2019 Local
Government
Community
Satisfaction Survey
Brimbank City
Council
Coordinated by the Department of
Environment, Land, Water and Planning
on behalf of Victorian councils
Contents
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Brimbank City Council
2
Background and objectives
4
Key findings and recommendations
6
Summary of findings
13
Detailed findings
27
Overall performance
28
Customer service
31
Council direction
36
Individual service areas
41
Community consultation and engagement 42
Lobbying on behalf of the community
46
Decisions made in the interest of the
community
50
Condition of sealed local roads
54
Informing the community
58
Condition of local streets and footpaths 62
Traffic management
66
Parking facilities
70
Enforcement of local laws
74
Family support services
78
Elderly support services
82
Disadvantaged support services
86
Recreational facilities
90
Appearance of public areas
94
Art centres and libraries
98
Community and cultural activities
102
Waste management
106
Business and community development
and tourism
110
Town planning
114
Planning and building permits
118
Environmental sustainability
122
Emergency and disaster management 126
Planning for population growth
130
Detailed demographics
134
Appendix A: Index scores, margins of error
and significant differences
141
Appendix B: Further project information
146
82
58
76
54
-24
-22
Brimbank City Council
–
at a glance
3
Note: Net differentials are calculated based on the un-rounded importance and performance scores, then rounded to the nearest whole number.
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Brimbank City Council
Top 2 areas for improvement
Importance
Performance
Net differential
Local streets &
footpaths
Population
growth
Overall Council performance
Results shown are index scores out of 100.
63 67 60
Brimbank Metropolitan State-wide
73
69
67
67
Top performing areas
Art centres & libraries
Waste management
Emergency & disaster mngt
Community and cultural activities
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
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Brimbank City Council
Key findings and
recommendations
6
The overall performance index score of 63 for
Brimbank City Council represents a two-point decline
on the 2018 result. Although this is not a significant
decline, it erodes some of the significant five point
improvement achieved in 2018.
Brimbank City Council’s overall performance is rated
statistically significantly higher (at the 95% confidence
interval) than the average rating for councils State-wide
but significantly lower than the Metropolitan group
average (index scores of 60 and 67 respectively).
• Residents aged 18 to 34 years (index score of 67,
down five points from 2018) declined significantly in
their impressions of Council’s overall performance in
the past year, despite having more favourable
impressions than other demographic groups.
• Conversely, residents aged 50 to 64 years (index
score of 57) have significantly less favourable
impressions of Council’s overall performance than
residents overall.
Five times as many residents rate Brimbank City
Council’s overall performance as ‘very good’ or ‘good’
(51%), than those who rate it as ‘very poor’ or ‘poor’
(10%). A further 37% sit mid-scale, rating Council’s
overall performance as ‘average’.
Overall performance
7
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Brimbank City Council
63
67
60
Brimbank Metropolitan State-wide
Overall Council performance
Results shown are index scores out of 100.
Contact with council
More than half of Brimbank City Council residents
(57%) have had contact with Council in the last 12
months. This is not significantly different to 2018 (55%).
• Residents aged 65+ years had the most contact with
Council (64%).
• Conversely, residents aged 18 to 34 years had the
least contact with Council (50%).
• There are no other significant differences across the
demographic or geographic cohorts in the rate of
contacting Council compared to the average.
Customer service
Brimbank City Council’s customer service index of 74 is
two points higher than the 2018 result. Although this is
not a significant increase, Council’s customer service
rating has increased steadily over the past two years,
bringing it back in line with Council’s highest result of
76 achieved in both 2013 and 2015.
Performance on this measure is rated about midway
between the State-wide and Metropolitan group council
averages (index scores of 71 and 76 respectively) – but
is not rated significantly differently to either group.
• While there are no significant differences across
demographic cohorts compared to the 2019 Council
average, perceptions of customer service vary
between genders. Men rate Council’s customer
service highest (index score of 78) and women rate it
lowest (index score of 70).
Two in five residents (40%) rate Council’s customer
service as ‘very good’, and one-third (33%) rate it as
‘good’, representing a seven point increase in ‘very
good’ ratings compared with 2018.
Customer service is the area where Brimbank City
Council has performed most strongly overall compared
to other individual service areas.
Customer contact and service
8
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Brimbank City Council
Top performing areas
Brimbank City Council’s performance ratings remained
largely consistent with 2018. Ratings across most
service areas varied by only a few points in either a
positive or negative direction. Council did not
experience any significant improvements.
Seven in ten residents (70%) believe Council is
generally headed in the right direction, compared to
only 16% who believe it is heading in the wrong
direction. Another 14% ‘can’t say’.
The top four performing service areas (beyond
customer service) for Brimbank City Council are:
• Art centres and libraries (index score of 73)
• Waste management (index score of 69)
• Emergency and disaster management (index score
of 67)
• Community and cultural activities (index score of 67).
Council’s performance ratings are significantly higher
than both the State-wide and Metropolitan group
averages in three areas: traffic management, town
planning policy, and planning and building permits.
Areas for improvement
Emergency and disaster management is both a top
service area and an area in need of improvement after
experiencing a significant four point decline compared
to 2018. Council’s performance rating in this area is
significantly lower than State-wide and Metropolitan
group average (index scores of 72 and 70
respectively).
• Men (index score of 67, down six points from 2018)
and residents aged 35 to 49 years (65, down 10
points) declined most significantly in their perception
of Council’s performance in this area.
Similarly, while Council outperforms the State-wide and
Metropolitan group averages on planning and building
permits, its performance rating declined significantly in
the past year (index score of 58, down four points).
Other areas for improvement are those where ratings
are relatively low
and
significantly below the
Metropolitan group average. Namely:
• Business and community development and tourism
(index score of 57)
• Local streets and footpaths (index score of 58)
• Informing the community (index score of 59).
Top performing areas and areas for improvement
9
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Brimbank City Council
The individual service area that has the strongest
influence on the overall performance rating (based on
regression analysis) is:
• Decisions made in the interest of the community
Following on from that, other individual service areas
with a moderate to strong influence on the overall
performance rating are:
• Environmental sustainability
• The condition of local streets and footpaths
• The appearance of public areas
• Disadvantaged support services
Good communication and transparency with
residents about decisions the Council has made in
the community’s interest could help drive up
overall opinion of the Council’s performance.
In addition, focusing attention on the condition of
local streets
(performance index of 58)
could help to
drive up opinion of Brimbank City Council’s overall
performance,
as this service area also have a
relatively strong influence on overall perceptions and an
index score with scope for improvement. Council has
previously recorded a slightly higher performance score
on this service area.
Environmental sustainability is rated relatively high on
performance (index score over 60) and has a moderate
to strong influence on perceptions of overall
performance. Focus should be on maintaining
performance in this area to ensure negative
perceptions do not have an overly negative impact on
overall performance ratings.
Recreational facilities and the appearance of public
areas also have high performance ratings (index scores
over 60), as well as art centres and libraries (index
score above 70), but these service areas have a low to
moderate influence on the overall performance rating.
Maintaining these positive results should remain a
focus – however,
there is greater work to be done
elsewhere
.
A service area to watch is disadvantaged support
services
(performance index of 61). This service area
has a moderate negative influence on Council’s overall
performance rating, meaning that low performance
ratings here can negatively impact perceptions of
overall performance (noting that 30% of residents did
not provide a rating on this service area). Attention
should be paid to this area to ensure performance
perceptions do not decline further.
Influences on perceptions of overall performance
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Brimbank City Council
10
In terms of priorities for the year ahead, Brimbank City
Council should focus on maintaining and improving
performance in the individual service areas that most
influence perceptions of overall performance, namely:
• Decisions made in the interest of the community
• Environmental sustainability
• The condition of local streets and footpaths
• The appearance of public areas
• Disadvantaged support services.
In general, Brimbank City Council’s ratings have
remained largely consistent over the years. However,
Council has shown it is able to significantly improve its
performance ratings, as it did so across six service
areas in 2018.
While results have held firm in 2019, Council should
aim to improve ratings in key areas where it continues
to perform behind the Metropolitan group average.
These tend to be reflected in the areas listed above
that most strongly influence perceptions of overall
performance, or where stated importance tends to be
greater than performance by a wide margin, as outlined
in the ensuing paragraphs.
Council also performs below the group average on
informing the community (index score of 59). As
mentioned,
focusing on good communication with
residents about decisions the Council has made in
the community’s interest and on important issues
has the potential to boost ratings in this area.
Council should also pay attention to service areas
where stated importance exceeds rated performance
by significant margins:
• Local streets and footpaths (margin of 24 points)
• Population growth (margin of 22 points)
• Elderly support services (margin of 19 points)
• Enforcement of local laws (margin of 19 points)
• Community decisions (margin of 19 points)
• Disadvantaged support services (margin of 19
points).
More generally, consideration should be given to
residents aged 50 to 64 years, who appear to be
driving negative opinion in a number of areas in 2019.
It is also important not to ignore, and to learn from,
what is working amongst other groups, especially
residents aged 18 to 34 years, and use these lessons
to build on performance experience and perceptions.
Focus areas for coming 12 months
11
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Brimbank City Council
An approach we recommend is to further mine the
survey data to better understand the profile of these
over and under-performing demographic groups. This
can be achieved via additional consultation and data
interrogation, self-mining the SPSS data provided, or
via the dashboard portal available to the council.
A personal briefing by senior JWS Research
representatives is also available to assist in
providing both explanation and interpretation of
the results. Please contact JWS Research on:
03 8685 8555
Further areas of exploration
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Brimbank City Council
12
Summary of
findings
13
Summary of core measures
14
Index scores
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Brimbank City Council
71
76
73
76
73
70
72
74
63
60
58
58
60
63
63
62
64
61
61
60
65
63
58
57
56
58
54
55
56
57
55
58
57
56
58
59
55
56
54
54
57
54
57
57
63
63
62
57
61
59
64
62
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 Measures
Brimbank
2019
Brimbank
2018
Metro
2019
State
wide
2019
Highest
score
Lowest
score
Overall Performance
63
65
67
60 Aged 18-34
years
Aged 50-64
years
Community Consultation
(Community consultation and
engagement)
58
56
58
56 Aged 35-49
years
Aged 50-64
years
Advocacy
(Lobbying on behalf of the community)
57
57
57
54 Aged 18-49
years
Aged 50+
years
Making Community Decisions
(Decisions made in the interest of the
community)
59
58
60
55 Aged 18-34
years
Aged 50-64
years
Sealed Local Roads
(Condition of sealed local roads)
63
63
69
56 North, Aged
18-34 years
Aged 35+
years,
South
Customer Service
74
72
76
71
Men
Women,
North
Overall Council Direction
62
64
55
53 Aged 18-34
years
Aged 65+
years
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Brimbank City Council
15
Summary of key community satisfaction
16
Key measures summary results (%)
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Brimbank City Council
15
10
8
11
22
40
36
28
25
28
33
33
37
31
31
33
24
16
6
14
12
9
15
4
4
3
3
5
5
7
1
14
21
14
1
Overall Performance
Community Consultation
Advocacy
Making Community Decisions
Sealed Local Roads
Customer Service
Very good Good Average Poor Very poor Can't say
Overall Council Direction
31
55
8 5
Improved
Stayed the same
Deteriorated
Can't say
82
76
83
79
78
80
79
76
74
79
78
82
80
83
70
69
76
69
74
70
Local streets & footpaths
Population growth
Elderly support services
Enforcement of local laws
Community decisions
Disadvantaged support serv.
Traffic management
Informing the community
Parking facilities
Sealed local roads
Environmental sustainability
Emergency & disaster mngt
Family support services
Waste management
Consultation & engagement
Lobbying
Appearance of public areas
Planning & building permits
Recreational facilities
Town planning policy
58
54
64
60
59
61
61
59
57
63
63
67
66
69
58
57
65
58
63
59
Individual service areas importance vs performance
Note: Net differentials are calculated based on the un-rounded importance and performance scores, then rounded to the nearest whole number.
17
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Brimbank City Council
Importance (index scores)
Performance (index scores) Net Differential
Service areas where importance exceeds performance by 10 points or more, suggesting further investigation is
necessary:
-24
-22
-19
-19
-19
-19
-18
-17
-17
-16
-15
-15
-14
-14
-12
-12
-11
-11
-11
-10
We use regression analysis to investigate which
individual service areas, such as community
consultation, condition of sealed local roads, etc. (the
independent variables) are influencing respondent
perceptions of overall council performance (the
dependent variable).
In the charts that follow:
• The horizontal axis represents the council
performance index for each individual service.
Service areas appearing on the right-side of the
chart have a higher performance index than those on
the left.
• The vertical axis represents the Standardised Beta
Coefficient from the multiple regression performed.
This measures the contribution of each service area
to the model. Service areas near the top of the chart
have a greater positive effect on overall performance
ratings than service areas located closer to the axis.
• The charts are based on unweighted data, which
means the service performance indices in the
regression charts may vary by +/- 1-2 points on the
indices reported in charts and tables elsewhere in
this report.
The regressions are shown on the following two charts.
1. The first chart
shows the results of a regression
analysis of
all
individual service areas selected by
Council.
2. The second chart
shows the results of a
regression performed on a smaller set of service
areas, being those with a moderate-to-strong
influence on overall performance. Service areas
with a weak influence on overall performance (i.e. a
low Standardised Beta Coefficient) have been
excluded from the analysis.
Key insights from this analysis are derived from
the second chart.
Regression analysis explained
18
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Brimbank City Council
Influence on overall performance: all service areas
19
The multiple regression analysis model above (all service areas) has an R-squared value of 0.513 and adjusted R-square value of 0.483,
which means that 51% 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 = 17.30. 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)
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Brimbank City Council
Influence on overall performance: key service areas
20
The multiple regression analysis model above (reduced set of service areas) has an R-squared value of 0.5111 and adjusted R-square value
of 0.492, which means that 51% 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 = 26.91.
2019 regression analysis (key service areas)
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Brimbank City Council
83
83
82
82
80
80
79
79
79
78
78
76
76
76
74
74
70
70
69
69
69
64
61
Elderly support services
Waste management
Local streets & footpaths
Emergency & disaster mngt
Family support services
Disadvantaged support serv.
