2011 Resident`s Survey

Transcription

Insight for
Business & Government
2011
Resident’s Survey
Management Report
Prepared for
Prepared by
IRIS Research Ltd
October 2011
IRIS Research
ABN 16 002 278 793
Level 1, IC Central, Innovation Campus, Squires Way, Fairy Meadow
Postal address: Northfields Ave, Wollongong NSW 2522. Telephone: (02) 4285 4446 Fax: (02) 4285 4448
Net: http://www.iris.org.au Email: [email protected]
Table of contents
1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 14
Background ........................................................................................................................ 14
Study Objectives ................................................................................................................ 14
Attitude Measurement...................................................................................................... 14
Survey Response ................................................................................................................ 15
Benchmark Comparison Database................................................................................ 16
Survey Results ................................................................................................................................ 17
2 Council services and facilities.................................................................................................. 18
2.1 Importance – Infrastructure and Community Service ......................................... 18
2.2 Importance – Sustainable Economy and Employment ...................................... 20
2.3 Importance – Growth Management ..................................................................... 21
2.4 Importance – Council Systems and Services ........................................................ 22
2.5 Importance – Healthy and Safe Environments ..................................................... 23
2.6 Importance – Strong and Supportive Communities ............................................ 24
2.7 Satisfaction – Infrastructure and Community Service.......................................... 25
2.8 Satisfaction – Sustainable Economy and Employment....................................... 26
2.9 Satisfaction – Growth Management...................................................................... 27
2.10 Satisfaction – Council Systems and Services......................................................... 28
2.11 Satisfaction – Healthy and Safe Environments...................................................... 29
2.12 Satisfaction – Strong and Supportive Communities............................................. 30
3 Prioritising services and facilities .............................................................................................. 31
3.1 Quadrant Analysis ..................................................................................................... 31
3.2 Gap Analysis............................................................................................................... 38
4 Overall Performance of Council ............................................................................................. 45
5 Frequency of use for Council services and facilities ............................................................ 47
6 Customer service ....................................................................................................................... 48
6.1 Contact with Council ............................................................................................... 48
6.2 Contact with elected local Councillors................................................................. 54
7 Community Consultation.......................................................................................................... 56
7.1 The way Council interacts with residents............................................................... 56
8 Communication......................................................................................................................... 58
8.1 Seen, read or heard information relating to Council .......................................... 58
9 Appendix..................................................................................................................................... 60
9.1 Methodology ............................................................................................................. 60
Sample Design........................................................................................................... 60
Data Collection......................................................................................................... 61
Response Performance............................................................................................ 61
Survey Accuracy....................................................................................................... 62
9.2 ANOVA Tables – Importance of Services and Facilities ...................................... 63
9.3 ANOVA Tables – Satisfaction with Services and Facilities ................................... 64
9.4 ANOVA Tables – Overall Satisfaction ..................................................................... 65
9.5 Reasons for Low Satisfaction with Council services and facilities...................... 66
9.5.1 Reasons for low satisfaction with libraries................................................... 66
2011 Logan Resident’s Survey – Management Report
page 2
9.5.2 Reasons for low satisfaction with safety of local roads............................ 66
9.5.3 Reasons for low satisfaction with maintenance of local roads.............. 67
9.5.4 Reasons for low satisfaction with maintenance of drains ....................... 67
9.5.5 Reasons for low satisfaction with maintenance of parks ........................ 68
9.5.6 Reasons for low satisfaction with Council’s swimming pools .................. 68
9.5.7 Reasons for low satisfaction with Logan entertainment centre ............. 68
9.5.8 Reasons for low satisfaction with indoor sports centre ............................ 69
9.5.9 Reasons for low satisfaction with sporting grounds .................................. 69
9.5.10 Reasons for low satisfaction with Council cemeteries ............................. 69
9.5.11 Reasons for low satisfaction with disaster management ........................ 70
9.5.12 Reasons for low satisfaction with supporting local business ................... 70
9.5.13 Reasons for low satisfaction with attracting new business...................... 70
9.5.14 Reasons for low satisfaction with planning for residential development71
9.5.15 Reasons for low satisfaction with planning for commercial development ......72
9.5.16 Reasons for low satisfaction with protection of bushland and wildlife . 72
9.5.17 Reasons for low satisfaction with water quality in Albert and Logan Rivers.....73
9.5.18 Reasons for low satisfaction with general waste collection ................... 73
9.5.19 Reasons for low satisfaction with recycling collection............................. 74
9.5.20 Reasons for low satisfaction with development approval process ....... 74
9.5.21 Reasons for low satisfaction with food safety in local eateries .............. 75
9.5.22 Reasons for low satisfaction with enforcing parking regulations ........... 75
9.5.23 Reasons for low satisfaction with animal management.......................... 76
9.5.24 Reasons for low satisfaction with weed and pest control....................... 76
9.5.25 Reasons for low satisfaction with immunisation programs ...................... 77
9.5.26 Reasons for low satisfaction with community safety programs.............. 77
9.5.27 Reasons for low satisfaction with community and neighbourhood centres....77
9.5.28 Reasons for low satisfaction with physical activity programs ................. 78
9.5.29 Reasons for low satisfaction with bike paths ............................................. 78
9.5.30 Reasons for low satisfaction with playgrounds.......................................... 78
9.5.31 Reasons for low satisfaction with skate parks and BMX tracks ............... 79
9.5.32 Reasons for low satisfaction with Logan Art Gallery................................. 79
9.5.33 Reasons for low satisfaction with parks ...................................................... 79
9.5.34 Reasons for low satisfaction with appearance of streets........................ 80
9.5.35 Reasons for low satisfaction with graffiti removal ..................................... 80
9.5.36 Reasons for low satisfaction with collection of litter ................................. 81
9.5.37 Reasons for low satisfaction with informing the community about Council
services and facilities..................................................................................... 81
9.5.38 Reasons for low satisfaction with consulting the community ................. 82
9.5.39 Reasons for low satisfaction with promoting the city............................... 82
9.5.40 Reasons for low satisfaction with running community festivals and events .....82
9.6 Reasons for Low Agreement with Community Consultation Statements ........ 83
9.6.1 Reasons for low agreement with the statement ‘A Council that
understands the community’s needs and expectations’ ....................... 83
9.6.2 Reasons for low agreement with the statement ‘A Council that
communicates effectively with its residents’............................................. 84
page 3
Reasons for low agreement with the statement ‘A Council that provides an
opportunity for residents to have a say about important issues’ ........... 84
9.6.3 Reasons for low agreement with the statement ‘A Council that works in
the best interests of the community’ .......................................................... 85
9.6.4 Reasons for low agreement with the statement ‘A Council that can be
relied upon to get things done’ .................................................................. 86
page 4
Executive summary
This report presents the results of the Logan City Council Resident’s Survey,
2011.
IRIS
Research
was
commissioned
by
Council
to
conduct
a
comprehensive telephone-based survey among the area’s residents. The
survey sought a range of resident attitudes and opinions as input to Council’s
ongoing strategic planning and quality improvement process.
The 2011 survey was conducted on the IRIS Computer-Assisted Telephone
Interviewing (CATI) system during October. A total of 834 interviews were
conducted with residents from the Logan Local Government Area (LGA). To
qualify for an interview, respondents had to have been a resident in the
Council area for at least the last 6 months and aged 18 or older. The survey
achieved a completion rate of 60%, which is considered a good response for
a telephone survey.
The main findings of the 2011 survey are summarised under the key report
headings over the next few pages.
OVERALL SATISFACTION
Overall satisfaction with Council’s delivery of community services and facilities
in the past 12 months increased significantly from 54.2% in 2010 to 63.7% in
2011. A further 28.9% of residents were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied, while
only 7.1% expressed some level of dissatisfaction with Council’s performance
in delivering these key services and facilities. The mean score of 3.71 reflected
the significant increase in overall satisfaction over the 2010 results (3.54).
Based on IRIS’ classification of mean scores, the result of 3.71 falls just short of
a ‘High’ satisfaction rating (3.75 - 5.00).
It was clear that residents from the rural areas were less satisfied with Council’s
services and facilities over the past 12 months, compared to residents of
urban areas.
IRIS’ benchmark data shows that Logan City Council is performing on par with
the comparable Council measure for overall satisfaction.
page 5
Further analysis found that overall satisfaction was higher amongst urban
residents than it was amongst residents of rural areas of Logan LGA. Two thirds
of residents from urban areas (67.1%) were satisfied with Council services and
facilities over the past 12 months, as opposed to 49.7% of the residents living in
the rural areas of Logan LGA. In IRIS’ experience this is a typical finding as rural
residents are geographically detached from the urban population and hold
the perception that they are looked after less by Council.
INDIVIDUAL COUNCIL SERVICES AND FACILITIES
It should be noted that there was an increase in resident satisfaction for all
services and facilities, (with the exception of food safety in local eateries,
which remained unchanged), compared to 2010, including statements about
how Council interacts with its residents. The biggest movement in satisfaction
for an individual service came for ‘recycling collection’, which went from a
mean score of 3.31 out of 5 in 2010 to 4.29 out of 5 in 2011; quite a significant
jump in resident satisfaction.
An in-depth analysis of importance and satisfaction ratings for Council
services and facilities has highlighted the priority areas for improvement. Table
E-1 outlines the services and facilities that were identified as not meeting
resident expectations in either quadrant or gap analysis. Initially there were 40
services and facilities measured in this survey, however after applying both
forms of analysis the results highlighted 17. These 17 were subsequently filtered
down to 11 services or facilities that Council should focus on first on the basis
that they were identified in both forms of analysis. If a service or facility has a
tick in both the quadrant analysis box and the gap analysis box, it is a good
confirmation that this area should be given priority. These services and
facilities requiring immediate attention include: ‘Safety of local roads’,
‘Maintenance of local roads’, ‘Attracting new business’, ‘Protection of
bushland and wildlife’, ‘Water quality in Albert and Logan rivers’, ‘Food safety
in local eateries’, ‘Weed and pest control’, ‘Community safety programs’,
‘Graffiti removal’, ‘Informing the community about Council services and
facilities’ and ‘Consulting the community’.
page 6
Quadrant analysis has also been conducted by rural areas with the results
summarised in graph E.1.2 and table E.1.3.
A separate quadrant analysis for urban residents has not been included as
the results were closely aligned with that of the entire LGA. This finding is
understandable given that urban residents make up 80% of the Logan LGA.
Graph E.1.1: Quadrant analysis for all services and facilities – Entire LGA
Safety roads
Food safety
Recycling collection
Weed and pest control
D
4.3
St
r
Sa
Attract businesses
importance
Residential dev.
Immunisation program
Playgrounds
Maint. parks
Animal Management
Promoting the City
Community centres
Community festivals
Bike Routes
4.1
Parks
Local business
fe
ty
Consulting the Community
4.5
pr
og
G
ee I ra ram
n f
ra
in ts for fiti s
s
m
Collection of Litter
Water qual. in rivers
Waste collection
Disaster management
Protect bush land
Maintenance roads
4.7
Physical activity programs
Dev. approval process
Sporting grounds
3.9
Commercial dev.
Council cemeteries
3.7
Skate parks and BMX tracks
Indoor sports centres
3.5
Enforcing parking regulations
Libraries
Logan Art Gallery
3.3
Logan ent. centre
Council Swim pools
3.1
3.0
3.2
3.4
3.6
3.8
4.0
4.2
satisfaction
* Please NOTE that both the importance and satisfaction axis represent a 5
point scale and therefore range from 1 to 5. For presentation purposes the minimum
starting points on the graph are modified as the performance of services and facilities
is in the medium to high range.
page 7
Table E.1.1: Opportunities Matrix for Council Services and Facilities – Entire LGA
2. RELATIVELY HIGHER IMPORTANCE
RELATIVELY LOWER SATISFACTION
RELATIVELY HIGHER SATISFACTION
Safety of local roads
Maintenance of local roads
Maintenance of drains
Attracting new businesses
Protection of bush land and wildlife
Water quality in Albert and Logan Rivers
Food safety in local eateries
Community safety programs
Appearance of streets
Graffiti removal
Informing the community about Council
services and facilities
3. RELATIVELY LOWER IMPORTANCE

Libraries
Council
Logan entertainment centre
Sporting grounds
Council cemeteries
Community and neighbourhood centres
Logan Art Gallery
Running Community festivals and events
* Please NOTE that mean satisfaction scores for all services and facilities ranged between
3.00 and 5.00 and where therefore, according to IRIS’ classification, of a ‘medium’ or ‘high’
satisfaction level.

