Performance Bulletin APRIL 2016

1 2

Contents

Page

Part 1 Introduction 3 Purpose of document Data sources Key to abbreviations Definitions

Part 2 Performance by Strategic Priority

Priority 1 - Increase Confidence & Satisfaction 4 Highlights, exceptions, Action Plan update Performance tables Priority 2 - Reduce Crime 7 Highlights, exceptions, Action Plan update Performance tables Priority 3 - Reduce the harm caused by Drugs & Alcohol 10 Highlights, exceptions, Action Plan update Performance tables Priority 4 - Prevent and Tackle Anti-social Behaviour 14 Highlights, exceptions, Action Plan update Performance tables Priority 5 - Prevent Offending by Children & Young People 17 Highlights, exceptions, Action Plan update Performance tables Priority 6 - Reduce Adult Re-offending 19 Highlights, exceptions, Action Plan update Performance tables Priority 7 - Develop Community Cohesion 21

Appendix A Crime by Ward (22 ward results) 24 Appendix B Drug & Alcohol definitions 27

2 3

PART 1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Purpose of document

This is the fourth and final Performance Bulletin of 2015-2016, covering performance during Quarter 3, i.e. from 1st January to 31st March 2016 inclusive.

1.2 Data Sources

Data contained in this bulletin has been sourced from: Greater Manchester Police (Divisional and Force data), Drug and Alcohol Action Team, Youth Offending Team, Youth Service, National Probation Service, GM Fire & Rescue Service, Greater Manchester & Cheshire CRC, and the Community Safety Service.

1.3 Key to shading – Status Progress against Overall Target column

On Track (against this year’s target) Just Off Track (against this year’s target) Off Track (against this year’s target)

1.4 Direction of Travel

Improving (on last quarter) No Change (on last quarter) Declining (on last quarter)

3 4

PART 2 – PERFORMANCE BY STRATEGIC PRIORITY

STRATEGIC PRIORITY 1 – INCREASE CONFIDENCE & SATISFACTION

2.1.1 Highlights and Exceptions

 We have seen improvement in our overall satisfaction indicator, for the time in over a year, leaving us still with the third best overall rating in Greater Manchester  Of note at ward level were marked increases in satisfaction levels amongst respondents in Castleton, Kingsway, Milnrow & Newhey and West Heywood  Very little change this quarter in our other perception indicators, and we have ended the year in a virtually unchanged position from last year in all three of them

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 % pt Quarter 1 Quarter 2 Quarter 3 Quarter 4 Division variance 2015/16 2015/16 2015/16 2015/16 from Q3 Greater Manchester 66% 65% 65% 65% Nil North Manchester 71% 69% 67% 69% +2.0% South Manchester 54% 54% 54% 54% Nil Salford 72% 72% 73% 72% -1.0% Tameside 63% 62% 61% 62% +1.0% Stockport 66% 66% 65% 66% +1.0% Bolton 65% 64% 63% 64% +1.0% Wigan 61% 61% 60% 61% +1.0% Trafford 73% 74% 73% 74% +1.0% Bury 69% 67% 66% 67% +1.0% Oldham 71% 64% 63% 64% +1.0% Rochdale 71% 71% 68% 71% +3.0%

Influence on local priorities – Divisional Breakdown % pt Quarter 1 Quarter 2 Quarter 3 Quarter 4 Division variance 2015/16 2015/16 2015/16 2015/16 from Q3 Greater Manchester 54% 54% 54% 53% -1.0% North Manchester 56% 53% 52% 53% +1.0% South Manchester 50% 50% 48% 50% +2.0% Salford 55% 55% 56% 55% -1.0% Tameside 52% 52% 52% 52% Nil Stockport 52% 55% 57% 55% -2.0% Bolton 52% 53% 54% 53% -1.0% Wigan 45% 44% 44% 44% Nil Trafford 65% 65% 65% 65% Nil Bury 60% 61% 62% 61% -1.0% Oldham 50% 49% 50% 49% -1.0% Rochdale 58% 58% 57% 58% +1.0%

4 5

2.1.2 Action Plan Update

In Quarter 4 communications activity took place around the Dry January campaign which aims to encourage people to stop drinking alcohol for 31 days. Communications were focussed around encouraging residents to sign up to the pledge but also directed residents to support services and the council’s alcohol webpages raised awareness of the different health risks associated with alcohol and of ‘safe’ alcohol limits. A blog was created on the council’s website which followed Andrea Fallon’s (Director of Public Health) Dry January challenge. Andrea detailed her successes and tribulations as well as discussing the impact of alcohol on society, business, finances and health to name a few. The communications team also promoted information/intervention stalls taking place in the Exchange Shopping Centre. The campaign was a success with 321 visits to the Council’s Dry January webpage, 426 to Andrea’s blog, another 42 to the council’s ‘Drink Safely’ webpages and 14 pledges.

Hate Crime Awareness Week took place from 8th – 14th February to raise awareness of what a hate crime is and how to report it. During this week social media messages were distributed through the council’s channels to direct people to the council’s webpage which hosts information on reporting. Community-based information events were hosted at Deeplish Community Centre and the Exchange Shopping Centre and were promoted on social media. A radio advert was also aired and the press release received coverage in the Rochdale Observer and Rochdale online.

As part of this week a disability hate crime play called ‘Animals’ was commissioned in partnership with the Adult Safeguarding Board and Possabilities. Two fully-booked showings were put on at Rochdale Town Hall and received great coverage on social media and the local press.

