LOCAL GOVERNMENT community satisfaction survey Moreland ...

LOCAL GOVERNMENT community satisfaction survey

Moreland City Council

2015 Research Report

Coordinated by The Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning on behalf of Victorian councils

2

J00326 Community Satisfaction Survey 2015 – Moreland City 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• Areas for improvement• Individual service areas• Detailed demographics

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

Contents

3


Welcome to the report of results and recommendations for the 2015 State-wide Local Government Community Satisfaction Survey for Moreland City 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 Moreland City 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.

Background and objectives

4


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

Survey sample matched to the demographic profile of Moreland City Council as determined by the most recent ABS population estimates was purchased from an accredited supplier of publicly available phone records, including up to 10% mobile phone numbers to cater to the diversity of residents within Moreland City Council, particularly younger people.

A total of n=400 completed interviews were achieved in Moreland City 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 Moreland City Council area.

Any variation of +/-1% between individual results and net scores in this report or the detailed survey tabulations is due to rounding. In reporting, ‘—’ denotes not mentioned and ‘0%’ denotes mentioned by less than 1% of respondents. ‘Net’ scores refer to two or more response categories being combined into one category for simplicity of reporting.

Survey methodology and sampling

5


SURVEY METHODOLOGY AND SAMPLING

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

Metro


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.

Further information

KEY FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

8


Key findings and recommendations

Moreland City Council’s performance over the last 12 months has remained stable. The results on all core measures and individual service areas are within the acceptable margins or error so do not represent significant changes in performance when compared with 2014.

Across more measures, and consistent with 2014, the most favourable ratings of Moreland City Council’s performance tend to be from 18-34 years olds. Residents aged 50-64 tend to be the most conservative in their assessment of Council performance.

Moreland’s overall performance index of 59 is within two points of the 2014 result (61) and continues a pattern of stability on this measure over the last four years. The 2015 result is marginally lower than the State-wide average (60) but is significantly lower than the Metropolitan council group average (67).

Overall Council direction is unchanged from 2014 and the index score of 55 is on par with the State-wide average (56) and also the Metropolitan group average (53). As with overall performance, residents aged 18-34 rate overall direction significantly higher

than the average (62) while those aged 50-64 rate overall direction the lowest (49).

9



Moreland City Council’s advocacy rating has improved by three points to an index score of 57. This is the only measure where Council’s performance has improved (albeit slightly) compared with 2014. This rating is on par with the Metropolitan average (58) and also the State-wide average (55). On this measure, residents living in the South Ward have rated Council performance

significantly higher compared with 2014 (up by 10 points). Conversely, residents living in the North-West Ward are the most conservative in their

assessment of Council performance on this measure (although this is not significantly different to 2014).

Ratings for community consultation and making decisions in the interest of the community have declined marginally (by just one point) and each has a performance index of 54. On both measures this result is on par with the State-wide average but is significantly lower than the Metropolitan group average. Once again it is residents aged 18-34 years who rate Council performance on both of these

measures significantly higher than the average.

10


The condition of sealed local roads is a new core measure introduced by all Councils in 2015. Moreland City Council’s performance index of 58 is significantly lower than the Metropolitan group average (69) and suggests the need for greater attention to this issue.

Councils best performing measure is customer service although the performance index of 63 is four points lower than 2014 and is Council’s lowest result on customer service in four years. This result is also significantly lower than the State-wide average (70) and also the Metropolitan group average (73). Much of the decline on the overall result for customer service this year can be attributed to

residents in the North-West Ward specifically, whose rating of customer service is 10 points lower than 2014.

In terms of individual service areas, Council performs best on: Waste management (71) Recreational facilities (70) Family support services (69) Elderly support services (67) Appearance of public areas (65)


11


Council’s three lowest performing individual service areas – management of population growth, traffic management and town planning policy – suggest a high level of dissatisfaction with planning. In 2014, 17% of residents made unprompted mentions of the Council’s ‘inappropriate planning’

as an area of improvement. This remains a problem for residents, with 14% of respondents referencing this issue (without prompting) in 2015.

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.

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 the responses of the key gender and age groups, especially any target groups identified.

