mansfield shire council · 2019. 8. 14. · emergency & disaster mngt bottom 3 performing areas 44...

2019 Local

Government

Community

Satisfaction Survey

Mansfield Shire

CouncilCoordinated by the Department of

Environment, Land, Water and Planning

on behalf of Victorian councils

Contents

J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Mansfield Shire Council

2

Background and objectives 4

Key findings and recommendations 6

Summary of findings 13

Detailed findings 25

Overall performance 26

Customer service 29

Council direction 34

Individual service areas 39

Community consultation and engagement 40

Lobbying on behalf of the community 42

Decisions made in the interest of the

community

44

Condition of sealed local roads 46

Informing the community 48

Condition of local streets and footpaths 50

Parking facilities 52

Enforcement of local laws 54

Family support services 56

Elderly support services 58

Recreational facilities 60

Appearance of public areas 62

Art centres and libraries 64

Waste management 66

Town planning 68

Planning and building permits 70

Emergency and disaster management 72

Planning for population growth 74

Maintenance of unsealed roads 76

Business and community development 78

Tourism development 80

Detailed demographics 82

Appendix A: Index scores, margins of error

and significant differences

84

Appendix B: Further project information 89

77

74

70

Mansfield 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

Overall Council performance

Results shown are index scores out of 100.

6051 58

Mansfield Small Rural State-wide

Appearance of public areas

Art centres & libraries

Emergency & disaster mngt

Bottom 3 performing areas

44

41

36

Town planning policy

Unsealed roads

Planning & building permits

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 51 for

Mansfield Shire Council represents a seven-point

decline on the 2018 result. Perceptions of overall

performance, as well as performance in a majority of

service areas, declined significantly in the past year.

• Council’s overall performance rating is at its lowest

point since 2012 and 15 points lower than its peak

index score of 66 achieved in 2014.

Mansfield Shire Council’s overall performance is rated

statistically significantly lower (at the 95% confidence

interval) than the average rating for councils State-wide

and in the Small Rural group (index scores of 60 and

58 respectively).

• All demographic groups declined in their impressions

of Council’s overall performance since 2018.

• Residents aged 50 to 64 years rate Council lowest

(index score of 47, down nine points from 2018),

though results are not significantly different from the

council average. Almost a third (31%) of this cohort

rate Council’s overall performance as ‘very poor’ or

‘poor’.

Overall, one-third of residents (34%) rate Council’s

overall performance as ‘very good’ or ‘good’, compared

to 25% who rate it as ‘very poor’ or ‘poor’. A further

39% sit mid-scale, providing an ‘average’ rating.

Overall performance

7


6051 58

Mansfield Small Rural State-wide

Overall Council performance

Results shown are index scores out of 100.

Contact with council

Around three-quarters (73%) of Mansfield Shire Council

residents have had contact with Council in the last 12

months. This is not significantly different to 2018 (70%).

• Residents aged 35 to 64 years had the most contact

with council in 2019 (81% among residents aged 50

to 64 years and 82% among residents aged 35 to 49

years).

• Conversely, residents aged 65+ years had the least

contact with council (63%), and this was significantly

lower than the council average.

• Mansfield area (75%) residents were more likely to

contact council than residents of Other areas (67%).

Customer service

Perceptions of customer service (index score of 61),

like perceptions on many other service areas, declined

significantly – by 12 index points – from the 2018 result.

As a result of this decline, Council’s customer service

rating is now significantly lower than the State-wide and

Small Rural group averages (index scores of 71 and 70

respectively). By contrast, Council’s 2018 customer

service rating of 73 was higher than State-wide and

group averages (index scores of 70 and 69

respectively).

Just under one-quarter of residents (23%) rate

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

one-third (34%) rating it as ‘good’. ‘Very good’ ratings

declined by 11 points from 2018. At the same time,

‘very poor’ or ‘poor’ ratings doubled (25% in 2019, up

from 12% in 2018).

• All groups declined in their perceptions of customer

service in the past year. The most significant decline

occurred among residents aged 18 to 34 years

(index score of 45, down 23 points from 2018), who

also rate customer service significantly lower than

the Council average.

Customer contact and service

8


Top performing areas

The top three performing service areas for Mansfield

Shire Council are:

• Appearance of public areas (index score of 77)

• Art centres and libraries (index score of 74)

• Emergency and disaster management (index score

of 70)

Ratings of these top performing service areas are in

line with 2018 results. In addition, Council performs

significantly higher than the State-wide and Small Rural

group averages for the appearance of public areas.

The most improved measure in 2019 is sealed local

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

points on 2018. Performance in this area has

rebounded slightly after declining by fourteen index

points between 2017 and 2018 (index score of 59 in

2017 and 45 in 2018). Nonetheless, performance is still

ten points lower than Council’s 2015 peak index rating

of 60.

Areas for improvement

Council experienced significant ratings declines across

a majority of service areas in 2019 and many of these

continued declines from 2018.

A ten-point drop on planning and building permits

(index score of 36) makes it Council’s lowest rated

service area. Council’s performance on this measure is

significantly lower than the average ratings for councils

State-wide and the Small Rural group (index scores of

52 and 48 respectively).

• Performance in this area has declined steadily since

2014 (from a peak index score of 55).

