Background and objectives - Mitchell Shire Council and objectives ... The main objectives of the survey are to assess the performance ... Minimum quotas of gender within age groups

2J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 - Mitchell Shire Council

Background and objectives

Survey methodology and sampling

Further information

Key findings & recommendations

Summary of findings

Detailed findings

• Key core measure: Overall performance

• Key core measure: Customer service

• Key core measure: Council direction indicators

• Communications

• Individual service areas

• Detailed demographics

Appendix A: Detailed survey tabulations

Appendix B: Further project information


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

Community Satisfaction Survey for Mitchell 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 Mitchell 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 Mitchell Shire Council.

Survey sample matched to the demographic profile of Mitchell 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

Mitchell Shire Council, particularly younger people.

A total of n=400 completed interviews were achieved in Mitchell 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

Mitchell 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=401 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

Mitchell

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 - Mitchell Shire Council

65

62

61

Waste management

Recreational facilities

Appearance of public areas

Council Large Rural State-wide

48 54 59

Results shown are index scores out of 100.

44

38

38

Local streets & footpaths

Sealed local roads

Population growth


The overall performance index score of 48 for Mitchell Shire Council represents a statistically

significant (at the 95% confidence interval) six point improvement on the 2016 result. Council’s

overall performance rating declined significantly between 2015 and 2016 (from an index score of 54 to

42). While ratings have not yet returned to 2015 levels, Council has made good inroads towards

improving resident perceptions of its performance.

That said, Mitchell Shire Council’s overall performance is still rated significantly lower than the

average rating for councils State-wide and in the Large Rural group (index scores of 59 and

54 respectively).

Women, residents of the South area, and residents aged 50 to 64 years have significantly

more favourable impressions of Council’s overall performance than they did last year.

Just under three in ten (28%) residents have a ‘very good’ or ‘good’ impression of Council’s overall

performance compared to 30% who have a ‘very poor’ or ‘poor’ impression (down from 39% last year).

Two in five residents (42%) sit mid-scale providing an ‘average’ rating.


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

Council’s performance improved on all core measures compared to Council’s own results in 2016.

Results for core measures are on their way back up after peaking in 2015 and then declining

significantly the following year. Ratings have not yet returned to 2015 levels, but Council has

managed to close ratings gaps substantially in the past year.

Council improved significantly on all core measures but two, sealed local roads and customer

service, which experienced more modest increases since 2016.

Nonetheless, Council ratings are still significantly lower than average ratings for Large Rural and

State-wide councils on most core measures.

Council increased most, by 16 index points, on the measure of overall council direction, growing

from an index score of 37 in 2016 to 53 in 2017. Overall council direction numbers are back in line

with the Large Rural group and State-wide averages for councils (index scores of 52 and 53

respectively).

In 2016, 8% of residents believed Council performance had improved versus 33% who believed

it had declined. These perceptions have markedly improved over the past 12 months, with 21%

of residents believing Council performance has improved this year compared to 16% who believe

it declined.

Furthermore, half (50%) of residents believe Council is generally heading in the ‘right direction’.

All demographic and geographic groups increased significantly in their impressions of Council’s

overall direction in the past year, with the exception of residents in the North.


More than half (57%) of Mitchell Shire Council residents have had recent contact with Council.

Those aged 35 to 49 years are significantly more likely to have contacted Council (70%).

Mitchell Shire Council’s customer service index of 63 is a three point improvement on the

2016 result. Results are still lower, however, than 2015 levels. This is Council’s second strongest

area of performance and a positive result for Council.

Residents aged 18 to 34 years increased significantly in their impressions of Council’s customer

service in the past year.

Results are not significantly different to the Large Rural average of 66 but they are significantly

lower than the State-wide average for all councils (index score of 69).

Two in ten (20%) rate Council’s Customer Service as ‘very good’, with a further 37% rating

Customer Service as ‘good’.

