2021 local government community satisfaction survey

2021 Local

Government

Community

Satisfaction Survey

Whitehorse City

Council

Coordinated by the Department of Jobs,

Precincts and Regions on behalf of

Victorian councils

Contents

2

Background and objectives 3

Key findings and recommendations 4

Detailed findings 11

Overall performance 12

Customer service 30

Communication 36

Council direction 41

Individual service areas 45

Community consultation and engagement 46

Lobbying on behalf of the community 50

Decisions made in the interest of the

community

54

Condition of sealed local roads 58

Informing the community 62

Enforcement of local laws 66

Family support services 70

Elderly support services 74

Recreational facilities 78

Appearance of public areas 82

Art centres and libraries 86

J00967 Community Satisfaction Survey 2021 – Whitehorse City Council

Community and cultural activities 90

Waste management 94

Planning and building permits 98

Environmental sustainability 102

Detailed demographics 106

Appendix A: Index scores, margins of error

and significant differences

113

Appendix B: Further project information 118

Background and objectives

3

The Victorian Community Satisfaction Survey

(CSS) creates a vital interface between the council

and their community.

Held annually, the CSS asks the opinions of local

people about the place they live, work and play and

provides confidence for councils in their efforts

and abilities.

Now in its twenty-second year, this survey provides

insight into the community’s views on:

• councils’ overall performance, with benchmarking

against State-wide and council group results

• value for money in services and infrastructure

• community consultation and engagement

• decisions made in the interest of the community

• customer service, local infrastructure, facilities,

services and

• overall council direction.

When coupled with previous data, the survey provides

a reliable historical source of the community’s views

since 1998. A selection of results from the last ten

years shows that councils in Victoria continue to

provide services that meet the public’s expectations.

Serving Victoria for 22 years

Each year the CSS data is used to develop this State-

wide report which contains all of the aggregated

results, analysis and data. Moreover, with 22 years of

results, the CSS offers councils a long-term measure of

how they are performing – essential for councils that

work over the long term to provide valuable services

and infrastructure to their communities.

Participation in the State-wide Local Government

Community Satisfaction Survey is optional.

Participating councils have various choices as to the

content of the questionnaire and the sample size to be

surveyed, depending on their individual strategic,

financial and other considerations.


Key findings and

recommendations

4

Co

mp

are

d t

o

Sta

te-w

ide a

vera

ge

Co

mp

are

d t

o

gro

up

av

era

ge

Whitehorse City Council – at a glance

5

Overall council performanceResults shown are index scores out of 100.

Council performance compared to

State-wide and group averages

The three areas where Council

performance is significantly

higher by the widest margin

Elderly support services

Areas where Council

performance is significantly

lower

Whitehorse 69

State-wide 61

Metropolitan 67

Sealed local roads

Waste management

Community decisions

Sealed local roads

Waste management

None

Informing the

community


Summary of core measures

6

Index scores


72 72

7072

73

78

737473 73

7072 69 71

69

64 6767

69 6968 69

61

63

5657 57 57

60 5757

5958

6061

60

71

74

77 77

7772

75

5453

50

51

51

52

5153

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Waste

management

Sealed

local

roads

Consultation &

engagement

Customer

service

Overall

council

direction

Overall

performance

Community

decisions

Summary of core measures

7

Core measures summary results (%)

16

8

8

26

31

34

46

28

32

44

44

39

32

32

28

20

14

14

4

14

10

7

6

6

3

3

3

2

4

3

14

20

1

2

3

Overall performance

Consultation & engagement

Community decisions

Sealed local roads

Waste management

Customer service

Very good Good Average Poor Very poor Can't say

12 70 7 10Overall council direction

Improved Stayed the same Deteriorated Can't say


Services Whitehorse

2021

Whitehorse

2020

Metro

2021

State-wide

2021

Highest

score

Lowest

score

Overall performance 69 68 67 61 Box Hill residents Aged 35-49 years

Value for money 63 - 62 54 Aged 65+ yearsAged 35-49 years,

Box Hill residents

Overall council direction 53 51 55 53 Aged 18-34 years Aged 35-49 years

Customer service 74 73 74 70 Aged 65+ years Men

Appearance of public

areas76 73 74 73

Women, Aged 50-64

yearsMen

Waste management 75 72 72 69 Aged 50-64 years Aged 35-49 years

Recreational facilities 74 75 75 71Aged 65+ years,

Women

Men, Aged 18-34

years

Art centres & libraries 73 77 73 73 Aged 65+ years Aged 18-34 years

Sealed local roads 71 69 68 57 Aged 35-49 years

Aged 65+ years,

Aged 18-34 years,

Men, Nunawading

East residents

Elderly support services 70 71 66 69 Aged 65+ years Aged 18-34 years

Summary of Whitehorse City Council performance

8Significantly higher / lower than Whitehorse City Council 2021 result at the 95% confidence interval.

Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.


Services Whitehorse

2021

Whitehorse

2020

Metro

2021

State-wide

2021

Highest

score

Lowest

score

Family support services 67 72 67 66 Aged 65+ years Aged 18-34 years

Community & cultural 67 73 66 65 Aged 65+ years Aged 18-34 years

Enforcement of local

laws66 66 66 64 Women Men

Environmental

sustainability63 65 64 62

Nunawading

East residents

Aged 35-49 years,

Box Hill

Community decisions 60 61 61 56 Women Aged 50-64 years

Informing the community 59 63 62 60Aged 35-49

yearsAged 18-34 years

Lobbying 58 59 56 55

Nunawading

East residents,

Aged 65+ years

Aged 50-64 years,

Aged 18-34 years,

Men, Nunawading

West residents

Consultation &

engagement57 60 59 56

Aged 50-64

years, Women,

Nunawading

East residents

Nunawading West

residents, Men,

Aged 18-34 years

Building & planning

permits54 53 54 51

Aged 18-34

years

Aged 65+ years,

Aged 35-49 years

Summary of Whitehorse City Council performance

9Significantly higher / lower than Whitehorse City Council 2021 result at the 95% confidence interval.

Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.


Focus areas for the next 12 months

10


Overview

Whitehorse City Council’s overall performance index experienced a one-point increase

over the last 12 months, returning to the peak rating last seen in 2019. While performance

ratings remained steady across most individual service areas, significant declines occurred

in the areas of community and cultural activities, family support services, art centres and

libraries and informing the community. Importantly, performance ratings of the appearance

of public areas increased significantly.

Key influences on

perceptions of overall

performance

Council should focus on maintaining and improving performance in the individual service

areas that most influence overall performance perceptions. The condition of sealed local

roads is shown to have the strongest influence on Council's overall performance rating and

Council performs relatively well here. Most in need of attention is decisions made in the

interests of the community and informing the community, as these service areas are rated

less well, but are among the service areas that are more influential on overall perceptions.

Comparison to state

and area grouping

Positively, Whitehorse City Council performs significantly higher than the State-wide and

Metropolitan group averages on waste management and sealed local roads. Council also

rates significantly higher than the Metropolitan group average in the area of elderly support

services but significantly lower in informing the community. On other service areas, it is on

par with the Metropolitan group average.

Maintain gains

achieved to date

Council should look to consolidate and build upon its strong and improved performance on

the appearance of public areas, waste management and the condition of sealed local

roads. Demonstrating that Council consults and engages with residents on relevant

matters, particularly those regarding its approach to building and planning permits – which

is showing incremental improvement over time – will also help to bolster perceptions of its

overall performance in the year ahead.

DETAILED

FINDINGS

11

Overall

performance

12

The overall performance index score of 69 for

Whitehorse City Council marks a marginal improvement

on the 2020 result and a return to the peak rating.

Council’s overall performance continues to rate

statistically significantly higher (at the 95% confidence

interval) than the State-wide average for councils, and

in line with the Metropolitan group average.

• Overall performance is rated highest among Box Hill

residents and lowest among 35 to 49 year-olds (index

scores of 71 and 67 respectively).

• Notably, the most improved ratings are among

residents aged 50 to 64 years (index score of 69 – up

four points). While this is not a significant increase, it

marks an all-time high rating among this cohort, who

in the previous evaluation had been most critical of

Council’s overall performance.

Almost half of residents (48%) rate the value for money

they receive from Council in infrastructure and services

provided to their community as ‘very good’ or ‘good’. A

further one in three (33%) rate Council as ‘average’,

while 11% rate it as ‘very poor’ or ‘poor’.

• Residents aged 65 years and over have significantly

more positive perceptions of Council’s value for

money, whereas 35 to 49 year-olds and Box Hill

residents have the least positive perceptions.

Overall performance

13

Overall performanceResults shown are index scores out of 100.

State-wide

61

Box Hill residents rate overall

performance highest (71)

Aged 35-49 years rate overall

performance lowest (67)

Whitehorse

69

Metropolitan

67


69

70

65

69

68

69

68

66

71

67

66

58

73

70

65

70

69

72

68

66

71

69

67

60

66

71

64

68

69

71

69

66

73

67

65

59

70

67

63

67

67

68

67

64

67

67

64

59

66

68

68

68

67

70

66

64

72

63

66

59

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

67

60

n/a

67

57

65

64

65

63

n/a

n/a

66

n/a

61

n/a

71

67

70

69

70

67

n/a

n/a

66

n/a

60

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

60

Overall performance

2021 overall performance (index scores)

71

70

69

69

69

68

68

68

68

67

67

61q

Box Hill

65+

50-64

Women

Whitehorse

18-34

Men

Nunawading West

Nunawading East

35-49

Metro

State-wide

14

2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q3. ON BALANCE, for the last twelve months, how do you feel about the performance of Whitehorse City Council, not just on one or two

issues, BUT OVERALL across all responsibility areas? Has it been very good, good, average, poor or very poor?

Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 66 Councils asked group: 15

Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.


Overall performance

15

2021 overall performance (%)

16

15

17

15

12

14

8

13

11

15

15

17

15

15

17

11

15

18

21

46

51

49

54

50

50

46

54

39

47

46

49

43

48

44

52

47

44

38

32

28

27

23

30

29

35

27

34

29

32

27

35

31

32

35

28

31

31

4

2

4

6

4

5

7

2

10

6

4

3

3

5

2

1

8

3

4

3

1

1

2

2

1

2

4

2

1

1

1

3

1

2

1

2

1

3

1

2

2

2

4

3

1

4

1

1

3

6

2021 Whitehorse

2020 Whitehorse

2019 Whitehorse

2018 Whitehorse

2017 Whitehorse

2016 Whitehorse

2014 Whitehorse

2013 Whitehorse

State-wide

Metro

Nunawading West

Box Hill

Nunawading East

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


Q3. ON BALANCE, for the last twelve months, how do you feel about the performance of Whitehorse City Council, not just on one or two

issues, BUT OVERALL across all responsibility areas? Has it been very good, good, average, poor or very poor?



n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

Value for money in services and infrastructure

2021 value for money (index scores)

68p

67

65

63

63

62

62

62

62

61

61

54q

65+

Nunawading East

Women

Whitehorse

50-64

Nunawading West

Metro

18-34

Men

Box Hill

35-49

State-wide

16

2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q3b. How would you rate Whitehorse City Council at providing good value for money in infrastructure

and services provided to your community?




Value for money in services and infrastructure

17

2021 value for money (%)

13

8

12

16

8

14

12

14

7

15

10

19

35

31

39

29

36

43

34

37

36

34

37

36

33

34

32

32

35

32

32

34

36

31

34

31

8

15

9

10

7

5

10

5

7

12

8

5

3

8

3

3

3

1

3

2

1

6

2

2

8

4

5

10

10

5

9

8

13

3

10

8

2021 Whitehorse

State-wide

Metro

Nunawading West

Box Hill

Nunawading East

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


Q3b. How would you rate Whitehorse City Council at providing good value for money in infrastructure

and services provided to your community?



