Tasmania State Emergency Service Volunteer …...The 2014 State Emergency Service (SES) volunteer...

1

A15/008488

Tasmania State Emergency Service Volunteer

Survey 2014

Report

Andrew Lea, ESM

Director, State Emergency Service

Hobart, March 2015 (Version 1.1)

Photo: SES volunteers at the launch of the Join, Learn, be Ready campaign, 17 October 2014

3

Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ………………………………………………………………………………… 4

BACKGROUND …………………………………………………………………………………………… 7

METHODOLOGY ………………………………………………………………………………………… 7

RESPONSE RATE ………………………………………………………………………………………. 7

ANALYSIS ………………………………………………………………………………………………… 8

RESULTS …………………………………………………………………………………………………. 8

VETtrak Profile Data ……………………………………………………………………………. 8

Personal Details (Questions 1-15) .……………………………………………………………. 12

Motivations (Questions 16-25) …………………………………………………………………. 20

Out-of-Pocket Expenses (Questions 26-27) ………………………………………………….. 26

SES Training (Questions 28-38) ……………………………………………………………….. 27

SES Equipment and Uniforms (Questions 39-45) ……………………………………………. 32

Management (Questions 46-63) ………………………………………………………………… 35

Work Health and Safety (Questions 64-69)…………………………………………………….. 49

Equity and Diversity (Questions 70-71) ………………………………………………………… 52

ATTACHMENT 1 – Tasmania SES Volunteer Survey 2014 Questionnaire

4

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The 2014 State Emergency Service (SES) volunteer survey was conducted in March 2014. It followed similar

surveys in 2002 and 2007.

VETtrak Profile Data:

Total number of volunteers across all Units: 532, a slight increase since 2007, however 35 of these

were in more than one Unit. Actual number of volunteer individuals: 497.

23.5% of SES volunteers are female, which has remained fairly steady since 2002.

Male membership peaks significantly in two different age groups (30-34 and 45-49) with a significant

dip in-between. By comparison, most female members are between 30 and 54 years of age, without

any significant peaks or dips. For each five year age bracket between 30 and 54 the number of

female volunteers does not vary by more than four members within each age group.

Average age: 45.8 years and increasing, projected to be 49 in 2020.

Average years of service: 8.4 years, indicating an increase since 2007, particularly in the Southern

and NW Regions (steady in Northern Region).

Three out of 35 Units are all male.

Survey Data:

Return rate: 31% (154 respondents out of a possible 497). A greater proportion of volunteers aged

between 50 and 64 completed the survey when compared with younger members

75% of Units were represented, with sufficient representation across age groups and gender within

each region

Volunteers have higher levels of education than in 2007.

22.3% of respondents also volunteer with other emergency services, indicating a slight decline since

2002 and 2007. 14.6% are Tasmania Fire Service volunteers and 2.8% Ambulance Tasmania.

Motivations

Road crash rescue (RCR) was the most enjoyable and rewarding role across both genders and all

age groups, with search and rescue coming second overall. After these two roles, general rescue and

public engagement activities appealed more to female members, while male members preferred flood

and storm response.

Word of mouth remained the most effective medium to introduce people to volunteering opportunities

in SES, particularly from current SES volunteer members.

The greatest motivating factor for joining and staying in the SES as a volunteer was to ‘give back to

the community’. After this, female members and younger members (18-34) were more attracted to

‘learning new skills’.

While ‘learning new skills’ was the third highest motivational factor overall in 2007 and 2014, around

twice as many respondents in 2014 opted for ‘learning new skills’ than in 2007, which suggests this is

progressively becoming a more significant motivational factor, particularly for female and younger

members.

41.8% of respondents felt that the SES did not receive enough publicity (34.0% thought publicity was

adequate).

37.1% felt their contributions were recognised by the Tasmanian public (13.7% disagreed). By

comparison, 67.1% felt that SES adequately recognised SES volunteer contributions (9.5%

disagreed).

56.0% of respondents were not aware of the SES Employer/Business Recognition Program.

Out-of-Pocket Expenses

Only 9.0% of respondents felt that their out-of-pocket expenses were unacceptable, particularly with

fuel and telephone costs. 27.8% reported that they had no out-of-pocket expenses and 63.2% said

they existed, but were acceptable. Loss of income was the most expensive out-of-pocket expense

raised.

5

Training

The greater majority of respondents (>80%) were satisfied that their training needs were met, it was

easy to understand, it was conducted professionally and at convenient times, and it was accessible.

The data indicated ongoing improvement since 2002.

Respondents continued to prefer Unit-level training in the evenings compared with regional or state-

level training on weekends. A reduced, but significant proportion of respondents (21.8%) preferred

regional-level training activities.

The greater majority of respondents (around 80%) saw value in ongoing participation in national

training events, biennial State Disaster Rescue Challenges and annual Land Navigation Challenges.

Equipment and Uniforms

The majority of respondents (>60%) agreed or strongly agreed that uniforms/personal protective

equipment (PPE) were suitable for their role, was issued in an appropriate time and was provided in

correct sizes. Of the 8.5% who disagreed or strongly disagreed, almost all were female.

Significantly less respondents (11.6%) felt that their equipment was unreliable or faulty when

compared to previous surveys.

The greater majority (83.7%) felt the equipment they used was adequate for the job it was intended for

(same result in 2007).

Management

Over 90% of respondents were familiar with the SES Principles and Code of Conduct

The greater majority of respondents (>89%) felt that their Unit Managers understood member needs,

were approachable, they communicated well, were fair to all Unit members and that they

professionally managed their Unit. The data indicated ongoing improvement since 2002 and 2007

and that the Unit Managers are held in high regard by their Unit members.

By comparison, a slightly lesser majority (64-80%) felt that their regional staff understood member

needs, were approachable, communicated well, were fair to all Unit members and that they

professionally managed their Regional Headquarters. A greater proportion of respondents (18-26%)

were neutral or unsure. The data indicated general improvement since 2007.

44-54% of respondents were satisfied that their Director understood member needs, was

approachable, communicated well, was fair to Unit members and effectively managed the State

Headquarters. 45-49% of respondents were neutral or unsure with their answers.

14.7% or respondents felt they should see more of their regional staff and 28.6% for the Director. The

majority were satisfied that they got to see enough of their regional staff and the Director in person.

Equipment remains the highest spending priority for Units, followed by PPE, training and vehicles.

32.9% of respondents were dissatisfied with the funding their Unit received and 41.0% were satisfied.

Regarding the level of funding the SES organisation received, 30.9% were dissatisfied, 24.2%

satisfied and 45.0% unsure.

23.2% of respondents rarely, or never read the SES Gazette newsletter (5.3% of these claimed they

had never heard of it).

Of those who were familiar with the SES Gazette newsletter, the majority believed it had a

professional layout, and was informative and interesting. The majority preferred more regular monthly

editions and that more hard copies be provided to Units. There was very little interest in a name

change.

The greater majority of respondents (70.0%) were aware of their legal protections while conducting

SES work.

More respondents agreed (49.6%) than disagreed (9.2%) regarding the establishment of a Tasmania

SES Volunteer Association. 41.1% of respondents were neutral or unsure.

More respondents agreed (37.3%) than disagreed (19.7%) regarding the establishment of a non-

operational/operational support stream of SES volunteering. 43.0% were neutral or unsure.

6

Work Health and Safety

The greater majority of respondents (93.5%) continue to indicate that they have good awareness of

their work, health and safety (WHS) requirements. A comparison with previous surveys indicates

ongoing improvement.

35.3% of respondents did not know, or were not sure who their Health and Safety Representative

(HSR) was.

88.9% of respondents felt that SES had a good WHS culture.

The greater majority of respondents (81-94%) continued to report that their Unit complied with WHS

requirements; that Regional staff, Unit Managers or Team Leaders were actively responsible for their

safety; and that they knew who to approach if they had a WHS issue or concern.

Equity and Diversity

The greater majority of respondents (81.5%) felt they were aware of their equity and diversity

requirements.

The greater majority of respondents (75.3%) felt that their Unit complied with equity and diversity

requirements. No respondents thought their Unit did not comply and 24.7% were unsure.

7

BACKGROUND

Following similar surveys in 2002 and 2007, the 2014 SES volunteer survey was undertaken in March 2014.

The primary aim has remained the same, to obtain data that will help future decisions and insights on how

SES management can better support our volunteers. The survey was managed and analysed by the

Director’s Office, with support from State headquarters administration staff and the Executive Management

Group. Regional staff and Unit Managers assisted with the distribution and administration of survey

questionnaires.

The 2002 and 2007 SES volunteer surveys provided SES management with great insights into issues and

trends that led to many significant improvements. The results helped to develop and justify significant

changes and improvements to funding, resource provision, training and general support to volunteers. They

also helped management to develop initiatives, such as long service medals and general duties uniforms.

In line with the Department of Police and Emergency Management priority under Output 4: Emergency

Management, to “continue to support SES volunteers”, surveys of this type are conducted by SES every 5-7

years to provide management a better understanding of volunteer support issues and trends. These inform

and help to justify changes and improvements.

METHODOLOGY

At the time of the survey (March 2014), all 532 active volunteers were asked through their Unit Managers to

complete a paper survey questionnaire comprising of 71 questions covering:

Personal details – Questions 1-15

Motivations – Questions 16-25

Out-of-pocket expenses – Questions 26-27

SES training – Questions 28-38

SES equipment and uniforms – Questions 39-45

Management – Questions 46-63

Work health and safety – Questions 64-69

Equity and diversity – Questions 70-71

For the purpose of assessing trends over the years, many of the questions were the same, or similar to

questions asked in 2002 and/or 2007. Other new questions were included to explore new or emerging issues

based on discussions with volunteers or regional staff. A copy of the 2014 survey questionnaire is attached.

Sufficient numbers of 2014 surveys with pre-paid return envelopes were mailed to each Unit Manager for

distribution and completion by members in March 2014. Instructions clearly indicated that participant names

were not required and all data will be treated as confidential. Respondents were asked to indicate their Unit

name. As this could be seen to unfairly point the finger at certain Unit Managers if the responses were

adverse, the survey instructions gave an assurance that this report will not include data that compares each

Unit or Unit Manager. This data will be assessed separately by management and dealt with in a discrete and

confidential manner.

March 2014 VETtrak data was used to provide additional data on total number of volunteers, gender, average

age per Unit and average years of service per unit. VETtrak is the training data management system used by

SES for all volunteers.

RESPONSE RATE

A total of 154 volunteers completed and returned the survey questionnaire. In March 2014 there were 532

volunteers, but an analysis of volunteer numbers within VETtrak has revealed that 35 of these volunteers were

represented in two different Units. While all 532 volunteers would have been presented with the

questionnaire, it could be reasonably assumed that those who were members of more than one Unit would

have only completed the survey once, so the return rate used a total of 497 volunteers for the ‘return rate’

calculation.

The return rate for the 2014 survey was therefore 31% (2002 Survey: 59%; 2007 Survey: 35%)

Per Table 3, all but nine of the 36 Units were represented with survey responses, however nine respondents

chose not to identify their Unit name. The percentage age and gender profile for respondents was not

8

markedly different from the percentage age and gender profile obtained for all volunteers via VETtrak data, so

the data obtained from the respondents was considered as statistically valid and representative of all

volunteers.

Efforts should be made for future surveys to improve the return rate. This could be achieved with greater Unit-

level and regional publicity, by programming survey work into the Unit training night programs and by including

the option of completing the surveys electronically (eg, Survey Monkey).

ANALYSIS

All survey data was recorded in two excel spread sheets: one with each row representing the survey question

and the other with each row representing each respondents answers. The latter was used to analyse the

results across certain attributes such as age, sex, etc, where required.

Results are primarily represented using tables or histograms (graphs) showing the percentage of respondents

who answered each question, or actual numbers where appropriate. Results have been assessed across all

respondents state wide and, where appropriate, at regional level or relating to the Director (Unit-level for

internal management purposes only per confidentiality requirements).

Because the data only represented that of the 154 respondents (only 31% of members), VETtrak data

obtained in March 2014 was used to represent true figures on the total number of volunteers, the gender

profile, average ages and average years of service. This data was broken down into Regions and Units to

provide the true status of volunteerism in March 2014 (see Tables 1 and 2).

The ‘Personal Details’ data, which included gender, age and years of service, represented the respondents

only and was used to analyse any significant results relating to respondent gender, age, years of service, etc.

