background and objectives - city of boroondara | city of ... › media › file › ... ·...

2

J00643 Community Satisfaction Survey 2018 - Boroondara 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

• Communications

• Individual service areas

• Detailed demographics

➢ Appendix A: Detailed survey tabulations

➢ Appendix B: Further project information

3


78

78

77

Appearance of public areas

Recreational facilities

Waste management

72 65 59

Results shown are index scores out of 100.

Council Metropolitan State-wide

62

60

57

Community consultation and engagement

Lobbying on behalf of the community

Decisions made in the interest of the community

4


Welcome to the report of results and recommendations

for the 2018 State-wide Local Government Community

Satisfaction Survey for Boroondara City Council.

Each year Local Government Victoria (LGV)

coordinates and auspices this State-wide Local

Government Community Satisfaction Survey throughout

Victorian local government areas. This coordinated

approach allows for far more cost effective surveying

than would be possible if councils commissioned

surveys individually.

Participation in the State-wide Local Government

Community Satisfaction Survey is optional. 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 Boroondara City Council across a range

of measures and to seek insight into ways to provide

improved or more effective service delivery. The survey

also provides councils with a means to fulfil some of

their statutory reporting requirements as well as acting

as a feedback mechanism to LGV.

5


This survey was conducted by Computer Assisted

Telephone Interviewing (CATI) as a representative

random probability survey of residents aged 18+ years

in Boroondara City Council.

Survey sample matched to the demographic profile of

Boroondara City Council as determined by the most

recent ABS population estimates was purchased from

an accredited supplier of publicly available phone

records, including up to 40% mobile phone numbers to

cater to the diversity of residents within Boroondara

City Council, particularly younger people.

A total of n=500 completed interviews were achieved in

Boroondara City Council. Survey fieldwork was

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

2018.

The 2018 results are compared with previous years, as

detailed below:

• 2017, n=500 completed interviews, conducted in the period

of 1st February – 30th March.






of 31st January – 11th March.




of 18th May – 30th June.

Minimum quotas of gender within age groups were

applied during the fieldwork phase. Post-survey

weighting was then conducted to ensure accurate

representation of the age and gender profile of the

Boroondara City Council area.

Any variation of +/-1% between individual results and

net scores in this report or the detailed survey

tabulations is due to rounding. In reporting, ‘—’

denotes not mentioned and ‘0%’ denotes mentioned by

less than 1% of respondents. ‘Net’ scores refer to two

or more response categories being combined into one

category for simplicity of reporting.

6


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 2017.

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 2017.

• The result among 18-34 year olds in the council is

significantly lower than the result achieved among

this group in 2017.

54

57

58

60

67

66

50-64

35-49

Metro

Boroondara

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.

7


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 2018 State-wide Local Government Community

Satisfaction Survey, please contact JWS Research on

(03) 8685 8555.

9


The overall performance index score of 72 for

Boroondara City Council represents a one point (not

significant) improvement from the 2017 result. Overall

performance ratings have only varied by a few index

points over the past six years.

➢ Boroondara City Council’s overall performance is

rated statistically significantly higher (at the 95%

confidence interval) than the average rating for

councils State-wide and in the Metropolitan

group (index scores of 59 and 65 respectively).

➢ Residents aged 50 to 64 years (index score of

66) are significantly less favourable in their

views of Council’s performance than residents

overall.

➢ Overall performance ratings are otherwise largely

consistent across demographic and

geographic sub-groups, with no significant

differences evident compared to Council’s

average rating.

Positively, residents are far more likely to rate

Boroondara City Council’s overall performance as ‘very

good’ (19%) or ‘good’ (55%) than ‘poor’ (4%) or ‘very

poor’ (1%). A further 21% sit mid-scale providing an

‘average’ rating. Attitudes are in line with 2017 results.

72 65 59

Results shown are index scores out of 100.

Council Metropolitan State-wide

10


Review of the core performance measures (as shown

on page 18) shows that Boroondara City Council’s

performance was relatively stable compared to

Council’s own results in 2017, moving only a few

points in either a positive or negative direction.

Performance on core measures has stayed

constant since 2012 on most measures.

➢ Although there were no significant improvements

in 2017, the results are significantly higher than

State-wide council averages on almost all

measures, with the exception of overall direction,

on which Council is in line with the State-wide

average.

➢ Council is in line with or higher than average

ratings for the Metropolitan group on all

measures. Council performs significantly

higher than group averages on the measures

of overall performance, consultation and

engagement, and sealed local roads.

➢ Core measure results are relatively consistent

across geographic cohorts within Boroondara

City Council.

Customer service is a top-performing area for

Boroondara City Council. It is the highest-rated core

performance measure and the third-highest rated

service area overall. In the area of customer service

(index score of 75), Boroondara City Council

significantly exceeds the State-wide average for

councils (index score of 70). The result is also a few

points ahead of the Metropolitan group average (index

score of 72).

11


Three in five (65%) Boroondara City Council

residents have had recent contact with Council.

➢ Those aged 18 to 34 years are significantly less

likely to have contacted Council (44%).

Conversely, residents aged 35 to 49 (77%) and

50 to 64 (79%) years are significantly more likely

to have done so.

➢ The main methods of contacting Council are by

telephone and email (39% and 25% respectively).

The proportion of residents contacting Council in

writing has returned to previously higher levels

(21%) after reaching a five-year low in 2017

(12%).

Customer service, with an index score of 75, is a

positive result for Council. Perceptions of customer

service have been stable over time.

➢ More than one-third (37%) rate Council’s

customer service as ‘very good’, with a further

34% rating customer service as ‘good’.

➢ Perceptions of Council’s customer service

declined significantly among residents of the

South in the past year (70, eight points lower). All

other groups rated customer service in line with

their 2017 results.

Newsletters, sent via email (39%) and mail (33%), are

the preferred way for Council to inform residents about

news, information and upcoming events. Preferences

for emailed newsletters continue to trend

upwards. For the second year in a row, preferences

favour email over mailed newsletters.

➢ Adults aged under 50 years are eleven points

more likely to want to receive a newsletter via

email (39%) than mail (28%, from 43% in 2016).

Adults aged over 50 years divide evenly (40%

newsletter sent via mail and 38% newsletter via

email).

➢ Of note, younger cohorts (aged under 50 years)

have grown increasingly preferential to text

messages (14%, from 10% in 2017). Only 3% of

older residents want to hear from Council via text

messages.

12


Appearance of public areas is the area where

Boroondara City Council performs most strongly

(index score of 78). Performance in this area has

remained stable over time.

➢ Most residents (82%) rates Council’s performance

in this service area as ‘very good’ or ‘good’.

With a performance index score of 78, recreational

facilities ties with the ‘appearance of public areas’ as

the highest rated service area.

➢ Four in five (78%) residents rate Council’s

performance in the area of recreational facilities as

‘very good’ or ‘good’.

➢ Parks and gardens (25%), community facilities

(16%), and recreational and sporting facilities

(14%) are among the frequently mentioned best

things about living in the council area.

