Greater Bendigo Community Satisfaction Survey 2016

7/26/2019 Greater Bendigo Community Satisfaction Survey 2016

1/54


2/54

2

J00415 Community Satisfaction Survey 2016 Greater Bendigo City Council

Background and objectives

Survey methodology and sampling

Further information

Key findings & recommendations

Summary of findings Detailed findings

Key core measure: Overall performance

Key core measure: Customer service

Key core measure: Council direction indicators

Individual service areas

Detailed demographics

Appendix A: Detailed survey tabulations

Appendix B: Further project information


3/54

3


Welcome to the report of results and recommendations for the 2016 State-wide LocalGovernment Community Satisfaction Survey for Greater Bendigo City Council.

Each year Local Government Victoria (LGV) coordinates and auspices this State-wideLocal Government Community Satisfaction Survey throughout Victorian local governmentareas. 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 isoptional and participating councils have a range of choices as to the content of thequestionnaire and the sample size to be surveyed, depending on their individualstrategic, financial and other considerations.

The main objectives of the survey are to assess the performance of Greater Bendigo CityCouncil across a range of measures and to seek insight into ways to provide improved ormore effective service delivery. The survey also provides councils with a means to fulfilsome of their statutory reporting requirements as well as acting as a feedbackmechanism to LGV.


4/54

4


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

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

A total of n=400 completed interviews were achieved in Greater Bendigo City Council. Survey fieldwork wasconducted in the period of 1st February 30th March, 2016.

The 2016 results are compared with previous years, as detailed below:

Minimum quotas of gender within age groups were applied during the fieldwork phase. Post-survey weightingwas then conducted to ensure accurate representation of the age and gender profile of the Greater BendigoCity Council area.

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

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


5/54

5


Within tables and index score charts throughout this report, statistically significant differences at the 95%confidence level are represented by upward directing blue and downward directing red arrows. Significancewhen 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 2015. Therefore in

the example below:

The result among 35-49 year olds in the council is significantly higher than the result achieved among this groupin 2015.

The result among 18-34 year olds in the council is significantly lower than the result achieved among this group in2015.

54

57

58

60

67

66

50-64

35-49

Regional Centres

Greater Bendigo

18-34

State-wide

Overall Performance Index Scores (example extract only)

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


6/54

6


Further Information

Further information about the report and explanations about the State-wide LocalGovernment Community Satisfaction Survey can be found inAppendix 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 2016 State-wide Local

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


7/54


8/548


With the exception of Community Consultation and Making Decisions, coreperformance measures are lowerin 2016 than in all previous years surveys since2012. Ratings erosions began between the 2014 and 2015 surveys, but droppedmore precipitously in the past year. Measures dropped between five and eight indexpoints each.

As a result, Greater Bendigo lags behind average ratings for other Regional

Centres on four measures Overall Performance, Advocacy, Customer Service, andCouncil Direction.

By exception, Community Consultation increased one point from an index score of 52to 53 in the past year, while Making Community Decisions remained constant at 51.

Unfortunately, a decrease in positive ratings combined with an increase in negativeratings on most measures is responsible for declining index scores, rather than a shift

to the centre (more neutral ratings).

For example, 53% awarded Bendigo a rating of very good or good on OverallPerformance, 32% a rating of average, and 15% a rating of very poor or poor in 2015,compared to 36%, 38%, and 25% respectively in 2016.


9/549


Whereas only 16% of residents believed Council Direction had deteriorated in 2015(19% improved, 60% stayed the same), 27% believe it has deteriorated this timearound (16% improved, 54% stayed the same).

Declines in ratings where they occur are largely driven by men , residents aged65+ and Eaglehawk residents. While most demographic and geographic groups rated

Overall Performance, Advocacy, Sealed Local Roads, Customer Service, and CouncilDirection lower in 2016, these groups experienced the sharpest ratings declines.

In general, geographic, generational, and gender differences exist within theGreater Bendigo City Council. In many instances, adults under the age of 50 rateCouncil highest on core measures, while men, residents over the age of 65 andEaglehawk residents rate Council lowest.


10/5410


The Overall Performance index score of 52 represents an eight point decline onthe 2015 results (60). Greater Bendigo lags the average for other Regional Centresby three points (55) and the State-wide average by seven points (59).

