background and objectives - city of boroondara main objectives of the survey are to assess the...

2J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 - 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


Welcome to the report of results and recommendations for the 2017 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.


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 10% 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, 2017.

The 2017 results are compared with previous years, as detailed below:

Minimum quotas of gender within age groups were applied during the fieldwork phase. Post-survey

weighting was then conducted to ensure accurate representation of the age and gender profile of the

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.

• 2016, n=500 completed interviews, conducted in the period of 1st February – 30th March.


• 2014, n=600 completed interviews, conducted in the period of 31st January – 11th March.


• 2012, n=400 completed interviews, conducted in the period of 18th May – 30th June.


Within tables and index score charts throughout this report, statistically significant differences at the

95% confidence level are represented by upward directing blue and downward directing red arrows.

Significance when noted indicates a significantly higher or lower result for the analysis group in

comparison to the ‘Total’ result for the council for that survey question for that year. Therefore in the

example below:

• The state-wide result is significantly higher than the overall result for the council.

• The result among 50-64 year olds is significantly lower than for the overall result for the council.

Further, results shown in blue and red indicate significantly higher or lower results than in 2016.

Therefore in the example below:

• The result among 35-49 year olds in the council is significantly higher than the result achieved

among this group in 2016.

• The result among 18-34 year olds in the council is significantly lower than the result achieved

among this group in 2016.

54

57

58

60

67

66

50-64

35-49

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.


Further information about the report and explanations about the State-wide Local Government

Community Satisfaction Survey can be found in Appendix B, including:

Background and objectives

Margins of error

Analysis and reporting

Glossary of terms

Contacts

For further queries about the conduct and reporting of the 2017 State-wide Local Government

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

J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 - Boroondara City Council

81

80

78

Waste management

Recreational facilities

Appearance of public areas

Council Metropolitan State-wide

71 64 59

Results shown are index scores out of 100.

60

60

58

Lobbying

Consultation & engagement

Making community decisions


The overall performance index score of 71 for Boroondara City Council represents a one point (not

significant) decline from the 2016 result. Overall performance ratings have only varied by a few index

points over the past five 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 64 respectively).

Residents aged 18 to 34 years (index score of 72, five points lower than 2016) are the only

group that are significantly less favourable in the past year in their view of Council’s overall

performance.

Overall performance ratings are otherwise largely consistent across demographic and

demographic sub-groups, with no significant differences evident compared to Council’s average

rating.

Positively, residents are more likely to rate Boroondara City Council’s overall performance as ‘very

good’ (20%) than those who rate Council ‘poor’ (5%) or ‘very poor’ (1%) combined. A further half of

residents (51%) rate Council’s overall performance as ‘good’ and 22% sit mid-scale providing an

‘average’ rating.


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 2016. Although

there were no significant improvements in 2017, the results are significantly higher than the

Metropolitan and State-wide council averages on most measures.

The exception is overall council direction (index score of 51) where Boroondara City Council’s

performance index is significantly lower than the Metropolitan group average (three points lower).

In the areas of lobbying and making community decisions, Council is slightly (not significantly)

ahead of the Metropolitan group average.

There is one notable difference across geographic cohorts within Boroondara City Council. Unlike

their counterparts in other areas, Central residents rate Council performance on sealed local roads

significantly lower than average (performance index score of 65 compared to Council’s average

rating of 71).

Customer service is a top performing area for Boroondara City Council. It is the highest rated core

performance measure and the fourth highest rated service area overall. In the area of customer

service (index score of 76), Boroondara City Council significantly exceeds the State-wide and

Metropolitan group averages for councils (index score of 69 and 71 respectively).


Three in five (62%) Boroondara City Council residents have had recent contact with Council.

Those aged 18 to 34 years are significantly less likely to have contacted Council (43%).

Conversely, residents aged 35 to 49 years are significantly more likely to have done so (73%).

The main methods of contacting Council are by telephone and email (35% and 21%

respectively). The proportion of residents contacting Council in writing is declining over time,

from 23% in 2013 currently to 12% currently.

Customer service, with an index score of 76, 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 36%

rating customer service as ‘good’.

Perceptions of Council’s customer service increased significantly in the last year among

residents aged 35 to 49 years (index score of 76, 11 index points higher than 2016), while

perceptions declined significantly among 18 to 34 year olds (72, eight points lower).

Newsletters, sent via email (37%) and mail (33%), are the preferred way for Council to inform

residents about news, information and upcoming events. Demand for mailed newsletters is

trending down (declining nine percentage points in the past year), while preferences for emailed

newsletters are trending up. For the first time, preferences favour email over mailed newsletters.

Adults aged under 50 years are behind decreases in demand for mailed communications. They

are 10 points more likely to want to receive a newsletter via email (39%) than mail (29%, from

43% in 2016). Adults aged over 50 years divide evenly (38% newsletter sent via mail and 36%

newsletter via email), but the gap between the two is closing over time.


Waste management is the area where Boroondara City Council performs most strongly (index

score of 81). Performance in this area has remained stable over time.

Most residents (85%) rates Council’s performance in this service area as ‘very good’ or ‘good’.

Indeed 9% of residents mention waste management as one of the best things about living in the

council area.

Waste management is also considered the most important Council responsibility evaluated

(importance index score of 83).

Another area where Boroondara City Council is well regarded is recreational facilities. With a

performance index score of 80, this service area is rated second highest among residents.

More than four in five (82%) residents rate Council’s performance in the area of recreational

facilities as ‘very good’ or ‘good’.

Parks and gardens (27%), recreational and sporting facilities (14%), and community facilities

(12%) are among the frequently mentioned best things about living in the council area.

Appearance of public areas (performance index score of 78) is also an area where Council is rated

more highly compared to other service areas.

Perceptions of this service area have declined significantly in the last 12 months among 18 to 34

year olds (from a performance index score of 84 in 2016 to 77 currently).

Both recreational facilities and the appearance of public areas are considered important Council

responsibilities (importance index score of 75 for each measure). This reflects high usage of each

area (71% and 85% of residents respectively personally use each service area).


Perceptions of Council did not experience any significant declines (or improvements) in ratings in the

past year. This is a positive result for Council, particularly given that Boroondara City Council does not

have any service areas that are performing significantly below the Metropolitan group average.

