profile of respondent characteristics...annual constituent satisfaction survey 2001 respondent...

APPENDIX A

PROFILE OF RESPONDENT CHARACTERISTICS

ANNUAL CONSTITUENT SATISFACTION SURVEY 2001RESPONDENT PROFILE

4 4 4

46 45 46 46

89 9085

9185 85 85 86

99 98 99 99

18 18 19 1816 16 15 14

54 55 54 54

11 1015

915 15 15 14

1 2 1 1

48 4950

56

37 3636

33 33 3026

25 26 28

18 18 18

3

36

24

18

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1998 2000 1999 2001 1998 2000 1999 2001 1998 2000 1999 2001

% o

f re

spo

nd

ents

18-24

25-34

35-49

50-64

65+

Male

Female

Week-end

Week-night

Week-day

FarmingHousehold

ResidentialHousehold

Own(incl'purchasing)

Renting

Other(exclhometranslator)

English

AGE GENDER LANGUAGEINTERVIEW

CONDUCTED IN

TIME/DAYINTERVIEW

CONDUCTED

HOUSEHOLDTYPE

PROPERTYOWNERSHIP

00978.SW Profile.xls.Profile

APPENDIX B

SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE

APPENDIX C

INDIVIDUAL LGA’S WITHIN EACH GROUP

APPENDIX D

EXAMPLE OF SURVEY DATA

PRESENTED TO EACH COUNCIL –

ADAMSVILLE

ANNUAL CONSTITUENTSATISFACTION SURVEY 2001

CITY OF ADAMSVILLE

- RESEARCH RESULTS -

JUNE 2001

A project jointly sponsored by the Department of Infrastructure and Local Governments

CITY OF ADAMSVILLECHART ONE: SUMMARY OF RESULTS FOR 2001

Indexed Mean

1 Constituent satisfaction rating for overall performance 67

generally of the council

2 Constituent satisfaction rating for overall performance in 66

key service areas and responsibilities

(individual service group ratings shown below)

2a Local Roads and Footpaths 67

2b Health and Human Services 68

2c Recreational Facilities 77

2d Appearance of Public Areas 74

2e Traffic Management and Parking Facilities 55

2f Waste Management 69

2g Enforcement of By Laws 65

2h Economic Development 64

2i Town Planning Policy and Approvals 60

3 Constituent satisfaction rating for council's interaction 73

and responsiveness in dealing with the public

4 Constituent satisfaction rating for council's advocacy 60

and community representation on key local issues

Newton Wayman Chong

00978.Adamsville.xls.1

CITY OF ADAMSVILLECHART TWO: KEY SERVICE AREAS RESULTS FOR 2001

RESPONSIBILITY AREAS OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT

2001 2000 1999 1998

Excellent%

Good%

Adequate%

Needssome

improvement

%

Needs a lot of

improvement

%

Couldnotrate

service% Mean

IndexedMean2001

IndexedMean2000

IndexedMean1999

IndexedMean1998

1 Local Roads and 9 42 27 16 5 2 3.34 6 58 53 52

Footpaths

2 Health and Human 12 43 29 10 7 48 3.42 0 69 68 67

Services

3 Recreational 25 48 16 9 2 6 3.84 4 70 61 72

Facilities

4 Appearance of 21 48 15 12 4 0 3.70 7 63 57 70

Public Areas

5 Traffic Management 5 24 29 28 15 3 2.77 -3 60 60 47

and Parking Facilities

6 Waste Management 17 38 21 20 4 1 3.44 -4 74 67 69

7 Enforcement 9 37 32 14 8 12 3.25 1 63 62 62

of By Laws

8 Economic 5 36 39 14 6 28 3.19 7 54 58 52

Development

9 Town Planning Policy 5 34 31 18 13 15 2.99 -4 65 61 57

and Approvals

PERFORMANCE MEAN ACROSS RESPONSIBILITY AREAS 3.32 3 64 60 61

Statistically significant increase since 2000 Statistically significant decrease since 2000

Newton Wayman Chong

67

77

74

55

69

65

64

60

66

68


CITY OF ADAMSVILLECHART THREE: OVERALL PERFORMANCE RESULTS FOR 2001

OVERALL PERFORMANCE OF THE COUNCIL

Excellent%

Good%

Adequate%

Needssome

improvement

%

Needs a lot of improve

ment%

Couldnot

rate area% Mean

IndexedMean2001

IndexedMean2000

IndexedMean1999

IndexedMean1998

! Performance 6 47 28 12 7 1 3.34 1 66 63 61Rating

No%

Yes - Positively

%

Yes - Negatively

%

! Have issues strongly 55 17 29influenced the aboveassessment

DIRECTION OF CHANGE

Improved%

Stayedthe Same

%Deteriorated

%

! Rating 32 53 15

ADVOCACY

Excellent%

Good%

Adequate%

Needssome

improvement

%


ment%

Couldnot

rate area% Mean

IndexedMean2001

IndexedMean2000

IndexedMean1999

IndexedMean1998

! Representation and 3 31 42 11 13 33 3.00 -3 65 60 59lobbying to otherlevels of governmentand private organisations