The number of respondents for each question are represented as “n”.

Analysis was derived from tabulated or graphed data. For each question, an assessment was been made

whether deeper analysis was required at regional levels or across certain attributes such as gender or age.

Where comparative data is also available from the 2002 and 2007 surveys, it has been included to help

analyse any trends.

Observations and comments arising from the analysis of all data are included in the Results, below.

RESULTS

VETtrak Profile Data

The VETtrak data used to provide true profiles of total SES volunteer numbers, gender, age and years of

service was provided at the end of March 2014 and is included at Tables 1 and 2.

Table 1 represents the data for each SES Unit across the three regions and indicates a total of 532 SES

volunteers. This is essentially the total number of volunteer members of each SES Unit added together. When

reporting total number of volunteers for the purpose of Corporate Management Group or Report on

Government Services reporting, SES has traditionally reported this dataset, but deeper analysis per Table 2

has revealed that total membership at an individual level is only 497 state wide. The reason for this is 35

volunteers are members of more than one Unit, mostly Search and Rescue (SAR) Unit members who are also

members of municipal SES units within the region.

Chart 1 represents the true age profile across all registered volunteers, including a gender comparison,

according to VETtrak data. 24.1% of all volunteers are female (see Chart 2), which is about the same as in

2007 (23.9%). Previous surveys did not include gender breakdowns in their age profiling, so it’s difficult to

determine how this is trending.

9

Table 1 - Volunteer Numbers, Age, Gender and Years of Service Profile - March 2014 (Source: VETtrak)

SES Units No. Active

Volunteers

Male Female Average

Age

Average Years

of Service

Southern Region

Brighton Unit 24 22 2 60.38 15.47

Bruny Island Unit 12 11 1 56.17 6.54

Central Highlands Unit 10 7 3 42.20 3.62

Derwent Valley Unit 18 12 6 44.44 9.43

Glamorgan/Spring Bay Unit 6 6 0 57.50 6.62

Huon Valley Unit 17 12 5 49.12 10.01

Southern Midlands Unit 15 14 1 47.47 9.28

Southern Regional Unit (Manager) 1 1 0 50.00 14.16

SRU (General Response Unit) 52 35 17 40.50 8.83

SRU (Search and Rescue Unit) 29 23 6 38.97 5.77

Tasman Unit 16 12 4 45.25 12.64

Region Totals/Averages: 200 155 45 46.56 9.15

Northern Region

Break O'Day Unit 17 13 4 47.35 6.04

Dorset Unit 10 10 0 50.90 13.70

Flinders Unit 14 13 1 51.57 8.58

George Town Unit 11 10 1 39.73 9.71

Meander Valley Unit 19 17 2 38.32 10.65

Northern Midlands Unit 7 7 0 54.14 8.63

Regional Headquarters Unit - Nth 1 1 0 61.00 2.46

Operations Support Team (NRU) 11 9 2 52.27 2.84

Communications Team (NRU) 13 6 7 53.85 4.83

General Rescue Team (NRU) 34 24 10 42.18 3.61

Search and Rescue Team (NRU) 18 15 3 48.78 5.08

West Tamar Unit 15 10 5 49.47 7.10


North West Region

Burnie Unit 17 15 2 47.06 10.17

Central Coast Unit 16 12 4 37.69 10.86

Circular Head Unit 16 10 6 47.94 7.34

Incident Management Unit (NW) 11 4 7 51.36 9.04

Kentish Unit 14 10 4 46.29 11.64

King Island Unit 8 6 2 48.75 10.45

Mersey Unit 24 20 4 45.92 12.65

Queenstown Unit 10 4 6 39.20 4.90

Rosebery Unit 4 3 1 33.25 3.99

Search and Rescue Unit (NW) 19 15 4 45.58 9.61

Waratah Unit 4 2 2 60.25 8.25

Wynyard Unit 14 10 4 39.71 3.91

Zeehan Unit 5 4 1 46.80 12.40


State Totals/Averages1: 532 405

(76.1%)

127

(23.9%)

46.20 8.44

1 These totals represent the total number of active volunteers within each SES Unit, however 35 of these volunteers serve in multiple SES Units (most are SAR volunteers). The actual total number of individual SES volunteers is 497 (see Table 2)

10

There is a dip in the total number of volunteers within the 35-44 year age bracket, with the largest number of

volunteers in the 45-49 year age bracket. The dip and the peak number relates to male members only.

Female membership peaks within the 35-39 year age bracket but numbers within each five year bracket

between 30 and 54 years of age don’t vary by more than four members.

Chart 2 reveals that overall volunteer numbers have remained steady since 2007 with no significant variations

across the regions. The NW Region had the highest proportion of female volunteers (29.0%). The Northern

Region had the lowest proportion of female members (20.6%).

The overall average age in 2014, per Chart 3, is 46.2 years. This represents a 3.3 year variation upwards

since 2007, where the overall average age was less at 42.9 years. At this rate (half a year increase in

average age per year), the average age in 2020 will be over 49 years of age. In 2007, the average ages

across the regions varied by around four years, but in 2014, they vary by less than two years. The most

significant change has been in the Sothern and Northern regions, while the average age in the NW Region

has remained steady. The reasons for this are not known.

Between 2007 and 2014, the average years of service per Chart 4 has increased from 7.0 years to 8.4 years.

While the average years of service have remained steady at 6.7 years for the Northern Region, the Southern

and NW Regions have increased to 9.2 and 9.3 years respectively.

Table 2 - Actual Volunteer Numbers, Age, Gender and Years of Service Profile - March 2014 (Source:

VETtrak)

This report shows the actual number of active volunteers, regardless of how many are in more than one unit.

Region Actual No.

Active

Volunteers

No. in

Multiple SES

Units

Actual Male Actual Female Actual

Average

Age

Actual Average

Years

of Service

Southern Region 196 4 152

(77.6%)

44

(22.4%)

46.62 9.16

Northern Region 155 15 124

(80.0%)

31

(20.0%)

46.32 6.85

North West Region 146 16 104

(71.2%)

42

(28.8%)

44.24 8.92

State Totals: 497 35 380

(76.5%)

117

(23.5%)

45.82 8.37

2

7

37

49

60

49 48

64

5146

50

40

10

40

9

15

27

38

45

3134

50

37 3941

37

84

0

7

1 2

10 1115

1814 14 14

79

3 20 0

20

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Under18

18 - 19 20 - 24 25 - 29 30 - 34 35 - 39 40 -44 45 - 49 50 - 54 55 - 59 60 - 64 65 - 69 70 - 74 75 - 79 80 - 84 85+

Vo

lun

tee

r N

um

be

rs

Age

Chart 1 - Age Profile: All Volunteers March 2014 (Source: VETtrak)

Total

Male

Female

11

526

187161

178

532

200170 162

399 (75.9%)

142 (75.9%) 119 (73.9%)138 (77.5%)

405 (76.1%)

155 (77.5%)135 (79.4%)

115 (71.0%)

127 (24.1%)

45 (24.1%) 42 (26.1%)

40 (22.5%)

127 (23.9%)

45 (22.5%) 35 (20.6%)

47 (29.0%)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Statewide Southern Region Northern Region Northwestern Region

Nu

mb

ers

Chart 2 - Volunteer Numbers: Gender (per Table 1)

Total 2007

Total 2014

Male 2007

Male 2014

Female 2007

Female 2014

42.95

40.91

42.17

45.06

46.246.56 46.88

45.04

36

38

40

42

44

46

48


Age

Chart 3 - Average Age: All Volunteers (per Table 1)

20072014

6.98 7.266.66

6.98

8.44

9.15

6.74

9.33

0

2

4

6

8

10


Year

s Se

rvic

e

Chart 4 - Average Years of Service with SES (Per Table 1)

20072014

12

Personal Details

Question 1: Unit Name?

All but nine of the SES Units were represented, however 9 respondents did not indicate which Unit they

were from. Despite this the regional and gender representation, per Table 3, was considered appropriate

and statistically valid for the purposes of this analysis.

Table 3 – Regional and Volunteer representation in the survey

Sth Region Nth Region NW Region Statewide

No of Units 11 12 13 36

No of Units represented in survey

10 9 8 27

% Units represented in each area

91% 75% 62% 75%

No of SES Volunteers (ref Table 2)

196 (152M, 44F)

155 (124M, 31F)

146 (104M, 42F)

497 (380M, 117F)

No of volunteers represented in survey (n)

56 (43M, 13F)

56 (45M, 11F)

42 (31M, 11F)

154 (119M, 35F)

% volunteers represented in each area

28.6% (28.3% of M, 29.5% of F)

36.1% (36.3% of M, 35.5% of F)

28.8% (29.8% of M, 26.2% of F)

31% (31.3% of M, 29.9% of F)

Question 2: Which age bracket are you in?

The age profile for respondents compared with the actual age profile for all volunteers per Chart 1 reveals

that virtually all age groups were represented in the survey, but the older age groups (55-64) were

particularly better represented than the other younger age groups. The reasons for this are unclear, but the

following factors may have contributed to this result and should be taken into account for future volunteer

surveys:

Younger members may be more accustomed to electronic media for surveys, eg, Survey Monkey

The more elderly or longer serving members may be more familiar with the benefits these surveys

can offer

The more elderly may have more free time or less time pressures to complete the surveys

01

8

11

17

11 1112

22

25

22

10

20 0 0

01

68

13

6

97

15

2122

10

12

0 00 02

34

5

2

57

4

0 01

0 0 00

5

10

15

20

25

30

Under18

18 - 19 20 - 24 25 - 29 30 - 34 35 - 39 40 -44 45 - 49 50 - 54 55 - 59 60 - 64 65 - 69 70 - 74 75 - 79 80 - 84 85+Vo

lun

tee

r N

um

be

rs (

resp

on

de

nts

)

Age

Chart 5 - Age Profile: Respondents March 2014 (n=154)

Total

Male

Female

13

Question 3: What Gender are you?

See results for question 2.

Question 4: How many years have you been a registered member of SES?

Chart 6 reveals that the majority of respondents (93 respondents, or 60%) had less than 10 years of service.

Per Table 2, the overall average years of service for SES volunteers was 8.4 years. 40% of respondents

exceeded this average. Similar data from the previous surveys was not available for comparison.

Question 5: Do you identify yourself as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander?

The proportion of SES respondents in 2014 that were aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander was 3.3%, which

was not significantly different from 2007 (3.9%).

Question 6: Do you speak languages other than English?

The proportion of SES volunteers in 2014 who could speak languages other than English was 5.2%, which was

not significantly different from 2007 (7.6%). The specific languages that can be spoken have not remained

consistent across the last two surveys, which would (in the main) suggest a different set of respondents.

Languages in 2014 included: Russian, Indonesian, Arabic, Japanese, Polish, French and various dialects.

59

34

1612

86

42

0

44

25

12 118

63

1 0

15

9

41 0 0 1 1 0

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

< 5 5 to 10 10 to 15 15 to 20 20 to 25 25 to 30 30 to 35 35 to 40 > 40

Nu

mb

er o

f V

olu

nte

ers

Years

Chart 6 - Years Volunteering with SES

All respondents (n=145)

Male respondents (n=114)

Female respondents (n=31)

3.9

96.1

3.3

96.7

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Yes No

%

Chart 7 - Percentage of Volunteers: Do you identify yourself as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander

% All respondents 2007 (n=181)


14

Question 7: What SES roles occupied most of your time and effort over the last year?

The data in Chart 9 was compared with the March 2014 operational statistics for FY 2013-14 where contact

hours since 1 July 2013 were:

Road Crash Rescue: 2,158 hours (32.7% of total)

SAR: 418 hours (6.3% of total)

Flood/Storm: 3,210 hours (48.6% of total)

Miscellaneous: 820 hours (12.4% of total)

While the above contact hours don’t include time/effort involving training, equipment maintenance, etc, the

comparison reveals that, according to the volunteers, their time commitment towards flood and storm is

significantly less than the actual overall time commitment between July 2013 and end of March 2014. While

48.6% of all contact hours were spent on flood and storm events over the previous nine months only 15.5%

of respondents felt that storm/flood response occupied most of their time.

