Background and objectives - moorabool.vic.gov.au Community Satisfaction Survey throughout Victorian...

2J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 - Moorabool 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


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

Community Satisfaction Survey for Moorabool Shire Council.

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

Government Community Satisfaction Survey throughout Victorian local government areas. This

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

commissioned surveys individually.

Participation in the State-wide Local Government Community Satisfaction Survey is optional.

Participating councils have various choices as to the content of the questionnaire and the sample size

to be surveyed, depending on their individual strategic, financial and other considerations.

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

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

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

as well as acting as a feedback mechanism to LGV.


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

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

Survey sample matched to the demographic profile of Moorabool 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

Moorabool Shire Council, particularly younger people.

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

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

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

Minimum quotas of gender within age groups were applied during the fieldwork phase. Post-survey

weighting was then conducted to ensure accurate representation of the age and gender profile of the

Moorabool Shire Council area.

Any variation of +/-1% between individual results and net scores in this report or the detailed survey

tabulations is due to rounding. In reporting, ‘—’ denotes not mentioned and ‘0%’ denotes mentioned by

less than 1% of respondents. ‘Net’ scores refer to two or more response categories being combined

into one category for simplicity of reporting.

• 2016, n=400 completed interviews, conducted in the period of 1st February – 30th March.


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


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


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

95% confidence level are represented by upward directing blue and downward directing red arrows.

Significance when noted indicates a significantly higher or lower result for the analysis group in

comparison to the ‘Total’ result for the council for that survey question for that year. Therefore in the

example below:

• The state-wide result is significantly higher than the overall result for the council.

• The result among 50-64 year olds is significantly lower than for the overall result for the council.

Further, results shown in blue and red indicate significantly higher or lower results than in 2016.

Therefore in the example below:

• The result among 35-49 year olds in the council is significantly higher than the result achieved

among this group in 2016.

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

among this group in 2016.

54

57

58

60

67

66

50-64

35-49

Large Rural

Moorabool

18-34

State-wide

Overall Performance – Index Scores (example extract only)

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

found in Appendix B.


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

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

Background and objectives

Margins of error

Analysis and reporting

Glossary of terms

Contacts

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

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

J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 - Moorabool Shire Council

78

48

7355

7863

-29-17 -15

65

64

63

Waste management

Appearance of public areas

Elderly support services

Local streets &

footpaths

PerformanceImportance

Recreational

Facilities

Elderly support

Services

Net differential

Council Large Rural State-wide

54 54 59

Results shown are index scores out of 100.


The overall performance index score of 54 for Moorabool Shire Council is consistent with the result

achieved by Council in 2016. This defies the downward trend in overall performance seen from 2015

to 2016, and is a positive step towards moving closer to the high seen in 2013 (index score of 58).

Moorabool Shire Council’s overall performance is significantly lower (at the 95% confidence

interval) than the average rating for councils State-wide, but is in line with the average for

councils in Large Rural areas (index scores of 59 and 54 respectively).

All demographic and geographic sub-groups have remained consistent in their rating of

Moorabool Shire Council’s overall performance in 2017 compared to 2016, with no significant

increases or decreases occurring.

Residents aged 18 to 34 years (index score of 61) rate Moorabool Shire Council’s overall

performance significantly higher than their counterparts, whilst those aged 35 to 49 years are

significantly lower in their ratings (index score of 48).

Residents are slightly less likely to rate Moorabool Shire Council’s overall performance as ‘very good’

(6%) than ‘very poor’ (9%). Another one-third of residents (32%) rate Council’s overall performance as

‘good’, while a further 41% sit mid-scale providing an ‘average’ rating. Around one in ten (12%) rate

Council’s overall performance as ‘poor’.


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

Council’s performance on five of the seven measures has decreased slightly (but not

significantly) compared to Council’s own results in 2016. Additionally, the 2017 results are generally

lower than the Large Rural average and significantly lower than State-wide council averages.

Community consultation and engagement and advocacy comprise the only exceptions. In the

case of both measures, Moorabool Shire Council’s performance index is significantly lower than

both the Large Rural and State-wide council averages.

Council’s performance index for making community decisions is the only core measure to see an

increase in ratings in 2017 (index score of 49 and an increase of one point). Ratings however are

slightly below the group average for Large Rural councils (two index points lower) and

significantly lower than the State-wide average (five index points lower).

Moorabool Shire Council’s performance on sealed local roads is the only core measure that is in-

line with the average for Large Rural councils (index score of 43). The result is still significantly

lower than the average for councils State-wide (index score of 53).

Moorabool Shire Council performs best in the area of customer service (index score of 64).

Customer service is the highest rated core performance measure. In the area of customer service,

Moorabool Shire Council is slightly below average for Large Rural councils (two index points lower)

and significantly below the State-wide council average (five index points lower).


More than half (58%) of Moorabool Shire Council residents have had recent contact with

Council. This level of contact has been relatively consistent over time.

In 2017, residents in the ‘remainder of Shire’ area are significantly more likely to have contacted

Council (71%) than their counterparts.

Those aged 18 to 34 years are significantly less likely to have contacted Council (47%).

Moorabool Shire Council’s customer service index of 64 is a reasonable result for Council. As

mentioned previously, it represents Council’s strongest result on core measures. Of note, the index

score of 64 represents a two point decline on Council’s 2016 index score of 66. Customer service

ratings have fluctuated from a steady peak of 68 seen in 2012 to 2014.

A quarter of residents (27%) rate Council’s customer service as ‘very good’, with a further 32%

rating customer service as ‘good’.

Whilst perceptions of customer service have generally remained consistent among most

demographic and geographic sub-groups, there has been a noticeable decline in ratings amongst

the following groups:

Residents aged 35 to 49 years (nine point drop)

Bacchus March residents (five point drop).

Whilst these declines are not significant, Council should focus on improving relations among these

two groups moving forward, as the performance index scores among these sub-groups are at their

lowest levels.


Beyond customer service, another area where Moorabool Shire Council is relatively well

regarded is waste management. With a performance index score of 65, it is the highest rated

individual service area among residents.

Waste management has consistently been rated highest of the individual service areas.

Performance has been gradually declining from a steady high of 69 between 2012 to 2014.

More than half of residents (59%) rate Council’s performance in the area of waste management

as ‘very good’ or ‘good’.

It is also considered to be the most important service area (importance index score of 80).

There is however room for improvement with ratings on waste management significantly lower

than the average for Large Rural and State-wide councils (68 and 71 index points respectively).

