survey methodology and sampling - frankston.vic.gov.au · areas. this coordinated approach allows...

2

Community Satisfaction Survey 2014 – Frankston City Council

Background and objectives

Survey methodology and sampling

Further information

Key findings and recommendations

Summary of findings

Detailed findings

• Key core measure – Overall performance

• Key core measure – Customer service

• Key core measure – Council direction indicators

• Positives and areas for improvement

• Individual service areas

• Detailed demographics

Tailored questions

Appendix A: Detailed survey tabulations

Appendix B: Further project information

3


Welcome to the report of results and recommendations for the 2014 State-wide Local

Government Community Satisfaction Survey for Frankston City Council.

Each year Local Government Victoria (LGV) coordinates and auspices this State-wide

Local Government Community Satisfaction Survey throughout Victorian local government

areas. This coordinated approach allows for far more cost effective surveying than would

be possible if councils commissioned surveys individually.

Participation in the State-wide Local Government Community Satisfaction Survey is

optional and participating councils have a range of choices as to the content of the

questionnaire and the sample size to be surveyed, depending on their individual

strategic, financial and other considerations.

The main objectives of the survey are to assess the performance of Frankston City

Council across a range of measures and to seek insight into ways to provide improved or

more effective service delivery. The survey also provides councils with a means to fulfil

some of their statutory reporting requirements as well as acting as a feedback

mechanism to LGV.

4


This survey was conducted by Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing (CATI) as a

representative random probability survey of residents aged 18+ years in Frankston City

Council.

Survey sample matched to the Frankston City Council was purchased from an accredited

supplier of publicly available phone records, including up to 10% mobile phone numbers

to cater to the diversity of residents in the Council, particularly younger people.

A total of n=400 completed interviews were achieved in Frankston City Council. Survey

fieldwork was conducted in the period of 31 January – 11 March 2014.

The 2013 results against which 2014 results are compared involved a total of n=400

completed interviews in Frankston City Council conducted in the period of 1 February –

24 March, 2013.

The 2012 results against which results are compared involved a total of n=401

completed interviews in Frankston City Council conducted in the period of 4 May – 30

June 2012.

5


Minimum quotas of gender within age groups were applied during the fieldwork phase.

Post survey weighting was then conducted to ensure accurate representation of the age

and gender profile of the Frankston City Council area.

Any variation of +/-1% between individual results and NET scores in this report or the

detailed survey tabulations is due to rounding. In reporting, ‘--‘ denotes not mentioned

and ‘0%’ denotes mentioned by less than 1% of respondents. “NET” scores refer to two

or more response categories being combined into one category for simplicity of reporting.

6


54

57

58

60

67

66

50-64

35-49

Outer Melbourne Metro

Frankston

18-34

State-wide

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

Within tables and index score charts throughout this report, statistically significant differences at the 95%

confidence level are represented by upward directing blue and downward directing red arrows. Significance

when noted indicates a significantly higher or lower result for the analysis group in comparison to the ‘Total’

result for the council for that survey question for that year. Therefore in the example below:

The state-wide result is significantly higher than the overall result for the council.

The result among 50-64 year olds is significantly lower than for the overall result for the council.

Further, results shown in red indicate a significantly lower result than in 2013, for example, below the result

among 18-34 year olds in the council is significantly lower than the result achieved among this group in 2013.

Results shown in blue indicate a significantly higher result than in 2013, for example, below the result among

35-49 year olds is significantly higher than the result achieved among this group in 2013.

7


Further Information

Further information about the report and explanations about the State-wide Local

Government Community Satisfaction Survey can be found in Appendix B, including:

Background and objectives

Margins of error

Analysis and reporting

Glossary of terms

Contacts

For further queries about the conduct and reporting of the 2014 State-wide Local

Government Community Satisfaction Survey, please contact JWS Research on (03) 8685

8555.

9


Frankston City Council’s overall performance is a significant 3 points lower

in 2014 than in 2013, however it remains on par with the Outer Metropolitan

average and significantly above the State-wide average.

A significant 5 point decline in Council’s rated performance among North East

Ward residents is driving this more negative sentiment.

Additionally, when asked how much room for improvement there is in Council’s

performance, 46% of residents believe there is a lot of room for improvement.

Ratings of overall council direction are steady when compared to 2013,

and continue to rate well above the State-wide and Outer Metropolitan

averages.

Contact with council and customer service ratings are also on par with

2013. Customer service ratings are not significantly different from the State-

wide and Outer Metropolitan averages.

10


Rated performance on the key measures of consultation and advocacy is

also little changed from 2013, as well as being on par with the State-wide

and Outer Metropolitan averages.

On both of these measures, 50-64 year olds rate Frankston City Council’s

performance lower than average; on advocacy 50-64 year olds have significantly

decreased their rating by 8 points compared to 2013.

On consultation, North East Ward residents are rating Council’s performance

significantly lower than in 2013 (down 7 points).

On an unprompted basis, the areas for improvement most commonly

identified were Council’s community consultation and its communication

with residents.

The need for better information and communication also comes through in

performance ratings of individual service areas: informing the community is

the only service area to have suffered a significant decrease in rated

performance.

11


In terms of other individual service areas, Frankston City Council

performs better than the State-wide and Outer Metropolitan groups on:

The condition of local streets and footpaths

Arts centres and libraries

The condition of sealed local roads

Council also performs better than the Outer Metropolitan group in the often

difficult area of traffic management, but by contrast it is outperformed by

other Outer Metropolitan councils when it comes to parking facilities.

Council lags behind the State-wide average on the enforcement of local

laws and waste management.

In terms of demographic cohorts to watch, 50-64 year olds continue to

drive negative sentiment on most issues.

12


An approach we recommend is to further mine the survey data to better

understand the profile of these over and under-performing demographic

groups. This can be achieved via additional consultation and data

interrogation, or self-mining the SPSS data provided or via the dashboard

portal available to the council.

A complimentary personal briefing by senior JWS Research

representatives is also available to assist in providing both explanation and

interpretation of the results. Please contact JWS Research on 03 8685

8555.

Please note that the category descriptions for the coded open ended

responses are summaries only. We recommend further analysis of the

detailed cross tabulations and the actual verbatim responses, with a view to

the responses of the key gender and age groups, especially any target

groups identified.