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



• AdvocacyHigher results in 2015

• Customer service• Overall performance

Lower results in 2015

• Ages 18-34Most favourably disposed towards Council

• Ages 50-64Least favourably

disposed towards Council

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

14


2015 Summary of core measuresIndex Score Results

Performance Measures Moreland2012

Moreland2013

Moreland2014

Moreland2015

Metro2015

State-wide2015

OVERALL PERFORMANCE 62 60 61 59 67 60

COMMUNITYCONSULTATION(Community consultation and engagement)

56 57 55 54 58 56

ADVOCACY(Lobbying on behalf of the community)

55 57 54 57 58 55

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

n/a n/a 55 54 59 55

SEALED LOCAL ROADS (Condition of sealed local roads) n/a n/a n/a 58 69 55

CUSTOMER SERVICE 68 72 67 63 73 70

OVERALL COUNCIL DIRECTION 54 56 55 55 56 53

15


2015 Summary of core measuresdetailed analysis

Performance Measures Moreland 2015

Vs. Moreland

2014

Vs.Metro2015

Vs. State-wide2015

Highest score

Lowest score

OVERALL PERFORMANCE 59 2 points lower

8 points lower

1 points lower

18-34 year olds

50-64 year olds

COMMUNITY CONSULTATION(Community consultation and engagement)

54 1 points lower

4 points lower

2 points lower

18-34 year olds

35-49 year olds

ADVOCACY(Lobbying on behalf of the community) 57 3 points

higher1 points

lower2 points higher

South Ward

35-49 year olds

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

54 1 points lower

5 points lower

1 points lower

18-34 year olds

35-49 year olds

SEALED LOCAL ROADS (Condition of sealed local roads) 58 n/a 11 points


18-34 year olds

35-49 year olds

CUSTOMER SERVICE 63 4 points lower

10 points lower

7 points lower

South Ward

North East Ward

OVERALL COUNCIL DIRECTION 55 Equal 1 points


18-34 year olds

50-64 year olds

16


2015 Summary of Key Community SatisfactionPercentage Results

9

7

8

6

10

22

40

29

26

32

39

38

32

27

27

29

27

16

12

18

10

13

14

11

5

6

5

8

7

10

2

13

23

2

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

20 62 10 8Overall Council Direction

% Improved Stayed the same Deteriorated Can't say

17


Individual service areas summary:Council’s performance vs State-wide average

Sign

ifica

ntly

hig

her t

han

Stat

e-w

ide

aver

age

Significantly lower than State-w

ide average

-Sealed local roads

-Traffic management-Parking facilities-Enforcement of local laws-Appearance of public areas-Town planning policy-Environmental sustainability-Population growth

18


Individual service areas summary:Council’s performance vs group average

Sign

ifica

ntly

hig

her t

han

grou

p av

erag

e Significantly lower than group

average

-None Applicable

-Consultation & engagement -Traffic management -Parking facilities -Enforcement of local laws-Recreational facilities -Appearance of public areas-Waste management -Town planning policy -Environmental sustainability -Population growth -Making community decisions-Sealed local roads

19


2015 Performance summary

72

67

69

66

63

64

61

n/a

54

55

55

52

53

50

49

68

68

70

66

64

64

61

n/a

57

57

n/a

53

52

52

50

74

69

67

65

64

65

61

n/a

55

56

n/a

55

53

54

53

2014 2013 2012

71

70

69

67

65

61

59

58

57

54

54

52

51

51

50

Waste management

Recreational facilities

Family support services

Elderly support services

Appearance of public areas

Environmental sustainability

Enforcement of local laws

Sealed roads

Lobbying

Consultation & engagement

Community decisions

Parking facilities

Traffic management

Town planning policy

Population growth

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

2015 Priority Area Performance

20


2015 PERFORMANCE summary by council group

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)


1. Waste management

2. Recreational facilities

3. Family support services

Metropolitan

1. Waste management

2. Art centres & libraries

3. Recreational facilities

Interface

1. Waste management


3. Emergency & disaster mngt

Regional Centres


2. Appearance of public areas

3. Waste management

Large Rural


2. Emergency & disaster mngt


Small Rural


2. Elderly support services

3. Waste management


1. Population growth

2. Traffic management

3. Town planning policy

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

21


Areas for Improvement Summary

AREA

S FO

R IM

PRO

VEM

ENT - Prevention of inappropriate town

planning developments

- Better footpaths and walkways

- Greater community consultation

- Greater parking availability

- Better sealed road maintenance

DETAILED FINDINGS

KEY CORE MEASUREOVERALL PERFORMANCE

24


Overall performanceindex scores

2015 Overall Performance

Q3. ON BALANCE, for the last twelve months, how do you feel about the performance of Moreland City Council, not just on one or two issues, BUT OVERALL across all responsibility areas? Has it been very good, good, average, poor or very poor? Base: All respondents Councils asked State-wide: 69 Councils asked group: 17Note: Please see page 5 for explanation about significant differences

n/a

67

61

59

60

62

61

62

60

61

53

56

n/a

65

60

61

61

59

60

59

63

60

60

53

n/a

66

60

61

61

63

62

63

62

62

57

59

2014 2013 2012

67

65

60

60

60

60

59

59

59

59

54

53

Metro

18-34

State-wide

South Ward

Men

65+

Moreland

North East Ward

North West Ward

Women

35-49

50-64

25


Overall performancedetailed percentages

Q3. ON BALANCE, for the last twelve months, how do you feel about the performance of Moreland City Council, not just on one or two issues, BUT OVERALL across all responsibility areas? Has it been very good, good, average, poor or very poor? Base: All respondents Councils asked State-wide: 69 Councils asked group: 17

