2019 Local
Government
Community
Satisfaction Survey
Ararat Rural City
CouncilCoordinated by the Department of
Environment, Land, Water and Planning
on behalf of Victorian councils
Contents
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Ararat Rural City Council
2
Background and objectives 4
Key findings and recommendations 6
Summary of findings 13
Detailed findings 29
Overall performance 30
Customer service 33
Council direction 38
Individual service areas 42
Community consultation and engagement 43
Lobbying on behalf of the community 47
Decisions made in the interest of the
community
51
Condition of sealed local roads 55
Informing the community 59
Condition of local streets and footpaths 63
Elderly support services 67
Recreational facilities 71
Appearance of public areas 75
Art centres and libraries 79
Community and cultural activities 83
Waste management 87
Business and community development
and tourism
91
Planning and building permits 95
Emergency and disaster management 99
Maintenance of unsealed roads 103
Detailed demographics 107
Appendix A: Index scores, margins of error
and significant differences
109
Appendix B: Further project information 114
84
39
82
46
82
50
-45 -36 -32
76
73
69
Ararat Rural City Council – at a glance
3Note: 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 – Ararat Rural City Council
Top 3 performing areas
Top 3 areas for improvement
PerformanceImportance Net differential
Unsealed roads Community
decisions
Sealed local
roadsOverall Council performance
Results shown are index scores out of 100.
6049
58
Ararat Small Rural State-wide
Art centres & libraries
Emergency & disaster mngt
Appearance of public areas
Background and
objectives
4
The Victorian Community Satisfaction Survey
(CSS) creates a vital interface between the council
and their community.
Held annually, the CSS asks the opinions of local
people about the place they live, work and play and
provides confidence for councils in their efforts
and abilities.
Now in its twentieth year, this survey provides insight
into the community’s views on:
• councils’ overall performance with benchmarking
against State-wide and council group results
• community consultation and engagement
• advocacy and lobbying on behalf of the community
• customer service, local infrastructure, facilities and
• overall council direction.
When coupled with previous data, the survey provides
a reliable historical source of the community’s views
since 1998. A selection of results from the last seven
years shows that councils in Victoria continue to
provide services that meet the public’s expectations.
Serving Victoria for 20 years
Each year the CSS data is used to develop the State-
wide report which contains all of the aggregated
results, analysis and data. Moreover, with 20 years of
results, the CSS offers councils a long-term, consistent
measure of how they are performing – essential for
councils that work over the long term to provide
valuable services and infrastructure to their
communities.
Participation in the State-wide Local Government
Community Satisfaction Survey is optional.
Participating councils have various choices as to the
content of the questionnaire and the sample size to be
surveyed, depending on their individual strategic,
financial and other considerations.
Background and objectives
5
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Ararat Rural City Council
Key findings and
recommendations
6
The overall performance index score of 49 for Ararat
Rural City Council represents a significant 12-point
improvement on the 2018 result. Council also
experienced significant improvements in ratings across a
vast majority of service areas in the current year. Overall
performance is back on the rise after a significant
decline in perceptions between 2017 and 2018.
Notwithstanding gains, overall performance is rated
significantly lower (at the 95% confidence interval) than
the average rating for councils State-wide and in the
Small Rural group (index scores of 60 and 58
respectively) and remains eight index points lower than
Council’s peak result of 57 in 2013.
• Perceptions of overall performance increased
significantly across almost all demographic and
geographic cohorts.
• Lake Bolac residents rate Council’s overall
performance significantly lower than average (29).
• Residents aged 35 to 49 years (index score of 40)
rate overall performance significantly lower than the
Council average despite having increased by 13 index
points in their impressions in the past year.
• Equal numbers rate Council’s performance as ‘very
good’ or ‘good’ (30%) as rate it ‘very poor’ or ‘poor’
(30%). A further 38% sit mid-scale, rating Council’s
overall performance as ‘average’.
Overall performance
7
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Ararat Rural City Council
6049
58
Ararat Small Rural State-wide
Overall Council performance
Results shown are index scores out of 100.
Contact with council
More than half of Ararat Rural City Council residents
(57%) have had recent with Council in the last 12
months. This is not significantly different to 2018 (61%).
• Lake Bolac residents (72%, noting that this result is
based on a small sample size and should be
considered with caution) and residents aged 35 to 49
years had the most contact with council (64%) in
2019. These groups also rate Council lowest on
overall performance.
• Conversely, residents aged 18 to 34 years (49%)
had the least contact with council.
Customer service
Ararat Rural City Council’s customer service index
score of 69 is significantly (thirteen index points) higher
than the 2018 result. Results have rebounded after
experiencing a multi-year decline between 2015 and
2018. Performance on this measure rates in line with
the State-wide and Small Rural group average for
councils (index scores of 71 and 70 respectively).
One quarter of residents rate Council’s customer
service as ‘very good’ (27%) with a further 39% rating it
as ‘good’. There has been a nine percentage point
increase in ‘very good’ ratings compared with 2018.
• All groups improved in their perceptions of Council’s
customer service with the most significant increases
in ratings occurring among residents aged 35 to 49
years (index score of 63, up 19 index points from
2018), men (69, up 18 index points), and residents
aged 65+ years (74, up 18 index points).
Customer contact and service
8
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Ararat Rural City Council
Top performing areas
The top three performing service areas for Ararat Rural
City Council are:
• Art centres and libraries (index score of 76, up six
index points, significantly higher than in 2018)
• Emergency and disaster management (index score
of 73, up three index points)
• Appearance of public areas (index score of 69, up
four index points, significantly higher than in 2018).
Performance in the area of art centres and libraries is
at its highest level to date.
Performance ratings increased on all but one measure
from 2018 results; in most instances, increases were
significant. Council improved most on the measure of
making community decisions (index score of 46, up 13
index points). The next largest increase occurred in the
area of consultation and engagement, where Council’s
performance rating increased significantly by eight
points.
Residents are more than twice as likely to believe
Council’s performance improved over the previous
twelve months than in 2018. Three in ten (29%) believe
Council’s performance improved; just under half (47%)
say it stayed the same; and another 20% believe it has
deteriorated.
Areas for improvement
Council’s perceived performance declined in one area
in the last year – waste management (index score of
60, down four points from 2018). Performance was
largely consistent in the four years prior, decreasing
significantly for the first time in 2019.
• Impressions of Council’s performance in this area
declined significantly among men (61, down five
index points from 2018).
• Council performs significantly lower than the State-
wide and Small Rural group averages for councils in
the area of waste management (index scores of 68
and 66 respectively).
The condition of unsealed roads stands out as most in
need of attention. With an index score of 39 (up six
points), Council rates lowest in this area. Decisions
made in the interest of the community (index score of
46) comprises the second lowest ranking measure
despite a 13-point improvement in the past year.
Council’s ratings are significantly lower than State-wide
and Small Rural group averages on both measures.
Moreover, residents volunteer community consultation
(14%), expensive rates (14%), unsealed (13%) and
sealed (11%) road maintenance and communication
(11%) as areas in need of improvement.
Top performing areas and areas for improvement
9
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Ararat Rural City Council
The individual service area that has the strongest
influence on the overall performance rating (based on
regression analysis) is:
• Decisions made in the interest of the community.
Other service areas with a positive influence on overall
performance include:
• Emergency management
• Condition of sealed local roads
• Community consultation.
Looking at the key service areas only, emergency
management has the highest performance index and a
moderately positive influence on the overall
performance rating. Currently, Ararat Rural Council is
performing very well in this area (performance index of
73) and while it should remain a focus, there is greater
work to be done elsewhere.
Recreational facilities and the appearance of public
areas also have high performance ratings, but have
negligible influence on the overall performance rating.
Overall, decisions made in the interest of the
community has the greatest influence on perceptions of
overall performance and is also an area with a low
index score (46) compared to other service areas.
Moderate improvement in community decisions
could help drive up overall opinion of the Council’s
performance.
Ararat Rural City Council’s condition of sealed local
roads and community consultation have lower (though
still positive) performance ratings overall. Continuing
efforts in these areas has the capacity to lift Ararat City
Council’s overall performance rating. (These areas
have performance indices of 50 and 49 respectively.)
A service area to watch is the maintenance of unsealed
roads. This service area has the lowest performance
rating (index score of 39). This service area could have
a positive influence (albeit potentially weak) on overall
performance perceptions if attended to.
Influences on perceptions of overall performance
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Ararat Rural City Council
10
Council experienced significant increases in
performance ratings across many service areas in
the past year, rebounding from the previous year’s
declines. This is a positive result for Council.
In terms of priorities for the year ahead, Ararat Rural
City Council should focus on maintaining and improving
performance in the individual service areas that most
positively influence perceptions of overall performance.
Decisions made in the interest of the community is a
key influencer of overall perceptions – this should
remain a specific focus for Council if it wishes to
improve overall performance perceptions more broadly.
Other service areas that serve to positively influence
perceptions of overall performance include:
• Condition of sealed local roads
• Emergency management
• Consultation and engagement
• Maintenance of unsealed roads.
With regard to the condition of unsealed roads (index
score of 39) and Council’s ability to make decisions in
the interests of the community (index score of 46),
current performance levels are low and remain
significantly lower than the State-wide and Small Rural
group council averages.
In many of the aforementioned areas, stated
importance exceeds rated performance by a wide
margin:
• Unsealed roads (margin of 45 points)
• Community decisions (margin of 36 points)
• Sealed local roads (margin of 32 points)
• Consultation and engagement (margin of 29 points).
More generally, consideration should also be given to
residents aged 35 to 49 years, who appear to be
driving lower ratings in a number of areas in 2019.
On the positive side, Council should look to maintain
and build upon its improved performance across
service areas over the next twelve months.