13


• Arts centres and libraries

• Customer serviceHighest results in

2014

• Parking facilities

• LobbyingLowest results in

2014

• 65+ year olds

• 18-34 year olds

Most favourably disposed towards

Council

• 50-64 year oldsLeast favourably disposed towards

Council

15


Performance Measures Frankston

2012

Frankston

2013

Frankston

2014

Outer

Melbourne

Metro

2014

State-wide

2014

OVERALL

PERFORMANCE62 66 63 63 61

COMMUNITY

CONSULTATION(Community consultation and

engagement)

58 60 58 57 57

ADVOCACY(Lobbying on behalf of the

community)

53 57 56 56 56

CUSTOMER SERVICE72 70 71 73 72

OVERALL COUNCIL

DIRECTION61 63 61 57 53

16


Performance Measures Frankston

2014

vs.

Frankston

2013

vs. Outer

Melbourne

Metro

2014

vs. State-

wide

2014

Highest

score

amongst

Lowest

score

amongst

OVERALL PERFORMANCE 633 points

lowerEqual

2 points

higher

18-34

year olds

50-64

year olds

COMMUNITY CONSULTATION(Community consultation and

engagement)

582 points

lower

1 points

higher

1 points

higher

18-34

year olds

50-64

year olds

ADVOCACY(Lobbying on behalf of the community)

561 points

lowerEqual Equal

65+ year

olds

50-64

year olds

CUSTOMER SERVICE 711 points

higher

2 points

lower

1 points

lowerWomen Men

OVERALL COUNCIL

DIRECTION61

2 points

lower

4 points

higher

8 points

higher

18-34

year olds

35-49

year olds

17


30 57 8 5Overall Council Direction

% Improved Stayed the same Deteriorated Can't say

8

6

4

31

48

33

27

38

35

32

35

17

7

10

8

8

2

4

4

4

1

15

23

1

Overall Performance

Community Consultation

Advocacy

Customer Service

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

18


• Arts centres and librariesHighest result in

2014

• Parking facilities

• LobbyingLowest results in

2014

• 65+ year olds

• 18-34 year olds

Most favourably disposed towards

Council

• 50-64 year oldsLeast favourably

disposed towards Council

19


Sig

nif

ica

ntl

y h

igh

er

tha

n t

he

s

tate

-wid

e a

ve

rag

eS

ign

ifica

ntly

low

er th

an

the

sta

te-w

ide

ave

rag

e

-Local streets & footpaths

-Art centres & libraries

-Sealed roads

-Enforcement of local laws

-Waste management

20


Sig

nif

ica

ntl

y h

igh

er

tha

n t

he

gro

up

ave

rag

eS

ign

ifica

ntly

low

er th

an

the

gro

up

ave

rag

e

-Local streets & footpaths

-Traffic management

-Art centres & libraries

-Sealed roads

-Parking facilities

21


82

70

70

70

68

67

65

65

62

62

60

58

57

56

55

Art centres & libraries

Family support services

Recreational facilities

Waste management

Elderly support services

Sealed roads

Local streets & footpaths

Environmental sustainability

Informing the community

Enforcement of local laws

Traffic management

Consultation & engagement

Community decisions

Lobbying

Parking facilities

81

69

72

66

68

n/a

62

66

66

65

62

60

n/a

57

51

n/a

n/a

70

64

n/a

n/a

61

65

n/a

62

55

58

n/a

53

49

2014 2013 2012

Base: All respondents.

Note: please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences

22


Top Five Highest Performing Service Areas(Highest to Lowest, i.e. #1 – Highest Performing)

1. Art centres &

libraries

2. Family

support

services

3. Recreational

facilities

4. Waste

management

5. Elderly

support

services

1. Art centres &

libraries

2. Waste

management

3. Recreational

facilities

4. Appearance

of public

areas

5. Community &

cultural

1. Art centres &

libraries

2. Waste

management

3. Emergency &

disaster mngt

4. Recreational

facilities

5. Family

support

services

1. Art centres &

libraries

2. Emergency &

disaster mngt

3. Appearance

of public

areas

4. Waste

management

5. Recreational

facilities

1. Appearance

of public

areas

2. Art centres &

libraries

3. Elderly

support

services

4. Waste

management

5. Community &

cultural

1. Art centres &

libraries

2. Emergency &

disaster mngt

3. Appearance

of public

areas

4. Waste

management

5. Elderly

support

services

Frankston City

CouncilInner Metro Outer Metro

Regional

Centres

Small Rural

Shires

Large Rural

Shires

23


Bottom Five Lowest Performing Service Areas(Lowest to Highest, i.e. #1 – Lowest Performing)

1. Parking

facilities

2. Lobbying

3. Community

decisions

4. Consultation

&

engagement

5. Traffic

management

1. Planning

permits

2. Population

growth

3. Tourism

development

4. Town planning

policy

5. Parking

facilities

1. Unsealed

roads

2. Planning

permits

3. Town planning

policy

4. Lobbying

5. Traffic

management

1. Unsealed

roads

2. Parking

facilities

3. Sealed roads

4. Planning

permits

5. Town planning

policy

1. Unsealed

roads

2. Sealed roads

3. Slashing &

weed control

4. Planning

permits

5. Town planning

policy

1. Sealed roads

2. Unsealed

roads

3. Slashing &

weed control

4. Population

growth

5. Local streets

& footpaths

Frankston City

CouncilInner Metro Outer Metro

Regional

Centres

Small Rural

Shires

Large Rural

Shires

24


BE

ST

TH

ING

SA

RE

AS

FO

R IM

PR

OV

EM

EN

T

Frankston residents are positive about their natural environment, Council’s

public spaces and their city councillors, however they are seeking more

consultation and improved communication from Council.

-Beach/ Foreshore

-Public areas

-Councillors

-Community consultation

-Communication

27


67

65

64

63

63

63

63

63

63

63

61

60

18-34

North West Ward

Women

Frankston


North East Ward

South Ward

Men

35-49

65+

State-wide

50-64

Q3. ON BALANCE, for the last twelve months, how do you feel about the performance of Frankston City

Council, not just on one or two issues, BUT OVERALL across all responsibility areas? Has it been very good,

good, average, poor or very poor?

