hepburn shire council · ‘newsletters sent via email’ (30%) or social media updates (25%),...

2019 Local

Government

Community

Satisfaction Survey

Hepburn Shire

CouncilCoordinated by the Department of

Environment, Land, Water and Planning

on behalf of Victorian councils

Contents

J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Hepburn 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

Communication 39

Council direction 44

Individual service areas 48

Community consultation and engagement 49

Lobbying on behalf of the community 51

Decisions made in the interest of the

community

53

Condition of sealed local roads 55

Enforcement of local laws 57

Recreational facilities 61

Appearance of public areas 65

Waste management 69

Planning and building permits 73

Environmental sustainability 77

Roadside slashing and weed control 81

Business and community development 85

Tourism development 89

Detailed demographics 93

Appendix A: Index scores, margins of error

and significant differences

95

Appendix B: Further project information 100

78

48

72

49

8164

-30 -22 -17

69

67

64

Hepburn Shire Council – at a glance

3Note: Net differentials are calculated based on the un-rounded importance and performance scores, then rounded to the nearest whole number.


Top 3 performing areas

Top 3 areas for improvement

PerformanceImportance Net differential

Slashing & weed

control

Planning &

building permits

Waste

managementOverall Council performance

Results shown are index scores out of 100.

6056 58

Hepburn Small Rural State-wide

Tourism development

Appearance of public areas

Waste management

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 56 for Hepburn

Shire Council represents a four-point improvement on

the 2018 result. This is a statistically significant

improvement (at the 95% confidence interval), and

continues an upward trend from the previous year.

• Council’s overall performance rating is now at its

highest point since tracking began in 2012.

Hepburn Shire Council’s overall performance is rated

similar to the average for councils in the Small Rural

group, but significantly lower than the average rating for

councils State-wide (index scores of 58 and 60

respectively).

• There are no significant differences across the

demographic and geographic cohorts compared to

the Council average. However, the increase in rating

in 2019 is largely driven by residents aged 65+ years

(index score of 58), who significantly improved their

rating of overall performance, by seven points

compared to 2018.

Over twice as many residents rate Hepburn Shire

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

(40%), than those who rate it as ‘very poor’ or ‘poor’

(17%). A further 42% sit mid-scale, rating Council’s

overall performance as ‘average’.

Overall performance

7


6056 58

Hepburn Small Rural State-wide

Overall Council performance

Results shown are index scores out of 100.

Contact with council

More than two-thirds of Hepburn Shire Council

residents (69%) have had contact with Council in the

last 12 months. While this result is not significantly

different to 2018 (64%), it equals Council’s highest level

of contact over the course of tracking.

• Residents aged 35 to 49 years had the most contact

with Council in 2019 (76%).

• Conversely, residents in Creswick Ward had the

least contact with Council (62%).


demographic or geographic cohorts compared to the

Council average.

The main methods of contacting Council are ‘in person’

(37%) and ‘by telephone’ (36%).

Overall, ‘newsletters sent via mail’ (27%) are

considered the best way for Council to inform residents

about news, information and upcoming events.

While mailed newsletters are considered the optimal

method by those aged over 50 years (30%), residents

under 50 years have a higher preference for

‘newsletters sent via email’ (30%) or social media

updates (25%), ahead of mailed newsletters (22%).

Customer service

Hepburn Shire Council’s customer service index of 68

is a one-point improvement on the result for 2018, and

is Council’s highest result achieved to date on this

measure.

Performance on this measure is rated slightly lower

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.


demographic and geographic cohorts compared to

the 2019 Council average.

Approximately three-in-10 residents (28%) rate

Council’s customer service as ‘very good’, with 38%

rating it as ‘good’. These results are consistent with

2018.

Customer service ratings based on the method used in

the most recent contact are highest for ‘in person’ and

‘by telephone’ (index scores of 73 and 71 respectively).

Notably, ratings ‘by email’ (index score of 58) are

significantly lower compared to 2018 (index score of

74).

Customer contact and service

8


Top performing areas

Tourism development is the area where Hepburn Shire

Council has performed most strongly overall (index

score of 69), performing significantly higher than the

State-wide and Small Rural group council averages

(index scores of 63 and 66 respectively).

Other top performing service areas for Hepburn Shire

Council are:

• Customer service (index score of 68)

• The appearance of public areas (index score of 67)

• Waste management (index score of 64).

It should be noted however that appearance of public

areas is rated significantly lower than the State-wide

and Small Rural group averages.

The most improved service area in 2019 is sealed local

roads (index score of 50), which increased four index

points compared to 2018. Sealed local roads is rated

similar to the Small Rural council average (index score

of 53), although performance on this measure is now at

its highest since tracking began.

Another area where Hepburn Shire Council has shown

improvement is community decisions (index score of

52). Based on a three-point improvement in 2019, this

area is also at its highest point to date.

Areas for improvement

There were no significant declines in ratings for

Hepburn Shire Council in 2019. Areas for improvement

are those where performance ratings are low and also

significantly below the average rating for councils

State-wide and in the Small Rural group. An area that

stands out as in need of attention is slashing and weed

control. With an index score of 48, Council is rated

lowest in this service area.

• Performance ratings on slashing and weed control

are significantly lower than the average for councils

State-wide and for councils in the Small Rural group

(index scores of 56 and 55 respectively).

• With an importance index of 78, slashing and weed

control is considered one of the most important

council service areas by residents.

