background and objectives - pyrenees shire council and objectives ... the main objectives of the...

2J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 - Pyrenees Shire Council

Background and objectives

Survey methodology and sampling

Further information

Key findings & recommendations

Summary of findings

Detailed findings

• Key core measure: Overall performance

• Key core measure: Customer service

• Key core measure: Council direction indicators

• Communications

• Individual service areas

• Detailed demographics

Appendix A: Detailed survey tabulations

Appendix B: Further project information


Welcome to the report of results and recommendations for the 2017 State-wide Local Government

Community Satisfaction Survey for Pyrenees Shire Council.

Each year Local Government Victoria (LGV) coordinates and auspices this State-wide Local

Government Community Satisfaction Survey throughout Victorian local government areas. This

coordinated approach allows for far more cost effective surveying than would be possible if councils

commissioned surveys individually.

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.

The main objectives of the survey are to assess the performance of Pyrenees Shire Council across a

range of measures and to seek insight into ways to provide improved or more effective service delivery.

The survey also provides councils with a means to fulfil some of their statutory reporting requirements

as well as acting as a feedback mechanism to LGV.


This survey was conducted by Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing (CATI) as a representative

random probability survey of residents aged 18+ years in Pyrenees Shire Council.

Survey sample matched to the demographic profile of Pyrenees Shire Council as determined by the

most recent ABS population estimates was purchased from an accredited supplier of publicly available

phone records, including up to 10% mobile phone numbers to cater to the diversity of residents within

Pyrenees Shire Council, particularly younger people.

A total of n=400 completed interviews were achieved in Pyrenees Shire Council. Survey fieldwork was

conducted in the period of 1st February – 30th March, 2017.

The 2017 results are compared with previous years, as detailed below:

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

Pyrenees Shire 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.

• 2016, n=402 completed interviews, conducted in the period of 1st February – 30th March.


• 2014, n=400 completed interviews, conducted in the period of 31st January – 11th March.


• 2012, n=400 completed interviews, conducted in the period of 18th May – 30th June.


Within tables and index score charts throughout this report, statistically significant differences at the

95% confidence level are represented by upward directing blue 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 blue and red indicate significantly higher or lower results than in 2016.

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 2016.

• The result among 18-34 year olds in the council is significantly lower than the result achieved

among this group in 2016.

54

57

58

60

67

66

50-64

35-49

Small Rural

Pyrenees

18-34

State-wide

Overall Performance – Index Scores (example extract only)

Note: Details on the calculations used to determine statistically significant differences may

be found in Appendix B.


Further information about the report and explanations about the State-wide Local Government

Community Satisfaction Survey can be found in Appendix B, including:

Background and objectives

Margins of error

Analysis and reporting

Glossary of terms

Contacts

For further queries about the conduct and reporting of the 2017 State-wide Local Government

Community Satisfaction Survey, please contact JWS Research on (03) 8685 8555.

J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 - Pyrenees Shire Council

75

74

74

Waste management

Emergency & disaster management

Elderly support services

Council Small Rural State-wide

64 58 59

Results shown are index scores out of 100.

81

45

7557

6854

-37-18 -14

Unsealed roads Local streets &

footpaths

Planning &

building permits


The overall performance index score of 64 for Pyrenees Shire Council represents a three point

improvement on the 2016 result. Overall performance scores were relatively consistent between

2012 and 2016, moving at most one point in an upwards or downwards direction each year.

Overall performance ratings are at their highest level to date.

Pyrenees Shire Council’s overall performance is rated statistically significantly higher (at the

95% confidence interval) than the average rating for councils State-wide and in the Small

Rural group (index scores of 59 and 58 respectively).

Residents aged 18 to 34 years (index score of 70, eight points higher than 2016) are

significantly more favourable in their view of Council’s overall performance than residents

overall, while residents aged 50 to 64 years are significantly less favourable (index score of

58).

A majority (56%) rate Pyrenees Shire Council’s overall performance as ‘very good’ (15%) or

‘good’(41%) compared to only 11% who rate Council’s overall performance as ‘very poor’ or ‘poor’. A

further 33% sit mid-scale providing an ‘average’ rating.


Review of the core performance measures (as shown on page 19) shows that Pyrenees Shire

Council’s performance increased compared to Council’s own results in 2016 across all core areas.

Perceptions of Council’s performance increased significantly on the measures of consultation and

engagement (four index points higher than 2016), lobbying (four index points higher than 2016),

and making community decisions (six index points higher).

Performance ratings on each core measure are significantly higher than average ratings for

councils in the Small Rural group.

With the exception of sealed local roads, Council’s performance ratings on all core measures

are at their highest levels since 2012.

Council’s ratings on core measures are significantly higher than average ratings for councils

State-wide on all but two measures – sealed local roads and overall council direction –

where results are just slightly higher than the State-wide average.

In the area of customer service (index score of 74), Pyrenees Shire Council’s performance is rated

significantly higher than both the State-wide council and Small Rural group averages (index score

of 69 each).


More than two-thirds (68%) of Pyrenees Shire Council residents have had recent contact with

Council. Residents are equally as likely to contact Council by telephone as they are to seek out

information in-person (both 39%).

Pyrenees Shire Council’s customer service index of 74 is a positive result for Council.

Customer service ratings increased two index points in the past year, and as mentioned previously,

ratings are at their highest level since 2012.

Male residents are significantly more favourable (eight points higher than 2016) in their

impressions of Council customer service in 2017 than they were in 2016.

Two in five (38%, unchanged from 2016) rate Council’s customer service as ‘very good’, with a

further 37% (up six points from 31% in 2016) rating customer service as ‘good’.

With the significant rating increase among men, perceptions of customer service are now relatively

consistent across all demographic groups, meaning Council should aim to maintain positive

impressions of customer service interactions across all groups of residents.

A council newsletter sent by mail (51%) is by far the most preferred method for Council to inform

residents about news, information and upcoming events. Half of residents aged both over and under

50 years prefer to received a Council newsletter via mail.


Waste management is the area where Pyrenees Shire Council performs most strongly (index score

of 75). Performance ratings have increased significantly in the past 12 months (up five index points).

One-third (32%) of residents rate Council’s performance in the area of waste management as

‘very good’, and another 42% rate it as ‘good’.

Waste management is also rated relatively high in terms of importance (importance index score of

75).

As mentioned previously, customer service is another area where Pyrenees Shire Council is well

regarded (index score of 74).

Emergency and disaster management and elderly support services (5 index points higher than

2016) also perform equally as well, each with an index score of 74.

Two-thirds (65%) rate Council’s performance in the area of emergency and disaster management

as ‘very good’ or ‘good’. Just over half (56%) rate Council’s performance in the area of elderly

support services as ‘very good’ or ‘good’.

Emergency and disaster management (importance index score of 83) is rated the most important

Council responsibility, while elderly support services (importance index score of 79) is the third

highest rated service in terms of importance.

It is important to note that Council experienced significant ratings increases in four individual service

areas in the past year in addition to core measures – waste management, elderly support

services, recreational facilities, and business and community development and tourism.


Council did not experience any significant declines in performance ratings in the past year.

Notwithstanding this, the area that stands out as being most in need of Council attention is the

condition of unsealed roads. With a performance index score of 44, this is Council’s lowest rated

service area.

Two in five residents (41%) rate Council performance in this service area as ‘very poor’ or ‘poor’.

Residents aged 35 to 49 years (nine index points lower than 2016) have significantly less favourable

impressions of Council performance in this area than just one year ago.

The importance of this service area is evidenced by a high index score of 81. It is rated second

highest in terms of importance.