Planning for residential development
Planning for commercial development
Development approval process
Bike Routes
Maintenance of parks
Disaster management
Supporting local business
General waste collection
Animal Management
Playgrounds
Parks
Promoting the City

page 8
Table E.1.2: Gap and quadrant analysis. Areas for improvement- Entire LGA
Identified as not meeting
resident expectations in …
Quadrant
Analysis
(Higher
importance /
lower
satisfaction)
Gap Analysis
(Higher than
average gap
between
importance
and
satisfaction)
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
Graffiti removal
;
;
Informing the community about Council services and facilities
;
;
Consulting the community
;
;
;
;
Disaster management
;
Collection of litter
;
;
;
page 9
Graph E.1.2: Quadrant analysis for all services and facilities -Rural Areas
Safety roads
Disaster management
Protect bush land
4.6
Inform
Attract businesses
4.4
Safety programs
Drains
Bike Routes
4.0
Commercial dev.
3.8
3.6
3.4
Community centres
Promoting the City
Residential dev.
importance
Animal Management
Maint. parks
Streets
4.2
Food safety
Waste collection
Local business
Parks
Playgrounds
Graffiti
Maintenance roads
Community festivals
Sporting grounds
4.8
Council cemeteries
3.2
Libraries
Logan Art Gallery
Logan ent. centre
3.0
Council Swim pools
2.8
2.3
2.5
2.7
2.9
3.1
3.3
3.5
3.7
3.9
4.1
satisfaction
page 10
Table E.1.3: Opportunities Matrix for Council Services and Facilities - Rural
areas

Maintenance of Local Roads
Disaster management
Animal Management
Playgrounds
Parks
Graffiti removal
Informing the Community about Council

Libraries
Council
Sporting grounds
Council cemeteries
Logan Art Gallery
Promoting the City
* Please NOTE that mean satisfaction scores for all services and facilities ranged between
3.00 and 5.00 and where therefore, according to IRIS’ classification, of a ‘medium’ or ‘high’
satisfaction level.

