boroondara city council · notwithstanding this decline, waste management still constitutes a top...

2019 Local

Government

Community

Satisfaction Survey

Boroondara City

CouncilCoordinated by the Department of

Environment, Land, Water and Planning

on behalf of Victorian councils

Contents

J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Boroondara City Council

2

Background and objectives 4

Key findings and recommendations 6

Summary of findings 12

Detailed findings 25

Overall performance 26

Customer service 29

Communication 37

Council direction 42

Individual service areas 46

Community consultation and engagement 47

Lobbying on behalf of the community 51

Decisions made in the interest of the

community

55

Condition of sealed local roads 57

Informing the community 59

Traffic management 63

Parking facilities 65

Recreational facilities 67

Appearance of public areas 71

Waste management 75

Environmental sustainability 79

Detailed demographics 83

Appendix A: Index scores, margins of error

and significant differences

89

Appendix B: Further project information 94

7764

7361

8573

-13 -12 -12

80

79

73

Boroondara 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

Environmental

sustainability

Consultation &

engagement

Waste

managementOverall Council performance

Results shown are index scores out of 100.

71 67 60

Boroondara Metropolitan State-wide

Appearance of public areas

Recreational facilities

Waste management

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 71 for

Boroondara City Council is on par with the 2018 result

(72). Overall performance has remained relatively

consistent over the years. Council’s current overall

performance rating is only three points off of its peak

rating (index score of 74) achieved in 2014.

Although Council’s overall performance rating is largely

unchanged from 2018, Boroondara City 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

Metropolitan group (index scores of 60 and 67

respectively).

• Women tend to view Council performance more

favourably than their male counterparts (index

scores of 74 and 67 respectively).

Seven in ten residents rate Boroondara City Council’s

overall performance as ‘very good’ or ‘good’ (69%),

compared to only 5% who rate it as ‘very poor’ or

‘poor’. A further 25% sit mid-scale, rating Council’s

overall performance as ‘average’.

Overall performance

7


71 67 60

Boroondara Metropolitan State-wide

Overall Council performance

Results shown are index scores out of 100.

Contact with council

Upwards of two-thirds (68%) of Boroondara City

Council residents have had contact with Council in the

last 12 months. This is not significantly different to 2018

(65%) and remains lower than peak levels experienced

in 2014 (74%).

• Residents aged 35 to 49 years had the most contact

with council (77%) and rate customer service highly

(index score of 78).

• Residents aged 18 to 34 years had the least contact

with Council (54%), and significantly less contact

than the Council average.

Residents are most likely to have contacted Council by

telephone (35%) or email (27%). Telephone contact

rates have declined steadily since 2014 (48%) despite

remaining residents’ primary method of contact.

Newsletters sent via email (37%) and mail (35%)

remain the preferred methods for Council to inform

residents about news, information and upcoming

events. Residents prefer newsletters to other methods

of communication regardless of age, though residents

aged 50 years or older have a slight preference for

newsletters sent via mail than email (four points higher

for mail) while residents under 50 years of age prefer

the reverse (six points higher for email).

Customer service

Boroondara City Council’s customer service index of 77

is in line with the 2018 result. Council’s customer

service rating has remained steady (and strong) since

2012. Performance on this measure is rated

significantly higher than the State-wide average for

councils (index score of 71) and in line with the

Metropolitan group average (index score of 76).

Two in five residents (42%) rate Council’s customer

service as ‘very good’, a five-point increase from 2018.

Another one-third (35%) Council’s customer service as

‘good’. Only 8% rate it as ‘poor’ or ‘very poor’.

• Perceptions of customer service among residents in

the South (index score of 80) are significantly higher

compared to 2018 (index score of 70).

Customer service ratings based on the method used in

the most recent contact are highest for in-person (index

score of 83), telephone (index score of 80), and

website contacts (index score of 80). Notably, the rating

among those who corresponded via email (index score

of 73) increased significantly in the past year (index

score of 59 in 2018) and is back in line with pre-2018

ratings. Conversely, the customer service rating among

those who contacted Council in writing decreased

significantly (by 13 index points).

Customer contact and service

8


Top performing areas

Boroondara did not experience any significant

increases in performance ratings in the past year.

Rather, performance ratings across measures have

remained steady (and largely positive) since 2018,

having declined in only one area – waste management.

Notwithstanding this decline, waste management still

constitutes a top rated service area.

The top three performing service areas for Boroondara

City Council are:

• Appearance of public areas (index score of 80)

• Recreational facilities (index score of 79)

• Waste management (index score of 73).

In keeping with this, 28% of residents volunteer ‘parks

and gardens’ as one of the best thing about

Boroondara. Another 15% volunteer ‘recreational and

sporting facilities’ and 14% ‘community facilities’ more

broadly.

Notably, Council performance ratings for the

appearance of public areas and recreational facilities

are significantly higher than the average ratings for

councils State-wide and in the Metropolitan group.

Council performance ratings also significantly exceed

the Metropolitan group average for consultation and

engagement (index scores of 61 and 58 respectively).

Areas for improvement

The most (and only) significant decline in 2019 was a

four point drop on the measure of waste management

(index score of 73). Council’s performance has dropped

eight index points on this measure since 2017. Despite

this, Council’s performance rating is significantly higher

than the State-wide average for councils and in line

with the Metropolitan group average (index scores of

68 and 73 respectively).

• Perceptions declined between one and six index

points at the sub-group level with the largest decline

occurring among residents aged 50 to 64 years

(down six index points).

• One in ten residents (12%) volunteer ‘waste

management’ as the area most in need of

improvement (followed closely at 11% each by ‘traffic

management’, ‘environmental issues’, and

‘communication’).

‘Lobbying’ also stands out as in need of attention. With

a performance index score of 58, Council rates lowest

in this area. In general, Council tends to perform lower

in areas related to public engagement and the political

process: informing the community (index score of 63),

community decisions (index score of 62), consultation

and engagement (index score of 61), and lobbying

(index score of 58).

Top performing areas and areas for improvement

9


Perceptions of Council stayed steady and

performance ratings are in line with 2018 results

across almost all service areas. Moreover,

Council’s performance ratings significantly exceed

(but never fall behind) State-wide and Metropolitan

group averages in a number of areas. These are

positive results for Council.

In the year ahead, Council should focus attention on

service areas where current performance levels are low

or are lower than in 2018. Areas that stand out as being

most in need of Council attention are lobbying (index

score of 58), consultation and engagement (index

score of 61), and waste management (index score of

73), the latter having experienced a four point rating

decline in the past year despite remaining a top rated

service area.

