background and objectives - shire of mitchell · 2019-01-01 · j00643 community satisfaction...

2

J00643 Community Satisfaction Survey 2018 - Mitchell Shire Council

➢ Background and objectives

➢ Survey methodology and sampling

➢ Further information

➢ Key findings & recommendations

➢ Summary of findings

➢ Detailed findings

• Key core measure: Overall performance

• Key core measure: Customer service

• Key core measure: Council direction indicators

• Individual service areas

• Detailed demographics

➢ Appendix A: Detailed survey tabulations

➢ Appendix B: Further project information

3


54 56 59

Results shown are index scores out of 100.

Council Large Rural State-wide

81

41

81

43

7849

-40 -38 -28

PerformanceImportance Net differential

Maintenance of unsealed roads

Roadside slashing and weed control

Condition of sealed local roads

67

65

63

Emergency and disaster management

Waste management

Family support services

4


Welcome to the report of results and recommendations

for the 2018 State-wide Local Government Community

Satisfaction Survey for Mitchell Shire Council.

Each year Local Government Victoria (LGV)

coordinates and auspices this State-wide Local

Government Community Satisfaction Survey throughout

Victorian local government areas. This coordinated

approach allows for far more cost effective surveying

than would be possible if councils commissioned

surveys individually.

Participation in the State-wide Local Government

Community Satisfaction Survey is optional. Participating

councils have various choices as to the content of the

questionnaire and the sample size to be surveyed,

depending on their individual strategic, financial and

other considerations.

The main objectives of the survey are to assess the

performance of Mitchell Shire Council across a range of

measures and to seek insight into ways to provide

improved or more effective service delivery. The survey

also provides councils with a means to fulfil some of

their statutory reporting requirements as well as acting

as a feedback mechanism to LGV.

5


This survey was conducted by Computer Assisted

Telephone Interviewing (CATI) as a representative

random probability survey of residents aged 18+ years

in Mitchell Shire Council.

Survey sample matched to the demographic profile of

Mitchell Shire Council as determined by the most

recent ABS population estimates was purchased from

an accredited supplier of publicly available phone

records, including up to 40% mobile phone numbers to

cater to the diversity of residents within Mitchell Shire

Council, particularly younger people.

A total of n=400 completed interviews were achieved in

Mitchell Shire Council. Survey fieldwork was conducted

in the period of 1st February – 30th March, 2018.

The 2018 results are compared with previous years, as

detailed below:

• 2017, n=400 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

Mitchell Shire Council area.

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

net scores in this report or the detailed survey

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

denotes not mentioned and ‘0%’ denotes mentioned by

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

or more response categories being combined into one

category for simplicity of reporting.

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

Large Rural

Mitchell

18-34

State-wide

Overall Performance – Index Scores (example extract only)

Note: Details on the calculations used to determine statistically significant differences may be found in Appendix B.

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 54 for

Mitchell Shire Council represents a significant six-point

increase from the 2017 result. Overall performance

ratings have fluctuated over the past six years but have

now returned to higher levels achieved prior to 2016.

➢ Overall performance is in line with the Large Rural

group average (index score of 56) but significantly

lower (at the 95% confidence interval) than the

State-wide average for councils (index score of

59).

➢ The increase in Council’s overall performance

index score has been driven largely by residents

of the South (index score of 59, ten points higher

than 2017), residents aged 65+ years (58, ten

points higher), men (54, eight points higher), and

Central residents (53, six points higher), who all

increased significantly in their impressions of

Mitchell Shire Council’s overall performance in the

past year.

➢ Residents of the South are significantly more

favourable than the average in their impressions

of overall performance. Ratings are at their

highest level to date (since 2016) among residents

of the South, having increased 21 index points in

the past two years alone.

54 56 59

Results shown are index scores out of 100.

Council Large Rural State-wide

Residents are more likely to rate Mitchell Shire

Council’s overall performance as ‘very good’ or ‘good’

(39%, compared to 28% in 2017) than ‘poor’ or ‘very

poor’ (22%, compared to 30% in 2017). A further half

of residents (39%) sit mid-scale providing an ‘average’

rating.

10


Review of the core performance measures (as shown

on page 19) shows that Mitchell Shire Council’s

performance increased on all core measures

compared to Council’s own results in 2017. In addition

to overall performance, Council experienced

significant gains on the core measures of

consultation and engagement (index score of 53, six

points higher than 2017), customer service (70,

seven points higher), community decisions (50, four

points higher), and sealed local roads (43, five points

higher).

➢ As with overall performance, index scores for

core performance measures have recovered from

significant losses that occurred between 2015

and 2016 and have returned to previously-

achieved higher levels. In the case of community

decisions and customer service, ratings are at

their highest point to date.

➢ As a result of ratings gains, Council’s

performance is in line with averages for the Large

Rural group on a majority of core measures.

Council performs significantly lower than the

Large Rural group in just one area – advocacy

(index score of 48 and 52 respectively).

Council performs significantly higher than the Large

Rural group average on the measure of council

direction (index scores of 56 and 52 respectively).

➢ Council, however, performs significantly lower

than State-wide averages for councils on the

measures of advocacy, community decisions, and

sealed local roads, in addition to overall

performance.

Geographic cohorts within Mitchell Shire Council

tend to rate Council performance on core measures

similarly with one notable exception. Residents of the

South (index score of 63) have significantly more

favourable impressions of council direction than the

average resident, while residents of the North (index

score of 46) have significantly less favourable

impressions.

➢ Residents of the South also increased

significantly (by 10 index points) in their

impressions of council direction in the past year.

More broadly, residents of the South increased

significantly in their impressions of all but one

core measure (sealed local roads) in the past

year.

11


Customer service is the top-performing area for

Mitchell Shire Council. It is both the highest-rated core

performance measure and the highest-rated service

area overall. In the area of customer service (index

score of 70), Mitchell Shire performs in line with the

State-wide and Large Rural group averages for

councils (index score of 70 and 67 respectively).

In keeping with ratings gains on core measures, a

majority (58%) of residents believe Council is generally

heading in the right direction compared to 28% who

believe Council is on the wrong track (another 14%

‘can’t say’).

12


Three in five (59%) of Mitchell Shire Council

residents have had recent contact with Council.

Residents aged 65+ years have had the most contact

with Council in 2018 (66%). They also rate their

customer service interactions higher than the average.

➢ Most customer service interactions occurred by

telephone (36%) or in-person (28%). Email (18%)

ranks third in terms of a channel for

communicating with Council.

Customer service, with an index score of 70, is a

positive result for Council. Again, perceptions of

customer service increased by a significant seven

index points in the past year. Perceptions of customer

service have fluctuated over time but are now at their

highest level to date.

➢ Three in ten (30%, up from 20% in 2017) rate

Council’s customer service as ‘very good’, with a

further 34% rating customer service as ‘good’.

➢ Perceptions of Council’s customer service

increased significantly in the last year among

residents of the South (index score of 73, nine

index points higher than 2017), men (72, 13 index

points higher), and residents of the North (71, 13

index points higher).

13


In addition to significant ratings increases on the core

measures of consultation and engagement (six

index points higher than 2017), community decisions

(four index points higher), and sealed local roads

(five index points higher), Council’s performance

increased significantly in the area of population

growth (index score of 50, six points higher) in the

past year.

➢ Men improved significantly in their impressions of

Council performance on all four measures;

residents of the South improved significantly on all

but sealed local roads.

➢ Council performs in line with average ratings for

the Large Rural group on all four measures.

After customer service, emergency and disaster

management is the area where Mitchell Shire Council

performs most strongly (index score of 67). This is

also considered the most important council service

relative to other areas evaluated (importance index

score of 83).

➢ More than half of residents (55%) rate Council’s

performance in this service area as ‘very good’ or

‘good’.

➢ Residents of the South (index score of 72) have

significantly more favourable impressions of

Council performance on emergency and disaster

management than residents overall.

➢ Notwithstanding positive growth in this area,

Council’s performance index score is significantly

lower than the Large Rural group and State-wide

average for councils (index score of 71 each).

Another area where Mitchell Shire Council is well

regarded is waste management. With a performance

index score of 65, this service area is rated third

highest among residents.

➢ Three in five residents (61%) rate Council’s

performance as ‘very good’ or ‘good’.

➢ Residents aged 18 to 34 years (index score of

71) are significantly more favourable in their views

than the average.

➢ Council performs in line with the average rating for

the Large Rural group (index score of 67) but

significantly lower than the State-wide average for

councils (index score of 70).

➢ Waste management (importance index score of

79) is rated highly relative to other service areas in

terms of importance.

14


Council did not experience any significant declines in

ratings in the past year. This is a positive result for

Council. In terms of priorities for the coming 12

months, Council should look to areas where current

performance is low relative to other services. The

areas that stand out as being most in need of Council

attention are unsealed roads (index score of 41) and

sealed local roads (index score of 43).

