Upper Hunter Shire Council

Community Research
October 2015
The information contained herein is believed to be reliable and accurate. However,
no guarantee is given as to its accuracy and reliability, and no responsibility or
liability for any information, opinions or commentary contained herein, or for any
consequences of its use, will be accepted by Micromex Research, or by any person
involved in the preparation of this report.
Upper Hunter Shire Council
Importance of, and Satisfaction with, Council Services and Facilities ............................... 22
Safe, Healthy, and Inclusive Society ............................................................................................... 24
Provision and Maintenance of Infrastructure................................................................................. 29
Governance Systems ........................................................................................................................ 46
Other Services ..................................................................................................................................... 51
Improving Satisfaction with Council’s Performance ............................................................ 57
Importance of, and Satisfaction with, Council Services and Facilities ............................... 58
Contact with Council ............................................................................................................... 60
Best Method of Communication ............................................................................................ 66
Preference of Consultation ..................................................................................................... 67
Rating of Specific Statements ................................................................................................. 70
Most Valued Aspect of Living in the Shire ............................................................................. 71
Biggest Issue Facing the Shire in the Next 5 Years ............................................................... 72
Demographics ......................................................................................................................... 74
Appendix B – Questionnaire ................................................................................................. 102
Background and Methodology Upper Hunter Shire Council sought to examine community attitudes and perceptions towards current and
future services and facilities provided by Council. Key objectives of the research included:
o Assessing and establishing the community’s priorities and satisfaction in relation to Council activities,
services, and facilities
o Identifying the community’s overall level of satisfaction with Council’s performance
o Identifying the community’s level of satisfaction with regards to contact they have had with Council
staff
o Identifying trends and benchmark results against the research conducted previously
To facilitate this, Micromex Research was contracted to develop a survey template that enabled Council
to effectively analyse attitudes and trends within the community.
Questionnaire
Micromex Research, together with Upper Hunter Shire Council, developed the questionnaire.
A copy of the questionnaire is provided in Appendix B.
Data collection
The survey was conducted during the period 14th – 17th September 2015 from 4:30pm to 8:30pm Monday
to Friday.
Survey area
Sample selection and error
The sample consisted of a total of 401 residents.
377 of 401 of respondents were selected by means of a computer based random selection process using
the electronic White Pages.
In addition to this, 24 of 401 respondents were recruited face-to-face, this was conducted at a number of
areas around the Upper Hunter Shire, i.e. Main Street (Scone), Scone Country Markets, and Woolworths
Supermarket (Scone).
A sample size of 401 residents provides a maximum sampling error of plus or minus 4.9% at 95% confidence.
This means, for example that the answer “satisfied” (41%) to the overall satisfaction question could vary
from 36% to 46%.
This means that if the survey was replicated with a new universe of n=401 residents, 19 times out of 20 we
would expect to see the same results, i.e. +/- 4.9%.
The sample was weighted by age and gender to reflect the 2011 ABS census data.
Interviewing
Interviewing was conducted in accordance with the AMSRS (Australian Market and Social Research
Society) Code of Professional Behaviour.
October 2015 Page | 3
Background and Methodology Prequalification
Participants in this survey were pre-qualified as being over the age of 18, having lived in the Upper Hunter
Shire Council area for more than six months, and not being employed or having an immediate family
member employed by Upper Hunter Shire Council.
Data analysis
The data within this report was analysed using Q Professional. To identify the statistically significant
differences between the groups of means, ‘One-Way Anova tests’ and ‘Independent Samples T-tests’
were used. ‘Z Tests’ were also used to determine statistically significant differences between column
percentages.
Ratings questions
The Unipolar Scale of 1 to 5, where 1 was the lowest importance or satisfaction and 5 the highest
importance or satisfaction, was used in all rating questions.
This scale allowed for a mid-range position for those who had a divided or neutral opinion.
Note: Only respondents who rated services/facilities a 4 or 5 in importance were asked to rate their
satisfaction with that service/facility.
Percentages
All percentages are calculated to the nearest whole number and therefore the total may not exactly
equal 100%.
Micromex Benchmarks
These benchmarks are based on LGAs that we have conducted community research for since 2008. During
that time, Micromex has worked for over 40 NSW councils and conducted 100+ community satisfaction
surveys across NSW.
NSW LGA Brand Scores Benchmark
These benchmarks are based on a branding research study conducted by Micromex in 2012, in which
residents from all 152 LGAs were interviewed in order to establish a normative score.
Errors: Data in this publication is subject to sampling variability because it is based on information relating
to a sample of residents rather than the total number (sampling error).
In addition, non-sampling error may occur due to imperfections in reporting and errors made in
processing the data. This may occur in any enumeration, whether it is a full count or sample.
Efforts have been made to reduce both sampling and non-sampling error by careful design of the
sample and questionnaire, and detailed checking of completed questionnaires.
As the raw data has been weighted to reflect the real community profile of Upper Hunter Shire
Council, the outcomes reported here reflect an ‘effective sample size’; that is, the weighted data
provides outcomes with the same level of confidence as unweighted data of a different sample
size. In some cases this effective sample size may be smaller than the true number of surveys
conducted.
Base: N = 401
A sample size of 401 residents provides a maximum sampling error of plus or minus 4.9% at 95% confidence.
4%
6%
8%
18%
24%
40%
16%
84%
61%
16%
12%
8%
3%
15%
28%
57%
9%
2%
4%
8%
15%
15%
47%
22%
27%
26%
25%
51%
49%
Other
Gundy
Cassilis
Murrurundi
Merriwa
Aberdeen
Scone
65+
50-64
Area of residence
Summary
Overall, 82% of residents were at least ‘somewhat satisfied’ with the performance of Council in the past 12
months. From a mean score perspective, satisfaction has significantly increased in comparison to 2013 –
this is a positive result.
Although not significant, the average satisfaction score was above the ‘regional’ and ‘overall’ NSW LGA
Brand Scores, however, it fell below the ‘metro’ score.
Residents aged 65 and over were significantly more satisfied with the performance of Council, whereas
those aged 35-49 found Council’s performance significantly less satisfactory.
Residents living in a town were significantly more satisfied, whilst those in rural areas were significantly less
satisfied with the performance of Council.
Q4. Overall, for the last 12 months, how satisfied are you with the performance of Council, not just on one or two
issues, but across all responsibility areas?
Overall
2015
Overall
Mean ratings 3.35 3.14 3.30 3.07 3.42 3.63 3.23 3.26
Ratepayer Non-
NSW LGA BRAND SCORES Metro Regional All of NSW
Upper Hunter
Shire Council
Scale: 1= not at all satisfied, 5= very satisfied
= A significantly higher/lower level of satisfaction (by year/group)
6%
12%
32%
41%
9%
Key Findings Most Valued Aspect of Living in the Shire
Summary
Residents primarily indicated that their most valued aspect of living in the Shire was the ‘community spirit’
(40%), specifically in relation to the community being nice, friendly, caring, or safe. Residents also felt the
‘lifestyle – rural, country, small town’ (19%), ‘quiet and peaceful atmosphere’ (12%), ‘natural environment
and clean air’ (9%), and being ‘close to family and friends’ (7%) were also important aspects of the area.
Q8. What do you value most about living in the Shire?
Word Frequency Tagging
Verbatim responses for this question were collated and entered into analytical software. This analysis ‘counts’ the
number of times a particular word or phrase appears and, based on the frequency of that word or phrase, a font size
is generated. The larger the font, the more frequently the word or sentiment is mentioned.