Bike Routes

page 11
CUSTOMER SERVICE
Almost half of all residents (46.3%) had contacted Council in the past 12
months, with the two main reasons for contacting Council being ‘to make a
general enquiry’ (32.4%) or ‘to make a complaint’ (28.2%). Three quarters of
residents (74.9%) that contacted Council mentioned that they had made
contact via telephone, a significant increase from the 66.8% recorded in
2010.
SATISFACTION WITH HOW CONTACT WAS HANDLED
Just over two thirds (67.2%) of all residents who had contacted Council were
satisfied with the way their interaction was handled. This resulted in a mean
satisfaction score of 3.96; statistically unchanged from the 2010 result of 3.87.
CONTACT WITH ELECTED LOCAL COUNCILLORS
Overall, 17.6% of residents have had contact with an elected local Councillor
(including the mayor) over the past year, with meetings being the
predominant way that contact was made (35.9%). Personal interactions
(23.2%) and phone calls (19.9%) were other notable forms of making contact
with elected Councillors.
THE WAY COUNCIL INTERACTS WITH RESIDENTS
Residents were most likely to express high agreement (49.7%) that Logan City
Council was ‘A Council that works in the best interests of the community’ and
‘A Council that understands the community’s needs and expectations’
(49.4%). Agreement levels amongst residents for these two statements have
increased significantly from 2010.
Results also showed that mean agreement levels towards the other 3
statements put to residents also increased significantly from 2010.
SEEN, READ OR HEARD INFORMATION RELATING TO COUNCIL
Results showed that a majority of rural residents (83.8%) had attained
information about Council through the Jimboomba Times. Residents from
urban areas were more likely to have attained their information on Council
page 12
through the Albert and Logan News (72.9%) or the Council Quarterly
Magazine, Our Logan (68.0%).
According to urban residents, the preferred way to receive Council
information and news is through ‘letterbox drop/flyers’ (32.0%) or Council’s
quarterly magazine (28.6%). For rural residents, preferred methods were
‘letterbox drop/flyers’ (32.0%), Council’s quarterly magazine (22.4%) and also
the Jimboomba Times (22.2%).
page 13
1
Introduction
Background
This is the second consecutive annual resident’s survey where Logan City has
sought feedback from its residents about the provision of the services and
facilities that it provides to local residents.
Study Objectives
The broad objectives for the resident’s survey process were to:
•
Measure the importance of and satisfaction with services and facilities
provided by Council;
•
To enable Council track changes over time and therefore drive
continuous improvement efforts;
•
To enable benchmarking of performance with other Councils;
•
Assist Council by identifying the priority issues for resident’s;
•
Identify key drivers of resident dissatisfaction;
•
Evaluate the consumption and satisfaction with Council’s
communications.
Attitude Measurement
In the first section of the survey, a series of 40 Council services and facilities
were read out to respondents. For each, respondents were asked to give
both an importance and satisfaction rating. Results from these ratings form
the basis of much of the analysis in this report. The importance and
satisfaction rating scales used in the survey are exhibited on the next page:
Importance scale
1 = Not at all important
2…
3…
4…
5 = Very important
Satisfaction scale
1 = Not at all satisfied
2…
3…
4…
5 = Very satisfied
page 14
For all rating scales, those respondents who could not provide a rating, either
because the question did not apply to them or they had no opinion, were
entered as a ‘Can’t say’ or a rating of 6. Rating scale results have generally
been presented in two basic forms. Firstly, the results have been presented in
terms of the proportion (%) of respondents giving a particular rating for a
specific service or facility. These results are presented in collapsed category
tables, where proportions have been assigned to one of the following
categories:
Table 1.3.1: Collapsed rating scores
Can’t say
Low
Medium
High
importance /
satisfaction
importance /
satisfaction
importance /
satisfaction
6
1&2
3
4&5
Rating score given
Secondly, the numeric values recorded for each attribute have been
converted into an overall mean score out of five. To derive the mean score
for an attribute, all respondents’ answers are 'averaged' to produce an
overall rating that conveniently expresses the result of scale items in a single
numeric figure. This makes data interpretation considerably easier when
comparing multiple services and facilities. The mean score excludes those
respondents who could not give a valid rating (i.e. 'Can't Say').
Given that IRIS undertakes many residents’ surveys such as this; we are able to
benchmark mean scores. As such, mean importance and satisfaction scores
can be further classified as being a low, medium or high score based on this
experience. Table 1.3.1 highlights the mean classifications.
Table 1.3.2: Classification of mean scores
Mean importance scores
0 – 2.99
Low
3.00 – 3.99
Medium
4.00 – 5.00
High
Mean satisfaction scores
0 – 2.99
Low
3.00 – 3.74
Medium
3.75 – 5.00
High
Survey Response
A total of 834 completed interviews were collected from a random sample of
residents throughout the Logan City Local Government Area. Strict sampling
page 15
procedures ensured that characteristics of selected respondents mirror those
of the overall adult population of the area. For a detailed description of the
survey methodology refer to appendix 9.1.
Benchmark Comparison Database
IRIS has compiled data on the performance of an extensive list of Councils it
has worked with on a series of services and facilities for benchmark
comparisons. Where appropriate results include how your particular Council
compares with the (1) worst performing Council (2) best performing Council
and (3) comparable Councils. The services and facilities where comparisons
can be made have been highlighted with an * in the tables found in sections
2.7 to 2.12. For a service or facility to be considered significantly different to
the benchmark IRIS recommends a 10 percentage point differential be
present. In addition the proportion of your residents that rated their
satisfaction as being high (rating points 4 and 5), medium (rating point 3) and
low (rating point 1 and 2) is provided as a summary measure.
On occasions individual Councils use variations on the 5 point rating scale
including 7 and 11 point scales. In order to facilitate ease of comparison the
benchmark data has been standardised to a score out of 100.
page 16
Survey Results
page 17
2
Council services and facilities
This section presents both the importance and satisfaction levels amongst
residents towards 40 key services and facilities provided by Logan City
Council.
Residents were asked to rate the importance of each of the 40 Council
services and facilities on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 ‘not at all important’ and 5
‘very important’. Residents were also asked about their level of satisfaction
with the provision of each of these services; this was again done on a scale of
1 to 5, with 1 being ‘not at all satisfied’ and 5 ‘very satisfied’.
2.1
Importance – Infrastructure and Community Service
Table 2.1.1: Infrastructure and Community Service – Importance
% Importance
Can’t
say
Low
(1 & 2)
Medium
(3)
High
(4 & 5)
Mean
2011
Mean
2010
Change
Disaster management
1.5
1.5
3.3
93.7
4.73
4.72
ÍÎ
0.3
0.7
7.0
92.0
4.70
4.65
ÍÎ
0.1
1.3
5.1
93.5
4.68
4.63
Ï
1.6
5.3
10.9
82.2
4.33
4.23
Ï
1.2
4.2
12.9
81.6
4.32
4.26
ÍÎ
Sporting grounds
5.9
13.7
14.2
66.2
3.92
3.90
ÍÎ
Council cemeteries
10.8
20.9
12.1
56.1
3.69
3.69
ÍÎ
8.3
21.2
15.4
55.1
3.58
3.48
ÍÎ
Libraries
1.0
30.3
18.9
49.9
3.34
3.34
ÍÎ
9.5
27.4
21.3
41.7
3.23
3.16
ÍÎ
Council’s swimming pools
8.4
34.8
17.5
39.3
3.10
3.12
ÍÎ
Sample size = 834
page 18
Key results:
Within the key service area of ‘Infrastructure and Community Service’, the
importance placed on maintaining local roads and maintaining drains
increased statistically since the last measure in 2010. All other services and
facilities within this key service area were statistically as important as that
recorded in 2010.
5 of the 11 services and facilities within ‘Infrastructure and Community
Service’ were considered to be of ‘high’ importance to residents as
highlighted by the mean scores being at 4 out of 5 or better. These
included ‘disaster management’ (4.73), ‘safety of local roads’ (4.70),
‘maintenance of local roads’ (4.68), ‘maintenance of drains’ (4.33) and
‘maintenance of parks’ (4.32).
The remaining 6 services and facilities were deemed to hold a ‘medium’
level of importance to residents of Logan City Council.
page 19
2.2
Importance – Sustainable Economy and Employment
Table 2.2.1: Sustainable Economy and Employment – Importance
% Importance
Can’t
say
Low
(1 & 2)
Medium
(3)
High
(4 & 5)
Mean
2011
Mean
2010
Change
2.8
2.3
7.4
87.5
4.53
4.50
ÍÎ
Attracting new business
2.8
4.1
8.7
84.4
4.39
4.37
ÍÎ
Sample size = 834
Key results:
Within the key service area of ‘Sustainable Economy and Employment’,
analysis showed that importance levels amongst residents for either of
these two services have remained unchanged from 2010.
The importance placed on ‘supporting local business’ and ‘attracting new
business’ is considered to be ‘highly’ important to the residents of Logan
City Council.
page 20
2.3
Importance – Growth Management
Table 2.3.1: Growth Management – Importance
% Importance
Can’t
say
Low
(1 & 2)
Medium
(3)
High
(4 & 5)
Mean
2011
Mean
2010
Change
0.3
0.8
3.3
95.5
4.70
4.70
ÍÎ
Protection of bush land and
wildlife
0.4
0.7
6.1
92.8
4.65
4.61
ÍÎ
0.2
2.8
5.4
91.6
4.61
4.60
ÍÎ
Water quality in Albert and
Logan rivers
2.1
3.3
6.0
88.6
4.54
4.59
ÍÎ
Planning for residential
development
1.4
6.9
15.8
75.9
4.16
4.22
ÍÎ
Planning for commercial
development
2.3
10.9
23.0
63.8
3.84
3.97
Ð
Sample size = 834
Key results:
Within the key service area of ‘Growth Management’, the importance
placed on planning for commercial development fell since the last
measure in 2010. The mean importance score of 3.84 places this service
into the ‘medium’ level importance category.
All other services and facilities within this key service area were statistically
as important as that recorded in 2010.
page 21
2.4
Importance – Council Systems and Services
Table 2.4.1: Council Systems and Services – Importance
% Importance
Can’t
say
Low
(1 & 2)
Medium
(3)
High
(4 & 5)
Mean
2011
Mean
2010
Change
1.0
0.4
4.1
94.6
4.74
4.67
Ï
Development approval
process
12.6
11.8
17.1
58.5
3.85
3.96
ÍÎ
2.7
22.8
23.7
50.9
3.50
3.51
ÍÎ
Sample size = 834
Key results:
Within the key service area of ‘Council Systems and Services’, analysis
showed that food safety in local eateries has increased in importance
since 2010. It was also the only service within this key service area to be
considered ‘high’ in importance.
The development approval process with a mean importance score of 3.85
and enforcing parking regulations with a mean importance of 3.50 are
considered to be of ‘medium’ importance to Logan City Council residents.
page 22
2.5
Importance – Healthy and Safe Environments
Table 2.5.1: Healthy and Safe Environments – Importance
% Importance
Can’t
say
Low
(1 & 2)
Medium
(3)
High
(4 & 5)
Mean
2011
Mean
2010
Change
Immunisation programs
5.3
6.3
6.8
81.6
4.49
4.62
Ð
Playgrounds
1.6
6.0
7.9
84.5
4.40
4.32
Ï
1.2
4.1
11.3
83.4
4.39
4.39
ÍÎ
0.6
2.7
15.3
81.4
4.33
4.31
ÍÎ
Animal control
0.9
5.8
14.5
78.8
4.26
4.21
ÍÎ
Community and
neighbourhood centres
3.2
6.9
16.1
73.9
4.15
4.15
ÍÎ
Bike paths
2.6
11.1
12.8
73.4
4.09
4.10
ÍÎ
14.2
11.4
14.8
59.5
3.93
3.96
ÍÎ
4.7
18.6
18.1
58.6
3.67
3.62
ÍÎ
Logan Art Gallery
8.3
25.1
21.5
45.1
3.32
3.32
ÍÎ
Sample size = 834
Key results:
Within the key service area of ‘Healthy and Safe Environments’, the importance
placed on immunisation programs statistically fell since the last measure in
2010. It should be noted that while importance for the service fell, the mean
importance score of 4.49 indicates that it is a ‘highly’ important service to the
community.
The importance assigned to playgrounds has statistically increased since the
2010 measure, while all other services and facilities have remained unchanged.
7 of the 10 services and facilities within ‘Healthy and Safe Environments’ were
considered to be of ‘high’ importance to residents as highlighted by the mean
scores being at 4 out of 5 or better. These included ‘immunisation programs’
(4.49), ‘playgrounds’ (4.40), ‘community safety programs’ (4.39), ‘weed and
pest control’ (4.33), ‘animal control’ (4.26), ‘community and neighbourhood
centres’ (4.15) and ‘bike paths’ (4.09).
The remaining 3 services and facilities were deemed to hold a ‘medium’ level
of importance to residents of Logan City Council. These included ‘physical
activity programs’ (3.93), ‘skate parks and BMX tracks’ (3.67) and ‘Logan art
gallery’ (3.32).
page 23
2.6
Importance – Strong and Supportive Communities
Table 2.6.1: Strong and Supportive Communities – Importance
% Importance
Sample size = 834
Can’t
say
Low
(1 & 2)
Medium
(3)
High
(4 & 5)
Mean
2011
Mean
2010
Change
0.4
0.6
7.3
91.6
4.60
4.53
Ï
Parks
1.0
1.9
6.2
90.9
4.55
-
NA
0.9
3.9
6.4
88.8
4.49
4.50
ÍÎ
Informing the Community
about Council services and
facilities
0.7
2.8
9.5
86.9
4.41
4.41
ÍÎ
Graffiti removal
1.4
3.9
11.4
83.4
4.39
4.37
ÍÎ
0.8
2.5
12.3
84.4
4.34
4.33
ÍÎ
Promoting the City
1.5
6.8
13.8
77.9
4.23
4.14
Ï
Running community festivals
and events
1.9
4.1
19.0
75.0
4.15
4.01
Ï
Key results:
Within the key service area of ‘Strong and Supportive Communities’, the
importance placed on collection of litter, promoting the city, and running
community festivals and events statistically increased since the last
measure in 2010. It should be noted that all services and facilities within this
key service area attained mean importance scores of a ‘high’ level.
page 24
Section 2.7 through to section 2.12 looks at resident satisfaction levels with
Council’s performance within the various key service areas.
2.7
Satisfaction – Infrastructure and Community Service
Table 2.7.1: Infrastructure and Community Service – Satisfaction
% Satisfaction
Can’t
say
Low
(1 & 2)
Medium
(3)
High
(4 & 5)
Mean
2011
Mean
2010
Change
Libraries *
22.4
2.9
12.6
62.1
4.22
4.11
Ï
37.3
2.4
19.6
40.7
3.89
3.73
Ï
Maintenance of parks *
4.6
7.1
22.7
65.6
3.87
3.77
Ï
31.7
5.0
18.0
45.3
3.86
3.64
Ï
Disaster management
15.6
7.5
22.0
55.0
3.83
3.74
Ï
Sporting grounds *
21.0
5.1
23.2
50.7
3.82
3.70
Ï
Council cemeteries
39.1
4.6
19.6
36.7
3.79
3.65
Ï
Council’s swimming pools *
39.6
6.0
21.0
33.5
3.66
3.51
Ï
6.8
10.8
28.7
53.8
3.65
3.40
Ï
1.0
22.3
39.3
37.4
3.21
2.99
Ï
Maintenance of local roads *
0.2
30.0
33.2
36.6
3.09
2.92
Ï
Sample size = 834
* Please see appendix 9.7 for benchmark comparisons
Key results:
Within the key service area of ‘Infrastructure and Community Service’,
analysis found that resident satisfaction has increased for all 11 services
and facilities compared with 2010.
7 of the 11 services achieved satisfaction scores in the ‘high’ range while
the remaining 4 services recorded ‘medium’ level satisfaction scores.
Services and facilities recording ‘high’ level satisfaction scores were
‘libraries’ (4.22), ‘Logan entertainment centre’ (3.89), ‘maintenance of
parks’ (3.87), ‘indoor sports centres’ (3.86), ‘disaster management’ (3.83),
‘sporting grounds’ (3.82) and ‘Council cemeteries’ (3.79).
page 25
2.8
Satisfaction – Sustainable Economy and Employment
Table 2.8.1: Sustainable Economy and Employment – Satisfaction
% Satisfaction
Can’t
say
Low
(1 & 2)
Medium
(3)
High
(4 & 5)
Mean
2011
Mean
2010
Change
15.3
6.5
27.7
50.6
3.74
3.57
Ï
Attracting new business
16.5
10.0
37.3
36.2
3.48
3.38
Ï
Sample size = 834
Key results:
Within the key service area of ‘Sustainable Economy and Employment,
analysis found that resident satisfaction has increased for supporting local
business as well as attracting new business compared with 2010.
While resident satisfaction levels increased for both of these services, their
mean scores are considered to fall in the ‘medium’ level range.
page 26
2.9
Satisfaction – Growth Management
Table 2.9.1: Growth Management – Satisfaction
% Satisfaction
Can’t
say
Low
(1 & 2)
Medium
(3)
High
(4 & 5)
Mean
2011
Mean
2010
Change
Recycling collection *
1.1
5.1
10.8
83.0
4.29
3.31
Ï
General waste collection *
Protection of bush land and
wildlife
Planning for commercial
development *
Planning for residential
development *
Water quality in Albert and
Logan rivers
0.4
4.8
12.9
82.0
4.25
3.85
Ï
1.9
14.6
26.7
56.8
3.64
3.44
Ï
13.8
12.7
39.7
33.8
3.33
3.21
Ï
9.0
17.8
38.2
35.1
3.26
3.13
Ï
9.9
22.8
32.8
34.4
3.21
2.95
Ï
Sample size = 834
Key results:
Within the key service area of ‘Growth Management’, analysis found that
resident satisfaction has increased for all 6 services and facilities compared
with 2010.
Recycling collection and general waste collection achieved mean
satisfaction scores of 4.29 out of 5 and 4.25 out of 5 respectively, indicating
that residents are ‘highly’ satisfied with these two services.
‘Protection of bushland and wildlife’ (3.64), ‘planning for commercial
development’ (3.33), ‘planning for residential development’ (3.26) and
‘water quality in Albert and Logan rivers’ (3.21) all attained ‘medium’ level
satisfaction scores.
page 27
2.10
Satisfaction – Council Systems and Services
Table 2.10.1: Council Systems and Services – Satisfaction
% Satisfaction
Can’t
say
Low
(1 & 2)
Medium
(3)
High
(4 & 5)
Mean
2011
Mean
2010
Change
Food safety in local eateries *
5.4
10.2
31.4
53.1
3.64
3.60
ÍÎ
10.6
18.6
39.0
31.8
3.21
3.02
Ï
Development approval
process *
30.6
14.9
30.0
24.5
3.21
2.96
Ï
Sample size = 834
Key results:
Within the key service area of ‘Council Systems and Services’, analysis
found that resident satisfaction has increased for enforcing parking
regulations as well as development approval process compared with
results from 2010.
Satisfaction
with food safety in local eateries remains statistically
unchanged from 2010.
Satisfaction levels recorded for all 3 services were considered to be of a
‘medium’ level.
page 28
2.11
Satisfaction – Healthy and Safe Environments
Table 2.11.1: Healthy and Safe Environments – Satisfaction
% Satisfaction
Can’t
say
Low
(1 & 2)
Medium
(3)
High
(4 & 5)
Mean
2011
Mean
2010
Change
Immunisation programs
19.5
3.6
11.6
65.3
4.24
4.13
Ï
Parks
2.2
4.5
22.2
71.2
4.00
-
NA
Playgrounds *
7.5
28.4
58.4
7.5
3.83
3.61
Ï
Logan Art Gallery
31.9
3.8
25.5
38.9
3.75
3.61
Ï
32.5
3.2
25.2
39.0
3.74
3.42
Ï
Community and
neighbourhood centres*
16.4
5.4
30.1
48.1
3.73
3.48
Ï
Animal control *
5.6
10.7
30.3
10.7
3.67
3.44
Ï
11.8
10.6
33.5
44.1
3.56
3.36
Ï
18.1
9.5
31.4
40.9
3.55
3.33
Ï
5.9
12.3
32.7
49.1
3.55
3.31
Ï
Bike paths *
10.6
15.1
30.6
43.8
3.46
3.28
Ï
Sample size = 834
Key results:
Within the key service area of ‘Healthy and Safe Environments’, analysis
found that resident satisfaction levels have increased for all services and
facilities compared with 2010.
Four of the 11 services and facilities attained mean satisfaction scores in
the ‘high’ range. These included ‘immunisation programs’ (4.24), ‘parks’
(4.00), ‘playgrounds’ (3.83) and ‘Logan Art Gallery’ (3.75).
The remaining 7 services and facilities were considered to hold a ‘medium’
level of satisfaction amongst residents of Logan City Council. These were
‘physical activity programs’ (3.74), ‘community and neighbourhood
centres’ (3.73), ‘animal control’ (3.67), ‘community safety programs’ (3.56),
‘skate parks and BMX tracks’ (3.55), ‘weed and pest control’ (3.55), ‘bike
paths’ (3.46).
page 29
2.12
Satisfaction – Strong and Supportive Communities
Table 2.12.1: Strong and Supportive Communities – Satisfaction
% Satisfaction
Sample size = 834
Can’t
say
Low
(1 & 2)
Medium
(3)
High
(4 & 5)
Mean
2011
Mean
2010
Change
1.1
12.0
28.0
58.9
3.69
3.54
Ï
Running community festivals
and events *
5.6
7.1
34.3
53.0
3.69
3.47
Ï
Promoting the City
4.6
6.7
36.7
52.0
3.68
3.42
Ï
Informing the Community
about Council services and
facilities *
2.6
10.3
34.0
53.1
3.64
3.31
Ï
1.2
11.8
33.1
53.9
3.61
3.46
Ï
Graffiti removal
3.5
12.8
33.2
50.4
3.58
3.43
Ï
Consulting the community *
4.4
21.8
31.3
42.5
3.34
3.06
Ï
Key results:
Within the key service area of ‘Strong and Supportive Communities’,
analysis found that resident satisfaction levels have increased for all
services and facilities compared with 2010.
All services and facilities attained mean satisfaction scores in the ‘medium’
range.
page 30
3
Prioritising services and facilities
Given the range of services and facilities Council has to manage, it can often
be a difficult task to prioritise. The sheer number of services and facilities under
management can diffuse focus and distract attention away from the areas of
critical importance to improving resident satisfaction. This section of the report
aims to identify the key drivers of resident satisfaction via a deeper analysis of
the importance and satisfaction scores presented in the previous section.
3.1 Quadrant Analysis
Quadrant analysis is a useful way of simultaneously analysing the stated
importance a service holds for residents against their satisfaction with the
provision of that service. To do this, mean satisfaction scores are plotted
against mean importance scores for each Council service or facility. In order
to form the quadrants (or opportunity matrix) that separate higher and lower
level priority services combined mean importance and satisfaction scores
were calculated for the entire set of 40 council services and facilities. These
scores were: Importance score = 4.2 and Satisfaction score = 3.7. Thus, for
example, services or facilities with a mean importance score of less than 4.2
(i.e. a score lower than the overall mean importance score), were classified
as having relatively ‘lower’ importance. Conversely, services or facilities with a
mean score above 4.2 were classified as having relatively ‘higher’
importance. It should be noted that the overall satisfaction score of 3.7 has
significantly increased from 3.4 which was what the result in 2010. The results of
the quadrant analysis are displayed in Graph and Table 3.1.1.
A separate quadrant analysis for urban residents has not been included as
the results were closely aligned with that of the entire LGA. This finding is
understandable given that urban residents make up 80% of the Logan LGA.
page 31
Each of the four quadrants has a specific interpretation:
1. The upper right quadrant (relatively high importance and relatively high
satisfaction) represents current council service strengths.
2. The upper left quadrant (relatively high importance but relatively lower
satisfaction) denotes services where satisfaction should be improved.
3. The lower left quadrant (relatively lower importance and relatively lower
satisfaction) represents lower priority services.
4. The lower right quadrant (relatively lower importance and relatively high
satisfaction) represents services where effort exceeds expectations.
The attributes in the upper left quadrant are all candidates for immediate
attention. Residents placed a high importance on these attributes but also
reported relatively lower satisfaction.
page 32
Graph 3.1.1: Quadrant analysis for all services and facilities – Entire LGA
Safety roads
Food safety
Maintenance roads
4.7
D
4.3
St
r
Attract businesses
importance
Residential dev.
Playgrounds
Maint. parks
Animal Management
Promoting the City
Community centres
Community festivals
Bike Routes
4.1
Parks
Local business
Sa
fe
ty
4.5
pr
og
G
ee I ra ram
n
ra
f
t
in s for fiti s
s
m
Waste collection
Disaster management
Protect bush land
Sporting grounds
3.9
Commercial dev.
Council cemeteries
3.7
3.5
Libraries
Logan Art Gallery
3.3
Logan ent. centre
Council Swim pools
3.1
3.0
3.2
3.4
3.6
3.8
4.0
4.2
satisfaction
page 33
Table 3.1.1: Opportunities Matrix for Council Services and Facilities - Entire LGA
Graffiti removal
Informing the community about Council