9

7

6

9

10

14

11

7

10

9

9

8

8

9

13

40

41

45

44

39

48

39

42

38

41

39

56

30

26

35

32

39

34

34

35

28

32

32

32

30

34

25

37

38

33

12

9

13

8

10

6

12

13

12

12

12

8

17

16

10

5

2

2

4

4

2

5

5

5

5

4

2

7

8

5

2

1

1

1

1

2

1

2

2

2

2

2

2

3

3

2015 Moreland

2014 Moreland

2013 Moreland

2012 Moreland

State-wide

Metro

South Ward

North East Ward

North West Ward

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

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

2015 Overall Performance

KEY CORE MEASURE CUSTOMER SERVICE

27


Contact last 12 months summary

• 62%, up 1 point on 2014 Overall contact with Moreland City Council

• Aged 35-49 yearsMost contact with Moreland City Council

• Aged 65+ yearsLeast contact with Moreland City Council

• Index score of 63, down 4 points on 2014 Customer Service rating

• South Ward Most satisfied with Customer Service

• North East Ward Least satisfied with Customer Service

28


61

39

64

36

64

36

62

38

TOTAL HAVE HAD CONTACT

TOTAL HAVE HAD NO CONTACT

2014 2013 2012

2015 contact with councillast 12 months

Q5. Over the last 12 months, have you or any member of your household had any contact with Moreland City Council? This may have been in person, in writing, by telephone conversation, by text message, by email or via their website or social media such as Facebook or Twitter?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 53 Councils asked group: 13Note: Please see page 5 for explanation about significant differences

2015 Method of Contact

%

29


64

n/a

72

69

68

73

67

74

64

66

64

63

77

n/a

71

71

70

72

72

70

72

73

72

68

65

n/a

71

67

69

79

68

66

63

67

68

71

75

73

70

66

66

66*

63

63

62

61

60

57

South Ward

Metro

State-wide

Women

50-64

65+

Moreland

North West Ward

18-34

35-49

Men

North East WardQ5c. Thinking of the most recent contact, how would you rate Moreland City Council for customer service? Please keep in mind we do not mean the actual outcome but rather the actual service that was received. Base: All respondents who have had contact with Council in the last 12 months. Councils asked State-wide: 69 Councils asked group: 17Note: Please see page 5 for explanation about significant differences*Caution: small sample size < n=30

2015 contact customer serviceindex scores

2015 Customer Service Rating 2014 2013 2012

30


22

22

29

28

31

34

43

12

23

24

21

21

16

26

36

38

47

42

35

37

38

31

40

39

34

41

37

44

38

23

16

15

16

18

17

14

11

17

18

16

16

18

16

13

16

11

8

7

10

8

7

10

18

5

11

11

11

12

13

9

10

8

3

6

6

5

3

10

13

15

6

11

11

8

12

2

1

2

2

2

1

3

2

4

3

1

2

3

2015 Moreland

2014 Moreland

2013 Moreland

2012 Moreland

State-wide

Metro

South Ward

North East Ward

North West Ward

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+*% Very good Good Average Poor Very poor Can't say

Q5c. Thinking of the most recent contact, how would you rate Moreland City Council for customer service? Please keep in mind we do not mean the actual outcome but rather the actual service that was received. Base: All respondents who have had contact with Council in the last 12 months. Councils asked State-wide: 69 Councils asked group: 17*Caution: small sample size < n=30

2015 contact customer servicedetailed percentages

2015 Customer Service Rating

KEY CORE MEASURE COUNCIL DIRECTION INDICATORS

32


Council Direction Summary

• 62% stayed about the same, down 4 points on 2014• 20% improved, up 1 point on 2014• 10% deteriorated, up 1 point on 2014

Council Direction over last 12 months

• Aged 18-34 yearsMost satisfied with Council Direction

• Aged 50-64 years• South Ward

Least satisfied with Council Direction

33


64

n/a

57

54

55

55

56

53

50

47

53

50

60

n/a

55

55

56

58

56

53

55

56

56

49

58

n/a

59

54

54

49

54

52

54

53

53

51

62

56

56

56

55

55

55

53

52

52

52

49

18-34

Metro

North East Ward

Men

Moreland

North West Ward

Women

State-wide

South Ward

35-49

65+

50-64

Q6. Over the last 12 months, what is your view of the direction of Moreland City Council’s overall performance? Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 69 Councils asked group: 17Note: Please see page 5 for explanation about significant differences

