Performance Bulletindemocracy.rochdale.gov.uk/documents/s15413/RSCP Q3 Jan 2013 Perf… · period last year 2 presentations took place. Presentations delivered: The presentation was

1

1

Performance Bulletin January 2013

2

2

Contents

Page

Part 1 Introduction 3 Purpose of document

Data sources Key to abbreviations Overall summary table

Part 2 Performance by Strategic Priority

Priority 1 - Increase Confidence & Satisfaction 4 Highlights, exceptions, Action Plan update Performance tables Priority 2 - Reduce Crime 8 Highlights, exceptions, Action Plan update Performance tables Priority 3 - Reduce the harm caused by Drugs & Alcohol 15 Highlights, exceptions, Action Plan update Performance tables Priority 4 - Prevent and Tackle Anti-social Behaviour 21 Highlights, exceptions, Action Plan update Performance tables Priority 5 - Prevent Offending by Children & YP 25 Highlights, exceptions, Action Plan update Performance tables Priority 6 - Reduce Adult Re-offending 29 Quick summary Highlights, exceptions, Action Plan update Performance tables Priority 7 - Develop Community Cohesion 32 Appendix A – Crime by Ward (22 ward results) 35 Appendix B – Neighbourhood Survey Ward level data 40 Appendix C – CS2b Ward Level Data 42 Appendix D – AR5a, b, c Definitions 43

3

3

PART 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Purpose of document This is the third Performance Bulletin of 2012-2013, covering performance during Quarter 3, i.e. from 1st October 2012 to 31st December 2012 inclusive. 1.2 Data Sources Data contained in this bulletin has been sourced from: Greater Manchester Police (Divisional and Force data), the North West Tracker Tool, Drug and Alcohol Action Team, Youth Offending Team, Greater Manchester Probation Service, GM Fire & Rescue Service and the Community Safety Service.

1.3 Key to shading – Status Progress against Overall Target column

On Track (against this years target)

Just Off Track (against this years target)

Off Track (against this years target)

1.4 Direction of Travel

Improving (on last years performance)

No Change (on last years performance)

Declining (on last years performance)

1.5 Quick Summary

This table provides an overall summary of the number of indicators per priority and the current level of performance.

Priority Number of

Indicators Available Indicators

On track

Just Off Track

Off Track

P1 Confidence & Satisfaction (CS)

4 4 2 1 1

P2 Reduce Crime (RC) 9 9 4 1 4

P3 Reduce the harm caused by Drugs & Alcohol (DA)

13 ( 8 Drugs & 5 alcohol)

13 7 1 5

P4 Prevent & tackle anti-social behaviour (ASB)

5 5 4 - 1

P5 Prevent offending by children & young people (YP)

8 5 3 – issues with access to data

4 - 1

P6 Reduce adult re-offending (AR)

9 6 3 n/a – new measure reported at Q4

6 - -

P7 Develop Community Cohesion

1 1 1 - -

Total 49 43 (88%) 28 3 12

4

4

1.6 PART 2 – PERFORMANCE BY STRATEGIC PRIORITY

STRATEGIC PRIORITY 1 – INCREASE CONFIDENCE & SATISFACTION 2.1.1 Highlights and Exceptions The indicators in the ‘Increase Confidence & Satisfaction’ priority are collected through a survey mechanism, indicating perceptions of confidence and satisfaction in services within communities. The results from the Q3 Neighbourhood Survey Report demonstrate how we are increasing confidence and having a positive impact across the division. Headline figures at Quarter 3 are:

Ø Perception of high ASB currently at 2.0% (Qtr 3 11/12 = 5.0%). There has been a significant improvement of 3% points compared to the same period last year. Rochdale is exceeding the target by 2% points.

Ø Perception of drug use / dealing currently at 11.4% (Qtr 3 11/12 = 10.9%). There has been a 0.5% point increase when compared to the same period last year.

Ø Ability to influence local priorities currently at 75% (Qtr 3 11/12 = 63.5%). There has been a significant improvement of 11.5% points compared to the same period last year. Rochdale is exceeding target by 3% points.

Ø Police and local council dealing with ASB and crime at 82.2% (Qtr 3 11/12 = 73.0%). There has been an Improvement of 9.2% points compared to the same period last year.

CS4 Quarter 3 commentary – This measure has been replaced with the commentary and information below from the feedback forms, which demonstrate effectiveness of the sessions. Number of presentations in Q3: 1 presentation completed on local crime, for the same period last year 2 presentations took place. Presentations delivered: The presentation was delivered to Year 10 students at Tottington High School, to support their PCSE Crime Unit Curriculum. The audience was a mix of boys and girls, with 27 attendees (25 students and 2 teachers). Feedback from comment cards: the table below summarizes the feedback from the comment cards.

Total Attendees Cards Completed

First Consideration After Presentation

4th Dec 2012 - 25 25 10 custody 15 community sentence

2 custody 23 community sentence

Learning from the session: Presentation - The students had recently engaged with a discussion about the financial cost of prison sentences so their understanding about the impact on the community was greater than other groups. They were also more sympathetic to the offender as the case study was a female with children. They were particularly concerned about the impact on the children were she to be sent to prison. The discussion was more centred on how to rehabilitate and support the offender than on punishment. If this is replicated in the next audience of similar demographic, the case study will be changed to reflect a younger person perhaps closer to them in age but without children. However their understanding of the financial impact of custody remains whoever the case study.

5

5

2.1.2 Communication Update – Highlights this Quarter We are performing very well on CS1 – the Police and council dealing with ASB and crime - there has been a steady increase throughout the year and Rochdale are the best performing force in Greater Manchester. We are also performing very well on CS3 - people feel that they can influence local priorities. This is again continually improving. We are the best performing authority in Greater Manchester – outperforming some areas by 30 percent We are still off track on people feeling safe at night and communications plan has been put in place to address this. This will focus on delivering ward based newsletters and targeting posters to those identified as feeling the least safe Activity this quarter has seen us promote a street lighting PFI. A significant amount of activity took place around bonfire night - press, social media and web activity etc. This was a very popular item on website – the leaderboard achieved 700 clicks. We are now attending Crescent radio slots with the police once a quarter. The last one focussed on illegal money lending and Andy Glover went through how to spot an illegal money lender and promoted the credit union etc. Online pacts – these are now active in Heywood and Rochdale South. Some evaluation work has been done, which shows good number of people interacting. The best figures we have are for October South (66 live, 661 post meeting viewers). The issue is that there is little conversation during the meetings. Perhaps the fact remains that people will only attend a meeting, virtual or otherwise, if they have something they wish to discuss, so, with this in mind, should we save them until there is a big issue to discuss and advertise the meeting as a chance to talk about this particular issue. Issues are around the link. We are looking on potentially doing a public protection column in the Asian Leader newspaper. This will be updated at the next board.

6

6

How we compare – The below tables show how Rochdale’s current performance on ‘CS1 Police and local Council dealing with ASB and Crime’ and ‘CS3 Influence on local priorities’ compares with that of our Neighbouring Boroughs across Greater Manchester.

Police and local Council dealing with ASB and Crime – Divisional Breakdown

Division Quarter 1 2012/13

Quarter 2 2012/13

Quarter 3 2012/13

Quarter 4 2012/13

% Variance from Q2

Wigan 65.1% 66.7% 69.5% = 8 +2.8

Salford 72.7% 72.4% 74.8% = 5 +2.4

Bury 74.8% 75.1% 76.5% = 4 +1.4

Rochdale 79.9% 80.9% 82.2% = 1 +1.3

Stockport 63.2% 62.7% 63.9% = 11 +1.2

North Manchester

77.1% 79.1% 80.2% = 2 +1.1

Greater Manchester

70.9% 71.2% 71.8% = 7 +0.6

Trafford 74.4% 76.5% 76.9% = 3 +0.4

Tameside 73.1% 72.6% 72.9% = 6 +0.3

Bolton 66.7% 67.2% 66.5% = 9 -0.7

Oldham 66.8% 65.5% 63.9% = 12 -1.6

South Manchester

67.5% 66.1% 64.4% = 10 -1.7

Influence on local priorities – Divisional Breakdown


Quarter 2 2012/13

Quarter 3 2012/13

Quarter 4 2012/13

% Variance from Q2

Stockport 47.3% 47.7% 50.1% = 9 +2.4

Salford 60.2% 59.3% 61.0% = 4 +1.7

Rochdale 73.7% 73.5% 75.0% = 1 +1.5

North Manchester

58.8% 63.2% 64.4% = 2 +1.2

Tameside 51.1% 51.9% 53.1% = 8 +1.2

Bury 60.8% 61.2% 62.1% = 3 +0.9

Greater Manchester

55.1% 55.7% 56.4% = 6 +0.7

South Manchester

53.7% 54.5% 55.0% = 7 +0.5

Trafford 57.7% 56.9% 57.1% = 5 +0.2

Bolton 47.0% 48.8% 48.7% = 10 -0.1

Oldham 47.6% 47.2% 46.8% = 11 -0.4

Wigan 44.9% 44.4% 43.4% = 12 -1.0

7

7

PRIORITY 1: INCREASING CONFIDENCE AND SATISFACTION

Indicator Title

Best outcome low or high

Actual 2010-11

Actual 2011-12

Target 2012-13

Q1 April-June 2012

Q2 July-Sept 2012

Q3 Oct-Dec 2012

Q4 Jan-Mar 2013

Year To Date

Year–end

projection

Status (against 12-13 target)

Direction of travel from 11-12

CS1 - To increase the percentage of people who agree that the Police and Council are dealing with the anti-social behaviour and crime issues that matter to people in their local area

High 62.5% 78.4% 82% 79.9% 80.9% 82.2% 82.2% 82.2%

On Track Improving

CS2a - To increase the percentage of people who feel safe outside in their local area during the day and at night

High 97.3% (day)

98.2% (day)

98.5% (day)

98.3% (day)

98.1% (day)

98.1% (day)

98.1% 98.1%

Just off Track

Just Declining

CS2b - To increase the percentage of people who feel safe outside in their local area during the day and at night

High 72.0% (night)

79.6% (night)

80% (night)

80.6% (night)

78.5% (night)

78.0% (night)

78.0% 78.0%

Off Track Declining

CS3 - Increase the number of people who feel they can influence decisions made in their area

High 47.5% 70.4% 72% 73.7% 73.5% 75.0% 75.0% 75.0%

On Track Improving

8

8

STRATEGIC PRIORITY 2 – REDUCE CRIME 2.2.1 Highlights and Exceptions Please note: The following GMP performance indicators have been removed as they are no longer available due to changes in new policing priorities as well as local changes, which mean that the performance indicator cluster will be different for 2012/13:-