Consultation and engagement and lobbying (index

scores of 51) are other areas that stand out as in need

of Council attention. While performance ratings in these

areas did not change significantly in the past year,

Council performs significantly lower than the State-wide

and Small Rural group averages in these areas.

• Indeed, “community consultation” is mentioned as an

area where Council needs to improve its

performance, by 14% of residents.

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

• Community consultation and engagement

• Recreational facilities

• The appearance of public areas.

Looking at key service areas only, the appearance of

public areas has the strongest positive performance

index and a moderate to strong positive influence on

the overall performance rating. Currently, Hepburn

Shire Council is performing well in this area

(performance index of 67) and it should remain a focus.

Tourism development and waste management also

have high performance ratings, but a weaker influence

on perceptions of overall performance, so while they

should remain a focus, there is greater work to be done

elsewhere.

Hepburn Shire Council’s decisions made in the

community’s interest, community consultation and

engagement and recreational facilities have lower

(though still positive) performance ratings overall.

Continuing efforts in these areas has the capacity to lift

Hepburn Shire Council’s overall performance rating.

This is particularly true for community decisions as it

has the strongest influence on overall performance

perceptions.

Council’s roadside slashing and weed control, planning

and building permits and lobbying on behalf of the

community are among Council’s lowest performance

ratings (index scores of 51 and below), and are areas

with a moderate influence on overall performance

perceptions. Improved efforts on these services could

pay dividends in terms of overall performance.

In summary, good communication and

transparency with residents about decisions the

Council has made in the community’s interest

could help drive up overall opinion of the Council’s

performance. Improvements on community

consultation and engagement and recreational

facilities should also assist, as well as maintaining

the good work on the appearance of public areas.

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, Hepburn Shire

Council should focus on maintaining and improving

performance in the individual service areas that most

influence positive perceptions of overall performance:




• The appearance of public areas.

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 slashing and weed control (index score of

48), consultation and engagement and lobbying (both

with index scores of 51). These are some of Council’s

lowest rating measures, where it performs significantly

lower than the State-wide and Small Rural group

council averages.

Service areas where stated importance exceeds rated

performance by more than 15 points also warrant

attention. Key priorities include:

• Slashing and weed control (margin of 30 points)

• Planning and building permits (margin of 22 points)

• Waste management (margin of 17 points)

• Environmental sustainability (margin of 16 points).

More generally, consideration should also be given to

residents aged 50 to 64 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 18 to 34 years and Creswick Ward

residents, 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 sealed local roads and

community decisions 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.

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

Further areas of exploration


12

Summary of

findings

13

Summary of core measures

14

Index scores


61

6563

6260

58

6768

4343

43 37

46

5047 49

50

48

51

46

52

56

46

5250

43

49

47

5149

43

48

45

4952

44

49 49 47 49

48

5151

42

51

49

4951

48

47

52

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 MeasuresHepburn

2019

Hepburn

2018

Small

Rural

2019

State-

wide

2019

Highest

score

Lowest

score

Overall Performance 56 52 58 60Creswick

Ward

Aged 50-

64 years

Community Consultation

(Community consultation and

engagement)

51 50 56 56Aged 18-

34 years

Aged 50-

64 years

Advocacy

(Lobbying on behalf of the community)51 51 55 54

Aged 18-

34 years

Aged 50-

64 years

Making Community Decisions

(Decisions made in the interest of the

community)

52 49 55 55Creswick

Ward

Birch

Ward

Sealed Local Roads

(Condition of sealed local roads)50 46 53 56

Aged 65+

years

Aged 50-

64 years

Customer Service 68 67 70 71Aged 18-

34 years

Aged 50-

64 years

Overall Council Direction 52 47 53 53Birch

Ward

Aged 50-

64 years


15

Summary of key community satisfaction

16

Key measures summary results (%)


8

9

7

7

12

28

32

23

20

27

23

38

42

35

32

33

30

14

10

16

18

14

22

8

7

11

7

11

12

8

6

16

7

3

Overall Performance


Advocacy

Making Community Decisions

Sealed Local Roads

Customer Service

Very good Good Average Poor Very poor Can't say

18 66 14 3Overall Council Direction

Improved Stayed the same Deteriorated Can't say

78

72

81

75

68

72

Slashing & weed control

Planning & building permits

Waste management

Environmental sustainability

Enforcement of local laws

Recreational facilities

48

49

64

59

57

62

Individual service areas importance vs performance

17Net 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:

-30

-22

-17

-16

-11

-10

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 chart that follows:

• 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 chart is based on unweighted data, which

means the service performance indices in the

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

indices reported in charts and tables elsewhere in

this report.

Regression analysis explained

18


Influence on overall performance: key service areas

19The multiple regression analysis model above (reduced set of service areas) has an R-squared value of 0.598 and adjusted R-square value of

0.594, which means that 60% 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 = 133.78.

2019 regression analysis


81

78

75

72

72

72

70

68

61

Waste management






Business & community dev.