Council also performs well in the area of waste

management (index score of 77). While Council

performs well in this area, ratings declined significantly

– by four index points – since 2017. Waste

management is the only performance area to have

declined significantly in the past year.

➢ Significant declines in perceptions occurred

among residents (index score of 77, five points

lower than 2017), men (76, five points lower), and

Central residents (74, eight points lower).

➢ Most residents (78%) rate Council’s performance

in this service area as ‘very good’ or ‘good’.

Council performs significantly higher than State-

wide averages for Councils in all three areas

(appearance of public areas, recreational facilities and

waste management) and significantly higher than

group averages for Metropolitan councils in the

areas of public areas and recreational facilities.

Waste management is considered the most

important Council responsibility evaluated

(importance index score of 83). Though they do not

rank as highly in terms of importance, recreational

facilities and the appearance of public areas are

also considered important Council responsibilities

(importance index score of 75 for each measure). This

reflects high usage of each area (respectively 74%

and 84% of residents personally use each service

area).

13


Perceptions of Council remained stable on most

measures, declining significantly only in the area of

waste management in the past year. Boroondara City

Council also does not have any service areas that are

performing significantly below the Metropolitan group

average. This is a positive result for Council.

➢ Notwithstanding these positive results, almost

three in 10 residents (30%) believe that there is ‘a

lot’ of room for improvement in Council’s

performance in the next twelve months.

In terms of priorities for the coming 12 months, Council

should look to areas where current performance is low

or lower than what has been achieved previously. The

areas that stand out as being most in need of Council

attention are waste management (to correct for

declines in performance) and lobbying. With a

performance index score of 57, Council is rated lowest

in the area of lobbying and perceptions remain lower

than the peak index score of 62 in 2013.

Across the board, consideration should be given to

residents aged 50 to 64 years who appear to be most

driving negative opinion in 2017.

Boroondara City Council should also pay

particular attention to environmental sustainability

where stated importance exceeds rated

performance by 11 points.

On the positive side, Council should maintain its

relatively strong performance in the area of

recreational facilities and the appearance of public

areas.

14


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.

15


Higher results in 2018(Significantly higher result than 2017) • No significant change

Lower results in 2018(Significantly lower result than 2017) • Waste management

Most favourably disposed

towards Council • Aged 18-34 years

Least favourably disposed

towards Council • Aged 50-64 years

17


68

7274 73 72 71 72

66

62 63 62 6360

6261 62 6159

5658 57

63 62 61 60 60

75 74 7371

7375 74

76 7775 76 75

55 5456

54 5451

54

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Sealed

Local

Roads

Community

Consultation

Customer

ServiceOverall

Council

Direction

Overall

PerformanceAdvocacy Making

Community

Decisions

18


Performance MeasuresBoroondara

2018

Boroondara

2017

Metro

2018

State-

wide

2018

Highest

score

Lowest

score

OVERALL PERFORMANCE 72 71 65 59Aged 18-

49 years

Aged 50-

64 years

COMMUNITY CONSULTATION(Community consultation and

engagement)

62 60 57 55Aged 35-

49 years

Aged 50-

64 years

ADVOCACY(Lobbying on behalf of the community)

57 58 56 54Aged 18-

34 years,

Central

Aged 50-

64 years

MAKING COMMUNITY

DECISIONS (Decisions made in the

interest of the community)

60 60 58 54Aged 18-

34 years

Aged 50-

64 years

SEALED LOCAL ROADS (Condition of sealed local roads)

73 71 68 53Aged 18-

34 years

Aged 50-

64 years

CUSTOMER SERVICE 75 76 72 70Central,

North,

Women

South

OVERALL COUNCIL DIRECTION 54 51 54 52Aged 18-

34 years

Aged 50-

64 years

19


19

11

5

6

27

37

55

33

22

35

46

34

21

36

34

36

20

15

4

8

9

6

5

6

1

3

2

3

2

4

1

10

29

14

1

4

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 70 8 6Overall Council Direction

%Improved Stayed the same Deteriorated Can't say

20


89

85

77

60

24

23

8

88

84

74

58

22

21

8

Waste management



Informing the community

Environmental sustainability

Consultation & engagement

Lobbying

Total household use

Personal use

%

Experience of Services

Q4. In the last 12 months, have you or has any member of your household used or experienced any of the following services provided by Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 13 Councils asked group: 5

21


83

75

74

75

75

74

72

73

66

85

75

74

76

74

74

72

73

68

80

71

71

72

72

69

71

72

65

83

73

73

72

72

69

69

71

65

83

74

73

74

74

72

71

71

67

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

2018 Priority Area Importance

83

77

76

75

75

73

71

71

65

Waste management

Traffic management




Parking facilities



Lobbying

Q1. Firstly, how important should [RESPONSIBILITY AREA] be as a responsibility for Council? Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 28 Councils asked group: 10Note: Please see page 6 for explanation of significant differences.

2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

22


44

25

34

28

35

26

22

22

19

46

53

43

48

39

46

45

44

37

8

20

20

22

21

22

27

27

30

1

2

2

2

3

4

4

5

9

1

1

1

3

1

1

1

2

Waste management


Traffic management



Parking facilities



Lobbying

%

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

Individual Service Areas Importance

Q1. Firstly, how important should [RESPONSIBILITY AREA] be as a responsibility for Council? Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 28 Councils asked group: 10

23


2018 Priority Area Performance

78

80

81

71

65

66

60

60

58

80

78

81

73

68

66

63

61

56

79

79

80

74

65

67

62

62

59

81

80

80

75

68

68

63

63

61

79

79

76

n/a

66

67

62

n/a

62

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

66

n/a

61

78

78

77

73

65

65

62

60

57



Waste management

Sealed local roads




Community decisions

Lobbying

2017 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: 64 Councils asked group: 14 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation of significant differences.

24


Individual Service Areas Performance

34

33

35

27

13

11

11

6

5

48

45

43

46

40

39

33

35

22

14

16

14

20

33

30

36

36

34

3

3

6

5

7

6

8

6

9

1

2

2

2

3

3

2

1

3

2

1

4

13

10

14

29



Waste management

Sealed local roads




Community decisions

Lobbying

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

Q2. How has Council performed on [RESPONSIBILITY AREA] over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 64 Councils asked group: 14

25


• Consultation & engagement

• Lobbying

• Informing the community

• Recreational facilities

• Appearance of public areas

• Waste management

• Making community

decisions

• Sealed local roads

• None Applicable

Significantly Higher than

State-wide AverageSignificantly Lower than

State-wide Average

26


Significantly Higher than

Group Average

Significantly Lower than

Group Average

• Consultation & engagement

• Informing the community

• Recreational facilities

• Appearance of public areas

• Sealed local roads

• None Applicable

27


12

10

8

8

7

7

6

6

9

Inappropriate development

Traffic management

Parking availability

Waste management

Community consultation

Communication

Sealed road maintenance

Environmental issues

Nothing

25

16

14

9

8

7

7

7

Parks and gardens

Community facilities

Recreational/sporting facilities

Generally good - overall/nocomplaints

Waste management

Public areas

Road/street maintenance

Customer service

2018 Best Aspects 2018 Areas for Improvement

% %

Q16. Please tell me what is the ONE BEST thing about Boroondara City 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: 20 Councils asked group: 7Q17. What does Boroondara City Council MOST need to do to improve its performance?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 36 Councils asked group: 9