Advertising in a local newspaper (24%) and newsletters, sent via mail (23%) or email (23%), are the

preferred ways for Council to inform residents about news, information and upcoming events.

Residents aged under 50 years tend to prefer a newsletter via email (27%) to mail (19%), whilst

another 23% prefer to receive news through advertising in a local newspaper.

Older residents, on the other hand, prefer to receive a newsletter via mail (27%), followed by

advertising in a local newspaper (24%), a newsletter insert in a local newspaper (23%) and a

newsletter via email (17%).


In addition to increases in ratings on core measures, perceptions of Council performance

improved significantly on all individual service areas tested with the exception of two areas

(appearance of public areas and local streets and footpaths). As mentioned previously, perceptions of

Council services are back on the rise after experiencing significant declines between 2015 and 2016.

Waste management is the area where Mitchell Shire Council has performed most strongly (index

score of 65). Council ratings increased by four index points in this area since 2016.

Three in five residents (61%) rate Council’s performance in the area of waste management as

‘very good’ or ‘good’.

Indeed, waste management was mentioned by 6% of residents as one of the best things about

Council.

As mentioned previously, with an index score of 63, customer service is the second highest

performing area. Customer service was one of the most frequently mentioned best things about

Council (mentioned by 5% of residents).

Another area where Mitchell Shire Council is well regarded is recreational facilities. With a

performance index score of 62, this service area is rated third highest among residents. Council

ratings increased by a significant seven index points in this area since 2016.

Half of residents (51%) rate Council’s performance in the area of recreational facilities as ‘very

good’ or ‘good’.

Recreational and sporting facilities (16%) and parks and gardens (15%) are among the frequently

mentioned best things about living in the council area.


The areas that stand out as being most in need of Council attention are the condition of local streets

and footpaths and sealed local roads. With a performance index score of 38, Council performance is

lowest on the condition of local streets and footpaths. This is significantly lower than the State-wide

and the Large Rural group average (performance index scores of 57 and 53 respectively).

Half of residents (50%) rate Council performance on the condition of local streets and footpaths as

‘very poor’ (20%) or ‘poor’ (30%).

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

performance in the next 12 months supports this finding, with footpaths and walking tracks

mentioned by 12% of residents.

Along with the condition of local streets and footpaths, the condition of sealed local roads (index

score of 38) is equal lowest rated of Council services. This result is significantly lower than the State-

wide average and the Large Rural group average (performance index scores of 53 and 43 respectively).

Half of residents (50%) rate Council performance in this service area as ‘very poor’ (22%) or ‘poor’

(28%).

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

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

by 23% of residents.


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

maintaining and building upon rating gains achieved in the past year, particularly on core

measures. It is clear from the data that Council should pay particular attention to improving the

condition of local streets (including sealed roads) and footpaths.

Consideration should also be given to Mitchell Shire Council residents aged 35 to 64 years, who tend

to have less favourable impressions of most Council services than residents overall.

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

waste management, customer service and recreational facilities.

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

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

and perceptions in other areas.


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

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

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

council.

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

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

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

especially any target groups identified as requiring attention.

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

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

03 8685 8555.


• Overall performance

• Overall council direction

• Waste management

• Recreational facilities

• Informing the community

• Consultation and engagement

• Making community decisions

• Lobbying

• Population growth

Higher results in 2017

(Significantly higher result than 2016)

• None applicableLower results in 2017

(Significantly lower result than 2016)

• Aged 18-34 yearsMost favourably disposed

towards Council

• Aged 35-49 years


Least favourably disposed

towards Council


65 65 65

68

60

63

5254

51

54

42

4849

5049

53

42

4749

41

46

43

3738

45

48 4849

40

4547

5150

55

37

53

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Customer Service

Overall Performance

Community Consultation

Making Community Decisions

Sealed Local Roads

Advocacy

Overall Council Direction


Performance MeasuresMitchell

2017

Mitchell

2016

Large

Rural

2017

State-

wide

2017

Highest

score

Lowest

score

OVERALL PERFORMANCE 48 42 54 59Aged 18-

34 years

Aged 35-

49 years

COMMUNITY CONSULTATION(Community consultation and

engagement)