Mitchell Shire Council should also pay particular

attention to service areas where stated importance

exceeds rated performance by more than 10

points. Key priorities should include the eight service

areas where the performance gap exceeds 20 points,

including:

➢ Unsealed roads (margin of 40 points)

➢ Sealed local roads (margin of 38 points)

➢ Slashing and weed control (margin of 28 points)

➢ Population growth (margin of 28 points)

➢ Community decisions (margin of 28 points)

➢ Business and community development (margin

of 21 points)

➢ Consultation and engagement (margin of 21

points)

➢ Informing the community (margin of 21 points).

Consideration should also be given to residents aged

35 to 64 years who appear to be most driving negative

opinion in 2018.

On the positive side, Council should maintain its

relatively strong performance in the areas of

customer service, emergency and disaster

management and waste management.

It is also important not to ignore, and to learn from,

what is working amongst other groups, especially

residents aged 18 to 34 years and residents of the

South, and use these lessons to build performance

experience and perceptions in other areas.

The regression analysis on pages 31-35 shows the

individual service areas that have the strongest

influence on the overall performance rating are:

➢ Decisions made in the interest of the community

➢ Planning and building permits

➢ Condition of sealed local roads.

The condition of sealed local roads has one of the

lowest performance ratings (43). This should not be

ignored because it has a strong influence on overall

performance perceptions. Further, 21% of residents

named sealed local roads as an area for

improvement, double the mention of any other area.

15


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.

16


Higher results in 2018(Significantly higher result than 2017)

• Overall performance

• Consultation and

engagement

• Community decisions

• Sealed local roads

• Customer service

• Population growth

Lower results in 2018(Significantly lower result than 2017) • No significant change

Most favourably disposed

towards Council• Aged 18-34 years

• South residents

Least favourably disposed

towards Council• Aged 35 to 49 years

• Aged 50 to 64 years

18


5254

5154

42

48

54

49 50 49

53

42

47

53

4548 48 49

40

454849

41

46

50

43

37 38

43

65 65 6568

6063

70

47

51 50

55

37

5356

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Sealed

Local

Roads

Community

Consultation

Customer

ServiceOverall

Council

Direction

Overall

PerformanceAdvocacy Making

Community

Decisions

19


Performance MeasuresMitchell

2018

Mitchell

2017

Large

Rural

2018

State-

wide

2018

Highest

score

Lowest

score

OVERALL PERFORMANCE 54 48 56 59 SouthAged 50-

64 years

COMMUNITY CONSULTATION(Community consultation and

engagement)

53 47 54 55Aged 18-

34 years

Aged

35+years

ADVOCACY(Lobbying on behalf of the community)

48 45 52 54Aged 65+

years

Aged 50-

64 years

MAKING COMMUNITY

DECISIONS (Decisions made in the

interest of the community)

50 46 52 54Aged 18-

34 years

Aged 35-

64 years

SEALED LOCAL ROADS (Condition of sealed local roads)

43 38 45 53Aged 65+

years

Aged 50-

64 years

CUSTOMER SERVICE 70 63 67 70Aged 18-

34 years

Aged 35-

64 years

OVERALL COUNCIL DIRECTION 56 53 52 52 South North

20


8

7

3

4

5

30

31

28

17

23

22

34

39

34

34

42

30

22

15

14

21

16

27

5

7

8

5

7

16

5

1

8

19

8

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

25 59 13 3Overall Council Direction

%Improved Stayed the same Deteriorated Can't say

21


67

42

21

20

58

38

18

15

Recreational facilities

Community & cultural

Consultation & engagement

Planning & building permits

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: 1

22


81

81

78

78

78

72

74

75

69

65

72

83

79

75

74

73

Unsealed roads

Sealed local roads

Slashing & weed control

Population growth

Community decisions

Business & community dev.


Informing the community


Lobbying

Environmental sustainability

Emergency & disaster mngt

Waste management



Appearance of public areas

41

43

49

50

50

50

53

54

51

48

56

67

65

63

62

63

Importance Performance Net Differential

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

suggesting further investigation is necessary:

-40

-38

-28

-28

-28

-21

-21

-21

-18

-17

-16

-16

-14

-12

-12

-10

23


n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

80

n/a

79

n/a

77

n/a

n/a

79

78

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

78

n/a

78

n/a

76

n/a

n/a

74

75

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

2018 Priority Area Importance

83

81

81

79

78

78

78

75

75

74

74

73

72

72

69

65

60

56


Sealed local roads

Unsealed roads

Waste management

Community decisions

Population growth










Lobbying


Tourism development

Q1. Firstly, how important should [RESPONSIBILITY AREA] be as a responsibility for Council? Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 28 Councils asked group: 7Note: Please see page 6 for explanation of significant differences.

2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

24


40

52

38

46

35

40

43

33

27

34

30

23

27

24

24

20

10

12

46

31

43

33

43

37

32

40

46

38

40

46

41

44

37

32

34

27

12

12

19

17

18

18

17

18

23

23

26

28

25

24

27

35

42

37

2

3

1

3

1

4

5

5

3

4

3

2

5

5

8

9

11

20

1

1

2

2

1

1

1

2

2

1

3

1

1

2

1

1

2

2

1

1

2

1

1

Sealed local roads


Waste management

Unsealed roads

Community decisions


Population growth









Lobbying


Tourism development

%

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: 7

25


2018 Priority Area Performance

n/a

65

n/a

61

62

n/a

n/a

52

47

n/a

46

n/a

44

n/a

n/a

45

38

n/a

n/a

61

n/a

59

55

n/a

n/a

46

42

n/a

41

n/a

39

n/a

n/a

40

37

n/a

n/a

64

n/a

63

60

n/a

n/a

56

53

n/a

49

n/a

50

n/a

n/a

49

43

n/a

n/a

66

n/a

62

57

n/a

n/a

55

49

n/a

n/a

n/a

45

n/a

n/a

48

n/a

n/a

n/a

65

n/a

60

57

n/a

n/a

50

50

n/a

n/a

n/a

51

n/a

n/a

48

n/a

n/a

n/a

69

n/a

62

59

n/a

n/a

51

49

n/a

n/a

n/a

47

n/a

n/a

45

n/a

n/a

67

65

63

63

62

59

56

54

53

51

50

50

50

49

48

48

43

41


Waste management









Community decisions


Population growth


Tourism development

Lobbying

Sealed local roads

Unsealed roads

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: 18 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation of significant differences.

26


Individual Service Areas Performance

18

13

18

16

8

9

7

7

9

5

10

4

4

5

5

5

3

3

43

43

37

37

36

32

30

28

27

28

20

24

23

22

21

19

21

17

22

29

22

27

25

34

37

34

30

39

29

29

42

30

38

28

34

34

9

9

7

12

7

13

16

14

21

13

23

16

16

27

19

27

22

21

6

4

3

4

2

3

6

8

13

3

8

7

7

16

5

17

6

5

2

1

13

4

21

10

5

8

1

13

10

20

8

10

5

15

19

Waste management










Population growth


Community decisions

Sealed local roads


Unsealed roads

Tourism development

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: 18

27


• None Applicable • Lobbying

• Informing the community

• Family support services

• Recreational facilities

• Appearance of public areas

• Community & cultural

• Waste management

• Environmental sustainability

• Emergency & disaster mngt

• Slashing & weed control

• Making community

decisions

• Sealed local roads

• Business & community dev.

• Tourism development

Significantly Higher than

State-wide Average

Significantly Lower than

State-wide Average

28


• None Applicable • Lobbying

• Informing the community

• Recreational facilities

• Appearance of public areas

• Community & cultural

• Environmental sustainability

• Emergency & disaster mngt

• Business & community dev.

• Tourism development

Significantly Higher than

Group Average

Significantly Lower than

Group Average

29


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

Mitchell Shire Council

1. Emergency &

disaster mngt

2. Sealed roads

3. Unsealed roads

Metropolitan

1. Waste

management

2. Emergency &

disaster mngt

3. Community

decisions

Interface

1. Traffic

management

2. Emergency &

disaster mngt

3. Waste

management

Regional Centres

1. Emergency &

disaster mngt

2. Sealed roads

3. Community

decisions

Large Rural

1. Sealed roads

2. Unsealed roads

3. Emergency &

disaster mngt

Small Rural

1. Emergency &

disaster mngt

2. Waste

management

3. Community

decisions

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


1. Tourism

development

2. Community &

cultural

3. Lobbying

Metropolitan

1. Bus/community

dev./tourism

2. Community &

cultural

3. Slashing & weed

control

Interface

1. Tourism

development

2. Community &

cultural

3. Bus/community

dev./tourism

Regional Centres

1. Community &

cultural

2. Art centres &

libraries

3. Lobbying

Large Rural

1. Community &

cultural

2. Art centres &

libraries

3. Traffic

management

Small Rural

1. Community &

cultural

2. Art centres &

libraries

3. Tourism

development

30


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


1. Emergency &

disaster mngt

2. Waste

management

3. Family support

services

Metropolitan

1. Art centres &

libraries

2. Waste

management

3. Recreational

facilities

Interface

1. Art centres &

libraries

2. Emergency &

disaster mngt

3. Recreational

facilities

Regional Centres

1. Art centres &

libraries

2. Appearance of

public areas

3. Emergency &

disaster mngt

Large Rural

1. Art centres &

libraries

2. Emergency &

disaster mngt

3. Appearance of

public areas

Small Rural

1. Art centres &

libraries

2. Emergency &

disaster mngt

3. Appearance of

public areas

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


1. Unsealed roads

2. Sealed roads

3. Lobbying

Metropolitan

1. Population growth

2. Planning permits

3. Town planning

policy

Interface

1. Unsealed roads


3. Traffic

management

Regional Centres

1. Parking facilities

2. Community

decisions

3. Unsealed roads

Large Rural

1. Unsealed roads

2. Sealed roads

3. Planning permits

Small Rural

1. Unsealed roads

2. Sealed roads


31


To predict a respondent’s score on a question related

to overall performance, based on knowledge of their

performance scores for individual areas, we use

regression analysis. For example, suppose we are

interested in predicting which areas of local

government responsibility could influence a person’s

opinion on overall council performance. The

independent variables would be areas of responsibility

tested (e.g. community consultation, traffic

management, etc.) and the dependent variable would

be overall performance.

