central goldfields shire council · goldfields shire council has performed most strongly overall...

2019 Local

Government

Community

Satisfaction Survey

Central Goldfields

Shire CouncilCoordinated by the Department of

Environment, Land, Water and Planning

on behalf of Victorian councils

Contents

J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Central Goldfields Shire Council

2

Background and objectives 4

Key findings and recommendations 6

Summary of findings 13

Detailed findings 27

Overall performance 28

Customer service 31

Council direction 39

Individual service areas 43

Community consultation and engagement 44

Lobbying on behalf of the community 46

Decisions made in the interest of the

community

48

Condition of sealed local roads 50

Parking facilities 52

Enforcement of local laws 56

Recreational facilities 60

Appearance of public areas 64

Art centres and libraries 68

Waste management 72

Environmental sustainability 76

Detailed demographics 80

Appendix A: Index scores, margins of error

and significant differences

82

Appendix B: Further project information 87

75

71

69

Central Goldfields Shire Council – at a glance

3


Top 3 performing areas

Overall Council performance

Results shown are index scores out of 100.

6057 58

Central

Goldfields

Small Rural State-wide

Appearance of public areas

Art centres & libraries

Waste management

7360

8169 74

64

-13 -12 -9

Top 3 areas for improvement

PerformanceImportance Net differential

Environmental

sustainability

Waste

management

Enforcement of

local laws

Note: Net differentials are calculated based on the un-rounded importance and performance scores, then rounded to the nearest whole number.

Background and

objectives

4

The Victorian Community Satisfaction Survey

(CSS) creates a vital interface between the council

and their community.

Held annually, the CSS asks the opinions of local

people about the place they live, work and play and

provides confidence for councils in their efforts

and abilities.

Now in its twentieth year, this survey provides insight

into the community’s views on:

• councils’ overall performance with benchmarking

against State-wide and council group results

• community consultation and engagement

• advocacy and lobbying on behalf of the community

• customer service, local infrastructure, facilities and

• overall council direction.

When coupled with previous data, the survey provides

a reliable historical source of the community’s views

since 1998. A selection of results from the last seven

years shows that councils in Victoria continue to

provide services that meet the public’s expectations.

Serving Victoria for 20 years

Each year the CSS data is used to develop the State-

wide report which contains all of the aggregated

results, analysis and data. Moreover, with 20 years of

results, the CSS offers councils a long-term, consistent

measure of how they are performing – essential for

councils that work over the long term to provide

valuable services and infrastructure to their

communities.

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.

Background and objectives

5


Key findings and

recommendations

6

The overall performance index score of 57 for Central

Goldfields Shire Council represents a 14-point

improvement on the 2018 result. This is a statistically

significant improvement (at the 95% confidence

interval), and reverses the trend after declining across

2015 to 2018.

• Overall performance is now only seven points down

on Council’s peak result of 64 achieved in 2015 and

across 2012 to 2013.

Central Goldfields Shire Council’s overall performance

is rated significantly lower than the average rating for

councils State-wide, and is rated similar to the average

for councils in the Small Rural group (index scores of

60 and 58 respectively).

• Talbot residents* (index score of 65) and residents

aged 65+ years (index score of 62), rate overall

performance significantly higher compared to the

council average.

More than twice as many residents rate Central

Goldfields Shire Council’s overall performance as ‘very

good’ or ‘good’ (42%) than those who rate it as ‘very

poor’ or ‘poor’ (18%). A further 38% sit mid-scale, rating

Council’s overall performance as ‘average’, whilst the

remaining 2% ‘can’t say’.

Overall performance

7


Overall Council performance

6057 58

Central

Goldfields

Small Rural State-wide

* Caution small sample size, n=<30

Results shown are index scores out of 100.

Contact with council

Three-in-five Central Goldfields Shire Council residents

(60%) have had contact with Council in the last 12

months, which has increased six percentage points

from 2018.

• Residents aged 35 to 49 years had the most contact

with council (68%) in 2019.

• Conversely, Talbot residents (49%) and residents

aged 18 to 34 years (53%) had the least contact with

council.

• There were no significant differences across the

demographic and geographic cohorts compared to

the council average.

The main methods of contacting Council are ‘in person’

(42%) and ‘by telephone’ (28%).

Customer service

Central Goldfields Shire Council’s customer service

index of 73 is a significant seven-point improvement on

the result for 2018. Ratings are now just three points

down on Council’s highest result of 76 achieved across

2012 and 2013. Performance on this measure is rated

slightly higher than the State-wide and Small Rural

group council averages (index scores of 71 and 70

respectively), but this does not represent a significant

difference.

Just over a third of residents (35%) rate Council’s

customer service as ‘very good’, representing a five

percentage point increase in ‘very good’ ratings

compared with 2018. Another third (34%) rate Council’s

customer service as ‘good’.

• Residents aged 35 to 49 years (index score of 81),

rate customer service significantly higher compared

to the council average. Conversely, residents aged

18 to 34 years (index score of 61), rate customer

service significantly lower than average.

Customer service ratings based on the method used in

the most recent contact are highest for ‘telephone’ and

‘in person’ (index scores of 75 and 74 respectively).

Customer contact and service

8


Top performing areas

Appearance of public areas is the area where Central

Goldfields Shire Council has performed most strongly

overall (index score of 75), with this area performing

significantly higher than the State-wide average and at

a similar level to the Small Rural group council average.

Other top performing service areas for Central

Goldfields Shire Council are:

• Customer service (index score of 73)

• Arts centres and libraries (index score of 71)

• Waste management (index score of 69).

Notably, performance on waste management is rated

significantly higher than the Small Rural group average.

The most improved services areas in 2019 are

consultation and engagement (index score of 55) and

making community decisions (index score of 52), both

increased 10 index points compared to 2018.