In addition, it is also important to prioritize areas, like

environmental sustainability, where perceived

importance exceeds performance by more than 10

points:

• Environmental sustainability (margin of 13 points)

• Consultation and engagement (margin of 12 points)

• Waste management (margin of 12 points).

More generally, consideration should also be given to

residents aged 50 to 64 years, who appear to be

driving lower ratings in a number of areas in 2019.

• 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 residents of the

North region, and use these lessons to build on

performance experience and perceptions.

Focus areas for coming 12 months

10


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


11

Summary of

findings

12

Summary of core measures

13

Index scores


7574

7677

7576

7577

75

74

73

71

7371

68

7274

7372

7172

71

66

6263

6263

60 6261

6362

6160

60

62

6162

61

59

5658

5758

5554

5654 54

51

5455

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 MeasuresBoroondara

2019

Boroondara

2018

Metro

2019

State-wide

2019

Highest

score

Lowest

score

Overall Performance 71 72 67 60 Women

Aged 50-

64 years,

Men

Community Consultation

(Community consultation and

engagement)

61 62 58 56

Aged 18-

34 years,

North

Aged 50-

64 years

Advocacy

(Lobbying on behalf of the community)58 57 57 54

Aged 18-

34 years,

North

Aged 50-

64 years

Making Community Decisions

(Decisions made in the interest of the

community)

62 60 60 55Aged 18-

34 years

Aged 50-

64 years,

South

Sealed Local Roads

(Condition of sealed local roads)71 73 69 56 South

Aged 50-

64 years

Customer Service 77 75 76 71 South Central

Overall Council Direction 55 54 55 53Aged 18-

34 years

Aged 50-

64 years,

Men


14

Summary of key community satisfaction

15

Key measures summary results (%)


20

11

6

9

30

42

49

31

25

34

36

35

25

36

34

29

22

15

3

10

9

9

7

5

2

3

2

2

3

3

9

25

17

1

1

Overall Performance


Advocacy

Making Community Decisions

Sealed Local Roads

Customer Service

Very good Good Average Poor Very poor Can't say

18 67 8 7Overall Council Direction

Improved Stayed the same Deteriorated Can't say

77

73

85

Environmental sustainability

Consultation & engagement

Waste management

64

61

73

Individual service areas importance vs performance

16Net 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:

-13

-12

-12

85

77

75

74

74

73

72

72

65

Waste management




Traffic management


Parking facilities

Informing the community

Lobbying

Individual service area importance

2019 individual service area importance (index scores)

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012


17Q1. Firstly, how important should [RESPONSIBILITY AREA] be as a responsibility for Council?

Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 31 Councils asked group: 10

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

83

76

75

75

77

71

73

71

65

83

74

75

75

75

73

74

72

66

85

74

76

74

75

73

74

72

68

80

71

72

72

71

72

69

71

65

83

73

72

72

73

71

69

69

65

83

73

74

74

74

71

72

71

67

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 (%)

50

37

27

25

31

27

26

26

20

40

40

47

49

42

43

42

42

35

8

16

23

22

19

24

27

26

30

1

5

1

3

7

5

4

4

10

2

1

1

2

1

3

1

2

Waste management




Traffic management



Parking facilities

Lobbying

Extremely important Very important Fairly important

Not that important Not at all important Can't say


18Q1. Firstly, how important should [RESPONSIBILITY AREA] be as a responsibility for Council?


Individual service area performance

2019 individual service area performance (index scores)


19

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

78

78

77

73

65

65

60

62

57

78

80

81

71

66

65

60

60

58

80

78

81

73

66

68

61

63

56

79

79

80

74

67

65

62

62

59

81

80

80

75

68

68

63

63

61

79

79

76

n/a

67

66

n/a

62

62

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

66

61

80

79

73

71

64

63

62

61

58



Waste management

Sealed local roads



Community decisions


Lobbying

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



Individual service area performance

20

2019 individual service area performance (%)


38

36

31

30

16

13

9

11

6

46

44

38

36

35

33

34

31

25

14

15

19

22

31

29

29

36

34

1

2

5

7

11

7

9

10

9

3

3

3

3

2

3

2

3

5

1

4

14

17

9

25



Waste management

Sealed local roads



Community decisions


Lobbying


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


21

• Consultation & engagement

• Lobbying

• Informing the community

• Recreational facilities

• Appearance of public areas

• Waste management

• Making community decisions

• Sealed local roads

• Not applicable

Individual service area performance vs State-wide average

Individual service area performance vs group average

22


Significantly Higher than

Group Average

Significantly Lower than

Group Average

• Consultation & engagement

• Recreational facilities

• Appearance of public areas

• Not applicable

25

14

16

8

7

7

9

4

2

3

7

27

14

12

9

7

8

3

2

3

3

4

22

22

8

10

6

9

5

2

2

2

6

29

17

19

5

n/a

8

n/a

3

3

2

4

30

18

18

8

n/a

11

n/a

4

4

1

6

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

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

23

2019 best things about Council (%)- Top mentions only -


28

15

14

8

8

7

6

4

4

4

4

Parks and Gardens

Recreational/Sporting Facilities

Community Facilities

Waste Management

Customer Service

Public Areas

Generally Good - Overall/No Complaints

Community Support Services

Environmental

Local Law Enforcement

Road/Street Maintenance

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q16. Please tell me what is the ONE BEST thing about Boroondara 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.

A verbatim listing of responses to this question can be found in the accompanying dashboard.

8

10

6

7

8

12

7

6

4

9

6

10

5

10

7

12

5

5

3

13

6

9

5

9

9

16

6

6

1

11

5

8

6

8

7

12

8

4

3

14

7

7

4

13

7

9

6

4

2

19

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

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

24

2019 areas for improvement (%)- Top mentions only -


12

11

11

11

8

7

5

4

4

8

Waste Management

Traffic Management

Environmental Issues

Communication

Parking Availability

Development - Inappropriate/OverDevelopment


Sealed Road Maintenance

Footpaths/Walking Tracks

Nothing

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

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


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

A verbatim listing of responses to this question can be found in the accompanying dashboard.

