% 22% 18% 19%

1% 2% 1% 1%

2015 (n=317) 2016 (n=253) 2017 (n=373) 2018 (n=328)

PA

GE

72

74% 76% 77% 75%

25% 23% 22% 24%

1% 1% 1% 1%

2015 (n=321) 2016 (n=257) 2017 (n=377) 2018 (n=333)

Dissatisfied (0-2)



49% 54% 53% 52%

48% 43% 45% 46%

3% 3% 2% 2%

2015 (n=323) 2016 (n=257) 2017 (n=375) 2018 (n=334)

65%72% 69% 68%

34%27% 29% 30%

2% 1% 2% 2%

2015 (n=327) 2016 (n=259) 2017 (n=381) 2018 (n=335)

Community wellbeing4.17 Panel member satisfaction with areas of their life cont/d

Q1N14

How safe you feel Feeling part of your community Your futures security

Your spirituality or religion

59% 55%61% 59%

38% 42%35% 38%

3% 4% 4% 3%

2015 (n=322) 2016 (n=255) 2017 (n=375) 2018 (n=334)

66% 69% 68%75%

34% 29% 31% 23%

1% 2% 1% 2%

2015 (n=181) 2016 (n=131) 2017 (n=216) 2018 (n=209)

Life as a whole

PA

GE

73

Respondent profile4.18 Demographic profile of panel sample cont/d

Q32

0% represents n=1

Suburb of residence

% response

2015

(n=330)

2016

(n=269)

2017

(n=389)

2018

(n=338)

Highbury 7 16 11 12

Modbury Heights 15 10 10 12

Modbury 4 3 4 7

Wynn Vale 5 7 7 7

Banksia Park 6 6 6 6

Surrey Downs 4 9 7 6

Modbury North 7 3 4 5

Hope Valley - East of Reservoir Road 6 4 4 5

Greenwith 6 6 6 5

St Agnes 3 3 4 5

Fairview Park 4 8 7 4

Redwood Park 5 3 5 4

Ridgehaven 4 4 4 4

Tea Tree Gully 5 3 4 4

Dernancourt 2 6 4 3

Golden Grove - West of Golden Grove Road 5 2 2 3

Holden Hill 1 1 2 2

Valley View 1 1 2 1

Golden Grove - East of Golden Grove Road 2 1 4 1

Hope Valley - West of Reservoir Road - 0 0 1

Gilles Plains 1 0 0 1

Yatala Vale 1 1 0 1

Vista 1 0 1 1

Houghton 1 0 1 0

Paracombe 0 0 0 0

PA

GE

74

Respondent profile4.18 Demographic profile of panel sample cont/d

Q5, Q4

Qward

45%

55%

Gender

(n=338)

Age – (n=338)

23%

20%

13%

17%

19%

8%

(n=338)

1%

6%5%

16%

19%25%

30%

18 to 24

25 to 34

35 to 39

40 to 49

50 to 59

60 to 69

70 plus

PA

GE

75

Roads and footpaths

Roads is an area that tends to record lower satisfaction levels from the community, however in 2018 satisfaction with the

condition of main roads increased significantly – up 8% to 59% (combined very satisfied and satisfied scores). While not

considered statistically significant, satisfaction with local or residential roads has also increased by 5% to 59%. When

comparing with results from Community Panel respondents, satisfaction with condition of main roads is similar at 60%; local

and residential roads slightly lower at 56%.

Council has completed significant reseal and upgrade works on Balmoral Road and sections of Kelly Road over last two years.

This may have contributed to increased positive perceptions of the condition of our main roads, even though these particular

roads are the responsibility of Council and the ‘main roads’ survey question is intended to refer to State Government roads. In

the 2017-2018 financial year we made significant investment in our local and residential roads including $1.9m in

reconstruction work and $2.8m in resealing of roads.

In addition, the announcement and completion of highly visible major roadwork projects, in particular in the Modbury precinct

(including Ladywood Road, Smart Road and Reservoir Road), partnered with a revised approach to communicating key

milestones through traditional and digital channels, may have also had a positive impact on community perceptions of our

roads. We have also made efforts to use social media as a customer service tool to answer resident questions in real time,

including questions relating to roadwork projects.

Our asset management plan for roads provides information on the funding required to maintain our roads at the required level

of service, in the most cost effective manner, for present and future communities. The asset management plan is a key

component of Council’s Long Term Financial Plan as we seek to match the perceived service needs of the community with our

ability to pay for them, and therefore optimise community benefits within budgetary constraints.

We will continue to use recently collected condition information on roads, kerbs and gutters, line marking and guard fences to

help us identify the roads that are in most need of attention, as well as continue to work closely with the State and Federal

Governments and advocate for improved main roads in our area.

Council’s response to key resultsSection prepared by Council staff

PA

GE

76

Similar to roads, footpaths is an area that consistently receives lower satisfaction scores from the community. However in 2018

a significant 10% increase in satisfaction with both the provision and maintenance of footpaths was recorded – up to 59% and

53% respectively. Panel respondents were also more satisfied with footpaths – satisfaction with provision of footpaths

increased significantly from 44% to 56%, and satisfaction with maintenance of footpaths increased by 5% to 45%.