Feedback from residents on what they consider Council most needs to do to improve its

performance in the next 12 months supports this finding, with unsealed road maintenance

mentioned by 12% of residents (sealed road maintenance is mentioned by a further 19% of

residents).

After unsealed roads, planning and building permits (index score of 54) and sealed local roads

(index score of 55) are the next lowest rated measures in terms of performance.

Individuals who have had personal experience with the planning and building permits process rate

Council lowest in this area.


For the coming 12 months, Pyrenees Shire Council should pay particular attention to the

service areas where stated importance exceeds rated performance by more than 10 points. Key

priorities include:

Unsealed roads (margin of 37 points)

Condition of local streets and footpaths (margin of 18 points)

Planning & building permits (margin of 14 points).

Consideration should also be given to Pyrenees Shire Council residents aged 50 to 64 years and

those who reside in the Mt Emu area, who appear to be most driving negative opinion in 2017.

On the positive side, Council should maintain its relatively strong performance in the areas of

waste management, customer service, emergency and disaster management and elderly

support services.

It is also important not to ignore, and to learn from, what is working amongst other groups,

especially residents aged 18 to 34 years, and use these lessons to build performance experience

and perceptions in other areas.


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.


• Consultation and

engagement

• Lobbying

• Making community

decisions

• Waste management

• Elderly support services

• Recreational facilities

• Business/community

development/tourism

Higher results in 2017

(Significantly higher result than 2016)

• None applicableLower results in 2017

(Significantly lower result than 2016)

• Aged 18-34 yearsMost favourably disposed

towards Council

• Aged 50-64 years

• Mt EmuLeast favourably disposed

towards Council


72

68

7172 72

74

6263 63

6261

64

59 5958 58

56

60

57 5756

62

5655

5455

58 5856

5755

59

54 54 54 54 5455

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Customer Service

Overall Performance

Community Consultation

Making Community Decisions

Sealed Local Roads

Advocacy

Overall Council Direction


Performance MeasuresPyrenees

2017

Pyrenees

2016

Small

Rural

2017

State-

wide

2017

Highest

score

Lowest

score

OVERALL PERFORMANCE 64 61 58 59Aged 18-34

years

Aged 50-

64 years

COMMUNITY CONSULTATION(Community consultation and

engagement)

60 56 55 55

Aged 18-34

years,

Avoca and

DeCameron

Aged 50-

64 years

ADVOCACY(Lobbying on behalf of the community)

59 55 55 54

Aged 18-34

years, Aged

65+ years,

Avoca and

DeCameron

Mt Emu,

Aged 50-

64 years

MAKING COMMUNITY

DECISIONS (Decisions made in the

interest of the community)

62 56 55 54Aged 65+

years

Aged 50-

64 years

SEALED LOCAL ROADS (Condition of sealed local roads)

55 54 50 53Aged 65+

years

Aged 18-

34 years

CUSTOMER SERVICE 74 72 69 69Aged 65+

years, Mt

Emu

Aged 35-

49 years

OVERALL COUNCIL DIRECTION 55 54 52 53Aged 18-34

yearsMultiple


15

12

10

10

12

38

41

32

27

37

31

37

33

29

27

28

30

12

7

11

11

9

15

8

4

5

4

4

11

5

1

11

20

12

2

Overall Performance


Advocacy

Making CommunityDecisions

Sealed Local Roads

Customer Service

% Very good Good Average Poor Very poor Can't say

Key Measures Summary Results

19 66 10 6Overall Council Direction

%Improved Stayed the same Deteriorated Can't say


13

10

10

9

Planning & building permits

Emergency & disaster mngt

Total household use

Personal use%

Experience of Services

Q4. In the last 12 months, have you or has any member of your household used or experienced any of the

following services provided by Council?

Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 15 Councils asked group: 4


81

75

68

Unsealed roads

Local streets & footpaths


45

57

54

Importance Performance Net Differential

-37

-18

-14

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

suggesting further investigation is necessary:


84

82

79

78

74

71

71

68

69

68

81

82

77

76

74

70

70

67

69

67

n/a

79

78

77

72

71

72

n/a

n/a

67

82

82

78

76

75

69

70

68

67

67

80

82

80

75

74

72

n/a

70

68

71

83

81

79

75

75

72

70

70

68

67


Unsealed roads


Waste management


Appearance of public areas

Family support services

Bus/community dev./tourism


Recreational facilities

2016 2015 2014 2013 20122017 Priority Area Importance

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


Note: Please see page 5 for explanation of significant differences


42

50

37

29

30

23

21

22

19

22

44

34

44

48

43

45

45

43

42

35

11

12

15

18

19

26

25

25

31

27

3

2

2

4

3

4

5

7

5

5

1

1

1

1

1

2

2

3

1

1

1

4

1

2

2

7

Unsealed roads



Waste management







%

Extremely important Very important Fairly important Not that important Not at all important Can't say

Individual Service Areas Importance

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



70

73

69

70

65

68

60

56

56

55

58

54

54

45

71

69

70

71

69

68

62

57

58

57

56

55

54

43

73

71

70

72

72

67

n/a

57

58

56

58

56

51

46

71

73

71

70

72

66

66

n/a

59

58

n/a

n/a

58

44

72

69

72

73

70

n/a

64

n/a

59

58

57

n/a

57

47

75

74

74

73

72

70

67

62

60

59

57

55

54

44

Waste management







Community decisions

Consultation & engagement

Lobbying


Sealed local roads


Unsealed roads

2017 Priority Area Performance 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

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


Note: Please see page 5 for explanation of significant differences


Individual Service Areas Performance

32

30

23

24

23

17

10

12

13

13

12

10

7

6

42

42

41

41

33

36

37

32

30

31

31

27

24

24

15

18

22

15

14

25

28

29

28

18

30

27

23

26

4

5

3

4

3

7

9

11

13

3

15

11

10

25

2

3

2

2

1

2

4

5

8

1

11

4

8

16

5

2

9

15

25

13

12

11

6

33

2

20

28

4

Waste management






Community decisions

Consultation & engagement



Sealed local roads

Lobbying


Unsealed roads

%Very good Good Average Poor Very poor Can't say

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



Sig

nif

ica

ntl

y h

igh

er

tha

n s

tate

-wid

e

ave

rag

e

Sig

nific

an

tly lo

we

r tha

n s

tate

-wid

e

ave

rag

e

-Consultation &

engagement

-Lobbying

-Family support services

-Elderly support services

-Waste management

-Bus/community

dev./tourism

-Planning permits

-Emergency & disaster

mngt

-Making community

decisions

-None Applicable


Sig

nif

ica

ntl

y h

igh

er

tha

n g

rou

p

ave

rag

e Sig

nific

an

tly lo

we

r tha

n g

rou

p

ave

rag

e

-Consultation &

engagement

-Lobbying

-Elderly support services

-Recreational facilities

-Waste management

-Bus/community

dev./tourism

-Planning permits

-Making community

decisions

-Sealed local roads

-None Applicable


Top Three Important Service Areas(Highest to lowest, i.e. 1. = most important)

Pyrenees Shire

Council

1. Emergency &

disaster mngt

2. Unsealed roads

3. Elderly support

services

Metropolitan

1. Waste

management

2. Community

decisions

3. Local streets &

footpaths

Interface

1. Emergency &

disaster mngt

2. Population

growth

3. Local streets &

footpaths

Regional Centres

1. Community

decisions

2. Sealed roads

3. Emergency &

disaster mngt

Large Rural

1. Unsealed roads

2. Sealed roads

3. Emergency &

disaster mngt

Small Rural

1. Emergency &

disaster mngt

2. Community

decisions

3. Waste

management

Bottom Three Important Service Areas (Lowest to highest, i.e. 1. = least important)