Another area where Central Goldfields Shire Council

has improved significantly is advocacy (index score of

53). With a nine-point improvement in 2019, this area is

now rated at a similar level to the State-wide and Small

Rural group council averages (index scores of 54 and

55 respectively).

Areas for improvement

There were no significant declines in 2019 performance

ratings. Areas for improvement are those where

Council’s performance is significantly lower than the

average ratings for councils State-wide and in the

Small Rural group. Sealed local roads (index score of

48) stands out as an area in need of Council attention

• Performance in this area has declined steadily since

Council’s peak rating achieved in 2015 (index score

of 55).

• Residents aged 65+ years (index score of 57), rate

sealed local roads significantly higher compared to

the council average. Conversely, residents aged 18

to 34 years (index score of 40), rate sealed local

roads significantly lower than average.

Making community decisions (index score of 52) is

another area that stands out as in need of continued

attention. While performance ratings in this area

increased in the last year, Council performs significantly

lower than the State-wide and Small Rural group

averages (index scores of 55).

Top performing areas and areas for improvement

9


The individual service areas that have the strongest

influence on the overall performance rating (based on

regression analysis) are:

• Decisions made in the interest of the community

• Lobbying on behalf of the community

• Condition of sealed local roads

• Community consultation and engagement.

Other service areas with a positive influence on overall

performance include:

• Art centres and libraries

• Environmental sustainability.

Looking at key service areas only, art centres and

libraries has the strongest positive performance index

and a moderately positive influence on the overall

performance rating. Currently, Central Goldfields Shire

Council is performing well in this area (performance

index of 71) and while this should remain a focus, there

is greater work to be done elsewhere.

The appearance of public areas, waste management,

recreational facilities, enforcement of local laws,

parking facilities and also have high performance

ratings, but have negligible influence on the overall

performance rating.

Central Goldfields Shire Council’s decisions made in

the community’s interest, lobbying on behalf of the

community, condition of sealed local roads and

community consultation and engagement have lower

(though still positive) performance ratings overall.

Continuing efforts in these areas has the capacity to

continue to lift Council’s overall performance rating.

(These areas have performance indices of 48 to 55.)

These areas have strong positive influence on overall

performance ratings, and therefore improvements in

these areas have the potential to lift perceptions of

overall performance.

Influences on perceptions of overall performance


10

Perceptions of Council did not experience any

significant declines in performance index scores in

the past year. This is a positive result for council.

In terms of priorities for the year ahead, Central

Goldfields Shire Council should focus on maintaining

and improving performance in the individual service

areas that most influence perception of overall

performance:


• Lobbying on behalf of the community

• Condition of sealed local roads

• Community consultation and engagement.

Council should also focus attention on service areas

where current performance levels are low and remain

significantly lower than the State-wide and Small Rural

group council averages.

Areas that stand out as being most in need of Council

attention are making community decisions (index score

of 52) and sealed local roads (index score of 48).

These measures are rated significantly lower than the

State-wide Small Rural group council averages, and

have a strong influence on perceptions of overall

performance.

Service areas where stated importance exceeds rated

performance by more than 10 points are also

recommended areas for focus. Key priorities include:

• Environmental sustainability (margin of 13 points)

• Waste management (margin of 12 points).

More generally, consideration should also be given to

residents aged 18 to 34 years, who appear to be

driving negative opinion in a number of areas in 2019.

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

what is working amongst other groups, especially

residents aged 65+ years, and use these lessons to

build on performance experience and perceptions.

On the positive side, Council should look to build upon

its improved performance on community decisions,

advocacy and community consultation and engagement

over the next 12 months.

Focus areas for coming 12 months

11


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.

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

Further areas of exploration


12

Summary of

findings

13

Summary of core measures

14

Index scores


76 76

7270

73

6766

73

52

5554

51

48 48

64 64

61

64

61

52

43

5763

64

5859

57

5455

63 64

58

51

42

52

64 6461 61

55

53

44

53

62 6160 59

53

46

47

57

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Sealed

Local

Roads

Community

Consultation

Customer

Service

Overall

Council

Direction

Overall

Performance

Advocacy Making

Community

Decisions

Summary of core measures

Performance MeasuresCentral

Goldfields

2019

Central

Goldfields

2018

Small

Rural

2019

State-wide

2019

Highest

score

Lowest

score

Overall Performance 57 43 58 60Aged 65+

years

Aged 50-64

years, 18-

34 years

Community Consultation

(Community consultation and

engagement)

55 45 56 56Aged 35-49

years

Aged 50-64

years

Advocacy

(Lobbying on behalf of the community)53 44 55 54

Aged 65+

years

Aged 50-64

years

Making Community Decisions

(Decisions made in the interest of the

community)

52 42 55 55 TalbotAged 50-64

years

Sealed Local Roads

(Condition of sealed local roads)48 48 53 56

Aged 65+

years

Aged 18-34

years

Customer Service 73 66 70 71

Aged 65+

years,

Dunnoly,

Aged 35-49

years

Aged 18-34

years

Overall Council Direction 57 47 53 53 TalbotAged 18-34

years


15

Summary of key community satisfaction

16

Key measures summary results (%)


11

12

11

9

11

35

31

25

19

26

24

34

38

34

31

30

27

17

12

15

18

18

24

9

6

7

5

9

13

3

2

9

16

8

1

1

Overall Performance

Community Consultation

Advocacy

Making Community Decisions

Sealed Local Roads

Customer Service

Very good Good Average Poor Very poor Can't say

30 47 17 6Overall Council Direction

Improved Stayed the same Deteriorated Can't say

73

81

Environmental sustainability

Waste management

60

69

Individual service areas importance vs performance

17Note: Net differentials are calculated based on the un-rounded importance and performance scores, then rounded to the nearest whole number.


