Wodonga Council Community Satisfaction Survey 2019

2019 Local
Government
Community
Satisfaction Survey
Wodonga City
Council
Coordinated by the Department of
Environment, Land, Water and Planning
on behalf of Victorian councils
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Wodonga City Council
Contents
Background and objectives 4
Key findings and recommendations 6
Summary of findings 12
Detailed findings 20
Overall performance 21
Customer service 24
Council direction 32
Individual service areas 36
Community consultation and engagement 37

Lobbying on behalf of the community 41
Decisions made in the interest of the 45
community
Condition of sealed local roads 49
Detailed demographics 53
Appendix A: Index scores, margins of error 56
and significant differences
Appendix B: Further project information 61
2
Wodonga City Council – at a glance
Top 3 performing areas
Appearance of public areas
78
Emergency & disaster mngt
75
Art centres & libraries
73
59 58 60
Top 3 areas for improvement
80 76 78
Wodonga Regional Centres State-wide 51 53 56
Overall Council performance Community Consultation & Informing the

decisions
-29
engagement
-23 community -22
Results shown are index scores out of 100.
Importance Performance Net differential
Note: Net differentials are calculated based on the un-rounded importance and performance scores, then rounded to the nearest whole number. 3
Background and
objectives
4
Background and objectives

The Victorian Community Satisfaction Survey Serving Victoria for 20 years
(CSS) creates a vital interface between the council
and their community. Each year the CSS data is used to develop the State-
wide report which contains all of the aggregated
Held annually, the CSS asks the opinions of local results, analysis and data. Moreover, with 20 years of
people about the place they live, work and play and results, the CSS offers councils a long-term, consistent
provides confidence for councils in their efforts measure of how they are performing – essential for
and abilities. councils that work over the long term to provide
valuable services and infrastructure to their
Now in its twentieth year, this survey provides insight communities.
into the community’s views on:
Participation in the State-wide Local Government
• councils’ overall performance with benchmarking Community Satisfaction Survey is optional.
against State-wide and council group results Participating councils have various choices as to the
• community consultation and engagement content of the questionnaire and the sample size to be
surveyed, depending on their individual strategic,
• advocacy and lobbying on behalf of the community
financial and other considerations.
• 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.
5
Key findings and
recommendations
6
Overall performance
Wodonga City Council’s overall performance score
(index score of 59) declined significantly (at the 95% Overall Council performance
confidence interval) – by eight index points – from
2018. The decline reverses the trend of stability and
then improvement that occurred in the previous three
years. Council’s performance index score peaked at 67
in 2018.
Overall performance previously exceeded the Regional
Centres group and State-wide averages for councils.
Wodonga City Council’s overall performance is now
rated similar to the average ratings for councils State-
wide and in the Regional Centres group (index scores 59 58 60
of 60 and 58 respectively).
• Declines occurred across all demographic and
geographic groups. The largest declines in ratings
occurred among residents aged 18 to 34 years
(index score of 60, down 11 points from 2018) and
residents aged 50 to 64 years (index score of 56,
also down 11 points).
Just under half of residents rate overall performance as Wodonga Regional Centres State-wide
‘very good’ (10%) or ‘good’ (37%) compared to 61% in

2018. ‘Very good’ ratings have halved from last year Results shown are index scores out of 100.
(21% in 2018). Conversely, 18% of residents rate

overall performance as ‘very poor’ or ‘poor’, up from
10% this time last year. A further 35% sit midscale,
providing an ‘average’ rating.
7
Customer contact and service

Contact with council • Younger residents (under 50 years of age) prefer
Just over two-thirds (67%) of Wodonga City Council social media updates (31%) followed by newsletter
residents have had contact with Council in the last 12 sent via email (28%). Preference for a newsletter
months. Rate of contact has not changed significantly sent via mail has declined among this cohort (22%,
over time. down from 30% in 2018).
• Residents of Baranduda had the most contact with Customer service

Council over the last 12 months (78%).
Wodonga City Council’s customer service index of 76 is
• Conversely, residents aged 65+ years had the least down four index points from the 2018 result, though the
contact with Council (56%); rate of contact among change is not significant. Performance on this measure
this group is significantly lower than average. remains significantly higher than the State-wide and
• Rate of contact increased significantly among 18 to Regional Centres group averages (index scores of 71
34 year olds compared to this time last year (66% in and 72 respectively).
2019, up from 54% in 2018). Just under two-in-five residents (38%) rate Council’s
The main methods of contacting Council is in person customer service as ‘very good’, with another one-third
(32%) and by telephone (31%). (34%) rating it as ‘good’, representing a nine
percentage point decrease in ‘very good’ ratings
Communications preferences differ markedly by age compared with 2018.
group with regard to how residents would like to be
informed about Council news, information and
upcoming events.
• Residents over 50 years of age prefer to receive a
council newsletter via mail (38%) to email (19%) by a
wide margin. The next most preferred method of
communication is a newsletter inserted in a local
newspaper (14%) among this cohort.
8
Top performing areas and areas for improvement