Notwithstanding these positive results, almost three in 10 residents (29%) 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 area that stands out as being most in need

of Council attention is lobbying. With a performance index score of 58, Council is rated lowest in this

service area and perceptions remain lower than the peak index score of 62 in 2013, despite some

stabilisation from 2016 to 2017.

Residents aged 50 to 64 years (index score of 51) are significantly less favourable towards Council

on this measure; those aged 18 to 34 years are significantly more favourable (63).

Boroondara City Council should also pay particular attention to consultation and engagement

where stated importance exceeds rated performance by 13 points and the 2017 index score is at

a historical low.

Consideration should also be given to men and residents in the ‘North’ area who appear to be most

driving negative opinion in 2017.

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

management, recreational facilities and the appearance of public areas.


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

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

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

council.

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

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

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

especially any target groups identified as requiring attention.

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

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

03 8685 8555.


• None applicableHigher results in 2017

(Significantly higher result than 2016)

• None applicable Lower results in 2017

(Significantly lower result than 2016)

• WomenMost favourably disposed

towards Council

• Men

• ‘North’ residentsLeast favourably disposed

towards Council


7574

7677

7576

68

7274

7372

71

66

6263

6263

60

6362

6160

7574

7371

6162

6159

5658

5554

5654 54

51

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Customer Service

Overall Performance

Community Consultation

Making Community Decisions

Sealed Local Roads

Advocacy

Overall Council Direction


Performance MeasuresBoroondara

2017

Boroondara

2016

Metro

2017

State-wide

2017

Highest

score

Lowest

score

OVERALL PERFORMANCE 71 72 64 59 Women Men

COMMUNITY CONSULTATION(Community consultation and

engagement)

60 63 57 55Aged 65+

years

Aged 18-

34 years

ADVOCACY(Lobbying on behalf of the community)

58 56 56 54Aged 18-

34 years

Aged 50-

64 years

MAKING COMMUNITY

DECISIONS (Decisions made in the

interest of the community)

60 61 58 54 CentralAged 50-

64 years

SEALED LOCAL ROADS (Condition of sealed local roads)

71 73 66 53Aged 35-

49 yearsCentral

CUSTOMER SERVICE 76 75 71 69Aged 65+

years

Aged 18-

34 years

OVERALL COUNCIL DIRECTION 51 54 54 53 North

South,

Men,

Central


20

8

5

6

23

37

51

36

25

37

46

36

22

33

33

32

20

17

5

11

7

9

7

4

1

2

3

3

2

3

1

9

28

14

2

3

Overall Performance


Advocacy

Making CommunityDecisions

Sealed Local Roads

Customer Service

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

Key Measures Summary Results

11 74 9 6Overall Council Direction

%Improved Stayed the same Deteriorated Can't say


89

88

76

61

26

26

12

87

85

71

58

23

24

11

Waste management



Informing the community


Environmental sustainability

LobbyingTotal 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: 15 Councils asked group: 7


85

75

76

74

74

74

73

72

68

80

71

72

72

69

71

72

71

65

83

73

72

72

69

73

71

69

65

83

74

74

74

72

73

71

71

67

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

83

75

75

75

74

74

73

72

66

Waste management

Traffic management



Parking facilities




Lobbying

2016 2015 2014 2013 20122017 Priority Area Importance

Q1. Firstly, how important should [RESPONSIBILITY AREA] be as a responsibility for Council?

Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 32 Councils asked group:12

Note: Please see page 5 for explanation of significant differences


43

29

25

26

27

25

26

32

19

46

50

52

50

46

46

45

39

36

10

16

22

22

22

23

26

21

33

4

2

2

5

6

2

6

7

1

1

2

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?



81

78

80

73

66

68

61

63

56

80

79

79

74

67

65

62

62

59

80

80

81

75

68

68

63

63

61

76

79

79

n/a

67

66

n/a

62

62

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

66

61

81

80

78

71

66

65

60

60

58

Waste management



Sealed local roads



Community decisions


Lobbying

2017 Priority Area Performance 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on [RESPONSIBILITY AREA] over the last 12 months?


Note: Please see page 5 for explanation of significant differences


Individual Service Areas Performance

39

34

34

23

13

13

8

6

5

46

48

48

46

41

36

36

37

25

11

12

15

20

33

32

33

32

33

2

2

2

7

8

3

11

9

7

1

2

1

1

2

3

3

1

4

1

2

4

15

9

14

28

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?



73Consultation & engagement 60

Importance Performance Net Differential

-13

Service areas where importance exceeds performance by 10 points or more,

suggesting further investigation is necessary:


Sig

nif

ica

ntl

y h

igh

er

tha

n s

tate

-wid

e

ave

rag

e

Sig

nific

an

tly lo

we

r tha

n s

tate

-wid

e

ave

rag

e

-Consultation &

engagement

-Lobbying

-Informing the community

-Recreational facilities

-Appearance of public

areas

-Waste management

-Making community

decisions

-Sealed local roads

-None Applicable


Sig

nif

ica

ntl

y h

igh

er

tha

n g

rou

p

ave

rag

e Sig

nific

an

tly lo

we

r tha

n g

rou

p

ave

rag

e

-Consultation &

engagement

-Informing the community

-Recreational facilities

-Appearance of public

areas

-Waste management

-Sealed local roads

-None Applicable


Top Three Most Important Service Areas(Highest to lowest, i.e. 1. = most important)

Boroondara City

Council

1. Waste

management

2. Traffic

management

3. Appearance of

public areas

Metropolitan

1. Waste

management

2. Community

decisions

3. Local streets &

footpaths

Interface

1. Emergency &

disaster mngt

2. Population

growth

3. Local streets &

footpaths

Regional Centres

1. Community

decisions

2. Sealed roads

3. Emergency &

disaster mngt

Large Rural

1. Unsealed roads

2. Sealed roads

3. Emergency &

disaster mngt

Small Rural

1. Emergency &

disaster mngt

2. Community

decisions

3. Waste

management

Bottom Three Most Important Service Areas (Lowest to highest, i.e. 1. = least important)

