id
stringlengths 40
40
| text
stringlengths 101
3.75M
| source
stringclasses 1
value | added
timestamp[s]date 2025-03-31 00:00:00
2025-03-31 00:00:00
| created
timestamp[s]date 2025-03-31 00:00:00
2025-03-31 00:00:00
| metadata
dict | attributes
dict |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
bbf7c1cf339ffcfef74f5ca0585bdacd0099f660 | BIOSCIENCE AND HEALTH TECHNOLOGY SECTOR STATISTICS 2018
May 2019 Contents Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 6 Terminology ........................................................................................................................................... 7
1. Industry overview ................................................................................................................................. 8 1.1. Core sectors ....................................................................................................................................... 9 1.2. Service & Supply sectors .................................................................................................................. 10
2. Sector overviews – Key facts ............................................................................................................... 11 2.1 Biopharma sector ............................................................................................................................... 11 2.2. Biopharma – Core businesses ......................................................................................................... 11 2.3. Biopharma – Service & Supply chain ............................................................................................... 12 2.4. Med Tech sector (including digital health) ....................................................................................... 12 2.5. Med Tech – Core businesses ........................................................................................................... 12 2.6. Med Tech – Service & Supply chain ............................................................................................... 13
3. Geographical analysis ......................................................................................................................... 14
4. Digital health and Genomics ............................................................................................................... 19 4.1. Digital health ................................................................................................................................... 19 4.1. Genomics ....................................................................................................................................... 20
5. Industry and sector trends 2009-2018 ............................................................................................... 21 5.1. Life sciences industry trends ........................................................................................................... 22 5.2. Core Biopharma and Med Tech sector trends .................................................................................. 24 5.3. Service & Supply sector trends ....................................................................................................... 25 5.4 Geographical trends ......................................................................................................................... 26 Annex 1 – Full data partners acknowledgement statement ................................................................. 28 Annex 2 – Methodology .......................................................................................................................... 29 Annex 3 - Company Ownership ............................................................................................................ 35 Annex 4 - Segmentation Codes .............................................................................................................. 36 Annex 5 - Data quality principles .......................................................................................................... 37 Key Messages
The UK life sciences industry employs 248,400 people in 5,870 businesses and generates a turnover of £73.8bn.
The Core Biopharma and Core Med Tech sectors contain businesses involved in the discovery, development and marketing of therapeutics, and medical devices respectively. The Core Med Tech sector is the largest by employment (97,600 or 39% of the industry) and Core Biopharma is the largest by turnover (£33.4bn or 45% of the industry).
The Core sectors are supported by two Service & Supply sectors that supply materials, equipment and specialist services. These two sectors employ 87,500 in 2,580 businesses with a turnover of £21.7bn.
The largest segment within the industry is small molecules, consisting of businesses with the majority of their activity developing and marketing therapeutics based on this technology. The segment employs 48,900 (20% of the industry) and generates a turnover of £27.8bn (38% of the industry total).
Along with small molecules, the Top 3 Core segments in the industry include digital health (the largest segment by employment in Core Med Tech with 11,100 employees) and in vitro diagnostics (9,000 employees). The Top 3 Core segments in the industry by turnover are small molecules, in vitro diagnostics, and therapeutic proteins and total account for 43% of industry turnover.
Within the two Service & Supply sectors, the two largest segments contain businesses that supply contract manufacturing and research services, and that supply reagents and equipment. In Biopharma, these two segments employ 30,100 with a turnover of £11bn; in Med Tech, these segments employ 11,600 with a turnover of £2.3bn.
80% of the businesses in the industry are SMEs; these employ 23% of the industry total and generate 10% of the turnover. The Core Biopharma sector has a higher percentage of non-SME businesses at 31% compared to 18-19% for all other sectors. The Top 25 Global Pharmaceutical companies with activity in the UK (and are non-SMEs) employ 58% of the Core Biopharma sector.
The South East of England contains the largest population of life sciences industry jobs with a total employment across all four sectors of 58,400 or 24%. The East and North West of England together with the South East are the Top 3 regions by employment.
______________________________________________________________________
1 The number of business counts at the industry level is lower than the count at the sector level because in the latter analysis some businesses are counted in more than one sector where they have activity in, for example, Core Biopharma and Core Med Tech, which can be the case for larger companies. Employment in the Core Biopharma sector is concentrated in the South East and East of England, and London with 66% of all sector employees, compared to 39% for Core Med Tech employment.
**Trend Data**
Between 2009 and 2018, the industry increased employment by 17,400 an increase of 8% at a compound annual growth rate of 0.8%. Over the period, all sectors except for Core Biopharma increased employment. This is compared to employment growth in all industries(^2) of 12% since 2009 at a CAGR of 1.3%.
The employment decreases in Core Biopharma (8,300 in total over the period) was concentrated between 2010-2014, when a number of the large pharmaceutical companies underwent re-structuring.
Total industry turnover increased by £2.0bn between 2009 to 2018. This was driven by the Service & Supply sectors (£5.9bn) offsetting decreases in Core Biopharma (£3.3bn) and Med Tech (£0.7bn).
Between 2009 and 2018, the single-use technology and orthopaedic devices segments replaced hospital hardware and ophthalmic devices in the industry’s top 5 core segments by employment. By turnover, therapeutic proteins replaced vaccines in the top 5 segments over the same period.
Between 2009 and 2018, most regions in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland have seen a net increase in employment in the life sciences industry. The South East of England and West Midlands were exceptions to this, seeing large decreases in employment relating to large pharma restructuring in the South East and decreases across sectors in the West Midlands.
______________________________________________________________________
(^2) UK employment (all industries) taken from HI00 Regional labour market: Headline Labour Force Survey indicators for all regions 19th March 2019 release Introduction
This report contains analysis of trends in the UK life science industry, covering the Biopharma and Med Tech sectors. The three main measures of economic contribution and industry structure are:
- employment - the number of people employed by life science businesses
- turnover - the amount of money taken by businesses within scope of life science sector activities
- number of businesses – the number of life science businesses and their sites registered in the UK
It contains analyses of the industry looking at the economic activity of businesses that market therapeutic products and medical devices as well as the specialist Service & Supply chains that are key parts of the ecosystem. A segmentation approach is applied that enables a detailed analysis of the product and service categories that make up the industry.
The analysis is based on the 2018 database of sites and businesses updated between October and December 2018 using the methodology summarised in Annex 2.
The year referred to in this report is the year of the update rather than the year of the turnover and employment figures; turnover and employment are for the latest 12 months available. For the majority of sites, these figures will have been derived from latest accounts submitted by businesses to Companies House; the figures may be submitted up to 9 months after the end of the accounting period (which itself may vary between businesses).
The data, charts, figures, and maps used in this document, plus separate infographics can be found at https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/bioscience-and-health-technology-database-annual-reports
______________________________________________________________________
3 The data does not include industrial biotechnology, animal health, not-for-profit organisations, public funded institutions or universities 4 See Annex 3 for a list of the segmentation categories Terminology
Industry: used to collectively describe all Sectors covered in the analysis
Sector: used to describe Core Biopharma, Core Med Tech, Biopharma Service & Supply or Med Tech Service & Supply
Segment: used to describe the individual product or service groups within a Sector (see Annex 3 for a detailed list of segments)
Core Biopharma: includes all businesses involved in developing and/or producing their own pharmaceutical products - from small, research and development (R&D) focused biotechs to multinational Big Pharma
Biopharma Service & Supply: comprises businesses that offer goods and services to Core Biopharma businesses including, for example, Contract Research and Manufacturing Organisations (CRMOs), and suppliers of consumables and reagents for R&D facilities
Core Med Tech: includes all businesses whose primary business involves developing and producing Med Tech products, ranging from single-use consumables to complex hospital equipment, including digital health products
Med Tech Service & Supply: comprises businesses that offer services to Core Med Tech businesses including, for example, CRMOs, and suppliers of consumables and reagents for R&D facilities
Digital health: includes businesses involved in making products for both hospitals and consumers including products such as hospital information systems and mobile medical devices and apps. It is a segment wholly within the Core Med Tech Sector.
Genomics: an interdisciplinary field focusing on the study of the human genome and the application of resulting knowledge to human health. It is a cross-cutting categorisation across all four sectors.
Business: used to describe an entity that is the legal owner of a group of trading addresses or sites and legal entities. A business may consist of more than one site or registered company. The term business is used in this document when discussing the whole life sciences industry and the four sectors.
There are 49 businesses that are active in more than one sector which means there is a small difference in the count of businesses at the industry level (5,543) compared to the sector level (5,592). There is no difference in the sums of employment or turnover at the different levels of analysis. See Annex 2 for more detail.
Sites: used when referring to the data at the segment or geographical level. All data in the spreadsheets that accompany this document are analysed at the site level. This is the level at which all data entries (6,340 records) are held and analysed in the database. A single site is segmented and has employment and turnover assigned to it. As a business can have multiple sites and can operate in more than one segment, the total counts of sites at segment level is greater than the count of businesses referred to at sector level.
SME status: based on the European definition of Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (SMEs) and refers to businesses with fewer than 250 employees and which either have annual turnover up to and including €50m and/or have an annual balance sheet total up to and including €43m.
1. Industry overview
*Figure 1: Total employment, turnover and number of businesses in the life sciences industry by sector*
The life sciences industry employs approximately 248,400 people in the UK. Approximately 127,400 (51% of the industry total) are employed in the Med Tech sector comprising the Core Med Tech and the Service & Supply segments. The Core Med Tech sector is the largest in the industry by employment and number of businesses with a total employment of 97,600 (39% of the industry) and 2,730 businesses (45% of the industry).
The digital health segment is included in the Core Med Tech sector and is the largest segment in this sector with 11,100 employees (4.5% of the industry) and the second largest in the Core sector by employment.
The Core Biopharma sector contributes the largest turnover to the industry at £33.4bn (45% of the industry). This turnover is generated from 703 business (12% of the industry). Within the Core Biopharma sector, the Top 25 global pharmaceutical companies by revenue make up 62% of this turnover (£20.6bn) and employ 58% (36,800) of the Core Biopharma employees.
______________________________________________________________________
6 [http://www.pharmexec.com/pharm-execs-top-50-companies-2018](http://www.pharmexec.com/pharm-execs-top-50-companies-2018) The Service & Supply companies that support the Core Biopharma and Med Tech sectors have a combined employment of 87,500 compared to 160,900 for the two Core sectors, while turnover is £21.7bn compared to £52.1bn.
1.1. Core sectors The two Core segments of the industry contain an estimated 3,400 businesses, with the majority in the Med Tech sector (80%). The businesses in these two sectors focus on the discovery, development and marketing of new therapies and medical devices.
- On average, a Biopharma sector business has a turnover six times that of a Med Tech business and employs twice as many people.
- 31% of Biopharma sites have a turnover greater than £5m compared to 19% for Med Tech.
- 8% of Biopharma sites have 250 or more employees compared to 2% for Med Tech.
The global Top 30 Core Med Tech businesses by revenue(^7) employ 19% of the total Core Med Tech sector and their revenue accounts for 27% of the sector total.
The global Top 25 Core Biopharma businesses by revenue(^8) employ 58% of the total Core Biopharma sector and their revenue accounts for 62% of the sector total.
The largest segment in the Core Biopharma sector by employment is small molecules, employing 77% of the Core Biopharma sector. In contrast, in Core Med Tech, the largest segment is Digital Health that employs 11% of the sector total. The top 14 of 20 segments employ 90% of the Core Med Tech sector.
The five largest employment segments in the two Core sectors combined employ 85,500 or 53% of the total in the Core sectors. Of the five largest segments, all but small molecules are segments within Core Med Tech. The top five segments in the two Core sectors by turnover (small molecules, in vitro diagnostics, therapeutic proteins, single use technology, and orthopaedic devices) have a combined turnover of £34.8bn or 67% of the total Core sectors; £27.8bn of which is from the small molecules segment.
Of the businesses in Core Biopharma 69% are SMEs compared to 81% in the Core Med Tech sector.
______________________________________________________________________
(^7) The Top 30 ranking as based on [https://www.mpo-mag.com/issues/2018-07-01/view_features/the-2018-top-30-global-medical-device-companies](https://www.mpo-mag.com/issues/2018-07-01/view_features/the-2018-top-30-global-medical-device-companies)
(^8) The Top 25 ranking based on [http://www.pharmexec.com/pharm-execs-top-50-companies-2018](http://www.pharmexec.com/pharm-execs-top-50-companies-2018) 1.2. Service & Supply sectors
Both the Core Biopharma and Med Tech businesses are supported by large specialist UK based Service & Supply sectors.
The Biopharma Service & Supply sector employs 57,700 people in 1,450 businesses and generates a turnover of £16.4bn. The largest segments by employment in this sector are contract manufacturing and research, reagent & equipment suppliers, and clinical research organisation that together employ 39,300 people and account for 83% (£13.6bn) of the sector turnover.
The Med Tech Service & Supply chain sector employs 29,800 people in 1,130 businesses, with a turnover of £5.3bn. The largest segments in this sector are reagent & equipment suppliers, contract manufacturing and research, and specialist consultants (excluding regulatory) that together employ 15,300 people and account for 51% (£2.7bn) of the sector turnover. 2. Sector overviews – Key facts
2.1. Biopharma sector
- In total, the sector employs 118,000 people; 63,300 in Core Biopharma businesses and 54,700 in Service & Supply businesses. The combined turnover of the sector is £50bn.
- Employment in the sector is concentrated in the south east and North West of England, and in Scotland.
- Large non-SME businesses are the major employers in Core Biopharma (92% of all employment in the sector). In the Service & Supply sector, the majority (81%) of the businesses are SMEs and employ 22% of the sector.
2.2. Biopharma – Core businesses
**Overall** the Core Biopharma sector contains 703 businesses employing 63,300 people and a turnover of £33.4bn in 2018.
**The sector breakdown** shows that businesses whose main economic activity involves small molecule therapeutics form the largest segment, accounting for 67% (585) of sites, 77% of employees (48,900) and 83% (£27.8bn) of turnover. Antibodies, therapeutic proteins and vaccines are the next largest segments, together making up 19% (12,000) and 15% (£4.9bn) of employment and turnover respectively.
**Geographical analysis of employment** shows Core Biopharma businesses in all areas of the UK with the greatest concentration in the South East, East of England, London, and the North West of England which together account for 80% (50,650) of Core Biopharma employment.
**Analysing the size of the businesses** shows 31% (220) of Core Biopharma businesses are non-SMEs. These large businesses employ 58,000 people (92% of Core Biopharma employment) and account for £32.4bn of turnover (97% of Core Biopharma turnover). They represent 44% of total life sciences industry turnover and 23% of employment. 2.3. Biopharma – Service & Supply chain
Overall the Biopharma Service & Supply chain consists of 1,450 businesses employing 57,700 people with a turnover of £16.4bn in 2018.
The sector breakdown shows the largest employing segment is contract manufacturing and research organisations that consist of 338 sites employing 19,200 people. The largest segment in terms of turnover is reagent & equipment suppliers, which represents 46% (£7.6bn) of the total. Clinical research organisations completes the Top 3 Biopharma Service & Supply segments; in total the Top 3 account for 68% (39,300) of the employment.
Geographical analysis of employment shows the South East and East of England combined have the most Service & Supply businesses (590) and employees (39%), followed by Scotland (11%), and the North West of England (10%).
Analysing the size of businesses shows that the Biopharma Service & Supply sector is predominately composed of SMEs (1,180) that make up 81% of all businesses, yet they represent only 22% of employment (12,800 people) and 9% of turnover (£1.5bn) for the sector.
2.4. Med Tech sector (including digital health)
- In total, the sector employs 127,400 people; 97,600 in Core Med Tech businesses and 29,800 in Service & Supply businesses. The combined turnover of the sector is £24bn.
- Core Med Tech employment is spread across the UK. While the South East and North West of England, and the East Midlands account for 48% of the employment in the Service & Supply sector, 61% is outside of the south east of England, the normal hub for such services.
- SMEs in both Core Med Tech and Service & Supply account for a similar proportion of businesses (81% and 82% respectively) and employment (30% and 31% respectively).
2.5. Med Tech – Core businesses
Overall the Core Med Tech sector contains 2,730 businesses, employing 97,600 people with a turnover of £18.7bn in 2018.
The sector breakdown shows the largest segment by turnover is in vitro diagnostics followed by single use technology, orthopaedic devices, digital health, and assistive technology. These top five segments account for 42% (£7.8bn) of the Core Med Tech turnover. Digital health technology is the largest segment by employment followed by in vitro diagnostics, single use technology, orthopaedics, and assistive technology. These top five account for 46% (44,800) of sector employment.
**Geographical analysis of employment** shows there are sites spread across the UK and employment is less concentrated in the South East, East of England, and London. Compared to the Core Biopharma sector where 34% of employment is outside these regions, the majority (61%; 59,700) of Core Med Tech employment is outside of the south east of England.
**Analysis of the size of businesses** shows that of the 2,740 businesses in Core Med Tech, 81% (2,220) are SMEs. They represent 30% (29,600) of Core Med Tech employment and 20% (£3.7bn) of Core Med Tech turnover. Core Med Tech SMEs account for 46% of the total number of life sciences SMEs.
### 2.6. Med Tech – Service & Supply chain
**Overall** the sector contains 1,130 businesses that employ 29,800 and generates a turnover of £5.3bn in 2018.
**The sector breakdown** shows the largest segment of the sector is reagent, equipment and consumables suppliers, which has the highest number of sites (325) and employs 24% (7,100) of the sector’s total and 31% (£1.7bn) of its turnover. The next largest segments by employment are contract manufacturing and research followed by specialist consultants.
**Geographical analysis** shows, in contrast to Core Med Tech, the top 3 areas are the South East and North West of England, and the East Midlands. These three areas account for 48% (14,200) of the employment and 51% (£2.7bn) of the sector turnover.
**Analysis of the size of businesses** shows that 82% (922) of businesses are SMEs, employing 9,100 people (31% of Med Tech Service & Supply) and accounting for £1.2bn (23%) of turnover. 3. Geographical analysis
- The South East of England contains the largest population of life sciences industry jobs with a total employment across all four sectors of 58,400 (24%). The East and North West of England together with the South East are the Top 3 regions by employment.
- The Core Biopharma sector is concentrated within the South East and East of England, particularly in an area stretching from Cambridge to Reading, and areas around Stevenage and in London. In the North West, Core Biopharma businesses are located along the corridor running from Liverpool to Manchester.
- Core Med Tech has concentrations of employment around the major cities in the Midlands and Yorkshire including Leeds, Sheffield, and Birmingham, as well as London and Reading.
- The Service & Supply sectors’ employment is distributed in a similar pattern to the sector they serve but less concentrated around the major conurbations.
The distribution of employment by sector is shown in Figure 2. The South East of England contains the largest population of life sciences industry jobs with 58,400 (24% of the industry) employed across all four sectors. The Top 3 regions by employment include the South East followed by East of England, and the North West. Together these regions contain 50% (123,000) of all life sciences industry employees. Figure 2: The distribution of the industry employment by sector across the regions of England and in Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales
The relative contribution of the four sectors to the overall life sciences employment in the regions is shown in Figure 3. In the East of England, the North West, and London the Core Biopharma sector accounts for more than 30% of life sciences employment; Biopharma Service & Supply accounts for more than 30% of employment in Scotland, the North East of England, and Northern Ireland; Core Med Tech accounts for more than half of life sciences employment in West Midlands, Yorkshire & Humber, Wales, and the South West of England; no region has Med Tech Service & Supply employment greater than 25%.
Figure 3: Regional employment in the life science sector displayed as a percentage of the total life sciences employment in the region
Maps of the distribution of life sciences employment across the UK gives detail on the location concentrations of employment.
The Core Biopharma sector is concentrated within the South East and East of England particularly in an area stretching from Cambridge to Reading including areas around Stevenage and in London. In the North West, Core Biopharma businesses are located along the corridor running from Liverpool to Manchester.
The Biopharma Service & Supply sector, while showing similar concentrations to Core Biopharma, is more widely distributed with 58% (compared to 80%) of the employment in the same Top 4 regions. In particular, Scotland contains the third largest concentration of employment representing 11% of the UK sector. The Core Med Tech and Service & Supply sectors employment has concentrations of employment in areas around London and in the North West of England. In contrast to the Biopharma sectors, Core Med Tech has concentrations of employment around the major cities in the Midlands and Yorkshire including Leeds, Sheffield and Birmingham. Figure 5: Map showing the location and relative level of employment for the Core Med Tech and Service & Supply sectors 4. Digital health and Genomics
- The digital health segment employs 11,100 people and has a total turnover of £1.4bn.
- Between 2009 to 2018, the segment has increased employment by 2,100 and turnover by £152m.
- Of the businesses where the formation date is known, 59% (350) of digital health sites were formed in the last 10 years.
- The Top 3 regions for employment in the segment are London, Yorkshire and Humber, and the South East.
- Overall genomics related activity in the UK is located in 57 sites with 2,400 employees and a total turnover estimated at £1.9bn.
- The largest activity in the Genomics segment is in sequencing consumables and instruments businesses that employ 1,600 and generated £1.7bn in turnover.
4.1. Digital health
The digital health segment is composed of 600 sites, the highest number of sites for a Core segment in the life sciences industry. Digital health employs 11,100 people and has a total turnover of £1.4bn.
The estimated turnover and employment includes only businesses where a significant proportion (over 20%) of their economic activity is in digital health. This approach does not include all the economic activity associated with, for example, large diversified businesses where digital health is not their main activity.
Geographically, 28% of the sites are located in London along with 24% of the employment in the segment. The Top 3 regions for employment in the segment are London, Yorkshire and Humber, and the South East. These regions together employ 60% of the segment.
Analysis of the sector breakdown shows that, within digital health, hospital information systems accounts for 37% (£510m) of turnover and 36% (4,000) of employment. The e-health analytics and GP information system are the next largest segments and together the Top 3 sub-segments employ 7,400 people, or 67% of the segment.
Analysis of the size of businesses shows that 79% (459) of digital health businesses are SMEs and employ 34% of digital health jobs (3,800), contributing £300m in turnover (24%) of the digital health segment turnover. 4.2. Genomics
Genomics is an interdisciplinary field of science and technology focused on the study of genomes. In this analysis the focus is on the study of the human genome and the application of the resulting knowledge to human health. Since the instigation of the Human Genome Project in 2001, the field and its applications have grown. The global market for equipment, reagents, and services based on genomics was estimated at over £8bn in 2015 and is forecast to grow rapidly.(^9)
**Overall genomics related activity** in the UK is located in 57 sites with 2,400 employees and a total turnover estimated at £1.9bn(^{10}). Between 2016 and 2018 the activity has increased employment by 590 and turnover by £0.8bn.
**The largest activity in the segment** is in sequencing consumables and instruments businesses that employ 1,600 and generated £1.7bn in turnover. Within this segment, sale of instruments is the largest activity employing 513 (68% of the genomics total) and generating a turnover of £1.6bn (93% of the genomics total).
______________________________________________________________________
(^9) Genomics in the UK, Deloitte study for the Office of Life Sciences, Sept 2015
(^{10}) The economic activity is based primarily on businesses that have the majority of their activity in the sector either selling equipment, reagents or services. The analysis does not include in-house use or application of genomics for example for drug discovery & development 5. Industry and sector trends 2009-2018
In this section, the changes in employment and turnover between 2009 to 2018 are analysed using the same methodology as that from the supplemental report(^\\text{11}), published in 2018, using a subset of the database records. These cover 97.7% of all 2018 records.
- Over the period 2009 to 2018, the life sciences industry increased employment by 17,400 an increase of 8% over 2009, at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 0.8%
- Total industry turnover increased by £1.2bn between 2009 and 2018, which was driven by the Service & Supply sectors (£4.8bn) offsetting decreases in Core Biopharma (£3.1bn) and Med Tech (£0.5bn).
- Over the period, Core Med Tech and the two Service & Supply sectors showed overall increases in employment totalling 25,600, while the Core Biopharma sector reduced employment by 8,300.
- This decrease in the Core Biopharma sector was concentrated in the small molecule sector and over the period 2010-2014, during which time a number of the Top 25 pharmaceutical companies underwent re-structuring.
- The Core Med Tech employment grew by 10,400 between 2009 to 2018, a 12% increase.
- Both Service & Supply sectors employment grew from 2009 to 2018 by 15,300, with the largest increase in employment in the Biopharma Service & Supply sector (8,700).
- Over the 10 year period, the majority of regions in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland have seen a net increase in employment in the life sciences industry. The South East of England and West Midlands were the exception to this, seeing large decreases in employment.
(^{11}) https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/751210/Strength_and_Opportunity_2017_supplemental_report.pdf 5.1. Life sciences industry trends
Over the period 2009 to 2018, the life sciences industry increased employment by 17,400, an increase of 8% compared to 2009, at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR)(^{12}) of 0.8%. This is compared to employment growth in all industries(^{13}) of 12% since 2009 at a CAGR of 1.3%. Over the period, Core Med Tech and the two Service & Supply sectors showed overall increases in employment totalling 25,600 while the Core Biopharma sector reduced employment by 8,300. Several of the Top 25 companies, who are the majority employers in the segment, completed site closures and reorganisations during this period. Both Core sectors recorded falls in employment over the last year in contrast to the Service & Supply sectors that both recorded increases.
*Figure 7: Employment by life sciences industry 2009 to 2018*
Total industry turnover increased by £2.0bn between 2009 and 2018, which was the result of increases in the Service & Supply sectors (£5.9bn) offsetting decreases in Core Biopharma (£3.3bn) and Med Tech (£0.7bn). From 2009 to 2011, total industry turnover grew but a decline followed until 2014 after which growth resumed. This decrease was primarily driven by decreased revenue of £6.9bn in the Core Biopharma sector between 2010 and 2016 after
(^{13}) UK employment (all industries) taken from HI00 Regional labour market: Headline Labour Force Survey indicators for all regions 19th March 2019 release which turnover has remained steady. Growth in the industry from 2014 was also positively impacted by increases of £4.5bn from 2014 in the Biopharma Service & Supply sector.
Table 1: Employment, turnover, and number of sites for the life sciences industry 2009 to 2018
| Year | Employment | Turnover £bn (2018 prices) | Sites | |------|------------|-----------------------------|-------| | 2009 | 230,130 | 71.8 | 5,920 | | 2010 | 238,660 | 77.1 | 6,110 | | 2011 | 238,450 | 77.6 | 6,240 | | 2012 | 234,790 | 76.1 | 6,360 | | 2013 | 238,250 | 71.4 | 6,490 | | 2014 | 236,810 | 68.8 | 6,370 | | 2015 | 244,000 | 69.1 | 6,460 | | 2016 | 251,040 | 70.8 | 6,370 | | 2017 | 247,580 | 73.0 | 6,250 | | 2018 | 247,480 | 73.8 | 6,590 |
Comparing the Top 5 segments of 2018 to those of 2009:
- The Top 3 segments by employment have remained the same but fourth and fifth have changed with single use technology and orthopaedic devices replacing hospital hardware and ophthalmic devices.
- The Top 5 by turnover also changed, with vaccines being replaced by therapeutic proteins in the list.
Figure 8: Top 5 segments in 2009 and 2018 in the Core sectors of Biopharma and Med Tech ranked by employment, turnover, and number of sites 5.2. Core Biopharma and Med Tech sector trends
The Core Biopharma sector employment fell by 8,300 (-12%) between 2009 and 2018, at a CAGR of -1.4%. Most of this decrease happened between 2010 and 2014, when employment in the small molecules segment fell by 8,400. Since 2014, sector employment has remained approximately the same. The segments associated with biological or advanced therapy medicinal products (ATMP) therapeutics all showed employment increase totalling 4,000.
Over the 10 years, this sector’s turnover fell by £3.3bn. The decrease in turnover began in 2011 then returned to growth from 2015, and has stabilised over the past three years.
Table 2: Employment, turnover, and number of sites for the Core Biopharma sector 2009 to 2018
| Year | Employment | Turnover £bn (2018 prices) | Sites | |------|------------|---------------------------|-------| | 2009 | 71,440 | 36.7 | 740 | | 2010 | 72,920 | 40.2 | 760 | | 2011 | 70,760 | 38.7 | 770 | | 2012 | 64,420 | 34.1 | 790 | | 2013 | 63,600 | 33.6 | 810 | | 2014 | 63,530 | 32.6 | 790 | | 2015 | 64,670 | 33.4 | 810 | | 2016 | 65,960 | 33.6 | 820 | | 2017 | 63,460 | 33.4 | 830 | | 2018 | 63,160 | 33.4 | 860 |
The Core Med Tech sector employment grew by 10,400 over the period 2009 to 2018, an increase of 12% on 2009. The sector employment grew at a CAGR of 1.3% with the trend of growth slowing and then falling slightly between 2016 and 2018. 14 out of 20 segments in Core Med Tech had an increase in employment totalling 14,500, and six segments accounted for 82% of this increase, led by single use technology. Over the whole period, turnover fell by £0.7bn.
In the Digital Health segment, employment increased by 2,100 and turnover by £152m, which represents 23% and 13% growth respectively. The number of sites has also increased from 310 in 2009 to 590 in 2018. Of the businesses where the formation date is known, 51% (299) of digital health businesses were formed in 2010 or later.
Table 3: Employment, turnover, and number of sites for the Core Med Tech sector 2009 to 2018
| Year | Employment | Turnover £bn (2018 prices) | Sites | |------|------------|---------------------------|-------| | 2009 | 86,780 | 19.4 | 2,940 | | 2010 | 91,840 | 20.1 | 3,000 | | 2011 | 93,260 | 20.1 | 3,040 | | 2012 | 95,440 | 20.1 | 3,050 | | 2013 | 96,220 | 20.0 | 3,098 | | 2014 | 95,960 | 18.9 | 2,980 | | 2015 | 97,610 | 18.8 | 3,010 | | 2016 | 99,740 | 18.8 | 2,950 | | 2017 | 99,600 | 18.9 | 2,870 | | 2018 | 97,140 | 18.7 | 3,000 | 5.3. Service & Supply sector trends
Both Service & Supply sectors increased employment and turnover between 2009 and 2018, by 15,300 and £5.9bn respectively, with the largest increase in employment in the Biopharma Service & Supply sector (8,700). The largest increases in these sectors were in the Biopharma contract manufacturing and research segment (4,400), and Med Tech training segment (1,400).
Between 2009 and 2018, the Biopharma Service & Supply sector employment and turnover increased by 18% and by 30% (£3.8bn) respectively. With the exception of between 2013 and 2014, there was growth in employment in all years and the CAGR over the period was 1.9%.
Table 4: Employment, turnover, and number of sites for the Biopharma Service & Supply sector 2009 to 2018
| Year | Employment | Turnover £bn (2018 prices) | Sites | |------|------------|-----------------------------|-------| | 2009 | 48,610 | 12.6 | 1,250 | | 2010 | 48,960 | 13.1 | 1,310 | | 2011 | 48,960 | 13.4 | 1,380 | | 2012 | 49,700 | 13.2 | 1,440 | | 2013 | 51,270 | 13.1 | 1,500 | | 2014 | 50,180 | 11.9 | 1,530 | | 2015 | 53,190 | 13.0 | 1,520 | | 2016 | 55,380 | 13.7 | 1,500 | | 2017 | 55,420 | 15.5 | 1,570 | | 2018 | 57,490 | 16.4 | |
Between 2009 and 2018, the Med Tech Service & Supply sector employment increased by 6,400 and turnover by £2.1bn over the period. The sector employment had a CAGR of 2.7%.
Table 3: Employment, turnover, and number of sites for the Med Tech Service & Supply sector 2009 to 2018
| Year | Employment | Turnover £bn (2018 prices) | Sites | |------|------------|-----------------------------|-------| | 2009 | 23,310 | 3.2 | 1,000 | | 2010 | 24,940 | 3.7 | 1,040 | | 2011 | 25,480 | 3.9 | 1,060 | | 2012 | 25,230 | 4.1 | 1,080 | | 2013 | 27,160 | 4.2 | 1,100 | | 2014 | 27,140 | 4.4 | 1,110 | | 2015 | 28,530 | 4.7 | 1,110 | | 2016 | 29,960 | 5.0 | 1,090 | | 2017 | 29,100 | 5.1 | 1,090 | | 2018 | 29,690 | 5.3 | 1,150 | 5.4. Geographical trends
When comparing geographical employment data over the 10 year period, the majority of regions in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland have seen a net\\textsuperscript{14} increase in employment in the life sciences industry. Two regions in England, the West Midlands and the South East saw employment fall by over 2,000 in each region, while employment in Scotland fell slightly.
The geographical net changes in employment vary by life sciences sector. These major changes are:
1. Core Biopharma – Large decrease in employment in the South East of England and an increase in the East of England. The main cause of the fall in employment in the South East was the restructuring of three Top 25 Pharma businesses that resulted in closures of a number sites in the region.
2. Core Med Tech – Increases in all regions of England except a large decrease in the West Midlands. Increases in Northern Ireland and Wales but a large decrease in Scotland. The fall in employment in the West Midlands is due to a mixture of causes including movement of businesses to other UK regions and acquisition of businesses by overseas owners leading to restructuring. The main cause of the fall in Scotland was the closure of a manufacturing plant operated by one of the Top 30 Medical Device businesses.
3. Biopharma and Med Tech Service & Supply – Increases in the majority of regions of England and in Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales. Large increase in the South East of England in Med Tech Service & Supply and London, North West, and Northern Ireland in Biopharma Service & Supply. The West Midlands is the only region to see decreases in both Service & Supply sectors.
\\textsuperscript{14} The net changes in employment in a region will be the result of a combination of new company formation, growth at existing companies, movement between regions, inward investment into the UK and companies reducing employment or trading. Figure 9: Net changes in employment between 2009 and 2018 for the life sciences industry in regions of England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales Annex 1– Full data partners acknowledgement statement
The Office for Life Sciences gratefully acknowledge the contribution of the following regional and national organisations in the compilation of the life sciences database over the past ten years.
The content of the database has been derived from a variety of proprietary data sources which have been provided under license. The Office for Life Sciences would like to acknowledge the assistance given by the owners of these data sources.
Business Information was accessed under license by Dun & Bradstreet (D&B) Limited and the FAME database from Bureau van Dijk Electronic Publishing. More details on how this data is used can be found in Annex 2 below.
The database construction, data integration, data analysis and commentary preparation were completed by a consortium led by Cels Business Services (CBSL) Ltd. The consortium included Kepier & Company Ltd and Lindum Research.
Data partners
- Association of British Healthcare Industries (ABHI)
- Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry (ABPI)
- AXREM
- BioIndustry Association (BIA)
- BioNow
- Biopartner
- Biosciences Knowledge Transfer Network (KTN)
- British Healthcare Trade Association (BHTA)
- British In Vitro Diagnostics Association (BIVDA)
- HealthTech and Medicines Knowledge Transfer Network (KTN)
- Innovate UK
- Invest Northern Ireland
- MedCity
- Medilink East Midlands
- Medilink North of England
- Medilink South West
- Medilink West Midlands
- MediWales
- MHRA
- OBN
- One Nucleus
- Scottish Enterprise
- South East Health Technologies Alliance (SEHTA)
- TechUK
- Welsh Government
- West of England LEP Annex 2 – Methodology
Summary
The annual update of the database is carried out in four main phases: compiling information on new businesses and existing businesses; classification or segmentation of new businesses; matching of business details with economic data from external databases; and validation of the data set.
Information on new businesses is sourced from the data partners and also by searches of publicly available and subscription databases. The data partners provide lists of businesses from their internal databases, which contain both potentially new businesses (those businesses that have been formed in the period after the last annual update) and existing businesses (those businesses that are already in the database). For existing businesses, this includes information the data partners have obtained on address changes, any information on employees at a location, or suggested segmentation changes.
The information from data partners and other information sources is cleansed to remove duplicates and records already in the database and is then segmented. Segmentation assigns each new business and site to a sector and segment. In some cases, allocation can be to more than one sector or segment, for example some large multi-national businesses produce both pharmaceutical and medical devices. If, based on the information available, a business cannot be assigned to a sector and segment, it is deemed to be not-in-scope (NIS). Such NIS business information is retained but is not included in the data set used to analysis the industry.
In order for a business to be classified as in-scope and their data to be included, they are assessed against the following criteria: have a legal entity in the UK; is a private limited company (this excludes universities, publicly owned institutions, NHS activities, and charities); and have 20% of their total UK turnover derived from one or more of the segments shown in Annex 3(^\\text{15}).
Businesses proposed for inclusion or identified through a search of new incorporations, are checked for "proof of life" i.e. signs of economic activity such as employees, turnover, award of funding, or an active website with contact details. Businesses which fail this test but appear to be in scope are reviewed again in the next project cycle.
Once the cleansed data set is prepared, it is used to source data on turnover and employment from either D&B or FAME, and from examination of published company reports or data. The turnover figures will include turnover on the sale of products wholly or partially manufactured outside the UK.
(^{15}) The focus of the economic activity included in the database is from companies that either develop or produce pharmaceuticals or medical devices sold to healthcare providers (e.g. the NHS) and companies that are part of the supply chain to these Core companies. There is also included activity from some of the larger wholesale companies that historically were involved in manufacture. The data returns from D&B and FAME are carefully checked to ensure a correct match with the business location. Further detailed validation of the data is then carried out examining significant changes in the employment and turnover data. These changes are investigated to detect any anomalies through verification against other sources. For example, large changes in employment at a business site are scrutinised to see if information is available from press releases or other information in the public domain to verify the change. In 2018, Gender Pay Gap reporting was used both to detect potential anomalies by using the compulsory employment band data, and to verify or update using more detailed information provided by businesses within their own reports. The data for individual sites under one business is examined to ensure that there is no double-counting of employment or turnover data.
Once the validation analysis is completed, the data set is “locked” for the annual update cycle, ready for analysis for this publication.
Postcodes attached to records in the database allow geographical analysis of employment and turnover at site level. Where available, we have validated employment data for the large businesses by using information such as annual reports or websites to identify the number and types of employment.
The primary allocation of turnover to location is based on the legal entity information sourced from third party databases, validated for large businesses from annual accounts. This method of turnover reporting is used throughout the document.
To bring the definition used for SME status in previous datasets in line with that used in the database from 2017 onwards, we sourced information from D&B.
We used GDP deflators\\textsuperscript{16} to take account of inflation across the years. We also adjusted for population demographics to represent the changing size of the potential workforce\\textsuperscript{17}.
**Trends Analysis**
In order to create trends over the period 2009 to 2018 historical information for all businesses which have matched company registration number (CRN) was sourced. This backfilling approach creates a like-for-like snapshot for each year from 2009 from which we can observe trends. Because the dataset used for the trend analysis excludes companies and records where no CRN match was possible the 2018 employment and turnover figures in the trend analysis do not match those in the single year 2018 analysis\\textsuperscript{18}
To gather additional economic information (employment and turnover), third-party sources including Dun & Bradstreet (D&B), FAME, and published company-filed accounts or reports are used. These are the same sources as those used to construct the main annual dataset. Where economic data could not be sourced from company-filed accounts, an algorithm was used to populate the dataset based on growth profile averages for individual segments.
\\textsuperscript{16} GDP Deflators Spring Statement 2019 update issued 13\\textsuperscript{th} March 2019 \\textsuperscript{17} Regional labour market statistics: HI00 Headline indicators for UK region and countries issued 19\\textsuperscript{th} March 2019 \\textsuperscript{18} 155 records did not have a matched CRN and are not included in the trend data set. These exclusion of these records reduces the 2018 employment and turnover in the trend dataset by 879 and £32m respectively To source additional segmentation information, company reports and information available via Internet searches were used. This was necessary to align definitions, e.g. the merging of the ‘Pharmaceutical’ and ‘Medical Biotechnology’ sectors into ‘Biopharmaceuticals’ in the 2014 report.
**Segmentation**
The life sciences database contains information on businesses in the UK structured at the level of trading address corresponding to the 6,740 records in the database for 2018. Using this as the lowest level of information the data is aggregated to site and company level to give the estimate of total number of life sciences businesses in the UK (5,871). Each trading address or site is examined to allocate the activity carried out to one of the segments within in a sector. As a small proportion of businesses in the database have more than one trading address or site and can operate in more than one sector (for example can have activity in medical technology and pharmaceuticals), the sum of number of businesses at the sector, segment, and geographical level will be greater than the total number of businesses in the UK.
Each business and their individual sites are segmented depending on the main type of final medicinal product or device produced. Businesses that produce products that are directly used in healthcare are designated “Core” businesses to distinguish them from businesses that are active only in the Service & Supply chain.
It should be noted that within in the Biopharma sector suppliers of over the counter (OTC) medicines are included along with generic suppliers and manufacturers.
Within the database, codes are used to allocate businesses and sites to one or more segments. Where a company has products that fall in more than one category, these are all coded, however only the code that represents the majority of the business activity is used in the analysis. Figure 10 breaks down the count of records in the database from the total number of businesses in life sciences down to the allocation of sites to business activity. Figure 10: The count of records in the database at each level of classification from site level through segment, sector and industry for 2018.
Segmentation was reviewed for all businesses and sites in the 2014 update. During the 2015 update a number of the businesses that have large contributions to employment and turnover were reviewed for segmentation and their turnover in scope (TOS). The Pharmaceutical and Medical Biotechnology sectors were also combined into a new sector: Biopharma.
Additional segmentation codes are used to further classify company activities by both product type and business activity. For example, in vitro diagnostics is further segmented into in vitro diagnostic products that involve clinical chemistry, immunochemistry etc. The business activity codes are used to code businesses and sites dependent on whether they undertake R&D, manufacturing, Service & Supply (of their products), and sales/distribution (of their products).
The codes for each sector containing Core businesses are shown in Annex 3. The Service & Supply chain sectors that serve the Biopharma and Med Tech sectors are coded with the prefix BP and MT respectively followed by the appropriate number to define the type of service or supply.
Alignment with Standard Industry Classification (SIC) codes
Standard Industry Classification (SIC) codes are used to classify businesses by industry in administrative statistics. This was last updated in 2008(^\\text{19}). This classification system has categories for businesses whose primary activity is the manufacture of pharmaceuticals, manufacture of types of medical equipment, and those whose primary activity is biotechnology R&D.
(^{19}) https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/standard-industrial-classification-of-economic-activities-sic The SIC system, however, does not allow identification of the full range of life sciences businesses. A bespoke industry segmentation based on this wider range, specifically to be used in the database, was defined with the assistance of the data partners and is summarised in Annex 3. This is the classification system used in this report.
We have analysed the SIC codes of the businesses within the database and only 24% of businesses in the life sciences database fall into the standard SIC codes used to identify the life sciences industry. The remaining businesses fall into another 247 SIC codes, demonstrating the on-going need for this report and for the life sciences database to describe and analyse the full breadth of this industry.
For comparison, Table 6 shows the total employment and turnover for businesses in the database with SIC codes typically used to define the life sciences industry.
Table 4: Turnover, employment, and number of sites based on the SIC codes that cover the main sectors in the life sciences industry
| SIC code description | SIC Code | Number of Sites | Employment | Turnover £m | |-----------------------------------------------------------|----------|-----------------|------------|-------------| | Manufacture of Basic Pharmaceuticals | 21100 | 279 | 43,970 | 20,904 | | Manufacture of pharmaceutical preparations | 21200 | 113 | 12,184 | 4,312 | | Manufacture of Irradiation, Electromedical and Electrotherapeutic Equipment | 26600 | 30 | 1,411 | 408 | | Manufacture of Medical and Dental Equipment and Supplies | 32500 | 481 | 26,353 | 5,107 | | Research and Experimental Development on Biotechnology | 72110 | 694 | 11,684 | 4,193 | | **Total life sciences based on SIC** | | **1,579** | **95,602** | **34,924** | | **Total life sciences in database** | | **6,740** | **248,363**| **73,835** |
The additional benefit of the segmentation approach used in the life sciences database is the ability to make a more granular assessment of the sector, including growth rates and trends. For example, this is the only source of definitive information that shows employment and growth rates in digital health or allows us to understand the growth of advanced therapy medicinal products. Timeline of events
The trends described in this report should be considered in context. A short timeline of political and life sciences-specific events is detailed below. This does not attempt to explain causality or justify the trends detailed above and should be viewed as contextual information only.
Table 5: Timeline of political and life sciences specific events
| Date | Event | |---------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------| | May 2010 | UK General Election | | Autumn 2010 | Formation of Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs) in England | | December 2011 | Strategy for UK Life Sciences published | | Duration of 2012 | City Deals wave 1 (8 cities) | | Duration of 2013 | City Deals wave 2 (18 cities) | | March 2014 | Formation of the Office for Life Sciences | | Late 2014 to early 2015 | Devolution Deals (3 city regions) | | May 2015 | UK General Election | | Duration of 2015 | Growth Deals (39 LEPs) | | June 2016 | Referendum on UK leaving the European Union | | June 2017 | UK General Election | | August 2017 | Life Sciences Industrial Strategy published | | December 2017 | Life Sciences Sector Deal launched | | December 2018 | Life Science Sector Deal 2 launched | Annex 3 – Company Ownership
The data sources contain information on the ultimate global owner of the businesses in the database. This information is available for 4,556 (69%) of the records in the database. However, the businesses where the owner origin is not known have a low economic impact as can be seen from Figures 11 and 12.
Figure 11: Distribution of sector employment between UK and Overseas life sciences businesses 2018
Figure 12: Distribution of sector turnover between UK and Overseas life sciences businesses 2018
## Annex 4 – Segmentation codes
### Biopharma Core (BP)
| Code | Description | |------|--------------------------------------------------| | BPA | Antibodies | | BPB | Therapeutic Proteins | | BPC | Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products (ATMPs) | | BPD | Vaccines | | BPE | Small Molecules | | BPF | Blood & Tissue Products |
### Service & Supply Chain (MX/BX)
| Code | Description | |------|--------------------------------------------------| | X01 | Clinical Research Organisation | | X02 | Contract Manufacturing Organisation | | X03 | Contract Formulation Manufacturing | | X04 | Assay developer | | X05 | Analytical Services | | X06 | Formulation/Drug delivery specialist | | X07 | Reagent, Equipment & consumables supplier | | X08 | Regulatory Expertise | | X09 | Patent and Legal specialist | | X10 | Logistics & Packaging | | X11 | Information systems specialists | | X12 | Tissue and Biomass | | X13 | Market Analysis/Specialist consultants | | X14 | Contract design | | X15 | Training | | X16 | Recruitment | | X17 | Investment Companies | | X18 | Healthcare service provider |
### Business Activity
| Code | Description | |------|--------------------------------------------------| | BAA | Research & Development, including Design | | BAB | Manufacture | | BAC | Sales / Distribution | | BAD | Service & Supply Chain |
### Genomics
| Code | Main Value Chain | |------|------------------| | GenA | Sampling | | GenB | Sequencing | | GenC | Analysis | | GenD | Interpretation | | GenE | Application | | GenX | N.E.C |
### Medical Tech Core (MT)
| Code | Description | |------|--------------------------------------------------| | MTA | Wound Care & Management | | MTB | In vitro diagnostic technology | | MTC | Radiotherapy equipment | | MTD | Medical Imaging/Ultrasound Equipment | | MTE | Anaesthetic and respiratory technology | | MTF | Orthopaedic Devices | | MTG | Cardiovascular & vascular devices | | MTH | Neurology | | MTI | Ophthalmic Devices/Equipment | | MTJ | Dental and maxillofacial technology | | MTK | Drug Delivery | | MTL | Infection Control | | MTM | Surgical Instruments (reusable) n.e.c. | | MTN | Single use technology n.e.c. | | MTO | Re-usable diagnostic or analytic equipment n.e.c.| | MTP | Implantable devices n.e.c. | | MTQ | Assistive Technology | | MTR | Mobility Access | | MTS | Hospital hardware including ambulatory | | MTI | Digital health |
### Digital Health
| Code | Description | |------|--------------------------------------------------| | MTT01| Hospital information systems | | MTT02| GP information systems | | MTT03| Social Alarms/Communications devices | | MTT04| Personal medical records | | MTT05| Telemed (medical monitoring) and telediag | | MTT06| E-health – data analytics | | MTT07| Digital Medical Electronics | | MTT08| Professional Mobile health devices | | MTT09| Professional Mobile health services/apps | | MTT10| Consumer Mobile health devices | | MTT11| Consumer Mobile health services/apps | | MTT12| Training simulators and robotics | Annex 5 - Data quality principles
As an Official Statistics publication, we aim to collect data and present this report in line with principles of the Code of Practice for Statistics(^\\text{20}) to engender trust in our data and encourage the use of this report as a reliable source of life sciences data.
This data quality statement covers the fourteen principles under the three pillars of the Code: trustworthiness, quality and value.
**Trustworthiness:**
**T1: Honesty and integrity** – Data is collected, processed and quality assured by an independent contractor. The initial technical specification is set by professional statisticians with the Office for Life Sciences (OLS) who also engage regularly with the contractor, review methodological aspects, and undertake further quality assurance checks before publication.
**T2: Independent decision making and leadership** – OLS statisticians abide by the Code of Practice, keeping pre-publication access to the data strictly to those involved in the report’s creation and ensuring the statistical integrity of content. The Department’s Head of Profession for Statistics is engaged when necessary.
**T3: Orderly release** – Pre-publication access to the report is restricted to those involved in the report’s creation and publication. The report meets Government Statistical Service (GSS) standards of statistical impartiality, separating statistical commentary from any political, press or ministerial statements. Subsequent statements by the government using data from this report quote this source and non-governmental users are encouraged to do the same. Unscheduled corrections are released as soon as is practicable, alongside an explanatory note on both the cause and impact of the error, in line with the Code of Practice.
**T4: Transparent processes and management** – Substantial financial and administrative resources are employed to enable this data collection and effective quality assurance, including a proportion for further development of the report each year in light of new user requirements or new methodology / collection possibilities. We are transparent about our methodology and approach to quality, as evidenced in Annex 2.
**T5: Professional capability** – Data is collected, processed and quality assured by a consortia contractor. Each individual has appropriate analytic capabilities, data protection awareness and industry-specific expertise, and has been involved in the production of the report for several years. The report ‘owners’ within OLS are professional GSS-badged statisticians.
**T6: Data governance** – All professionals involved in the creation, publication and storage of this dataset are well-versed in data protection and operate in compliance with data protection legislation. We publish the maximum amount of data available without contravening third-party licence agreements, utilising GSS best practice for statistical disclosure control (e.g. banding commercially sensitive variables).
(^{20}) [https://www.statisticsauthority.gov.uk/code-of-practice/](https://www.statisticsauthority.gov.uk/code-of-practice/) Quality:
Q1: Suitable data sources – Full methodology including a description of third-party administrative data sources and their suitability can be found in Annex 2. The annex also contains a comparison between the health life sciences database and ONS SIC codes, the main alternative source. Different segmentation levels and how these are aggregated into final figures are explained in Annex 2, with the glossary defining key terms to ensure users are clear at what level figures are presented (e.g. businesses vs. sites).
Q2: Sound methods – Full methodology can be found in Annex 2, alongside assumptions made. Terminology is consistent through the report and accompanying files, with clear descriptions in the glossary. Year-on-year trends are for real growth only based on like-for-like data against the previous year. The method used for the real growth calculations is explained in the Annex 2. To ensure long-term trends are calculated using the most robust methodology and greatest level of data available, we will be undertaking extra trend analysis which will be published in a supplemental report later in the year.
Q3: Assured quality – Rigorous quality assurance has been undertaken by the contractor, OLS statisticians and an external business analyst within the wider Department. Quality assurance is a significant part of the technical specification and contract tendering process and is reviewed each year. When an unscheduled revision was necessary following the post-publication identification of an error in a previous report, we immediately alerted users, engaged with the Department’s Head of Profession for Statistics, and published an explanation of the cause and impact of the error alongside the revised report, all in accordance with the Code of Practice.
Value:
V1: Relevance to users – We review content each year based on user needs, allowing a proportion of resource for that year’s topic of interest. In previous years this has led to the inclusion of digital health and genomics as chapters in their own right, with a new cross-cutting classification designed to identify businesses operating in genomics. This year the topic of interest is a portrayal of long-term trends using an alternative methodology which will be published in a supplemental report later in the year. In response to user feedback, this year we have further extended the fields in the publicly available underlying businesses dataset to include all fields for which we are not restricted by commercial licences. In particular, we now include a unique reference number for each site.
V2: Accessibility – Data is free and equally available to all, published on gov.uk with no restrictions to access. Underlying data is published up to the extent our commercial licenses allow, with banded variables where we cannot provide exact figures. Commentary is objective and a range of graphical visualisations are used to aid comprehension.
V3: Clarity and insight – Commentary on the current size and shape of the life sciences sector is objective, focussing on impartial statistical messages. Charts and maps are used to illustrate these. Key statistical messages are highlighted up front. A comparison between the health life sciences database and ONS SIC codes, the main alternative source, is presented in Annex 2. The database itself is created through collaboration with a range of industry experts, including region-specific and sector-specific representation through trade bodies and other network organisations. V4: Innovation and improvement – We review content, presentation and methodology each year based on user needs. Past development has primarily been around scope and how to identify new and emerging segments of the life sciences sector, e.g. digital health and genomics. Each new approach to scope is explored and tested with our data partners, and the statistical impact is fully considered before implementation. Other developments have included extending the scope of publicly available data fields.
V5: Efficiency and proportionality – Where possible, the database draws on existing information using third party sources, such as the D&B and FAME datasets and company accounts. All data partners are voluntary contributors. The need for this health life sciences database and report arises from the difficulty in identifying the life sciences sector from already-existing ONS sources since they use SIC codes, which do not encapsulate the full extent of the life sciences. In particular, as SIC codes were last refreshed in 2008, they do not allow easy identification of new and emerging segments within the medical technology sector, such as digital health. The database and report provide a valuable and robust evidence base on the size and shape of the UK life science sector.
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/1342-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 39,
"total-input-tokens": 97684,
"total-output-tokens": 18350,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
66,
1
],
[
66,
66,
2
],
[
66,
3854,
3
],
[
3854,
6454,
4
],
[
6454,
8153,
5
],
[
8153,
9998,
6
],
[
9998,
13086,
7
],
[
13086,
14336,
8
],
[
14336,
16757,
9
],
[
16757,
17629,
10
],
[
17629,
19338,
11
],
[
19338,
21518,
12
],
[
21518,
23321,
13
],
[
23321,
24658,
14
],
[
24658,
25243,
15
],
[
25243,
26279,
16
],
[
26279,
26609,
17
],
[
26609,
26728,
18
],
[
26728,
28801,
19
],
[
28801,
30222,
20
],
[
30222,
31994,
21
],
[
31994,
33456,
22
],
[
33456,
34942,
23
],
[
34942,
37969,
24
],
[
37969,
40462,
25
],
[
40462,
42408,
26
],
[
42408,
42558,
27
],
[
42558,
44202,
28
],
[
44202,
47202,
29
],
[
47202,
50624,
30
],
[
50624,
52690,
31
],
[
52690,
54495,
32
],
[
54495,
57003,
33
],
[
57003,
58896,
34
],
[
58896,
59646,
35
],
[
59646,
64256,
36
],
[
64256,
67389,
37
],
[
67389,
70917,
38
],
[
70917,
72200,
39
]
]
} |
4e115be88714f9e8888c2469c09caaac306c2708 | Biotechnology and Health technology Sector Statistics 2019
Contents
Terminology .......................................................................................................................... 7
1. Industry overview ........................................................................................................... 8 1.1 Core sectors ............................................................................................................. 9 1.2 Service & Supply sectors ...................................................................................... 10
2. Sector overviews – Key facts ....................................................................................... 11 2.1 Biopharma sector .................................................................................................. 11 2.2 Biopharma – Core businesses ............................................................................. 11 2.3 Biopharma – Service & Supply chain ................................................................. 12 2.4 Med Tech sector (including digital health) ......................................................... 12 2.5 Med Tech – Core businesses ............................................................................. 12 2.6 Med Tech – Service & Supply chain ................................................................. 13 3 Geographical analysis .................................................................................................... 14 3.1 Core Biopharma and Biopharma Service & Supply sectors regionally .......... 16 3.2 Core Med Tech and Med Tech Service & Supply sectors regionally .......... 17 4 Digital health and Genomics ......................................................................................... 19 4.1 Digital health ....................................................................................................... 19 4.2 Genomics ............................................................................................................. 20 5 Industry and sector trends 2010-2019 ........................................................................ 21 5.1 Life sciences industry trends .............................................................................. 22 5.2 Core Biopharma and Med Tech sector trends .................................................... 24 5.3 Service & Supply sector trends .......................................................................... 25 5.4 Geographical trends ............................................................................................ 26 Annex 1– Full data partners acknowledgement statement ........................................... 28 Annex 2 – Methodology .................................................................................................. 29 Annex 3 – Company ownership ..................................................................................... 35 Annex 4 – Segmentation codes ...................................................................................... 36 Annex 5 - Data quality principles .................................................................................. 37 Key Messages
The UK life sciences industry employs 256,100 people in 6,300 businesses and generates a turnover of £80.7bn.
The Core Biopharma and Core Med Tech sectors contain businesses involved in the discovery, development and marketing of therapeutics, and medical devices respectively. The Core Med Tech sector is the largest by employment (102,800 or 40% of the industry) and Core Biopharma is the largest by turnover (£36.7bn or 45% of the industry).
The Core sectors are supported by two Service & Supply sectors that supply materials, equipment and specialist services. These two sectors employ 89,400 in 2,710 businesses with a turnover of £23.6bn.
The largest segment within the industry is small molecules, consisting of businesses with the majority of their activity developing and marketing therapeutics based on this technology. The segment employs 49,200 (19% of the industry) and generates a turnover of £31.7bn (39% of the industry total).
Along with small molecules, the Top 3 Core segments in the industry by employment include digital health (the largest segment by employment in Core Med Tech with 12,900 employees) and in vitro diagnostics (9,700 employees). The Top 3 Core segments in the industry by turnover are small molecules, in vitro diagnostics, and single use technology. In total these segments account for 44% of industry turnover.
Within the two Service & Supply sectors, the two largest segments contain businesses that supply contract manufacturing and research services, and that supply reagents and equipment. In Biopharma, these two segments employ 31,300 with a turnover of £12.0bn; in Med Tech, these segments employ 12,000 with a turnover of £2.3bn.
82% of the businesses in the industry are SMEs; these employ 24% of the industry total and generate 10% of the turnover. The Core Biopharma sector has a higher percentage of non-SME businesses at 31% compared to 18-19% for all other sectors. The Top 25 Global Pharmaceutical companies with activity in the UK (and are non-SMEs) employ 55% of the Core Biopharma sector.
The South East of England contains the largest population of life sciences industry jobs with a total employment across all four sectors of 61,700 or 24%. The East and North West of England together with the South East are the Top 3 regions by employment.
Employment in the Core Biopharma sector is concentrated in the South East and East of England, and London with 67% of all sector employees, compared to 40% for Core Med Tech employment.
______________________________________________________________________
1 The number of business counts at the industry level is lower than the count at the sector and sub-sector (L0) level because in the latter analysis some businesses are counted in more than one sector. Eg Where a business has activity in both Core Biopharma and Core Med Tech. See Annex 2, Fig 10. Trend Data
Between 2010 and 2019, the industry increased employment by 20,500, an increase of 9% at a compound annual growth rate of 0.9%. Over the period, all sectors except for Core Biopharma increased employment. This is compared to employment growth in all industries(^2) of 12% since 2010 at a CAGR of 1.3%.
The employment decreases in Core Biopharma (5,400 in total over the period) were concentrated between 2011-2013, when a number of the large pharmaceutical companies underwent re-structuring.
Total industry turnover decreased in real terms(^3) by £1.6bn between 2010 and 2019, which was the result of the decrease in Core Biopharma (£9.3bn), which was partially offset by increases in Med Tech and the Service & Supply sectors (£7.7bn).
Between 2010 and 2019, the single-use technology and assistive technologies segments replaced orthopaedic devices and re-usable diagnostic or analytic equipment in the industry’s top 5 core segments by employment. By turnover, digital health replaced vaccines in the top 5 segments over the same period.
Between 2010 and 2019, most regions in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland have seen a net increase in employment in the life sciences industry. One region in England, the West Midlands, saw employment fall by 1,700, while employment in Scotland fell by 1,200.
______________________________________________________________________
(^2) UK employment (all industries) taken from HI00 Regional labour market: Headline Labour Force Survey indicators for all regions 21(^{st}) April 2020 release
(^3) Deflated turnover calculated using Office for National Statistics defaltors to bring turnover values to 2019 equivalent values. GDP Deflators Spring Statement 2020 update issued 11(^{th}) March 2020 Introduction
This report contains analysis of trends in the UK life sciences industry, covering the Biopharma and Med Tech sectors. The three main measures of economic contribution and industry structure are:
- employment - the number of people employed by life science businesses
- turnover - the amount of money taken by businesses within scope of life science sector activities
- number of businesses – the number of life science businesses and their sites registered in the UK
It contains analysis of the industry looking at the economic activity of businesses that market therapeutic products and medical devices as well as the specialist Service & Supply chains that are key parts of the ecosystem. A segmentation approach is applied that enables a detailed analysis of the product and service categories that make up the industry.
The analysis is based on the 2019 database of sites and businesses updated between October and December 2019 using the methodology summarised in Annex 2. Since data is based on activity in 2019, any impacts from covid-19 will not be reflected in any trends seen in the statistics. The UK officially exited the UK in January 2020 and has entered into a transition period. The data in this report focusses on data up until 2019, so data is currently unavailable to determine any long term impacts on trends. This will continue to be reviewed going forward as more data becomes available. Similarly, this data is set prior to the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic and so any potential impacts on the industry will not be reflected in this publication.
The year referred to in this report is the year of the update rather than the year of the turnover and employment figures; turnover and employment are for the latest 12 months available. For the majority of sites, these figures will have been derived from latest accounts submitted by businesses to Companies House; the figures may be submitted up to 9 months after the end of the accounting period (which itself may vary between businesses).
The data, charts, figures, and maps used in this document, plus separate infographics can be found at https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/bioscience-and-health-technology-database-annual-reports
______________________________________________________________________
4 The data does not include industrial biotechnology, animal health, not-for-profit organisations, public funded institutions or universities 5 See Annex 4 for a list of the segmentation categories **Terminology**
**Industry**: used to collectively describe all Sectors covered in the analysis
**Sector**: used to describe Core Biopharma, Core Med Tech, Biopharma Service & Supply or Med Tech Service & Supply
**Segment**: used to describe the individual product or service groups within a Sector (see Annex 3 for a detailed list of segments)
**Core Biopharma**: includes all businesses involved in developing and/or producing their own pharmaceutical products - from small, research and development (R&D) focused biotechs to multinational Big Pharma
**Biopharma Service & Supply**: comprises businesses that offer goods and services to Core Biopharma businesses including, for example, Contract Research and Manufacturing Organisations (CRMOs), and suppliers of consumables and reagents for R&D facilities
**Core Med Tech**: includes all businesses whose primary business involves developing and producing Med Tech products, ranging from single-use consumables to complex hospital equipment, including digital health products
**Med Tech Service & Supply**: comprises businesses that offer services to Core Med Tech businesses including, for example, CRMOs, and suppliers of consumables and reagents for R&D facilities
**Digital health**: includes businesses involved in making products for both hospitals and consumers including products such as hospital information systems and mobile medical devices and apps. It is a segment wholly within the Core Med Tech Sector.
**Genomics**: an interdisciplinary field focusing on the study of the human genome and the application of resulting knowledge to human health. It is a cross-cutting categorisation across all four sectors.
**Business**: used to describe an entity that is the legal owner of a group of trading addresses or sites and legal entities. A business may consist of more than one site or registered company. The term business is used in this document when discussing the whole life sciences industry and the four sectors.
There are 80 businesses that are active in more than one sector which means there is a small difference in the count of businesses at the industry level (6,150) compared to the sector level (6,230) and the sub-sector level (6,300). This document reports business counts at the sub-sector level. There is no difference in the sums of employment or turnover at the different levels of analysis. See Annex 2, Fig 10 for more detail.
**Sites**: used when referring to the data at the segment or geographical level. All data in the spreadsheets that accompany this document are analysed at the site level. This is the level at which all data entries (7,000 records) are held and analysed in the database. A single site is segmented and has employment and turnover assigned to it. As a business can have multiple sites and can operate in more than one segment, the total counts of sites at segment level is greater than the count of businesses referred to at sector level.
**SME status**: based on the European definition of Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (SMEs) and refers to businesses with fewer than 250 employees and which either have annual turnover up to and including €50m and/or have an annual balance sheet total up to and including €43m.
1. Industry overview
Figure 1: Total employment, turnover and number of businesses in the life sciences industry by sector
The life sciences industry employed approximately 256,100 people in the UK in 2019. Approximately 131,800 (51% of the industry total) were employed in the Med Tech sector comprising the Core Med Tech and the Service & Supply segments. The Core Med Tech sector is the largest in the industry by employment and number of businesses with a total employment of 102,800 (40% of the industry) and 2,850 businesses (45% of the industry).
The digital health segment is included in the Core Med Tech sector and is the largest segment in this sector with 12,900 employees (5.0% of the industry) and the second largest in the Core sectors by employment.
The Core Biopharma sector contributes the largest turnover to the industry at £36.7bn (45% of the industry). This turnover is generated from 740 business (12% of the industry). Within the Core Biopharma sector, the Top 25 global pharmaceutical companies by revenue make up 58% of this turnover (£21.3bn) and employ 55% (34,900) of the Core Biopharma employees.
______________________________________________________________________
6 The analysis is based on the 2019 database of sites and businesses updated between October and December 2019 using the methodology summarised in Annex 2. This therefore represents a snapshot in time of annual data reported by companies.
7 [http://www.pharmexec.com/pharm-execs-top-50-companies-2019](http://www.pharmexec.com/pharm-execs-top-50-companies-2019) The Service & Supply companies that support the Core Biopharma and Med Tech sectors have a combined employment of 89,400 compared to 166,700 for the two Core sectors. Turnover for the combined Service & Supply company sectors is £23.6bn compared to £57.1bn for the combined Core company sectors.
1.1 Core sectors
The two Core segments of the industry contain an estimated 3,590 businesses, with the majority in the Med Tech sector (79%). The businesses in these two sectors focus on the discovery, development and marketing of new therapies and medical devices.
- On average, a Core Biopharma sector business has a turnover seven times that of a Core Med Tech business and employs twice as many people.
- 32% of Core Biopharma sites have a turnover greater than £5m compared to 19% for Core Med Tech.
- 8% of Core Biopharma sites have 250 or more employees compared to 2% for Core Med Tech.
The global Top 30 Core Med Tech businesses by revenue(^8) employ 17% of the total Core Med Tech sector and their revenue accounts for 27% of the sector total.
The global Top 25 Core Biopharma businesses by revenue(^9) employ 55% of the total Core Biopharma sector and their revenue accounts for 58% of the sector total.
The largest segment in the Core Biopharma sector by employment is small molecules, employing 77% of the Core Biopharma sector. Digital Health, in contrast, is the largest segment within Core Med Tech and employs 13% of the sector total. The top 14 of 20 segments employ 90% of the Core Med Tech sector.
The five largest employment segments in the two Core sectors combined employ 89,800 or 54% of the total in the Core sectors. Of the five largest segments, all but small molecules are segments within Core Med Tech. The top five segments in the two Core sectors by turnover are small molecules, in vitro diagnostics, single use technology, digital health and orthopaedic devices. Together they have a combined turnover of £38.7bn or 68% of the total Core sectors; £31.7bn of which is from the small molecules segment.
Of the businesses in Core Biopharma 69% are SMEs compared to 81% in the Core Med Tech sector.
______________________________________________________________________
(^8) The Top 30 ranking as based on [https://www.mpo-mag.com/issues/2019-07-25/view_features/the-2019-top-30-global-medical-device-companies](https://www.mpo-mag.com/issues/2019-07-25/view_features/the-2019-top-30-global-medical-device-companies)
(^9) The Top 25 ranking based on [http://www.pharmexec.com/pharm-execs-top-50-companies-2019](http://www.pharmexec.com/pharm-execs-top-50-companies-2019) 1.2 Service & Supply sectors
Both the Core Biopharma and Med Tech businesses are supported by large specialist UK based Service & Supply sectors.
The Biopharma Service & Supply sector employs 60,400 people in 1,500 businesses and generates a turnover of £18.4bn. The largest segments by employment in this sector are contract manufacturing and research, reagent & equipment suppliers, and clinical research organisation that together employ 41,100 people and account for 81% (£14.9bn) of the sector turnover.
The Med Tech Service & Supply chain sector employs 29,000 people in 1,210 businesses, with a turnover of £5.2bn. The largest segments in this sector by employment are reagent & equipment suppliers, contract manufacturing and research, and specialist consultants (excluding regulatory) that together employ 15,500 people and account for 54% (£2.8bn) of the sector turnover. 2. Sector overviews – Key facts
2.1 Biopharma sector
- In total, the sector employs 124,300 people: 63,900 in Core Biopharma businesses and 60,400 in Service & Supply businesses. The combined turnover of the sector is £55.1bn.
- Regionally, employment in the sector is concentrated in the South East, East of England, London, and the North West of England, and in Scotland.
- Large non-SME businesses are the major employers in Core Biopharma (91% of all employment in the sector). In the Service & Supply sector, the majority (81%) of the businesses are SMEs and employ 23% of the sector.
2.2 Biopharma – Core businesses
Overall, the Core Biopharma sector contains 740 businesses employing 63,900 people and a turnover of £36.7bn in 2019.
The sector breakdown shows that businesses whose main economic activity involves small molecule therapeutics form the largest segment, accounting for 64% (470) of sites, 77% of employees (49,200) and 86% (£31.7bn) of turnover. Antibodies, therapeutic proteins and vaccines are the next largest segments, together making up 18% (11,300) and 11% (£4.1bn) of employment and turnover respectively.
Geographical analysis of employment shows Core Biopharma businesses in all areas of the UK with the greatest concentration in the South East, East of England, London, and the North West of England which together account for 79% (50,400) of Core Biopharma employment.
Analysing the size of the businesses shows 31% (230) of Core Biopharma businesses are non-SMEs. These large businesses employ 58,200 people (91% of Core Biopharma employment) and account for £35.6bn of turnover (97% of Core Biopharma turnover). They represent 44% of total life sciences industry turnover and 23% of employment. 2.3 Biopharma – Service & Supply chain
Overall, the Biopharma Service & Supply chain consists of 1,500 businesses employing 60,400 people with a turnover of £18.4bn in 2019.
The sector breakdown shows the largest employing segment is contract manufacturing and research organisations that consist of 320 sites employing 19,000 people. The largest segment in terms of turnover is reagent & equipment suppliers, which represents 45% (£8.3bn) of the total. Clinical research organisations complete the Top 3 Biopharma Service & Supply segments: in total the Top 3 account for 68% (41,100) of the employment.
Geographical analysis of employment shows the South East and East of England combined have the most Service & Supply businesses (580) and employees (40%), followed by Scotland (10%), London (10%) and the North West of England (9%).
Analysing the size of businesses shows that the Biopharma Service & Supply sector is predominately composed of SMEs (1,220) that make up 81% of businesses in the sector, yet they represent only 23% of employment (13,800 people) and 8% of turnover (£1.5bn) for the sector.
2.4 Med Tech sector (including digital health)
- In total, the sector employs 131,800 people: 102,800 in Core Med Tech businesses and 29,000 in Service & Supply businesses. The combined turnover of the sector is £25.6bn.
- Core Med Tech employment is spread across the UK. While the South East, London, and the East of England account for 40% of the employment in the Service & Supply sector, 60% is outside of South Eastern England(^\\text{10}), which is often considered to be the hub for such services.
- SMEs in both Core Med Tech and Service & Supply account for a similar proportion of businesses (81% and 82% respectively) and employment (31% and 33% respectively).
2.5 Med Tech – Core businesses
Overall, the Core Med Tech sector contains 2,850 businesses, employing 102,800 people with a turnover of £20.4bn in 2019.
The sector breakdown shows the largest segment by turnover is in vitro diagnostics followed by single use technology, digital health, orthopaedic devices, and assistive technology. These top five segments account for 42% (£8.5bn) of the Core Med Tech turnover. Digital health technology is the largest segment by employment followed by in vitro diagnostics, assistive
(^{10}) South East, London and the East of England technology, single use technology, and orthopaedic devices. These top five account for 47% (48,600) of sector employment.
**Geographical analysis of employment** shows there are sites spread across the UK and employment is less concentrated in the South East, East of England, and London. Compared to the Core Biopharma sector where 33% of employment is outside these regions, the majority (60%; 61,300) of Core Med Tech employment is outside of South Eastern England.
**Analysis of the size of businesses** shows that of the 2,850 businesses in Core Med Tech, 81% (2,320) are SMEs. They represent 31% (32,000) of Core Med Tech employment and 19% (£3.8bn) of Core Med Tech turnover. Core Med Tech SMEs account for 46% of the total number of life sciences SMEs.
### 2.6 Med Tech – Service & Supply chain
**Overall**, the sector contains 1,210 businesses that employ 29,000 and generates a turnover of £5.2bn in 2019.
**The sector breakdown** shows the largest segment of the sector is reagent, equipment and consumables suppliers, which has the highest number of sites (300) and employs 26% (7,400) of the sector’s total and 31% (£1.6bn) of its turnover. The next largest segments by employment are contract manufacturing and research followed by specialist consultants.
**Geographical analysis** shows, in contrast to Core Med Tech, the top 3 areas are the South East and North West of England, and the East Midlands. These three areas account for 48% (14,000) of the employment and 50% (£2.6bn) of the sector turnover.
**Analysis of the size of businesses** shows that 82% (1,000) of businesses are SMEs, employing 9,600 people (33% of Med Tech Service & Supply) and accounting for £1.3bn (25%) of turnover. 3 Geographical analysis
- The South East of England contains the largest population of life sciences industry jobs with a total employment across all four sectors of 61,700 (24%). The East and North West of England together with the South East are the Top 3 regions by employment.
- The Core Biopharma sector is concentrated within the South East and East of England, particularly in an area stretching from Cambridge to Reading, and areas around Stevenage and in London. In the North West, Core Biopharma businesses are located along the corridor running from Liverpool to Manchester.
- Core Med Tech has concentrations of employment around the major cities in the Midlands and Yorkshire including Leeds, Sheffield, and Birmingham, as well as London and Reading.
- The Service & Supply sectors’ employment is distributed in a similar pattern to the sector they serve but less concentrated around the major conurbations.
The distribution of employment by sector is shown in Figure 2. The South East of England contains the largest population of life sciences industry jobs with 61,700 (24% of the industry) employed across all four sectors. The Top 3 regions by employment include the South East followed by East of England, and the North West. Together these regions contain 50% (126,900) of all life sciences industry employees. The relative contribution of the four sectors to the overall life sciences employment in the regions is shown in Figure 3. In the South East, East of England, the North West, and London the Core Biopharma sector accounts for 33% of life sciences employment in those regions; Biopharma Service & Supply accounts for 38% of life sciences employment in Scotland, the North East of England, and Northern Ireland; Core Med Tech accounts for more than half of life sciences employment in East Midlands, West Midlands, Yorkshire and The Humber, Wales, and the South West of England; no region has Med Tech Service & Supply employment greater than 25%. Maps of the distribution of life sciences employment across the UK (Fig 4 & Fig 5) give details on the location concentrations of employment.
### 3.1 Core Biopharma and Biopharma Service & Supply sectors regionally
The Core Biopharma sector is concentrated within the South East and East of England particularly in an area stretching from Cambridge to Reading including areas around Stevenage and in London. In the North West, Core Biopharma businesses are located along the corridor running from Liverpool to Manchester.
The Biopharma Service & Supply sector is more widely distributed than Core Biopharma, with the Top 4 regions employing 59% of the sector (compared to 79% for Core Biopharma). In particular, Scotland contains the third largest concentration of Biopharma Service & Supply sector employment representing 10% of the sector total. 3.2 Core Med Tech and Med Tech Service & Supply sectors regionally
The Core Med Tech and Service & Supply sectors employment has concentrations of employment in areas around London and in the North West of England. In contrast to the Biopharma sectors, Core Med Tech has concentrations of employment around the major cities in the Midlands and Yorkshire including Leeds, Sheffield and Birmingham.
Figure 5: Map showing the location and relative level of employment for the Core Med Tech and Service & Supply sectors 4 Digital health and Genomics
- The digital health segment employs 12,900 people and has a total turnover of £1.7bn.
- Between 2010 to 2019, the segment has increased employment by 3,300 and turnover by £490m.
- Of the businesses where the formation date is known, 63% (400) of digital health businesses were formed in the last 10 years.
- The Top 3 regions for employment in the segment are London, Yorkshire and Humber, and the South East.
- Overall genomics related activity in the UK is located in 50 sites with 2,700 employees and a total turnover estimated at £2.3bn.
- The largest activity in the Genomics segment is in sequencing services, consumables and instruments businesses that employ 1,800 and generated £2.2bn in turnover.
4.1 Digital health
The digital health segment is composed of 640 businesses (670 sites), the highest number of businesses for a Core segment in the life sciences industry. Digital health employs 12,900 people and has a total turnover of £1.7bn.
The estimated turnover and employment include only businesses where a significant proportion (over 20%) of their economic activity is in digital health. This approach does not include all the economic activity associated with, for example, large diversified businesses where digital health is not their main activity.
Geographically, 28% of the sites are located in London along with 26% of the employment in the segment. The Top 3 regions for employment in the segment are London, Yorkshire and Humber, and the South East. These regions together employ 57% of the segment.
Analysis of the sector breakdown shows that, within digital health, hospital information systems accounts for 35% (£616m) of turnover and 30% (3,900) of employment. The e-health analytics and medical monitoring & diagnostics are the next largest sub-segments by employment and together the Top 3 sub-segments employ 8,000 people, or 62% of the segment.
Analysis of the size of businesses shows that 80% (510) of digital health businesses are SMEs and employ 33% of digital health jobs (4,300), contributing £330m in turnover (19%) of the digital health segment turnover. 4.2 Genomics
Genomics is an interdisciplinary field of science and technology focused on the study of genomes. In this analysis the focus is on the study of the human genome and the application of the resulting knowledge to human health. Since the instigation of the Human Genome Project in 2001, the field and its applications have grown. The global market for equipment, reagents, and services based on genomics was estimated at over £8bn in 2015 and is forecast to grow rapidly.(^\\text{11})
**Overall genomics related activity** in the UK is located in 50 sites with 2,700 employees and a total turnover estimated at £2.3bn(^\\text{12}). Between 2017 and 2019 the activity has increased employment by 1,100 and turnover by £0.6bn.
**The largest activity in the segment** is in sequencing services, consumables and instruments businesses that employ 1,800 and generated £2.2bn in turnover. Within this segment, sale of instruments is the largest activity by turnover, employing 500 (19% of the genomics total) and generating a turnover of £1.9bn (83% of the genomics total).
______________________________________________________________________
(^{11}) Genomics in the UK, Deloitte study for the Office of Life Sciences, Sept 2015
(^{12}) The economic activity is based primarily on businesses that have the majority of their activity in the sector either selling equipment, reagents or services. The analysis does not include in-house use or application of genomics for example for drug discovery & development 5 Industry and sector trends 2010-2019
In this section, the changes in employment and turnover between 2010 to 2019 are analysed using the same methodology as that from the supplemental report(^\\text{13}), published in 2018, using a subset of the database records. These cover 98% of all 2019 records; unincorporated businesses have been omitted from the time series as historic information is not available for these undertakings. All turnover figures given in this section are given in real terms and have been deflated to bring them in line with 2019 equivalent values.
- Over the period 2010 to 2019, the life sciences industry increased employment by 20,500 an increase of 9%, at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 0.9%.
- Total industry turnover decreased in real terms(^\\text{14}) by £1.6bn between 2010 and 2019. This movement was driven by a decrease in the Core Biopharma sector (£9.3bn), which was offset by increases in the Core Med Tech sector and the Service & Supply sectors (£7.7bn).
- Over the period, Core Med Tech and the two Service & Supply sectors showed overall increases in employment totalling 25,900, while the Core Biopharma sector reduced employment by 5,400.
- This decrease in the Core Biopharma sector was concentrated in the small molecule sector and over the period 2012 - 2013, during which time a number of the Top 25 pharmaceutical companies underwent re-structuring.
- The Core Med Tech employment grew by 9,800 between 2010 to 2019, an 11% increase.
- Together, employment in the Service & Supply sectors grew from 2010 to 2019 by 16,100, with the largest increase in employment in the Biopharma Service & Supply sector (12,900).
- Over the 10-year period, the majority of regions in the United Kingdom have seen a net increase in employment in the life sciences industry. The West Midlands and Scotland were the exception to this, seeing a decrease in employment.
(^{13})https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/751210/Strength_and_Opportunity_2017_supplemental_report.pdf
(^{14}) Deflated turnover calculated using Office for National Statistics deflators to bring turnover values to 2019 equivalent values. GDP Deflators Spring Statement 2020 update issued 11(^{\\text{th}}) March 2020. 5.1 Life sciences industry trends
Over the period 2010 to 2019, the life sciences industry increased employment by 20,500, an increase of 9% compared to 2010, at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR)(^{15}) of 0.9%. This is compared to employment growth in all industries(^{16}) of 12% since 2010 at a CAGR of 1.3%. Over the period, Core Med Tech and the two Service & Supply sectors showed overall increases in employment totalling 25,900 while the Core Biopharma sector reduced employment by 5,400. Several of the Top 25 companies, who are the majority employers in the industry, completed site closures and reorganisations during this period. The Core Med Tech sector and the Biopharma Service sector have shown employment growth in the last year (3,700). The Core Biopharma sector has remained static (+200), whilst the Med Tech Service sector has fallen (-1,700).
*Figure 7: Employment by life sciences industry 2010 to 2019*
Total industry turnover decreased in real terms(^{17}) by £1.6bn between 2010 and 2019, which was the result of the decrease in Core Biopharma (£9.3bn), which was partially offset by increases in Med Tech and the Service & Supply sectors (£7.7bn). From 2010 to 2011, total industry turnover grew but a decline followed until 2013 after which growth resumed. This
(^{15}) Deflated turnover calculated using Office for National Statistics defaltors to bring turnover values to 2019 equivalent values. GDP Deflators Spring Statement 2020 update issued 11(^{th}) March 2020. decrease was primarily driven by decreased revenue of £7.6bn in the Core Biopharma sector between 2011 and 2013 after which turnover remained broadly steady until a drop of £2.0bn in 2019. These decreases were offset by a steady increase of £6.2bn from 2013 in the Biopharma Service & Supply sector.
Table 1: Employment, turnover, and number of sites for the life sciences industry 2010 to 2019
| Year | Employment | Turnover £bn (2019 prices) | Sites | |------|------------|-----------------------------|-------| | 2010 | 234,200 | 82.4 | 6,180 | | 2011 | 237,100 | 82.9 | 6,350 | | 2012 | 231,600 | 79.8 | 6,490 | | 2013 | 234,400 | 74.7 | 6,670 | | 2014 | 237,100 | 75.5 | 6,660 | | 2015 | 245,400 | 75.4 | 6,790 | | 2016 | 252,600 | 76.4 | 6,740 | | 2017 | 251,400 | 78.8 | 6,640 | | 2018 | 252,500 | 80.6 | 6,980 | | 2019 | 254,700 | 80.7 | 6,850 |
Top 5 Segments
Comparing the Top 5 segments of 2019 to those of 2010:
- The Top 3 segments by employment have remained the same but fourth and fifth have changed with single use technology and assistive technology replacing orthopaedic devices and re-usable diagnostic or analytic equipment.
- The Top 5 by turnover changed rank, with vaccines being replaced by digital health in the list.
Figure 8: Top 5 segments in 2010 and 2019 in the Core sectors of Biopharma and Med Tech ranked by employment, turnover, and number of sites 5.2 Core Biopharma and Med Tech sector trends
Core Biopharma
The Core Biopharma sector employment fell by 5,400 (-8%) between 2010 and 2019, at a CAGR of -0.9%. Most of this decrease happened between 2012 and 2013 when employment in the small molecules segment fell by 7,200. Since 2014, sector employment has grown moderately. The segments associated with biological or advanced therapy medicinal products (ATMP) therapeutics all showed employment increase totalling 2,200.
Over the 10 years, this sector’s turnover fell by £9.3bn. Turnover decreased between 2011 and 2013, after which turnover remained broadly steady until a drop of £2.0bn in 2019.
Table 2: Employment, turnover, and number of sites for the Core Biopharma sector 2010 to 2019
| Year | Employment | Turnover £bn (2019 prices) | Sites | |------|------------|-----------------------------|-------| | 2010 | 69,200 | 46.0 | 750 | | 2011 | 69,500 | 46.0 | 770 | | 2012 | 62,900 | 43.1 | 790 | | 2013 | 61,500 | 38.4 | 820 | | 2014 | 62,200 | 39.1 | 820 | | 2015 | 64,900 | 37.9 | 840 | | 2016 | 66,200 | 38.0 | 860 | | 2017 | 63,800 | 37.8 | 870 | | 2018 | 63,600 | 38.7 | 900 | | 2019 | 63,800 | 36.7 | 890 |
Core Med Tech
The Core Med Tech sector employment grew by 9,800 over the period 2010 to 2019, an increase of 11% on 2010, a CAGR of 1.1%. Twelve out of twenty segments in Core Med Tech had an increase in employment totalling 13,700, and seven segments accounted for 92% of this increase, led by digital health. Over the whole period, turnover grew in real terms by £0.5bn.
In the Digital Health segment, employment increased by 3,300 and turnover by £490m, which represents 34% and 40% growth respectively. The number of sites has doubled from 330 in 2010 to 670 in 2019. Of the businesses where the formation date is known, 63% (400) of digital health businesses were formed in 2010 or later.
Table 3: Employment, turnover, and number of sites for the Core Med Tech sector 2010 to 2019
| Year | Employment | Turnover £bn (2019 prices) | Sites | |------|------------|-----------------------------|-------| | 2010 | 92,300 | 20.0 | 3,030 | | 2011 | 94,000 | 20.2 | 3,070 | | 2012 | 95,000 | 20.1 | 3,100 | | 2013 | 95,600 | 19.9 | 3,180 | | 2014 | 96,600 | 19.6 | 3,120 | | 2015 | 98,000 | 19.3 | 3,170 | | 2016 | 100,200 | 19.3 | 3,130 | | 2017 | 101,900 | 19.7 | 3,070 | | 2018 | 100,500 | 19.7 | 3,200 | | 2019 | 102,100 | 20.5 | 3,120 | 5.3 Service & Supply sector trends
Both Service & Supply sectors increased employment and turnover between 2010 and 2019, by 16,100 and £7.2bn respectively, with the largest increase in employment in the Biopharma Service & Supply sector (12,900). The largest increases in these sectors were in the Biopharma contract manufacturing and research segment (5,100), and Med Tech reagent, equipment and consumable suppliers’ segment (1,400).
Biopharma Service & Supply
Between 2010 and 2019, the Biopharma Service & Supply sector employment and turnover increased by 27% (12,900) and by 48% (£5.9bn) respectively. The sector exhibited steady growth in employment in all years and the CAGR over the period was 2.7%.
Table 4: Employment, turnover, and number of sites for the Biopharma Service & Supply sector 2010 to 2019
| Year | Employment | Turnover £bn (2019 prices) | Sites | |------|------------|-----------------------------|-------| | 2010 | 47,100 | 12.4 | 1,320 | | 2011 | 47,500 | 12.6 | 1,400 | | 2012 | 47,900 | 12.3 | 1,460 | | 2013 | 49,500 | 12.1 | 1,510 | | 2014 | 50,300 | 12.2 | 1,540 | | 2015 | 53,200 | 13.3 | 1,570 | | 2016 | 55,400 | 14.0 | 1,570 | | 2017 | 55,800 | 15.9 | 1,560 | | 2018 | 57,900 | 16.8 | 1,630 | | 2019 | 60,000 | 18.3 | 1,620 |
Med Tech Service & Supply
Between 2010 and 2019, the Med Tech Service & Supply sector employment increased by 3,200 and turnover by £1.3bn over the period. The sector had a downturn between 2018 and 2019 of 1700 employees and £0.3bn. The sector employment had a CAGR of 1.3% between 2010 and 2019.
Table 3: Employment, turnover, and number of sites for the Med Tech Service & Supply sector 2010 to 2019
| Year | Employment | Turnover £bn (2019 prices) | Sites | |------|------------|-----------------------------|-------| | 2010 | 25,600 | 3.9 | 1,090 | | 2011 | 26,100 | 4.1 | 1,120 | | 2012 | 25,800 | 4.2 | 1,140 | | 2013 | 27,800 | 4.3 | 1,160 | | 2014 | 28,000 | 4.6 | 1,190 | | 2015 | 29,300 | 4.9 | 1,200 | | 2016 | 30,800 | 5.2 | 1,180 | | 2017 | 29,900 | 5.3 | 1,150 | | 2018 | 30,500 | 5.5 | 1,250 | | 2019 | 28,800 | 5.2 | 1,230 | 5.4 Geographical trends
When comparing geographical employment data over the 10-year period, the majority of regions in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland have seen a net(^{18}) increase in employment in the life sciences industry. One region in England, the West Midlands, saw employment fall by 1,700, while employment in Scotland fell by 1,200.
The geographical net changes in employment vary by life sciences sector. These major changes are:
1. Core Biopharma – Large decrease in employment in the South East of England and an increase in the East of England. The main cause of the fall in employment in the South East was the restructuring of three Top 25 Pharma businesses that resulted in closures of a number of sites in the region.
2. Core Med Tech – Increases in all regions of England except for decreases in the West Midlands (1,700) and East of England (900). Increases in Northern Ireland (700) and Wales (600) but a large decrease in Scotland (1,800). The fall in employment in the West Midlands is due to a mixture of causes. These include movement of businesses to other UK regions and acquisition of businesses by overseas owners leading to restructuring. The main cause of the fall in Scotland was the closure of a manufacturing plant operated by one of the Top 30 Medical Device businesses.
3. Biopharma and Med Tech Service & Supply – Increases in the majority of regions of England and in Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales. Large increase in the South East of England in the Biopharma and Med Tech Service & Supply sectors. Biopharma Service & Supply sector increases are also notable in London, North West, Yorkshire and The Humber and Northern Ireland. The West Midlands is the only region to see decreases in both Service & Supply sectors.
______________________________________________________________________
(^{18}) The net changes in employment in a region will be the result of a combination of new company formation, growth at existing companies, movement between regions, inward investment into the UK and companies reducing employment or trading. Figure 9: Net changes in employment between 2010 and 2019 for the life sciences industry in regions of England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales Annex 1– Full data partners acknowledgement statement
The Office for Life Sciences gratefully acknowledge the contribution of the following regional and national organisations in the compilation of the life sciences database over the past eleven years.
The content of the database has been derived from a variety of proprietary data sources which have been provided under license. The Office for Life Sciences would like to acknowledge the assistance given by the owners of these data sources.
Business Information was accessed under license by Dun & Bradstreet (D&B) Limited and the FAME database from Bureau van Dijk Electronic Publishing. More details on how this data is used can be found in Annex 2 below.
The database construction, data integration, data analysis and commentary preparation were completed by a consortium led by Cels Business Services (CBSL) Ltd. The consortium included Kepier & Company Ltd and Lindum Research.
Data partners
- Association of British Healthcare Industries (ABHI)
- Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry (ABPI)
- AXREM
- BioIndustry Association (BIA)
- BioNow
- Biopartner
- Biosciences Knowledge Transfer Network (KTN)
- British Healthcare Trade Association (BHTA)
- British In Vitro Diagnostics Association (BIVDA)
- HealthTech and Medicines Knowledge Transfer Network (KTN)
- Innovate UK
- Invest Northern Ireland
- MedCity
- Medicines Discovery Catapult
- Medilink East Midlands
- Medilink North of England
- Medilink South West
- Medilink West Midlands
- MediWales
- MHRA
- OBN
- One Nucleus
- Scottish Enterprise
- South East Health Technologies Alliance (SEHTA)
- TechUK
- Welsh Government
- West of England LEP Annex 2 – Methodology
Summary
The annual update of the database is carried out in four main phases: compiling information on new businesses and existing businesses; classification or segmentation of new businesses; matching of business details with economic data from external databases; and validation of the data set.
Information on new businesses is sourced from the data partners and also by searches of publicly available and subscription databases. The data partners provide lists of businesses from their internal databases, which contain both potentially new businesses (those businesses that have been formed in the period after the last annual update) and existing businesses (those businesses that are already in the database). For existing businesses, this includes information the data partners have obtained on address changes, any information on employees at a location, or suggested segmentation changes.
The information from data partners and other information sources is cleansed to remove duplicates and records already in the database and is then segmented. Segmentation assigns each new business and site to a sector and segment. In some cases, allocation can be to more than one sector or segment, for example some large multi-national businesses produce both pharmaceutical and medical devices. If, based on the information available, a business cannot be assigned to a sector and segment, it is deemed to be not-in-scope (NIS). Such NIS business information is retained but is not included in the data set used to analysis the industry.
In order for a business to be classified as in-scope and their data to be included, they are assessed against the following criteria: have a legal entity in the UK; is a private limited company (this excludes universities, publicly owned institutions, NHS activities, and charities); and have 20% of their total UK turnover derived from one or more of the segments shown in Annex 3.
Businesses proposed for inclusion or identified through a search of new incorporations, are checked for "proof of life" i.e. signs of economic activity such as employees, turnover, award of funding, or an active website with contact details. Businesses which fail this test but appear to be in scope are reviewed again in the next project cycle.
Once the cleansed data set is prepared, it is used to source data on turnover and employment from either D&B or FAME, and from examination of published company reports or data. The turnover figures will include turnover on the sale of products wholly or partially manufactured outside the UK.
The data returns from D&B and FAME are carefully checked to ensure a correct match with the business location. Further detailed validation of the data is then carried out examining significant changes in the employment and turnover data. These changes are investigated to detect any anomalies through verification against other sources. For example, large changes
______________________________________________________________________
19 The focus of the economic activity included in the database is from companies that either develop or produce pharmaceuticals or medical devices sold to healthcare providers (e.g. the NHS) and companies that are part of the supply chain to these Core companies. There is also included activity from some of the larger wholesale companies that historically were involved in manufacture. in employment at a business site are scrutinised to see if information is available from press releases or other information in the public domain to verify the change. In 2018, Gender Pay Gap reporting was used both to detect potential anomalies by using the compulsory employment band data, and to verify or update using more detailed information provided by businesses within their own reports. The data for individual sites under one business is examined to ensure that there is no double-counting of employment or turnover data.
Once the validation analysis is completed, the data set is “locked” for the annual update cycle, ready for analysis for this publication.
Postcodes attached to records in the database allow geographical analysis of employment and turnover at site level. Where available, we have validated employment data for the large businesses by using information such as annual reports or websites to identify the number and types of employment.
The primary allocation of turnover to location is based on the legal entity information sourced from third party databases, validated for large businesses from annual accounts. This method of turnover reporting is used throughout the document.
To bring the definition used for SME status in previous datasets in line with that used in the database from 2017 onwards, we sourced information from D&B.
We used GDP deflators(^{20}) to take account of inflation across the years. We also adjusted for population demographics to represent the changing size of the potential workforce(^{21}).
**Trends analysis**
In order to create trends over the period 2010 to 2019 historical information for all businesses which have matched company registration number (CRN) was sourced. This backfilling approach creates a like-for-like snapshot for each year from 2010 from which we can observe trends. Because the dataset used for the trend analysis excludes companies and records where no CRN match was possible the 2019 employment and turnover figures in the trend analysis do not match those in the single year 2019 analysis(^{22}).
To gather additional economic information (employment and turnover), third-party sources including Dun & Bradstreet (D&B), FAME, and published company-filed accounts or reports are used. These are the same sources as those used to construct the main annual dataset. Where economic data could not be sourced from company-filed accounts, an algorithm was used to populate the dataset based on growth profile averages for individual segments.
To source additional segmentation information, company reports and information available via Internet searches were used. This was necessary to align definitions, e.g. the merging of the ‘Pharmaceutical’ and ‘Medical Biotechnology’ sectors into ‘Biopharmaceuticals’ in the 2014 report.
______________________________________________________________________
(^{20}) GDP Deflators Spring Statement 2020 update issued 11(^{th}) March 2020.
(^{21}) Regional labour market statistics: HI00 Headline indicators for UK region and countries issued 21(^{st}) April 2020.
(^{22}) 151 records did not have a matched CRN and are not included in the trend data set. The exclusion of these records reduces the 2019 employment and turnover in the trend dataset by 1,032 and £69m respectively. Segmentation
The life sciences database contains information on businesses in the UK structured at the level of trading address corresponding to the 7,000 records in the database for 2019. Using this as the lowest level of information the data is aggregated to site and company level to give the estimate of total number of life sciences businesses in the UK (6,300 at sub-sector, L0 level). Each trading address or site is examined to allocate the activity carried out to one of the segments in a sector. As a small proportion of businesses in the database have more than one trading address or site and can operate in more than one sector (for example can have activity in medical technology and pharmaceuticals), the sum of number of businesses at the sector, segment, and geographical level will be greater than the total number of businesses in the UK.
Each business and their individual sites are segmented depending on the main type of final medicinal product or device produced. Businesses that produce products that are directly used in healthcare are designated “Core” businesses to distinguish them from businesses that are active only in the Service & Supply chain.
It should be noted that in the Biopharma sector suppliers of over the counter (OTC) medicines are included along with generic suppliers and manufacturers.
Within the database, codes are used to allocate businesses and sites to one or more segments. Where a company has products that fall in more than one category, these are all coded, however only the code that represents the majority of the business activity is used in the analysis. Figure 10 breaks down the count of records in the database from the total number of businesses in life sciences down to the allocation of sites to business activity.
Figure 10: The count of records in the database at each level of classification from site level through segment, sector and industry for 2019.
Segmentation was reviewed for all businesses and sites in the 2014 update. During the 2015 update a number of the businesses that have large contributions to employment and turnover were reviewed for segmentation and their turnover in scope (TOS). The Pharmaceutical and Medical Biotechnology sectors were also combined into a new sector: Biopharma.
Additional segmentation codes are used to further classify company activities by both product type and business activity. For example, in vitro diagnostics is further segmented into in vitro diagnostic products that involve clinical chemistry, immunochemistry etc. The business activity codes are used to code businesses and sites dependent on whether they undertake R&D, manufacturing, Service & Supply (of their products), and sales/distribution (of their products).
The codes for each sector containing Core businesses are shown in Annex 3. The Service & Supply chain sectors that serve the Biopharma and Med Tech sectors are coded with the prefix BP and MT respectively followed by the appropriate number to define the type of service or supply.
Alignment with Standard Industry Classification (SIC) codes
Standard Industry Classification (SIC) codes are used to classify businesses by industry in administrative statistics. This was last updated in 2008(^{23}). This classification system has categories for businesses whose primary activity is the manufacture of pharmaceuticals, manufacture of types of medical equipment, and those whose primary activity is biotechnology R&D.
The SIC system, however, does not allow identification of the full range of life sciences businesses. A bespoke industry segmentation based on this wider range, specifically to be used in the database, was defined with the assistance of the data partners and is summarised in Annex 3. This is the classification system used in this report.
We have analysed the SIC codes of the businesses within the database and only 25% of businesses in the life sciences database fall into the standard SIC codes used to identify the life sciences industry. The remaining businesses fall into another 250 SIC codes, demonstrating the on-going need for this report and for the life sciences database to describe and analyse the full breadth of this industry.
For comparison, Table 6 shows the total employment and turnover for businesses in the database with SIC codes typically used to define the life sciences industry.
(^{23}) https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/standard-industrial-classification-of-economic-activities-sic Table 6: Turnover, employment, and number of sites based on the SIC codes that cover the main sectors in the life sciences industry
| SIC code description | SIC Code | Number of Sites | Employment | Turnover £bn | |-----------------------------------------------------------|----------|-----------------|------------|--------------| | Manufacture of Basic Pharmaceuticals | 21100 | 280 | 42,900 | 22.7 | | Manufacture of pharmaceutical preparations | 21200 | 120 | 10,200 | 3.5 | | Manufacture of Irradiation, Electromedical and Electrotherapeutic Equipment | 26600 | 40 | 1,500 | 0.4 | | Manufacture of Medical and Dental Equipment and Supplies | 32500 | 530 | 28,000 | 5.7 | | Research and Experimental Development on Biotechnology | 72110 | 820 | 14,000 | 5.0 | | **Total life sciences based on SIC** | **1,790**| **96,600** | **37.3** | | | **Total life sciences in database** | **7,000**| **256,100** | **80.7** | |
The additional benefit of the segmentation approach used in the life sciences database is the ability to make a more granular assessment of the sector, including growth rates and trends. For example, this is the only source of definitive information that shows employment and growth rates in digital health or allows us to understand the growth of advanced therapy medicinal products. Timeline of events
The trends described in this report should be considered in context. A short timeline of political and life sciences-specific events is detailed below. This does not attempt to explain causality or justify the trends detailed above and should be viewed as contextual information only.
Table 7: Timeline of political and life sciences specific events
| Date | Event | |--------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------| | May 2010 | UK General Election | | Autumn 2010 | Formation of Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs) in England | | December 2011 | Strategy for UK Life Sciences published | | Duration of 2012 | City Deals wave 1 (8 cities) | | Duration of 2013 | City Deals wave 2 (18 cities) | | March 2014 | Formation of the Office for Life Sciences | | Late 2014 to early 2015 | Devolution Deals (3 city regions) | | May 2015 | UK General Election | | Duration of 2015 | Growth Deals (39 LEPs) | | June 2016 | Referendum on UK leaving the European Union | | June 2017 | UK General Election | | August 2017 | Life Sciences Industrial Strategy published | | December 2017 | Life Sciences Sector Deal launched | | December 2018 | Life Science Sector Deal 2 launched | Annex 3 – Company ownership
The data sources contain information on the ultimate global owner of the businesses in the database. This information is available for 69% of the records in the database. However, the businesses where the owner origin is not known have a low economic impact as can be seen from Figures 11 and 12.
Figure 11: Distribution of sector employment between UK and Overseas life sciences businesses 2019
Figure 12: Distribution of sector turnover between UK and Overseas life sciences businesses 2019
### Annex 4 – Segmentation codes
#### Biopharma Core (BP)
| Code | Description | |------|-------------| | BPA | Antibodies | | BPB | Therapeutic Proteins | | BPC | Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products (ATMPs) | | BPD | Vaccines | | BPE | Small Molecules | | BPF | Blood & Tissue Products |
#### Service & Supply Chain (MX/BX)
| Code | Description | |------|-------------| | X01 | Clinical Research Organisation | | X02 | Contract Manufacturing Organisation | | X03 | Contract Formulation Manufacturing | | X04 | Assay developer | | X05 | Analytical Services | | X06 | Formulation/Drug delivery specialist | | X07 | Reagent, Equipment & consumables supplier | | X08 | Regulatory Expertise | | X09 | Patent and Legal specialist | | X10 | Logistics & Packaging | | X11 | Information systems specialists | | X12 | Tissue and Biomass | | X13 | Market Analysis/Specialist consultants | | X14 | Contract design | | X15 | Training | | X16 | Recruitment | | X17 | Investment Companies | | X18 | Healthcare service providers[^24] |
#### Business Activity
| Code | Description | |------|-------------| | BAA | Research & Development, including Design | | BAB | Manufacture | | BAC | Sales / Distribution | | BAD | Service & Supply Chain |
#### Medical Tech Core (MT)
| Code | Description | |------|-------------| | MTA | Wound Care & Management | | MTB | In vitro diagnostic technology | | MTC | Radiotherapy equipment | | MTD | Medical Imaging/Ultrasound Equipment | | MTE | Anaesthetic and respiratory technology | | MTF | Orthopaedic Devices | | MTG | Cardiovascular & vascular devices | | MTH | Neurology | | MTI | Ophthalmic Devices/Equipment | | MTJ | Dental and maxillofacial technology | | MTK | Drug Delivery | | MTL | Infection Control | | MTM | Surgical Instruments (reusable) n.e.c. | | MTN | Single use technology n.e.c. | | MTO | Re-usable diagnostic or analytic equipment n.e.c. | | MTP | Implantable devices n.e.c. | | MTQ | Assistive Technology | | MTR | Mobility Access | | MTS | Hospital hardware including ambulatory | | MTT | Digital health |
#### Digital Health
| Code | Description | |------|-------------| | MTT01 | Hospital information systems | | MTT02 | GP information systems | | MTT03 | Social Alarms/Communications devices | | MTT04 | Personal medical records | | MTT05 | Telemed (medical monitoring) and telediag | | MTT06 | E-health – data analytics | | MTT07 | Digital Medical Electronics | | MTT08 | Professional Mobile health devices | | MTT09 | Professional Mobile health services/apps | | MTT10 | Consumer Mobile health devices | | MTT11 | Consumer Mobile health services/apps | | MTT12 | Training simulators and robotics |
\[^24\]: Healthcare service providers have been designated as “out of scope” for this study. No new records have been added to the dataset in 2019. Existing records will be removed in 2020 and adjustments made accordingly. Annex 5 - Data quality principles
As an Official Statistics publication, we aim to collect data and present this report in line with principles of the Code of Practice for Statistics(^\\text{25}) to engender trust in our data and encourage the use of this report as a reliable source of life sciences data.
This data quality statement covers the fourteen principles under the three pillars of the Code: trustworthiness, quality and value.
**Trustworthiness:**
**T1: Honesty and integrity** – Data is collected, processed and quality assured by an independent contractor. The initial technical specification is set by professional analysts within the Office for Life Sciences (OLS) who also engage regularly with the contractor, review methodological aspects, and undertake further quality assurance checks before publication.
**T2: Independent decision making and leadership** – OLS analysts abide by the Code of Practice, keeping pre-publication access to the data strictly to those involved in the report’s creation and ensuring the statistical integrity of content. The Department’s Head of Profession for Statistics is engaged when necessary.
**T3: Orderly release** – Pre-publication access to the report is restricted to those involved in the report’s creation and publication. The report meets Government Statistical Service (GSS) standards of statistical impartiality, separating statistical commentary from any political, press or ministerial statements. Subsequent statements by the government using data from this report quote this source and non-governmental users are encouraged to do the same. Unscheduled corrections are released as soon as is practicable, alongside an explanatory note on both the cause and impact of the error, in line with the Code of Practice.
**T4: Transparent processes and management** – Substantial financial and administrative resources are employed to enable this data collection and effective quality assurance, including a proportion for further development of the report each year in light of new user requirements or new methodology / collection possibilities. We are transparent about our methodology and approach to quality, as evidenced in Annex 2.
