Cardinia Shire Council · Emergency & disaster mngt Recreational facilities Community Satisfaction...

2019 Local

Government

Community

Satisfaction Survey

Cardinia Shire

CouncilCoordinated by the Department of

Environment, Land, Water and Planning

on behalf of Victorian councils

Contents

2

Background and objectives 4

Key findings and recommendations 6

Summary of findings 13

Detailed findings 28

Overall performance 29

Customer service 32

Communication 37

Council direction 42

Individual service areas 47

Community consultation and engagement 48

Lobbying on behalf of the community 52

Decisions made in the interest of the

community

54

Condition of sealed local roads 56

Informing the community 60

Condition of local streets and footpaths 64

Enforcement of local laws 68

Family support services 72

Recreational facilities 76

Appearance of public areas 80

Community Satisfaction Survey - Cardina Shire Council

Art centres and libraries 84

Waste management 88

Emergency and disaster management 92

Planning for population growth 96

Maintenance of unsealed roads 100

Business and community development 104

Tourism development 108

Detailed demographics 112

Appendix A: Index scores, margins of error

and significant differences

117

Appendix B: Further project information 122

81

40

80

50

80

58

-41 -30-21

75

73

72

Cardinia Shire Council – at a glance

3Note: Net differentials are calculated based on the un-rounded importance and performance scores, then rounded to the nearest whole number.

Top 3 performing areas

Top 3 areas for improvement

PerformanceImportance Net differential

Unsealed roads Population

growth

Sealed local

roadsOverall Council performance

Results shown are index scores out of 100.

61 61 60

Cardinia Interface State-wide

Art centres & libraries

Emergency & disaster mngt

Recreational facilities


Background and

objectives

4

The Victorian Community Satisfaction Survey

(CSS) creates a vital interface between the council

and their community.

Held annually, the CSS asks the opinions of local

people about the place they live, work and play and

provides confidence for councils in their efforts

and abilities.

Now in its twentieth year, this survey provides insight

into the community’s views on:

• councils’ overall performance with benchmarking

against State-wide and council group results

• community consultation and engagement

• advocacy and lobbying on behalf of the community

• customer service, local infrastructure, facilities and

• overall council direction.

When coupled with previous data, the survey provides

a reliable historical source of the community’s views

since 1998. A selection of results from the last seven

years shows that councils in Victoria continue to

provide services that meet the public’s expectations.

Serving Victoria for 20 years

Each year the CSS data is used to develop the State-

wide report which contains all of the aggregated

results, analysis and data. Moreover, with 20 years of

results, the CSS offers councils a long-term, consistent

measure of how they are performing – essential for

councils that work over the long term to provide

valuable services and infrastructure to their

communities.

Participation in the State-wide Local Government

Community Satisfaction Survey is optional.

Participating councils have various choices as to the

content of the questionnaire and the sample size to be

surveyed, depending on their individual strategic,

financial and other considerations.

Background and objectives

5


Key findings and

recommendations

6

The overall performance index score of 61 for Cardinia

Shire Council is unchanged from the 2018 result, and

Council has maintained its ratings gain from 2017 to

2018. Overall performance is within two index points of

Council’s peak result of 63 achieved in 2014.

Cardinia Shire Council’s overall performance is rated

similar to the average rating for councils State-wide and

in the Interface group (index scores of 60 and 61

respectively).

• Residents aged 18 to 34 years (index score of 67)

rate council highest for overall performance

compared to other demographic and geographic

groups, and significantly higher (at the 95%

confidence interval) than the Council average.

Half of residents rate Cardinia Shire Council’s overall

performance as ‘very good’ or ‘good’ (52%), compared

to 15% who rate it as ‘very poor’ or ‘poor’. A further

33% sit mid-scale, rating Council’s overall performance

as ‘average’.

Overall performance

7

61 61 60

Cardinia Interface State-wide

Overall Council performance

Results shown are index scores out of 100.


Contact with council

Two-thirds of Cardinia Shire Council residents (66%)

have had contact with Council in the last 12 months.

This result is lower, but not significantly different, to

2018 (69%).

• Residents aged 35 to 49 years had the most contact

with Council (72%) in 2019.

• Conversely, residents aged 18 to 34 years had the

least contact with council (59%). Rate of contact

decreased significantly among this group within the

last year (down 12 points from 2018).

Overall, newsletters sent via mail (33%) and email

(29%) are considered the best way for Council to

inform residents about news, information and upcoming

events.

• Residents aged 50 years and over prefer a print

newsletter sent via mail (42%) to email newsletters

(27%), while younger residents aged under 50 years

divide more equally in their newsletter preferences

(27% for mail and 30% for email).

• Another 18% of residents under 50 years of age

prefer to receive Council updates via social media.

Customer service

Cardinia Shire Council’s customer service index of 65 is

the same as the result for 2018, remaining eight points

down on Council’s highest result of 73 achieved in 2013

and 2015. Performance on this measure is rated

significantly lower than the State-wide average for

councils and in line with the Interface group average

(index scores of 71 and 69 respectively).

Just under two-thirds of residents rate Council’s

customer service as ‘very good’ or ‘good’ (63%),

compared to 19% who rate it ‘very poor’ or ‘poor’. A

further 16% provide an ‘average’ rating, in line with

2018 ratings.

• There are no significant differences across the

demographic or geographic cohorts on this measure

compared to the 2019 Council average, or compared

to last year’s results.

Customer contact and service

8


Top performing areas

The top performing service areas for Cardinia Shire

Council are:

• Art centres and libraries (index score of 75)

• Emergency and disaster management (index score

of 73, a significant increase of four points from 2018)

• Recreational facilities (index score of 72, a significant

increase of four points)

• Waste management (index score of 72).

Council’s performance remained relatively consistent

across most service areas from 2018, increasing

significantly on the two measures mentioned above,

with no significant ratings declines.

