Richmond Valley Council Community Research

Prepared by: Micromex Research Date: September 2016

The information contained herein is believed to be reliable and accurate. However, no guarantee is given as to its accuracy and reliability, and no responsibility or liability for any information, opinions or commentary contained herein, or for any consequences of its use, will be accepted by Micromex

Research, or by any person involved in the preparation of this report.

Table of Contents

Background and Methodology ...... 4 Sample Profile ...... 7 Key Findings ...... 9 Summary and Recommendations ...... 25 The Community Experience ...... 27 The Community Experience ...... 28 Communication with Council ...... 30 Receiving Information about Council...... 31 Priority Issues ...... 32 Satisfaction with the Performance of Council ...... 33 Most Valued Aspect ...... 34 Top Priorities Facing the LGA ...... 35 Signature Projects ...... 36 Retail Spending ...... 37 Detailed Findings – Importance of, and Satisfaction with, Council Services & Facilities . 37 Demographics ...... 37 Appendix A – Other Projects ...... 37 Appendix B – Questionnaire ...... 37

Background and

Methodology

Background and Methodology

Richmond Valley Council sought to examine community attitudes and perceptions towards current and future services and facilities provided by Council. Key objectives of the research included:

• Assessing and establishing the community’s priorities and satisfaction in relation to Council activities, services, and facilities • Identifying the community’s overall level of satisfaction with Council’s performance • Identifying the community’s level of agreement with prompted statements surrounding wellbeing/ connectedness • Identifying methods of communication and engagement with Council • Understanding levels of support for proposed Signature Projects • Identifying locations of retail purchases

To facilitate this, Micromex Research was contracted to develop a survey template that enabled Council to effectively analyse attitudes and trends within the community.

Questionnaire

Micromex Research, together with Richmond Valley Council, amended the questionnaire developed in 2013.

A copy of the questionnaire is provided in Appendix B.

Data collection

The survey was conducted during the period 8th August – 15th August 2016 from 4:30pm to 8:30pm Monday to Friday, and from 10am to 4pm Saturday.

Survey area

Richmond Valley Council Government Area.

Sample selection and error

A total of 403 resident interviews was completed. 375 of the 403 respondents were selected by means of a computer based random selection process using the electronic White Pages. The remaining 28 respondents were ‘number harvested’ via face-to-face intercept at a number of areas around the Richmond Valley Council LGA, i.e. Casino Shopping Plaza, Richmond Terrace Coraki, and Evans Head supermarkets and Oak Street.

A sample size of 403 residents provides a maximum sampling error of plus or minus 4.9% at 95% confidence. This means that if the survey was replicated with a new universe of N=403 residents, 19 times out of 20 we would expect to see the same results, i.e. +/- 4.9%.

For the survey under discussion the greatest margin of error is 4.9%. This means, for example, that an answer such as ‘yes’ (50%) to a question, could vary from 45% to 55%.

The sample was weighted by age and gender to reflect the 2011 ABS census data of Richmond Valley Council.

Interviewing

Interviewing was conducted in accordance with the AMSRS (Australian Market and Social Research Society) Code of Professional Behaviour.

Richmond Valley Council Community Research September 2016 Page | 5

Background and Methodology Prequalification

Participants in this survey were pre-qualified as being over the age of 18, and not working for, nor having an immediate family member working for, Richmond Valley Council.

Data analysis

The data within this report was analysed using Q Professional. To identify the statistically significant differences between the groups of means, ‘One-Way Anova tests’ and ‘Independent Samples T-tests’ were used. ‘Z Tests’ were also used to determine statistically significant differences between column percentages.

Ratings questions

The Unipolar Scale of 1 to 5, where 1 was the lowest importance or satisfaction and 5 the highest importance or satisfaction, was used in all rating questions.

This scale allowed for a mid-range position for those who had a divided or neutral opinion.

Note: Only respondents who rated services/facilities a 4 or 5 in importance were asked to rate their satisfaction with that service/facility.

Percentages

All percentages are calculated to the nearest whole number and therefore the total may not exactly equal 100%.

Micromex Benchmarks

These benchmarks are based on 60 LGAs that we have conducted community research for, and were revised in 2016 to ensure the most recent comparable data. Since 2008 Micromex has worked for over 70 NSW councils and conducted 100+ community satisfaction surveys across NSW.

NSW LGA Brand Scores Benchmark

These benchmarks are based on a branding research study conducted by Micromex in 2012, in which residents from all 152 LGAs were interviewed in order to establish a normative score.

Errors: Data in this publication is subject to sampling variability because it is based on information relating to a sample of residents rather than the total number (sampling error).

In addition, non-sampling error may occur due to imperfections in reporting and errors made in processing the data. This may occur in any enumeration, whether it is a full count or sample.

Efforts have been made to reduce both sampling and non-sampling error by careful design of the sample and questionnaire, and detailed checking of completed questionnaires.

As the raw data has been weighted to reflect the real community profile of Richmond Valley Council, the outcomes reported here reflect an ‘effective sample size’; that is, the weighted data provides outcomes with the same level of confidence as unweighted data of a different sample size. In some cases this effective sample size may be smaller than the true number of surveys conducted.

Richmond Valley Council Community Research September 2016 Page | 6

Sample Profile

Sample Profile

Gender

Male 49%

Female 51%

Age

18-24 9%

25-34 12%

35-49 24%

50-64 28%

65+ 26%

Time Lived in the Area

Less than 2 years 6%

2-5 years 5%

6-10 years 11%

11-20 years 21%

More than 20 years 57%

Ratepayer Status

Ratepayer 76%

Non-ratepayer 24%

Area Lived In

Townships 56%

Villages 18%

Rural suburbs 26%

Employment Status Currently in full time, part time or casual 54% paid employment Studying at school, TAFE or university 2%

Retired from paid employment 28%

Currently looking for paid employment 3%

Home duties 8%

Other 5%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Base: N = 403

A sample size of 403 residents provides a maximum sampling error of plus or minus 4.9% at 95% confidence. The sample has been weighted by age and gender to reflect the 2011 ABS community profile of Richmond Valley Council.

Richmond Valley Council Community Research September 2016 Page | 8

Key Findings

Key Findings Overview (Overall satisfaction)

Summary

Overall 94% of residents were at least ‘somewhat satisfied’ with the performance of Council. This has significantly increased since 2013, and is significantly higher than the mean benchmark for ‘All of NSW’, Metropolitan, and Regional Councils.

Residents aged 65+ were significantly more likely to be satisfied with the performance of Council over the last 12 months.

Q5. Overall for the last 12 months, how satisfied are you with the performance of Council, not just on one or two issues but across all responsibility areas?

Overall Overall Male Female 18-34 25-34 35-49 50-64 65+ 2016 2013 Mean 3.66▲ 3.41 3.62 3.69 3.48 3.72 3.49 3.67 3.83▲ ratings

Rural Township Villages suburbs

Mean ratings 3.69 3.62 3.62

Richmond Metro NSW LGA BRAND SCORES Regional All of NSW Valley Benchmark 2016 Mean ratings 3.45▼ 3.22▼ 3.31▼ 3.66▲

Scale: 1 = not at all satisfied, 5 = very satisfied

▲/▼ = A significantly higher/lower level of satisfaction (by group)

12% Very satisfied 11%

50% Satisfied 41%

32% Somewhat satisfied 30%

4% Not very satisfied 14%

2% Not at all satisfied 4%

0% 20% 40% 60% 2016 N = 403 20313 N = 400

Richmond Valley Council Community Research September 2016 Page|10

Key Findings Overview (Communication with Council)

Summary

Residents are moderately satisfied with the level of communication Council currently has with the community, remaining consistent between the years of 2013 and 2016.

Q2. How satisfied are you with the level of communication Council currently has with the community?

Overall Overall Male Female 18-34 25-34 35-49 50-64 65+ 2016 2013

Mean ratings 3.42 3.32 3.33 3.51 2.99 3.69 3.30 3.39 3.60

Rural Township Villages suburbs

Mean ratings 3.44 3.41 3.40

Scale: 1 = not at all satisfied, 5 = very satisfied

11% Very satisfied 10%

44% Satisfied 42%

28% Somewhat satisfied 26%

11% Not very satisfied 15%

6% Not at all satisfied 7%

0% 20% 40% 60% 2016 N = 403 2013 N = 400

Richmond Valley Council Community Research September 2016 Page|11

Key Findings Overview (Most Valued Aspect)

Summary

Residents indicated that the thing they value most about living in the LGA is the ‘community spirit and friendly people’ (31%). They also value their ‘location and their access to services/facilities’ (21%) as well as the ‘peace and quiet’ (21%) the area provides.

The aspects that residents value most have remained consistent since 2013.

Q6. What do you value most about living in the Richmond Valley local government area?

Word Frequency Tagging

Verbatim responses for this question were collated and entered into analytical software. This analysis ‘counts’ the number of times a particular word or phrase appears and, based on the frequency of that word or phrase, a font size is generated. The larger the font, the more frequently the word or sentiment is mentioned.

Community spirit/friendly people 31%

Location & access to services/facilities, e.g. 21% education, recreation

Peace and quiet 21%

Natural environment/scenery 14%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

2016 N = 403

Richmond Valley Council Community Research September 2016 Page|12

Key Findings Overview (Highest priority issues facing the Richmond Valley LGA)

Summary

Residents believe the top priorities facing the LGA over the next 5 years are ‘local employment’ (31%) and ‘road maintenance/infrastructure’ (29%).

The top priority issues facing the LGA have remained consistent since 2013, suggesting residents believe more emphasis should be placed on these areas.

Q7. Thinking about the next 5 years, what do you think are the highest priority issues facing the Richmond Valley local government area?

Word Frequency Tagging

Verbatim responses for this question were collated and entered into analytical software. This analysis ‘counts’ the number of times a particular word or phrase appears and, based on the frequency of that word or phrase, a font size is generated. The larger the font, the more frequently the word or sentiment is mentioned.

Local employment 31%

Road maintenance/infrastructure 29%

Crime reduction and public safety 11%

Health services and facilities 9%

Financial management and economic 8% development

0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

2016 N = 403

Richmond Valley Council Community Research September 2016 Page|13

Key Findings Comparison to LGA Benchmarks

7 of the 27 comparable measures, were rated above benchmark threshold of 0.15, these were ‘Maintaining footpaths’, ‘Economic development of the Richmond Valley’, ‘Stormwater (gutters & drainage), ‘Car parking’, ‘Financial management’, ‘Beaches’ and ‘Community centres and facilities’.

5 of the measures were rated lower than the benchmark threshold of -0.15, these were ‘Local employment’, ‘Household garbage collection’, ‘Waste management’, ‘Support for young people’ and ‘Availability of local parks and playgrounds’.

Richmond Valley Benchmark Service/Facility Council Variances Satisfaction Scores Beaches 4.08 0.51▲ Financial management 3.41 0.33▲ Community centres and facilities 3.97 0.31▲ Car parking 3.43 0.24▲ Stormwater (gutters & drainage) 3.63 0.23▲ Economic development of the Richmond Valley 3.37 0.17▲ Maintaining footpaths 3.32 0.17▲ Long term town planning for the Richmond Valley Council area 3.26 0.14 Protection of heritage buildings and items 3.71 0.12 Disability services/accessibility support 3.57 0.11 Community engagement/consultation 3.17 0.09 Libraries 4.29 0.05 Aged care services/facilities 3.71 0.04 Swimming pools 3.80 0.02 Festivals and events 3.81 -0.02 Support for community organisations 3.60 -0.03 Council provision of information 3.36 -0.07 Availability and maintenance of sporting ovals, grounds and facilities 3.82 -0.08 Opportunity to participate in Councils decision making processes 2.99 -0.09 Maintaining local roads 2.81 -0.09 Attractiveness of the town centres 3.40 -0.10 Riverbanks 3.43 -0.14 Availability of local parks and playgrounds 3.55 -0.28▼ Support for young people 3.06 -0.35▼ Waste management 3.69 -0.37▼ Household garbage collection 3.66 -0.40▼ Local employment 2.83 -0.40▼

Scale: 1 = not at all satisfied, 5 = very satisfied

▲/▼ = positive/negative difference greater than 0.15 from LGA Benchmark

Note: Benchmark differences are based on assumed variants of +/- 0.15, with variants beyond +/- 0.15 more likely to be significant

Richmond Valley Council Community Research September 2016 Page|14

Key Findings Key Importance Trends –

There were no significant increases in residents’ levels of importance compared to 2013.

