survey methodology and sampling - mount alexander … · survey methodology and sampling ......

2

J00326 Community Satisfaction Survey 2015 – Mount Alexander 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• Individual service areas• Detailed demographics

Appendix A: Detailed survey tabulations Appendix B: Further project information

3


Welcome to the report of results and recommendations for the 2015 State-wide Local Government Community Satisfaction Survey for Mount Alexander 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 and participating councils have a range of 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 Mount Alexander 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.

4


This survey was conducted by Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing (CATI) as a representative random probability survey of residents aged 18+ years in Mount Alexander Shire Council.

Survey sample matched to the demographic profile of Mount Alexander 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 Mount Alexander Shire Council, particularly younger people.

A total of n=400 completed interviews were achieved in Mount Alexander Shire Council. Survey fieldwork was conducted in the period of 1st February – 30th March, 2015.

The 2015 results are compared with previous years, as detailed below: • 2014, n=400 completed interviews, conducted in the period of 31st January – 11th March.• 2013, n=400 completed interviews, conducted in the period of 1st February – 24th March.• 2012, n=400 completed interviews, conducted in the period 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 Mount Alexander 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.

5


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 2014. 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 2014. The result among 18-34 year olds in the council is significantly lower than the result achieved among this

group in 2014.

54

5758

60

67

66

50-64

35-49

Large Rural

Mount Alexander Shire Council

18-34

State-wide

Overall Performance – Index Scores (example extract only)

Note: For details on the calculations used to determine statistically significant differences, please refer to Appendix B.

6


Further InformationFurther 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

ContactsFor further queries about the conduct and reporting of the 2015 State-wide Local Government Community Satisfaction Survey, please contact JWS Research on (03) 8685 8555.

8


Mount Alexander Shire Council’s performance over the last 12 months has remained generally stable. The stability in Mount Alexander’s overall performance score is mirrored throughout most core measures. The two exceptions to this are ‘overall Council direction’ and the ‘condition of sealed local roads’, where Council performance has significantly declined compared with 2014.

Mount Alexander Shire Council should note that in general, residents aged over 50tend to rate Council performance significantly worse than other demographic groups. Conversely, residents aged 18-34 year old tend to be much more positive about Council’s performance.

The overall performance index of 52 is within one point of the 2014 result however it is significantly lower than the Large Rural group average (56) and also the State-wide average (60). While there has been no significant change at the overall resident level, women have been

far more critical of Council’s overall performance as reflected in an average performance rating which is seven points lower than 2014.

9


Council’s performance index on overall council direction sits at 42 which is s significant decline of nine points compared with 2014. This result puts Mount Alexander Shire Council significantly below both the State-wide and the Large Rural council group averages for this measure. Much of this decline is being driven by more critical assessments of council direction among

most resident cohorts with the exception of men and those aged 35-49 whose views are generally consistent with 2014.

It is difficult to isolate exactly what issues or concerns are underlying the significant decline in the assessment of Council direction, as the only individual service area to show a significant decrease in performance rating is the condition of local sealed roads, where the performance rating is five points lower than 2014 (index score of 48).

On the issue of sealed local roads, the significant decline in performance is driven in large part by a more critical assessment of Council performance from women this year, as well as 35-49 year olds, and non-Castlemaine..

10


Council performance on the issues of community consultation (index score of 52), advocacy (index score of 54) and also making decisions in the interest of the community (index score of 48) are all consistent with Council’s 2014 results. Performance on all three issues is on par with the Large Rural group averages.

Customer service is the best performing of the seven core issues. The performance index of 63 is within one point of the 2014 result but significantly lower than the Large Rural and State-wide averages.

In the absence of clear guidance about what is causing Council’s overall direction score to decrease, we would recommend increasing attention and communication around those individual services where Council rates lower than the Large Rural average score, including on: Informing the community The condition of local streets and footpaths Enforcement of local laws Elderly support services Recreational facilities Waste management Making decisions in the interest of the community

11


Council should also look to address and communicate its efforts in service areas where the importance of a service to residents exceeds their rating of Council’s performance by 10 points or more, particularly those exceeding 15 points: Making decisions in the interest of the community, performance – importance = -34 Condition of local streets and footpaths, -32 Consultation and engagement, -27 Informing the community, -23 Waste management, -21 Elderly support services, -20 Lobbying on behalf of the community, -16

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, or self-mining the SPSS data provided or via the dashboard portal available to the council.

A complimentary 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.

12


• NoneHigher results in 2015

• Overall council direction• Condition of sealed roadsLower results in 2015

• 18-34 year oldsMost favourably disposed towards Council

• 50-64 year olds• 65+ year olds

Least favourably disposed towards

Council

14


Performance Measures Mount

Alexander2012

Mount Alexander

2013

Mount Alexander

2014

Mount Alexander

2015

Large Rural2015

State-wide2015

OVERALL PERFORMANCE 46 52 53 52 56 60

COMMUNITY CONSULTATION(Community consultation and engagement)

45 51 52 52 54 56

ADVOCACY(Lobbying on behalf of the community)

47 55 53 54 53 55

MAKING COMMUNITYDECISIONS (Decisions made in the interest of the community)

n/a n/a 49 48 52 55

SEALED LOCAL ROADS (Condition of sealed local roads) n/a n/a 53 48 45 55

CUSTOMER SERVICE 60 63 64 63 67 70

OVERALL COUNCIL DIRECTION 35 49 51 42 51 53

15


Performance Measures Mount

Alexander 2015

vs Mount Alexander

2014

vsLarge Rural2015

vs State-wide2015

Highest score

Lowest score

OVERALL PERFORMANCE 52 1 points lower

4 points lower

8 points lower

18-34 year olds

50-64 year olds

COMMUNITY CONSULTATION(Community consultation and engagement)

