ararat rural city council · ararat rural city council’s customer service index score of 69 is...

2019 Local

Government

Community

Satisfaction Survey

Ararat Rural City

CouncilCoordinated by the Department of

Environment, Land, Water and Planning

on behalf of Victorian councils

Contents

J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Ararat Rural City Council

2

Background and objectives 4

Key findings and recommendations 6

Summary of findings 13

Detailed findings 29

Overall performance 30

Customer service 33

Council direction 38

Individual service areas 42

Community consultation and engagement 43

Lobbying on behalf of the community 47

Decisions made in the interest of the

community

51

Condition of sealed local roads 55

Informing the community 59

Condition of local streets and footpaths 63

Elderly support services 67

Recreational facilities 71

Appearance of public areas 75

Art centres and libraries 79

Community and cultural activities 83

Waste management 87

Business and community development

and tourism

91

Planning and building permits 95

Emergency and disaster management 99

Maintenance of unsealed roads 103

Detailed demographics 107

Appendix A: Index scores, margins of error

and significant differences

109

Appendix B: Further project information 114

84

39

82

46

82

50

-45 -36 -32

76

73

69

Ararat Rural City Council – at a glance

3Note: Net differentials are calculated based on the un-rounded importance and performance scores, then rounded to the nearest whole number.


Top 3 performing areas

Top 3 areas for improvement

PerformanceImportance Net differential

Unsealed roads Community

decisions

Sealed local

roadsOverall Council performance

Results shown are index scores out of 100.

6049

58

Ararat Small Rural State-wide

Art centres & libraries

Emergency & disaster mngt

Appearance of public areas

Background and

objectives

4

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 twentieth year, this survey provides insight

into the community’s views on:

• councils’ overall performance with benchmarking

against State-wide and council group results

• community consultation and engagement

• advocacy and lobbying on behalf of the community

• customer service, local infrastructure, facilities 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 seven

years shows that councils in Victoria continue to

provide services that meet the public’s expectations.

Serving Victoria for 20 years

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

wide report which contains all of the aggregated

results, analysis and data. Moreover, with 20 years of

results, the CSS offers councils a long-term, consistent

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.

Background and objectives

5


Key findings and

recommendations

6

The overall performance index score of 49 for Ararat

Rural City Council represents a significant 12-point

improvement on the 2018 result. Council also

experienced significant improvements in ratings across a

vast majority of service areas in the current year. Overall

performance is back on the rise after a significant

decline in perceptions between 2017 and 2018.

Notwithstanding gains, overall performance is rated

significantly lower (at the 95% confidence interval) than

the average rating for councils State-wide and in the

Small Rural group (index scores of 60 and 58

respectively) and remains eight index points lower than

Council’s peak result of 57 in 2013.

• Perceptions of overall performance increased

significantly across almost all demographic and

geographic cohorts.

• Lake Bolac residents rate Council’s overall

performance significantly lower than average (29).

• Residents aged 35 to 49 years (index score of 40)

rate overall performance significantly lower than the

Council average despite having increased by 13 index

points in their impressions in the past year.

• Equal numbers rate Council’s performance as ‘very

good’ or ‘good’ (30%) as rate it ‘very poor’ or ‘poor’

(30%). A further 38% sit mid-scale, rating Council’s

overall performance as ‘average’.

Overall performance

7


6049

58

Ararat Small Rural State-wide

Overall Council performance

Results shown are index scores out of 100.

Contact with council

More than half of Ararat Rural City Council residents

(57%) have had recent with Council in the last 12

months. This is not significantly different to 2018 (61%).

• Lake Bolac residents (72%, noting that this result is

based on a small sample size and should be

considered with caution) and residents aged 35 to 49

years had the most contact with council (64%) in

2019. These groups also rate Council lowest on

overall performance.

• Conversely, residents aged 18 to 34 years (49%)

had the least contact with council.

Customer service

Ararat Rural City Council’s customer service index

score of 69 is significantly (thirteen index points) higher

than the 2018 result. Results have rebounded after

experiencing a multi-year decline between 2015 and

2018. Performance on this measure rates in line with

the State-wide and Small Rural group average for

councils (index scores of 71 and 70 respectively).

One quarter of residents rate Council’s customer

service as ‘very good’ (27%) with a further 39% rating it

as ‘good’. There has been a nine percentage point

increase in ‘very good’ ratings compared with 2018.

• All groups improved in their perceptions of Council’s

customer service with the most significant increases

in ratings occurring among residents aged 35 to 49

years (index score of 63, up 19 index points from

2018), men (69, up 18 index points), and residents

aged 65+ years (74, up 18 index points).

Customer contact and service

8


Top performing areas

The top three performing service areas for Ararat Rural

City Council are:

• Art centres and libraries (index score of 76, up six

index points, significantly higher than in 2018)

• Emergency and disaster management (index score

of 73, up three index points)

• Appearance of public areas (index score of 69, up

four index points, significantly higher than in 2018).

Performance in the area of art centres and libraries is

at its highest level to date.

Performance ratings increased on all but one measure

from 2018 results; in most instances, increases were

significant. Council improved most on the measure of

making community decisions (index score of 46, up 13

index points). The next largest increase occurred in the

area of consultation and engagement, where Council’s

performance rating increased significantly by eight

points.

Residents are more than twice as likely to believe

Council’s performance improved over the previous

twelve months than in 2018. Three in ten (29%) believe

Council’s performance improved; just under half (47%)

say it stayed the same; and another 20% believe it has

deteriorated.

Areas for improvement

Council’s perceived performance declined in one area

in the last year – waste management (index score of

60, down four points from 2018). Performance was

largely consistent in the four years prior, decreasing

significantly for the first time in 2019.

• Impressions of Council’s performance in this area

declined significantly among men (61, down five

index points from 2018).

• Council performs significantly lower than the State-

wide and Small Rural group averages for councils in

the area of waste management (index scores of 68

and 66 respectively).

The condition of unsealed roads stands out as most in

need of attention. With an index score of 39 (up six

points), Council rates lowest in this area. Decisions

made in the interest of the community (index score of

46) comprises the second lowest ranking measure

despite a 13-point improvement in the past year.

Council’s ratings are significantly lower than State-wide

and Small Rural group averages on both measures.

Moreover, residents volunteer community consultation

(14%), expensive rates (14%), unsealed (13%) and

sealed (11%) road maintenance and communication

(11%) as areas in need of improvement.

Top performing areas and areas for improvement

9


The individual service area that has the strongest

influence on the overall performance rating (based on

regression analysis) is:

• Decisions made in the interest of the community.

Other service areas with a positive influence on overall

performance include:

• Emergency management

• Condition of sealed local roads

• Community consultation.

Looking at the key service areas only, emergency

management has the highest performance index and a

moderately positive influence on the overall

performance rating. Currently, Ararat Rural Council is

performing very well in this area (performance index of

73) and while it should remain a focus, there is greater

work to be done elsewhere.

Recreational facilities and the appearance of public

areas also have high performance ratings, but have

negligible influence on the overall performance rating.

Overall, decisions made in the interest of the

community has the greatest influence on perceptions of

overall performance and is also an area with a low

index score (46) compared to other service areas.

Moderate improvement in community decisions

could help drive up overall opinion of the Council’s

performance.

Ararat Rural City Council’s condition of sealed local

roads and community consultation have lower (though

still positive) performance ratings overall. Continuing

efforts in these areas has the capacity to lift Ararat City

Council’s overall performance rating. (These areas

have performance indices of 50 and 49 respectively.)

A service area to watch is the maintenance of unsealed

roads. This service area has the lowest performance

rating (index score of 39). This service area could have

a positive influence (albeit potentially weak) on overall

performance perceptions if attended to.

Influences on perceptions of overall performance


10

Council experienced significant increases in

performance ratings across many service areas in

the past year, rebounding from the previous year’s

declines. This is a positive result for Council.

In terms of priorities for the year ahead, Ararat Rural

City Council should focus on maintaining and improving

performance in the individual service areas that most

positively influence perceptions of overall performance.

Decisions made in the interest of the community is a

key influencer of overall perceptions – this should

remain a specific focus for Council if it wishes to

improve overall performance perceptions more broadly.

Other service areas that serve to positively influence

perceptions of overall performance include:

• Condition of sealed local roads

• Emergency management

• Consultation and engagement

• Maintenance of unsealed roads.