Top performing areas Areas for improvement
In addition to customer service, top performing service In addition to overall performance, performance ratings
areas include: on eight service areas declined significantly in the past
• Appearance of public areas (index score of 78) year. The largest declines occurred in the areas of
waste management (index score of 65, down nine
• Emergency and disaster management (index score index points from 2018) and informing the community
of 75) (index score of 56, down seven points).
• Art centres and libraries (index score of 73, down a • The decline in the area of waste management
significant four index points from 2018). Perceptions reverses gains made in the area between 2017
of art centres and libraries performance declined (index score of 68) and 2018 (74). All demographic
across all geographic and demographic cohorts. and geographic groups declined in their impressions
In addition, with regard to the appearance of public of Council performance on this measure.
areas, Council performs significantly higher than both • Council’s performance index score in the area of
the State-wide and Regional Centres group averages informing the community is at its lowest level since
(index scores of 72 and 74 respectively). 2016. The largest, significant decline occurred
• In keeping with this, just under one in five (18%) among residents aged 18 to 34 years (index score of
residents volunteer parks and gardens as the best 56, down 15 points from 2018)
thing about Wodonga City Council. Community decisions is another area that stands out as
Council also performs significantly higher than the in need of Council attention. With a performance index
State-wide average for councils in the area of score of 51 (down six index points from 2018), Council
emergency and disaster management (index score of is rated lowest in this service area. Council performs
72). significantly lower than the State-wide average for
councils in this area (index score of 55).
More broadly, Council performs in line with or
significantly higher than Regional Centres group
averages on all service areas evaluated.
9
Focus areas for coming 12 months

Council experienced significant declines in Nonetheless, Council should also seek to address gaps
performance ratings across a number of service in perceptions moving forward, paying attention to
areas this past year, as well as in perceptions of those areas where perceived importance exceeds
overall performance. performance by a wide margin. Key priorities include:
In terms of priorities for the year ahead, Wodonga City • Community decisions (margin of 29 points)
Council should focus on maintaining and improving
• Consultation and engagement (margin of 23 points)
performance in the individual service areas that most
influence positive perceptions of overall performance: • Informing the community (margin of 22 points).
• Decisions made in the interest of the community More generally, consideration should also be given to
residents aged 50 to 64 years, who appear to be
• Consultation and engagement
driving negative opinion in a number of areas in 2019.
• Waste management – while Council performs well
• It is also important not to ignore, and to learn from,
here, ratings declined significantly in the past year
what is working amongst other groups, especially
and could impact perceptions of overall performance
residents aged 65+ years, and use these lessons to
if they continue to decline.
build on performance experience and perceptions.
Despite declines in performance ratings, Council
On the positive side, Council should look to leverage
performs relatively in line with or higher than
positive impressions of customer service in improving
Regional Centres group averages on all service
community relationships moving forward.
areas evaluated. This is a positive result for
Council and one it should strive to maintain and
build upon.
10
Further areas of exploration

An approach we recommend is to further mine the
survey data to better understand the profile of these
over and under-performing demographic groups. This
can be achieved via additional consultation and data
interrogation, self-mining the SPSS data provided, or
via the dashboard portal available to the council.
Please note that the category descriptions for the
coded open-ended responses are generic summaries
only. We recommend further analysis of the detailed
cross tabulations and the actual verbatim responses,
with a view to understanding the responses of the key
gender and age groups, especially any target groups
identified as requiring attention.
A personal briefing by senior JWS Research
representatives is also available to assist in
providing both explanation and interpretation of
the results. Please contact JWS Research on:
03 8685 8555
11
Summary of
findings
12
Summary of core measures
Index scores
Overall Community Advocacy Making Sealed Customer Overall

Performance Consultation Community Local Service Council
Decisions Roads Direction
80
78
75 76
66 67
65 65 64
63 63
61
60 60 59
56 57 57
55 54
53 53
52
51
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

13
Summary of core measures
Regional State-
Wodonga Wodonga Highest Lowest
Performance Measures Centres wide
2019 2018 score score
2019 2019
Aged 18- Aged 50-

Overall Performance 59 67 58 60
34 years 64 years
Community Consultation
Aged 18- Aged 50-
(Community consultation and 53 58 54 56
34 years 64 years
engagement)
Women,
Advocacy Aged 50-
54 60 54 54 Aged 65+
(Lobbying on behalf of the community) 64 years
years
Making Community Decisions

Aged 65+ Aged 50-
(Decisions made in the interest of the 51 57 52 55
years 64 years
community)
Sealed Local Roads Aged 65+ Aged 18-

64 65 57 56
(Condition of sealed local roads) years 34 years
Customer Service 76 80 72 71 Baranduda NA
Aged 18-
Overall Council Direction 52 60 52 53 Baranduda
34 years
14
Summary of key community satisfaction
Key measures summary results (%)
Overall Performance 10 37 35 13 5
Community Consultation 7 30 32 21 6 5
Advocacy 4 28 34 13 5 15
Making Community Decisions 7 28 32 18 10 6
Sealed Local Roads 16 40 31 11 2
Customer Service 38 34 16 3 3 5
Very good Good Average Poor Very poor Can't say
Overall Council Direction 25 50 21 5
Improved Stayed the same Deteriorated Can't say
15
Individual service area performance vs State-wide average
Significantly Higher than Significantly Lower than

State-wide Average State-wide Average
• Local streets & footpaths • Consultation & engagement

• Appearance of public areas • Informing the community
• Community & cultural • Making community decisions
• Planning permits
• Environmental sustainability
• Emergency & disaster mngt
• Population growth
• Unsealed roads
• Sealed local roads
16
Individual service area performance vs group average
Significantly Higher than Significantly Lower than

Group Average Group Average
• Local streets & footpaths • Not applicable
• Parking facilities
• Appearance of public areas
• Community & cultural
• Planning permits
• Environmental sustainability
• Population growth
• Unsealed roads
• Sealed local roads
17
Best things about Council
2019 best things about Council (%)