2015 overall COUNCIL direction last 12 monthsINDEX SCORES

2015 Overall Direction 2014 2013 2012

34


20

19

19

19

20

20

14

22

20

20

19

23

17

15

22

62

66

66

65

63

66

67

61

60

60

63

66

63

61

50

10

9

9

10

13

8

11

10

10

10

10

2

13

17

17

8

6

6

6

5

6

8

7

10

9

8

10

6

6

11

2015 Moreland

2014 Moreland

2013 Moreland

2012 Moreland

State-wide

Metro

South Ward

North East Ward

North West Ward

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+% Improved Stayed the same Deteriorated Can't say

2015 overall council direction last 12 monthsdetailed percentages

Q6. Over the last 12 months, what is your view of the direction of Moreland City Council’s overall performance? Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 69 Councils asked group: 17

2015 Overall Direction

AREAS FOR IMPROVEMENT

36


14

12

10

10

10

9

5

5

5

5

6

8

Development Inappropriate

Footpaths/Walking Tracks

Community Consultation

Parking Availability

Sealed Road Maintenance

Traffic Management

Infrastructure

Waste Management

Customer Service

Communication

Don`t know/ Refused to comment

Nothing

Q17. What does Moreland City Council MOST need to do to improve its performance? Base: All respondents. Councils asked statewide: 28 Councils asked group: 11

2015 services to improve detailed percentages

2015 Areas for Improvement

%

37


Areas for Improvement Summary

AREA

S FO

R IM

PRO

VEM

ENT - Prevention of inappropriate town

planning developments

- Better footpaths and walkways

- Greater community consultation

- Greater parking availability

- Better sealed road maintenance

INDIVIDUAL SERVICE AREAS

39


59

n/a

57

51

55

55

55

57

56

57

51

52

61

n/a

57

57

57

58

57

56

60

57

59

50

58

n/a

57

56

56

56

56

58

54

57

54

54

59

58

56

56

54

54

54

53

53

53

50

50

18-34

Metro

State-wide

South Ward

Moreland

Men

Women

North East Ward

North West Ward

65+

35-49

50-64

2015 Community Consultation and Engagementperformance index scores

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: 17 Note: Please see slide 5 for explanation about significant differences

2015 Consultation Performance 2014 2013 2012

40


7

6

5

8

7

8

10

6

6

7

7

7

8

7

5

29

31

32

29

31

32

26

30

30

31

28

36

26

24

24

27

31

37

37

32

31

25

27

27

25

28

30

22

29

23

18

15

13

16

14

12

17

18

19

18

19

11

26

28

10

6

5

2

3

6

4

5

6

5

6

5

3

8

6

9

13

11

10

6

9

13

17

13

12

14

13

13

10

6

30

2015 Moreland

2014 Moreland

2013 Moreland

2012 Moreland

State-wide

Metro

South Ward

North East Ward

North West Ward

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

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

2015 Community Consultation and Engagement performance detailed percentages

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: 17

2015 Consultation Performance

41


53

61

55

n/a

54

54

49

56

53

54

56

46

58

63

55

n/a

56

57

50

55

58

56

54

54

56

61

56

n/a

57

55

52

55

54

53

54

51

63

62

59

58

58

57

56

55

55

54

54

53

South Ward

18-34

Women

Metro

North East Ward

Moreland

50-64

State-wide

Men

North West Ward

65+

35-49

2015 Lobbying on Behalf of the Communityperformance index scores

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: 17 Note: Please see slide 5 for explanation about significant differences

2015 Lobbying Performance 2014 2013 2012

42


8

4

4

5

6

6

18

7

5

10

7

10

7

9

7

26

25

28

26

26

27

16

29

27

24

27

30

27

20

22

27

30

31

34

32

29

23

28

28

30

24

33

27

25

14

10

12

11

10

12

9

7

9

13

14

7

5

13

16

11

5

5

3

4

4

3

4

5

6

6

4

3

8

2

8

23

23

23

21

20

26

32

22

21

16

30

20

18

27

39

2015 Moreland

2014 Moreland

2013 Moreland

2012 Moreland

State-wide

Metro

South Ward

North East Ward

North West Ward

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64


2015 Lobbying on Behalf of the Community performance detailed percentages

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: 17

2015 Lobbying Performance

43


64

n/a

51

57

57

55

58

53

55

48

56

48

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

61

59

58

55

55

54

54

54

53

52

51

49

18-34

Metro

South Ward

State-wide

Women

Moreland

North East Ward

Men

North West Ward

50-64

65+

35-49

2015 Decisions made in the interest of the communityperformance index scores

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: 17 Note: Please see slide 5 for explanation about significant differences