Sealed local roads
Enforcement of local laws
Traffic management
Community decisions
Environmental sustainability
Informing the community
Appearance of public areas
Population growth
Recreational facilities
Parking facilities
Consultation & engagement
Town planning policy
Planning & building permits
Art centres & libraries
Lobbying
Community & cultural
Bus/community dev./tourism
Individual service area importance
2019 individual service area importance (index scores)
2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Brimbank City Council
21
Q1. Firstly, how important should [RESPONSIBILITY AREA] be as a responsibility for Council?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 31 Councils asked group: 10
Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
82
83
82
82
79
77
82
77
78
80
77
78
76
78
75
75
69
71
71
69
67
64
61
80
80
83
83
77
74
81
77
79
80
72
76
78
78
74
75
71
71
72
67
70
63
63
80
83
80
79
76
75
80
77
78
78
77
77
76
74
73
73
73
72
73
70
71
65
64
81
82
80
81
78
76
77
77
76
79
76
77
76
76
75
73
73
71
71
72
70
66
64
80
79
80
80
75
74
77
77
75
77
73
75
79
72
74
73
71
68
72
67
67
66
64
82
81
81
83
79
78
n/a
80
79
n/a
76
77
78
77
75
73
72
71
70
69
70
67
63
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Individual service area importance
2019 individual service area importance (%)
47
45
44
48
38
39
36
41
43
41
30
40
25
34
37
33
23
21
22
19
23
16
15
39
40
40
34
44
43
44
39
35
37
46
37
49
39
34
37
42
44
40
43
37
35
31
12
11
15
14
14
14
14
15
16
16
20
18
22
23
20
23
26
22
30
26
27
38
36
1
1
1
2
4
3
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
6
6
6
8
7
3
5
7
12
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
2
3
3
4
2
1
2
3
1
3
2
1
1
2
2
3
1
7
5
1
1
Waste management
Elderly support services
Local streets & footpaths
Emergency & disaster mngt
Sealed local roads
Traffic management
Community decisions
Family support services
Enforcement of local laws
Disadvantaged support serv.
Appearance of public areas
Environmental sustainability
Recreational facilities
Informing the community
Population growth
Parking facilities
Consultation & engagement
Planning & building permits
Art centres & libraries
Town planning policy
Lobbying
Community & cultural
Bus/community dev./tourism
Extremely important
Very important
Fairly important
Not that important
Not at all important
Can't say
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Brimbank City Council
Q1. Firstly, how important should [RESPONSIBILITY AREA] be as a responsibility for Council?
22
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 31 Councils asked group: 10
Individual service area performance
2019 individual service area performance (index scores)
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Brimbank City Council
23
2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
73
69
67
67
66
65
64
63
63
63
61
61
60
59
59
59
58
58
58
57
57
57
54
Art centres & libraries
Waste management
Emergency & disaster mngt
Community & cultural
Family support services
Appearance of public areas
Elderly support services
Recreational facilities
Sealed local roads
Environmental sustainability
Disadvantaged support serv.
Traffic management
Enforcement of local laws
Town planning policy
Community decisions
Informing the community
Planning & building permits
Consultation & engagement
Local streets & footpaths
Bus/community dev./tourism
Lobbying
Parking facilities
Population growth
Q2. How has Council performed on [RESPONSIBILITY AREA] over the last 12 months?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 63 Councils asked group: 14
Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
75
71
71
67
66
62
64
66
63
63
63
61
60
60
58
58
62
56
61
58
57
59
53
72
70
65
64
62
61
63
64
58
62
60
54
60
58
56
56
60
55
55
58
54
55
52
68
68
64
67
65
61
66
63
58
57
61
57
59
56
57
58
59
54
54
57
57
57
55
68
71
66
65
64
62
63
66
60
61
60
57
62
59
55
61
59
58
53
59
54
59
57
72
73
68
66
67
59
64
66
63
62
61
58
61
59
57
61
60
56
60
55
54
60
56
69
73
65
67
65
59
67
65
n/a
64
61
55
64
59
n/a
62
62
57
55
57
56
60
58
n/a
72
n/a
n/a
65
62
65
65
n/a
n/a
61
54
57
55
n/a
n/a
59
58
55
57
55
56
n/a
Individual service area performance
24
2019 individual service area performance (%)
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Brimbank City Council
26
24
18
19
22
12
14
11
17
11
12
13
14
16
12
11
10
6
8
10
7
10
7
43
39
38
37
33
40
38
35
29
34
33
30
29
27
28
28
28
31
25
23
26
22
24
18
25
28
24
24
26
31
30
28
31
30
21
34
23
23
33
31
31
31
27
27
30
32
5
6
11
9
15
12
10
15
17
13
7
5
10
5
6
9
14
8
12
7
10
14
14
1
4
3
2
5
6
3
4
8
8
7
3
1
2
4
5
3
3
3
3
3
3
6
8
1
2
9
1
3
3
4
1
4
10
27
12
27
28
14
14
21
21
30
27
22
17
Art centres & libraries
Waste management
Appearance of public areas
Community & cultural
Sealed local roads
Traffic management
Recreational facilities
Informing the community
Local streets & footpaths
Parking facilities
Enforcement of local laws
Family support services
Environmental sustainability
Emergency & disaster mngt
Elderly support services
Community decisions
Consultation & engagement
Town planning policy
Lobbying
Disadvantaged support serv.
Planning & building permits
Bus/community dev./tourism
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: 63 Councils asked group: 14
Significantly Higher than
State-wide Average
Significantly Lower than
State-wide Average
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Brimbank City Council
25
• Lobbying
• Traffic management
• Town planning policy
• Planning permits
• Making community decisions
• Sealed local roads
• Enforcement of local laws
• Elderly support services
• Recreational facilities
• Appearance of public areas
• Bus/community dev./tourism
• Emergency & disaster mngt
Individual service area performance vs State-wide average
Individual service area performance vs group average
26
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Brimbank City Council
Significantly Higher than
Group Average
Significantly Lower than
Group Average
• Traffic management
• 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
• Bus/community dev./tourism
• Emergency & disaster mngt
• Sealed local roads
DETAILED
FINDINGS
27
Overall
performance
28
72
65
67
66
65
62
62
62
62
59
59
58
64
60
61
60
58
63
59
60
59
60
66
66
60
61
61
63
64
63
55
59
60
59
67
62
62
61
60
63
61
65
60
58
65
n/a
64
64
64
64
69
64
60
61
62
65
n/a
62
63
62
62
63
63
61
60
60
64
n/a
61
n/a
60
n/a
62
58
55
60
55
Overall performance
2019 overall performance (index scores)
67
67
p
64
63
63
63
63
63
63
60
q
57
q
18-34
Metro
Men
South
Brimbank
North
65+
Women
35-49
State-wide
50-64
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Brimbank City Council
29
2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
Q3. ON BALANCE, for the last twelve months, how do you feel about the performance of Brimbank 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?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 63 Councils asked group: 14
Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
Overall performance
30
Overall performance (%)
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Brimbank City Council
15
15
12
10
15
13
13
9
10
14
9
18
17
13
19
16
7
14
36
40
32
41
33
42
39
39
39
48
45
32
36
37
39
34
32
39
37
33
39
36
37
35
35
35
35
29
36
38
36
39
36
41
43
32
6
8
10
7
9
8
9
11
10
6
7
6
6
6
5
3
12
8
4
2
4
5
5
2
3
5
5
2
3
5
4
4
2
7
3
5
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2019 Brimbank
2018 Brimbank
2017 Brimbank
2016 Brimbank
2015 Brimbank
2014 Brimbank
2013 Brimbank
2012 Brimbank
State-wide
Metro
North
South
Men
Women
18-34
35-49
50-64
65+
Very good
Good
Average
Poor
Very poor
Can't say
Q3. ON BALANCE, for the last twelve months, how do you feel about the performance of Brimbank 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?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 63 Councils asked group: 14
Customer
service
31
Contact with council
2019 contact with council (%)
Have had contact
54
53
61
58
57
54
55
57
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Brimbank City Council
32
Q5. Over the last 12 months, have you or any member of your household had any contact with Brimbank 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?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 38 Councils asked group: 8
54
61
59
60
51
55
56
54
57
59
49
54
58
58
63
58
54
64
47
57
49
44
56
58
64
56
56
57
62
55
58
59
53
57
60
65
60
56
58
55
60
60
60
52
53
61
59
62
58
61
65
58
n/a
63
65
n/a
60
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
48
61
59
55
50
54
n/a
n/a
n/a
57
52
Contact with council
2019 contact with council (%)
64
61
60
60
59
57
57
57
56
56
50
65+
State-wide
35-49
50-64
Men
Brimbank
North
South
Metro
Women
18-34
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Brimbank City Council
33
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 Brimbank 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?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 38 Councils asked group: 8
Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
Note: Some data may be missing for 2012 and 2013 due to a change in demographic analysis.
71
73
72
72
72
73
70
74
70
71
73
69
75
73
71
70
70
65
74
69
64
71
71
73
71
73
73
68
73
81
69
73
75
75
76
70
73
76
77
83
72
70
75
77
74
73
74
n/a
73
69
71
81
72
74
73
74
77
77
n/a
76
76
73
80
71
74
78
69
n/a
71
n/a
71
77
69
71
71
n/a
73
Customer service rating
34
2019 customer service rating (index scores)
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Brimbank City Council
78
76
76
76
74
74
73
73
71
70
70
Men
South
18-34
Metro
Brimbank
50-64
35-49
65+
State-wide
North
Women
2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
Q5c. Thinking of the most recent contact, how would you rate Brimbank 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: 63 Councils asked group: 14
Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
Customer service rating
35
Customer service rating (%)
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Brimbank City Council
40
33
28
32
37
36
37
31
33
39
40
40
42
38
36
44
42
39
33
39
41
42
34
36
38
41
36
35
26
37
39
27
36
30
31
34
16
15
17
14
17
16
17
16
17
15
19
14
11
21
24
11
15
11
4
5
5
5
5
7
6
6
7
5
4
4
4
5
4
4
10
7
6
6
5
3
4
1
6
6
4
11
5
4
10
3
11
8
5
1
2
1
4
1
1
1
2
2019 Brimbank
2018 Brimbank
2017 Brimbank
2016 Brimbank
2015 Brimbank
2014 Brimbank
2013 Brimbank
2012 Brimbank
State-wide
Metro
North
South
Men
Women
18-34
35-49
50-64
65+
Very good
Good
Average
Poor
Very poor
Can't say
Q5c. Thinking of the most recent contact, how would you rate Brimbank 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: 63 Councils asked group: 14
Council direction
36
Council direction summary
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Brimbank City Council
37
• Aged 65+ years
Least satisfied with Council
direction
• 70% right direction (27% definitely and 43% probably)
• 16% wrong direction (10% probably and 6% definitely)
Direction headed
Council direction
• 55% stayed about the same, up 3 points on 2018
• 31% improved, down 2 points on 2018
• 8% deteriorated, up 1 point on 2018
Most satisfied with Council
direction
• Aged 18-34 years
Overall council direction last 12 months
38
2019 overall direction (index scores)
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Brimbank City Council
71
67
56
60
64
68
59
58
67
54
52
61
61
56
59
59
59
55
57
61
54
53
70
64
54
61
61
62
57
58
61
55
51
52
58
61
58
57
56
57
58
61
56
53
64
62
58
64
62
61
62
60
67
n/a
53
65
65
62
60
63
66
60
63
61
n/a
53
64
n/a
59
59
63
67
n/a
60
68
n/a
52
67
p
64
64
64
62
61
60
58
57
55
q
53
q
18-34
South
35-49
Women
Brimbank
Men
North
50-64
65+
Metro
State-wide
2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
Q6. Over the last 12 months, what is your view of the direction of Brimbank City Council’s overall performance?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 63 Councils asked group: 14
Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
Overall council direction last 12 months
2019 overall council direction (%)
31
33
24
32
23
30
33
33
19
19
26
34
31
32
32
36
27
29
55
52
58
52
62
58
56
54
62
66
64
51
55
55
62
50
55
51
8
7
8
10
10
7
7
8
14
9
7
8
9
7
9
13
15
5
7
9
6
5
5
5
5
5
7
2
7
5
6
6
5
5
5
2019 Brimbank
2018 Brimbank
2017 Brimbank
2016 Brimbank
2015 Brimbank
2014 Brimbank
2013 Brimbank
2012 Brimbank
State-wide
Metro
North
South
Men
Women
18-34
35-49
50-64
65+
Improved
Stayed the same
Deteriorated
Can't say
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Brimbank City Council
Q6. Over the last 12 months, what is your view of the direction of Brimbank City Council’s overall performance?