DETAILED

FINDINGS

25

Overall

performance

26

73

72

71

74

74

72

72

72

71

65

66

59

74

70

71

72

72

71

73

71

69

64

70

59

71

71

71

69

77

72

71

72

72

66

66

59

74

73

76

70

73

73

74

72

73

67

73

60

76

n/a

75

75

74

74

n/a

n/a

72

n/a

71

61

74

n/a

72

70

75

72

n/a

n/a

70

n/a

70

60

68

n/a

68

67

71

68

n/a

n/a

68

n/a

63

60

Overall performance

2019 overall performance (index scores)

74

72

72

71

71

71

70

70

67

67q

67

60q

Women

North

65+

35-49

18-34

Boroondara

South

Central

Men

Metro

50-64

State-wide


27

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

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



Overall performance

28

Overall performance (%)


20

19

20

19

20

22

20

8

10

14

21

19

21

16

24

17

26

14

24

49

55

51

54

56

56

52

57

39

48

54

49

43

50

48

58

39

49

47

25

21

22

21

20

18

21

28

35

29

21

25

29

24

25

23

30

28

21

3

4

5

3

3

3

4

3

10

6

3

5

2

5

2

4

6

5

2

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

5

2

1

2

2

4

3

1

3

1

1

1

1

2

3

1

1

1

2

2019 Boroondara

2018 Boroondara

2017 Boroondara

2016 Boroondara

2015 Boroondara

2014 Boroondara

2013 Boroondara

2012 Boroondara

State-wide

Metro

North

Central

South

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 Boroondara 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

29


2019 contact with council (%)

Have had contact

56

69

74

69

6462

6568

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019


30Q5a. Have you or any member of your household had any recent contact with Boroondara City Council in any of the following ways?


77

70

63

79

65

68

65

65

63

67

64

44

73

68

59

72

58

66

62

65

58

61

57

43

73

64

59

70

62

68

64

65

58

65

58

52

83

70

70

74

65

79

69

73

60

56

60

55

82

67

n/a

83

73

n/a

74

74

61

n/a

n/a

64

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

60

n/a

n/a

n/a

69

59

n/a

68

49

n/a

56

62

61

n/a

n/a

36


2019 contact with council (%)

77

75

73

73

71

70

68

66

63q

63

62q

54q

35-49

65+

North

50-64

Men

South

Boroondara

Women

State-wide

Central

Metro

18-34


31

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

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



Some data may be missing from 2013 due to a change in demographic analysis..

70

76

79

73

76

75

79

72

71

75

79

70

78

75

77

76

79

76

74

71

74

72

75

69

76

74

76

65

80

75

71

73

73

80

77

69

79

82

78

72

80

77

77

73

76

76

72

70

n/a

76

80

77

82

76

n/a

n/a

72

72

n/a

72

n/a

72

76

70

78

74

n/a

n/a

72

76

n/a

71

n/a

75

77

75

81

75

n/a

n/a

73

72

n/a

71

Customer service rating

32

2019 customer service rating (index scores)


80

79

79

78

78

77

77

76

75

75

74

71q

South

50-64

Women

35-49

65+

Boroondara

North

Metro

Men

18-34

Central

State-wide

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q5c. Thinking of the most recent contact, how would you rate Boroondara 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: 14


Customer service rating

33

Customer service rating (%)


42

37

37

34

41

38

33

32

33

39

37

41

49

40

43

37

42

43

46

35

34

36

39

38

38

39

45

36

35

43

27

33

32

37

34

36

35

33

15

15

17

14

10

16

15

18

17

15

13

20

11

20

9

25

11

14

10

5

6

4

5

6

4

6

3

7

5

5

7

4

3

7

3

8

4

6

3

4

3

4

4

3

4

2

6

4

2

3

3

4

1

2

2

2

4

1

4

3

4

1

2

3

1

1

2

1

1

1

2

2

2

1

2019 Boroondara

2018 Boroondara

2017 Boroondara

2016 Boroondara

2015 Boroondara

2014 Boroondara

2013 Boroondara

2012 Boroondara

State-wide

Metro

North

Central

South

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+






Method of contact with council

2019 method of contact (%)

39

48

42

35 35

39

35

2325 25

1719

18

2120

25

21

24

21

2527

2322 21

19

12

21

1719

23

1615

14

18 18

2 23

2 24 4

1 12 2 2 2

3

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019


34

By EmailBy Text

Message

By Social

Media

In Writing Via WebsiteIn Person By Telephone

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


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

93

78

79

79

59

79

58

100

78

77

82

71

62

78

50

81

72

81

76

68

65

n/a

78

78

82

78

70

63

n/a

80

80

78

69

71

75

75

73

75

79

72

72

79

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

Customer service rating by method of last contact

2019 customer service rating (index score by method of last contact)

87*

83

80

80

73

66

60*

By text message

In person

By telephone

Via website

By email

In writing

By social media

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012


35






*Caution: small sample size < n=30

Customer service rating by method of last contact

2019 customer service rating (% by method of last contact)

69

62

46

40

34

19

12

10

20

37

37

38

42

27

22

5

11

14

17

27

49

10

2

3

7

8

12

1

3

4

4

1

5

1

By text message*

In person

By telephone

Via website

By email

In writing

By social media*



36





*Caution: small sample size < n=30

Communication

37

Communication summary

Overall preferred forms of

communication• Newsletter sent via email (37%)

Preferred forms of communication

among over 50s• Newsletter sent via mail (41%)

Preferred forms of communication

among under 50s• Newsletter sent via email (37%)

Greatest change since

2018


38

• Council newsletter insert in local paper (-5)

• Note: Social Media was added for 2019.

Best form of communication

2019 best form of communication (%)

48

45

42 42

33 33 35

24

2931

36 3739

37

11

8

11

57

4 4

1113

11

7 8 8

33 2 2 3

7

9

5

2 2 2 3 4 4

3

11

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019


39Q13. If Boroondara City Council was going to get in touch with you to inform you about Council news and information and upcoming events,

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


Council

Website

Text

MessageCouncil

Newsletter as

Local Paper Insert

Council

Newsletter

via Mail

Council

Newsletter

via Email

Advertising in

a Local

Newspaper

Social

Media

Best form of communication: under 50s

2019 under 50s best form of communication (%)

46

42

37

43

2928

31

25

32

3637

39 3937

11

7

11

35

31

12 1210

5

87

24

32

4

10

14

6

23

24

5 54

18

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019




Base: All respondents aged under 50. Councils asked state-wide: 31 Councils asked group: 6

Council

Website

Text

MessageCouncil

Newsletter as

Local Paper Insert

Council

Newsletter

via Mail

Council

Newsletter

via Email

Advertising in

a Local

Newspaper

Social

Media

2019 best form of communication: over 50s

2019 over 50s best form of communication (%)

52

4847

41

3840

41

21

24 24

3436

3837

11 1112

6

10

57

10

1312

108

9

5

1 1 12 2

322

12

3 3 321

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019




Base: All respondents aged over 50. Councils asked state-wide: 31 Councils asked group: 6