• RC1 – reduce the total volume of recorded crime in the borough

• RC2 – reduce the number of serious acquisitive crimes recorded in the borough

• RC3 – reduce the number of serious violent crimes recorded in the borough

• RC4 – reduce the number of thefts recorded in the borough

• RC6 – reduce the number of vehicle crimes recorded in the borough

Domestic Violence – This quarter 53 DV cases have been discussed at MARAC and of these, 12 (22.64%) were repeat cases of DV. For the same period last year 79 cases were discussed and of those 12 (15.2%) were repeat cases. Results show we are off track and unlikely to achieve target. Domestic Burglary – results this quarter show there has been a 7% rise in the number of domestic burglaries compared to Q2, with 24 more burglaries. Also when compared to the same period last year there have been 23 fewer burglaries this quarter, equating to a 6% improvement. Overall results show we are off track and may be slightly out to achieve this year’s target. Deliberate Primary Fires – This quarter there have been 33 deliberate primary fires compared to 50 fires in the same period of last year, resulting in an improvement of 34%. Of the 33 fires 16 are attributed to deliberate vehicle fires, with the vast majority of all deliberate fires occurring between the hours of darkness. The worst performing wards are North and West Middleton accounting for 9 incidents and Kingsway accounting for 4. Victim Based Crimes – there have been 3234 victim based crimes reported this quarter compared to 3465 in the same period last year, this equates to 231 fewer crimes (6.7% improvement). Stealing Crimes – There have been 1905 stealing crimes this quarter compared to 1857 in Q2, showing a 2.6% increase in the number of crimes. Results this quarter show there has been a 1.5% rise in the number of stealing crimes when compared to the same period last year, with 29 more crimes reported. Violent Crimes – There have been 117 less violent crimes reported this quarter compared to Q2, showing a 16.7% improvement in performance. When compared to the same period last year results show there have been 192 fewer crimes reported, equating to a 24.8% improvement. Also across GM we are ranked as the 2

nd highest performing

authority. Solved Rate Victim Based Crime – The percentage solved rate for victim based crime this quarter is 22.8% compared to 28.1% in Q2, showing a 5.3 percentage point fall in performance. When compared to the same period last year, results show 145 fewer crimes were solved this quarter, equating to a 2.7 percentage point decline. Solved Rate – Violent Crime – The percentage solved rate for violent crime this quarter is 49.5% compared to 56.1% in Q2, showing a 6.6 percentage point fall in performance. When compared to the same period last year, results show 97 fewer crimes were solved this quarter, equating to a 0.2 percentage point decline. Solved Rate Hate Crime – The percentage solved rate for hate crime this quarter is 37.7% compared to 42.8% in Q2, showing a 5.1 percentage point fall in performance. When compared to the same period last year, results show 20 fewer crimes were solved this quarter, equating to a 20.4 percentage point decline.

9

9

2.2.2 Action Plan Update Serious Violent Crime Violent crime is currently showing a 10.6% reduction as compared to last year. Operation HomeSafe and the violent crime action plan have been successfully implemented and continue to focus our resources in the hotspots across the Borough. Business Wednesday and the PBG continue to analyse crime trends and series offences to ensure the appropriate response is deployed to address any longstanding and emerging threats. Domestic Violence Following the last RSCP in November, a Domestic Abuse Strategy Group has been established in order to bring together a cross-section of senior officers to drive forward a number of important strategy and delivery issues over the next 12 months. The group had its first meeting last month, where it set out its terms of reference and started to develop a work plan for the remainder of the year. The next meeting of the group is on 27

th February.

There has also been progress on a GM-wide initiative to help the AGMA Police and Crime Leads Group to gain a clear understanding of the current position regarding DV service provision across the region and to provide support and direction to development of a co-ordinated GM approach to Domestic Abuse. A report will go to the Police and Crime Leads Group on 22

nd February with a number of recommended short and medium

term actions for the Group to endorse and help to kick-start over the next few months. Serious Acquisitive Crime Burglary has remained the main focus of the group for the last two quarters and this has produced some excellent reductions. A sharp blip was experienced in November which initiated Operation Florus; this has resulted in brigading resources from across the division and deploying them at specific times in our hotspot areas. This has been supplemented with Force resources who are briefed daily by our Hub. The success of the operation has been based on re invigorating the management of our targets and closer working with our partners to ensure intelligence is passed in a timely manner. Hate crime Hate crime continues to be the focus of the neighbourhood teams. Each crime is now allocated to the neighbourhood officer to ensure continuity of support for the victim. Although we are off track in relation to our solved target the division has started Operation Husky which comprises of a team of officers dedicated to progressing open crime enquiries.

10

10

2.2.3 Reducing Crime – how we compare These tables show our current performance on RC9, RC10, RC11, RC12, RC13 and RC14 compares with that of our neighbouring Boroughs across Greater Manchester. Year to date figures have been provided for RC9, RC10 and RC11.

RC 9 – Reduce the total number of victim based crimes recorded

Borough Oct - Dec 2012 Oct - Dec 2011 No of crimes

% change

Bolton 3703 4547 -844 -18.6%

Stockport 3638 4177 -539 -12.9%

Trafford 2438 2769 -331 -12.0%

Tameside 3142 3502 -360 -10.3%

Oldham 3035 3366 -331 -9.8%

Bury 2371 2602 -231 -8.9%

Wigan 3590 3880 -290 -7.5%

Rochdale 3234 3465 -231 -6.7%

Salford 3584 3804 -220 -5.8%

Manchester 11646 12091 -445 -3.7%

Greater Manchester 40496 44337 -3841 -8.7%

The figures above show Rochdale is in 8th position, with 231 fewer incidents in Q3, a

6.7% reduction.

Borough Cumulative 2012-2013

Cumulative 2011-2012 Difference % reduction

Trafford 7022 8085 -1063 -13.1

Salford 10381 11924 -1543 -12.9

Stockport 10607 12136 -1529 -12.6

Tameside 9475 10749 -1274 -11.9

Bury 7152 8093 -941 -11.6

Oldham 9600 10713 -1113 -10.4

Wigan 10721 11931 -1210 -10.1

Manchester 33076 36554 -3478 -9.5

Rochdale 9860 10828 -968 -8.9

Bolton 12269 13229 -960 -7.3

Greater Manchester 120572 134627 -14055 -10.4

The year to date figures above show Rochdale has the 2nd lowest reduction, with 968 fewer victim based crimes reported across the AGMA authorities, showing an 8.9% reduction.

RC 10 – Reduce the total number of stealing crimes recorded


% change

Bolton 2201 2700 -499 -18.5%

Bury 1371 1560 -189 -12.1%

Stockport 2298 2487 -189 -7.6%

Trafford 1648 1724 -76 -4.4%

Oldham 1767 1841 -74 -4.0%

Wigan 2064 2142 -78 -3.6%

Salford 2149 2163 -14 -0.6%

Tameside 1909 1914 -5 -0.3%

Rochdale 1905 1876 29 +1.5%

Manchester 7953 7742 211 +2.7%


The figures above show Rochdale has the 2nd lowest reduction, with 29 more stealing

crimes reported, a 1.5% increase across the AGMA authorities in Q3.

11

11



Oldham 5122 6001 -879 -14.6

Bury 4109 4807 -698 -14.5

Stockport 6462 7557 -1095 -14.5

Salford 6020 6888 -868 -12.6

Wigan 6036 6830 -794 -11.6

Trafford 4634 5142 -508 -9.9

Manchester 21939 23722 -1783 -7.5

Tameside 5603 5979 -376 -6.3

Bolton 7275 7659 -384 -5.0

Rochdale 5604 5843 -239 -4.1


The year to date figures above show Rochdale has the lowest reduction for stealing crimes, with 239 fewer crimes, a 4.1% reduction reported across the AGMA authorities.

RC 11 – Reduce the total number of violent crimes recorded


% change

Trafford 360 489 -129 -26.4%

Rochdale 583 775 -192 -24.8%

Bolton 710 929 -219 -23.6%

Stockport 621 796 -175 -22.0%

Tameside 622 780 -158 -20.3%

Manchester 1860 2234 -374 -16.7%

Salford 620 733 -113 -15.4%

Oldham 642 745 -103 -13.8%

Wigan 659 696 -37 -5.3%

Bury 493 505 -12 -2.4%


The figures above show Rochdale has the 2

nd highest reduction for violent crimes, with

192 fewer crimes, a 24.8% reduction across the AGMA authorities in Q3.



Trafford 1106 1312 -206 -15.7

Tameside 2022 2312 -290 -12.5

Rochdale 1973 2216 -243 -11.0

Salford 1947 2175 -228 -10.5

Manchester 5776 6347 -571 -9.0

Stockport 1918 2045 -127 -6.2

Bolton 2438 2559 -121 -4.7

Oldham 2143 2208 -65 -2.9

Wigan 1971 1997 -26 -1.3

Bury 1487 1505 -18 -1.2


The year to date figures above show Rochdale has the 3rd highest reduction for recorded violent crime, with 243 less incidents, showing an 11% reduction across the AGMA authorities.

12

12

RC 12 – Percentage solved rate & solved crimes for victim based crime


% change

Trafford – solved rate Trafford – solved crimes

34.2 833 (2438)

30.0 830 (2769)

+3

+4.2 +0.4

Oldham – solved rate Oldham – solved crimes

26.5 805 (3035)

23.8 801 (3366)

+4

+2.7 +0.5

Stockport – solved rate Stockport – solved crimes

23.1 842 (3638)

22.5 941 (4177)

-99

+0.6 -10.5

Bolton – solved rate Bolton – solved crimes

25.5 944 (3703)

25.0 1138 (4547)

-194

+0.5 -17.0

Bury – solved rate Bury – solved crimes

22.8 541 (2371)

22.8 593 (2602)

-52

No change

-8.8

Wigan – solved rate Wigan – solved crimes

26.2 940 (3590)

26.5 1027 (3880)

-87

-0.3 -8.5

Salford – solved rate Salford – solved crimes

23.2 832 (3584)

24.9 947 (3804)

-115

-1.7 -12.1

Tameside – solved rate Tameside – solved crimes

25.3 796 (3142)

27.4 960 (3502)

-164

-2.1 -17.1

Manchester – solved rate Manchester – solved crimes

20.4 2379 (11646)

22.8 2757 (12091)

-378

-2.4 -13.7

Rochdale – solved rate Rochdale – solved crimes

22.9 739 (3234)

25.5 884 (3465)

-145

-2.7 -16.4

Greater Manchester – SR Greater Manchester - SC

23.9 9679 (40496)

24.6 10915 (44337)

-1236

-0.7 -11.3

RC 13 – Percentage solved rate for violent crime


% change


61.9 223 (360)

50.3 246 (489)

-23

+11.6 -9.3


55.5 344 (620)

47.5 348 (733)

-4

+8.0 -1.1


49.5 318 (642)

42.7 318 (745)

No change

+6.8 No change


49.8 927 (1860)

43.8 979 (2234)

-52

+6.0 -5.3


51.0 317 (621)

45.9 365 (796)

-48

+5.2 -13.2


54.0 356 (659)

50.9 354 (696)

+2

+3.2 +0.6


52.3 325 (622)

50.8 396 (780)

-71

+1.5 -17.9


51.3 364 (710)

50.6 470 (929)

-106

+0.7 -22.6


49.6 289 (583)

49.8 386 (775)

-97

-0.2 -25.1


46.5 229 (493)

49.9 252 (505)

-23

-3.5 -9.1


51.6 3700 (7177)

47.4 4123 (8695)

-423

+4.1 -10.3

13

13

RC 14 – Percentage solved rate for hate crime


% change


81.8 18 (22)