Tourism development

Individual service area importance

2019 individual service area importance (index scores)

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012


20Q1. 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

n/a

n/a

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 (%)

39

34

35

22

27

25

20

20

16

46

47

41

49

41

42

42

40

31

14

15

17

25

26

26

31

31

37

3

5

3

5

4

4

5

12

2

1

1

1

1

1

3

1

1

2

2

2

1

Waste management








Tourism development

Extremely important Very important Fairly important

Not that important Not at all important Can't say


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


Individual service area performance

2019 individual service area performance (index scores)


22

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

49

51

50

46

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

45

48

47

37

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

48

49

49

43

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

43

47

43

43

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

49

49

50

43

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

49

52

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

44

46

n/a

n/a

n/a

69

67

64

62

60

59

57

52

51

51

50

49

48

Tourism development


Waste management





Community decisions

Lobbying

Consultation & engagement

Sealed local roads



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



Individual service area performance

23

2019 individual service area performance (%)


20

17

20

14

7

10

9

12

7

10

9

5

7

42

44

37

36

37

31

28

23

27

23

23

24

20

22

29

24

31

31

34

33

30

33

28

35

28

32

6

6

14

11

10

9

9

22

14

24

16

17

18

2

3

4

3

2

5

6

12

11

13

11

10

7

8

1

1

5

11

11

16

7

2

6

17

16

Tourism development


Waste management





Sealed local roads

Community decisions


Consultation & engagement


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


24

• Tourism development • Consultation & engagement

• Lobbying

• Enforcement of local laws


• Appearance of public areas

• Waste management

• Planning permits

• Environmental sustainability

• Slashing & weed control

• Making community decisions

• Sealed local roads

Individual service area performance vs State-wide average

Individual service area performance vs group average

25


Significantly Higher than

Group Average

Significantly Lower than

Group Average

• Tourism development • Consultation & engagement

• Lobbying

• Enforcement of local laws


• Appearance of public areas

• Slashing & weed control

• Making community

decisions

15

1

3

2

18

4

2

n/a

10

6

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

Areas for improvement

26

2019 areas for improvement (%)- Top mentions only -


14

9

9

7

7

7

7

6

6

4


Town Planning/Permits/Red Tape

Medium Strips/Nature Strips

Public Areas - General Maintenance

Sealed Road Maintenance

Waste Management

Environmental Issues

Recreational/Sporting Facilities

Communication

Nothing

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q17. What does Hepburn Shire Council MOST need to do to improve its performance?


Note: Significant differences have not been applied to this chart.

A verbatim listing of responses to this question can be found in the accompanying dashboard.

DETAILED

FINDINGS

27

Overall

performance

28

55

59

56

51

53

59

52

52

52

52

49

47

51

59

58

51

41

45

49

46

44

47

39

47

50

59

57

50

47

62

51

51

51

51

51

47

49

60

59

48

47

51

48

48

48

48

46

47

55

61

n/a

52

48

56

50

50

50

48

47

45

48

60

n/a

45

51

54

50

49

48

50

50

49

n/a

60

n/a

42

50

53

49

47

44

n/a

n/a

43

Overall performance

2019 overall performance (index scores)

60

60p

58

58

57

57

56

56

56

55

54

53

Creswick Ward

State-wide

Small Rural

65+

35-49

18-34

Women

Hepburn

Men

Cameron Ward/HolcombeWard/Coliban Ward

Birch Ward

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 Hepburn 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?



Overall performance

30

Overall performance (%)


8

3

3

4

3

4

4

5

10

9

7

9

12

8

8

5

4

7

13

32

31

24

26

23

26

22

22

39

36

29

40

30

33

31

43

33

27

30

42

41

39

42

44

42

45

37

35

37

47

39

29

42

43

35

50

46

38

10

15

18

18

19

19

18

21

10

11

10

5

19

7

12

7

10

9

12

7

7

13

7

9

7

7

12

5

6

7

7

10

9

5

9

1

11

7

3

3

2

2

2

4

2

1

1

1

2019 Hepburn

2018 Hepburn

2017 Hepburn

2016 Hepburn

2015 Hepburn

2014 Hepburn

2013 Hepburn

2012 Hepburn

State-wide

Small Rural

Cameron/Holcombe/Coliban

Creswick Ward

Birch Ward

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 Hepburn 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

69

61 61 6163 63 64

69

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019


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


65

65

64

62

64

51

64

66

66

71

63

64

63

59

59

68

63

47

64

62

58

72

58

72

71

63

66

64

63

61

57

61

62

65

58

60

63

60

62

58

61

57

59

64

64

63

60

59

55

63

61

58

61

72

56

n/a

64

65

61

58

68

61

61

62

61

51

61

n/a

60

61

60

61

76

n/a

n/a

64

69

57

71

n/a

73

67

61

n/a


2019 contact with council (%)

76

74

72

71

69

69

68

66

66

65

63q

62

35-49

Birch Ward


Women

Hepburn

18-34

65+

Small Rural

Men

50-64

State-wide

Creswick Ward


33

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

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



84

66

73

70

69

62

69

67

66

73

66

62

70

62

57

69

69

58

52

58

62

48

56

60

57

61

55

69

69

63

56

60

63

58

61

59

61

61

62

70

70

62

59

62

66

66

64

60

65

61

69

72

n/a

64

60

63

66

64

61

60

58

68

62

71

n/a

62

61

65

68

71

65

64

70

n/a

n/a

71

n/a

57

59

61

63

62

n/a

57

Customer service rating

34

2019 customer service rating (index scores)


75

73

71

71

70

70

69

68

67

66

65

64

18-34

Birch Ward

Creswick Ward

State-wide

Small Rural

65+

Men

Hepburn

Women

35-49


50-64

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q5c. Thinking of the most recent contact, how would you rate Hepburn 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 (%)


28

27

18

18

24

22

27

24

33

31

26

32

31

28

28

38

19

27

31

38

38

37

35

31

36

34

29

36

37

40

34

41

38

38

31

48

30

41

14

19

18

24

23

16

18

21

17

17

14

14

15

15

14

3

13

24

13

8

9

12

12

11

12

9

12

7

8

8

11

4

10

6

7

13

8

5

8

6

15

10

10

9

11

12

6

6

12

3

5

6

11

7

6

11

9

3

1

1

2

2

4

1

2

1

1

1

6

4

2

3

14

1

2019 Hepburn

2018 Hepburn

2017 Hepburn

2016 Hepburn

2015 Hepburn

2014 Hepburn

2013 Hepburn

2012 Hepburn

State-wide

Small Rural

Cameron Ward/Holcombe…

Creswick Ward

Birch Ward

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+






Method of contact with council

2019 method of contact (%)

37

36

3737

16

21

1112

7

9

4

6

1 1

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 Hepburn Shire Council in any of the following ways?