Focus areas for coming 12 months
11
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Ararat Rural City Council
An approach we recommend is to further mine the
survey data to better understand the profile of these
over and under-performing demographic groups. This
can be achieved via additional consultation and data
interrogation, self-mining the SPSS data provided, or
via the dashboard portal available to the council.
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
Further areas of exploration
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Ararat Rural City Council
12
Summary of
findings
13
Summary of core measures
14
Index scores
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Ararat Rural City Council
7170
67
62
56
69
52
5451
43
50
57
5455
53
37
49
55
52 51
49 494948
50
33
46
55 5654 53
44
504951
46 47
29
55
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Sealed
Local
Roads
Community
Consultation
Customer
Service
Overall
Council
Direction
Overall
Performance
Advocacy Making
Community
Decisions
Summary of core measures
Performance MeasuresArarat
2019
Ararat
2018
Small
Rural
2019
State-wide
2019
Highest
score
Lowest
score
Overall Performance 49 37 58 60Aged 18-34
years, 65+
years
Aged 35-49
years
Community Consultation
(Community consultation and
engagement)
49 41 56 56Aged 65+
years
Aged 35-49
years
Advocacy
(Lobbying on behalf of the community)50 44 55 54
Aged 50-64
years, Aged
18-34 years
Aged 35-49
years
Making Community Decisions
(Decisions made in the interest of the
community)
46 33 55 55Aged 65+
years
Aged 35-49
years
Sealed Local Roads
(Condition of sealed local roads)50 43 53 56
Aged 65+
years
Aged 35-49
years
Customer Service 69 56 70 71Aged 65+
years
Aged 35-49
years
Overall Council Direction 55 29 53 53Aged 18-34
years
Aged 35-49
years
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Ararat Rural City Council
15
Summary of key community satisfaction
16
Key measures summary results (%)
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Ararat Rural City Council
6
7
5
6
9
27
24
22
24
18
27
39
38
35
34
40
31
18
18
22
18
17
20
10
12
8
7
13
12
4
1
6
12
5
1
1
Overall Performance
Community Consultation
Advocacy
Making Community Decisions
Sealed Local Roads
Customer Service
Very good Good Average Poor Very poor Can't say
29 47 20 4Overall Council Direction
Improved Stayed the same Deteriorated Can't say
84
82
82
78
77
77
69
79
79
65
Unsealed roads
Community decisions
Sealed local roads
Consultation & engagement
Informing the community
Local streets & footpaths
Lobbying
Waste management
Elderly support services
Planning & building permits
39
46
50
49
49
55
50
60
65
52
Individual service areas importance vs performance
17Note: 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 – Ararat Rural 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:
-45
-36
-32
-29
-28
-22
-19
-19
-14
-13
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 – Ararat Rural City Council
Influence on overall performance: all service areas
19
The multiple regression analysis model above (all service areas) has an R-squared value of 0.610 and adjusted R-square value of 0.594,
which means that 61% 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 = 38.16 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 – Ararat Rural City Council
Influence on overall performance: key service areas
20The multiple regression analysis model above (reduced set of service areas) has an R-squared value of 0.608 and adjusted R-square value of
0.597, which means that 61% 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 = 55.85.
2019 regression analysis (key service areas)
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Ararat Rural City Council
84
82
82
81
79
79
78
77
77
72
71
69
68
65
60
59
Unsealed roads
Community decisions
Sealed local roads
Emergency & disaster mngt
Elderly support services
Waste management
Consultation & engagement
Informing the community
Local streets & footpaths
Appearance of public areas
Recreational facilities
Lobbying
Bus/community dev./tourism
Planning & building permits
Community & cultural
Art centres & libraries
Individual service area importance
2019 individual service area importance (index scores)
2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Ararat Rural City Council
21Q1. Firstly, how important should [RESPONSIBILITY AREA] be as a responsibility for Council?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 31 Councils asked group: 8
Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
86
n/a
n/a
80
80
79
74
76
77
74
75
70
72
68
n/a
60
83
n/a
n/a
83
79
76
74
76
77
74
73
70
71
66
n/a
60
80
n/a
n/a
80
79
76
75
75
76
75
74
70
71
68
n/a
61
84
n/a
n/a
n/a
80
78
78
77
79
74
76
74
74
67
n/a
64
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
80
76
75
n/a
76
75
n/a
70
71
68
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Individual service area importance
2019 individual service area importance (%)
49
45
48
36
39
47
38
38
34
23
25
23
20
18
11
12
37
41
35
46
42
32
38
39
41
47
41
39
40
37
36
33
12
11
14
15
14
16
20
19
20
26
25
28
30
29
36
35
1
2
3
1
4
2
2
4
2
3
6
5
6
9
11
14
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
3
5
5
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
2
2
3
1
1
Unsealed roads
Community decisions
Sealed local roads
Waste management
Elderly support services
Emergency & disaster mngt
Consultation & engagement
Informing the community
Local streets & footpaths
Appearance of public areas
Recreational facilities
Lobbying
Bus/community dev./tourism
Planning & building permits
Community & cultural
Art centres & libraries
Extremely important Very important Fairly important
Not that important Not at all important Can't say
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Ararat Rural City Council
22Q1. Firstly, how important should [RESPONSIBILITY AREA] be as a responsibility for Council?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 31 Councils asked group: 8
Individual service area performance
2019 individual service area performance (index scores)
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Ararat Rural City Council
23
2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
70
70
65
64
64
n/a
57
64
53
46
44
43
44
41
33
33
70
72
66
65
67
n/a
60
64
55
50
53
51
50
49
50
38
69
72
72
65
68
n/a
61
66
59
51
54
54
56
51
48
40
70
n/a
71
64
67
n/a
63
66
58
55
56
52
54
52
49
39
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
74
71
n/a
70
n/a
67
69
58
57
55
n/a
n/a
55
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
76
73
69
68
65
63
61
60
55
52
50
50
49
49
46
39
Art centres & libraries
Emergency & disaster mngt
Appearance of public areas
Recreational facilities
Elderly support services
Community & cultural
Bus/community dev./tourism
Waste management
Local streets & footpaths
Planning & building permits
Lobbying
Sealed local roads
Informing the community
Consultation & engagement
Community decisions
Unsealed roads
Q2. How has Council performed on [RESPONSIBILITY AREA] over the last 12 months?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 63 Councils asked group: 18
Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
Individual service area performance
24
2019 individual service area performance (%)
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Ararat Rural City Council
29
21
23
23
15
13
11
11
11
9
7
5
4
7
6
4
45
42
40
37
37
35
37
32
29
27
22
24
25
21
18
18
13
24
29
22
25
31
34
39
34
31
35
34
29
40
40
26
3
7
6
3
7
11
8
7
16
20
22
18
15
22
17
25
2
3
2
1
3
5
2
4
8
12
8
7
6
7
13
22
7
3
1
14
12
4
8
8
2
1
6
12
21
3
5
4
Art centres & libraries
Recreational facilities
Appearance of public areas
Emergency & disaster mngt
Elderly support services
Waste management
Community & cultural
Bus/community dev./tourism
Local streets & footpaths
Sealed local roads
Consultation & engagement
Lobbying
Planning & building permits
Informing the community
Community decisions
Unsealed roads
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: 18
Significantly Higher than
State-wide Average
Significantly Lower than
State-wide Average
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Ararat Rural City Council
25
• Not applicable • Consultation & engagement
• Lobbying
• Informing the community
• Local streets & footpaths
• Elderly support services
• Appearance of public areas
• Community & cultural
• Waste management
• Unsealed roads
• Making community
decisions
• Sealed local roads
Individual service area performance vs State-wide average
Individual service area performance vs group average
26
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Ararat Rural City Council
Significantly Higher than
Group Average
Significantly Lower than
Group Average
• Planning permits • Consultation & engagement
• Lobbying
• Informing the community
• Elderly support services
• Appearance of public areas
• Community & cultural
• Waste management
• Unsealed roads
• Making community
decisions
• Sealed local roads
6
10
n/a
5
6
4
3
3
3
2
2
6
3
4
16
n/a
3
7
1
2
3
1
2
n/a
5
3
6
10
n/a
3
3
2
n/a
3
6
2
n/a
5
4
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Best things about Council
27
2019 best things about Council (%)
- Top Mentions -
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Ararat Rural City Council
8
8
7
6
6
5
5
4
4
3
3
3
3
Parks and Gardens
Recreational/Sporting Facilities
CEO
Community Facilities
Customer Service
Cultural Activities
Community Engagement/Involvement
Community Support Services
Public Areas
Aged Support Services
Council Management
Road/Street Maintenance
Tourism
2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
Q16. Please tell me what is the ONE BEST thing about Ararat Rural 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: 4
Note: Significant differences have not been applied to this chart.
14
11
6
14
8
4
9
9
3
13
9
7
16
8
8
8
11
4
13
15
8
14
12
4
13
8
5
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Areas for improvement
28
2019 areas for improvement (%)
- Top Mentions -
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Ararat Rural City Council
14
14
13
11
11
9
8
8
5
Community Consultation
Rates - Too Expensive
Un-Sealed Road Maintenance
Sealed Road Maintenance
Communication
Waste Management
Financial Management
Rural/Regional Communities
Nothing
2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
Q17. What does Ararat Rural City Council MOST need to do to improve its performance?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 43 Councils asked group: 10
Note: Significant differences have not been applied to this chart.