Compared to the previous research conducted in 2013, there were significant decreases in residents’ levels of importance with 3 of the comparable 19 services and facilities provided by Council, These were:

2016 2013 Stormwater (gutters & drainage) 4.02 4.34 Car parking 4.17 4.44 Council provision of information 4.24 4.39

Key Satisfaction Trends

Over the same period there were significant increases in residents’ levels of satisfaction for 5 of the comparable 19 services and facilities provided by Council, these were:

2016 2013 Car parking 3.43 3.06 Financial management 3.41 3.08 Protecting the natural environment 3.61 3.33 Stormwater (gutters & drainage) 3.63 3.35 Festivals and events 3.81 3.56

Residents’ levels of satisfaction significantly decreased for 1 of the 19 services and facilities provided by Council. This was:

2016 2013 Household garbage 3.66 4.23

Richmond Valley Council Community Research September 2016 Page|15

Key Findings Identifying Priorities via Specialised Analysis (Explanation)

The specified research outcomes required us to measure both community importance and community satisfaction with a range of specific service delivery areas. In order to identify core priorities, we undertook a 2 step analysis process on the stated importance and rated satisfaction data, after which we conducted a third level of analysis. This level of analysis was a Shapley Regression on the data in order to identify which facilities and services are the actual drivers of overall satisfaction with Council.

By examining both approaches to analysis we have been able to:

1. Identify and understand the hierarchy of community priorities

2. Inform the deployment of Council resources in line with community aspirations

Step 1. Performance Gap Analysis (PGA)

PGA establishes the gap between importance and satisfaction. This is calculated by subtracting the mean satisfaction score from the mean importance score. In order to measure performance gaps, respondents are asked to rate the importance of, and their satisfaction with, each of a range of different services or facilities on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 = low importance or satisfaction and 5 = high importance or satisfaction. These scores are aggregated at a total community level.

The higher the differential between importance and satisfaction, the greater the difference is between the provision of that service by Richmond Valley Council and the expectation of the community for that service/facility.

In the table on the following page, we can see the 36 services and facilities that residents rated by importance and then by satisfaction.

When analysing the performance gaps, it is important to recognise that, for the most part, a gap of up to 1.0 is acceptable when the initial importance rating is 4.0+, as it indicates that residents consider the attribute to be of ‘high’ to ‘very high’ importance and that the satisfaction they have with Richmond Valley Council’s performance on that same measure, is ‘moderate’ to ‘moderately high’.

For example, ‘Council provision of information’ was given an importance score of 4.24, which indicates that it is considered an area of ‘very high’ importance by residents. At the same time it was given a satisfaction score of 3.36, which indicates that residents have a ‘moderate’ level of satisfaction with Richmond Valley Council’s performance and focus on that measure.

In the case of a performance gap such as for ‘Libraries’ (4.15 importance vs. 4.29 satisfaction), we can identify that the facility/service has ‘high’ importance to the broader community, but for residents who feel that this facility is important, it is providing a ‘very high’ level of satisfaction.

Richmond Valley Council Community Research September 2016 Page|16

Key Findings

When analysing performance gap data, it is important to consider both stated satisfaction and the absolute size of the performance gap.

Performance Gap Ranking

Ranking Importance Satisfaction Performance Service/ Facility 2016 Mean Mean Gap 1 Local employment 4.65 2.83 1.82 2 Maintaining local roads 4.61 2.81 1.80 3 Support for young people 4.57 3.06 1.51 4 Support for people on low incomes 4.37 3.09 1.28 5 Health services 4.79 3.54 1.25 Lighting in public places 4.55 3.33 1.22 6 Long term town planning for the Richmond Valley 4.48 3.26 1.22 Council area 8 Community engagement/consultation 4.33 3.17 1.16 Opportunity to participate in Council's decision 9 4.13 2.99 1.14 making processes 10 Financial management 4.47 3.41 1.06 11 Economic development of the Richmond Valley 4.39 3.37 1.02 12 Attractiveness of the town centres 4.30 3.40 0.90 13 Council provision of information 4.24 3.36 0.88 Aged care services/facilities 4.56 3.71 0.85 14 Availability of local parks and playgrounds 4.40 3.55 0.85 16 Disability services/accessibility support 4.40 3.57 0.83 Household garbage collection 4.44 3.66 0.78 17 Riverbanks 4.21 3.43 0.78 19 Support for community organisations 4.35 3.60 0.75 20 Car parking 4.17 3.43 0.74 21 Maintaining footpaths 4.04 3.32 0.72 22 Waste management 4.40 3.69 0.71 23 Protecting the natural environment 4.28 3.61 0.67 24 Development Assessment 4.07 3.41 0.66 25 Emergency management 4.67 4.09 0.58 Availability and maintenance of sporting ovals, 26 4.31 3.82 0.49 grounds and facilities 27 Stormwater (gutters & drainage) 4.02 3.63 0.39 Protection of heritage buildings and items 4.09 3.71 0.38 28 Supporting cultural diversity and Aboriginal/Torres 3.97 3.59 0.38 Strait Islander communities 30 Festivals and events 4.12 3.81 0.31 31 Cemeteries 4.23 3.98 0.25 Compliance (Environmental health, companion 4.02 3.84 0.18 32 animals) Swimming pools 3.98 3.80 0.18 34 Community centres and facilities 4.08 3.97 0.11 35 Beaches 4.13 4.08 0.05 36 Libraries 4.15 4.29 -0.14

Scale: 1 = not at all important/not at all satisfied, 5 = very important/very satisfied

Richmond Valley Council Community Research September 2016 Page|17

Key Findings

When we examine the largest performance gaps, we can identify that all of the services or facilities have been rated as ‘high’ to ‘extremely high’ in importance. Resident satisfaction for all of these areas is between 2.81 and 3.54, which indicates that resident satisfaction for these measures is ‘moderately low’ to ‘moderate’.

Importance Satisfaction Performance Ranking Service/ Facility Mean Mean Gap 1 Local employment 4.65 2.83 1.82

2 Maintaining local roads 4.61 2.81 1.80

3 Support for young people 4.57 3.06 1.51

4 Support for people on low incomes 4.37 3.09 1.28

5 Health services 4.79 3.54 1.25

Lighting in public places 4.55 3.33 1.22 6 Long term town planning for the Richmond 4.48 3.26 1.22 Valley Council area 8 Community engagement/consultation 4.33 3.17 1.16 Opportunity to participate in Council's 9 4.13 2.99 1.14 decision making processes 10 Financial management 4.47 3.41 1.06 Economic development of the Richmond 11 4.39 3.37 1.02 Valley

The key outcomes of this analysis would suggest that, while there are opportunities to improve satisfaction across a range of services/facilities, ‘Local employment’ is the area of least relative satisfaction.

Note: Performance gap is the first step in the process, we now need to identify comparative ratings across all services and facilities to get an understanding of relative importance and satisfaction at an LGA level. This is when we undertake step 2 of the analysis.

Richmond Valley Council Community Research September 2016 Page|18

Key Findings Quadrant Analysis

Step 2. Quadrant Analysis

Quadrant analysis is often helpful in planning future directions based on stated outcomes. It combines the stated importance of the community and assesses satisfaction with delivery in relation to these needs.

This analysis is completed by plotting the variables on x and y axes, defined by stated importance and rated satisfaction. We aggregate the mean scores for stated importance and rated satisfaction to identify where the facility or service should be plotted. For these criteria, the average stated importance score was 4.30 and the average rated satisfaction score was 3.53. Therefore, any facility or service that received a mean stated importance score of ≥ 4.30 would be plotted in the higher importance section and, conversely, any that scored < 4.30 would be plotted into the lower importance section. The same exercise is undertaken with the satisfaction ratings above, equal to or below 3.53. Each service or facility is then plotted in terms of satisfaction and importance, resulting in its placement in one of four quadrants.

Quadrant Analysis – Importance v Satisfaction Improve Maintain Higher importance, lower satisfaction Higher importance, higher satisfaction

4.80 Health services

4.70 Emergency management Local employment

4.60 Maintaining local roads Support for young people Aged care services/facilities Lighting in public places 4.50 Availability of local parks & playgrounds Long term planning for the LGA Disability services/accessibility support Financial management Household garbage collection Economic development of 4.40 Support for people the Richmond Valley Waste management on low incomes Attractiveness of the Community engagement/ Support for community Availability & maintenance of sporting town centres consultation organisations ovals, grounds and facilities Importance 4.30 Protecting the natural Council provision environment Cemeteries of information 4.20 Opportunity to participate Riverbanks in Council’s decision making Libraries process Car parking Protection of heritage Festivals & events Beaches buildings and items 4.10 Community centres and Development Assessment facilities Stormwater Compliance 4.00 Maintaining footpaths Swimming pools Supporting cultural diversity and Aboriginal/Torres Strait 3.90 Islander communities 2.80 3.00 3.20 3.40 3.60 3.80 4.00 4.20 4.40

Niche Community Satisfaction Lower importance, lower satisfaction Lower importance, higher satisfaction

Richmond Valley Council Community Research September 2016 Page|19

Key Findings Explaining the 4 quadrants

Attributes in the top right quadrant, MAINTAIN, such as ‘Emergency management’, are Council’s core strengths, and should be treated as such. Maintain, or even attempt to improve your position in these areas, as they are influential and address clear community needs.

Attributes in the top left quadrant, IMPROVE, such as ‘Local employment’ are key concerns in the eyes of your residents. In the vast majority of cases you should aim to improve your performance in these areas to better meet the community’s expectations.

Attributes in the bottom left quadrant, NICHE, such as ‘Opportunity to participate in Council’s decision making processes’, are of a relatively lower priority (and the word ‘relatively’ should be stressed – they are still important). These areas tend to be important to a particular segment of the community.

Finally, attributes in the bottom right quadrant, COMMUNITY are core strengths, such as ‘Swimming pools’, but in relative terms they are deemed less overtly important than other directly obvious areas. However, the occupants of this quadrant tend to be the sort of services and facilities that deliver to community liveability i.e. make it a good place to live.

Recommendations based only on stated importance and satisfaction have major limitations, as the actual questionnaire process essentially ‘silos’ facilities and services as if they are independent variables, when they are in fact all part of the broader community perception of council performance.

Residents’ priorities identified in stated importance/satisfaction analysis often tend to be in areas that are problematic. No matter how much focus a council dedicates to ‘Maintaining local roads’, it will often be found in the IMPROVE quadrant. This is because, perceptually, the condition of local roads can always be better.

Furthermore, the outputs of stated importance and satisfaction analysis address the current dynamics of the community, they do not predict which focus areas are the most likely agents to change the community’s perception of Council’s overall performance.

Therefore, in order to identify how Richmond Valley Council can actively drive overall community satisfaction, we conducted further analysis.

The Shapley Value Regression

This model was developed by conducting specialised analysis from over 30,000 LGA interviews conducted since 2005. In essence, it proved that increasing resident satisfaction by actioning the priorities they stated as being important does not necessarily positively impact on overall satisfaction with the Council. This regression analysis is a statistical tool for investigating relationships between dependent variables and explanatory variables.

In 2014, we revised the Shapley Regression Analysis to identify the directional contribution of key services and facilities with regard to optimisers/barriers with council’s overall performance.

What Does This Mean?

The learning is that if we only rely on the stated community priorities, we will not be allocating the appropriate resources to the actual service attributes that will improve overall community satisfaction. Using regression analysis we can identify the attributes that essentially build overall satisfaction. We call the outcomes ‘derived importance’.

Richmond Valley Council Community Research September 2016 Page|20

Key Findings Key Drivers of Satisfaction with Richmond Valley Council

The results in the chart below provide Richmond Valley Council with a complete picture of the intrinsic community priorities and motivations, and identify what attributes are the key drivers of community satisfaction.

