Upload
deiondre
View
31
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Cleaner Safer Greener in Ordsall and Langworthy. Report to panel 12 December 2007. Contents of this report. 1. Rationale, process and stakeholders. 2. The baseline and the story behind it. 3. The current public service response. 4. Strengths and challenges. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
Cleaner Safer Greener in Ordsall and Langworthy
Report to panel12 December 2007
Contents of this report
2. The baseline and the story behind it
3. The current public service response
4. Strengths and challenges
5. Improving outcomes (now, soon & later)
1. Rationale, process and stakeholders
2. The baseline and the story behind it
3. The current public service response
4. Strengths and challenges
5. Improving outcomes (now, soon & later)
1. Rationale, process and stakeholders
Rationale: the critical relationship between crime, environment, housing and regeneration
And the central role that engaged young people and communities can play in making good places
+
=
+
Creating stable neighbourhoods is a key element of ‘Connecting People’
Addressing local concerns ‘safe, clean and well managed’
Raising aspirations and engaging in education,
employment and community life
Achieving
aspirations -
breaking the cycle
Source: PMSU Deprived Areas Review. NSNR. Neighbourhood Management case studies
Week
Stage
Key Products
&Tasks
(up to) 1
Planning
Agreed case for
SPOTLIGHT;Team
established;Resources secured;Methods planned;
Stakeholders engaged;
2 - 3
The issue
Analysis of the issue and its
cause and effects on families,
individuals, neighbourhoods
3 - 4
The response
Analysis of the systems,
structures and incentives in the delivery
chain
5 - 6
Delivery Agreements
Immediate, medium and
long term commitments to
improve delivery – made
to high level panel of LSP
Exec.
Bi Monthly
Stock takes
Regular high tempo checks
on delivery against
commitments
‘Quick wins’ – supporting local ideas
The SPOTLIGHT process
Stakeholder engagement
• Mapping of strategic, political, community and front line stakeholders with briefings
• SALT & Ordsall Community Arts delivered creative resident and front line worker consultation
• 260 people consulted – 180 residents & 80 workers
• Individual interviews with residents and a number of focus groups with workers
• Presentations at a number of local public meetings to explain process
2. The baseline and the story behind it
3. The current public service response
4. Strengths and challenges
5. Improving outcomes (now, soon & later)
1. Rationale, process and stakeholders
Key LAA targets related to this issue
Environment
Crime
Anti Social Behaviour
Overall crime reductionLevels of vehicle crime &
damage
Percentage of people who feel safer
Reduction in street litter, graffiti and fly tipping
Percentage of people satisfied with the
cleanliness of their area
Levels of ASB (not LAA target)
Perceived level of anti social behaviour
Quantitative Qualitative
The impacts of these issues run much wider
Narrow gap in crime reduction
Increase number of people who think parent are taking responsibility for the behaviour of their children
Decrease number of who feel people treating other people with respect is a problem
Decrease number of who feel environmental issues are a problem
Decrease the perceived level of anti social behaviour
Reduce the number of 10 – 17 year olds who are first time entrants in the youth justice system
Increase the percentage of people who undertake formal volunteering
Increase the percentage of people who feel there local area is a place where people get on well together
Increase the percentage of people who feel they can influence decisions in their area
Increase the percentage of children and young people asked who consider that their views are considered and that they can influence decisions in their area
Reduction in street litter, graffiti, fly tipping
Increase percentage of people satisfied with the cleanliness of their area.
