Background and objectives - Moreland City Council Community Satisfaction Survey throughout Victorian...

2J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 - Moreland City Council

Background and objectives

Survey methodology and sampling

Further information

Key findings & recommendations

Summary of findings

Detailed findings

• Key core measure: Overall performance

• Key core measure: Customer service

• Key core measure: Council direction indicators

• Individual service areas

• Detailed demographics

Appendix A: Detailed survey tabulations

Appendix B: Further project information


Welcome to the report of results and recommendations for the 2017 State-wide Local Government

Community Satisfaction Survey for Moreland City Council.

Each year Local Government Victoria (LGV) coordinates and auspices this State-wide Local

Government Community Satisfaction Survey throughout Victorian local government areas. This

coordinated approach allows for far more cost effective surveying than would be possible if councils

commissioned surveys individually.

Participation in the State-wide Local Government Community Satisfaction Survey is optional.

Participating councils have various choices as to the content of the questionnaire and the sample size

to be surveyed, depending on their individual strategic, financial and other considerations.

The main objectives of the survey are to assess the performance of Moreland City Council across a

range of measures and to seek insight into ways to provide improved or more effective service delivery.

The survey also provides councils with a means to fulfil some of their statutory reporting requirements

as well as acting as a feedback mechanism to LGV.


This survey was conducted by Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing (CATI) as a representative

random probability survey of residents aged 18+ years in Moreland City Council.

Survey sample matched to the demographic profile of Moreland City Council as determined by the

most recent ABS population estimates was purchased from an accredited supplier of publicly available

phone records, including up to 10% mobile phone numbers to cater to the diversity of residents within

Moreland City Council, particularly younger people.

A total of n=400 completed interviews were achieved in Moreland City Council. Survey fieldwork was

conducted in the period of 1st February – 30th March, 2017.

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

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

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

Moreland City Council area.

Any variation of +/-1% between individual results and net scores in this report or the detailed survey

tabulations is due to rounding. In reporting, ‘—’ denotes not mentioned and ‘0%’ denotes mentioned by

less than 1% of respondents. ‘Net’ scores refer to two or more response categories being combined

into one category for simplicity of reporting.

• 2016, n=400 completed interviews, conducted in the period of 1st February – 30th March.


• 2014, n=400 completed interviews, conducted in the period of 31st January – 11th March.


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


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

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

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

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

example below:

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

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

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

Therefore in the example below:

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

among this group in 2016.

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

among this group in 2016.

54

57

58

60

67

66

50-64

35-49

Metro

Moreland

18-34

State-wide

Overall Performance – Index Scores (example extract only)

Note: Details on the calculations used to determine statistically significant differences may

be found in Appendix B.


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

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

Background and objectives

Margins of error

Analysis and reporting

Glossary of terms

Contacts

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

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

J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 - Moreland City Council

72

70

69

Art centres & libraries

Community & cultural activities

Recreational facilities

Council Metropolitan State-wide

6458 59

Results shown are index scores out of 100.

45

48

48

Population growth

Parking facilities

Planning & building permits


The overall performance index score of 58 for Moreland City Council represents a two point decline

on the 2016 result. Overall performance ratings are at their lowest level since 2012 (index score of 62).

Moreland City Council’s overall performance is rated statistically significantly lower (at the 95%

confidence interval) than the average rating for councils in the Metropolitan group (index

score of 64). It is in line with the State-wide average for councils (index score of 59).

Women (index score of 56, five points lower than 2016) and residents aged 65+ years (index

score of 51, 10 points lower than 2016) are significantly less favourable in their view of

Council’s overall performance than just one year ago.

In 2017, overall performance ratings are largely consistent across demographic and geographic

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

More than two in five residents rate Council’s overall performance as ‘very good’ (9%) or ‘good’ (35%),

while 15% rate it as ‘very poor’ or ‘poor’. A further 39% sit mid-scale providing an ‘average’ rating.


Review of the core performance measures (as shown on page 20) shows that Moreland City

Council’s performance declined slightly on most measures compared to Council’s own results in

2016. On the measure of consultation and engagement, the decline in performance ratings was

significant (from an index score of 57 in 2016 to 53 currently).

As a result, Council’s ratings on five of the seven core measures are significantly lower than

group averages for Metropolitan councils.

Of note, Moreland City Council’s performance on sealed local roads (index score of 56) is

significantly higher than the State-wide average (53). It is however significantly lower than the

Metropolitan group average (index score of 66).

While declines did not exceed a couple of index points, ratings on most core measures are now at

their lowest levels since 2012.

Among the core performance measures, Moreland City Council performs best in the area of

customer service (index score of 64). However Council’s rating is significantly lower than the

average rating for Metropolitan councils (seven index points lower) and the State-wide average (five

index points lower).


More than three in five (62%) Moreland City Council residents have had recent contact with

Council.

Men are significantly less likely to have contacted Council (53%) while women are significantly

more likely to have contacted Council (71%) than residents overall.

The proportion of residents contacting Council has remained relatively stable over time.

Customer service (index score of 64) ratings declined three index points in the past year (this

change is not significant). Moreland City Council’s performance on customer service rates

significantly lower than the Metropolitan group and State-wide averages for councils (index scores of

71 and 69 respectively).

This is Moreland City Council’s highest rated core measure, though customer service ratings are

significantly lower than previous results (index score of 72 in 2013).

One in five (22%) rate Council’s customer service as ‘very good’, with a further 38% rating

customer service as ‘good’.

Perceptions of customer service declined slightly across most demographic and geographic groups,

meaning there is no particular cohort that Council should focus its attention on. Rather, Council

should aim to improve customer service across all groups.


Art centres and libraries is the area where Moreland City Council has performed most strongly

(index score of 72). Performance ratings have been relatively consistent over time.

However, Moreland City Council’s performance index is significantly lower than the Metropolitan

group average (index score of 75).

Three in five residents (61%) rate Council’s performance in this area as ‘very good’ or ‘good’.

Another area where Moreland City Council is well regarded is community and cultural

activities. With a performance index score of 70, residents rate this service area second highest.

Residents of South Ward are significantly more favourable in their perceptions of Council in this

service area (index score of 78). While residents of the North East Ward (index score of 69) rate

performance in a similar manner to Council’s average rating, their perceptions have declined

significantly compared to 2016 (six point drop), meaning this might be an area to watch.

