Mosman Council Community Survey Results Conducted by IRIS Research November 2010
www.iris.org.au
Key Results • There has been improvement in resident satisfaction with Council performance, Council staff and Councillor performance since the 2006 survey. • Some priorities for further improvement include provision of car parking, DA process, engagement/consultation with residents and the provision/maintenance of footpaths • By far the single main issue of concern for the future is traffic, transport and roads. • Views regarding the paid parking strategy are polarised, with 51.3% agreeing it is a good strategy. www.iris.org.au
Survey Objectives • Measure importance/satisfaction with services & facilities; • Measure overall satisfaction with performance of Council; • Measure overall satisfaction with the customer service provided by Council staff • Measure overall satisfaction with Councillors’ performance; • Identify perceptions about Mosman LGA; • Gauge level of pride residents have towards the community; • Determine preferred communication methods; • Measure level of community agreement with parking strategy. www.iris.org.au
Survey Methodology • Telephone Survey using IRIS Computer Aided Telephone interviewing (CATI) facilities. – Implemented under IQCA Quality guidelines. – Random Sample: White pages & ‘half-open’ method – Most recent birthday method
• Age and gender quotas applied • Interviews conducted 27th Oct – 1st Nov 2010.
www.iris.org.au
Survey Methodology • To qualify for an interview, had to be: – Residing in the Mosman Council Area for at least 6 months; – Over the age of 18 years.
• 411 interviews completed (59% compliance) • Weighted to ensure the most accurate reflection of resident opinion
www.iris.org.au
Overall Satisfaction 40%
35.3%
2010
35%
2007
30%
Mean 2006 = 6.53
24.2%
25% 20% 15%
High Sat = 67.0%
11.9% 9.5%
10%
6.3%
5%
0.8%
0.4%
0.8%
5.5%
2.0%
1.8%
1.2%
10 Very Satisfied
X
0%
0 Very 1 Dissatisfied
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Total satisfaction (6-10) = 78.7% www.iris.org.au
Mean 2010 = 6.70
Low Sat = 3.9%
Satisfaction Benchmarks 100 90 80 Index Score
70
78 67
60
60 50
39
40 30 20 10 0
Mosman 2010
Comparable
Highest
www.iris.org.au
Lowest
• Mosman performed well relative to comparable Councils • Index score above average for comparable Councils.
Most Important Services Importance rating (%) N/R
Low (0-3)
Medium (4-6)
High (7-10)
Mean Score
Waste & recycling collection services
0.3%
0.0%
1.4%
98.3%
9.20
Provision & maintenance of parklands
0.3%
0.5%
4.9%
94.3%
8.81
Overall cleanliness, appearance & management of public spaces
0.5%
0.2%
3.9%
95.4%
8.76
Providing & maintaining footpaths
0.3%
0.0%
6.1%
93.6%
8.74
Management & protection of the environment
0.7%
0.5%
6.0%
92.8%
8.69
Provision of car parking
0.4%
1.2%
7.8%
90.6%
8.69
Providing & maintaining Local Roads
0.0%
0.3%
8.9%
90.8%
8.58
Council engaging (consulting) with the community
1.6%
2.4%
7.8%
88.3%
8.57
Litter control & rubbish dumping
1.1%
1.4%
7.2%
90.3%
8.56
Enforcement of health & food regulations
4.1%
1.3%
10.2%
84.4%
8.53
Service / facility (rank order)
www.iris.org.au
Least Important Services Importance rating (%) N/R
Low (0-3)
Medium (4-6)
High (7-10)
Mean Score
Services & facilities for people with a disability
10.8%
11.5%
10.1%
67.6%
7.42
Services & facilities for older people
8.5%
11.4%
11.6%
68.5%
7.34
Assisting economic development with business community & visitors
16.5%
3.8%
21.3%
58.4%