Importance (index scores) Performance (index scores) Net Differential

Service areas where importance exceeds performance by 10 points or more, suggesting further investigation is

necessary:

-13

-12

We use regression analysis to investigate which

individual service areas, such as community

consultation, condition of sealed local roads, etc. (the

independent variables) are influencing respondent

perceptions of overall council performance (the

dependent variable).

In the charts that follow:

• The horizontal axis represents the council

performance index for each individual service.

Service areas appearing on the right-side of the

chart 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 service area

to the model. Service areas near the top of the chart

have a greater positive effect on overall performance

ratings than service areas located closer to the axis.

• The charts are based on unweighted data, which

means the service performance indices in the

regression charts may vary by +/- 1-2 points on the

indices reported in charts and tables elsewhere in

this report.

The regressions are shown on the following two charts.

1. The first chart shows the results of a regression

analysis of all individual service areas selected by

Council.

2. The second chart shows the results of a

regression performed on a smaller set of service

areas, being those with a moderate-to-strong

influence on overall performance. Service areas

with a weak influence on overall performance (i.e. a

low Standardised Beta Coefficient) have been

excluded from the analysis.

Key insights from this analysis are derived from

the second chart.

Regression analysis explained

18


Influence on overall performance: all service areas

19

The multiple regression analysis model above (all service areas) has an R-squared value of 0.562 and adjusted R-square value of 0.549,

which means that 56% 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 = 45.23. This model should be interpreted with some caution as some data is not

normally distributed and not all service areas have linear correlations.

2019 regression analysis (all service areas)


Community consultation

Lobbying

Parking facilitiesEnforcement of local laws

Recreational facilities

The appearance of public areas

Art centres and libraries

Waste management


Community decisions

Condition of sealed local roads

-0.05

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80

Performance Index Very GoodVery Poor

Gre

ate

r p

ositiv

e in

flu

en

ce

on

Ove

rall

Pe

rfo

rma

nce

Gre

ate

r n

eg

ative

influ

en

ce

on

Ove

rall

Influence on overall performance: key service areas

20The multiple regression analysis model above (reduced set of service areas) has an R-squared value of 0.559 and adjusted R-square value of

0.553, which means that 56% 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 = 83.16.

2019 regression analysis (key service areas)


81

74

73

73

71

69

64

Waste management

Enforcement of local laws




Parking facilities


Individual service area importance

2019 individual service area importance (index scores)

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012


21Q1. Firstly, how important should [RESPONSIBILITY AREA] be as a responsibility for Council?

Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 31 Councils asked group: 8

Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

Individual service area importance

2019 individual service area importance (%)

40

28

24

31

24

23

17

45

43

48

39

43

41

37

14

21

26

22

28

24

33

1

6

3

6

4

10

11

1

1

2

2

1

1

1

1

1

Waste management





Parking facilities


Extremely important Very important Fairly important

Not that important Not at all important Can't say


22Q1. Firstly, how important should [RESPONSIBILITY AREA] be as a responsibility for Council?


Individual service area performance

2019 individual service area performance (index scores)


23

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

45

44

42

48

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

54

53

51

51

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

57

55

58

54

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

59

61

64

55

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

58

61

63

52

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

63

64

n/a

n/a

75

71

69

68

64

61

60

55

53

52

48



Waste management



Parking facilities


Consultation & engagement

Lobbying

Community decisions

Sealed local roads

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



Individual service area performance

24

2019 individual service area performance (%)


33

25

22

24

15

13

11

12

9

11

11

40

38

40

38

34

33

31

25

26

24

19

20

24

23

23

32

35

37

34

30

27

31

4

8

8

6

7

10

8

15

18

24

18

2

3

3

1

3

4

4

7

9

13

5

1

2

4

9

10

3

9

9

8

1

16


Waste management




Parking facilities


Consultation & engagement

Community decisions

Sealed local roads

Lobbying


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


Significantly Higher than

State-wide Average

Significantly Lower than

State-wide Average


25

• Parking facilities

• Appearance of public areas

• Art centres & libraries

• Making community decisions

• Sealed local roads

Individual service area performance vs State-wide average

Individual service area performance vs group average

26


Significantly Higher than

Group Average

Significantly Lower than

Group Average

• Waste management • Art centres & libraries

• Making community decisions

• Sealed local roads

DETAILED

FINDINGS

27

Overall

performance

28

n/a

48

59

34

56

n/a

44

43

42

n/a

47

41

n/a

59

59

43

58

n/a

53

52

52

n/a

51

52

n/a

66

59

55

57

n/a

58

61

63

n/a

60

58

n/a

68

60

64

59

n/a

62

64

66

n/a

62

60

n/a

64

61

60

n/a

n/a

57

61

65

n/a

62

58

n/a

71

60

60

n/a

n/a

63

64

65

n/a

64

61

n/a

69

60

58

n/a

n/a

64

64

64

n/a

67

61

Overall performance

2019 overall performance (index scores)

65*p

62p

60p

59

58

58

58

57

57

54

52

52

Talbot

65+

State-wide

35-49

Small Rural

Maryborough

Men

Central Goldfields

Women

Dunolly

18-34

50-64


29

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q3. ON BALANCE, for the last twelve months, how do you feel about the performance of Central Goldfields 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?



*Caution: small sample size < n=30

Overall performance

30

Overall performance (%)


11

3

6

11

11

13

14

13

10

9

12

6

11

10

11

3

9

11

15

31

20

29

39

46

41

41

44

39

36

32

29

39

35

28

32

38

20

34

38

35

40

35

30

29

31

31

35

37

35

44

44

37

38

40

39

40

34

12

23

14

7

8

10

9

8

10

11

11

15

3

10

13

13

11

17

8

6

15

9

6

3

6

3

3

5

6

7

5

7

5

8

4

9

5

2

3

2

2

3

1

2

1

1

3

1

3

1

4

3

3

3

2019 Central Goldfields








State-wide

Small Rural

Maryborough

Dunolly

Talbot*

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


Q3. ON BALANCE, for the last twelve months, how do you feel about the performance of Central Goldfields 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?