These top 10 services/facilities account for over 50% of overall satisfaction with Council. This indicates that the remaining 26 attributes we obtained measures on have only a limited impact on the community’s satisfaction with Richmond Valley Council’s performance. Therefore, whilst all 36 service/facility areas are important, only a number of them are significant drivers of the community’s overall satisfaction with Council.

These Top 10 Indicators Contribute to Over 50% of Overall Satisfaction with Council

Maintaining local roads 8.9%

Community engagement/consultation 8.2%

Council provision of information 6.7%

Financial management 5.0%

Support for young people 4.8%

Opportunity to participate in Councils decision making 4.1% processes

Cemeteries 4.0%

Health services 3.9%

Lighting in public places 3.8%

Economic development of the Richmond Valley 3.7%

0.0% 2.0% 4.0% 6.0% 8.0% 10.0%

The contributors to satisfaction are not to be misinterpreted as an indication of current dissatisfaction

These 10 services/facilities are the key community priorities and by addressing these, Richmond Valley Council will improve overall community satisfaction. The score assigned to each area indicates the percentage of influence each attribute contributes to overall satisfaction with Council.

In the above chart, ‘Economic development of the Richmond Valley’ contributes 3.7% towards overall satisfaction, while ‘Maintaining local roads’ (8.9%) is a stronger driver, contributing over twice as much to overall satisfaction with Council.

Richmond Valley Council Community Research September 2016 Page|21

Key Findings Clarifying Priorities

By mapping satisfaction against derived importance we can see that Council is already providing ‘moderately high’ levels of satisfaction for ‘cemeteries’. Council should look to maintain/consolidate their delivery in this area.

It is also apparent that there is room to elevate satisfaction within the variables that fall in the ‘moderate satisfaction’ region of the chart. If Richmond Valley Council can address these core drivers, they will be able to improve resident satisfaction with their performance.

Mapping Stated Satisfaction and Derived Importance Identifies the Community Priority Areas 4.0 Cemeteries

3.8 Moderately High Satisfaction ≥ 3.60 3.6 Health services

Economic development Financial management 3.4 of the Richmond Valley Council provision of

Stated Satisfaction information Moderate Lighting in public places Satisfaction 3.00 - 3.59 3.2 Community engagement/ consultation

Support for young people 3.0 Opportunity to participate Low in Council’s decision Satisfaction making processes ≤ 2.99 Maintaining local roads 2.8 3.0% 4.0% 5.0% 6.0% 7.0% 8.0% 9.0%

Derived Importance

This analysis indicates that areas such as ‘Health services’, ‘Financial management’, ‘Economic development of the Richmond Valley’, ‘Council provision of information’, ‘Lighting in public places’, ‘Community engagement/consultation’ and ‘Support for young people’ could possibly be targeted for optimisation.

Furthermore, areas such as ‘Opportunity to participate in Council’s decision making process’, and ‘Maintaining local roads’ are issues Council should be looking to understand resident expectations and/or more actively inform/engage residents of Council’s position and advocacy across these areas.

Richmond Valley Council Community Research September 2016 Page|22

Key Findings Advanced Shapley Outcomes

The chart below illustrates the positive/negative contribution the key drivers provide towards overall satisfaction. Some drivers can contribute both negatively and positively depending on the overall opinion of the residents.

The scores on the negative indicate the contribution the driver makes to impeding transition towards satisfaction. If we can address these areas we will see a lift in our future overall satisfaction results, as we will positively transition residents who are currently ‘not at all satisfied’ towards being ‘satisfied’ with Council’s overall performance.

The scores on the positive indicate the contribution the driver makes towards optimising satisfaction. If we can address these areas we will see a lift in our future overall satisfaction results, as we will positively transition residents who are currently already ‘somewhat satisfied’, towards being more satisfied with Council’s overall performance.

Key Contributors to Barriers/Optimisers

-9.0% -7.0% -5.0% -3.0% -1.0% 1.0% 3.0% 5.0%

Maintaining local roads -5.0% 3.9%

Community engagement/consultation -7.7% 0.5%

Council provision of information -4.7% 2.0%

Financial management -3.8% 1.2%

Support for young people -3.8% 1.0% Barriers Optimisers (57%) Opportunity to participate in Councils decision making (43%) -3.7% 0.4% processes

Cemeteries -2.4% 1.6%

Health services -0.6% 3.3%

Lighting in public places -1.9% 1.9%

Economic development of the Richmond Valley -2.4% 1.3%

Different levers address the different levels of satisfaction across the community

Richmond Valley Council Community Research September 2016 Page|23

Key Findings

Key Service Areas’ Contribution to Overall Satisfaction

By combining the outcomes of the regression data, we can identify the derived importance of the different Nett Priority Areas.

Contribution to Overall Satisfaction with Council’s Performance

Nett: Council Advocacy and Leadership 31.5%

Nett: Council Services 29.8%

Nett: Council Facilities 23.1%

Nett: Community Services and Groups 15.6%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

‘Council Advocacy and Leadership’ (31.5%) is the key contributor toward overall satisfaction with Council’s performance.

The services and facilities grouped under this banner include: • Economic development of the Richmond Valley • Financial management • Local employment • Community engagement/consultation • Opportunity to participate in Council’s decision making processes • Support for community organisations • Council provision of information

This is not to indicate that the other priority areas are less important, but rather that some of the services and facilities grouped under the banner of ‘Council advocacy and leadership’ are stronger drivers of resident satisfaction.

Richmond Valley Council Community Research September 2016 Page|24

Summary and

Recommendations

Summary and Recommendations

Overall satisfaction with the performance of Richmond Valley Council was high, with 94% of residents stating that they were at least ‘somewhat satisfied’ with the performance of Council over the last 12 months, significantly increasing from 2013. Notably, five areas including ‘Car parking’, ‘Financial management’, ‘Protecting the natural environment’, ‘Stormwater’, and ‘Festivals and events’, have significantly increased in satisfaction since 2013.

‘Maintaining local roads’ and ‘community consultation/engagement’ were identified as key drivers of overall satisfaction with Council, with ‘community consultation/engagement’ in particular having a strong impact on overall satisfaction. Council should look to improve satisfaction across these services.

Residents had high levels of agreement with community related statements, with 81% agreeing that ‘the Richmond Valley Council Area is a good place to live’. Furthermore, residents strongly value their community spirit, and the friendliness in the area. The location and the access to services it provides, as well as the peace and quiet in the area are also highly valued by residents.

Though residents had an overall positive outlook on living in Richmond Valley, they expressed concern for local employment and road maintenance/infrastructure’. These top priority areas have remained consistent since 2013 suggesting Council should look to address these areas to improve resident satisfaction.

When assessing residents’ support for Signature Projects to undertake over the next four years, residents were most supportive of the Casino Rail Freight Terminal, which will have an upgrade with a rail freight and grain terminal to increase business and employment.

Recommendations

Based on the results of this research, Council should:

1. Recognise residents’ support for the allocation of funding and resources into Signature Projects over the next four years

 Focus on the economic viability of the region, specifically in regards to local employment by acknowledging residents’ support for the Casino Rail Freight Project, which will provide business and employment

2. Continue to actively connect with the community via dedicated engagement to inform and involve

3. Explore and understand expectations around local infrastructure and transport areas

Richmond Valley Council Community Research September 2016 Page | 26

The Community Experience

The Community Experience Summary

81% of residents ‘agree’ or ‘strongly agree’ with the statement ‘the Richmond Valley Council Area is a good place to live’.

47% of residents ‘disagree’ or ‘strongly disagree’ that ‘transport in the area is accessible’, with those aged 50-64 being significantly less likely to agree with this statement.

Those aged 50-64 were significantly more likely to agree that ‘I have enough opportunities to participate in arts and cultural activities’.

Residents aged 65+ were significantly more likely to agree with 8 of the 11 statements. These were:

• The Richmond Valley Council Area is a good place to live • I feel a part of my local community • Richmond Valley is a harmonious, respectful and tolerant community • Housing in the area is affordable • I feel safe living in Richmond Valley • I have enough opportunities to improve my health and wellbeing • Local shopping strips are vibrant and economically healthy • I have enough opportunities to participate in arts and cultural activities

They were significantly less likely to agree that ‘I have enough opportunities to participate in sporting or recreational activities’.

Residents aged 35-49 were significantly less likely to agree that ‘I feel safe living in Richmond Valley’ and ‘Local shopping strips are vibrant and economically healthy’.

Those living in Villages were significantly more likely to agree that ‘The Richmond Valley Council Area is a good place to live’ and ‘I feel safe living in Richmond Valley’, whilst they were less likely to agree that ‘I have enough opportunities to participate in sporting or recreational activities’, ‘I have enough opportunities to improve my health and wellbeing’ and ‘Transport in the area is accessible’.

Township residents were significantly less likely to agree that ‘I feel safe living in Richmond Valley’ and ‘Housing in the area is affordable’.

Richmond Valley Council Community Research September 2016 Page | 28

The Community Experience

Q1. How strongly do you agree or disagree with the following statements?

2016 2013 Mean Mean ratings ratings

The Richmond Valley Council Area is a 1% 2% 30% 51% 4.27 4.25 good place to live

I have enough opportunities to participate 5% 6% 37% 37% 3.94 3.89 in sporting or recreational activities

I feel a part of my local community 4% 6% 30% 34% 3.83 3.88

I feel safe living in Richmond Valley 5%-11% 32% 31% 3.74 3.55

I have enough opportunities to improve my health and wellbeing 8% 8% 33% 28% 3.64 3.59

I like to attend events and festivals in the Richmond Valley Council area 6%11% 26% 27% 3.57 3.51

Richmond Valley is a harmonious, respectful 7% 8% 41% 16% 3.50 3.42 and tolerant community

Housing in the area is affordable 8% 13% 31% 22% 3.45 3.53

Local shopping strips are vibrant and economically healthy 7% 17% 28% 13% 3.24 3.30

I have enough opportunities to participate 10% 16% 29% 14% 3.20 3.32 in arts and cultural activities

Transport in the area is accessible 25% 22% 15% 12% 2.68 2.75

-60% -30% 0% 30% 60% 90%

Strongly disagree Disagree Agree Strongly agree

Base N = 403

Scale: 1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree

Richmond Valley Council Community Research September 2016 Page | 29

Communication with Council Summary

Residents are moderately satisfied with the level of communication Council currently has with the community.

Those aged 65+ were significantly more satisfied.

Q2. How satisfied are you with the level of communication Council currently has with the community?

Overall Overall Male Female 18-34 25-34 35-49 50-64 65+ 2016 2013

Mean ratings 3.42 3.32 3.33 3.51 2.99 3.69 3.30 3.39 3.60▲

Rural Township Villages suburbs Mean ratings 3.44 3.41 3.40

Scale: 1 = not at all satisfied, 5 = very satisfied

11% Very satisfied 10%

44% Satisfied 42%

28% Somewhat satisfied 26%

11% Not very satisfied 15%

6% Not at all satisfied 7%

0% 20% 40% 60%

2016 N = 403 2013 N = 400

Richmond Valley Council Community Research September 2016 Page | 30

Receiving Information about Council Summary

‘Word of mouth’ continued to be the primary method to receive information about council (81%), with the use of ‘web/internet’, ‘email’, ‘brochures/flyers/posters’, ‘libraries/Council community centres’ and ‘community organisations’ significantly increasing from 2013.

Females were significantly more likely to receive information about Council using ‘Facebook’.

Young people aged 18-24 were significantly more likely to receive information via ‘word of mouth’ and ‘Facebook’, but significantly less likely to receive information via ‘Express Examiner’ and ‘Community newsletters’.

Residents aged 25-34 were significantly more likely to receive information via ‘web/internet’, whilst those aged 50-64 were significantly less likely to use this means as well as ‘Facebook’ and ‘Libraries/Council community centres’ when receiving information.

Residents aged 65+ were significantly more likely to have received information via ‘Express Examiner’ and ‘Community newsletters’, whilst being significantly less likely to have received information via ‘Web/internet’, ‘Brochures/flyers/posters’ and ‘Facebook’.