With regard to the condition of unsealed roads (index

score of 39) and Council’s ability to make decisions in

the interests of the community (index score of 46),

current performance levels are low and remain

significantly lower than the State-wide and Small Rural

group council averages.

In many of the aforementioned areas, stated

importance exceeds rated performance by a wide

margin:

• Unsealed roads (margin of 45 points)

• Community decisions (margin of 36 points)

• Sealed local roads (margin of 32 points)

• Consultation and engagement (margin of 29 points).

More generally, consideration should also be given to

residents aged 35 to 49 years, who appear to be

driving lower ratings in a number of areas in 2019.

On the positive side, Council should look to maintain

and build upon its improved performance across

service areas over the next twelve months.

Focus areas for coming 12 months

11


An approach we recommend is to further mine the

survey data to better understand the profile of these

over and under-performing demographic groups. This

can be achieved via additional consultation and data

interrogation, self-mining the SPSS data provided, or

via the dashboard portal available to the council.

Please note that the category descriptions for the

coded open-ended responses are generic summaries

only. We recommend further analysis of the detailed

cross tabulations and the actual verbatim responses,

with a view to understanding the responses of the key

gender and age groups, especially any target groups

identified as requiring attention.

A personal briefing by senior JWS Research

representatives is also available to assist in

providing both explanation and interpretation of

the results. Please contact JWS Research on:

03 8685 8555

Further areas of exploration


12

Summary of

findings

13

Summary of core measures

14

Index scores


7170

67

62

56

69

52

5451

43

50

57

5455

53

37

49

55

52 51

49 494948

50

33

46

55 5654 53

44

504951

46 47

29

55

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Sealed

Local

Roads

Community

Consultation

Customer

Service

Overall

Council

Direction

Overall

Performance

Advocacy Making

Community

Decisions

Summary of core measures

Performance MeasuresArarat

2019

Ararat

2018

Small

Rural

2019

State-wide

2019

Highest

score

Lowest

score

Overall Performance 49 37 58 60Aged 18-34

years, 65+

years

Aged 35-49

years

Community Consultation

(Community consultation and

engagement)

49 41 56 56Aged 65+

years

Aged 35-49

years

Advocacy

(Lobbying on behalf of the community)50 44 55 54

Aged 50-64

years, Aged

18-34 years

Aged 35-49

years

Making Community Decisions

(Decisions made in the interest of the

community)

46 33 55 55Aged 65+

years

Aged 35-49

years

Sealed Local Roads

(Condition of sealed local roads)50 43 53 56

Aged 65+

years

Aged 35-49

years

Customer Service 69 56 70 71Aged 65+

years

Aged 35-49

years

Overall Council Direction 55 29 53 53Aged 18-34

years

Aged 35-49

years


15

Summary of key community satisfaction

16

Key measures summary results (%)


6

7

5

6

9

27

24

22

24

18

27

39

38

35

34

40

31

18

18

22

18

17

20

10

12

8

7

13

12

4

1

6

12

5

1

1

Overall Performance


Advocacy

Making Community Decisions

Sealed Local Roads

Customer Service

Very good Good Average Poor Very poor Can't say

29 47 20 4Overall Council Direction

Improved Stayed the same Deteriorated Can't say

84

82

82

78

77

77

69

79

79

65

Unsealed roads

Community decisions

Sealed local roads

Consultation & engagement

Informing the community

Local streets & footpaths

Lobbying

Waste management

Elderly support services

Planning & building permits

39

46

50

49

49

55

50

60

65

52

Individual service areas importance vs performance

17Note: Net differentials are calculated based on the un-rounded importance and performance scores, then rounded to the nearest whole number.


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

Service areas where importance exceeds performance by 10 points or more, suggesting further investigation is

necessary:

-45

-36

-32

-29

-28

-22

-19

-19

-14

-13

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.

• The charts are based on unweighted data, which

means the service performance indices in the

regression charts may vary by +/- 1-2 points on the

indices reported in charts and tables elsewhere in

this report.

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 weak 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

18


Influence on overall performance: all service areas

19

The multiple regression analysis model above (all service areas) has an R-squared value of 0.610 and adjusted R-square value of 0.594,

which means that 61% 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 = 38.16 This model should be interpreted with some caution as some data is not

normally distributed and not all service areas have linear correlations.

2019 regression analysis (all service areas)


Influence on overall performance: key service areas

20The multiple regression analysis model above (reduced set of service areas) has an R-squared value of 0.608 and adjusted R-square value of

0.597, which means that 61% 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 = 55.85.

2019 regression analysis (key service areas)


84

82

82

81

79

79

78

77

77

72

71

69

68

65

60

59

Unsealed roads

Community decisions

Sealed local roads



Waste management





Recreational facilities

Lobbying

Bus/community dev./tourism


Community & cultural


Individual service area importance

2019 individual service area importance (index scores)

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012


21Q1. Firstly, how important should [RESPONSIBILITY AREA] be as a responsibility for Council?

Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 31 Councils asked group: 8

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

86

n/a

n/a

80

80

79

74

76

77

74

75

70

72

68

n/a

60

83

n/a

n/a

83

79

76

74

76

77

74

73

70

71

66

n/a

60

80

n/a

n/a

80

79

76

75

75

76

75

74

70

71

68

n/a

61

84

n/a

n/a

n/a

80

78

78

77

79

74

76

74

74

67

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

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

82

80

76

75

n/a

76

75

n/a

70

71

68

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

Individual service area importance

2019 individual service area importance (%)

49

45

48

36

39

47

38

38

34

23

25

23

20

18

11

12

37

41

35

46

42

32

38

39

41

47

41

39

40

37

36

33

12

11

14

15

14

16

20

19

20

26

25

28

30

29

36

35

1

2

3

1

4

2

2

4

2

3

6

5

6

9

11

14

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

2

3

5

5

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

3

1

2

2

3

1

1

Unsealed roads

Community decisions

Sealed local roads

Waste management








Lobbying





Extremely important Very important Fairly important

Not that important Not at all important Can't say


22Q1. Firstly, how important should [RESPONSIBILITY AREA] be as a responsibility for Council?


Individual service area performance

2019 individual service area performance (index scores)


23

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

70

70

65

64

64

n/a

57

64

53

46

44

43

44

41

33

33

70

72

66

65

67

n/a

60

64

55

50

53

51

50

49

50

38

69

72

72

65

68

n/a

61

66

59

51

54

54

56

51

48

40

70

n/a

71

64

67

n/a

63

66

58

55

56

52

54

52

49

39

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

71

n/a

70

n/a

67

69

58

57

55

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

76

73

69

68

65

63

61

60

55

52

50

50

49

49

46

39








Waste management



Lobbying

Sealed local roads



Community decisions

Unsealed roads

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



Individual service area performance

24

2019 individual service area performance (%)


29

21

23

23

15

13

11

11

11

9

7

5

4

7

6

4

45

42

40

37

37

35

37

32

29

27

22

24

25

21

18

18

13

24

29

22

25

31

34

39

34

31

35

34

29

40

40

26

3

7

6

3

7

11

8

7

16

20

22

18

15

22

17

25

2

3

2

1

3

5

2

4

8

12

8

7

6

7

13

22

7

3

1

14

12

4

8

8

2

1

6

12

21

3

5

4






Waste management




Sealed local roads


Lobbying



Community decisions

Unsealed roads


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


Significantly Higher than

State-wide Average

Significantly Lower than

State-wide Average


25

• Not applicable • Consultation & engagement

• Lobbying

• Informing the community

• Local streets & footpaths

• Elderly support services

• Appearance of public areas

• Community & cultural

• Waste management

• Unsealed roads

• Making community

decisions

• Sealed local roads

Individual service area performance vs State-wide average

Individual service area performance vs group average

26


Significantly Higher than

Group Average

Significantly Lower than

Group Average

• Planning permits • Consultation & engagement

• Lobbying

• Informing the community

• Elderly support services

• Appearance of public areas

• Community & cultural

• Waste management

• Unsealed roads

• Making community

decisions

• Sealed local roads

6

10

n/a

5

6

4

3

3

3

2

2

6

3

4

16

n/a

3

7

1

2

3

1

2

n/a

5

3

6

10

n/a

3

3

2

n/a

3

6

2

n/a

5

4

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

Best things about Council

27

2019 best things about Council (%)

- Top Mentions -


8

8

7

6

6

5

5

4

4

3

3

3

3

Parks and Gardens

Recreational/Sporting Facilities

CEO

Community Facilities

Customer Service

Cultural Activities

Community Engagement/Involvement

Community Support Services

Public Areas

Aged Support Services

Council Management

Road/Street Maintenance

Tourism

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q16. Please tell me what is the ONE BEST thing about Ararat Rural 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?