Appearance of public areas is where Council performed

best in 2021 (index score of 76). Since the previous

evaluation, performance perceptions of this service area

improved significantly by three-points, marking a full

recovery from the significant decline in 2020.

• Key contributors to this increase are significant

improvements in performance perceptions among

residents aged 18 to 34 and 50 to 64 years (both up

nine points on the previous result).

Waste management is Council’s next highest rated

service area (index score of 75), followed by recreational

facilities (74), art centres and libraries (73 – a significant

four-point decrease) and sealed local roads (71).

Of note, Council performs significantly higher than both

the State-wide and Metropolitan group averages in the

areas of waste management and sealed local roads.

The appearance of public areas, waste management and

sealed local roads all have a positive influence on

perceptions of Council’s overall performance. Maintaining

these high ratings should remain a focus for Council.

Council’s strong performance in the aforementioned areas

is further highlighted by the fact that 18% of residents

volunteer parks and gardens as the best thing about

Council. One in ten (10%) nominate recreational/ sporting

facilities, and 8% cite waste management (noting that

13% cite this as an area most in need of improvement).

Top performing service areas

18


Appearance of public areas (index score

of 76) is the area where Council

performed best in 2021.

Council continues to rate lowest in the area of planning

and building permits (index score of 54), despite a one-

point improvement on the 2020 result. Consistent with

previous evaluations, this service area exhibits the

largest diparity between importance and performance

perceptions (20-point differential).

• Perceptions do not differ significantly from the

average across demographic and geographic cohorts.

• Planning and building permits is one of the service

areas that influences perceptions of overall

performance – so efforts to address resident concerns

here should be considered.

Furthermore, inappropriate or over-development and

town planning/ permits /red tape are two of the most

frequently mentioned areas as in need of improvement

(by 8% and 6% of residents respectively).

Community consultation and engagement is Council’s

next lowest rated service area (index score of 57, the

equal lowest rating for Council on this measure).

• Perceptions declined significantly among 18 to 34

year-old residents and those in Nunawading West.

Council also performs relatively less well in lobbying

(index score of 58) and informing the community (59 –

significantly lower than the Metropolitan group average

and a significant four-point decline on the 2020 result).

Low performing service areas

19


Council rates lowest – relative to its

performance in other areas – in the area

of planning and building permits (index

score of 54).

76

75

74

73

71

70

67

67

66

63

60

59

58

57

54

Appearance of public areas

Waste management

Recreational facilities

Art centres & libraries

Sealed local roads


Family support services

Community & cultural

Enforcement of local laws

Environmental sustainability

Community decisions

Informing the community

Lobbying


Planning & building permits

Individual service area performance

2021 individual service area performance (index scores)


20

73

72

75

77

69

71

72

73

66

65

61

63

59

60

53

76

77

77

78

72

70

70

74

65

66

60

64

56

57

52

73

77

76

77

70

70

69

75

65

65

58

62

56

57

50

77

77

76

79

73

69

72

74

65

68

59

61

56

57

50

74

74

75

74

73

70

69

73

65

64

57

61

57

56

50

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

60

63

n/a

74

71

74

77

n/a

72

71

72

66

66

n/a

n/a

56

61

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on [RESPONSIBILITY AREA] over the last 12 months?



Individual service area performance

21

2021 individual service area performance (%)


30

31

27

23

26

12

10

13

12

11

8

11

5

8

9

49

44

43

39

44

30

26

34

38

34

32

31

22

28

22

17

14

22

19

20

20

21

24

26

29

28

34

28

32

23

2

6

3

3

7

2

3

6

5

7

10

13

8

14

13

1

2

1

1

3

1

1

2

2

3

5

2

3

8

1

2

5

16

1

35

39

22

17

16

20

6

35

14

25


Waste management



Sealed local roads






Community decisions


Lobbying




Q2. How has Council performed on [RESPONSIBILITY AREA] over the last 12 months?


85

76

79

77

76

73

75

73

71

73

70

69

72

65

60

84

78

76

77

73

73

76

72

71

71

71

68

71

63

60

84

78

79

76

74

74

77

72

72

72

71

69

71

64

60

81

79

78

76

73

75

76

75

72

71

71

66

72

64

59

81

79

78

76

74

73

76

74

75

74

75

69

72

68

62

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

80

77

n/a

n/a

71

69

n/a

73

71

n/a

n/a

66

71

n/a

60

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

85

78

78

76

76

74

74

74

74

73

72

70

69

66

61

Waste management


Community decisions

Sealed local roads










Lobbying


Individual service area importance

2021 individual service area importance (index scores)

22

2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should [RESPONSIBILITY AREA] be as a responsibility for Council?




Individual service area importance

2021 individual service area importance (%)

50

37

34

38

32

30

26

26

32

28

26

24

21

19

13

39

43

44

36

42

42

46

45

38

41

42

40

40

37

33

10

15

16

17

24

21

26

26

21

25

26

29

29

31

41

1

2

2

6

2

3

2

3

5

4

4

5

6

8

10

1

1

2

2

1

2

1

1

1

1

2

2

1

2

1

2

1

2

1

1

1

2

3

1

Waste management


Community decisions


Sealed local roads









Lobbying


Extremely important Very important Fairly important

Not that important Not at all important Can't say

23Q1. Firstly, how important should [RESPONSIBILITY AREA] be as a responsibility for Council?



74

78

72

73

76

85


Community decisions




Waste management

54

60

57

59

63

75

Individual service areas importance vs performance

24Note: Net differentials are calculated based on the un-rounded importance and performance scores, then rounded to the nearest whole

number, which may result in differences of +/-1% in the importance and performance scores and the net differential scores.


Importance (index scores) Performance (index scores) Net Differential

Service areas where importance exceeds performance by 10 points or more,

suggesting further investigation is necessary.

-20

-17

-15

-15

-12

-10

Influences on perceptions of overall performance

25

The individual service area that has the strongest

influence on the overall performance rating (based on

regression analysis) is:

• The condition of sealed local roads.

Council currently performs very well in this service

area (index score of 71) and a continued focus on

maintaining the local road network provides the

greatest opportunity to drive up overall opinion of

Council’s performance.

Following on from that, other individual service areas

with a more moderate influence on the overall

performance rating are:

• Decisions made in the interest of the community

• Informing the community

• The appearance of public areas

• Community consultation and engagement

• Waste management

• Planning and building permits.

The appearance of public areas and waste

management are Council’s best performing service

areas (index score of 76 and 75 respectively) and a

moderate influence on the overall performance rating.

Maintaining these positive results should remain a

focus but there is greater work to be done elsewhere.

Other service areas that have a moderate influence on

overall perceptions, but perform relatively less well, are

planning and building permits, community consultation,

informing the community and community decisions

(performance index score of 54, 57, 59 and 60

respectively).

Addressing resident concerns about Council’s

approach to planning and building permits, and

ensuring good communication, consultation and

transparency with residents in Council decision

making, can also help shore up positive ratings of

Council’s overall performance.


The regressions are shown on the following two charts.

1. The first chart shows the results of a regression

analysis of all individual service areas selected by

Council.

2. The second chart shows the results of a

regression performed on a smaller set of service

areas, being those with a moderate-to-strong

influence on overall performance. Service areas

with a weaker influence on overall performance (i.e.

a low Standardised Beta Coefficient) have been

excluded from the analysis.

Key insights from this analysis are derived from

the second chart.

Regression analysis explained

26

We use regression analysis to investigate which

individual service areas, such as community

consultation, condition of sealed local roads, etc. (the

independent variables) are influencing respondent

perceptions of overall council performance (the

dependent variable).

In the charts that follow:

• The horizontal axis represents the council

performance index for each individual service.

Service areas appearing on the right-side of the

chart have a higher performance index than those on

the left.

• The vertical axis represents the Standardised Beta

Coefficient from the multiple regression performed.

This measures the contribution of each service area

to the model. Service areas near the top of the chart

have a greater positive effect on overall performance

ratings than service areas located closer to the axis.


Influence on overall performance: all service areas

27

The multiple regression analysis model above (all service areas) has an R² value of 0.529 and adjusted R² value of 0.514, which means that

53% of the variance in community perceptions of overall performance can be predicted from these variables. The overall model effect was

statistically significant at p = 0.0001, F = 36.22. This model should be interpreted with some caution as some data is not normally distributed

and not all service areas have linear correlations.

2021 regression analysis (all service areas)


Community consultation

Lobbying






The appearance of public areas

Art centres and libraries

Community and cultural activities

Waste management

Planning and building permits


Community decisions

Condition of sealed local roads

-0.05

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Performance Index Very GoodVery Poor

Gre

ate

r p

ositiv

e in

flu

en

ce

on

Ove

rall

Pe

rfo

rma

nce

Gre

ate

r n

eg

ative

in

flu

en

ce

on

Ove

rall

Pe

rfo

rma

nce

Influence on overall performance: key service areas

28The multiple regression analysis model above (reduced set of service areas) has an R² value of 0.507 and adjusted R² value of 0.500, which

means that 51% of the variance in community perceptions of overall performance can be predicted from these variables. The overall model

effect was statistically significant at p = 0.0001, F = 72.22.

2021 regression analysis (key service areas)


Community consultation

Informing the community The appearance

of public areas

Waste managementPlanning and

building permits

Community decisions

Condition of sealed local roads

-0.05

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Gre

ate

r p

ositiv

e in

flu

en

ce

on

Ove

rall

Pe

rfo

rma

nce

Gre

ate

r n

eg

ative

in

flu

en

ce

on

Ove

rall

Pe

rfo

rma

nce

Performance Index Very GoodVery Poor

Focus on these areas satisfactorily to ensure

negative perceptions do not have an overly negative

impact on community perceptions of overall

performance. Improvements will have a moderate-

to-strong influence on overall perceptions.

Key positive influences on overall rating

and should remain a focus - but

currently performing ‘very well’ here.

Improvements will have a moderate

influence on overall perceptions.

Should remain a focus as

currently performing ‘well’ here

and changes will have a stronger

influence on overall perceptions.

13

12

8

8

6

6

5

5

13

Waste Management

Communication

Development - Inappropriate/OverDevelopment

Informing the Community

Town Planning/Permits/Red Tape

Environmental Issues

Sealed Road Maintenance

Traffic Management

Nothing

18

10

9

8

8

6

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

Parks and Gardens

Recreational/Sporting Facilities

Customer Service

Waste Management

Library/Libraries/Mobile Library

Road/Street Maintenance

Aged Support Services

Community Facilities

Community Support Services

Environmental

Public Areas

Median Strips/Nature Strips/Trees/Roundabouts

Generally Good

Best things about Council and areas for improvement

29

Q16. Please tell me what is the ONE BEST thing about Whitehorse City Council? It could be about any of the issues or services we have

covered in this survey or it could be about something else altogether?


Q17. What does Whitehorse City Council MOST need to do to improve its performance?


A verbatim listing of responses to these questions can be found in the accompanying dashboard.

2021 best things about Council (%)- Top mentions only -


2021 areas for improvement (%)- Top mentions only -

Customer

service

30

Customer service

Whitehorse City Council’s customer service index of 74

marks a slight, one-point increase on the 2020 result.

Customer service is rated in line with the Metropolitan

group and significantly higher than the State-wide

average (index scores of 74 and 70 respectively).

Promisingly, among those who had contact with

Council, more than seven in ten (73%) provide a

positive customer service rating.

Moreover, 9% of residents volunteer customer service

as the best thing about Whitehorse City Council.

• Like in previous evaluations, perceptions of Council’s

customer service are most positive among residents

aged 65 years and over and women (index scores of

79 and 78 respectively).

• Conversely, perceptions of customer service are least

positive among men and 35 to 49 year-olds (index

scores of 70 and 71 respectively).

Council should focus on recovering perceptions of its

customer service among residents aged 35 to 49 years

in the coming 12 months, given they currently have the

highest rate of contact with Council but the least

positive perceptions of its overall performance.