By way of illustration of demographic and geographic differences, residents aged 18to 34 (54, -9 from 2015) and residents aged 35 to 49 (55, -4) rate overallperformance highest. Conversely, Eaglehawk (51, -9 from 2015), men (51, -10),

residents aged 50 to 64 (51, -9), and residents aged 65+ (48, -10) rate Council lowest.Declines over the past year were significant among all of these groups with theexception of residents aged 35 to 49.

Whats more, as recently as 2014, residents over the age of 50 rated Council highest

for overall performance. They are now the lowest ranking group on this measure.

Overall Council Direction similarly experienced an eight point decline from 2015 to

2016 (52 to 44). Ratings are down 14 points from a high point of 58 in 2014. GreaterBendigo performs worst on Council Direction as compared to other core measures.

Again, the worst declines occurred among men (42, -12 from 2015) and residentsaged 65+ (39, -14 from 2015). Both were among the most favourable towards Councilon this measure just one year ago.


11/5411


Customer Service is the area where Greater Bendigo continues to perform moststrongly (index score of 63). One-quarter (25%) rate Councils Customer Service asvery good, with a further 31% rating Customer Service as good (20% average and

20% net poor).

In a change from most other measures, 50 to 64 year olds rate Council highest on thismeasure (residents aged 18 to 34 and 65+ and Eaglehawk residents rate them worst).

Greater Bendigo should pay extra attention to areas and cohorts where it isunderperforming in comparison with other areas and cohorts (residents over theage of 65, and Eaglehawk residents).

An approach we recommend is to further mine the survey data to better understandthe profile of these over and under-performing demographic groups. This can be

achieved via additional consultation and data interrogation, or self-mining the SPSSdata provided or via the dashboard portal available to the council.

A compl imentary personal br iefing by senior JWS Research representat ives is

also available to assis t in providing both explanation and interpretation of the

results. Please contact JWS Research on 03 8685 8555.


12/54

12


Higher results in 2016

Lower results in 2016

Most favourably disposedtowards Council

Least favourablydisposed towards

Council

None significant

Overall performance

Advocacy Sealed local roads

Customer service

Council Direction

18-34 year olds

35-49 year olds

65+ year olds

Eaglehawk residents


13/54


14/54

14


Performance Measures

Greater

Bendigo

2012

Greater

Bendigo

2013

Greater

Bendigo

2014

Greater

Bendigo

2015

Greater

Bendigo

2016

Regional

Centres

2016

State-

wide

2016

OVERALL

PERFORMANCE63 63 63 60 52 55 59

COMMUNITY

CONSULTATION(Community consultation andengagement)

55 57 57 52 53 52 54

ADVOCACY(Lobbying on behalf of thecommunity)

55 57 57 56 49 52 53

MAKING COMMUNITY

DECISIONS (Decisions madein the interest of the community) n/a n/a 59 51 51 51 54

SEALED LOCAL ROADS(Condition of sealed local roads)

n/a n/a n/a 61 56 54 54

CUSTOMER SERVICE74 75 75 71 63 70 69

OVERALL COUNCIL

DIRECTION 55 54 58 52 44 51 51


15/54

15


Performance Measures

Greater

Bendigo

2016

vs

Greater

Bendigo

2015

vs

Regional

Centres

2016

vs State-

wide

2016

Highest

score

Lowest

score

OVERALL PERFORMANCE 528 points

lower3 points

lower7 points

lower35-49

year olds65+ year

olds

COMMUNITY CONSULTATION(Community consultation andengagement)

53 1 pointhigher

1 pointhigher

1 pointlower

35-49year olds

65+ yearolds

ADVOCACY(Lobbying on behalf of the community)

497 points

lower3 points

lower4 points

lower35-49

year oldsEaglehawk

MAKING COMMUNITY

DECISIONS (Decisions made in the

interest of the community)

51 Equal Equal3 points

lower18-34

year olds65+ year

olds

SEALED LOCAL ROADS(Condition of sealed local roads)