Base: N = 401
Quiet and peaceful atmosphere
Community spirit - nice, friendly, caring, safe
Key Findings Biggest Issue Facing the Shire in the Next 5 Years
Summary
Residents believe the biggest issue facing the Shire in the next 5 years is the ‘effect of coal mining in the
area’ (21%). Residents were also concerned with the ‘maintenance of roads’ (12%), ‘unemployment in the
area’ (11%), ‘bypass impacting on the environment and surrounding infrastructure’ (8%), ‘development of
infrastructure’ (7%), ‘youth services’ (6%), and ‘illegal drug use’ (4%).
Q9. What do you think is the biggest issue facing the Shire in the next 5 years?
Word Frequency Tagging
Verbatim responses for this question were collated and entered into analytical software. This analysis ‘counts’ the
number of times a particular word or phrase appears and, based on the frequency of that word or phrase, a font size
is generated. The larger the font, the more frequently the word or sentiment is mentioned.
Base: N = 401
surrounding infrastructure
Key Findings Comparison to LGA Benchmarks
3 of the 28 comparable measures received ratings greater than the 0.15 scope, whilst 11 fell below.
Service/Facility
Ovals and sportsgrounds 3.94 +0.22
Footpaths 3.17 +0.13
Protecting heritage values and buildings 3.57 +0.07
Overall satisfaction with the way Council consults with the community 3.16 +0.01
Community safety 3.47 =0.00
Stormwater drainage 3.28 -0.02
Community centres and community halls 3.57 -0.08
Festivals and other cultural activities 3.74 -0.07
Provision and cleanliness of public toilets 3.05 -0.08
Cycleways 3.12 -0.09
Parks and playgrounds 3.62 -0.10
Consideration of environmental sustainability when planning for the future 3.23 -0.14
Swimming pools 3.52 -0.16
Library services 3.96 -0.18
Road maintenance 2.56 -0.24
Responsiveness to complaints and requests 2.77 -0.29
Promoting new business 2.89 -0.29
Council delivers value for money 2.79 -0.35
Recycling 3.48 -0.41
= positive/negative difference greater than 0.15 from LGA Benchmark
Note: Benchmark differences are based on assumed variants of +/- 0.15, with variants beyond +/- 0.15 more likely to be significant
Key Findings Key Importance Trend
Compared to the previous research conducted in 2013, there were significant increases in residents’ levels
of importance with 15 of the 48 services and facilities provided by Council, these were:
Opportunities to participate in sport (4.22 cf. 3.53)
Library services (3.93 cf. 3.72)
Ovals and sportsgrounds (4.30 cf. 3.66)
Community centres and community halls (4.01 cf. 3.82)
Swimming pools (4.00 cf. 3.31)
Equine facilities (3.37 cf. 2.79)
Waste collection (4.62 cf. 4.42)
Tip operations (4.46 cf. 4.22)
Tourism, marketing, and visitor services (4.34 cf. 4.14)
Medical facilities (4.88 cf. 4.80)
Emergency services (4.88 cf. 4.79)
Health services (4.82 cf. 4.70)
Festivals and other cultural activities (4.29 cf. 4.03)
Access to housing (4.13 cf. 3.63)
Museum and Historical Societies (3.92 cf. 3.33)
Also, there was a decrease in residents’ levels of importance for 3 of the 48 services and facilities provided
by Council, which were:
Services and facilities for people with disabilities (3.88 cf. 4.38)
Town centre maintenance (4.19 cf. 4.39)
Key Satisfaction Trends
Compared to the previous research conducted in 2013, there were significant increases in residents’ levels
of satisfaction with 6 of the 48 services and facilities provided by Council, these were:
Services and facilities for older people (3.66 cf. 3.43)
Services and facilities for people with disabilities (3.28 cf. 3.00)
Road maintenance (2.56 cf. 2.31)
Town centre maintenance (3.66 cf. 3.30)
Medical facilities (3.71 cf. 3.33)
Health services (3.65 cf. 3.39)
Also, there was a decrease in residents’ levels of satisfaction with 4 of the 48 services and facilities provided
by Council, including:
Recycling (3.48 cf. 3.75)
Community support services (3.48 cf. 3.71)
Key Findings Identifying Priorities via Specialised Analysis (Explanation)
The specified research outcomes required us to measure both community importance and community
satisfaction with a range of specific service delivery areas. In order to identify core priorities, we undertook
a 2 step analysis process on the stated importance and rated satisfaction data, after which we conducted
a third level of analysis. This level of analysis was a Shapley Regression on the data in order to identify which
facilities and services are the actual drivers of overall satisfaction with Council.
By examining both approaches to analysis we have been able to:
1. Identify and understand the hierarchy of community priorities
2. Inform the deployment of Council resources in line with community aspirations
Step 1. Performance Gap Analysis (PGA)
PGA establishes the gap between importance and satisfaction. This is calculated by subtracting the mean
satisfaction score from the mean importance score. In order to measure performance gaps, respondents
are asked to rate the importance of, and their satisfaction with, each of a range of different services or
facilities on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 = low importance or satisfaction and 5 = high importance or
satisfaction. These scores are aggregated at a total community level.
The higher the differential between importance and satisfaction, the greater the difference is between the
provision of that service by Upper Hunter Shire Council and the expectation of the community for that
service/facility.
In the table on the following page, we can see the 48 services and facilities that residents rated by
importance and then by satisfaction.
When analysing the performance gaps, it is important to recognise that, for the most part, a gap of up to
1.0 is acceptable when the initial importance rating is 4.0+, as it indicates that residents consider the
attribute to be of ‘high’ to ‘very high’ importance and that the satisfaction they have with Upper Hunter
Shire Council’s performance on that same measure, is ‘moderate’ to ‘moderately high’.
For example, ‘emergency services’ was given an importance score of 4.88, which indicates that it is
considered an area of ‘extremely high’ importance by residents. At the same time it was given a
satisfaction score of 3.89, a ‘moderately high’ satisfaction with Upper Hunter Shire Council’s performance
and focus on that measure.
In the case of a performance gap such as for ‘equine facilities’ (3.37 importance vs. 3.84 satisfaction), we
can identify that the facility/service has only ‘moderate’ importance to the broader community, but for
residents who feel that this facility is important, it is providing a ‘moderately high’ level of satisfaction.
Key Findings When analysing performance gap data, it is important to consider both stated satisfaction and the
absolute size of the performance gap.