• Ratings amongst all groups declined, the largest

being among residents aged 18 to 34 years (index

score of 35, down 21 points from 2018) and those

outside the Mansfield area (35, down 15 points).

Unsealed roads (index score of 41, up one point on

2018) and town planning policy (index 44, down seven

points) were next lowest rated. The latter rates

significantly lower than the State-wide and Small Rural

group averages (55 and 48 respectively).

In addition, more than one in ten residents volunteer

community consultation and financial management

(14% each) as areas in need of improvement.

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

• Town planning

• Lobbying on behalf of the community.

Other service areas with a moderately strong influence

on overall performance include:

• Informing the community

• Planning and building permits.

Looking at key service areas only, the appearance of

public areas and recreational facilities have the

strongest positive performance indices. However, each

has only a moderately positive influence on the overall

performance rating, so while they should remain a

focus of Councils’ efforts there is greater work to be

done elsewhere.

Mansfield Shire Council’s lobbying on behalf of the

community and how well it informs the community have

lower (though still positive) performance ratings overall,

of 51 and 55 respectively. Continuing efforts in these

areas has the capacity to lift Council’s overall

performance rating as they have a moderate to strong

influence on overall performance perceptions.

Mansfield Shire Council’s decisions made in the

interest of the community, town planning and planning

and building permits, however, have index scores

below 50. With strong influence on overall performance

ratings, improvement in these areas could lift overall

opinion of Council performance.

Improvement on decisions made in the interest of

the community has the greatest potential to drive

up overall opinion of Council’s performance.

Influences on perceptions of overall performance


10

Council experienced significant ratings’ declines

across a majority of service areas in 2019 and as a

result, performs lower than State-wide and Small

Rural group average ratings on a number of

measures.

In terms of priorities for the year ahead, Mansfield Shire

Council should focus on maintaining and improving

performance in the individual service areas that most

influence perception of overall performance:

• Decisions made in the interest of the community

• Town planning

• Lobbying


• Planning and building permits.

In the areas of planning and building permits (index

score of 36) and town planning policy (index score of

44) specifically, performance is low and significantly

lower than State-wide and Small Rural group averages.

Council experienced significant declines in both areas

in the past year.

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.

On the positive side, Council should look to build upon

its improved performance on sealed local roads.

Hypothetical Trade-Off

Despite declining ratings for service performance, a

plurality of residents (47%) would prefer service cuts to

rate rises to improve service quality (32%). A further

20% ‘can’t say’ what Council should do about council

rates.

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


7069

74

7071

70

73

61

58

60

57 59

4550

59

63

66

6061

64

58

51

54

59 59

54

5961

58

52

59

53

56

60

54

47

5659

58

58

55

59

58

51

47

55

61

49

56

5549

40

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 MeasuresMansfield

2019

Mansfield

2018

Small

Rural

2019

State-

wide

2019

Highest

score

Lowest

score

Overall Performance 51 58 58 60Aged 18-

34 years

Aged 50-

64 years

Community Consultation

(Community consultation and

engagement)

52 58 56 56

Aged 35-

49 years,

Women

Aged 50-

64 years,

Men

Advocacy

(Lobbying on behalf of the community)51 58 55 54 Women

Aged 35-

49 years

Making Community Decisions

(Decisions made in the interest of the

community)

47 54 55 55Aged 18-

34 years

Aged 35-

49 years

Sealed Local Roads

(Condition of sealed local roads)50 45 53 56

Aged 65+

years

Aged 50-

64 years

Customer Service 61 73 70 71Aged 50-

64 years

Aged 18-

34 years

Overall Council Direction 40 49 53 53Aged 18-

34 years

Aged 50-

64 years


15

Summary of key community satisfaction

16

Key measures summary results (%)


6

8

5

5

6

23

28

28

23

23

31

34

39

31

30

35

30

18

16

14

16

17

17

14

9

11

7

13

14

11

1

7

19

8

1

1

Overall Performance


Advocacy

Making Community Decisions

Sealed Local Roads

Customer Service

Very good Good Average Poor Very poor Can't say

11 57 29 3Overall Council Direction

Improved Stayed the same Deteriorated Can't say

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

17


Influence on overall performance: all service areas

18

The multiple regression analysis model above (all service areas) has an R-squared value of 0.722 and adjusted R-square value of 0.707,

which means that 72% 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 = 46.83. 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)


Influence on overall performance: key service areas

19The multiple regression analysis model above (reduced set of service areas) has an R-squared value of 0.720 and adjusted R-square value of

0.712, which means that 72% 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 = 83.01.

2019 regression analysis (key service areas)


Individual service area performance

2019 individual service area performance (index scores)


20

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

77

73

73

73

72

72

71

64

64

61

62

52

58

58

45

54

54

n/a

51

40

46

81

75

74

77

73

74

75

67

70

65

63

58

61

59

59

54

60

n/a

54

50

45

77

n/a

73

74

72

69

73

66

68

62

63

59

59

55

57

55

56

n/a

53

48

48

81

n/a

n/a

76

73

72

75

65

75

63

n/a

63

54

58

60

56

53

n/a

55

49

50

81

n/a

n/a

74

72

74

75

67

75

65

n/a

63

59

58

58

57

59

n/a

57

47

55

78

n/a

n/a

75

70

70

n/a

67

75

n/a

n/a

59

59

59

n/a

58

n/a

n/a

55

45

n/a

76

n/a

n/a

71

67

67

n/a

65

73

n/a

n/a

57

54

56

n/a

53

n/a

n/a

48

43

n/a

77

74

70

69

69

68

67

60

60

59

55

53

52

51

50

49

47

45

44

41

36




Elderly support services

Family support services

Recreational facilities

Tourism development

Enforcement of local laws

Waste management

Business & community dev.

