City of South Perth Council Performance Monitor

Since 2003, the City has conducted three Council Performance Monitors (CPM) to evaluate and monitor its performance across a range of services and facilities. The CPM, originally conducted annually in 2003 and 2004, is now conducted biennially with the most recent conducted in May 2006.

The CPM comprises at least 400 random telephone surveys by professionally trained interviewers with residents of the City. Telephone numbers are randomly generated using an electronic format of the white pages and all households within the City have equal probability of being selected.

CATALYSE, a Perth-based professional market research consultancy, has performed all three CPMs - enabling the Council to acquire professional and unbiased research into our community’s perceptions of Council’s performance in delivering its services and facilities. 

Community consultation is playing an increasingly important role in the City’s Local Government activities. More importantly, the Council is becoming increasingly aware of the need to respond to community expectations in regard to service delivery.

With the growing emphasis on benchmarking and best practice within Local Government, CATALYSE provides a Local Government Syndicate service, whereby the City can compare its results with other Local Government organisations to determine whether best practice standards for Local Government are being set. Essentially, when three or more Councils ask the same question, CATALYSE provides comparative results. Local Governments participating in the LOCAL GOVERNMENT SYNDICATE for 05/06 include:

  • City of Armadale
  • Town of Kwinana
  • Town of Bassendean
  • City of Melville
  • City of Belmont
  • City of Mandurah
  • Town of Claremont
  • Shire of Serpentine-Jarrahdale
  • City of Cockburn
  • City of South Perth
  • City of Fremantle
  • City of Wanneroo
  • City of Joondalup

The primary objectives for the City to conduct this research are to identify the
  • Level of overall satisfaction with the Council
  • Community’s satisfaction with the Council’s performance in delivering various services and facilities
  • Perceived level of importance for the various services and facilities provided by the Council
  • Performance ‘gaps’ that exist with the services and facilities, provided in context with the level of perceived importance
  • How people source information relating to the Council activities, services and facilities
  • Preferred methods for conducting community consultation
  • How perceptions vary in the community, based on respondent demographics



Council Performance Monitor 2003 ( ~1100Kb Microsoft PowerPoint Format )
Council Performance Monitor 2003 ( ~530Kb Adobe Acrobat PDF Format)

Council Performance Monitor 2004 ( ~3600Kb Microsoft PowerPoint Format )
Council Performance Monitor 2004 ( ~820Kb Adobe Acrobat PDF Format)

Council Performance Monitor 2006 ( ~1550Kb Microsoft PowerPoint Format )
Council Performance Monitor 2006 ( ~560Kb Adobe Acrobat PDF Format)

Council Performance Monitor 2008 ( ~4470Kb Microsoft PowerPoint Format )
Council Performance Monitor 2008 ( ~1460Kb Adobe Acrobat PDF Format)



back