• Perceptions improved significantly from 2018 on

emergency and disaster management and

recreational facilities among residents of Growth

Areas, residents aged 18 to 34 years and men.

• Residents aged 65+ years also improved

significantly in their impressions of recreational

facilities.

Council performs in line with Interface group averages

on all but two measures where it performs significantly

lower – namely unsealed roads and the maintenance of

local streets and footpaths.

Areas for improvement

It is a positive result that Council did not experience

any significant declines in ratings in the past year.

Unsealed roads is the area that stands out as most in

need of Council attention. With a performance index

score of 40, Council rates lowest in this service area.

Council performance in this area is four index points

lower than in 2018, though this is not considered a

significant decline. Council performs significantly lower

than the State-wide and Interface group averages on

this measure (index scores of 44 and 50 respectively).

Just under one in five residents volunteer unsealed

road maintenance (19%) or sealed road maintenance

(17%) as council areas most in need of improvement.

Planning for population growth (index score of 50) is

Council’s second lowest performing service area after

unsealed roads.

With an index score of 56, local streets and footpaths is

the only other area (other than unsealed roads) where

Council performance rates significantly lower than the

Interface group average (index score of 60).

Top performing areas and areas for improvement

9


The individual service areas that have the strongest

influence on the overall performance rating (based on

regression analysis) are:

• Decisions made in the interest of the community

• The condition of sealed local roads

• The appearance of public areas.

Other service areas with a positive influence on overall

performance include:

• Business and community development

• Community consultation and engagement

• Informing the community.

Looking at key service areas only, arts centres and

libraries has the highest performance index and a

moderately positive influence on the overall

performance rating. Currently, Cardinia Shire Council is

performing well in this area (performance index of 75)

and, while it should remain a focus, there is greater

work to be done elsewhere.

The appearance of public areas has a strong influence

on overall performance ratings, but as Council is also

performing well here (index score of 69), there is not

much room for improvement.

Waste management and emergency management also

have high performance ratings, but have a low to

moderate influence on the overall performance rating.

Cardinia Shire Council’s decisions made in the

community’s interest, community consultation and

engagement, condition of sealed local roads as well as

how well it informs the community have lower (though

still positive) performance ratings overall. Continuing

efforts in these areas has the capacity to lift Council’s

overall performance rating. (These areas have

performance indices of 55 to 58.)

Council’s planning for population growth and

maintenance of unsealed roads have the lowest

performance ratings (50 and 40 respectively) and are

two areas that could have a strong positive influence on

overall performance perceptions if attended to.

Good communication and transparency with

residents about decisions the Council has made in

the community’s interest and its planning for

population growth as well as improved community

consultation and engagement and maintenance of

unsealed roads all could help drive up overall

opinion of the Council’s performance.

Influences on perceptions of overall performance

10


In terms of priorities for the year ahead, Cardinia Shire

Council should focus on maintaining and improving

performance in the individual service areas that most

influence perception of overall performance and that

have index scores with scope for improvement:

• Decisions made in the interest of the community

• Consultation and engagement

• Condition of sealed local roads

• Maintenance of unsealed roads

• Planning for population growth.

Council should also focus attention on service areas

where current performance levels are low and remain

significantly lower than the Interface group council

average, being unsealed roads and the maintenance of

local streets and footpaths.

Hypothetical trade-off

In a hypothetical situation, if forced to choose, residents

tend to prefer service cuts to keep rates at current

levels (46%) against the alternative of rate rises to

improve service quality (33%). One in five (21%) ‘can’t

say’ at this time.

It is important to note that a perception gap exists in

many of the aforementioned areas in terms of

perceived importance exceeding performance by 15 or

more points, including:

• Unsealed roads (margin of 41 points)

• Planning for population growth (margin of 30 points)

• Sealed local roads (margin of 21 points)

• Local streets and footpaths (margin of 21 points)

• Consultation and engagement (margin of 15 points).

More generally, consideration should also be given to

residents aged 50 to 64 years and residents of the

Southern Rural and Hills regions, who appear to be

driving negative opinion in a number of areas in 2019.

• It is also important not to ignore, and to learn from,

what is working amongst other groups, especially

residents aged 18 to 34 years, and use these

lessons to build on performance experience and

perceptions.

On the positive side, Council should look to build upon

its improved performance on emergency and disaster

management and recreational facilities.

Focus areas for coming 12 months

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, 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 understanding the responses of the key

gender and age groups, especially any target groups

identified as requiring attention.

A 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

Further areas of exploration

12


Summary of

findings

13

Summary of core measures

14

Index scores

68

73

69

73

6466

65 65

5755

57

5455

5857

6163

6160

57

61 61

5755 55 56

54

49

555654 54

53 5354

56 5655

5553

5152

535152

5553

51 51

52 51

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Sealed

Local

Roads

Community

Consultation

Customer

Service

Overall

Council

Direction

Overall

Performance

Advocacy Making

Community

Decisions


Summary of core measures

Performance MeasuresCardinia

2019

Cardinia

2018

Interface

2019

State-

wide

2019

Highest

score

Lowest

score

Overall Performance 61 61 61 60Aged 18-

34 years

Aged 50-

64 years

Community Consultation

(Community consultation and

engagement)

55 55 55 56Aged 18-

34 years

Aged 50-

64 years

Advocacy

(Lobbying on behalf of the community)53 52 54 54

Aged 18-

34 years

Aged 50-

64 years

Making Community Decisions

(Decisions made in the interest of the

community)

54 53 55 55Aged 18-

34 years

Aged 50-

64 years

Sealed Local Roads

(Condition of sealed local roads)58 55 60 56 Growth

Southern

Rural

Customer Service 65 65 69 71Aged 65+

years

Men,

Southern

Rural

Overall Council Direction 51 52 54 53Aged 18-

34 yearsHills

15


Summary of key community satisfaction

16

Key measures summary results (%)

13

8

5

6

18

27

39

30

26

30

30

36

33

35

29

33

24

16

10

14

12

13

18

7

5

7

7

8

8

12

6

22

11

1

2

Overall Performance


Advocacy

Making Community Decisions

Sealed Local Roads

Customer Service

Very good Good Average Poor Very poor Can't say

16 67 14 3Overall Council Direction

Improved Stayed the same Deteriorated Can't say


81

80

80

78

70

71

84

82

71

Unsealed roads

Population growth

Sealed local roads

Local streets & footpaths

Consultation & engagement

Informing the community


Waste management

Enforcement of local laws

40

50

58

56

55

57

73

72

61

Individual service areas importance vs performance

17Note: Net differentials are calculated based on the un-rounded importance and performance scores, then rounded to the nearest whole number.