During Quarter 4 a communications plan has been developed to promote the work of the Partnership Enforcement Team (PET) which includes quarterly Challenger campaigns and live tweeting exercises. Following this an article was published in the Environmental Health News magazine promoting how to team use their powers to combat organised crime.

This quarter the communications team also supported the promotions of the Holocaust Memorial Day ceremony and the

launch of a domestic violence education resource.

5 6

PRIORITY 1: INCREASING CONFIDENCE AND SATISFACTION

Q2 Q3 Status Best Q1 April- Q4 Jan- Actual Actual Target July- Oct- Year (against Direction of outcome June Mar Indicator Title 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 Sept Dec End 15-16 travel low or high 2015 2016 2015 2015 target) High 75% 72% Increase 71% 71% 68% 71% 71% CS1 – To increase the percentage of people who agree that the Police and Just off Council are dealing with the anti- Improving social behaviour and crime issues target that matter to people in their local area High 99% 98% Increase 98% 98% 98% 98% 98% CS2a – To increase the percentage of Just off No change people who feel safe outside in their target local area during the day and at night High 83% 83% Increase 84% 83% 83% 83% 83% CS2b – To increase the percentage of Just off No change people who feel safe outside in their target local area during the day and at night High 66% 58% Increase 58% 58% 57% 58% 58% CS3 – Increase the number of people Just off No change who feel they can influence decisions target made in their area

6 7

STRATEGIC PRIORITY 2 – REDUCE CRIME

2.2.1 Highlights and Exceptions

 Overall numbers of theft crimes were just slightly up on the same quarter in 2014- 15, comparing relatively well with the results of our GM neighbours

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.

RC 9 – Reduce the total number of victim based crimes recorded Borough Jan-Mar 2016 Jan-Mar 2015 No of % crimes change North Manchester 7706 6665 +1041 +13.5 South Manchester 5792 6150 -358 -5.8 Salford 3973 3421 +552 +13.8 Tameside 3653 4046 -393 -9.7 Stockport 4222 3701 +521 +12.3 Bolton 4865 4207 +658 +13.5 Wigan 4880 4570 +310 +6.3 Trafford 2661 2668 -7 -0.3 Bury 2790 2778 +12 +0.4 Rochdale 4431 4030 +401 +9.0 Oldham 4357 4490 -133 -2.9 Greater Manchester 49442 46726 +2716 +5.5

RC 10 – Reduce the total number of theft crimes recorded No of % Borough Jan-Mar 2016 Jan-Mar 2015 crimes change North Manchester 4384 3967 +417 +9.5 South Manchester 3168 3479 -311 -8.9 Salford 1827 1760 +67 +3.7 Tameside 1865 2134 -269 -12.6 Stockport 2166 2023 +143 +6.6 Bolton 2430 2168 +262 +10.8 Wigan 2411 2375 +36 +1.5 Trafford 1483 1653 -170 -10.3 Bury 1423 1512 -89 -5.9 Rochdale 2253 2214 +39 +1.7 Oldham 2176 2464 -288 -12.8 Greater Manchester 25678 25479 +199 -0.8

7 8

RC 11 – Reduce the total number of violent crimes recorded Borough Jan-Mar 2016 Jan-Mar 2015 No of % change crimes North Manchester 1893 1522 +371 +19.5 South Manchester 1361 1363 -2 -0.1 Salford 929 760 +169 +18.1 Tameside 978 1038 -60 -5.8 Stockport 1015 860 +155 +15.2 Bolton 1354 1125 +229 +16.9 Wigan 1265 1044 +221 +17.4 Trafford 636 536 +100 +15.7 Bury 790 683 +107 +13.5 Rochdale 1214 955 +259 +21.3 Oldham 1240 1121 +119 +9.6 Greater Manchester 12682 11007 +1675 +13.2

2.2.4 Action Plan Update

A significant programme of CCTV upgrade works has been completed in and around Rochdale Town Centre, providing much improved, HD quality images and incorporating new areas including the Memorial Gardens and Wet Rake. This camera provides valuable coverage of a busy area of retail and night time premises, transport facilities and residential accommodation.

The Domestic Abuse Working Group is progressing a number of significant initiatives, including implementation of a multi-layered behaviour change programme for those involved in domestic abuse incidents. The first element will go live from next week, with the following two elements due to do so in September. All will be the subject of relevant promotion and publicity, both to agencies and to potential participants.

We have recently concluded one of two Domestic Homicide Reviews that have been running since last year. The other review was pended for a time, due to delay in the trial and in being able to engage with the victim’s family. This review will be due to re- commence in late May and be concluded in September.

Programme STRIVE , our early intervention domestic abuse initiative, is now benefitting from having a dedicated scheme co-ordinator, who commenced duties last month. Joanne Dunn is well underway with pushing up the number of visits undertaken, co- ordinating onward referrals to support agencies and producing relevant outcome data for evaluation purposes.