565 points

lower2 pointshigher

2 pointshigher

18-34year olds

Eaglehawk

CUSTOMER SERVICE 638 points

lower7 points

lower6 points

lower50-64

year olds18-34

year olds

OVERALL COUNCIL

DIRECTION44

8 pointslower

7 pointslower

7 pointslower

18-34year olds

65+ yearolds

J00415 C i S i f i S 2016 G B di Ci C il


16/54

16


8

9

4

11

8

25

28

29

23

26

39

31

38

27

35

27

32

20

14

14

14

16

11

11

11

12

10

15

10

9

1

9

15

5

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

16 54 27 4Overall Council Direction

%Improved Stayed the same Deteriorated Can't say

J00415 C it S ti f ti S 2016 G t B di Cit C il


17/54

17


61

52

51

56

n/a

57

59

57

n/a

57

n/a

57

n/a

55

n/a

55

2015 2014 2013 2012

56

53

51

49

Sealed roads

Consultation & engagement

Community decisions

Lobbying

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

2016 Prior ity Area Performance

J00415 C it S ti f ti S 2016 G t B di Cit C il


18/54

18


Significantlyhigherth

anstate-wide

average

S

ignificantlylowerthanstate-wide

average

-None Applicable -Lobbying



19/54

19


Significantlyhigherthangroup

average

Significantlylowerth

angroup

average

-None Applicable -Lobbying


20/54


21/54



22/54

22


2016 Overall Performance

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

City Council, not just on one or two issues, BUT OVERALL across all responsibility areas? Has it been very

good, good, average, poor or very poor?

Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 69 Councils asked group: 7Note: Please see page 5 for explanation about significant differences . *Caution: small sample size < n=30

60

58

59

63

46

60

60

61

60

61

60

58

61

n/a

60

64

64

64

63

64

58

62

65

65

60

n/a

61

64

69

61

63

63

59

64

60

67

60

n/a

63

66

73

64

63

64

57

62

59

64

2015 2014 2013 2012

59

55

55

54

53*

53

52

52

51

51

51

48

State-wide

Regional Centres

35-49

18-34

Heathcote

Women

Greater Bendigo

Other

Eaglehawk

Men

50-64

65+



23/54

23


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

City Council, not just on one or two issues, BUT OVERALL across all responsibility areas? Has it been very

good, good, average, poor or very poor?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 69 Councils asked group: 7

*Caution: small sample size < n=30

8

7

13

11

11

9

8

8

8

19

8

7

11

8

5

6

28

46

40

41

46

36

32

28

30

28

28

29

36

28

30

20

38

32

35

39

29

36

39

39

30

18

36

39

26

47

37

44

14

11

7

6

9

11

13

13

20

19

14

14

15

7

19

17

11

4

3

3

4

5

7

11

11

17

13

9

13

9

10

12

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

2016 Greater Bendigo





State-wide

Regional Centres

Other

Eaglehawk

Heathcote*

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


2016 Overall Performance


24/54



25/54

25


51%, down 13 points on 2015Overall contact withGreater Bendigo City

Council

Aged 18-49 yearsMost contact with Greater

Bendigo City Council

Aged 65+ years Eaglehawk

Least contact withGreater Bendigo CityCouncil

Index score of 63, down 8 points on 2015Customer Service rating

Aged 50-64 yearsMost satisfied w ithCustomer Service

Aged 18-34 years

Aged 65+ yearsLeast satisfied wi thCustomer Service



26/54

26


64

36

59

41

59

41

58

42

51

49

TOTAL HAVE HAD CONTACT

TOTAL HAVE HAD NO CONTACT

2015 2014 2013 2012

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

Bendigo City Council? This may have been in person, in writing, by telephone conversation, by text message,

by email or via their website or social media such as Facebook or Twitter?

Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 52 Councils asked group: 4Note: Please see page 5 for explanation about significant differences

2016 Method of Contact

%



27/54

27


46

74

71

70

69

71

68

71

73

76

78

67

73

75

n/a

72

72

75

75

75

78

77

80

69

84

74

n/a

71

74

75

73

75

77

83

81

75

51

76

n/a

71

74

74

75

74

74

76

78

67

72*

72

70

69

65

64

64

63

62

61*

61

59

Heathcote

50-64

Regional Centres

State-wide

Men

Other

35-49

Greater Bendigo

Women

Eaglehawk

65+

18-34

Q5c. Thinking of the most recent contact, how would you rate Greater Bendigo City Council for customer

service? Please keep in mind we do not mean the actual outcome but rather the actual service that was

received.