Importance (index scores) Performance (index scores) Net Differential

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

necessary:

-41

-30

-21

-21

-15

-14

-11

-10

-10


We use regression analysis to investigate which

individual service areas, such as community

consultation, condition of sealed local roads, etc. (the

independent variables) are influencing respondent

perceptions of overall council performance (the

dependent variable).

In the charts that follow:

• The horizontal axis represents the council

performance index for each individual service.

Service areas appearing on the right-side of the

chart have a higher performance index than those on

the left.

• The vertical axis represents the Standardised Beta

Coefficient from the multiple regression performed.

This measures the contribution of each service area

to the model. Service areas near the top of the chart

have a greater positive effect on overall performance

ratings than service areas located closer to the axis.

• The charts are based on unweighted data, which

means the service performance indices in the

regression charts may vary by +/- 1-2 points on the

indices reported in charts and tables elsewhere in

this report.

The regressions are shown on the following two charts.

1. The first chart shows the results of a regression

analysis of all individual service areas selected by

Council.

2. The second chart shows the results of a

regression performed on a smaller set of service

areas, being those with a moderate-to-strong

influence on overall performance. Service areas

with a weak influence on overall performance (i.e. a

low Standardised Beta Coefficient) have been

excluded from the analysis.

Key insights from this analysis are derived from

the second chart.

Regression analysis explained

18


Influence on overall performance: all service areas

19

The multiple regression analysis model above (all service areas) has an R-squared value of 0.627 and adjusted R-square value of 0.611,

which means that 63% of the variance in community perceptions of overall performance can be predicted from these variables. The overall

model effect was statistically significant at p = 0.0001, F = 37.90. This model should be interpreted with some caution as some data is not

normally distributed and not all service areas have linear correlations.

2019 regression analysis (all service areas)


Influence on overall performance: key service areas

20The multiple regression analysis model above (reduced set of service areas) has an R-squared value of 0.626 and adjusted R-square value of

0.615, which means that 63% of the variance in community perceptions of overall performance can be predicted from these variables. The

overall model effect was statistically significant at p = 0.0001, F = 54.17.

2019 regression analysis (key service areas)


84

82

81

80

80

78

72

72

71

71

70

70

65

62

47


Waste management

Unsealed roads

Population growth

Sealed local roads


Appearance of public areas

Family support services





Business & community dev.


Tourism development

Individual service area importance

2019 individual service area importance (index scores)

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

21Q1. Firstly, how important should [RESPONSIBILITY AREA] be as a responsibility for Council?

Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 31 Councils asked group: 2

Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.

81

82

81

79

81

80

76

73

n/a

73

73

71

68

n/a

51

82

78

81

78

79

77

74

74

74

72

72

71

68

n/a

46

83

80

80

79

79

78

74

75

76

73

73

73

70

n/a

52

81

77

83

76

79

77

72

76

75

70

72

70

67

n/a

50

n/a

78

78

79

78

77

72

72

73

72

71

71

69

n/a

49

n/a

81

81

79

n/a

82

76

74

76

75

74

72

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


Individual service area importance

2019 individual service area importance (%)

42

54

47

42

38

47

21

28

26

28

21

24

17

14

3

45

33

34

37

40

31

52

40

42

39

45

39

38

39

24

13

10

15

18

17

16

24

24

25

24

26

30

33

29

38

1

2

3

2

4

4

2

5

5

5

6

5

9

13

26

1

1

1

2

1

3

2

2

1

2

1

4

9

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

Waste management


Unsealed roads

Sealed local roads


Population growth









Tourism development

Extremely important Very important Fairly important

Not that important Not at all important Can't say

22Q1. Firstly, how important should [RESPONSIBILITY AREA] be as a responsibility for Council? Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 31 Councils asked group: 2


Individual service area performance

2019 individual service area performance (index scores)

23

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

n/a

69

68

74

67

65

64

60

55

n/a

55

55

55

53

52

50

44

n/a

67

65

70

61

61

59

57

54

54

50

54

49

53

51

51

41

n/a

69

67

74

66

66

60

61

57

55

53

57

54

54

53

53

41

n/a

70

66

75

67

66

63

64

55

59

53

57

56

54

55

57

45

n/a

n/a

66

75

63

64

63

61

57

58

51

56

55

56

55

57

44

n/a

n/a

67

75

63

67

n/a

65

n/a

58

n/a

51

55

n/a

56

54

43

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

57

n/a

56

n/a

n/a

75

73

72

72

69

67

64

61

58

57

57

56

55

54

53

50

40




Waste management





Sealed local roads


Tourism development



Community decisions

Lobbying

Population growth

Unsealed roads

Q2. How has Council performed on [RESPONSIBILITY AREA] over the last 12 months?




Individual service area performance

24

2019 individual service area performance (%)

29

30

28

22

26

18

13

16

18

11

13

8

6

9

6

5

7

43

41

41

44

37

30

35

31

28

33

31

30

30

24

26

26

17

14

20

19

24

18

24

30

25

25

29

24

35

33

28

35

29

25

3

5

6

5

4

18

6

12

16

20

6

14

13

18

11

12

24

3

4

2

4

2

8

3

5

12

4

1

7

8

12

3

7

23

8

2

14

1

13

11

1

2

26

6

11

9

19

22

3


Waste management




Sealed local roads







Community decisions

Population growth

Tourism development

Lobbying

Unsealed roads


Q2. How has Council performed on [RESPONSIBILITY AREA] over the last 12 months?