Note: Significant differences have not been applied to this chart.

14

11

6

14

8

4

9

9

3

13

9

7

16

8

8

8

11

4

13

15

8

14

12

4

13

8

5

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

Areas for improvement

28

2019 areas for improvement (%)

- Top Mentions -


14

14

13

11

11

9

8

8

5


Rates - Too Expensive

Un-Sealed Road Maintenance

Sealed Road Maintenance

Communication

Waste Management

Financial Management

Rural/Regional Communities

Nothing

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

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


Note: Significant differences have not been applied to this chart.

DETAILED

FINDINGS

29

Overall

performance

30

38

59

56

42

41

41

39

43

37

33

27

19

50

59

58

53

54

54

54

56

53

50

50

48

71

59

57

56

57

55

54

55

55

55

53

53

n/a

60

59

50

59

n/a

54

55

54

53

51

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

65

57

n/a

51

56

57

58

57

n/a

n/a

60

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

Overall performance

2019 overall performance (index scores)

66*

60p

58p

52

52

51

50

50

49

48

40q

29*q

Elmhurst

State-wide

Small Rural

18-34

65+

Ararat

50-64

Women

Ararat

Men

35-49

Lake Bolac


31

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q3. ON BALANCE, for the last twelve months, how do you feel about the performance of Ararat Rural 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?



*Caution: small sample size < n=30

Overall performance

32

Overall performance (%)


6

5

9

9

9

9

10

9

7

21

7

5

6

4

9

7

24

14

29

28

26

37

39

36

25

49

24

24

31

18

23

25

38

35

39

42

41

35

35

37

40

47

33

44

34

34

36

46

18

18

13

12

16

13

10

11

19

22

29

20

15

17

22

22

12

12

28

11

8

6

6

5

6

9

32

14

10

9

22

9

9

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

3

1

1

2019 Ararat

2018 Ararat

2017 Ararat

2016 Ararat

2015 Ararat

2013 Ararat

State-wide

Small Rural

Ararat

Lake Bolac*

Elmhurst*

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 Ararat Rural 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?



Customer

service

33


2019 contact with council (%)

Have had contact

67

59 60 5961

57

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019


34Q5. Over the last 12 months, have you or any member of your household had any contact with Ararat Rural 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?


69

74

64

61

67

61

59

63

58

53

31

49

71

67

62

58

59

59

58

60

57

56

18

54

62

70

61

58

67

60

59

61

58

50

22

57

n/a

75

64

60

58

59

n/a

63

55

46

n/a

59

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

76

n/a

60

75

67

n/a

66

68

50

n/a

67

n/a

n/a

n/a

61

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a


2019 contact with council (%)

72*

64

63p

61

61

57

57

57

56

54

51*

49

Lake Bolac

35-49

Small Rural

State-wide

50-64

Ararat

Ararat

Men

Women

65+

Elmhurst

18-34


35

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 Ararat Rural 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?




12

56

70

63

59

69

61

56

63

51

44

38

100

64

69

68

63

69

64

62

67

61

53

61

75

67

69

62

68

69

73

67

69

62

69

64

n/a

71

70

66

n/a

70

75

70

74

65

67

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

74

71

67

n/a

n/a

75

71

70

66

72

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

Customer service rating

36

2019 customer service rating (index scores)


77*

74

71

71

70

70

70

69

69

69

63

56*

Elmhurst

65+

State-wide

18-34

Ararat

Small Rural

Women

Ararat

50-64

Men

35-49

Lake Bolac

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q5c. Thinking of the most recent contact, how would you rate Ararat Rural 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: 63 Councils asked group: 18



Customer service rating

37

Customer service rating (%)


27

18

22

29

31

30

33

31

27

18

42

27

28

24

18

30

35

39

29

35

32

34

39

36

37

41

40

25

43

34

47

39

33

39

18

25

24

20

22

14

17

17

19

8

33

12

25

18

22

20

14

10

12

10

9

9

10

7

8

8

17

13

7

12

13

12

5

4

15

9

7

4

4

6

6

4

17

4

3

6

3

6

1

1

4

2

1

1

1

1

2

2

2

1

2019 Ararat

2018 Ararat

2017 Ararat

2016 Ararat

2015 Ararat

2013 Ararat

State-wide

Small Rural

Ararat

Lake Bolac*

Elmhurst*

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


Q5c. Thinking of the most recent contact, how would you rate Ararat Rural 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: 63 Councils asked group: 18


Council direction

38

Council direction summary


39

• Aged 35-49 yearsLeast satisfied with Council

direction

Council direction• 47% stayed about the same, up 8 points on 2018

• 29% improved, up 20 points on 2018

• 20% deteriorated, down 30 points on 2018

Most satisfied with Council

direction• Aged 18-34 years

Overall council direction last 12 months

40

2019 overall direction (index scores)


36

32

30

29

24

29

34

52

50

26

32

19

50

45

45

45

44

47

49

53

52

57

50

47

52

46

46

44

44

46

48

51

50

48

50

45

57

49

n/a

48

48

51

53

53

53

n/a

n/a

49

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

53

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

54

55

n/a

45

48

49

51

53

n/a

n/a

n/a

44

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

52

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

65p

60

57

55

55

55

55

53

53

47*

41*

38q

18-34

65+

Ararat

50-64

Men

Ararat

Women

State-wide

Small Rural

Lake Bolac

Elmhurst

35-49

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

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




Overall council direction last 12 months

2019 overall council direction (%)

29

9

14

13

18

21

19

20

31

26

11

30

28

37

18

30

32

47

39

60

63

63

56

62

60

47

43

60

45

48

49

40

48

50

20

50

20

20

17

22

14

15

18

32

29

21

19

9

41

20

13

4

3

5

4

2

2

5

4

3

3

4

6

2

2

5

2019 Ararat

2018 Ararat

2017 Ararat

2016 Ararat

2015 Ararat

2013 Ararat

State-wide

Small Rural

Ararat

Lake Bolac*

Elmhurst*

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+

Improved Stayed the same Deteriorated Can't say


41Q6. Over the last 12 months, what is your view of the direction of Ararat Rural City Council’s overall performance?