28


Best Things

Areas for

Improvement

• Parks and Gardens: 25% (down 2 points from 2017)

• Community Facilities: 16% (up 4 points from 2017)

• Recreational/Sporting Facilities: 14% (equal points on 2017)

• Development - Inappropriate: 12% (equal points on 2017)

• Traffic Management: 10% (equal points on 2017)

• Parking Availability: 8% (up 1 point from 2017)

• Waste Management: 8% (up 2 points from 2017)

31


2018 Overall Performance

74

74

73

72

72

72

72

71

71

66

65

59

18-34

35-49

Women

North

Central

Boroondara

South

65+

Men

50-64

Metro

State-wide

72

72

74

70

71

71

73

71

69

70

64

59

77

69

71

71

72

72

71

71

72

66

66

59

73

70

74

73

72

73

74

76

73

73

67

60

74

75

76

n/a

n/a

74

n/a

75

72

71

n/a

61

75

70

74

n/a

n/a

72

n/a

72

70

70

n/a

60

71

67

68

n/a

n/a

68

n/a

68

68

63

n/a

60

Q3. ON BALANCE, for the last twelve months, how do you feel about the performance of Boroondara 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: 64 Councils asked group: 14 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.

2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

32


19

20

19

20

22

20

8

9

12

21

21

17

17

22

17

26

13

21

55

51

54

56

56

52

57

37

48

52

52

60

57

52

64

50

52

50

21

22

21

20

18

21

28

36

29

20

22

18

21

20

18

21

22

23

4

5

3

3

3

4

3

11

7

5

3

3

4

3

1

3

11

3

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

5

3

1

2

1

2

1

1

2

1

1

1

2

3

2

1

1

1

2

1

2018 Boroondara

2017 Boroondara

2016 Boroondara

2015 Boroondara

2014 Boroondara

2013 Boroondara

2012 Boroondara

State-wide

Metro

North

Central

South

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


2018 Overall Performance

Q3. ON BALANCE, for the last twelve months, how do you feel about the performance of Boroondara 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: 64 Councils asked group: 14

34


Overall contact with

Boroondara City Council• 65%, up 3 points on 2017

Most contact with

Boroondara City Council• Aged 50-64 years

Least contact with

Boroondara City Council• Aged 18-34 years

Customer service rating • Index score of 75, down 1 point on 2017

Most satisfied with customer

service

• Central residents

• North residents

• Women

Least satisfied with

customer service• South residents

• Men

35


2018 Contact with Council

%

79

77

70

68

67

65

65

65

64

63

63

44

50-64

35-49

65+

South

Central

Boroondara

Men

Women

Metro

State-wide

North

18-34

Q5a. Have you or any member of your household had any recent contact with Boroondara City Council in any of the following ways?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 21 Councils asked group: 6 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.

36


2018 Contact with Council

56

69

74

69

6462

65

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Have had contact

%

Q5a. Have you or any member of your household had any recent contact with Boroondara City Council in any of the following ways?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 21 Councils asked group: 6

37


2018 Method of Contact

39

48

42

35 35

39

2325 25

1719 18

20

25

21

24

21

2523 22 21

19

12

2119

23

16 15 14

18

2 2 3 2 24

1 1 2 2 2 2

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

%

Q5a. Have you or any member of your household had any recent contact with Boroondara City Council in any of the following ways? Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 21 Councils asked group: 6 Note: Respondents could name multiple contacts methods so responses may add to more than 100%

By

Email

By Text

MessageBy Social

Media

In

WritingVia

Website

In

Person

By

Telephone

38


2018 Most Recent Contact

4042 41

37

41 40

17

1214 13

16

1112

1816

23

17

2019

16 1715

10

17

11 11 10 10

13

10

1 1 1 2 11 1

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

%

By

Email

By Text

MessageBy Social

Media

In

WritingVia

Website

In

Person

By

Telephone

Q5b. What was the method of contact for the most recent contact you had with Boroondara City Council?Base: All respondents who have had contact with Council in the last 12 months. Councils asked state-wide: 21 Councils asked group: 6Note: Respondents could name multiple contacts methods so responses may add to more than 100%

39


2018 Customer Service Rating

79

79

79

76

76

75

75

73

72

71

70

70

Central

North

Women

50-64

65+

18-34

Boroondara

35-49

Metro

Men

State-wide

South

75

74

77

75

79

72

76

76

71

74

69

78

77

71

76

74

80

80

75

65

73

73

69

76

72

77

78

82

80

76

77

72

73

76

70

79

n/a

n/a

80

76

82

72

76

77

n/a

72

72

n/a

n/a

n/a

76

72

78

76

74

70

n/a

72

71

n/a

n/a

n/a

77

75

81

72

75

75

n/a

73

71

n/a

2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q5c. Thinking of the most recent contact, how would you rate Boroondara 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: 64 Councils asked group: 14Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.

40


37

37

34

41

38

33

32

31

33

45

44

26

27

46

32

34

42

40

34

36

39

38

38

39

45

36

38

32

33

40

38

31

38

32

33

35

15

17

14

10

16

15

18

18

16

12

12

20

17

13

13

19

15

11

6

4

5

6

4

6

3

8

6

4

7

7

8

4

6

5

11

4

3

4

4

3

4

2

6

5

3

1

4

4

3

6

4

4

1

4

3

4

1

2

3

1

1

2

4

3

4

6

3

10

4

1

2

2018 Boroondara

2017 Boroondara

2016 Boroondara

2015 Boroondara

2014 Boroondara

2013 Boroondara

2012 Boroondara

State-wide

Metro

North

Central

South

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+



Q5c. Thinking of the most recent contact, how would you rate Boroondara 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: 64 Councils asked group: 14

41


93*

79

79

79*

78*

59

58*

By text message

In writing

By telephone

Via website

In person

By email

By social media

100

62

77

82

78

71

78

50

68

72

81

81

76

65

-

70

78

82

78

78

63

-

71

80

78

80

69

75

75

72

75

79

73

72

79

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a


Q5c. Thinking of the most recent contact, how would you rate Boroondara 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: 21 Councils asked group: 6 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.*Caution: small sample size < n=30

2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

42



70

34

41

51

41

21

34

30

36

41

22

31

28

32

19

9

20

14

21

5

4

8

14

2

4

11

34

10

3

5

4

By text message*

In writing

By telephone

Via website*

In person*

By email

By social media*


Q5c. Thinking of the most recent contact, how would you rate Boroondara 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: 21 Councils asked group: 6*Caution: small sample size < n=30