Bike Routes
Disaster management
Animal Management
Playgrounds
Parks
Promoting the City

Libraries
Council
Sporting grounds
Council cemeteries
Logan Art Gallery
Key results:
Quadrant analysis has identified 13 services and facilities that were found
to be high in importance but low in satisfaction, relative to the services and
facilities put to residents. The services and facilities that have been
highlighted as areas for Council to work on include: ‘safety of local roads’,
maintenance of local roads’, ‘maintenance of drains’, ‘attracting new
businesses’, ‘protection of bush land and wildlife’, ‘water quality in Albert
and Logan Rivers’, ‘food safety in local eateries’, ‘weed and pest control’,
‘community safety programs’, ‘appearance of streets’, ‘graffiti removal’,
‘informing the community about Council’ services and facilities’ and
‘consulting the community’.
page 34
The overall mean importance score for the 40 Council services and facilities
recorded for residents living in rural areas was 4.2. This score was statistically
the same as the overall importance score for the entire Logan LGA. The
satisfaction score based on the opinions of residents living in rural areas was
3.4, which is significantly lower than the satisfaction levels recorded across the
entire LGA (3.7).
Graph 3.1.2: Quadrant analysis for all services and facilities – Rural areas
Safety roads
Disaster management
Protect bush land
4.6
Inform
Attract businesses
4.4
Safety programs
Drains
Bike Routes
4.0
Commercial dev.
3.8
3.6
3.4
Community centres
Promoting the City
Residential dev.
importance
Animal Management
Maint. parks
Streets
4.2
Food safety
Waste collection
Local business
Parks
Playgrounds
Graffiti
Maintenance roads
Community festivals
Sporting grounds
4.8
Council cemeteries
3.2
Libraries
Logan Art Gallery
Logan ent. centre
3.0
Council Swim pools
2.8
2.3
2.5
2.7
2.9
3.1
3.3
3.5
3.7
3.9
4.1
satisfaction
page 35
Table 3.1.2: Opportunities Matrix for Council Services and Facilities – Rural
areas

Bike Routes
Disaster management
Animal Management
Playgrounds
Parks
Graffiti removal
Informing the Community about Council