Individual

service areas

42

Community consultation and engagement importance

43

2019 Consultation and engagement importance (index scores)


62

77

79

77

74

74

71

72

74

66

74

78

81

78

78

78

76

74

71

73

75

67

74

66

85

79

77

77

75

75

72

73

77

70

75

73

n/a

78

76

80

n/a

78

75

71

76

87

74

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

74

n/a

n/a

77

70

77

n/a

75

73

75

n/a

77

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

93*p

82

80

79

78

78

78

77

76

74

74q

66*

Elmhurst

50-64

35-49

Women

Ararat

Ararat

Men

65+

Small Rural

18-34

State-wide

Lake Bolac

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

44

2019 Consultation and engagement importance (%)


38

32

29

31

37

29

29

33

38

38

66

39

38

34

49

44

30

38

37

41

41

40

47

41

40

38

12

24

37

39

31

26

41

50

20

24

23

21

17

19

24

23

20

38

20

19

31

21

13

15

2

5

4

4

3

4

4

3

2

3

2

3

3

1

3

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

12

1

2

1

1

1

2

2

2

1

1

1

1

11

1

2

2019 Ararat

2018 Ararat

2017 Ararat

2016 Ararat

2015 Ararat

2013 Ararat

State-wide

Small Rural

Ararat

Lake Bolac*

Elmhurst*

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

45

2019 Consultation and engagement performance (index scores)


54

55

46

45

43

41

39

42

42

53

22

32

55

55

49

49

52

49

46

52

49

51

51

45

55

54

55

51

55

51

48

50

49

65

49

49

56

56

55

n/a

52

52

52

49

53

n/a

n/a

50

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

57

59

n/a

55

55

55

56

51

n/a

n/a

55

n/a

57

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

56p

56p

55p

51

50

49

49

49

48

48*

47*

44

Small Rural

State-wide

65+

Ararat

Women

Ararat

Men

18-34

50-64

Elmhurst

Lake Bolac

35-49

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

46

2019 Consultation and engagement performance (%)


7

4

6

9

8

8

9

10

8

6

8

6

3

7

9

9

22

18

22

21

26

32

30

31

23

29

24

24

19

23

18

20

25

35

31

38

35

34

33

31

31

37

19

24

30

42

46

27

31

37

22

26

21

18

18

14

15

15

20

27

29

22

21

17

31

26

15

8

18

9

8

8

7

6

7

7

12

11

5

9

11

10

5

6

3

3

9

6

6

9

7

5

7

24

5

6

3

7

3

8

2019 Ararat

2018 Ararat

2017 Ararat

2016 Ararat

2015 Ararat

2013 Ararat

State-wide

Small Rural

Ararat

Lake Bolac*

Elmhurst*

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

47

2019 Lobbying importance (index scores)


56

71

72

73

71

71

70

70

68

68

68

69

70

71

73

74

69

72

70

70

69

67

69

63

71

72

74

71

67

70

71

70

69

69

67

77

n/a

74

71

76

80

n/a

72

74

69

72

71

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

73

68

74

76

n/a

n/a

70

70

68

66

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

76*

73

72

72

70

70

70

69

67

67

65

60*

Elmhurst

50-64

35-49

Women

18-34

Ararat

Small Rural

Ararat

State-wide

Men

65+

Lake Bolac

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

48

2019 Lobbying importance (%)


23

28

25

24

32

25

21

24

24

19

26

21

26

23

29

25

19

39

36

40

36

34

40

38

40

38

26

40

38

41

37

38

45

37

28

27

25

31

26

25

28

27

29

43

24

29

27

37

28

20

29

5

7

5

3

4

5

8

6

5

6

4

3

4

6

8

2

2

3

2

1

2

2

2

1

12

4

2

1

5

2

1

2

4

3

2

2

2

1

11

2

2

3

3

2019 Ararat

2018 Ararat

2017 Ararat

2016 Ararat

2015 Ararat

2013 Ararat

State-wide

Small Rural

Ararat

Lake Bolac*

Elmhurst*

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

49

2019 Lobbying performance (index scores)


53

54

45

46

48

52

47

44

42

40

34

24

55

54

53

54

54

54

53

53

52

51

49

46

54

53

55

55

55

56

56

54

52

69

50

51

56

55

56

52

n/a

60

54

56

57

n/a

54

n/a

n/a

56

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

55

52

58

n/a

57

52

55

57

n/a

52

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

55p

54p

53

53

52

51

51

50

50

48*

44

42*

Small Rural

State-wide

50-64

18-34

Ararat

65+

Women

Ararat

Men

Elmhurst

35-49

Lake Bolac

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

50

2019 Lobbying performance (%)


5

3

5

5

8

6

6

7

5

4

6

6

3

7

5

24

20

24

27

26

28

25

26

26

18

24

28

19

29

22

24

22

34

34

37

36

31

33

31

31

35

25

36

31

37

31

26

40

36

18

19

15

12

17

12

13

14

15

50

29

21

15

23

23

15

15

7

13

5

6

3

6

5

5

7

7

7

3

12

5

7

12

11

15

15

15

15

20

17

12

7

11

10

15

9

14

10

15

2019 Ararat

2018 Ararat

2017 Ararat

2016 Ararat

2015 Ararat

2013 Ararat

State-wide

Small Rural

Ararat

Lake Bolac*

Elmhurst*

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

51

2019 Community decisions made importance (index scores)


n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

77

n/a

n/a

80

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

78

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

80

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

82

n/a

n/a

80

n/a

n/a

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

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

88*

86p

85

84

83

82

81

81

80

80

80q

77*

Elmhurst

50-64

18-34

Women

Ararat

Ararat

Men

Small Rural

35-49

65+

State-wide

Lake Bolac

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

52

2019 Community decisions made importance (%)


45

39

41

46

34

53

42

48

54

39

49

39

41

42

44

41

47

47

42

39

31

45

42

43

11

15

12

11

12

11

12

14

12

6

13

2

2

2

1

7

3

1

4

4

1

1

2

1

1

2

1

3

2

2019 Ararat

State-wide

Small Rural

Ararat

Lake Bolac*

Elmhurst*

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

53

2019 Community decisions made performance (index scores)


36

52

54

38

36

39

33

39

33

28

22

17

50

55

54

52

50

51

50

48

50

48

48

48

51

53

54

50

49

53

46

51

48

44

45

39

n/a

56

55

52

n/a

49

46

48

49

48

47

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

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

59*

55p

55p

50

48

48

47

47

46

45

41

21*q

Elmhurst

Small Rural

State-wide

65+

Ararat

Women

18-34

50-64

Ararat

Men

35-49

Lake Bolac

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

54

2019 Community decisions made performance (%)


6

2

6

8

7

7

7

6

11

6

6

3

9

6

6

18

12

24

18

20

30

31

19

6

36

18

18

14

11

20

25

40

30

38

37

36

33

33

42

28

38

42

60

30

40

33

17

23

16

18

21

14

14

17

13

29

18

17

9

25

20

16

13

27

11

11

9

7

7

10

54

16

10

11

19

13

11

5

5

7

9

7

10

7

5

24

4

7

3

5

2

9

2019 Ararat

2018 Ararat

2017 Ararat

2016 Ararat

2015 Ararat

State-wide

Small Rural

Ararat

Lake Bolac*

Elmhurst*

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

55

2019 Sealed local roads importance (index scores)


n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

84

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

80

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

81

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

78

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

78

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

78

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

76

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

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

94*p

86

85

84

82

82

82

81*

81

81

79q

76q

Lake Bolac

50-64

35-49

Women

Small Rural

Ararat

65+

Elmhurst

Ararat

Men

State-wide

18-34

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

56

2019 Sealed local roads importance (%)


48

37

44

44

81

24

45