Overall, road crash rescue (RCR) activities claimed the most volunteer time and effort according to the

respondents. By comparison with actual hours spent responding to RCR, the respondents felt they spent

more time (about 10% more) on RCR than the actual hours over the previous nine months, but the extra

time and effort required for RCR training and maintenance might explain this. The majority of respondents

(59.1%) were from road crash rescue units, which could explain this.

Female respondents said that they spent most time and effort in general rescue, support or administrative

roles, while male members felt they spent more time and effort, by comparison, in roles such as RCR, flood

and storm and training. While 14.3% of female respondents said that administration claimed most of their

time and effort, no male members felt that administration roles occupied most of their time and effort.

38 respondents chose not to answer this question. The relatively small sample size of female respondents

who answered the question (n=28) could have skewed some of these results.

7.6

92.4

5.2

94.8

0

20

40

60

80

100

Yes No

%

Chart 8 - Percentage of Volunteers: Ability to Speak Other Languages



15

Question 8: What SES roles do you most enjoy or find most rewarding?

Chart 10 reveals that the greatest number of respondents (42.9%) believed that the RCR role provided the

most enjoyment and reward as an SES volunteer. This applied to both sexes: 45.3% of male members and

34.5% of female members. The majority (59.1%) of respondents were members of RCR units.

Compared with female members, a greater proportion of male members (20.6%) preferred search and rescue

(SAR) compared to 10.3% for female members. Similarly, a greater proportion of male members preferred

flood/storm roles (13.4%) compared to female (6.9%).

A significant proportion of the female members (17.2%) placed public engagement roles as their most

enjoyable/rewarding role compared to only 2.1% for male members. Similarly, female members also

preferred general rescue roles (13.8%) significantly more than male members (4.1%).

28 respondents (18.2%) chose not to answer this question.

42.2

9.5

15.5

5.2 6

12.1

3.4 3.4 2.6

45.4

9.1

19.3

3.45.7

13.6

1.1 02.3

32.1

10.7

3.6

10.7

7.1 7.1

10.7

14.3

3.6

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

%

Chart 9 - Percentage Volunteers: First Preference for Roles that Occupy Most Time/Effort - Gender


% Male respondents (n=88)

% Female respondents (n=28)

42.9

18.3

11.9

6.3

1.6

5.5 6.3 5.5

1.6

45.3

20.6

13.4

4.11 2.1

7.25.1

1

34.5

10.3

6.9

13.8

3.4

17.2

3.4

6.9

3.4

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

%

Chart 10 - Percentage of Volunteers: First Preference for Most Enjoyable/Rewarding Role - Gender


% Male respondents (n=97)


16

The RCR role was the most enjoyable and rewarding for all age groups by a significant margin, especially for the 50-59 year age group (53.8%). The majority (59.1%) of respondents were members of RCR units.

Preferences across different age groups revealed that a higher proportion of 18-34 year olds preferred

flood/storm (22.6%) and general rescue (16.1%). A higher proportion of 35-49 year olds preferred public

engagement (15.4%). A higher proportion of respondents who were >60 years of age preferred the training

role.

It can be concluded that the majority of men and women across all age groups found RCR as the most

rewarding/enjoyable role, with SAR coming second overall. Apart from RCR and SAR, a greater proportion of

men than women preferred SAR and flood/storm roles, while a greater proportion of women preferred general

rescue and public engagement roles. After RCR and SAR, a greater proportion of the younger members (18-

34 years) preferred flood/storm and general rescue roles, while the more elderly preferred roles like training

and support.

Question 9: What is your level of education or training?

The largest percentage of respondents (27.5%) in 2014 had university-level educations, with high school coming a close second (26.1%). In 2007, the largest percentage of respondents (47.6%) chose high school as their level of education, with university coming second (23.2%).

42.9

18.3

11.9

6.3

1.6

5.5 6.3 5.5

1.6

35.5

12.9

22.6

16.1

0 0

3.2

6.5

3.2

42.3

19.2

7.7

3.8 3.8

15.4

7.7

0 0

53.8

17.9

7.75.1

2.65.1

2.65.1

0

36.7

23.3

10

0 0

3.3

13.3

10

3.3

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

%

Chart 11 - Percentage of Volunteers: First Preference for Most Enjoyable/Rewarding Role - Age


% 18-34yr (n=31)

% 35-49yr (n=26)

% 50-59yr (n=39)

% 60+ yr (n=30)

47.6

17.320

16.8

23.2

5.9

26.1

11.8

17.6

14.4

27.5

2.6

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

High School College TAFE Apprenticeship University Other

%

Chart 12 - Percentage of Volunteers: Level of Education or Training

2007 (n=185)

2014 (n=153)

17

Question 10: What is your employment status?

Apart from members who had part-time employment or work casually, there was no significant change in the employment status of SES volunteers since 2007. Over that period the proportion of respondents who were employed part time reduced from 14.9% to only 3.3%. Respondents with casual work increased from 0.6% to 9.2%.

The majority (51.0%) have full time employment. A slightly increased percentage (12.7% to 15.0%) were self-employed or had their own business. The latter represented the second largest proportion of respondents, closely followed by retirees (14.4%).

Question 11: Which Industry are you employed in?

In 2014, significantly more (63.6%) respondents, who were employed, worked within the private sector or were self-employed. More detailed analysis revealed that 19.9% of all employed volunteers were self-employed. Less than half of all employed volunteers (26.8%) worked for government across local (3.3%), State (20.7%) and Federal (2.5%) levels.

53.6

12.7

0.6

14.9 13.8

5

0.6 0

51

15

9.2

3.3

14.4

3.91.3 2

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

%

Chart 13 - Percentage of Volunteers: Employment Status

2007 (n=181)

2014 (n=153)

73.2

26.8

0

63.6

26.4

9.9

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Private/Self Employed Government Other

%

Chart 14 - Percentage of Volunteers: Industry of Employment

2007 (n=153)

2014 (n=121)

18

Question 12: How would you best describe your employment role?

A significant proportion of SES volunteers (18.1%) were unemployed or retired. Further research into the recruitment and retention of these members, who would generally be less encumbered by work pressures/demands, might be helpful.

Representation of members with current management/executive experience (10.7%) is slightly higher than existing Unit Management demands (7.2% of all volunteers are Unit Managers).

Volunteer membership is well represented by labourers and tradespersons (33.8%).

Question 13: How would you best describe your employment work hours?

Out of the 81.9% of all respondents who had some form of employment, the majority (41.3%) were day workers. This result may be an indicator that they have some difficulties being released for SES volunteer work during normal work hours. All other employed respondents were required to work at various other times.

Question 14: Do you currently volunteer with another emergency organisation?

22.3% of respondents also volunteered with other emergency services. Since 2007, this represented a 6.6% decline. The majority also volunteer with the Tasmania Fire Service (TFS) with 14.6% of all respondents, followed by Ambulance Tasmania (AT) with 2.8%. The “Other” emergency services supported by SES

18.119

14.8

12.8

8.7

4

2

18.8

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

%

Chart 15 - Percentage of Volunteers: Employment Roles (n=149)

41.3

22.5

13.8 13.8

5.1

2.2 1.4

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Day worker -normal work

hours

Part time Shift worker -fixed hours

Flexible hours Shift worker -varied hours

Casual work/oncall

Other

%

Chart 16 - Percentage of Volunteers: Employment Work Hours (n=138)

19

members (per Chart 17) included St John Ambulance, Surf Lifesaving and various groups that provide disaster recovery services or community welfare support, such as Lions, Landcare, Camp Quality, etc.

Chart 18 reveals that a greater proportion of Southern Region respondents also volunteer with TFS (20.0%) and other areas (9.1%) compared with the other Regions. A lesser 12.8% of Northern Region respondents and 9.5% of NW Region respondents also volunteered with TFS. The NW Region had 4.8% of its volunteers also volunteering with AT, compared with the other regions (Southern 1.8% and Northern 2.1%).

The questionnaire asked respondents to indicate the number of years served in other emergency services, but not all applicable respondents provided this data. Years ranged from six months to 40 years with the longer serving respondents belonging to the Northern Region (particularly Flinders SES unit), closely followed by the Southern Region (SRU).

Question 15: Have you previously volunteered with another emergency organisation

21.3% of all respondents indicated that they had previously volunteered with other emergency services. 7.3% of these were with TFS and 7.3% with AT. 3.3% of respondents previously volunteered in interstate emergency services organisations.

Respondents were asked to indicate the number of years previously served in other emergency services and the number of years since you left that Service, but not all applicable respondents provided this data. Years ranged from three months to 29 years and the period of time that had elapsed since they left varied between one and 45 years.

19.6

4.4 4.9

14.6

2.8

4.9

0

5

10

15

20

25

TFS AT Other

%

Overall:In 2007, 28.9% of SES volunteers also volunteered with other emergency services (n=184) In 2014, 23.7% of SES volunteers also volunteered with other emergency services (n=144)

Chart 17 - Percentage of Volunteers: Also Volunteering with Other Emergency Services



14.6

20

12.8

9.5

2.81.8 2.1

4.84.9

9.1

0

1.8

0

5

10

15

20

25

Statewide (n=144) Southern (n=55) Northern (n=47) Northwestern (42)

%

Chart 18 - Percentage of Volunteers: Also Volunteering with Other Emergency Services 2014 - Statewide and in the Regions

TFSATOther

20

Motivations

Question 16: With regard to question 15, what was the main reason for the change to SES?

Only 36 respondents provided reasons, so it’s difficult to draw any valid conclusions. The majority (25% of the applicable respondents) were motivated by a desire to help SES and their community, but a significant 13.9% felt that TASSES would provide new or better skills. It is considered that each of the reasons detailed in Chart 20 should be considered when developing future recruitment and retention initiatives.

Question 17: First heard about the SES from…?

Word of mouth remains the main medium used to introduce members of the public to volunteering within TASSES. 74.0% of respondents first heard about TASSES by word of mouth from existing members or (to a lesser degree) family members or friends). It appears that newspapers, television/radio, web information and brochures/handouts have relatively little impact on introducing members of the public to TASSES. Newspaper and television/radio play less of a role than they did in 2007, however the SES website plays a slightly increased role.

7.3 7.3

3.3 3.3

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

TFS AT Interstate E/S Other

%

In 2014, 21.3% of SES volunteers had previously volunteered with other emergency services (n=150)

Chart 19 - Percentage of Volunteers: Previously Volunteering with Other Emergency Services (n=150)

25

13.9

11.1

8.3 8.3 8.3

5.6

19.4

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Help SES andcommunity

New/betterskills

development

Better suited towork/lifestyle

Concern aboutprevious

management

More suted toage

Moveinterstate/stay

involved

SES providedbest

opportunity tojoin

Other

%

Chart 20 - Percentage of applicable respondents: Reasons for Change to SES (n=36)

21

Question 18: The main motivational factors that lead me to join SES?

Giving back to the community has consistently remained the biggest motivation to join TASSES since 2002. The prospect of learning new skills has increased as a motivating factor, particularly with female and the younger (18-34 year old) members.

45.4

27

16.6

11.7

1.2 2.5

12.9

55.8

8.2 7.5 6.1 4.8 4.1

13.6

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

%

Chart 21 - Percentage of Volunteers: How You First Heard About SES

2007 (n=163)

2014 (n=147)

55.8

8.2 7.56.1

4.8 4.1

13.6

54.3

11.4

2.95.7

8.6

2.9

14.3

58.8

14.7

0 0

8.85.9

11.8

48.9

15.6

11.1 11.1

0

4.4

8.9

54.5

6.1

12.1

6.1

3 3

15.2

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Word of mouth - SESmember

Word of mouth -family/friend

Newspaper Television/radio Website Pamphlet/Brochure Other

%

Chart 22 - Percentage First Preference: How You First Heard About SES - Age


% 18-34yr (n=35)

% 35-49yr (n=34)

% 50-59yr (n=45)

% 60+ yr (n=33)

22

Question 19: The main motivational factors that lead me to stay in SES were:

The motivations that encourage members to stay within TASSES are similar to those that encourage them to join (see comments under Question 18). The greatest motivating factor for all ages is to have the capacity to give back to their community, particularly with the more elderly members (60+ years) however, the majority of younger members (18-34 years) are more motivated by the ability to learn new skills and the majority within the 50-59 age group are motivated by the rewarding nature of volunteering. These factors should be considered during the development of future retention initiatives.