52 Equal 2 points lower

4 points lower

35-49 year olds

50-64 year olds

ADVOCACY(Lobbying on behalf of the community)

54 1 points higher

1 points higher

1 points lower

18-34 year olds

50-64 year olds

MAKING COMMUNITYDECISIONS (Decisions made in the interest of the community)

48 1 points lower

4 points lower

7 points lower

18-34 year olds

50-64 year olds

SEALED LOCAL ROADS (Condition of sealed local roads) 48 5 points

lower3 points higher

7 points lower

Castlemaine Other

CUSTOMER SERVICE 63 1 points lower

4 points lower

7 points lower Women Men

OVERALL COUNCIL DIRECTION 42 9 points

lower9 points

lower11 points

lower18-34

year olds50-64

year olds

16


8

9

6

5

5

22

28

26

23

23

28

33

35

31

27

32

31

23

16

20

14

22

20

10

11

8

5

9

14

9

2

6

23

3

Overall Performance

Community Consultation

Advocacy

Making CommunityDecisions

Sealed Local Roads

Customer Service

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

Key Measures Summary Results

13 53 28 7Overall Council Direction

% Improved Stayed the same Deteriorated Can't say

17


Sign

ifica

ntly

hig

her t

han

Stat

e-w

ide

aver

age

Significantly lower than State-w

ide average

-Community & cultural

-Consultation & engagement -Informing the community -Local streets & footpaths-Enforcement of local laws-Elderly support services -Recreational facilities -Appearance of public areas-Waste management -Making community decisions-Sealed local roads

18


Sign

ifica

ntly

hig

her t

han

grou

p av

erag

e Significantly lower than group

average

-Community & cultural-Sealed local roads

-Informing the community -Local streets & footpaths-Enforcement of local laws-Elderly support services -Recreational facilities -Waste management -Making community decisions

19


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

Service Importance Performance Net differentialMaking decisions in the interest of the community

82 48 -34

Condition of local streets & footpaths 78 46 -32

Consultation & engagement 79 52 -27

Informing the community 78 55 -23

Waste management 79 58 -21

Elderly support services 82 62 -20

Lobbying on behalf of the community 70 54 -16

Recreational facilities 71 59 -12

Enforcement of local laws 71 61 -10

Environmental sustainability 73 63 -10

20


Base: All respondents Councils asked State-wide: 55Note: Please see page 5 for explanation of significant differences

n/a

82

80

80

78

78

74

n/a

n/a

73

70

n/a

n/a

80

n/a

79

79

80

77

73

n/a

n/a

n/a

70

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

2014 2013 20122015 Priority Area Importance

82

82

79

79

78

78

73

73

71

71

70

68

61

Elderly support services

Community decisions

Consultation & engagement

Waste management

Informing the community

Local streets & footpaths

Appearance of public areas

Environmental sustainability

Enforcement of local laws

Recreational facilities

Lobbying

Bus/community dev./tourism

Community & cultural

21


n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

60

n/a

n/a

53

52

49

53

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

55

51

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

47

45

n/a

n/a

n/a

2014 2013 2012

72

69

63

62

61

60

59

58

55

54

52

48

48

46

Community & cultural

Appearance of public areas

Environmental sustainability

Elderly support services

Enforcement of local laws

Bus/community dev./tourism

Recreational facilities

Waste management

Informing the community

Lobbying

Consultation & engagement

Community decisions

Sealed roads

Local streets & footpaths

Base: All respondents Councils asked State-wide: 69Note: Please see page 5 for explanation of significant differences

2015 Priority Area Performance

22


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


1. Community decisions

2. Elderly support services

3. Waste management

Metropolitan

1. Waste management



Interface

1. Emergency & disaster mngt

2. Waste management

3. Local streets & footpaths

Regional Centres



3. Waste management

Large Rural


2. Unsealed roads3. Emergency &

disaster mngt

Small Rural




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


1. Community & cultural

2. Bus/community dev./tourism

3. Lobbying

Metropolitan



3. Slashing & weed control

Interface

1. Tourism development



Regional Centres


2. Tourism development

3. Art centres & libraries

Large Rural



3. Parking facilities

Small Rural

1. Traffic management



23


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

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



2. Appearance of public areas

3. Environmental sustainability

Metropolitan

1. Waste management


3. Recreational facilities

Interface

1. Waste management



Regional Centres



3. Waste management

Large Rural




Small Rural



3. Waste management


1. Local streets & footpaths

2. Sealed roads 3. Community

decisions

Metropolitan

1. Planning permits

2. Population growth

3. Town planning policy

Interface

1. Unsealed roads2. Planning

permits 3. Slashing &

weed control

Regional Centres

1. Unsealed roads2. Community

decisions3. Parking facilities

Large Rural

1. Unsealed roads2. Sealed roads 3. Population

growth

Small Rural

1. Unsealed roads2. Slashing &

weed control 3. Sealed roads

24


Importance and Performance2015 Index Scores Grid

Note: The larger the circle, the larger the gap between importance and performance.Base: All respondents

Service Importance Performance

Consultation & engagement 79 52Lobbying on behalf of thecommunity 70 54

Making community decisions 82 48Informing the community 78 55Condition of local streets & footpaths 78 46

Enforcement of local laws 71 61Elderly support services 82 62Recreational facilities 71 59Appearance of public areas 73 69Community & cultural activities 61 72

Waste management 79 58Business & community development & tourism 68 60

Environmental sustainability 73 63

0

50

100

0 50 100

HIGH

IMPORTANCE

LOW

POOR PERFORMANCE GOOD

25


Importance and Performance2015 Index Scores Grid

(Magnified view)