Village residents are significantly more likely to attain information from ‘Coraki & District News’, ‘Community newsletters’ and ‘Word of mouth’, but significantly less likely to use the ‘Express Examiner’ and ‘Libraries/Council community centres’.

Those living in Townships receive significantly more information via ‘Express Examiner’, and significantly less via ‘Coraki & District News’ and ‘radio’.

Q3. How do you receive information about Council?

81% Word of mouth 78% 74%▲ Brochures/flyers/posters 53% 73% Express Examiner 76% Community newsletters 55%*

52% Television 49% 48% Radio 53% 42%▲ Community organisations 28% 38%▲ Web/Internet 22% 34%▲ Libraries/Council community centres 21% Facebook 26%*

18% Coraki & District News 17% 14%▲ Email 5% 3% Other 2%

0% 30% 60% 90% 2016 N = 403 2013 N = 400

▲/▼= A significantly higher/lower percentage (by year)

Richmond Valley Council Community Research September 2016 Page | 31

Priority Issues

Satisfaction with the Performance of Council

Summary

Overall 94% of residents were at least ‘somewhat satisfied’ with the performance of Council. This has significantly increased since 2013, and is significantly higher than the mean benchmarks for ‘All of NSW’, Metropolitan and Regional Councils.

Residents aged 65+ were significantly more likely to be satisfied with the performance of Council over the last 12 months.

Q5. Overall for the last 12 months, how satisfied are you with the performance of Council, not just on one or two issues but across all responsibility areas?

Overall Overall Male Female 18-34 25-34 35-49 50-64 65+ 2016 2013 Mean 3.66▲ 3.41 3.62 3.69 3.48 3.72 3.49 3.67 3.83▲ ratings

Rural Township Villages suburbs

Mean ratings 3.69 3.62 3.62

Richmond Metro NSW LGA BRAND SCORES Regional All of NSW Valley Benchmark 2016 Mean ratings 3.45▼ 3.22▼ 3.31▼ 3.66▲

Scale: 1 = not at all satisfied, 5 = very satisfied

▲/▼ = A significantly higher/lower level of satisfaction (by group)

12% Very satisfied 11%

50% Satisfied 41%

32% Somewhat satisfied 30%

4% Not very satisfied 14%

2% Not at all satisfied 4%

0% 20% 40% 60% 2016 N = 403 20313 N = 400

Richmond Valley Council Community Research September 2016 Page | 33

Most Valued Aspect

Summary

Residents indicated that the thing they value most about living in the LGA is the ‘community spirit and friendly people’ (31%). They also value their ‘location and their access to services/facilities’ (21%) as well as the ‘peace and quiet’ (21%) the area provides.

The aspects that residents value most have remained consistent since 2013.

Q6. What do you value most about living in the Richmond Valley local government area?

Word Frequency Tagging

Verbatim responses for this question were collated and entered into analytical software. This analysis ‘counts’ the number of times a particular word or phrase appears and, based on the frequency of that word or phrase, a font size is generated. The larger the font, the more frequently the word or sentiment is mentioned.

Community spirit/friendly people 31%

Location & access to services/facilities, e.g. 21% education, recreation

Peace and quiet 21%

Natural environment/scenery 14%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

2016 N = 403

Richmond Valley Council Community Research September 2016 Page | 34

Top Priorities Facing the LGA

Summary

Residents believe the top priorities facing the LGA over the next 5 years are ‘local employment’ (31%) and ‘road maintenance/infrastructure’ (29%).

The top priority issues facing the LGA have remained consistent since 2013, suggesting residents believe more emphasis should be placed on these areas.

Q7. Thinking about the next 5 years, what do you think are the highest priority issues facing the Richmond Valley local government area?

Word Frequency Tagging

Verbatim responses for this question were collated and entered into analytical software. This analysis ‘counts’ the number of times a particular word or phrase appears and, based on the frequency of that word or phrase, a font size is generated. The larger the font, the more frequently the word or sentiment is mentioned.

Local employment 31%

Road maintenance/infrastructure 29%

Crime reduction and public safety 11%

Health services and facilities 9%

Financial management and economic 8% development

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 2016 N = 403

Richmond Valley Council Community Research September 2016 Page | 35

Signature Projects

Council is currently looking at proposed projects over the next four years to improve the area. Once Council understands how residents feel towards each project, funding priority and resources will be allocated to commence plans and undertake work Summary

When considering projects for the allocation of funding and resources over the next four years, residents were most supportive of the project ‘The Casino Rail Freight Terminal, with 85% giving a rating of ‘supportive’ or ‘extremely supportive’.

Residents were least supportive of the project ‘The Northern Rivers Rail Trail.

Females were significantly more supportive of ‘The Civic Hall Upgrade’, whilst males significantly preferred to support ‘The Nammoona Industrial Precinct’.

18-24 years olds were significantly more supportive of ‘The Woodburn Riverfront Project’ and ‘The Northern Rivers Rail Trail. 25-34 year olds were also significantly more supportive of ‘The Northern Rivers Rail Trail, whilst those aged 65+ were significantly less likely to support this project.

Rural residents showed significantly higher support for ‘The Civic Hall Upgrade’ and ‘The Casino Drill Hall’.

Residents from Villages were significantly more likely to support ‘The Woodburn Riverfront Project’, but were significantly less likely to support ‘The Northern Rivers Livestock Exchange’, ‘The Nammoona Industrial Precinct’ and ‘The Casino Rail Freight Terminal’. Mean ratings

The Casino Rail Freight Terminal 2% 1% 36% 49% 4.31

The Northern Rivers Livestock 3%5% 37% 41% 4.09 Exchange

The Nammoona Industrial Precinct 4%4% 39% 39% 4.06

The Woodburn Riverfront Project 3%7% 41% 33% 3.93

The Civic Hall Upgrade 7% 10% 37% 23% 3.6

The Casino Drill Hall 7% 14% 35% 18% 3.43

The Casino Amphitheatre and 11% 11% 32% 21% 3.42 Riverbank Improvements

The Northern Rivers Rail Trail 20% 12% 26% 24% 3.23

-40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

Not at all supportive Not very supportive Supportive Extremely supportive

Scale: 1 = not at all supportive, 5 = very supportive

Richmond Valley Council Community Research September 2016 Page | 36

Other Projects Summary

26% of residents claimed there are other projects that Council should undertake, with ‘Riverbank upgrades’ and ‘Upgrades to pools/aquatic centres’ considered projects Council should support.

Q8b. Is there any other project that Council should undertake?

Yes 26%

No 74%

Q8c. What is the project(s)?

Project Count Project Count

Riverbank upgrades 9 Health service and hospital upgrades 3

Upgrades to pools/aquatic centres 9 Increasing the number of aged care facilities 3

Improve and provide playgrounds 7 Similar projects in smaller suburbs 3

Restore/install railway services 7 Upgrade sporting facilities 3

Road maintenance & infrastructure 7 Upgrading and beautifying town centres 3

Increase parks and gardens 6 Walking tracks 3

Removal/relocation of bats 5

Base: N = 403 Note: Counts < 3 are shown in the Appendix

Richmond Valley Council Community Research September 2016 Page | 37

Retail Spending

Retail Spending Summary

53% of residents claimed to make the majority of their retail purchases in Casino, followed by Lismore, with Lismore also claiming the highest response for their secondary choice.

Q13a. Thinking about your everyday retail spending during the last month, where did you make the majority of your purchases?

Casino 53%

Lismore 25%

Evans Head 11%

Ballina 7% Other Specified Count Coraki 2% Darwin 1 Woodburn 1% Goulburn 1 Gold Coast <1% North Star 1 Western Australia 1 Grafton <1%

Other 1%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Base: N = 403

Q13b. And still thinking about your everyday retail spending during the last month, where else did you make purchases?

Coun Lismore 53% Other Specified t 10 Ballina 18% Brisbane Kyogle 5 Evans Head 16% Online e.g. EBay, Hoot 3 RC, Woolworths Casino 15% Sydney 2 Alstonville 1 Gold Coast 8% Bangalow 1 Blue Mountains 1 Coraki 7% Coffs Harbour 1 Woodburn 6% Fiji 1 Kingscliff 1 Grafton 4% Mullumbimby 1 Newcastle 1 Other 5% Rockhampton 1 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Tenterfield 1

Base: N = 403

Richmond Valley Council Community Research September 2016 Page | 39

Detailed Findings –

Importance of, and Satisfaction with,

Council Services & Facilities

Influence on Overall Satisfaction

A core element of this community survey was the rating of 36 facilities/services in terms of Importance and Satisfaction. This section reports the Shapley Regression analysis undertaken on these measures – and the detailed responses to the measures themselves. The chart below summarises the influence of the 36 facilities/services on overall satisfaction with Council’s performance, based on the Shapley Regression:

Maintaining local roads 8.9% Community engagement/consultation 8.2% Council provision of information 6.7% Financial management 5.0% Support for young people 4.8% Opportunity to participate in Council's decision making 4.1% Cemeteries 4.0% Health services 3.9% Lighting in public places 3.8% Economic development of the Richmond Valley 3.7% Libraries 3.4% Attractiveness of the town centres 2.8% Household garbage collection 2.7% Protecting the natural environment 2.7% Emergency management 2.6% Waste management 2.5% Support for community organisations 2.4% Aged care services/facilities 2.3% Festivals and events 2.3% Long term town planning for the area 2.3% Support for people on low incomes 2.3% Community centres and facilities 1.9% Swimming pools 1.9% Availability & maintenance of sporting ovals 1.8% Disability services/accessibility support 1.7% Protection of heritage buildings and items 1.7% Development Assessment 1.4% Local employment 1.4% Beaches 1.3% Maintaining footpaths 1.3% Availability of local parks and playgrounds 1.2% Compliance (Environmental health, companion animals) 0.7% Stormwater (gutters & drainage) 0.7% Supporting cultural diversity 0.6% Car parking 0.5% Riverbanks 0.4%

0.0% 2.0% 4.0% 6.0% 8.0% 10.0%

Richmond Valley Council Community Research September 2016 Page | 41

Service Areas Each of the 36 facilities/services were grouped into service areas as detailed below

Council Services Council Facilities Maintaining local roads Availability of local parks and playgrounds Maintaining footpaths Swimming pools Availability and maintenance of sporting ovals, Car parking grounds and facilities Protecting the natural environment Libraries Waste management Community centres and facilities Stormwater (gutters & drainage) Festivals and events Beaches Cemeteries Riverbanks Emergency management Long term town planning for the Richmond Lighting in public places Valley Council area Attractiveness of the town centres Protection of heritage building and items Community Services and Groups Household garbage collection Aged care services/facilities Compliance (Environmental health, companion Disability services/accessibility support animals) Development Assessment Support for young people Support for people on low incomes Supporting cultural diversity and Council Advocacy and Leadership Aboriginal/Torres Strait Islander communities Economic development of the Richmond Valley Health services Financial management Local employment Community engagement/consultation Opportunity to participate in Council’s decision

making processes Support for community organisations Council provision of information

An Explanation

The following pages detail the Shapley findings for each service area, and summarise the stated importance and satisfaction ratings by key demographics.

Importance

For the stated importance ratings, residents were asked to rate how important each of the criteria was to them, on a scale of 1 to 5.

Satisfaction

Any resident who had rated the importance of a particular criterion a 4 or 5 was then asked how satisfied they were with the performance of Council for that service or facility. There was an option for residents to answer ‘don’t know’ to satisfaction, as they may not have personally used a particular service or facility.

Richmond Valley Council Community Research September 2016 Page | 42

Service Area 1: Council Services Shapley Regression

Contributes to Almost 30% of Overall Satisfaction with Council

Nett - Council Services 29.8%

Maintaining local roads 8.9%

Attractiveness of the town centres 2.8%

Protecting the natural environment 2.7%

Household garbage collection 2.7%

Waste management 2.5%

Long term town planning for the Richmond 2.3% Valley Council area

Protection of heritage buildings and items 1.7%

Development Assessment 1.4%

Beaches 1.3%

Maintaining footpaths 1.3%

Compliance (Environmental health, 0.7% companion animals)

Stormwater (gutters & drainage) 0.7%

Car parking 0.5%

Riverbanks 0.4% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

Richmond Valley Council Community Research September 2016 Page | 43

Service Area 1: Council Services Overview of Importance Rating Scores by Key Demographics

Residents were asked to rate the importance of each criteria.