Increase percentage of people satisfied with local open spaces including parks
Proportion of households involved in recycling domestic waste
Increase in percentage of municipal waste recycled
Reduce number of deliberate secondary fires
Reduce the number of primary vehicle fires
Reduce vehicle crime
Reduce criminal damage
Increase percentage of people who feel safer
Increase number of people who feel informed about what is being done to tackle anti social behaviour
Safe, Clean and Green
Crime in Ordsall and Langworthy: A Snapshot
Taken From Motor Vehicle (TFMV)
Number per 1,000 Population
1) Ordsall & Langworthy 26.0
2) East Salford 22.7
3) Walkden & Little Hulton 7.7
4) Swinton 6.4
City Average 10.4
Total Crime Number per 1,000 Population
1) Ordsall & Langworthy 156.3
2) East Salford 107.4
3) Walkden & Little Hulton 75.6
4) Eccles 75.5
City Average 79.2
Criminal Damage Number per 1,000 Population
1) Ordsall & Langworthy 33.4
2) East Salford 23.4
3) Walkden & Little Hulton 20.4
4) Swinton 19.8
City Average 18.6
Anti-Social Behaviour Incident
Number per 1,000 Population
1) Ordsall & Langworthy 96.2
2) East Salford 76.7
3) Swinton 69.2
4) Eccles 69.1
City Average 64.3
Source GMAC Problem Profile for Ordsall and Langworthy, April – October 2007
Environment in Ordsall and Langworthy: A Snapshot
Chart to Show Litter Reduction Base line and City Wide Targets
23
14 14 13 12
23.8
37.5
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
2005/2006 Baseline 2007/2008 2008/2009 2009/2010
% P
hy
sic
al R
ed
uc
tio
n o
f L
itte
r Litter Data Citywide
Data Sources - LAA agreement and Environment Report for SPOTlighting
Langworthy Baseline for Litter
Ordsall Baseline for Litter
Crime and Environment Perception Baselines
LAA Indicator Baseline 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10
Increase the percentage of people in the whole of Salford who feel safer
Citywide 4 %(2005 data)
5 % 6 % 7 %
Ordsall & Langworthy - - - -
Decrease the perceived level of Anti Social Behaviour
Citywide 35 %(2006/07)
34 % 32 % 30 %
Ordsall & Langworthy - - - -
Percentage of people satisfied with the standard of cleanliness in their area (BVPI 89)
Citywide 71.7 % - - -
Ordsall 87.7 % - - -
Langworthy 69.8 % - - -
Main Priorities from Consultation
Main Priorities - Crime & Community Safety
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
Ordsall residents Ordsall Front-lineworkers
Langworthyresidents
Langworthy Front-line workers
% o
f re
spondents
Street nuisance
Criminal damage
Drinking
Car crime
Main Priorities from Consultation
Main Priorities - Local Environment
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
Ordsall residents Ordsall Front-lineworkers
Langworthy residents Langworthy Front-lineworkers
% o
f re
spo
nd
en
ts
Fly-tipping
Safe areas for C&YP
Derelict areas
S/lighting& R/safety
2. The baseline and the story behind it
3. The current public service response
4. Strengths and challenges
5. Improving outcomes (now, soon & later)
1. Rationale, process and stakeholders
We assessed our response using the stages of a commissioning cycle
Quantitative DataPerception Data
Community Engagement
StrategyOperational Planning
Procurement
Performance MonitoringEvaluationLearning
Changing Delivery
Operational Delivery
Understanding need Planning & deciding
Reviewing Delivering
Crime analysis is improving but overall our local joint intelligence base is patchy and too irregular
• Crime and disorder analysis gathered regularly and actively drives delivery (see problem profile).
• Some other service data available at small area level.
• Some perception data available periodically.
• Community Committee and task groups can feed complaints/problems in.
Understanding need - Strengths
• Some key data not collected (or required to be) at local level or frequently enough to drive delivery.• No clear and regular joined up analysis function to tell 1 story all partners• Unclear how community engagement data fits in needs analysis.
• Early Warning System not active in practice
Understanding need - Weaknesses
The basis for joint action has improved, but is not yet driving a fully joined up and effective response
• Neighbourhood Teams and relationships have strengthened over recent years• LPDG, Environment Task Groups and Neighbourhood Partnership Boards provide basis for joint decision making.• Community Committee acts as conduit for complaint resolution.
Planning and deciding - Strengths
• Service planning is not collective or sensitive to area’s needs. • Unclear relationship between CAP/local and LAA priorities• LPDG’s are crime focused – incentives to other partners may not be clear.• Attendance at LPDG is patchy and action planning process requires strengthening.• Unclear role of Area - Coordinator in leading delivery.
Planning and deciding - Weaknesses
Joining up has improved local conditions but the system can be unresponsive, inflexible and is currently unstable
• Local networks enable joint action – improved over time within constraints• Many committed managers, front line workers and volunteers• Some bottom-up provision - Salford Lads Club, Sparky, SAYO, Ordsall Community Arts, SALT• Moves toward neighbourhood focus• Additional resource/priority has suppressed problems - Ordsall Litterbug
Delivering - Strengths
• Delivery driven by central rather than local priorities • No specific arrangements for managing regeneration• Apparent patchy commitment to LPDG which covers two Neighbourhoods • Key elements of the service base are short term funded and at risk in 2008• Lack of flexibility to respond beyond regular work schedules• Energy and ideas of front line workers and residents is underused
Delivering - Weaknesses
Capacity to review, learn and change is generally hampered by lack of local data and joining up
• Crime & disorder have arrangements for local performance monitoring• Community Action Plan process enables local focus• Trial of local scrutiny in Worsley & Boothstown• Recent review of NM has agreed NPBs
Reviewing - Strengths
• Service impacts not measured locally or frequently enough to drive change• No understanding of collective impact of services• Weak links between CAPs and mainstream service plans and LAA planning• No clear joint learning and reviewing process established • No opportunity for front line staff to learn and influence change
Reviewing - Weaknesses
2. The baseline and the story behind it
3. The current public service response
4. Strengths and challenges
5. Improving outcomes (now, soon & later)
1. Rationale, process and stakeholders
Summary of strengths in the system
Member and
community cttee input
Diversity and commitment of services & communities
Positive impact of Neighb
Mgt
LPDG as a driver
for action
Strong crime data
capacity
Summary of the key challenges
Youth Nuisance
Unstable service
base
Not enoughlocal focus or accountability
Lack of collective
ownership of
outcomes
Management of
regeneration areas
Untapped potential of
VCS community, front liners
Small no. of
families cause most problems
2. The baseline and the story behind it
3. The current public service response
4. Strengths and challenges
5. Improving outcomes (now, soon & later)
1. Rationale, process and stakeholders
Proposals to improve outcomes (1)
Not enough local focus or accountability
Monthly LPDG to cover Ordsall and Langworthy only
Key LPDG officers to meet weekly on site to action plan
Broaden LPDG objectives to incentivise partners – in return for an unequivocal commitment
Actions Timeframe
Immediate
Started in trial
Immediate
Establish local qualitative indicators with quarterly monitoring – with commission of VCS
Feb 08
Establish local quantitative targets for key indicators with at least monthly monitoring – in new LAA/NPB
Feb 08
Locally based environmental response team April 08
Transferable?
