2023 - 2026 Strategic Plan

In review of the demographics of the telephone survey suggests that the results are biased as the age of participation is skewed to the older adults. This makes sense in a way because I will assume a higher proportion of older adults have land lines whose names/location would be available in the public domain for Deloitte to contact vs young adults who are more likely to have only mobile numbers which are not in the public domain and therefore their name/location would be unavailable for Deloitte.

Also, the sample size is very small given the number of residents in Halton Hills. Was a statistical analysis done to determine the power needed to ensure validation of the results?

I wasn’t able to access the survey results or see the full plan, but from the summary I would like to add climate awareness and action as a top priority. Preserving natural parks (on the plan, thank you), clean energy (please say no to expanding the gas plant!), and having developers be accountable to council to create walkable neighbourhoods and protect as much natural habitat as possible has to be a top priority. We are responsible for the land in and around Halton Hills and we need to care for it first and foremost.
Carolyn Maule

The 15 page document in the draft plan link is a useless document as it lacks information of actions taken by town, affected areas, KPIs metrics, budget etc. Mission, Vision, Strategic Objectives don't deserve the taxes we pay. Only solid measurable actions with results gets paid.

HALTON HILLS FLAWED
COMMUNITY SURVEY
A WASTE OF TAXPAYER’S MONEY
POSTED ON THIS SITE FOR ENTIRE DOCUMENT - https://marksdeepthoughts.ca/2023/11/21/halton-hills-flawed-study-report/
When I first saw the link about sent to me about this, I was excited to read what the people had to say. As I read the results in the report from Deloitte, being very versed in the mechanics or surveys, I soon started to see a massive flaw in a misrepresentation of the findings. I continued to read thinking perhaps it will improve. It did not, as I read, I witness more subterfuge of the findings from what I can only interpret as the results were not as what they expected and the report attempts to provide a soft landing to this reality and as I read further it became more and more evident of this.
The survey results from the Town of Halton Hills as depicted in the provided image raise some interesting points regarding the interpretation of satisfaction levels among residents. When analyzing survey data like this, it is crucial to consider not just the highest rating ('Very Satisfied'), but the entire spectrum of responses to gauge the true sentiment of the community.

The 'Somewhat Satisfied' category can indeed be ambiguous, as it may suggest a tepid approval that borders on dissatisfaction. Without knowing the specific wording of the survey or the scale used, it's hard to determine exactly where 'Somewhat Satisfied' falls on the satisfaction continuum. However, it is often used in surveys as a middle-ground option, which can be strategically included to avoid binary extremes of 'Satisfied' and 'Unsatisfied', potentially providing respondents with a safe choice that avoids the negative connotation of dissatisfaction.
An aggregate satisfaction score could be more revealing. This would combine 'Very Satisfied', 'Satisfied', and 'Somewhat Satisfied' into a single measure of overall satisfaction, offering a clearer picture of general contentment levels. If the 'Somewhat Satisfied' responses were closer to 'Unsatisfied', then the overall satisfaction metric might decrease, indicating less favorable views than the survey summary might suggest.
The high percentages of 'Very Satisfied' and 'Satisfied' responses in certain categories do suggest a level of contentment with those services. However, when 'Somewhat Satisfied' is significant, as you mentioned, it's worth questioning whether these figures are being portrayed in the best light. For instance, if a substantial number of respondents are only 'Somewhat Satisfied' with the cost of living or housing affordability, this could signal underlying issues that a simple tally of positive responses would not reveal.
Regarding the psychological aspect of survey responses, the option of 'Somewhat Satisfied' could indeed be a subtle way to influence the survey results. It's a common practice in survey design to include neutral or middle-ground options to capture a more nuanced view of respondents' opinions. But this also opens up the possibility of respondents selecting this option as a default when their true sentiment might be closer to dissatisfaction, thus potentially skewing the results towards a more positive outcome.
In light of these considerations, a recalibrated measurement that combines the "satisfied" and "very satisfied" scores, while treating "somewhat satisfied" with a distinct weight, could offer a more accurate depiction of community sentiment. This alternative metric could potentially reveal a less rosy picture of the public's view on the quality of life factors in Halton Hills.
Furthermore, it would be insightful to have clarity on the methodology of the survey, including how the questions were phrased, the scale used, and the context in which "somewhat satisfied" was explained to the participants. Transparency in these aspects is crucial for stakeholders to make informed assessments of the data presented.
 