DETAILED
FINDINGS
29
Overall
performance
30
38
59
56
42
41
41
39
43
37
33
27
19
50
59
58
53
54
54
54
56
53
50
50
48
71
59
57
56
57
55
54
55
55
55
53
53
n/a
60
59
50
59
n/a
54
55
54
53
51
n/a
n/a
61
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
60
n/a
65
57
n/a
51
56
57
58
57
n/a
n/a
60
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Overall performance
2019 overall performance (index scores)
66*
60p
58p
52
52
51
50
50
49
48
40q
29*q
Elmhurst
State-wide
Small Rural
18-34
65+
Ararat
50-64
Women
Ararat
Men
35-49
Lake Bolac
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Ararat Rural City Council
31
2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
Q3. ON BALANCE, for the last twelve months, how do you feel about the performance of Ararat Rural 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: 18
Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
*Caution: small sample size < n=30
Overall performance
32
Overall performance (%)
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Ararat Rural City Council
6
5
9
9
9
9
10
9
7
21
7
5
6
4
9
7
24
14
29
28
26
37
39
36
25
49
24
24
31
18
23
25
38
35
39
42
41
35
35
37
40
47
33
44
34
34
36
46
18
18
13
12
16
13
10
11
19
22
29
20
15
17
22
22
12
12
28
11
8
6
6
5
6
9
32
14
10
9
22
9
9
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
2019 Ararat
2018 Ararat
2017 Ararat
2016 Ararat
2015 Ararat
2013 Ararat
State-wide
Small Rural
Ararat
Lake Bolac*
Elmhurst*
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 Ararat Rural 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: 18
*Caution: small sample size < n=30
Customer
service
33
Contact with council
2019 contact with council (%)
Have had contact
67
59 60 5961
57
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Ararat Rural City Council
34Q5. Over the last 12 months, have you or any member of your household had any contact with Ararat Rural 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: 12
69
74
64
61
67
61
59
63
58
53
31
49
71
67
62
58
59
59
58
60
57
56
18
54
62
70
61
58
67
60
59
61
58
50
22
57
n/a
75
64
60
58
59
n/a
63
55
46
n/a
59
n/a
n/a
n/a
61
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
76
n/a
60
75
67
n/a
66
68
50
n/a
67
n/a
n/a
n/a
61
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Contact with council
2019 contact with council (%)
72*
64
63p
61
61
57
57
57
56
54
51*
49
Lake Bolac
35-49
Small Rural
State-wide
50-64
Ararat
Ararat
Men
Women
65+
Elmhurst
18-34
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Ararat Rural City Council
35
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 Ararat Rural 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: 12
Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
*Caution: small sample size < n=30
12
56
70
63
59
69
61
56
63
51
44
38
100
64
69
68
63
69
64
62
67
61
53
61
75
67
69
62
68
69
73
67
69
62
69
64
n/a
71
70
66
n/a
70
75
70
74
65
67
n/a
n/a
n/a
72
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
74
71
67
n/a
n/a
75
71
70
66
72
n/a
n/a
n/a
71
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Customer service rating
36
2019 customer service rating (index scores)
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Ararat Rural City Council
77*
74
71
71
70
70
70
69
69
69
63
56*
Elmhurst
65+
State-wide
18-34
Ararat
Small Rural
Women
Ararat
50-64
Men
35-49
Lake Bolac
2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
Q5c. Thinking of the most recent contact, how would you rate Ararat Rural 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: 18
Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
*Caution: small sample size < n=30
Customer service rating
37
Customer service rating (%)
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Ararat Rural City Council
27
18
22
29
31
30
33
31
27
18
42
27
28
24
18
30
35
39
29
35
32
34
39
36
37
41
40
25
43
34
47
39
33
39
18
25
24
20
22
14
17
17
19
8
33
12
25
18
22
20
14
10
12
10
9
9
10
7
8
8
17
13
7
12
13
12
5
4
15
9
7
4
4
6
6
4
17
4
3
6
3
6
1
1
4
2
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
2019 Ararat
2018 Ararat
2017 Ararat
2016 Ararat
2015 Ararat
2013 Ararat
State-wide
Small Rural
Ararat
Lake Bolac*
Elmhurst*
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 Ararat Rural 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: 18
*Caution: small sample size < n=30
Council direction
38
Council direction summary
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Ararat Rural City Council
39
• Aged 35-49 yearsLeast satisfied with Council
direction
Council direction• 47% stayed about the same, up 8 points on 2018
• 29% improved, up 20 points on 2018
• 20% deteriorated, down 30 points on 2018
Most satisfied with Council
direction• Aged 18-34 years
Overall council direction last 12 months
40
2019 overall direction (index scores)
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Ararat Rural City Council
36
32
30
29
24
29
34
52
50
26
32
19
50
45
45
45
44
47
49
53
52
57
50
47
52
46
46
44
44
46
48
51
50
48
50
45
57
49
n/a
48
48
51
53
53
53
n/a
n/a
49
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
53
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
54
55
n/a
45
48
49
51
53
n/a
n/a
n/a
44
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
52
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
65p
60
57
55
55
55
55
53
53
47*
41*
38q
18-34
65+
Ararat
50-64
Men
Ararat
Women
State-wide
Small Rural
Lake Bolac
Elmhurst
35-49
2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
Q6. Over the last 12 months, what is your view of the direction of Ararat Rural City Council’s overall performance?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 63 Councils asked group: 18
Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
*Caution: small sample size < n=30
Overall council direction last 12 months
2019 overall council direction (%)
29
9
14
13
18
21
19
20
31
26
11
30
28
37
18
30
32
47
39
60
63
63
56
62
60
47
43
60
45
48
49
40
48
50
20
50
20
20
17
22
14
15
18
32
29
21
19
9
41
20
13
4
3
5
4
2
2
5
4
3
3
4
6
2
2
5
2019 Ararat
2018 Ararat
2017 Ararat
2016 Ararat
2015 Ararat
2013 Ararat
State-wide
Small Rural
Ararat
Lake Bolac*
Elmhurst*
Men
Women
18-34
35-49
50-64
65+
Improved Stayed the same Deteriorated Can't say
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Ararat Rural City Council
41Q6. Over the last 12 months, what is your view of the direction of Ararat Rural City Council’s overall performance?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 63 Councils asked group: 18
*Caution: small sample size < n=30
Individual
service areas
42
Community consultation and engagement importance
43
2019 Consultation and engagement importance (index scores)
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Ararat Rural City Council
62
77
79
77
74
74
71
72
74
66
74
78
81
78
78
78
76
74
71
73
75
67
74
66
85
79
77
77
75
75
72
73
77
70
75
73
n/a
78
76
80
n/a
78
75
71
76
87
74
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
74
n/a
n/a
77
70
77
n/a
75
73
75
n/a
77
73
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
73
n/a
93*p
82
80
79
78
78
78
77
76
74
74q
66*
Elmhurst
50-64
35-49
Women
Ararat
Ararat
Men
65+
Small Rural
18-34
State-wide
Lake Bolac
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: 4
Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
*Caution: small sample size < n=30
Community consultation and engagement importance
44
2019 Consultation and engagement importance (%)
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Ararat Rural City Council
38
32
29
31
37
29
29
33
38
38
66
39
38
34
49
44
30
38
37
41
41
40
47
41
40
38
12
24
37
39
31
26
41
50
20
24
23
21
17
19
24
23
20
38
20
19
31
21
13
15
2
5
4
4
3
4
4
3
2
3
2
3
3
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
12
1
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
11
1
2
2019 Ararat
2018 Ararat
2017 Ararat
2016 Ararat
2015 Ararat
2013 Ararat
State-wide
Small Rural
Ararat
Lake Bolac*
Elmhurst*
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 ‘Community consultation and engagement’ be as a responsibility for Council?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 21 Councils asked group: 4
*Caution: small sample size < n=30
Community consultation and engagement performance
45
2019 Consultation and engagement performance (index scores)
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Ararat Rural City Council
54
55
46
45
43
41
39
42
42
53
22
32
55
55
49
49
52
49
46
52
49
51
51
45
55
54
55
51
55
51
48
50
49
65
49
49
56
56
55
n/a
52
52
52
49
53
n/a
n/a
50
n/a
57
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
57
59
n/a
55
55
55
56
51
n/a
n/a
55
n/a
57
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
56p
56p
55p
51
50
49
49
49
48
48*
47*
44
Small Rural
State-wide
65+
Ararat
Women
Ararat
Men
18-34
50-64
Elmhurst
Lake Bolac
35-49
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: 18
Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
*Caution: small sample size < n=30
Community consultation and engagement performance
46
2019 Consultation and engagement performance (%)
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Ararat Rural City Council
7
4
6
9
8
8
9
10
8
6
8
6
3
7
9
9
22
18
22
21
26
32
30
31
23
29
24
24
19
23
18
20
25
35
31
38
35
34
33
31
31
37
19
24
30
42
46
27
31
37
22
26
21
18
18
14
15
15
20
27
29
22
21
17
31
26
15
8
18
9
8
8
7
6
7
7
12
11
5
9
11
10
5
6
3
3
9
6
6
9
7
5
7
24
5
6
3
7
3
8
2019 Ararat
2018 Ararat
2017 Ararat
2016 Ararat
2015 Ararat
2013 Ararat
State-wide
Small Rural
Ararat
Lake Bolac*
Elmhurst*
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 ‘Community consultation and engagement’ over the last 12 months?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 63 Councils asked group: 18
*Caution: small sample size < n=30
Lobbying on behalf of the community importance
47