The appearance of public areas (performance index score of 64) is another area where Council is

rated more highly compared to other areas. It is the second highest performing individual service

area tested and sits mid-scale in terms of importance (importance index of 75).

Elderly support services performs third among individual service areas (performance index of 63),

just behind the appearance of public areas. Elderly support services are rated second highest in

importance by residents (importance index of 78).

Ballan residents are significantly more favourable in their rating of elderly support services

(performance index score of 71).

Again, there is room for improvement on the above measures as ratings are significantly below the

average for Large Rural and State-wide councils.


Whilst there are no significant declines in perceptions of performance of service areas in 2017, a four

point drop on the measure of sealed local roads (index score of 43) is an area of concern for Council.

This is also the service area which Council is seen to be performing worst.

Performance on this measure has fluctuated since 2014 and is at the equal lowest level to date.

Much of this decline can be attributed to more critical ratings on this issue in 2017 compared to 2016

from ‘remainder of Shire’ area residents and 65+ year olds. ‘Remainder of Shire’ area residents also

rate Council significantly lower on this measure than their counterparts (index score of 32).

The other three areas that stand out as being most in need of Council attention are advocacy

(performance index of 47), community consultation and engagement and the condition of local

streets and footpaths (performance index of 48 for each). These are the next worst performing

service areas. With respect to all measures, the result is significantly lower than the average for Large

Rural and State-wide councils.

Local streets and footpaths is the equal second highest ranking service area in terms of

importance (importance index score of 78).

Advocacy ratings have been gradually declining over time and are now at their lowest levels to

date, from a peak performance index of 54 in 2012.

Consultation and engagement ratings have been declining over time, with some fluctuations, and

are now at their equal lowest level to date.

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

the next 12 months supports these findings, with sealed road maintenance volunteered by 18% of

residents, community consultation volunteered by 14% and footpaths/walking tracks volunteered by

9% of residents.


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

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

priorities include:

Local streets & footpaths (margin of 29 points)

Recreational facilities (margin of 17 points)

Elderly support services (margin of 15 points)

Waste management (margin of 15 points)

Business and community development and tourism (margin of 13 points)

Family support services (margin of 12 points)

Appearance of public areas (margin of 11 points).

Consideration should also be given to residents aged 35 to 49 years and 50 to 64 years who appear to

be most driving negative opinion in 2017.

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

customer service, and aim to shore up service areas that are currently rated higher than others, such

as waste management and the appearance of public areas.

It is also important to learn from what is working amongst other groups, especially residents aged

18 to 34 years, and residents of Ballan, and use these lessons to build performance experience

and perceptions in other areas.


An approach we recommend is to further mine the survey data to better understand the profile of these

over and under-performing demographic groups. This can be achieved via additional consultation and

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

council.

Please note that the category descriptions for the coded open ended responses are generic

summaries only. We recommend further analysis of the detailed cross tabulations and the actual

verbatim responses, with a view to understanding the responses of the key gender and age groups,

especially any target groups identified as requiring attention.

A personal briefing by senior JWS Research representatives is also available to assist in

providing both explanation and interpretation of the results. Please contact JWS Research on

03 8685 8555.


• None applicableHigher results in 2017

(Significantly higher result than 2016)

• None applicableLower results in 2017

(Significantly lower result than 2016)

• Aged 18-34 yearsMost favourably disposed

towards Council

• Aged 35-49 yearsLeast favourably disposed

towards Council


68 68 68

6466

64

5758

56 5654 5454

51

48

5149

48

5250

4849

47

43

47

43

5452

5149

4847

4951

53 5351

49

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Customer Service

Overall Performance

Community Consultation

Making Community Decisions

Sealed Local Roads

Advocacy

Overall Council Direction


Performance MeasuresMoorabool

2017

Moorabool

2016

Large

Rural

2017

State-

wide

2017

Highest

score

Lowest

score

OVERALL PERFORMANCE 54 54 54 59Aged 18-

34 years

Aged 35-

49 years

COMMUNITY CONSULTATION(Community consultation and

engagement)

48 49 52 55Aged 18-

34 years

Aged 50-

64 years

ADVOCACY(Lobbying on behalf of the community)

47 48 51 54Ballan,

Aged 18-

34 years

Aged 35-

49 years

MAKING COMMUNITY

DECISIONS (Decisions made in the

interest of the community)

49 48 51 54 BallanAged 35-

64 years

SEALED LOCAL ROADS (Condition of sealed local roads)

43 47 43 53

Aged 18-

34 years,

Bacchus

Marsh

Remainder

of Shire

CUSTOMER SERVICE 64 66 66 69 Ballan Men

OVERALL COUNCIL DIRECTION 49 51 52 53Aged 18-

34 years

Aged 35-

49 years


6

6

4

6

7

27

32

17

14

20

20

32

41

38

37

36

30

24

12

18

16

16

23

6

9

9

8

10

20

11

1

12

21

12

Overall Performance


Advocacy

Making CommunityDecisions

Sealed Local Roads

Customer Service

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

Key Measures Summary Results

16 60 18 6Overall Council Direction

%Improved Stayed the same Deteriorated Can't say


78

73

78

80

67

74

75

Local streets & footpaths

Recreational facilities


Waste management

Bus/community dev./tourism

Family support services


48

55

63

65

54

62

64

Importance Performance Net Differential

-29

-17

-15

-15

-13

-12

-11

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

suggesting further investigation is necessary:


78

80

79

75

75

73

67

79

79

79

72

71

72

67

79

77

79

72

73

72

65

80

78

81

74

75

74

69

78

81

81

72

76

73

68

80

78

78

75

74

73

67

Waste management







2016 2015 2014 2013 20122017 Priority Area Importance

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

Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 32 Councils asked group: 5

Note: Please see page 5 for explanation of significant differences


40

36

36

28

30

27

20

41

42

41

46

40

43

39

17

17

17

22

22

24

30

1

2

4

2

5

5

8

1

1

1

1

1

1

3

2

2

3

1

2

Waste management







%

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

Individual Service Areas Importance

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



67

64

62

62

56

57

48

47

49

48

47

67

63

66

64

60

55

50

49

51

49

43

69

65

67

64

61

56

52

48

48

51

47

69

64

67

64

57

57

n/a

50

51

52

n/a

69

69

68

65

61

57

n/a

49

54

54

n/a

65

64

63

62

55

54

49

48

48

47

43

Waste management






Community decisions


Consultation & engagement

Lobbying

Sealed local roads

2017 Priority Area Performance 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

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


Note: Please see page 5 for explanation of significant differences


Individual Service Areas Performance

22

14

12

9

7

8

9

7

6

6

4

37

41

27

25

25

25

21

20

20

17

14

26

31

31

22

24

35

35

30

36

38

37

8

8

17

4

6

12

18

23

16

18

16

6

3

7

3

2

6

14

20

10

9

8

2

4

6

37

36

14

3

12

12

21

Waste management







Sealed local roads

Community decisions

Consultation & engagement

Lobbying

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

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



Sig

nif

ica

ntl

y h

igh

er

tha

n s

tate

-wid

e

ave

rag

e

Sig

nific

an

tly lo

we

r tha

n s

tate

-wid

e

ave

rag

e

-None Applicable -Consultation &

engagement

-Lobbying

-Local streets & footpaths

-Family support services

-Elderly support services

-Recreational facilities

-Appearance of public

areas

-Waste management

-Bus/community

dev./tourism

-Making community

decisions

-Sealed local roads


Sig

nif

ica

ntl

y h

igh

er

tha

n g

rou

p

ave

rag

e Sig

nific

an

tly lo

we

r tha

n g

rou

p

ave

rag

e

-None Applicable -Consultation &

engagement

-Lobbying

-Local streets & footpaths

-Family support services

-Elderly support services

-Recreational facilities

-Appearance of public

areas

-Waste management

-Bus/community

dev./tourism


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

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

Moorabool Shire

Council

1. Waste

management

2. Appearance of

public areas

3. Elderly support

services

Metropolitan

1. Waste

management

2. Art centres &

libraries

3. Recreational

facilities

Interface

1. Art centres &

libraries

2. Waste

management

3. Emergency &

disaster mngt

Regional Centres

1. Art centres &

libraries

2. Appearance of

public areas

3. Emergency &

disaster mngt

Large Rural

1. Appearance of

public areas

2. Emergency &

disaster mngt

3. Art centres &

libraries

Small Rural

1. Emergency &

disaster mngt

2. Art centres &

libraries

3. Community &

cultural

Moorabool Shire

Council

1. Sealed roads

2. Lobbying

3. Consultation &

engagement

Metropolitan

1. Planning

permits

2. Population

growth

3. Parking facilities

Interface

1. Unsealed roads

2. Planning

permits

3. Population

growth

Regional Centres

1. Parking facilities

2. Community

decisions

3. Unsealed roads

Large Rural

1. Unsealed roads

2. Sealed roads

3. Slashing &

weed control

Small Rural

1. Unsealed roads

2. Sealed roads

3. Planning

permits


18

14

10

9

9

6

6

7

Sealed Road Maintenance


Recreational Facilities

Footpaths/Walking Tracks

Communication

Infrastructure

Traffic Management

Nothing

2017 Areas for Improvement

%

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



61

59

56

55

55

54

54

54

52

52

50

48

18-34

State-wide

65+

Women

Ballan

Large Rural

Bacchus Marsh

Moorabool

Men

Remainder of Shire

50-64

35-49

60

59

55

54

46

54

56

54

53

53

52

48

61

60

56

55

59

56

59

56

57

52

55

54

58

61

56

55

55

n/a

56

56

56

54

53

55

66

60

59

57

53

n/a

57

58

59

60

55

52

60

60

60

57

n/a

n/a

n/a

57

57

n/a

52

56

2017 Overall Performance 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q3. ON BALANCE, for the last twelve months, how do you feel about the performance of Moorabool Shire Council, not just

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

poor?


Note: Please see page 5 for explanation about significant differences


2017 Overall Performance

6

8

7

7

9

5

9

6

7

7

4

5

7

9

3

4

9

32

26

33

35

33

36

36

31

32

29

31

33

30

38

33

25

30

41

45

43

38

42

44

37

41

39

44

44

37

44

43

33

48

40

12

11

9

10

11

8

10

14

12

18

9

15

9

8

12

14

14

9

9

7

9

4

6

5

7

9

3

11

9

9

2

17

10

5

1

2

1

1

2

2

2

1

1

1

1

2

2017 Moorabool

2016 Moorabool

2015 Moorabool

2014 Moorabool

2013 Moorabool

2012 Moorabool

State-wide

Large Rural

Bacchus Marsh

Ballan

Remainder of Shire

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 Moorabool Shire Council, not just

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

poor?



Overall contact with Moorabool Shire Council

Most contact with Moorabool Shire Council

Least contact with Moorabool Shire Council

Customer service rating

Most satisfied with customer service

Least satisfied with customer service

• Men

• Ballan

• Index score of 64, down 2 points on 2016

• Aged 18-34 years

• Remainder of Shire

• 58%, down 1 point on 2016


71

65

64

63

62

62

61

58

55

54

53

47

Remainder of Shire

35-49

50-64

Ballan

Large Rural

Women

State-wide

Moorabool

65+

Men

Bacchus Marsh

18-34

2017 Contact with Council

%

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




2017 Contact with Council

65

6159

6259 58

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Have had contact

%

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



71

69

69

68

66

66

65

64

64

62

61

60

Ballan

State-wide

65+

Women

Large Rural

Remainder of Shire

18-34

50-64

Moorabool

Bacchus Marsh

35-49

Men

69

69

69

68

67

63

62

64

66

67

70

64

60

70

66

65

67

59

61

64

64

67

64

62

70

72

69

67

n/a

67

63

72

68

67

67

68

62

71

70

69

n/a

67

75

68

68

69

63

67

n/a

71

77

69

n/a

n/a

61

67

68

n/a

68

66

2017 Customer Service Rating2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q5c. Thinking of the most recent contact, how would you rate Moorabool 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: 68 Councils asked group: 19



27

27

22

30

27

29

30

25

24

33

29

26

28

18

23

36

29

32

34

38

35

37

33

36

37

32

26

35

25

38

38

33

23

37

24

23

20

18

19

23

18

20

23

37

20

29

20

35

25

18

20

6

10

11

7

10

7

8

9

7

5

4

7

5

3

8

7

11

6

8

10

5

7

6

8

13

4

11

16

7

4

16

15

7

1

1

1

1

2

2

2017 Moorabool

2016 Moorabool

2015 Moorabool

2014 Moorabool

2013 Moorabool

2012 Moorabool

State-wide

Large Rural

Bacchus Marsh

Ballan

Remainder of Shire

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


2017 Customer Service Rating

Q5c. Thinking of the most recent contact, how would you rate Moorabool 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: 68 Councils asked group: 19