Three in five residents (63%) rate Council’s performance in the area of community and cultural

activities as ‘very good’ or ‘good’.

Recreational facilities and waste management (performance index scores of 69 each) are

additional areas where Council rates more highly compared to other service areas.

Performance ratings on these service areas have been relatively consistent over time, although

waste management has seen higher performance ratings in the past (index score of 74 in 2012).

Moreland City Council’s performance index on both of these service areas is significantly lower

than the Metropolitan group average (index scores of 73 and 75 respectively).


The equal most significant decline in 2017 was a four point drop on the performance index score for

consultation and engagement (index score of 53).

Performance on this measure had increased in 2016 (index score of 57) but the gains achieved at

that time have not been maintained in 2017. The current index score is the lowest level to date, and

is significantly lower than the Metropolitan group average (57).

Much of this decline can be attributed to much more critical ratings on this issue from women,

residents aged 18 to 34 years, and residents of the North East Ward who all provided

significantly lower ratings compared to 2016.

Indeed, 11% of residents mention Council communication as an area in need of improvement.

The area that stands out as being most in need of Council attention is planning and building permits.

With a performance index score of 45. This is Council’s lowest performance index score. This is

significantly lower than the State-wide and Metropolitan group averages (51 and 49 respectively).

One-third of residents (32%) rate Council performance in this service area as ‘very poor’ or ‘poor’.

Residents aged 50 to 64 years (index score of 37) have significantly less favourable impressions of

Council performance in this area than residents overall. Younger residents (aged 18 to 34 years)

have significantly more favourable impressions (52).

Feedback from residents on what they consider Council most needs to do to improve its

performance in the next 12 months supports this finding, with inappropriate development

mentioned by 13% of residents.

Parking facilities is the second lowest rated Council service area with an index score of 48. Ratings in

this area also declined significantly, by four index points, in the past year.


Despite residents’ concerns, if forced to choose, almost half would prefer to see Council cut services

to maintain council rates at current levels (47%) versus those who would prefer rates to rise

aimed at improving local services (35%).

Residents are three times as likely to ‘definitely prefer service cuts’ (29%) as they are to ‘definitely

prefer rate rises’ (10%).

Differences in opinion are evident by age, with residents aged 65+ years are more likely to

‘definitely prefer service cuts’ than those aged 18 to 34 years (33% and 24% respectively).


For the coming 12 months, Moreland City Council should pay particular attention to the areas

where performance ratings are lower than what Council has previously achieved, or where

Council is rated significantly lower than the Metropolitan group average, to ensure that

perceptions do not further decline. Key priorities include:

Community consultation and engagement

Parking facilities

Planning and building permits

Customer service.

Consideration should also be given to Moreland City Council residents aged 50+ years, who appear

to be most driving negative opinion in 2017.

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

centres and libraries and community and cultural activities, and should also aim to shore up

areas where community perceptions of Council have improved in the past 12 months.

It is also important not to ignore, and to learn from, what is working amongst other groups,

especially residents aged 18 to 34 years, and residents in the South Ward, and use these lessons

to build performance experience and perceptions in other areas.


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

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

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

council.

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

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

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

especially any target groups identified as requiring attention.

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

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

03 8685 8555.


• None applicableHigher results in 2017

(Significantly higher result than 2016)

• Consultation and engagement

• Parking facilities

Lower results in 2017

(Significantly lower result than 2016)

• Aged 18-34 years

• South Ward

Most favourably disposed

towards Council


• Aged 65+ years

Least favourably disposed

towards Council


68

72

67

63

67

6462

6061

5960

5856

5755

54

57

5355

5455

54

5856 56

5557

54

57 57

545456

55 55 55

52

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Customer Service

Overall Performance

Community Consultation

Making Community Decisions

Sealed Local Roads

Advocacy

Overall Council Direction


Performance MeasuresMoreland

2017

Moreland

2016

Metro

2017

State-

wide

2017

Highest

score

Lowest

score

OVERALL PERFORMANCE 58 60 64 59Aged 18-

34 years

Aged 65+

years

COMMUNITY CONSULTATION(Community consultation and

engagement)

53 57 57 55Aged 35-

49 years

Aged 50-

64 years

ADVOCACY(Lobbying on behalf of the community)

54 57 56 54Aged 18-

34 years

Aged 65+

years

MAKING COMMUNITY

DECISIONS (Decisions made in the

interest of the community)

54 55 58 54Aged 18-

34 years

Aged 65+

years

SEALED LOCAL ROADS (Condition of sealed local roads)

56 56 66 53South

Ward

North

East

Ward

CUSTOMER SERVICE 64 67 71 69South

Ward

North

East

Ward

OVERALL COUNCIL DIRECTION 52 55 54 53Aged 18-

34 years

Aged 50-

64 years


9

5

4

5

12

22

35

30

26

31

36

38

39

27

26

30

26

23

10

17

15

17

16

10

5

7

4

6

10

7

2

15

24

12

1

1

Overall Performance

Community Consultation

Advocacy

Making CommunityDecisions

Sealed Local Roads

Customer Service

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

Key Measures Summary Results

20 62 15 3Overall Council Direction

%Improved Stayed the same Deteriorated Can't say


71

72

71

68

68

69

66

63

63

61

59

56

55

57

50

57

51

50

52

44

n/a

n/a

70

71

67

69

61

65

n/a

n/a

59

58

54

57

51

54

51

50

52

n/a

71

72

67

72

66

69

64

63

62

58

61

n/a

55

54

53

55

50

49

52

43

73

70

68

68

66

70

64

64

n/a

62

61

n/a

n/a

57

52

57

52

50

53

49

71

71

69

74

65

67

65

64

n/a

61

61

n/a

n/a

55

53

56

54

53

55

52

72

70

69

69

66

66

65

65

60

58

58

56

54

54

53

53

49

48

48

45


Community & cultural


Waste management

Elderly support services

Family support services

Environmental sustainability

Appearance of public areas

Business & community dev.

