LOCAL STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIP BOARD – 29 JUNE 2011
4. REVIEW OF THE COMMUNITY STRATEGY 2006-12
(DCES)
1. Summary
1.1 This report outlines the key findings from the indices of multiple deprivation 2010 for Three Rivers along with other key data sources. It also recommends a process for the review of the Community Strategy 2006-12.
2. Details
2.1 The Indices of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) 2010 were published in March 2011. Officers have undertaken an analysis of this data. The findings of the analysis are attached in Appendix 1.
2.2 The initial analysis suggest that of the domains covered by the Indices of Multiple Deprivation the following descending priorities should be considered on the basis of the extent of deprivation across the District:
- Wider barriers to services – household overcrowding, homelessness, and inability to access owner occupation.
- Outdoors living environment – air quality and road traffic accidents. Source data cannot be identified for this at the moment. Officers are concerned that the route of the M25 through the District may be distorting the relevance of this domain.
- Income deprivation affecting children and young people – children in income support families, Job seeker allowance families, pension credit families, child tax credit families whose income is below 60% of the median.
- Children and young people’s education – average point score for Key Stage 2, Key Stage 3, and Key Stage 4, proportion of NEETs, secondary school absence rate, and proportion not entering higher education.
- Adult skills – proportion of those aged 25-54 with no or low qualifications.
- Indoor living environment – social and private housing in poor condition, houses without central heating. The data sources for this will not reflect on the investment in the Decent Homes Standard since 2008.
- Income deprivation affecting older people – older people in income support families, JSA families, pension credit, and asylum seekers in receipt of support.
- Geographical barriers – road distance to GP, supermarket, primary school and Post Office. The data for this has been adjusted to reflect on areas with higher than average no car ownership.
- Crime – levels of violence, burglary, theft and criminal damage. The Community Safety Partnership’s Strategic Assessment is far more thorough in its analysis of different crime and anti-social behaviour data. The priorities set by the partners will be far more reliable and up to date.
- Employment – working age claimants of job seekers allowance, incapacity benefit, severe disablement allowance, employment support allowance and new deal participants.
- Health and disability – years of life lost, comparative illness and disability ratio, measures of acute morbidity and proportion of adults under 60 suffering from mood or anxiety disorders.
2.3 Officers are concerned about the relative priority of the Outdoor Living Environment. Without further access to the source data, and measurement techniques for air pollution caution would be needed in responding to this as a priority.
2.4 The data also highlights a number of priority wards for action, based on the extent of deprivation across the different domains that make up the index:
Ward / Total LSOAs in 50% most deprived for each domainNorthwick / 29
Maple Cross & Mill End / 25
Hayling / 16
Ashridge / 16
Langleybury / 13
Abbots Langley / 11
Rickmansworth / 10
2.5 Three Rivers Community Strategy 2006-12 is coming to the end of its planned timescale. Whilst the Government has indicated it is likely to repeal the duty to have a Community Strategy, there is value in the Local Strategic Partnership (LSP) identifying shared priorities for the District, on which the work of the LSP can focus.
2.6 As a starting point for reviewing the priorities outlined in the strategy it is suggested that the priorities emerging from the Indices of Multiple Deprivation 2010 are used. This should be supplemented by data from the Community Safety Partnership and Health Partnership within their respective domains.
2.7 The Community Safety Partnership’s Strategic Assessment provides a far more detailed and up to date analysis of Crime and Disorder priorities within the District. This is used to prioritise the work of the partnership.
2.8 The latest health profile of the District is due to be released on 28 June 2011. It will be tabled at the meeting for Member’s information. The Watford and Three Rivers Health Partnership will be reviewing this report alongside information on Health and Wellbeing Priorities from the County, and local information from the Joint Strategic Needs Assessment to identify shared priorities for Health and Wellbeing in the District. This data is again more detailed than that used for the Health domain of the IMD 2010 and is more up to date.
2.9 It is recommended that a half-day stakeholder event is held in September 2011 to consult on these draft priorities and identify further evidence of priority need in the District. This should be supplemented by on online survey of stakeholders engaged in partnership work.