Boroondara City

Council

1. Lobbying

2. Informing the

community

3. Consultation &

engagement

Metropolitan

1. Bus/community

dev./tourism

2. Community &

cultural

3. Slashing &

weed control

Interface

1. Tourism

development

2. Community &

cultural

3. Art centres &

libraries

Regional Centres

1. Art centres &

libraries

2. Community &

cultural

3. Planning

permits

Large Rural

1. Art centres &

libraries

2. Community &

cultural

3. Traffic

management

Small Rural

1. Community &

cultural

2. Art centres &

libraries

3. Tourism

development


Top Three Highest Performing Service Areas(Highest to lowest, i.e. 1. = highest performance)

Bottom Three Lowest Performing Service Areas (Lowest to highest, i.e. 1. = lowest performance)

Boroondara City

Council

1. Waste

management

2. Recreational

facilities

3. Appearance of

public areas

Metropolitan

1. Waste

management

2. Art centres &

libraries

3. Recreational

facilities

Interface

1. Art centres &

libraries

2. Waste

management

3. Emergency &

disaster mngt

Regional Centres

1. Art centres &

libraries

2. Appearance of

public areas

3. Emergency &

disaster mngt

Large Rural

1. Appearance of

public areas

2. Emergency &

disaster mngt

3. Art centres &

libraries

Small Rural

1. Emergency &

disaster mngt

2. Art centres &

libraries

3. Community &

cultural

Boroondara City

Council

1. Lobbying

2. Consultation &

engagement

3. Community

decisions

Metropolitan

1. Planning

permits

2. Population

growth

3. Parking facilities

Interface

1. Unsealed roads

2. Planning

permits

3. Population

growth

Regional Centres

1. Parking facilities

2. Community

decisions

3. Unsealed roads

Large Rural

1. Unsealed roads

2. Sealed roads

3. Slashing &

weed control

Small Rural

1. Unsealed roads

2. Sealed roads

3. Planning

permits


12

10

10

7

6

5

5

5

13

Development -inappropriate

Traffic Management

Communication

Parking Availability

Waste Management


Sealed Road Maintenance

Environmental Issues

Nothing

27

14

12

9

8

7

4

Parks and Gardens

Recreational/SportingFacilities

Community Facilities

Waste Management

Public areas

Customer Service

Road/Street Maintenance

2017 Best Aspects 2017 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?


Q17. What does Boroondara City Council MOST need to do to improve its performance?



BE

ST

TH

ING

SA

RE

AS

FO

R IM

PR

OV

EM

EN

T

- Development -

inappropriate: 12%

(down 4 points from 2016)

- Traffic Management:

10%

(up 1 point from 2016)

- Communication: 10%

(up 1 point from 2016)

- Parks and Gardens:

27%

(up 5 points from 2016)

- Recreational/Sporting

Facilities: 14%

(down 8 points from 2016)

- Community Facilities:

12%

(up 4 points from 2016)


74

73

72

72

71

71

71

70

70

69

64

59

Women

South

35-49

18-34

65+

Boroondara

Central

North

50-64

Men

Metro

State-wide

71

71

69

77

71

72

72

71

66

72

66

59

74

74

70

73

76

73

72

73

73

73

67

60

76

n/a

75

74

75

74

n/a

n/a

71

72

n/a

61

74

n/a

70

75

72

72

n/a

n/a

70

70

n/a

60

68

n/a

67

71

68

68

n/a

n/a

63

68

n/a

60

2017 Overall Performance 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

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?


Note: Please see page 5 for explanation about significant differences


2017 Overall Performance

20

19

20

22

20

8

9

12

19

17

22

13

26

19

22

17

21

51

54

56

56

52

57

36

44

50

54

51

54

49

53

49

52

51

22

21

20

18

21

28

37

33

22

23

22

25

19

20

25

24

20

5

3

3

3

4

3

10

6

7

4

4

6

4

6

4

5

5

1

2

1

1

1

1

5

2

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

2

3

2

2

1

2

1

2

1

2

1

2

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+


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?



Overall contact with Boroondara City Council

Most contact with Boroondara City Council

Least contact with Boroondara City Council

Customer service rating

Most satisfied with customer service

Least satisfied with customer service

• Aged 18-34 years

• Aged 65+ years

• Index score of 76, up 1 point on 2016



• 62%, down 2 points on 2016


73

72

68

66

65

62

61

61

61

59

58

43

35-49

50-64

65+

South

Women

Boroondara

State-wide

Metro

Central

North

Men

18-34

2017 Contact with Council

%

Q5a. Have you or any member of your household had any recent contact with Council in any of the following ways?




2017 Contact with Council

56

69

74

69

6462

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Have had contact

%




2017 Method of Contact

39

48

42

35 35

2325 25

171920

25

21

24

2123 22 21

19

12

19

15 14

2 2 3 2 21 1 2 2 2

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

By telephone

In person

By email

In writing

Via website

By social media

By text message

%



Note: Respondents could name multiple contacts methods so responses may add to more than 100%


2017 Most Recent Contact

%

4042 41

37

41

17

1214 13

16

12

1816

23

1719

16 1715

1011 10

13

1 1 1 21

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

By telephone

In person

By email

In writing

Via website

By social media

By text message

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: 19 Councils asked group: 7