Contact with council and customer service

31

Contact with council

Fewer than three in five households (58%) have had

contact with Whitehorse City Council in the last 12

months, similar to last year.

• Rate of contact is highest among 35 to 49 year-old

residents (68%) and significantly lower among 18 to

34 year-olds (46%).

Among those who have had contact

with Council, 73% provide a positive

customer service rating of ‘very

good’ or ‘good’, including 34% who

rate Council’s customer service as

‘very good’.



2021 contact with council (%)

Have had contact

6057

49

64

60

52

59 58

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

32

Q5. Over the last 12 months, have you or any member of your household had any contact with Whitehorse City Council?

This may have been in person, in writing, by telephone conversation, by text message, by email or via their website or

social media such as Facebook or Twitter?



61

67

70

60

61

63

64

52

59

54

57

50

62

75

55

56

56

61

55

53

52

48

48

32

68

64

63

57

65

61

58

54

60

61

54

51

74

67

63

57

66

58

70

66

64

64

62

50

56

64

43

58

47

58

57

59

49

49

52

31

n/a

n/a

n/a

60

n/a

60

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

70

67

n/a

n/a

58

61

52

n/a

57

n/a

56

44

56

70

n/a

n/a

62

60

58

n/a

60

n/a

58

57

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

61

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a


2021 contact with council (%)

68

64

63

62

62

61

61

59

58

54

54

46q

35-49

50-64

Nunawading East

Metro

Women

State-wide

65+

Box Hill

Whitehorse

Nunawading West

Men

18-34

33

2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q5. Over the last 12 months, have you or any member of your household had any contact with Whitehorse City Council?

This may have been in person, in writing, by telephone conversation, by text message, by email or via their website or

social media such as Facebook or Twitter?




79

77

73

74

73

74

77

66

69

76

69

70

80

78

81

75

78

76

74

80

78

75

77

71

77

71

77

77

73

72

67

70

74

69

75

70

72

72

73

73

72

71

71

73

73

71

72

69

76

73

75

71

70

73

70

61

66

69

68

69

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

73

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

70

74

74

n/a

72

72

n/a

n/a

68

n/a

73

69

72

82

76

n/a

73

72

n/a

n/a

73

n/a

63

68

71

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

71

Customer service rating

34

2021 customer service rating (index scores)

78

77

76

74

74

74

74

73

73

71

70

70q

65+

Women

Nunawading East

50-64

Whitehorse

Metro

Nunawading West

18-34

Box Hill

35-49

Men

State-wide

2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q5c. Thinking of the most recent contact, how would you rate Whitehorse City Council for customer service?

Please keep in mind we do not mean the actual outcome but rather the actual service that was received.

Base: All respondents who have had contact with Council in the last 12 months.

Councils asked state-wide: 66 Councils asked group: 15



Customer service rating

35

2021 customer service rating (%)

34

37

40

37

35

31

31

35

32

37

33

27

42

26

40

28

31

39

40

39

34

36

31

33

39

41

35

35

34

36

44

37

41

37

40

38

35

40

14

13

15

15

19

15

13

15

17

16

15

19

10

17

12

19

13

13

13

6

6

5

8

6

10

9

5

8

7

8

6

3

8

4

8

8

6

1

4

6

2

5

5

5

4

7

6

4

2

2

7

4

4

6

6

5

3

3

2

4

2

1

1

3

1

2

6

2

1

3

3

5

4

2

1

2021 Whitehorse

2020 Whitehorse

2019 Whitehorse

2018 Whitehorse

2017 Whitehorse

2016 Whitehorse

2014 Whitehorse

2013 Whitehorse

State-wide

Metro

Nunawading West

Box Hill

Nunawading East

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


Q5c. Thinking of the most recent contact, how would you rate Whitehorse City Council for customer service?

Please keep in mind we do not mean the actual outcome but rather the actual service that was received.

Base: All respondents who have had contact with Council in the last 12 months.

Councils asked state-wide: 66 Councils asked group: 15


Communication

36

The most preferred form of communication from

Whitehorse City Council is newsletters sent via mail

(35%) and by email (30%).

• Among residents aged under 50 years, the

preference is reversed from the resident base at

large. Newsletters via email (32%) and then mail

(27%) are the preferred forms of communication

from Council.

• Among those aged over 50 years, mailed

newsletters (46%) continue to be preferred over

email newsletters (28%).

Preference for the mailed newsletters has increased by

seven percentage points in the past year, overtaking

the email format, which declined by five points.

Preference has changed somewhat over time, with a

clear pattern yet to be established.

Advertising and Council newsletter inserts in local

newspapers continue to have less appeal (preferred by

4% and 5% respectively, a series-low for both).

Communication

37


Best form of communication

38

Q13. If Whitehorse City Council was going to get in touch with you to inform you about Council news and information and upcoming events,

which ONE of the following is the BEST way to communicate with you?


Note: ‘Social Media’ was included in 2019.

2021 best form of communication (%)


28 28

35

2928

35

31

35

31

33

35

30

16

1011

9 9

5

1311

12

88

4

49 5

4 7

8

34

23 3

5

11

7

9

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Council

Website

Text

MessageCouncil

Newsletter as

Local Paper Insert

Council

Newsletter

via Mail

Council

Newsletter

via Email

Advertising in

a Local

Newspaper

Social

Media

Best form of communication: under 50s

39


which ONE of the following is the BEST way to communicate with you?.

Base: All respondents aged under 50. Councils asked state-wide: 35 Councils asked group: 7


2021 under 50s best form of communication (%)


Council

Website

Text

MessageCouncil

Newsletter as

Local Paper Insert

Council

Newsletter

via Mail

Council

Newsletter

via Email

Advertising in

a Local

Newspaper

Social

Media

2726

33

23 23

27

3638

35 35

40

32

13

710

8

6

1

8 810

55

46

14

6

5

1112

45

24 4

6

18

10

14

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Best form of communication: over 50s

40


which ONE of the following is the BEST way to communicate with you?

Base: All respondents aged over 50. Councils asked state-wide: 35 Councils asked group: 7


2021 over 50s best form of communication (%)


29

32

3837

35

46

2531

25

30

2728

20

15

1211

14 10

19 15 15

1214

32 24

2

2 3

2 2

12

2 2

32

2

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Council

Website

Text

MessageCouncil

Newsletter as

Local Paper Insert

Council

Newsletter

via Mail

Council

Newsletter

via Email

Advertising in

a Local

Newspaper

Social

Media

Council direction

41

Perceptions of the direction of Whitehorse City

Council’s overall performance have recovered slightly

by two index points (index score of 53 – the highest

recorded since 2014).

Over the last 12 months, 12% of residents believe the

direction of Council’s overall performance has improved

(compared to 11% in 2020).

A majority of residents (70%, down one percentage

point) believe it has stayed the same, and 7% think it

has deteriorated (down two percentage points).

• The most satisfied with council direction are

residents aged 18 to 34 years (index score of 58 –

significantly higher than the Council-wide average).

More than five times as many in this age group think

Council’s overall performance has improved since

the last year as those who think it has deteriorated.

• The least satisfied with council direction are

residents aged 35 to 49 years (index score of 48). Of

these residents, more think Council’s overall

performance has deteriorated in the last year than

think it has improved.

Council direction

42


Overall council direction last 12 months

43

2021 overall council direction (index scores)

58p

55

54

53

53

53

53

52

52

51

50

48

18-34

Metro

Box Hill

Nunawading West

Men

Whitehorse

State-wide

Women

65+

Nunawading East

50-64

35-49

53

54

54

48

50

51

51

52

53

52

47

49

58

55

55

51

54

52

53

51

52

52

46

50

54

54

55

47

51

51

52

51

51

52

44

52

56

54

54

48

50

51

53

51

51

51

45

48

59

55

46

48

49

50

51

50

46

54

48

43

n/a

56

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

53

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

59

n/a

n/a

n/a

50

53

53

56

49

n/a

47

53

61

n/a

n/a

n/a

52

54

53

55

55

n/a

52

45

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

52

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q6. Over the last 12 months, what is your view of the direction of Whitehorse City Council’s overall performance?




Overall council direction last 12 months

2021 overall council direction (%)

12

11

15

13

13

12

15

17

18

19

14

12

10

13

11

16

10

8

11

70

71

66

68

68

68

67

69

63

66

64

74

76

71

69

67

71

74

73

7

9

11

11

11

12

10

10

13

9

8

5

9

7

7

3

14

8

7

10

8

8

9

8

8

8

4

5

6

15

10

5

8

12

15

5

10

10

2021 Whitehorse

2020 Whitehorse

2019 Whitehorse

2018 Whitehorse

2017 Whitehorse

2016 Whitehorse

2014 Whitehorse

2013 Whitehorse

State-wide

Metro

Nunawading West

Box Hill

Nunawading East

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+

Improved Stayed the same Deteriorated Can't say

44Q6. Over the last 12 months, what is your view of the direction of Whitehorse City Council’s overall performance?



Individual service

areas

45

Community consultation and engagement importance

46

2021 consultation and engagement importance (index scores)

73

73

74

72

75

66

72

70

72

72

68

62

75

73

74

72

75

70

71

71

75

70

69

64

73

72

74

72

78

67

72

71

76

70

69

64

75

71

74

74

76

71

72

71

70

71

68

65

75

79

75

76

76

75

73

75

76

74

73

71

n/a

n/a

74

n/a

n/a

n/a

72

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

74

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

73

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

73

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

76

75

75p

75

75

74

73

72

72

72

70

66q

65+

35-49

State-wide

Women

50-64

Nunawading East

Metro

Whitehorse

Box Hill

Nunawading West

Men

18-34

2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Community consultation and engagement’ be as a responsibility for Council?




Community consultation and engagement importance

47

2021 consultation and engagement importance (%)

26

19

23

22

24

30

32

27

29

24

23

24

28

18

32

30

28

42

48

42

42

40

44

41

41

35

43

52

39

45

35

44

44

49

26

25

26

31

29

22

22

25

29

28

21

29

24

40

20

21

18

4

6

6

3

4

2

3

4

3

4

4

5

2

5

3

4

2

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

2

1

2

1

2

1

1

1

1

2

2

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

2

2021 Whitehorse

2020 Whitehorse

2019 Whitehorse

2018 Whitehorse

2017 Whitehorse

2016 Whitehorse

State-wide

Metro

Nunawading West

Box Hill

Nunawading East

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+



Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Community consultation and engagement’ be as a responsibility for Council?



Community consultation and engagement performance

48

2021 consultation and engagement performance (index scores)

55

62

58

58

59

61

58

60

55

63

58

62

49

58

58

59

60

59

58

57

56

58

55

53

56

56

57

60

56

58

57

57

55

58

59

56

53

58

57

57

58

54

54

57

55

64

56

56

56

58

58

62

55

55

54

56

54

60

55

52

n/a

n/a

58

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

56

n/a

n/a

n/a

56

64

n/a

n/a

n/a

65

64

63

57

64

61

n/a

59

63

n/a

n/a

n/a

63

62

61

57

59

58

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

57

n/a

n/a

n/a

59

59

59

59

58

58

57

57

56

55

55

55

50-64

Women

Metro

Nunawading East

Box Hill

65+

35-49

Whitehorse

State-wide

18-34

Men

Nunawading West

2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Community consultation and engagement’ over the last 12 months?