Note: The larger the circle, the larger the gap between importance and performance.Base: All respondents

40

90

40 90

HIGH

IMPORTANCE

LOW

POOR PERFORMANCE GOOD

Service Importance Performance

Consultation & engagement 79 52Lobbying on behalf of thecommunity 70 54

Making community decisions 82 48Informing the community 78 55Condition of local streets & footpaths 78 46

Enforcement of local laws 71 61Elderly support services 82 62Recreational facilities 71 59Appearance of public areas 73 69Community & cultural activities 61 72

Waste management 79 58Business & community development & tourism 68 60

Environmental sustainability 73 63

28


2015 Overall Performance

Q3. ON BALANCE, for the last twelve months, how do you feel about the performance of Mount Alexander 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? Base: All respondents Councils asked State-wide: 69 Councils asked group: 21Note: Please see page 5 for explanation about significant differences

61

60

n/a

50

50

53

55

52

57

53

52

60

58

n/a

53

52

52

55

50

51

50

50

60

56

n/a

48

49

46

n/a

n/a

44

43

40

2014 2013 2012

60

57

56

53

53

52

52

51

50

49

49

State-wide

18-34

Large Rural

Men

35-49

Mount Alexander

Castlemaine

Other

Women

50-64

65+

29


Q3. ON BALANCE, for the last twelve months, how do you feel about the performance of Mount Alexander 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? Base: All respondents Councils asked State-wide: 69 Councils asked group: 21

8

7

6

5

10

8

11

6

9

8

7

9

8

9

28

33

30

23

39

34

25

31

31

25

41

32

21

23

35

36

38

37

35

40

37

33

34

36

28

31

42

35

16

13

15

23

10

12

12

18

16

16

7

13

18

20

11

11

9

12

4

6

13

10

10

13

10

12

10

12

2

1

1

2

1

1

2

2

1

3

7

2

1

1

2015 Mount Alexander




State-wide

Large Rural

Castlemaine

Other

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+

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

2015 Overall Performance

31


• 66%, down 2 points on 2014 Overall contact with


• Aged 35-49 yearsMost contact with Mount Alexander Shire Council

• Aged 18-34 yearsLeast contact with Mount Alexander Shire Council

• Index score of 63, down 1 point on 2014 Customer Service rating

• Women• 35-49 year olds

Most satisfied with Customer Service

• Men• 18-34 year olds

Least satisfied with Customer Service

32


68

32

64

36

71

29

66

34

TOTAL HAVE HAD CONTACT

TOTAL HAVE HAD NO CONTACT

2014 2013 2012

Q5. Over the last 12 months, have you or any member of your household had any contact with Mount Alexander Shire Council? This may have been in person, in writing, by telephone conversation, by text message, by email or via their website or social media such as Facebook or Twitter?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 53 Councils asked group: 19Note: Please see page 5 for explanation about significant differences

2015 Method of Contact

%

33


72

n/a

69

58

64

66

63

64

66

59

71

71

n/a

60

59

63

65

60

61

70

65

61

71

n/a

58

63

60

n/a

n/a

61

57

62

57

70

67

65

65

63

63

63

62

62

60

60

State-wide

Large Rural

Women

35-49

Mount Alexander

Castlemaine

Other

50-64

65+

Men

18-34

Q5c. Thinking of the most recent contact, how would you rate Mount Alexander Shire 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: 69 Councils asked group: 21Note: Please see page 5 for explanation about significant differences

2015 Customer Service Rating 2014 2013 2012

34


22

30

29

19

31

27

23

20

20

24

22

17

24

24

33

31

27

36

37

37

36

31

30

37

22

45

31

31

23

15

19

23

17

18

17

28

26

21

28

23

23

22

10

14

13

11

8

9

9

11

10

10

14

8

10

11

9

10

11

11

6

7

12

6

10

8

7

6

11

10

3

1

1

2

1

2

3

4

1

7

2

1

3





State-wide

Large Rural

Castlemaine

Other

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+

% Very good Good Average Poor Very poor Can't sayQ5c. Thinking of the most recent contact, how would you rate Mount Alexander Shire 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: 69 Councils asked group: 21

2015 Customer Service Rating

36


• 53% stayed about the same, down 1 point on 2014• 13% improved, down 8 points on 2014• 28% deteriorated, up 9 points on 2014

Council Direction over last 12 months

• Aged 18-34 years• Aged 65+ years

Most satisfied with Council Direction

• Aged 50-64 yearsLeast satisfied with Council Direction

37


53

n/a

49

54

46

51

53

50

48

56

52

53

n/a

47

55

51

49

49

48

42

46

49

52

n/a

42

31

39

35

n/a

n/a

37

31

33

53

51

46

44

43

42

42

42

42

41

36

State-wide

Large Rural

18-34

65+

Men

Mount Alexander

Castlemaine

Other

35-49

Women

50-64

Q6. Over the last 12 months, what is your view of the direction of Mount Alexander Shire Council’s overall performance? Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 69 Councils asked group: 21Note: Please see page 5 for explanation about significant differences

2015 Overall Direction 2014 2013 2012

38


13

21

18

12

20

18

12

14

13

13

10

13

9

17

53

54

51

44

63

63

53

52

56

49

62

50

51

51

28

19

21

41

13

15

26

29

26

29

17

28

35

28

7

5

10

4

5

4

9

5

5

8

10

9

5

4





State-wide

Large Rural

Castlemaine

Other

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+

% Improved Stayed the same Deteriorated Can't say

Q6. Over the last 12 months, what is your view of the direction of Mount Alexander Shire Council’s overall performance? Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 69 Councils asked group: 21