8 9

PRIORITY 2: REDUCE CRIME & VULNERABILITY

Status Best Q1 April- Q2 July- Q3 Oct- Q4 Actual Actual Target Year to (against Direction outcome low June Sept Dec Jan-Mar Indicator Title 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 date 14-15 of travel or high 2015 2015 2015 2016 target) Low 13906 15298 Reduce 4295 4638 4305 4431 17669 RC9 – Reduce the total number of Off target Declining victim based crimes recorded Low 7826 8097 Reduce 2307 2406 2163 2253 9129 RC10 - Reduce the total number of theft crimes recorded – Total of Off target Declining below 8 crimes 1248 Reduce . Domestic Burglary 1465 427 436 427 417 1707 Off target Improving . Non-domestic Burglary 1273 975 Reduce 318 317 246 292 1173 Off target Declining Off target . Vehicle Crime 1650 2045 Reduce 555 630 572 655 2412 Declining On target . Shoplifting 1152 1060 Reduce 227 300 249 277 1053 Declining Just off . Other Theft 2004 Reduce Declining 2156 512 607 528 540 2187 target . All Robbery On target 223 207 Reduce 42 58 54 52 206 Improving . Robbery (Business) Just off 45 46 Reduce 12 12 12 49 Declining . Robbery (Personal) 13 target Just off 178 Reduce Declining 161 30 46 42 54 172 target Low 2939 3781 Reduce 1075 1273 1222 1214 4784 RC11 – Reduce the total number of Off target Improving violent crimes recorded

Note: Victim based crimes includes: Violent crimes, sexual offences, theft offences, robbery, criminal damage and arson offences

9 10

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

See appendix D for target definitions

Highlights and Exceptions - Drugs

Following an 18 month decline in numbers in drug treatment, (DA1) has now ceased, we have now seen an increase for 8 consecutive months a total increase of 8.5% on last year taking us back to the level we achieved in 2012.

How we compare with Greater Manchester

This table shows how our performance currently compares with that of our neighbours across Greater Manchester. This data is now the revised measure – baseline being full year 2014-15 and latest period Year to February 2016 (Q4 data available 15th May) or all drug types.

Borough Number in Number in Trend from Number Successes Trend in treatment treatment 14/15 successful as successful (14/15) completions proportion completions Bolton 1628 1636 0.5% 212 13%  Bury 675 669 0.8% 126 19%  Manchester 3131 3116 0.5% 437 14%  Oldham 1074 1083 0.8 210 19%  Rochdale 1223 1328 8.5% 183 14%  Salford 1156 1241 7.5% 323 26%  Stockport 931 926 0.5% 102 11%  Tameside 1093 1072 2% 66 6%  Trafford 742 706 5% 225 32%  Wigan 1580 1613 2% 302 19% 

We have seen the greatest improvement in numbers in treatment across Greater Manchester. We now have the 4th highest number in treatment when we are the second smallest borough population wise. The fact that our numbers are increasing will have an impact on the proportionate successful completions, however this is also slowly improving and are on a par with most areas – however Trafford and Salford are performing much better in this area but Trafford has seen a significant decline in numbers in treatment.

Locally the provider has put in place new programs to increase completions and this number should start to increase by the end of next quarter

10 11 How we compare – perceptions 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 Division Quarter 1 Quarter 2 Quarter 3 Quarter 4 % pt 2015/16 2015/16 2015/2016 2015/2016 variance from Q3 North Manchester 19% 20% 21% 20% -1.0% South Manchester 14% 14% 15% 14% +1.0% Salford 11% 11% 11% 11% Nil Tameside 13% 13% 14% 13% -1.0% Stockport 9% 8% 8% 8% Nil Bolton 12% 11% 12% 11% -1.0% Wigan 11% 12% 12% 12% Nil Trafford 3% 2% 2% 2% Nil Bury 9% 8% 7% 8% +1.0% Oldham 16% 15% 16% 15% -1.0% Rochdale 11% 10% 11% 10% -1.0% Greater Manchester 12% 12% 12% 12% Nil

3.3.2 Highlights and Exceptions – Alcohol

There is no new data since Q2 for DA 10, Alcohol related Hospital admissions. However the positive downward trend is reflected in the more up to data local data for numbers of alcohol SPECIFIC hospital admissions, which is showing a steady decline from 1,800 in 13/14 to 1,581 in 14/15 and 1,354 15/16 (March data still to be added

How we compare with Greater Manchester

The table below shows that Rochdale is comparable with other areas of Greater Manchester in treating Alcohol clients (includes alcohol and non-opiate users). The figures relate to the latest 12 month data (to end February 2016).

Borough Number in Number in Number Successes as treatment treatment successful proportion of numbers 2014/15 (rolling) completions in treatment Bolton 779 743 308 39% Bury 421 415 140 34% Manchester 1883 1750 558 32% Oldham 844 743 363 43% Rochdale 675 777 295 38% Salford 753 857 428 50% Stockport 795 716 252 35% Tameside 802 625 149 24% Trafford 707 583 322 55% Wigan 991 1144 430 38%

There is great fluctuation in performance across the boroughs. Rochdale has seen the greatest improvement in numbers (15%) this year and Tameside greatest fall (25%). Although our numbers are much however than they were in 2012/13 we now have the 4th highest number in treatment across Greater Manchester. Rochdale is now improving completions to be on a par with most boroughs. As with drugs clients Trafford are excelling in completion rates.