7.29
Providing & maintaining bike paths
8.5%
10.5%
20.6%
60.5%
7.02
Enforcement of parking restrictions
1.6%
11.7%
23.9%
62.8%
6.97
Library Services
2.9%
12.6%
23.0%
61.5%
6.86
Overall range of facilities & activities relevant to culture & the arts
3.1%
9.5%
29.8%
57.5%
6.59
Local festivals & events
3.7%
11.8%
32.2%
52.3%
6.32
Services & facilities for people from culturally & linguistically diverse backgrounds
12.5%
17.8%
19.3%
50.4%
6.22
Mosman Art Gallery & Community Centre
6.9%
24.8%
27.4%
41.0%
5.47
Service / facility (rank order)
www.iris.org.au
Most Satisfied Services Satisfaction rating (%) N/R
Low (0-3)
Medium (4-6)
High (7-10)
Mean Score
Library Services
17.6%
1.8%
16.7%
64.0%
7.73
Provision & maintenance of parklands
0.6%
2.8%
13.1%
83.5%
7.71
Waste & recycling collection services
0.1%
5.9%
15.3%
78.7%
7.69
Overall cleanliness, appearance & management of public spaces
0.6%
0.7%
16.8%
81.9%
7.67
Services & facilities for children & families
21.1%
1.1%
14.6%
63.2%
7.49
Cleaning of streets
0.8%
3.8%
21.1%
74.2%
7.40
Management & protection of the environment
6.1%
2.3%
19.4%
72.3%
7.40
Enforcement of health & food regulations
17.6%
2.2%
21.4%
58.8%
7.26
Services & facilities for older people
45.3%
0.5%
18.2%
36.0%
7.21
Litter control & rubbish dumping
1.8%
3.6%
27.5%
67.1%
7.12
Service / facility (rank order)
www.iris.org.au
Least Satisfied Services Satisfaction rating (%) N/R
Low (0-3)
Medium (4-6)
High (7-10)
Mean Score
Assisting economic development with business community & visitors
41.5%
3.6%
28.4%
26.4%
6.01
Services & facilities for people from culturally & linguistically diverse backgrounds
53.0%
3.9%
25.9%
17.1%
5.98
Managing development (land use planning)
14.2%
9.1%
40.6%
36.2%
5.97
Traffic Management
5.8%
14.7%
41.9%
37.6%
5.84
Council engaging (consulting) with the community
8.5%
12.8%
39.8%
38.9%
5.82
Condition of public toilets
16.6%
11.7%
37.7%
33.9%
5.75
Provision of car parking
2.2%
15.6%
42.4%
39.9%
5.71
Enforcement of parking restrictions
5.0%
19.7%
37.5%
37.8%
5.55
Providing & maintaining bike paths
26.0%
12.9%
37.1%
24.0%
5.36
Development approvals process
29.2%
14.0%
35.5%
21.3%
5.22
Service / facility (rank order)
www.iris.org.au
Very good!
Quadrant Analysis
Need to improve! 9.4
Waste services 9.0
Footpaths
Car parking 8.6
Parklands Public spaces Environment Local roads
Community engagement
Litter & dumping
Health regulations
Managing development Public toilets
Importance
8.2
Cleaning streets
Drainage
Traffic management
Heritage
Street trees DA process
Overall community S&F S&F for children & families
Council info & support
7.8
S&F for youth
Animal Control
Sport & rec facilities S&F for disabled
7.4
S&F for older people
Economic development 7.0
Bike paths
Parking restrictions Library services Overall S&F culture & arts
6.6
Local festivals S&F for people from bkgrds
6.2
5.8
Art Gallery & Community Centre 5.4 5.2
5.4
5.6
5.8
6.0
6.2
6.4
6.6
Satisfaction www.iris.org.au
6.8
7.0
7.2
7.4
7.6
7.8
Quadrant Analysis • Priority service areas for improvement are:
= High Imp + Low Sat
Providing & maintaining footpaths Provision of car parking Providing & maintaining local roads Council engaging (consulting) with the community Managing development (land use planning) Traffic management Condition of public toilets Management of street trees Access to Council information & Council support Development approvals process www.iris.org.au
Gap Analysis Mean Gap (IMP-SAT)
Provision of car parking.
