2



Background and objectives



Survey methodology and sampling



Further information



Key findings & recommendations



Summary of findings



Detailed findings

• Key core measure: Overall performance

• Key core measure: Customer service

• Key core measure: Council direction indicators

• Individual service areas

• Detailed demographics



Appendix A: Detailed survey tabulations



Appendix B: Further project information

3

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

Community Satisfaction Survey for Brimbank 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 Brimbank 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.

4

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

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

Survey sample matched to the demographic profile of Brimbank 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

Brimbank City Council, particularly younger people.

A total of n=400 completed interviews were achieved in Brimbank 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

Brimbank 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 1

st

February – 30

th

March.

• 2015, n=400 completed interviews, conducted in the period of 1

st

February – 30

th

March.

• 2014, n=400 completed interviews, conducted in the period of 31

st

January – 11

th

March.

• 2013, n=400 completed interviews, conducted in the period of 1

st

February – 24

th

March.

• 2012, n=400 completed interviews, conducted in the period of 18

th

May – 30

th

June.

5

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.





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

in Appendix B.

6

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

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.

72

70

65

83

55

78 52

79 54

Importance

Performance

Net differential

60 64 59



Results shown are index scores out of 100.

9

The

for Brimbank City Council represents a one point decline

from the 2016 result. This continues the

in the overall performance index score from

the peak of 64 in 2014.



Brimbank City Council’s overall performance is rated

(at the 95% confidence

interval)

(index score of 64).

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



No demographic or geographic sub-group experienced significant declines in overall performance

ratings in the past year, with the exception of residents

who had

perceptions of Council’s overall performance (index score of 58, 8 points lower than 2016

results).

Residents are more likely to rate Brimbank City Council’s overall performance as ‘very good’ (12%)

than ‘very poor’ (4%). One third (32%) rate Council’s overall performance as ‘good’, while a further

39% sit mid-scale providing an ‘average’ rating. Another 10% rate Council’s overall performance as

‘poor’.

10

Review of the core performance measures (as shown on page 19) shows that Brimbank City

Council’s

compared to

Council’s own results in 2016. Although there were no significant improvements in 2017, the results

are generally in line with the Metropolitan group and State-wide council averages.



An exception to this is Council’s performance on

(index score of 59) which

both the Metropolitan group (5 index points higher) and State-wide council

(6 index points higher) averages.



On the measure of

(index score of 58), Council also

the

State-wide average for councils (5 points higher); however, Council rates

than

the Metropolitan group average (8 points lower) on this measure.

There are

to report on core measures.

However, it is important to note that Keilor residents

in the past year in their

perceptions on three measures: lobbying (10 index points lower than 2016), customer service (9

index points lower than 2016) and making community decisions (8 index points lower than 2016).

is a top performing area for Brimbank City Council. (It is the highest rated core

performance measure and the equal second highest rated service area overall.) In the area of

customer service (index score of 70), Brimbank City Council is

to the State-wide and

Metropolitan group averages for councils (index score of 71 and 69 respectively).

11



The level of contact with Council has been declining over the last three years, from a high of

61% in 2014. The current level of contact now back to levels similar to 2012 and 2013.



Keilor residents are

likely to have contacted Council (64%) compared to the

average for the whole of Council. Those aged 18 to 34 years were

likely to

have contacted Council (44%).

Despite having declined three index points from 2016, this is one of Council’s

(index score of 70)



More than one quarter (28%) rate Council’s customer service as ‘very good’, with a further 41%

rating customer service as ‘good’.



It is important to note that while positive, customer service ratings are at their lowest point to

date. Peak ratings for customer service were seen in 2013 and 2015 (index scores of 76 for both

years).

Perceptions of customer service

among Keilor residents in the past year (index

score of 64, down 9 points). But given declines (not significant) among most other groups, Council

should aim to improve customer service across all residents.

12

The area of

(index score of 72). This area is rated highest among residents; ratings

over the course of the past year (4 index points higher than 2016).



Two-thirds (66%) of residents rate Council’s performance in the area of art centres and libraries

as ‘very good’ or ‘good’.



It is however considered one of the least important service areas (importance index score of 67).

Even so, 44% of residents have personally used this service.



Differences in ratings are evident by demographic sub-groups. Residents aged 65+ years, and

personal users of arts centres and libraries, rate this service area

(performance index scores of 79 and 76 respectively). Residents aged 18 to 34 years rate this

service area

(index score of 66).

(performance index score of 70) is the

among residents, equal in index score with customer service. Unlike art centres and libraries, waste

management is considered one of Council’s most important responsibilities (importance index score

of 80).



Two-thirds (68%) rate Council’s performance in the area of waste management as ‘very good’ or

‘good’.



This area is rated

than the Metropolitan group average (index score of 75).

With a performance index score of 65, Council also is well regarded in the area of

This service area is rated equal highest on importance (with local streets and

footpaths, importance index score of 83 for each).

13

.

Nonetheless, the areas that stand out as being most in need of Council attention are

(index score of 52), followed by

(index score of 54) and

(index

score of 54). In the area of traffic management, Council is

than the

(index score of 59).