Performance Gap Ranking
N/A 2 Council delivers value for money 4.54 2.79 1.75
N/A 3 Responsiveness to complaints and requests 4.49 2.77 1.72
N/A 4 Council plans well for the future 4.57 2.90 1.67
N/A 5 Promoting new business 4.52 2.89 1.63
6 6 Provision and cleanliness of public toilets 4.57 3.05 1.52
6 7 Supporting current business 4.61 3.15 1.46
26 8 Tip operations 4.46 3.03 1.43
8 9 Involvement in Council decision making 4.17 2.81 1.36
11 10 Council provision of information 4.37 3.09 1.28
21 11 Community safety 4.75 3.47 1.27
10 12 Consideration of environmental sustainability when
planning for the future 4.47 3.23 1.24
4 13
9 Health services 4.82 3.65 1.17
15 15 Weed control 4.22 3.09 1.13
17 16 Lighting in public places 4.39 3.29 1.10
38 17 Recycling 4.54 3.48 1.06
27 18 Stormwater drainage 4.29 3.28 1.01
28 19 Emergency services 4.88 3.89 0.99
40 20 Waste collection 4.62 3.64 0.98
N/A 21 Public Health and Compliance 4.44 3.48 0.96
22 22 Managing residential development 4.14 3.20 0.94
36 23 Community support services 4.40 3.48 0.92
18 24
19 27 Children’s services and facilities 4.35 3.51 0.84
N/A 28
41 Access to housing 4.13 3.38 0.75
32 30 Parking 4.13 3.44 0.69
N/A 31 Scone and Upper Hunter Airport 3.98 3.31 0.67
33 32 Protecting heritage values and buildings 4.22 3.57 0.65
5 33 Services and facilities for people with disabilities 3.88 3.28 0.60
34 34 Water and sewerage systems 4.39 3.81 0.58
N/A 35 Event promotion and management 4.08 3.52 0.56
46 36 Festivals and other cultural activities 4.29 3.74 0.55
19 37 Town centre maintenance including street sweeping 4.19 3.66 0.53
48 38 Swimming pools 4.00 3.52 0.48
44 39 Community centres and community halls 4.01 3.57 0.44
49 40 Museum and Historical Societies 3.92 3.53 0.39
47 41 Ovals and sportsgrounds 4.30 3.94 0.36
50 42 Opportunities to participate in sport 4.22 3.91 0.31
42 43 Cycleways 3.42 3.12 0.30
22 44 Services and facilities for older people 3.89 3.66 0.23
N/A 45 Scone and Upper Hunter Regional Saleyards 4.15 3.95 0.20
45 46 Services for ATSI and CALD 3.25 3.27 -0.02
51 47 Library services 3.93 3.96 -0.03
52 48 Equine facilities 3.37 3.84 -0.47
Scale: 1 = not at all important/not at all satisfied, 5 = very important/very satisfied
Note: 2015 rankings in red font have increased in ranking by ten or more places since 2013 (a higher ranking means a higher gap,
which is potentially a concern); in contrast, 2015 rankings in blue font have decreased in ranking relative to 2013, a positive outcome.
Key Findings
When we examine the 9 largest performance gaps, we can identify that all of the services or facilities have
been rated as ‘high’ to ‘extremely high’ in importance. Resident satisfaction for all of these areas is
between 2.56 and 3.15, which indicates that resident satisfaction for these measures is ‘moderately low’ to
‘moderate’.
2 Council delivers value for money 4.54 2.79 1.75
3 Responsiveness to complaints and requests 4.49 2.77 1.72
4 Council plans well for the future 4.57 2.90 1.67
5 Promoting new business 4.52 2.89 1.63
6 Provision and cleanliness of public toilets 4.57 3.05 1.52
7 Supporting current business 4.61 3.15 1.46
8 Tip operations 4.46 3.03 1.43
9 Involvement in Council decision making 4.17 2.81 1.36
The key outcomes of this analysis would suggest that, while there are opportunities to improve satisfaction
across a range of services/facilities, ‘road maintenance’ is the area of least relative satisfaction.
Note: Performance gap is the first step in the process, we now need to identify comparative ratings across
all services and facilities to get an understanding of relative importance and satisfaction at an LGA level.
This is when we undertake step 2 of the analysis.
Key Findings Quadrant Analysis
Step 2. Quadrant Analysis
Quadrant analysis is a useful tool for planning future directions. It combines the stated needs of the
community and assesses Upper Hunter Shire Council’s performance in relation to these needs.
This analysis is completed by plotting the variables on x and y axes, defined by stated importance and
rated satisfaction. We aggregate the mean scores for stated importance and rated satisfaction to identify
where the facility or service should be plotted. For these criteria, the average stated importance score was
4.27 and the average rated satisfaction score was 3.39. Therefore, any facility or service that received a
mean stated importance score of ≥ 4.27 would be plotted in the higher importance section and,
conversely, any that scored < 4.27 would be plotted into the lower importance section. The same exercise
is undertaken with the satisfaction ratings above, equal to or below 3.39. Each service or facility is then
plotted in terms of satisfaction and importance, resulting in its placement in one of four quadrants.
Improve Higher importance, lower satisfaction
Maintain Higher importance, higher satisfaction
Im p
o rt
a n
c e
Satisfaction Community
Responsiveness to complaints
Promoting new business
Access to housing Parking
Protecting heritage values and
with disabilities
Scone and Upper Hunter
Emergency services
(3.25, 3.27)Cycleways
(3.42, 3.12)
Key Findings Explaining the 4 quadrants
Attributes in the top right quadrant, MAINTAIN, such as ‘medical facilities’, are Council’s core strengths,
and should be treated as such. Maintain, or even attempt to improve your position in these areas, as they
are influential and address clear community needs.
Attributes in the top left quadrant, IMPROVE, such as ‘Council delivers value for money’, are areas where
Council is perceived to be currently under-performing and are key concerns in the eyes of your residents.
In the vast majority of cases you should aim to improve your performance in these areas to better meet
the community’s expectations.
Attributes in the bottom left quadrant, NICHE, such as ‘weed control’, are of a relatively lower priority (and
the word ‘relatively’ should be stressed – they are still important). These areas tend to be important to a
particular segment of the community.
Finally, attributes in the bottom right quadrant, COMMUNITY, such as ‘protecting heritage values and
buildings’, are core strengths, but in relative terms they are deemed less overtly important than other
directly obvious areas. However, the occupants of this quadrant tend to be the sort of services and facilities
that deliver to community liveability, i.e. make it a good place to live.
Recommendations based only on stated importance and satisfaction have major limitations, as the actual
questionnaire process essentially ‘silos’ facilities and services as if they are independent variables, when
they are in fact all part of the broader community perception of council performance.
Residents’ priorities identified in stated importance/satisfaction analysis often tend to be in areas that are
problematic. No matter how much focus a council dedicates to ‘road maintenance’, it will often be found
in the IMPROVE quadrant. This is because, perceptually, the condition of local roads can always be better.
Furthermore, the outputs of stated importance and satisfaction analysis address the current dynamics of
the community, they do not predict which focus areas are the most likely agents to change the
community’s perception of Council’s overall performance.
Therefore, in order to identify how Upper Hunter Shire Council can actively drive overall community
satisfaction, we conducted further analysis.
The Shapley Value Regression
This model was developed by conducting specialised analysis from over 30,000 LGA interviews conducted
since 2005. In essence, it proved that increasing resident satisfaction by actioning the priorities they stated
as being important does not necessarily positively impact on overall satisfaction with the Council. This
regression analysis is a statistical tool for investigating relationships between dependent variables and
explanatory variables.
In 2014, we revised the Shapley Regression Analysis to identify the directional contribution of key services
and facilities with regard to optimisers/barriers with councils’ overall performances.
What Does This Mean?
The learning is that if we only rely on the stated community priorities, we will not be allocating the
appropriate resources to the actual service attributes that will improve overall community satisfaction.
Using regression analysis we can identify the attributes that essentially build overall satisfaction. We call the
outcomes ‘derived importance’.
Key Findings Key Drivers of Satisfaction with Upper Hunter Shire Council
The results in the chart below provide Upper Hunter Shire Council with a complete picture of both the
extrinsic and intrinsic community priorities and motivations, and identify which attributes are the key drivers
of community satisfaction.
These top 14 services/facilities account for over 60% of overall satisfaction with Council. This indicates that
the remaining 34 attributes we obtained measures on have only a limited impact on the community’s
satisfaction with Upper Hunter Shire Council’s performance. Therefore, whilst all 48 service/facility areas are
important, only a number of them are significant drivers of the community’s overall satisfaction with
Council.
The contributors to satisfaction are not to be misinterpreted as an indication of
current dissatisfaction
These Top 14 Indicators Contribute to Over 60% of Overall Satisfaction with Council
2.3%
2.3%
2.5%
2.5%
2.6%
2.9%
3.0%
3.7%
4.3%
5.7%
6.6%
7.4%
7.5%
8.2%
Ovals and sportsgrounds
Council provision of information
Council delivers value for money
These 14 services/facilities are the key community priorities and by addressing these, Upper Hunter Shire
Council will improve overall community satisfaction. The score assigned to each area indicates the
percentage of influence each attribute contributes to overall satisfaction with Council.