47 42 52 55Aged 18-

34 years

Aged 50-

64 years

ADVOCACY(Lobbying on behalf of the community)

45 40 51 54Aged 18-

34 years

Men, Aged

50-64

years

MAKING COMMUNITY

DECISIONS (Decisions made in the

interest of the community)

46 41 51 54Aged 18-

34 years

Aged 50-

64 years

SEALED LOCAL ROADS (Condition of sealed local roads)

38 37 43 53Aged 50-

64 years

Aged 35-

49 years

CUSTOMER SERVICE 63 60 66 69Aged 65+

years

Aged 50-

64 years

OVERALL COUNCIL DIRECTION 53 37 52 53Aged 65+

yearsNorth


3

4

2

3

4

20

25

21

14

17

19

37

42

36

32

35

26

20

20

23

20

22

28

13

10

9

7

9

22

7

1

8

25

14

1

3

Overall Performance


Advocacy

Making CommunityDecisions

Sealed Local Roads

Customer Service

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

Key Measures Summary Results

21 57 16 6Overall Council Direction

%Improved Stayed the same Deteriorated Can't say


61

55

59

46

42

41

40

39

37

n/a

64

60

63

56

53

49

49

50

43

n/a

66

57

62

55

49

n/a

48

45

n/a

n/a

65

57

60

50

50

n/a

48

51

n/a

n/a

69

59

62

51

49

n/a

45

47

n/a

n/a

65

62

61

52

47

46

45

44

38

38

Waste management



Informing the community

Consultation & engagement

Community decisions

Lobbying

Population growth

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?

Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 68 Councils asked group: 19

Note: Please see page 5 for explanation of significant differences


Individual Service Areas Performance

16

13

13

7

4

4

4

3

3

2

45

38

38

26

21

19

18

17

17

14

22

26

31

37

36

26

32

35

26

32

9

14

12

17

23

28

20

22

30

20

5

3

4

8

9

22

12

9

20

7

3

6

1

4

8

1

14

14

3

25

Waste management



Informing the community

Consultation & engagement

Sealed local roads

Population growth

Community decisions


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

-Informing the community

-Local streets & footpaths

-Recreational facilities

-Appearance of public

areas

-Waste management

-Population growth

-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

-Informing the community

-Local streets & footpaths

-Recreational facilities

-Appearance of public

areas

-Waste management

-Population growth

-Making community

decisions

-Sealed local roads


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)

Mitchell Shire

Council

1. Waste

management

2. Recreational

facilities

3. Appearance of

public areas

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

Mitchell Shire

Council

1. Local streets &

footpaths

2. Sealed roads

3. Population

growth

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


23

12

11

9

6

6

6

6

6

Sealed Road Maintenance

Footpaths/Walking Tracks

Communication


Financial Management

Public Areas - generalmaintenance

Rates - too expensive

Medium Strips/NatureStrips

Nothing

16

15

6

5

5

4

3

3

3

3

Recreational/Sporting Facilities

Parks and Gardens

Waste Management

Customer Service

Youth/Kids

Road/Street Maintenance

Community Facilities

Public areas

Location

Community engagement/consultation/ communication

2017 Best Aspects 2017 Areas for Improvement

%%

Q16. Please tell me what is the ONE BEST thing about Mitchell Shire Council? It could be about any of the issues or

services we have covered in this survey or it could be about something else altogether?