39
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 63 Councils asked group: 14
Right / wrong direction
40
2019 right / wrong direction (%)
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Brimbank City Council
27
21
19
21
21
19
24
20
21
21
30
27
27
32
30
18
23
43
47
45
47
45
51
48
47
50
52
38
43
43
42
45
41
43
10
10
12
10
10
9
7
11
9
10
10
10
10
7
6
15
15
6
6
7
8
9
8
7
11
7
6
6
8
4
5
7
7
6
14
16
17
15
15
13
14
11
12
11
15
12
16
14
12
18
12
2019 Brimbank
2018 Brimbank
2017 Brimbank
2016 Brimbank
2015 Brimbank
2014 Brimbank
2013 Brimbank
State-wide
Metro
North
South
Men
Women
18-34
35-49
50-64
65+
Definitely right direction
Probably right direction
Probably wrong direction
Definitely wrong direction Can't say
Q8. Would you say your local Council is generally heading in the right direction or the wrong direction?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 9 Councils asked group: 3
Individual
service areas
41
Community consultation and engagement importance
42
2019 Consultation and engagement importance (index scores)
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Brimbank City Council
80
79
72
72
74
74
69
72
70
69
68
69
62
74
75
75
75
74
78
72
72
70
71
72
71
63
77
77
71
78
75
79
77
73
69
73
75
69
69
75
75
74
73
74
77
75
72
72
73
74
72
70
76
77
71
70
74
78
72
n/a
68
71
72
69
66
77
77
71
72
73
77
72
n/a
72
72
72
71
68
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
80
p
78
p
74
74
74
p
73
72
71
70
70
70
68
64
q
Personal user
Household user
35-49
65+
State-wide
50-64
Women
Metro
North
Brimbank
South
Men
18-34
2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Community consultation and engagement’ be as a responsibility for Council?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 21 Councils asked group: 7
Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
Community consultation and engagement importance
43
2019 Consultation and engagement importance (%)
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Brimbank City Council
23
22
22
29
24
23
22
29
25
24
23
22
25
17
25
31
24
35
33
42
40
45
40
45
41
45
41
42
43
41
40
43
37
49
38
46
52
48
26
30
28
25
24
29
27
24
26
22
28
27
24
34
21
21
21
14
15
6
7
4
4
3
4
4
4
5
10
4
8
4
8
4
8
3
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
3
1
2
1
1
2
2
2
3
1
1
1
2
1
3
1
3
6
2019 Brimbank
2018 Brimbank
2017 Brimbank
2016 Brimbank
2015 Brimbank
2014 Brimbank
2013 Brimbank
State-wide
Metro
North
South
Men
Women
18-34
35-49
50-64
65+
Personal user
Household user
Extremely important
Very important
Fairly important
Not that important
Not at all important
Can't say
Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Community consultation and engagement’ be as a responsibility for Council?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 21 Councils asked group: 7
Community consultation and engagement performance
44
2019 Consultation and engagement performance (index scores)
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Brimbank City Council
66
67
56
56
57
59
56
55
60
53
57
55
52
60
63
56
58
57
57
55
59
54
52
52
55
52
58
58
52
57
58
53
54
54
58
57
52
54
52
65
62
61
57
58
58
58
60
56
57
58
56
54
66
64
51
55
n/a
56
56
65
57
57
57
57
55
66
65
60
57
n/a
58
57
56
58
55
57
57
53
n/a
n/a
52
58
n/a
n/a
58
66
62
n/a
59
57
51
68
p
67
p
62
59
58
58
58
58
58
58
57
56
53
Personal user
Household user
35-49
Women
Metro
South
Brimbank
65+
18-34
North
Men
State-wide
50-64
2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Community consultation and engagement’ over the last 12 months?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 63 Councils asked group: 14
Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
Community consultation and engagement performance
45
2019 Consultation and engagement performance (%)
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Brimbank City Council
10
10
7
6
8
8
8
8
9
9
9
10
9
11
9
13
7
10
26
25
28
27
27
28
33
27
28
33
30
31
25
29
31
25
26
34
26
25
28
28
31
32
32
35
30
36
34
27
31
32
33
30
27
36
34
27
35
29
31
31
14
16
13
16
9
13
14
14
15
12
13
14
16
12
15
9
17
14
10
12
3
4
6
4
7
4
3
4
6
4
3
4
4
2
2
4
6
3
1
1
14
12
14
11
13
11
12
14
9
12
16
13
14
14
15
12
10
18
5
4
2019 Brimbank
2018 Brimbank
2017 Brimbank
2016 Brimbank
2015 Brimbank
2014 Brimbank
2013 Brimbank
2012 Brimbank
State-wide
Metro
North
South
Men
Women
18-34
35-49
50-64
65+
Personal user
Household user
Very good
Good
Average
Poor
Very poor
Can't say
Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Community consultation and engagement’ over the last 12 months?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 63 Councils asked group: 14
Lobbying on behalf of the community importance
46
2019 Lobbying importance (index scores)
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Brimbank City Council
70
69
68
67
67
68
69
67
66
63
66
75
75
70
71
70
69
73
69
71
63
67
71
72
76
73
71
69
70
67
66
71
68
70
72
72
72
70
69
71
67
68
67
67
67
72
71
69
67
70
69
64
64
64
n/a
75
70
73
70
70
70
68
71
68
68
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
70
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
73
72
72
70
69
67
66
66
65
65
65
q
35-49
50-64
Women
South
Brimbank
State-wide
65+
North
Men
18-34
Metro
2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Lobbying on behalf of the community’ be as a responsibility for Council?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 21 Councils asked group: 8
Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
Lobbying on behalf of the community importance
47
2019 Lobbying importance (%)
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Brimbank City Council
23
20
22
27
23
23
24
21
18
18
25
19
26
18
30
28
17
37
37
43
37
41
35
42
38
37
38
37
35
40
33
37
40
42
27
30
24
25
24
25
25
28
30
29
26
31
23
37
27
20
17
5
8
7
8
8
11
7
8
9
7
5
5
6
5
4
7
8
3
2
1
1
2
2
1
2
3
3
3
5
1
3
1
2
6
5
2
3
3
3
4
2
2
3
5
4
5
4
5
1
3
9
2019 Brimbank
2018 Brimbank
2017 Brimbank
2016 Brimbank
2015 Brimbank
2014 Brimbank
2013 Brimbank
State-wide
Metro
North
South
Men
Women
18-34
35-49
50-64
65+
Extremely important
Very important
Fairly important
Not that important
Not at all important
Can't say
Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Lobbying on behalf of the community’ be as a responsibility for Council?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 21 Councils asked group: 8
Lobbying on behalf of the community performance
48
2019 Lobbying performance (index scores)
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Brimbank City Council
54
62
58
57
56
57
55
56
54
54
50
54
55
56
57
56
54
53
50
54
61
49
54
59
60
55
56
57
54
60
53
57
55
51
55
53
56
58
54
55
52
55
57
55
52
55
53
54
n/a
54
55
54
56
59
49
59
59
57
56
n/a
56
55
57
55
51
52
51
61
54
n/a
n/a
55
57
n/a
55
58
49
60
60
58
57
57
57
57
57
54
q
52
52
35-49
18-34
Women
South
Metro
Brimbank
Men
North
State-wide
65+
50-64
2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Lobbying on behalf of the community’ over the last 12 months?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 63 Councils asked group: 14
Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
Lobbying on behalf of the community performance
49
2019 Lobbying performance (%)
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Brimbank City Council
8
6
5
6
6
5
7
5
6
6
6
9
8
7
7
12
7
5
25
26
23
27
23
23
27
26
25
25
22
27
24
26
27
30
18
21
31
29
32
26
30
31
32
27
31
30
37
28
33
29
41
24
29
26
12
11
10
12
13
13
13
14
13
10
9
13
12
11
8
11
15
16
3
3
5
4
5
4
4
3
5
3
2
4
3
3
5
6
4
21
26
25
25
23
24
18
25
20
27
24
20
19
24
17
18
25
29
2019 Brimbank
2018 Brimbank
2017 Brimbank
2016 Brimbank
2015 Brimbank
2014 Brimbank
2013 Brimbank
2012 Brimbank
State-wide
Metro
North
South
Men
Women
18-34
35-49
50-64
65+
Very good
Good
Average
Poor
Very poor
Can't say
Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Lobbying on behalf of the community’ over the last 12 months?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 63 Councils asked group: 14
Decisions made in the interest of the community
importance
50
2019 Community decisions made importance (index scores)
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Brimbank City Council
81
82
79
80
79
80
79
79
82
81
79
84
81
81
79
79
80
79
77
82
81
77
81
79
78
80
79
78
79
81
74
74
74
82
84
81
80
79
79
80
80
79
75
77
78
81
78
79
77
77
n/a
79
77
74
77
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
81
80
80
80
79
78
78
78
77
76
75
Women
50-64
35-49
State-wide
South
Brimbank
Metro
65+
North
18-34
Men
2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Decisions made in the interest of the community’ be as a responsibility for Council?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 15 Councils asked group: 6
Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
Decisions made in the interest of the community
importance
51
2019 Community decisions made importance (%)
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Brimbank City Council
36
39
38
34
38
34
39
35
34
36
35
37
30
39
41
36
44
42
45
45
44
41
42
43
42
46
40
48
50
42
42
40
14
16
14
17
14
21
15
17
19
12
17
12
15
15
13
15
2
1
1
1
2
1
2
2
2
2
4
1
4
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
3
2
1
1
2
2
2
1
2
2
1
2
2
1
2
2
1
1
2
4
2019 Brimbank
2018 Brimbank
2017 Brimbank
2016 Brimbank
2015 Brimbank
2014 Brimbank
State-wide
Metro
North
South
Men
Women
18-34
35-49
50-64
65+
Extremely important
Very important
Fairly important
Not that important
Not at all important
Can't say
Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Decisions made in the interest of the community’ be as a responsibility for Council?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 15 Councils asked group: 6
Decisions made in the interest of the community
performance
52
2019 Community decisions made performance (index scores)
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Brimbank City Council
63
58
58
61
58
54
55
59
60
54
51
55
56
58
58
56
52
62
56
57
54
53
62
61
59
56
57
60
59
54
49
54
58
53
54
59
56
55
54
55
56
60
55
52
59
57
n/a
57
57
58
62
58
54
57
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
66
p
61
60
59
59
59
58
57
56
55
q
52
q
18-34
Women
Metro
South
Brimbank
North
65+
Men
35-49
State-wide
50-64
2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Decisions made in the interest of the community’ over the last 12 months?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 63 Councils asked group: 14
Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
Decisions made in the interest of the community
performance
53
2019 Community decisions made performance (%)
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Brimbank City Council
11
9
9
9
8
9
7
9
9
12
9
13
17
8
6
8
28
30
24
30
26
30
30
33
31
27
26
30
34
30
18
26
33
32
34
31
34
30
33
30
32
34
35
31
30
37
37
32
9
10
12
11
10
15
14
9
9
9
10
8
5
9
16
10
5
4
5
6
7
3
7
4
5
5
5
4
4
8
4
4
14
15
16
13
15
14
10
14
14
14
14
14
11
8
20
20
2019 Brimbank
2018 Brimbank
2017 Brimbank
2016 Brimbank
2015 Brimbank
2014 Brimbank
State-wide
Metro
North
South
Men
Women
18-34
35-49
50-64
65+
Very good
Good
Average
Poor
Very poor
Can't say
Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Decisions made in the interest of the community’ over the last 12 months?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 63 Councils asked group: 14
The condition of sealed local roads in your area
importance
54
2019 Sealed local roads importance (index scores)
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Brimbank City Council
82
81
83
83
81
80
82
83
80
78
81
83
83
82
81
81
78
81
82
81
77
79
79
79
81
83
80
78
80
79
78
76
78
80
80
80
79
76
76
77
79
75
75
73
82
76
78
79
78
77
77
75
76
n/a
73
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
82
82
81
80
80
79
79
78
77
77
75
50-64
35-49
Women
65+
South
State-wide
Brimbank
North
Men
Metro
18-34
2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘The condition of sealed local roads in your area’ be as a responsibility for Council?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 18 Councils asked group: 7
Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
The condition of sealed local roads in your area
importance
55
2019 Sealed local roads importance (%)
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Brimbank City Council
38
43
40
36
36
32
37
31
36
40
33
44
34
41
42
40
44
42
46
49
43
45
45
49
44
43
49
38
40
48
46
42
14
14
13
13
18
20
16
18
15
14
12
16
17
10
11
16
4
1
1
2
3
1
2
2
5
3
6
2
8
1
1
1
1
1
1 2
1
2019 Brimbank
2018 Brimbank
2017 Brimbank
2016 Brimbank
2015 Brimbank
2014 Brimbank
State-wide
Metro
North
South
Men
Women
18-34
35-49
50-64
65+
Extremely important
Very important
Fairly important
Not that important
Not at all important
Can't say
Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘The condition of sealed local roads in your area’ be as a responsibility for Council?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 18 Councils asked group: 7
The condition of sealed local roads in your area
performance
56
2019 Sealed local roads performance (index scores)
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Brimbank City Council
68
63
66
62
63
64
62
63
64
60
53
66
60
55
59
58
57
64
59
57
58
53
67
63
59
60
58
57
63
51
56
60
54
69
58
60
60
60
60
60
60
61
59
55
n/a
65
65
64
63
63
68
60
62
61
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
69
p
68
68
65
63
61
60
60
60
60
56
q
Metro
North
18-34
Men
Brimbank
Women
65+
35-49
South
50-64
State-wide
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?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 63 Councils asked group: 14
Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
The condition of sealed local roads in your area
performance
57
2019 Sealed local roads performance (%)
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Brimbank City Council
22
18
15
13
13
18
13
23
28
18
27
16
29
20
14
18
33
36
31
37
38
38
33
43
32
34
33
33
33
28
38
35
24
30
31
26
30
26
28
22
27
23
19
30
20
31
27
22
15
11
14
17
10
12
16
8
10
17
11
18
14
16
15
13
5
4
8
7
7
5
10
3
2
7
8
3
4
5
6
9
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
4
2019 Brimbank
2018 Brimbank
2017 Brimbank
2016 Brimbank
2015 Brimbank
2014 Brimbank
State-wide
Metro
North
South
Men
Women
18-34
35-49
50-64
65+
Very good
Good
Average
Poor
Very poor
Can't say
Q2. How has Council performed on ‘The condition of sealed local roads in your area’ over the last 12 months?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 63 Councils asked group: 14
Informing the community importance
58
2019 Informing community importance (index scores)
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Brimbank City Council
80
80
78
79
75
76
78
77
79
75
80
77
73
78
77
79
77
80
76
76
74
77
74
75
73
73
78
77
81
79
78
73
77
76
79
76
75
73
74
76
76
78
77
78
73
77
76
79
75
76
75
73
77
76
77
75
78
75
75
75
75
75
74
73
n/a
78
76
82
76
77
78
77
76
76
75
79
73
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
75
n/a
n/a
n/a
79
79
78
78
77
76
76
76
76
75
74
74
73
q
Personal user
Household user
Women
65+
50-64
North
Brimbank
18-34
South
State-wide
35-49
Men
Metro
2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Informing the community’ be as a responsibility for Council?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 21 Councils asked group: 8
Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
Informing the community importance
59
2019 Informing community importance (%)
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Brimbank City Council
34
37
35
35
30
30
33
32
28
32
35
28
40
39
30
34
30
40
38
39
42
41
43
46
44
43
41
41
43
37
45
34
31
38
42
51
39
41
23
18
20
17
20
21
21
22
25
24
22
22
23
25
29
19
16
20
20
3
3
4
4
1
4
1
4
5
1
4
4
2
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2019 Brimbank
2018 Brimbank
2017 Brimbank
2016 Brimbank
2015 Brimbank
2014 Brimbank
2013 Brimbank
State-wide
Metro
North
South
Men
Women
18-34
35-49
50-64
65+
Personal user
Household user
Extremely important
Very important
Fairly important
Not that important