44


Improvement• 30% a lot of room for improvement

• 56% little room for improvement

• 8% not much room for improvement

Council direction

Most satisfied with council direction

Least satisfied with council direction

• 70% stayed about the same, down 4 points on 2017

• 16% improved, up 5 points on 2017

• 8% deteriorated, down 1 point on 2017

• Aged 18-34 years

• Aged 50-64 years

45


2018 Overall Direction

59

56

55

55

54

54

54

54

52

52

52

50

18-34

Women

North

35-49

Boroondara

Metro

Central

South

Men

State-wide

65+

50-64

51

52

53

51

51

54

50

50

50

53

51

52

58

54

55

53

54

55

53

54

55

51

56

48

58

55

52

47

54

56

56

56

54

53

57

54

58

56

n/a

54

56

n/a

n/a

n/a

56

53

59

51

56

54

n/a

49

54

n/a

n/a

n/a

53

53

56

54

62

56

n/a

52

55

n/a

n/a

n/a

54

52

54

50

2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q6. Over the last 12 months, what is your view of the direction of Boroondara City Council’s overall performance? Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 64 Councils asked group: 14Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.

46


16

11

14

16

17

15

15

19

19

21

15

12

12

19

20

18

12

13

70

74

71

69

71

70

73

60

64

59

74

77

75

66

69

70

70

70

8

9

6

8

6

8

5

15

11

12

7

5

8

8

3

8

13

10

6

6

9

7

5

6

7

5

6

7

4

6

5

8

8

4

6

7

2018 Boroondara

2017 Boroondara

2016 Boroondara

2015 Boroondara

2014 Boroondara

2013 Boroondara

2012 Boroondara

State-wide

Metro

North

Central

South

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+

% Improved Stayed the same Deteriorated Can't say

2018 Overall Direction

Q6. Over the last 12 months, what is your view of the direction of Boroondara City Council’s overall performance? Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 64 Councils asked group: 14

47


30

29

25

25

26

31

44

36

36

27

28

26

33

24

27

36

35

56

56

59

57

59

57

45

51

47

59

59

59

53

62

61

52

45

8

10

10

11

11

8

7

7

11

7

5

9

6

6

10

8

8

2

2

3

2

1

1

2

2

3

3

2

2

3

1

2

2

5

3

3

5

3

2

3

3

6

4

5

4

6

4

1

2

11

2018 Boroondara

2017 Boroondara

2016 Boroondara

2015 Boroondara

2014 Boroondara

2013 Boroondara

State-wide

Metro

North

Central

South

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+

% A lot A little Not much Not at all Can't say

2018 Room for Improvement

Q7. Thinking about the next 12 months, how much room for improvement do you think there is in Boroondara City Council’s overall performance?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 4 Councils asked group: 2

49


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.

Greatest change since

2017 • Advertising in a local newspaper (-3)

Overall preferred forms of

communication

Preferred forms of

communication among

over 50s

Preferred forms of

communication among

under 50s

• Newsletter sent via email (39%)

• Newsletter sent via mail (40%)



50


4845

42 42

33 33

24

2931

36 3739

118

11

57

4

1113

11

7 8 8

3 2 2 3

7

9

2 2 2 3 4 41 1 2 1

3 31 2

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

2018 Best Form

Council

Newsletter

via Mail

Council

Newsletter

via Email

Text

Message

Council

Newsletter as

Local Paper

Insert

Advertising

in a Local

Newspaper

Can’t

Say

?Other

%

Council

Website

Q13. If Boroondara City 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: 26 Councils asked group: 6

51


2018 Under 50s Best Form

46

42

37

43

2928

25

32

3637

39 39

11

7

11

35

3

12 1210

5

87

43

24

10

14

23

24

5 5

1 12 2

4 4

13

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

%

Council

Newsletter

via Mail

Council

Newsletter

via Email

Text

Message

Council

Newsletter as

Local Paper

Insert

Advertising

in a Local

Newspaper

?Council

WebsiteCan’t

Say

Other

Q13. If Boroondara City 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 aged under 50. Councils asked state-wide: 26 Councils asked group: 6

52


2018 Over 50s Best Form

52

48 47

4138

40

2124 24

3436

38

11 11 12

6

10

5

1013 12

108

9

1 1 1 2 23

2 1 2 3 331 1 1 2 2

1 1 2 1

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

%

Council

Newsletter as

Local Paper

Insert

Council

Newsletter

via Mail

Council

Newsletter

via Email

Text

Message

Advertising

in a Local

Newspaper

?Council

WebsiteCan’t

Say

Other

Q13. If Boroondara City 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 aged over 50. Councils asked state-wide: 26 Councils asked group: 6

54


2018 Consultation and Engagement Importance

78

77

76

75

75

74

74

74

72

72

71

68

68

63

Personal user

Household user

65+

35-49

North

State-wide

Women

Central

Metro

50-64

Boroondara

South

Men

18-34

75

77

75

74

73

74

76

73

72

77

73

74

71

69

76

75

74

74

72

75

75

73

73

78

73

73

70

67

78

79

72

74

72

74

73

69

72

75

72

74

70

68

75

74

70

72

n/a

74

73

n/a

n/a

77

71

n/a

68

67

75

74

72

70

n/a

73

73

n/a

n/a

77

71

n/a

69

67

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

73

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘community consultation and engagement’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 20 Councils asked group: 6 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.

55


22

27

27

25

23

23

30

26

28

26

16

19

25

12

28

26

27

39

37

44

46

42

41

43

43

40

41

45

46

41

41

45

39

44

41

50

33

33

27

22

26

29

27

30

24

27

20

23

34

30

24

37

27

27

14

20

23

5

5

3

4

5

3

4

5

4

3

4

7

3

10

1

4

3

2

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

3

1

2

2

1

4

4

4

2018 Boroondara

2017 Boroondara

2016 Boroondara

2015 Boroondara

2014 Boroondara

2013 Boroondara

State-wide

Metro

North

Central

South

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+

Personal user

Household user

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

2018 Consultation and Engagement Importance

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘community consultation and engagement’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 20 Councils asked group: 6

56


2018 Consultation and Engagement Performance

70

70

65

64

63

63

62

62

61

60

60

59

57

55

Household user

Personal user

35-49

North

Women

Central

Boroondara

18-34

65+

Men

South

50-64

Metro

State-wide

66

65

60

59

61

61

60

58

62

59

60

61

57

55

66

66

62

62

65

66

63

64

65

62

63

63

58

54

66

67

61

64

63

60

62

59

68

62

62

62

58

56

66

68

62

n/a

66

n/a

63

63

67

60

n/a

62

n/a

57

64

66

58

n/a

64

n/a

62

62

63

59

n/a

64

n/a

57

n/a

n/a

65

n/a

67

n/a

66

67

71

66

n/a

61

n/a

57

2017 2016 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: 64 Councils asked group: 14 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.