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



BE

ST

TH

ING

SA

RE

AS

FO

R IM

PR

OV

EM

EN

T

- Sealed Road

Maintenance: 23%

(up 4 points from 2016)

- Footpaths/Walking

Tracks: 12%

(up 5 points from 2016)

- Communication: 11%

(up 1 point from 2016)

- Recreational/Sporting

Facilities: 16%

- Parks and Gardens:

15%

- Waste Management: 6%


59

54

52

50

49

48

48

48

47

47

46

45

State-wide

Large Rural

18-34

Women

South

Mitchell

North

65+

Central

50-64

Men

35-49

59

54

49

42

38

42

46

42

44

37

42

41

60

56

63

53

n/a

54

n/a

53

n/a

48

54

49

61

n/a

57

52

n/a

51

n/a

53

n/a

48

50

47

60

n/a

59

53

n/a

54

n/a

53

n/a

47

54

54

60

n/a

56

53

n/a

52

n/a

57

n/a

50

52

48

2017 Overall Performance 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

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

3

2

6

3

7

5

9

6

2

2

6

4

3

3

3

2

5

25

19

29

29

27

27

36

31

27

24

24

24

26

32

22

23

21

42

38

44

43

43

46

37

41

44

44

37

37

46

43

37

46

41

20

24

15

15

16

14

10

14

14

21

23

21

19

15

27

17

20

10

15

5

8

5

7

5

7

12

8

9

13

6

7

11

11

10

1

2

1

2

1

2

2

1

1

1

1

2

2017 Mitchell

2016 Mitchell

2015 Mitchell

2014 Mitchell

2013 Mitchell

2012 Mitchell

State-wide

Large Rural

North

Central

South

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


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

Most contact with Mitchell Shire Council

Least contact with Mitchell Shire Council

Customer service rating

Most satisfied with customer service

Least satisfied with customer service


• Aged 65+ years

• Index score of 63, up 3 points on 2016

• Aged 65+ years


• 57%, down 4 points on 2016


70

62

62

61

61

58

57

57

54

52

51

49

35-49

Large Rural

South

State-wide

Women

50-64

Mitchell

Central

Men

North

18-34

65+

2017 Contact with Council

%

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

71

62 6260 61

57

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 Mitchell 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?



69

68

66

66

66

64

64

63

61

59

58

56

State-wide

65+

Large Rural

Women

18-34

Central

South

Mitchell

35-49

Men

North

50-64

69

58

67

65

53

59

62

60

66

56

59

61

70

63

67

69

66

n/a

n/a

68

70

66

n/a

68

72

67

n/a

69

69

n/a

n/a

65

60

62

n/a

66

71

68

n/a

61

64

n/a

n/a

65

67

69

n/a

63

71

72

n/a

67

61

n/a

n/a

65

65

63

n/a

64

2017 Customer Service Rating2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q5c. Thinking of the most recent contact, how would you rate Mitchell 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



20

18

25

24

26

27

30

25

17

21

21

15

24

21

17

15

28

37

36

41

41

33

32

36

37

32

35

41

37

36

46

34

29

38

20

23

16

12

20

21

18

20

24

23

14

19

20

4

25

30

21

13

11

9

14

12

10

8

9

15

13

13

15

12

23

10

13

8

7

11

7

8

7

9

6

8

11

4

8

9

6

3

9

11

6

3

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

3

4

4

2

4

5

2

2017 Mitchell

2016 Mitchell

2015 Mitchell

2014 Mitchell

2013 Mitchell

2012 Mitchell

State-wide

Large Rural

North

Central

South

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


2017 Customer Service Rating

Q5c. Thinking of the most recent contact, how would you rate Mitchell 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


• 50% right direction (10% definitely and 40% probably)

• 32% wrong direction (17% probably and 14% definitely)