Community consultation and engagement performance

49

2021 consultation and engagement performance (%)

8

10

8

8

5

4

9

8

9

10

5

13

8

7

9

5

9

11

11

28

30

26

26

31

32

40

36

30

32

29

21

32

27

28

26

35

25

25

32

35

33

36

34

34

27

36

32

32

32

33

33

34

31

38

29

37

26

14

9

14

11

9

12

8

7

15

12

14

15

14

15

14

15

13

14

15

3

3

3

3

5

3

3

3

6

4

4

2

2

4

2

1

6

1

4

14

13

16

16

15

15

13

11

8

11

16

15

11

12

16

15

9

12

20

2021 Whitehorse

2020 Whitehorse

2019 Whitehorse

2018 Whitehorse

2017 Whitehorse

2016 Whitehorse

2014 Whitehorse

2013 Whitehorse

State-wide

Metro

Nunawading West

Box Hill

Nunawading East

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Community consultation and engagement’ over the last 12 months?



Lobbying on behalf of the community importance

50

2021 lobbying importance (index scores)

68

68

66

66

69

65

63

62

67

64

65

62

67

67

64

65

62

63

64

65

62

63

66

59

69

68

64

66

62

64

63

63

64

69

67

60

67

69

63

67

65

64

64

62

64

67

66

60

71

69

70

68

67

68

72

67

65

71

64

65

n/a

69

n/a

67

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

70

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

70

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

70

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

70p

69p

68

67

67

66

66

66

66

66

64

62

Women

State-wide

35-49

Metro

Nunawading West

Whitehorse

18-34

Nunawading East

65+

Box Hill

50-64

Men

2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Lobbying on behalf of the community’ be as a responsibility for Council?




Lobbying on behalf of the community importance

51

2021 lobbying importance (%)

19

17

16

18

16

22

24

21

21

20

16

15

23

18

21

24

17

37

39

37

36

38

38

39

39

37

35

38

32

40

39

39

23

38

31

27

31

30

32

30

27

28

28

31

35

35

28

33

32

29

29

8

11

11

10

10

7

7

8

8

7

8

9

6

6

5

15

8

2

2

3

3

3

1

2

2

2

4

4

1

2

2

2

2

3

3

3

2

1

2

2

2

4

3

3

5

2

2

1

7

6

2021 Whitehorse

2020 Whitehorse

2019 Whitehorse

2018 Whitehorse

2017 Whitehorse

2016 Whitehorse

State-wide

Metro

Nunawading West

Box Hill

Nunawading East

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+



Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Lobbying on behalf of the community’ be as a responsibility for Council?



Lobbying on behalf of the community performance

52

2021 lobbying performance (index scores)

60

62

54

59

59

59

59

57

61

57

53

53

58

55

52

56

56

56

56

54

62

57

48

54

58

58

55

55

56

58

56

55

58

56

53

54

56

52

50

55

56

56

57

55

63

56

54

54

59

59

53

59

57

55

56

55

59

56

55

53

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

58

n/a

55

n/a

62

59

62

60

58

n/a

n/a

65

n/a

52

56

n/a

59

55

58

56

55

n/a

n/a

59

n/a

51

55

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

55

60

60

59

58

58

57

57

56

56

56

56

55q

Nunawading East

65+

35-49

Women

Whitehorse

Men

Box Hill

Nunawading West

18-34

Metro

50-64

State-wide

2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Lobbying on behalf of the community’ over the last 12 months?




Lobbying on behalf of the community performance

53

2021 lobbying performance (%)

5

6

4

4

3

4

5

5

6

5

6

4

5

4

5

3

6

5

7

22

25

23

20

26

25

30

25

25

23

20

20

26

23

20

22

27

14

21

28

32

31

34

30

26

33

33

32

31

31

28

25

31

25

36

24

23

24

8

7

9

8

10

9

5

8

12

10

11

7

7

8

9

10

7

10

7

2

2

3

2

3

3

2

3

5

3

2

1

2

2

2

4

1

2

35

28

30

32

29

33

25

25

19

27

31

41

36

32

39

30

33

46

39

2021 Whitehorse

2020 Whitehorse

2019 Whitehorse

2018 Whitehorse

2017 Whitehorse

2016 Whitehorse

2014 Whitehorse

2013 Whitehorse

State-wide

Metro

Nunawading West

Box Hill

Nunawading East

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Lobbying on behalf of the community’ over the last 12 months?



Decisions made in the interest of the community

importance

54

2021 community decisions made importance (index scores)

80

80

79

79

79

79

78

81

78

78

79

77

80

78

75

78

76

76

78

83

75

75

76

74

80

82

81

79

80

79

78

83

78

77

79

76

79

79

78

79

78

78

78

83

77

75

78

76

80

79

77

79

81

78

79

79

77

77

80

77

80

n/a

n/a

80

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

79

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

81p

81

80

80

79

78

77

77

77

77

75

74q

State-wide

Women

Nunawading West

Metro

35-49

Whitehorse

Nunawading East

50-64

65+

18-34

Box Hill

Men

2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Decisions made in the interest of the community’ be as a responsibility for Council?





importance

55

2021 community decisions made importance (%)

34

34

32

36

32

35

42

40

40

31

31

27

41

35

38

34

30

44

44

41

45

48

44

40

40

43

44

46

48

41

42

42

42

49

16

15

21

17

17

15

14

15

14

16

20

18

14

18

14

20

15

2

2

2

1

1

2

2

2

2

4

1

4

1

3

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

3

2

1

1

2

1

1

2

5

3

1

1

2

2

2

1

3

3

2

2

3

3

3

2021 Whitehorse

2020 Whitehorse

2019 Whitehorse

2018 Whitehorse

2017 Whitehorse

2016 Whitehorse

State-wide

Metro

Nunawading West

Box Hill

Nunawading East

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+



Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Decisions made in the interest of the community’ be as a responsibility for Council?




performance

56

2021 community decisions made performance (index scores)

62

63

59

61

59

62

61

65

60

60

54

53

59

62

57

61

60

62

60

65

56

61

51

55

55

60

55

59

58

57

58

63

56

61

52

54

59

61

56

55

58

62

59

66

54

58

54

54

58

63

53

56

59

55

57

62

51

55

52

54

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

59

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

55

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

57

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

62

61

61

61

61

61

60

59

59

58

57

56q

Women

Nunawading East

35-49

65+

Metro

Box Hill

Whitehorse

18-34

Nunawading West

Men

50-64

State-wide

2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Decisions made in the interest of the community’ over the last 12 months?





performance

57

2021 community decisions made performance (%)

8

8

8

8

7

6

8

9

9

7

7

7

8

5

11

4

11

32

35

33

30

34

29

32

36

28

35

34

31

33

32

35

31

29

28

32

30

31

30

32

32

29

30

24

30

31

25

27

28

29

29

10

6

8

11

10

8

13

9

10

9

10

11

8

11

8

11

9

3

3

4

4

4

6

6

4

4

4

1

3

3

1

5

3

3

20

16

17

17

16

18

9

13

19

22

19

17

23

24

15

22

19

2021 Whitehorse

2020 Whitehorse

2019 Whitehorse

2018 Whitehorse

2017 Whitehorse

2016 Whitehorse

State-wide

Metro

Nunawading West

Box Hill

Nunawading East

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Decisions made in the interest of the community’ over the last 12 months?



The condition of sealed local roads in your area

importance

58

2021 sealed local roads importance (index scores)

78

79

81

78

75

77

77

79

79

77

72

74

77

79

78

77

77

77

77

77

75

75

75

77

77

80

78

78

75

78

76

78

75

75

74

76

76

78

78

81

76

77

76

77

75

76

74

75

76

78

76

73

77

76

76

74

80

77

75

73

n/a

76

n/a

n/a

n/a

75

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

77

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

80p

79p

78

78

78

78

76

76

76

75

74

73

65+

State-wide

Women

50-64

Box Hill

Metro

Whitehorse

Nunawading East

35-49

Nunawading West

Men

18-34

2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘The condition of sealed local roads in your area’ be as a responsibility for Council?





importance

59

2021 sealed local roads importance (%)

32

32

30

31

30

28

38

33

30

36

32

27

38

29

35

34

34

42

48

47

43

47

50

43

45

43

43

39

43

40

36

37

45

51

24

18

22

23

20

19

16

18

24

20

27

27

21

33

26

17

14

2

3

1

2

2

2

2

2

2

1

2

2

3

2

3

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2021 Whitehorse

2020 Whitehorse

2019 Whitehorse

2018 Whitehorse

2017 Whitehorse

2016 Whitehorse

State-wide

Metro

Nunawading West

Box Hill

Nunawading East

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+



Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘The condition of sealed local roads in your area’ be as a responsibility for Council?




performance

60

2021 sealed local roads performance (index scores)

73

69

72

67

72

69

67

65

65

69

67

54

72

69

72

72

72

72

71

72

73

71

69

56

67

72

67

66

73

70

71

73

72

70

68

53

73

73

73

71

74

73

72

72

74

70

66

53

71

72

73

72

73

73

75

74

77

72

67

54

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

69

55

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

55

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

74

72

72

71

71

71

69

69

69

69

68q

57q

35-49

50-64

Women

Box Hill

Nunawading West

Whitehorse

Nunawading East

Men

18-34

65+

Metro

State-wide

2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘The condition of sealed local roads in your area’ over the last 12 months?





performance

61

2021 sealed local roads performance (%)

26

23

27

27

27

26

13

21

24

29

25

24

28

20

29

28

29

44

41

44

40

43

47

34

43

49

40

41

45

43

49

49

40

34

20

24

19

22

21

20

28

23

17

21

22

18

21

19

14

24

25

7

8

6

7

5

4

15

9

8

6

7

9

6

7

7

7

7

3

2

2

3

2

1

9

3

2

3

4

4

2

3

2

5

1

2

1

1

2

2

1

1

2

1

1

1

2021 Whitehorse

2020 Whitehorse

2019 Whitehorse

2018 Whitehorse

2017 Whitehorse

2016 Whitehorse

State-wide

Metro

Nunawading West

Box Hill

Nunawading East

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


Q2. How has Council performed on ‘The condition of sealed local roads in your area’ over the last 12 months?



Informing the community importance

62

2021 informing community importance (index scores)

77

75

76

76

72

73

72

71

70

74

69

69

72

75

72

69

73

71

73

76

70

71

69

70

73

75

74

71

73

72

72

74

71

71

71

69

73

74

75

70

73

71

76

72

72

68

70

68

75

76

79

74

74

74

77

75

74

70

76

70

n/a

75

n/a

n/a

73

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

75

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

75

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

75

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

78p

77p

76

75

75

73

73

72

72

72

71

70

65+

State-wide

Women

Nunawading West

Metro

Whitehorse

50-64

Box Hill

Nunawading East

35-49

18-34

Men

2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Informing the community’ be as a responsibility for Council?




Informing the community importance

63

2021 informing community importance (%)

28

26

26

26

23

29

35

31

31

27

26

25

31

25

30

27

32

41

44

38

42

47

46

41

41

41

39

43

38

44

38

37

41

48

25

24

28

25

24

18

19

23

21

29

26

28

22

30

26

30

16

4

5

6

5

6

5

3

4

5

3

4

6

2

6

7

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

2

2021 Whitehorse

2020 Whitehorse

2019 Whitehorse

2018 Whitehorse

2017 Whitehorse

2016 Whitehorse

State-wide

Metro

Nunawading West

Box Hill

Nunawading East

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+



Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Informing the community’ be as a responsibility for Council?



Informing the community performance

64

2021 informing community performance (index scores)

61

62

59

59

61

65

64

63

62

66

65

65

65

62

58

60

63

66

68

64

63

63

64

68

61

61

60

59

61

63

62

62

61

62

63

64

62

61

58

59

59

63

61

61

58

63

63

60

56

63

60

59

57

62

59

61

60

60

67

66

n/a

64

n/a

61

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

62

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

61

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

60

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

64

62p

61

60

60

59

59

59

58

58

57

55

35-49

Metro

50-64

State-wide

Nunawading West

Women

Box Hill

Whitehorse

Men

65+

Nunawading East

18-34

2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Informing the community’ over the last 12 months?