Not at all important
Can't say
Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Informing the community’ be as a responsibility for Council?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 21 Councils asked group: 8
Informing the community performance
60
2019 Informing community performance (index scores)
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Brimbank City Council
62
62
61
59
67
55
59
60
58
53
54
57
51
62
62
61
56
56
55
59
59
56
61
52
57
56
60
61
63
55
62
54
59
57
58
61
60
61
54
67
67
64
60
60
63
61
62
61
65
59
61
55
66
65
n/a
64
61
60
62
62
61
67
60
59
60
68
67
n/a
61
60
64
61
63
62
60
60
63
63
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
64
p
62
62
p
61
60
60
60
59
59
58
58
57
57
Personal user
Household user
Metro
Men
18-34
35-49
State-wide
South
Brimbank
65+
North
Women
50-64
2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Informing the community’ over the last 12 months?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 31 Councils asked group: 9
Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
Informing the community performance
61
2019 Informing community performance (%)
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Brimbank City Council
11
13
9
11
16
14
15
13
15
10
12
13
10
10
13
13
11
14
13
35
30
32
31
33
35
34
35
36
31
37
35
34
44
31
27
31
42
40
30
32
34
37
29
32
33
31
31
38
27
32
29
23
37
35
32
30
32
15
16
15
14
14
13
13
14
12
12
17
13
17
18
12
17
13
10
11
4
5
5
3
5
3
2
5
3
4
4
3
5
3
4
4
5
3
3
4
4
5
4
4
3
3
3
4
5
4
4
5
1
4
4
9
1
1
2019 Brimbank
2018 Brimbank
2017 Brimbank
2016 Brimbank
2015 Brimbank
2014 Brimbank
2013 Brimbank
State-wide
Metro
North
South
Men
Women
18-34
35-49
50-64
65+
Personal user
Household user
Very good
Good
Average
Poor
Very poor
Can't say
Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Informing the community’ over the last 12 months?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 31 Councils asked group: 9
The condition of local streets and footpaths in your area
importance
62
2019 Streets and footpaths importance (index scores)
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Brimbank City Council
84
84
84
80
81
82
82
81
80
79
78
86
86
84
84
84
83
83
81
80
78
77
86
81
82
81
78
80
81
77
75
78
77
83
81
82
82
80
80
80
77
77
77
77
82
83
82
81
79
80
81
77
78
n/a
77
86
85
83
85
81
81
81
74
76
n/a
78
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
77
85
84
84
83
82
82
82
79
79
78
q
77
q
Women
50-64
65+
35-49
North
Brimbank
South
18-34
Men
Metro
State-wide
2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘The condition of local streets and footpaths in your area’ be as a responsibility for Council?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 21 Councils asked group: 6
Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
The condition of local streets and footpaths in your area
importance
63
2019 Streets and footpaths importance (%)
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Brimbank City Council
44
43
46
40
38
40
41
34
33
42
45
39
50
41
46
48
45
40
42
42
44
47
43
43
44
48
45
37
42
38
38
38
39
46
15
12
11
13
13
15
12
18
17
12
16
17
12
19
16
11
8
1
2
1
2
1
2
3
2
2
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2019 Brimbank
2018 Brimbank
2017 Brimbank
2016 Brimbank
2015 Brimbank
2014 Brimbank
2013 Brimbank
State-wide
Metro
North
South
Men
Women
18-34
35-49
50-64
65+
Extremely important
Very important
Fairly important
Not that important
Not at all important
Can't say
Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘The condition of local streets and footpaths in your area’ be as a responsibility for Council?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 21 Councils asked group: 6
The condition of local streets and footpaths in your area
performance
64
2019 Streets and footpaths performance (index scores)
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Brimbank City Council
64
66
60
60
58
59
61
58
62
61
56
62
54
56
57
57
56
55
59
54
55
54
63
58
55
52
57
48
54
55
55
53
53
64
53
52
55
58
54
53
55
51
54
51
n/a
66
62
62
58
59
60
61
58
59
52
n/a
61
56
58
58
55
55
52
53
55
50
n/a
59
n/a
60
57
54
55
58
51
n/a
50
65
p
61
61
59
59
58
58
56
56
56
52
Metro
18-34
North
Men
State-wide
35-49
Brimbank
65+
Women
South
50-64
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?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 32 Councils asked group: 7
Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
The condition of local streets and footpaths in your area
performance
65
2019 Streets and footpaths performance (%)
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Brimbank City Council
17
20
12
11
10
17
15
15
14
19
13
19
19
14
21
19
11
14
29
32
31
32
30
36
28
34
35
39
38
25
29
29
30
27
30
29
28
24
32
28
32
27
29
20
28
26
32
26
28
29
27
30
26
31
17
16
14
18
17
14
16
20
14
11
12
20
14
20
17
16
21
16
8
7
10
10
11
7
11
11
7
4
4
9
9
7
5
8
11
8
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
2019 Brimbank
2018 Brimbank
2017 Brimbank
2016 Brimbank
2015 Brimbank
2014 Brimbank
2013 Brimbank
2012 Brimbank
State-wide
Metro
North
South
Men
Women
18-34
35-49
50-64
65+
Very good
Good
Average
Poor
Very poor
Can't say
Q2. How has Council performed on ‘The condition of local streets and footpaths in your area’ over the last 12 months?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 32 Councils asked group: 7
Traffic management importance
66
2019 Traffic management importance (index scores)
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Brimbank City Council
78
77
77
74
78
79
82
78
79
76
74
80
79
82
76
79
80
82
76
79
76
72
80
78
79
73
78
78
83
76
78
75
72
80
77
81
76
76
79
76
69
75
74
71
79
74
73
72
75
78
78
73
77
n/a
70
78
78
81
76
79
80
81
75
79
n/a
72
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
73
81
80
80
79
79
79
79
78
77
75
q
73
q
65+
South
35-49
Men
Brimbank
50-64
Women
18-34
North
Metro
State-wide
2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Traffic management’ be as a responsibility for Council?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 11 Councils asked group: 7
Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
Traffic management importance
67
2019 Traffic management importance (%)
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Brimbank City Council
39
36
39
38
36
31
38
30
31
35
41
41
36
38
41
41
37
43
41
40
39
38
43
42
40
42
42
43
39
46
43
41
36
49
14
18
17
19
19
22
16
23
20
19
12
15
14
13
16
19
11
3
2
2
3
5
4
2
6
5
4
3
4
2
5
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2019 Brimbank
2018 Brimbank
2017 Brimbank
2016 Brimbank
2015 Brimbank
2014 Brimbank
2013 Brimbank
State-wide
Metro
North
South
Men
Women
18-34
35-49
50-64
65+
Extremely important
Very important
Fairly important
Not that important
Not at all important
Can't say
Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Traffic management’ be as a responsibility for Council?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 11 Councils asked group: 7
Traffic management performance
68
2019 Traffic management performance (index scores)
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Brimbank City Council
67
61
59
61
61
60
56
58
57
57
57
52
52
53
54
54
55
61
54
56
59
50
59
58
55
57
57
55
58
53
56
59
56
54
56
57
57
57
58
60
61
57
60
53
62
56
56
58
59
60
59
56
n/a
60
54
56
56
56
55
55
55
58
56
n/a
60
53
57
52
n/a
54
n/a
56
59
51
n/a
58
50
65
62
62
61
60
60
60
58
58
q
58
q
57
18-34
Women
North
Brimbank
South
Men
65+
35-49
Metro
State-wide
50-64
2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Traffic management’ over the last 12 months?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 16 Councils asked group: 7
Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
Traffic management performance
69
2019 Traffic management performance (%)
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Brimbank City Council
12
15
10
9
10
11
10
9
9
9
12
13
13
12
16
11
11
11
40
36
29
35
36
35
31
34
37
36
40
41
42
39
49
37
34
37
26
28
32
32
30
29
35
30
31
33
30
24
21
31
18
32
34
26
12
12
18
17
13
16
14
17
13
12
10
14
15
10
12
12
15
12
6
7
8
5
8
5
8
8
6
5
5
6
7
4
5
7
6
5
3
2
2
2
2
3
2
3
3
4
4
2
2
4
3
2
9
2019 Brimbank
2018 Brimbank
2017 Brimbank
2016 Brimbank
2015 Brimbank
2014 Brimbank
2013 Brimbank
2012 Brimbank
State-wide
Metro
North
South
Men
Women
18-34
35-49
50-64
65+
Very good
Good
Average
Poor
Very poor
Can't say
Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Traffic management’ over the last 12 months?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 16 Councils asked group: 7
Parking facilities importance
70
2019 Parking importance (index scores)
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Brimbank City Council
77
76
79
75
73
75
73
71
70
74
73
79
79
78
76
77
75
73
70
72
74
69
78
76
78
75
72
73
72
70
68
70
70
75
75
76
75
74
73
72
70
71
71
71
76
75
75
74
70
73
n/a
70
70
71
71
75
76
77
74
74
73
n/a
71
69
72
70
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
71
n/a
n/a
n/a
78
77
76
75
75
74
73
71
q
71
70
68
q
65+
50-64
Women
South
35-49
Brimbank
Metro
State-wide
Men
North
18-34
2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Parking facilities’ be as a responsibility for Council?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 17 Councils asked group: 8
Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
Parking facilities importance
71
2019 Parking importance (%)
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Brimbank City Council
33
34
32
29
27
25
25
26
28
29
35
31
35
23
35
38
43
37
37
40
42
45
43
46
40
41
34
38
36
38
42
33
37
33
23
23
22
21
22
27
25
26
24
28
20
22
23
25
28
20
15
6
6
4
6
5
3
3
6
5
6
6
8
3
7
4
5
7
2
1
1
1
3
1
3
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2019 Brimbank
2018 Brimbank
2017 Brimbank
2016 Brimbank
2015 Brimbank
2014 Brimbank
2013 Brimbank
State-wide
Metro
North
South
Men
Women
18-34
35-49
50-64
65+
Extremely important
Very important
Fairly important
Not that important
Not at all important
Can't say
Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Parking facilities’ be as a responsibility for Council?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 17 Councils asked group: 8
Parking facilities performance
72
2019 Parking performance (index scores)
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Brimbank City Council
63
58
62
59
56
60
55
57
56
56
56
59
56
58
55
55
54
53
53
53
52
55
58
61
54
57
56
55
54
54
60
56
61
62
62
58
59
57
57
55
60
60
55
57
65
58
61
60
57
62
n/a
60
60
57
56
62
64
62
60
57
58
n/a
63
59
58
53
61
n/a
59
56
56
n/a
n/a
53
53
50
57
63
p
61
60
57
56
55
55
55
54
53
53
18-34
North
Men
Brimbank
State-wide
South
Metro
35-49
Women
50-64
65+
2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Parking facilities’ over the last 12 months?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 21 Councils asked group: 7
Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
Parking facilities performance
73
2019 Parking performance (%)
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Brimbank City Council
11
14
11
10
10
15
13
9
9
7
13
10
12
9
16
8
7
9
34
33
31
34
40
33
36
39
34
33
37
32
37
30
37
33
34
30
31
32
31
35
30
32
32
24
32
34
30
31
30
32
31
33
29
29
13
12
16
14
11
12
11
18
16
16
10
14
10
15
8
13
17
15
8
7
8
5
7
6
5
8
7
7
5
10
8
9
5
9
10
11
4
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
3
5
3
3
5
3
4
3
6
2019 Brimbank
2018 Brimbank
2017 Brimbank
2016 Brimbank
2015 Brimbank
2014 Brimbank
2013 Brimbank
2012 Brimbank
State-wide
Metro
North
South
Men
Women
18-34
35-49
50-64
65+
Very good
Good
Average
Poor
Very poor
Can't say
Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Parking facilities’ over the last 12 months?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 21 Councils asked group: 7
Enforcement of local laws importance
74
2019 Law enforcement importance (index scores)
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Brimbank City Council
75
76
78
77
77
77
77
79
78
73
71
76
81
79
79
77
74
77
77
73
72
71
77
80
76
78
77
75
78
79
75
71
70
79
80
80
79
77
75
74
78
75
72
71
77
80
71
77
77
77
79
82
74
n/a
70
76
81
83
78
80
81
80
77
78
n/a
71
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
70
81
81
80
80
79
78
78
77
77
73
q
71
q
50-64
Women
35-49
South
Brimbank
North
18-34
65+
Men
Metro
State-wide
2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Enforcement of local laws’ be as a responsibility for Council?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 23 Councils asked group: 8
Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
Enforcement of local laws importance
75
2019 Law enforcement importance (%)
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Brimbank City Council
43
37
36
36
35
36
42
27
31
43
44
41
46
44
47
47
36
35
38
42
39
41
38
39
38
38
30
37
34
36
34
33
30
42
16
18
16
20
19
22
14
26
23
23
13
19
13
18
15
17
14
3
4
4
3
1
2
4
6
6
2
3
3
3
1
4
2
4
2
1
1
2
1
2
1
1
2
3
1
3
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
2019 Brimbank
2018 Brimbank
2017 Brimbank
2016 Brimbank
2015 Brimbank
2014 Brimbank
2013 Brimbank
State-wide
Metro
North
South
Men
Women
18-34
35-49
50-64
65+
Extremely important
Very important
Fairly important
Not that important
Not at all important
Can't say
Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Enforcement of local laws’ be as a responsibility for Council?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 23 Councils asked group: 8
Enforcement of local laws performance
76
2019 Law enforcement performance (index scores)
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Brimbank City Council
64
64
64
59
61
60
60
61
54
56
62
62
64
64
60
61
60
60
61
61
61
57
62
64
63
62
57
59
62
58
59
56
59
61
66
66
63
62
62
63
62
62
61
66
60
n/a
66
64
61
61
60
58
58
61
62
67
n/a
65
65
65
64
63
64
57
64
66
62
n/a
65
n/a
56
57
58
n/a
51
57
55
65
64
p
64
p
62
61
60
59
59
59
58
55
18-34
Metro
State-wide
North
Men
Brimbank
Women
South
50-64
65+
35-49
2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Enforcement of local laws’ over the last 12 months?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 34 Councils asked group: 9
Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
Enforcement of local laws performance
77
2019 Law enforcement performance (%)
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Brimbank City Council
12
14
11
10
13
14
17
7
12
12
10
13
15
10
18
8
11
10
33
31
30
35
35
32
35
36
38
38
38
31
32
34
41
26
30
30
30
25
31
29
25
27
26
25
26
26
26
33
32
29
25
39
30
28
7
12
11
13
8
14
11
12
8
7
5
9
8
7
3
11
7
11
7
6
3
4
6
4
4
7
3
3
7
7
7
7
8
7
7
6
10
13
13
10
13
9
7
12
12
14
14
8
6
14
5
9
15
15
2019 Brimbank
2018 Brimbank
2017 Brimbank
2016 Brimbank
2015 Brimbank
2014 Brimbank
2013 Brimbank
2012 Brimbank
State-wide
Metro
North
South
Men
Women
18-34
35-49
50-64
65+
Very good
Good
Average
Poor
Very poor
Can't say
Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Enforcement of local laws’ over the last 12 months?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 34 Councils asked group: 9
Family support services importance
78
2019 Family support importance (index scores)
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Brimbank City Council
85
83
81
81
78
79
75
79
79
81
76
75
74
82
85
80
77
78
77
78
79
73
76
74
73
73
74
79
81
74
76
76
76
76
77
75
70
73
73
83
84
83
78
78
78
78
78
76
77
73
72
73
85
83
79
78
78
75
73
71
77
72
72
n/a
72
87
85
82
79
80
79
81
77
78
77
75
n/a
73
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
73
84
84
83
82
81
80
79
79
79
79
78
75
q
74
q
Personal user
Household user
Women
18-34
South
Brimbank
35-49
50-64
65+
North
Men
Metro
State-wide
2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Family support services’ be as a responsibility for Council?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 21 Councils asked group: 7
Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
Family support services importance
79
2019 Family support importance (%)
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Brimbank City Council