2015 Overall Direction

40


83

81

80

81

79

76

79

78

n/a

80

74

82

82

79

79

79

76

81

76

n/a

75

73

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

73

83

82

79

79

79

79

78

76

75

75

74

50-64

Women

Mount Alexander

Castlemaine

Other

65+

35-49

Men

Large Rural

18-34

State-wide

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Community Consultation and Engagement’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 28 Councils asked group: 8 Note: Please see slide 5 for explanation about significant differences

2014 2013 20122015 Consultation Importance

41


36

39

38

29

32

37

36

31

42

35

30

46

35

45

43

41

42

42

45

45

43

47

31

55

42

47

16

14

17

24

22

16

16

23

10

34

11

9

15

2

3

2

3

3

2

2

2

1

4

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1




State-wide

Large Rural

Castlemaine

Other

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

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Community Consultation and Engagement’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 28 Councils asked group: 8

2015 Consultation Importance

42


50

57

59

n/a

56

51

52

54

52

48

51

53

57

57

n/a

53

51

51

51

50

49

46

52

57

53

n/a

45

n/a

45

n/a

37

45

41

57

56

55

54

54

53

52

52

52

51

47

35-49

State-wide

18-34

Large Rural

Women

Other

Mount Alexander

Castlemaine

65+

Men

50-64

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Community Consultation and Engagement’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 69 Councils asked group: 21 Note: Please see slide 5 for explanation about significant differences

2015 Consultation Performance 2014 2013 2012

43


9

10

7

8

7

7

11

7

8

10

10

11

4

10

26

24

24

22

31

30

23

29

26

27

28

29

25

26

31

35

38

31

32

32

31

31

33

28

31

31

34

28

20

16

17

16

14

16

20

19

21

19

17

17

27

19

8

10

9

20

6

7

9

7

8

8

7

4

8

11

6

5

4

3

9

8

7

6

4

9

7

8

2

7





State-wide

Large Rural

Castlemaine

Other

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Community Consultation and Engagement’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 69 Councils asked group: 21

2015 Consultation Performance

44


76

70

70

n/a

69

71

71

70

67

71

64

74

68

70

n/a

71

69

72

70

68

72

66

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

70

n/a

n/a

n/a

73

72

70

70

70

70

70

69

69

69

68

Women

65+

Mount Alexander

Large Rural

Castlemaine

Other

50-64

State-wide

18-34

35-49

Men

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Lobbying on Behalf of the Community’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 28 Councils asked group: 7 Note: Please see slide 5 for explanation about significant differences

2014 2013 20122015 Lobbying Importance

45


25

23

23

23

24

24

26

21

30

28

23

27

25

38

44

41

39

39

40

36

40

35

31

39

37

41

28

22

25

28

27

26

29

27

28

31

27

25

28

6

6

6

6

6

7

5

9

3

10

8

6

2

2

3

2

2

2

1

2

2

2

1

3

2

2

2

3

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

3




State-wide

Large Rural

Castlemaine

Other

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Lobbying on Behalf of the Community’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 28 Councils asked group: 7

2015 Lobbying Importance

46


56

56

53

55

50

52

n/a

51

55

51

52

58

55

55

59

54

54

n/a

52

57

57

53

59

55

47

n/a

49

40

n/a

n/a

46

52

42

57

55

54

54

54

54

53

53

53

53

52

18-34

State-wide

Mount Alexander

Castlemaine

Men

65+

Large Rural

Other

Women

35-49

50-64

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Lobbying on Behalf of the Community’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 69 Councils asked group: 21 Note: Please see slide 5 for explanation about significant differences

2015 Lobbying Performance 2014 2013 2012

47


6

7

14

6

6

5

8

5

9

4

3

3

7

10

23

23

23

26

26

24

21

25

22

25

35

23

17

22

27

34

29

29

32

34

29

26

27

27

21

29

32

26

14

14

13

17

12

14

14

15

15

14

7

14

18

15

5

7

10

15

4

5

6

5

6

5

7

3

4

7

23

15

11

6

20

18

23

23

21

25

28

28

21

19





State-wide

Large Rural

Castlemaine

Other

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Lobbying on Behalf of the Community’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 69 Councils asked group: 21

2015 Lobbying Performance

48


82

87

80

83

85

82

85

82

77

79

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

84

84

83

83

83

82

82

81

81

80

80

Castlemaine

18-34

Men

35-49

50-64

Mount Alexander

Women

Other

65+

State-wide

Large Rural

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Decisions made in the interest of the community’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 15 Councils asked group: 3 Note: Please see slide 5 for explanation about significant differences

2014 2013 20122015 Community Decisions Importance

49


45

45

38

40

46

44

47

42

48

49

46

39

41

42

42

40

44

40

38

45

38

37

43

45

10

8

15

16

9

12

11

10

14

11

7

11

1

2

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

3

2

2

2

1

1

2

2

1

1

1

4



State-wide

Large Rural

Castlemaine

Other

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Decisions made in the interest of the community’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 15 Councils asked group: 3

2015 Community Decisions Importance

50


57

n/a

51

49

51

45

49

53

48

51

47

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

55

52

52

52

50

49

48

48

47

47

44

State-wide

Large Rural

18-34

35-49

Castlemaine

Men

Mount Alexander

Women

Other

65+

50-64

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Decisions made in the interest of the community’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 69 Councils asked group: 21 Note: Please see slide 5 for explanation about significant differences

2015 Community Decisions Performance 2014 2013 2012

51


5

6

7

5

6

4

7

3

7

5

3

5

23

28

31

27

24

23

21

26

31

22

20

23

32

32

33

35

31

33

33

32

24

35

37

32

22

16

14

16

19

24

21

23

17

19

28

22

9

13

6

8

9

8

10

7

10

3

11

10

9

5

9

8

11

7

9

9

10

17

2

8



State-wide

Large Rural

Castlemaine

Other

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?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 69 Councils asked group: 21