57


11

8

13

12

13

11

11

8

9

14

13

7

9

12

9

13

7

14

21

21

33

36

37

33

35

34

44

30

29

36

33

32

34

33

33

34

33

32

44

44

36

33

26

35

29

32

28

32

32

34

34

38

37

35

37

38

42

29

22

22

8

11

10

8

9

9

5

15

13

8

6

7

8

8

8

3

9

12

6

5

3

2

3

2

2

3

1

7

5

2

4

2

3

2

1

3

2

4

2

2

10

9

12

10

11

11

10

9

11

6

10

13

9

11

12

10

6

9

4

5

2018 Boroondara

2017 Boroondara

2016 Boroondara

2015 Boroondara

2014 Boroondara

2013 Boroondara

2012 Boroondara

State-wide

Metro

North

Central

South

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+

Personal user

Household user


2018 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: 64 Councils asked group: 14

58


2018 Lobbying Importance

71

71

70

68

68

67

67

66

65

64

63

63

63

62

Household user

Personal user

North

State-wide

Women

18-34

65+

Metro

Boroondara

South

35-49

50-64

Men

Central

73

73

67

69

70

63

65

67

66

68

69

68

62

63

79

82

67

69

72

67

69

68

68

67

66

73

64

72

77

77

65

69

68

59

68

67

65

68

68

66

61

61

78

81

n/a

70

70

63

65

n/a

65

n/a

67

67

61

n/a

75

78

n/a

70

71

68

69

n/a

67

n/a

64

69

63

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

70

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘lobbying on behalf of the community’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 20 Councils asked group: 7 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.

59


19

19

25

17

17

20

23

21

24

13

17

15

22

21

14

21

18

30

29

37

36

36

37

37

38

37

36

40

37

37

35

39

35

38

29

45

35

33

30

33

26

32

33

31

27

29

27

32

30

36

25

33

34

31

23

27

26

9

7

7

9

9

8

8

9

5

13

8

10

7

8

9

11

8

5

4

3

2

3

2

1

1

2

3

2

2

4

3

3

2

3

5

4

3

3

2

2

2

2

3

1

2

2

2

3

3

1

4

2

3

3

3

4

2018 Boroondara

2017 Boroondara

2016 Boroondara

2015 Boroondara

2014 Boroondara

2013 Boroondara

State-wide

Metro

North

Central

South

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+

Personal user

Household user


2018 Lobbying Importance

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘lobbying on behalf of the community’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 20 Councils asked group: 7

60


2018 Lobbying Performance

59

59

57

57

57

57

56

56

56

56

55

54

54

51

18-34

Central

65+

35-49

Women

Boroondara

South

Metro

Household user

Men

North

Personal user

State-wide

50-64

63

60

54

59

59

58

60

56

58

57

55

56

54

51

60

57

56

56

57

56

58

56

59

56

55

60

53

52

58

56

61

59

59

59

61

58

66

59

60

63

55

59

65

n/a

63

60

62

61

n/a

n/a

56

60

n/a

56

56

54

62

n/a

64

61

64

62

n/a

n/a

68

59

n/a

65

55

60

65

n/a

65

58

61

61

n/a

n/a

n/a

61

n/a

n/a

55

52

2017 2016 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: 64 Councils asked group: 14 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.

61


5

5

5

7

6

7

3

5

5

3

7

4

5

5

4

3

5

7

6

10

22

25

23

22

27

29

35

24

24

23

19

23

23

20

21

26

16

21

31

31

34

33

30

31

26

27

33

32

31

35

36

31

33

34

33

34

37

32

30

27

9

7

9

7

6

6

4

13

10

10

7

9

10

9

7

6

16

10

23

22

2

3

3

2

2

2

2

5

4

2

1

2

2

1

3

3

2

3

3

29

28

31

31

34

30

24

20

26

28

30

31

28

30

34

28

23

28

7

6

2018 Boroondara

2017 Boroondara

2016 Boroondara

2015 Boroondara

2014 Boroondara

2013 Boroondara

2012 Boroondara

State-wide

Metro

North

Central

South

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+

Personal user

Household user


2018 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: 64 Councils asked group: 14

62


2018 Community Decisions Made Performance

66

63

62

60

60

59

59

59

58

58

57

54

18-34

South

Men

Boroondara

Central

Women

North

35-49

65+

Metro

50-64

State-wide

61

61

59

60

62

61

58

61

61

58

56

54

64

64

61

61

60

61

59

63

59

59

55

54

63

64

63

62

58

61

63

59

65

59

59

55

64

n/a

63

63

n/a

63

n/a

65

64

n/a

59

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

2017 2016 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: 64 Councils asked group: 14 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.

63


6

6

9

7

10

6

8

7

7

6

9

4

6

4

7

10

35

37

32

36

33

30

32

28

32

44

36

34

44

35

31

26

36

32

31

34

28

34

32

39

36

32

34

37

29

41

38

37

6

9

8

7

8

14

10

8

3

4

6

6

3

4

8

10

3

3

2

2

1

7

5

2

5

3

3

3

4

6

4

14

14

17

14

19

9

13

16

17

11

11

16

19

12

10

13

2018 Boroondara

2017 Boroondara

2016 Boroondara

2015 Boroondara

2014 Boroondara

State-wide

Metro

North

Central

South

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


2018 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: 64 Councils asked group: 14

64


2018 Sealed Local Roads Performance

76

74

74

73

73

73

72

71

70

68

68

53

18-34

Men

35-49

South

Central

Boroondara

North

Women

65+

50-64

Metro

State-wide

68

70

74

73

65

71

72

71

70

71

66

53

75

72

72

76

70

73

72

74

71

73

67

54

78

75

69

74

73

74

76

73

74

75

69

55

77

75

77

n/a

n/a

75

n/a

76

74

72

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

2017 2016 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: 64 Councils asked group: 14 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.

65


27

23

27

31

34

11

20

28

28

25

29

25

31

30

24

20

46

46

45

44

40

31

44

44

45

46

48

43

49

42

42

48

20

20

22

17

18

28

23

21

16

24

17

23

16

22

23

23

5

7

4

7

5

17

8

4

7

3

4

5

3

3

8

6

2

2

2

1

1

12

4

3

3

2

2

3

2

3

4

2

1

2

1

2

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

2018 Boroondara

2017 Boroondara

2016 Boroondara

2015 Boroondara

2014 Boroondara

State-wide

Metro

North

Central

South

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


2018 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: 64 Councils asked group: 14

66


2018 Informing Community Importance

75

75

75

73

73

73

73

72

71

71

71

69

68

67

65+

State-wide

Women

50-64

Metro

South

North

Personal user

Boroondara

Household user

18-34

Central

Men

35-49

76

74

75

76

73

72

74

74

72

74

69

70

69

71

74

76

75

76

74

71

72

72

72

72

68

72

68

72

76

75

73

74

73

73

72

73

71

73

67

67

69

69

72

75

72

75

n/a

n/a

n/a

71

69

71

66

n/a

65

64

73

75

74

73

n/a

n/a

n/a

74

71

74

70

n/a

69

71

n/a

75

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 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘informing the community’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 20 Councils asked group: 8 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.