11 12

3.3.3 Action Plan update (Quarter 4 2015/16)

Adult Drug and Alcohol Treatment Service

 Harm minimisation staff have successfully taken part in the Image and Performance Enhancement Drug users regarding Blood Bourne Virus’s study led by Public Health England. As a result a key staff member has been invited to be a collaborator on PHE National Review Board in June 2016.  Pathways Service has increased the numbers of clients who are addicted to prescribed Benzodiazepines from 79 to 96 since quarter three.  Pathways Service is conducting targeted scoping work with Age UK and Relate to engage older clients and those whose substance misuse is contributing to family breakdown.  The trend in alcohol related hospital attendances and admission has been down for the last seven quarters.  Targeted work is being done with female clients and a weekly group has been established to do specific work with this cohort

Recovery and Re-integration Service

 Rochdale Service User Group have designed and printed a flyer to go into every new client induction pack to promote service user engagement.  Meetings have been held with Job Centre Plus to promote the services’ clients readiness to work.  Ten recovery service clients have successfully gained employment in the year  An average of 12% of clients engaged by the service are drawn from BME communities

Young People’s Service

 Links are being strengthened between Urgent Care Centre and Early Break to increase referral rates for young people.  The Young People’s service has met its target for referrals into service – 102 in Q4 (389) an Increase of 41 referrals from last year.  The service delivered community based work in areas with high numbers of BME communities. BME referrals this year increased from 11% last year to 14%at end of q.4  The service secured funding for developmental work around emotional health and well-being work from the Social Investment Fund.  The service is taking part in the innovation project around CSE and wider complex safeguarding. Increased referrals for those involved in CSE seen this year in comparison to last year..  The service is offering smoking cessation to YP and support with reducing cannabis use. A small numbers of YP have quit smoking (12) whilst increased numbers (17) have reduced the amount they smoke or attempted to quit.

12 13

PRIORITY 3: REDUCE THE HARM CAUSED BY DRUGS AND ALCOHOL

Best Q4 Q1 Status Direction of outcome Actual Actual Target Q2 July- Q3 Oct- Jan- Year to Indicator Title April- (against travel from low or 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 Sept 15 Dec 15 Mar date June 15 target) 13-14 high 2016 DA1 - Number of adult drug users (all drug types) High 1414 1225 >1200 1191 1218 1276 1340 1340 recorded as receiving treatment – target to reduce On track the rate of decline and monitor performance in Improving comparison to other GM areas DA3 – (PHO 2.15) Increase the proportion of ALL High 16.0% 13.4% Increase 13% 12.3% 12.9% 12.4% 12.4% drug users who successfully complete treatment Off track Declining and do not represent within 6 months DA4 - Reduce the percentage of the public who Low 11% 11% Decrease 11% 10% 11% 9% 9% perceive drug use or dealing to be a problem in On track Improving their area DA5 - Reduce the rate of drug-related offending Low 513 offences 526 offences Reduce 13% 12% 8.5% No Data 21.4% by 191 by 189 (2013 cohort now 528) <36% On track Improving offenders offenders (36%) (36%) DA6 - Increase the number of substance misusing High 196 206 196 127 159 191 Not 191 Young People to have received an effective availabl treatment intervention’ e until On track Improving 24th May DA7 - Increase the number of clients to have High 987 687 987 671 708 774 783 783 received an effective treatment intervention for Off track Improving alcohol misuse (Now using Rolling year figure) DA8 – Reduce the percentage of people who Low 6.0% 5% Decrease 5% 4% 5% 4% 4% perceive drunk or rowdy behaviour to be a On track Improving problem in their area DA9 – (PHO 2.18) Reduce the rate of hospital Low 754.35 718.21 Reduce 160.9 161.12 146.95 Just 468.97 On track admissions per 100,000 for alcohol related harm (-0.6%) released Improving (+3.76%) (-4.79%) Q3 DA10– Reduce the number of substance specific Low Alc 21 Alc 8 Reduce Alc 2 Alc 5 Alc 2 Alc 4 Alc 13 Just off hospital admissions of Young People Drugs 131 Drugs 105 Drugs 19 Drugs 14 Drugs Drug14 Drugs track Improving (Aug) 13 (Feb) 67

13 14

STRATEGIC PRIORITY 4 – PREVENT AND TACKLE ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR

2.4.1 Highlights and Exceptions

 We have ended the year on target for reduction in ASB incidents, continuing the long-term downward trend and reflecting the good work of Community Safety Officers and their counterparts in RBH and other housing providers in intervening early to resolve issues  Numbers of deliberate primary fires ended the year off target, though there was some improvement in figures during the latter part of the year

2.4.2 Action Plan Update

To follow at RSCP meeting

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 Jan-Mar 2016 Jan-Mar 2015 No of % change crimes North Manchester 1019 822 +197 +19.3 South Manchester 879 904 -25 -2.8 Salford 1018 743 +275 +27.0 Tameside 628 742 -114 -15.3 Stockport 847 664 +183 +21.6 Bolton 861 728 +133 +15.4 Wigan 1011 935 +76 +7.5 Trafford 415 379 +36 +8.6 Bury 473 455 +18 +3.8 Rochdale 757 646 +111 +14.6 Oldham 751 680 +71 +9.4 Greater Manchester 8659 7698 +961 +11.0

How we compare – Anti-social behaviour

Anti-social behaviour Borough Jan-Mar 2016 Jan-Mar 2015 Incidents % change North Manchester 4501 4091 +410 +9.0 South Manchester 3519 2902 +617 +17.5 Salford 2433 2182 +251 +10.3 Tameside 2741 2653 +88 +3.2 Stockport 2912 2554 +358 +12.2 Bolton 2846 2872 -26 -0.9 Wigan 3272 3137 +135 +4.1 Trafford 1551 1483 +68 +4.4 Bury 1744 1544 +200 +11.4 Rochdale 2561 2635 -74 -2.8 Oldham 3103 3033 +70 +2.2 Greater Manchester 31183 29086 +2097 +6.7