The stronger the correlation between the dependent

variable (overall opinion) and individual areas of

responsibility, the closer the scores will fall to the

regression line and the more accurate the prediction.

Multiple regression can predict one variable on the

basis of several other variables. Therefore, we can test

perceptions of council’s overall performance to

investigate which set of areas are influencing

respondents' opinions.

In the chart of the regression results, the horizontal

axis represents the council performance index for each

area of responsibility. Areas plotted on the right-side

have a higher performance index than those on the

left.

The vertical axis represents the Standardised Beta

Coefficient from the multiple regression performed.

This measures the contribution of each variable (i.e.

each area) to the model, with a larger Beta value

indicating a greater effect on overall performance.

Therefore areas of responsibility located near the top

of the following chart are more likely to have an impact

on respondent’s overall rating, than the areas closest

to the axis.

The regressions are shown on the following three

charts. The first chart shows a regression analysis of

all the service areas chosen by the Council. However,

this model should be interpreted with caution because

some of the data are not normally distributed and not

all items have linear correlations.

Therefore, in the charts that follow, a significant

regression model of fewer items with a Standardised

Beta score close to or higher than ±0.1 was run to

determine the key predictors that have a moderate to

strong influence on overall performance perceptions.

The third chart is an enlarged version of the second

chart, with key findings highlighted.

The results are then discussed according to the

findings of these key service areas. Some findings

from the full regression list may be included in the

discussion if they are of interest.

32


The multiple regression analysis model of all question items above has an R-squared value of 0.591 and adjusted R-square value of 0.572, which means that 59% of the variance in community perceptions of overall performance can be predicted from these variables. The overall model effect was statistically significant at p = 0.0001, F = 30.57. However, this model should be interpreted with caution because not all service areas had linear correlations. We recommend you use the regression model of reduced factors as follows.

Mitchell Shire Council (n=400)

33


The performance questions were analysed using Exploratory Factor Analysis to determine the key factors or ‘themes’ to emerge from the questions. Questions with reasonable linearity and low correlations were selected from each theme and a multiple regression model was performed on these seven items against the overall performance ratings of 400 responses. The multiple regression analysis model above has an R-squared value of 0.586 and adjusted R-square value of 0.576, which means that 59% of the variance in community perceptions of overall performance can be predicted from these variables. The overall model effect was statistically significant at p = 0.0001, F = 55.11.


34


The performance questions were analysed using Exploratory Factor Analysis to determine the key factors or ‘themes’ to emerge from the questions. Questions with reasonable linearity and low correlations were selected from each theme and a multiple regression model was performed on these seven items against the overall performance ratings of 400 responses. The multiple regression analysis model above has an R-squared value of 0.586 and adjusted R-square value of 0.576, which means that 59% of the variance in community perceptions of overall performance can be predicted from these variables. The overall model effect was statistically significant at p = 0.0001, F = 55.11.


35


The individual service areas that have the strongest

influence on the overall performance rating are:


➢ Planning and building permits

➢ Condition of sealed local roads (excluding

VicRoads)

Other key areas with a positive influence on overall

performance include:

➢ Emergency and disaster management

➢ Waste management

➢ The appearance of public areas

➢ Community and cultural activities

Looking specifically at key service areas, emergency

and disaster management has the strongest positive

performance index and a strong positive influence on

the overall performance rating. Currently, Mitchell Shire

Council is performing well in this area (performance

index of 67) and, while it should remain a focus, there

is greater work to be done elsewhere.

Waste management also has a high performance

rating (65) and a moderate influence on the overall

performance rating.

Mitchell Shire Council’s efforts on planning and

building permits, decision-making in the interest of the

community, as well as lobbying on behalf of the

community all have borderline performance ratings

overall. Continuing efforts in these areas has the

capacity to lift Mitchell Shire Council’s overall

performance rating because of their strong influence

on the overall performance perceptions. (These areas

have performance indices of 51, 50 and 48

respectively).

The condition of sealed local roads (excluding

VicRoads) has one of the lowest performance ratings

(43). This should not be ignored because it has a

strong influence on overall performance perceptions.

Roadside slashing and weed control and the

maintenance of unsealed roads also have low

performance ratings, but these service areas do not

have a strong influence on overall performance

perceptions.

Promoting the decisions that have been made in the

interest of the community, lobbying on behalf of the

community as well as improvements in building and

planning permits could help drive up overall opinion of

the Mitchell Shire Council’s performance.

36


21

10

8

8

7

6

6

6

Sealed Road Maintenance

Community Consultation

Infrastructure

Footpaths/Walking Tracks

Recreational Facilities

Financial Management

Communication

Nothing

2018 Areas for Improvement

%

Q17. What does Mitchell Shire Council MOST need to do to improve its performance?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 36 Councils asked group: 9

37


Areas for

Improvement

• Sealed Road Maintenance: 21% (down 2 points from 2017)

• Community Consultation: 10% (up 1 point from 2017)

• Infrastructure: 8% (up 4 points from 2017)

• Footpaths/Walking Tracks: 8% (down 4 points from 2017)

40


2018 Overall Performance

59

59

58

58

56

54

54

54

53

50

50

49

South

State-wide

65+

18-34

Large Rural

Women

Mitchell

Men

Central

35-49

North

50-64

49

59

48

52

54

50

48

46

47

45

48

47

38

59

42

49

54

42

42

42

44

41

46

37

n/a

60

53

63

56

53

54

54

n/a

49

n/a

48

n/a

61

53

57

n/a

52

51

50

n/a

47

n/a

48

n/a

60

53

59

n/a

53

54

54

n/a

54

n/a

47

n/a

60

57

56

n/a

53

52

52

n/a

48

n/a

50

Q3. ON BALANCE, for the last twelve months, how do you feel about the performance of Mitchell Shire Council, not just on one or two issues, BUT OVERALL across all responsibility areas? Has it been very good, good, average, poor or very poor? Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 64 Councils asked group: 18 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.

2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

41


8

3

2

6

3

7

5

9

7

7

8

8

6

10

9

8

4

10

31

25

19

29

29

27

27

37

34

23

27

41

31

30

39

27

25

29

39

42

38

44

43

43

46

36

39

43

42

32

41

37

33

35

44

46

15

20

24

15

15

16

14

11

13

18

15

13

16

14

15

18

16

11

7

10

15

5

8

5

7

5

6

9

8

5

5

9

4

12

9

2

1

1

2

1

2

1

2

2

1

1

2

1

2018 Mitchell

2017 Mitchell

2016 Mitchell

2015 Mitchell

2014 Mitchell

2013 Mitchell

2012 Mitchell

State-wide

Large Rural

North

Central

South

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


2018 Overall Performance

Q3. ON BALANCE, for the last twelve months, how do you feel about the performance of Mitchell Shire Council, not just on one or two issues, BUT OVERALL across all responsibility areas? Has it been very good, good, average, poor or very poor? Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 64 Councils asked group: 18

43


Overall contact with Mitchell

Shire Council• 59%, up 2 points on 2017

Most contact with Mitchell

Shire Council• Aged 65+ years

• Central residents

Least contact with Mitchell

Shire Council• North residents

Customer service rating • Index score of 70, up 7 points on 2017

Most satisfied with customer

service• Aged 18-34 years

Least satisfied with

customer service• Aged 35-64 years

44


2018 Contact with Council

%

66

65

63

63

62

59

59

59

58

55

54

50

65+

Central

State-wide

Women

50-64

Mitchell

Large Rural

South

35-49

Men

18-34

North

Q5a. Have you or any member of your household had any recent contact with Mitchell Shire Council in any of the following ways?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 21 Councils asked group: 5 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.