67


22

25

26

21

22

22

32

29

27

19

24

18

26

23

14

27

27

20

20

45

46

42

49

40

47

41

41

43

44

49

42

48

42

45

43

51

50

49

27

23

27

24

30

24

22

24

22

33

22

31

23

30

35

24

18

26

27

4

6

3

6

7

5

4

5

5

3

4

5

3

4

6

3

2

4

4

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

3

1

1

1

1

2018 Boroondara

2017 Boroondara

2016 Boroondara

2015 Boroondara

2014 Boroondara

2013 Boroondara

State-wide

Metro

North

Central

South

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+

Personal user

Household user


2018 Informing Community Importance

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘informing the community’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 20 Councils asked group: 8

68


2018 Informing Community Performance

69

67

67

66

66

66

65

65

64

63

63

62

61

59

Central

Personal user

Household user

Women

18-34

North

35-49

Boroondara

65+

Men

50-64

South

Metro

State-wide

68

68

69

66

65

63

65

65

66

64

64

64

61

59

68

71

70

69

70

68

66

68

69

66

65

67

63

59

63

69

69

66

61

68

64

65

73

64

65

65

64

61

n/a

73

73

71

68

n/a

71

68

70

66

65

n/a

n/a

62

n/a

69

69

66

65

n/a

62

66

70

65

67

n/a

n/a

61

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

2017 2016 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: 28 Councils asked group: 9 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.

69


13

13

17

15

21

18

11

12

16

20

8

13

14

12

13

12

17

13

12

40

41

45

41

40

38

36

37

35

41

44

39

41

42

42

38

37

50

49

33

33

27

34

27

31

31

31

41

27

32

35

32

33

35

34

32

28

29

7

8

6

6

6

8

13

12

5

7

6

8

6

4

6

8

9

6

6

2

1

2

2

3

2

5

4

1

4

2

2

1

1

2

3

1

1

4

4

3

2

3

3

3

3

2

6

6

3

6

6

3

6

2

2

2

2018 Boroondara

2017 Boroondara

2016 Boroondara

2015 Boroondara

2014 Boroondara

2013 Boroondara

State-wide

Metro

North

Central

South

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+

Personal user

Household user


2018 Informing Community Performance

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘informing the community’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 28 Councils asked group: 9

70


2018 Traffic Management Importance

79

79

78

77

77

77

77

76

76

75

74

74

Women

Central

65+

18-34

50-64

Boroondara

North

Metro

South

35-49

Men

State-wide

79

80

78

75

76

75

73

76

74

73

71

72

77

80

78

72

77

75

78

75

69

77

74

72

75

71

76

63

79

71

70

74

72

71

66

71

75

n/a

75

68

78

73

n/a

n/a

n/a

72

69

70

76

n/a

78

69

75

74

n/a

n/a

n/a

75

71

72

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

73

2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘traffic management’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 11 Councils asked group: 6 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.

71


34

29

31

26

27

28

31

34

35

35

34

30

38

32

33

39

34

43

50

45

40

42

47

40

42

41

46

40

43

42

46

40

37

45

20

16

19

27

23

19

22

20

21

16

24

22

18

21

22

18

18

2

4

5

6

6

5

5

3

3

1

1

4

1

1

4

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

3

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2018 Boroondara

2017 Boroondara

2016 Boroondara

2015 Boroondara

2014 Boroondara

2013 Boroondara

State-wide

Metro

North

Central

South

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


2018 Traffic Management Importance

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘traffic management’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 11 Councils asked group: 6

72


2018 Parking Importance

75

75

75

75

75

74

73

73

72

71

71

69

50-64

65+

Women

South

18-34

Central

Boroondara

Metro

Men

North

State-wide

35-49

77

78

78

74

70

74

74

73

69

74

70

72

76

76

77

70

72

77

74

72

70

75

70

72

75

77

74

71

61

69

69

72

64

68

70

67

75

75

72

n/a

66

n/a

69

n/a

66

n/a

70

63

75

78

76

n/a

67

n/a

72

n/a

68

n/a

71

70

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

71

n/a

2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘parking facilities’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 16 Councils asked group: 7 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.

73


26

26

30

23

22

23

27

29

24

26

27

27

25

30

20

30

24

46

45

42

39

42

47

39

40

42

49

48

39

53

45

45

43

52

22

26

23

32

27

25

27

25

27

20

21

28

17

21

26

22

20

4

2

5

5

8

3

6

4

3

3

3

3

4

5

5

3

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2018 Boroondara

2017 Boroondara

2016 Boroondara

2015 Boroondara

2014 Boroondara

2013 Boroondara

State-wide

Metro

North

Central

South

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


2018 Parking Importance

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘parking facilities’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 16 Councils asked group: 7

74


2018 Recreational Facilities Importance

77

76

76

76

76

75

75

75

75

74

74

73

73

72

North

Personal user

Household user

Women

35-49

50-64

18-34

Boroondara

South

Men

65+

State-wide

Metro

Central

75

77

77

77

75

76

74

75

76

72

76

72

73

73

74

75

75

75

74

77

72

74

74

72

74

73

73

73

71

73

73

72

76

74

67

72

72

71

73

72

72

72

n/a

74

74

74

72

78

69

72

n/a

70

72

72

n/a

n/a

n/a

74

74

75

74

76

72

74

n/a

72

72

72

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

72

n/a

n/a

2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘recreational facilities’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 26 Councils asked group: 9 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.

75


25

26

26

19

19

24

25

23

29

22

23

25

25

25

27

28

22

25

25

53

50

48

53

55

50

46

48

53

49

55

49

56

53

53

48

56

56

56

20

22

22

26

23

23

25

25

17

24

20

24

16

21

18

21

19

17

17

2

2

4

3

3

2

3

3

2

4

1

2

2

1

3

2

3

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2018 Boroondara

2017 Boroondara

2016 Boroondara

2015 Boroondara

2014 Boroondara

2013 Boroondara

State-wide

Metro

North

Central

South

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+

Personal user

Household user


2018 Recreational Facilities Importance

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘recreational facilities’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 26 Councils asked group: 9

76


2018 Recreational Facilities Performance

80

80

80

79

79

79

78

78

77

77

76

75

74

69

Women

Household user

Personal user

North

50-64

South

65+

Boroondara

18-34

35-49

Central

Men

Metro

State-wide

81

81

82

81

81

80

80

80

77

82

77

79

73

70

78

79

79

77

76

81

79

78

80

77

77

78

73

69

78

80

81

81

82

80

82

79

77

78

77

81

74

70

81

82

82

n/a

80

n/a

80

80

78

82

n/a

79

n/a

71

79

79

80

n/a

80

n/a

78

79

78

79

n/a

78

n/a

70

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

70

2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘recreational facilities’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 36 Councils asked group: 10 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.

