Survey methodology and sampling - City of Kingston...J00326 Community Satisfaction Survey 2015...

2

J00326 Community Satisfaction Survey 2015 – Kingston City Council

Background and objectives Survey methodology and sampling Further information Key findings & recommendations Summary of findings Detailed findings

• Key core measure: Overall performance• Key core measure: Customer service• Key core measure: Council direction indicators• Areas for improvement• Individual service areas• Detailed demographics

Appendix A: Detailed survey tabulations Appendix B: Further project information

3


Welcome to the report of results and recommendations for the 2015 State-wide Local Government Community Satisfaction Survey for Kingston City Council.

Each year Local Government Victoria (LGV) coordinates and auspices this State-wide Local Government Community Satisfaction Survey throughout Victorian local government areas. This coordinated approach allows for far more cost effective surveying than would be possible if councils commissioned surveys individually.

Participation in the State-wide Local Government Community Satisfaction Survey is optional and participating councils have a range of choices as to the content of the questionnaire and the sample size to be surveyed, depending on their individual strategic, financial and other considerations.

The main objectives of the survey are to assess the performance of Kingston City Council across a range of measures and to seek insight into ways to provide improved or more effective service delivery. The survey also provides councils with a means to fulfil some of their statutory reporting requirements as well as acting as a feedback mechanism to LGV.

4


This survey was conducted by Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing (CATI) as a representative random probability survey of residents aged 18+ years in Kingston City Council.

Survey sample matched to the demographic profile of Kingston City Council as determined by the most recent ABS population estimates was purchased from an accredited supplier of publicly available phone records, including up to 10% mobile phone numbers to cater to the diversity of residents within Kingston City Council, particularly younger people.

A total of n=400 completed interviews were achieved in Kingston City Council. Survey fieldwork was conducted in the period of 1st February – 30th March, 2015.

The 2015 results are compared with previous years, as detailed below: • 2014, n=400 completed interviews, conducted in the period of 31st January – 11th March.• 2013, n=400 completed interviews, conducted in the period of 1st February – 24th March.• 2012, n=400 completed interviews, conducted in the period of 18th May – 30th June.

Minimum quotas of gender within age groups were applied during the fieldwork phase. Post-survey weighting was then conducted to ensure accurate representation of the age and gender profile of the Kingston City Council area.

Any variation of +/-1% between individual results and net scores in this report or the detailed survey tabulations is due to rounding. In reporting, ‘—’ denotes not mentioned and ‘0%’ denotes mentioned by less than 1% of respondents. ‘Net’ scores refer to two or more response categories being combined into one category for simplicity of reporting.

5


Within tables and index score charts throughout this report, statistically significant differences at the 95% confidence level are represented by upward directing blue and downward directing red arrows. Significance when noted indicates a significantly higher or lower result for the analysis group in comparison to the ‘Total’ result for the council for that survey question for that year. Therefore in the example below: The State-wide result is significantly higher than the overall result for the council. The result among 50-64 year olds is significantly lower than for the overall result for the council.

Further, results shown in blue and red indicate significantly higher or lower results than in 2014. Therefore in the example below: The result among 35-49 year olds in the council is significantly higher than the result achieved among

this group in 2014. The result among 18-34 year olds in the council is significantly lower than the result achieved among this

group in 2014.

54

5758

60

67

66

50-64

35-49

Metro

Kingston City Council

18-34

State-wide

Overall Performance – Index Scores (example extract only)

Note: For details on the calculations used to determine statistically significant differences, please refer to Appendix B.

6


Further InformationFurther information about the report and explanations about the State-wide Local Government Community Satisfaction Survey can be found in Appendix B, including: Background and objectives Margins of error Analysis and reporting Glossary of terms

ContactsFor further queries about the conduct and reporting of the 2015 State-wide Local Government Community Satisfaction Survey, please contact JWS Research on (03) 8685 8555.

8


Kingston City Council’s overall performance index score of 68 represents a one point decline on the 2014 result, but remains ahead of the overall performance achieved by the Council in 2012 and 2013. The 2015 result places Casey one point ahead of the Metropolitan council average (67) and significantly higher than the State-wide overall performance (index score of 60). While 18-34 year olds and residents of the Central district gave much improved ratings of

Council in 2014, those ratings have not been maintained in 2015 and have actually significantly declined compared with 2014.

The index score for Kingston City Council on overall Council direction is 58 which is a one point improvement on the 2014 result. This result is also higher than the Metropolitan average (56) and also the State-wide council average (53) .As in previous years, 18-34 year olds and South residents rate the overall Council direction

significantly higher than the Council-wide average score.

The greatest drop in 2015, relative to 2014, was a significant five point drop on the measure of Customer Service (index score of 74). Performance on this measure had increased significantly in 2014, however the

gains achieved at that time has not been maintained.

9


Across the other core measures, performance was either stable, or exhibited a very slight decline compared to 2014 The index score on community consultation was 60, consistent with the 2014

result but ahead of the State-wide average (56). Performance on the condition of local sealed roads (68) was also consistent

with 2014. While ahead of the State-wide average (55) this result is one point lower than the Metropolitan council average (69).

The performance index score on advocacy (59) was one point lower than 2014. but is again consistent with the Metropolitan council average and ahead of the State-wide average.

Making community decisions has increased in importance in 2015 (index score of 82, up four points compared with 2014). While it is an issue that has become more important for residents and is now actually the most important issue, Council performance has declined by two points (58). The consequence is that there is now a margin of 24 points between importance and performance, an increase from the 18 point margin in 2014. Any margin in excess of 20 points suggest that further investigation is warranted by Council.

10


Council is performing well on most individual service areas. Of the 25 services where performance was evaluated in 2015, Kingston City Council received positive ratings (an index score of 60 or higher) on 20 of them.Council performs best on arts centres and libraries (77, up one point on 2014)

and waste management (77, consistent with 2014).Performance is weakest on planning & building permits (56) and town

planning policy (57).There was no significant variation in Council performance on any of the individual

service areas.

78% of Kingston residents believe Council is generally headed in the right direction (not significantly different from the 80% in 2014), but 41% of residents also believe there is a lot of room for improvement (up slightly from 39% in 2014).

11


An approach we recommend is to further mine the survey data to better understand the profile of these over and under-performing demographic groups. This can be achieved via additional consultation and data interrogation, or self-mining the SPSS data provided or via the dashboard portal available to the council.

Please note that the category descriptions for the coded open ended responses are generic summaries only. We recommend further analysis of the detailed cross tabulations and the actual verbatim responses, with a view to the responses of the key gender and age groups, especially any target groups identified.

A complimentary personal briefing by senior JWS Research representatives is also available to assist in providing both explanation and interpretation of the results. Please contact JWS Research on 03 8685 8555.

12


• Overall council directionHigher results in 2015

• Customer service• Making community decisions• Advocacy• Overall performance

Lower results in 2015

• SouthMost favourably disposed towards Council

• CentralLeast favourably

disposed towards Council

14


Performance Measures Kingston2012

Kingston2013

Kingston2014

Kingston2015

Metro2015

State-wide2015

OVERALL PERFORMANCE 65 67 69 68 67 60

COMMUNITY CONSULTATION(Community consultation and engagement)

60 58 60 60 58 56

ADVOCACY(Lobbying on behalf of the community) 55 59 60 59 58 55

MAKING COMMUNITYDECISIONS (Decisions made in the interest of the community)

n/a n/a 60 58 59 55

SEALED LOCAL ROADS (Condition of sealed local roads) n/a n/a 68 68 69 55

CUSTOMER SERVICE 74 73 79 74 73 70

OVERALL COUNCIL DIRECTION 54 57 57 58 56 53

15


Performance Measures Kingston 2015

vs Kingston

2014

vsMetro2015

vs State-wide2015

Highest score

Lowest score

OVERALL PERFORMANCE 68 1 points lower

1 points higher

8 points higher South Central

COMMUNITYCONSULTATION(Community consultation and engagement)

60 Equal 2 points higher


ADVOCACY(Lobbying on behalf of the community)

59 1 points lower

1 points higher


MAKING COMMUNITYDECISIONS (Decisions made in the interest of the community)

58 2 points lower

1 points lower


SEALED LOCAL ROADS (Condition of sealed local roads) 68 Equal 1 points

lower13 points

higher North South

CUSTOMER SERVICE 74 5 points lower

1 points higher

4 points higher

65+ year olds Central

OVERALL COUNCIL DIRECTION 58 1 points

higher2 points higher

5 points higher

18-34 year olds Central

16


18

9

10

9

19

39

46

36

27

31

45

36

27

30

28

35

25

12

5

10

11

10

6

8

2

4

4

5

3

5

1

11

20

1

Overall Performance

Community Consultation

Advocacy

Making CommunityDecisions

Sealed Local Roads

Customer Service

% Very good Good Average Poor Very poor Can't say

Key Measures Summary Results

23 64 8 4Overall Council Direction

% Improved Stayed the same Deteriorated Can't say

17


Sign

ifica

ntly

hig

her t

han

Stat

e-w

ide

aver

age

Significantly lower than State-w

ide average

-Consultation & engagement -Lobbying-Local streets & footpaths

-Traffic management

-Parking facilities

-Recreational facilities

-Art centres & libraries

-Community & cultural

-Waste management

-Town planning policy

-Population growth

-Slashing & weed control

-Making community decisions

-Sealed local roads

-None Applicable

18


Sign

ifica

ntly

hig

her t

han

grou

p av

erag

e Significantly lower than group

average

-Local streets & footpaths-Traffic management -Parking facilities -Community & cultural-Planning permits -Population growth

-None Applicable

19


Service areas where importance exceeds performance by 10 points or more, suggesting further investigation is necessary:

Service Importance Performance Net differentialMaking decisions in the interest of the community

82 58 -24

Planning permits 73 56 -17

Planning for population growth 74 58 -16

Town planning policy 72 57 -15

Informing the community 75 62 -13

Parking facilities 72 60 -12

Consultation & engagement 71 60 -11

Elderly support services 80 69 -11

Disadvantaged support services 75 64 -11

Traffic management 74 64 -10

Environmental sustainability 75 65 -10

20


Base: All respondents Councils asked State-wide: 55Note: Please see page 5 for explanation of significant differences

78797976767573747574737071717070706970666566606359

n/a8179767774n/a7472747469746971736970726766n/a626560

n/a80n/a7777n/an/a75n/a7175737474717171737269n/an/an/a6559

2014 2013 20122015 Priority Area Importance82

8180

77767676

757575

7474

7373

727272

7171

686666

6262

58

Community decisionsWaste management

Elderly support servicesEmergency & disaster mngt

Local streets & footpathsFamily support services

Sealed roadsInforming the community

Disadvantaged support serv.Environmental sustainability

Traffic managementPopulation growth

Appearance of public areasPlanning permitsParking facilities

Enforcement of local lawsTown planning policy

Consultation & engagementRecreational facilities

LobbyingArt centres & libraries

Business & community dev.Community & cultural

Slashing & weed controlBus/community dev./tourism

21


76777474727269716865686763636463636160616058605855

75737473716868696565n/a6467626463n/a6058595958n/a5860

n/a747373n/a66n/an/a6666n/a666457n/a63n/a5860605554n/a5957

2014 2013 2012

7777

757474

71696969

6868

6765

6464

6262

616060

595858

5756

Art centres & librariesWaste management

Recreational facilitiesAppearance of public areas

Community & culturalEmergency & disaster mngt

Family support servicesElderly support servicesSlashing & weed control

Local streets & footpathsSealed roads

Enforcement of local lawsEnvironmental sustainability

Traffic managementDisadvantaged support serv.