Significantly Higher than

State-wide Average

Significantly Lower than

State-wide Average

25

• Waste management

• Business & community dev.

• Informing the community

• Enforcement of local laws

• Appearance of public areas

• Unsealed roads

• Tourism development

Individual service area performance vs State-wide average


Individual service area performance vs group average

26

Significantly Higher than

Group Average

Significantly Lower than

Group Average

• Not applicable • Local streets & footpaths

• Unsealed roads


n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

11

20

5

2

8

9

4

5

5

8

11

16

5

2

7

7

2

6

1

6

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

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

Areas for improvement

27

2019 areas for improvement (%)- Top mentions only -

19

17

9

6

6

5

5

5

5

6

Unsealed Road Maintenance

Sealed Road Maintenance

Infrastructure

Waste Management

Communication


Traffic Management

Footpaths/Walking Tracks

Public Safety

Nothing

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q17. What does Cardinia Shire Council MOST need to do to improve its performance?


Note: Significant differences have not been applied to this chart.

A verbatim listing of responses to this question can be found within the accompanying dashboard.


DETAILED

FINDINGS

28

Overall

performance

29

61

65

63

61

60

64

58

59

57

59

63

55

58

57

60

57

60

58

53

59

57

51

56

56

67

61

64

60

61

59

59

59

59

52

57

52

68

64

65

61

62

58

58

60

58

57

55

59

66

63

66

63

n/a

65

60

61

63

61

61

58

68

61

64

61

n/a

59

59

60

62

59

59

57

63

58

58

57

n/a

57

60

60

56

53

54

52

Overall performance

2019 overall performance (index scores)

67p

64

63

61

61

61

60

60

59

57

57

56

18-34

Women

Growth

Cardinia

Interface

65+

Southern Rural

State-wide

Men

Hills

35-49

50-64

30

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q3. ON BALANCE, for the last twelve months, how do you feel about the performance of Cardinia Shire 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?




Overall performance

31

Overall performance (%)

13

11

5

11

12

12

9

5

10

11

16

7

9

11

14

15

12

12

10

39

41

36

37

40

41

43

38

39

40

38

40

38

39

38

50

32

25

40

33

35

43

38

34

36

34

38

35

33

32

34

39

29

38

24

37

44

34

10

7

9

9

10

7

10

11

10

10

10

10

13

14

7

9

9

15

11

5

5

5

5

5

3

3

5

5

4

4

8

1

7

3

1

10

4

3

1

3

1

1

1

1

2019 Cardinia

2018 Cardinia

2017 Cardinia

2016 Cardinia

2015 Cardinia

2014 Cardinia

2013 Cardinia

2012 Cardinia

State-wide

Interface

Growth

Hills

Southern Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


Q3. ON BALANCE, for the last twelve months, how do you feel about the performance of Cardinia Shire 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?



Customer

service

32


2019 contact with council (%)

Have had contact

61

72 7270

6365

6966

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

33Q5. Over the last 12 months, have you or any member of your household had any contact with Cardinia Shire Council? This may have been in

person, in writing, by telephone conversation, by text message, by email or via their website or social media such as Facebook or Twitter?



63

76

66

66

66

69

64

69

71

72

61

71

66

71

71

65

67

65

59

62

65

69

58

59

69

71

76

58

59

63

61

57

67

61

58

55

75

63

72

67

67

70

54

70

73

68

60

72

70

76

75

69

69

72

n/a

71

75

68

61

73

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

60

n/a

60

63

59

57

57

61

n/a

63

64

57

61

63


2019 contact with council (%)

72

69

68

68

67

66

66

66

65

64

61q

59

35-49

50-64

Hills

Men

65+

Cardinia

Interface

Growth

Women

Southern Rural

State-wide

18-34

34

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q5. Over the last 12 months, have you or any member of your household had any contact with Cardinia Shire Council? This may have been in

person, in writing, by telephone conversation, by text message, by email or via their website or social media such as Facebook or Twitter?



Note: Some data may be missing for 2012 or 2013 due to a change in demographic analysis.


70

72

66

70

65

64

65

65

64

59

64

63

69

72

69

69

71

70

66

59

56

62

58

62

69

68

68

70

67

66

64

64

58

59

66

60

70

74

78

72

78

78

73

71

68

67

68

67

72

74

71

n/a

69

66

69

63

73

73

62

67

71

71

75

n/a

73

76

73

70

72

72

73

71

71

67

72

n/a

69

74

68

65

65

65

72

63

Customer service rating

35

2019 customer service rating (index scores)

71p

71

70

69

68

67

65

63

62

61

60

60

State-wide

65+

Women

Interface

Growth

18-34

Cardinia

50-64

Hills

35-49

Southern Rural

Men

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q5c. Thinking of the most recent contact, how would you rate Cardinia Shire 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: 63 Councils asked group: 5



Customer service rating

36

Customer service rating (%)

27

30

28

26

35

32

38

29

33

31

31

22

22

21

34

21

28

23

39

36

31

34

36

35

33

34

37

36

35

38

35

25

38

33

46

29

36

30

16

16

17

15

17

19

13

17

17

18

10

21

31

12

21

18

15

18

14

7

9

8

7

6

7

6

8

7

7

5

11

4

9

5

5

4

13

8

12

13

10

13

5

7

7

8

6

8

13

10

14

17

7

8

20

9

9

2

1

2

2

2

2

2

1

1

1

2

1

5

4

1

3

4

1

1

2019 Cardinia

2018 Cardinia

2017 Cardinia

2016 Cardinia

2015 Cardinia

2014 Cardinia

2013 Cardinia

2012 Cardinia

State-wide

Interface

Growth

Hills

Southern Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


Q5c. Thinking of the most recent contact, how would you rate Cardinia Shire 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: 63 Councils asked group: 5


Communication

37

Communication summary

Overall preferred forms of

communication• Newsletter sent via mail (33%)

Preferred forms of communication

among over 50s• Newsletter sent via mail (42%)

Preferred forms of communication

among under 50s• Newsletter sent via email (30%)

Greatest change since

2018

38

• Newsletter sent via email (-5)

• NEW ADDITION IN 2019: Social Media


Best form of communication

2019 best form of communication (%)

48

34 33

20

34

29

13

47

9

7

63

12

8

22 3

13

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

39Q13. If Cardinia Shire Council was going to get in touch with you to inform you about Council news and information and upcoming events,

which ONE of the following is the BEST way to communicate with you?