Population growth (importance index score of 78) and traffic management (importance index score

of 79) are both considered important Council services, even if they are not the most important

services. Lobbying, by comparison, rates lower in importance vis-à-vis other services (importance

index score of 70).



(index scores of 59 for population growth and 61 for each of traffic management and lobbying).



Performance index scores in 2017 for each of these measures are at their lowest (or equal lowest)

to date, meaning that Council has performed more favourably on each of these service areas in the

past.

14

. Key priorities

include:



(margin of 28 points)



(margin of 27 points)



(margin of 26 points)



(margin of 24 points)



(margin of 23 points)



(margin of 20 points)



(margin of 20 points).

Consideration should also be given to Brimbank City Council residents aged 18 to 34 years, as well as

Keilor residents, who appear to be most driving negative opinion in 2017.

On the positive side, Council should

and

.



It is noted that historically we have seen higher customer service performance ratings for Council,

and so efforts should be made to ensure that perceptions in this area do not deteriorate further.



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

especially residents aged 65+ years, and use these lessons to build performance experience and

perceptions in other areas.

15

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

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

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

council.

• None applicable

• Aged 65+ years

• Aged 18-34 years

• Keilor

Customer Service

Overall Performance

Community Consultation

Making Community Decisions

Sealed Local Roads

Advocacy

Overall Council Direction

19

61

64

59

Aged 65+

years

Keilor,

Aged 18-

34 years,

(Community consultation and

engagement)

54

57

55

Aged 65+

years

Keilor,

Men,

Aged 50-

64 years

(Lobbying on behalf of the community)

57

56

54

Aged 65+

years

Aged 50-

64 years

(Decisions made in the

interest of the community)

57

58

54

Aged 65+

years

Keilor

(Condition of sealed local roads)

58

66

53

Aged 65+

years

Aged 18-

34 years

73

71

69

Sunshine Keilor

61

54

53

Sunshine,

Aged 65+,

Aged 18-

34 years

Keilor

20

Total household use

Personal use

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

suggesting further investigation is necessary:

23

-Town planning policy

-Planning permits

-Sealed local roads

-Informing the community

-Traffic management

-Enforcement of local laws

-Family support services

-Elderly support services

-Recreational facilities

-Appearance of public

areas

-Community & cultural

-Bus/community

dev./tourism

-Emergency & disaster

mngt

28

-Town planning policy

-Planning permits

-Informing the community

-Local streets & footpaths

-Enforcement of local laws

-Family support services

-Elderly support services

-Recreational facilities

-Appearance of public

areas

-Art centres & libraries

-Community & cultural

-Waste management

-Emergency & disaster

mngt

-Sealed local roads

29

1. Local streets &

footpaths

2. Emergency &

disaster mngt

3. Sealed roads

1. Waste management

2. Community

decisions

3. Local streets &

footpaths

1. Emergency &

disaster mngt

2. Population

growth

3. Local streets &

footpaths

1. Community

decisions

2. Sealed roads

3. Emergency &

disaster mngt

1. Unsealed roads

2. Sealed roads

3. Emergency &

disaster mngt

1. Emergency &

disaster mngt

2. Community

decisions

3. Waste management

1. Community &

cultural

2. Bus/community

dev./tourism

3. Art centres &

libraries

1. Bus/community

dev./tourism

2. Community &

cultural

3. Slashing &

weed control

1. Tourism

development

2. Community &

cultural

3. Art centres &

libraries

1. Art centres &

libraries

2. Community &

cultural

3. Planning

permits

1. Art centres &

libraries

2. Community &

cultural

3. Traffic management

1. Community &

cultural

2. Art centres &

libraries

3. Tourism

development

30

1. Art centres &

libraries

2. Waste management

3. Emergency &

disaster mngt

1. Waste management

2. Art centres &

libraries

3. Recreational

facilities

1. Art centres &

libraries

2. Waste management

3. Emergency &

disaster mngt

1. Art centres &

libraries

2. Appearance of

public areas

3. Emergency &

disaster mngt

1. Appearance of

public areas

2. Emergency &

disaster mngt

3. Art centres &

libraries

1. Emergency &

disaster mngt

2. Art centres &

libraries

3. Community &

cultural

1. Population

growth

2. Traffic management

3. Lobbying

1. Planning

permits

2. Population

growth

3. Parking facilities

1. Unsealed roads

2. Planning

permits

3. Population

growth

1. Parking facilities

2. Community

decisions

3. Unsealed roads

1. Unsealed roads

2. Sealed roads

3. Slashing &

weed control

1. Unsealed roads

2. Sealed roads

3. Planning

permits

33



• Keilor

• Sunshine

• Index score of 70, down 3 points on 2016

• Aged 18-34 years

• Keilor

• 54%, down 3 points on 2016

37









54

53

61

58

57

54

Have had contact

• 64% right direction (19% definitely and 45% probably)

• 19% wrong direction (12% probably and 7% definitely)

• Keilor

• Sunshine

• Aged 65+ years

• Aged 18-34 years

• 58% stayed about the same, up 6 points on 2016

• 24% improved, down 8 points on 2016

• 8% deteriorated, down 2 points on 2016





































































































































