Libraries
Council
Sporting grounds
Council cemeteries
Logan Art Gallery
Promoting the City
Key results:
Quadrant analysis has identified 8 services and facilities that were found to
be high in importance but low in satisfaction with regards to residents from
the rural areas of Logan LGA. The services and facilities that have been
highlighted as areas for Council to work on include: ‘safety of local roads’,
‘maintenance of local roads’, ‘attracting new businesses’, ‘protection of
bush land and wildlife’, ‘water quality in Albert and Logan Rivers’, ‘weed
and
pest
control’,
‘appearance
of
streets’,
and
‘consulting
the
community’.
page 36
Table 3.1.3 provides a summary of the services and facilities highlighted by
quadrant analysis first based on the entire LGA (overall area) and then solely
for residents living in the rural areas of Logan LGA.
Table 3.1.3: Opportunities Matrix Summary – Overall area versus rural area
Identified as not meeting resident
expectations in …
Graffiti removal
Quadrant Analysis
Quadrant Analysis
(Higher
importance /
lower satisfaction)
(Higher
importance /
lower satisfaction)
Overall area
Rural area
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
Key results:
Table 3.1.3 shows that while there were 13 services and facilities that were
identified across the entire LGA as needing improvement, only 8 of those
overlapped with the needs of rural residents. The services and facilities that
overlapped included: ‘safety of local roads’, ‘maintenance of local roads’,
‘attracting new businesses’, ‘protection of bush land and wildlife’, ‘water
quality in Albert and Logan Rivers’, ‘Weed and pest control’, ‘appearance
of streets’, and consulting the community’.
page 37
3.2 Gap Analysis
Despite its usefulness, quadrant analysis is not a complete priority assessment
tool. For example, it does not explicitly identify the gaps between importance
and satisfaction. It is possible that a large gap could exist between
importance and satisfaction, even though a service or facility appeared in
the ‘high importance and high satisfaction’ quadrant.
Consequently, gap analysis was used as the second component in analysing
the results. Gap measures were calculated by subtracting the mean
satisfaction score from the mean importance score for each attribute. It
should be pointed out that if a respondent rated a service or facility’s
importance, but failed to provide a satisfaction rating i.e. ‘Can’t say / Don’t
know’ they were excluded from the gap analysis. Usually, the larger the gap
between importance and satisfaction, the larger the gap between Council’s
performance in the provision of a service and residents’ expectations
Gap scores are presented in Table 3.2.1. The table ranks services and facilities
from highest gaps to lowest gaps. Those services with a gap score significantly
above the mean gap score for all services (ξ=0.684) were given top priority
(i.e. a rating of 1). These are services that should be addressed by
management first as the importance of that service far outweighs the
satisfaction that residents have with its provision. Services with a gap score
statistically equal to the mean gap were given second priority (rating of 2)
and services with a gap score significantly below the mean gap were given
third priority (rating of 3).
It should be noted that the gap score in 2011 (ξ=0.684) has significantly
narrowed compared with 2010 (ξ=0.877), which shows that Council’s
performance in the delivery of its services and facilities are closer to meeting
resident’s expectations than it was last year.
page 38
Table 3.2.1 Performance gaps for Council services and facilities – Entire LGA
Council Services & Facilities
Protection of bush land and wildlife (including green space, grazing land)
Disaster management (e.g. storms, floods, fires)
Community safety programs (e.g. safety cameras)
Graffiti removal
Weed and pest control (spraying noxious weeds, mosquitoes)
Appearance of streets (e.g. landscaping and mowing)
Bike Routes (e.g. bike lanes on roads and through parks)
Playgrounds
Animal Management (e.g. rodent control, animal registration)
Promoting the City
Parks
Sporting grounds
Physical activity programs (e.g. KRANK, Active Logan)
Council cemeteries
Council swimming pools
Logan Art Gallery
Libraries
Performance
Gap
1.593
1.496
1.374
1.184
1.096
1.020
0.987
0.968
0.923
0.900
0.840
0.847
0.826
0.799
0.801
0.814
0.734
0.739
0.707
0.630
0.611
0.607
0.592
0.566
0.557
0.418
0.480
0.494
0.384
0.389
0.450
0.273
0.222
0.354
0.344
0.090
-0.093
-0.127
-0.198
-0.426
Priority
Level
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
page 39
Key results:
There has been an improvement in the overall expectation gap in 2011,
which means Council’s delivery of services and facilities is closer to meeting
resident expectations than what it was in 2010.
While there has been an improvement in the overall gap score, there are
still 15 services and facilities that have been identified as priority level 1
indicating an above average gap exists for these services. These services
and facilities include the following: ‘maintenance of local roads’, ‘safety of
local roads’, ‘water quality in Albert and Logan Rivers’, ‘consulting the
community’, ‘food safety on local eateries’, ‘protection of bush land and
wildlife’,
‘attracting
new
businesses’,
‘planning
for
residential
development’, ‘disaster management’, ‘collection of litter’, ‘supporting
local business’, ‘community safety programs’, ‘graffiti removal’, ‘informing
the community about Council services and facilities’, ‘weed and pest
control’.
page 40
Table 3.2.2 Performance gaps for Council services and facilities – Rural area
Council Services & Facilities
Disaster management (e.g. storms, floods, fires)
Bike routes (e.g. bike lanes on roads and through parks)
Weed and pest control (spraying noxious weeds, mosquitoes)
Informing the Community about Council services and facilities
Graffiti removal
Playgrounds
Appearance of streets (e.g. landscaping and mowing)
Community safety programs (e.g. safety cameras)
Sporting grounds
Parks
Promoting the City
Animal management (e.g. rodent control, animal registration, animal)
Running community festivals and events
Physical activity programs (e.g. KRANK, Active Logan)
Council cemeteries
Logan Art Gallery
Libraries
Performance
Gap
2.45
2.28
1.63
1.51
1.41
1.24
1.29
1.24
1.27
1.13
1.20
1.03
1.04
1.01
0.91
0.91
0.90
0.89
0.87
0.79
0.79
0.77
0.73
0.70
0.69
0.64
0.61
0.57
0.55
0.48
0.48
0.41
0.38
0.37
0.28
0.24
0.03
-0.19
-0.26
-0.46
Priority
Level
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
page 41
Key results:
The performance gap amongst rural residents was ξ=0.898, which was
significantly larger than the gap score for on the entire Logan LGA.
Gap analysis identified 11 services and facilities that were classified as
being priority level 1. These were ‘maintenance of local roads’, ‘safety of
local roads’, ‘water quality in Albert and Logan Rivers’, ‘consulting the
community’, ‘protection of bush land and wildlife’, ‘disaster management’,
‘planning for residential development’, ‘attracting new businesses’,
‘development approval process’, ‘supporting local businesses’ and ‘bike
routes’.
page 42
Table 3.2.3 outlines the services and facilities that were identified as not
meeting resident expectations across the entire LGA in either quadrant or
gap analysis. Initially there were 40 services and facilities measured in this
survey, however after applying both forms of analysis the results highlighted
17. These 17 can then be filtered down to 11 services or facilities that Council
should focus on first. If a service or facility has a tick in both the quadrant
analysis box and the gap analysis box, it is confirmation that this area should
be given priority.
Table 3.2.3 Quadrant and Gap analysis summary – (Entire LGA)
Quadrant
Analysis
(Higher
importance /
lower
satisfaction)
Gap Analysis
(Higher than
average gap
between
importance
and
satisfaction)
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
Graffiti removal
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
Disaster management
;
;
;
;
page 43
Table 3.2.4 outlines the services and facilities that were identified as not
meeting expectations amongst residents from the rural areas of the LGA in
either quadrant or gap analysis. Initially there were 40 services and facilities
measured in this survey, however after applying both forms of analysis the
results highlighted 13. These 13 can then be filtered down to 6 services or
facilities that residents from rural areas have issue with.
Table 3.2.4 Quadrant and Gap analysis summary – (Rural areas)
Quadrant
Analysis
(Higher
importance /
lower
satisfaction)
Gap Analysis
(Higher than
average gap
between
importance
and
satisfaction)
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
Disaster management
;
;
;
;
Bike routes
;
page 44
4
Overall Performance of Council
To gauge the overall performance of Council in providing services to
residents, survey respondents were asked to rate their level of satisfaction with
Formatted: Font: 11 pt, Font
color: Dark Blue
Council’s overall performance across all areas of responsibility.
Deleted: DURING THE 12 MONTH
PERIOD PRECEDING THE SURVEY.
Graph 4.1.1: Overall satisfaction with Council services and facilities *
50
45
40
63.7%
Satisfied
36.3
35
28.9
30
%
46.7
43.6
Mean score
2011 ‐ 3.71
2010 ‐ 3.54
25
2010
20
17.0
2011
15
10.6
10
5
7.5
4.8
1.9
2.3
0.3 0.2
0
1. Very
dissatisfied
2
3
4
5. Very
satisfied
6. Can't say
* Please see 9.7 for benchmark data
Key results:
There has been a significant increase in the last 12 months in relation to
resident’s overall satisfaction with Council’s provision of its services and
facilities. In 2010 the mean satisfaction score was 3.54 out of 5; it has now
risen to 3.71 out of 5.
Around two thirds of residents (63.7%) are satisfied with Council’s services
and facilities.
page 45
Graph 4.1.2: Overall satisfaction with Council services and facilities – by area
67.1% Satisfied
48.4
50
Mean scores
Urban – 3.79
Rural – 3.39
45
40
39.7
49.7% Satisfied
34.6
35
Urban
%
30
27.6
Rural
25
18.7
20
15
10.7
10.0
10
5.1
5
1.6
3.4
0.3 0.0
0
1. Very
dissatisfied
2
3
4
5. Very
satisfied
6. Can't say
Key results:
Analysing the views of residents from urban areas versus those from rural
areas of Logan LGA showed that satisfaction levels differed significantly in
relation to Council’s services and facilities. Two thirds of residents from
urban areas (67.1%) were satisfied with Council services and facilities over
the past 12 months, as opposed to half (49.7%) of the residents living in the
rural areas of Logan LGA.
page 46
5
Frequency of use for Council services and facilities
Graph 5.1.1 outlines the frequency that residents utilise 9 various facility’s
within Logan LGA.
Question: On average, how frequently do you use this facility/area?
Graph 5.1.1: Usage of Council services and facilities
Parks
Libraries
Playgrounds
Sporting grounds
Community and neighbourhood
centres
Logan Art Gallery
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
% (n=834)
Daily
Weekly
Monthly
Quarterly
Yearly
Never
Key results:
Parks were the most frequented facility of the 9 put to residents, with 90% of
residents indicating some level of use during the course of a year.
Libraries, playgrounds, and sporting grounds were the only other facilities
where over half of all residents use them during the year.
Logan art Gallery, Council swimming pools, as well as community centres
and neighbourhood centres had the lowest usage during the year, with
around two thirds of residents not utilising these facilities at all.
page 47
6
Customer service
This section of the report deals with resident interactions with Council over the
past 12 months and identifies how they made contact, for what purpose and
whether they received the information they were after.
6.1 Contact with Council
Question: Have you had any contact with Council in the past 12 months?
Graph 6.1.1: Contact with Council in past 12 months
50
49
48
47
46.3
%
46
45
44.5
44
43
42
41
40
Yes (2010 n=1035)
Yes (2011 n = 834)
Key results:
Contact with Council over the past 12 months is on par with what was
reported in 2010, with 46.3% indicating they have had some form of
contact with Logan City Council.
There were no significant differences by urban or rural residents with
regards to contact with Council.
page 48
Question: What was the main reason for your last contact with Council?
Graph 6.1.2: Main reason for contact with Council in past 12 months
32.4
31.8
Make a general enquiry
Make a complaint
28.2
22.5
Report a maintenance issue
7.7
7.1
Lodge a dev elopment application
8.4
5.5
Make a payment (eg rates, fees)
Get a certificate or permit
3.0
9.1
9.3
4.5
3.0
3.0
Animal control
Prov iding feedback
1.9
1.8
Animal registration
3.0
4.8
1.3
1.0
Make a booking
Business
0.8
0.0
Job interv iew
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.9
Library
0.0
Community meeting / award ceremony
1.9
Other
0
2011 (n=387)
1.1
2010 (n=461)
4.0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
% (n=461)
Key results:
As was the case in 2010, around one third of residents (32.4%) that
contacted Council did so to make a general enquiry.
28% of residents that contacted Council mentioned it was to make a
complaint. Analysis found that this proportion was not statistically higher
than the 22.5% reported in 2010.
page 49
Question: How was contact made?
Graph 6.1.3: How Council was contacted
74.9
By phone
66.8
10.8
At the counter
19.7
6.5
By email
2.9
In Writing
3.1
3.9
In person
1.9
4.1
1.0
1.5
Online (through the website)
2011 (n=386)
Library
0
0.7
Other
1.6
0.4
0
10
20
2010 (n=461)
30
40
%
50
60
70
80
Key results:
Six out of eight residents (74.9%) who had contacted Council in the past 12
months had made contact via a phone call; a significant increase from
the 66.8% recorded in 2010.
An additional 10.8% had spoken to Council staff at the counter. The take
up of email has gained momentum with the proportion of residents using
this method jumping from 2.9% in 2010 to 6.5% in 2011.
page 50
Graph 6.1.4 highlights the proportion of people that contacted Council via
the various means and breaks that up into the proportion that preferred that
method of contact versus those that didn’t.
Graph 6.1.4: How Council was contacted versus whether it was the preferred
method of contact
93.1
By phone
6.9
76.9
By email
23.1
69.0
At the counter
31.0
66.7
In Writing
33.3
75.0
Online (through the website)
25.0
25.0
Face to face / In person
75.0
0
10
20
30
40
Preferred method
Not preferred
50
60
70
80
90
100
%
Key results:
Of the people that contacted Council by phone (74.9% as shown in graph
6.1.3), 93.1% indicated that it was their preferred method of contact. This
means that there were 6.9% of residents that made contact with Council
by phone but preferred an alternate method of contact. Of this proportion
55.5% indicated they would have preferred email, while 22.2% would have
like it to be online through the website. An additional 16.6% would have
preferred contact be made at the counter.
Of the people that contacted Council by email (6.5% as shown in graph
6.1.3), 76.9% indicated that it was their preferred method of contact. The
page 51
remaining 23.1% of residents that made contact with Council by email
would have preferred an alternate method of contact. Of this proportion
all of them preferred contact to have been made by phone.
Of the people that made contact with Council at the counter (10.8% as
shown in graph 6.1.3), 69.0% indicated that it was their preferred method of
contact. The remaining 31.0% of residents that made contact with Council
at the counter would have preferred an alternate method of contact. Of
this proportion 91.1% indicated they would have preferred contact be
made by phone.
page 52
Graph 6.1.5 presents the results amongst residents that had contacted
Council and shows their level of satisfaction with how the contact was
handled.
Question: How satisfied were you with how your contact was handled?
Graph 6.1.5: Satisfaction with how contact was handled
50
40
%
47.7 47.0
Mean score
2010 ‐ 3.96
2011 – 3.87
67.2%
Satisfied
30
24.9
20.2
20
9.9
10.4 11.3
10
14.3
5.5 5.8
1.5
1.4
0
1. Very
dissatisfied
2
3
2010 (n=461)
4
5. Very satisfied
6. Can't say
2011 (n=386)
Key results:
Two out of three residents (67.2%) who had contacted Council were
satisfied with the way their interaction was handled. This was statistically the
same as the 2010 findings.
Analysis showed that satisfaction did not differ between urban and rural
residents.
page 53
6.2 Contact with elected local Councillors
Graph 6.2.1 shows the proportion of residents that have made contact with
elected local Councillors, including the Mayor over the past 12 months. The
results have also been broken up to show contact amongst residents from
urban and rural areas.
Question: Have you had any contact with an elected local Councillor,
including the Mayor over the last year?
Graph 6.2.1: Contact with elected local Councillors
% had contact with Councillor or Mayor
25
20.6
20
17.6
16.9
15
10
5
0
Urban (n=674)
Rural (n=160)
Overall (n=834)
Key results:
Overall 17.6% of residents have made contact with an elected Councillor,
including the Mayor over the past year.
There were no statistical differences regarding contact with Councillors by
residents from urban or rural areas.
Graph 6.2.2 illustrates how contact was made with elected Councillors or the
Mayor.
page 54
Question: How was contact made with the elected Councillor or the Mayor?
Graph 6.2.2: Contact with elected local Councillors
Meeting
35.9
In person face to face
23.2
Phone
19.9
Letter
9.8
Email
6.2
Facebook
3.5