52

46

56

53

40

35

45

42

37

12

76

36

34

20

32

36

47

14

16

12

16

7

16

12

29

8

9

12

3

2

1

3

3

2

6

4

1

1

1

1

2019 Ararat

State-wide

Small Rural

Ararat

Lake Bolac*

Elmhurst*

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

57

2019 Sealed local roads performance (index scores)


53

49

48

50

49

44

46

43

40

44

34

20

53

55

56

55

50

47

51

51

51

53

47

27

54

57

58

51

52

52

54

54

53

51

52

40

55

60

n/a

n/a

52

54

49

52

54

45

47

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

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

56p

55

53

53*

53p

51

51

50

50

48

45

29*q

State-wide

65+

Ararat

Elmhurst

Small Rural

50-64

Women

Ararat

Men

18-34

35-49

Lake Bolac

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

58

2019 Sealed local roads performance (%)


9

7

12

10

10

13

9

9

11

8

10

11

9

10

8

27

22

23

32

30

33

31

29

13

24

28

25

23

22

28

32

31

29

31

28

30

28

30

33

32

42

28

35

23

26

32

39

20

17

19

17

16

16

18

19

12

13

25

15

31

26

15

13

12

24

13

11

13

10

11

8

43

11

10

14

11

17

15

7

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

2019 Ararat

2018 Ararat

2017 Ararat

2016 Ararat

2015 Ararat

State-wide

Small Rural

Ararat

Lake Bolac*

Elmhurst*

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

59

2019 Informing community importance (index scores)


60

76

80

78

82

76

74

75

71

75

73

70

81

79

75

78

80

76

74

76

72

74

74

62

79

79

79

76

79

75

73

78

72

76

70

69

n/a

74

77

n/a

82

77

74

76

72

75

82

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

n/a

75

n/a

n/a

83*

81

79

79

79

77

77

76

76

75

72

62*q

Elmhurst

50-64

35-49

Ararat

Women

Ararat

65+

Small Rural

Men

State-wide

18-34

Lake Bolac

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

60

2019 Informing community importance (%)


38

36

33

33

36

32

34

40

47

39

36

31

47

45

30

39

39

43

39

37

41

42

39

72

36

35

43

37

30

39

46

19

18

19

20

24

22

19

18

16

17

18

19

20

17

15

21

4

5

3

4

2

4

4

3

6

1

11

5

1

1

1

1

2

2

1

1

1

12

1

2

1

1

1

2

1

2

2019 Ararat

2018 Ararat

2017 Ararat

2016 Ararat

2015 Ararat

State-wide

Small Rural

Ararat

Lake Bolac*

Elmhurst*

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

61

2019 Informing community performance (index scores)


59

56

53

42

48

45

46

44

48

42

37

40

59

58

56

50

49

49

51

50

51

50

50

56

59

58

71

56

60

54

59

56

56

52

50

63

61

60

n/a

56

47

n/a

56

54

59

53

54

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

n/a

n/a

n/a

60p

58p

57*

52

52

50

50

49

49

49

45

38*

State-wide

Small Rural

Elmhurst

50-64

18-34

Ararat

Women

Ararat

65+

Men

35-49

Lake Bolac

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

62

2019 Informing community performance (%)


7

5

7

12

8

13

11

7

13

8

5

6

8

10

3

21

22

23

28

32

35

34

22

6

13

19

23

26

12

23

23

40

31

40

32

34

31

32

41

53

51

39

42

37

40

36

46

22

22

20

14

18

14

14

20

28

13

23

20

20

26

24

18

7

17

8

8

6

5

6

7

12

8

6

6

11

6

7

3

3

2

6

2

3

3

3

11

3

3

6

3

1

3

2019 Ararat

2018 Ararat

2017 Ararat

2016 Ararat

2015 Ararat

State-wide

Small Rural

Ararat

Lake Bolac*

Elmhurst*

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


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



The condition of local streets and footpaths in your area

importance

63

2019 Streets and footpaths importance (index scores)


78

53

80

79

68

78

77

76

79

77

75

74

77

84

80

80

77

77

77

76

78

76

75

76

78

85

79

77

62

77

76

75

79

77

73

70

80

n/a

81

76

n/a

77

79

76

n/a

78

76

81

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

77

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

68

n/a

79

77

n/a

78

76

n/a

n/a

78

72

80

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

77

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

79

79*

78

78

77*

77

77

77

77

76

75

74

35-49

Elmhurst

Women

50-64

Lake Bolac

State-wide

Ararat

Small Rural

Ararat

65+

Men

18-34

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

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





importance

64

2019 Streets and footpaths importance (%)


34

32

35

32

39

31

34

32

33

25

24

31

37

31

37

34

33

41

46

41

41

37

44

44

43

42

28

55

42

39

34

40

43

44

20

15

21

18

15

20

18

20

20

18

11

19

20

29

17

19

16

2

3

1

4

3

3

2

2

2

2

2

3

3

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

4

3

3

2

4

4

1

1

2

2

29

11

4

1

3

3

3

2

2019 Ararat

2018 Ararat

2017 Ararat

2016 Ararat

2015 Ararat

2013 Ararat

State-wide

Small Rural

Ararat

Lake Bolac*

Elmhurst*

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+



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




performance

65

2019 Streets and footpaths performance (index scores)


58

49

57

34

57

51

56

53

57

56

50

42

57

53

57

36

58

55

57

55

55

55

53

45

57

55

58

46

61

60

59

59

60

59

61

61

58

56

59

n/a

60

60

n/a

58

60

56

55

n/a

58

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

58

61

n/a

n/a

59

59

n/a

58

52

56

61

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

59p

57

57

56*

56

55

55

55

54

54

50

47*

State-wide

18-34

Small Rural

Elmhurst

65+

Men

Ararat

Ararat

50-64

Women

35-49

Lake Bolac

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

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





performance

66

2019 Streets and footpaths performance (%)


11

10

11

12

12

16

14

12

10

15

24

12

10

9

9

14

12

29

30

30

35

32

30

35

33

31

12

13

28

29

31

29

29

27

34

32

31

30

28

30

28

29

34

25

40

32

35

43

25

26

39

16

13

15

15

13

12

14

14

16

29

13

18

14

14

22

17

12

8

12

9

4

7

10

7

8

8

12

11

7

11

3

12

12

7

2

4

3

4

8

1

2

4

2

7

3

1

3

2

3

2019 Ararat

2018 Ararat

2017 Ararat

2016 Ararat

2015 Ararat

2013 Ararat

State-wide

Small Rural

Ararat

Lake Bolac*

Elmhurst*

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


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



Elderly support services importance

67

2019 Elderly support importance (index scores)


82

84

81

80

79

79

80

52

78

76

80

74

85

85

80

79

78

78

79

85

74

74

79

77

82

82

80

79

78

78

79

85

77

76

80

78

81

86

n/a

80

78

79

80

n/a

80

74

81

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

83

82

n/a

n/a

79

79

80

n/a

79

78

79

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

80

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

87p

83p

80

80

80

80

79

78*

76

76

74

66*q

50-64

Women

Ararat

Small Rural

65+

State-wide

Ararat

Elmhurst

18-34

Men

35-49

Lake Bolac

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

68

2019 Elderly support importance (%)


39

40

38

36

41

37

38

40

39

6

24

31

48

37

30

56

35

42

41

45

44

40

49

44

43

44

51

64

45

39

37

41

35

52

14

14

13

15

15

11

15

14

13

43

13

17

10

20

22

9

9

4

2

1

1

3

2

2

2

3

6

2

6

7

3

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

2

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

2019 Ararat

2018 Ararat

2017 Ararat

2016 Ararat

2015 Ararat

2013 Ararat

State-wide

Small Rural

Ararat

Lake Bolac*

Elmhurst*

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

69

2019 Elderly support performance (index scores)


69

68

65

69

67

65

64

51

62

62

62

61

71

68

66