44.9 22 (49)

-4

+36.9 -18.2


54.3 120 (221)

40.2 100 (249)

+20

+14.1 +20.0


42.0 29 (69)

30.0 24 (80)

+5

+12.0 +20.8


52.0 51 (98)

42.6 43 (101)

+8

+9.5 +18.6


38.2 21 (55)

34.2 25 (73)

-4

+3.9 -16.0


42.4 14 (33)

40.4 21 (52)

-7

+2.0 -33.3


42.1 24 (57)

51.6 49 (95)

-25

-9.5 -51.0


28.2 11 (39)

37.8 17 (45)

-6

-9.6 -35.3


31.0 13 (42)

44.8 26 (58)

-13

-13.9 -50.0


37.7 23 (61)

58.1 43 (74)

-20

-20.4 -46.5


46.6 327 (702)

42.3 371 (877)

-44

+4.3 -11.9

14

14

PRIORITY 2: REDUCE CRIME

Indicator Title


Actual 2010-11

Actual 2011-12

Target 2012-13

Q1 April-June 2012

Q2 July-Sept 2012

Q3 Oct-Dec 2012

Q4 Jan-Mar 2013

Year To Date

Year-end projection



RC5 - Reduce the number of domestic burglaries recorded in the Borough

Low 1991 1352 1322 320 334 358 1012 1349 Off Track Improving

RC7 - Reduce the level of repeat victimisation in DV cases referred to MARAC

Low 21% 44/211

20% 53/265

17% 28.85% 15/52

19.61% 10/51

22.64% 12/53

23.72% 37/156

23.72% 37/156

Off Track Declining

RC8 - Reduce the number of deliberate primary fires recorded in the Borough (per 10,000 population)

Low 12.5 256 fires

10.2 209 fires

9.4 192 fires

2.3 47 fires

2.2 46 fires

1.6 33 fires

6.2 126 fires

8.2 168 fires

On Track Improving

RC9 – Reduce the total number of victim based crimes recorded

Low - 14306 13876 3286 3310 3234 9830 13107 On Track Improving

RC10 - Reduce the total number of stealing crimes recorded – Total of below 8 crimes

Low - 7832 7441 1819 1857 1905 5581 7441

On Track Improving

§ Domestic Burglary

§ Non-domestic Burglary

§ Vehicle Crime

§ Shoplifting

§ Other Stealing

§ All Robbery

§ Robbery (Business)

§ Robbery (Personal)

1991 1352 1322 320 334 358 1012 1349 Off Track Improving

New 1232 n/a 362 299 298 959 1279 N/A Declining

2003 1543 n/a 372 402 469 1243 1657 N/A Declining

New 977 n/a 185 274 258 717 956 N/A Improving

New 2352 n/a 500 495 463 1458 1944 N/A Improving

312 244 n/a 80 53 59 192 256 N/A Declining

47 54 n/a 10 13 17 40 53 N/A Improving

265 190 n/a 70 40 42 152 203 N/A Declining

RC11 – Reduce the total number of violent crimes recorded

Low - 2882 2593 684 700 583 1967 2623 Off Track Improving

RC12 – % solved rate for victim based crime

High - 23.5% 25% 23.4% 28.1% 22.8% 24.8% 24.8% Just off Track

Improving

RC13 – % solved rate for violent crime High - 47.2% 50% 46.3% 56.1% 49.5% 50.8% 50.8% On Track Improving

RC14 – % solved rate for hate crime High - 40% 45% 45.6% 42.8% 37.7% 42.4% 42.4% Off Track Improving

15

15

STRATEGIC PRIORITY 3 – REDUCE THE HARM CAUSED BY DRUGS AND ALCOHOL

2.3.1 Target definitions DA1: Number of OCU’s (Opiate/ Crack Users) recorded as being in effective treatment ‘Effective treatment’ is measured counting Opiate and/or Crack users who are either:-

(i) Currently receiving a drug treatment intervention and have been for at least 12 weeks) or

(ii) They successfully completed treatment within the 12 weeks The baseline will not remain static because if a client re-presents to treatment within 12 months, then only the most recent episode counts (whatever of the outcome of the first treatment) Due to the 5 month delay in reporting to NDTMS it has been agreed to report on the most recent data available (e.g. Feb 12 = Q1, May 12 = Q2) DA2: Increase no of drug users (all types’ drugs) recorded as being in effective treatment Same measure as above however counting all types of drugs used (e.g. include Cocaine, stimulants, cannabis etc) DA3a: Increase % of OCU’s (Opiate / Crack Users) & all adult drug users successfully completing treatment as a proportion of the total number in treatment This is counts clients leaving the treatment system either complete drug free or treatment completed, occasional user (providing the substance is not that which the treatment was for). The NTA have grouped partnerships into 5 clusters (A-E E being the areas with the most challenges) which have been created to enable partnerships to compare their performance for opiate users with other areas that have similar characteristics that appear to influence recovery outcomes for this group. Rochdale are in Cluster Group D and the target is to be within the top quartile for our cluster group, this means that the target will change depending on the performance of other areas. DA3b: Reduce the proportion of OCU clients that successfully complete treatment then represent at a later date. The aim is to ensure that once completing treatment clients maintain their recovery. The target is to be within the top quartile of Cluster D, which means that the target will change depending on the performance of other areas. DA 4: Perceptions of drug use or drug dealing as a problem – Neighbourhood Surveys DA 5: Reduce the Drug related (Class A) offending rate A new measure has been developed for 2012/13 by identifying a Cohort of offenders (297) who when arrested in 11/12 have either tested positive for Class A drugs or were arrested for possession of Class A. This cohort is then monitored quarterly to see if re-arrested. In addition the cohort is monitored for their engagement with treatment services to see if this impacts on the offending rate. DA 6: Increase number of substance misusing Young People to have received an effective treatment intervention Measures the number of substance misusing young people (up to 19 years) to have received a structured treatment intervention for substance misuse (all drugs and alcohol) in the year. DA 7: Increase number of clients who receive effective treatment intervention for alcohol misuse This measures those in structured treatment at the start of the financial year and adds on the new engagements each month thereafter.

16

16

DA 8: Perceptions of drunk or rowdy behaviour as a problem - Neighbourhood Surveys DA 9: Reduce the rate of increase in hospital admissions per 100,000 for alcohol related harm This indicator measures the year-on-year percentage change in the rate of alcohol related admissions per 100,000 population using Hospital Episode Statistics. DA 10: Reduce number of alcohol specific hospital admissions Measures the number of admissions into hospital for alcohol specific conditions i.e. the cause is entirely attributable to alcohol. DA11: Reduce the number of substance specific hospital admissions of Young People. Measures the number of admissions into hospital for drug and/or alcohol specific conditions i.e. the cause is entirely attributable to substances. This will be broken down to either drugs or alcohol.

2.3.2 Highlights and Exceptions - Drugs Q3 results from the GMP Neighbourhood Survey Report show 11.4% of residents perceive drug use/dealing to be a very or fairly big problem. There has been a 1.4% point improvement from Quarter two. DA1 continues to fall albeit a slower decline than last year. This is a trend that is reflected across Greater Manchester (except Wigan with a very small increase) and indeed Nationally and is now backed by a report from the National Treatment Agency that highlights the fall in the number of Opiate and Crack users in the country. The proportion of successful completions (DA3) in Rochdale has started to improve although still not achieving the top quartile for our cluster. We do compare favourably with other areas in Greater Manchester. DA5 shows that the number of offences committed by our cohort of drug related offenders has fallen in quarter 2 and it is worth noting that 27 of the total offences year to date have been committed by 4 individuals. Of the total number of those that have re-offended 24% are engaged in treatment services (drug or alcohol) 27% are previously known to services but 49% are completely treatment naive. How we compare with Greater Manchester This table shows how our performance currently compares with that of our neighbours across Greater Manchester, using the year-to-date methodology.

Opiate / Crack Users

Cluster Group

Number in Effective (rolling)

Trend Number of Exits (rolling)

% Planned Exits

Successes as proportion

New treatment journeys 12/13

% effectively engaged

Trafford B 410 â 89 52% 8.3% 66 88%

Stockport B 702 â 153 37% 9.3% 102 84%

Bury C 535 â 138 40% 8.7% 98 85%

Salford C 797 â 169 44% 7.8% 122 94%

Tameside C 877 â 212 42% 10.4% 137 92%

Wigan C 1114 á 221 40% 7.0% 198 91%

Oldham D 817 â 217 44% 10.6% 119 86%

Rochdale D 993 â 229 36% 8.5% 151 86%

Manchester E 2671 â 804 30% 7.1% 295 84%

Bolton E 1310 â 334 33% 6.3% 182 79%

17

17

How we compare – This table shows how our current performance on ‘DA 4 Perception of Drug use/dealing’ compares with that of our neighbouring Boroughs across Greater Manchester.

Perception of Drug use/dealing – Divisional Breakdown


Quarter 2 2012/13

Quarter 3 2012/13

Quarter 4 2012/13

% Variance from Q2

North Manchester

20.8% 18.9% 16.7% = 11 -2.2

Rochdale 12.9% 12.8% 11.4% = 5 -1.4

Salford 11.9% 10.9% 10.0% = 4 -0.9

Trafford 5.5% 5.7% 5.5% = 1 -0.2

Wigan 13.6% 13.6% 13.4% = 9 -0.2

Oldham 19.2% 18.8% 18.7% = 12 -0.1

Greater Manchester

12.7% 12.4% 12.3% = 7 -0.1

Bury 8.4% 8.6% 8.8% = 2 +0.2

Bolton 15.3% 14.6% 15.2% = 10 +0.6

Tameside 10.0% 9.1% 9.8% = 3 +0.7

Stockport 10.6% 10.6% 11.5% = 6 +0.9

South Manchester

11.4% 11.8% 12.9% = 8 +1.1

2.3.3 Highlights and Exceptions – Alcohol Q3 results from the GMP Neighbourhood Survey Report show 5.4% of people currently perceive drunk or rowdy behaviour to be a problem, compared to 5.9% this time last year. Continuing the trend from 2011/12 Rochdale has seen significant improvement on DA9 target. The target was to reduce the rate of increase and in reality we have actually reduced the actual increase – currently by 13%. The number of alcohol Specific Hospital admissions (DA10) is also showing a very positive declining trend as are the number of young people admitted to hospital for Substance specific issues. How we compare The data for Quarter One Hospital related admissions has just been released (Jan 13). The table below shows the actual number of admissions in the year and compares the change since the previous year. Rochdale continues to be the greatest improver.

% change since Q1 2011/12 Actual numbers Q1 2012/13

Rochdale -13% 1395

Oldham -12% 1274

Bury -11% 1099

Manchester -3% 3153

Salford -1% 2076

Trafford +2% 1370

Stockport +5% 2047

Tameside +7% 1667

Wigan +1% 2732

Bolton +4% 1613

18

18

2.3.4 Action Plan Update

Crime Section

• DA5 monitoring exercise , although at an early stage, indicates that the trend for the cohort is reduced numbers of crimes, reduced individuals committing crime and a reduced percentage re-offending for those in treatment.