41
40
35
34
36
32
38
29
29
37
42
36
46
46
39
38
36
39
46
39
38
42
38
41
40
41
42
44
40
38
39
38
36
38
39
43
57
41
15
17
19
20
19
20
16
21
19
18
14
20
10
15
20
15
11
4
12
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
4
4
1
3
2
2
2
1
2
4
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
4
1
3
1
2
2
3
3
2
3
2
1
4
6
1
2019 Brimbank
2018 Brimbank
2017 Brimbank
2016 Brimbank
2015 Brimbank
2014 Brimbank
2013 Brimbank
State-wide
Metro
North
South
Men
Women
18-34
35-49
50-64
65+
Personal user
Household user
Extremely important
Very important
Fairly important
Not that important
Not at all important
Can't say
Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Family support services’ be as a responsibility for Council?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 21 Councils asked group: 7
Family support services performance
80
2019 Family support performance (index scores)
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Brimbank City Council
68
61
70
66
65
68
66
62
67
70
68
59
71
68
69
61
67
62
64
62
59
63
70
58
64
69
69
68
69
66
67
65
65
66
63
67
59
65
71
68
69
60
67
63
63
64
65
65
74
68
62
73
n/a
69
68
68
66
66
67
69
69
76
68
63
75
n/a
69
64
67
63
66
65
64
67
63
65
64
66
n/a
66
67
67
63
n/a
65
n/a
66
n/a
65
59
n/a
69
p
69
67
67
67
66
66
65
65
64
64
62
61
Metro
65+
18-34
State-wide
Women
South
Brimbank
North
Men
Personal user
35-49
50-64
Household user
2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Family support services’ over the last 12 months?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 31 Councils asked group: 8
Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
Family support services performance
81
2019 Family support performance (%)
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Brimbank City Council
13
11
9
10
13
15
12
9
11
11
14
12
13
13
19
12
5
12
19
14
30
33
28
32
29
28
33
32
32
32
30
31
34
27
33
30
31
26
35
37
21
23
26
23
24
28
29
22
20
18
13
26
22
21
19
25
24
19
35
27
5
5
6
7
7
3
7
6
4
3
7
4
4
6
5
7
5
3
4
10
3
1
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
5
2
4
1
5
3
2
1
7
7
27
27
28
28
24
25
18
29
31
35
31
25
23
32
20
24
34
39
4
2019 Brimbank
2018 Brimbank
2017 Brimbank
2016 Brimbank
2015 Brimbank
2014 Brimbank
2013 Brimbank
2012 Brimbank
State-wide
Metro
North
South
Men
Women
18-34
35-49
50-64
65+
Personal user
Household user
Very good
Good
Average
Poor
Very poor
Can't say
Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Family support services’ over the last 12 months?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 31 Councils asked group: 8
Elderly support services importance
82
2019 Elderly support importance (index scores)
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Brimbank City Council
90
90
84
86
80
82
80
85
82
78
79
87
79
86
81
85
82
79
80
75
81
81
77
78
81
77
86
90
84
85
81
80
76
84
80
75
78
78
78
85
92
85
85
82
81
77
84
81
77
79
80
78
82
86
84
84
81
80
77
83
80
77
79
80
n/a
83
86
84
85
83
82
78
85
85
79
79
81
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
80
n/a
n/a
91
p
90*
p
88
p
86
p
85
83
82
82
82
80
80
q
80
79
q
Household user
Personal user
50-64
Women
South
Brimbank
18-34
65+
35-49
Men
State-wide
North
Metro
2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Elderly support services’ be as a responsibility for Council?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 21 Councils asked group: 7
Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
*Caution: small sample size < n=30
Elderly support services importance
83
2019 Elderly support importance (%)
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Brimbank City Council
45
46
40
40
44
40
43
38
36
40
48
39
51
42
41
61
42
63
68
40
40
42
42
39
41
43
44
46
39
41
43
38
41
48
28
40
34
25
11
12
16
14
14
13
12
15
14
16
9
14
8
15
11
7
9
3
6
1
2
1
1
3
2
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
3
1
1
1
2
2
3
2
2
2
6
2019 Brimbank
2018 Brimbank
2017 Brimbank
2016 Brimbank
2015 Brimbank
2014 Brimbank
2013 Brimbank
State-wide
Metro
North
South
Men
Women
18-34
35-49
50-64
65+
Personal user*
Household user
Extremely important
Very important
Fairly important
Not that important
Not at all important
Can't say
Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Elderly support services’ be as a responsibility for Council?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 21 Councils asked group: 7
*Caution: small sample size < n=30
Elderly support services performance
84
2019 Elderly support performance (index scores)
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Brimbank City Council
63
68
67
61
66
63
64
65
64
62
63
65
61
69
68
67
61
59
75
59
67
63
59
71
64
66
78
68
69
69
71
78
57
64
66
68
68
64
66
66
69
69
62
61
71
63
63
63
63
65
64
64
66
70
n/a
64
65
71
62
67
64
62
71
64
61
69
69
n/a
67
68
71
64
69
67
64
71
66
65
n/a
69
n/a
n/a
65
n/a
66
67
65
64
70
n/a
61
68
68
p
67
p
66
65
64*
64
64
64
63
63
62
60
Household user
State-wide
Metro
North
18-34
Personal user
35-49
Men
Brimbank
Women
65+
South
50-64
2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Elderly support services’ over the last 12 months?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 32 Councils asked group: 8
Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
*Caution: small sample size < n=30
Elderly support services performance
85
2019 Elderly support performance (%)
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Brimbank City Council
12
10
12
13
11
13
14
10
14
11
9
13
12
12
15
8
10
14
20
26
28
29
21
32
30
26
34
29
33
29
36
24
30
26
30
29
26
26
28
34
23
21
22
21
20
27
25
18
19
18
24
23
24
22
22
29
24
18
29
24
6
9
7
7
8
6
5
6
5
4
3
7
3
8
6
3
8
6
11
6
4
1
2
2
3
2
2
2
2
2
1
5
5
2
4
1
4
6
3
5
28
30
35
26
28
26
20
36
28
37
27
28
27
28
25
30
28
30
10
5
2019 Brimbank
2018 Brimbank
2017 Brimbank
2016 Brimbank
2015 Brimbank
2014 Brimbank
2013 Brimbank
2012 Brimbank
State-wide
Metro
North
South
Men
Women
18-34
35-49
50-64
65+
Personal user*
Household user
Very good
Good
Average
Poor
Very poor
Can't say
Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Elderly support services’ over the last 12 months?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 32 Councils asked group: 8
*Caution: small sample size < n=30
Disadvantaged support services importance
86
2019 Disadvantaged support importance (index scores)
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Brimbank City Council
81
76
77
75
77
77
73
77
74
78
72
76
75
72
78
74
71
71
74
71
71
71
79
76
73
75
75
77
70
73
73
72
73
80
78
75
77
76
74
71
77
74
73
73
78
76
77
75
74
70
71
75
n/a
72
72
80
78
78
76
78
79
76
80
n/a
78
73
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
73
82
82
82
81
80
79
77
76
75
q
75
q
74
q
Women
South
18-34
50-64
Brimbank
35-49
Men
65+
Metro
North
State-wide
2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Disadvantaged support services’ be as a responsibility for Council?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 9 Councils asked group: 5
Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
Disadvantaged support services importance
87
2019 Disadvantaged support importance (%)
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Brimbank City Council
41
33
30
30
34
29
35
30
32
31
46
35
46
47
36
45
31
37
42
39
44
38
42
43
41
42
41
35
39
36
32
41
35
43
16
19
26
18
22
22
17
22
20
20
14
19
13
17
16
14
16
3
3
2
5
4
2
2
4
3
5
1
3
2
2
3
3
3
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
3
2
2
2
2
4
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
2
4
2
5
2019 Brimbank
2018 Brimbank
2017 Brimbank
2016 Brimbank
2015 Brimbank
2014 Brimbank
2013 Brimbank
State-wide
Metro
North
South
Men
Women
18-34
35-49
50-64
65+
Extremely important
Very important
Fairly important
Not that important
Not at all important
Can't say
Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Disadvantaged support services’ be as a responsibility for Council?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 9 Councils asked group: 5
Disadvantaged support services performance
88
2019 Disadvantaged support performance (index scores)
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Brimbank City Council
60
62
61
65
61
64
65
63
61
63
57
68
59
62
57
61
62
56
60
57
61
62
64
65
62
61
61
57
57
61
65
59
62
63
60
63
54
62
60
67
60
60
60
57
66
59
n/a
64
64
63
53
61
59
62
59
62
60
n/a
61
62
64
61
61
57
61
58
66
n/a
n/a
61
63
61
60
61
60
n/a
56
63
63
63
62
62
62
62
61
60
60
57
65+
North
Metro
18-34
State-wide
Men
35-49
Brimbank
Women
South
50-64
2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Disadvantaged support services’ over the last 12 months?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 16 Councils asked group: 6
Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
Disadvantaged support services performance
89
2019 Disadvantaged support performance (%)
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Brimbank City Council
10
9
7
7
8
9
9
7
7
7
8
11
10
10
13
10
5
9
23
25
26
28
23
22
28
25
25
25
23
23
24
22
22
20
28
25
27
27
25
27
28
30
25
21
23
21
25
29
28
27
33
32
26
14
7
7
8
7
6
8
10
7
6
5
6
8
6
7
8
4
10
6
3
1
2
2
3
1
2
2
2
2
1
4
3
3
2
3
4
3
30
32
33
30
32
31
25
38
37
41
38
26
29
31
22
31
27
42
2019 Brimbank
2018 Brimbank
2017 Brimbank
2016 Brimbank
2015 Brimbank
2014 Brimbank
2013 Brimbank
2012 Brimbank
State-wide
Metro
North
South
Men
Women
18-34
35-49
50-64
65+
Very good
Good
Average
Poor
Very poor
Can't say
Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Disadvantaged support services’ over the last 12 months?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 16 Councils asked group: 6
Recreational facilities importance
90
2019 Recreational facilities importance (index scores)
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Brimbank City Council
74
77
77
77
76
77
75
75
73
73
77
73
75
75
75
75
75
73
74
74
73
73
72
76
72
71
73
75
74
78
77
70
73
75
73
69
74
73
71
77
75
75
76
73
71
75
78
72
74
75
72
74
75
76
77
76
74
74
74
74
n/a
72
77
72
71
77
76
76
75
77
76
75
74
n/a
75
77
72
72
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
72
n/a
79
p
77
p
76
76
75
74
74
74
72
72
72
72
q
70
q
35-49
Personal user
Household user
Women
65+
North
Brimbank
South
Metro
Men
50-64
State-wide
18-34
2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Recreational facilities’ be as a responsibility for Council?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 29 Councils asked group: 10
Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
Recreational facilities importance
91
2019 Recreational facilities importance (%)
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Brimbank City Council
25
30
25
27
29
30
27
23
22
28
23
22
27
17
34
25
26
27
27
49
45
48
46
42
39
49
46
49
45
52
49
50
52
48
46
50
53
52
22
21
22
21
26
28
21
26
26
23
21
23
20
26
17
21
20
18
19
3
3
4
4
2
2
2
4
3
4
2
3
2
3
7
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2019 Brimbank
2018 Brimbank
2017 Brimbank
2016 Brimbank
2015 Brimbank
2014 Brimbank
2013 Brimbank
State-wide
Metro
North
South
Men
Women
18-34
35-49
50-64
65+
Personal user
Household user
Extremely important
Very important
Fairly important
Not that important
Not at all important
Can't say
Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Recreational facilities’ be as a responsibility for Council?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 29 Councils asked group: 10
Recreational facilities performance
92
2019 Recreational facilities performance (index scores)
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Brimbank City Council
74
69
66
64
64
69
68
66
69
66
65
69
68
73
70
70
62
67
66
62
64
65
64
65
66
60
73
69
66
67
66
65
69
62
66
63
60
60
61
74
70
72
66
61
68
66
66
67
66
66
66
65
n/a
71
73
65
61
68
67
66
68
66
66
67
65
n/a
70
70
65
62
66
64
63
66
65
65
64
66
n/a
70
66
65
63
n/a
n/a
62
n/a
65
n/a
65
67
75
p
70
p
69
p
65
65
64
64
64
63
63
63
62
59
Metro
State-wide
65+
Women
50-64
Personal user
North
35-49
Household user
Brimbank
South
Men
18-34
2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Recreational facilities’ over the last 12 months?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 39 Councils asked group: 11
Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
Recreational facilities performance
93
2019 Recreational facilities performance (%)
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Brimbank City Council
14
18
17
15
17
19
19
16
23
27
13
15
11
17
11
16
14
19
17
17
38
36
37
36
39
40
34
40
44
46
41
37
43
33
33
42
38
44
37
38
31
32
29
31
32
25
31
27
21
18
32
30
25
37
42
24
33
20
31
31
10
7
11
10
6
10
9
10
6
4
8
11
12
9
10
12
9
9
11
10
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
1
2
3
5
1
4
4
1
2
2
4
3
5
4
5
3
2
4
5
4
4
4
3
4
3
2
3
5
6
1
1
2019 Brimbank
2018 Brimbank
2017 Brimbank
2016 Brimbank
2015 Brimbank
2014 Brimbank
2013 Brimbank
2012 Brimbank
State-wide
Metro
North
South
Men
Women
18-34
35-49
50-64
65+
Personal user
Household user
Very good
Good
Average
Poor
Very poor
Can't say
Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Recreational facilities’ over the last 12 months?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 39 Councils asked group: 11
The appearance of public areas importance
94
2019 Public areas importance (index scores)
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Brimbank City Council
81
77
80
78
75
76
80
73
74
74
73
80
76
81
78
75
78
81
74
75
74
77
75
77
80
80
76
76
75
71
74
74
73
79
76
80
77
75
76
76
71
73
73
72
80
81
80
78
81
79
75
77
n/a
73
76
79
79
81
79
77
78
79
74
n/a
74
75
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
73
n/a
81
p
79
77
77
76
76
75
75
74
73
q
71
q
50-64
35-49
Women
65+
South
Brimbank
North
Men
Metro
State-wide
18-34
2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘The appearance of public areas’ be as a responsibility for Council?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 28 Councils asked group: 9
Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
The appearance of public areas importance
95
2019 Public areas importance (%)
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Brimbank City Council
30
31
35
31
29
36
31
24
25
27
32
26
35
25
35
35
30
46
45
42
44
46
43
48
47
48
50
43
52
39
39
46
53
49
20
21
20
22
22
19
18
25
24
20
21
18
23
29
17
11
18
3
2
2
2
2
1
1
3
3
2
4
4
2
7
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2019 Brimbank
2018 Brimbank
2017 Brimbank
2016 Brimbank
2015 Brimbank
2014 Brimbank
2013 Brimbank
State-wide
Metro
North
South
Men
Women
18-34
35-49
50-64
65+
Extremely important
Very important
Fairly important
Not that important
Not at all important
Can't say
Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘The appearance of public areas’ be as a responsibility for Council?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 28 Councils asked group: 9
The appearance of public areas performance
96
2019 Public areas performance (index scores)
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Brimbank City Council
73
71
65
64
64
61
62
62
61
64
62
72
71
69
60
65
56
61
62
58
65
60
72
71
66
62
58
61
61
60
64
57
61
73
72
65
62
63
60
62
61
60
63
60
n/a
72
62
61
62
60
59
58
57
57
58
n/a
71
61
61
61
58
59
58
57
60
60
n/a
71
65
n/a
64
65
62
n/a
60
56
61
74
p
72
p
69
68
66
66
65
63
63
62
60
Metro
State-wide
65+
North
Men
18-34
Brimbank
South
Women
35-49
50-64
2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
Q2. How has Council performed on ‘The appearance of public areas’ over the last 12 months?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 38 Councils asked group: 10
Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
The appearance of public areas performance
97
2019 Public areas performance (%)
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Brimbank City Council
18
15
15
12
16
17
13
13
26
28
21
17
21
15
21
15
13
21
38
40
35
38
36
32
35
40
45
46
37
39
39
37
38
40
33
41
28
29
30
33
32
26
31
31
20
19
33
26
26
31
28
27
32
26
11
10
14
11
10
18
13
11
5
5
7
13
9
14
9
13
15
8
3
5
3
4
5
6
7
4
2
1
4
4
2
4
4
3
1
2
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