Informing the community

Local streets & footpaths

Consultation & engagement

Lobbying

Sealed local roads

Parking facilities

Community decisions

Population growth


Unsealed roads


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

Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 63 Councils asked group: 18

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

Individual service area performance

21

2019 individual service area performance (%)


34

24

18

20

20

16

13

14

9

9

9

8

6

8

6

5

5

6

3

5

2

49

45

47

43

40

39

40

32

36

34

32

30

31

28

28

23

23

22

20

19

13

13

19

22

16

24

18

22

17

28

31

31

32

30

31

32

30

35

26

28

29

24

3

3

8

6

9

3

17

4

8

16

10

15

17

14

19

16

17

23

18

22

22

2

1

2

4

4

3

6

2

5

9

4

11

14

11

13

7

13

14

15

20

20

8

2

11

3

20

1

31

13

2

14

4

1

7

1

19

8

10

16

5

18



Recreational facilities


Tourism development

Elderly support services

Waste management

Family support services

Enforcement of local laws

Informing the community

Business & community dev.

Local streets & footpaths

Sealed local roads

Consultation & engagement

Parking facilities

Lobbying

Community decisions

Population growth


Unsealed roads



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


22

• Appearance of public areas

• Tourism development

• Consultation & engagement

• Lobbying


• Local streets & footpaths

• Parking facilities

• Enforcement of local laws

• Waste management

• Town planning policy

• Planning permits

• Population growth

• Unsealed roads

• Making community decisions

• Sealed local roads

Individual service area performance vs State-wide average

Individual service area performance vs group average

23


Significantly Higher than

Group Average

Significantly Lower than

Group Average

• Appearance of public areas • Consultation & engagement

• Lobbying


• Local streets & footpaths

• Parking facilities

• Enforcement of local laws

• Waste management

• Town planning policy

• Planning permits

• Population growth

• Making community decisions

• Sealed local roads

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

6

12

6

9

5

9

4

n/a

10

11

9

7

8

6

n/a

3

n/a

7

11

4

4

9

4

n/a

3

n/a

12

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

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

24

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


14

14

11

9

8

7

6

5

6


Financial Management

Review/Get Rid Of Staff

Sealed Road Maintenance

Town Planning/Permits/Red Tape

Un-Sealed Road Maintenance

Council Management

Stop Selling Off Assets/Land

Nothing

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q17. What does Mansfield 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

25

Overall

performance

26

59

56

63

58

58

59

58

55

58

58

56

59

58

69

66

67

66

64

59

61

58

60

59

57

61

60

63

63

61

63

61

57

55

60

59

63

61

62

60

60

59

58

61

55

61

n/a

73

65

66

71

66

65

68

61

62

60

n/a

65

62

63

63

63

66

63

64

59

60

n/a

64

62

62

58

59

53

56

58

57

Overall performance

2019 overall performance (index scores)

60p

58p

56

53

52

52

51

51

50

50

47

State-wide

Small Rural

18-34

Women

65+

Mansfield

Mansfield

35-49

Men

Other

50-64


27

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

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

28

Overall performance (%)


6

6

13

9

12

14

15

10

10

9

7

3

7

6

9

5

5

6

28

41

44

42

35

48

39

37

39

36

27

32

25

32

40

31

20

25

39

36

32

32

37

28

31

36

35

37

40

36

40

38

26

36

43

46

16

12

6

10

12

8

8

11

10

11

16

17

18

15

14

17

20

15

9

4

5

4

4

2

5

6

5

6

9

11

10

9

11

10

11

7

1

1

1

3

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2019 Mansfield

2018 Mansfield

2017 Mansfield

2016 Mansfield

2015 Mansfield

2014 Mansfield

2013 Mansfield

2012 Mansfield

State-wide

Small Rural

Mansfield

Other

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 Mansfield 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

29


2019 contact with council (%)

Have had contact

72

76

72 72

65 65

7073

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019


30Q5. Over the last 12 months, have you or any member of your household had any contact with Mansfield Shire Council? This may have been

in person, in writing, by telephone conversation, by text message, by email or via their website or social media such as Facebook or Twitter?


85

73

69

67

70

74

50

72

64

69

61

77

70

64

63

65

67

58

69

62

58

58

69

76

66

65

65

66

50

64

61

65

58

78

73

70

73

72

70

68

73

64

68

60

76

78

69

71

72

73

63

77

n/a

70

61

86

78

74

79

76

73

78

80

n/a

67

60

74

75

70

68

72

77

66

75

n/a

72

61


2019 contact with council (%)

82

81

75

74

73

72

72

67

63q

63q

61q

35-49

50-64

Mansfield

Men

Mansfield

Women

18-34

Other

Small Rural

65+

State-wide


31

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q5. Over the last 12 months, have you or any member of your household had any contact with Mansfield Shire Council? This may have been

in person, in writing, by telephone conversation, by text message, by email or via their website or social media such as Facebook or Twitter?