Informing the community performance

65

2021 informing community performance (%)

11

14

15

13

11

10

13

14

12

11

12

11

12

7

16

17

10

31

38

36

38

37

40

36

37

32

34

27

31

31

29

36

24

33

34

31

30

32

34

32

31

31

34

30

38

35

32

37

32

33

32

13

9

9

11

10

10

12

11

11

15

13

12

13

15

9

16

12

5

3

2

3

4

3

5

3

5

5

5

5

4

5

4

1

6

6

5

7

3

5

5

3

4

7

5

5

6

6

6

4

9

7

2021 Whitehorse

2020 Whitehorse

2019 Whitehorse

2018 Whitehorse

2017 Whitehorse

2016 Whitehorse

State-wide

Metro

Nunawading West

Box Hill

Nunawading East

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Informing the community’ over the last 12 months?



Enforcement of local laws importance

66

2021 law enforcement importance (index scores)

77

76

71

73

70

71

72

71

71

66

75

67

73

72

73

71

71

76

71

70

68

70

71

70

72

74

73

73

71

73

71

68

69

72

73

68

75

74

72

73

71

69

72

69

72

72

70

69

71

75

71

74

70

73

72

71

71

75

74

70

n/a

n/a

72

n/a

71

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

70

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

76

75

n/a

n/a

71

n/a

71

66

n/a

71

72

67

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

70

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

72

71

71

70

70

69

69

68

68

67

67

66

65+

Women

Metro

Nunawading West

State-wide

Box Hill

Whitehorse

35-49

Nunawading East

18-34

50-64

Men

2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Enforcement of local laws’ be as a responsibility for Council?




Enforcement of local laws importance

67

2021 law enforcement importance (%)

21

26

28

24

25

26

24

25

27

20

20

24

17

25

21

20

20

22

40

42

36

43

43

44

42

38

38

41

43

37

39

41

32

43

40

49

29

23

26

28

25

22

27

28

26

30

29

26

32

26

34

27

29

24

6

6

7

5

6

5

6

6

6

3

5

10

6

5

6

7

8

4

1

1

1

1

1

2

2

1

1

2

2

1

1

2

3

1

2

2

1

1

1

1

1

4

2

1

3

2

5

2

1

2021 Whitehorse

2020 Whitehorse

2019 Whitehorse

2018 Whitehorse

2017 Whitehorse

2016 Whitehorse

2013 Whitehorse

State-wide

Metro

Nunawading West

Box Hill

Nunawading East

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+



Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Enforcement of local laws’ be as a responsibility for Council?



Enforcement of local laws performance

68

2021 law enforcement performance (index scores)

67

65

67

66

64

68

66

66

65

63

66

66

68

61

71

62

68

66

65

64

64

64

64

63

65

62

69

62

63

68

65

65

64

64

66

65

65

65

70

62

59

67

65

66

64

64

60

64

65

66

71

56

65

65

65

64

64

63

64

64

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

66

66

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

66

n/a

n/a

68

64

69

63

n/a

n/a

66

n/a

n/a

65

68

65

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

65

n/a

n/a

70p

68

67

67

67

66

66

66

66

64

64

63

Women

50-64

18-34

35-49

Box Hill

Nunawading East

Whitehorse

Nunawading West

Metro

State-wide

65+

Men

2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Enforcement of local laws’ over the last 12 months?




Enforcement of local laws performance

69

2021 law enforcement performance (%)

12

14

12

11

14

12

11

12

12

12

13

12

10

15

15

8

13

13

38

36

40

41

38

33

43

39

40

41

34

38

38

38

37

49

36

31

26

27

26

23

21

25

23

26

26

27

24

26

30

22

30

25

25

23

5

6

5

6

9

5

6

7

6

5

5

4

8

2

5

4

2

7

2

2

3

3

3

3

2

3

2

2

2

2

2

1

1

1

2

4

17

15

14

16

14

22

15

12

14

13

22

17

12

22

13

14

21

23

2021 Whitehorse

2020 Whitehorse

2019 Whitehorse

2018 Whitehorse

2017 Whitehorse

2016 Whitehorse

2013 Whitehorse

State-wide

Metro

Nunawading West

Box Hill

Nunawading East

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Enforcement of local laws’ over the last 12 months?



Family support services importance

70

2021 family support importance (index scores)

75

75

79

76

73

71

76

73

72

73

68

71

74

75

77

72

74

78

69

73

74

74

69

73

74

75

78

74

77

73

75

74

72

74

70

72

73

73

78

72

81

77

75

75

71

74

72

73

73

73

78

70

77

71

73

73

73

76

69

74

73

72

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

72

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

73

n/a

75

74

67

n/a

n/a

69

68

n/a

63

71

73

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

76

76

76

76

75

75

74

74

74

74

73

70

State-wide

Metro

Women

65+

18-34

Box Hill

Nunawading West

Whitehorse

35-49

Nunawading East

Men

50-64

2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Family support services’ be as a responsibility for Council?




Family support services importance

71

2021 family support importance (%)

30

28

29

28

30

27

19

34

33

31

30

31

26

35

34

30

26

29

42

43

40

42

44

45

49

40

41

42

43

40

44

40

38

43

39

46

21

23

23

25

20

20

24

20

20

21

22

21

23

20

23

21

24

20

3

3

6

3

4

3

4

3

3

3

2

4

3

3

4

4

5

1

2

2

1

1

2

3

1

1

2

1

2

2

2

1

2

4

1

2

2

2

2

1

3

2

2

2

2

1

2

2

1

1

2

4

2021 Whitehorse

2020 Whitehorse

2019 Whitehorse

2018 Whitehorse

2017 Whitehorse

2016 Whitehorse

2013 Whitehorse

State-wide

Metro

Nunawading West

Box Hill

Nunawading East

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+



Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Family support services’ be as a responsibility for Council?



Family support services performance

72

2021 family support performance (index scores)

73

77

72

68

72

72

69

66

70

67

71

72

71

70

72

67

70

70

69

67

70

69

68

69

70

72

71

66

69

70

68

66

65

71

67

69

70

73

73

70

72

69

68

67

69

74

70

75

73

71

71

66

69

70

69

66

70

66

68

67

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

68

67

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

68

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

74

n/a

73

67

71

73

n/a

67

n/a

n/a

69

72

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

67

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

72p

71

70

68

67

67

67

66

66

64

64

63q

65+

Nunawading East

Women

50-64

Whitehorse

35-49

Metro

State-wide

Nunawading West

Box Hill

Men

18-34

2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Family support services’ over the last 12 months?




Family support services performance

73

2021 family support performance (%)

10

15

13

13

13

10

11

11

10

10

9

12

6

14

7

12

9

14

26

32

30

25

30

34

41

31

27

23

23

34

27

26

23

29

19

31

21

17

18

20

17

17

16

21

21

24

24

14

22

20

30

22

17

11

3

2

4

2

2

2

2

5

4

3

4

3

4

3

4

3

3

3

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

2

1

39

34

36

40

38

36

30

31

37

39

40

37

41

36

37

33

53

40

2021 Whitehorse

2020 Whitehorse

2019 Whitehorse

2018 Whitehorse

2017 Whitehorse

2016 Whitehorse

2013 Whitehorse

State-wide

Metro

Nunawading West

Box Hill

Nunawading East

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Family support services’ over the last 12 months?



Elderly support services importance

74

2021 elderly support importance (index scores)

81

82

80

79

78

77

76

76

73

70

72

74

84

78

80

81

79

79

78

75

81

78

75

75

78

81

79

81

79

78

78

78

78

77

75

76

81

79

78

82

77

81

79

77

79

78

76

78

81

79

78

82

78

79

79

80

77

79

74

77

n/a

n/a

79

n/a

78

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

79

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

80

79

79

81

n/a

n/a

77

n/a

n/a

75

72

74

n/a

n/a

80

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

83

82p

82p

81

81p

80

78

78

77

77

76

74

50-64

65+

State-wide

Women

Metro

Nunawading East

Whitehorse

Nunawading West

Box Hill

18-34

Men

35-49

2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Elderly support services’ be as a responsibility for Council?




Elderly support services importance

75

2021 elderly support importance (%)

37

30

34

33

37

33

31

43

41

36

36

39

30

43

36

30

43

41

43

46

45

47

43

49

48

42

42

43

43

45

46

41

40

43

45

47

15

19

17

17

18

13

17

12

14

13

18

16

19

12

17

23

11

9

2

2

2

1

1

2

4

1

1

3

2

2

3

4

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

2

1

1

3

1

1

2

1

1

1

3

1

2

2

2

2

1

2021 Whitehorse

2020 Whitehorse

2019 Whitehorse

2018 Whitehorse

2017 Whitehorse

2016 Whitehorse

2013 Whitehorse

State-wide

Metro

Nunawading West

Box Hill

Nunawading East

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+



Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Elderly support services’ be as a responsibility for Council?



Elderly support services performance

76

2021 elderly support performance (index scores)

77

70

73

71

68

73

71

68

70

69

67

68

73

69

70

73

67

70

70

68

69

70

67

70

73

66

71

70

73

73

70

68

68

70

67

70

73

67

68

70

66

71

69

68

66

70

67

68

75

72

73

70

60

73

70

68

68

67

69

70

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

69

n/a

n/a

69

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

70

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

77

69

74

n/a

68

n/a

72

69

n/a

69

n/a

71

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

69

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

75p

72

72

71

71

70

70

69

68

67

66q

64q

65+

50-64

Women

Box Hill

35-49

Nunawading East

Whitehorse

State-wide

Nunawading West

Men

Metro

18-34

2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Elderly support services’ over the last 12 months?




Elderly support services performance

77

2021 elderly support performance (%)

12

16

13

13

14

13

13

16

11

12

10

13

9

14

4

10

13

23

30

26

31

29

25

27

33

32

28

25

32

36

30

31

34

28

21

32

20

16

18

17

18

16

17

20

19

25

18

16

24

17

29

17

15

15

2

3

2

2

4

3

2

5

4

2

1

4

2

2

3

1

2

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

2

1

1

35

38

36

38

39

40

34

26

36

36

39

30

35

36

31

44

49

27

2021 Whitehorse

2020 Whitehorse

2019 Whitehorse

2018 Whitehorse

2017 Whitehorse

2016 Whitehorse

2013 Whitehorse

State-wide

Metro

Nunawading West

Box Hill

Nunawading East

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Elderly support services’ over the last 12 months?



Recreational facilities importance

78

2021 recreational facilities importance (index scores)

76

78

72

72

72

72

74

71

72

66

70

64

72

77

72

70

72

71

71

71

72

71

70

68

73

76

72

70

73

74

74

72

73

69

72

71

74

75

72

73

73

72

72

72

72

73

72

68

77

76

77

71

73

76

71

75

73

77

72

75

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

72

n/a

n/a

n/a

72

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

72

n/a

n/a

n/a

71

74

75

71

n/a

n/a

n/a

71

72

n/a

66

68

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

72

n/a

n/a

n/a

79p

79

76

75

74

74

74

74

74

73

71

67q

35-49

50-64

Women

65+

Metro

Box Hill

Nunawading West

Whitehorse

State-wide

Nunawading East

Men

18-34

2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Recreational facilities’ be as a responsibility for Council?




Recreational facilities importance

79

2021 recreational facilities importance (%)

26

23

21

20

22

29

21

26

27

27

28

24

21

32

20

37

35

21

45

45

46

50

47

45

45

46

46

44

44

46

46

44

33

44

46

59

26

26

28

26

28

23

29

24

23

28

21

28

29

23

40

18

17

18

3

5

4

1

2

3

4

3

3

2

5

2

4

1

6

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2021 Whitehorse

2020 Whitehorse

2019 Whitehorse

2018 Whitehorse

2017 Whitehorse

2016 Whitehorse

2013 Whitehorse

State-wide

Metro

Nunawading West

Box Hill

Nunawading East

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+



Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Recreational facilities’ be as a responsibility for Council?