Pyrenees Shire

Council

1. Recreational

facilities

2. Planning

permits

3. Bus/community

dev./tourism

Metropolitan

1. Bus/community

dev./tourism

2. Community &

cultural

3. Slashing &

weed control

Interface

1. Tourism

development

2. Community &

cultural

3. Art centres &

libraries

Regional Centres

1. Art centres &

libraries

2. Community &

cultural

3. Planning

permits

Large Rural

1. Art centres &

libraries

2. Community &

cultural

3. Traffic

management

Small Rural

1. Community &

cultural

2. Art centres &

libraries

3. Tourism

development


Top Three Performing Service Areas(Highest to lowest, i.e. 1. = highest performance)

Bottom Three Performing Service Areas (Lowest to highest, i.e. 1. = lowest performance)

Pyrenees Shire

Council

1. Waste

management

2. Emergency &

disaster mngt

3. Elderly support

services

Metropolitan

1. Waste

management

2. Art centres &

libraries

3. Recreational

facilities

Interface

1. Art centres &

libraries

2. Waste

management

3. Emergency &

disaster mngt

Regional Centres

1. Art centres &

libraries

2. Appearance of

public areas

3. Emergency &

disaster mngt

Large Rural

1. Appearance of

public areas

2. Emergency &

disaster mngt

3. Art centres &

libraries

Small Rural

1. Emergency &

disaster mngt

2. Art centres &

libraries

3. Community &

cultural

Pyrenees Shire

Council

1. Unsealed roads

2. Planning

permits

3. Sealed roads

Metropolitan

1. Planning

permits

2. Population

growth

3. Parking facilities

Interface

1. Unsealed roads

2. Planning

permits

3. Population

growth

Regional Centres

1. Parking facilities

2. Community

decisions

3. Unsealed roads

Large Rural

1. Unsealed roads

2. Sealed roads

3. Slashing &

weed control

Small Rural

1. Unsealed roads

2. Sealed roads

3. Planning

permits


19

13

12

8

7

6

6

8

Sealed Road Maintenance

Communication

Unsealed Road Maintenance


Customer Service

Medium Strips/Nature Strips

Rural/Regional Communities

Nothing

2017 Areas for Improvement

%

Q17. What does Pyrenees Shire Council MOST need to do to improve its performance?



AR

EA

S F

OR

IMP

RO

VE

ME

NT

- Sealed Road Maintenance:

19%

(up 3 points from 2016)

- Communication: 13%

(up 1 point from 2016)

- Unsealed Road

Maintenance: 12%

(equal points on 2016)


70

66

66

65

65

64

64

63

63

59

58

58

18-34

65+

Beaufort, Ercildoune

Women

35-49

Pyrenees

Mt Emu

Men

Avoca and DeCameron

State-wide

50-64

Small Rural

62

62

64

61

60

61

57

61

61

59

60

57

54

63

61

64

64

62

59

59

63

60

62

59

68

61

59

63

62

63

61

62

67

61

61

n/a

61

70

n/a

64

61

63

n/a

63

n/a

60

61

n/a

62

64

n/a

63

60

62

n/a

62

n/a

60

63

n/a

2017 Overall Performance 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

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


Note: Please see page 5 for explanation about significant differences


2017 Overall Performance

15

12

9

15

15

13

9

10

16

14

16

14

16

18

13

11

18

41

38

45

37

39

41

36

35

39

44

35

40

42

52

45

33

40

33

34

32

35

34

33

37

36

29

34

35

34

31

23

34

40

30

7

11

9

8

7

8

10

11

10

3

11

7

6

7

5

6

8

4

4

4

4

4

5

5

6

5

3

1

4

3

3

8

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

2

1

1

1

2

2

2

2017 Pyrenees

2016 Pyrenees

2015 Pyrenees

2014 Pyrenees

2013 Pyrenees

2012 Pyrenees

State-wide

Small Rural

Avoca and DeCameron


Mt Emu

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 Pyrenees Shire 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?



Overall contact with Pyrenees Shire Council

Most contact with Pyrenees Shire Council

Least contact with Pyrenees Shire Council

Customer service rating

Most satisfied with customer service

Least satisfied with customer service


• Aged 65+ years

• Mt Emu

• Index score of 74, up 2 points on 2016

• Aged 65+ years


• 68%, up 6 points on 2016


77

73

71

69

68

67

66

65

64

62

61

61

35-49

50-64


Men

Pyrenees

Women

Mt Emu

Small Rural

Avoca and DeCameron

18-34

State-wide

65+

2017 Contact with Council

%

Q5a. Have you or any member of your household had any recent contact with Council in any of the following ways?




2017 Contact with Council

7370

6871

62

68

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Have had contact

%




2017 Method of Contact

4446 45 46

39 3942 43

36 37

33

39

12 12 13

17

1311

19 18 1816

10 97 6

97 6

41 2 2 2

42 2 1 2 1 2

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

By telephone

In person

By email

In writing

Via website

By social media

By text message

%



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


2017 Most Recent Contact

%

4244

49

45 4442

39 40

3234 34

45

85

710

12

78 9 8 75

32 13 2 31 2 2 11

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

By telephone

In person

By email

In writing

Via website

By social media

By text message

Q5b. What was the method of contact for the most recent contact you had with Pyrenees Shire Council?

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

Councils asked state-wide: 19 Councils asked group: 3


78

78

74

74

74

74

73

73

72

71

69

69

65+

Mt Emu

Women

Pyrenees

Men


50-64

Avoca and DeCameron

18-34

35-49

State-wide

Small Rural

74

69

77

72

66

73

70

73

75

70

69

69

70

70

74

72

70

73

78

71

62

74

70

70

71

74

71

71

70

69

71

70

64

74

72

n/a

73

n/a

66

68

69

n/a

72

n/a

49

67

71

n/a

76

n/a

73

72

71

n/a

75

n/a

67

68

71

n/a

2017 Customer Service Rating2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q5c. Thinking of the most recent contact, how would you rate Pyrenees Shire Council for customer service? Please keep in