- Top mentions only -
2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Parks and Gardens 18 19 12 12 n/a n/a n/a n/a
Road/Street Maintenance 10 10 7 9 n/a n/a n/a n/a
Development 8 9 7 9 n/a n/a n/a n/a
Public Areas 8 9 5 6 n/a n/a n/a n/a
Business Development 7 9 6 3 n/a n/a n/a n/a
Recreational/Sporting Facilities 7 11 9 10 n/a n/a n/a n/a
Customer Service 7 6 7 4 n/a n/a n/a n/a
Trying to improve/Reputation 7 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
Generally Good 5 6 3 4 n/a n/a n/a n/a
Community Facilities 4 3 2 5 n/a n/a n/a n/a
Community Support Services 4 4 2 5 n/a n/a n/a n/a
Council Management 4 3 2 1 n/a n/a n/a n/a
Waste Management 4 4 2 4 n/a n/a n/a n/a
Q16. Please tell me what is the ONE BEST thing about Wodonga City Council? It could be about any of the issues or services we have
covered in this survey or it could be about something else altogether?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 21 Councils asked group: 3
Note: Significant differences have not been applied to this chart. 18
A verbatim listing of responses to this question have been provided within the dashboard.
Areas for improvement
2019 areas for improvement (%)

- Top mentions only -
2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
Community Consultation 14 16 15 21 n/a n/a n/a n/a
Financial Management 11 7 8 14 n/a n/a n/a n/a
Rates - too expensive 11 6 13 8 n/a n/a n/a n/a
Sealed Road Maintenance 9 13 10 10 n/a n/a n/a n/a
Waste Management 9 7 9 9 n/a n/a n/a n/a
Informing The Community 7 5 2 2 n/a n/a n/a n/a
Decision Making Processes 7 11 1 2 n/a n/a n/a n/a
Communication 6 12 14 11 n/a n/a n/a n/a
Nothing 6 5 7 9 n/a n/a n/a n/a
Q17. What does Wodonga City Council MOST need to do to improve its performance?
Note: Significant differences have not been applied to this chart. 19
A verbatim listing of responses to this question have been provided within the dashboard.
DETAILED
FINDINGS
20
Overall
performance
21
Overall performance
2019 overall performance (index scores)
2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
18-34 60 71 64 66 n/a n/a n/a n/a
State-wide 60 59 59 59 60 61 60 60
Baranduda 59 69 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
35-49 59 66 64 59 n/a n/a n/a n/a
Men 59 64 62 61 n/a n/a n/a n/a
Wodonga 59 67 63 63 n/a n/a n/a n/a
Women 59 69 64 65 n/a n/a n/a n/a
65+ 59 61 63 67 n/a n/a n/a n/a
Wodonga 59 67 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
Regional Centres 58 58 57 55 58 n/a n/a n/a
50-64 56 67 62 61 n/a n/a n/a n/a
Q3. ON BALANCE, for the last twelve months, how do you feel about the performance of Wodonga 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: 8 22
Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
Overall performance
Overall performance (%)
2019 Wodonga 10 37 35 13 5
2018 Wodonga 21 40 29 6 4
2017 Wodonga 12 43 33 8 4 1
2016 Wodonga 16 40 29 10 5 1
State-wide 10 39 35 10 5 1
Regional Centres 8 37 37 11 5 2
Wodonga 10 37 35 12 5 1
Baranduda 12 38 29 17 4
Men 12 36 31 15 5
Women 9 37 38 11 4 1
18-34 6 45 36 9 4
35-49 10 41 29 16 5
50-64 13 30 34 16 7
65+ 14 27 39 13 5 2
Q3. ON BALANCE, for the last twelve months, how do you feel about the performance of Wodonga 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? 23
Customer
service
24
Contact with council
2019 contact with council (%)

Have had contact
67 67
63 64
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Q5a. Have you or any member of your household had any recent contact with Wodonga City Council in any of the following ways? 25
Contact with council
2019 contact with council (%)
2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
35-49 77 74 73 65 n/a n/a n/a n/a
Men 69 62 62 67 n/a n/a n/a n/a
50-64 68 69 70 71 n/a n/a n/a n/a
18-34 66 54 54 77 n/a n/a n/a n/a
Women 64 65 65 68 n/a n/a n/a n/a
State-wide 63 63 58 58 60 61 60 61
65+ 56q 61 58 52 n/a n/a n/a n/a
Q5a. Have you or any member of your household had any recent contact with Wodonga City Council in any of the following ways?
Customer service rating
2019 customer service rating (index scores)
2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
65+ 80 80 78 78 n/a n/a n/a n/a
Women 78 82 80 77 n/a n/a n/a n/a
35-49 75 77 75 75 n/a n/a n/a n/a
18-34 75 82 81 72 n/a n/a n/a n/a
50-64 75 80 80 78 n/a n/a n/a n/a
Men 75 77 76 73 n/a n/a n/a n/a
Regional Centres 72q 72 72 70 71 n/a n/a n/a
State-wide 71q 70 69 69 70 72 71 71
Q5c. Thinking of the most recent contact, how would you rate Wodonga 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: 8 27
Customer service rating
Customer service rating (%)
2019 Wodonga 38 34 16 3 3 5
2018 Wodonga 47 32 12 4 3 3
2017 Wodonga 43 37 13 5 2
2016 Wodonga 38 35 17 4 4 2
State-wide 33 36 17 7 6 1
Wodonga 37 35 17 4 4 4
Baranduda 45 27 12 3 13
Men 36 33 18 4 4 4
Women 40 35 14 3 3 6
18-34 31 29 26 3 11
35-49 40 36 10 5 6 4
50-64 36 40 15 3 6
65+ 48 33 10 3 3 1
Base: All respondents who have had contact with Council in the last 12 months. 28
Councils asked state-wide: 63 Councils asked group: 8
Method of contact with council
2019 method of contact (%)
In Person In Writing By Telephone By Text By Email Via Website By Social