**T5: Professional capability** – Data is collected, processed and quality assured by a consortia contractor. Each individual has appropriate analytic capabilities, data protection awareness and industry-specific expertise, and has been involved in the production of the report for several years. The report ‘owners’ within OLS are professional badged government analysts.
**T6: Data governance** – All professionals involved in the creation, publication and storage of this dataset are well-versed in data protection and operate in compliance with data protection legislation. We publish the maximum amount of data available without contravening third-party licence agreements, utilising GSS best practice for statistical disclosure control (e.g. banding commercially sensitive variables).
(^{25}) [https://www.statisticsauthority.gov.uk/code-of-practice/](https://www.statisticsauthority.gov.uk/code-of-practice/) Quality:
Q1: Suitable data sources – Full methodology including a description of third-party administrative data sources and their suitability can be found in Annex 2. The annex also contains a comparison between the health life sciences database and ONS SIC codes, the main alternative source. Different segmentation levels and how these are aggregated into final figures are explained in Annex 2, with the glossary defining key terms to ensure users are clear at what level figures are presented (e.g. businesses vs. sites).
Q2: Sound methods – Full methodology can be found in Annex 2, alongside assumptions made. Terminology is consistent through the report and accompanying files, with clear descriptions in the glossary. Year-on-year trends are for real growth only based on like-for-like data against the previous year. The method used for the real growth calculations is explained in the Annex 2. To ensure long-term trends are calculated using the most robust methodology and greatest level of data available, we will be undertaking extra trend analysis which will be published in a supplemental report later in the year.
Q3: Assured quality – Rigorous quality assurance has been undertaken by the contractor, OLS statisticians and an external business analyst within the wider Department. Quality assurance is a significant part of the technical specification and contract tendering process and is reviewed each year. When an unscheduled revision was necessary following the post-publication identification of an error in a previous report, we immediately alerted users, engaged with the Department’s Head of Profession for Statistics, and published an explanation of the cause and impact of the error alongside the revised report, all in accordance with the Code of Practice.
Value:
V1: Relevance to users – We review content each year based on user needs, allowing a proportion of resource for that year’s topic of interest. In previous years this has led to the inclusion of digital health and genomics as chapters in their own right, with a new cross-cutting classification designed to identify businesses operating in genomics. This year the topic of interest is a portrayal of long-term trends using an alternative methodology which will be published in a supplemental report later in the year. In response to user feedback, this year we have further extended the fields in the publicly available underlying businesses dataset to include all fields for which we are not restricted by commercial licences. In particular, we now include a unique reference number for each site.
V2: Accessibility – Data is free and equally available to all, published on gov.uk with no restrictions to access. Underlying data is published up to the extent our commercial licenses allow, with banded variables where we cannot provide exact figures. Commentary is objective and a range of graphical visualisations are used to aid comprehension.
V3: Clarity and insight – Commentary on the current size and shape of the life sciences sector is objective, focussing on impartial statistical messages. Charts and maps are used to illustrate these. Key statistical messages are highlighted up front. A comparison between the health life sciences database and ONS SIC codes, the main alternative source, is presented in Annex 2. The database itself is created through collaboration with a range of industry experts, including region-specific and sector-specific representation through trade bodies and other network organisations. V4: Innovation and improvement – We review content, presentation and methodology each year based on user needs. Past development has primarily been around scope and how to identify new and emerging segments of the life sciences sector, e.g. digital health and genomics. Each new approach to scope is explored and tested with our data partners, and the statistical impact is fully considered before implementation. Other developments have included extending the scope of publicly available data fields.
V5: Efficiency and proportionality – Where possible, the database draws on existing information using third party sources, such as the D&B and FAME datasets and company accounts. All data partners are voluntary contributors. The need for this health life sciences database and report arises from the difficulty in identifying the life sciences sector from already-existing ONS sources since they use SIC codes, which do not encapsulate the full extent of the life sciences. In particular, as SIC codes were last refreshed in 2008, they do not allow easy identification of new and emerging segments within the medical technology sector, such as digital health. The database and report provide a valuable and robust evidence base on the size and shape of the UK life science sector.
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/1343-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 39,
"total-input-tokens": 69940,
"total-output-tokens": 18930,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
0,
1
],
[
0,
0,
2
],
[
0,
3226,
3
],
[
3226,
6043,
4
],
[
6043,
7747,
5
],
[
7747,
10186,
6
],
[
10186,
13430,
7
],
[
13430,
14930,
8
],
[
14930,
17478,
9
],
[
17478,
18363,
10
],
[
18363,
20101,
11
],
[
20101,
22470,
12
],
[
22470,
24186,
13
],
[
24186,
25522,
14
],
[
25522,
26167,
15
],
[
26167,
27018,
16
],
[
27018,
27253,
17
],
[
27253,
27536,
18
],
[
27536,
29672,
19
],
[
29672,
31133,
20
],
[
31133,
33440,
21
],
[
33440,
34955,
22
],
[
34955,
36605,
23
],
[
36605,
39586,
24
],
[
39586,
42252,
25
],
[
42252,
44282,
26
],
[
44282,
44432,
27
],
[
44432,
46110,
28
],
[
46110,
49459,
29
],
[
49459,
52727,
30
],
[
52727,
54839,
31
],
[
54839,
57223,
32
],
[
57223,
58831,
33
],
[
58831,
60705,
34
],
[
60705,
61229,
35
],
[
61229,
64159,
36
],
[
64159,
67286,
37
],
[
67286,
70814,
38
],
[
70814,
72097,
39
]
]
} |
5b818bbc31f85cf0955e884a042222f9b437a8b2 | UK Biopharmaceutical Sector Bioscience and Health technology Sector Statistics 2019
Headlines
- 2,240 Businesses
- £55.1bn Turnover
- 124,300 Employees
- 2,560 Sites
Sector Characteristics
- 36% life science industry businesses
- 49% life science industry employment
- 68% life science industry turnover
- 55% of employment in sector excluding services and supply chain
Global TOP 25
What is the Biopharmaceutical Sector? Businesses involved in developing and/or producing their own pharmaceutical products, from small R&D-focused biotechs to multinational Big Pharma. Includes supply chain and specialist service sector.
Distribution of Employment Across UK
- Top 3 segments account for 90% of all employment in the core Biopharmaceutical sector
- Top 3 segments account for 94% of all turnover in the core Biopharmaceutical sector
Year-On-Year Growth - 2010 to 2019
-8% Employment -20% Turnover
The Core Biopharma sector decreased employment by 5,400, and turnover decreased by £9.3bn.
Service and Supply Chain An essential cluster of specialist suppliers supports the biopharmaceutical sector in the UK. Does not include non-life science businesses.
- 1,500 businesses
- 60,400 employees
- £18.4bn turnover
For More Information https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/bioscience-and-health-technology-database-annual-reports
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/1344-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 1,
"total-input-tokens": 3413,
"total-output-tokens": 405,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
1343,
1
]
]
} |
3be956fc422d49c65902cb5501aafb10fd9240e7 | UK Digital Health Segment Bioscience and Health technology Sector Statistics 2019
Headlines
Largest segment in Med tech by employment
Segment Characteristics
- 10% life science industry businesses
- 5% life science industry employment
- 2% life science industry turnover
What is the Digital Segment? Businesses involved in making products for hospitals and consumers with both a digital and medical element, from mobile medical devices and apps to hospital information systems.
Distribution of Employment Across UK
- London, Yorkshire & The Humber and the South East account for:
- 57% of employment
- 65% of turnover
- 50% of sites
Year-On-Year Growth - 2010 to 2019
- +34% Employment
- +40% Turnover
Overall the Digital Health segment increased employment by 3,300, and turnover by £0.49bn.
For More Information https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/bioscience-and-health-technology-database-annual-reports
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/1345-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 1,
"total-input-tokens": 3338,
"total-output-tokens": 279,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
929,
1
]
]
} |
1e497ec39a40045163dcdaa2e24a4c2be4dbaaf5 | UK Life Sciences Bioscience and Health technology Sector Statistics 2019
Headlines
6,300 Businesses
Industry Characteristics
2 sectors
Biopharmaceuticals
49% industry employment 68% industry turnover
Medical Technology
51% industry employment 32% industry turnover
What is the Life Sciences Industry? Businesses involved in developing and/or producing their own pharmaceutical or medtech products, including digital health, for human health purposes. Includes supply chain and specialist service sector.
Distribution of Employment Across UK
have operations in the UK. Together these businesses employ 22% of industry total and account for 35% of turnover
Industry Employment
76% Large Companies
24% SMEs
Industry Turnover
90% Large Companies
10% SMEs
Largest Segments by Employment
1. Small Molecules
2. Digital Health
3. In vitro diagnostics
Top 3 segments account for 43% of all employment in the Core life science industry
Largest Segments by Turnover
1. Small Molecules
2. In vitro diagnostics
3. Single Use Technology
Top 3 segments account for 62% of all turnover in the Core life science industry
Year-On-Year Growth - 2010 to 2019
+9% Employment -2% Turnover
Overall the life science industry employment increased by 20,500 and turnover decreased by £1.6bn
Service and Supply Chain
An essential cluster of specialist suppliers supports the Life Science Industry in the UK. Does not include non-life science businesses.
2,710 businesses 89,400 employees £23.6bn turnover
35% of industry employment 29% of industry turnover
For More Information https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/bioscience-and-health-technology-database-annual-reports
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/1346-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 1,
"total-input-tokens": 3495,
"total-output-tokens": 476,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
1680,
1
]
]
} |
99d4ac7e567c2b9bdf0662074c18b971ad709300 | UK Medical Technology Sector Bioscience and Health technology Sector Statistics 2019
Headlines
4,060 Businesses
£25.6bn Turnover
131,800 Employees
4,450 Sites
Sector Characteristics
64% life science industry businesses
51% life science industry employment
32% life science industry turnover
What is the Medical Technology Sector? Businesses involved in developing and/or producing Med Tech products, from single-use consumables, such as syringes to complex hospital equipment and digital health. Includes supply chain and specialist service sector.
Distribution of Employment Across UK
17% of employment in sector excluding services and supply chain
Global TOP 30
Sector Employment
68% Large Companies
32% SMEs
Sector Turnover
80% Large Companies
20% SMEs
Largest Segments by Employment
1. Digital Health
2. In vitro diagnostics
3. Single Use Technology
Top 3 segments account for 31% of all employment in the core Medical Technology sector
Largest Segments by Turnover
1. In vitro diagnostics
2. Single Use Technology
3. Digital Health
Top 3 segments account for 27% of all turnover in the core Medical Technology sector
Year-On-Year Growth - 2010 to 2019
+11% Employment
+2.5% Turnover
The Core Med Tech sector increased employment by 9,760, and turnover by £0.5bn.
Service and Supply Chain
An essential cluster of specialist suppliers supports the Medical Technology sector in the UK. Does not include non-life science companies.
1,210 businesses
29,000 employees
£5.2bn turnover
22% of sector employment
20% of sector turnover
For More Information https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/bioscience-and-health-technology-database-annual-reports
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/1347-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 1,
"total-input-tokens": 3525,
"total-output-tokens": 494,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
1687,
1
]
]
} |
176ab678d2f0c96dd088caaac55201bb3a424f8c | Biotoxin Results - Key
NEG -- Negative \<A.L -- Absent Levels ND -- Not Detected NT -- Not Tested INACTIVE -- Not Currently Harvesting STATUS * -- refers to whether the bed is open or closed for commercial harvesting. Closures may be due to official control monitoring results that exceed the EU regulatory limits for microbiological contamination, marine biotoxins and chemical contamination.
Scallops (w) - Whole (g) - Gonad (m) - muscle
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/1348-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 1,
"total-input-tokens": 1458,
"total-output-tokens": 139,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
440,
1
]
]
} |
1212cecbab2a5ce65a20586ce887838e02753b92 | Contents
Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 4
Equality Act 2010 .................................................................................................................................. 4
Workforce Strategy 2018-2022 ............................................................................................................. 5
The scope of this report ......................................................................................................................... 5
Data notes ............................................................................................................................................... 5
Workforce Comparison ......................................................................................................................... 6
Workforce breakdown ............................................................................................................................ 7
Data for 1st April 2019 – 31st March 2020 ......................................................................................... 7
Contract types ....................................................................................................................................... 7
Age ......................................................................................................................................................... 7
Disability ............................................................................................................................................... 8
Ethnic origin .......................................................................................................................................... 8
Gender .................................................................................................................................................... 9
Religious belief ...................................................................................................................................... 10
Sexual orientation ................................................................................................................................. 10
Pay and grades ..................................................................................................................................... 11
Data for 1st April 2019 – 31st March 2020 ......................................................................................... 11
Grade by Disability ............................................................................................................................... 11
Grade by Ethnic Origin ......................................................................................................................... 12
Grade by Gender ................................................................................................................................... 12
Grade by Religious Belief ...................................................................................................................... 13
Grade by Sexual orientation .................................................................................................................. 13
Dignity at Work, Disciplinary and Grievance: .................................................................................... 15
Data for 1st April 2019 – 31st March 2020 ......................................................................................... 15
Overview of Dignity at Work, Disciplinary and Grievance by age....................................................... 15
Overview of Dignity at Work, Disciplinary and Grievance by Disability........................................... 15
Overview of Dignity at Work, Disciplinary and Grievance by Ethnic Origin.................................... 16
Overview of Dignity at Work, Disciplinary and Grievance by Gender ............................................. 16
Overview of Dignity at Work, Disciplinary and Grievance by Religious Belief............................... 17
Overview of Dignity at Work, Disciplinary and Grievance by Sexual Orientation............................ 17
Recruitment .......................................................................................................................................... 18
Data for 1st April 2019 – 31st March 2020 ......................................................................................... 18
New Starters by Age .............................................................................................................................. 18
New Starters by Disability ..................................................................................................................... 18
New Starters by Ethnic Origin .............................................................................................................. 19
New Starters by Gender ......................................................................................................................... 20
New Starters by Religious Belief ........................................................................................................... 20
Sexual orientation ................................................................................................................................. 21 Introduction
Birmingham City Council aspires to be representative of the city, to lead with an inclusive mindset at all strategic and operation levels and to be a place where employees can bring their whole authentic selves to work and thrive. To help us achieve this, we are committed to eliminating discrimination and harassment, and encouraging inclusivity and diversity amongst our workforce at all levels.
This Equality and Diversity Monitoring Report 2019-20 provides an analysis of equalities data for our workforce over the period 1st April 2019– 31st March 2020.
This analysis will help us as an employer to identify the areas where we are doing well, as well as the areas where we could do more to ensure that we have a diverse, resilient workforce that is representative of the city which we serve.
More information about Birmingham City Council’s approach to equality can be found on our Equality and Diversity portal: https://www.birmingham.gov.uk/info/20218/equality_and_diversity
Equality Act 2010
The Equality Act 2010 was introduced to legally protect people from all forms of discrimination in the workplace and in wider society. It brings together and replaces nine previous pieces of legislation, making the law easier to understand and strengthening protections in some situations.
The Act protects people from discrimination, harassment and victimisation on the basis of their ‘protected characteristics’. These characteristics are:
- Age
- Disability
- Gender reassignment
- Marriage or civil partnership
- Pregnancy and maternity
- Race
- Religion or belief (including the lack of religion or belief)
- Sex (referred to as ‘gender’ for the purpose of this report)
- Sexual orientation
The Equality Act 2010 also created the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED), which is a legal duty for all public authorities to consider to how their policies and decisions affect people who are protected under the Act. Under the PSED, public bodies must carry out their functions with due regard to the need to:
- Eliminate discrimination, harassment, victimisation and any other conduct that is prohibited by or under the Equality Act 2010;
- Advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it;
- Foster good relations between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it.
Public bodies are required to regularly publish data to demonstrate that they are following the PSED, as well as setting measurable equality objectives every four years. This Workforce Equality and Diversity Monitoring Report 2017-18 has been produced as part of this requirement. Workforce Strategy 2018-2022
Our Workforce Strategy 2018-2022 sets out the following vision for Birmingham City Council:
‘To be an employer of choice, demonstrated by a highly performing diverse workforce, capable of managing and planning innovative and financially robust service delivery to enable the city to grow and ensure every child, citizen and place matters.’
The development of a diverse, skilled and high performing workforce is central to the achievement of our workforce strategy. The production of annual Equality in Employment Monitoring Report will enable us to monitor our progress towards this, demonstrating our successes and identifying where we may need to do more.
The scope of this report
This report will review and analyse equalities data for the following areas:
- Workforce overview and breakdown
- Pay and grading
- Recruitment
- Dignity at Work, Disciplinary and Grievance
- Employees leaving the Council
- Redundancies
- Staff Engagement
Data notes
The workforce data used to compile this report has been produced by Human Resources and covers the period 1st April 2019–31st March 2020.
Our reporting is dependent on employees choosing to disclose their personal data to us. The voluntary nature of these disclosures means that there are some areas where people have chosen not to release their information, creating gaps in our equalities data. We have now actively started work on how we can encourage staff to disclose their data and explaining the benefits of them doing this. The introduction of the new HR, Finance and Procurement system will assist going forwards, as this will involve data capture at every opportunity to improve the data we hold.
There has also been a separate Workforce Race Equity Review which is the first deep dive into the protected characteristics and we aim to do this level of analysis for other protected characteristics once the data is improved. However many of the actions covered in the Workforce Race Equity Review will also have a positive impact for other protected characteristics.
## Workforce Comparison
| Gender | 2016/17 Count | 2017/18 Count | 2018/19 Count | 2019/20 Count | Leavers from 16/17 to 17/18 | Leavers from 17/18 to 18/19 | Leavers from 18/19 to 19/20 | |-----------------|---------------|---------------|---------------|---------------|-----------------------------|-----------------------------|-----------------------------| | Male | 5,753 32.57% | 5,339 32.64% | 4,679 38.44% | 4,714 40.01% | -415 | -660 | 35 | | Female | 11,913 67.43% | 11,017 67.36% | 7,493 61.56% | 7,067 59.99% | -896 | -3,525 | -427 | | Total | 17,666 100.00%| 16,356 100.00%| 12,172 100.00%| 11,781 100.00%| -1,310 | -4,184 | -391 | | Ethnicity | | | | | | | | | Asian or Asian British | 2,242 12.69% | 2,237 13.68% | 1,716 14.10% | 1,770 15.02% | -5 | -521 | 54 | | Black or Black British | 2,013 11.39% | 1,912 11.69% | 1,319 10.83% | 1,353 11.48% | -101 | -593 | 35 | | Mixed | 253 1.43% | 266 1.62% | 189 1.55% | 196 1.66% | 13 | -77 | 7 | | Other | 182 1.03% | 171 1.04% | 132 1.08% | 147 1.25% | -11 | -39 | 16 | | Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic (combined) | 4,689 26.54% | 4,585 28.03% | 3,355 27.56% | 3,466 29.42% | -104 | -1,230 | 111 | | Prefer not to say | 85 0.48% | 106 0.65% | 72 0.59% | 80 0.68% | 21 | -34 | 8 | | Unknown | 5,020 28.42% | 4,472 27.34% | 3,469 28.50% | 3,099 26.31% | -549 | -1,003 | -370 | | White | 7,873 44.56% | 7,194 43.99% | 5,276 43.35% | 5,136 43.60% | -679 | -1,918 | -140 | | Total | 17,666 100.00%| 16,356 100.00%| 12,172 100.00%| 11,781 100.00%| -1,310 | -4,184 | -391 | | Age Range | | | | | | | | | < 20 | 150 0.85% | 136 0.83% | 84 0.69% | 62 0.53% | -14 | -53 | -22 | | 20 - 29 | 1,301 7.36% | 1,225 7.49% | 853 7.00% | 748 6.35% | -76 | -373 | -105 | | 30 - 39 | 2,903 16.43% | 2,668 16.31% | 1,907 15.67% | 1,692 14.36% | -235 | -761 | -215 | | 40 - 49 | 4,869 27.56% | 4,322 26.42% | 3,055 25.10% | 2,787 23.66% | -547 | -1,267 | -268 | | 50 - 59 | 6,419 36.33% | 6,060 37.05% | 4,715 38.74% | 4,712 40.00% | -359 | -1,345 | -3 | | 60 - 69 | 1,795 10.16% | 1,727 10.56% | 1,385 11.38% | 1,594 13.53% | -68 | -342 | 209 | | >= 70 | 230 1.30% | 218 1.33% | 174 1.43% | 186 1.58% | -12 | -45 | 13 | | Total | 17,666 100.00%| 16,356 100.00%| 12,172 100.00%| 11,781 100.00%| -1,310 | -4,184 | -391 | | Disability | | | | | | | | | No | 15,827 89.59% | 14,774 90.33% | 11,113 91.30% | 11,296 95.88% | -1,053 | -3,662 | 184 | | Not assigned | 1,154 6.53% | 846 5.17% | 519 4.26% | 30 0.25% | -308 | -327 | -489 | | Yes | 685 3.88% | 736 4.50% | 541 4.44% | 455 3.86% | 51 | -196 | -86 | | Total | 17,666 100.00%| 16,356 100.00%| 12,172 100.00%| 11,781 100.00%| -1,310 | -4,184 | -391 | Workforce breakdown Data for 1st April 2019 – 31st March 2020
Contract types
- 10,117 (86%) of employees at Birmingham City Council are on a permanent contract.
- 1,019 (9%) of staff are on a casual contract.
Age
- 56% of our employees are aged 50-59, making this the largest staff group by age.
- Only 7% of employees are under 30 years old and only 1 percent of employees are under 20. • Looking at the age of our workforce over time, there has been very little change from 2015/16 to 2018/19. The largest change has been in the 50-59 age groups, which has increased from 35.21% in 2015/16 to 56% in 2019/20 but remains consistently the largest age group over the past 5 years.
Disability
- 96% Of employees do not identify as having a disability
- 4% Of employees identify as having a disability
- \<1% Of employees’ disability status is unknown
• Whilst only 4 percent of employees identify as having a disability, we feel that there are many more staff that have not yet disclosed, and we are actively setting out ways to address this issue as covered in the outline action plan at the end of this report. • The overall % within the workforce has stayed the same over the past 12 months.
Ethnic origin
- Asian or Asian British: 15%, 1770
- Black or Black British: 11%, 1353
- Mixed: 2%, 196
- Other: 1%, 147
- Prefer not to say: 1%, 80
- Unknown: 26%, 3099
- White: 44%, 5136
- The **Workforce Race Equity Review** looks at Race in more detail and, although only covers a specific point in time, it does have a number of significant actions that will set out to address both the unknown data gap and the other issues covered in the report. Some of the actions identified will also have a positive impact on other protected characteristics.
**Gender**
- The workforce is 60% female, and 40% male.
- In 2016/17, 32.6% of employees were male (7.4% less than in 2019/20) and 67.4% of employees were female (7.4% more than in 2019/20). This indicates that, as the workforce has contracted by 5,885 employees since 2016/17, we have lost a considerably higher number of female employees as part of this process.
- We are looking at widening categories which best describes people’s gender.
- For more information on Gender and pay please see [Birmingham City Council’s Gender Pay Gap Report 2018](#). Religious belief
- The data on religious belief is insufficient and, whilst we have reduced the gap from 70% to 58% of unknown, we still need to do more work on this. There is a project in place that reaches out to staff to explain the benefits of disclosing their data to close the data gap, and we are hoping that in future reports these gaps will be reduced.
Sexual orientation
- 59% of employees’ sexual orientation is unknown, this is the largest group
- 1.5% of employees are Bi-Sexual, Gay or Lesbian
- 36% of employees are heterosexual • The data on sexual orientation is insufficient as there are currently 59% of staff not disclosing this information, whilst this has improved from the previous year (71%), we still need to work on this. There is a project in place that reaches out to staff to explain the benefits of disclosing their data to close the data gap, and we are hoping that in future reports these gaps will be reduced.
Pay and grades Data for 1st April 2019 – 31st March 2020
| Age range | GR1 | GR2 | GR3 | GR4 | GR5 | GR6 | GR7 | JNC | Other | Grand Total | |-----------|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-------|-------------| | < 20 | 3 | 9 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 47 | 62 | | 20 - 29 | 21 | 220 | 190 | 106 | 31 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 177 | 748 | | 30 - 39 | 135 | 389 | 420 | 337 | 155 | 47 | 9 | 6 | 194 | 1692 | | 40 - 49 | 244 | 541 | 714 | 536 | 297 | 113 | 34 | 21 | 287 | 2787 | | 50 - 59 | 375 | 975 | 1239| 970 | 490 | 195 | 64 | 23 | 381 | 4712 | | 60 - 69 | 141 | 543 | 389 | 209 | 103 | 29 | 7 | 7 | 166 | 1594 | | >= 70 | 19 | 82 | 16 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 66 | 186 | | Grand Total| 938 | 2759| 2971| 2159| 1078| 387 | 114 | 57 | 1318 | 11781 |
58% of people aged 20 to 29 work in GR1, GR2 or GR3 positions 55% of people working in GR4, GR5 or GR6 positions are aged over 50 59% of people working in GR7 or JNC positions are aged 50-69
• Our largest staff group by grade is grade 3, which constitutes 25% (2,179) of the workforce. This is the same as the previous year. • 57 people (under 1%) work at JNC level, this is the smallest staff group by grade. • The ‘Other’ grade includes a variety of staff, including those who have joined through TUPE, Members, casual & sessional staff, and those on the JNC youth and community pay scale.
Grade by Disability
| Disability | GR1 | GR2 | GR3 | GR4 | GR5 | GR6 | GR7 | JNC | Other | Grand Total | |------------|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-------|-------------| | No | 914 | 2659| 2826| 2052| 1028| 367 | 112 | 57 | 1281 | 11296 | | Not assigned| 0 | 4 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 20 | 30 | | Yes | 24 | 96 | 139 | 107 | 50 | 20 | 2 | 0 | 17 | 455 | | Grand Total| 938 | 2759| 2971| 2159| 1078| 387 | 114 | 57 | 1318 | 11781 |
57% of people with a disability work in GR1, GR2 or GR3 positions 39% of people with a disability work in GR4, GR5 or GR6 positions \<1% of people with a disability work in GR7 or JNC positions
• Whilst the disability data gap needs to be reduced, with the data we do have we can see that we tend to see a higher percentage of representation in grades under grade 5 which is typical management positions. Grade by Ethnic Origin
| Ethnic origin | GR1 | GR2 | GR3 | GR4 | GR5 | GR6 | GR7 | JNC | Other | Grand Total | |------------------------|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-------|-------------| | Asian or Asian British | 203 | 474 | 453 | 318 | 186 | 44 | 19 | 1 | 72 | 1770 | | Black or Black British | 131 | 373 | 380 | 263 | 129 | 25 | 6 | 2 | 44 | 1353 | | Mixed | 13 | 48 | 59 | 43 | 14 | 6 | 1 | 0 | 12 | 196 | | Other | 7 | 53 | 31 | 32 | 15 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 6 | 147 | | Prefer not to say | 11 | 19 | 18 | 20 | 9 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 80 | | Unknown | 116 | 751 | 715 | 426 | 177 | 62 | 19 | 13 | 820 | 3099 | | White | 457 | 1041| 1315| 1057| 548 | 248 | 67 | 41 | 362 | 5136 | | Grand Total | 938 | 2759| 2971| 2159| 1078| 387 | 114 | 57 | 1318 | 11781 |
64% of people from a Black, Asian or Minority Ethnic origin work in GR1, GR2 or GR3 positions.
51% of people working in GR4, GR5 or GR6 positions are White.
18% of people working in GR7 or JNC positions are from a Black, Asian or Minority Ethnic background.
As stated previously the data in this area needs to be improved with regards to Ethnicity, but with the data we have there is much work we need to do to improve experiences of people from Black, Asian or Minority Ethnic origin and these actions are set out in the Workforce Race Equity Review.
Grade by Gender
| Gender | GR1 | GR2 | GR3 | GR4 | GR5 | GR6 | GR7 | JNC | Other | Grand Total | |--------|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-------|-------------| | Female | 830 | 1706| 1643| 1209| 635 | 190 | 50 | 27 | 777 | 7066 | | Male | 108 | 1053| 1328| 950 | 443 | 197 | 64 | 30 | 541 | 4714 | | Grand Total | 938 | 2759| 2971| 2159| 1078| 387 | 114 | 57 | 1318 | 11781 | 63% of people working in GR1, GR2 or GR3 positions are female
44% of people working in GR4, GR5 or GR6 positions are male
55% of people working in GR7 or JNC positions are male
- For more information on Gender and pay please see Birmingham City Council’s Gender Pay Gap Report 2018
Grade by Religious Belief
| Religious belief | GR1 | GR2 | GR3 | GR4 | GR5 | GR6 | GR7 | JNC | Other | Grand Total | |------------------|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-------|-------------| | Buddhist | 2 | 7 | 10 | 4 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 26 | | Christian | 148 | 361 | 605 | 555 | 287 | 113 | 31 | 20 | 137 | 2257 | | Hindu | 20 | 22 | 27 | 21 | 19 | 8 | 2 | 0 | 11 | 130 | | Jewish | 0 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | | Muslim | 71 | 181 | 178 | 107 | 48 | 10 | 3 | 2 | 35 | 635 | | No Religion | 70 | 148 | 301 | 270 | 166 | 72 | 22 | 10 | 87 | 1146 | | Other Religion | 10 | 27 | 57 | 35 | 22 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 160 | | Prefer not to say| 25 | 66 | 103 | 92 | 56 | 19 | 9 | 0 | 22 | 392 | | Sikh | 25 | 29 | 58 | 68 | 36 | 6 | 6 | 0 | 8 | 236 | | Unknown | 567 | 1918| 1630| 1006| 443 | 154 | 41 | 25 | 1011 | 6795 | | Grand Total | 938 | 2759| 2971| 2159| 1078| 387 | 114 | 57 | 1318 | 11781 |
28% of people working in GR1, GR2 or GR3 positions have shared that they have a religious belief
67% of people whose religious belief is unknown work in GR2, GR3 or GR4 positions
37% of people working in GR7 or JNC positions have shared that they have a religious belief
- The data on religious belief is insufficient and, whilst we have reduced the gap from 70% to 58% of unknown, we still need to do more work on this. There is a project in place that reaches out to staff to explain the benefits of disclosing their data to close the data gap, and we are hoping that in future reports these gaps will be reduced.
Grade by Sexual orientation
| Sexual orientation | GR1 | GR2 | GR3 | GR4 | GR5 | GR6 | GR7 | JNC | Other | Grand Total | |--------------------|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-------|-------------| | Bi-Sexual | 3 | 9 | 19 | 12 | 12 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 58 | | Heterosexual | 296 | 720 | 1164| 966 | 537 | 200 | 68 | 37 | 247 | 4235 | | Lesbian or Gay | 0 | 10 | 33 | 35 | 17 | 6 | 0 | 2 | 6 | 109 | | Other | 4 | 4 | 2 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 14 | | Prefer not to say | 48 | 78 | 115 | 95 | 64 | 23 | 4 | 2 | 30 | 459 | | Unknown | 587 | 1938| 1638| 1047| 448 | 158 | 42 | 16 | 1032 | 6906 | | Grand Total | 938 | 2759| 2971| 2159| 1078| 387 | 114 | 57 | 1318 | 11781 | 2% of peoples’ sexual orientation is Bi-Sexual, Lesbian or Gay or Other across all grades
59% of peoples’ sexual orientation is unknown across all grades
1% of people whose sexual orientation is Bi-Sexual, Lesbian or Gay or Other work in GR7 or JNC positions
- The data on sexual orientation is insufficient currently having 59% of staff not disclosing this information and, whilst this has improved from previous year (71%) we still need to work on this. There is a project in place that reaches out to staff to explain the benefits of disclosing their data to close the data gap, and we are hoping that in future reports these gaps will be reduced. Dignity at Work, Disciplinary and Grievance: Data for 1st April 2019 – 31st March 2020
Includes all cases that were open during 01/04/2019 – 31/03/2020, even if these cases started before April 2019.
Overview of Dignity at Work, Disciplinary and Grievance by age
| Age range | Dignity at Work | Disciplinary | Grievance | Grand Total | |-----------|----------------|--------------|-----------|-------------| | \<24 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 | | 25-34 | 5 | 21 | 3 | 29 | | 35-49 | 24 | 47 | 18 | 89 | | 50-54 | 17 | 24 | 15 | 56 | | 55-59 | 6 | 21 | 15 | 42 | | 60+ | 5 | 29 | 12 | 46 | | Grand Total | 57 | 143 | 64 | 264 |
- 72% of Dignity at Work cases were raised by people aged 35 to 54
- 52% of Disciplinaries involved people aged over 50
- 75% of Grievances were raised by people aged 35 to 59
- 57 staff raised dignity at work issues.
- More dignity at work issues were raised by people in the 35-49 age range.
- More disciplinaries involved people in the 35-49 age range
- The most amount of grievances involved people who were in the 35-49 age range.
Overview of Dignity at Work, Disciplinary and Grievance by Disability
| Disability | Dignity at Work | Disciplinary | Grievance | Grand Total | |-----------------------------|-----------------|--------------|-----------|-------------| | Has a disability (or previously had one) | 7 | 5 | 3 | 15 | | Not informed/unknown | 50 | 138 | 61 | 249 | | Grand Total | 57 | 143 | 64 | 264 |
- 12% of Dignity at Work cases were raised by people with a disability
- 3% of Disciplinaries involved people with a disability
- 5% of Grievances were raised by people with a disability
- 7 staff who had a disability raised a dignity at work issue.
- 5 staff that had a disability were involved in a disciplinary.
- There were 3 grievances raised by people who had a disability. Overview of Dignity at Work, Disciplinary and Grievance by Ethnic Origin
| Ethnic origin | Dignity at Work | Disciplinary | Grievance | Grand Total | |------------------------|-----------------|--------------|-----------|-------------| | Asian or Asian British | 15 | 30 | 6 | 51 | | Black or Black British | 7 | 20 | 9 | 36 | | Mixed | 3 | 2 | 0 | 5 | | Other | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | | Prefer not to say | 0 | 2 | 1 | 3 | | Unknown | 10 | 47 | 14 | 71 | | White | 22 | 41 | 34 | 97 | | Grand Total | 57 | 143 | 64 | 264 |
- 44% of Dignity at Work cases were raised by people of a Black, Asian or Minority Ethnic origin.
- 37% of Disciplinaries involved people of a Black, Asian or Minority Ethnic origin.
- 53% of Grievances were raised by people whose ethnic origin is White.
- There were 25 dignity at work issues raised by staff of a Black, Asian or Minority Ethnic origin.
- The highest number of Dignity at work issues (15) were from people of an Asian or Asian British origin.
- There were 52 disciplinaries that involved people of a Black, Asian or Minority Ethnic origin.
- The largest group of disciplinaries (41) involved people whose ethnic origin is White.
- The largest group of grievances were raised by people whose ethnic origin is White.
- There were 15 grievances raised by people of a Black, Asian or Minority Ethnic origin.
Overview of Dignity at Work, Disciplinary and Grievance by Gender
| Gender | Dignity at Work | Disciplinary | Grievance | Grand Total | |--------|-----------------|--------------|-----------|-------------| | Female | 37 | 65 | 28 | 130 | | Male | 20 | 78 | 36 | 134 | | Grand Total | 57 | 143 | 64 | 264 |
- 65% of Dignity at Work cases were raised by females.
- 55% of Disciplinaries involved males.
- 56% of Grievances were raised by males.
- There were 37 dignity at work issues raised female staff, nearly twice as many as their male colleagues.
- 78 (55%) of disciplinaries involved males as compared to 65 (45%) that involved females.
- There were 10% (55%) more grievances from male staff as compared to Female staff (45%). Overview of Dignity at Work, Disciplinary and Grievance by Religious Belief
| Religious belief | Dignity at Work | Disciplinary | Grievance | Grand Total | |------------------|----------------|--------------|-----------|-------------| | Christian | 11 | 23 | 16 | 50 | | Hindu | 0 | 2 | 0 | 2 | | Muslim | 1 | 5 | 0 | 6 | | No Religion | 6 | 8 | 5 | 19 | | Other Religion | 3 | 0 | 2 | 5 | | Prefer not to say| 5 | 6 | 3 | 14 | | Sikh | 5 | 4 | 0 | 9 | | Unknown | 26 | 95 | 38 | 159 | | Grand Total | 57 | 143 | 64 | 264 |
- 35% of Dignity at Work cases were raised by people who shared that they have a religious belief.
- 66% of Disciplinaries involved people whose religious belief is unknown.
- 25% of Grievances were raised by people whose religious belief is Christian.
- There were 20 dignity at work issues raised by people who shared they had a religious belief.
- 34 disciplinaries involved people that shared they had a religious belief.
- There were 18 grievances raised by people who shared they had a religious belief.
Overview of Dignity at Work, Disciplinary and Grievance by Sexual Orientation
| Sexual orientation | Dignity at Work | Disciplinary | Grievance | Grand Total | |--------------------|----------------|--------------|-----------|-------------| | Heterosexual | 28 | 40 | 23 | 91 | | Lesbian or Gay | 0 | 2 | 0 | 2 | | Other | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | | Prefer not to say | 2 | 5 | 3 | 10 | | Unknown | 27 | 95 | 38 | 160 | | Grand Total | 57 | 143 | 64 | 264 |
- 49% of Dignity at Work cases were raised by people who are heterosexual.
- 66% of Disciplinaries involved people whose sexual orientation is unknown.
- 59% of Grievances were raised by people whose sexual orientation is unknown.
- Whilst there were 28 dignity at work issues raised by people who identified as heterosexual, there were 27 cases raised by people whose sexual orientation is unknown.
- 95 disciplinaries were against people whose sexual orientation is unknown.
- 38 grievances were raised by people whose sexual orientation is unknown. Recruitment Data for 1st April 2019 – 31st March 2020
New Starters by Age
- 34% of new starters were aged under 30
- 44% of new starters were aged between 30 and 49
- 22% of new starters were aged 50 or over
- 203 starters were from the 20-29 age group this was the largest age group of new starters.
- 34% of new starters were under 30 and 20% were over 50.
New Starters by Disability
- 697 starters had no disability
- 14 starters had a disability 98% of new starters declared that they did not have a disability
2% of new starters declared that they have a disability
- There were 14 people who declared they had a disability that started working for the council. 2% of new starters declared they had a disability as compared to the 4% of people who declared they have a disability in the whole council.
New Starters by Ethnic Origin
- 40% of new starters were of a Black, Asian or Minority Ethnic origin
- 20% of new starters’ ethnic origin is unknown
- 38% of new starters were White
- 20% (140) new starters ethnic origin was unknown, this is a slight improvement on the 26% unknown ethnic origin status for the whole council. The council is actively working on ways we can encourage new starters to share their personal data and close the data gap.
- 40% of starters were of a Black, Asian or Minority Ethnic origin as compared to 38% of new starters that were White. New Starters by Gender
- 62% of new starters were female
- 38% of new starters were male
- 444 new starters were female as compared with 267 male starters. As stated earlier in the report we are looking at widening categories which best describes peoples’ gender
New Starters by Religious Belief 51% of new starters shared that they have a religious belief
22% of new starters’ religious belief is unknown
26% of new starters’ religious belief was Christian, the largest group
- Whilst 51% of new starters identified they had a religious belief there were 22% whose Religious belief was unknown. However, when compared to the overall 58% of unknown religious belief in the whole council this is an improvement. The council is actively working on ways we can encourage new starters to share their personal data and close the data gap.
Sexual orientation
| Sexual Orientation | Number of Employees | |--------------------|---------------------| | Bi-Sexual | 13 | | Heterosexual | 496 | | Lesbian or Gay | 15 | | Prefer not to say | 25 | | Unknown | 162 |
4% of new starters’ sexual orientation was Bi-Sexual, Lesbian or Gay
23% of new starters’ sexual orientation is unknown
70% of new starters’ sexual orientation was heterosexual, the largest group
- 4% of new starters sexual orientation was Bi-Sexual, Lesbian or Gay as compared to the council’s overall 1.5% of employees that identified they are Bi-Sexual, Gay or Lesbian.
- The data on sexual orientation is still insufficient however 23% of new starters’ sexual orientation was unknown as compared to the current 59% of all staff not disclosing this information, this may be evidencing a trend of more disclosure in this area.
- There is a project in place that reaches out to new starters to explain the benefits of disclosing their data to close the data gap and we are hoping that in future reports these gaps will be reduced. Leavers Data for 1st April 2019 – 31st March 2020
Leavers Data by Age Range
| Age range | Death in Service | Dismissal | End of Contract | Non Starter | Redundancy | Resignation | Retirement | Settlement Agreement | TUPE out | Grand Total | |-----------|------------------|-----------|-----------------|-------------|------------|-------------|------------|----------------------|----------|-------------| | 16-19 | 0 | 0 | 8 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 10 | | 20-24 | 0 | 6 | 118 | 0 | 0 | 54 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 178 | | 25-29 | 0 | 8 | 76 | 0 | 0 | 82 | 0 | 0 | 8 | 174 | | 30-34 | 0 | 4 | 70 | 4 | 6 | 90 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 180 | | 35-39 | 0 | 2 | 74 | 0 | 2 | 120 | 0 | 0 | 18 | 216 | | 40-44 | 4 | 8 | 96 | 0 | 2 | 120 | 0 | 6 | 14 | 250 | | 45-49 | 4 | 14 | 132 | 2 | 6 | 112 | 2 | 0 | 32 | 304 | | 50-54 | 10 | 14 | 154 | 0 | 12 | 132 | 4 | 2 | 44 | 372 | | 55-59 | 6 | 16 | 156 | 2 | 76 | 128 | 48 | 2 | 32 | 466 | | 60-64 | 6 | 12 | 112 | 0 | 32 | 92 | 74 | 6 | 18 | 352 | | 65+ | 6 | 16 | 164 | 0 | 18 | 66 | 110 | 0 | 14 | 394 | | Grand Total | 36 | 100 | 1160 | 8 | 154 | 998 | 238 | 16 | 186 | 2896 |
12% of people leaving the council were aged under 29 33% of people leaving the council were aged 30 to 49 55% of people leaving the council were aged over 50
- There were 58 dismissals of people who were aged over 50 and 42 for people aged under 50.
- There were 76 redundancies for people in the 55-59 age range.
- There were more resignations (132) from people aged 50-54.
Leavers Data by Disability
| Disability | Death in Service | Dismissal | End of Contract | Non Starter | Redundancy | Resignation | Retirement | Settlement Agreement | TUPE out | Grand Total | |------------|------------------|-----------|-----------------|-------------|------------|-------------|------------|----------------------|----------|-------------| | No | 30 | 92 | 1086 | 8 | 132 | 930 | 212 | 16 | 184 | 2690 | | Not assigned | 2 | 0 | 60 | 0 | 6 | 30 | 10 | 0 | 0 | 108 | | Yes | 4 | 8 | 14 | 0 | 16 | 38 | 16 | 0 | 2 | 98 | | Grand Total | 36 | 100 | 1160 | 8 | 154 | 998 | 238 | 16 | 186 | 2896 |
8% of people who were dismissed had a disability 10% of people made redundant had a disability 4% of people who resigned had a disability • Considering we need to close the data gap on people with a disability, 8% of people that were dismissed had a disability, 10% of redundancies included a person with a disability and 4% of people that resigned had a disability.
Leavers Data by Ethnic Origin
| Ethnic origin | Death in Service | Dismissal | End of Contract | Non Starter | Redundancy | Resignation | Retirement | Settlement Agreement | TUPE out | Grand Total | |------------------------|------------------|-----------|-----------------|-------------|------------|-------------|------------|----------------------|----------|-------------| | Asian or Asian British | 4 | 18 | 126 | 2 | 20 | 132 | 6 | 2 | 36 | 346 | | Black or Black British | 0 | 10 | 52 | 2 | 24 | 82 | 18 | 2 | 24 | 214 | | Mixed | 2 | 0 | 14 | 0 | 2 | 18 | 2 | 0 | 4 | 42 | | Other | 0 | 0 | 10 | 0 | 2 | 10 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 24 | | Prefer not to say | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 16 | 2 | 0 | 4 | 24 | | Unknown | 12 | 38 | 636 | 0 | 20 | 328 | 56 | 2 | 20 | 1112 | | White | 18 | 34 | 320 | 4 | 86 | 412 | 154 | 10 | 96 | 1134 | | Grand Total | 36 | 100 | 1160 | 8 | 154 | 998 | 238 | 16 | 186 | 2896 |
22% of people who left the council were from a Black, Asian or Minority Ethnic background
38% of people who left the council’s ethnic origin is unknown
39% of people who left the council were White
• 30% of people who left the council were white as compared to 22% of people who were from a Black, Asian or Minority Ethnic background. • 34 dismissals were for people whose ethnic origin was white as compared to 28 people from a Black, Asian or Minority Ethnic background. However, 38 people who left the council’s ethnic origin is unknown. • 55% of redundancies were for people whose ethnic background was white as compared to 30% of people who were from a Black, Asian or Minority Ethnic background. However, we are still missing data for 13% of people. • 154 people who retired were from a white ethnic background as compared to 26 people who were from a Black, Asian or Minority Ethnic background. However, we are still missing data for 56 people.
Leavers Data by Gender
| Gender | Death in Service | Dismissal | End of Contract | Non Starter | Redundancy | Resignation | Retirement | Settlement Agreement | TUPE out | Grand Total | |--------|------------------|-----------|-----------------|-------------|------------|-------------|------------|----------------------|----------|-------------| | Female | 22 | 54 | 824 | 8 | 102 | 686 | 132 | 12 | 172 | 2012 | | Male | 14 | 46 | 336 | 0 | 52 | 312 | 106 | 4 | 14 | 884 | | Grand Total | 36 | 100 | 1160 | 8 | 154 | 998 | 238 | 16 | 186 | 2896 | 54% of people who were dismissed were female as compared to 46% male. 71% of people whose contract ended were female as compared to 29% male. 69% of people who resigned were female as compared to 31% male.
Leavers Data by Religious Belief
| Religious belief | Death in Service | Dismissal | End of Contract | Non Starter | Redundancy | Resignation | Retirement | Settlement Agreement | TUPE out | Grand Total | |------------------|------------------|-----------|-----------------|-------------|------------|-------------|------------|----------------------|----------|-------------| | Christian | 4 | 8 | 102 | 2 | 36 | 186 | 68 | 4 | 26 | 436 | | Hindu | 0 | 2 | 10 | 0 | 2 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 22 | | Muslim | 0 | 2 | 60 | 2 | 6 | 52 | 6 | 0 | 12 | 140 | | No Religion | 8 | 14 | 54 | 2 | 16 | 140 | 8 | 2 | 4 | 248 | | Other Religion | 2 | 0 | 8 | 0 | 8 | 18 | 4 | 0 | 6 | 46 | | Prefer to not say| 0 | 2 | 6 | 0 | 2 | 38 | 8 | 0 | 6 | 62 | | Sikh | 0 | 0 | 12 | 0 | 0 | 28 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 44 | | Unknown | 22 | 72 | 908 | 2 | 84 | 530 | 144 | 10 | 126 | 1898 | | Grand Total | 36 | 100 | 1160 | 8 | 154 | 998 | 238 | 16 | 186 | 2896 |
24% of people who left the council have shared that they have a religious belief 66% of people who left the council’s religious belief is unknown 29% of people who resigned have shared that they have a religious belief
- There were 12 people who were dismissed that have a religious belief.
- There were 60 people who have a religious belief that were made redundant.
- There were 48 people who retired that have a religious belief.
### Leavers Data by Sexual Orientation
| Sexual orientation | Death in Service | Dismissal | End of Contract | Non Starter | Redundancy | Resignation | Retirement | Settlement Agreement | TUPE out | Grand Total | |--------------------|------------------|-----------|-----------------|-------------|------------|-------------|------------|----------------------|----------|-------------| | Bi-Sexual | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 8 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 12 | | Heterosexual | 8 | 26 | 202 | 8 | 64 | 390 | 84 | 6 | 50 | 838 | | Lesbian or Gay | 0 | 2 | 8 | 0 | 2 | 20 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 34 | | Prefer to not say | 2 | 4 | 22 | 0 | 2 | 40 | 6 | 0 | 12 | 88 | | Unknown | 26 | 68 | 926 | 0 | 86 | 540 | 146 | 10 | 122 | 1924 | | Grand Total | 36 | 100 | 1160 | 8 | 154 | 998 | 238 | 16 | 186 | 2896 |
- 2% of people who left the council’s sexual orientation was Bi-Sexual, Lesbian or Gay
- 66% of people who left the council’s sexual orientation is unknown
- 3% of people who resigneds’ sexual orientation was Bi-Sexual, Lesbian or Gay
- 66% of people who left the council’s sexual orientation is unknown. There is a project in place that reaches out to new starters to explain the benefits of disclosing their data to close the data gap and we are hoping that in future reports these gaps will be reduced. **Staff Engagement:**
**Staff Survey**
3,653 employees completed the most recent Staff Survey in October 2019.
We did not collect the data with regards to the protected characteristics, however the headlines from the survey feedback were:
| Consistent level of staff who would go above and beyond to help BCC succeed and those who find their work interesting, fulfilling and sufficiently challenging. | Increase (4%) in those who would recommend BCC as a great place to work. | |---|---| | A 7% increase in the amount of staff that are unlikely to look for a job outside BCC. | Similar volumes of staff who feel they have the skills to fulfil the requirements of their job role. | | Staff continue to understand the Councils values, vision and behaviours. However, there is a slight increase in the amount of staff who believe we should change these values. | Staff feel that we are managing change better with a 5% increase over the last year with 23% agreeing. | | A 4% Improvement in those who feel performance is handled well but still low overall at 27%. | 7% increase in the amount of staff who believe that BCC is managed well although still low overall sitting at 27%. | | There is no change in the levels of discrimination and bullying experienced within the workplace. | 6% increase in those who are likely to stay at BCC as an employee. |
## Recommended Actions
| Recommended actions | Time frame | |---------------------|------------| | **What we are going to do** | **Time frame** | | 1. Improve our data and clearly articulate the benefits to our city of gathering meaningful workforce data, work with management teams to close the gaps in our data. | December 2020 | | 2. Review and re-establish a robust exit interview process and reporting. | January 2021 | | 3. Fully utilise the workforce planning approach to incorporate a whole Equality Diversity and Inclusion approach to workforce planning, highlighting areas of concern and development on a service by service focus. | January 2021 | | 4. Create a new diversity audit to inform our long-term strategy. We want to be a learning organisation and better understand how to unblock the barriers to a fully inclusive workplace. | April 2021 | | 5. To widen the scope of this report to ensure that all protected characteristics are fully covered in future PSED reports. | August 2021 | | 6. Refresh our approach to Equality Impact Assessments and their use during Workforce Planning and organisational redesigns. | December 2021 | | 7. Undertake a review across all protected characteristics with the intention of bringing together one approach for addressing full representation across the workforce. | April 2022 |
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/1350-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 27,
"total-input-tokens": 74872,
"total-output-tokens": 16251,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
0,
1
],
[
0,
5473,
2
],
[
5473,
5473,
3
],
[
5473,
8164,
4
],
[
8164,
10229,
5
],
[
10229,
15340,
6
],
[
15340,
15732,
7
],
[
15732,
16729,
8
],
[
16729,
17649,
9
],
[
17649,
18196,
10
],
[
18196,
21028,
11
],
[
21028,
23006,
12
],
[
23006,
25989,
13
],
[
25989,
26643,
14
],
[
26643,
28919,
15
],
[
28919,
31523,
16
],
[
31523,
34265,
17
],
[
34265,
34720,
18
],
[
34720,
35650,
19
],
[
35650,
35949,
20
],
[
35949,
37662,
21
],
[
37662,
41604,
22
],
[
41604,
45429,
23
],
[
45429,
47997,
24
],
[
47997,
49931,
25
],
[
49931,
51285,
26
],
[
51285,
52619,
27
]
]
} |
6e6f32a3bcc6fe46fa07b52c95f39a49ce9d7230 | The way forward: an independent review of the governance and organisational capabilities of Birmingham City Council: Supporting Analysis
Department for Communities and Local Government Strategic Analysis Team December 2014 Slide 3: Background
Slides 4-8: Demographics
Slide 9-11: Worklessness
Slide 12: Economy
Slide 13: Deprivation
Slide 14-16: Education and Skills
Slides 17-22: Annex: Birmingham’s Functional Economic Geography This evidence pack provides supporting analysis used in the review ‘The way forward: an independent review of the governance and organisational capabilities of Birmingham City Council.’ It contains information on the demographics of Birmingham and on performance across a number of different measures, historically and compared to other areas.
To provide context, indicators have been compared to other areas: Leeds, Liverpool, Manchester, Newcastle Upon Tyne, Sheffield, and Glasgow City. These are referred to throughout the document as ‘comparator areas.’ In addition, comparisons have been made with London and some London boroughs when looking at the age structure and ethnicity of Birmingham’s residents.
It should be noted that simple comparisons between local authorities do not control for any potential underlying causes of differences, such as deprivation. Birmingham’s population has grown by 11% since 2001...
- **Between 1981-1990** Birmingham’s population fell by 3%. Many other comparator areas also saw declines in their population over the same period, including Manchester (6% fall) and Leeds (2% fall). Great Britain on the other hand saw a 2% increase in its population.
- **Between 1991-2000** Birmingham’s population fell by 2%. In comparison, Leeds’ population increased by 1%, whilst Manchester’s fell by 2.5% and Great Britain’s increased by 3%.
- **From 2001-2013** Birmingham’s population increased by 11% and in 2013 the population stood at 1,092,300. In comparison, the population of Leeds grew by 7% over the same period, whilst Manchester’s grew by 22%.
Note: Population growth is shown in index form, and is relative to population in 1981.
Source: ONS, Mid Year Population Estimates ONS forecasts that Birmingham’s population will grow by 150,000 residents (14%) between 2011-2031.
The wards in Birmingham with the largest expected population growth (based on historical growth) are:
- Ladywood (38%)
- Soho (37%)
- Washwood Heath (31%)
- Nechells (30%)
Forecasted population growth for Ladywood has been adjusted to reflect planning permissions for residential development. Whilst it is expected to see significant population growth, it is unlikely to be as large as was seen between 2001-2011.
There is a concentration of areas around central Birmingham that are expected to experience significant population growth in the next 20 years.
Source: Birmingham City Council forecasts using Census 2001 & 2011 data and ONS Sub-national population projections Birmingham’s population is relatively young compared to other areas...
- Birmingham has a relatively young population compared to comparator areas. 22% of Birmingham’s residents are aged under 15 years old and 46% are aged under 30 years old.
- Amongst comparator areas, Manchester has a higher proportion of residents aged below 30 years old. Some London boroughs (Newham, Tower Hamlets and Barking and Dagenham) also have a similarly high share of young people.
- In contrast to this, Birmingham has a lower proportion of residents aged 65 years and older than GB and other comparator areas (apart from Manchester).
Source: ONS, Mid Year Population Estimates, 2013 ...and has become increasingly diverse...
The proportion of **White British residents in Birmingham decreased by 13 percentage points (ppts) between 2001 and 2011.**
Over the same time period, there was a 3.4 ppts increase in residents from other Asian/Asian British background, 2.9 ppts increase in Black or Black British residents, and 2.8 ppts increase in Pakistani residents.
After White British, **the next biggest ethnic group in Birmingham is Pakistani**, making up 13% of the resident population. ...especially in comparison to other areas
- 53% of Birmingham’s population is White British, lower than the England average (80%) and most other core cities.
- In this sense, Birmingham’s population is more like that of Manchester (where 59% of residents are White British).
- Birmingham’s population is not as ethnically diverse as London’s, where 45% of resident population is White British.
Source: Census 2011 Worklessness is a continuing issue for Birmingham...
- The employment rate in Birmingham is lower than that of Great Britain, as well as other comparator areas. In 2013/14, Birmingham’s employment rate was 60.3%, 11.4 ppts behind that of Great Britain (71.7%). This employment gap has worsened since 1995/96, when it stood at 8.8 ppts, although it has narrowed slightly since 2012/13, when it was 13.2 ppts.
- Birmingham’s relative position compared to other areas has worsened since 1995/96, and its employment rate is now lower than other comparator areas. Birmingham, including its surrounding primary urban area, was ranked in the bottom 5 in terms of employment rate compared to other major UK cities in Centre for Cities’ ‘Cities Outlook 2014.’
Source: Labourforce Survey, Annual Population Survey, 1995/96-2013/14 ...with nearly 16% of working aged residents currently claiming out of work benefits...
- Birmingham has a higher proportion of working age residents claiming out of work benefits compared to Great Britain. In Feb 2014, 15.8% of working age residents were claiming out of work benefits in Birmingham, compared to 10.6% in Great Britain.
- The gap between Birmingham and Great Britain has narrowed slightly since 2000, from 6 ppts to 5.2 ppts in Feb 2014.
- The proportion of out of work benefit claimants is similar to that of Manchester (15.5%) and has followed a similar trend in the last 8 years.
**Key out-of-work benefits**: consists of the following groups: job seekers, Employment Support Allowance (ESA) and incapacity benefits, lone parents and others on income related benefits.
Source: DWP Benefits/ Labourforce Survey (2000-2014) ...and persistent concentrations of out of work benefit claimants in central Birmingham
- The wards with the highest number of out of work benefit claimants in 2014 were Sparkbrook, Washwood Heath, Aston, Ladywood, Soho and Nechells.
- There has been some persistence in terms of the concentration of out of work benefit claimants, with the same wards in 2004 and 2014 having high numbers of out of work benefit claimants.
Source: DWP Benefits, Feb 2004 and Feb 2014 Birmingham’s economy has fared worse than many other major areas...
- Gross Value Added (GVA) per capita in Birmingham rose by about 12% in real terms between 1997 and 2012, compared to UK growth of 22%. Over the same time period, most other comparator areas grew by more than Birmingham, with only Leeds growing by less (10%).
- Between 2011 and 2012, Birmingham’s GVA per capita fell by 1.8% in real terms, compared to 0.2% fall in UK’s GVA per capita. Over the same period, comparator areas experienced either positive or no growth.
- However, Birmingham’s GVA per capita in 2012 was still greater than most other comparator areas (and Greater Birmingham and Solihull LEP), with the exception of Liverpool. Leeds had the lowest GVA per capita, and this has been the case since 2001.
**Workplace-based real Gross Value Added per capita (2013 prices)**
GVA is a measure of the value of goods and services produced in an area. GVA per capita looks at GVA as a proportion of an area’s entire population (including economically inactive). It is a useful way of comparing areas of different sizes.
Source: ONS, Regional GVA ...and Birmingham has relatively high levels of deprivation
- Birmingham is the 9th most deprived local authority in England according to the 2010 English Indices of Deprivation, falling from 10th in the 2007. Amongst comparator areas, only Liverpool (1st) and Manchester (4th) are more deprived, whilst Leeds was the least deprived.
- At the neighbourhood level, 22.5% of Birmingham’s Lower Super Output Areas (LSOAs) were in the 5% most deprived areas in England. Amongst comparator areas, Liverpool (39.5%) and Manchester (25.5%) have a higher proportion of areas amongst the 5% most deprived in England.
- It should be noted that the “average” figure for the city can mask large disparities in deprivation within the city. Looking at the neighbourhood level within Birmingham, deprivation is concentrated in the inner city and east of the city with pockets elsewhere.
### IMD Ranking of Birmingham and comparator areas, 2011
| Local Authority Name | IMD Rank of Average Score | |----------------------|---------------------------| | Liverpool | 1 | | Manchester | 4 | | Birmingham | 9 | | Newcastle upon Tyne | 40 | | Sheffield | 56 | | Leeds | 68 |
### LSOAs in the 5% most deprived in England for Birmingham and comparator areas
- 144 LSOAs in Birmingham are in the 5% most deprived areas in England.
Source: English Indices of Deprivation, 2010. Birmingham fares relatively well in terms of educational attainment and the quality of schools...
- A higher proportion of students residing in Birmingham achieved at least 5 A\*-C grades at GCSE compared to other areas, with nearly 60% of students achieving at least 5 GCSEs at A\*-C in 2012/13. Birmingham has been outperforming other areas since 2008/09.
- Birmingham has a higher proportion of local authority run schools which received an “Outstanding” OFSTED rating in their most recent inspection compared to England average and comparator areas. Nearly a quarter of local authority run schools in Birmingham were rated as “outstanding”, compared to 18% in England overall.
- However, in their latest report, Ofsted have identified that the potential for the radicalisation of pupils and the narrowing of the curriculum remain key areas of concern for Birmingham schools.
Sources: GCSE and Equivalent Results in England, Department for Education Maintained Schools Inspections and Outcomes, OFSTED But adults lack skills - particularly at high levels...
- **Birmingham has a higher proportion of residents with no qualifications (28%) than England (22.5%).** Amongst comparator areas only Liverpool has a higher proportion of residents with no qualifications (nearly 29%).
- **Birmingham also has a lower proportion of residents with level 4 or above qualifications (23%) than England and most comparator areas.** Only Liverpool has a lower proportion of residents with level 4 or above qualifications (22%).
- Since 2001, the gap between Birmingham and England in terms of proportion of residents with no qualifications has narrowed.
- However, the gap in terms of those with level 4 or above qualifications has widened slightly.
**Level 1** = foundation GNVQ, three to four GCSEs at grades D-E, Business & Technology Education Council (BTEC) first certificate
**Level 2** = four or five GCSEs at grades A\*-C, BTEC first diploma
**Level 3** = two or more A levels, BTEC Ordinary National Diploma (OND), City & Guilds Advanced Craft.
**Level 4** = BTEC Higher National Certificate (HNC) or Higher National Diploma (HND), or City & Guilds Full Technological Certificate / Diploma
Source: Census, 2001 and 2011 ...with particularly large concentrations of unskilled residents in East Birmingham
- There are **large concentrations of residents with no qualifications in East Birmingham**. The wards which have particularly large numbers include:
- Washwood Heath (41%)
- Shard End (41%)
- Kingstanding (40%)
- Bordesley Green (39%)
- Tyburn (38%)
- Sparkbrook (37%)
- All of these wards also had large concentrations of residents with no qualifications in 2001, although there has been some improvement since then.
Source: Census 2011 ANNEX: BIRMINGHAM’S FUNCTIONAL ECONOMIC GEOGRAPHY What is a Functional Economic Market Area?
- It is widely recognised that the economic activity does not neatly fit within the administrative boundaries of local government. Economic flows often overlap local authority boundaries, and at the sub-regional level one can expect to find a number of different functional economic areas. These are known as functional economic market areas (FEMAs).
- There is no universal approach to defining FEMAs. The pattern of economic flows can be different depending on which local markets are being considered. There is an argument for analysing Census commuting or migration data, as the most reliable flow data, and supplementing this with data from other key markets: such as housing markets; supply chains in industry and commerce; and service markets for consumers.
- Ideally, FEMAs would be defined on the basis of several markets or catchment areas which best reflect the drivers of the local economy.
Source: Definition taken from ‘Functional Economic Market Areas: An Economic Note’, DCLG (2010) The most widely accepted approach to identifying FEMAs is by reference to “Travel to Work Area”. This is defined so that:
- At least 75 per cent of residents work within it and
- 75 per cent of workers live within it (known as self-containment rates).
- The area must also have a working population of at least 3,500. However, for areas with a working population in excess of 25,000, self-containment rates as low as 66.7% are accepted.
Travel to Work Areas (TTWA) have been developed by ONS and are based on commuter flows data from Census 2001. ONS will be updating these TTWAs in 2015 to reflect commuter flows from 2011 Census.
There are some areas not within the Greater Birmingham and Solihull Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) which are in the TTWA, including parts of the Black Country LEP and parts of Warwick District.
There are also some areas that are part of the Greater Birmingham and Solihull LEP which aren’t in the TTWA, including large parts of Cannock Chase and East Staffordshire. Commuter flows between Birmingham and the Black Country
- There are significant commuter flows between Birmingham and the Black Country local authorities. Out of 509,000 people commuting into Birmingham in order to work, nearly 86,000 workers (17%) commute in from the Black Country LEP area. This is more than the number people commuting in from other parts of Greater Birmingham and Solihull LEP (approximately 57,000 workers).
- A Combined Authority which included Birmingham and the Black Country would have a high degree of self containment. 87% of employed residents would also be working in the area and 81% of workers would reside in the area. This exceeds the ONS thresholds for TTWAs.
Major employers in the area
There are several major employers which are likely to account for a lot of jobs in the area and commuter flows. **Jaguar Land Rover** have two manufacturing sites, both located in Solihull. **Kraft Foods** are located in the Bournville ward of Birmingham, and Amey and Deutsche Bank are located in the Ladywood ward of Birmingham. Commuter flows between Birmingham and Solihull
There are significant commuter flows between Solihull and Birmingham. Over a third of Solihull’s employed residents work in Birmingham, and over a quarter of jobs in Solihull are currently taken by Birmingham residents.
Including Solihull in a combined authority area along with Birmingham and the Black Country would increase the degree of self containment of the area. 89% of employed residents of the area would also work in the area, and 84% of workers would reside in the area.
Source: Annual Population Survey, 2011 Areas which could be included in a Combined Authority
- A combined authority area which included Birmingham, Solihull and the Black Country would have a very high degree of self containment of the area. 89% of employed residents of the area would also work in the area, and 84% of workers would reside in the area.
- A Combined Authority which also included Bromsgrove, Lichfield, Tamworth, Wyre Forest, Redditch, Cannock Chase, East Staffordshire, North Warwickshire and Coventry would have slightly higher degree of self containment. 90% of employed residents of the area would also work in the area and 87% of workers would also reside in the area. Sources
- Slide 4: Population: ONS Mid Year Population Estimates
- Slide 5: Population Growth: Census of Population & ONS Sub-national Population Projections
- Slide 6: Age breakdown: ONS Mid Year Population Estimates
- Slides 7-8: Ethnic Diversity: Census of Population
- Slide 9: Employment: Labourforce Survey & Annual Population Survey
- Slides 10-11: Out of Work Benefit Claimants: DWP Benefits
- Slide 12: Economy: ONS Regional GVA
- Slide 13: Deprivation: English Indices of Deprivation 2010
- Slide 14: Educational Attainment: GCSE and Equivalent Results in England, Department for Education
- Slide 14: OFSTED Inspections: Maintained schools inspections and outcomes, OFSTED
- Slide 14: OFSTED Inspections: OFSTED Annual Report 2013/14
- Slides 15-16: Skills: Census of Population
- Slides 20-22: Commuter Flows: Commuting Patterns, Annual Population Survey
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/1351-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 23,
"total-input-tokens": 44691,
"total-output-tokens": 5021,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
224,
1
],
[
224,
438,
2
],
[
438,
1308,
3
],
[
1308,
2161,
4
],
[
2161,
2939,
5
],
[
2939,
3610,
6
],
[
3610,
4118,
7
],
[
4118,
4537,
8
],
[
4537,
5361,
9
],
[
5361,
6208,
10
],
[
6208,
6678,
11
],
[
6678,
7805,
12
],
[
7805,
9366,
13
],
[
9366,
10373,
14
],
[
10373,
11593,
15
],
[
11593,
12131,
16
],
[
12131,
12181,
17
],
[
12181,
13227,
18
],
[
13227,
14233,
19
],
[
14233,
15291,
20
],
[
15291,
15863,
21
],
[
15863,
16517,
22
],
[
16517,
17384,
23
]
]
} |
15696478cfaa495e3e2d0dbf82663efe848ade76 | Contents
Contents ......................................................................................................................................... 2
Foreword from the Secretary of State............................................................................................. 4
1. Executive Summary ........................................................................................................... ......... 5
2. What is a zero hours contract? .............................................................................................. ..... 7
What is a zero hours contract? ................................................................................................. 7
What employment rights does an individual on a zero hours contract have? ....................... 7
3. Evidence on the use of zero hours contracts.............................................................................. 9
How many zero hours contracts are used in the labour market, and by whom? ................. 9
The Government’s information gathering exercise on the use of zero hours contracts .......... 12
What issues with zero hours contracts have been identified? .............................................. 13
Payment for travel time for individuals on zero hours contracts.............................................. 14
4. Issues for consultation ..................................................................................................... ......... 16
The Government’s labour market strategy.............................................................................. 16
Addressing exclusivity......................................................................................................... .... 16
Improving the transparency of zero hours contracts............................................................... 17
5. List of consultation questions.................................................................................................... 19
Confidentiality and disclosure of response.............................................................................. 19
Addressing exclusivity......................................................................................................... .... 19
Annexes........................................................................................................................................ 21
Annex 1: Additional questionnaire on zero hours contracts........................................................ 21
Annex 2: Further information on employment statuses............................................................... 24
Annex 3: How to respond to this consultation............................................................................. 26
Annex 4: Further information about the consultation ................................................................. 27 Annex 5: Consultation Response form ................................................................. 28 Confidentiality and disclosure of response ......................................................... 30 Addressing exclusivity ......................................................................................... 30 Improving the transparency of zero hours contracts ........................................... 32 Questions for individuals ..................................................................................... 37 Foreword from the Secretary of State
The Government is committed to achieving a labour market that is flexible and fair. Our policy is to give employers the confidence to hire and create new jobs, and to provide a framework that allows individuals to not only find work, but to find work that suits them and their individual circumstances. We have been implementing an ambitious range of employment law reforms to help us deliver this vision and sustain the recovery in the labour market that now sees record levels of employment in the UK.
But there is more to do. Zero hours contracts have been used responsibly in some sectors for many years. They can support business flexibility, making it easier to hire new staff and providing pathways to employment for young people. These contracts and other flexible arrangements give individuals more choice and the ability to combine their work with their other commitments. But this Government has always been clear that we will address and crack down on any abuse or exploitation of individuals in the workplace.
The Government therefore seeks to maximise the opportunities of zero hours contracts while minimising abuse and setting core standards that protect individuals. This consultation document sets out the issues we have identified so far, seeks further evidence and invites views on a range of potential actions Government and employers can take.
The Government will respond following the close of the consultation, and will set out any action we intend to take. In the meantime, I encourage you to engage in the consultation.
Vince Cable MP Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills and President of the Board of Trade
1. Executive Summary
2. The Government’s overarching aim is to achieve a labour market that is flexible, effective and fair. Over the summer the Government conducted an informal information gathering exercise on the use of zero hours employment contracts. This followed public and Parliamentary concern over whether there is abuse of such employment contracts. Specifically, in examining the existing evidence on zero hours contracts, the Government is seeking ways to prevent any abuse and to maximise opportunities both for employers seeking to create jobs and for individuals to get work that suits them.
3. This consultation seeks further evidence on the problems under consideration, and invites responses to a number of potential actions Government could take to address them and promote the outcome described above, including maintaining the status quo. At this stage, the Government has no preferred option. Views are sought in particular on maintaining a fair balance between the flexibility provided by zero hours contracts and ensuring adequate protection for individuals who experience some of the issues identified in this document.
4. There is no legal definition of a ‘zero hours contract’. It is a term that is used to cover a wide range of employment contracts. It is a legitimate form of employment contract drawn up between employer and individual, providing both parties freely agree to it. ONS data shows the use of zero hours contracts has increased in the past 5 years, and that there are around 250,000 such contracts in use in the UK today.
5. The information gathering exercise has shown that the use of zero hours contracts can be useful and valuable for both employers and individuals in specific circumstances. They can promote flexibility for both parties, making it easier for business to hire new staff and suiting individuals who want the freedom to arrange their work around other commitments.
6. Nevertheless, the information gathering exercise identified certain concerns around the use of zero hours contracts:
- **Exclusivity** – while exclusivity clauses may be justified in certain particular cases, in some circumstances zero hours contracts included an ‘exclusivity clause’ preventing an individual from working for another employer, even if the current employer is offering no work;
- **Transparency** – individuals are not always clear on the terms, conditions and consequences of a zero hours contract, and employers do not always fulfil or understand their responsibilities. Individuals also referred to uncertainty over access to personal finance markets and their eligibility for benefits payments when their hours of work frequently changed.
7. The information gathering exercise also provided some examples of people who were, or had been, engaged on these contracts who felt they were penalised by their employer if they were not available for work when required. For example, individuals had been offered work and turned it down and subsequently the employer had not offered the individual any further work. The Government considers that this issue could be addressed if there was greater transparency around such contracts and better information, advice and guidance for individuals and businesses.
8. To address exclusivity clauses in zero hours contracts, the Government is seeking views on the following options:
- Legislating to ban the use of exclusivity clauses in contracts that offer no guarantee of work;
- Government issuing guidance on the fair use of exclusivity clauses;
- Encouraging the production of an employer-led Code of Practice on the fair use of exclusivity clauses, with an additional option to seek Government sponsorship of that Code; or
- Rely on existing common law redress which enables individuals to challenge exclusivity clauses.
8. To improve transparency over zero hours contracts, the Government is seeking views on:
- Improving the content and accessibility of information, advice and guidance;
- Encouraging a broader, employer-led Code of Practice which covers the fair use of zero hours contracts generally; and
- Whether and how Government could produce model clauses for zero hours contracts.
09. This consultation will be of interest to employers and individuals, legal representatives and other intermediaries who advise employers, trades unions and employment agencies. Details on how to respond are provided in Annex 3.
10. After considering the responses, the Government will publish a formal response to the issues identified through this consultation, including information on what further action Government intends to take.
11. What is a zero hours contract?
This section outlines how zero hours contracts are typically used and their legal status. It describes the employment rights that individuals on zero hours contracts are entitled to.
What is a zero hours contract?
11. There is no legal definition of a zero hours contract in domestic law. In general terms a zero hours contract is an employment contract in which the employer does not guarantee the individual any work, and the individual is not obliged to accept any work offered.
12. The following is an example of a clause in a zero hours contract which does not guarantee a fixed number of hours work per week:
“The Company is under no obligation to provide work to you at any time and you are under no obligation to accept any work offered by the Company at any time.”
13. Such contracts are legal under domestic law. If they are freely entered into, a zero hours contract is a legitimate form of contract between individual and employer. As detailed in the next section, individuals on zero hours contracts work in sectors across the economy, and in occupations throughout the pay range.
What employment rights does an individual on a zero hours contract have?
14. An erroneous view is that individuals who work under zero hours contracts have no protection under domestic employment law, or that they cannot be an employee.
15. However, the employment rights which an individual will have depend on his or her employment status. There are broadly three categories of employment status: (i) employee (and employee shareholder), (ii) worker and (iii) self-employed. It is likely that the majority of individuals on zero hours contracts are either employees or workers. A fuller discussion of employment statuses and their definition is provided in Annex 2. Table 1 overleaf demonstrates some of the employment rights enjoyed by individuals in each employment status. | Employment right associated with each status | Employment status | |---------------------------------------------|-------------------| | | Employee (incl. full/ part time & fixed term contracts) | Employee shareholder (incl. full/ part time & fixed term contracts) | Worker (incl. agency workers, contractors, freelancers) | Self-employed (incl. freelancers, consultants, contractors) | | National Minimum Wage | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | | Protection from unlawful deductions from wages | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | | Paid annual leave | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | | Maternity, Paternity, Adoption leave and pay | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | | Part-time status (no less favourable treatment) | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | | Fixed-term status (no less favourable treatment) | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | | Rest breaks | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | | Right to request flexible working | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | | Right to request time to train (companies over 250 employees) | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | | Protection from discrimination | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | | Minimum notice periods | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | | Collective redundancy consultation | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | | Statutory redundancy pay | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | | Protection from unfair dismissal (gained after 2 years in continuous employment) | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | | Protection from unfair dismissal (automatically unfair) | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | | TUPE | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
16. Evidence on the use of zero hours contracts
This section sets out the evidence on how zero hours contracts are used in the labour market. It outlines the process and results of the Government’s information gathering exercise on zero hours contracts undertaken over the summer. From this exercise the Government has identified key advantages and concerns over the current use of zero hours contracts.
How many zero hours contracts are used in the labour market, and by whom?
Estimates for the fourth quarter of 2012 suggest 250,000 individuals were on zero hours contracts (0.8% of total employment)(^1). Chart 1 shows the prevalence of zero hours contracts in the past 12 years. Other estimates for the total number of zero hours contracts in the labour market include a CIPD calculation which suggests there could be around 1 million(^2). The difference in estimates reflects different survey methodologies. Given the limited data available on this issue, in October the Office of National Statistics (ONS) agreed to the Business Secretary’s proposal for a cross-Government working party to assess the strengths and weaknesses of statistics on zero hours contracts. The group will develop the ONS business statistics on zero hours contracts, and the combined presentation of these data and Labour Force Survey data to ensure the strength and quality of each data set.
Chart 1: Individuals on zero hours contracts as a proportion of total employment
Source: BIS estimates based on Labour Force Survey data
______________________________________________________________________
(^1) ONS, Estimating zero hours contracts from the Labour Force Survey, July 2013.
(^2) CIPD/YouGov survey of HR professionals for Labour Market Outlook, August 2013. Individuals on zero hours contracts work across the economy, with a particular focus upon public services, and in distribution, accommodation and food services industries. Chart 2 shows the distribution of individuals on zero hours contracts by sector.
**Chart 2: Estimates from Labour Force Survey of the proportion of those on zero hours contracts by broad sector**
Survey data from the Workplace Employment Relations Study (WERS) found that the largest increase in the proportion of workplaces using zero hours contracts between 2004 and 2011 was in the hotel and restaurant sector. Other relatively large increases were in the education sector and the health sector.
The available evidence suggests that zero hours contracts are used by individuals throughout the income distribution. For example the Labour Force Survey suggests that around 31% of those on zero hours contracts in Q4 2012 worked in elementary occupations (for example construction or cleaning) and around 20% worked in professional or associate professional or technical occupations.
______________________________________________________________________
3 Workplace Employment Relations Study 2011, first findings: underlying data - part 1, Department for Business Innovation and Skills, 23 January 2013. The available research suggests that zero hours contracts are used by businesses of all sizes, but with a greater concentration among larger businesses. Research conducted by the Institute of Directors (IoD) based on a survey of 1,027 of their members found 11% of respondents were currently using zero hours contracts for some of their workforce. When this figure is broken down by the size of the business responding, the survey found that 7% of small employers, 14% of medium and 20% of large businesses were using zero hours contracts for some of their workforce.
In terms of the actual hours worked by those on zero hours contracts, the LFS data in Chart 3 shows that the average ‘usual weekly hours’ worked under zero hours contracts has declined from over 30 to in the range of 21 - 25 hours. This suggests that though the number of individuals on zero hours contracts has increased, the total employment hours worked under such contracts may not have.
**Chart 3: Estimates from Labour Force Survey of the median usual weekly hours worked by individuals on zero hours contracts**
Source: BIS estimates from the Labour Force Survey
______________________________________________________________________
4 Private survey conducted by the Institute of Directors Furthermore, the Survey\\textsuperscript{5} found that only 30% of individuals on zero hours contracts worked their usual hours in a particular reference week. Of the rest, close to 50% experienced variation in hours of up to 10 hours. Slightly more individuals experienced a reduction on usual hours than an increase. A CIPD survey of individuals, conducted in Autumn 2013\\textsuperscript{6}, indicates that seven in ten individuals on zero hours contracts have either some or a lot of choice over the number of hours they work. However, over a third would like to work more hours than they typically do in an average week.
**The Government’s information gathering exercise on the use of zero hours contracts**
The Government undertook an information gathering exercise over summer 2013 to build further evidence on employers and individuals’ experience of zero hours contracts. This exercise identified both advantages and disadvantages in how zero hours contracts are used in the labour market.
For **employers**, the advantages of zero hours contracts include:
- **Flexibility.** Zero hours contracts allow businesses to hire staff while being able to adapt to changes in demand, for example offering more work when new orders arrive and being able to scale back when they do not. Furthermore, zero hours contracts are used by businesses to increase the range of services offered – such as creating specialist roles or having staff available in different geographical locations that their permanent staffing model could not provide.
- **Supporting expansion plans.** This flexibility also allows businesses to grow, with limited risk in terms of recruiting permanent staff if they find that the additional services they planned were not taken up. On the other hand if expansion is successful zero hours contracts provide a pathway to full-time or guaranteed hours work.
- **Retention of skills.** Zero hours contracts allow businesses to retain the skills and experience of staff who might wish to partially retire or who have retired. An employer may have made a significant investment in the individual, through training for example.
- **Knowledge of the company and its culture.** Businesses can also retain a pool of trained and skilled staff, who know the culture of the business and its procedures, rather than agency staff who may not.
\\textsuperscript{5} BIS estimates from the 4\\textsuperscript{th} quarter 2012 Labour Force Survey dataset.
\\textsuperscript{6} CIPD, employee survey for Labour Market Outlook, published 26 November 2013 The information gathering exercise also identified a number of advantages for some individuals, which include:
- **Greater choice.** Zero hours contracts allow individuals a greater say over when, where and how much they work. For example, an individual may wish to take on a range of roles or to be able to flex their working hours around their other commitments or interests. A further CIPD survey of individuals on zero hours contracts(^7) found that 47% of individuals on zero hours contracts were ‘very satisfied’ or ‘satisfied’ with having no guaranteed hours, compared to 27% being ‘very dissatisfied’ or ‘dissatisfied’. Of those respondents who were happy with a zero hours contract, the key reason was the flexibility over their hours of work. Furthermore, 72% of all respondents believed they had ‘a lot’ or ‘some’ choice over the number of hours they worked.
- **Opportunities to enter the labour market and a pathway to other forms of employment.** Zero hours contracts allow young people, particularly students, to enter the labour market. For individuals who can not yet work full time, this type of flexible employment helps them gain workplace skills and experience at the same time as studying. In the same way as part time working, this initial experience is vital in helping individuals progress their career, and can provide a pathway onto other forms of employment contract when opportunities arise within the business.
- **Flexible retirement plans.** Zero hours contracts also allow individuals to consider a greater range of options for their retirement. They can offer flexibility for partially retired or retired individuals to remain connected to the labour market with occasional work, which provides them with an income and a wider range of work interests to pursue.
**What issues with zero hours contracts have been identified?**
The information gathering exercise also heard views that zero hours contracts have not been used as intended and that they can be misused to exploit individuals. Two key concerns were identified:
- **Exclusivity.** A small number of individuals on zero hours contracts are prevented from working for another employer. For example, the CIPD survey found that 9% of individuals on zero hours contracts are never allowed to work for another employer when their primary employer has no work available for them(^8). It is clear that, in some circumstances, exclusivity clauses are useful and justifiable. For example, an individual may be entrusted with confidential commercial information which would make it problematic should that person choose to work with a competitor business at the same time. However, there is not always a clear or obvious reason why this should be part of the employment contract. This is particularly difficult given the individual is not guaranteed a certain number of hours work under a zero hours contract. Without a valid justification, such clauses undermine the choice and flexibility for the individuals concerned.
______________________________________________________________________
(^7) CIPD, employee survey for Labour Market Outlook, published 26 November 2013
(^8) CIPD, employee survey for Labour Market Outlook, Autumn 2013, published 26 November 2013 • **Transparency.** The information gathering exercise heard that individuals were not always aware they are employed on a zero hours contract, or that there was a possibility they could be offered no work or ‘zero hours’. In some cases employers did not make this clear when advertising or interviewing people for jobs, or in the employment contract itself. Furthermore, some employers may not fulfil, or understand, their responsibilities towards individuals they employ on a zero hours contract in terms of their employment rights. There may be employers who deliberately evade these obligations. For example the CIPD survey found that 20% of individuals on zero hours contracts reported they were ‘always’ or ‘sometimes’ penalised in some way by their employer if they are not available for work when required. 40% of respondents to the CIPD survey also said they had ‘no notice’ when no further work was available from their employer, and 42% of respondents reported they had ‘up to 12 hours’ notice when work was available. In some cases this can result in financial difficulties, and possible overpayment or underpayment of welfare benefits to the individual.
An additional issue that was highlighted during the information gathering exercise was of individuals who reported they had no say in their employment contract, and had no or limited dialogue with their employer. Particular examples involved individuals being asked to work at very short notice, which did not allow them to plan ahead, for example, to arrange childcare.
The examples provided by respondents were however based on poor management practices, which is not exclusively a zero hours contracts issue.
By trying to ensure that both the employer and the individual are well informed and understand their obligations and rights, the employment relationship can be more evenly balanced. Possible means of achieving this outcome are discussed in the following section.
**Payment for travel time for individuals on zero hours contracts**
The information gathering exercise also received representations on the use of zero hours contracts in the care sector, particularly around the non-payment of travel time. The Government is examining ways to tackle any abuse of these rules through strengthened enforcement of existing National Minimum Wage regulations, which will include responding to concerns over the payment of travel time.
The minimum wage rules generally require that time spent travelling between care assignments counts as time worked for minimum wage purposes. The minimum wage should therefore be paid for this time. However, any rest breaks taken in travelling between one assignment and another does not count as time worked.
The time spent travelling between home and the first assignment and between the last assignment and home does not count as time worked for minimum wage purposes (unless the contract specifies that these periods are working time).
Where the travelling time is time for which the minimum wage should be paid, any associated expenditure incurred by a worker by that travelling is classified as being in connection with the employment. These expenses reduce a worker’s pay for minimum wage purposes. A worker
______________________________________________________________________
9 CIPD, employee survey for Labour Market Outlook, Autumn 2013, published 26 November 2013 10 CIPD, employee survey for Labour Market Outlook, Autumn 2013, published 26 November 2013 paid at minimum wage rates would therefore need to be reimbursed such expenses in order to be paid the minimum wage. 4. Issues for consultation
This section takes each of the main concerns over the use of zero hours contracts, and discusses possible options for addressing them. It seeks views on those options, particularly the costs and benefits of pursuing them, and any other options the Government should consider. At this stage, the Government has no preferred approach. The Government will use this evidence to further consider these options and decide its approach.
The Government’s labour market strategy
The Government’s vision is for a labour market that is flexible, effective and fair. There is a risk that the issues identified by the information gathering exercise could undermine this vision and undermine the valuable role zero hours contracts can play in the economy.
The Government has identified a range of possible actions that could be taken to address these problems, which are discussed below. Our aim through this consultation is to find which options best prevent any abuse of zero hours contracts while maximising the opportunity and flexibility such contracts can present.
The Government’s labour market strategy is based upon individuals and employers being able to agree mutually their ways of working. This ensures flexibility and gives the greatest chance for individuals and employers to find the arrangements that work best for them. To aid this process, the Government’s role is to encourage transparency over the rights and obligations of each party, and to provide a framework of employment law that supports employers and individuals to discuss and mutually agree employment contracts.
Addressing exclusivity
In some circumstances, exclusivity clauses are useful and justifiable. For example, an individual may be entrusted with confidential commercial information which would make it problematic should that person choose to work with a competitor business at the same time. However in other circumstances reported to the information gathering exercise, it is harder to see how exclusivity is justified. In these circumstances, exclusivity acts as a limitation upon the flexibility of the employee and, if no work is forthcoming, means they have no other means of employment.
It is not unlawful for an employer to insert an exclusivity clause in an employment contract – but the individual must agree to it. An exclusivity clause must be no more than is adequate to protect the employer’s legitimate business interests and the employer must therefore be able to justify it. It is already possible for an individual to challenge an exclusivity clause – either informally during the process of agreeing the employment contract or under common law. A key consideration therefore is the degree to which individuals already feel informed, empowered and able to withhold their agreement to such a clause. The Government welcomes views from consultees on whether this is the case, or whether any of the following options would help support individuals and reduce the misuse of exclusivity clauses. The Government wishes to consider four broad options to address misuse of exclusivity clauses, and seeks views on the costs and benefits of them. These options are:
- **Legislating to ban the use of exclusivity clauses in contracts that offer no guarantee of work.** Under this option, the Government would consider how it would be possible to ban exclusivity clauses in contracts that offer no guarantee of work. A ban would prevent any individual having an exclusivity clause included in their zero hours contract. A key consideration is whether an outright ban might make any jobs which legitimately need an exclusivity clause unviable, and thus prevent such jobs being created at all.
- **Government issuing guidance on the fair use of exclusivity clauses in employment contracts.** Issuing guidance would provide an alternative to an outright ban, thus allowing some scope for exclusivity clauses in circumstances when they are justified. The Government welcomes perspectives on what guidance should include. Guidance might, for example, set out broad scenarios when an exclusivity clause is or is not suitable.
- **An employer-led Code of Practice on the use of exclusivity clauses, with an option of Government sponsorship of the Code.** Under this option, the Government would encourage employers and employer representatives, possibly by sector, to produce Code(s) of Practice themselves. The Code would outline what is fair use of zero hours contracts, and what is not. The Government welcomes views on whether and how Government should endorse the Code. The Government also welcomes views on how best a Code would capture the views of individuals and employee representatives.
- **Rely on existing redress available through common law which allows individuals to challenge exclusivity clauses.** Individuals already have a legal route to challenge exclusivity clauses. We welcome views on whether this is sufficient and whether introducing Government action through any of the options above would undermine business flexibility and individual choice.
**Improving the transparency of zero hours contracts**
The information gathering exercise found evidence that some individuals were unclear on their employment rights while on a zero hours contract, or even the terms or consequences of their zero hours contract. This could have the knock-on effect of creating uncertainty over the individual’s future earnings and benefit entitlement (because benefit entitlement and payments vary according to earnings), particularly if an individual has irregular hours of work. There was also some further evidence provided suggesting that employers did not know, or understand, the employment rights their staff were eligible for.
Regarding benefits, the introduction of Universal Credit will help to address uncertainty. It is an integrated in - and out - of work benefit, so people who move into work will continue to be entitled, until they earn enough to come off benefits completely. Universal Credit will be based on real time information about how much people earn, so there is a much lower risk of any over - or under - payment. Universal Credit claimants with no or low earnings may be required to carry out activity to help them find work or more work. Any decision on that activity could include an assessment of the likelihood that a zero hours contract provides for increased earnings in future months. The Government will consider several options aimed at improving transparency around zero hours contracts. These include:
- **Improving the content and accessibility of information, advice and guidance on (a) employment contracts and rights, and (b) entitlement of zero hours workers to benefits.** The Government is seeking views on whether existing information is sufficient in explaining to individuals their rights under zero hours contracts and their benefits entitlement. Additional resources could include online tools to calculate statutory leave, sick pay or redundancy; guidance on drawing up employment contracts; or simplified guides to employment rights under various employment statuses. The Government is also interested in the most effective way of communicating this information.
- **Encouraging an employer-led Code of Practice on the fair use of zero hours contracts.** There is a role for employers to explain clearly to would-be staff the terms of the proposed zero hours contract. Building on the option discussed in paragraph 38 above, such a Code of Practice would encompass all best practice associated with zero hours contracts. It could, for example, outline the circumstances in which zero hours contracts are valuable, best practice in explaining in job adverts and to job applicants what the contract is likely to include, and what the employers’ role is in communicating clearly to individuals hired on zero hours contracts the details of their employment particulars. The Government welcomes views on whether and how Government should ‘sponsor’ the Code.
- **Government providing model clauses for zero hours contracts.** Further to providing guidance on best practice in drawing up employment contracts (see first bullet point above) the Government would seek to develop a standard template for clauses in a zero hours contract. This would provide the basic clauses for an employment contract which an employer could choose to adopt and modify to tailor the clauses to the post they wish to fill – or the employer could choose to disregard the model clauses and produce their own contract. The format of the contract could include a simple ‘key facts’ section at the top of the contract to help individuals understand clearly the key terms within the contract. Simplified and consistent contracts may also save employers time and money in drawing up contracts, and make their obligations under the contract easier to understand.
5. List of consultation questions
Confidentiality and disclosure of response The Department may, in accordance with the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, make available, on public request, individual responses. If you wish your response to remain confidential you must provide a reason. Do you agree for your response to be published or disclosed if requested?
☐ Yes ☐ No If no you must give a reason
Addressing exclusivity
Question 1 Are there circumstances in which it is justifiable to include an exclusivity clause in a zero hours contract? If you answer yes, please describe the circumstances that justify such a clause.
Question 2 Do you think the Government should seek to ban the use of exclusivity clauses in employment contracts with no guarantee of work?
Question 3 Do you think an outright ban on exclusivity clauses in employment contracts with no guarantee of work would discourage employers from creating jobs? Are there any other unintended consequences of Government action that should also be considered?
Question 4 Do you think Government should provide more focused guidance on the use of exclusivity clauses, for example setting out commonly accepted circumstances when they are justified and how to ensure both parties are clear on what the clause means? If you answer yes, what information should be included?
Question 5 Would a Code of Practice setting out fair and reasonable use of exclusivity clauses in zero hours contracts (a) help guide employers in their use, and (b) help individuals understand and challenge unfair practices? Please explain your response. Question 6 Do you think existing guidance and common law provision are sufficient to allow individuals to challenge exclusivity clauses and therefore no specific action from Government is required?
Improving the transparency of zero hours contracts
Question 7 - Improving the transparency of zero hours contracts If you have sought employment information, advice, or guidance on zero hours contracts before, (a) where did you receive it from, (b) how helpful was it to you in terms of explaining your position in regard to zero hours contracts, and (c) how could it have been improved?
Question 8 Would the additional information, advice and guidance suggested in the first option (first bullet point, para 41), help individuals and business understand their rights and obligations? If not, what other information should Government provide?
Question 9 Further to your answer to Question 5, would a broader employer-led Code of Practice covering all best practice on zero hours contracts encourage more transparency?
Question 10 Do you think that model clauses for zero hours contracts would assist employers in drawing up zero hours contracts, and support employers and individuals to better understand their employment rights and obligations? If you answer yes, what should be the key considerations be in producing model clauses?
Question 11 Do you think that existing employment law, combined with greater transparency over the terms of zero hours contracts, is the best way of ensuring individuals on zero hours contracts are making informed choices about the right contract for them to be on?
Question 12 Further to your answer to Question 11, do you think there is more employers can do to inform individuals on zero hours contracts what their rights and terms are?
Question 13 Are there unintended consequences of introducing any of these options? Please explain your response. Annexes
Annex 1: Additional questionnaire on zero hours contracts
Questions for employers
Question 14 Do you use zero hours contracts in your business and if so, for what purpose?
Question 15 Have you offered a job on a zero hours contract basis that includes an exclusivity clause? If so, for what reason?
Question 16 Are you aware of staff you employ on a zero hours contract who work for other employers?
Question 17 Do you offer staff on a zero hours contract training or opportunities to develop their skills? Is this usually just at the start of the contract or do you offer training opportunities throughout the employment relationship?
Question 18 How many hours – on average – do you offer individuals on a zero hours contract in a week or month?
Question 19 Do you let individuals have a choice or say in how many hours or when they work?
Question 20 What is your policy when an individual declines hours of work you offer?
Question 21 Do you employ any individuals on a zero hours contract who work a pattern of regular hours? If so: i) how many hours a week and for what period of time? ii) why do you employ that individual on a zero hours contract basis?
Question 22 How much notice do you give an individual if the number of hours they work will decrease or drop off to zero? Question 23 If you offer additional hours of work – how much notice do you give the individual? And how e.g. phone call?
Question 24 Do you understand what employment rights an individual is entitled to when employed on a zero hours contract? If so: i) what do you believe they are? ii) did you explain these to the individual? iii) how did you find out?
Question 25 How do you calculate paid annual leave for an individual on a zero hours contract?
Question 26 When you advertise or recruit on a zero hours contract basis: i) do you explain the implications of this type of contract: ii) at what stage do you make it clear that there is no guarantee of a minimum hours of work?
Questions for individuals Question 27 Have you accepted a job on a zero hours contract basis that has included an exclusivity clause? What was the job and what reason was given for including an exclusivity clause?
Question 28 If you are employed on a zero hours contract – do you have more than one employer or contract?
Question 29 Has being employed on a zero hours contract helped you to achieve a good balance between your work life and home life? Was this a factor in accepting a job on this basis?
Question 30 If employed on a zero hours contract, has your employer offered you training or opportunities to develop your skills? Was this at the start of the contract or have you had training opportunities further into your employment?
Question 31 How many hours – on average – do you work in a week or month?
Question 32 Do you have a choice or say in how many hours or when you will work?
Question 33 Would you like to work more hours than your employer currently offers you? If not – why? Question 34 Have you worked a pattern of regular hours whilst on a zero hours contract? If so how many hours a week and for what period of time?
Question 35 If you work a regular pattern of hours under a zero hours contract, how much notice do you receive if the number of hours decrease or drop off to zero?
Question 36 If your employer offers additional hours of work – how much notice do you receive?
Question 37 Are you given a choice to accept, decline, or negotiate the hours your employer offers you?
Question 38 Do you feel you have a choice to accept, decline, or negotiate the hours your employer offers you?
Question 39 If you have ever declined any hours of worked offered to you, did your employer subsequently stop offering you work, or reduce the number of hours offered?
Question 40 As a zero hours contract member of staff, do you know if your rate of pay is the same or different compared to staff working on guaranteed hours contracts doing a similar job?
Question 41 Do you understand what employment rights you are entitled as someone employed on a zero hours contract? If so – i) what do you believe they are? ii) did your employer explain? iii) how did you find out? Annex 2: Further information on employment statuses
An ‘employee’ means an individual who has entered into or works under a contract of employment (sometimes known as a contract of service). There are various factors which a court considers to decide whether an individual is an employee. The individual’s contract will be the starting point for determining the nature of the parties’ relationship. However, a court will also consider all the circumstances of the relationship created by the agreement.
There is no one single test to determine employee status. A multiple test has developed in case law and it is well founded that the three key tests for determining the existence of a contract of service are:
(i) Mutuality of obligation – the employer is obliged to provide work which the individual is required to undertake for a wage;
(ii) Personal service – the individual must provide personal service (i.e. not send a substitute to work in their place); and
(iii) Control – the employer exercises a degree of control over the individual and the way in which that individual undertakes his/her work.
This test will not necessarily be determinative of employment status, as other factors might suggest that there is no employment relationship.
A ‘worker’ generally means an individual who has a contract or other arrangement to do work or services personally for a reward. This category is often perceived as a hybrid of employee and self-employed status. ‘Workers’ have fewer protections than ‘employees’ in domestic employment law. All ‘employees’ are ‘workers’. However not all ‘workers’ will be ‘employees’.
A person is self-employed if they are in business for themselves. It is unlikely that a self-employed person is required to provide personal service to a company or that either party will be obliged to offer or accept work. Self-employed persons are also responsible for their own tax. Employment legislation does not generally cover self-employed people because they are, in effect, their own boss (although there are some exceptions).
The fact that a contract includes a clause which states that the individual is neither an employee nor a worker will not necessarily be determinative of the individual’s employment status. A court can disregard the written terms in an employment contract if they do not accurately reflect the true agreement of the parties.
______________________________________________________________________
11 Ready-Mixed Concrete (South East) Limited v The Minister of Pensions and National Insurance [1968] 2 QB 497 12 Autoclenz Ltd v Belcher and others [2011] IRLR 820 (SC) There have been misconceptions that an individual working under a zero hours contract can never be an employee. This is incorrect. There is case law from the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) which considered the employment status of nurses who worked rostered hours under a ‘zero hours contract agreement’ providing critical care services.(^\\text{13}) The EAT held that the written contracts did not reflect the true position between the parties. The nurses had worked fixed hours on a regular basis for several years rather than on an ad hoc basis. The EAT held that the nurses were employed under global contracts of employment and there was no difficulty in showing their continuity of employment.
(^{13}) *Pulse Healthcare Ltd v Carewatch Care Services Ltd & Others [UKEAT/0123/12/BA]* Annex 3: How to respond to this consultation
We invite views on all the issues discussed in this consultation document. We particularly welcome responses to the specific questions which are raised in each section. It is not necessary to respond to all the questions; you are welcome to provide answers only to those issues of most interest or relevance to you.
This consultation will run for 12 weeks and the closing date for responses is 13 March 2014.
When responding please, state whether you are responding as an individual or representing the views of an organisation. If you are responding on behalf of an organisation, please make it clear who the organisation represents by selecting the appropriate interest group on the consultation form and, where applicable, how the views of members were assembled.
You can reply to this consultation online at survey monkey. The consultation response form is available electronically on the consultation page: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/ (until the consultation closes). The form can be submitted online/by email or by letter or fax to:
Name: Paula Lovitt MBE Team: Employment Status and Employment Contracts Team Department of Business, Innovation and Skills Postal address: Labour Market Directorate, 3rd Floor, Abbey 1, 1 Victoria Street, London, SW1H 0ET
Tel: 020 7215 0123 Fax: 020 7215 6414
Email [email protected]
Alternative formats of this document are available on request.
Help with queries Questions about the consultation process and the issues raised in the document can be addressed to:
Email: [email protected] Annex 4: Further information about the consultation
Data protection and confidentiality
Information provided in response to this consultation, including personal information, may be subject to publication or release to other parties or to disclosure in accordance with the access to information regimes (these are primarily the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA), the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA) and the Environmental Information Regulations 2004. If you want information, including personal data that you provide to be treated as confidential, please be aware that, under the FOIA, there is a statutory Code of Practice with which public authorities must comply and which deals, amongst other things, with obligations of confidence.
In view of this it would be helpful if you could explain to us why you regard the information you have provided as confidential. If we receive a request for disclosure of the information we will take full account of your explanation, but we cannot give an assurance that confidentiality can be maintained in all circumstances. An automatic confidentiality disclaimer generated by your IT system will not, of itself, be regarded as binding on the Department.
Principles of consultation
The principles that Government departments and other public bodies should adopt for engaging stakeholders when developing policy and legislation are set out in the consultation principles.
http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/sites/default/files/resources/Consultation-Principles.pdf
Comments or complaints on the conduct of this consultation
If you wish to comment on the conduct of this consultation or make a complaint about the way this consultation has been conducted, please write to:
John Conway BIS Consultation Co-ordinator 1 Victoria Street London SW1H 0ET
Telephone John on 020 7215 6402 or e-mail to: [email protected] Annex 5: Consultation Response form
CONSULTATION: zero hours employment contracts: Response form
A copy of the Consultation: zero hours employment contracts can be found at:
https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/
You can complete your response online through Survey Monkey
Alternatively, you can email, post or fax this completed response form to:
Email: [email protected]
Postal Address:
Paula Lovitt MBE Employment Status and Employment Contracts Team 3rd floor Department for Business, Innovation and Skills 1 Victoria Street London SW1H 0ET
Tel: 0207-215 0123 Fax: 0207-215 6414
The Department may, in accordance with the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, make available, on public request, individual responses.
The closing date for this consultation is: 13 March 2014 Confidentiality & Data Protection
Please read this question carefully before you start responding to this consultation. The information you provide in response to this consultation, including personal information, may be subject to publication or release to other parties. If you do not want your response published or released then make sure you tick the appropriate box?
☐ Yes, I would like you to publish or release my response
☐ No, I don’t want you to publish or release my response
If no you must give a reason
Your details
Name:
Organisation (if applicable):
Address:
Telephone:
Fax:
Please tick the boxes below that best describe you as a respondent to this consultation
☐ Business representative organisation/trade body
☐ Central government
☐ Charity or social enterprise
☐ Individual
☐ Large business (over 250 staff)
☐ Legal representative ☐ Local government
☐ Medium business (50 to 250 staff)
☐ Micro business (up to 9 staff)
☐ Small business (10 to 49 staff)
☐ Trade union or staff association
☐ Other (please describe)
Confidentiality and disclosure of response
The Department may, in accordance with the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, make available, on public request, individual responses. If you wish your response to remain confidential you must provide a reason. Do you agree for your response to be published or disclosed if requested?
☐ Yes ☐ No
Addressing exclusivity
Question 1
Are there circumstances in which it is justifiable to include an exclusivity clause in a zero hours contract? If you answer yes, please describe the circumstances that justify such a clause.
☐ Yes
Please explain your response:
☐ No
☐ Not sure Question 2
Do you think the Government should seek to ban the use of exclusivity clauses in employment contracts with no guarantee of work?
☐ Yes
Please explain your response:
☐ No
☐ Not sure
Question 3
Do you think an outright ban on exclusivity clauses in employment contracts with no guarantee of work would discourage employers from creating jobs? Are there any other unintended consequences of Government action that should also be considered?
☐ Yes
Please explain your response:
☐ No
☐ Not sure
Question 4
Do you think Government should provide more focused guidance on the use of exclusivity clauses, for example setting out commonly accepted circumstances when they are justified and how to ensure both parties are clear on what the clause means? If you answer yes, what information should be included?
☐ Yes
Please explain your response:
☐ No
☐ Not sure Question 5
Would a Code of Practice setting out fair and reasonable use of exclusivity clauses in zero hours contracts (a) help guide employers in their use, and (b) help individuals understand and challenge unfair practices? Please explain your response.
(a) □ Yes □ Yes, only with Government endorsement □ No □ Not sure
(b) □ Yes □ Yes, only with Government endorsement □ No □ Not sure
Please explain your response:
Question 6
Do you think existing guidance and common law provision are sufficient to allow individuals to challenge exclusivity clauses and therefore no specific action from Government is required?
□ Yes Please explain your response:
□ No
□ No
Improving the transparency of zero hours contracts
Question 7
If you have sought employment information, advice, or guidance on zero hours contracts before, (a) where did you receive it from, (b) how helpful was it to you in terms of explaining your position in regard to zero hours contracts, and (c) how could it have been improved?
□ Very helpful □ Helpful □ No change □ Not very helpful
Please explain your response: Question 8
Would the additional information, advice and guidance suggested in the first option (first bullet point, para 41), help individuals and business understand their rights and obligations? If not, what other information should Government provide?
☐ Yes Please explain your response:
☐ No
☐ Not sure
Question 9
Further to your answer to Question 5, would a broader employer-led Code of Practice covering all best practice on zero hours contracts encourage more transparency?
(a) ☐ Yes ☐ Yes, only with Government sponsorship ☐ No ☐ Not sure
(b) ☐ Yes ☐ Yes, only with Government sponsorship ☐ No ☐ Not sure
Please explain your response:
Question 10
Do you think that model clauses for zero hours contracts would assist employers in drawing up zero hours contracts, and support employers and individuals to better understand their employment rights and obligations? If you answer yes, what should be the key considerations be in producing model clauses?
☐ Yes Please explain your response:
☐ No
☐ Not sure Question 11
Do you think that existing employment law, combined with greater transparency over the terms of zero hours contracts, is the best way of ensuring individuals on zero hours contracts are making informed choices about the right contract for them to be on?
☐ Yes Please explain your response:
☐ No
☐ Not sure
Question 12
Further to your answer to Question 11, do you think there is more employers can do to inform individuals on zero hours contracts what their rights and terms are?
☐ Yes Please explain your response:
☐ No
☐ Not sure
Question 13
Are there unintended consequences of introducing any of these options? Please explain your response.
Please explain your response:
Questions for employers
Question 14
Do you use zero hours contracts in your business and if so, for what purpose?
☐ Yes For what purpose:
☐ No Question 15 Have you offered a job on a zero hours contract basis that includes an exclusivity clause? If so, for what reason?
☐ Yes For what reason:
☐ No
Question 16 Are you aware of staff you employ on a zero hours contract who work for other employers?