Base: All respondents Councils asked statewide: 67 Councils asked group: 11


66

65

66

66

62

68

64

65

63

68

60

65

64

60

64

62

61

61

65

60

60

63

60

59

2014 2013 2012

28


8

11

8

11

10

10

9

5

9

6

5

11

8

7

48

48

44

40

43

44

46

54

49

48

56

41

45

48

35

34

37

35

35

41

33

30

31

38

34

35

31

39

7

5

6

9

8

3

10

7

9

5

2

11

11

2

2

2

3

4

3

2

1

3

3

1

5

4

1

1

1

2

1

2

2

2

2

2014 Frankston

2013 Frankston

2012 Frankston

State-wide


North West Ward

North East Ward

South Ward

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+

%

Very Good Good Average Poor Very Poor Can't say

Q3. ON BALANCE, for the last twelve months, how do you feel about the performance of Frankston City

Council, not just on one or two issues, BUT OVERALL across all responsibility areas? Has it been very good,

good, average, poor or very poor?


30


• 59%, up 2 points on 2013 Overall contact with

Frankston City Council

• Aged 50-64 yearsMost contact with


• Aged 18-34 years Least contact with


• Index score of 71, up 1 point on 2013 Customer Service

rating

• WomenMost satisfied with Customer Service

• MenLeast satisfied with Customer Service

31


59

41

TOTAL HAVE HAD CONTACT

TOTAL HAVE HAD NO CONTACT

%

2014

Q5. Over the last 12 months, have you or any member of your household had any contact with Frankston City

Council? This may have been in person, in writing, by telephone conversation, by text message, by email or

via their website or social media such as Facebook or Twitter?

Base: All respondents. Councils asked statewide: 54 Councils asked group: 7


57

43

52

48

2013 2012

32


77

75

74

74

73

72

72

72

71

68

67

65

Women

65+

North East Ward

South Ward


State-wide

18-34

50-64

Frankston

35-49

North West Ward

Men

Q5c. Thinking of the most recent contact, how would you rate Frankston City Council for customer service?

Please keep in mind we do NOT mean ACTUAL OUTCOME but rather the actual service that was received.

Base: All respondents who have had contact with Council in the last 12 months.

Councils asked statewide: 67 Councils asked group: 11


71

78

73

67

72

71

66

70

70

68

71

69

76

73

77

69

72

71

71

65

72

74

69

66

2014 2013 2012

33


31

33

34

32

34

22

33

39

19

42

34

23

35

35

38

38

33

38

39

40

42

32

46

31

31

42

37

42

17

15

20

16

16

22

15

15

18

17

24

19

11

14

8

7

7

7

6

8

8

8

10

6

10

8

7

6

4

7

5

5

5

5

2

4

7

2

5

7

3

1

1

1

2

3

1

1

3

3

2

2014 Frankston

2013 Frankston

2012 Frankston

State-wide


North West Ward

North East Ward

South Ward

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


Q5c. Thinking of the most recent contact, how would you rate Frankston City Council for customer service?

Please keep in mind we do NOT mean ACTUAL OUTCOME but rather the actual service that was received.

Base: All respondents who have had contact with Council in the last 12 months.

Councils asked statewide: 67 Councils asked group: 11

35


• 57% stayed about the same, equal points on 2013

• 30% improved, down 2 points on 2013

• 8% deteriorated, up 1 point on 2013

Council Direction over last 12 months

• Aged 18-34 yearsMost satisfied with Council

Direction

• Aged 35-49 yearsLeast satisfied with Council

Direction

• 46% a lot of room for improvement (down 7% on 2013), 47% a little room for improvement

Room for improvement

• 34% prefer rate rise to improve services

• 44% prefer service cuts to prevent further rate risesRates/Services trade-off

36


64

63

61

65

63

65

66

61

59

56

63

53

60

56

63

65

61

61

58

66

58

55

59

52

69

64

62

62

61

60

60

59

58

57

55

53

18-34

North West Ward

Women

65+

Frankston

North East Ward

Men

South Ward

50-64


35-49

State-wide

Q6. Over the last 12 months, what is your view of the direction of Frankston City Council’s overall

performance?



2014 2013 2012

37


30

32

28

20

22

34

29

27

30

29

38

26

27

26

57

57

58

63

62

57

51

62

56

59

55

55

57

64

8

7

8

13

10

6

10

9

10

6

2

16

11

4

5

4

6

5

6

3

10

2

4

5

5

3

4

6

2014 Frankston

2013 Frankston

2012 Frankston

State-wide


North West Ward

North East Ward

South Ward

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+

%Improved Stayed the same Deteriorated Can't say

Q6. Over the last 12 months, what is your view of the direction of Frankston City Council’s overall

performance?


38


46

53

48

41

46

44

47

47

45

47

36

51

55

43

47

41

44

50

47

52

41

46

49

45

53

44

39

49

5

4

4

5

5

3

5

6

4

5

9

5

4

1

1

3

1

3

3

3

1

6

2

2

3

2

5

1

4

2014 Frankston

2013 Frankston

2012 Frankston

State-wide


North West Ward

North East Ward

South Ward

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+

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

Q7. Thinking about the next 12 months, how much room for improvement do you think there is in Frankston

City Council’s overall performance?


39


9

12

10

11

10

8

5

12

10

7

9

8

6

12

25

28

22

25

23

24

26

24

25

24

24

22

29

25

23

20

26

24

26

26

23

20

17

29

29

24

19

17

21

23

24

23

23

24

21

17

23

18

20

22

20

20

23

16

18

17

18

18

24

27

25

21

18

24

26

25

2014 Frankston

2013 Frankston

2012 Frankston

State-wide


North West Ward

North East Ward

South Ward

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+

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

Q10. If you had to choose, would you prefer to see council rate rises to improve local services OR would you

prefer to see cuts in council services to keep council rates at the same level as they are now?


41


18

9

9

8

8

7

7

6

6

6

Beach/foreshore

Public areas

Councillors

Parks and gardens

Customer service

Community facilities

Waste management

Family support services

Community activities/Public events

Nothing

Q16. Please tell me what is the ONE BEST thing about Frankston City Council? It could be about any of the

issues or services we have covered in this survey or it could be about something else altogether?


%

42


9

9

8

8

7

6

4

4

4

4

12

Community consultation

Communication

Waste management

Public safety

Parking availability

General maintenance of public areas

Financial management

Sealed road maintenance

Traffic management

Footpaths/Walking tracks

Nothing

Q17. What does Frankston City Council MOST need to do to improve its performance?


%

44


61

60

60

59

58

58

58

57

57

57

56

51

18-34

South Ward

65+

Men

Frankston

North West Ward

35-49

State-wide


Women

North East Ward

50-64

63

57

59

61

60

59

58

57

57

58

63

56

56

61

63

55

58

55

56

57

58

60

57

57

2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Frankston City Council performed on ‘Community Consultation and Engagement’ over the last

12 months?