Other
1.6
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
% (n=147)
Key results:
One in three residents (35.9%) that had made contact with a Councillor or
the Mayor in the past 12 months mentioned that it was through a meeting.
A further one in four (23.2%) made contact in person.
page 55
7
Community Consultation
This section of the report asks residents for their feedback on how well
Logan City Council interacts with local residents. Residents were asked for
their level of agreement on 5 statements concerning community
consultation. A five point agreement scale was used, where 1 meant the
respondent ‘strongly disagreed’ with the statement, while 5 meant they
‘strongly agreed’.
7.1 The way Council interacts with residents
Table 7.1.1: Agreement statements with Council’s community consultation
Sample size = 834
% Agreement
Can’t
say
(1 & 2)
Low
(3)
Medium
(4 & 5)
High
Mean
2011
Mean
2010
Change
A Council that understands the
community’s needs and
expectations
1.7
9.7
39.2
49.4
3.55
3.28
Ï
A Council that works in the best
interests of the community
2.2
13.2
35.0
49.7
3.52
3.35
Ï
A Council that communicates
effectively with its residents
1.8
15.1
36.3
46.8
3.44
3.16
Ï
A Council that provides an
opportunity for residents to have
a say about important issues
4.7
17.4
35.2
42.7
3.39
3.19
Ï
A Council that can be relied
upon to get things done
2.3
17.3
36.6
43.7
3.37
3.17
Ï
Key results:
Results showed that mean agreement levels towards all 5 statements have
increased significantly since 2010.
While agreement levels have risen significantly since 2010, current mean
scores for all statements fall into the ‘medium’ level agreement category.
About half of all residents agree with the two statements ‘a Council that
understands the community’s needs and expectations’ and ‘a Council
that works in the best interests of the community’.
page 56
Table 7.1.2: Strong and Supportive Communities – Agreement by area
Mean Agreement
(out of 5)
Urban
Rural
Overall
A Council that understands the community’s needs and expectations
3.63
3.23
3.55
A Council that works in the best interests of the community
3.60
3.15
3.52
A Council that communicates effectively with its residents
3.50
3.17
3.44
A Council that provides an opportunity for residents to have a say about important
issues
3.45
3.16
3.39
A Council that can be relied upon to get things done
3.45
2.99
3.37
Yellow cells are significantly lower relative to green cells
Green cells are significantly higher relative to pink cells
Key results:
Further analysis found that agreement levels amongst rural residents were
significantly lower than those displayed by residents from urban areas.
page 57
8
Communication
Section 8 of this report examines the various ways that Logan City Council
communicates with the community and endeavours to identify the most
successful form of communication.
8.1 Seen, read or heard information relating to Council
Question: In the last 12 months have you seen, read or heard information relating to
Council in any of the following?
Graph 8.1.1: Seen, read or heard information relating to Council
47.1
Albert and Logan News
72.9
56.2
Council Quarterly Magazine, Our Logan
22.4
The Reporter
55.1
25.1
Television
68.0
39.1
29.9
Council website
37.3
33.2
36.1
Radio
25.7
Courier Mail
22.9
Libraries
Jimboomba Times
31.0
29.3
83.8
12.5
18.6
Movie screens (eg cinemas)
The Logan West Leader
27.7
41.2
20.8
2.3
3.9
Council facebook
1.2
0.8
Council twitter
5.6
6.2
Other
Rural (n=160)
Urban (n=674)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Key results:
Results showed that a majority of rural residents (83.8%) had attained
information about Council through the Jimboomba Times.
Residents from urban areas were more likely to have attained their
information on Council through the Albert and Logan News (72.9%) or
Council Quarterly Magazine, Our Logan (68.0%).
page 58
Question: What is your preferred way of receiving Council news and information?
Graph 8.1.2: Preferred way to receive Council information and news
32.0
31.0
Letter box drop / flyer
22.4
Council Quarterly Magazine, Our Logan
Jimboomba Times
0.1
6.9
7.0
By email
5.1
5.9
Council website
1.8
0.8
The Logan West Leader
1.3
Television
0.5
0.2
0.4
1.2
Council twitter
Council facebook
0.3
0.3
0.3
Newsletter with rates
The Reporter
Courier Mail
2.3
0.0
0.8
0.0
0.4
0
Other
Rural (n=160)
10.4
0.8
1.9
Radio
Libraries
4.9
1.3
Albert and Logan News
Movie screen's (eg cinemas)
28.6
22.2
2.6
1.7
0
4.7
5
10
Urban (n=674)
15
20
25
30
35
%
Key results:
Results showed that a third of residents living in rural areas of Logan LGA
and a third of residents from urban areas preferred to receive Council
information through letter box drop / flyers.
Council’s quarterly magazine, Our Logan was also preferred source
amongst urban residents 28.6%, while 22.2% of rural residents preferred
Jimboomba Times (22.2%).
page 59
9
Appendix
9.1 Methodology
Sample Design
A telephone-based survey aiming to secure a response from approximately 800
residents from throughout the Logan LGA was used. The survey unit was
permanent residents of the Logan City Local Government Area who had lived
there for 6 months or longer. Respondents also had to be aged 18 years or older
to qualify for an interview. The 2006 Census was used to establish quotas to
ensure a good distribution of responses by age and sex.
The sample base for the survey was the electronic White Pages. This sample is
known to be sub optimal, as the churn of telephone numbers due to people
moving and new numbers being added as dwellings are occupied affects
about 12% to 15% of possible numbers. Furthermore, from previous research we
know that the proportion of silent numbers is increasing and can be as high as
25-30% in some areas. To deal with these issues, IRIS uses a technique that starts
with the population of numbers listed in the telephone book and adds new and
unlisted numbers using the ‘half open’ method. In this method, all numbers were
incremented by five to create new numbers in the ‘gaps’ between the listed
numbers. The resultant universe of numbers was then de-duplicated to remove
any numbers that may be repeated. This process was replicated five times to
create a new theoretical universe of telephone numbers. This provided the
opportunity for all potential numbers to be selected in the sample. This equal
and known opportunity for selection is the first criterion of good random
sampling.
Once the potential universe of numbers had been generated, a computer
program was used to randomise the database. Following this, a sequential
sample (e.g. every 110th number) was extracted from the database. The sample
page 60
was geographically stratified and evenly distributed within strata. This process
gave a very even distribution of potential numbers across the whole survey area.
Every household therefore had an equal and known chance of selection and
every part of the survey area received a fair proportional representation in the
final sample drawn.
Data Collection
Interviews were conducted over 5 evenings commencing from the 5th October
2011 and concluding on the 11th October 2011. Calls were made between 4.30
and 8.30 p.m. If the selected person was unavailable at that time to do the
survey, call backs were scheduled for a later time or day. Unanswered numbers
were retried three times throughout the period of the survey. These procedures
ensure a good sampling process from the sample frame used so that statistical
inferences could be made about the entire resident population.
Non-private numbers and faxes reached during the selection process were
excluded from the sample.
The survey was implemented under IQCA quality guidelines. Interviews were
conducted using our computer-aided telephone interviewing (CATI) system.
Continuous interviewer monitoring was used and post interview validations were
conducted within five days of the close of the survey.
Response Performance
At the end of the survey period, 834 completed interviews had been collected,
of which 626 were from residents from urban areas and 208 from rural areas. The
final data set has been weighted by age, sex and area so that it mirrors the
population distribution of Logan City Council area. The following suburbs in table
9.1.1 constituted the rural suburbs of the Logan Government area.
page 61
Table 9.1.1 Rural suburbs
Bannockburn
Belivah
Buccan
Carbrook
Cedar Creek
Cedar Grove
Cedar Vale
Chambers Flat
Forestdale
Greenbank
Logan Reserve
Logan Village
Lyons
Maclean (North and South)
Mundoolun
Munruben
New Beith
Park Ridge
Priestdale
Stockleigh
Tamborine
Undullah
Veresdale
Woodhill
Yarrabilba
Bahrs Scrub
Cornubia
Jimboomba
Holmview
The table below shows the compliance rate achieved for the entire sample. The
compliance rate is the number of refusals as a proportion of completed surveys
plus refusals. A compliance rate of 60% is a very good result.
Table 9.1.2 Survey compliance rate
Response sequence
Interviews
Refusals
Valid contacts (Excludes disqualified – businesses, out of area, under 16yrs etc)
Compliance rate
Outcome
834
553
1387
60%
Survey Accuracy
When analysing results for the entire sample, the maximum error rate will be
about ±3.5% at the 95% confidence level, assuming a proportional response of
50%. Put another way, we can be confident that if the survey were to be
repeated there would be a 95% chance that the new result would lie within
±3.5% of the result achieved in this survey.
page 62
9.2 ANOVA Tables – Importance of Services and Facilities
C h a ra c te ristic
S u b -g ro u p
G ender
Age
O v e ra ll
A re a
M a le
F e m a le
1 8 to 3 4
3 5 to 4 9
5 0 to 5 9
60+
U rb a m
R u ra l
404
429
297
250
151
136
674
160
834
L ib ra rie s
3 .0 0
3 .6 5
3 .1 1
3 .3 6
3 .4 9
3 .6 3
3 .3 9
3 .1 2
3 .3 4
S a fe ty o f lo c a l ro a d s
4 .6 7
4 .7 3
4 .7 1
4 .7 4
4 .7 8
4 .5 2
4 .6 8
4 .7 7
4 .7 0
M a in te n a n c e o f L o c a l R o a d s
4 .6 3
4 .7 3
4 .6 5
4 .7 0
4 .7 8
4 .6 1
4 .6 6
4 .7 7
4 .6 8
M a in te n a n c e o f d ra in s
4 .1 7
4 .4 8
4 .1 9
4 .3 2
4 .4 7
4 .4 9
4 .3 9
4 .0 8
4 .3 3
M a in te n a n c e o f p a r k s
4 .1 5
4 .4 9
4 .2 5
4 .3 3
4 .4 1
4 .3 5
4 .3 6
4 .1 7
4 .3 2
C o u n c il's s w im m in g p o o ls
2 .8 6
3 .3 1
3 .0 4
3 .1 9
3 .1 0
3 .0 4
3 .1 6
2 .8 4
3 .1 0
L o g a n e n te rta in m e n t c e n tre
2 .9 9
3 .4 6
3 .1 0
3 .1 6
3 .3 1
3 .6 1
3 .2 7
3 .0 6
3 .2 3
In d o o r s p o rts c e n tre s
3 .4 7
3 .6 7
3 .7 8
3 .5 9
3 .3 4
3 .3 3
3 .5 9
3 .5 2
3 .5 8
S p o rtin g g r o u n d s
3 .8 2
4 .0 0
4 .0 1
3 .9 8
3 .7 9
3 .7 2
3 .8 8
4 .0 8
3 .9 2
C o u n c il c e m e te r ie s
3 .4 6
3 .9 2
3 .4 9
3 .8 0
3 .7 4
3 .9 1
3 .6 9
3 .6 8
3 .6 9
D is a s te r m a n a g e m e n t (e g s to rm s , flo o d s , fire s )
4 .5 8
4 .8 6
4 .6 9
4 .6 9
4 .8 1
4 .7 7
4 .7 1
4 .7 8
4 .7 3
S u p p o rtin g lo c a l b u s in e s s
4 .4 0
4 .6 5
4 .4 5
4 .5 0
4 .5 9
4 .7 1
4 .5 1
4 .6 4
4 .5 3
A ttra c tin g n e w b u s in e s s e s
4 .3 3
4 .4 5
4 .2 4
4 .3 7
4 .5 1
4 .6 2
4 .3 7
4 .4 7
4 .3 9
P la n n in g fo r R e s id e n tia l D e v e lo p m e n t
4 .1 7
4 .1 6
4 .0 4
4 .0 9
4 .3 6
4 .3 4
4 .1 6
4 .1 6
4 .1 6
P la n n in g fo r c o m m e r c ia l d e v e lo p m e n t
3 .8 9
3 .7 9
3 .5 1
3 .8 8
4 .1 2
4 .1 9
3 .8 2
3 .9 0
3 .8 4
P ro te c tio n o f b u s h la n d a n d w ild life (in c lu d in g g re e n s p a c e , g ra z in g la n d )
4 .5 7
4 .7 3
4 .6 1
4 .6 2
4 .7 5
4 .6 7
4 .6 3
4 .7 3
4 .6 5
W a te r q u a lity in A lb e rt a n d L o g a n R iv e rs
4 .4 4
4 .6 4
4 .4 6
4 .5 4
4 .6 5
4 .6 1
4 .5 4
4 .5 7
4 .5 4
G e n e ra l w a s te c o lle c tio n
4 .6 1
4 .7 9
4 .6 7
4 .6 7
4 .7 5
4 .7 6
4 .7 2
4 .5 9
4 .7 0
R e c yc lin g c o lle c tio n
4 .4 7
4 .7 4
4 .5 3
4 .6 2
4 .7 5
4 .6 0
4 .6 3
4 .5 2
4 .6 1
D e v e lo p m e n t a p p r o v a l p ro c e s s
3 .8 4
3 .8 7
3 .5 6
3 .8 9
4 .1 9
4 .0 8
3 .8 2
3 .9 7
3 .8 5
F o o d s a fe ty in lo c a l e a te r ie s
4 .6 6
4 .8 2
4 .7 6
4 .6 8
4 .8 2
4 .7 2
4 .7 6
4 .6 7
4 .7 4
E n fo rc in g p a rk in g re g u la tio n s
3 .1 8
3 .8 1
3 .2 7
3 .4 0
3 .6 5
4 .0 6
3 .5 5
3 .3 0
3 .5 0
A n im a l C o n tro l (e g d o g a n d c a t re g is tr a tio n , a n im a l re h o m in g )
4 .0 5
4 .4 6
4 .2 6
4 .1 6
4 .3 0
4 .4 2
4 .2 9
4 .1 7
4 .2 6
W e e d a n d p e s t c o n tro l (m o s q u ito e s , d e c la re d w e e d s )
4 .1 8
4 .4 8
4 .1 4
4 .3 3
4 .4 9
4 .6 0
4 .3 3
4 .3 4
4 .3 3
Im m u n is a tio n p ro g ra m
4 .3 0
4 .6 6
4 .4 7
4 .4 8
4 .3 9
4 .6 7
4 .5 2
4 .3 6
4 .4 9
C o m m u n ity s a fe ty p r o g ra m s (e g s a fe ty c a m e ra s )
4 .1 2
4 .6 4
4 .3 2
4 .3 3
4 .4 7
4 .5 9
4 .4 3
4 .2 6
4 .3 9
C o m m u n ity a n d n e ig h b o u rh o o d c e n tre s
3 .9 4
4 .3 5
4 .0 5
4 .0 1
4 .3 3
4 .4 3
4 .1 5
4 .1 4
4 .1 5
P h ys ic a l a c tiv ity p ro g ra m s ( e g K R A N K , A c tiv e L o g a n )
3 .6 5
4 .1 7
3 .8 7
3 .8 9
4 .0 0
4 .0 5
3 .9 1
3 .9 9
3 .9 3
B ik e P a th s
3 .9 6
4 .2 0
3 .9 0
4 .2 5
4 .0 7
4 .2 3
4 .1 0
4 .0 1
4 .0 9
P la yg r o u n d s
4 .3 1
4 .4 8
4 .3 6
4 .3 3
4 .4 1
4 .5 8
4 .3 9
4 .4 3
4 .4 0
S k a te p a rk s a n d B M X tra c k s
3 .6 2
3 .7 3
3 .5 2
3 .7 5
3 .6 8
3 .8 9
3 .6 1
3 .9 3
3 .6 7
L o g a n A rt G a lle ry
3 .0 5
3 .5 6
3 .0 5
3 .2 3
3 .5 1
3 .9 0
3 .3 7
3 .0 7
3 .3 2
P a rk s
4 .4 6
4 .6 4
4 .5 0
4 .5 1
4 .5 7
4 .7 2
4 .5 6
4 .5 2
4 .5 5
A p p e a ra n c e o f s tre e ts (e g la n d s c a p in g a n d m o w in g )
4 .2 0
4 .4 7
4 .1 9
4 .3 4
4 .4 6
4 .5 0
4 .3 7
4 .2 0
4 .3 4
G ra ffiti re m o v a l
4 .3 0
4 .4 8
4 .2 4
4 .3 9
4 .5 6
4 .5 5
4 .3 9
4 .3 9
4 .3 9
C o lle c tio n o f L itte r
4 .5 3
4 .6 6
4 .5 7
4 .5 7
4 .6 6
4 .6 4
4 .6 0
4 .5 7
4 .6 0
In fo rm in g th e C o m m u n ity a b o u t C o u n c il s e rv ic e s a n d fa c ilitie s
4 .2 5
4 .5 6
4 .3 1
4 .3 9
4 .5 1
4 .5 3
4 .4 1
4 .4 1
4 .4 1
C o n s u ltin g th e C o m m u n ity
4 .3 8
4 .5 9
4 .3 7
4 .5 0
4 .6 0
4 .6 1
4 .4 7
4 .5 8
4 .4 9
P ro m o tin g th e C ity
4 .0 9
4 .3 6
4 .1 2
4 .1 5
4 .3 8
4 .4 4
4 .2 6
4 .1 1
4 .2 3
R u n n in g C o m m u n ity fe s tiv a ls a n d e v e n ts
3 .9 7
4 .3 1
4 .1 8
4 .1 1
4 .0 7
4 .2 3
4 .1 6
4 .1 1
4 .1 5
B a se
S e rv ic e / F a c ility
C e lls w ith s ig . h ig h e r s c o re s re la tiv e to y e llo w c e lls.
C e lls w ith s ig . lo w e r s c o re s re la tiv e to g re e n c e lls.
page 63
9.3 ANOVA Tables – Satisfaction with Services and Facilities
Characteristic
Sub-group
Base
Gender
Age
Area
Overall
Male
Female
18 to 34
35 to 49
50 to 59
60+
Urbam
Rural
404
429
297
250
151
136
674
160
834
Service / Facility
Libraries
4.12
4.30
4.04
4.24
4.31
4.45
4.25
4.10
4.22
3.24
3.18
3.34
3.13
2.99
3.32
3.38
2.49
3.21
3.14
3.05
3.12
3.01
3.04
3.26
3.28
2.32
3.09
3.68
3.61
3.79
3.46
3.52
3.82
3.75
3.16
3.65
3.87
3.87
3.84
3.75
3.94
4.11
3.90
3.74
3.87
Council's swimming pools
3.64
3.68
3.67
3.60
3.67
3.77
3.70
3.48
3.66
3.74
4.02
3.87
3.81
3.91
4.06
3.91
3.81
3.89
3.72
3.98
3.97
3.83
3.72
3.75
3.92
3.59
3.86
Sporting grounds
3.75
3.89
3.80
3.78
3.77
4.05
3.88
3.56
3.82
Council cemeteries
3.74
3.85
3.71
3.73
3.88
4.04
3.84
3.62
3.79
Disaster management (eg storms, floods, fires)
3.75
3.90
3.81
3.80
3.71
4.08
3.90
3.56
3.83
3.67
3.80
3.56
3.73
3.81
4.09
3.79
3.51
3.74
3.47
3.49
3.40
3.45
3.47
3.74
3.53
3.28
3.48
Planning for Residential Development
3.31
3.22
3.47
3.13
3.11
3.21
3.35
2.92
3.26
3.37
3.30
3.37
3.29
3.30
3.37
3.40
3.07
3.33
3.64
3.63
3.76
3.52
3.52
3.69
3.71
3.32
3.64
3.16
3.26
3.27
3.11
3.10
3.40
3.26
2.97
3.21
4.20
4.30
4.23
4.23
4.19
4.41
4.31
3.98
4.25
4.22
4.35
4.29
4.25
4.29
4.35
4.32
4.15
4.29
3.21
3.21
3.38
3.17
2.90
3.19
3.30
2.85
3.21
3.69
3.60
3.72
3.59
3.46
3.78
3.64
3.64
3.64
3.16
3.26
3.27
3.09
3.19
3.34
3.22
3.16
3.21
Animal Control (eg dog and cat registration, animal rehoming)
3.63
3.72
3.72
3.57
3.68
3.77
3.68
3.64
3.67
Weed and pest control (mosquitoes, declared weeds)
3.53
3.56
3.62
3.50
3.48
3.55
3.61
3.29
3.55
4.10
4.36
4.20
4.23
4.24
4.39
4.26
4.15
4.24
Community safety programs (eg safety cameras)
3.53
3.58
3.56
3.43
3.54
3.82
3.57
3.50
3.56
3.64
3.82
3.67
3.67
3.78
3.93
3.79
3.50
3.73
Physical activity programs (eg KRANK, Active Logan)
3.65
3.82
3.76
3.67
3.75
3.81
3.73
3.78
3.74
Bike Paths
3.35
3.57
3.43
3.42
3.39
3.73
3.57
2.99
3.46
Playgrounds
3.87
3.78
3.74
3.79
3.83
4.10
3.87
3.63
3.83
3.60
3.50
3.62
3.43
3.49
3.71
3.61
3.32
3.55
Logan Art Gallery
3.68
3.82
3.69
3.65
3.88
3.90
3.76
3.72
3.75
Parks
3.98
4.01
3.91
3.96
4.09
4.16
4.03
3.84
4.00
Appearance of streets (eg landscaping and mowing)
3.63
3.59
3.57
3.59
3.51
3.86
3.66
3.41
3.61
Graffiti removal
3.61
3.56
3.50
3.63
3.54
3.73
3.59
3.55
3.58
3.70
3.69
3.71
3.67
3.68
3.72
3.70
3.66
3.69
Informing the Community about Council services and facilities
3.63
3.65
3.59
3.58
3.67
3.83
3.67
3.51
3.64
3.32
3.37
3.46
3.28
3.15
3.45
3.41
3.08
3.35
Promoting the City
3.65
3.70
3.75
3.62
3.55
3.77
3.72
3.52
3.68
3.66
3.72
3.59
3.73
3.69
3.88
3.71
3.62
3.69
Cells with sig. higher scores relative to yellow cells.
Cells with sig. lower scores relative to green cells.
page 64
9.4 ANOVA Tables – Overall Satisfaction
Sub-group
Base
Male
Female
18 to 34
35 to 49
50 to 59
60+
Urbam
Rural
404
429
297
250
151
136
674
160
834
3.62
3.81
3.64
3.69
3.67
3.98
3.79
3.39
3.71
Service / Facility
Overall satisfaction
Cells with sig. higher scores relative to yellow cells.
Cells with sig. lower scores relative to green cells.
page 65
9.5 Reasons for Low Satisfaction with Council services and facilities
Where a sufficient number of dissatisfied responses were received for Council services and
infrastructure they were presented in chart form throughout this section. Correspondingly,
those with low numbers of dissatisfied responses have had the verbatim responses listed.
9.5.1 Reasons for low satisfaction with libraries

