AP P E ND I X 3: 2 0 22 S UBG RO U P TAB L ES 59

FIGU RES

Figure 30 Improvements to the Region 38

TAB LES

Table 1 Overall Satisfaction with Clarence Valley Council Compared to External Benchmark 11

Table 2 Council Facilities or Services Satisfaction – Internal Benchmarks (mean scores) 14

Table 3 Significantly Higher Mean Scores for Importance among 2022 Subgroups 17 Table 4 Council Facilities or Services Importance – Internal Benchmarks (mean scores) 19 Table 5 Quadrant Analysis 22 Table 6 Significantly Higher Reason for Inquiry among 2022 Subgroups 25 Table 7 Method of Contacting Council - Top Three Preferences in 2022 34 Table 8 Data Weighting Factors – Age/Sex 56 Table 9 Weighted Sample Profile 1 (Age) 56 Table 10 Weighted Sample Profile 2 (Gender) 56 Table 11 Weighted Sample Profile 3 (Length of time lived in Clarence Valley LGA) 56 Table 12 Weighted Sample Profile 4 (Town live nearest to) 57 Table 13 Weighted Sample Profile 5 (Ratepayer status) 57 Table 14 Weighted Sample Profile 6 (Urban or rural setting) 57

This research study was commissioned by Clarence Valley Council to better understand key issues, community needs and priorities regarding the services and facilities provided by the Council.

Among the key findings:

Overall satisfaction

The proportion of residents dissatisfied rose significantly in this latest survey, from 25% to 39% (while the proportion satisfied fell from 33% to 29%). The overall satisfaction mean score of 2.7 was significantly below the 3.3 average across 25 regional NSW councils.

Facilities and services

Of the 23 facilities and services that residents surveyed were asked to rate for their level of satisfaction, 15 received a mean rating higher than the “neutral” score of 3.0 out of 5.

The top-rated facilities and services for satisfaction were:

• Libraries

• Sewerage • Support for sport and cultural events • Lifeguards • Waste and recycling The lowest-rated facilities and services for satisfaction were:

• Maintenance of unsealed roads

• Maintenance of sealed roads

• Development application processing • Economic development In 2022, Clarence Valley Council was the best regional NSW council on record for Libraries, Sewerage, Online services, Support for sport and cultural events and Lifeguards, and the worst on record for Maintenance of sealed roads. The three most important uses of Council resources had a 40% tie between Maintenance of unsealed roads and Flood plain and coastline management (N.B. Maintenance of sealed roads was not available to be chosen). The quadrant analysis showed Maintenance of sealed roads to be ranked the most important, and among the lowest in satisfaction.

Customer services

The number of residents surveyed who contacted Council in the past 12 months increased from 43% in 2020 to 57% in 2022. The proportion of those being resolved with just one contact has remained relatively static since 2020.

Online or CVC website was the first preference in 2022 for six of the eight inquiry-types asked about, though less popular with residents surveyed aged 60+.

Council website

Use of Council’s website in 2022 was 53% in the past six months, up from 43% in 2020. Ratings by users for Usefulness of content dropped from a mean score in 2020 of 3.4 to 3.1 in 2022. Ratings for Ease of navigation dropped from 3.3 in 2020 to 3.1 in 2022.

2.1. DATA COLLECTION

Data was collected by Taverner Research Group via random CATI (telephone) interviewing during the period Tuesday 23 August to Thursday 1 September 2022, inclusive.

In total 402 adult residents completed the survey (226 via mobile phone and 176 via fixed-line phone). A copy of the questionnaire is available in Appendix 1.

Based on the number of households within the Clarence Valley LGA, a random sample of 402 adult residents implies a margin for error of +/- 4.9% at the 95% confidence level. This means that if we conducted a similar poll 20 times, results should reflect the views and behaviour of the overall survey population – in this case “all Clarence Valley LGA adult residents excluding council employees and councillors” - to within a +/- 4.9% margin in 19 of those 20 surveys.

2.2. DATA HANDLING

Data handling and analysis was carried out using the statistical database program “Q”. All responses are de-identified to ensure the anonymity of respondents.

2.3. DATA WEIGHTING

The data was collected via random sampling. To ensure that the report is representative of the broader Clarence Valley Council community, the data has been weighted post-collection to broadly represent the LGA in terms of population distribution by age and gender (based on 2021 Census data). Respondent profile and weighting information is included in Appendix 2.

2.4. DATA ANALYSIS

Statistical testing was conducted across results by age, gender, region, and urban versus rural. Significantly higher/lower differences, at the 95% confidence level, are identified in tables in Appendix 3 (blue figures for significantly higher and red figures for significantly lower).