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

71

71

66

67

74

46

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

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)

73*

73

71

63*

58

42*

By social media

In person

By telephone

Via website

By email

In writing

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012


37






*Caution: small sample size < n=30

Customer service rating by method of last contact

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

42

38

26

7

23

9

28

35

43

61

36

22

10

14

17

18

12

8

19

5

6

7

10

31

7

4

7

20

20

1

5

9

By social media*

In person

By telephone

Via website*

By email

In writing*



38





*Caution: small sample size < n=30

Communication

39

Communication summary

Overall preferred forms of

communication• Newsletter sent via mail (27%)

Preferred forms of communication

among over 50s• Newsletter sent via mail (30%)

Preferred forms of communication

among under 50s• Newsletter sent via email (30%)

Greatest change since

2018


40

• Advertising in a local newspaper (-7)

• Note: Social Media added for 2019

Best form of communication

2019 best form of communication (%)

32

27

2526

19

1213

15

43

21

13

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019


41Q13. If Hepburn Shire Council was going to get in touch with you to inform you about Council news and information and upcoming events,

which ONE of the following is the BEST way to communicate with you?


Council

Website

Text

MessageCouncil

Newsletter as

Local Paper Insert

Council

Newsletter

via Mail

Council

Newsletter

via Email

Advertising in

a Local

Newspaper

Social

Media

Best form of communication: under 50s

2019 under 50s best form of communication (%)

32

22

26

30

19

3

9

15

6

4

2

25

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019




Base: All respondents aged under 50. Councils asked state-wide: 31 Councils asked group: 7

Council

Website

Text

MessageCouncil

Newsletter as

Local Paper Insert

Council

Newsletter

via Mail

Council

Newsletter

via Email

Advertising in

a Local

Newspaper

Social

Media

2019 best form of communication: over 50s

2019 over 50s best form of communication (%)

32

30

24 24

1918

1615

32

22

6

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019




Base: All respondents aged over 50. Councils asked state-wide: 31 Councils asked group: 7

Council

Website

Text

MessageCouncil

Newsletter as

Local Paper Insert

Council

Newsletter

via Mail

Council

Newsletter

via Email

Advertising in

a Local

Newspaper

Social

Media

Council direction

44

Council direction summary


45

• Aged 50-64 yearsLeast satisfied with Council

direction

Council direction• 66% stayed about the same, up 6 points on 2018

• 18% improved, up 4 points on 2018

• 14% deteriorated, down 6 points on 2018

Most satisfied with Council

direction• Birch Ward residents

Overall council direction last 12 months

46

2019 overall direction (index scores)


47

52

43

52

52

50

45

47

48

48

43

45

46

44

49

53

53

52

43

48

52

48

45

49

52

47

54

51

51

50

52

51

50

57

49

45

46

52

47

49

53

53

46

49

51

50

50

47

46

45

53

53

53

n/a

49

49

50

50

48

48

53

52

49

48

53

n/a

52

51

49

51

52

50

n/a

47

41

n/a

52

n/a

40

42

45

40

n/a

39

57

55

54

54

53

53

53

52

51

51

50

47

Birch Ward

35-49

65+

Creswick Ward

State-wide

Small Rural

Men

Hepburn

Women

18-34


50-64

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

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



Overall council direction last 12 months

2019 overall council direction (%)

18

14

14

15

18

16

16

12

19

20

15

21

23

20

16

14

20

13

22

66

60

62

64

57

59

63

57

62

60

67

64

63

63

68

72

65

64

64

14

20

19

14

20

18

15

27

14

15

15

13

10

15

13

12

11

19

13

3

6

5

6

5

7

6

5

5

4

3

1

5

3

3

2

3

4

2

2019 Hepburn

2018 Hepburn

2017 Hepburn

2016 Hepburn

2015 Hepburn

2014 Hepburn

2013 Hepburn

2012 Hepburn

State-wide

Small Rural

Cameron Ward/Holcombe…

Creswick Ward

Birch Ward

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+

Improved Stayed the same Deteriorated Can't say


47Q6. Over the last 12 months, what is your view of the direction of Hepburn Shire Council’s overall performance?