2.10 It is also recommended that a focus group of local residents is held to discuss the emerging priorities. It is felt that this will provide more useful feedback than a quantitative survey.
2.11 Recommendations and a revised draft strategy for 2012-2018 will then be brought to the Board in March 2012 for agreement.
3. Options/Reasons for Recommendation
3.1 To note more recent evidence of deprivation in the District and to agree a process and timescale for updating the Community Strategy.
4. Policy/Budget Reference and Implications
4.1 The recommendations in this report are within the terms of reference of the Local Strategic Partnership.
5. Financial, Legal, Equal Opportunities, Staffing, Environmental, Community Safety, Customer Services Centre, and Communications & Website,
5.1 None specific.
6. Risk Management and Health & Safety Implications
6.1 Three Rivers District Council has agreed its risk management strategy which can be found on the website at http://www.threerivers.gov.uk. This strategy has been adopted by the Local Strategic Partnership as working practice. In addition, the risks of the proposals in the report have also been assessed against the Council’s duties under Health and Safety legislation relating to employees, visitors and persons affected by our operations. The risk management implications of this report are detailed below.
6.2 The subject of this report is covered by the Leisure and Community service plan. Any risks resulting from this report will be included in the risk register and, if necessary, managed within this plan.
6.3 There are no risks to the Local Strategic Partnership in agreeing the recommendation.
6.4 The following table gives the risks that would exist if the recommendation is rejected, together with a scored assessment of their impact and likelihood:
Description of Risk / Impact / Likelihood1 / The LSP does not identify current shared priorities based on evidence and stakeholder consultation. / III / B
6.5 Of the risks detailed above none is already managed within a service plan.
6.6 The above risks are plotted on the matrix below depending on the scored assessments of impact and likelihood, detailed definitions of which are included in the risk management strategy. The Council has determined its aversion to risk and is prepared to tolerate risks where the combination of impact and likelihood are plotted in the shaded area of the matrix. The remaining risks require a treatment plan.
Likelihood / A / Impact / LikelihoodB / 1 / V = Catastrophic / A = >98%
C / IV = Critical / B = 75% - 97%
D / III = Significant / C = 50% - 74%
E / II = Marginal / D = 25% - 49%
F / I = Negligible / E = 3% - 24%
I / II / III / IV / V / F = <2%
Impact
6.7 In the officers’ opinion, the new risk above, were it to come about, would seriously prejudice the achievement of the Strategic Plan and is therefore a strategic risk. Progress against the treatment plans for strategic risks are reported to the Executive Committee quarterly. The effectiveness of all treatment plans are reviewed by the Audit Committee annually.
Description of Risk / Service Plan1 / The LSP does not identify current shared priorities based on evidence and stakeholder consultation. / Leisure and Community
7. Recommendation
7.1 That the LSP Board agrees the process outlined in Section 2 of this report for the review of the community strategy.
Report prepared by: Andy Stovold, Community Partnerships Manager
Data Quality
Data sources:
Indices of Multiple Deprivation 2010 – Department of Communities and Local Government.
Data checked by: Karl Stonebank, Partnerships Officer
Data rating:
1 / Poor2 / Sufficient / X
3 / High
APPENDICES / ATTACHMENTS
Appendix 1 – IMD 2010 analysis
Appendix 1 - Indices of Multiple Deprivation 2010
This paper presents a summary of key findings in the IMD2010, focussing on those Lower Super Output Areas (LSOAs)0 that fall into the 50% most deprived in the country. There are a total of 32,482 LSOAs in the Country. 683 LSOAs are in Hertfordshire County Council. Whilst the index was published in March 2011, the statistical sources for each domain are generally from 2008.
Overall IMD Score
The following table shows that there are 9 LSOAs in the 50% most deprived in England out of a total 53 LSOAs in the District. 7 of these LSOAs are in South Oxhey, 1 is in Maple Cross and 1 is in Langleybury (although in Abbots Langley by Tanners Wood). 2 of the LSOAs in Northwick are more deprived in rank than in the previous IMD 2007. The LSOA in Maple Cross is also more deprived in rank. All of the remaining LSOs are less deprived in rank than in the IMD 2007. Northwick contains the most deprived LSOA in Hertfordshire.