2015 Community Decisions Performance 2014 2013 2012

44


6

4

7

7

13

6

3

5

7

5

4

10

8

32

31

31

35

28

29

36

34

30

44

25

23

24

29

38

33

31

18

32

30

26

31

30

33

27

22

13

11

14

10

11

13

13

13

13

3

16

25

15

8

5

6

4

8

6

9

9

7

7

10

5

10

13

11

9

13

21

13

9

14

12

11

12

10

22

2015 Moreland

2014 Moreland

State-wide

Metro

South Ward

North East Ward

North West Ward

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


2015 Decisions made in the interest OF THE COMMUNITY performance detailed percentages

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: 17

2015 Community Decisions Performance

45


n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

55

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

69

62

60

60

59

58

57

56

56

55

55

53

Metro

18-34

North West Ward

65+

Women

Moreland

South Ward

North East Ward

Men

State-wide

50-64

35-49

2015 The condition of sealed local roads in your areaperformance index scores

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: 17 Note: Please see slide 5 for explanation about significant differences

2015 Sealed Local Roads Performance 2014 2013 2012

46


10

11

20

12

9

9

7

13

15

5

8

9

39

33

45

31

40

42

42

37

39

36

39

46

27

29

24

29

27

25

27

27

23

34

22

29

14

16

7

16

11

17

16

13

11

18

20

9

7

10

3

6

12

3

7

7

7

7

9

7

2

1

1

6

3

2

3

5

2

1

2015 Moreland

State-wide

Metro

South Ward

North East Ward

North West Ward

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


2015 The condition of sealed local roads in your area performance detailed percentages

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: 17

2015 Sealed Local Roads Performance

47


60

n/a

59

55

53

53

56

50

48

53

52

49

60

n/a

60

53

52

55

49

54

48

48

51

46

58

n/a

56

54

53

54

52

54

49

53

52

55

60

57

55

53

51

51

51

51

49

49

48

46

State-wide

Metro

18-34

Women

Moreland

South Ward

North East Ward

North West Ward

35-49

65+

Men

50-64

2015 Traffic Managementperformance index scores

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Traffic Management’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 22 Councils asked group: 10 Note: Please see slide 5 for explanation about significant differences

2015 Traffic Management Performance 2014 2013 2012

48


3

5

7

5

10

9

5

2

4

3

3

3

4

3

3

34

35

30

31

40

37

38

33

34

31

37

43

31

28

26

33

35

33

42

31

32

24

38

31

33

32

33

38

27

30

17

16

20

13

12

14

16

15

19

18

15

13

13

29

18

10

8

8

7

5

6

13

10

10

13

8

8

15

9

10

3

2

2

2

3

3

5

2

3

2

4

4

13

2015 Moreland

2014 Moreland

2013 Moreland

2012 Moreland

State-wide

Metro

South Ward

North East Ward

North West Ward

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64


2015 Traffic Management performance detailed percentages

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Traffic Management’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 22 Councils asked group: 10

2015 Traffic Management Performance

49


54

57

n/a

57

52

52

50

52

46

53

49

49

57

57

n/a

49

53

53

58

53

52

53

47

50

58

56

n/a

54

56

55

57

54

54

54

51

54

60

57

55

54

53

52

52

52

51

49

47

45

18-34

State-wide

Metro

North East Ward

Men

Moreland

South Ward

Women

North West Ward

35-49

65+

50-64

2015 Parking Facilitiesperformance index scores

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Parking Facilities’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 28 Councils asked group: 11 Note: Please see slide 5 for explanation about significant differences

2015 Parking Performance 2014 2013 2012

50


4

7

5

5

9

8

4

4

5

4

5

7

4

1

3

38

31

36

33

36

34

38

39

37

41

35

48

35

29

29

27

30

32

39

32

33

22

31

26

28

26

28

28

26

25

16

18

17

13

15

15

18

15

17

13

20

10

16

31

17

11

10

8

6

6

7

10

9

12

12

9

7

15

10

15

4

4

3

4

3

3

8

2

3

2

5

2

2

3

11

2015 Moreland

2014 Moreland

2013 Moreland

2012 Moreland

State-wide

Metro

South Ward

North East Ward

North West Ward

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64


2015 Parking Facilities performance detailed percentages

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Parking Facilities’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 28 Councils asked group: 11