Individual

service areas

48

Community consultation and engagement performance

49

2019 Consultation and engagement performance (index scores)


56

54

55

50

59

50

46

48

54

45

50

46

47

55

55

49

54

47

50

47

43

42

46

49

60

55

54

50

50

49

49

48

45

50

49

47

39

56

56

43

42

43

43

43

46

43

43

43

55

n/a

57

51

53

50

51

49

47

47

48

47

57

n/a

57

55

50

52

48

53

56

52

49

48

51

n/a

57

48

n/a

46

42

n/a

51

n/a

44

41

59p

56p

56p

53

53

51

50

50

49

48

48

47

18-34

Small Rural

State-wide

Women

Creswick Ward

Hepburn

65+


35-49

Birch Ward

Men

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

50

2019 Consultation and engagement performance (%)


9

5

6

6

3

4

5

5

9

10

8

10

10

9

8

7

7

10

9

23

25

18

23

18

25

26

22

30

31

26

21

16

22

24

36

16

19

24

35

35

35

31

33

34

37

37

31

31

32

42

30

31

39

38

45

31

30

16

18

20

20

25

19

18

19

15

15

17

10

21

19

13

7

14

21

17

11

10

10

9

13

7

6

14

6

7

12

11

10

14

9

5

10

15

13

6

7

10

9

8

11

9

4

9

7

4

6

13

5

7

7

7

4

7

2019 Hepburn

2018 Hepburn

2017 Hepburn

2016 Hepburn

2015 Hepburn

2014 Hepburn

2013 Hepburn

2012 Hepburn

State-wide

Small Rural


Creswick Ward

Birch Ward

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

51

2019 Lobbying performance (index scores)


57

53

54

55

48

46

51

53

51

51

50

46

50

55

54

53

48

43

48

47

44

47

51

45

59

54

53

51

49

51

49

50

41

47

50

49

46

56

55

48

47

46

47

46

47

46

49

45

51

n/a

56

52

49

47

49

48

48

46

50

46

53

n/a

55

47

50

50

49

48

50

50

45

49

48

n/a

55

n/a

47

n/a

44

41

48

n/a

38

44

62p

55p

54p

53

51

51

51

50

49

49

49

48

18-34

Small Rural

State-wide

Creswick Ward

Women

Birch Ward

Hepburn

Men

35-49


65+

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

52

2019 Lobbying performance (%)


7

4

4

3

3

3

3

4

6

7

5

8

11

6

8

15

3

7

6

20

25

18

23

16

18

20

11

25

26

19

21

19

25

14

24

21

18

17

32

30

34

29

36

36

37

41

31

31

33

34

23

33

31

30

36

29

32

18

14

14

15

15

15

16

18

13

14

19

16

22

19

18

14

16

27

15

7

8

9

9

9

6

6

10

5

5

7

5

7

9

5

7

7

9

16

19

22

21

20

23

18

16

20

17

17

15

18

8

24

17

16

11

21

2019 Hepburn

2018 Hepburn

2017 Hepburn

2016 Hepburn

2015 Hepburn

2014 Hepburn

2013 Hepburn

2012 Hepburn

State-wide

Small Rural


Creswick Ward

Birch Ward

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

53

2019 Community decisions made performance (index scores)


55

51

52

54

56

48

46

49

50

49

46

44

51

43

55

54

42

48

48

45

42

45

45

36

50

40

53

54

63

46

47

48

50

47

47

48

45

43

56

55

43

45

44

43

41

44

42

39

53

46

n/a

57

57

48

50

49

49

47

44

45

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

59p

55

55p

55p

54

52

52

52

51

49

47

45

Creswick Ward

35-49

Small Rural

State-wide

18-34

Women

65+

Hepburn

Men


50-64

Birch Ward

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

54

2019 Community decisions made performance (%)


7

5

4

5

2

3

7

7

6

9

5

9

5

2

9

7

9

27

25

19

23

19

24

30

31

22

39

22

27

28

43

22

22

28

33

35

37

33

36

37

33

33

35

30

35

29

38

34

39

32

30

14

18

19

17

21

19

14

14

15

12

15

14

14

5

12

20

17

11

10

13

12

14

8

7

7

12

5

17

13

8

14

6

12

11

7

8

8

10

8

9

10

7

9

5

7

8

6

2

13

7

6

2019 Hepburn

2018 Hepburn

2017 Hepburn

2016 Hepburn

2015 Hepburn

2014 Hepburn

State-wide

Small Rural


Creswick Ward

Birch Ward

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

55

2019 Sealed local roads performance (index scores)


53

47

49

47

46

47

43

46

46

49

43

44

53

41

50

41

38

38

34

37

35

35

29

36

54

44

52

42

44

42

39

43

42

52

45

40

55

49

52

45

42

42

40

43

44

35

39

43

55

45

n/a

48

43

40

40

43

43

47

40

40

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

56p

54

53

51

51

50

50

50

50

50

47

45

State-wide

65+

Small Rural

Creswick Ward

Women


35-49

Hepburn

Men

18-34

Birch Ward

50-64

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

56

2019 Sealed local roads performance (%)


12

5

3

4

4

5

13

9

13

11

13

13

12

19

9

9

14

23

23

14

21

24

17

33

31

24

24

16

23

23

24

26

19

24

30

34

33

33

28

36

28

30

30

31

27

30

29

5

32

34

36

22

21

25

24

25

26

16

18

19

25

31

18

27

41

20

22

15

12

15

24

17

18

15

10

11

14

8

13

16

8

11

11

17

10

1

2

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

2

2019 Hepburn

2018 Hepburn

2017 Hepburn

2016 Hepburn

2015 Hepburn

2014 Hepburn

State-wide

Small Rural


Creswick Ward

Birch Ward

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?