CUSTOMER CONTACT

Excellent%

Good%

Adequate%

Needssome

improvement

%


ment%

Couldnot

rate area% Mean

IndexedMean2001

IndexedMean2000

IndexedMean1999

IndexedMean1998

! Rating of Council's 25 39 17 13 6 1 3.65 0 72 70 68Performance

Yes%

No%

! Had contact with the Council 50 50in the past twelve months

Statistically significant increase since 2000 Statistically significant decrease since 2000

Newton Wayman Chong

67

60

73


CITY OF ADAMSVILLECHART FOUR: KEY SERVICE AREAS - SATISFACTION WINDOW FOR 2001

Performance

New

ton W

ayman

Ch

ong

Local roads and footpaths

Health and human servicesRecreational facilities

Appearance of public areas

Traffic managementand parking facilities

Waste management

Enforcement of By lawsEconomic development

Town planning policyand approvals

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

4.50

5.00

1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0

Sustain High PerformanceKey Improvement Area

Maintain PerformanceAdditional Attributes for Improvement

Sta

ted

Imp

ort

ance

: (A

vera

ge

of

1998

an

d 1

999

rati

ng

s)


CITY OF ADAMSVILLECHART FIVE: KEY SERVICE AREAS - IMPROVEMENT WINDOW FOR 2001

Percentage of respondents who rated performance as "needs some improvement" or "needs a lot of improvement"

New

ton W

ayman

Ch

ong


Economic development

Enforcementof By laws

Waste management



Recreational facilities

Health and human services


3.50

3.70

3.90

4.10

4.30

4.50

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60

Maintain Performance Key Improvement Area

Not Essential But Maintain Secondary Improvement Area

Sta

ted

Imp

ort

ance

: (A

vera

ge

of

1998

an

d 1

999

rati

ng

s)


Newton Wayman Chong

CITY OF ADAMSVILLECHART SIX: RELATIVE PERFORMANCE IN GROUP XXX FOR 2001

Average Performance

X = CITYOF ADAMSVILLE

| Lowest Result | Median Result Highest Result |

3.3

3.0

3.7

3.3

3.4

3.8

3.7

2.8

3.4

3.3

3.2

3.0

3.0

3.0

3.2

2.8

3.4

3.3

2.9

2.5

3.4

2.9

2.5

2.4

3.7

3.5

4.0

3.4

3.8

3.9

3.7

3.2

4.0

3.4

3.2

3.2

1. OVERALL PERFORMANCE

2. ADVOCACY

3. CUSTOMER CONTACT

4. RESPONSIBILITYAREAS


Health and human services

Recreational facilities



Waste management

Enforcement of By laws

Economic development


1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

00978.Adam

sville.xls.6

CITY OF ADAMSVILLECHART SEVEN: OVERALL RESULTS FOR 2001 - COMPARED WITH 1998, 1999 AND 2000

Excellent Good Adequate Needs some improvement Needs a lot of improvement Statistically Significant Change

Since: 1998 ! 1999 # 2000 $

New

ton W

ayman

Ch

ong

3130

35 28

3029

31

42

1613

16 17

3739 44

47

3134

43

31

4047

42 39 61 6064

66$

!

##

!!

$

!!

!!#

##

#

# $

!#

$

$

!!##

#

$

#

7 7 5 7 9 11 9 13 14 10 116

22 19

12 12

27 22

1211 11

12 7 13

35 4 6

3 4 53

19 1824 25

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1998 1999 2000 2001 1998 1999 2000 2001 1998 1999 2000 2001 1998 1999 2000 2001

Ind

exed

Mea

n

% o

f re

spo

nd

ents

Overall Performance Advocacy Customer Contact Key Service AreasOverall Mean


CITY OF ADAMSVILLECHART EIGHT: KEY SERVICE AREAS RESULTS FOR 2001 - COMPARED WITH 1998, 1999 AND 2000


Since: 1998 ! 1999 # 2000 $

New

ton W

ayman

Ch

ong 20 19

22

28 3124 23 28 18

19

2516

20

2323

15

17

20 3128

24 25 3542 34 46 48 43

44

3748

4838

30 41

48

19

39 34 24

!!! !!!!#

#####$$

$$!!

!!

!!#

####

$

$$

!

!

!

!!!

##

#

#$

$

!

!!!!!

!!

!#

#

#

#

##

#$

!!!!! ##$$$

815255685

20197

19 10 412 629

15 10 1591014131116

303324

13 10

2120

12

2416

32

2121

28

2512191011964 4

14 12 7 621

820

3 5 4 5

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1998 1999 2000 2001 1998 1999 2000 2001 1998 1999 2000 2001 1998 1999 2000 2001 1998 1999 2000 2001

% o

f re

spo

nd

ents

Local Roadsand Footpaths

Health andHuman Services

RecreationalFacilities

Appearance ofPublic Areas

Traffic Management& Parking Facilities

1914

18

2131 30 30 32

23

2330

39

3529

3430

41 4249

38

36 36 37 37

2234

2536

2539

41 34

!!!! ### $

$

!!

!!

!!! ###

#

$$$$

!

!

#

#

#

$

!!!!!

!