72

68

68

67

62

66

64

57

62

70

68

68

70

70

68

68

65

67

65

76

68

72

69

67

73

67

n/a

67

n/a

67

64

n/a

64

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

69

66

76

67

n/a

70

n/a

72

68

n/a

70

n/a

69

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

71p

68p

67

67

66

66

65

65*

65

64

63*

61

Small Rural

State-wide

50-64

65+

Women

Ararat

Ararat

Lake Bolac

Men

18-34

Elmhurst

35-49

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

70

2019 Elderly support performance (%)


15

14

15

16

17

21

14

19

16

11

12

19

9

7

22

21

37

36

35

31

35

37

33

37

37

62

24

38

35

46

34

36

32

25

26

25

28

23

22

19

18

26

25

13

27

23

23

23

23

30

7

6

6

3

6

6

5

4

8

6

13

7

8

9

9

6

6

3

4

2

1

2

1

2

2

3

2

4

3

3

5

2

12

14

16

22

16

13

28

21

10

7

40

14

11

11

24

9

7

2019 Ararat

2018 Ararat

2017 Ararat

2016 Ararat

2015 Ararat

2013 Ararat

State-wide

Small Rural

Ararat

Lake Bolac*

Elmhurst*

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

71

2019 Recreational facilities importance (index scores)


76

73

76

72

77

77

75

81

74

70

68

68

75

72

77

71

75

73

73

69

72

72

73

70

75

73

77

72

75

76

74

75

74

72

77

68

73

72

78

73

80

n/a

76

82

73

73

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

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

73

72

72

72

72

71

71

71

70

69

68*

61*

50-64

State-wide

35-49

Small Rural

Women

Ararat

Ararat

18-34

Men

65+

Lake Bolac

Elmhurst

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

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




Recreational facilities importance

72

2019 Recreational facilities importance (%)


25

29

27

28

35

23

24

25

22

13

27

24

26

32

25

20

41

47

42

46

38

46

44

42

47

17

38

44

40

36

46

42

25

20

27

22

22

26

27

26

12

71

24

26

26

20

22

31

6

4

3

4

3

4

4

6

19

7

6

9

8

5

5

1

1

1

1

1

2

3

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

2019 Ararat

2018 Ararat

2017 Ararat

2016 Ararat

2015 Ararat

State-wide

Small Rural

Ararat

Lake Bolac*

Elmhurst*

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

73

2019 Recreational facilities performance (index scores)


73

64

69

63

65

64

69

66

53

64

55

61

71

65

70

65

65

65

69

64

61

63

56

62

68

65

69

64

64

65

68

65

85

59

63

64

75

66

70

64

n/a

64

70

64

n/a

54

59

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

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

72

72

70

69

69

68

68

67

66*

65

63

58*

65+

50-64

State-wide

Men

Ararat

Ararat

Small Rural

Women

Elmhurst

18-34

35-49

Lake Bolac

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

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




Recreational facilities performance

74

2019 Recreational facilities performance (%)


21

19

18

20

20

23

20

21

7

24

22

20

9

20

29

25

42

39

42

36

37

44

42

42

41

24

43

40

54

34

38

41

24

25

24

27

24

21

23

24

34

29

24

24

29

25

23

21

7

9

8

9

11

6

8

7

13

6

9

6

12

7

5

3

6

6

5

5

2

3

3

12

3

3

3

6

2

1

3

2

2

3

3

4

4

3

6

11

2

4

3

1

6

2019 Ararat

2018 Ararat

2017 Ararat

2016 Ararat

2015 Ararat

State-wide

Small Rural

Ararat

Lake Bolac*

Elmhurst*

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

75

2019 Public areas importance (index scores)


78

73

75

74

74

73

74

74

74

70

72

49

76

76

77

74

74

77

74

74

68

72

67

81

77

76

77

74

74

79

75

74

69

73

75

74

77

73

n/a

73

73

71

74

73

80

71

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

76

75

n/a

n/a

74

74

75

75

75

74

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

76p

74

74

74

73

73

72

71

71

69

59*q

59*q

Women

50-64

Ararat

Small Rural

State-wide

35-49

Ararat

65+

18-34

Men

Lake Bolac

Elmhurst

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

76

2019 Public areas importance (%)


23

28

27

25

29

25

24

25

24

12

20

27

20

30

25

19

47

44

46

51

41

50

47

47

50

12

34

44

50

46

37

50

52

26

23

23

20

25

23

25

25

24

77

66

31

21

31

28

21

25

3

5

3

2

3

2

3

3

2

5

1

3

6

3

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

2019 Ararat

2018 Ararat

2017 Ararat

2016 Ararat

2015 Ararat

2013 Ararat

State-wide

Small Rural

Ararat

Lake Bolac*

Elmhurst*

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

77

2019 Public areas performance (index scores)


59

72

71

66

69

68

65

63

64

66

61

60

65

74

71

60

70

69

66

64

64

65

71

69

81

73

71

73

74

74

72

71

70

73

69

71

n/a

74

72

61

77

72

71

71

72

n/a

n/a

72

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

71

70

71

73

71

69

67

n/a

n/a

75

n/a

n/a

71

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

79*

73p

72p

71

71

70

69

69

69

69

68*

66

Elmhurst

Small Rural

State-wide

18-34

65+

Women

Ararat

Men

50-64

Ararat

Lake Bolac

35-49

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

78

2019 Public areas performance (%)


23

20

21

24

23

24

26

28

22

51

22

24

23

20

23

25

40

36

44

46

47

43

45

44

39

69

26

40

40

43

37

38

42

29

30

21

25

22

25

20

20

30

25

11

31

26

31

30

32

24

6

9

8

3

5

5

5

5

7

13

5

7

3

9

4

7

2

4

6

1

2

2

2

2

1

1

2

3

2

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

6

1

1

2

2019 Ararat

2018 Ararat

2017 Ararat

2016 Ararat

2015 Ararat

2013 Ararat

State-wide

Small Rural

Ararat

Lake Bolac*

Elmhurst*

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

79

2019 Art centres and libraries importance (index scores)


65

50

67

61

61

61

57

60

62

58

53

53

64

55

67

61

60

62

56

60

60

64

54

53

66

71

69

65

60

64

64

61

62

59

54

62

65

n/a

70

62

63

n/a

63

64

65

64

58

n/a

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

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

66

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

65p

65*

65p

63p

62

60

60

59

58

56

53q

39*q

State-wide

Elmhurst

Women

Small Rural

50-64

Ararat

18-34

Ararat

65+

35-49

Men

Lake Bolac

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

80

2019 Art centres and libraries importance (%)


12

13

13

16

16

17

16

13

6

13

10

14

11

15

13

10

33

32

36

35

39

39

36

35

12

34

26

41

31

27

37

36

35

36

34

31

30

33

34

35

29

53

34

36

37

35

36

33

14

13

10

9

11

9

11

12

41

21

6

17

16

10

13

5

4

5

7

3

2

3

4

12

7

2

8

4

6

1

3

1

2

1

1

1

2

2

3

1

2

2019 Ararat

2018 Ararat

2017 Ararat

2016 Ararat

2015 Ararat

State-wide

Small Rural

Ararat

Lake Bolac*

Elmhurst*

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

81

2019 Art centres and libraries performance (index scores)


70

74

71

73

69

70

70

74

66

73

65

63

88

71

67

76

66

70

70

73

69

72

69

68

78

72

70

74

60

70

69

72

67

71

70

71

n/a

74

70

73

64

n/a

70

73

66

69

70

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

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

88*p

77

77

77

77

76

76

74

74

74

72

70*

Elmhurst

Women

50-64

65+

18-34

Ararat

Ararat

State-wide

Men

Small Rural

35-49

Lake Bolac

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

82

2019 Art centres and libraries performance (%)


29

21

21

18

20

26

25

28

31

40

24

34

26

27

31

31

45

43

43

42

42

42

42

47

44

36

47

43

54

43

45

40

13

21

18

19

20

17

18

13

13

14

13

9

10

13

19

3

4

7

6

5

4

4

3

2

5

6

5

3

1

2

4

3

2

2

1

1

