Background and objectives - Mitchell Shire Council and objectives ... The main objectives of the...
Transcript of Background and objectives - Mitchell Shire Council and objectives ... The main objectives of the...
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
3J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 - Mitchell Shire Council
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.
4J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 - Mitchell Shire Council
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.
• 2015, 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.
• 2013, n=400 completed interviews, conducted in the period of 1st February – 24th March.
• 2012, n=401 completed interviews, conducted in the period of 18th May – 30th June.
5J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 - Mitchell Shire Council
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.
6J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 - Mitchell Shire Council
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
9J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 - Mitchell Shire Council
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.
10J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 - Mitchell Shire Council
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.
11J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 - Mitchell Shire Council
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%).
12J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 - Mitchell Shire Council
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.
13J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 - Mitchell Shire Council
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.
14J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 - Mitchell Shire Council
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.
15J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 - Mitchell Shire Council
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.
16J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 - Mitchell Shire Council
• 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
• Aged 50-64 years
Least favourably disposed
towards Council
18J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 - Mitchell Shire 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
19J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 - Mitchell Shire Council
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
20J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 - Mitchell Shire Council
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
Community Consultation
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
21J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 - Mitchell Shire Council
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
Recreational facilities
Appearance of public areas
Informing the community
Consultation & engagement
Community decisions
Lobbying
Population growth
Sealed local roads
Local streets & footpaths
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
22J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 - Mitchell Shire Council
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
Recreational facilities
Appearance of public areas
Informing the community
Consultation & engagement
Sealed local roads
Population growth
Community decisions
Local streets & footpaths
Lobbying
%Very good Good Average Poor Very poor Can't say
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
23J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 - Mitchell Shire Council
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
24J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 - Mitchell Shire Council
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
25J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 - Mitchell Shire Council
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
26J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 - Mitchell Shire Council
23
12
11
9
6
6
6
6
6
Sealed Road Maintenance
Footpaths/Walking Tracks
Communication
Community Consultation
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?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 25 Councils asked group: 8
Q17. What does Mitchell Shire Council MOST need to do to improve its performance?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 41 Councils asked group: 11
27J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 - Mitchell Shire Council
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%
30J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 - Mitchell Shire Council
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?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 68 Councils asked group: 19
Note: Please see page 5 for explanation about significant differences
31J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 - Mitchell Shire Council
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+
% Very good Good Average Poor Very poor Can't say
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?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 68 Councils asked group: 19
33J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 - Mitchell Shire Council
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 50-64 years
• Aged 65+ years
• Index score of 63, up 3 points on 2016
• Aged 65+ years
• Aged 35-49 years
• 57%, down 4 points on 2016
34J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 - Mitchell Shire Council
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?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 49 Councils asked group: 16
Note: Please see page 5 for explanation about significant differences
35J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 - Mitchell Shire Council
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?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 49 Councils asked group: 16
36J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 - Mitchell Shire Council
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
Note: Please see page 5 for explanation about significant differences
37J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 - Mitchell Shire Council
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+
% Very good Good Average Poor Very poor Can't say
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
39J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 - Mitchell Shire Council
• 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
40J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 - Mitchell Shire Council
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?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 68 Councils asked group: 19
Note: Please see page 5 for explanation about significant differences
41J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 - Mitchell Shire Council
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?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 68 Councils asked group: 19
42J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 - Mitchell Shire Council
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?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 8 Councils asked group: 3
44J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 - Mitchell Shire Council
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
45J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 - Mitchell Shire Council
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?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 30 Councils asked group: 6
46J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 - Mitchell Shire Council
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 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?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 30 Councils asked group: 6
47J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 - Mitchell Shire Council
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 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?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 30 Councils asked group: 6
49J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 - Mitchell Shire Council
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?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 68 Councils asked group: 19
Note: Please see page 5 for explanation about significant differences