2015 Parking Performance

51


66

n/a

66

61

61

61

59

61

61

59

56

57

65

n/a

67

63

61

61

61

61

61

55

58

57

65

n/a

65

60

60

61

61

63

63

64

57

60

66

66

65

60

60

59

59

59

59

59

54

54

State-wide

Metro

18-34

North West Ward

Men

Moreland

South Ward

North East Ward

Women

65+

35-49

50-64

2015 Enforcement of local lawsperformance index scores

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: 10 Note: Please see slide 5 for explanation about significant differences

2015 Law Enforcement Performance 2014 2013 2012

52


7

8

9

10

13

13

4

5

11

10

5

11

5

4

5

37

35

36

34

40

40

41

41

33

38

37

46

31

29

38

28

32

31

31

26

24

29

28

27

26

29

25

31

33

21

7

9

9

8

6

6

5

6

9

6

7

3

10

10

7

7

2

3

3

3

3

7

7

6

8

5

5

9

7

7

14

14

12

14

12

14

14

14

14

12

16

10

14

16

22

2015 Moreland

2014 Moreland

2013 Moreland

2012 Moreland

State-wide

Metro

South Ward

North East Ward

North West Ward

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64


2015 Enforcement of local laws performance detailed percentages

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: 10

2015 Law Enforcement Performance

53


63

69

69

68

69

n/a

72

68

70

68

71

65

70

72

70

72

69

n/a

72

73

68

67

68

64

65

69

67

64

69

n/a

68

63

72

67

67

63

72

71

69

69

69

68

68

68

68

67

66

66

North West Ward

18-34

Moreland

Men

Women

Metro

South Ward

35-49

65+

State-wide

North East Ward

50-64

2015 Family Support Servicesperformance index scores

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Family Support Services’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 37 Councils asked group: 12 Note: Please see slide 5 for explanation about significant differences

2015 Family Support Performance 2014 2013 2012

54


10

11

10

11

11

10

9

5

14

9

11

13

9

6

8

35

29

35

31

34

32

28

41

33

38

33

43

38

25

26

17

16

18

27

21

19

17

18

16

20

14

16

22

15

12

2

4

2

3

4

3

3

2

1

2

2

2

3

2

2

1

1

1

1

3

2

1

1

2

2

2

1

2

34

39

34

27

29

35

43

31

34

31

38

25

29

49

52

2015 Moreland

2014 Moreland

2013 Moreland

2012 Moreland

State-wide

Metro

South Ward

North East Ward

North West Ward

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64


2015 Family Support Services performance detailed percentages

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Family Support Services’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 37 Councils asked group: 12

2015 Family Support Performance

55


67

65

70

n/a

64

66

69

66

65

69

66

66

67

64

69

n/a

63

68

64

66

64

61

65

68

63

64

69

n/a

63

64

67

65

67

68

64

64

70

70

69

69

69

69

68

67

65

64

63

60

Men

35-49

State-wide

Metro

North West Ward

18-34

North East Ward

Moreland

Women

65+

50-64

South Ward

2015 Elderly Support Servicesperformance index scores

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: 12 Note: Please see slide 5 for explanation about significant differences

2015 Elderly Support Performance 2014 2013 2012

56


11

10

8

12

15

12

8

11

12

11

11

10

12

6

17

25

26

29

29

34

31

13

30

25

28

21

25

24

25

25

12

16

16

23

19

17

6

17

10

7

17

13

13

12

10

3

4

4

6

4

3

4

2

3

2

3

3

6

6

3

2

2

2

2

1

5

3

3

3

3

3

1

2

8

46

42

41

29

26

35

65

37

48

48

44

49

48

48

35

2015 Moreland

2014 Moreland

2013 Moreland

2012 Moreland

State-wide

Metro

South Ward

North East Ward

North West Ward

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64


2015 Elderly Support Services performance detailed percentages

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: 12

2015 Elderly Support Performance

57


n/a

68

66

67

71

64

69

70

70

66

67

65

n/a

70

69

68

70

68

67

63

67

69

70

65

n/a

72

68

69

70

69

70

72

71

68

65

68

74

73

71

70

70

70

70

70

69

69

67

66

Metro

18-34

South Ward

Moreland

State-wide

North West Ward

Women

65+

North East Ward

Men

35-49

50-64

2015 Recreational Facilitiesperformance index scores

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Recreational Facilities’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 47 Councils asked group: 13 Note: Please see slide 5 for explanation about significant differences

2015 Recreational Facilities Performance 2014 2013 2012

58


19

15

16

16

22

27

21

16

21

19

19

23

17

13

19

47

49

46

50

43

46

51

50

42

46

47

52

42

48

38

22

21

25

24

23

20

17

22

24

24

19

16

29

25

18

6

8

7

5

6

3

6

6

5

7

5

5

7

10

2

2

2

1

1

2

1

2

2

2

1

3

2

2

1

4

5

4

4

3

3

4

3

4

7

3

7

2

3

3

18

2015 Moreland

2014 Moreland

2013 Moreland

2012 Moreland

State-wide

Metro

South Ward

North East Ward

North West Ward

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64


2015 Recreational Facilities performance detailed percentages

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Recreational Facilities’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 47 Councils asked group: 13