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





38

38

37

34

28

34

30

30

37

37

43

40

36

28

27

41

48

37

31

31

33

35

34

36

36

38

38

36

35

40

44

50

31

31

12

14

18

15

20

21

18

18

12

11

13

12

12

16

10

11

11

8

8

6

12

9

6

8

8

8

9

7

8

9

12

4

11

7

5

7

6

4

7

5

6

7

6

5

2

6

4

8

5

4

3

2

1

1

1

2

1

2017 Pyrenees

2016 Pyrenees

2015 Pyrenees

2014 Pyrenees

2013 Pyrenees

2012 Pyrenees

State-wide

Small Rural

Avoca and DeCameron


Mt Emu

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


2017 Customer Service Rating






100*

88*

75

73

70*

66*

Via website

In writing

By telephone

In person

By email

By social media

72

59

72

73

68

90

96

59

71

76

64

87

66

64

73

70

71

50

61

65

66

70

63

100

86

66

73

73

77

100

2017 Customer Service Rating2016 2015 2014 2013 2012






*Caution: small sample size < n=30


100

70

39

40

12

11

39

32

74

63

18

11

11

37

4

13

9

6

4

5

Via website*

In writing*

By telephone

In person

By email*

By social media*


2017 Customer Service Rating





*Caution: small sample size < n=30



• Mt Emu

• Men

• Avoca and DeCameron


• 66% stayed about the same, equal points on 2016

• 19% improved, up 1 point on 2016

• 10% deteriorated, down 1 point on 2016

Least satisfied with Council Direction from Q6

Most satisfied with Council Direction from Q6

Council Direction from Q6


57

56

56

55

55

54

53

53

53

53

53

52

18-34


Women

65+

Pyrenees

50-64

Avoca and DeCameron

State-wide

Men

Mt Emu

35-49

Small Rural

58

52

57

56

54

49

55

51

51

56

54

50

54

49

55

54

54

52

56

53

53

62

58

53

59

52

56

56

54

50

56

53

53

55

54

n/a

52

n/a

56

60

54

51

n/a

53

53

n/a

53

n/a

48

n/a

55

60

54

54

n/a

52

53

n/a

50

n/a

2016 2015 2014 2013 20122017 Overall Direction

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




19

18

20

20

22

21

19

19

19

20

16

19

19

20

13

21

20

66

66

63

62

58

62

62

61

63

67

67

64

67

74

74

58

63

10

11

12

12

14

14

13

15

13

7

11

13

7

5

8

13

11

6

4

5

6

5

4

6

5

6

6

5

4

7

5

9

6

2017 Pyrenees

2016 Pyrenees

2015 Pyrenees

2014 Pyrenees

2013 Pyrenees

2012 Pyrenees

State-wide

Small Rural

Avoca and DeCameron


Mt Emu

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+

% Improved Stayed the same Deteriorated Can't say

2017 Overall Direction

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



Note: Website and text message formats again did not rate as highly as other modes of

communication, although further analysis is recommended to understand the demographic preference

profiles of the various different forms of communication.

• Newsletter sent via mail (51%) Overall preferred forms of

communication

• Newsletter sent via mail (51%) Preferred forms of

communication among over 50s

• Newsletter sent via mail (50%)Preferred forms of

communication among under 50s

• Newsletter sent via email (-4) Greatest change since 2016


2017 Best Form

58

53 53 52 52 51

1210

1416

19

1515

20

1412

10

14

1012 12 12

10 9

2 13 2 3

5

1 1 1 2 12 24 4 5

1 1 1 1 1 1

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

A council newsletter sent via mail

A council newsletter sent via email

Advertising in a local newspaper

A council newsletter as an insert ina local paper

A text message

The council website

Other

Can't say

Q13. If Pyrenees Shire 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?