Customer

service

31


2019 contact with council (%)

Have had contact

53

6062 62

6057

54

60

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019


32Q5a. Have you or any member of your household had any recent contact with Central Goldfields Shire Council in any of the following ways?


53

59

64

n/a

61

54

54

n/a

53

53

49

n/a

62

55

62

n/a

58

51

57

n/a

62

51

64

n/a

68

69

61

n/a

58

61

60

n/a

58

57

43

n/a

68

65

64

n/a

60

62

62

n/a

63

56

65

n/a

75

61

n/a

n/a

61

62

62

n/a

62

56

58

n/a

63

63

n/a

n/a

60

57

60

n/a

62

53

64

n/a

65

56

n/a

n/a

61

46

53

n/a

60

58

30

n/a


2019 contact with council (%)

68

67

66p

65

63

61

60

60

60

57

53

49*

35-49

50-64

Small Rural

Dunolly

State-wide

Men

Central Goldfields

Maryborough

Women

65+

18-34

Talbot


33

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

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




57

72

n/a

67

66

65

70

69

n/a

66

n/a

64

67

75

n/a

65

67

69

69

69

n/a

65

n/a

57

69

77

n/a

70

73

76

69

69

n/a

72

n/a

71

66

76

n/a

68

70

72

70

70

n/a

73

n/a

60

71

79

n/a

69

72

75

72

n/a

n/a

66

n/a

71

81

82

n/a

73

76

79

71

n/a

n/a

74

n/a

65

77

79

n/a

76

76

76

71

n/a

n/a

74

n/a

71

Customer service rating

34

2019 customer service rating (index scores)


81p

76

74

74

73

71

71

70

70

68

65*

61q

35-49

65+

Maryborough

Men

Central Goldfields

Women

State-wide

Small Rural

Dunolly

50-64

Talbot

18-34

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q5c. Thinking of the most recent contact, how would you rate Central Goldfields 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: 63 Councils asked group: 18



Customer service rating

35

Customer service rating (%)


35

30

29

34

37

36

44

41

33

31

38

27

39

31

39

21

43

35

38

34

29

32

39

29

32

28

37

36

37

34

43

40

28

29

42

25

38

17

21

23

13

17

20

19

10

17

17

16

11

50

20

14

26

8

19

16

9

8

8

8

10

6

7

7

7

8

9

12

6

4

14

19

5

12

6

3

9

7

5

6

5

2

4

6

6

3

4

6

2

4

5

6

2

1

3

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

2

1

3

3









State-wide

Small Rural

Maryborough

Dunolly

Talbot*

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+







Method of contact with council

2019 method of contact (%)

28

42

10

8

4

6

4

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019


36

By EmailBy Text

Message

By Social

Media

In Writing Via WebsiteIn Person By Telephone

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


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

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

Customer service rating by method of last contact

2019 customer service rating (index score by method of last contact)

75

74

72*

68*

58*

56*

By telephone

In person

In writing

Via website

By email

By social media

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012


37






Customer service rating by method of last contact

2019 customer service rating (% by method of last contact)

42

39

15

27

5

33

32

57

46

47

23

11

16

28

16

77

8

10

27

16

5

2

5

1

1

11

By telephone

In person

In writing*

Via website*

By email*

By social media*



38






Council direction

39

Council direction summary


40

• Aged 18-34 yearsLeast satisfied with Council

direction

Council direction• 47% stayed about the same, up 3 points on 2018

• 30% improved, up 10 points on 2018

• 17% deteriorated, down 9 points on 2018

Most satisfied with Council

direction

• Aged 65+ years

• Dunnoly residents

• Aged 35-49 years

Overall council direction last 12 months

41

2019 overall direction (index scores)


n/a

51

n/a

44

43

47

50

n/a

42

46

52

50

n/a

54

n/a

46

45

46

47

n/a

40

36

53

52

n/a

59

n/a

50

50

53

57

n/a

51

50

51

50

n/a

63

n/a

59

57

59

62

n/a

55

59

53

53

n/a

62

n/a

58

58

60

62

n/a

58

61

53

n/a

n/a

65

n/a

61

60

61

62

n/a

57

59

53

n/a

n/a

70

n/a

61

61

62

64

n/a

57

59

52

n/a

60*

59

59

59

58

57

57

56

55

54

53q

53q

Talbot

65+

Dunolly

35-49

Men

Central Goldfields

Women

Maryborough

50-64

18-34

State-wide

Small Rural

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

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




Overall council direction last 12 months

2019 overall council direction (%)

30

20

13

21

28

29

30

32

19

20

30

31

30

33

28

25

31

27

34

47

44

62

60

58

59

57

58

62

60

46

49

55

43

51

54

54

48

40

17

26

21

15

10

10

9

8

14

15

18

13

11

19

15

18

13

19

17

6

10

5

4

5

3

4

2

5

4

6

7

3

5

7

3

2

6

8









State-wide

Small Rural

Maryborough

Dunolly

Talbot*

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+

Improved Stayed the same Deteriorated Can't say


42Q6. Over the last 12 months, what is your view of the direction of Central Goldfields Shire Council’s overall performance?