Informing the communityBusiness & community dev.

Bus/community dev./tourismConsultation & engagement

Parking facilitiesLobbying

Population growthCommunity decisionsTown planning policy

Planning permits

Base: All respondents Councils asked State-wide: 69Note: Please see page 5 for explanation of significant differences

2015 Priority Area Performance

22


Top Three Most Important Service Areas(Highest to lowest, i.e. 1. = most important)


1. Community decisions

2. Waste management

3. Elderly support services

Metropolitan

1. Waste management



Interface

1. Emergency & disaster mngt

2. Waste management

3. Local streets & footpaths

Regional Centres



3. Waste management

Large Rural


2. Unsealed roads3. Emergency &

disaster mngt

Small Rural




Bottom Three Most Important Service Areas (Lowest to highest, i.e. 1. = least important)


1. Bus/community dev./tourism

2. Community & cultural

3. Slashing & weed control

Metropolitan



3. Slashing & weed control

Interface

1. Tourism development



Regional Centres


2. Tourism development

3. Art centres & libraries

Large Rural



3. Parking facilities

Small Rural

1. Traffic management



23


Top Three Most Performance Service Areas(Highest to lowest, i.e. 1. = highest performance)

Bottom Three Most Performance Service Areas (Lowest to highest, i.e. 1. = lowest performance)



2. Waste management

3. Recreational facilities

Metropolitan

1. Waste management


3. Recreational facilities

Interface

1. Waste management



Regional Centres


2. Appearance of public areas

3. Waste management

Large Rural




Small Rural



3. Waste management


1. Planning permits

2. Town planning policy

3. Population growth

Metropolitan

1. Planning permits

2. Population growth

3. Town planning policy

Interface

1. Unsealed roads2. Planning

permits 3. Slashing &

weed control

Regional Centres

1. Unsealed roads2. Community

decisions3. Parking facilities

Large Rural

1. Unsealed roads2. Sealed roads 3. Population

growth

Small Rural

1. Unsealed roads2. Slashing &

weed control 3. Sealed roads

24


Importance and Performance2015 Index Scores Grid

Note: The larger the circle, the larger the gap between importance and performance.Base: All respondents

Service Importance Performance

Consultation & engagement 71 60Lobbying on behalf of thecommunity 68 59

Making community decisions 82 58Condition of sealed local roads 76 68

Informing the community 75 62Condition of local streets & footpaths 76 68

Traffic management 74 64Parking facilities 72 60Enforcement of local laws 72 67Family support services 76 69Elderly support services 80 69Disadvantaged support services 75 64

Recreational facilities 71 75Appearance of public areas 73 74Art centres & libraries 66 77Community & cultural activities 62 74

Waste management 81 77Business & community development & tourism 58 61

Town planning policy 72 57Planning permits 73 56Environmental sustainability 75 65Emergency & disastermanagement 77 71

Planning for pop. growth 74 58Slashing & weed control 62 69Business & community dev. 66 62 0

50

100

0 50 100

HIGH

IMPORTANCE

LOW

POOR PERFORMANCE GOOD

25


Importance and Performance2015 Index Scores Grid

(Magnified view)

Note: The larger the circle, the larger the gap between importance and performance.Base: All respondents

40

90

40 90

HIGH

IMPORTANCE

LOW

POOR PERFORMANCE GOOD

Service Importance Performance

Consultation & engagement 71 60Lobbying on behalf of thecommunity 68 59

Making community decisions 82 58Condition of sealed local roads 76 68

Informing the community 75 62Condition of local streets & footpaths 76 68

Traffic management 74 64Parking facilities 72 60Enforcement of local laws 72 67Family support services 76 69Elderly support services 80 69Disadvantaged support services 75 64

Recreational facilities 71 75Appearance of public areas 73 74Art centres & libraries 66 77Community & cultural activities 62 74

Waste management 81 77Business & community development & tourism 58 61

Town planning policy 72 57Planning permits 73 56Environmental sustainability 75 65Emergency & disastermanagement 77 71

Planning for pop. growth 74 58Slashing & weed control 62 69Business & community dev. 66 62

26


AREAS FO

R IM

PRO

VEMEN

T

• Inappropriate development• Communication• Parking availability• Community consultation• Waste management

29


2015 Overall Performance

Q3. ON BALANCE, for the last twelve months, how do you feel about the performance of Kingston City Council, not just on one or two issues, BUT OVERALL across all responsibility areas? Has it been very good, good, average, poor or very poor? Base: All respondents Councils asked State-wide: 69 Councils asked group: 17Note: Please see page 5 for explanation about significant differences

73

69

65

70

69

68

66

n/a

74

67

70

61

68

73

66

69

67

64

66

n/a

68

62

65

60

68

68

64

66

65

65

62

n/a

68

63

64

60

2014 2013 2012

73

71

69

69

68

68

68

67

67

67

63

60

South

65+

North

Women

Kingston

Men

50-64

Metro

18-34

35-49

Central

State-wide

30


Q3. ON BALANCE, for the last twelve months, how do you feel about the performance of Kingston City Council, not just on one or two issues, BUT OVERALL across all responsibility areas? Has it been very good, good, average, poor or very poor? Base: All respondents Councils asked State-wide: 69 Councils asked group: 17

18

17

13

11

10

14

14

16

23

20

16

9

25

16

21

46

52

50

48

39

48

54

36

49

42

51

58

37

45

44

27

22

28

33

35

28

23

33

26

29

25

27

22

32

30

5

5

5

4

10

6

5

9

2

5

5

4

7

5

3

2

3

3

3

4

2

1

5

1

3

2

2

6

1

1

1

1

2

1

2

1

1

1

1

2

2015 Kingston

2014 Kingston

2013 Kingston

2012 Kingston

State-wide

Metro

North

Central

South

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+% Very Good Good Average Poor Very Poor Can't say

2015 Overall Performance

32


• 61%, 2 points up from 2014 Overall contact with Kingston City Council

• Aged 35-49 years• Aged 65+ years• South residents

Most contact with Kingston City Council

• Aged 18-34 years• North residents

Least contact with Kingston City Council

• Index score of 74, down 5 points on 2014 Customer Service rating

• Aged 65+ years• South residents

Most satisfied with Customer Service

• Central Least satisfied with Customer Service

33


34

24

16

9

10

2

0

59

40

36

25

18

16

13

3

1

62

38

36

29

15

11

13

2

1

64

36

33

24

15

11

9

4

0

61

40

By telephone

In person

In writing

By email

Via website

By social media

By text message

TOTAL HAVE HAD CONTACT

TOTAL HAVE HAD NO CONTACT

Q5a. Over the last 12 months, have you or any member of your household had any contact with Kingston City Council in any of the following ways? In person, in writing, by telephone conversation, by text message, by email or via their website or social media such as Facebook or Twitter?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 16 Councils asked group: 4Note: Respondents could name multiple contacts methods so responses may add to more than 100%Note: Please see page 5 for explanation about significant differences

2014 2013 20122015 Method of Contact

%

34


45

24

16

8

5

2

0

41

21

15

10

8

2

0

44

30

10

8

6

1

0

40

27

15

9

6

3

0

By telephone

In person

In writing

By email

Via website

By social media

By Text Message

Q5b. What was the method of contact for the most recent contact you had with Kingston City Council?Base: All respondents who have had contact with Council in the last 12 months. Councils asked State-wide: 16 Councils asked group: 4Note: Respondents could name multiple contacts methods so responses may add to more than 100%Note: Please see page 5 for explanation about significant differences* Caution: small sample size < n=30

2014 2013 20122015 Most Recent Contact

%

35


80

81

74

79

76

82

n/a

87

75

75

72

78

80

71

73

73

73

74

n/a

64

77

74

71

76

76

77

73

74

70

76

n/a

75

69

76

71

76

80

79

75

74

74

74

73

73

73

72

70

68

65+

South

Men

Kingston

North

Women

Metro

18-34

50-64

35-49

State-wide

Central

Q5c. Thinking of the most recent contact, how would you rate Kingston City Council for customer service? Please keep in mind we do not mean the actual outcome but rather the actual service that was received. Base: All respondents who have had contact with Council in the last 12 months. Councils asked State-wide: 69 Councils asked group: 17Note: Please see page 5 for explanation about significant differences

2015 Customer Service Rating 2014 2013 2012

36


39

43

32

35

31

34

40

36

40

35

42

30

38

40

46

36

35

40

37

37

38

28

32

43

40

32

43

32

31

36

12

12

16

17

17

14

21

7

11

14

11

9

15

13

12

8

4

5

6

8

7

2

17

4

6

9

9

11

7

3

5

3

4

3

6

5

7

7

2

3

6

4

4

8

3

1

3

3

2

2

2

4

1

2

4

1

2015 Kingston

2014 Kingston

2013 Kingston

2012 Kingston

State-wide

Metro

North

Central

South

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+% Very good Good Average Poor Very poor Can't say

Q5c. Thinking of the most recent contact, how would you rate Kingston City Council for customer service? Please keep in mind we do not mean the actual outcome but rather the actual service that was received. Base: All respondents who have had contact with Council in the last 12 months. Councils asked State-wide: 69 Councils asked group: 17

2015 Customer Service Rating

37


79

82

75

75

73

86

75

75

65

66

68

78

74

76

75

74

71

82

75

78

62

80*

84*

59*

By telephone

In person

In writing

By email

Via website

By social media

Q5c. Thinking of the most recent contact, how would you rateKingston City Council for customer service? Please keep in mind we do not mean the actual outcome but rather the actual service that was received. Base: All respondents who have had contact with Council in the last 12 months. Councils asked State-wide: 16 Councils asked group: 4Note: Please see page 5 for explanation about significant differences*Caution: small sample size < n=30

2014 2013 20122015 Customer Service Rating

38


39

45

27

51

38

34

34

29

32

58

68

16

11

12

7

4

8

5

8

7

32

2

4

15

3

9

By telephone

In person

In writing

By email*

Via website*

By social media*


Q5c. Thinking of the most recent contact, how would you rate Kingston City Council for customer service? Please keep in mind we do not mean the actual outcome but rather the actual service that was received. Base: All respondents who have had contact with Council in the last 12 months. Councils asked State-wide: 16 Councils asked group: 4*Caution: small sample size < n=30

2015 Customer Service Rating

40


• 64% stayed about the same, down 1 point on 2014• 23% improved, up 1 point on 2014• 8% deteriorated, equal points on 2014

Council Direction over last 12 months

• Aged 18-34 yearsMost satisfied with Council Direction

• Central residents• Aged 35-49 years

Least satisfied with Council Direction

• 41% a lot more room to improve, up 2 points on 2014• 48% a little room to improve, down 5 points on 2014• 9% not much/ no room for improvement, up 3 points