No
Yes*
*If intensity requires** Funding dependent
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Small local cleaner, safer, greener budget and joint commissioning through LPDG
April 08 Yes**
Proposals to improve outcomes (1 contd..)
Not enough local focus or accountability (contd.)
Jointly owned delivery report to every community committee and published widely
Explore the potential of participatory budgeting to allocate cleaner, safer, greener budget in Ordsall and
Langworthy
Establish robust cross agency data collection, analysis and reporting process on safe, clean and green
Actions Timeframe
Feb 08
April 09
March 08
Transferable?
Yes
Yes*
Yes
Roll out local scrutiny with learning from recent pilots April 08 Yes
*Funding dependent
Implement green directory & URC neighbourhood environmental programme
April 08 Yes
Proposals to improve outcomes (2)
Management of regeneration areas
SMART joint action plan and delivery and monitoring arrangements for each regeneration area
Regular developer contact and joint developer, service & community meetings
Explore options for regeneration to fund additional management requirements
Actions Timeframe
Feb 08
Feb 08
March 08
Transferable?
Yes*
Yes*
Yes
*If applicable
Partnership plans for dealing with derelict land and property, communicating intentions clearly
March 08 Yes
Clean up of environmental ‘hot spots’ Immediate Yes*
Proposals to improve outcomes (3)
Small number of families cause most problems
Identify households concerned and produce partnership action plan in each case
Develop joint toolkit of support and interventions, with common assessment and intervention arrangements
Actions Timeframe
March 08
March 08
Engage wider service team, including employability team, on family agenda
Feb 08
Transferable?
Yes*
Yes
Yes
*if appropriate
Proposals to improve outcomes (4)
Youth Nuisance
Targeting of joint activity at local community concerns – including street alcohol misuse
Develop Integrated Youth Support Service for area
Support role of local youth services in delivery system e.g. Lads Club, SAYO, Sparky, OCA, youth service
Actions Timeframe
Immediate
March 08
March 08
Transferable?
Yes
Yes
Yes
Secure input from Employability and NEET services Feb 08 Yes
Identification of who, where and what joint support and enforcement is required
Immediate Yes*
*If applicable
Proposals to improve outcomes (5)
Untapped potential of VCS, community and front line
Develop front line staff teams and enable regular networking and idea sharing with ideas fund
Embed role of VCS in performance monitoring system
Identify potential role of VCS in delivery and remove any barriers to entry e,g. SALT, OCA, Lads Club..
Actions Timeframe
Immediate
Feb 08
Feb 08
Focused community development programme with work on children, young people, schools and families.
Immediate
Transferable?
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes*April 08
Communicate to community and front line staff about service achievements
Feb 08 Yes
Funding for community led environmental, crime reduction and youth initiatives which build sustainable
communities
*Funding dependent
Proposals to improve outcomes (6)
Unstable service base – Reliance on Short Term Funding
Mainstreaming and/or transitional arrangements for at risk services that add clear value
Develop a long term funding strategy for safe, clean and green via LSP
Develop financial and review mechanisms for mainstreaming of good practice
Actions Timeframe
March 08
March 08
March 08
Transferable?
Yes
Yes
Yes
Proposals to improve outcomes (7)
Lack of collective ownership of outcomes
Clarity of safe, clean, green as key shared priorities in the new LAA process
Regular high level review meetings across services – clear responsibilities for Area Coordinator
Stronger commitment to LPDG process – broadened LPDG objectives
Actions Timeframe
July 08
Immediate
Immediate
Establish LSP environment partnership linking with CDRP and CYP partnerships
Joint performance management arrangements across services on safe, clean and green
March 08
New Neighbourhood Partnership Board to own delivery on safe, clean and green as initial priority
March 08
Transferable?
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Feb 08
These proposals will achieve joint goals
+
=
+
Cleaner Safer Greener in Ordsall and Langworthy