14 15

How we compare – perceptions 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 2015/16 Q2 2015/16 Q3 Q4 2015/16 % pt variance 2015/16 from Q3 North Manchester 7% 7% 8% 7% -1.0% South Manchester 4% 4% 4% 4% Nil Salford 2% 2% 2% 2% Nil Tameside 3% 3% 3% 3% Nil Stockport 2% 1% 2% 1% -1.0% Bolton 4% 3% 3% 3% Nil Wigan 2% 2% 3% 2% -1.0% Trafford 1% 1% 1% 1% Nil Bury 2% 1% 1% 1% Nil Rochdale 2% 2% 2% 2% Nil Oldham 4% 3% 3% 3% Nil Gtr Manchester 3% 3% 3% 3% Nil

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

15 16

PRIORITY 4: PREVENT AND TACKLE ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR

Best Q1 Status Q2 July- Q3 Oct- Q4 Jan- outcome Actual Actual Target April- Year to (against Direction of Sept Dec Mar Indicator Title low or 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 June date 15-16 travel 2015 2015 2016 high 2015 target) Low 3.0% 2% Reduce 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% ASB1 - Reduce the percentage of Just off people who perceive there to be high No change levels of anti social behaviour in their target area ASB3 - Reduce the number of anti- Low 12091 11515 Reduce 3293 3162 2364 2561 11380 social behaviour incidents recorded by On track Declining the police in the Borough ASB4 - Reduce the number of criminal Low 2582 2600 Reduce 741 762 734 757 2994 damage incidents recorded by the Off track Declining police in the Borough ASB5 - Reduce the number of Low 34.09 24.78 27.94 8.72 6.25 4.40 5.61 24.98 deliberate secondary fires recorded in On track Declining the Borough (per 10,000 population) 704 fires 512 fires 577 fires 180 fires 129 fires 91 fires 116 fires 516 fires Low 8.57 6.73 6.54 2.18 1.94 1.69 1.25 7.07 ASB6 - Reduce the number of deliberate primary fires recorded in the Off track Improving 177 fires 139 fires 135 fires 45 fires 40 fires 35 fires 26 fires 146 fires Borough (per 10,000 pop)

Notes:

16 17

STRATEGIC PRIORITY 5 – PREVENT OFFENDING BY CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE

Jul 11 to Jun 12 Jul 12 to Jun 13 cohort cohort

in in

YOT Reoffenders Reoffences Reoffenders Reoffences Number # # Offences/offender %Reoffending Number # # Offences/offender %Reoffending

Rochdale 262 119 413 1.58 45.4 194 80 250 1.29 41.2

2.5.1 Highlights and exceptions

 Generally good performance across the range of indicators this year, with the vast majority ending the year on target  Issues behind the performance in relation to indicator YP6 were discussed and remedial action agreed at the Performance Board this month

2.5.2 Action Plan Update

To enable us to keep First Time Entrants at a minimum, there is now an agreement in place for the Police to refer young people to the YOS Police officer for an initial screening before a Restorative Justice disposal is given.

A decision can them be made as to the appropriate course of action, with the aim of reducing the number of inappropriate Youth cautions and RJ disposals and increase the number of Triage, early intervention and out of court disposals being given.

This will contribute to reducing the number of First Time Entrants and reducing the overall re offending figures. We will target those young people most at risk of entering the criminal justice system with early interventions.

We will continue to monitor and report on this area of practice.

The YOS will make a contribution to the Boroughs early help Strategy by focusing on out of court disposals. Robust programmes of work will be offered for young people as a direct alternative to charge.

All other cases where there are concerns of risk of anti social behaviour or offending will now be referred to the Early Help panel to obtain support through the early help strategy. A YOS deputy manager now sits on the early help panel to contribute to the allocation of cases to the relevant teams.

17 18

PRIORITY 5: PREVENT OFFENDING BY CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE

Status Best Q1 April- Actual Actual Target Q2 July- Q3 Oct- Q4 Jan- Year to (against Direction outcome June 15-16 of travel low or high 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 Sept 2015 Dec 2015 Mar 2016 date Indicator Title 2015 target) YP1 – To reduce the level of re- Low 43.0% 43.7% Reduce 41.2 43.8 47.3 44.5 44.5 offending by young people Off target Improving YP2 - Reducing the number of young Low 85 113 Reduce 26 36 25 21 108 people who are first time entrants to On target Improving the Youth Justice System YP3 - Reducing the percentage of 16- Low 5.0% 4.5% Reduce 5.0% 5.7% 4.2% 4.3% 4.3% 18 year olds not in education, employment or training (NEET) On target Improving NB: subject to outcome of D of E data review YP4 - Ensuring that numbers of Low 8.9% 8.85% Decreas 2/55 5/48 1/38 5.5% 5.52% custodial sentences are proportionate (avg) e 3.6% 10.4% 2.6% to the overall number of young 20/225 On target Declining people’s convictions YP 5 - Ensuring young people's High 4498 4677 Increase Contacts Contacts Contacts Contacts Contacts participation in positive activities contacts Contacts 9.54% 13.75% 16.38%, 4496 equates 4496 22.26% 23.15% 1928yp equates to equates to to 22.25% equates to 2594 2630 2777yp 3305 yp Participants 22.25% participant participants Participants Participants Participants 2459 equates Participant On target n/a 13.02% 4.43% 6.69% 8.84% to 12.17% s 12.84% 894yp equates to equates to 2459 equates to 1352 yp 1705yp 12.17% YP 6 – Increase the percentage of High 123/183 40/45 Increase 37/41 40/50 35/60 22/39 134/190 young offenders engaged in suitable 90.2% 80% 58.3% 56.4% 71.5% education, employment or training 67.2% 88.9% Off target Declining (EET).