Recreational facilities performance

80

2021 recreational facilities performance (index scores)

79

77

75

74

75

73

75

76

74

72

72

70

81

78

76

75

74

79

77

78

74

77

76

70

78

74

76

74

79

77

76

72

75

75

78

69

78

76

79

73

75

74

76

78

79

70

75

70

80

77

76

73

78

73

75

75

71

76

74

69

n/a

n/a

n/a

74

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

70

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

71

79

75

74

n/a

n/a

n/a

74

n/a

72

74

73

70

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

70

78

78p

77

75

74

74

74

74

73

71

71

71q

65+

Women

50-64

Metro

Nunawading East

Box Hill

Whitehorse

Nunawading West

35-49

18-34

Men

State-wide

2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Recreational facilities’ over the last 12 months?




Recreational facilities performance

81

2021 recreational facilities performance (%)

27

27

30

26

27

27

25

23

27

25

28

29

23

31

23

22

35

33

43

45

46

47

49

46

49

43

44

45

40

42

41

44

40

51

36

42

22

21

15

17

16

17

20

22

19

25

21

19

27

17

30

19

22

14

3

2

2

1

4

3

2

6

3

1

3

5

5

1

3

5

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

5

4

6

7

5

6

4

4

5

4

7

4

3

7

4

2

6

9

2021 Whitehorse

2020 Whitehorse

2019 Whitehorse

2018 Whitehorse

2017 Whitehorse

2016 Whitehorse

2013 Whitehorse

State-wide

Metro

Nunawading West

Box Hill

Nunawading East

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Recreational facilities’ over the last 12 months?



The appearance of public areas importance

82

2021 public areas importance (index scores)

77

73

76

75

73

74

74

73

71

71

72

69

76

74

72

73

72

73

73

72

69

71

77

70

77

74

74

73

71

74

74

72

71

70

70

69

75

75

74

77

74

74

74

75

76

76

73

73

74

74

74

74

74

76

74

74

72

71

75

72

n/a

73

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

73

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

73

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

77

n/a

n/a

75

73

75

74

73

n/a

71

n/a

69

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

73

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

77

76

76

76

76

75

75

74

73

72

72

70q

50-64

Metro

Nunawading West

65+

35-49

Women

State-wide

Whitehorse

Nunawading East

Men

Box Hill

18-34

2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘The appearance of public areas’ be as a responsibility for Council?




The appearance of public areas importance

83

2021 public areas importance (%)

26

23

24

22

26

25

24

28

29

31

20

24

23

28

19

34

32

24

46

49

43

45

49

47

47

47

47

43

51

45

46

46

44

38

45

55

26

22

29

31

23

26

26

23

22

23

26

29

29

22

34

25

23

17

2

5

4

2

2

2

3

2

1

1

3

1

1

2

3

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

2021 Whitehorse

2020 Whitehorse

2019 Whitehorse

2018 Whitehorse

2017 Whitehorse

2016 Whitehorse

2013 Whitehorse

State-wide

Metro

Nunawading West

Box Hill

Nunawading East

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+



Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘The appearance of public areas’ be as a responsibility for Council?



The appearance of public areas performance

84

2021 public areas performance (index scores)

74

69

76

72

73

73

75

74

70

73

72

72

76

75

77

79

74

76

74

75

78

74

76

72

72

73

75

74

73

73

74

71

71

73

75

71

78

73

78

79

76

77

74

79

76

72

76

71

74

75

80

76

72

74

74

70

69

72

73

71

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

73

n/a

72

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

72

74

70

n/a

76

n/a

74

77

72

n/a

n/a

73

71

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

71

78

78

77

77

77

76

76

76

75

74

74

73q

Women

50-64

Nunawading East

18-34

Nunawading West

Whitehorse

65+

35-49

Box Hill

Metro

Men

State-wide

2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘The appearance of public areas’ over the last 12 months?




The appearance of public areas performance

85

2021 public areas performance (%)

30

26

30

22

32

27

25

27

28

28

28

33

25

35

31

26

33

31

49

47

47

52

47

47

50

46

48

51

48

46

53

45

48

54

47

46

17

21

17

21

17

20

19

19

18

18

16

16

18

16

18

16

17

16

2

3

3

3

3

3

4

5

4

1

1

4

2

1

2

2

3

1

2

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

3

2

1

3

2

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

3

1

2

1

1

1

2

2021 Whitehorse

2020 Whitehorse

2019 Whitehorse

2018 Whitehorse

2017 Whitehorse

2016 Whitehorse

2013 Whitehorse

State-wide

Metro

Nunawading West

Box Hill

Nunawading East

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


Q2. How has Council performed on ‘The appearance of public areas’ over the last 12 months?



Art centres and libraries importance

86

2021 art centres and libraries importance (index scores)

72

73

72

69

71

74

68

65

61

70

65

65

72

66

68

68

72

67

67

69

69

68

65

64

74

67

71

69

67

70

67

65

69

70

65

63

70

67

68

66

66

68

67

65

65

66

64

62

74

68

68

69

67

68

68

69

71

69

66

64

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

69

n/a

n/a

n/a

65

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

66

n/a

68

62

n/a

66

72

71

n/a

n/a

62

n/a

66

64

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

66

n/a

75p

73

73

70

70

70

70

69

69

68

67q

66

Women

35-49

Nunawading West

Whitehorse

50-64

65+

Metro

Nunawading East

18-34

Box Hill

State-wide

Men

2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Art centres and libraries’ be as a responsibility for Council?




Art centres and libraries importance

87

2021 art centres and libraries importance (%)

24

21

21

20

13

21

17

19

21

25

25

22

18

30

21

28

28

23

40

45

40

43

47

46

41

40

43

43

36

40

40

40

37

42

35

44

29

26

29

29

30

21

32

31

27

26

29

32

30

28

34

26

27

26

5

6

8

7

8

10

7

8

6

3

9

4

8

2

5

4

8

5

1

2

1

1

1

2

2

2

1

1

2

2

2

1

1

2

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

2

2

1

2021 Whitehorse

2020 Whitehorse

2019 Whitehorse

2018 Whitehorse

2017 Whitehorse

2016 Whitehorse

2013 Whitehorse

State-wide

Metro

Nunawading West

Box Hill

Nunawading East

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+



Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Art centres and libraries’ be as a responsibility for Council?



Art centres and libraries performance

88

2021 art centres and libraries performance (index scores)

81

79

79

76

78

77

75

77

74

75

76

73

81

81

79

80

81

78

76

74

74

76

76

78

81

74

78

79

79

77

75

75

74

76

75

78

80

78

75

82

78

79

75

79

73

79

78

78

78

72

71

77

77

74

74

72

72

71

74

73

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

75

n/a

73

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

75

n/a

n/a

n/a

81

78

n/a

n/a

79

77

n/a

72

73

75

n/a

78

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

73

n/a

n/a

n/a

81p

77

77

75

74

73

73

73

73

73

70

67q

65+

50-64

Box Hill

Nunawading East

Women

Whitehorse

Metro

35-49

State-wide

Men

Nunawading West

18-34

2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Art centres and libraries’ over the last 12 months?




Art centres and libraries performance

89

2021 art centres and libraries performance (%)

23

28

31

28

30

24

28

22

22

18

28

23

20

25

10

22

28

37

39

43

42

42

47

42

42

42

41

38

35

44

41

36

46

38

29

34

19

17

15

15

12

20

18

20

19

23

19

14

19

19

21

24

18

12

3

1

2

2

2

2

1

3

3

5

2

3

4

2

6

1

3

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

16

10

10

13

10

11

10

13

14

15

16

16

16

16

16

13

23

14

2021 Whitehorse

2020 Whitehorse

2019 Whitehorse

2018 Whitehorse

2017 Whitehorse

2016 Whitehorse

2013 Whitehorse

State-wide

Metro

Nunawading West

Box Hill

Nunawading East

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Art centres and libraries’ over the last 12 months?



Community and cultural activities importance

90

2021 community and cultural activities importance (index scores)

63

61

62

62

57

65

60

56

63

58

57

59

62

60

61

57

61

57

60

61

62

64

58

61

64

61

61

60

64

59

60

60

54

61

56

60

63

61

61

58

60

61

59

58

62

59

55

57

66

62

62

61

66

61

62

62

58

65

58

66

n/a

62

62

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

62

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

63

n/a

62

63

60

n/a

60

n/a

56

n/a

56

61

n/a

n/a

62

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

64

64p

64p

62

62

62

61

61

61

60

59

57

Women

Metro

State-wide

65+

18-34

Nunawading West

Whitehorse

Nunawading East

35-49

Box Hill

Men

50-64

2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Community and cultural activities’ be as a responsibility for Council?




Community and cultural activities importance

91

2021 community and cultural activities importance (%)

13

10

11

12

8

12

10

15

15

17

11

9

12

14

15

14

11

11

33

39

34

30

37

37

36

37

36

31

34

34

28

37

30

32

30

38

41

34

41

45

40

41

40

36

37

37

40

47

43

39

42

42

39

38

10

14

12

11

11

7

10

9

9

10

13

8

13

7

12

8

14

8

2

2

1

1

2

2

3

2

2

4

2

3

2

4

5

2

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

3

1

1

1

1

1

2

2021 Whitehorse

2020 Whitehorse

2019 Whitehorse

2018 Whitehorse

2017 Whitehorse

2016 Whitehorse

2013 Whitehorse

State-wide

Metro

Nunawading West

Box Hill

Nunawading East

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+



Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Community and cultural activities’ be as a responsibility for Council?



Community and cultural activities performance

92

2021 community and cultural activities performance (index scores)

75

76

72

74

74

73

70

72

74

68

69

70

76

75

75

77

75

74

70

73

71

69

74

73

74

78

76

78

77

75

70

73

75

69

73

74

74

76

74

75

75

74

70

74

74

69

73

74

72

76

74

71

73

73

71

72

76

69

70

74

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

71

n/a

n/a

69

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

70

n/a

n/a

79

74

n/a

72

n/a

72

n/a

n/a

72

69

69

66

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

68

n/a

n/a

72p

69

68

68

67

67

66

65

65

65

64

62q

65+

Women

Box Hill

35-49

Nunawading East

Whitehorse

Metro

Nunawading West

50-64

State-wide

Men

18-34

2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Community and cultural activities’ over the last 12 months?




Community and cultural activities performance

93

2021 community and cultural activities performance (%)

13

22

25

24

22

20

19

13

12

12

16

11

9

17

6

16

12

19

34

41

42

45

45

44

44

38

37

33

30

41

36

33

36

41

27

30

24

22

21

20

17

18

23

28

27

27

24

20

28

20

27

20

27

22

6

4

2

1

3

3

3

7

7

5

5

8

6

6

9

5

6

3

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

2

4

1

22

10

10

10

12

14

9

13

16

22

24

20

21

23

21

15

27

26

2021 Whitehorse

2020 Whitehorse

2019 Whitehorse

2018 Whitehorse

2017 Whitehorse

2016 Whitehorse

2013 Whitehorse

State-wide

Metro

Nunawading West

Box Hill

Nunawading East

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Community and cultural activities’ over the last 12 months?



Waste management importance

94

2021 waste management importance (index scores)

86

86

86

86

85

84

84

86

86

84

84

82

86

84

85

87

84

82

83

90

85

84

81

81

85

85

85

84

84

84

83

85

84

83

82

81

78

83

82

82

81

80

81

81

81

80

81

79

82

82

83

83

81

81

82

81

80

79

80

80

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

81

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

79

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

79

80

82

82

n/a

80

n/a

n/a

86

n/a

78

76

79

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

78

87

85

85

85

85

85

85

85

85

84

82

82q

35-49

65+

Women

Box Hill

Whitehorse

Nunawading East

Metro

50-64

Nunawading West

Men

18-34

State-wide

2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Waste management’ be as a responsibility for Council?