Message Media
39
34 34
32
31
30
29
20
19
17
16
14 14
13
12 12
11 11
10 10
9
3 3
2
1
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Q5a. Have you or any member of your household had any recent contact with Wodonga City Council in any of the following ways?
Note: Respondents could name multiple contacts methods so responses may add to more than 100%
Customer service rating by method of last contact
2019 customer service rating (index score by method of last contact)
2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
By text message 100* n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
In writing 82* 60 65 61 n/a n/a n/a n/a
By social media 79* 88 74 86 n/a n/a n/a n/a
In person 79 82 78 78 n/a n/a n/a n/a
By telephone 76 80 81 71 n/a n/a n/a n/a
By email 70 77 78 71 n/a n/a n/a n/a
Via website 69* 81 79 87 n/a n/a n/a n/a
*Caution: small sample size < n=30
Customer service rating by method of last contact
2019 customer service rating (% by method of last contact)
By text message* 100
In writing* 42 33 17 8
By social media* 31 30 18 22
In person 46 33 15 1 4 1
By telephone 45 29 10 9 4 3
By email 20 43 26 2 3 6
Via website* 21 42 23 3 5 6
*Caution: small sample size < n=30
Council direction
32
Council direction summary
• 50% stayed about the same, up 4 points on 2018

Council direction • 25% improved, down 10 points on 2018
• 21% deteriorated, up 6 points on 2018
Most satisfied with Council • Aged 18-34 years

direction
Least satisfied with Council • Baranduda residents

direction
33
Overall council direction last 12 months
2019 overall direction (index scores)
2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
18-34 54 67 68 60 n/a n/a n/a n/a
Women 53 60 62 55 n/a n/a n/a n/a
35-49 53 54 58 56 n/a n/a n/a n/a
State-wide 53 52 53 51 53 53 53 52
Men 50 61 59 58 n/a n/a n/a n/a
65+ 50 58 59 55 n/a n/a n/a n/a
50-64 49 59 57 53 n/a n/a n/a n/a
Q6. Over the last 12 months, what is your view of the direction of Wodonga City Council’s overall performance?
Overall council direction last 12 months
2019 overall council direction (%)
2019 Wodonga 25 50 21 5
2018 Wodonga 35 46 15 3
2017 Wodonga 32 55 10 3
2016 Wodonga 29 50 16 5
State-wide 19 62 14 5
Regional Centres 21 57 17 4
Wodonga 25 51 20 4
Baranduda 20 45 28 7
Men 22 53 21 4
Women 27 47 21 5
18-34 23 57 15 6
35-49 32 40 26 2
50-64 21 53 23 3
65+ 22 48 23 7
Improved Stayed the same Deteriorated Can't say
Q6. Over the last 12 months, what is your view of the direction of Wodonga City Council’s overall performance? 35
Individual
service areas
36
Community consultation and engagement importance
2019 Consultation and engagement importance (index scores)
2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

50-64 82p 77 77 82 n/a n/a n/a n/a
65+ 80p 80 79 76 n/a n/a n/a n/a
Women 78 76 79 75 n/a n/a n/a n/a
Personal user 78 80 80 76 n/a n/a n/a n/a
Household user 77 80 79 76 n/a n/a n/a n/a
35-49 76 73 79 78 n/a n/a n/a n/a
State-wide 74 74 74 75 74 74 73 73
Men 73 72 76 76 n/a n/a n/a n/a
18-34 69q 70 75 70 n/a n/a n/a n/a
Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Community consultation and engagement’ be as a responsibility for Council?
Community consultation and engagement importance
2019 Consultation and engagement importance (%)
2019 Wodonga 31 43 19 4 12
2018 Wodonga 29 42 27 2
2017 Wodonga 36 38 22 212
2016 Wodonga 33 42 18 5 11
State-wide 29 41 24 4 11
Regional Centres 33 42 20 3 12
Wodonga 32 42 19 4 12
Men 28 42 19 6 2 3
Women 34 44 20 11
18-34 21 41 25 8 2 4
35-49 32 44 21 4
50-64 44 38 15 12
65+ 34 49 14 12
Personal user 43 30 24 3
Household user 38 32 24 3 3
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? 38
Community consultation and engagement performance
2019 Consultation and engagement performance (index scores)
2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