2015 Community Decisions Performance

52


55

56

56

49

53

56

50

50

n/a

56

50

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

55

53

53

50

48

47

47

46

45

45

44

State-wide

Castlemaine

18-34

Men

Mount Alexander

35-49

65+

50-64

Large Rural

Women

Other

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘The condition of sealed local roads in your area’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 69 Councils asked group: 21 Note: Please see slide 5 for explanation about significant differences

2015 Sealed Local Roads Performance 2014 2013 2012

53


5

9

11

6

8

4

6

5

7

3

4

7

28

29

33

24

33

25

31

26

35

35

26

22

31

36

29

30

31

31

32

30

31

25

34

33

20

15

16

24

16

24

19

22

17

19

22

22

14

10

10

16

11

16

12

16

10

17

14

14

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2



State-wide

Large Rural

Castlemaine

Other

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?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 69 Councils asked group: 21

2015 Sealed Local Roads Performance

54


83

79

81

75

78

78

n/a

79

75

78

74

85

79

81

78

80

79

n/a

82

75

80

75

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

75

n/a

n/a

81

80

79

79

78

77

76

76

75

75

74

Women

Other

50-64

65+

Mount Alexander

18-34

Large Rural

35-49

State-wide

Castlemaine

Men

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Informing the Community’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 25 Councils asked group: 7 Note: Please see slide 5 for explanation about significant differences

2014 2013 20122015 Informing Community Importance

55


35

37

41

30

32

31

39

29

41

41

33

37

33

44

42

39

44

45

44

45

45

44

35

42

45

51

17

18

15

22

19

21

14

21

13

17

24

16

14

1

2

2

3

3

2

1

2

1

3

1

2

2

1

1

1

1

1

2

3

3

2

2

1

1




State-wide

Large Rural

Castlemaine

Other

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Informing the Community’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 25 Councils asked group: 7

2015 Informing Community Importance

56


62

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

61

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

60

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

61

61

59

58

56

55

55

55

55

54

53

State-wide

18-34

Large Rural

Castlemaine

Men

Mount Alexander

Women

35-49

50-64

Other

65+

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Informing the Community’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 35 Councils asked group: 9 Note: Please see slide 5 for explanation about significant differences

2015 Informing Community Performance 2014 2013 2012

57


10

12

10

12

8

11

8

7

9

10

12

31

38

37

30

32

32

30

52

31

26

24

33

31

32

37

30

31

34

24

34

38

33

20

12

14

16

22

18

21

14

22

18

22

5

4

5

4

5

6

4

3

3

5

7

2

2

3

1

3

2

2

1

3

3


State-wide

Large Rural

Castlemaine

Other

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Informing the Community’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 35 Councils asked group: 9

2015 Informing Community Performance

58


81

82

78

78

78

79

77

n/a

78

75

75

78

80

78

77

76

75

78

n/a

78

75

74

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

77

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

80

79

79

78

78

78

77

77

77

75

75

Women

18-34

50-64

Mount Alexander

Other

65+

State-wide

Large Rural

Castlemaine

Men

35-49

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘The condition of local streets and footpaths in your area’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 29 Councils asked group: 9 Note: Please see slide 5 for explanation about significant differences

2014 2013 20122015 Streets and Footpaths Importance

59


33

37

33

34

34

34

32

27

39

38

26

37

33

46

43

43

43

42

42

48

50

42

41

51

41

47

17

15

18

19

20

22

14

20

15

21

18

18

15

2

3

4

2

2

1

3

2

1

5

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

2

2

1

1

3

1

2

1

2

3




State-wide

Large Rural

Castlemaine

Other

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘The condition of local streets and footpaths in your area’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 29 Councils asked group: 9

2015 Streets and Footpaths Importance

60


58

n/a

n/a

n/a

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

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

57

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

58

58

54

50

49

48

46

44

43

42

40

State-wide

18-34

Large Rural

35-49

Men

Castlemaine

Mount Alexander

Other

Women

50-64

65+

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘The condition of local streets and footpaths in your area’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 40 Councils asked group: 15 Note: Please see slide 5 for explanation about significant differences

2015 Streets and Footpaths Performance 2014 2013 2012

61


7

13

11

9

5

7

6

14

6

2

7

23

34

31

24

23

27

19

35

27

22

16

28

28

28

30

26

28

27

21

30

30

28

24

15

18

18

28

21

27

24

24

25

24

14

7

9

17

12

12

16

3

8

17

22

4

3

4

1

7

3

5

3

6

4

3


State-wide

Large Rural

Castlemaine

Other

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


Q2. How has Council performed on ‘The condition of local streets and footpaths in your area’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 40 Councils asked group: 15

2015 Streets and Footpaths Performance

62


n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

70

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

71

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

70

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

74

73

72

71

71

71

70

70

69

68

67

Women

18-34

65+

Mount Alexander

State-wide

Other

Large Rural

Castlemaine

35-49

50-64

Men

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Enforcement of local laws’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 25 Councils asked group: 7 Note: Please see slide 5 for explanation about significant differences

2014 2013 20122015 Law Enforcement Importance

63


22

25

23

20

23

17

27

31

17

21

21

44

41

42

47

42

42

46

38

47

36

51

28

27

29

26

28

30

25

24

26

38

23

5

5

4

5

5

8

2

7

8

3

4

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

2

2

2

2


State-wide

Large Rural

Castlemaine

Other

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Enforcement of local laws’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 25 Councils asked group: 7

2015 Law Enforcement Importance

64


n/a

66

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

65

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

65

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

67

66

65

64

62

62

61

61

60

59

58

18-34

State-wide

Large Rural

Women

Other

50-64

Mount Alexander

35-49

Castlemaine

Men

65+

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Enforcement of local laws’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 36 Councils asked group: 12 Note: Please see slide 5 for explanation about significant differences