Council

Website

Text

MessageCouncil

Newsletter as

Local Paper Insert

Council

Newsletter

via Mail

Council

Newsletter

via Email

Advertising in

a Local

Newspaper

Social

Media

Council direction

42

Council direction summary


43

• Aged 50-64 years

• Men

Least satisfied with Council

direction

Council direction• 67% stayed about the same, down 3 points on 2018

• 18% improved, up 2 points on 2018

• 8% deteriorated, equal points on 2018

Most satisfied with Council

direction• Aged 18-34 years

Overall council direction last 12 months

44

2019 overall direction (index scores)


59

56

55

54

54

54

52

54

55

52

52

50

51

52

53

50

54

51

51

50

51

53

50

52

58

54

55

53

55

54

56

54

53

51

55

48

58

55

52

56

56

54

57

56

47

53

54

54

58

56

n/a

n/a

n/a

56

59

n/a

54

53

56

51

56

54

n/a

n/a

n/a

54

56

n/a

49

53

53

54

62

56

n/a

n/a

n/a

55

54

n/a

52

52

54

50

61p

58

57

55

55

55

53

53

53

53

52

52

18-34

Women

North

Central

Metro

Boroondara

65+

South

35-49

State-wide

Men

50-64

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

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



Overall council direction last 12 months

2019 overall council direction (%)

18

16

11

14

16

17

15

15

19

19

18

20

14

15

20

25

13

15

14

67

70

74

71

69

71

70

73

62

66

71

58

73

66

68

58

76

68

70

8

8

9

6

8

6

8

5

14

9

4

11

8

12

4

6

7

12

8

7

6

6

9

7

5

6

7

5

7

6

11

4

7

7

11

3

6

7

2019 Boroondara

2018 Boroondara

2017 Boroondara

2016 Boroondara

2015 Boroondara

2014 Boroondara

2013 Boroondara

2012 Boroondara

State-wide

Metro

North

Central

South

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+

Improved Stayed the same Deteriorated Can't say


45Q6. Over the last 12 months, what is your view of the direction of Boroondara City Council’s overall performance?