2017 Under 50s Best Form

58

43

4951

54

50

1210

16

20 191615

27

10 118

16

12 1315

8 9

44 3

74 4

8

1 1 2 22 13 4 5

1 1 1

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017





A text message

The council website

Other

Can't say





2017 Over 50s Best Form

59 60

5553

50 51

1310

13 13

19

1515 15 1613

1113

912 11

1411 11

1 1 1 2 21 1 2 11 2 24 4 4

2 1 1 1 1 2

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017





A text message

The council website

Other

Can't say





63

63

61

61

60

59

58

58

57

56

55

55

18-34

Avoca and DeCameron

65+

Women

Pyrenees

35-49


Men

Mt Emu

50-64

Small Rural

State-wide

58

56

59

58

56

59

57

55

56

51

55

54

57

62

56

60

58

61

57

57

54

60

56

56

63

60

54

59

58

58

56

58

58

60

n/a

57

58

n/a

64

60

59

55

n/a

57

n/a

57

n/a

57

56

n/a

62

59

59

53

n/a

60

n/a

64

n/a

57

2017 Consultation and Engagement Performance2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

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




12

12

13

13

12

13

7

9

14

10

10

11

12

10

10

10

14

32

26

30

30

32

35

29

30

33

33

29

31

34

45

36

25

30

29

31

29

26

30

27

32

30

28

29

34

29

29

22

32

35

27

11

13

15

12

11

14

15

15

7

13

14

13

9

15

10

9

11

5

7

5

8

6

6

6

7

4

6

5

6

4

6

8

4

11

11

8

10

9

5

10

9

14

9

8

9

12

7

7

13

13

2017 Pyrenees

2016 Pyrenees

2015 Pyrenees

2014 Pyrenees

2013 Pyrenees

2012 Pyrenees

State-wide

Small Rural

Avoca and DeCameron


Mt Emu

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


2017 Consultation and Engagement Performance

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



61

61

61

59

59

59

59

57

56

56

55

54

18-34

65+

Avoca and DeCameron

Men

Pyrenees


Women

35-49

50-64

Mt Emu

Small Rural

State-wide

57

59

56

57

55

56

54

50

55

53

54

53

55

55

59

55

57

55

59

57

60

55

56

55

59

54

61

57

56

49

55

55

57

59

n/a

56

54

65

n/a

58

58

n/a

58

56

57

n/a

n/a

55

57

61

n/a

58

58

n/a

58

58

57

n/a

n/a

55

2017 Lobbying Performance2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

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




10

9

9

9

11

9

5

6

11

10

9

11

9

5

11

11

11

27

26

28

27

26

31

24

26

32

25

23

30

24

38

26

19

30

27

22

29

23

31

27

31

29

24

28

33

27

28

32

34

30

19

11

10

12

12

10

11

13

12

9

10

15

12

10

10

6

14

11

4

9

5

7

5

5

5

5

5

4

3

5

4

10

4

4

20

23

17

22

16

16

22

21

19

23

16

14

26

14

13

22

26

2017 Pyrenees

2016 Pyrenees

2015 Pyrenees

2014 Pyrenees

2013 Pyrenees

2012 Pyrenees

State-wide

Small Rural

Avoca and DeCameron


Mt Emu

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


2017 Lobbying Performance

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



66

63

62

62

62

62

61

61

59

55

55

54

65+

18-34

Avoca and DeCameron


Men

Pyrenees

35-49

Women

Mt Emu

50-64

Small Rural

State-wide

59

55

58

57

57

56

55

56

50

54

53

54

58

56

61

53

54

57

55

59

55

57

56

55

55

63

61

51

55

57

56

59

59

56

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

2017 Community Decisions Made Performance2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

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




10

10

8

9

6

7

12

10

8

11

10

13

8

6

13

37

25

31

31

29

31

39

37

33

39

35

40

43

28

39

28

29

32

26

34

33

21

32

31

27

29

28

26

29

28

9

11

14

14

14

14

12

9

6

8

10

15

3

16

5

4

7

4

6

7

7

4

2

7

5

3

8

5

2

12

17

11

15

10

9

13

10

15

10

14

5

11

16

13

2017 Pyrenees

2016 Pyrenees

2015 Pyrenees

2014 Pyrenees

State-wide

Small Rural

Avoca and DeCameron


Mt Emu

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


2017 Community Decisions Made Performance

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



59

56

55

55

55

54

54

53

52

51

50

50

65+


Women

Pyrenees

Mt Emu

35-49

Men

State-wide

Avoca and DeCameron

50-64

18-34

Small Rural

57

54

54

54

53

53

55

54

56

52

55

52

59

56

55

55

49

55

56

55

58

57

46

52

56

54

56

56

51

59

56

55

61

57

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

2017 Sealed Local Roads Performance2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

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




12

10

10

11

11

8

10

12

13

10

13

12

15

8

13

31

32

33

34

32

28

28

31

36

32

31

25

35

29

33

30

31

33

29

28

30

32

32

20

30

30

32

16

33

35

15

17

15

17

16

19

15

15

17

18

13

13

21

17

11

11

9

8

8

12

14

12

8

14

10

11

18

13

11

5

2

1

1

1

1

2

3

1

1

2

2

3

2017 Pyrenees

2016 Pyrenees

2015 Pyrenees

2014 Pyrenees

State-wide

Small Rural

Avoca and DeCameron


Mt Emu

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


2017 Sealed Local Roads Performance

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



79

77

77

76

76

75

75

75

75

74

73

71

Women

State-wide

18-34

Small Rural


50-64

65+

Pyrenees

Mt Emu

Avoca and DeCameron

35-49

Men

78

77

76

75

76

74

73

74

74

72

74

71

77

77

72

76

76

74

76

74

76

73

74

71

76

77

63

n/a

74

74

75

72

71

71

71

68

78

78

71

n/a

n/a

76

75

75

n/a

n/a

76

72

75

77

70

n/a

n/a

75

76

74

n/a

n/a

72

72

2017 Streets and Footpaths Importance2016 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?




30

30

28

25

32

28

34

32

28

31

30

20

39

37

24

31

28

43

38

43

38

40

43

42

43

44

44

39

49

38

37

48

42

44

19

21

22

25

20

21

19

19

18

19

21

21

18

23

20

20

17

3

4

4

4

4

3

2

2

4

3

3

5

1

3

2

4

4

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

2

1

1

2

1

3

1

1

4

5

3

7

2

4

1

3

5

2

6

4

3

3

2

6

2017 Pyrenees

2016 Pyrenees

2015 Pyrenees

2014 Pyrenees

2013 Pyrenees

2012 Pyrenees

State-wide

Small Rural

Avoca and DeCameron


Mt Emu

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+

%Extremely important Very important Fairly important Not that important Not at all important Can't say