Base: All respondents who have had contact with Council in the last 12 months.

Councils asked state-wide: 69 Councils asked group: 7

Note: Please see page 5 for explanation about significant difference. *Caution: small sample size < n=30

2016 Customer Service Rating 2015 2014 2013 2012



28/54

28

y y g y

25

36

38

40

36

30

31

24

31

38

28

22

2031

34

19

31

32

39

34

37

36

36

33

19

25

30

32

2826

35

37

20

17

10

16

15

17

17

20

23

23

16

24

2413

21

23

11

9

5

4

9

8

8

11

15

14

9

13

1614

5

7

9

6

6

4

3

6

6

9

11

10

8

810

5

12

3

1

1

1

2

2

4

7

46

3






State-wide

Regional Centres

Other

Eaglehawk*

Heathcote*

Men

Women

18-3435-49

50-64

65+


Q5c. Thinking of the most recent contact, how would you rate Greater Bendigo City Council for customer

service? Please keep in mind we do not mean the actual outcome but rather the actual service that was

received.Base: All respondents who have had contact with Council in the last 12 months.

Councils asked state-wide: 69 Councils asked group: 7 *Caution: small sample size < n=30

2016 Customer Service Rating


29/54



30/54

30

y y g y

54% stayed about the same, down 6 points on 2015

16% improved, down 3 points on 2015

27% deteriorated, up 11 points on 2015

Council Direction over last 12months

Aged 18-34 years

EaglehawkMost satisfied with Council

Direction

Aged 65+ years

MenLeast satisfied with Council

Direction



31/54

31

53

53

52

31

48

50

52

53

53

49

54

53

53

n/a

55

58

63

59

58

57

56

63

57

59

53

n/a

54

43

55

53

54

54

48

52

55

63

52

n/a

55

71

50

56

55

55

53

56

55

57

51

51

51

50*

49

46

44

43

43

43

42

39

State-wide

Regional Centres

18-34

Heathcote

Eaglehawk

Women

Greater Bendigo

Other

35-49

50-64

Men

65+

Q6. Over the last 12 months, what is your view of the direction of Greater Bendigo City Councils overall

performance?

Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 69 Councils asked group: 7

Note: Please see page 5 for explanation about significant differences*Caution: small sample size < n=30

2016 Overall Direction 2015 2014 2013 2012



32/54

32

16

19

26

20

21

18

21

15

20

9

16

15

23

14

13

10

54

60

60

64

64

62

55

54

50

81

49

59

55

50

58

54

27

16

11

13

11

15

20

28

22

10

31

23

21

27

27

32

4

5

4

4

3

5

4

3

7

4

3

9

2

4






State-wide

Regional Centres

Other

Eaglehawk

Heathcote*

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+

% Improved Stayed the same Deteriorated Can't say

Q6. Over the last 12 months, what is your view of the direction of Greater Bendigo City Councils overall

performance?

Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 69 Councils asked group: 7*Caution: small sample size < n=30

2016 Overall Direction


33/54



34/54

34

43

48

54

56

52

52

53

53

51

51

52

53

59

55

58

57

57

58

56

n/a

59

57

55

59

66

54

58

57

57

57

58

n/a

57

56

58

61

60

55

58

57

55

55

55

n/a

55

49

60

57

59*

57

55

54

53

53

53

52

52

52

50

45

Heathcote

35-49

18-34

State-wide

Greater Bendigo

Other

Men

Regional Centres

Women

50-64

Eaglehawk

65+

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


Note: Please see slide 5 for explanation about significant differences*Caution: small sample size < n=30