In the above chart, ‘ovals and sportsgrounds’ and ‘festivals and other cultural activities’ each contribute
2.3% towards overall satisfaction, while ‘Council delivers value for money’ (8.2%) is a far stronger driver,
contributing almost four times as much to overall satisfaction with Council.
Key Findings Clarifying Priorities
By mapping satisfaction against derived importance we can see that, for some of the core drivers, Council
is already providing ‘moderately high’ or greater levels of satisfaction, i.e. ‘parks and playgrounds’, ‘waste
collection’, ‘festivals and other cultural activities’, and ‘ovals and sportsgrounds’. Council should look to
maintain/consolidate their delivery in these areas.
It is also apparent that there is room to elevate satisfaction within the variables that fall in the ‘lower’ and
‘moderate satisfaction’ regions of the chart. If Upper Hunter Shire Council can address these core drivers,
they will be able to improve resident satisfaction with their performance.
S ta
te d
S a
ti sf
a c
ti o
Priority Areas
Moderately High
Satisfaction ≥ 3.60
future
2.3% 3.7% 5.1% 6.5% 7.9% 9.3%
This analysis indicates that areas such as ‘Council provision of information’, ‘supporting current business’,
‘cycleways’, and ‘youth services and facilities’, while performing adequately, could possibly be targeted
for optimisation.
‘Road maintenance’, ‘Council delivers value for money’, ‘Council plans well for the future’, ‘responsiveness
to complaints and requestions’, ‘involvement in Council decision making’ and ‘promoting new business’
fall into the ‘low satisfaction’ region and are also opportunity areas of improvement for Council to
consolidate.
Key Findings Key Service Areas’ Contribution to Overall Satisfaction
By combining the outcomes of the regression data, we can identify the derived importance of the
different Nett Priority Areas.
Performance
10.3%
11.0%
11.1%
15.4%
19.8%
32.3%
Nett - Promote a Thriving Economy
Nett - Other Services
Nett - Provision and Maintenance of Infrastructure
Nett - Governance Systems
‘Governance Systems’ (32.3%) is the key contributor toward overall satisfaction with Council performance.
The services and facilities grouped under this banner include:
Responsiveness to complaints/requests
Council plans well for the future
This is not to indicate that the other priority areas are less important, but rather that some of the services
and facilities grouped under the banner of ‘Governance Systems’ are core drivers of resident satisfaction.
Summary and
Summary
The Upper Hunter Shire Council is providing a moderate level of satisfaction, with 82% of residents being at
least ‘somewhat satisfied’ with the performance of Council in the last 12 months. The satisfaction mean
score has significantly increased compared to the 2013 results, and while not significantly higher, was
above the regional and NSW LGA Brand Scores.
40% of residents felt that ‘community spirit’, specifically with regard to the community being nice, friendly,
caring, or safe was the most valued aspect of living in the Shire. Residents also believed the ‘lifestyle’ of the
Shire was an important aspect, specifically in relation to the benefits of being rural, country, and a small
town. Additionally, ‘quiet and peaceful atmosphere’, ‘natural environment and clean air’, and being
‘close to family and friends’ were regarded as esteemed aspects of the Shire.
Residents believed the biggest issue facing the Shire in the next five years was the 'effect of the coal mining
industry on the area’. Residents also believed the ‘maintenance of roads’, ‘unemployment in the area’,
‘bypass impacting on the environment and infrastructure’, ‘development of infrastructure’, ‘youth
services’, and ‘illegal drug use’ were issues facing the area in the next 5 years.
The specific opportunity areas/contributors that can be leveraged to consolidate and optimise overall
satisfaction are; ‘road maintenance’ (a perpetual concern for residents), ‘Council that delivers value for
money’, ‘Council that plans well for the future’, is ‘responsive to complaints and requests’, 'involves
residents in Council decision making’, and ‘promotes current and new business’.
Lastly, ‘Governance Systems’ is a key contributor toward overall satisfaction with Council performance –
this is not to indicate that the other priority areas are less important, but rather that some of the services
and facilities grouped under this pillar are core drivers of resident satisfaction.
Recommendations
Based on the results of this research, Council should:
1. Clarify and monitor residents’ needs, aspirations, and expectations across all drivers of Council
satisfaction, specifically with regard to assets such as ‘road maintenance’, ‘public toilets’, ‘public
lighting’, ‘supporting local/current businesses’, and ‘youth services and facilities’
2. Engage with Upper Hunter Shire residents, who are highly concerned with environmental issues, to
determine residents’ expectations in this area, with focus on both the Bypass impacting on the
environment and infrastructure; and the development of future infrastructure
3. Explore the narrative of the community’s concerns regarding future of coal mining, infrastructure,
and unemployment in the Upper Hunter Shire area over the next 5 years. Council needs to
communicate with residents that they will act in their best interests in order to address these
challenges and leverage areas of opportunity/community benefit, such as providing value for
money, planning well for the future, being responsive to complaints and requests, involving residents
in Council decision making, and promoting new business
Council Services and Facilities
The Unipolar Scale of 1 to 5, where 1 was the lowest importance or satisfaction and 5 the highest
importance or satisfaction, was used in all rating questions.
Interpreting the Mean Scores
Within the report, the mean ratings for each of the criteria have been assigned a determined level of
‘importance’ or ‘satisfaction’. This determination is based on the following groupings:
Mean rating:
2.00 – 2.49 ‘Low’
4.50 + ‘Extremely high’
Participants were asked to indicate which best described their opinion of the importance of the following
services/facilities to them. Respondents who rated services/facilities a 4 or 5 in importance were then asked
to rate their satisfaction with that service/facility.
We Explored Resident Response to 48 Service Areas Safe, Healthy, and Inclusive Society
Services and facilities for older people
Services and facilities for people with disabilities
Services for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders (ATSI) and Culturally and Linguistically Diverse communities (CALD)
Children's services and facilities
Youth services and facilities
Provision and Maintenance of Infrastructure
Road maintenance
Lighting in public places
Built and Natural Environments
Town centre manitenance
Public Health and Compliance
Promote a Thriving Economy
Supporting current business
Scone and Upper Hunter Regional Saleyards
Event promotion and management
Other Services
Emergency services
Community safety
Council Services and Facilities Key Service Areas’ Contribution to Overall Satisfaction
By combining the outcomes of the regression data, we can identify the derived importance of the different
Nett Priority Areas.
Performance
10.3%
11.0%
11.1%
15.4%
19.8%
32.3%
Nett - Promote a Thriving Economy
Nett - Provision and Maintenance of Infrastructure
Council Services and Facilities Safe, Healthy, and Inclusive Society
Services and facilities explored included:
Services for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders (ATSI) and Culturally and Linguistically Diverse
Communities (CALD)
Opportunities to participate in sport (Sports Participation Program)
Contribution to Overall Satisfaction with Council (Regression Data)
Council’s performance in the areas below accounts for over 10% of overall satisfaction, based on the
regression analysis.
Safe, Healthy, and Inclusive Society – Contributes to Over 10% of Overall Satisfaction with Council
0.3%
0.8%
1.0%
1.4%
2.0%
2.2%
2.5%
10.3%
Library services
Note: The hierarchal sorting of each graph is relative to the criteria’s importance mean ratings.