79

78

77

76

76

75

75

74

74

72

71

69

65+

South

Women

35-49

Boroondara

Central

50-64

North

Men

18-34

Metro

State-wide

80

76

76

65

75

77

74

71

73

80

73

69

80

79

78

72

77

72

82

77

76

76

73

70

82

n/a

80

77

76

n/a

76

n/a

72

72

n/a

72

78

n/a

76

70

74

n/a

72

n/a

72

76

n/a

71

81

n/a

77

75

75

n/a

75

n/a

73

72

n/a

71

2017 Customer Service Rating2016 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.





37

34

41

38

33

32

30

33

37

38

37

33

40

21

37

41

48

36

39

38

38

39

45

36

36

33

38

38

40

34

46

39

30

29

17

14

10

16

15

18

18

17

21

16

13

17

16

22

17

15

12

4

5

6

4

6

3

8

8

3

3

5

3

4

1

8

6

3

4

4

3

4

2

6

5

5

5

1

5

2

4

4

4

2

3

4

1

2

3

1

2

2

1

1

6

2

3

6

1

2

2

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+


2017 Customer Service Rating






100*

82

78

78*

77

71

62*

By text message

Via website

In person

By social media

By telephone

By email

In writing

50

81

81

65

72

76

68

-

82

78

63

78

78

70

-

78

80

75

80

69

71

75

79

73

79

75

72

72

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

2017 Customer Service Rating2016 2015 2014 2013 2012






*Caution: small sample size < n=30


100

44

42

35

45

24

8

42

33

43

30

49

42

8

15

22

16

18

29

4

4

3

4

6

2

5

5

4

2

4

1

1

10

By text message*

Via website

In person

By social media*

By telephone

By email

In writing*


2017 Customer Service Rating





*Caution: small sample size < n=30


• 29% a lot of room for improvement

• 56% little room for improvement

• 10% not much room for improvement

• ‘South’ residents

• Men

• ‘Central’ residents

• ‘North’ residents

• 74% stayed about the same, up 3 points on 2016

• 11% improved, down 3 points on 2016

• 9% deteriorated, up 3 points on 2016

Improvement from Q7

Least satisfied with Council Direction from Q6

Most satisfied with Council Direction from Q6

Council Direction from Q6


54

53

53

52

52

51

51

51

51

50

50

50

Metro

State-wide

North

50-64

Women

Boroondara

65+

35-49

18-34

Central

Men

South

55

51

55

48

54

54

56

53

58

53

55

54

56

53

52

54

55

54

57

47

58

56

54

56

n/a

53

n/a

51

56

56

59

54

58

n/a

56

n/a

n/a

53

n/a

54

54

54

56

49

56

n/a

53

n/a

n/a

52

n/a

50

56

55

54

52

62

n/a

54

n/a

2016 2015 2014 2013 20122017 Overall Direction

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




11

14

16

17

15

15

19

17

15

10

9

12

11

10

12

11

12

74

71

69

71

70

73

62

65

73

74

74

72

75

75

72

76

71

9

6

8

6

8

5

13

11

9

9

9

12

7

9

11

7

11

6

9

7

5

6

7

6

7

3

7

7

5

7

6

5

5

6

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

2017 Overall Direction

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



29

25

25

26

31

46

34

31

29

26

30

28

20

34

36

29

56

59

57

59

57

42

52

53

56

59

57

55

63

55

52

49

10

10

11

11

8

7

9

11

9

11

10

11

16

6

6

11

2

3

2

1

1

1

1

1

3

1

1

2

2

3

3

3

3

5

3

2

3

4

3

3

4

2

5

1

2

3

8

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

2017 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?



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.

• Newsletter sent via email (37%) Overall preferred forms of

communication

• Newsletter sent via mail (38%)Preferred forms of

communication among over 50s

• Newsletter sent via email (39%)Preferred forms of

communication among under 50s

• Newsletter sent via mail (-9) Greatest change since 2016


2017 Best Form

48

45

42 42

33

24

2931

36 37

11

8

11

57

1113

11

7 8

3 2 2 3

7

2 2 2 3 4

1 1 2 13

1 2

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

A council newsletter sent via mail

A council newsletter sent via email

Advertising in a local newspaper

A council newsletter as an insert ina local paper

A text message

The council website

Other

Can't say

Q13. If 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?



2017 Under 50s Best Form

46

42

37

43

29

25

32

3637

39

11

7

11

35

12 1210

5

8

43

24

10

23

24

5

1 12 2

4

13

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017





A text message

The council website

Other

Can't say





2017 Over 50s Best Form

52

48 47

41

38

21

24 24

3436

11 11 12

6

1010

13 1210

8

1 1 1 2 22 1 2 3 331 1 1 21 1 2 1

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017





A text message

The council website

Other

Can't say





77

77

76

75

75

74

74

74

73

73

73

72

71

69

50-64

Household user

Women

Personal user

65+

State-wide

35-49

South

North

Boroondara

Central

Metro

Men

18-34

78

75

75

76

74

75

74

73

72

73

73

73

70

67

75

79

73

78

72

74

74

74

72

72

69

72

70

68

77

74

73

75

70

74

72

n/a

n/a

71

n/a

n/a

68

67

77

74

73

75

72

73

70

n/a

n/a

71

n/a

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 Consultation and Engagement Importance2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘community consultation and engagement’ be as a responsibility for Council?




27

27

25

23

23

29

26

29

24

25

25

28

24

24

31

29

26

30

46

42

41

43

43

41

41

41

48

48

42

49

40

50

48

47

51

49

22

26

29

27

30

24

25

23

21

22

23

21

26

23

18

19

22

21

5

3

4

5

3

4

5

6

6

4

9

2

10

3

2

3

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

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

2017 Consultation and Engagement Importance

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘community consultation and engagement’ be as a responsibility for Council?



66

65

62

61

61

61

60

60

60

59

59

58

57

55

Household user

Personal user

65+

Central

50-64

Women

South

35-49

Boroondara

Men

North

18-34

Metro

State-wide

66

66

65

66

63

65

63

62

63

62

62

64

58

54

66

67

68

60

62

63

62

61

62

62

64

59

58

56

66

68

67

n/a

62

66

n/a

62

63

60

n/a

63

n/a

57

64

66

63

n/a

64

64

n/a

58

62

59

n/a

62

n/a

57

n/a

n/a

71

n/a

61

67

n/a

65

66

66

n/a

67

n/a

57

2017 Consultation and Engagement Performance2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

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




8

13

12

13

11

11

7

7

9

11

6

5

11

4

9

11

10

15

15

36

37

33

35

34

44

29

31

30

36

42

38

34

41

33

31

37

43

44

33

26

35

29

32

28

32

31

38

27

33

35

31

30

39

36

29

26

25

11

10

8

9

9

5

15

13

11

11

12

10

13

13

12

10

10

10

9

2

3

2

2

3

1

6

5

3

3

1

3

2

3

1

2

3

2

2

9

12

10

11

11

10

10

13

9

12

6

8

9

10

6

9

11

3

4

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


2017 Consultation and Engagement Performance

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



73

73

70

69

69

68

68

67

67

66

65

63

63

62

Personal user

Household user

Women

State-wide

35-49

50-64

South

Metro

North

Boroondara

65+

18-34

Central

Men

82

79

72

69

66

73

67

68

67

68

69

67

72

64

77

77

68

69

68

66

68

67

65

65

68

59

61

61

81

78

70

70

67

67

n/a

n/a

n/a

65

65

63

n/a

61

78

75

71

70

64

69

n/a

n/a

n/a

67

69

68

n/a

63

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 Lobbying Importance2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘lobbying on behalf of the community’ be as a responsibility for Council?