Room for improvement

• 39% prefer rate rises (11% definitely, 28% probably)• 45% prefer service cuts (27% definitely, 18% probably)

Rates vs. services trade-off

• 25% definitely the right direction, down 4 points on 2014• 53% probably the right direction, up 2 points on 2014

Direction Kingston City Council is headed

41


69

60

56

57

55

59

50

n/a

57

53

50

55

56

58

60

57

56

58

57

n/a

62

53

55

52

55

57

53

54

51

56

53

n/a

56

52

51

51

68

63

62

58

58

58

58

56

56

53

50

48

18-34

South

North

Kingston

Men

Women

50-64

Metro

65+

State-wide

35-49

Central

Q6. Over the last 12 months, what is your view of the direction of Kingston City Council’s overall performance? Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 69 Councils asked group: 17Note: Please see page 5 for explanation about significant differences

2015 Overall Direction 2014 2013 2012

42


23

22

23

18

20

20

27

13

29

24

23

36

16

22

18

64

65

63

66

63

66

67

65

61

64

64

56

67

66

69

8

8

10

11

13

8

4

17

4

9

7

2

16

8

6

4

5

4

5

5

6

2

5

6

3

5

7

4

8

2015 Kingston

2014 Kingston

2013 Kingston

2012 Kingston

State-wide

Metro

North

Central

South

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+% Improved Stayed the same Deteriorated Can't say

Q6. Over the last 12 months, what is your view of the direction of Kingston City Council’s overall performance? Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 69 Councils asked group: 17

2015 Overall Direction

43


41

39

38

47

34

44

42

38

34

48

42

42

42

38

48

53

52

44

51

42

45

56

54

43

47

46

51

51

8

4

7

7

10

12

6

6

9

7

9

9

5

8

1

2

1

2

1

2

1

1

2

2

1

3

3

2

3

1

4

2

1

1

2

3

2015 Kingston

2014 Kingston

2013 Kingston

State-wide

Metro

North

Central

South

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+

% A lot A little Not much Not at all Can't say

Q7. Thinking about the next 12 months, how much room for improvement do you think there is in Kingston City Council’s overall performance?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 8 Councils asked group: 3

2015 Room for Improvement

44


25

29

24

20

23

33

12

29

27

22

27

24

26

22

53

51

53

49

48

47

59

54

55

52

62

42

53

58

6

5

7

10

8

4

9

5

3

9

2

12

6

3

8

7

9

10

8

7

15

4

10

6

7

13

5

6

8

9

7

11

12

9

6

9

5

10

2

9

10

11

2015 Kingston

2014 Kingston

2013 Kingston

State-wide

Metro

North

Central

South

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+%

Definitely right direction Probably right direction Probably wrong direction Definitely wrong direction Can't say

Q8. Would you say your local Council is generally heading in the right direction or the wrong direction?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 12 Councils asked group: 4

2015 Future Direction

45


11

14

12

10

10

12

15

7

12

11

11

11

10

15

8

28

28

26

23

23

24

32

27

26

32

25

33

19

34

28

18

21

18

25

22

22

13

24

18

17

19

13

27

12

19

27

22

26

25

26

25

28

26

28

27

28

29

24

22

34

15

15

18

17

18

18

13

17

16

13

18

13

19

17

11

2015 Kingston

2014 Kingston

2013 Kingston

2012 Kingston

State-wide

Metro

North

Central

South

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+

%Definitely prefer rate rise Probably prefer rate rise Probably prefer service cuts Definitely prefer service cuts Can't say

Q10. If you had to choose, would you prefer to see council rate rises to improve local services OR would you prefer to see cuts in council services to keep council rates at the same level as they are now?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 25 Councils asked group: 6

2015 Rate Rise v Service Cut

47


12

12

9

8

8

7

7

6

5

9

Inappropriate Development

Communication

Parking Availability

Community Consultation

Waste Management

Traffic Management

Environmental Issues

Sealed Road Maintenance

Rates too Expensive

Nothing

Q17. What does Kingston City Council MOST need to do to improve its performance? Base: All respondents. Councils asked statewide: 28 Councils asked group: 11

2015 Areas for Improvement

%

49


73

74

71

69

71

n/a

69

71

67

68

64

70

74

73

70

72

74

n/a

70

69

68

70

63

71

75

73

73

70

74

n/a

73

74

74

72

67

75

79

74

74

73

73

72

71

70

69

67

67

67

50-64

State-wide

Women

South

65+

Metro

Kingston

North

Central

Men

18-34

35-49

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Community Consultation and Engagement’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 28 Councils asked group: 8 Note: Please see slide 5 for explanation about significant differences

2014 2013 20122015 Consultation Importance

50


23

20

22

26

29

24

19

22

28

20

26

18

13

42

26

44

44

44

42

42

44

46

42

43

40

47

45

51

36

41

24

29

27

28

24

27

25

25

23

29

19

24

27

18

26

8

6

5

2

3

4

8

9

6

9

6

13

7

4

4

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

3

2015 Kingston

2014 Kingston

2013 Kingston

2012 Kingston

State-wide

Metro

North

Central

South

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+%

Extremely important Very important Fairly important Not that important Not at all important Can't say

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Community Consultation and Engagement’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 28 Councils asked group: 8

2015 Consultation Importance

51


61

61

61

65

62

60

57

59

n/a

58

57

59

59

59

60

58

57

58

63

57

n/a

57

57

56

62

61

61

64

56

60

59

59

n/a

58

57

57

63

62

61

61

61

60

60

59

58

57

56

54

South

North

Women

18-34

50-64

Kingston

65+

Men

Metro

35-49

State-wide

Central

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Community Consultation and Engagement’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 69 Councils asked group: 17 Note: Please see slide 5 for explanation about significant differences

2015 Consultation Performance 2014 2013 2012

52


9

9

7

10

7

8

14

4

9

9

9

11

6

10

9

36

37

34

34

31

32

37

32

38

35

37

40

36

34

33

30

31

33

36

32

31

22

32

33

30

29

33

27

32

26

10

11

9

12

14

12

15

13

5

11

10

9

12

8

13

4

3

5

2

6

4

3

7

3

5

4

4

6

4

3

11

9

11

7

9

13

8

12

11

10

12

2

13

12

17

2015 Kingston

2014 Kingston

2013 Kingston

2012 Kingston

State-wide

Metro

North

Central

South

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64


Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Community Consultation and Engagement’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 69 Councils asked group: 17

2015 Consultation Performance

53


70

72

69

70

64

67

66

n/a

66

63

62

63

71

66

71

70

68

63

67

n/a

65

62

66

65

71

69

72

70

69

66

69

n/a

73

66

66

70

74

72

71

69

69

69

68

67

66

65

65

64

50-64

North

Women

State-wide

South

18-34

Kingston

Metro

35-49

Men

65+

Central

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Lobbying on Behalf of the Community’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 28 Councils asked group: 9 Note: Please see slide 5 for explanation about significant differences

2014 2013 20122015 Lobbying Importance

54


24

19

21

20

23

20

28

20

24

22

26

29

18

36

15

36

40

39

44

39

39

41

28

38

35

37

31

37

34

41

28

29

25

25

28

29

20

39

26

26

30

27

34

20

30

8

6

10

8

6

8

9

9

5

11

4

9

6

8

8

2

4

3

1

2

2

1

3

4

4

1

2

3

2

3

2

2

2

3

2

2

2

1

3

2

2

2

2

1

3

2015 Kingston

2014 Kingston

2013 Kingston

2012 Kingston

State-wide

Metro

North

Central

South

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+%


Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Lobbying on Behalf of the Community’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 28 Councils asked group: 9

2015 Lobbying Importance

55


64

57

61

67

59

60

n/a

57

58

56

53

56

59

63

59

58

58

59

n/a

60

59

55

60

56

52

57

55

58

54

55

n/a

56

55

55

51

56

64

63

61

60

60

59

58

57

57

55

55

54

South

65+

Women

18-34

50-64

Kingston

Metro

North

Men

State-wide

35-49

Central

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Lobbying on Behalf of the Community’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 69 Councils asked group: 17 Note: Please see slide 5 for explanation about significant differences

2015 Lobbying Performance 2014 2013 2012

56


10

6

6

6

6

6

10

8

12

12

9

11

9

10

11

27

29

30

23

26

27

26

21

32

22

31

36

22

28

20

28

27

30

34

32

29

26

30

27

28

27

22

33

30

27

11

9

10

14

12

9

15

13

7

15

8

18

10

6

9

4

3

2

3

4

3

4

6

2

4

4

2

7

5

20

26

22

21

20

26

19

22

20

19

22

11

18

21

34

2015 Kingston

2014 Kingston

2013 Kingston

2012 Kingston

State-wide

Metro

North

Central

South

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64


Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Lobbying on Behalf of the Community’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 69 Councils asked group: 17

2015 Lobbying Performance

57


80

81

79

80

78

75

79

n/a

79

76

78

75

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

86

85

84

84

82

82

80

80

80

80

80

79

18-34

North

Women

50-64

Kingston

South

State-wide

Metro

Central

Men

65+

35-49

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Decisions made in the interest of the community’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 15 Councils asked group: 7 Note: Please see slide 5 for explanation about significant differences

2014 2013 20122015 Community Decisions Importance

58


43

34

38

37

49

41

40

38

48

56

33

48

35

42

46

42

45

41

38

47

46

39

35

48

37

49

12

15

15

14

9

13

12

14

9

7

18

12

9

2

2

2

2

4

2

1

2

1

3

1

1

1

2

2

2

2

1

4

1

1

3

2

2

4

2015 Kingston

2014 Kingston

State-wide

Metro

North

Central

South

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+

%Extremely important Very important Fairly important Not that important Not at all important Can't say

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Decisions made in the interest of the community’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 15 Councils asked group: 7

2015 Community Decisions Importance

59


63

58

n/a

63

61

60

57

59

58

63

57

60

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

62

60

59

59

59

58

58

58

57

57

55

54

South

50-64

Metro

Women

65+

Kingston

North

35-49

Men

18-34

State-wide

Central

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Decisions made in the interest of the community’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 69 Councils asked group: 17 Note: Please see slide 5 for explanation about significant differences

2015 Community Decisions Performance 2014 2013 2012

60


9

6

7

7

11

8

8

9

8

4

12

10

8

31

37

31

35

29

25

38

30

33

40

28

31

25

35

32

33

31

39

35

33

34

37

36

37

33

35

10

9

14

10

7

15

7

8

11

13

6

10

10

5

2

6

4

7

6

2

7

2

4

9

4

1

10

13

9

13

6

11

13

11

9

2

7

12

21

2015 Kingston

2014 Kingston

State-wide

Metro

North

Central

South

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Decisions made in the interest of the community’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 69 Councils asked group: 17

2015 Community Decisions Performance

61


74

70

73

77

66

74

77

n/a

76

75

73

71

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

79

77

76

76

76

76

76

75

75

75

74

73

Women

South

Kingston

State-wide

18-34

50-64

65+

Metro

Central

35-49

North

Men

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘The condition of sealed local roads in your area’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 15 Councils asked group: 8 Note: Please see slide 5 for explanation about significant differences