• Continuing to manage and plan for potential change within DIP.

• DIRWEB have served notice on their intention to cease collating data for Test on Arrest, Required Assessments etc. which increases uncertainty regarding DIP.

• Reviewing the processes whereby we engage people on a voluntary basis within the Magistrates Court

• Continuing to press for other ways of engaging offenders in treatment – conditional street cautions for example

Adult Treatment

• Service Reviews of High Level, Renaissance, CRI Reach and Pennine Care completed

• Bi-annual SLA reviews completed for all services

• Increased number of current and ex service users employed in voluntary and paid capacities through out the treatment services

• Number of successful discharges for the Borough have increased

• Number of representations back into the treatment system have decreased

• Service Directories updated and distributed through out the Borough

• New breakfast club established in Falinge to engage treatment naïve

• Increased referrals to the Recovery service

• Exodus programme launched to engage with clients in long term treatment, to encourage recovery

• Harm Minimisation specification currently being revised

• Workshops carried out with all providers in relation to monitoring and improving exit outcomes Alcohol Action Plan Update

• School based education programmes ongoing – 36 school based staff trained on drugs and alcohol this quarter.

• Alcohol liaison project within the acute trust is hoped to be up and running in March – providers will be involved soon.

• Training has started for screening and brief interventions being included in the NHS Health Checks.

• Drug and alcohol awareness sessions are ongoing – another 36 staff attended.

• Proxy watch scheme development has commenced.

• Response completed to the national alcohol strategy consultation. Consulted with RSCP, PSRB and Health and Wellbeing Board.

• Regional Innovation Fund Pilot that worked with frequent attender's at hospital has been completed. Evaluation will follow.

• Annual Alcohol Needs Assessment update completed. Young People’s Action Plan Update

• Comprehensive review of Young Peoples substance misuse service complete.

• Work taking place to improve links between school nurses and Early Break. Hopwood Hall College now have a young people’s nurse and will refer also to Early Break.

• Early Break linking in with Alcohol Concern’s research into what brands of drinks young people are attracted to. Adam will send details of this to the group.

• Young people’s needs assessment underway.

19

19

PRIORITY 3: REDUCE THE HARM CAUSED BY DRUGS AND ALCOHOL

Indicator Title


Actual 2010-11

Actual 2011-12

Target 2012-13

Q1 April-June 2012

Q2 July-Sept 2012

Q3 Oct-Dec 2012

Q4 Jan-Mar 2013

Year to date

Year-end projection



DA1 - Increase the number of OCUs (opiate or crack users) recorded as being in effective treatment

NB: From 2012/13 subject to inclusion in the Public Health Outcomes Framework

High 1122 1030

1052 2% increase

1028 1007 993 (Nov)

993 993

Off Track

Declining

DA2 - Increase the number of problem drug users (all types drugs) recorded as being in effective treatment

High 1363 1325

1353 1341 1295 1277 1277 1277

Off Track

Declining

DA3a – Successful completions as a percentage of total number in treatment (opiate)

High Not measured

7.7% 10% to 16% (cluster)

7.6% 7.7% 8.5% 8.5% 9.5%

Off Track

Improving

DA3b – Proportion who successfully completed treatment and re-present (opiate)

Low Not measured

14% 17% to 10% (cluster)

15.2% 23.9% 20% 20% 17%

Off Track

Improving

DA4 - Reduce the percentage of the public who perceive drug use or dealing to be a problem in their area

Low 22.5% 13.8% 11% 12.9% 12.8% 11.4% 11.4% 11.4% Just Off Track

Improving

DA5 - Reduce the rate of drug-related (Class A) offending rate

Low Not measured

n/a n/a 57 / 297 19% Reoffended

54/298 18%

44/298 15%

44/298 44/298 On Track

Improving

DA6 - Increase the number of substance misusing Young People to have received an effective treatment intervention’

High 278 225 250 77 111 119 (Nov)

119 143

Off Track

Declining

DA7 - Increase the number of effective treatment intervention for alcohol misuse

High 1333 1417 1470 639 931 1104 (Nov)

1104

1470

On Track

Improving

20

20

Indicator Title


Actual 2010-11

Actual 2011-12

Target 2012-13

Q1 April-June 2012

Q2 July-Sept 2012

Q3 Oct-Dec 2012

Q4 Jan-Mar 2013

Year to date

Year-end projection



DA8 - Reduce the percentage of people who perceive drunk or rowdy behaviour to be a problem in their area

Low 14.9% 6.5% 6% 6.0% 5.5% 5.4% 5.4% 5.4% On Track

Improving

DA9 – Reduce the rate of increase in hospital admissions per 100,000 for alcohol related harm

NB: From 2012/13 subject to inclusion in the Public Health Outcomes Framework

Low 2832 3.75% increase

2714 4% decrease

3030 Reduce rate of increase by 2%

603 13% decrease on last year (Jan 13)

time-lag with reporting

time-lag with reporting

603 2412

On Track

Improving

DA10 – Reduce the number of alcohol-specific hospital admissions

Low 1928 2058 Reduce 483 385 time-lag with reporting

868 1736 On Track

Improving

DA11 – Reduce the number of substance specific hospital admissions of Young People (ALCOHOL)

Low 46

33

30 5

6 time-lag with reporting

11 22 On Track

Improving

DA11 – Reduce the number of substance specific hospital admissions of Young People (DRUGS)

Low 149 129 105 25 25 time-lag with reporting

50 100 On Track

Improving

Note: - DA 1 – Due to the extensive and ongoing delay in the reporting schedule it has been agreed to report the most recent quarter available (i.e. Q1 2012/12 will report on April 11 – Mar 12 data available 1st August). DA 2 – as per DA1 now reporting the most recent quarter available DA3a and 3b – The NTA have clustered DAATs into groups depending on the complexity and deprivation of the areas. Rochdale are in Group D. The target is that we are within the Top quartile for our cluster group therefore the actual target will change as the year progresses depending on how our comparable areas are performing. DA 5 – New cohort of 297 Offenders arrested in 2011/12 for either drug related offences or testing positive on arrest for Class A. 49% of these offenders are completely unknown to Rochdale treatment services

21

21

STRATEGIC PRIORITY 4 – PREVENT AND TACKLE ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR

2.4.1 Highlights and Exceptions Results from the Neighbourhood Survey this quarter show perceptions of ASB have fallen to 2.5%, equating to 1.5 percentage points below this year’s target of 4%. When compared to the same period last year, with perceptions at 5.0%, there has been 2.5 percentage point improvement. This quarter results from the Neighbourhood Survey show 85.4% of respondents felt they had confidence in Police and agencies, compared to 84.8% in Q2. Performance is on track and slightly ahead of this year’s target (85%). At the same point last year with the result at 80.1%, equating to a 5.3% point improvement. There have been 2726 anti-social behaviour incidents reported this quarter, compared to 2916 in the same period last year, equating to 190 fewer incidents (6.5% improvement). On a straight line projection figures are showing performance as off track to achieving this year’s target of 12289. However based on past performance it is likely target may just be achieved. There have been 660 criminal damage incidents reported this quarter, compared to 774 in the same period last year, equating to 114 fewer incidents (14.7% improvement. This quarter there have been 144 deliberate secondary fires compared to 157 in the same period of last year, with 13 less fires this equates to an improvement of 8%. The worst performing ward is West Middleton, with 21 incidents starting in the Langley area of Middleton (approximately 15% of all deliberate secondary fires).

How we compare – Criminal Damage & Arson These tables show how our current performance on criminal damage and arson compares with that of our neighbouring Boroughs across Greater Manchester.

Criminal Damage and Arson

Borough Oct - Dec 2012 Oct - Dec 2011 No of crimes % change

Trafford 389 519 -130 -25.0%

Tameside 568 754 -186 -24.7%

Oldham 569 727 -158 -21.7%

Stockport 653 829 -176 -21.2%

Wigan 808 992 -184 -18.5%

Bolton 731 865 -134 -15.5%

Rochdale 660 774 -114 -14.7%

Manchester 1611 1878 -267 -14.2%

Salford 769 852 -83 -9.7%

Bury 469 511 -42 -8.2%




Tameside 1708 2294 -586 -25.5

Trafford 1173 1535 -362 -23.6

Rochdale 2070 2589 -519 -20.0

Manchester 4713 5863 -1150 -19.6

Bury 1415 1691 -276 -16.3

Salford 2269 2697 -428 -15.9

Bolton 2393 2831 -438 -15.5

Stockport 2024 2348 -324 -13.8

Wigan 2554 2950 -396 -13.4

Oldham 2159 2343 -184 -7.9

Greater Man 22502 27171 -4669 -17.2 The year to date figures above show Rochdale has the 3

rd highest reduction, with 519 less incidents, showing

a 20% reduction across the AGMA authorities.

22

22

How we compare – Anti-social behaviour

Anti-social behaviour

Borough Oct - Dec 2012 Oct - Dec 2011 ASB % change

Trafford 1251 1826 -575 -31.5%

Oldham 2420 2997 -577 -19.3%

Salford 2298 2845 -547 -19.2%

Wigan 3065 3470 -405 -11.7%

Rochdale 2726 2916 -190 -6.5%

Tameside 2965 3138 -173 -5.5%

Bury 1783 1756 27 +1.5%

Manchester 7897 7390 507 +6.9%

Stockport 3040 2801 239 +8.5%

Bolton 3384 2794 590 +21.1%




Trafford 4528 6500 -1972 -30.3

Salford 7466 9759 -2293 -23.5

Wigan 9982 12709 -2727 -21.5

Oldham 8588 10655 -2067 -19.4

Tameside 9836 11422 -1586 -13.9

Bolton 10372 11930 -1558 -13.1

Rochdale 9395 10195 -800 -7.8

Manchester 23943 25554 -1611 -6.3

Bury 6000 6279 -279 -4.4

Stockport 9086 9435 -349 -3.7

Greater Man 100511 116375 -15864 -13.6

The year to date figures above show Rochdale is in 7

th position, with 800 fewer incidents, showing a 7.8%

reduction reported across the AGMA authorities.

How we compare - This table shows how our current performance on ‘ASB1 Perceptions of High ASB’ compares with that of our neighbouring Boroughs across Greater Manchester.