#$

$

!##### $

616883

1867488 15 13 11 7 13

14

27

142010

34

2122202214

23 23 1912

18

529520

365171418

5 4 2 6 5

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1998 1999 2000 2001 1998 1999 2000 2001 1998 1999 2000 2001 1998 1999 2000 2001

% o

f re

spo

nd

ents

WasteManagement

Enforcementof By Laws

EconomicDevelopment

Town PlanningPolicy & Approvals


CITY OF ADAMSVILLECHART NINE: DERIVED DRIVERS OF SATISFACTION FOR 2001

Newton Wayman Chong

OVERALLSATISFACTION

WITHLOCAL

GOVERNMENT

Local Roadsand Footpaths

0.23

0.17

0.17

0.13

Traffic Management and Parking Facilities

Economic Development

Appearance of Public Areas

Waste Management

Recreational Facilities

Health and Human Services

Town Planning Policy and Approvals

0.12

0.12

0.11

0.11

00978.Adamsville.xls.9(8)

CITY OF ADAMSVILLECHART TEN (1): REASONS "NEEDS IMPROVEMENT" FOR 2001

- LOCAL ROADS AND FOOTPATHS -

NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS: 201

! More frequent grading/re-sheeting of un-sealed roads 41%

! Improve standard of un-sealed roads (amount of loose gravel, corregations, dust suppression etc.) 32%

! More frequent/better re-surfacing of roads 26%

! More frequent/better slashing of roadside verges 26%

! Improve/Fix/Repair uneven surface of footpaths 22%

! Quicker response for repairs to roads, footpaths or gutters 21%

! More frequent maintenance of roadside drains and culverts 18%

! Increase number of footpaths 12%

! Fix/improve unsafe sections of roads 9%

! Fix/improve edges and shoulders of roads 9%

! More/better roadside drains and culverts 8%

! Upgrade roads, bridges to cope with current traffic demands (volume, type-trucks/B-doubles etc) 1%

! Increase number of sealed roads - inside town limits 1%

! Increase number of sealed roads - outside town limits 1%

! More/better street lighting 0%

! More community consultation about roads and footpaths 0%

! Prune/trim trees/shrubs overhanging footpaths 0%

! More/better street/road signs (including position/visibility) 0%

! Quicker response to road hazards (eg. stray stock, debris etc.) 0%

! More information/notifications about upcoming road works 0%

! More/better bike paths/roller blading areas etc 0%

! Quicker response to replace/fix street lights 0%

! OTHER (See Appendix A) 5%

Newton Wayman Chong00978.Adamsville.xls.10


- HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES -


! Improve quality of home help 24%

! More/better support/services for ethnic/minority/disadvantaged groups (including drug addicts etc.) 20%

! Greater availability of meals on wheels outside towns 20%

! Increase resources for/availability of home help 18%

! Improve quality/variety of food in meals on wheels program 18%

! More funds/resources for programs/services to reduce waiting lists/improve access 14%

! More/better centres/facilities across the shire/in more remote towns/areas 14%

! More/better premises for health or community facilities 14%

! More resources/longer opening hours for Maternal and Child Health facilities 10%

! More/better publicity/information about available services 2%

! More de-centralisation of service provision across shire/in more remote areas 2%

! Greater availability of home help services outside towns 2%

! More facilities/resources for Aged Care (elderly)/better nursing homes 0%

! More/better activities/programs for young people 0%

! Better transport arrangements to/from health or community centres/facilities 0%

! Reduce costs of Child care/pre-schools 0%

! More frequent visits by carers/home help across shire/in more remote areas 0%

! Reduce costs of home based services 0%

! Too much support/resources for specialist programs or minority groups 0%

! More/better access to people with knowledge about specific programs/services 0%

! Improve billing or administration of fee for service programs (eg. Child care, home help etc) 0%


Newton Wayman Chong



- RECREATIONAL FACILITIES -


! More/better Sporting Complexes (including pools) 35%

! Better maintenance of Sporting Fields/Grounds and/or buildings 21%

! More/better recreational activities/programs 21%

! More/better arts/cultural facilities/events in smaller towns 18%

! More community consultation about recreational facilities etc 11%

! More/better sporting complexes and/or facilities in smaller towns 8%

! More/better bike paths, skate board or roller blade facilites 8%

! More support for local sporting clubs in smaller towns 7%

! More/better facilities and resources at libraries 7%

! More/better/safer Playgrounds and/or equipment 5%

! More/better library buildings 5%

! More/better amenities in recreation areas (eg. seats, picnic tables, barbeques etc) 4%

! More/better library services/facilities (including mobile services) in smaller towns 2%

! Increase opening hours/days 2%

! Longer opening hours for Sporting Complexes (including pools) 2%

! Not enough money spent on cultural events and festivals 2%

! More facilities/activities for young people/teenagers 1%

! Larger range/greater availability of books 1%

! Less expensive recreational facilities and activities 1%

! More publicity/information on facilities and activities/programs 1%

! More/better performing arts facilities 1%

! Better/More maintenance of Parks/Playgrounds-syringes/lighting/trees etc 0%

! Improve coverage/frequency of visits for mobile library services 0%

! More/better events and festivals 0%

! Not enough support for local community groups 0%

! More facilities/activities for elderly/older people 0%

! More/better programs/activities at Libraries 0%

!Better transport arrangements to/from centralised facilities or events (sporting, cultural or other recreation)