45


6

9

7

8

7

8

7

3

5

7

7

6

3

7

33

36

31

32

32

33

24

42

38

29

27

41

30

35

32

29

35

32

32

29

39

30

24

39

38

32

26

30

10

11

13

13

11

12

8

9

12

7

7

6

17

10

4

4

2

5

4

5

6

3

4

5

8

8

3

15

10

12

9

13

13

17

14

16

13

20

6

16

17

2014 Frankston

2013 Frankston

2012 Frankston

State-wide


North West Ward

North East Ward

South Ward

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


Q2. How has Frankston City Council performed on ‘Community Consultation and Engagement’ over the last

12 months?


46


60

59

58

57

57

56

56

56

56

55

54

49

65+

35-49

Men

North West Ward

18-34

Frankston

State-wide


North East Ward

South Ward

Women

50-64

56

54

59

57

61

57

55

56

61

53

54

57

57

51

51

54

54

53

55

56

49

58

55

51

2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Frankston City Council performed on ‘Lobbying on Behalf of the Community’ over the last 12

months?



47


4

4

5

6

4

5

2

4

4

4

4

5

2

5

27

27

21

27

27

30

25

24

32

21

24

35

19

27

35

34

36

32

33

34

32

39

32

38

47

29

34

26

8

9

15

11

10

10

8

7

9

7

5

6

14

8

4

3

3

4

4

3

3

5

3

4

2

5

6

2

23

23

19

19

23

18

30

22

20

26

18

20

25

32

2014 Frankston

2013 Frankston

2012 Frankston

State-wide


North West Ward

North East Ward

South Ward

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


Q2. How has Frankston City Council performed on ‘Lobbying on Behalf of the Community’ over the last 12

months?


48


67

63

63

63

62

62

62

62

62

61

61

60

65+

North East Ward

South Ward

Women

Frankston

State-wide


North West Ward

35-49

Men

18-34

50-64

68

70

65

66

66

61

62

63

67

66

64

66

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

60

63

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

2014 2013 2012

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



49


11

20

13

12

12

14

9

13

10

7

13

12

16

40

41

40

39

43

33

42

36

43

40

38

38

43

33

23

30

31

26

36

37

36

30

42

30

29

25

9

10

11

11

11

11

5

9

9

7

11

11

7

3

4

4

3

5

1

3

4

3

2

3

6

3

4

3

3

3

2

6

5

3

5

2

5

5

7

2014 Frankston

2013 Frankston

State-wide


North West Ward

North East Ward

South Ward

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


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


50


67

67

66

66

65

65

64

63

63

60

59

58

North West Ward

35-49

Men

18-34

Frankston

65+

North East Ward

South Ward

Women

50-64


State-wide

59

63

63

65

62

60

70

56

61

55

58

58

60

55

62

68

61

62

60

65

61

59

59

57

2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Frankston City Council performed on ‘The condition of local streets and footpaths in your area’

over the last 12 months?



51


16

22

11

13

16

19

18

13

17

16

22

17

10

14

41

32

43

34

35

45

32

45

47

35

35

45

44

42

27

25

30

28

26

24

33

26

21

33

29

27

23

31

13

14

12

15

15

10

15

14

12

14

13

11

18

9

2

7

4

7

7

2

3

2

1

2

3

2

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

2

2

2014 Frankston

2013 Frankston

2012 Frankston

State-wide


North West Ward

North East Ward

South Ward

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


Q2. How has Frankston City Council performed on ‘The condition of local streets and footpaths in your area’

over the last 12 months?


52


63

62

62

61

61

60

60

60

59

59

58

56

65+

South Ward

18-34

North East Ward

Women

Frankston

State-wide

50-64

North West Ward

Men

35-49


63

62

64

63

63

62

60

59

61

60

61

57

57

58

57

53

57

55

58

53

55

53

52

55

2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Frankston City Council performed on ‘Traffic Management’ over the last 12 months?



53


9

10

6

10

9

7

9

9

6

10

11

8

6

8

43

44

34

40

38

43

42

43

43

42

42

41

46

42

32

30

37

30

28

30

36

30

33

30

31

32

31

34

11

10

14

12

15

13

9

10

11

11

11

14

10

6

4

3

6

5

8

5

3

3

4

4

4

5

5

2

2

2

2

3

3

2

1

4

2

2

2

1

7

2014 Frankston

2013 Frankston

2012 Frankston

State-wide


North West Ward

North East Ward

South Ward

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


Q2. How has Frankston City Council performed on ‘Traffic Management’ over the last 12 months?


54


62

59

57

56

56

55

55

54

54

54

53

46

18-34


State-wide

North East Ward

Men

Frankston

South Ward

North West Ward

Women

35-49

50-64

65+

50

58

57

53

55

51

51

49

47

49

54

53

52

58

56

46

51

49

52

49

47

46

46

52

2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Frankston City Council performed on ‘Parking Facilities’ over the last 12 months?



55


8

7

6

10

11

7

10

8

7

10

14

5

8

3

35

28

28

35

37

36

35

34

40

31

36

38

37

27

28

35

30

32

30

26

30

29

26

30

29

32

24

27

20

18

21

15

13

23

19

17

20

19

18

19

19

23

6

10

11

6

6

6

6

7

5

7

6

10

11

3

3

3

2

2

2

1

4

3

3

2

2

9

2014 Frankston

2013 Frankston

2012 Frankston

State-wide


North West Ward

North East Ward

South Ward

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


Q2. How has Frankston City Council performed on ‘Parking Facilities’ over the last 12 months?


56


66

64

63

63

63

63

62

62

62

60

60

59

State-wide

Women


North East Ward

18-34

65+

Frankston

North West Ward

35-49

South Ward

Men

50-64

65

66

65

73

71

63

65

64

64

60

65

62

65

63

63

65

64

62

62

59

60

62

61

63

2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Frankston City Council performed on ‘Enforcement of local laws’ over the last 12 months?



57


8

19

8

14

13

6

10

7

4

11

7

6

8

10

42

34

42

41

38

42

38

45

43

40

47

40

41

36

27

27

26

25

24

30

29

22

28

26

24

32

25

28

9

7

11

7

10

6

10

12

11

8

11

8

10

8

3

5

2

3

4

3

1

5

3

3

2

2

7

2

11

9

10

11

11

14

12

9

10

13

9

12

9

17

2014 Frankston

2013 Frankston

2012 Frankston

State-wide


North West Ward

North East Ward

South Ward

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


Q2. How has Frankston City Council performed on ‘Enforcement of local laws’ over the last 12 months?