The chart above provided seems to represent satisfaction levels, but it appears to lack a neutral option, which typically would be "Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied". This is a common midpoint in Likert scale surveys that allows respondents to choose a neutral position when they do not have a tendency towards satisfaction or dissatisfaction.
Moreover, the summary percentage at the top (62%) is not directly linked to any of the categories, which can be confusing. It might represent an aggregate of positive responses ("Somewhat satisfied" plus "Very satisfied"), but this is not clear from the graphic alone.
Additionally, the chart has "Very dissatisfied" and "Somewhat dissatisfied" on the left, and "Somewhat satisfied" and "Very satisfied" on the right, but it indeed lacks standalone "Satisfied" and "Dissatisfied" categories, which might be considered as more moderate positions compared to the "Very" and "Somewhat" qualifiers. This could potentially skew the data if
The chart you've provided seems to represent levels of satisfaction, with categories for "Very dissatisfied," "Somewhat dissatisfied," "Somewhat satisfied," and "Very satisfied." However, there are a few issues with the presentation:
Lack of a Neutral Category: Typically, such scales include a midpoint, such as "Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied," to capture the sentiment of respondents who may feel neutral. This category allows for a more nuanced understanding of respondent sentiment.
Lack of Clear "Satisfied" and "Dissatisfied" Categories: The categories jump from "Somewhat dissatisfied" to "Somewhat satisfied" without singular "Satisfied" or "Dissatisfied" options. This can force respondents into choosing a category that doesn't accurately reflect their opinion, leading to potential bias in the data.
Aggregated Percentage: The 62% marker above the chart is ambiguous. It is not clear what this percentage represents. If it is intended to indicate the total percentage of respondents who are satisfied (summing "Somewhat satisfied" and "Very satisfied"), it should be clearly labeled as such.
Visual Representation: The size of the bars and their corresponding percentages should accurately reflect the data. Without clear labels, it's difficult to determine whether the visual proportions are correct.
For a more accurate and clear representation, the survey could include a neutral category and separate "Satisfied" and "Dissatisfied" categories. Additionally, any aggregated percentages should be clearly defined, and the visual representation of the data should be checked for accuracy.



Much like the previous chart, it presents data on satisfaction rates with various strategic priorities, showing the percentage of respondents who reported being "Somewhat satisfied" and "Very satisfied." Here are some critiques and considerations for this presentation:
Lack of Neutral and Dissatisfied Categories: As with the previous chart, there is no neutral option such as "Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied," nor is there a clear indication of the levels of dissatisfaction. This could lead to an incomplete understanding of the respondents' views if they do not fall into the provided positive categories.
Aggregated Percentages: The chart aggregates "Somewhat satisfied" and "Very satisfied" into a total satisfaction rate but does not break down or provide the specific percentage of respondents who are dissatisfied, which would be helpful for a full picture of satisfaction levels.
Visual Clarity: The chart is visually clear with regards to the percentage of respondents who are "Somewhat satisfied" and "Very satisfied," but the total percentage could benefit from being visually represented as well, perhaps with a different color or a cumulative bar.
Data Representation: Without a measure of dissatisfaction, the chart may present an overly positive view of the satisfaction rates. It also does not indicate the intensity of satisfaction; for instance, a high percentage of "Somewhat satisfied" might indicate a lukewarm feeling that is quite different from a high percentage of "Very satisfied."
Use of Color: The two shades of green used to represent "Somewhat satisfied" and "Very satisfied" are distinctive, but including additional colors to represent neutral and dissatisfied (if data is available) could enhance the chart's information delivery.
Headline vs. Content: The headline emphasizes the highest and lowest satisfaction rates but does not provide context for the other categories, which could be equally important for a holistic strategic review.
Contextual Information: The chart should ideally provide context as to why certain areas have higher satisfaction than others. For example, it would be beneficial to know if "Shaping growth" has a low satisfaction rate due to specific concerns that could be addressed.