0%

! Reduce fees/charges/fines 0%

! More specialist types of books (eg. large print, talking books, other language etc) 0%

! More helpful/friendly staff 0%

! Too much money spent on cultural events and festivals 0%

! More/better galleries/displays etc 0%


Newton Wayman Chong



- APPEARANCE OF PUBLIC AREAS -


! More frequent street cleaning 41%

! Better maintenance of parks and gardens 28%

! More frequent/better removal of litter in parks and gardens 27%

! More emphasis on smaller towns 19%

! More frequent sweeping of leaves 15%

! More frequent slashing/mowing of public areas 14%

! Better maintenance of amenities (eg. BBQ's, Picnic tables, toilets etc.) within parks/gardens 14%

! More frequent spraying of weeds in open spaces 8%

! More street trees 7%

! Better landscaping/design (eg. more colour, more shady trees) 5%

! More frequent/better pruning of street trees 4%

! More public litter bins 3%

! Improve streetscapes with landscape or architectural features 1%

! Better/different types/mix of trees 1%

! More/better cleaning up of condoms, syringes etc. in parks, beaches etc 1%

! Better maintenance of beaches, lakes, rivers etc. and surrounding areas 0%

! More frequent clearing of public litter bins 0%

! More parks and gardens/open spaces 0%

! Better amenities within parks/gardens (eg. BBQ's. Picnic tables, toilets etc.) 0%

! Quicker/more frequent removal of graffiti 0%

! More frequent watering of green public areas 0%

! More/better cleaning of toilet blocks 0%

! Too much money/resources wasted on landscaping and/or streetscapes 0%

! Restrict billboards, other advertising signage and other eyesores 0%

! Better/different time of day/week for street cleaning 0%

! More/better cleaning up of dog litter 0%


Newton Wayman Chong



- TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT -


! More parking facilities adjacent to shopping and business centres 73%

! More parking facilities/capacity 40%

! Less parking restrictions 9%

! Reduce speed limits in residential areas 6%

! Improve traffic management at intersections 5%

! Improve road signage - general 4%

! Improve blind spots, dangerous curves etc. on country roads (excluding highways) 3%

! More pedestrian crossings 3%

! More speed inhibitors (humps, barriers etc) 2%

! More parking enforcement/traffic officers 1%

! Restrict/discourage traffic on residential roads 1%

! More parking specifically allocated for residents 1%

! More parking restrictions 1%

! Less roundabouts 1%

! Install more traffic lights at dangerous intersections 1%

! More community consultation 0%

! Greater restriction of non-resident parking 0%

! Reduce speed limits near schools 0%

! Improved parking management around schools/more parking around schools 0%

! More roundabouts 0%

! Fewer speed inhibitors (humps, barriers etc) 0%

! Fewer parking meters 0%

! Less parking enforcement/parking officers 0%

! Improve road signage - school crossings and bus stops 0%

! More parking permits per household for residents 0%

! More courteous parking officers 0%

! More parking meters 0%

! More restrictions on parking of trucks in residential areas 0%

! Improve signage for/management of stock crossings 0%


Newton Wayman Chong



- WASTE MANAGEMENT -


! More comprehensive recycling program 21%

! More frequent collection of recyclable materials 20%

! Lower fees for Tips etc. 18%

! Extend areas covered by garbage collection in areas outside townships 17%

! No garbage collection 15%

! More convenient location of tips/transfer stations/rubbish dumps 13%

! Better containers for collection of recyclable materials 9%

! More reliable Collections 8%

! No collection of recyclable materials 7%

! Any/More frequent hard waste collection 6%

! Longer opening times/days for Tips etc. 5%

! Any/More frequent collection of green waste/vegetation 5%

! Bigger bins 3%

! More education/promotion for recycling 1%

! Inconvenient location of pick-up points for garbage bins 1%

! More community consultation 0%

! Too many rules/restrictions on pick up of green waste/recycling 0%

! Spilling garbage on footpath/ road during garbage collection 0%

! Bins should be returned upright to kerbside 0%

! Being charged for waste disposal but not having a garbage collection 0%

! Better siting of tips etc (too close to residential areas) 0%

! Less restrictions on amount collected 0%

! Smaller bins 0%

! Less damage to garbage bins 0%

! Reduce cost of second/larger bins 0%


Newton Wayman Chong



- ENFORCEMENT OF BY LAWS -


! Greater enforcement of fire prevention By-laws to clean up properties 37%

! Greater enforcement of animal By-laws 35%

! Greater enforcement of parking restrictions 19%

! Better attitude for by-laws enforcement officers/rangers 14%

! Greater enforcement of noise By-laws (domestic, industrial, traffic etc.) 12%

! Greater enforcement of food handling By-laws 11%

! Quicker response to reports of By-law infringements 10%

! By-laws are too stringent 5%

! By-laws are too lenient 4%

! Greater enforcement of littering By-laws 4%

! Greater enforcement of pollution By-laws (domestic, industrial, traffic etc) 1%