2014 2013 20122015 Sealed Local Roads Importance

62


31

28

32

29

24

34

34

26

36

38

31

26

27

46

42

44

46

54

41

43

45

46

38

46

52

50

16

24

20

22

15

16

18

20

13

16

13

19

19

5

4

2

3

6

6

4

8

3

9

7

2

2

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

3

2015 Kingston

2014 Kingston

State-wide

Metro

North

Central

South

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘The condition of sealed local roads in your area’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 15 Councils asked group: 8

2015 Sealed Local Roads Importance

63


67

69

n/a

77

66

66

68

66

67

63

71

55

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

71

70

69

69

69

69

68

68

67

67

66

55

North

Men

Metro

18-34

50-64

65+

Kingston

Central

Women

35-49

South

State-wide

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘The condition of sealed local roads in your area’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 69 Councils asked group: 17 Note: Please see slide 5 for explanation about significant differences

2015 Sealed Local Roads Performance 2014 2013 2012

64


19

20

11

20

21

20

17

22

16

22

18

20

17

45

48

33

45

48

46

43

48

43

45

48

45

44

25

20

29

24

22

23

29

18

31

20

22

28

30

6

7

16

7

7

3

7

5

6

7

4

6

5

3

4

10

3

1

6

3

4

3

4

6

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

2

2

2

2

2

2

1

3

2015 Kingston

2014 Kingston

State-wide

Metro

North

Central

South

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


Q2. How has Council performed on ‘The condition of sealed local roads in your area’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 69 Councils asked group: 17

2015 Sealed Local Roads Performance

65


72

76

76

73

74

75

75

n/a

73

76

71

72

71

77

75

74

74

75

74

n/a

72

76

70

73

74

78

76

77

75

75

75

n/a

73

76

72

74

79

78

78

76

75

75

75

73

73

73

72

71

18-34

Women

50-64

South

Kingston

State-wide

North

Metro

Central

65+

Men

35-49

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Informing the Community’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 25 Councils asked group: 8 Note: Please see slide 5 for explanation about significant differences

2014 2013 20122015 Informing Community Importance

66


32

25

25

32

30

26

32

34

30

28

35

40

25

40

23

42

48

48

41

44

45

41

35

48

39

44

40

43

34

49

22

23

23

21

22

25

23

24

20

27

17

18

24

23

24

3

3

3

4

3

4

4

3

2

3

3

6

3

3

1

1

1

1

1

1

3

2

2

1

1

1

1

1

2015 Kingston

2014 Kingston

2013 Kingston

2012 Kingston

State-wide

Metro

North

Central

South

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+%


Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Informing the Community’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 25 Councils asked group: 8

2015 Informing Community Importance

67


65

64

62

n/a

63

67

62

62

60

61

63

65

63

69

63

n/a

63

65

62

61

61

61

64

61

66

64

58

n/a

63

62

62

60

64

60

62

66

66

66

65

64

62

62

62

61

61

59

58

56

South

65+

50-64

Metro

Kingston

Women

35-49

State-wide

Men

North

Central

18-34

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Informing the Community’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 35 Councils asked group: 12 Note: Please see slide 5 for explanation about significant differences

2015 Informing Community Performance 2014 2013 2012

68


14

14

12

16

12

15

15

10

16

13

14

11

12

16

18

37

43

39

37

38

40

34

37

40

37

37

27

43

41

39

32

26

34

31

31

29

26

32

37

33

32

40

30

31

26

11

12

11

13

12

10

18

12

5

11

11

18

9

8

9

4

3

1

2

4

3

4

7

1

4

4

4

6

3

2

2

2

3

2

2

3

2

1

1

1

2

1

5

2015 Kingston

2014 Kingston

2013 Kingston

2012 Kingston

State-wide

Metro

North

Central

South

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64


Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Informing the Community’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 35 Councils asked group: 12

2015 Informing Community Performance

69


79

76

74

79

77

n/a

75

76

78

74

81

73

79

79

79

79

78

n/a

75

77

81

72

78

75

79

79

77

79

77

n/a

78

77

79

72

77

75

80

80

78

78

77

77

77

76

74

73

72

71

Women

50-64

South

65+

State-wide

Metro

Central

Kingston

35-49

18-34

North

Men

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘The condition of local streets and footpaths in your area’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 29 Councils asked group: 6 Note: Please see slide 5 for explanation about significant differences

2014 2013 20122015 Streets and Footpaths Importance

70


30

30

33

29

34

32

23

32

34

21

38

25

30

38

30

47

49

46

52

43

47

47

47

46

50

44

47

43

45

53

19

17

19

18

19

18

25

19

16

22

17

25

21

16

15

3

2

2

1

2

2

4

2

4

5

1

4

6

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2015 Kingston

2014 Kingston

2013 Kingston

2012 Kingston

State-wide

Metro

North

Central

South

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+%


Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘The condition of local streets and footpaths in your area’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 29 Councils asked group: 6

2015 Streets and Footpaths Importance

71


71

64

68

65

67

63

64

64

62

n/a

63

58

71

63

64

65

66

65

66

64

66

n/a

61

58

69

66

67

66

69

62

67

63

67

n/a

61

57

71

70

69

68

68

67

67

67

66

64

63

58

18-34

35-49

South

Kingston

Men

North

Central

Women

65+

Metro

50-64

State-wide

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘The condition of local streets and footpaths in your area’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 40 Councils asked group: 8 Note: Please see slide 5 for explanation about significant differences

2015 Streets and Footpaths Performance 2014 2013 2012

72


21

17

19

16

13

18

20

20

23

24

19

24

24

17

18

42

41

42

43

34

39

43

43

40

40

44

45

46

35

40

25

30

23

29

28

27

22

26

27

25

26

22

18

34

31

9

9

13

11

15

10

14

5

8

9

9

7

9

10

10

2

3

3

1

7

5

1

5

2

2

2

2

3

3

1

3

1

1

2015 Kingston

2014 Kingston

2013 Kingston

2012 Kingston

State-wide

Metro

North

Central

South

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64


Q2. How has Council performed on ‘The condition of local streets and footpaths in your area’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 40 Councils asked group: 8

2015 Streets and Footpaths Performance

73


74

76

73

n/a

77

68

73

75

77

67

70

69

77

76

74

n/a

74

73

76

74

69

74

72

72

76

79

75

n/a

71

76

77

77

72

75

73

71

77

76

74

74

74

74

74

72

72

72

71

71

65+

Women

Kingston

Metro

North

South

50-64

Central

18-34

35-49

State-wide

Men

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Traffic Management’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 17 Councils asked group: 7 Note: Please see slide 5 for explanation about significant differences

2014 2013 20122015 Traffic Management Importance

74


28

24

25

32

25

30

25

26

31

24

31

22

30

33

27

45

49

49

43

41

42

48

44

42

44

45

49

37

40

52

22

21

19

19

26

22

24

19

22

23

20

22

27

21

15

5

4

4

4

6

5

2

9

3

7

2

7

4

4

3

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

3

2015 Kingston

2014 Kingston

2013 Kingston

2012 Kingston

State-wide

Metro

North

Central

South

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+%


Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Traffic Management’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 17 Councils asked group: 7

2015 Traffic Management Importance

75


68

64

61

62

63

61

65

59

60

63

61

n/a

63

60

61

65

62

60

62

60

60

61

63

n/a

60

59

56

59

57

58

57

54

58

52

54

n/a

71

67

66

65

64

64

62

62

60

59

58

57

18-34

South

Men

North

Kingston

65+

Women

50-64

State-wide

Central

35-49

Metro

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Traffic Management’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 22 Councils asked group: 10 Note: Please see slide 5 for explanation about significant differences

2015 Traffic Management Performance 2014 2013 2012

76


14

13

12

7

10

9

12

14

15

15

12

18

13

10

13

45

45

41

36

40

37

50

36

48

44

45

56

39

43

41

24

23

30

34

31

32

23

26

24

24

24

18

21

33

29

11

13

12

16

12

14

8

14

9

10

11

9

13

10

9

4

4

3

4

5

6

3

8

1

2

5

10

2

2

3

2

2

2

3

3

3

3

2

4

2

3

2

6

2015 Kingston

2014 Kingston

2013 Kingston

2012 Kingston

State-wide

Metro

North

Central

South

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64


Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Traffic Management’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 22 Councils asked group: 10

2015 Traffic Management Performance

77


75

72

70

70

n/a

68

70

69

72

70

68

68

77

74

72

71

n/a

64

72

69

70

71

67

73

73

72

72

71

n/a

69

70

71

70

71

69

72

75

74

73

72

72

72

72

71

71

70

69

69

65+

Women

South

Kingston

Metro

18-34

35-49

North

Central

State-wide

Men

50-64

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Parking Facilities’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 22 Councils asked group: 8 Note: Please see slide 5 for explanation about significant differences

2014 2013 20122015 Parking Importance

78


27

24

22

21

24

26

26

30

25

25

29

29

30

23

25

39

41

45

46

41

41

37

34

44

35

42

33

33

36

54

30

28

27

26

27

26

32

27

30

33

27

33

33

33

18

4

6

6

4

6

5

5

6

2

6

2

4

3

6

3

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2015 Kingston

2014 Kingston

2013 Kingston

2012 Kingston

State-wide

Metro

North

Central

South

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+%


Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Parking Facilities’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 22 Councils asked group: 8

2015 Parking Importance

79


63

56

66

58

61

62

61

61

57

n/a

61

58

60

60

61

59

59

58

59

60

57

n/a

58

54

62

58

65

58

61

60

60

60

56

n/a

60

57

64

63

62

61

61

61

60

60

57

55

55

55

South

50-64

18-34

North

Men

35-49

Kingston

Women

State-wide

Metro

Central

65+

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Parking Facilities’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 28 Councils asked group: 11 Note: Please see slide 5 for explanation about significant differences

2015 Parking Performance 2014 2013 2012

80


12

9

9

9

9

8

11

10

15

13

12

16

13

11

8

37

43

40

40

36

34

42

30

39

40

35

36

39

43

31

32

32

30

33

32

33

29

34

32

28

36

29

31

33

35

14

11

13

12

15

15

14

20

10

15

14

20

7

7

22

3

4

4

3

6

7

2

5

2

4

3

7

4

2

1

1

4

3

3

3

3

1

2

1

1

2

2

2015 Kingston

2014 Kingston

2013 Kingston

2012 Kingston

State-wide

Metro

North

Central

South

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64


Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Parking Facilities’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 28 Councils asked group: 11

2015 Parking Performance

81


74

71

70

72

71

70

n/a

70

70

69

66

65

77

70

73

70

73

73

n/a

77

71

69

74

68

73

73

72

71

70

71

n/a

71

70

68

70

68

75

74

74

73

73

72

72

72

71

71

70

69

Women

North

50-64

18-34

65+

Kingston

Metro

South

State-wide

Central

35-49

Men

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Enforcement of local laws’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 25 Councils asked group: 6 Note: Please see slide 5 for explanation about significant differences

2014 2013 20122015 Law Enforcement Importance

82


28

23

30

24

25

26

29

28

28

23

34

27

29

33

26

41

42

38

42

41

43

46

38

40

43

39

47

37

36

43

23

26

26

26

27

25

18

25

25

25

21

20

24

26

24

5

8

4

7

5

5

5

7

4

6

4

7

6

3

4

2

1

2

1

1

1

1

2

3

3

1

4

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2015 Kingston

2014 Kingston

2013 Kingston

2012 Kingston

State-wide

Metro

North

Central

South

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+%


Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Enforcement of local laws’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 25 Councils asked group: 6