Importance – overall

Extremely high Maintaining local roads Very high Long term town planning for the Richmond Valley Council area Household garbage collection Waste management Attractiveness of the town centres Protecting the natural environment Riverbanks High Car parking Beaches Protection of heritage buildings and items Development Assessment Maintaining footpaths Compliance (Environmental health, companion animals) Stormwater (gutters & drainage)

Importance – by age

Residents aged 18-24 considered ‘Car parking’ and ‘Protecting the natural environment’ significantly more important.

Those aged 35-49 rated ‘Maintaining local roads’ and ‘Long term town planning for the Richmond Valley Council area’ significantly more important, whilst those aged 65+ rated ‘Maintaining local roads’ and ‘Beaches’ as significantly less important.

Importance – by gender

Females rated 4 of the 14 services and facilities as significantly more important. These were:

• Maintaining footpaths • Car parking • Protecting the natural environment • Protection of heritage building and items

Importance – by area

Residents living in Townships rated 5 of the 14 services and facilities as significantly more important. These were:

• Maintaining footpaths • Waste management • Stormwater (gutters & drainage) • Long term town planning for the Richmond Valley Council area • Household garbage collection

Residents living in Rural suburbs rated ‘Maintaining footpaths’, ‘Waste management’, ‘Stormwater (drains & gutters)’, ‘Long term planning for the Richmond Valley Council area’ and ‘Household garbage collection’ significantly lower in importance.

Importance – compared to 2013

‘Car parking’ and ‘Stormwater (gutters & drainage)’ were rated lower in importance compared to 2013.

Richmond Valley Council Community Research September 2016 Page | 44

Service Area 1: Council Services Importance Mean Scores by Key Demographics

Overall Male Female 18-24 25-34 35-49 50-64 65+

Maintaining local roads 4.61 4.57 4.65 4.77 4.72 4.78 4.62 4.33 Maintaining footpaths 4.04 3.84 4.22 4.17 3.99 4.26 3.93 3.91 Car parking 4.17 3.98 4.35 4.67 4.17 4.09 4.19 4.04 Protecting the natural 4.28 4.12 4.44 4.67 4.35 4.23 4.29 4.14 environment Waste management 4.40 4.40 4.40 4.58 4.49 4.33 4.41 4.35 Stormwater (gutters & 4.02 3.94 4.09 4.05 4.31 3.89 3.88 4.13 drainage) Beaches 4.13 4.06 4.21 4.27 4.47 4.33 4.03 3.85 Riverbanks 4.21 4.13 4.28 4.32 4.33 4.16 4.25 4.11 Long term town planning for the Richmond Valley 4.48 4.48 4.47 4.29 4.58 4.65 4.43 4.38 Council area Attractiveness of the town 4.30 4.28 4.33 4.33 3.93 4.38 4.30 4.41 centres Protection of heritage 4.09 3.91 4.25 4.25 3.94 4.05 4.07 4.14 buildings and items Household garbage 4.44 4.37 4.50 4.15 4.58 4.41 4.46 4.48 collection Compliance (Environmental health, 4.02 3.92 4.12 4.02 3.75 4.06 4.05 4.08 companion animals) Development Assessment 4.07 4.14 4.00 4.36 3.97 4.15 4.00 4.01

Township Villages Rural suburbs Maintaining local roads 4.62 4.63 4.56 Maintaining footpaths 4.21 3.86 3.79 Car parking 4.28 3.90 4.12 Protecting the natural environment 4.38 4.19 4.14 Waste management 4.55 4.38 4.10 Stormwater (gutters & drainage) 4.20 4.16 3.52 Beaches 4.18 4.24 3.96 Riverbanks 4.24 4.39 4.00 Long term town planning for the Richmond 4.59 4.35 4.31 Valley Council area Attractiveness of the town centres 4.36 4.24 4.22 Protection of heritage buildings and items 4.04 4.15 4.14 Household garbage collection 4.69 4.59 3.80 Compliance (Environmental health, companion 4.03 4.10 3.94 animals) Development Assessment 4.13 4.04 3.97

Scale: 1 = not at all important, 5 = very important

Significantly higher/lower level of importance (by group)

Richmond Valley Council Community Research September 2016 Page | 45

Service Area 1: Council Services Detailed Overall Response for Importance

Not at all Not very Somewhat Very Important Total % Base important important important important Maintaining local roads 1% 2% 5% 19% 73% 100% 403 Maintaining footpaths 7% 5% 13% 27% 48% 100% 403 Car parking 4% 6% 14% 24% 53% 100% 403 Protecting the natural environment 3% 4% 14% 22% 58% 100% 403 Waste management 3% 3% 8% 22% 64% 100% 403 Stormwater (gutters & drainage) 7% 6% 15% 23% 49% 100% 403 Beaches 5% 4% 17% 21% 54% 100% 403 Riverbanks 4% 4% 13% 27% 52% 100% 403 Long term town planning for the 1% 1% 9% 24% 64% 100% 403 Richmond Valley Council area Attractiveness of the town centres 1% 1% 16% 30% 52% 100% 403 Protection of heritage buildings 3% 4% 21% 26% 46% 100% 403 and items Household garbage collection 5% 3% 5% 20% 68% 100% 403 Compliance (Environmental 4% 6% 17% 31% 42% 100% 403 health, companion animals) Development Assessment 4% 3% 19% 32% 43% 100% 403

Richmond Valley Council Community Research September 2016 Page | 46

Service Area 1: Council Services Overview of Satisfaction Rating Scores by Key Demographics

Residents were asked to rate their satisfaction with each of the criteria.

Satisfaction – overall

High Beaches Moderately High Compliance (Environmental health, companion animals) Protection of heritage buildings and items Waste management Household garbage collection Stormwater (gutters & drainage) Protecting the natural environment Moderate Riverbanks Car parking Development Assessment Attractiveness of the town centres Maintaining footpaths Long term town planning for the Richmond Valley Council area Moderately low Maintaining local roads

Satisfaction – by age

Residents aged 25-34 were significantly more satisfied with ‘Stormwater (gutters & drainage)’, ‘Riverbanks’ and ‘Long term planning for the Richmond Valley Council area’

Residents aged 35-49 were significantly less satisfied with 5 of the 14 services and facilities. These were: • Maintaining local roads • Waste management • Long term planning for the Richmond Valley Council area • Protection of heritage buildings and items • Household garbage collection

50-64 year olds were significantly less satisfied with ‘Stormwater (gutters & drainage)’.

Those aged 65+ expressed significantly higher levels of satisfaction with 7 out of the 14 services and facilities. These were:

• Maintaining local roads • Car parking • Waste management • Long term planning for the Richmond Valley Council area • Attractiveness of the town centres • Household garbage collection • Development assessment

Satisfaction – by gender

There were no significant differences by gender.

Richmond Valley Council Community Research September 2016 Page | 47

Service Area 1: Council Services Continued

Satisfaction – by area

Township residents were significantly more satisfied with ‘Stormwater (gutters & drainage’, but significantly less satisfied with ‘Car parking’.

Those living in Rural suburbs were significantly more satisfied with ‘ Maintaining footpaths’, ‘Car parking’ and ‘Beaches’, whilst those living in Villages were significantly less satisfied with ‘Stormwater (gutters & drainage)’. Satisfaction – compared to 2013

Residents were significantly more satisfied with ‘Car parking’, ‘Protecting the natural environment’ and ‘Stormwater (gutters & drainage)’ in 2016, whilst being significantly less satisfied with ‘Household Garbage collection’ compared to 2013.

Richmond Valley Council Community Research September 2016 Page | 48

Service Area 1: Council Services Satisfaction Mean Scores by Key Demographics

Overall Male Female 18-24 25-34 35-49 50-64 65+

Maintaining local roads 2.81 2.79 2.84 2.78 2.44 2.46 2.96 3.24 Maintaining footpaths 3.32 3.39 3.26 3.73 3.18 3.06 3.30 3.51 Car parking 3.43 3.34 3.51 3.52 2.81 3.33 3.50 3.69 Protecting the natural 3.61 3.51 3.69 3.56 3.82 3.44 3.57 3.75 environment Waste management 3.69 3.54 3.83 3.47 3.72 3.35 3.65 4.10 Stormwater (gutters & 3.63 3.65 3.61 3.98 4.34 3.41 3.37 3.60 drainage) Beaches 4.08 4.13 4.04 4.14 4.26 3.99 4.03 4.09 Riverbanks 3.43 3.42 3.43 3.75 4.09 3.20 3.27 3.37 Long term town planning for the Richmond Valley 3.26 3.12 3.39 3.26 3.69 2.92 3.22 3.45 Council area Attractiveness of the town 3.40 3.28 3.51 2.97 3.16 3.26 3.42 3.74 centres Protection of heritage 3.71 3.68 3.72 4.06 3.88 3.31 3.72 3.82 buildings and items Household garbage 3.66 3.60 3.71 3.14 3.68 3.30 3.70 4.13 collection Compliance (Environmental health, 3.84 3.82 3.85 3.79 4.08 3.80 3.76 3.88 companion animals) Development Assessment 3.41 3.29 3.53 3.11 3.48 3.30 3.40 3.64

Township Villages Rural suburbs Maintaining local roads 2.82 2.65 2.92 Maintaining footpaths 3.20 3.37 3.58 Car parking 3.25 3.64 3.70 Protecting the natural environment 3.55 3.83 3.60 Waste management 3.72 3.75 3.57 Stormwater (gutters & drainage) 3.79 3.10 3.67 Beaches 3.98 4.10 4.30 Riverbanks 3.32 3.58 3.54 Long term town planning for the Richmond 3.16 3.33 3.42 Valley Council area Attractiveness of the town centres 3.39 3.44 3.40 Protection of heritage buildings and items 3.64 3.81 3.77 Household garbage collection 3.75 3.67 3.38 Compliance (Environmental health, companion 3.85 3.98 3.70 animals) Development Assessment 3.38 3.54 3.39

Scale: 1 = not at all satisfied, 5 = very satisfied

Significantly higher/lower level of satisfaction (by group)

Richmond Valley Council Community Research September 2016 Page | 49

Service Area 1: Council Services Detailed Overall Response for Satisfaction

Not at all Not very Somewhat Very Satisfied Total % Base satisfied satisfied satisfied satisfied Maintaining local roads 14% 22% 38% 20% 6% 100% 371 Maintaining footpaths 8% 13% 31% 33% 14% 100% 300 Car parking 10% 9% 26% 37% 17% 100% 309 Protecting the natural environment 4% 7% 33% 37% 19% 100% 320 Waste management 9% 6% 21% 34% 30% 100% 346 Stormwater (gutters & drainage) 7% 8% 25% 37% 24% 100% 291 Beaches 1% 5% 18% 38% 38% 100% 299 Riverbanks 5% 15% 32% 29% 19% 100% 320 Long term town planning for the 7% 15% 34% 32% 12% 100% 351 Richmond Valley Council area Attractiveness of the town centres 7% 12% 29% 34% 16% 100% 329 Protection of heritage buildings 3% 9% 26% 39% 23% 100% 292 and items Household garbage collection 12% 5% 20% 32% 31% 100% 354 Compliance (Environmental 1% 4% 25% 48% 21% 100% 294 health, companion animals) Development Assessment 3% 14% 35% 34% 14% 100% 301

Richmond Valley Council Community Research September 2016 Page | 50

Service Area 2: Council Advocacy and Leadership Shapley Regression

Contributes to Almost 32% of Overall Satisfaction with Council

Nett - Council Advocacy and Leadership 31.5%

Community engagement/consultation 8.2%

Council provision of information 6.7%

Financial management 5.0%

Opportunity to participate in Council's 4.1% decision making processes

Economic development of the Richmond 3.7% Valley

Support for community organisations 2.4%

Local employment 1.4%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

Richmond Valley Council Community Research September 2016 Page | 51

Service Area 2: Council Advocacy and Leadership Overview of Importance Rating Scores by Key Demographics

Residents were asked to rate the importance of each criteria.