• North

• Aged 65+ years

• 57% stayed about the same, up 1 point on 2016

• 21% improved, up 13 points on 2016

• 16% deteriorated, down 17 points on 2016

Direction Headed from Q8

Least satisfied with Council Direction from Q6

Most satisfied with Council Direction from Q6

Council Direction from Q6


58

57

54

54

53

53

53

52

51

51

48

47

65+

Central

Women

18-34

State-wide

Mitchell

South

Large Rural

Men

50-64

35-49

North

41

38

37

45

51

37

34

48

37

30

31

39

50

n/a

55

64

53

55

n/a

51

55

50

54

n/a

53

n/a

53

53

53

50

n/a

n/a

47

49

46

n/a

53

n/a

49

58

53

51

n/a

n/a

52

44

48

n/a

48

n/a

49

52

52

47

n/a

n/a

45

43

47

n/a

2016 2015 2014 2013 20122017 Overall Direction

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




21

8

21

15

18

14

19

19

18

24

19

20

22

17

18

22

28

57

56

64

67

62

60

62

61

49

60

62

59

56

67

56

53

51

16

33

11

15

16

20

13

15

24

11

14

17

14

9

21

21

13

6

3

4

3

3

6

6

5

9

5

5

4

8

6

5

4

7

2017 Mitchell

2016 Mitchell

2015 Mitchell

2014 Mitchell

2013 Mitchell

2012 Mitchell

State-wide

Large Rural

North

Central

South

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 Mitchell Shire Council’s overall performance?



10

18

17

6

11

13

14

6

12

11

8

8

40

47

45

40

40

41

31

49

41

34

40

47

17

12

13

16

16

19

17

17

21

14

18

16

14

10

12

20

13

11

16

12

8

23

14

12

18

13

14

18

20

17

21

15

19

18

20

17

2017 Mitchell

State-wide

Large Rural

North

Central

South

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+

%

Definitely right direction Probably right direction Probably wrong direction Definitely wrong direction Can't say

2017 Future Direction

Q8. Would you say your local Council is generally heading in the right direction or the wrong direction?



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

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

profiles of the various different forms of communication.

• Advertising in local newspapers (24%) Overall preferred forms of

communication

• Newsletter sent via mail (27%)Preferred forms of

communication among over 50s

• Newsletter sent via email (27%)Preferred forms of

communication among under 50s


2017 Best Form

35

33

23

1817

2324

2324

1817

16

3 3

7

23

21

2

4

1 1

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

A council newsletter sent via mail

A council newsletter sent via email

Advertising in a local newspaper

A council newsletter as an insert ina local paper

A text message

The council website

Other

Can't say

Q13. If Mitchell Shire Council was going to get in touch with you to inform you about Council news and information and