45


2018 Contact with Council

71

62 6260 61

5759

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Have had contact

%

Q5a. Have you or any member of your household had any recent contact with Mitchell Shire Council in any of the following ways?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 21 Councils asked group: 5

46


2018 Method of Contact

36

28

18

1197

3

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

%

By

Email

By Text

MessageBy Social

Media

In

WritingVia

Website

In

Person

By

Telephone

Q5a. Have you or any member of your household had any recent contact with Mitchell Shire Council in any of the following ways? Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 21 Councils asked group: 5 Note: Respondents could name multiple contacts methods so responses may add to more than 100%

47


2018 Most Recent Contact

43

27

14

56

31

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 Mitchell Shire Council?Base: All respondents who have had contact with Council in the last 12 months. Councils asked state-wide: 21 Councils asked group: 5Note: Respondents could name multiple contacts methods so responses may add to more than 100%

48


2018 Customer Service Rating

75

74

73

72

71

70

70

69

69

67

66

66

18-34

65+

South

Men

North

Mitchell

State-wide

Central

Women

Large Rural

35-49

50-64

66

68

64

59

58

63

69

64

66

66

61

56

53

58

62

56

59

60

69

59

65

67

66

61

66

63

n/a

66

n/a

68

70

n/a

69

67

70

68

69

67

n/a

62

n/a

65

72

n/a

69

n/a

60

66

64

68

n/a

69

n/a

65

71

n/a

61

n/a

67

63

61

72

n/a

63

n/a

65

71

n/a

67

n/a

65

64

2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q5c. Thinking of the most recent contact, how would you rate Mitchell Shire Council for customer service? Please keep in mind we do not mean the actual outcome but rather the actual service that was received. Base: All respondents who have had contact with Council in the last 12 months. Councils asked state-wide: 64 Councils asked group: 18Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.

49


30

20

18

25

24

26

27

31

28

31

30

29

31

29

32

23

26

39

34

37

36

41

41

33

32

36

36

33

31

40

38

32

39

31

37

31

22

20

23

16

12

20

21

18

19

25

24

17

19

24

21

29

19

18

5

13

11

9

14

12

10

8

9

3

7

4

7

3

2

7

5

5

5

7

11

7

8

7

9

6

7

5

6

5

3

8

2

4

11

5

4

3

2

2

2

2

2

1

1

3

3

5

3

5

4

7

2

1

2018 Mitchell

2017 Mitchell

2016 Mitchell

2015 Mitchell

2014 Mitchell

2013 Mitchell

2012 Mitchell

State-wide

Large Rural

North

Central

South

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+



Q5c. Thinking of the most recent contact, how would you rate Mitchell Shire Council for customer service? Please keep in mind we do not mean the actual outcome but rather the actual service that was received. Base: All respondents who have had contact with Council in the last 12 months. Councils asked state-wide: 64 Councils asked group: 18

50


77*

75*

72

71

71*

65

57*

In writing

By social media

In person

By telephone

Via website

By email

By text message

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

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 Mitchell Shire Council for customer service? Please keep in mind we do not mean the actual outcome but rather the actual service that was received. Base: All respondents who have had contact with Council in the last 12 months. Councils asked state-wide: 21 Councils asked group: 5 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.*Caution: small sample size < n=30

2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

51



25

10

32

33

31

26

31

52

80

37

32

22

32

6

10

15

26

48

19

35

6

4

5

6

35

6

5

11

11

5

1

6

In writing*

By social media*

In person

By telephone

Via website*

By email

By text message*


Q5c. Thinking of the most recent contact, how would you rate Mitchell Shire Council for customer service? Please keep in mind we do not mean the actual outcome but rather the actual service that was received. Base: All respondents who have had contact with Council in the last 12 months. Councils asked state-wide: 21 Councils asked group: 5*Caution: small sample size < n=30

53


Council direction

Most satisfied with council direction

Least satisfied with council direction

• 59% stayed about the same, up 2 points on 2017

• 25% improved, up 4 points on 2017

• 13% deteriorated, down 3 points on 2017

• South residents

• North residents

Direction headed • 59% right direction (14% definitely and 44% probably)

• 27% wrong direction (17% probably and 11% definitely)

54


2018 Overall Direction

63

61

59

57

56

56

55

54

52

52

50

46

South

18-34

65+

Men

Central

Mitchell

Women

50-64

State-wide

Large Rural

35-49

North

53

54

58

51

57

53

54

51

53

52

48

47

34

45

41

37

38

37

37

30

51

48

31

39

n/a

64

50

55

n/a

55

55

50

53

51

54

n/a

n/a

53

53

47

n/a

50

53

49

53

n/a

46

n/a

n/a

58

53

52

n/a

51

49

44

53

n/a

48

n/a

n/a

52

48

45

n/a

47

49

43

52

n/a

47

n/a

2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q6. Over the last 12 months, what is your view of the direction of Mitchell Shire Council’s overall performance? Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 64 Councils asked group: 18Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.

55


25

21

8

21

15

18

14

19

19

15

22

36

26

24

28

20

23

29

59

57

56

64

67

62

60

60

61

61

62

53

58

59

64

57

58

55

13

16

33

11

15

16

20

15

16

22

10

9

12

14

6

19

16

12

3

6

3

4

3

3

6

5

4

1

6

2

4

3

2

4

3

4

2018 Mitchell

2017 Mitchell

2016 Mitchell

2015 Mitchell

2014 Mitchell

2013 Mitchell

2012 Mitchell

State-wide

Large Rural

North

Central

South

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+

% Improved Stayed the same Deteriorated Can't say

2018 Overall Direction

Q6. Over the last 12 months, what is your view of the direction of Mitchell Shire Council’s overall performance? Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 64 Councils asked group: 18

56


14

10

17

17

13

13

18

9

19

18

11

10

18

44

40

47

47

43

46

43

48

41

50

38

41

49

17

17

14

15

19

19

12

18

16

16

19

20

12

11

14

11

10

14

8

11

11

10

4

15

16

8

14

18

11

11

11

13

16

13

14

12

16

13

14

2018 Mitchell

2017 Mitchell

State-wide

Large Rural

North

Central

South

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+

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

2018 Future Direction

Q8. Would you say your local Council is generally heading in the right direction or the wrong direction?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 9 Councils asked group: 3

58


2018 Consultation and Engagement Importance

78

78

77

76

76

76

75

75

74

74

74

72

72

68

50-64

65+

Women

Personal user

South

Large Rural

Household user

North

Mitchell

State-wide

35-49

Central

Men

18-34

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

75

n/a

n/a

n/a

74

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

76

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

75

n/a

n/a

n/a

74

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

74

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

73

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

73

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.

59


30

30

33

33

28

29

26

33

16

28

45

34

36

33

40

40

41

34

38

46

39

41

43

38

29

49

37

35

26

24

21

26

28

22

31

20

36

28

20

12

24

29

3

4

3

4

3

2

4

3

3

3

5

3

3

2

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

3

1

1

3

2

2

2

2018 Mitchell

State-wide

Large Rural

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

60


2018 Consultation and Engagement Performance

62

59

57

56

55

55

54

53

53

51

50

49

49

49

18-34

Household user

Personal user

South

State-wide

Women

Large Rural

Mitchell

Central

Men

North

65+

35-49

50-64

52

n/a

n/a

47

55

48

52

47

46

45

48

47

44

42

49

n/a

n/a

43

54

45

52

42

43

40

41

42

40

38

55

n/a

n/a

n/a

56

52

54

53

n/a

54

n/a

50

54

49

54

n/a

n/a

n/a

57

50

n/a

49

n/a

49

n/a

51

44

50

56

n/a

n/a

n/a

57

49

n/a

50

n/a

52

n/a

52

49

44

53

n/a

n/a

n/a

57

52

n/a

49

n/a

46

n/a

51

46

45

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: 18 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.

61


7

4

4

4

4

6

5

8

7

6

5

11

6

9

8

7

4

9

14

13

28

21

15

31

24

22

21

30

30

26

30

27

27

29

38

25

27

16

36

37

34

36

33

33

36

37

40

32

33

32

36

33

36

33

34

32

32

40

27

29

14

23

21

20

21

20

20

15

15

13

16

14

15

14

8

12

20

20

9

8

8

9

14

5

6

6

8

7

7

13

7

7

9

7

1

15

10

8

13

11

8

8

12

7

9

9

6

9

8

11

7

8

8

9

10

8

8

7

2

2018 Mitchell

2017 Mitchell

2016 Mitchell

2015 Mitchell

2014 Mitchell

2013 Mitchell

2012 Mitchell

State-wide

Large Rural

North

Central

South

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+

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: 18

62


2018 Lobbying Importance

71

69

68

68

68

66

65

65

64

64

62

59

50-64

Women

35-49

State-wide

Large Rural

North

South

Mitchell

Central

65+

Men

18-34

n/a

n/a

n/a

69

69

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

69

70

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

69

70

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

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

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

70

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: 6 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.