Informing the community

Enforcement of local laws

Sealed local roads

Community decisions

Lobbying

Traffic management

Consultation & engagement

Town planning policy

Population growth

Parking facilities


2017 Priority Area Performance 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

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

Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 68 Councils asked group:

Note: Please see page 5 for explanation of significant differences


Individual Service Areas Performance

22

19

20

14

20

14

10

12

9

8

11

8

5

5

9

6

4

3

3

5

47

45

43

48

41

38

39

36

36

31

27

29

31

30

24

25

26

23

23

17

18

24

22

22

16

23

29

26

27

31

19

35

30

27

15

32

26

25

30

23

9

8

5

10

6

8

15

16

13

18

5

8

17

17

4

22

15

19

20

21

4

1

2

4

1

2

5

10

6

9

2

2

6

7

3

12

4

7

8

11

1

3

9

1

16

15

1

1

9

3

37

18

12

15

47

3

24

22

16

24

Waste management


Community & cultural

Appearance of public areas


Environmental sustainability

Informing the community

Sealed local roads

Enforcement of local laws

Traffic management

Family support services

Business & community dev.

Community decisions

Consultation & engagement

Elderly support services

Parking facilities

Lobbying

Town planning policy

Population growth


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

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

Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 68 Councils asked group:


Sig

nif

ica

ntl

y h

igh

er

tha

n s

tate

-wid

e

ave

rag

e

Sig

nific

an

tly lo

we

r tha

n s

tate

-wid

e

ave

rag

e

-Sealed local roads -Traffic management

-Parking facilities

-Enforcement of local laws

-Appearance of public

areas

-Town planning policy

-Planning permits

-Population growth


Sig

nif

ican

tly h

igh

er

than

gro

up

avera

ge Sig

nific

an

tly lo

wer th

an

gro

up

avera

ge

-None Applicable -Consultation &

engagement

-Informing the community

-Traffic management

-Parking facilities

-Enforcement of local laws

-Recreational facilities

-Appearance of public

areas

-Art centres & libraries

-Waste management

-Town planning policy

-Planning permits

-Population growth

-Making community

decisions

-Sealed local roads


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

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

Moreland City

Council

1. Art centres &

libraries

2. Community &

cultural

3. Recreational

facilities

Metropolitan

1. Waste

management

2. Art centres &

libraries

3. Recreational

facilities

Interface

1. Art centres &

libraries

2. Waste

management

3. Emergency &

disaster mngt

Regional Centres

1. Art centres &

libraries

2. Appearance of

public areas

3. Emergency &

disaster mngt

Large Rural

1. Appearance of

public areas

2. Emergency &

disaster mngt

3. Art centres &

libraries

Small Rural

1. Emergency &

disaster mngt

2. Art centres &

libraries

3. Community &

cultural

Moreland City

Council

1. Planning

permits

2. Parking facilities

3. Population

growth

Metropolitan

1. Planning

permits

2. Population

growth


Interface

1. Unsealed roads

2. Planning

permits

3. Population

growth

Regional Centres


2. Community

decisions

3. Unsealed roads

Large Rural

1. Unsealed roads

2. Sealed roads

3. Slashing &

weed control

Small Rural

1. Unsealed roads

2. Sealed roads

3. Planning

permits


13

12

11

11

10

8

7

10

Development - inappropriate

Traffic Management

Footpaths/Walking Tracks

Communication

Sealed Road Maintenance

Parking Availability

Waste Management

Nothing

2017 Areas for Improvement

%

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

Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 41 Councils asked group: 13


AR

EA

S F

OR

IMP

RO

VE

ME

NT

- Development -

inappropriate: 13%

(down 2 points from 2016)

- Traffic Management:

12%

(up 1 point from 2016)

- Footpaths/Walking

Tracks: 11%

(up 2 points from 2016)

- Communication: 11%

(equal points from 2016)


64

62

61

61

60

59

58

58

57

56

53

51

Metro

18-34

Men

35-49

South Ward

State-wide

North East Ward

Moreland

North West Ward

Women

50-64

65+

66

64

60

58

61

59

61

60

59

61

53

61

67

65

60

54

60

60

59

59

59

59

53

60

n/a

67

60

53

59

61

62

61

60

61

56

62

n/a

65

61

60

61

60

59

60

63

60

53

59

n/a

66

61

57

61

60

63

62

62

62

59

63

2017 Overall Performance 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q3. ON BALANCE, for the last twelve months, how do you feel about the performance of Moreland City Council, not just on

one or two issues, BUT OVERALL across all responsibility areas? Has it been very good, good, average, poor or very poor?


Note: Please see page 5 for explanation about significant differences


2017 Overall Performance

9

9

9

7

6

9

9

12

7

10

9

11

7

12

10

5

5

35

44

40

41

45

44

36

44

44

31

33

38

32

34

39

33

34

39

30

32

39

34

34

37

33

35

42

38

35

43

40

40

39

31

10

10

12

9

13

8

10

6

10

10

11

8

12

7

5

17

20

5

6

5

2

2

4

5

2

4

4

7

5

6

3

5

7

10

2

2

2

1

1

1

2

2

2

2

3

3

1

1

2017 Moreland

2016 Moreland

2015 Moreland

2014 Moreland

2013 Moreland

2012 Moreland

State-wide

Metro

South Ward

North East Ward

North West 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 Moreland City Council, not just on

one or two issues, BUT OVERALL across all responsibility areas? Has it been very good, good, average, poor or very poor?



Overall contact with Moreland City Council

Most contact with Moreland City Council

Least contact with Moreland City Council

Customer service rating

Most satisfied with customer service

Least satisfied with customer service

• North East Ward

• South Ward

• Index score of 64, down 3 points on 2016

• Men

• Women

• 62%, down 4 points on 2016


71

69

68

67

64

62

61

61

61

60

56

53

Women

South Ward

35-49

65+

50-64

Moreland

State-wide

Metro

North East Ward

North West Ward

18-34

Men

2017 Contact with Council

%

Q5. Over the last 12 months, have you or any member of your household had any contact with Moreland City 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?




2017 Contact with Council

64 6461 62

66

62

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Have had contact

%

Q5. Over the last 12 months, have you or any member of your household had any contact with Moreland City 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?