☐ Yes
☐ No
Question 17 Do you offer staff on a zero hours contract training or opportunities to develop their skills? Is this usually just at the start of the contract or do you offer training opportunities throughout the employment relationship?
☐ Yes Please explain your response:
☐ No
Question 18 How many hours – on average – do you offer individuals on a zero hours contract in a week or month?
Zero hours contract in a week or month:
Question 19 Do you let individuals have a choice or say in how many hours or when they work?
☐ Yes Please explain your response:
☐ No Question 20 What is your policy when an individual declines hours of work you offer?
Please explain your response:
Question 21 Do you employ any individuals on a zero hours contract who work a pattern of regular hours? If so: i) how many hours a week and for what period of time? ii) why do you employ that individual on a zero hours contract basis?
☐ Yes Please explain your response:
☐ No
Question 22 How much notice do you give an individual if the number of hours they work will decrease or drop off to zero?
Please explain your response:
Question 23 If you offer additional hours of work – how much notice do you give the individual? And how e.g. phone call?
Please explain your response:
Question 24 Do you understand what employment rights an individual is entitled to when employed on a zero hours contract? If so: i) what do you believe they are? ii) did you explain these to the individual? iii) how did you find out?
Please explain your response:
Question 25 How do you calculate paid annual leave for an individual on a zero hours contract?
Please explain your response: Question 26 When you advertise or recruit on a zero hours contract basis: i) do you explain the implications of this type of contract: ii) at what stage do you make it clear that there is no guarantee of a minimum hours of work?
Please explain your response:
Questions for individuals
Question 27 Have you accepted a job on a zero hours contract basis that has included an exclusivity clause? What was the job and what reason was given for including an exclusivity clause?
☐ Yes Please explain your response:
☐ No
Question 28 If you are employed on a zero hours contract – do you have more than one employer or contract?
☐ Yes Please explain your response:
☐ No
Question 29 Has being employed on a zero hours contract helped you to achieve a good balance between your work life and home life? Was this a factor in accepting a job on this basis?
☐ Yes Please explain your response:
☐ No Question 30 If employed on a zero hours contract, has your employer offered you training or opportunities to develop your skills? Was this at the start of the contract or have you had training opportunities further into your employment?
☐ Yes Please explain your response:
☐ No
Question 31 How many hours – on average – do you work in a week or month?
Please explain your response:
Question 32 Do you have a choice or say in how many hours or when you will work?
☐ Yes Please explain your response:
☐ No
Question 33 Would you like to work more hours than your employer currently offers you? If not – why?
☐ Yes Please explain your response:
☐ No
Question 34 Have you worked a pattern of regular hours whilst on a zero hours contract? If so how many hours a week and for what period of time?
☐ Yes Please explain your response:
☐ No **Question 35** If you work a regular pattern of hours under a zero hours contract, how much notice do you receive if the number of hours decrease or drop off to zero?
Please explain your response:
**Question 36** If your employer offers additional hours of work – how much notice do you receive?
Please explain your response:
**Question 37** Are you given a choice to accept, decline, or negotiate the hours your employer offers you?
☐ Yes Please explain your response:
☐ No
**Question 38** Do you feel you have a choice to accept, decline, or negotiate the hours your employer offers you?
☐ Yes Please explain your response:
☐ No
**Question 39** If you have ever declined any hours of worked offered to you, did your employer subsequently stop offering you work, or reduce the number of hours offered?
☐ Yes Please explain your response:
☐ No Question 40 As a zero hours contract member of staff, do you know if your rate of pay is the same or different compared to staff working on guaranteed hours contracts doing a similar job?
☐ Yes Please explain your response:
☐ No
Question 41 Do you understand what employment rights you are entitled as someone employed on a zero hours contract? If so – i) what do you believe they are? ii) did your employer explain? iii) how did you find out?
Please explain your response:
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/1352-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 41,
"total-input-tokens": 67620,
"total-output-tokens": 14045,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
0,
1
],
[
0,
2936,
2
],
[
2936,
3474,
3
],
[
3474,
5168,
4
],
[
5168,
8406,
5
],
[
8406,
9812,
6
],
[
9812,
11727,
7
],
[
11727,
14289,
8
],
[
14289,
15985,
9
],
[
15985,
17201,
10
],
[
17201,
18405,
11
],
[
18405,
20965,
12
],
[
20965,
24166,
13
],
[
24166,
27583,
14
],
[
27583,
27700,
15
],
[
27700,
30721,
16
],
[
30721,
34144,
17
],
[
34144,
36608,
18
],
[
36608,
38227,
19
],
[
38227,
40120,
20
],
[
40120,
41422,
21
],
[
41422,
43108,
22
],
[
43108,
44305,
23
],
[
44305,
46868,
24
],
[
46868,
47663,
25
],
[
47663,
49296,
26
],
[
49296,
51167,
27
],
[
51167,
51994,
28
],
[
51994,
52862,
29
],
[
52862,
53696,
30
],
[
53696,
54576,
31
],
[
54576,
55673,
32
],
[
55673,
56709,
33
],
[
56709,
57559,
34
],
[
57559,
58405,
35
],
[
58405,
59500,
36
],
[
59500,
60397,
37
],
[
60397,
61246,
38
],
[
61246,
62106,
39
],
[
62106,
62585,
40
],
[
62585,
62585,
41
]
]
} |
85b05db37af478e6308293906129e35293300231 | Criteria for assessing requests for HMRC data
Tax Transparency Sector Board 10/05/2013 Criteria for assessing requests for HMRC data
1. Legislation • Compliance with the Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Act 2005, Data Protection and Human Rights Act.
2. Availability and feasibility • Is the information available in format needed? • What access is available to the necessary existing data in order to create the information requested? • Is this access achievable within cost and time parameters? • What are the timescales? Criteria for assessing requests for HMRC data (continued)
3. Benefits • What are the benefits for releasing the data (i.e. the wider economy, UK Government, requestors?)
4. Costs • What are the costs for producing the data? (i.e. data acquisition, IT, staff time) • Opportunity costs of not doing something else? • How much would it cost to create the data in the form requested?
5. Priority • Are there synergies with HMRC objectives or other HMRC programmes? Thank you
HM Revenue & Customs
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/3069-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 4,
"total-input-tokens": 4991,
"total-output-tokens": 379,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
88,
1
],
[
88,
547,
2
],
[
547,
1011,
3
],
[
1011,
1042,
4
]
]
} |
cf300af2eb89e4be7cd0df1144af6924e7a342bb | HMRC Data Landscape
Tax Transparency Sector Board 17 December 2012
Mike Hawkins HMRC Open Data Lead Overview
• HMRC’s Role • Data Landscape • Legislative Framework • Publications • Open Data Strategy Commitments • Questions for you HMRC’s role
We collect and administer:
**Direct taxes** – paid by you or your business on money you earn or capital you gain.
- Capital Gains Tax
- Corporation Tax
- Income Tax
- Inheritance Tax
- National Insurance Contributions
**Indirect taxes** - paid by you or your business on money spent on goods or services.
- Excise duties
- Insurance Premium Tax
- Petroleum Revenue Tax
- Stamp Duty
- Stamp Duty Land Tax
- Stamp Duty Reserve Tax
- VAT HMRC’s role (continued)
We **pay** and administer:
- Child Benefit
- Child Trust Fund
- Tax Credit
We enforce and administer:
- Environmental taxes
- National Minimum Wage enforcement
- Recovery of student loans
- Customs duties including collection of data on imports and exports
We are the parent department to the [Valuation Office Agency](http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/menus/pocket-guide-2012.pdf) (VOA) and its commercial arm - [District Valuer Services](http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/menus/pocket-guide-2012.pdf) (DVS).
A summary of HMRC’s role is here: [http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/menus/pocket-guide-2012.pdf](http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/menus/pocket-guide-2012.pdf) | Income Tax | Personal incomes | Property Transactions | Trade Statistics | Research and Development Tax Credits | |------------|------------------|-----------------------|------------------|---------------------------------------| | Benefits in Kind | Charities | Non-domestic rating | Climate Change Levy | Child Benefit | | Employee share schemes | Corporation Tax | Value Added Tax | Betting, Gaming and Lottery duties | Personal Tax Credits | | Personal Pensions | Inheritance Tax | Insurance Premium Tax | Alcohol duties | Trusts | | EIS & VCT | Personal Wealth | Air Passenger Duty | Hydrocarbon Oil duties | Tax Gaps | | PEP, TESSA & ISA | Capital Gains Tax | Landfill Tax | Tobacco duties | Charitable Donations | | Child Trust Fund | Stamp Duties | Aggregates Levy | Oil and gas production | National Insurance | The legal position on publishing HMRC data
S18 Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Act 2005
• Imposes a duty of confidentiality on all HMRC staff for all HMRC data
BUT
• HMRC can make disclosures for the purposes of its functions
• HMRC publishes data in support of its functions
• All disclosures must comply with
Principles of Data Protection Act 1998 so must be **fair and lawful**
Human Rights Act 1998 – Article 8 so must be **proportionate** to the purpose for which the information is disclosed How our information can be accessed
HMRC Data
- HMRC Transparency website
- HMRC Data catalogue
- UK Trade Info
- ONS Hub
- Data.gov.uk
- Direct.gov.uk
- VOA website
- Raw data via licence
Datalab Secure Data Services HMRC National Statistics website Freedom of Information
HMRC Data catalogue
Hansard (PQ) HMRC’s National Statistics website
Most viewed pages (external visitors) for the period 14/07/11 - 30/11/12:
| Rank | Page Description | Visits | |------|-----------------------------------------|---------| | 1 | Taxable Benefits | 46,678 | | 2 | Income Tax | 25,889 | | 3 | Income Distribution | 24,378 | | 4 | Tax Receipts | 15,927 | | 5 | Child Poverty Statistics | 15,644 | | 6 | Survey of Properties | 11,049 | | 7 | Working Families Tax Credits | 9,605 | | 8 | Corporation Tax | 9,467 | | 9 | Personal tax credits | 9,239 | | 10 | Tax Structure | 8,854 |
Total number of visits to HMRC’s National Stats pages: **350,000** Total number of downloads from National Stats website: **250,000**
Tax Structures, Tax Receipts and Taxable benefits in kind and expenses most downloaded information
### Example of National Statistics information we publish
#### 2.8 Income tax receipts: analysis by type
| | 2008-09 | 2009-10 | 2010-11 | 2011-12 | |----------------------|---------|---------|---------|---------| | Receipts other than self assessment | 136,771 | 128,134 | 137,800 | 137,689 | | of which: | | | | | | PAYE | 128,470 | 122,584 | 132,263 | 132,189 | | Assessed income tax | 198 | 130 | 80 | 60 | | Tax deduction scheme for interest (TDSI) | 4,365 | 2,676 | 1,994 | 1,763 | | Other tax deducted at source | 1,615 | 1,190 | 1,003 | 1,463 | | Other receipts | 2,122 | 1,554 | 2,460 | 2,215 | | Self Assessment, net of repayments 1 | 22,531 | 21,708 | 22,108 | 20,334 | | Repayments other than self assessment 2,3 | -11,447 | -10,561 | -11,959 | -11,797 | | **Total net receipts 4** | **147,856** | **139,281** | **147,949** | **146,227** |
______________________________________________________________________
1. Income tax element only
2. Including payments of tax credits
3. Exclusive of Public Expenditure
4. Totals may not equal the sum of their components because of rounding Open Data Strategy HMRC Commitments
• Tax Transparency Sector Board
• The development of a tax calculator and downloadable phone application
• The issue of personal tax statements to taxpayers
• Expand HMRC Datalab and set up Tax Administration Research Centre
• A programme of engagement with software firms, civic-minded developers and related communities
• Upgrade of uktradeinfo website Questions for us? Questions for you
a) What HMRC data is most useful to you and why? How is it currently used?
b) What would make the existing information we publish more useful?
- eg new data formats
- different breakdowns (geography, industry, other demographics)
c) What data that is currently not published would you find useful? What would you be able to do with it?
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/3070-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 12,
"total-input-tokens": 17136,
"total-output-tokens": 2157,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
102,
1
],
[
102,
235,
2
],
[
235,
687,
3
],
[
687,
1342,
4
],
[
1342,
2166,
5
],
[
2166,
2684,
6
],
[
2684,
2996,
7
],
[
2996,
4074,
8
],
[
4074,
5218,
9
],
[
5218,
5615,
10
],
[
5615,
5633,
11
],
[
5633,
5998,
12
]
]
} |
668860696d94fa951703fc74e59d5060c254325c | VAT ARRANGEMENTS FOR JOINT NHS/LOCAL AUTHORITY INITIATIVES INCLUDING DISABILITY EQUIPMENT STORES AND WELFARE – SECTION 31 HEALTH ACT 1999 (“SECTION 31”)
Introduction
1.1 The NHS Plan emphasises the importance of closer working between local authorities and the NHS to deliver a range of services, including community equipment services for older and disabled people. Section 31 of The Health Act 1999, has made closer working easier by allowing local authorities and NHS bodies to establish local partnerships. These partnerships, which may be structured in a number of ways, are intended to ensure that services are not duplicated and are delivered in the most efficient and cost effective way. Local partners in England and Wales, having agreed to use a Section 31 partnership arrangement, will need to notify their local NHS Regional Office (see www.doh.gov.uk/jointunit/index.htm for details). Following April 1 2002, Local Partners should notify their Strategic Health Authority.
1.2 This guidance, which has been developed jointly by Customs and Excise and the Department of Health, provides guidance on the VAT position of the different partnership arrangements. It applies specifically to the VAT arrangements for joint NHS/local authority partnership arrangements and replaces all earlier guidance on this subject. It is intended to be easy to apply within a range of different partnership arrangements, while recognising that the partners are governed by different VAT regimes. It includes within its scope the operation and management of joint stores, including the maintenance and repair of goods, and other shared supplies of services and goods. It is not intended to be used to avoid tax and EL(97)70, which outlaws tax avoidance within the NHS, continues to apply. The guidance is intended to support joint initiatives between the NHS and local authorities, allowing them to be entered into with a broadly neutral impact on VAT arrangements for all parties involved.
The VAT regimes
2.1 Local authorities and NHS bodies are governed by different VAT regimes.
- Local authorities can reclaim from Customs most of the VAT they incur in performing their functions. • NHS bodies are treated as Government departments for VAT purposes. This means that they are recompensed through their funding for any VAT that cannot be reclaimed, although they can reclaim from Customs VAT incurred on certain contracted out services. The relevant services can be found in the Treasury (Contracting Out) Directions dated 7 August 2000.
The partnership arrangements
3.1 Partnership arrangements may be established in 1 of 2 different ways these are:
(a) The lead partner, called the lead body, is tasked by the other members of the partnership to carry out certain activities. In order to deliver these tasks the lead body receives funding from the other members. Whilst this funding may be ring-fenced, ie can only be spent on certain specified activities, to all intents and purposes the funding becomes the property of the lead body.
(b) The lead body may be asked to act in an agency capacity for the other partners. In such cases the lead body would be managing funds and functions on the other parties’, “principals”’, behalf, in accordance with their instructions.¹
Partnership structure (a)
3.2 In this structure the VAT regime of the lead partner will determine the VAT recovery for the partnership
For example:
• where an NHS body is the lead partner any VAT incurred in the delivery of the programme can only be recovered to the extent that it relates to services mentioned in the contracting out directions, which are published by the Treasury under section 41(3) VAT Act 1994, currently September 2000. This of course only applies to that body’s non-business activities.
¹ Arrangements for Care Trusts. Partnership structure (b) is the most suitable for Care Trusts, where the NHS acts as the agent for the local authority with respect to funds and functions formerly managed by social services. This structure may also apply to jointly managed services and functions. VAT may be apportioned by any reasonable method via an accounting document produced by the NHS lead partner, allowing the local authority to reclaim its share of VAT. This accounting document should be produced on a regular basis, we suggest quarterly, in order to minimise any impact on cash flow for the local authority partner(s) concerned. • Where a local authority is the lead partner, any VAT incurred in the purchase of goods and services required to deliver the programme can be recovered under section 33 VAT Act 1994, where the supply has incurred tax and relates to its non-business activities for VAT purposes.
**Partnership structure (b)**
3.3 In this structure the lead body agrees to act as agent for the other members of the partnership, termed “principals”. Rather the lead body manages those funds on behalf of its principals.
3.4 Purchases of goods and services in such a relationship may be done in 1 of 2 ways.
(i) the lead body may purchase goods and services on behalf of a principal. In such cases the lead body would ask for the bill to be sent directly to the principal for payment.
(ii) Alternatively, and more likely as the goods and services may be shared, the lead body would purchase goods and services in its own name and re-invoice the principals their share.
3.5 In (ii) above the agency rules set out in section 47 VAT Act 1994 would apply to the partnership arrangements. In simple terms this requires the lead body, once it has purchased goods or services in its own name, to re-invoice the principals their share of the charge. This would allow the principals to recover any VAT which may be incurred under their own particular VAT regime. Invoices should be in format given at Annexe A.
3.6 Further information regarding the VAT implications of acting as an agent can be found in Notice 700.
**Goods and services which may be used jointly – including Jointly run stores and Community equipment services**
4.1 Many partnership agreements will involve the running of joint community equipment stores or the sharing of equipment. Under such agreements where partnership structure (a) has been entered into the VAT status of the lead body will determine VAT recovery.
4.2 Where partnership structure (b) has been entered into, ie the lead body is acting as agent, the result will be different. Any VAT incurred in the management of the store itself, can only be recovered according to the lead body’s VAT status. However, any management charges made to the principals by the lead body will be standard rated. Any equipment purchased by the lead body as agent, on behalf of its principals, should be re-invoiced in one of the two ways mentioned at paragraph 3.4 above. 4.3 Where goods and services are purchased which will be used jointly by the partners under partnership structure (b) any reasonable method can be used to determine the proportions of VAT recoverable by the different partners using available management information. A common-sense approach should be applied to apportioning costs in the borderline area between NHS and local authority provision.
4.4 Approaches could include proportions of actual or estimated costs at purchase or proportions of current or depreciated values of goods supplied to clients of services in support of NHS and local authority objectives over a particular period. Reclaim of VAT can be based on actual or estimated costs over a particular period, rather than the processing of individual invoices. VAT recovery is then adjusted at year-end to reflect actual values as necessary.
FURTHER QUESTIONS
5.1 Please direct any further questions you may have to:
Henry Hoad, H M Customs & Excise NHS Admin. Team, St Christopher House, Southwark Street, London SE1 0TE Telephone: 020 8929 2691 e-mail [email protected]
Geoff Graham, H M Customs & Excise NHS Admin. Team, St Christopher House, Southwark Street, London SE1 0TE Telephone: 020-8929-2690 e-mail [email protected]
Steve Hards Disability Policy Branch, Department of Health, Room 233 Wellington House, 133 Waterloo Road, London SE1 8UG Telephone 020 7972 4436 email [email protected] ANNEX A - Approved invoice for the purposes of paragraph 3.5.
From Ambridge NHS Trust Business Support Directorate Ambridge General Hospital Oak Grove AMBRIDGE AM2 1QQ
To Ambridge City Council Ambridge City Hall High Road AMBRIDGE AM1 2QQ
In accordance with our agreed standing arrangements I confirm the following.
| Actual non-pay expenditure on Partnership costs processed through accounting system of | Value | VAT | Total | |----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------|---------|----------| | Ambridge City Council | 32333.34| 5658.33 | 37991.67 | | Ambridge NHS Trust | 39166.66| 6658.33 | 45824.99 | | Other | 1000.00 | 150.00 | 1150.00 | | TOTAL | 72500.00| 12466.66| 84966.66 |
We have agreed in conjunction with Customs & Excise that because 57.1% of this VAT value (£7118.46) was incurred primarily to support local authority objectives it is refundable to Ambridge City Council under VAT Act 1994 Section 33 and is to be included on your next monthly VAT return. A full list of the transactions is available on request.
Any enquiries from H M Customs & Excise about this arrangement are to be directed to H M Customs & Excise, NHS Admin Team, Dorset House, London SE1 9PY (telephone 020 8929 2695).
Director of Finance Ambridge NHS Trust
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/3072-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 5,
"total-input-tokens": 9186,
"total-output-tokens": 2377,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
2183,
1
],
[
2183,
4436,
2
],
[
4436,
6805,
3
],
[
6805,
8255,
4
],
[
8255,
9870,
5
]
]
} |
13b1415e4c1abcd8015a7920eaa4fbcaf63260b4 | 1. Introduction
1.1 Background
In line with Government policy, as a condition of delegation for pay, terms and conditions for non–SCS grades, HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) must undertake a full Equal Pay Audit every three years. Since HMRC was created in 2005, Equal Pay Reviews have been carried out in 2008 and 2010.
The purpose of this 2013 Equal Pay Audit is to confirm that the pay system following the 2013 pay award complies with the Equality Act 2010, and remains free from bias in terms of the protected characteristics of gender, age, ethnicity, disability and working patterns.
The Equal Pay Audit is structured in separate sections for each of the five protected characteristics reviewed: gender, age, ethnicity, disability and working pattern. Within each section, data on pay, performance management, Recognition Bonus Scheme, Simply Thanks, permanent and temporary promotions are compared and any significant pay gaps investigated.
1.2 Data
The data used to produce the tables in this report is from HMRC’s online HR and 2013 payroll system (ERP) and was extracted after the 2013 Pay Award which was paid on 31 August, backdated to 1 June. The pay data represents the number of staff in eight delegated grades – Admin. Assistant (AA), Assistant Officer (AO), Officer (O), Higher Officer (HO), Senior Officer (SO), Band T, Grade 7 (G7), and Grade 6 (G6) - in post at 1 September 2013 but excludes 118 people on reserved rights terms from former Inland Revenue (IR) and Customs and Excise (C&E) as this group is too small to be analysed.
Pay gaps have been measured using mean averages – these are best suited for distributions that are symmetric at all grades. Although large numbers of staff are on their pay scale maximum, the ranges are devoid of outliers and as such a mean comparison is best. This is a change from how we measured the pay gap in the two previous Equal Pay Reviews 2008 and 2010, where we used median averages. We have amended our approach because means more accurately reflect the distribution of values than median. For comparison with the previous 2008 and 2010 Equal Pay Reviews, the medians are shown in Appendix 1.
The data for temporary promotions, permanent promotions and Recognition Bonus Scheme (RBS) was extracted from ERP for the period 1 April 2012 to 31 March 2013 for delegated staff (excluding staff on IR/CE terms). In relation to RBS this was for payments made during this period. See Appendix 3 for the full statistics.
The top performance mark data relates to performance year 2012/13, which runs from 1 April 2012 to 31 March 2013. The data was extracted for 9,665 staff who had a top performance marking recorded on ERP.
The top performance award data (appraisal year 2012/13) is drawn from payments made in 2013/14.
Paragraph 1 explains in detail the extraction and data cleansing process.
In common with most equal pay reviews we have adopted a practical approach to calculating pay gaps by expressing the protected characteristics’ pay as a percentage of the comparators’ pay e.g.
______________________________________________________________________
1 The arithmetic mean is the most typically used measure of the ‘average’ of a set of values. This is calculated by dividing the sum of the values by the number of values.
2 In comparison with mean, median is another way to find the ‘average’ of a set of values. This is calculated by ordering the values and taking the central value as the average. the mean salaries of women are calculated as a percentage of the men's mean salaries, or the mean salaries of Black, Asian or Minority Ethnic (BAME) staff are calculated as a percentage of the white staff's mean salaries.
Where the percentage difference shown is less than 0, the protected characteristic has the lead and where it is greater than 0, the comparator has the lead.
Where any figure (e.g. mean/median salaries and Recognition Bonus Scheme payments, promotions) is based on groups of less than 5 people, the amount has been replaced with an asterisk (\*) for confidentiality purposes. Totals represent figures excluding asterisk.
To analyse the data on the Recognition Bonus Scheme, Simply Thanks and promotions the tables show the percentage of people in that grade in receipt shown as a percentage of all people in that grade and compared with the same calculation for the other protected characteristics. If the percentages are the same then there is no bias while any differences could indicate favour towards a particular group.
The Equality and Human Rights Commission's definition of a significant pay gap that requires further investigation and explanation is a gap of 5% or more or patterns of differences of 3%. It is this definition we have applied when analysing the data tables contained in this report. 2. Policy Background
2.1 Base Pay
For the 2009/10 and 2010/11 Pay Awards greater priority was given to progression for people below the pay range maximum. For both years the pay range maximum were frozen and people on the maximum received an award limited to 1%. Those below the range maximum who were not affected by the cap on the range maximum received average increases of 4% in 2009/10 and 2010/11 respectively (excludes staff requiring an uplift to the pay range new minimum). The length of the pay ranges were shortened by increases applied to the pay range minimum of between 3% and 7%, which reduced the monetary gap between the minimum and maximum. Nearly 7,300 staff were moved to the range maximum as a result of the pay progression.
The 2010 Budget announced a two-year pay freeze for public sector workforces, except for workers earning less than £21,000 a year who received an increase of at least £250 per year in both years. As HMRC was in the second year of a two year settlement, HMRC's pay freeze started on 1 June 2011 and ended in 31 May 2013.
During the two year pay freeze - 2011/12 and 2012/13, HMRC paid a consolidated increase of £250 in each year to all staff whose full time equivalent salary was below £21,000 with the exception of those who received a “Poor performance” mark, who did not receive an award, unless they were affected by the increase to the pay range minimum.
Following the pay freeze, in 2013 HMRC implemented an average pay award increase of 1%, which delivered a guaranteed minimum award of 0.7% of base pay for all staff with the remainder of the 1% average award targeted towards people below their pay range maximum. The pay range minimum and maximum for all pay ranges remained at the 2012 levels.
The process of shortening pay ranges during the years has meant that the average length of the ranges (i.e. the extent to which the range maximum exceeds the range minimum) has reduced from 38% in 2005, when HMRC was formed, to 14% in 2010, the last pay award, before the pay freeze.
Since this report has been finalised, we have published details of the 2015 pay award. Everyone received
- a basic award – consolidated and pensionable – of 0.5% of their 2014 pay range maximum
- an increase to the pay range maximum for all grades, except Band T, of 0.5% - allowing the basic element of the pay award to be consolidated for people on the pay range maximum
- increases to the pay range minimum for all grades, except Band T, which will be applied before the pay award
- an additional element paid to all colleagues who are below the pay range maximum after adding the basic award – this will be capped at the pay range maximum
- people who received an exceeded marking in their end of year review will receive a non-consolidated performance award, decided by grade and pay area.
2.2. Performance Management and performance awards
The annual pay award also pays a performance award to staff who receive a top performance mark. The fund for the award is ring-fenced and the value of the award depends on the number of people who receive a top performer mark and their base pay, as the performance award is paid as a percentage of an individual’s base pay. This is the element of the pay award that differentiates and rewards the performance of a top performer.
The performance award is paid as a non-consolidated, non-pensionable lump sum, and is pro-rated for people who have worked part time hours, or/and worked less than the entire performance year, e.g. due to unpaid leave. Since 2005, the Top performance award (percentage of base pay) has been:
| Year | Award | |------|-------| | 2005 | 2.50% | | 2006 | 3.00% | | 2007 | 2.60% | | 2008 | 2.40% | | 2009 | 2.60% | | 2010 | 2.25% | | 2011 | 2.50% | | 2012 | 2.85% | | 2013 | 2.55% |
The staff headcount data used in the performance management tables relates to staff in 2013/14 who received a top performance award based on their performance in appraisal year 2012/13. The staff headcount used in the pay tables for this report relates to staff in post at 1 September 2013 (post pay award), and so there is a difference between the two sets of headcount data.
### 2.3 Recognition Bonus Scheme (RBS)
The primary emphasis of HMRC’s Recognition Bonus scheme is to recognise and reward exceptional performance by individuals, and if appropriate teams. The bonus is available to all staff below Senior Civil Service (SCS); however, the emphasis is on recognising and rewarding staff below G7.
The scheme came into effect on 1 February 2006 and replaced the former IR special bonus and the former CE manager’s reward scheme.
The amount of the bonus is:
- determined by merit and not by grade
- in the range of £100 - £1000 gross
- £1000 is the maximum payable for an individual award
- paid with salary, and subject to PAYE / NIC; and
- Non-consolidated and non-pensionable.
### 2.4 Simply Thanks Scheme
HMRC introduced the Simply Thanks scheme in June 2010. The scheme allows managers to show their appreciation of their staff immediately by awarding a £20 voucher. The emphasis of Simply Thanks is on local recognition of local actions. The value of the voucher is small because it is the act of recognition itself and the esteem it gives that is important. Vouchers can be given to anyone in Grade AA to G6. HMRC meet the tax and National Insurance payable on the vouchers.
Managers use their judgement about when to use the vouchers. Consequently, there are no set criteria for the award.
Examples could include recognising:
- supporting colleagues at short notice to deliver a business goal or to ensure continuity of customer service
- going the extra mile for a customer (both internal and external)
- helping out when a colleague is absent
- supporting new team members.
Business areas can also choose to identify and recognise specific behaviours or achievements that relate to core values. These should be reviewed at regular intervals to ensure they are still relevant. The scheme could for example be used to promote a specific activity or campaign in the long or short term generating attention and interest.
Examples could include recognising:
- good customer service
- promoting or resolving health and safety issues
- contributions to environmental activities
- cost saving ideas etc.
### 2.5 Temporary Promotions
The maximum period an individual should be on temporary promotion is 6 months as it should only be considered to fill temporary vacancies such as:
- a permanent post while the jobholder is temporarily absent for more than 4 weeks, for example, on loan, secondment, maternity leave, long-term sick
- work on a project that will last less than 6 months
- work in a business area or job that will cease to exist within 6 months.
HR Directors can agree to an extension to the normal 6 months for temporary promotions where there is a business need. This will most likely be where it is known at the outset that the work will last longer than 6 months and there is a need to retain continuity over the lifetime of the work.
Individuals are eligible to be considered for temporary promotion if they are
- permanent members of staff or on normal fixed term appointments and
- assessed by their manager as suitable for promotion to the grade.
Individuals are not eligible for temporary promotion where they are:
- on a temporary fixed term appointment
- being monitored under the Managing Poor Attendance/Performance procedures or
- currently debarred from promotion following a conduct, discipline or behaviour offence.
3. Management Summary
The following summarises the main findings from this equal pay audit:
3.1 Gender gap
Our data indicates that the overall gender base pay gap, taking no account of grades or location shows that men receive a basic pay that is on average 12% higher than women. The median difference is 19%. This is likely to be explained by the unequal representation of men and women within grades. Although women represent 59% of our workforce, the proportion of women in each grade decreases with seniority of each grade. Our performance management markings show that as a proportion of gender, a higher proportion of women receive a top performance marking at all grades, compared to men.
Overall, there was only a slight difference (1%) between the proportion of men (11%) and women (10%) who received recognition bonus. There is a larger difference though at G7, where only 15% of women received a recognition bonus, compared with 19% of men. In monetary terms, the mean average of the recognition bonus received by men is £288, against £268 for female. At AA, AO and Band T, the bonus values have been greater for men (5-10% more), though at G6 there is a significant difference in favour of women (18%). Our data also highlight that staff in higher grades received higher value awards, although this is not the intention of the scheme.
Simply Thanks vouchers, at the set value of £20, were awarded to a higher proportion of women than men in all grades except AO. The difference was significant at G6, where 20% of women received a Simply Thanks voucher, compared to 12% of men.
For temporary promotions, there was a slight difference (1%) between the proportion of men (11%) and women (10%) being temporarily promoted. At AO, 4% more men were temporarily promoted than women. This trend was reversed at SO level, where 4% more women were temporarily promoted than men.
For permanent promotions, the total results were the same between men and women, though there was a slight and insignificant difference when broken down by grade and gender.
3.2 Age
Over three quarters of the department are aged 36 or over and nearly half are aged 46 or over. The analysis of median pay by age revealed that for AA to HO grades the median pay is either equal to or near to the payband maximum but for G7 and G6 the median pay increases by age. This suggests that there may be some correlation between length of service and rate of pay.
The number of recognition bonuses awarded to staff aged 36 and over was almost double those reported in the 2010 Equal Pay Review, though figures indicate that those at each end of the age ranges, aged 25 and under, and 65+, received half the number of bonuses of other age groups.
3.3 Ethnicity
26% of staff have chosen not to declare the ethnic group they identify with. This makes it impossible for us to draw any meaningful conclusions about patterns of bias from the ethnicity data we hold. For those that have declared their ethnic group as BAME, 80% are in the lower grades of AA - O. Work needs to continue to encourage staff to declare their ethnicity, in order for our analysis to be of more use. 3.4 Disability
42% of staff have chosen not to declare whether they have a disability as defined under the Equality Act 2010. This is a slight improvement on our previous survey where 49% of staff had not made a declaration. However, these figures make it impossible for us to draw any meaningful conclusions about any patterns of bias related to disability. Culturally, we need to look again at why staff choose not to declare whether or not they have a disability and what we can do to improve the trust and confidence staff have in us to inform us of their status. Only then can we be in a better position to address whether there are any statistically significant differences in employee experiences in relation to their disability status.
3.5 Working Hours
Over a third of HMRC staff work part-time hours, which includes part year and partial retirement arrangements. The overall mean basic pay gap between full-time and part-time staff is in favour of part-time staff, and at all grades (and locations). Part-time workers are receiving a higher base pay (mean average) compared to full-time workers. Proportionately, more full-time staff received recognition bonuses than part-time staff. Full-time staff also appear to have received significantly more top performance management ratings - 6-10% more - than part-time staff.
3.6 Recommendations
The Equal Pay Audit 2013 has identified several recommendations in order to continue our efforts to reduce basic pay gaps. These will form our Action Plan at Appendix 4.
Pay Range Shortening: To continue to focus our pay strategy towards shortening the length of pay ranges, though this is dependent on future public sector pay policy and available funding for pay.
Note. During the time that this report has been finalised, details of the 2015 pay awards have been published. On average, the length of the pay ranges have been further reduced from an average of 14% (2013) to 11.7% (2015), with a particular reduction of 3.9 to 4% at AA.
Support flexible and part-time working patterns: We should continue to support flexible and part-time working patterns across all grades, subject to the needs of the business, ensuring that both the organisation and our people benefit from a fully flexible and responsive workforce suitable for the modern Civil Service.
Monitor and review the performance management policy: End of year ratings should continue to be monitored and feedback sought about the operation of the performance management system.
Note. During the time that this report has been finalised, Internal Audit have been commissioned to carry out an audit in 2015 of the performance management process since its introduction in 2013.
Improve Ethnicity and Disability declaration rates: We need to actively explore ways of improving staff communication to encourage ethnicity and disability declarations.
Strongly encourage all staff to undertake the unconscious bias training. 4. Gender
4.1 Introduction
The headcount for HMRC (excluding the Senior Civil Service and Legal Trainees) was 70,842 as at 1 September 2013.
- This is a reduction of 5% on the headcount of 74,571 used for the 2010 Equal Pay Review.
- The gender split remains the same at 59% women and 41% men.
Table 1 shows headcount by grade and gender across the Department, irrespective of location.
Table 1: Headcount by grade and gender
| Grade | Women | Men | Total | |----------------|-------|------|-------| | Admin. Assistant | 3,356 | 1,835 | 5,191 | | Assistant Officer | 21,239 | 11,276 | 32,515 | | Officer | 9,295 | 6,504 | 15,799 | | Higher Officer | 4,352 | 4,873 | 9,225 | | Senior Officer | 1,565 | 2,164 | 3,729 | | Band T | 188 | 309 | 497 | | Grade 7 | 1,137 | 1,573 | 2,710 | | Grade 6 | 420 | 756 | 1,176 | | **Total** | 41,552 | 29,290 | 70,842 |
Chart 1 shows proportion of each gender in each grade. The proportion of women in each grade decreases with seniority of grade. Table 2 shows gender breakdown by location. In London the gender split is almost equal, as there are proportionally fewer staff at Officer and below that have higher proportions of women.
| Grade | London | National | |----------------|--------|----------| | | Women | Men | Total | Women | Men | Total | | Admin. Assistant | 263 | 130 | 393 | 3,093 | 1,705 | 4,798 | | Assistant Officer | 962 | 449 | 1,411 | 20,277 | 10,827 | 31,104 | | Officer | 1,090 | 943 | 2,033 | 8,205 | 5,561 | 13,766 | | Higher Officer | 760 | 1,038 | 1,798 | 3,592 | 3,835 | 7,427 | | Senior Officer | 313 | 537 | 850 | 1,252 | 1,627 | 2,879 | | Band T | 81 | 120 | 201 | 107 | 189 | 296 | | Grade 7 | 377 | 520 | 897 | 760 | 1053 | 1,813 | | Grade 6 | 194 | 319 | 513 | 226 | 437 | 663 | | **Total** | 4,040 | 4,056 | 8,096 | 37,512 | 25,234 | 62,746 |
4.2 Base Pay
Tables 3 (mean) and 4 (median) shows overall gender pay gap for HMRC at 1 September 2013 as 12% in favour of men.
The median shows a difference of 19%, (see Appendix 1 Table A and B) down from 22% reported in the 2010 Equal Pay Review.
| Grades AA - G6 | Women | Men | Difference | |----------------|-------|-----|------------| | £23,991 | £27,197 | +12% |
| Grades AA - G6 | Women | Men | Difference | |----------------|-------|-----|------------| | £19,974 | £24,537 | +19% |
However, when broken down by grade (see table 5 and Chart 2) a difference of 2% exists at AO in favour of women. At HO, SO, G7 and G6 there is a difference of 2% in favour of men, which is below the 3% difference needed to indicate a pattern of inequality.
| Grade | Women | Men | Difference | |----------------|-------|-----|------------| | Admin. Assistant | £16,407 | £16,235 | -1% | | Assistant Officer | £19,436 | £19,108 | -2% | | Officer | £25,746 | £25,788 | 0% | | Higher Officer | £31,694 | £32,208 | 2% | | Senior Officer | £38,258 | £38,980 | 2% | | Band T | £30,829 | £30,577 | -1% | | Grade 7 | £51,614 | £52,508 | 2% | | Grade 6 | £65,245 | £66,522 | 2% | Table 6 shows mean salaries for London staff by grade and gender. It shows that there is a difference at G7 and G6, in favour of men and 1% favouring towards women at AO.
Table 6: Mean London salary by grade and gender
| Grade | Women | Men | Difference | |-------------|--------|-------|------------| | Admin. Assistant | 20,398 | 20,355 | 0% | | Assistant Officer | 23,555 | 23,412 | -1% | | Officer | 29,388 | 29,391 | 0% | | Higher Officer | 35,442 | 35,448 | 0% | | Senior Officer | 41,198 | 41,545 | 1% | | Band T | 30,940 | 31,286 | 1% | | Grade 7 | 55,520 | 56,564 | 2% | | Grade 6 | 68,816 | 70,378 | 2% |
Table 7 shows mean salaries for National staff by grade and gender. It shows:
- There are differences in favour of men at HO, SO, G7 and G6.
- There is a difference in favour of women at AA, AO and Band T. At Band T this is likely to be due to recent recruitment of a large number of men at this grade, lowering the mean for men.
Table 7: Mean National salary by grade and gender
| Grade | Women | Men | Difference | |-------------|--------|-------|------------| | Admin. Assistant | 16,067 | 15,921 | -1% | | Assistant Officer | 19,241 | 18,929 | -2% | | Officer | 25,262 | 25,177 | 0% | | Higher Officer | 30,901 | 31,303 | 1% | | Senior Officer | 37,523 | 38,134 | 2% | | Band T | 30,744 | 30,127 | -2% | | Grade 7 | 49,677 | 50,505 | 2% | | Grade 6 | 62,179 | 63,707 | 2% | 4.3 Top Performance Markings
Chart 3 shows:
- At all grades, a higher proportion of women achieved top performance marking than men.
- At G6, 10.3% more women received a top performance marking than men.
4.4 Recognition Bonus Scheme
Table 8 shows the number of awards:
- Overall, a higher proportion of men received a recognition bonus than women.
- Proportionally, the largest difference is at G7, where 19% of men received a recognition bonus compared to 15% of women.
| Grade | Number of Recognition Bonuses | % of staff given Recognition Bonus | Difference | |----------------|-------------------------------|-----------------------------------|------------| | | Women | Men | Women | Men | | | | Admin. Assistant | 261 | 125 | 7% | 6% | -1% | | | Assistant Officer | 1,463 | 842 | 7% | 7% | +1% | | | Officer | 1,145 | 793 | 12% | 12% | 0% | | | Higher Officer | 799 | 806 | 18% | 16% | -2% | | | Senior Officer | 279 | 398 | 19% | 19% | 0% | | | Band T | 8 | 20 | 5% | 7% | +2% | | | Grade 7 | 168 | 298 | 15% | 19% | +4% | | | Grade 6 | 63 | 107 | 15% | 14% | -1% | | | Overall | 4,186 | 3,389 | 10% | 11% | +1% | | Chart 4 displays the mean values of awards. Overall the average (mean) recognition bonus for men is £288, compared to £268 for women, a 7% difference in favour of men. A similar result was reported in the 2010 report.
It shows:
- At AA there is a 10% difference in the average value in favour of men.
- At G6 there is an 18% difference in the average value in favour of women.
- Although the bonuses are purportedly based on merit rather than grade, the average award value increases with seniority of grade.
Chart 4: Mean value of Recognition Bonus by grade and gender (labels show % differences)
4.5 Simply Thanks
Table 9 shows:
- At all grades except AO, a higher proportion of women received Simply Thanks awards than men.
- At G6, 20% of women received an award compared to 12% of men – a difference of 8%.
Table 9: Number of Simply Thanks awards by grade and gender
| Grade | Number of Simply Thanks awards | % of staff given Simply Thanks | Difference | |----------------|--------------------------------|-------------------------------|------------| | | Women | Men | Women | Men | | | Admin. Assistant | 1,020 | 534 | 28% | 27% | -0% | | Assistant Officer | 5,867 | 3,356 | 27% | 29% | +2% | | Officer | 2,780 | 1,718 | 29% | 26% | -3% | | Higher Officer | 1,120 | 1,104 | 26% | 23% | -3% | | Senior Officer | 381 | 425 | 25% | 20% | -5% | | Band T | 32 | 49 | 19% | 17% | -2% | | Grade 7 | 231 | 275 | 21% | 18% | -3% | | Grade 6 | 81 | 89 | 20% | 12% | -8% | | Overall | 11,512 | 7,550 | 27% | 25% | -2% | 4.6 Temporary Promotions
Table 10 shows:
- At Officer and below, proportionally more men were temporarily promoted than women.
- At all higher grades, proportionally more women were temporarily promoted than men.
Table 10: Number of temporary promotions and proportion of staff temporarily promoted by grade and gender
| Grade | Number of temporary promotions | % of staff temporarily promoted | Difference | |----------------|--------------------------------|--------------------------------|------------| | | Women | Men | Women | Men | | | Admin. Assistant | 702 | 388 | 19% | 20% | +1% | | Assistant Officer | 1,551 | 1,236 | 7% | 11% | +4% | | Officer | 1,077 | 796 | 11% | 12% | +1% | | Higher Officer | 462 | 451 | 11% | 9% | -1% | | Senior Officer | 174 | 173 | 12% | 8% | -3% | | Band T | * | * | 2% | 0% | -1% | | Grade 7 | 82 | 103 | 7% | 7% | -1% | | Grade 6 | 14 | 12 | 3% | 2% | -2% | | Overall | 4,062 | 3,159 | 10% | 11% | +1% |
4.7 Permanent Promotions
Table 11 shows:
- Overall, the proportion of men and women who were permanently promoted was the same, 6%.
- At grade level, differences between the genders were small proportionally.
Table 11: Number of permanent promotions and proportion of staff permanently promoted by grade and gender
| Grade | Number of permanent promotions | % of staff permanently promoted | Difference | |----------------|--------------------------------|--------------------------------|------------| | | Women | Men | Women | Men | | | Admin. Assistant | 946 | 508 | 26% | 26% | +0% | | Assistant Officer | 496 | 407 | 2% | 4% | +1% | | Officer | 545 | 426 | 6% | 6% | +1% | | Higher Officer | 266 | 237 | 6% | 5% | -1% | | Senior Officer | 122 | 128 | 8% | 6% | -2% | | Band T | 29 | 45 | 17% | 15% | -2% | | Grade 7 | 46 | 82 | 4% | 5% | +1% | | Grade 6 | 3 | 3 | 1% | 0% | -0% | | Overall | 2,453 | 1,836 | 6% | 6% | +0% | 4.8 Summary
Table 12 summarises the differences between men and women across the pay and reward types considered in this section.
- Negative % indicates a difference in favour of women
- Positive % indicates a difference in favour of men
Table 12: Summary of % differences between male and female staff by grade and pay/reward type
| Grade | Base Pay | Top Performance Marking | Recognition Bonus Scheme | Simply Thanks | Promotion | |----------------|----------|--------------------------|---------------------------|---------------|-----------| | | London | National | Number | Value | Temp. | Perm. | | Admin. Assistant | 0% | -1% | -3% | -1% | 10% | 0% | 1% | 1% | | Assistant Officer | -1% | -2% | -1% | 1% | 5% | 2% | 4% | 1% | | Officer | 0% | 0% | -1% | 0% | 3% | -3% | 1% | 1% | | Higher Officer | 0% | 1% | -2% | -2% | -3% | -3% | -1% | -1% | | Senior Officer | 1% | 2% | -6% | 0% | -3% | -5% | -3% | -2% | | Band T | 1% | -2% | 0% | 2% | 8% | -2% | -1% | -2% | | Grade 7 | 2% | 2% | 0% | 4% | -2% | -3% | -1% | 1% | | Grade 6 | 2% | 2% | -10% | -1% | -18% | -8% | -2% | 0% |
Difference of 5% or greater in favour of female staff Difference of 5% or greater in favour of male staff
Although there are large differences at particular grades in favour of both men and women, there does not appear to be a consistent bias across the reward types at any grade. 5. Age
5.1 Introduction
Table 13 shows headcount by grade and age group. It shows
- Over 37% of employees are in the 46 - 55 age bracket.
- At AA, the figures for this age group are considerably less than those in the 2010 Equal Pay Review (2,734) as a result of AA staff being promoted.
- Over 55% of the department are aged 46 or over, which is an increase of 3% from the 2010 review.
- Only 21% are aged between 16 and 35, a decrease of 1% since the previous review.
Table 13: Headcount by grade and age group
| Grade | 16-25 | 26-35 | 36-45 | 46-55 | 56-64 | 65+ | Total | |----------------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-----|-------| | Admin. Assistant | 249 | 693 | 881 | 1,712 | 1,401 | 256 | 5,192 | | Assistant Officer | 2,650 | 7,491 | 7,760 | 9,950 | 4,286 | 375 | 32,512| | Officer | 130 | 1,864 | 3,953 | 6,706 | 2,952 | 196 | 15,801| | Higher Officer | 17 | 712 | 2,013 | 4,379 | 1,993 | 110 | 9,224 | | Senior Officer | * | 192 | 704 | 1,874 | 918 | 39 | 3,727 | | Band T | 145 | 237 | 76 | 37 | * | * | 495 | | Grade 7 | * | 408 | 573 | 1,170 | 527 | 29 | 2,707 | | Grade 6 | * | 54 | 207 | 584 | 312 | 19 | 1,176 | | Total | 3,191 | 11,651| 16,167| 26,412| 12,389| 1,024| 70,834|
5.2 Base Pay
Tables 14 and 15 show average mean salaries by age band for London and National staff. There has been little change due to the two year pay freeze and a 1% pay award. In general they show
- for staff at AO and Officer the mean is near the maximum across the age bands except for bands 16 - 25.
- for staff at HO in London/National and SO in London the mean is near the maximum from age band 56+.
We are aware that concerns continue to be raised regarding the length of time taken to reach the maximum salary rate of our grades and the interaction with discrimination. These concerns have been compounded by the two year pay freeze and the 1% pay award limit for 2013 and uncertainty in future years.
Table 14: Mean London salary within grade and age group (£)
| Grade | 16-25 | 26-35 | 36-45 | 46-55 | 56-64 | 65+ | |----------------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-----| | Admin. Assistant | 18,595| 20,362| 20,420| 20,370| 20,441| 20,443| | Assistant Officer | 21,559| 22,911| 23,526| 23,604| 23,639| 23,825| | Officer | 26,212| 27,513| 29,402| 29,779| 29,970| 29,996| | Higher Officer | 32,537| 32,550| 34,617| 36,065| 36,526| 36,636| | Senior Officer | 37,990| 38,812| 40,183| 41,861| 42,574| 42,794| | Band T | 28,976| 31,867| 36,843| 37,101| 37,542| * | | Grade 7 | 53,017| 53,655| 55,087| 56,899| 58,807| 59,178| | Grade 6 | * | 64,161| 67,057| 69,984| 72,668| 74,209| Table 15: Mean National salary within grade and age group (£)
| Grade | 16-25 | 26-35 | 36-45 | 46-55 | 56-64 | 65+ | |-------------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-----| | Admin. Assistant | 14,884 | 16,106 | 16,064 | 16,129 | 16,138 | 16,146 | | Assistant Officer | 18,011 | 18,660 | 19,358 | 19,495 | 19,439 | 19,535 | | Officer | 22,896 | 23,538 | 24,910 | 25,614 | 25,877 | 25,954 | | Higher Officer | 29,243 | 29,216 | 30,133 | 31,353 | 32,112 | 32,383 | | Senior Officer | * | 35,753 | 36,645 | 37,893 | 38,994 | 39,592 | | Band T | 27,682 | 30,033 | 31,475 | 34,552 | 36,659 | * | | Grade 7 | 47,388 | 48,018 | 48,757 | 50,157 | 52,559 | 54,250 | | Grade 6 | * | 59,146 | 60,740 | 62,913 | 65,459 | 65,058 |
There is additional information in relation to numbers and percentages of staff on the max and not on the max at each grade by age band and this can be found at Appendix 2.
5.3 Top Performance Marking
Table 16 shows percentage of staff achieving a top performance mark within grade and age group. It shows:
- 29% of staff at G6 and G7 in the 65+ age group received a top performance marking.
- This is a 100% increase on figures recorded in the 2010 Equal Pay Review.
Table 16: Percentage of staff achieving top performance marking within grade and age group
| Grade | 16-25 | 26-35 | 36-45 | 46-55 | 56-64 | 65+ | |-------------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-----| | Admin. Assistant | 18% | 15% | 13% | 12% | 9% | 6% | | Assistant Officer | 9% | 14% | 13% | 11% | 7% | 3% | | Officer | 13% | 20% | 18% | 15% | 9% | 3% | | Higher Officer | 21% | 26% | 21% | 19% | 10% | 8% | | Senior Officer | - | 27% | 23% | 22% | 14% | 6% | | Band T | 9% | 10% | 5% | 3% | - | - | | Grade 7 | 0% | 25% | 22% | 19% | 14% | 10% | | Grade 6 | - | 25% | 23% | 23% | 16% | 19% | | Overall | 10% | 16% | 16% | 15% | 9% | 5% |
5.4 Recognition Bonus Scheme
Table 17 shows number and proportion of staff receiving performance recognition bonuses within grade and age group. The number of recognition bonuses awarded to all staff aged 36 and over was almost double the number reported in the 2010 Equal Pay Review.
Table 17: Number and proportion of staff receiving recognition bonus scheme awards within grade and age group
| Grade | 16-25 | 26-35 | 36-45 | 46-55 | 56-64 | 65+ | 16-25 | 26-35 | 36-45 | 46-55 | 56-64 | 65+ | |-------------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-----|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-----| | Admin. Assistant | 15 | 71 | 80 | 127 | 86 | 7 | 6% | 9% | 8% | 7% | 6% | 3% | | Assistant Officer | 107 | 651 | 635 | 669 | 224 | 19 | 4% | 8% | 8% | 7% | 5% | 5% | | Officer | 8 | 241 | 536 | 878 | 261 | 14 | 5% | 13% | 13% | 13% | 9% | 7% | | Higher Officer | * | 134 | 390 | 762 | 308 | 8 | * | 20% | 19% | 17% | 16% | 9% | | Senior Officer | * | 33 | 117 | 358 | 168 | * | * | 19% | 17% | 20% | 19% | * | | Band T | 6 | 18 | * | * | * | * | 5% | 8% | * | * | * | * | | Grade 7 | * | 63 | 110 | 203 | 80 | 6 | * | 16% | 19% | 18% | 16% | 21% | | Grade 6 | * | 5 | 33 | 89 | 42 | * | * | 10% | 16% | 15% | 13% | * | | Overall | 136 | 1,216 | 1,901 | 3,086 | 1,169 | 54 | 4% | 10% | 11% | 12% | 9% | 5% | 5.5 Simply Thanks
Table 18 shows percentage of staff receiving an award by grade and age band. Although there are variations by grade and age it does appear that
- grades AA to Officer across all age bands are more likely to receive a Simply Thanks award than staff in grades HO to Grade 6 across all age bands.
- In the follow up to the 2010 Equal Pay Review only 5% of staff had received a Simply Thanks award whereas the figure now stands at over 26%.
This reflects the increased use of Simply Thanks by managers to reward staff.
Table 18: Number and proportion of staff receiving Simply Thanks awards by grade and age group
| Grade | 16-25 | 26-35 | 36-45 | 46-55 | 56-64 | 65+ | 16-25 | 26-35 | 36-45 | 46-55 | 56-64 | 65+ | |-------------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-----|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-----| | Admin. Assistant | 84 | 265 | 266 | 533 | 362 | 44 | 33% | 32% | 27% | 29% | 24% | 17% | | Assistant Officer | 677 | 2,352 | 2,376 | 2,757 | 990 | 71 | 23% | 30% | 30% | 28% | 23% | 20% | | Officer | 27 | 589 | 1,218 | 1,953 | 675 | 36 | 18% | 32% | 29% | 29% | 23% | 18% | | Higher Officer | * | 182 | 499 | 1,129 | 393 | 18 | * | 27% | 24% | 26% | 20% | 19% | | Senior Officer | * | 51 | 142 | 426 | 184 | * | * | 29% | 21% | 23% | 20% | * | | Band T | 19 | 46 | 12 | * | * | * | 15% | 21% | 15% | * | * | * | | Grade 7 | * | 115 | 113 | 191 | 84 | * | * | 29% | 20% | 17% | 17% | * | | Grade 6 | * | 8 | 34 | 97 | 28 | * | * | 16% | 16% | 17% | 9% | * | | Overall | 807 | 3,608 | 4,660 | 7,086 | 2,716 | 169 | 23% | 30% | 28% | 27% | 22% | 17% |
5.6 Temporary Promotions
Table 19 shows number of staff who have been on temporary promotion at some stage and for varying lengths of time in 2012/13. Staff are shown under the grade that they were temporarily promoted from. As with the 2010 Equal Pay Review, the figures show
- Relative to the overall number of staff in each pay band a higher proportion of staff in the 26 - 35 and 36 - 45 age bands were temporarily promoted.
- A lower proportion of staff in the higher age bands have been on TP, although there are variations by grade.
Table 19: Number of temporary promotions and proportion of staff temporarily promoted by grade and age group
| Grade | 16-25 | 26-35 | 36-45 | 46-55 | 56-64 | 65+ | 16-25 | 26-35 | 36-45 | 46-55 | 56-64 | 65+ | |-------------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-----|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-----| | Admin. Assistant | 114 | 277 | 215 | 327 | 145 | 12 | 45% | 33% | 22% | 18% | 10% | 5% | | Assistant Officer | 169 | 1,250 | 783 | 507 | 76 | * | 6% | 16% | 10% | 5% | 2% | * | | Officer | * | 305 | 671 | 764 | 126 | * | * | 17% | 16% | 11% | 4% | * | | Higher Officer | * | 88 | 259 | 472 | 92 | * | * | 13% | 13% | 11% | 5% | * | | Senior Officer | * | 29 | 90 | 187 | 41 | * | * | 16% | 13% | 10% | 5% | * | | Band T | * | * | * | * | * | * | * | * | * | * | * | * | | Grade 7 | * | 35 | 50 | 84 | 15 | * | * | 9% | 9% | 7% | 3% | * | | Grade 6 | * | * | 7 | 13 | 5 | * | * | 3% | 3% | 2% | 2% | * | | Overall | 283 | 1,984 | 2,075 | 2,354 | 500 | 12 | 8% | 17% | 12% | 9% | 4% | 1% | 5.7 Permanent Promotions
Table 20 shows number of permanent promotions and proportions of staff promoted by grade and age group in 2012/13. Staff are shown under the grade that they were permanently promoted from. As with the temporary promotions, the figures show
- Relative to the overall number of staff in each pay band a higher proportion of staff in the 26 - 35 and 36 - 45 age bands were permanently promoted, with respectively 10% and 8% of staff being permanently promoted, compared to 5% or below for all other age bands.
- A lower proportion of staff in the higher age bands have been permanently promoted, although there are variations by grade.
Table 20: Number of permanent promotions and proportion of staff promoted by grade and age group
| Grade | Number of permanent promotions | % of staff permanently promoted | |----------------|--------------------------------|--------------------------------| | | 16-25 | 26-35 | 36-45 | 46-55 | 56-64 | 65+ | 16-25 | 26-35 | 36-45 | 46-55 | 56-64 | 65+ | | Admin. Assistant | 84 | 350 | 339 | 474 | 189 | 18 | 33% | 42% | 35% | 25% | 13% | 7% | | Assistant Officer | 32 | 416 | 291 | 147 | 17 | * | 1% | 5% | 4% | 1% | 0% | * | | Officer | * | 242 | 355 | 323 | 46 | * | * | 13% | 9% | 5% | 2% | * | | Higher Officer | * | 59 | 182 | 237 | 25 | * | * | 9% | 9% | 5% | 1% | * | | Senior Officer | * | 23 | 77 | 121 | 29 | * | * | 13% | 11% | 7% | 3% | * | | Band T | 5 | 48 | 15 | 6 | * | * | 4% | 22% | 19% | 15% | * | * | | Grade 7 | * | 17 | 48 | 58 | 5 | * | * | 4% | 8% | 5% | 1% | * | | Grade 6 | * | * | * | * | * | * | * | * | * | * | * | * | | Overall | 121 | 1,155 | 1,307 | 1,366 | 311 | 18 | 3% | 10% | 8% | 5% | 3% | 2% |
5.8 Summary
Summary table by age group is not possible due to the number of age banding that would be required. 6. Ethnicity
6.1 Introduction
Table 21 shows headcount by grade and ethnicity group. Given the high number of ‘Unknown’ groups recorded, we are unable to draw firm conclusions from this data. Work is ongoing to encourage staff to declare to improve the validity of these figures. Any analysis of the HMRC pay system to establish whether it is free from bias in terms of ethnicity is hindered by the lack of complete ethnicity data.
The figures show
- 26% of staff have either not completed a declaration or have chosen to not declare their ethnic status.
- Since the 2010 equal pay review there has been a 4% increase in the number of staff classified as BAME (1%) and white (3%) resulting in a decrease in a reduction in the unknowns.
- Of the total number of BAME staff 80% are in grades AA to O and 20% are in all other grades.
Table 21: Headcount by grade and ethnicity group
| Grade | BAME | White | Unknown | Total | |----------------|------|-------|---------|--------| | Admin. Assistant | 363 | 3,234 | 1,594 | 5,191 | | Assistant Officer | 2,113| 21,771| 8,631 | 32,515 | | Officer | 1,006| 10,997| 3,796 | 15,799 | | Higher Officer | 509 | 6,292 | 2,424 | 9,225 | | Senior Officer | 151 | 2,701 | 877 | 3,729 | | Band T | 33 | 280 | 184 | 497 | | Grade 7 | 129 | 1,922 | 659 | 2,710 | | Grade 6 | 40 | 847 | 289 | 1,176 | | **Total** | 4,344| 48,044| 18,454 | 70,842 |
6.2 Base Pay
Table 22 and 23 show mean salaries by grade and ethnicity group for London and National staff.
Table 22 shows
- There are differences between the London mean salaries for HO, SO and G7 in favour of white staff.
- A significant difference of 4% for Band T in favour of BAME staff.
The comparison of National mean salaries by grade and ethnicity group in table 23 shows:
- differences in favour of white staff for 6 out of 8 grades of 1 - 2%.
The difference at National G6 is highest with a significant difference of 4%.
Table 22: Mean London salary by grade and ethnicity group (£)
| Grade | BAME | White | Unknown | Difference | |----------------|-------|-------|---------|------------| | Admin. Assistant | 20,420| 20,359| 20,368 | 0% | | Assistant Officer | 23,500| 23,492| 23,539 | 0% | | Officer | 29,315| 29,409| 29,430 | 0% | | Higher Officer | 35,284| 35,519| 35,594 | 1% | | Senior Officer | 41,036| 41,505| 41,400 | 1% | | Band T | 33,990| 32,679| 29,472 | -4% | | Grade 7 | 55,628| 56,137| 56,280 | 1% | | Grade 6 | 69,390| 69,467| 70,722 | 0% | Table 23: Mean National salary by grade and ethnicity group (£)
| Grade | BAME | White | Unknown | Difference | |------------------|-------|-------|---------|------------| | Admin. Assistant | 15,881| 16,038| 15,988 | 1% | | Assistant Officer| 18,788| 19,170| 19,101 | 2% | | Officer | 24,819| 25,220| 25,309 | 2% | | Higher Officer | 30,589| 31,106| 31,172 | 2% | | Senior Officer | 37,650| 37,873| 37,868 | 1% | | Band T | 29,877| 30,420| 30,271 | 2% | | Grade 7 | 49,956| 50,123| 50,285 | 0% | | Grade 6 | 61,010| 63,226| 63,184 | 4% |
6.3 Top Performance Marking
Table 24 and Chart 5 shows data from the 2012/13 appraisal year (reflecting the performance awards paid in 2013/14). To analyse the data in the tables the percentage of Top performance awards made to BAME and white staff have to be compared with the percentage of BAME and white staff in each grade while also considering the high number of unknowns.
They show percentage of staff achieving a top performance marking by ethnicity group
- There is a pattern of a lower proportion of BAME staff receiving a Top marking.
- For all grades except Band T the percentage of Top performance awards to BAME staff is either equal to or lower than the percentage of BAME staff in the grade.
- For white staff the data shows that for all grades except Band T the percentage of Top performance awards is higher than the percentage of white staff in the grade.
Table 24: % of staff achieving top performance marking by ethnicity group
| Grade | BAME | White | Unknown | % Difference | |------------------|------|-------|---------|--------------| | Admin. Assistant | 10% | 13% | 9% | +3% | | Assistant Officer| 10% | 12% | 9% | +2% | | Officer | 9% | 16% | 13% | +7% | | Higher Officer | 12% | 19% | 17% | +7% | | Senior Officer | 11% | 21% | 21% | +10% | | Band T | 14% | 8% | 7% | -6% | | Grade 7 | 8% | 21% | 18% | +12% | | Grade 6 | 17% | 23% | 17% | +6% | | Overall | 10% | 15% | 12% | +5% |
Chart 5: Percentage of staff achieving top performance marking by ethnicity group (Labels show difference between groups) It is the unknown category that is accounting for most of the differences between the white and BAME Top performance marks. It is only with higher declaration rates that we will be able to make a fuller evaluation of the ethnicity data.
### 6.4 Recognition Bonus Scheme
Table 25 shows number and proportion of staff receiving recognition bonus scheme awards by grade and ethnicity group during 2012/13. It shows
- White staff received a higher percentage of awards between AA to SO and significant differences at G7 and G6.
- For Band T, BAME staff received a higher percentage than white staff.
#### Table 25: Number and proportion of staff receiving recognition bonus scheme awards by grade and ethnicity group
| Grade | Number of Recognition Bonuses | % of staff given Recognition Bonus | |----------------|-------------------------------|-----------------------------------| | | BAME | White | Unknown | BAME | White | Unknown | Difference | | Admin. Assistant | 26 | 265 | 95 | 7% | 8% | 5% | +1% | | Assistant Officer | 141 | 1,640 | 524 | 7% | 7% | 6% | +1% | | Officer | 96 | 1,453 | 389 | 9% | 13% | 10% | +4% | | Higher Officer | 80 | 1,130 | 395 | 16% | 18% | 16% | +2% | | Senior Officer | 23 | 517 | 137 | 15% | 20% | 16% | +4% | | Band T | * | 21 | * | 9% | 7% | 3% | -2% | | Grade 7 | 12 | 343 | 111 | 10% | 18% | 17% | +8% | | Grade 6 | * | 140 | 29 | 3% | 17% | 10% | +14% | | Overall | 378 | 5,509 | 1,680 | 9% | 11% | 9% | +3% |
Chart 6 shows mean value of recognition bonuses by ethnicity group and grade.
- For grades AA, Officer, HO and G6 the average award for BAME staff is lower than the average award for white staff.
- For all other grades the average awards for BAME staff is higher.
- The highest difference is £296 at G6 in favour of white staff.
This is similar to the results in the 2010 Equal Pay Review.
#### Chart 6: Mean value of Recognition Bonus by ethnicity group and grade (labels show % differences)
6.5 Simply Thanks
Table 26 shows a comparison of the Simply Thanks vouchers awarded by ethnicity group and grade. Of the overall 26% staff receiving Simply Thanks awards in HMRC 19% were awarded to white staff.
The 2012/13 results shows BAME staff received a lower number of Simply Thanks awards compared to white staff. It shows
- A difference at AO at HO and at G6.
- Significant differences of 5% and above are at AA and Officer in favour of white staff in these grades.
- At SO, Band T and G7 the difference are in favour of BAME staff.
Table 26: Number and proportion of staff receiving Simply Thanks by grade and ethnicity group
| Grade | Number of Simply Thanks awards | % of staff given Simply Thanks | |----------------|--------------------------------|--------------------------------| | | BAME | White | Unknown | BAME | White | Unknown | Difference | | Admin. Assistant | 78 | 1,073 | 403 | 21% | 31% | 23% | +10% | | Assistant Officer | 571 | 6,378 | 2,274 | 27% | 29% | 25% | +2% | | Officer | 209 | 3,291 | 998 | 20% | 30% | 26% | +9% | | Higher Officer | 109 | 1,594 | 521 | 22% | 25% | 21% | +3% | | Senior Officer | 41 | 609 | 156 | 27% | 23% | 18% | -4% | | Band T | 6 | 50 | 25 | 19% | 16% | 19% | -2% | | Grade 7 | 26 | 362 | 118 | 21% | 19% | 18% | -2% | | Grade 6 | 5 | 117 | 48 | 13% | 14% | 16% | +1% | | Overall | 1,045 | 13,474| 4,543 | 24% | 28% | 24% | +4% |
6.6 Temporary Promotions
Table 27 shows number of temporary promotions and proportion of staff temporarily promoted by grade and ethnicity group. Overall the percentage between BAME and white staff is equal at 10%. However, when analysing the percentages by grade there are variations in favour and against both white and BAME staff.
Table 27: Number of temporary promotions and proportion of staff temporarily promoted by grade and ethnicity group
| Grade | Number of temporary promotions | % of staff temporarily promoted | |----------------|--------------------------------|--------------------------------| | | BAME | White | Unknown | BAME | White | Unknown | Difference | | Admin. Assistant | 72 | 694 | 324 | 19% | 20% | 18% | +1% | | Assistant Officer | 152 | 2,036 | 599 | 7% | 9% | 7% | +2% | | Officer | 140 | 1,317 | 416 | 14% | 12% | 11% | -2% | | Higher Officer | 45 | 623 | 245 | 9% | 10% | 10% | +1% | | Senior Officer | 19 | 259 | 69 | 13% | 10% | 8% | -3% | | Band T | * | * | * | 3% | 1% | 0% | -2% | | Grade 7 | 7 | 133 | 45 | 6% | 7% | 7% | +1% | | Grade 6 | * | 24 | * | 0% | 3% | 1% | +3% | | Overall | 435 | 5,086 | 1,698 | 10% | 10% | 9% | +1% | 6.7 Permanent Promotions
Table 28 shows number of permanent promotions and proportion of staff promoted by grade and ethnicity group. Overall the percentage difference between BAME and white staff is only 1%. However, when analysing the percentages by grade there is a significant favouring of BAME staff at AA grade by 16%. This may be due to the low numbers of staff at this grade and the high numbers of unknown declarations.
Table 28: Number of permanent promotions and proportion of staff promoted by grade and ethnicity group
| Grade | Number of permanent promotions | % of staff permanently promoted | |----------------|--------------------------------|--------------------------------| | | BAME | White | Unknown | BAME | White | Unknown | Difference | | Admin. Assistant | 157 | 889 | 408 | 41% | 25% | 23% | -16% | | Assistant Officer | 70 | 652 | 181 | 3% | 3% | 2% | -0% | | Officer | 53 | 690 | 228 | 5% | 6% | 6% | +1% | | Higher Officer | 27 | 348 | 128 | 5% | 6% | 5% | +0% | | Senior Officer | 8 | 193 | 49 | 5% | 7% | 6% | +2% | | Band T | 6 | 48 | 20 | 19% | 16% | 16% | -3% | | Grade 7 | * | 95 | 29 | 3% | 5% | 4% | +2% | | Grade 6 | * | 5 | * | * | 1% | 0% | +1% | | Overall | 321 | 2,920 | 1,043 | 7% | 6% | 5% | -1% |
6.8 Summary
Table 29 shows a summary of the percentage differences between BAME and white staff by grade and pay/reward type. These comparisons show
- There is a pattern of a lower proportion of BAME staff receiving a Top marking.
- For all grades except Band T the percentage of Top performance awards to BAME staff is either equal to or lower than the percentage of BAME staff in the grade. Most of the differences are only 1% or 2%.
For white staff the data shows
- For all grades except Band T the percentage of Top performance awards is higher than the percentage of white staff in the grade. The differences are between 3% and 9%.
It is the unknown category that is accounting for most of the differences between the white and BAME Top performance marks. It is only with higher declaration rates that we will be able to make a fuller evaluation of the ethnicity data.
Table 29: Summary of percentage differences between BAME and white staff by grade and pay/reward type
| Grade | Base Pay | Top Performance Marking | Recognition Bonus Scheme | Simply Thanks | Promotion | |----------------|----------|--------------------------|---------------------------|---------------|-----------| | | London | National | Number | Value | Temp. | Perm. | | Admin. Assistant | 0% | 1% | 3% | 1% | 10% | 10% | 1% | -16% | | Assistant Officer | 0% | 2% | 2% | 1% | -5% | 2% | 2% | 0% | | Officer | 0% | 2% | 7% | 4% | 7% | 9% | -2% | 1% | | Higher Officer | 1% | 2% | 7% | 2% | 6% | 3% | 1% | 0% | | Senior Officer | 1% | 1% | 10% | 4% | -4% | -4% | -3% | 2% | | Band T | -4% | 2% | -6% | -2% | -22% | -2% | -2% | -3% | | Grade 7 | 1% | 0% | 12% | 8% | -51% | -2% | 1% | 2% | | Grade 6 | 0% | 4% | 6% | 14% | 54% | 1% | 3% | 1% |
Difference of 5% or greater in favour of BAME staff Difference of 5% or greater in favour of white staff 7. Disability
7.1 Introduction
Table 30 shows declaration of disability (9%) and non-disability (48%) is higher than previous years with only 42% not making a declaration. This is an improvement on 2010 when 49% did not declare however still represents a large proportion of the Department.
Due to such a high unknown category and a low number in the disabled category (particularly in more senior grades) any analytical results need to be treated with caution.
Table 30: Headcount by grade and disability group
| Grade | Disabled | Non-disabled | Unknown | Total | |-------------|----------|--------------|---------|--------| | Admin. Assistant | 677 | 2,109 | 2,405 | 5,191 | | Assistant Officer | 3,097 | 14,907 | 14,511 | 32,515 | | Officer | 1,584 | 8,067 | 6,148 | 15,799 | | Higher Officer | 861 | 4,763 | 3,601 | 9,225 | | Senior Officer | 302 | 2,155 | 1,272 | 3,729 | | Band T | 24 | 240 | 233 | 497 | | Grade 7 | 197 | 1,592 | 921 | 2,710 | | Grade 6 | 71 | 700 | 405 | 1,176 | | **Total** | **6,813**| **34,533** | **29,496**| **70,842** |
7.2 Base Pay
Table 31 shows difference between London mean pay for disabled and non-disabled employees. There are slight differences in favour of disabled staff in 6 of 8 grades, however, the number of non-declarations and their mean could be distorting the end figure.
Table 31: mean London salary by grade and disability group (£)
| Grade | Disabled | Non disabled | Unknown | Difference | |-------------|----------|--------------|---------|------------| | Admin. Assistant | 20,386 | 20,375 | 20,390 | 0% | | Assistant Officer | 23,631 | 23,493 | 23,498 | 1% | | Officer | 29,744 | 29,275 | 29,410 | 2% | | Higher Officer | 35,982 | 35,361 | 35,535 | 2% | | Senior Officer | 41,646 | 41,357 | 41,447 | 1% | | Band T | 33,426 | 33,125 | 32,610 | 1% | | Grade 7 | 56,166 | 56,128 | 56,110 | 0% | | Grade 6 | 70,349 | 69,308 | 70,434 | 1% |
Table 32 shows national differences in mean pay between disabled and non-disabled staff. There are minimal differences in pay across all grades, however, where there are differences, they are in favour of disabled staff.
Table 32: Mean National salary by grade and disability group (£)
| Grade | Disabled | Non disabled | Unknown | Difference | |-------------|----------|--------------|---------|------------| | Admin. Assistant | 16,114 | 16,009 | 15,993 | 1% | | Assistant Officer | 19,301 | 19,105 | 19,125 | 1% | | Officer | 25,328 | 25,226 | 25,202 | 0% | | Higher Officer | 31,274 | 31,115 | 31,055 | 1% | | Senior Officer | 38,150 | 37,845 | 37,840 | 1% | | Band T | 30,311 | 30,432 | 30,242 | 0% | | Grade 7 | 50,270 | 50,097 | 50,244 | 0% | | Grade 6 | 62,958 | 63,254 | 63,100 | 0% | 7.3 Top Performance Marking
Chart 7 shows proportion of staff in each grade receiving a top performance mark. Disabled staff seem less likely to receive a top marking. The new 2014/15 Performance Management system should improve this result and included mandatory training, currently limited to managers, on unconscious bias to prevent this happening.
Chart 7: Percentage of staff achieving top performance marking by disability group (labels show difference between groups)
7.4 Recognition Bonus Scheme
Table 33 shows numbers of staff receiving recognition bonuses over the year. It shows
- At all grades there is little difference between the percentages of awards issued to staff declared as disabled or non-disabled.
- Whilst the percentage difference has remained unchanged since 2010, the percentage of disabled staff in receipt of a recognition bonus has doubled.
Table 33: Number and proportion of staff receiving recognition bonus scheme awards by grade and disability group
| Grade | Number of Recognition Bonuses | % of staff given Recognition Bonus | |----------------|-------------------------------|-----------------------------------| | | Disabled | Non disabled | Unknown | Disabled | Non disabled | Unknown | Difference | | Admin. Assistant | 54 | 172 | 160 | 7% | 7% | 6% | +0% | | Assistant Officer | 230 | 1,142 | 933 | 7% | 8% | 6% | +0% | | Officer | 171 | 1,063 | 704 | 11% | 13% | 11% | +2% | | Higher Officer | 126 | 899 | 580 | 15% | 19% | 16% | +4% | | Senior Officer | 47 | 410 | 220 | 16% | 20% | 18% | +3% | | Band T | * | 20 | 6 | 6% | 8% | 3% | +1% | | Grade 7 | 31 | 285 | 150 | 16% | 19% | 16% | +2% | | Grade 6 | 11 | 108 | 51 | 17% | 16% | 12% | -1% | | Overall | 670 | 4,099 | 2,804 | 10% | 12% | 9% | +2% | Chart 8 shows average values of recognition bonuses issued by staff declared as disabled and non-disabled. Across most grades there is little difference in the values, however, at AA, Band T and G7 there distinct differences. These values represent very few staff so could be easily skewed in these grades.
Chart 8: Mean value of Recognition Bonus by grade and disability group (labels show % differences)
7.5 Simply Thanks
Table 34 shows a comparison of Simply Thanks awarded by disability and grade. Overall, the percentages of staff by headcount are very similar with 26% of disabled staff and 28% of those declared non-disabled getting an award. Across the grades this is similar, although more awards are given out to the lower grades comparatively.
At Band T there is a large difference between disabled and non-disabled people receiving an award, however, this is based on a very small number of staff and unknown responses could impact this if known.
Table 34: Number and proportion of staff receiving Simply Thanks by grade and disability group
| Grade | Number of Simply Thanks awards | % of staff given Simply Thanks | |-------------|--------------------------------|--------------------------------| | | Disabled | Non disabled | Unknown | Disabled | Non disabled | Unknown | Difference | | Admin. Assistant | 213 | 683 | 658 | 29% | 30% | 25% | +1% | | Assistant Officer | 816 | 4,430 | 3,977 | 26% | 30% | 26% | +3% | | Officer | 439 | 2,334 | 1,725 | 28% | 29% | 27% | +1% | | Higher Officer | 204 | 1,226 | 794 | 24% | 26% | 22% | +2% | | Senior Officer | 61 | 488 | 257 | 21% | 23% | 21% | +2% | | Band T | * | 47 | 30 | 13% | 19% | 16% | +6% | | Grade 7 | 38 | 308 | 160 | 20% | 20% | 17% | +0% | | Grade 6 | 7 | 95 | 68 | 11% | 14% | 16% | +3% | | Overall | 1,778 | 9,611 | 7,669 | 26% | 28% | 25% | +2% | 7.6 Temporary Promotions
Table 35 shows number of temporary promotions based on disability. Staff are shown under the grade that they were temporarily promoted from. The grade differences range from 1% to 9% in favour of non-disabled staff with an overall difference of 4% in favour of non-disabled staff.
Table 35: Number of temporary promotions and proportion of staff temporarily promoted by grade and disability group
| Grade | Number of temporary promotions | % of staff temporarily promoted | Difference | |----------------|--------------------------------|--------------------------------|------------| | | Disabled | Non-disabled | Unknown | Disabled | Non-disabled | Unknown | | | Admin. Assist. | 89 | 484 | 517 | 12% | 21% | 20% | +9% | | Assistant Officer | 195 | 1,497 | 1,095 | 6% | 10% | 7% | +4% | | Officer | 139 | 1,010 | 724 | 9% | 12% | 11% | +4% | | Higher Officer | 61 | 505 | 347 | 7% | 11% | 10% | +3% | | Senior Officer | 13 | 221 | 113 | 5% | 11% | 9% | +6% | | Band T | * | * | * | 3% | 1% | 0% | -2% | | Grade 7 | 10 | 103 | 72 | 5% | 7% | 8% | +1% | | Grade 6 | * | 19 | 5 | 3% | 3% | 1% | -0% | | Overall | 507 | 3,839 | 2,873 | 7% | 11% | 9% | +4% |
7.7 Permanent Promotions
Table 36 shows number of permanent promotions broken down to disabled and non-disabled staff. Whilst in grade there appears to be considerable differences in favour of those in the non-disabled group. When viewed as an overall percentage there is a minimal advantage of 1% in favour of those declared as non-disabled. This may be distorted by the low number in the disabled category and the number of unknown declarations.
Table 36: Number of permanent promotions and proportion of staff permanently promoted by grade and disability group
| Grade | Number of permanent promotions | % of staff permanently promoted | Difference | |----------------|--------------------------------|--------------------------------|------------| | | Disabled | Non-disabled | Unknown | Disabled | Non-disabled | Unknown | | | Admin. Assistant | 144 | 624 | 686 | 20% | 27% | 26% | +7% | | Assistant Officer | 67 | 475 | 361 | 2% | 3% | 2% | +1% | | Officer | 68 | 511 | 392 | 4% | 6% | 6% | +2% | | Higher Officer | 29 | 283 | 191 | 3% | 6% | 5% | +3% | | Senior Officer | 12 | 154 | 84 | 4% | 7% | 7% | +3% | | Band T | 6 | 44 | 24 | 19% | 17% | 13% | -2% | | Grade 7 | * | 82 | 43 | 2% | 5% | 5% | +4% | | Grade 6 | * | * | * | 0% | 1% | 0% | +1% | | Overall | 326 | 2,173 | 1,781 | 5% | 6% | 6% | +1% | 7.8 Summary
Table 37 shows a summary of the percentage differences between disabled and non-disabled staff.
- London pay range shows minimal differences whilst the national range shows negligible difference towards the disability of staff.
- Performance Managements shows some disparity, however, this is planned to be dealt with by the 2014 system and support.
- Recognition Bonus Scheme is even across numbers of awards however the values are not proportionate. This can be due to the nature of the award and easily skewed by the low numbers involved.
- Overall promotion comparisons are similar. With work ongoing to reduce temporary promotions, it is hoped that any bias is reduced from better management.
Table 37: Summary of percentage differences between disabled and non-disabled staff by grade and pay/reward type
| Grade | Base Pay | Top Performance Marking | Recognition Bonus Scheme | Simply Thanks | Promotion | |----------------|----------|--------------------------|--------------------------|---------------|-----------| | | London | National | Number | Value | Temp. | Perm. | | Admin. Assistant | 0% | 1% | 6% | 0% | 14% | 1% | 9% | 7% | | Assistant Officer | 1% | 1% | 2% | 0% | 2% | 3% | 4% | 1% | | Officer | 2% | 0% | 5% | 2% | -1% | 1% | 4% | 2% | | Higher Officer | 2% | 1% | 4% | 4% | 11% | 2% | 3% | 3% | | Senior Officer | 1% | 1% | 3% | 3% | 6% | 2% | 6% | 3% | | Band T | 1% | 0% | -5% | 1% | -83% | 6% | -2% | -2% | | Grade 7 | 0% | 0% | 6% | 2% | 17% | 0% | 1% | 4% | | Grade 6 | 1% | 0% | -1% | -1% | -7% | 3% | 0% | 1% |
Difference of 5% or greater in favour of disabled staff Difference of 5% or greater in favour of non-disabled staff 8. Working Hours
8.1 Introduction
Table 38 shows split between full-time employees and those with part-time contracts. It shows:
- Roughly a third of the department are on part-time contracts. These are primarily at the lower grades.
- At AO grade there are almost as many on part-time contracts as full-time. This may be from contact centre workforce numbers part year and term time contracts are widely used to manage demand.
- The part-time figures include partial retirement, part year part-time, part year full-time and full year part-time contracts.
Table 38: Headcount by grade and working hours
| Grade | Part-Time | Full-Time | Total | |----------------|-----------|-----------|-------| | Admin. Assistant | 2,522 | 2,669 | 5,191 | | Assistant Officer | 14,187 | 18,328 | 32,515| | Officer | 5,029 | 10,770 | 15,799| | Higher Officer | 2,124 | 7,101 | 9,225 | | Senior Officer | 594 | 3,135 | 3,729 | | Band T | 7 | 490 | 497 | | Grade 7 | 422 | 2,288 | 2,710 | | Grade 6 | 213 | 963 | 1,176 | | **Total** | **25,098**| **45,744**| **70,842**|
8.2 Base Pay
Table 39 and 40 shows differences in the mean pay for part and full-time workers.
- Lower grades, where part-time working is more prevalent show no difference between part and full-time working.
- HO and above show large advantages to those working part-time hours. This is likely due to partial retirement, pay award changes and skewed by the reduced numbers in those grades.
- Trends are representative of both London and National pay ranges.
Table 39: Mean London salary by grade and working hours (£)
| Grade | Part-Time | Full-Time | Difference | |----------------|-----------|-----------|------------| | Admin. Assistant | 20,421 | 20,363 | 0% | | Assistant Officer | 23,571 | 23,486 | 0% | | Officer | 29,841 | 29,294 | -2% | | Higher Officer | 36,283 | 35,380 | -3% | | Senior Officer | 42,340 | 41,279 | -3% | | Band T | 36,466 | 31,066 | -17% | | Grade 7 | 58,341 | 55,825 | -5% | | Grade 6 | 71,395 | 69,413 | -3% | Table 40: Mean National salary by grade and working hours (£)
| Grade | Part-Time | Full-Time | Difference | |------------------|-----------|-----------|------------| | Admin. Assistant | 16,121 | 15,911 | -1% | | Assistant Officer| 19,252 | 19,037 | -1% | | Officer | 25,588 | 25,042 | -2% | | Higher Officer | 31,565 | 30,954 | -2% | | Senior Officer | 38,628 | 37,715 | -2% | | Band T | 33,964 | 30,300 | -12% | | Grade 7 | 52,111 | 49,747 | -5% | | Grade 6 | 65,529 | 62,689 | -5% |
8.3 Top Performance Marking
Chart 9 shows percentage of staff in grade who achieved a top performance marking.
- At all grades full-time workers are shown with a higher probability to receive a top marking, ranging from 6% to 10% more likely.
- The 2014 Performance management system contains increased guidance on objective setting and unconscious bias.
8.4 Recognition Bonus Scheme
Table 41 shows numbers and corresponding percentages of people in each grade receiving a recognition bonus by full and part-time worker.
- In all grades there is clearly a skewing with more full-time workers by percentage receiving Recognition Bonus awards.
- Recognition Bonus Scheme is a payment awarded for exceptional effort outside of the performance appraisal system and such awards are set within parameters on the same basis for all staff both full-time and part-time. Table 41: Number and proportion of staff receiving recognition bonus scheme awards by grade and working hours
| Grade | Number of Recognition Bonuses | % of staff given Recognition Bonus | Difference | |----------------|-------------------------------|-----------------------------------|------------| | | Part-Time | Full-Time | Part-Time | Full-Time | | | Admin. Assistant | 151 | 235 | 6% | 8% | +2% | | Assist. Officer | 683 | 1,622 | 5% | 9% | +4% | | Officer | 451 | 1,487 | 9% | 14% | +5% | | Higher Officer | 311 | 1,294 | 15% | 18% | +3% | | Senior Officer | 82 | 595 | 14% | 20% | +6% | | Band T | * | 28 | * | 6% | | | Grade 7 | 65 | 401 | 15% | 18% | +3% | | Grade 6 | 19 | 151 | 9% | 16% | +6% | | Overall | 1,762 | 5,813 | 7% | 12% | +6% |
Chart 10 shows mean value of recognition bonuses awarded to both full and part-time workers. Here the values are all higher for full-time workers apart from at G6.
- Recognition Bonus Scheme is a payment awarded for exceptional effort outside of the performance appraisal system and such awards are set within parameters on the same basis for all staff both full-time and part-time.
8.5 Simply Thanks
Table 42 shows proportion of full and part-time staff who received a Simply Thanks voucher. In all grades except G6, there is a significant favouring of full-time staff in the allocation of the voucher. Similarly with Recognition Bonus Scheme, Simply Thanks is awarded outside of the performance appraisal system and such awards are set within parameters on the same basis for all staff both full-time and part-time. Table 42: Number and proportion of staff receiving Simply Thanks by grade and working hours
| Grade | Number of Simply Thanks awards | % of staff given Simply Thanks | |----------------|--------------------------------|-------------------------------| | | Part-Time | Full-Time | Part-Time | Full-Time | Difference | | Admin. Assistant | 637 | 917 | 24% | 31% | +7% | | Assist. Officer | 3,292 | 5,931 | 23% | 31% | +8% | | Officer | 1,253 | 3,245 | 25% | 30% | +5% | | Higher Officer | 450 | 1,774 | 21% | 25% | +3% | | Senior Officer | 105 | 701 | 18% | 23% | +5% | | Band T | * | 81 | - | 18% | | | Grade 7 | 61 | 445 | 14% | 20% | +5% | | Grade 6 | 32 | 138 | 16% | 14% | -1% | | Overall | 5,830 | 13,232 | 23% | 28% | +5% |
8.6 Temporary Promotions
Table 43 shows proportions of temporary promotion among full and part-time workers.
- There is clear favouring of full-time workers for temporary promotion, especially at the lower grades.
- As grade seniority increases, the difference between full and part-time is reduced, potentially because of the lower numbers involved.
- Work is ongoing to reduce the instances of temporary promotion and ensure filling of positions under it are administered fairly.
Table 43: Number of temporary promotions and proportion of staff promoted by grade and working hours
| Grade | Number of temporary promotions | % of staff temporarily promoted | |----------------|--------------------------------|-------------------------------| | | Part-time | Full-time | Part-time | Full-time | Difference | | Admin. Assistant | 368 | 722 | 14% | 24% | +11% | | Assistant Officer | 398 | 2,389 | 3% | 13% | +10% | | Officer | 291 | 1,582 | 6% | 14% | +9% | | Higher Officer | 89 | 824 | 4% | 12% | +7% | | Senior Officer | 22 | 325 | 4% | 11% | +7% | | Band T | * | * | 0% | 1% | +1% | | Grade 7 | 9 | 176 | 2% | 8% | +6% | | Grade 6 | * | 25 | 0% | 3% | +2% | | Overall | 1,177 | 6,043 | 5% | 13% | +8% |
8.7 Permanent Promotions
Table 44 shows numbers and proportion of permanent promotions issued to full and part-time staff. As with temporary promotion, there is a favour towards those on full-time contracts with an overall favouring of 4%. This is shown across all grades and more strongly in the lower grades than the higher grades.
Table 44: Number of permanent promotions and proportion of staff promoted by grade and working hours
| Grade | Number of permanent promotions | % of staff permanently promoted | |----------------|--------------------------------|-------------------------------| | | Part-time | Full-time | Part-time | Full-time | Difference | | Admin. Assistant | 525 | 929 | 19% | 31% | +12% | | Assistant Officer | 110 | 793 | 1% | 4% | +3% | | Officer | 130 | 841 | 3% | 8% | +5% | | Higher Officer | 35 | 468 | 2% | 7% | +5% | | Senior Officer | 9 | 241 | 2% | 8% | +6% | | Band T | * | 73 | 14% | 16% | +2% | | Grade 7 | * | 126 | 0% | 6% | +5% | | Grade 6 | 0 | 6 | 0% | 1% | +1% | | Overall | 809 | 3,477 | 3% | 7% | +4% | 8.8 Summary
Table 45 shows a summary of differences between full and part-time staff:
- For base pay, part-time workers are shown to be in favour on both the London and National pay scale at all grades.
- On performance marking, full-time staff are shown in favour. The 2014 performance management change is intended to address this as all line managers need to undertake unconscious bias training.
- Recognition bonus and Simply Thanks show in favour of those on full-time contracts, however, are issued outside of the performance appraisal system and such awards are set within parameters on the same basis for all staff both full-time and part-time.
- Temporary promotion appears to favour full-time workers especially at lower grades by up to 11%, as does permanent promotion.
Table 45: Summary of % differences between full time and part time by grade and pay/reward type
| Grade | Base Pay | Top Performance Marking | Recognition Bonus Scheme | Simply Thanks | Promotion | |----------------|----------|--------------------------|---------------------------|---------------|-----------| | | London | National | Number | Value | Number | Value | Temp. | Perm. | | Admin. Assistant | 0% | -1% | 8% | 2% | 20% | 7% | 11% | 12% | | Assistant Officer | 0% | -1% | 8% | 4% | 4% | 8% | 10% | 3% | | Officer | -2% | -2% | 7% | 5% | 10% | 5% | 9% | 5% | | Higher Officer | -3% | -2% | 7% | 3% | 16% | 3% | 7% | 5% | | Senior Officer | -3% | -2% | 9% | 6% | 13% | 5% | 7% | 6% | | Band T | -17% | -12% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 1% | 2% | | Grade 7 | -5% | -5% | 10% | 3% | 13% | 5% | 6% | 5% | | Grade 6 | -3% | -5% | 6% | 6% | -4% | -1% | 2% | 1% |
Difference of 5% or greater in favour of part time staff Difference of 5% or greater in favour of full time staff Appendix 1 - Median values
Table A: Median salary by gender
| Grade | Women | Men | Difference | |-------------|--------|--------|------------| | Grades AA - G6 | £19,974 | £24,537 | +19% |
Table B: Median salary by grade and gender
| Grade | Women | Men | Difference | |------------------|--------|--------|------------| | Admin. Assistant | £16,227| £16,227| 0% | | Assistant Officer| £19,974| £18,710| -7% | | Officer | £26,227| £26,227| 0% | | Higher Officer | £32,244| £32,622| +1% | | Senior Officer | £38,311| £39,643| +3% | | Band T | £29,693| £29,693| 0% | | Grade 7 | £51,445| £53,181| +3% | | Grade 6 | £64,800| £67,325| +4% |
Chart A: Median salary by gender (labels show differences)
Table C: Median London salary by grade and gender
| Grade | Women | Men | Difference | |------------------|--------|--------|------------| | Admin. Assistant | £20,465| £20,465| 0% | | Assistant Officer| £23,892| £23,892| 0% | | Officer | £30,331| £30,331| 0% | | Higher Officer | £37,105| £37,105| 0% | | Senior Officer | £42,396| £42,856| +1% | | Band T | £29,693| £29,693| 0% | | Grade 7 | £54,111| £55,331| +2% | | Grade 6 | £67,739| £73,238| +8% |
### Table D: Median National salary by grade and gender
| Grade | Women | Men | Difference | |----------------|--------|--------|------------| | Admin. Assistant | £16,227 | £16,227 | 0% | | Assistant Officer | £19,974 | £18,710 | -7% | | Officer | £26,227 | £26,227 | 0% | | Higher Officer | £30,864 | £32,622 | +5% | | Senior Officer | £37,492 | £39,643 | +5% | | Band T | £29,291 | £27,450 | -7% | | Grade 7 | £48,259 | £49,191 | +2% | | Grade 6 | £61,949 | £64,764 | +4% |
### Table E: Median London salary within grade and age group
| Grade | 16-25 | 26-35 | 36-45 | 46-55 | 56-64 | 65+ | |----------------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|------| | Admin. Assistant | £18,595 | £20,465 | £20,465 | £20,465 | £20,465 | £20,465 | | Assistant Officer | £21,598 | £23,258 | £23,892 | £23,892 | £23,892 | £23,892 | | Officer | £26,094 | £26,438 | £30,331 | £30,331 | £30,331 | £30,331 | | Higher Officer | £32,320 | £32,320 | £34,395 | £37,105 | £37,105 | £37,105 | | Senior Officer | £37,990 | £38,480 | £39,905 | £42,856 | £42,856 | £42,856 | | Band T | £27,437 | £29,693 | £36,538 | £37,542 | £37,542 | - | | Grade 7 | £53,017 | £53,365 | £54,111 | £56,055 | £61,582 | £61,590 | | Grade 6 | - | £64,301 | £65,256 | £69,938 | £74,209 | £74,209 |
### Table F: Median National salary within grade and age group
| Grade | 16-25 | 26-35 | 36-45 | 46-55 | 56-64 | 65+ | |----------------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|------| | Admin. Assistant | £14,943 | £16,227 | £16,227 | £16,227 | £16,227 | £16,227 | | Assistant Officer | £18,060 | £18,060 | £19,974 | £19,974 | £19,974 | £19,974 | | Officer | £22,967 | £22,967 | £25,647 | £26,227 | £26,227 | £26,227 | | Higher Officer | £29,009 | £29,009 | £29,352 | £32,622 | £32,622 | £32,622 | | Senior Officer | - | £35,687 | £35,687 | £38,001 | £39,643 | £39,643 | | Band T | £27,450 | £27,450 | £32,878 | £33,027 | £36,659 | - | | Grade 7 | £47,388 | £47,602 | £47,969 | £48,913 | £54,741 | £54,741 | | Grade 6 | - | £58,333 | £59,036 | £62,940 | £67,325 | £67,325 |
### Table G: Median London salary by grade and ethnicity group
| Grade | BAME | White | Unknown | Difference | |----------------|-------|-------|---------|------------| | Admin. Assistant | £20,465 | £20,465 | £20,465 | 0% | | Assistant Officer | £23,892 | £23,892 | £23,892 | 0% | | Officer | £30,331 | £30,331 | £30,331 | 0% | | Higher Officer | £36,348 | £37,105 | £37,105 | +2% | | Senior Officer | £41,190 | £42,856 | £42,856 | +4% | | Band T | £35,096 | £30,768 | £27,000 | -14% | | Grade 7 | £54,362 | £54,159 | £54,159 | -0% | | Grade 6 | £71,514 | £69,366 | £74,209 | -3% |
### Table H: Median National salary by grade and ethnicity group
| Grade | BAME | White | Unknown | Difference | |----------------|--------|--------|---------|------------| | Admin. Assistant | £16,227 | £16,227 | £16,227 | 0% | | Assistant Officer | £18,060 | £19,954 | £19,445 | +9% | | Officer | £25,639 | £26,227 | £26,227 | +2% | | Higher Officer | £30,390 | £31,887 | £31,887 | +5% | | Senior Officer | £37,864 | £38,001 | £38,311 | +0% | | Band T | £27,450 | £29,041 | £29,041 | +5% | | Grade 7 | £48,296 | £48,296 | £48,703 | 0% | | Grade 6 | £59,880 | £63,538 | £63,703 | +6% |
### Table I: Median London salary by grade and disability group
| Grade | Disabled | Non-disabled | Unknown | Difference | |----------------|----------|--------------|---------|------------| | Admin. Assistant | £20,465 | £20,465 | £20,465 | 0% | | Assistant Officer | £23,892 | £23,892 | £23,892 | 0% | | Officer | £30,331 | £30,331 | £30,331 | 0% | | Higher Officer | £37,105 | £37,105 | £37,105 | 0% | | Senior Officer | £42,856 | £42,856 | £42,856 | 0% | | Band T | £35,096 | £35,315 | £27,219 | +1% | | Grade 7 | £54,396 | £54,140 | £54,159 | -0% | | Grade 6 | £68,876 | £71,548 | £72,731 | +4% |
### Table J: Median National salary by grade and disability group
| Grade | Disabled | Non-disabled | Unknown | Difference | |----------------|----------|--------------|---------|------------| | Admin. Assistant | £16,227 | £16,227 | £16,227 | 0% | | Assistant Officer | £19,974 | £19,974 | £19,445 | +3% | | Officer | £26,227 | £26,227 | £26,227 | 0% | | Higher Officer | £31,887 | £32,622 | £31,455 | +2% | | Senior Officer | £38,001 | £39,643 | £38,001 | +4% | | Band T | £29,291 | £29,041 | £27,219 | -1% | | Grade 7 | £48,296 | £49,191 | £48,296 | +2% | | Grade 6 | £63,620 | £62,574 | £63,463 | -2% |
### Table K: Median London salary by grade and working hours
| Grade | Part Time | Full Time | Difference | |----------------|-----------|-----------|------------| | Admin. Assistant | £20,465 | £20,465 | 0% | | Assistant Officer | £23,892 | £23,892 | 0% | | Officer | £30,331 | £30,331 | 0% | | Higher Officer | £37,105 | £36,858 | -1% | | Senior Officer | £42,856 | £42,730 | -0% | | Band T | £37,542 | £29,693 | -26% | | Grade 7 | £59,494 | £54,154 | -10% | | Grade 6 | £74,209 | £69,341 | -7% |
### Table L: Median National salary by grade and working hours
| Grade | Part Time | Full Time | Difference | |----------------|-----------|-----------|------------| | Admin. Assistant | £16,227 | £16,227 | 0% | | Assistant Officer | £19,974 | £19,445 | -3% | | Officer | £26,227 | £25,647 | -2% | | Higher Officer | £32,622 | £31,011 | -5% | | Senior Officer | £39,643 | £37,833 | -5% | | Band T | £32,711 | £29,009 | -13% | | Grade 7 | £54,317 | £48,259 | -13% | | Grade 6 | £67,325 | £62,622 | -8% | Appendix 2 - Numbers of staff, by age band, on the minimum and maximum of their pay ranges
2013
| Age Bands | Number of staff in London on pay scale maximum by age band | Percentages by Age Bands | |-----------|----------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------| | Grade | Numbers by Age Bands | Total | 16-25 | 26-35 | 36-45 | 46-55 | 56-64 | 65+ | Total | | Admin. Assistant | 0 16 54 113 118 31 | 332 | 0% | 4% | 14% | 29% | 30% | 8% | 84% | | Assistant Officer | 0 47 201 475 217 40 | 981 | 0% | 3% | 14% | 34% | 15% | 3% | 69% | | Officer | 0 20 264 647 283 38 | 1252 | 0% | 1% | 13% | 32% | 14% | 2% | 62% | | Higher Officer | 0 2 106 553 267 21 | 949 | 0% | 0% | 6% | 31% | 15% | 1% | 53% | | Senior Officer | 0 3 26 238 169 7 | 443 | 0% | 0% | 3% | 28% | 20% | 1% | 52% | | Band T | 0 2 1 1 0 0 | 4 | 0% | 1% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 2% | | Grade 7 | 0 0 7 78 73 6 | 164 | 0% | 0% | 1% | 9% | 8% | 1% | 18% | | Grade 6 | 0 0 12 87 92 11 | 202 | 0% | 0% | 2% | 17% | 18% | 2% | 39% |
| Age Bands | Number of staff in London below pay scale maximum by age band | Percentages by Age Bands | |-----------|----------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------| | Grade | Numbers by Age Bands | Total | 16-25 | 26-35 | 36-45 | 46-55 | 56-64 | 65+ | Total | | Admin. Assistant | 5 14 6 26 9 1 | 61 | 1% | 4% | 2% | 7% | 2% | 0% | 16% | | Assistant Officer | 7 117 110 133 60 4 | 431 | 0% | 8% | 8% | 9% | 4% | 0% | 31% | | Officer | 43 217 212 231 66 11 | 780 | 2% | 11% | 10% | 11% | 3% | 1% | 38% | | Higher Officer | 7 158 303 307 70 4 | 849 | 0% | 9% | 17% | 17% | 4% | 0% | 47% | | Senior Officer | 3 80 129 167 26 2 | 407 | 0% | 9% | 15% | 20% | 3% | 0% | 48% | | Band T | 89 88 11 8 1 0 | 197 | 44% | 44% | 5% | 4% | 0% | 0% | 98% | | Grade 7 | 2 203 176 274 73 5 | 733 | 0% | 23% | 20% | 31% | 8% | 1% | 82% | | Grade 6 | 0 29 97 150 35 0 | 311 | 0% | 6% | 19% | 29% | 7% | 0% | 61% |
| Age Bands | Number of staff in National on pay scale maximum by age band | Percentages by Age Bands | |-----------|----------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------| | Grade | Numbers by Age Bands | Total | 16-25 | 26-35 | 36-45 | 46-55 | 56-64 | 65+ | Total | | Admin. Assistant | 0 351 657 1334 1073 182 | 3597 | 0% | 7% | 14% | 28% | 22% | 4% | 75% | | Assistant Officer | 0 1465 4462 6430 2572 221 | 15150 | 0% | 5% | 14% | 21% | 8% | 1% | 49% | | Officer | 0 68 1204 3769 2049 122 | 7212 | 0% | 0% | 9% | 27% | 15% | 1% | 52% | | Higher Officer | 0 25 249 1780 1289 76 | 3419 | 0% | 0% | 3% | 24% | 17% | 1% | 46% | | Senior Officer | 0 0 78 636 528 27 | 1289 | 0% | 0% | 3% | 22% | 18% | 1% | 44% | | Band T | 0 0 0 5 0 0 | 5 | 0% | 0% | 0% | 2% | 0% | 0% | 2% | | Grade 7 | 0 2 12 154 198 15 | 381 | 0% | 0% | 1% | 8% | 11% | 1% | 21% | | Grade 6 | 0 1 10 93 109 6 | 219 | 0% | 0% | 1% | 11% | 12% | 1% | 25% |
| Age Bands | Number of staff in National below pay scale maximum by age band | Percentages by Age Bands | |-----------|----------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------| | Grade | Numbers by Age Bands | Total | 16-25 | 26-35 | 36-45 | 46-55 | 56-64 | 65+ | Total | | Admin. Assistant | 244 312 164 239 201 42 | 1202 | 5% | 7% | 3% | 5% | 4% | 1% | 25% | | Assistant Officer | 2643 5862 2987 2912 1437 110 | 15951 | 8% | 19% | 10% | 9% | 5% | 0% | 51% | | Officer | 87 1559 2273 2058 554 25 | 6556 | 1% | 11% | 17% | 15% | 4% | 0% | 48% | | Higher Officer | 10 527 1355 1739 367 9 | 4007 | 0% | 7% | 18% | 23% | 5% | 0% | 54% | | Senior Officer | 0 109 471 833 195 3 | 1611 | 0% | 4% | 16% | 29% | 7% | 0% | 56% | | Band T | 56 147 64 23 1 0 | 291 | 19% | 50% | 22% | 8% | 0% | 0% | 98% | | Grade 7 | 1 203 378 664 183 3 | 1432 | 0% | 11% | 21% | 37% | 10% | 0% | 79% | | Grade 6 | 0 25 98 347 185 8 | 663 | 0% | 3% | 11% | 39% | 21% | 1% | 75% |
### Number of staff in London on pay scale maximum by age band
| Grade | 16-25 | 26-35 | 36-45 | 46-55 | 56-64 | 65+ | Total | |----------------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-----|-------| | Admin. Assistant | 0 | 8 | 27 | 57 | 64 | 27 | 183 | | Assistant Officer | 0 | 21 | 129 | 384 | 215 | 46 | 795 | | Officer | 0 | 9 | 144 | 522 | 294 | 49 | 1018 | | Higher Officer | 0 | 0 | 46 | 449 | 283 | 30 | 808 | | Senior Officer | 0 | 4 | 14 | 191 | 155 | 15 | 379 | | Band T | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Grade 7 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 52 | 72 | 8 | 136 | | Grade 6 | 0 | 0 | 8 | 63 | 93 | 9 | 173 |
| Grade | 16-25 | 26-35 | 36-45 | 46-55 | 56-64 | 65+ | Total | |----------------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-----|-------| | Admin. Assistant | 2 | 2 | 13 | 1 | 3 | 23 | 23 | | Assistant Officer | 14 | 64 | 102 | 145 | 106 | 13 | 444 | | Officer | 105 | 205 | 216 | 245 | 80 | 14 | 865 | | Higher Officer | 49 | 188 | 327 | 409 | 121 | 3 | 1097 | | Senior Officer | 1 | 94 | 162 | 268 | 59 | 0 | 584 | | Band T | 79 | 88 | 9 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 180 | | Grade 7 | 6 | 216 | 216 | 303 | 96 | 6 | 843 | | Grade 6 | 0 | 52 | 113 | 156 | 52 | 1 | 374 |
### Number of staff in London below pay scale maximum by age band
| Grade | 16-25 | 26-35 | 36-45 | 46-55 | 56-64 | 65+ | Total | |----------------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-----|-------| | Admin. Assistant | 0 | 161 | 339 | 851 | 818 | 171 | 2340 | | Assistant Officer | 0 | 676 | 3252 | 5431 | 2677 | 251 | 12287 | | Officer | 0 | 16 | 651 | 2751 | 2074 | 178 | 5670 | | Higher Officer | 0 | 13 | 125 | 1263 | 1215 | 112 | 2728 | | Senior Officer | 0 | 0 | 39 | 452 | 499 | 35 | 1025 | | Band T | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Grade 7 | 0 | 0 | 12 | 110 | 192 | 21 | 335 | | Grade 6 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 88 | 107 | 5 | 210 |
### Number of staff in National on pay scale maximum by age band
| Grade | 16-25 | 26-35 | 36-45 | 46-55 | 56-64 | 65+ | Total | |----------------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-----|-------| | Admin. Assistant | 0 | 161 | 339 | 851 | 818 | 171 | 2340 | | Assistant Officer | 0 | 676 | 3252 | 5431 | 2677 | 251 | 12287 | | Officer | 0 | 16 | 651 | 2751 | 2074 | 178 | 5670 | | Higher Officer | 0 | 13 | 125 | 1263 | 1215 | 112 | 2728 | | Senior Officer | 0 | 0 | 39 | 452 | 499 | 35 | 1025 | | Band T | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Grade 7 | 0 | 0 | 12 | 110 | 192 | 21 | 335 | | Grade 6 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 88 | 107 | 5 | 210 |
### Number of staff in National below pay scale maximum by age band
| Grade | 16-25 | 26-35 | 36-45 | 46-55 | 56-64 | 65+ | Total | |----------------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-----|-------| | Admin. Assistant | 36 | 66 | 49 | 81 | 69 | 17 | 318 | | Assistant Officer | 1205 | 4237 | 2698 | 2736 | 1559 | 126 | 12561 | | Officer | 289 | 1833 | 2370 | 2279 | 704 | 39 | 7514 | | Higher Officer | 62 | 859 | 1753 | 2294 | 577 | 13 | 5558 | | Senior Officer | 1 | 129 | 581 | 1175 | 302 | 5 | 2193 | | Band T | 167 | 221 | 61 | 23 | 1 | 0 | 473 | | Grade 7 | 1 | 212 | 414 | 778 | 275 | 6 | 1686 | | Grade 6 | 0 | 33 | 116 | 274 | 98 | 2 | 523 |
## Appendix 3 – Recognition Bonus Scheme diversity data
### Table 1: Comparison of recognition bonuses awarded by grade and gender
| Grade | Number of eligible Staff | Number of Awards | % receiving an award | |----------------|--------------------------|------------------|----------------------| | | Women | Men | Women | Men | Women | Men | | Admin. Assistant | 3,697 | 1,969 | 261 | 125 | 7.1% | 6.3% | | Assistant Officer | 21,637 | 11,574 | 1,463 | 842 | 6.8% | 7.3% | | Officer | 9,442 | 6,618 | 1,145 | 793 | 12.1% | 12.0% | | Higher Officer | 4,336 | 4,887 | 799 | 806 | 18.4% | 16.5% | | Senior Officer | 1,506 | 2,122 | 279 | 398 | 18.5% | 18.8% | | Band T | 170 | 296 | 8 | 20 | 4.7% | 6.8% | | Grade 7 | 1,096 | 1,559 | 168 | 298 | 15.3% | 19.1% | | Grade 6 | 410 | 757 | 63 | 107 | 15.4% | 14.1% | | **Total** | 42,294 | 29,782 | 4,186 | 3,389 | 9.9% | 11.4% |
### Table 2: Comparison of total and average value of recognition bonus awards by grade and gender
| Grade | Total value of RBS awards (£) | Average Awards (£) | |----------------|-------------------------------|--------------------| | | Women | Men | Women | Men | | Admin. Assistant | 56,600 | 30,000 | 217 | 240 | | Assistant Officer | 348,075 | 210,480 | 238 | 250 | | Officer | 289,875 | 207,426 | 253 | 262 | | Higher Officer | 223,830 | 218,225 | 280 | 271 | | Senior Officer | 95,700 | 132,975 | 343 | 334 | | Band T | 2,400 | 6,550 | 300 | 328 | | Grade 7 | 67,750 | 117,270 | 403 | 394 | | Grade 6 | 36,150 | 52,250 | 574 | 488 | | **Total** | 1,120,380 | 975,176 | 268 | 288 |
### Table 3: Comparison of recognition bonuses awarded by ethnicity group and grade
| Grade | Number of eligible staff | Number of awards | % receiving an award | |----------------|--------------------------|------------------|----------------------| | | BAME | White | Unknown | BAME | White | Unknown | BAME | White | Unknown | | Admin. Assistant | 379 | 3,510 | 1,777 | 26 | 265 | 95 | 6.9% | 7.5% | 5.3% | | Assistant Officer | 2,151 | 22,026 | 9,034 | 141 | 1,640 | 524 | 6.6% | 7.4% | 5.8% | | Officer | 1,025 | 11,144 | 3,891 | 96 | 1,453 | 389 | 9.4% | 13.0% | 10.0% | | Higher Officer | 498 | 6,301 | 2,424 | 80 | 1,130 | 395 | 16.1% | 17.9% | 16.3% | | Senior Officer | 151 | 2,628 | 849 | 23 | 517 | 137 | 15.2% | 19.7% | 16.1% | | Band T | 32 | 305 | 129 | * | 21 | * | 9.4% | 6.9% | 3.1% | | Grade 7 | 121 | 1,864 | 670 | 12 | 343 | 111 | 9.9% | 18.4% | 16.6% | | Grade 6 | 38 | 833 | 296 | * | 140 | 29 | 2.6% | 16.8% | 9.8% | | **Total** | 4,395 | 48,611 | 19,070 | 382 | 5,509 | 1,684 | 8.7% | 11.3% | 8.8% | Table 4: Comparison of total and average value of recognition bonus awards by ethnicity group and grade
| Grade | Total value of RBS awards (£) | Average Awards (£) | |----------------|-------------------------------|--------------------| | | BAME | White | Unknown | BAME | White | Unknown | | Admin. Assistant | 5,350 | 60,900 | 20,350 | 206 | 230 | 214 | | Assistant Officer | 35,445 | 393,515 | 129,595 | 251 | 240 | 247 | | Officer | 23,200 | 376,081 | 98,020 | 242 | 259 | 252 | | Higher Officer | 20,875 | 315,345 | 105,835 | 261 | 279 | 268 | | Senior Officer | 8,300 | 178,600 | 41,775 | 361 | 345 | 305 | | Band T | 1,100 | 6,300 | 1,550 | 367 | 300 | 388 | | Grade 7 | 7,070 | 133,500 | 44,450 | 589 | 389 | 400 | | Grade 6 | 250 | 76,500 | 11,650 | 250 | 546 | 402 | | Total | 101,590 | 1,540,741 | 453,225 | 266 | 280 | 269 |
Table 5: Comparison of recognition bonuses awarded by disability group and grade
| Grade | Number of eligible staff | Number of awards | % receiving an award | |----------------|--------------------------|------------------|----------------------| | | Disabled | Non-Disabled | Unknown | Disabled | Non-Disabled | Unknown | Disabled | Non-Disabled | Unknown | | Admin. Assistant | 729 | 2,296 | 2,641 | 54 | 172 | 160 | 7.4% | 7.5% | 6.1% | | Assistant Officer | 3,113 | 14,994 | 15,104 | 230 | 1,142 | 933 | 7.4% | 7.6% | 6.2% | | Officer | 1,581 | 8,125 | 6,354 | 171 | 1,063 | 704 | 10.8% | 13.1% | 11.1% | | Higher Officer | 853 | 4,775 | 3,595 | 126 | 899 | 580 | 14.8% | 18.8% | 16.1% | | Senior Officer | 286 | 2,094 | 1,248 | 47 | 410 | 220 | 16.4% | 19.6% | 17.6% | | Band T | 31 | 253 | 182 | * | 20 | 6 | 6.5% | 7.9% | 3.3% | | Grade 7 | 190 | 1,535 | 930 | 31 | 285 | 150 | 16.3% | 18.6% | 16.1% | | Grade 6 | 66 | 676 | 425 | 11 | 108 | 51 | 16.7% | 16.0% | 12.0% | | Total | 6,849 | 34,748 | 30,479 | 672 | 4,099 | 2,804 | 9.8% | 11.8% | 9.2% |
Table 6: Comparison of total and average value of recognition bonus awards by disability group and grade
| Grade | Total value of RBS awards (£) | Average awards (£) | |----------------|-------------------------------|--------------------| | | Disabled | Non-Disabled | Unknown | Disabled | Non-Disabled | Unknown | | Admin. Assistant | 11,125 | 41,075 | 34,400 | 206 | 239 | 215 | | Assistant Officer | 54,035 | 274,110 | 230,410 | 235 | 240 | 247 | | Officer | 44,100 | 270,731 | 182,470 | 258 | 255 | 259 | | Higher Officer | 31,725 | 253,135 | 157,195 | 252 | 282 | 271 | | Senior Officer | 15,875 | 146,575 | 66,225 | 338 | 358 | 301 | | Band T | 1,050 | 5,750 | 2,150 | 525 | 288 | 358 | | Grade 7 | 10,600 | 117,570 | 56,850 | 342 | 413 | 379 | | Grade 6 | 6,100 | 55,800 | 26,500 | 555 | 517 | 520 | | Total | 174,610 | 1,164,746 | 756,200 | 260 | 284 | 270 | Table 7: Comparison of recognition bonuses awarded by grade and working hours
| Grade | Number of eligible staff | Number of awards | % receiving an award | |----------------|--------------------------|------------------|----------------------| | | FT | PT | FT | PT | FT | PT | | Admin. Assistant | 2,967 | 2,699 | 235 | 151 | 8% | 6% | | Assistant Officer | 18,872 | 14,339 | 1,622 | 683 | 9% | 5% | | Officer | 10,987 | 5,073 | 1,487 | 451 | 14% | 9% | | Higher Officer | 7,124 | 2,099 | 1,294 | 311 | 18% | 15% | | Senior Officer | 3,036 | 592 | 595 | 82 | 20% | 14% | | Band T | 459 | 7 | 28 | * | 6% | 0% | | Grade 7 | 2,234 | 421 | 401 | 65 | 18% | 15% | | Grade 6 | 963 | 204 | 151 | 19 | 16% | 9% | | **Total** | **46,642** | **25,434** | **5,813** | **1,762** | **12%** | **7%** |
Table 8: Comparison of total and average value of recognition bonus awards by grade and working hours
| Grade | Total value of RBS awards (£) | Average Awards (£) | |----------------|-------------------------------|--------------------| | | FT | PT | FT | PT | | Admin. Assistant | 57,200 | 29,400 | 243 | 195 | | Assistant Officer | 398,040 | 160,515 | 245 | 235 | | Officer | 390,300 | 107,001 | 262 | 237 | | Higher Officer | 367,990 | 74,065 | 284 | 238 | | Senior Officer | 204,100 | 24,575 | 343 | 300 | | Band T | 8,950 | * | 320 | * | | Grade 7 | 162,070 | 22,950 | 404 | 353 | | Grade 6 | 78,150 | 10,250 | 518 | 539 | | **Total** | **1,666,800** | **428,756** | **287** | **243** |
Full-time = FT; Part-time = PT.