19

25

17

17

20

23

21

20

16

21

13

25

20

18

19

20

22

21

36

36

37

37

38

39

38

36

35

38

36

37

27

41

46

37

52

53

33

26

32

33

31

27

29

36

32

30

38

28

42

34

24

26

22

22

7

7

9

9

8

7

8

7

9

7

10

6

10

4

8

7

2

2

2

3

2

1

1

2

2

1

4

1

2

2

1

1

6

1

1

2

2

2

3

1

2

2

1

3

3

1

3

3

2

4

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


2017 Lobbying Importance

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘lobbying on behalf of the community’ be as a responsibility for Council?



63

60

60

59

59

58

58

57

56

56

55

54

54

51

18-34

Central

South

35-49

Women

Household user

Boroondara

Men

Personal user

Metro

North

State-wide

65+

50-64

60

57

58

56

57

59

56

56

60

56

55

53

56

52

58

56

61

59

59

66

59

59

63

58

60

55

61

59

65

n/a

n/a

60

62

56

61

60

56

n/a

n/a

56

63

54

62

n/a

n/a

61

64

68

62

59

65

n/a

n/a

55

64

60

65

n/a

n/a

58

61

n/a

61

61

n/a

n/a

n/a

55

65

52

2017 Lobbying Performance2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

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




5

5

7

6

7

3

5

5

5

6

4

5

5

7

6

1

5

13

13

25

23

22

27

29

35

24

24

23

27

27

26

25

38

23

17

16

25

29

33

30

31

26

27

33

31

30

33

29

35

32

34

25

43

34

31

34

31

7

9

7

6

6

4

13

11

8

6

6

7

6

6

4

9

10

12

11

3

3

2

2

2

2

5

3

5

3

4

2

3

1

4

3

8

7

28

31

31

34

30

24

22

27

26

29

28

27

29

21

23

35

36

8

8

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


2017 Lobbying Performance

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



62

61

61

61

61

61

60

59

58

58

56

54

Central

18-34

Women

35-49

South

65+

Boroondara

Men

North

Metro

50-64

State-wide

60

64

61

63

64

59

61

61

59

59

55

54

58

63

61

59

64

65

62

63

63

59

59

55

n/a

64

63

65

n/a

64

63

63

n/a

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 Community Decisions Made Performance2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

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




6

9

7

10

6

7

6

6

7

5

7

3

9

5

9

37

32

36

33

29

32

34

39

37

39

34

47

34

27

33

32

31

34

28

34

32

35

26

33

31

32

33

32

36

26

9

8

7

8

14

11

11

6

9

11

7

4

12

11

11

3

2

2

1

7

4

3

3

2

3

2

4

1

2

3

14

17

14

19

10

14

11

20

13

11

17

10

12

19

19

2017 Boroondara

2016 Boroondara

2015 Boroondara

2014 Boroondara

State-wide

Metro

North

Central

South

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


2017 Community Decisions Made Performance

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



74

73

72

71

71

71

70

70

68

66

65

53

35-49

South

North

Women

50-64

Boroondara

65+

Men

18-34

Metro

Central

State-wide

72

76

72

74

73

73

71

72

75

67

70

54

69

74

76

73

75

74

74

75

78

69

73

55

77

n/a

n/a

76

72

75

74

75

77

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

2017 Sealed Local Roads Performance2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

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




23

27

31

34

11

19

23

18

28

22

25

22

25

27

21

46

45

44

40

32

43

51

39

46

46

45

46

50

40

45

20

22

17

18

28

24

17

29

15

20

20

15

19

26

22

7

4

7

5

16

9

6

8

8

7

7

12

4

5

6

2

2

1

1

12

4

3

3

1

3

1

3

1

2

2

2

1

2

1

1

3

2

2

2

2

2

3

2017 Boroondara

2016 Boroondara

2015 Boroondara

2014 Boroondara

State-wide

Metro

North

Central

South

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


2017 Sealed Local Roads Performance

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



76

76

75

74

74

74

74

73

72

72

71

70

69

69

50-64

65+

Women

State-wide

North

Household user

Personal user

Metro

Boroondara

South

35-49

Central

Men

18-34

76

74

75

76

72

72

72

74

72

71

72

72

68

68

74

76

73

75

72

73

73

73

71

73

69

67

69

67

75

72

72

75

n/a

71

71

n/a

69

n/a

64

n/a

65

66

73

73

74

75

n/a

74

74

n/a

71

n/a

71

n/a

69

70

n/a

n/a

n/a

75

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

2017 Informing Community Importance2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘informing the community’ be as a responsibility for Council?




25

26

21

22

22

30

27

28

24

23

20

29

22

19

32

30

27

27

46

42

49

40

47

43

43

46

45

46

44

48

43

50

44

46

45

45

23

27

24

30

24

23

24

21

21

27

27

19

23

28

19

20

24

24

6

3

6

7

5

4

5

5

11

4

9

4

12

3

4

4

4

4

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

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


2017 Informing Community Importance

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘informing the community’ be as a responsibility for Council?