2015 Law Enforcement Importance

83


67

69

75

65

67

66

n/a

69

66

66

61

66

63

66

65

62

64

65

n/a

65

62

65

67

64

67

68

71

66

66

65

n/a

65

65

61

65

67

70

68

68

68

67

66

66

66

66

65

65

64

South

Women

18-34

35-49

Kingston

State-wide

Metro

Central

Men

50-64

65+

North

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Enforcement of local laws’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 36 Councils asked group: 10 Note: Please see slide 5 for explanation about significant differences

2015 Law Enforcement Performance 2014 2013 2012

84


17

13

11

13

13

13

14

18

18

17

16

15

25

12

12

39

44

45

39

40

40

33

40

44

36

42

47

31

45

35

26

25

22

29

26

24

32

18

26

30

22

31

22

25

24

6

5

7

5

6

6

6

10

4

6

6

2

9

6

8

3

2

4

2

3

3

3

5

4

2

2

3

4

1

10

11

11

13

12

14

12

9

8

7

12

2

9

9

19

2015 Kingston

2014 Kingston

2013 Kingston

2012 Kingston

State-wide

Metro

North

Central

South

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64


Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Enforcement of local laws’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 36 Councils asked group: 10

2015 Law Enforcement Performance

85


78

75

79

75

78

71

72

79

72

n/a

72

72

77

75

78

74

73

72

72

74

73

n/a

72

71

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

73

n/a

n/a

n/a

80

77

77

76

76

76

75

74

73

72

72

71

Women

South

18-34

Kingston

35-49

50-64

Central

North

State-wide

Metro

65+

Men

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Family Support Services’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 27 Councils asked group: 8 Note: Please see slide 5 for explanation about significant differences

2014 2013 20122015 Family Support Importance

86


31

28

30

28

26

25

34

34

22

39

33

31

35

24

44

49

44

42

43

50

38

45

47

42

44

48

40

44

20

18

19

23

23

23

21

17

25

15

20

16

21

23

3

3

4

5

5

1

5

3

5

1

2

3

2

5

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

2

1

2

1

1

3

2015 Kingston

2014 Kingston

2013 Kingston

State-wide

Metro

North

Central

South

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Family Support Services’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 27 Councils asked group: 8

2015 Family Support Importance

87


72

71

69

68

73

69

69

n/a

68

67

65

68

68

68

68

67

68

65

68

n/a

67

68

69

72

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

67

n/a

n/a

n/a

73

71

71

70

70

70

69

68

67

67

66

65

65+

Women

18-34

North

South

50-64

Kingston

Metro

State-wide

Men

Central

35-49

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Family Support Services’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 37 Councils asked group: 12 Note: Please see slide 5 for explanation about significant differences

2015 Family Support Performance 2014 2013 2012

88


14

11

12

11

10

15

11

14

10

17

16

15

9

13

34

37

33

34

32

33

31

37

35

33

47

24

39

25

22

20

26

21

19

23

23

20

24

20

27

28

18

12

3

4

2

4

3

3

2

3

3

3

2

4

2

3

1

1

1

1

3

1

1

3

1

27

27

26

29

35

25

30

25

27

27

9

25

31

47

2015 Kingston

2014 Kingston

2013 Kingston

State-wide

Metro

North

Central

South

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Family Support Services’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 37 Councils asked group: 12

2015 Family Support Performance

89


81

79

77

80

79

83

79

79

80

n/a

78

77

81

81

80

79

79

76

79

79

81

n/a

76

76

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

80

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

85

83

81

81

80

80

80

79

79

78

78

75

Women

50-64

South

35-49

Kingston

North

Central

State-wide

65+

Metro

18-34

Men

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Elderly Support Services’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 29 Councils asked group: 9 Note: Please see slide 5 for explanation about significant differences

2014 2013 20122015 Elderly Support Importance

90


40

36

33

36

34

36

40

42

26

52

36

40

47

36

41

46

49

44

45

46

40

39

48

35

40

43

38

44

18

15

13

16

18

18

19

18

25

12

24

16

14

15

1

1

2

2

2

1

1

1

1

2

1

2

1

1

1

1

2

2015 Kingston

2014 Kingston

2013 Kingston

State-wide

Metro

North

Central

South

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Elderly Support Services’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 29 Councils asked group: 9

2015 Elderly Support Importance

91


74

73

71

71

70

n/a

71

71

72

69

75

65

73

68

70

69

69

n/a

70

68

69

68

67

65

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

69

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

78

73

71

69

69

69

69

69

69

65

65

65

65+

South

50-64

Kingston

State-wide

Metro

North

Men

Women

Central

18-34

35-49

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Elderly Support Services’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 40 Councils asked group: 12 Note: Please see slide 5 for explanation about significant differences

2015 Elderly Support Performance 2014 2013 2012

92


16

16

14

15

12

15

14

18

17

14

11

7

20

27

35

35

34

34

31

34

32

38

33

36

36

40

27

34

19

15

20

19

17

24

21

14

20

19

27

12

27

13

4

4

3

4

3

5

2

4

4

3

4

4

2

3

2

1

2

2

1

6

2

2

2

4

25

28

27

26

35

23

25

26

24

26

20

31

24

24

2015 Kingston

2014 Kingston

2013 Kingston

State-wide

Metro

North

Central

South

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Elderly Support Services’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 40 Councils asked group: 12

2015 Elderly Support Performance

93


79

78

74

73

75

75

n/a

74

72

75

73

70

77

73

73

72

72

72

n/a

71

73

71

75

67

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

73

n/a

n/a

n/a

80

77

76

76

75

75

74

74

73

73

71

69

Women

18-34

South

50-64

Kingston

Central

Metro

35-49

State-wide

North

65+

Men

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Disadvantaged Support Services’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 13 Councils asked group: 6 Note: Please see slide 5 for explanation about significant differences

2014 2013 20122015 Disadvantaged Support Importance

94


31

26

24

28

29

24

37

32

22

40

36

30

37

23

41

49

46

42

42

51

31

42

43

39

42

45

35

42

21

20

25

23

22

20

24

20

27

16

18

21

25

24

3

3

3

4

4

1

6

3

5

2

4

1

1

5

1

1

1

1

1

3

1

3

3

1

1

1

2

2

2

1

1

2

2

1

5

2015 Kingston

2014 Kingston

2013 Kingston

State-wide

Metro

North

Central

South

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Disadvantaged Support Services’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 13 Councils asked group: 6

2015 Disadvantaged Support Importance

95


68

62

67

63

65

64

65

n/a

64

65

59

62

66

65

63

63

66

64

65

n/a

62

65

61

65

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

63

n/a

n/a

n/a

67

66

66

65

65

64

64

63

62

62

61

58

65+

North

South

Women

50-64

Kingston

18-34

Metro

State-wide

Men

35-49

Central

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Disadvantaged Support Services’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 17 Councils asked group: 7 Note: Please see slide 5 for explanation about significant differences

2015 Disadvantaged Support Performance 2014 2013 2012

96


8

11

8

7

6

12

4

8

6

9

9

3

9

11

30

25

28

28

27

31

24

33

28

31

34

34

27

22

24

24

24

23

21

23

23

26

26

22

33

19

23

19

5

3

3

6

4

6

8

3

6

5

7

6

2

6

1

3

1

2

1

3

1

1

3

2

32

34

35

35

41

28

38

30

33

32

18

34

37

43

2015 Kingston

2014 Kingston

2013 Kingston

State-wide

Metro

North

Central

South

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Disadvantaged Support Services’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 17 Councils asked group: 7

2015 Disadvantaged Support Performance

97


72

72

n/a

70

72

71

70

69

71

68

70

68

74

72

n/a

74

74

75

72

71

72

71

72

68

75

72

n/a

73

73

74

72

71

73

72

74

67

75

72

72

72

72

72

71

70

70

69

69

67

50-64

State-wide

Metro

Central

Women

35-49

Kingston

North

South

Men

65+

18-34

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Recreational Facilities’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 33 Councils asked group: 9 Note: Please see slide 5 for explanation about significant differences

2014 2013 20122015 Recreational Facilities Importance

98


20

18

24

23

23

22

18

23

20

22

19

15

21

26

20

46

51

46

46

46

48

51

43

46

40

52

45

52

48

41

29

24

25

26

26

27

25

32

29

31

27

33

24

24

34

4

6

4

4

3

3

6

2

3

6

2

7

1

2

4

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2015 Kingston

2014 Kingston

2013 Kingston

2012 Kingston

State-wide

Metro

North

Central

South

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+%


Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Recreational Facilities’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 33 Councils asked group: 9

2015 Recreational Facilities Importance

99


78

75

73

69

74

76

n/a

72

74

70

74

71

74

74

74

72

74

78

n/a

69

73

77

72

70

74

70

74

73

73

75

n/a

71

73

75

76

70

79

78

77

77

75

75

74

73

73

72

72

70

South

50-64

Women

35-49

Kingston

65+

Metro

North

Men

Central

18-34

State-wide

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Recreational Facilities’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 47 Councils asked group: 13 Note: Please see slide 5 for explanation about significant differences

2015 Recreational Facilities Performance 2014 2013 2012

100


29

26

27

24

22

27

25

21

40

26

33

27

33

32

26

46

46

46

50

43

46

45

56

39

47

45

44

46

47

48

18

20

20

17

23

20

25

13

17

19

17

18

16

16

21

3

4

5

5

6

3

3

4

1

4

1

4

3

1

1

2

1

1

1

2

1

1

4

2

3

1

4

1

1

1

2

3

2

3

3

4

1

2

2

2

2

2

2

3

2015 Kingston

2014 Kingston

2013 Kingston

2012 Kingston

State-wide

Metro

North

Central

South

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64


Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Recreational Facilities’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 47 Councils asked group: 13

2015 Recreational Facilities Performance

101


73

72

70

70

74

71

73

n/a

70

72

69

67

76

76

73

75

75

74

74

n/a

75

75

72

71

73

76

72

77

77

74

73

n/a

74

76

72

69

79

76

74

74

74

73

73

73

73

72

71

68

50-64

Women

Central

35-49

65+

Kingston

State-wide

Metro

South

North

Men

18-34

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘The appearance of public areas’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 30 Councils asked group: 8 Note: Please see slide 5 for explanation about significant differences

2014 2013 20122015 Public Areas Importance

102


23

18

24

23

24

23

18

27

24

19

27

11

28

36

20

48

48

51

52

47

50

55

43

47

47

49

53

42

43

55

27

32

22

23

25

25

25

28

27

31

23

33

28

20

23

1

2

2

2

2

2

2

1

2

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

2015 Kingston

2014 Kingston

2013 Kingston

2012 Kingston

State-wide

Metro

North

Central

South

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+%


Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘The appearance of public areas’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 30 Councils asked group: 8