18-34 57 65 66 60 n/a n/a n/a n/a
State-wide 56p 55 55 54 56 57 57 57
Personal user 55 60 58 59 n/a n/a n/a n/a
Household user 55 60 62 60 n/a n/a n/a n/a
Women 53 60 59 55 n/a n/a n/a n/a
Men 52 57 56 57 n/a n/a n/a n/a
35-49 52 56 56 54 n/a n/a n/a n/a
65+ 50 51 53 53 n/a n/a n/a n/a
50-64 49 58 52 55 n/a n/a n/a n/a
Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Community consultation and engagement’ over the last 12 months?
Community consultation and engagement performance
2019 Consultation and engagement performance (%)
2019 Wodonga 7 30 32 21 6 5
2018 Wodonga 9 35 32 12 6 6
2017 Wodonga 13 27 31 15 6 8
2016 Wodonga 9 34 26 16 7 7
State-wide 9 30 31 15 6 9
Wodonga 7 29 31 21 6 5
Baranduda 5 33 34 19 5 3
Men 6 30 30 22 7 5
Women 7 29 33 20 6 4
18-34 4 38 40 15 2 2
35-49 9 30 25 26 8 2
50-64 6 23 30 24 8 8
65+ 8 24 29 22 9 8
Personal user 11 34 24 18 9 4
Household user 11 34 23 19 9 3
Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Community consultation and engagement’ over the last 12 months? 40
Lobbying on behalf of the community importance
2019 Lobbying importance (index scores)
2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
50-64 74 73 70 73 n/a n/a n/a n/a
Women 71 74 75 73 n/a n/a n/a n/a
35-49 70 69 72 73 n/a n/a n/a n/a
65+ 68 69 70 67 n/a n/a n/a n/a
State-wide 67 68 69 69 69 70 70 70
Men 66 62 68 67 n/a n/a n/a n/a
18-34 65 64 74 67 n/a n/a n/a n/a
Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Lobbying on behalf of the community’ be as a responsibility for Council?
Lobbying on behalf of the community importance
2019 Lobbying importance (%)
2019 Wodonga 23 38 29 7 21
2018 Wodonga 25 35 28 8 3 1
2017 Wodonga 27 38 27 4 2 2
2016 Wodonga 26 34 30 7 12
State-wide 21 38 28 8 2 2
Wodonga 25 39 28 7 2
Baranduda 13 38 35 11 11
Men 21 39 27 10 3 1
Women 25 38 31 5 1
18-34 19 32 40 9
35-49 26 40 22 7 4
50-64 33 41 17 6 21
65+ 19 43 29 6 21

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Lobbying on behalf of the community’ be as a responsibility for Council? 42
Lobbying on behalf of the community performance
2019 Lobbying performance (index scores)
2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
Women 56 62 62 56 n/a n/a n/a n/a
65+ 55 58 58 59 n/a n/a n/a n/a
18-34 55 62 62 56 n/a n/a n/a n/a
State-wide 54 54 54 53 55 56 55 55
35-49 54 59 60 51 n/a n/a n/a n/a
Men 52 59 58 56 n/a n/a n/a n/a
50-64 50 61 59 59 n/a n/a n/a n/a
Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Lobbying on behalf of the community’ over the last 12 months?
Lobbying on behalf of the community performance
2019 Lobbying performance (%)
2019 Wodonga 4 28 34 13 5 15
2018 Wodonga 9 32 31 9 3 16
2017 Wodonga 9 30 31 12 2 16
2016 Wodonga 7 25 32 15 2 19
State-wide 6 25 31 13 5 20
Wodonga 4 28 35 13 5 14
Baranduda 7 26 26 13 9 19
Men 5 24 34 13 7 17
Women 4 32 35 13 4 12
18-34 4 32 36 15 4 9
35-49 7 29 31 11 9 14
50-64 5 24 31 16 8 17
65+ 3 26 37 11 2 21
Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Lobbying on behalf of the community’ over the last 12 months? 44
Decisions made in the interest of the community

importance
2019 Community decisions made importance (index scores)
2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
50-64 86p 83 80 81 n/a n/a n/a n/a
65+ 81 80 82 79 n/a n/a n/a n/a
Women 81 82 84 83 n/a n/a n/a n/a
State-wide 80 80 79 80 80 79 n/a n/a
Men 79 78 79 80 n/a n/a n/a n/a
35-49 79 80 84 80 n/a n/a n/a n/a
18-34 76q 78 80 85 n/a n/a n/a n/a
Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Decisions made in the interest of the community’ be as a responsibility for Council?

importance
2019 Community decisions made importance (%)
2019 Wodonga 38 43 15 12
2018 Wodonga 40 43 13 3 1
2017 Wodonga 44 39 14 11 2
2016 Wodonga 45 40 12 3
State-wide 39 42 15 212
Wodonga 40 41 15 12
Men 37 41 19 12
Women 40 44 12 11 2
18-34 30 43 25 2
35-49 36 43 17 21
50-64 54 37 7 11
65+ 40 45 8 21 3

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Decisions made in the interest of the community’ be as a responsibility for Council? 46

performance
2019 Community decisions made performance (index scores)
2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
65+ 56 53 56 53 n/a n/a n/a n/a
State-wide 55p 54 54 54 55 57 n/a n/a
Women 53 58 56 53 n/a n/a n/a n/a
35-49 50 56 55 49 n/a n/a n/a n/a
18-34 50 62 57 57 n/a n/a n/a n/a
Men 49 57 55 53 n/a n/a n/a n/a
50-64 48 56 53 54 n/a n/a n/a n/a
Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Decisions made in the interest of the community’ over the last 12 months?

performance
2019 Community decisions made performance (%)
2019 Wodonga 7 28 32 18 10 6
2018 Wodonga 13 29 32 15 6 5
2017 Wodonga 10 31 31 15 8 7
2016 Wodonga 8 29 31 17 9 6
State-wide 7 30 33 14 7 10
Wodonga 7 28 33 17 10 5
Baranduda 5 31 23 19 12 9
Men 6 27 28 21 11 6
Women 7 28 35 15 9 6
18-34 2 32 36 17 9 4
35-49 8 29 26 15 15 6
50-64 8 21 32 24 9 5
65+ 11 26 31 16 6 9
Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Decisions made in the interest of the community’ over the last 12 months? 48
The condition of sealed local roads in your area

importance
2019 Sealed local roads importance (index scores)
2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
50-64 79 81 81 78 n/a n/a n/a n/a
State-wide 79p 80 78 78 76 77 n/a n/a
65+ 79 80 79 76 n/a n/a n/a n/a
Women 78 81 83 78 n/a n/a n/a n/a
18-34 76 81 78 76 n/a n/a n/a n/a
Men 76 81 77 75 n/a n/a n/a n/a
35-49 74 82 82 75 n/a n/a n/a n/a
Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘The condition of sealed local roads in your area’ be as a responsibility for Council?