2016 Consul tation and Engagement Performance 2015 2014 2013 2012



35/54

35

9

5

7

9

8

8

7

9

5

19

10

8

11

12

6

6

29

26

33

30

27

29

28

29

29

18

33

25

34

34

33

15

27

42

38

38

40

32

32

28

24

19

26

29

26

26

28

30

14

15

12

11

16

15

16

15

12

9

10

18

11

12

14

20

12

7

4

5

4

7

8

11

13

10

15

8

13

10

11

12

9

6

6

8

5

10

9

8

17

25

6

12

6

6

7

16






State-wide

Regional Centres

Other

Eaglehawk

Heathcote*

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


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


2016 Consultation and Engagement Performance



36/54

36

55

55

52

56

56

59

56

56

56

56

57

52

56

n/a

55

58

58

59

57

57

57

58

53

52

55

n/a

52

56

57

61

57

54

58

61

60

58

55

n/a

54

54

55

60

55

51

57

54

54

63

53

52

52

51

50

50

49

49

48

47

46

46*

State-wide

Regional Centres

35-49

Women

Other

18-34

Greater Bendigo

50-64

Men

65+

Eaglehawk

Heathcote

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



2016 Lobbying Performance 2015 2014 2013 2012



37/54

37

4

4

5

6

5

5

5

4

3

18

4

5

2

7

3

5

23

32

30

29

29

23

24

25

12

10

26

20

30

21

28

13

35

35

37

32

36

31

35

34

45

19

27

42

30

38

29

41

14

11

9

12

13

13

15

14

7

45

14

14

8

11

20

18

10

4

3

3

4

5

6

10

11

9

13

7

13

9

9

8

15

14

15

19

14

22

15

14

23

16

13

17

14

11

15






State-wide

Regional Centres

Other

Eaglehawk

Heathcote*

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


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


2016 Lobbying Performance



38/54

38

52

55

48

51

52

51

51

51

51

50

52

48

63

57

56

59

n/a

59

58

60

58

62

57

58

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

57

54

54

51

51

51

51

50

48

46

42

41*

18-34

State-wide

35-49

Greater Bendigo

Regional Centres

Other

Men

Women

50-64

Eaglehawk

65+

Heathcote

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



2016 Community Decisions Made Performance 2015 2014 2013 2012



39/54

39

11

4

8

7

6

12

5

9

15

7

17

16

4

4

26

28

34

29

27

27

23

28

23

29

36

22

26

21

27

38

41

33

33

25

35

19

21

32

17

28

32

31

16

16

9

14

18

17

16

10

18

15

9

13

25

22

15

8

4

8

10

14

16

35

16

13

17

13

9

18

5

6

5

10

7

5

4

7

3

4

7

4

4




State-wide

Regional Centres

Other

Eaglehawk

Heathcote*

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


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


2016 Community Decisions Made Performance



40/54

40

64

60

61

61

63

61

65

55

55

55

68

45

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

55

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

60

58

57

56

55

55

55

54

54

54

52

52*

18-34

Men

Other

Greater Bendigo

Women

50-64

65+

State-wide

Regional Centres

35-49

Eaglehawk

Heathcote

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



2016 Sealed Local Roads Performance 2015 2014 2013 2012



41/54

41

8

15

11

10

8

11

9

7

10

11

8

6

9

39

35

33

33

41

25

19

44

33

49

35

37

32

32

34

28

29

30

36

54

30

34

21

35

32

39

11

10

16

17

11

17

9

10

13

6

12

19

11

10

5

11

10

10

11

10

9

11

13

11

6

9

1

1

1



State-wide

Regional Centres

Other

Eaglehawk

Heathcote*

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


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


2016 Sealed Local Roads Performance


42/54



43/54

43

48%52%

Men

Women

12%

17%

24%20%

27%18-24

25-34

35-4950-64

65+

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

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

and data tables provided alongside this report.

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


Gender Age


44/54


45/54



46/54

46

The survey was revised in 2012. As a result:

The survey is now conducted as a representative random probability survey of residents aged 18years 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 Greater Bendigo City Council according to the most recentlyavailable Australian Bureau of Statistics population estimates, whereas the results werepreviously not weighted.

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

As such, the results of the 2012 State-wide Local Government Community Satisfaction Survey shouldbe considered as a benchmark. Please note that comparisons should not be made with the State-wideLocal Government Community Satisfaction Survey results from 2011 and prior due to themethodological and sampling changes. Comparisons in the period 2012-2016 have been madethroughout this report as appropriate.



47/54

47

DemographicActual survey

sample size

Weighted

base

Maximum margin of

error at 95% confidence

interval

Greater Bendigo City

Council400 400 +/-4.9

Men 182 193 +/-7.3

Women 218 207 +/-6.6

Other 337 344 +/-5.3

Eaglehawk 53 49 +/-13.6

Heathcote 10 7 +/-32.7

18-34 years 47 116 +/-14.4

35-49 years 74 97 +/-11.5

50-64 years 117 79 +/-9.1

65+ years 162 108 +/-7.7

The sample size for the 2016 State-wide Local Government Community Satisfaction Survey forGreater Bendigo City Council was n=400. Unless otherwise noted, this is the total sample base for allreported 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 anexample, 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 of82,000 people aged18 years or over for Greater Bendigo City Council, according to ABS estimates.