70

69

71

75

76

73

73

73

72

72

68

69

69

69

72

76

63

70

70

70

69

71

69

69

67

69

75

72

72

71

71

72

68

70

70

74

71

72

71

71

70

69

70

59

72

n/a

72

72

76

77

72

74

77

76

72

71

n/a

69

72

73

71

71

69

66

70

59

71

n/a

70

75

76

66

73

70

66

67

67

Customer service rating

32

2019 customer service rating (index scores)


71p

70p

67

65

65

63

61

61

61

60

45q

State-wide

Small Rural

50-64

Other

65+

35-49

Women

Mansfield

Men

Mansfield

18-34

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q5c. Thinking of the most recent contact, how would you rate Mansfield 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

33

Customer service rating (%)


23

34

29

31

34

37

32

36

33

31

21

25

21

25

13

21

21

32

34

39

42

44

33

36

36

29

36

37

36

30

35

33

25

33

46

29

18

15

15

12

15

17

15

21

17

17

16

27

19

17

22

25

15

13

14

8

7

9

8

5

8

10

7

8

15

11

15

12

9

15

12

18

11

4

6

5

7

4

8

5

6

6

12

5

9

12

31

5

5

8

1

1

2

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

2019 Mansfield

2018 Mansfield

2017 Mansfield

2016 Mansfield

2015 Mansfield

2014 Mansfield

2013 Mansfield

2012 Mansfield

State-wide

Small Rural

Mansfield

Other

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


Q5c. Thinking of the most recent contact, how would you rate Mansfield 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

Council direction

34

Council direction summary


35

• Aged 50-64 yearsLeast satisfied with Council

direction

Council direction• 57% stayed about the same, up 3 points on 2018

• 11% improved, down 9 points on 2018

• 29% deteriorated, up 7 points on 2018

Most satisfied with Council

direction• Aged 18-34 years

Rates vs services trade-off • 32% prefer rate rise, down 5 points on 2018

• 47% prefer service cuts, up 2 points on 2018

Overall council direction last 12 months

36

2019 overall direction (index scores)


52

50

50

46

52

50

49

49

48

51

47

53

52

57

50

50

51

55

56

58

58

53

51

50

54

58

51

56

56

58

55

58

51

53

53

50

45

52

48

49

47

50

51

50

53

n/a

59

63

59

62

61

63

60

64

56

53

n/a

56

54

56

54

55

57

57

61

50

52

n/a

53

43

48

44

47

46

50

50

43

53p

53p

45

42

42

40

40

40

40

39

36

State-wide

Small Rural

18-34

35-49

Other

Men

Mansfield

Mansfield

Women

65+

50-64

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

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



Overall council direction last 12 months

2019 overall council direction (%)

11

20

19

23

18

30

26

17

19

20

11

12

13

8

17

10

10

7

57

54

65

60

58

57

54

59

62

60

56

57

53

61

55

63

49

60

29

22

11

12

20

10

16

22

14

15

30

27

32

27

28

26

36

28

3

4

5

5

4

3

4

3

5

4

3

4

2

3

1

4

5

2019 Mansfield

2018 Mansfield

2017 Mansfield

2016 Mansfield

2015 Mansfield

2014 Mansfield

2013 Mansfield

2012 Mansfield

State-wide

Small Rural

Mansfield

Other

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+

Improved Stayed the same Deteriorated Can't say


37Q6. Over the last 12 months, what is your view of the direction of Mansfield Shire Council’s overall performance? Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 63 Councils asked group: 18

Rates / services trade-off

38

2019 rates / services trade-off (%)


12

12

17

15

13

13

12

12

10

11

12

12

16

8

5

16

18

10

20

25

19

23

30

24

20

27

23

23

20

22

19

21

29

15

14

22

19

22

22

24

17

23

20

22

22

21

21

13

15

23

32

17

15

16

28

23

27

22

27

24

30

23

27

27

25

33

29

28

11

33

28

35

20

18

14

16

12

16

18

16

18

18

22

21

21

20

24

19

25

17

2019 Mansfield

2018 Mansfield

2017 Mansfield

2016 Mansfield

2015 Mansfield

2014 Mansfield

2013 Mansfield

2012 Mansfield

State-wide

Small Rural

Mansfield

Other

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+

Definitely prefer rate rise Probably prefer rate rise Probably prefer service cuts

Definitely prefer service cuts Can't say

Q10. If you had to choose, would you prefer to see council rate rises to improve local services OR would you prefer to see cuts in council

services to keep council rates at the same level as they are now?