• 60% stayed about the same, down 7 points on 2016

• 16% improved, up 1 point on 2016

• 18% deteriorated, up 5 points on 2016

Least satisfied with Council Direction from Q6

Most satisfied with Council Direction from Q6

Council Direction from Q6


54

53

53

52

52

51

49

48

48

48

46

45

18-34

Remainder of Shire

State-wide

65+

Large Rural

Men

Moorabool

Bacchus Marsh

Ballan

Women

50-64

35-49

53

50

51

52

48

48

51

53

45

54

46

52

62

52

53

54

51

54

53

54

53

53

47

51

57

54

53

54

n/a

55

53

53

55

51

52

51

55

52

53

55

n/a

48

51

51

50

53

46

49

53

n/a

52

53

n/a

49

49

n/a

n/a

50

46

47

2016 2015 2014 2013 20122017 Overall Direction

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




16

15

16

19

15

14

19

19

15

19

18

22

11

24

12

12

17

60

67

69

65

68

67

62

61

61

55

60

51

68

55

61

60

64

18

13

9

13

13

16

13

15

19

23

13

20

15

16

22

19

13

6

5

6

3

4

2

6

5

5

3

9

7

5

4

6

8

6

2017 Moorabool

2016 Moorabool

2015 Moorabool

2014 Moorabool

2013 Moorabool

2012 Moorabool

State-wide

Large Rural

Bacchus Marsh

Ballan

Remainder of Shire

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+

% Improved Stayed the same Deteriorated Can't say

2017 Overall Direction

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



55

53

52

50

50

49

49

48

47

45

45

44

State-wide

18-34

Large Rural

Women

Ballan

65+

Remainder of Shire

Moorabool

Bacchus Marsh

Men

35-49

50-64

54

53

52

53

43

53

50

49

49

45

43

47

56

55

54

51

43

50

50

51

53

51

51

49

57

48

n/a

47

50

52

51

48

47

50

46

50

57

61

n/a

54

52

49

51

51

50

48

46

47

57

59

n/a

53

n/a

58

n/a

54

n/a

55

54

46

2017 Consultation and Engagement Performance2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

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




6

6

6

5

9

9

7

6

5

8

8

5

7

7

6

7

5

17

23

25

21

22

25

29

28

16

19

19

16

18

17

15

14

23

38

35

36

35

31

35

32

33

40

39

32

35

40

51

38

32

28

18

16

17

21

20

17

15

16

19

18

16

21

16

10

21

20

22

9

11

7

8

9

6

6

8

8

10

13

11

7

4

12

13

8

12

9

8

10

8

8

10

9

13

7

13

12

12

11

9

14

15

2017 Moorabool

2016 Moorabool

2015 Moorabool

2014 Moorabool

2013 Moorabool

2012 Moorabool

State-wide

Large Rural

Bacchus Marsh

Ballan

Remainder of Shire

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


2017 Consultation and Engagement Performance

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



54

51

51

51

50

48

47

46

46

45

44

40

State-wide

Ballan

18-34

Large Rural

65+

Women

Moorabool

Bacchus Marsh

50-64

Men

Remainder of Shire

35-49

53

32

55

50

53

49

48

54

43

48

47

44

55

51

52

53

45

47

49

49

53

51

49

45

56

58

54

n/a

51

51

51

50

51

50

49

47

55

50

61

n/a

54

51

52

53

49

54

51

47

55

n/a

60

n/a

56

53

54

n/a

49

55

n/a

52

2017 Lobbying Performance2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

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




4

6

3

5

5

8

5

4

4

4

4

2

5

4

3

2

5

14

14

20

22

26

24

24

22

13

21

12

16

12

17

10

15

14

37

34

33

32

32

35

31

33

37

37

38

35

40

54

31

32

33

16

16

17

19

18

14

13

15

17

12

14

15

17

13

16

18

17

8

7

7

5

5

6

5

6

7

7

12

11

6

4

16

7

4

21

23

20

17

13

14

22

20

22

18

21

22

20

9

23

26

27

2017 Moorabool

2016 Moorabool

2015 Moorabool

2014 Moorabool

2013 Moorabool

2012 Moorabool

State-wide

Large Rural

Bacchus Marsh

Ballan

Remainder of Shire

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


2017 Lobbying Performance

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



54

53

52

51

50

50

50

49

48

48

47

47

State-wide

Ballan

18-34

Large Rural

65+

Remainder of Shire

Women

Moorabool

Men

Bacchus Marsh

35-49

50-64

54

38

53

50

51

52

49

48

47

49

41

50

55

43

59

52

47

49

49

50

51

52

45

49

57

52

54

n/a

53

53

51

52

53

51

51

50

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

2017 Community Decisions Made Performance2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

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




6

6

5

5

6

5

7

7

4

5

7

8

4

4

7

20

22

24

25

29

26

18

25

24

22

19

19

23

22

17

36

34

38

39

34

36

35

42

34

36

36

41

34

34

34

16

19

15

16

14

16

16

15

16

18

14

16

14

19

15

10

10

9

6

7

8

11

5

8

10

10

6

14

10

9

12

10

9

9

10

9

13

6

15

11

14

9

11

11

18

2017 Moorabool

2016 Moorabool

2015 Moorabool

2014 Moorabool

State-wide

Large Rural

Bacchus Marsh

Ballan

Remainder of Shire

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


2017 Community Decisions Made Performance

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



53

47

47

45

43

43

43

43

41

40

38

32

State-wide

18-34

Bacchus Marsh

65+

Large Rural

Women

Moorabool

Men

50-64

Ballan

35-49

Remainder of Shire

54

48

52

55

44

45

47

48

45

33

41

44

55

46

49

42

45

39

43

48

44

43

41

34

55

48

51

49

n/a

49

47

45

42

42

47

40

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

2017 Sealed Local Roads Performance2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

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




7

8

4

6

11

6

8

3

4

9

5

12

5

4

6

20

25

20

23

32

22

22

22

12

21

19

19

16

21

24

30

29

36

35

28

29

33

30

23

26

35

24

34

31

32

23

18

26

22

16

22

21

20

28

22

24

34

15

24

18

20

18

14

14

12

19

15

24

32

23

17

10

30

20

19

2

1

1

1

1

1

2

2017 Moorabool

2016 Moorabool

2015 Moorabool

2014 Moorabool

State-wide

Large Rural

Bacchus Marsh

Ballan

Remainder of Shire

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


2017 Sealed Local Roads Performance

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



80

80

79

79

78

78

77