66.9

0

25.8

7.3

52

24.2

11.4 12.4

42.5

15.8

28.1

13.6

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Give back to community Beacause it's rewarding Learn new skills Other

%

Motivations

Chart 23 - Percentage of Volunteers: Main Motivational Factors to Join




42.5

15.8

28.1

13.6

43.8

16.9

25

14.3

38.2

11.8

38.2

11.8

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50


%

Motivations

Chart 24 - Percentage of Volunteers: Main Motivational Factors to Join 2014

% All respondents (n=146)

% of Male respondents (n=112)

% of Female respondents (n=34)

42.5

15.8

28.1

13.6

23.5

8.8

58.8

8.8

51.5

9.1

24.2

15.2

38.6

27.3

20.5

13.6

60

14.3 14.311.4

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Give back to community Because it's rewarding Learn new skills Other

%

Chart 25 - Percentage of Volunteers: Main Motivations to Join - Age


% 18-34yr (n=34)

% 35-49yr (n=33)

% 50-59yr (n=44)

% 60+ yr (n=35)

23

Question 20: SES receives enough publicity?

Following a marked improvement in perceptions of SES publicity between 2002 and 2007, the period since 2007 led to a 10.5% decline of respondents who agreed with this statement. In 2014, 7.8% more respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed that SES received enough publicity than respondents who agreed or strongly agreed (see Chart 29). A significant 15.0% strongly disagreed and a further 26.8% disagreed that SES received enough publicity.

46.5

30.7

10.9 11.9

39.9

23.921.7

14.5

0

10

20

30

40

50


%

Motivations

Chart 26 - Percentage of Volunteers: Main Motivational Factors to Stay



39.9

23.921.7

14.5

41

23.8

20

15.2

36.3

24.2

27.3

12.1

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45


%

Motivations

Chart 27 - Percentage of Volunteers: Main Motivational Factors to Stay 2014




39.9

23.921.7

14.5

29

12.9

45.2

12.9

36.7

16.7

23.326.7

35.7

42.9

16.7

4.8

58.8

17.6

11.8 11.8

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Give back to community Because it's rewarding Learn new skills Other

%

Chart 28 - Percentage of Volunteers: Main Motivations to Stay - Age


% 18-34yr (n=31)

% 35-49yr (n=30)

% 50-59yr (n=42)

% 60+ yr (n=34)

24

Considering that 23.9% of respondents were motivated to stay in the SES because of the rewarding nature of their work (Chart 26), the level of publicity their work received was considered important for volunteer retention. While many significant strategies have been implemented since 2002 and 2007 (eg, more media releases/engagement, improved website, new social media sites, changes in focus for SES Week, etc), additional strategies should be developed to further enhance SES publicity. SES volunteers should also be better informed of these strategies.

Question 21: My contribution as a volunteer is recognised by SES?

SES volunteers continue to feel that their contributions are recognised by SES management. While there’s been a small (6.8%) drop in the percentage of respondents who agree with this statement since 2007, recognition initiatives, such as the SES Long Service Medals, Service Pins, etc, have appeared to be affective, but ongoing efforts in recognising volunteer contributions in other ways should continue to be reinforced and adopted, eg, acknowledgements during Unit visits, meetings, etc; and being respectful, inclusive and consultative per the SES Values.

Question 22: My contribution as a volunteer is recognised by the Tasmanian public?

By comparison with the responses to question 21, where 67.1% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that their contributions were recognised by SES, only 37.1% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that their contributions were recognised by the public, which represents a 24.0% drop in recognition. This result is reflective of the results for question 20, where the majority felt that SES did not receive enough publicity.

While the majority continue to feel that their contributions are recognised by the public, strategies should be developed to further improve publicity and to give the public more opportunity to express their appreciation of volunteers. Previous initiatives to include thank you letters in the SES Gazette, etc, could be expanded to

18

34 35

10

1 0

8.8

23.1 23.6

41.2

3.3

0

15

26.8

21.6

30.7

3.3 2.6

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral/Not Sure Agree Strongly Agree Not Sure

%

Chart 29 - Percentage of Volunteers: SES Receives Enough Publicity?

2002 (n=124)

2007 (n=202)

2014 (n=146)

3

14

28

33

18

2.84.5

16.8

65.4

10.6

2.7

6.8

23.3

58.2

8.9

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral/Not Sure Agree Strongly Agree

%

Chart 30 - Percentage of Volunteers: Contributions Recognised by SES?

2002 (n=181)

2007 (n=179)

2014 (n=146)

25

social media and the website, and more could be done at certain times of year, such as SES Week, or following major emergency events.

Question 23: My employer is supportive when time off work is required to conduct SES duty?

The majority of respondents (61%) agreed or strongly agreed that their employers were supporting. Despite this, 17.8% of respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed, which represented a 6.1% downturn since 2007. Strategies to enhance employer support of volunteer work or employer relationships with SES should continue to be considered (refer to results for question 24).

Question 24: I believe my employer (or business, if self-employed) needs more recognition for the support provided to my SES service?

The majority of respondents (63.9%) felt that their employers did not require more recognition for their support towards SES volunteer service. Since 2007, however, more than twice the number of volunteers (36.1%) felt that their employers needed more recognition. The existing employer recognition scheme should therefore be reviewed, enhanced and publicised where appropriate.

11

28

52

8

2

5.5

17.7

29.8

40.9

6.14

9.7

49.2

33.9

3.2

0

10

20

30

40

50

60


%Chart 31 - Percentage of Volunteers: Contributions Recognised by Public?

2002 (n=177)

2007 (n=181)

2014 (n=124)

7

12

25

16

20

3.9

7.8

26.6

47.4

14.3

6.8

11

21.2

44.1

16.9

0

10

20

30

40

50


%

Chart 32 - Percentage of Volunteers: Employer Supportive when time off work is required for SES Duty?

2002 (n=167)

2007 (n=154)

2014 (n=118)

26

Question 25: I am aware of the SES employer/business recognition program?

Despite significant publicity about the SES employer recognition scheme over the last six years, the majority of respondents (56.0%) were not aware of it. While only 36.1% of respondents felt that their employers needed more recognition (per Chart 33), the employer recognition program should be better publicised and promoted among SES volunteers.

Table 7 – Awareness of SES Employer/Business Recognition Program - 2014

Yes % No % Respondents (n)

59 44.0 75 56.0 134

Note. Respondents who recorded ‘not sure’ were counted as a ‘No’

Out-of-Pocket Expenses

Question 26: My out-of-pocket expenses while performing SES activities are?

A significant majority (91%) felt that out-of-pocket expenses were non-existent or acceptable. This is reflective of the increased efforts since 2007 in particular, to improve the provision of uniform items, equipment, catering and consumables support, access to service vehicles, etc.

Of the 13 respondents (9%) that felt out-of-pocket expenses were unacceptable the main reasons were private vehicle fuel costs (3.5%), phone costs (1.4%), lost business/income (1.4%) and overnight expenses (0.7%) – Not all gave reasons.

15.2

84.8

36.1

63.9

0

20

40

60

80

100

Yes No

%

Chart 33 - Percentage of Volunteers: Employers Need More Recognition for their Support Towards SES Service



27.8

63.2

9

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Non-Existent Acceptable Unacceptable

%

Chart 34 - Percentage of Volunteers: Level of Acceptance of Out-of-Pocket Expenses Associated with SES Work (n=144)

27

Question 27: The majority of my out-of-pocket expenses relate to the following:

While the majority thought that some out-of-pocket expenses were acceptable, per Chart 34, 61.4% of the respondents identified fuel and telephone calls as the most significant out-of-pocket expenses relating to SES work.

12.5% of respondents identified loss of income as the most significant out-of-pocket expense, claiming the most significant and highest level of expense ($2,000-$3,000 per year). Assuming that the majority of these particular respondents were representative of the 15.0% of total respondents who were self-employed or business owners (per Chart 13, you could conclude that the great majority of self-employed or business owner volunteers experience significant loss of income as a result of their volunteer commitment. The fact that only 9.0% of all respondents felt that out-of-pocket expenses were unacceptable (refer Chart 34), many self-employed or business owner volunteers appeared to accept this loss, which is reflective of their great commitment towards SES and their community. Despite this, however, their out-of-pocket expenses were the most significant and efforts should be made, where possible, to support them and/or to recognise their extra commitment and sacrifice.

SES Training

Question 28: The training I receive through SES is adequate for my needs as a volunteer?

SES continues to improve since 2002 in meeting the training needs of all volunteers. 84.6% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that training is adequate for their needs.

39.8

21.6

13.6 12.5

8

2.3 2.3

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

%

Some Respondents stated that the following annual costs applied:- Fuel: $300-$400- Phone (inc. SMS/email): $50- Equipment/clothing: $200- Loss of income: $2,000 - $3,000

Chart 35 - Percentage of Most Significant Out-of-Pocket Expenses (n=88)

03

11

4540

1.64.9

12

59.6

21.9

3.3 3.3

8.7

67.3

17.3

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80


%

Chart 36 - Percentage of Volunteers: Training is Adequate for Volunteer Needs?

2002 (n=181)

2007 (n=183)

2014 (n=150)

28

Question 29: The training I received through SES is easy to understand (or “is explained clearly”, for 2002 survey)?

92.1% of all respondents agreed or strongly agreed that their training was easy to understand. While there was a significant improvement after 2002, there results have remained steady at this level since 2007.

Question 30: I prefer Unit, Regional or State-level training activities?

The majority of respondents (70.6%) preferred Unit-level training. If combining the preferences for State and Regional-level training, the results have not changed since 2007.

Based on feedback on out-of-pocket expenses, it can be assumed that regional or state-level training may incur added travel and some extra out-of-pocket expense. Other factors, such as time commitments with work and family, local convenience and easier access to Unit resources may have played a part with this result.

Question 31: I prefer evening or weekend training?

Since 2007, significantly more respondents (84.4%) preferred evening training over weekend training. The reasons for this were unclear, but factors such as family and work pressures, and the desire for private time on weekends were thought to play a part.

03

13

37

45

0 0.54.9

72

22.5

1.3 24.6

70.2

21.9

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80


%

Chart 37 - Percentage of Volunteers: Training is Easy to Understand?

2002 (n=184)

2007 (n=182)

2014 (n=151)

71.5

28.5

N/A for 2007

70.6

21.8

7.6

0

20

40

60

80

Unit-Level Regional-Level State-Level

%

Chart 38 - Percentage of Volunteer Preferences: Level of Training

2007 (n=179)

69.8

30.2

84.4

15.6

0

20

40

60

80

100

Evening Weekend

%

Chart 39 - Percentage of Volunteers: Training Time Preferences

% All respondents 2007 (n=179)% All respondents 2014 (n=122)

29

Question 32: The training I receive through SES is conducted professionally?

Only 3.3% of respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement that the SES training they received was conducted professionally. This is generally on par with the previous surveys where the vast majority (86-91% since 2002) were satisfied with the professional conduct of SES training by indicating that they agreed or strongly agreed.

Question 33: The training I receive through SES is conducted at convenient times?

Despite SES conducting most of its training in the evenings, per volunteer preferences at question 31, some training still needs to be delivered on weekends depending on resources, venues, etc. The results at Chart 41 however, indicate that SES maintains a good balance. Compared with previous surveys, fewer respondents (in terms of percentage) disagreed or strongly disagreed in 2014 (4.0%) and the highest percentage agreed or strongly agreed (80.9%) that training times were convenient.

Question 34: The training I receive through SES is acceptable to me?

In line with the results for question 33, the majority of respondents (88.1%) agreed or strongly agreed that their training has been accessible to them. There has been a slight improvement over the three surveys since 2002.

03

12

37

49

0 1.1

8.7

60.7

29.5

2 1.3

10.1

63.1

23.5

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70


%

Chart 40 - Percentage of Volunteers: Training I Recieve is Conducted Professionally?

2002 (n=184)

2007 (n=183)

2014 (n=149)

16

29.532 32.5

1.64.9

20.2

60.7

12.6

2 2

15.1

63.8

17.1

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70


%

Chart 41 - Percentage of Volunteers: Training I Recieve is Conducted at Convenient Times?

2002 (n=183)

2007 (n=183)

2014 (n=152)

30

Question 35: Training certificates are issued in a timely manner?