These increases in satisfaction may be attributed to a significant $6m investment in the provision of new footpaths (and our

communication and promotion of this). Over the last two years the State Government has contributed $3m towards footpath

construction; Council has contributed $2m so far, with a further $1m planned for the 2018-2019 financial year. This funding has

gone towards the construction of 36kms of footpaths across the City and is due to be completed by 30 June 2019. This project

also incorporates renewal of the O-Bahn Shared Use Path from O-Bahn Linear Park North near Apalie Drive, Modbury to

Lyons Road, Dernancourt, following the O-Bahn track. This work involves concreting and widening the existing asphalt path

and is also due for completion by 30 June 2019.

A new footpath policy (to replace the 2014 Footpath Construction Strategy) is currently being drafted, and will provide

guidelines around how we construct and maintain our footpaths, providing more clarity to the community around how we do this

work.

We will continue to be proactive about informing the community when and where we are working on roads and footpaths. This

includes promoting footpath maintenance work being undertaken, as well as visible Council branding at our worksites to raise

awareness of the work our crews and contractors do. Project details, including major road reconstruction projects, will continue

to be promoted through appropriate communication channels.

Council’s Response to Key ResultsSection prepared by Council staff

PA

GE

77

Litter and rubbish

We were pleased to see a significant increase in our community’s satisfaction with control of litter and rubbish – up 9% to 75%.

Community Panel respondents were also more satisfied with satisfaction increasing significantly to 68% (up 9% as well).

Although our practices with waste management in our parks and reserves has remained unchanged, it may be that our focus

over the last two years in educating our community about illegal dumping of waste has had an impact on perceptions on litter

and rubbish control in general. Our ‘Tiger Taping’ campaign is aimed at appealing to the vigilance of the community about this

issue, and educating people on suitable alternatives to disposing of waste including:

• Enviro Care Sunday

• Hard waste bookings

• E-waste options

Residents are also able to report instances of illegal dumping via Council’s website or by calling our customer service number.

Since 2016 we believe this campaign has had a positive impact. We have recorded a number of cases where residents have

been prompted to remove waste which has not been disposed of appropriately, and there have not been any repeat offenders

since the program began.

We will continue educating our community about this issue and alternatives for disposing of waste, as well as looking at the

best ways of making the community aware of this information.


PA

GE

78

Verges

Satisfaction with the appearance of verges in local areas has increased significantly this year – up 9% to 52%. This is the

highest satisfaction score recorded for this area over the last eight years of the survey. Community Panel member respondents’

satisfaction also increased significantly – up 8% to 44%.

Between June and December 2017 the City received three cuts. Due to the growing conditions experienced in early 2018 most

of the City received a fourth cut in January and February, just prior to when survey was conducted in March 2018. The timing of

this fourth cut may have contributed to the community’s increase in satisfaction with appearance of roadside verges and the

continued investment in new footpaths being installed across the City may also have contributed to an increase in positive

perceptions. As mentioned earlier, satisfaction with the provision and maintenance of footpaths has increased significantly.

A final full cut of city recommenced in May 2018 and it is anticipated that we will undertake four City-wide cuts in the 2018-2019

financial year, the final number depending on weather conditions.


PA

GE

79

Street trees

Satisfaction with maintenance of street trees saw a significant increase in satisfaction this year – up 8% to 57%. Provision of

street trees also increased slightly – from 62% to 66%. The Community Panel results saw a similar pattern with satisfaction

with street tree maintenance increase significantly from 46% to 54% and provision of street trees slightly increase from 62% to

64%.

The increase in satisfaction with street tree maintenance may be due to an increase in community awareness levels now that a

full three year cycle of street tree pruning and resident notification of this has been completed City-wide.

A number of customer service initiatives have also been rolled out including availability of an e-portal on Council’s website for

residents to advise of maintenance issues, as well as a focus on customer service and working with the community to better

understand their needs when interacting with us.

We continue to adopt a ‘holistic’ approach to street tree planting where we focus on whole streets at a time, rather than ad hoc

planting. In a process that takes around 12 months from initiating contact with residents to planting a tree, we make sure that

residents are aware of what’s planned and provide the opportunity to have a say in the type of street tree planted. This prog ram

involves planting on more than 70 streets per year.


PA

GE

80

Hard waste

The waste management section of our survey was extended to include a question about satisfaction with the hard waste

collection, as well as asking why a particular rating was given. A total of 65% of respondents were either very satisfied or

satisfied with this service. Those who were satisfied stated they had found the service to be efficient and prompt with no issues

experienced. The key reason for dissatisfaction was a belief there were not enough collection days or that the wait time was

too long. Community Panel respondents’ satisfaction levels were at 60%.

Over 15,000 hard waste collection services are provided by Council each year with each household in the City of Tea Tree

Gully eligible for two services each year. Residents can book this service online or over the phone directly with our waste

management contractor.

In an effort to improve the service provided to our residents, over the past 12 months we have revised the way we

communicate with residents about hard waste and sought to streamline the booking and collection process with our waste

management contractor.

We will continue to work with the contractor on ways to improve this service to our community, as well as investigate and

promote alternative options for the responsible disposal of waste, such as the Paintback events and e-waste recycling at Enviro

Care Sunday events. We have committed to providing ongoing communication to our residents about these events.


2018 COMMUNITY SURVEY - City of Tea Tree Gully …...This report outlines the results of 2018...

Documents

Transcript of 2018 COMMUNITY SURVEY - City of Tea Tree Gully …...This report outlines the results of 2018...