1 / 36

Cleaner Safer Greener in Ordsall and Langworthy

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.

deiondre
Download Presentation

Cleaner Safer Greener in Ordsall and Langworthy

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Cleaner Safer Greener in Ordsall and Langworthy Report to panel 12 December 2007

  2. 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 5. Improving outcomes (now, soon & later)

  3. 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)

  4. Rationale: the critical relationship between crime, environment, housing and regeneration

  5. And the central role that engaged young people and communities can play in making good places + = +

  6. Addressing local concerns ‘safe, clean and well managed’ Creating stable neighbourhoods is a key element of ‘Connecting People’ Achieving aspirations - breaking the cycle Raising aspirations and engaging in education, employment and community life Source: PMSU Deprived Areas Review. NSNR. Neighbourhood Management case studies

  7. The SPOTLIGHT process Week (up to) 1 2 - 3 3 - 4 5 - 6 Bi Monthly Stage Planning The issue The response Delivery Agreements Stock takes Key Products & Tasks Agreed case for SPOTLIGHT; Team established; Resources secured; Methods planned; Stakeholders engaged; Analysis of the issue and its cause and effects on families, individuals, neighbourhoods Analysis of the systems, structures and incentives in the delivery chain Immediate, medium and long term commitments to improve delivery – made to high level panel of LSP Exec. Regular high tempo checks on delivery against commitments ‘Quick wins’ – supporting local ideas

  8. 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

  9. 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)

  10. Key LAA targets related to this issue Quantitative Qualitative Environment Reduction in street litter, graffiti and fly tipping Percentage of people satisfied with the cleanliness of their area Crime Overall crime reduction Levels of vehicle crime & damage Percentage of people who feel safer Levels of ASB (not LAA target) Perceived level of anti social behaviour Anti Social Behaviour

  11. Decrease number of who feel people treating other people with respect is a problem Reduce number of deliberate secondary fires Decrease number of who feel environmental issues are a problem Increase in percentage of municipal waste recycled Increase the percentage of people who undertake formal volunteering Increase percentage of people satisfied with the cleanliness of their area. Reduce vehicle crime Increase percentage of people who feel safer Narrow gap in crime reduction Reduce the number of primary vehicle fires Safe, Clean and Green Proportion of households involved in recycling domestic waste Decrease the perceived level of anti social behaviour Reduction in street litter, graffiti, fly tipping 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 Reduce criminal damage Increase percentage of people satisfied with local open spaces including parks Increase the percentage of people who feel they can influence decisions in their area Increase the percentage of people who feel there local area is a place where people get on well together Reduce the number of 10 – 17 year olds who are first time entrants in the youth justice system Increase number of people who feel informed about what is being done to tackle anti social behaviour Increase number of people who think parent are taking responsibility for the behaviour of their children The impacts of these issues run much wider

  12. Crime in Ordsall and Langworthy: A Snapshot Source GMAC Problem Profile for Ordsall and Langworthy, April – October 2007

  13. Environment in Ordsall and Langworthy: A Snapshot

  14. Crime and Environment Perception Baselines

  15. Main Priorities from Consultation

  16. Main Priorities from Consultation

  17. 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)

  18. We assessed our response using the stages of a commissioning cycle Understanding need Planning & deciding Quantitative Data Perception Data Community Engagement Strategy Operational Planning Procurement Reviewing Delivering Performance Monitoring Evaluation Learning Changing Delivery Operational Delivery

  19. Understanding need - Strengths • 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 - Weaknesses • 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 Crime analysis is improving but overall our local joint intelligence base is patchy and too irregular

  20. Planning and deciding - Strengths • 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 - Weaknesses • 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. The basis for joint action has improved, but is not yet driving a fully joined up and effective response

  21. Delivering - Strengths • 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 - Weaknesses • 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 Joining up has improved local conditions but the system can be unresponsive, inflexible and is currently unstable

  22. Reviewing - Strengths • 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 - Weaknesses • 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 Capacity to review, learn and change is generally hampered by lack of local data and joining up

  23. 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)

  24. Positive impact of Neighb Mgt LPDG as a driver for action Member and community cttee input Strong crime data capacity Diversity and commitment of services & communities Summary of strengths in the system

  25. Not enough local focus or accountability Management of regeneration areas Lack of collective ownership of outcomes Small no. of families cause most problems Unstable service base Youth Nuisance Untapped potential of VCS community, front liners Summary of the key challenges