58


74

74

72

72

70

70

70

70

68

68

65

65

Women

35-49

North West Ward

65+

Frankston

North East Ward

South Ward

18-34

State-wide


Men

50-64

68

66

68

74

69

72

66

68

67

67

70

68

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

67

67

n/a

n/a

2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Frankston City Council performed on ‘Family Support Services’ over the last 12 months?



59


13

11

12

12

13

13

13

5

20

13

19

7

12

31

34

33

31

34

30

29

27

35

27

43

28

23

16

18

20

21

11

18

19

19

14

22

13

15

12

3

3

4

3

4

3

2

3

3

2

5

4

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

3

1

36

33

29

31

38

35

36

46

28

37

21

43

51

2014 Frankston

2013 Frankston

State-wide


North West Ward

North East Ward

South Ward

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


Q2. How has Frankston City Council performed on ‘Family Support Services’ over the last 12 months?


60


74

70

69

69

68

68

67

66

66

66

66

65

65+

State-wide

North West Ward

Women

Frankston

South Ward


Men

18-34

35-49

50-64

North East Ward

77

69

69

66

68

66

66

69

66

58

68

68

n/a

69

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

67

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Frankston City Council performed on ‘Elderly Support Services’ over the last 12 months?



61


10

12

16

12

10

8

10

5

14

5

9

9

18

31

26

34

29

31

26

34

32

29

29

27

30

39

16

18

17

19

14

21

15

14

18

20

16

16

12

2

4

4

4

1

3

3

3

2

4

3

3

2

1

2

2

2

2

2

2

3

5

3

1

39

39

27

35

42

39

35

44

34

42

43

39

27

2014 Frankston

2013 Frankston

State-wide


North West Ward

North East Ward

South Ward

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


Q2. How has Frankston City Council performed on ‘Elderly Support Services’ over the last 12 months?


62


75

72

72

71

71

71

70

70

68

68

67

66

65+

North West Ward

Women

State-wide

South Ward

35-49

Frankston

50-64


Men

North East Ward

18-34

76

73

69

70

69

71

72

71

69

75

73

70

76

69

72

70

74

64

70

70

69

68

68

71

2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Frankston City Council performed on ‘Recreational Facilities’ over the last 12 months?



63


21

25

20

23

20

24

15

21

13

28

18

19

23

24

47

45

45

44

43

47

45

48

55

40

40

56

44

49

22

21

24

21

23

16

28

22

22

21

33

18

18

14

6

3

5

6

7

8

5

4

6

5

7

3

9

3

2

3

2

2

2

1

3

3

2

3

2

3

2

2

3

3

4

3

3

3

4

2

2

4

2

4

8

2014 Frankston

2013 Frankston

2012 Frankston

State-wide


North West Ward

North East Ward

South Ward

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


Q2. How has Frankston City Council performed on ‘Recreational Facilities’ over the last 12 months?


64


86

85

83

83

82

81

81

80

80

79

77

75

North West Ward

65+

Women

35-49

Frankston

Men

18-34

North East Ward

South Ward

50-64


State-wide

82

88

82

83

81

80

75

83

78

80

76

73

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

73

73

2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Frankston City Council performed on ‘Art Centres and Libraries’ over the last 12 months?



65


37

40

27

29

42

34

34

31

42

31

41

31

48

45

40

44

45

45

47

43

49

40

47

46

43

39

9

11

17

14

3

10

15

10

9

9

8

14

6

1

1

3

3

2

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

9

7

8

8

10

8

8

9

8

13

3

12

6

2014 Frankston

2013 Frankston

State-wide


North West Ward

North East Ward

South Ward

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


Q2. How has Frankston City Council performed on ‘Art Centres and Libraries’ over the last 12 months?


66


77

73

72

72

71

71

70

70

69

68

67

66

65+

State-wide


South Ward

North West Ward

Men

Frankston

18-34

Women

50-64

35-49

North East Ward

72

71

72

67

65

66

66

64

65

61

64

64

68

72

71

66

65

63

64

67

65

63

58

61

2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Frankston City Council performed on ‘Waste Management’ over the last 12 months?



67


28

26

15

26

26

27

27

30

25

31

22

32

23

40

41

35

49

47

46

45

36

40

50

32

42

35

47

39

19

19

19

16

18

17

19

20

15

22

31

13

15

14

7

12

10

5

6

7

10

6

6

9

5

9

11

4

5

7

7

3

3

4

8

3

4

5

11

5

4

1

1

2

1

2014 Frankston

2013 Frankston

2012 Frankston

State-wide


North West Ward

North East Ward

South Ward

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


Q2. How has Frankston City Council performed on ‘Waste Management’ over the last 12 months?


68


69

67

66

65

65

65

64

64

64

64

63

62

North East Ward

18-34

65+

Frankston

Women

35-49

State-wide


South Ward

Men

North West Ward

50-64

66

66

69

66

65

62

64

65

69

66

62

69

66

65

68

65

66

65

64

65

66

64

64

62

2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Frankston City Council performed on ‘Environmental Sustainability’ over the last 12 months?



69


10

13

10

11

11

8

14

10

11

9

11

9

9

12

40

40

40

39

38

37

39

43

38

42

45

38

37

38

30

27

33

29

30

36

28

26

30

30

27

33

29

30

5

7

5

6

7

4

4

8

7

4

4

3

10

5

2

2

1

2

2

2

3

2

2

2

2

2

1

13

11

13

12

11

13

15

10

11

14

11

14

13

13

2014 Frankston

2013 Frankston

2012 Frankston

State-wide


North West Ward

North East Ward

South Ward

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


Q2. How has Frankston City Council performed on ‘Environmental Sustainability’ over the last 12 months?


70


61

58

58

58

58

57

57

57

57

56

56

51

65+


South Ward

18-34

35-49

Frankston

State-wide

North East Ward

Men

North West Ward

Women

50-64

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Frankston City Council performed on ‘Decisions made in the interest of the community’ over the

last 12 months?



71


4

7

6

2

8

3

3

5

2

6

2

6

35

33

33

39

29

36

39

32

35

35

32

40

36

34

34

36

38

35

33

39

45

30

30

39

10

12

11

11

11

8

10

10

4

11

21

4

4

5

4

5

4

4

5

4

4

5

6

4

10

10

12

7

11

13

10

10

11

13

9

7

2014 Frankston

State-wide


North West Ward

North East Ward

South Ward

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


Q2. How has Frankston City Council performed on ‘Decisions made in the interest of the community’ over the

last 12 months?