Council

Website

Text

MessageCouncil

Newsletter as

Local Paper Insert

Council

Newsletter

via Mail

Council

Newsletter

via Email

Advertising in

a Local

Newspaper

Social

Media


Best form of communication: under 50s

2019 under 50s best form of communication (%)

48

30

2721

33

30

11

3

67 4

3

5

18

11

1 23

18

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019



Base: All respondents aged under 50. Councils asked state-wide: 31 Councils asked group: 2

Council

Website

Text

MessageCouncil

Newsletter as

Local Paper Insert

Council

Newsletter

via Mail

Council

Newsletter

via Email

Advertising in

a Local

Newspaper

Social

Media


2019 best form of communication: over 50s

2019 over 50s best form of communication (%)

48

4042

17

35

27

16

6

9

1211

10

32

22

3

4

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019



Base: All respondents aged over 50. Councils asked state-wide: 31 Councils asked group: 2

Council

Website

Text

MessageCouncil

Newsletter as

Local Paper Insert

Council

Newsletter

via Mail

Council

Newsletter

via Email

Advertising in

a Local

Newspaper

Social

Media


Council direction

42

Council direction summary

43

• Hills residentsLeast satisfied with Council

direction

Council direction• 67% stayed about the same, up 2 points on 2018

• 16% improved, down 2 points on 2018

• 14% deteriorated, equal points on 2018

Most satisfied with Council

direction• Aged 18-34 years

Rates vs services trade-off • 33% prefer rate rise, up 3 points on 2018

• 46% prefer service cuts, down 8 points on 2018


Overall council direction last 12 months

44

2019 overall direction (index scores)

54

53

53

55

52

52

51

50

52

48

49

52

56

53

53

51

53

51

46

44

51

50

46

47

56

54

53

51

51

51

51

43

48

50

42

51

63

54

56

55

53

53

46

50

46

51

52

50

53

n/a

56

54

53

55

61

54

54

57

51

55

59

n/a

54

51

53

52

49

51

55

54

45

49

58

n/a

51

50

52

51

46

53

52

51

45

49

56

54

54

54

53

51

49

48

48

48

48

46

18-34

Interface

Growth

Women

State-wide

Cardinia

35-49

Southern Rural

65+

Men

50-64

Hills

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q6. Over the last 12 months, what is your view of the direction of Cardinia Shire Council’s overall performance?




Overall council direction last 12 months

2019 overall council direction (%)

16

18

16

17

20

22

19

15

19

20

22

6

9

13

18

21

17

9

9

67

65

63

62

63

61

61

65

62

62

60

78

76

67

67

67

60

74

73

14

14

15

16

14

12

15

14

14

12

14

14

13

17

11

9

20

14

13

3

4

6

4

3

4

5

6

5

5

4

2

3

3

4

3

2

3

5

2019 Cardinia

2018 Cardinia

2017 Cardinia

2016 Cardinia

2015 Cardinia

2014 Cardinia

2013 Cardinia

2012 Cardinia

State-wide

Interface

Growth

Hills

Southern Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+

Improved Stayed the same Deteriorated Can't say

45Q6. Over the last 12 months, what is your view of the direction of Cardinia Shire Council’s overall performance? Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 63 Councils asked group: 5


Rates / services trade-off

46

2019 rates / services trade-off (%)

10

9

10

10

11

11

8

16

5

18

4

9

8

23

20

23

23

26

21

15

21

25

24

26

19

18

19

27

22

19

17

20

22

18

20

20

18

17

19

28

27

27

28

29

21

33

27

29

24

28

31

31

21

16

18

21

17

27

23

20

21

14

24

24

24

2019 Cardinia

2018 Cardinia

State-wide

Interface

Growth

Hills

Southern Rural

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?



Individual

service areas

47

Community consultation and engagement importance

48

2019 Consultation and engagement importance (index scores)

78

76

74

75

73

72

70

70

71

70

77

69

69

68

76

74

74

74

71

76

71

72

71

74

67

71

73

64

77

73

75

72

74

76

73

75

73

76

71

72

72

71

74

74

74

73

72

74

69

72

70

73

69

67

71

64

80

76

74

72

73

73

68

n/a

71

75

71

68

71

63

78

76

73

76

74

72

72

n/a

72

72

70

70

73

66

n/a

n/a

73

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

81p

76p

74p

73

72

71

71

70

70

68

67

67

67

66

50-64

Personal user

State-wide

Household user

Women

65+

Growth

Interface

Cardinia

Hills

Southern Rural

Men

35-49

18-34

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Community consultation and engagement’ be as a responsibility for Council?




Community consultation and engagement importance

49

2019 Consultation and engagement importance (%)

24

25

24

27

22

24

25

29

26

25

23

20

23

25

20

19

46

19

33

29

39

39

42

41

43

41

41

41

38

41

36

39

34

44

34

41

35

50

44

44

30

29

27

27

27

29

26

24

29

28

33

33

33

27

38

32

16

27

17

18

5

5

4

3

7

5

4

4

5

5

6

4

7

3

8

5

3

3

4

8

2

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

3

3

1

1

3

1

1

2

1

1

1

2

2

1

3

1

1

2019 Cardinia

2018 Cardinia

2017 Cardinia

2016 Cardinia

2015 Cardinia

2014 Cardinia

2013 Cardinia

State-wide

Interface

Growth

Hills

Southern Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+

Personal user

Household user



Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Community consultation and engagement’ be as a responsibility for Council?