  26. 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)

  27. Proposals to improve outcomes (1) Not enough local focus or accountability Actions Timeframe Transferable? Monthly LPDG to cover Ordsall and Langworthy only Immediate No Key LPDG officers to meet weekly on site to action plan Started in trial Yes* Broaden LPDG objectives to incentivise partners – in return for an unequivocal commitment Immediate Yes Small local cleaner, safer, greener budget and joint commissioning through LPDG April 08 Yes** Establish local quantitative targets for key indicators with at least monthly monitoring – in new LAA/NPB Feb 08 Yes Establish local qualitative indicators with quarterly monitoring – with commission of VCS Feb 08 Yes Locally based environmental response team April 08 Yes *If intensity requires ** Funding dependent

  28. Proposals to improve outcomes (1 contd..) Not enough local focus or accountability (contd.) Actions Timeframe Transferable? Jointly owned delivery report to every community committee and published widely Feb 08 Yes Establish robust cross agency data collection, analysis and reporting process on safe, clean and green March 08 Yes Roll out local scrutiny with learning from recent pilots April 08 Yes Implement green directory & URC neighbourhood environmental programme April 08 Yes Explore the potential of participatory budgeting to allocate cleaner, safer, greener budget in Ordsall and Langworthy April 09 Yes* *Funding dependent

  29. Proposals to improve outcomes (2) Management of regeneration areas Actions Timeframe Transferable? Clean up of environmental ‘hot spots’ Immediate Yes* SMART joint action plan and delivery and monitoring arrangements for each regeneration area Feb 08 Yes* Regular developer contact and joint developer, service & community meetings Feb 08 Yes* Explore options for regeneration to fund additional management requirements March 08 Yes Partnership plans for dealing with derelict land and property, communicating intentions clearly March 08 Yes *If applicable

  30. Proposals to improve outcomes (3) Small number of families cause most problems Actions Timeframe Transferable? Identify households concerned and produce partnership action plan in each case March 08 Yes* Develop joint toolkit of support and interventions, with common assessment and intervention arrangements March 08 Yes Engage wider service team, including employability team, on family agenda Feb 08 Yes *if appropriate

  31. Proposals to improve outcomes (4) Youth Nuisance Actions Timeframe Transferable? Identification of who, where and what joint support and enforcement is required Immediate Yes* Targeting of joint activity at local community concerns – including street alcohol misuse Immediate Yes Develop Integrated Youth Support Service for area March 08 Yes Support role of local youth services in delivery system e.g. Lads Club, SAYO, Sparky, OCA, youth service Yes March 08 Secure input from Employability and NEET services Feb 08 Yes *If applicable

  32. Proposals to improve outcomes (5) Untapped potential of VCS, community and front line Actions Timeframe Transferable? Develop front line staff teams and enable regular networking and idea sharing with ideas fund Immediate Yes Embed role of VCS in performance monitoring system Feb 08 Yes Identify potential role of VCS in delivery and remove any barriers to entry e,g. SALT, OCA, Lads Club.. Feb 08 Yes Focused community development programme with work on children, young people, schools and families. Immediate Yes Funding for community led environmental, crime reduction and youth initiatives which build sustainable communities April 08 Yes* Communicate to community and front line staff about service achievements Feb 08 Yes *Funding dependent

  33. Proposals to improve outcomes (6) Unstable service base – Reliance on Short Term Funding Actions Timeframe Transferable? Mainstreaming and/or transitional arrangements for at risk services that add clear value March 08 Yes Develop a long term funding strategy for safe, clean and green via LSP March 08 Yes Develop financial and review mechanisms for mainstreaming of good practice March 08 Yes

  34. Proposals to improve outcomes (7) Lack of collective ownership of outcomes Actions Timeframe Transferable? Clarity of safe, clean, green as key shared priorities in the new LAA process July 08 Yes Regular high level review meetings across services – clear responsibilities for Area Coordinator Immediate Yes Stronger commitment to LPDG process – broadened LPDG objectives Immediate Yes Joint performance management arrangements across services on safe, clean and green March 08 Yes Establish LSP environment partnership linking with CDRP and CYP partnerships Yes Feb 08 New Neighbourhood Partnership Board to own delivery on safe, clean and green as initial priority March 08 Yes

  35. These proposals will achieve joint goals + = +

  36. Cleaner Safer Greener in Ordsall and Langworthy

More Related