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



2017 Under 50s Best Form

36

33

1918 18

27

2223 23

1716

11

45

10

43 32

6

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017





A text message

The council website

Other

Can't say





2017 Over 50s Best Form

35

33

27

17 17 17

27

24 24

19

17

23

12

3

12 2

1

3

1

3 3

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017





A text message

The council website

Other

Can't say





55

52

52

48

48

47

47

47

46

45

44

42

State-wide

18-34

Large Rural

Women

North

South

65+

Mitchell

Central

Men

35-49

50-64

54

49

52

45

41

43

42

42

43

40

40

38

56

55

54

52

n/a

n/a

50

53

n/a

54

54

49

57

54

n/a

50

n/a

n/a

51

49

n/a

49

44

50

57

56

n/a

49

n/a

n/a

52

50

n/a

52

49

44

57

53

n/a

52

n/a

n/a

51

49

n/a

46

46

45

2017 Consultation and Engagement Performance2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

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




4

4

4

4

6

5

7

6

5

1

6

3

5

6

3

2

5

21

15

31

24

22

21

29

28

17

24

19

22

19

26

20

18

18

36

33

33

36

37

40

32

33

39

33

36

34

37

38

32

38

36

23

21

20

21

20

20

15

16

19

25

24

22

24

16

29

23

23

9

14

5

6

6

8

6

8

8

9

10

12

6

6

9

15

8

8

12

7

9

9

6

10

9

11

7

5

7

9

8

9

4

10

2017 Mitchell

2016 Mitchell

2015 Mitchell

2014 Mitchell

2013 Mitchell

2012 Mitchell

State-wide

Large Rural

North

Central

South

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

49

48

45

45

45

44

44

43

42

42

State-wide

Large Rural

18-34

Women

South

North

Mitchell

65+

Central

35-49

50-64

Men

53

50

49

40

37

41

40

39

42

36

33

40

55

53

59

50

n/a

n/a

49

48

n/a

46

42

49

56

n/a

51

50

n/a

n/a

48

46

n/a

48

47

47

55

n/a

51

47

n/a

n/a

48

50

n/a

47

43

49

55

n/a

51

49

n/a

n/a

45

45

n/a

43

42

42

2017 Lobbying Performance2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

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




2

2

2

3

3

3

5

4

1

3

1

2

2

1

3

1

2

14

13

21

19

20

18

24

22

13

15

15

13

16

20

13

14

10

32

28

35

35

36

37

31

33

33

26

38

34

30

31

32

36

29

20

20

17

20

19

19

13

15

14

27

18

20

20

14

23

18

26

7

15

5

5

8

11

5

6

7

7

7

11

3

5

10

11

2

25

22

20

18

15

13

22

20

33

22

21

21

29

28

19

21

31

2017 Mitchell

2016 Mitchell

2015 Mitchell

2014 Mitchell

2013 Mitchell

2012 Mitchell

State-wide

Large Rural

North

Central

South

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

54

51

47

47

47

46

45

44

43

42

41

State-wide

18-34

Large Rural

Women

South

North

Mitchell

65+

Men

Central

35-49

50-64

54

47

50

43

41

41

41

39

39

41

38

38

55

55

52

50

n/a

n/a

49

47

49

n/a

49

44

57

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

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?




3

4

3

6

5

2

3

5

5

2

7

3

1

2

17

15

27

29

26

19

15

19

13

21

21

16

15

16

35

30

36

34

36

36

33

36

36

33

37

31

34

38

22

25

18

14

16

20

27

18

20

24

15

29

25

20

9

15

9

7

8

8

9

10

12

6

4

11

12

9

14

11

8

10

9

15

13

13

14

14

16

10

13

16

2017 Mitchell

2016 Mitchell

2015 Mitchell

State-wide

Large Rural

North

Central

South

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

43

42

41

40

39

39

38

38

38

37

33

State-wide

Large Rural

50-64

18-34

Women

North

65+

Mitchell

South

Central

Men

35-49

54

44

35

44

34

41

36

37

31

40

40

33

55

45

42

46

40

n/a

46

43

n/a

n/a

45

36

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

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?




4

6

3

11

6

2

3

7

5

3

7

2

4

3

19

15

23

32

22

23

16

19

17

21

25

14

20

16

26

26

28

28

29

29

30

20

26

27

17

26

34

33

28

27

30

16

22

24

29

30

27

28

27

32

25

26

22

25

15

12

19

22

21

25

25

20

24

26

18

20

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

2017 Mitchell

2016 Mitchell

2015 Mitchell

State-wide

Large Rural

North

Central

South

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?