Individual

service areas

46

Community consultation and engagement importance

47

2019 Consultation and engagement importance (index scores)


72

77

78

74

75

74

68

76

74

71

75

72

68

63

77

77

75

76

74

74

74

75

73

73

73

72

71

69

78

75

76

75

74

75

73

74

73

73

72

73

70

67

75

79

78

73

74

74

74

72

69

72

72

72

70

68

77

74

75

73

72

74

n/a

70

n/a

71

n/a

n/a

68

67

77

74

75

73

70

73

n/a

72

n/a

71

n/a

n/a

69

67

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

79p

78p

78p

76

74

74

73

73

73

73

72

71

69q

68q

50-64

Household user

Personal user

Women

35-49

State-wide

South

65+

Central

Boroondara

North

Metro

Men

18-34

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

48

2019 Consultation and engagement importance (%)


27

22

27

27

25

23

23

29

25

27

26

28

20

34

20

31

35

27

37

37

43

44

46

42

41

43

43

41

42

41

44

43

44

41

40

38

48

46

41

41

24

27

22

26

29

27

30

24

26

24

24

23

27

20

30

27

15

19

18

19

5

5

5

3

4

5

3

4

5

7

5

4

7

4

9

3

1

6

3

3

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

2019 Boroondara

2018 Boroondara

2017 Boroondara

2016 Boroondara

2015 Boroondara

2014 Boroondara

2013 Boroondara

State-wide

Metro

North

Central

South

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+

Personal user

Household user



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


Community consultation and engagement performance

49

2019 Consultation and engagement performance (index scores)


70

70

62

64

63

63

65

61

62

60

57

60

55

59

65

66

58

59

61

61

60

62

60

59

57

60

55

61

66

66

64

62

65

66

62

65

63

62

58

63

54

63

67

66

59

64

63

60

61

68

62

62

58

62

56

62

68

66

63

n/a

66

n/a

62

67

63

60

n/a

n/a

57

62

66

64

62

n/a

64

n/a

58

63

62

59

n/a

n/a

57

64

n/a

n/a

67

n/a

67

n/a

65

71

66

66

n/a

n/a

57

61

69p

68p

63

63

62

62

61

61

61

59

58q

57

56q

55

Personal user

Household user

18-34

North

Women

Central

35-49

65+

Boroondara

Men

Metro

South

State-wide

50-64

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

50

2019 Consultation and engagement performance (%)


11

11

8

13

12

13

11

11

9

9

13

13

8

7

15

13

13

7

11

26

22

31

33

36

37

33

35

34

44

30

31

31

31

30

33

29

33

29

28

32

34

35

36

36

33

26

35

29

32

28

31

32

37

34

38

38

35

37

38

37

34

31

34

10

8

11

10

8

9

9

5

15

12

7

10

13

11

8

6

14

15

8

6

5

3

3

2

3

2

2

3

1

6

4

3

2

3

2

3

3

5

4

2

2

9

10

9

12

10

11

11

10

9

12

9

11

7

9

10

9

6

8

12

1

1

2019 Boroondara

2018 Boroondara

2017 Boroondara

2016 Boroondara

2015 Boroondara

2014 Boroondara

2013 Boroondara

2012 Boroondara

State-wide

Metro

North

Central

South

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+

Personal user

Household user


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


Lobbying on behalf of the community importance

51

2019 Lobbying importance (index scores)


71

71

68

63

68

63

66

64

67

65

70

62

63

67

73

73

69

69

70

68

67

68

65

66

67

63

62

63

79

82

69

66

72

73

68

67

69

68

67

72

64

67

77

77

69

68

68

66

67

68

68

65

65

61

61

59

78

81

70

67

70

67

n/a

n/a

65

65

n/a

n/a

61

63

75

78

70

64

71

69

n/a

n/a

69

67

n/a

n/a

63

68

n/a

n/a

70

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

71

70

67

66

66

66

65

65

65

65

65

64

63

62

Household user

Personal user

State-wide

35-49

Women

50-64

Metro

South

65+

Boroondara

North

Central

Men

18-34

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

52

2019 Lobbying importance (%)


20

19

19

25

17

17

20

21

18

16

22

21

20

19

16

25

25

15

31

29

35

37

36

36

37

37

38

38

37

39

31

35

32

37

32

32

35

41

36

39

30

30

33

26

32

33

31

28

30

29

32

31

28

33

38

28

25

27

22

23

10

9

7

7

9

9

8

8

9

11

10

10

15

6

11

7

11

10

6

5

3

3

2

3

2

1

1

2

3

2

4

4

4

3

2

5

5

2

5

4

2

2

2

2

2

3

1

2

3

3

1

1

2

1

5

2019 Boroondara

2018 Boroondara

2017 Boroondara

2016 Boroondara

2015 Boroondara

2014 Boroondara

2013 Boroondara

State-wide

Metro

North

Central

South

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+

Personal user

Household user



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


Lobbying on behalf of the community performance

53

2019 Lobbying performance (index scores)


54

56

55

59

57

57

57

56

56

59

57

56

54

51

56

58

55

63

54

59

58

57

56

60

59

60

54

51

60

59

55

60

56

57

56

56

56

57

56

58

53

52

63

66

60

58

61

59

59

59

58

56

59

61

55

59

56

56

n/a

65

63

62

61

60

n/a

n/a

60

n/a

56

54

65

68

n/a

62

64

64

62

59

n/a

n/a

61

n/a

55

60

n/a

n/a

n/a

65

65

61

61

61

n/a

n/a

58

n/a

55

52

68p

66p

60

60

59

58

58

58

57

57

57

56

54q

54

Personal user

Household user

North

18-34

65+

Women

Boroondara

Men

Metro

Central

35-49

South

State-wide

50-64

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

54

2019 Lobbying performance (%)


6

5

5

5

7

6

7

3

6

6

7

6

5

6

6

4

7

5

7

20

17

25

22

25

23

22

27

29

35

25

25

31

23

20

26

24

34

22

18

20

39

38

34

34

33

30

31

26

27

33

31

30

33

30

38

33

34

34

32

38

32

22

25

9

9

7

9

7

6

6

4

13

10

5

12

10

11

8

8

12

8

8

4

6

2

2

3

3

2

2

2

2

5

3

3

1

2

2

1

2

4

1

5

4

25

29

28

31

31

34

30

24

20

27

21

27

27

23

27

19

24

26

31

10

9

2019 Boroondara

2018 Boroondara

2017 Boroondara

2016 Boroondara

2015 Boroondara

2014 Boroondara

2013 Boroondara

2012 Boroondara

State-wide

Metro

North

Central

South

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+

Personal user

Household user


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

performance

55

2019 Community decisions made performance (index scores)


66

59

59

60

60

58

62

59

58

63

57

54

61

58

61

62

60

61

59

61

58

61

56

54

64

59

61

60

61

59

61

63

59

64

55

54

63

63

61

58

62

65

63

59

59

64

59

55

64

n/a

63

n/a

63

64

63

65

n/a

n/a

59

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

65

64

62

62

62

61

61

60

60

58

58

55q

18-34

North

Women

Central

Boroondara

65+

Men

35-49

Metro

South

50-64

State-wide

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?



Decisions made in the interest of the community

performance

56

2019 Community decisions made performance (%)


9

6

6

9

7

10

7

9

11

9

7

9

9

12

4

8

11

34

35

37

32

36

33

30

33

36

33

33

36

32

37

37

30

29

29

36

32

31

34

28

33

30

33

25

28

26

31

22

30

36

31

9

6

9

8

7

8

14

9

4

12

11

9

9

8

9

12

9

2

3

3

2

2

1

7

4

2

1

5

4

1

3

1

3

3

17

14

14

17

14

19

10

14

14

20

16

16

17

18

18

12

18

2019 Boroondara

2018 Boroondara

2017 Boroondara

2016 Boroondara

2015 Boroondara

2014 Boroondara

State-wide

Metro

North

Central

South

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

performance

57

2019 Sealed local roads performance (index scores)


73

70

74

71

76

73

74

73

68

72

68

53

73

70

74

71

68

71

70

65

66

72

71

53

76

71

72

74

75

73

72

70

67

72

73

54

74

74

69

73

78

74

75

73

69

76

75

55

n/a

74

77

76

77

75

75

n/a

n/a

n/a

72

55

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

74

72

72

72

71

71

70

70

69

69

68

56q

South

65+

35-49

Women

18-34

Boroondara

Men

Central

Metro

North

50-64

State-wide

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?



The condition of sealed local roads in your area

performance

58

2019 Sealed local roads performance (%)


30

27

23

27

31

34

13

23

29

26

35

30

30

28

33

32

28

36

46

46

45

44

40

33

43

34

39

35

37

36

40

35

28

39

22

20

20

22

17

18

28

22

20

23

23

21

23

21

20

24

24

7

5

7

4

7

5

16

8

9

8

4

8

6

7

9

10

5

3

2

2

2

1

1

10

3

5

2

2

3

3

3

3

6

2

1

1

2

1

2

1

1

2

2

1

2

1

1

1

2

2019 Boroondara

2018 Boroondara

2017 Boroondara

2016 Boroondara

2015 Boroondara

2014 Boroondara

State-wide

Metro

North

Central

South

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)


75

75

72

75

71

73

73

73

69

71

67

73

71

68

75

74

74

76

74

72

76

73

70

72

71

74

69

69

75

76

72

74

72

71

76

74

72

72

72

72

68

68

73

75

73

76

73

73

74

73

67

71

69

72

67

69

72

75

71

72

71

n/a

75

n/a

n/a

69

64

n/a

66

65

74

75

74

73

74

n/a

73

n/a

n/a

71

71

n/a

70

69

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

n/a

76p

75p

74

74

74

73

73

73

72

72

71

71

70

67q

Women

State-wide

Personal user

65+

Household user

South

50-64

Metro

Central

Boroondara

35-49

North

18-34

Men

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 (%)


26

22

25

26

21

22

22

32

28

23

29

27

20

32

27

27

23

26

30

29

42

45

46

42

49

40

47

41

41

45

37

44

37

46

33

39

52

49

42

42

27

27

23

27

24

30

24

22

25

27

28

25

35

19

32

30

19

21

24

25

4

4

6

3

6

7

5

4

5

4

4

3

6

2

7

2

4

2

3

3

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

2

2

1

1

2

2

2

1

1

1

1

1

2019 Boroondara

2018 Boroondara

2017 Boroondara

2016 Boroondara

2015 Boroondara

2014 Boroondara

2013 Boroondara

State-wide

Metro

North

Central

South

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+

Personal user

Household user



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)


67

67

66

66

64

66

65

61

69

63

62

63

65

59

69

68

63

66

66

65

65

61

68

64

64

64

65

59

70

71

68

69

69

70

68

63

68

65

67

66

66

59

69

69

68

66

73

61

65

64

63

65

65

64

64

61

73

73

n/a

71

70

68

68

n/a

n/a

65

n/a

66

71

62

69

69

n/a

66

70

65

66

n/a

n/a

67

n/a

65

62

61

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

60

68p

67p

67

66

65

65

63

62

62

61

61

61

60

60q

Household user

Personal user

North

Women

65+

18-34

Boroondara

Metro

Central

50-64

South

Men

35-49

State-wide

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 (%)