2017 Streets and Footpaths Importance

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



59

59

58

58

57

57

57

57

57

56

56

55


35-49

18-34

Men

Pyrenees

65+

Women

State-wide

Small Rural

Avoca and DeCameron

50-64

Mt Emu

59

61

59

60

58

57

56

57

58

58

56

54

58

59

50

58

56

57

54

58

59

56

56

50

57

58

64

60

58

59

57

58

n/a

63

55

51

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

58

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

58

58

60

57

59

55

57

n/a

n/a

54

n/a

2017 Streets and Footpaths Performance2016 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?




13

12

10

11

10

13

13

10

14

19

13

14

18

16

11

12

30

34

32

36

37

33

32

29

36

19

33

28

30

35

29

29

28

24

31

24

26

28

28

35

25

23

26

31

27

21

26

34

13

15

14

15

14

15

14

11

13

19

12

15

12

13

16

12

8

7

8

6

8

9

9

7

8

10

10

7

10

11

7

7

6

8

5

7

6

2

4

8

3

10

6

6

3

3

11

6

2017 Pyrenees

2016 Pyrenees

2015 Pyrenees

2014 Pyrenees

2012 Pyrenees

State-wide

Small Rural

Avoca and DeCameron


Mt Emu

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


2017 Streets and Footpaths Performance

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



78

78

73

72

71

70

70

69

69

68

67

63

35-49

Women

State-wide

Avoca and DeCameron

Small Rural

Pyrenees

Mt Emu

50-64


65+

18-34

Men

79

76

73

70

72

71

74

66

70

73

69

66

70

74

73

73

72

70

65

70

70

70

71

66

72

78

72

71

n/a

72

73

71

72

72

74

67

71

75

73

n/a

n/a

70

n/a

68

n/a

70

72

65

n/a

n/a

73

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

2017 Family Support Importance2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

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




21

28

22

24

20

28

24

25

19

19

12

30

10

33

22

19

45

37

42

42

44

41

42

42

45

50

39

50

52

51

38

42

25

21

24

21

25

22

23

23

29

20

36

15

36

11

31

24

5

8

7

5

5

5

6

4

5

6

8

2

3

5

6

6

1

2

1

1

1

2

2

1

1

3

2

1

3

2

4

3

6

4

2

3

5

1

2

3

2

2

5

2017 Pyrenees

2016 Pyrenees

2015 Pyrenees

2014 Pyrenees

2013 Pyrenees

State-wide

Small Rural

Avoca and DeCameron


Mt Emu

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


2017 Family Support Importance

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



74

71

71

71

71

70

70

69

68

68

67

63

18-34

65+

35-49

Men

Avoca and DeCameron

Pyrenees


Women

Mt Emu

Small Rural

State-wide

50-64

71

72

66

69

66

68

71

66

64

66

66

62

69

67

70

69

70

68

70

68

61

67

67

68

65

69

63

68

69

67

64

66

66

n/a

68

69

60

72

64

67

n/a

66

n/a

66

n/a

n/a

67

67

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

67

n/a

2017 Family Support Performance2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

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




13

14

12

8

13

11

12

16

13

10

10

16

25

16

7

11

31

28

31

32

33

30

31

30

34

24

36

26

36

38

22

31

18

19

20

18

19

20

19

16

20

18

16

20

19

16

21

17

3

4

3

5

5

4

4

3

4

4

1

5

5

2

7

1

1

2

1

1

3

1

2

2

1

1

3

33

33

33

37

28

34

33

33

29

43

35

31

15

24

42

40

2017 Pyrenees

2016 Pyrenees

2015 Pyrenees

2014 Pyrenees

2013 Pyrenees

State-wide

Small Rural

Avoca and DeCameron


Mt Emu

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


2017 Family Support Performance

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



84

82

80

79

79

79

79

79

78

77

76

74

Women

Avoca and DeCameron

35-49

50-64

65+

Pyrenees

Mt Emu

Small Rural

State-wide


18-34

Men

83

80

82

78

79

79

78

79

78

78

74

74

80

77

76

78

78

77

73

80

79

78

74

73

81

79

76

78

80

78

78

n/a

79

77

77

75

83

n/a

77

78

80

78

n/a

n/a

79

n/a

74

73

83

n/a

81

79

80

80

n/a

n/a

80

n/a

79

77

2017 Elderly Support Importance2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

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




37

38

34

35

34

37

35

37

41

33

41

25

49

34

37

36

39

44

40

42

44

43

46

44

44

45

45

36

49

39

40

47

47

40

15

16

20

15

19

13

17

16

11

19

12

20

11

23

16

10

16

2

2

3

3

2

1

2

2

1

1

7

4

1

3

5

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

3

1

3

1

3

1

1

1

3

1

2

1

2017 Pyrenees

2016 Pyrenees

2015 Pyrenees

2014 Pyrenees

2013 Pyrenees

2012 Pyrenees

State-wide

Small Rural

Avoca and DeCameron


Mt Emu

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


2017 Elderly Support Importance

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



76

76

75

75

75

74

73

73

71

69

69

68


35-49

65+

18-34

Men

Pyrenees

Avoca and DeCameron

Women

Small Rural

50-64

Mt Emu

State-wide

71

69

71

75

71

69

70

68

70

65

66

68

72

70

71

67

70

70

72

70

72

71

61

69

70

67

69

70

71

70

72

69

n/a

74

66

70

n/a

72

74

67

71

71

n/a

71

n/a

70

n/a

69

n/a

72

76

63

73

72

n/a

71

n/a

74

n/a

69

2017 Elderly Support Performance2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

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




23

16

17

18

21

22

14

19

22

25

17

22

23

23

19

20

26

33

32

36

29

36

35

31

35

32

36

26

35

31

40

40

18

36

14

19

16

18

21

19

19

17

15

11

22

16

12

13

13

22

11

3

3

4

4

4

5

4

5

3

3

4

3

4

5

2

4

3

1

2

2

2

2

1

2

2

2

1

1

3

2

3

25

27

24

28

17

19

30

22

25

24

29

24

27

20

26

34

21

2017 Pyrenees

2016 Pyrenees

2015 Pyrenees

2014 Pyrenees

2013 Pyrenees

2012 Pyrenees

State-wide

Small Rural

Avoca and DeCameron


Mt Emu

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


2017 Elderly Support Performance

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



72

71

71

69

69

68

67

67

67

67

65

64

State-wide

Women

Small Rural

18-34


35-49

Pyrenees

50-64

Mt Emu

65+

Avoca and DeCameron

Men

73

72

72

65

69

70

68

66

71

69

64

63

72

68

73

64

68

66

67

66

62

69

67

65

72

70

n/a

66

67

69

67

67

67

68

67

65

72

71

n/a

59

n/a

70

67

66

n/a

70

n/a

63

72

73

n/a

70

n/a

74

71

71

n/a

67

n/a

68

2017 Recreational Facilities Importance2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

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




19

20

15

17

16

22

24

23

14

22

18

15

22

22

19

18

17

42

41

45

44

43

45

46

43

44

42

39

38

46

35

45

40

45

31

30

32

28

32

26

26

28

33

29

34

35

28

40

26

35

28

5

6

6

7

7

5

4

4

6

5

6

8

3

3

6

4

7

2

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

3

2

1

3

1

3

2

3

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

2017 Pyrenees

2016 Pyrenees

2015 Pyrenees

2014 Pyrenees

2013 Pyrenees

2012 Pyrenees

State-wide

Small Rural

Avoca and DeCameron


Mt Emu

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


2017 Recreational Facilities Importance

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



75

74

73

73

72

72

72

71

70

69

69

68

18-34


65+

Men

Pyrenees

35-49

Women

Avoca and DeCameron

State-wide

Small Rural

50-64

Mt Emu

60

67

68

69

65

62

61

69

69

68

68

57

65

68

69

68

69

70

71

73

70

70

72

65

77

71

74

75

72

71

70

75

71

n/a

69

69

72

n/a

77

70

72

70

73

n/a

70

n/a

68

n/a

68

n/a

72

72

70

68

68

n/a

70

n/a

72

n/a

2017 Recreational Facilities Performance2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

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




23

20

22

25

26

25

22

23

23

26

18

24

23

32

23

21

22

41

35

41

39

39

38

43

42

42

43

33

41

41

37

47

36

43

22

26

23

22

19

23

22

21

23

18

30

22

21

28

23

21

19

3

7

8

5

8

8

7

6

2

4

3

3

3

3

3

4

2

2

5

2

1

2

1

2

4

3

1

2

1

3

2

4

2

9

7

5

8

6

5

4

4

7

8

14

8

10

3

15

12

2017 Pyrenees

2016 Pyrenees

2015 Pyrenees

2014 Pyrenees

2013 Pyrenees

2012 Pyrenees

State-wide

Small Rural

Avoca and DeCameron


Mt Emu

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


2017 Recreational Facilities Performance

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



75

74

74

74

74

72

72

71

70

70

67

67

Women


State-wide

Small Rural

18-34

50-64

Pyrenees

65+

35-49

Avoca and DeCameron

Men

Mt Emu

74

71

74

74

68

71

71

71

72

69

67

74

71

70

73

73

68

71

70

69

73

73

69

64

74

74

73

n/a

67

72

71

73

71

70

69

70

72

n/a

74

n/a

59

71

69

71

72

n/a

66

n/a

73

n/a

73

n/a

66

75

72

70

74

n/a

70

n/a

2017 Public Areas Importance2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

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




23

27

19

21

22

24

26

26

18

30

15

16

30

22

22

30

18

45

37

45

48

38

43

47

47

45

45

47

46

44

52

42

35

52

26

28

33

27

33

28

24

23

34

20

28

30

23

23

31

29

23

4

7

2

3

5

4

2

3

2

4

8

7

1

3

3

5

4

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

2017 Pyrenees

2016 Pyrenees

2015 Pyrenees

2014 Pyrenees

2013 Pyrenees

2012 Pyrenees

State-wide

Small Rural

Avoca and DeCameron


Mt Emu

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


2017 Public Areas Importance

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



78

76

75

74

74