Reference collection too limited
Read every book he was interested in, reference section limited; outdated
Now and indoor playing centre for kids and teenagers
Everyone has access to internet and libraries are not so important
Doesn’t use the facility
9.5.2 Reasons for low satisfaction with safety of local roads
Too many potholes
28.3
Roads in poor condition /
Require upgrade
17.4
Safey issues
15.3
Lack of law enforcement
12.7
Requires more frequent
maintenance
5.0
Poor road surface sealing
5.0
Too narrow
4.3
Too much traffic
2.5
Unmaintained / No Kerb /
Guttering
1.9
Other
7.5
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
% (n=61)
page 66
9.5.3 Reasons for low satisfaction with maintenance of local roads
Too many potholes
40.2
Roads in poor condition /
Require upgrade
24.2
Requires more frequent
maintenance
17.3
Poor road surface sealing
5.5
Unmaintained / No kerb /
Guttering
0.8
Other
11.9
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
% (n=75)
9.5.4 Reasons for low satisfaction with maintenance of drains
Needs maintenance / cleaning
54.1
17.5
Flood problem
Do not have any
9.4
Other
18.9
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
% (n=37)
page 67
9.5.5 Reasons for low satisfaction with maintenance of parks

The war memorials at parks are always full of rubbish
Parks in Regents Park are not maintained; old equipment; no shade
Parks do not get mowed enough
Parks are not maintained well enough
Overton court park lots of syringes are regularly there
Not maintaining park in Jimboomba
Not cleaned up enough
Nosske park behind community centre has no swings anymore
Leaving unsafe items in the parks e.g. syringes
Julie Street has broken glass all the time and syringes too
Council doesn’t maintain reserve at rear of property
Bins are overflowing
Bendual drive park is not cleaned and kept tidy
A lot of rubbish from shops
9.5.6 Reasons for low satisfaction with Council’s swimming pools
We were promised a 50 metre swimming pool by Gold Coast council and we still don’t

have one
We don’t have any close to our suburb
Very expensive; not open to suit everyone:
People who work there are rude; surfaces slippery
Never use them
Logan’s heroes pool is dirty
In the sport centre at Browns Plains there is no pool
Could be cleaner
9.5.7 Reasons for low satisfaction with Logan entertainment centre

Too much money spent on it; costs too much
Nothing in Jimboomba area
Money could have been spent better
It is too far away we need something here to attend
Because I don’t go there very often
page 68
9.5.8 Reasons for low satisfaction with indoor sports centre

Where are they? Indoor sports centres don’t provide netball and other sports
To far away no centres in this area
They cost too much money to use them
There is not enough of them
Not open all the time and too expensive
Not enough car parking; don’t use show ground
Need more facilities in the area
General upkeep is lacking; especially near the tip
Don’t consider whole shire for these
9.5.9 Reasons for low satisfaction with sporting grounds

You need to pay to go
They are not safe or secure. Not clean very hard ground
They are not efficient
There should be a few more of them I believe
The facilities are great but need security from hoons
Not maintained enough; clubhouse and toilets are poor
None available in this area except at schools
Junior league not catered for
Jimboomba wants new sporting fields but council is ignoring them
Don’t have any
Don’t consider whole shire for these
9.5.10 Reasons for low satisfaction with Council cemeteries

Previously there was no cemetery; Now cemeteries are still not big enough
Not aware of where they are
Don’t know where it is
Doesn’t go to them
Costs small fortune to bury loved ones; council have no respect
page 69
9.5.11 Reasons for low satisfaction with disaster management

What have they done
Wasn’t covered for natural disaster; lost everything
They don’t make decisions on things when they are needed
Some damage from floods has not been repaired; maintenance
Pam came down did not see anything wrong
Not sure what is in place
No information unless following twitter feed in January
January floods no info on council websites
In the floods there was not enough council warnings for us fires as well
Council pandered more to big business before consideration of community safety
City council website was down when flooding occurred
Bush at back of home has lots of snakes
Because of the floods that happened this year
After January things could have been done better
9.5.12 Reasons for low satisfaction with supporting local business

Said wrong number should of been fast
No support given to businesses
New health scheme is unworkable
Logan council do not advertise for local business work
Local business are going broke
Have to go out of Marden area
Everything’s closing down
Council has never made contact regarding complaints made
As a business owner I’m not being supported by council
A lot more could be done Woodridge has low bankruptcy
9.5.13 Reasons for low satisfaction with attracting new business

Too many delays in getting approvals
There’s nothing happening; all talk no action
Not attracting new businesses
No new businesses in area, they’re moving or located
No infrastructure despite promises of new shopping centre
No facilities for new comers to the area
More interested in chasing money: wants a bigger rate base
Just opened another business; got mucked around for 5 .5 hours
Haven’t seen anything new; most shops are closed
Haven’t seen any new business in the area
page 70

Do not attract enough business to area
Could not go back should of been 5
Beenleigh business area is in very poor state
Asked to pay too many fees and red tape to open new business
9.5.14 Reasons for low satisfaction with planning for residential development
31.5
Lack of Planning
24.6
Too much development
10.4
Council not efficient enough
Too many restrictions and no
consistency
4.4
Process takes too long and too
costly
1.9
6.4
No reason given
Other
20.8
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
% (n=44)
page 71
9.5.15 Reasons for low satisfaction with planning for commercial development
30.0
Too much development
Lack of planning
18.6
No new developments
11.5
Council not efficient enough
6.4
Council don' infomr about
develpments
2.8
No reason given
12.1
Other
18.7
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
% (n=23)
9.5.16 Reasons for low satisfaction with protection of bushland and wildlife
Too much destruction / clearing
of bushland
31.7
Over development
26.9
Not enough protection
18.9
7.6
Poor maintenance of bushland
Other
14.9
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
% (n=40)
page 72
9.5.17 Reasons for low satisfaction with water quality in Albert and Logan Rivers
Dirty
70.0
Chemical / Fertiliser problems
14.0
Other
14.0
2.1
No reason given
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
% (n=40)
9.5.18 Reasons for low satisfaction with general waste collection

Take it too far for collection
Stockleigh road we regularly get missed we take it to dump
Rubbish spilt not collected
Not happy with the current service and the price
Not given notice on change of days
Not enough space in the bins for the rubbish
Local tip should be made free and recycling encouraged more
It always ends up over the front footpath; Greenbank
Has 2 bins; too many; costs too much to go to the dump
Garbage bin too big - small one- cannot get one any smaller
Curbside pick up is a waste of money tips should be free
Because it doesn’t come enough
6 months of the year summer should be weekly
page 73
9.5.19 Reasons for low satisfaction with recycling collection

Truck drivers are destroying the lids at the ratepayers expense
Should be every week year round
Pay for dumping at tip; disgusting
Not picked up on correct day as notified
Not happy with the current service and the price
Not frequent enough
Not collected
No need for so many bins; only need one with a divider
Fortnightly collection need weekly
Costs money to go to dump rubbish - not a service
Stockleigh sometimes get missed not good enough
9.5.20 Reasons for low satisfaction with development approval process
45.2
Process is too slow
11.9
Too expensive
9.9
Over development
9.4
Lack of consultation
6.2
Too many restrictions
17.3
Other
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
% (n=45)
page 74
9.5.21 Reasons for low satisfaction with food safety in local eateries