Since 2007, there has been a slight improvement in the timeliness of issuing training certificates with a 5.8% drop in respondents who disagreed or strongly disagreed, and a 5.2% increase in respondents who agreed or strongly agreed. Despite this, the 23.2% of 2014 responders who disagreed or strongly disagreed that training certificates were issued in a timely manner represents a significant proportion of the volunteer membership and ongoing efforts should be made to speed up the process.

Question 36: I believe there is value in SES continuing to participate in national training activities where possible, such as the biennial National Disaster Rescue Challenge and annual Australasian Road Rescue Challenge?

The greater majority of respondents (81%) saw value in SES continuing to participate in national training activities such as the biennial National Disaster Rescue Challenge and annual Australasian Road Rescue Challenge. Of these, a significant number (26.8%) strongly agreed. Only 4.3% disagreed or strongly disagreed. SES should continue to commit to these types of national training activities where funding/resources allow.

13.5

13

34

47

0.6

6.611

68.5

13.3

1.3 2

8.6

76.3

11.8

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90


%

Chart 42 - Percentage of Volunteers: Training I Recieve is Accessible to Me?

2002 (n=181)

2007 (n=181)

2014 (n=152)

13.415.6

21.8

38.5

10.67.3

15.9

22.5

50.3

4

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral/Not Sure Agree Strongly Disagree

%

Chart 43 - Percentage of Volunteers: Training Certificates Issued in Timely Manner

2007 (n=179)2014 (n=151)

31

Question 37: I believe there is value in SES continuing to have biennial State Disaster Rescue Challenges where possible?

The response to this question reflects the results for question 36. 79.8% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that there was value in SES continuing to hold biennial State Disaster Rescue Challenges. A significant 22.1% strongly agreed. These challenges should therefore continue to be programmed and resourced.

Question 38: I believe there is value in SES continuing to have an annual SES Land Navigation Challenge where possible?

The response to this question reflects the results for question 36 and 37. 78.7% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that there was value in SES continuing to hold annual Land Navigation Challenges in Tasmania. A significant 23.0% strongly agreed. These challenges should therefore continue to be programmed and resourced.

2 1.3

21.8

54.2

26.8

0

10

20

30

40

50

60


%

Chart 44 - Percentage of Volunteers: There is Value in SES Ongoing Participation in National Training Challenges (n=153)

1.3 0

21.8

57.7

22.1

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70


%

Chart 45 - Percentage of Volunteers: There is Value in SES Continuing to have Biennial State Disaster Rescue Challenges (n=153)

0.7 1.4

21.8

55.4

23

0

10

20

30

40

50

60


%

Chart 46 - Percentage of Volunteers: There is Value in SES Continuing to have Annual Land Navigation Challenges (n=148)

32

SES Equipment and Uniforms

Question 39: The uniform / PPE issued to me is suitable for my role?

In 2014 the majority (78.3%) agreed or strongly agreed that the SES uniform/PPE was suitable for their role.

Since 2007, however, there was a 6.4% increase in the percentage of volunteers disagreeing or strongly disagreeing that their uniform/PPE items were suitable for their role. The reasons for this are unknown (none provided), but further analysis has revealed that the majority of these dissatisfied respondents (n=21) are male (76.2%) and the majority are aged over 50 years (71.4%). The years of service for these respondents varies significantly between a few months and over 25 years, with 38.1% of them serving less than five years within SES. The majority (85.0%) were evenly distributed across the Northern and Southern Regions from a broad spectrum of Unit types.

Question 40: SES PPE (new and replacement) is issued in an appropriate time-frame?

The data confirms that SES continues to improve the time it takes to issue PPE to volunteers. Since 2002, the number who have disagreed or strongly disagreed have progressively dropped (to 10.6%) and the number who agreed or strongly agreed progressively increased (to 60.3%). The reasons why 10.6% remain dissatisfied are unknown.

Question 41: SES General Duties uniform (new and replacement) is issued in an appropriate time-frame?

The results for the timeliness of the issuing of General Duties uniform reflects the same positive results for PPE under question 40. 65.4% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that these items were issued in a timely fashion. 9.3% of respondents disagree or strongly disagree, but the reasons are not known. SES should consider a feedback mechanism for the issue of uniform items.

4.9 3.8

21.8

63.4

16.4

4.6

10.57.2

67.8

10.5

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80


%

Chart 47 - Percentage of Volunteers: Uniform/PPE Issued is Suitable for My Role

2007 (n=183)

2014 (n=152)

14.5

8

3026.5

20.5

12.3

20.7 22.3

38.5

6.13.3

7.3

29.1

54.3

6

0

10

20

30

40

50

60


%

Chart 48 - Percentage of Volunteers: PPE is Issued in an Appropriate Time

2002 (n=157)

2007 (n=179)

2014 (n=151)

33

Question 42: Correct sized uniform/PPE items have been provided to me?

Satisfaction levels continue to improve with 81.6% of respondents agreeing or strongly agreeing that correct sizes are provided, representing 7.2% improvement since 2007 and a 15.6% improvement since 2002. When broken down into gender, the data reveals that the 8.5% of respondents who were dissatisfied were mainly female members. 28.4% of female respondents disagreed, or strongly disagreed that the correct size of uniform/PPE were provided. Informal uniform issue feedback occurs now, but the implementation of more formal feedback mechanisms, as suggested above, may help the 8.5% of respondents who are dissatisfied.

4 5.3

25.3

58.7

6.7

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70


%

Chart 49 - Percentage of Volunteers: General Duties Uniform Issued in an Appropriate Timeframe (n=150)

7.5 9

17.5

3531

0

25.6

0

74.4

02.6 5.9

9.9

75

6.6

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80


%

Note. 2007 answers were "yes" (Agree) or "no" (Disagree) only

Chart 50 - Percentage of Volunteers: Correct Size of Uniform/PPE Provided




2.6 5.99.9

75

6.6

03.4

9.2

81.5

5.9

14.2 14.28.6

54.3

8.6

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90


%


Chart 51 - Percentage of Volunteers: Correct Size of Uniform/PPE Provided 2014




34

Question 43: There is additional equipment (radios, vehicles, etc) at Regional Headquarters for use in incidents?

72.5% of respondents were aware that additional equipment was available from Regional Headquarters. This is not markedly different from the 2007 data (75.7%).

Question 44: The equipment I use in my role as an SES volunteer is unreliable / faulty?

The majority (66.0%) disagreed or strongly disagreed that the equipment they use was unreliable or faulty, which was a 6.2% improvement since 2007.

11.6% of respondents in 2014 felt that the equipment they use has been faulty or unreliable. This was a 15.6% reduction/improvement from 2007. An analysis of respondents who felt this way was conducted to see if they were affiliated with any particular units, unit roles (eg. RCR), regions, age group, gender, or years of service, but there were no valid trends. They were fairly evenly spread over all of these data categories. It is not known what equipment was considered to be unreliable or faulty. More work should be conducted to identify and address any equipment serviceability issues.

Question 45: The equipment I use in my role as a volunteer is adequate for the job it is provided for?

Exactly the same percentage of respondents (83.7%) in 2007 and 2014 agreed and strongly agreed that the equipment they used was adequate. Only 6.3% of respondents thought the equipment was inadequate.

1 3

10

28

57

0

24.3

0

75.7

02.7 4.7

20.1

65.8

6.7

0

20

40

60

80


%


Chart 52 - Percentage of Volunteers: Additional Equipment Available from Regional Headquarters




42.540

15

20.5

27.2

32.6

13

20.7

6.5

27.2

38.8

22.4

10.2

1.4

0

10

20

30

40

50


%

Chart 53 - Percentage of Volunteers: Equipment I use is unreliable/faulty




35

Management

Question 46: I am familiar with the SES Principles and Code of Conduct

While SES will continue to promote the SES Principles and Code of Conduct, the data reveals that there is good awareness.

Question 47a: My needs as a volunteer are understood by my Unit Manager

Since 2002, between 89.7% and 95.6% of respondents have agreed or strongly agreed that their Unit Managers understand their needs as a SES volunteer.

Question 47b: My needs as a volunteer are understood by my Regional staff

Compared to the 2002 and 2007 survey results, the 2014 survey revealed that the respondents were less inclined to have strong views on whether regional staff understood their needs as volunteers. While in 2014,

1 3.5

15

32

48.5

1.16.6

8.7

68.9

14.8

1.8 4.5

10

68.2

15.5

0

20

40

60

80


%

Chart 54 - Percentage of Volunteers: Equipment I use is Adequate for the Job it is Provided For




90.8

3.3 4.6 1.3

0

20

40

60

80

100

Yes No Not sure Not sure, but I know where tofind out

%

Chart 55 - Familiar with SES Principles and Code of Conduct (n=153)

1 27

22.5

67.5

0.5 0.53.3

49.745.9

2.91.5

5.8

56.9

32.8

0

20

40

60

80


%

Chart 56 - Percentage of Volunteers: My needs are Understood by my Unit Manager




36

more respondents (56.3%) ‘agreed’ with the statement than previous surveys, a significantly reduced percentage (7.8%) ‘strongly agreed’.

An analysis of the data revealed that about a quarter of the respondents who disagreed or strongly disagreed were female, but all these female respondents were within the 35-49 age group. There were no particular trends across regional boundaries.

Question 47c: My needs as a volunteer are understood by my Director SES

A large proportion of respondents (46.7%) were neutral or unsure how to answer this question. The majority (48.1%) agreed or strongly agreed that the Director SES understood the needs of volunteers, while 5.1% disagreed or strongly disagreed. An analysis of those who disagreed or strongly disagreed revealed no trends across other data categories, such as gender, age, years of service in SES or location, however all but one of these respondents said the same thing for regional staff for question 47b.

Question 48a: My Unit is professionally managed

89.2% of respondents felt their Units were professionally managed. A quarter of all respondents strongly agreed.

1.5

6.5

29.5 31 32.5

0.5 1.1

6

52.5

39.9

1.4

8.5

26.1

56.3

7.8

0

10

20

30

40

50

60


%

Chart 57 - Percentage of Volunteers: My needs are Understood by my Regional Staff




1.5 3.6

46.7

40.1

8

0

10

20

30

40

50


%

Chart 58 - Percentage of Volunteers: My needs are Understood by my Director SES (n=137)

0 0.5

11.5

50

37.9

1.4 2.2

7.2

63.3

25.9

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70


%

Chart 59 - Percentage of Volunteers: My Unit is Professionally Managed



37

Question 48b: My Regional HQ is professionally managed

Only 7.9% of respondents felt their Regional HQs were not professionally managed. A greater proportion were unsure, but the majority (71.2%) were satisfied that their Regional HQs were professionally managed (11.5% strongly agreed with this).

Question 48c: My State HQ is professionally managed

Only 6.8% of respondents felt their State HQ was not professionally managed. As expected a greater proportion (almost half the respondents) were unsure, but 44.1% were satisfied that their State HQ was professionally managed (12.7% strongly agreed with this).

Question 49a: I understand the roles and functions of my Unit Manager

93.3% of respondents understand the roles and functions of their Unit Managers.

1.46.5

20.9

59.7

11.5

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70


%

Chart 60 - Percentage of Volunteers: My Regional HQ is Professionally Managed (n=139)

3.92.9

49

31.4

12.7

0

10

20

30

40

50

60


%

Chart 61 - Percentage of Volunteers: My State HQ is Professionally Managed (n=102)

20

4.7

64.4

28.9

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70


%

Chart 62 - Percentage of Volunteers: I Understand the Roles and Responsibilities of my Unit Manager (n=149)

38

Question 49b: I understand the roles and functions of my Regional staff

The level of understanding volunteers have in the roles and functions of Regional staff has increased since 2002, with 80.1% of respondents in 2014 indicating that they had a good, or very good understanding. 18.3% were neutral or unsure and only 1.5% said they lacked an understanding.

Question 49c: I understand the roles and functions of my Director/State HQ staff

While 28.7% of respondents were neutral or unsure, 69.0% agreed or strongly agreed that they understood the roles and responsibilities of the Director SES. Only 2.3% felt that they didn’t understand the roles and functions of the Director.

Question 50a: I see my respective Regional staff enough

In 2007, just over half the respondents felt they did not see enough of their regional staff. In 2014 only 14.7% still felt this way, which represented a significant reduction. 17.1% of respondents were neutral or not sure, but the majority 68.3% felt they saw enough of their regional staff.