60

60

59

54

53

53

52

50

50

50

49

49

18-34

Large Rural

State-wide

Women

South

Central

Mitchell

North

65+

Men

50-64

35-49

52

56

59

47

44

46

46

49

45

45

42

45

58

59

61

55

n/a

n/a

56

n/a

54

57

54

57

61

n/a

62

58

n/a

n/a

55

n/a

56

52

53

50

53

n/a

61

52

n/a

n/a

50

n/a

55

49

47

47

57

n/a

60

52

n/a

n/a

51

n/a

50

49

48

47

2017 Informing Community Performance2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

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




7

4

9

7

7

6

11

10

2

7

12

7

8

14

6

6

1

26

28

32

33

22

26

35

38

25

29

24

23

29

30

21

25

29

37

28

35

35

41

35

32

32

47

33

33

35

39

33

40

37

39

17

23

18

19

17

24

13

12

11

18

21

15

19

11

21

18

19

8

14

4

4

9

6

5

4

9

8

8

12

4

5

9

12

7

4

2

2

2

4

2

3

4

6

5

2

8

1

7

3

3

5

2017 Mitchell

2016 Mitchell

2015 Mitchell

2014 Mitchell

2013 Mitchell

2012 Mitchell

State-wide

Large Rural

North

Central

South

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


2017 Informing Community Performance

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



57

53

41

40

40

38

38

37

37

37

36

35

State-wide

Large Rural

North

18-34

65+

Women

Mitchell

Men

Central

50-64

South

35-49

57

53

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

58

54

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

58

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

58

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

57

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

2017 Streets and Footpaths Performance2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

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




3

13

10

1

3

6

4

3

8

2

4

17

33

29

19

19

12

18

16

17

15

17

18

26

28

28

34

23

23

22

30

24

28

29

23

30

15

17

24

32

32

32

28

27

35

24

34

20

9

11

16

21

23

22

19

22

21

23

16

3

2

4

6

3

2

2

4

1

2

5

6

2017 Mitchell

State-wide

Large Rural

North

Central

South

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?



70

66

66

64

63

62

62

62

61

61

60

58

State-wide

65+

Large Rural

North

Women

18-34

Mitchell

South

50-64

Men

Central

35-49

69

60

65

60

52

62

55

50

52

58

57

48

70

65

66

n/a

59

65

60

n/a

60

62

n/a

53

71

61

n/a

n/a

55

59

57

n/a

54

59

n/a

54

70

61

n/a

n/a

56

62

57

n/a

55

58

n/a

51

70

68

n/a

n/a

58

61

59

n/a

54

59

n/a

54

2017 Recreational Facilities Performance2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

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




13

11

12

9

15

15

22

19

14

9

17

11

15

17

8

12

13

38

31

36

36

25

32

43

41

42

38

34

39

37

36

40

36

39

26

29

32

28

34

29

22

23

21

28

29

28

25

23

29

30

25

14

14

11

16

17

15

7

9

11

16

13

14

14

20

16

11

5

3

10

5

6

6

7

2

3

4

1

5

3

2

2

3

4

2

6

5

4

5

3

2

4

5

8

8

3

6

7

2

3

6

15

2017 Mitchell

2016 Mitchell

2015 Mitchell

2014 Mitchell

2013 Mitchell

2012 Mitchell

State-wide

Large Rural

North

Central

South

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?



71

69

65

64

63

61

61

61

59

59

59

58

State-wide

Large Rural

North

18-34

Women

Mitchell

65+

South

35-49

Men

50-64

Central

71

69

61

62

56

59

57

55

58

61

55

60

72

69

n/a

69

62

63

59

n/a

63

64

59

n/a

72

n/a

n/a

66

62

62

60

n/a

60

62

61

n/a

71

n/a

n/a

66

59

60

57

n/a

61

61

54

n/a

71

n/a

n/a

67

62

62

62

n/a

60

63

58

n/a

2017 Public Areas Performance2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

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




13

11

14

12

16

15

25

20

15

10

16

10

16

18

11

10

13

38

36

42

42

31

38

46

45

43

37

34

40

36

33

45

38

35

31

34

30

28

33

33

20

23

28

33

32

30

32

38

22

35

30

12

12

10

12

13

9

6

7

8

14

13

13

11

8

14

12

16

4

6

4

4

6

5

2

2

3

5

5

6

3

3

8

5

2

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

3

1

1

1

2

1

5

2017 Mitchell

2016 Mitchell

2015 Mitchell

2014 Mitchell

2013 Mitchell

2012 Mitchell

State-wide

Large Rural

North

Central

South

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?