2015 Recreational Facilities Performance

59


n/a

72

70

68

64

61

63

59

63

58

61

60

n/a

71

67

64

62

60

64

66

66

64

63

60

n/a

71

70

67

64

64

64

64

65

59

63

63

73

72

68

66

66

66

65

65

65

65

64

59

Metro

State-wide

18-34

North East Ward

Women

65+

Moreland

North West Ward

Men

35-49

South Ward

50-64

2015 The appearance of public areasperformance index scores

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

60


13

12

12

13

24

25

7

16

12

11

14

15

13

7

15

50

47

49

46

47

48

63

45

49

50

50

57

43

47

47

23

27

26

27

20

19

15

27

23

25

22

15

33

27

22

9

10

10

8

5

5

8

9

10

9

10

8

9

13

8

3

4

3

4

2

2

6

2

2

3

3

3

6

3

2

1

1

1

1

1

4

3

1

2

2

1

6

2015 Moreland

2014 Moreland

2013 Moreland

2012 Moreland

State-wide

Metro

South Ward

North East Ward

North West Ward

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64


2015 The appearance of public areas performance detailed percentages

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

61


n/a

73

72

75

72

73

74

72

71

69

69

72

n/a

72

74

69

70

71

68

68

66

64

66

63

n/a

76

76

75

76

72

73

74

73

70

74

75

77

75

75

74

73

72

72

71

70

70

68

65

Metro

North West Ward

18-34

65+

Men

State-wide

South Ward

Moreland

Women

35-49

North East Ward

50-64

2015 Waste Managementperformance index scores

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Waste Management’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 45 Councils asked group: 13 Note: Please see slide 5 for explanation about significant differences

2015 Waste Management Performance 2014 2013 2012

62


23

19

19

29

25

32

29

13

30

26

20

26

20

16

27

50

57

49

46

47

49

42

56

47

53

47

49

51

46

53

17

17

20

18

17

13

12

21

17

11

24

15

20

24

11

5

4

9

5

6

3

8

4

5

5

5

3

6

9

3

3

2

3

1

3

1

5

4

1

4

2

2

3

4

6

2

1

1

2

1

4

3

1

3

5

1

2015 Moreland

2014 Moreland

2013 Moreland

2012 Moreland

State-wide

Metro

South Ward

North East Ward

North West Ward

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64


2015 Waste Management performance detailed percentages

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Waste Management’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 45 Councils asked group: 13

2015 Waste Management Performance

63


60

n/a

49

55

53

50

49

50

51

43

46

42

59

n/a

52

55

50

52

49

53

52

49

55

42

61

n/a

54

54

57

54

50

55

54

46

54

50

61

55

55

54

53

51

51

51

48

48

46

39

18-34

Metro

Women

State-wide

North East Ward

Moreland

North West Ward

65+

Men

35-49

South Ward

50-64

2015 Council's general town planning policyperformance index scores

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Council's general town planning policy’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 31 Councils asked group: 9 Note: Please see slide 5 for explanation about significant differences

2015 Planning Performance 2014 2013 2012

64


4

4

3

2

5

6

1

5

4

2

6

7

3

1

4

28

21

29

29

28

28

23

26

31

25

31

38

23

16

26

26

31

30

35

31

31

25

27

25

29

22

20

33

25

28

16

17

15

13

12

11

20

15

16

17

16

8

19

31

14

8

6

6

4

6

5

8

6

9

9

6

5

8

12

8

19

20

17

16

17

19

23

21

15

18

19

23

14

15

21

2015 Moreland

2014 Moreland

2013 Moreland

2012 Moreland

State-wide

Metro

South Ward

North East Ward

North West Ward

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64


2015 Council's general town planning policy performance detailed percentages

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Council's general town planning policy’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 31 Councils asked group: 9