69

68

68

66

66

65

65

65

64

64

64

63

61

59

Household user

Personal user

Central

Women

65+

18-34

Boroondara

35-49

South

50-64

Men

North

Metro

State-wide

70

71

68

69

69

70

68

66

67

65

66

68

63

59

69

69

63

66

73

61

65

64

65

65

64

68

64

61

73

73

n/a

71

70

68

68

71

n/a

65

66

n/a

n/a

62

69

69

n/a

66

70

65

66

62

n/a

67

65

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 Informing Community Performance2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

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




13

17

15

21

18

11

12

9

18

13

12

14

7

16

12

19

17

16

41

45

41

40

38

35

37

42

38

43

41

42

50

34

41

38

46

47

33

27

34

27

31

32

32

33

31

33

35

30

33

39

32

26

31

31

8

6

6

6

8

13

12

10

4

9

7

8

6

7

9

8

4

3

1

2

2

3

2

5

4

2

1

1

2

1

1

1

4

1

1

4

3

2

3

3

3

4

4

7

2

3

5

4

2

5

5

1

1

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


2017 Informing Community Performance

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



80

79

78

76

76

75

75

74

73

73

72

71

Central

Women

65+

Metro

50-64

Boroondara

18-34

South

North

35-49

State-wide

Men

80

77

78

75

77

75

72

69

78

77

72

74

71

75

76

74

79

71

63

72

70

71

71

66

n/a

75

75

n/a

78

73

68

n/a

n/a

72

70

69

n/a

76

78

n/a

75

74

69

n/a

n/a

75

72

71

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

73

n/a

2017 Traffic Management Importance2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘traffic management’ be as a responsibility for Council?




29

31

26

27

28

27

33

27

38

23

23

34

27

27

31

31

50

45

40

42

47

41

43

49

47

53

49

51

54

46

48

50

16

19

27

23

19

24

19

16

10

19

18

13

10

22

18

15

4

5

6

6

5

6

4

5

4

3

8

1

9

2

2

2

1

1

1

1

1

3

1

1

3

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

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+


2017 Traffic Management Importance

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘traffic management’ be as a responsibility for Council?



78

78

77

74

74

74

74

73

72

70

70

69

Women

65+

50-64

South

Boroondara

Central

North

Metro

35-49

18-34

State-wide

Men

77

76

76

70

74

77

75

72

72

72

70

70

74

77

75

71

69

69

68

72

67

61

70

64

72

75

75

n/a

69

n/a

n/a

n/a

63

66

70

66

76

78

75

n/a

72

n/a

n/a

n/a

70

67

71

68

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

71

n/a

2017 Parking Importance2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘parking facilities’ be as a responsibility for Council?




26

30

23

22

23

25

28

26

27

25

18

33

21

22

31

32

45

42

39

42

47

39

43

44

43

49

44

47

41

49

45

48

26

23

32

27

25

28

24

29

28

22

34

19

37

24

21

17

2

5

5

8

3

6

4

2

1

3

3

1

2

4

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

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+


2017 Parking Importance

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘parking facilities’ be as a responsibility for Council?



77

77

77

76

76

76

75

75

75

74

73

73

72

72

Personal user

Household user

Women

South

50-64

65+

35-49

Boroondara

North

18-34

Central

Metro

Men

State-wide

75

75

75

74

77

74

74

74

74

72

73

73

72

73

73

73

72

72

74

73

76

72

71

67

72

72

71

72

74

74

74

n/a

78

72

72

72

n/a

69

n/a

n/a

70

72

74

74

75

n/a

76

72

74

74

n/a

72

n/a

n/a

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

2017 Recreational Facilities Importance2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘recreational facilities’ be as a responsibility for Council?




26

26

19

19

24

24

24

24

25

28

22

29

27

26

22

27

30

29

50

48

53

55

50

46

47

51

48

50

49

51

44

50

59

50

50

51

22

22

26

23

23

26

26

24

22

20

26

19

26

24

19

19

20

20

2

4

3

3

2

4

3

5

2

4

1

3

1

3

1

1

1

1

1

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


2017 Recreational Facilities Importance

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘recreational facilities’ be as a responsibility for Council?



82

82

81

81

81

81

80

80

80

79

77

77

73

70

35-49

Personal user

Household user

Women

50-64

North

South

65+

Boroondara

Men

Central

18-34

Metro

State-wide

77

79

79

78

76

77

81

79

78

78

77

80

73

69

78

81

80

78

82

81

80

82

79

81

77

77

74

70

82

82

82

81

80

n/a

n/a

80

80

79

n/a

78

n/a

71

79

80

79

79

80

n/a

n/a

78

79

78

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 Recreational Facilities Performance2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

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




34

33

35

37

32

22

25

38

29

34

32

36

27

39

40

33

39

38

48

47

46

45

47

43

45

46

48

49

51

45

51

48

44

46

50

49

12

15

13

12

15

22

20

12

12

12

12

11

14

11

9

12

10

11

2

2

2

1

1

7

5

2

4

1

3

1

3

4

2

1

1

1

2

1

4

3

3

4

5

4

4

2

8

4

2

6

5

2

3

7

1

1

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


2017 Recreational Facilities Performance

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



79

78

77

76

75

75

75

75

75

74

74

74

72

71

Women

65+

50-64

South

Household user

Personal user

Boroondara

Central

Metro

35-49

State-wide

North

18-34

Men

77

77

79

74

76

76

76

78

74

76

74

75

73

75

72

76

76

74

72

72

72

70

73

74

73

71

65

72

75

74

77

n/a

73

72

72

n/a

n/a

75

73

n/a

65

69

76

76

78

n/a

74

73

74

n/a

n/a

74

74

n/a

71

73

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 Public Areas Importance2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘the appearance of public areas’ be as a responsibility for Council?




25

27

21

21

25

26

27

24

23

27

16

33

22

23

26

29

25

26

52

52

50

51

51

47

48

50

56

51

54

50

46

52

56

56

51

52

22

18

25

25

21

24

23

25

19

21

27

17

28

25

15

15

23

22

2

3

4

3

2

2

2

2

3

3

3

2

1

1

1

1

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


2017 Public Areas Importance

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘the appearance of public areas’ be as a responsibility for Council?