Individual

service areas

43

Community consultation and engagement performance

44

2019 Consultation and engagement performance (index scores)


42

52

n/a

45

54

55

n/a

45

n/a

44

42

39

50

58

n/a

53

55

55

n/a

54

n/a

54

56

49

58

60

n/a

61

55

54

n/a

57

n/a

54

58

53

60

63

n/a

61

56

56

n/a

59

n/a

56

60

52

53

60

n/a

62

n/a

57

n/a

58

n/a

54

65

54

60

70

n/a

65

n/a

57

n/a

64

n/a

63

66

59

62

65

n/a

66

n/a

57

n/a

63

n/a

60

66

60

60

58

57*

57

56

56

56

55

55

54

52

50

35-49

65+

Talbot

Women

Small Rural

State-wide

Maryborough

Central Goldfields

Dunolly

Men

18-34

50-64

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

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




Community consultation and engagement performance

45

2019 Consultation and engagement performance (%)


12

5

7

9

10

10

15

12

9

10

13

10

8

10

13

3

18

9

15

25

20

28

35

34

31

35

41

30

31

25

24

24

25

24

35

22

18

25

34

27

31

28

29

32

29

31

31

31

32

37

40

35

32

30

32

38

34

15

27

16

12

12

12

7

8

15

15

16

11

14

16

13

17

15

16

12

7

11

7

7

5

5

4

3

6

7

7

8

7

7

9

4

11

5

9

10

11

7

10

11

9

6

9

7

8

9

14

7

10

7

9

8

9









State-wide

Small Rural

Maryborough

Dunolly

Talbot*

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


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



Lobbying on behalf of the community performance

46

2019 Lobbying performance (index scores)


n/a

49

41

53

44

54

n/a

44

43

40

n/a

41

n/a

58

52

55

51

54

n/a

53

56

50

n/a

49

n/a

62

50

54

58

53

n/a

55

51

49

n/a

54

n/a

64

64

56

63

55

n/a

61

60

57

n/a

59

n/a

63

65

n/a

65

56

n/a

61

57

58

n/a

57

n/a

69

63

n/a

66

55

n/a

64

63

61

n/a

62

n/a

67

66

n/a

65

55

n/a

64

63

60

n/a

62

60*

58

55

55

55

54

54

53

52

52

50

47

Talbot

65+

18-34

Small Rural

Women

State-wide

Maryborough

Central Goldfields

Men

35-49

Dunolly

50-64

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

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




Lobbying on behalf of the community performance

47

2019 Lobbying performance (%)


11

3

5

8

10

11

14

13

6

7

11

9

12

8

13

9

9

9

13

19

14

24

28

34

31

34

34

25

26

20

13

24

22

16

24

24

11

18

31

31

33

27

28

29

31

32

31

31

30

36

22

30

31

35

29

37

26

18

24

15

13

9

10

6

7

13

14

17

21

19

18

18

15

24

22

14

5

8

5

7

3

3

3

2

5

5

6

5

6

5

5

6

8

4

16

19

18

18

17

17

12

12

20

17

15

17

22

15

17

12

7

14

24









State-wide

Small Rural

Maryborough

Dunolly

Talbot*

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


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



Decisions made in the interest of the community

performance

48

2019 Community decisions made performance (index scores)


n/a

47

52

54

41

42

n/a

n/a

43

39

39

40

n/a

59

55

54

51

51

n/a

n/a

51

44

43

49

n/a

63

53

54

60

58

n/a

n/a

56

52

55

56

n/a

68

56

55

66

64

n/a

n/a

62

62

64

59

n/a

65

n/a

57

66

63

n/a

n/a

60

60

69

59

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

60*

57p

55p

55p

53

52

51

51

50

49

49

48

Talbot

65+

Small Rural

State-wide

Women

Central Goldfields

Maryborough

Dunolly

Men

35-49

18-34

50-64

2018 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?




Decisions made in the interest of the community

performance

49

2019 Community decisions made performance (%)


9

3

7

11

11

13

7

7

9

6

18

9

9

6

7

10

10

26

18

26

32

42

42

30

31

27

27

11

23

28

30

24

17

29

30

32

32

31

25

24

33

33

28

32

48

30

30

26

30

32

31

18

25

16

10

11

10

14

14

17

22

12

18

17

18

22

17

16

9

13

10

8

2

4

7

7

11

6

11

8

14

9

14

5

8

10

8

8

8

8

10

7

9

6

12

9

8

6

7

10

9







State-wide

Small Rural

Maryborough

Dunolly

Talbot*

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


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



The condition of sealed local roads in your area

performance

50

2019 Sealed local roads performance (index scores)


55

53

49

n/a

47

48

49

44

n/a

n/a

41

47

56

53

50

n/a

51

51

52

49

n/a

n/a

42

56

61

54

52

n/a

51

54

57

50

n/a

n/a

51

51

62

55

52

n/a

55

55

55

49

n/a

n/a

60

45

58

55

n/a

n/a

50

52

55

48

n/a

n/a

49

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

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

57p

56p

53p

51

49

48

48

46

45*

43

42

40q

65+

State-wide

Small Rural

Maryborough

Men

Central Goldfields

Women

50-64

Talbot

Dunolly

35-49

18-34

2018 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?