2019 Lobbying importance (index scores)
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Ararat Rural City Council
56
71
72
73
71
71
70
70
68
68
68
69
70
71
73
74
69
72
70
70
69
67
69
63
71
72
74
71
67
70
71
70
69
69
67
77
n/a
74
71
76
80
n/a
72
74
69
72
71
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
70
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
73
68
74
76
n/a
n/a
70
70
68
66
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
70
n/a
n/a
n/a
76*
73
72
72
70
70
70
69
67
67
65
60*
Elmhurst
50-64
35-49
Women
18-34
Ararat
Small Rural
Ararat
State-wide
Men
65+
Lake Bolac
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: 4
Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
*Caution: small sample size < n=30
Lobbying on behalf of the community importance
48
2019 Lobbying importance (%)
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Ararat Rural City Council
23
28
25
24
32
25
21
24
24
19
26
21
26
23
29
25
19
39
36
40
36
34
40
38
40
38
26
40
38
41
37
38
45
37
28
27
25
31
26
25
28
27
29
43
24
29
27
37
28
20
29
5
7
5
3
4
5
8
6
5
6
4
3
4
6
8
2
2
3
2
1
2
2
2
1
12
4
2
1
5
2
1
2
4
3
2
2
2
1
11
2
2
3
3
2019 Ararat
2018 Ararat
2017 Ararat
2016 Ararat
2015 Ararat
2013 Ararat
State-wide
Small Rural
Ararat
Lake Bolac*
Elmhurst*
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: 4
*Caution: small sample size < n=30
Lobbying on behalf of the community performance
49
2019 Lobbying performance (index scores)
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Ararat Rural City Council
53
54
45
46
48
52
47
44
42
40
34
24
55
54
53
54
54
54
53
53
52
51
49
46
54
53
55
55
55
56
56
54
52
69
50
51
56
55
56
52
n/a
60
54
56
57
n/a
54
n/a
n/a
56
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
55
52
58
n/a
57
52
55
57
n/a
52
n/a
n/a
55
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
55p
54p
53
53
52
51
51
50
50
48*
44
42*
Small Rural
State-wide
50-64
18-34
Ararat
65+
Women
Ararat
Men
Elmhurst
35-49
Lake Bolac
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: 18
Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
*Caution: small sample size < n=30
Lobbying on behalf of the community performance
50
2019 Lobbying performance (%)
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Ararat Rural City Council
5
3
5
5
8
6
6
7
5
4
6
6
3
7
5
24
20
24
27
26
28
25
26
26
18
24
28
19
29
22
24
22
34
34
37
36
31
33
31
31
35
25
36
31
37
31
26
40
36
18
19
15
12
17
12
13
14
15
50
29
21
15
23
23
15
15
7
13
5
6
3
6
5
5
7
7
7
3
12
5
7
12
11
15
15
15
15
20
17
12
7
11
10
15
9
14
10
15
2019 Ararat
2018 Ararat
2017 Ararat
2016 Ararat
2015 Ararat
2013 Ararat
State-wide
Small Rural
Ararat
Lake Bolac*
Elmhurst*
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: 18
*Caution: small sample size < n=30
Decisions made in the interest of the community
importance
51
2019 Community decisions made importance (index scores)
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Ararat Rural City Council
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
77
n/a
n/a
80
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
78
n/a
n/a
79
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
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
82
n/a
n/a
80
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
79
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
88*
86p
85
84
83
82
81
81
80
80
80q
77*
Elmhurst
50-64
18-34
Women
Ararat
Ararat
Men
Small Rural
35-49
65+
State-wide
Lake Bolac
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: 2
Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
*Caution: small sample size < n=30
Decisions made in the interest of the community
importance
52
2019 Community decisions made importance (%)
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Ararat Rural City Council
45
39
41
46
34
53
42
48
54
39
49
39
41
42
44
41
47
47
42
39
31
45
42
43
11
15
12
11
12
11
12
14
12
6
13
2
2
2
1
7
3
1
4
4
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
3
2
2019 Ararat
State-wide
Small Rural
Ararat
Lake Bolac*
Elmhurst*
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: 2
*Caution: small sample size < n=30
Decisions made in the interest of the community
performance
53
2019 Community decisions made performance (index scores)
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Ararat Rural City Council
36
52
54
38
36
39
33
39
33
28
22
17
50
55
54
52
50
51
50
48
50
48
48
48
51
53
54
50
49
53
46
51
48
44
45
39
n/a
56
55
52
n/a
49
46
48
49
48
47
n/a
n/a
n/a
57
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
59*
55p
55p
50
48
48
47
47
46
45
41
21*q
Elmhurst
Small Rural
State-wide
65+
Ararat
Women
18-34
50-64
Ararat
Men
35-49
Lake Bolac
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: 18
Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
*Caution: small sample size < n=30
Decisions made in the interest of the community
performance
54
2019 Community decisions made performance (%)
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Ararat Rural City Council
6
2
6
8
7
7
7
6
11
6
6
3
9
6
6
18
12
24
18
20
30
31
19
6
36
18
18
14
11
20
25
40
30
38
37
36
33
33
42
28
38
42
60
30
40
33
17
23
16
18
21
14
14
17
13
29
18
17
9
25
20
16
13
27
11
11
9
7
7
10
54
16
10
11
19
13
11
5
5
7
9
7
10
7
5
24
4
7
3
5
2
9
2019 Ararat
2018 Ararat
2017 Ararat
2016 Ararat
2015 Ararat
State-wide
Small Rural
Ararat
Lake Bolac*
Elmhurst*
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: 18
*Caution: small sample size < n=30
The condition of sealed local roads in your area
importance
55
2019 Sealed local roads importance (index scores)
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Ararat Rural City Council
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
84
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
80
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
81
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
78
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
78
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
78
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
76
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
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
n/a
n/a
n/a
94*p
86
85
84
82
82
82
81*
81
81
79q
76q
Lake Bolac
50-64
35-49
Women
Small Rural
Ararat
65+
Elmhurst
Ararat
Men
State-wide
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: 3
Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
*Caution: small sample size < n=30
The condition of sealed local roads in your area
importance
56
2019 Sealed local roads importance (%)
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Ararat Rural City Council
48
37
44
44
81
24
45
52
46
56
53
40
35
45
42
37
12
76
36
34
20
32
36
47
14
16
12
16
7
16
12
29
8
9
12
3
2
1
3
3
2
6
4
1
1
1
1
2019 Ararat
State-wide
Small Rural
Ararat
Lake Bolac*
Elmhurst*
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: 3
*Caution: small sample size < n=30
The condition of sealed local roads in your area
performance
57
2019 Sealed local roads performance (index scores)
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Ararat Rural City Council
53
49
48
50
49
44
46
43
40
44
34
20
53
55
56
55
50
47
51
51
51
53
47
27
54
57
58
51
52
52
54
54
53
51
52
40
55
60
n/a
n/a
52
54
49
52
54
45
47
n/a
55
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
56p
55
53
53*
53p
51
51
50
50
48
45
29*q
State-wide
65+
Ararat
Elmhurst
Small Rural
50-64
Women
Ararat
Men
18-34
35-49
Lake Bolac
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: 18
Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
*Caution: small sample size < n=30
The condition of sealed local roads in your area
performance
58
2019 Sealed local roads performance (%)
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Ararat Rural City Council
9
7
12
10
10
13
9
9
11
8
10
11
9
10
8
27
22
23
32
30
33
31
29
13
24
28
25
23
22
28
32
31
29
31
28
30
28
30
33
32
42
28
35
23
26
32
39
20
17
19
17
16
16
18
19
12
13
25
15
31
26
15
13
12
24
13
11
13
10
11
8
43
11
10
14
11
17
15
7
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2019 Ararat
2018 Ararat
2017 Ararat
2016 Ararat
2015 Ararat
State-wide
Small Rural
Ararat
Lake Bolac*
Elmhurst*
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: 18
*Caution: small sample size < n=30
Informing the community importance
59
2019 Informing community importance (index scores)
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Ararat Rural City Council
60
76
80
78
82
76
74
75
71
75
73
70
81
79
75
78
80
76
74
76
72
74
74
62
79
79
79
76
79
75
73
78
72
76
70
69
n/a
74
77
n/a
82
77
74
76
72
75
82
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
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
75
n/a
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
83*
81
79
79
79
77
77
76
76
75
72
62*q
Elmhurst
50-64
35-49
Ararat
Women
Ararat
65+
Small Rural
Men
State-wide
18-34
Lake Bolac
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: 4
Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
*Caution: small sample size < n=30
Informing the community importance
60
2019 Informing community importance (%)
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Ararat Rural City Council
38
36
33
33
36
32
34
40
47
39
36
31
47
45
30
39
39
43
39
37
41
42
39
72
36
35
43
37
30
39
46
19
18
19
20
24
22
19
18
16
17
18
19
20
17
15
21
4
5
3
4
2
4
4
3
6
1
11
5
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
12
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
2
2019 Ararat
2018 Ararat
2017 Ararat
2016 Ararat
2015 Ararat
State-wide
Small Rural
Ararat
Lake Bolac*
Elmhurst*
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 ‘Informing the community’ be as a responsibility for Council?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 21 Councils asked group: 4
*Caution: small sample size < n=30
Informing the community performance
61