Individual

service areas

39

Community consultation and engagement performance

40

2019 Consultation and engagement performance (index scores)


54

55

54

58

58

68

58

57

59

58

56

55

55

58

65

63

63

61

65

56

58

57

55

54

62

58

62

64

59

61

55

60

49

56

56

51

57

54

59

54

57

56

51

49

n/a

57

59

59

61

68

59

57

58

59

54

n/a

57

60

58

59

63

59

61

61

61

54

n/a

57

49

58

51

56

54

56

59

50

55

56p

56p

54

54

53

52

52

52

51

50

50

Small Rural

State-wide

35-49

Women

Mansfield

18-34

Mansfield

65+

Other

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

41

2019 Consultation and engagement performance (%)


8

10

12

11

9

10

13

9

9

10

9

6

7

9

4

13

8

8

28

33

38

34

27

37

35

32

30

31

30

28

27

29

34

29

27

25

31

28

25

28

33

26

29

28

31

31

28

35

30

33

39

25

27

33

14

14

12

13

16

14

13

15

15

15

15

13

19

10

10

21

14

13

11

5

5

5

7

5

6

10

6

7

12

12

11

11

12

8

15

10

7

9

8

9

7

8

5

7

9

7

7

6

6

8

4

8

12

2019 Mansfield

2018 Mansfield

2017 Mansfield

2016 Mansfield

2015 Mansfield

2014 Mansfield

2013 Mansfield

2012 Mansfield

State-wide

Small Rural

Mansfield

Other

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

42

2019 Lobbying performance (index scores)


53

54

56

58

65

58

58

58

52

59

56

55

54

62

64

63

62

59

51

54

57

53

54

53

55

55

56

56

55

53

49

55

60

56

55

60

61

60

59

58

58

54

56

57

n/a

56

58

59

59

59

58

57

55

59

60

n/a

55

56

61

62

60

59

59

55

62

57

n/a

55

57

59

57

57

56

55

56

56

53

55p

54p

54

53

53

51

51

50

49

49

48

Small Rural

State-wide

Women

65+

18-34

Mansfield

Mansfield

Other

50-64

Men

35-49

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

43

2019 Lobbying performance (%)


5

5

7

4

6

10

9

8

6

7

5

5

2

9

8

2

4

6

23

31

30

25

30

26

29

26

25

26

23

23

22

23

34

19

20

21

30

29

26

27

31

30

31

31

31

31

33

24

32

28

29

33

28

31

16

10

10

12

10

11

10

14

13

14

14

21

18

14

5

21

19

16

7

4

3

4

3

4

4

4

5

5

8

6

6

8

17

4

7

3

19

21

25

28

20

20

18

17

20

17

17

21

19

19

7

20

21

22

2019 Mansfield

2018 Mansfield

2017 Mansfield

2016 Mansfield

2015 Mansfield

2014 Mansfield

2013 Mansfield

2012 Mansfield

State-wide

Small Rural

Mansfield

Other

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

44

2019 Community decisions made performance (index scores)


52

54

61

53

55

54

54

55

55

52

51

55

54

67

63

62

53

60

62

56

55

55

53

54

59

55

57

53

56

57

57

49

59

56

55

53

54

56

53

53

53

51

47

53

n/a

57

63

59

62

57

59

61

60

53

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

55p

55p

53

50

48

48

47

47

45

45

44

Small Rural

State-wide

18-34

Women

65+

Other

Mansfield

Mansfield

Men

50-64

35-49

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

45

2019 Community decisions made performance (%)


5

4

10

8

6

10

7

7

5

6

2

9

8

3

3

6

23

33

37

30

27

35

30

31

24

20

25

20

33

19

22

20

35

36

28

30

36

32

33

33

33

36

35

34

24

40

37

36

17

16

10

16

15

13

14

14

17

19

20

14

10

14

19

22

13

5

6

5

7

4

7

7

14

11

13

12

15

16

14

8

8

7

9

11

9

5

10

7

7

8

6

10

11

8

4

9

2019 Mansfield

2018 Mansfield

2017 Mansfield

2016 Mansfield

2015 Mansfield

2014 Mansfield

State-wide

Small Rural

Mansfield

Other

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

46

2019 Sealed local roads performance (index scores)


53

46

49

45

46

45

45

41

46

48

46

53

59

50

59

52

59

61

53

58

66

58

54

61

52

60

54

57

59

58

55

57

50

55

61

52

59

58

60

62

64

62

61

55

55

56

n/a

58

57

58

60

63

59

59

56

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

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

53

53p

51

50

50

49

48

48

48

47

State-wide

65+

Small Rural

Men

Other

Mansfield

Mansfield

35-49

Women

18-34

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

47

2019 Sealed local roads performance (%)


6

5

11

8

14

11

13

9

5

9

7

5

5

3

4

10

31

24

39

42

40

37

33

31

31

30

35

28

34

35

27

31

30

33

27

27

27

30

28

30

34

24

27

33

24

30

34

30

17

23

14

14

11

14

16

18

16

18

15

19

20

16

20

14

14

15

7

7

8

6

10

11

14

16

15

13

17

15

14

11

1

1

2

3

1

2

1

1

1

3

2

1

3

2019 Mansfield

2018 Mansfield

2017 Mansfield

2016 Mansfield

2015 Mansfield

2014 Mansfield

State-wide

Small Rural

Mansfield

Other

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?