82

80

80

79

79

79

78

78

77

76

76

75

72

71

35-49

Central

Women

Household user

Personal user

South

Boroondara

65+

18-34

North

Men

50-64

Metro

State-wide

79

78

80

81

81

81

80

79

84

80

79

75

72

71

75

78

80

80

81

79

79

79

85

80

79

78

73

72

83

n/a

82

82

82

n/a

81

78

83

n/a

80

79

n/a

72

78

n/a

79

80

80

n/a

79

76

84

n/a

79

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 Public Areas Performance2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

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




34

38

37

41

35

25

24

28

38

36

26

41

32

42

27

32

35

35

48

46

46

43

49

46

48

52

45

46

54

43

50

42

50

50

48

48

15

13

14

12

13

20

20

16

16

14

18

12

14

16

20

12

14

14

2

2

2

2

1

6

6

4

2

2

2

4

1

2

2

2

1

1

2

2

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

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


2017 Public Areas Performance

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



85

85

84

84

84

83

83

83

83

82

82

81

80

79

Women

50-64

South

Household user

Personal user

65+

Central

Boroondara

18-34

North

35-49

Metro

Men

State-wide

84

86

84

85

85

83

88

85

86

83

85

82

86

80

81

81

81

80

80

83

80

80

74

77

83

81

78

79

85

88

n/a

83

83

85

n/a

83

79

n/a

81

n/a

80

79

84

87

n/a

83

83

84

n/a

83

79

n/a

83

n/a

82

79

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

78

2017 Waste Management Importance2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘waste management’ be as a responsibility for Council?




43

49

37

42

44

36

40

39

44

45

38

48

44

40

46

42

44

44

46

42

47

47

45

46

46

50

45

44

47

46

43

47

46

49

46

47

10

7

15

9

9

16

13

10

10

11

14

7

13

12

7

8

9

9

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

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


2017 Waste Management Importance

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘waste management’ be as a responsibility for Council?



83

82

82

82

82

82

81

81

81

80

80

79

75

71

South

65+

Household user

Personal user

Central

35-49

Men

Boroondara

Women

18-34

50-64

North

Metro

State-wide

81

83

81

81

82

80

82

81

79

82

76

79

76

70

81

82

81

81

79

78

81

80

79

81

78

80

77

72

n/a

83

81

81

n/a

79

81

80

79

79

80

n/a

n/a

73

n/a

79

75

75

n/a

74

75

76

76

75

76

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 Waste Management Performance2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

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




39

39

40

41

33

25

29

31

44

43

39

39

40

36

34

45

40

40

46

47

45

40

44

44

48

52

39

47

47

46

45

53

51

38

48

48

11

9

11

15

15

18

16

13

13

7

10

12

10

10

14

12

10

10

2

3

3

2

6

6

5

1

2

2

3

1

4

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

3

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

3

1

3

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

2

1

1

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


2017 Waste Management Performance

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



79

78

78

77

74

74

74

74

73

72

72

72

72

68

Women

Household user

Personal user

South

18-34

65+

50-64

Boroondara

Metro

State-wide

North

Central

35-49

Men

78

79

81

72

76

74

73

74

74

73

76

73

71

70

74

79

78

72

72

72

76

71

74

73

72

71

68

69

78

78

77

n/a

75

72

75

73

n/a

73

n/a

n/a

71

68

76

80

79

n/a

76

70

72

73

n/a

72

n/a

n/a

72

70

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

71

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

2017 Environmental Sustainability Importance2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘environmental sustainability’ be as a responsibility for Council?




32

31

26

27

28

29

30

24

35

37

23

40

38

23

30

33

36

36

39

40

43

44

43

40

41

48

30

38

38

40

31

49

42

38

43

44

21

21

23

23

23

24

22

19

26

19

26

17

24

19

22

19

16

16

6

7

6

4

4

5

5

8

6

5

10

3

6

9

5

6

5

5

1

1

2

1

2

2

1

3

1

2

2

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

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


2017 Environmental Sustainability Importance

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘environmental sustainability’ be as a responsibility for Council?



73

72

68

67

67

67

67

66

66

66

65

65

64

64

Household user

Personal user

18-34

Women

65+

South

Central

Boroondara

North

50-64

Men

35-49

Metro

State-wide

67

67

67

65

66

66

68

66

63

63

67

65

64

63

72

72

66

68

71

67

67

67

67

67

66

64

65

64

72

73

70

68

70

n/a

n/a

68

n/a

67

68

65

n/a

64

68

69

67

70

68

n/a

n/a

67

n/a

66

63

66

n/a

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

2017 Environmental Sustainability Performance2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘environmental sustainability’ over the last 12 months?




13

10

11

15

12

10

10

12

16

12

11

15

10

13

13

17

20

21

36

39

42

39

38

37

37

37

33

37

37

35

44

29

32

34

40

41

32

29

25

25

26

29

28

33

30

33

30

34

30

41

28

28

29

29

3

6

5

4

4

7

6

3

5

2

4

3

3

3

4

3

1

1

1

1

2

1

2

2

1

1

1

1

1

2

3

15

16

17

16

18

14

16

14

15

16

17

13

13

14

21

14

10

9

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


2017 Environmental Sustainability Performance

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘environmental sustainability’ over the last 12 months?



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

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

and data tables provided alongside this report.

Gender Age

48%52%

Men

Women

12%

20%

25%

19%

23%18-24

25-34

35-49

50-64

65+

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



S6. Which of the following BEST describes your household?


2017 Household Structure

%

9

8

2

3

23

23

27

5

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 livingat home

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 butnone 16 or under at home

Do not wish to answer


2017 Years Lived in Area

14

17

11

10

10

16

13

11

15

16

69

69

78

75

75

1

2017 Boroondara

2016 Boroondara

2015 Boroondara

2014 Boroondara

2013 Boroondara

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

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



2017 Years Lived in Area

14

17

14

16

12

20

13

15

14

22

25

3

2

16

13

17

15

14

19

16

17

16

21

27

9

4

21

27

24

22

27

16

20

21

21

19

27

29

12

22

19

18

20

20

19

27

23

22

32

12

26

17

26

23

28

27

26

26

25

24

27

7

8

33

64 1

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

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



The survey was revised in 2012. As a result:

The survey is now conducted as a representative random probability survey of residents aged 18

years or over in local councils, whereas previously it was conducted as a ‘head of household’

survey.

As part of the change to a representative resident survey, results are now weighted post survey to

the known population distribution of 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 2012-2017 have been made

throughout this report as appropriate.