Waterford food business near Coles is filthy in the back of shop
The unclean ones should be named; never hear of any being fined
The standard is very poor here
The hygiene of take away shops in Beenleigh and Waterford
The food is greasy and not cooked or presented very well
Take away eateries are very dirty
Has had a bad experience in local eatery and nothing was done
Don’t enforce health regulations properly; pretty poor
Cafes are very unhygienic
Birds have been dying at Greenbank because of a chemical
Always feels ill after eating out
9.5.22 Reasons for low satisfaction with enforcing parking regulations
Lack of enforcement
31.8
Too many restrictions
6.0
Not enough parking
19.4
Too much enforcement
6.8
Inconsistency
10.2
No reason given
2.9
Other
22.9
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
% (n=58)
page 75
9.5.23 Reasons for low satisfaction with animal management
42.6
Not enough animal control
22.5
Registration too expensive
Not enough information (Fees /
Regulations)
9.2
Excessive dog barking
1.6
No reason given
1.5
Other
22.6
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
% (n=29)
9.5.24 Reasons for low satisfaction with weed and pest control
61.4
Poor weed control
11.3
Poor pest control
5.8
No reason given
Other
21.4
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
% (n=23)
page 76
9.5.25 Reasons for low satisfaction with immunisation programs

Word of mouth
No choices available for parents for immunisation
Is destroying body
Forms have been given to me too late
Don’t think they should be compulsory
Don’t like the drugs being put into kids; full of mercury
Do council have anything to do with it; state government
Change of view on child immunisation
9.5.26 Reasons for low satisfaction with community safety programs

Too invasive on civil liberties and open to abuse
There are none in our area ; Regents Park
The cameras don’t prevent crime; after effect
Some of the cameras are not working
Old people have vandals attack homes and nothing done
Not enough of them; are there any?
Not enough especially in Beenleigh area train station area; kids
None in Beenleigh area
New Jimboomba shopping centre rail walkway not built
Need more high crime area
Lots of time the cameras are not working Loganlea station; Kingston
Local shops Logan village plagued by robberies need a CCTV camera
Jimboomba does not provide CCTV cameras therefore totally unsafe
Isn’t aware of any safety cameras; they should be more visual
I haven’t seen cameras in the outside areas Beenleigh
Husband security guard at mall very dangerous min cameras
Don’t think there is any safety cameras in my area Bethania
Don’t believe it is a safe suburb; Regents park
Do not need safety cameras in residential areas
Cameras an invasion of privacy
9.5.27 Reasons for low satisfaction with community and neighbourhood centres

Why should there be community centres; but there should be closeness to family
Tried to get help for 14 yr old only 16 -25 year olds helped
Old people are not looked after properly
Not have any in Jimboomba
Not enough provided to cope with the population
Not aware of there being one in Beenleigh
Again; they need to be placed appropriately not inappropriately
page 77
9.5.28 Reasons for low satisfaction with physical activity programs

Too far away from Jimboomba
Not enough activity programs and not enough info
Don’t hear about them enough; hard to find
Because of way that people run them
9.5.29 Reasons for low satisfaction with bike paths
We do not have bike paths
26.5
There are not enough bike
paths
24.5
Unsafe
6.8
Lack of maintenance
5.2
Poor planning
5.1
Other
31.9
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
% (n=33)
9.5.30 Reasons for low satisfaction with playgrounds

Worried about the safety of little ones from louts
We don’t have enough Regents park; we have 4 items in park
Poor maintenance and play equipment and shade
Playground Trinder; railway; Very dangerous; Needs to be fenced
Not enough playgrounds around Jimboomba
Not enough playgrounds; what there is, is not maintained
Not enough equipment in the ones that are here; also maintenance
Need more playgrounds in Flagstone area
Mundoolun park has been put in the wrong place; when it rains it is half full of water
Insufficient playgrounds in the area
Daisy Hill needs better facilities for kids; in local parks there are no toilets
Acreage estate of Flagstone parks are terrible
page 78
9.5.31 Reasons for low satisfaction with skate parks and BMX tracks

Too much riff raff around there
Too many undesirables hang around
They are very dirty with rubbish lying around would; think my kids aren’t safe
There aren’t any in South Mclean that we can even ride too
There are none in our area
Some areas seems to attract wrong children
Skate parks and bmx tracks do not exist we need them for the kids
Seem to attract a bad elements
None in New Beith
None in Kingston; need a movie theatre for kids
Noise and I don’t think it achieves much
Not enough of them
Need repairs and upgrades; not enough of them
In Beenleigh and the kids just hang around and cause trouble
I don’t think there is any use for them
Graffiti everywhere and not safe
Feels that supervision needed because of predators
Don’t want kids hanging around our park Meadowbrook
Doesn’t care about it
9.5.32 Reasons for low satisfaction with Logan Art Gallery

Waste of time and money
Waste of time and money
Waste of taxpayers money
They spend too much money on the art gallery
Terrible art pieces in there
I have never been there and I don’t really see any importance to it
I am just not fussed on art galleries
Can’t see the use in it; it is not used
9.5.33 Reasons for low satisfaction with parks

Syringes and broken beer bottles in parks not cleaned up
Not enough bins
Not being maintained enough
No toilet facilities near my home in Crestmead Parks
New Beith does not have enough parks for us all to enjoy
Need maintaining more frequently
Lack of maintenance
Insufficient in area
page 79
9.5.34 Reasons for low satisfaction with appearance of streets

They’re not cleaned well
Streets not mown hiding open drains very dangerous
Some structures are not attractive to visitors
Severe lack of maintenance in Greenbank
Rural area is not mowed and we have no voice
Plant trees and they get to tall; block vision of traffic
Not enough effort put into Brisbane; city streets are better kept than Logan
Not completing the full workload; skimps on mowing and edging
New Beith some people do not mow their nature strips
Nature strips are not mowed often enough
Lots of residents don’t look after their front yards
Edens Landing and Bethania need more focus
Council not mowing in new estate
Council doesn’t do it; owners relied upon to mow own nature strip
Beenleigh streets are badly landscaped and maintained
Audrey street footpaths have rubbish; furniture all over em
At chambers flat abandoned hothouses
Allowing houses to have grass too long; rubbish front of houses
9.5.35 Reasons for low satisfaction with graffiti removal

Too slow to remove
They should have signs up to say there will be fines or penalties
They do not remove graffiti
Still see graffiti everywhere
So many house have been sprayed and not cleaned off
Should be prevented rather than removed
Punishment not enough; they keep doing it; no deterrent
Not done often enough
Lots of graffiti in Crestmead and Marsden for the last 2 years
It’s not getting removed
It is still there and it is still a problem
In the Woodridge area there is a lot
Graffiti on fences for years
Graffiti around my area Harburg drive
Bethania; too much graffiti in the city; terrible
page 80
9.5.36 Reasons for low satisfaction with collection of litter

Train stations are a mess in this suburb especially near hospital
Too slow to clean up
There is not enough bins around
The sides of roads are filled with garbage
Streets are covered with litter
Should be more regular and needs better collection
Same litter in our street for a long time
Rubbish is not cleared up in the streets even when bins are near
People dumping rubbish in industrial court
Not being picked up from median strips; mowing over it
Lots of litter on roads around Logan river
Lot of rubbish at the sides of roads; South Mclean
Look along rural roads; too much litter; and no one other than locals pick it up
Logan area is terrible problem with litter everywhere
I never see litter collected in South Mclean
I never see anyone collect litter; Road sweeper comes very rarely
Don’t do their job
Don’t come and clean; have to clean area after bins have been emptied
Don’t collect litter before mowing Llolard St hillcrest
Don’t clean up often enough
Beaudesert road looks awful: totally neglected rubbish everywhere
Awful lot of litter on the streets
9.5.37 Reasons for low satisfaction with informing the community about Council

We hear nothing; I don’t hear about what is happening
We don’t get enough info where we are
We don’t really hear about anything
Very seldom hear about what the council is doing
They only inform us on some things:; they aren’t transparent
They do not inform the community of what is going on
Residence not receiving info
Nothing in the local papers about the council
Not informed of service provided free Mundoolun Estate
No information given to residents
Never had any information regarding this
Inform residents about cleanup closer to pickup date
I am 18 and would like to receive more information about what’s on
Haven’t received any information at all
Don’t inform residents
Council don’t inform
page 81
9.5.38 Reasons for low satisfaction with consulting the community
Not enough consultation
96.2
No reason given
3.8
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
% (n=33)
9.5.39 Reasons for low satisfaction with promoting the city

When have they promoted in Logan?
What are they promoting? high unemployment and welfare benefits
Travelled overseas wants to promote Logan but they don’t have anything to give
They do the promote Beenleigh, Eagleby
They do not do enough of it unless its for own political gain
Over promotion of the city wasting ratepayers money
Not enough promoting
Need to clean up the city before any promotion
I think it is a dreadful place to live, drunks and drugs everywhere
All about Logan city and no where else
9.5.40 Reasons for low satisfaction with running community festivals and events

They don’t find out about the events
There are not enough festivals and community events should be four a year
Not enough events and festivals, need to be done more regular
Not aware of any such events or festivals
No interest to me
There haven’t been any in my area
page 82
9.6 Reasons for Low Agreement with Community Consultation Statements
9.6.1 Reasons for low agreement with the statement ‘A Council that understands
the community’s needs and expectations’

We never hear from them
We are rural and not seen as such; we are not city
To make Margaret road safe and have done nothing about it
They don’t listen
They do not listen to us we are rural we have different needs
They do not communicate; only see them when elections are on
The high density housing on Bryant’s road, I don’t agree with it
Repeated calls were inflexible with prior shires e.g. Beaudesert
Poor decisions made and no feedback with community before making these decisions
No communication with residents
Made phone calls to mayor over last storm and was palmed off
Logan council used to dealing with low socio economic background
Have not asked people what they want; building cluster units
Dumping of litter and garbage should be policed
Do not listen to the community for safety and cleanliness
Council doesn’t spend enough money on the community
Because the roads and in fighting in council
Buses need to be a lot better
page 83
9.6.2 Reasons for low agreement with the statement ‘A Council that communicates
effectively with its residents’
Lack of response /
communication
79.4
Other
20.6
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
% (n=29)
Reasons for low agreement with the statement ‘A Council that
provides an opportunity for residents to have a say about important issues’
They do not listen to
residents concerns
27.0
Unsure about how to make
this contact
11.1
Lack of communication
21.8
No reason given
3.0
Other
37.2
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
100.0
% (n=29)
page 84
9.6.3 Reasons for low agreement with the statement ‘A Council that works in the
best interests of the community’
21.4
Lack of communication
Council only looks after own
interests
13.2
Many decisions are not in the
community's interest
10.2
52.3
No reason given
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
% (n=30)
page 85
9.6.4 Reasons for low agreement with the statement ‘A Council that can be relied
upon to get things done’
Issues raised are not
addressed properly / timely
70.7
Other
25.4
No reason given
3.9
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
% (n=41)
page 86
9.7 Benchmark Data
Benchmark Index
IRIS has compiled data on the performance of Councils which are comparable
(Metropolitan Council’s) to Logan City Council and are included in the graphs below.
Where appropriate results include how Logan City Council compares with the (1) worst
performing Council (2) best performing Council and (3) comparable Councils. For a
service or facility to be considered significantly different to the benchmark, IRIS
recommends a 10 percentage point differential be present between Logan’s index
result and any of the other 3 measures provided in the graph.
On occasions individual Councils use variations on the 5 point rating scale including 7
and 11 point scales. In order to facilitate ease of comparison the benchmark data has
been standardised to an index score out of 100.
The benchmark comparisons can be interpreted as follows: In terms of overall
satisfaction, Logan City Council received an index satisfaction score of 67%. Given
Logan City Council’s result is within the plus or minus 10 percentage points of the index
achieved by comparable Councils (61%) we can say that Logan Shire Council is
performing on par compared to this benchmark group.
Logan City Council is
performing significantly better then the worst Council on the IRIS database (39%).
All other graphs can be interpreted in this same manner.
Percentage Satisfaction Graph
In addition the proportion of Logan City Council residents that rated their satisfaction as
being high (rating points 4 and 5), medium (rating point 3) and low (rating point 1 and
2) is provided as a summary measure titled ‘Percentage satisfaction’.
page 87
page 88
page 89
page 90
page 91
page 92
page 93
page 94
page 95
page 96
page 97