Waste management importance

95

2021 waste management importance (%)

50

49

48

46

40

38

38

44

49

51

49

49

50

50

46

59

50

48

39

42

42

44

44

50

46

42

40

35

42

41

37

41

38

32

40

47

10

8

10

10

15

11

14

12

10

11

8

9

12

8

14

9

10

5

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2021 Whitehorse

2020 Whitehorse

2019 Whitehorse

2018 Whitehorse

2017 Whitehorse

2016 Whitehorse

2013 Whitehorse

State-wide

Metro

Nunawading West

Box Hill

Nunawading East

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+



Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Waste management’ be as a responsibility for Council?



Waste management performance

96

2021 waste management performance (index scores)

73

74

77

73

72

72

72

71

69

71

70

65

72

79

78

78

77

79

76

74

80

75

73

68

77

79

81

78

77

76

76

77

75

77

75

70

75

78

78

78

77

79

77

75

76

80

75

71

72

76

77

75

74

72

74

74

76

69

76

70

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

77

72

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

73

65

n/a

72

74

71

n/a

69

n/a

77

70

n/a

71

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

72

79

77

77

76

75

74

74

74

74

72

72q

69q

50-64

Nunawading East

65+

Men

Whitehorse

Box Hill

Women

Nunawading West

18-34

35-49

Metro

State-wide

2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Waste management’ over the last 12 months?




Waste management performance

97

2021 waste management performance (%)

31

28

36

32

34

29

28

23

27

31

31

32

31

32

25

29

39

38

44

42

42

49

44

44

43

42

43

44

41

47

47

42

52

47

41

34

14

20

16

14

16

21

16

20

19

13

14

16

14

14

12

10

17

20

6

6

4

2

4

5

8

8

6

7

9

2

5

8

9

8

3

3

2

2

1

1

1

1

3

4

2

3

1

1

1

2

5

2

2

2

2

1

2

1

3

2

2

3

1

2

3

3

2

3

2021 Whitehorse

2020 Whitehorse

2019 Whitehorse

2018 Whitehorse

2017 Whitehorse

2016 Whitehorse

2013 Whitehorse

State-wide

Metro

Nunawading West

Box Hill

Nunawading East

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Waste management’ over the last 12 months?



Planning and building permits importance

98

2021 planning and building permits importance (index scores)

83

83

77

78

74

78

75

71

73

71

72

62

81

81

78

77

74

78

76

81

70

71

73

68

79

81

80

77

74

77

77

77

77

71

74

73

79

84

78

75

76

77

76

81

72

72

73

69

79

80

78

80

74

79

76

74

75

71

74

70

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

74

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

71

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

71

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

71

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

71

n/a

n/a

80p

79

77

76

75

75

74

74

73

73

71

66q

65+

50-64

Women

35-49

Metro

Nunawading West

Whitehorse

Box Hill

Nunawading East

State-wide

Men

18-34

2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Planning and building permits’ be as a responsibility for Council?




Planning and building permits importance

99

2021 planning and building permits importance (%)

32

33

36

35

35

33

28

33

33

31

31

28

37

19

39

38

39

38

38

34

40

38

41

39

37

38

35

41

39

37

34

35

42

43

21

17

20

18

21

20

24

23

21

26

16

23

20

35

15

14

12

5

7

5

4

3

2

4

4

4

5

7

7

3

8

7

3

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

3

2

1

1

3

1

1

2

4

3

2

2

2

3

2

2

2

3

2

3

3

1

3

3

2021 Whitehorse

2020 Whitehorse

2019 Whitehorse

2018 Whitehorse

2017 Whitehorse

2016 Whitehorse

State-wide

Metro

Nunawading West

Box Hill

Nunawading East

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+



Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Planning and building permits’ be as a responsibility for Council?



Planning and building permits performance

100

2021 planning and building permits performance (index scores)

57

54

52

53

54

53

54

46

55

54

53

51

59

56

54

52

53

50

51

41

51

51

52

52

55

53

51

50

51

46

50

48

49

43

52

52

57

54

53

50

49

46

51

51

47

46

45

51

59

55

52

50

50

42

54

48

48

39

51

50

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

53

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

54

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

53

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

55

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

54

57

55

55

54

54

53

53

53

53

52

52

51q

18-34

Nunawading East

Men

Whitehorse

Metro

Nunawading West

Box Hill

50-64

Women

35-49

65+

State-wide

2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Planning and building permits’ over the last 12 months?




Planning and building permits performance

101

2021 planning and building permits performance (%)

9

7

8

5

6

5

6

6

11

7

8

11

7

7

11

10

8

22

25

23

23

25

25

23

23

22

23

23

22

22

25

22

24

18

23

27

28

28

23

22

27

25

24

24

22

27

20

27

19

22

24

13

10

14

16

16

17

13

12

10

15

14

13

13

7

18

18

14

8

9

8

9

10

9

8

6

11

6

6

9

7

6

11

8

8

25

22

19

18

20

23

23

27

22

25

27

18

31

29

19

18

27

2021 Whitehorse

2020 Whitehorse

2019 Whitehorse

2018 Whitehorse

2017 Whitehorse

2016 Whitehorse

State-wide

Metro

Nunawading West

Box Hill

Nunawading East

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Planning and building permits’ over the last 12 months?



Environmental sustainability importance

102

2021 environmental sustainability importance (index scores)

79

77

78

76

75

76

75

76

74

76

77

73

75

73

72

75

72

73

79

71

74

75

76

71

79

79

74

74

68

74

74

73

73

74

72

68

76

79

73

73

70

73

74

73

72

70

70

69

79

79

71

74

69

74

73

76

73

72

75

68

n/a

n/a

n/a

74

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

73

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

73

n/a

n/a

n/a

75

75

n/a

n/a

64

71

n/a

n/a

72

71

75

67

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

71

n/a

n/a

n/a

79

79

77

77

76

76

75

74

74

73

72

72

Women

18-34

Nunawading West

Metro

35-49

Whitehorse

Box Hill

Nunawading East

State-wide

65+

50-64

Men

2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Environmental sustainability’ be as a responsibility for Council?




Environmental sustainability importance

103

2021 environmental sustainability importance (%)

38

38

32

30

30

31

25

35

37

39

39

34

32

44

41

42

36

31

36

37

39

40

42

42

44

37

38

39

33

36

38

35

35

36

30

40

17

19

20

23

20

19

24

21

18

11

19

22

17

16

18

9

20

20

6

3

6

4

6

5

4

5

4

6

6

6

10

3

4

8

11

5

2

3

2

1

2

2

2

2

2

3

2

1

3

2

5

2

3

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

3

1

2021 Whitehorse

2020 Whitehorse

2019 Whitehorse

2018 Whitehorse

2017 Whitehorse

2016 Whitehorse

2013 Whitehorse

State-wide

Metro

Nunawading West

Box Hill

Nunawading East

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+



Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Environmental sustainability’ be as a responsibility for Council?



Environmental sustainability performance

104

2021 environmental sustainability performance (index scores)

66

68

64

62

64

65

64

60

65

65

64

60

67

66

66

64

69

66

64

60

67

69

67

62

68

68

66

64

64

65

64

65

65

64

66

63

70

67

66

64

72

68

66

66

71

70

66

64

67

66

66

64

64

64

62

67

63

63

62

63

n/a

n/a

n/a

65

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

64

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

64

n/a

69

66

n/a

65

66

n/a

66

67

n/a

66

64

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

64

65

64

64

64

64

63

63

63

63

62

62

62

Nunawading East

65+

Women

Metro

18-34

Whitehorse

Nunawading West

50-64

Men

Box Hill

35-49

State-wide

2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Environmental sustainability’ over the last 12 months?




Environmental sustainability performance

105

2021 environmental sustainability performance (%)

11

13

14

11

13

13

12

11

13

12

11

11

10

13

9

12

14

13

34

36

36

41

41

35

42

36

35

32

31

40

37

31

37

38

26

30

29

29

30

26

20

29

29

31

30

30

31

26

30

29

32

23

31

30

7

7

5

4

5

6

5

9

7

7

7

7

6

8

8

9

8

4

2

2

1

3

1

3

1

3

2

3

2

2

4

1

6

2

3

16

13

15

15

19

15

11

11

13

16

18

14

14

18

15

12

19

20

2021 Whitehorse

2020 Whitehorse

2019 Whitehorse

2018 Whitehorse

2017 Whitehorse

2016 Whitehorse

2013 Whitehorse

State-wide

Metro

Nunawading West

Box Hill

Nunawading East

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Environmental sustainability’ over the last 12 months?



Detailed

demographics

106

Gender and age profile

107

2021 gender

2021 age

Men49%

Women51%

Whitehorse

9%

25%

25%

13%

28%

Whitehorse

18-24 25-34 35-49 50-64 65+

Men49%

Women51%

Metro

Men49%

Women51%

State-wide

8%

27%

25%

14%

25%

Metro

18-24 25-34 35-49 50-64 65+

6%

19%

23%18%

34%

State-wide

18-24 25-34 35-49 50-64 65+

S3. [Record gender] / S4. To which of the following age groups do you belong?


Please note that for the reason of simplifying reporting, interlocking age and gender reporting has not been included in this report. Interlocking

age and gender analysis is still available in the dashboard and data tables provided alongside this report.


Household structure

2021 household structure (%)

17

13

3

2

20

25

17

3

Single person living alone

Single living with friends or housemates

Single living with children 16 or under

Single with children but none 16 or under living athome

Married or living with partner, no children

Married or living with partner with children 16 or underat home

Married or living with partner with children but none 16or under at home

Do not wish to answer

108S6. Which of the following BEST describes your household?



Years lived in area

109

2021 years lived in area (%)

17

20

21

13

18

12

9

16

15

13

14

18

15

13

67

65

65

73

64

74

78 0

2021 Whitehorse

2020 Whitehorse

2019 Whitehorse

2018 Whitehorse

2017 Whitehorse

2016 Whitehorse

2013 Whitehorse

0-5 years 5-10 years 10+ years Can't say

S5. How long have you lived in this area?/How long have you owned a property in this area?



Years lived in area

2021 years lived in area (%)

17

20

21

13

18

12

14

22

24

12

11

17

17

36

14

5

1

16

15

13

14

18

15

16

16

15

15

16

19

12

20

24

12

4

18

22

20

25

22

31

22

20

24

20

10

18

19

14

31

26

10

20

21

18

23

20

19

19

19

18

17

25

17

22

24

16

28

14

29

23

28

25

21

24

30

24

18

35

38

29

29

6

15

29

70 1

2021 Whitehorse

2020 Whitehorse

2019 Whitehorse

2018 Whitehorse

2017 Whitehorse

2016 Whitehorse

State-wide

Metro

Nunawading West

Box Hill

Nunawading East

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+

0-5 years 5-10 years 10-20 years 20-30 years 30+ years Can't say

110

S5. How long have you lived in this area?/How long have you owned a property in this area?


Note: For 2016, the code frame expanded out “10+ years”, to include “10-20 years”,”20-30 years” and “30+ years”. As such, this chart

presents the last five years of data only.


Languages spoken at home

111

2021 languages spoken at home (%)

Languages other than English

25%

English only75%

15

2

1

1

1

1

1

<1

<1

<1

<1

<1

4

CHINESE

GREEK

ARABIC

ITALIAN

JAPANESE

SPANISH

VIETNAMESE

DUTCH

GERMAN

HINDI

KOREAN

RUSSIAN

OTHER

Q11. What languages, other than English, are spoken regularly in your home?


Note: Respondents could name multiple languages so responses may add to more than 100%


Country of birth

112

2021 country of birth (%)

Countries other than Australia

31%

Australia69%

9

5

2

2

1

1

<1

<1

<1

<1

7

CHINA

UNITED KINGDOM

INDIA

NEW ZEALAND

UNITED STATES

CANADA

KOREA

FRANCE

GERMANY

GREECE

OTHER

Q12. Could you please tell me which country you were born in?