2019 Informing community performance (index scores)
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Ararat Rural City Council
59
56
53
42
48
45
46
44
48
42
37
40
59
58
56
50
49
49
51
50
51
50
50
56
59
58
71
56
60
54
59
56
56
52
50
63
61
60
n/a
56
47
n/a
56
54
59
53
54
n/a
62
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
61
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
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
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
60p
58p
57*
52
52
50
50
49
49
49
45
38*
State-wide
Small Rural
Elmhurst
50-64
18-34
Ararat
Women
Ararat
65+
Men
35-49
Lake Bolac
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: 10
Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
*Caution: small sample size < n=30
Informing the community performance
62
2019 Informing community performance (%)
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Ararat Rural City Council
7
5
7
12
8
13
11
7
13
8
5
6
8
10
3
21
22
23
28
32
35
34
22
6
13
19
23
26
12
23
23
40
31
40
32
34
31
32
41
53
51
39
42
37
40
36
46
22
22
20
14
18
14
14
20
28
13
23
20
20
26
24
18
7
17
8
8
6
5
6
7
12
8
6
6
11
6
7
3
3
2
6
2
3
3
3
11
3
3
6
3
1
3
2019 Ararat
2018 Ararat
2017 Ararat
2016 Ararat
2015 Ararat
State-wide
Small Rural
Ararat
Lake Bolac*
Elmhurst*
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 ‘Informing the community’ over the last 12 months?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 31 Councils asked group: 10
*Caution: small sample size < n=30
The condition of local streets and footpaths in your area
importance
63
2019 Streets and footpaths importance (index scores)
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Ararat Rural City Council
78
53
80
79
68
78
77
76
79
77
75
74
77
84
80
80
77
77
77
76
78
76
75
76
78
85
79
77
62
77
76
75
79
77
73
70
80
n/a
81
76
n/a
77
79
76
n/a
78
76
81
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
77
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
68
n/a
79
77
n/a
78
76
n/a
n/a
78
72
80
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
77
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
79
79*
78
78
77*
77
77
77
77
76
75
74
35-49
Elmhurst
Women
50-64
Lake Bolac
State-wide
Ararat
Small Rural
Ararat
65+
Men
18-34
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: 5
Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
*Caution: small sample size < n=30
The condition of local streets and footpaths in your area
importance
64
2019 Streets and footpaths importance (%)
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Ararat Rural City Council
34
32
35
32
39
31
34
32
33
25
24
31
37
31
37
34
33
41
46
41
41
37
44
44
43
42
28
55
42
39
34
40
43
44
20
15
21
18
15
20
18
20
20
18
11
19
20
29
17
19
16
2
3
1
4
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
4
3
3
2
4
4
1
1
2
2
29
11
4
1
3
3
3
2
2019 Ararat
2018 Ararat
2017 Ararat
2016 Ararat
2015 Ararat
2013 Ararat
State-wide
Small Rural
Ararat
Lake Bolac*
Elmhurst*
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: 5
*Caution: small sample size < n=30
The condition of local streets and footpaths in your area
performance
65
2019 Streets and footpaths performance (index scores)
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Ararat Rural City Council
58
49
57
34
57
51
56
53
57
56
50
42
57
53
57
36
58
55
57
55
55
55
53
45
57
55
58
46
61
60
59
59
60
59
61
61
58
56
59
n/a
60
60
n/a
58
60
56
55
n/a
58
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
58
61
n/a
n/a
59
59
n/a
58
52
56
61
n/a
57
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
59p
57
57
56*
56
55
55
55
54
54
50
47*
State-wide
18-34
Small Rural
Elmhurst
65+
Men
Ararat
Ararat
50-64
Women
35-49
Lake Bolac
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: 8
Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
*Caution: small sample size < n=30
The condition of local streets and footpaths in your area
performance
66
2019 Streets and footpaths performance (%)
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Ararat Rural City Council
11
10
11
12
12
16
14
12
10
15
24
12
10
9
9
14
12
29
30
30
35
32
30
35
33
31
12
13
28
29
31
29
29
27
34
32
31
30
28
30
28
29
34
25
40
32
35
43
25
26
39
16
13
15
15
13
12
14
14
16
29
13
18
14
14
22
17
12
8
12
9
4
7
10
7
8
8
12
11
7
11
3
12
12
7
2
4
3
4
8
1
2
4
2
7
3
1
3
2
3
2019 Ararat
2018 Ararat
2017 Ararat
2016 Ararat
2015 Ararat
2013 Ararat
State-wide
Small Rural
Ararat
Lake Bolac*
Elmhurst*
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: 8
*Caution: small sample size < n=30
Elderly support services importance
67
2019 Elderly support importance (index scores)
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Ararat Rural City Council
82
84
81
80
79
79
80
52
78
76
80
74
85
85
80
79
78
78
79
85
74
74
79
77
82
82
80
79
78
78
79
85
77
76
80
78
81
86
n/a
80
78
79
80
n/a
80
74
81
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
79
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
83
82
n/a
n/a
79
79
80
n/a
79
78
79
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
80
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
87p
83p
80
80
80
80
79
78*
76
76
74
66*q
50-64
Women
Ararat
Small Rural
65+
State-wide
Ararat
Elmhurst
18-34
Men
35-49
Lake Bolac
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: 6
Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
*Caution: small sample size < n=30
Elderly support services importance
68
2019 Elderly support importance (%)
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Ararat Rural City Council
39
40
38
36
41
37
38
40
39
6
24
31
48
37
30
56
35
42
41
45
44
40
49
44
43
44
51
64
45
39
37
41
35
52
14
14
13
15
15
11
15
14
13
43
13
17
10
20
22
9
9
4
2
1
1
3
2
2
2
3
6
2
6
7
3
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2019 Ararat
2018 Ararat
2017 Ararat
2016 Ararat
2015 Ararat
2013 Ararat
State-wide
Small Rural
Ararat
Lake Bolac*
Elmhurst*
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 ‘Elderly support services’ be as a responsibility for Council?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 21 Councils asked group: 6
*Caution: small sample size < n=30
Elderly support services performance
69
2019 Elderly support performance (index scores)
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Ararat Rural City Council
69
68
65
69
67
65
64
51
62
62
62
61
71
68
66
72
68
68
67
62
66
64
57
62
70
68
68
70
70
68
68
65
67
65
76
68
72
69
67
73
67
n/a
67
n/a
67
64
n/a
64
n/a
70
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
69
66
76
67
n/a
70
n/a
72
68
n/a
70
n/a
69
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
71p
68p
67
67
66
66
65
65*
65
64
63*
61
Small Rural
State-wide
50-64
65+
Women
Ararat
Ararat
Lake Bolac
Men
18-34
Elmhurst
35-49
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: 10
Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
*Caution: small sample size < n=30
Elderly support services performance
70
2019 Elderly support performance (%)
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Ararat Rural City Council
15
14
15
16
17
21
14
19
16
11
12
19
9
7
22
21
37
36
35
31
35
37
33
37
37
62
24
38
35
46
34
36
32
25
26
25
28
23
22
19
18
26
25
13
27
23
23
23
23
30
7
6
6
3
6
6
5
4
8
6
13
7
8
9
9
6
6
3
4
2
1
2
1
2
2
3
2
4
3
3
5
2
12
14
16
22
16
13
28
21
10
7
40
14
11
11
24
9
7
2019 Ararat
2018 Ararat
2017 Ararat
2016 Ararat
2015 Ararat
2013 Ararat
State-wide
Small Rural
Ararat
Lake Bolac*
Elmhurst*
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 ‘Elderly support services’ over the last 12 months?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 32 Councils asked group: 10
*Caution: small sample size < n=30
Recreational facilities importance
71
2019 Recreational facilities importance (index scores)
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Ararat Rural City Council
76
73
76
72
77
77
75
81
74
70
68
68
75
72
77
71
75
73
73
69
72
72
73
70
75
73
77
72
75
76
74
75
74
72
77
68
73
72
78
73
80
n/a
76
82
73
73
n/a
n/a
n/a
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
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
72
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
73
72
72
72
72
71
71
71
70
69
68*
61*
50-64
State-wide
35-49
Small Rural
Women
Ararat
Ararat
18-34
Men
65+
Lake Bolac
Elmhurst
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: 8
Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
*Caution: small sample size < n=30
Recreational facilities importance
72
2019 Recreational facilities importance (%)
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Ararat Rural City Council
25
29
27
28
35
23
24
25
22
13
27
24
26
32
25
20
41
47
42
46
38
46
44
42
47
17
38
44
40
36
46
42
25
20
27
22
22
26
27
26
12
71
24
26
26
20
22
31
6
4
3
4
3
4
4
6
19
7
6
9
8
5
5
1
1
1
1
1
2
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2019 Ararat
2018 Ararat
2017 Ararat
2016 Ararat
2015 Ararat
State-wide
Small Rural
Ararat
Lake Bolac*
Elmhurst*
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 ‘Recreational facilities’ be as a responsibility for Council?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 29 Councils asked group: 8
*Caution: small sample size < n=30
Recreational facilities performance
73
2019 Recreational facilities performance (index scores)
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Ararat Rural City Council
73
64
69
63
65
64
69
66
53
64
55
61
71
65
70
65
65
65
69
64
61
63
56
62
68
65
69
64
64
65
68
65
85
59
63
64
75
66
70
64
n/a
64
70
64
n/a
54
59
n/a
n/a
n/a
71
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
70
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
70
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
72
72
70
69
69
68
68
67
66*
65
63
58*
65+
50-64
State-wide
Men
Ararat
Ararat
Small Rural
Women
Elmhurst
18-34
35-49
Lake Bolac
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.