! Greater enforcement of footpath/kerbside trading laws 1%

! Less enforcement of parking restrictions 0%

! Greater enforcement of By-laws effecting stray stock 0%

! Fines are too high 0%

! Greater enforcement of septic/sullage overflow By-laws 0%

! Greater enforcement of stock crossing By-laws 0%

! Fines are too low 0%


Newton Wayman Chong



- ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT -


! Need more/better job creation programs employment opportunities 51%

! Not enough support for local businesses 24%

! Greater emphasis on Economic Development in general 20%

! Encourage more tourism 17%

! Not enough promotion of local businesses 10%

! Encourage more companies/industries to re-locate to the area 8%

! Economic development programs are too focussed on majors towns 4%

! Encourage more desirable industries to locate to the area 3%

! Encourage/retain key services such as GP's, hospitals and banks in rural areas 0%

! Restrict/discourage undesirable industries in the area 0%


Newton Wayman Chong



- TOWN PLANNING POLICY AND APPROVALS -


! Take better account of environmental issues 30%

! Better planning policies 26%

! Council should be stronger in representing community opinion 17%

! More efficient/faster approval processes 16%

! More consultation with community 15%

! Too little regulation in heritage areas 13%

! More helpful Town planning staff 13%

! More consistent decisions 11%

! Greater enforcement of/adherence to planning policies 11%

! Greater clarity/information on guidelines and process for building application 9%

! Take better account of impact on neighbouring properties 4%

! Better planning for development of shopping areas 1%

! Less high density dwellings 1%

! Too much regulation in heritage areas 1%

! Too much residential sub-division 0%

! Not enough residential sub-division 0%

! Reduce permit fees 0%

! Too much regulation on farming properties 0%

! Greater clarity/information on guidelines and process for building objections 0%

! Too little regulation on farming properties 0%


Newton Wayman Chong


APPENDIX E

METROPOLITAN AND COUNTRY RESULTS

ANNUAL CONSTITUENT SATISFACTION SURVEY 2001KEY SERVICE AREAS RESULTS FOR 2001 - COMPARED WITH 1998, 1999 AND 2000

- LOCAL ROADS AND FOOTPATHS -


Since: 1998 ! 1999 # 2000 $

23 23 24 23 24 2526 25

21 23 23 22

24 25 28 29 30 31 35 3521 21 23 25

!!! !!!!######

!!

!! #

##

!!

!!#

$

!!! !

!!!

######

$

1719 2324271316192223

1326

252626

202224252524 23

21

26

44466555 5 6 6 4

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1998 1999 2000 2001 1998 1999 2000 2001 1998 1999 2000 2001

% o

f re

spo

nd

ents

TOTAL METROPOLITAN COUNTRY

48 47 43 43 40 38 33 3453 52 50 48

29 30 33 34 36 37 41 4125 25 27 29

!!!!!!!######$

!!!!!!###### $

☺ &

0

10

2030

40

50

60

7080

90

100

1998 1999 2000 2001 1998 1999 2000 2001 1998 1999 2000 2001

% o

f re

spo

nd

ents


Excellent and Good Needs "some" and "a lot" of improvement ☺ More positive than Total & Less positive than Total ' Same as Total

00978.SW M&C A1.xls.C1


- HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES -


Since: 1998 ! 1999 # 2000 $

28 2823 23

3030

27 2827 27

22 22

37 3948 48

3639 48 46 38 38

48 48

! ! ! ! !! ! !# # # # # #$

!!

!!

!!! ! !

# # # # # #! ! !! ! !# # # # # #

!!

! !!!

!!

# ## #

# #

$

!! !

! ! ! !! !# # # #

748 6 4 6 5 7 4 44 813

917

815 13 8 13 9

148 8

1612101712 14 17 12 12 14 19 19

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1998 1999 2000 2001 1998 1999 2000 2001 1998 1999 2000 2001

% o

f re

spo

nd

ents


23 19 12 1225 19 14 13 21 20 12 12

49 5365 65

46 51 60 58 52 5467 67

!!!!!!!!######

!!!!!!!!!###### $

& ☺

0

10

2030

40

50

60

7080

90

100

1998 1999 2000 2001 1998 1999 2000 2001 1998 1999 2000 2001

% o

f re

spo

nd

ents





- RECREATIONAL FACILITIES -


Since: 1998 ! 1999 # 2000 $

26 2623 23 25 25

22 21

26 27 24 24

36 3742 43 40 41

46 48

33 34 39 40

!!! !!!!!!######!

!! !!!!!

######

!!

!!

!!

####

##

!!! !

!!##

#### $

!! !!!!!! ######

87 9912577910 5 10

161620

121514171814 16

1118

1212101512131110 14 11 15 11

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1998 1999 2000 2001 1998 1999 2000 2001 1998 1999 2000 2001

% o

f re

spo

nd

ents


28 26 21 21 24 22 17 1632 28 25 25

46 48 56 56 51 53 61 6343 45 51 52

!!!!!!!!!######

!!!!!!!!!###### $

☺ &

0

10

2030

40

50

60

7080

90

100

1998 1999 2000 2001 1998 1999 2000 2001 1998 1999 2000 2001

% o

f re

spo

nd

ents





- APPEARANCE OF PUBLIC AREAS -


Since: 1998 ! 1999 # 2000 $

20 2019 17

21 2119 18

22 2119 18

37 3843 44

38 40 44 4436 37

42 43

!!! !!!!! ######$!