Appendix A:

Index scores,

margins of error

and significant

differences

113

Index Scores

Many questions ask respondents to rate council

performance on a five-point scale, for example, from

‘very good’ to ‘very poor’, with ‘can’t say’ also a

possible response category. To facilitate ease of

reporting and comparison of results over time, starting

from the 2012 survey and measured against the state-

wide result and the council group, an ‘Index Score’ has

been calculated for such measures.

The Index Score is calculated and represented as a

score out of 100 (on a 0 to 100 scale), with ‘can’t say’

responses excluded from the analysis. The ‘%

RESULT’ for each scale category is multiplied by the

‘INDEX FACTOR’. This produces an ‘INDEX VALUE’

for each category, which are then summed to produce

the ‘INDEX SCORE’, equating to ‘60’ in the following

example.

Similarly, an Index Score has been calculated for the

Core question ‘Performance direction in the last 12

months’, based on the following scale for each

performance measure category, with ‘Can’t say’

responses excluded from the calculation.

Appendix A:

Index Scores

SCALE

CATEGORIES% RESULT

INDEX

FACTORINDEX VALUE

Very good 9% 100 9

Good 40% 75 30

Average 37% 50 19

Poor 9% 25 2

Very poor 4% 0 0

Can’t say 1% --INDEX SCORE

60

114

SCALE

CATEGORIES% RESULT

INDEX

FACTORINDEX VALUE

Improved 36% 100 36

Stayed the

same40% 50 20

Deteriorated 23% 0 0

Can’t say 1% --INDEX SCORE

56


Demographic

Actual

survey

sample

size

Weighted

base

Maximum

margin of error

at 95%

confidence

interval

Whitehorse City

Council500 400 +/-4.4

Men 257 194 +/-6.1

Women 243 206 +/-6.3

Nunawading West 188 162 +/-7.2

Box Hill 155 120 +/-7.9

Nunawading East 157 119 +/-7.8

18-34 years 81 138 +/-11.0

35-49 years 104 99 +/-9.7

50-64 years 100 51 +/-9.8

65+ years 215 112 +/-6.7

The sample size for the 2021 State-wide Local

Government Community Satisfaction Survey for

Whitehorse City Council was n=500. Unless otherwise

noted, this is the total sample base for all reported

charts and tables.

The maximum margin of error on a sample of

approximately n=500 interviews is +/-4.4% at the 95%

confidence level for results around 50%. Margins of

error will be larger for any sub-samples. As an

example, a result of 50% can be read confidently as

falling midway in the range 45.6% - 54.4%.

Maximum margins of error are listed in the table below,

based on a population of 142,900 people aged 18

years or over for Whitehorse City Council, according to

ABS estimates.

Appendix A:

Margins of error

115


Within tables and index score charts throughout this

report, statistically significant differences at the 95%

confidence level are represented by upward directing

green () and downward directing red arrows ().

Significance when noted indicates a significantly higher

or lower result for the analysis group in comparison to

the ‘Total’ result for the council for that survey question

for that year. Therefore in the example below:

• The state-wide result is significantly higher than

the overall result for the council.

• The result among 50-64 year olds is significantly

lower than for the overall result for the council.

Further, results shown in green and red indicate

significantly higher or lower results than in 2020.

Therefore in the example below:

• The result among 35-49 year olds in the council is

significantly higher than the result achieved among

this group in 2020.

• The result among 18-34 year olds in the council is

significantly lower than the result achieved among

this group in 2020.

Appendix A:

Significant difference reporting notation

2021 overall performance (index scores)

(example extract only)

116

58

54q

57

58

60

66

67p

65+

50-64

35-49

Metro

Whitehorse

18-34

State-wide


Appendix A:

Index score significant difference calculation

117

The test applied to the Indexes was an Independent

Mean Test, as follows:

Z Score = ($1 - $2) / Sqrt (($5^2 / $3) + ($6^2 / $4))

Where:

• $1 = Index Score 1

• $2 = Index Score 2

• $3 = unweighted sample count 1

• $4 = unweighted sample count 2

• $5 = standard deviation 1

• $6 = standard deviation 2

All figures can be sourced from the detailed cross

tabulations.

The test was applied at the 95% confidence interval, so

if the Z Score was greater than +/- 1.954 the scores are

significantly different.


Appendix B:

Further project

information

118

Further information about the report and explanations

about the State-wide Local Government Community

Satisfaction Survey can be found in this section

including:

• Background and objectives

• Analysis and reporting

• Glossary of terms

Detailed survey tabulations

Detailed survey tabulations are available in supplied

Excel file.

Contacts

For further queries about the conduct and reporting of

the 2021 State-wide Local Government Community

Satisfaction Survey, please contact JWS Research on

(03) 8685 8555 or via email:

[email protected]

Appendix B:

Further information

119


mailto:[email protected]

The 2021 results are compared with previous years, as

detailed below:

• 2020, n=500 completed interviews, conducted in the period

of 30th January – 22nd March.


of 1st February – 30th March.








of 31st January – 11th March.



Minimum quotas of gender within age groups were

applied during the fieldwork phase. Post-survey

weighting was then conducted to ensure accurate

representation of the age and gender profile of the

Whitehorse City Council area.

Any variation of +/-1% between individual results and

net scores in this report or the detailed survey

tabulations is due to rounding. In reporting, ‘—’ denotes

not mentioned and ‘0%’ denotes mentioned by less

than 1% of respondents. ‘Net’ scores refer to two or

more response categories being combined into one

category for simplicity of reporting.

This survey was conducted by Computer Assisted

Telephone Interviewing (CATI) as a representative

random probability survey of residents aged 18+ years

in Whitehorse City Council.

Survey sample matched to the demographic profile of

Whitehorse City Council as determined by the most

recent ABS population estimates was purchased from

an accredited supplier of publicly available phone

records, including up to 60% mobile phone numbers to

cater to the diversity of residents within Whitehorse City

Council, particularly younger people.

A total of n=500 completed interviews were achieved in

Whitehorse City Council. Survey fieldwork was

conducted in the period of 2th February – 15th March,

2021.

Appendix B:

Survey methodology and sampling

120


All participating councils are listed in the State-wide

report published on the DELWP website. In 2021, 66 of

the 79 Councils throughout Victoria participated in this

survey. For consistency of analysis and reporting

across all projects, Local Government Victoria has

aligned its presentation of data to use standard council

groupings. Accordingly, the council reports for the

community satisfaction survey provide analysis using

these standard council groupings. Please note that

councils participating across 2012-2021 vary slightly.

Council Groups

Whitehorse City Council is classified as a Metropolitan

council according to the following classification list:

• Metropolitan, Interface, Regional Centres, Large

Rural & Small Rural.

Councils participating in the Metropolitan group are:

• Banyule, Boroondara, Brimbank, Glen Eira, Greater

Dandenong, Hobsons Bay, Kingston, Knox,

Manningham, Maroondah, Melbourne, Moreland,

Port Phillip, Stonnington and Whitehorse.

Wherever appropriate, results for Whitehorse City

Council for this 2021 State-wide Local Government

Community Satisfaction Survey have been compared

against other participating councils in the Metropolitan

group and on a state-wide basis. Please note that

council groupings changed for 2015, and as such

comparisons to council group results before that time

can not be made within the reported charts.

Appendix B:

Analysis and reporting

121


The survey was revised in 2012. As a result:

• The survey is now conducted as a representative

random probability survey of residents aged 18 years

or over in local councils, whereas previously it was

conducted as a ‘head of household’ survey.

• As part of the change to a representative resident

survey, results are now weighted post survey to the

known population distribution of Whitehorse City

Council according to the most recently available

Australian Bureau of Statistics population estimates,

whereas the results were previously not weighted.

• The service responsibility area performance

measures have changed significantly and the rating

scale used to assess performance has also

changed.

As such, the results of the 2012 State-wide Local

Government Community Satisfaction Survey should be

considered as a benchmark. Please note that

comparisons should not be made with the State-wide

Local Government Community Satisfaction Survey

results from 2011 and prior due to the methodological

and sampling changes. Comparisons in the period

2012-2021 have been made throughout this report as

appropriate.

Appendix B:

2012 survey revision

122


Core, optional and tailored questions

Over and above necessary geographic and

demographic questions required to ensure sample

representativeness, a base set of questions for the

2021 State-wide Local Government Community

Satisfaction Survey was designated as ‘Core’ and

therefore compulsory inclusions for all participating

Councils.

These core questions comprised:

• Overall performance last 12 months (Overall

performance)

• Value for money in services and infrastructure (Value

for money)

• Contact in last 12 months (Contact)

• Rating of contact (Customer service)

• Overall council direction last 12 months (Council

direction)

• Community consultation and engagement

(Consultation)

• Decisions made in the interest of the community

(Making community decisions)

• Condition of sealed local roads (Sealed local roads)

• Waste management

Reporting of results for these core questions can

always be compared against other participating

councils in the council group and against all

participating councils state-wide. Alternatively, some

questions in the 2021 State-wide Local Government

Community Satisfaction Survey were optional. Councils

also had the ability to ask tailored questions specific

only to their council.

Appendix B:

Core, optional and tailored questions

123


Appendix B:

Analysis and reporting

124

Reporting

Every council that participated in the 2021 State-wide

Local Government Community Satisfaction Survey

receives a customised report. In addition, the state

government is supplied with this State-wide summary

report of the aggregate results of ‘Core’ and ‘Optional’

questions asked across all council areas surveyed,

which is available at:

https://www.localgovernment.vic.gov.au/our-

programs/council-community-satisfaction-survey

Tailored questions commissioned by individual councils

are reported only to the commissioning council and not

otherwise shared unless by express written approval of

the commissioning council.


https://www.localgovernment.vic.gov.au/our-programs/council-community-satisfaction-survey

Core questions: Compulsory inclusion questions for all

councils participating in the CSS.

CSS: 2021 Victorian Local Government Community

Satisfaction Survey.

Council group: One of five classified groups,

comprising: metropolitan, interface, regional centres,

large rural and small rural.

Council group average: The average result for all

participating councils in the council group.

Highest / lowest: The result described is the highest or

lowest result across a particular demographic sub-

group e.g. men, for the specific question being

reported. Reference to the result for a demographic

sub-group being the highest or lowest does not imply

that it is significantly higher or lower, unless this is

specifically mentioned.

Index score: A score calculated and represented as a

score out of 100 (on a 0 to 100 scale). This score is

sometimes reported as a figure in brackets next to the

category being described, e.g. men 50+ (60).

Optional questions: Questions which councils had an

option to include or not.

Percentages: Also referred to as ‘detailed results’,

meaning the proportion of responses, expressed as a

percentage.

Sample: The number of completed interviews, e.g. for

a council or within a demographic sub-group.

Significantly higher / lower: The result described is

significantly higher or lower than the comparison result

based on a statistical significance test at the 95%

confidence limit. If the result referenced is statistically

higher or lower then this will be specifically mentioned,

however not all significantly higher or lower results are

referenced in summary reporting.

State-wide average: The average result for all

participating councils in the State.

Tailored questions: Individual questions tailored by

and only reported to the commissioning council.

Weighting: Weighting factors are applied to the sample

for each council based on available age and gender

proportions from ABS census information to ensure

reported results are proportionate to the actual

population of the council, rather than the achieved

survey sample.

Appendix B:

Glossary of terms

125


THERE ARE OVER 6 MILLION PEOPLE IN VICTORIA...

FIND OUT WHAT THEY'RETHINKING.

Contact us

03 8685 8555

John Scales

Founder

[email protected]

Katrina Cox

Director of Client Services

[email protected]

Follow us

@JWSResearch

Mark Zuker

Managing Director

[email protected]

2021 local government community satisfaction survey

Documents