## Appendix 4 – Equal Pay Action Plan
| Issue | Action to take | Owner | Status | Progress | |-------|----------------|-------|--------|----------| | 1 | Pay Range positions | To monitor any pay gaps and continue to shorten the length of pay ranges. | Open | Since 2005 the pay ranges have shortened significantly. In 2015 the average pay range length is 11.7%. We reduced the average pay range length by 1.5% this year, with a particular reduction at AA. The rationale for pursuing range shortening as part of our reward strategy is that it: • increases the minimum faster than the maximum rewards the lowest paid in each grade (and the lowest paid in the department) • reduces time taken to progress from bottom of the pay range to the top • closes the gap between the highest and lowest paid in each team, resulting in less difference between those new to grade and established officers • generates larger Element 2 awards which, in time, will lead to faster progression through ranges because our pay system uses a % of this higher minima as the basis for the award. | | 2 | Flexible and part-time working patterns | We should continue to support flexible and part-time working patterns across all grades, subject to the needs of the business, ensuring both the organisation and our people benefit from a fully flexible and responsive workforce suitable for the modern Civil Service. | Open | | | | Improve declaration rates for ethnicity and for disability groups | Incomplete Management Information on disability and ethnicity, making it difficult to establish or analyse any patterns of bias. We need to actively explore ways of improving staff communication to encourage ethnicity and disability declarations. | Open | |---|---|---|---| | 4 | Support a consistent, fair approach to the performance management of all staff | Monitor and review the performance management policy: End of year markings should continue to be monitored and feedback sought about the operation of the performance management system. [We have also commissioned an internal audit in 2015 of the performance management process we introduced in 2013.] | Open | | 5 | Encourage a working environment free from unconscious bias | Expand the use of CS Learning Unconscious Bias training? etc? | Open | Ways of doing this are being taken forward with the Diversity team. |
## Appendix 5 - Actions from 2010 report
The table below shows updates on our recommendations identified in the 2010 equal pay review.
| Section Reference | Recommendation (2010 EPR) | Update (Follow up 2010 EPR 2011) | |-------------------|---------------------------|----------------------------------| | **Performance Management** | | | | 3.3, 4.2, 5.3, 6.3, 7.3 | Policy owners need to ensure that avoiding gender, age, racial, disability discrimination and discrimination against staff working part time is given sufficient prominence in the performance management guidance. The People Matters Committee have decided to form a sub working group to address diversity issues. The results from this report will provide information to that committee on the problems they need to address. | The HR Policy team have set up an Appraisal Working Group with representatives from the diversity team, trade unions and business partners to produce an action plan which ensures that managers increase their knowledge and awareness of the impact of their decisions on equality. The AWG will:
- identify the outcomes, success criteria and evaluation methods for the work
- use the 2010-11 appraisal outturn result to identify target groups of Managers and CSOs across HMRC for discussions
- create an action plan to deliver the required outcomes
- report on progress to PMC | | **Recognition Bonus Scheme** | | | | 3.4, 4.3, 5.4, 6.4, 7.4 | The Reward (Pay) Team will produce RBS data for Lines of Business by gender, age, ethnicity, disability and working hours for the Policy owners to analyse and take corrective action with the business areas to ensure that lines of business avoid any discrimination in making recognition bonus scheme payments. | HR Policy Team (Pay) has passed the RBS data to the relevant policy team to take forward with the business. The team will carry out the work in 2012-13. | | **Temporary Promotion** | | | | 3.6, 4.4, 5.5, 6.5, 7.5 | Taking forward Next Generation HR, Policy owners will consider what improvements to the temporary promotion guidance can be made to help avoid any gender, age, ethnicity, disability and working hour’s discrimination. | The HR Policy Team (Pay) will produce TP data for Lines of Business by gender, age, ethnicity, disability and working hours for the Policy owners to analyse and take corrective action with the business areas to ensure that lines of business avoid any discrimination in making temporary promotions. The team will carry out the work in 2012-13. |
Also the Diversity team to lead a problem solving exercise to investigate the treatment of staff in protected groups and part-timers arising from the implementation of performance management, RBS and temporary promotions. This exercise will involve LoB HR representatives, People Function, staff diversity networks and the DTUS.
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/3073-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 47,
"total-input-tokens": 151259,
"total-output-tokens": 42181,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
0,
1
],
[
0,
0,
2
],
[
0,
0,
3
],
[
0,
3409,
4
],
[
3409,
4741,
5
],
[
4741,
8281,
6
],
[
8281,
10744,
7
],
[
10744,
12316,
8
],
[
12316,
15470,
9
],
[
15470,
18417,
10
],
[
18417,
19466,
11
],
[
19466,
21742,
12
],
[
21742,
23325,
13
],
[
23325,
24823,
14
],
[
24823,
26501,
15
],
[
26501,
28723,
16
],
[
28723,
30888,
17
],
[
30888,
33674,
18
],
[
33674,
36859,
19
],
[
36859,
40574,
20
],
[
40574,
42740,
21
],
[
42740,
45412,
22
],
[
45412,
47825,
23
],
[
47825,
50045,
24
],
[
50045,
53183,
25
],
[
53183,
56942,
26
],
[
56942,
60126,
27
],
[
60126,
62334,
28
],
[
62334,
64599,
29
],
[
64599,
68049,
30
],
[
68049,
70529,
31
],
[
70529,
72808,
32
],
[
72808,
74316,
33
],
[
74316,
76250,
34
],
[
76250,
80311,
35
],
[
80311,
82499,
36
],
[
82499,
83904,
37
],
[
83904,
86865,
38
],
[
86865,
90344,
39
],
[
90344,
94262,
40
],
[
94262,
98233,
41
],
[
98233,
101022,
42
],
[
101022,
104000,
43
],
[
104000,
106256,
44
],
[
106256,
107664,
45
],
[
107664,
108616,
46
],
[
108616,
111476,
47
]
]
} |
65b4e72cf49228c86cee3b87eb4d65d1a43ced05 | KAI Data Policy and Co-ordination
Data Production
Bill Elmore
Tax Transparency Sector Board
May 2013 HMRC data: Sub UK Analysis
• Geographic • Physically contiguous areas.
• Geodemographic • Areas created by grouping together smaller areas that have similar characteristics – the components of a grouped area are not necessarily contiguous. Sub UK Geography
- Broad categories
Administrative Government Office Region, County, District, Metropolitan Area, Unitary Authority, Borough, Parish and so on. Census Census Wards/Enumeration Districts/Output Areas (Scotland only) Crime Economic Education Electoral Westminster Parlcon; Devolved admin assembly constituencies European (NUTS/LAU) Health Other Statistical (Super) Output Area; Middle/Lower layer OA; Data zone Building Block Sub UK Geography
- Attaching geography by reference to postcode
- ONS Postcode Directory (ONSPD) – assigns individual postcodes separately to each higher level geography
- National Statistics Postcode Lookup (NSPL) – assigns individual postcodes to Output Areas (OAs), and then using its assigned OA to lookup its higher level geography.
A key principle of the Geography Policy for National Statistics is that statistics for higher level geographies should be built from “small area stable statistical building bricks”. These are Output Areas, or Super Output Areas if not available at OA. The purpose of the policy is that national statistics are geographically consistent and comparable.
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/guide-method/geography/products/postcode-directories/-nspp/-onspd-methodology.doc
### Sub UK Geography: HMRC National Statistics
#### Table
| Income Tax liabilities - 2.2 | Government Office Region (GOR) | |-------------------------------|--------------------------------| | Income Tax liabilities - 2.2a | Country | | Personal income by tax year - 3.11 | Country & Region | | Personal income by tax year - 3.12 | Country & Region | | Personal income by tax year - 3.13 | Region & County | | Personal income by tax year - 3.13a | Region & County | | Personal income by tax year - 3.14 | GOR/Borough/District or Unitary Authority | | Personal income by tax year - 3.15 | Westminster Parliamentary Constituency | | Personal income by tax year - 3.15a | Westminster Parliamentary Constituency | | Personal tax credits: supplement payments and finalised award statistics - geographical analyses | Country and English Government Office Region; Local Authority; Westminster Parliamentary Constituency; Scottish Parliamentary Constituency | | Personal tax credits: finalised award statistics - small area data | Small area data - LSOA and Data Zone 2010 | | Personal tax credits: related statistics - child poverty statistics 2010 | Regions, Counties, Local Authorities, Wards, Westminster parliamentary Constituencies, Lower Layer Super Output Areas | | Inheritance Tax 12.10 | Amounts by Government Office Regions | | Inheritance Tax 12.11 | Numbers by Government Office Regions and Local Administrative Units (LAU) Level 1 | | Inheritance Tax 12.12 | Government Office Regions and UK (Westminster) Parliamentary constituencies |
#### Table
| Regional Employer National Insurance Contributions (NICs) Holiday Enterprise Investment Scheme 8.4 | Government Office Regions, Local Authority; UK (Westminster) Parliamentary constituencies | | Individual Savings Accounts 9.9 Individual Savings Accounts 9.12 | Government Office Region | | Personal pensions PEN5 | Region and Country | | Child Trust Fund - Constituency Child Trust Fund - Local Authority | Country; Government Office Region | | Child Trust Fund (CTF) and Child Benefit (CB) data | Child Trust Fund (CTF) and Child Benefit (CB) data | | Child Benefit - geographical statistics | Country; Government Office Region; Local Authority; Parliamentary Constituency (Westminster and Scottish). | | Child Benefit - Small Area Data 2012 | Lower-layer Super Output Area and Data Zone | | Child Benefit - Take up rates | Government Office Region | | Property transactions 16.1 | England, Scotland and Wales | | Property transactions 16.2 | Government Office Region | | Property transactions 16.4 | England & Wales | | Property transactions completed in the UK with value £40,000 or above | England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland is based upon the location of the property | | Stamp Duties - Yield attributable to residential property - 15.2 | Region; Government Office Region | | Stamp Duty Land Tax - 15.4 | Local Authority, County and Government office region | | Stamp Duty Land Tax - 15.5 | Parliamentary Constituency and Government office region | | Non-domestic rating in England and Wales - 17.1 | County | | Non-domestic rating in England and Wales - 17.5 | Government Office Region | Sub UK Geography: HMRC National Statistics
Why do we use these geographical areas?
- Business need – Admin geography is largest source of enquiries. Westminster constituency also used to answer PQs etc.
How do we establish user need?
- Quinquennial review of National Statistics
- UK Statistics Authority Assessment – user engagement through User Survey
What else is required?
- As well?
- Instead?
- What are the benefits to society and users of further sub-UK summary information?
New players
- Open Data User Group
- Tax Transparency Sector Board Geodemographic statistics
No routine publication as National Statistics
- But User need emerging
Classifications available
- Several created by commercial organisations (available for a fee)
- Output Area Classification compiled by ONS (available free with NSPL)
Output Area Classification
- Based on 2001 Census
- 7 SuperGroups; 21 Groups; 52 SubGroups
- New Classification based on 2011 Census due shortly Geodemographic: Output Area statistics
As part of the National Statistics product, none of the clusters were given descriptive names. However, in case of interest, names were included as part of a supporting technical document by the University of Leeds but only for SuperGroup and Group.
**OAC_GROUP_IND**
- Terraced Blue Collar
- Younger Blue Collar
- Older Blue Collar
- Transient Communities
- Settled in the City
- Village Life
- Agricultural
- Accessible Countryside
- Prospering Younger Families
- Prospering Older Families
- Prospering Semis
- Thriving Suburbs
- Senior Communities
- Older Workers
- Public Housing
- Settled households
- Least Divergent
- Young Families in Terraced Homes
- Aspiring Households
- Asian Communities
- Afro-Caribbean Communities
- postcode in Channel Is/IoM (pseudo)
**OAC_SUPERGROUP_IND**
- Blue Collar Communities
- City Living
- Countryside
- Countryside
- Countryside
- Prospering Suburbs
- Prospering Suburbs
- Prospering Suburbs
- Prospering Suburbs
- Constrained by Circumstances
- Constrained by Circumstances
- Constrained by Circumstances
- Typical Traits
- Typical Traits
- Typical Traits
- Typical Traits
- Typical Traits
- Multicultural
- Multicultural
- postcode in Channel Is/IoM (pseudo)
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/3074-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 8,
"total-input-tokens": 12187,
"total-output-tokens": 1932,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
105,
1
],
[
105,
351,
2
],
[
351,
798,
3
],
[
798,
1603,
4
],
[
1603,
4849,
5
],
[
4849,
5407,
6
],
[
5407,
5822,
7
],
[
5822,
7067,
8
]
]
} |
e6434a7cb46cc5a4eda9d50fad42280e696168ba | Contents
Executive summary 2 Performance 4 Finance 6 People 8 Executive summary
HMRC plays a vital role in Government, helping to reduce the budget deficit by collecting taxes to fund the UK’s public services. This Mid-Year Report, covering the first half of 2013-14, shows we are delivering record revenues, while making sustainable cost reductions. We have also delivered major changes to the way we operate, such as using ‘real time’ ways of working for PAYE, which supports the move to Universal Credit by the Department for Work and Pensions.
Performance
Revenues
We collected tax revenues of £237 billion in cash terms, which is £11 billion more than at the same point last year. Provisional estimates show we collected more than £8.8 billion in additional revenues from compliance activity during the same period – our best-ever performance at this point in the year.
Call handling
We handled 72.7 per cent of all call attempts. This is an improvement on the same period last year, but below our 90 per cent target. We did not meet our target because of a number of factors, including high caller demand in the first half of the year due to the introduction of real-time ways of working (Real Time Information, or RTI) and a very busy final week leading up to the tax credits renewal deadline on 31 July. There were also technology-related issues, and we had to move more staff to our employer helpline to support the introduction of RTI.
We had planned to introduce new, automated speech features on our most popular phone lines during this period, allowing us to answer more calls. We took the decision to delay these changes until later in the year, while we fine-tuned the new service ahead of a wider roll out, which began in November. We are also moving to an increasingly flexible way of operating, where work can be moved between teams according to priority and customer demand. Post
We cleared 77 per cent of post within 15 working days, which is below our 80 per cent target, but improved from the first quarter result of 70 per cent. Post-handling performance has been affected by a number of factors in the busy early part of the year, including the deployment of teams from post to phone lines during peak periods of customer demand. More of our operational teams are being trained to deal flexibly with customer enquiries in whatever form they come to us – whether by phone call, a letter or work generated by our IT system. We expect performance in this area to continue improving throughout 2013-14.
Finance
The finance section reflects our dual role in contributing to deficit reduction – reducing expenditure by becoming more efficient, while also collecting additional revenues as outlined in the performance section.
Major projects
During the period covered by this report, we introduced RTI, the biggest change to PAYE since the system was designed 70 years ago. RTI brings PAYE up to date with today’s employment patterns, where people change jobs more frequently than in the past and can have more than one job or pension.
Almost 1.6 million PAYE schemes with employees (more than 92.6 per cent) have started reporting in real time. We have now aligned more than 47.5 million individual live PAYE records (more than 99 per cent), making sure that the employee record is matched with the correct employer scheme.
Further information on our major projects is available here – https://engage.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/major-projects-authority/
People
HMRC is one of the biggest government departments, with almost 63,000 full-time equivalent (FTE) staff across 400 offices, reduced from more than 600 in 2009-10. We are working rapidly to transform how we deliver services to our customers, following the 2013 Spending Review, which committed HMRC to making a further five per cent reduction to our budget, while bringing in an extra £1 billion in compliance revenue in 2015-16. This means that we are transforming HMRC’s size and shape, how we work and how we are organised. The HMRC of the future will be smaller and more highly professional, with fewer people working across a smaller number of locations. Table 3.1 shows that we have fewer staff at administrative grades, and more staff at higher and senior officer grades. This is a result of automating more routine tasks and moving staff onto more complex work in tax compliance roles. 1 - Performance
Table 1.1
Maximising revenue collection
| | Q1+Q2 2013-14 | Q1+Q2 2012-13 | |--------------------------------|----------------|----------------| | Cash collected from compliance | £3.5bn | £3.1bn | | Revenue protected | £5.4bn | £3.7bn | | Total additional revenue raised| £8.9bn | £6.8bn | | Debt roll rate — proportion of tax debt (CT, SA, Employers’ PAYE) by value cleared within 90 calendar days | 96.8% | 95.4% | | Payment on time — proportion of businesses and individuals who pay tax on time — using VAT as lead indicator | 86.9% | 83.2% | | Tax gap — difference between all the tax theoretically due and actually collected | £35bn (7%) | £34bn (7.1%) | | Personal tax credits error and fraud — amount of tax credits money claimed by people who are not entitled to it | £2.1bn (7.3%) | £2.3bn (8.1%) |
Table 1.2
Stabilising and improving customer service
| | Q1+Q2 2013-14 | Q1+Q2 2012-13 | |--------------------------------|----------------|----------------| | % of post cleared within 15 working days of receipt | 77% | 79.5% | | % of post cleared within 40 working days of receipt | 96% | 96.7% | | % of post cleared within 15 working days of receipt passing HMRC quality standards | 90.9% | 91.8% | | % of post cleared within 40 working days of receipt passing HMRC quality standards | 91% | 91.6% | | % of call attempts handled by our Contact Centres | 72.7% | 65.5% | | % of return transactions carried out online (12 months to quarter-end e-Returns, SA, PAYE, VAT, CT and Stamp Duty Land Tax) | 94.1% | 91.6% |
- The increase/decrease (-) in cost for customers dealing with us (since April 2011) +£14.6m +£27.3m
- The increase/decrease (-) in cost for business customers dealing with us (since April 2011) +£43.59m +£35.53m
Customers find us straightforward to deal with — all customers rolling annual score out of 100 (margin for error in brackets) 73.4 (± 2.6) 72.9 (±2.5)
- The net increase to customer costs since April 2011 arises mainly from key policy measures announced by the Government at the Budget and Autumn Statement. For example, Restrictions to Pensions Tax Relief (£80 million cost increase) and the Bank Levy (£20 million cost increase) have increased customer costs, but directly support measures to reduce the budget deficit. The Patent Box (£26 million cost increase) tax relief is a measure that has been welcomed by business and contributes to economic growth. Table 1.3
Creating sustainable cost reductions
| Unit costs (pence per £ collected/paid out) | 12 months to end | |-------------------------------------------|------------------| | | Q2 2013-14 | Q2 2012-13 | | Collecting income tax (Self Assessment and Pay As You Earn) | 0.96 | 1.04 | | Collecting Corporation Tax | 0.78 | 0.78 | | Collecting National Insurance Contributions | 0.26 | 0.27 | | Collecting VAT | 0.64 | 0.59 | | Administering personal tax credits | 1.38 | 1.44 | | Administering Child Benefit | 0.56 | 0.57 |
We regularly publish more detailed information on our performance on our website – [www.gov.uk/government/publications/business-plan-indicators](http://www.gov.uk/government/publications/business-plan-indicators)
## 2 - Finance
### Table 2.1
| £,000s | 2013-14 | 2012-13 | |--------|---------|---------| | | FY budget (main estimate) | Actual spend Apr-Sept | % spend to budget | FY budget (main estimate) | Actual spend Apr-Sept | % spend to budget | | DEL Voted | 3,396,571 | 1,629,317 | 47.97% | 3,357,983 | 1,602,958 | 47.74% | | DEL Non Voted | 313,613 | 152,028 | 48.48% | 332,949 | 162,701 | 48.87% | | Total Resource DEL | 3,710,184 | 1,781,345 | 48.01% | 3,690,932 | 1,765,659 | 47.84% | | AME Voted | 11,966,224 | 5,798,159 | 48.45% | 12,392,097 | 6,221,340 | 50.20% | | AME Non Voted | 31,687,984 | 16,000,429 | 50.49% | 31,116,008 | 15,689,852 | 50.42% | | Total Resource AME | 43,654,208 | 21,798,588 | 49.93% | 43,508,105 | 21,911,192 | 50.36% | | DEL Capital | 185,570 | 92,259 | 49.72% | 203,939 | 101,999 | 50.01% | | AME Capital | 2,000 | 117 | 5.85% | 5,500 | 491 | 8.93% | | Total Capital | 187,570 | 92,376 | 49.25% | 209,439 | 102,490 | 48.94% | | Total DEL, AME and Capital | 47,551,962 | 23,672,309 | 49.78% | 47,408,476 | 23,779,341 | 50.16% |
### Changes in the Supplementary Estimate
We plan to request a budget cover switch from Resource DEL to Capital DEL to meet our capital investment plans. Trend analysis by graphs
Chart 2.1 Total RDEL expenditure 2010-11 to 2015-16
Chart 2.2 Analysis of Resource DEL by expenditure type 2007-08 to 2012-13
Chart 2.3 Total AME expenditure 2007-08 to 2012-13
Chart 2.4 Analysis of AME expenditure type 2007-08 to 2012-13
## 3 - People
### Table 3.1
| HMRC and Valuation Office Agency (VOA) (full-time equivalents) | September 2013 | September 2012 | |---------------------------------------------------------------|----------------|----------------| | Payroll staff HMRC and VOA | 63,022 | 64,674 | | **Average payroll staff costs** | **£32,717** | **£32,190** | | Contingent labour HMRC and VOA | 109 | 88 | | **Average contingent labour staff costs** | **£32,379** | **£37,850** |
| Workforce shape | | | |---------------------------------------------------------------|----------------|----------------| | Administrative Assistants and Officers | 31,853 | 34,043 | | Officers | 14,228 | 14,606 | | Higher and Senior Officers | 12,150 | 11,745 | | Grade 7/6 | 3,698 | 3,445 | | Senior Civil Servants | 312 | 333 | | Other grades | 780 | 501 | | Part-time | 17,035 | 17,486 |
| Workforce dynamics | | | |---------------------------------------------------------------|----------------|----------------| | Exceptions to the external recruitment freeze | 548 | 645 | | Annual turnover rate | 6.6% | 6.2% |
| Workforce diversity (headcount) | | | |---------------------------------------------------------------|----------------|----------------| | Black and minority ethnic | 8.3% | 8.1% | | Women | 58.5% | 58.6% | | Disabled | 16.4% | 16.4% |
| Diversity of Senior Civil Servants only | | | |---------------------------------------------------------------|----------------|----------------| | Black and minority ethnic | 2.7% | 2.6% | | Women | 38.5% | 36.2% | | Women (top management posts) | 31% | 30.9% | | Disabled | 5.2% | 6.6% |
| Sickness absence | | | |---------------------------------------------------------------|----------------|----------------| | Average working days lost per FTE (rolling 12 months) | 7.5 | 7.4 |
### HMRC only: People Survey
| Engagement index (%) | October 2013 | October 2012 | |--------------------------------------------------------------|----------------|----------------| | | 44% | 41% |
| Theme scores (%) | October 2013 | October 2012 | |--------------------------------------------------------------|----------------|----------------| | Leadership and managing change | 29% | 24% | | My work | 65% | 57% | | My line manager | 66% | 62% | | Organisational objectives and purpose | 79% | 74% |
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/3075-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 9,
"total-input-tokens": 16439,
"total-output-tokens": 3993,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
0,
1
],
[
0,
63,
2
],
[
63,
1902,
3
],
[
1902,
4382,
4
],
[
4382,
6928,
5
],
[
6928,
7712,
6
],
[
7712,
8933,
7
],
[
8933,
9201,
8
],
[
9201,
13454,
9
]
]
} |
5863ed02e1f90b06b698488117113f76f22a1560 | The Forum to Oversee the Implementation of new HMRC Powers, Deterrents and Safeguards
Report on the year 1 April 2009 to 31 March 2010 to the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury
There are three annual reports all of which are historic documents and the data has been compiled in a format specifically for the Forum at the time. HMRC will not update these reports. The final Forum meeting was on 21 February 2013. Implementation of new HMRC Powers, Deterrents and Safeguards: Report on the year 1 April 2009 to 30 March 2010
Contents
1. Background Page 1
2. Pre-Implementation Page 1
3. The HMRC Perspective Page 2
4. The external Perspective Page 5
5. Conclusion Page 7 Forum members Page 8
6. Background The Review of HMRC’s powers, deterrents and safeguards was set up to provide a modern framework of law and practice that would benefit taxpayers, agents and HMRC. The policy intention, developed through consultation, is for HMRC to support those who seek to comply and come down hard on those who seek an unfair advantage through non-compliance. The previous government set up an Oversight Forum to ensure that new powers were implemented by HMRC fairly and effectively and delivered real change for customers and the department. The Forum felt that the position of unrepresented taxpayers was sufficiently important to merit creation of a sub-group to consider their specific issues.
7. Pre-Implementation
Work to prepare HMRC staff for implementation HMRC set up two specialist project teams to oversee and manage implementation of the compliance checks and penalty legislation in the run-up to 1 April 2009. HMRC is extremely grateful for the time and effort the teams have put in to achieve the 1 April deadline. Key products to prepare HMRC staff included:
- **Learning**, by 30 November 2009, 20,185 HMRC staff members had completed Compliance Checks awareness training; 14,240 had completed full information powers training; and 10,284 had completed New Penalties training.
- **Technical guidance** interprets the meaning of the legislation and **Operational Process Guidance (OPG)** provides advice on practical operation and is a living document which should continue to develop best practice. Both were exposed for external comment and published on the HMRC Internet.
- **Staff Feedback**, provides ‘frontline’ staff with an opportunity to feedback any concerns, risks and issues affecting both themselves and customers
Work to prepare HMRC customers for implementation Most of the material to prepare HMRC staff for implementation is also available to help tax agents, for example: on-line learning. In addition HMRC has developed a range of material to help customers. The HMRC Press Office developed a communication strategy to raise media awareness. This ranged from news releases to national media, including financial and accountancy press, online media and relevant trade and employer publications. Live events included participation in workshops and conferences, particularly involving the tax profession. Some forty joint learning events brought together tax advisers and operational HMRC staff to learn together in an informal environment.
Factsheets were developed to provide advice to taxpayers about their rights and responsibilities. A wide range of external representatives helped to develop some of these products, for example, participating in guidance readership panels. HMRC is very grateful for their contributions and work continues to improve the products.
Since the establishment of the Forum the department has promoted further protections for customers through the introduction of Your Charter. An important programme of embedding the rights and values expressed in Your Charter has commenced with staff at all levels.
3. The HMRC perspective
The extent of the change for HMRC staff which took place from 1 April 2009 should not be underestimated. For the first time powers and safeguards extended across different taxes with the ability, broadly, to use one set of rules when checking taxes and duties. In addition there was radical reform of tax Tribunals coupled with the introduction of a new internal pre-hearing review process.
Early reactions were expressed by the Public and Commercial Services Union (PCS). While HMRC staff broadly welcomed the alignment of powers, difficulties were reported with both implementation and process design, which the PCS felt had been rushed. Reviews commissioned by HMRC confirmed that there were issues which included:
- Training for VAT staff which wrongly assumed a knowledge of penalties and thereby undermined confidence;
- The difficulty of finding and accessing guidance;
- Processes for the new penalties system which staff found time consuming and inefficient;
- Inconsistency about how compliance check visits should be carried out, for example, how best to explain the Human Rights Act and what information should be provided, and to whom, at an unannounced visit.
The Department responded to a number of issues, for example:
- production of simple regime specific flow charts to provide easy to understand overviews of the new processes;
- a review of the New Penalties Processing System, including the options for simplifying the processes; and
- changes made to reduce the burden on managers and staff.
Learning is ongoing and HMRC continues to update support for staff and customers.
Subsequent developments
Discussions with colleagues with this report in mind have thrown up similar issues to those mentioned above. Undoubtedly, some of this relates to wider concerns about continuing change within HMRC and reactions from teams have varied. However, there is a growing sense that HMRC officers increasingly see benefits from the changes despite continuing frustration with some of the processes.
**A better understanding of customers**
If we are to have a better tax system, behavioural change needs to touch everyone – HMRC, agents and taxpayers. The new powers and penalties can be a catalyst for this. To help improve mutual engagement and understanding of what each party requires HMRC has carried out a number of activities. Three of these are:
- **Survey of Customer Perceptions of Interventions** – HMRC commissioned Ipsos Mori to undertake qualitative research with customers who had been subject to a compliance check. The aim was to develop better understanding of how HMRC compliance checks were perceived. This research proved very valuable and the report was published on HMRC’s Internet in 2009.
- **Workshops** - HMRC organised a series of customer focused workshops with the aim of putting staff in the customer's shoes to understand the emotional, financial and administrative impacts of a compliance check. Feedback was very positive and outputs used to produce guidance for staff.
- **Language and Tone** - Further customer focussed research has helped HMRC to understand customers’ preferred approach to communication. New “Language & Tone” principles and techniques for improved consistent and effective communication respond better to customers’ needs.
**Use of the new powers and penalties**
HMRC introduced the new powers in a measured way within its Local Compliance area in which the majority of compliance staff work – the idea being to build and learn from accumulating experience. This has led to a slower take-up of the changes.
The new rules for compliance checks applied to old and new cases from 1 April 2009. Different parts of HMRC were affected by the new penalties at different times. VAT staff working on pre-credibility checks used the new penalties immediately after 1 April but direct tax staff mainly became engaged late in the tax year.
Certain actions must be authorised by a trained, and generally senior, officer. This was felt to be an important safeguard. The majority of authorisations involved unannounced visits to business premises. High levels of rejection in the April to August period resulted from authorising officers believing alternative courses of action were available or that there was insufficient evidence to justify authorisation. Thereafter rejections fell significantly as officers understood when authorisation would not be given. By the year end the proportion of rejections was 8%.
| Summary of authorisations granted and rejected | Authorisations Rejected | |-----------------------------------------------|-------------------------| | **Authorisations Requested** | **Authorisations Rejected** | | Deferred | Insufficient evidence | 105 | | Granted | Non compliant with HRA | 1 | | Pending | Not relevant or proportionate to benefit | 30 | | Rejected | Preferable alternative course of action | 64 | | Withdrawn | Reasonable excuse accepted | 1 | | **Total** | Unspecified | 1 |
The imposition of penalties for failing to respond to an information notice issued by HMRC confirms the gradual approach to using the new powers. By August only 134 penalties had been issued, rising to 701 by December and 1916 at the year end. Schedule 24 Penalties illustrate quite dramatically the different build up rates for VAT and ITSA. Figures are only available from 1 April 2009 to 31 May 2010. These show 908 ITSA cases completed compared to 5353 VAT cases. It is difficult to extrapolate a trend for ITSA cases; total penalties are just under £200,000 suggesting few significant omissions to date. 832 VAT penalties have been suspended which account for 42% of total VAT penalties by amount.
| By Regime | Cases | Inc suspensions | Suspended | Due now | |-----------|-------|-----------------|-----------|---------| | ITSA | 908 | 23 | £10,312 | £188,408| | PAYE | 279 | 68 | £35,627 | £54,994 | | VAT | 5353 | 832 | £3,359,333| £4,641,618| | Other | 21 | 3 | £947 | £14,744 | | Total | 6561 | 926 | £3,406,219| £4,899,764|
Looking at behaviours, 55% of cases have been errors and 39% failures to take reasonable care. The error cases exclude those which were considered for a compliance check but not taken up.
| Behaviour | Cases | Prompted | Unprompted | |----------------------------------|-------|----------|------------| | Deliberate + concealment | 39 | 32 | 7 | | Deliberate | 117 | 113 | 4 | | Failure to take care | 2,679 | 2,545 | 134 | | Failure to notify under-assessment | 256 | 226 | 30 | | Error | 3,782 | 3,337 | 445 | | Total | 6,873 | 6,253 | 620 |
The total number of Cases is greater as a case can exhibit more than one behaviour.
**The internal review process**
HMRC introduced a new optional internal review process on 1 April 2009. It offers the opportunity of an internally independent review of disputed tax decisions. The aim is to resolve cases without the need to go to a tribunal. HMRC has worked closely with external bodies in the development of the new review process, including learning, training and guidance products. HMRC is grateful for their support. In the first nine months there were 20,778 requests for internal review. 15,083 decided cases were penalty decisions and 3443 non-penalty cases. 76% of non-penalty cases were upheld. Of the others, 349 decisions were varied and 471 cancelled.
| HMRC Internal Reviews to 31 December 2009 | |------------------------------------------| | New review requests total | 20,778 | | Unrepresented by an agent | 14,921 | | Outcomes: non-penalty cases | 3443 | | Varied | 349 | | HMRC decision cancelled | 471 | | Outcomes: penalty cases | 15,083 | | Deemed upheld time limit expired | 48 | | Varied | 793 | | HMRC decision cancelled | 7961 | 4. The external perspective
Introduction
The Forum’s external members have made an important contribution throughout the first year of implementation. The Forum has benefited from the data and recommendations in the report by the Past President of the Chartered Institute of Taxation which reflects views of members and discussions with HMRC frontline staff. The ICAEW has suggested that over the next twelve months it would be useful for external Forum members to build on the CIoT report and design and coordinate a wider survey of members and constituent groups to obtain objective data.
Early observations
Early concerns about excessive and inappropriate use of powers by HMRC have not proved to be correct. Some commentators anticipated the worst, painting a picture of taxpayers and tax advisers overwhelmed by information requests and inspections of private homes. Manifestly that has not happened. Whilst still early days, HMRC has clearly kept to its assurances about how powers would be used and has been cautious in its approach to implementation. This should be acknowledged.
That is not to say that everything has worked smoothly or that there are no areas of concern. But these concerns should be considered in the context of a relatively soft landing for the powers as a whole. The second overriding point is that taxpayers, their tax advisers and, in some cases HMRC, have been slow in coming to terms with what the new powers mean in practice.
General support for compliance approach
There is strong support from tax advisers for HMRC’s compliance activities. A recurrent view is that HMRC compliance activity is not visible or extensive enough. The overwhelming view from the CIoT survey was that HMRC visits are being carried out “acceptably”. But there is a recurring theme about the competence of HMRC staff conducting enquiries and concerns about the attitude of some HMRC staff. Unrepresented taxpayers are particularly ill equipped to challenge HMRC officers who might make unreasonable demands or unnecessarily prolong a compliance check that lacks substance. Here HMRC owes a particular duty to act scrupulously.
Training
There is praise for HMRC’s open approach to sharing its training material. There is great value in joint training of HMRC staff and the agent community and the representative bodies are committed to pursuing this. A number of joint training sessions have already been held and have been very successful in helping each side to understand the other’s point of view. Unfortunately the timing of training, on all sides, has not been ideal. Some initial training was probably too early and the detailed training was often left too late, leaving people struggling to deal with powers in practice without a proper understanding of what they needed to do.
HMRC should investigate what toolkits or other assistance would help unrepresented taxpayers to understand better their obligations and entitlements and reduce the incidence of error. Work should also continue to refine the factsheets issued to taxpayers subject to any compliance activity to ensure they provide a comprehensive view of safeguards and statutory rights in line with HMRC’s Charter commitments.
Information and inspection powers
It is difficult at this stage to discern an overall picture on the use of information and inspection powers. However, representative bodies have not been overwhelmed with complaints from tax advisers about inappropriate use of powers. The main issue is how the use of information powers fits into the wider picture. In particular, there is concern where clients and tax advisers cannot discern the big picture and information requests relating to past, present and future liabilities arrive apparently at random. Some HMRC officers continue to send out long lists of questions at the start of enquiries, lists that can be unreasonable, rather than adopting an open and risk based approach.
Particular care is needed when a taxpayer subject to an enquiry or check is also a tax credit claimant. HMRC should continue to look for ways to work tax and tax credit compliance issues in conjunction wherever possible and should ensure that unrepresented taxpayers and tax credit claimants are fully aware of the total effect of adjustments at the point when they consider an appeal.
**Reasonableness**
The information and inspection powers rely on the concept of reasonableness – HMRC can only seek information which is reasonably required for the purpose of checking a person’s tax position. It is essential that taxpayers and their advisers have confidence that HMRC will use what could be very draconian powers reasonably and fairly. The safeguards in the powers need to be seen as clear, available and working.
Concerns remain that HMRC does not see the need for all safeguards to be set out in statute. While the Forum's role is welcome in reassuring ministers that powers are used in accordance with assurances given to Parliament, statutory safeguards are the only wholly satisfactory option. There is a lack of clarity as to precisely which records are ‘statutory records’. As there is only a right of appeal against a penalty for failing to produce ‘statutory records’, unrepresented taxpayers may feel pressured to reveal information the legal status of which is not free from doubt.
**Cross-tax working**
One of the key drivers of the new powers regime is the creation of a framework under which HMRC can look across all of the taxes applying to a business at one time, rather than dealing with each separately. At the moment these cross-tax checks are still relatively uncommon. Our sense is that there is a broad measure of support for the concept, but concern about the practicalities such as basic training. Cross-tax working should be supported but it will only work if HMRC develops cross-tax skilled individuals, particularly those dealing with small businesses.
**Penalties**
The old regimes were widely perceived as fairly blunt instruments so it must be right that the new penalty regime reflects behaviours. Penalties should be high for those who deliberately evade their taxes. Indeed, the way that HMRC has operated penalties in direct tax cases in the past has not created a significant deterrent. But the system needs to be balanced and must properly distinguish between those who deliberately set out to evade their taxes, those who are careless or in a muddle but who have no deliberate intent, and those who simply make mistakes.
HMRC should continue to ensure that its staff are fully aware of these crucial distinctions and monitor trends around the error/failure to take reasonable care boundary. It is important that HMRC staff offer suspended penalties whenever appropriate and ensure that unrepresented taxpayers are properly informed about suspension. The statistics on page four reveal that there have been few suspensions to date for ITSA cases; HMRC should seek to understand why.
**Reasonable care**
Reasonable care is an absolutely critical concept within the new regime. It is essential that there is further serious engagement between HMRC and the profession to develop a robust framework within which tax advisers can be sure that they are working with reasonable care. This is a key priority, as is continued recognition by HMRC that reasonable care relates to the differing circumstances and capabilities of each individual.
**Internal reviews**
The internal review is a new feature of the direct tax environment which only a minority of practitioners has used. HMRC and the professional bodies need to do more work to ensure that the process works fairly, that there is confidence in the system and that it is something worth supporting. There needs to be greater clarity over the scope the reviewing teams have to look at the decision in the round and monitoring of the extent to which lessons are learned by front line teams. The question of how many more decisions would be different if all were reviewed and whether there is a training issue is still to be addressed.
**Discovery**
The mix of new information powers and court decisions which have expanded the scope of discovery has created uncertainty. Discovery powers should be the subject of a proper review as part of the HMRC powers review exercise.
**Forms of Intervention**
Tax advisers do not have any sense of the process under which HMRC decides which particular form of intervention to use in any case. Work should be undertaken jointly to create a broad framework in which the positioning of each of the various types of compliance check approach can be properly placed. There is also a need to understand the interaction of informal and formal powers and how to obtain certainty.
5. **Conclusion**
The Forum is pleased to report that the broad consensus is that, in “year one”, HMRC has taken care to implement the new powers on a test and learn basis. As a result the “horror stories” anticipated by some commentators have not materialised.
It is still early to be certain of trends: anecdotal evidence suggests that HMRC staff may have changed their approach as the year proceeded.
Bodies represented on the Forum would be happy to continue to work with HMRC to understand issues as they arise and help provide solutions. HMRC is fully persuaded of the benefits of working together and activity is already underway to consider issues highlighted in this report.
All members of the Forum commend this report to the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury.
## Membership of the Oversight Forum
| HMRC | | |-------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------| | Chair – Dave Hartnett | Permanent Secretary for Tax | | Mike Eland | Director General of Enforcement and Compliance | | Anthony Inglese | General Counsel and Solicitor | | Richard Summersgill | Director of Local Compliance | | (Naomi Ferguson to 14/10/2009) | | | Simon Norris | Head of the Review of HMRC’s Powers, Deterrents and Safeguards |
| External Representatives | | |-------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------| | Chas Roy-Chowdhury | Association of Chartered Certified Accountants (ACCA) | | Ian Menzies-Connacher | Confederation of British Industry (CBI) | | Andrew Hubbard | Chartered Institute of Taxation (CIOT) | | Simon Sweetman | Federation of Small Business | | Paul Aplin (OBE) or Frank Haskew | Institute of Chartered Accountants in England & Wales (ICAEW) Tax Faculty | | David Cruickshank or Derek Allen | Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland (ICAS) | | Nigel Popplewell | The Law Society | | Robin Williamson or John Andrews | Low Income Taxpayers Reform Group | | Robert Maas or Bob Davies | Institute of Indirect Taxation |
[LINK TO MEETINGS]
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/3076-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 9,
"total-input-tokens": 18319,
"total-output-tokens": 5239,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
415,
1
],
[
415,
2697,
2
],
[
2697,
5670,
3
],
[
5670,
9286,
4
],
[
9286,
12275,
5
],
[
12275,
15781,
6
],
[
15781,
19423,
7
],
[
19423,
21811,
8
],
[
21811,
24006,
9
]
]
} |
54f11d9a6bcb85bb4dce4104fa54d151b57816ae | Annex D - DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION BY HM REVENUE AND CUSTOMS (HMRC): HMRC’S POLICY AND LEGAL FRAMEWORK
Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Act 2005 HMRC was created by the Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Act 2005 (CRCA) and its functions are governed by that statute. HMRC’s functions include the management and collection of tax and the payment of benefits as set out in the CRCA and matters ancillary to those functions such as employment of its staff.
CRCA prohibits the disclosure of information held by HMRC in connection with its functions. This prohibition applies to all information held by HMRC in connection with its functions and reflects the importance placed on ‘taxpayer confidentiality’ by Parliament when the department was created. The effective functioning of the new department was felt to depend critically on its customers being able to trust that information held on them would be appropriately protected and would be disclosed only in controlled, limited circumstances. There is additional protection for information that relates to an individual or legal entity whose identity is specified in the disclosure or can be deduced from it (‘identifying information’) in the form of a criminal sanction for unlawful disclosure.
Information gateways The prohibition on disclosure does not apply where the exceptions (‘gateways’) set out in CRCA apply. The main gateways are:
- where there is UK and EU legislation that permits disclosure (‘legislative gateway’);
- with the consent of the subject(s) of the information; or
- where the disclosure is made for the purpose of an HMRC function (‘functions gateway’).
Legislative gateways HMRC shares information through about 250 information gateways altogether with a large number of third parties, including 25 government departments, about 50 agencies, the devolved governments, Local Authorities, other countries (e.g. through double taxation agreements) and the Bank of England.
The terms of each information gateway are specific as to the type of information that can be disclosed and the purposes to which it can be put.
Currently, HMRC discloses information to private sector organisations almost exclusively on the basis that they are ‘working on HMRC’s behalf’ and hence are unable to use the data for their own purposes. A current research project is exploring whether sharing VAT registration data with credit reference agencies to inform credit ratings would have benefits for businesses and for Government and, if so, what options there are for releasing the data (e.g. legislative gateway, consent) and what safeguards might be needed to mitigate any risks. Functions gateway
The prohibition on disclosure does not apply to a disclosure that: • is made for the purposes of a function of HMRC; and • does not contravene any restriction imposed by the Commissioners.
At present, no restriction has been imposed by the Commissioners.
HMRC’s functions
HMRC’s functions are the powers and duties of the department’s Commissioners and officers set out in CRCA (or in other legislation), primarily the assessment and collection of tax and the payment and management of tax credits. As a statutory department administered by its own Commissioners, HMRC has no common law powers and therefore less flexibility as to what it may do than a ministerial department.
Ancillary functions
Examples of HMRC’s ancillary functions include: promoting publicity about the tax system; establishing advisory bodies; entering into agreements; and acquiring and disposing of property.
Disclosure for an ancillary function is permitted where there is a sufficiently close connection between the purpose for which the disclosure is made and a core HMRC function.
It is also occasionally possible to share information with a third party as part of an initiative that serves both HMRC’s purposes and those of the third party. It is on this basis that we have been able to share non-identifying information with Oxford University, Institute of Education and the London School of Economics for the purposes of a project that supports HMRC’s compliance function while also potentially providing a useful input to work in support of the social mobility agenda.
Data Protection and Human Rights Acts
HMRC is subject to the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA) and the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA). Any disclosure of data must be ‘lawful’ and ‘proportionate’ in relation to the purpose for which the data will be used.
CRCA and the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)
A disclosure by HMRC in compliance with FOIA is a lawful disclosure under CRCA but information relating to identifiable individuals or legal entities is exempt from disclosure under FOIA.
CRCA and Transparency
HMRC is committed to being as transparent as possible while complying with its statutory duty of confidentiality. It is part of HMRC’s functions to publish information that promotes public understanding of its work and increases accountability and public confidence. Public authorities also have a duty under FOIA to maintain a ‘publication scheme’ that includes information on their priorities, policies and procedures. HMRC publishes information on its performance and activities on its Transparency website and on www.data.gov.uk, the single online portal for central and local government data.
All information releases take into account HMRC’s obligation to collect the taxes for which it is responsible and the impact that publication will have on tax collection, including the need to protect sensitive and personal information provided by individual taxpayers in order to encourage openness and promote voluntary compliance.
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/3077-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 2,
"total-input-tokens": 4138,
"total-output-tokens": 1201,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
2651,
1
],
[
2651,
5673,
2
]
]
} |
26d294daa864d7341201f17474043f417ae35dc8 | | Ref No. | Action Point : | Owner : | Status : | Updates (with dates) : | |---------|----------------|---------|----------|------------------------| | AP1 17.12.12 | HMRC to consider the ideas contained at item 4 (Open discussion on the value of HMRC data) of the minutes (17/12/12) from members, on the feasibility of potential data releases from a legal, cost and ethical point of view. The HMRC Tax Transparency Sector Board will develop a work plan in future meetings, outlining what can be released by when | Mike Hawkins / Daniele Bega | Open | | | AP2 17.12.12 | Cabinet Office recommended that a representative from the Public Sector Transparency Board should be invited to the Board | Ian Parfitt | Open | | | AP3 17.12.12 | Consider whether there should be more businesses and the corporate sector representation on the Board | Daniele Bega / Ian Parfitt | Open | | | AP4 17.12.12 | The Tax Transparency Sector Board would also benefit from International expertise. The Chartered Institute of Taxation expressed their willingness to make their International network available to the group | Daniele Bega / Ian Parfitt | Open | |
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/3079-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 1,
"total-input-tokens": 1614,
"total-output-tokens": 316,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
1139,
1
]
]
} |
f7dc1f76653c8fa3c5e705788a0b8dfd66795015 | | Ref No. | Action Point | Owner: | Status: | Updates (with dates): | |----------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------|---------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | AP1 17.12.12 | HMRC to consider the ideas contained at item 4 (Open discussion on the value of HMRC data) of the minutes (17/12/12) from members, on the feasibility of potential data releases from a legal, cost and ethical point of view. The HMRC Tax Transparency Sector Board will develop a work plan in future meetings, outlining what can be released by when | Mike Hawkins / Daniele Bega | Open | - HMRC has carried out an assessment of the requests received | | AP2 17.12.12 | Cabinet Office recommended that a representative from the Public Sector Transparency Board should be invited to the Board | Ian Parfitt | Closed | Closed 25/02/13. - Chris Taggart invited and present at Feb 13 TTSB | | AP3 17.12.12 | Consider whether there should be more businesses and the corporate sector representation on the Board | Daniele Bega / Ian Parfitt | Open | 25/02/13 BRC & CBI to be invited to the May event. - HMRC have invited the British Retail Consortium to the Tax Transparency Sector Board. The Confederation of British Industry CBI could also be a possible future member. | | AP4 17.12.12 | The Tax Transparency Sector Board would also benefit from International expertise. The Chartered Institute of Taxation expressed their willingness to make their International network available to the group | Daniele Bega / Ian Parfitt | Ongoing | 25/02/13 Peter not available – C/F to May - To be checked with the Chartered Institute of Taxation at the next meeting | | AP5 25.02.13 | HMRC (KAI) to provide more information on the legal gateway used to publish importers data and on the CHIEF reports | Daniele Bega / Ian Parfitt | Open | | | AP6 25.02.13 | ED Parkes said he’d take an action point away to talk to the Open Data User Group (ODUG) on how to proceed. We need to explain why certain datasets won’t be made public and log postings on Data.gov.uk | Ed Parkes | Open | | | AP7 25.02.13 | Everyone to review the list of requests for HMRC and clarify requirements | Everyone | Open | | | AP8 25.02.13 | Cindy Bell will provide a one page on the legal issues around HMRC Data. | Cindy Bell | Open | | | AP9 25.02.13 | KAI to consult Companies House on the information published on XBRL and timing for publication | Daniele Bega | Open | Companies House email (27/02/13) |
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/3080-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 1,
"total-input-tokens": 2371,
"total-output-tokens": 721,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
3303,
1
]
]
} |
e0d5ef845fd4c677709e5116feebd7919063c8c3 | Administrative Data Taskforce
What is the Administrative Data Taskforce (ADT)? The Administrative Data Taskforce (ADT) was established in December 2011 following an announcement by the Minister for Universities and Science, David Willetts. The taskforce was tasked to report to the Government on ways to enable and promote the wider use of administrative data for research and policy purposes.
Who sat on it? The Taskforce was chaired by Sir Alan Langlands (HEFCE) and supported by Paul Boyle (ESRC). It consisted of representatives from the departments with the largest administrative datasets like HMRC, Department of Health and Department for Work and Pensions as well as academics, the Office for National Statistics and other experts.
Their report builds on earlier work on this issue, for instance the 2008 Data Sharing Review by Richard Thomas and Mark Walport.
What was the outcome? Three working groups were set up to report back to the Taskforce on; the legal & ethical issues; public engagement; and models of data access. A series of workshops were held involving HMRC representatives, their counterparts in other departments and outside experts.
The outcome of the working groups was the publication of the report Administrative Data: Improving Access for Research and Policy, released in December 2012.
What are the recommendations from the ADT report? The ADT report makes five recommendations:
a. An Administrative Data Research Centre (ADRC) should be established in each of the four countries in the UK; b. Single UK-wide researcher accreditation built on best national and international practice; c. Legislation should be enacted to facilitate research access to administrative data and to allow data linkage between departments to take place more efficiently; d. A strategy for engaging with the public should be instituted; e. Sufficient funds should be put in place to support improved research access to and linkage between administrative data.
What would the approach suggested by the taskforce involve? The approach being recommended by the Administrative Data Taskforce, would in principle allow datasets to be linked across government in a secure manner that would preserve anonymity. The key components of this are a transparent governance process involving data controllers from each department, accreditation of researchers to consistent standards whether they are from academia or government, safe research environments with data security up to at least the level government departments use, and control of research outputs to ensure that the risk of deliberate or accidental disclosure of personal information is very low indeed.
Developments since the ADT report Following publication of the report, the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) established a Technical Group to progress plans for the proposed Administrative Data Research Network (ADRN). This group looked into the practical issues of setting up the ADRN and made some further recommendations on the establishment of four (England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales) Administrative Research Data Centres (ADRCs) co-ordinated by an administrative data information coordinating body, the Administrative Data Service (ADS).
The four ADRCs and ADS are currently being procured by the ESRC, with the aim to have an Administrative Research Network set up in autumn 2013.
**Read-across to the current HMRC consultation**
If HMRC were given a general power to share anonymised individual level data for research and statistical purposes, this would remove the need for the creation of specific legal gateways for each new requirement – a process that can be resource intensive and difficult to schedule in an already heavily subscribed parliamentary/legislative calendar. It would therefore go some way to addressing the recommendation above that legislation should be enacted to facilitate research access to administrative data and to allow data linkage between departments to take place more efficiently.
In undertaking any wider sharing of its data, HMRC would need to ensure that any risks of identification of personal or confidential data were minimised, as is already achieved in the HMRC Datalab (see separate briefing paper). The ADT report makes a number of recommendations about how to achieve that, including anonymisation of data, use of trusted third parties to link the data, use of state of the art safe environments with levels of security commensurate with the sensitivity of the data, accreditation of researchers using the data, and disclosure control on research and statistical outputs. The Administrative Data Research Network and associated governance framework would enable HMRC to ensure that decisions on wider sharing of its data were made in a transparent fashion and that the data sharing and access were accomplished safely.
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/3081-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 2,
"total-input-tokens": 3656,
"total-output-tokens": 991,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
2900,
1
],
[
2900,
4867,
2
]
]
} |
f321dbcbcd4f6e754a291d29045315cb8a164036 | 2016 UK greenhouse gas emissions are estimated to decrease from 2015
Reduction in emissions mainly due to a decrease in the use of coal for electricity generation
The UK is on track to meet the Second Carbon Budget
2nd Carbon Budget (2013-17) level
2,782 MtCO₂e
The second Carbon Budget figures will not be finalised until 2019.
Transport becomes the largest emitting sector of UK 2016 greenhouse gas emissions
Energy supply and business sectors delivered the largest reductions in emissions from 2015 to 2016
| Sector | 2015-2016 % change | 1990-2016 % change | |-----------------|--------------------|--------------------| | Energy supply | 17% | 57% | | Waste management| 5% | 70% | | Business | 5% | 29% | | Other | 10% | 75% | | Agriculture | 0% | 16% | | LULUCF | 4% | 590% | | Transport | 2% | 2% | | Residential | 4% | 13% |
LULUCF has a large decrease from 1990-2016 as emissions have gone from being a small net sink in 1990 (-2.1 MtCO₂e) to a much larger net sink of emissions in 2016 (-14.6 MtCO₂e).
Further information: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/final-uk-greenhouse-gas-emissions-national-statistics Enquiries: [email protected] Responsible statistician: Amanda Penistone Tel: 0300 068 8090
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/0235-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 1,
"total-input-tokens": 2998,
"total-output-tokens": 484,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
1546,
1
]
]
} |
24d5352fee0adf0ecc0fe5740a54e8e4ed93b377 | | Organisation Name | Purchase_Order_Number | Order_Date | Total_Value | Supplier_Name | Account_Name | Service | |-------------------|-----------------------|------------|-------------|---------------|--------------|---------| | Rochdale Borough Council | d1055172 | 04/01/2016 | £6,621.51 | ELECTRICITY NORTH WEST LTD | MAINTENANCE | PROPERTY AND HIGHWAYS | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1055175 | 04/01/2016 | £10,000.00 | BELFOR UK LTD | PROPERTY - WORKS ELEMENT CONSULTANTS FEES | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | | Rochdale Borough Council | e1019263 | 04/01/2016 | £5,446.40 | ERNST & YOUNG LLP | | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | | Rochdale Borough Council | e1019268 | 04/01/2016 | £6,842.81 | BELMONT SCHOOL LIMITED | OTHER LA’S - SEN PROVISION CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | | Rochdale Borough Council | e1019273 | 04/01/2016 | £5,625.00 | CATHERINE HOW SCHOOL | EFFECTIVENESS NEW IMAGE PUBLIC RELATIONS | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1055205 | 05/01/2016 | £10,500.00 | NEW IMAGE PUBLIC RELATIONS | CONTRACTED SERVICES | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENTS | | Rochdale Borough Council | e1019283 | 05/01/2016 | £5,309.09 | INSPIREDSPACES ROCHDALE LTD | PURCHASE OF ICT HARDWARE | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | | Rochdale Borough Council | e1019286 | 05/01/2016 | £9,648.50 | INSPIREDSPACES ROCHDALE LTD | PURCHASE OF ICT HARDWARE | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | | Rochdale Borough Council | e1019290 | 05/01/2016 | £323,537.43 | INSPIREDSPACES ROCHDALE PROJECT CO1 | PFI SCHEMES RPIX | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | | Rochdale Borough Council | ph101089 | 05/01/2016 | £138,408.00 | BIG LIFE CENTRES | PH BIG LIFE CONTRACT | PUBLIC HEALTH | | Rochdale Borough Council | q1006063 | 05/01/2016 | £16,265.60 | ESTIO TECHNOLOGY RECRUITMENT | AGENCY STAFF | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENTS | | Rochdale Borough Council | q1006066 | 05/01/2016 | £12,897.00 | OXFORD COMPUTER CONSULTANTS | SOFTWARE | FINANCE SERVICES | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1055243 | 06/01/2016 | £14,238.00 | SSI SCHAEFER LIMITED | PURCHASE OF OTHER EQUIPMENT | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENTS | | Rochdale Borough Council | e1019297 | 06/01/2016 | £5,035.71 | INSPIREDSPACES ROCHDALE PROJECTCO2 | IMPROVEMENTS NTS-MODERNISATION | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | | Rochdale Borough Council | e1019305 | 06/01/2016 | £5,550.22 | INSPIREDSPACES ROCHDALE PROJECTCO2 | IMPROVEMENTS NTS-MODERNISATION | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | | Rochdale Borough Council | e1019306 06/01/2016 | £6,000.00 | ROCHDALE BOROUGHWIDE HOUSING EQUIPMENT - GENERAL EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | |--------------------------|---------------------|----------|---------------------------------------------------------------------| | Rochdale Borough Council | e1019331 06/01/2016 | £11,344.66 | BEECHKEYS CARE AND EDUCATION POLICE AND CRIME COMMISSIONER TRAFFORD MBC ADOPTION PAYMENTS EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | | Rochdale Borough Council | s1019844 06/01/2016 | £5,089.10 | OTHER LA`S - SEN PROVISION SUBSCRIPTIONS PHYSICAL DIS & OLDER PEOPLE CHILDREN’S SOCIAL CARE | | Rochdale Borough Council | x1012053 06/01/2016 | £9,000.00 | DEEPLISH ACADEMY RENTS EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | | Rochdale Borough Council | e1019339 07/01/2016 | £5,330.00 | AXIOM EDUCATION (ROCHDALE) BEVAN BRITTN LLP IMPROVEMENTS-MODERNISATION CONSULTANT FEES ECONOMY DIRECTORATE | | Rochdale Borough Council | q1006090 07/01/2016 | £6,279.81 | PHOENIX SOFTWARE LIMITED FEES - CONSTRUCTION CONVERSION FEES - CONSTRUCTION TRAINING ECONOMY DIRECTORATE | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1055336 08/01/2016 | £29,750.00 | ROCHDALE DEVELOPMENT AGENCY TEAM TEACH LIMITED CHILDREN’S SOCIAL CARE | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1055337 08/01/2016 | £18,750.00 | ROCHDALE DEVELOPMENT AGENCY TEAM TEACH LIMITED CHILDREN’S SOCIAL CARE | | Rochdale Borough Council | q1006093 08/01/2016 | £5,040.00 | TEAM TEACH LIMITED CHILDREN’S SOCIAL CARE | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1055338 10/01/2016 | £10,964.00 | H BELL & SONS ROCHDALE LTD TRANSACTIONS-EXPENDITURE EXTERNALLY MANAGED FUNDS OTHER LA’S - SEN PROVISION EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | | Rochdale Borough Council | e1019368 11/01/2016 | £44,100.00 | POSITIVE STEPS TRANSACTIONS-EXPENDITURE EXTERNALLY MANAGED FUNDS OTHER LA’S - SEN PROVISION EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | | Rochdale Borough Council | e1019374 11/01/2016 | £6,696.00 | TAMESIDE METROPOLITAN BOROUGH ROC NORTHWEST LTD PONTVILLE SCHOOL EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | | Rochdale Borough Council | e1019375 11/01/2016 | £6,666.60 | TAMESIDE METROPOLITAN BOROUGH ROC NORTHWEST LTD PONTVILLE SCHOOL EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | | Rochdale Borough Council | e1019383 11/01/2016 | £32,470.00 | TAMESIDE METROPOLITAN BOROUGH ROC NORTHWEST LTD PONTVILLE SCHOOL EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | | Ref. | Date | Amount | Description | |------|------------|----------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------| | e1019384 | 11/01/2016 | £29,100.00 | ROCHDALE GATEWAY LEISURE LIMITED ACTIVITIES EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | | f1004457 | 11/01/2016 | £5,730.55 | ROCHDALE GATEWAY LEISURE LIMITED CO-OP PAYPOINT FINANCE SERVICES | | q1006102 | 11/01/2016 | £425,254.00 | AGILISYS LIMITED AGILISYS CONTRACT NEIGHBOURHOOD OODS AND ENVIRONMENTS DIRECTORATE | | d1055382 | 12/01/2016 | £7,700.00 | ROCHDALE BOROUGH SHOPMOBILITY EMO OIL LIMITED GRANTS TO THE VOLUNTARY TRANSACTIONS NS-EXPENDITURE NS-EXPENDITURE AGENCY STAFF PROPERTY AND HIGHWAYS PROPERTY AND HIGHWAYS EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | | d1055413 | 13/01/2016 | £27,000.00 | WINTON FLOORING LIMITED UNITY PARTNERSHIP LTD IMPROVEMENTS MODERNISATION PROJECTS EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | | e1019402 | 13/01/2016 | £8,585.16 | J C MILLS & SON LIMITED IMPROVEMENTS MODERNISATION PROPERTY AND HIGHWAYS PROPERTY AND HIGHWAYS EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | | e1019414 | 13/01/2016 | £10,000.00 | CAPITA PROPERTY AND INFRASTRUCTURE CONSULTANTS FEES EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | | d1055449 | 14/01/2016 | £10,999.00 | ERNST & YOUNG LLP CONSULTANTS FEES EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | | d1055469 | 14/01/2016 | £82,981.80 | BARRACUDA NETWORKS INC SOFTWARE NEIGHBOURHOOD OODS AND ENVIRONMENTS EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | | e1019438 | 14/01/2016 | £6,987.40 | OLDHAM METROPOLITAN BOROUGH PENNINE CARE NHS OTHER EST-SEN PROVISION PH PENNINE CARE CONTRACT PUBLIC HEALTH | | ph101121 | 15/01/2016 | £22,218.00 | PENNINE CARE NHS OTHER EST-SEN PROVISION PH PENNINE CARE CONTRACT PUBLIC HEALTH | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1055544 | 18/01/2016 | £6,230.00 | DDH FABRICATIONS LTD | ACTIVITIES | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENTS | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | |--------------------------|----------|------------|-----------|----------------------|------------|--------------------------------|------------------------| | Rochdale Borough Council | e1019472 | 18/01/2016 | £409,130.78 | INSPIREDSPACES ROCHDALE PROJECTCO2 | PFI SCHEMES | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | | Rochdale Borough Council | e1019473 | 18/01/2016 | £665,058.63 | AXIOM EDUCATION (ROCHDALE) LINK4LIFE (CHARITY) | PFI SCHEMES | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | | Rochdale Borough Council | e1019479 | 18/01/2016 | £5,000.00 | AGILISYS LIMITED | ACTIVITIES | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | | Rochdale Borough Council | f1004464 | 18/01/2016 | £14,850.00 | THE PENNINE ACUTE HOSPITALS NHS GM BUSINESS SUPPORT LIMITED | PH OTHER CONTRACTS | PUBLIC HEALTH | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1055555 | 19/01/2016 | £31,000.00 | WINTON FLOORING LIMITED | TRANSACTIONS-EXPENDITURE | PROPERTY AND HIGHWAYS | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1055558 | 19/01/2016 | £6,749.09 | BARTEC AUTO ID LTD | MAINTENANCE | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENTS | | Rochdale Borough Council | e1019489 | 19/01/2016 | £22,680.10 | AXIOM EDUCATION (ROCHDALE) ROSSendale SCHOOL PRIORY | DEV CAP - NEW CONSTRUCTION | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | | Rochdale Borough Council | e1019504 | 19/01/2016 | £13,059.00 | VODAFONE LTD | TELEPHONE EXPENDITURE | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENTS | | Rochdale Borough Council | q1006160 | 19/01/2016 | £5,591.00 | XMA LIMITED | PURCHASE OF ICT HARDWARE | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENTS | | Rochdale Borough Council | q1006162 | 19/01/2016 | £64,800.00 | CLYDE & CO | LEGAL SERVICES | ECONOMY DIRECTORATE | | Rochdale Borough Council | q1006164 | 19/01/2016 | £5,434.00 | A & S BUILDING & ROOFING | IMPROVEMENTS-EXTENSIONS | PHYSICAL DIS & OLDER PEOPLE | | Rochdale Borough Council | s1019873 | 19/01/2016 | £6,620.00 | ASTOR BANNERMAN (MEDICAL) LTD | TRANSACTIONS-EXPENDITURE | PHYSICAL DIS & OLDER PEOPLE | | Rochdale Borough Council | 19/01/2016 | £15,870.60 | NEWLINE ADAPTATIONS LTD | IMPROVEMENTS - EXTENSIONS CONSULTANTS FEES | PHYSICAL DIS & OLDER PEOPLE NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENTS | |--------------------------|------------|------------|-------------------------|---------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------| | Rochdale Borough Council | 20/01/2016 | £29,680.05 | ROCHDALE HOUSING INITIATIVE MARCHBRIDGE BUILDERS LIMITED | IMPROVEMENTS - MODERNISATION CONSULTANTS FEES | HIGHWAYS EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | | Rochdale Borough Council | 20/01/2016 | £14,850.00 | BEVAN BRITTAN LLP | | | | Rochdale Borough Council | 20/01/2016 | £17,472.00 | CAPITA TREASURY SOLUTIONS LTD | CONSULTANTS FEES | FINANCE SERVICES | | Rochdale Borough Council | 20/01/2016 | £13,875.00 | CARIBOU GREEN WARMTH LLP | | | | Rochdale Borough Council | 20/01/2016 | £11,995.00 | CARIBOU GREEN WARMTH LLP | | | | Rochdale Borough Council | 20/01/2016 | £11,173.00 | CARIBOU GREEN WARMTH LLP | | | | Rochdale Borough Council | 20/01/2016 | £50,548.32 | CARIBOU GREEN WARMTH LLP | | | | Rochdale Borough Council | 21/01/2016 | £45,054.76 | CARIBOU GREEN WARMTH LLP | | | | Rochdale Borough Council | 21/01/2016 | £72,657.53 | CARIBOU GREEN WARMTH LLP | | | | Rochdale Borough Council | 21/01/2016 | £46,450.00 | LANCASTER COUNTY COUNCIL BURY MBC | | | | Rochdale Borough Council | 21/01/2016 | £14,337.51 | LANCASTER COUNTY COUNCIL BURY MBC | | | | Rochdale Borough Council | 21/01/2016 | £5,220.00 | D W TAYLOR & SON | | | | Rochdale Borough Council | 21/01/2016 | £12,250.00 | ACTION FIRST PEOPLE LTD | | | | Rochdale Borough Council | 22/01/2016 | £6,255.59 | C E S LTD | | | | Rochdale Borough Council | 22/01/2016 | £5,434.00 | CLYDE & CO | | | | Location | Reference | Date | Amount | Supplier/Service Provider | Description | |-------------------|-----------|------------|------------|---------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Rochdale Borough | q1006193 | 22/01/2016 | £77,608.50 | SPECIALIST COMPUTER CENTRES PLC | PURCHASE OF ICT HARDWARE | | Council | | | | OPTEVIA LTD | PURCHASE OF ICT SOFTWARE | | Rochdale Borough | q1006194 | 22/01/2016 | £8,500.00 | SOFTCAT LTD | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENTS | | Council | | | | | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENTS | | Rochdale Borough | q1006196 | 22/01/2016 | £20,520.00 | SKYLIGHT CIRCUS ARTS | ACTIVITIES | | Council | | | | | ECONOMY DIRECTORATE | | Rochdale Borough | d1055715 | 25/01/2016 | £5,000.00 | VBA JOINT VENTURE LTD | NEW CONSTRUCTION | | Council | | | | | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENTS | | Rochdale Borough | d1055740 | 25/01/2016 | £176,095.00| TRAKM8 LIMITED | WATER CHARGES | | Council | | | | | ECONOMY DIRECTORATE | | Rochdale Borough | d1055743 | 25/01/2016 | £6,318.00 | AXIOM EDUCATION (ROCHDALE) | CONTRACTED SERVICES | | Council | | | | | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENTS | | Rochdale Borough | e1019556 | 25/01/2016 | £13,662.20 | TRANSPORT FOR GREATER MANCHESTER | OTHER EST - SEN PROVISION | | Council | | | | BURY MBC | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | | Rochdale Borough | e1019560 | 26/01/2016 | £39,212.95 | TRAKM8 LIMITED | OTHER EST - SEN PROVISION | | Council | | | | EMO OIL LIMITED | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | | Rochdale Borough | e1019571 | 26/01/2016 | £30,514.35 | TRANSPORT FOR GREATER MANCHESTER | OTHER EST - SEN PROVISION | | Council | | | | BURY MBC | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | | Rochdale Borough | e1019574 | 26/01/2016 | £21,764.43 | TRANSPORT FOR GREATER MANCHESTER | OTHER EST - SEN PROVISION | | Council | | | | BURY MBC | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | | Rochdale Borough | e1019587 | 26/01/2016 | £10,475.04 | TRANSPORT FOR GREATER MANCHESTER | OTHER EST - SEN PROVISION | | Council | | | | BURY MBC | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | | Rochdale Borough | d1055782 | 27/01/2016 | £334,801.54| COMMUNITY LIGHTING PARTNERSHIP | IMPROVEMENTS - NTS - MODERNISATION ACTIVITIES | | Council | | | | ASBESTOS BUSINESS CONTRACTORS | PROPERTY AND HIGHWAYS | | Rochdale Borough | d1055783 | 27/01/2016 | £11,265.00 | COMMUNITY LIGHTING PARTNERSHIP | PROPERTY AND HIGHWAYS | | Council | | | | ASBESTOS BUSINESS CONTRACTORS | PROPERTY AND HIGHWAYS | | Rochdale Borough | e1019604 | 27/01/2016 | £8,823.20 | COMMUNITY LIGHTING PARTNERSHIP | PROPERTY AND HIGHWAYS | | Council | | | | ASBESTOS BUSINESS CONTRACTORS | PROPERTY AND HIGHWAYS | | Rochdale Borough Council | q1006223 | 27/01/2016 | £6,400.00 | ATEN SHEARWOOD DEVELOPMENT | TRAINING | CHILDREN'S SOCIAL CARE | |--------------------------|----------|------------|-----------|-----------------------------|---------|------------------------| | Rochdale Borough Council | x1012118 | 27/01/2016 | £8,600.00 | SIGNIS LIMITED | MISC CHARGES | CHILDREN'S SOCIAL CARE | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1055797 | 28/01/2016 | £8,000.00 | BUREAU VAN DIJK ELECTRONIC BURNT TREE GROUP | ACTIVITIES | ECONOMY DIRECTORATE | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1055798 | 28/01/2016 | £9,388.34 | TRANSACTIONS-EXPENDITURE | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENTS | | Rochdale Borough Council | e1019629 | 28/01/2016 | £9,175.00 | MANTRA LINGUA LTD | PRINTING & STATIONERY | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | | Rochdale Borough Council | f1004492 | 28/01/2016 | £24,800.00 | GRANT THORNTON UK LLP | FEES / COMMISSION | FINANCE SERVICES | | Rochdale Borough Council | q1006237 | 28/01/2016 | £19,000.00 | EVERYTHING EVERYWHERE LIMITED | TRANSACTIONS-EXPENDITURE | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENTS | | Rochdale Borough Council | s1019913 | 28/01/2016 | £6,300.00 | ACTION FIRST IPEOPLE LTD | FEES / COMMISSION | PHYSICAL DIS & OLDER PEOPLE | | Rochdale Borough Council | s1019915 | 28/01/2016 | £58,593.33 | NHS HEYWOOD MIDDLETOWN AND ROCHDALE CHILDREN AND FAMILIES ACROSS CAPITA BUSINESS SERVICES | SERVICE LEVEL AGREEMENTS | CHILDREN'S SOCIAL CARE | | Rochdale Borough Council | e1019635 | 29/01/2016 | £7,500.00 | ROSS CARE | FEES / COMMISSION | PHYSICAL DIS & OLDER PEOPLE | | Rochdale Borough Council | q1006242 | 29/01/2016 | £166,265.90 | SOFTWARE | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENTS | | Rochdale Borough Council | q1006244 | 29/01/2016 | £34,799.00 | PURCHASE OF ICT SOFTWARE SERVICE LEVEL AGREEMENTS | PHYSICAL DIS & OLDER PEOPLE | | Rochdale Borough Council | s1019916 | 29/01/2016 | £130,000.00 | ROSS CARE | ACTIVITIES | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | | Rochdale Borough Council | e1019641 | 01/02/2016 | £9,575.00 | REAL TRUST | OTHER LA'S - SEN PROVISION | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | | Rochdale Borough Council | e1019650 | 01/02/2016 | £8,511.66 | HORIZON CARE AND EDUCATION | PRINTING | FINANCE SERVICES | | Rochdale Borough Council | f1004500 | 01/02/2016 | £9,000.00 | NORTHGATE PUBLIC SERVICES (UK) | CONTRACTED PRINTING | | Rochdale Borough Council | ph101140 01/02/2016 | £369,777.00 | PENNINE CARE NHS | PH PENNINE CARE CONTRACT | PUBLIC HEALTH | |--------------------------|---------------------|-------------|------------------|--------------------------|--------------| | Rochdale Borough Council | ph101148 01/02/2016 | £119,537.00 | PENNINE CARE NHS | PH PENNINE CARE CONTRACT | PUBLIC HEALTH | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1055897 02/02/2016 | £38,123.53 | H BELL & SONS ROCHDALE LTD | PROPERTY - WORKS ELEMENT TAXI HIRE | NEIGHBOURHOOD OODS AND ENVIRONMENTS | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1055924 02/02/2016 | £5,760.00 | DALE INDUSTRIAL SERVICES DIOCESE OF SALFORD | IMPROVEMENTS - MODERNISATION | NEIGHBOURHOOD OODS AND ENVIRONMENTS | | Rochdale Borough Council | e1019668 02/02/2016 | £113,901.28 | IMPROVEMENTS - MODERNISATION | NEIGHBOURHOOD OODS AND ENVIRONMENTS | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1055941 03/02/2016 | £138,262.20 | RIVERSIDE TRUCK RENTAL | NEIGHBOURHOOD OODS AND ENVIRONMENTS | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1055948 03/02/2016 | £30,000.00 | THE BOND BOARD LIMITED | NEIGHBOURHOOD OODS AND ENVIRONMENTS | | Rochdale Borough Council | e1019680 03/02/2016 | £324,209.51 | INSPIREDSPACES ROCHDALE PROJECT CO1 | NEIGHBOURHOOD OODS AND ENVIRONMENTS | | Rochdale Borough Council | e1019681 03/02/2016 | £10,592.07 | BELMONT SCHOOL LIMITED | NEIGHBOURHOOD OODS AND ENVIRONMENTS | | Rochdale Borough Council | e1019684 03/02/2016 | £10,390.32 | BELMONT SCHOOL LIMITED | NEIGHBOURHOOD OODS AND ENVIRONMENTS | | Rochdale Borough Council | e1019685 03/02/2016 | £5,330.00 | DEEPLISH ACADEMY | NEIGHBOURHOOD OODS AND ENVIRONMENTS | | Rochdale Borough Council | q1006268 03/02/2016 | £43,000.00 | SAFEGARD SECURITY SOLUTIONS | SECURITY | NEIGHBOURHOOD OODS AND ENVIRONMENTS | | Rochdale Borough Council | q1006269 03/02/2016 | £27,000.00 | SAFEGARD SECURITY SOLUTIONS | SECURITY | NEIGHBOURHOOD OODS AND ENVIRONMENTS | | Rochdale Borough Council | q1006273 03/02/2016 | £9,649.00 | ASTRA ALARMS SYSTEMS LTD | EQUIPMENT - GENERAL | NEIGHBOURHOOD OODS AND ENVIRONMENTS | | Rochdale Borough Council | s1019924 03/02/2016 | £32,113.50 | ROSS CARE | OTHER AGENCIES | BETTER CARE FUND POOLED | | Rochdale Borough Council | s1019925 03/02/2016 | £43,152.30 | ROSS CARE | OTHER AGENCIES | BETTER CARE FUND POOLED | | Ref. | Date | Amount | Description | |------------|------------|----------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------| | s1019926 | 03/02/2016 | £50,590.61 | ROSS CARE OTHER AGENCIES BETTER CARE FUND POOLED | | s1019927 | 03/02/2016 | £50,345.89 | ROSS CARE OTHER AGENCIES BETTER CARE FUND POOLED | | s1019928 | 03/02/2016 | £43,630.18 | ROSS CARE OTHER AGENCIES BETTER CARE FUND POOLED | | s1019929 | 03/02/2016 | £62,864.32 | ROSS CARE OTHER AGENCIES BETTER CARE FUND POOLED | | s1019930 | 03/02/2016 | £65,494.20 | ROSS CARE OTHER AGENCIES BETTER CARE FUND POOLED | | s1019936 | 03/02/2016 | £12,575.00 | ADAPT BUILDING SERVICES LTD IMPROVEMENTS-EXTENSIONS PHYSICAL DIS & OLDER PEOPLE | | s1019940 | 03/02/2016 | £5,832.00 | STANNAH LIFT SERVICES LTD IMPROVEMENTS-EXTENSIONS PHYSICAL DIS & OLDER PEOPLE | | d1055971 | 04/02/2016 | £18,275.00 | MECHPLANT NORTH WEST LIMITED AXIOM EDUCATION (ROCHDALE) PURCHASE OF PLANT AND MACHINERY MEALS | | e1019706 | 04/02/2016 | £24,477.36 | AXIOM EDUCATION (ROCHDALE) BIG LIFE CENTRES PH BIG LIFE CONTRACT PUBLIC HEALTH | | ph101152 | 04/02/2016 | £138,408.00| BIG LIFE CENTRES PH BIG LIFE CONTRACT PUBLIC HEALTH | | q1006281 | 04/02/2016 | £24,998.00 | SOFTCAT LTD PURCHASE OF ICT SOFTWARE NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENTS | | d1056003 | 05/02/2016 | £7,570.00 | BALMERS GM LTD PURCHASE OF PLANT AND MACHINERY NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENTS | | d1056011 | 05/02/2016 | £115,435.00| MAYER EXCAVATION AND SKIP HIRE OPEN OBJECTS SOFTWARE LTD REPROGRAPHIC EXPENSES | | e1019708 | 05/02/2016 | £6,000.00 | INSPIREDSPACES ROCHDALE PROJECTCO2 PFI SCHEMES RPIX EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | | e1019711 | 05/02/2016 | £414,124.43| INSPIREDSPACES ROCHDALE PROJECTCO2 PFI SCHEMES RPIX EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | | e1019712 | 05/02/2016 | £9,800.00 | INSPIREDSPACES ROCHDALE PROJECTCO2 PFI SCHEMES RPIX EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | | Reference | Date | Amount | Description | |-----------|------------|----------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------| | q1006284 | 05/02/2016 | £9,790.13| POLICE AND CRIME COMMISSIONER CONTRACTED SERVICES NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENTS | | q1006285 | 05/02/2016 | £8,950.02| POLICE AND CRIME COMMISSIONER CONTRACTED SERVICES NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENTS | | s1019948 | 05/02/2016 | £458,333.00| THE PENNINE ACUTE HOSPITALS NHS CONTRACTED SERVICES POOLED NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENTS | | d1056036 | 08/02/2016 | £9,950.00| AXIOM EDUCATION (ROCHDALE) MEALS EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | | e1019743 | 08/02/2016 | £31,502.12| AXIOM EDUCATION (ROCHDALE) PFI SCHEMES RPIX EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | | e1019746 | 08/02/2016 | £663,986.84| CIPFA BUSINESS LIMITED TRAINING-NON QUALIFICATION FINANCE SERVICES | | q1006296 | 08/02/2016 | £6,220.00| ALONGSIDE ADOPTION PAYMENTS CHILDREN'S SOCIAL CARE | | x1012162 | 08/02/2016 | £14,333.00| BARNARDOS ADOPTION PAYMENTS CHILDREN'S SOCIAL CARE | | d1056039 | 09/02/2016 | £22,691.72| BRAHM FUNDCO 2 LTD PFI SCHEMES RPI ECONOMY DIRECTORATE | | d1056040 | 09/02/2016 | £25,250.00| UNITY PARTNERSHIP LTD CONSULTANT FEES PROPERTY AND HIGHWAYS ECONOMY DIRECTORATE | | d1056042 | 09/02/2016 | £12,000.00| GMCA ROADWORKS ECONOMY DIRECTORATE | | d1056078 | 09/02/2016 | £120,000.00| BENDCRETE LEISURE LTD PURCHASE OF OTHER EQUIPMENT NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENTS ECONOMY DIRECTORATE | | d1056083 | 09/02/2016 | £120,000.00| CLYDE & CO LEGAL SERVICES EXTERNAL DEV CAP - NEW CONSTRUCTI OTHER EST - SEN PROVISION ECONOMY DIRECTORATE | | e1019749 | 09/02/2016 | £22,093.00| AXIOM EDUCATION (ROCHDALE) OLDHAM METROPOLITAN BOROUGH EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | | e1019751 | 09/02/2016 | £8,848.00| OLDHAM METROPOLITAN BOROUGH EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | | Reference | Date | Amount | Description | |-----------|------------|----------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------| | e1019752 | 09/02/2016 | £16,351.00 | Oldham Metropolitan Borough Provision Early Help and Schools | | e1019758 | 09/02/2016 | £13,500.00 | Positive Steps Externally Managed Funds Early Help and Schools | | e1019761 | 09/02/2016 | £7,600.00 | Evidence Based Psychology Activities Early Help and Schools | | e1019763 | 09/02/2016 | £10,000.00 | Evidence Based Psychology Positive Steps Externally Managed Funds Early Help and Schools | | e1019778 | 09/02/2016 | £44,100.00 | Positive Steps Externally Managed Funds Early Help and Schools | | f1004509 | 09/02/2016 | £5,516.91 | Co-op Paypoint Finance Services | | ph101161 | 09/02/2016 | £191,340.00 | Virgin Care Services Limited Ph Pennine Care Contract Public Health | | q1006314 | 09/02/2016 | £6,442.00 | Softcat Ltd Contracted Services Neighbourhood Oods and Environment | | q1006318 | 09/02/2016 | £8,376.06 | Littledale Hall Therapeutic Turning Point Services Contracted Services | | q1006321 | 09/02/2016 | £13,110.00 | Turning Point Services Contracted Services Neighbourhood Oods and Environment | | d1056085 | 10/02/2016 | £31,000.00 | Gm Business Support Limited Grants to the Voluntary Economy Directorate | | d1056109 | 10/02/2016 | £30,000.00 | Gm Business Support Limited Grants to the Voluntary Economy Directorate | | d1056114 | 10/02/2016 | £6,593.50 | Squire Patton Boggs Uk Llp Legal Services External Transactio Neighbourhood Oods and Environment | | d1056138 | 10/02/2016 | £7,337.82 | Northgate Vehicle Hire Limited Northgate Vehicle Hire Limited Transactio Neighbourhood Oods and Environment | | d1056139 | 10/02/2016 | £6,458.13 | Northgate Vehicle Hire Limited Northgate Vehicle Hire Limited Transactio Neighbourhood Oods and Environment | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1056140 | 10/02/2016 | £7,980.43 | NORTHGATE VEHICLE HIRE LIMITED | TRANSACTIONS EXPENDITURE SURVEYORS FEES | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENTS EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | |--------------------------|----------|------------|-----------|-------------------------------|----------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------| | Rochdale Borough Council | d1056148 | 10/02/2016 | £24,477.60 | CARIBOU GREEN WARMTH LLP | OTHER LA`S - SEN PROVISION | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENTS EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | | Rochdale Borough Council | e1019800 | 10/02/2016 | £5,333.28 | ROC NORTHWEST LTD | OTHER LA`S - SEN PROVISION | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | | Rochdale Borough Council | e1019801 | 10/02/2016 | £8,074.50 | CUMBERLAND SCHOOL | OTHER LA`S - SEN PROVISION | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | | Rochdale Borough Council | e1019802 | 10/02/2016 | £16,149.00 | CUMBERLAND SCHOOL | OTHER LA`S - SEN PROVISION | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1056152 | 11/02/2016 | £22,898.80 | BURY SKIP HIRE | SUPPLIES AND SERVICES | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENTS ECONOMY DIRECTORATE | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1056167 | 11/02/2016 | £17,460.00 | NOMICAL LTD | EQUIPMENT - GENERAL | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENTS EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1056171 | 11/02/2016 | £5,000.00 | ISAAC BUTTERWORTH (IRONFOUNDER) | EQUIPMENT - GENERAL | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENTS EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | | Rochdale Borough Council | e1019807 | 11/02/2016 | £16,420.66 | AXIOM EDUCATION (ROCHDALE) | DEV CAP - NEW CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | | Rochdale Borough Council | e1019815 | 11/02/2016 | £5,250.00 | NISAI LEARNING | | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | | Rochdale Borough Council | e1019828 | 11/02/2016 | £5,460.01 | SMARTBOX ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGY | EQUIPMENT - GENERAL | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | | Rochdale Borough Council | q1006336 | 11/02/2016 | £600,000.00 | GALLAGHER BASSETT INTERNATIONAL | TRANSACTIONS EXPENDITURE TRAINING | FINANCE SERVICES | | Rochdale Borough Council | q1006337 | 11/02/2016 | £9,930.00 | ME LEARNING LIMITED | | CHILDREN`S SOCIAL CARE | | Rochdale Borough Council | q1006338 | 11/02/2016 | £32,542.00 | AON LIMITED | TRANSACTIONS EXPENDITURE | FINANCE SERVICES | | Rochdale Borough Council | q1006339 | 11/02/2016 | £11,500.00 | AON LIMITED | TRANSACTIONS EXPENDITURE | FINANCE SERVICES | | Rochdale Borough Council | s1019972 | 11/02/2016 | £13,184.53 | BROADWAY BUILDING CONTRACTORS | IMPROVEMENTS EXTENSIONS | PHYSICAL DISABILITIES & OLDER PEOPLE | | Rochdale Borough Council | s1019973 | 11/02/2016 | £9,881.00 | TERRY GROUP LTD | IMPROVEMENTS - EXTENSIONS | PHYSICAL DIS & OLDER PEOPLE | |--------------------------|----------|------------|-----------|------------------|---------------------------|-----------------------------| | Rochdale Borough Council | s1019977 | 11/02/2016 | £26,912.23 | HIGH BARN CONSTRUCTION LIMITED | IMPROVEMENTS - EXTENSIONS | PHYSICAL DIS & OLDER PEOPLE | | Rochdale Borough Council | x1012182 | 11/02/2016 | £5,308.77 | HOLY FAMILY CATHOLIC PRIMARY | FEES / COMMISSION | CHILDREN'S SOCIAL CARE | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1056191 | 12/02/2016 | £8,000.00 | NO WORRIES IT LTD | BASIC SALARIES | ECONOMY DIRECTORATE | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1056192 | 12/02/2016 | £6,600.00 | NO WORRIES IT LTD | BASIC SALARIES | ECONOMY DIRECTORATE | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1056222 | 12/02/2016 | £31,782.50 | BETHELL CONSTRUCTION LTD | IMPROVEMENTS - MODERNISATION | PROPERTY AND HIGHWAYS | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1056225 | 12/02/2016 | £37,118.10 | CARIBOU GREEN WARMTH LLP | PROPERTY REFURBISHMENT | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENTS | | Rochdale Borough Council | e1019837 | 12/02/2016 | £8,823.20 | SPORT WORKS | ACTIVITIES | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | | Rochdale Borough Council | e1019847 | 12/02/2016 | £5,400.00 | CRICK SOFTWARE LIMITED | EQUIPMENT - GENERAL | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | | Rochdale Borough Council | f1004516 | 12/02/2016 | £5,640.05 | CAPITA BUSINESS SERVICES | SOFTWARE | FINANCE SERVICES | | Rochdale Borough Council | q1006344 | 12/02/2016 | £17,464.00 | EDENHOUSE SOLUTIONS LTD | SOFTWARE | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENTS | | Rochdale Borough Council | q1006349 | 12/02/2016 | £6,600.00 | UPDATA INFRASTRUCTURE UK LTD | TELEPHONE EXPENDITURE | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENTS | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1056253 | 15/02/2016 | £12,442.20 | F W SHERRATT LTD | MAINTENANCE | PROPERTY AND HIGHWAYS | | Rochdale Borough Council | e1019856 | 15/02/2016 | £20,075.07 | AXIOM EDUCATION (ROCHDALE) | DEV CAP - NEW CONSTRUCTION | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | | Rochdale Borough Council | e1019858 | 15/02/2016 | £5,400.00 | POSITIVE STEPS | COSTS MET BY SCHOOL | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | | Rochdale Borough Council | e1019878 | 15/02/2016 | £12,903.00 | CITY OF BRADFORD METROPOLITAN | OTHER EST - SEN PROVISION | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | | Description | Reference | Date | Amount | Supplier/Recipient | Department/Service | |----------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------|------------|------------|---------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------| | Rochdale Borough Council | q1006367 | 15/02/2016 | £12,414.42 | THOMSON REUTERS | REFRESHMENTS FINANCE SERVICES | | Rochdale Borough Council | q1006373 | 15/02/2016 | £26,642.00 | CLYDE & CO | LEGAL SERVICES EXTERNAL ADOPTION PAYMENTS ECONOMY DIRECTORATE | | Rochdale Borough Council | x1012195 | 15/02/2016 | £18,000.00 | NUGENT CARE | CHILDREN'S SOCIAL CARE | | Rochdale Borough Council | x1012200 | 15/02/2016 | £5,467.00 | YOUTH JUSTICE BOARD SERVICE LEVEL AGREEMENTS | CHILDREN'S SOCIAL CARE | | Rochdale Borough Council | x1012203 | 15/02/2016 | £5,310.00 | YOUTH JUSTICE BOARD SERVICE LEVEL AGREEMENTS | CHILDREN'S SOCIAL CARE | | Rochdale Borough Council | x1012204 | 15/02/2016 | £5,487.00 | YOUTH JUSTICE BOARD SERVICE LEVEL AGREEMENTS | CHILDREN'S SOCIAL CARE | | Rochdale Borough Council | x1012205 | 15/02/2016 | £5,487.00 | YOUTH JUSTICE BOARD SERVICE LEVEL AGREEMENTS | CHILDREN'S SOCIAL CARE | | Rochdale Borough Council | ph101181 | 16/02/2016 | £14,969.00 | THE PENNINE ACUTE HOSPITALS NHS CLYDE & CO | PUBLIC HEALTH ECONOMY DIRECTORATE | | Rochdale Borough Council | q1006376 | 16/02/2016 | £29,022.00 | LEGAL SERVICES EXTERNAL PROFESSIONAL FEES | FINANCE SERVICES | | Rochdale Borough Council | q1006385 | 16/02/2016 | £12,963.00 | WEIGHTMANS LLP | FINANCE SERVICES | | Rochdale Borough Council | q1006392 | 16/02/2016 | £9,300.00 | LIQUIDLOGIC LTD | PURCHASE OF ICT NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENTS | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1056291 | 17/02/2016 | £12,677.96 | IMPERATIVE ENERGY | PROPERTY WORKS ELEMENT HIGHWAYS CONTRACT | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1056296 | 17/02/2016 | £5,042.25 | BGS LTD | HIGHWAYS CONTRACT | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1056300 | 17/02/2016 | £14,708.75 | ROCHDALE TOWN CENTRE MANAGEMENT | GRANTS TO THE NON VOLUNTARY TRANSACTIONS EXPENDITURE REPAIRS & ALTS OF BUILDINGS ECONOMY DIRECTORATE | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1056321 | 18/02/2016 | £19,839.00 | D H WELTON & COMPANY (BUILDERS) | PROPERTY AND HIGHWAYS ECONOMY DIRECTORATE | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1056327 | 18/02/2016 | £16,940.00 | F S MOULT & SON | PROPERTY AND HIGHWAYS ECONOMY DIRECTORATE | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1056331 | 18/02/2016 | £17,310.00 | PROFILE SECURITY SERVICES | SECURITY NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENTS | |--------------------------|----------|------------|------------|---------------------------|----------------------------------------| | Rochdale Borough Council | s1019998 | 18/02/2016 | £5,674.54 | STANNAH LIFT SERVICES LTD | IMPROVEMENTS PHYSICAL DISABILITIES & OLDER PEOPLE | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1056346 | 19/02/2016 | £71,835.28 | CARIBOU GREEN WARMTH LLP | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENTS | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1056347 | 19/02/2016 | £54,266.00 | CARIBOU GREEN WARMTH LLP | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENTS | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1056348 | 19/02/2016 | £7,437.15 | TRANSPORT FOR GREATER MANCHESTER | CONSTRUCTION OF NEW PROPERTY | | Rochdale Borough Council | q1006423 | 19/02/2016 | £12,528.00 | SPECOPS SOFTWARE LTD | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENTS | | Rochdale Borough Council | q1006433 | 19/02/2016 | £81,000.00 | BLACKPOOL BOROUGH COUNCIL | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENTS | | Rochdale Borough Council | q1006435 | 19/02/2016 | £6,690.00 | RICOH UK LTD | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENTS | | Rochdale Borough Council | s1020001 | 19/02/2016 | £7,000.00 | ACTION FIRST PEOPLE LTD | PHYSICAL DISABILITIES & OLDER PEOPLE | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1056367 | 22/02/2016 | £7,664.00 | YOTTA LIMITED | CONSULTANT FEES | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1056387 | 22/02/2016 | £366,402.37| VBA JOINT VENTURE LTD | NEW CONSTRUCTION DIRECTORATE | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1056389 | 22/02/2016 | £27,500.00| OLDHAM & ROCHDALE GROUNDWORK | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENTS | | Rochdale Borough Council | e1019919 | 22/02/2016 | £7,380.00 | CALDERDALE METROPOLITAN BOROUGH | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | | Rochdale Borough Council | q1006440 | 22/02/2016 | £7,920.00 | Astra Alarms Systems Ltd | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENTS | | Rochdale Borough Council | q1006443 | 22/02/2016 | £8,492.56 | SOFTWARE BOX LTD | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENTS | | Rochdale Borough Council | x1012243 | 22/02/2016 | £8,250.00 | CARITAS CARE LTD | CHILDREN’S SOCIAL CARE | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1056403 | 23/02/2016 | £10,000.00 | TRANSPORT FOR GREATER MANCHESTER GMCA ROADWORKS ECONOMY DIRECTORATE | |--------------------------|----------|------------|------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------| | Rochdale Borough Council | d1056407 | 23/02/2016 | £10,000.00 | CROMWELL POLYTHENE LIMITED EQUIPMENT - GENERAL NEIGHBOURHOOD OODS AND ENVIRONMENTS | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1056416 | 23/02/2016 | £49,993.20 | EMO OIL LIMITED TRANSACTIONS EXPENDITURE NEIGHBOURHOOD OODS AND ENVIRONMENTS | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1056427 | 23/02/2016 | £31,500.00 | EMO OIL LIMITED TRANSACTIONS EXPENDITURE NEIGHBOURHOOD OODS AND ENVIRONMENTS | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1056428 | 23/02/2016 | £27,000.00 | EMO OIL LIMITED TRANSACTIONS EXPENDITURE DEMOLITION NEIGHBOURHOOD OODS AND ENVIRONMENTS | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1056431 | 23/02/2016 | £5,303.32 | AECOM INFRASTRUCTURE AND BURNT TREE GROUP TRANSACTIONS EXPENDITURE CONSULTANTS FEES NEIGHBOURHOOD OODS AND ENVIRONMENTS | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1056432 | 23/02/2016 | £9,388.34 | RISUAL LTD CONSULTANTS FEES NEIGHBOURHOOD OODS AND ENVIRONMENTS | | Rochdale Borough Council | s1020020 | 23/02/2016 | £25,000.00 | NHS HEYWOOD MIDDLETON AND ROCHDALE ADOPTION MATTERS NORTHWEST AECOM PROFESSIONAL SERVICES LTD IMPROVEMENTS MODERNISATION PFI SCHEMES RPIX PROPERTY AND HIGHWAYS | | Rochdale Borough Council | x1012246 | 23/02/2016 | £18,000.00 | ADOPTION MATTERS NORTHWEST AECOM PROFESSIONAL SERVICES LTD IMPROVEMENTS MODERNISATION PFI SCHEMES RPIX PROPERTY AND HIGHWAYS | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1056457 | 24/02/2016 | £16,450.00 | ADOPTION MATTERS NORTHWEST AECOM PROFESSIONAL SERVICES LTD IMPROVEMENTS MODERNISATION PFI SCHEMES RPIX PROPERTY AND HIGHWAYS | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1056464 | 24/02/2016 | £415,091.00 | COMMUNITY LIGHTING PARTNERSHIP KIRSTY RHIND CONTINGENCY ALLOCATION FINANCE CONTROL | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1056473 | 24/02/2016 | £15,000.00 | COMMUNITY LIGHTING PARTNERSHIP KIRSTY RHIND CONTINGENCY ALLOCATION FINANCE CONTROL | | Rochdale Borough Council | e1019966 | 24/02/2016 | £8,905.00 | PARENTS PLUS LTD TRAINING EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | | Rochdale Borough Council | f1004530 | 24/02/2016 | £5,720.00 | CIPFA BUSINESS LIMITED REFERENCE BOOKS/NEWS PAPERS/PERIODICALS PENNINE CARE NHS FINANCE SERVICES PUBLIC HEALTH | | Rochdale Borough Council | ph101188 | 24/02/2016 | £119,580.00 | PENNINE CARE NHS FINANCE SERVICES PUBLIC HEALTH | | Rochdale Borough Council | ph101189 | 24/02/2016 | £369,777.00 | PENNINE CARE NHS | PH PENNINE CARE CONTRACT SOFTWARE | PUBLIC HEALTH | |--------------------------|----------|------------|-------------|------------------|----------------------------------|---------------| | Rochdale Borough Council | q1006468 | 24/02/2016 | £17,920.00 | LIQUIDLOGIC LTD | AGILISYS CONTRACT | LEARNING DIS & MENTAL HEALTH | | Rochdale Borough Council | q1006470 | 24/02/2016 | £66,540.00 | AGILISYS LIMITED | AGILISYS CONTRACT | NEIGHBOURHOOD OODS AND ENVIRONMENTS | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1056500 | 25/02/2016 | £27,984.00 | J S C PLAY SERVICES LIMITED | PURCHASE OF OTHER EQUIPMENT | NEIGHBOURHOOD OODS AND ENVIRONMENTS | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1056510 | 25/02/2016 | £40,200.00 | PETRUS | GRANTS TO THE VOLUNTARY FEES / COMMISSION | NEIGHBOURHOOD OODS AND ENVIRONMENTS | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1056511 | 25/02/2016 | £8,881.10 | ROCHDALE BOROUGHWIDE HOUSING BRENTWOOD | CARE TODAY CHILDRENS SERVICES NEW BRIDGE SCHOOL | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1056512 | 25/02/2016 | £10,500.00 | CARE TODAY CHILDRENS SERVICES NEW BRIDGE SCHOOL | OTHER EST - SEN PROVISION | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | | Rochdale Borough Council | e1019980 | 25/02/2016 | £23,607.00 | CARE TODAY CHILDRENS SERVICES NEW BRIDGE SCHOOL | OTHER EST - SEN PROVISION | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | | Rochdale Borough Council | e1019988 | 25/02/2016 | £6,930.00 | CARE TODAY CHILDRENS SERVICES NEW BRIDGE SCHOOL | OTHER EST - SEN PROVISION | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | | Rochdale Borough Council | e1019989 | 25/02/2016 | £5,915.87 | CARE TODAY CHILDRENS SERVICES NEW BRIDGE SCHOOL | OTHER EST - SEN PROVISION | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | | Rochdale Borough Council | q1006472 | 25/02/2016 | £48,945.64 | NHS HEYWOOD MIDDLETON AND ROCHDALE CONTRACTED SERVICES | MEDICAL FEES | NEIGHBOURHOOD OODS AND ENVIRONMENTS CHILDREN’S SOCIAL CARE | | Rochdale Borough Council | x1012266 | 25/02/2016 | £6,238.20 | STANNAH LIFT SERVICES LTD | IMPROVEMENTS - NTS-EXTENSIONS | PHYSICAL DIS & OLDER PEOPLE | | Rochdale Borough Council | s1020034 | 26/02/2016 | £5,570.00 | STANNAH LIFT SERVICES LTD | IMPROVEMENTS - NTS-EXTENSIONS | PHYSICAL DIS & OLDER PEOPLE | | Rochdale Borough Council | s1020049 | 26/02/2016 | £9,110.00 | HIGH BARN CONSTRUCTION LIMITED | IMPROVEMENTS - NTS-EXTENSIONS | PHYSICAL DIS & OLDER PEOPLE | | Rochdale Borough Council | s1020049 | 26/02/2016 | £9,110.00 | HIGH BARN CONSTRUCTION LIMITED | IMPROVEMENTS - NTS-EXTENSIONS | PHYSICAL DIS & OLDER PEOPLE | | Rochdale Borough Council | s1020050 | 26/02/2016 | £95,000.00 | COUNCIL FOR VOLUNTARY SERVICE | LEVEL AGREEMENTS | PHYSICAL DIS & OLDER PEOPLE | | Rochdale Borough Council | x1012277 | 26/02/2016 | £18,000.00 | ADOPTION MATTERS NORTHWEST BARNARDOS | ADOPTION PAYMENTS | CHILDREN'S SOCIAL CARE | |--------------------------|----------|------------|------------|--------------------------------------|-------------------|-----------------------| | Rochdale Borough Council | x1012278 | 26/02/2016 | £18,000.00 | DAVIS FRENCH ASSOCIATES LTD | PROPERTY - WORKS ELEMENT SOFTWARE | NEIGHBOURHOOD OODS AND ENVIRONMENTS | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1056552 | 29/02/2016 | £7,956.60 | NORTHGATE PUBLIC SERVICES (UK) | OTHER SURVEYS | NEIGHBOURHOOD OODS AND ENVIRONMENTS | | Rochdale Borough Council | f1004533 | 29/02/2016 | £6,580.00 | JEREMY BENN ASSOCIATES LTD | THE LIFE CHANNEL GROUP LIMITED SOFTWARE | NEIGHBOURHOOD OODS AND ENVIRONMENTS | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1056594 | 01/03/2016 | £20,000.00 | BRIDGEALL LIBRARIES LTD | THE PENNINE ACUTE HOSPITALS NHS CONTRACTS | BETTER CARE FUND POOLED | | Rochdale Borough Council | f1004536 | 01/03/2016 | £7,268.00 | THE PENNINE ACUTE HOSPITALS NHS CONTRACTS | FEES - CONSTRUCTION CONVERSION PROPERTY - WORKS ELEMENT PFI SCHEMES RPIX | NEIGHBOURHOOD OODS AND ENVIRONMENTS | | Rochdale Borough Council | ph101194 | 01/03/2016 | £10,000.00 | THE LIFE CHANNEL GROUP LIMITED SOFTWARE | THE PENNINE ACUTE HOSPITALS NHS CONTRACTS | BETTER CARE FUND POOLED | | Rochdale Borough Council | q1006487 | 01/03/2016 | £10,052.00 | NORTHGATE PUBLIC SERVICES (UK) | THE PENNINE ACUTE HOSPITALS NHS CONTRACTS | BETTER CARE FUND POOLED | | Rochdale Borough Council | s1020053 | 01/03/2016 | £458,333.00 | THE PENNINE ACUTE HOSPITALS NHS CONTRACTS | FEES - CONSTRUCTION CONVERSION PROPERTY - WORKS ELEMENT PFI SCHEMES RPIX | NEIGHBOURHOOD OODS AND ENVIRONMENTS | | Rochdale Borough Council | s1020054 | 01/03/2016 | £458,333.00 | THE PENNINE ACUTE HOSPITALS NHS CONTRACTS | FEES - CONSTRUCTION CONVERSION PROPERTY - WORKS ELEMENT PFI SCHEMES RPIX | NEIGHBOURHOOD OODS AND ENVIRONMENTS | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1056627 | 02/03/2016 | £20,000.00 | OLDHAM & ROCHDALE GROUNDWORK TRUST LTD RECORD UK LTD | INSPIREDSPACES ROCHDALE PROJECTCO2 INSPIREDSPACES ROCHDALE PROJECT CO1 | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1056661 | 02/03/2016 | £103,416.00 | INSPIREDSPACES ROCHDALE PROJECTCO2 INSPIREDSPACES ROCHDALE PROJECT CO1 | INSPIREDSPACES ROCHDALE PROJECTCO2 INSPIREDSPACES ROCHDALE PROJECT CO1 | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | | Rochdale Borough Council | e1020031 | 02/03/2016 | £387,002.22 | INSPIREDSPACES ROCHDALE PROJECTCO2 INSPIREDSPACES ROCHDALE PROJECT CO1 | INSPIREDSPACES ROCHDALE PROJECTCO2 INSPIREDSPACES ROCHDALE PROJECT CO1 | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | | Rochdale Borough Council | e1020032 | 02/03/2016 | £323,695.60 | INSPIREDSPACES ROCHDALE PROJECTCO2 INSPIREDSPACES ROCHDALE PROJECT CO1 | INSPIREDSPACES ROCHDALE PROJECTCO2 INSPIREDSPACES ROCHDALE PROJECT CO1 | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | | Rochdale Borough Council | e1020035 | 02/03/2016 | £6,007.46 | INSPIREDSPACES ROCHDALE PROJECTCO2 INSPIREDSPACES ROCHDALE PROJECT CO1 | INSPIREDSPACES ROCHDALE PROJECTCO2 INSPIREDSPACES ROCHDALE PROJECT CO1 | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | | Rochdale Borough Council | e1020036 | 02/03/2016 | £6,007.46 | INSPIREDSPACES ROCHDALE PROJECTCO2 INSPIREDSPACES ROCHDALE PROJECT CO1 | INSPIREDSPACES ROCHDALE PROJECTCO2 INSPIREDSPACES ROCHDALE PROJECT CO1 | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | | Rochdale Borough Council | e1020037 | 02/03/2016 | £8,787.50 | PSYCHOLOGY PEOPLE | BASIC SALARIES | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | |--------------------------|----------|------------|-----------|-------------------|----------------|------------------------| | Rochdale Borough Council | e1020040 | 02/03/2016 | £15,102.77 | DIOCESE OF SALFORD | IMPROVEMENTS- MODERNISATION | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | | Rochdale Borough Council | x1012284 | 02/03/2016 | £28,667.00 | GLOUCESTERSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL | MET OFFICE TRAINING | CHILDREN'S SOCIAL CARE | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1056675 | 03/03/2016 | £5,139.00 | YOTTA LIMITED CONSULTANT FEES | PROPERTY AND HIGHWAYS | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1056677 | 03/03/2016 | £6,970.80 | ROCHDALE MEMORIAL SERVICE FIXTURES & FITTINGS | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENTS | | Rochdale Borough Council | e1020055 | 03/03/2016 | £174,502.73 | INSPIREDSPACES ROCHDALE PROJECT CO1 IMPROVEMENTS- MODERNISATION | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | | Rochdale Borough Council | e1020056 | 03/03/2016 | £193,679.90 | INSPIREDSPACES ROCHDALE PROJECT CO1 IMPROVEMENTS- MODERNISATION | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | | Rochdale Borough Council | e1020061 | 03/03/2016 | £5,030.00 | ELKLAN TRAINING LTD ACTIVITIES | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | | Rochdale Borough Council | f1004545 | 03/03/2016 | £6,176.80 | G4S CASH SOLUTIONS (UK) LIMITED TRANSACTIONS- EXPENDITURE | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | | Rochdale Borough Council | ph101205 | 03/03/2016 | £16,666.67 | NORTH WEST AMBULANCE SERVICE NHS EVENTS | PUBLIC HEALTH | | Rochdale Borough Council | q1006511 | 03/03/2016 | £5,701.60 | ROCHDALE TOWN CENTRE MANAGEMENT EVENTS | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENTS | | Rochdale Borough Council | q1006516 | 03/03/2016 | £7,275.00 | IDOX SOFTWARE LTD SOFTWARE | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENTS | | Rochdale Borough Council | s1020066 | 03/03/2016 | £46,500.00 | PETRUS SERVICE LEVEL AGREEMENTS | LEARNING DIS & MENTAL HEALTH | | Rochdale Borough Council | x1012294 | 03/03/2016 | £18,000.00 | ADOPTION MATTERS NORTHWEST ADOPTION PAYMENTS | CHILDREN'S SOCIAL CARE | | Rochdale Borough Council | e1020082 | 04/03/2016 | £11,408.57 | SEASHELL TRUST OTHER LA'S-SEN PROVISION | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | | Rochdale Borough Council | e1020083 04/03/2016 | £11,480.57 | SEASHELL TRUST | OTHER LA’S - SEN PROVISION | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | |--------------------------|---------------------|------------|----------------|---------------------------|------------------------| | Rochdale Borough Council | q1006524 04/03/2016 | £22,213.32 | XN LEISURE SYSTEMS LTD | SOFTWARE | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENTS | | Rochdale Borough Council | q1006533 04/03/2016 | £25,000.00 | MANCHESTER METROPOLITAN UNIVERSITY | ACTIVITIES | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENTS | | Rochdale Borough Council | q1006534 04/03/2016 | £14,450.00 | OPTEVIA LTD | PURCHASE OF ICT SOFTWARE | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENTS | | Rochdale Borough Council | s1020071 04/03/2016 | £5,077.00 | K P DODD CONSTRUCTION LIMITED | TRANSACTIONS-EXPENDITURE | PHYSICAL DISABILITIES & OLDER PEOPLE | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1056719 07/03/2016 | £76,250.00 | STOCKPORT MBC | ACTIVITIES | ECONOMY DIRECTORATE | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1056726 07/03/2016 | £33,889.00 | WICKSTEED LEISURE LIMITED | PURCHASE OF OTHER EQUIPMENT | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENTS | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1056730 07/03/2016 | £24,212.00 | M N PROPERTY CONSULTANTS | INSURANCE | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENTS | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1056732 07/03/2016 | £28,719.00 | WICKSTEED LEISURE LIMITED | PURCHASE OF OTHER EQUIPMENT | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENTS | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1056752 07/03/2016 | £10,243.28 | BURNT TREE GROUP | TRANSACTIONS-EXPENDITURE | HYGIENE EQUIPMENT | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1056761 07/03/2016 | £8,311.54 | PHS GROUP PLC | EQUIPMENT | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENTS | | Rochdale Borough Council | e1020097 07/03/2016 | £6,999.93 | ROC NORTHWEST LTD | OTHER LA’S - SEN PROVISION | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | | Rochdale Borough Council | ph101209 07/03/2016 | £268,556.00 | VIRGIN CARE SERVICES LIMITED | PH PENNINE CARE CONTRACT | PUBLIC HEALTH | | Rochdale Borough Council | q1006546 07/03/2016 | £41,391.20 | SPECIALIST COMPUTER CENTRES PLC | PURCHASE OF ICT HARDWARE | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENTS | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1056765 08/03/2016 | £12,762.81 | ASPINALL INTERIORS | IMPROVEMENTS-NTS-MODERNISATION | ECONOMY DIRECTORATE | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1056783 08/03/2016 | £9,000.00 | PAC TRAINING | ACTIVITIES | ECONOMY DIRECTORATE | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1056789 | 08/03/2016 | £5,840.00 | ROCHDALE MEMORIAL SERVICE | FIXTURES & FITTINGS | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENTS | |--------------------------|----------|------------|-----------|---------------------------|---------------------|-------------------------------| | Rochdale Borough Council | d1056806 | 08/03/2016 | £6,117.90 | R S G (ROCHDALE) LIMITED | TRANSACTIONS EXPENDITURE | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENTS | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1056806 | 08/03/2016 | £6,117.90 | R S G (ROCHDALE) LIMITED | TRANSACTIONS EXPENDITURE | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENTS | | Rochdale Borough Council | q1006552 | 08/03/2016 | £7,382.00 | SOFTCAT LTD | SOFTWARE | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENTS | | Rochdale Borough Council | q1006553 | 08/03/2016 | £10,000.00 | TEAM NETSOL LTD | PURCHASE OF ICT SOFTWARE | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENTS | | Rochdale Borough Council | q1006556 | 08/03/2016 | £7,162.40 | TRAFFORD MBC | ADVERTISING STAFF | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENTS | | Rochdale Borough Council | q1006557 | 08/03/2016 | £40,045.00 | MIDLAND SOFTWARE LTD | SOFTWARE | FINANCE SERVICES | | Rochdale Borough Council | q1006559 | 08/03/2016 | £10,000.00 | ACCESS INTELLIGENCE MEDIA AND CARITAS CARE LTD | PUBLICITY | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENTS | | Rochdale Borough Council | x1012297 | 08/03/2016 | £18,000.00 | | ADOPTION PAYMENTS | CHILDREN'S SOCIAL CARE | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1056818 | 09/03/2016 | £35,663.00 | SALFORD CITY COUNCIL | AGMA | ECONOMY DIRECTORATE | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1056838 | 09/03/2016 | £25,000.00 | A E YATES LTD | MAINTENANCE | PROPERTY AND HIGHWAYS | | Rochdale Borough Council | e1020111 | 09/03/2016 | £11,600.00 | BEVAN BRITTAN LLP | CONSULTANTS FEES | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | | Rochdale Borough Council | e1020115 | 09/03/2016 | £22,719.28 | AXIOM EDUCATION (ROCHDALE) | MEALS | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | | Rochdale Borough Council | e1020121 | 09/03/2016 | £655,830.49 | AXIOM EDUCATION (ROCHDALE) | PFI SCHEMES RPIX | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | | Rochdale Borough Council | e1020122 | 09/03/2016 | £104,141.00 | AXIOM EDUCATION (ROCHDALE) | DEV CAP - NEW CONSTRUCTION | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | | Rochdale Borough Council | e1020124 | 09/03/2016 | £19,894.00 | PENNINE CARE NHS | TEACHERS - BASIC | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | | Rochdale Borough Council | 09/03/2016 | £13,193.00 | LANCASHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL SOCIAL CARE NETWORK SOLUTIONS LTD | OTHER EST - SEN PROVISION TRAINING | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | |--------------------------|------------|------------|-------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------|------------------------| | Rochdale Borough Council | 09/03/2016 | £5,100.00 | NHS HEYWOOD MIDDLETON AND ROCHDALE LINK4LIFE (CHARITY) | CONTRACTS | PHYSICAL DIS & OLDER PEOPLE | | Rochdale Borough Council | 10/03/2016 | £7,000.00 | AECOM INFRASTRUCTURE AND BURNT TREE GROUP | TRAINING-QUALIFICATION SURVEYORS FEES | NEIGHBOURHOOD OODS AND ENVIRONMENTS | | Rochdale Borough Council | 10/03/2016 | £19,995.00 | NORTHGATE VEHICLE HIRE LIMITED A E YATES LTD | TRANSACTIONS-EXPENDITURE MAINTENANCE | NEIGHBOURHOOD OODS AND ENVIRONMENTS | | Rochdale Borough Council | 10/03/2016 | £9,527.78 | TURNING POINT SERVICES LIMITED ME LEARNING LIMITED | CONTRACTED SERVICES | NEIGHBOURHOOD OODS AND ENVIRONMENTS | | Rochdale Borough Council | 10/03/2016 | £5,155.00 | SOCIAL CARE NETWORK SOLUTIONS LTD | TRAINING | PHYSICAL DIS & OLDER PEOPLE | | Rochdale Borough Council | 10/03/2016 | £155,000.00| UPDATA INFRASTRUCTURE UK LTD | COMMUNICATION AND COMPUTING SERVICE | NEIGHBOURHOOD OODS AND ENVIRONMENTS | | Rochdale Borough Council | 10/03/2016 | £42,714.00 | PENNINE CARE NHS | COMMUNICATION AND COMPUTING SERVICE | NEIGHBOURHOOD OODS AND ENVIRONMENTS | | Rochdale Borough Council | 10/03/2016 | £6,600.00 | PENNINE CARE NHS | COMMUNICATION AND COMPUTING SERVICE | NEIGHBOURHOOD OODS AND ENVIRONMENTS | | Rochdale Borough Council | 10/03/2016 | £7,497.00 | PENNINE CARE NHS | COMMUNICATION AND COMPUTING SERVICE | NEIGHBOURHOOD OODS AND ENVIRONMENTS | | Rochdale Borough Council | 10/03/2016 | £12,565.00 | BOLTON MBC | ADVERTISING | CHILDREN’S SOCIAL CARE | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1056900 | 11/03/2016 | £45,971.52 | KABERRY CONSTRUCTION LIMITED | MAINTENANCE AND HIGHWAYS | PROPERTY | |--------------------------|----------|------------|------------|-----------------------------|--------------------------|---------| | Borough Council | q1006595 | 11/03/2016 | £14,360.00 | FISCHER EDUCATION PROJECT LTD | SOFTWARE | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENTS | | Borough Council | q1006602 | 11/03/2016 | £23,100.00 | XMA LIMITED | PURCHASE OF ICT HARDWARE | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENTS | | Borough Council | s1020117 | 11/03/2016 | £26,632.73 | K P DODD CONSTRUCTION LIMITED | IMPROVEMENTS-EXTENSIONS | PHYSICAL DIS & OLDER PEOPLE | | Borough Council | s1020123 | 11/03/2016 | £5,181.00 | STANNAH LIFT SERVICES LTD | IMPROVEMENTS-EXTENSIONS | PHYSICAL DIS & OLDER PEOPLE | | Borough Council | s1020126 | 11/03/2016 | £7,725.00 | NEWLINE ADAPTATIONS LTD | IMPROVEMENTS-EXTENSIONS | PHYSICAL DIS & OLDER PEOPLE | | Borough Council | d1056923 | 14/03/2016 | £137,641.93 | CANAL & RIVER TRUST | MAINTENANCE | ECONOMY DIRECTORATE | | Borough Council | d1056924 | 14/03/2016 | £137,641.93 | CANAL & RIVER TRUST | MAINTENANCE | ECONOMY DIRECTORATE | | Borough Council | d1056951 | 14/03/2016 | £7,779.20 | TEACRATE PLC | PROPERTY - WORKS ELEMENT ACTIVITIES | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENTS | | Borough Council | e1020177 | 14/03/2016 | £10,385.21 | SPORT WORKS | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | | Borough Council | e1020178 | 14/03/2016 | £18,314.20 | ROSS CARE | GENERAL | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | | Borough Council | s1020129 | 14/03/2016 | £7,750.00 | COUNCIL FOR VOLUNTARY SERVICE | VOLUNTARY ASSOCIATIONS | PHYSICAL DIS & OLDER PEOPLE | | Borough Council | s1020130 | 14/03/2016 | £15,680.00 | COUNCIL FOR VOLUNTARY SERVICE | VOLUNTARY ASSOCIATIONS | PHYSICAL DIS & OLDER PEOPLE | | Borough Council | d1056978 | 15/03/2016 | £318,348.74 | VBA JOINT VENTURE LTD | NEW CONSTRUCTION | ECONOMY DIRECTORATE | | Borough Council | d1057003 | 15/03/2016 | £5,520.00 | ENCOME ENERGY PERFORMANCE | PURCHASE OF PLANT AND MACHINERY | ECONOMY DIRECTORATE | | Borough Council | e1020208 | 15/03/2016 | £381,662.99 | INSPIREDSPACES ROCHDALE PROJECT CO1 | IMPROVEMENTS-EXTENSIONS | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | | Rochdale Borough Council | f1004567 | 15/03/2016 | £50,000.00 | CAPITA BUSINESS SERVICES | SOFTWARE | FINANCE SERVICES | |--------------------------|----------|------------|------------|--------------------------|----------|------------------| | Rochdale Borough Council | f1004568 | 15/03/2016 | £15,823.43 | CAPITA BUSINESS SERVICES | SOFTWARE | FINANCE SERVICES | | Rochdale Borough Council | q1006622 | 15/03/2016 | £51,660.00 | UPDATA INFRASTRUCTURE UK LTD | COMMUNICATION AND COMPUTING CONTRACTS | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENTS BETTER CARE FUND POOLED | | Rochdale Borough Council | s1020141 | 15/03/2016 | £458,333.00 | THE PENNINE ACUTE HOSPITALS NHS ISAAC BUTTERWORTH (IRONFOUNDER) MAYER EXCAVATION AND SKIP HIRE MERITEC LIMITED | EQUIPMENT - GENERAL | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENTS | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1057023 | 16/03/2016 | £9,950.00 | TEAM NETSOL LTD | SOFTWARE | FINANCE SERVICES | | Rochdale Borough Council | f1004571 | 16/03/2016 | £23,107.50 | HERMAN MILLER LTD | EQUIPMENT - GENERAL | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENTS | | Rochdale Borough Council | q1006632 | 16/03/2016 | £56,882.00 | CAPITA BUSINESS SERVICES | SOFTWARE | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENTS | | Rochdale Borough Council | q1006633 | 16/03/2016 | £8,757.32 | CDEC LIMITED | PURCHASE OF ICT HARDWARE SOFTWARE | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENTS | | Rochdale Borough Council | q1006634 | 16/03/2016 | £5,950.00 | EDENHOUSE SOLUTIONS LTD | SOFTWARE | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENTS | | Rochdale Borough Council | q1006635 | 16/03/2016 | £14,340.88 | IHS (GLOBAL)LTD | SOFTWARE | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENTS | | Rochdale Borough Council | q1006636 | 16/03/2016 | £9,321.00 | EXPERIAN LIMITED | ACTIVITIES | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENTS | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1057049 | 17/03/2016 | £27,500.00 | OLDHAM & ROCHDALE GROUNDWORK ENVIRONMENT AGENCY | OTHER SURVEYS ENGINEERS FEES | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENTS ECONOMY DIRECTORATE | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1057052 | 17/03/2016 | £75,738.87 | | | | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1057053 | 17/03/2016 | £8,285.00 | MARCHBRIDGE BUILDERS LIMITED | IMPROVEMENTS - MODERNISATION | PROPERTY AND HIGHWAYS | MARCHBRIDGE BUILDERS LIMITED | IMPROVEMENTS - MODERNISATION | PROPERTY AND HIGHWAYS | |--------------------------|----------|------------|-----------|-------------------------------|-----------------------------|------------------------|-----------------------------|-----------------------------|------------------------| | Rochdale Borough Council | d1057054 | 17/03/2016 | £6,650.00 | TOMAX BUILDING SERVICES LTD | TRANSACTIONS - EXPENDITURE | PROPERTY AND HIGHWAYS | TOMAX BUILDING SERVICES LTD | TRANSACTIONS - EXPENDITURE | PROPERTY AND HIGHWAYS | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1057059 | 17/03/2016 | £11,250.00 | BROXAP LIMITED | EQUIPMENT - GENERAL | PROPERTY AND HIGHWAYS | BROXAP LIMITED | EQUIPMENT - GENERAL | PROPERTY AND HIGHWAYS | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1057060 | 17/03/2016 | £10,125.00 | MRM STREET FURNITURE LTD | EQUIPMENT - GENERAL | PROPERTY AND HIGHWAYS | MRM STREET FURNITURE LTD | EQUIPMENT - GENERAL | PROPERTY AND HIGHWAYS | | Rochdale Borough Council | e1020232 | 17/03/2016 | £10,681.00 | TAMESIDE METROPOLITAN BOROUGH MENCAP | OTHER EST - SEN PROVISION SUPPORTED LIVING | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | TAMESIDE METROPOLITAN BOROUGH MENCAP | OTHER EST - SEN PROVISION SUPPORTED LIVING | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | | Rochdale Borough Council | s1020148 | 17/03/2016 | £33,346.00 | MENCAP SUPPORTED LIVING | LEARNING DIS & MENTAL HEALTH | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | MENCAP SUPPORTED LIVING | LEARNING DIS & MENTAL HEALTH | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | | Rochdale Borough Council | x1012328 | 17/03/2016 | £6,900.00 | BOLTON MBC | ADVERTISING | CHILDREN'S SOCIAL CARE | BOLTON MBC | ADVERTISING | CHILDREN'S SOCIAL CARE | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1057071 | 18/03/2016 | £9,000.00 | PIPER MUSIC MANAGEMENT LTD | EVENTS | ECONOMY DIRECTORATE | PIPER MUSIC MANAGEMENT LTD | EVENTS | ECONOMY DIRECTORATE | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1057086 | 18/03/2016 | £36,416.00 | TRANSPORT FOR GREATER MANCHESTER | BUS EXPENSES | ECONOMY DIRECTORATE | TRANSPORT FOR GREATER MANCHESTER | BUS EXPENSES | ECONOMY DIRECTORATE | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1057088 | 18/03/2016 | £14,125.00 | DOBSON UK LTD | EQUIPMENT - GENERAL | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENTS | DOBSON UK LTD | EQUIPMENT - GENERAL | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENTS | | Rochdale Borough Council | e1020247 | 18/03/2016 | £57,671.00 | HOPWOOD HALL COLLEGE | OTHER EST - SEN PROVISION | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | HOPWOOD HALL COLLEGE | OTHER EST - SEN PROVISION | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | | Rochdale Borough Council | e1020248 | 18/03/2016 | £57,671.00 | HOPWOOD HALL COLLEGE | OTHER EST - SEN PROVISION | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | HOPWOOD HALL COLLEGE | OTHER EST - SEN PROVISION | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | | Rochdale Borough Council | q1006649 | 18/03/2016 | £9,995.00 | THE CHILDRENS SOCIETY SERVICES LTD | ACTIVITIES | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENTS | THE CHILDRENS SOCIETY SERVICES LTD | ACTIVITIES | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENTS | | Rochdale Borough Council | q1006652 | 18/03/2016 | £47,087.00 | PROCESSFLOWS UK LTD | SOFTWARE | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENTS | PROCESSFLOWS UK LTD | SOFTWARE | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENTS | | Rochdale Borough Council | q1006658 | 18/03/2016 | £5,248.92 | NATIONAL CONSORTIUM FOR MODERN MINDSET LTD | SOFTWARE | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENTS | NATIONAL CONSORTIUM FOR MODERN MINDSET LTD | SOFTWARE | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENTS | | Rochdale Borough Council | q1006659 | 18/03/2016 | £7,010.00 | NATIONAL CONSORTIUM FOR MODERN MINDSET LTD | SOFTWARE | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENTS | NATIONAL CONSORTIUM FOR MODERN MINDSET LTD | SOFTWARE | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENTS | | Location | Reference | Date | Amount | Supplier | Description | |-------------------|-----------|------------|----------|-----------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------| | Rochdale Borough | q1006660 | 18/03/2016 | £9,745.00| GRAITEC LIMITED | SOFTWARE NEIGHBOURHOOD OODS AND ENVIRONMENTS | | Council | | | | | | | Rochdale Borough | q1006662 | 18/03/2016 | £106,572.52| CAPITA BUSINESS SERVICES | SOFTWARE NEIGHBOURHOOD OODS AND ENVIRONMENTS | | Council | | | | OPEN OBJECTS SOFTWARE LTD | | | Rochdale Borough | q1006663 | 18/03/2016 | £15,750.00| PHOENIX SOFTWARE LIMITED | SOFTWARE NEIGHBOURHOOD OODS AND ENVIRONMENTS | | Council | | | | | | | Rochdale Borough | q1006664 | 18/03/2016 | £37,800.00| CARIBOU GREEN WARMTH LLP | PROPERTY REFURBISHMENT NEIGHBOURHOOD OODS AND ENVIRONMENTS | | Council | d1057117 | 21/03/2016 | £46,297.84| CARIBOU GREEN WARMTH LLP | PROPERTY REFURBISHMENT NEIGHBOURHOOD OODS AND ENVIRONMENTS | | Rochdale Borough | d1057119 | 21/03/2016 | £61,024.36| CARIBOU GREEN WARMTH LLP | PROPERTY REFURBISHMENT NEIGHBOURHOOD OODS AND ENVIRONMENTS | | Council | | | | | | | Rochdale Borough | d1057120 | 21/03/2016 | £33,181.19| CARIBOU GREEN WARMTH LLP | PROPERTY REFURBISHMENT NEIGHBOURHOOD OODS AND ENVIRONMENTS | | Council | | | | | | | Rochdale Borough | d1057124 | 21/03/2016 | £31,706.21| OLDHAM & ROCHDALE GROUNDWORK TRUST LTD | FEES - CONSTRUCTION NEIGHBOURHOOD OODS AND ENVIRONMENTS | | Council | | | | PETRUS | | | Rochdale Borough | d1057125 | 21/03/2016 | £23,293.79| PENNINE CARE NHS | HEALTH AUTHORITY SERVICE LEVEL EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | | Council | e1020260 | 21/03/2016 | £5,863.18 | | | | Rochdale Borough | q1006671 | 21/03/2016 | £42,058.17| CIVICA UK LIMITED | SOFTWARE NEIGHBOURHOOD OODS AND ENVIRONMENTS | | Council | | | | | | | Rochdale Borough | s1020159 | 21/03/2016 | £156,068.00| HEALTHWATCH ROCHDALE | SERVICE LEVEL AGREEMENTS MAINTENANCE PHYSICAL DIS & OLDER PEOPLE | | Council | | | | | | | Rochdale Borough | d1057130 | 22/03/2016 | £5,668.50 | F W SHERRATT LTD | MAINTENANCE NEIGHBOURHOOD OODS AND ENVIRONMENTS | | Council | | | | | | | Rochdale Borough | d1057131 | 22/03/2016 | £8,500.00 | F W SHERRATT LTD | MAINTENANCE NEIGHBOURHOOD OODS AND ENVIRONMENTS | | Council | | | | | | | Rochdale Borough | d1057133 | 22/03/2016 | £20,000.00| PETRUS | ACTIVITIES NEIGHBOURHOOD OODS AND ENVIRONMENTS | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1057153 | 22/03/2016 | £14,254.70 | DOBSON UK LTD | EQUIPMENT - GENERAL | NEIGHBOURHOOD OODS AND ENVIRONMENTS | |--------------------------|----------|------------|------------|------------------|---------------------|-----------------------------------| | Rochdale Borough Council | d1057172 | 22/03/2016 | £11,250.00 | BROXAP LIMITED | EQUIPMENT - GENERAL | NEIGHBOURHOOD OODS AND ENVIRONMENTS | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1057175 | 22/03/2016 | £355,105.22 | COMMUNITY LIGHTING PARTNERSHIP | TRAFFORD MBC | OTHER EST - SEN PROVISION | | Rochdale Borough Council | e1020273 | 22/03/2016 | £9,928.66 | STHREE PARTNERSHIP LLP | CAPITAL SALARIES | NEIGHBOURHOOD OODS AND ENVIRONMENTS | | Rochdale Borough Council | q1006676 | 22/03/2016 | £6,400.00 | STHREE PARTNERSHIP LLP | CAPITAL SALARIES | NEIGHBOURHOOD OODS AND ENVIRONMENTS | | Rochdale Borough Council | q1006677 | 22/03/2016 | £6,420.00 | STHREE PARTNERSHIP LLP | CONTRACTS | NEIGHBOURHOOD OODS AND ENVIRONMENTS | | Rochdale Borough Council | w1001313 | 22/03/2016 | £36,733.25 | NHS HEYWOOD MIDDLETON AND ROCHDALE | THE BOND BOARD LIMITED | ACTIVITIES | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1057194 | 23/03/2016 | £12,500.00 | BRENTWOOD | GRANTS TO THE VOLUNTARY FEES - CONSTRUCTION | NEIGHBOURHOOD OODS AND ENVIRONMENTS | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1057199 | 23/03/2016 | £5,500.00 | ROCHDALE HOUSING INITIATIVE | FEES - CONSTRUCTION | NEIGHBOURHOOD OODS AND ENVIRONMENTS | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1057201 | 23/03/2016 | £10,000.00 | ROCHDALE HOUSING INITIATIVE | FEES - CONSTRUCTION | NEIGHBOURHOOD OODS AND ENVIRONMENTS | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1057202 | 23/03/2016 | £107,764.38 | ROCHDALE HOUSING INITIATIVE | FEES - CONSTRUCTION | NEIGHBOURHOOD OODS AND ENVIRONMENTS | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1057204 | 23/03/2016 | £10,456.00 | NO GRAFFITI LTD | MAINTENANCE | NEIGHBOURHOOD OODS AND ENVIRONMENTS | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1057210 | 23/03/2016 | £5,000.00 | A E YATES LTD | MAINTENANCE | NEIGHBOURHOOD OODS AND ENVIRONMENTS | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1057224 | 23/03/2016 | £9,400.00 | NSL LIMITED | MAINTENANCE | NEIGHBOURHOOD OODS AND ENVIRONMENTS | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1057232 | 23/03/2016 | £50,000.00 | A E YATES LTD | MAINTENANCE | NEIGHBOURHOOD OODS AND ENVIRONMENTS | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1057233 | 23/03/2016 | £126,820.80 | CARIBOU GREEN WARMTH LLP | PROPERTY REFURBISHMENT | NEIGHBOURHOOD OODS AND ENVIRONMENTS | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1057234 | 23/03/2016 | £126,820.80 | CARIBOU GREEN WARMTH LLP | PROPERTY REFURBISHMENT CONTRACTED SERVICES | NEIGHBOURHOOD OODS AND ENVIRONMENTS | |--------------------------|----------|------------|-------------|--------------------------|------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------| | Rochdale Borough Council | d1057236 | 23/03/2016 | £7,400.00 | NO GRAFFITI LTD | | NEIGHBOURHOOD OODS AND ENVIRONMENTS | | Rochdale Borough Council | q1006689 | 23/03/2016 | £24,516.61 | CIVICA UK LIMITED | SOFTWARE | NEIGHBOURHOOD OODS AND ENVIRONMENTS | | Rochdale Borough Council | q1006690 | 23/03/2016 | £22,139.67 | CIVICA UK LIMITED | SOFTWARE | NEIGHBOURHOOD OODS AND ENVIRONMENTS | | Rochdale Borough Council | s1020174 | 23/03/2016 | £7,500.00 | ELDERCARE UK LTD | EQUIPMENT - GENERAL | PHYSICAL DIS & OLDER PEOPLE | | Rochdale Borough Council | w1001314 | 23/03/2016 | £22,770.71 | NHS HEYWOOD MIDDLETON AND ROCHDALE CONTRACTS | BETTER CARE FUND POOLED | NEIGHBOURHOOD OODS AND ENVIRONMENTS | | Rochdale Borough Council | w1001315 | 23/03/2016 | £16,587.34 | NHS HEYWOOD MIDDLETON AND ROCHDALE CONTRACTS | BETTER CARE FUND POOLED | NEIGHBOURHOOD OODS AND ENVIRONMENTS | | Rochdale Borough Council | w1001316 | 23/03/2016 | £24,500.00 | NHS HEYWOOD MIDDLETON AND ROCHDALE CONTRACTS | BETTER CARE FUND POOLED | NEIGHBOURHOOD OODS AND ENVIRONMENTS | | Rochdale Borough Council | w1001319 | 23/03/2016 | £16,581.33 | NHS HEYWOOD MIDDLETON AND ROCHDALE CONTRACTS | BETTER CARE FUND POOLED | NEIGHBOURHOOD OODS AND ENVIRONMENTS | | Rochdale Borough Council | w1001320 | 23/03/2016 | £36,733.25 | NHS HEYWOOD MIDDLETON AND ROCHDALE CONTRACTS | BETTER CARE FUND POOLED | NEIGHBOURHOOD OODS AND ENVIRONMENTS | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1057247 | 24/03/2016 | £5,000.00 | NORDEN AGRICULTURAL CONTRACTORS | EQUIPMENT - GENERAL | NEIGHBOURHOOD OODS AND ENVIRONMENTS | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1057253 | 24/03/2016 | £35,950.00 | CREATIVE AND CULTURAL INDUSTRIES LTD. | ACTIVITIES | ECONOMY DIRECTORATE | | Rochdale Borough Council | e1020320 | 24/03/2016 | £7,000.00 | ROCHDALE CONNECTION TRUST | TRAINING | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | | Rochdale Borough Council | q1006700 | 24/03/2016 | £18,275.75 | CAPITA IT SERVICES LIMITED | SOFTWARE | NEIGHBOURHOOD OODS AND ENVIRONMENTS | | Rochdale Borough Council | q1006706 | 24/03/2016 | £6,000.00 | CAPITA CHILDREN’S SERVICES | SOFTWARE | NEIGHBOURHOOD OODS AND ENVIRONMENTS | | Rochdale Borough Council | q1006707 | 24/03/2016 | £48,250.00 | LIQUIDLOGIC LTD | PURCHASE OF ICT SOFTWARE | PHYSICAL DIS & OLDER PEOPLE | | Description | Reference | Date | Amount | Supplier | Service Level Agreement | Other AGENCIES | Fund | |----------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------|------------|------------|------------------------|-------------------------|----------------|-----------------------| | Rochdale Borough Council | q1006708 | 24/03/2016 | £10,500.00 | MIDLAND SOFTWARE LTD | SOFTWARE | NEIGHBOURHOOD OODS AND ENVIRONMENTS | NEIGHBOURHOOD OODS AND ENVIRONMENTS | | Rochdale Borough Council | q1006711 | 24/03/2016 | £76,229.00 | MIDLAND SOFTWARE LTD | SOFTWARE | NEIGHBOURHOOD OODS AND ENVIRONMENTS | NEIGHBOURHOOD OODS AND ENVIRONMENTS | | Rochdale Borough Council | s1020179 | 24/03/2016 | £28,000.00 | ROSS CARE | SERVICE LEVEL AGREEMENTS | SUPPORTED LIVING | PHYSICAL DIS & OLDER PEOPLE | | Rochdale Borough Council | s1020183 | 24/03/2016 | £33,436.00 | MENCAP | | | LEARNING DIS & MENTAL HEALTH | | Rochdale Borough Council | w1001321 | 24/03/2016 | £56,955.24 | ROSS CARE | OTHER AGENCIES | | BETTER CARE FUND POOLED | | Rochdale Borough Council | w1001322 | 24/03/2016 | £54,601.61 | ROSS CARE | OTHER AGENCIES | | BETTER CARE FUND POOLED | | Rochdale Borough Council | w1001323 | 24/03/2016 | £51,374.61 | ROSS CARE | OTHER AGENCIES | | BETTER CARE FUND POOLED | | Rochdale Borough Council | w1001324 | 24/03/2016 | £50,242.86 | ROSS CARE | OTHER AGENCIES | | BETTER CARE FUND POOLED | | Rochdale Borough Council | x1012362 | 24/03/2016 | £5,487.00 | YOUTH JUSTICE BOARD | SERVICE LEVEL AGREEMENTS | | CHILDREN'S SOCIAL CARE | | Rochdale Borough Council | x1012364 | 24/03/2016 | £9,940.00 | YOUTH JUSTICE BOARD | SERVICE LEVEL AGREEMENTS | | CHILDREN'S SOCIAL CARE | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1057264 | 29/03/2016 | £5,000.00 | A E YATES LTD | MAINTENANCE | | PROPERTY AND HIGHWAYS EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | | Rochdale Borough Council | e1020335 | 29/03/2016 | £5,176.00 | CREATIVE CARE LTD. | HOME CARE - CHILDRENS SERVICES | PH BIG LIFE CONTRACT | PUBLIC HEALTH | | Rochdale Borough Council | ph101253 | 29/03/2016 | £50,000.00 | BIG LIFE CENTRES | IT MAINTENANCE | | LEARNING DIS & MENTAL HEALTH | | Rochdale Borough Council | s1020188 | 29/03/2016 | £34,779.60 | FACE RECORDING & MEASUREMENT | IT MAINTENANCE | | LEARNING DIS & MENTAL HEALTH | | Rochdale Borough Council | s1020189 | 29/03/2016 | £9,498.00 | FACE RECORDING & MEASUREMENT | IT MAINTENANCE | | LEARNING DIS & MENTAL HEALTH | | Rochdale Borough Council | x1012366 | 29/03/2016 | £33,332.00 | CAREERVISION LTD | SOFTWARE | | CHILDREN'S SOCIAL CARE | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1057305 | 30/03/2016 | £44,506.00 | OLDHAM & ROCHDALE GROUNDWORK SAFEGARD SECURITY SOLUTIONS ROCHDALE MEMORIAL SERVICE PSYCHOLOGY PEOPLE | PROPERTY REFURBISHMENT REPAIRS & ALTS OF BUILDINGS FIXTURES & FITTINGS | NEIGHBOURHOOD OODS AND ENVIRONMENTS ECONOMY DIRECTORATE | |-------------------------|----------|------------|------------|-------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------| | Rochdale Borough Council | d1057351 | 30/03/2016 | £7,838.49 | SAFEGARD SECURITY SOLUTIONS ROCHDALE MEMORIAL SERVICE PSYCHOLOGY PEOPLE | BASIC SALARIES | NEIGHBOURHOOD OODS AND ENVIRONMENTS ECONOMY DIRECTORATE | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1057355 | 30/03/2016 | £8,030.00 | SAFEGARD SECURITY SOLUTIONS ROCHDALE MEMORIAL SERVICE PSYCHOLOGY PEOPLE | BASIC SALARIES | NEIGHBOURHOOD OODS AND ENVIRONMENTS ECONOMY DIRECTORATE | | Rochdale Borough Council | e1020342 | 30/03/2016 | £5,700.00 | SAFEGARD SECURITY SOLUTIONS ROCHDALE MEMORIAL SERVICE PSYCHOLOGY PEOPLE | BASIC SALARIES | NEIGHBOURHOOD OODS AND ENVIRONMENTS ECONOMY DIRECTORATE | | Rochdale Borough Council | f1004590 | 30/03/2016 | £11,975.68 | SAFEGARD SECURITY SOLUTIONS ROCHDALE MEMORIAL SERVICE PSYCHOLOGY PEOPLE | BASIC SALARIES | NEIGHBOURHOOD OODS AND ENVIRONMENTS ECONOMY DIRECTORATE | | Rochdale Borough Council | f1004592 | 30/03/2016 | £14,000.00 | SAFEGARD SECURITY SOLUTIONS ROCHDALE MEMORIAL SERVICE PSYCHOLOGY PEOPLE | BASIC SALARIES | NEIGHBOURHOOD OODS AND ENVIRONMENTS ECONOMY DIRECTORATE | | Rochdale Borough Council | ph101260 | 30/03/2016 | £604,030.00| SAFEGARD SECURITY SOLUTIONS ROCHDALE MEMORIAL SERVICE PSYCHOLOGY PEOPLE | BASIC SALARIES | NEIGHBOURHOOD OODS AND ENVIRONMENTS ECONOMY DIRECTORATE | | Rochdale Borough Council | q1006725 | 30/03/2016 | £7,808.00 | SAFEGARD SECURITY SOLUTIONS ROCHDALE MEMORIAL SERVICE PSYCHOLOGY PEOPLE | BASIC SALARIES | NEIGHBOURHOOD OODS AND ENVIRONMENTS ECONOMY DIRECTORATE | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1057379 | 31/03/2016 | £83,405.00 | SAFEGARD SECURITY SOLUTIONS ROCHDALE MEMORIAL SERVICE PSYCHOLOGY PEOPLE | BASIC SALARIES | NEIGHBOURHOOD OODS AND ENVIRONMENTS ECONOMY DIRECTORATE | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1057382 | 31/03/2016 | £31,928.70 | SAFEGARD SECURITY SOLUTIONS ROCHDALE MEMORIAL SERVICE PSYCHOLOGY PEOPLE | BASIC SALARIES | NEIGHBOURHOOD OODS AND ENVIRONMENTS ECONOMY DIRECTORATE | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1057385 | 31/03/2016 | £7,133.00 | SAFEGARD SECURITY SOLUTIONS ROCHDALE MEMORIAL SERVICE PSYCHOLOGY PEOPLE | BASIC SALARIES | NEIGHBOURHOOD OODS AND ENVIRONMENTS ECONOMY DIRECTORATE | | Rochdale Borough Council | e1020343 | 31/03/2016 | £12,572.98 | SAFEGARD SECURITY SOLUTIONS ROCHDALE MEMORIAL SERVICE PSYCHOLOGY PEOPLE | BASIC SALARIES | NEIGHBOURHOOD OODS AND ENVIRONMENTS ECONOMY DIRECTORATE | | Rochdale Borough Council | e1020345 | 31/03/2016 | £13,968.98 | SAFEGARD SECURITY SOLUTIONS ROCHDALE MEMORIAL SERVICE PSYCHOLOGY PEOPLE | BASIC SALARIES | NEIGHBOURHOOD OODS AND ENVIRONMENTS ECONOMY DIRECTORATE | | Rochdale Borough Council | e1020353 | 31/03/2016 | £57,671.00 | SAFEGARD SECURITY SOLUTIONS ROCHDALE MEMORIAL SERVICE PSYCHOLOGY PEOPLE | BASIC SALARIES | NEIGHBOURHOOD OODS AND ENVIRONMENTS ECONOMY DIRECTORATE | | Rochdale Borough Council | q1006741 | 31/03/2016 | £5,727.04 | SAFEGARD SECURITY SOLUTIONS ROCHDALE MEMORIAL SERVICE PSYCHOLOGY PEOPLE | BASIC SALARIES | NEIGHBOURHOOD OODS AND ENVIRONMENTS ECONOMY DIRECTORATE |
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/0236-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 30,
"total-input-tokens": 112265,
"total-output-tokens": 30813,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
2410,
1
],
[
2410,
4681,
2
],
[
4681,
6437,
3
],
[
6437,
8491,
4
],
[
8491,
10277,
5
],
[
10277,
15289,
6
],
[
15289,
17597,
7
],
[
17597,
19901,
8
],
[
19901,
22081,
9
],
[
22081,
23966,
10
],
[
23966,
26070,
11
],
[
26070,
28649,
12
],
[
28649,
30997,
13
],
[
30997,
35241,
14
],
[
35241,
37374,
15
],
[
37374,
39889,
16
],
[
39889,
42658,
17
],
[
42658,
46037,
18
],
[
46037,
48230,
19
],
[
48230,
50588,
20
],
[
50588,
52901,
21
],
[
52901,
55154,
22
],
[
55154,
57523,
23
],
[
57523,
59535,
24
],
[
59535,
63291,
25
],
[
63291,
67616,
26
],
[
67616,
70083,
27
],
[
70083,
72888,
28
],
[
72888,
76811,
29
],
[
76811,
80335,
30
]
]
} |
d42c3cbf4cf320b454f44c800a19ac3556eae1c5 | 2016 UK GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS, PROVISIONAL FIGURES
Statistical Release: National Statistics
30 March 2017
## Contents
Executive Summary .................................................................................................................. 3 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 5 2016 annual provisional emissions results .............................................................................. 7 Energy Supply ......................................................................................................................... 10 Residential ............................................................................................................................. 12 Transport ................................................................................................................................. 13 Business ................................................................................................................................ 13 Industrial process .................................................................................................................. 14 Public sector .......................................................................................................................... 14 Agriculture; waste management; and land use, land use change and forestry .................. 14 Carbon dioxide emissions by fuel type .................................................................................... 15 2016 temperature adjusted provisional emissions results by sector .................................... 17 Additional Information ............................................................................................................. 19 Coverage of emissions reporting ......................................................................................... 19 Basis of the provisional emissions estimates ...................................................................... 19 Quarterly totals ...................................................................................................................... 20 Temperature adjustment ....................................................................................................... 20 Revisions to the quarterly provisional emissions estimates .............................................. 20 Future updates to emissions estimates ................................................................................. 21 Further information .............................................................................................................. 21 Background notes .................................................................................................................. 21 Executive Summary
This publication provides the latest estimates of 1990-2016 UK greenhouse gas emissions which are presented in carbon dioxide equivalent units throughout this statistical release.
Key findings
The provisional emissions figures rely on estimates of carbon dioxide emissions based on UK energy statistics. In 2016, UK net emissions of carbon dioxide were provisionally estimated to be 374.1 million tonnes (Mt), 7.4 per cent lower than the 2015 figure of 403.8 Mt. Carbon dioxide (CO$\_2$) is the main greenhouse gas, accounting for over 81 per cent of total UK greenhouse gas emissions.
This decrease in emissions was mainly caused by:
- Reductions in carbon dioxide emissions in the energy supply sector, down 18.7 per cent (25.4 MtCO$\_2$e) driven by a large decrease in power station emissions due to a change in the fuel mix for electricity generation, with less use of coal (as a result of reduced capacity and conversion of a unit at Drax to biomass) and increased use of gas.
- A decrease of 10.3 per cent (7.1 MtCO$\_2$e) in the business sector, driven by a reduction in emissions from manufactured solid fuels, following the closure of SSI steelworks at Redcar in September 2015.
Total carbon dioxide emissions on a temperature adjusted basis for 2016 were 378.2 Mt, 1.0 per cent higher than actual emissions. This reflects the fact that temperatures in 2016 were slightly higher than the long term average.
The sectoral breakdowns for provisional emissions are based on the source of the emissions. Emissions related to electricity generation are therefore attributed to power stations, the source of these emissions, rather than homes and businesses where electricity is used. Executive Summary
Figure 1: Summary of key findings
2016 UK greenhouse gas emissions provisionally estimated to decrease from 2015
Reduction in emissions mainly due to decrease in the use of coal for electricity generation
2015-2016 % change 1990-2016 % change
Energy supply 19% 54% Industrial process 13% 46% Business 10% 45% Transport 1% 1% Residential 4% 15% Public 5% 37%
Total Greenhouse Gas emissions 466 MtCO₂e Carbon dioxide emissions 374 MtCO₂e
2016 temperature adjusted greenhouse gas emissions were higher than actual emissions
Higher temperature adjusted emissions reflects the fact that temperatures in 2016 were slightly warmer than the long term average
2015 annual average temperature warmer than long term average by 0.4°C 2016 annual average temperature warmer than long term average by 0.4°C
Temperature adjusted emissions estimates remove the effect of external temperatures Figures are annual totals including the preceding 4 quarters.
The energy supply sector experienced the largest reduction in CO₂ emissions from 2015 to 2016
Reduction in energy supply CO₂ emissions driven by change in fuel mix for electricity generation in 2016, with less use of coal and more use of nuclear and renewables Introduction
This publication provides provisional annual and quarterly estimates of UK greenhouse gas emissions by source sector for 2016. This publication also provides an estimate of temperature adjusted emissions, which give an idea of overall trends in emissions without fluctuations due to changes in external temperature.
Data for 1990-2015 are consistent with the annual emissions presented in the National Statistics publication ‘2015 Final UK Greenhouse Gas Emissions statistics’. Data for 2016 emissions are provisional and are calculated based on UK energy statistics.
The provisional estimates of carbon dioxide emissions are based on provisional inland energy consumption statistics, which are being published at the same time in DECC’s quarterly Energy Trends publication. Estimates of non-CO₂ gases are based on a simple approach which assumes that emissions of non-CO₂ gases in 2016 will be the same as emissions in 2015, and that these emissions will be spread evenly over the year.
Quarterly emissions estimates are presented as a moving annual total up to a particular quarter. For example when quarterly emissions are presented as up to quarter 4, 2016, this represent an annual total comprising the latest quarter (quarter 4 2016) and the preceding 3 quarters (quarters 1, 2 and 3 of 2016). Presenting the data in this way has some advantages over presenting data for single quarters, since seasonal fluctuations are smoothed out and long term trends highlighted. Data on emissions in individual quarters are available in the Excel spread sheet data tables published alongside this publication.
There are uncertainties associated with all estimates of greenhouse gas emissions. Although for any given year considerable uncertainties may surround the emissions estimates for a pollutant, it is important to note that trends over time are likely to be much more reliable. It is also important to note that the provisional 2016 estimates are subject to a greater range of uncertainty than the final figures for earlier years. For more information on uncertainties see the annex published alongside the 2015 Final UK Greenhouse Gas Emissions statistics. For the purposes of reporting, greenhouse gas emissions are allocated into sectors as follows:
- Energy supply
- Business
- Transport
- Public
- Residential
- Agriculture
- Industrial process
- Land use, land use change and forestry (LULUCF)
- Waste management
These high-level sectors are made up of a number of more detailed sectors, which follow the definitions set out by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and which are used in international reporting tables which are submitted to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) every year.
The provisional estimates are not used for any formal reporting of how the UK is performing against its emissions reduction targets, as this requires final estimates based on the UK’s greenhouse gas inventory. However, these statistics give policy makers and other users an initial steer as to the trend in emissions between 2015 and 2016, which helps them to form an initial assessment of the extent to which the UK is on track to meet targets. For information on UK emissions targets and progress towards them, see the 2015 Final UK Greenhouse Gas Emissions statistics.
More information about the underlying methodology for the quarterly emissions statistics can be found in the accompanying methodology document.
Note that all 2016 greenhouse gas emissions and energy statistics figures in this statistics release are provisional and subject to change. The annual provisional emissions estimates will be subject to revision when the final estimates are published in February 2018; however, they provide an early indication of emissions in the most recent full calendar year. The majority of provisional estimates in the past have been within 2 per cent of the final figures. 2016 annual provisional emissions results
In 2016, an estimated 30 per cent of carbon dioxide emissions were from the energy supply sector, 32 per cent from transport, 16 per cent from business and 18 per cent from the residential sector.
Between 2015 and 2016, provisional estimates indicate that carbon dioxide emissions decreased by 7.4 per cent (29.8 million tonnes (Mt)). Emissions in the energy supply sector decreased by 18.7 per cent (25.4 Mt), driven by a change in the fuel mix for electricity generation, with less use of coal (as a result of reduced capacity and conversion of a unit at Drax to biomass) and increased use of gas. Business sector emissions decreased by 10.0 per cent (7.1 Mt) due to a reduction in the use of manufactured solid fuels following the closure of SSI steelworks at Redcar in September 2015. Emissions increased by 4.5 per cent (2.8 Mt) in the residential sector due to an increase in the use of natural gas for space heating, and there was also a small increase of 0.9 per cent in emissions from the transport sector.
Since 1990, UK carbon dioxide emissions have decreased by 37 per cent. This decrease has resulted mainly from changes in the mix of fuels being used for electricity generation, including the growth of renewables, together with greater efficiency resulting from improvements in technology and a decline in the relative importance of energy intensive industries. Overall energy consumption is provisionally estimated to have decreased by around 10 per cent since 1990 (although it increased up to 2001 and has decreased since then). If this figure is adjusted to allow for the effect of temperature, energy consumption has fallen by around 13 per cent between 1990 and 2016. Table 1: UK Annual Greenhouse Gas Emissions 1990-2016, headline results
UK, 1990-2016
| | 1990 | 1995 | 2000 | 2005 | 2010 | 2015 | 2016 (p) | |----------------------|------|------|------|------|------|------|----------| | Energy supply | | | | | | | | | from power stations | 242.1| 210.0| 203.3| 218.7| 196.6| 136.4| 110.9 | | other Energy supply | 202.9| 162.7| 158.0| 172.7| 156.9| 102.9| 77.9 | | Business | 111.6| 108.7| 108.8| 96.9 | 78.4 | 68.6 | 61.5 | | Transport | 119.2| 119.4| 124.5| 128.8| 119.0| 118.8| 119.8 | | Public | 13.4 | 13.2 | 12.1 | 11.1 | 9.7 | 8.1 | 8.5 | | Residential | 78.4 | 79.7 | 85.6 | 82.5 | 84.5 | 63.4 | 66.3 | | Agriculture | 7.0 | 7.1 | 5.7 | 5.6 | 5.2 | 5.2 | 5.2 | | Industrial process | 19.4 | 17.7 | 17.0 | 16.4 | 10.6 | 12.1 | 10.6 | | Waste management | 1.3 | 0.9 | 0.5 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | | LULUCF | 3.2 | 0.6 | -1.8 | -5.2 | -7.5 | -8.9 | -8.9 | | Total CO₂ | 595.7| 557.5| 555.7| 555.2| 496.7| 403.8| 374.1 | | Other greenhouse gases| 203.3| 191.0| 154.1| 130.6| 109.2| 91.9 | 91.9 | | **Total greenhouse gases** | **799.0** | **748.5** | **709.7** | **685.8** | **605.9** | **495.7** | **466.0** |
Source: Table 1, Provisional UK greenhouse gas emissions national statistics 1990-2016 Excel data tables
Notes:
1. (p) 2016 estimates are provisional.
2. Provisional 2016 CO₂ emissions for the agriculture, waste and LULUCF sectors are assumed to be the same as 2015 estimates as unlike other CO₂ estimates these cannot be estimated from energy statistics.
3. The entire time series is revised each year to take account of methodological improvements in the UK emissions inventory.
4. Emissions are presented as carbon dioxide equivalent in line with international reporting and carbon trading. To convert carbon dioxide into carbon equivalents, divide figures by 44/12.
5. Figures shown do not include any adjustment for the effect of the EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS), which was introduced in 2005.
6. Totals for CO₂ emissions, energy supply and total greenhouse gases may not sum due to rounding.
7. Estimates of non-CO₂ gases are based on a simple approach which assumes that emissions of non-CO₂ gases in 2016 will be the same as emissions in 2015. Both the non-adjusted and the temperature corrected series show a general decreasing trend since 2009. On a temperature adjusted basis, emissions remained relatively flat during the period between early 2010 and 2012, while non-adjusted emissions were much more variable during this period, showing that much of the fluctuation in the non-adjusted series can be attributed to changes in energy use due to varying external temperatures. In particular, Q4 2010 was 2.4 degrees (Celsius) lower than the long term average, while temperatures in Q4 2012 and Q1 2013 were 0.5 and 1.8 degrees (Celsius) lower than the long term average.
During 2013, 2014 and 2015 both temperature adjusted and non-adjusted emissions have fallen. Energy Supply
The energy supply sector was the largest contributor to the decrease in carbon dioxide emissions between 2015 and 2016. Carbon dioxide emissions from this sector were provisionally estimated to be 110.9 Mt in 2016, a decrease of 19 per cent (25.4 Mt) compared to 2015.
Since 2015 emissions from power stations have decreased by 24 per cent, largely due to changes to the fuel mix used at power stations for electricity generation. In particular there was a 59 per cent decrease in coal use for generation (as a result of reduced capacity and conversion of a unit at Drax to biomass) and an increase in use of gas. In 2016, carbon dioxide emissions from power stations, at 77.9 Mt, accounted for a fifth of all carbon dioxide emissions.
Looking at longer term trends, carbon dioxide emissions from the energy supply sector were estimated to be around 54 per cent lower in 2016 than they were in 1990. This decrease has resulted mainly from changes in the mix of fuels being used for electricity generation, including fuel switching from coal to gas and the growth of renewables, together with greater efficiency resulting from improvements in technology.
There has been an overall decline in the use of coal at power stations over the period (particularly during the 1990s), accompanied by an overall increase in the use of gas, which has a lower carbon content. Coal use in generation is estimated to have reduced by 85 per cent between 1990 and 2016.
Overall, emissions from electricity generation have decreased by 62 per cent since 1990, despite final consumption of electricity being provisionally estimated to be around 13 per cent higher in 2016 than in 1990 (although it peaked in 2005 and has decreased since then). Figure 3: Fuel mix for UK electricity generation, UK, 1990-2016, (Million tonnes of oil equivalent)
Source: Table 5.1.1, Digest of UK Energy Statistics (DUKES) 1970-2015 and Table 5.1 Energy Trends: March 2017 Excel data tables
Note: (p) 2016 estimates are provisional.
Figure 4: Carbon dioxide emissions from electricity generation, UK, 1990-2016, (MtCO₂)
Source: Tables 1 & 2, Provisional UK greenhouse gas emissions national statistics 1990-2016 Excel data tables
Note: (p) 2016 estimates are provisional. Residential
In 2016, the residential sector, with emissions of 66.3 Mt, accounted for 18 per cent of all carbon dioxide emissions. Between 2015 and 2016 there was a 4.5 per cent (2.8 Mt) increase in emissions from this sector. Whilst the average temperature for both years was similar the months of November and December were both over 3 degrees Celsius cooler on average when compared to the same months in 2015 which has contributed to an increase in the use of natural gas for space heating.
The main source of emissions from this sector is the use of natural gas for heating and cooking. Since 2004 there has been a general downward trend in emissions, although 2010 and 2012 were exceptions to this, due to the particularly cold weather experienced in 2010 and warm weather in 2011. In 2016, emissions from this sector were 15 per cent lower than in 1990.
It should be noted that emissions from this sector do not include those related to domestic electricity consumption, as these emissions are included in the energy supply sector. Transport
In 2016, carbon dioxide emissions from the transport sector, at 119.8 Mt, accounted for 32 per cent of all carbon dioxide emissions. Between 2015 and 2016, transport emissions increased by 0.9 per cent (1.0 Mt). Provisional motor vehicle traffic estimates show that vehicle kilometres travelled increased in 2016(^1) resulting in a higher use of fuel.
Emissions from this sector are similar to 1990 levels. Road transport is the most significant source of emissions in this sector, in particular passenger cars. Emissions from passenger cars have decreased since the early 2000s due to lower petrol consumption outweighing an increase in diesel consumption(^2) and, more recently, improvements in fuel efficiency of both petrol and diesel cars(^3). However, this decrease has been partially offset by an increase in emissions from light goods vehicles.
It should be noted that these estimates do not include emissions from international aviation and shipping; domestic aviation and shipping, however, are included.
Business
Carbon dioxide emissions from the business sector, at 61.5 Mt, accounted for around 16 per cent of all carbon dioxide emissions in 2016. This was 10.3 per cent (7.1 Mt) lower than in 2015, largely due to a reduction the use of manufactured solid fuels following the closure of SSI steelworks at Redcar in September 2015.
There has been a 45 per cent decrease in business sector emissions since 1990. Most of this decrease came between 2001 and 2009, with a significant drop in 2009 likely driven by economic factors. The main driver of the overall decrease in emissions since 1990 is a reduction in emissions from industrial combustion (including iron and steel).
______________________________________________________________________
(^1) Provisional Road Traffic estimates, Great Britain: January 2015 to December 2015 https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/provisional-road-traffic-estimates-great-britain-january-2015-to-december-2015
(^2) Transport Statistics Great Britain, Energy and environment (TSGB03), Table TSGB0301 (ENV0101) Petroleum consumption by transport mode and fuel type: United Kingdom, 2000-2015 https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/transport-statistics-great-britain-2016
(^3) Transport Statistics Great Britain, Energy and environment (TSGB03), Table TSGB0301 (ENV0103) Average new car fuel consumption: Great Britain 1997-2015 https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/tsgb03 Industrial process
In 2016, carbon dioxide emissions from the industrial process sector were estimated to be 10.6 Mt, a decrease of 13.0 per cent (1.5 Mt) compared with 2015. Between 1990 and 2016, emissions from this sector are estimated to have decreased by around 46 per cent driven by a reduction in emissions from cement production due to lower manufacturing output from this sector.
Public sector
Carbon dioxide emissions from the public sector, at 8.5 Mt, were estimated to have increased by about 5.2 per cent (0.4 Mt) from 2015 emissions. This has been largely driven by an increase in the use of gas for space heating as a result of 2016 being a cooler year than 2015. Between 1990 and 2016, emissions from this sector are estimated to have decreased by around 37 per cent.
Agriculture; waste management; and land use, land use change and forestry
Updated emissions estimates for these sectors are not yet available for 2016, so for these statistics, emissions from these sectors are assumed to be the same as they were in 2015(^4).
______________________________________________________________________
(^4) Final UK greenhouse gas emissions national statistics https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/final-uk-greenhouse-gas-emissions-national-statistics The amount of carbon dioxide released by the consumption of one unit of energy depends on the type of fuel consumed. For example, since coal has a higher carbon content than gas, more carbon dioxide emissions result from burning one unit of coal than from one unit of gas.
Emissions per unit of electricity supplied by major power producers from fossil fuels are estimated to have been around 440 tonnes of carbon dioxide per gigawatt hour (GWh) overall in 2016; within this, emissions from electricity generated from coal (880 tonnes of carbon dioxide per GWh electricity supplied) were over two times higher than for electricity supplied by gas (330 tonnes of carbon dioxide per GWh). For all sources of electricity (including nuclear, renewables and autogeneration), the average amount of carbon dioxide emitted in 2016 amounted to around 220 tonnes per GWh of electricity supplied.
In 2016, carbon dioxide emissions from the use of fossil fuels, including fuel used for generating electricity, were estimated at 365.9 Mt. This was 8 per cent lower than the 2015 figure of 395.6 Mt. The biggest change in emissions was from the use of coal, down 39.3 Mt (54 per cent) from 72.7 Mt in 2015 to 33.4 Mt in 2016. This largely resulted from a change in the fuel mix for electricity generation, with less use of coal (as a result of reduced capacity and conversion of a unit at Drax to biomass) and increased use of gas.
Over the period 1990 to 2016, carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels decreased by 36 per cent. Over the same period, overall primary consumption of fossil fuels has dropped by around 20 per cent. The relatively higher decrease in emissions can be attributed to an increase in the use of gas accompanied by a decrease in the use of coal and other solid fuels; carbon dioxide emissions from gas as a proportion of all carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels has increased from 24 per cent in 1990 to 48 per cent in 2016, whilst emissions from coal as a proportion of all fossil fuel carbon dioxide emissions has decreased from 37 per cent to 9 per cent over the same period. The proportion of carbon dioxide emissions from oil has remained relatively stable over the period at around a third of emissions.
### Table 2: UK Carbon dioxide emissions by fuel
UK, 1990-2016
| | 1990 | 1995 | 2000 | 2005 | 2010 | 2015 | 2016 (p) | |----------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|----------| | Gas | 145.9 | 188.5 | 241.5 | 235.4 | 228.4 | 171.8 | 181.4 | | Oil | 191.6 | 179.6 | 168.1 | 170.2 | 150.7 | 143.8 | 144.6 | | Coal | 219.2 | 152.0 | 117.0 | 124.9 | 100.9 | 72.7 | 33.4 | | Other solid fuels | 14.1 | 13.3 | 11.5 | 10.1 | 8.9 | 7.3 | 6.5 | | Non-fuel | 24.9 | 24.0 | 17.6 | 14.6 | 7.8 | 8.2 | 8.2 | | **Total** | 595.7 | 557.5 | 555.7 | 555.2 | 496.7 | 403.8 | 374.1 |
Source: Table 2, Provisional UK greenhouse gas emissions national statistics 1990-2016 Excel data tables
Note: (p) 2016 estimates are provisional.
### Figure 6: Carbon dioxide emissions by fossil fuels, UK, 1990-2016, (MtCO₂)
Source: Table 2, Provisional UK greenhouse gas emissions national statistics 1990-2016 Excel data tables
Note: (p) 2016 estimates are provisional. 2016 temperature adjusted provisional emissions results by sector
A temperature adjustment has been applied to the quarterly CO₂ emissions, in order to estimate what the overall trend of emissions would have been without the impact of external temperatures. Table 3 compares temperature adjusted and unadjusted quarterly CO₂ emissions by sector.
Table 3: Actual and temperature adjusted Carbon dioxide emissions by sector UK, Year to Q4 2016
| Sector | Total CO₂ emissions | Temperature adjusted CO₂ emissions | Difference (MtCO₂) | Difference (%) | |-----------------|---------------------|-----------------------------------|--------------------|----------------| | Energy supply | 110.9 | 112.2 | 1.2 | 1.1% | | Business | 61.5 | 62.1 | 0.6 | 1.0% | | Transport | 119.8 | 119.8 | 0.0 | 0.0% | | Public | 8.5 | 8.7 | 0.2 | 2.0% | | Residential | 66.3 | 68.4 | 2.1 | 3.2% | | Other | 7.1 | 7.1 | 0.0 | 0.0% | | **Total CO₂** | **374.1** | **378.2** | **4.1** | **1.1%** |
Source: Tables 3 & 4, Provisional UK greenhouse gas emissions national statistics 1990-2016 Excel data tables
Note: 1. Figures for “Total CO₂” and “Difference” may be different to the sum of those presented in the table due to rounding.
The sectors most influenced by temperature are residential and energy supply. With respect to the residential sector in particular, if temperatures increase there is a decrease in demand for space heating, resulting in a decrease in emissions. The reverse is true if temperatures decrease.
Figures 7 and 8 below show the trend for these two sectors. Temperature adjusted emissions from the energy supply sector show a similar trend to non-adjusted emissions. In the residential sector, the difference between actual and temperature adjusted emissions is much more noticeable than in other sectors, reflecting the fact that this is the sector in which energy consumption and emissions are most sensitive to external temperatures. On a temperature adjusted basis, residential emissions have remained relatively flat since 2009, while the trend for non-adjusted emissions is much more variable over the same time period. Temperature adjusted emissions in the residential sector have decreased by around 6 per cent compared to the year to Q1 2009, while non-adjusted emissions have decreased by around 18 per cent over the same period. Additional Information
Coverage of emissions reporting
The basket of greenhouse gases covered by these statistics is based on that covered by the Kyoto Protocol, and consists of seven gases: carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, sulphur hexafluoride and nitrogen trifluoride. The last four gases are collectively referred to as fluorinated gases or F gases. In accordance with international reporting and carbon trading protocols, each of these gases is weighted by its global warming potential (GWP), so that total greenhouse gas emissions can be reported on a consistent basis. The GWP for each gas is defined as its warming influence relative to that of carbon dioxide. Greenhouse gas emissions are then presented in carbon dioxide equivalent units.
Carbon dioxide (CO₂) is reported in terms of net emissions, which means total emissions from burning fuel minus total removals of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere by carbon sinks. Carbon sinks are incorporated within the land use, land use change and forestry (LULUCF) sector, which covers afforestation, reforestation, deforestation and forest management. They are defined by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) as "any process, activity or mechanism which removes a greenhouse gas, an aerosol or a precursor of a greenhouse gas from the atmosphere".
Unless otherwise stated, any figures included in this release represent emissions from within the UK and excludes its Crown Dependencies (Jersey, Guernsey, and the Isle of Man) and overseas territories. Figures are expressed in millions of tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (MtCO₂e).
Basis of the provisional emissions estimates
The estimates of carbon dioxide emissions have been produced based on provisional inland energy consumption statistics which are published in DECC’s quarterly Energy Trends publication.
Carbon dioxide accounts for the majority of UK greenhouse gas emissions (82 per cent in 2015). However, in order to give an indication of what the latest provisional carbon dioxide emissions estimates imply for the total, we need to also produce an estimate of emissions of the remaining non-CO₂ gases. Estimates of non-CO₂ gases are based on a simple approach which assumes that emissions of non-CO₂ gases in 2016 will be the same as emissions in 2015, and that these emissions will be spread evenly over the year. Quarterly totals
In order to remove the seasonality in the data so that a trend in emissions over time can be observed, quarterly emissions are reported as annual totals, covering the stated quarter plus the preceding three quarters. When data becomes available for each new quarter, the estimates for the latest quarter are added to the total, while at the same time the estimates for the same quarter from the previous year are removed from the series. This procedure serves to smooth out short-term fluctuations and highlights long term trends, and can be used to show the underlying trend each quarter. Emissions estimates for each individual quarter are reported in the data tables accompanying this publication.
Temperature adjustment
Carbon dioxide emissions are indirectly influenced by external temperatures. During the winter months, emissions are generally higher than in summer months, due to higher demand for fuel for space heating. During a particularly cold winter for example, it is likely that more fuel will be burnt for domestic or commercial use than during an average winter, and therefore emissions will be higher due to the additional fuel consumption.
Temperature adjusted quarterly emissions estimates therefore remove the effect of external temperatures. In a particularly cold winter quarter, for example, this will result in temperature adjusted emissions being lower than actual emissions, reflecting the lower fuel consumption which would have occurred if temperatures had been at average levels (based on the 30 year period 1981-2010). The temperature adjustment to emissions has been applied for the months from September to April inclusive; in any given calendar year, it will therefore be applied in the period from January to April, and then again from September to December. Temperature adjustment is determined by the average number of heating degree days in each quarter. This information can be found in Energy Trends.
Further details of how quarterly emissions have been estimated and of the methodology underlying the temperature adjusted estimates can be found alongside this statistical release in a separate methodology summary.
Revisions to the quarterly provisional emissions estimates
It should be noted that the quarterly emissions time series may be revised annually reflect any revisions made to either the underlying energy data or to the UK greenhouse gas inventory. Emissions from 2009-2015 are consistent with final UK greenhouse gas emissions statistics from 1990-2015. Emissions estimates for 2016 are provisional and are based on UK energy statistics. More information on the timing of revisions to the underlying data can be found in the methodology summary. Future updates to emissions estimates
Final estimates of UK greenhouse gas emissions for 2016 will be published as National Statistics on 6th February 2018. These estimates will be based on the UK’s Greenhouse Gas Inventory for 2016.
Provisional estimates help us to understand the latest trend in emissions, and will provide an early indication of this trend ahead of the final annual figures being available from our greenhouse gas emissions inventory. We recommend that users look at this trend rather than any absolute figures.
It is important to note that these figures are based on provisional energy data and are subject to change. The sectoral breakdown is given mainly for information, and is included in the publication for completeness, but sectoral estimates are more uncertain than the total.
Further information
Further information on UK greenhouse gas emissions statistics, including Excel tables with additional data on UK emissions, can be found on the Gov.uk website at:
https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/uk-greenhouse-gas-emissions-statistics
The latest UK energy statistics, including revisions to earlier years’ data, can be found in the Energy Trends quarterly bulletin produced by BEIS. Any enquiries about the Energy Trends report should be sent to [email protected].
Background notes
1. A full set of data tables can be accessed via the Final UK greenhouse gas emissions national statistics pages of the Gov.uk website.
2. The background quality report provides a summary of quality issues relating to statistics on UK greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
3. The latest UK energy statistics, including revisions to earlier years’ data, can be found in the 2016 Digest of UK Energy Statistics.
4. Detailed UK temperature data can be found on both the Met Office website and the Weather Statistics section of the Gov.uk website.
5. When emissions are measured on this basis, UK emissions account for less than 2 per cent of the global total, based on a range of estimates produced by the UN, the IEA, the World Resources Institute and the EIA, amongst others.
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/0239-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 23,
"total-input-tokens": 52456,
"total-output-tokens": 9214,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
111,
1
],
[
111,
111,
2
],
[
111,
2874,
3
],
[
2874,
4583,
4
],
[
4583,
5813,
5
],
[
5813,
7990,
6
],
[
7990,
9758,
7
],
[
9758,
11492,
8
],
[
11492,
13928,
9
],
[
13928,
14652,
10
],
[
14652,
16395,
11
],
[
16395,
16909,
12
],
[
16909,
17951,
13
],
[
17951,
20358,
14
],
[
20358,
21571,
15
],
[
21571,
23803,
16
],
[
23803,
24802,
17
],
[
24802,
26992,
18
],
[
26992,
27665,
19
],
[
27665,
30083,
20
],
[
30083,
32808,
21
],
[
32808,
34920,
22
],
[
34920,
34920,
23
]
]
} |
c5cefe249743a1043957713932822dc50deb91b7 | 2016 UK Provisional Greenhouse Gas Emissions
2016 UK greenhouse gas emissions provisionally estimated to decrease from 2015
Reduction in emissions mainly due to decrease in the use of coal for electricity generation
2015-2016 % change 1990-2016 % change
Total Greenhouse Gas emissions 6% 42% Carbon dioxide emissions 7% 37%
2016 temperature adjusted greenhouse gas emissions were higher than actual emissions
Higher temperature adjusted emissions reflects the fact that temperatures in 2016 were slightly warmer than the long term average
2015 annual average temperature warmer than long term average by 0.4°C 2016 annual average temperature warmer than long term average by 0.4°C
Temperature adjusted emissions estimates remove the effect of external temperatures Figures are annual totals including the preceding 4 quarters.
The energy supply sector experienced the largest reduction in CO₂ emissions from 2015 to 2016
Reduction in energy supply CO₂ emissions driven by change in fuel mix for electricity generation in 2016, with less use of coal and more use of nuclear and renewables
Energy supply 2015-2016 % change 1990-2016 % change Industrial process 19% 54% Business 13% 46% Transport 10% 45% Residential 1% 15% Public 4% 37%
Further information: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/provisional-uk-greenhouse-gas-emissions-national-statistics Enquiries: [email protected] Responsible statistician: Amanda Penistone Tel: 0300 068 8090
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/0240-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 1,
"total-input-tokens": 3755,
"total-output-tokens": 448,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
1479,
1
]
]
} |
2e61eb901bd053549c2c2d37d5aa5829918fe550 | Clwyd Management Catchment Summary Contents
1. Background to the Clwyd Management Catchment summary ........................................3
2. The Clwyd Management Catchment ........................................................................4
3. Current Status of the water environment ..................................................................7
4. The main challenges ..................................................................................................9
5. Objectives and measures ..........................................................................................11
6. Water Watch Wales ..................................................................................................18
7. Background to the Clwyd Management Catchment summary
This management catchment summary supports the 2015 updated Western Wales River Basin Management Plan (RBMP). Along with detailed information on the Water Watch Wales (WWW) website, this summary will help to inform and support delivery of local environmental improvements to our groundwater, rivers, lakes, estuaries and coasts. Information on WWW can be found in Section 6.
Natural Resources Wales has adopted the ecosystem approach from catchment to coast. This means being more joined up in how we manage the environment and its natural resources to deliver economic, social and environmental benefits for a healthier, more resilient Wales. It means considering the environment as a whole, so that all those with an interest in the catchment weigh up the evidence and set priorities for the many competing demands on our natural resources in a more integrated way and achieve our shared ambition for the place.
The Water Framework Directive (WFD) provides a major overarching framework for river basin management. The Floods Directive sets out a strategic approach to flood risk management planning. An updated Flood Risk Management Plan (FRMP) has been produced in parallel to the 2015 updated Western Wales RBMP Summary. The FRMP details how we propose to manage flood risk across the river basin district by prioritising those communities that are most at risk of flooding and detailing the measures we intend to take to manage their risk.
The FRMP and the RBMP together will shape important decisions, direct investment and action, and deliver significant benefits to society and the environment. 2. The Clwyd Management Catchment
Figure 1. Clwyd Management Catchment map The Clwyd has its headwaters in Clocaenog forest and the Elwy, a major tributary, rises slightly to the west in the Hiraethog moors. Agriculture dominates the largely rural Clwyd catchment. Mixed livestock rearing is a feature of the upper catchment along with areas of forestry such as at Clocaenog. Dairying and some arable crops are more common in the fertile lowlands. Part of the lower catchment is a nitrate vulnerable zone for both surface and groundwater. The lower part of the Clwyd was canalised in medieval times from Rhuddlan to the sea. Modified natural lakes provide public water supplies, and the main river Clwyd is supported by ground water augmentation when flows are naturally low. Populations are centred on Ruthin, Denbigh, St Asaph and Rhyl. Tourism is important to the local economy. The Clwydian range and Dee Valley Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty is a popular location for walkers and contains several Iron Age hill forts. The coastal plain has EU designated bathing waters at Rhyl, Prestatyn and Kinmel Bay. The catchment is also important for salmon and sea trout fishing.
In February 2014 a Clwyd catchment workshop was held at Glyndŵr University, St Asaph. During this event the benefits of the catchment were captured. These included:
- Tourism & recreation - bathing beaches, fishing, country parks, importance to local economy
- Food production - crops and livestock
- Carbon capture in the uplands
- Water supply - agriculture, drinking water both public and private supplies
- Forestry - multiple benefits e.g. timber, employment, flood control habitat creation, carbon sequestration
- Biodiversity - range of habitats and species, Clwyd particularly important for sewin (sea trout)
- Landscape value - visual amenity, designation as Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
Natural Resources Wales continues to work in partnership with a range of partners and sectors in innovative ways so that we can achieve even more together. A flavour of some of the projects that have been delivered within this management catchment over the last 3 years together with projects in development are included below:
**For further information on projects please refer to WWW**
Table 1. Partnership projects in the management catchment
| Project Name | Project Description | Partners | Funding sources | |-------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------|--------------------------------------| | Glanfyddion Cut Rhuddlan | Tidal flap with eel pass | Afonydd Cymru | European Fisheries Fund | | Elwy Habitat Project | Soft revetment and bank stabilisation | Coed Cymru, Conwy BC | Conwy County Borough Council, WFD TSO | | Habitat restoration on the Afon Corris | Fencing to improve habitat on the Afon Corris near Cyffylliog | Afonydd Cymru | WFD TSO fund | 2.1 Key facts We use the term water bodies to help understand and manage the water environment. A water body is part, or the whole, of a river, lake, ground water or coastal water. The number and type of water bodies in the management catchment is shown in the table below.
Table 2. Number and type of water bodies.
| Number of water bodies | Natural | Artificial | Heavily Modified | Total | |------------------------|---------|------------|------------------|-------| | River\* | 24 | 0 | 6 | 30 | | Lake | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | | Coastal | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | | Estuarine | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | | Groundwater | 3 | 0 | 0 | 3 | | Total | 27 | 0 | 9 | 36 |
\*River water bodies includes canals and surface water transfers
There are areas in the catchment where the water environment is recognised as being of particular importance, including rare wildlife habitats, bathing waters or areas around drinking water sources. These areas are known collectively as protected areas and are detailed in the table below.
Table 3. Number and type of protected area
| Protected Area | Number | |-----------------------------------------------------|--------| | Bathing Waters | 6 | | Drinking Water Protected Areas | 5 | | Natura 2000 and Ramsar sites | 6 | | Nitrate Vulnerable Zones | 13160ha| | Shellfish Waters | 0 | | Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive - Sensitive areas | 0 |
1 There are differences in water bodies and protected area numbers compared to the first cycle plans and draft second cycle plans. This is due to changes in the water body network as well as refinement of the mapping methodologies and rules between water bodies, management catchments and protected areas. 3. Current Status of the water environment
We assess the condition of water bodies through monitoring which produces an overall classification. The current status for each water body is shown in figure 2. Note, since 2009, we have updated some of the systems we use to classify water bodies, including changes to some standards and water body boundaries.
Within this management catchment 52% of surface waters are at good overall status, 42% at moderate and 6% at poor. There are no surface water bodies at high or bad overall status. Figure 2. Current status of the Clwyd Management Catchment (2015 classification) 4. The main challenges
We have carried out a programme of investigations to better understand the causes as to why water bodies are failing to meet the required standards. The results of our findings are summarised in Figure 3. The reasons for not achieving good status are listed under the Surface Water Management Issues (SWMI) in line with the updated RBMP. The graph below shows the number of water bodies listed under each SWMI to give an indication of the main issues in the management catchment, each water body may have more than one reason for not achieving good status. Acidification – the percentage of water bodies have been included with other SWMI categories.
Figure 3. Reason for not achieving good status in the Clwyd Management Catchment
Diffuse sources include sediment and phosphate inputs from agricultural and rural land management, which impact on a number of rivers in the Clwyd including the, Wheeler, Bach and the main river Clwyd. Discharges from wastewater treatment works contribute to phosphate failures in the main Clwyd and locally in some tributaries. Bathing waters are at risk from organisms that occur in waste effluent, originating from urban and rural runoff as well as discharges from wastewater treatment works.
4.1 Feedback on challenges
We need to work together to ensure the overall aims of the Water Framework Directive are met, in order to work together effectively we need to agree on the issues and solutions. The following section includes some of the issues that were raised as part of the workshop and the consultation; however it is not a full list.
- Upland land management and drainage affecting spates lower down catchment
- Flooding of domestic and business property, sewage works and land
- Diffuse pollution from urban areas and impact on bathing waters
- Diffuse pollution from rural land management - nutrients, sediments
- Predation of fish by birds, particularly impact on juvenile salmonids
- Invasive non-native species e.g. Himalayan balsam, signal crayfish Decline in aquatic habitats and species
Case study – the Gallen fish pass The Afon Gallen is a tributary of the Afon Clwyd and there are fewer numbers and species of fish than expected in this type of river so it has not reached good status. A disused weir was a barrier preventing fish including salmon, sea and brown trout from moving upstream to spawning areas. Land management practise is also causing run-off from tracks and sediment from the fields to get into the river.
Fish easement works were put in place by Afonydd Cymru, and involved decreasing the height of the jump by over a metre. A rocky ramp consisting of several pools was put in place to raise the downstream levels. The project has opened up over 20km of tributaries.
Afonydd Cymru has also carried out some habitat restoration work in the Gallen catchment. 300m of fencing and 75m of soft revetment improvement are complete, with a further similar sized habitat scheme planned. 5. Objectives and measures This section outlines what we are aiming to achieve and the measures that need to be put in place. We aim to develop a single integrated programme of measures by 2021 that meets Water Framework Directive objectives, including:
- **Prevent deterioration in status** Water body status will not be allowed to deteriorate from the current reported status.
- **Achieve the objectives for protected areas** Achieve the standards set by the relevant directive under which they were designated. For water dependent Natura 2000 sites we will aim to achieve conservation objectives, achieving good status by 2021 is a milestone towards this objective.
- **Aim to achieve good overall status for surface and ground waters** Implement measures to achieve good overall status where they are technically feasible and not disproportionately costly.
5.1 Measures We have reviewed the reasons why water bodies are failing to achieve objectives and identified required measures. Measures are divided into two groups:
**National measures** apply to the whole of Wales, or the United Kingdom. In general these set the legislative, policy or strategic approach. Examples include a national ban on using a particular chemical or a national strategy for prioritising and funding the remediation of abandoned mines. A list of planned national measures is available in the updated RBMP and Water Watch Wales.
**Local measures** are specific to the river basin district or a part of it. For example, the removal of invasive plants along a length of designated river or a local campaign targeting misconnections across an industrial estate. Many of the actions listed will also have multiple benefits. For example, sustainable urban drainage (SuDs) schemes help to reduce urban pollution, sewage pollution and changes to water levels. The table below summarises the types of local measures required for the management catchment, based on RNAG and protected area requirements. Including actions from the N2K Actions database that will help the SAC/SPA/Ramsar to achieve favourable conservation status for water dependant features; for example: implementation of appropriate coastal management.
The high level categories describe the types of action required and broadly the options that are available, including voluntary and regulatory measures. At the local scale some of the options described might not be considered appropriate. There is overlap between some categories. The table also shows the number of water bodies that require the measure type, the water body numbers in this table should be used as a guide to show the significance of the issue in the catchment, and these numbers will change through the course of the 6 year programme. Up to date Reasons for Not Achieving Good (RNAGs) data is available on WWW and should be referred to before scoping local measures.
Table 4. Proposed list of required local measure for the Clwyd Management Catchment
| Measure | Description | No. of water bodies | |----------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------| | Complete first cycle investigation | All ongoing WFD investigations from first cycle programme. | 9 | | Measure | Description | No. of water bodies | |----------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------| | Dredging and silt management | Includes reducing siltation at source through land management, and implementing sustainable dredging and silt disposal regimes. | 2 | | Improve fish passage and habitat | Remove or modify barriers to fish passage | 3 | | Manage invasive non-native species | Eradication and/or management of invasive non-native species in line with current national invasive species Action Plans. Includes biosecurity good practice, such as "CHECK-CLEAN-DRY" and Be Plant Wise. | 3 | | Mine water and contaminated land remediation | Coal and metal mine, and contaminated land remediation - including passive and active mine water treatment, capping of spoil, removal of wastes to landfill, and channel diversion | 2 | | Mitigate impacts of shipping, navigation and dredging | Assess and implement options for adapting dredging regimes and reducing the impacts of physical modifications. | 1 | | New Investigation | Includes investigations for all new failures, deterioration, and drinking water protected areas | 21 | | Reduce pollution from other waste water discharges | Reduce pollution from other (non-sewage) point sources, both regulated and unregulated. Investigate and implement basic pollution prevention measures, including provision of up to date advice and guidance, such as correct handling and storage of chemicals and waste, management of trade effluent, and regulation. | 1 | | Reduce pollution from septic tanks | Target actions to ensure septic tanks are maintained correctly. Where necessary issue formal works notices to owners to relocate or replace tanks and soakaways. | 3 | | Reduce pollution from sewage discharges | Reducing pollution from continuous and intermittent discharges, includes additional treatment at sewage treatment works (e.g. phosphate stripping), investigating and tackling sewer blockages, and implementing sustainable drainage to reduce surface water drainage to sewers. | 5 | | Sustainable access and recreation management | Reduce the impacts of erosion, disturbance and damage from both | 3 | | Measure | Description | No. of water bodies | |----------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------| | Sustainable agricultural practices | water-based and terrestrial access, including tackling illegal off-roading. | | | Sustainable marine development | Includes off-shore energy developments, such as oil and gas exploration and tidal energy. | 1 | | Sustainable woodland and forestry management | Restore the riparian zone, disconnect forest drains, monitor the effectiveness of the 5 principle risks associated with forestry and use forestry and woodland to reduce diffuse pollution. | 1 | | Tackle misconnections and urban diffuse pollution | Investigate and solve misconnections to surface water drains (at residential and commercial properties) and implement sustainable drainage schemes (SuDs) to reduce diffuse pollution. | 2 |
Details for specific local measures can be found on WWW, some examples of actions already under way in this catchment include:
- Addressing land management issues to improve overall fish habitat, for example improving migration in the Clywedog and Gallen
- Denbighshire County Council is identifying environmental issues and ways to maintain and enhance the environment in the short and long term
- Land owners and farmers are ensuring best practice to minimise the impact of farming and forestry activities on rivers, includes fencing schemes to create river corridors, soil testing and nutrient management plans
- Private dischargers and Welsh Water are ensuring appropriate treatment of sewage effluent, to minimise solids and nutrients entering the river system
- North Wales Wildlife Trust Alyn-Wheeler Living Landscapes project
- Natural Resources Wales has worked with partners on the Glanfyddion Cut, Bach, Wheeler – lower, Ystrad, Dŵr Ial, Hesbin, Corris, Clwyd – upstream of Hesbin and Gallen as part of our focus during the first river basin cycle.
- Afonydd Cymru working with a landowner in the Ystrad has installed a cattle crossing, provided fencing, gates, a water supply and drinking troughs.
- Afonydd Cymru are working with landowners in the Dŵr Ial to provide bankside fencing. A Muck to Money event was held in February 2014 in partnership with Farming Connect. The event aimed to improve understanding of the use of slurry to replace inorganic fertiliser and soil management to prevent compaction and run-off
- Elwy habitat project – Coed Cymru and Conwy County Borough Council, soft revetment, bank stabilisation, tree planting.
**Case study – Clwyd natural flood risk management**
Since the St Asaph floods in 2012 a review of existing flood defences in the Clwyd is underway. The Clwyd Natural Flood Risk Management project complements this. Managed by Cadwyn Clwyd, Rural Development Agency for Clwyd, in partnership with Natural Resources Wales, the project will identify benefits of natural flood risk management to ecosystem services in the catchment.
The aim is to alleviate flooding the lower catchment. The work will look at funding options for implementing some of the proposals at a catchment scale. Options may include tree planting, grip blocking or changes to farming practices. This is an opportunity to address concerns about flooding that were identified in the Clwyd catchment workshop in February 2014.
**5.2. Feedback on priorities and solutions**
Concerns on current status raised as part of the consultation and at the workshop have been highlighted in Section 4, solutions and priorities were also discussed. Of the issues raised, the following were flagged as priorities:
- **Diffuse pollution from urban areas, impact on bathing waters** **Proposed solutions include:** Ongoing DCWW catchment management "address at source" and asset improvement programme; education and awareness raising about residential and industrial misconnections, use community groups to help this; address highway drainage
- **Diffuse pollution from rural land management - nutrients, sediments** **Proposed solutions include:** Reduce soil erosion by targeting planting (e.g. maize) and education for NGOs/landowners on how river dynamics work. More riparian fencing (with maintenance agreements) and artificial wetlands needed to reduce nutrient and sediment loss. Adapt language and activity to make it relevant to landowners. Look at how Rural Development Plan could be used to help fund work.
- **Upland land management and drainage affecting spates lower down catchment** **Proposed solutions include:** Target woodland and heath management more for water, increased tree planting, grip blocking
- **Flooding of domestic and business property, sewage works and land** **Proposed solutions include:** Hold water in the uplands (see separate bullet point), prevent infiltration to sewer, more SUDS, ensure water can drain off flood plain, dredging and/or clearing debris from rivers (more dialogue and clarity needed between NRW and landowners), consider re-introducing local drainage board, improve coastal defences. Natural Flood Management – for example; riparian planting, reinstating flood plains, restoring coastal areas or returning watercourses back to their natural shape. These measures can play an important role in reducing flooding during smaller, more frequent, events while simultaneously delivering many other benefits.
- **Decline in aquatic habitats and species**
**Proposed solutions included:** restoration of peat bogs and ditch blocking to hold back the water, riparian habitat restoration to act as buffer strip from land runoff and help prevent erosion.
### 5.3 Target areas for 2015-21
We have worked across Natural Resources Wales to develop an affordable programme of local and national measures, based upon our current understanding of existing resources. Our focus is:
- Preventing deterioration in all water bodies
- Within the Western Wales RBD - improving compliance with good overall status in 21 water bodies that are currently moderate/poor, and also improving 4 poor water bodies to moderate.
- Targeting measures locally in an integrated way to deliver environmental improvements in WFD water bodies and Protected Areas, including areas protected for water habitats and species.
- Identifying where element level improvements will be achieved during the second cycle, but where further measures will be required to deliver an overall ecological status change.
- Developing our approach to natural resource management by working at a local catchment level and capturing the wider benefits delivered through WFD.
Table 5. Water bodies NRW will target in the Clwyd Management Catchment to achieve an improvement in status by 2021
| Water body ID | Name | Target status | Details | |-----------------|---------------|---------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------| | GB110066054690 | Corris | Good by 2021 | For further information on the target water bodies please refer to WWW | | GB110066059930 | Wheeler - lower | Moderate by 2021 | | | GB110066059920 | Wheeler - upper | Moderate by 2021 | | | GB110066054900 | Gallen | | |
**Investigations programme**
All water bodies for which the cause of adverse impact is as yet unknown require investigation. This applies in the case of both failing water bodies and those that have deteriorated over the first cycle. Natura 2000 programme – actions underway/planned The RBMP programme of measures must include any measures necessary to achieve compliance with standards and objectives for Natura 2000 (N2K) sites listed in the register of protected areas.
There are no priority actions for N2k sites within the Clwyd Management Catchment that are planned or underway however we have identified 13 priority actions which can be taken forward when opportunities arise. Further information on the Prioritised Improvement Plans (PIP) measures and required action information can be obtained by contacting NRW: [email protected].
The number of planned actions is low partly because it is difficult to assess what might be funded beyond 2015/16. Our ambition for the second cycle will develop as opportunities/resources become available.
We have also worked with stakeholders to develop and plan a number of strategic actions to support delivery of N2K objectives. These are included within the updated Programme of Measures.
Flood Risk Management Plan Measures Further information on local measures is available in the catchment summary section of the updated FRMP.
Know Your River – Salmon and Sea Trout Catchment Plans NRW collects a range of specific salmonid data for management purposes and this is presented in the local Salmon and Sea Trout Catchment Summaries. Salmonid specific tools, measures and data acquisition such as electrofishing results, declared catches and annual salmon egg deposition estimates are used to guide ongoing investment in fish passage and habitat restoration schemes. The summaries are updated annually and ensure that there is effective prioritisation in waterbodies to improve salmonid fisheries. The planned actions are always delivered in association with partners and contribute to enhancement and protection of this valuable resource in Wales. Further information can be obtained by contacting NRW: [email protected]
Water company programme Within the 2015 RBMP; there are a number of measures required of Water Companies. A funding allocation for these measures was included in company business plans submitted to Ofwat for the 2015-20 period. Natural Resources Wales and the Environment Agency will publish a revised National Environment Plan detailing all water company measures in early 2016. The National Environment Programme details improvements required to comply with all water quality legislation.
An outline of the measures included within this management catchment can be found in the table below, further information can be found on the WWW website.
Table 7. Water company investigation and improvement schemes
| Water body ID | Name | Outcome | |---------------|-----------------------------|----------------------------------------------| | GB110066054720| Dwr Ial | No deterioration scheme | | GB110066059990| Glanfyddion Cut | Achieve good ecological status. | | GB110066059960| Clwyd - tidal limit to Hesbin| | | GB110066059960| Clwyd - tidal limit to Hesbin| | | Water body ID | Name | Outcome | |--------------|------|---------| | GB110066059950 | Bach | Investigation to be carried out, where water company assets contribute to RNAGS | | GB110066054720 | Dwr Ial | | | GB110066059750 | Meirchion | | | GB110066059920, GB110066059930 | Wheeler (upper and lower) | | | GB110066059990 | Glanfyddion Cut | Coastal and network modelling to enable planning of how to meet WFD shellfish requirements. | | GB641011650000 | North Wales | Investigations into impact from assets on designated bathing beaches. |
5.4 Alternative objectives We have identified 6% of water bodies where because of the nature of the problem or the required measures we have an extended deadline or less stringent objective (less than good). In each case we have provided a justification.
Table 8. Alternative objectives and justifications
| Alternative objective | Justifications | Number of water bodies | Water body | |-----------------------|----------------|------------------------|------------| | Extended deadline | Cause of adverse impact unknown | 2 | Plas Uchaf and Dolwen Reservoirs Clwyd |
5.5 Opportunities for partnerships There are several external funding opportunities, which could support projects that contribute towards Water Framework Directive outcomes. Each fund has its own priorities, budgetary allocation and application process. Types of funding for consideration include:
- European funds – The EU provides funding from a broad range of programmes.– go to the Welsh European Funding Office website for more information.
- Lottery Funding – such as Heritage Lottery Fund, Postcode Lottery and BIG Lottery Fund which have a range of programmes from £5000 up to £millions.
- Charities, trust & foundations – there are many of these operating and they often have a specific focus – either geographically or topically and will support local charities and projects.
- Businesses and sponsorship opportunities – including making the most of the Welsh carrier bag charge!
- Public bodies – Local authorities, Welsh Government, UK Government and NRW may have annual funding opportunities or one-off competitions for their priority areas. Crowdfunding – gathering support from a wide range and number of funders, often including individuals and usually using the internet to raise awareness for a specific project needing funds.
Trading – Increasingly funders are looking to support organisations with longer term sustainability in mind so developing trading opportunities can be something to consider too.
Your local County Voluntary Council and Wales Council for Voluntary Action will have up to date information on opportunities such as these as well as a host of other support available.
6. Water Watch Wales
During the implementation phase of the 2009 RBMP many of our partners and stakeholders requested access to data and information to assist them in helping to deliver local environmental improvements. Many stakeholders felt that the first plan was difficult to navigate and access information at a local scale. Consequently with both the support and input from the river basin district liaison panels a web based tool has been developed called Water Watch Wales. This is an interactive spatial web-based tool that provides supporting information and data layers.
We will continue to develop this tool and see it as a critical link between the more strategic RBMP and local delivery. It enables the user to access information on:
- classification data at the water body scale
- reasons for not achieving good status
- objectives
- measures/actions, including protected area information
- partnership projects
Data can be retrieved in a number of formats (spreadsheets and summary reports). A user guide together with frequently asked questions is included with the tool and can be accessed from a link on the home page.
Link to home page: waterwatchwales.naturalresourceswales.gov.uk
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/0241-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 19,
"total-input-tokens": 39435,
"total-output-tokens": 7184,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
35,
1
],
[
35,
726,
2
],
[
726,
2390,
3
],
[
2390,
2466,
4
],
[
2466,
5570,
5
],
[
5570,
7736,
6
],
[
7736,
8273,
7
],
[
8273,
8354,
8
],
[
8354,
10381,
9
],
[
10381,
11335,
10
],
[
11335,
14760,
11
],
[
14760,
18244,
12
],
[
18244,
22047,
13
],
[
22047,
24913,
14
],
[
24913,
27478,
15
],
[
27478,
30743,
16
],
[
30743,
32918,
17
],
[
32918,
34681,
18
],
[
34681,
34681,
19
]
]
} |
e3f4f5a23080c1e85ebc809f42592d84e6e9341b | Usk Management Catchment Summary Contents
1. Background to the management catchment summary .................................................. 3
2. The Usk Management Catchment .............................................................................. 4
3. Current Status of the water environment ................................................................... 7
4. The main challenges .................................................................................................... 10
5. Objectives and measures ............................................................................................ 13
6. Water Watch Wales .................................................................................................... 20
7. Background to the management catchment summary
This management catchment summary supports the updated River Basin Management Plans (RBMP). Along with detailed information on the Water Watch Wales (WWW) website, this summary will help to inform and support delivery of local environmental improvements to our groundwater, rivers, lakes, estuaries and coasts. Information on WWW can be found in Section 6.
Natural Resources Wales has adopted the ecosystem approach from catchment to coast. This means being more joined up in how we manage the environment and its natural resources to deliver economic, social and environmental benefits for a healthier, more resilient Wales. It means considering the environment as a whole, so that all those with an interest in the catchment weigh up the evidence and set priorities for the many competing demands on our natural resources in a more integrated way and achieve our shared ambition for the place.
The Water Framework Directive (WFD) provides a major overarching framework for river basin management. The Floods Directive sets out a strategic approach to flood risk management planning. An updated Flood Risk Management Plan (FRMP) has been produced in parallel to the updated Severn RBMP. The FRMP details how we propose to manage flood risk across the river basin district by prioritising those communities that are most at risk of flooding and detailing the measures we intend to take to manage their risk. The FRMP and the RBMP together will shape important decisions, direct investment and action, and deliver significant benefits to society and the environment.
The Severn River Basin Management Plan is led by the Environment Agency and is published on their website: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/river-basin-management-plans-2015. 2. The Usk Management Catchment
The River Usk rises on the northern slopes of the Black Mountain and flows in a long narrow catchment of great scenic beauty for approximately 125km south easterly through the towns of Brecon, Crickhowell, Abergavenny and Usk, before discharging to the Usk estuary at Newbridge and then to the Severn estuary at Newport. The catchment includes the Gwent Levels to the south; a large area of reclaimed coastal grasslands of historical and nature conservation importance. Tourism is important to the local economy, with the Brecon Beacons National Park and the Monmouthshire and Brecon Canal attracting visitors in search of outdoor recreation. The Usk management catchment is rich in wildlife, including three species of lamprey and bullhead and a variety of habitats. This high ecological value is recognised through national and international designations.
Land is predominantly used for agriculture, with sheep farming in the northern and western uplands, and beef, dairy, mixed and arable farming in the lowlands of the south and east. As a result, pollution from rural sources is a major threat to the quality of wildlife and plants living in the water environment. There is some limited industry in the major towns, and Newport has a commercial port. Pollution from sewage and contaminated run-off is a pressure in the urban areas.
The headwaters and some of its tributaries are modified by dams to create the Usk, Crai, Talybont and Grwyne Fawr reservoirs. At Brecon some of the river's flow is diverted to feed the Monmouthshire and Brecon Canal and water from the lower River Usk is pumped to Llandegfedd water storage reservoir. On the Gwent Levels flows are regulated. Water is taken from rivers and underground sources to use in agriculture, industry, hydropower and fish farms. It is necessary to continue work with Dwr Cymru Welsh Water and others to minimise the impact on the natural environment caused by the physical modifications and abstraction, while securing this valuable resource and maintaining flow levels.