71

69

68

66

65

65

64

64

63

63

62

60

Metro

State-wide

South Ward

35-49

Women

65+

North West Ward

Moreland

18-34

Men

50-64

North East Ward

73

69

67

65

68

68

65

67

66

65

68

68

73

70

75

61

66

66

63

63

62

60

66

57

n/a

72

64

66

69

73

74

67

64

64

68

63

n/a

71

77

73

71

72

70

72

72

72

70

68

n/a

71

65

67

67

79

66

68

63

68

69

71

2017 Customer Service Rating2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q5c. Thinking of the most recent contact, how would you rate Moreland City 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: 68 Councils asked group: 18



22

25

22

22

29

28

30

33

23

22

20

21

22

16

26

22

27

38

38

38

47

42

35

36

36

42

26

43

33

42

44

33

37

33

23

19

16

15

16

18

18

17

22

27

20

30

17

24

24

22

16

10

7

11

8

7

10

8

8

9

18

5

8

11

8

12

8

15

7

8

10

8

3

6

6

5

3

6

11

8

7

8

4

11

7

1

3

2

1

2

2

2

1

1

1

1

2

2017 Moreland

2016 Moreland

2015 Moreland

2014 Moreland

2013 Moreland

2012 Moreland

State-wide

Metro

South Ward

North East Ward

North West Ward

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


2017 Customer Service Rating

Q5c. Thinking of the most recent contact, how would you rate Moreland City 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: 68 Councils asked group: 18


• 34% prefer rate rise

• 47% prefer service cuts



• 62% stayed about the same, up 9 points on 2016

• 20% improved, down 5 points on 2016

• 15% deteriorated, down 1 point on 2016

Rates vs Services Trade-Off from Q10

Least satisfied with Council Direction from Q6

Most satisfied with Council Direction from Q6

Council Direction from Q6


58

54

54

53

53

53

52

52

51

50

49

48

18-34

Women

Metro

State-wide

South Ward

North East Ward

Moreland

North West Ward

Men

35-49

65+

50-64

68

54

55

51

55

57

55

53

56

46

51

42

62

55

56

53

52

56

55

55

56

52

52

49

64

56

n/a

53

50

57

55

55

54

47

53

50

60

56

n/a

53

55

55

56

58

55

56

56

49

58

54

n/a

52

54

59

54

49

54

53

53

51

2016 2015 2014 2013 20122017 Overall Direction

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




20

25

20

19

19

19

19

17

20

23

18

16

24

24

17

17

21

62

53

62

66

66

65

62

65

64

55

65

66

58

64

64

59

53

15

16

10

9

9

10

13

11

14

18

14

14

16

9

17

20

23

3

5

8

6

6

6

6

7

2

4

3

4

2

3

2

4

4

2017 Moreland

2016 Moreland

2015 Moreland

2014 Moreland

2013 Moreland

2012 Moreland

State-wide

Metro

South Ward

North East Ward

North West Ward

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+

% Improved Stayed the same Deteriorated Can't say

2017 Overall Direction

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



10

10

10

15

13

6

12

8

10

11

7

8

25

21

22

32

24

21

24

25

36

21

15

15

18

23

22

10

12

27

17

20

15

17

26

20

29

27

27

31

27

29

28

30

24

33

29

33

18

20

19

12

24

18

19

17

15

17

23

24

2017 Moreland

State-wide

Metro

South Ward

North East Ward

North West Ward

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

2017 Rate Rise v Service Cut

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?