Enforcement of local laws importance

57

2019 Law enforcement importance (index scores)


n/a

71

n/a

n/a

n/a

66

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

71

n/a

n/a

n/a

67

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

71

n/a

n/a

n/a

68

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

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

72

71p

70

70

68

68

68

68

68

67

67

66

Creswick Ward

State-wide

Women

65+

Hepburn

Small Rural

18-34

50-64

Birch Ward

35-49


Men

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

58

2019 Law enforcement importance (%)


20

27

22

18

24

20

17

24

24

22

21

17

40

38

39

39

41

43

41

40

33

32

39

51

31

26

29

33

29

27

33

29

34

36

31

26

5

6

7

7

2

8

6

5

5

4

9

3

1

2

2

1

1

2

2

1

2

3

1

2

1

1

1

3

2

1

2

3

2

2019 Hepburn

State-wide

Small Rural


Creswick Ward

Birch Ward

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

59

2019 Law enforcement performance (index scores)


64

63

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

64

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

66

66

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

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

64p

63p

59

59

59

58

58

57

56

56

55

55

State-wide

Small Rural

Creswick Ward

35-49

65+

Women

Birch Ward

Hepburn

Men


18-34

50-64

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

60

2019 Law enforcement performance (%)


9

12

12

6

13

11

8

10

15

6

5

11

28

38

37

28

27

29

32

23

21

36

27

26

33

26

28

32

34

34

30

35

31

31

36

32

9

8

7

11

8

6

10

9

12

6

11

9

6

3

4

5

6

8

8

4

10

6

4

5

16

12

12

19

11

11

12

19

12

16

16

17

2019 Hepburn

State-wide

Small Rural


Creswick Ward

Birch Ward

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

61

2019 Recreational facilities importance (index scores)


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

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

76

74

74

72

72

72

72

72

71

70

70

69

35-49

Creswick Ward

Women

65+

Hepburn

State-wide

Small Rural


50-64

Men

Birch Ward

18-34

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

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



Recreational facilities importance

62

2019 Recreational facilities importance (%)


27

23

24

27

29

18

24

29

24

38

24

23

41

46

44

40

41

47

39

43

34

33

42

49

26

26

27

25

27

30

31

22

38

25

27

21

5

4

4

6

3

5

5

5

5

4

5

4

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

2019 Hepburn

State-wide

Small Rural


Creswick Ward

Birch Ward

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

63

2019 Recreational facilities performance (index scores)


69

n/a

69

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

70

n/a

69

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

69

n/a

68

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

70

n/a

70

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

71

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

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

70p

69p

68p

66

66

63

62

61

60

59

58

56

State-wide

Creswick Ward

Small Rural

18-34

65+

Women

Hepburn

Men


50-64

35-49

Birch Ward

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

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



Recreational facilities performance

64

2019 Recreational facilities performance (%)


14

23

20

11

22

8

13

15

12

9

15

18

36

44

42

33

44

28

36

36

52

32

28

37

31

21

23

35

21

39

34

29

21

36

36

29

11

6

8

13

6

15

10

12

2

16

15

9

3

2

3

3

4

3

4

2

7

1

3

2

5

4

4

5

3

8

3

7

5

6

3

6

2019 Hepburn

State-wide

Small Rural


Creswick Ward

Birch Ward

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

65

2019 Public areas importance (index scores)


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

74

n/a

74

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

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

74

74

74

74

73

73

73

72

71

71

71

70

Birch Ward

Creswick Ward

65+

Small Rural

35-49

State-wide

Women

Hepburn

Men

50-64


18-34

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

66

2019 Public areas importance (%)


22

24

25

21

24

24

19

25

15

28

27

18

49

47

47

47

51

50

51

47

54

46

33

61

25

25

25

27

24

22

24

26

29

19

36

19

3

3

3

5

3

4

2

2

6

3

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2019 Hepburn

State-wide

Small Rural


Creswick Ward

Birch Ward

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

67

2019 Public areas performance (index scores)


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

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

73p

72p

70

70

68

67

67

67

67

66

64

63

Small Rural

State-wide

Creswick Ward

65+

35-49

Men

Hepburn

18-34

Women


50-64

Birch Ward

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

68

2019 Public areas performance (%)


17

26

28

14

24

13

18

16

17

16

16

19

44

45

44

45

45

41

47

41

50

43

38

48

29

20

20

33

22

31

25

34

22

33

34

26

6

5

5

4

4

15

5

6

7

1

10

4

3

2

2

3

4

4

1

5

3

2

2

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

3

2

2019 Hepburn

State-wide

Small Rural


Creswick Ward

Birch Ward

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?


Waste management importance

69

2019 Waste management importance (index scores)


n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

81

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

78

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

79

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

76

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

80

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

79

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

79

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

77

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

84

82

82

82

81

81

81

80

80

79q

79

79

35-49

Women

Birch Ward

18-34

State-wide


Hepburn

65+

Creswick Ward

Small Rural

Men

50-64

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

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



Waste management importance

70

2019 Waste management importance (%)


39

41

37

41

34

43

33

45

41

48

33

37

46

44

46

43

51

44

52

40

42

39

51

48

14

13

15

15

13

11

13

15

15

13

15

14

1

1

2

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

2019 Hepburn

State-wide

Small Rural


Creswick Ward

Birch Ward

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

71

2019 Waste management performance (index scores)


n/a

70

n/a

69

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

71

n/a

70

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

70

n/a

69

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

72

n/a

71

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

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

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

69

68p

67

66

64

64

64

62

62

62

60

58

65+

State-wide

Men

Small Rural


Creswick Ward

Hepburn

50-64

Birch Ward

35-49

Women

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

72

2019 Waste management performance (%)


20

23

20

18

21

23

24

16

10

17

16

29

37

42

41

41

32

33

35

39

43

35

39

34

24

21

22

21

28

23

28

20

23

27

26

20

14

8

9

14

15

12

9

18

20

19

12

9

4

4

4

4

3

9

3

6

5

2

6

5

1

2

3

2

1

1

2

2

2

2019 Hepburn

State-wide

Small Rural


Creswick Ward

Birch Ward

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


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


Planning and building permits importance

73

2019 Planning and building permits importance (index scores)


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

72

n/a

n/a

68

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

71

n/a

n/a

71

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

71

n/a

n/a

70

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

n/a

n/a

71

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

75

74

73

73

72

72

71

71

70

70

68

63q

65+

50-64

Women


Hepburn

Creswick Ward

State-wide

35-49

Men

Small Rural

Birch Ward

18-34

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Planning and building permits’ be as a responsibility for Council?