2015 Law Enforcement Performance 2014 2013 2012

65


10

13

12

9

11

9

11

14

7

8

12

32

40

40

32

33

29

36

42

31

36

27

28

26

27

29

27

28

28

24

28

26

31

9

6

7

11

7

10

9

3

10

9

11

3

3

3

3

3

5

1

3

3

5

17

12

11

16

18

19

16

14

24

19

14


State-wide

Large Rural

Castlemaine

Other

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Enforcement of local laws’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 36 Councils asked group: 12

2015 Law Enforcement Performance

66


n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

79

n/a

n/a

n/a

77

82

81

81

80

79

78

79

n/a

77

82

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

80

n/a

n/a

n/a

90

86

84

83

82

82

81

79

78

78

77

18-34

Women

50-64

Other

Mount Alexander

Castlemaine

65+

State-wide

Large Rural

Men

35-49

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Elderly Support Services’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 29 Councils asked group: 8 Note: Please see slide 5 for explanation about significant differences

2014 2013 20122015 Elderly Support Importance

67


40

37

36

35

38

42

30

51

59

27

45

38

48

46

44

46

51

46

54

43

41

54

46

50

9

12

16

16

10

8

12

5

15

7

10

1

3

2

2

1

2

2

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

2

2

1

3

2

1



State-wide

Large Rural

Castlemaine

Other

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Elderly Support Services’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 29 Councils asked group: 8

2015 Elderly Support Importance

68


70

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

69

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

69

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

69

69

68

64

62

62

62

61

59

58

58

State-wide

Large Rural

65+

Castlemaine

Mount Alexander

Men

Women

Other

50-64

18-34

35-49

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Elderly Support Services’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 40 Councils asked group: 13 Note: Please see slide 5 for explanation about significant differences

2015 Elderly Support Performance 2014 2013 2012

69


14

15

16

16

12

13

14

7

7

9

25

26

34

33

28

25

25

27

35

22

22

28

23

19

19

21

25

25

22

21

22

30

21

8

4

5

8

8

7

8

3

10

10

6

5

2

2

5

5

4

5

10

3

2

5

24

26

25

22

26

25

24

24

36

26

15


State-wide

Large Rural

Castlemaine

Other

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Elderly Support Services’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 40 Councils asked group: 13

2015 Elderly Support Performance

70


76

76

73

74

72

n/a

73

74

73

70

70

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

72

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

72

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

75

74

73

73

72

72

71

71

70

68

67

Women

18-34

Castlemaine

50-64

State-wide

Large Rural

Mount Alexander

35-49

Other

65+

Men

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Recreational Facilities’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 33 Councils asked group: 10 Note: Please see slide 5 for explanation about significant differences

2014 2013 20122015 Recreational Facilities Importance

71


20

26

23

22

20

19

13

27

31

18

23

12

49

44

46

48

54

45

51

47

38

57

43

52

27

24

26

25

22

31

30

25

28

17

31

31

4

4

3

4

3

4

6

1

3

8

1

3

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1



State-wide

Large Rural

Castlemaine

Other

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Recreational Facilities’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 33 Councils asked group: 10

2015 Recreational Facilities Importance

72


71

n/a

59

62

56

60

59

60

63

60

56

70

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

70

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

70

66

66

63

61

59

59

58

57

56

51

State-wide

Large Rural

18-34

65+

Men

Mount Alexander

Castlemaine

Other

Women

50-64

35-49

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Recreational Facilities’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 47 Councils asked group: 16 Note: Please see slide 5 for explanation about significant differences

2015 Recreational Facilities Performance 2014 2013 2012

73


12

14

22

18

12

13

12

12

21

4

11

15

32

32

43

41

33

32

36

29

31

34

30

33

32

33

23

25

36

29

34

31

31

29

33

35

13

9

6

8

10

16

11

16

7

20

17

9

5

7

2

3

5

5

4

6

3

9

6

2

5

6

3

3

3

6

3

7

7

4

3

6



State-wide

Large Rural

Castlemaine

Other

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Recreational Facilities’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 47 Councils asked group: 16

2015 Recreational Facilities Performance

74


74

76

74

74

73

n/a

75

74

72

70

81

73

75

74

73

74

n/a

71

74

71

72

71

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

73

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

77

75

74

73

73

73

73

73

72

72

70

50-64

Women

Castlemaine

Mount Alexander

State-wide

Large Rural

Other

65+

Men

35-49

18-34

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘The appearance of public areas’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 30 Councils asked group: 8 Note: Please see slide 5 for explanation about significant differences

2014 2013 20122015 Public Areas Importance

75


22

26

21

24

22

22

21

17

26

21

14

31

21

53

48

50

47

49

53

52

56

50

41

62

49

55

23

23

27

25

25

22

23

24

21

35

21

19

20

2

2

1

2

3

2

3

2

2

3

3

1

3 1

1

1

1

1

1




State-wide

Large Rural

Castlemaine

Other

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘The appearance of public areas’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 30 Councils asked group: 8

2015 Public Areas Importance

76


n/a

72

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

71

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

71

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

76

72

70

70

70

69

69

69

69

67

67

18-34

State-wide

Other

Men

35-49

Mount Alexander

Large Rural

Castlemaine

Women

50-64

65+

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘The appearance of public areas’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 42 Councils asked group: 12 Note: Please see slide 5 for explanation about significant differences