57

56

55

55

55

53

53

53

52

51

50

47

Metro

35-49

South Ward

18-34

State-wide

North East Ward

Women

Moreland

Men

North West Ward

65+

50-64

58

53

59

63

54

60

59

57

56

54

56

51

58

50

56

59

56

53

54

54

54

53

53

50

n/a

51

51

59

57

57

55

55

55

56

57

52

n/a

59

57

61

57

56

57

57

58

60

57

50

n/a

54

56

58

57

58

56

56

56

54

57

54

2017 Consultation and Engagement Performance2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

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




5

6

7

6

5

8

7

7

7

6

3

5

5

2

10

4

6

30

34

29

31

32

29

29

31

27

32

30

29

30

34

30

23

26

27

25

27

31

37

37

32

31

34

25

24

28

25

28

27

25

23

17

12

18

15

13

16

15

13

18

16

16

14

19

13

16

26

12

7

6

6

5

2

3

6

5

3

8

9

9

6

4

7

9

13

15

17

13

11

10

6

10

13

11

14

18

15

15

18

11

13

20

2017 Moreland

2016 Moreland

2015 Moreland

2014 Moreland

2013 Moreland

2012 Moreland

State-wide

Metro

South Ward

North East Ward

North West Ward

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


2017 Consultation and Engagement Performance

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



56

56

55

55

55

54

54

54

51

51

50

49

18-34

Metro

North West Ward

Women

35-49

State-wide

South Ward

Moreland

Men

North East Ward

50-64

65+

64

56

54

59

53

53

60

57

56

60

54

53

62

58

54

59

53

55

63

57

55

58

56

54

61

n/a

54

55

46

56

53

54

53

54

49

56

63

n/a

56

55

54

55

58

57

58

56

50

54

61

n/a

53

56

51

55

56

55

54

57

52

54

2017 Lobbying Performance2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

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




4

7

8

4

4

5

5

5

7

3

4

5

4

3

7

3

6

26

26

26

25

28

26

24

24

25

24

27

23

29

31

25

21

17

26

25

27

30

31

34

31

30

29

32

22

24

29

24

28

31

22

15

11

10

12

11

10

13

11

20

17

11

17

13

16

11

17

17

4

4

5

5

3

4

5

3

3

5

5

6

3

2

6

6

7

24

27

23

23

23

21

22

27

16

19

31

25

22

24

22

23

30

2017 Moreland

2016 Moreland

2015 Moreland

2014 Moreland

2013 Moreland

2012 Moreland

State-wide

Metro

South Ward

North East Ward

North West Ward

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


2017 Lobbying Performance

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



61

58

55

55

54

54

54

53

53

52

47

45

18-34

Metro

Men

North West Ward

State-wide

South Ward

Moreland

35-49

Women

North East Ward

50-64

65+

61

59

56

54

54

53

55

51

54

58

50

52

61

59

54

53

55

58

54

49

55

54

52

51

64

n/a

53

55

57

51

55

48

57

58

48

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

n/a

n/a

2017 Community Decisions Made Performance2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

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




5

6

6

4

6

7

9

4

4

7

3

6

6

4

1

31

34

32

31

29

32

23

28

36

29

32

43

26

19

22

30

24

29

38

34

32

38

33

23

31

28

23

35

35

33

17

14

13

11

14

11

20

18

14

15

19

15

14

23

16

6

7

8

5

7

4

3

6

7

6

5

2

6

8

12

12

15

13

11

10

14

7

11

16

11

13

12

12

10

16

2017 Moreland

2016 Moreland

2015 Moreland

2014 Moreland

State-wide

Metro

South Ward

North East Ward

North West Ward

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


2017 Community Decisions Made Performance

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



66

58

57

57

56

56

56

56

56

56

53

53

Metro

South Ward

Men

North West Ward

18-34

65+

Moreland

50-64

35-49

Women

North East Ward

State-wide

67

58

55

56

60

61

56

50

51

57

56

54

69

57

56

60

62

60

58

55

53

59

56

55

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

55

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

2017 Sealed Local Roads Performance2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

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




12

10

10

11

19

10

14

12

14

10

14

12

10

8

36

39

39

32

43

44

27

36

35

36

33

34

36

46

26

27

27

28

24

25

26

26

24

28

25

27

28

22

16

13

14

16

9

12

23

13

15

16

18

16

15

7

10

11

7

12

4

10

9

11

11

9

9

10

9

16

1

1

2

1

1

1

2

2

1

1

1

2017 Moreland

2016 Moreland

2015 Moreland

State-wide

Metro

South Ward

North East Ward

North West Ward

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


2017 Sealed Local Roads Performance

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



62

61

59

59

59

59

58

58

58

58

57

55

35-49

Metro

Men

State-wide

South Ward

North East Ward

Moreland

18-34

North West Ward

Women

50-64

65+

62

63

61

59

57

66

61

62

60

62

57

63

n/a

64

n/a

61

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

57

n/a

58

62

55

59

58

59

60

59

56

62

60

n/a

63

61

61

64

62

66

63

62

60

60

56

n/a

60

60

60

63

61

65

60

62

60

61

2017 Informing Community Performance2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

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




10

11

11

10

10

11

12

9

7

12

12

8

9

13

8

10

39

40

31

45

40

35

37

39

45

35

39

39

40

39

39

37

29

28

38

30

32

32

32

33

27

29

26

33

30

31

29

27

15

12

11

13

12

13

12

13

17

15

17

14

16

10

19

13

5

4

5

1

4

5

4

5

3

7

5

5

5

4

4

11

1

5

4

1

2

3

4

1

1

2

1

1

3

1

2

2017 Moreland

2016 Moreland

2014 Moreland

2013 Moreland

2012 Moreland

State-wide

Metro

South Ward

North East Ward

North West Ward

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


2017 Informing Community Performance

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



59

57

56

55

54

54

53

53

53

51

48

48

State-wide

18-34

Metro

North East Ward

35-49

Men

Moreland

North West Ward

Women

South Ward

50-64

65+

59

54

56

51

45

48

50

50

51

45

48

50

60

55

57

51

49

48

51

51

53

51

46

49

60

59

n/a

56

48

52

53

50

55

53

49

53

60

60

n/a

49

48

51

52

54

53

55

46

48

58

56

n/a

52

49

52

53

54

54

54

55

53

2017 Traffic Management Performance2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

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




8

5

3

5

7

5

10

9

2

12

9

9

8

9

10

5

6

31

28

34

35

30

31

38

35

32

31

31

33

30

36

31

28

24

31

33

33

35

33

42

30

30

32

29

31

31

30

28

34

28

34

18

21

17

16

20

13

13

17

23

17

16

17

19

18

14

22

21

9

9

10

8

8

7

5

6

5

9

11

9

8

5

10

12

12

3

3

3

2

2

2

3

3

7

1

2

1

5

4

1

4

2

2017 Moreland

2016 Moreland

2015 Moreland

2014 Moreland

2013 Moreland

2012 Moreland

State-wide

Metro

South Ward

North East Ward

North West Ward

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


2017 Traffic Management Performance

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



55

55

53

51

49

49

48

47

46

45

45

43

State-wide

North East Ward

Metro

Men

18-34

35-49

Moreland

65+

North West Ward

Women

50-64

South Ward

56

57

54

54

54

55

52

50

49

50

46

52

57

54

55

53

60

49

52

47

51

52

45

52

57

57

n/a

52

54

53

52

49

46

52

49

50

57

49

n/a

53

57

53

53

47

52

53