3
3
2019 Brimbank
2018 Brimbank
2017 Brimbank
2016 Brimbank
2015 Brimbank
2014 Brimbank
2013 Brimbank
2012 Brimbank
State-wide
Metro
North
South
Men
Women
18-34
35-49
50-64
65+
Very good
Good
Average
Poor
Very poor
Can't say
Q2. How has Council performed on ‘The appearance of public areas’ over the last 12 months?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 38 Councils asked group: 10
Art centres and libraries importance
98
2019 Art centres and libraries importance (index scores)
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Brimbank City Council
74
74
72
68
73
64
69
71
70
67
66
70
65
72
72
71
70
66
64
67
72
69
67
63
61
64
77
76
75
70
69
70
70
71
68
68
64
70
66
80
77
76
74
73
71
72
72
70
69
67
69
65
74
72
71
69
71
62
67
70
71
n/a
64
66
66
75
73
72
70
75
64
69
72
69
n/a
67
69
66
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
66
75
p
74
p
70
70
69
69
69
69
68
67
67
67
65
q
Personal user
Household user
Women
South
35-49
18-34
Brimbank
65+
50-64
Metro
Men
North
State-wide
2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Art centres and libraries’ be as a responsibility for Council?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 18 Councils asked group: 8
Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
Art centres and libraries importance
99
2019 Art centres and libraries importance (%)
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Brimbank City Council
22
20
18
27
27
20
19
17
19
22
22
20
24
28
21
16
19
29
26
40
43
39
38
41
40
43
39
41
36
41
40
39
30
44
47
44
44
45
30
29
35
23
21
30
32
33
31
32
29
31
28
33
29
28
26
24
25
7
6
5
8
7
7
4
9
7
8
7
7
7
9
5
6
7
2
3
1
1
2
3
2
2
1
2
1
2
2
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2019 Brimbank
2018 Brimbank
2017 Brimbank
2016 Brimbank
2015 Brimbank
2014 Brimbank
2013 Brimbank
State-wide
Metro
North
South
Men
Women
18-34
35-49
50-64
65+
Personal user
Household user
Extremely important
Very important
Fairly important
Not that important
Not at all important
Can't say
Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Art centres and libraries’ be as a responsibility for Council?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 18 Councils asked group: 8
Art centres and libraries performance
100
2019 Art centres and libraries performance (index scores)
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Brimbank City Council
80
80
75
74
73
77
74
73
75
75
74
76
77
76
75
75
73
72
79
73
73
72
66
74
71
69
70
70
74
68
70
76
72
69
68
66
63
65
67
70
70
75
69
68
73
73
68
68
63
70
68
66
76
76
n/a
72
72
79
75
69
72
67
75
72
73
72
72
n/a
69
69
75
73
71
69
63
73
69
69
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
78
p
77
p
76
p
75
75
75
74
74
73
73
72
72
70
Personal user
Household user
Metro
South
Women
65+
State-wide
50-64
Brimbank
18-34
35-49
Men
North
2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Art centres and libraries’ over the last 12 months?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 25 Councils asked group: 8
Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
Art centres and libraries performance
101
2019 Art centres and libraries performance (%)
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Brimbank City Council
26
29
22
17
19
23
22
26
27
20
29
19
33
27
26
22
26
34
31
43
37
44
43
40
44
35
42
43
45
41
49
36
43
43
44
40
51
48
18
22
18
21
25
20
30
17
16
18
18
18
18
17
18
23
16
10
15
5
3
6
9
7
6
6
4
3
8
3
3
6
6
5
2
4
4
4
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
3
1
1
1
8
8
10
8
7
7
6
10
10
6
8
10
5
5
4
9
14
1
2019 Brimbank
2018 Brimbank
2017 Brimbank
2016 Brimbank
2015 Brimbank
2014 Brimbank
2013 Brimbank
State-wide
Metro
North
South
Men
Women
18-34
35-49
50-64
65+
Personal user
Household user
Very good
Good
Average
Poor
Very poor
Can't say
Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Art centres and libraries’ over the last 12 months?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 25 Councils asked group: 8
Community and cultural activities importance
102
2019 Community and cultural activities importance (index scores)
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Brimbank City Council
68
69
63
64
64
67
64
61
65
64
61
65
61
63
64
60
62
65
67
63
59
64
60
61
66
61
65
64
66
64
65
68
65
62
66
64
62
63
62
71
70
70
63
70
69
66
63
63
62
62
66
62
67
69
67
64
68
68
66
64
67
62
62
65
n/a
71
72
65
67
67
68
67
65
65
66
62
69
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
62
n/a
n/a
67
66
66
66
65
64
64
64
63
63
61
q
61
60
q
Household user
Personal user
18-34
65+
South
Women
Brimbank
Men
50-64
North
State-wide
35-49
Metro
2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Community and cultural activities’ be as a responsibility for Council?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 20 Councils asked group: 9
Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
Community and cultural activities importance
103
2019 Community and cultural activities importance (%)
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Brimbank City Council
16
18
15
19
17
16
14
12
11
15
17
16
17
21
12
16
15
16
18
35
34
36
35
39
39
44
35
35
33
36
37
33
29
33
38
44
37
37
38
34
36
33
36
36
35
40
41
41
37
35
41
44
47
30
26
43
42
7
10
10
10
7
6
6
10
10
8
6
7
6
5
3
15
7
2
1
3
2
2
2
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
2
2
5
1
4
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
1
1
2019 Brimbank
2018 Brimbank
2017 Brimbank
2016 Brimbank
2015 Brimbank
2014 Brimbank
2013 Brimbank
State-wide
Metro
North
South
Men
Women
18-34
35-49
50-64
65+
Personal user
Household user
Extremely important
Very important
Fairly important
Not that important
Not at all important
Can't say
Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Community and cultural activities’ be as a responsibility for Council?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 20 Councils asked group: 9
Community and cultural activities performance
104
2019 Community and cultural activities performance (index scores)
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Brimbank City Council
73
73
64
70
69
65
69
67
67
69
66
69
64
69
67
69
70
66
67
69
64
67
57
69
62
62
72
72
68
71
67
70
69
67
66
66
67
63
66
74
73
72
71
67
67
69
65
69
57
66
63
62
72
71
69
n/a
65
65
70
66
72
60
68
66
67
73
71
71
n/a
68
67
69
67
69
63
68
67
65
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
68
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
73
p
72
p
71
70
p
69
69
69
67
67
66
66
66
63
Personal user
Household user
65+
Metro
South
Women
State-wide
Brimbank
35-49
18-34
50-64
Men
North
2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Community and cultural activities’ over the last 12 months?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 24 Councils asked group: 9
Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
Community and cultural activities performance
105
2019 Community and cultural activities performance (%)
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Brimbank City Council
19
17
12
17
15
14
16
17
19
15
21
18
20
22
18
15
17
29
27
37
34
36
35
35
41
37
42
42
37
38
36
39
34
41
35
41
43
43
24
28
26
27
29
27
30
25
23
26
23
25
23
21
24
31
23
20
22
9
6
8
6
8
8
6
6
5
10
8
10
7
13
9
6
3
6
6
2
1
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
4
1
3
2
3
3
2
1
1
2
9
14
16
12
10
8
10
9
10
8
10
9
10
7
5
12
15
1
1
2019 Brimbank
2018 Brimbank
2017 Brimbank
2016 Brimbank
2015 Brimbank
2014 Brimbank
2013 Brimbank
State-wide
Metro
North
South
Men
Women
18-34
35-49
50-64
65+
Personal user
Household user
Very good
Good
Average
Poor
Very poor
Can't say
Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Community and cultural activities’ over the last 12 months?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 24 Councils asked group: 9
Waste management importance
106
2019 Waste management importance (index scores)
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Brimbank City Council
84
84
83
83
86
84
83
83
81
81
83
81
85
81
81
81
81
80
79
79
76
79
87
82
82
83
83
84
83
82
80
82
79
83
84
81
82
83
82
82
82
79
80
81
79
82
n/a
79
81
83
79
79
79
75
80
84
83
n/a
80
85
84
81
83
79
77
78
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
78
n/a
n/a
86
p
85
83
83
83
83
83
81
81
q
81
80
Women
50-64
Metro
South
35-49
65+
Brimbank
North
State-wide
18-34
Men
2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Waste management’ be as a responsibility for Council?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 29 Councils asked group: 10
Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
Waste management importance
107
2019 Waste management importance (%)
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Brimbank City Council
47
47
39
47
44
36
41
41
46
44
49
43
51
46
47
54
43
39
39
45
40
40
46
44
44
43
40
38
38
40
36
39
36
46
12
13
15
11
13
16
15
13
10
12
11
16
8
17
12
8
6
1
1
3
2
1
1
2
2
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
2019 Brimbank
2018 Brimbank
2017 Brimbank
2016 Brimbank
2015 Brimbank
2014 Brimbank
2013 Brimbank
State-wide
Metro
North
South
Men
Women
18-34
35-49
50-64
65+
Extremely important
Very important
Fairly important
Not that important
Not at all important
Can't say
Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Waste management’ be as a responsibility for Council?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 29 Councils asked group: 10
Waste management performance
108
2019 Waste management performance (index scores)
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Brimbank City Council
75
71
72
74
71
72
70
71
74
69
69
75
67
70
71
70
75
71
70
70
69
70
76
65
69
66
68
75
70
67
65
70
71
77
69
69
74
71
74
72
72
71
68
71
n/a
73
71
74
73
79
73
74
69
72
73
n/a
72
72
73
73
81
71
73
72
72
70
n/a
74
n/a
72
72
76
72
n/a
69
71
68
73
p
71
71
70
69
69
68
68
67
67
66
Metro
18-34
North
Men
Brimbank
65+
State-wide
South
35-49
Women
50-64
2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Waste management’ over the last 12 months?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 40 Councils asked group: 11
Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
Waste management performance
109
2019 Waste management performance (%)
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Brimbank City Council
24
27
24
22
26
25
26
22
23
28
26
23
27
22
30
20
19
24
39
43
44
44
41
49
46
53
42
44
39
39
42
36
39
39
40
39
25
21
22
20
21
18
19
16
21
18
27
25
20
30
20
30
31
24
6
6
8
10
6
5
5
6
8
5
3
8
7
6
5
8
7
6
4
3
2
3
3
2
2
2
4
2
3
4
4
3
5
1
3
4
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
1
1
2
2019 Brimbank
2018 Brimbank
2017 Brimbank
2016 Brimbank
2015 Brimbank
2014 Brimbank
2013 Brimbank
2012 Brimbank
State-wide
Metro
North
South
Men
Women
18-34
35-49
50-64
65+
Very good
Good
Average
Poor
Very poor
Can't say
Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Waste management’ over the last 12 months?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 40 Councils asked group: 11
Business and community development and tourism
importance
110
2019 Business/development/tourism importance (index scores)
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Brimbank City Council
66
63
61
63
62
61
62
60
59
59
60
67
66
63
68
66
63
62
59
59
60
63
67
65
64
66
65
64
63
62
62
60
64
67
64
67
66
67
64
68
61
62
59
62
67
63
67
66
67
64
64
61
63
n/a
65
67
66
65
63
64
63
63
62
64
n/a
62
66
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
65
p
65
64
64
62
61
60
59
58
57
q
56
q
State-wide
35-49
65+
Women
South
Brimbank
50-64
North
Men
Metro
18-34
2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Business and community development and tourism’ be as a responsibility for Council?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 18 Councils asked group: 7
Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
Business and community development and tourism
importance
111
2019 Business/development/tourism importance (%)
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Brimbank City Council
15
16
15
18
21
18
15
19
11
16
15
15
16
9
22
16
18
31
32
39
35
28
35
33
36
29
26
34
27
35
31
30
27
36
36
35
30
32
35
33
41
32
39
38
35
37
34
43
30
39
29
12
13
12
11
12
11
8
9
16
14
11
15
10
11
12
15
12
4
3
2
2
1
1
1
2
4
5
4
6
2
7
3
2
3
1
2
1
3
3
2
3
1
2
1
1
1
2
3
2
2
2019 Brimbank
2018 Brimbank
2017 Brimbank
2016 Brimbank
2015 Brimbank
2014 Brimbank
2013 Brimbank
State-wide
Metro
North
South
Men
Women
18-34
35-49
50-64
65+
Extremely important
Very important
Fairly important
Not that important
Not at all important
Can't say
Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Business and community development and tourism’ be as a responsibility for Council?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 18 Councils asked group: 7
Business and community development and tourism
performance
112
2019 Business/development/tourism performance (index scores)
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Brimbank City Council
60
58
60
60
58
58
56
57
60
58
59
61
59
60
68
60
58
55
59
55
57
54
60
61
62
62
56
57
54
60
57
54
60
61
59
62
62
59
59
59
58
59
59
59
62
58
n/a
61
54
55
54
54
55
53
57
62
55
n/a
56
56
57
58
58
57
60
59
62
59
n/a
59
n/a
57
57
49
60
55
n/a
61
p
60
60
p
60
59
57
57
57
56
55
54
State-wide
Women
Metro
65+
South
Brimbank
35-49
50-64
18-34
Men
North
2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Business and community development and tourism’ over the last 12 months?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 22 Councils asked group: 7
Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
Business and community development and tourism
performance
113
2019 Business/development/tourism performance (%)
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Brimbank City Council
10
9
6
7
8
5
9
4
10
7
9
11
9
12
12
10
7
10
22
23
28
25
26
27
26
33
33
29
19
23
19
25
23
20
24
19
30
34
31
35
35
34
33
33
31
31
21
34
33
27
27
34
33
26
14
12
11
12
10
13
15
12
10
9
18
11
13
14
19
13
8
9
3
2
2
2
2
3
2
3
3
2
4
3
4
2
4
3
4
2
22
20
22
20
19
17
15
16
13
23
30
17
22
21
15
20
24
34
2019 Brimbank
2018 Brimbank
2017 Brimbank
2016 Brimbank
2015 Brimbank
2014 Brimbank
2013 Brimbank
2012 Brimbank
State-wide
Metro
North
South
Men
Women
18-34
35-49
50-64
65+
Very good
Good
Average
Poor
Very poor
Can't say
Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Business and community development and tourism’ over the last 12 months?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 22 Councils asked group: 7
Council’s general town planning policy importance
114
2019 Town planning importance (index scores)
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Brimbank City Council
73
75
73
73
73
74
74
71
70
70
67
76
74
72
73
70
70
75
71
72
72
64
71
75
73
72
75
69
76
72
73
68
68
74
72
72
72
71
71
73
71
70
70
66
67
75
72
n/a
68
68
74
68
67
67
60
74
75
73
n/a
74
71
75
71
72
69
66
n/a
n/a
72
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
74
74
73
p
72
71
70
70
70
69
68
63
q
35-49
50-64
State-wide
Metro
Women
North
65+
Brimbank
South
Men
18-34
2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Council’s general town planning policy’ be as a responsibility for Council?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 12 Councils asked group: 6
Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
Council’s general town planning policy importance
115
2019 Town planning importance (%)
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Brimbank City Council
19
23
22
28
21
20
21
26
25
22
17
17
20
8
28
28
17
43
41
40
34
42
39
40
40
40
43
43
41
45
43
41
39
49
26
25
28
26
22
27
29
25
26
25
27
28
24
35
22
25
18
3
6
3
5
5
7
3
3
3
5
3
5
1
4
4
2
4
2
1
2
2
2
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
2
3
7
5
6
5
8
5
7
4
4
3
8
6
7
6
5
4
10
2019 Brimbank
2018 Brimbank
2017 Brimbank
2016 Brimbank
2015 Brimbank
2014 Brimbank
2013 Brimbank
State-wide
Metro
North
South
Men
Women
18-34
35-49
50-64
65+
Extremely important
Very important
Fairly important
Not that important
Not at all important
Can't say
Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Council’s general town planning policy’ be as a responsibility for Council?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 12 Councils asked group: 6
Council’s general town planning policy performance
116
2019 Town planning performance (index scores)
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Brimbank City Council
65
58
57
61
61
60
60
64
53
54
53
55
60
57
64
54
58
60
58
53
53
56
59
51
58
59
57
56
56
55
54
52
56
54
63
59
65
58
59
60
59
55
54
57
62
57
60
62
61
59
58
59
n/a
55
56
61
61
59
54
57
59
61
60
n/a
55
57
58
54
54
56
n/a
55
n/a
56
n/a
54
51
61
61
60
59
59
59
59
59
56
q
55
q
53
q
18-34
35-49
Women
65+
North
Brimbank
South
Men
Metro
State-wide
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?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 19 Councils asked group: 8
Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
Council’s general town planning policy performance
117
2019 Town planning performance (%)
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Brimbank City Council
6
9
10
6
8
8
9
4
6
6
4
8
5
8
6
9
4
6
31
31
23
26
29
27
26
29
30
30
33
29
36
25
37
32
18
29
31
31
30
29
28
34
33
30
29
29
29
32
27
35
29
26
44
29
8
7
11
13
9
6
10
12
12
11
6
9
10
6
6
11
9
7
3
3
4
3
4
4
2
4
7
6
4
3
4
2
4
3
3
3
21
19
22
23
22
22
20
21
17
19
24
19
19
23
18
20
22
27
2019 Brimbank
2018 Brimbank
2017 Brimbank
2016 Brimbank
2015 Brimbank
2014 Brimbank
2013 Brimbank
2012 Brimbank
State-wide
Metro
North
South
Men
Women
18-34
35-49
50-64
65+
Very good
Good
Average
Poor
Very poor
Can't say
Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Council’s general town planning policy’ over the last 12 months?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 19 Councils asked group: 8
Planning and building permits importance
118
2019 Planning and building permits importance (index scores)
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Brimbank City Council
75
77
74
69
71
72
74
71
70
73
65
75
76
76
71
72
74
71
72
72
73
66
76
77
74
76
71
76
73
73
73
70
68
74
74
74
71
71
70
70
71
72
72
70
75
73
n/a
74
71
70
71
72
73
70
70
74
74
n/a
71
71
74
71
70
70
70
63
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
71
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
77
p
74
74
p
72
71
71
70
69
69
67
62
q
65+
50-64
Metro
Women
State-wide
35-49
North
Brimbank
South
Men
18-34
2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Planning and building permits’ be as a responsibility for Council?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 20 Councils asked group: 6
Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
Planning and building permits importance
119
2019 Planning and building permits importance (%)
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Brimbank City Council
21
24
25
29
24
23
22
26
31
20
21
20
22
14
21
27
28
44
41
40
40
41
44
42
39
39
45
44
40
48
39
46
48
49
22
25
27
22
28
25
25
25
21
24
21
23
21
29
26
16
11
8
6
5
6
4
4
6
6
5
6
9
12
4
14
5
6
3
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
3
1
2
3
3
3
3
2
4
4
3
2
3
3
4
3
2
1
2
8
2019 Brimbank
2018 Brimbank
2017 Brimbank
2016 Brimbank
2015 Brimbank
2014 Brimbank
2013 Brimbank
State-wide
Metro
North
South
Men
Women
18-34
35-49
50-64
65+
Extremely important
Very important
Fairly important
Not that important
Not at all important
Can't say
Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Planning and building permits’ be as a responsibility for Council?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 20 Councils asked group: 6
Planning and building permits performance
120
2019 Planning and building permits performance (index scores)
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Brimbank City Council
67
60
63
63
62
61
65
60
54
51
52
58
60
61
62
60
56
59
64
57
49
51
65
62
56
58
59
62
57
55
57
50
50
58
61
60
57
59
62
57
62
59
53
54
65
60
58
61
60
58
60
58
54
n/a
53
62
61
64
63
62
61
62
59
60
n/a
55
64
56
56
n/a
59
n/a
61
58
51
n/a
54
61
60
58
58
58
58
56
55
55
53
q
52
q
18-34
Women
35-49
South
Brimbank
North
Men
65+
50-64
Metro
State-wide
2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Planning and building permits’ over the last 12 months?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 27 Councils asked group: 7
Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
Planning and building permits performance
121
2019 Planning and building permits performance (%)
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Brimbank City Council
7
6
8
8
8
7
10
7
6
6
6
7
6
7
8
8
5
5
26
38
28
31
24
28
28
24
24
25
24
28
26
27
32
25
26
19
27
22
28
25
31
29
31
27
26
27
26
27
27
26
27
29
27
24
10
7
7
10
8
8
6
6
13
13
9
11
12
8
10
8
15
9
3
3
4
4
2
3
2
4
9
7
3
3
4
2
2
4
3
4
27
24
25
22
27
25
23
32
22
22
32
25
24
30
22
26
24
40
2019 Brimbank
2018 Brimbank
2017 Brimbank
2016 Brimbank
2015 Brimbank
2014 Brimbank
2013 Brimbank
2012 Brimbank
State-wide
Metro
North
South
Men
Women
18-34
35-49
50-64
65+
Very good
Good
Average
Poor
Very poor
Can't say
Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Planning and building permits’ over the last 12 months?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 27 Councils asked group: 7
Environmental sustainability importance
122
2019 Environmental sustainability importance (index scores)
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Brimbank City Council
80
79
77
77
76
75
76
77
74
74
73
75
71
73
72
72
74
73
71
73
70
72
81
79
77
77
77
74
74
76
74
72
73
80
76
76
76
74
79
72
75
74
71
73
77
73
73
73
73
75
73
72
n/a
69
73
78
75
75
76
78
76
76
78
n/a
75
72
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
71
81
80
79
78
78
77
76
76
75
q
75
74
q
Women
18-34
South
Brimbank
35-49
50-64
65+
North
Metro
Men
State-wide
2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Environmental sustainability’ be as a responsibility for Council?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 22 Councils asked group: 9
Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
Environmental sustainability importance
123
2019 Environmental sustainability importance (%)
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Brimbank City Council
40
37
26
36
32
28
30
33
35
33
43
35
44
41
42
37
36
37
38
43
40
43
40
47
39
38
41
34
38
35
38
34
35
38
18
21
25
18
20
26
19
21
19
20
16
18
17
16
18
23
16
3
2
4
4
3
3
3
5
5
3
2
5
2
4
1
4
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
2
2
2
1
1
2
3
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
3
2019 Brimbank
2018 Brimbank
2017 Brimbank
2016 Brimbank
2015 Brimbank
2014 Brimbank
2013 Brimbank
State-wide
Metro
North
South
Men
Women
18-34
35-49
50-64
65+
Extremely important
Very important
Fairly important
Not that important
Not at all important
Can't say
Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Environmental sustainability’ be as a responsibility for Council?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 22 Councils asked group: 9
Environmental sustainability performance
124
2019 Environmental sustainability performance (index scores)
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Brimbank City Council
63
66
64
66
62
63
64
61
63
60
61
60
62
64
62
61
62
62
68
64
62
59
52
57
64
56
59
57
56
64
63
57
62
59
63
65
64
61
61
62
63
64
60
61
62
65
n/a
61
63
62
62
66
64
60
62
64
62
n/a
62
62
64
65
63
64
65
66
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
64
n/a
n/a
65
64
64
63
63
63
63
63
62
61
57
q
18-34
Men
Metro
35-49
North
Brimbank
South
65+
State-wide
Women
50-64
2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Environmental sustainability’ over the last 12 months?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 27 Councils asked group: 10
Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
Environmental sustainability performance
125
2019 Environmental sustainability performance (%)
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Brimbank City Council
14
11
9
7
12
11
12
11
13
10
16
15
13
19
16
6
10
29
35
33
31
32
34
36
35
35
34
27
31
28
27
30
26
35
34
28
31
30
31
37
32
31
29
34
34
32
35
32
37
41
27
10
9
9
13
9
8
8
9
8
8
10
9
11
11
8
7
11
1
2
2
4
4
1
1
3
2
1
2
1
2
3
3
1
12
16
17
15
12
9
12
12
14
14
11
12
12
11
7
17
16
2019 Brimbank
2018 Brimbank
2017 Brimbank
2016 Brimbank
2015 Brimbank
2014 Brimbank
2013 Brimbank
State-wide
Metro
North
South
Men
Women
18-34
35-49
50-64
65+
Very good
Good
Average
Poor
Very poor
Can't say
Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Environmental sustainability’ over the last 12 months?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 27 Councils asked group: 10
Emergency and disaster management importance
126
2019 Emergency and disaster management importance (index scores)
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Brimbank City Council
85
86
81
81
82
81
84
85
78
80
80
86
82
82
86
83
80
82
83
81
77
79
84
79
79
77
79
80
79
79
81
76
74
87
80
79
81
81
80
80
82
82
77
75
84
83
81
76
80
80
82
78
78
n/a
76
85
83
82
87
83
80
80
84
81
n/a
81
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
80
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
85
83
83
83
82
81
81
80
79
79
q
79
Women
18-34
South
35-49
Brimbank
State-wide
65+
North
50-64
Metro
Men
2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Emergency and disaster management’ be as a responsibility for Council?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 18 Councils asked group: 5
Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
Emergency and disaster management importance
127
2019 Emergency and disaster management importance (%)
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Brimbank City Council
48
51
50
41
49
46
49
47
43
45
50
41
55
52
49
47
42
34
30
34
39
28
32
35
35
36
35
34
35
33
33
34
28
40
14
14
11
14
15
16
12
13
15
15
13
19
9
12
14
19
13
2
2
2
4
5
3
2
3
4
4
1
3
1
1
1
4
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
2019 Brimbank
2018 Brimbank
2017 Brimbank
2016 Brimbank
2015 Brimbank
2014 Brimbank
2013 Brimbank
State-wide
Metro
North
South
Men
Women
18-34
35-49
50-64
65+
Extremely important
Very important
Fairly important
Not that important
Not at all important
Can't say
Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Emergency and disaster management’ be as a responsibility for Council?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 18 Councils asked group: 5
Emergency and disaster management performance
128
2019 Emergency and disaster management performance (index scores)
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Brimbank City Council
71
73
69
67
72
73
71
69
69
75
65
70
62
68
70
66
66
65
64
65
67
66
69
63
68
70
64
62
64
65
62
60
65
70
65
69
68
64
68
66
63
68
66
65
71
72
n/a
74
68
69
68
67
68
63
59
70
64
n/a
69
64
65
65
66
67
68
63
70
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
72
p
71
70
p
69
68
67
67
67
67
65
61
q
State-wide
18-34
Metro
65+
South
Men
Brimbank
Women
North
35-49
50-64
2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Emergency and disaster management’ over the last 12 months?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 24 Councils asked group: 5
Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
Emergency and disaster management performance
129
2019 Emergency and disaster management performance (%)
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Brimbank City Council
16
18
12
9
13
15
12
20
13
12
18
18
14
22
15
7
15
27
33
30
31
32
30
33
38
33
28
27
27
28
31
26
25
25
23
18
23
21
19
21
22
18
19
21
24
26
20
22
24
29
16
5
4
4
6
5
4
7
4
3
6
4
3
6
4
4
6
5
2
1
3
3
3
2
2
2
1
3
3
1
1
4
2
2
27
26
28
30
28
28
23
19
31
33
25
23
31
19
27
31
38
2019 Brimbank
2018 Brimbank
2017 Brimbank
2016 Brimbank
2015 Brimbank
2014 Brimbank
2013 Brimbank
State-wide
Metro
North
South
Men
Women
18-34
35-49
50-64
65+
Very good
Good
Average
Poor
Very poor
Can't say
Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Emergency and disaster management’ over the last 12 months?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 24 Councils asked group: 5
Planning for population growth in the area importance
130
2019 Population growth importance (index scores)
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Brimbank City Council
78
75
78
77
82
79
81
78
76
78
78
80
78
75
76
80
81
80
78
78
76
76
76
78
75
76
78
79
74
74
74
69
68
80
77
74
75
80
77
76
76
76
75
70
77
75
n/a
75
76
75
72
72
72
70
65
83
75
n/a
75
79
78
79
77
75
75
71
n/a
n/a
n/a
75
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
79
77
77
77
76
76
76
76
75
75
72
35-49
65+
Metro
State-wide
50-64
Women
North
Brimbank
South
Men
18-34
2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Planning for population growth in the area’ be as a responsibility for Council?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 11 Councils asked group: 4
Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
Planning for population growth in the area importance
131
2019 Population growth importance (%)
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Brimbank City Council
37
40
40
37
35
29
36
38
38
38
36
34
40
36
42
33
36
34
37
37
30
39
37
37
35
36
34
34
38
30
27
37
41
35
20
17
18
22
19
25
19
19
18
18
21
20
20
27
13
19
16
6
3
3
7
4
5
4
5
5
6
6
5
6
6
7
4
6
1
2
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
2
1
1
2
1
2
3
1
2
2
2
2
3
1
3
6
2019 Brimbank
2018 Brimbank
2017 Brimbank
2016 Brimbank
2015 Brimbank
2014 Brimbank
2013 Brimbank
State-wide
Metro
North
South
Men
Women
18-34
35-49
50-64
65+
Extremely important
Very important
Fairly important
Not that important
Not at all important
Can't say
Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Planning for population growth in the area’ be as a responsibility for Council?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 11 Councils asked group: 4
Planning for population growth in the area performance
132
2019 Population growth performance (index scores)
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Brimbank City Council
55
52
53
53
53
50
54
53
52
50
53
53
49
54
50
52
47
54
50
52
51
59
58
57
53
52
55
53
54
57
51
51
57
57
57
57
58
57
53
57
57
54
54
61
59
54
54
54
56
52
58
58
54
n/a
59
58
58
59
59
58
57
58
56
54
n/a
58
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
52
n/a
n/a
55
55
54
54
54
53
53
53
52
52
50
18-34
North
Men
35-49
Brimbank
50-64
South
Women
State-wide
Metro
65+
2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Planning for population growth in the area’ over the last 12 months?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 17 Councils asked group: 5
Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
Planning for population growth in the area performance
133
2019 Population growth performance (%)
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Brimbank City Council
7
4
7
7
11
9
9
7
5
6
8
8
6
5
12
6
6
24
26
22
28
23
24
30
25
23
25
23
26
22
30
21
20
19
32
32
28
31
29
29
25
29
31
27
34
30
33
33
28
39
27
14
15
18
14
11
12
15
16
15
14
14
12
15
16
10
8
19
6
5
6
5
6
5
3
8
6
4
8
7
5
4
11
7
6
17
18
20
15
20
20
17
15
19
24
14
16
18
13
18
20
22
2019 Brimbank
2018 Brimbank
2017 Brimbank
2016 Brimbank
2015 Brimbank
2014 Brimbank
2013 Brimbank
State-wide
Metro
North
South
Men
Women
18-34
35-49
50-64
65+
Very good
Good
Average
Poor
Very poor
Can't say
Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Planning for population growth in the area’ over the last 12 months?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 17 Councils asked group: 5
Detailed
demographics
134
Gender and age profile
135
2019 gender
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Brimbank City Council
2019 age
Men
50%
Women
50%
Brimbank
11%
24%
25%
18%
21%
Brimbank
18-24 25-34 35-49 50-64 65+
Men
49%
Women
51%
Metro
Men
49%
Women
51%
State-wide
10%
25%
25%
16%
24%
Metro
18-24 25-34 35-49 50-64 65+
8%
18%
21%
23%
30%
State-wide
18-24 25-34 35-49 50-64 65+
S3. [Record gender] / S4. To which of the following age groups do you belong?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 63 Councils asked group: 14
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.