2015 Public Areas Importance

103


78

75

73

74

74

73

72

n/a

72

74

68

74

74

73

76

73

73

73

70

n/a

71

75

70

74

76

72

74

73

73

73

71

n/a

71

73

68

74

77

76

75

74

74

74

74

73

72

72

71

71

South

35-49

65+

Kingston

Men

Women

50-64

Metro

State-wide

Central

North

18-34

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘The appearance of public areas’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 42 Councils asked group: 12 Note: Please see slide 5 for explanation about significant differences

2015 Public Areas Performance 2014 2013 2012

104


27

26

26

22

24

25

22

25

32

29

25

29

25

28

26

48

48

46

53

47

48

48

46

49

44

51

40

54

48

49

19

21

21

19

20

19

24

20

15

20

18

22

19

18

17

3

2

5

4

5

5

2

5

2

5

1

2

1

4

5

2

2

1

1

2

2

3

2

2

1

3

7

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

2015 Kingston

2014 Kingston

2013 Kingston

2012 Kingston

State-wide

Metro

North

Central

South

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64


Q2. How has Council performed on ‘The appearance of public areas’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 42 Councils asked group: 12

2015 Public Areas Performance

105


69

n/a

65

64

65

65

66

63

68

62

68

61

69

n/a

65

65

67

66

66

68

64

62

74

62

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

66

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

71

69

69

68

67

66

65

65

64

63

63

61

Women

Metro

35-49

South

50-64

Kingston

State-wide

Central

North

18-34

65+

Men

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Art Centres and Libraries’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 21 Councils asked group: 7 Note: Please see slide 5 for explanation about significant differences

2014 2013 20122015 Art Centres & Libraries Importance

106


15

13

13

16

20

14

18

14

10

21

16

18

19

9

43

44

45

40

43

40

37

49

40

45

36

51

38

45

32

33

32

33

30

36

31

30

37

28

38

22

34

36

8

9

7

8

6

10

8

5

10

5

9

7

8

6

2

1

2

2

1

1

4

3

2

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

2015 Kingston

2014 Kingston

2013 Kingston

State-wide

Metro

North

Central

South

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Art Centres and Libraries’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 21 Councils asked group: 7

2015 Art Centres & Libraries Importance

107


79

78

78

72

79

76

75

74

n/a

75

74

76

76

74

77

75

77

75

76

72

n/a

73

73

75

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

73

n/a

n/a

80

80

78

78

78

77

77

76

75

73

73

73

South

35-49

Women

18-34

65+

Kingston

Central

Men

Metro

State-wide

North

50-64

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Art Centres and Libraries’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 26 Councils asked group: 8 Note: Please see slide 5 for explanation about significant differences

2015 Art Centres & Libraries Performance 2014 2013 2012

108


31

27

24

24

25

25

31

36

28

34

33

40

20

26

40

47

48

44

47

42

35

42

38

41

36

31

49

47

17

15

20

18

16

23

17

11

17

16

16

16

21

14

2

3

2

4

3

4

1

2

2

2

4

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

10

7

6

9

8

6

15

8

13

6

11

9

7

11

2015 Kingston

2014 Kingston

2013 Kingston

State-wide

Metro

North

Central

South

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Art Centres and Libraries’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 26 Councils asked group: 8

2015 Art Centres & Libraries Performance

109


60

58

58

60

60

62

n/a

60

60

57

62

59

64

61

61

61

62

62

n/a

62

63

68

61

59

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

62

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

67

67

63

63

62

62

62

62

61

59

58

57

Women

18-34

South

50-64

Kingston

State-wide

Metro

North

Central

65+

35-49

Men

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Community and Cultural Activities’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 22 Councils asked group: 8 Note: Please see slide 5 for explanation about significant differences

2014 2013 20122015 Community Activities Importance

110


12

6

11

11

12

15

12

10

7

17

16

10

14

7

35

37

37

37

36

31

36

39

30

40

42

28

32

39

42

47

42

40

41

42

38

46

49

36

38

46

46

40

9

8

7

10

9

10

13

4

12

5

4

13

8

8

1

2

2

2

1

2

1

1

2

1

1

4

1

1

1

1

2

2015 Kingston

2014 Kingston

2013 Kingston

State-wide

Metro

North

Central

South

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Community and Cultural Activities’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 22 Councils asked group: 8

2015 Community Activities Importance

111


73

75

73

72

68

73

74

70

n/a

73

69

70

71

73

70

71

68

75

73

69

n/a

74

70

69

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

68

79

77

75

74

74

74

73

72

71

71

71

69

South

Women

35-49

Kingston

18-34

65+

50-64

North

Metro

Central

Men

State-wide

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Community and Cultural Activities’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 28 Councils asked group: 10 Note: Please see slide 5 for explanation about significant differences

2015 Community Activities Performance 2014 2013 2012

112


26

21

20

18

21

26

18

33

21

31

29

28

26

20

41

43

46

43

41

34

44

44

39

42

40

36

44

45

17

21

21

25

24

24

17

12

19

16

13

18

19

20

4

6

5

5

4

6

3

2

5

2

9

3

2

1

1

1

1

3

1

1

1

3

2

11

9

7

7

9

9

16

8

16

7

9

15

5

14

2015 Kingston

2014 Kingston

2013 Kingston

State-wide

Metro

North

Central

South

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Community and Cultural Activities’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 28 Councils asked group: 10

2015 Community Activities Performance

113


78

80

79

79

n/a

76

78

78

79

79

81

81

82

82

83

81

n/a

84

81

79

78

79

77

81

80

83

82

80

n/a

82

79

77

80

78

75

81

84

84

82

81

81

81

80

80

80

79

79

78

Central

50-64

Women

Kingston

Metro

35-49

South

Men

65+

State-wide

18-34

North

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Waste Management’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 33 Councils asked group: 10 Note: Please see slide 5 for explanation about significant differences

2014 2013 20122015 Waste Management Importance

114


38

35

40

37

35

39

34

46

35

34

42

38

40

45

29

48

48

45

47

46

47

47

45

52

52

45

42

46

45

61

13

15

15

15

16

13

18

9

13

13

14

20

12

10

9

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2015 Kingston

2014 Kingston

2013 Kingston

2012 Kingston

State-wide

Metro

North

Central

South

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+%


Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Waste Management’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 33 Councils asked group: 10

2015 Waste Management Importance

115


76

78

74

77

n/a

79

78

77

76

73

74

80

77

74

76

73

n/a

76

74

74

73

71

69

68

79

79

73

74

n/a

74

74

71

74

72

68

74

81

79

79

77

77

77

77

77

76

72

72

70

65+

South

50-64

Kingston

Metro

Central

Men

35-49

Women

State-wide

North

18-34

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Waste Management’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 45 Councils asked group: 13 Note: Please see slide 5 for explanation about significant differences

2015 Waste Management Performance 2014 2013 2012

116


33

33

26

26

25

32

31

35

34

38

29

24

34

37

39

46

48

50

48

47

49

42

47

49

43

49

45

48

47

46

15

12

16

18

17

13

17

11

16

12

17

22

12

12

12

3

3

4

5

6

3

5

5

2

4

4

4

2

1

2

2

3

1

3

1

5

1

4

4

1

1

1

1

2

2

1

1

1

2015 Kingston

2014 Kingston

2013 Kingston

2012 Kingston

State-wide

Metro

North

Central

South

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64


Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Waste Management’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 45 Councils asked group: 13

2015 Waste Management Performance

117


67

62

59

58

n/a

59

63

61

60

54

60

57

67

63

61

60

n/a

60

61

62

58

58

64

58

66

61

65

60

n/a

59

58

59

60

57

57

58

67

62

62

60

59

58

58

58

57

56

55

54

State-wide

Women

50-64

South

Metro

Kingston

35-49

65+

Central

18-34

North

Men

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Business and community development and tourism’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 23 Councils asked group: 6 Note: Please see slide 5 for explanation about significant differences

2014 2013 20122015 Business/Development/Tourism Importance

118


9

9

9

10

21

12

7

9

11

8

10

7

10

16

5

30

36

37

32

38

30

31

30

30

26

35

27

30

30

36

46

38

40

39

31

42

44

43

50

45

47

51

45

41

44

11

13

10

13

7

13

12

15

7

16

7

13

9

14

9

3

3

3

2

2

2

6

2

2

5

1

2

6

3

1

1

2

3

1

1

1

1

1

1

3

2015 Kingston

2014 Kingston

2013 Kingston

2012 Kingston

State-wide

Metro

North

Central

South

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+%


Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Business and community development and tourism’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 23 Councils asked group: 6

2015 Business/Development/Tourism Importance

119


62

62

n/a

64

61

62

57

61

60

57

62

59

61

62

n/a

61

60

62

61

63

59

58

62

59

61

60

n/a

67

58

62

56

58

52

58

57

56

66

64

62

62

61

61

61

61

60

58

57

57

South

Women

Metro

18-34

Kingston

State-wide

50-64

65+

35-49

North

Central

Men

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Business and community development and tourism’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 30 Councils asked group: 8 Note: Please see slide 5 for explanation about significant differences

2015 Business/Development/Tourism Performance 2014 2013 2012

120


11

7

6

8

11

8

5

8

17

6

14

20

8

9

4

28

32

34

25

34

31

30

24

30

29

27

27

30

28

27

31

27

34

36

31

31

39

27

28

32

30

31

34

32

26

8

9

7

11

10

7

8

11

6

9

7

13

4

8

6

3

2

2

1

3

2

3

3

3

5

1

4

4

1

1

19

23

17

20

12

21

15

27

17

19

20

4

19

21

36

2015 Kingston

2014 Kingston

2013 Kingston

2012 Kingston

State-wide

Metro

North

Central

South

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64


Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Business and community development and tourism’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 30 Councils asked group: 8

2015 Business/Development/Tourism Performance

121


76

73

77

70

70

72

n/a

64

69

70

69

63

75

72

72

71

69

73

n/a

68

66

66

69

60

79

75

71

73

71

72

n/a

73

70

69

77

58

79

77

76

74

72

72

72

71

70

69

68

66

50-64

65+

Central

Women

Kingston

State-wide

Metro

South

Men

North

35-49

18-34

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Council's general town planning policy’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 22 Councils asked group: 6 Note: Please see slide 5 for explanation about significant differences

2014 2013 20122015 Planning Importance

122


25

21

20

25

25

26

18

36

22

22

28

15

24

37

28

40

41

39

41

41

41

43

34

44

42

39

38

33

43

51

25

25

30

22

25

23

31

20

24

27

23

38

30

14

13

3

5

6

8

4

4

4

3

3

4

2

7

3

2

2

2

1

1

1

2

1

2

3

2

1

4

1

1

4

6

4

3

4

4

3

6

5

3

6

4

4

2

6

2015 Kingston

2014 Kingston

2013 Kingston

2012 Kingston

State-wide

Metro

North

Central

South

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+%


Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Council's general town planning policy’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 22 Councils asked group: 6

2015 Planning Importance

123


57

60

56

59

54

58

59

n/a

55

58

57

57

57

60

60

58

57

58

57

n/a

55

59

57

56

60

65

62

59

55

59

58

n/a

54

59

58

57

60

60

59

59

58

57

56

55

54

54

53

50

Men

18-34

North

South

50-64

Kingston

65+

Metro

State-wide

Women

35-49

Central

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Council's general town planning policy’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 31 Councils asked group: 9 Note: Please see slide 5 for explanation about significant differences