2015
N=186-337
3.51 3.35
3.91 3.86
3.15 2.99
3.96 4.10
3.66 3.43
3.28 3.00
3.27 3.20
Scale: 1=not at all important/not at all satisfied, 5=very important/very satisfied
= A significantly higher/lower level of importance/satisfaction (by year)
23%
43%
37%
40%
48%
54%
62%
21%
25%
32%
30%
27%
28%
22%
31%
17%
19%
18%
13%
8%
9%
Library services
Importance
20%
15%
18%
35%
12%
33%
18%
21%
29%
43%
38%
27%
37%
35%
37%
33%
29%
20%
36%
20%
30%
Library services
Satisfaction
Performance Gap Year on year
difference 2015 2013
Children’s services and facilities 0.84 1.09 +0.25
Services and facilities for people with disabilities 0.60 1.38 +0.78
Opportunities to participate in sport 0.31 -0.33 -0.64
Services and facilities for older people 0.23 1.03 +0.80
Services for ATSI and CALD -0.02 0.19 +0.21
Library services -0.03 -0.38 -0.35
= positive/negative shift greater than 0.2 from 2013
Overview of Rating Scores
Opportunities to participate in sport
High Youth services and facilities
Library services
Moderate Services for ATSI and CALD
Importance – by age
Residents aged 18-34 were significantly more likely to find ‘children’s services and facilities’ and ‘youth
services and facilities’ important, whilst those aged 65 and over found both these measures and
‘opportunities to participate in sport’ significantly less important.
Residents aged 50 and over were significantly more likely to rate ‘services and facilities for older people’
important, whereas those aged 35-49 rated this measure significantly less important.
Importance – by gender
Females attributed significantly higher levels of importance to ‘library services’, ‘services and facilities for
older people’, and ‘services for ATSI and CALD’.
Importance – by ratepayer status
There were no significant differences in importance by ratepayer status.
Importance – by area
Importance – compared to 2013
Residents rated ‘opportunities to participate in sport’ and ‘library services’ significantly higher in importance
compared to 2013, whereas ‘services and facilities for older people’, and ‘services and facilities for people
with disabilities’ were rated significantly lower.
Moderately high Services and facilities for older people
Moderate Children’s services and facilities
Services for ATSI and CALD
Satisfaction – by age
Residents aged 65 and over were significantly more satisfied with 6 of the 7 services, including:
Children’s services and facilities
Opportunities to participate in sport
Satisfaction – by gender
Males were significantly more satisfied with ‘services and facilities for people with disabilities’.
Satisfaction – by ratepayer status
There were no significant differences in satisfaction with ratepayer status.
Satisfaction – by area
Residents living in a town were significantly more satisfied with ‘opportunities to participate in sport’, ‘youth
services and facilities’, ‘library services’, and ‘services for ATSI and CALD’, whilst those living in a village were
significantly less satisfied with ‘opportunities to participate in sport’.
Satisfaction – compared to 2013
Compared to 2013, satisfaction with ‘services and facilities for older people’ and ‘services and facilities for
people with disabilities’ has significantly increased.
Council Services and Facilities Safe, Health, and Inclusive Society
Quadrant Analysis
HIGHER IMPORTANCE
LOWER IMPORTANCE
LO W
E R
S A
Youth services and facilities Services and facilities for people with disabilities
Services for ATSI and CALD
Opportunities to participate in sport Services and facilities for older people
Library services
Recommendations
Based on the stated outcomes analysis, Upper Hunter Shire Council needs to maintain resident satisfaction
with:
Council Services and Facilities Provision and Maintenance of Infrastructure
Road maintenance
Council’s performance in the areas below accounts for almost 20% of overall satisfaction, based on the
0.3%
0.5%
0.6%
0.7%
0.7%
0.7%
1.1%
2.3%
2.5%
3.0%
7.4%
19.8%
Footpaths
Parking
2015
N=142-377
2.56 2.31
3.05 3.08
3.29 3.25
3.62 N/A
3.94 3.88
3.44 3.31
3.17 3.11
3.57 3.62
3.52 3.55
3.12 3.10
3.84 3.70
*One respondent refused to rate importance/satisfaction
32%
30%
46%
40%
47%
45%
57%
57%
62%
71%
79%
19%
23%
27%
33%
30%
32%
26%
32%
24%
19%
14%
21%
22%
15%
19%
13%
15%
11%
7%
8%
7%
5%
Equine facilities
Footpaths
Parking
Road maintenance
33%
15%
23%
19%
10%
14%
32%
22%
13%
12%
4%
34%
27%
35%
36%
33%
41%
41%
35%
32%
24%
14%
19%
28%
20%
33%
32%
28%
19%
28%
31%
33%
37%
Equine facilities
Footpaths
Parking
Road maintenance
Provision and cleanliness of public toilets 1.52 1.37 -0.15
Lighting in public places 1.10 1.14 +0.04
Footpaths 0.91 1.11 +0.20
Parking 0.69 0.77 +0.08
Community centres and community halls 0.44 0.20 -0.24
Ovals and sportsgrounds 0.36 -0.22 -0.58
Cycleways 0.30 0.40 +0.10
Parks and playgrounds
Swimming pools
Moderate Cycleways
Equine facilities
Residents aged 18-34 assigned significantly higher levels of importance to ‘parks and playgrounds’ and
‘ovals and sportsgrounds’, whereas those aged 65 and over rated these measures significantly lower in
importance.
Residents aged 35-49 rated ‘road maintenance’ significantly higher in importance, whilst those aged 65
and over rated this measure significantly lower, however, residents of the older age group rated ‘equine
facilities’ significantly more important.
Those aged 50-64 ascribed a significantly lower level of importance to ‘parking’.
Females rated 7 out of 11 service areas significantly higher in importance, including:
Road maintenance
Residents living in a town attributed significantly higher levels of importance to ‘lighting in public places’,
‘parks and playgrounds’, ‘parking’, ‘footpaths’, and ‘cycleways’, whilst those living in a rural area rated
‘parks and playgrounds’ and ‘footpaths’ significantly lower in importance and those in living in a village
found ‘parking’ to be significantly less important.
Residents living in a rural area found ‘equine facilities’ to be significantly more important, whilst those living
in a town rated this measure significantly lower.
‘Ovals and sportsgrounds’, ‘community centres and community halls’, ‘swimming pools’, and ‘equine
facilities’ have all significantly increased in importance in comparison to 2013.
Swimming pools
Moderately low Road maintenance
Residents aged 65 and over were significantly more satisfied with 9 of the 11 services, including:
Road maintenance
Swimming pools
Cycleways
However, residents aged 35-49 were significantly less satisfied with ‘parking’ and those aged 50-64 were
significantly less satisfied with ‘cycleways’.
There were no significant differences in satisfaction with ratepayer status.
Residents living in a town rated ‘road maintenance’, ‘swimming pools’, and ‘cycleways’ significantly more
satisfactory, whilst those living in a rural area rated ‘equine facilities’ significantly less satisfactory.
Residents living in a rural area were significantly more satisfied with ‘footpaths’, whilst those living in a village
were significantly less satisfied with the ‘provision and cleanliness of public toilets’, ‘footpaths’, and
‘swimming pools’.
In comparison to 2013, residents were significantly more satisfied with ‘road maintenance’.