72


70

69

68

67

67

67

67

66

65

64

61

55

65+

18-34

North West Ward

Frankston

North East Ward

Men

Women

South Ward

50-64

35-49


State-wide

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Frankston City Council performed on ‘The condition of sealed local roads in your area’ over the

last 12 months?



73


18

12

16

18

18

18

15

21

29

11

14

16

46

33

38

53

41

44

51

41

31

51

51

58

21

27

25

14

33

18

20

22

25

19

21

16

11

17

13

11

8

15

10

13

13

16

9

6

2

10

7

3

2

2

2

2

5

2

2

1

1

1

3

2

1

2

2

1

2

2014 Frankston

State-wide


North West Ward

North East Ward

South Ward

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


Q2. How has Frankston City Council performed on ‘The condition of sealed local roads in your area’ over the

last 12 months?


75


49%

51%

Gender

Men

Women

9%

22%

28%

23%

19%Age

18-24

25-34

35-49

50-64

65+

Please note that for the reason of simplifying reporting, interlocking age and gender reporting has not

been included in this report. Interlocking age and gender analysis is still available in the dashboard

and data tables provided alongside this report.

76


29

27

16

15

7

3

3

1

Married or living with partner with children 16 orunder at home

Married or living with partner with children butnone 16 or under at home

Married or living with partner, no children

Single person living alone

Single living with friends or housemates

Single living with children 16 or under

Single with children but none 16 or under livingat home

Do not wish to answer

%

S6. Which of the following BEST describes your household?


77


14

15

14

16

11

20

13

14

15

20

21

4

8

14

13

14

16

15

20

8

13

16

16

20

8

10

71

72

71

68

74

59

78

72

70

62

59

89

81

1

2

1

2

2014 Frankston

2012 Frankston

State-wide


North West Ward

North East Ward

South Ward

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+

% 0-5 years 5-10 years 10+ years Can't say

S5. How long have you lived in this area?/ How long have you owned a property in this area?


79


FR3. Do you work in the Frankston municipality?


15

22

20

18

19

10

11

19

13

22

20

4

41

30

38

39

43

41

51

31

55

54

35

5

43

47

42

43

38

47

37

48

31

24

43

91

1

1

1

2

1

2

1

2014 Frankston

2013 Frankston

2012 Frankston

North West Ward

North East Ward

South Ward

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+

% Work in Frankston Work elsewhere Don't work Unsure

80


FR4. And which of the following best describes what form of transport do you use MOST OFTEN to get to work or

to your regular weekly commitments?


70

15

3

3

3

1

0

5

69

17

4

1

3

0

0

6

76

13

2

2

1

1

5

Car only

Car and train or tram or bus

Bus only

Train only

Walk

Bicycle

Car pool

Other

2013 20122014

81


FR5. What is your level of satisfaction with bus performance, frequency of services and bus routes in your local

suburb?


65

59

56

54

54

53

53

52

51

51

65+

South Ward

Women

Frankston

18-34

Men

North West Ward

50-64

35-49

North East Ward

82


FR5. What is your level of satisfaction with bus performance, frequency of services and bus routes in your local

suburb?


6

3

2

12

5

7

7

2

5

12

22

25

18

21

21

23

18

25

21

23

33

35

33

32

35

32

44

35

26

23

9

13

9

4

10

8

7

13

10

3

6

5

6

6

7

5

5

6

8

3

24

19

31

24

23

26

18

19

30

36

2014 Frankston

North West Ward

North East Ward

South Ward

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+

% Very high High Average Low Very low Can't say

83


FR6. And in the past 12 months have you participated in casual recreational physical activity (for example

walking the dog or general walking)?


92

86

84

91

95

90

91

92

96

97

88

82

8

14

16

9

5

10

9

8

4

3

12

18

2014 Frankston

2013 Frankston

2012 Frankston

North West Ward

North East Ward

South Ward

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+

% Yes No

84


FR6. And in the past 12 months have you participated in or attended formal, organised physical activity (for

example played netball, basketball, football, cricket, gone to the gym etc...)?


44

34

41

52

43

36

43

45

47

55

40

27

56

66

59

48

57

64

57

55

53

45

60

73

2014 Frankston

2013 Frankston

2012 Frankston

North West Ward

North East Ward

South Ward

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+

% Yes No

85


FR7. How satisfied are you with the PRESENTATION and CLEANLINESS of the Frankston Waterfront?


78

74

72

75

74

76

74

77

73

72

77

75

71

73

76

76

74

77

71

71

77

75

74

74

74

74

73

73

71

70

65+

South Ward

Men

35-49

50-64

North West Ward

Frankston

Women

North East Ward

18-34

2013 20122014

86


FR7. How satisfied are you with the PRESENTATION and CLEANLINESS of the Frankston Waterfront?


20

21

20

18

16

24

20

19

20

19

18

23

51

53

51

58

53

44

51

52

46

59

54

47

19

15

20

18

18

22

21

18

20

23

19

15

2

2

2

2

4

2

1

3

7

1

1

1

2

1

2

1

6

7

7

4

8

8

6

7

5

8

15

2014 Frankston

2013 Frankston

2012 Frankston

North West Ward

North East Ward

South Ward

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


87


FR7. How satisfied are you with the PRESENTATION and CLEANLINESS of open spaces such as parks and

gardens?


69

72

67

71

68

69

71

70

65

67

70

74

73

72

74

71

70

69

68

66

71

71

69

69

69

68

67

67

67

64

50-64

South Ward

Women

65+

North West Ward

Frankston

Men

18-34

35-49

North East Ward

2013 20122014

88


FR7. How satisfied are you with the PRESENTATION and CLEANLINESS of open spaces such as parks and

gardens?


13

15

14

12

7

20

13

14

14

10

15

15

51

51

56

60

44

47

47

54

45

57

52

49

30

27

24

21

41

28

35

25

35

29

26

27

3

2

2

3

5

2

2

4

4

3

3

4

1

3

2

1

1

1

2

2

1

2

2

3

1

3

1

1

2

4

4

2014 Frankston

2013 Frankston

2012 Frankston

North West Ward

North East Ward

South Ward

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


89


FR7. How satisfied are you with the PRESENTATION and CLEANLINESS of natural reserves such as

Sweetwater Creek and Kananook Creek Reserve?