2015 Public Areas Performance 2014 2013 2012

77


21

24

21

22

20

21

20

31

19

17

20

46

47

46

44

48

45

47

52

49

44

43

25

20

23

24

25

26

23

10

26

32

26

5

5

6

5

5

4

6

3

5

4

7

3

2

3

4

2

2

4

3

1

3

4

1

1

1


State-wide

Large Rural

Castlemaine

Other

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


Q2. How has Council performed on ‘The appearance of public areas’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 42 Councils asked group: 12

2015 Public Areas Performance

78


n/a

n/a

62

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

62

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

62

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

64

63

62

61

61

61

61

61

61

58

57

Women

50-64

State-wide

Mount Alexander

Large Rural

Castlemaine

Other

35-49

65+

18-34

Men

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Community and Cultural Activities’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 22 Councils asked group: 6 Note: Please see slide 5 for explanation about significant differences

2014 2013 20122015 Community Activities Importance

79


10

11

10

8

10

8

11

10

9

11

9

41

37

38

42

40

38

43

31

39

42

46

36

40

39

39

35

36

37

41

43

36

29

8

10

10

5

9

11

5

7

5

8

10

5

2

2

5

5

7

2

7

5

3

6

1

1

2

3

1


State-wide

Large Rural

Castlemaine

Other

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Community and Cultural Activities’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 22 Councils asked group: 6

2015 Community Activities Importance

80


n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

70

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

69

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

68

n/a

75

74

72

72

72

72

71

70

70

69

69

18-34

Women

Mount Alexander

Castlemaine

35-49

50-64

Other

Men

65+

State-wide

Large Rural

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Community and Cultural Activities’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 28 Councils asked group: 9 Note: Please see slide 5 for explanation about significant differences

2015 Community Activities Performance 2014 2013 2012

81


24

18

16

26

23

21

27

35

19

25

21

43

43

46

40

46

43

43

35

49

44

43

22

25

24

24

21

24

20

21

23

20

24

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

7

3

4

6

2

1

2

1

2

2

1

3

2

5

7

6

5

4

4

5

3

7

3

5


State-wide

Large Rural

Castlemaine

Other

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Community and Cultural Activities’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 28 Councils asked group: 9

2015 Community Activities Performance

82


83

79

80

82

80

79

78

n/a

81

83

77

80

78

78

81

79

79

76

n/a

79

74

80

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

78

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

83

81

81

80

79

79

79

78

78

76

76

50-64

Castlemaine

65+

Women

Mount Alexander

State-wide

Men

Large Rural

Other

18-34

35-49

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Waste Management’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 33 Councils asked group: 9 Note: Please see slide 5 for explanation about significant differences

2014 2013 20122015 Waste Management Importance

83


34

39

34

35

33

38

32

32

36

31

28

42

35

49

45

47

46

47

49

49

51

47

41

51

47

53

15

11

15

16

17

13

17

16

15

27

20

8

11

1

3

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

1




State-wide

Large Rural

Castlemaine

Other

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Waste Management’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 33 Councils asked group: 9

2015 Waste Management Importance

84


73

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

71

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

72

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

72

71

68

60

59

59

58

58

58

54

53

State-wide

18-34

Large Rural

Castlemaine

Men

65+

Mount Alexander

Other

Women

35-49

50-64

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Waste Management’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 45 Councils asked group: 14 Note: Please see slide 5 for explanation about significant differences

2015 Waste Management Performance 2014 2013 2012

85


15

25

21

17

13

18

12

27

8

10

17

35

47

44

34

36

33

38

52

29

30

34

23

17

19

23

23

22

24

3

35

28

22

14

6

8

11

16

14

14

3

19

15

15

9

3

5

10

8

10

8

10

6

12

9

3

2

3

4

3

2

4

3

3

5

2


State-wide

Large Rural

Castlemaine

Other

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Waste Management’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 45 Councils asked group: 14

2015 Waste Management Performance

86


n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

67

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

67

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

66

n/a

n/a

n/a

72

70

69

69

68

68

68

67

67

67

66

50-64

Large Rural

Castlemaine

Women

Mount Alexander

Other

35-49

State-wide

Men

65+

18-34

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Business and community development and tourism’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 23 Councils asked group: 6 Note: Please see slide 5 for explanation about significant differences

2014 2013 20122015 Business/Development/Tourism Importance

87


19

21

23

16

20

18

19

14

19

22

19

44

38

41

47

41

42

46

45

44

49

40

31

31

29

30

31

32

30

38

28

27

32

4

7

5

4

3

4

4

8

2

4

2

2

2

1

3

3

1

3

1

3

1

1

1

1

2

2


State-wide

Large Rural

Castlemaine

Other

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Business and community development and tourism’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 23 Councils asked group: 6

2015 Business/Development/Tourism Importance

88


n/a

62

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

62

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

62

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

69

61

61

60

60

60

60

59

59

57

56

18-34

State-wide

Castlemaine

Mount Alexander

Men

Women

65+

Large Rural

Other

50-64

35-49

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Business and community development and tourism’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 30 Councils asked group: 10 Note: Please see slide 5 for explanation about significant differences

2015 Business/Development/Tourism Performance 2014 2013 2012

89


10

11

11

14

7

12

8

10

6

9

14

33

34

34

33

34

31

36

55

26

31

28

32

31

30

27

36

34

31

14

41

34

34

9

10

12

8

9

10

8

3

9

13

9

5

3

5

6

3

4

5

3

4

6

5

11

12

8

11

11

9

13

14

14

7

9


State-wide

Large Rural

Castlemaine

Other

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Business and community development and tourism’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 30 Councils asked group: 10

2015 Business/Development/Tourism Performance

90


n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

73

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

72

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

71

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

76

74

74

74

73

73

72

72

72

72

70

Women

Castlemaine

18-34

65+

Mount Alexander

State-wide

Large Rural

Other

35-49

50-64

Men

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Environmental Sustainability’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 21 Councils asked group: 7 Note: Please see slide 5 for explanation about significant differences