Quadrant Analysis
HIGHER IMPORTANCE
LOWER IMPORTANCE
LO W
E R
S A
Parks and playgrounds Ovals and sportsgrounds
Recommendations
Based on the stated outcomes analysis, Upper Hunter Shire Council needs to improve resident satisfaction
with:
Upper Hunter Shire Council also needs to maintain resident satisfaction with:
Parks and playgrounds
Council Services and Facilities Built and Natural Environments
Waste collection
Town centre maintenance (including street sweeping)
Weed control
of Overall Satisfaction with Council
0.5%
0.8%
0.9%
1.1%
1.4%
1.4%
1.5%
1.6%
1.8%
1.8%
2.6%
15.4%
Managing residential development
planning for the future
2015
N=310-348
3.64 3.93
3.48 3.75
3.23 3.22
3.03 3.28
3.48 N/A
3.81 3.78
3.28 3.44
3.09 3.05
3.57 3.47
3.66 3.30
3.20 3.16
*Consideration of environmental sustainability when planning for the future
51%
46%
53%
52%
59%
68%
63%
63%
65%
72%
78%
26%
35%
25%
27%
25%
17%
25%
25%
21%
18%
14%
15%
14%
16%
14%
9%
7%
9%
7%
10%
5%
2%
Town centre maintenance
Weed control
Stormwater drainage
12%
22%
21%
12%
16%
31%
15%
11%
11%
29%
32%
29%
40%
35%
28%
27%
37%
37%
27%
27%
27%
30%
37%
25%
30%
28%
36%
21%
33%
29%
42%
18%
18%
Weed control
Stormwater drainage
Consideration of environmental sustainability when planning for the future 1.24 1.29 +0.05
Weed control 1.13 1.21 +0.08
Recycling 1.06 0.64 -0.42
Public health and compliance 0.96 N/A N/A
Managing residential development 0.94 1.03 +0.09
Protecting heritage values and buildings 0.65 0.76 +0.11
Water and sewerage systems 0.58 0.74 +0.16
Town centre maintenance 0.53 1.09 +0.56
Very high Consideration of environmental sustainability when planning for the future
Tip operations
High Town centre maintenance
Residents aged 18-34 assigned significantly higher levels of importance to ‘waste collection’, ‘recycling’,
‘tip operations’, ‘water and sewerage systems’, ‘stormwater drainage’, and ‘managing residential
development’. Residents aged 50-64 attributed a significantly higher level of importance to ‘weed control’,
whilst ‘water and sewerage systems’ was rated significantly lower in importance by this age group.
Residents aged 65 and over rated ‘recycling’, ‘tip operations’, and ‘managing residential development’
significantly lower in importance, whereas residents aged 35-49 rated ‘recycling’ and ‘weed control’
significantly lower in importance.
Females rated ‘waste collection’, ‘recycling’, ‘consideration of environmental sustainability when planning
for the future’, ‘Public Health and Compliance’, ‘water and sewerage systems’, ‘protecting heritage values
and buildings’, and ‘town centre maintenance’ significantly higher in importance.
‘protecting heritage values and buildings’.
Residents living in a town found ‘weed control’ to of significantly less importance, however, they rated 7 of
the 11 service areas significantly higher in importance, including:
Waste collection
With the exception of ‘tip operations’, ‘weed control’, and ‘town centre maintenance’, those living in a
rural area found the aforementioned service areas significantly less important, and ‘weed control’
significantly more important.
Compared to 2013, residents rated ‘waste collection’, and ‘tip operations’ significantly higher in
importance and ‘town centre maintenance’ significantly lower.
Recycling
Residents aged 18-34 were significantly more satisfied with ‘consideration of environmental sustainability
when planning for the future’ and ‘protecting heritage values and buildings’.
Residents aged 50-64 were significantly less satisfied with ‘water sewerage systems’ and ‘protecting
heritage values and buildings’.
Residents aged 65 and over were significantly more satisfied with ‘waste collection’, ‘recycling’, ‘tip
operations’, ‘water and sewerage systems’, and ‘managing residential development’, whereas those
aged 35-49 rated the first two service areas, and ‘consideration of environmental sustainability when
planning for the future’ as significantly lower in satisfaction.
planning for the future’.
Residents living in a town rated 5 of the 11 service areas significantly more satisfactory, including:
Waste collection
Water and sewerage systems
Residents in rural areas attributed significantly lower levels of satisfaction to ‘waste collection’, ‘recycling’,
and ‘weed control’, whilst those in a village rated ‘consideration of environmental sustainability when
planning for the future’ and ‘water sewerage systems’ significantly less satisfactory.
Quadrant Analysis
HIGHER IMPORTANCE
LOWER IMPORTANCE
LO W
E R
S A
planning for the future Stormwater drainage
Weed control
Recommendations
with:
Stormwater drainage
Recycling
Council Services and Facilities Promote a Thriving Economy
Tourism, marketing, and visitor services
Council’s performance in the areas below accounts for 11% of overall satisfaction, based on the regression
analysis.
0.4%
1.0%
1.2%
1.8%
2.9%
3.7%
11.0%
2015
N=309-360
3.15 3.23
2.89 N/A
3.43 3.30
3.95 N/A
3.52 N/A
3.31 N/A
46%
42%
56%
57%
66%
72%
26%
36%
22%
26%
23%
20%
15%
15%
10%
14%
8%
6%
15%
14%
28%
14%
6%
11%
31%
41%
44%
36%
21%
28%
25%
25%
25%
25%
25%
25%
Tourism, marketing, and visitor services 0.91 0.84 -0.07
Scone and Upper Hunter Airport 0.67 N/A N/A
Event promotion and management 0.56 N/A N/A
Scone and Upper Hunter Regional Saleyards 0.20 N/A N/A
Residents aged 18-34 ascribed significantly higher levels of importance to ‘supporting current business’,
‘promoting new business’, and ‘Scone and Upper Hunter Airport’.
Residents aged 65 and over rated ‘Scone and Upper Hunter Airport’ significantly higher in importance,
whereas those aged 35-49 rated this measure significantly lower in importance.
Females rated ‘supporting current business’ and ‘tourism, marketing, and visitor services’ significantly higher
in importance, whereas ‘Scone and Upper Hunter Regional Saleyards’ was rated significantly lower.
Residents in a rural area assigned a significantly higher level of importance to ‘Scone and Upper Hunter
Regional Saleyards’.
In comparison to 2013, ‘tourism, marketing, and visitor services’ has significantly increased in importance.
Moderate Event promotion and management
Scone and Upper Hunter Airport
Residents aged 65 and over were significantly more satisfied with ‘Scone and Upper Hunter Regional Sales
yards’, ‘event promotion and management’, and ‘Scone and Upper Hunter Airport’, whilst those aged 35-
49 were significantly less satisfied with these services areas.
Residents aged 35-49 were also significantly less satisfied with ‘tourism, marketing, and visitor centres’, whilst
those aged 50-64 were significantly less satisfied with the ‘Scone and Upper Hunter Airport’.
Females were significantly more satisfied with ‘supporting current business’ and ‘tourism, marketing, and
visitor services’.
Ratepayers were significantly more satisfied with ‘Scone and Upper Hunter Regional Saleyards’.
Residents living in a town were significantly more satisfied with ‘supporting current business’, ‘promot ing
new business’, ‘Scone and Upper Hunter Regional Saleyards’, and ‘Scone and Upper Hunter Airport’,
whereas those living in a village were significantly less satisfied with ‘supporting current business’, ‘Scone
and Upper Hunter Regional Saleyards’, and ‘Scone and Upper Hunter Airport’, and those living in a rural
area were significantly less satisfied with ‘promoting new business’.
There were no significant differences in satisfaction compared to 2013.