50

58

56

54

n/a

56

58

54

55

51

54

54

54

57

2017 Parking Performance2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

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




6

6

4

7

5

5

10

8

2

8

7

8

5

6

9

3

6

25

33

38

31

36

33

33

29

21

35

21

27

24

27

24

26

22

32

31

27

30

32

39

32

34

39

31

29

34

30

30

33

34

32

22

17

16

18

17

13

16

18

22

14

26

21

22

22

22

18

26

12

9

11

10

8

6

8

8

14

9

13

9

15

10

12

17

10

3

2

4

4

3

4

2

2

1

3

4

2

4

4

2

5

2017 Moreland

2016 Moreland

2015 Moreland

2014 Moreland

2013 Moreland

2012 Moreland

State-wide

Metro

South Ward

North East Ward

North West Ward

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


2017 Parking Performance

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



64

64

61

61

59

59

58

57

57

56

54

53

Metro

State-wide

South Ward

35-49

18-34

Men

Moreland

North West Ward

Women

North East Ward

50-64

65+

64

63

58

59

61

58

59

56

60

64

55

60

66

66

59

54

65

60

59

60

59

59

54

59

n/a

66

59

56

66

61

61

61

61

61

57

59

n/a

65

61

58

67

61

61

63

61

61

57

55

n/a

65

61

57

65

60

61

60

63

63

60

64

2017 Law Enforcement Performance2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

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




9

10

7

8

9

10

12

13

7

9

9

12

6

8

12

8

6

36

33

37

35

36

34

39

38

46

40

29

35

38

42

39

29

27

27

23

28

32

31

31

26

26

26

22

30

26

28

25

26

29

28

13

9

7

9

9

8

8

8

8

17

12

12

13

13

11

14

11

6

7

7

2

3

3

3

3

5

8

5

7

6

4

5

8

10

9

19

14

14

12

14

13

13

7

4

14

9

10

8

6

12

18

2017 Moreland

2016 Moreland

2015 Moreland

2014 Moreland

2013 Moreland

2012 Moreland

State-wide

Metro

South Ward

North East Ward

North West Ward

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


2017 Law Enforcement Performance

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



70

69

68

67

67

66

66

65

64

64

63

61

South Ward

35-49

Metro

North West Ward

State-wide

Men

Moreland

Women

18-34

65+

50-64

North East Ward

68

72

69

68

66

66

69

72

69

70

63

72

68

68

68

72

67

69

69

69

71

68

66

66

72

68

n/a

63

68

68

69

69

69

70

65

71

72

73

n/a

70

67

72

70

69

72

68

64

68

68

63

n/a

65

67

64

67

69

69

72

63

67

2017 Family Support Performance2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

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




11

11

10

11

10

11

11

10

13

12

9

10

11

13

12

6

6

27

32

35

29

35

31

30

28

29

23

28

25

29

27

33

23

21

19

17

17

16

18

27

20

19

20

22

16

20

18

19

19

18

17

5

2

2

4

2

3

4

3

2

11

3

2

8

7

4

4

1

2

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

3

2

2

1

3

1

2

37

37

34

39

34

27

34

38

35

29

43

41

33

30

32

48

52

2017 Moreland

2016 Moreland

2015 Moreland

2014 Moreland

2013 Moreland

2012 Moreland

State-wide

Metro

South Ward

North East Ward

North West Ward

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


2017 Family Support Performance

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



70

69

68

67

67

66

66

64

64

64

64

59

North West Ward

35-49

State-wide

Metro

Men

Moreland

65+

18-34

Women

North East Ward

50-64

South Ward

68

67

68

69

66

68

70

67

71

69

70

66

69

70

69

69

70

67

64

69

65

68

63

60

64

65

70

n/a

67

66

69

66

65

69

66

66

63

64

69

n/a

67

66

61

68

64

64

65

68

63

64

69

n/a

63

65

68

64

67

67

64

64

2017 Elderly Support Performance2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

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




9

9

11

10

8

12

14

11

5

10

10

9

9

11

8

5

14

24

30

25

26

29

29

31

27

20

27

24

28

20

21

24

28

26

15

13

12

16

16

23

19

19

16

17

12

15

14

13

11

19

18

4

4

3

4

4

6

4

3

6

3

3

3

4

3

4

5

2

3

1

3

2

2

2

2

1

3

5

1

2

3

4

1

5

47

43

46

42

41

29

30

39

49

38

51

43

50

48

54

43

35

2017 Moreland

2016 Moreland

2015 Moreland

2014 Moreland

2013 Moreland

2012 Moreland

State-wide

Metro

South Ward

North East Ward

North West Ward

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


2017 Elderly Support Performance

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



73

72

70

70

69

69

69

69

68

68

68

67

Metro

South Ward

65+

State-wide

35-49

Men

Moreland

18-34

Women

North East Ward

50-64

North West Ward

73

70

73

69

70

70

71

71

71

72

69

70

74

71

70

70

67

69

70

73

70

69

66

70

n/a

66

70

71

67

66

67

68

69

70

65

64

n/a

69

63

70

70

69

68

70

67

67

65

68

n/a

68

72

70

65

68

69

72

70

71

68

69

2017 Recreational Facilities Performance2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

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




19

19

19

15

16

16

22

25

25

16

18

22

16

20

22

15

18

45

51

47

49

46

50

43

45

44

51

42

43

48

46

44

48

40

24

20

22

21

25

24

22

20

24

21

26

23

25

22

23

25

28

8

4

6

8

7

5

7

5

5

9

8

10

6

9

10

4

5

1

2

2

2

1

1

2

1

1

2

2

1

2

1

1

3

3

3

5

4

4

3

4

4

2

2

5

3

4

2

1

6

9

2017 Moreland

2016 Moreland

2015 Moreland

2014 Moreland

2013 Moreland

2012 Moreland

State-wide

Metro

South Ward

North East Ward

North West Ward

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


2017 Recreational Facilities Performance

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



72

71

70

69

67

66

65

64

63

63

59

58

Metro

State-wide

South Ward

18-34

Men

35-49

Moreland

North East Ward

Women

North West Ward

65+

50-64

72

71

61

66

63

61

63

64

62

63

65

58

73

72

64

68

65

65

65

66

66

65

66

59

n/a

72

61

70

63

58

63

68

64

59

61

60

n/a

71

63

67

66

64

64

64

62

66

60

60

n/a

71

63

70

65

59

64

67

64

64

64

63

2017 Public Areas Performance2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

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




14

13

13

12

12

13

25

24

20

17

9

16

12

13

20

7

15

48

45

50

47

49

46

46

48

50

43

51

50

47

60

40

47

33

22

27

23

27

26

27

20

20

18

24

24

19

25

16

26

26

29

10

7

9

10

10

8

6

6

8

12

9

11

8

6

12

13

10

4

6

3

4

3

4

2

2

2

4

5

2

6

3

2

7

9

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

2

1

2

1

5

2017 Moreland

2016 Moreland

2015 Moreland

2014 Moreland

2013 Moreland

2012 Moreland

State-wide

Metro

South Ward

North East Ward

North West Ward

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


2017 Public Areas Performance

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



76

75

74

74

73

73

73

72

71

71

70

69

65+

Metro

Women

South Ward

State-wide

North West Ward

35-49

Moreland

50-64

18-34

Men

North East Ward

76

74

74

71

72

70

70

71

70

69

68

72

n/a

75

n/a

n/a

73

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

75

n/a

73

68

75

70

67

71

71

72

69

73

71

n/a

73

72

73

74

75

73

71

74

73

74

79

n/a

72

70

73

71

67

71

70

71

69

71