Perception of High ASB – Divisional Breakdown

Division Q1 2012/13 Q2 2012/13 Q3 2012/13 Q4 2012/13 % Variance from Q2

North Man 7.8% 6.7% 5.0% = 11 -1.7

Rochdale 3.3% 3.3% 2.5% = 4 -0.8

Salford 5.2% 4.6% 3.9% = 8 -0.7

Oldham 4.8% 4.9% 4.5% = 10 -0.4

Trafford 1.8% 1.7% 1.3% = 1 -0.4

Greater Man 3.8% 3.5% 3.2% = 6 -0.3

Bolton 4.3% 4.5% 4.3% = 9 -0.2

Bury 2.2% 2.1% 2.1% = 2 No change

Wigan 3.1% 2.2% 2.3% = 3 +0.1

Tameside 2.2% 2.0% 2.1% = 2 +0.1

Stockport 2.7% 2.6% 2.8% = 5 +0.2

South Man 3.7% 3.4% 3.7% = 7 +0.3 NB – this measure uses data that relates to those categories of ASB that are included in the question asked of residents in the GMP Neighbourhood Survey and also used in the British Crime Survey. These include: rowdy & inconsiderate behaviour, abandoned and burnt out vehicles, littering, noisy neighbours, solvent abuse and drinking on the street

23

23


Introduction The following reports sets out performance highlights in relation to the PaTASBPG Priority Group action plans for the period October- December 2012. Objective Promote and deliver activity to tackle environmental anti social behaviour. There have been an increase in the number of patrols to identify littering and dog fouling incidents of approximately 20% in quarter three. There have been a reduction in the number of service requests received in relation to dog fouling and littering and problematic areas which are identified by the partnership are being benchmarked to identify priorities. There has also been an increase in the number of community engagement events over this quarter with meetings and events seeing a 50% increase in attendance in comparison to previous year. The service also engaged with the Operation Treacle initiative over this quarter, three organised events where provided across the Borough and well attended. This combined with the removal of any unauthorised bonfires assisted in reducing anti social behaviour during the bonfire period. Make full use of closure legislation in response to anti social behaviour. During this quarter the partnership has continued to make full of all available legislation in regards to closure powers. This has included completion of two further alley gating schemes with six at planning stage and awaiting manufactory completion which will take place during quarter four. There are currently five priority schemes ongoing across the Borough which includes application for Gating Orders. During this quarter there has also been successful use of ASB legislation to closure a further premises where issues of ASB continued to be a problem for the local community, this property will remain closed for a period of three months. Co-ordinate and implement Greater Manchester initiatives at a local level. During this quarter the partnership has developed and implemented the Operation Treacle initiative, this involved a number of partners and ran alongside the established Good Guys schemes. A number of elements were included in the initiative for example; presentations to schools by GMFRS and GMP which raised awareness of safety to over 5,000 pupils within the Borough, joint visits were made to retailers who sold fireworks to ensure they complied with regulations. The Trading Standards team carried out test purchases in regards to fireworks sales and also signed up a number of responsible retailers to the local Good Guys scheme. A number of organised events engaged with young people to deter them from engaging in ASB over the bonfire and Halloween period with the youth services and environmental management provided activities and events within identified hotspot locations. The initiative has shown some impressive results with the Borough exceeding the Greater Manchester targets, overall ASB reduced by nearly 23% in comparison with last year, reductions have been achieved in all categories including criminal damage, secondary and primary fires and firework related incidents. (A full de-brief is available upon request). Work is also ongoing in response to the most recent draft ASB legislation; a sub group is currently developing a series of timetables for each service which is responsible for implementation of various aspects of the bill. The next meeting will be held in March where all services will present their timetables for implementation and agree decision making and ratification processes.

24

24

PRIORITY 4: PREVENT AND TACKLE ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR

Indicator Title


Actual 2010-11

Actual 2011/12

Target 2012/13

Q1 April-June 2012

Q2 July-Sept 2012

Q3 Oct-Dec 2012

Q4 Jan-Mar 2013

Year to date

Year-end projection



ASB1 - Reduce the percentage of people who perceive there to be high levels of anti social behaviour in their area

Low 9.7% 3.9% 4% 3.3% 3.3% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5%

On Track Improving

ASB2 - Increase the level of public confidence that agencies understand the anti social behaviour and crime problems in their area

High 67.9% 83.3% 85% 85.5% 84.8% 85.4% 85.4% 85.4%

On Track Improving

ASB3 - Reduce the number of anti-social behaviour incidents recorded by the police in the Borough

Low 14423 12936 12289 3328 3453 2726 9507 12676

Off Track Improving

ASB4 - Reduce the number of criminal damage incidents recorded by the police in the Borough

Low 3914 3357 3156 730 682 660 2072 2763

On Track Improving

ASB5 - Reduce the number of deliberate secondary fires recorded in the Borough (per 10,000 population)

Low 47.97 982 fires

38.8 794 fires

36.9 756 fires

7.4 152 fires

6.4 131 fires

7.0 144 fires

20.9 427 fires

27.8 569 fires On Track Improving

25

25

STRATEGIC PRIORITY 5 – PREVENT OFFENDING BY CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE 2.5.1 Highlights and exceptions Note: YP1a, 1b and 1c – with data collection and reporting there is normally a quarter’s delay in the re-offending data. The data for these indicators is provided from Youth Justice Board (YJB) and collected from Police National Computers (PNC). Currently the Youth Offending Team do not have access to PNC (so cannot check over 18 year olds that have offended) and therefore are unable to provide up to date data. Most recent data provided by YJB relates to January 2009 – December 2009 and January 2010 – December 2010, as per the table below (results for Oct-Sept 2008/09 and 2009-10 also shown).

YOT Number in cohort

Re-offenders Re-offences Offences / Offender

% Re-offending

Oct 2008 – Sept 2009

Rochdale 573 213 744 1.3 37.2

Oct 2009 – Sept 2010

417 183 692 1.66 43.9

YOT Number in cohort

Re-offenders Re-offences Offences / Offender

% Re-offending

Jan 2009 – Dec 2009

Rochdale 562 209 720 1.28 37.2

Jan 2010 – Dec 2010

354 162 631 1.78 45.8

The number of young people recorded as being first time entrants to the YJS this quarter is 19, compared to 32 in the same period last year. Please note the Youth Justice Board (YJB) is using a different data – Q3 data is local data. The Q3 results show there have been 3 custodial sentences out of 61 convictions; the reduction is to a level of 4.9%, lower than this year’s target of 7%. Also when compared to the same period last year, the reduction level was 6.3%, with 5 custodial sentences out of 79 convictions (equating to a 1.4 percentage point improvement). Please note the Youth Justice Board (YJB) is using a different data – Q3 data is local data. Young people’s participation in positive activities results this quarter show 3989 (84%) young people have been contacted against a target of 4761. And of those contacted 2287 (82%) young people have been further engaged against a target of 2777. The annual target set is to reach 24% of the 13-19 population as contacts and 14% of the 13-19 population as participants. The percentage of young offenders engaged in suitable education, employment or training (EET) has increased from 72.9% in Q2 to 74.4% this quarter. When compared to the same period last year there has been a 3.6 percentage point improvement, with the result at 70.8%. Please note the Youth Justice Board (YJB) is using a different data – Q3 data is local data.

26

26


The YOT continues to provide management support to Bury Youth Offending Service, enabling a consistent delivery of Services to Youth Court and Custody Suite, both of which are situated in Bury. The YOT has also nominated a virtual; team member for the Sunrise team, helping to deliver the boroughs Child sexual exploitation strategy effectively. As the performance indicator for re-offending is still causing concern, the YOT are working closely with the Probation Service to contribute to the Intensive alternative to custody project that is to be introduced during this year (2013). This will target those most vulnerable and at risk of re-offending by providing better support for those going through the transitions from YOT to Probation. The YOT have 30 young people attending the ‘Mum can you lend twenty quid’ play on the 20th February. This play is designed to highlight the issues of drug use within a family and the dramatic consequences for individuals within it. The Youth Service continues to engage with high numbers of young people; contacting 3989 young people by the end of the third quarter this year, which exceeds the target set. Youth Workers have been deployed to engage with young people in areas of high youth nuisance across the borough, working closely with the Police and other partner organisations in order to prevent young people’s engagement in anti-social behaviour. In terms of Community Cohesion, disabled young people from across the borough launched their own Youth Forum this month presenting a real opportunity for their voice to be heard and acted upon. The Youth Service has played a lead role in delivering Child Sexual Exploitation training sessions to young people this year and recently to over 400 staff, a similar programme is now being delivered to parents.

27

27

PRIORITY 5: PREVENT OFFENDING BY CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE

Indicator Title


Actual 2010-11

Actual 2011-12

Target 2012-13

Q1 April-June 2012

Q2 July-Sept 2012

Q3 Oct-Dec 2012

Q4 Jan-Mar 2013

Year to date

Year-end projection


Direction of travel

from 11-12

YP1a – To reduce re-offences committed as a proportion of the number of offenders in the original cohort

(NB: subject to continued availability of local data from Police National Computer)

Low 1.53 201/131

1.38 131/95

<1.38 n/a – issues with access to PNC data

n/a – issues with access to PNC data

n/a – issues with access to PNC data

N/A N/A

N/A N/A

YP1b – To improve the percentage reduction in re-offending compared to the previous year

Low 36.5% -10.1% tbc n/a – as above

n/a – as above

n/a – as above

N/A N/A

N/A N/A

YP1c – To reduce the number of individuals within the annual cohort who are responsible for re-offending

Low 43.5% 57/131

46.3% 44/95

<46.3% n/a – as above

n/a – as above

n/a – as above

N/A N/A

N/A N/A

YP2 - Reducing the number of young people who are first time entrants to the YJS

Low 110 * with PNC data to be added

143 136 (5%

reduction)

23 13 19 55 73 On Track

Improving

YP3 - Reducing the percentage of 16-18 year olds not in education, employment or training (NEET)

NB: subject to outcome of D of E data review

Low 9.16% (average for Nov 2010 – Jan 2011)

7.2% 6.7% 8.3% 6.9% 6.4% 6.4% 6.4%

On Track

Improving

YP4 - Ensuring that numbers of custodial sentences are proportionate to the overall number of young people’s convictions

Low 9.2% 8.2% 33/401

7% 6.3% 5/80

10.1% 7/69

4.9% 3/61

7.1% 15/210

7.1% 15/210

On Track

Improving

YP 5 - Ensuring young people's participation in positive activities

NB: This will be subject to review after 2011-12 if collection method is removed

High n/a revised target

5949 29.98% contacts

2650 13.36% part

4761 24% contacts

2777 14% part

1752 37% contacts

897 32% part

3088 65% contacts

1600 58% part

3989 84% contacts

2287 82% part

3989 84% contacts

2287 82% part

4761

2777

On Track

Improving

YP 6 – Increase the percentage of young offenders engaged in suitable education, employment or training (EET).

High 77.1% 236/306

73.4% 204/278

90% 74.1% 40/54

72.9% 43/59

74.4% 35/47

73.8% 118/160

73.8% 118/160

Off Track

Improving

28

28

Notes: YP3 – top figure in baseline / target columns is using residency model, i.e. % of 16-18 year olds that live in Rochdale that are NEET. Bottom figure is national model, i.e. % of 16-18 year olds that live in Rochdale that are NEET in Rochdale. This model excludes those who are in education employment or training out of the Borough. Target figures are based on the November – January average for NEETs. To provide a more accurate picture of performance, and take account of seasonal variations, it has been agreed with the Priority Group Chair that data should be presented on the basis of tables that show month-by-month percentage figures and compare with those for the same months in preceding years.