Household structure
2019 household structure (%)
16
13
7
3
19
19
19
4
Single person living alone
Single living with friends or housemates
Single living with children 16 or under
Single with children but none 16 or under living at
home
Married or living with partner, no children
Married or living with partner with children 16 or under
at home
Married or living with partner with children but none 16
or under at home
Do not wish to answer
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Brimbank City Council
S6. Which of the following BEST describes your household?
136
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 10 Councils asked group: 7
Years lived in area
137
Years lived in area (%)
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Brimbank City Council
14
8
9
11
9
10
13
13
17
11
17
14
10
7
73
75
79
72
77
79
80
1
2019 Brimbank
2018 Brimbank
2017 Brimbank
2016 Brimbank
2015 Brimbank
2014 Brimbank
2013 Brimbank
0-5 years
5-10 years
10+ years
Can't say
S5. How long have you lived in this area?/How long have you owned a property in this area?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 13 Councils asked group: 5
Years lived in area
Years lived in area (%)
14
8
9
11
17
26
7
17
14
13
25
16
3
1
13
17
11
17
15
15
14
13
18
8
18
21
4
2
21
24
19
24
22
20
20
22
18
24
25
30
17
7
20
22
24
18
17
17
36
13
22
19
29
10
26
14
32
29
36
30
29
23
23
36
28
35
3
22
49
75
1
2019 Brimbank
2018 Brimbank
2017 Brimbank
2016 Brimbank
State-wide
Metro
North
South
Men
Women
18-34
35-49
50-64
65+
0-5 years
5-10 years
10-20 years
20-30 years
30+ years
Can't say
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Brimbank City Council
138
S5. How long have you lived in this area?/How long have you owned a property in this area?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 13 Councils asked group: 5
Note: For 2016, the code frame expanded out “10+ years”, to include “10-20 years”,”20-30 years” and “30+ years”. As such, this chart
presents the last four years of data only.
Languages spoken at home
139
2019 languages spoken at home (%)
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Brimbank City Council
Languages other
than English
48%
English only
52%
7
5
3
3
3
2
2
1
1
1
1
VIETNAMESE
ITALIAN
CHINESE
CROATIAN
HINDI
ARABIC
GREEK
FRENCH
GERMAN
KOREAN
SPANISH
Q11. What languages, other than English, are spoken regularly in your home?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 5 Councils asked group: 4
Note: Respondents could name multiple languages so responses may add to more than 100%
- Top mentions only -
63
59
43
32
16
12
12
55
47
38
28
13
8
6
Recreational facilities
Art centres & libraries
Informing the community
Community & cultural
Consultation & engagement
Family support services
Elderly support services
Total household use
Personal use
Personal and household use and experience of council
services
Q4. In the last 12 months, have you or has any member of your household used or experienced any of the following services provided by Council?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 10 Councils asked group: 3
2019 personal and household use and experience of services (%)
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Brimbank City Council
140
Appendix A:
Index scores,
margins of error
and significant
differences
141
Index Scores
Many questions ask respondents to rate council
performance on a five-point scale, for example, from
‘very good’ to ‘very poor’, with ‘can’t say’ also a
possible response category. To facilitate ease of
reporting and comparison of results over time, starting
from the 2012 survey and measured against the state
wide result and the council group, an ‘Index Score’ has
been calculated for such measures.
The Index Score is calculated and represented as a
score out of 100 (on a 0 to 100 scale), with ‘can’t say’
responses excluded from the analysis. The ‘%
RESULT’ for each scale category is multiplied by the
‘INDEX FACTOR’. This produces an ‘INDEX VALUE’
for each category, which are then summed to produce
the ‘INDEX SCORE’, equating to ‘60’ in the following
example.
Similarly, an Index Score has been calculated for the
Core question ‘Performance direction in the last 12
months’, based on the following scale for each
performance measure category, with ‘Can’t say’
responses excluded from the calculation.
Appendix A:
Index Scores
SCALE
CATEGORIES
% RESULT
INDEX
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
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Brimbank City Council
142
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
Demographic
Actual
survey
sample
size
Weighted
base
Maximum margin
of error at 95%
confidence
interval
Brimbank City
Council
402
400
+/-4.9
Men
185
201
+/-7.2
Women
217
199
+/-6.7
North
140
135
+/-8.3
South
262
265
+/-6.1
18-34 years
63
141
+/-12.4
35-49 years
76
101
+/-11.3
50-64 years
122
73
+/-8.9
65+ years
141
85
+/-8.3
The sample size for the 2019 State-wide Local
Government Community Satisfaction Survey for
Brimbank City Council was n=402. 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=402 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 161,000 people aged 18
years or over for Brimbank City Council, according to
ABS estimates.
Appendix A:
Margins of error
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Brimbank City Council
143
Within tables and index score charts throughout this
report, statistically significant differences at the 95%
confidence level are represented by upward directing
green (
) and downward directing red arrows (
).
Significance when noted indicates a significantly higher
or lower result for the analysis group in comparison to
the ‘Total’ result for the council for that survey question
for that year. Therefore in the example below:
•
The state-wide result is significantly higher than
the overall result for the council.
•
The result among 50-64 year olds is significantly
lower than for the overall result for the council.
Further, results shown in green and red indicate
significantly higher or lower results than in 2018.
Therefore in the example below:
• The result among 35-49 year olds in the council is
significantly higher than the result achieved among
this group in 2018.
• The result among 18-34 year olds in the council is
significantly lower than the result achieved among
this group in 2018.
Appendix A:
Significant difference reporting notation
Overall Performance – Index Scores
(example extract only)
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Brimbank City Council
144
54
57
58
60
67
66
50-64
35-49
Metro
Brimbank
18-34
State-wide
The test applied to the Indexes was an Independent
Mean Test, as follows:
Z Score = ($1 - $2) / Sqrt (($5
^2 / $3) + ($6^2 / $4))
Where:
• $1 = Index Score 1
• $2 = Index Score 2
• $3 = unweighted sample count 1
• $4 = unweighted sample count 2
• $5 = standard deviation 1
• $6 = standard deviation 2
All figures can be sourced from the detailed cross
tabulations.
The test was applied at the 95% confidence interval, so
if the Z Score was greater than +/- 1.954 the scores are
significantly different.
Appendix A:
Index score significant difference calculation
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Brimbank City Council
145
Appendix B:
Further project
information
146
Further information about the report and explanations
about the State-wide Local Government Community
Satisfaction Survey can be found in this section
including:
• Survey methodology and sampling
• Analysis and reporting
• Glossary of terms
Detailed survey tabulations
Detailed survey tabulations are available in supplied
Excel file.
Contacts
For further queries about the conduct and reporting of
the 2019 State-wide Local Government Community
Satisfaction Survey, please contact JWS Research on
(03) 8685 8555
or via email:
admin@jwsresearch.com
Appendix B:
Further information
147
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Brimbank City Council
The 2019 results are compared with previous years, as
detailed below:
• 2019, n=402 completed interviews, conducted in the period
of 1
st
February – 30
th
March.
• 2018, n=400 completed interviews, conducted in the period
of 1
st
February – 30
th
March.
• 2017, n=400 completed interviews, conducted in the period
of 1
st
February – 30
th
March.
• 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.
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.
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 40% mobile phone numbers to
cater to the diversity of residents within Brimbank City
Council, particularly younger people.
A total of n=402 completed interviews were achieved in
Brimbank City Council. Survey fieldwork was
conducted in the period of 1st February – 30th March,
2019.
Appendix B:
Survey methodology and sampling
148
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Brimbank City Council
All participating councils are listed in the State-wide
report published on the DELWP website. In 2019, 63 of
the 79 Councils throughout Victoria participated in this
survey. For consistency of analysis and reporting
across all projects, Local Government Victoria has
aligned its presentation of data to use standard council
groupings. Accordingly, the council reports for the
community satisfaction survey provide analysis using
these standard council groupings. Please note that
councils participating across 2012-2019 vary slightly.
Council Groups
Brimbank 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, Boroondara, Brimbank, Glen Eira, Greater
Dandenong, Frankston, Kingston, Knox, Manningham,
Maroondah, Melbourne, Port Phillip, Stonnington and
Whitehorse.
Wherever appropriate, results for Brimbank City
Council for this 2019 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.
Appendix B:
Analysis and reporting
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Brimbank City Council
149
2012 survey revision
The survey was revised in 2012. As a result:
• The survey is now conducted as a representative
random probability survey of residents aged 18 years
or over in local councils, whereas previously it was
conducted as a ‘head of household’ survey.
• As part of the change to a representative resident
survey, results are now weighted post survey to the
known population distribution of Brimbank 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
2012-2019 have been made throughout this report as
appropriate.
Appendix B:
Analysis and reporting
150
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Brimbank City Council
Core, optional and tailored questions
Over and above necessary geographic and
demographic questions required to ensure sample
representativeness, a base set of questions for the
2019 State-wide Local Government Community
Satisfaction Survey was designated as ‘Core’ and
therefore compulsory inclusions for all participating
Councils.
These core questions comprised:
• Overall performance last 12 months (Overall
performance)
• Lobbying on behalf of community (Advocacy)
• Community consultation and engagement
(Consultation)
• 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 2019 State-wide Local Government
Community Satisfaction Survey were optional. Councils
also had the ability to ask tailored questions specific
only to their council.
Appendix B:
Analysis and reporting
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Brimbank City Council
151
Reporting
Every council that participated in the 2019 State-wide
Local Government Community Satisfaction Survey
receives a customised report. In addition, the state
government is supplied with a state-wide summary
report of the aggregate results of ‘Core’ and ‘Optional’
questions asked across all council areas surveyed.
Tailored questions commissioned by individual councils
are reported only to the commissioning council and not
otherwise shared unless by express written approval of
the commissioning council.
The overall State-wide Local Government Community
Satisfaction Report is available at
http://www.delwp.vic.gov.au/local
government/strengthening-councils/council-community
satisfaction-survey.
Appendix B:
Analysis and reporting
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Brimbank City Council
152
Core questions
: Compulsory inclusion questions for all
councils participating in the CSS.
CSS
: 2019 Victorian Local Government Community
Satisfaction Survey.
Council group
: One of five classified groups,
comprising: metropolitan, interface, regional centres,
large rural and small rural.
Council group average
: The average result for all
participating councils in the council group.
Highest / lowest
: The result described is the highest or
lowest result across a particular demographic sub
group e.g. men, for the specific question being
reported. Reference to the result for a demographic
sub-group being the highest or lowest does not imply
that it is significantly higher or lower, unless this is
specifically mentioned.
Index score
: A score calculated and represented as a
score out of 100 (on a 0 to 100 scale). This score is
sometimes reported as a figure in brackets next to the
category being described, e.g. men 50+ (60).
Optional questions
: Questions which councils had an
option to include or not.
Percentages
: Also referred to as ‘detailed results’,
meaning the proportion of responses, expressed as a
percentage.
Sample
: The number of completed interviews, e.g. for
a council or within a demographic sub-group.
Significantly higher / lower
: The result described is
significantly higher or lower than the comparison result
based on a statistical significance test at the 95%
confidence limit. If the result referenced is statistically
higher or lower then this will be specifically mentioned,
however not all significantly higher or lower results are
referenced in summary reporting.
Statewide average
: The average result for all
participating councils in the State.
Tailored questions
: Individual questions tailored by
and only reported to the commissioning council.
Weighting
: Weighting factors are applied to the sample
for each council based on available age and gender
proportions from ABS census information to ensure
reported results are proportionate to the actual
population of the council, rather than the achieved
survey sample.
Appendix B:
Glossary of terms
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Brimbank City Council
153
THERE ARE
OVER
6 MILLION
PEOPLE IN
VICTORIA...
FIND OUT
WHAT THEY'RE
THINKING.
Contact us
03 8685 8555
John Scales
Managing Director
jscales@jwsresearch.com
Katrina Cox
Director of Client Services
kcox@jwsresearch.com
Follow us
@JWSResearch
Mark Zuker
Managing Director
mzuker@jwsresearch.com