7.55

31 3126.5

0

11.4

22.3

66.3

01.50

18.3

66.4

13.7

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70


%

Note. 2007 answers were limited to "yes" (Agree), "no" (Disagree) or "unsure" (Neutral/Not Sure)

Chart 63 - Percentage of Volunteers: I Understand the Roles and Responsibilities of my Regional Staff




2.30

28.7

58.1

10.9

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70


%

Chart 64 - Percentage of Volunteers: I understand the Roles and Responsibilities of my Director SES (n=129)

39

Question 50b: I see my respective Director SES

While about a quarter of respondents felt they did not see enough of the Director SES, 42.9% felt that they did, with 28.6% being neutral or unsure.

Of those who felt they did not see enough of the Director, the majority were from Units in the Northern and NW Regions and almost all belonged to eight Units where the Director had not visited for a year or more. The exception was with the Southern Region where the three Units involved had been visited by the Director within six months.

Question 51: I rank the spending priorities for my Unit from 1-10 as follows

By a significant margin, equipment remained the number one choice for spending priorities for SES Units. In 2007, vehicle data was included as ‘equipment’. If the 2014 preferences for vehicle spending was incorporated into ‘Equipment’, the ‘Equipment’ spending response for first preferences would be 52.2%.

Since 2007, first preferences for PPE/PPC and training have shifted from training to PPE/PPC, with 20.6% of respondents now preferring unit spending on PPE/PPC and 14.0% on training (n=136). PPE/PPC also topped the second and third preferences for spending priorities with 24.8% of respondents choosing PPE/PPC in 2014 (n=113). It should be noted that in 2007, the data descriptor for PPE/PPC was ‘Uniform’ (eg, orange overalls, helmets, boots, gloves, etc). Hence, in 2007, some PPE preferences might have been incorporated into the ‘Equipment’ data.

0

53.8

0

46.2

02.3

12.4

17.1

60.5

7.8

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70


%


Chart 65 - Percentage of Volunteers: I See my Regional Staff Enough



6

22.6

28.6

42.1

0.8

0

10

20

30

40

50


%

Chart 66 - Percentage of Volunteers: I See my Director SES Enough (n=133)

40

Question 52: I am happy with the level of funding my Unit receives

A significant 32.9% of respondents currently disagree or strongly disagree that their Unit receives adequate funding, but this represents a very marked reduction since 2007 where twice as many respondents (64.0%) were not happy with Unit funding. In 2014, 41.0% are satisfied and 26.2% are neutral or unsure.

Question 53: I am happy with the level of funding that SES as an organisation receives

In 2014 almost half the respondents (45.0%) were neutral or (more than likely) unsure about the adequacy of funding the SES organisation receives. 30.9% were not happy and 24.2% were happy.

The level of knowledge volunteers have about the organisation’s funding is not known for those who agreed or disagreed, but it is not likely to be very significant.

64.9

8.8

21.6

0 0 02.1 2.6

44.1

20.6

14

8.1

2.90.7 0.7 1.5

7.4

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Equipment PPE/PPC Training Vehicles Radios Trailers SocialActivities

Other Not Sure

%

Chart 67 - Percentage of Volunteers: Highest Spending Priorities for My Unit



37

16 16.5

7

12.5

0

64

0

36

0

12.1

20.8

26.2

40.3

0.7

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70


%

Note. 2007 answers were limited to "yes" (Agree) and "no" (Disagree) only

Chart 68 - Percentage of Volunteers: I am Happy with the Level of Funding my Unit Receives




41

Question 54: I believe my Unit would be better supported if SES facilities, vehicles, maintenance, operational expenses, etc were centrally funded only by SES

6.1% more respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed (32.5%) with central funding than those who agreed or strongly agreed (26.4%). The majority of those who disagreed or strongly disagreed came from Units that receive good funding support from Councils.

In line with the results of the previous question, the high level of responses that were neutral or unsure (41.2%) was unsurprising. In hindsight, more background information should have been provided for this question, which relates to issues identified in a recent external State-level review of the sustainability of SES funding arrangements.

If changes in the SES funding model were considered, the results indicate that any decisions one way or the other may prove to be fairly divisive without some engagement/change management with volunteers and supporting councils.

Question 55a: My Unit Manager is approachable

Responses since 2002 have consistently shown that SES Unit Managers have been approachable. In 2014, 96.6% agree or strongly agree (47.6% strongly agree).

While there was a slightly higher percentage of female members than male members who felt that their Unit Managers were not approachable, this equates to one female respondent.

43

13

33

5.5 4.50

75.3

0

24.7

0

12.118.8

45

21.5

2.7

0

20

40

60

80


%


Chart 69 - Percentage of Volunteers: I am Happy with the Level of Funding the SES Organisation Receives

% All respondents 2002 (n=175)% All respondents 2007 (n=174)% All respondents 2014 (n=149)

12.2

20.3

41.2

16.9

9.5

0

10

20

30

40

50


%

Chart 70 - Percentage of Volunteers: SES Should Centrally Fund SES Facilities, Vehicles, Maintenance, Operational Expenses, etc (n=148)

42

Question 55b: My Regional Staff are approachable

Since 2007 there was a 7.8% increase in the number of respondents who agreed or strongly agreed that regional staff were approachable. In 2014, 77.8% responded in this way.

An assessment across gender revealed no significant trends or issues.

0.5 15

17

78

0.5 0.53.3

49.745.9

0.6 1.4 1.4

49 47.6

0

20

40

60

80

100


%

Chart 71 - Percentage of Volunteers: My Unit Manager is Approachable




0.6 1.4 1.4

49 47.6

0.9 0.9 0.9

48.7 48.7

02.9 2.9

50

44.1

0

10

20

30

40

50

60


%

Chart 72 - Percentage of Volunteers: My Unit Manager is Approachable 2014

% All respondents (n=147)% of Male respondents (n=113)% of Female respondents (n=34)

13.5

17.5

22.5

47.5

1.4 1.4

19.4

55.6

22.2

0

10

20

30

40

50

60


%

Chart 73 - Percentage of Volunteers: My Regional Staff are Approachable



43

Question 55c: My Director SES is approachable

While there was a higher proportion of responses that were neutral or unsure (47.2%) than the previous two questions, the majority (47.9%) agreed or strongly agreed that the Director was approachable. An assessment of gender responses revealed that a slightly greater percentage of female respondents than male (8.0% greater) agreed or strongly agreed that the Director was approachable.

Question 56a: My Unit Manager communicates well with Unit members

Trends since the 2002 survey consistently indicate that the majority of respondents (92.5% in 2014) felt that their Unit Managers communicated well with Unit members. Only 4.8% disagreed or strongly disagreed.

1.4 1.4

19.4

55.6

22.2

0.9 0.9

20.9

56.4

20.9

2.9 2.9

14.7

52.9

26.5

0

10

20

30

40

50

60


%

Chart 74 - Percentage of Volunteers: My Regional Staff are Approachable

% All respondents 2014 (n=144)% of Male respondents (n=110)% of Female respondents (n=34)

1.43.5

47.2

38

9.9

0.93.7

50

36.1

9.3

2.9 2.9

38.2

44.1

11.8

0

10

20

30

40

50

60


%

Chart 75 - Percentage of Volunteers: My Director SES is Approachable


0.5 2

8

24.5

65

0.5 1.6

9.3

48.1

40.4

0.74.1 2.7

51.7

40.8

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70


%

Chart 76 - Percentage of Volunteers: My Unit Manager Communicates Well with Unit Members




44

Question 56b: My Regional staff communicate well with Unit members

These results were the same as question 56a (for Unit Managers), except there were more respondents who were neutral or unsure and there were less who strongly agreed that regional staff communicated well with Unit members. Despite this, the majority (74.4%) felt that regional staff communicated well. 5.9% disagreed.

Question 56c: My Director SES communicates well with Unit members

The majority of respondents (48.9%) were neutral or unsure how to answer this question, however, 46.1% felt that the Director communicated well (7.1% strongly agreed). 5.0% of respondents disagreed.

Question 57a: My Unit Manager is fair to all members of my Unit?

93.3% of respondents felt their Unit Managers were fair to all other Unit members. 37.3% strongly agreed with this. Such a result has been fairly consistent since the 2002 survey. A progressively less proportion of respondents strongly agreed that their Unit Managers were fair since the 2002 survey, but the number who agree has steadily increased.

A gender analysis reveals that a greater proportion of female respondents than male respondents strongly agreed that their Unit Managers treated everyone fairly.

2 3.9

19.7

52

22.4

0

10

20

30

40

50

60


%

Chart 77 - Percentage of Volunteers: My Regional Staff Communicate Well with Unit Members (n=152)

05

48.9

39

7.1

0

10

20

30

40

50

60


%

Chart 78 - Percentage of Volunteers: My Director SES Communicates Well with Unit Members (n=141)

45

Question 57b: My Regional staff are fair to all members of my Unit?

Since the 2002 survey, significantly fewer respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed that Unit members were treated fairly by regional staff. While 18.8% were neutral or unsure, 79.8% were in agreement (20.8% strongly) that regional staff treated Unit members fairly.

A gender analysis revealed that no female members felt that Unit members were treated unfairly by regional staff.

0.5 2

10

23

64.5

02.2

6.6

50

41.2

0.7 1.34.7

56

37.3

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70


%

Chart 79 - Percentage of Volunteers: My Unit Manager is Fair to all My Unit Members




0.7 1.34.7

56

37.3

0.9 0.95.2

61.2

31.9

02.9 2.9

47.1 47.1

0

20

40

60

80


%

Chart 80 - Percentage of Volunteers: My Unit Manager is Fair to all my Unit Members




2.5

10

22.5

28

37

0 1.4

18.8

59

20.8

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70


%

Chart 81 - Percentage of Volunteers: My Regional Staff are Fair to all My Unit Members



46

Question 57c: My Director SES is fair to all members of my Unit?

When comparing Director SES data with Unit Manager and Regional staff data, significantly more respondents claimed to be neutral or unsure on how to answer questions about their Director. In this case, almost half of all respondents (45.1%) answered in this way.

A majority of 54.2% of respondents felt their Director treated members fairly (11.8% strongly). No female respondents felt their Director treated Unit members unfairly.

Question 58: My Unit Manager gets sufficient support from Regional management?

The majority (54.4%) were satisfied that their Unit Manager received sufficient support from regional management. A significant 39.6% were neutral or unsure. 6.0% of respondents felt their Unit Managers lacked support from regional management.

0 1.4

18.8

59

20.8

0 1.8

17.3

60

20.9

0 0

23.5

52.9

23.5

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70


%

Chart 82 - Percentage of Volunteers: My Regional Staff are Fair to all my Unit Members




0 0.7

45.143.1

11.1

0 0.9

45.542.7

10.9

0 0

47.1

41.2

11.8

0

10

20

30

40

50


%

Chart 83 - Percentage of Volunteers: My Director SES is Fair to all my Unit Members


2 4

39.6

49.7

4.7

0

10

20

30

40

50

60


%

Chart 84 - Percentage of Volunteers: My Unit Manager Gets Sufficient Support from Regional Management (n=149)

47

Question 59: I read the SES Gazette newsletter

The readership of the SES Gazette newsletter was lower than expected. 13.9% of respondents claimed that they rarely read the newsletter and an additional 9.3% of respondents have either never heard of the SES Gazette newsletter (5.3%) or claimed that it was not made available in their Unit. This is despite two hard copies being provided to each unit and copies made available on the SES website.

Consideration should be made to increasing the number of copies provided (this has been implemented) and promoting future editions to encourage members to read them.

Question 60: Which of the following describe what you think about the six monthly SES Gazette newsletter

48.4% of respondents felt the SES Gazette newsletter was informative and 35.7% found it interesting. 26.2% felt it had a professional layout, but just under 10% felt it could do with a new look. The majority felt that the newsletter should be issued monthly instead of the current six monthly and that more hard copies should be provided.

Consideration should be given to:

A new look SES newsletter,

More regular issues,

More hard copies provided to Units, and

Promote the newsletter more with more “unit stories” from across the State.