48/54

48

All participating councils are listed in the state-wide report published on the DELWP website. In 2016,69 of the 79 Councils throughout Victoria participated in this survey. For consistency of analysis andreporting across all projects, Local Government Victoria has aligned its presentation of data to usestandard council groupings. Accordingly, the council reports for the community satisfaction surveyprovide analysis using these standard council groupings. Please note that councils participating across2012-2016 vary slightly.

Council GroupsGreater Bendigo City Council is classified as a Regional Centres council according to the followingclassification list:

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

Councils participating in the Regional Centres group are: Greater Bendigo, Greater Geelong, GreaterShepparton, Latrobe, Mildura, Warrnambool and Wodonga.

Wherever appropriate, results for Greater Bendigo City Council for this 2016 State-wide LocalGovernment Community Satisfaction Survey have been compared against other participating councilsin the Regional Centres group and on a state-wide basis. Please note that council groupings changedfor 2015, and as such comparisons to council group results before that time can not be made within thereported charts.



49/54

49

Index Scores

Many questions ask respondents to rate council performance on a five-point scale, for example, fromvery good to very poor, with cant say also a possible response category. To facilitate ease of

reporting and comparison of results over time, starting from the 2012 benchmark survey andmeasured against the state-wide result and the council group, an Index Score has been calculatedfor such measures.

The Index Score is calculated and represented as a score out of 100 (on a 0 to 100 scale), with cant

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

Cant say 1% -- INDEX SCORE 60



50/54

50

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 Cant say

responses excluded from the calculation.

SCALE CATEGORIES % RESULT INDEX FACTOR INDEX VALUE

Improved 36% 100 36

Stayed the same 40% 50 20Deteriorated 23% 0 0

Cant say 1% -- INDEX SCORE 56



51/54

51

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 thescores are significantly different.



52/54

52

Core, Optional and Tailored Questions

Over and above necessary geographic and demographic questions required to ensure samplerepresentativeness, a base set of questions for the 2016 State-wide Local Government CommunitySatisfaction Survey was designated as Core and therefore compulsory inclusions for all participatingCouncils.

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 participatingcouncils in the council group and against all participating councils state-wide. Alternatively, somequestions in the 2016 State-wide Local Government Community Satisfaction Survey were optional.Councils also had the ability to ask tailored questions specific only to their council.



53/54

53

Reporting

Every council that participated in the 2016 State-wide Local Government Community SatisfactionSurvey receives a customised report. In addition, the state government is supplied with a state-widesummary 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 counciland not otherwise shared unless by express written approval of the commissioning council.

The overall State-wide Local Government Community Satisfaction Report is available athttp://www.delwp.vic.gov.au/local-government/strengthening-councils/council-community-satisfaction-survey.

http://www.delwp.vic.gov.au/local-government/strengthening-councils/council-community-satisfaction-surveyhttp://www.delwp.vic.gov.au/local-government/strengthening-councils/council-community-satisfaction-surveyhttp://www.delwp.vic.gov.au/local-government/strengthening-councils/council-community-satisfaction-surveyhttp://www.delwp.vic.gov.au/local-government/strengthening-councils/council-community-satisfaction-survey


54/54

Core questions: Compulsory inclusion questions for all councils participating in the CSS.CSS: 2016 Victorian Local Government Community Satisfaction Survey.

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

small rural.

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

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

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

lowest does not imply that it is significantly higher or lower, unless this is specifically mentioned.Index score: A score calculated and represented as a score out of 100 (on a 0 to 100 scale). This score is sometimes

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

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

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

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

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

a statistical significance test at the 95% confidence limit. If the result referenced is statistically higher or lower then thiswill be specifically mentioned, however not all significantly higher or lower results are referenced in summary reporting.

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

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

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

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

council, rather than the achieved survey sample.

Greater Bendigo Community Satisfaction Survey 2016

Documents

Transcript of Greater Bendigo Community Satisfaction Survey 2016