Community consultation and engagement performance

50

2019 Consultation and engagement performance (index scores)

62

55

56

59

57

55

56

53

55

57

49

57

51

45

51

48

54

52

50

55

53

49

49

49

47

48

46

48

60

54

51

51

56

54

55

53

54

55

51

54

49

45

58

52

56

58

58

56

57

51

56

60

54

54

55

54

52

54

61

60

55

57

n/a

55

55

54

56

58

55

53

62

56

56

56

57

57

n/a

53

55

57

51

54

51

49

64

60

n/a

n/a

60

57

n/a

55

57

60

59

53

50

52

60

57

57

57

56

56

55

55

55

55

55

53

51

49

18-34

Southern Rural

Personal user

Household user

Growth

State-wide

Interface

Men

Cardinia

Women

65+

35-49

Hills

50-64

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Community consultation and engagement’ over the last 12 months?




Community consultation and engagement performance

51

2019 Consultation and engagement performance (%)

8

8

2

8

5

6

10

7

9

8

9

7

7

7

9

11

8

5

7

11

11

30

29

23

27

33

32

24

34

30

29

31

24

36

30

30

38

26

22

28

36

35

35

30

38

34

32

33

36

37

31

31

34

36

37

38

33

30

40

40

33

30

32

14

17

19

16

15

13

15

8

15

14

14

18

9

14

15

11

14

20

17

11

12

7

6

6

6

5

6

5

6

6

6

6

8

7

6

7

6

8

9

4

10

9

6

10

12

9

11

10

10

8

9

12

6

7

4

6

7

5

5

4

12

2

2

2019 Cardinia

2018 Cardinia

2017 Cardinia

2016 Cardinia

2015 Cardinia

2014 Cardinia

2013 Cardinia

2012 Cardinia

State-wide

Interface

Growth

Hills

Southern Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+

Personal user

Household user


Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Community consultation and engagement’ over the last 12 months?



Lobbying on behalf of the community performance

52

2019 Lobbying performance (index scores)

54

52

54

48

55

54

54

52

49

47

53

43

52

50

52

50

53

54

54

51

51

44

53

48

56

54

55

54

54

53

55

53

49

49

55

43

58

53

59

53

57

55

56

55

52

55

54

55

55

59

55

60

54

56

n/a

55

55

53

54

50

63

56

56

56

56

55

n/a

56

55

54

50

52

62

55

56

60

57

55

n/a

56

56

51

51

53

63p

57

56

56

55

54

54

53

51

49

46q

43q

18-34

65+

Women

Southern Rural

Growth

State-wide

Interface

Cardinia

Men

Hills

35-49

50-64

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Lobbying on behalf of the community’ over the last 12 months?




Lobbying on behalf of the community performance

53

2019 Lobbying performance (%)

5

4

5

5

4

4

5

5

6

5

5

4

6

6

4

7

3

2

6

26

23

16

21

27

24

27

30

25

24

29

19

28

25

27

41

17

17

22

29

35

40

30

31

37

32

36

31

29

27

35

26

28

29

27

39

22

21

12

13

12

12

9

8

12

11

13

12

12

10

14

12

11

6

12

22

11

7

6

5

5

4

5

3

5

5

5

6

10

4

11

3

3

12

10

3

22

18

22

27

25

22

20

14

20

26

22

23

21

19

24

15

17

25

37

2019 Cardinia

2018 Cardinia

2017 Cardinia

2016 Cardinia

2015 Cardinia

2014 Cardinia

2013 Cardinia

2012 Cardinia

State-wide

Interface

Growth

Hills

Southern Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Lobbying on behalf of the community’ over the last 12 months?



Decisions made in the interest of the community

performance

54

2019 Community decisions made performance (index scores)

53

52

56

58

54

53

52

54

56

49

56

47

56

49

55

54

54

53

46

56

50

52

53

50

60

58

56

55

54

54

47

56

53

53

53

46

63

52

58

59

55

54

53

56

52

49

45

54

56

58

n/a

55

57

56

56

56

57

57

57

54

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

61p

57

55

55

55

54

54

53

53

53

51

46q

18-34

Southern Rural

Interface

Women

State-wide

Cardinia

Hills

Growth

65+

Men

35-49

50-64

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Decisions made in the interest of the community’ over the last 12 months?




Decisions made in the interest of the community

performance

55

2019 Community decisions made performance (%)

6

6

5

5

6

6

7

6

6

6

6

5

7

6

9

3

4

30

29

24

29

28

31

30

31

30

27

34

34

26

44

23

20

26

33

35

36

35

34

35

33

30

31

35

37

27

39

29

35

39

31

13

12

14

14

11

11

14

13

13

15

10

12

13

5

19

17

14

8

8

5

6

8

5

7

6

9

5

6

11

4

6

10

12

5

11

9

15

12

14

12

10

14

11

12

7

11

11

11

4

9

21

2019 Cardinia

2018 Cardinia

2017 Cardinia

2016 Cardinia

2015 Cardinia

2014 Cardinia

State-wide

Interface

Growth

Hills

Southern Rural

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?