41.7

31.1

13.9

4 5.3 4

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Always Sometimes Rarely Never Never heard of it It's not generallymade available in

Unit

%

Chart 85 - Percentage of Volunteers: I Read the SES Gazette Newsletter (n=151)

26.2

9.5

48.4

1.6

35.7

4.8

18.3

3.20.8

16.7

4 2.4

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Professionallayout

Needs a newlook

Informative Boring Interesting Uninteresting Should beissued

monthly

Should beissued

quarterly

Should beissued 6monthly

More hardcopies

provided toUnits

Waste oftime andmoney

Needs aname change

%

Notes: 1. Respondents were able to choose more than one of the above descriptors2. Respondent suggestions: More "unit stories", less Southern Region focus and needs to be more up-to-date

Chart 86 - Percentage of Volunteers: What Thay Think About the SES Gazette Newsletter (n=126)

48

Question 61: I am aware of the legal protections offered to me whilst performing SES duties in accordance with the Emergency Management Act 2006

If the 2014 respondents who were ‘not sure’ were combined with those who were not aware of their legal protections, 30.0% of respondents would not be fully aware of their protections. This represents an improvement since 2002, but a decline in awareness since 2007.

Consideration should be given to some raised awareness of SES member legal protections under the Emergency Management Act 2006.

Question 62: I would support the establishment of, and wish to be an active member of, a Tasmania SES Volunteer Association

The majority of respondents (49.6%) supported the establishment of an SES Volunteer Association and felt they would be an active member (9.9% strongly agreed). 9.2% were not supportive and 41.1% were neutral or unsure.

Consideration should be given to the provision of seed funding and some administrative support to help SES volunteers with the establishment of a Tasmania SES Volunteer Association. Consideration should also be given to seeking advice and support from existing SES Volunteer Associations interstate, who have indicated an interest in providing support to founding SES volunteers.

Question 63: SES should establish a non-operational stream of SES volunteering to support non-operational activities such as community events, administration, community education/awareness, Driver Reviver, training support, maintenance, recruitment, etc.

37.3% of respondents supported the idea of a non-operational/operational support stream of volunteer and 43% were neutral or unsure. 19.7% were against the idea, but the reasons for or against remain unknown.

Strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats relating to a non-operational/operational support stream of SES volunteer should be considered further in consultation with all Units.

61

39

0

80.9

19.1

0

70

3.4

26.6

0

20

40

60

80

100

Yes No Not Sure

%

Note: 2002 and 2007 surveys did not provide the option to say "Not Sure"

Chart 87 - Percentage of Volunteers: I am Aware of My Legal Protections Whilst Conducting SES Duties


2.66.6

41.1 39.7

9.9

0

10

20

30

40

50


%

Chart 88 - Percentage of Volunteers: I Support the Establishment of a Tasmania SES Volunteer Association (n=151)

49


Question 64: As a volunteer I am aware of my Work Health and Safety (WHS) requirements

Since 2002, the level of awareness of WHS requirements has progressively improved. In 2014, 93.5% of respondents claimed they were aware of their individual WHS requirements. 4.0% were not aware and only 2.0% were not sure.

Question 65: I know who my Health and Safety Representative is

Publicity on who were the Health and Safety Representatives (HSR) was primarily achieved before the 2014 survey through written correspondence to Units and articles in the SES Gazette newsletter. Given that only 41.7% of respondents always read the SES Gazette newsletter (per question 59), it was not that surprising that only 59.0% of respondents were aware of who their HSR was. An additional 9.7% were not aware, but knew how to find out if they needed.

Consideration should be given to more publicity about who the HSRs are.

4.9

14.8

43

30.3

7

0

10

20

30

40

50


%

Chart 89 - Percentage of Volunteers: SES Should Establish a Non-Operational/Operational Support Stream of SES Volunteering (n=142)

5 3.5

17

28

44.5

0 2.2

13.5

84.3

03.3

0.7 2

73.2

20.3

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90


%

Note. 2007 answers were limited to "yes" (Agree), "More training needed" (Neutral/Note Sure) and "no" (Disagree) only

Chart 90 - Percentage of Volunteers: I am Aware of My WHS Requirements




59

20.115.2

9.7

0

20

40

60

80

Yes No Not Sure I know where to find out

%

Chart 91 - Percentage of Volunteers: I Know Who My Health and Safety Representative Is (n=144)

50

Question 66: My Unit Complies with Work Health and Safety requirements

90.2% of respondents feel that their Units comply with Work Health and Safety (WHS) requirements.

2.6% (which equates to four respondents) felt that their Unit did not comply with WHS requirements, however no respondents had strong views about non-compliance. These results have been fairly consistent since 2002.

Question 67: I believe SES has a good work, health and safety culture

The majority of respondents (88.9%) agreed or strongly agreed that SES had a good WHS culture. 3.3% disagreed or strongly disagreed and 7.8% were neutral or unsure.

Question 68a: My Unit Manager or Team Leaders are actively responsible for my safety and the safety of others

88.7% of respondents felt that their Unit Managers or Team Leaders were actively responsible for their safety and the safety of others (28.4% strongly agreed). This result was reflective of the previous question’s results on WHS culture. There are no concerning trends since the 2007 survey.

0 3

2028

48

04.4

0

95.6

00 2.67.2

71.2

19

0

20

40

60

80

100

120


%


Chart 92 - Percentage of Volunteers: My Unit Complies with WHS requirements




0.7 2.6

7.8

73.2

15.7

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80


%

Chart 93 - Percentage of Volunteers: I Beleive SES has a Good WHS Culture

51

Question 68b: My Regional staff are actively responsible for my safety and the safety of others

81.8% of respondents felt their Regional staff were actively responsible for their safety and the safety of others. 2.9% disagreed or strongly disagreed.

Question 69: I know who to approach if I have a Work Health and Safety issue or concern

The majority of respondents (90.2%) indicated that they knew who to approach if they had any WHS issue or concern. A further 2.6% indicated that they were unsure, but they knew where to find out. Only 7.2% did not know or were unsure.

Trends since the 2002 survey indicate ongoing improvement.

0 2.8 0

97.2

01.3 27.9

60.3

28.4

0

20

40

60

80

100

120


%


Chart 94 - Percentage of Volunteers: My Unit Manager or Team Leaders are Actively Responsible for my Safety and the Safety of Others



0.7 2.2

15.3

65.7

16.1

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70


%

Chart 95 - Percentage of Volunteers: My Regional Staff are Actively Responsible for My Safety and the Safety of Others (n=137)

45.2

54.8

0 0

72.5

27.5

0 0

90.2

3.9 3.3 2.6

0

20

40

60

80

100

Yes No Not Sure I know where to find out

%

Note: 2002 and 2007 surveys did not provide the option to say "Not Sure"

Chart 96 - Percentage of Volunteers: I Know Who to Approach if I have a WHS Issue or Concern




52


Question 70: I am aware of my Equity and Diversity requirements

81.5% of respondents indicated that they were aware of their equity and diversity requirements. Since the 2002 survey fewer (14.5%) respondents indicated that they had no awareness or were not sure.

In 2014 a greater proportion of female respondents than male agreed that they were aware of their equity and diversity requirements. There were no female respondents who disagreed and said ‘no’.

Question 71: My Unit complies with Equity and Diversity requirements

No respondents felt that their Unit did not comply with equity and diversity requirements, however, almost a quarter of respondents were unsure. 75.3% of respondents were satisfied that their Unit complied with these requirements, which is about the same as 2007 and a significant improvement since 2002. An equal proportion of male and female respondents shared these views.

53

45

12

0

84.6

15.4

1 0

81.5

4.69.9

4

0

20

40

60

80

100

Yes No Not sure I know where to find out

%

Chart 97 - Awareness of Equity and Diversity Requirements


81.5

4.69.9

4

78.5

612.1

3.4

91.4

02.9

5.7

0

20

40

60

80

100

Yes No Not sure I know where to find out

%

Chart 98 - Awareness of Equity and Diversity Requirements 2014




53

53

7

33

76.9

1.1

22

75.3

0

24.7

0

20

40

60

80

100

Yes No Not sure

%

Chart 99 - Percentage of Volunteers: My Unit Complies with Equity and Diversity Requirements




75.3

0

24.7

74.8

0

25.2

77.1

0

22.9

0

20

40

60

80

100

Yes No Not sure

%

Chart 100 - Percentage of Volunteers: My Unit Compliance with Equity and Diversity Requirements 2014




55

Attachment 1

Tasmania SES Volunteer Survey 2014

Thank you for participating in this important survey. It is intended for all registered Tasmania SES volunteers during the month of March 2014.

Aim. The primary aim of the survey data is to inform future decisions on how SES management can better support our volunteers.

Why you should complete the survey. Since 2002, a survey like this has been conducted every five to six years to inform SES management of important issues and trends. The results of previous surveys helped SES management to implement many significant improvements, eg, improved funding allocations/priorities and new volunteer retention strategies such as the SES Long Service Medal, improvements to PPE and equipment, provision of general duties uniform, improvements to training, etc.

Instructions

The survey is to be completed any time in March 2014. Each volunteer member is to complete the survey.

Please try to answer each question honestly and independently of other members. If you are unsure how to answer a question select the “not sure” option or leave it blank. Feel free to add any legible comments with any questions or answers.

Each survey will have a pre-paid and pre-addressed return envelope. When completed, please seal it in the envelope and mail it back to State Headquarters prior to 31 March 2014.

Once all completed surveys are received, SES Headquarters (Office of the Director) will assess and analyse the data and prepare a survey report for future reference.

Confidentiality

There is no need to place your name on the survey. Despite this, each completed survey will be treated as confidential.

Analysis of the data will be conducted by the office of the Director SES. A survey report showing trends with previous survey results (where possible) will be compiled and made available to all members. This report will not include data that compares each Unit or Unit Manager (eg, “Management” questions). This data will be assessed separately and will be managed in a discrete and confidential manner between supporting staff and applicable Unit Managers only.

Enquiries

Any enquiries about the survey can be directed in the first instance to the office of the Director SES (Director’s Exec Assistant, Margaret Ward) by email or phone:

Email: [email protected] Phone: (03) 6230 2703

Andrew Lea Director [email protected] (03) 6230 2702

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

56

Questions

Personal Details

1. Unit Name: …………………………………………………………

2. Which age bracket are you in (as at 31 March 2014)?

□ Under 18

□ 18 - 19

□ 20 - 24

□ 25 – 29

□ 30 – 34

□ 35 – 39

□ 40 – 44

□ 45 – 49

□ 50 – 54

□ 55 – 59

□ 60 – 64

□ 65 – 69

□ 70 – 74

□ 75 – 79

□ 80 – 84

□ 85+

3. What gender are you?

□ Male □ Female

4. How many years have you been a registered member of SES? ……………

5. Do you identify yourself as an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander?

□ Yes

□ No

6. Do you speak any languages other than English?

□ Yes

□ No

If yes, which language/s? …………………………………

7. What are the main SES roles that occupied most of your time and effort over the last year? (indicate all that are applicable, but if more than one, number in order i.e. 1 for the role you spend most time and effort)

□ Road Crash Rescue

□ Search and Rescue

□ Flood / Storm Response

□ General Rescue / Support

□ Support to public events, eg, marshalling, crowd safety, traffic management, etc

□ Public engagement and safety awareness activities, eg, driver reviver, agfest, shows, displays, etc

□ Training and/or assessment

□ Administration

□ Maintenance

□ Other? ……………………………………………..

57

8. What SES roles do you most enjoy or find most rewarding? (indicate all that are applicable, but if more than one, number in order i.e. 1 for most enjoyable / rewarding)

□ Road Crash Rescue

□ Search and Rescue

□ Flood / Storm Response

□ General Rescue / Support

□ Support to public events, eg, marshalling, crowd safety, traffic management, etc

□ Public engagement and safety awareness activities, eg, driver reviver, agfest, shows, displays, etc

□ Training and/or assessment

□ Administration

□ Maintenance

□ Other?…………………………………………..

9. What is your level of education or training?

□ High School

□ College

□ TAFE

□ Apprenticeship

□ University

□ Other? ………………………………………………..

10. What is your employment status?

□ Employed Full-time

□ Employed Part-time

□ Employed Casual

□ Self Employed / Business owner or operator

□ Student

□ Retired

□ Unemployed

□ Other? ……………………………………………

11. Which industry are you employed in (add details to explain your type of employment)?

□ Unemployed, retired, etc

□ Student

□ Self Employed / Small business ………………………………………..

□ Private / Non Government ………………………………………………

□ Federal Government……………………………………………………..

□ State Government………………………………………………………..

□ Local Government……………………………………………………….