77

75

75

75

75

Women

35-49

50-64

Bacchus Marsh

Moorabool

65+

Remainder of Shire

State-wide

Large Rural

Men

Ballan

18-34

82

79

80

79

79

76

76

77

77

76

82

79

81

80

84

80

79

77

79

77

77

77

77

77

81

82

83

79

79

77

77

77

n/a

76

78

72

83

83

82

81

81

82

78

78

n/a

78

89

75

83

81

84

n/a

81

78

n/a

77

n/a

79

n/a

80

2017 Streets and Footpaths Importance2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

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




36

40

38

39

43

44

34

31

39

30

33

31

42

32

41

40

31

41

37

41

40

39

38

42

42

41

42

41

41

41

40

39

37

48

17

17

17

16

14

15

19

22

15

23

17

21

12

21

16

15

13

4

1

2

3

2

1

2

3

5

4

2

4

5

7

3

3

4

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

3

2

1

1

1

1

2

1

6

2

1

4

4

2017 Moorabool

2016 Moorabool

2015 Moorabool

2014 Moorabool

2013 Moorabool

2012 Moorabool

State-wide

Large Rural

Bacchus Marsh

Ballan

Remainder of Shire

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+

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

2017 Streets and Footpaths Importance

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



57

56

53

50

49

48

48

47

47

46

44

44

State-wide

18-34

Large Rural

Bacchus Marsh

Men

Moorabool

Women

Ballan

65+

35-49

Remainder of Shire

50-64

57

51

53

54

46

47

47

38

53

40

38

43

58

57

54

53

52

49

45

53

46

43

40

51

58

51

n/a

51

49

48

46

43

51

48

44

41

58

57

n/a

52

50

50

49

42

48

47

45

46

57

53

n/a

n/a

49

49

48

n/a

55

46

n/a

42

2017 Streets and Footpaths Performance2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

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




9

6

7

5

12

8

13

10

10

8

7

10

8

17

8

4

7

21

23

25

25

24

24

33

29

22

20

19

20

22

21

18

25

21

35

33

33

36

29

35

28

28

37

33

31

35

35

39

40

27

32

18

18

19

18

18

17

15

17

17

21

19

18

18

17

15

20

20

14

15

12

13

15

15

9

11

13

14

17

14

14

6

17

19

13

3

5

4

3

1

1

2

4

1

4

7

4

2

1

4

7

2017 Moorabool

2016 Moorabool

2015 Moorabool

2014 Moorabool

2013 Moorabool

2012 Moorabool

State-wide

Large Rural

Bacchus Marsh

Ballan

Remainder of Shire

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


2017 Streets and Footpaths Performance

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



81

78

74

74

74

73

73

72

72

72

71

66

Women

18-34

Remainder of Shire

Bacchus Marsh

Moorabool

State-wide

65+

Large Rural

50-64

35-49

Ballan

Men

79

74

72

76

75

73

76

72

73

77

78

71

77

73

69

73

71

73

67

72

74

71

70

66

78

72

70

75

73

72

70

n/a

77

74

71

68

81

77

70

77

75

73

76

n/a

74

74

74

69

81

78

n/a

n/a

76

73

75

n/a

75

77

n/a

71

2017 Family Support Importance2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

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




30

28

26

28

30

31

28

27

30

22

31

20

38

35

30

31

22

40

46

40

38

43

44

41

42

39

47

38

35

45

45

38

34

44

22

19

25

27

21

19

22

23

22

25

20

33

12

18

24

25

20

5

3

3

4

3

3

5

5

4

6

6

7

2

2

6

6

5

1

1

3

1

1

2

2

1

1

2

2

2

3

3

3

3

2

3

2

2

3

4

2

3

2

9

2017 Moorabool

2016 Moorabool

2015 Moorabool

2014 Moorabool

2013 Moorabool

2012 Moorabool

State-wide

Large Rural

Bacchus Marsh

Ballan

Remainder of Shire

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


2017 Family Support Importance

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



67

65

65

65

64

63

62

62

62

61

59

58

State-wide

Ballan

Large Rural

65+

18-34

Women

50-64

Bacchus Marsh

Moorabool

Men

Remainder of Shire

35-49

66

62

64

62

64

61

60

63

62

64

61

63

67

59

67

61

63

63

64

64

64

64

64

65

68

67

n/a

64

69

65

60

65

64

64

61

63

67

60

n/a

66

70

65

59

66

64

64

63

62

67

n/a

n/a

67

68

65

61

n/a

65

66

n/a

66

2017 Family Support Performance2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

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




7

10

7

9

11

12

11

9

8

7

7

6

9

9

6

7

9

25

26

28

34

28

30

30

31

25

30

22

25

25

36

25

21

16

24

25

25

22

29

25

20

22

26

25

22

26

23

28

24

22

24

6

3

4

6

6

5

4

5

4

4

10

5

7

9

7

4

2

2

4

1

2

1

1

1

2

2

2

2

1

5

2

1

36

31

35

27

26

26

34

31

35

35

38

37

34

19

33

44

48

2017 Moorabool

2016 Moorabool

2015 Moorabool

2014 Moorabool

2013 Moorabool

2012 Moorabool

State-wide

Large Rural

Bacchus Marsh

Ballan

Remainder of Shire

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


2017 Family Support Performance

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



85

80

80

79

78

78

78

78

77

77

77

72

Women

18-34

50-64

Bacchus Marsh

Moorabool

Large Rural

State-wide

65+

Ballan

Remainder of Shire

35-49

Men

84

79

79

81

80

78

78

81

81

77

81

76

83

80

82

79

79

78

79

74

78

79

79

74

83

71

82

78

77

n/a

79

77

72

76

78

71

81

76

80

79

78

n/a

79

83

80

74

75

74

87

78

83

n/a

81

n/a

80

83

n/a

n/a

82

76

2017 Elderly Support Importance2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

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




36

39

35

34

34

42

35

36

39

32

30

24

48

35

36

44

29

42

45

44

42

46

42

44

43

40

45

46

43

41

51

37

33

47

17

12

17

20

17

13

17

17

15

20

21

24

10

10

22

17

17

2

2

2

2

3

2

2

2

2

1

1

4

4

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

2

2

3

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

3

1

2

4

1

2

1

2

5

2017 Moorabool

2016 Moorabool

2015 Moorabool

2014 Moorabool

2013 Moorabool

2012 Moorabool

State-wide

Large Rural

Bacchus Marsh

Ballan

Remainder of Shire

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


2017 Elderly Support Importance