74

73

72

71

70

69

66

18-34

35-49

Women


Avoca and DeCameron

Small Rural

Pyrenees

65+

State-wide

Men

50-64

Mt Emu

66

71

68

71

72

73

70

68

71

72

73

65

70

71

71

72

75

74

71

70

72

71

73

58

77

67

73

73

75

n/a

72

73

72

72

73

67

63

70

70

n/a

n/a

n/a

70

76

71

70

69

n/a

74

74

71

n/a

n/a

n/a

73

73

71

75

72

n/a

2017 Public Areas Performance2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

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




30

26

21

26

26

26

25

30

29

33

21

22

36

37

34

27

25

42

40

47

44

40

47

46

44

46

41

39

48

37

45

40

40

45

18

21

22

22

24

19

20

17

18

16

22

20

15

10

18

18

21

5

8

6

6

5

6

6

5

3

5

10

5

5

8

2

8

4

3

3

1

1

3

1

2

3

3

3

4

3

4

3

6

3

2

3

3

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

4

1

2

3

2

2

2017 Pyrenees

2016 Pyrenees

2015 Pyrenees

2014 Pyrenees

2013 Pyrenees

2012 Pyrenees

State-wide

Small Rural

Avoca and DeCameron


Mt Emu

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


2017 Public Areas Performance

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



79

78

77

76

76

76

75

75

75

75

74

73

State-wide

Women

35-49

Small Rural

18-34

Avoca and DeCameron

65+

Pyrenees


Mt Emu

50-64

Men

80

80

82

79

77

76

78

78

79

80

76

76

79

79

77

77

69

76

76

76

76

74

78

72

79

78

77

n/a

77

76

77

77

76

79

76

75

79

78

76

n/a

70

n/a

76

76

n/a

n/a

78

73

78

76

76

n/a

69

n/a

76

75

n/a

n/a

78

75

2017 Waste Management Importance2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

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




29

35

27

30

29

27

36

30

28

27

34

23

34

17

32

32

29

48

45

49

48

46

50

46

48

51

52

35

53

44

70

43

37

50

18

17

21

18

22

20

16

19

18

16

23

17

18

13

23

24

12

4

2

2

2

2

2

1

2

2

5

6

7

2

2

6

6

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

2

1

1

1

2017 Pyrenees

2016 Pyrenees

2015 Pyrenees

2014 Pyrenees

2013 Pyrenees

2012 Pyrenees

State-wide

Small Rural

Avoca and DeCameron


Mt Emu

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


2017 Waste Management Importance

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



80

77

77

77

75

75

75

74

72

72

71

70

18-34

Men


65+

Pyrenees

Avoca and DeCameron

35-49

Women

50-64

Mt Emu

State-wide

Small Rural

72

71

67

73

70

74

66

69

67

67

70

69

65

71

70

76

71

76

68

72

72

62

72

71

71

76

69

74

73

76

76

70

71

73

73

n/a

61

73

n/a

78

71

n/a

69

69

71

n/a

71

n/a

64

74

n/a

76

72

n/a

67

70

76

n/a

72

n/a

2017 Waste Management Performance2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

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




32

24

25

30

27

25

25

25

34

32

28

38

26

34

37

26

33

42

41

45

42

41

42

44

42

39

45

39

39

44

54

32

40

43

15

21

19

15

19

22

18

18

14

16

16

13

18

10

18

23

11

4

4

7

5

6

6

6

7

4

3

8

5

4

3

5

5

5

2

5

2

4

4

1

3

4

3

3

2

2

3

2

2

5

5

3

3

1

3

3

4

6

4

6

3

7

5

4

7

2017 Pyrenees

2016 Pyrenees

2015 Pyrenees

2014 Pyrenees

2013 Pyrenees

2012 Pyrenees

State-wide

Small Rural

Avoca and DeCameron


Mt Emu

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


2017 Waste Management Performance

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



73

72

71

71

70

70

70

70

69

67

66

65

Women

Small Rural

Avoca and DeCameron


18-34

35-49

Pyrenees

65+

50-64

State-wide

Men

Mt Emu

70

71

69

68

71

72

68

65

66

67

66

65

70

70

71

69

67

66

67

67

69

67

65

56

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

67

n/a

n/a

73

n/a

n/a

n/a

66

72

68

67

66

67

62

n/a

73

n/a

n/a

n/a

73

72

70

67

70

66

68

n/a

2017 Business/Development/Tourism Importance2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

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




22

23

19

20

21

21

26

23

23

18

19

25

15

23

22

25

43

38

44

41

47

38

41

47

45

31

39

47

55

45

38

41

25

27

25

30

24

30

25

21

23

36

26

23

28

23

28

21

7

7

8

7

7

8

5

5

7

9

9

4

3

5

8

8

2

3

2

2

1

2

2

3

1

1

3

3

1

2

2

2

2

1

1

2

2

1

4

3

1

2

2

2

2017 Pyrenees

2016 Pyrenees

2015 Pyrenees

2013 Pyrenees

2012 Pyrenees

State-wide

Small Rural

Avoca and DeCameron


Mt Emu

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


2017 Business/Development/Tourism Importance

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



71

70

69

68

67

67

66

65

64

64

62

61

Avoca and DeCameron

18-34

65+

Women

Pyrenees

35-49

Men

Mt Emu


Small Rural

50-64

State-wide

63

52

61

59

60

61

61

53

61

61

63

60

63

58

63

65

62

61

59

53

63

63

63

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

67

70

68

66

64

64

n/a

n/a

n/a

63

62

n/a

64

63

60

64

63

68

n/a

n/a

n/a

65

62

2017 Business/Development/Tourism Performance2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

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




17

13

14

14

14

11

15

23

14

12

13

20

13

21

11

20

36

32

29

38

39

34

36

41

33

32

41

31

43

32

35

35

25

29

30

27

25

29

27

16

29

33

25

25

30

26

29

20

7

9

12

6

10

10

9

9

7

5

9

6

11

8

8

2

6

2

2

3

3

4

1

3

2

2

2

4

1

13

12

13

12

9

14

10

9

14

18

10

16

14

8

13

16

2017 Pyrenees

2016 Pyrenees

2015 Pyrenees

2013 Pyrenees

2012 Pyrenees

State-wide

Small Rural

Avoca and DeCameron


Mt Emu

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


2017 Business/Development/Tourism Performance

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



76

76

72

71

71

70

68

68

68

68

67

66

66

62

Personal user

Household user

State-wide

18-34

Avoca and DeCameron

Women

65+

Small Rural


Pyrenees

35-49

50-64

Men

Mt Emu

75

76

71

71

67

72

72

71

72

69

65

69

67

70

70

72

71

64

67

70

69

70

70

69

70

70

68

69

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

79

78

71

54

n/a

73

69

n/a

n/a

67

72

70

62

n/a

70

71

71

64

n/a

70

70

n/a

n/a

68

65

73

66

n/a

2017 Planning & Building Permits Importance2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

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




22

23

21

20

19

27

22

26

21

15

19

25

22

23

20

22

30

32

35

39

38

38

42

38

37

34

37

32

39

32

36

34

34

37

48

43

27

24

30

29

27

25

28

21

29

36

28

27

27

34

25

26

16

18

5

6

7

8

7

5

6

6

4

7

8

3

5

5

10

2

4

5

3

3

1

2

1

1

3

3

3

4

4

3

3

2

6

7

6

3

4

4

3

5

9

5

5

3

10

10

2

8

7

2

2

2017 Pyrenees

2016 Pyrenees

2015 Pyrenees

2013 Pyrenees

2012 Pyrenees

State-wide

Small Rural

Avoca and DeCameron


Mt Emu

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+

Personal user

Household user


2017 Planning & Building Permits Importance

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



58

58

57

55

54

54

52

51

51

51

51

50

46

44

65+

Women

Avoca and DeCameron

35-49

Pyrenees


50-64

Small Rural

Men

State-wide

Mt Emu

18-34

Personal user

Household user

54

57

52

55

54

56

54

50

51

50

56

55

56

54

54

55

55

56

54

53

57

53

53

54

56

49

48

49

48

52

54

54

51

45

52

n/a

51

53

56

51

41

40

59

59

n/a

56

58

n/a

59

n/a

56

55

n/a

55

56

56

57

58

n/a

56

57

n/a

59

n/a

56

54

n/a

56

51

54

2017 Planning & Building Permits Performance2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

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




7

7

5

7

11

6

5

6

6

8

8

6

8

3

8

9

7

4

3

24

22

25

18

26

30

23

21

27

21

23

24

23

25

27

18

25

21

17

23

27

30

24

23

26

27

28

24

24

22

22

25

32

28

19

20

40

46

10

8

10

10

10

13

14

13

8

12

10

14

6

11

6

14

9

15

13

8

8

7

10

7

4

9

8

7

7

13

10

6

10

11

8

5

15

15

28

27

24

31

23

22

23

24

28

29

25

24

32

20

19

32

35

5

5

2017 Pyrenees

2016 Pyrenees

2015 Pyrenees

2014 Pyrenees

2013 Pyrenees

2012 Pyrenees

State-wide

Small Rural

Avoca and DeCameron


Mt Emu

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+

Personal user

Household user


2017 Planning & Building Permits Performance

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



89

86

85

85

84

84

83

82

81

80

80

80

79

77

Women

18-34

35-49

Avoca and DeCameron

50-64

Mt Emu

Pyrenees


Small Rural

Household user

State-wide

65+

Personal user

Men

88

83

87

83

82

84

84

84

82

91

80

83

90

80

85

88

80

77

79

83

81

84

80

90

80

80

90

77

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

87

86

79

n/a

83

n/a

82

n/a

n/a

83

80

82

83

78

84

78

82

n/a

81

n/a

80

n/a

n/a

85

80

79

85

77

2017 Disaster Management Importance2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

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




50

52

47

45

41

45

45

54

48

49

38

62

62

54

53

42

40

42

34

34

35

40

40

34

36

31

34

40

37

31

20

38

31

39

36

37

12

9

13

11

15

14

14

10

15

6

18

6

18

3

13

13

19

16

2

2

4

2

2

4

2

1

2

3

4

3

2

2

3

2

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

2

2

1

2

1

1

2

1

1

3

1