63


20

23

22

17

20

22

17

23

13

21

29

19

32

37

39

40

27

31

30

34

22

36

35

36

35

27

26

30

38

35

38

32

50

32

25

28

9

8

8

9

11

7

12

6

12

8

6

11

2

2

3

1

1

4

3

1

1

3

4

2

2

2

3

2

2

4

1

3

2

2

2018 Mitchell

State-wide

Large Rural

North

Central

South

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


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: 6

64


2018 Lobbying Performance

54

52

52

51

51

49

48

48

47

45

44

43

State-wide

Large Rural

65+

Women

South

18-34

North

Mitchell

35-49

Central

Men

50-64

54

51

44

48

45

49

45

45

43

44

42

42

53

50

39

40

37

49

41

40

36

42

40

33

55

53

48

50

n/a

59

n/a

49

46

n/a

49

42

56

n/a

46

50

n/a

51

n/a

48

48

n/a

47

47

55

n/a

50

47

n/a

51

n/a

48

47

n/a

49

43

55

n/a

45

49

n/a

51

n/a

45

43

n/a

42

42

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: 18 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.

65


3

2

2

2

3

3

3

5

5

3

2

4

2

5

2

5

1

6

17

14

13

21

19

20

18

24

23

15

14

22

14

20

19

17

15

17

34

32

28

35

35

36

37

32

34

40

33

33

30

38

33

32

36

38

21

20

20

17

20

19

19

13

14

20

24

18

26

16

21

25

21

16

5

7

15

5

5

8

11

5

6

5

6

4

6

5

3

7

8

3

19

25

22

20

18

15

13

20

19

17

21

18

22

16

22

15

19

20

2018 Mitchell

2017 Mitchell

2016 Mitchell

2015 Mitchell

2014 Mitchell

2013 Mitchell

2012 Mitchell

State-wide

Large Rural

North

Central

South

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


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: 18

66


2018 Community Decisions Made Importance

82

80

80

80

79

78

78

77

77

76

76

76

35-49

Women

Large Rural

State-wide

South

Central

Mitchell

65+

50-64

North

18-34

Men

n/a

n/a

80

79

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

80

80

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

80

80

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

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

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

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘decisions made in the interest of the community’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 15 Councils asked group: 5 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.

67


35

39

40

32

36

36

32

38

30

44

35

31

43

42

41

42

42

45

42

44

45

35

43

50

18

15

14

20

19

14

21

14

23

16

16

13

1

2

2

1

2

1

2

1

2

2

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

2

2

2

2

3

2

3

2

2

5

2

3

2018 Mitchell

State-wide

Large Rural

North

Central

South

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


2018 Community Decisions Made Importance

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘decisions made in the interest of the community’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 15 Councils asked group: 5

68


2018 Community Decisions Made Performance

57

54

54

52

51

50

50

49

49

48

46

46

18-34

South

State-wide

Large Rural

Women

Mitchell

65+

Men

North

Central

35-49

50-64

54

47

54

51

47

46

45

44

47

43

42

41

47

41

54

50

43

41

39

39

41

41

38

38

55

n/a

55

52

50

49

47

49

n/a

n/a

49

44

n/a

n/a

57

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

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: 18 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.

69


4

3

4

3

6

5

2

10

3

5

5

4

1

5

23

17

15

27

30

28

23

23

23

23

24

33

17

20

20

42

35

30

36

34

36

41

45

40

43

42

46

43

37

41

16

22

25

18

14

15

19

15

16

16

17

7

14

26

21

7

9

15

9

7

8

5

8

5

7

6

4

11

6

4

8

14

11

8

9

7

9

8

6

9

7

4

10

9

9

2018 Mitchell

2017 Mitchell

2016 Mitchell

2015 Mitchell

State-wide

Large Rural

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: 18

70


2018 Sealed Local Roads Importance

84

83

83

83

82

81

80

80

80

80

80

76

50-64

North

35-49

65+

Women

Mitchell

Central

South

Men

Large Rural

State-wide

18-34

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

77

78

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

80

78

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

78

76

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

77

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘the condition of sealed local roads in your area’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 17 Councils asked group: 5 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.

71


40

38

39

46

38

39

38

42

31

42

47

44

46

44

43

42

48

45

47

44

45

47

43

47

12

15

15

10

12

15

13

12

21

9

9

7

2

2

2

1

2

1

2

1

3

1

3

1

1

1

1

2018 Mitchell

State-wide

Large Rural

North

Central

South

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


2018 Sealed Local Roads Importance

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘the condition of sealed local roads in your area’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 17 Councils asked group: 5

72


2018 Sealed Local Roads Performance

53

48

45

45

44

44

43

43

43

42

41

40

State-wide

65+

Large Rural

18-34

South

Men

Mitchell

North

Women

Central

35-49

50-64

53

39

43

41

38

37

38

39

40

38

33

42

54

36

44

44

31

40

37

41

34

40

33

35

55

46

45

46

n/a

45

43

n/a

40

n/a

36

42

55

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

2017 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: 18 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.

73


5

4

6

3

11

6

4

5

6

4

5

3

8

3

6

22

19

15

23

31

24

22

21

25

23

22

27

19

16

27

30

26

26

28

28

29

31

31

27

30

29

32

21

34

33

27

28

27

30

17

22

25

27

28

28

26

20

35

31

21

16

22

25

15

12

18

17

17

15

15

18

18

18

16

13

1

1

1

1

2018 Mitchell

2017 Mitchell

2016 Mitchell

2015 Mitchell

State-wide

Large Rural

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: 18

74


2018 Informing Community Importance

80

79

78

77

77

77

75

75

75

72

71

70

Women

50-64

North

South

35-49

65+

Mitchell

Large Rural

State-wide

Central

Men

18-34

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

74

74

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

77

76

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

76

75

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

75

n/a

n/a

n/a

83

78

n/a

n/a

80

78

77

n/a

75

n/a

72

74

78

80

n/a

n/a

77

75

76

n/a

75

n/a

75

73

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: 5 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.

75


34

34

31

32

32

38

29

37

26

42

30

37

40

32

38

44

47

41

41

39

36

40

38

38

29

38

41

48

23

19

17

22

23

19

29

18

30

16

33

23

16

17

4

3

4

4

4

3

4

3

5

2

7

1

3

2

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2018 Mitchell

2013 Mitchell

2012 Mitchell

State-wide

Large Rural

North

Central

South

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


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: 5

76


2018 Informing Community Performance

60

59

59

57

57

54

54

53

53

52

52

50

18-34

Large Rural

State-wide

South

Women

Mitchell

North

65+

35-49

Central

Men

50-64

60

60

59

53

54

52

50

50

49

53

50

49

52

56

59

44

47

46

49

45

45

46

45

42

58

59

61

n/a

55

56

n/a

54

57

n/a

57

54

61

n/a

62

n/a

58

55

n/a

56

50

n/a

52

53

53

n/a

61

n/a

52

50

n/a

55

47

n/a

49

47

57

n/a

60

n/a

52

51

n/a

50

47

n/a

49

48

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: 6 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.

77


7

7

4

9

7

7

6

11

11

7

4

10

4

10

7

8

5

7

30

26

28

32

33

22

26

36

36

34

28

30

30

30

39

26

26

28

37

37

28

35

35

41

35

31

31

27

40

40

36

37

34

36

37

40

16

17

23

18

19

17

24

13

14

19

16

14

19

14

14

14

20

18

6

8

14

4

4

9

6

5

5

6

7

4

6

5

1

9

8

6

5

4

2

2

2

4

2

3

3

7

5

2

5

4

5

7

5

1

2018 Mitchell

2017 Mitchell

2016 Mitchell

2015 Mitchell

2014 Mitchell

2013 Mitchell

2012 Mitchell

State-wide

Large Rural

North

Central

South

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


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: 6

78


2018 Family Support Importance

78

77

77

77

75

74

74

72

72

72

72

72

Women

35-49

Central

18-34

Mitchell

South

State-wide

North

50-64

Men

65+

Large Rural

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

73

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

72

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

73

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

72

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

73

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

72

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

72

n/a

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

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

73

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘family support services’ 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.

79


33

30

27

29

37

31

30

36

36

36

29

29

40

40

40

38

39

43

39

41

40

41

41

39

18

23

24

20

18

17

20

16

19

19

17

17

5

5

5

7

2

8

6

4

5

4

6

5

2

1

2

1

3

1

3

3

4

2

2

2

4

2

1

2

2

1

4

4

2018 Mitchell

State-wide

Large Rural

North

Central

South

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


2018 Family Support Importance

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

80


2018 Family Support Performance

66

66

65

65

65

63

63

63

63

63

61

60

State-wide

South

65+

Large Rural

18-34

Men

Mitchell

Women

Central

50-64

35-49

North

67

n/a

n/a

65

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

66

n/a

n/a

64

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

67

n/a

n/a

67

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

68

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

67

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

67

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 ‘family support services’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 30 Councils asked group: 9 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.

81


8

11

9

8

7

11

6

11

10

7

7

9

36

31

31

30

39

38

40

33

45

34

33

31

25

21

23

25

25

26

23

27

18

31

30

24

7

4

5

7

9

5

7

7

7

9

5

5

2

2

2

5

1

2

1

3

4

1

2

1

21

32

30

27

20

18

23

19

16

17

24

30

2018 Mitchell

State-wide

Large Rural

North

Central

South

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


2018 Family Support Performance

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘family support services’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 30 Councils asked group: 9

82


2018 Recreational Facilities Importance

81

76

76

76

75

74

74

74

74

74

73

72

71

68

35-49

North

Women

South

50-64

Household user

Personal user

Mitchell

65+

Large Rural

State-wide

Men

Central

18-34

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

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

72

73

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

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

n/a

83

n/a

79

n/a

77

80

81

79

75

n/a

72

78

n/a

78

77

n/a

76

n/a

74

77

76

74

70

n/a

72

72

n/a

74

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: 6 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.