THE PSYCHOLOGY OF IT ALL
To explain further what has happened here we need to delve into psychology a bit as this seems to pray on people’s good nature or at the very least, is some excellent subterfuge.
The psychological underpinnings of the survey design and response tendencies involve several principles:
Avoidance of Extremes (Central Tendency Bias): People tend to avoid using extreme response options on scales. If they are not fully engaged with the question or if they are ambivalent, they may choose a more moderate option, such as "somewhat satisfied," which can lead to a clustering of responses in the center of the scale.
Social Desirability Bias: Respondents may want to provide answers that they believe are socially acceptable or that will put them in a favorable light. This can result in a higher selection of "somewhat satisfied" over more negative options, as expressing dissatisfaction could be seen as confrontational or negative.
Response Avoidance: When faced with the option to express dissatisfaction, some individuals may choose a less negative category to avoid being the bearer of bad news, especially if they believe the feedback might reflect poorly on themselves or others.
Lack of Specificity: The absence of a full range of response options, such as a neutral or "neither" option, can force respondents into categories that do not fully represent their views. This can be psychologically comforting as it avoids confrontation, but it reduces the granularity of the data.
Good Nature Tendency: People generally have a tendency to want to be seen as positive and cooperative. When the option to provide a neutral or mildly positive response is available, it may be favored over a more negative response that might be more accurate.
Non-committal Responses: If respondents are uncertain, they may use categories like "somewhat satisfied" as a non-committal response, which allows them to provide feedback without fully committing to a stance. This can be a way of navigating uncertain or mixed feelings about a topic.
Survey Fatigue: In longer surveys, respondents may experience fatigue that affects their willingness to provide differentiated responses. This can lead to an overuse of more moderate options.

Fear of Repercussions: If respondents believe their feedback will be traced back to them, they may opt for safer responses to protect themselves from any potential negative consequences.
In the context of the provided charts, the lack of granularity and neutral options could indeed lead to an over-reporting of "somewhat satisfied" responses. This design may inadvertently lead to data that skews positive and does not fully capture the range of sentiment among respondents. It is important for surveys to provide a balanced range of options to capture the true distribution of feelings and opinions.

SUMMARY OF CRITIQUE ON HALTON HILLS COMMUNITY SURVEY
This summary addresses key concerns and recommendations regarding the Halton Hills Community Survey conducted by Deloitte. The survey aimed to gauge resident satisfaction on various aspects, but several methodological flaws potentially led to a misrepresentation of the community's true sentiments.
• Ambiguity in Satisfaction Scale: The survey's use of "Very Satisfied" and "Somewhat Satisfied" is problematic. "Somewhat Satisfied" is particularly ambiguous, potentially indicating tepid approval or borderline dissatisfaction. This lack of clarity makes it difficult to ascertain the true sentiment of the respondents.
• Need for Aggregate Satisfaction Score: The survey could benefit from an aggregate satisfaction score, combining all positive responses into a single measure. This approach would offer a more nuanced view of the community's overall satisfaction, especially considering the potentially misleading nature of "Somewhat Satisfied" responses.
• Psychological Factors in Survey Responses: The survey design does not adequately account for psychological biases like central tendency bias and social desirability bias. These factors can lead respondents to choose moderate options like "Somewhat Satisfied," skewing results towards a more favorable outcome.
• Methodological Transparency and Improvements: The survey's methodology lacks transparency, particularly in the phrasing of questions and the explanation of response scales. Providing this information is crucial for stakeholders to assess the data accurately.
• Inadequate Response Categories: The survey omits a neutral category, such as "Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied." Additionally, the absence of standalone "Satisfied" and "Dissatisfied" categories may force respondents into less accurate choices, potentially biasing the data.
• Issues with Data Visualization: The survey's charts lack clarity in representing data, especially concerning aggregated percentages and the absence of moderate satisfaction/dissatisfaction categories.

 
Recommendations for Improvement:
• Incorporate a Neutral Category: Introduce a neutral option in the survey to capture more nuanced responses.
• Refine Satisfaction Categories: Add clear "Satisfied" and "Dissatisfied" categories alongside the existing ones to allow for a more accurate representation of respondent opinions.
• Enhance Methodological Clarity: Provide detailed information about the survey's methodology, including question phrasing and response scale explanations.
• Address Psychological Impacts: Acknowledge and mitigate the influence of psychological biases in survey design and interpretation.
• Improve Visual Representation of Data: Ensure charts accurately and clearly depict the data, including a better representation of aggregated percentages and satisfaction levels.
By addressing these concerns, future surveys can more accurately and transparently reflect the sentiments of the Halton Hills community, providing a more reliable basis for decision-making and policy formulation.

where are details of plan?