The condition of sealed local roads in your area

importance

56

2019 Sealed local roads importance (index scores)

83

86

81

81

78

80

80

82

81

80

80

83

80

87

80

84

79

82

77

79

79

79

79

78

76

80

78

81

80

83

82

80

76

81

81

79

79

78

74

80

77

81

83

82

80

82

79

79

79

77

79

76

78

76

75

76

82

80

81

79

77

79

80

n/a

78

77

74

79

74

78

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

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

82

82

81

81

80

80

80

80

80

79

79

78

77

77

Women

Southern Rural

35-49

50-64

Growth

Household user

Personal user

Interface

Cardinia

State-wide

18-34

65+

Men

Hills

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘The condition of sealed local roads in your area’ be as a responsibility for Council?





importance

57

2019 Sealed local roads importance (%)

42

43

38

38

40

36

37

42

41

41

49

36

48

44

43

48

34

43

44

37

43

42

42

39

45

45

40

40

32

36

40

35

32

41

33

44

36

36

18

11

19

17

18

14

16

15

19

20

11

22

14

19

15

16

21

18

18

2

2

1

2

3

4

2

2

7

1

2

3

1

3

2

2

2

1

1

1

1

3

1

1

1

1

1

1

2019 Cardinia

2018 Cardinia

2017 Cardinia

2016 Cardinia

2015 Cardinia

2014 Cardinia

State-wide

Interface

Growth

Hills

Southern Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+

Personal user

Household user



Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘The condition of sealed local roads in your area’ be as a responsibility for Council?




performance

58

2019 Sealed local roads performance (index scores)

60

59

57

53

55

53

56

55

55

55

53

53

48

44

60

55

59

55

54

49

53

60

54

55

54

53

46

42

64

63

60

55

57

61

60

53

58

58

51

54

51

46

63

57

60

55

55

56

55

53

54

54

55

55

52

45

62

63

n/a

59

57

50

54

57

59

58

61

55

54

43

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

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

63p

61

60

59

58

58

58

58

57

57

57

56

53

49q

Growth

65+

Interface

Men

Cardinia

18-34

Women

35-49

Household user

Personal user

50-64

State-wide

Hills

Southern Rural

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘The condition of sealed local roads in your area’ over the last 12 months?





performance

59

2019 Sealed local roads performance (%)

18

12

9

12

10

13

13

14

25

10

7

21

16

18

26

15

10

18

18

30

34

37

36

36

37

33

37

29

32

32

31

30

30

20

30

45

29

29

24

27

30

28

27

20

28

27

24

22

29

20

28

23

22

28

27

24

24

18

14

12

16

17

18

16

13

15

26

16

17

19

23

17

21

10

20

20

8

12

12

7

9

9

10

7

6

8

16

10

7

6

13

6

7

8

8

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

2

1

1

3

1

1

1

1

2019 Cardinia

2018 Cardinia

2017 Cardinia

2016 Cardinia

2015 Cardinia

2014 Cardinia

State-wide

Interface

Growth

Hills

Southern Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+

Personal user

Household user


Q2. How has Council performed on ‘The condition of sealed local roads in your area’ over the last 12 months?



Informing the community importance

60

2019 Informing community importance (index scores)

n/a

n/a

75

77

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

76

76

74

74

76

74

74

74

73

73

71

77

72

72

79

77

76

77

76

75

75

76

75

75

75

77

78

72

77

77

75

74

75

76

74

75

74

72

75

76

72

72

75

76

75

n/a

71

74

75

73

75

75

68

77

74

71

79

78

75

n/a

76

76

79

76

78

77

74

75

75

73

n/a

n/a

75

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

78p

77p

75p

74p

73

72

72

71

71

70

70

70

66

64q

Women

50-64

State-wide

Interface

Hills

Growth

Personal user

Cardinia

Household user

35-49

18-34

65+

Southern Rural

Men

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Informing the community’ be as a responsibility for Council?




Informing the community importance

61

2019 Informing community importance (%)

26

28

32

31

25

33

32

30

26

32

13

16

34

23

26

37

20

24

23

42

46

44

41

45

44

41

41

44

32

50

39

44

46

36

40

45

45

45

25

20

20

24

26

19

22

23

24

29

26

32

19

24

30

17

28

26

27

5

5

4

4

3

3

4

4

4

6

6

8

1

4

5

4

5

4

4

2

1

1

1

1

2

2

1

4

4

3

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

3

1

2019 Cardinia

2017 Cardinia

2016 Cardinia

2015 Cardinia

2014 Cardinia

2013 Cardinia

State-wide

Interface

Growth

Hills

Southern Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+

Personal user

Household user



Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Informing the community’ be as a responsibility for Council?



Informing the community performance

62

2019 Informing community performance (index scores)

n/a

n/a

59

n/a

n/a

60

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

57

57

59

52

54

55

54

53

54

60

55

55

52

51

62

62

59

61

56

55

54

54

55

53

56

59

50

50

60

60

61

60

61

56

59

56

59

56

62

58

54

59

63

63

62

54

58

n/a

58

57

58

65

59

60

55

57

63

63

61

65

59

n/a

55

58

58

61

59

60

57

53

n/a

n/a

60

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

63p

63p

60p

59

59

59

59

58

57

57

57

56

54

51

Personal user

Household user

State-wide

18-34

Growth

Interface

35-49

Men

Cardinia

65+

Women

Southern Rural

Hills

50-64

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Informing the community’ over the last 12 months?




Informing the community performance

63

2019 Informing community performance (%)

11

6

10

11

9

13

13

12

12

8

14

12

11

14

10

10

11

15

15

33

28

29

35

35

28

35

32

36

30

26

34

32

35

42

15

33

40

39

29

41

35

34

37

34

31

32

25

35

33

28

30

24

24

49

28

29

30

20

17

16

12

13

16

14

16

19

21

23

21

19

21

20

20

17

13

13

4

4

6

6

5

3

5

4

4

4

4

4

4

3

4

5

6

2

2

2

4

5

2

2

6

3

3

3

2

1

1

4

3

2

6

1

1

2019 Cardinia

2017 Cardinia

2016 Cardinia

2015 Cardinia

2014 Cardinia

2013 Cardinia

State-wide

Interface

Growth

Hills

Southern Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+

Personal user

Household user


Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Informing the community’ over the last 12 months?