importance
2019 Sealed local roads importance (%)
2019 Wodonga 31 48 19 1
2018 Wodonga 37 49 13
2017 Wodonga 38 43 17 11
2016 Wodonga 30 46 20 3 1
State-wide 37 45 16 2
Regional Centres 36 45 18 1
Wodonga 33 47 18 2
Baranduda 20 55 25
Men 30 46 23 1
Women 32 51 15 2
18-34 34 40 25 2
35-49 24 51 23 2
50-64 35 50 14 1
65+ 31 56 12 1

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘The condition of sealed local roads in your area’ be as a responsibility for Council? 50

performance
2019 Sealed local roads performance (index scores)
2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
65+ 71p 67 67 70 n/a n/a n/a n/a
50-64 66 65 64 69 n/a n/a n/a n/a
Men 65 65 64 65 n/a n/a n/a n/a
Women 64 65 66 66 n/a n/a n/a n/a
35-49 62 67 65 65 n/a n/a n/a n/a
18-34 60 61 63 61 n/a n/a n/a n/a
Regional Centres 57q 54 53 54 55 n/a n/a n/a
State-wide 56q 53 53 54 55 55 n/a n/a
Q2. How has Council performed on ‘The condition of sealed local roads in your area’ over the last 12 months?

performance
2019 Sealed local roads performance (%)
2019 Wodonga 16 40 31 11 2
2018 Wodonga 23 33 28 8 7 1
2017 Wodonga 17 44 24 10 5 1
2016 Wodonga 19 43 24 9 5 1
State-wide 13 33 28 16 10 1
Wodonga 17 39 31 11 2
Baranduda 12 44 31 10 3
Men 21 35 29 11 3
Women 12 44 32 10 11
18-34 13 34 34 17 2
35-49 8 46 37 5 4 1
50-64 19 43 26 10 3
65+ 27 39 24 9 11
Q2. How has Council performed on ‘The condition of sealed local roads in your area’ over the last 12 months? 52
Detailed
demographics
53
Gender and age profile
2019 gender
Wodonga Regional Centres State-wide
Women Men Women Men Women Men