1

12

3

1

7

1

1

7

8

9

13

10

10

9

7

24

9

5

6

8

8

7

2019 Ararat

2018 Ararat

2017 Ararat

2016 Ararat

2015 Ararat

State-wide

Small Rural

Ararat

Lake Bolac*

Elmhurst*

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

83

2019 Community and cultural activities importance (index scores)


n/a

n/a

n/a

60

n/a

61

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

62

n/a

61

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

64

n/a

62

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

65

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

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

n/a

n/a

62

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

64p

64

64

62

61

61

60

57

57*

56

55

40*q

Women

50-64

18-34

Small Rural

Ararat

State-wide

Ararat

65+

Elmhurst

Men

35-49

Lake Bolac

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

84

2019 Community and cultural activities importance (%)


11

12

13

11

6

13

10

14

11

15

7

36

35

38

38

7

24

29

44

43

31

36

35

36

40

36

37

27

66

35

37

31

35

39

38

11

10

9

8

60

14

6

6

16

7

12

5

2

4

4

8

1

6

8

2

4

1

1

1

1

11

2

1

2

3

2019 Ararat

State-wide

Small Rural

Ararat

Lake Bolac*

Elmhurst*

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

85

2019 Community and cultural activities performance (index scores)


n/a

69

n/a

69

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

69

n/a

69

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

69

n/a

65

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

69

n/a

68

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

69

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

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

84*p

69p

66

66p

65

64

63

63

62

60

59

58*

Elmhurst

State-wide

65+

Small Rural

50-64

Women

Ararat

Ararat

Men

18-34

35-49

Lake Bolac

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

86

2019 Community and cultural activities performance (%)


11

17

15

11

29

9

13

6

11

14

13

37

42

40

39

31

13

38

35

37

32

37

39

34

25

30

34

63

11

33

35

46

29

31

31

8

6

7

8

8

8

9

16

6

4

2

1

2

2

3

2

3

3

2

8

9

7

6

6

47

9

7

3

9

9

10

2019 Ararat

State-wide

Small Rural

Ararat

Lake Bolac*

Elmhurst*

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

87

2019 Waste management importance (index scores)


81

79

81

81

85

78

79

79

75

60

78

70

79

76

76

77

78

76

75

76

73

81

74

74

80

74

77

79

77

79

75

76

75

69

77

80

79

78

n/a

78

82

77

78

78

75

n/a

79

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

69

n/a

79

77

n/a

77

76

75

n/a

77

n/a

78

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

80

79

79

79

79

78*

76

74*

State-wide

35-49

Ararat

50-64

Women

Small Rural

65+

Ararat

Men

Elmhurst

18-34

Lake Bolac

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

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




Waste management importance

88

2019 Waste management importance (%)


36

39

28

30

37

28

41

37

37

22

24

35

38

29

44

38

35

46

43

48

44

41

50

44

46

45

53

64

46

45

49

41

46

47

15

14

21

21

19

17

13

15

15

25

13

16

14

20

12

13

15

1

3

1

2

2

3

1

1

1

1

2

3

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

2019 Ararat

2018 Ararat

2017 Ararat

2016 Ararat

2015 Ararat

2013 Ararat

State-wide

Small Rural

Ararat

Lake Bolac*

Elmhurst*

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

89

2019 Waste management performance (index scores)


70

69

65

69

66

64

66

64

61

61

59

49

71

70

62

69

65

39

63

64

64

61

60

55

70

69

62

72

67

76

65

66

68

66

63

58

72

71

69

69

n/a

n/a

68

66

64

63

65

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

71

n/a

69

73

n/a

n/a

70

69

67

64

69

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

68p

66p

65

63

63

62*

61

60

59

58

55

49*

State-wide

Small Rural

18-34

65+

Ararat

Elmhurst

Men

Ararat

Women

50-64

35-49

Lake Bolac

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

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




Waste management performance

90

2019 Waste management performance (%)


13

17

16

18

20

19

23

20

14

11

13

14

14

6

18

15

35

41

43

40

43

47

42

41

38

31

36

39

31

40

40

23

36

31

25

23

28

19

24

21

22

30

41

24

26

35

29

24

36

33

11

10

9

9

12

6

8

9

10

21

17

11

11

3

23

11

9

5

5

6

2

4

3

4

4

4

7

5

6

6

5

8

3

4

2

3

3

2

1

2

3

4

13

6

2

9

1

3

4

2019 Ararat

2018 Ararat

2017 Ararat

2016 Ararat

2015 Ararat

2013 Ararat

State-wide

Small Rural

Ararat

Lake Bolac*

Elmhurst*

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


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



Business and community development and tourism

importance

91

2019 Business/development/tourism importance (index scores)


61

76

71

77

74

71

72

67

69

66

71

61

85

72

72

75

74

74

71

68

69

67

70

57

75

75

71

74

73

69

71

68

67

67

74

64

n/a

72

70

76

n/a

73

74

72

72

67

81

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

67

n/a

n/a

n/a

72

n/a

72

n/a

68

71

70

69

67

75

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

79*

73

71p

70

70

69

68

66

65

65q

65

45*q

Elmhurst

50-64

Small Rural

Women

Ararat

35-49

Ararat

Men

65+

State-wide

18-34

Lake Bolac

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Business and community development and tourism’ be as a responsibility for Council?





importance

92

2019 Business/development/tourism importance (%)


20

28

24

24

32

24

19

25

21

6

40

20

21

17

28

28

12

40

39

44

38

40

42

36

41

42

6

36

37

43

34

33

45

45

30

23

24

29

20

28

32

26

29

50

24

30

30

40

29

16

33

6

8

5

4

5

4

9

5

3

38

8

4

9

7

6

4

2

1

2

2

2

1

2

2

2

3

1

3

3

3

2

1

1

3

1

1

1

1

2

2

1

3

3

2019 Ararat

2018 Ararat

2017 Ararat

2016 Ararat

2015 Ararat

2013 Ararat

State-wide

Small Rural

Ararat

Lake Bolac*

Elmhurst*

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+



Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Business and community development and tourism’ be as a responsibility for Council?




performance

93

2019 Business/development/tourism performance (index scores)


61

59

58

61

57

60

61

56

53

59

51

49

58

64

61

62

60

61

65

59

58

64

57

60

59

61

62

64

61

60

92

64

58

61

59

56

63

62

n/a

64

63

61

n/a

63

63

63

65

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

70

67

n/a

69

67

62

n/a

64

65

n/a

67

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

63

63

62

62

61

61

60*

60

60

59

56

44*q

18-34

65+

Ararat

Women

Ararat

State-wide

Elmhurst

50-64

Men

Small Rural

35-49

Lake Bolac

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Business and community development and tourism’ over the last 12 months?





performance

94

2019 Business/development/tourism performance (%)


11

10

11

10

13

17

10

12

13

13

12

11

9

13

12

12

32

31

35

35

38

41

33

33

34

12

13

29

35

40

27

31

30

39

35

34

31

32

25

31

32

39

41

11

39

38

46

32

36

40

7

13

9

13

9

9

10

11

6

6

17

7

6

12

8

6

4

6

5

2

2

2

3

5

3

12

4

4

3

8

4

1

8

6

6

9

6

6

13

7

6

29

47

9

6

3

7

9

10

2019 Ararat

2018 Ararat

2017 Ararat

2016 Ararat

2015 Ararat

2013 Ararat

State-wide

Small Rural

Ararat

Lake Bolac*

Elmhurst*

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Business and community development and tourism’ over the last 12 months?