The Usk is a high quality river for fisheries, supporting salmon, an internationally important population of twaite shad, lamprey, bullhead and brown trout. The river has a largely natural flow, however barriers at Trostrey (a gauging weir), Llanfoist and Crickhowell (bridge footings) and Brecon (a weir supporting the canal abstraction) all restrict the upstream distribution of shad and sea lamprey. Barriers in some tributaries and the reservoir dams also restrict fish distribution and prevent access to suitable habitat. Natural Resources Wales, local authorities, the Canal and Rivers Trust and others will need to take action as part of a prioritised programme.
Priorities for this catchment to achieve healthy waters are to improve the special habitats by reducing the impact of rural pollution; reducing the impact of physical modifications and abstraction while securing water supplies.
The Usk management catchment summary does not include information on neighbouring coastal or estuarine waters as these are included within the Severn River Basin Management Plan.
During December 2013 an Usk management catchment workshop was held at the Newport Wetlands visitor centre. During this event the benefits of the catchment were captured. These included;
- Biodiversity – of the river and wetlands. Importance shown by designations such as the riverine Special Area of Conservation, Gwent levels SSSI, Biodiversity Action Plan species e.g. Otter and Shad.
- Food production.
- Recreation & Tourism – canoeing, fisheries, walking, boating, camping, cycling, Brecon Beacons National Park.
- Renewable energy – hydropower.
- Water as a resource for drinking, irrigation and navigation.
- Woodlands - both as a resource and for their own ecological importance.
Natural Resources Wales continues to work in partnership with a range of partners and sectors in innovative ways so that we can achieve even more together. A flavour of some of the projects within this management catchment is provided in Table 1.
For further information on projects please refer to WWW.
Table 1. Examples of projects in the management catchment.
| Project Name | Project Description | Partners | |-------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------| | Monmouthshire Olway & Trothy Project | Riparian restoration project including tree work, pleaching of woody material into the channel to improve habitat for fish and invertebrates plus single bank fencing. | Wye & Usk Foundation | | Project Name | Project Description | Partners | |--------------|---------------------|----------| | Living Levels | A project in development on the Gwent levels which aims to improve landscape connectivity, land management, restore wetland habitats & develop recreation opportunities with benefits for local communities, WFD and biodiversity. | RSPB, Gwent Wildlife Trust, Internal Drainage Board, local landowners, community |
**Case study – River Olway Project**
The Olway was identified as having a moderate classification under the Water Framework Directive because of low densities of fish and elevated Phosphate. Along this stretch cattle access to the river contributed to poaching and increased sedimentation. By providing controlled stock access to keep the cattle to a defined area and reducing time spent in the river the project aimed to fence along identified sections, add crossing points, drinking bays and swing gates. The project also included fencing, coppicing, installing bank revetments and planting willows.
Since the instalment of the habitat schemes the river bank has had an opportunity to naturally regenerate reducing the likelihood of bank erosion during high flows and helping reduce sedimentation which will keep more of the river’s gravel beds free of sediment and available to spawning fish and therefore increasing the chances for spawning success. 2.1 Key facts We use the term water bodies to help understand and manage the water environment. A water body is part, or the whole, of a river, lake, ground water or coastal water. The number and type of water bodies in the management catchment is shown in the table below.
Table 2. Number and type of water bodies.
| Number of water bodies | Natural | Artificial | Heavily Modified | Total | |------------------------|---------|------------|------------------|-------| | River\* | 37 | 4 (1 canal)| 4 | 45 | | Lake | 0 | 0 | 12 | 12 | | Coastal | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Estuarine | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | | Groundwater | 3 | 0 | 0 | 3 | | Total | 40 | 4 | 17 | 61 |
\*River water bodies includes canals and surface water transfers
There are areas in the catchment where the water environment is recognised as being of particular importance, including rare wildlife habitats, bathing waters or areas around drinking water sources. These areas are known collectively as protected areas and are detailed in the table below.
Table 3. Number and type of protected areas.
| Protected Area | Number | |---------------------------------------|--------| | Bathing Waters | 0 | | Drinking Water Protected Areas | 27 | | Natura 2000 and Ramsar sites | 9 | | Nitrate Vulnerable Zones | 3161ha | | Shellfish Waters | 0 | | Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive - Sensitive areas | 0 |
3. Current Status of the water environment We assess the condition of water bodies through monitoring which produces a classification. The current status for each water body is shown in figure 2. Note, since 2009, we have updated some of the systems we use to classify water bodies, including changes to some standards and water body boundaries.
______________________________________________________________________
1 There are differences in water bodies and protected area numbers compared to the first cycle plans and draft second cycle plans. This is due to changes in the water body network as well as refinement of the mapping methodologies and rules between water bodies, management catchments and protected areas. Within this management catchment 33% of surface water bodies are at good overall classification status, 59% at moderate and 9% at poor overall status. There are no water bodies at high or bad overall status. Figure 2. The current status of the Usk Management Catchment (2015 classification). 4. The main challenges We have carried out a series of investigations to confirm failures and the reasons driving them. This has included 14 river walks to assess the situation on the ground in more detail. The reasons for not achieving good status are listed under the Surface Water Management Issues (SWMI) in line with the updated RBMP. The graph below shows the number of water bodies listed under each SWMI to give an indication of the main issues in the management catchment, each water body may have more than one reason for not achieving good status.
Figure 3. Reasons for not achieving good status in the Usk Management
In the upper Usk catchment above Brecon there are some modifications for reservoirs but no evidence of marked ecological impacts. In the past there have been a number of pollution incidents (Tarrell), however there is little evidence of impact.
Between Brecon and Abergavenny there are pressures from:
- Abstraction (Crawnon – Mon Brec canal off take)
- Habitat that could be improved
- Barriers to migration (Mon-Brec canal bridges)
- Urban Misconnections (these are listed under the ‘pollution from sewage and waste water’ category in the graph above)
Below Abergavenny issues are largely around rural land management – so diffuse pollution, but also some misconnections in the Nedern. 4.1 Feedback on challenges We need to work together to ensure the overall aims of the Water Framework Directive are met and to agree on the priority issues and solutions. The following is a list of some of the challenges that were raised as part of the catchment workshop and the RBMP consultation, however it is not a full list.
- Barriers to fish migration
- Diffuse pollution from agriculture and rural land management in general
- Diffuse pollution from urban areas, misconnections, development pressure
- Flooding
- INNS (Invasive Non Native Species) e.g. Mink, Himalayan Balsam, Giant Hogweed, Japanese Knotweed, Signal Crayfish
- Lack of habitat connectivity
- Lack of education & advice on a range of issues
- Potential for conflict between various users / beneficiaries
- Water levels – ensuring adequate flow and active river processes. Pressure from abstraction
- Decline in aquatic habitats and species Case study – River Usk Giant Hogweed Project
Giant Hogweed is an invasive plant and is extensively distributed on the lower River Usk which is a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and part of the River Usk Special Area of Conservation (SAC). The plant is mainly found from the Crickhowell area to the tidal limit at Newbridge-on-Usk.
It has a damaging effect on the native habitat, suppressing the growth of native plants and leaving banks bare of vegetation and susceptible to erosion. It reduces the recreational value of the land and stops walkers and fishermen from accessing some areas. The sap from the plant can cause severe blisters, which are sensitive to sunlight, prompting public health concerns.
Partners include Brecon Beacons National Park Authority, Keep Wales Tidy, Monmouthshire County Council, The National Trust and the Wye and Usk Foundation. Officers from these organisations provide time to this project and a number of volunteers have also been trained up and provide valuable input to the control work.
Control work (mainly involving herbicide treatment) on the ground started in the spring of 2006 with efforts centred on the Crickhowell and Abergavenny areas. The aim is to stop the seed production at the upper extent of the infestation and prevent the seeds entering the river and spreading the problem downstream. Five spray teams are working on the project from Environment Agency Wales (now Natural Resources Wales), Keep Wales Tidy, Monmouthshire County Council, Brecon Beacons National Park Authority, the National Trust and the Wye and Usk Foundation.
Extensive control work has continued in the growing season along the river between Crickhowell and Newbridge-on-Usk since 2006. A number of Forum events have been organised periodically to update and involve local riparian owners and river users on the progress of the project. The project has been widely reported by BBC TV and radio and ITV in Wales. 5. Objectives and measures
This section outlines what we are aiming to achieve and the measures that need to be put in place. We aim to develop a single integrated programme of measures by 2021 that meets Water Framework Directive objectives, including:
- **Prevent deterioration in status** Water body status will not be allowed to deteriorate from the current reported status.
- **Achieve the objectives for protected areas** Achieve the standards set by the relevant directive under which they were designated. For water dependent Natura 2000 sites we will aim to achieve conservation objectives, achieving good status by 2021 is a milestone towards this objective.
- **Aim to achieve good overall status for surface and ground waters** Implement measures to achieve good overall status where they are technically feasible and not disproportionately costly.
5.1 Measures
We have reviewed the reasons why water bodies are failing to achieve objectives and identified required measures. Measures are divided into two groups:
**National measures** apply to the whole of Wales, or the United Kingdom. In general these set the legislative, policy or strategic approach. Examples include a national ban on using a particular chemical or a national strategy for prioritising and funding the remediation of abandoned mines. A list of planned national measures is available in the updated RBMP and Water Watch Wales.
**Local measures** are specific to the river basin district or a part of it. For example, the removal of invasive plants along a length of designated river or a local campaign targeting misconnections across an industrial estate. Many of the actions listed will also have multiple benefits. For example, sustainable urban drainage (SuDs) schemes help to reduce urban pollution, sewage pollution and changes to water levels. The table below summarises the types of local measures required for the management catchment, based on RNAG and protected area requirements. It includes actions from the N2K Actions database that will help the SAC/SPA/Ramsar to achieve favourable conservation status for water dependant features; for example: implementation of appropriate coastal management.
The high level categories describe the types of action required and broadly the options that are available, including voluntary and regulatory measures. At the local scale some of the options described might not be considered appropriate. There is overlap between some categories. The table also shows the number of water bodies that require the measure type, the water body numbers in this table should be used as a guide to show the significance of the issue in the catchment, and these numbers will change through the course of the 6 year programme. Up to date Reasons for Not Achieving Good (RNAGs) data is available on WWW and should be referred to before scoping local measures.
**Table 4. Summary of required local measures in the management catchment.**
| Measure | Description | No. of water bodies | |--------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------| | Address air pollution | Emissions controls to reduce nitrogen and acidic deposition. | 9 | | Complete first cycle investigation | All ongoing WFD investigations from first cycle programme. | 12 | | Measure | Description | No. of water bodies | |----------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------| | Drainage and water level management | Investigate and implement changes to land drainage regimes and structures to restore water levels. | 5 | | Improve fish passage and habitat | Remove or modify barriers to fish passage | 35 | | Improve flows and water levels | Reduce impacts of regulated flows and abstractions, restore more natural flow regimes, implement options to improve water levels, such as water efficiency and recycling measures, alternative sources and supplies. | 33 | | Manage invasive non-native species | Eradication and/or management of invasive non-native species in line with current national invasive species Action Plans. Includes biosecurity good practice, such as "CHECK-CLEAN-DRY" and Be Plant Wise. | 34 | | Mine water and contaminated land remediation | Coal and metal mine, and contaminated land remediation - including passive and active mine water treatment, capping of spoil, removal of wastes to landfill, and channel diversion | 3 | | Mitigate impacts of flood and coastal defences | Reduce impacts of flood defence structures and operations - improve connectivity, habitat, and morphology by implementing options through capital and maintenance programmes, such as soft engineering, opening culverts, upgrading tidal flaps, changing dredging and vegetation management. Includes the national habitat creation programme to address coastal squeeze. | 34 | | Mitigate impacts of water resource impoundments | Assess and implement options for improving fish passage and habitat. | 7 | | New Investigation | Includes investigations for all new failures, deterioration, and drinking water protected areas. | 34 | | Reduce impacts of other physical modifications | Improve connectivity, habitat and morphology through soft engineering and restoration techniques. | 5 | | Reduce pollution from other waste water discharges | Reduce pollution from other (non-sewage) point sources, both regulated and unregulated. Investigate and implement basic pollution prevention measures, including provision of up to date advice and guidance, such as correct handling and storage of chemicals and waste, management of trade effluent, and regulation. | 9 | | Sustainable access and recreation management | Reduce the impacts of erosion, disturbance and damage from both water-based and terrestrial access, including tackling illegal off-roading. | 32 | | Measure | Description | No. of water bodies | |----------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------| | Sustainable agricultural practices | Implement basic and additional measures such as correct management of slurry, silage, fuel oil, and agricultural chemicals; clean and dirty water separation; nutrient management planning; buffer strips and riparian fencing; cover crops and soil management. In N2k sites changes to grazing regimes may be required, includes scrub management. Within NVZs comply with storage and spreading regulations. | 41 | | Sustainable woodland and forestry management | Restore the riparian zone, disconnect forest drains, monitor the effectiveness of the 5 principle risks associated with forestry and use forestry and woodland to reduce diffuse pollution. | 32 | | Tackle misconnections and urban diffuse pollution | Investigate and solve misconnections to surface water drains (at residential and commercial properties) and implement sustainable drainage schemes (SuDs) to reduce diffuse pollution. | 3 | | Waste management | Includes appropriate management of spoil and sludge, illegal fly-tipping and litter. | 34 |
Details for specific local measures can be found on [WWW](http://www.naturalresourceswales.gov.uk), some examples of actions that are already under way include:
- Urban / Misconnections; fixing and awareness raising; Partners Dwr Cymru Welsh Water & Local Authorities; Nedern Brook, Monks Ditch, Gavenny.
- Natural Resources Wales agricultural site visits. Reens and Olway. Catchment Initiative also ran on the Olway in the 1st cycle, soil sampling, analysis and advice for farmers. Working with various partners; LEAF (Linking Environment and Farming), Young Farmers Club, Dairy Development Centre, FWAG (Farming and Wildlife Advisory Group), The Machinery Ring (PMR).
- The Wye and Usk Foundation have carried out barrier removal and habitat improvement in multiple water bodies. 5.2 Feedback on priorities and solutions Concerns on current status raised through the consultation and at the workshop have been highlighted in Section 4, solutions and priorities were also discussed. Of the issues raised the following were flagged as priorities:
- **Diffuse pollution from agriculture and rural land management in general.** **Proposed Solutions:** NRW regulation, partner organisation measures, policy measures.
- **INNS (Invasive Non Native Species)** **Proposed Solutions:** Better coordination and drawing on a wide range of partner organisations and local communities.
- **Lack of education & advice on a range of issues.** **Proposed Solutions:** Education of children to reach adults. Better education / information for the various interest groups.
- **Water levels – adequate flow and active river processes. Pressure from abstraction.** **Proposed Solutions:** Continuation of existing partnership.
- **Diffuse pollution from urban areas, misconnections, development pressure.** **Proposed Solutions:** Relevant organisations working in partnership, proper assessment of planning applications and Local Development Plan obligations
- **Decline in aquatic habitats and species** **Proposed solutions included:** restoration of peat bogs and ditch blocking to hold back the water, riparian habitat restoration to act as buffer strip from land runoff and help prevent erosion.
5.3 Target areas for 2015-21 We have worked across Natural Resources Wales to develop an affordable programme of local and national measures, based upon our current understanding of existing resources. Our focus is:
- Preventing deterioration in all water bodies
- Within the Welsh part of the Severn RBD - improving compliance with good overall status in 17 water bodies that are currently moderate, improving 12 poor water bodies to moderate, and also improving 1 water body from bad to poor overall status.
- Targeting measures locally in an integrated way to deliver environmental improvements in WFD water bodies and Protected Areas, including areas protected for water habitats and species.
- Identifying where element level improvements will be achieved during the second cycle, but where further measures will be required to deliver an overall ecological status change.
- Developing our approach to natural resource management by working at a local catchment level and capturing the wider benefits delivered through WFD. The summary provided below is not comprehensive, it provides a snapshot of the information currently available, and will be updated periodically – please refer to WWW for further information.
Table 5. Water bodies in the Usk management catchment that NRW will target to achieve an improvement in status by 2021
| Water body ID | Name | Target status | Details | |---------------|-------------------------------------------|---------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------| | GB109056032920| Olway Bk - source to conf Nant y Wilcae | Good by 2021 | For further information on the target water bodies please refer to WWW | | GB109056032950| Nant Onnau - source to conf R Usk | | | | GB109056032990| Gavenny - source to confluence R Usk | | | | GB109056033000| Caerfanell - source to conf R Usk | | | | GB109056026880| Nedern Bk - source to R Severn Estuary | Moderate by 2021| |
Investigations programme All water bodies for which the cause of adverse impact is as yet unknown require investigation. This applies in the case of both failing water bodies and those that have deteriorated over the first cycle.
Natura 2000 programme – actions underway/planned The RBMP programme of measures must include any measures necessary to achieve compliance with standards and objectives for Natura 2000 (N2K) sites listed in the register of protected areas.
There are no priority actions for N2K sites within the Usk Management Catchment that are planned or underway however we have identified 8 priority actions which can be taken forward when opportunities arise. Further information on the Prioritised Improvement Plans (PIP) measures and required action information can be obtained by contacting NRW: [email protected].
The number of planned actions is low partly because it is difficult to assess what might be funded beyond 2015/16. Our ambition for the second cycle will develop as opportunities/resources become available.
We have also worked with stakeholders to develop and plan a number of strategic actions to support delivery of N2K objectives. These are included within the updated Programme of Measures.
Flood Risk Management Plan Measures Further information on local measures is available in the catchment summary section of the updated FRMP. Know Your River – Salmon and Sea Trout Catchment Plan NRW collects a range of specific salmonid data for management purposes and this is presented in the local Salmon and Sea Trout Catchment Summaries. Salmonid specific tools, measures and data acquisition such as electrofishing results, declared catches and annual salmon egg deposition estimates are used to guide ongoing investment in fish passage and habitat restoration schemes. The summaries are updated annually and ensure that there is effective prioritisation in waterbodies to improve salmonid fisheries. The planned actions are always delivered in association with partners and contribute to enhancement and protection of this valuable resource in Wales. Further information can be obtained by contacting NRW: [email protected]
Water company programme Within the 2015 RBMP; there are a number of measures required of Water Companies. A funding allocation for these measures was included in company business plans submitted to Ofwat for the 2015-20 period. Natural Resources Wales and the Environment Agency will publish a revised National Environment Plan detailing all water company measures in early 2016. The National Environment Programme details improvements required to comply with all water quality legislation. An outline of the measures included within this management catchment can be found in the table below, further information can be found on the WWW website.
Table 7. Water company investigations and improvement schemes
| Water body ID | Name | Outcome | |---------------|------|---------| | GB109056039960 | Grwyne-Fechan - source to conf Grwyne Fawr | No deterioration scheme | | GB109056033090 | R Clydach - source to conf R Usk | Improvement schemes | | GB109056032930 | Nant y Wilcae - source to conf Olway Bk | | | GB109056026850 | Monks Ditch - source to Wainbridge | | | GB109056026880 | Nedern Bk - source to R Severn Estuary | | | GB109056032911, GB109056032912 | Afon Lwyd - below Mon and Brecon Canal | Investigation to be carried out, where water company assets contribute to reasons for not achieving good status | | GB109056032930, GB109056026940 | Nant y Wilcae and Olway Bk | | | GB109056033090 | Clydach - source to conf R Usk | | | GB109056032990 | R Gavenny - source to conflence R Usk | | | GB109056032940 | Clawdd Bk - source to conf R Usk | | 5.4 Alternative objectives We have identified 18% of water bodies where because of the nature of the problem or the required measures we have an extended deadline or less stringent objective (less than good). In each case we have provided a justification.
Table 8. Alternative objectives and justifications
| Alternative objective | Justifications | Number of water bodies | Water body | |-----------------------|---------------------------------|------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Extended deadline | Cause of adverse impact unknown | 11 | Pantyreos Bk - source to Barrack Hill | | | | | Mill Reen - source to R Severn Estuary | | | | | Afon Lwyd - source to Mon and Brecon Canal | | | | | Cray Reservoir | | | | | Talybont Reservoir | | | | | Cairn Mound Reservoir | | | | | Blaen-y-cwm Reservoir | | | | | Llandegfedd Reservoir | | | | | Wentwood Reservoir | | | | | Pant-yr-eos Reservoir | | | | | Ynysyfro Reservoir |
5.5 Opportunities for partnerships There are several external funding opportunities, which could support projects that contribute towards Water Framework Directive outcomes. Each fund has its own priorities, budgetary allocation and application process. Types of funding for consideration include:
- European funds – The EU provides funding from a broad range of programmes– go to the Welsh European Funding Office website for more information.
- Lottery funding – such as Heritage Lottery Fund, Postcode Lottery and BIG Lottery Fund which have a range of programmes from £5000 up to £millions.
- Charities, trusts & foundations – there are many of these operating and they often have a specific focus – either geographically or topically and will support local charities and projects.
- Businesses and sponsorship opportunities – including making the most of the Welsh carrier bag charge!
- Public bodies – local authorities, Welsh Government, UK Government and NRW may have annual funding opportunities or one-off competitions for their priority areas.
- Crowd funding – gathering support from a wide range and number of funders, often including individuals and usually using the internet to raise awareness for a specific project needing funds.
- Trading – increasingly funders are looking to support organisations with longer term sustainability in mind so developing trading opportunities can be something to consider too.
- Brecon Beacons Sustainable Development Fund - support for economic, environmental, community & cultural projects in BBNP which improve the quality of life for local communities. Your local County Voluntary Council and Wales Council for Voluntary Action will have up to date information on opportunities such as these as well as a host of other support available.
6. Water Watch Wales During the implementation phase of the 2009 RBMP many of our partners and stakeholders requested access to data and information to assist them in helping to deliver local environmental improvements. Many stakeholders felt that the first plan was difficult to navigate and access information at a local scale. Consequently with both the support and input from the river basin district liaison panels a web based tool has been developed called Water Watch Wales (WWW). This is an interactive spatial web-based tool that provides supporting information and data layers.
We will continue to develop this tool and see it as a critical link between the more strategic river basin management plan and local delivery. It enables the user to access information on:
- classification data at the water body scale
- reasons for not achieving good status
- objectives
- measures/actions, including protected area information
- partnership projects
Data can be retrieved in a number of formats (spreadsheets and summary reports). A user guide together with frequently asked questions is included with the tool and can be accessed from a link on the home page.
Link to home page: waterwatchwales.naturalresourceswales.gov.uk
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/0242-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 21,
"total-input-tokens": 43837,
"total-output-tokens": 8040,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
33,
1
],
[
33,
746,
2
],
[
746,
2550,
3
],
[
2550,
4363,
4
],
[
4363,
7287,
5
],
[
7287,
8674,
6
],
[
8674,
11091,
7
],
[
11091,
11299,
8
],
[
11299,
11383,
9
],
[
11383,
12704,
10
],
[
12704,
13620,
11
],
[
13620,
15573,
12
],
[
15573,
19091,
13
],
[
19091,
22992,
14
],
[
22992,
25734,
15
],
[
25734,
28185,
16
],
[
28185,
30962,
17
],
[
30962,
33330,
18
],
[
33330,
37325,
19
],
[
37325,
38746,
20
],
[
38746,
38746,
21
]
]
} |
34f2c5bb0a2d78d88714517c8d272f845fc2fb16 | PREVENT Myth and Reality Prevent seeks to intervene in the radicalisation process
- To stop people being radicalised, we need to understand the risk factors to know how and where to intervene
- No single profile...
- Majority **male**, small no. of females
- Some in **steady relationships**
- Ethnically diverse
- Majority **British citizens**, half UK born
- **Range of education levels**
- Few have **deep knowledge of faith**
- Disproportionately high no. **converts**.
- Some, but not all, previously involved in **criminal activity**
- Vulnerabilities include **mental health**
Foreign policy: “I am not saying these issues [recent wars] aren’t important. We could deal with all these issues and some people would still be drawn to Islamist extremism” Prevent - A triangle of activity
1. Tackling Influences
- Civil Society Organisations
2. Early Intervention
- Prevent Network
3. Rehabilitation
- NOMS and HO De-radicalisation Programme
Evening Standard London schoolboy, 9, stood up in class and declared allegiance to IS after watching beheading videos online
CHLOE CHAPLAIN | Tuesday 14 February 2017 14:34 Evolution of threat required more partners to play a role in safeguarding people from terrorism
Patchy and inconsistent delivery across the country
Statutory duty – “due regard to the need to prevent people being drawn into terrorism” (s.26 CTSA 2015)
> Risk assessment >Leadership >Training >Partnership
Embedding safeguarding within sectors
Example: Schools sector – WRAP training, Educate Against Hate website, Toolkits for schools, Workshops on critical thinking
Independent research finds 73% of teachers believe there’s same level/more open discussion in classes
Some controversy around HE/speaker policies. High Court found no interference between duty and FoS Are we having an impact?
• **169 community based projects** delivered in 2016/17. With 44% delivered in schools, aimed at increasing young people’s resilience to terrorist and extremist ideologies.
• Robust action **tackling radicalisation online**. Following referrals from the Counter Terrorism Internet Referral Unit (CTIRU), social media providers have **removed 280,000 pieces of illegal terrorist material** since February 2010.
• **Supporting community-based initiatives** that challenge Daesh’s communications and provide credible counter narratives.
• **More than 150 attempted journeys to Syria/Iraq conflict area disrupted** in 2015. This includes action by the family courts. Courts protected approx. 50 children (from around 20 families) from being taken to the conflict area in 2015.
• Since 2012, **over 1,000 individuals have been provided with support**. The vast majority of the individuals who receive support through Channel leave with no further concerns about their vulnerability to being drawn into terrorism. In 2016-17, **around a third of those who received support through Channel were referred for concerns about far right extremism**. Opposition to Prevent
Local cases
Academic reports and ‘open letters’
The government's anti-radicalisation scheme, Prevent, is instilling "fear, suspicion and censorship" on university campuses, an advocacy group has warned.
The mother was baffled when nursery staff showed her the picture and said it was a 'cooker bomb'.
Local events
Political campaigning
Andy Burnham calls for 'toxic' Prevent strategy to be scrapped
Shadow home secretary says policy is today's equivalent of internment in Northern Ireland.
Sustained social media campaign
#endPREVENT Our proactive communication strategy aims to highlight the positive impact of Prevent, dispel myths, raise understanding of what Prevent looks like in practice; and promote balanced reporting.
Through:
• Showcasing community-led projects, local voices and case studies in mainstream media
• Mobilising influential independent voices to advocate in support of Prevent
• Increased face-to-face dialogue with local communities through roundtables
• Building on the positive impact Ministers have made in promoting Prevent with more Ministerial visibility and support.
• Rebutting negative and inaccurate reporting on Prevent.
• Demonstrating increased transparency through publication of Channel data and giving media more access to elements of Prevent. Is it effective?
Key Outcomes:
- Increased **five-fold** our community engagement events
- An **uplift in positive/balanced news** coverage of Prevent – from 15 positive pieces in June 2016, to 99 in July 2017
- Media training for **53** Prevent Co-ordinators
- Establishing a cohort of **20+** key influencers
- **48** Ministerial interviews in support of Prevent in the last year
- Prevent Co-ordinators have indicated that the communications has led to a positive step-change in the perception of Prevent
- Local staff and civil society partners now feel empowered to speak up in support of Prevent, helped in part by public support by Ministers What support can Home Office Press Office provide?
- Language around Prevent
- Best practice examples
- Media training
- Support with reactive media enquiries
- Access to media opportunities
- Support and guidance for interviews
- Capacity to facilitate proactive media enquiries Examples
If you strip away ideology, the person behind far-right and Islamist extremism is often very similar – Prevent coordinator @WillBaldet
Far-right extremism: 'I'm ashamed of my Nazi tattoos'
Home secretary visits Poplar to start UK tour to stop teens being radicalised
Luton Prevent
A third of people supported online voluntary mentoring programme Channel last year were because of far-right concerns
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/0243-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 10,
"total-input-tokens": 12340,
"total-output-tokens": 1634,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
25,
1
],
[
25,
799,
2
],
[
799,
1172,
3
],
[
1172,
1846,
4
],
[
1846,
3015,
5
],
[
3015,
3581,
6
],
[
3581,
4339,
7
],
[
4339,
4996,
8
],
[
4996,
5278,
9
],
[
5278,
5690,
10
]
]
} |
1082b2855aa5f61670095d4d28e17b6f13a06974 | THE OFFICE OF RAIL AND ROAD
132nd BOARD MEETING
09:00 -14:45 TUESDAY 24th JANUARY 2017
ONE KEMBLE STREET, LONDON, WC2B 4AN
Non-executive members: Stephen Glaister (Chair), Tracey Barlow, David Franks, Anne Heal, Bob Holland, Michael Luger, Justin McCracken, Graham Mather
Executive members: Joanna Whittington (Chief Executive), Ian Prosser (Director Railway Safety), Graham Richards (Director Railway Planning and Performance),
Executive Directors: John Larkinson (Director Railway Markets and Economics);
In attendance: Dan Brown (Director Strategy and Policy), Russell Grossman (Director Communications), Juliet Lazarus (Director Legal Services and Competition), Tess Sanford (Board Secretary)
Other ORR staff in attendance are shown in the text.
Item 1 WELCOME AND APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
1. There were no apologies for absence.
Item 2 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
2. Bob Holland reminded the Board of his historical interest in Arriva in relation to item 10. Justin McCracken reminded the board of his position with Ombudsman Services Ltd.
Item 3 APPROVAL OF PREVIOUS MINUTES
3. The Board agreed the December minutes.
Item 4: MONTHLY HEADLINES
4. Ian Prosser reported on: • The investigations by BTP and RAIB underway in relation to Sandilands Tram incident • ORR’s report on driver controlled doors and work to develop guiding principles, which would be brought to the Board in February [forward programme] • NR’s work to re-start the PDSW(^1) initiative with a new pilot in the Anglia region • A slight decrease in the overall PIM measure • A decrease in the number of repeat track twist faults which followed increased focus on inspection and enforcement by ORR
(^1) Planning and delivery of safe working 5. Graham Richards reported on:
- Recent statistical releases in relation to a slower rate of growth in passenger journeys, declining freight usage, Q2 industry complaints data. The latter showed that punctuality was the most common cause of complaint followed by method of ticket purchase
- Improvements in the efficiency of our authorisations work through better planning and closer working with DfT
- Some of the issues that contributed to poor P9(^2) performance
- NR’s operational readiness to deal with engineering overruns at Christmas
- Management focus to address long standing items on the regulatory escalator
6. John Larkinson reported on:
- Progress on PR18: from February 2017 the board would receive a regular monthly report
- Headlines from our consumer research on ticket vending machines and work in hand to address identified issues
- Progress on open access direct London/Blackpool services;
7. Juliet Lazarus gave the board an update on the HAL judicial review.
8. Joanna Whittington updated the board on:
- Discussions with DfT on HS2
- UKRN and BEIS’ ongoing work on regulators – and making markets work
- Meetings with DfT and others on the passenger experience and how the industry might deal differently with complaints
- Internal engagement
**Item 5 REGULAR REPORTS**
09. The Board noted the monthly and six monthly reports on rail safety, the NR CP5 Tracker and the Q3 report against the ORR business plan.
10. Ian Prosser noted that the overall risk had flattened and the major injury trend was decreasing. The highest single contributor to risk to the workforce was now driving on the roads.
11. Graham Richards explained that the board would discuss its regulatory response to the poor performance on the rail network at its meeting in February.
12. Tom Taylor reported on the financial position and noted that the section of the report which set out work which had not been included in the original business plan continued to reflect high levels of additional activity by the Office.
*The chair noted that this would be Tom Taylor’s final board meeting before he took up a new position at BEIS. The board congratulated Tom on his move and thanked him for his work for the ORR. Tom Taylor and Peter Antolik left the meeting.*
______________________________________________________________________
(^2) Period 9 reporting period of 2016-17 ITEM 6 PR18 – ADVICE TO DFT ON THE HLOS/SoFA
Chris Hemsley, Mark Morris, Carl Hetherington joined the meeting for this item.
13. John Larkinson updated the board on progress in developing this advice since their briefing call the previous week. Transport Scotland were likely to seek similar advice.
Paragraphs 14-20 have been redacted as Policy development.
21. The board asked for a briefing session or future report item on what ‘efficiency’ means in the context of the periodic review process [forward programme].
ITEM 7 RAIL PERFORMANCE – CHRIS GIBB REVIEW
22. Graham Richard updated the board on progress in developing the recommendations from this review. There had been some delays but the report was expected to be published before the spring. There were no matters requiring the board’s attention at this time.
ITEM 8 VISITORS: HIGHWAYS ENGLAND
Peter Antolik joined the meeting
23. The board prepared for its visitors.
Colin Matthews, Chair and Jim O’Sullivan, Chief Executive of Highways England joined the meeting
24. Stephen Glaister welcomed the visitors.
25. Highways England set out their priorities and updated the ORR board on progress and current issues. The meeting discussed HE’s work:
- Steps taken towards improving safety (particularly worker safety);
- A cultural shift towards treating the road user as a customer;
- Operational and political challenges in delivering RIS1.
26. The meeting reflected on how far the aims of the roads reforms of 2015, particularly around facilitating efficient planning and delivery of the capital programme, were being met.
27. The meeting discussed the importance of clarity between ORR’s role and that of DfT, so that overlapping activity can be minimised. HE offered to share an internal report on the subject. [action – Secretariat to arrange]
28. HE highlighted two major national infrastructure projects (HS2 and Heathrow extension) which offered major challenges over several years.
29. The chair thanked the visitors for a useful discussion. ITEM 9 ORR COMMUNICATIONS – MID YEAR PROGRESS REPORT
30. Russell Grossman introduced the report and explained the research in hand to inform the annual report in July [forward programme].
31. Board members commented on coverage in recent months, noting that it was usually accurate and balanced. They highlighted the safety report on driver only operation and media use of the statistical release on the age of rolling stock.
32. The board discussed the importance of a website that was easy to access and navigate around and noted the investment of additional resource to improve our existing web presence.
33. The board noted that our rail statistical work gave regular material for comment, but we are not a provider of roads statistics.
ITEM 10 OPEN ACCESS APPLICATION
Rob Plaskitt joined the meeting for this item
34. John Larkinson introduced the item. He explained how access rights are dealt with when changes in franchisee occur. Any services in the new franchise that require additional access rights are considered on their merits.
35. The board discussed the applicant’s request that the application be considered in advance of DfT’s decision on the new franchisee. To do so without a better understanding of the service offer by the new franchisee would risk cutting across several of our duties including acting in the best interests of current and future customers of the network. The board asked staff to process the application as usual, do appropriate preparatory work and when more was known about the new franchise ORR would be able to move to decide this application.
ITEM 11 CHANNEL TUNNEL UPDATE
Brian Kogan joined the meeting for this item
36. Dan Brown introduced the item. The revised cooperation agreement with ARAFER had been signed in January. Broadly ORR’s aspirations for the relationship had been met and the work was progressing smoothly. Risks to future aspirations are mitigated by investment of time and senior resources in establishing and maintaining good working relationships. There was also work under way to improve our understanding of potential issues, for example cost causation.
ITEM 12 REGIONAL VISIT: CARDIFF IN FEBRUARY
37. Tess Sanford gave an oral update on emerging plans for the February regional visit.
ITEM 11 FEEDBACK FROM COMMITTEES
38. Bob Holland reported on the Audit and Risk Committee which had discussed • the strategic risk register; • the programme to update our IT provision; • progress on internal audit recommendations.
39. Stephen Glaister reported on the previous day’s Highways Committee. He highlighted: • The interim review of HE’s performance • HE’s financial management • Potential enforcement issues on data and pavement condition.
40. Michael Luger reported on the Remuneration committee which had considered senior succession planning and reviewed its own terms of reference as part of the board procedures review. It had asked for SCS recruitment processes to be codified.
ITEM 12 ANY OTHER BUSINESS
41. There was no other business.
Meeting closed at 14.45
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/0244-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 6,
"total-input-tokens": 10205,
"total-output-tokens": 2316,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
1747,
1
],
[
1747,
4101,
2
],
[
4101,
6135,
3
],
[
6135,
8552,
4
],
[
8552,
9195,
5
],
[
9195,
9195,
6
]
]
} |
969c3bb55d7091e8b2feb91d26d022745090827f | THE OFFICE OF RAIL AND ROAD
133rd BOARD MEETING
08:30 -14:00 TUESDAY 28th February 2017
Clayton Hotel, Cardiff, CF10 1GD
Non-executive members: Stephen Glaister (Chair), Tracey Barlow, David Franks, Anne Heal, Bob Holland, Michael Luger, Justin McCracken, Graham Mather
Executive members: Joanna Whittington (Chief Executive), Ian Prosser (Director Railway Safety), Graham Richards (Director Railway Planning and Performance)
Executive Directors: John Larkinson (Director Railway Markets and Economics)
In attendance: Peter Antolik (Director Highways Monitor), Dan Brown (Director Strategy and Policy), Juliet Lazarus (Director Legal Services and Competition), James Lobo (Private Secretary)
Other ORR staff in attendance are shown in the text.
Item 1 WELCOME AND APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
1. Apologies were received from Russell Grossman and Tess Sanford.
Item 2 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
2. David Franks reminded the board of his position with Irish Rail in relation to item 11.
Item 3 APPROVAL OF PREVIOUS MINUTES
3. The Board agreed the January minutes.
Item 4 LOCAL ISSUES
04. Stephen commented on a successful set of local visits, which were followed by a useful presentation and a good level of engagement at the dinner. There was a discussion about ORR’s engagement in Wales.
05. It was noted that ORR had done an increasing amount of work in relation to Wales, and had significantly increased the level of engagement, including on PR18.
06. It was agreed that it was important to continue to do everything reasonably possible to meet the needs of stakeholders in Wales. It was considered that the best way to do this at present was to continue to operate from existing offices, as these allowed for the concentration of expertise required to operate effectively. It was noted that the geography of the network in Wales meant basing inspectors in existing offices was an effective way to serve Wales.
07. The board considered whether ORR should be more engaged with the media in Scotland and Wales, discussing local issues. Item 5: MONTHLY HEADLINES
08. Ian reported on: • RAIB issuing another interim report relating to the Sandilands tram incident • Progress towards agreeing principles on DCO [item 7] • An incident involving derailment of a freight train at Lewisham • A fatality on the LUL network at Canning Town • NR progress on addressing drainage issues
09. Graham Richards reported on: • CP6 route stakeholder workshops • DfT’s consideration of the report by Chris Gibb • Improvement in some routes on drainage plans
10. John reported on: • NR’s financial position, and its ongoing discussions with DfT and HMT • ORR’s ongoing work looking at NR efficiency
11. Joanna updated the board on: • Progress on the transition away from Capita for IT services • Publications, including reports on Ticket Vending Machines and HE’s asset management, and an Opinion on Eurotunnel’s Network Statement • External engagement, including attendance at the RDG conference, meeting with Transport for the North, and a series of regular catch-ups with other stakeholders
12. Juliet gave an overview of the recent HAL Judicial Review hearing.
13. Stephen welcomed Joanna as permanent CEO.
Item 6: REGULAR REPORTS
14. The board noted the monthly health and safety report, the NR CP5 tracker and the PR18 update.
15. The board discussed the section of the Health and Safety report relating to RAIB noting that whilst there did not appear to be any material cause for concern, updating the presentation of the section could make it easier to follow.
16. There was also a discussion on the statistical significance of the 9% increase in the moving annual average of the FWI. Ian advised that his team was looking at it, and agreed to return to the board with a response. [Action: Ian to provide a response]
17. Graham Richards explained that performance would be covered in detail in item 10.
18. The board agreed that the format of the PR18 update was useful, and agreed to receive a similar update at future meetings.
19. There was also a discussion about the presentation of programme risk. John agreed to look at ways in which clarity could be improved for future updates. [Action: John to review] Item 7: RAIL SAFETY: Driver controlled operation
20. Ian gave an overview on the process that had been followed to arrive at the DCO principles. He emphasised that these were not standards. He noted that consultation was underway, following workshops which had involved RSSB, unions, RDG, DfT and operators.
21. The board discussed the links to the work being done on accessibility, and agreed that it was still important that accessibility was referenced in the principles.
22. It was agreed that given the levels of interest in the topic, efforts should be made to make the document suitable for general readers as well as the industry, and to make sure that it was understood by the non-specialist press (including understanding the issues around terminology).
23. It was also agreed that a record of engagement with stakeholders should be put together, to ensure that all had been given sufficient opportunity to comment before publication. [Action]
24. The board agreed to publication of the principles.
Item 8: BETTER REGULATION
Matt Durbin joined the meeting.
25. Dan outlined the proposed timescales for the work which had been commissioned by the board. Peter noted his support for the work.
26. The board agreed to the Terms of Reference. Dan agreed to return to the board with the conclusions of the work. [Action: Forward programme]
Item 9: ORR BUSINESS PLAN
27. Joanna introduced the item in Russell’s absence. She reported that the previous year’s change to the format had been received well by stakeholders, and that the document had become a useful tool for external engagement.
28. It was suggested that there should be more reference to the wider issues on the railway, even where outside ORR’s influence, in order to demonstrate that their impact had been given appropriate consideration.
29. The board agreed to the publication of the ORR business plan in the form proposed.
Item 10: NETWORK RAIL
30. Graham Richards outlined the two parts to the item: An update on performance in 2016-17, and the potential approaches to using scorecards in 2017-18.
31. In the 2016-17 update, Graham highlighted the operator specific issues, and the systemic issues which the evidence suggested were the most significant problems. The board discussed the relative merits of different measures of operational performance, and the extent to which different issues were within NR’s control.
32. There was a discussion on the level of oversight which ORR should apply to scorecards, and about how effective they had been in 2016-17. It was noted that positive conversations were happening around scorecards, with Route MDs engaged, and that as a result they may prove more effective in future. There was also discussion about the involvement of DfT in agreeing scorecards for franchises nearing an end.
33. The board discussed sign-off of the scorecards by TOC MDs and RMDs. It was agreed that sign-off would be a positive sign that they were being taken seriously, but it was noted that ORR did not currently have grounds to mandate this. Graham agreed to check the planned process. [Action: Graham to check process for sign-off]
34. There was also a discussion about delay attribution problems. It was noted that it was primarily viewed as a resourcing issue by NR, but that there may be a more strategic approach that could be taken to analysing delay, particularly where interrelated problems made attribution difficult.
35. Graham noted that he would be returning to the board to discuss potential action in relation to recent performance, and to agree an approach for 2017/18.
36. The board also discussed the relevance to ORR of recommendations in the Gibb report.
Matt Durbin left the meeting.
Item 11: NORTHERN IRELAND UPDATE
37. John updated the board on ORR’s planned work in NI and engagement with stakeholders. It was also noted that ORR’s annual report on rail industry finances now covered the whole UK, and that the name had been changed accordingly.
Item 13: TRANSPORT SELECT COMMITTEE
Note: The order of this item and item 12 was reversed due to the timings of guests arriving
38. Joanna welcomed the TSC’s recognition of the benefits offered by open access, and its reflection of ORR and CMA’s evidence. She also noted that DfT had published a consultation on a PSO levy.
39. The board discussed the suggestion relating to giving franchising monitoring and enforcement powers to ORR or another independent body. Transparency was identified as one of the key benefits that ORR could offer. The board considered the distinctions between monitoring and enforcement, and between passenger facing obligations and other obligations.
40. It was agreed that ORR should respond to the committee welcoming the report, highlighting the role of government and parliament in deciding what functions ORR should have, and offering to contribute to any further consideration of the issues raised which government or parliament wished to undertake.
Item 12: HIGHWAYS MONITOR
Richard Coates joined the meeting. 41. Peter gave some context to the paper, including HE’s response to ORR’s update report on its asset management, and the report written by Peter Bucks on behalf of HE. The board agreed that if HE could substantiate the issues identified in the Peter Bucks report, ORR should consider these carefully. Tracey suggested that it would be worth ORR and DfT ensuring that each was clear on its role.
42. Richard outlined ORR’s policy on enforcement, and the current investigations being carried out. The board agreed that it was now important to work within the established framework, and take action under that framework where appropriate. The paper was noted and it was agreed that Peter and Richard would bring a paper in March when the current investigations had finished reviewing the evidence. [Action: Forward programme]
Richard Coates left the meeting.
Item 14: BOARD PROCEDURES
43. Stephen introduced the item in Tess’ absence. The board was largely content with the changes, though some members had outstanding queries or minor amendments to propose. It was agreed that in Tess’ absence, final sign-off of the procedures should be delayed until those members had had chance to discuss these with Tess. [Action: Members to discuss with Tess]
Item 15: STAFF SURVEY
44. Joanna introduced the item and outlined the process which the executive had followed to obtain staff views. She noted that there would be further organisational development work in due course, but that it was important to respond to issues raised in the staff survey quickly. The board agreed with the proposed response to the survey.
45. Joanna also highlighted that the responses to the questions relating to bullying, harassment and discrimination were not as good as would be hoped. She outlined the proposed response to this. Michael suggested discussing the issue at RemCo, which was agreed [Action].
Item 16: AOB
46. There was no other business.
Meeting closed at 1.50pm
Minutes agreed on 28 March 2017
Signed Stephen Glaister
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/0245-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 5,
"total-input-tokens": 9656,
"total-output-tokens": 2749,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
2046,
1
],
[
2046,
4265,
2
],
[
4265,
6906,
3
],
[
6906,
9309,
4
],
[
9309,
11327,
5
]
]
} |
c3711474bb159f2f91fb09c3bf8af23e86f1a0a1 | THE OFFICE OF RAIL AND ROAD
134th BOARD MEETING
09:00 -13:00 TUESDAY 28th MARCH 2017
ONE KEMBLE STREET, LONDON, WC2B 4AN
Non-executive members: Stephen Glaister (Chair), Tracey Barlow, David Franks, Anne Heal, Bob Holland, Michael Luger, Justin McCracken, Graham Mather
Executive members: Joanna Whittington (Chief Executive), John Larkinson (Director Railway Markets and Economics), Ian Prosser (Director Railway Safety), Graham Richards (Director Railway Planning and Performance).
In attendance: Russell Grossman (Director Communications), Juliet Lazarus (Director Legal Services and Competition), Tess Sanford (Board Secretary)
Peter Antolik (Director Highways) items 1-6 and 11
Other ORR staff in attendance are shown in the text.
Item 1 WELCOME AND APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
1. The Chair welcomed John Larkinson as a full member of the Board and congratulated him on his appointment.
2. There were no apologies for absence from members. Dan Brown was on leave.
Item 2 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
3. There were no declarations of interest in relation to the planned business.
Item 3 APPROVAL OF PREVIOUS MINUTES
4. The Board agreed the February minutes with one correction and noted updates on the action list.
Item 4: MONTHLY HEADLINES
5. Ian Prosser reported on:
- The continuing investigations by BTP and RAIB of the multi fatality tram incident at Sandilands in Croydon.
- The forthcoming publication of ORR’s guiding principles on driver controller operation
- Concerns about track geometry where twist track faults and the number of ‘super reds’ have been rising. Track geometry has been on the regulatory escalator as a matter of concern for some time.
- Earthworks failures, particularly those apparently caused by third party action outside the rail curtilage (eg Liverpool, Watford);
- A freight train derailment in west Somerset which had caused significant damage and local disruption.
______________________________________________________________________
1 An eighth mile length of track with average alignment or level faults that exceed a maximum level 6. Graham Richards reported on:
- DfT’s planned publication of the Gibb report.
- Positive end year performance results on London North West route for Virgin Trains West Coast and London Midland.
- The contribution that our collection of complaints information could make to the evidence base on TOC performance;
- Drainage issues on the regulatory escalator were now confined to London North East route.
07. John Larkinson reported on:
- Continuing work on ticket vending machines where ten train operating companies (TOCs) now offer a price guarantee;
- Plans to include complaints data in our Measuring Up report in the summer;
- ORR’s response to a number of initiatives under consideration by third parties for investment in UK rail;
- The status of sale-and-leaseback proposals for infrastructure.
08. Juliet Lazarus gave an update on the HAL judicial review where there was no date for a judgement yet. Depending upon the outcome, the board would be asked in accordance with the board procedures whether ORR should make or contest any subsequent appeal.
09. Joanna Whittington updated the board on:
- A new one year contract with our internal auditors, Grant Thornton;
- Steady progress on the IT project,
- NAO’s report on Highways England (HE) and the Road Investment Strategy (RIS);
- Two reviews ORR was undertaking on HE’s work, where engagement was very positive;
- Encouraging results from our roads stakeholder survey
- Her appearance before the Transport Select Committee to talk about compensation;
- Meetings with the Secretary of State, Rail Delivery Group, Network Rail and others where discussions about the system operator role are a regular topic.
10. Stephen Glaister reported that he had chaired a conference on road safety and the proposal for the creation of a road accident investigation branch.
**Item 5 REGULAR REPORTS**
11. The Board noted the monthly report on rail safety, the NR CP5 Tracker and the regular update on the PR18 programme.
12. Ian Prosser noted the complexity of the indicator on worker safety where the number of serious injuries had increased this year although the number of fatalities had declined.
13. Graham Richards reported on some very positive NR route engagement meetings.
**Item 6 HIGHWAYS ENGLAND LICENCE AND RIS ENFORCEMENT**
*Richard Coates joined the meeting.*
14. Richard Coates reported on the response of Highways England (HE) to ORR’s investigations of their reporting of data around pavement condition and on the implications for their management of the network in line with the RIS.
*Paragraphs 15-18 have been redacted pending publication of ORR’s annual review of HE’s performance (due July 2017)*
19. The letter conveying these findings to HE would be copied to the DfT and would be published as part of ORR’s annual report on HE’s performance.
**ITEM 7 HS2 ARBITRATION ROLE**
20. The board noted that ORR had been given a role as ‘arbitrator of last resort’ in the HS2 Phase 1 legislation(^2). This had not been notified to ORR in advance.
21. A proposal had been received to include the same provision in the legislation for phase two of HS2 and the Board’s views had been sought.
22. The Board noted the apparent provision for the Secretary of State to intervene in any arbitration and asked for clarification that this would not compromise the independence of the arbitration process. [Action: Juliet Lazarus]
**ITEM 8 2017-18 BUDGET ALLOCATIONS**
*Lucy Doubleday joined the meeting*
23. The board was asked to approve the budget allocations for the next business year. Lucy Doubleday explained that costs associated with the IT programme and possible costs arising from the next valuation of the British Rail section of the Railway Pension Scheme would be better understood in July, at which point a re-cast of the budget would be done in order to make best use of all available funds.
24. The board discussed the mechanisms by which the executive jointly manage the budget and contingency. In the current business year the underspend on rail is expected to be its lowest for many years (1-2%) so the current approach was broadly effective and would be continued.
25. The board approved the budget allocations.
______________________________________________________________________
(^2) High Speed Rail (London to West Midlands) Act 2017 (S.64.3) ITEM 9 BOARD PROCEDURES
26. Tess Sanford described the changes made to the draft board procedures following discussion at the previous meeting. Members had also suggested corrections for clarification.
27. The board agreed to adopt the amended board procedures from 1 April 2017.
ITEM 10 NETWORK RAIL SCORECARDS IN 2017-18
Nigel Fisher joined the meeting for this item.
28. Graham Richards introduced the item. Route based scorecards had first been used in 2016-17 and the next iteration would be better as a result of that learning. Two key improvements were already apparent. First, that route level cards were supported by operational level scorecards so that the overall approach was joined up. Second, that TOCs were much more engaged in the development of the cards and as a result more diverse metrics were being employed which could reflect local need. The scorecard for freight and national passenger operators (FNPO) was in place, but no system operator scorecard had yet been agreed.
29. The board discussed: a. the importance of having measures on each card which would be directly comparable across routes; b. possible gaps in the current scorecards (eg no metric for cross border services in the proposed Scotrail card); c. the impact of route devolution on local and national passenger bodies; d. the importance of capturing and representing consumer views; e. the risk of an increased reporting burden; f. the need for wider sources of evidence to sit alongside scorecards to inform ORR’s regulatory assessments.
30. The Board confirmed it was content with the proposed approach to using scorecards as part of the evidence for monitoring train performance in 2017-18.
The board noted this was Nigel’s last appearance at the Board pending his retirement and thanked him and wished him well.
ITEM 11 DRAFT CONSULTATION ON NR’s EFFICIENCY
Chris Hemsley and Mark Morris joined the meeting for this item
This item has been redacted until after publication of the consultation – expected in summer 2017
ITEM 11 REGIONAL VISITS
40. Tess Sanford reported on outline plans for a visit to the West Midlands in May. FEEDBACK FROM COMMITTEES
41. Justin McCracken reported on the Health and Safety Regulatory Committee which had discussed papers on: a. Update on approach to electrical safety by NR; b. Possible changes to our approach to regulating level crossings; c. The need for a better evidence base on the safety implications of crowding on trains; d. Strategic risk chapters.
ITEM 12 ANY OTHER BUSINESS
42. Russell Grossman reported on work to improve navigation on the website and asked for any feedback or further comments.
43. The board noted the forward programme.
Meeting closed at 13.05
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/0246-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 5,
"total-input-tokens": 11889,
"total-output-tokens": 2329,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
2033,
1
],
[
2033,
4233,
2
],
[
4233,
6360,
3
],
[
6360,
8519,
4
],
[
8519,
9117,
5
]
]
} |
6b19c90058736becf5b1e92c80b3f4fd0005d39a | THE OFFICE OF RAIL AND ROAD 135th BOARD MEETING 09:00 -14:00 TUESDAY 25th APRIL 2017 ONE KEMBLE STREET, LONDON, WC2B 4AN
Non-executive members: Stephen Glaister (Chair), Tracey Barlow, David Franks, Anne Heal, Bob Holland, Michael Luger, Justin McCracken, Graham Mather
Executive members: Joanna Whittington (Chief Executive), John Larkinson (Director Railway Markets and Economics), Ian Prosser (Director Railway Safety), Graham Richards (Director Railway Planning and Performance).
In attendance: Russell Grossman (Director Communications), Juliet Lazarus (Director Legal Services and Competition), Tess Sanford (Board Secretary)
Peter Antolik (Director Highways) items 1-6 Dan Brown (Director Strategy and Policy) items 1-9 and 11-13
Other ORR staff in attendance are shown in the text.
Item 1 WELCOME AND APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
1. The chair welcomed everyone to the meeting. It was noted that there was no business on the agenda which would be affected by the imposition of purdah in advance of the general election on 8th June.
2. There were no apologies for absence.
Item 2 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
3. There were no declarations of interest in relation to the planned business.
Item 3 APPROVAL OF PREVIOUS MINUTES
4. The Board noted the draft minutes with some corrections.
5. The board noted updates on the action list. Juliet Lazarus reported that the legal team were still working to understand the implications of the clause in the HS2 legislation about the secretary of state’s role in any arbitration around HS2.
Item 4: MONTHLY HEADLINES
06. Ian Prosser reported on: • The ORR investigation into potential health and safety breaches around the multi fatality tram incident at Sandilands in Croydon. • The publication of ORR’s guiding principles on driver controller operation. • The forthcoming annual report by RAIB. • Headline results for health and safety on Network Rail (NR) which would be reported more fully in May [forward programme]
07. Graham Richards used the example of the Ilkeston station to illustrate ORR’s role in reviewing the technical specifications and risk assessments undertaken by operators on stations, rail infrastructure and rolling stock before these could be brought into operation. ORR’s service standard was to complete these technical authorisations within 28 days, but they were often sought in much shorter timescales.
08. Graham reported on an internal audit recommendation that the board should have better visibility of the use of the regulatory escalator and described how regular scrutiny by ORR had helped focus NR on reducing their backlog in examination of structures.
09. NR’s delivery of its enhancement programme continued to be under pressure.
10. John Larkinson explained the process for planning and introducing a new timetable across the country and how complaints and appeals about a new timetable would be considered by ORR officials.
11. The board was assured that the appeals process was transparent and would be applied within published timescales.
12. Joanna Whittington reported on:
- Changes to senior civil servants in DfT;
- The possible impact of purdah on government’s preparations for PR18;
- Executive discussions with the Wales government, NR’s Group MD Digital Railway, and Highways England’s executive.
- On internal matters: ORR had closed the 2016-17 business year with a 1.9% underspend – within the target of no more than 2%. The IT programme had been discussed at ARC and was broadly on track. Recruitment for the replacement director of Corporate Operations was in hand.
- No judgement had been issued on the HAL judicial review.
Item 5 MONTHLY REPORTS
13. The board noted the Health and Safety report. IP undertook to clarify the level of risk relating to the incidents reported on wrong side failures around block sections showing clear (para 15, bullet 3) [Action].
14. The board noted the CP5 tracker.
15. PR18: the executive continued to engage with officials at Treasury to explain the significance of the five year planning cycle for the railway.
16. Q4 report against the business plan: the board noted the correction to the service standard on authorisations where 100% had been completed within the standard (reported at 98%). The board discussed the level of vacancies reported and noted plans by the executive to improve management information and reports. JW would give further detail on the significance of the number of vacancies. [Action].
Item 6 ORR’S APPROACH TO TRACK ACCESS ISSUES ARISING FROM THE CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF HIGH SPEED 2 (HS2)
Rob Plaskitt and Jonathan Rodgers joined the meeting for this item
This item has been redacted until the publication of a consultation document – anticipated to be summer 2017
20. The board agreed the approach and delegated sign off of the consultation to John Larkinson [action] Item 7 NETWORK RAIL’S DELIVERY OF PERFORMANCE IN 2016-17
Matt Durbin joined the meeting for this item.
21. Graham Richards introduced the item. In 2015-16 staff had undertaken enhanced performance monitoring for NR’s delivery to GTR, SE Trains, Heathrow Express and Transpennine Express to encourage improvement and to gather evidence for any necessary enforcement action.
22. In 2016-17 staff had implemented enhanced monitoring for NR’s delivery to GTR, SE Trains, VTEC and South West trains.
23. Performance issues on GTR were complicated by industrial action and were the subject of senior intervention by NR and government. It was not felt that action by the regulator would contribute to improved delivery at this time.
24. NR’s delivery to South Eastern had improved recently, but had been poor for two years. It included the worst incident in terms of delay minutes (the derailment at Woolwich). We wanted to consider whether there was a pattern emerging of underlying issues with the planning and handback of engineering works, highlighted by a series of incidents around London Bridge. The executive therefore planned to launch a formal investigation into this route. This would encourage the continuation of the recent improvements and might reveal a systemic issue with associated learning for the future.
25. The board noted the planned investigation and the continuing enhanced monitoring of the other routes. It was important that the reasons for choosing which poor performing routes would be investigated were clearly understood and could be articulated.
26. The board noted that TOCs’ delivery of their franchise commitments was not a matter for the regulator.
Item 8 INPUT INTO NETWORK RAIL’S REMUNERATION COMMITTEE ON PAYMENTS TO SCHEME MEMBERS UNDER THE MANAGEMENT INCENTIVE PLAN FOR 2016-17
27. Graham Richards explained that ORR’s view of NR’s performance for 2016-17 would be set out in the annual Monitor published over the summer. Key messages for this publication would be developed as the relevant information was finalised and discussed with the Board in May. [forward programme]
28. ORR’s proposed approach to NR’s management incentive plan as set out in the paper was a mechanistic one; transparent and predictable. The board agreed the broad approach, noting that the NR Remco should be invited to consider both whether their targets were consistent with the regulatory framework and that their underlying information was robust.
29. The board noted the executive’s suggestion that the licence condition relating to the MIP might be reviewed in PR18. Item 9 UPDATED DRAFT CONSULTATION ON IMPROVING NR’S EFFICIENCY
Carl Hetherington, Mark Morris and Chris Hemsley joined the meeting for this item
This item has been redacted until the publication of a consultation document – anticipated to be summer 2017
Item 10 VISITORS: THE RAIL DELIVERY GROUP’S FREIGHT GROUP
38. The board prepared for the visitors from the RDG Freight group.
Russell Mears, Hans-Georg Werner, Paul Plummer and Paul McMahon
39. The board welcomed the visitors. The visitors set out the context for the rail freight industry and some of the challenges and opportunities that they could see in relation to PR18.
40. The meeting discussed: • railfreight operators’ commitment to sharing good practice in safety; • the decline in historical bulk cargos and increases in container and other traffic; • the underlying reasons for improved freight performance on the rail network; • the importance of an effective system operator and the FNPO’s role in a route-based NR; • the complex nature of freight paths compared to passenger routes; • the opportunity of extra capacity on the WCML following HS2 opening; • commercial challenges for the sector including the need to change or adapt rolling stock, staffing levels and competition with road haulage • railfreight’s concerns about possible PR18 freight charges, given their experience in PR13; • the environmental benefits of railfreight over road haulage.
41. Stephen Glaister thanked the visitors for their constructive contribution and their time.
Visitors left the meeting
42. The meeting reflected on the discussion, noting particularly the public benefits that rail freight delivered over road haulage in terms of reducing congestion, lower carbon emissions, and reduced accident risk, and our PR18 charges work.
Item 11 BREXIT – STRATEGY FOR ORR
Agnès Bonnet joined the meeting for this item. 43. Dan Brown introduced the report which set out the proposed approach to ORR’s engagement with Europe now that Article 50 had been triggered. The proposals set out in the paper were in line with government’s approach to European engagement. When Brexit was complete ORR would need to reflect on the degree to which relationships with European bodies were a legitimate use of our resources, but for now the use of resource was necessary.
44. The plan for the next twelve months was a) to continue to engage actively in all forums as we have been; b) to assess options for necessary bilateral or multilateral relationships for the future (to deal with cross border issues such as the Channel Tunnel and in Ireland); c) to consider how to apply European TSIs in the UK after we leave.
45. The board discussed the importance of maintaining necessary relationships. ORR had led the way in Europe both as an economic regulator in rail and in health and safety standards and this influence was seen to have delivered benefits for the UK industry. The team should continue to invest in relationships and keep options open until the shape of the exit was clearer.
Item 12 FEEDBACK FROM COMMITTEES
46. Bob Holland reported on the previous day’s Audit and Risk Committee which had an update on key risks, including the IT programme and risks in the wider industry. The risk management system continued to be useful but needed further embedding. He outlined the full internal audit programme for 2017-18.
47. Michael Luger reported on the previous day’s meeting of the Remuneration and Nominations Committee which had considered its new responsibilities for non-executive induction and training and discussed the staff survey results in detail.
Item 13 ANY OTHER BUSINESS
48. The board noted the items listed below the line: • The minutes of December’s HSRC • A tabled note on the forthcoming regional visit to the West Midlands • The board forward programme.
49. The board agreed to hold an awayday in autumn 2017 to review strategic objectives and consider the outcome of the road/rail synergy project. [action]
50. The board agreed to refresh the ‘context’ section of the board agenda to focus on changes since the last meeting and key messages for the NED board members. [action]
51. The board attended a teach-in on the overall framework for PR18.
[ends]
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/0247-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 5,
"total-input-tokens": 16635,
"total-output-tokens": 2833,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
2254,
1
],
[
2254,
4882,
2
],
[
4882,
7476,
3
],
[
7476,
9383,
4
],
[
9383,
11761,
5
]
]
} |
7f6818ac8ed75f1fc1d3f7d74dbf2a1400174255 | National Hip Fracture Database (NHFD)
Annual report September 2018 (Data from January to December 2017) National Hip Fracture Database annual report 2018
This report was prepared by the members of the National Hip Fracture Database (NHFD) workstream delivery team:
Tim Bunning, Crown Informatics Rosie Dickinson, FFFAP programme manager Elizabeth Fagan, FFFAP project manager Dominic Inman, NHFD clinical lead, orthopaedic surgery Antony Johansen, NHFD clinical lead, orthogeriatrics Andrew Judge, associate professor and senior statistician, University of Oxford James Hannaford, FFFAP project coordinator Meghan Liddicoat, FFFAP project manager Rob Wakeman, NHFD advisory group
Data analysis by Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford www.ndorms.ox.ac.uk
NHFD data collection webtool and performance tables are provided by Crown Informatics www.crowninformatics.com
Falls and Fragility Fracture Audit Programme The NHFD is commissioned by the Healthcare Quality Improvement Partnership (HQIP) and managed by the Care Quality Improvement Department (CQID) of the Royal College of Physicians (RCP) as part of the Falls and Fragility Fracture Audit Programme (FFFAP) alongside the Fracture Liaison Service Database (FLS-DB) and Falls Prevention Audit. FFFAP aims to improve the delivery of care for patients having falls or sustaining fractures through effective measurement against standards and feedback to providers.
Healthcare Quality Improvement Partnership The Healthcare Quality Improvement Partnership (HQIP) is led by a consortium of the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges, the Royal College of Nursing and National Voices. Its aim is to promote quality improvement in patient outcomes, and in particular, to increase the impact that clinical audit, outcome review programmes and registries have on healthcare quality in England and Wales. HQIP holds the contract to commission, manage and develop the National Clinical Audit and Patient Outcomes Programme (NCAPOP), comprising around 40 projects covering care provided to people with a wide range of medical, surgical and mental health conditions. The programme is funded by NHS England, the Welsh Government and, with some individual projects, other devolved administrations and crown dependencies. www.hqip.org.uk/national-programmes
The Royal College of Physicians The Royal College of Physicians (RCP) is a registered charity that aims to ensure high-quality care for patients by promoting the highest standards of medical practice. It provides and sets standards in clinical practice, education and training, conducts assessments and examinations, quality assures external audit programmes, supports doctors in their practice of medicine, and advises the government, the public and the profession on healthcare issues.
Citation for this report: Royal College of Physicians. National Hip Fracture Database annual report 2018. London: RCP, 2018.
Copyright All rights reserved. Applications for the copyright owner’s written permission to reproduce significant parts of this publication (including photocopying or storing it in any medium by electronic means and whether or not transiently or incidentally to some other use of this publication) should be addressed to the publisher. Brief extracts from this publication may be reproduced without the written permission of the copyright owner, provided that the source is fully acknowledged.
Copyright © Healthcare Quality Improvement Partnership 2018
ISBN 978-1-86016-735-5 eISBN 978-1-86016-736-2
Royal College of Physicians 11 St Andrews Place, London NW1 4LE www.rcplondon.ac.uk
Registered Charity No 210508 Foreword
The publication of this year’s National Hip Fracture Database (NHFD) report is an exemplar of what the NHS is capable of achieving, that very few health systems across the world can match. A socialistic, altruistic care paradigm that seeks to look after every one of the country’s citizens regardless of ability to pay is best advertised in the figures contained in this report.
An older, often vulnerable cohort of patients retrieved from the site of injury and treated in trauma units across England, Wales and Northern Ireland is carefully documented and their progress plotted and wellbeing analysed over a 120-day period from admission.
The data and analysis presented here are stark and objective, and analysis by each individual unit providing this care should be mandatory and included in multidisciplinary audit meetings. The reflection should include satisfaction with a trend to lowering of mortality in successive years – though this year’s figure of 6.9% is marginally higher than the 6.7% in 2016, attributed to a more comprehensive dataset and fewer exclusions. It should also include introspection on improvement of the 4AT assessment so we can continue to celebrate the increasing possibility of rehabilitating these injured people to their own homes, rather than to residential or care facilities.
Sober analysis of the reasons for variation in units and an honest appraisal of shortcomings in resources, personnel and attitudes will allow each of us to look forward to next year’s NHFD publication with anticipation.
I commend and congratulate the team who have produced this analysis and the larger NHS workforce whose efforts are so painstakingly dissected and laid bare here.
Ananda Nanu, president of the British Orthopaedic Association Contents
Introduction Methodology and case ascertainment Quality improvement Key performance indicators and recommendations Key performance indicator 1 Key performance indicator 2 Key performance indicator 3 Key performance indicator 4 Key performance indicator 5 Key performance indicator 6 Mortality Trends in mortality Casemix-adjusted 30-day mortality Hospitals with increased mortality Hospitals with low 30-day mortality Improving hip fracture care
1. Improving the quality of perioperative care
2. Improving the quality of hip fracture surgery
3. Improving the organisation of services
4. Understanding the outcome of hip fracture
5. National Audit of Inpatient Falls References and bibliography Get in touch Introduction
Hip fracture is the most common serious injury in older people. It is also the most common reason for older people to need emergency anaesthesia and surgery, and the commonest cause of death following an accident.
Patients may remain in hospital for a number of weeks, leading to one and a half million hospital bed days being used each year. Overall length of stay has fallen slightly (from 20.6 to 20.0 days; see table below) since 2016. But, at any one time, patients recovering from hip fracture still occupy over 3,600 hospital beds (3,159 in England, 325 in Wales and 133 in Northern Ireland), a figure equivalent to 1 in 45 beds in England and Northern Ireland, and 1 in 33 beds in Wales.
| Admissions in 2017 | Acute stay | Trust stay | |-------------------|------------|------------| | | Mean LOS (days) | Beds occupied | Mean LOS (days) | Beds occupied | | England | 60,060 | 15.5 | 2,550 | 19.2 | 3,159 | | Wales | 3,826 | 18.9 | 198 | 31.0 | 325 | | N Ireland | 2,072 | 13.5 | 77 | 23.4 | 133 | | NHFD | 65,958 | 15.6 | 2,819 | 20.0 | 3,614 |
Only a minority of patients will completely regain their previous abilities, and increased dependency and difficulty walking mean that a quarter will need long-term care. As a result, hip fracture is associated with a total cost to health and social services of over £1 billion per year (Leal et al 2016). This one injury carries a total cost equivalent of approximately 1% of the whole NHS budget.
The care provided to people with hip fracture provides an unparalleled example of how frail and older people are managed by the modern NHS. Information on the different types of procedure can be found in our My hip fracture care booklet, available on our website.
**Methodology and case ascertainment**
The National Hip Fracture Database (NHFD) was established in 2007 and its methodology has not changed since the detailed description provided in our 2017 report.
All 175 eligible hospitals in England, Wales and Northern Ireland now regularly upload data. This report describes the process and outcome of care provided to 66,668 people presenting with a hip fracture in 2017 – nearly all of the patients in these countries.
NHFD case ascertainment is more reliable than Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) as a result of hip fracture teams’ attention to collection of data about their patients, along with the financial incentive of best practice tariff (BPT) in England. Since 2016 we have viewed NHFD records as the gold standard against which the accuracy of local patient administration systems should be measured.
NHFD has pioneered the release of clinical audit data to the general public (see thumbnail), making its analyses openly available so that clinical teams, hospital management and the public can share the same access to live information about services in their area. Nearly all of the information included in this report will already have been made available to local teams through the NHFD website (see above) developed with Crown Informatics.
Quality improvement
The NHFD provides feedback in a number of formats, including annual reports, patient reports, regional workshops and, more recently, live publically available run charts.
Three-quarters of hospitals reported using NHFD charts and tables as the basis for quality improvement (QI) projects during 2017. An example case study is summarised below: In March 2018 the NHFD ran a quality improvement training day in Leicester working with groups of trainees from the three key specialties – orthopaedics, anaesthetics and geriatrics.
The trainees who took part reported lack of participation in and completion of an audit cycle, as well as subsequent or related QI projects. This has steered the FFFAP team to develop an educational programme for trainees, which is planned to start in August 2018. This will use FFFAP data as a basis for QI projects, include teaching days and peer support from a FFFAP QI fellow.
We are also developing a new ‘resources’ section for the NHFD website and we welcome future accounts of successful projects in which hip fracture teams have used NHFD data as the basis for QI work. We are equally keen to include learning from those projects that are not successful. We look forward to sharing the details with our participating teams later in the year.
______________________________________________________________________
**Salford Royal Hospital – successful reduction of pressure ulcers**
**The challenge**
In 2013 the NHFD highlighted a high incidence of pressure ulcers in hip fracture patients.
**The solution**
A hospital project team responded to this early finding and introduced a prompt regular Waterlow assessment, a directorate-wide training programme and a management protocol to make better use of the skills of a tissue viability nurse.
**The outcome**
Salford Royal Hospital recorded a dramatic and sustained fall in pressure ulcer incidence, as shown in their patient safety run chart. This project was one of three shortlisted from 148 entries for an HQIP ‘local improvement following national audit participation award’. Salford Royal Hospital has continued to display some of the lowest rates of pressure ulcer incidence in the UK.
In March 2018 the NHFD ran a quality improvement training day in Leicester working with groups of trainees from the three key specialties – orthopaedics, anaesthetics and geriatrics.
The trainees who took part reported lack of participation in and completion of an audit cycle, as well as subsequent or related QI projects. This has steered the FFFAP team to develop an educational programme for trainees, which is planned to start in August 2018. This will use FFFAP data as a basis for QI projects, include teaching days and peer support from a FFFAP QI fellow.
We are also developing a new ‘resources’ section for the NHFD website and we welcome future accounts of successful projects in which hip fracture teams have used NHFD data as the basis for QI work. We are equally keen to include learning from those projects that are not successful. We look forward to sharing the details with our participating teams later in the year. Key performance indicators and recommendations
This report describes the development of a set of six NHFD key performance indicators – designed to complement the very broad range of data on many aspects of assessment, surgical and anaesthetic care, rehabilitation, follow up and outcome presented in benchmarking tables and dashboards (see thumbnails) on the NHFD website.
| KPI | Area of care | |-----|--------------| | Key performance indicator 1 | Prompt orthogeriatric assessment | | Key performance indicator 2 | Prompt surgery | | Key performance indicator 3 | NICE compliant surgical approach | | Key performance indicator 4 | Prompt mobilisation after surgery | | Key performance indicator 5 | Not delirious when tested after operation | | Key performance indicator 6 | Returned to original residence by 120 days |
Key performance indicator 1
Prompt orthogeriatric assessment
Orthogeriatric assessment is central to the recommendations of both the NICE clinical guideline on the management of hip fracture care in adults (CG124) and quality standard QS16.
A target of ‘assessment by a senior orthogeriatrician within 72 hours’ means that all patients can and should be seen within this timeframe, even if they present at the weekend to a unit with a Monday to Friday orthogeriatric service. Nine hospitals achieved figures of over 99% in 2017.
In 2017, 91.2% of all NHFD patients received senior orthogeriatric assessment within 72 hours, a further slight improvement from 90.8% in 2016 (see chart under ‘prompt surgery’ below).
In England, investment in orthogeriatrics was incentivised by best practice tariff (BPT) and 93.2% of patients were assessed in 2017. The corresponding figure was 83.3% in Northern Ireland.
Work using NHFD data (Neuburger 2017, 2018) has confirmed the emphasis that NICE places on orthogeriatric assessment – directly linking improvements in the quality and outcome of care to investment in orthogeriatrician support. It is therefore a concern that a figure of just 63.3% was reported in Wales, and the consequences of this are described in this report.
Recommendation 1 Hospitals should examine their own NHFD data in dashboards and run charts and those with poor rates of orthogeriatric assessment should consider the implications of this for the quality of initial assessment, preoperative optimisation, perioperative medical care, rehabilitation, discharge planning, and survival that are described in this report. Key performance indicator 2
Prompt surgery
Both NICE CG124 and QS16 recommend surgery by the day following admission, and in 2017 five hospitals reported that this was achieved for over 90% of all cases.
In England, surgery within 36 hours is incentivised by best practice tariff, anticipating that around 85% of people should be suitable for surgery within 36 hours, as some will have acute medical problems that may need to be optimised before they are considered fit for anaesthesia and surgery.
Across all countries 70.2% of people underwent surgery within 36 hours of presentation – a further deterioration compared with national figures of 74.4% in 2015 and 73.0% in 2016, which means that on average people are now waiting 33 hours for hip fracture surgery.
In England, the proportion of people receiving surgery within 36 hours fell from 74.8% in 2016 to 72.7%, with corresponding falls from 67.5% to 61.2% in Wales, and from 33.0% to 12.3% in Northern Ireland.
Delay in surgery for clinical reasons has remained stable, but we have seen an increase in delays due to lack of space on theatre lists and list over-runs. The increase in delays for such reasons increased from 13.2% in 2016 to 14.4% in 2017 and may be indicative of rising pressure on theatre capacity. However, clinical teams continue to report inefficiencies in the use of theatre capacity. Accounts of theatre lists routinely starting late and the avoidable cancellation of individual cases suggest that local QI has considerable potential to reverse this deterioration in prompt surgery.
In our 2018 Facilities Audit across all countries most units (106/175, 61%) reported that they do not have dedicated hip fracture theatre lists. Among units with such lists, the number of available sessions varied from one a week to fourteen each week – an average of three dedicated lists a week.
Recommendation 2 Hospitals should examine their own NHFD data in dashboards and run charts and those with poor performance should establish what proportion of delays in surgical operations are the result of avoidable inefficiencies in preoperative planning or in the organisation of theatre lists. Information on the different types of procedure can be found in our My hip fracture care booklet, available on our website.
**Key performance indicator 3**
**NICE compliant surgical approach**
The surgical techniques appropriate to different types of hip fracture have been extensively examined by NICE in CG124 and QS16, and are discussed in Section 2 at the end of this report. NHFD run charts, tables and dashboards report this in detail.
31.4% of patients who NICE views as eligible for total hip replacement (THR) for displaced intracapsular fracture received this operation. This is an improvement from 30.4% in 2016, but there is still huge variation between units, with rates that varied from 0–100%.
78.8% of people with an A1/A2 intertrochanteric fracture received the sliding hip screw (SHS) – a fall from 80.9% in 2016, which reflects an increase in the use of intramedullary (IM) nails, contrary to the approach recommended by NICE.
Failure to follow NICE guidance for these and other aspects of operative approach meant that in preparing our last annual report we found that in 2016 only 64.2% of all patients appeared to have received an operation that NICE would have recommended – with figures ranging from as low as 15.7% up to 86.0% in different units. We are not reporting on KPI3 this year, since the quality of data underpinning these figures was poor. It is clear that in the past some units have been leaving the coding of operative and anaesthetic technique to non-clinical staff. Since January 2018 we have therefore introduced a theatre data capture sheet which has improved the ease and accuracy with which fracture type and operative/anaesthetic approach are recorded.
Improvement in the quality of this data means that next year we will report a new key performance indicator – ‘% of all patients who receive an operation compliant with NICE recommendations’.
**Recommendation 3** Those providing or commissioning hip fracture services must examine their run charts and dashboards, and challenge units which report low rates of THR in eligible cases, or low rates of SHS for A1/A2 fractures – such findings would suggest that these groups of patients are not being treated in a cost-effective way that is in line with NICE guidance.
**Key performance indicator 4**
**Prompt mobilisation after surgery**
NHFD measures whether patients are able to be mobilised by the day following hip fracture surgery, in response to the NICE recommendation that ‘Adults with hip fracture start rehabilitation at least once a day, no later than the day after surgery’ ([NICE QS16](https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/qs16)).
Some patients will have been bed-bound before surgery so not everyone will be suitable for mobilisation, but four hospitals reported figures of over 99% in 2017.
All units should ensure that they are reporting data consistent with the NHFD standard that ‘the patient is mobilised (standing or hoisted) out of bed by the day following surgery’. 78% were successfully mobilised in 2015 and 2016, and this figure rose only slightly to reach 78.8% in 2017.
It is a concern that while this figure was 79.4% in England and 89.4% in Northern Ireland, only 62.2% of patients in Wales were able to be mobilised by the day after surgery.
Hospitals with poor mobilisation rates need to use the ‘Hip Sprint’ report *Recovering after a hip fracture* to review the quality and intensity of physiotherapy they are providing. Units that provide high-quality perioperative surgical, anaesthetic and medical care will minimise the number of patients who are too unwell to receive therapy.
We found that 9.4% of patients were unable to get up on the day after surgery as a result of pain or low blood pressure – factors that might have been anticipated by clear perioperative protocols and closer working between surgical and anaesthetic colleagues.
In 2017 the NHFD collaborated with the Chartered Society of Physiotherapy (CSP) in the Physiotherapy ‘Hip Sprint’ Audit. This was configured around NICE clinical guideline CG124 recommendations 1.8.1, 1.7.1. and 1.7.2 – which state that patients should be offered physiotherapy assessment that ensures ‘early identification of individual goals for multidisciplinary rehabilitation to recover mobility and independence, and to facilitate return to pre-fracture residence and long-term wellbeing’, ‘mobilisation on the day after surgery’, ‘mobilisation at least once a day’ and ‘regular physiotherapy review’.
Patients averaged 2 hours of therapy in the first week, but this figure varied enormously around the country (see chart below). However, the amount of therapy a patient receives is not just a matter of the availability of physiotherapists. In some units, Hip Sprint successfully captured the huge contribution of other therapists and nurses to postoperative rehabilitation, but in other hospitals this was either not recognised or not being fully exploited by multidisciplinary team working.
**Recommendation 4** Physiotherapy leads must be included in hip fracture programme governance meetings and if the key performance indicator ‘Prompt mobilisation after surgery’ identifies a concern this must lead to development of plans to improve multidisciplinary working and avoid people being unable to get up promptly as a result of pain, low blood pressure or delirium.
**Key performance indicator 5**
**Not delirious when tested after operation**
Delirium is the commonest complication of all forms of surgery and anaesthesia in older people, but the condition is still poorly recognised by some staff looking after these patients.
NHFD have therefore adopted the 4A test (4AT) ([Bellelli 2014](#)) as a simple measure that will encourage routine assessment, and improve our understanding of a complication that can dominate patients’ hospital stay and recovery, as discussed in Section 1 at the end of this report.
NHFD asks for 4AT to be performed in the week following surgery, and over 80% of people were screened for postoperative delirium using the 4AT score in 2017.
In some units a large number of patients were not assessed so it is inappropriate for us to report rates of delirium for different units. Instead we will report on the ‘proportion of patients who did not have delirium when tested after operation’ – so that a failure to test will be reflected in this indicator.
In 2017 we found that 62.3% of patients were successfully tested and found not to have delirium. This figure ranged from 0% to over 90%, and units at either extreme of this distribution should review the way in which this crucial patient assessment is being performed.
Among those patients who were tested, a quarter (24.9%) were identified as having ‘possible delirium’ with a score of 4+. These people were twice as likely to die as inpatients, three times more likely to need placement in a residential home and four times more likely to need placement in a nursing home.
**Recommendation 5** Clinical teams must review the new key performance indicator ‘proportion of patients not delirious when tested after operation’ for their unit. If dashboards and benchmarking tables highlight poor performance then multidisciplinary clinical governance meetings must consider, discuss and develop plans to improve the perioperative care they are providing to their patients.
**Key performance indicator 6**
**Returned to original residence by 120 days**
NICE recommend that hip fracture teams ‘should have clinical and service governance responsibility for all stages of the pathway of care and rehabilitation – including those delivered in the community’ ([CG124, NICE 2011](https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg124)). In spite of this, many hip fracture services are unable to report whether their patients return home.
In 2017 we found that 67.5% of patients were known to have returned to their original residence by 120 days after hip fracture – a figure that is unchanged since 2016.
On average, 64.3% of people will return to their previous residence from the acute trust, but this figure varies between 33.4% and 92.5% in different units (see chart below).
Much of this variation is explained by huge differences in how many patients are transferred to other trusts and units for rehabilitation, and some hip fracture teams appear to have no way of knowing whether this rehabilitation was successful. 120-day follow-up is particularly important for hip fracture services, which routinely transfer a large proportion of patients to continue their rehabilitation in other trusts or settings. Without this they will return poor figures for this performance indicator.
Only 38.4% of patients received 120-day follow-up of their mobility and to confirm that they were still taking bone protection medication. This is only a slight improvement from 37.4% in 2016, and means that most units do not know if their patients are continuing with effective bone protection.
Without follow up, units cannot know the effectiveness of the care they provide or understand the implications of this for their patients’ quality of life. Our Hip Sprint physiotherapy audit found that 37% of people had been walking freely without aid before hip fracture, but that by 120 days only 10% were walking this well and 9% had become completely immobile.
**Recommendation 6** Acute hip fracture teams must examine their approach to 120-day follow-up, such as 30-day mortality and persistence with bone protection, as these reflect elements of care which have influence on aspects of outcome, even after the patient leaves the acute trust.
**Mortality**
**Trends in mortality**
NHFD has consistently reported a trend for improvement in 30-day mortality over recent years.
Mortality rose very slightly last year (to 6.9%, cf. 6.7% in 2016), but this appears to reflect a reduction in missing data and the need to exclude fewer cases, so that our mortality outlier analysis was able to use a more complete dataset (66,500 cases, cf. 65,645 last year).
NHFD uses independent 30-day mortality figures from the Office of National Statistics (ONS). This annual report is based on a dataset that is closed in early 2018, even though ONS may not have been notified of all relevant deaths at that time.
As a result, the mortality figures in this report will not be as complete as the up-to-date figures shown in our website run charts. These run charts demonstrate the progressive improvement described in successive NHFD reports. They also allow us to monitor trends in different countries.
It is clear that this overall improvement results from a steady reduction in mortality among patients in England – where the run chart (see chart below) shows a fall from 8.4% at the start of 2012, to just 7.1% in 2017. In contrast, the run chart for Wales shows no evidence for such improvement – 30-day mortality in Wales was 7.9% at the start of 2012, and remained almost unchanged at 7.8% at the end of 2017.
Data for Northern Ireland have always suggested substantially lower 30-day mortality, with the Royal Victoria Hospital, Belfast featuring as a low mortality outlier once again this year. The NHFD outlier analysis for 2012–13 reported an overall 30-day mortality figure of 6.3% for Northern Ireland, a figure which has fallen to just 4.9% in the equivalent analysis for 2017.
**Casemix-adjusted 30-day mortality**
We performed a casemix-adjusted analysis of 30-day mortality (see funnel plot below) using externally validated data from the ONS, and Business Services Organisation (BSO) in Northern Ireland, following the same methodology as described last year (Tsang et al 2017; see thumbnail).
There was substantially less missing data this year, but poor data quality led to a number of units appearing as outliers since their casemix data suggested an unusually healthy population.
Some units reported improbable numbers of people admitted from care homes or provided data on pre-fracture mobility that was inconsistent with a patient’s residence. Such inaccuracy implies poor attention to early planning of rehabilitation and discharge goals.
In other units the distribution of patients’ American Society of Anaesthesiologist (ASA) grades seemed inconsistent, suggesting that these data may not have been provided by anaesthetists. This is a concern since ASA grade is a useful predictor of outcome (Johansen et al, Anaesthesia 2017). Half (49%) of units reported ASA as the only mortality risk assessment they used, with 8% using the Nottingham Hip Fracture Score and 37% of units using both, and 6% not using anything. The new NHFD theatre data capture sheet introduced in 2018 is designed to make it easier for anaesthetists to ensure the quality of these key casemix data.
Units’ crude and adjusted mortality figures are detailed in the ‘Outcome’ benchmark tables. A marked difference between crude and adjusted mortality may suggest poor quality data for the six casemix variables, in which case clinical leads should log in and examine online reports of their data quality.
It is the responsibility of local clinical leads to check the quality of data before they are submitted, to avoid poor quality data creating a misleading picture that might adversely affect their team’s morale, and the local population’s confidence in their hip fracture service.
A total of 66,500 patients from all 175 trauma units in England, Wales and Northern Ireland were included in this year’s mortality analysis. We recorded 4,598 people to have died within 30 days, giving an overall mortality of 6.9% – a slight increase from the 6.7% we reported in 2016.
The availability of run charts on the NHFD website means that the findings of this analysis should not come as a surprise to units that were identified as outliers from the funnel plot (see funnel plot below), since their crude mortality figures have been available to them throughout the last year.
All hospitals identified as showing mortality rates outside the 95% control limits were contacted prior to publication of this report and managed according to the outlier policy, which is available in the resources section of our website. We recommend a thorough internal review of the data alongside the crude mortality we report in individual hospital run charts.
If we have identified that increased mortality is suggestive of poor performance we recommend that sites consider requesting a multidisciplinary service review from the British Orthopaedic Association (BOA). Hospitals with increased mortality
We identified eight hospitals as ‘outliers’ for 2017 – with casemix-adjusted 30-day mortality rates above the upper 99.8% (3 standard deviation) control limit.
Two of these units had also been outliers for 2016 data in last years’ annual report:
- The Princess of Wales Hospital, Bridgend (POW) had reported an adjusted mortality of 12.6% in 2016. A crude mortality of 10.1%, and continued poor data quality will have contributed to the hospital’s adjusted mortality, which rose to 13.1% in 2017.
- Royal Gwent Hospital, Newport (GWE) had recorded an adjusted mortality of 12.0% in 2016. A crude mortality of 9.2% combined with improvements in data quality means that the hospital’s adjusted mortality was slightly lower at 10.8% in 2017.
Four other units had improved since 2016 and were no longer outliers, but six other units were outliers for the first time in 2017.
Two of these units provided good quality data that suggested high casemix-adjusted mortality.
- Royal London Hospital (LON) had a crude mortality of 11.7%, but when a younger, fitter and more mobile population is taken into account their casemix-adjusted figure rose to 16.3%.
- Pilgrim Hospital (PIL) had a crude mortality of 9.8%, but with relatively large numbers of patients recorded to have been admitted from their own home, so their casemix-adjusted figure was 10.7%. Missing or poor quality ASA data appears to have contributed to the high casemix-adjusted figures of four other units which were outliers at the 99.8% (3SD) limit for mortality in 2017:
- Princess Royal Hospital, Telford (TLF) was identified as not operating on over 5% of patients in 2016 and again in 2017, and recorded a crude mortality of 10.7% and an adjusted figure of 11.7% in 2017.
- North Hampshire Hospital (NHH) had a crude mortality of 10.4%, which rose to 11.5% after casemix adjustment.
- Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Edgbaston (QEB) had a crude mortality of 9.7%, with an adjusted figure of 10.5%.
- Morriston Hospital, Swansea (MOR) had a crude mortality of 8.3%, but the poor quality of ASA data meant that their casemix-adjusted mortality was 10.8% in 2017.
A further fourteen hospitals had adjusted mortality above the upper 95% (2SD) control limit.
Observations at this significance level should be interpreted with caution. In any analysis of 175 units some will fall outside 2SD control limits by chance, as a result of expected statistical variation.
NHFD run charts show how the crude mortality rate in some of these hospitals fluctuated in and out of the 2SD control limit between 2016 and 2017, and some have casemix profiles that differ from the overall average or from their own profile last year.
- Lincoln County Hospital and Royal Glamorgan Hospital, Llantrisant both had an adjusted mortality rate above the upper 95% limit.
- Barnet General Hospital and Hull Royal Infirmary had relatively good crude mortality but high adjusted mortality figures, which primarily appear to reflect the poor quality of the data they submitted to the NHFD.
- Missing and poor quality data was also an issue for seven other hospitals (Barnsley District General Hospital; Luton and Dunstable Hospital; Princess Alexandra Hospital, Harlow; Sandwell District Hospital; Nevil Hall Hospital, Abergavenny; Furness General; Worcestershire Royal Hospital) which all had mortality rates above the upper 95% limit after casemix adjustment.
- Southport and Formby District General; Scunthorpe General Hospital; and Nobles Hospital, Isle of Man were all identified as not having operated on over 5% of patients in 2017. This approach, along with poor quality ASA data may have contributed to adjusted mortality above the upper 95% limit in these units. Hospitals with low 30-day mortality
After casemix adjustment, we identified two hospitals as positive ‘outliers’ – with mortality below the lower 99.8% (3SD) limit – a finding consistent with these units’ excellent performance over a number of years.
- Data submitted by Poole General Hospital (PGH) suggests an unusually large number of people in the oldest age groups and people admitted from care homes, in spite of which the unit achieves a crude mortality of 3.5% and a casemix-adjusted figure of just 3.6%.
- Royal Victoria Hospital, Belfast (RVB) reported a crude mortality of 4.6% which fell to 3.5% after casemix adjustment, as the result of an unusually high number of people being recorded with very limited mobility or poor ASA grades.
In addition, seven hospitals (Altnagelvin Hospital; Royal Oldham Hospital; Queen Alexandra Hospital, Portsmouth; Royal Victoria Infirmary, Newcastle; Stepping Hill Hospital; University Hospital of North Staffordshire; Wythenshawe Hospital) had casemix-adjusted 30-day mortality in 2017 that was better than the majority of units – as indicated by rates falling below the lower 95% limit.
Another four units (Royal Bolton Hospital; Birmingham Heartlands Hospital; Medway Maritime Hospital; University Hospital of North Tees) achieved similar figures, though with poorer data for their patients’ prior mobility or fracture type. Improving hip fracture care
1. Improving the quality of perioperative care
Pain management
Hip fracture pain can be severe, particularly if the patient’s leg is moved, and commonly features as one of patients’ main recollections of suffering this injury. Most units (90%) describe routinely using a pain score in the emergency unit and before surgery, with 87% using these after surgery.
Pain assessment can be challenging with older patients and in those with confusion or cognitive impairment (RCP, BGS and British Pain Society 2007). A quarter of units (27%) report that they do not have a pain assessment tool designed for use in this situation. Among those hospitals which do use a tool designed for use in people with dementia, most (62%) reported using the Abbey pain scale (Abbey et al 2004). NHFD has championed the provision of nerve blocks as a way of improving patients’ pain after surgery, and our run chart has documented progressive improvement in the proportion of people being offered this following both general and regional anaesthesia. In 2017 we recorded marked further improvement, with figures of 70.8% (cf. 64.2% in 2016) following general anaesthesia and 50.1% (cf. 40.2% in 2016) following spinal anaesthesia (see chart below).
Since the start of 2017 we have also collected data on the use of nerve blocks before surgery – in the emergency unit and in the orthopaedic ward. It is very encouraging that provision of such nerve blocks increased from 36.0% to 47.3% just over the course of 2017, as this is a very effective means of reducing fracture pain, and avoiding excessive reliance on powerful painkillers such as opiates which carry significant side effects in this group of patients.
**Delirium assessment**
Delirium is the commonest complication of surgery and anaesthesia in older people.
NHFD have adopted the 4A test (4AT) as the basis for key performance indicator 5. This quick and simple examination of the four key components of delirium (see box) will encourage routine screening for delirium and improve our understanding of a complication that can dominate patients’ hospital stay and recovery (Bellelli et al 2014).
In 2017 the 4AT was completed in the week after surgery in 90% of all patients.
In England, the use of 4AT is incentivised by best practice tariff and 95.3% of patients were tested – far better than the figure of 38.4% achieved in Wales and 42.0% in Northern Ireland.
Most units (56%) described that their target was to perform the 4AT within 72 hours of surgery, with 17% of units aiming to perform it on the first postoperative day.
Half (51.1%) of patients had a 4AT score of 0 which 4AT classes as ‘normal’ (see chart below). A quarter (24.0%) scored 1–3, and a quarter (24.9%) were identified as ‘possible delirium’ with a score of 4 or more.
People with pre-existing cognitive impairment (an abnormal Abbreviated Mental Test (AMT) score \<8 on presentation) were several times more likely to develop delirium (55.8%, cf. 7.4% of people with a normal AMT). This emphasises the potential of the AMT as a means of identifying which patients are most likely to develop this complication so that measures can be taken to prevent delirium.
NHFD collects the different elements of the 4AT test separately, and 6.8% of people were identified as having abnormal ‘alertness’. This suggests that at least one in fifteen people might develop ‘hypoactive delirium’ – a subtype that carries a poor prognosis.
Only 10.9% of people showed ‘acute change’, sensitivity to which depends on ward teams actively seeking a collateral history from patients’ family, usual carers and from hospital night staff. As a result these NHFD figures are likely to still underestimate the overall incidence of delirium.
**Measuring the quality of perioperative care**
The 4AT suggested delirium in 27.2% of people who had received a general anaesthetic alone, compared with 22.2% of those who received a spinal anaesthetic alone – though this finding may reflect the significantly more challenging casemix of people who underwent general anaesthesia.
The clinical impact of postoperative delirium is demonstrated by its relationship with outcome. People admitted from their own home who developed delirium were twice as likely to die as inpatients, and nearly four times more likely to need placement in a nursing home. Since we found considerable variation in the incidence of delirium between hospitals (see chart above), we are considering the development of a new NHFD metric – ‘% of patients not delirious when tested postoperatively’ – as an additional indicator of the quality and outcome of perioperative care.
2. Improving the quality of hip fracture surgery
Non-operative management In 2017, all but 2.2% of patients underwent surgery for hip fracture, though this figure varied around the country; from 0% in three units, to as high as 11.6% in Southport and Formby District General Hospital.
Bronglais Hospital, Aberystwyth and Princess Royal Hospital, Telford reported that over 5% of patients did not receive surgery in 2016 and again in 2017. Nine other hospitals also reported that over 5% of patients did not receive surgery in 2017 – County Hospital Hereford; New Cross, Wolverhampton; St Richard’s, Chichester; King’s College Hospital; Mayday Hospital, Croydon; Scunthorpe General Hospital; Glan Clwyd Hospital, Rhyl; Wrexham Maelor Hospital; and Noble’s Hospital, Isle of Man.
Operative approach The surgical techniques appropriate to different types of hip fracture have been extensively examined by NICE in CG124 and QS16, as illustrated in the infographic alongside Key performance indicator 3 earlier in this report and in the charts under ‘Measuring the quality of perioperative care’ above and ‘Use of intramedullary nail’ below. NHFD run charts, tables and dashboards report this in detail.
Use of intramedullary nails for A1/A2 intertrochanteric fractures A perplexing trend is the falling rate of sliding hip screw (SHS) usage for A1 and A2 intertrochanteric fractures, despite lack of robust evidence of superiority of long and short intramedullary (IM) nails and significant financial savings to be had by using a SHS rather than an IM nail as recommended by NICE. Trainee indicative numbers may play a part in this recent increase. Southampton General Hospital (SGH) reports that just 3.4% of patients with A1/A2 fractures in their unit are receiving SHS. In 2017 we introduced a new run chart (see chart below) which allows local teams to specifically examine their use of SHS in repairing A1/A2 hip fractures. This shows that compliance with NICE guidance has reduced further over the course of this year – falling from 80.9% in 2016 to 78.8% in 2017.
The vast majority of patients across the NHFD with subtrochanteric fractures are receiving IM nails as fixation of choice as per NICE guidance. However, Grantham and District General Hospital (GRA) reports that 0% are treated with an IM nail. Good Hope General Hospital reports that just 11.1% receive an IM nail and the University Hospital of North Tees reports a 14.6% rate of IM nail usage for patients with subtrochanteric fractures.
**Use of total hip replacement for eligible patients**
In its recent update of CG124 and QS16 NICE reaffirmed its previous recommendation about the appropriateness of total hip replacement (THR) for displaced intracapsular fracture in people who were previously mobile and in good physical and mental health.
Our run chart profiling rates of THR for displaced intracapsular hip fracture (see chart below) shows a national trend of continuing improvement (reaching 31.4% in 2017). However, we continue to see enormous variation in compliance with NICE’s recommendations, with units reporting rates that vary from 0–100%.
The provision of total hip replacement (THR) for patients deemed eligible by NICE standards has steadily risen across the country but there remains significant variation between units. The George Eliot Hospital (NUN) and the Prince Charles Hospital (PCH) report that 0% of eligible patients admitted to their units with displaced intracapsular fractures receive a THR. 3. Improving the organisation of services
Clinical leadership
The importance of local clinical leadership of hip fracture care and responsibility for the collection and use of NHFD data is demonstrated in that it is now recognised in the job plans of 71% of orthopaedic surgeons and 76% of orthogeriatricians.
A total of 155/175 units (89%) report that they have appointed an anaesthetist to a complementary clinical lead role. In 107 hospitals this responsibility is apparently recognised in the anaesthetist’s job plan, though only 45 anaesthetists have so far applied for access to the NHFD website. This is a particular concern if we wish to further develop our analyses of anaesthetic technique, and given the importance of ASA data quality to our casemix adjustment model for 30-day mortality analysis.
Three-quarters (75%) of units now report that all three clinical leads attend monthly clinical governance meetings. In most cases these are formally minuted (85%) and examine NHFD data alongside local QI work (89%), though patient feedback is only discussed in a minority (37%).
Orthogeriatric care
Previous NHFD reports and a number of academic papers have linked improvements in quality and outcome of hip fracture care to investment in orthogeriatrician support for this frail group of patients (Neuburger et al 2017, 2018; see thumbnail).
In 2017 we recorded 91.2% of patients as having been assessed by an orthogeriatrician within 72 hours of presentation, very similar to the 90.8% figure we reported last year.
In England, investment in orthogeriatrics was incentivised by best practice tariff (BPT) and 93.2% of patients received perioperative assessment in 2017. The corresponding figure was 83.3% in Northern Ireland, and just 63.3% in Wales. Other aspects of BPT may also play a part in this trend for improving mortality in England and benchmarking tables (see thumbnail) on the NHFD website allow us to show how the provision of other key interventions (such as preoperative cognitive assessment, prompt surgery, postoperative delirium screening, falls risk assessment and osteoporosis treatment) varied across different countries of the NHFD.
**Ward staffing**
The NHFD’s 2018 Facilities Audit identified that 108 (62%) of hospitals have a dedicated hip fracture ward to which patients can be admitted directly from the emergency unit.
The size of hip fracture units varied between wards enormously, with different hospitals reporting from 8 to 56 beds – with 28 beds in an average ward.
Despite the similarity in the patients being nursed in these wards there was huge variation in staffing levels (see box). For instance, the number of trained nurses staffing the morning shift of a notional 28-bedded ward averaged 4.3, but varied between 2.3 and 9.3 in different hospitals.
The reasons for such variation in patient-staff levels clearly warrant further examination, but these data provide a useful tool against which staff may wish to benchmark their own wards.
Therapist staffing levels in hip fracture wards and local teams should examine these alongside the descriptions of the intensity, quality and outcome of physiotherapy provided by the Physiotherapy Hip Fracture Sprint Audit. Over 580 physiotherapists in 127 hospitals provided data for 5,989 people in a collaboration between the Chartered Society of Physiotherapy (CSP) and NHFD, which is the largest ever audit of UK physiotherapy.
**Best practice tariff**
There has been a slight reduction in BPT eligibility across England, with 58% of all cases attracting the additional tariff in 2017 compared with 61% in 2016. This was anticipated as it reflects the new challenge posed by three additional BPT criteria introduced in 2017 (see table below). 2017 changes to Best Practice Tariff
Existing BPT criteria that remain unchanged
- Time to surgery within 36 hours of presentation
- Assessed by a geriatrician within 72 hours
- Preoperative cognitive test using the AMT score
- Assessment for bone protection
- Specialist falls assessment
Criteria removed in April 2017
- Joint assessment protocol
- Postoperative repeat of AMT score
- Multidisciplinary rehabilitation assessment
New criteria since April 2017
- Nutritional assessment on admission
- Postoperative delirium assessment using the 4AT tool
- Assessed by a physiotherapist on the day of or the day after surgery
The delivery of these performance markers in England is shown in our best practice run chart (see chart below).
4. Understanding the outcome of hip fracture
Return home The NHFD emphasises the need to know whether people successfully return home after hip fracture. NICE recommended that hip fracture teams ‘should have clinical and service governance responsibility for all stages of the pathway of care and rehabilitation – including those delivered in the community’ (CG124, NICE 2011).
Most older people view having to move to a nursing home after a hip fracture as a worse outcome than death (Salkeld et al 2000). In spite of this, many hip fracture services are unable to report whether their patients return home.
On average 64.3% of people return to their previous residence from the acute trust, but this figure varies between 33.4% and 92.5% in different units (see chart below).
Much of this variation is explained by huge differences in how many patients are transferred to other trusts and units for rehabilitation and some hip fracture teams appear to have no way of knowing whether this rehabilitation was successful.
120-day follow-up is particularly important for hip fracture services, which routinely transfer a large proportion of patients to continue their rehabilitation in other trusts or settings.
The completion of 120-day follow-up (the proportion of people for whom 120-day data on both mobility and bone treatment were received) improved slightly from 37.4% in 2016 to 38.4%, in 2017.
These data can be used to complement those on trust discharge destination to monitor the proportion of patients known to have returned to their original residence by 120 days – a figure that remained unchanged at 67.5%. This is the basis of the new key performance indicator 6, described earlier in this report.
**End-of-life care**
Although mortality has reduced since the NHFD was established, the typical patient is an 82-year-old woman with more than one significant comorbidity – so end-of-life care must remain a key aspect of the support orthopaedic and orthogeriatric teams provide to patients and their families.
In their responses to the NHFD Facilities Audit two-thirds (67%) of units reported that a treatment escalation plan was routinely discussed with the patient or those important to them as a part of the admission clerking process.
However, descriptions of policy and expected normal practice are often not borne out when audit examines the care that is actually provided to individual patients, so since 2017 NHFD has asked hip fracture teams to review the care offered to people who died as an inpatient following hip fracture.
This request is designed to stimulate investigation by local teams, so that the root cause of each death is identified and can inform clinical governance and quality improvement processes.
We specifically ask that clinical teams identify which patients died following a crash call, as opposed to those in whom the end of life had been anticipated and managed following appropriate discussion of care priorities with the patient, their family and their carers. During 2017 a total of 4,541 people (6.9%) died as an inpatient. In 74.3% the patient’s death had been anticipated and appropriate end-of-life care was already in place.
In 14.9% of cases the death was recorded to have followed active treatment including a crash call. However, rates of crash call showed dramatic variation – ranging from 0% in some units, to more than 50% in 10 (5.7%) of the 175 hospitals (see chart below).
For a further 10.8% of all people, death did not appear to have been so clearly anticipated with a move to an appropriate focus on end-of-life care, though this had not included a crash call or cardiopulmonary resuscitation.
Alongside performing root cause analyses of inpatient deaths clinical teams should consider the appropriateness of crash calls in individual cases. Hospitals which we identify as having unusually high and unusually low rates of crash calls might wish to examine their policies for identifying patients’ wishes and the appropriateness of ‘do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation’ decisions.
Eight hospitals (4.9%) reported that over half of deaths followed an unsuccessful crash call. We notified these units so that they could examine local policies over end-of-life decisions and the appropriateness of escalation of treatment. Hip fracture is a marker condition for the care offered to all frail and older inpatients, so conclusions about planning of end-of-life care in trauma units may have implications for practice across other departments of these hospitals.
5. National Audit of Inpatient Falls
From this year the Falls and Fragility Fracture Audit Programme will be redesigning the National Audit of Inpatient Falls (NAIF) to transition from the previous approach of a ‘snapshot’ audit every 2 years, to provide for continuous data collection in future.
We will be refocusing NAIF on patients who fall and sustain a hip fracture in any NHS setting: acute hospitals, mental health hospitals and community hospitals, using the NHFD to flag all patients who have sustained a hip fracture after a fall in an inpatient setting. NAIF will then collect data on preventative actions taken or not taken, assessment after the fall (using NICE quality standards) and critical incident reviews.