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec

2009 10.5% 11.9% 11.2% 11.7% 12.2% 12.1% 12.8% 13.3% 11.1% 11.8% 10.7% 9.8%

2010 9.9% 10.6% 10.7% 11.4% 12.9% 11.8% 12.7% 13.0% 10.7% 11.1% 9.4% 8.4%

2011 8.7% 9.1% 7.2% 7.2% 7.4% 8.2% 9.1% 9.4% 7.2% 7.6% 7.1% 6.3%

2012 6.7% 7% 7.2% 7.4% 7.7% 8.3% 9.1% 9.1% 6.9%

29

29

STRATEGIC PRIORITY 6 – REDUCE ADULT RE-OFFENDING

2.6.1 Highlights and exceptions Please Note:

• AR1 ‘reduce the level of proven re-offending by adult offenders under probation supervision’. This indicator has been removed until a new measure is announced by MOJ and new data is made available

• AR2 ‘reduce the re-offending rate of prolific and priority offenders’. Same as AR1.

• AR5 – has been replaced with a new measure on restorative justice – new measure has been discussed and agreed (with probation and GMP). Definitions for AR5a, b and c are attached at Appendix D (please refer to pages 43- 45), these are annual performance indicators and will be reported at year end (Q4) by probation and GMP.

• For Quarterly data averages may vary as ‘Cumulative results take into account late or corrected recordings from previous months, whereas individual monthly reported figures do not’.

• Targets for this year are Nationally set targets, which is why they are lower than previous year’s outturns.

All adult re-offending performance indicators are available for reporting, the indicators developed around the new measure restorative justice will be reported in the next quarter. Numbers of probation offenders living in settled and suitable accommodation has increased from 85.8% in Q2 to 89.2% this quarter. When compared to the same period last year there has been a significant improvement in performance, with the result at 78.3% - equating to 10.9 percentage point improvement. The numbers of probation offenders in employment at the end of their order/licence has declined from 67% in Q2 to 61.5% this quarter; however performance is ahead of this year’s target (39%). When compared to the same period last year, with the result at 49.9% we can see there has been a significant improvement in performance – equating to 11.6 percentage points. The percentage of orders/licences successfully completed result has fallen from 84.3% to 79.7% this quarter; however performance is ahead of this year’s target (70%). Also when compared to the same period last year there has been a 2.1 percentage point improvement, with the result at 77.6%. The percentage of 18-25 year olds successfully completing their orders has fallen from 79.5% to 72.5% this quarter; however performance is ahead of this year’s target (63.7). With the result at 64.0% at the same point last year, equating to a 8.5 percentage point improvement. The (ATR) Alcohol Treatment Requirement successful completions rate has declined from 88.8% in Q2 to 81.8% this quarter; however performance is ahead of this year’s target (60%). Also when compared to the same period last year with the result at 84.6%, we can see there has been a 2.8 percentage point decline in performance. The (DRR) Drug Rehabilitation Requirement successful completions rate has increased from 81.2% in Q2 to 81.8% this quarter. When compared to the same period last year with the result at 57.9% there has been a significant improvement of 23.9 percentage points.

30

30


AR3 - target of 80% met in Q3 by 89%. However we will have to be mindful of the impact of the welfare reforms which have not yet impacted on this area. Agreed that we will need to ensure that all providers are fully on board with offender management in terms of ensuring that all high priority areas such as IOM, and when IAC introduced have robust resettlement plans for those leaving custody especially. AR4 - Performance at 61% against target of 39%, again very good performance, especially given the financial climate. Projected to end on 63%. Work is ongoing to promote volunteering opportunities for offenders - 3 service user volunteers contribute to the running of a job club with the Probation Achieve Project which aims to get offenders into employment in Middleton, Heywood and Rochdale. A further development is that 3 volunteers who have been trained and supervised by RMBC (Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council) are contributing to the running of the Probation Supervision Centre. The Prison Advice Care Trust (PACT) won the NOMs contract to pilot a National Volunteer Project for GMPT in Rochdale Bury and Oldham. GMPT contributed £30,000 towards the bid. Rochdale Borough will be at the hub of the national roll out. Additionally Probation and other partners including the Local Authority are developing specific services for 18-25 year old cohort- This will include ETE provision, and we are hoping that the success of the IAC NOMS model in Manchester/Salford will be replicated in Rochdale, whereby employment outcomes averaged between 30 % and 45 %, i.e. young people into long term sustained employment. AR5 – reported at year end. AR6 - performance at 79%, which represents very good performance given the challenging nature of this stretch target i.e. compliance and engagement of complex high risk offenders. Projected to end on year 81%. AR7- 72% performance is good performance in terms of engaging offenders and completion of the sentence. AR8 - The success rate of Alcohol Treatment Requirements (ATRs) are a relatively new indicator added to Strategic Priority 6 and continue to be a resounding success in the Borough. Q3 running at 81% with yr end predicted to be 80%.

31

31

PRIORITY 6: REDUCE ADULT RE-OFFENDING

Indicator Title


Actual 2010-11

Actual 2011-12

Target 2012-13*

Q1 April-June 2012

Q2 July-Sept 2012

Q3 Oct-Dec 2012

Q4 Jan-Mar 2013

Year to date

Year-end projection



AR3 - Increase the number of offenders under Probation supervision living in settled and suitable accommodation at the end of their order or license

High 87.8% 89.2% 80%

85.8% 85.8% 89.2% 86.7% 88%

On Track

Declining

AR4 - Increase the number of offenders under Probation supervision in employment at the end of their order or license

High 47.5% 46.4% 39% 50.6% 67% 61.5% 59.6% 63.1%

On Track

Improving

AR5a – Re-offending rate of Tier One Restorative Offenders

Low New measure

New measure

tbc New measure – reported at Q4

New measure – reported at Q4

New measure – reported at Q4

N/A N/A

N/A N/A

AR5b – Re-offending rate of Tier Three Restorative Justice Offenders

Low New measure

New measure

tbc As above As above As above N/A N/A

N/A N/A

AR5c – Victim Satisfaction with the Restorative Justice Programme

High New measure

New measure

tbc As above As above As above N/A N/A

N/A N/A

AR6 – Percentage of order or licences that are successfully completed

High 78.4% 77.8% 70%

79.3% 84.3% 79.7% 81.2% 84% On Track

Improving

AR7 – Percentage of successful completions by 18-25 year olds

High 73% 71.5% 63.7% 81.3% 79.5% 72.5% 77.8% 72% On Track

Improving

AR8 – Alcohol Treatment Requirement successful completion rates

High 72% 76.3% 60% 70% 88.8% 81.8% 80% 88% On Track

Improving

AR9 – Drug Rehabilitation Requirement successful completion rates

High 57% 58.4% 50% 50% 81.2% 81.8% 70.7% 73.4% On Track

Improving

32

32

STRATEGIC PRIORITY 7 – DEVELOPING COMMUNITY COHESION

2.7.1 Quick Summary The disbanding of the Consequence Management Team and appointment of the new post of Cohesive Communities Officer has meant that much work has been undertaken to develop cohesion work and new approaches that can be used in the borough to take us forward. During this quarter a briefing paper and action plan has been presented outlining these frameworks and actions to the following people and groups:

• Prior to her departure Executive Director Pam Smith

• Councillor Sultan Ali portfolio holder for Strengthening Communities

• RSCP

• Cohesive Communities Priority group

• Customers and Communities Senior Leadership Team Negotiations are also ongoing with the Police for the development of a Cohesion Hub and the above framework and action plan will inform its engagement with communities and work in the short, medium and long term. A full report will be presented to the Performance Board once these discussions have taken place and the way forward has been agreed across Senior Officers and Elected Members.

2.7.2 Highlights and exceptions

During this period 11 tension monitoring forms have been received from a number of sources including Police Neighbourhood Teams and housing providers. The overall rating for this period has fallen from 4 “Moderate” in November 2012 to 5 “Above Normal” in January 2013 indicating a reduction in community tensions.

Tension monitoring for this quarter will be submitted separately from this document.

2.7.3 Action Plan Update Far Right Mapping Areas identified in Mat Goodwin’s report have been mapped and key contacts have been visited and a number of activities are being planned including WRAP and Act Now training session and Philosophy for Communities. Township officers are engaged in the process. Facilitated discussion Peer mentoring and divisive narrative training has been completed and planning has begun to roll out Philosophy for Communities in a number of settings as above. Working with Host Communities and Asylum Seekers & Refuges All faith establishments in the borough have been contacted and a number of visits have been made to discuss contact with AS & R, and the reporting of hate crime and any issues that may cause tensions. A number of projects have been developed including a Living Library; work with Refugee Action to provide training to AS & R and a project with Shamwari to develop understanding with host communities about their experience of asylum. Hate Crime During this quarter a number of presentations have been given to groups in the borough this includes the AS & R forum and 8 disability groups to promote reporting and to consult on further areas of work around hate crime.

33

33

2.7.4 Hate Crime

Please note all figures are crimes and incidents.

The figures in the table show there have been 30 fewer hate crimes and incidents reported this quarter, when compared to the previous two quarters. When compared to the same period last year we can see there have been 17 fewer incidents, equating to a 19.5% reduction.

The figures this quarter show there has been a significant decrease in the number of hate crimes and incidents relating to race when compared to Q2, with 28 fewer crimes/incidents (31% decrease). There has also been a significant decrease in the disability category, with the result at zero this quarter compared to 5 in Q2. The notable increase this quarter relates to the sexual orientation category, with 5 more crimes and incidents than in Q2.

All partnership areas, with the exception of Littleborough, have had fewer crimes and incidents recorded this quarter compared to Q2. Middleton has the most notable decrease, compared to Q2 (15 fewer crimes and incidents) and when compared to the same period last year (8 fewer crimes and incidents). At Q2 there have been a total of 70 hate crimes and incidents, of which:-

• 74% were in Rochdale Township

• 6% were in Middleton Township

• 6% were in Heywood Township

• 14% were in Littleborough Township

Indicator Q1

11-12 Q2 11-12

Q3 11-12

Q4 11-12

Total Q1 12-13

Q2 12-13

Q3 12-13

Q4 12-13

Total

Total number of crimes & incidents recorded

106 97 87 91 381 100 100 70

Categories of crimes: § Race § Sexual orientation § Disability § Religion § Transgender § No motivation listed

90 13 5 0 0 0

88 8 0 1 0 0

82 1 3 1 0 0

82 1 7 1 0 0

342 23 15 3 0 0

87 4 1 1 1 6

91 1 5 2 1 1

63 6 0 1 0 1

Crimes by Police Partnership area:

§ Rochdale North § Rochdale South § Middleton § Heywood § Littleborough

25 26 17 11 27

31 21 13 10 22

26 27 12 9 13

25 33 9 19 5

107 107 51 49 67

29 29 13 15 14

35 26 19 11 9

30 22 4 4 10

34

34

PRIORITY 7 – DEVELOPING COMMUNITY COHESION

Indicator Title Best outcome low or high

Actual 2010-11

Actual 2011-12

Target 2012-13

Q1 April-June 2012

Q2 July-Sept 2012

Q3 Oct-Dec 2012

Q4 Jan-Mar 2013

Year to date

Year-end projection



CC1 - Percentage of people who believe people from different backgrounds get on well together in their local area

High n/a re-introduced target

87.5% 89% 88.0% 88.5% 89.5% 89.5% 89.5%

On Track Improving

Notes – The following performance indicators have been removed from the GMPs Neighbourhood Survey Report in order to reduce the overall length of the survey, therefore these will no longer be reported on.