Importance – overall

Extremely high Local employment Very high Financial management Economic development of the Richmond Valley Support for community organisations Community engagement/consultation Council provision of information High Opportunity to participate in Council's decision making processes

Importance – by age

Those aged 18-34 rated ‘Council provision of information’ significantly lower in importance.

Residents aged 35-49 rated ‘Economic development of the Richmond Valley’, ‘Local employment’ and ‘Council provision of information’ significantly higher in importance, whilst those aged 65+ rated ‘Local employment’ significantly lower in importance.

Importance – by gender

Females rated ‘Support for community organisations’ significantly higher in importance.

Importance – by area

There were no significant differences by area.

Importance – compared to 2013

‘Council provision of information’ was rated significantly lower in importance compared to 2013.

Richmond Valley Council Community Research September 2016 Page | 52

Service Area 2: Council Advocacy and Leadership Importance Mean Scores by Key Demographics

Overall Male Female 18-24 25-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Economic development of 4.39 4.36 4.41 4.15 4.19 4.65 4.38 4.34 the Richmond Valley Financial management 4.47 4.52 4.42 4.61 4.21 4.58 4.51 4.39 Local employment 4.65 4.60 4.69 4.79 4.63 4.81 4.71 4.38 Community engagement/ 4.33 4.37 4.30 4.42 4.33 4.47 4.31 4.21 consultation Opportunity to participate in Council's decision 4.13 4.14 4.11 4.34 4.05 4.27 4.07 4.03 making processes Support for community 4.35 4.25 4.45 4.25 4.39 4.52 4.35 4.22 organisations Council provision of 4.24 4.22 4.25 3.68 3.77 4.53 4.32 4.29 information

Township Villages Rural suburbs Economic development of the Richmond Valley 4.36 4.35 4.47 Financial management 4.44 4.47 4.52 Local employment 4.67 4.63 4.61 Community engagement/consultation 4.38 4.36 4.23 Opportunity to participate in Council's decision 4.16 4.10 4.08 making processes Support for community organisations 4.33 4.39 4.37 Council provision of information 4.20 4.26 4.29

Scale: 1 = not at all important, 5 = very important

Significantly higher/lower level of importance (by group)

Detailed Overall Response for Importance

Not at all Not very Somewhat Very Important Total % Base important important important important Economic development of the 2% 2% 11% 26% 59% 100% 403 Richmond Valley Financial management 2% 3% 9% 19% 67% 100% 403 Local employment 2% 1% 4% 13% 79% 100% 403 Community 2% 2% 13% 26% 57% 100% 403 engagement/consultation Opportunity to participate in Council's decision making 3% 4% 16% 31% 46% 100% 403 processes Support for community 1% 2% 13% 28% 56% 100% 403 organisations Council provision of information 1% 4% 13% 32% 49% 100% 403

Richmond Valley Council Community Research September 2016 Page | 53

Service Area 2: Council Advocacy and Leadership Overview of Satisfaction Rating Scores by Key Demographics

Residents were asked to rate their satisfaction with each of the criteria.

Satisfaction – overall

Moderately high Support for community organisations Moderate Financial management Economic development of the Richmond Valley Council provision of information Community engagement/consultation Moderately low Opportunity to participate in Council’s decision making processes Local employment

Satisfaction – by age

Those aged 65+ were significantly more satisfied with ‘Economic development of the Richmond Valley’, ‘Financial management’, ‘Local employment’ and ‘Opportunity to participate in Council’s decision making processes’.

Satisfaction – by gender

Females expressed higher levels of satisfaction for ‘Community engagement/consultation’, ‘Opportunity to participate in Council’s decision making processes’ and ‘Council provision of information’.

Satisfaction – by area

Village residents had significantly higher levels of satisfaction for ‘Community engagement/consultation’ and ‘Opportunity to participate in Council’s decision making processes’, whilst those living in Townships expressed lower levels of satisfaction with ‘Opportunity to participate in Council’s decision making processes’.

Satisfaction – compared to 2013

Residents were significantly more satisfied with ‘Financial management’ in 2016.

Richmond Valley Council Community Research September 2016 Page | 54

Service Area 2: Council Advocacy and Leadership Satisfaction Mean Scores by Key Demographics

Overall Male Female 18-24 25-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Economic development of 3.37 3.25 3.48 3.32 3.58 3.19 3.27 3.56 the Richmond Valley Financial management 3.41 3.38 3.44 3.53 3.64 3.18 3.31 3.61 Local employment 2.83 2.74 2.91 2.37 2.77 2.64 3.00 3.05 Community engagement/ 3.17 2.99 3.34 2.66 3.31 3.13 3.16 3.36 consultation Opportunity to participate in Council's decision 2.99 2.82 3.16 3.09 2.83 2.84 2.96 3.21 making processes Support for community 3.60 3.59 3.61 3.53 3.74 3.39 3.62 3.75 organisations Council provision of 3.36 3.21 3.49 3.38 3.34 3.20 3.35 3.53 information

Township Villages Rural suburbs Economic development of the Richmond Valley 3.33 3.44 3.39 Financial management 3.45 3.57 3.21 Local employment 2.70 3.04 2.96 Community engagement/consultation 3.08 3.46 3.15 Opportunity to participate in Council's decision 2.84 3.39 3.04 making processes Support for community organisations 3.61 3.75 3.48 Council provision of information 3.34 3.45 3.32

Scale: 1 = not at all satisfied, 5 = very satisfied

Significantly higher/lower level of satisfaction (by group)

Detailed Overall Response for Satisfaction

Not at all Not very Somewhat Very Satisfied Total % Base satisfied satisfied satisfied satisfied Economic development of the 4% 13% 36% 35% 12% 100% 342 Richmond Valley Financial management 6% 10% 34% 36% 13% 100% 346 Local employment 18% 16% 37% 20% 8% 100% 370 Community 9% 17% 34% 29% 11% 100% 333 engagement/consultation Opportunity to participate in Council's decision making 13% 19% 34% 23% 11% 100% 311 processes Support for community 2% 8% 35% 36% 18% 100% 336 organisations Council provision of information 4% 16% 34% 32% 14% 100% 327

Richmond Valley Council Community Research September 2016 Page | 55

Service Area 3: Council Facilities Shapley Regression

Contributes to Over 23% of Overall Satisfaction with Council

Nett - Council Facilities 23.1%

Cemeteries 4.0%

Lighting in public places 3.8%

Libraries 3.4%

Emergency management 2.6%

Festivals and events 2.3%

Swimming pools 1.9%

Community centres and facilities 1.9%

Availability and maintenance of sporting 1.8% ovals, grounds and facilities

Availability of local parks and playgrounds 1.2%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

Richmond Valley Council Community Research September 2016 Page | 56

Service Area 3: Council Facilities Overview of Importance Rating Scores by Key Demographics

Residents were asked to rate the importance of each criteria.

Importance – overall

Extremely high Emergency management Lighting in public places Very high Availability of local parks and playgrounds Availability and maintenance of sporting ovals, grounds and facilities Cemeteries High Libraries Festivals and events Community centres and facilities Swimming pools

Importance – by age

Residents aged 35-49 rated ‘Availability of local parks and playgrounds’ significantly higher in importance.

Importance – by gender

Females rated 4 out of the 9 services and facilities as significantly more important. These were:

• Swimming pools • Libraries • Community centres and facilities • Lighting in public places

Importance – by area

Township residents rated ‘Availability of local parks and playgrounds’ and ‘Lighting in public places’ significantly higher in importance, whilst those from Rural suburbs rated ‘Lighting in public places’ as significantly less important.

Importance – compared to 2013

There were no significant differences by year.

Richmond Valley Council Community Research September 2016 Page | 57

Service Area 3: Council Facilities Importance Mean Scores by Key Demographics

Overall Male Female 18-24 25-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Availability of local parks 4.40 4.37 4.43 4.05 4.53 4.60 4.38 4.29 and playgrounds Swimming pools 3.98 3.80 4.16 3.99 3.75 4.08 4.01 3.96 Availability and maintenance of sporting 4.31 4.24 4.38 4.23 4.26 4.50 4.26 4.23 ovals, grounds and facilities Libraries 4.15 3.88 4.41 4.25 4.52 4.02 4.10 4.12 Community centres and 4.08 3.88 4.28 4.02 4.12 3.96 4.05 4.24 facilities Festivals and events 4.12 4.05 4.19 4.17 4.31 4.25 3.99 4.05 Cemeteries 4.23 4.23 4.24 4.32 4.09 4.07 4.25 4.40 Emergency management 4.67 4.69 4.64 4.82 4.67 4.71 4.65 4.59 Lighting in public places 4.55 4.44 4.65 4.71 4.23 4.62 4.56 4.57

Township Villages Rural suburbs Availability of local parks and playgrounds 4.50 4.27 4.26 Swimming pools 4.03 3.87 3.94 Availability and maintenance of sporting ovals, 4.30 4.45 4.25 grounds and facilities Libraries 4.26 3.96 4.06 Community centres and facilities 4.07 4.19 4.05 Festivals and events 4.19 4.15 3.98 Cemeteries 4.26 4.19 4.21 Emergency management 4.68 4.60 4.70 Lighting in public places 4.64 4.54 4.36

Scale: 1 = not at all important, 5 = very important

Significantly higher/lower level of importance (by group)

Richmond Valley Council Community Research September 2016 Page | 58

Service Area 3: Council Facilities Detailed Overall Response for Importance

Not at all Not very Somewhat Very Important Total % Base important important important important Availability of local parks and 1% 3% 9% 27% 60% 100% 403 playgrounds Swimming pools 7% 7% 15% 23% 48% 100% 403 Availability and maintenance of sporting ovals, grounds and 2% 4% 12% 23% 59% 100% 403 facilities Libraries 4% 7% 15% 19% 56% 100% 403 Community centres and facilities 2% 9% 16% 24% 49% 100% 403 Festivals and events 2% 4% 15% 37% 42% 100% 403 Cemeteries 4% 6% 12% 19% 59% 100% 403 Emergency management 1% 2% 5% 15% 78% 100% 403 Lighting in public places 1% 4% 7% 16% 72% 100% 403

Richmond Valley Council Community Research September 2016 Page | 59

Service Area 3: Council Facilities Overview of Satisfaction Rating Scores by Key Demographics

Residents were asked to rate their satisfaction with each of the criteria.

Satisfaction – overall

Very high Libraries High Emergency management Cemeteries Community centres and facilities Moderately high Availability and maintenance of sporting ovals, grounds and facilities Festivals and events Swimming pools Moderate Availability of local parks and playgrounds Lighting in public places

Satisfaction – by age

Residents aged 65+ had significantly higher levels of satisfaction with all of the services and facilities, except ‘Emergency management’.

Satisfaction – by gender

Males expressed significantly higher levels of satisfaction with ‘Emergency management’.

Satisfaction – by area

Rural suburbs’ residents had significantly higher levels of satisfaction with ‘Community centres and facilities’, ‘Festivals and events’, and ‘Lighting in public places’, whilst those living in Villages were significantly less satisfied with ‘Libraries’.

Satisfaction – compared to 2013

Residents were significantly more satisfied with ‘Festivals and events’ in 2016.