2017 Art Centres & Libraries Performance2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

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




20

19

16

21

18

23

25

22

16

21

16

23

18

24

14

28

41

43

48

49

46

43

44

50

41

37

37

45

42

41

47

31

16

17

22

16

26

18

17

15

13

19

21

12

17

17

14

18

6

5

4

5

4

4

3

6

11

3

5

7

7

5

7

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

16

13

9

9

5

10

10

8

19

18

20

13

17

11

18

21

2017 Moreland

2016 Moreland

2014 Moreland

2013 Moreland

2012 Moreland

State-wide

Metro

South Ward

North East Ward

North West Ward

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


2017 Art Centres & Libraries Performance

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



78

72

71

71

70

70

70

69

69

69

69

67

South Ward

35-49

Women

65+

Moreland

Metro

18-34

Men

North East Ward

State-wide

50-64

North West Ward

74

74

72

70

72

71

72

71

75

69

67

67

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

71

n/a

n/a

n/a

69

n/a

n/a

75

72

75

69

72

n/a

72

69

75

70

74

64

72

69

70

67

70

n/a

73

71

67

69

68

72

71

70

72

69

71

n/a

70

69

72

68

73

69

2017 Community Activities Performance2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

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




20

20

19

16

21

17

18

33

16

16

18

22

18

25

17

19

43

46

49

48

42

42

43

46

45

40

44

42

46

43

42

34

22

18

18

23

27

25

23

8

30

23

22

21

22

20

23

21

5

4

6

4

4

5

5

6

2

6

6

4

5

7

3

4

2

2

1

1

1

1

1

3

1

2

1

1

4

1

9

10

9

7

5

10

11

7

6

12

9

9

8

3

12

21

2017 Moreland

2016 Moreland

2014 Moreland

2013 Moreland

2012 Moreland

State-wide

Metro

South Ward

North East Ward

North West Ward

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


2017 Community Activities Performance

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



75

74

72

71

71

70

70

69

69

68

67

64

Metro

65+

South Ward

State-wide

35-49

50-64

Men

North East Ward

Moreland

Women

North West Ward

18-34

76

72

67

70

67

66

66

70

68

69

67

67

77

74

72

72

70

65

73

68

71

70

75

75

n/a

75

74

73

69

72

72

69

72

71

73

72

n/a

69

68

71

64

63

70

66

68

66

72

74

n/a

75

73

72

70

75

76

74

74

73

76

76

2017 Waste Management Performance2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

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




22

15

23

19

19

29

25

29

25

23

20

23

21

18

24

22

31

47

56

50

57

49

46

44

48

48

46

46

46

47

45

47

50

46

18

15

17

17

20

18

18

16

18

20

17

18

18

19

18

17

13

9

10

5

4

9

5

6

5

7

8

10

7

10

9

8

10

6

4

3

3

2

3

1

3

1

2

4

5

4

4

7

3

1

2

1

1

2

1

1

3

1

2

1

2

1

2017 Moreland

2016 Moreland

2015 Moreland

2014 Moreland

2013 Moreland

2012 Moreland

State-wide

Metro

South Ward

North East Ward

North West Ward

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


2017 Waste Management Performance

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



56

53

53

53

52

49

49

48

47

47

45

42

18-34

North East Ward

State-wide

Metro

Men

Moreland

North West Ward

65+

35-49

Women

South Ward

50-64

61

50

52

54

52

51

51

46

49

49

52

37

61

53

54

55

48

51

51

51

48

55

46

39

60

53

55

n/a

51

50

49

50

43

49

46

42

59

50

55

n/a

52

52

49

53

49

52

55

42

61

57

54

n/a

54

54

50

55

46

54

54

50

2017 Town Planning Performance2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

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




3

4

4

4

3

2

5

5

1

5

4

3

4

3

4

4

2

23

26

28

21

29

29

26

25

19

28

23

29

18

30

22

14

22

25

24

26

31

30

35

30

28

31

28

21

26

25

21

31

27

26

19

14

16

17

15

13

14

14

27

15

17

15

23

15

17

31

17

7

9

8

6

6

4

7

6

5

6

8

7

7

2

11

9

9

22

22

19

20

17

16

19

20

16

19

27

21

23

30

15

15

24

2017 Moreland

2016 Moreland

2015 Moreland

2014 Moreland

2013 Moreland

2012 Moreland

State-wide

Metro

South Ward

North East Ward

North West Ward

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


2017 Town Planning Performance

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



52

51

49

46

46

45

45

45

44

43

38

37

18-34

State-wide

Metro

North East Ward

Men

35-49

Moreland

North West Ward

Women

South Ward

65+

50-64

49

50

50

43

46

45

44

45

43

45

40

37

n/a

54

53

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

51

53

n/a

46

43

37

43

45

44

38

44

40

56

55

n/a

49

50

45

49

43

48

52

49

41

60

54

n/a

54

55

45

52

49

49

53

56

45

2017 Planning & Building Permits Performance2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

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




5

2

3

3

5

5

5

3

7

4

5

4

4

7

2

5

17

21

15

22

22

23

22

14

18

18

16

18

22

15

15

10

23

22

24

25

34

27

26

32

19

20

24

21

20

29

24

16

21

13

18

17

14

14

15

22

25

17

20

22

19

19

22

29

11

15

10

7

6

9

10

10

10

12

10

11

3

13

20

12

24

27

30

26

20

23

22

18

21

29

24

24

31

18

17

28

2017 Moreland

2016 Moreland

2014 Moreland

2013 Moreland

2012 Moreland

State-wide

Metro

South Ward

North East Ward

North West Ward

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


2017 Planning & Building Permits Performance

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



69

67

67

66

65

65

64

64

64

64

64

62

South Ward

35-49

Men

18-34

Moreland

North East Ward

Metro

North West Ward

50-64

State-wide

Women

65+

70

66

65

68

66

65

64

64

65

63

67

61

58

63

63

61

61

62

65

62

60

64

59

62

60

64

63

66

64

68

n/a

61

63

64

65

59

62

63

64

67

64

62

n/a

70

61

64

63

61

65

68

64

63

65

64

n/a

67

65

64

67

67

2017 Environmental Sustainability Performance2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

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




14

12

9

10

11

12

10

10

18

15

11

14

13

16

14

9

11

38

41

36

41

38

40

37

37

42

37

36

42

34

32

46

42

34

23

26

26

31

34

30

29

28

20

23

24

19

27

21

24

26

25

8

5

10

7

8

7

7

6

10

10

7

6

10

10

6

7

11

2

2

3

2

1

1

2

2

1

3

2

3

1

2

2

4

2

15

13

16

10

8

9

14

16

9

12

19

15

15

19

9

12

17

2017 Moreland

2016 Moreland

2015 Moreland

2014 Moreland

2013 Moreland

2012 Moreland

State-wide

Metro

South Ward

North East Ward

North West Ward

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


2017 Environmental Sustainability Performance

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



55

52

51

49

49

48

48

48

47

45

44

41

18-34

State-wide

Metro

Men

South Ward

Moreland

North West Ward

North East Ward

Women

65+

35-49

50-64

53

51

51

53

50

50

47

52

47

46

50

44

56

54

54

47

43

50

49

54

52

51

46

41

56

54

n/a

47

41

49

48

54

51

49

42

45

56

54

n/a

50

52

50

52

47

50

48

49

42

57

52

n/a

56

52

53

52

53

50

54

47

50

2017 Population Growth Performance2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘planning for population growth in the area’ over the last 12 months?