• CC2 – percentage of people that believe they belong to their area

• CC3 – percentage of people that feel that people not treating each other with respect and consideration is a problem

35

35

Appendix A PRIORITY 2: REDUCE CRIME continued CRIME BY WARD

This table gives a picture of the most prevalent crime types across the Borough’s wards. The red shadings highlight the three worst wards for the crime type in each quarter.

Total Crime RC9 – Victim Based Crime RC10 - Stealing Crimes

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Tot Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Tot Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Tot

Rochdale Central 267 242 223 732 236 199 187 622 129 81 98 308

Bamford 98 150 122 370 93 131 109 333 65 83 69 217

Norden 68 104 78 250 63 87 66 216 47 57 37 141

Spotland & Falinge 208 214 195 617 180 191 161 532 96 96 93 285

Healey 116 112 103 331 98 96 87 281 44 56 54 154

Rochdale Town Centre 266 286 252 804 207 245 214 666 133 154 138 425

Kingsway 314 323 302 939 265 271 258 794 149 170 166 485

Milkstone & Deeplish 210 177 203 590 180 150 171 501 87 62 86 235

Balderstone & Kirkholt 255 250 227 732 222 204 196 622 105 103 103 311

Castleton 209 179 158 546 185 155 137 477 95 109 94 298

North Middleton 223 206 235 664 202 180 201 583 131 126 129 386

East Middleton 151 152 142 445 129 136 125 390 82 82 70 234

South Middleton 151 155 154 460 146 138 139 423 85 81 88 254

West Middleton 220 205 234 659 195 176 200 571 91 76 92 259

North Heywood 246 283 221 750 204 246 192 642 94 144 128 366

West Heywood 157 175 188 520 125 149 168 442 54 71 96 221

Hopwood Hall 76 87 99 262 61 70 81 212 37 41 51 129

Rhodes Triangle 9 10 10 29 7 8 8 23 3 3 5 11

Wardle & West Littleborough 110 114 122

346

94 81 102 277 66 52 72 190

Littleborough Lakeside 149 151 133 433 133 127 113 373 82 66 74 222

Milnrow & Newhey 147 118 131 396 89 93 112 294 63 59 60 182

Smallbridge & Firgrove 205 206 230 641 172 176 204 552 81 84 101 266

TOTAL 3855 3899 3762 11516 3286 3309 3231 9826 1819 1856 1904 5579

36

36

NI 16 BY WARD CONTINUED

RC11 - Violent Crime RC5 – Domestic Burglaries RC6 - Vehicle crimes

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Tot Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Tot Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Tot

Rochdale Central 55 62 53 170 25 11 19 55 36 20 25 81

Bamford 9 22 17 48 21 35 21 77 18 15 21 54

Norden 9 14 15 38 2 16 6 24 9 15 13 37

Spotland & Falinge 40 42 27 109 17 24 51 92 22 11 19 52

Healey 25 23 11 59 12 6 10 28 7 9 24 40

Rochdale Town Centre 53 65 50 168 0 0 13 13 8 6 6 20

Kingsway 53 42 25 120 31 30 14 75 28 45 47 120

Milkstone & Deeplish 44 45 37 126 13 7 37 57 14 17 22 53

Balderstone & Kirkholt 46 29 34 109 26 38 18 82 14 24 19 57

Castleton 41 19 21 81 15 22 26 63 23 26 21 70

North Middleton 32 26 31 89 17 20 34 71 24 22 22 68

East Middleton 16 22 25 63 22 15 11 48 19 25 24 68

South Middleton 33 26 28 87 17 6 9 32 24 18 18 60

West Middleton 49 44 46 139 13 18 21 52 20 23 28 71

North Heywood 61 53 33 147 9 26 15 50 18 25 32 75

West Heywood 30 40 23 93 5 6 21 32 14 21 26 61

Hopwood Hall 8 18 12 38 10 9 13 32 8 5 13 26

Rhodes Triangle 2 1 2 5 1 2 2 5 2 1 2 5

Wardle & West Littleborough 12 13 13

38 18 4 15 37 21 16 19 56

Littleborough Lakeside 15 27 21 63 15 11 13 39 14 14 18 46

Milnrow & Newhey 12 18 18 48 4 7 6 17 16 22 27 65

Smallbridge & Firgrove 39 49 40 128 27 20 20 67 13 22 23 58

TOTAL 684 700 582 1966 320 333 395 1048 372 402 469 1243

37

37

An Analysis has been provided below highlighting:-

• Wards with highest incidents in Q3 & position at Q2

• Wards with an increase from Q2 to Q3

• Wards with a decrease from Q2 to Q3

Total Crime RC9 – Victim Based Crime

Q1 Q2 Q3

Direction of Travel from previous Qtr

Q1 Q2 Q3


Wards with highest incidents in Q3 Wards with highest incidents in Q3

Kingsway 314 323 302 êêêê 6.5% decrease


Rochdale Town Centre

266 286 252 êêêê 11.9% decrease


207 245 214 êêêê 12.7% decrease

North Middleton

223 206 235 éééé 14.1% increase

Smallbridge & Firgrove

172 176 204 éééé 15.9% decrease

Wards with an increase from Q2 Wards with an increase from Q2

West Middleton

220 205 234 éééé 14.1% increase

West Middleton

195 176 200 éééé 13.6% increase

Milkstone & Deeplish

210 177 203 éééé 14.7% increase


180 150 171 éééé 14% increase


205 206 230 éééé 11.7% increase

North Middleton

202 180 201 éééé 11.7% increase

West Heywood

157 175 188 éééé 7.4% increase

Wardle & West Littleb


Milnrow & Newhey


West Heywood

125 149 168 éééé 12.8% increase

Hopwood Hall 76 87 99 éééé 13.8% increase

Milnrow & Newhey


Wardle & West Littlebo


Hopwood Hall


- - - - - South Middleton


Wards with a decrease from Q2 Wards with a decrease from Q2

North Heywood

246 283 221 êêêê 21.9% decrease

North Heywood

204 246 192 êêêê 22% decrease

Bamford 98 150 122 êêêê 18.7% decrease

Spotland & Falinge

180 191 161 êêêê 15.7% decrease

Norden 68 104 78 êêêê 25% decrease


Balderstone & Kirkholt

255 250 227 êêêê 9.2% decrease

Norden 63 87 66 êêêê 24.1% decrease

Castleton 209 179 158 êêêê 11.7% decrease


Spotland & Falinge


Littleborough Lakeside


Rochdale Central


Rochdale Central



149 151 133 êêêê 11.9% decrease

East Middleton


East Middleton


Healey 98 96 87 êêêê 9.4% decrease

Healey 116 112 103 êêêê 8% decrease



South Middleton


Rhodes Triangle

7 8 8 No change

Rhodes Triangle

9 10 10 No change

- - - - -

TOTAL 3855 3899 3762 êêêê 3.5% decrease


38

38

RC10 – Stealing Crimes RC11 – Violent Crime

Q1 Q2 Q3


Q1 Q2 Q3




Rochdale Central



133 154 138 êêêê 10.4% decrease



North Middleton


West Middleton



West Heywood






North Middleton


Wardle & West Littleborough


East Middleton

16 22 25

éééé 13.6% increase

Rochdale Central


South Middleton




Castleton 41 19 21 éééé 10.5% increase

West Middleton


Norden 9 14 15 éééé 7.1% increase


Rhodes Triangle




- - - - -

South Middleton


- - - - -

Rhodes Triangle


- - - - -

Milnrow & Newhey


- - - - -



North Heywood


North Heywood


West Heywood





Spotland & Falinge


East Middleton



Spotland & Falinge








105 103 103 No change

Hopwood Hall


- - - - - Littleborough Lakeside


- - - - - Bamford 9 22 17 êêêê 22.7% decrease

- - - - - Wardle &

West Littleborough

12 13 13 No change

- - - - - Milnrow & Newhey

12 18 18 No change

TOTAL 1819 1856 1904 éééé 2.6 % increase


39

39

RC5 – Domestic Burglaries RC6 - Vehicle crimes

Q1 Q2 Q3


Q1 Q2 Q3



Spotland & Falinge


Kingsway 28 45 47

éééé 4.4% increase



North Heywood


North Middleton


West Middleton



West Heywood


Healey 7 9 24 éééé 167% increase


0 0 13 éééé

Spotland & Falinge




Hopwood Hall


Rochdale Central


Bamford 18 15 21 éééé 40% increase

Castleton 15 22 26 éééé 18.2% increase

Milnrow & Newhey



West Heywood


Healey 12 6 10 éééé 66.7% increase

Rochdale Central


West Middleton




South Middleton








- - - - - Smallbridge & Firgrove


- - - - - Rhodes Triangle









Bamford 21 35 21 êêêê 40% decrease


North Heywood


East Middleton




8 6 6 No change

East Middleton


South Middleton

24 18 18 No change

Milnrow & Newhey


North Middleton

24 22 22 No change

Rhodes Triangle

1 2 2 No change - - - - -


27 20 20 No change - - - - -

TOTAL 320 333 395 éééé 18.6% increase

TOTAL 372 402 469 éééé 16.7% increase

40

40

Appendix B

Taken from the quarterly Neighbourhood Survey Reports is the ward level data for 2012/13 for the following targets:

• ASB 1 – Perceptions of high ASB

• DA 4 – Perceptions of drug use / dealing

• CS 3 – Ability to influence priorities

• CS 1 – Police and Council dealing with ASB and crime For each of the quarters the 5 best performing wards have been highlighted in green and the 5 worst performing wards have been highlighted in red.

Perception of ASB – 2012/2013 Perception of drug use/dealing – 2012/2013

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Change from Q2


Rochdale 3.3% 3.3% 2.5% êêêê 12.9% 12.8% 11.4% êêêê P1 Rochdale North

3.8% 4.3% 2.4% êêêê 15.5% 15.9% 13.5% êêêê

PC13 Bamford 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% No change

3.6% 4.8% 4.9% éééé

PC14 Healey 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% No change

8.4% 8.9% 3.8% êêêê

PC15 Norden 1.2% 1.2% 0.0% êêêê 3.7% 3.7% 0.0% êêêê PC16 R Cent 16.7% 19.0% 11.9% êêêê 59.5% 59.0% 56.6% êêêê PC17 RTC Not

available Not available

Not available

Not available

Not available

Not available

Not available

Not available

PC18 Spotland & Falinge

1.2% 1.2% 0.0% êêêê 1.2% 2.5% 1.2% êêêê

P2 Rochdale South

5.1% 3.3% 2.7% êêêê 20.3% 15.9% 16.0% éééé

PC19 Bald & Kirkholt

6.0% 4.8% 3.6% êêêê 17.7% 17.3% 20.0% éééé

PC20 Castleton

3.6% 3.6% 2.4% êêêê 10.8% 8.9% 6.3% êêêê

PC21 Kingsway

4.8% 3.5% 3.5% No change

20.8% 16.7% 19.8% éééé

PC22 Milkstone & Deeplish

6.0% 1.2% 1.2% No change

31.6% 20.8% 17.9% êêêê

P3 Middleton 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% No change

5.5% 6.6% 3.9% êêêê

PC04 East Mid 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% No change

0.0% 1.2% 1.2% No change

PC05 North Mid

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% No change

1.2% 1.2% 2.3% éééé

PC06 Rhodes Triangle

1.6% 2.0% 2.6% éééé 16.7% 27.1% 19.4% êêêê

PC07 South M 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% No change

2.4% 1.2% 1.2% No change

PC08 West M 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% No change

10.0% 11.0% 4.4% êêêê

P4 Heywood 2.9% 3.6% 4.0% éééé 13.0% 14.2% 13.7% êêêê PC01 Hopwood Hall

2.4% 2.4% 3.5% éééé 8.8% 12.7% 14.6% éééé

PC02 North H 2.5% 4.8% 4.8% No change

10.5% 12.5% 15.2% éééé

PC03 West H 3.8% 3.5% 3.5% No change

20.3% 17.3% 11.3% êêêê

P5 Pennine 4.5% 5.4% 3.9% êêêê 11.5% 12.3% 11.2% êêêê PC09 Littleborough Lakeside