Informing the community performance

48

2019 Informing community performance (index scores)


62

59

56

61

62

63

62

62

63

59

68

61

59

58

66

64

63

63

62

62

61

63

66

59

58

64

60

63

63

65

64

54

69

n/a

61

60

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

61

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

60

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

60

60p

58p

56

56

56

55

53

53

51

50

35-49

State-wide

Small Rural

65+

Women

Mansfield

Mansfield

Men

Other

50-64

18-34

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

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



Informing the community performance

49

2019 Informing community performance (%)


9

12

16

12

13

11

10

6

8

10

7

5

8

13

34

43

37

44

35

34

33

37

29

38

30

49

27

30

31

26

30

25

31

32

32

28

36

25

34

25

28

34

16

13

11

10

14

14

15

16

17

15

14

12

25

13

9

4

4

4

5

6

8

11

8

10

15

5

7

10

2

3

2

5

3

3

1

2

1

3

4

4

1

2019 Mansfield

2018 Mansfield

2017 Mansfield

2016 Mansfield

State-wide

Small Rural

Mansfield

Other

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


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


The condition of local streets and footpaths in your area

performance

50

2019 Streets and footpaths performance (index scores)


58

51

57

52

55

64

52

50

47

52

47

57

52

57

58

60

64

58

56

53

57

59

57

63

58

62

63

58

59

53

54

57

61

58

66

59

61

65

72

63

55

63

65

61

58

69

n/a

63

67

64

63

59

54

63

60

58

63

n/a

60

64

61

59

53

55

59

60

57

60

n/a

56

59

55

57

56

52

57

55

59p

58

57p

55

53

53

53

51

51

51

50

State-wide

35-49

Small Rural

Men

Mansfield

18-34

Mansfield

50-64

Other

Women

65+

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

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



The condition of local streets and footpaths in your area

performance

51

2019 Streets and footpaths performance (%)


8

7

13

11

17

14

13

15

14

12

8

7

11

5

5

10

8

7

30

32

34

39

38

41

37

32

35

33

31

27

32

29

39

37

27

24

32

30

27

26

24

25

27

27

28

29

34

30

29

35

34

30

31

32

15

17

15

12

13

9

14

12

14

14

14

16

16

14

4

12

21

18

11

11

7

7

5

6

7

12

7

8

10

11

10

11

17

7

9

10

4

4

4

6

3

5

2

3

2

4

2

9

3

5

4

3

8

2019 Mansfield

2018 Mansfield

2017 Mansfield

2016 Mansfield

2015 Mansfield

2014 Mansfield

2013 Mansfield

2012 Mansfield

State-wide

Small Rural

Mansfield

Other

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


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


Parking facilities performance

52

2019 Parking performance (index scores)


60

56

58

58

52

54

56

54

53

54

49

63

55

65

49

54

54

55

54

52

54

49

61

56

60

55

55

56

58

55

53

53

50

62

57

53

59

59

56

61

56

53

55

50

n/a

57

59

60

55

56

57

57

57

58

56

n/a

57

58

64

56

60

63

58

56

56

55

n/a

56

55

53

51

55

55

53

51

52

54

60p

56p

51

50

50

49

49

49

49

49

45

Small Rural

State-wide

18-34

35-49

65+

Men

Other

Mansfield

Mansfield

Women

50-64

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

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



Parking facilities performance

53

2019 Parking performance (%)


6

8

9

13

10

11

11

9

9

12

7

6

7

6

9

5

5

6

28

34

34

29

34

37

37

32

34

36

28

30

30

26

26

31

30

26

32

30

28

30

31

28

32

32

32

33

32

32

28

36

38

33

24

35

19

17

16

16

16

14

11

17

16

11

19

18

22

16

12

23

20

21

13

9

11

10

7

8

8

10

7

5

13

13

12

13

15

9

20

9

1

2

1

2

1

1

1

1

2

3

1

2

1

2

1

3

2019 Mansfield

2018 Mansfield

2017 Mansfield

2016 Mansfield

2015 Mansfield

2014 Mansfield

2013 Mansfield

2012 Mansfield

State-wide

Small Rural

Mansfield

Other

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 performance

