image
2019 Local
Government
Community
Satisfaction Survey
Brimbank City
Council
Coordinated by the Department of
Environment, Land, Water and Planning
on behalf of Victorian councils

image
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

image
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

image
Background and
objectives
4

image
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

image
Key findings and
recommendations
6

image
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.

image
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

image
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

image
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

image
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

image
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

image
Summary of
findings
13

image
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

image
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

image
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

image
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

image
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

image
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

image
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

image
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

image
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

image
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

image
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

image
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

image
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

image
DETAILED
FINDINGS
27

image
Overall
performance
28

image
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.

image
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

image
Customer
service
31

image
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

image
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.

image
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.

image
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

image
Council direction
36

image
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

image
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.

image
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

image
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

image
Individual
service areas
41

image
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.

image
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

image
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.

image
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

image
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.

image
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

image
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.

image
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

image
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.

image
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

image
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.

image
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

image
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.

image
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

image
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.

image
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

image
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.

image
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

image
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.

image
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

image
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.

image
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

image
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.

image
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

image
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.

image
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

image
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.

image
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

image
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.

image
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

image
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.

image
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

image
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.

image
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

image
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.

image
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

image
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.

image
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

image
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.

image
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

image
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

image
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

image
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

image
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

image
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.

image
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

image
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.

image
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

image
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.

image
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

image
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.

image
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

image
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.

image
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

image
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.

image
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

image
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.

image
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

image
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.

image
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

image
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.

image
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

image
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.

image
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

image
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.

image
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

image
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.

image
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

image
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.

image
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

image
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.

image
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

image
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.

image
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

image
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.

image
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

image
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.

image
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

image
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.

image
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

image
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.

image
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

image
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.

image
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

image
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.

image
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

image
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.

image
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

image
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.

image
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

image
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.

image
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

image
Detailed
demographics
134

image
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.

image
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

image
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

image
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.

image
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 -

image
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

image
Appendix A:
Index scores,
margins of error
and significant
differences
141

image
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

image
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

image
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

image
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

image
Appendix B:
Further project
information
146

image
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
image
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

image
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

image
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

image
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

image
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
image
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

image
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