51% 49% 52% 48% 51% 49%
2019 age
Wodonga Regional Centres State-wide
7% 7% 8%
25% 27% 30%
22% 18%
26%
18%
22% 23% 21% 23%
25%
18-24 25-34 35-49 50-64 65+ 18-24 25-34 35-49 50-64 65+ 18-24 25-34 35-49 50-64 65+
S3. [Record gender] / S4. To which of the following age groups do you belong?
Please note that for the reason of simplifying reporting, interlocking age and gender reporting has not been included in this report. 54
Interlocking age and gender analysis is still available in the dashboard and data tables provided alongside this report.
Years lived in area
Years lived in area (%)
2019 Wodonga 13 20 21 18 27
2018 Wodonga 17 10 23 22 27
2017 Wodonga 15 14 27 19 25
2016 Wodonga 17 15 25 17 26
State-wide 17 15 22 17 29
Wodonga 14 21 19 18 29
Baranduda 11 16 35 19 18
Men 12 19 21 19 29
Women 14 21 22 16 26
18-34 21 36 25 15 4
35-49 12 22 23 18 25
50-64 10 8 22 23 36
65+ 7 8 15 17 54
0-5 years 5-10 years 10-20 years 20-30 years 30+ years Can't say
S5. How long have you lived in this area?/How long have you owned a property in this area? 55
Appendix A:
Index scores,
margins of error
and significant
differences
56
Appendix A:
Index Scores
Index Scores
SCALE INDEX
% RESULT INDEX VALUE
Many questions ask respondents to rate council CATEGORIES FACTOR
performance on a five-point scale, for example, from
Very good 9% 100 9
‘very good’ to ‘very poor’, with ‘can’t say’ also a
possible response category. To facilitate ease of Good 40% 75 30
reporting and comparison of results over time, starting Average 37% 50 19
from the 2012 survey and measured against the state- Poor 9% 25 2
wide result and the council group, an ‘Index Score’ has
Very poor 4% 0 0
been calculated for such measures.
INDEX SCORE
Can’t say 1% --
The Index Score is calculated and represented as a 60
score out of 100 (on a 0 to 100 scale), with ‘can’t say’
responses excluded from the analysis. The ‘% SCALE INDEX
RESULT’ for each scale category is multiplied by the % RESULT INDEX VALUE
CATEGORIES FACTOR
‘INDEX FACTOR’. This produces an ‘INDEX VALUE’
Improved 36% 100 36
for each category, which are then summed to produce
the ‘INDEX SCORE’, equating to ‘60’ in the following Stayed the
40% 50 20
same
example.
Deteriorated 23% 0 0
Similarly, an Index Score has been calculated for the
INDEX SCORE
Core question ‘Performance direction in the last 12 Can’t say 1% --
56
months’, based on the following scale for each
performance measure category, with ‘Can’t say’
responses excluded from the calculation.
57
Appendix A:
Margins of error
The sample size for the 2019 State-wide Local
Actual Maximum margin
Government Community Satisfaction Survey for survey Weighted of error at 95%
Demographic
Wodonga City Council was n=402. Unless otherwise sample base confidence
size interval
noted, this is the total sample base for all reported
charts and tables. Wodonga City
Council 402 400 +/-4.9
The maximum margin of error on a sample of
approximately n=402 interviews is +/-4.9% at the 95% Men
172 195 +/-7.5
confidence level for results around 50%. Margins of
Women
error will be larger for any sub-samples. As an 230 205 +/-6.5
example, a result of 50% can be read confidently as Wodonga
352 348 +/-5.2
falling midway in the range 45.1% - 54.9%.
Baranduda
50 52 +/-14.0
Maximum margins of error are listed in the table below,
based on a population of 30,600 people aged 18 years 18-34 years
53 129 +/-13.6
or over for Wodonga City Council, according to ABS 35-49 years
estimates. 86 99 +/-10.6
50-64 years
109 71 +/-9.4
65+ years
154 101 +/-7.9
58
Appendix A:
Significant difference reporting notation
Within tables and index score charts throughout this
Overall Performance – Index Scores
report, statistically significant differences at the 95%
(example extract only)
confidence level are represented by upward directing
green () and downward directing red arrows ().
State-wide 67
Significance when noted indicates a significantly higher
or lower result for the analysis group in comparison to 18-34 66
the ‘Total’ result for the council for that survey question
Wodonga 60
for that year. Therefore in the example below:
•  The state-wide result is significantly higher than Regional Centres 58
the overall result for the council.
35-49 57
•  The result among 50-64 year olds is significantly
lower than for the overall result for the council. 50-64 54
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.
59
Appendix A:
Index score significant difference calculation
The test applied to the Indexes was an Independent All figures can be sourced from the detailed cross
Mean Test, as follows: tabulations.
Z Score = ($1 - $2) / Sqrt (($5^2 / $3) + ($6^2 / $4)) The test was applied at the 95% confidence interval, so
Where: if the Z Score was greater than +/- 1.954 the scores are
significantly different.
• $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
60
Appendix B:
Further project
information
61
Appendix B:
Further information
Further information about the report and explanations Contacts
about the State-wide Local Government Community
For further queries about the conduct and reporting of
Satisfaction Survey can be found in this section
the 2019 State-wide Local Government Community
including:
Satisfaction Survey, please contact JWS Research on
• Survey methodology and sampling
(03) 8685 8555 or via email:
• Analysis and reporting admin@jwsresearch.com
• Glossary of terms
Detailed survey tabulations
Detailed survey tabulations are available in supplied
Excel file.
62
Appendix B:
Survey methodology and sampling
The 2019 results are compared with previous years, as Any variation of +/-1% between individual results and
detailed below: net scores in this report or the detailed survey
• 2019, n=402 completed interviews, conducted in the period tabulations is due to rounding. In reporting, ‘—’ denotes
of 1st February – 30th March. not mentioned and ‘0%’ denotes mentioned by less
than 1% of respondents. ‘Net’ scores refer to two or
• 2018, n=401 completed interviews, conducted in the period
of 1st February – 30th March. more response categories being combined into one
category for simplicity of reporting.
• 2017, n=400 completed interviews, conducted in the period
of 1st February – 30th March. This survey was conducted by Computer Assisted
• 2016, n=400 completed interviews, conducted in the period Telephone Interviewing (CATI) as a representative
of 1st February – 30th March. random probability survey of residents aged 18+ years
in Wodonga City Council.
Minimum quotas of gender within age groups were
applied during the fieldwork phase. Post-survey Survey sample matched to the demographic profile of
weighting was then conducted to ensure accurate Wodonga City Council as determined by the most
representation of the age and gender profile of the recent ABS population estimates was purchased from
Wodonga City Council area. an accredited supplier of publicly available phone
records, including up to 40% mobile phone numbers to
cater to the diversity of residents within Wodonga City
Council, particularly younger people.
A total of n=402 completed interviews were achieved in
Wodonga City Council. Survey fieldwork was
conducted in the period of 1st February – 30th March,
2019.
63
Appendix B:
Analysis and reporting
All participating councils are listed in the State-wide Wherever appropriate, results for Wodonga City
report published on the DELWP website. In 2019, 63 of Council for this 2019 State-wide Local Government
the 79 Councils throughout Victoria participated in this Community Satisfaction Survey have been compared
survey. For consistency of analysis and reporting against other participating councils in the Regional
across all projects, Local Government Victoria has Centres group and on a state-wide basis. Please note
aligned its presentation of data to use standard council that council groupings changed for 2015, and as such
groupings. Accordingly, the council reports for the comparisons to council group results before that time
community satisfaction survey provide analysis using can not be made within the reported charts.
these standard council groupings. Please note that
councils participating across 2012-2019 vary slightly.
Council Groups
Wodonga City Council is classified as a Regional
Centres council according to the following classification
list:
Metropolitan, Interface, Regional Centres, Large Rural
& Small Rural
Councils participating in the Regional Centres group
are: Greater Bendigo, Greater Geelong, Horsham,
Latrobe, Mildura, Wangaratta, Warrnambool and
Wodonga.
64
Appendix B:
2012 survey revision As such, the results of the 2012 State-wide Local
The survey was revised in 2012. As a result: Government Community Satisfaction Survey should be
considered as a benchmark. Please note that
• The survey is now conducted as a representative comparisons should not be made with the State-wide
random probability survey of residents aged 18 years Local Government Community Satisfaction Survey
or over in local councils, whereas previously it was results from 2011 and prior due to the methodological
conducted as a ‘head of household’ survey. and sampling changes. Comparisons in the period
• As part of the change to a representative resident 2012-2019 have been made throughout this report as
survey, results are now weighted post survey to the appropriate.
known population distribution of Wodonga 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.
65
Appendix B:
Core, optional and tailored questions Reporting of results for these core questions can
Over and above necessary geographic and always be compared against other participating
demographic questions required to ensure sample councils in the council group and against all
representativeness, a base set of questions for the participating councils state-wide. Alternatively, some
2019 State-wide Local Government Community questions in the 2019 State-wide Local Government
Satisfaction Survey was designated as ‘Core’ and Community Satisfaction Survey were optional. Councils
therefore compulsory inclusions for all participating also had the ability to ask tailored questions specific
Councils. only to their council.
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)
66
Appendix B:
Reporting
Every council that participated in the 2019 State-wide The overall State-wide Local Government Community
Local Government Community Satisfaction Survey Satisfaction Report is available at
receives a customised report. In addition, the state http://www.delwp.vic.gov.au/local-
government is supplied with a state-wide summary government/strengthening-councils/council-community-
report of the aggregate results of ‘Core’ and ‘Optional’ satisfaction-survey.
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.
67
Appendix B:
Glossary of terms
Core questions: Compulsory inclusion questions for all Percentages: Also referred to as ‘detailed results’,
councils participating in the CSS. meaning the proportion of responses, expressed as a
CSS: 2019 Victorian Local Government Community percentage.
Satisfaction Survey. Sample: The number of completed interviews, e.g. for
Council group: One of five classified groups, a council or within a demographic sub-group.
comprising: metropolitan, interface, regional centres, Significantly higher / lower: The result described is
large rural and small rural. significantly higher or lower than the comparison result
Council group average: The average result for all based on a statistical significance test at the 95%
participating councils in the council group. confidence limit. If the result referenced is statistically
higher or lower then this will be specifically mentioned,
Highest / lowest: The result described is the highest or however not all significantly higher or lower results are
lowest result across a particular demographic sub- referenced in summary reporting.
group e.g. men, for the specific question being
reported. Reference to the result for a demographic Statewide average: The average result for all
sub-group being the highest or lowest does not imply participating councils in the State.
that it is significantly higher or lower, unless this is Tailored questions: Individual questions tailored by
specifically mentioned. and only reported to the commissioning council.
Index score: A score calculated and represented as a Weighting: Weighting factors are applied to the sample
score out of 100 (on a 0 to 100 scale). This score is for each council based on available age and gender
sometimes reported as a figure in brackets next to the proportions from ABS census information to ensure
category being described, e.g. men 50+ (60). reported results are proportionate to the actual
Optional questions: Questions which councils had an population of the council, rather than the achieved
option to include or not. survey sample.
68
THERE ARE
OVER
6 MILLION
PEOPLE IN
VICTORIA...
FIND OUT
WHAT THEY'RE
THINKING.
Contact us Follow us
03 8685 8555 @JWSResearch
John Scales Mark Zuker