83


27

37

28

25

26

29

22

31

25

29

20

35

26

28

28

28

46

44

45

46

46

47

46

44

44

47

41

52

46

45

44

45

23

16

24

25

24

20

25

23

24

22

30

12

26

22

25

25

3

2

3

3

3

2

5

1

5

1

7

1

4

2

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

2018 Mitchell

2013 Mitchell

2012 Mitchell

State-wide

Large Rural

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: 6

84


2018 Recreational Facilities Performance

69

67

66

66

64

64

64

63

63

62

61

60

59

57

State-wide

18-34

Large Rural

65+

Women

Personal user

South

Household user

Central

Mitchell

Men

North

50-64

35-49

70

62

66

66

63

n/a

62

n/a

60

62

61

64

61

58

69

62

65

60

52

n/a

50

n/a

57

55

58

60

52

48

70

65

66

65

59

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

60

62

n/a

60

53

71

59

n/a

61

55

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

57

59

n/a

54

54

70

62

n/a

61

56

60

n/a

59

n/a

57

58

n/a

55

51

70

61

n/a

68

58

61

n/a

60

n/a

59

59

n/a

54

54

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.

85


16

13

11

12

9

15

15

22

19

17

15

15

13

18

22

12

13

14

18

16

37

38

31

36

36

25

32

42

41

31

37

40

39

35

38

34

32

43

37

39

27

26

29

32

28

34

29

22

24

26

28

27

24

30

23

29

30

29

28

28

12

14

14

11

16

17

15

7

9

16

12

11

12

13

8

16

17

8

12

12

4

3

10

5

6

6

7

3

4

5

4

4

7

2

5

7

3

2

3

4

4

6

5

4

5

3

2

4

4

5

4

3

5

3

4

3

5

4

1

1

2018 Mitchell

2017 Mitchell

2016 Mitchell

2015 Mitchell

2014 Mitchell

2013 Mitchell

2012 Mitchell

State-wide

Large Rural

North

Central

South

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+

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

86


2018 Public Areas Importance

77

77

76

76

74

74

73

73

73

70

69

65

35-49

50-64

Women

North

65+

State-wide

South

Large Rural

Mitchell

Central

Men

18-34

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

74

n/a

73

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

74

n/a

74

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

73

n/a

73

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

n/a

n/a

n/a

83

78

81

n/a

76

74

n/a

n/a

78

n/a

75

73

77

74

77

n/a

76

73

n/a

n/a

75

n/a

72

72

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: 6 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.

87


23

35

26

26

24

30

19

23

16

31

14

28

32

22

46

43

48

46

46

43

47

47

48

44

40

49

44

53

28

20

24

24

27

24

30

28

33

23

41

22

23

23

2

2

2

2

2

1

4

2

3

2

6

2

1

2

1

1

1

2018 Mitchell

2013 Mitchell

2012 Mitchell

State-wide

Large Rural

North

Central

South

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


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: 6

88


2018 Public Areas Performance

71

69

67

66

64

64

63

62

62

62

60

59

State-wide

Large Rural

South

18-34

65+

Men

Mitchell

Women

Central

50-64

North

35-49

71

69

61

64

61

59

61

63

58

59

65

59

71

69

55

62

57

61

59

56

60

55

61

58

72

69

n/a

69

59

64

63

62

n/a

59

n/a

63

72

n/a

n/a

66

60

62

62

62

n/a

61

n/a

60

71

n/a

n/a

66

57

61

60

59

n/a

54

n/a

61

71

n/a

n/a

67

62

63

62

62

n/a

58

n/a

60

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: 8 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.

89


13

13

11

14

12

16

15

24

22

14

10

16

11

15

11

14

11

16

43

38

36

42

42

31

38

45

45

37

45

46

47

40

50

40

45

36

29

31

34

30

28

33

33

21

23

27

29

30

29

29

29

22

28

39

9

12

12

10

12

13

9

6

6

15

10

4

8

11

5

14

13

5

4

4

6

4

4

6

5

2

3

6

4

3

3

5

2

9

3

3

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

2018 Mitchell

2017 Mitchell

2016 Mitchell

2015 Mitchell

2014 Mitchell

2013 Mitchell

2012 Mitchell

State-wide

Large Rural

North

Central

South

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


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: 8

90


2018 Community Activities Importance

63

63

62

61

61

61

61

61

60

60

60

58

58

57

South

Women

18-34

50-64

State-wide

North

35-49

Personal user

Mitchell

Household user

Large Rural

Central

Men

65+

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

61

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

61

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

62

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

61

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

62

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

61

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

62

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

62

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

62

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 ‘community and cultural activities’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 20 Councils asked group: 5 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.

91


10

12

11

10

9

12

9

12

14

10

12

5

7

7

34

34

33

38

30

37

31

38

33

30

37

38

37

36

42

40

43

37

45

42

46

39

43

50

38

36

47

48

11

10

10

13

12

8

12

10

10

9

9

17

8

8

1

2

2

1

3

1

2

1

4

3

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

2

2018 Mitchell

State-wide

Large Rural

North

Central

South

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+

Personal user

Household user


2018 Community Activities Importance

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘community and cultural activities’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 20 Councils asked group: 5

92


2018 Community Activities Performance

69

67

64

64

64

62

61

59

59

57

57

56

56

55

State-wide

Large Rural

Personal user

18-34

Household user

South

Women

65+

Mitchell

Central

North

Men

50-64

35-49

69

69

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

69

67

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

69

69

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

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

69

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

68

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 ‘community and cultural activities’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 23 Councils asked group: 7 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.

93


9

17

16

10

9

9

7

11

12

5

10

8

15

13

32

42

41

24

30

40

30

34

38

35

24

28

39

39

34

25

26

39

33

30

34

34

30

28

35

44

35

35

13

5

7

10

16

12

14

12

12

16

15

8

7

8

3

2

2

5

3

1

3

3

5

5

3

3

2

10

9

9

12

9

8

12

8

8

11

11

9

2

2

2018 Mitchell

State-wide

Large Rural

North

Central

South

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+

Personal user

Household user


2018 Community Activities Performance

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘community and cultural activities’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 23 Councils asked group: 7

94


2018 Waste Management Importance

83

83

82

82

81

81

80

79

79

77

77

74

North

35-49

50-64

Women

State-wide

Large Rural

South

Mitchell

65+

Men

Central

18-34

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

79

78

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

80

79

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

79

78

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

79

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

83

81

81

79

n/a

n/a

80

78

79

n/a

78

n/a

78

80

79

78

n/a

n/a

78

81

77

n/a

74

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: 6 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.

95


38

38

33

42

40

45

34

37

34

41

29

42

46

36

43

46

47

43

42

42

41

45

40

45

38

46

39

48

19

14

17

13

15

12

24

18

25

13

33

12

14

14

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

2018 Mitchell

2013 Mitchell

2012 Mitchell

State-wide

Large Rural

North

Central

South

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


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: 6

96


2018 Waste Management Performance

71

70

69

67

67

66

66

65

64

62

60

59

18-34

State-wide

South

Large Rural

65+

Men

Central

Mitchell

Women

50-64

35-49

North

71

71

67

68

62

65

65

65

65

62

64

63

71

70

59

66

60

63

62

61

60

54

59

64

69

72

n/a

68

65

65

n/a

64

62

63

58

n/a

67

73

n/a

n/a

62

65

n/a

66

66

62

69

n/a

65

71

n/a

n/a

67

68

n/a

65

63

60

69

n/a

73

72

n/a

n/a

71

72

n/a

69

66

64

67

n/a

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: 9 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.

97


18

16

14

16

16

18

22

24

20

18

22

15

20

17

26

11

12

24

43

45

44

43

44

42

43

45

45

34

38

55

43

43

45

42

48

34

22

22

20

21

26

23

21

18

20

21

24

19

24

19

16

28

18

27

9

9

11

13

8

10

7

7

9

11

11

6

8

11

8

6

14

10

6

5

8

5

3

4

3

3

4

12

4

2

5

6

3

10

5

3

2

3

2

3

2

3

4

2

3

4

1

3

4

2

3

2

2

2018 Mitchell

2017 Mitchell

2016 Mitchell

2015 Mitchell

2014 Mitchell

2013 Mitchell

2012 Mitchell

State-wide

Large Rural

North

Central

South

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


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: 9

98


2018 Planning & Building Permits Importance

74

74

74

74

73

72

71

71

70

70

69

67

65

59

Personal user

50-64

35-49

Household user

Women

65+

North

State-wide

Large Rural

South

Mitchell

Central

Men

18-34

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

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

71

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

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

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

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

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘planning and building permits’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 18 Councils asked group: 4 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.