16

13

13

17

15

21

18

13

15

19

17

12

12

20

20

12

11

18

20

21

35

40

41

45

41

40

38

35

36

39

31

37

35

35

37

32

36

36

38

37

31

33

33

27

34

27

31

31

31

28

31

35

32

30

24

36

35

33

34

34

11

7

8

6

6

6

8

14

12

8

14

11

12

9

12

14

6

10

7

6

3

2

1

2

2

3

2

5

3

2

3

4

3

2

4

2

5

1

1

1

4

4

4

3

2

3

3

3

4

5

4

2

4

4

4

4

5

3

2

2

2019 Boroondara

2018 Boroondara

2017 Boroondara

2016 Boroondara

2015 Boroondara

2014 Boroondara

2013 Boroondara

State-wide

Metro

North

Central

South

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+

Personal user

Household user


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


Traffic management importance

63

2019 Traffic management importance (index scores)


79

77

78

76

77

76

75

77

74

79

77

74

79

76

78

76

73

74

73

75

72

80

75

71

77

77

78

75

78

69

77

75

72

80

72

74

75

79

76

74

70

72

71

71

71

71

63

66

75

78

75

n/a

n/a

n/a

72

73

70

n/a

68

69

76

75

78

n/a

n/a

n/a

75

74

72

n/a

69

71

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

73

n/a

n/a

n/a

78p

77

75

75

75

74

74

74

73

72

71

69q

Women

50-64

65+

Metro

North

South

35-49

Boroondara

State-wide

Central

18-34

Men

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

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



Traffic management importance

64

2019 Traffic management importance (%)


31

34

29

31

26

27

28

30

31

31

29

34

25

37

28

31

36

32

42

43

50

45

40

42

47

40

42

44

40

41

40

43

37

47

40

44

19

20

16

19

27

23

19

23

20

18

23

14

24

14

27

11

18

15

7

2

4

5

6

6

5

6

5

5

6

11

10

4

7

10

4

7

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2019 Boroondara

2018 Boroondara

2017 Boroondara

2016 Boroondara

2015 Boroondara

2014 Boroondara

2013 Boroondara

State-wide

Metro

North

Central

South

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+



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


Parking facilities importance

65

2019 Parking importance (index scores)


75

75

69

71

75

73

73

75

71

74

75

72

78

78

72

74

74

73

74

77

70

74

70

69

77

76

72

75

70

72

74

76

70

77

72

70

74

77

67

68

71

72

69

75

70

69

61

64

72

75

63

n/a

n/a

n/a

69

75

70

n/a

66

66

76

78

70

n/a

n/a

n/a

72

75

71

n/a

67

68

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

71

n/a

n/a

n/a

77p

76

74

74

73

73

72

72

71

71

69

67q

Women

65+

35-49

North

South

Metro

Boroondara

50-64

State-wide

Central

18-34

Men

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

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



Parking facilities importance

66

2019 Parking importance (%)


26

26

26

30

23

22

23

26

28

28

21

31

20

33

18

32

26

32

42

46

45

42

39

42

47

40

41

41

48

35

38

45

42

39

42

43

26

22

26

23

32

27

25

26

24

27

24

26

35

17

34

20

27

20

4

4

2

5

5

8

3

6

5

3

4

6

6

3

5

6

4

3

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

2

1

1

1

2019 Boroondara

2018 Boroondara

2017 Boroondara

2016 Boroondara

2015 Boroondara

2014 Boroondara

2013 Boroondara

State-wide

Metro

North

Central

South

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+



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


Recreational facilities importance

67

2019 Recreational facilities importance (index scores)


76

75

76

76

76

75

77

74

75

74

73

73

72

75

75

76

77

77

77

76

75

76

75

72

73

72

73

74

74

74

75

75

75

77

74

74

74

72

73

73

73

72

76

72

73

73

72

74

71

73

72

71

72

72

72

67

72

n/a

74

74

74

78

n/a

72

72

70

n/a

72

n/a

69

74

n/a

74

74

75

76

n/a

72

74

72

n/a

72

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

80p

78p

76

76

75

75

75

74

74

72

72

72q

70q

69q

35-49

South

Personal user

Household user

Women

50-64

North

65+

Boroondara

Men

Metro

State-wide

Central

18-34

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

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



Recreational facilities importance

68

2019 Recreational facilities importance (%)


25

25

26

26

19

19

24

23

22

26

19

31

21

29

17

40

22

23

28

28

49

53

50

48

53

55

50

46

49

50

47

52

53

46

46

42

58

55

51

50

22

20

22

22

26

23

23

26

26

22

28

15

21

23

31

17

17

19

19

19

3

2

2

4

3

3

2

4

3

2

5

2

5

1

6

2

2

2

2

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2019 Boroondara

2018 Boroondara

2017 Boroondara

2016 Boroondara

2015 Boroondara

2014 Boroondara

2013 Boroondara

State-wide

Metro

North

Central

South

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+

Personal user

Household user



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


Recreational facilities performance

69

2019 Recreational facilities performance (index scores)


79

79

80

80

80

78

79

77

78

75

76

77

74

69

81

80

81

82

81

80

81

77

80

79

77

82

73

70

76

81

78

79

79

79

77

80

78

78

77

77

73

69

82

80

78

81

80

82

81

77

79

81

77

78

74

70

80

n/a

81

82

82

80

n/a

78

80

79

n/a

82

n/a

71

80

n/a

79

80

79

78

n/a

78

79

78

n/a

79

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

n/a

n/a

70

82

81

81

81

81

81

80

80

79

77

77

76

75q

70q

50-64

South

Women

Personal user

Household user

65+

North

18-34

Boroondara

Men

Central

35-49

Metro

State-wide

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

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



Recreational facilities performance

70

2019 Recreational facilities performance (%)


36

33

34

33

35

37

32

23

27

40

31

39

32

41

39

32

40

35

43

43

44

45

48

47

46

45

47

44

46

42

42

47

46

41

38

44

46

48

40

40

15

16

12

15

13

12

15

21

18

13

20

12

16

14

17

20

12

11

15

15

2

3

2

2

2

1

1

6

4

3

2

1

3

2

3

1

2

1

1

2

1

3

3

4

3

3

4

5

4

4

2

5

2

3

3

4

1

6

1

1

2019 Boroondara

2018 Boroondara

2017 Boroondara

2016 Boroondara

2015 Boroondara

2014 Boroondara

2013 Boroondara

State-wide

Metro

North

Central

South

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+

Personal user

Household user


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


The appearance of public areas importance

71

2019 Public areas importance (index scores)


77

74

77

77

77

76

75

75

77

74

74

75

73

73

74

76

79

77

78

75

75

75

74

75

74

75

71

72

76

74

77

79

77

76

76

76

75

74

74

78

75

73

74

74

72

76

76

72

72

72

71

73

73

70

72

65

75

n/a

75

77

74

73

72

72

n/a

n/a

73

n/a

69

65

74

n/a

76

78

76

74

73

74

n/a

n/a

74

n/a

73

71

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

79

78

77

77

75

75

75

75

74

74

73q

73

73

71

35-49

South

Women

50-64

65+

Household user

Personal user

Boroondara

North