77


33

34

33

35

37

32

22

26

38

26

33

29

36

32

34

34

31

35

36

45

48

47

46

45

47

42

45

41

48

49

46

45

44

45

48

47

49

48

16

12

15

13

12

15

22

20

17

18

13

19

13

18

15

13

17

14

14

3

2

2

2

1

1

7

4

2

2

3

4

2

3

6

1

2

2

1

3

1

1

1

3

4

3

3

4

5

4

5

1

6

2

1

4

3

3

5

1

1

2018 Boroondara

2017 Boroondara

2016 Boroondara

2015 Boroondara

2014 Boroondara

2013 Boroondara

State-wide

Metro

North

Central

South

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+

Personal user

Household user


2018 Recreational Facilities Performance

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘recreational facilities’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 36 Councils asked group: 10

78


2018 Public Areas Importance

77

77

77

77

77

76

75

75

75

74

74

74

73

73

Women

North

35-49

50-64

65+

Household user

Personal user

Boroondara

Central

South

State-wide

Metro

Men

18-34

79

74

74

77

78

75

75

75

75

76

74

75

71

72

77

75

76

79

77

76

76

76

78

74

74

74

75

73

72

71

74

76

76

72

72

72

70

74

73

73

72

65

75

n/a

75

77

74

73

72

72

n/a

n/a

73

n/a

69

65

76

n/a

74

78

76

74

73

74

n/a

n/a

74

n/a

73

71

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

73

n/a

n/a

n/a

2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘the appearance of public areas’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 26 Councils asked group: 9 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.

79


28

25

27

21

21

25

26

25

30

28

26

28

27

29

27

33

25

28

28

48

52

52

50

51

51

46

48

49

46

49

40

55

36

54

44

58

47

47

22

22

18

25

25

21

24

24

21

24

22

28

17

33

20

19

15

24

23

2

2

3

4

3

2

2

2

1

3

2

1

3

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

11

2018 Boroondara

2017 Boroondara

2016 Boroondara

2015 Boroondara

2014 Boroondara

2013 Boroondara

State-wide

Metro

North

Central

South

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+

Personal user

Household user


2018 Public Areas Importance

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘the appearance of public areas’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 26 Councils asked group: 9

80


2018 Public Areas Performance

84

80

80

79

79

79

78

77

77

77

76

76

73

71

35-49

Women

North

South

Household user

Personal user

Boroondara

18-34

Central

Men

65+

50-64

Metro

State-wide

82

80

76

79

79

79

78

77

80

76

78

75

72

71

79

80

80

81

81

81

80

84

78

79

79

75

72

71

75

80

80

79

80

81

79

85

78

79

79

78

73

72

83

82

n/a

n/a

82

82

81

83

n/a

80

78

79

n/a

72

78

79

n/a

n/a

80

80

79

84

n/a

79

76

76

n/a

71

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

71

2017 2016 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: 35 Councils asked group: 10 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.

81


34

34

38

37

41

35

24

24

36

32

37

28

39

28

48

30

31

35

35

48

48

46

46

43

49

45

49

48

46

47

52

45

56

45

42

45

48

49

14

15

13

14

12

13

21

20

11

20

11

17

11

11

3

22

21

12

12

3

2

2

2

2

1

6

5

4

2

4

2

4

5

4

1

1

4

4

1

1

2

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

3

1

2018 Boroondara

2017 Boroondara

2016 Boroondara

2015 Boroondara

2014 Boroondara

2013 Boroondara

State-wide

Metro

North

Central

South

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+

Personal user

Household user


2018 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: 35 Councils asked group: 10

82


2018 Waste Management Importance

86

86

85

84

84

84

84

83

83

83

82

81

80

80

North

Women

35-49

65+

50-64

Household user

Personal user

Metro

Boroondara

Central

South

State-wide

Men

18-34

82

85

82

83

85

84

84

81

83

83

84

79

80

83

83

84

85

83

86

85

85

82

85

88

84

80

86

86

77

81

83

83

81

80

80

81

80

80

81

79

78

74

n/a

85

81

85

88

83

83

n/a

83

n/a

n/a

79

80

79

n/a

84

83

84

87

83

83

n/a

83

n/a

n/a

79

82

79

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

78

n/a

n/a

2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘waste management’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 26 Councils asked group: 9 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.

83


44

43

49

37

42

44

42

46

51

44

42

38

50

37

52

49

43

45

45

46

46

42

47

47

45

43

42

42

44

50

47

44

47

43

41

50

45

45

8

10

7

15

9

9

13

11

7

9

5

12

5

15

3

8

6

9

9

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

11

2018 Boroondara

2017 Boroondara

2016 Boroondara

2015 Boroondara

2014 Boroondara

2013 Boroondara

State-wide

Metro

North

Central

South

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+

Personal user

Household user


2018 Waste Management Importance

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘waste management’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 26 Councils asked group: 9

84


2018 Waste Management Performance

79

78

77

77

77

77

77

77

76

76

76

75

74

70

South

65+

Women

50-64

Personal user

Household user

North

Boroondara

18-34

Men

35-49

Metro

Central

State-wide

83

82

81

80

82

82

79

81

80

81

82

75

82

71

81

83

79

76

81

81

79

81

82

82

80

76

82

70

81

82

79

78

81

81

80

80

81

81

78

77

79

72

n/a

83

79

80

81

81

n/a

80

79

81

79

n/a

n/a

73

n/a

79

76

76

75

75

n/a

76

75

75

74

n/a

n/a

71

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

72

2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘waste management’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 36 Councils asked group: 10 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.

85


35

39

39

40

41

33

24

29

35

30

40

30

39

28

41

37

36

36

36

43

46

47

45

40

44

45

48

40

47

44

47

39

53

33

37

42

42

42

14

11

9

11

15

15

18

16

18

12

10

16

13

7

17

19

17

14

14

6

2

3

3

2

6

7

4

4

9

4

3

8

8

7

3

3

6

6

1

1

1

1

1

3

2

1

1

1

1

1

3

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

2

2

1

3

1

4

1

1

1

2018 Boroondara

2017 Boroondara

2016 Boroondara

2015 Boroondara

2014 Boroondara

2013 Boroondara

State-wide

Metro

North

Central

South

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+

Personal user

Household user


2018 Waste Management Performance

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘waste management’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 36 Councils asked group: 10

86


2018 Environmental Sustainability Importance

80

80

79

79

78

76

76

76

75

74

74

73

73

72

Women

Central

Personal user

18-34

Household user

65+

Boroondara

South

North

Metro

50-64

35-49

State-wide

Men

79

72

78

74

78

74

74

77

72

73

74

72

72

68

78

73

81

76

79

74

74

72

76

74

73

71

73

70

74

71

78

72

79

72

71

72

72

74

76

68

73

69

78

n/a

77

75

78

72

73

n/a

n/a

n/a

75

71

73

68

76

n/a

79

76

80

70

73

n/a

n/a

n/a

72

72

72

70

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

71

n/a

2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘environmental sustainability’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 19 Councils asked group: 9 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.