!! !!!! ###### $!!! !!!###### $

!!! !!!

! ######

!! !!!!! ###### $

118 791281081112 8 111213

171618141718

1419

16 16

1817141311171413 16 10 14 15

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1998 1999 2000 2001 1998 1999 2000 2001 1998 1999 2000 2001

% o

f re

spo

nd

ents


30 28 22 22 30 28 24 24 29 27 22 19

50 52 59 6148 51 57 58 50 52 59 61

!!!!!!!!!######$

!!!!!!!!!###### $$

& ☺

0

10

2030

40

50

60

7080

90

100

1998 1999 2000 2001 1998 1999 2000 2001 1998 1999 2000 2001

% o

f re

spo

nd

ents





- TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT AND PARKING FACILITIES -


Since: 1998 ! 1999 # 2000 $

31 29 29 2929 29 29 28 31 30

30 30

30 32 36 35 29 31 33 33 31 32 38 36

!! !!!#####$$!!! !!!!

! ## $

!!!

!!! !!!!! ######

$

! !!! #####

1410 109121214111313 13 12

1817202121202021 19

24 22 19

66645565 5 4 5 7

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1998 1999 2000 2001 1998 1999 2000 2001 1998 1999 2000 2001

% o

f re

spo

nd

ents


34 33 29 31 38 35 33 35 32 31 26 28

35 38 41 40 33 36 37 38 37 39 44 42

!!!!!!!#####$$$

!!!!!!!!!##### $

& ☺

0

10

2030

40

50

60

7080

90

100

1998 1999 2000 2001 1998 1999 2000 2001 1998 1999 2000 2001

% o

f re

spo

nd

ents





- WASTE MANAGEMENT -


Since: 1998 ! 1999 # 2000 $

21 19 17 18 17 17 16 1518 18 16 16

18 1818 16

22 22 21 2123 21 20

20

35 36 41 42 43 43 48 4738 40 45 44

39 38 44 45

31 31 36 3828 30 35 39

!!! ! ! ! ! !! ! !### # # # # # # #$$

$!!

! !! ! !

## # # #$$ $

!!

!

!!

!!! !

# ##

# #$

!

! ! !

!

!! ! !

!! !

!# ## # # # # #

# # ##$

! !!

! ! ! ! !#$ $ $

12131618117 6510412 12 8 5 3 9 5 69 519 18 14 11

161919171515 1213

141213

1616 1614 12 12

1614 13

19 18 1916

131112121720 21202022221716 17 18 23 21 19 20 21 11 13 12 14

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1998 1999 2000 2001 1998 1999 2000 2001 1998 1999 2000 2001 1998 1999 2000 2001 1998 1999 2000 2001 1998 1999 2000 2001

% o

f re

spo

nd

ents

TOTAL GROUP ONE GROUP TWO GROUP THREE GROUP FOUR GROUP FIVE

28 28 25 22 18 17 15 1625 22 19 19 26 24 18 18

35 35 32 2838 36 33 27

51 53 58 60 65 66 69 6957 60 65 65

56 58 64 66

43 43 47 5139 43 47 53

!!!!!!!!! ! ! ! !####### # # # #

$ $ $

!!!!!!!!!! ! ! ! ! !######## # # # #

$ $ $

☺ ☺ ☺ & &

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1998 2000 1999 2001 1998 2000 1999 2001 1998 2000 1999 2001

% o

f re

spo

nd

ents


Excellent and Good Needs "some" and "a lot" of improvement ☺More positive than Total & Less positive than Total ' Same as Total

00978.SW Charts.A6.xls.C6


- ENFORCEMENT OF BY LAWS -


Since: 1998 ! 1999 # 2000 $

34 3433 33

34 3332 32

31 3233 30

32 3431 33

35 3634 34

34 3733 32

32 33 40 4133 35 41 40 31 35 38 41 35 35

45 4428 29

38 40 33 3140 42

!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !### # # # # # #

!!! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!

!### # # # # # # #

# #$

!##

#

$

! ! ! !!

!! ! ! ! ! ! !# # # # # # # # # # # #

$

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

88111399 568811 9 7 9 7 12 8 87 10 10 9 7 7

131419191919

121116151814

18 1813

18 1520

15 15 18 17 13 13

565555 6775565 6 6 5 5 6 6 6 5 6 7 6

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1998 1999 2000 2001 1998 1999 2000 2001 1998 1999 2000 2001 1998 1999 2000 2001 1998 1999 2000 2001 1998 1999 2000 2001

% o

f re

spo

nd

ents


29 27 21 20 28 27 22 2332 28 23 23 28 24 17 17

32 30 22 21 28 26 20 20

37 39 46 4738 40 46 45 37 40 44 47 40 42

52 5033 34

44 45 38 3747 48

!!!!!!!!!!! ! ! ! ! !######## # # # #

$

!!!!!!!!!! ! ! ! !######## # # # #

$

& ' ☺ ' '

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1998 2000 1999 2001 1998 2000 1999 2001 1998 2000 1999 2001

% o

f re

spo

nd

ents


Excellent and Good Needs "some" and "a lot" of improvement ☺More positive than Total & Less positive than Total ' Same as Total

00978.SW Charts.A7.xls.C7


- ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT -


Since: 1998 ! 1999 # 2000 $

3030 32 32

3536 36 37

27 2728 28

21 25 28 2924 28 31 30

20 24 27 28

!!! !!!!!!#####$$

!!!