LSOA CODE / Area / RANK OF IMD SCORE (where 1 is most deprived) / % Rank where 0% is most deprived / IMD 2007 % Rank / HCC Rank of 683 / HCC % RankE01023844 / Northwick / 3579 / 11.02% / 12.18% / 1 / 0.1%
E01023842 / Northwick / 8506 / 26.19% / 26.17% / 16 / 2.3%
E01023828 / Hayling / 11284 / 34.74% / 26.28% / 53 / 7.8%
E01023838 / Maple Cross & Mill End / 12644 / 38.93% / 43.47% / 77 / 11.3%
E01023843 / Northwick / 13367 / 41.15% / 43.40% / 94 / 13.8%
E01023805 / Ashridge / 14125 / 43.49% / 36.43% / 112 / 16.4%
E01023806 / Ashridge / 14323 / 44.10% / 43.76% / 117 / 17.1%
E01023827 / Hayling / 15205 / 46.81% / 39.89% / 135 / 19.8%
E01023830 / Langleybury / 16040 / 49.38% / 44.38% / 151 / 22.1%
E01023804 / Abbots Langley / 17252 / 53.11% / 49.15% / 179 / 26.2%
E01023829 / Langleybury / 17689 / 54.46% / 46.22% / 190 / 27.8%
Table 1: Overall IMD Score
Income Deprivation
E01023844 / Northwick / 3959 / 12.19% / 9.90% / 4 / 0.6%
E01023842 / Northwick / 7311 / 22.51% / 17.50% / 29 / 4.2%
E01023838 / Maple Cross & Mill End / 9672 / 29.78% / 33.00% / 75 / 11.0%
E01023827 / Hayling / 9935 / 30.59% / 29.30% / 84 / 12.3%
E01023843 / Northwick / 10170 / 31.31% / 32.50% / 89 / 13.0%
E01023828 / Hayling / 10346 / 31.85% / 22.90% / 92 / 13.5%
E01023805 / Ashridge / 11135 / 34.28% / 31.40% / 106 / 15.5%
E01023804 / Abbots Langley / 11727 / 36.10% / 34.40% / 121 / 17.7%
E01023806 / Ashridge / 12181 / 37.50% / 38.00% / 133 / 19.5%
E01023829 / Langleybury / 12589 / 38.76% / 37.30% / 147 / 21.5%
E01023836 / Maple Cross & Mill End / 13498 / 41.56% / 41.40% / 164 / 24.0%
E01023845 / Oxhey Hall / 14741 / 45.38% / 37.00% / 204 / 29.9%
E01023848 / Penn / 15101 / 46.49% / 44.40% / 213 / 31.2%
E01023830 / Langleybury / 15340 / 47.23% / 56.10% / 217 / 31.8%
E01023809 / Carpenders Park / 15754 / 48.50% / 49.70% / 227 / 33.2%
Table 2: Income Deprivation
This domain measures the proportion of the population in an area experiencing deprivation related to low income. A combined count of income deprived individuals per LSOA is calculated by summing the following five indicators:
· Adults and children in Income Support families
· Adults and children in Income-Based Jobseeker’s Allowance families
· Adults and children in Pension Credit (Guarantee) families
· Adults and children in Child Tax Credit families (who are not in receipt of Income Support, Income-Based Jobseeker’s Allowance or Pension Credit) whose equivalised income (excluding housing benefits) is below 60 per cent of the median before housing costs
· Asylum seekers in England in receipt of subsistence support, accommodation support, or both.
In addition to this domain index two supplementary indices concerning income deprivation are also produced, an Income Deprivation Affecting Children Index and an Income Deprivation Affecting Older People Index. These two indices represent the proportion of children aged 0-15 living in income deprived households and the proportion of older people aged 60 and over living in income deprived households respectively.