99


24

26

25

25

21

28

20

29

14

30

34

22

33

33

37

39

38

40

37

34

36

37

28

41

35

46

35

33

27

25

27

20

29

30

28

26

41

23

22

18

21

26

8

6

6

10

7

8

11

4

11

4

7

8

8

6

2

2

1

3

1

3

1

4

1

1

3

2

2

5

3

1

2

4

3

1

1

7

2

2

2018 Mitchell

State-wide

Large Rural

North

Central

South

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+

Personal user

Household user


2018 Planning & Building Permits Importance

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘planning and building permits’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 18 Councils asked group: 4

100


2018 Planning & Building Permits Performance

57

56

52

52

51

50

50

49

49

48

48

46

45

44

18-34

South

Women

State-wide

Mitchell

65+

Men

Large Rural

North

50-64

Central

35-49

Household user

Personal user

n/a

n/a

n/a

51

n/a

n/a

n/a

48

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

50

n/a

n/a

n/a

50

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

54

n/a

n/a

n/a

54

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

53

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

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

54

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 ‘planning and building permits’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 24 Councils asked group: 6 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.

101


4

5

4

4

3

4

1

6

4

3

3

4

2

3

24

24

22

19

21

32

27

22

33

19

23

20

29

28

29

27

27

31

29

27

31

28

31

28

28

28

22

24

16

13

15

11

21

12

16

15

12

17

21

13

27

26

7

8

9

11

7

4

7

7

3

10

7

8

15

15

20

23

23

24

18

20

18

23

16

22

17

26

4

4

2018 Mitchell

State-wide

Large Rural

North

Central

South

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+

Personal user

Household user


2018 Planning & Building Permits Performance

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘planning and building permits’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 24 Councils asked group: 6

102


2018 Environmental Sustainability Importance

76

74

73

73

73

73

72

72

71

71

70

68

Women

50-64

State-wide

North

18-34

Large Rural

South

Mitchell

Central

35-49

65+

Men

n/a

n/a

72

n/a

n/a

72

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

73

n/a

n/a

73

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

73

n/a

n/a

72

n/a

n/a

n/a

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

n/a

n/a

n/a

72

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

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 ‘environmental sustainability’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 19 Councils asked group: 4 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.

103


27

31

31

28

27

26

23

31

29

25

33

21

41

39

37

35

41

45

37

44

37

43

38

45

25

23

25

32

21

24

28

21

28

25

22

23

5

5

5

2

9

4

9

2

5

6

5

7

1

2

2

1

2

2

1

2

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

2

2018 Mitchell

State-wide

Large Rural

North

Central

South

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


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: 4

104


2018 Environmental Sustainability Performance

63

61

59

57

56

56

56

56

55

55

55

52

State-wide

Large Rural

65+

18-34

Men

Central

South

Mitchell

35-49

Women

North

50-64

64

62

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

63

62

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

64

64

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

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

64

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

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 ‘environmental sustainability’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 24 Councils asked group: 7 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.

105


5

10

9

4

5

6

6

5

7

5

2

7

28

37

35

28

30

25

28

27

27

29

26

29

39

30

31

35

36

46

40

38

40

35

39

41

13

8

9

13

13

12

10

16

12

13

15

11

3

2

3

4

3

2

4

2

3

4

4

13

12

12

16

13

9

13

12

11

13

14

12

2018 Mitchell

State-wide

Large Rural

North

Central

South

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


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: 7

106


2018 Disaster Management Importance

88

86

86

83

83

83

82

82

81

81

81

78

Women

South

18-34

Mitchell

65+

North

Large Rural

50-64

35-49

Central

State-wide

Men

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

81

n/a

n/a

n/a

80

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

81

n/a

n/a

n/a

80

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

81

n/a

n/a

n/a

80

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

80

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

80

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

80

n/a

2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘emergency and disaster management’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 17 Councils asked group: 5 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.

107


52

48

50

50

48

59

41

64

54

48

58

49

31

33

32

33

33

27

37

25

35

32

23

34

12

14

13

11

14

11

17

7

10

15

11

12

3

3

3

3

3

2

3

2

4

5

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

3

2018 Mitchell

State-wide

Large Rural

North

Central

South

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


2018 Disaster Management Importance

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘emergency and disaster management’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 17 Councils asked group: 5

108


2018 Disaster Management Performance

72

72

71

71

68

67

67

66

66

66

65

63

18-34

South

State-wide

Large Rural

Men

Mitchell

65+

Women

North

50-64

Central

35-49

n/a

n/a

70

70

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

69

70

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

70

71

n/a

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

n/a

n/a

n/a

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

n/a

70

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 ‘emergency and disaster management’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 21 Councils asked group: 7 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.

109


18

18

19

18

14

24

17

19

27

10

17

17

37

39

41

31

41

36

40

34

38

39

30

40

22

19

18

22

21

24

24

20

18

23

26

23

7

4

4

9

8

3

4

9

6

8

5

6

3

2

2

3

4

2

3

4

2

4

4

4

13

18

16

17

11

12

12

14

9

16

18

9

2018 Mitchell

State-wide

Large Rural

North

Central

South

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


2018 Disaster Management Performance

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘emergency and disaster management’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 21 Councils asked group: 7

110


2018 Population Growth Importance

82

81

80

79

78

78

77

77

76

76

75

75

50-64

South

Women

35-49

Large Rural

Mitchell

North

State-wide

Central

18-34

Men

65+

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

78

n/a

n/a

76

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

74

n/a

n/a

76

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

74

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

n/a

75

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

82

n/a

80

85

n/a

79

n/a

75

n/a

70

77

79

83

n/a

79

81

n/a

78

n/a

75

n/a

71

77

79

2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘planning for population growth in the area’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 12 Councils asked group: 4 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.

111


43

40

41

39

41

43

41

46

41

46

39

48

50

37

32

38

36

36

36

29

30

37

32

32

32

26

33

38

17

18

16

18

18

21

20

11

17

17

22

16

13

17

5

2

5

4

4

3

7

4

7

2

6

5

3

5

2

1

1

1

1

2

2

2

2

1

1

3

1

2

1

1

1

1

2

1

2

2

1

2018 Mitchell

2013 Mitchell

2012 Mitchell

State-wide

Large Rural

North

Central

South

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


2018 Population Growth Importance

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘planning for population growth in the area’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 12 Councils asked group: 4

112


2018 Population Growth Performance

59

53

52

51

51

50

49

48

48

46

45

44

18-34

South

State-wide

Men

Central

Mitchell

Women

Large Rural

65+

50-64

35-49

North

51

44

52

41

47

44

48

48

48

42

38

40

44

36

51

40

44

39

39

47

43

33

37

39

59

n/a

54

49

n/a

50

50

50

50

42

46

n/a

50

n/a

54

42

n/a

45

47

n/a

42

42

43

n/a

57

n/a

54

51

n/a

51

51

n/a

50

43

51

n/a

49

n/a

52

46

n/a

47

47

n/a

47

42

47

n/a

2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘planning for population growth in the area’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 14 Councils asked group: 4 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.

113


10

4

4

4

4

4

6

8

7

7

11

12

13

8

18

7

6

6

20

18

14

28

18

26

17

24

20

12

20

25

20

19

27

16

19

14

29

32

33

26

29

34

35

30

29

27

30

29

24

34

26

29

29

34

23

20

22

21

26

14

23

16

19

26

22

22

27

20

15

28

30

21

8

12

19

9

9

9

9

8

10

10

8

7

7

9

7

10

9

6

10

14

8

12

14

12

10

14

15

18

9

4

9

10

6

10

6

18

2018 Mitchell

2017 Mitchell

2016 Mitchell

2015 Mitchell

2014 Mitchell

2013 Mitchell

2012 Mitchell

State-wide

Large Rural

North

Central

South

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


2018 Population Growth Performance

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘planning for population growth in the area’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 14 Councils asked group: 4

114


2018 Roadside Slashing & Weed Control

Importance

83

82

82

79

78

78

77

77

75

74

73

70

50-64

Women

65+

35-49

Central

Mitchell

North

South

Large Rural

Men

State-wide

18-34

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

75

n/a

74

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

75

n/a

73

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

74

n/a

73

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

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

n/a

74

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 ‘roadside slashing and weed control’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 7 Councils asked group: 4 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.

115


40

29

33

37

43

38

32

47

30

41

49

41

37

40

41

40

34

37

39

35

34

32

38

45

18

25

22

16

18

18

20

15

23

24

10

10

4

4

4

5

3

6

7

2

10

1

2

2

1

1

1

2

1

2

2

1

1

1

1

1

2

2018 Mitchell

State-wide

Large Rural

North

Central

South

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


2018 Roadside Slashing & Weed Control Importance

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘roadside slashing and weed control’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 7 Councils asked group: 4

116


2018 Roadside Slashing & Weed Control

Performance

59

55

53

51

51

50

49

48

46

46

45

44

18-34

State-wide

South

Large Rural

Women

North

Mitchell

Men

Central

50-64

35-49

65+

n/a

53

n/a

50

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

56

n/a

54

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

55

n/a

53

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

55

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

56

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

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

2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘roadside slashing and weed control’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 11 Councils asked group: 5 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.