*Caution: small sample size < n=30
Recreational facilities performance
74
2019 Recreational facilities performance (%)
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Ararat Rural City Council
21
19
18
20
20
23
20
21
7
24
22
20
9
20
29
25
42
39
42
36
37
44
42
42
41
24
43
40
54
34
38
41
24
25
24
27
24
21
23
24
34
29
24
24
29
25
23
21
7
9
8
9
11
6
8
7
13
6
9
6
12
7
5
3
6
6
5
5
2
3
3
12
3
3
3
6
2
1
3
2
2
3
3
4
4
3
6
11
2
4
3
1
6
2019 Ararat
2018 Ararat
2017 Ararat
2016 Ararat
2015 Ararat
State-wide
Small Rural
Ararat
Lake Bolac*
Elmhurst*
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 ‘Recreational facilities’ over the last 12 months?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 39 Councils asked group: 11
*Caution: small sample size < n=30
The appearance of public areas importance
75
2019 Public areas importance (index scores)
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Ararat Rural City Council
78
73
75
74
74
73
74
74
74
70
72
49
76
76
77
74
74
77
74
74
68
72
67
81
77
76
77
74
74
79
75
74
69
73
75
74
77
73
n/a
73
73
71
74
73
80
71
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
n/a
76
75
n/a
n/a
74
74
75
75
75
74
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
n/a
76p
74
74
74
73
73
72
71
71
69
59*q
59*q
Women
50-64
Ararat
Small Rural
State-wide
35-49
Ararat
65+
18-34
Men
Lake Bolac
Elmhurst
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: 8
Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
*Caution: small sample size < n=30
The appearance of public areas importance
76
2019 Public areas importance (%)
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Ararat Rural City Council
23
28
27
25
29
25
24
25
24
12
20
27
20
30
25
19
47
44
46
51
41
50
47
47
50
12
34
44
50
46
37
50
52
26
23
23
20
25
23
25
25
24
77
66
31
21
31
28
21
25
3
5
3
2
3
2
3
3
2
5
1
3
6
3
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2019 Ararat
2018 Ararat
2017 Ararat
2016 Ararat
2015 Ararat
2013 Ararat
State-wide
Small Rural
Ararat
Lake Bolac*
Elmhurst*
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: 8
*Caution: small sample size < n=30
The appearance of public areas performance
77
2019 Public areas performance (index scores)
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Ararat Rural City Council
59
72
71
66
69
68
65
63
64
66
61
60
65
74
71
60
70
69
66
64
64
65
71
69
81
73
71
73
74
74
72
71
70
73
69
71
n/a
74
72
61
77
72
71
71
72
n/a
n/a
72
n/a
n/a
72
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
71
70
71
73
71
69
67
n/a
n/a
75
n/a
n/a
71
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
79*
73p
72p
71
71
70
69
69
69
69
68*
66
Elmhurst
Small Rural
State-wide
18-34
65+
Women
Ararat
Men
50-64
Ararat
Lake Bolac
35-49
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: 12
Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
*Caution: small sample size < n=30
The appearance of public areas performance
78
2019 Public areas performance (%)
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Ararat Rural City Council
23
20
21
24
23
24
26
28
22
51
22
24
23
20
23
25
40
36
44
46
47
43
45
44
39
69
26
40
40
43
37
38
42
29
30
21
25
22
25
20
20
30
25
11
31
26
31
30
32
24
6
9
8
3
5
5
5
5
7
13
5
7
3
9
4
7
2
4
6
1
2
2
2
2
1
1
2
3
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
6
1
1
2
2019 Ararat
2018 Ararat
2017 Ararat
2016 Ararat
2015 Ararat
2013 Ararat
State-wide
Small Rural
Ararat
Lake Bolac*
Elmhurst*
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: 12
*Caution: small sample size < n=30
Art centres and libraries importance
79
2019 Art centres and libraries importance (index scores)
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Ararat Rural City Council
65
50
67
61
61
61
57
60
62
58
53
53
64
55
67
61
60
62
56
60
60
64
54
53
66
71
69
65
60
64
64
61
62
59
54
62
65
n/a
70
62
63
n/a
63
64
65
64
58
n/a
66
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
66
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
66
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
65p
65*
65p
63p
62
60
60
59
58
56
53q
39*q
State-wide
Elmhurst
Women
Small Rural
50-64
Ararat
18-34
Ararat
65+
35-49
Men
Lake Bolac
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: 3
Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
*Caution: small sample size < n=30
Art centres and libraries importance
80
2019 Art centres and libraries importance (%)
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Ararat Rural City Council
12
13
13
16
16
17
16
13
6
13
10
14
11
15
13
10
33
32
36
35
39
39
36
35
12
34
26
41
31
27
37
36
35
36
34
31
30
33
34
35
29
53
34
36
37
35
36
33
14
13
10
9
11
9
11
12
41
21
6
17
16
10
13
5
4
5
7
3
2
3
4
12
7
2
8
4
6
1
3
1
2
1
1
1
2
2
3
1
2
2019 Ararat
2018 Ararat
2017 Ararat
2016 Ararat
2015 Ararat
State-wide
Small Rural
Ararat
Lake Bolac*
Elmhurst*
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 ‘Art centres and libraries’ be as a responsibility for Council?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 18 Councils asked group: 3
*Caution: small sample size < n=30
Art centres and libraries performance
81
2019 Art centres and libraries performance (index scores)
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Ararat Rural City Council
70
74
71
73
69
70
70
74
66
73
65
63
88
71
67
76
66
70
70
73
69
72
69
68
78
72
70
74
60
70
69
72
67
71
70
71
n/a
74
70
73
64
n/a
70
73
66
69
70
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
75
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
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
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
73
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
88*p
77
77
77
77
76
76
74
74
74
72
70*
Elmhurst
Women
50-64
65+
18-34
Ararat
Ararat
State-wide
Men
Small Rural
35-49
Lake Bolac
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: 5
Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
*Caution: small sample size < n=30
Art centres and libraries performance
82
2019 Art centres and libraries performance (%)
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Ararat Rural City Council
29
21
21
18
20
26
25
28
31
40
24
34
26
27
31
31
45
43
43
42
42
42
42
47
44
36
47
43
54
43
45
40
13
21
18
19
20
17
18
13
13
14
13
9
10
13
19
3
4
7
6
5
4
4
3
2
5
6
5
3
1
2
4
3
2
2
1
1
1
12
3
1
7
1
1
7
8
9
13
10
10
9
7
24
9
5
6
8
8
7
2019 Ararat
2018 Ararat
2017 Ararat
2016 Ararat
2015 Ararat
State-wide
Small Rural
Ararat
Lake Bolac*
Elmhurst*
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 ‘Art centres and libraries’ over the last 12 months?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 25 Councils asked group: 5
*Caution: small sample size < n=30
Community and cultural activities importance
83
2019 Community and cultural activities importance (index scores)
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Ararat Rural City Council
n/a
n/a
n/a
60
n/a
61
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
62
n/a
61
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
64
n/a
62
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
65
n/a
62
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
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
62
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
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
64p
64
64
62
61
61
60
57
57*
56
55
40*q
Women
50-64
18-34
Small Rural
Ararat
State-wide
Ararat
65+
Elmhurst
Men
35-49
Lake Bolac
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: 2
Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
*Caution: small sample size < n=30
Community and cultural activities importance
84
2019 Community and cultural activities importance (%)
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Ararat Rural City Council
11
12
13
11
6
13
10
14
11
15
7
36
35
38
38
7
24
29
44
43
31
36
35
36
40
36
37
27
66
35
37
31
35
39
38
11
10
9
8
60
14
6
6
16
7
12
5
2
4
4
8
1
6
8
2
4
1
1
1
1
11
2
1
2
3
2019 Ararat
State-wide
Small Rural
Ararat
Lake Bolac*
Elmhurst*
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 ‘Community and cultural activities’ be as a responsibility for Council?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 20 Councils asked group: 2
*Caution: small sample size < n=30
Community and cultural activities performance
85
2019 Community and cultural activities performance (index scores)
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Ararat Rural City Council
n/a
69
n/a
69
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
69
n/a
69
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
69
n/a
65
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
69
n/a
68
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
70
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
69
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
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
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
84*p
69p
66
66p
65
64
63
63
62
60
59
58*
Elmhurst
State-wide
65+
Small Rural
50-64
Women
Ararat
Ararat
Men
18-34
35-49
Lake Bolac
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: 2
Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
*Caution: small sample size < n=30
Community and cultural activities performance
86
2019 Community and cultural activities performance (%)
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Ararat Rural City Council
11
17
15
11
29
9
13
6
11
14
13
37
42
40
39
31
13
38
35
37
32
37
39
34
25
30
34
63
11
33
35
46
29
31
31
8
6
7
8
8
8
9
16
6
4
2
1
2
2
3
2
3
3
2
8
9
7
6
6
47
9
7
3
9
9
10
2019 Ararat
State-wide
Small Rural
Ararat
Lake Bolac*
Elmhurst*
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 ‘Community and cultural activities’ over the last 12 months?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 24 Councils asked group: 2
*Caution: small sample size < n=30
Waste management importance
87
2019 Waste management importance (index scores)
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Ararat Rural City Council
81
79
81
81
85
78
79
79
75
60
78
70
79
76
76
77
78
76
75
76
73
81
74
74
80
74
77
79
77
79
75
76
75
69
77
80
79
78
n/a
78
82
77
78
78
75
n/a
79
n/a
79
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
79
69
n/a
79
77
n/a
77
76
75
n/a
77
n/a
78
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
81p
81
80
80
80
79
79
79
79
78*
76
74*
State-wide
35-49
Ararat
50-64
Women
Small Rural
65+
Ararat
Men
Elmhurst
18-34
Lake Bolac
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: 8
Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
*Caution: small sample size < n=30
Waste management importance
88
2019 Waste management importance (%)
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Ararat Rural City Council