Richmond Valley Council Community Research September 2016 Page | 60

Service Area 3: Council Facilities Satisfaction Mean Scores by Key Demographics

Overall Male Female 18-24 25-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Availability of local parks 3.55 3.62 3.49 3.16 3.32 3.47 3.54 3.91 and playgrounds Swimming pools 3.80 3.92 3.70 3.64 3.67 3.57 3.86 4.09 Availability and maintenance of sporting 3.82 3.72 3.91 3.76 3.81 3.63 3.77 4.06 ovals, grounds and facilities Libraries 4.29 4.29 4.28 4.05 4.44 4.09 4.27 4.49 Community centres and 3.97 3.94 3.99 4.07 3.97 3.69 3.92 4.21 facilities Festivals and events 3.81 3.77 3.85 3.83 3.53 3.60 3.99 4.01 Cemeteries 3.98 4.02 3.95 4.03 3.95 3.69 3.95 4.25 Emergency management 4.09 4.20 3.98 4.21 4.25 3.92 4.03 4.19 Lighting in public places 3.33 3.17 3.46 3.01 3.51 3.02 3.26 3.74

Township Villages Rural suburbs Availability of local parks and playgrounds 3.48 3.78 3.56 Swimming pools 3.79 3.79 3.84 Availability and maintenance of sporting ovals, 3.80 3.69 3.93 grounds and facilities Libraries 4.33 3.98 4.38 Community centres and facilities 3.95 3.79 4.13 Festivals and events 3.72 3.79 4.06 Cemeteries 3.99 3.73 4.16 Emergency management 4.11 3.97 4.12 Lighting in public places 3.25 3.19 3.63

Scale: 1 = not at all satisfied, 5 = very satisfied

Significantly higher/lower level of satisfaction (by group)

Richmond Valley Council Community Research September 2016 Page | 61

Service Area 3: Council Facilities Detailed Overall Response for Satisfaction

Not at all Not very Somewhat Very Satisfied Total % Base satisfied satisfied satisfied satisfied Availability of local parks and 6% 12% 23% 38% 20% 100% 348 playgrounds Swimming pools 5% 7% 24% 33% 32% 100% 285 Availability and maintenance of sporting ovals, grounds and 2% 9% 22% 38% 29% 100% 327 facilities Libraries 1% 2% 12% 39% 47% 100% 299 Community centres and facilities 1% 3% 23% 44% 29% 100% 293 Festivals and events 3% 6% 24% 40% 26% 100% 318 Cemeteries 5% 3% 18% 37% 37% 100% 312 Emergency management 1% 4% 19% 38% 38% 100% 372 Lighting in public places 7% 13% 35% 28% 16% 100% 356

Richmond Valley Council Community Research September 2016 Page | 62

Service Area 4: Community Services and Groups Shapley Regression

Contributes to Almost 16% of Overall Satisfaction with Council

Nett - Community Services and Groups 15.6%

Support for young people 4.8%

Health services 3.9%

Aged care services/facilities 2.3%

Support for people on low incomes 2.3%

Disability services/accessibility support 1.7%

Supporting cultural diversity and 0.6% Aboriginal/Torres Strait Islander communities

0% 10% 20% 30%

Richmond Valley Council Community Research September 2016 Page | 63

Service Area 4: Community Services and Groups Overview of Importance Rating Scores by Key Demographics

Residents were asked to rate the importance of each criteria.

Importance – overall

Extremely high Health services Support for young people Aged care services/facilities Very high Disability services/accessibility support Support for people on low incomes High Supporting cultural diversity and Aboriginal/Torres Strait Islander communities

Importance – by age

Residents aged 25-24 rated ‘Health services’ significantly higher in importance.

Importance – by gender

Females rated all services and facilities significantly higher in importance, except ‘Aged care services/facilities’.

Importance – by area

Village residents rated ‘Aged care services/facilities’ and ‘Support for people on low incomes’ significantly higher in importance, whilst those from Townships rated ‘Aged care services/facilities’ as significantly less important.

Importance – compared to 2013

These criteria weren’t included in 2013.

Richmond Valley Council Community Research September 2016 Page | 64

Service Area 4: Community Services and Groups Importance Mean Scores by Key Demographics

Overall Male Female 18-24 25-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Aged care services/ 4.56 4.45 4.66 4.56 4.18 4.57 4.60 4.66 facilities Disability services/ 4.40 4.18 4.60 4.66 4.46 4.27 4.33 4.46 accessibility support Support for young people 4.57 4.42 4.70 4.71 4.70 4.63 4.53 4.43 Support for people on low 4.37 4.25 4.48 4.27 4.51 4.35 4.32 4.40 incomes Supporting cultural diversity and 3.97 3.62 4.30 4.08 4.24 3.99 3.89 3.88 Aboriginal/Torres Strait Islander communities Health services 4.79 4.67 4.90 4.66 4.93 4.85 4.80 4.70

Township Villages Rural suburbs Aged care services/facilities 4.44 4.75 4.66 Disability services/accessibility support 4.37 4.47 4.41 Support for young people 4.55 4.62 4.57 Support for people on low incomes 4.34 4.56 4.28 Supporting cultural diversity and Aboriginal/ 3.94 4.15 3.91 Torres Strait Islander communities Health services 4.77 4.78 4.83

Scale: 1 = not at all important, 5 = very important

Significantly higher/lower level of importance (by group)

Detailed Overall Response for Importance

Not at all Not very Somewhat Very Important Total % Base important important important important Aged care services/ 3% 1% 8% 15% 74% 100% 403 facilities Disability services/ 3% 4% 9% 20% 65% 100% 403 accessibility support Support for young people 2% 1% 6% 20% 71% 100% 403 Support for people on low incomes 1% 4% 13% 21% 61% 100% 403 Supporting cultural diversity and Aboriginal/Torres Strait Islander 5% 8% 16% 27% 44% 100% 403 communities Health services 0% 1% 3% 9% 86% 100% 403

Richmond Valley Council Community Research September 2016 Page | 65

Service Area 4: Community Services and Groups Overview of Satisfaction Rating Scores by Key Demographics

Residents were asked to rate their satisfaction with each of the criteria.

Satisfaction – overall

Moderately high Aged care services/facilities Moderate Supporting cultural diversity and Aboriginal/Torres Strait Islander communities Disability services/accessibility support Health services Support for people on low incomes Support for young people

Satisfaction – by age

Residents aged 18-24 were significantly more satisfied with ‘Disability services/accessibility support’.

Those aged 65+ were significantly more satisfied with 4 of the 6 services and facilities. These were:

• Aged care services/facilities • Support for young people • Support for people on low incomes • Health services

Residents aged 35-49 were significantly less satisfied with ‘Aged care services/facilities’, ‘Disability services/accessibility support’, ‘Support for young people’, and ‘Health services’.

Satisfaction – by gender

There were no significant differences by gender.

Satisfaction – by area

Residents living in Rural suburbs expressed significantly higher levels of satisfaction with ‘Disability services/accessibility support’ and ‘Support for people on low incomes’.

Those living in Townships were significantly less satisfied with ‘Support for people on low incomes’ whilst those living in Villages were significantly less satisfied with ‘Aged care services/facilities’ and ‘Health services’.

Satisfaction – compared to 2013

These criteria weren’t included in 2013.

Richmond Valley Council Community Research September 2016 Page | 66

Service Area 4: Community Services and Groups Satisfaction Mean Scores by Key Demographics

Overall Male Female 18-24 25-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Aged care services/ 3.71 3.67 3.74 3.88 4.00 3.22 3.71 3.98 facilities Disability services/ 3.57 3.54 3.60 3.95 3.79 3.12 3.56 3.70 accessibility support Support for young people 3.06 2.98 3.14 3.04 3.24 2.58 3.16 3.36 Support for people on low 3.09 3.09 3.09 2.88 3.05 2.82 3.16 3.34 incomes Supporting cultural diversity and 3.59 3.45 3.68 3.55 3.50 3.50 3.70 3.61 Aboriginal/Torres Strait Islander communities Health services 3.54 3.50 3.58 3.47 3.44 3.26 3.46 3.99

Township Villages Rural suburbs Aged care services/facilities 3.79 3.33 3.80 Disability services/accessibility support 3.52 3.40 3.79 Support for young people 2.98 3.08 3.22 Support for people on low incomes 2.94 3.02 3.45 Supporting cultural diversity and Aboriginal/ 3.57 3.56 3.66 Torres Strait Islander communities Health services 3.64 3.00 3.73

Scale: 1 = not at all satisfied, 5 = very satisfied

Significantly higher/lower level of satisfaction (by group)

Detailed Overall Response for Satisfaction

Not at all Not very Somewhat Very Satisfied Total % Base satisfied satisfied satisfied satisfied Aged care services/ 5% 7% 26% 37% 26% 100% 355 facilities Disability services/ 4% 11% 27% 40% 18% 100% 336 accessibility support Support for young people 10% 17% 37% 27% 9% 100% 364 Support for people on low incomes 9% 17% 40% 25% 9% 100% 328 Supporting cultural diversity and Aboriginal/Torres Strait Islander 3% 7% 35% 36% 18% 100% 286 communities Health services 5% 14% 28% 29% 24% 100% 381

Richmond Valley Council Community Research September 2016 Page | 67

Comparison to Previous Research

Importance Satisfaction Service/ Facility 2016 2013 2016 2013 Maintaining local roads 4.61 4.53 2.81 2.77 Maintaining footpaths 4.04 3.99 3.32 3.22 Car parking 4.17 4.44 3.43 3.06 Protecting the natural environment 4.28 4.38 3.61 3.33 Waste management 4.40 N/A 3.69 N/A Stormwater (gutters & drainage) 4.02 4.34 3.63 3.35 Beaches 4.13 N/A 4.08 N/A Riverbanks 4.21 N/A 3.43 N/A Long term town planning for the Richmond Valley Council area 4.48 4.40 3.26 3.12 Attractiveness of the town centres 4.30 4.20 3.40 3.48 Protection of heritage buildings and items 4.09 4.18 3.71 3.50 Household garbage collection 4.44 4.47 3.66 4.23 Compliance (Environmental health, companion animals) 4.02 N/A 3.84 N/A Development Assessment 4.07 N/A 3.41 N/A Economic development of the Richmond Valley 4.39 N/A 3.37 N/A Financial management 4.47 4.52 3.41 3.08 Local employment 4.65 N/A 2.83 N/A Community engagement/consultation 4.33 4.37 3.17 3.10 Opportunity to participate in Council's decision making processes 4.13 4.03 2.99 3.00 Support for community organisations 4.35 4.27 3.60 3.63 Council provision of information 4.24 4.39 3.36 3.22 Availability of local parks and playgrounds 4.40 N/A 3.55 N/A Swimming pools 3.98 4.05 3.80 3.91 Availability and maintenance of sporting ovals, grounds and 4.31 4.32 3.82 3.84 facilities Libraries 4.15 4.22 4.29 4.40 Community centres and facilities 4.08 4.20 3.97 3.90 Festivals and events 4.12 4.00 3.81 3.56 Cemeteries 4.23 N/A 3.98 N/A Emergency management 4.67 N/A 4.09 N/A Lighting in public places 4.55 N/A 3.33 N/A Aged care services/facilities 4.56 N/A 3.71 N/A Disability services/accessibility support 4.40 N/A 3.57 N/A Support for young people 4.57 N/A 3.06 N/A Support for people on low incomes 4.37 N/A 3.09 N/A Supporting cultural diversity and Aboriginal/Torres Strait Islander 3.97 N/A 3.59 N/A communities Health services 4.79 N/A 3.54 N/A

Scale: 1 = not at all important/satisfied, 5 = very important/satisfied Significantly higher/lower by year

Richmond Valley Council Community Research September 2016 Page | 68

Demographics

Demographics

QA. Where do you live?

% %

Casino 41% Shannon Brook 1% Evans Head 15% Spring Grove 1% Coraki 8% Doonbah 1%

Woodburn 6% Naughtons Gap 1% Fairy Hill 4% Yorklea 1%

North Casino 3% Myrtle Creek 1%

Broadwater 3% Stratheden 1% Ellangowan 3% Piora <1%

Leeville 2% Rileys Hill <1% Bentley 1% Wyan <1% Backmede 1% Woodview <1% West Coraki 1% New Italy <1% Bungawalbin 1% Dobies Bight <1%

Rappville 1% Swan Bay <1% Codrington 1% Coombell <1% Tatham 1% Tomki <1%

Base: N = 403

Q9. Please stop me when I read out your age group.

% 18-24 10% 25-34 12% 35-49 24% 50-64 28% 65+ 26%

Base: N = 403

Q10. How long have you lived in the Richmond Valley area?

% Less than 2 years 6% 2-5 years 5% 6-10 years 11% 11-20 years 21% More than 20 years 57%

Base: N = 403

Richmond Valley Council Community Research September 2016 Page | 70

Demographics

Q11. Which of the following best describes the house where you are currently living?