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



71

68

67

66

65

63

63

63

62

62

62

62

Ballan

State-wide

Large Rural

18-34

Women

Moorabool

65+

Remainder of Shire

35-49

Bacchus Marsh

Men

50-64

66

68

66

69

62

62

65

56

56

64

63

59

71

69

69

69

66

66

64

65

63

65

66

66

77

70

n/a

67

66

67

68

57

66

69

67

67

75

69

n/a

74

68

67

72

63

61

68

67

64

n/a

69

n/a

70

69

68

70

n/a

70

n/a

68

63

2017 Elderly Support Performance2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

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




9

10

10

13

14

16

14

14

6

19

12

7

11

11

5

9

14

25

24

27

30

27

29

31

31

28

24

19

26

25

30

22

26

25

22

28

17

20

23

23

19

20

24

24

15

18

26

28

17

22

22

4

4

4

4

5

3

4

5

3

3

7

6

2

4

1

4

6

3

3

2

3

1

2

2

2

3

4

3

3

3

4

5

37

31

39

31

31

26

30

27

36

30

43

40

33

28

52

35

29

2017 Moorabool

2016 Moorabool

2015 Moorabool

2014 Moorabool

2013 Moorabool

2012 Moorabool

State-wide

Large Rural

Bacchus Marsh

Ballan

Remainder of Shire

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


2017 Elderly Support Performance

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



77

75

74

74

74

73

72

72

70

68

68

66

Women

Bacchus Marsh

18-34

35-49

50-64

Moorabool

Large Rural

State-wide

Ballan

65+

Men

Remainder of Shire

74

76

70

76

73

73

72

73

72

70

71

66

74

74

74

75

73

72

72

72

67

65

70

70

73

74

66

76

75

72

n/a

72

72

70

70

67

77

77

70

77

73

74

n/a

72

74

73

70

65

76

n/a

70

77

70

73

n/a

72

n/a

74

70

n/a

2017 Recreational Facilities Importance2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

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




27

26

21

24

25

24

24

24

32

14

20

23

30

26

32

30

18

43

45

52

43

47

47

46

46

42

55

37

35

50

50

34

42

45

24

21

20

28

25

23

26

25

20

25

34

33

15

21

30

22

21

5

6

4

5

2

3

4

4

5

4

5

7

2

4

3

4

7

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

3

1

1

2

2

1

2

1

1

2

1

1

3

1

1

2

6

2017 Moorabool

2016 Moorabool

2015 Moorabool

2014 Moorabool

2013 Moorabool

2012 Moorabool

State-wide

Large Rural

Bacchus Marsh

Ballan

Remainder of Shire

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


2017 Recreational Facilities Importance

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



70

66

61

60

59

58

56

55

55

54

52

51

State-wide

Large Rural

65+

Men

Remainder of Shire

Ballan

18-34

Moorabool

50-64

Bacchus Marsh

35-49

Women

69

65

60

56

57

53

60

56

55

57

52

56

70

66

61

63

62

59

65

60

64

60

53

57

71

n/a

65

61

65

60

64

61

58

60

58

61

70

n/a

62

58

63

59

60

57

55

55

54

56

70

n/a

66

65

n/a

n/a

59

61

57

n/a

62

57

2017 Recreational Facilities Performance2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

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




12

10

12

12

11

17

22

19

13

10

9

14

9

15

7

9

16

27

31

34

37

31

28

43

41

26

30

29

33

22

25

30

27

27

31

31

31

32

32

32

22

23

27

41

35

27

35

30

34

31

28

17

12

10

11

17

14

7

9

21

12

9

14

20

24

16

15

13

7

8

5

4

5

4

2

3

8

4

4

5

8

4

10

7

4

6

8

7

4

4

5

4

5

4

3

14

6

6

2

2

10

11

2017 Moorabool

2016 Moorabool

2015 Moorabool

2014 Moorabool

2013 Moorabool

2012 Moorabool

State-wide

Large Rural

Bacchus Marsh

Ballan

Remainder of Shire

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


2017 Recreational Facilities Performance

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



78

77

76

76

75

75

75

74

73

73

72

72

Women

Bacchus Marsh

35-49

50-64

Ballan

Moorabool

18-34

State-wide

65+

Large Rural

Men

Remainder of Shire

77

76

74

75

76

75

76

74

73

74

73

73

73

74

75

73

72

72

71

73

67

73

70

68

74

74

74

77

68

72

65

73

72

n/a

69

67

74

76

77

75

75

74

71

74

73

n/a

74

68

74

n/a

75

72

n/a

72

70

73

72

n/a

71

n/a

2017 Public Areas Importance2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

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




28

24

20

23

27

21

26

25

32

16

25

24

32

30

32

29

22

46

51

49

48

46

51

47

46

43

71

41

45

47

38

46

50

51

22

22

27

21

23

25

24

27

22

11

25

27

16

30

19

18

20

2

2

2

5

3

3

2

2

1

1

5

2

2

2

2

4

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

3

1

2

2

1

4

2017 Moorabool

2016 Moorabool

2015 Moorabool

2014 Moorabool

2013 Moorabool

2012 Moorabool

State-wide

Large Rural

Bacchus Marsh

Ballan

Remainder of Shire

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


2017 Public Areas Importance

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



71

69

66

66

66

66

64

64

64

63

63

61

State-wide

Large Rural

18-34

Remainder of Shire

35-49

Women

Moorabool

Bacchus Marsh

65+

Men

Ballan

50-64

71

69

67

65

64

65

64

65

66

64

62

60

72

69

64

62

63

61

63

64

63

65

59

63

72

n/a

66

64

67

67

65

64

65

63

69

60

71

n/a

72

67

61

64

64

64

61

64

58

62

71

n/a

72

n/a

68

69

69

n/a

71

68

n/a

63

2017 Public Areas Performance2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

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




14

13

11

15

17

20

25

20

15

11

12

10

17

13

18

10

13

41

43

44

44

35

41

46

45

40

39

46

45

37

46

41

39

37

31

30

33

28

35

32

20

23

33

37

26

31

32

35

29

30

33

8

9

5

9

10

4

6

7

8

11

6

9

7

6

6

12

7

3

3

4

3

2

2

2

2

3

2

2

3

5

3

2

4

3

2

1

2

1

1

1

2

3

9

3

5

1

6

8

2017 Moorabool

2016 Moorabool

2015 Moorabool

2014 Moorabool

2013 Moorabool

2012 Moorabool

State-wide

Large Rural

Bacchus Marsh

Ballan

Remainder of Shire

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


2017 Public Areas Performance