54

2019 Law enforcement performance (index scores)


65

64

63

68

65

69

61

64

64

61

64

68

64

65

73

69

65

68

67

62

61

65

67

63

64

67

66

70

63

66

65

65

64

68

66

66

65

65

66

65

65

64

63

62

70

66

n/a

73

69

69

66

67

64

62

64

71

65

n/a

71

67

66

69

67

69

63

64

69

65

n/a

73

65

55

66

65

63

67

62

65p

64p

63p

63

61

61

61

60

60

57

56

Women

State-wide

Small Rural

18-34

Mansfield

35-49

65+

Mansfield

Other

50-64

Men

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

55

2019 Law enforcement performance (%)


9

11

14

13

14

17

19

19

12

12

11

7

7

11

11

10

7

9

36

43

42

41

40

42

38

38

38

37

36

36

33

39

41

41

32

33

28

27

22

25

26

22

22

20

26

28

28

26

27

30

29

25

32

28

8

7

8

7

6

6

10

8

8

7

7

11

12

4

3

9

13

8

5

3

2

3

4

4

2

6

3

4

5

3

7

3

7

6

4

5

13

9

11

11

11

9

9

8

12

12

12

16

13

12

11

8

12

17

2019 Mansfield

2018 Mansfield

2017 Mansfield

2016 Mansfield

2015 Mansfield

2014 Mansfield

2013 Mansfield

2012 Mansfield

State-wide

Small Rural

Mansfield

Other

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


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


Family support services performance

56

2019 Family support performance (index scores)


70

72

77

71

72

72

67

71

66

72

69

79

74

74

73

73

74

68

67

67

72

70

75

74

73

71

72

72

66

72

66

69

67

75

75

73

71

73

75

67

73

67

71

69

74

72

66

70

72

74

n/a

74

68

71

73

76

72

63

70

70

70

n/a

69

67

68

70

76

68

65

65

67

70

n/a

61

67

65

68

72

70

70

69

69

69

68

68

67

66

64

65+

Mansfield

18-34

Men

Mansfield

Women

Small Rural

35-49

State-wide

Other

50-64

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Family support services’ over the last 12 months?



Family support services performance

57

2019 Family support performance (%)


14

12

16

12

17

17

17

15

11

12

15

11

12

17

22

10

8

16

32

41

37

36

38

36

34

36

32

32

36

26

29

35

35

39

26

29

17

14

14

12

17

19

20

15

20

18

19

14

19

16

16

27

19

11

4

3

3

1

3

3

4

7

4

4

3

5

4

3

2

7

5

2

1

2

1

3

1

2

2

3

4

8

1

1

1

31

30

30

37

25

24

23

24

31

32

25

41

36

25

18

21

39

38

2019 Mansfield

2018 Mansfield

2017 Mansfield

2016 Mansfield

2015 Mansfield

2014 Mansfield

2013 Mansfield

2012 Mansfield

State-wide

Small Rural

Mansfield

Other

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Family support services’ over the last 12 months?


Elderly support services performance

58

2019 Elderly support performance (index scores)


69

73

74

71

71

70

73

77

75

68

71

71

78

79

76

73

76

77

78

79

68

76

70

76

75

74

73

76

74

72

74

68

71

72

80

78

74

71

75

76

70

77

69

74

n/a

76

77

72

70

77

74

69

77

70

73

n/a

77

75

72

74

74

75

71

76

69

75

n/a

75

72

67

69

71

71

63

74

69

73

71

70

70

70

70

69

69

69

69

68

68

Small Rural

65+

Mansfield

Men

Other

35-49

Mansfield

18-34

Women

State-wide

50-64

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Elderly support services’ over the last 12 months?



Elderly support services performance

59

2019 Elderly support performance (%)


16

16

26

21

23

22

25

18

14

19

19

12

16

17

17

11

14

21

39

43

37

37

41

42

37

42

33

37

39

41

38

40

39

45

40

33

18

12

11

12

13

14

17

15

19

18

19

17

17

20

26

14

15

18

3

3

3

2

3

4

4

5

5

4

3

4

4

3

1

5

5

3

1

1

3

1

2

2

2

4

1

3

4

4

4

3

2

20

24

22

26

19

18

17

17

28

21

17

26

24

17

13

25

23

20

2019 Mansfield

2018 Mansfield

2017 Mansfield

2016 Mansfield

2015 Mansfield

2014 Mansfield

2013 Mansfield

2012 Mansfield

State-wide

Small Rural

Mansfield

Other

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Elderly support services’ over the last 12 months?