2015 Planning Performance 2014 2013 2012

124


6

5

6

5

5

6

7

5

7

9

3

7

4

7

7

28

31

30

34

28

28

31

24

29

27

29

27

30

33

24

33

32

33

31

31

31

41

22

37

37

30

44

30

26

30

11

10

8

8

12

11

9

17

7

10

12

7

12

14

13

4

3

4

3

6

5

1

8

3

2

6

9

4

3

17

20

19

19

17

19

11

23

18

15

19

16

15

16

24

2015 Kingston

2014 Kingston

2013 Kingston

2012 Kingston

State-wide

Metro

North

Central

South

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64


Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Council's general town planning policy’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 31 Councils asked group: 9

2015 Planning Performance

125


74

72

73

73

n/a

71

71

66

71

74

69

67

75

73

71

73

n/a

68

69

71

71

65

67

63

77

79

76

73

n/a

79

74

75

71

74

72

64

80

78

76

75

74

74

73

72

71

71

69

63

50-64

65+

Women

Central

Metro

35-49

Kingston

South

State-wide

North

Men

18-34

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Planning and Building Permits’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 22 Councils asked group: 7 Note: Please see slide 5 for explanation about significant differences

2014 2013 20122015 Planning & Building Permits Importance

126


29

22

21

28

26

30

22

36

30

23

35

9

36

42

36

37

42

43

44

39

38

43

34

34

36

37

42

28

37

39

27

26

26

21

27

25

29

23

28

32

21

40

27

18

18

6

6

6

5

5

4

5

6

6

7

4

9

7

2

3

1

1

1

1

2

3

2

3

2

2

2

2

1

2

1

1

4

2015 Kingston

2014 Kingston

2013 Kingston

2012 Kingston

State-wide

Metro

North

Central

South

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+%


Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Planning and Building Permits’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 22 Councils asked group: 7

2015 Planning & Building Permits Importance

127


64

53

60

54

55

51

53

n/a

56

49

52

52

59

61

64

61

60

57

55

n/a

59

50

67

51

63

60

56

59

57

52

54

n/a

55

53

57

56

63

61

58

58

56

55

54

53

53

53

50

47

18-34

North

South

Men

Kingston

50-64

State-wide

Metro

Women

65+

35-49

Central

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Planning and Building Permits’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 28 Councils asked group: 9 Note: Please see slide 5 for explanation about significant differences

2015 Planning & Building Permits Performance 2014 2013 2012

128


6

5

8

7

6

6

9

4

5

7

5

7

4

8

5

28

26

31

30

25

24

29

21

32

30

26

33

31

23

21

32

25

28

28

28

29

36

31

30

31

33

44

25

29

29

10

11

9

10

12

12

5

14

10

9

11

2

12

15

13

6

5

4

5

6

6

2

12

4

4

7

13

5

5

18

29

20

20

23

23

18

18

18

18

18

13

13

20

28

2015 Kingston

2014 Kingston

2013 Kingston

2012 Kingston

State-wide

Metro

North

Central

South

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64


Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Planning and Building Permits’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 28 Councils asked group: 9

2015 Planning & Building Permits Performance

129


72

74

78

78

75

74

72

n/a

73

76

70

70

72

74

77

76

77

74

74

n/a

72

75

71

73

73

69

76

70

73

71

74

n/a

71

72

67

70

79

77

77

77

76

75

75

74

73

73

73

69

50-64

Central

Women

18-34

35-49

Kingston

South

Metro

State-wide

North

Men

65+

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Environmental Sustainability’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 21 Councils asked group: 9 Note: Please see slide 5 for explanation about significant differences

2014 2013 20122015 Sustainability Importance

130


32

29

30

25

29

29

25

36

34

29

35

38

33

34

21

40

43

44

43

41

42

46

39

37

40

41

31

42

48

43

23

23

21

25

23

22

24

20

25

24

22

31

19

14

26

3

3

3

5

5

5

3

4

1

5

1

3

1

7

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2015 Kingston

2014 Kingston

2013 Kingston

2012 Kingston

State-wide

Metro

North

Central

South

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+%


Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Environmental Sustainability’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 21 Councils asked group: 9

2015 Sustainability Importance

131


68

62

62

62

63

n/a

64

63

64

66

63

58

68

71

67

69

67

n/a

64

69

67

62

69

64

66

67

65

62

64

n/a

64

65

64

63

65

63

68

68

66

66

65

65

64

64

64

64

63

62

South

65+

Men

50-64

Kingston

Metro

State-wide

Central

Women

18-34

35-49

North

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Environmental Sustainability’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 29 Councils asked group: 12 Note: Please see slide 5 for explanation about significant differences

2015 Sustainability Performance 2014 2013 2012

132


11

9

13

11

10

11

11

11

11

14

8

9

10

13

11

38

42

42

40

39

39

29

39

45

33

43

45

33

39

36

30

27

24

28

30

28

43

25

25

32

29

36

30

26

29

5

7

5

7

7

6

6

4

4

5

4

4

4

7

3

2

3

2

2

2

2

5

1

1

2

2

3

2

14

11

14

12

13

14

11

17

14

15

13

4

19

13

21

2015 Kingston

2014 Kingston

2013 Kingston

2012 Kingston

State-wide

Metro

North

Central

South

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64


Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Environmental Sustainability’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 29 Councils asked group: 12

2015 Sustainability Performance

133


82

81

80

76

76

n/a

77

74

81

73

73

71

81

81

80

78

76

n/a

74

79

75

75

72

71

79

78

80

78

77

n/a

77

79

76

75

73

74

83

81

80

79

77

77

77

77

76

75

73

71

Women

18-34

State-wide

South

Kingston

Metro

50-64

65+

North

Central

35-49

Men

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Emergency and Disaster Management’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 16 Councils asked group: 4 Note: Please see slide 5 for explanation about significant differences

2014 2013 20122015 Disaster Management Importance

134


38

40

41

38

44

39

37

36

41

26

50

45

36

40

32

37

32

32

35

35

34

36

36

40

43

32

40

33

32

45

18

19

18

18

15

19

23

19

13

21

15

11

22

24

16

4

6

7

6

4

6

3

5

3

6

1

4

4

2

3

2

1

2

1

1

1

1

2

2

2

1

4

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

3

2015 Kingston

2014 Kingston

2013 Kingston

2012 Kingston

State-wide

Metro

North

Central

South

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+%


Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Emergency and Disaster Management’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 16 Councils asked group: 4

2015 Disaster Management Importance

135


78

75

74

72

70

71

71

n/a

71

68

68

70

69

72

69

68

63

70

70

n/a

67

67

69

68

71

70

68

66

66

68

70

n/a

65

62

64

63

75

74

72

71

71

71

70

69

69

69

68

67

18-34

South

Women

Kingston

North

65+

State-wide

Metro

Men

50-64

35-49

Central

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Emergency and Disaster Management’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 22 Councils asked group: 5 Note: Please see slide 5 for explanation about significant differences

2015 Disaster Management Performance 2014 2013 2012

136


16

16

12

12

17

12

15

9

22

15

16

27

10

9

14

31

33

31

33

39

34

29

29

35

29

34

31

34

33

26

21

17

23

22

19

19

23

22

19

24

18

22

24

18

20

2

3

2

5

5

3

1

1

3

2

2

2

1

2

2

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

29

30

30

26

18

31

31

38

21

29

30

18

28

37

37

2015 Kingston

2014 Kingston

2013 Kingston

2012 Kingston

State-wide

Metro

North

Central

South

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64


Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Emergency and Disaster Management’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 22 Councils asked group: 5

2015 Disaster Management Performance

137


78

67

74

75

72

70

n/a

69

70

67

73

66

74

70

72

75

70

69

n/a

73

65

66

67

67

75

74

75

75

74

73

n/a

72

74

71

71

72

79

76

76

75

75

74

74

74

73

71

70

70

50-64

South

Women

State-wide

Central

Kingston

Metro

65+

35-49

Men

North

18-34

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Planning for population growth in the area’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 13 Councils asked group: 5 Note: Please see slide 5 for explanation about significant differences

2014 2013 20122015 Population Growth Importance

138


30

25

26

28

34

33

27

31

31

29

31

24

27

42

30

41

38

38

42

38

38

32

46

44

37

44

40

43

38

41

22

26

25

21

21

22

33

12

22

24

20

27

22

16

21

5

7

7

5

4

4

6

10

1

9

2

9

4

4

4

1

1

4

2

2

2

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

3

1

3

1

1

1

1

2

2

2

2015 Kingston

2014 Kingston

2013 Kingston

2012 Kingston

State-wide

Metro

North

Central

South

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+%


Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Planning for population growth in the area’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 13 Councils asked group: 5

2015 Population Growth Importance

139


68

58

60

57

58

59

50

56

54

n/a

54

56

62

60

62

59

58

58

56

58

54

n/a

56

51

61

55

55

54

54

54

50

52

52

n/a

49

52

66

62

61

59

58

58

57

55

54

54

53

51

18-34

North

South

Men

Kingston

Women

50-64

65+

State-wide

Metro

35-49

Central

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Planning for population growth in the area’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 7 Councils asked group: 16Note: Please see slide 5 for explanation about significant differences

2015 Population Growth Performance 2014 2013 2012

140


8

6

8

5

7

7

13

7

6

9

8

11

9

9

5

26

28

25

23

28

26

26

18

33

23

29

36

21

26

21

30

31

31

35

30

29

32

31

29

37

24

31

31

28

31

10

9

9

12

14

14

12

14

6

9

11

4

13

12

11

4

3

3

5

6

6

1

7

3

2

5

8

4

3

21

23

24

19

15

18

16

23

24

20

22

18

18

21

30

2015 Kingston

2014 Kingston

2013 Kingston

2012 Kingston

State-wide

Metro

North

Central

South

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64


Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Planning for population growth in the area’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 7 Councils asked group: 16

2015 Population Growth Performance

141


75

67

68

66

60

63

n/a

62

68

60

62

58

74

70

68

66

60

65

n/a

67

67

64

68

55

71

70

68

69

62

65

n/a

66

67

60

65

58

73

69

67

65

64

62

62

62

61

59

59

57

State-wide

50-64

65+

Women

Central

Kingston

Metro

South

North

Men

35-49

18-34

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Roadside slashing and weed control’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 10 Councils asked group: 1 Note: Please see slide 5 for explanation about significant differences

2014 2013 20122015 Weed Control Importance

142


13

11

13

16

28

13

9

16

13

10

16

9

11

19

15

36

44

42

35

40

36

40

37

32

33

39

29

33

41

45

40

34

37

38

26

40

40

33

45

43

36

49

39

36

33

9

9

7

8

5

9

9

12

7

14

5

9

18

3

5

2

2

1

1

1

2

3

1

2

1

3

4

1

1

1

1

1

2015 Kingston

2014 Kingston

2013 Kingston

2012 Kingston

State-wide

Metro

North

Central

South

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+%


Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Roadside slashing and weed control’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 10 Councils asked group: 1