The condition of sealed local roads in your area

performance

51

2019 Sealed local roads performance (%)


11

4

9

12

11

8

13

9

12

4

12

9

12

6

7

8

16

24

30

28

30

34

31

33

31

27

20

14

26

23

23

25

20

26

27

33

32

30

31

32

28

30

26

28

28

28

25

20

11

34

34

24

18

18

18

14

18

16

18

19

39

25

25

24

30

40

21

16

13

14

12

9

10

10

10

11

15

9

17

11

16

21

17

16

7

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

3

1

1

2







State-wide

Small Rural

Maryborough

Dunolly

Talbot*

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


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



Parking facilities importance

52

2019 Parking importance (index scores)


n/a

n/a

71

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

64

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

70

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

64

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

70

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

65

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

70

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

67

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

71

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

72*

71

71

71

71

69

68

68

67

66q

65

61q

Talbot

65+

State-wide

Maryborough

Women

Central Goldfields

35-49

18-34

Men

Small Rural

50-64

Dunolly

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

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




Parking facilities importance

53

2019 Parking importance (%)


23

26

19

25

15

29

21

26

21

28

26

21

41

40

39

43

37

32

39

42

41

33

29

50

24

26

30

22

29

36

27

21

25

26

28

21

10

6

9

9

13

3

10

9

13

12

13

5

2

1

2

1

5

2

1

2

4

1

1

1

1

1

1

2


State-wide

Small Rural

Maryborough

Dunolly

Talbot*

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+



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



Parking facilities performance

54

2019 Parking performance (index scores)


n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

60

n/a

n/a

56

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

63

n/a

n/a

55

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

61

n/a

n/a

56

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

62

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

57

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

57

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

56

n/a

65

64

64

64

62*

61

60

60

59

58

56q

52q

35-49

50-64

Dunolly

Men

Talbot

Central Goldfields

65+

Small Rural

Maryborough

Women

State-wide

18-34

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

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




Parking facilities performance

55

2019 Parking performance (%)


13

9

12

13

15

8

12

15

3

17

19

14

33

34

36

31

37

42

41

26

35

35

32

33

35

32

33

36

33

35

32

38

36

37

33

36

10

16

11

11

9

12

9

11

24

5

7

8

4

7

5

5

2

2

7

3

2

4

6

3

2

3

3

3

3

3

3

4

4

3


State-wide

Small Rural

Maryborough

Dunolly

Talbot*

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


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



Enforcement of local laws importance

56

2019 Law enforcement importance (index scores)


n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

71

n/a

n/a

66

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

71

n/a

n/a

67

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

70

n/a

n/a

69

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

71

n/a

n/a

68

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

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

77*

77

75

74

74

73

72

72

71q

70

70q

68q

Talbot

Women

65+

Maryborough

Central Goldfields

18-34

50-64

35-49

State-wide

Dunolly

Men

Small Rural

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Enforcement of local laws’ be as a responsibility for Council?




Enforcement of local laws importance

57

2019 Law enforcement importance (%)


28

27

22

30

25

23

23

33

21

31

31

29

43

38

39

44

40

50

43

43

50

35

35

48

21

26

29

20

24

16

24

18

23

24

26

15

6

6

7

5

9

8

4

3

9

7

6

2

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

11

1

1

3

1

2


State-wide

Small Rural

Maryborough

Dunolly

Talbot*

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+



Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Enforcement of local laws’ be as a responsibility for Council?



Enforcement of local laws performance

58

2019 Law enforcement performance (index scores)


n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

64

n/a

63

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

64

n/a

65

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

63

n/a

64

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

66

n/a

66

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

66

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

65

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

66

65

65

65

65

64

64

64

63

63

63

59*

Maryborough

Women

50-64

35-49

65+

Central Goldfields

Men

State-wide

18-34

Small Rural

Dunolly

Talbot

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Enforcement of local laws’ over the last 12 months?




Enforcement of local laws performance

59

2019 Law enforcement performance (%)


15

12

12

17

13

3

15

16

14

16

18

14

34

38

37

35

30

34

35

33

39

33

30

34

32

26

28

29

36

43

29

34

35

33

30

30

7

8

7

8

3

9

6

8

9

8

6

6

3

3

4

2

4

4

1

3

2

4

3

10

12

12

8

13

11

10

9

7

12

14


State-wide

Small Rural

Maryborough

Dunolly

Talbot*

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Enforcement of local laws’ over the last 12 months?