Planning and building permits importance

74

2019 Planning and building permits importance (%)


25

26

25

26

26

22

22

28

14

33

27

24

42

39

39

42

45

33

43

40

31

30

46

51

26

25

27

25

21

38

26

25

48

28

20

18

4

6

6

4

5

6

6

3

5

6

5

3

1

1

2

1

3

1

1

2

3

1

2

3

2

2

1

1

1

3

2

4

2019 Hepburn

State-wide

Small Rural


Creswick Ward

Birch Ward

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+



Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Planning and building permits’ be as a responsibility for Council?


Planning and building permits performance

75

2019 Planning and building permits performance (index scores)


n/a

52

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

51

n/a

n/a

51

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

51

n/a

n/a

50

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

50

n/a

n/a

54

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

53

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

55

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

52

52p

51

51

50

50

50

49

48

48

48

47

18-34

State-wide

Creswick Ward

Men

35-49

Birch Ward

65+

Hepburn


Women

Small Rural

50-64

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Planning and building permits’ over the last 12 months?



Planning and building permits performance

76

2019 Planning and building permits performance (%)


5

6

5

5

5

6

6

5

2

7

6

5

24

24

20

22

26

28

28

19

34

17

21

25

28

26

28

30

30

17

29

27

24

35

26

27

17

13

16

16

16

20

15

18

16

20

14

16

10

9

11

11

8

10

12

8

7

6

15

10

17

22

20

17

16

18

9

23

17

15

17

16

2019 Hepburn

State-wide

Small Rural


Creswick Ward

Birch Ward

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Planning and building permits’ over the last 12 months?


Environmental sustainability importance

77

2019 Environmental sustainability importance (index scores)


n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

73

70

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

72

70

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

73

74

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

73

77

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

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

80p

80

79

78

77

76

75

74

72q

71

70q

69q

Women

Birch Ward

35-49


50-64

18-34

Hepburn

State-wide

Small Rural

65+

Men

Creswick Ward

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

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



Environmental sustainability importance

78

2019 Environmental sustainability importance (%)


35

33

30

40

22

40

26

42

39

36

39

28

41

39

39

37

46

46

44

38

35

48

37

43

17

21

22

16

23

6

17

16

19

13

19

17

5

5

5

4

6

5

7

2

5

3

5

6

2

2

2

2

3

2

4

2

6

1

1

1

1

2

1

2

2019 Hepburn

State-wide

Small Rural


Creswick Ward

Birch Ward

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

79

2019 Environmental sustainability performance (index scores)


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

n/a

64p

62p

62

61

61

59

59

59

58

57

57

56

Creswick Ward

State-wide

65+

35-49

Men

Hepburn

Birch Ward

Small Rural

Women

18-34


50-64

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

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



Environmental sustainability performance

80

2019 Environmental sustainability performance (%)


10

11

9

8

11

20

11

10

10

9

10

12

31

35

31

30

38

20

34

28

30

36

27

32

34

31

36

35

32

33

36

32

30

33

34

36

9

9

9

8

7

20

9

10

14

7

10

8

5

3

4

7

1

3

2

6

5

3

7

3

11

12

11

12

11

4

8

13

10

12

12

9

2019 Hepburn

State-wide

Small Rural


Creswick Ward

Birch Ward

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


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


Roadside slashing and weed control importance

81

2019 Roadside slashing and weed control importance (index scores)


n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

76

73

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

76

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

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

77

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

n/a

81

80

80

79

79

79

78

78

76

74q

71q

69q

Creswick Ward

65+

35-49


50-64

Women

Hepburn

Men

Small Rural

State-wide

18-34

Birch Ward

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Roadside slashing and weed control’ be as a responsibility for Council?



Roadside slashing and weed control importance

82

2019 Roadside slashing and weed control importance (%)


34

30

31

35

36

25

32

36

29

38

34

34

47

41

45

48

51

35

49

45

33

45

51

53

15

24

21

13

13

32

16

15

31

16

9

12

3

4

3

3

8

3

3

7

1

5

1

1

1

1

2019 Hepburn

State-wide

Small Rural


Creswick Ward

Birch Ward

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+



Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Roadside slashing and weed control’ be as a responsibility for Council?


Roadside slashing and weed control performance

83

2019 Roadside slashing and weed control performance (index scores)


55

54

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

53

51

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

56

51

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

55

52

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

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

n/a

56p

55p

53

51

51

49

49

48

48

48

46

45

State-wide

Small Rural

Creswick Ward

35-49

Birch Ward

Men

18-34

Hepburn

65+

Women

50-64


2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Roadside slashing and weed control’ over the last 12 months?