3

6

5

6

6

4

7

6

1

4

4

4

3

6

2

3

23

26

24

19

24

28

24

22

27

22

21

22

24

27

21

17

24

30

22

30

31

27

31

29

30

34

30

28

32

28

33

30

24

31

20

22

16

21

19

17

16

17

18

19

21

17

22

12

26

28

16

8

9

10

7

8

5

7

7

7

9

8

8

9

5

9

12

12

16

15

16

16

17

15

16

18

13

15

18

17

15

18

12

16

17

2017 Moreland

2016 Moreland

2015 Moreland

2014 Moreland

2013 Moreland

2012 Moreland

State-wide

Metro

South Ward

North East Ward

North West Ward

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


2017 Population Growth Performance

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘planning for population growth in the area’ over the last 12 months?



65

64

60

60

60

60

60

60

60

58

55

52

18-34

South Ward

Metro

35-49

Women

Moreland

Men

State-wide

North East Ward

North West Ward

50-64

65+

69

65

62

61

62

63

63

60

64

61

55

60

n/a

n/a

63

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

60

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

68

59

n/a

58

61

62

62

62

64

61

55

58

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

2017 Business/Community Development Performance2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

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




8

8

5

7

6

11

7

6

8

8

13

3

4

5

29

36

34

33

31

35

31

26

29

30

30

40

23

17

35

26

31

32

34

37

31

36

36

34

34

31

42

33

8

6

7

9

7

6

9

8

8

7

4

7

11

16

2

2

1

3

1

3

3

2

3

1

3

3

2

18

22

22

16

22

11

20

20

18

18

16

17

17

27

2017 Moreland

2016 Moreland

2014 Moreland

State-wide

Metro

South Ward

North East Ward

North West Ward

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


2017 Business/Community Development Performance

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



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

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

and data tables provided alongside this report.

Gender Age

49%51%

Men

Women

9%

30%

27%

21%

13%18-24

25-34

35-49

50-64

65+

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



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 Moreland City Council according to the most recently

available Australian Bureau of Statistics population estimates, whereas the results were previously

not weighted.

The service responsibility area performance measures have changed significantly and the rating

scale used to assess performance has also changed.

As such, the results of the 2012 State-wide Local Government Community Satisfaction Survey should

be considered as a benchmark. Please note that comparisons should not be made with the State-wide

Local Government Community Satisfaction Survey results from 2011 and prior due to the

methodological and sampling changes. Comparisons in the period 2012-2017 have been made

throughout this report as appropriate.


Demographic

Actual

survey

sample size

Weighted

base

Maximum margin of

error at 95%

confidence interval

Moreland City Council 400 400 +/-4.9

Men 195 195 +/-7.0

Women 205 205 +/-6.9

South Ward 96 96 +/-10.1

North East Ward 120 117 +/-9.0

North West Ward 184 187 +/-7.2

18-34 years 67 156 +/-12.1

35-49 years 114 109 +/-9.2

50-64 years 137 85 +/-8.4

65+ years 82 51 +/-10.9

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

Moreland City 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 +/-4.9% at the 95%

confidence level for results around 50%. Margins of error will be larger for any sub-samples. As an

example, a result of 50% can be read confidently as falling midway in the range 45.1% - 54.9%.

Maximum margins of error are listed in the table below, based on a population of 135,000 people aged

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


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

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

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

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

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

2012-2017 vary slightly.

Council Groups

Moreland City Council is classified as a Metropolitan council according to the following classification

list:

Metropolitan, Interface, Regional Centres, Large Rural & Small Rural

Councils participating in the Metropolitan group are: Banyule, Bayside, Boroondara, Brimbank, Glen

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

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

Wherever appropriate, results for Moreland City Council for this 2017 State-wide Local Government

Community Satisfaction Survey have been compared against other participating councils in the

Metropolitan group and on a state-wide basis. Please note that council groupings changed for 2015,

and as such comparisons to council group results before that time can not be made within the reported

charts.


Index Scores

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SCALE

CATEGORIES% RESULT INDEX FACTOR INDEX VALUE

Very good 9% 100 9

Good 40% 75 30

Average 37% 50 19

Poor 9% 25 2

Very poor 4% 0 0

Can’t say 1% -- INDEX SCORE 60


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

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

responses excluded from the calculation.

SCALE CATEGORIES % RESULT INDEX FACTOR INDEX VALUE

Improved 36% 100 36

Stayed the same 40% 50 20

Deteriorated 23% 0 0

Can’t say 1% -- INDEX SCORE 56


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

indicate:

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

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

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

INDEX SCORE Performance implication Importance implication

75 – 100Council is performing very well

in this service area

This service area is seen to be

extremely important

60 – 75Council is performing well in this service

area, but there is room for improvement


very important

50 – 60Council is performing satisfactorily in

this service area but needs to improve


fairly important

40 – 50Council is performing poorly



somewhat important

0 – 40Council is performing very poorly



not that important


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

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

Where:

$1 = Index Score 1

$2 = Index Score 2

$3 = unweighted sample count 1

$4 = unweighted sample count 1

$5 = standard deviation 1

$6 = standard deviation 2

All figures can be sourced from the detailed cross tabulations.

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

scores are significantly different.


Core, Optional and Tailored Questions

Over and above necessary geographic and demographic questions required to ensure sample

representativeness, a base set of questions for the 2017 State-wide Local Government Community

Satisfaction Survey was designated as ‘Core’ and therefore compulsory inclusions for all participating

Councils.

These core questions comprised:

Overall performance last 12 months (Overall performance)

Lobbying on behalf of community (Advocacy)

Community consultation and engagement (Consultation)

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

Condition of sealed local roads (Sealed local roads)

Contact in last 12 months (Contact)

Rating of contact (Customer service)

Overall council direction last 12 months (Council direction)

Reporting of results for these core questions can always be compared against other participating

councils in the council group and against all participating councils state-wide. Alternatively, some

questions in the 2017 State-wide Local Government Community Satisfaction Survey were optional.

Councils also had the ability to ask tailored questions specific only to their council.


Reporting

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

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

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

areas surveyed.

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

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

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

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

.

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


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

CSS: 2017 Victorian Local Government Community Satisfaction Survey.

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

small rural.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

council, rather than the achieved survey sample.

Contact Us:

03 8685 8555

John Scales

Managing Director

Mark Zuker

Managing Director

Background and objectives - Moreland City Council Community Satisfaction Survey throughout Victorian...

Documents

Transcript of Background and objectives - Moreland City Council Community Satisfaction Survey throughout Victorian...