2015 Planning Performance

65


n/a

64

63

64

68

61

59

64

66

63

65

60

n/a

64

64

63

62

70

61

64

67

61

63

62

n/a

64

64

68

64

67

67

65

63

65

67

65

65

64

63

63

62

62

62

61

61

60

59

58

Metro

State-wide

Men

35-49

North East Ward

North West Ward

65+

Moreland

18-34

50-64

Women

South Ward

2015 Environmental Sustainabilityperformance index scores

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

2015 Sustainability Performance 2014 2013 2012

66


9

10

11

12

10

11

11

8

10

12

6

10

12

7

4

36

41

38

40

39

39

30

38

35

33

38

33

35

35

44

26

31

34

30

30

28

27

30

22

30

22

26

26

28

24

10

7

8

7

7

6

16

5

13

8

13

13

9

10

5

3

2

1

1

2

2

5

3

2

2

3

2

4

3

4

16

10

8

9

13

14

12

15

19

15

17

16

14

16

18

2015 Moreland

2014 Moreland

2013 Moreland

2012 Moreland

State-wide

Metro

South Ward

North East Ward

North West Ward

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64


2015 Environmental Sustainability performance detailed percentages

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

2015 Sustainability Performance

67


56

54

n/a

54

51

49

49

48

47

42

41

45

56

54

n/a

47

50

48

50

52

50

49

52

42

57

52

n/a

53

50

54

53

52

56

47

52

50

56

54

54

54

52

51

50

49

47

46

43

41

18-34

State-wide

Metro

North East Ward

Women

65+

Moreland

North West Ward

Men

35-49

South Ward

50-64

2015 Planning for population growth in the areaperformance index scores

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Planning for population growth in the area’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 7 Councils asked group: 16 Note: Please see slide 5 for explanation about significant differences

2015 Population Growth Performance 2014 2013 2012

68


5

6

6

4

7

7

7

7

2

4

7

7

5

3

4

24

19

24

28

28

26

12

24

30

22

26

34

17

15

23

30

31

27

31

30

29

26

30

31

33

27

28

36

32

20

16

21

19

17

14

14

26

14

13

15

16

13

15

24

13

10

7

8

5

6

6

10

6

13

11

8

7

12

13

8

16

16

17

15

15

18

20

18

11

15

16

11

14

13

32

2015 Moreland

2014 Moreland

2013 Moreland

2012 Moreland

State-wide

Metro

South Ward

North East Ward

North West Ward

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64


2015 Planning for population growth in the area performance detailed percentages

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Planning for population growth in the area’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 7 Councils asked group: 16

2015 Population Growth Performance

DETAILED DEMOGRAPHICS

70


2015 GENDER AND AGE profile

49%51%MenWomen

15%

24%

27%

19%

15%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: 17

Gender Age

APPENDIX A: DETAILED SURVEY TABULATIONS

AVAILABLE IN SUPPLIED EXCEL FILE

APPENDIX B: FURTHER PROJECT INFORMATION

73


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 Moreland City Council according to the most recently available Australian Bureau of Statistics population estimates, whereas the results were previously not weighted.

The service responsibility area performance measures have changed significantly and the rating scale used to assess performance has also changed.

As such, the results of the 2012 State-wide Local Government Community Satisfaction Survey should be considered as a benchmark. Please note that comparisons should not be made with the State-wide Local Government Community Satisfaction Survey results from 2011 and prior due to the methodological and sampling changes. Comparisons in the period 2012-2015 have been made throughout this report as appropriate.

Appendix b: Background and objectives

74


Demographic Actual survey sample size

Weighted base

Maximum margin of error at 95% confidence

interval

Moreland City Council 400 400 +/-4.9

Men 167 195 +/-7.6Women 233 205 +/-6.4South Ward 75 72 +/-11.4North East Ward 160 163 +/-7.8North West Ward 165 166 +/-7.618-34 years 61 154 +/-12.635-49 years 82 108 +/-10.950-64 years 141 77 +/-8.365+ years 116 61 +/-9.1

The sample size for the 2015 State-wide Local Government Community Satisfaction Survey for Moreland City 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 130,000 people aged 18 years or over for Moreland City Council, according to ABS estimates.

Appendix b: Margins of error

75


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 GroupsMoreland City Council is classified as a Metro council according to the following classification list:

Metropolitan, Interface, Regional Centres, Large Rural & Small Rural

Councils participating in the Metro group are: Banyule, Bayside, Boroondara, Brimbank, Glen Eira, Greater Dandenong, Frankston, Kingston, Knox, Manningham, Maroondah, Melbourne, Monash, Moonee Valley, Moreland, Port Phillip and Stonnington.

Wherever appropriate, results for Moreland City Council for this 2015 State-wide Local Government Community Satisfaction Survey have been compared against other participating councils in the Metro 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.

Appendix b: Analysis and reportinG

76


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.

Appendix b: Analysis and reporting

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

77


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

78


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.

Appendix b: index score significant difference calculation

79


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.


80


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/

81


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.

Appendix b: Glossary of terms

LOCAL GOVERNMENT community satisfaction survey Moreland ...

Documents

Transcript of LOCAL GOVERNMENT community satisfaction survey Moreland ...