References and bibliography
The references cited in this report can be accessed here on our website.
Get in touch
For further information please contact us – we look forward to hearing from you.
www.nhfd.co.uk [email protected] falls&fragility@RCP_FFFAP National Hip Fracture Database (NHFD) The NHFD monitors the care of all hip fracture patients in England, Wales and Northern Ireland who are aged 60 and over, feeding back performance data to hospitals to facilitate quality improvement.
> www.nhfd.co.uk [email protected] +44(0)20 3075 2395
Falls Pathway Workstream The Falls Pathway Workstream carried out the National Audit of Inpatient Falls (NAIF) snapshot audits in 2015 and 2017, with continuous audit planned for 2018. NAIF is a national clinical audit measuring compliance against national standards of best practice in reducing the risk of falls within acute, community and mental health NHS trusts and health boards.
> www.rcplondon.ac.uk/fffap [email protected] +44(0)20 3075 1511
Fracture Liaison Service Database (FLS-DB) The FLS-DB aims to improve the quality of care for patients at risk of fractures by enabling NHS organisations to compare outcomes, identify and share best practice, identify gaps or shortfalls in commissioning services, and provide a comprehensive picture of fragility fracture care.
> www.rcplondon.ac.uk/fffap [email protected] +44(0)20 3075 1511
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/4200-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 32,
"total-input-tokens": 73005,
"total-output-tokens": 14168,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
105,
1
],
[
105,
3696,
2
],
[
3696,
5471,
3
],
[
5471,
6224,
4
],
[
6224,
8052,
5
],
[
8052,
9301,
6
],
[
9301,
9846,
7
],
[
9846,
12561,
8
],
[
12561,
15027,
9
],
[
15027,
17194,
10
],
[
17194,
18472,
11
],
[
18472,
21198,
12
],
[
21198,
23512,
13
],
[
23512,
25631,
14
],
[
25631,
28013,
15
],
[
28013,
29845,
16
],
[
29845,
31742,
17
],
[
31742,
33131,
18
],
[
33131,
35488,
19
],
[
35488,
36867,
20
],
[
36867,
37672,
21
],
[
37672,
39212,
22
],
[
39212,
41278,
23
],
[
41278,
43351,
24
],
[
43351,
45081,
25
],
[
45081,
46851,
26
],
[
46851,
48834,
27
],
[
48834,
50287,
28
],
[
50287,
52598,
29
],
[
52598,
54694,
30
],
[
54694,
55116,
31
],
[
55116,
56278,
32
]
]
} |
74e0b5ad9c94bef79c2f4cb50ba73eee4a623a69 | National Hip Fracture Database (NHFD) annual report 2017 National Hip Fracture Database annual report 2017
This report was prepared by the members of the National Hip Fracture Database (NHFD) workstream delivery team:
Chris Boulton, FFFAP programme manager Tim Bunning, Crown Informatics Antony Johansen, NHFD clinical lead, orthogeriatric medicine Andrew Judge, associate professor and senior statistician, University of Oxford Meghan Liddicoat, FFFAP project manager Bill Majrowski, NHFD project manager Iona Price, patient and carer representative, RCP Patient and Carer Network Sham Rajyaguru, NHFD project coordinator Rob Wakeman, NHFD clinical lead, orthopaedic surgery
Data analysis by Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford www.ndorms.ox.ac.uk
NHFD data collection webtool and performance tables are provided by Crown Informatics www.crowninformatics.com
Falls and Fragility Fracture Audit Programme The NHFD is commissioned by the Healthcare Quality Improvement Partnership (HQIP) and managed by the Clinical Effectiveness and Evaluation Unit (CEEU) of the Royal College of Physicians (RCP) as part of the Falls and Fragility Fracture Audit Programme (FFFAP) alongside the Fracture Liaison Service Database (FLS-DB) and Falls Prevention Audit. FFFAP aims to improve the delivery of care for patients having falls or sustaining fractures through effective measurement against standards and feedback to providers.
Healthcare Quality Improvement Partnership The Healthcare Quality Improvement Partnership (HQIP) is led by a consortium of the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges, the Royal College of Nursing and National Voices. Its aim is to promote quality improvement, and in particular to increase the impact that clinical audit has on healthcare quality in England and Wales. HQIP hosts the contract to manage and develop the National Clinical Audit and Patient Outcomes Programme (NCAPOP). Its purpose is to engage clinicians across England and Wales in systematic evaluation of their clinical practice against standards and to support and encourage improvement in the quality of treatment and care. The programme comprises more than 30 clinical audits that cover care provided to people with a wide range of medical, surgical and mental health conditions.
The Royal College of Physicians The Royal College of Physicians (RCP) is a registered charity that aims to ensure high-quality care for patients by promoting the highest standards of medical practice. It provides and sets standards in clinical practice, education and training, conducts assessments and examinations, quality assures external audit programmes, supports doctors in their practice of medicine, and advises the government, the public and the profession on healthcare issues.
Citation for this report: Royal College of Physicians. National Hip Fracture Database annual report 2017. London: RCP, 2017.
Copyright All rights reserved. Applications for the copyright owner’s written permission to reproduce significant parts of this publication (including photocopying or storing it in any medium by electronic means and whether or not transiently or incidentally to some other use of this publication) should be addressed to the publisher. Brief extracts from this publication may be reproduced without the written permission of the copyright owner, provided that the source is fully acknowledged.
Copyright © Healthcare Quality Improvement Partnership 2017
ISBN 978-1-86016-680-8 eISBN 978-1-86016-681-5
Royal College of Physicians 11 St Andrews Place, London NW1 4LE www.rcplondon.ac.uk
Registered Charity No 210508 Patients’ experience of receiving hip fracture care in 2016
Hip fracture is the most common serious injury in older people and costs the NHS and social care £1 billion per year. In 2016, over 65,000 people aged 60 or older presented to 177 hospitals in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
- Only 40% were admitted to a ward within 4 hours.
- 85% were assessed for malnutrition on admission to prevent problems after surgery.
- 55% were screened to identify if they had developed confusion after hip fracture surgery.
- 60% were offered a bone-strengthening treatment on discharge from hospital to prevent future fractures.
- 90% were cared for by specialists in both surgery and medicine around the time of their surgery.
- Physiotherapy assessment led to 77% starting to get up by the day after surgery.
- 67% of patients had returned to their original residence 4 months after surgery.
- 71% received surgery by the day after their hip fracture.
- 32% were followed up after 4 months and just 10% of them described themselves as freely mobile without a walking aid.
Over 65,000 people presented with hip fracture. Introduction
The National Hip Fracture Database (NHFD) is a clinically led, web-based audit of hip fracture care that grew out of collaboration between the British Orthopaedic Association and the British Geriatrics Society and is now managed by the Royal College of Physicians (RCP).
The first NHFD record was entered in 2007, and on its tenth anniversary year (2017) the database now has half a million records. This represents a significant milestone for the data collectors who make the audit possible and it was celebrated in London at the regional meeting and tenth anniversary meeting which brought past and present contributors together to hear about the NHFD’s achievements and activities.
Professor Chris Moran, national clinical director for trauma for NHS England said:
‘We need to maintain the NHFD – it is one of the jewels in the crown of the national audits – it is looked upon with envious eyes, from around the world’.
All of the event presentations are available to download in video format from www.nhfd.co.uk.
This annual report provides an opportunity for us to examine trends in performance and outcome over the 10 years since the NHFD was established, and to review specific topics that require a whole year’s data – such as our annual mortality outlier analysis.
In 2016 the NHFD pioneered the release of clinical audit data to the general public and made the data openly available so that clinical teams, hospital management and the public can all share the same access to live information about services in their area.
Nearly all the information included in this report will already have been made available to local teams through the website www.nhfd.co.uk developed with Crown Informatics.
References in the report have been replaced with thumbnail image links to URLs and are also available in a separate document. Performance tables can also be accessed through icon links. All 177 eligible hospitals in England, Wales and Northern Ireland now regularly upload data. This report describes the process and outcome of care provided to 65,645 people presenting with a hip fracture in 2016 – nearly all the patients in these countries.
This total is slightly higher than last year (64,858). In spite of this, fewer patients are recorded to have died within 30 days of presentation (4,398 in 2016 cf 4,622 in 2015; 4,821 in 2014).
This gives an overall mortality rate of 6.7% for 2016. This is better than the 7.1% we reported in 2015 and continues the steady improvement documented since 2007 when it was 10.9%.
Key findings and recommendations
Leadership
A decade of NHFD evidence has shown how the hip fracture programmes recommended by NICE improve the quality and outcome of care. However, some hospitals still appear to have no clinical leadership for such an approach.
Monthly clinical governance meetings are central to any hip fracture programme. All units record surgeons as attending clinical governance meetings, but it is not clear whether these are focused on the hip fracture programme since only 75.8% include an orthogeriatrician and 63% an anaesthetist.
Data quality checks should be part of the clinical lead’s role, but 22 units have no medical data quality review, including four in which the data is not collected by doctors or qualified nurses. In 40% of hospitals the work of clinical leads is not even recognised in their job plans.
- **Recommendation** – hospitals should ensure that the clinical leadership is in place to deliver and audit high-quality care
- **Recommendation** – local NHFD leadership should expand to include an anaesthetist as well as an orthopaedic surgeon and an orthogeriatrician
Inpatient falls
In 2015 we showed that 3.9% of hip fractures were sustained by hospital inpatients, with marked peaks of risk coinciding with morning and evening shift changes at times when patients need help getting up and using the toilet. This figure has risen to 4.1% in 2016.
- **Recommendation** – hospital managers and clinicians should examine how ward environments and staffing contribute to risk of inpatient falls, and monitor local inpatient hip fracture incidence as a patient safety metric in their trust
Prompt surgery
In the past year we have noted a further fall in the proportion of patients having surgery by the day after presentation, from 71.5% to 70.6%, the rate having peaked at 72.1% in 2014.
- **Recommendation** – monthly clinical governance meetings should review local NHFD data to identify and target common avoidable clinical and organisational reasons for delay in surgery Fracture management
Since 2012 NHFD has shown a steady improvement in compliance with NICE guidance.
More patients now receive a nerve block as a part of anaesthesia, and from 2017 we are also recording use of nerve blocks in the emergency unit and wards to reduce discomfort and opioid side effects while awaiting surgery.
Rates of cementing of arthroplasties have improved, and more eligible patients now receive total hip replacement (THR). However, provision of THR remains well below that expected by NICE, as recently confirmed in its 2017 update of guidance on this topic.
Fewer patients with intertrochanteric fractures now receive sliding hip screws. In 2016 about 2,500 people received intramedullary nails for fractures in which NICE recommends extramedullary fixation.
- **Recommendation** – hospitals and commissioners should determine the reasons for failure to follow NICE guidance in their local area
- **Recommendation** – hospitals and commissioners should review their ability to deliver total hip replacement to appropriate patients, in the light of NICE’s 2017 update on this topic
Rehabilitation
Comprehensive geriatric assessment is key to the effectiveness of hip fracture programmes, since improved multidisciplinary assessment will improve performance – hence the adoption of routine delirium, nutritional risk and physiotherapist assessments as part of Best Practice Tariff (BPT) this year. This report confirms that postoperative physiotherapist assessment is associated with earlier mobilisation.
However, the proportion of people being promptly admitted to a multidisciplinary hip fracture programme appears to have deteriorated – with just 39.9% of patients being admitted to an appropriate ward within 4 hours, compared with 43.9% in 2015.
- **Recommendation** – hospitals and commissioners should examine the reasons for delay in admission to beds where patients can receive coordinated multidisciplinary care from the hip fracture programme team who will be responsible for their whole stay
Follow-up
In addition to describing the care we provide, we should also consider our patients’ views of the care they received and its outcome, which is most appropriately measured at 120 days when most people will have completed their rehabilitation and recovery.
A postal questionnaire or telephone consultation should determine patients’ final residence, mobility and details of any reoperation, so that teams can understand the outcome of the care they have provided. At the same time, patients’ need for additional support with bone medication can be considered. This will also offer an opportunity for teams to survey patients’ experience of hospital and post-hospital care, so that this can influence the future development of services.
- **Recommendation** – hospitals and commissioners should note the importance of supporting patients’ persistence with bone health medication, as without it, further fragility fractures will not be avoided
**Length of stay**
Across the NHFD, mean length of stay has risen slightly (from 21.1 to 21.6 days), and in England it appears to have risen from 19.7 to 20.7 days. This may reflect improved capture of super-spell in some units (the overall length of NHS care following hip fracture), or may be a result of a general increase in demand for post-acute beds. This additional 1 day is equivalent to an extra 160 beds across hospitals in England.
For 17% of people the final discharge destination recorded by hospitals is still ‘ongoing NHS care’.
- **Recommendation** – hospitals and commissioners should use the opportunity of the ongoing Physiotherapy Hip Fracture Sprint Audit to improve their understanding of patient flows through different local services and their ability to capture the whole NHS super-spell
**Best practice**
Just over 40% of patients are still not receiving the full package of care that attracts the £1,335 additional payment of BPT. Some of this shortfall was envisaged in the design of BPT, but the current financial climate should surely encourage units to address areas for improvement.
By halving the number of patients that miss out on BPT a typical unit seeing 360 patients a year could attract an additional £100,000 each year.
- **Recommendation** – hospitals should review why individuals fail to receive all of the elements of care that define a hip fracture programme since most cases fail on only one or two criteria
1. Improving the quality of hip fracture care
NICE quality standard QS16 (updated in 2016)
In 2016 NICE updated quality standard QS16 and released a new set of six quality statements to capture key aspects of care that all patients should expect after a hip fracture, though not all patients will be fit for surgery by the day after presentation.
| NICE quality statements 2016 | NHFD audit findings 2016 | |---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | 1. Adults with hip fracture are cared for within a hip fracture programme at every stage of the care pathway | 88.7% of patients received perioperative orthogeriatric assessment – and 59.2% met all the criteria for BPT | | 2. Adults with hip fracture have surgery on a planned trauma list on the day of, or the day after, admission | Surgery on the day of or day after admission deteriorated from 71.5% in 2015 to an average of 70.6% for 2016 | | 3. Adults with displaced intracapsular hip fracture receive cemented hemiarthroplasty or, if they are assessed as clinically eligible, a total hip replacement (THR) | Provision of THR to patients who meet NICE criteria has improved from 26.9% to 30.4% Cementing of arthroplasties has continued its steady improvement – to 86.1% | | 4. Adults with trochanteric fractures above and including the lesser trochanter receive extramedullary implants | In 2016 sites reported that 80.8% of people having surgery for A1/2 trochanteric fracture were treated with a sliding hip screw | | 5. Adults with subtrochanteric fracture are treated with an intramedullary nail | The use of nails for subtrochanteric fracture has increased further – to 84.1% | | 6. Adults with hip fracture start rehabilitation at least once a day, no later than the day after surgery | Mobilisation the day after surgery improved from 73.3% to 77.3%. We are looking to define ‘rehabilitation’ in a 2017 sprint audit. |
NICE clinical guideline CG124 (updated in 2017)
The clinical guideline on the management of hip fracture in adults (CG124) was developed by NICE in 2011 and was central to the design and development of NHFD. It was updated in 2014, and again in 2017.
The recent update only considered changes in respect of the surgical management of displaced intracapsular fractures noting the need for further research in the management of undisplaced intracapsular fractures. The NHFD has documented progressive improvements in surgical care for displaced intracapsular fractures, including the provision of total hip replacement (THR), but in 2016 we still found that only 30.4% of patients who met the NICE eligibility criteria for THR actually received one.
This persistent poor compliance with NICE guidance led to an Oxford University study by Perry et al in the BMJ which was based on NHFD data from 2011–15. This examined the reasons for variation in practice between different hospitals, and showed how older and frailer patients were less likely to receive THR.
THR was also less likely to be offered to people of poorer socioeconomic status – a pattern for which it is difficult to imagine an acceptable justification.
An update of NICE CG124 was published in May 2017. This demonstrates the clinical and cost-effectiveness of THR for all patients with displaced intracapsular fracture who were cognitively intact, fit for anaesthesia and surgery, and previously mobile out of doors using no more than a stick.
Compliance with this updated NICE guidance will continue to be monitored in NHFD run charts of surgical performance in individual hospitals.
The 2017 update to NICE CG124 includes the following additions to guidance on surgical procedures:
1.6 Surgical procedures
1.6.1 Operate on patients with the aim to allow them to fully weight bear (without restriction) in the immediate postoperative period. [2011]
1.6.2 Offer replacement arthroplasty (total hip replacement or hemiarthroplasty) to patients with a displaced intracapsular hip fracture. [2017]
1.6.3 Offer total hip replacement rather than hemiarthroplasty to patients with a displaced intracapsular hip fracture who:
- were able to walk independently out of doors with no more than the use of a stick and
- are not cognitively impaired and
- are medically fit for anaesthesia and the procedure. [2017] In February 2013 Royal Preston Hospital conducted an audit of total hip replacement (THR) for displaced intracapsular fracture. Data from the NHFD run chart indicates that in January 2013 the rate was 33.3% having fallen from a peak of 75% in August 2012. The audit showed that the trust was currently performing well below the national average.
The clinical director for orthopaedics and trauma implemented a quality improvement initiative to increase the THR rate for patients with displaced intracapsular fracture. The initiative included:
- increased awareness of the need to consider THR for displaced intracapsular fracture
- education for orthopaedic colleagues and junior surgical staff
- increased access to onsite provision of THR for all trauma patients
- THR kit made available in a laminar flow theatre at the trust’s trauma site
- trauma theatre staff trained in THR surgery
- appointment of an orthogeriatrician
- appointment of clinical nurse specialist for fractured neck of femur
- rapid identification of patients suitable for THR
- improved communication within surgical teams to ensure patients are listed for surgery with an available hip surgeon
- patients receive THR as quickly as possible.
The initiative has seen the THR rate increase from 33.3% in January 2013 to 72% in March 2017 and 65.3% in June 2017. **Best Practice Tariff**
Individual hospitals’ performance, including attainment of the criteria for Best Practice Tariff (BPT).
NHS England and NHS Improvement use BPT to incentivise key elements of patient care that have been identified as important in improving the quality and outcome of care after hip fracture.
In particular, the additional payment can only be received if trusts provide assessment by a senior orthogeriatrician within 72 hours of a patient’s first presentation with hip fracture. In this way BPT serves to pump-prime the recruitment and appointment of geriatricians to provide orthogeriatric support in all hospitals in England.
The impact of orthogeriatrician involvement is complex to define, since the clinical work of an orthogeriatrician is only one part of their role.
Much of the impact of these appointments results from their coordination and leadership of the wider multidisciplinary team and how orthogeriatricians help to ensure that others are able to work effectively with this frail and complex group of patients.
This was explored in a 2016 paper by Neuburger et al at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.
This study used NHFD data to demonstrate how the increase in orthogeriatrician involvement between 2011 and 2013 led to a 3.4% reduction in relative risk of mortality after hip fracture – a figure equivalent to the avoidance of nearly 200 deaths across the 65,000 people presenting each year.
**Redefining best practice**
Three of NHS England’s and NHS Improvement’s criteria for BPT have been discontinued this year. Repetition of the abbreviated mental test (AMT) cognitive assessment in the postoperative period was viewed as burdensome and inappropriate as a means of defining the incidence of postoperative delirium. Previous criteria including ‘Admission using a joint surgeon – geriatrician assessment protocol’ and ‘Multidisciplinary rehabilitation assessment’ proved insufficiently rigorous and objective, and achieved near 100% rates of compliance. 2017 changes to Best Practice Tariff
Existing BPT criteria that remain unchanged
- Time to surgery within 36 hours of presentation
- Assessed by a geriatrician within 72 hours
- Preoperative cognitive test using the AMT score
- Assessment for bone protection
- Specialist falls assessment
Criteria removed in April 2017
- Joint assessment protocol
- Postoperative repeat of AMT score
- Multidisciplinary rehabilitation assessment
New criteria since April 2017
- Nutritional assessment on admission
- Postoperative delirium assessment using the 4AT tool
- Assessed by a physiotherapist on the day of or the day after surgery
Three new, more objective criteria have been part of the NHFD dataset since 2016.
From 1 April 2017 these are required for a patient’s care to be eligible for BPT in England.
Individual hospital’s figures for completion of these assessments are included in our hospital dashboards and in the performance tables.
Assessment on admission
Numerous studies have identified the high prevalence of malnutrition among the frail and older people who typically present with hip fracture, and suggest that nutritional support will improve outcome.
In 2016 we asked for all new patients to be defined as ‘malnourished’, ‘at risk’ or ‘normal’.
To avoid disrupting existing trust-wide nutritional assessment policies we asked units to make this assessment and categorisation using whichever nutritional risk tool is usual for their hospital. Our facilities audit asked which tools units were using for this assessment.
The majority (88%) of respondents described using the Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool (MUST), two used the Mini Nutritional Assessment (MNA) and one the WAASP tool. Sixteen others used locally developed tools.
In total, 54,878 patients (84.5%) underwent nutritional screening when they first presented, with just two hospitals failing to record any nutritional risk screening data in 2016.
Of the patients who were screened, 5.9% were categorised as ‘malnourished’, with 21.2% ‘at risk’ and 71.8% ‘normal’. There was considerable variation between hospitals. Two of the locally developed tools failed to identify any malnourished patients.
Even when we only consider the 131 units that used the MUST tool and reported numbers of patients in the three categories, the proportion identified as ‘malnourished’ varied from 0.7% to 24.5% across different hospitals (mean 5.6%). The proportion identified as ‘at risk’ or ‘malnourished’ varied from 2.0% to 83.3% (mean 23.3%) in these units (Fig 1).
It is encouraging that clinical staff already recognise the importance of nutritional risk assessment and that such a high proportion of patients are receiving assessment when they present with hip fracture. From April 2017 BPT in England will provide further incentive for such assessment.
However, our 2016 facilities audit identified that dietitians currently only attend monthly clinical governance meetings in 10% of hospitals. Our analysis has raised concerns over the reliability of some locally validated tools, and there is clearly a need to improve the training offered to staff who are using the MUST tool in a number of hospitals.
**Postoperative delirium assessment using the 4AT tool**
Delirium is the commonest complication of surgery and anaesthesia in older people, but is often poorly recognised by the staff looking after such patients. In 2014 Bellelli et al described the 4AT tool – a simple and straightforward approach to delirium assessment.
To encourage routine delirium assessment, and to improve recognition and understanding of delirium, NHFD adopted the 4AT assessment as a new indicator in its dataset from 2016, asking that this be performed for all patients during the first week after surgery.
In 2016 all but 8% of hospitals recorded 4AT testing in at least some of their patients. As a result, just over half (54.7%) of all patients were screened. The 4AT was abnormal (a score of 4 or more out of 12) in 23.6% of these patients, but in the first year after the introduction of this test reported rates of delirium varied hugely between units (from 0–100%).
Some units with relatively low rates of 4AT completion appeared to be preferentially recording delirious cases, which introduced a bias in overall figures. However, in units where more complete recording was achieved the rates of delirium identified with 4AT clustered around a more reliable figure of 20–25% (Fig 2).
Introduction of a national programme for delirium screening will face a steep learning curve whatever tool is used. However, the 4AT is a validated tool which has proven acceptable to most units, and when routinely performed suggests delirium occurs in nearly a quarter of patients.
The hypoactive form of delirium is particularly poorly recognised and carries a poorer prognosis. From 2017 NHFD is recording the individual components of 4AT separately, which will allow us to examine the implication of reduced alertness after surgery for hip fracture. The quality of assessments should be addressed by local quality improvement initiatives.
**Physiotherapist assessment after surgery**
Much attention has focused on prompt surgery for patients with hip fracture. The purpose of this is to relieve pain and restore mobility, so NHFD monitors whether patients are mobilised from bed by the day after surgery. Successful mobilisation is not just about physiotherapy, and requires effective multidisciplinary working to optimise postoperative protocols for pain control, fluid resuscitation and blood transfusion. In 2016 we recorded whether patients received physiotherapy assessment by the day following hip fracture surgery, and whether they were successfully ‘mobilised’ by that day – standing with or without aid, or being hoisted to sit out of bed.
Three-quarters (77.3%) of all patients were ‘mobilised’ by the day after surgery. This is slightly better than the 73.3% recorded in 2015, but still means that a quarter (22.7%) were not mobilised.
Some patients (4.3%) were mobilised by other staff, but most of these (63.6%) had received physiotherapy assessment. Patients who did not receive physiotherapy assessment were three times more likely not to be mobilised.
Across NHFD a total of 9.8% of all patients were not assessed by a physiotherapist (11.6% if we include those where this information was not recorded), and the majority of these were not mobilised by the day after operation.
As a result, 6.6% of all patients were neither assessed nor mobilised. This figure varied dramatically between units – from 0% in some units, to over a quarter of patients in a few hospitals (Fig 3). This demonstrates the positive impact of physiotherapy assessment in promoting prompt mobilisation and rehabilitation.
Our 2016 survey of facilities audit describes service organisation in 171 contributing units.
All of these hospitals had access to physiotherapy 5 days a week, but a 7-day service was only available in 65% of hospitals.
From April 2017 failure to provide postoperative physiotherapist assessment will lead to trusts in England losing £1,335 of BPT per case. This provides a powerful financial incentive to improve the provision and coordination of 7-day physiotherapy support to this patient group.
NHFD’s ongoing sprint audit with the Chartered Society of Physiotherapy seeks to further investigate the quality and intensity of physiotherapist input in the days following surgery and to help us understand the reasons why individual patients fail to be mobilised. 2. Understanding the organisation of hip fracture care
Hip fracture and the working week
New presentations
A total of 65,645 patients presented to 177 hospitals during 2016. The total number of patients presenting on weekdays (48,176) was 11.6% higher than we recorded at the weekend; 8,803 on Saturday and just 8,460 on Sunday.
This pattern would not be apparent to staff dealing with smaller numbers of patients in individual hospitals.
In 2016 Queen Alexandra Hospital, Portsmouth reported that 97.7% of patients were mobilised by the day after surgery
How did we achieve this?
In 2013/14 we audited the impact of enhancing therapy input to hip fracture patients, proposing that this would improve how quickly they attained the independence needed to leave hospital safely, reduce the number requiring transfer to inpatient rehabilitation and so reduce length of stay.
The physiotherapy team was doubled, with additional staff at bands 6, 5, and 3, along with an additional band 6 occupational therapist.
Length of stay was reduced by 2.2 days, more patients were discharged home from the acute ward, fewer to a specialist rehabilitation ward, and fewer needed care home placement.
A business case based on these positive results means that this enhanced therapy team has now been formally established.
All post-operative patients are assessed by a physiotherapist, 7 days per week, and mobilised unless their medical condition dictates otherwise. In our experience it is rarely the case that the benefits of mobilisation are outweighed by other medical issues. On average, 13% of all new patients presented on a Sunday compared with the 14.3% that we would expect if the presentations were evenly distributed across the week. This figure varied between 7.3% and 20% in different hospitals across the country.
The same pattern was seen among people admitted from their own home or from care homes, and among those who suffered their hip fracture following admission to hospital.
Since these findings might result from poorer capture of patients presenting at weekends, we approached the 20 units in which the weekend pattern was most marked, to question whether this might reflect problems with data quality at weekends. All described rigorous processes to identify new cases, and none accepted that weekend patients would be missed.
To further cross-check this unexpected result we re-examined NHFD data for 2015, and looked at independently collected Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) data for the same year.
Both confirm this finding, with HES showing just 12.3% of all patients presenting on a Sunday.
This pattern across the week contributes to our observation that half of all new patients with hip fractures present between 8am and 8pm Monday to Friday. This will be of particular interest to those responsible for organising patients’ admission assessment, anaesthesia and surgical care.
**Care and outcomes across the week**
Suggestions of poorer quality of healthcare at weekends have received much attention in recent years, leading to claims that admission at a weekend might lead to poorer outcomes.
For many medical and surgical conditions there is a potential bias in such analyses – more seriously ill patients may have to present at the weekend, while others may be able to delay presentation until the working week. This will not be a factor among patients with hip fracture, so NHFD is ideally placed to investigate such a ‘weekend effect’. Sayers et al at the University of Bristol published a major study in 2017 using NHFD data for 241,446 patients who were admitted in the years 2011–14.
This found no evidence of a weekend effect; indeed patient mortality was 5.6% lower if people presented at the weekend, and their 30-day mortality was the same as that for people who presented on weekdays.
However, the study noted that 30-day mortality was 9.4% higher for people who had surgery on a Sunday, 17.4% higher if people were discharged out-of-hours and 51.5% higher for the very small numbers of people who were discharged from hospital on a Sunday.
These observations will be a stimulus to further research, in view of their implications for the organisation of hip fracture services. We have already followed up the 2011–14 study, using NHFD data for 2016 to describe current patterns of care, and how these varied across the days of the week on which a patient presented, or on which they received surgery.
Patients who initially presented on Friday and Saturday were less likely to receive surgery by the following day and less likely to be seen by an orthogeriatrician before surgery, though they still received perioperative orthogeriatrician assessment within 72 hours (Table 1).
Table 1 Patterns of admission across the week
| Patterns across the week for 65,489 patients who had hip fracture surgery in 2016 | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat | Sun | Overall | |---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---| | People presenting on this day: | | | | | | | | | | N | 9,445 | 9,742 | 9,602 | 9,578 | 9,845 | 8,812 | 8,465 | | | % | 14% | 15% | 15% | 15% | 15% | 13% | 13% | | | Orthogeriatrician review before surgery | 70% | 70% | 70% | 74% | 37% | 35% | 63% | 60% | | Operation with cons. surgeon and anaesthetist | 56% | 56% | 56% | 56% | 54% | 54% | 54% | 55% | | Operation by the day after presentation | 72% | 72% | 71% | 73% | 69% | 64% | 71% | 70% | | People having surgery on this day: | | | | | | | | | | N | 9,464 | 9,345 | 9,535 | 9,165 | 11,058 | 8,813 | 8,108 | | | % | 14% | 14% | 15% | 14% | 17% | 13% | 12% | | | Orthogeriatrician review before surgery | 63% | 72% | 72% | 71% | 66% | 44% | 25% | 59% | | Operation with cons. surgeon and anaesthetist | 56% | 58% | 57% | 58% | 50% | 54% | 53% | 55% | | Physio assessment by the day after surgery | 93% | 93% | 93% | 93% | 76% | 81% | 92% | 89% | | Mobilised from bed by the day after surgery | 80% | 81% | 81% | 80% | 73% | 73% | 80% | 78% |
Patients presenting on Friday, Saturday and Sunday were only slightly less likely to have surgery with consultant anaesthetists and surgeons. Consultant-led anaesthesia and surgery was evenly distributed across the week, apart from Fridays – the day on which the most hip fracture operations were undertaken (17% of all weekly operations).
Delay in mobilisation from bed was noted after surgery on a Friday and Saturday, and this appears to reflect reduced weekend availability of physiotherapists – an issue that we will be monitoring following the addition of physiotherapist assessment to BPT from April 2017. Surgical care
Non-operative management
NICE guidance CG124 states that ‘If a hip fracture complicates or precipitates a terminal illness, the multidisciplinary team should still consider the role of surgery as part of a palliative care approach’, and it is now generally accepted that conservative treatment is only appropriate for patients who present late with impacted subcapital fractures.
Rates of non-operative treatment remain low, averaging 2.2% across NHFD in 2016.
The highest rates of non-operative management were seen in Bronglais Hospital, Aberystwyth (10%) and Glan Clwyd Hospital (7.8%), both of which had also reported figures greater than 5% in 2015.
Eight other hospitals reported that over 5% of people did not receive surgery (Queen’s Hospital, Burton; Southport and Formby District General; Rotherham General; Manchester Royal Infirmary; Princess Royal Hospital, Telford; Nevill Hall Hospital, Abergavenny; St George’s, Tooting; and North Manchester General).
All should ensure that their reasons for conservative management are clinically justifiable.
Delay to theatre
The majority of patients (70.6%) received surgery by the day following presentation with hip fracture as recommended by NICE. Data on average time to theatre for individual hospitals units can be accessed on the NHFD website.
Half of the remaining patients experienced a delay while their orthopaedic diagnosis was clarified, or while they were being medically investigated and optimised.
There is clearly potential for teams to improve these figures by the development of protocols to streamline management of common clinical issues. Reversal of anticoagulation is an increasingly difficult issue as the use of direct acting oral anticoagulant (DOAC) becomes more widespread.
Our facilities audit questioned whether units had protocols to guide management of DOACs. Most units which replied positively only referred to generic guidance on use of these drugs, with limited guidance on decision making in the perioperative period for frail, often renally impaired and underweight hip fracture patients. We welcome examples of local protocols to add to those already available in the www.nhfd.co.uk resources section.
For the other half of patients the delay was not clinically justifiable – reflecting administrative delays and pressures on theatre lists (Table 2). Table 2 Reasons for delay in surgery
| Reason for surgery being delayed more than 36 hours | Percentage | |---------------------------------------------------|------------| | Administrative/logistic – awaiting space on theatre list | 35.7% | | Administrative/logistic – cancelled due to list overrun | 6.4% | | Awaiting medical review/investigation or stabilisation | 31.6% | | Awaiting orthopaedic diagnosis/investigation | 6.8% | | Other | 6.1% | | Unknown | 13.4% |
If hospitals were organised so as to eliminate the administrative and logistic factors that delay surgery then 81.7% of patients could have their operations on the day of or day after admission – a figure close to the 85% envisaged when BPT was first established.
Fracture and operation types
The proportion of people having a total hip replacement for a displaced intracapsular fracture continues to improve – up from 26.9% to 30.5% since last year. National and local trends in surgical care can be viewed on the NHFD website.
In 2009 we reported that 55.6% of arthroplasties were cemented. This year’s figure of 86.1% shows NICE guidance on use of cemented implants is increasingly being followed. However, five hospitals (Warwick; North Middlesex University Hospital; Whittington; Royal Berkshire, Reading; and Barnet General) reported that fewer than 10% of their arthroplasty procedures were cemented.
Table 3 Operations by fracture type
| Fracture Type | Intracapsular | Intertrochanteric | Subtrochanteric | All | |---------------|---------------|------------------|----------------|-----| | | Displaced | Undisplaced | Unknown | Grade A1/A2 | Grade A3 | Unknown | Subtroch. | All | | Internal fixation | | | | | | | | | | Sliding hip screw | 2.2% | 2.3% | 0.1% | 24.3% | 0.7% | 1.8% | 0.7% | 32.1% | | IM nail (long) | 0.1% | | | 2.3% | 1.4% | 0.5% | 4.7% | 9.0% | | IM nail (short) | 0.7% | 2.1% | 0.1% | 1.7% | 0.4% | 0.3% | 0.2% | 2.8% | | Cannulated screws | 0.7% | | | 0.1% | | | | 3.0% | | Arthroplasty | | | | | | | | | | Bipolar hemi (cemented) | 7.0% | 0.7% | 0.1% | 0.1% | | | | 7.9% | | Bipolar hemi (uncemented - HA coated) | 0.9% | 0.1% | | | | | | 1.1% | | Bipolar hemi (uncemented - uncoated) | 0.3% | 0.1% | | | | | | 0.5% | | THR (cemented) | 4.7% | 0.4% | | | | | | 5.2% | | THR (uncemented - HA coated) | 0.6% | | | | | | | 0.7% | | THR (uncemented - uncoated) | 0.5% | 0.1% | | | | | | 0.6% | | THR hybrid | 1.2% | 0.1% | | | | | | 1.3% | | Unipolar hemi (cemented) | 26.4% | 2.5% | 0.2% | 0.2% | | | | 29.3% | | Unipolar hemi (uncemented - HA coated) | 1.2% | 0.1% | | | | | | 1.4% | | Unipolar hemi (uncemented - uncoated) | 2.4% | 0.3% | | | | | | 2.8% | | No operation performed | 0.9% | 0.6% | 0.4% | 0.1% | 0.1% | 0.3% | 0.3% | 5.9% | | Other | 0.1% | | | | | | | 0.3% | | All | 49.2% | 9.4% | 0.6% | 29.3% | 2.5% | 3.0% | 5.9% | 100% |
Intramedullary nailing of subtrochanteric fractures has also improved – from 66.7% in 2012 to 84.1% in 2016. However, for one aspect of surgical care the trend remains downwards. NICE CG124 recommends that A1 and A2 intertrochanteric fractures should be fixed using a sliding hip screw (SHS).
Since 2012 use of SHS fixation has fallen from 84.8% to 80.0% of all intertrochanteric fractures. We now ask hospitals to subtype their intertrochanteric fractures. This has been achieved in the majority (92.2%) of cases and 80.8% of operations for A1/A2 fractures used an SHS and 19.2% an intramedullary nail. This pattern is counter to NICE CG124 and may reflect surgeon preference and an increasing confidence in the use of nails.
Service organisation and clinical governance
All but six hospitals (Bassetlaw Hospital, Worksop; Diana Princess of Wales, Grimsby; Luton and Dunstable; Leicester Royal Infirmary; Queen’s Hospital, Romford; and Scunthorpe General Hospital) completed our annual ‘facilities audit’ to define service organisation. Results for individual hospitals can be accessed via the NHFD website.
From the outset, NHFD was envisaged as being carried out in real time, using routine clinical assessment data collected as part of a patient’s care, so that if care gaps were identified the first person to benefit would be the person receiving that care.
Inpatient data is still primarily collected by clinical staff in 89% of units. Follow-up data is collected by administrative and audit staff in 39% – often using a postal questionnaire.
The way in which hip fracture care is organised has changed little, but the number of units describing a ‘traditional model’ of orthopaedic care fell again; from eight last year to six this year.
Orthogeriatrician input varies considerably – hospitals reported an average of 21.3 hours of consultant and 16.1 hours of non-consultant (staff grade, associate specialist or speciality trainee) time per week. Orthogeriatrician rounds only reviewed patients with hip fracture in 57% of units, older people with other injuries in 35% and any orthopaedic patients in 5%. Just 3% of units described no regular rounds.
The multidisciplinary nature of care is exemplified by attendance at various meetings: The first occasion for MDT discussion is the daily trauma meeting. Orthopaedic consultants were almost always present, with nurses attending in 86%, anaesthetists in 47%, physiotherapists in 42%, and orthogeriatricians in just 37% of units.
Weekly ward-based meetings were led by orthogeriatricians in 87% of units, and usually attended by physiotherapists (97%), nurses (96%) and occupational therapists (92%). Consultants in orthopaedics attended in 15% of hospitals, anaesthetists in 4%, social workers in 42% and dietitians in 10%. Community rehabilitation staff attended in 13% (over twice the figure we reported last year), and orthopaedic directorate managers in 4%. Psychiatry was rarely represented (4%). Most hip fracture units have a monthly governance meeting where a wide variety of matters may be discussed.
These meetings generally have a broad MDT representation, including consultants in orthopaedics in 99% of units, orthogeriatrics in 76%, and anaesthetics in 63%. Nurses attend in 92%, physiotherapists in 64%, occupational therapists in 48%, dietitians in 10%, and social workers in 4%. There are representatives from A&E in 29%, from community rehabilitation in 11%, and from psychiatry in 1%. Directorate managers attend in 71% of units.
In the last 2 years the NHFD website has dramatically improved its provision of live data on performance and outcome that is easy to access and to use to inform these clinical governance meetings. It is vital that hospitals promote and support these meetings and that they are tasked, and empowered, to drive improvement in the quality of patient care.
### 3. Understanding hip fracture outcome
#### Length of stay
Past NHFD annual reports have presented length of stay (LOS) data as mean figures, since these are readily understood by all readers, and will allow hospital staff to estimate bed-occupancy figures.
The overall figure for mean trust LOS rose to 21.6 days in 2016, compared with 21.1 days in 2015.
In this year’s report we are also presenting median figures, as a better measure of how long a patient might typically expect each stage of their care to last (Table 5).
#### Table 5 Length of hospital stay by nation
| | England Mean (Median) | Wales Mean (Median) | N Ireland Mean (Median) | All NHFD Mean (Median) | |----------------------|-----------------------|---------------------|-------------------------|------------------------| | Time to orthopaedic ward (hrs)\* | 11.3 (4.6) | 13.0 (5.8) | 10.4 (5.6) | 11.3 (4.7) | | Time to operation (hrs) | 32 (23.3) | 37.2 (26.8) | 54.2 (46.3) | 32.9 (24.1) | | Acute ward LOS (days) | 16.4 (12) | 20.0 (14) | 13.3 (11) | 16.6 (12) | | Overall trust LOS (days) | 20.7 (15) | 34.1 (22) | 23.4 (16) | 21.6 (15) |
\*Excludes patients who never reached an orthopaedic or orthogeriatric ward
The profile of length of stay in different nations is therefore more comparable than their mean LOS figures would suggest – with the commonest LOS being 7–10 days – but a tail of longer inpatient care in Wales has led to a higher median LOS and a much higher mean LOS (Figure 5). This pattern is consistent with our previous descriptions of more complete capture of LOS in Wales. Data from the NHFD and HES leave considerable uncertainty over later stages of super-spell with the variety of post-acute rehabilitation options available in England, and the ‘hub and spoke’ model of services in Northern Ireland (Table 6).
Table 6 Destinations recorded for final discharge from NHFD
| Destination | England | Wales | N Ireland | All NHFD | |--------------------------------------------------|---------|-------|-----------|----------| | Own home/sheltered housing | 51% | 64% | 49% | 52% | | Residential care | 11% | 8% | 3% | 11% | | Nursing care | 1% | 1% | 0% | 1% | | Ongoing NHS care: | 17% | 4% | 21% | 17% | | Acute hospital | 1% | 1% | 1% | 1% | | Rehabilitation bed in another trust | 11% | 3% | 20% | 11% | | Rehabilitation in NHS-funded care home | 5% | 0% | 1% | 5% | | Other/unknown | 3% | 1% | 0% | 2% | | Died | 8% | 12% | 6% | 8% | | **Total** | **59,860** | **3,879** | **1,906** | **65,645** |
A further factor limiting our understanding of the overall NHS length of stay or ‘super-spell’ after hip fracture is the availability of beds in independent providers. We have little understanding of how long patients spend in such settings, or of consequent cost.
Work with the Chartered Society for Physiotherapy for the 2017 Physiotherapy Hip Fracture Sprint Audit (PHFSA) has identified that clinical teams often have no real understanding of whether patients sent to these and other post-acute beds will receive therapy to improve their independence, or simply to convalesce while discharge arrangements are finalised. In this year’s facilities audit we asked units to define their expectations of the care their patients would receive after transfer (Table 7), but we await the PHFSA results to establish the actual therapy provided in such settings.
Table 7 Available options for acute hospital discharge
| Options after acute hospital discharge | % of hospitals with access | |---------------------------------------|---------------------------| | Continued rehabilitation – care home | 62% | | – another trust | 59% | | – independent provider | 9% | | Convalescence and discharge planning – care home | 45% | | – another trust | 28% | | – independent provider | 4% | | No rehabilitation beds | 4% |
The availability of physiotherapy in care homes is also a factor that may influence decisions over the appropriateness of early discharge of patients to their original care home or to a new placement. Only 70% of hospitals had access to care home physiotherapy follow-up – a care gap that has previously been noted, and which runs counter to the NICE recommendation that such care should be available.
120-day follow-up
NHFD uses death registration data in follow-up of 30-day mortality, but 120-day follow-up is a more relevant end point for definition of the final outcome of patients’ rehabilitation.
In 2016 hospitals collected 120-day data for 18,142 patients or 31.7% of all NHFD cases.
Craigavon and Nevill Hall hospitals submitted 120-day follow-up data for over 90% of all patients.
Another 16 hospitals successfully performed follow-up for over three quarters of their patients (Ulster; Royal Devon and Exeter; Royal Victoria, Belfast; Queen Alexandra, Portsmouth; Worthing Hospital; Royal Preston; Southmead; York District; Royal Albert Edward Infirmary, Wigan; Poole General; Royal Blackburn; Cumberland Infirmary, Carlisle; Bristol Royal Infirmary; Royal United Hospital, Bath; Salisbury; and Noble’s Hospital, Isle of Man).
Bone protection medication
Assessment for bone protection medication is crucial if patients’ risk of future fragility fracture is to be reduced. Patients are now routinely considered for this, and 97% had an assessment recorded.
The NHFD record of bone protection does not accept calcium or vitamin D as sufficient, and over 60% were discharged on some form of antiresorptive or bone-stimulating medication.
21.6% of patients were recorded as having been assessed as inappropriate for bone protection medication. This figure is higher than the 17.9% we reported last year and the 16.0% in 2014, and it is a particular concern that in 14 hospitals (Nobles Hospital, Isle of Man; Huddersfield Royal Infirmary; Royal Victoria Hospital, Belfast; Cumberland Infirmary, Carlisle; Royal Lancaster Infirmary; Poole General Hospital; East and North Herts Hospital; Pinderfields General, Wakefield; Royal Blackburn Hospital; Medway Maritime Hospital, Gillingham; Salford Royal Hospital; Leighton Hospital, Crewe; York Hospital and Princess Alexandra, Harlow) over half of all patients were judged as inappropriate for this form of secondary prevention. We have contacted all of these units to clarify the appropriate coding for these data, and to support a number in moving towards the more active assessment and treatment protocols reported by the majority of other hospitals.
Half of all patients (49.7%) were discharged taking an oral bone treatment, a further 8.3% receiving some form of injectable medication, and an additional 17.4% were referred on for further DXA or outpatient assessment before deciding on such treatment (see Table 8).
Table 8 Bone protection medication at discharge
| Action taken | Percentage | |------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------| | Assessed but no bone protection medication needed or appropriate | 21.6% | | Oral medication | | | - continued from pre-admission | 7.3% | | - started on this admission | 42.4% | | Injectable medication | | | - continued from pre-admission | 0.9% | | - started on this admission | 7.4% | | No treatment, pending DXA scan or bone clinic assessment | 17.4% | | No assessment or no action taken | 2.9% |
Follow-up of patients is of particular importance in respect of bone protection medication, since it is well recognised that without follow-up, patients will often fail to continue taking osteoporosis treatment – meaning that they remain at increased risk of further fragility fractures.
Persistence with bone protection at 120 days was recorded as ‘unknown’ for 13% of the 18,142 patients, but 12,536 (69%) indicated they were still taking the same medication as on discharge, 5% had changed to an alternative form and 13% had stopped such medication.
These figures are encouraging, but the incompleteness of these data should be recognised since persistence rates are likely to be poorer among the patients who did not respond, could not be contacted, and in hospitals which have not developed any form of follow-up.
Restoration of mobility
120-day follow-up of mobility found only 10% (1,873 out of 18,142) of people describing themselves as ‘freely mobile without aids’, compared with 37% who had this level of mobility before presenting with a hip fracture.
A total of 35% said that they never went out of doors, but retained some indoor mobility (cf 25% pre-fracture), while 9% said that they were completely immobile (cf 1.3% pre-fracture). 19% said that they now needed one aid, and 17% two aids or a frame to mobilise out of doors. Mobility was unknown for 9% of people who were followed up. Residential status
Follow-up data on mortality is complex to analyse since hospitals will check and record which patients have died, even before attempting follow up. As a result, recorded deaths at 30 or 120 days will be disproportionately high – a source of bias that is one reason for our use of independent Office for National Statistics (ONS) death registration data in our 30-day mortality outlier analysis.
Bias may also affect whether 120-day follow-up details are returned for patients living in their own home or in care homes. This should be taken into consideration when noting that available 120-day follow-up data suggests that two-thirds (65%) had returned to their own home or sheltered accommodation, compared with the 81% living at home before their hip fracture.
Around 4% of patients were still in a hospital or rehabilitation unit at 120 days, or had been readmitted. The remaining quarter were living in care homes at 120 days, comprising 12% in nursing homes (cf 8% before their hip fracture) and 13% in residential care (cf 11% pre-fracture).
People presenting with a hip fracture place a high value on returning ‘home’ to their original residence – be that to their own home, sheltered accommodation or care home.
Individual units can examine how well they are achieving this objective for their patients by combining data on trust discharge destination with the results of any 120-day follow-up (Figure 6).
In 2016 we found that two-thirds (66.1%) of people had returned to their original residence by 120 days – though this figure is likely to be an underestimate for units which discharge a large number of cases to rehabilitation elsewhere and fail to follow up their final outcome.
Reoperation
The development of effective surgical treatment for hip fracture has been a huge success offering excellent immediate relief of pain and the potential for people to return to mobility. However, if surgical complications do arise they can be very disabling and difficult to treat, and studies considering quality of life after hip fracture tend to be heavily influenced by the enormous impact of surgical complications on a small number of individuals.
With 120-day follow-up collected for just 28% of NHFD cases we cannot provide an accurate description of overall reoperation rates. However, 554 reoperations were recorded, which might suggest around 2,000 reoperations if scaled up across all NHFD presentations in 2016.
We only record the most significant reoperation for each patient. Table 9 gives a picture of these for the 554 individuals. Washout or wound debridement made up a quarter of the recorded procedures, and relocation of dislocated arthroplasty around one in six.
Table 9 Recorded reoperations at 120 days
| Procedure | Number | Percentage | |------------------------------------------------|--------|------------| | Conversion to hemiarthroplasty | 32 | 6% | | Conversion to THR | 71 | 13% | | Girdlestone/excision arthroplasty | 57 | 10% | | Implant removal | 25 | 5% | | Reduction of dislocated prosthesis | 96 | 17% | | Revision of internal fixation | 66 | 12% | | Surgery for periprosthetic fracture | 64 | 12% | | Washout or debridement | 143 | 26% |
4. Annual summary tables
This year’s tables for assessment, surgery and outcome include five new columns to help units benchmark their performance.
New columns report performance in respect of the recent changes to best practice:
- Physiotherapy assessment by the day after surgery
- Nutritional risk assessment
- Delirium assessment
Surgery supervised by consultant surgeon and anaesthetist has been added as a measure of adherence to NICE CG124 guidance on surgical supervision.
Follow-up at 120 days seeks to highlight the importance of monitoring patients’ final outcome, and examining and supporting their persistence with bone protection medication.
Documented not to have had a reoperation within 120 days seeks to encourage the development of local surgical surveillance mechanisms – so that hospitals know whether their patients have received successful surgery.
Some sites continue to struggle to capture data on all cases, but in spite of this NHFD’s overall case ascertainment was 104% if measured against HES data.
This means that NHFD has identified substantial under recording of this relatively easily identified condition in HES. This makes HES unreliable as a denominator with which to assess case ascertainment. Instead we have compared figures for 2016 with those for 2015. This indicates a 1% increase in overall case numbers being recorded this year.
Tables for assessment, surgery and outcomes are arranged by country (England, Wales and Northern Ireland) and region.
5. Mortality
The age and frailty of patients mean that up to a third die within a year following a hip fracture.
Such figures are potentially alarming for patients, their loved ones and those looking after them. However, in a study undertaken in collaboration with the University of Nottingham we examined the timing of inpatient deaths after hip fracture.
This study has been published in Anaesthesia, and in it we provide reassurance to clinicians, patients and their families that the quality of modern anaesthesia and surgery now means that over 97% of patients will survive the 48 hours after surgery even in the most poorly subgroups of patients.
Most mortality occurs later in the patient’s stay and reflects the multidisciplinary challenge of their frailty. Only half of deaths in the following months can be directly attributed to the injury, hospitalisation and surgery, but patients, their families and carers often recognise the impact of hip fracture in precipitating or complicating a patient’s final illness.
NICE CG124 identified prompt surgery and coordinated multidisciplinary orthogeriatric care as key factors in improving patient outcomes and mortality after hip fracture.
Independent evaluation by Neuburger et al published in Medical Care in 2015 used non-NHFD data to show how trends in 30-day mortality have responded since NHFD’s inception in 2007, when the figure was 10.9%, to 8.5% in 2011.
Casemix-adjusted analysis of 30-day mortality
We performed a casemix-adjusted analysis of 30-day mortality using externally validated data from the ONS and Northern Ireland and the methodology previously described.
- We included people aged 60 years or older, who presented during 2016, and only excluded duplicates, or cases where dates of death and admission were missing. • Crude rates of mortality within 30 days of presentation were calculated – these are already available to participating hospitals in NHFD run charts.
• Casemix adjustment uses six variables: age, sex, anaesthetic (ASA) grade, source of admission, mobility and fracture type. View the model coefficients.
• We used funnel plots of crude and adjusted mortality to compare units’ performance; ‘outliers’ being those with adjusted mortality outside the 99.8% (3SD) control limits.
• The completeness and quality of these units’ data were reviewed.
A total of 65,645 patients from all 177 trauma units in England, Wales and Northern Ireland were included in this year’s mortality analysis – slightly more than the 64,858 last year.
In spite of this we recorded just 4,398 people (cf 4,622 in 2015 and 4,821 in 2014) to have died within 30 days of presentation, giving an overall mortality rate of 6.7% for 2016.
This figure represents a further improvement in 30-day mortality from the 7.1% we reported for 2015, and continues a progressive improvement from the 8.5% we reported in 2011.
The availability of run charts on the NHFD website means that the findings of this analysis should not come as a surprise to units that were identified as outliers from the funnel plot, since their crude mortality figures have been available to them throughout the last year.
All hospitals identified as showing mortality rates outside the 95% control limits were contacted prior to publication of this report. We recommend a thorough internal review of the data alongside the crude mortality we report in individual hospital run charts.
Where we have identified that increased mortality is suggestive of poor performance we recommend that sites consider requesting a multidisciplinary service review from the British Orthopaedic Association.
**Hospitals with increased mortality**
Our last annual report identified two hospitals as ‘outliers’, but both units have since shown improved mortality figures and neither was an outlier for the 2016 year.
For 2016 we identified six hospitals as ‘outliers’ – with casemix-adjusted 30-day mortality rates above the upper 99.8% (3 standard deviation) control limit.
• St George’s Hospital, Tooting (GEO) reported a crude mortality rate that rose throughout 2016 to average 13.6% for the year. After casemix adjustment the figure was 13.9%.
• Worcestershire Royal Hospital (WRC) reported rising crude mortality throughout 2016 to average 12.1% over the year. After casemix adjustment their figure was 12.7%.
• Airedale General Hospital (AIR) had a crude mortality that was higher than in previous years and averaged 10.3%. After casemix adjustment their figure was 12.5%. • University Hospital Coventry (UHC) reported a crude mortality rate that has been rising since 2015. This averaged 10.7% in 2016 and was 11.0% after casemix adjustment.
• The Princess of Wales Hospital, Bridgend (POW) reported a crude mortality of 10.1% in 2016. This is higher than in recent years, but poor data quality is an additional concern and will have contributed to the hospital’s adjusted rate of 12.5% in 2016.
• Royal Gwent Hospital, Newport (GWE) recorded a crude mortality of 7.8% and an adjusted mortality of 12.0%. This is above the 99.8% limit but appears to reflect the poor quality of the data submitted to NHFD.
A further nine hospitals had adjusted mortality above the upper 95% (2SD) control limit. However, observations at this significance level should be interpreted with caution. In any analysis of 177 hospitals we would expect a few to fall outside these control limits by chance, simply as a result of expected statistical variation. The NHFD run charts show how the crude mortality rate in some of these hospitals fluctuated in and out of the 2SD control limit between 2015 and 2016, and some have casemix profiles that differ from the overall average or from their own profile last year.
• South Tyneside District Hospital had an adjusted mortality rate that remained above the upper 95% limit, as it was in our previous annual report.
• Seven hospitals (Royal Albert Edward Infirmary, Wigan; Basildon University; James Paget, Great Yarmouth; Norfolk and Norwich; Rotherham General; William Harvey, Ashford; Arrowe Park, Wirral) had adjusted mortality rates above the upper 95% limit in 2016, though they had not been high the previous year. • Northwick Park Hospital had a high adjusted mortality rate but this primarily appears to reflect the poor quality of the data they submitted to the NHFD.
Hospitals with low 30-day mortality
After casemix adjustment, we identified five hospitals as ‘outliers’ – with a mortality rate below the lower 99.8% limit.
• Data submitted by St Helier Hospital, Carshalton (SHC); Royal Victoria Hospital, Belfast (RVB) and Poole General Hospital (PGH) all indicated a crude mortality rate of 4.3% in 2016, with casemix adjusted figures of 2.5%, 3.4% and 4.1% respectively, which all lie well below the 6.7% average for NHFD.
• Stepping Hill Hospital, Stockport (SHH) and Royal Victoria Infirmary, Newcastle (RVN) reported crude mortality rates of just 3.5%, though concerns over data quality make it difficult to be confident of the even lower casemix-adjusted figures for these units.
In addition we found five hospitals (Altnagelvin Hospital, Londonderry; Craigavon Area Hospital; the University Hospital of North Tees; Queen Alexandra Hospital, Portsmouth; and Royal Sussex Country Hospital, Brighton) in which the adjusted 30-day mortality in 2016 was better than in the majority of units – as indicated by rates falling below the lower 95% limit.
Monitoring mortality
NHFD’s annual reporting cycle primarily serves as a review of the live web-based data we make available to drive the clinical governance process in individual hospitals.
This year we noted a marked improvement in data quality, with far fewer issues that might cast doubt on the results. This is a tribute to the many people who gather and submit the data, with the intention of benchmarking and improving care. However, if units wish to monitor and improve their performance and patient outcomes then poor data quality will limit the usefulness of the data portfolio and web-based charts that the NHFD provides to support local clinical governance.
Crude and adjusted mortality figures for all units are detailed in the ‘Outcome’ tables. Regardless of whether units have been identified as outliers for 30-day mortality they should examine local run charts to consider how their crude mortality figures have changed since 2016 so they can anticipate their results for next year’s analysis.
These tables should also inform local review of data quality, especially if a marked difference between crude and adjusted mortality figures suggests the possibility of poor quality data for the casemix variables – age, sex, ASA grade, source of admission, mobility and fracture type.
Crown Informatics have developed a number of automatic mechanisms that prevent the recording of inaccurate or unlikely data, and are working with us to develop a run chart to provide feedback on the quality of crucial casemix data such as ASA grade. References
References for this report are listed in a separate document in the order in which they appear in the text. National Hip Fracture Database (NHFD) The NHFD monitors the care of all hip fracture patients in England, Wales and Northern Ireland who are aged 60 and over, feeding back performance data to hospitals to facilitate quality improvement.
> www.nhfd.co.uk [email protected] +44(0)20 3075 2395
Falls Pathway Workstream The Falls Pathway workstream carried out the first National Audit of Inpatient Falls in 2015. The aim of this snapshot audit is to measure compliance against national standards of best practice in reducing the risk of falls within acute care. The second round of audit took place in 2016.
> www.rcplondon.ac.uk/fffap [email protected] +44(0)20 3075 1511
Fracture Liaison Service Database (FLS-DB) The FLS-DB aims to improve the quality of care for patients at risk of fractures by enabling NHS organisations to compare outcomes, identify and share best practice, identify gaps or shortfalls in commissioning services, and provide a comprehensive picture of fragility fracture care.
> www.rcplondon.ac.uk/fffap [email protected] +44(0)20 3075 1511
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/4201-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 33,
"total-input-tokens": 62449,
"total-output-tokens": 18312,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
57,
1
],
[
57,
3669,
2
],
[
3669,
4789,
3
],
[
4789,
6702,
4
],
[
6702,
9372,
5
],
[
9372,
11977,
6
],
[
11977,
13822,
7
],
[
13822,
16444,
8
],
[
16444,
18359,
9
],
[
18359,
19696,
10
],
[
19696,
21725,
11
],
[
21725,
23855,
12
],
[
23855,
25697,
13
],
[
25697,
27409,
14
],
[
27409,
29386,
15
],
[
29386,
30962,
16
],
[
30962,
32868,
17
],
[
32868,
35959,
18
],
[
35959,
38328,
19
],
[
38328,
42676,
20
],
[
42676,
45538,
21
],
[
45538,
48141,
22
],
[
48141,
50304,
23
],
[
50304,
53160,
24
],
[
53160,
56595,
25
],
[
56595,
58512,
26
],
[
58512,
61326,
27
],
[
61326,
63391,
28
],
[
63391,
66103,
29
],
[
66103,
67783,
30
],
[
67783,
70584,
31
],
[
70584,
70704,
32
],
[
70704,
71794,
33
]
]
} |
edd89dd1248799fbf70dd3c58fc609ceaead463e | | Department family | Entity | Date | Expense Type | Expense area | Supplier | Transaction number | AP Amount (£) | |-------------------|--------|------------|-------------------------------|-------------------------------|-----------------------------------------|--------------------|---------------| | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 31/08/2017 | Travel Booking Services | PATIENT TRANSPORT | ARRIVA TRANSPORT SOLUTIONS | 18361864 | £58,224.75 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 31/08/2017 | Travel Booking Services | PATIENT TRANSPORT | ARRIVA TRANSPORT SOLUTIONS | 18369910 | £58,224.75 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 31/08/2017 | C&M-GMS DES Learn Dably Hlth Chk | PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING | BILSTHORPE SURGERY | 18474838 | £280.00 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 31/08/2017 | C&M-GMS DES Minor Surgery | PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING | BILSTHORPE SURGERY | 18474838 | £699.79 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 31/08/2017 | C&M-GMS Global Sum | PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING | BILSTHORPE SURGERY | 18474838 | £27,640.60 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 31/08/2017 | C&M-GMS Prem Clinical Waste | PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING | BILSTHORPE SURGERY | 18474838 | £121.74 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 31/08/2017 | C&M-GMS Prem Notional Rent | PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING | BILSTHORPE SURGERY | 18474838 | £7,576.30 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 31/08/2017 | C&M-GMS Prem Other | PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING | BILSTHORPE SURGERY | 18474838 | £398.70 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 31/08/2017 | C&M-GMS QOF Aspiration | PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING | BILSTHORPE SURGERY | 18474838 | £127,646.77 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 31/08/2017 | Clinical&Medical-Independent Sector | ACUTE COMMISSIONING | BMI HEALTHCARE COLLECTIONS | 18398448 | £127,646.77 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 31/08/2017 | Clinical&Medical-Independent Sector | ACUTE COMMISSIONING | CARE UK CLINICAL SERVICES LTD | 18398504 | £28,197.49 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 31/08/2017 | Clinical&Medical-Independent Sector | ACUTE COMMISSIONING | CARE UK CLINICAL SERVICES LTD | 18398504 | £39,034.28 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 31/08/2017 | C&M-Independent Sector - CQUIN | CLINICAL ASSESSMENT AND TREATMENT CENTRES | CIRCLE NOTTINGHAM LTD | 18398416 | £2,594.42 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 31/08/2017 | Clinical&Medical-Commercial Sector | CLINICAL ASSESSMENT AND TREATMENT CENTRES | CIRCLE NOTTINGHAM LTD | 18398416 | £153,866.67 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 31/08/2017 | Rent | ESTATES AND FACILITIES | COMMUNITY HEALTH PARTNERSHIPS LTD | 18414994 | £40,211.00 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 31/08/2017 | Rent | ESTATES AND FACILITIES | COMMUNITY HEALTH PARTNERSHIPS LTD | 18414995 | £40,211.00 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 31/08/2017 | Hcane Srv Rec: Fdtn Trust-CQUIN | ACUTE COMMISSIONING | DERBY HOSPITALS NHS FOUNDATION TRUST | 18398415 | £925.87 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 31/08/2017 | Hcane Srv Rec: Fdtn Trust-Contract Baseline | ACUTE COMMISSIONING | DERBY HOSPITALS NHS FOUNDATION TRUST | 18398415 | £48,710.83 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 31/08/2017 | Hcane Srv Rec: Fdtn Trust-CQUIN | ACUTE COMMISSIONING | DONCASTER AND BASSETLAW HOSPITALS NHS FOUNDATION TRUST | 18398544 | £2,738.00 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 31/08/2017 | Hcane Srv Rec: Fdtn Trust-Contract Baseline | ACUTE COMMISSIONING | DONCASTER AND BASSETLAW HOSPITALS NHS FOUNDATION TRUST | 18398544 | £268,459.00 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 31/08/2017 | C&M-GMS DES Minor Surgery | PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING | COLLINGHAM MEDICAL CENTRE | 18485697 | £1,493.62 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 31/08/2017 | C&M-GMS Dispensing Quality Sch | PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING | COLLINGHAM MEDICAL CENTRE | 18485697 | £6,318.42 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 31/08/2017 | C&M-GMS Global Sum | PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING | COLLINGHAM MEDICAL CENTRE | 18485697 | £55,927.11 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 31/08/2017 | C&M-GMS Prem Clinical Waste | PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING | COLLINGHAM MEDICAL CENTRE | 18485697 | £272.20 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 31/08/2017 | C&M-GMS Prem Notional Rent | PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING | COLLINGHAM MEDICAL CENTRE | 18485697 | £9,091.67 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 31/08/2017 | C&M-GMS QOF Aspiration | PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING | COLLINGHAM MEDICAL CENTRE | 18485697 | £6,448.22 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 31/08/2017 | ME - GMS GP Prior Year EEs | PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING | COLLI NGHAM MEDICAL CENTRE | 18485697 | £5,579.41 | |---------------------|--------------------------|------------|-----------------------------|-------------------------------|-----------------------------|-----------|-----------| | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 31/08/2017 | ME-GMS GP Prior Year EEs | PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING | COLLI NGHAM MEDICAL CENTRE | 18485697 | £6,288.58 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 31/08/2017 | C&M-GMS Cost of Drugs -Dispensing | PRESCRIBING | COLLI NGHAM MEDICAL CENTRE | 18556121 | £47,879.56 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 31/08/2017 | C&M-GMS ProcChrgsCN&RetmntbyGP| C&M-GMS | COLLI NGHAM MEDICAL CENTRE | 18556121 | £2,881.00 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 31/08/2017 | C&M-GMS Cost of Drugs -Dispensing | PRESCRIBING | COLLI NGHAM MEDICAL CENTRE | 18556122 | £19,380.91 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 31/08/2017 | C&M-GMS Prof Fees Dispensing | PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING | COLLI NGHAM MEDICAL CENTRE | 18556122 | £14,702.61 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 31/08/2017 | C&M-GMS ProcptnChrgsColl&RetmntbyGP | PRESCRIBING | COLLI NGHAM MEDICAL CENTRE | 18556122 | £2,881.00 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 31/08/2017 | C&M-GMS DES Minor Surgery | PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING | MIDDLET ON LODGE SURGERY | 18472711 | £8,175.77 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 31/08/2017 | C&M-GMS Global Sum | PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING | MIDDLET ON LODGE SURGERY | 18472711 | £19,637.97 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 31/08/2017 | C&M-GMS PCC Locum Adop/Pat/Mat | PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING | MIDDLET ON LODGE SURGERY | 18472711 | £7,142.54 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 31/08/2017 | C&M-GMS Prem Clinical Waste | PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING | MIDDLET ON LODGE SURGERY | 18472711 | £424.33 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 31/08/2017 | C&M-GMS Prem Notional Rent | PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING | MIDDLET ON LODGE SURGERY | 18472711 | £4,483.33 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 31/08/2017 | C&M-GMS QDF Aspiration | PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING | MIDDLET ON LODGE SURGERY | 18472711 | £12,520.01 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 31/08/2017 | C&M-GMS DES Learn Dsblty Hlth Chk | PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING | RAINWORTH HEALTH CENTRE | 18472716 | £140.00 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 31/08/2017 | C&M-GMS DES Minor Surgery | PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING | RAINWORTH HEALTH CENTRE | 18472716 | £1,317.90 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 31/08/2017 | C&M-GMS DES UNPLANNED ADMISSIONS | PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING | RAINWORTH HEALTH CENTRE | 18472716 | £4,636.94 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 31/08/2017 | C&M-GMS Global Sum | PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING | RAINWORTH HEALTH CENTRE | 18472716 | £46,272.66 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 31/08/2017 | C&M-GMS Prem Actual Rent | PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING | RAINWORTH HEALTH CENTRE | 18472716 | £15,518.93 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 31/08/2017 | C&M-GMS Prem Rates | PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING | RAINWORTH HEALTH CENTRE | 18472716 | £863.64 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 31/08/2017 | C&M-GMS Prem Water Rates | PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING | RAINWORTH HEALTH CENTRE | 18472716 | £165.50 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 31/08/2017 | C&M-GMS QDF Aspiration | PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING | RAINWORTH HEALTH CENTRE | 18472716 | £5,629.06 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 31/08/2017 | C&M-GMS DES Learn Dsblty Hlth Chk | PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING | THE ABBEY MEDICAL GROUP | 18472714 | £560.00 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 31/08/2017 | C&M-GMS DES Minor Surgery | PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING | THE ABBEY MEDICAL GROUP | 18472714 | £2,674.58 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 31/08/2017 | C&M-GMS Global Sum | PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING | THE ABBEY MEDICAL GROUP | 18472714 | £19,480.93 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 31/08/2017 | C&M-GMS Prem Clinical Waste | PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING | THE ABBEY MEDICAL GROUP | 18472714 | £1,229.79 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 31/08/2017 | C&M-GMS Prem Notional Rent | PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING | THE ABBEY MEDICAL GROUP | 18472714 | £16,604.17 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 31/08/2017 | C&M-GMS QDF Aspiration | PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING | THE ABBEY MEDICAL GROUP | 18472714 | £10,605.28 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 31/08/2017 | C&M-GMS DES Learn Dsblty Hlth Chk | PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING | MAJOR OAK MEDICAL PRACTICE | 18472720 | £280.00 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 31/08/2017 | C&M-GMS DES Minor Surgery | PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING | MAJOR OAK MEDICAL PRACTICE | 18472720 | £2,576.42 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 31/08/2017 | C&M-GMS Global Sum | PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING | MAJOR OAK MEDICAL PRACTICE | 18472720 | £51,961.16 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 31/08/2017 | C&M-GMS Prem Actual Rent | PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING | MAJOR OAK MEDICAL PRACTICE | 18472720 | £8,218.60 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 31/08/2017 | C&M-GMS Prem Rates | PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING | MAJOR OAK MEDICAL PRACTICE | 18472720 | £700.46 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 31/08/2017 | C&M-GMS Prem Water Rates | PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING | MAJOR OAK MEDICAL PRACTICE | 18472720 | £88.36 | |---------------------|--------------------------|------------|--------------------------|-------------------------------|-----------------------------|-----------|-------| | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 31/08/2017 | C&M-GMS QOF Aspiration | PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING | MAJOR OAK MEDICAL PRACTICE | 18472720 | £6,463.24 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 31/08/2017 | C&M-GMS DES FFP QRSK | PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING | HILL VIEW SURGERY | 18472718 | £65.00 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 31/08/2017 | C&M-GMS Global Sum | PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING | HILL VIEW SURGERY | 18472718 | £21,918.69 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 31/08/2017 | C&M-GMS MPSG Correction Factor | PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING | HILL VIEW SURGERY | 18472718 | £1,805.20 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 31/08/2017 | C&M-GMS Prem Notional Rent | PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING | HILL VIEW SURGERY | 18472718 | £2,383.33 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 31/08/2017 | C&M-GMS QOF Aspiration | PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING | HILL VIEW SURGERY | 18472718 | £2,559.10 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 31/08/2017 | C&M-GMS DES Minor Surgery | PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING | SHERWOOD MEDICAL PARTNERSHIP | 18472722 | £7,078.55 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 31/08/2017 | C&M-GMS DES UNPLANNED ADMISSIONS | PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING | SHERWOOD MEDICAL PARTNERSHIP | 18472722 | £11,459.91 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 31/08/2017 | C&M-GMS Global Sum | PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING | SHERWOOD MEDICAL PARTNERSHIP | 18472722 | £116,246.01 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 31/08/2017 | C&M-GMS PCO Doctors Ret Scheme | PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING | SHERWOOD MEDICAL PARTNERSHIP | 18472722 | £1,076.88 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 31/08/2017 | C&M-GMS PCO Locum Adop/Pat/Mat | PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING | SHERWOOD MEDICAL PARTNERSHIP | 18472722 | £54,302.36 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 31/08/2017 | C&M-GMS Prem Clinical Waste | PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING | SHERWOOD MEDICAL PARTNERSHIP | 18472722 | £52.60 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 31/08/2017 | C&M-GMS Prem Notional Rent | PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING | SHERWOOD MEDICAL PARTNERSHIP | 18472722 | £3,583.33 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 31/08/2017 | C&M-GMS QOF Aspiration | PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING | SHERWOOD MEDICAL PARTNERSHIP | 18472722 | £13,279.06 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 31/08/2017 | C&M-GMS DES Minor Surgery | PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING | THE FOUNTAIN MEDICAL CENTRE | 18472724 | £4,156.87 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 31/08/2017 | C&M-GMS Global Sum | PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING | THE FOUNTAIN MEDICAL CENTRE | 18472724 | £98,658.88 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 31/08/2017 | C&M-GMS Prem Notional Rent | PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING | THE FOUNTAIN MEDICAL CENTRE | 18472724 | £6,833.33 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 31/08/2017 | C&M-GMS QOF Aspiration | PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING | THE FOUNTAIN MEDICAL CENTRE | 18472724 | £12,566.63 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 31/08/2017 | C&M-GMS DES Learn Dsblty Hlth Chk | PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING | BARNBY GATE SURGERY | 18472728 | £840.00 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 31/08/2017 | C&M-GMS Global Sum | PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING | BARNBY GATE SURGERY | 18472728 | £93,185.11 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 31/08/2017 | C&M-GMS Prem Clinical Waste | PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING | BARNBY GATE SURGERY | 18472728 | £116.88 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 31/08/2017 | C&M-GMS Prem Notional Rent | PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING | BARNBY GATE SURGERY | 18472728 | £8,194.56 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 31/08/2017 | C&M-GMS QOF Aspiration | PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING | BARNBY GATE SURGERY | 18472728 | £10,221.35 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 31/08/2017 | C&M-GMS GP Statutory Levy | PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING | LOMBARD MEDICAL CENTRE | 18472725 | £4,993.35 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 31/08/2017 | C&M-GMS Voluntary Levy | PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING | LOMBARD MEDICAL CENTRE | 18472725 | £50.00 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 31/08/2017 | ME - GMS TPS Added Years Adj EE's | PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING | LOMBARD MEDICAL CENTRE | 18472725 | £1,113.95 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 31/08/2017 | ME - GMS GP Pension EE's | PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING | LOMBARD MEDICAL CENTRE | 18472725 | £14,251.22 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 31/08/2017 | ME - GMS GP Pension EEs Adjustments | PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING | LOMBARD MEDICAL CENTRE | 18472725 | £11,850.06 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 31/08/2017 | C&M-GMS DES Learn Dsblty Hlth Chk | PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING | LOMBARD MEDICAL CENTRE | 18472726 | £4,480.00 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 31/08/2017 | C&M-GMS DES Minor Surgery | PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING | LOMBARD MEDICAL CENTRE | 18472726 | £1,224.89 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 31/08/2017 | C&M-GMS Global Sum | PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING | LOMBARD MEDICAL CENTRE | 18472726 | £122,196.85 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 31/08/2017 | C&M-GMS MPFG Correction Factor | PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING | LOMBARD MEDICAL CENTRE | £4,915.11 | |---------------------|--------------------------|------------|--------------------------------|-------------------------------|------------------------|------------| | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 31/08/2017 | C&M-GMS PEO Doctors Ret Scheme | PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING | LOMBARD MEDICAL CENTRE | £3,959.84 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 31/08/2017 | C&M-GMS Prem Actual Rent | PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING | LOMBARD MEDICAL CENTRE | £63,442.50 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 31/08/2017 | C&M-GMS QOF Aspiration | PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING | LOMBARD MEDICAL CENTRE | £15,213.30 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 31/08/2017 | ME - GMS GP Prior Year Efs | PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING | LOMBARD MEDICAL CENTRE | £319.43 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 31/08/2017 | ME-GMS GP Prior Year Efs | PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING | LOMBARD MEDICAL CENTRE | £1,807.73 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 31/08/2017 | Hcare Srv Rev: NHS Trust-CQI&N | AMBULANCE SERVICES | EAST MIDLANDS AMBULANCE SERVICE NHS TRUST | £4,245.00 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 31/08/2017 | Hcare Srv Rev: NHS Trust-Contract Baseline | AMBULANCE SERVICES | EAST MIDLANDS AMBULANCE SERVICE NHS TRUST | £339,625.00 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 31/08/2017 | Hcare Srv Rev: NHS Trust-Contract Baseline | AMBULANCE SERVICES | EAST MIDLANDS AMBULANCE SERVICE NHS TRUST | £1,198,480.00 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 31/08/2017 | C&M-GMS DLS Learn Dably Hlth Chk | PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING | HOUNDSFIELD SURGERY | £140.00 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 31/08/2017 | C&M-GMS DLS Minor Surgery | PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING | HOUNDSFIELD SURGERY | £1,273.97 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 31/08/2017 | C&M-GMS Dispensing Quality Sch | PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING | HOUNDSFIELD SURGERY | £10,198.74 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 31/08/2017 | C&M-GMS Global Sum | PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING | HOUNDSFIELD SURGERY | £32,889.46 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 31/08/2017 | C&M-GMS Prem Notional Rent | PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING | HOUNDSFIELD SURGERY | £2,643.25 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 31/08/2017 | C&M-GMS QOF Aspiration | PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING | HOUNDSFIELD SURGERY | £2,820.49 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 31/08/2017 | C&M-GMS Cost of Drugs -Dispensing | PRESCRIBING | HOUNDSFIELD SURGERY | -£49,448.34 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 31/08/2017 | C&M-GMS PresChrgsCll&AmntsbypCntra | PRESCRIBING | HOUNDSFIELD SURGERY | -£3,233.60 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 31/08/2017 | C&M-GMS Cost of Drugs -Dispensing | PRESCRIBING | HOUNDSFIELD SURGERY | £91,469.17 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 31/08/2017 | C&M-GMS Prof Fees Dispensing | PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING | HOUNDSFIELD SURGERY | £14,994.84 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 31/08/2017 | C&M-GMS PrescrpChrgsCll&AmntsbypGP | PRESCRIBING | HOUNDSFIELD SURGERY | £3,233.60 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 31/08/2017 | Clinical&Medical-Commercial Sector | OUT OF HOURS | NEMS COMMUNITY BENEFIT SERVICE | £122,378.20 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 31/08/2017 | Misc: Income-Other Operating Rev NHS | MENTAL HEALTH CONTRACTS | NHS MANSFIELD & ASHFIELD CCG | £39,534.00 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 31/08/2017 | Misc: Income-Other Operating Rev NHS | MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES - OTHER | NHS MANSFIELD & ASHFIELD CCG | £8,310.42 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 31/08/2017 | Misc: Income-Other Operating Rev NHS | MENTAL HEALTH CONTRACTS | NHS NOTTINGHAM NORTH & EAST CCG | £44,902.76 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 31/08/2017 | Misc: Income-Other Operating Rev NHS | MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES - OTHER | NHS NOTTINGHAM NORTH & EAST CCG | -£10,297.05 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 31/08/2017 | Cont Care-Funded Nursing Care Allow | FUNDED NURSING CARE | NHS RUSHCLIFFE CCG | £75,155.00 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 31/08/2017 | NHS CHC/FNC Risk-Sharing Recharge between CCGs | FUNDED NURSING CARE | NHS RUSHCLIFFE CCG | £20,141.00 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 31/08/2017 | Clinical&Medical-Independent Sector | Learning Difficulties - S117 | NHS RUSHCLIFFE CCG | £57,776.00 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 31/08/2017 | Clinical&Medical-Independent Sector | Mental Health Services - S117 Mental Health | NHS RUSHCLIFFE CCG | £116,212.00 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 31/08/2017 | Cont Care- Adult 100% Fully Funded | CHC AD FULL FUND PERS HLTH BUD | NHS RUSHCLIFFE CCG | £7,317.00 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 31/08/2017 | Cont Care- Adult 100% Fully Funded | CHC ADULT FULLY FUNDED | NHS RUSHCLIFFE CCG | £172,098.00 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 31/08/2017 | Cont Care- Adult Joint Funded | ADULT JOINT FUNDED CONTINUING CARE | NHS RUSHCLIFFE CCG | £14,360.00 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 31/08/2017 | Cont Care- Adult Joint Funded | Adult Joint Funded Continuing Care Personal Health Budgets | NHS RUSHCLIFFE CCG | £3,501.00 | |---------------------|--------------------------|------------|-------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------|-------------------|----------| | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 31/08/2017 | Cont Care- Children | Children's Continuing Care | NHS RUSHCLIFFE CCG | £21,751.00 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 31/08/2017 | Cont Care- Children | Children's Continuing Care Personal Health Budgets | NHS RUSHCLIFFE CCG | £1,355.00 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 31/08/2017 | Cont Care- Palliative Care | CHC AD FULL FUND PERS HLTH BUD | NHS RUSHCLIFFE CCG | £726.00 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 31/08/2017 | Cont Care- Palliative Care | CHC AD FULL FUND PERS HLTH BUD | NHS RUSHCLIFFE CCG | £104,474.00 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 31/08/2017 | Cont Care-Learning Disab(65+) | ADULT JOINT FUNDED CONTINUING CARE | NHS RUSHCLIFFE CCG | £31,844.00 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 31/08/2017 | Cont Care-Learning Disab(65+) | ADULT JOINT FUNDED CONTINUING CARE | NHS RUSHCLIFFE CCG | £296,940.00 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 31/08/2017 | Cont Care-Learning Disab(65+) | Adult Joint Funded Continuing Care Personal Health Budgets | NHS RUSHCLIFFE CCG | £8,866.00 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 31/08/2017 | Cont Care-Learning Disab(65+) | CHC AD FULL FUND PERS HLTH BUD | NHS RUSHCLIFFE CCG | £71,724.00 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 31/08/2017 | Cont Care-Learning Disab(65+) | CHC AD FULL FUND PERS HLTH BUD | NHS RUSHCLIFFE CCG | £41,495.00 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 31/08/2017 | Cont Care-Mental Health (65+) | ADULT JOINT FUNDED CONTINUING CARE | NHS RUSHCLIFFE CCG | £11,035.00 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 31/08/2017 | Cont Care-Mental Health (65+) | ADULT JOINT FUNDED CONTINUING CARE | NHS RUSHCLIFFE CCG | £196,806.00 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 31/08/2017 | Cont Care-Mental Health (65+) | ADULT JOINT FUNDED CONTINUING CARE | NHS RUSHCLIFFE CCG | £10,560.00 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 31/08/2017 | Cont Care-Mental Health (65+) | ADULT JOINT FUNDED CONTINUING CARE | NHS RUSHCLIFFE CCG | £17,016.00 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 31/08/2017 | Cont Care-Physical Disab (65+) | ADULT JOINT FUNDED CONTINUING CARE | NHS RUSHCLIFFE CCG | £3,198.00 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 31/08/2017 | Cont Care-Physical Disab (65+) | ADULT JOINT FUNDED CONTINUING CARE | NHS RUSHCLIFFE CCG | £8,229.00 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 31/08/2017 | Cont Care-Physical Disab (65+) | ADULT JOINT FUNDED CONTINUING CARE | NHS RUSHCLIFFE CCG | £36,308.00 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 31/08/2017 | Cont Care-Physical Disab (65+) | CHC AD FULL FUND PERS HLTH BUD | NHS RUSHCLIFFE CCG | £64,247.00 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 31/08/2017 | Cont Care-Physical Disab (65+) | CHC AD FULL FUND PERS HLTH BUD | NHS RUSHCLIFFE CCG | £27,407.00 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 31/08/2017 | NHS CHC/FNC Risk-Sharing Recharge between CCGs | ADULT JOINT FUNDED CONTINUING CARE | NHS RUSHCLIFFE CCG | £108,210.00 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 31/08/2017 | NHS CHC/FNC Risk-Sharing Recharge between CCGs | Adult Joint Funded Continuing Care Personal Health Budgets | NHS RUSHCLIFFE CCG | £4,416.00 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 31/08/2017 | NHS CHC/FNC Risk-Sharing Recharge between CCGs | CHC AD FULL FUND PERS HLTH BUD | NHS RUSHCLIFFE CCG | £42,048.00 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 31/08/2017 | NHS CHC/FNC Risk-Sharing Recharge between CCGs | CHC AD FULL FUND PERS HLTH BUD | NHS RUSHCLIFFE CCG | £14,566.00 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 31/08/2017 | NHS CHC/FNC Risk-Sharing Recharge between CCGs | Children's Continuing Care | NHS RUSHCLIFFE CCG | £37,346.00 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 31/08/2017 | NHS CHC/FNC Risk-Sharing Recharge between CCGs | Children's Continuing Care Personal Health Budgets | NHS RUSHCLIFFE CCG | £3,358.00 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 31/08/2017 | Misc: Income-Other Operating Rev NHS | MENTAL HEALTH CONTRACTS | NHS RUSHCLIFFE CCG | £32,695.72 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 31/08/2017 | Misc: Income-Other Operating Rev NHS | MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES - OTHER | NHS RUSHCLIFFE CCG | £7,497.98 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 31/08/2017 | Hcare Srv Rec: NHS Trust-CQUIN | ACUTE COMMISSIONING | NOTTINGHAM HAM UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | £24,088.08 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 31/08/2017 | Hcare Srv Rec: NHS Trust-Contract Baseline | ACUTE COMMISSIONING | NOTTINGHAM HAM UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | £1,005,379.67 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 31/08/2017 | Hcare Srv Rec: NHS Trust-Contract Baseline | ACUTE COMMISSIONING | NOTTINGHAM HAM UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | £233,799.23 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 31/08/2017 | C&M-Independent Sector - CQUIN | ACUTE COMMISSIONING | NOTTINGHAM WOODTHORPE HOSPITAL | £800.61 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 31/08/2017 | Clinical&Medical-Independent Sector | ACUTE COMMISSIONING | NOTTINGHAM WOODTHORPE HOSPITAL | £164,049.00 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 31/08/2017 | Clinical&Medical-Other Public Sector | PROGRAMME PROJECTS | NOTTINGHAMSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL | £3,223.37 | 31/08/2017 | |---------------------|--------------------------|------------|--------------------------------------|-------------------|---------------------------------|-----------|------------| | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 31/08/2017 | Hcane Srv Rec: Fdnr Trust-Contract Cost per Case | MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES - OTHER | NOTTINGHAMSHIRE HEALTHCARE NHS TRUST | £79,339.88 | 18340217 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 31/08/2017 | Hcane Srv Rec: Fdnr Trust-Contract Cost per Case | LEARNING DIFFICULTIES | NOTTINGHAMSHIRE HEALTHCARE NHS TRUST | £19,361.40 | 18340249 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 31/08/2017 | Hcane Srv Rec: Fdnr Trust-Contract Cost per Case | MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES - OTHER | NOTTINGHAMSHIRE HEALTHCARE NHS TRUST | £11,388.90 | 18340249 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 31/08/2017 | Hcane Srv Rec: Fdnr Trust-Contract Baseline | COMMUNITY SERVICES | NOTTINGHAMSHIRE HEALTHCARE NHS TRUST | £87,644.00 | 18398381 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 31/08/2017 | Hcane Srv Rec: Fdnr Trust-CQJN | MENTAL HEALTH CONTRACTS | NOTTINGHAMSHIRE HEALTHCARE NHS TRUST | £25,345.21 | 18398442 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 31/08/2017 | Hcane Srv Rec: Fdnr Trust-Contract Baseline | MENTAL HEALTH CONTRACTS | NOTTINGHAMSHIRE HEALTHCARE NHS TRUST | £1,013,785.39 | 18398442 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 31/08/2017 | Hcane Srv Rec: Fdnr Trust-Non Contract | IMPROVING ACCESS TO PSYCHOLOGICAL THERAPIES | NOTTINGHAMSHIRE HEALTHCARE NHS TRUST | £49,864.00 | 18478057 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 31/08/2017 | C&M-APMS Contract Value | PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING | PRIMARY INTEGRATED COMMUNITY SERVICES LTD | £151,000.00 | 18351667 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 31/08/2017 | C&M-APMS DES Minor Surgery | PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING | PRIMARY INTEGRATED COMMUNITY SERVICES LTD | £438.27 | 18351667 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 31/08/2017 | C&M-APMS Prem Actual Rent | PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING | PRIMARY INTEGRATED COMMUNITY SERVICES LTD | £12,233.89 | 18351667 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 31/08/2017 | C&M-APMS Prem Clinical Waste | PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING | PRIMARY INTEGRATED COMMUNITY SERVICES LTD | £70.95 | 18351667 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 31/08/2017 | C&M-APMS Prem Rates | PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING | PRIMARY INTEGRATED COMMUNITY SERVICES LTD | £767.81 | 18351667 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 31/08/2017 | C&M-APMS Prem Water Rates | PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING | PRIMARY INTEGRATED COMMUNITY SERVICES LTD | £118.65 | 18351667 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 31/08/2017 | C&M-APMS QOF Aspiration | PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING | PRIMARY INTEGRATED COMMUNITY SERVICES LTD | £3,223.37 | 18351667 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 31/08/2017 | Hcane Srv Rec: Fdnr Trust-Contract Baseline | ACUTE COMMISSIONING | SHEFFIELD TEACHING HOSPITALS NHS FOUNDATION TRUST | £28,045.00 | 18398519 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 31/08/2017 | Hcane Srv Rec: Fdnr Trust-Contract Baseline | ACUTE COMMISSIONING | SHERWOOD FOREST HOSPITALS NHS FOUNDATION TRUST | £72,422.00 | 18361853 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 31/08/2017 | Hcane Srv Rec: Fdnr Trust-CQJN | ACUTE COMMISSIONING | SHERWOOD FOREST HOSPITALS NHS FOUNDATION TRUST | £55,787.15 | 18398463 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 31/08/2017 | Hcane Srv Rec: Fdnr Trust-CQJN | COMMUNITY SERVICES | SHERWOOD FOREST HOSPITALS NHS FOUNDATION TRUST | £1,981.83 | 18398463 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 31/08/2017 | Hcane Srv Rec: Fdnr Trust-Contract Baseline | ACUTE COMMISSIONING | SHERWOOD FOREST HOSPITALS NHS FOUNDATION TRUST | £4,973,142.25 | 18398463 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 31/08/2017 | Hcane Srv Rec: Fdnr Trust-Contract Baseline | COMMUNITY SERVICES | SHERWOOD FOREST HOSPITALS NHS FOUNDATION TRUST | £204,626.83 | 18398463 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 31/08/2017 | Hcane Srv Rec: Fdnr Trust-CQJN | ACUTE COMMISSIONING | SHERWOOD FOREST HOSPITALS NHS FOUNDATION TRUST | £219,522.32 | 18398493 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 31/08/2017 | C&M-GMS DES Minor Surgery | PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING | SOUTHWELL MEDICAL CENTRE | £7,281.72 | 18472732 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 31/08/2017 | C&M-GMS Dispensing Quality Sch | PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING | SOUTHWELL MEDICAL CENTRE | £12,665.22 | 18472732 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 31/08/2017 | C&M-GMS Global Sum | PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING | SOUTHWELL MEDICAL CENTRE | £17,670.00 | 18472732 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 31/08/2017 | C&M-GMS MPIG Correction Factor | PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING | SOUTHWELL MEDICAL CENTRE | £5,113.55 | 18472732 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 31/08/2017 | C&M-GMS Prem Clinical Waste | PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING | SOUTHWELL MEDICAL CENTRE | £1,394.62 | 18472732 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 31/08/2017 | C&M-GMS Prem Notional Rent | PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING | SOUTHWELL MEDICAL CENTRE | £17,670.00 | 18472732 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 31/08/2017 | C&M-GMS QOF Aspiration | PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING | SOUTHWELL MEDICAL CENTRE | £10,040.61 | 18472732 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 31/08/2017 | C&M-GMS Prem Clinical Waste | PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING | SOUTHWELL MEDICAL CENTRE | £118.65 | 18472732 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 31/08/2017 | C&M-GMS Prem Notional Rent | PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING | SOUTHWELL MEDICAL CENTRE | £2,932.60 | 18472732 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 31/08/2017 | C&M-GMS Cost of Drugs -Dispensing | PRESCRIBING | SOUTHWELL MEDICAL CENTRE | £4,973,142.25 | 18561336 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 31/08/2017 | C&M-GMS Cost of Drugs -Dispensing | PRESCRIBING | SOUTHWELL MEDICAL CENTRE | £10,913.71 | 18561336 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 31/08/2017 | C&M-GMS Prof Fees Dispensing | PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING | SOUTHWELL MEDICAL CENTRE | 18556136 | £14,044.00 | |---------------------|--------------------------|------------|-------------------------------|-------------------------------|--------------------------|----------|-----------| | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 31/08/2017 | C&M-GMS PrescrptnChrgsColl&RmttdbyGP | PRESCRIBING | SOUTHWELL MEDICAL CENTRE | 18556136 | £2,932.60 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 31/08/2017 | Hcare Srv Rec NHS Trust-CQUIN | ACUTE COMMISSIONING | UNITED LINCOLNSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 18398407 | £2,886.69 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 31/08/2017 | Hcare Srv Rec NHS Trust-Contract Baseline | ACUTE COMMISSIONING | UNITED LINCOLNSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 18398407 | £391,732.41 | | **TOTAL** | | | | | | | **£13,933,977.21** |
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/4203-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 7,
"total-input-tokens": 27597,
"total-output-tokens": 14385,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
5893,
1
],
[
5893,
11685,
2
],
[
11685,
17496,
3
],
[
17496,
23022,
4
],
[
23022,
28811,
5
],
[
28811,
35310,
6
],
[
35310,
36408,
7
]
]
} |
7570a4ee62e52944550a1df1fed2df7d4ef413fd | Accidental injury in the under-fives - A toolkit to support professional education/ awareness 2018
Supported by public health, Wiltshire Council Introduction
This toolkit has been devised as a framework to deliver awareness training concerning accidental injuries in the under-fives. It is a guidance only and can be modified according to local need.
It includes an agenda and a power point based on evidence provided by Public Health England (PHE). It has a variety of case studies to work with and has an example of a sign in sheet, evaluation and certificate of attendance.
Please bear in mind that this is relevant for this year and should you want to use it in the future, please make use of the references to ensure the information remains up to date.
We hope you find it useful.
## Content
| Description | Page | |------------------------------------------------------------------|------| | Sign in sheet | 4 | | List of resources to use with this toolkit | 5 | | Agenda | 6 | | Useful information and references | 7 | | Evaluation sheet | 8 - 9| | Certificate of attendance | 10 | | Example of press release to use for child safety week | 11 | | Name (PRINT) | Role | Signature | |-------------|------|-----------| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | List of additional resources to use with the toolkit
- Flip chart/ large sheets of paper
- Pens and pencils
- Sheets of paper for second activity
- Resources
- Laptop to show Public Health England (PHE) Fingertips (optional)
- PHE resources
- Child Accident Prevention Trust (CAPT)
- Child Safety Week 2018 Action pack
- Example press release for child safety week
- Overview of the six early years and school aged years high impact areas
- Power point Accidental injury in the under-fives
Agenda
| Item | Time (2 hours) | |----------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------| | Sign in and refreshments | 15 | | Welcome and introduction to the session | 5 | | Expectations | 10 | | Unintentional / accidental injury in under 5 year olds | 15 | | - Child health improvement strategy | | | - Accidental injury | | | - Priority areas | | | Activity 1 | 20 | | Main risks | 10 | | Activity 2 – groups to discuss each risk and feedback | 25 | | What have you learned? | 15 | | - Gaps? | | | - Actions | | | Evaluation | 5 |
(Use power point) Useful child safety information to use with parents/carers
1. **Suffocation & strangulation** CAPT have a short film worth watching on the website produced by Cornwall & Scilly Isles NHS Trust about nappy sacks and blind cords to show parents.
2. **Burns and scalds** Children’s Burns Trust [www.cbt.org.uk](http://www.cbt.org.uk) Lots of prevention information for early years, learning zone, direct online support, and cheap flyers. Now holds National Burns Database **You Tube – Hot drinks harm.** North Bristol NHS Trust Short clip to promote discussion with parents about burns and scalds
3. **Water safety** [www.almt.org/the-danger-age-video](http://www.almt.org/the-danger-age-video) Short film about potential dangers of water and young children.
4. **Sun safety** [www.cancerresearchuk/sunsmart](http://www.cancerresearchuk/sunsmart) latest information for adults and children and free posters. **Tip:** order early (March/April) as they run out quickly as summer approaches
5. **British Red Cross** Baby and Child First Aid app. for phones, from British Red Cross. Good to pass on to parents and carers for emergencies. The app has short films about what to do if a baby or child....
- Is choking
- Has an allergic reaction
- Has a burn
- And other issues
6. **Child Accident Prevention Trust** [www.capt.org.uk](http://www.capt.org.uk) Useful for practitioners. latest advice, information and resources. Co-ordinates and promotes National Child Safety Week in June each year **Staff development session. (date) Evaluation Form**
**Name of session:**
Please circle
Did the session meet your expectations? Yes No Partly
**Planned outcomes for the day**
| Question | Little knowledge | Very knowledgeable | |--------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------|--------------------| | Do you think you are now more familiar with child safety issues? | 1 2 3 4 5 6 | | | Yes No | | | | Where do you see yourself now? | | | | Do you feel more confident in promoting child safety with parents? | 1 2 3 4 5 6 | | | Yes No | | | | Where do you see yourself now? | | | | Do you have a better understanding of why child safety is a priority for our children’s centres? | 1 2 3 4 5 6 | | | Yes No | | | | Where do you see yourself now? | | | | Are you better informed about the most common causes of injuries in young children? | 1 2 3 4 5 6 | | | Yes No | | | | Where do you see yourself now? | | | | How confident do you feel linking child development stages with child injury prevention? | 1 2 3 4 5 6 | | | Yes No | | | | Where do you see yourself now? | | | | Please state what you will do at work or at home to improve child safety? | 1. | | | 2. | | | | 3. | | |
Please turn over>>>>>>> How useful were the activities today?
| Activities | Very good | Good | OK | Poor | |---------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------|------|-----|------| | Presentation on latest data, and injury prevention for under 5’s | | | | | | Practical activity in small groups | | | | | | Handbag activity | | | | | | General information and injury prevention resources | | | | |
What could have been done better today?
Are there areas of injury prevention you would like to know more about?
Any further comments you would like to make?
Many thanks for completing this form.
Please return to:
Date: Certificate of attendance Child Injury Prevention training
Aim: To build practitioners skills and knowledge about evidence based injury prevention work in early years.
Outcomes: Participants will have:
- Gained knowledge of the most serious childhood injuries in early years
- Understand why child safety is one of the priority issues for children’s centres
- Become more aware of how to prevent serious injury in young children
- Gained more confidence in promoting child safety with parents and carers in Wiltshire
Name: ........................................................................................................................................
Date: ..................................................
Delivered by: ..........................................................
(Title) Example of a PRESS RELEASE For child safety week
As new parents and grandparents it is a joy to see babies, toddlers and young children reach their key developmental stages or potential. However, as children develop and grow, there comes additional dangers lurking within the home.
In Wiltshire, the most common reasons for under-fives to be admitted to hospital or seen at the accident and emergency department related to accidental injuries are:
(add local data where possible, by contacting public health, Wiltshire Council: [email protected])
Our key messages to parents and grandparents are:
(Insert)
This year, along with (name) and (name) we are alerting parents and grandparents to the dangers lurking within the home. During National Child Safety (dates) we will be (insert activity)
For further details, please contact (insert contact details)
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/0898-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 11,
"total-input-tokens": 16282,
"total-output-tokens": 2446,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
146,
1
],
[
146,
791,
2
],
[
791,
1487,
3
],
[
1487,
2258,
4
],
[
2258,
2726,
5
],
[
2726,
4216,
6
],
[
4216,
5757,
7
],
[
5757,
8357,
8
],
[
8357,
9281,
9
],
[
9281,
10085,
10
],
[
10085,
10952,
11
]
]
} |
909b04e2ee82e3ecf473707463f0da974164041d | Accounting Officer System Statement Contents
Section one: Scope of the system 4 Section two: Responsibilities within the core department 6 Section three: Local funding arrangements 8 Section four: Third party delivery partnerships 9 Section five: Grants to private and voluntary sector bodies 10 Section one: Scope of the system
1. I am the Principal Accounting Officer for The National Archives. This System Statement sets out all of the accountability relationships and processes within my department, setting out where accountability sits at all levels of the system.
2. The National Archives is a non-ministerial department, and the official archive and publisher for the UK Government, and for England and Wales. Its parent department is the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport. It fulfils the remit of the Public Record Office, the Historical Manuscripts Commission, the Office for Public Sector Information and Her Majesty's Stationery Office. It works to secure the archival heritage of the nation. Its collection is accessible to everyone all over the world.
3. The National Archives:
- is the custodian of the public record and government's trusted expert in managing, preserving and using information
- provides access to and makes available more than 1,000 years of the nation's history, and connects people and communities with the millions of stories contained in its collection
- leads and supports the archives sector, and help archives to build and develop the skills and capacity needed to sustain the nation's archival heritage
- works with the academic community and others engaged in scholarly research across a broad range of disciplines, to provide solutions to the major challenges facing archives, and to open up greater access to archival collections • brings together the skills and specialisms needed to conserve some of the oldest historic documents, as well as leading digital archive practices to manage and preserve government information past, present and future
• plays a leading role in addressing the cross-government challenge of preserving and making accessible the digital record of government.
4. The Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport has statutory responsibility under the Public Records Act 1958 for the public records system and is accountable to Parliament.
5. As Accounting Officer, I am personally responsible for safeguarding the public funds for which I have been given charge under HM Treasury’s Estimate, and The National Archives’ resources accounts, as listed in the Accounting Officer appointment letter.
6. This System Statement helps me ensure that I am fulfilling my responsibilities as an Accounting Officer, in accordance with HM Treasury’s guidance as set out in Managing Public Money. It covers my department and describes accountability for all expenditure of public money through my department’s Estimate, all public money raised as income, and the management of any shareholdings, financial investments and other publicly owned assets for which I am responsible.
7. This accountability system is in place at the date of this Statement, and will continue to apply until a revised Statement is published.
Jeff James Chief Executive and Keeper and Accounting Officer 20 July 2020 Section two: Responsibilities within the core department
08. As Principal Accounting Officer, I am personally responsible for safeguarding the public funds for which I have charge, for ensuring propriety, regularity, value for money, and feasibility in the handling of those public funds; and for the day-to-day operations and management of The National Archives.
09. In addition, I ensure that The National Archives as a whole is run on the basis of the standards, in terms of governance, decision-making and financial management that are set out in Box 3.1 of Managing Public Money.
10. The operating structure is designed with a focus on The National Archives' new strategic vision, Archives for Everyone, which challenges the organisation to become the 21st Century national archive – inclusive, entrepreneurial and disruptive.
11. The National Archives' Board is the key strategic advisory body, and comprises the Chief Executive, Executive Directors, the Chair of the Board, and Non-executive Board members. The National Archives' Executive Team (comprising the Chief Executive and Executive Directors) are responsible for the day-to-day operational management of the organisation. The Audit and Risk Committee is the main oversight committee for the organisation. The Nominations and Governance Committee is a key forum for discussion of leadership development, succession planning and senior civil service pay.
12. Management information is reported monthly to the Executive Team. The role of the Executive Team includes managing improvements in business and financial performance, driving innovation, transparency and efficiencies that support delivery of strategic objectives and deliver value for money.
13. The Executive Team supports and informs the work of the Board. The Board's role includes ensuring the right information and evidence are available to make decisions, measure performance and provide assurance.
14. Further support to the Board is provided by the Audit and Risk Committee whose main purpose is to support the Board in their responsibilities for issues of risk, control and governance. Challenge on the performance of the Board is provided by the Non-executive Board members and other Board members.
15. The National Archives’ internal auditors provide a third party evaluation of the risk management, control and governance arrangements in place. The risk-based approach is agreed with the Executive Team and approved by the Audit and Risk Committee.
16. For further information on the responsibilities of the Boards and Committees, please refer to the Governance statement in The National Archives’ annual report and accounts, which can be found on the Our performance section of the website. Section three: Local funding arrangements
‘New Burdens’ funding
17. Since 1 January 2015, specified local public sector organisations (magistrates’ courts, prisons, coroners’ courts, NHS bodies and some arms-length bodies) must now transfer records selected for permanent preservation to a place of deposit, in line with changes to legislation and the 20-year rule. ‘New Burdens’ funding has been made available from central government to cover the increased activity for local authority places of deposit during the ten-year transition period (£660,000), with smaller sums available to assist coroners (£50,000). Distributed via The National Archives, this funding will be made available for each year of transition. Section four: Third party delivery partnerships
18. The National Archives uses third party delivery partnerships to support its work as leaders of the archives sector. One of those organisations, the Pilgrim Trust, acts on its behalf as a grant giver to archives across the UK under the Cataloguing Grants programme. The benefit of this delivery partnership is that the Pilgrim Trust has provided match funding to double The National Archives’ contribution, as well as the grant giving mechanism and oversight by its own Trustees, in line with its obligations as a charity. Financial accountability is assured via review of progress reports from the fund recipients at agreed milestones. At the end of the project, the receipt of the final output report is required. The programme has now been reshaped in response to the review’s recommendations, and there are plans to extend its reach even further.
19. Other organisations deliver a range of training, support and sector development work across the archives sector, for example, the Archives and Records Association (UK and Ireland). Formal agreements are mandatory for each agreement and approval is required at Executive Director level. Progress is monitored as appropriate, depending on the length/intricacy of the agreement. Section five: Grants to private and voluntary sector bodies
20. The National Archives works with and has in place a grants system with other sister organisations to support a range of mutual strategic goals that benefit the archives sector, research and academia. Research Libraries UK is a consortium of 37 of the largest research libraries in the UK and Ireland, including the three UK national libraries. Jisc are a membership organisation which supports the digital skills needs of the UK's higher and further education sectors. These grants are subject to funding agreements, memorandum of understanding between both organisations, and a clear action plan with regular monitoring and reviews against progress.
Sector Sustainability Fund
21. The National Archives provides grants to a small number of private and voluntary sector bodies to support joint working and collaboration in research. An internal panel approves each grant, counter signed by both parties at appropriate organisational level. Delivery against agreed targets set out in the grant agreement and project plan is monitored by a regionally based team, with all recipients required to report on how they have delivered against the agreed targets. A final evaluation is required upon grant completion.
Major contract and outsourced services
22. The National Archives ensures value for money from its contracts through open competition for any new requirement with a value of £10,000 or more, using Crown Commercial Service frameworks wherever possible. Contract reviews are conducted with our key suppliers as appropriate. The National Archives procurement and contract management processes are subject to review as part of the internal audit programme.