87


35

32

31

26

27

28

31

32

32

42

33

28

41

41

28

32

35

43

42

39

39

40

43

44

43

39

40

40

37

40

38

40

36

39

39

40

35

35

21

21

21

23

23

23

23

22

21

18

21

28

15

18

27

23

19

15

17

3

6

7

6

4

4

5

4

5

3

4

2

4

4

2

2

6

6

1

1

1

2

1

2

2

2

1

1

1

2

3

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

2

2018 Boroondara

2017 Boroondara

2016 Boroondara

2015 Boroondara

2014 Boroondara

2013 Boroondara

State-wide

Metro

North

Central

South

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+

Personal user

Household user


2018 Environmental Sustainability Importance

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘environmental sustainability’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 19 Councils asked group: 9

88


2018 Environmental Sustainability Performance

69

69

67

66

66

66

65

65

65

64

63

63

63

62

Household user

Personal user

Men

South

North

35-49

65+

Boroondara

18-34

Metro

50-64

Women

State-wide

Central

73

72

65

67

66

65

67

66

68

64

66

67

64

67

67

67

67

66

63

65

66

66

67

64

63

65

63

68

72

72

66

67

67

64

71

67

66

65

67

68

64

67

72

73

68

n/a

n/a

65

70

68

70

n/a

67

68

64

n/a

68

69

63

n/a

n/a

66

68

67

67

n/a

66

70

64

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

64

n/a

2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘environmental sustainability’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 24 Councils asked group: 10 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.

89


11

13

10

11

15

12

10

10

11

11

11

8

13

9

10

13

12

13

15

39

36

39

42

39

38

37

38

39

30

45

47

32

40

46

33

35

57

55

30

32

29

25

25

26

30

28

31

33

27

25

34

33

25

35

27

20

21

6

3

6

5

4

4

8

7

5

8

5

4

8

4

6

8

7

8

7

2

1

1

1

2

1

2

2

2

2

1

2

1

3

1

1

13

15

16

17

16

18

12

14

14

15

10

15

11

12

10

11

18

1

1

2018 Boroondara

2017 Boroondara

2016 Boroondara

2015 Boroondara

2014 Boroondara

2013 Boroondara

State-wide

Metro

North

Central

South

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+

Personal user

Household user


2018 Environmental Sustainability Performance

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘environmental sustainability’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 24 Councils asked group: 10

91


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.

48%52%

Men

Women

12%

20%

25%17%

26%

18-24

25-34

35-49

50-64

65+

Gender Age

S3. [Record gender] / S4. To which of the following age groups do you belong?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 64 Councils asked group: 14

92


13

12

3

2

23

21

22

3

Single person living alone

Single living with friends or housemates

Single living with children 16 or under

Single with children but none 16 or under living athome

Married or living with partner, no children

Married or living with partner with children 16 orunder at home

Married or living with partner with children but none16 or under at home

Do not wish to answer

2018 Household Structure

%

S6. Which of the following BEST describes your household? Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 9 Councils asked group: 6

93


19

14

17

11

10

10

16

16

13

11

15

16

65

69

69

78

75

75

1

2018 Boroondara

2017 Boroondara

2016 Boroondara

2015 Boroondara

2014 Boroondara

2013 Boroondara

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

2018 Years Lived in Area

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: 12 Councils asked group: 4

94


19

14

17

12

15

13

22

17

21

17

41

16

3

5

16

16

13

15

15

15

19

16

14

17

18

28

6

8

20

21

27

23

23

25

20

16

22

19

13

39

26

7

20

22

19

21

22

22

12

26

22

19

23

9

30

21

25

26

23

29

26

26

26

25

21

28

5

8

36

59

2018 Boroondara

2017 Boroondara

2016 Boroondara

State-wide

Metro

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

2018 Years Lived in Area

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: 12 Councils asked group: 4 Note: For 2016, the code frame expanded out “10+ years”, to include “10-20 years”,”20-30 years” and “30+ years”. As such, this chart presents the last three years of data only.

97


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 Boroondara

City Council according to the most recently

available Australian Bureau of Statistics population

estimates, whereas the results were previously not

weighted.

➢ The service responsibility area performance

measures have changed significantly and the

rating scale used to assess performance has also

changed.

As such, the results of the 2012 State-wide Local

Government Community Satisfaction Survey should be

considered as a benchmark. Please note that

comparisons should not be made with the State-wide

Local Government Community Satisfaction Survey

results from 2011 and prior due to the methodological

and sampling changes. Comparisons in the period

2012-2018 have been made throughout this report

as appropriate.

98


Demographic

Actual

survey

sample

size

Weighted

base

Maximum

margin of error

at 95%

confidence

interval

Boroondara City Council 500 400 +/-4.4

Men237 190 +/-6.4

Women263 210 +/-6.0

North168 129 +/-7.6

Central140 108 +/-8.3

South183 146 +/-7.3

18-34 years66 129 +/-12.2

35-49 years80 100 +/-11.0

50-64 years142 69 +/-8.2

65+ years212 103 +/-6.7

The sample size for the 2018 State-wide Local Government

Community Satisfaction Survey for Boroondara City Council

was 500. 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

500 interviews is +/-4.4% 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 45.6% - 54.4%.

Maximum margins of error are listed in the table below,

based on a population of 139,000 people aged 18 years or

over for Boroondara City Council, according to ABS

estimates.

99


All participating councils are listed in the State-wide

report published on the DELWP website. In 2018, 64 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 2012-2018 vary slightly.

Council Groups

Boroondara City Council is classified as a Metropolitan

council according to the following classification list:

➢ Metropolitan, Interface, Regional Centres, Large

Rural & Small Rural

Councils participating in the Metropolitan group are:

Banyule, Boroondara, Brimbank, Glen Eira, Greater

Dandenong, Frankston, Kingston, Knox, Manningham,

Maroondah, Melbourne, Port Phillip, Stonnington and Whitehorse.

Wherever appropriate, results for Boroondara City

Council for this 2018 State-wide Local Government

Community Satisfaction Survey have been compared

against other participating councils in the Metropolitan

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.

100


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

FACTORINDEX 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

101


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

102


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 – 75

Council is performing

well in this service area,

but there is room for

improvement


seen to be

very important

50 – 60

Council is performing

satisfactorily in this

service area but needs

to improve


seen to be

fairly important


poorly



seen to be

somewhat important


very poorly



seen to be

not that important

103


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.

104


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

2018 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 2018 State-wide Local Government Community

Satisfaction Survey were optional. Councils also had

the ability to ask tailored questions specific only to their

council.

105


Reporting

Every council that participated in the 2018 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

http://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-survey

106


Core questions: Compulsory inclusion questions for all

councils participating in the CSS.

CSS: 2018 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

background and objectives - city of boroondara | city of ... › media › file › ... ·...

Documents