50J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 - Mitchell Shire Council
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+
%Very good Good Average Poor Very poor Can't say
2017 Consultation and Engagement Performance
Q2. How has Council performed on ‘community consultation and engagement’ over the last 12 months?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 68 Councils asked group: 19
51J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 - Mitchell Shire Council
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?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 68 Councils asked group: 19
Note: Please see page 5 for explanation about significant differences
52J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 - Mitchell Shire Council
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+
%Very good Good Average Poor Very poor Can't say
2017 Lobbying Performance
Q2. How has Council performed on ‘lobbying on behalf of the community’ over the last 12 months?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 68 Councils asked group: 19
53J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 - Mitchell Shire Council
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?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 68 Councils asked group: 19
Note: Please see page 5 for explanation about significant differences
54J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 - Mitchell Shire Council
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+
%Very good Good Average Poor Very poor Can't say
2017 Community Decisions Made Performance
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: 68 Councils asked group: 19
55J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 - Mitchell Shire Council
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?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 68 Councils asked group: 19
Note: Please see page 5 for explanation about significant differences
56J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 - Mitchell Shire Council
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+
%Very good Good Average Poor Very poor Can't say
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?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 68 Councils asked group: 19
57J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 - Mitchell Shire Council
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?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 36 Councils asked group: 6
Note: Please see page 5 for explanation about significant differences
58J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 - Mitchell Shire Council
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+
%Very good Good Average Poor Very poor Can't say
2017 Informing Community Performance
Q2. How has Council performed on ‘informing the community’ over the last 12 months?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 36 Councils asked group: 6
59J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 - Mitchell Shire Council
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?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 32 Councils asked group: 9
Note: Please see page 5 for explanation about significant differences
60J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 - Mitchell Shire Council
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+
%Very good Good Average Poor Very poor Can't say
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?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 32 Councils asked group: 9
61J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 - Mitchell Shire Council
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?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 40 Councils asked group: 10
Note: Please see page 5 for explanation about significant differences
62J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 - Mitchell Shire Council
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+
%Very good Good Average Poor Very poor Can't say
2017 Recreational Facilities Performance
Q2. How has Council performed on ‘recreational facilities’ over the last 12 months?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 40 Councils asked group: 10
63J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 - Mitchell Shire Council
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?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 39 Councils asked group: 8
Note: Please see page 5 for explanation about significant differences
64J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 - Mitchell Shire Council
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+
%Very good Good Average Poor Very poor Can't say
2017 Public Areas Performance
Q2. How has Council performed on ‘the appearance of public areas’ over the last 12 months?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 39 Councils asked group: 8
65J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 - Mitchell Shire Council
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?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 38 Councils asked group: 9
Note: Please see page 5 for explanation about significant differences
66J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 - Mitchell Shire Council
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+
%Very good Good Average Poor Very poor Can't say
2017 Waste Management Performance
Q2. How has Council performed on ‘waste management’ over the last 12 months?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 38 Councils asked group: 9
67J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 - Mitchell Shire Council
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?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 20 Councils asked group: 4
Note: Please see page 5 for explanation about significant differences
68J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 - Mitchell Shire Council
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+
%Very good Good Average Poor Very poor Can't say
2017 Population Growth Performance
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: 20 Councils asked group: 4
70J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 - Mitchell Shire Council
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?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 68 Councils asked group: 19
71J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 - Mitchell Shire Council
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?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 15 Councils asked group: 3
74J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 - Mitchell Shire Council
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.
75J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 - Mitchell Shire Council
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.
76J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 - Mitchell Shire Council
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.
77J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 - Mitchell Shire Council
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
78J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 - Mitchell Shire Council
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
79J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 - Mitchell Shire Council
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
This service area is seen to be
very important
50 – 60Council is performing satisfactorily in
this service area but needs to improve
This service area is seen to be
fairly important
40 – 50Council is performing poorly
in this service area
This service area is seen to be
somewhat important
0 – 40Council is performing very poorly
in this service area
This service area is seen to be
not that important
80J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 - Mitchell Shire Council
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.
81J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 - Mitchell Shire Council
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.
82J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 - Mitchell Shire 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.
.
83J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 - Mitchell Shire Council
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