Recreational facilities importance

60

2019 Recreational facilities importance (index scores)


n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

73

72

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

72

71

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

73

72

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

72

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

72

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

75

73

72

72

72

72

71

71

71

71

69

69*

35-49

18-34

Women

Maryborough

State-wide

Small Rural

Central Goldfields

Dunolly

50-64

Men

65+

Talbot

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

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




Recreational facilities importance

61

2019 Recreational facilities importance (%)


24

23

24

25

22

22

24

24

23

33

25

20

43

46

44

43

46

30

41

44

48

37

39

46

28

26

27

26

28

48

29

26

26

26

32

26

4

4

4

4

3

4

4

3

4

2

5

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

2

1

1

1

1

1

1


State-wide

Small Rural

Maryborough

Dunolly

Talbot*

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+



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



Recreational facilities performance

62

2019 Recreational facilities performance (index scores)


n/a

69

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

69

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

70

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

69

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

69

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

68

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

70

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

70

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

n/a

74p

70

69

69

69

68

68

68

67

66

62*

58q

65+

State-wide

Maryborough

50-64

Men

Central Goldfields

Small Rural

Women

35-49

Dunolly

Talbot

18-34

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

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




Recreational facilities performance

63

2019 Recreational facilities performance (%)


22

23

20

25

16

9

20

24

6

20

24

29

40

44

42

39

46

38

44

37

44

43

39

38

23

21

23

23

19

42

24

23

23

24

22

23

8

6

8

7

11

8

6

10

15

9

7

5

3

2

3

3

2

3

3

6

4

4

4

4

4

3

5

3

4

4

6

4

4


State-wide

Small Rural

Maryborough

Dunolly

Talbot*

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


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



The appearance of public areas importance

64

2019 Public areas importance (index scores)


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

74

74

n/a

n/a

n/a

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

73

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

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

73

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

75

74

74

74

74

73

73

73

72

72

71

63*q

Maryborough

Women

65+

18-34

Small Rural

State-wide

Central Goldfields

35-49

Men

Dunolly

50-64

Talbot

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

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




The appearance of public areas importance

65

2019 Public areas importance (%)


24

24

25

27

21

3

23

25

26

26

24

22

48

47

47

48

46

47

47

48

45

39

43

56

26

25

25

21

32

50

27

25

26

35

29

19

3

3

3

4

1

4

2

3

5

3

1

1

1


State-wide

Small Rural

Maryborough

Dunolly

Talbot*

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+



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



The appearance of public areas performance

66

2019 Public areas performance (index scores)


n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

72

71

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

74

71

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

73

71

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

74

72

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

n/a

n/a

71

n/a

n/a

79p

78

77*

76

75

75

75

75

73

72q

72

66q

65+

50-64

Talbot

Maryborough

35-49

Men

Central Goldfields

Women

Small Rural

State-wide

Dunolly

18-34

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

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




The appearance of public areas performance

67

2019 Public areas performance (%)


33

26

28

34

30

31

31

35

21

31

38

38

40

45

44

42

33

48

42

39

42

41

40

40

20

20

20

17

32

17

22

18

26

22

18

18

4

5

5

3

4

3

2

5

6

4

3

2

2

2

2

2

1

1

2

6

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

2

2


State-wide

Small Rural

Maryborough

Dunolly

Talbot*

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


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



Art centres and libraries importance

68

2019 Art centres and libraries importance (index scores)


n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

65

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

61

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

64

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

61

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

66

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

65

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

65

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

62

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

66

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

66

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

66

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

71*

68

68

66

65

65

64

63

63

63

61

60

Talbot

35-49

18-34

Women

State-wide

Maryborough

Central Goldfields

65+

Men

Small Rural

Dunolly

50-64

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Art centres and libraries’ be as a responsibility for Council?




Art centres and libraries importance

69

2019 Art centres and libraries importance (%)


17

17

16

17

17

22

17

17

20

22

13

15

37

39

36

39

32

43

34

41

44

35

32

38

33

33

34

33

33

32

34

31

24

37

41

31

11

9

11

10

16

3

13

8

9

6

14

12

2

2

3

2

2

2

1

3

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

1


State-wide

Small Rural

Maryborough

Dunolly

Talbot*

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+



Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Art centres and libraries’ be as a responsibility for Council?



Art centres and libraries performance

70

2019 Art centres and libraries performance (index scores)


n/a

n/a

74

73

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

73

72

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

72

71

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

73

69

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

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

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

76p

76p

74p

74p

73

71

71

71

70*

69

68

61q

35-49

65+

State-wide

Small Rural

Maryborough

Men

Central Goldfields

Women

Talbot

50-64

Dunolly

18-34

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Art centres and libraries’ over the last 12 months?




Art centres and libraries performance

71

2019 Art centres and libraries performance (%)


24

26

25

25

19

23

23

25

9

27

19

32

38

42

42

39

34

35

38

37

40

43

41

33

23

17

18

21

26

36

22

24

31

18

24

21

6

4

4

6

6

3

5

6

15

2

5

3

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

3

1

9

10

9

8

14

3

11

8

6

10

9

10


State-wide

Small Rural

Maryborough

Dunolly

Talbot*

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Art centres and libraries’ over the last 12 months?



Waste management importance

72

2019 Waste management importance (index scores)


n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

81

n/a

n/a

78

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

79

n/a

n/a

76

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

80

n/a

n/a

79

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

79

n/a

n/a

77

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

79

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

78

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

83

83

82

82

81

81

80

79q

79

79*

78

78

Women

50-64

Maryborough

65+

State-wide

Central Goldfields

18-34

Small Rural

Men

Talbot

35-49

Dunolly

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

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




Waste management importance

73

2019 Waste management importance (%)


40

41

37

44

31

29

34

46

42

34

42

40

45

44

46

42

52

58

50

41

38

45

48

48

14

13

15

14

17

12

16

13

21

21

8

11

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

1


State-wide

Small Rural

Maryborough

Dunolly

Talbot*

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+



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



Waste management performance

74

2019 Waste management performance (index scores)


n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

70

n/a

n/a

n/a

69

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

71

n/a

n/a

n/a

70

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

70

n/a

n/a

n/a

69

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

72

n/a

n/a

n/a

71

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

71

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

75p

71

70

69

68*

68

67

67

67

66q

66

62q

65+

Men

Maryborough

Central Goldfields

Talbot

State-wide

Women

Dunolly

35-49

Small Rural

50-64

18-34

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

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




Waste management performance

75

2019 Waste management performance (%)


25

23

20

27

19

23

25

25

14

23

20

34

38

42

41

38

38

44

44

32

40

35

40

38

24

21

22

21

31

23

19

29

28

28

25

19

8

8

9

9

6

5

7

10

15

7

10

5

3

4

4

3

2

5

3

2

3

4

4

2

2

2

3

2

3

2

2

4

2

3


State-wide

Small Rural

Maryborough

Dunolly

Talbot*

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


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



Environmental sustainability importance

76

2019 Environmental sustainability importance (index scores)


n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

73

n/a

n/a

n/a

70

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

72

n/a

n/a

n/a

70

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

73

n/a

n/a

n/a

74

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

73

n/a

n/a

n/a

77

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

79p

77p

77*

75

74

74

73

72

72

72

71

69

18-34

Women

Talbot

Dunolly

State-wide

50-64

Central Goldfields

Maryborough

Small Rural

35-49

65+

Men

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

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




Environmental sustainability importance

77

2019 Environmental sustainability importance (%)


31

33

30

30

34

36

26

36

36

27

35

28

39

39

39

39

40

35

36

42

44

45

32

38

22

21

22

23

19

29

26

18

20

18

26

23

6

5

5

6

6

8

3

8

6

7

1

2

2

2

1

2

1

2

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2


State-wide

Small Rural

Maryborough

Dunolly

Talbot*

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+



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



Environmental sustainability performance

78

2019 Environmental sustainability performance (index scores)


n/a

n/a

63

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

62

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

64

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

63

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

63

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

61

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

64

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

63

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

68*

62

62

62

60

60

60

60

59

58

57

56

Talbot

35-49

State-wide

Men

Maryborough

65+

18-34

Central Goldfields

Small Rural

Women

50-64

Dunolly

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

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




Environmental sustainability performance

79

2019 Environmental sustainability performance (%)


11

11

9

11

6

24

11

11

9

13

10

11

31

35

31

34

25

23

33

28

40

33

22

30

37

31

36

35

43

45

35

39

36

37

37

38

8

9

9

8

9

3

7

9

6

7

13

7

4

3

4

5

3

3

5

6

4

2

4

9

12

11

8

14

5

10

8

3

5

15

11


State-wide

Small Rural

Maryborough

Dunolly

Talbot*

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


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



Detailed

demographics

80

Gender and age profile

81

2019 gender


2019 age

Men49%

Women51%

Central Goldfields

6%14%

19%

22%

39%

Central Goldfields

18-24 25-34 35-49 50-64 65+

Men50%

Women50%

Small Rural

Men49%

Women51%

State-wide

6%13%

21%

25%

37%

Small Rural

18-24 25-34 35-49 50-64 65+

8%

18%

23%21%

30%

State-wide

18-24 25-34 35-49 50-64 65+

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


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.