Notes: * this comparison is with same quarter last year, to give a truer representation, as Q1 tends to be typically higher than the following three

18 19

STRATEGIC PRIORITY 6 – REDUCE ADULT RE-OFFENDING

2.6.1 Highlights and exceptions

The following table provides figures for completion of Orders and requirements by those offenders under the management of the Community Rehabilitation Company (CRC) from 1st Jan – 31st March 2016.

Order. Orders Number Number % Successful Ongoing. Commenced Revoked Successful Completions. since Apr 2015. /Terminated. Completions. Drug Rehabilitation 3 1 2 66.6% Orders. Alcohol Treatment 4 0 6 100% Requirement. Women’s WISER 4 0 2 100% Requirements.

Orders Number Number of % Successful Neutral Completed Revoked Successful Completions Completions /Terminated. Completions 2015. Overall Successful 135 18 117 86% 7 Completions for Orders/Licences (inc PSS)

Orders Number Number of % Successful Neutral Completed Revoked Successful Completions. Completions. /Terminated. Completions. Women’s Overall 15 1 14 93.33% 0 Successful Completions for Orders/Licences (inc PSS)

Orders Number Number of % Successful Ongoing Completed 2015 Revoked Successful Completions. cases (live Q4 /Terminated. Completions. current). Intensive Community To follow Orders (since commencement) 110

19 20

STRATEGIC PRIORITY 6 continued

The following table provides current detail of performance of the NPS in relation to their key indicators:

Cases supervised (current caseload, minus cases sentenced since 01/01/2015)

Community cases 297 Custody cases 301 Total cases 598

Successful completions Community orders 14 successful of 19 – 73% 4 unsuccessful 1 neutral Licenses 14 successful out of 25 – 56% 11 unsuccessful 0 neutral Total successful completions 28

NSOG Completions (Sex offender rolling programme)

Successful outcome 4 Neutral outcome 1 revoked (unworkable) Unsuccessful outcome 2 revoked – fail to complete on other requirement Total completions for period 7

MAPPA cases reviewed in quarter 2

Level 2 cases Level 3 cases Total cases

20 21

STRATEGIC PRIORITY 7 – DEVELOPING COMMUNITY COHESION

2.7.1 Highlights and exceptions

 We have ended the year with a total of 493 reported hate crimes. Numbers have fallen in quarters 3 and 4 compared with those in quarters 1 and 2  The spread of numbers by INPT area has remained similar this year, with the INPT1 seeing around 60 more than each of the INPT 2 and 3  Numbers of disability hate crimes reported rose significantly, with 31 this year against 14 last year  Those classed as religion-based also rose markedly, from 15 last year to 43 this year

There have been FIVE occasions where the Consequence Management Group (CMG) has had to come together during this quarter. The CMG response was supported by the Cohesion Hub who worked with partners across the Police and Community to engage with the public and other partners to mitigate tensions by providing appropriate support and intervention on the following:

 04/01/16 Demonstration outside MP constituency office  30/01/16 2Rude2Cruise car meet - Kingsway Retail park  14/02/16 2Rude2Cruise car meet - Sandbrook Park  18/02/16 Murder - Qari Jalal Uddin  11/03/16 Funeral of Qari Jalal Uddin

A full tension monitoring report for this quarter is available

2.7.2 Action Plan Update

Prevent Duty: A consultation exercise on the Channel Panel policy has been completed and adopted by the Prevent Steering Group and the Channel Panel. This is now being widely disseminated amongst the local authority, schools and external partners and has been placed on the Policy Centre. Support has been provided to the Safeguarding Boards to undertake a Prevent compliance survey aimed at identifying how member agencies of the Safeguarding boards were responding to the additional duties set out by the Prevent Duty. We analysed the findings and prepared the report.

Community Cohesion:

The Cohesion Hub has moved towards the production of a weekly tension monitoring report which has strengthened the input into Force Intelligence Bureau and allowed partners to identify and respond quickly to emerging and existing community tensions. Furthermore, a review of the circulation of this tension monitoring report is underway to improve information sharing and enable partners to gain a better understanding of tensions which they may be able to mitigate.