71

71

68

67

65

65

65

65

64

63

62

62

State-wide

18-34

Large Rural

South

Women

Mitchell

Central

Men

35-49

North

65+

50-64

70

71

66

59

60

61

62

63

59

64

60

54

72

69

68

n/a

62

64

n/a

65

58

n/a

65

63

73

67

n/a

n/a

66

66

n/a

65

69

n/a

62

62

71

65

n/a

n/a

63

65

n/a

68

69

n/a

67

60

72

73

n/a

n/a

66

69

n/a

72

67

n/a

71

64

2017 Waste Management Performance2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

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




16

14

16

16

18

22

25

21

13

14

20

17

15

27

12

14

8

45

44

43

44

42

43

44

44

47

48

41

42

48

40

49

39

52

22

20

21

26

23

21

18

21

20

19

28

25

20

23

24

26

18

9

11

13

8

10

7

6

7

8

11

6

8

10

3

12

11

10

5

8

5

3

4

3

3

4

7

4

4

6

4

5

2

6

7

3

2

3

2

3

4

3

4

5

3

1

3

3

3

1

4

4

2017 Mitchell

2016 Mitchell

2015 Mitchell

2014 Mitchell

2013 Mitchell

2012 Mitchell

State-wide

Large Rural

North

Central

South

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?



52

51

48

48

48

47

44

44

42

41

40

38

State-wide

18-34

Large Rural

65+

Women

Central

South

Mitchell

50-64

Men

North

35-49

51

44

47

43

39

44

36

39

33

40

39

37

54

59

50

50

50

n/a

n/a

50

42

49

n/a

46

54

50

n/a

42

47

n/a

n/a

45

42

42

n/a

43

54

57

n/a

50

51

n/a

n/a

51

43

51

n/a

51

52

49

n/a

47

47

n/a

n/a

47

42

46

n/a

47

2017 Population Growth Performance2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘planning for population growth in the area’ over the last 12 months?




4

4

4

4

4

6

7

5

5

6

4

4

10

2

2

18

14

28

18

26

17

24

21

15

20

18

15

21

20

16

17

19

32

33

26

29

34

35

29

30

30

31

34

29

35

32

30

32

34

20

22

21

26

14

23

16

19

19

21

21

22

18

11

35

22

12

12

19

9

9

9

9

7

9

13

10

15

15

10

13

13

14

8

14

8

12

14

12

10

16

17

23

14

6

16

12

13

6

13

25

2017 Mitchell

2016 Mitchell

2015 Mitchell

2014 Mitchell

2013 Mitchell

2012 Mitchell

State-wide

Large Rural

North

Central

South

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


2017 Population Growth Performance

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘planning for population growth in the area’ over the last 12 months?



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

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

and data tables provided alongside this report.

Gender Age

50%50%Men

Women

9%

19%

28%

20%

24%18-24

25-34

35-49

50-64

65+

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



2017 Years Lived in Area

20

17

14

13

13

21

26

21

20

26

29

11

11

16

16

17

17

8

17

21

16

16

16

22

15

10

26

25

24

24

24

27

26

25

27

29

26

25

22

16

17

18

20

23

15

12

18

15

24

7

24

11

22

24

28

27

31

21

14

20

23

5

15

25

46

1

1

2017 Mitchell

2016 Mitchell

State-wide

Large Rural

North

Central

South

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+

% 0-5 years 5-10 years 10-20 years 20-30 years 30+ years Can't say

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



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 Mitchell 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

Mitchell Shire Council 400 400 +/-4.9

Men 176 201 +/-7.4

Women 224 199 +/-6.5

North 119 110 +/-9.0

Central 165 160 +/-7.6

South 116 129 +/-9.1

18-34 years 64 113 +/-12.3

35-49 years 91 111 +/-10.3

50-64 years 113 82 +/-9.2

65+ years 132 95 +/-8.5

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

Mitchell 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 29,000 people aged

18 years or over for Mitchell 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

Mitchell 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 Mitchell 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

Documents

Background and objectives - Mitchell Shire Council and objectives ... The main objectives of the survey are to assess the performance ... Minimum quotas of gender within age groups