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



83

82

82

80

80

79

79

79

79

78

78

77

50-64

Women

Bacchus Marsh

Moorabool

35-49

Ballan

State-wide

18-34

65+

Large Rural

Men

Remainder of Shire

80

79

79

78

77

79

80

75

82

79

77

76

83

80

79

79

83

76

79

71

78

78

78

79

83

82

81

79

80

77

79

75

79

n/a

76

76

82

83

80

80

81

82

79

76

82

n/a

77

79

81

81

n/a

78

80

n/a

78

73

80

n/a

76

n/a

2017 Waste Management Importance2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

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




40

36

37

37

41

35

36

34

43

37

33

35

45

39

44

45

31

41

42

41

42

41

44

46

46

40

45

43

43

40

41

31

43

54

17

18

20

19

16

18

16

18

16

17

21

20

14

18

25

12

12

1

2

1

2

2

1

1

1

3

1

1

2

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

2017 Moorabool

2016 Moorabool

2015 Moorabool

2014 Moorabool

2013 Moorabool

2012 Moorabool

State-wide

Large Rural

Bacchus Marsh

Ballan

Remainder of Shire

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


2017 Waste Management Importance

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



71

69

68

67

66

66

66

65

65

65

64

61

State-wide

65+

Large Rural

Women

Ballan

35-49

Remainder of Shire

Moorabool

50-64

Bacchus Marsh

Men

18-34

70

70

66

65

62

66

68

67

66

67

68

64

72

68

68

66

66

65

68

67

67

66

68

67

73

68

n/a

68

68

68

69

69

67

69

70

73

71

71

n/a

68

63

67

75

69

65

67

70

75

72

75

n/a

69

n/a

68

n/a

69

68

n/a

70

68

2017 Waste Management Performance2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

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




22

20

20

26

24

23

25

21

22

29

17

21

22

19

24

18

26

37

39

41

39

41

42

44

44

37

36

36

38

35

32

36

39

40

26

26

28

21

23

23

18

21

26

15

31

21

30

26

27

28

20

8

6

5

9

8

8

6

7

10

9

5

10

7

9

7

10

8

6

5

5

4

3

2

3

4

6

10

4

9

3

10

6

2

5

2

3

1

1

1

2

3

4

8

1

2

4

2

2

2017 Moorabool

2016 Moorabool

2015 Moorabool

2014 Moorabool

2013 Moorabool

2012 Moorabool

State-wide

Large Rural

Bacchus Marsh

Ballan

Remainder of Shire

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


2017 Waste Management Performance

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



71

71

70

68

68

67

67

67

66

64

62

61

18-34

Women

Bacchus Marsh

50-64

35-49

State-wide

Moorabool

Large Rural

Ballan

Men

Remainder of Shire

65+

65

69

71

65

70

67

67

69

58

64

62

65

70

67

69

67

69

67

67

70

67

67

64

62

62

66

66

67

66

67

65

n/a

64

63

62

64

68

71

71

69

69

67

69

n/a

71

66

62

67

66

70

n/a

66

71

66

68

n/a

n/a

65

n/a

67

2017 Business/Development/Tourism Importance2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

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




20

19

18

15

18

20

21

18

23

12

14

18

22

21

22

19

15

39

42

41

39

44

39

38

41

40

46

33

34

44

47

36

43

30

30

27

32

36

32

33

30

31

27

33

38

33

27

26

32

25

37

8

9

7

7

5

6

8

8

7

8

12

12

5

6

7

9

12

1

3

1

2

1

1

2

2

1

2

2

1

2

2

2

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

2

1

2

1

2

3

2017 Moorabool

2016 Moorabool

2015 Moorabool

2014 Moorabool

2013 Moorabool

2012 Moorabool

State-wide

Large Rural

Bacchus Marsh

Ballan

Remainder of Shire

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


2017 Business/Development/Tourism Importance

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



61

60

58

57

57

55

54

54

54

52

52

49

State-wide

Large Rural

65+

Women

Bacchus Marsh

35-49

Moorabool

50-64

Ballan

Men

18-34

Remainder of Shire

60

59

59

58

61

54

57

54

52

57

63

53

61

59

53

58

58

53

55

54

54

52

60

49

62

n/a

55

59

57

57

56

54

56

53

58

53

62

n/a

62

57

59

54

57

52

51

57

62

55

62

n/a

60

58

n/a

60

57

51

n/a

57

59

n/a

2017 Business/Development/Tourism Performance2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

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




8

6

7

7

7

9

11

11

10

1

4

5

10

7

9

8

7

25

31

28

31

34

30

34

33

26

26

20

27

23

24

25

21

28

35

34

32

32

33

36

29

31

33

47

35

31

39

31

37

38

37

12

10

13

14

13

13

10

12

10

13

20

15

10

19

6

17

9

6

4

5

5

4

4

3

4

7

1

6

8

5

6

10

3

4

14

16

15

12

9

8

14

9

14

12

14

14

13

13

13

13

16

2017 Moorabool

2016 Moorabool

2015 Moorabool

2014 Moorabool

2013 Moorabool

2012 Moorabool

State-wide

Large Rural

Bacchus Marsh

Ballan

Remainder of Shire

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


2017 Business/Development/Tourism Performance

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



Please note that for the reason of simplifying reporting, interlocking age and gender reporting has not

been included in this report. Interlocking age and gender analysis is still available in the dashboard

and data tables provided alongside this report.

Gender Age

49%51%

Men

Women

8%

17%

28%24%

23%18-24

25-34

35-49

50-64

65+

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



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 Moorabool Shire Council according to the most recently

available Australian Bureau of Statistics population estimates, whereas the results were previously

not weighted.

The service responsibility area performance measures have changed significantly and the rating

scale used to assess performance has also changed.

As such, the results of the 2012 State-wide Local Government Community Satisfaction Survey should

be considered as a benchmark. Please note that comparisons should not be made with the State-wide

Local Government Community Satisfaction Survey results from 2011 and prior due to the

methodological and sampling changes. Comparisons in the period 2012-2017 have been made

throughout this report as appropriate.