56

56

58

57

55

54

58

59

55

60

65

63

62

62

62

56

63

61

60

67

65

62

61

60

59

59

58

58

57

57

35-49

North West Ward

Men

Frankston

Women

North East Ward

50-64

65+

18-34

South Ward

2013 20122014

90


FR7. How satisfied are you with the PRESENTATION and CLEANLINESS of natural reserves such as

Sweetwater Creek and Kananook Creek Reserve?


7

6

7

8

2

10

5

8

5

9

6

5

37

28

38

42

38

31

42

32

38

46

31

28

29

36

26

27

29

31

31

27

33

24

30

27

10

9

6

6

8

15

9

11

13

6

10

10

4

4

3

4

3

4

3

5

5

3

4

3

14

18

20

13

21

9

10

18

5

11

19

26

2014 Frankston

2013 Frankston

2012 Frankston

North West Ward

North East Ward

South Ward

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


91


FR7. How satisfied are you with the PRESENTATION and CLEANLINESS of the Central Business District or the

Frankston City Centre?


58

55

53

59

56

57

54

52

57

59

57

51

46

51

51

48

47

50

51

60

59

58

58

56

55

55

53

53

52

51

65+

Women

South Ward

18-34

Frankston

North East Ward

35-49

50-64

Men

North West Ward

2013 20122014

92


FR7. How satisfied are you with the PRESENTATION and CLEANLINESS of the Central Business District or the

Frankston City Centre?


5

7

5

4

5

6

2

8

5

3

5

8

27

30

25

24

28

30

25

30

27

25

24

35

49

42

43

49

48

49

50

48

49

56

49

37

11

15

17

16

10

6

14

8

13

10

12

7

4

3

7

5

5

3

5

4

2

5

6

6

4

3

3

2

4

4

4

3

4

2

4

6

2014 Frankston

2013 Frankston

2012 Frankston

North West Ward

North East Ward

South Ward

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


93


FR7. How satisfied are you with the PRESENTATION and CLEANLINESS of your suburb?


59

59

64

64

62

60

63

60

65

63

60

63

63

67

63

64

63

64

67

60

70

68

67

67

66

65

65

64

63

63

35-49

North West Ward

Men

South Ward

Frankston

Women

18-34

50-64

65+

North East Ward

2013 20122014

94


FR7. How satisfied are you with the PRESENTATION and CLEANLINESS of your suburb?


12

8

10

16

5

14

12

12

11

14

12

11

48

44

45

50

46

47

52

44

45

56

43

45

32

37

34

25

41

32

29

35

36

25

37

32

5

8

9

5

6

5

6

5

4

5

6

8

1

2

1

2

2

1

2

2

2

3

1

2

1

2

2

1

1

2014 Frankston

2013 Frankston

2012 Frankston

North West Ward

North East Ward

South Ward

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


95


FR8. ‘In your opinion can you tell me if you agree or disagree that this describes the Frankston municipality?


83

82

65

57

52

Has great potential

Liveable

Attractive

Safe

Exciting

83

79

62

55

53

83

80

65

52

52

2013 20122014

96


45

38

12

10

4

44

54

55

46

34

5

4

14

14

25

4

2

16

23

30

1

1

6

3

2

1

1

2

4

Has great potential

Liveable

Attractive

Safe

Exciting

%

Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree Can't say



97


10

7

5

46

46

44

14

13

14

23

22

28

6

10

8

2

2

1

2014 Safe

2013 Safe

2012 Safe

%

Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree Can't say



98


FR9. Please rate your perception on the overall image of the Frankston municipality, that is how do you feel and

think about Frankston?


69

68

67

66

66

65

64

64

62

62

35-49

South Ward

Men

65+

North West Ward

Frankston

Women

50-64

18-34

North East Ward

65

71

66

68

62

65

63

61

63

61

63

66

63

67

66

63

63

63

59

58

2013 20122014

99


FR9. Please rate your perception on the overall image of the Frankston municipality, that is how do you feel and

think about Frankston?


10

9

12

13

8

9

10

10

9

11

10

10

49

51

40

45

45

56

55

43

38

56

53

51

34

33

37

36

36

31

29

39

45

31

25

32

5

4

7

4

7

3

5

5

7

2

7

3

2

3

3

1

3

1

2

4

3

1

1

1

2014 Frankston

2013 Frankston

2012 Frankston

North West Ward

North East Ward

South Ward

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


100


FR10. How satisfied are you with the number and variety of major festivals and events available within the

Frankston municipality?


15

17

11

18

13

17

18

14

15

12

46

45

44

47

47

44

44

52

46

39

26

27

30

22

23

29

24

22

28

34

1

2

1

1

2

2

2

1

6

3

8

6

10

2

9

8

2

6

7

6

5

6

6

4

2

8

15

2014 Frankston

North West Ward

North East Ward

South Ward

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+

% Very high High Average Very low Low Can't say

101


FR11. Are you satisfied with Frankston as a tourism destination?


64

62

70

60

64

64

58

60

66

77

30

31

25

31

30

29

36

33

27

16

7

6

5

8

6

7

5

6

8

7

2014 Frankston

North West Ward

North East Ward

South Ward

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+

% Satisfied Not satisfied Can't say

104


Please note that as a result of feedback from extensive consultations with councils, in 2012

there were necessary and significant changes to the methodology and content of the survey,

including:

The survey is now conducted as a representative random probability survey of residents

aged 18 years or over in local councils, whereas previously it was conducted as a ‘head of

household’ survey.

As part of the change to a representative resident survey, results are now weighted post

survey to the known population distribution of Frankston City Council according to the most

recently available Australian Bureau of Statistics population estimates, whereas the results

were previously not weighted.

The service responsibility area performance measures have changed significantly and the

rating scale used to assess performance has also changed.

As such, the results of the 2012 State-wide Local Government Community Satisfaction Survey

should be considered as a benchmark. Please note that comparisons should not be made with

the State-wide Local Government Community Satisfaction Survey results from 2011 and prior

due to the methodological and sampling changes. Comparisons in the period 2012-2014

have been made throughout this report as appropriate.

105


Demographic

Actual

survey

sample size

Weighted

base

Maximum margin of

error at 95%

confidence interval

Frankston City Council 400 400 +/-4.9

Men 163 194 +/-7.7

Women 237 206 +/-6.4

18-34 years 55 123 +/-13.3

35-49 years 63 111 +/-12.4

50-64 years 157 92 +/-7.8

65+ years 125 74 +/-8.8

The sample size for the 2014 State-wide Local Government Community Satisfaction Survey for

Frankston City Council was n=400. Unless otherwise noted, this is the total sample base for all

reported charts and tables.