%

I/We own/are currently buying this property 76% I/We currently rent this property 24%

Base: N = 403

Q12a. Which of the following best describes your current employment status?

% Currently in full time, part time or casual paid 54% employment Studying at school, TAFE or university 2% Retired from paid employment 28% Currently looking for paid employment 3% Home duties 8% Other 5%

Base: N = 403

Q12b. Do you work within the Richmond Valley LGA, outside the Richmond Valley LGA, or do you travel around both inside and outside the LGA?

%

Within the Richmond Valley LGA 71%

Outside the Richmond Valley LGA 17%

Both inside and outside the LGA 11%

Base: N = 207

Q12c. Do you study within the Richmond Valley LGA, outside the Richmond Valley LGA, or do you travel around both inside and outside the LGA?

%

Within the Richmond Valley LGA 0%

Outside the Richmond Valley LGA 37%

Both inside and outside the LGA 63%

Base: N = 10

Q14. Gender.

%

Male 49%

Female 51%

Base: N = 403

Richmond Valley Council Community Research September 2016 Page | 71

Appendix A – Other Projects

Other Projects

Q8c. What is the project(s)?

Other Project Count Other Project Count

Develop natural wetlands behind Flood management schemes 2 1 Richmond Dairies

Develop affordable & available Encourage local business in the 2 1 housing area

Footpath upgrades 2 Enhance/maintain foreshores 1

Improve economic structure of Improve/control waste services 2 1 the Northern Rivers

Improve sewerage/water Increase and improve cycle ways 2 connections to outer 1 subdivisions

Increase parking facilities 2 Improve street lighting 1

Introduce NBN to the area 2 Lismore entertainment area 1

Men’s health and wellbeing Maintenance of bridges in the area 2 1 projects i.e. Men’s Shed

Promoting/maintaining tourism 2 Modernise livestock yards 1

Multipurpose centre in Evans Renewable energy schemes 2 1 Head

Supporting Indigenous people in the Provide more accessible public 2 1 community toilets

Youth services & activity programmes 2 Provision of a cinema in Casino 1

Provision of a transit centre in Animal rangers in the area 1 1 Casino Monitor Richmond River for Bring back the brass band 1 1 pollution

Build a jet airport 1 Sand cleaning at Evans Head 1

Supporting heritage listed Cemetery restoration 1 1 aerodrome Clean up graffiti project 1 Town clean-up day 1

Community and youth hall upgrades 1 Town murals 1

Upgrade museum at Evans Head Construction of an air hotel 1 1 airport

Coraki upgrades 1

Richmond Valley Council Community Research September 2016 Page | 73

Appendix B – Questionnaire

Richmond Valley Council Community Research 2016

Good morning/afternoon/evening, my name is ______from Micromex Research and we are conducting a survey on behalf of Richmond Valley Council about your experiences living in this area. The survey will take about 15 minutes, would you be able to assist us please?

QA. Where do you live?

Townships: - 60%

O Casino O Evans Head

Villages: - 15%

O Rappville O Coraki O Woodburn O Riley’s Hill O Broadwater

Rural suburbs: - 25%

O Backmede O West Coraki O North Casino O Banyabba O Ellangowan O Piora O Bentley O Esk O Shannon Brook O Bora Ridge O Fairy Hill O Six Mile Swamp O Boorabee Park O Gibberagee O Spring Grove O Bungawalbin O Greenridge O Stratheden O West Bungawalbin O Hogarth Range O Swan Bay O Busbys Flat O Irvington O Tabbimoble O Camira O Kippenduff O Tatham O Clearfield O Leeville O The Gap O Clovass O McKees Hill O Tomki O Codrington O Mongogarie O West Coraki O Coombell O Upper Mongogarie O Whiporie O Dobies Bight O Mount Marsh O Woodview O Doonbah O Myrtle Creek O Wyan O Dyraaba O Naughtons Gap O Yorklea O East Coraki O New Italy

Richmond Valley Council Community Research September 2016 Page | 75

Section A – The Community Experience

I am now going to ask you about your local community.

Q1. How strongly do you agree or disagree with the following statements: Prompt The scale is from 1 to 5 where 1 is strongly disagree and 5 is strongly agree.

Strongly Strongly disagree agree 1 2 3 4 5

The Richmond Valley Council Area is a good place to live O O O O O I feel a part of my local community O O O O O I like to attend events and festivals in the Richmond Valley Council area O O O O O Richmond Valley is a harmonious, respectful and tolerant community O O O O O Housing in the area is affordable O O O O O Transport in the area is accessible O O O O O I have enough opportunities to improve my health and wellbeing O O O O O I have enough opportunities to participate in arts and cultural activities O O O O O I have enough opportunities to participate in sporting or recreational activities O O O O O Local shopping strips are vibrant and economically healthy O O O O O I feel safe living in Richmond Valley O O O O O

Now thinking about your local Council…

Q2. How satisfied are you with the level of communication Council currently has with the community? Prompt

O Very satisfied O Satisfied O Somewhat satisfied O Not very satisfied O Not at all satisfied

Q3. How do you receive information about Council? Prompt

O Web/Internet O Express Examiner O Coraki & District News O Community newsletters O Word of mouth O Radio O Email O Brochures/flyers/posters O Facebook O Libraries/Council community centres O Community organisations O Television O Other (Please specify)……………………………………..

Richmond Valley Council Community Research September 2016 Page | 76

Section B – Importance of, and satisfaction with, Council services

Q4. In this section I will read out different Council services or facilities. For each of these could you please indicate that which best describes your opinion of the importance of the following services/facilities to you, and in the second part, the level of satisfaction with the performance of that service. The scale is from 1 to 5, where 1 is low importance and low satisfaction and 5 is high importance and high satisfaction. Prompt

Part A – Council Services Importance Satisfaction Low High Low High 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

Maintaining local roads O O O O O O O O O O Maintaining footpaths O O O O O O O O O O Car parking O O O O O O O O O O Protecting the natural environment O O O O O O O O O O Waste management O O O O O O O O O O Stormwater (gutters & drainage) O O O O O O O O O O Beaches O O O O O O O O O O Riverbanks O O O O O O O O O O Long term town planning for the Richmond Valley Council area O O O O O O O O O O Attractiveness of the town centres O O O O O O O O O O Protection of heritage buildings and items O O O O O O O O O O Household garbage collection O O O O O O O O O O Compliance (Environmental health, companion animals) O O O O O O O O O O Development Assessment O O O O O O O O O O

Part B - Council Advocacy and Leadership Importance Satisfaction Low High Low High 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

Economic development of the Richmond Valley O O O O O O O O O O Financial management O O O O O O O O O O Local employment O O O O O O O O O O Community engagement/consultation O O O O O O O O O O Opportunity to participate in Council’s decision making processes O O O O O O O O O O Support for community organisations O O O O O O O O O O Council provision of information O O O O O O O O O O

Part C – Council Facilities Importance Satisfaction Low High Low High 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

Availability of local parks and playgrounds O O O O O O O O O O Swimming pools O O O O O O O O O O Availability and maintenance of sporting ovals, grounds and facilities O O O O O O O O O O Libraries O O O O O O O O O O Community centres and facilities O O O O O O O O O O Festivals and events O O O O O O O O O O Cemeteries O O O O O O O O O O Emergency management O O O O O O O O O O Lighting in public places O O O O O O O O O O

Richmond Valley Council Community Research September 2016 Page | 77

Part D – Community Services and Groups Importance Satisfaction Low High Low High 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

Aged care services/facilities O O O O O O O O O O Disability services/accessibility support O O O O O O O O O O Support for young people O O O O O O O O O O Support for people on low incomes O O O O O O O O O O Supporting cultural diversity and Aboriginal/ Torres Strait Islander communities O O O O O O O O O O Health services O O O O O O O O O O

Section C – Priority Issues

Q5. Overall for the last 12 months, how satisfied are you with the performance of Council, not just on one or two issues but across all responsibility areas? Prompt

O Very satisfied O Satisfied O Somewhat satisfied O Not very satisfied O Not at all satisfied

Q6. What do you value most about living in the Richmond Valley local government area? (Probe fully on all issues mentioned)

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Q7. Thinking about the next 5 years, what do you think are the highest priority issues facing the Richmond Valley local government area? (Probe fully on all issues mentioned)

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Richmond Valley Council Community Research September 2016 Page | 78

Q8a. Council is currently looking at the following Signature Projects over the next four years. Funding priority and resources will be allocated to commence plans and undertake work. How supportive are you of each of these projects? RANDOMISE 1 2 3 4 5

The Civic Hall Upgrade will involve restoration work to repair and update the building, to ensure it remains a premier cultural centre in Casino O O O O O The Casino Drill Hall building and grounds require development e.g. with gardens and updated interior for community use O O O O O The Casino Amphitheatre and Riverbank Improvements will be an open air stage for public performances and area to enhance the riverbank O O O O O The Woodburn Riverfront Project will upgrade picnic and playground facilities and buildings as a tourism drawcard ahead of the Pacific Highway Bypass expected in 2018 O O O O O The Northern Rivers Livestock Exchange will upgrade capacity and safety of the current facilities O O O O O The Nammoona Industrial Precinct near the sale yards and Casino landfill will expand the current industrial area with more facilities to increase business and employment O O O O O The Casino Rail Freight Terminal will have an upgrade with a rail freight terminal and grain terminal to increase business and employment O O O O O The Northern Rivers Rail Trail will link Casino to Lismore through to Murwillumbah as a cycling and walking track on the old railway line. This will be a partnership with other local councils O O O O O

Key for programming 1 = Not at all supportive 2 = Not very supportive 3 = Somewhat supportive 4 = Supportive 5 = Extremely supportive

Q8b. Is there another project that Council should undertake?

O Yes O No (Go to Q9)

Q8c. What is the project(s)?

………………………………………………………………………………….

Section D – Demographic & Profiling questions

Q9. Please stop me when I read out your age group. Prompt

O 18 – 24 O 25 – 34 O 35 – 49 O 50 – 64 O 65 years and over

Q10. How long have you lived in the Richmond Valley area? Prompt

O Less than 2 years O 2 – 5 years O 6 – 10 years O 11 – 20 years O More than 20 years

Richmond Valley Council Community Research September 2016 Page | 79

Q11. Which of the following best describes the house where you are currently living? Prompt

O I/We own/are currently buying this property O I/We currently rent this property

Q12a. Which of the following best describes your current employment status? Prompt

O Currently in full time, part time or casual paid employment O Studying at school, TAFE or university O Retired from paid employment O Currently looking for paid employment O Home duties O Other (please specify) …………………………… O Refused/Can't say

Q12b. [If currently working or studying] Do you work/study within the Richmond Valley LGA, outside the Richmond Valley LGA, or do you travel around both inside and outside the LGA? (SR)

O Within the Richmond Valley LGA O Outside the Richmond Valley LGA O Both inside and outside the LGA

Q13a. Thinking about your everyday retail spending during the last month, where did you make the majority of your purchases? (SR)

O Lismore O Woodburn O Casino O Evans Head O Ballina O Grafton O Coraki O Gold Coast O Other (please specify)…………………………….. If other is online/phone, etc. probe for website/store name)

Q13b. And still thinking about your everyday retail spending during the last month, where else did you make purchases? (MR) Exclude the option selected in Q12a from this list.

O Lismore O Woodburn O Casino O Evans Head O Ballina O Grafton O Coraki O Gold Coast O Other (please specify)…………………………….. If other is online/phone, etc. probe for website/store name)

Richmond Valley Council Community Research September 2016 Page | 80

As a participant in this research, you may be invited to participate in further community consultation, such as focus groups, about specific issues.

At this stage we are developing a register of interest for future consultations.

Q13a. Would you be interested in registering your interest?

O Yes O No (If no, go to end)

Q13b. (If yes), May I please confirm your contact details?

First name...... Surname...... Email...... Telephone......

Q14. Gender (determine by voice):

O Male O Female

That completes our interview. Thank you very much for your time, enjoy the rest of your day/evening. Council contact – Kate Olivieri 0266600300.

Richmond Valley Council Community Research September 2016 Page | 81