The condition of local streets and footpaths in your area

importance

64

2019 Streets and footpaths importance (index scores)

80

79

81

78

80

79

79

80

78

80

81

80

78

83

76

79

78

77

80

77

77

77

77

75

77

75

79

76

79

79

81

77

79

79

79

78

77

74

81

76

78

77

77

80

78

80

78

77

77

77

77

77

76

75

78

75

81

81

80

78

n/a

80

79

77

77

73

73

72

75

76

85

83

81

82

n/a

83

82

82

78

80

78

81

85

85

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

77

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

81

80

80

80

79

79

79

78

77

75

75

75

74

74

50-64

Women

35-49

Growth

Interface

Personal user

Household user

Cardinia

State-wide

18-34

Southern Rural

Men

65+

Hills

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘The condition of local streets and footpaths in your area’ be as a responsibility for Council?





importance

65

2019 Streets and footpaths importance (%)

38

40

37

36

34

34

41

34

41

42

33

33

34

42

35

41

49

30

40

40

40

41

37

41

43

44

44

44

40

40

38

43

40

41

43

43

28

43

40

40

17

16

21

17

19

14

12

18

16

14

22

16

19

14

15

14

18

21

16

16

4

2

2

2

2

6

1

2

2

4

4

3

5

3

5

3

3

4

4

4

1

2

1

1

1

1

3

3

2

3

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

2019 Cardinia

2018 Cardinia

2017 Cardinia

2016 Cardinia

2015 Cardinia

2014 Cardinia

2013 Cardinia

State-wide

Interface

Growth

Hills

Southern Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+

Personal user

Household user



Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘The condition of local streets and footpaths in your area’ be as a responsibility for Council?




performance

66

2019 Streets and footpaths performance (index scores)

58

59

58

60

52

58

55

52

58

57

58

52

54

48

59

56

57

53

56

55

54

53

54

55

54

52

45

43

65

57

57

58

65

58

57

56

61

53

61

48

53

44

61

56

58

55

64

58

57

56

60

50

59

57

55

53

61

n/a

58

59

52

54

56

59

57

60

57

56

53

51

56

n/a

58

48

54

51

51

51

49

53

49

46

52

41

n/a

n/a

57

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

62p

60p

59

58

57

57

56

56

56

56

56

53

48

48q

Growth

Interface

State-wide

65+

18-34

Women

Cardinia

Men

Household user

35-49

Personal user

50-64

Southern Rural

Hills

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘The condition of local streets and footpaths in your area’ over the last 12 months?





performance

67

2019 Streets and footpaths performance (%)

18

15

12

13

11

12

12

14

16

23

11

12

21

15

21

23

10

12

18

19

28

31

33

34

36

35

22

35

35

32

24

21

28

28

29

21

30

34

27

27

25

26

26

26

28

24

35

28

28

25

23

31

20

30

21

26

29

28

27

26

16

16

14

14

13

18

17

14

13

11

26

14

16

15

15

16

18

14

15

16

12

12

14

9

9

8

13

7

7

9

14

19

15

9

14

14

10

7

12

12

1

2

4

2

3

1

2

1

1

1

4

1

2

3

5

2019 Cardinia

2018 Cardinia

2017 Cardinia

2016 Cardinia

2015 Cardinia

2014 Cardinia

2013 Cardinia

State-wide

Interface

Growth

Hills

Southern Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+

Personal user

Household user


Q2. How has Council performed on ‘The condition of local streets and footpaths in your area’ over the last 12 months?



Enforcement of local laws importance

68

2019 Law enforcement importance (index scores)

76

76

75

74

74

74

74

73

70

71

71

76

71

69

72

72

75

74

73

74

78

72

72

68

71

70

70

69

76

76

78

78

73

74

74

73

70

74

70

71

68

66

75

76

75

74

71

72

71

70

71

67

71

69

65

65

75

74

75

72

n/a

69

75

72

73

74

70

77

69

70

77

77

79

76

n/a

76

73

75

74

75

71

69

70

75

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

70

n/a

n/a

n/a

79p

77p

76p

75p

73

72

72

71

71

71

71

70

66q

65q

Personal user

Household user

Women

Growth

Interface

18-34

65+

Cardinia

50-64

35-49

State-wide

Southern Rural

Men

Hills

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Enforcement of local laws’ be as a responsibility for Council?




Enforcement of local laws importance

69

2019 Law enforcement importance (%)

28

30

30

32

27

29

36

27

32

35

15

24

24

32

27

29

30

25

40

36

40

39

37

37

38

39

35

38

36

37

43

43

31

48

44

35

38

42

41

44

24

23

25

24

25

24

23

26

22

20

31

24

33

15

21

25

22

28

15

14

5

5

5

5

8

6

5

6

6

4

7

6

8

3

3

8

7

4

3

6

3

2

1

2

2

1

1

2

2

2

3

3

3

2

5

1

3

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2019 Cardinia

2018 Cardinia

2017 Cardinia

2016 Cardinia

2015 Cardinia

2014 Cardinia

2013 Cardinia

State-wide

Interface

Growth

Hills

Southern Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+

Personal user

Household user



Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Enforcement of local laws’ be as a responsibility for Council?



Enforcement of local laws performance

70

2019 Law enforcement performance (index scores)

59

64

60

65

56

61

59

60

59

58

55

62

61

58

58

64

58

57

54

60

53

57

51

49

57

58

55

57

67

63

63

62

56

61

57

61

60

60

59

61

59

54

74

66

65

65

63

65

59

64

62

62

63

56

63

61

61

66

60

64

65

n/a

58

61

60

60

58

63

58

58

70

65

65

63

68

n/a

58

65

70

72

66

63

62

62

n/a

65

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

Cardinia Shire Council · Emergency & disaster mngt Recreational facilities Community Satisfaction...

Documents

Transcript of Cardinia Shire Council · Emergency & disaster mngt Recreational facilities Community Satisfaction...