Metro

State-wide

Central

Men

18-34

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

72

2019 Public areas importance (%)


27

28

25

27

21

21

25

24

25

26

27

29

24

30

22

35

30

25

28

28

47

48

52

52

50

51

51

47

48

47

42

54

46

49

44

45

48

54

48

47

23

22

22

18

25

25

21

25

24

25

27

16

28

19

31

16

21

21

22

22

1

2

2

3

4

3

2

3

3

2

2

1

2

3

2

2

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2019 Boroondara

2018 Boroondara

2017 Boroondara

2016 Boroondara

2015 Boroondara

2014 Boroondara

2013 Boroondara

State-wide

Metro

North

Central

South

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+

Personal user

Household user



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


The appearance of public areas performance

73

2019 Public areas performance (index scores)


80

77

80

79

79

79

78

84

76

77

76

77

73

71

76

77

80

79

79

79

78

82

78

76

75

80

72

71

80

84

80

81

81

81

80

79

79

79

75

78

72

71

80

85

80

81

80

79

79

75

79

79

78

78

73

72

n/a

83

82

82

82

n/a

81

83

78

80

79

n/a

n/a

72

n/a

84

79

80

80

n/a

79

78

76

79

76

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

n/a

n/a

71

82

82

81

80

80

80

80

79

79

78

78

77

74q

72q

North

18-34

Women

Personal user

Household user

South

Boroondara

35-49

65+

Men

50-64

Central

Metro

State-wide

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

74

2019 Public areas performance (%)


38

34

34

38

37

41

35

26

28

42

30

42

34

41

39

37

38

36

40

40

46

48

48

46

46

43

49

45

46

48

50

38

48

43

48

46

42

44

45

45

14

14

15

13

14

12

13

20

19

9

17

16

15

13

12

14

17

15

14

14

1

3

2

2

2

2

1

5

5

1

2

2

1

2

3

1

2

2

2

1

1

2

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

2019 Boroondara

2018 Boroondara

2017 Boroondara

2016 Boroondara

2015 Boroondara

2014 Boroondara

2013 Boroondara

State-wide

Metro

North

Central

South

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+

Personal user

Household user


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


Waste management importance

75

2019 Waste management importance (index scores)


84

86

82

85

84

86

84

83

84

83

83

80

81

80

85

85

84

82

83

82

84

83

84

81

83

80

79

83

86

84

84

85

83

83

85

85

85

82

88

86

80

86

81

81

81

83

83

77

80

80

80

81

80

78

79

74

88

85

n/a

81

85

n/a

83

83

83

n/a

n/a

80

79

79

87

84

n/a

83

84

n/a

83

83

83

n/a

n/a

82

79

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

78

n/a

89p

88p

87

87

87

86

85

85

85

83q

83

82

81q

81q

50-64

Women

South

35-49

65+

North

Personal user

Boroondara

Household user

Metro

Central

Men

State-wide

18-34

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

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



Waste management importance

76

2019 Waste management importance (%)


50

44

43

49

37

42

44

41

46

50

43

59

43

57

39

59

59

51

50

50

40

46

46

42

47

47

45

44

43

44

45

32

42

39

47

32

38

43

41

41

8

8

10

7

15

9

9

13

10

4

10

9

13

3

12

8

4

4

8

9

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

2

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

2019 Boroondara

2018 Boroondara

2017 Boroondara

2016 Boroondara

2015 Boroondara

2014 Boroondara

2013 Boroondara

State-wide

Metro

North

Central

South

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+

Personal user

Household user



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


Waste management performance

77

2019 Waste management performance (index scores)


77

76

78

79

77

77

77

77

75

76

76

77

74

70

79

80

82

83

82

82

81

81

75

81

82

80

82

71

79

82

83

81

81

81

79

81

76

82

80

76

82

70

80

81

82

81

81

81

79

80

77

81

78

78

79

72

n/a

79

83

n/a

81

81

79

80

n/a

81

79

80

n/a

73

n/a

75

79

n/a

75

75

76

76

n/a

75

74

76

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

n/a

n/a

72

76

75

75

74

74

74

74

73

73

73

72

71

70

68q

North

18-34

65+

South

Household user

Personal user

Women

Boroondara

Metro

Men

35-49

50-64

Central

State-wide

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

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



Waste management performance

78

2019 Waste management performance (%)


31

35

39

39

40

41

33

23

28

37

24

33

35

27

29

33

26

36

32

32

38

43

46

47

45

40

44

42

44

32

40

42

34

42

42

33

44

32

39

39

19

14

11

9

11

15

15

21

18

23

18

15

19

19

19

19

18

20

18

18

5

6

2

3

3

2

6

8

5

3

8

4

5

5

3

10

4

4

5

5

3

1

1

1

1

1

4

2

2

3

4

4

2

2

2

6

3

3

3

5

2

1

1

1

1

1

2

2

3

7

3

3

6

6

3

3

5

2

3

2019 Boroondara

2018 Boroondara

2017 Boroondara

2016 Boroondara

2015 Boroondara

2014 Boroondara

2013 Boroondara

State-wide

Metro

North

Central

South

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+

Personal user

Household user


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


Environmental sustainability importance

79

2019 Environmental sustainability importance (index scores)


80

78

79

79

76

76

80

75

74

74

73

76

73

72

79

78

78

74

77

74

72

72

74

73

72

74

72

68

78

79

81

76

72

74

73

76

73

74

71

74

73

70

74

79

78

72

72

71

71

72

76

74

68

72

73

69

78

78

77

75

n/a

73

n/a

n/a

75

n/a

71

72

73

68

76

80

79

76

n/a

73

n/a

n/a

72

n/a

72

70

72

70

n/a

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

82p

82p

82p

80

77

77

77

77

76

75

75

75

74q

71q

Women

Household user

Personal user

18-34

South

Boroondara

Central

North

50-64

Metro

35-49

65+

State-wide

Men

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

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



Environmental sustainability importance

80

2019 Environmental sustainability importance (%)


37

35

32

31

26

27

28

33

35

36

37

39

29

46

44

36

33

33

47

46

40

39

39

40

43

44

43

39

38

41

40

38

38

42

36

38

46

41

37

39

16

21

21

21

23

23

23

21

19

15

18

14

24

8

16

17

14

15

14

13

5

3

6

7

6

4

4

5

5

6

3

7

7

4

2

9

3

7

1

2

1

1

1

2

1

2

2

2

1

2

1

3

2

3

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2019 Boroondara

2018 Boroondara

2017 Boroondara

2016 Boroondara

2015 Boroondara

2014 Boroondara

2013 Boroondara

State-wide

Metro

North

Central

South

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+

Personal user

Household user



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


Environmental sustainability performance

81

2019 Environmental sustainability performance (index scores)


69

69

65

66

65

67

64

65

66

63

63

66

62

63

72

73

67

66

68

65

64

66

67

67

64

65

67

66

67

67

66

63

67

67

64

66

66

65

63

65

68

63

72

72

71

67

66

66