Quadrant Analysis
HIGHER IMPORTANCE
LOWER IMPORTANCE
LO W
E R
S A
Scone and Upper Hunter Airport Event promotion and management
Recommendations
with:
Council Services and Facilities Governance Systems
4.3%
5.7%
6.6%
7.5%
8.2%
32.3%
2015
N=294-322
2.90 N/A
2.79 N/A
2.77 N/A
3.09 3.02
2.81 2.72
47%
52%
66%
71%
71%
32%
34%
22%
16%
19%
12%
11%
7%
11%
8%
Importance
5%
7%
8%
6%
6%
25%
32%
22%
22%
24%
33%
34%
31%
33%
37%
Satisfaction
Council plans well for the future 1.67 N/A N/A
Involvement in Council decision making 1.36 1.34 -0.02
Council provision of information 1.28 1.28 0.00
Very high Responsiveness to complaints and requests
Residents aged 65-49 ascribed a significantly higher level of importance to ‘Council delivers value for
money’, whilst those aged 65 and over rated this measure significantly less important.
There were no significant differences in importance compared to 2013.
Satisfaction – overall
Moderately low Council plans well for the future
Involvement in Council decision making
Responsiveness to complaints and requests
Residents aged 65 and over were significantly more satisfied with ‘Council plans well for the future’,
‘Council delivers value for money’, ‘responsiveness to complaints and requests’, and ‘involvement in
Council decision making’, whereas those aged 35-49 rated all services areas significantly less satisfactory.
Residents aged 50-64 were significantly more satisfied with ‘involvement in Council decision making’.
There were no significant differences in satisfaction by ratepayer status.
Residents living in a town were significantly more satisfied with ‘Council plans well for the future’, whereas
residents in a rural area rated this measure significantly lower in satisfaction.
There were no significant differences in satisfaction compared to 2013.
Quadrant Analysis
HIGHER IMPORTANCE
LOWER IMPORTANCE
LO W
E R
S A
Council delivers value for money Responsiveness to complaints and requests
Council plans well for the future Council provision of information
Involvement in Council decision making Nil
Nil
Recommendations
with:
Council Services and Facilities Other Services
Museum and Historical Societies
Emergency services
Community safety
Overall Satisfaction with Council
2015
N=202-384
3.71 3.33
3.89 3.93
3.65 3.39
3.47 3.59
3.48 3.71
3.74 3.85
3.38 3.20
3.53 3.63
34%
53%
51%
60%
81%
87%
90%
91%
35%
22%
33%
26%
13%
10%
7%
7%
23%
14%
11%
9%
4%
3%
2%
2%
Community support services
16%
15%
25%
15%
15%
26%
34%
31%
36%
30%
40%
34%
39%
33%
38%
32%
25%
25%
25%
25%
25%
25%
25%
25%
Community support services 0.92 0.65 -0.27
Access to housing 0.75 0.43 -0.32
Festivals and other cultural activities 0.55 0.18 -0.37
Museum and Historical Societies 0.39 -0.30 -0.69
High Access to housing
Residents aged 18-34 assigned significantly higher levels of importance to ‘community support services’,
‘festivals and other cultural activities’, and ‘access to housing’.
‘community support services’, ‘festivals and other cultural activities’, and ‘Museum and Historical Societies’.
‘access to housing’ significantly higher in importance.
Residents living in a town rated ‘community safety’ and ‘Museum and Historical Societies’ significantly
important, whereas those in a rural area rated these measures significantly less important.
In comparison to 2013, ‘medical facilities’, ‘emergency services’, ‘health services’, ‘festivals and other
cultural activities’, ‘access to housing’, and ‘Museum and Historical Societies’ have significantly increased
in importance.
Satisfaction – overall
Medical facilities
Health services
Residents aged 35-49 rated ‘emergency services’ and ‘access to housing’ significantly less satisfactory.
Residents aged 65 and over rated ‘medical facilities’, ‘emergency services’, ‘health services’, ‘community
safety’, ‘community support services’, ‘access to housing’, and ‘Museum and Historical Societies’
significantly higher in satisfaction, whilst residents aged 50-64 rated the latter two significantly lower in
satisfaction.
Ratepayers were significantly more satisfied with ‘access to housing’ and ‘Museum and Historical
Societies’.
Residents living in a town were significantly more satisfied with ‘medical facilities’, ‘health services’,
‘community safety’, and ‘community support services’, whereas those in a village were significantly less
satisfied with ‘medical facilities’, ‘community safety’, ‘community support services’, and ‘festivals and other
cultural activities’.
In comparison to 2013, ‘medical facilities’ and ‘health services’ have significantly increased, whilst
‘community support services’ has significantly decreased in satisfaction.
Quadrant Analysis
HIGHER IMPORTANCE
LOWER IMPORTANCE
LO W
E R
S A
Community safety Health services
Medical facilities Emergency services
Recommendations
Based on the stated outcomes analysis, Upper Hunter Shire Council needs to maintain resident satisfaction
with:
Overall Satisfaction with Council Summary
Overall, 82% of residents were at least ‘somewhat satisfied’ with the performance of Council in the past 12
months. From a mean score perspective, satisfaction has significantly increased in comparison to 2013 –
this is a positive result.
Although not significant, the average satisfaction score was above the ‘regional’ and ‘overall’ NSW LGA
Brand Scores, however, it fell below the ‘metro’ score.
Residents aged 65 and over were significantly more satisfied with the performance of Council, whereas
those aged 35-49 found Council’s performance significantly less satisfactory.
Residents living in a town were significantly more satisfied, whilst those in rural areas were significantly less
satisfied with the performance of Council.
Q4. Overall, for the last 12 months, how satisfied are you with the performance of Council, not just on one or two
issues, but across all responsibility areas?
Overall
2015
Overall
2013
Overall
2010 18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Male Female
Mean ratings 3.35 3.14 3.46 3.30 3.07 3.42 3.63 3.23 3.26
Ratepayer Non-
NSW LGA BRAND SCORES Metro Regional All of NSW
Upper Hunter
Shire Council
= A significantly higher/lower level of satisfaction (by year/group)
5%
12%
26%
49%
9%
7%
17%
37%
34%
5%
6%
12%
32%
41%
9%
Improving Satisfaction with Council’s Performance Overview
Using regression analysis, we identified the variables that have the greatest influence on driving positive
overall satisfaction with Council.
0.3%
0.3%
0.4%
0.5%
0.5%
0.6%
0.7%
0.7%
0.7%
0.8%
0.8%
0.9%
1.0%
1.0%
1.0%
1.0%
1.0%
1.1%
1.1%
1.1%
1.2%
1.2%
1.4%
1.4%
1.4%
1.5%
1.5%
1.6%
1.8%
1.8%
1.8%
2.0%
2.1%
2.2%
2.3%
2.3%
2.5%
2.5%
2.6%
2.9%
3.0%
3.7%
4.3%
5.7%
6.6%
7.4%
7.5%
8.2%
Equine facilities
Footpaths
Tip operations
Medical facilities
Emergency services
Access to housing
Recycling
Community safety
Council Services and Facilities
These 14 services/facilities are the key community priorities and by addressing these, Upper Hunter Shire
Council will improve community satisfaction. The score assigned to each area indicates the percentage
of influence each attribute contributes to overall satisfaction with Council. For example, in the chart below
‘Council delivers value for money’ contributes 8.2% towards overall satisfaction.
The contributors to satisfaction are not to be misinterpreted as an indication of
current dissatisfaction
These Top 14 Indicators Contribute to Over 60% of Overall Satisfaction with Council
2.3%
2.3%
2.5%
2.5%
2.6%
2.9%
3.0%
3.7%
4.3%
5.7%
6.6%
7.4%
7.5%
8.2%
Based on the regression analysis, Council performance in the areas listed above accounts for over 60% of
overall satisfaction.
Outcome
If Upper Hunter Shire Council can address these core drivers, they will be able to improve residents’ overall
satisfaction with their performance.
Contact with Council Summary
54% of residents indicated they had contacted Council in the last 12 months – this has significantly
decreased since 2013.