21 22

The following events were also facilitated this quarter:

 27/01/16 Holocaust Memorial Day 27/01/16 @ Littleborough Coach House  February 2016 - LGBT History month - information stalls across the Borough  08/02/16 – 12/2/16 – Hate Crime Awareness week information stalls and events across the Borough including sessions at community centres and the Exchange Shopping Centre  22/02/16 - ‘Animals’ Disability hate crime play at Rochdale Town Hall

2.7.3 Hate Crime figures

Indicator Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Tot Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Tot 14-15 14- 14-15 14- 15-16 15-16 15- 15-16 15 15 16 Total number of crimes & 63 85 78 113 339 141 145 105 102 493 incidents recorded Categories of crimes:  Alternative subculture 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 0 0 1  Race 56 67 68 96 287 117 121 86 87 411  Sexual orientation 5 8 5 9 27 14 13 6 6 39 6 8 Disability 2 2 4 14 8 7 8 31  11 10  Religion 0 1 3 15 10 9 14 43 1 2 1  Transgender 0 2 0 3 0 3 6 0 0 0 0  No motivation listed 0 0 0 0 0 0 Crimes by Police Partnership area: INPT1 23 34 41 52 150 57 63 39 33 191 INPT2 21 27 17 29 94 27 42 34 31 134 INPT3 19 24 20 32 95 27 40 32 38 137

NB – total number of each category of crime may not add up to exactly the total number of crimes and incidents recorded, as some crimes / incidents have more than one marker attached to them

22 23

PRIORITY 7 – DEVELOPING COMMUNITY COHESION

Indicator Title Best Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Actual Actual Status outcome Target April- July- Oct- Jan- Year to Direction of 2013- 2014-15 (against low or 2014-15 June Sept Dec Mar date 15-16 travel 2014 high 2015 2015 2015 2016 target) High 88.0% 85% Increase 86% 85% 86% 86% 86% CC1 - Percentage of people who believe people from different On track No change backgrounds get on well together in their local area High 62.7% Increase To be replaced by suite of crime outcome RC14 – % solved rate for hate crime measures still being developed by GMP

23 24

Appendix A

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, with the green shading showing the three best.

Total Crime RC9 – Victim Based Crime RC10 - Theft Crimes Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Tot Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Tot Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Tot Rochdale Central 312 323 307 355 1297 258 275 251 319 1103 116 88 117 180 501 Bamford 172 173 149 175 669 151 162 124 164 601 93 106 76 111 386 Norden 146 127 102 95 470 139 120 95 88 442 103 85 44 59 291 Spotland & Falinge 263 327 249 304 1143 225 288 218 266 997 96 167 99 141 503 Healey 164 155 175 136 630 147 139 154 124 564 82 72 98 73 325 Rochdale Town Centre 444 445 429 427 1745 373 399 366 377 1515 203 230 204 208 845 Kingsway 400 391 403 350 1544 355 353 350 296 1354 178 179 179 122 658 Milkstone & Deeplish 322 353 324 319 1318 258 320 278 280 1136 134 175 134 124 567 Balderstone & Kirkholt 244 258 250 224 976 223 231 208 198 860 127 116 93 92 428 Castleton 269 275 258 236 1038 237 256 232 207 932 155 136 133 118 542 North Middleton 254 226 226 259 965 213 189 204 236 842 113 104 98 117 432 East Middleton 165 205 189 196 755 139 183 165 175 662 80 94 84 76 334 South Middleton 185 177 207 209 778 151 161 183 185 680 84 88 104 103 379 West Middleton 231 231 217 189 868 197 194 194 162 747 94 97 84 75 350 North Heywood 295 380 358 318 1351 266 339 314 290 1209 152 168 164 144 628 Heywood Town Centre 106 168 60 57 73 48 West Heywood 214 205 175 223 817 196 179 154 204 733 103 77 75 72 327 Hopwood Hall 270 233 293 282 1078 237 208 249 252 946 124 110 122 154 510 Wardle & West 477 Littleborough 139 127 94 117 114 112 84 105 415 68 58 42 53 221 Littleborough Lakeside 136 165 107 144 552 125 158 95 139 517 75 83 43 63 264 Milnrow & Newhey 171 169 188 137 665 157 155 162 123 597 72 98 87 72 329 Smallbridge & Firgrove 268 243 256 264 1031 241 217 225 241 924 121 102 83 96 402

24 25

CRIME 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 85 124 82 83 374 12 8 22 27 69 23 21 35 45 124 Bamford 28 31 29 32 120 34 39 32 55 160 18 25 19 25 87 Norden 14 22 19 16 71 23 23 11 11 68 42 33 16 18 109 Spotland & Falinge 65 67 61 64 257 18 38 27 29 112 28 55 25 47 155 Healey 39 46 32 32 149 22 24 28 15 89 32 28 40 31 131 Rochdale Town Centre 130 116 106 109 461 1 3 1 2 7 15 22 7 12 56 Kingsway 75 99 112 100 386 33 34 25 19 111 64 47 57 41 209 Milkstone & Deeplish 76 83 99 109 367 38 38 35 23 134 38 39 34 47 158 Balderstone & Kirkholt 51 62 62 60 235 40 31 27 16 114 23 37 26 22 108 Castleton 41 68 48 45 202 29 15 36 31 111 38 36 29 25 128 North Middleton 56 49 53 59 217 21 8 15 14 58 25 21 21 40 107 East Middleton 27 47 47 57 178 18 7 13 7 42 17 16 29 37 99 South Middleton 33 35 45 41 154 13 22 21 11 67 16 22 31 56 125 West Middleton 47 52 60 39 198 9 8 14 15 46 23 39 32 30 124 North Heywood 66 92 83 84 325 18 15 35 30 98 20 45 42 25 132 Heywood Town Centre 19 31 1 3 4 8 West Heywood 47 60 48 57 212 13 18 14 12 57 19 16 20 18 73 Hopwood Hall 55 62 57 55 229 16 24 24 44 108 21 27 38 49 135 Wardle & West 103 Littleborough 27 23 24 29 17 7 9 10 43 18 18 9 18 63 Littleborough Lakeside 25 36 33 46 140 9 13 7 14 43 24 28 10 17 79 Milnrow & Newhey 46 31 37 30 144 14 29 14 12 69 17 32 33 17 99 Smallbridge & Firgrove 68 68 85 67 288 29 32 17 20 98 23 23 19 35 100