Recreational facilities performance

60

2019 Recreational facilities performance (index scores)


74

69

74

69

74

72

68

75

71

69

72

77

70

73

69

75

74

72

75

75

70

74

72

69

70

68

68

69

65

71

68

68

65

75

70

71

70

68

72

72

73

73

72

71

74

71

72

n/a

80

74

68

78

75

68

75

74

70

69

n/a

65

70

68

71

70

68

70

73

70

65

n/a

69

67

67

68

70

66

62

74p

70

70

68

68

68

68

68

67

64

63

65+

State-wide

Men

Small Rural

18-34

Mansfield

Other

Mansfield

Women

50-64

35-49

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

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



Recreational facilities performance

61

2019 Recreational facilities performance (%)


18

26

30

20

24

30

22

20

23

20

18

15

17

18

13

15

16

23

47

45

46

47

45

41

42

42

44

42

47

48

50

44

53

41

46

49

22

16

14

20

20

20

22

24

21

23

23

24

21

24

28

28

18

20

8

6

5

8

6

5

7

9

6

8

8

8

7

10

7

13

15

2

2

3

4

2

1

1

2

3

2

3

3

1

1

3

3

3

1

2

4

2

4

4

2

4

2

4

4

2

4

4

1

2

6

2019 Mansfield

2018 Mansfield

2017 Mansfield

2016 Mansfield

2015 Mansfield

2014 Mansfield

2013 Mansfield

2012 Mansfield

State-wide

Small Rural

Mansfield

Other

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 performance

62

2019 Public areas performance (index scores)


78

81

77

77

78

77

77

73

77

72

71

79

81

80

81

81

77

81

79

87

74

71

78

79

78

77

76

75

78

74

78

73

71

82

82

79

81

82

82

80

79

79

74

72

81

85

80

81

82

79

82

75

83

n/a

72

81

82

77

78

79

76

79

76

76

n/a

71

75

76

75

76

78

77

79

76

73

n/a

71

82p

78

78

77

77

77

77

76

74

73q

72q

35-49

Mansfield

Men

Mansfield

Women

50-64

65+

Other

18-34

Small Rural

State-wide

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

63

2019 Public areas performance (%)


34

36

41

32

43

41

38

32

26

28

34

33

34

34

25

47

32

32

49

43

43

50

42

48

43

48

45

44

52

43

48

49

55

40

51

49

13

15

11

12

11

7

13

14

20

20

11

18

14

12

16

10

11

14

3

3

3

3

2

3

3

5

5

5

1

6

3

3

2

4

4

2

2

1

2

2

1

2

1

2

2

3

1

2

4

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2019 Mansfield

2018 Mansfield

2017 Mansfield

2016 Mansfield

2015 Mansfield

2014 Mansfield

2013 Mansfield

2012 Mansfield

State-wide

Small Rural

Mansfield

Other

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 performance

64

2019 Art centres and libraries performance (index scores)


73

75

77

74

75

73

73

73

70

72

74

81

71

80

73

76

75

72

75

71

74

71

n/a

n/a

n/a

72

n/a

n/a

71

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

73

n/a

n/a

69

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

73

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

73

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

78

77

75

74

74

74

74

73

73

69q

69q

65+

35-49

Women

State-wide

Mansfield

Mansfield

Small Rural

Other

Men

50-64

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

65

2019 Art centres and libraries performance (%)


24

22

26

26

25

24

24

21

27

16

30

14

32

45

45

44

42

42

49

38

42

48

43

45

49

43

19

16

14

17

18

19

21

23

15

32

17

19

14

3

5

5

4

4

3

4

2

4

4

3

4

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

3

1

8

12

11

10

9

4

12

10

5

5

5

12

7

2019 Mansfield

2018 Mansfield

2017 Mansfield

State-wide

Small Rural

Mansfield

Other

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 performance

66

2019 Waste management performance (index scores)


70

69

65

64

65

64

63

64

63

62

63

71

70

72

71

68

70

71

68

69

65

74

70

69

73

69

67

68

68

63

66

71

59

72

71

79

76

75

75

75

75

73

68

74

73

n/a

75

75

72

75

77

76

74

74

74

71

n/a

76

79

73

75

77

73

71

78

73

72

n/a

76

72

70

73

74

73

74

74

68

68p

66p

65p

61

60

60

59

58

58

57

53q

State-wide

Small Rural

65+

Men

Other

Mansfield

Mansfield

50-64

Women

35-49

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

67

2019 Waste management performance (%)


13

14

25

17

26

30

29

26

23

20

12

12

16

10

8

9

16

16

40

46

42

51

53

48

50

49

42

41

40

43

41

40

32

43

36

47

22

23

18

18

13

14

13

16

21

22

24

20

18

26

30

19

20

21

17

11

11

7

6

5

4

6

8

9

17

17

17

18

21

23

20

10

6

4

2

5

1

2

3

2

4

4

6

5

6

5

7

5

8

4

1

1

2

2

1

1

1

2

2

3

1

3

1

1

3

1

1

1

2019 Mansfield

2018 Mansfield

2017 Mansfield

2016 Mansfield

2015 Mansfield

2014 Mansfield

2013 Mansfield

2012 Mansfield

State-wide

Small Rural

Mansfield

Other

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


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


Council’s general town planning policy performance

68

2019 Town planning performance (index scores)


54

53

56

49

52

51

51

51

50

51

48

53

51

55

50

59

55

50

54

53

54

48

52

49

55

53

55

54

51

53

52

54

49

54

53

52

52

60

55

54

55

55

55

51

55

n/a

72

54

57

58

53

57

56

60

50

55

n/a

60

52

58

55

56

55

54

54

48

54

n/a

57

41

54

52

48

48

45

48

44

55p

48p

46

46

45

45

45

44

43

43

38

State-wide

Small Rural

18-34

35-49

65+

Women

Other

Mansfield

Men

Mansfield

50-64

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Council’s general town planning policy’ over the last 12 months?



Council’s general town planning policy performance

69

2019 Town planning performance (%)


3

3

4

4

6

10

6

4

6

5

4

2

3

4

4

3

3

4

20

24

33

28

28

27

30

28

30

24

19

24

21

19

21

27

17

18

28

36

25

30

32

31

30

28

29

31

27

25

26

30

25

26

26

32

18

14

13

11

13

14

16

19

12

16

18

19

22

14

10

19

19

21

15

7

8

7

6

4

5

12

7

11

16

14

14

15

15

14

21

10

16

16

17

19

15

14

13

9

17

14

15

16

15

16

25

11

14

16

2019 Mansfield

2018 Mansfield

2017 Mansfield

2016 Mansfield

2015 Mansfield

2014 Mansfield

2013 Mansfield

2012 Mansfield

State-wide

Small Rural

Mansfield

Other

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Council’s general town planning policy’ over the last 12 months?


Planning and building permits performance

70

2019 Planning and building permits performance (index scores)


52

51

46

45

42

46

45

50

56

46

44

51

51

46

52

40

45

43

46

44

44

41

50

50

49

50

51

48

49

45

50

48

42

54

53

mansfield shire council · 2019. 8. 14. · emergency & disaster mngt bottom 3 performing areas 44...

Documents