Demographic Actual survey

sample sizeWeighted base

Maximum margin of error at

95% confidence interval

Moorabool Shire Council 400 400 +/-4.9

Men 192 198 +/-7.1

Women 208 202 +/-6.8

Bacchus Marsh 245 257 +/-6.2

Ballan 53 49 +/-13.6

Remainder of Shire 102 94 +/-9.7

18-34 years 47 101 +/-14.4

35-49 years 87 113 +/-10.5

50-64 years 137 96 +/-8.4

65+ years 129 90 +/-8.6

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

Moorabool 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 +/-4.9% 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 45.1% - 54.9%.

Maximum margins of error are listed in the table below, based on a population of 24,000 people aged

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


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

68 of the 79 Councils throughout Victoria participated in this survey. For consistency of analysis and

reporting across all projects, Local Government Victoria has aligned its presentation of data to use

standard council groupings. Accordingly, the council reports for the community satisfaction survey

provide analysis using these standard council groupings. Please note that councils participating across

2012-2017 vary slightly.

Council Groups

Moorabool 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, Macedon Ranges, Mitchell, Moira, Moorabool,

Mount Alexander, Moyne, South Gippsland, Southern Grampians, Surf Coast, Swan Hill and

Wellington.

Wherever appropriate, results for Moorabool Shire Council for this 2017 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 that council groupings changed for 2015, and as

such comparisons to council group results before that time can not be made within the reported charts.


Index Scores

Many questions ask respondents to rate council performance on a five-point scale, for example, from

‘very good’ to ‘very poor’, with ‘can’t say’ also a possible response category. To facilitate ease of

reporting and comparison of results over time, starting from the 2012 survey and measured against the

state-wide result and the council group, an ‘Index Score’ has been calculated for such measures.

The Index Score is calculated and represented as a score out of 100 (on a 0 to 100 scale), with ‘can’t

say’ responses excluded from the analysis. The ‘% RESULT’ for each scale category is multiplied by

the ‘INDEX FACTOR’. This produces an ‘INDEX VALUE’ for each category, which are then summed to

produce the ‘INDEX SCORE’, equating to ‘60’ in the following example.

SCALE

CATEGORIES% RESULT INDEX FACTOR INDEX VALUE

Very good 9% 100 9

Good 40% 75 30

Average 37% 50 19

Poor 9% 25 2

Very poor 4% 0 0

Can’t say 1% -- INDEX SCORE 60


Similarly, an Index Score has been calculated for the Core question ‘Performance direction in the last

12 months’, based on the following scale for each performance measure category, with ‘Can’t say’

responses excluded from the calculation.

SCALE CATEGORIES % RESULT INDEX FACTOR INDEX VALUE

Improved 36% 100 36

Stayed the same 40% 50 20

Deteriorated 23% 0 0

Can’t say 1% -- INDEX SCORE 56


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

indicate:

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

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

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

INDEX SCORE Performance implication Importance implication

75 – 100Council is performing very well

in this service area

This service area is seen to be

extremely important

60 – 75Council is performing well in this service

area, but there is room for improvement


very important

50 – 60Council is performing satisfactorily in

this service area but needs to improve


fairly important

40 – 50Council is performing poorly



somewhat important

0 – 40Council is performing very poorly



not that important


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

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

Where:

$1 = Index Score 1

$2 = Index Score 2

$3 = unweighted sample count 1

$4 = unweighted sample count 1

$5 = standard deviation 1

$6 = standard deviation 2

All figures can be sourced from the detailed cross tabulations.

The test was applied at the 95% confidence interval, so if the Z Score was greater than +/- 1.954 the

scores are significantly different.


Core, Optional and Tailored Questions

Over and above necessary geographic and demographic questions required to ensure sample representativeness, a base set of questions for the 2017 State-wide Local Government Community Satisfaction Survey was designated as ‘Core’ and therefore compulsory inclusions for all participating Councils.

These core questions comprised:

Overall performance last 12 months (Overall performance)

Lobbying on behalf of community (Advocacy)

Community consultation and engagement (Consultation)

Decisions made in the interest of the community (Making community decisions)

Condition of sealed local roads (Sealed local roads)

Contact in last 12 months (Contact)

Rating of contact (Customer service)

Overall council direction last 12 months (Council direction)

Reporting of results for these core questions can always be compared against other participating councils in the council group and against all participating councils state-wide. Alternatively, some questions in the 2017 State-wide Local Government Community Satisfaction Survey were optional. Councils also had the ability to ask tailored questions specific only to their council.


Reporting

Every council that participated in the 2017 State-wide Local Government Community Satisfaction

Survey receives a customised report. In addition, the state government is supplied with a state-wide

summary report of the aggregate results of ‘Core’ and ‘Optional’ questions asked across all council

areas surveyed.

Tailored questions commissioned by individual councils are reported only to the commissioning council

and not otherwise shared unless by express written approval of the commissioning council.

The overall State-wide Local Government Community Satisfaction Report is available at

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

.

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


Core questions: Compulsory inclusion questions for all councils participating in the CSS.

CSS: 2017 Victorian Local Government Community Satisfaction Survey.

Council group: One of five classified groups, comprising: metropolitan, interface, regional centres, large rural and

small rural.

Council group average: The average result for all participating councils in the council group.

Highest / lowest: The result described is the highest or lowest result across a particular demographic sub-group e.g.

men, for the specific question being reported. Reference to the result for a demographic sub-group being the highest or

lowest does not imply that it is significantly higher or lower, unless this is specifically mentioned.

Index score: A score calculated and represented as a score out of 100 (on a 0 to 100 scale). This score is sometimes

reported as a figure in brackets next to the category being described, e.g. men 50+ (60).

Optional questions: Questions which councils had an option to include or not.

Percentages: Also referred to as ‘detailed results’, meaning the proportion of responses, expressed as a percentage.

Sample: The number of completed interviews, e.g. for a council or within a demographic sub-group.

Significantly higher / lower: The result described is significantly higher or lower than the comparison result based on

a statistical significance test at the 95% confidence limit. If the result referenced is statistically higher or lower then this

will be specifically mentioned, however not all significantly higher or lower results are referenced in summary reporting.

Statewide average: The average result for all participating councils in the State.

Tailored questions: Individual questions tailored by and only reported to the commissioning council.

Weighting: Weighting factors are applied to the sample for each council based on available age and gender

proportions from ABS census information to ensure reported results are proportionate to the actual population of the

council, rather than the achieved survey sample.

Contact Us:

03 8685 8555

John Scales

Managing Director

Mark Zuker

Managing Director

Date post:	11-Mar-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	phamkhuong
View:	213 times
Download:	0 times

Background and objectives - moorabool.vic.gov.au Community Satisfaction Survey throughout Victorian...

Documents