25 26

ASB incidents Criminal damage and arson Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Tot Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Tot Rochdale Central 205 170 157 194 726 47 49 38 41 175 Bamford 107 98 58 89 352 26 20 17 12 74 Norden 80 63 46 54 243 12 7 8 11 38 Spotland & Falinge 201 195 142 139 677 57 43 50 47 197 Healey 75 102 47 78 302 20 18 20 17 75 Rochdale Town Centre 171 152 161 147 631 20 18 23 22 83 Kingsway 283 267 194 175 919 91 70 57 67 285 Milkstone & Deeplish 223 216 149 161 749 41 47 35 32 155 Balderstone & Kirkholt 210 207 123 111 651 37 46 43 37 163 Castleton 149 131 120 92 492 32 48 43 36 159 North Middleton 133 145 141 121 540 33 32 44 52 161 East Middleton 197 148 114 114 573 32 38 28 36 134 South Middleton 126 137 127 152 542 23 37 28 38 126 West Middleton 173 191 134 152 650 44 42 40 41 167 North Heywood 227 224 164 121 736 41 69 61 49 220 Heywood Town Centre To follow from GMP 11 24 West Heywood 137 136 106 148 527 41 38 31 59 169 Hopwood Hall 120 127 109 112 468 44 22 65 36 167 Wardle & West 295 Littleborough 82 86 74 53 14 29 15 17 75 Littleborough Lakeside 105 109 81 63 358 23 27 17 26 93 Milnrow & Newhey 98 94 72 66 330 33 24 36 17 110 Smallbridge & Firgrove 191 164 139 160 654 40 38 35 64 177

26 27

Appendix B

Target definitions

DA1: Number of adult drug users recorded as receiving treatment in a rolling year (PHE refreshed measure) This measure has been revised as the PHE outcome focus is now on outcomes (see DA3). Instead of the complex ‘effective treatment’ measure, the measure is now based on actual engagement in treatment and therefore negates the historic 12 month delay. Unfortunately in makes it impossible to compare with previous years data.

DA2: Proportion of people assessed for substance dependence issues when entering prison who then required structured treatment and have not already received it in the community PHO Indicator 2.16. The measure informs two areas i.e. identifying the number of treatment naive offenders prior to custodial sentences and then to ensure that prison services are engaging with them. Baseline data now available.

DA3 Increase the proportion of all drug Users who successfully complete treatment and do not represent within 6 months(PHE refreshed measure) PHO indicator 2.15i (Opiates) and 2.15ii (non-opiates). To be classed as successful clients must leave the system either treatment complete drug free or treatment complete, occasional user (providing the substance is not that which the treatment was for). The measure then monitors the progress and counts those who reengage within 6 months of closure. The measure is to improve the numbers sustaining recovery

DA 4: Perceptions of drug use or drug dealing as a problem – Neighbourhood Surveys

DA 5: Reduce the Drug related (Class A) offending rate New LOCAL measure developed for 2012/13 which identified Cohort of offenders (298) 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 (18 and under) 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.

DA 8: Perceptions of drunk or rowdy behaviour as a problem - Neighbourhood Surveys

DA 9: Reduce the rate of hospital admissions per 100,000 for alcohol related harm PHO 2.18 This indicator has changed in 2014 and now only counts those coded with a primary diagnosis or an ‘external cause’ secondary diagnosis. The new measure may

27 28 underestimate alcohol’s part in an admission but will be more responsive to local action on alcohol issues. Historic data has been amended to allow comparison.

DA 10: 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.

PHOF Indicator 2.16

The PHOF 2.16 indicator determines the proportion of adults starting structured substance misuse treatment in prison who had not received it in the community prior to custody. The baseline figures are based on those entering custody in the 12 months up to and including March 2014 (i.e. those entering prison in 2013/14).

The partnership break down is based on the Local Authority of residence recorded in the prison NDTMS data (at triage). The prison NDTMS data set is matched with the full historic community NDTMS data set. Therefore those detainees who had received community treatment prior to custody may have done so some time before entering prison or just prior to being detained.

The data produced by this indicator will require some interpretation but will essentially prompt local areas to ask the following questions:

Where the proportion of individuals from their LA area who have engaged in prison based treatment but not had previous contact with community based treatment is high, partnerships will need to assess the effectiveness of care pathways for offenders and whether community based treatment services are sufficiently responsive to this target group.

Where the proportion of individuals from their LA area who have engaged in prison based treatment but not had previous contact with community based treatment is low, partnerships will need to explore why engagement in treatment does not appear to act as a deterrent from reoffending and further contact with the criminal justice system.

As yet is not clear whether performance will be measured by improving community engagement or not.

Baseline Data

PHE have now provided baseline data by age group and substance used. They advise that data will be provided every 6 months.

171 Rochdale residents were triaged as requiring treatment for substance misuse. 117 (68%) had previously received treatment, the majority of whom used opiates and are over 40 years. The 54 offenders not known to community services are mainly under 30 and users of non-opiates and alcohol.

Compared to other Greater Manchester Areas we are mid-range for % known to treatment with the extremes being Manchester 40% and Tameside 78%. The Trend of age breakdown and substances used are very comparable both Nationally and across GM.