Appendix A:

Index scores,

margins of error

and significant

differences

82

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.

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.

Appendix A:

Index Scores

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


83

SCALE

CATEGORIES% RESULT

INDEX

FACTORINDEX VALUE

Improved 36% 100 36

Stayed the

same40% 50 20

Deteriorated 23% 0 0

Can’t say 1% --INDEX SCORE

56

Demographic

Actual

survey

sample

size

Weighted

base

Maximum margin

of error at 95%

confidence

interval

Central Goldfields

Shire Council 400 400 +/-4.8

Men185 198 +/-7.2

Women215 202 +/-6.6

Maryborough277 280 +/-5.8

Dunolly98 94 +/-9.9

Talbot25 27 +/-20.0

18-34 years34 77 +/-17.0

35-49 years54 77 +/-13.4

50-64 years112 88 +/-9.3

65+ years200 157 +/-6.9

The sample size for the 2019 State-wide Local

Government Community Satisfaction Survey for Central

Goldfields Shire Council was n=400. Unless otherwise

noted, this is the total sample base for all reported

charts and tables.

The maximum margin of error on a sample of

approximately n=400 interviews is +/-4.8% 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 45.2% - 54.8%.

Maximum margins of error are listed in the table below,

based on a population of 10,600 people aged 18 years

or over for Central Goldfields Shire Council, according

to ABS estimates.

Appendix A:

Margins of error


84

Within tables and index score charts throughout this

report, statistically significant differences at the 95%

confidence level are represented by upward directing

green () 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 green and red indicate

significantly higher or lower results than in 2018.

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 2018.

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

significantly lower than the result achieved among

this group in 2018.

Appendix A:

Significant difference reporting notation

Overall Performance – Index Scores

(example extract only)


85

54

57

58

60

67

66

50-64

35-49

Small Rural

Central Goldfields

18-34

State-wide

The test applied to the Indexes was an Independent

Mean Test, as follows:

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

Where:

• $1 = Index Score 1

• $2 = Index Score 2

• $3 = unweighted sample count 1

• $4 = unweighted sample count 2

• $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.

Appendix A:

Index score significant difference calculation


86

Appendix B:

Further project

information

87

Further information about the report and explanations

about the State-wide Local Government Community

Satisfaction Survey can be found in this section

including:

• Survey methodology and sampling

• Analysis and reporting

• Glossary of terms

Detailed survey tabulations

Detailed survey tabulations are available in supplied

Excel file.

Contacts

For further queries about the conduct and reporting of

the 2019 State-wide Local Government Community

Satisfaction Survey, please contact JWS Research on

(03) 8685 8555 or via email:

[email protected]

Appendix B:

Further information

88


mailto:[email protected]

The 2019 results are compared with previous years, as

detailed below:

• 2019, 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

Central Goldfields 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.

This survey was conducted by Computer Assisted

Telephone Interviewing (CATI) as a representative

random probability survey of residents aged 18+ years

in Central Goldfields Shire Council.

Survey sample matched to the demographic profile of

Central Goldfields 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 Central

Goldfields Shire Council, particularly younger people.

A total of n=400 completed interviews were achieved in

Central Goldfields Shire Council. Survey fieldwork was

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

2019.

Appendix B:

Survey methodology and sampling

89


All participating councils are listed in the State-wide

report published on the DELWP website. In 2019, 63 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 2012-2019 vary slightly.

Council Groups

Central Goldfields Shire Council is classified as a Small

Rural council according to the following classification

list:

Metropolitan, Interface, Regional Centres, Large Rural

& Small Rural

Councils participating in the Small Rural group are:

Alpine, Ararat, Benalla, Buloke, Central Goldfields,

Gannawarra, Hepburn, Hindmarsh, Indigo, Mansfield,

Murrindindi, Northern Grampians, Pyrenees,

Queenscliffe, Strathbogie, Towong, West Wimmera and

Yarriambiack.

Wherever appropriate, results for Central Goldfields

Shire Council for this 2019 State-wide Local

Government Community Satisfaction Survey have been

compared against other participating councils in the

Small 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.

Appendix B:

Analysis and reporting


90

2012 survey revision

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 Central Goldfields

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

2012-2019 have been made throughout this report as

appropriate.

Appendix B:


91


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

2019 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 2019 State-wide Local Government

Community Satisfaction Survey were optional. Councils

also had the ability to ask tailored questions specific

only to their council.

Appendix B:



92

Reporting

Every council that participated in the 2019 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.

Appendix B:



93

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

Core questions: Compulsory inclusion questions for all

councils participating in the CSS.

CSS: 2019 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.

Appendix B:

Glossary of terms


94

THERE ARE OVER 6 MILLION PEOPLE IN VICTORIA...

FIND OUT WHAT THEY'RETHINKING.

Contact us

03 8685 8555

John Scales

Managing Director

[email protected]

Katrina Cox

Director of Client Services

[email protected]

Follow us

@JWSResearch

Mark Zuker

Managing Director

[email protected]

central goldfields shire council · goldfields shire council has performed most strongly overall...

Documents