The maximum margin of error on a sample of approximately 400 interviews is +/-4.9% at the 95%

confidence level for results around 50%. Margins of error will be larger for any sub-samples.

As an example, a result of 50% can be read confidently as falling midway in the range 45.1% - 54.9%.

Maximum margins of error are listed in the table below, based on a population of 102,000 people aged

18 years or over for Frankston City Council, according to ABS estimates.

106


The Councils in the Outer Melbourne Metro group are: Brimbank, Cardinia, Casey,

Frankston, Greater Dandenong, Knox, Manningham, Melton, Mornington Peninsula,

Whittlesea and Yarra Ranges. All participating Councils are listed in the State-wide

report published on the DTPLI website. In 2014, 67 of the 79 Councils throughout

Victoria participated in this survey.

Please note that the Councils that participated in 2012 and 2013 vary slightly to those

participating in 2014.

107


Council Groups

Wherever appropriate, results for Frankston City Council for this 2014 Community

Satisfaction Survey have been compared against other Councils in the Outer Melbourne

Metro group and on a State-wide basis. Frankston City Council is self-classified as an

Outer Melbourne Metro council according to the following classification list:

Inner metropolitan councils

Outer metropolitan councils

Rural cities and regional centres

Large rural shires

Small rural shires

108


Index Scores

Many questions ask respondents to rate council performance on a five-point scale, for

example, from ‘very good’ to ‘very poor’, with ‘can’t say’ also a possible response category. To

facilitate ease of reporting and comparison of results over time, starting from the 2012

benchmark survey and measured against the state-wide result and the council group, an ‘Index

Score’ has been calculated for such measures.

The Index Score is calculated and represented as a score out of 100 (on a 0 to 100 scale), with

‘can’t say’ responses excluded from the analysis. The ‘% RESULT’ for each scale category is

multiplied by the ‘INDEX FACTOR’. This produces an ‘INDEX VALUE’ for each category, which

are then summed to produce the ‘INDEX SCORE’, equating to ‘60’ in the following example.

SCALE

CATEGORIES% RESULT INDEX FACTOR INDEX VALUE

Very good 9% 100 9

Good 40% 75 30

Average 37% 50 19

Poor 9% 25 2

Very poor 4% 0 0

Can’t say 1% -- INDEX SCORE 60

109


Similarly, an Index Score has been calculated for the Core question ‘Performance

direction in the last 12 months’, based on the following scale for each performance

measure category, with ‘Can’t say’ responses excluded from the calculation.

SCALE CATEGORIES % RESULT INDEX FACTOR INDEX VALUE

Improved 36% 100 36

Stayed the same 40% 50 20

Deteriorated 23% 0 0

Can’t say 1% -- INDEX SCORE 56

110


Index Scores Significant Difference Calculation

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

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

Where:$1 = Index Score 1

$2 = Index Score 2

$3 = unweighted sample count 1

$4 = unweighted sample count 1

$5 = standard deviation 1

$6 = standard deviation 2

All figures can be sourced from the detailed cross tabulations.

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

111


Core, Optional and Tailored Questions

Over and above necessary geographic and demographic questions required to ensure

sample representativeness, a base set of questions for the 2014 State-wide Local

Government Community Satisfaction Survey was designated as ‘Core’ and therefore

compulsory inclusions for all participating Councils. These core questions comprised:

Overall performance last 12 months (Overall performance)

Lobbying on behalf of community (Advocacy)

Community consultation and engagement (Consultation)

Contact in last 12 months (Contact)

Rating of contact (Customer service)

Overall council direction last 12 months (Council direction)

112


Reporting of results for these Core questions can always be compared against other

councils in the council group and against all participating councils state-wide.

Alternatively, some questions in the 2014 State-wide Local Government Community

Satisfaction Survey were optional. If comparisons for Frankston City Council for some

questions cannot be made against all other councils in the Outer Melbourne Metro group

and/or all councils on a state-wide basis, this is noted for those results by a footnote of

the number of councils the comparison is made against.

Councils also had the ability to ask tailored questions specific only to their council.

113


Reporting

Every Council that participated in the 2014 State-wide Local Government Services

Survey has received a customised report. In addition, the State Government is supplied

with a Statewide summary report of the aggregate results of ‘Core’ and ‘Optional’

questions asked across all Council areas surveyed.

Tailored questions commissioned by individual Councils are reported only to the

commissioning Council and not otherwise shared unless by express written approval of

the commissioning Council.

The overall State-wide Local Government Services Report is available at

www.localgovernment.vic.gov.au.

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

114


Core questions: Compulsory inclusion questions for all councils participating in the CSS.

CSS: 2014 Victorian Local Government Community Satisfaction Survey.

Council group: One of five self-classified groups, comprising: inner metropolitan councils, outer metropolitan councils,

rural cities and regional centres, large rural shires and small rural shires.

Council group average: The average result for all participating councils in the council group.

Highest / lowest: The result described is the highest or lowest result across a particular demographic sub-group e.g.

men, for the specific question being reported. Reference to the result for a demographic sub-group being the highest or

lowest does not imply that it is significantly higher or lower, unless this is specifically mentioned.

Index score: A score calculated and represented as a score out of 100 (on a 0 to 100 scale). This score is sometimes

reported as a figure in brackets next to the category being described, e.g. men 50+ (60).

Optional questions: Questions which councils had an option to include or not.

Percentages: Also referred to as ‘detailed results’, meaning the proportion of responses, expressed as a percentage.

Sample: The number of completed interviews, e.g. for a council or within a demographic sub-group.

Significantly higher / lower: The result described is significantly higher or lower than the comparison result based on

a statistical significance test at the 95% confidence limit. If the result referenced is statistically higher or lower then this

will be specifically mentioned, however not all significantly higher or lower results are referenced in summary reporting.

State-wide average: The average result for all participating councils in the State.

Tailored questions: Individual questions tailored by and only reported to the commissioning council.

Weighting: Weighting factors are applied to the sample for each council based on available age and gender

proportions from ABS census information to ensure reported results are proportionate to the actual population of the

council, rather than the achieved survey sample.

survey methodology and sampling - frankston.vic.gov.au · areas. this coordinated approach allows...

Documents