8.3% 8.3% 4.8% êêêê 17.1% 18.4% 19.5% éééé

PC10 Milnrow & Newhey

1.2% 1.2% 0.0% êêêê 4.8% 4.8% 3.6% êêêê

PC11 Smallbridge & Firgrove

7.2% 9.6% 9.5% êêêê 14.9% 15.8% 13.9% êêêê

PC12 Wardle & West LittleB

1.2% 2.4% 1.2% êêêê 10.3% 11.1% 8.5% êêêê

41

41

Ability to Influence Priorities – 2012/2013

Police & Council dealing with ASB & Crime – 2012/2013



Rochdale 73.7% 73.5% 75.0% éééé 79.9% 80.9% 82.2% éééé

P1 Rochdale North

86.5% 85.0% 87.0% éééé 95.3% 96.4% 95.9% êêêê

PC13 Bamford 81.3% 74.4% 79.3% éééé 87.0% 91.4% 88.7% êêêê

PC14 Healey 78.2% 76.0% 76.3% éééé 96.4% 95.1% 96.3% éééé

PC15 Norden 98.8% 95.1% 95.2% éééé 98.8% 97.6% 97.6% No change

PC16 Rochdale Central

76.8% 84.3% 90.0% éééé 97.6% 98.8% 98.8% No change

PC17 Rochdale Town Centre

Not available

Not available

Not available

Not available

Not available

Not available

Not available

Not available

PC18 Spotland & Falinge

95.0% 93.8% 93.8% No change

96.1% 98.7% 97.4% êêêê

P2 Rochdale South

57.0% 61.1% 65.2% éééé 76.3% 80.0% 79.3% êêêê

PC19 Balderstone & Kirkholt

45.9% 53.3% 54.4% éééé 73.5% 78.5% 74.7% êêêê

PC20 Castleton

52.7% 51.6% 58.2% éééé 78.6% 78.3% 74.1% êêêê

PC21 Kingsway

56.3% 62.0% 67.1% éééé 71.4% 76.5% 78.8% éééé

PC22 Milkstone & Deeplish

72.9% 77.1% 81.1% éééé 81.7% 87.2% 89.7% éééé

P3 Middleton 95.5% 94.0% 93.9% êêêê 88.7% 88.3% 90.7% éééé

PC04 East Middleton

97.6% 92.9% 94.0% éééé 78.3% 75.9% 74.7% êêêê

PC05 North Middleton

97.6% 97.7% 96.5% êêêê 95.1% 96.3% 96.4% éééé

PC06 Rhodes Triangle (P3L6)

91.7% 89.6% 83.8% êêêê 80.3% 75.5% 86.5% éééé

PC07 South Middleton

96.3% 96.2% 96.2% No change

95.1% 97.5% 97.5% No change

PC08 West Middleton

93.3% 92.1% 93.3% éééé 92.3% 91.2% 95.6% éééé

P4 Heywood 54.5% 54.6% 56.1% éééé 64.3% 62.9% 65.6% éééé

PC01 Hopwood Hall

46.5% 45.9% 47.9% éééé 59.3% 58.0% 58.5% éééé

PC02 North Heywood

53.7% 54.4% 57.1% éééé 61.3% 60.2% 63.9% éééé

PC03 West Heywood

65.0% 65.1% 64.5% êêêê 73.0% 71.1% 75.0% éééé

P5 Pennine 54.4% 56.1% 57.0% éééé 65.0% 67.3% 70.5% éééé

PC09 Littleborough Lakeside

39.3% 41.5% 43.9% éééé 44.4% 48.1% 49.4% éééé

PC10 Milnrow & Newhey

68.4% 70.0% 69.6% êêêê 95.1% 93.9% 91.4% êêêê

PC11 Smallbridge & Firgrove

45.8% 53.1% 57.4% éééé 56.6% 55.4% 63.4% éééé

PC12 Wardle & West Littleborough

58.7% 56.3% 55.0% êêêê 63.6% 71.6% 78.1% éééé

42

42

Appendix C

CS2b ‘percentage of people who feel safe outside in their local area at night’ – Ward Level Data breakdown. The data in the table below is taken from the Rochdale Neighbourhood Survey Report. This reflects the percentage of people who felt safe outside in their local area at night – in order of highest % to the lowest at Quarter three.

Ward Quarter One Quarter Two Quarter Three

PC15 Norden 100% 100% 100%

PC18 Spotland & Falinge 96.4% 95.2% 95.2%

PC04 East Middleton 92.7% 91.6% 94%

PC08 West Middleton 91.2% 91.2% 93.4%

PC13 Bamford 92.9% 91.7% 92.9%

PC12 Wardle & West Littleborough 88.9% 86.6% 88.0%

PC10 Milnrow & Newhey 82.9% 87.5% 87.3%

PC20 Castleton 80% 81.3% 86.3%

P3 Middleton 87% 84.4% 83.3%

P1 Rochdale North 84.8% 83.2% 82.5%

PC07 South Middleton 81.7% 80.7% 80.7%

PC11 Smallbridge & Firgrove 74.7% 75.9% 79.3%

PC01 Hopwood Hall 85.5% 81.8% 78.8%

P5 Pennine 78.2% 78% 78.5%

Rochdale 80.6% 78.5% 78%

PC22 Milkstone & Deeplish 72.8% 70.7% 75.0%

PC06 Rhodes Triangle 88.5% 79.6% 73.7%

PC21 Kingsway 74.7% 74.7% 71.6%

P2 Rochdale South 72.1% 70.9% 71.3%

P4 Heywood 76.2% 70.8% 69.4%

PC05 North Middleton 81% 76.2% 68.3%

PC14 Healey 76.8% 69.1% 67.9%

PC02 North Heywood 67.2% 62.5% 66.2%

PC03 West Heywood 73.8% 66.2% 62.0%

PC09 Littleborough Lakeside 66.3% 61% 58.4%

PC16 Rochdale Central 58.3% 59.5% 56.0%

PC19 Balderstone & Kirkholt 61.4% 57.3% 52.5%

43

43

Appendix D AR5a, b & c - Definitions

AR5a: Re-offending rate of Tier One Restorative Justice Offenders

Rationale

Restorative Justice is an approach to justice that focuses on the needs of the victims and the

offenders, as well as the involved community, instead of satisfying abstract legal principles or

punishing the offender.

This measure seeks to identify how successful restorative justice as a technique is on preventing

re-offending, and more specifically re-offending of a similar nature to the original crime for which

the offender has participated in the Restorative Justice scheme.

Definition

The indicator measures the number of Tier One RJ Offenders who re-offend from the point of their

first offence to the end of the following financial year.

Formula

X = The number of Tier One Restorative Justice Participants In the preceding financial year, who

have re-offended from the point of their first offence, until 31st March of the current financial year.

y = The number of Tier One Restorative Justice Participants in the preceding financial year.

Example: In 2011-2012, there were 250 Tier One RJ participants throughout the year.

At 31st March 2013, we would look at those 250 and the date of their first offence (which could be

as early as 1st April 2011, or as late as 31st March 2012), and check for any subsequent re-

offences from that point until 31st March 2013.

If for example, 40 of those 250 had committed a further offence following their RJ intervention - the

calculation would be:

40 / 250 * 100 = 16%

Therefore the RJ interventions at Tier One would have an 84% success rate as the re-

offending rate is 16%.

Data

Source

Police data

Frequency This is not a rolling collection and has been designed to report at the end of each financial year for

ease of collection.

Further

Details

Further information that would be provided would be details or broad categories of the types of re-

offences committed.

44

44

AR5b: Re-offending rate of Tier Three Restorative Justice Offenders

Rationale




This measure seeks to identify how successful restorative justice as a technique is on preventing

re-offending, and more specifically re-offending of a similar nature to the original crime for which

the offender has participated in the Restorative Justice scheme.

Definition

The indicator measures the number of Tier Three RJ Offenders who re-offend from the point of

their first offence to the end of the following financial year.

Formula

X = The number of Tier Three Restorative Justice Participants In the preceding financial year, who

have re-offended from the point of their first offence, until 31st March of the current financial year.

y = The number of Tier Three Restorative Justice Participants in the preceding financial year.

Example: In 2011-2012, there were 10 Tier Three RJ participants throughout the year.

At 31st March 2013, we would look at those 10 and the date of their first offence (which could be

as early as 1st April 2011, or as late as 31st March 2012), and check for any subsequent re-

offences from that point until 31st March 2013.

If for example, 3 of those 10 had committed a further offence following their RJ intervention - the

calculation would be:

3 / 10 * 100 = 30%

Therefore the RJ interventions at Tier Three would have an 70% success rate as the re-

offending rate is 30%.

Data

Source

Police and Probation Data

Frequency This is not a rolling collection and has been designed to report at the end of each financial year for

ease of collection.

Further

Details

Further information that would be provided would be details or broad categories of the types of re-

offences committed.

45

45

AR5c: Victim Satisfaction with the Restorative Justice Programme

Rationale




This measure seeks to identify how successful restorative justice is from the victims perspective,

and whether they felt that the process and outcome was satisfactory from their perspective, as an

alternative to custody.

Definition

The indicator measures the number of victims of crime, who participate in Tier Three RJ

Interventions who indicate that they are satisfied with the outcome of the intervention.

Formula

Victims at Tier 3 will be asked, following the intervention, the following question:

How satisfied were you with the outcome of the Restorative Justice Process?

and will be asked to select one of the following responses

a) Very Satisfied

b) Satisfied

c) Not Satisfied

d) Very dissatisfied

The satisfaction rate will be the sum of those responding either a) or b) as a proportion of

all responses.

Example: If the responses were as follows

a) Very Satisfied 5

b) Satisfied 3

c) Not Satisfied 1

d) Very dissatisfied 1

The figure would be (5+3) / (5+3+1+1) = 80% satisfaction

Data

Source

Probation Tier 3 follow up data

Frequency This can be captured quarterly following Tier 3 interventions.

Further

Details

Further information that would be provided would be qualitative commentary from victims which

can be used as positive promotion or for learning

Performance Bulletindemocracy.rochdale.gov.uk/documents/s15413/RSCP Q3 Jan 2013 Perf… · period last year 2 presentations took place. Presentations delivered: The presentation was

Documents