□ Other? ……………………………………………………………………

12. How would you best describe your employment role?

□ Unemployed, retired, etc (skip next question)

□ Full time student (skip next question)

□ Labourer ………………………………………………………………...

□ Management ……………………………………………………………

□ Executive ………………………………………………………………..

□ Supervisory ………………………………………………………………

□ Work alone ……………………………………………………………….

□ Specialist …………………………………………………………………

□ Other ………………………………………………………………………

58

13. How would you best describe your employment work hours?

□ Day worker – normal work hours

□ Shift worker – varied hours night and day…………………………….

□ Shift worker – fixed hours (specify)…………………………………….

□ Flexible hours (self determined)

□ Casual worker / on call..………………………………………………….

□ Part time (specify)...………………………………………………………

□ Other ……………………………………………………………………….

14. Do you currently volunteer with another emergency organisation?

□ No

□ Yes – please indicate below with years of service:

□ Tasmania Fire Service…………………………years

□ Ambulance Tasmania …………………………years

□ St John Ambulance……………………………..years

□ Australian Volunteer Coast Guard…………….years

□ Red Cross………………………………………..years

□ Surf Life Saving………………………………….years

□ Other? ……………………………………………years

15. Have you previously volunteered with another emergency organisation?

□ No

□ Yes – please indicate below with years of service:

□ Tasmania Fire Service…………………………years

□ Ambulance Tasmania …………………………years

□ St John Ambulance……………………………..years

□ Australian Volunteer Coast Guard…………….years

□ Red Cross………………………………………..years

□ Surf Life Saving………………………………….years

□ Other? ……………………………………………years

Motivations

16. With regard to question 15, what was the main reason for the change to SES? …………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

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

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

□ Not applicable (I haven’t volunteer with another Service, or I’m still with the other Service/s)

59

17. I first heard about the SES from: (please rank your choices in order of influence. 1 = influenced you the most)

□ Word of mouth (from SES members)

□ Word of mouth (from family member or friends etc, not SES members)

□ Website

□ Pamphlet / Brochure

□ Television

□ Radio

□ Newspaper

□ Other: ……………………………………………………………………..

18. The main motivational factors that lead me to join SES were: (please rank 1 – 8 with 1 being the highest motivational factor)

□ To learn new skills

□ To gain formal qualifications

□ Because I had friends in SES

□ Because it is rewarding

□ Social aspects

□ To give back to the community

□ To fulfil income support mutual obligations

□ The action and physical activities

□ Other …………………………………………………….

19. The main motivational factors that lead me to continue with SES are: (please rank 1 – 8 with 1 being the highest motivational factor)

□ To learn new skills

□ To gain formal qualifications

□ Because I have friends in SES

□ Because it is rewarding

□ Social aspects

□ To give back to the community

□ To fulfil income support mutual obligations

□ The action and physical activities

□ Other …………………………………………………….

20. SES receives enough publicity.

□ Strongly Disagree – please explain below

□ Disagree – please explain below

□ Neutral / not sure

□ Agree

□ Strongly Agree

□ Not sure

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

60

21. My contribution as a volunteer is recognised by SES.




□ Agree

□ Strongly Agree

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

22. My contribution as a volunteer is recognised by the Tasmanian public.




□ Agree

□ Strongly Agree

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

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

23. My employer is supportive when time off work is required to conduct SES duty.




□ Agree

□ Strongly Agree

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

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

24. I believe my employer (or business, if self employed) needs more recognition for the support provided to my SES service?

□ Yes – please explain below

□ No

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

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

25. I am aware of the SES employer / business recognition program?

□ Yes

□ No

Out-of Pocket Expenses

Out-of-pocket expenses are reasonable work-related expenses that you may incur while performing SES activities and are not reimbursed.

61

For the purpose of this survey, out-of-pocket expenses would not apply to the purchase of personal equipment, clothing items or consumables that are already provided by, or made available by SES, or to fuel when travelling between your home and your unit for routine training/meeting nights.

Out-of-pocket expenses may apply to unreimbursed phone calls, meals, accommodation, fuel to attend operations or training away from the unit, essential equipment that’s not provided by SES, lost income from your employer/business, etc.

26. My out-of-pocket expenses while performing SES activities are:

□ Non-existent

□ Acceptable

□ Unacceptable – please explain below

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

27. The majority of my out-of-pocket expenses relate to the following (rank which are more significant, i.e. 1 for most significant. Include annual cost for each if known):

□ Not applicable

□ Fuel …………………………………………………………………………………………….

□ Meals …………………………………………………………………………………………..

□ Telephone calls ……………………………………………………………………………….

□ Equipment / clothing ………………………………………………………………………….

□ Administration …………………………………………………………………………………

□ Lost income by taking time off work…………………………………………………………

□ Other ……………………………………………………………………………………………

SES Training

28. The training I receive through SES is adequate for my needs as a volunteer.




□ Agree

□ Strongly Agree

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

29. The training I receive through SES is easy to understand.




□ Agree

□ Strongly Agree

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

62

30. I prefer Unit, Regional or State-level training activities.

□ Unit

□ Region

□ State

Why? …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

31. I prefer evening or weekend training.

□ Evening

□ Weekend

Why? ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

32. The training I receive through SES is conducted professionally.




□ Agree

□ Strongly Agree

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

33. The training I receive through SES is conducted at convenient times.




□ Agree

□ Strongly Agree

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

34. The training I receive through SES is accessible to me.




□ Agree

□ Strongly Agree

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

35. Training certificates are issued in a timely manner.




□ Agree

□ Strongly Agree

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

63

36. I believe there is value in SES continuing to participate in national training activities where possible, such as the biennial (2 yearly) National Disaster Rescue Challenge and annual Australasian Road Rescue Challenge.

□ Strongly Disagree

□ Disagree


□ Agree

□ Strongly Agree

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

37. I believe there is value in SES continuing to have biennial (2 yearly) State Disaster Rescue Challenges where possible.




□ Agree

□ Strongly Agree

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

38. I believe there is value in SES continuing to have an annual SES Land Navigation Challenge where possible.




□ Agree

□ Strongly Agree

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

SES Equipment and Uniforms

39. The uniform / PPE issued to me is suitable for my role.

□ Strongly Disagree – please explain or provide suggestions below

□ Disagree – please explain or provide suggestions below

□ Neutral / Not sure

□ Agree

□ Strongly Agree

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

40. SES PPE (new / replacement) is issued in an appropriate time-frame?




□ Agree

□ Strongly Agree

64

41. SES General Duties uniform (new / replacement) is issued in an appropriate time-frame?




□ Agree

□ Strongly Agree

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

42. Correct sizes of uniform / PPE items have been provided to me.




□ Agree

□ Strongly Agree

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

43. There is additional equipment (radios, vehicles etc) at Regional Headquarters for use in incidents




□ Agree

□ Strongly Agree

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

44. The equipment I use in my role as an SES volunteer is unreliable / faulty.




□ Agree

□ Strongly Agree

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

45. The equipment I use in my role as a volunteer is adequate for the job it is provided for.




□ Agree

□ Strongly Agree

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

65

Management

46. I am familiar with the SES Principles and Code of Conduct.

□ Yes

□ Not sure

□ No

□ No, but I know where to find out

47. My needs as a volunteer are listened to and understood by my:

a. Unit Manager b. Regional staff c. Director SES




□ Agree

□ Strongly Agree




□ Agree

□ Strongly Agree




□ Agree

□ Strongly Agree

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

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

48. My Unit/Regional Headquarters/State Headquarters (as applicable below) is professionally managed:

a. Unit b. Regional HQ c. State HQ




□ Agree

□ Strongly Agree




□ Agree

□ Strongly Agree




□ Agree

□ Strongly Agree

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

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

49. I understand the roles and responsibilities of my:

a. Unit Manager b. Regional staff c. Director/State HQ staff




□ Agree

□ Strongly Agree




□ Agree

□ Strongly Agree




□ Agree

□ Strongly Agree

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

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

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

66

50. I see my respective regional staff / Director SES enough.

a. Regional staff b. Director SES




□ Agree

□ Strongly Agree




□ Agree

□ Strongly Agree

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

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

51. I rank the spending priorities for my Unit from 1 – 10 as follows (1 being highest priority):

□ Equipment (specify type of equipment, if known: …………………………………………………………………………)

□ Personal Protective Clothing/Equipment

□ General Duties Uniform

□ Vehicles

□ Trailers

□ Facilities

□ Training

□ Social Activities

□ Computers

□ Radios

□ Not sure

□ Other ………………………………………………………….

52. I am happy with the level of funding my unit receives



□ Neutral / not sure – don’t know how much funding the Unit receives

□ Agree

□ Strongly Agree

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

53. I am happy with the level of funding that SES as an organisation receives.



□ Neutral / not sure – Don’t know how much funding the SES receives

□ Agree

□ Strongly Agree

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

67

54. SES Units currently rely on support from the councils for SES facilities, vehicles, maintenance, operational expenses, etc.

I believe my Unit would be better supported if these things were centrally managed and funded only by SES (explain your answer below).


□ Disagree

□ Neutral

□ Agree

□ Strongly Agree

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

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

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

55. My Unit Manager/Regional staff/Director SES (as applicable below) is approachable:





□ Agree

□ Strongly Agree




□ Agree

□ Strongly Agree




□ Agree

□ Strongly Agree

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

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

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

56. My Unit Manager/Regional staff/Director SES (as applicable below) communicates well with unit members.





□ Agree

□ Strongly Agree




□ Agree

□ Strongly Agree




□ Agree

□ Strongly Agree

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

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

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

68

57. My Unit Manager/Regional staff/Director SES (as applicable below) is fair to all members of my unit.





□ Agree

□ Strongly Agree




□ Agree

□ Strongly Agree




□ Agree

□ Strongly Agree

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

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

58. My Unit Manager gets sufficient support from Regional management.



□ Neutral

□ Agree

□ Strongly Agree

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

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

59. I read the SES Gazette newsletter.

□ Always

□ Sometimes

□ Rarely

□ Never

□ Never heard of it

□ It’s not generally made available within the Unit

60. Which of the following describe what you think about the six monthly SES Gazette newsletter (indicate all that apply)?

□ Professional layout

□ Needs a new look

□ Informative

□ Boring

□ Interesting

□ Uninteresting

□ Should be issued monthly, quarterly, six monthly (delete as necessary)

□ More copies should be provided to the Units

□ Waste of time and money

□ Needs a name change

□ Other views or ideas: …………………………………………………

69

61. I am aware of the legal protections offered to me whilst performing SES duties in accordance with the Emergency Management Act 2006.

□ Yes

□ Not sure

□ No

62. I would support the establishment of, and wish to be an active member of, a Tasmania SES Volunteer Association.


□ Disagree


□ Agree

□ Strongly Agree

Main reason for your answer?......................................................................................................................

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

63. SES should establish a non-operational stream of SES volunteering to support non-operational SES activities such as community events, administration, community education/awareness, Driver Reviver, training support, maintenance, recruitment, etc.


□ Disagree


□ Agree

□ Strongly Agree

Main reason for your answer?....................................................................................................................

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………


64. As a volunteer I am aware of my Work Health and Safety requirements.


□ Disagree


□ Agree

□ Strongly Agree

Comments?..................................................................................................................................................

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

65. I know who my Health and Safety Representative is

□ Yes – name of WHS rep ………………………………..

□ No

□ Not sure, but I know where to find out

70

66. My unit complies with Work Health and Safety requirements



□ Neutral

□ Agree

□ Strongly Agree

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

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

67. I believe SES has a good work, health and safety culture



□ Neutral

□ Agree

□ Strongly Agree

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

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

68. My Unit Manager or Team Leaders / Regional staff (as appropriate below) is actively responsible for my safety and the safety of others

c. Unit Manager or Team Leaders d. Regional staff




□ Agree

□ Strongly Agree




□ Agree

□ Strongly Agree

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

69. I know who to approach if I have a work health and safety issue or concern?

□ Yes – please name this person …………………………………..

□ No



70. I am aware of my Equity and Diversity responsibilities in SES.

□ Yes

□ No


71. My unit complies with Equity and Diversity requirements

□ Yes

□ No

□ Not sure

Tasmania State Emergency Service Volunteer …...The 2014 State Emergency Service (SES) volunteer...

Documents

Transcript of Tasmania State Emergency Service Volunteer …...The 2014 State Emergency Service (SES) volunteer...