117


9

10

9

10

9

8

7

11

15

5

8

6

27

34

28

26

19

37

28

25

36

24

24

19

30

29

30

28

31

29

28

32

24

35

27

35

21

16

18

20

28

13

23

19

21

18

26

21

13

9

12

13

12

13

13

12

4

18

15

16

1

3

2

2

1

1

2

2018 Mitchell

State-wide

Large Rural

North

Central

South

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


2018 Roadside Slashing & Weed Control Performance

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘roadside slashing and weed control’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 11 Councils asked group: 5

118


2018 Unsealed Roads Importance

84

83

83

82

82

81

80

80

80

78

78

77

North

Women

50-64

35-49

65+

Mitchell

South

State-wide

Central

Large Rural

Men

18-34

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

79

n/a

77

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

79

n/a

78

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

78

n/a

76

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

78

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

81

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

80

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘maintenance of unsealed roads in your area’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 13 Councils asked group: 6 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.

119


46

43

40

52

44

45

39

53

40

50

50

45

33

38

38

30

36

32

38

29

32

28

34

41

17

15

18

14

16

20

17

17

22

21

12

9

3

3

3

2

4

2

4

1

6

2

3

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

2

2018 Mitchell

State-wide

Large Rural

North

Central

South

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


2018 Unsealed Roads Importance

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘maintenance of unsealed roads in your area’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 13 Councils asked group: 6

120


2018 Unsealed Roads Performance

45

43

43

43

43

43

41

41

41

39

37

36

South

35-49

Men

18-34

65+

State-wide

Mitchell

Large Rural

Central

Women

North

50-64

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

44

n/a

42

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

43

n/a

43

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

45

n/a

44

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

45

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

44

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

46

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘maintenance of unsealed roads in your area’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 21 Councils asked group: 9 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.

121


5

5

5

4

5

5

7

3

5

5

3

6

19

19

18

18

16

22

18

19

21

24

11

17

28

28

28

22

31

28

30

26

29

22

30

31

27

24

25

24

29

27

27

27

28

31

31

19

17

17

18

24

17

11

15

19

16

14

20

19

5

7

6

8

2

6

3

6

1

5

5

8

2018 Mitchell

State-wide

Large Rural

North

Central

South

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


2018 Unsealed Roads Performance

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘maintenance of unsealed roads in your area’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 21 Councils asked group: 9

122


2018 Business/Community Development Importance

77

74

72

72

72

72

71

70

70

69

69

67

35-49

Women

North

South

50-64

Mitchell

Central

18-34

Men

State-wide

Large Rural

65+

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

70

70

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

70

71

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

69

72

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

69

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘business and community development’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 7 Councils asked group: 4 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.

123


24

21

21

25

23

25

24

24

15

33

30

20

44

40

40

47

44

43

40

49

51

44

36

45

24

31

31

19

27

25

25

24

30

21

25

21

5

5

5

7

5

5

9

2

3

1

8

12

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

2

2

1

1

2

1

1

2018 Mitchell

State-wide

Large Rural

North

Central

South

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


2018 Business/Community Development Importance

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘business and community development’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 7 Councils asked group: 4

124


2018 Business/Community Development Performance

60

58

57

54

53

53

50

50

48

48

46

46

State-wide

Large Rural

South

18-34

65+

Women

Mitchell

North

Men

50-64

35-49

Central

60

59

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

60

58

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

60

60

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

62

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘business and community development’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 10 Councils asked group: 5 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.

125


5

7

8

5

5

7

3

7

8

4

3

5

21

34

31

21

14

31

21

22

28

16

17

24

38

30

30

33

41

39

37

39

36

42

42

32

19

10

12

21

24

12

20

19

15

25

20

18

5

3

4

4

8

4

7

4

7

6

5

3

10

15

15

16

9

8

11

10

6

8

12

19

2018 Mitchell

State-wide

Large Rural

North

Central

South

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


2018 Business/Community Development Performance

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘business and community development’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 10 Councils asked group: 5

126


2018 Tourism Development Importance

64

62

61

61

61

60

58

56

55

53

53

48

North

Large Rural

State-wide

50-64

35-49

Women

65+

Mitchell

South

Men

Central

18-34

n/a

63

62

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

67

63

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

67

65

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

65

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘tourism development’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 6 Councils asked group: 4 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.

127


12

16

15

18

10

9

11

13

8

14

18

8

27

32

33

36

19

31

21

33

12

31

30

40

37

35

36

26

46

35

40

34

45

35

36

29

20

13

12

16

20

22

23

16

31

14

13

18

3

3

3

1

4

4

4

2

4

3

3

3

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

3

2

2018 Mitchell

State-wide

Large Rural

North

Central

South

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


2018 Tourism Development Importance

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘tourism development’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 6 Councils asked group: 4

128


2018 Tourism Development Performance

63

61

53

52

50

50

50

48

46

45

45

43

State-wide

Large Rural

North

65+

South

18-34

Women

Mitchell

Men

50-64

35-49

Central

63

65

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

63

64

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

63

66

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

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

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 ‘tourism development’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 10 Councils asked group: 5 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.

129


3

12

11

5

3

1

3

3

3

3

6

21

37

35

26

13

26

18

23

21

22

16

23

34

26

28

31

33

37

32

36

35

33

32

34

22

11

11

13

30

17

23

20

20

25

24

17

6

3

3

5

7

5

7

5

3

8

8

5

15

11

12

20

14

14

17

14

18

12

17

15

2018 Mitchell

State-wide

Large Rural

North

Central

South

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


2018 Tourism Development Performance

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘tourism development’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 10 Councils asked group: 5

131


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.

50%50%Men

Women

11%

19%

26%

23%

21%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: 18

132


12

20

17

12

9

7

9

18

14

9

17

14

8

4

17

16

16

15

14

8

24

15

13

22

27

24

6

7

25

26

25

23

22

21

25

27

28

21

25

30

23

19

20

16

17

21

22

21

18

22

20

20

25

11

25

21

26

22

24

29

34

42

23

17

24

28

6

21

38

48

1

1

2018 Mitchell

2017 Mitchell

2016 Mitchell

State-wide

Large Rural

North

Central

South

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+

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

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: 5 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.

135


The survey was revised in 2012. As a result:

➢ The survey is now conducted as a representative

random probability survey of residents aged 18

years or over in local councils, whereas previously

it was conducted as a ‘head of household’ survey.

➢ As part of the change to a representative resident

survey, results are now weighted post survey to

the known population distribution of Mitchell Shire

Council according to the most recently available

Australian Bureau of Statistics population

estimates, whereas the results were previously not

weighted.

➢ The service responsibility area performance

measures have changed significantly and the

rating scale used to assess performance has also

changed.

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

Government Community Satisfaction Survey should be

considered as a benchmark. Please note that

comparisons should not be made with the State-wide

Local Government Community Satisfaction Survey

results from 2011 and prior due to the methodological

and sampling changes. Comparisons in the period

2012-2018 have been made throughout this report

as appropriate.

136


Demographic

Actual

survey

sample

size

Weighted

base

Maximum

margin of error

at 95%

confidence

interval

Mitchell Shire Council 400 400 +/-4.9

Men179 201 +/-7.3

Women221 199 +/-6.6

North113 101 +/-9.2

Central156 167 +/-7.9

South131 132 +/-8.6

18-34 years72 120 +/-11.6

35-49 years81 105 +/-10.9

50-64 years130 91 +/-8.6

65+ years117 83 +/-9.1

The sample size for the 2018 State-wide Local Government

Community Satisfaction Survey for Mitchell Shire Council

was 400. Unless otherwise noted, this is the total sample

base for all reported charts and tables.

The maximum margin of error on a sample of approximately

400 interviews is +/-4.9% at the 95% confidence level for

results around 50%. Margins of error will be larger for any

sub-samples. As an example, a result of 50% can be read

confidently as falling midway in the range 45.1% - 54.9%.

Maximum margins of error are listed in the table below,

based on a population of 31,000 people aged 18 years or

over for Mitchell Shire Council, according to ABS estimates.

137


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

Mitchell Shire Council is classified as a Large Rural

council according to the following classification list:

➢ Metropolitan, Interface, Regional Centres, Large

Rural & Small Rural

Councils participating in the Large Rural group are:

Bass Coast, Baw Baw, Campaspe, Colac Otway,

Corangamite, East Gippsland, Glenelg, Golden Plains,

Macedon Ranges, Mitchell, Moira, Moorabool, Mount

Alexander, Moyne, Southern Grampians, Surf Coast, Swan Hill and Wellington.

Wherever appropriate, results for Mitchell Shire Council

for this 2018 State-wide Local Government Community

Satisfaction Survey have been compared against other

participating councils in the Large Rural group and on a

state-wide basis. Please note that council groupings

changed for 2015, and as such comparisons to council

group results before that time can not be made within

the reported charts.

138


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

139


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

140


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

141


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.

142


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)


(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.

143


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

144


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 - shire of mitchell · 2019-01-01 · j00643 community satisfaction...

Documents