!!!!! ##

####

!!! ##

!!! !!!!!! ######

!! !!!!!! # $

1414 1517221011131619

919

232428

1922222527

22 2520

27

44334443 4 3 4 4

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1998 1999 2000 2001 1998 1999 2000 2001 1998 1999 2000 2001

% o

f re

spo

nd

ents


46 41 36 35 39 33 29 29

50 46 41 38

24 29 32 33 27 32 34 3423 28 31 32

!!!!!!!!!######$

!!!!!!!!!######

☺ &

0

10

2030

40

50

60

7080

90

100

1998 1999 2000 2001 1998 1999 2000 2001 1998 1999 2000 2001

% o

f re

spo

nd

ents





- TOWN PLANNING POLICY AND APPROVALS -


Since: 1998 ! 1999 # 2000 $

34 3334 33

32 3130 31

35 3534 34

26 27 34 3626 27 34 34

26 27 35 37

! ! !! ! !# # # # # #

$ $! ! ! !! ! !

# # # # # #$

!

!! ! !! ! !# # # # # #

$ $

! ! ! ! ! !# # #

141315 15 11 16 14 15 12 1012 16

201722

1622 21

1521 17 21

15 14

44443 4 5 4 4 3 5 5

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1998 1999 2000 2001 1998 1999 2000 2001 1998 1999 2000 2001

% o

f re

spo

nd

ents


37 36 28 2638 37 31 30 36 34 27 24

29 31 38 4130 31 38 38

29 31 40 42

! ! ! ! ! ! !# # # # # #

$ $

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !# # # # # #$ $

☺&

0

10

2030

40

50

60

7080

90

100

1998 1999 2000 2001 1998 1999 2000 2001 1998 1999 2000 2001

% o

f re

spo

nd

ents




ANNUAL CONSTITUENT SATISFACTION SURVEY 2001KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS FOR 2001 - COMPARED WITH 1998, 1999 AND 2000

- OVERALL PERFORMANCE -


Since: 1998 ! 1999 # 2000 $

31 3031 31 30 30

30 30

31 3132 31

34 37 42 43 41 44 48 4730 32 38 40

! ! ! ! ! !! ! !#

## # # #

$$ $! ! !

!! !! !

!# # # ## #

! ! ! !

! !! ! !# # # #

# #$

! ! ! !! !# # #

11510 9 6 6 412 8 77 7

22131815

21 1915 15 12

2418 17

46554 5 5 5 5 4 5 5

010

20304050

607080

90100

1998 1999 2000 2001 1998 1999 2000 2001 1998 1999 2000 2001

% o

f re

spo

nd

ents


31 28 22 21 25 21 16 1836 33 26 24

38 42 47 48 46 49 53 5334 36 43 45

!!!!!!!!!######$$$

!!!!!!!!!###### $

☺ &

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1998 1999 2000 2001 1998 1999 2000 2001 1998 1999 2000 2001

% o

f re

spo

nd

ents


Excellent and Good Needs "some" and "a lot" of improvement ☺More positive than Total &Less positive than Total 'Same as Total

00978.SW M&C K1.xls.K1


- ADVOCACY -


Since: 1998 ! 1999 # 2000 $

31 3235 35

3333

35 36

31 3235

33

29 30 37 3930 32 40 38

28 2935 39

!!! !!!!!###### $$ !!! !

!!!!

! ###### $

!!! !!!

##### $

!!! !!!! ###### $$$

!! !!!!!!! ####

118 791471071213 7 13

141523

1217

132022

1420

1321

76467665 6 5 6 5

010

20304050

607080

90100

1998 1999 2000 2001 1998 1999 2000 2001 1998 1999 2000 2001

% o

f re

spo

nd

ents


35 3222 20

31 27 19 2037 34

24 21

34 36 43 4535 39 46 44

32 34 41 46

!!!!!!!!!######$$

!!!!!!!!!###### $$$

' '

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1998 1999 2000 2001 1998 1999 2000 2001 1998 1999 2000 2001

% o

f re

spo

nd

ents


Excellent and Good Needs "some" and "a lot" of improvement ☺More positive than Total &Less positive than Total 'Same as Total



- CUSTOMER CONTACT -


Since: 1998 ! 1999 # 2000 $

16 1614 13

15 13 13 1316 17

14 13

37 3841 40

38 39 41 4037 37

41 40

!!! !!!!######$$ !! !!####!!! !!!

!####$$

!!! !!!#####

!! !!!