Residents aged 18-34 were significantly less likely to have contacted Council in the past 12 months.
Not unexpectedly, ratepayers were significantly more likely to have contacted Council in the last 12
months.
Q5a. Have you contacted Upper Hunter Shire Council in the last 12 months?
2015
Of residents who contacted Council, ‘in person’ (54%) and ‘phone’ (53%) were the most common methods
used to get in touch.
Contacting Council via ‘phone’ (53%) has significantly decreased compared to 2013.
Residents aged 18-34 were significantly more likely to have contacted Council by ‘phone’, whereas those
aged 35-49 were significantly more likely to have contacted Council through ‘email’, and those aged 65
and over were significantly less likely to have contacted Council via these methods.
Ratepayers were significantly more likely to have contacted Council ‘in person’ (57%), whilst significantly
less likely to have contacted Council via ‘phone’ (57%).
Residents living in a town were significantly more likely to have contacted Council ‘in person’ (59%), whilst
those in a village were significantly less likely to contact Council via this method.
Q5b. When you made contact with Council staff, was it by:
= significantly higher/lower (by year)

‘roads/footpaths/drains’ (25%).
Residents aged 18-34 were significantly more likely to have contacted Council about ‘planning and
development’ (38%), whilst residents aged 35-49 were significantly more likely to get in touch with Council
with regard to ‘recreation and leisure’ (21%).
Residents aged 65 and over were significantly less likely to have contacted Council about ‘planning and
development’ (15%) and ‘recreation and leisure’ (8%).
Males were significantly more likely to have contacted Council about ‘planning and development’ (34%).
Q5c. What was your contact in relation to?
Base: N = 217
Issues with water main 2
Maintenance of vacant blocks/land 2
*Note: Only counts >1 are shown, please see Appendix A for remaining data
23%
10%
10%
11%
13%
25%
26%
‘Phone’ and ‘in person’ remain the top methods of communication residents were most satisfied with when
interacting with Council staff.
Q5d. How satisfied were you with the overall performance of Council staff in dealing with your enquiry?
2015
2.58 3.23 **
** 3.09 3.06
** N/A N/A
** N/A N/A
**Due to the small sample sizes, means are not statistically valid and have not been calculated
The following table only includes means for the top two methods of communication due to the small sample
sizes of the remaining methods.
Overall
2015
Overall
2013
Overall
Phone 3.49 3.52 3.46 3.65 3.53 3.26 3.65 3.61 3.41
In person 3.41 3.75 3.69 2.81 3.67 3.23 3.78 3.66 3.12
Ratepayer Non-
In person 3.42 3.29 3.41 3.38 3.46
38%
28%
30%
37%
19%
14%
10%
17%
13%
22%
13%
12%
11%
8%
7%
11%
18%
34%
15%
19%
15%
22%
22%
18%
29%
30%
19%
35%
34%
Facebook
Satisfied Very satisfied
Residents who rated they were ‘satisfied’ or ‘very satisfied’ with the overall performance of Council staff in
dealing with their enquiry were evidently ‘satisfied with the current service’ (41%), with a small number
suggesting improvements.
Of residents who were ‘not very satisfied’ or ‘not at all satisfied’, ‘respond to enquiries/quicker response
time’ (12%) was the most mentioned attribute in which Council could improve in order to optimise
satisfaction.
Q5d. How satisfied were you with the overall performance of Council staff in dealing with your enquiry?
Q5e. What could Council have done to improve your satisfaction with your enquiry?
Satisfied/Very satisfied (55%) %
Provide follow ups/updates and information for enquiries 4%
Show more interest in residents' concerns and/or opinions 2%
Somewhat satisfied (15%) %
More informative/More knowledgeable staff 5%
Not very satisfied/Not at all satisfied (30%) %
Respond to enquiries/Quicker response time 12%
Council staff could show more empathy 3%
Acknowledge the concerns and/or opinions of residents 3%
Action residents' requests/enquiries 3%
More proactive response from Council 2%
Base: N = 217
Note: Only counts >1% are shown, please see Appendix A for remaining data
Key Things to Be Communicated By Council Summary
Residents want a variety of things communicated to them by Council, primarily ‘major works/projects’
(93%) and ‘community services and facilities’ (90%).
Q6a. What are the key things you would like Council to communicate to you as a resident of Upper Hunter Shire?
Base: N = 401
Future plans/New developments 4
Council clean-up and tip tickets 2
*Note: Only counts >1 are shown, please see Appendix A for remaining data
6%
68%
80%
88%
90%
93%
Other
Best Method of Communication Summary
Residents largely believe that the best method of communication from Council is through ‘print media’
(29%) and ‘personalised mail’ (27%).
Residents aged 50-64 were significantly more likely to find the best method of Council communication was
via ‘Council’s website’ (14%), whilst those in the younger age group (18-34) did not select this option of
communication at all.
However, residents aged 18-34 were significantly more likely to believe the best method for Council to
convey information to them was through ‘Facebook’ (23%), whereas those aged 65 and over were
significantly less likely to have selected this option (1%).
Residents aged 65 and over were significantly more likely to have selected ‘personalised mail’ (44%) as
their preferred method of communication from Council.
Ratepayers were significantly more likely to find ‘print media’ to be the best method of Council
communication.
Residents living in a town were significantly more likely to have selected ‘Facebook’ as their preferred
method of communication from Council.
Q6b. What is the best method to communicate this information to you?
Base: N = 401
Preference of Consultation Summary
A majority of residents (79%) displayed a predilection for consultation via ‘community surveys’, followed by
59% who have a preference for ‘community workshops’.
Not surprisingly, residents aged 18-34 (60%) were significantly more likely to favour consultation through
‘online discussion forums’, whereas those aged 65 and over were significantly less likely to elect this method
of consultation.
Females and non-ratepayers were significantly more likely to prefer ‘online discussion forums’ as a way of
being consulted.
Q6c. We are looking to understand the ways in which the community prefers to be involved in community
consultation. How would you prefer to be consulted?
Base: N = 401
community consultations
Satisfaction with Level of Consultation Summary
81% of residents were at least ‘somewhat satisfied’ with the current level of consultation Council has with
the community. From a mean score viewpoint, satisfaction has marginally increased since 2013.
Residents aged 65 and over were significantly more satisfied with the level of consultation Council has with
the community.
Residents living in a town were significantly more satisfied with Council’s current level of consultation, whilst
those in a village were significantly less satisfied.
Q6d. How satisfied are you currently with the level of consultation Council has with the community?
Overall
2015
Overall
Mean ratings 3.16 3.08 3.16 2.93 3.19 3.43 3.05 3.20
Ratepayer Non-
= A significantly higher/lower level of satisfaction (by year)
9%
15%
39%
34%
4%
8%
12%
41%
35%
4%
Hunter Shire Area
Rating of Specific Statements Summary
Residents’ rated each statement relatively high in agreement, with no ratings falling below 70%. The highest
rated statement was ‘I have a sense of wellbeing living in the Upper Hunter Shire’.
Residents aged 65 and over were significantly more likely to agree with all statements, whilst those aged
35-49 were significantly less likely to agree with ‘I have a sense of wellbeing living in the Upper Hunter Shire’
and those aged 18-34 were significantly less likely to agree with the statement ‘I feel safe in the Upper
Hunter Shire’.
Residents aged 18-49 were significantly less likely to agree with the statement ‘I feel part of the community’.
Q7. Please rate the following statements.
2015
I feel part of the community
I feel safe in the Upper Hunter Shire
I have a sense of wellbeing living in the Upper Hunter Shire
Strongly disagree Disagree Neither Agree Strongly agree
Upper Hunter Shi

Documents

Upper Hunter Shire Council