65

67

67

68

64

64

67

67

73

72

70

n/a

70

68

n/a

68

n/a

68

64

65

n/a

67

69

68

68

n/a

67

63

n/a

67

n/a

70

64

66

n/a

66

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

64

n/a

n/a

n/a

69

69

66

66

65

64

64

64

63

63

62

62

62

59

Personal user

Household user

65+

North

18-34

Men

Metro

Boroondara

South

Women

State-wide

35-49

Central

50-64

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

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



Environmental sustainability performance

82

2019 Environmental sustainability performance (%)


13

11

13

10

11

15

12

11

13

14

9

16

14

12

13

13

8

16

24

23

33

39

36

39

42

39

38

35

35

40

32

27

33

34

39

29

33

30

37

40

29

30

32

29

25

25

26

31

29

25

31

32

31

27

30

28

29

30

26

26

7

6

3

6

5

4

4

9

8

7

9

6

6

8

7

9

8

6

5

5

3

2

1

1

1

2

1

3

2

3

2

4

3

3

2

4

6

2

3

3

14

13

15

16

17

16

18

12

14

11

17

14

12

16

9

17

16

16

4

3

2019 Boroondara

2018 Boroondara

2017 Boroondara

2016 Boroondara

2015 Boroondara

2014 Boroondara

2013 Boroondara

State-wide

Metro

North

Central

South

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+

Personal user

Household user


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


Detailed

demographics

83

Gender and age profile

84

2019 gender


2019 age

Men48%

Women52%

Boroondara

15%

17%

25%

17%

26%

Boroondara

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

Men49%

Women51%

Metro

Men49%

Women51%

State-wide

10%

25%

25%

16%

24%

Metro

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.

Household structure

2019 household structure (%)

12

13

2

3

29

22

16

3

Single person living alone

Single living with friends or housemates

Single living with children 16 or under

Single with children but none 16 or under living athome

Married or living with partner, no children

Married or living with partner with children 16 or underat home

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

Do not wish to answer


85S6. Which of the following BEST describes your household?


Years lived in area

86

Years lived in area (%)


22

19

14

17

11

10

10

16

16

16

13

11

15

16

63

65

69

69

78

75

75

1

2019 Boroondara

2018 Boroondara

2017 Boroondara

2016 Boroondara

2015 Boroondara

2014 Boroondara

2013 Boroondara

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

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


Years lived in area

Years lived in area (%)

22

19

14

17

17

26

23

25

17

22

22

43

26

2

3

16

16

16

13

15

15

14

17

16

16

15

19

27

5

7

23

20

21

27

22

20

21

21

26

26

20

21

26

31

17

15

20

22

19

17

17

14

16

16

14

17

13

7

34

14

24

25

26

23

29

23

27

21

25

23

26

4

14

27

60

1

2019 Boroondara

2018 Boroondara

2017 Boroondara

2016 Boroondara

State-wide

Metro

North

Central

South

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


87

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


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

presents the last four years of data only.

88

88

78

57

28

25

12

86

84

75

51

24

22

10


Waste management





Lobbying

Total household use

Personal use

Personal and household use and experience of council

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?


2019 personal and household use and experience of services (%)


88

Appendix A:

Index scores,

margins of error

and significant

differences

89

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


90

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

Boroondara City

Council 500 400 +/-4.4

Men239 190 +/-6.3

Women261 210 +/-6.1

North169 134 +/-7.6

Central174 144 +/-7.4

South157 122 +/-7.8

18-34 years81 130 +/-11.0

35-49 years100 98 +/-9.8

50-64 years130 69 +/-8.6

65+ years189 102 +/-7.1

The sample size for the 2019 State-wide Local

Government Community Satisfaction Survey for

Boroondara City Council was n=500. Unless otherwise

noted, this is the total sample base for all reported

charts and tables.

The maximum margin of error on a sample of

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

confidence level for results around 50%. Margins of

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

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

falling midway in the range 45.6% - 54.4%.

Maximum margins of error are listed in the table below,

based on a population of 141,300 people aged 18

years or over for Boroondara City Council, according to

ABS estimates.

Appendix A:

Margins of error


91

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)


92

54

57

58

60

67

66

50-64

35-49

Metro

Boroondara

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


93

Appendix B:

Further project

information

94

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

95


mailto:[email protected]

The 2019 results are compared with previous years, as

detailed below:

• 2019, n=500 completed interviews, conducted in the period

of 1st February – 30th March.










of 31st January – 11th March.




of 18th May – 30th June.

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

Boroondara 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 Boroondara City Council.

Survey sample matched to the demographic profile of

Boroondara 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 Boroondara

City Council, particularly younger people.

A total of n=500 completed interviews were achieved in

Boroondara City Council. Survey fieldwork was

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

2019.

Appendix B:

Survey methodology and sampling

96


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

Boroondara City Council is classified as a Metropolitan

council according to the following classification list:

Metropolitan, Interface, Regional Centres, Large Rural

& Small Rural

Councils participating in the Metropolitan group are:

Banyule, Boroondara, Brimbank, Glen Eira, Greater

Dandenong, Frankston, Kingston, Knox, Manningham,

Maroondah, Melbourne, Port Phillip, Stonnington and

Whitehorse.

Wherever appropriate, results for Boroondara City

Council for this 2019 State-wide Local Government

Community Satisfaction Survey have been compared

against other participating councils in the Metropolitan

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

council groupings changed for 2015, and as such

comparisons to council group results before that time

can not be made within the reported charts.

Appendix B:

Analysis and reporting


97

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 Boroondara 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:


98


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:



99

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:



100

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


101

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]

boroondara city council · notwithstanding this decline, waste management still constitutes a top...

Documents