Managing Director Managing Director
jscales@jwsresearch.com mzuker@jwsresearch.com
Katrina Cox
Director of Client Services
kcox@jwsresearch.com

Wodonga Council Community Satisfaction Survey 2019

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Wodonga Council Community Satisfaction Survey 2019

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2019 Local

Community consultation and engagement 37

Wodonga City Council – at a glance

Top 3 performing areas

Appearance of public areas

Top 3 areas for improvement

Overall Council performance Community Consultation & Informing the

Importance Performance Net differential

Background and objectives

‘very good’ (10%) or ‘good’ (37%) compared to 61% in

(21% in 2018). Conversely, 18% of residents rate

Customer contact and service

• Residents of Baranduda had the most contact with Customer service

Top performing areas and areas for improvement

Focus areas for coming 12 months

Further areas of exploration

Summary of core measures

Overall Community Advocacy Making Sealed Customer Overall

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Summary of core measures

Aged 18- Aged 50-

Making Community Decisions

Sealed Local Roads Aged 65+ Aged 18-

Customer Service 76 80 72 71 Baranduda NA

Summary of key community satisfaction

Key measures summary results (%)

Making Community Decisions 7 28 32 18 10 6

Sealed Local Roads 16 40 31 11 2

Very good Good Average Poor Very poor Can't say

Overall Council Direction 25 50 21 5

Improved Stayed the same Deteriorated Can't say

Individual service area performance vs State-wide average

Significantly Higher than Significantly Lower than

• Local streets & footpaths • Consultation & engagement

Individual service area performance vs group average

Significantly Higher than Significantly Lower than

Best things about Council

2019 best things about Council (%)

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Road/Street Maintenance 10 10 7 9 n/a n/a n/a n/a

Development 8 9 7 9 n/a n/a n/a n/a

Public Areas 8 9 5 6 n/a n/a n/a n/a

Business Development 7 9 6 3 n/a n/a n/a n/a

Recreational/Sporting Facilities 7 11 9 10 n/a n/a n/a n/a

Customer Service 7 6 7 4 n/a n/a n/a n/a

Trying to improve/Reputation 7 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Generally Good 5 6 3 4 n/a n/a n/a n/a

Community Facilities 4 3 2 5 n/a n/a n/a n/a

Community Support Services 4 4 2 5 n/a n/a n/a n/a

Council Management 4 3 2 1 n/a n/a n/a n/a

Waste Management 4 4 2 4 n/a n/a n/a n/a

Areas for improvement

2019 areas for improvement (%)

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Community Consultation 14 16 15 21 n/a n/a n/a n/a

Financial Management 11 7 8 14 n/a n/a n/a n/a

Rates - too expensive 11 6 13 8 n/a n/a n/a n/a

Sealed Road Maintenance 9 13 10 10 n/a n/a n/a n/a

Waste Management 9 7 9 9 n/a n/a n/a n/a

Informing The Community 7 5 2 2 n/a n/a n/a n/a

Decision Making Processes 7 11 1 2 n/a n/a n/a n/a

Communication 6 12 14 11 n/a n/a n/a n/a

Nothing 6 5 7 9 n/a n/a n/a n/a

2019 overall performance (index scores)