1

1

2

2

2

2

2017 Pyrenees

2016 Pyrenees

2015 Pyrenees

2013 Pyrenees

2012 Pyrenees

State-wide

Small Rural

Avoca and DeCameron


Mt Emu

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+

Personal user

Household user


2017 Disaster Management Importance

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



78

77

76

75

75

74

74

74

74

72

72

71

71

70

18-34

65+

Women

Household user


Personal user

Mt Emu

Pyrenees

Avoca and DeCameron

Small Rural

Men

35-49

50-64

State-wide

70

75

72

72

76

70

71

73

73

71

74

76

71

69

67

70

72

75

68

78

73

69

69

70

66

69

69

70

78

69

74

77

70

77

72

71

73

n/a

69

73

69

71

71

75

73

74

n/a

74

n/a

73

n/a

n/a

72

73

71

70

72

69

68

67

n/a

66

n/a

69

n/a

n/a

71

65

72

70

2017 Disaster Management Performance2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

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




24

24

19

25

27

21

17

23

21

24

29

22

26

25

19

24

26

30

30

41

40

38

36

40

38

37

38

40

43

34

42

39

53

42

36

38

50

51

15

15

21

18

15

21

19

18

18

15

11

13

18

7

21

22

11

11

10

4

4

5

7

7

6

4

4

4

3

5

5

2

6

4

3

7

7

2

2

3

2

2

3

2

2

2

4

3

3

3

1

3

2

15

15

14

13

9

11

21

16

16

14

17

15

15

12

11

11

22

2017 Pyrenees

2016 Pyrenees

2015 Pyrenees

2014 Pyrenees

2013 Pyrenees

2012 Pyrenees

State-wide

Small Rural

Avoca and DeCameron


Mt Emu

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+

Personal user

Household user


2017 Disaster Management Performance

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



85

85

84

82

81

81

80

80

80

79

79

77

Women

Mt Emu

35-49

50-64

Small Rural

Pyrenees

Avoca and DeCameron


18-34

65+

State-wide

Men

84

86

83

84

81

82

78

82

78

80

79

79

83

84

82

83

82

82

79

82

80

81

78

80

82

83

82

79

n/a

79

77

80

81

77

78

77

84

n/a

83

83

n/a

82

n/a

n/a

81

80

81

80

83

n/a

86

82

n/a

82

n/a

n/a

78

81

80

81

2017 Unsealed Roads Importance2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

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




42

45

41

38

45

45

39

43

39

39

55

34

50

40

49

44

37

44

37

45

43

40

40

39

41

46

45

35

48

40

40

40

43

49

11

15

12

15

12

12

17

13

12

12

3

12

9

20

9

8

9

3

1

1

3

1

3

3

2

2

3

5

5

1

2

2

6

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2017 Pyrenees

2016 Pyrenees

2015 Pyrenees

2014 Pyrenees

2013 Pyrenees

2012 Pyrenees

State-wide

Small Rural

Avoca and DeCameron


Mt Emu

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


2017 Unsealed Roads Importance

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



48

48

47

45

44

44

44

44

43

42

41

39

18-34


65+

Women

Pyrenees

Men

50-64

State-wide

Small Rural

Avoca and DeCameron

Mt Emu

35-49

50

48

45

43

45

48

41

43

44

45

41

48

39

42

44

43

43

44

45

45

45

46

39

43

42

44

48

44

46

48

45

45

n/a

47

47

47

35

n/a

51

42

44

46

43

44

n/a

n/a

n/a

44

45

n/a

51

44

47

49

47

46

n/a

n/a

n/a

43

2017 Unsealed Roads Performance2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

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




6

6

5

6

10

8

5

6

4

8

4

6

5

10

3

5

6

24

23

20

23

18

27

21

20

20

27

21

24

23

25

26

26

20

26

32

32

28

26

25

28

28

30

23

26

28

25

20

19

25

34

25

19

23

25

23

23

23

23

26

21

31

23

26

28

26

24

23

16

16

16

13

19

16

16

18

16

15

16

18

14

13

24

18

11

4

4

3

3

3

1

7

5

4

6

1

1

7

5

2

2

7

2017 Pyrenees

2016 Pyrenees

2015 Pyrenees

2014 Pyrenees

2013 Pyrenees

2012 Pyrenees

State-wide

Small Rural

Avoca and DeCameron


Mt Emu

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


2017 Unsealed Roads Performance

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



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.

Gender Age

49%51%

Men

Women

5%11%

21%

27%

36%

18-24

25-34

35-49

50-64

65+

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



S6. Which of the following BEST describes your household?


2017 Household Structure

%

20

3

2

2

25

23

24

2

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 livingat home

Married or living with partner, no children

Married or living with partner with children 16 orunder at home

Married or living with partner with children butnone 16 or under at home

Do not wish to answer


2017 Years Lived in Area

11

18

16

16

12

16

13

14

14

17

73

69

70

70

71

2017 Pyrenees

2016 Pyrenees

2015 Pyrenees

2014 Pyrenees

2013 Pyrenees

% 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?



2017 Years Lived in Area

11

18

14

10

12

11

10

11

11

10

15

11

10

16

13

17

13

17

17

10

14

17

22

23

18

7

20

24

24

20

12

24

24

20

20

28

24

15

17

16

15

18

16

16

14

23

13

19

37

5

17

13

37

31

28

40

43

34

33

41

33

3

33

39

53

2017 Pyrenees

2016 Pyrenees

State-wide

Small Rural

Avoca and DeCameron


Mt Emu

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

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



2017 Own or Rent

91

92

93

93

92

83

91

95

87

96

94

89

83

90

92

95

8

7

7

6

8

15

8

5

12

1

4

11

17

8

5

5

2017 Pyrenees

2016 Pyrenees

2015 Pyrenees

2014 Pyrenees

2012 Pyrenees

State-wide

Small Rural

Avoca and DeCameron


Mt Emu

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+

% Own Rent

Q9. Thinking of the property you live in, do you or other members of your household own this property, or is it a rental

property?



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 Pyrenees Shire 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 2012-2017 have been made

throughout this report as appropriate.


Demographic

Actual

survey

sample size

Weighted

base

Maximum margin of

error at 95%

confidence interval

Pyrenees Shire Council 400 400 +/-4.7

Men 187 194 +/-7.1

Women 213 206 +/-6.6

Avoca and DeCameron 151 141 +/-7.9

Beaufort, Ercildoune 179 188 +/-7.2

Mt Emu 70 71 +/-11.7

18-34 years 28 64 +/-18.8

35-49 years 62 85 +/-12.5

50-64 years 132 107 +/-8.5

65+ years 178 145 +/-7.2

The sample size for the 2017 State-wide Local Government Community Satisfaction Survey for

Pyrenees Shire Council was n=400. 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=400 interviews is +/-4.7% 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 45.3% - 54.7%.

Maximum margins of error are listed in the table below, based on a population of 6,000 people aged

18 years or over for Pyrenees Shire Council, according to ABS estimates.


All participating councils are listed in the state-wide report published on the DELWP website. In 2017,

68 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

2012-2017 vary slightly.

Council Groups

Pyrenees Shire 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, Loddon, Mansfield, Murrindindi, Pyrenees, Queenscliffe,

West Wimmera and Yarriambiack.

Wherever appropriate, results for Pyrenees Shire Council for this 2017 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.


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.

SCALE

CATEGORIES% RESULT INDEX FACTOR INDEX 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


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.

SCALE CATEGORIES % RESULT INDEX FACTOR INDEX VALUE

Improved 36% 100 36

Stayed the same 40% 50 20

Deteriorated 23% 0 0

Can’t say 1% -- INDEX SCORE 56


Index scores are indicative of an overall rating on a particular service area. In this context, index scores

indicate:

a) how well council is seen to be performing in a particular service area; or

b) the level of importance placed on a particular service area.

For ease of interpretation, index score ratings can be categorised as follows:

INDEX SCORE Performance implication Importance implication

75 – 100Council is performing very well

in this service area

This service area is seen to be

extremely important

60 – 75Council is performing well in this service

area, but there is room for improvement


very important

50 – 60Council is performing satisfactorily in

this service area but needs to improve


fairly important

40 – 50Council is performing poorly



somewhat important

0 – 40Council is performing very poorly



not that important


The test applied to the Indexes was an Independent Mean Test, as follows:

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

Where:

$1 = Index Score 1

$2 = Index Score 2

$3 = unweighted sample count 1

$4 = unweighted sample count 1

$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.


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 2017 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 2017 State-wide Local Government Community Satisfaction Survey were optional.

Councils also had the ability to ask tailored questions specific only to their council.


Reporting

Every council that participated in the 2017 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

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

.

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: 2017 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.

Contact Us:

03 8685 8555

John Scales

Managing Director

Mark Zuker

Managing Director

background and objectives - pyrenees shire council and objectives ... the main objectives of the...

Documents