36
39
28
30
37
28
41
37
37
22
24
35
38
29
44
38
35
46
43
48
44
41
50
44
46
45
53
64
46
45
49
41
46
47
15
14
21
21
19
17
13
15
15
25
13
16
14
20
12
13
15
1
3
1
2
2
3
1
1
1
1
2
3
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2019 Ararat
2018 Ararat
2017 Ararat
2016 Ararat
2015 Ararat
2013 Ararat
State-wide
Small Rural
Ararat
Lake Bolac*
Elmhurst*
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: 8
*Caution: small sample size < n=30
Waste management performance
89
2019 Waste management performance (index scores)
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Ararat Rural City Council
70
69
65
69
66
64
66
64
61
61
59
49
71
70
62
69
65
39
63
64
64
61
60
55
70
69
62
72
67
76
65
66
68
66
63
58
72
71
69
69
n/a
n/a
68
66
64
63
65
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
71
n/a
69
73
n/a
n/a
70
69
67
64
69
n/a
72
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
68p
66p
65
63
63
62*
61
60
59
58
55
49*
State-wide
Small Rural
18-34
65+
Ararat
Elmhurst
Men
Ararat
Women
50-64
35-49
Lake Bolac
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: 13
Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
*Caution: small sample size < n=30
Waste management performance
90
2019 Waste management performance (%)
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Ararat Rural City Council
13
17
16
18
20
19
23
20
14
11
13
14
14
6
18
15
35
41
43
40
43
47
42
41
38
31
36
39
31
40
40
23
36
31
25
23
28
19
24
21
22
30
41
24
26
35
29
24
36
33
11
10
9
9
12
6
8
9
10
21
17
11
11
3
23
11
9
5
5
6
2
4
3
4
4
4
7
5
6
6
5
8
3
4
2
3
3
2
1
2
3
4
13
6
2
9
1
3
4
2019 Ararat
2018 Ararat
2017 Ararat
2016 Ararat
2015 Ararat
2013 Ararat
State-wide
Small Rural
Ararat
Lake Bolac*
Elmhurst*
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: 13
*Caution: small sample size < n=30
Business and community development and tourism
importance
91
2019 Business/development/tourism importance (index scores)
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Ararat Rural City Council
61
76
71
77
74
71
72
67
69
66
71
61
85
72
72
75
74
74
71
68
69
67
70
57
75
75
71
74
73
69
71
68
67
67
74
64
n/a
72
70
76
n/a
73
74
72
72
67
81
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
67
n/a
n/a
n/a
72
n/a
72
n/a
68
71
70
69
67
75
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
66
n/a
n/a
79*
73
71p
70
70
69
68
66
65
65q
65
45*q
Elmhurst
50-64
Small Rural
Women
Ararat
35-49
Ararat
Men
65+
State-wide
18-34
Lake Bolac
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: 5
Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
*Caution: small sample size < n=30
Business and community development and tourism
importance
92
2019 Business/development/tourism importance (%)
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Ararat Rural City Council
20
28
24
24
32
24
19
25
21
6
40
20
21
17
28
28
12
40
39
44
38
40
42
36
41
42
6
36
37
43
34
33
45
45
30
23
24
29
20
28
32
26
29
50
24
30
30
40
29
16
33
6
8
5
4
5
4
9
5
3
38
8
4
9
7
6
4
2
1
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
3
1
3
3
3
2
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
3
3
2019 Ararat
2018 Ararat
2017 Ararat
2016 Ararat
2015 Ararat
2013 Ararat
State-wide
Small Rural
Ararat
Lake Bolac*
Elmhurst*
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: 5
*Caution: small sample size < n=30
Business and community development and tourism
performance
93
2019 Business/development/tourism performance (index scores)
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Ararat Rural City Council
61
59
58
61
57
60
61
56
53
59
51
49
58
64
61
62
60
61
65
59
58
64
57
60
59
61
62
64
61
60
92
64
58
61
59
56
63
62
n/a
64
63
61
n/a
63
63
63
65
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
62
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
70
67
n/a
69
67
62
n/a
64
65
n/a
67
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
62
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
63
63
62
62
61
61
60*
60
60
59
56
44*q
18-34
65+
Ararat
Women
Ararat
State-wide
Elmhurst
50-64
Men
Small Rural
35-49
Lake Bolac
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: 6
Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
*Caution: small sample size < n=30
Business and community development and tourism
performance
94
2019 Business/development/tourism performance (%)
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Ararat Rural City Council
11
10
11
10
13
17
10
12
13
13
12
11
9
13
12
12
32
31
35
35
38
41
33
33
34
12
13
29
35
40
27
31
30
39
35
34
31
32
25
31
32
39
41
11
39
38
46
32
36
40
7
13
9
13
9
9
10
11
6
6
17
7
6
12
8
6
4
6
5
2
2
2
3
5
3
12
4
4
3
8
4
1
8
6
6
9
6
6
13
7
6
29
47
9
6
3
7
9
10
2019 Ararat
2018 Ararat
2017 Ararat
2016 Ararat
2015 Ararat
2013 Ararat
State-wide
Small Rural
Ararat
Lake Bolac*
Elmhurst*
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: 6
*Caution: small sample size < n=30
Planning and building permits importance
95
2019 Planning and building permits importance (index scores)
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Ararat Rural City Council
71
68
73
72
69
72
68
64
64
64
62
71
72
68
70
66
68
68
66
70
63
61
64
59
71
71
70
68
70
66
68
72
66
67
63
67
71
70
70
66
n/a
69
67
65
65
68
n/a
n/a
71
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
71
n/a
69
69
n/a
71
68
67
68
66
n/a
n/a
71
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
71p
70p
70p
69
68
67
65
64
62
61
56*
52*
State-wide
Small Rural
Women
50-64
Ararat
65+
Ararat
35-49
Men
18-34
Elmhurst
Lake Bolac
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: 5
Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
*Caution: small sample size < n=30
Planning and building permits importance
96
2019 Planning and building permits importance (%)
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Ararat Rural City Council
18
22
18
20
22
18
26
25
21
6
14
23
14
26
22
13
37
38
37
39
35
42
39
39
39
28
24
37
38
26
27
47
46
29
27
30
25
31
31
25
27
29
29
76
29
30
49
28
20
24
9
8
8
8
7
4
6
6
7
30
13
3
11
16
3
5
3
2
2
2
3
1
1
2
2
4
3
4
6
3
3
3
4
6
2
3
3
2
3
7
3
4
2
8
2019 Ararat
2018 Ararat
2017 Ararat
2016 Ararat
2015 Ararat
2013 Ararat
State-wide
Small Rural
Ararat
Lake Bolac*
Elmhurst*
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: 5
*Caution: small sample size < n=30
Planning and building permits performance
97
2019 Planning and building permits performance (index scores)
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Ararat Rural City Council
48
54
47
46
50
46
52
43
43
41
51
43
77
47
51
51
55
50
51
46
54
48
51
44
77
54
49
52
58
51
50
45
54
49
50
38
n/a
53
60
n/a
57
55
54
53
54
51
53
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
53
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
58
59
n/a
56
57
55
58
55
58
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
54
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
67*p
56
54
53
53
52
52
51
48
48
48q
29*q
Elmhurst
18-34
65+
Ararat
Women
Ararat
State-wide
Men
50-64
35-49
Small Rural
Lake Bolac
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: 6
Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
*Caution: small sample size < n=30
Planning and building permits performance
98
2019 Planning and building permits performance (%)
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Ararat Rural City Council
4
4
7
5
6
7
6
5
5
4
4
9
2
3
3
25
19
19
18
25
27
24
20
27
36
27
23
31
25
21
24
29
27
29
26
29
31
26
28
28
33
17
26
32
31
28
26
30
15
15
14
11
9
12
13
16
16
27
16
14
20
16
16
11
6
12
9
7
7
3
9
11
5
19
7
4
3
9
9
4
21
23
22
32
24
20
22
20
19
20
47
19
23
6
21
24
28
2019 Ararat
2018 Ararat
2017 Ararat
2016 Ararat
2015 Ararat
2013 Ararat
State-wide
Small Rural
Ararat
Lake Bolac*
Elmhurst*
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: 6
*Caution: small sample size < n=30
Emergency and disaster management importance
99
2019 Emergency and disaster management importance (index scores)
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Ararat Rural City Council
82
84
66
78
81
80
81
80
80
77
80
79
83
87
94
85
83
81
80
83
81
79
85
84
82
84
81
82
81
82
80
80
79
76
78
77
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
80
80
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
n/a
n/a
n/a
80
83
n/a
84
n/a
n/a
80
82
82
80
80
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
80
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
86p
85p
84*
82
82
81
81
81
79
78
77
75*
50-64
Women
Elmhurst
18-34
Ararat
Small Rural
State-wide
Ararat
65+
Men
35-49
Lake Bolac
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: 3
Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
*Caution: small sample size < n=30
Emergency and disaster management importance
100
2019 Emergency and disaster management importance (%)
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Ararat Rural City Council
47
44
49
44
47
47
48
48
40
36
42
53
51
42
59
40
32
36
34
37
36
35
33
33
19
64
32
33
26
34
25
40
16
17
13
14
12
13
14
15
41
18
13
23
13
12
15
2
2
2
3
4
3
2
4
5
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
2019 Ararat
2018 Ararat
2017 Ararat
2016 Ararat
2013 Ararat
State-wide
Small Rural
Ararat
Lake Bolac*
Elmhurst*
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: 3
*Caution: small sample size < n=30
Emergency and disaster management performance
101
2019 Emergency and disaster management performance (index scores)
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Ararat Rural City Council
74
63
70
72
70
72
71
72
70
70
63
64
71
82
74
74
72
76
70
72
72
70
68
64
69
88
76
73
72
76
69
71
67
68
73
75
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
70
70
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
71
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
74
n/a
74
n/a
74
76
70
n/a
69
74
76
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
70
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
78
75*
74
73
73
73
72
72
72
72
69
66*
50-64
Elmhurst
Women
Ararat
Ararat
65+
State-wide
Small Rural
18-34
Men
35-49
Lake Bolac
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: 4
Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
*Caution: small sample size < n=30
Emergency and disaster management performance
102
2019 Emergency and disaster management performance (%)
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Ararat Rural City Council
23
20
26
23
26
20
22
23
16
40
22
24
17
16
35
24
37
38
36
36
37
38
39
38
36
24
34
41
49
35
32
34
22
23
22
21
22
18
18
22
34
13
26
18
23
23
18
24
3
5
2
4
3
4
4
2
7
13
2
4
3
2
2
3
1
2
3
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
3
1
1
14
12
11
14
11
19
15
14
7
11
14
14
9
21
12
15
2019 Ararat
2018 Ararat
2017 Ararat
2016 Ararat
2013 Ararat
State-wide
Small Rural
Ararat