3.01
Development approvals process.
2.84
Council engaging/consulting with the community.
2.76
Providing and maintaining footpaths.
2.71
Condition of public toilets.
2.70
Managing development (land use planning).
2.54
Traffic Management.
2.51
Providing and maintaining Local Roads.
2.28
Providing and maintaining bike paths.
2.20
www.iris.org.au
External Benchmarks Question
Index
Comparable
Highest
Lowest
Library Services
79
73
81
67
Mosman Art Gallery & Community Centre
73
62
73
56
Local festivals & events
68
65
72
54
Sport & recreational facilities
69
68
74
60
Provision & maintenance of parklands
77
67
77
58
Services & facilities for older people
74
59
74
46
Services & facilities for people with a disability
59
58
66
49
Services & facilities for children & families
62
61
68
56
71
55
71
41
Animal Management & Control
65
62
67
55
Waste & recycling collection services
77
77
86
59
73
65
80
65
Services for young people
Enforcement of health & food regulations www.iris.org.au
External Benchmarks Question
Index
Comparable
Highest
Lowest
Overall cleanliness appearance & mgmt of public spaces
76
63
87
50
Providing & maintaining Local Roads
62
52
62
42
Providing & maintaining footpaths
59
50
66
43
Providing & maintaining bike paths
68
53
68
43
Provision of car parking
56
52
68
31
Traffic Management
57
54
61
44
Condition of public toilets
58
45
58
36
Managing development (land use planning)
59
53
59
48
Development approvals process
51
48
69
31
Council assisting economic development
60
57
67
45
Council engaging (consulting) with the community
57
52
61
46
Access to Council information & Council support
67
60
67
49
www.iris.org.au
Satisfaction with Staff (Recent contact)
30% Recent Contact
Mean 2010 = 7.5
No Recent Contact 25%
22.5%
21.8%
20%
Mean 2006 = 6.5
16.0% 13.8%
15%
9.0%
10%
5%
5.5%
3.9% 2.0%
1.1% 1.5%
2.2% 0.5%
0% 0 Very 1 Dissatisfied
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10 Very Satisfied
Total satisfaction (6-10) = 79.6% www.iris.org.au
X
High Sat = 74.1% Low Sat = 5.2%
Staff Benchmarks 100 90 80
75 67
70 Index Score
75 59
60 50 40 30 20 10 0
Mosman 2010
Comparable
Highest
www.iris.org.au
Lowest
• Resident satisfaction with Mosman Council staff is amongst highest in the state.
Satisfaction with Councillors 30% 2010
2007
25%
20%
18.2%
15%
19.6%
18.1% 12.9%
12.2%
5.9% 2.6%
2.5%
3.8%
2.4%
0.5%
1.3%
0% 0 Very 1 Dissatisfied
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10 Very Satisfied
Total satisfaction (6-10) = 47.8% www.iris.org.au
Mean 2006 = 5.66 High Sat = 34.8%
10%
5%
Mean 2010 = 5.83
X
Low Sat = 9.5%
Councillors Benchmarks 100 90 80
Index Score
70 60
63
58
56
Mosman 2010
Comparable
53
50 40 30 20 10 0
Highest
www.iris.org.au
Lowest
• Satisfaction with Mosman Councillors sits just above average for Councils classified as comparable.