Roadside slashing and weed control performance

84

2019 Roadside slashing and weed control performance (%)


10

12

11

10

13

3

9

11

12

9

7

12

23

34

31

18

28

36

27

20

21

31

22

20

28

28

31

28

30

26

31

26

21

26

34

30

24

15

16

30

16

16

18

29

32

23

20

23

13

9

9

13

12

12

15

11

9

10

15

14

2

2

2

2

8

3

5

2

1

1

2019 Hepburn

State-wide

Small Rural


Creswick Ward

Birch Ward

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Roadside slashing and weed control’ over the last 12 months?


Business and community development importance

85

2019 Business/community development importance (index scores)


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

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

71

69

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

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

75p

74

72

71

70

70

69

69

69

68

68

65q

35-49

Birch Ward

18-34

Women

Hepburn

Small Rural

State-wide


Creswick Ward

50-64

Men

65+

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

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



Business and community development importance

86

2019 Business/community development importance (%)


20

21

20

18

22

24

19

21

24

25

20

14

42

41

42

42

38

51

39

45

35

51

40

41

31

31

31

32

32

24

38

24

35

22

31

34

4

5

4

5

4

2

3

6

2

4

8

1

1

1

3

1

1

2

1

2

1

2

4

1

1

4

5

2

2

2

2019 Hepburn

State-wide

Small Rural


Creswick Ward

Birch Ward

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+



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


Business and community development performance

87

2019 Business/community development performance (index scores)


n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

60

n/a

61

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

60

n/a

65

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

60

n/a

62

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

60

n/a

61

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

66p

65p

61

61

61

60

60

60

59

58

58

56

18-34

Creswick Ward

Women

65+

State-wide

Hepburn

Small Rural

Men


50-64

35-49

Birch Ward

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

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



Business and community development performance

88

2019 Business/community development performance (%)


7

8

8

5

13

5

7

7

7

2

8

11

37

35

35

37

39

33

40

35

55

40

31

31

31

31

31

33

30

26

30

32

17

35

35

33

10

9

10

10

8

17

12

9

11

10

11

9

2

3

3

3

2

3

3

2

3

4

2

11

13

13

12

8

17

7

15

10

10

11

13

2019 Hepburn

State-wide

Small Rural


Creswick Ward

Birch Ward

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


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


Tourism development importance

89

2019 Tourism development importance (index scores)


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

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

63

n/a

72

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

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

64

63

63

62

62

62

61

61

60

60

59

59

Small Rural

65+

Birch Ward

Creswick Ward

35-49

Women

Hepburn


Men

50-64

State-wide

18-34

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

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



Tourism development importance

90

2019 Tourism development importance (%)


16

14

18

19

12

16

14

18

20

17

12

17

31

31

36

27

38

34

33

29

22

27

34

36

37

36

32

36

39

36

36

37

40

39

39

31

12

13

9

14

8

11

12

12

15

12

10

12

3

4

3

4

3

3

4

3

5

2

4

3

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

3

1

2019 Hepburn

State-wide

Small Rural


Creswick Ward

Birch Ward

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+



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


Tourism development performance

91

2019 Tourism development performance (index scores)


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

63

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

64

63

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

63

63

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

n/a

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

72

69

69

69

69

69

68

68

68

66q

63q

18-34

Creswick Ward

Men

Hepburn

50-64

Women

35-49


Birch Ward

65+

Small Rural

State-wide

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Tourism development’ over the last 12 months?



Tourism development performance

92

2019 Tourism development performance (%)


20

13

18

19

23

18

23

17

19

16

25

19

42

36

39

41

44

39

39

44

58

45

35

38

22

28

26

25

15

27

20

24

19

20

22

25

6

10

8

6

6

9

6

6

4

10

7

2

3

3

2

3

4

1

2

3

1

3

8

10

7

6

10

7

8

7

2

12

7

9

2019 Hepburn

State-wide

Small Rural


Creswick Ward

Birch Ward

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Tourism development’ over the last 12 months?


Detailed

demographics

93

Gender and age profile

94

2019 gender


2019 age

Men48%

Women52%

Hepburn

8%9%

23%

28%

33%

Hepburn

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

95

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


96

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

Hepburn Shire

Council 400 400 +/-4.8

Men197 194 +/-6.9

Women203 206 +/-6.8

Cameron

Ward/Holcombe

Ward/Coliban Ward222 222 +/-6.5

Creswick Ward126 125 +/-8.7

Birch Ward52 54 +/-13.7

18-34 years32 66 +/-17.6

35-49 years69 90 +/-11.9

50-64 years137 112 +/-8.4

65+ years162 132 +/-7.7

The sample size for the 2019 State-wide Local

Government Community Satisfaction Survey for

Hepburn 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 12,700 people aged 18 years

or over for Hepburn Shire Council, according to ABS

estimates.

Appendix A:

Margins of error


97

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)


98

54

57

58

60

67

66

50-64

35-49

Small Rural

Hepburn

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


99

Appendix B:

Further project

information

100

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

101


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

Hepburn 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 Hepburn Shire Council.

Survey sample matched to the demographic profile of

Hepburn 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 Hepburn Shire

Council, particularly younger people.

A total of n=400 completed interviews were achieved in

Hepburn Shire Council. Survey fieldwork was

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

2019.

Appendix B:

Survey methodology and sampling

102


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

Hepburn 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 Hepburn 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


103

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 Hepburn 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:


104


Core, optional and tailored questions

Over and above necessary geographic and

demographic questions required to ensure sample

representativeness, a base set of questions for the

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)


(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:



105

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:



106

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


107

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]

hepburn shire council · ‘newsletters sent via email’ (30%) or social media updates (25%),...

Documents