Lake Bolac*
Elmhurst*
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: 4
*Caution: small sample size < n=30
Maintenance of unsealed roads in your area importance
103
2019 Unsealed roads importance (index scores)
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Ararat Rural City Council
89
94
86
86
88
86
85
84
85
84
90
80
90
92
83
87
85
83
81
82
80
81
79
79
85
87
83
80
81
80
79
81
77
81
74
79
n/a
n/a
81
84
86
84
83
84
n/a
82
88
78
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
78
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
81
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
80
89*
88*
87
86
85
84
83
83
82
82q
80
80q
Elmhurst
Lake Bolac
50-64
35-49
Women
Ararat
Men
65+
Ararat
Small Rural
18-34
State-wide
2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Maintenance of unsealed roads in your area’ be as a responsibility for Council?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 13 Councils asked group: 5
Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
*Caution: small sample size < n=30
Maintenance of unsealed roads in your area importance
104
2019 Unsealed roads importance (%)
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Ararat Rural City Council
49
56
49
46
51
41
44
45
54
58
46
53
43
54
58
45
37
34
37
33
36
39
40
39
46
42
41
32
37
34
35
40
12
8
11
14
12
16
13
14
13
10
17
9
7
13
1
1
2
5
2
2
1
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2019 Ararat
2018 Ararat
2017 Ararat
2016 Ararat
2015 Ararat
State-wide
Small Rural
Ararat
Lake Bolac*
Elmhurst*
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 ‘Maintenance of unsealed roads in your area’ be as a responsibility for Council?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 13 Councils asked group: 5
*Caution: small sample size < n=30
Maintenance of unsealed roads in your area performance
105
2019 Unsealed roads performance (index scores)
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Ararat Rural City Council
43
40
36
37
29
32
21
35
33
37
25
19
44
43
42
39
36
43
25
36
38
40
36
24
43
44
45
42
37
39
40
42
40
42
35
25
45
45
n/a
42
41
38
n/a
39
39
37
36
n/a
45
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
44
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
46
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
44p
43p
42
41
41
40
39*
39
39
36
34
14*q
State-wide
Small Rural
Ararat
65+
Men
18-34
Elmhurst
50-64
Ararat
Women
35-49
Lake Bolac
2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Maintenance of unsealed roads in your area’ over the last 12 months?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 23 Councils asked group: 8
Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
*Caution: small sample size < n=30
Maintenance of unsealed roads in your area performance
106
2019 Unsealed roads performance (%)
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Ararat Rural City Council
4
4
5
4
5
5
5
4
11
5
3
6
4
5
3
18
10
15
16
15
21
20
21
22
13
26
14
16
17
26
26
28
28
28
30
30
28
6
36
25
28
14
19
32
35
25
27
27
24
27
22
23
24
44
42
24
27
29
34
21
21
22
29
21
19
20
16
17
19
50
11
22
22
23
26
25
17
4
3
4
8
4
7
5
4
2
6
3
3
2
7
2019 Ararat
2018 Ararat
2017 Ararat
2016 Ararat
2015 Ararat
State-wide
Small Rural
Ararat
Lake Bolac*
Elmhurst*
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 ‘Maintenance of unsealed roads in your area’ over the last 12 months?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 23 Councils asked group: 8
*Caution: small sample size < n=30
Detailed
demographics
107
Gender and age profile
108
2019 gender
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Ararat Rural City Council
2019 age
Men54%
Women46%
Ararat
8%
14%
23%
22%
33%
Ararat
18-24 25-34 35-49 50-64 65+
Men50%
Women50%
Small Rural
Men49%
Women51%
State-wide
6%13%
21%
25%
37%
Small Rural
18-24 25-34 35-49 50-64 65+
8%
18%
23%21%
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: 18
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.
Appendix A:
Index scores,
margins of error
and significant
differences
109
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
FACTORINDEX 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 – Ararat Rural City Council
110
SCALE
CATEGORIES% RESULT
INDEX
FACTORINDEX VALUE
Improved 36% 100 36
Stayed the
same40% 50 20
Deteriorated 23% 0 0
Can’t say 1% --INDEX SCORE
56
Demographic
Actual
survey
sample
size
Weighted
base
Maximum margin
of error at 95%
confidence
interval
Ararat Rural City
Council 408 400 +/-4.8
Men196 215 +/-6.9
Women212 185 +/-6.7
Ararat338 330 +/-5.2
Lake Bolac11 12 +/-31.0
Elmhurst8 6 +/-37.0
18-34 years35 88 +/-16.8
35-49 years76 93 +/-11.3
50-64 years120 89 +/-8.9
65+ years177 131 +/-7.3
The sample size for the 2019 State-wide Local
Government Community Satisfaction Survey for Ararat
Rural City Council was n=408. 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=408 interviews is +/-4.8% 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 45.2% - 54.8%.
Maximum margins of error are listed in the table below,
based on a population of 9,500 people aged 18 years
or over for Ararat Rural City Council, according to ABS
estimates.
Appendix A:
Margins of error
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Ararat Rural City Council
111
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 – Ararat Rural City Council
112
54
57
58
60
67
66
50-64
35-49
Small Rural
Ararat
18-34
State-wide
The test applied to the Indexes was an Independent
Mean Test, as follows:
Z Score = ($1 - $2) / Sqrt (($5^2 / $3) + ($6^2 / $4))
Where:
• $1 = Index Score 1
• $2 = Index Score 2
• $3 = unweighted sample count 1
• $4 = unweighted sample count 2
• $5 = standard deviation 1
• $6 = standard deviation 2
All figures can be sourced from the detailed cross
tabulations.
The test was applied at the 95% confidence interval, so
if the Z Score was greater than +/- 1.954 the scores are
significantly different.
Appendix A:
Index score significant difference calculation
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Ararat Rural City Council
113
Appendix B:
Further project
information
114
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:
Appendix B:
Further information
115
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Ararat Rural City Council
The 2019 results are compared with previous years, as
detailed below:
• 2019, n=408 completed interviews, conducted in the period
of 1st February – 30th March.
• 2018, n=400 completed interviews, conducted in the period
of 1st February – 30th March.
• 2017, n=400 completed interviews, conducted in the period
of 1st February – 30th March.
• 2016, n=400 completed interviews, conducted in the period
of 1st February – 30th March.
• 2015, n=400 completed interviews, conducted in the period
of 1st February – 30th March.
• 2013, n=400 completed interviews, conducted in the period
of 1st February – 24th March.
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
Ararat Rural 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 Ararat Rural City Council.
Survey sample matched to the demographic profile of
Ararat Rural 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 Ararat Rural
City Council, particularly younger people.
A total of n=408 completed interviews were achieved in
Ararat Rural City Council. Survey fieldwork was
conducted in the period of 1st February – 30th March,
2019.
Appendix B:
Survey methodology and sampling
116
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Ararat Rural City Council
All participating councils are listed in the State-wide
report published on the DELWP website. In 2019, 63 of
the 79 Councils throughout Victoria participated in this
survey. For consistency of analysis and reporting
across all projects, Local Government Victoria has
aligned its presentation of data to use standard council
groupings. Accordingly, the council reports for the
community satisfaction survey provide analysis using
these standard council groupings. Please note that
councils participating across 2012-2019 vary slightly.
Council Groups
Ararat Rural City Council is classified as a Small Rural
council according to the following classification list:
Metropolitan, Interface, Regional Centres, Large Rural
& Small Rural
Councils participating in the Small Rural group are:
Alpine, Ararat, Benalla, Buloke, Central Goldfields,
Gannawarra, Hepburn, Hindmarsh, Indigo, Mansfield,
Murrindindi, Northern Grampians, Pyrenees,
Queenscliffe, Strathbogie, Towong, West Wimmera and
Yarriambiack.
Wherever appropriate, results for Ararat Rural City
Council for this 2019 State-wide Local Government
Community Satisfaction Survey have been compared
against other participating councils in the Small Rural
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 – Ararat Rural City Council
117
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 Ararat Rural 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
118
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Ararat Rural City Council
Core, optional and tailored questions
Over and above necessary geographic and
demographic questions required to ensure sample
representativeness, a base set of questions for the
2019 State-wide Local Government Community
Satisfaction Survey was designated as ‘Core’ and
therefore compulsory inclusions for all participating
Councils.
These core questions comprised:
• Overall performance last 12 months (Overall
performance)
• Lobbying on behalf of community (Advocacy)
• Community consultation and engagement
(Consultation)
• Decisions made in the interest of the community
(Making community decisions)
• Condition of sealed local roads (Sealed local roads)
• Contact in last 12 months (Contact)
• Rating of contact (Customer service)
• Overall council direction last 12 months (Council
direction)
Reporting of results for these core questions can
always be compared against other participating
councils in the council group and against all
participating councils state-wide. Alternatively, some
questions in the 2019 State-wide Local Government
Community Satisfaction Survey were optional. Councils
also had the ability to ask tailored questions specific
only to their council.
Appendix B:
Analysis and reporting
J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Ararat Rural City Council
119
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 – Ararat Rural City Council
120
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 – Ararat Rural City Council
121
THERE ARE OVER 6 MILLION PEOPLE IN VICTORIA...
FIND OUT WHAT THEY'RETHINKING.
Contact us
03 8685 8555
John Scales
Managing Director
Katrina Cox
Director of Client Services
Follow us
@JWSResearch
Mark Zuker
Managing Director