Community Safety & Connectedness Agreement rating (%) Mean Score
N/R
Low (0-3)
Medium (4-6)
High (7-10)
(out of 10)
I feel safe in my own home
0.0%
1.0%
3.4%
95.6%
8.83
I feel safe walking around my neighbourhood
0.1%
0.8%
4.5%
94.6%
8.63
People in Mosman are generally proud of their area
1.2%
0.3%
6.2%
92.3%
8.55
My neighbourhood is a friendly place to live
0.8%
1.6%
13.9%
83.7%
8.05
I can call on a neighbour or local relative if I need assistance
1.1%
5.7%
10.8%
82.4%
8.04
I feel I belong to the community I live in
0.5%
2.1%
19.3%
78.2%
7.85
I make a contribution to the community I live in
2.7%
5.0%
26.4%
65.9%
7.16
I mainly socialize in my local area
0.9%
11.4%
34.3%
53.5%
6.47
Statement (rank order)
• Residents feel safe and are proud of the Mosman area. • Proximity to city means many socialise outside the area. www.iris.org.au
Issues of Concern Issue (rank order)
Overall
Mosman Bay
Middle Harbour
Balmoral
Traffic, transport and roads
41.0%
35.4%
50.0%
39.7%
Overdevelopment
16.8%
15.7%
15.7%
19.1%
Parking
11.5%
18.3%
3.5%
10.3%
Environment and climate change
4.3%
1.1%
10.2%
2.7%
Over population and over crowding
3.9%
3.9%
3.9%
4.0%
Protecting heritage and village feel
2.6%
1.1%
5.7%
1.5%
Providing adequate services and facilities
2.4%
4.4%
1.6%
0.6%
Services and facilities for aging population
2.0%
0.9%
0.0%
5.3%
Maintaining current quality and integrity
1.3%
3.4%
0.0%
0.0%
Services and facilities for children and families
0.7%
0.0%
1.0%
1.4%
Stormwater management
0.6%
1.1%
0.0%
0.6%
Shopping strips versus shopping centres
0.6%
0.7%
0.0%
1.0%
Tree management
0.5%
0.7%
0.0%
0.6%
Waste management
0.4%
0.0%
0.0%
1.4%
Vandalism/safety
0.4%
0.0%
0.9%
0.4%
Other
4.5%
6.0%
3.6%
3.4%
Non response
6.4%
7.1%
3.8%
8.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Total
www.iris.org.au
Mosman is... ... A wonderful/great place to live
30.2%
... A beautiful place
17.6%
... My home
5.7%
... Perfect/ paradise/ the best place to live
5.3%
... Friendly and community orientated
5.0%
... Convenient
4.3%
... Quiet and pleasant
4.0%
... Safe and clean
3.1% www.iris.org.au
Paid Parking Strategy 25%
30.4%
51.3%
20%
17.4% 15%
16.2%
13.3%
13.1% 11.0%
10%
6.2% 4.1%
5%
5.9%
5.1%
4.8%
2.0%
0.8%
0% 0 Strongly Disagree
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10 Strongly Agree
X
• Views were quite polarised - 13.1% provided the max score of 10, while 13.3% provided the min score of 0. www.iris.org.au
Paid Parking Strategy Agreement rating (%)
On-street paid parking at Mosman beaches and foreshore reserves is a reasonable strategy to help manage the costs and other impacts of visitors?
Mean Score
N/R
Low (0-3)
Medium (4-6)
High (7-10)
(out of 10)
0.8%
24.2%
28.8%
46.3%
5.63
• While there is no clear consensus on this issue, overall 51.3% of the residents surveyed agreed that it was a good strategy to deal with parking issues. • Meanwhile, a lesser 30.4% disagreed while the remaining 17.4% were undecided or unfazed. www.iris.org.au
Conclusion • Resident perceptions of Council’s performance are positive across the ‘top line’ key performance indicators: Overall satisfaction with Council is strong Satisfaction with Council staff is strong Satisfaction with Councillors is improving
However, detailed analysis of individual services and facilities uncovered a number of opportunities for improvement… www.iris.org.au
Conclusion Identified as not meeting resident expectations in‌
Priority Rank
Service/Facility
Quadrant Analysis
Gap Analysis
(Higher importance/Lower satisfaction)
(Higher than average gap b/w importance & satisfaction)
1
Provision of car parking
X
X
2
Development approvals process
X
X
3
Council engaging (consulting) with the community
X
X
4
Providing & maintaining footpaths
X
X
5
Condition of public toilets
X
X
6
Managing development (land use planning)
X
X
7
Traffic management
X
X
8
Providing & maintaining local roads
X
X
9
Providing & maintaining bike paths
10
Management of street trees
X
11
Access to Council information & Council support
X
X
www.iris.org.au