Demographic

Actual

survey

sample size

Weighted

base

Maximum margin of

error at 95%

confidence interval

Boroondara City

Council500 400 +/-4.4

Men 218 191 +/-6.6

Women 282 209 +/-5.8

North 183 143 +/-7.3

Central 138 116 +/-8.4

South 179 141 +/-7.3

18-34 years 73 131 +/-11.5

35-49 years 100 98 +/-9.8

50-64 years 149 78 +/-8.1

65+ years 178 93 +/-7.4

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

Boroondara City Council was n=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 n=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 138,000 people aged

18 years or over for Boroondara City Council, according to ABS estimates.


All participating councils are listed in the state-wide report published on the DELWP website. In 2017,

68 of the 79 Councils throughout Victoria participated in this survey. For consistency of analysis and

reporting across all projects, Local Government Victoria has aligned its presentation of data to use

standard council groupings. Accordingly, the council reports for the community satisfaction survey

provide analysis using these standard council groupings. Please note that councils participating across

2012-2017 vary slightly.

Council Groups

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, Bayside, Boroondara, Brimbank, Glen

Eira, Greater Dandenong, Frankston, Kingston, Knox, Manningham, Maroondah, Melbourne, Monash,

Moonee Valley, Moreland, Port Phillip, Stonnington and Whitehorse.

Wherever appropriate, results for Boroondara City Council for this 2017 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.


Index Scores

Many questions ask respondents to rate council performance on a five-point scale, for example, from

‘very good’ to ‘very poor’, with ‘can’t say’ also a possible response category. To facilitate ease of

reporting and comparison of results over time, starting from the 2012 survey and measured against the

state-wide result and the council group, an ‘Index Score’ has been calculated for such measures.

The Index Score is calculated and represented as a score out of 100 (on a 0 to 100 scale), with ‘can’t

say’ responses excluded from the analysis. The ‘% RESULT’ for each scale category is multiplied by

the ‘INDEX FACTOR’. This produces an ‘INDEX VALUE’ for each category, which are then summed to

produce the ‘INDEX SCORE’, equating to ‘60’ in the following example.

SCALE

CATEGORIES% RESULT INDEX FACTOR INDEX VALUE

Very good 9% 100 9

Good 40% 75 30

Average 37% 50 19

Poor 9% 25 2

Very poor 4% 0 0

Can’t say 1% -- INDEX SCORE 60


Similarly, an Index Score has been calculated for the Core question ‘Performance direction in the last

12 months’, based on the following scale for each performance measure category, with ‘Can’t say’

responses excluded from the calculation.

SCALE CATEGORIES % RESULT INDEX FACTOR INDEX VALUE

Improved 36% 100 36

Stayed the same 40% 50 20

Deteriorated 23% 0 0

Can’t say 1% -- INDEX SCORE 56


Index scores are indicative of an overall rating on a particular service area. In this context, index scores

indicate:

a) how well council is seen to be performing in a particular service area; or

b) the level of importance placed on a particular service area.

For ease of interpretation, index score ratings can be categorised as follows:

INDEX SCORE Performance implication Importance implication

75 – 100Council is performing very well

in this service area

This service area is seen to be

extremely important

60 – 75Council is performing well in this service

area, but there is room for improvement


very important

50 – 60Council is performing satisfactorily in

this service area but needs to improve


fairly important

40 – 50Council is performing poorly



somewhat important

0 – 40Council is performing very poorly



not that important


The test applied to the Indexes was an Independent Mean Test, as follows:

Z Score = ($1 - $2) / Sqrt (($3*2 / $5) + ($4*2 / $6))

Where:

$1 = Index Score 1

$2 = Index Score 2

$3 = unweighted sample count 1

$4 = unweighted sample count 1

$5 = standard deviation 1

$6 = standard deviation 2

All figures can be sourced from the detailed cross tabulations.

The test was applied at the 95% confidence interval, so if the Z Score was greater than +/- 1.954 the

scores are significantly different.


Core, Optional and Tailored Questions

Over and above necessary geographic and demographic questions required to ensure sample representativeness, a base set of questions for the 2017 State-wide Local Government Community Satisfaction Survey was designated as ‘Core’ and therefore compulsory inclusions for all participating Councils.

These core questions comprised:

Overall performance last 12 months (Overall performance)

Lobbying on behalf of community (Advocacy)

Community consultation and engagement (Consultation)

Decisions made in the interest of the community (Making community decisions)

Condition of sealed local roads (Sealed local roads)

Contact in last 12 months (Contact)

Rating of contact (Customer service)

Overall council direction last 12 months (Council direction)

Reporting of results for these core questions can always be compared against other participating councils in the council group and against all participating councils state-wide. Alternatively, some questions in the 2017 State-wide Local Government Community Satisfaction Survey were optional. Councils also had the ability to ask tailored questions specific only to their council.


Reporting

Every council that participated in the 2017 State-wide Local Government Community Satisfaction

Survey receives a customised report. In addition, the state government is supplied with a state-wide

summary report of the aggregate results of ‘Core’ and ‘Optional’ questions asked across all council

areas surveyed.

Tailored questions commissioned by individual councils are reported only to the commissioning council

and not otherwise shared unless by express written approval of the commissioning council.

The overall State-wide Local Government Community Satisfaction Report is available at

https://www.localgovernment.vic.gov.au/our-programs/council-community-satisfaction-survey.

.

https://www.localgovernment.vic.gov.au/our-programs/council-community-satisfaction-survey


Core questions: Compulsory inclusion questions for all councils participating in the CSS.

CSS: 2017 Victorian Local Government Community Satisfaction Survey.

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

small rural.

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

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

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

lowest does not imply that it is significantly higher or lower, unless this is specifically mentioned.

Index score: A score calculated and represented as a score out of 100 (on a 0 to 100 scale). This score is sometimes

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

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

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

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

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

a statistical significance test at the 95% confidence limit. If the result referenced is statistically higher or lower then this

will be specifically mentioned, however not all significantly higher or lower results are referenced in summary reporting.

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

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

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

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

council, rather than the achieved survey sample.

Contact Us:

03 8685 8555

John Scales

Managing Director

Mark Zuker

Managing Director

background and objectives - city of boroondara main objectives of the survey are to assess the...

Documents