2014 2013 20122015 Sustainability Importance

91


32

29

27

33

31

27

36

38

26

29

34

38

41

40

37

39

39

38

31

45

41

36

22

23

26

23

20

24

19

24

20

22

21

6

5

5

4

7

7

5

3

9

7

5

2

1

2

2

2

2

1

3

2

3

1

1

1

1


State-wide

Large Rural

Castlemaine

Other

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Environmental Sustainability’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 21 Councils asked group: 7

2015 Sustainability Importance

92


64

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

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

64

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

64

64

64

64

64

64

63

63

63

63

61

State-wide

Large Rural

Women

18-34

35-49

65+

Mount Alexander

Castlemaine

Other

Men

50-64

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Environmental Sustainability’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 29 Councils asked group: 9 Note: Please see slide 5 for explanation about significant differences

2015 Sustainability Performance 2014 2013 2012

93


13

10

11

14

13

14

12

17

11

11

14

35

39

39

33

36

34

35

41

30

35

35

32

30

31

29

34

32

31

24

40

28

32

8

7

7

8

8

9

7

7

5

13

7

3

2

2

3

2

3

3

7

2

3

9

13

11

13

7

7

11

3

14

10

8


State-wide

Large Rural

Castlemaine

Other

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Environmental Sustainability’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 29 Councils asked group: 9

2015 Sustainability Performance

95


50%50%MenWomen

7%10%

24%

24%

34%18-2425-3435-4950-6465+

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.

S3. [Record gender] / S4. To which of the following age groups do you belong?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 69 Councils asked group: 21

Gender Age

96


S6. Which of the following BEST describes your household? Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 11 Councils asked group: 3

24

23

19

18

7

4

3

2

Married or living with partner with childrenbut none 16 or under at home

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

Married or living with partner, no children

Single person living alone

Single living with friends or housemates

Single living with children 16 or under

Single with children but none 16 or underliving at home

Do not wish to answer

2015 Household Structure

%

97


10

11

14

13

10

10

10

8

12

21

11

6

6

14

14

13

14

14

16

13

14

15

7

26

11

12

75

75

73

73

76

74

77

79

72

72

62

83

81




State-wide

Large Rural

Castlemaine

Other

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+

% 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?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 18 Councils asked group: 4

2015 Years Lived in Area

100


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 Mount Alexander 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 2012-2015 have been made throughout this report as appropriate.

101


Demographic Actual survey sample size

Weighted base

Maximum margin of error at 95% confidence

intervalMount Alexander Shire Council 400 400 +/-4.8

Men 186 199 +/-7.2Women 214 201 +/-6.7Castlemaine 177 173 +/-7.3Other 223 227 +/-6.518-34 years 29 71 +/-18.535-49 years 69 95 +/-11.950-64 years 125 96 +/-8.865+ years 177 137 +/-7.3

The sample size for the 2015 State-wide Local Government Community Satisfaction Survey for Mount Alexander 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 +/-4.8% at the 95% confidence level for results around 50%. Margins of error will be larger for any sub-samples. As an example, a result of 50% can be read confidently as falling midway in the range 45.2% - 54.8%.

Maximum margins of error are listed in the table below, based on a population of 15,000 people aged 18 years or over for Mount Alexander Shire Council, according to ABS estimates.

102


All participating councils are listed in the State-wide report published on the DELWP website. In 2015, 69 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 in 2012, 2013 and 2014 vary slightly to those participating in 2015.

Council GroupsMount Alexander Shire Council is classified as a Large Rural council according to the following classification list: Metropolitan, Interface, Regional Centres, Large Rural & Small Rural

Councils participating in the Large Rural group are: Bass Coast, Baw Baw, Campaspe, Colac Otway, Corangamite, East Gippsland, Glenelg, Golden Plains, Horsham, Macedon Ranges, Mitchell, Moira, Moorabool, Mount Alexander, Moyne, South Gippsland, Southern Grampians, Surf Coast, Swan Hill, Wangaratta and Wellington.

Wherever appropriate, results for Mount Alexander Shire Council for this 2015 State-wide Local Government Community Satisfaction Survey have been compared against other participating councils in the Large Rural group and on a State-wide basis. Please note however, that council groupings have changed for 2015. As such, comparisons to previous council group results can not be made within the reported charts. For comparisons with previous groupings, please contact JWS Research.

103


Index ScoresMany 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 benchmark 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 9Good 40% 75 30Average 37% 50 19Poor 9% 25 2Very poor 4% 0 0Can’t say 1% -- INDEX SCORE 60

104


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 36Stayed the same 40% 50 20Deteriorated 23% 0 0Can’t say 1% -- INDEX SCORE 56

105


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.

106


Core, Optional and Tailored QuestionsOver and above necessary geographic and demographic questions required to ensure sample representativeness, a base set of questions for the 2015 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 2015 State-wide Local Government Community Satisfaction Survey were optional. Councils also had the ability to ask tailored questions specific only to their council.

107


ReportingEvery council that participated in the 2015 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 www.localgovernment.vic.gov.au.

http://www.localgovernment.vic.gov.au/

108


Core questions: Compulsory inclusion questions for all councils participating in the CSS.CSS: 2015 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 thiswill be specifically mentioned, however not all significantly higher or lower results are referenced in summary reporting.State-wide average: The average result for all participating councils in the State.Tailored questions: Individual questions tailored by and only reported to the commissioning council.Weighting: Weighting factors are applied to the sample for each council based on available age and gender proportions from ABS census information to ensure reported results are proportionate to the actual population of the council, rather than the achieved survey sample.

survey methodology and sampling - mount alexander … · survey methodology and sampling ......

Documents