Planning and building permits importance

95

2019 Planning and building permits importance (index scores)


71

68

73

72

69

72

68

64

64

64

62

71

72

68

70

66

68

68

66

70

63

61

64

59

71

71

70

68

70

66

68

72

66

67

63

67

71

70

70

66

n/a

69

67

65

65

68

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

69

69

n/a

71

68

67

68

66

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

71p

70p

70p

69

68

67

65

64

62

61

56*

52*

State-wide

Small Rural

Women

50-64

Ararat

65+

Ararat

35-49

Men

18-34

Elmhurst

Lake Bolac

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

96

2019 Planning and building permits importance (%)


18

22

18

20

22

18

26

25

21

6

14

23

14

26

22

13

37

38

37

39

35

42

39

39

39

28

24

37

38

26

27

47

46

29

27

30

25

31

31

25

27

29

29

76

29

30

49

28

20

24

9

8

8

8

7

4

6

6

7

30

13

3

11

16

3

5

3

2

2

2

3

1

1

2

2

4

3

4

6

3

3

3

4

6

2

3

3

2

3

7

3

4

2

8

2019 Ararat

2018 Ararat

2017 Ararat

2016 Ararat

2015 Ararat

2013 Ararat

State-wide

Small Rural

Ararat

Lake Bolac*

Elmhurst*

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

97

2019 Planning and building permits performance (index scores)


48

54

47

46

50

46

52

43

43

41

51

43

77

47

51

51

55

50

51

46

54

48

51

44

77

54

49

52

58

51

50

45

54

49

50

38

n/a

53

60

n/a

57

55

54

53

54

51

53

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

58

59

n/a

56

57

55

58

55

58

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

54

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

67*p

56

54

53

53

52

52

51

48

48

48q

29*q

Elmhurst

18-34

65+

Ararat

Women

Ararat

State-wide

Men

50-64

35-49

Small Rural

Lake Bolac

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

98

2019 Planning and building permits performance (%)


4

4

7

5

6

7

6

5

5

4

4

9

2

3

3

25

19

19

18

25

27

24

20

27

36

27

23

31

25

21

24

29

27

29

26

29

31

26

28

28

33

17

26

32

31

28

26

30

15

15

14

11

9

12

13

16

16

27

16

14

20

16

16

11

6

12

9

7

7

3

9

11

5

19

7

4

3

9

9

4

21

23

22

32

24

20

22

20

19

20

47

19

23

6

21

24

28

2019 Ararat

2018 Ararat

2017 Ararat

2016 Ararat

2015 Ararat

2013 Ararat

State-wide

Small Rural

Ararat

Lake Bolac*

Elmhurst*

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


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



Emergency and disaster management importance

99

2019 Emergency and disaster management importance (index scores)


82

84

66

78

81

80

81

80

80

77

80

79

83

87

94

85

83

81

80

83

81

79

85

84

82

84

81

82

81

82

80

80

79

76

78

77

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

80

80

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

80

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

80

83

n/a

84

n/a

n/a

80

82

82

80

80

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

80

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

86p

85p

84*

82

82

81

81

81

79

78

77

75*

50-64

Women

Elmhurst

18-34

Ararat

Small Rural

State-wide

Ararat

65+

Men

35-49

Lake Bolac

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

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




Emergency and disaster management importance

100

2019 Emergency and disaster management importance (%)


47

44

49

44

47

47

48

48

40

36

42

53

51

42

59

40

32

36

34

37

36

35

33

33

19

64

32

33

26

34

25

40

16

17

13

14

12

13

14

15

41

18

13

23

13

12

15

2

2

2

3

4

3

2

4

5

2

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

2

1

4

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

2

2

1

2019 Ararat

2018 Ararat

2017 Ararat

2016 Ararat

2013 Ararat

State-wide

Small Rural

Ararat

Lake Bolac*

Elmhurst*

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+



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



Emergency and disaster management performance

101

2019 Emergency and disaster management performance (index scores)


74

63

70

72

70

72

71

72

70

70

63

64

71

82

74

74

72

76

70

72

72

70

68

64

69

88

76

73

72

76

69

71

67

68

73

75

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

70

70

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

74

n/a

74

n/a

74

76

70

n/a

69

74

76

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

78

75*

74

73

73

73

72

72

72

72

69

66*

50-64

Elmhurst

Women

Ararat

Ararat

65+

State-wide

Small Rural

18-34

Men

35-49

Lake Bolac

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

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




Emergency and disaster management performance

102

2019 Emergency and disaster management performance (%)


23

20

26

23

26

20

22

23

16

40

22

24

17

16

35

24

37

38

36

36

37

38

39

38

36

24

34

41

49

35

32

34

22

23

22

21

22

18

18

22

34

13

26

18

23

23

18

24

3

5

2

4

3

4

4

2

7

13

2

4

3

2

2

3

1

2

3

1

1

2

2

1

1

1

3

1

1

14

12

11

14

11

19

15

14

7

11

14

14

9

21

12

15

2019 Ararat

2018 Ararat

2017 Ararat

2016 Ararat

2013 Ararat

State-wide

Small Rural

Ararat

Lake Bolac*

Elmhurst*

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


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



Maintenance of unsealed roads in your area importance

103

2019 Unsealed roads importance (index scores)


89

94

86

86

88

86

85

84

85

84

90

80

90

92

83

87

85

83

81

82

80

81

79

79

85

87

83

80

81

80

79

81

77

81

74

79

n/a

n/a

81

84

86

84

83

84

n/a

82

88

78

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

78

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

81

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

80

89*

88*

87

86

85

84

83

83

82

82q

80

80q

Elmhurst

Lake Bolac

50-64

35-49

Women

Ararat

Men

65+

Ararat

Small Rural

18-34

State-wide

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Maintenance of unsealed roads in your area’ be as a responsibility for Council?




Maintenance of unsealed roads in your area importance

104

2019 Unsealed roads importance (%)


49

56

49

46

51

41

44

45

54

58

46

53

43

54

58

45

37

34

37

33

36

39

40

39

46

42

41

32

37

34

35

40

12

8

11

14

12

16

13

14

13

10

17

9

7

13

1

1

2

5

2

2

1

3

3

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

2

2019 Ararat

2018 Ararat

2017 Ararat

2016 Ararat

2015 Ararat

State-wide

Small Rural

Ararat

Lake Bolac*

Elmhurst*

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+



Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Maintenance of unsealed roads in your area’ be as a responsibility for Council?



Maintenance of unsealed roads in your area performance

105

2019 Unsealed roads performance (index scores)


43

40

36

37

29

32

21

35

33

37

25

19

44

43

42

39

36

43

25

36

38

40

36

24

43

44

45

42

37

39

40

42

40

42

35

25

45

45

n/a

42

41

38

n/a

39

39

37

36

n/a

45

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

44

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

46

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

44p

43p

42

41

41

40

39*

39

39

36

34

14*q

State-wide

Small Rural

Ararat

65+

Men

18-34

Elmhurst

50-64

Ararat

Women

35-49

Lake Bolac

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Maintenance of unsealed roads in your area’ over the last 12 months?




Maintenance of unsealed roads in your area performance

106

2019 Unsealed roads performance (%)


4

4

5

4

5

5

5

4

11

5

3

6

4

5

3

18

10

15

16

15

21

20

21

22

13

26

14

16

17

26

26

28

28

28

30

30

28

6

36

25

28

14

19

32

35

25

27

27

24

27

22

23

24

44

42

24

27

29

34

21

21

22

29

21

19

20

16

17

19

50

11

22

22

23

26

25

17

4

3

4

8

4

7

5

4

2

6

3

3

2

7

2019 Ararat

2018 Ararat

2017 Ararat

2016 Ararat

2015 Ararat

State-wide

Small Rural

Ararat

Lake Bolac*

Elmhurst*

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Maintenance of unsealed roads in your area’ over the last 12 months?



Detailed

demographics

107

Gender and age profile

108

2019 gender


2019 age

Men54%

Women46%

Ararat

8%

14%

23%

22%

33%

Ararat

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

Men50%

Women50%

Small Rural

Men49%

Women51%

State-wide

6%13%

21%

25%

37%

Small Rural

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

8%

18%

23%21%

30%

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.

Appendix A:

Index scores,

margins of error

and significant

differences

109

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


110

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

Ararat Rural City

Council 408 400 +/-4.8

Men196 215 +/-6.9

Women212 185 +/-6.7

Ararat338 330 +/-5.2

Lake Bolac11 12 +/-31.0

Elmhurst8 6 +/-37.0

18-34 years35 88 +/-16.8

35-49 years76 93 +/-11.3

50-64 years120 89 +/-8.9

65+ years177 131 +/-7.3

The sample size for the 2019 State-wide Local

Government Community Satisfaction Survey for Ararat

Rural City Council was n=408. 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=408 interviews is +/-4.8% 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 45.2% - 54.8%.

Maximum margins of error are listed in the table below,

based on a population of 9,500 people aged 18 years

or over for Ararat Rural City Council, according to ABS

estimates.

Appendix A:

Margins of error


111

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 2018.

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 2018.

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

significantly lower than the result achieved among

this group in 2018.

Appendix A:

Significant difference reporting notation

Overall Performance – Index Scores

(example extract only)


112

54

57

58

60

67

66

50-64

35-49

Small Rural

Ararat

18-34

State-wide

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 A:

Index score significant difference calculation


113

Appendix B:

Further project

information

114

Further information about the report and explanations

about the State-wide Local Government Community

Satisfaction Survey can be found in this section

including:

• Survey methodology and sampling

• 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 2019 State-wide Local Government Community

Satisfaction Survey, please contact JWS Research on

(03) 8685 8555 or via email:

[email protected]

Appendix B:

Further information

115


mailto:[email protected]

The 2019 results are compared with previous years, as

detailed below:

• 2019, n=408 completed interviews, conducted in the period

of 1st February – 30th 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

Ararat Rural 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 Ararat Rural City Council.

Survey sample matched to the demographic profile of

Ararat Rural 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 40% mobile phone numbers to

cater to the diversity of residents within Ararat Rural

City Council, particularly younger people.

A total of n=408 completed interviews were achieved in

Ararat Rural City Council. Survey fieldwork was

conducted in the period of 1st February – 30th March,

2019.

Appendix B:

Survey methodology and sampling

116


All participating councils are listed in the State-wide

report published on the DELWP website. In 2019, 63 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 2012-2019 vary slightly.

Council Groups

Ararat Rural City Council is classified as a Small Rural

council according to the following classification list:

Metropolitan, Interface, Regional Centres, Large Rural

& Small Rural

Councils participating in the Small Rural group are:

Alpine, Ararat, Benalla, Buloke, Central Goldfields,

Gannawarra, Hepburn, Hindmarsh, Indigo, Mansfield,

Murrindindi, Northern Grampians, Pyrenees,

Queenscliffe, Strathbogie, Towong, West Wimmera and

Yarriambiack.

Wherever appropriate, results for Ararat Rural City

Council for this 2019 State-wide Local Government

Community Satisfaction Survey have been compared

against other participating councils in the Small Rural

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


117

2012 survey revision

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 Ararat Rural 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

2012-2019 have been made throughout this report as

appropriate.

Appendix B:


118


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

2019 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)

• Lobbying on behalf of community (Advocacy)

• Community consultation and engagement

(Consultation)

• Decisions made in the interest of the community

(Making community decisions)

• Condition of sealed local roads (Sealed local roads)

• Contact in last 12 months (Contact)

• Rating of contact (Customer service)

• Overall council direction last 12 months (Council

direction)

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 2019 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:



119

Reporting

Every council that participated in the 2019 State-wide

Local Government Community Satisfaction Survey

receives a customised report. In addition, the state

government is supplied with a state-wide summary

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

questions asked across all council areas surveyed.

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.

The overall State-wide Local Government Community

Satisfaction Report is available at

http://www.delwp.vic.gov.au/local-

government/strengthening-councils/council-community-

satisfaction-survey.

Appendix B:



120

http://www.delwp.vic.gov.au/local-government/strengthening-councils/council-community-satisfaction-survey

Core questions: Compulsory inclusion questions for all

councils participating in the CSS.

CSS: 2019 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.

Statewide 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


121

THERE ARE OVER 6 MILLION PEOPLE IN VICTORIA...

FIND OUT WHAT THEY'RETHINKING.

Contact us

03 8685 8555

John Scales

Managing Director

[email protected]

Katrina Cox

Director of Client Services

[email protected]

Follow us

@JWSResearch

Mark Zuker

Managing Director

[email protected]

ararat rural city council · ararat rural city council’s customer service index score of 69 is...

Documents