!!#####

$

129 10912911101112 9 129911101191111 9 11 10 11

2827242726282424 27 24 28 23

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1998 1999 2000 2001 1998 1999 2000 2001 1998 1999 2000 2001

% o

f re

spo

nd

ents


23 22 18 19 23 22 19 19 23 23 18 19

61 62 68 68 62 65 68 68 61 60 68 68

!!!!!!!######

$

!!!!!!!######

' '

0

10

2030

40

50

60

7080

90

100

1998 1999 2000 2001 1998 1999 2000 2001 1998 1999 2000 2001

% o

f re

spo

nd

ents




ANNUAL CONSTITUENT SATISFACTION SURVEY 2001OVERALL RESULTS FOR 2001 - COMPARED WITH 1998, 1999 AND 2000

- ISSUES STRONGLY INFLUENCED ASSESSMENT -

Statistically Significant Change

Since: 1998 ! 1999 # 2000 $

35 3429 30

32 3025 27 37 36

31 31

! ! !! ! !# # # # # #

!

!!

!! ! !# # # #

# #$

&☺! ! ! ! ! !

# # # # # #$ $

515550 50 5549

5651

56 555650

1217181514 16 1521 19

12 13 14

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1998 1999 2000 2001 1998 1999 2000 2001 1998 1999 2000 2001

% o

f re

spo

nd

ents


NO Yes PositiveYes - Negative ☺ More positive than Total &Less positive than Total 'Same as Total



- DIRECTION OF CHANGE -


Since: 1998 ! 1999 # 2000 $

47 4851 53 47 49

51 52

4748

51 53

!!! !!!!!!######$$$

!!!

!!

!!##

####

$$

☺ &

!!!!!!!!#

$

1412 111423

812101619

918

3635314140373633 37 38 39 34

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1998 1999 2000 2001 1998 1999 2000 2001 1998 1999 2000 2001

% o

f re

spo

nd

ents


☺More positive than Total & Less positive than Total 'Same as TotalDeteriorated ImprovedStayed the same



- EXPERIENCED CUSTOMER CONTACT -


Since: 1998 ! 1999 # 2000 $

! ! ! !! ! !# # # # # #

$ $ $

! ! ! ! !! !# # # # # #

$ $ $

424643 43 45 44 4941

47 444842

5854585257 57 55 5651

59 53 56

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1998 1999 2000 2001 1998 1999 2000 2001 1998 1999 2000 2001

% o

f re

spo

nd

ents


☺More positive than Total & Less positive than Total 'Same as TotalNO - No contact YES - Had contact


APPENDIX F

REGRESSION ANALYSIS:

GROUPS ONE – FIVE

METROPOLITAN & COUNTRY

ANNUAL CONSTITUENT SATISFACTION SURVEY 2001GROUP ONE

DERIVED DRIVERS OF SATISFACTION

OVERALLSATISFACTION

WITHLOCAL

GOVERNMENT


0.20

0.17

0.16

0.14

0.12


Local Roads and Footpaths


Waste Management


Enforcement of By Laws

EconomicDevelopment


0.12

0.12 0.11 0.07

00978.SW DOS.xls.G1

ANNUAL CONSTITUENT SATISFACTION SURVEY 2001GROUP TWO


OVERALLSATISFACTION

WITHLOCAL

GOVERNMENT


0.17

0.16

0.15

0.14

0.14



EconomicDevelopment



Waste ManagementEnforcement of By

LawsHealth and Human

Services

0.14

0.11 0.09 0.09

00978.SW DOS.xls.G2

ANNUAL CONSTITUENT SATISFACTION SURVEY 2001GROUP THREE


OVERALLSATISFACTION

WITHLOCAL

GOVERNMENT

EconomicDevelopment

0.20

0.18

0.17

0.16

0.13








Services

0.12

0.10 0.08 0.06

00978.SW DOS.xls.G3

ANNUAL CONSTITUENT SATISFACTION SURVEY 2001GROUP FOUR


Newton Wayman Chong

OVERALLSATISFACTION

WITHLOCAL

GOVERNMENT

EconomicDevelopment

0.19

0.17

0.16

0.14

0.14





Waste Management




0.11

0.10 0.10 0.10

00978.SW DOS.xls.G4

ANNUAL CONSTITUENT SATISFACTION SURVEY 2001GROUP FIVE


OVERALLSATISFACTION

WITHLOCAL

GOVERNMENT

EconomicDevelopment

0.19

0.17

0.16

0.15

0.13







Waste ManagementHealth and Human

Services

0.12

0.09 0.08 0.08

00978.SW DOS.xls.G5

ANNUAL CONSTITUENT SATISFACTION SURVEY 2001METROPOLITAN (Groups 1 & 2)


OVERALLSATISFACTION

WITHLOCAL

GOVERNMENT


0.18

0.17

0.16

0.15

0.13




EconomicDevelopment




Services

0.13

0.12 0.10 0.08

00978.SW DOS.xls.Metropolitan

ANNUAL CONSTITUENT SATISFACTION SURVEY 2001COUNTRY (Groups 3, 4 & 5)


OVERALLSATISFACTION

WITHLOCAL

GOVERNMENT

EconomicDevelopment

0.19

0.17

0.16

0.15

0.14








Services

0.11

0.10 0.09 0.08

00978.SW DOS.xls.Country

profile of respondent characteristics...annual constituent satisfaction survey 2001 respondent...

Documents