Cleaner Safer Greener in Ordsall and Langworthy

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

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

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




4) Eccles 75.5

City Average 79.2

Criminal Damage Number per 1,000 Population




4) Swinton 19.8

City Average 18.6

Anti-Social Behaviour Incident

Number per 1,000 Population



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

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

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

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


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*


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


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


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


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


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

Cleaner Safer Greener in Ordsall and Langworthy

Documents

Transcript of Cleaner Safer Greener in Ordsall and Langworthy