2015 Weed Control Importance

143


73

68

69

68

68

n/a

71

65

68

67

62

55

70

66

62

66

65

n/a

67

63

65

62

70

56

69

69

68

66

66

n/a

64

66

67

62

65

61

72

71

71

70

69

69

68

67

67

66

64

55

18-34

South

35-49

Women

Kingston

Metro

Central

North

Men

50-64

65+

State-wide

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Roadside slashing and weed control’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 13 Councils asked group: 1 Note: Please see slide 5 for explanation about significant differences

2015 Weed Control Performance 2014 2013 2012

144


19

20

13

17

10

19

18

18

21

17

22

25

22

15

14

45

45

49

44

32

45

41

44

50

49

42

44

51

46

40

24

24

25

26

30

24

25

27

20

21

27

22

18

28

30

8

7

7

9

16

8

12

6

6

10

5

7

4

10

10

2

3

4

2

9

2

1

3

1

2

2

4

1

1

2

1

3

2

2

2

3

1

2

1

2

2

1

5

2015 Kingston

2014 Kingston

2013 Kingston

2012 Kingston

State-wide

Metro

North

Central

South

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64


Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Roadside slashing and weed control’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 13 Councils asked group: 1

2015 Weed Control Performance

145


69

68

64

67

67

65

66

n/a

69

63

65

63

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

69

69

69

67

67

67

66

66

66

65

64

63

State-wide

Women

18-34

North

Central

50-64

Kingston

Metro

35-49

South

65+

Men

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Business and community development’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 7 Councils asked group: 2 Note: Please see slide 5 for explanation about significant differences

2014 2013 20122015 Business/Community Development Importance

146


17

13

20

17

23

16

14

17

17

20

15

20

14

40

45

42

38

34

44

42

32

47

42

42

36

38

33

31

31

36

32

29

37

38

28

31

31

36

34

7

7

5

7

10

8

5

9

5

7

7

7

9

1

2

1

1

1

1

2

2

1

1

2

2

2

1

1

1

3

1

1

2

3

1

3

2015 Kingston

2014 Kingston

State-wide

Metro

North

Central

South

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Business and community development’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 7 Councils asked group: 2

2015 Business/Community Development Importance

147


n/a

65

61

63

66

63

68

61

62

62

58

59

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

63

63

63

62

62

62

62

62

61

60

60

59

Metro

South

50-64

Kingston

Central

Women

18-34

65+

Men

State-wide

North

35-49

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Business and community development’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 13 Councils asked group: 4 Note: Please see slide 5 for explanation about significant differences

2015 Business/Community Development Performance 2014 2013 2012

148


7

8

8

7

5

8

8

8

6

9

6

9

5

34

34

34

34

32

32

37

30

38

38

37

32

28

30

25

31

30

35

30

27

34

27

33

27

33

28

8

7

9

5

8

7

9

7

9

11

9

6

4

2

2

3

1

1

3

1

2

1

4

1

1

19

24

15

22

18

21

18

20

18

9

16

20

34

2015 Kingston

2014 Kingston

State-wide

Metro

North

Central

South

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Business and community development’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 13 Councils asked group: 4

2015 Business/Community Development Performance

150


48%52%MenWomen

13%

15%

28%

21%

23%18-2425-3435-4950-6465+

Please note that for the reason of simplifying reporting, interlocking age and gender reporting has not been included in this report. Interlocking age and gender analysis is still available in the dashboard and data tables provided alongside this report.

S3. [Record gender] / S4. To which of the following age groups do you belong?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 69 Councils asked group: 17

Gender Age

153


The survey was revised in 2012. As a result:

The survey is now conducted as a representative random probability survey of residents aged 18 years or over in local councils, whereas previously it was conducted as a ‘head of household’ survey.

As part of the change to a representative resident survey, results are now weighted post survey to the known population distribution of Kingston City Council according to the most recently available Australian Bureau of Statistics population estimates, whereas the results were previously not weighted.

The service responsibility area performance measures have changed significantly and the rating scale used to assess performance has also changed.

As such, the results of the 2012 State-wide Local Government Community Satisfaction Survey should be considered as a benchmark. Please note that comparisons should not be made with the State-wide Local Government Community Satisfaction Survey results from 2011 and prior due to the methodological and sampling changes. Comparisons in the period 2012-2015 have been made throughout this report as appropriate.

154


Demographic Actual survey sample size

Weighted base

Maximum margin of error at 95% confidence

interval

Kingston City Council 400 400 +/-4.9

Men 180 193 +/-7.3Women 220 207 +/-6.6North 120 120 +/-9.0Central 131 126 +/-8.6South 149 154 +/-8.118-34 years 45 113 +/-14.835-49 years 67 112 +/-12.150-64 years 136 82 +/-8.465+ years 152 93 +/-8.0

The sample size for the 2015 State-wide Local Government Community Satisfaction Survey for Kingston City Council was n=400. Unless otherwise noted, this is the total sample base for all reported charts and tables.

The maximum margin of error on a sample of approximately n=400 interviews is +/-4.9% at the 95% confidence level for results around 50%. Margins of error will be larger for any sub-samples. As an example, a result of 50% can be read confidently as falling midway in the range 45.1% - 54.9%.

Maximum margins of error are listed in the table below, based on a population of 120,000 people aged 18 years or over for Kingston City Council, according to ABS estimates.

155


All participating councils are listed in the State-wide report published on the DELWP website. In 2015, 69 of the 79 Councils throughout Victoria participated in this survey. For consistency of analysis and reporting across all projects, Local Government Victoria has aligned its presentation of data to use standard council groupings. Accordingly, the council reports for the community satisfaction survey provide analysis using these standard council groupings. Please note that councils participating in 2012, 2013 and 2014 vary slightly to those participating in 2015.

Council GroupsKingston City Council is classified as a Metro council according to the following classification list:

Metropolitan, Interface, Regional Centres, Large Rural & Small Rural

Councils participating in the Metro group are: Banyule, Bayside, Boroondara, Brimbank, Glen Eira, Greater Dandenong, Frankston, Kingston, Knox, Manningham, Maroondah, Melbourne, Monash, Moonee Valley, Moreland, Port Phillip and Stonnington.

Wherever appropriate, results for Kingston City Council for this 2015 State-wide Local Government Community Satisfaction Survey have been compared against other participating councils in the Metro group and on a State-wide basis. Please note however, that council groupings have changed for 2015. As such, comparisons to previous council group results can not be made within the reported charts. For comparisons with previous groupings, please contact JWS Research.

156


Index ScoresMany questions ask respondents to rate council performance on a five-point scale, for example, from ‘very good’ to ‘very poor’, with ‘can’t say’ also a possible response category. To facilitate ease of reporting and comparison of results over time, starting from the 2012 benchmark survey and measured against the State-wide result and the council group, an ‘Index Score’ has been calculated for such measures.

The Index Score is calculated and represented as a score out of 100 (on a 0 to 100 scale), with ‘can’t say’ responses excluded from the analysis. The ‘% RESULT’ for each scale category is multiplied by the ‘INDEX FACTOR’. This produces an ‘INDEX VALUE’ for each category, which are then summed to produce the ‘INDEX SCORE’, equating to ‘60’ in the following example.

SCALE CATEGORIES % RESULT INDEX FACTOR INDEX VALUE

Very good 9% 100 9Good 40% 75 30Average 37% 50 19Poor 9% 25 2Very poor 4% 0 0Can’t say 1% -- INDEX SCORE 60

157


Similarly, an Index Score has been calculated for the Core question ‘Performance direction in the last 12 months’, based on the following scale for each performance measure category, with ‘Can’t say’ responses excluded from the calculation.

SCALE CATEGORIES % RESULT INDEX FACTOR INDEX VALUE

Improved 36% 100 36Stayed the same 40% 50 20Deteriorated 23% 0 0Can’t say 1% -- INDEX SCORE 56

158


The test applied to the Indexes was an Independent Mean Test, as follows:

Z Score = ($1 - $2) / Sqrt (($3*2 / $5) + ($4*2 / $6))

Where:$1 = Index Score 1$2 = Index Score 2$3 = unweighted sample count 1$4 = unweighted sample count 1$5 = standard deviation 1$6 = standard deviation 2

All figures can be sourced from the detailed cross tabulations.

The test was applied at the 95% confidence interval, so if the Z Score was greater than +/- 1.954 the scores are significantly different.

159


Core, Optional and Tailored QuestionsOver and above necessary geographic and demographic questions required to ensure sample representativeness, a base set of questions for the 2015 State-wide Local Government Community Satisfaction Survey was designated as ‘Core’ and therefore compulsory inclusions for all participating Councils.

These core questions comprised: Overall performance last 12 months (Overall performance) Lobbying on behalf of community (Advocacy) Community consultation and engagement (Consultation) Decisions made in the interest of the community (Making community decisions) Condition of sealed local roads (Sealed local roads) Contact in last 12 months (Contact) Rating of contact (Customer service) Overall council direction last 12 months (Council direction)

Reporting of results for these core questions can always be compared against other participating councils in the council group and against all participating councils State-wide. Alternatively, some questions in the 2015 State-wide Local Government Community Satisfaction Survey were optional. Councils also had the ability to ask tailored questions specific only to their council.

160


ReportingEvery council that participated in the 2015 State-wide Local Government Community Satisfaction Survey receives a customised report. In addition, the state government is supplied with a State-wide summary report of the aggregate results of ‘Core’ and ‘Optional’ questions asked across all council areas surveyed.

Tailored questions commissioned by individual councils are reported only to the commissioning council and not otherwise shared unless by express written approval of the commissioning council.

The Overall State-wide Local Government Community Satisfaction Report is available at www.localgovernment.vic.gov.au.

http://www.localgovernment.vic.gov.au/

161


Core questions: Compulsory inclusion questions for all councils participating in the CSS.CSS: 2015 Victorian Local Government Community Satisfaction Survey.Council group: One of five classified groups, comprising: metropolitan, interface, regional centres, large rural and small rural.Council group average: The average result for all participating councils in the council group.Highest / lowest: The result described is the highest or lowest result across a particular demographic sub-group e.g. men, for the specific question being reported. Reference to the result for a demographic sub-group being the highest or lowest does not imply that it is significantly higher or lower, unless this is specifically mentioned.Index score: A score calculated and represented as a score out of 100 (on a 0 to 100 scale). This score is sometimes reported as a figure in brackets next to the category being described, e.g. men 50+ (60).Optional questions: Questions which councils had an option to include or not.Percentages: Also referred to as ‘detailed results’, meaning the proportion of responses, expressed as a percentage.Sample: The number of completed interviews, e.g. for a council or within a demographic sub-group.Significantly higher / lower: The result described is significantly higher or lower than the comparison result based on a statistical significance test at the 95% confidence limit. If the result referenced is statistically higher or lower then thiswill be specifically mentioned, however not all significantly higher or lower results are referenced in summary reporting.State-wide average: The average result for all participating councils in the State.Tailored questions: Individual questions tailored by and only reported to the commissioning council.Weighting: Weighting factors are applied to the sample for each council based on available age and gender proportions from ABS census information to ensure reported results are proportionate to the actual population of the council, rather than the achieved survey sample.

Survey methodology and sampling - City of Kingston...J00326 Community Satisfaction Survey 2015...

Documents

Transcript of Survey methodology and sampling - City of Kingston...J00326 Community Satisfaction Survey 2015...