23. The National Archives has one major contract in place, for Total Facilities Management with Bouygues E&S FM UK, which has a total value of £7.5m. This contract was competed via a Crown Commercial Service framework, incorporates a robust service level agreement and we undertake regular contract and performance reviews with the supplier.
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/0899-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 10,
"total-input-tokens": 15519,
"total-output-tokens": 2252,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
36,
1
],
[
36,
36,
2
],
[
36,
297,
3
],
[
297,
1810,
4
],
[
1810,
3302,
5
],
[
3302,
5234,
6
],
[
5234,
6035,
7
],
[
6035,
6755,
8
],
[
6755,
8039,
9
],
[
8039,
10111,
10
]
]
} |
14d6413da7e0f334a77e45803cdf33da9573004d | # Internal Audit Report
## Accounts Receivable (Invoice Processing) Audit 2019/20
| To: | Director of Finance | |-----|---------------------| | | Deputy Director of Finance | | | Head of Finance (Exchequer) | | **Copied to:** | Assistant Finance Manager (AR) | | **Council Management Team (CMT)** | Operations Director, Re | | | Operations Director, CSG | | | Education & Skills Director, Cambridge Education | | | Head of Property Services & Valuation, CSG | | | Street Scene Commercial Manager | | | Group Manager, Licensing, Re | | | Head of Performance and Risk, CSG and Re | | | Finance Manager, Cambridge Education | | | Education Welfare Manager, Cambridge Education | | | Document Centre and Mailroom Manager, CSG | | | Finance Manager- Family Services | | | Head of Service, Hospitals and Health Partnerships – Adults & Communities | | | Manager Community Financial Assessment Team | | **From:** | Internal Audit Executive, LBB | | | Head of Internal Audit LBB |
We would like to thank management and staff of the Accounts Receivable team and other teams in the Council / its partners for their time and co-operation during the course of the internal audit. Executive Summary
| Assurance level | Number of recommendations by risk category | |-----------------|------------------------------------------| | Limited Assurance | Critical | High | Medium | Low | Advisory | | | - | 1 | 6 | 1 | - |
Scope
The Council issues invoices to its customers and clients to collect income for services provided for them. Invoice processing reviews will allow the income of the council to flow in without hindrances as the invoices are produced accurately and on a timely basis. The invoices should be issued at whatever intervals are agreed in the service agreement.
The audit covered arrangements within the Council’s central finance team as well as reviewing a sample of invoicing teams across the Council and three of its contracted partners (CSG, Re and Cambridge Education).
Summary of findings
This audit has identified 1 high, 6 medium and 1 low risk finding.
We identified the following issues as part of the audit:
- **Income Collection manual invoicing (Spreadsheet) Process (high)**: We found within our sample that controls on manually produced invoices (through spreadsheet) are not adequate. The invoices are not checked or authorised by senior officers.
- **Income Collection and Debt Management Guidance (ICDMG) (medium)**: During fieldwork, we noted that most invoicing teams (6/8 (75%) that we tested) are not aware of the ICDMG. We identified that the ICDMG was not version controlled, the date of production, the producer and next review date were not included on the document.
- **Commercial Rents – CSG Estates (medium)**: During fieldwork, we identified 8 expired leases/rent contracts (40%) which had not been renewed. The contract renewal process is slow; we identified that 8 cases (40%) the renewal took between 5 months to 5 years.
- **Commercial Waste – Street Scene (medium)**: Waste contract management controls are not operating effectively; we identified 12 cases (48%) where Business Recycling & Waste Agreement Forms were not counter-signed by LBB.
- **Premises Licensing and Gambling (PLG) - Re (medium)**: In the process of the audit we established that 8/15 credits notes issued (53%) were issued to previous holders of licenses who were no longer in control of the premises and had not informed PLG of their change of circumstances, 5/15 (33.3%) were issued to suspended customers; while 2/15 (13%) credit notes were issued to correct duplicated invoices. Additionally, we found that 12 invoices that were supposed to be cancelled in 2017 were still outstanding in Integra as at October 2019. It is also noted that all the AR requests for approval to take recovery action had not been granted. Lastly, we found that the council’s debt write-off process was not followed by the team. • **Education Accounts – Cambridge Education (medium):** We found three cases (30%) which had no source document for invoices issued. We noted 10 cases (100%) where the old location of the team was on the invoices instead of the new location. We identified that in 100% of the debt write-off process tested, the LBB process was not followed.
• **Document Centre and Mailroom - CSG (medium):** There is no evidence of adequate separation of duties in the printing process, we identified that whereas there is a good, separate first level security control of ID and password for members of staff printing the invoices, the second level of security is not adequate as the two members of staff use the same code to print.
• **Overpayments – Family Services (low):** We noted that the overpayments bad debts were due to delay in accessing the necessary information required to enable the team to confirm outstanding invoices and chase them before they become doubtful or bad.
We followed up to confirm that the actions agreed as part of the 2018/19 Debt Management audit had been completed. The AR2 concerning “Age debt monitoring” has been implemented while AR3 regarding “Third party debt collections” is not yet fully implemented, although reasonable progress has been made (See appendix 4).
## 2. Findings, Recommendations and Action Plan
| Ref | Finding | Risks | Risk category | Agreed action | |-----|---------|-------|---------------|---------------| | 1 | **Invoices Procedure** - Invoices produced on Spreadsheet | If invoices and credit notes are not independently reviewed and approved **then** there is a risk of error or fraud. If invoicing teams are not aware of the procedures in place **then**, there is a risk that inconsistent practices may occur and go undetected. | High | a) All manually loaded spreadsheets must include documented approval by an appropriate authorised person to evidence that the spreadsheet has been independently checked for accuracy, in line with the Financial Regulations requirement that separation of duties must be in place for all financial transactions. |
**Responsible officers:**
a) All invoicing teams across the Council and its partners.
**Target date:**
31 January 2020
______________________________________________________________________
A sample of eight invoicing teams were selected for testing across the Council and three of its contracted partners: CSG, Re and Cambridge Education.
The review established that Council’s invoices are produced in two main ways: manual and electronic. The electronic method is produced, checked and authorised on the Integra system, while the manual method involves production of invoices using spreadsheets. The spreadsheets are then sent to the Integra team for upload into the system. The testing confirmed that adequate controls authorisation is in place for the electronic invoice production method through Integra; invoices are checked and authorised by appropriate officers.
However, manually loaded spreadsheets (invoices) in the service areas reviewed established that those service areas do not comply with section 3.1.2 of the Financial Regulations which state: “There must be adequate separation of duties to ensure that no one officer is able to handle any financial transaction from start to finish without there being some mechanism for independent checking. By finish is meant the completion of the accounting for the transaction”.
The testing established that:
- There is not adequate segregation of duties in the manual invoicing process in the two service areas we reviewed that had used this method. One member of staff starts the process from beginning to the end.
- The spreadsheets are produced and forwarded to the Integra team for upload by the same officer without any authorisation or approval by a senior officer.
- There is no evidence that the spreadsheets were checked and signed by a senior officer or a manager. Unlike for teams invoicing via Integra, for manual spreadsheets there is no control on the Integra system to ensure that a senior officer approves the content of the spreadsheet on the system (see table below showing the invoicing teams sampled).
| Invoicing Teams Tested | Team Using Integra | Team Using Spreadsheet | Team Using Integra and Spreadsheet | |------------------------|--------------------|------------------------|-----------------------------------| | Property Services & Valuation (CSG): Commercial Rents | Public Protection (Re): Licensing and Gambling | Adult Social Care: Social Care and Ad-hoc | | Note: this team had not invoiced via spreadsheet during the period under review | | Street Scene Commercial Services: Commercial Waste | Education Partnership & Commercial Services (Cambridge Education): Education Account. | | Adult & Health: Actual Billing (Community) | | Early Intervention & Prevention (Family Services): Overpayments | | Adult & Health: Residential Care Homes | | 5 | 2 | 1 | | Ref | Finding | Risks | Risk category | Agreed action | |-----|---------|-------|---------------|---------------| | 2. | **Invoicing Procedure** - Income Collection and Debt Management Guidance (ICDMG) | If invoicing teams are not aware of the procedures in place then, there is a risk that inconsistent practices may occur and go undetected. | Medium | (a) Finance will ensure that all invoicing teams are aware of and understand procedures as set out in the Income Collection and Debt Management Guidance (ICDMG). This may require a training session or a notification each time the guidance is updated. | | | There is an Income Collection and Debt Management Guidance (ICDMG) document in place. | If process and procedure documents used by the Council are not version controlled then inconsistent practices may occur and go undetected as various versions of the documents may be in circulation. | | (b) Finance will ensure that a procedure note is produced and publish on the intranet. | | | A sample of eight invoicing teams were selected for testing and our discussion with each team established that six teams (75%) are unaware of the guidance note. Our testing found examples of the guidance not being followed, e.g. with regards to Write Offs (see findings 4 and 5 below). | | | (c) Finance will ensure that the Income Collection and Debt Management Guidance (ICDMG) is version controlled to ensure teams can identify and are using the correct version. | | | The guidance is not version controlled as the date of production and next review dates were not indicated on the document. Although, the Assistant Finance Manager (AR) informed us that the guidance was reviewed last year, there is no evidence to confirm this as the document was not version controlled. | | | |
**Responsible officer:** Assistant Income Manager
**Target date:** 31 January 2020 2. **Commercial Rents – CSG Estates**
The Commercial rents invoicing process was tested to ensure that the process and procedure comply with the Council’s Income Collection and Debt Management Guidance.
20 invoices were randomly selected from year 2019/20 commercial rent list (portfolio) for our testing. The testing established that:
- Contracts for eight out of 20 (40%) invoices selected are expired and are yet to be renewed. Effectively, the fees/charges have not been agreed and signed up to by the lessor.
- The leases and rents renewal process is very slow. Our testing confirmed that for eight out of 20 (40%) rents/leases reviewed, it took an average of between 5 months to 5 years for renewal. During the process of renewal, tenants were not invoiced leading to loss of income to the Council. The table below shows the analysis of delays detected in the tenancy and rents/leases renewal process.
| Customer Number | Expiry Date | Number of Years | |-----------------|-------------|-----------------| | 10043960 | 12/02/2014 | 5 years | | 10004859 | 30/06/2014 | 4 years + | | 10019650 | 15/03/2015 | 4 years | | 10004620 | 25/10/2016 | 3 years + | | 10060430 | 1/10/2017 | 2 years + | | 10026742 | 24/12/2017 | 1.5 years | | 10026754 | 25/12/2018 | 1 year | | 10029515 | 30/06/2019 | 4 months |
If lease/rents contracts renewal process is unnecessarily delayed then the council could lose income, potentially leading to budget pressures and cash flow problems.
**Agreed action**
- **Medium**
- a) The Commercial Rents team will ensure that expired leases and rents are renewed promptly to improve the income and cash flow of the Council.
- b) The lease and rent renewal process will be reviewed for efficiency and effectiveness and changes implemented where necessary.
**Responsible officer:**
Head of Property Services & Valuation
Property Services Officer
**Target date:** 31st March 2020 | Ref | Finding | Risks | Risk category | Agreed action | |-----|---------|-------|---------------|---------------| | 3. | **Commercial Waste – Street Scene**<br>Our testing of the commercial waste invoicing process revealed that records of transactions are maintained. However, the records are not complete and show evidence of lack of administrative/internal controls.<br>A sample of 25 invoices were obtained for testing and we established that:<br>In 12/25 (48%) of the invoices tested, the “Business Recycling & Waste Agreement Form” (BRWA Form) were signed by the clients but not signed by LBB staff to show evidence of administrative and internal control;<br>In one case (4%), the BRWA Form was not signed by either of the two parties (i.e. representative of the Council and the client), which invalidates the contract; and | If contracts or agreements between the council and its clients are not adequately documented and signed then there is a risk that charges for the Council’s services to such clients might unenforceable, leading to the council losing income, or lead to disputes should there be a misunderstanding or reason for litigation. | Medium | a) The Commercial Waste team will ensure there are controls in place to certify that all waste contracts are reviewed for accuracy and correctness by making sure that all BRWA Form are countersigned by LBB staff and that signed copies of the form are retained appropriately.<br>**Responsible officer:**<br>Street Scene Commercial Manager - Finance& Performance Manager (Commercial Development Team) - S<br>**Target date:** 31<sup>st</sup> March 2020 | | 4. | **Premises Licensing and Gambling (PLG) - Re**<br>A sample of 15 credit notes were obtained for testing and we established that 15/15 (100%) were issued to clients who were no longer in control of the premises and did not inform PLG of their change of circumstances.<br>We noted that:<br>• 8/15 were issued to previous holder of licenses who were no longer in control of the premises and did not inform PLG of their change of circumstances | If necessary and timely information is not available to the right team at the right time then, there is a risk of delay in acting against | Medium | a) The Premises Licensing and Gambling team will review its processes in relation to termination and transfer of licences to ensure terminated clients are removed from the database for invoicing immediately. Team to also review last 12 months to ensure these have been actioned. | | Ref | Finding | Risks | Risk category | Agreed action | |-----|---------|-------|---------------|---------------| | | • 5/15 were issued to suspended customers\
• 2/15 were issued to correct duplicated invoices (and this is an avoidable error) | debtors leading to loss of income or cash flow problems. | | b) The PLG team will cancel all outstanding items coded 49 in the system to ensure that the balances available in the account are accurate and correct. | | | Furthermore, our review found that all the 12 invoices coded 49 by Team Leader (Licensing & Anti-Social Behaviour) on Integra on 8th August and 12th September 2017 are still outstanding as at end of November 2019. Items coded 49 are supposed to be cancelled immediately but in this case the items were delayed without any reason. | If credit notes are delayed then, there is a risk that the account balances might be misleading resulting in overstated income which would be reported by the council’s external auditor. | | c) The PLG team will raise a call with CST for any further bespoke reports that are required from Integra. | | | **Debt Recovery** | | | d) Henceforth, the Premises Licensing and Gambling team will be routinely providing authorisation for the AR team to take recovery action against unpaid invoices when the premises ceased trading. | | | The Premises Licensing and Gambling team stated they have no access to run the report that will enable them to obtain the necessary information required to act promptly against a licensing payments defaulter. The AR team provided evidence of the reports that they provide the PGR team with (‘PRL DEBT’ report and ‘PRL debts MH’). | | | e) The Premises Licensing and Gambling team will explore the possibility of setting up direct debits for all its clients/customers to improve the council’s income. | | | Our discussion with the Team Leader (Licensing & Anti-Social Behaviour) confirmed their view that the reports received are not sufficient and the team is not configured to produce reports on Integra to enable it to effectively monitor its clients. | | | f) The AR team will provide a direct debit form with the correct address. | | | Additionally, we noted that permission to take recovery action made by the AR for unpaid invoices where premises has ceased trading were not authorised by the Premises Licensing and Gambling Team (as the PLG team claimed they were unaware that authorisation is required) making it impossible for AR to pass the bad debt over for debt recovery and collection action. | | | g) The Premises Licensing and Gambling team bad debts will be processed for approval in accordance with the Council’s Financial Regulations. The team | | | **Direct Debits** | | | | | Ref | Finding | Risks | Risk category | Agreed action | |-----|---------|-------|---------------|---------------| | | address (it carries the North London Business Park address instead of the team’s Colindale address). **Write-Off** Our review established that Premises Licensing and Gambling team wrote off bad debts annually with approval from the Commercial Premises Manager only. They were unaware of any other need for approval, as required by the Council’s Financial Regulations. The team stated that the Commercial Premises Manager meets periodically with the AR team who had not provided any other process for the team to follow. However, the Financial Regulations form part of the Council’s constitution which partners are required to comply with. The review confirmed that credit notes were raised to cancel outstanding invoices (effectively write-off bad debts). This method by-passes the process and controls put in place by management. **Note:** Please also refer to Finding 1, Invoices Procedure - Invoices produced on Spreadsheet and its associated action which should be taken forward by the PLG team: *All manually loaded spreadsheets must include documented approval by an appropriate authorised person to evidence that the spreadsheet has been independently checked for accuracy, in line with the Financial Regulations requirement that separation of duties must be in place for all financial transactions.* | will verify the required approval limits and comply with these. **Responsible officer:** Group Manager: (except action (f), see below) **Target date:** 31st March 2020 (f) Assistant Income Manager **Target date:** Complete | | 5 | **Education Welfare Accounts – Cambridge Education** Ten invoices were randomly selected for our testing from the education penalty charges issued in the current financial year by the Education team. The invoices were issued to parents/guardians for unauthorised absenteeism from school. The testing established that: | If there are no source documents for invoices issued then there is a risk that invoice disputes will be | Medium | a) The Education Team will ensure that the address on the invoices is changed to its current location from NLBP in accordance with the London Borough of Barnet Income Collection and Debt Management Guidance. | | Ref | Finding | Risks | Risk category | Agreed action | |-----|---------|-------|---------------|---------------| | | • Three out of ten had no source document. Discussion with the officer indicated that the documents might have been shredded by the Education Welfare Manager.\
• All the ten invoices tested had the team’s old address of North London Business Park, Oakleigh Road South, N11 1NP whereas the team is currently located in Colindale. This is contrary to the information on page 5 of the London Borough of Barnet Income Collection and Debt Management Guidance which states “All invoices will be raised within 2 days of service delivery……, and will include clear, relevant and full information as to: how to contact the Council if there is a query in relation to the invoice or in relation to making payment”. | difficult to resolve and inconsistent practices might be going undetected in the system. | b) The Education team will ask schools to scan their documents/forms to the team and the scanned copies will be kept electronically until the end of the financial year when bad debts will be written off and forms erased. | | | Write-Off | If credits, bad debts and doubtful debts are processed without approval in accordance with the financial regulation provisions then there is a risk of | c) Going forward, Education Account Team’s credits, bad debts and doubtful debts will be processed for approval in accordance with the Council’s Financial Regulations (Fin Reg). The Team will verify the approval limits and comply with the provision of the Fin Reg. If an exception to the Fin Reg is required, this will be documented and approved by senior management and the Director of Finance. | | | Our testing established that the Education Accounts team wrote off debts annually with the authorisation of the Education Welfare Team Manager only. The review confirmed that credit notes for a total sum of £41,400 were raised to cancel outstanding invoices and debts at the end of the last financial year without the list of write-offs subsequently being signed off formally by the head of service. A proportion of this debt related to credits raised for prompt payment by parents within 21 days as stated under the terms of the invoice. Both these prompt payment credits and other bad debt write offs require management approval. | | | | | Note: Please also refer to Finding 1, Invoices Procedure - Invoices produced on Spreadsheet and its associated action which should be taken forward by the Education team:\
All manually loaded spreadsheets must include documented approval by an appropriate authorised person to evidence that the spreadsheet has been independently checked for accuracy, in line with the Financial Regulations requirement that separation of duties must be in place for all financial transactions. | | | | | Responsible officer:\
Finance Manager\
Education Welfare Manager\
Target date: 31st March 2020 | | | | Ref | Finding | Risks | Risk category | Agreed action | |-----|---------|-------|---------------|---------------| | 6 | **Document Centre and Mailroom - CSG**<br>Our review/observation of the invoice production, compilation and postage process by the Document Centre & Mail team established that there are two levels of security to enable the two members of staff involved to print the invoices. The first level consists of ID and password and the second level is an access code. These two levels of security are supposed to be independent and distinct to ensure effective control and an efficient audit trail so that it is clear who printed the invoices. Our testing established that:<br>• The first level of security for the two members of staff is satisfactory, each of them have distinct IDs and passwords; however:<br>• the second level of security/control is unsatisfactory as the two staff members share one code instead of having distinct access.<br>It is therefore not currently possible to confirm who has printed which invoices.<br>The Document Centre and Mailroom Manager informed us that the CST-Helpdesk and Assistant Finance Manager (AR) have been informed of the problem but are yet to update the process. | misappropriation and fraud. | Medium | a) The Document centre and mailroom team will liaise with the CST-Helpdesk to ensure that the second level of printing security is separated between the two Document Centre & Mail team staff members responsible for printing.<br>**Responsible officer:**<br>Document Centre and Mailroom Manager<br>**Target date:** 31st March 2020 | | 7 | **Family Services Finance Team (Overpayments)**<br>The testing of the invoicing process by the Family Services (FS) Finance Team (Overpayments) is satisfactory.<br>However, we observed that most of the bad debts that occurred in this area were due to a delay in accessing necessary information on the Integra finance system. The FS Finance Team is unable to produce aged debt reports from Integra to confirm outstanding invoices and chase these before they become doubtful or bad debts. | If necessary and adequate access is not given to the invoicing team to perform their roles and responsibilities then, there is a risk of inefficiency | Low | a) The Family Services Finance Team (Overpayments) will liaise with the AR team and CST to ensure they are given Integra access that will enable it to run aged debt reports. This will allow greater visibility of status of the debts and will enable the FS Finance Team to share information with the AR team where possible | | Ref | Finding | Risks | Risk category | Agreed action | |-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | | The FS Finance Team (overpayment) currently receives information on non-paying clients after the debt has become doubtful or bad. Whilst it is not the responsibility of the FS Finance Team to chase debts, having access to an aged debt Integra report would give them visibility of the status of outstanding debts and would allow them to share information with the Accounts Receivable (AR) team where possible to reduce the risk of debts becoming bad. | and ineffectiveness leading to loss of income to the council. | | to reduce the risk of debts becoming bad. | | | | | | **Responsible officer:** Finance Manager (Family Services) | | | | | | **Target date:** 31st March 2020 | Appendix 1: Definition of risk categories and assurance levels in the Executive Summary
Note: the criteria should be treated as examples, not an exhaustive list. There may be other considerations based on context and auditor judgement.
| Risk rating | Immediate and significant action required. A finding that could cause: | |-------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------| | Critical | • Life threatening or multiple serious injuries or prolonged workplace stress. Severe impact on morale & service performance (e.g. mass strike actions); or | | | • Critical impact on the reputation or brand of the organisation which could threaten its future viability. Intense political and media scrutiny (i.e. front-page headlines, TV). | | | • Possible criminal or high profile civil action against the Council, members or officers; or | | | • Cessation of core activities, strategies not consistent with government’s agenda, trends show service is degraded. Failure of major projects, elected Members & Senior Directors are required to intervene; or | | | • Major financial loss, significant, material increase on project budget/cost. Statutory intervention triggered. Impact the whole Council. Critical breach in laws and regulations that could result in material fines or consequences. | | High | Action required promptly and to commence as soon as practicable where significant changes are necessary. A finding that could cause: | | | • Serious injuries or stressful experience requiring medical many workdays lost. Major impact on morale & performance of staff; or | | | • Significant impact on the reputation or brand of the organisation. Scrutiny required by external agencies, inspectorates, regulators etc. Unfavourable external media coverage. Noticeable impact on public opinion; or | | | • Significant disruption of core activities. Key targets missed, some services compromised. Management action required to overcome medium-term difficulties; or | | | • High financial loss, significant increase on project budget/cost. Service budgets exceeded. Significant breach in laws and regulations resulting in significant fines and consequences. | | Medium | A finding that could cause: | | | • Injuries or stress level requiring some medical treatment, potentially some workdays lost. Some impact on morale & performance of staff; or | | | • Moderate impact on the reputation or brand of the organisation. Scrutiny required by internal committees or internal audit to prevent escalation. Probable limited unfavourable media coverage; or | | | • Significant short-term disruption of non-core activities. Standing orders occasionally not complied with, or services do not fully meet needs. Service action will be required; or | | | • Medium financial loss, small increase on project budget/cost. Handled within the team. Moderate breach in laws and regulations resulting in fines and consequences. | | Low | A finding that could cause: | | | • Minor injuries or stress with no workdays lost or minimal medical treatment, no impact on staff morale; or | | | • Minor impact on the reputation of the organisation; or | | | • Minor errors in systems/operations or processes requiring action or minor delay without impact on overall schedule; or | | | • Handled within normal day to day routines; or | | | • Minimal financial loss, minimal effect on project budget/cost. |
| Level of assurance | | |--------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------| | Substantial | There is a sound control environment with risks to key service objectives being reasonably managed. Any deficiencies identified are not cause for major concern. Recommendations will normally only be Advice and Best Practice. | | Reasonable | An adequate control framework is in place but there are weaknesses which may put some service objectives at risk. There are Medium priority recommendations indicating weaknesses but these do not undermine the system’s overall integrity. Any Critical recommendation will prevent this assessment, and any High recommendations would need to be mitigated by significant strengths elsewhere. | | Limited | There are a number of significant control weaknesses which could put the achievement of key service objectives at risk and result in error, fraud, loss or reputational damage. There are High recommendations indicating significant failings. Any Critical recommendations would need to be mitigated by significant strengths elsewhere. | | No | There are fundamental weaknesses in the control environment which jeopardise the achievement of key service objectives and could lead to significant risk of error, fraud, loss or reputational damage being suffered. | Appendix 2 – Analysis of findings
| Area | Critical | High | Medium | Low | Total | |-----------------------------|----------|------|--------|-----|-------| | | D | OE | D | OE | D | OE | D | OE | | | Process and procedure | - | - | 1 | - | 1 | - | - | - | 2 | | Invoicing process | - | - | - | - | 4 | - | 1 | | 5 | | Reconciliation process | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | | | Access data restriction | - | - | - | - | 1 | - | - | - | 1 | | Follow up | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | | | Total | - | - | 1 | - | 1 | 5 | - | 1 | 8 |
Key:
- Control Design Issue (D) – There is no control in place or the design of the control in place is not sufficient to mitigate the potential risks in this area.
- Operating Effectiveness Issue (OE) – Control design is adequate; however, the control is not operating as intended resulting in potential risks arising in this area.
Timetable
| Terms of reference agreed: | Fieldwork commenced: | Fieldwork completed: | Draft report issued: | Management comments received: | Final report issued: | |---------------------------|----------------------|----------------------|----------------------|-----------------------------|---------------------| | Date | Date | Date | Date | Date | Date | | 23rd September 2019 | 30th Sept 2019 | 14th November 2019 | 30th December 2019 | 2-14th January 2020 | 17th January 2020 |
## Appendix 3 – Identified controls
| Area | Objective | Risks | Identified Controls | |-----------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Process and Procedure | There are adequate invoicing processes and procedures in place and they operate effectively. Staff are aware of their role in the invoice production process, and perform their tasks appropriately. | If the current process is not documented and approved, there is a risk that inconsistent practices may go undetected and customers might not be invoiced. If the procedures and the process are not revised and updated regularly, there is a risk that the system may not include adequate separation of duties to reduce risk of fraud or collusion. If the process and procedures are not updated regularly, they may not enable staff to understand their tasks or to avoid overlapping tasks or confusion. | Documented invoice process procedure in place. Procedure available in electronic and hard copies. Procedure accessible to all members of staff involved in invoice processing. Procedure is reviewed and revised periodically. Roles responsibilities and separation of duties information is well documented. Next review date is documented on the procedure. | | Invoicing Process | There are adequate controls in place to ensure that the invoices are produced correctly, accurately and on time. Staff assigned to check arithmetical and other accuracies of invoices are aware of their responsibilities. | If there is no documented invoicing process in place, there is a risk that income will not be collected on a timely basis leading to cash flow problems. If the invoice production process is not monitored and checked regularly, the invoices might not be raised in | Documented and approved invoicing procedure is in place. Annual updates are carried out on electronic invoicing system. Test runs are carried out on the update to ensure that its accurate and such update should be signed off. There is segregation of duties in place and an individual officer cannot start and complete invoicing process. Senior member of staff is delegated to check the accuracy of the invoicing system and ensure that the content is correct. | | Reconciliation Process | The suspense and unidentified accounts are monitored regularly and income moved appropriately or in to the correct accounts. There is segregation of duties between staff reviewing the suspense and unidentified accounts and staff given approval for movement of income to the appropriate accounts/codes. Reconciliations are performed on a regular basis between Accounts Receivable (AR) and the General Ledger (GL) to ensure mistakes and errors are detected on a timely basis. | If suspense and unidentified accounts are not reconciled regularly, there is risk of loss of income, fraud or misappropriated funds. If suspense accounts are not regularly reconciled and monitored, the council might be unable to trace or identify payees of income; If income/payments are left in the suspense/unidentified accounts longer than necessary, there is a risk of having complaints from customers leading to bad publicity/image for the Council. If movements in and out of suspense/unidentified accounts are not monitored and approved, there is a risk of wrong accounts being | Suspense accounts containing unidentified income or payments are monitored and reconciled weekly. Payments in the suspense account should be investigated and funds transferred to its appropriate code. There is a limit to numbers of days funds/payments could stay in the suspense account. Age analysis of suspense accounts items are produced on a monthly basis to determine if none of the items are over required limit. There is process in place for movement of funds in and out of the suspense account. Approvals are required for funds to be moved out of the suspense account. Monthly or weekly reconciliation in place and are checked and authorised by senior officers. | Checks are in place to ensure that mistakes are detected before it goes out of the council. | | Access Data Restriction | There are controls in place to restrict access to data to prevent fraud and misappropriation of funds. There is sufficient audit trail in place to maintain and demonstrate review and approval of invoices prior to production. | If access to the invoicing system is not restricted and leavers are not deleted on a timely basis, there is a risk that the undeleted access could be used to perpetrate fraud. If access to the invoicing system is not restricted and is being access by leavers, there is risk that the invoice history/audit trails might be untraceable, removed or eliminated to cover frauds and misappropriation. If there is an insufficient audit trail to maintain and demonstrate review and approval of invoices prior to production, there is a risk of lack of accountability which could lead to reputational damage. | Access to the invoicing system is restricted by ID and password. There is process in place to report leavers promptly to ensure deactivation of ID and password Audit trail of activities conducted by individual on the system should be retrievable in case of fraud investigation. |
## Appendix 4
### Follow-up of previous audit recommendations
**2018-19 Accounts Receivable - Debt Management and Collection**
| Ref | Finding | Risks | Risk Category | Agreed action | |-----|---------|-------|---------------|---------------| | AR3 | **Third Party Debt Collections**<br>A sample of 25 instances of debts collected by third parties for the period 01/04/2018 – 31/10/2018 (per the Council’s accounts receivable listing) was reviewed. Our audit noted:<br>• 1 / 25 instances where the Council has not performed follow up procedures (or consulted with the Council’s legal team) to seek recovery of a debt since December 2017, when initial recovery attempts were made by the Council’s bailiff service at the time and the Council. The value of the debt was £1,641.<br>During the course of our testing we also noted that there was not a valid current contract in place between this bailiff and CSG Finance. | Debt collection agencies are not engaged in a timely manner, leading to debts which might have been recoverable becoming unrecoverable. | Medium | **Agreed Actions:**<br>1. Ensure that the lack of valid current contract with this bailiff is addressed and that the Council’s Contract Procedure Rules are adhered to.<br>2. Communicate and reinforce the requirements for third party debt collection, including where initial recovery attempts made by the bailiff and the Council are not successful, to ensure that follow up procedures are performed, or the debt is written off if required.<br><br>**Responsible Officer:**<br>Head of Finance (Exchequer) | **Internal Audit Assessment**<br>December 2019<br><br>**In Progress**<br>Reasonable progress has been made.<br>The responsible officer reported progress as follows:<br>Contract in place but not signed. High level consultation is expected to take place between Finance and Legal services to resolve some issues before final implementation. | | Ref | Finding | Risks | Risk Category | Agreed action | |-----|---------|-------|---------------|---------------| | AR2 | **Aged debt monitoring**<br>Our audit noted:<br>• A sample of service managers advised that the monthly aged debt report is high level only, and is insufficiently detailed for effective review of aged debt. As such, it is used for summary purposes only rather than detailed debt monitoring;<br>• Whilst departmental budget managers are expected to monitor and recover aged debt, there is no formal requirement for any actions to be taken by departmental budget managers upon receipt of the monthly aged debt report (i.e. to evidence that debt monitoring and appropriate follow up procedures have been completed); and<br>• The ‘Aged Debt Report’ at February 2019 showed the sum of aged debt older than one month was £18.3m, of which £3.6m was older than two years. | Where budget managers do not have sufficient details of aged debt and formal requirements for follow up and recovery procedures are not in place, there is an increased risk that staff may not have enough oversight of aged debt in their service area. Further, debt monitoring may not be carried out in a way that allows targeted collection of debt and early identification of issues with particular debtors, leading to financial loss for the Council. | Medium | **Agreed Actions:**<br>Management will:<br>1. Review the monthly aged debt reporting process. In conjunction with departmental budget managers, update and amend the format of the aged debt report to ensure that it is sufficiently detailed to allow service areas to conduct effective review and follow up of aged debt balances.<br>2. Develop and implement a process to ensure that departmental budget managers have completed debt monitoring and follow up procedures. This may include responding to the monthly aged debt report with details of follow up procedures undertaken and (where required),<br>The main service areas such as adults, property services, commercial waste, licencing, print room etc. receive a weekly/monthly report which details only their specific service area's debt. | **Internal Audit Assessment**<br>December 2019<br>**Implemented**<br>The response from the responsible officer and our review confirmed that:<br>In addition to a high level summary report being produced the details of all invoices are attached to the report. One can drill down to a specific invoice by clicking on each service area's debt. | | Ref | Finding | Risks | Risk Category | Agreed action | |-----|---------|-------|---------------|---------------| | | | | | actions to be taken to recover aged debt. | | | | | | 3. Review existing aged debt balances to establish whether further debt recovery processes can be carried out, or whether write off of debt is required (particularly for debt which is older than two years). | | | | | | **Responsible Officer:** Head of Finance (Exchequer) | | | | | | and status of invoices and debts. | | | | | | The Integra development team report has been improved and detail of the debt by cost centre is now available to assist each service area / budget manager to ensure effective monitoring of their debts. | Appendix 5– Internal Audit roles and responsibilities
Limitations inherent to the internal auditor’s work
We have undertaken the review of Account Receivable Audit, subject to the limitations outlined below.
Internal control
Internal control systems, no matter how well designed and operated, are affected by inherent limitations. These include the possibility of poor judgment in decision-making, human error, control processes being deliberately circumvented by employees and others, management overriding controls and the occurrence of unforeseeable circumstances.
Specifically, we will not:
• be focusing on controls in place for debt management which has been carried out in 2018/19 audit
Future periods
Our assessment of controls is for the period specified only. Historic evaluation of effectiveness is not relevant to future periods due to the risk that:
• the design of controls may become inadequate because of changes in operating environment, law, regulation or other; or • the degree of compliance with policies and procedures may deteriorate.
Responsibilities of management and internal auditors
It is management’s responsibility to develop and maintain sound systems of risk management, internal control and governance and for the prevention and detection of irregularities and fraud. Internal audit work should not be seen as a substitute for management’s responsibilities for the design and operation of these systems.
We endeavour to plan our work so that we have a reasonable expectation of detecting significant control weaknesses and, if detected, we shall carry out additional work directed towards identification of consequent fraud or other irregularities. However, internal audit procedures alone, even when carried out with due professional care, do not guarantee that fraud will be detected.
Accordingly, our examinations as internal auditors should not be relied upon solely to disclose fraud, defalcations or other irregularities which may exist.
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/0900-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 22,
"total-input-tokens": 56213,
"total-output-tokens": 10540,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
1230,
1
],
[
1230,
4028,
2
],
[
4028,
5321,
3
],
[
5321,
7911,
4
],
[
7911,
8928,
5
],
[
8928,
10805,
6
],
[
10805,
12844,
7
],
[
12844,
15342,
8
],
[
15342,
18093,
9
],
[
18093,
20405,
10
],
[
20405,
23371,
11
],
[
23371,
25947,
12
],
[
25947,
27956,
13
],
[
27956,
32964,
14
],
[
32964,
34813,
15
],
[
34813,
37420,
16
],
[
37420,
39275,
17
],
[
39275,
40410,
18
],
[
40410,
42323,
19
],
[
42323,
44808,
20
],
[
44808,
45681,
21
],
[
45681,
47669,
22
]
]
} |
c000789505f26b09c309236ae6ef899a021f4763 | Arts Council England and The National Archives Memorandum of Understanding 2016-19
This refreshed Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) builds on the framework for cooperation outlined in the 2012-15 MoU between Arts Council England and The National Archives.
This refreshed MoU sets out the role of each organisation and describes how they will work together to achieve their separate and common goals.
1. Background
1.1 Arts Council England is the national development agency for the arts, museums and libraries.
1.2 The National Archives leads the archives sector for England and performs the Historical Manuscripts Commission’s functions in relation to independent archives. Its support and advice helps archives across the UK to develop and enhance their services, facilities and collections. Over the next four years, its strategic plans include tackling the challenges and opportunities digital technologies present for the creation and preservation of archival collections of all kinds.
1.3 The MoU recognises that while both organisations have distinct roles, their strategic visions and aims reflect their areas of shared interest. 2. The National Archives
2.1 The National Archives is a non-ministerial government department sponsored by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. It is the official archive and publisher for the UK government, and for England and Wales. It is the guardian of some of the most iconic national documents dating back more than 1,000 years.
2.2 The National Archives works to bring together and secure the future of the record, both digital and physical, for future generations, nationally and internationally.
2.3 Archives Inspire, The National Archives’ strategic plans for 2015-19, sets out its ambitions to meet the needs of its major audiences – government, the public, academia and the archive sector – and to face the biggest challenge, digital.
3. Arts Council England
3.1 Arts Council England is the national development agency for the arts, museums and libraries in England. It is a non-departmental public body attached to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport.
3.2 Arts Council England’s mission is ‘Great art and culture for everyone’. It works hard to achieve this by championing, developing and investing in arts and cultural experiences that enrich people’s lives.
3.3 Arts Council England has a ten-year strategic framework, running from 2010-20 – ‘Great art and culture for everyone’ 4. Aim
4.1 This refreshed MoU outlines how both organisations will continue to work together.
4.2 The aim of the refreshed MoU is to ensure that there is a comprehensive cultural offer for the public, which includes the rich diversity of arts, museums, libraries and archives.
5. Shared objectives
Through collaboration, Arts Council England and The National Archives will:
5.1 Act strategically and practically across the full range of cultural and heritage sectors to help communities and people across England to benefit from opportunities to engage with culture.
5.2 Develop and enhance the existing connections between the arts, museums, libraries and archives – particularly where opportunities exist to better utilise collections and develop collaborative working.
5.3 Continue to recognise archives as part of the wider cultural landscape, often within the context of a museum or library offer.
5.4 Share research and intelligence to support a richer cultural offer locally.
5.5 Champion and support the development, protection and engagement with the diversity of collections across England for long-term public benefit.
5.6 Work together more effectively in other partnerships and networks.
5.7 Promote better understanding and support for the cultural ecology, as it exists and develops locally.
5.8 Explore shared approaches to sector sustainability, workforce development and resilience.
The delivery of these objectives is outlined in an agreed action plan in a separate annex. 6. Statement of intent
6.1 Arts Council England and The National Archives recognise that they have complementary expertise and overlapping interests.
6.2 Arts Council England and The National Archives will endeavour to cooperate and work together in so far as their separate interests, legal constraints and corporate aims permit.
6.3 They will share knowledge (so far as they are legally permitted to do so), expertise and best practice in relation to matters of mutual interest, and if there is an overlap or mutual interest in a particular area, they will consult as appropriate.
6.4 Both parties are committed to the principle of good communication with each other, especially when one organisation’s work may have some bearing on the responsibilities or remit of the other organisation.
6.5 Both Arts Council England and The National Archives will seek to alert each other as soon as is practically possible to relevant developments within their respective sectors.
6.6 The refreshed MoU is to be published on both organisations websites.
7. Frequency of contact
7.1 Senior members of staff from Arts Council England and The National Archives will meet on an annual basis, to discuss matters of mutual interest and the operation of this MoU. These meetings will be underpinned by regular liaison between their officials on a quarterly basis, or as and when required.
7.2 The organisations will ensure that it is clear who are the appropriate contacts, for particular matters, and that contact details are kept up-to-date. 7.3 At the time of writing, the key contacts are:
- Dr Valerie Johnson, Director Of Research and Collections, The National Archives
- Isobel Hunter, Head of Archives Sector Development, The National Archives
- Paul Bristow, Director, Strategic Partnerships, Arts Council England
- Scott Furlong, Director, Collections and Cultural Property, Arts Council England
8. Frequency of review
8.1 This MoU will be reviewed at least every three years and more frequently, if required, by developments in either organisation.
8.2 The MoU is not legally binding. It is a non-contractual agreement between the two organisations.
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/0901-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 5,
"total-input-tokens": 8740,
"total-output-tokens": 1425,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
1144,
1
],
[
1144,
2461,
2
],
[
2461,
3966,
3
],
[
3966,
5502,
4
],
[
5502,
6122,
5
]
]
} |
0d6b4795e0bf9410f5b2b37819934b9fa9be5704 | 2009 research and mapping for London Events Forum (LEF) and for Arts Council England
Outdoor arts events and activity in London
Final report: May 2010
Arts Council England working in partnership with the London Events Forum commissioned this research and mapping.
Freelance event managers and consultants Annie Grundy and Sarah Morton carried it out in consultation with Arts Council England and the steering committee of the London Events Forum, with support from the London Cultural Improvement Programme. Outdoor arts events and activity in London
Contents
4 Foreword on behalf of London Events Forum by Paul Cowell 5 Foreword on behalf of Arts Council England by Clive Lyttle 7 Introduction 9 Assessment of themes with recommendations: 9 Outdoor events matter 10 Outdoor arts events and activity 12 Strategies, monitoring and aspirations 14 Funding for outdoor arts events and activity 17 Support for outdoor arts events and activity 17 Processes for outdoor arts events and activity 20 Communications, marketing and partnerships 22 Staffing 23 Conclusion
Contents continued page 3 Contents continued
Appendices
24 Outdoor arts events and outdoor events that include the arts: a list of the events in the London boroughs and in the City of London identified through the research
28 Local authority profile reports plus the City of London Corporation report
28 Barking and Dagenham 34 Barnet 38 Bexley 42 Brent 47 Camden 52 City of London Corporation 57 Croydon 60 Ealing 64 Enfield 69 Greenwich 73 Hackney 79 Hammersmith and Fulham 85 Haringey 89 Harrow 93 Hillingdon 97 Hounslow 100 Islington 105 Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea 108 Royal Borough of Kingston 111 Lambeth 115 Lewisham 119 Merton 123 Newham 126 Redbridge 129 Richmond 133 Southwark 139 Sutton 142 Tower Hamlets 145 Waltham Forest 148 Wandsworth 151 City of Westminster
155 Process maps: examples of how applications for events in outdoor spaces are processed
161 Local authority key information
165 Main contacts for outdoor arts events in the London boroughs London has a long tradition of producing world-class festivals and cultural events that gain national and international recognition. From Notting Hill Carnival to Carnaval del Pueblo, A Baishakhi Mela to Dagenham Town Show, whether it is on a housing estate, on public roads or in a local park, the 32 London boroughs and the City of London support thousands of festivals and cultural events bringing together millions of people, playing an important part in creating a dynamic and exciting world city.
London Events Forum (LEF) was formed in October 2008 to provide an improvement network for event professionals working within local government across London. It was clear from the outset that different boroughs had different approaches to the management and coordination of festivals and events, and different perceptions of their contribution in a wider cultural and social context.
Festivals and events can make a major impact on the agendas of community cohesion and well-being. Participation broadens horizons, increases life chances, taps potential, realises aspirations, improves educational attainment and contributes to health through feelings of self-worth and well-being. Events create vibrant public spaces, bring positive economic benefits and improve reputations...all this and yet, in most cases, there is still relatively little or no investment in resources and skills to support the increasing number of festivals and events and the impact on workloads.
This research takes a snapshot of life today and looks at how we, the London boroughs, might move forward strategically and pragmatically, to ensure that, as we work both individually and together, we build on the diverse array of existing creative, fun and safe events and move towards London 2012, with the capacity and skills to deliver world-class events that meet and exceed the standards we set.
London Events Forum (LEF) and its partners are working to raise the profile of the important work of local government events professionals in London: developing ways to improve current processes, developing skills, supporting peers and creating new ways of working that will facilitate more outdoor arts events across London. A series of projects have been planned in a two-year programme, of which this piece of research is the first.
We would like to thank the Arts Council England, the London Culture Improvement Programme and Capital Ambition (London’s Regional Improvement and Efficiency Partnership) for their invaluable support, and of course all the local authority officers who have given up their time to support and advise on the entire programme.
Paul Cowell Events, Film and 2012 Manager Southwark Council In June 2008 Arts Council England launched New Landscapes, a plan for the development of high-quality outdoor arts activity across England, to include both performance and visual arts based work.
New Landscapes made a number of recommendations about understanding and improving the working environment for outdoor arts, building a clearer picture of working practices, and increasing the longer-term sustainability of the sector. It recognised the unique and crucial role of local authorities, as supporters, funders, licensors and promoters of outdoor arts events and activity.
The Mayor of London’s cultural strategy direction of travel document, Cultural metropolis has also acknowledged the importance of this sector to the capital, and the opportunities to strengthen London’s festivals and outdoor events, particularly in the context of the Cultural Olympiad and London’s 2012 legacy ambitions.
Arts Council England established an external advisory group to oversee the implementation of New Landscapes in London, with representation from local authorities, Greater London Authority (GLA), London Events Forum (LEF), and arts organisations working in the sector. This group identified variations in how outdoor events are currently supported by London’s local authorities, and an often complex set of contacts and permissions that organisers were required to navigate before putting on an event. There was a clear consensus about the need to remove barriers and extend good practice in this area.
Arts Council England, in partnership with the London Events Forum, therefore commissioned this research and mapping of current... approaches to supporting outdoor arts events among London’s local authorities. As part of the London Cultural Improvement Programme, further funding from Capital Ambition has been secured to take forward key recommendations rising from this research, and to support London Events Forum in our shared objective to improve efficiencies and processes of staging outdoor arts events across London.
London has a great reputation in producing outdoor arts events. These range from events such as the Lewisham’s Peoples show, highlighting local and national talent, to The Sultans Elephant and Notting Hill Carnival. Events such as these have a great ability to engage and empower audiences and are often the first chance for people to enjoy arts activities.
This report looks at how the London boroughs support and present outdoor events. There is a range of knowledge within each borough and different approaches to supporting event production: for example, London Notting Hill Carnival event production sits within the waste management department of Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, due to the impact the event has on litter.
Arts Council England is pleased to support this report and the work of the London Events Forum as part of the London Cultural Improvement Programme (LCIP). This research provides a solid starting point to develop good practice and share experience between local authorities. There exists a wealth of knowledge and expertise in event production within the boroughs and this document provides a chance to review and share this.
This research will also inform the next stages of the LCIP Events Improvement programme, including the development of a London-wide events toolkit, outlining key processes and an agreed set of principles, standards and guidelines to help organisers deliver successful, safe and high-quality outdoor arts events in London boroughs.
We would like to thank everyone for their input into this research and look forward to continued working with London Events Forum, and the London Culture Improvement Programme to increase the opportunity for people to engage with great art in London’s open spaces.
Clive Lyttle Arts Council England Introduction
Arts Council England, in partnership with the London Events Forum, commissioned this research into current approaches to supporting outdoor arts events across London’s local authorities.
The research examined existing processes and resources and how these affect arts and cultural organisations, community groups, commercial partners and local authority events managers involved in staging outdoor events in London’s parks, streets and open spaces. It considered how local authority support for outdoor arts can be improved, and makes recommendations to inform future investment and joint work.
Key objectives
The key objectives of the research were:
- to map the current resources and processes in place across London’s local authorities to support, enable and grant permissions to stage outdoor arts events. This involved mapping:
- the role and skills needs of key local authority staff across events, arts, licensing and other departments
- application processes and policies for outdoor events
- guidance and advisory resources and services.
- to highlight how variations in the above are affecting the number and range of outdoor arts events in each area
- to identify good practice and barriers to good practice, and to make recommendations on further joint work to extend good practice and promote minimum standards.
Methodology
The methodology for this research included:
- collating existing information, reports and data
- identifying key individuals and organisations to be consulted
- face to face interviews with over 80 relevant local authority officers (predominantly staff working in events, arts and parks, but also where available staff working in licensing, traffic management, health and safety and environmental health) from 29 of London’s local authorities and the City of London Corporation
- gathering questionnaire forms completed by officers in a further two local authorities
- interviews with representatives of the Greater London Authority, London councils and the Thames Festival
- preparing borough profile reports for 32 London boroughs and for the City of London Corporation.
The borough profile reports
The borough profile reports are attached as appendices and form the backbone of the research. They are snapshots of how the London boroughs deliver, facilitate and support outdoor arts events and activities.
Some reports are more comprehensive than others. It should be noted that research was carried out in late 2009, and the intervening months have been a period of change for many local authorities.
Overview
Each of the borough profiles are as unique as the boroughs themselves, but there were many similar examples of best practice as well as similarly shared examples of barriers to improving the provision of outdoor arts events and activity.
Our report presents its findings under themed headings. Each section outlines the relevance of the theme, examples of common and best practice and, where appropriate, recommends ways to overcome any barriers identified. Also where appropriate, statistics collated from the borough profile reports are given.
The research has focused on outdoor arts events and activities, which is to say events that are either entirely arts-centred or community festivals and events that have significant arts content. The report is however also relevant to the thousands of non-arts events held across London, such as sporting events and festive markets.
Responses and reactions to the carrying out of this research have been very positive in all of the London boroughs where local authority officers were interviewed, with people expressing high hopes for the streamlining of processes, cross-borough working, benchmarking and staff development and for the opportunities and efficiencies that these will generate. Outdoor events matter
It is clear from the research that the boroughs with the strongest outdoor arts event programmes are mostly those where there is, at a senior level, a solid and explicit understanding of the far-reaching benefits of well devised and well managed, outdoor arts events and activity.
These boroughs understand how outdoor arts events contribute to the wider agendas for improved health, education, and well-being at the same time as generating economic opportunities. They also recognise that outdoor events are a great catalyst for community cohesion and are key to promoting a sense of belonging in local communities.
There are also, however, boroughs with committed staff who understand the benefits of outdoor events and who deliver, facilitate and support significant outdoor events, despite a lack of priority or understanding from senior officers and decisionmakers.
Outdoor arts events are typically linked to the National Indicator 11 (NI11) for engagement with the arts, but in reality their impact is much wider. Where local authorities acknowledge the wider impact, they invest in their events programme accordingly, not only providing dedicated, professional staff who deliver or facilitate outdoor events, but also funding large council-led community celebration events, such as Brent Respect and Lewisham People’s Day, or – as in Camden – making available arts grants targeted specifically at organisations wishing to stage outdoor events.
The boroughs saw the main benefits of outdoor events as:
- promoting and facilitating community cohesion
- encouraging access to outdoor spaces and thereby promoting healthy living and well-being
- increasing access to and engagement with the arts
- developing a sense of place and belonging
- generating an income for the boroughs through commercial hires
- positive economic impact of events (through jobs, concessions and visitor spend)
- council-led events improving public perceptions of the council
- providing opportunities for statutory bodies to put across key campaign messages
- raising people’s horizons and increasing their life chances and educational attainment through participation
- creating vibrant public spaces and town centres
- attracting visitors – often to areas of London that are not typically tourist destinations.
The research identified over 450 named annual outdoor arts events held on local authority land. Add to this all the non-arts events, events held on non-local authority land and one-off arts events that are not annual, and one begins to get a picture of how huge the event industry actually is in London. Moreover, this industry is increasingly professionally managed and the expectations and demands made of community-based event organisers are no different to those made of professional, commercial or council event organisers.
It is therefore far from just the audiences who reap benefits from outdoor events. Thousands of equipment and service companies in the event industry support these events – from security and stewarding companies to tent companies, from professional musicians and performers to artists and craft workers, from catering companies to event production companies. companies. Outdoor events are the economic life-blood of thousands of individuals and businesses.
Alongside the considerable benefits of events, there can of course be issues such as noise and disruption. However, event organisers in London are creatively finding ways to overcome these issues and to work with residents to minimise any difficulties.
**Good practice**
In Southwark there is an example of how local communities benefit from events and how issues can be resolved. Due to its excellent location on the Thames near City Hall and Tower Bridge, Potters Fields Park in Southwark was much in demand for private and commercial hires but residents often opposed them or, if they went ahead, complained about the noise, litter and disruption – particularly to parking. This situation has since been completely turned around. A trust, with local representatives was set up four years ago to manage the space which is leased to them by the council. The trust ring-fences income from commercial and corporate hires and this is used to fund community events and to support local community groups and activities. The residents therefore feel much greater ownership of the space and can also identify the direct benefits that come from events in the space.
**Case study**
Waltham Forest has recently consulted its residents on outdoor arts events as part of a wider consultation to inform its cultural strategy. The consultation report notes that the popularity of outdoor festivals is largely due to the fact that they tend to be free and to include a range of activities wide enough to interest a broad spectrum of people. Waltham Forest found that 45 per cent of local residents would like to see more festivals or large public events in their area and most agreed that local festivals bring people of different backgrounds together; among residents from Asian and Black communities this sentiment was especially strong.
**Recommendations: outdoor events matter**
- We recommend that London Events Forum draft an advocacy document that highlights all the benefits of outdoor events, with evidence and that an advocacy group is established to ensure that these benefits are widely promoted.
**Outdoor arts events and activity**
The research identified over 450 named annual outdoor arts events and activities that take place in spaces owned by local authorities throughout London. These annual events are either entirely arts-centred or are community festivals and events with a strong arts content. In reality 450 events is an underestimate. Many festivals, such as the City of London Arts Festival or the Ealing Jazz Festival were counted as one, but they incorporate several outdoor arts events over a period of time. Furthermore, a great many outdoor arts performances are one-off events, which are site-and time-specific and so do not take place on a regular basis. Add to this the numerous events staged in spaces not owned by the local authorities (such as in the Royal Parks, museum grounds and on private or commercially owned land) and the London event map is a dazzling and diverse mass of accessible cultural experiences for London’s residents, workers, students and visitors.
Almost all (28) boroughs reported having outdoor event programmes and six of these could also easily pick out a recognised programme of outdoor arts events and activities. that they market and promote as an entity. The size and scope of these events programmes varies tremendously:
- ten boroughs reported having fewer than 10 outdoor arts events (all but one are outer London boroughs)
- 13 boroughs reported up to 20 events
- five boroughs reported having more than 20 outdoor arts events (all are inner London boroughs)
All the boroughs with more than 20 events in their programmes include council-led events, events delivered in partnership with community organisations and independent community events.
It is impossible to come to any firm conclusions as to why the outdoor arts events provision differs so widely across London, as the number of factors involved is so great; no two boroughs feature the same factors, and merely citing the number of events does not reflect their quality, size and range.
Case study
The London Borough of Tower Hamlets has identified 18 outdoor arts events and so falls in the middle range (see above). Five are large events attracting audiences of between 10-80,000. Two are commercial and charge an entry fee. What does not show up on the Tower Hamlets list is the proportion of the 45 arts events that the borough funds and that take place outdoors, or the proportion of the 100 independent events held in the borough’s parks that are arts-based.
Some of the factors that affect how extensive and broad a borough’s outdoor arts events programme are:
- how strong a tradition there is of delivering events
- importance given to events through an understanding of their benefits
- suitability of available parks and open spaces
- resources available (staff, budget)
- demographic make-up and the density of boroughs
- varying levels of cultural engagement among those who live, work or learn in the borough
- political and managerial structures of the local authorities
- internal communications between the directorates/departments of a council
- experience, views, skills, confidence and influence of officers
- borough location
Case study
Southwark is well-placed to have a good picture of its outdoor arts events because the officers working in the arts, events, location (rather than just parks) bookings, licensing and traffic management have close working relations and know what is happening across the whole borough. The locations officer has a particularly useful role in providing an overview as he/she takes bookings for all outdoor events, regardless of whether they are to be held in the parks and open spaces, in the town centres or on the streets. Through the safety advisory group the locations officer also has close contact with licensing and gathers information on forthcoming outdoor arts events on non-council owned spaces.
Recommendations: outdoor arts events and activity
- Boroughs need a full, clear picture of all outdoor events due to take place in their areas, regardless of who is organising them and where they are held. Officers from all directorates and departments need to share information to make this possible.
- The dazzling and diverse ‘map’ of outdoor arts events across London needs to be accessible as a whole, both to Londoners and to visitors, as is proposed as part of ‘The Culture Diary’ recently launched by the Mayor of London.
- We recommend that the advocacy group explores ways of encouraging and supporting outdoor arts events in boroughs that currently have no outdoor arts events programme. Strategies, monitoring and aspirations
Events strategies
Strategies specific to outdoor events are vital to the development of well-devised and well-managed outdoor events programmes. In all but four of the London boroughs, strategies for outdoor events are ‘buried’ within larger documents and often spread throughout a number of wider strategies. While this is understandable given the far-reaching benefits of outdoor events and the multiple agendas that they meet, it invariably means that local authorities have minimal understanding of the consolidated value of outdoor events.
Similarly, the lack of specific strategies for events means that it is difficult for events, arts and parks staff to have a clear direction and to develop their events programmes in a way that focuses on the quality and range of events and meets the particular needs of the borough; outdoor events are delivered or facilitated on an ad hoc basis.
In addition to the four boroughs who have specific strategies for events, at the time of research a further seven boroughs said that they were aware of the advantages of having a strategy specific to outdoor events that also incorporated relevant aspects of wider strategies, such as those for community cohesion and healthy living. Some of these boroughs had already begun to pull together specific strategies for events, which may now be in place.
Recommendations: events strategies
- All London boroughs should have a specific policy for outdoor events, however basic, that is relevant to their borough and that ties in with the main targets of the borough’s wider strategies. This policy needs to be familiar to all staff working on outdoor events, regardless of their role.
Monitoring, evaluation and quality control
Concepts about monitoring as well as methods of monitoring and evaluation differ greatly and this has a strong impact upon the evidence available to validate the claimed benefits of outdoor events.
By monitoring we mean gathering information at an event (from audiences, participants, professional observers and others, such as local residents) and we define evaluation as then collating and assessing that information to gauge the success of an event and the impact it has made. Monitoring and evaluation can jointly be used to inform the development of either an individual event or, when matched against monitoring and evaluation from other events, an events programme. The process can also be used to assess the impact of events on wider local priorities, such as community cohesion and positive activities for young people.
Both are therefore essential to the development and growth of outdoor arts events.
Currently the content of event-monitoring surveys across London is completely individual to each event and/or borough. Eight boroughs monitor their events only with a headcount (usually to ensure that licensing restrictions on attendance are adhered to) or to check that the event is well managed, that there is no damage to the parks and that the conditions of hire have not been breached.
Case study
Greenwich council acknowledges that people who live in or visit the borough want information on all local outdoor events that are accessible to them. The borough’s What’s on guide therefore provides information not only on council-led events but on all local outdoor events, including those organised by the community and those held on property that does not belong to the local authority, such as at the National Maritime Museum and in Greenwich Park (which is one of the Royal parks). This benefits not only the residents and visitors but the profile of the borough as a rich and vibrant place to live or visit. Six boroughs showed that they have formal monitoring processes for the events they manage or fund – mostly through audience surveys and feedback forms from participants and performers – and four boroughs include in their grant schemes for arts events a monitoring process that the arts or community organisations are required to follow in order to receive their funding.
The lack of formal monitoring in most boroughs directly affects the evidence that they can show of the benefits of outdoor events. The consequent lack of evidence influences the amount of resources that events in those boroughs can attract or are allocated.
After events have taken place 10 boroughs have debriefs, although some of these are through the (variously named) event safety advisory groups and are mainly about health and safety or the lack of it, rather than about the quality of an event or audience responses.
Seven boroughs carry out annual reviews of their events programme to evaluate the events that have taken place and to help make decisions on the next year’s programme. These boroughs collate the information gathered through monitoring and are therefore able to make informed decisions about the programme for the following year and identify any gaps in their provision.
Recommendations: monitoring, evaluation and quality control
- Monitoring and evaluation is a key area that needs to be explored and where best practice needs to be established, taking into account:
- Audiences London’s report on monitoring and evaluation at outdoor arts events
- London Development Agency’s recent work on an event impact assessment toolkit
- London Capital Improvement Programme’s Measuring social outcomes toolkit and training to help evaluate and plan events to meet wider social outcomes and local priorities as set out in the local area agreements
- the benefits of economic impact multiplier models
- Best practice established for monitoring and evaluation of outdoor events needs to be shared with organisers of community events, who need to know that this is not just an onerous task that they have to complete for funders, but a vital tool for their development and sustainability.
- It would be useful for the boroughs who do not have evidence from monitoring and evaluation to have access to monitoring and evaluation reports produced in boroughs similar to theirs in size, location and demographic so that they have evidence for decisionmakers on the positive impacts of events and their link in to the national indicators.
**Good practice**
Through monitoring, Camden has created a cultural map of the borough and is aware of the places where there is little engagement with the arts. This map has been overlaid onto a map of the borough’s mental health and it was noticeable that where there was minimal engagement with the arts mental ill-health was more prevalent. The programme of events being developed will reflect these findings.
**Aspirations**
We asked interviewees about improvements to the existing events programme that they would like to see and what might make these possible. Almost all boroughs said they would like to be able to deliver and facilitate an increased and improved outdoor arts events programme. The aspirations mentioned in interviews were mirrored in the anonymous staff feedback forms.
In order to expand – in quantity and quality – people acknowledged the need for factors such as:
- increased staffing to deliver events and support community event organisers
- increased funding for in-house events and for grants to community event organisers
- training for community event organisers in all aspects of event-management
- a comprehensive and regularly updated event management toolkit available to event organisers
- an event policy to guide the development of events so that a borough’s programme of events is strategic rather than merely reactive
In our interviews we met more than 80 local authority officers whose work relates to outdoor events. There is a very considerable impetus to deliver more and better events but everyone we met was already managing heavy workloads and many were expecting cuts rather than increases in their staff resources and funding, despite the fact that the London Olympics is only two years away. This, combined with the rising costs for events (there is widespread concern over the slowly increasing tendency of the police to charge for their support at events) means that many boroughs will struggle to maintain their current provision.
**Recommendations: aspirations**
- We recommend that London Events Forum explores training programmes for community event organisers, working with partner organisations where appropriate.
- The London Events Forum should continue with the development of an online toolkit, accessible to both council event organisers and community event organisers, with clear, up-to-date guidance on all the necessary steps for organising an outdoor event.
- Best practice needs to be shared with the organisers of community events and we recommend that boroughs – either individually or jointly – explore training programmes for community event organisers.
**Funding for outdoor events and activity**
**Income-generation targets and charges**
The income generated from borough’s parks and the way income is used varies enormously. The amount of money generated by a borough’s parks largely depends on how attractive a borough’s parks are (in size, location and facilities) to the promoters of commercial events. Also, because of residents and parks access issues, several boroughs actively discourage rather than encourage commercial events. Three boroughs reported that income generated from park hires and events is earmarked for spending on events and/or park improvements that may improve the facilities for events. A third of all boroughs have set hire fees for their parks, which include different rates for commercial events, funfairs and circuses, charity events and community events. Two boroughs do not charge for community events or charity events that are free to attenders and three boroughs never charge for park hires for community or charity events. The remaining boroughs have hire fees that are set on according to the event; often the amount charged relates to whether an event meets one or more of the borough’s strategic targets.
The charges for park hires therefore vary as widely as the income-generation targets, as do other charges for services, such as the implementation of traffic management orders, which ranged from nil to £1,500, depending mostly on the size of a closure and whether the borough concerned pays a contractor to supply and erect the necessary road signage and barriers.
**Case study**
In Lewisham and Tower Hamlets for the Big Lunch there were a large number of events across the boroughs requiring traffic management orders but with each being quite small closures. The traffic management officers therefore grouped together a number of street parties under one traffic management order, so decreasing costs and paperwork.
**Recommendations: income-generation targets and charges**
- Boroughs should try to reduce costs for the organisers of free community events, so that the bulk of any funds raised for the event can be spent on enhancing the quality of an event’s content. A good practice guide for boroughs on fee waivers and cost reductions would be helpful.
**Funding for outdoor events and activity**
Half of the boroughs have their own council-led events of varying scales (from large events, such as Paradise Gardens, Dagenham Town Show, Lewisham People’s Day, Under One Sky and Lambeth Country Show – to name but a few – to smaller events such as Christmas lights switch-ons.
Funding for such events often comes from several budgets, with different directorates or departments paying for different events or different parts of a large event that allow them to meet strategic targets – such as the input of the youth service into Lewisham People’s Day, for example.
At the time of researching for this report, most boroughs did not have confirmation of their 2010/11 budgets. Many were expecting cutbacks with pressure to maintain event programmes either with less funds or through increased partnerships and sponsorship. Fourteen boroughs currently fundraise for their in-house council events, seeking sponsorship or funding partners, although only seven have officers with fundraising or sponsorship as part of their official job description.
Thirteen boroughs have grants available for events led by arts or community organisations, although these are mostly non-arts and non-event specific pots of money, such as community council grants or neighbourhood specific grants. The amounts are mainly small and not commensurate with the increased costs of meeting the demands of legislation and health and safety in staging outdoor events.
Four London boroughs have commissioning budgets that enable them specifically to encourage outdoor arts events. Eight boroughs identified that they can financially assist arts organisations to participate in their large in-house council events from those event-specific budgets.
Boroughs can also fund outdoor events through service level agreements with arts organisations that specify outdoor arts as part of the contract, through partnership working with community-led events and, in Southwark, through core funding a staff member for a non-council event, for example, the Thames Festival.
Several boroughs told us they are keen for communities to take on the organisation of events in their local area and there are a number of large events, such as Queens Day Festival in Brent, where this works successfully. Conversely, there were several events that were once organised by local communities but which have been brought in-house by the local authority because the events were very successful and outgrew the capacity of the volunteers who organised them.
Case study
Brent has grants available to community or arts groups wishing to have a float in the Diwali event, so encouraging small arts or community groups to engage with a large event and also enhancing the reach of the festival. For example, 45 per cent of audience attends because it is a colourful, exciting spectacle rather than because it holds a religious significance for them.
Two-thirds of the boroughs’ arts or events officers offer advice to community groups that need to fundraise for their events, although this is mostly in the form of factsheets or guidance on websites pointing groups in the direction, for example, of Voluntary Arts Network (VAN). VAN has excellent fact-sheets and weekly email newsletters with information on funding opportunities.
Southwark was the only borough that mentioned having offered training to community organisations in fundraising for outdoor events, but there may be other parts of councils, such as community engagement teams, who offer general support and training in fundraising.
Recommendations: funding for outdoor events and activity
- Fundraising and sponsorship need to be acknowledged as specific skills and both council staff and community event organisers need to be trained for this. Best practice in this area may be informed by current research into fundraising by the London Capital Improvements Programme.
- As a starting point for the above, the toolkit for event organisers being developed by London Events Forum could have a general guidance section on fundraising with a section on sponsorship and partnerships.
- Council directorates within the London boroughs need to pool or direct their resources to support outdoor arts events that meet wider agendas (for example, funding outdoor dance events as part of a health strategy).
- Each borough’s events policy should acknowledge the difference between income-generating events, such as major events and commercial events, and small events with benefits to the community, as this will affect both income-generation targets set for park hires and the costs set for community event organisers.
- London Events Forum and the boroughs should investigate the opportunities for efficiencies through shared procurement. Support for outdoor arts events and activity
Event-related training
Anyone organising events, whether they are council employees or based in community, arts or voluntary organisations, has a right to know and understand their responsibilities and it is critical that they are trained to deliver well-managed, safe events.
Outdoor events with an arts content are frequently organised or facilitated by staff who readily told us that they had no arts or events background, and where this is the case, they need support from arts staff to enhance the quality of their events, and training to ensure the events they organise meet legislative standards.
Recommendations: event-related training
- All boroughs need to ensure that officers whose work relates to outdoor events fully understand the processes for organising events and have the skills and resources to manage those processes.
- Community event organisers – subject to the same legislation as local authority event organisers – need to fully understand the process of event management and have the appropriate skills and resources.
- We recommend a series of meetings – either London-wide or staged in borough groups – bringing events organisers together and focusing on themes such as health and safety, fundraising, marketing, etc. Such meetings would bring large numbers of participants together and would facilitate good networking and opportunities for sharing information.
- London Events Forum should explore organisations which may be able to deliver event-related training, and options to link events-related training into existing programmes, for example, local volunteering programmes.
Processes for outdoor arts events and activity
The process for organising an event varies greatly across London, as demonstrated by the sample borough process maps included in the appendices and the borough profile reports. This process is essential in enabling and helping community event organisers to deliver well-managed, safe events.
Information for event organisers before they apply
Although most boroughs have some form of web-based information or guidelines on procedures for anyone wanting to organise an outdoor event, the content of that information varies enormously, from full event toolkits, through application guidelines only, to nothing at all. A few boroughs have information in paper format only.
Information on websites can sometimes be very difficult to find. Searching, for example, with words such as ‘park hire’ bringing up endless information on parking bays and permits, but nothing on parks or how to hire them for an event. Information is seldom dated so those accessing it cannot know how up-to-date it is.
Of more concern is the variance in guidelines. A small example: one borough’s guidelines advises having on a stage an H2O extinguisher, a CO2 extinguisher and a fire blanket, another only suggests a CO2 extinguisher. Some boroughs require a specific fire-risk assessment of an event – others do not. Such variations may be small but strongly illustrate the need for standardised guidelines, particularly on health and safety.
One officer pointed out that as council staff they were reluctant to overwhelm event organisers with information, guidelines, health and safety advice, and so on. He said the ideal is to provide event organisers with the information they need appropriate to their particular event. For instance, someone organising a small theatre performance in a park does not need information about closing off roads; if there is not going to be alcohol or entertainment at the event, organisers do not need to sift through pages of licensing information.
**Good practice**
Camden has developed an online system that reacts automatically to the event checklist that applicants complete and submit with their applications to hold an event. The application cannot be submitted unless the checklist has been completed. The checklist lists all the possible elements of an outdoor event and all the safety issues. Applicants merely have to tick ‘yes’, ‘no’ or ‘not sure’ boxes.
The system identifies, for example, whether an applicant requires a road closure and if so automatically sends the applicant guidelines on road closures, an application form and the contact details of the relevant officer. If the applicant is unsure about the need for a road closure, the system sends guidance and advice to help make that decision and also puts them in direct contact with an officer who can offer support. Simultaneously, the system notifies the relevant officer either that an application is to be expected, who from and for what or to tell them that the applicant is in need of support.
**First points of contact**
In 12 boroughs there is a single officer or team acting as a lead point of contact on events queries and planning, and one further borough is about to designate a first point of contact. In 19 boroughs there is no single designated first point of contact for event organisers.
Where there is no identified first point of contact, enquiries may be passed to arts, parks, events, town centre management, or other officers. Where boroughs have events officers, this usually links directly into the booking of parks and open spaces, so it would usually be to them that initial enquiries come, unless organisations have already been in touch, for example, via the arts officer for funding applications to stage the event or activity. The open spaces that tend to fall outside of this would be the town centres (which rarely seem to link into the processes established for events in parks), a borough’s streets, or parks and spaces within a borough that are not owned by a borough (for example, Hampstead Heath in Camden is owned by the City of London).
**Requirements from organisations on first contact**
Requirements vary from a full application with up to 20 supplementary documents to a pre-application written proposal outlining the event. Typically, however, applicants are required to first complete an application form and the supplementary documents are required once it has been confirmed that the space required is available and that in principle the event can go ahead. Many of these applications contain a list of the documents that will be required and applicants have to say when they will be able to supply them.
**Timelines advised or required for non-council event organisers**
From first application to completion of event boroughs require anything from 1–12 months. for a small event and from 3–18 months for a large event. For a temporary event notice, the time required ranges from 10 days (where boroughs follow the statutory time limit) to three months.
The amount of time advised for a premises licence ranges from 3–12 months; for a traffic management order from 28 days to 12 weeks.
Standardising these timelines may not be possible for the event toolkit as the reasons why long times are needed often stems from not having enough staff to process applications, licences and traffic management orders and the number of events taking place.
(NB: Licensing forms and access to licensing information is shortly to come under the EU Services Directive; the Department for Business Innovation, and Skills (BIS) is piloting training for this project.)
Once an application is received
In 13 boroughs a system is in place for circulating an event application to relevant officers, getting their comments on the event and taking the application through a set process. Twelve boroughs said that they routinely consult with local ward councillors and either parks’ ‘friends’ or residents’ groups and 22 boroughs mentioned a safety advisory group.
It is not necessarily the complexity of the process that influences a borough’s programme of events, it is more whether there actually exists a set process that is clearly stated to applicants, is known to all officers who are part of that process, and is followed. Communication between officers, once an application is received, is also a key influence on how clear and manageable a process there is.
Further support available in the lead-up to an event and post-event
In 13 boroughs there are officers who can assist event organisers in developing their event and in producing all the necessary paperwork. The eight boroughs unable to offer this support stated that this was due to poor staff resources.
It is noticeable that where there are officers in place who can support community event organisers through the process there tends to be a good range of outdoor community events.
Partners in the London Events Forum are developing a user-friendly, web-based toolkit and application process that is customer-focused and uses simple language clearly setting out the whole process and timeframe for organising events, of varying sizes, in a public space.
Recommendations: processes for outdoor arts events and activity
- We recommend boroughs look at ways of streamlining processes for organising events and the methods of granting permissions (for example for street parties) to ensure the process is as easy and cheap as possible. All council officers whose work relates to outdoor events need to fully understand the process.
- All boroughs should establish a safety advisory group if there is not already one in place
- We recommend that London boroughs continue to explore ways of working together and that there are increased networking and information sharing opportunities for staff whose work relates to events, regardless of their roles
- Local authority officers should work with organisers of community events to help them develop and improve the quality of events both in management and in content
- All boroughs should have a designated first point of contact for those wishing to organise festivals and events
- Where boroughs do not have designated events officers, we recommend that they create a network of all council staff who work on events who can work together to devise and deliver an overall outdoor events programme. Communications, marketing and partnerships
Marketing events
Comprehensive and targeted marketing is essential to the success of all outdoor events, not only to bringing in audiences, but also to raise the profile of events and the councils and communities who organise them. Establishing a good reputation for an event is essential for prospects of establishing partnerships and sponsorship that can contribute to future events. Building a strong, positive reputation for an event encourages a sense of pride and raises the aspirations of those who participate in them.
Six boroughs’ officers responsible for either delivering or facilitating outdoor events mentioned having good working relations with their communications teams, and a further six have excellent communications support from their own designated arts and marketing officers.
Mostly, however, relations with corporate communications teams did not appear to provide the best possible marketing strategies for outdoor events. Some officers expressed frustration at not being able to access social networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter, because of council restrictions, although seven boroughs use these and find them a vital and successful means of marketing events.
Similar frustrations were sometimes expressed where corporate style guidelines – designed to portray the council as solid and sensible – are strictly enforced, thwarting events officers’ efforts to convey the message that an arts event or activity will be fun, creative, exciting and contemporary.
Marketing strategies for events were often felt to be insufficiently proactive – largely due to workload pressures in communications teams; yet arts and events officers are seldom permitted to promote events directly.
In short, many borough communications teams’ marketing strategies are not sufficiently targeted at promoting events, either in advance or in the follow-up to events.
Recommendations: marketing events
- To maximise the impact and profile of the boroughs’ events programmes, we recommend that boroughs work together to devise a best-practice document for marketing outdoor arts events through print, press, media and most vitally through the web and social networking. The advocacy group would need to open up a dialogue with heads of borough communications teams in order for the best practices to be adopted.
- We recommend that the boroughs and partner agencies (for example, Arts Council England, London, Visit London, the Greater London Authority) explore further opportunities for joined-up marketing of outdoor arts events.
- We recommend that borough websites give information on all forthcoming outdoor events taking place in their borough (council, commercial and community) and also have a year-round ‘get-involved’ page so that performers, traders, volunteers etc can know in advance how they can participate. Boroughs’ websites should provide links to the events pages on the websites of neighbouring boroughs.
Case study
The Greater London Authority has a licensing operational safety group that includes key agencies involved with events for which Greater London Authority is responsible, such as events in Trafalgar Square. The group includes representatives from Westminster council, the police, Transport for London, the emergency services and so forth. Each month event organisers outline their event plans at the group’s meetings, so issues can be discussed and solutions found. This systematic process ensures that all parties with a stake in the events or a role to play, are able to build effective relationships and contribute to a coordinated approach. Cross-borough communications and projects
London Events Forum is bringing together events organisers from across London in a new way and is creating increased opportunities for joint working and sharing of best practice. Cross-borough projects appear to be on the increase; in our survey 13 boroughs identified specific projects that they had worked on with other London boroughs and 17 boroughs mentioned belonging to cluster groups, such as Central London Arts Partnership, which are providing a way forward for collaborations and sharing information.
Recommendations: cross-borough communications and projects
- We recommend that boroughs continue to explore ways of working together – for example to make joint funding applications, to investigate how red tape for events that cross borough boundaries can be streamlined and to participate in the cross-borough mentoring scheme that London Events Forum is establishing.
- We recommend the setting up of networking events for all types of local authority staff who work on events. This could bring together licensing officers, communications officers, environmental health, town centre managers as well as arts and events staff.
Non-council events in borough marketing and communications
All community and non-council events are included in 13 boroughs’ ‘what’s on’ pages, provided the organisers send them in on time. In five boroughs officers ensure that all non-council events that are funded, supported, or have partnerships with the borough are put on the borough’s website. In three boroughs community events are included in printed programmes.
Good practice
Lewisham has a regular arts email bulletin that includes all arts activity that staff are aware of in the borough.
How up-to-date and comprehensive a borough’s ‘what’s on’ web pages are mostly depends on staff resources and the borough’s policy towards including events organised by community groups. Such pages are almost always for current events; they rarely mention events coming up in a couple of months or the following year. While the current information is useful for would-be attenders, for people who want to engage with an event (for example, perform, have a stall) the ‘what’s on’ information is too late.
Good practice
Camden’s website lists all the community festivals that took place in the borough in 2009 and includes details of how you might participate (by volunteering, for example), what type of activities or performance they have, and so on. Recommendations: non-council events in borough marketing and communications
- All borough websites should include community or non-council organised outdoor arts events so that the focus is on comprehensive information to residents about what is happening in their borough rather than solely on events being organised by the council.
- Boroughs should consider the value to residents of including on their website events, or at least links to neighbouring boroughs’ what’s on pages, so that residents, particularly those who live near borough boundaries, can have maximum information about events nearby.
- We recommend boroughs to find ways to keep information on annual events (council and community) with contact details on their websites (or if they have them their social networking sites) year-round, so that performers, traders, volunteers etc can know in advance how to participate.
Good practice Lambeth currently includes on its website a few events happening in Southwark.
Staffing
Staffing for events varies hugely. In 40 per cent of the boroughs that we interviewed staffing was either in flux or expected to be reviewed in early 2010. The borough profile reports give details; no two boroughs have the same staffing structure.
Two boroughs have no events staff and no arts officers responsible for outdoor events. In these boroughs park hires are managed by parks or green spaces, either one central officer or by area parks rangers.
Five boroughs have no specific outdoor events staff but instead a disparate group of officers who, as a small part of their work, occasionally produce or facilitate events. The officers include staff working in the arts, community engagement, town-centre management, communications, tourism, parks, housing, children and young people’s services, equalities, health and well-being, venue management, environmental services.
Mostly these staff and their managers have little or no specific event-management training, and they have minimal contact with other people in the council who organise events. A few have a support ‘technical officer’ or someone in the council who gives support on health and safety.
Four boroughs have one or two events/park hire staff, managing, producing and facilitating varying numbers of council and community festivals and events (some may be a mix of indoor and outdoor events). Some work very closely with arts-based colleagues; some do not know who the arts officers in their borough are.
Three boroughs have arts staff (usually arts development officers) who organise events as a key part of their work, for example, Enfield and Croydon.
Three boroughs have contracted out the management of all parks bookings and community events in their parks and open spaces. These are Hounslow, Ealing and Lewisham. Lewisham does however have designated events and arts staff, who may book a park with the contractor and work with them. Fourteen boroughs have dedicated festivals or events teams, who either include arts officers and parks booking staff, or work very closely with them.
The boroughs with events teams or specific events staff have not only the most outdoor arts events, but are also the boroughs which encourage and support community events organisers.
Recommendations: staffing
- Training and mentoring for staff who organise or facilitate events should be a priority, including for staff in boroughs without any designated event staff and where assisting community organisations to run events in parks is a small part of an officer’s work. The map of outdoor arts events and activity across London is dazzling and diverse. The commitment and enthusiasm of local authority staff to delivering an increased and improved programme of accessible, high-quality, outdoor events in the lead-up to 2012 and the Cultural Olympiad is similarly impressive.
The map is extremely ‘patchy’, however. Residents, workers and students and communities in some boroughs are definitely missing out, not only in having enjoyable, safe, exciting, inspirational, well-managed, outdoor events but also, most importantly, in access to the spin-off benefits of these events.
The recommendations in this report aim to extend good practice and promote minimum standards in the ways in which outdoor arts events are organised and facilitated. Through the joint, determined efforts of London Events Forum, Arts Council England, Visit London, the Greater London Authority, London councils, the London boroughs themselves and other key partners, we are confident that these recommendations will be rigorously pursued.
Determined efforts alone, however, will not ensure the success of the Cultural Olympiad or its desired legacy. Investment in resources and skills is an imperative although the likelihood of this in the current economic climate is slim unless there is a widespread and thorough understanding among decisionmakers of the importance of outdoor events and the benefits they bring in increased opportunities for engagement in the arts, positive activities for young people, volunteering and improved community cohesion, health, education, well-being and positive economic impacts.
To achieve the desired increase and improvement in the provision of outdoor arts events and activity, the report’s most vital recommendation is for setting up an advocacy group that will champion outdoor arts events as major contributors to the wider National Indicators as part of local authorities’ local area agreements. Appendices
Outdoor arts events and outdoor events that include the arts: a list of the events in the London boroughs and in the City of London identified through the research
**BARKING & DAGENHAM**
- Twilight Classical Concert & Fireworks Finale Barking Abbey Ruins
- Dagenham Town Show Central Park, Dagenham
- African Showcase Barking Town Centre
- Spooktacular Eastbrook End Country Park
- Fireworks Barking Park
- Spirit of Christmas Barking Town Centre
- Big Green Borough Day
- Dance festival
- Molten Arts Festival
- Black History Month
- St George’s Day
- International Women’s Day
- The Big Draw
**BARNET**
- Legacy of Hope Holocaust Memorial Day
- East Finchley Festival Cherry Tree Wood
- Potters Bar Carnival
- Finchley Carnival
- Friern Barnet Summer Show Friern Park
- Victorian Day
- Hampstead & Highgate Literary Festival
- Little Wood Park Show
**BEXLEY**
- The Danson Festival Danson Park
- Town centre celebrations
- Cultural Olympiad programme
- Summer Sizzler Youth Football various locations
- Epiphany celebrations Danson Park
- Easter Egg Hunt various locations
- Waterside Gardens Fun Day
- Oval Traders Summer Fete The Oval
- Annual Bexley & Greenwich Procession Lesnes Abbey
- Slade Green Community Fun Day Whitehall Road
- Spark in the Park Danson Park
- Lark in the Park Sidcup Place
- Triforum Youth Event various locations
- Donkey Derby St Mary’s
- Oakleigh Fair Danson Park
- Christmas Experience Danson Park
- Welling Round Table Fireworks Danson Park
- Shining Light Twilight Walk Danson Park
- St Mary’s Community Fun Day Shoulder of Mutton Green
**BRENT**
- St Patrick’s Day Willesden Green Library Centre
- Gladstonbury Festival Gladstonbury Park
- Respect Festival Roundwood Park
- Queens Park Festival
- Countryside Day Fryent Park
- Navratri Festival various locations
- Wembley World Flavour various Wembley locations
- Peace March
- Diwali parade & fireworks Ealing Road & Barham Park
- Eid Brent Town Hall
- Diwali Neasden Temple
- Black History Month various locations
- Guy Fawkes fireworks Roundwood Park
- Kilburn Festival Kilburn Grange Park
- Festival Brazil
**CAMDEN**
- Camden Crawl various Camden Town locations
- May festivals and Green festival boroughwide
- Charlotte St Festival
- Hatton Garden Festival
- Equinox Festival Conway Hall & Camden Centre
- Fair in Square Pond Square
- Primrose in Pink Chalcot Square
- Bangladeshi Mela Regents Park
- Queen Square Fair
- Jester Festival Fortune Green Open Space
- Inkerman Area Residents Association Celebration
- Swiss Cottage Festival
- Friends of St Martin’s Gardens Festival
- Ingestre Road Summer Festival
- Camden New Town Community Festival
- Camden Community Festivals boroughwide
- Camden Fringe Festival Theatre various locations
- Castle Haven Community Festival
- BBC Electric Proms various locations
- Gayton Festival
- Perfect Day Swiss Cottage
- Lady Somerset Road Street Party
Erith Riverside Festival Riverside Gardens Zippo’s Circus Sidcup Place Forrest Fun Fair various locations Kielder Challenge Danson Park Gerry Cottle’s Circus Danson Park Bexley Heritage Trust Events Danson Park & Hall Place
2009 research and mapping for London Events Forum (LEF) Belsize Eco Week inc. Green Fair on Hampstead Hill Kings Cross Festival
CITY OF LONDON Moonwalk Hyde Park to Westminster Smithfield Nocturne Crisis Square Mile Run Spitalfields Festival Free Summer Events series City of London Festival Great River Race Thames Festival Lord Mayor’s Show throughout the borough
CROYDON Tudor Times Clocktower and Queens Gardens Croydon Summer Festival Lloyd Park Croydon Country Show Selsdon Wood Glow various locations Croydon Food Festival five themed markets Black History Month various locations Charity fireworks Sanderstead Rec Big Lunch Street Event Can You Dig It
EALING Hanwell Carnival Eithorne Park Acton Carnival Acton Park Greenford Carnival Ravenor Park Comedy Festival Walpole Park Opera Festival Walpole Park Jazz Festival Walpole Park Blues Festival Walpole Park Global Festival Walpole Park London Mela Gunnersbury Park Southall Processions Southall Hindu Chariot Procession West Ealing Acton Green Days Acton Green Common Armed Forces Day Eating Green Ealing Beer Festival Walpole Park Pitshanger Party in the Park Pitshanger Lane Pitshanger Xmas Fayre Eating Broadway National Play Day Rectory Park
ENFIELD New River Festival The Enfield Autumn Show Halloween Lanterns Edmonton Green Shopping Centre Fireworks display Easter event Edmonton Green Shopping Centre Edmonton Green Summer Events Winter Festival Edmonton Green Shopping Centre Teddy Bears’ Picnic Sights and Sounds of Edmonton Ponder’s End Mela Various outdoor arts events Forty Hall
GLA Mazlenitsa Russian Festival Potters Fields Chinese New Year Trafalgar Square St Patrick’s Day and Parade Piccadilly, Whitehall, Trafalgar Square St George’s Day Globe and Trafalgar Square Vaisakhi Trafalgar Square Armed Forces Day Trafalgar Square
Canada Day Trafalgar Square Big Dance various venues Pride Trafalgar Square and surrounds Carnaval del Pueblo Burgess Park London Mela Gunnersbury Park Liberty Trafalgar Square Eid Trafalgar Square Diwali Trafalgar Square Black History Month City Hall New Year’s Eve London Eye
GREENWICH Celebrate Woolwich town centre Great Get Together Wins Common, Plumstead Funday Maryon Wilson Park Great Get Together Blackheath Rugby Club, Well Hall Plumstead Make Merry Plumstead Common Tudor Festival Old Royal Naval College Great Get Together Royal Arsenal Barracks Greenwich and Docklands International Festival Greenwich Town Centre (4 days) Greenwich and Docklands International Festival Woolwich Town Centre (1 day) Greenwich and Docklands International Festival Greenwich Peninsula (1 day) Great Get Together Charlton Park Horn Fayre Charlton House Asian Mela Plumstead Common Summer Fayre Well Hall Pleasaunce Trust Thamesmead Festival Great Get Together Birchmere Park Greenwich Film Festival Well Hall Pleasaunce and Maryon Park Sega Festival (Mauritian community event) Comedy Festival Old Royal Naval College grounds Black History Month Blackheath fireworks Eltham Lights Up Eltham Town Centre Eltham Christmas Community Event Greenwich Lights Up Greenwich Town Centre Charlton Christmas Cracker Charlton House Woolwich Winter Warmer Woolwich Town Centre Annual circus Blackheath
HACKNEY Stokefest Clissold Park East End Film Festival various locations Daymer Cultural Turkish Festival Clissold Park The World is Your Oyster Hackney Marsh Shoreditch Festival Shoreditch Park Hackney Cultural Olympiad Carnival Discover Young Spicefest Hackney Empire Black History Month various locations Rooted in the Earth: Joshua Sofaer Dancing in the Square Gillett Square, Dalston Fete for the Wicked Hackney Wick CabinVet Hackney Road Recreation Ground Hackney One Carnival Hackney Downs Park 1-2-3-4 Shoreditch Now Music Festival Shoreditch Park May Festival Well Street Common Open Air Open Studios Clissold Park
2009 research and mapping for London Events Forum (LEF) StarLit Children's Literature Festival Hoxton Square
HAMMERSMITH & FULHAM Autumn Days various locations Fireworks display Ravenscourt Park Fireworks display Bishop's Park Spring Into various locations Japanese Garden Party Hammersmith Park Celebrate Fulham various locations Dance Umbrella Parsons Green Lyric Summer Party Lyric Square PlayDay Ravenscourt Park Open air theatre Fulham Palace Ravenscourt Park Fireworks display Bishop's Park Fireworks display
ISLINGTON Heatwave Love Parks Week parks across the borough Fireworks Regents Canal Fireworks Royal Northern Gardens Halloween in Holloway The Big Lunch Peter Bedford Housing Association Summer Fete The Feelgood Festival Make Time! Highbury Fields Jazz on the Green Newington Green Outdoor theatre performances Barnsbury Woods Gillespie Park Festival Holloway Arts Festival Suspense (International Puppetry Festival) Sadlers Wells Connect Festival
KENSINGTON & CHELSEA Moonwalk Hyde Park to Westminster Across the street, around the world In Transit Opera Holland Park Jubilee fireworks & displays Notting Hill Carnival Chelsea Festival Earls Court Festival Golbourne Festival Exhibition Road Cultural Group Music Day
KINGSTON Think in Kingston Aspire, Sakoba Youth Dance Festival Muybridge Festival Kingston Readers' Festival Festival of the Voice International Youth Arts Festival Kingston Summer Arts Season Kingston Carnival May Merrie The River Festival Christmas lights switch on Old London Road Easter Egg-stravaganza Thumbs Up It's Thursday Chinese New Year Paint the Town Green The Korean Festival
LAMBETH Fireworks displays Lambeth Country Show Colourscape Music Festival Stockwell Festival Thames Festival Streatham Arts Festival Bandstand Ruskin Park Bandstand Clapham Common Bandstand Myatt Fields Park
2009 research and mapping for London Events Forum (LEF) Day of Madeira Clapham Common Toast Clapham Common Brixton Splash
LEWISHAM Phoenix Launch Forster Park Ladywell Fun Day Ladywell Fields Celebration Day Telegraph Hill Bike and Kite Festival Blackheath Birthday party Manor House Gardens Hillyfields Annual Fayre Hillyfields Under 5’s Fun Day Mountsfield Park Blythe Hill Fun Day Blythe Hill Fields MHG Fun Day Manor House Gardens Picnic Manor House Gardens Hillaballoo Telegraph Hill People’s Day Mountsfield Park Birthday party Hillyfields Art in the Park Telegraph Hill User Group Fun Day Manor House Gardens Country Fair Cornmill Gardens London Bubble Theatre Sydenham Wells Park London Bubble Theatre Cornmill Gardens Adizone Evelyn Green Adizone Broadway Fields Halloween party Manor House Gardens Blackheath Fireworks Blackheath Tree dressing event Mayow Park
MERTON Mitcham Carnival Philippino Festival Morden Cannizaro Festival Wimbledon Lions Summer Show Morden Merton Horticultural Show Morden Hindu Festival Mitcham Wimbledon Festival of Culture & Sport Peace Week various locations Firework nights Morden & Wimbledon Winter Wonderland Parade Wimbledon The Big Draw Black History Month LGBT History Month Teenagers Music Festival South Park Gardens Easter Egg Hunt John Innes Park
NEWHAM The Mayor’s Newham Show East Ham Central Park Under the Stars East Ham Central Park Sunday Fun Day Stratford Park/Stratford town centre Newham London Run Stratford Park/Stratford town centre Fireworks display Wanstead Flats Newham Carnival East Ham town centre
REDBRIDGE Green Fair Taste of Asia Unity Festival Redbridge Carnival Wanstead Festival Offset Festival Arts in the Park summer season
Public art programme Book and Media Festival Dance Festival Inspiration Festival Eid in the Park Al Noor Festival Area 5 Festival Childrens art programme Teddy Bears Picnic Barnados Fireworks Music in Wanstead Park Party in the Park Luo Cultural Event Redbridge Community Fair City Gates Funday Sunkissed Weekend Midsummer Music Festival
RICHMOND Holi Festival of Colours Orleans House Gallery & Gardens Springtime Safari Orleans House Gallery & Gardens Richmond May Fair Richmond Green Hampton Hill Carnival Hampton Hill Ham Annual Village Fair Ham Common Twickenham Carnival Orleans House Gallery & Gardens Twickenham Green Fete and Family Day Twickenham Green Richmond Amateur Regatta Buccleuch Gardens Shakespeare Performance York House Gardens Community Fair Twickenham Green Community Fair Udney Park Gardens Barnes Fair Barnes Green Dance Richmond Strawberry Hill House Gardens and other venues Larks in the Parks (youth theatre) various locations In Town Without My Car Richmond Green/Barnes Green St Margaret’s Fair Moormead Recreation Ground Traylens Fun Fair Old Deer Park Zippos Circus Twickenham Green Moscow State Circus Old Deer Park Kew Fete Kew Green HANDS Charity Fair Twickenham Green Kew Horticultural Show Kew Pond On The Edge – festival of world music Bonds Victorian Fair Barn Elms/Kew Green/Heathfield Recreation/Ham Common
ROYAL PARKS Trooping the Colour, Queen’s Birthday Parade St James’ Park Hard Rock Calling Hyde Park Wireless Festival Hyde Park Taste of London Regent’s Park Panorama Hyde Park BBC Proms in the Parks Hyde Park Frieze Art Fair Regent’s Park Hyde Park Winter Wonderland Hyde Park Haughton Art Fair Kensington Gardens Arts Village Kensington Gardens John Nash Exhibition Regent's Park
SOUTHWARK Bandstand Concerts Southwark Park Barnardos Big Toddle Dulwich Park Bermondsey Carnival Southwark Park and surrounds Black History Month various locations Bonkersfest! Camberwell Green Brimmington Mid-Summer Festival Brimmington Park Camberwell Arts Festival various locations Carnaval del Pueblo Burgess Park Carters Steam Fair Belair Park Carve in the Community Peckham Square Celebrating Women Month throughout the borough Crusaid Walk for Life Dulwich Fair Dulwich Park Dulwich Festival Fair Goose Green Elefest various venues around Elephant & Castle Fireworks Night Southwark Park Goose Green School Summer Fair Goose Green I Love Peckham various locations John Donne School Carnival Peckham Square LGBT History Month throughout the borough London Bubble Southwark Park London Marathon Maslenitsa Potter's Fields Park Midsummer Celebration Southwark Park Norwegian National Day Southwark Park Nunhead Arts Week Nunhead Green and other locations Nunhead Business Association Summer Event Nunhead Green Pancake Day Race Hibernia Wharf Pavilion Café Christmas Market Dulwich Park Peckham Rye Fete Peckham Rye Common Rockingham Youth Festival Newington Gardens Rotherhithe Festival King George's Field Silver (Older Peoples' Festival) boroughwide, Tate Modern, Menier Gallery, Dulwich Park Southwark Irish Festival Peckham Rye Common Southwark Youth Carnival St George's Day various locations St Martin's Lantern March Sunray Gardens Thames Festival Bankside, Tate Modern, Potter's Fields Park The Mix Burgess Park The Screen on the Green Dulwich Park West Square Summer Fete West Square Gardens Zippo's Circus Peckham Rye Common
SUTTON Imagine Festival Sutton High Street Take Part, Take Pride boroughwide Hackbridge Carnival Hackbridge Environmental Fair Carshalton Marie Curie Daffodil Fun Event Sutton High Street Cheam Fair Cheam Park Belmont Festival Belmont Wandle Festival Wandle Valley St Helier Festival St Helier Open Space SFTRA Fun Open Days
Move at the Manor Manor Park, Sutton Christmas Light Switch On Sutton High Street Suburbia of Arts Festival Sutton High Street Stanley Park Schools TC Carnival Sutton High Street
TOWER HAMLETS Chinese New Year Museum in Docklands Baishakhi Mela Weavers Fields and Allen Gardens Reggae by the River Victoria Park Music festival Victoria Park Jazz music festival Victoria Park Greenwich + Docklands International Festival Wennington Green Paradise Gardens Victoria Park Lovebox Weekender Victoria Park Underage Festival Victoria Park Field Day Victoria Park Vyner Street Festival Vyner Street St Barnabas Fete Wennington Green Brick Lane Brick Lane Black History Month various locations Fireworks Victoria Park
WALTHAM FOREST The Waltham Forest Mela The Chingford Day Green Fayre Young Peoples Caribbean Carnival Walthamstow Festival Leytonstone Car Free Day Fireworks
WESTMINSTER New Year's Day Parade Russian Winter Festival Chinese New Year BAFTA Film Awards St Patrick's Day St George's Day RAC Supercar Parade Moonwalk Hyde Park to Westminster Westend Live Canada Day Marylebone Summer Fair Pride London Notting Hill Carnival Soho Pride Regent Street Festival Mid-Autumn Festival Battle of Britain Thames Festival Diwali Eid New Year's Eve
2009 research and mapping for London Events Forum (LEF) London Borough of Barking and Dagenham Outdoor arts events and activity
The London Borough of Barking and Dagenham is in north east London and forms part of outer London. The borough has a population of 168,900. The 3,611 hectares within its boundaries includes over 25 urban parks, gardens and open spaces offering a variety of different landscape types.
The River Thames forms the southern edge of the borough. In many places there is a Thames Path following the river, although views are problematic due to the high flood defences and industrial premises on the waterfront. The borough has four parks with Green Flag Award status.
1 Staffing
There used to be five staff in the arts team. There is currently one events manager and one arts development manager and one assistant arts officer (part-time). The borough is recruiting for another full-time events officer and an apprentice events officer. A new group manager for arts and events is also due to start work very soon.
The events service was restructured a year ago; arts development and the events section are now the arts and events service.
This year and last year the borough employed a festival organiser on a temporary contract specifically to organise the Molten Arts; the main council events are organised by the events section.
2 Event programme/activity
There is a combination of directly delivered events, events organised in partnership, and events managed by external groups. Members strongly influence the programme but there are also strategic developments (see monitoring and evaluation). Many events are also historic but this is not to say they cannot be changed.
2.1 Outdoor events organised by the council
Main council events (all free) organised by the events manager:
- Dagenham Town Show (60,000 people over two days)
- classical concert
- Spooktacular for Halloween
- Spirit of Christmas – a series of events both indoor and outdoor
The events manager also supports events organised by colleagues in the arts, such as:
- dance festival – one month of events, some outdoor, organised by the arts service
- Molten Arts Festival – organised by the temporary festival organiser and in partnership working with LIFT. This was commissioned through London Councils’ Gateway Boroughs funding
- a film festival organised by the arts service (indoors)
- Black History Month – the programme has some outdoor events and celebrates diversity through quality arts
- St George’s Day event was organised this year
The events officer and arts officer often also feed into working groups for events such as International Women’s Day or the Big Draw.
2.2 Events organised by other parts of the council
Other council services organise outdoor events in consultation with the events section; these include: • Big Green Borough Day – organised by the environment team’s climate change officers • African Showcase – organised in partnership with the town centre manager
2.3 Events organised externally by arts organisations/community groups
There is a community carnival that links into the Dagenham Town Show. This is managed by a committee, supported by the events manager, who also liaises with the police on behalf of the carnival.
The council works in partnership with providers of two paid events: • the East London Mela • annual fireworks (with the Round Table)
The council has also on occasion worked with Quantum to deliver outdoor arts events and has commissioned Arc theatre to devise pieces for some of the borough’s parks.
There are a number of non-council events staged in the borough’s parks and green spaces. The council supports them via the events manager and the park officers; hire fees are waived for all partnership projects; events may be included in the borough’s events publicity. Often small events are incorporated into the borough’s larger events, and the larger events also put out calls for expressions of interest from arts organisations and community groups who may wish to stage outdoor events – for example, under the umbrella of Molten Arts Festival.
2.4 Commercial arts events
There have been commercial events such as a craft and country fair, along with other ad hoc events, such as a charity concert and youth concert. The location of the borough means they have few enquiries from commercial organisations.
2.5 Events programme (arts events or inclusive of arts activity)
• Big Green Borough Day • Dagenham Town Show • Dagenham Carnival • Spooktacular for Halloween • Spirit of Christmas • African Showcase • classical concert
• Dance Festival • Molten Arts Festival • East London Mela • annual fireworks • St George’s Day • Black History Month events • The Big Draw • International Women’s Day
3 Policies/strategies/monitoring/aspirations
3.1 Policies and strategies
Events contribute to the parks and green spaces strategy and particularly fit with the aim to encourage use of parks. They also contribute to the borough’s cultural agenda; events are a good way to encourage and facilitate engagement with the arts and also to showcase diversity.
Events also contribute to the borough’s sustainability agenda. There are guidelines for event sustainability, aiming to make events ‘green’; these are followed when organising the council events, are included in the borough’s tendering documents and are made available to external event organisers.
3.2 Benefits and problems of outdoor arts events and activity
There were no problems that were not surmountable and there were numerous benefits.
3.3 Advantages and disadvantages as a provider or host of outdoor arts events and activities
Advantages: • they have a number of large parks with good on-site parking facilities • the large parks have premises licences
Disadvantages: • location: Barking and Dagenham is perceived as being a long way from central London. Barking is in zone 4 and Dagenham is in zone 5 despite being on the District line of the London Underground. • the borough is usually easily accessible from central and other parts of London but underground line repair works at the weekend can effectively cut them off. The number of attenders from outside the borough has been considerably affected by this. 3.4 Monitoring, evaluation, quality control: which aspects of these events are monitored, how and by whom, and how the results are used
The borough has event evaluation forms for council-led or partnership events, and in 2009 commissioned a vox-box evaluation, which is for internal use only and will be distributed around the council to demonstrate the value of events.
All events in the council programme are assessed for Disability Discrimination Act compliance.
Officers are in the process of establishing performance indicators for outdoor arts events and activities so that this can influence their development and planning processes and would be interested in finding out how other London boroughs do this. The main performance indicator reported against is National Indicator 11, which addresses engagement in arts and cultural activities.
Reports and figures/statistics are looked at annually and areas are identified for development. For example, the borough noticed that while dance is a popular artform, provision was not ‘joined up’ and this led directly to the creation of the dance festival. Now in its second year, the dance festival includes a dance procession and dance sessions in the town square as well as a few days in the parks and a number of events that showcase the work of local dance groups and schools.
Currently there is a good level of activity in theatre and the performing arts but are looking to develop visual arts and photography.
3.5 Aspirations: desired improvements to the existing events programme and what might make these improvements possible
Officers feel their events are of good quality and that they have a good, robust, inclusive and reasonably varied programme but they would love to have more! For this they need more resources in terms of funding and staffing.
4 Funding for festivals and events
4.1 Income-generation targets/charges for use of parks/licences
Council income from commercial park hires is minimal. There are no set income targets for events; there are targets, however, for income from funfairs.
4.2 Funding for council events
Budgets vary according to the programme.
4.3 Funding available for non-council events
There is no grants scheme for outdoor arts events and activities but the arts development officer does have a commissioning budget of £25,000 and the borough invites proposals from non-council arts organisations, whether professional or amateur.
Interested parties whose events get incorporated into the borough’s own larger events can also be funded through those specific events budgets.
4.4 Fundraising and sponsorship
There is a sponsorship officer in the corporate communications team so, for example, sponsorship may be obtained for putting posters on lampposts, etc. Sponsorship adds value to the event programme rather than funding it. The arts service regularly brings in external funding for services, projects and events.
5 Support for festivals and events
5.1 Advocates for outdoor arts events and activities
Members have a strong influence on which events the borough stages.
5.2 Event-related training/seminars for community-based organisations
5.3 Guidelines and information available for event organisers pre-application (for example, fact/advice sheets/event toolkit)
There is information on the website but generally the event manager will advise applicants according to their event.
5.4 Equipment resources
For council events the events manager has cones and a small supply of barriers, which the parks grounds staff put out where required. 5.5 Maps and site plans
The event manager supplies event organisers with blank maps of the parks for site plans.
6 The process: how an outdoor arts event organiser goes about staging an event
6.1 Pre-application information
There is information on the website but generally the event manager through liaising with the applicants will advise them according to their event.
6.2 First points of contact
The events manager is the one-stop shop for events organised by non-council organisations and individuals. Parks/arts staff pass enquiries to him/her.
6.3 Requirements from organisations on first contact
The information required from event organisers on first contact with the borough applicants will vary according to the event and the timing of that first contact.
6.4 Timelines advised/required for non-council event organisers
Applications for events (to parks and licensing) can come in a little as two weeks before an event.
6.5 Once an application is received
The events manager discusses with applicants what they want to do, sends them the forms for a temporary event notice if needed, (these can also be downloaded from the council website). If the event is larger and more complex he/she will refer them to the licensing section. The events manager then supports non-council event organisers through the licence and park hire application process, liaising with other council departments and officers.
The event manager liaises closely with the police and traffic management and alerts them to any events that may require a traffic management order (TMO). The police require TMOs for some events to prevent parking (for example, for the Mela). They do not require a TMO for the carnival’s rolling road closures but they work very closely with the council on this.
Non-council or partner events such as the Mela employ a parking company to place cones and the council provides the parking enforcement wardens. The Mela pays for their staff costs.
6.6 Guidelines, advice, support available after first contact
There are guidelines for making events ‘green’ and these are followed when organising the council events, included in the borough’s tendering documents and made available to external event organisers.
Other organisations may initially interface with the arts development manager (particularly if they are being commissioned to deliver an outdoor arts event) and he/she will either liaise with the event manager or pass them onto him/her.
The event manager supplies event organisers with blank maps of the parks for site plans, templates for the event management plan and with a selection of templates for risk-assessments so that organisers can choose which format they follow. The event manager supports organisations through this process where needed.
The event managers are not required to supply emergency plans as the event manager does this so that event emergency plans fit in with the wider borough document. Events organisers will however then be advised of the plans.
The events manager supplies the organisers with a list of required food safety information and a template for food traders to complete.
Permissions for erection of banners and bunting organisers are referred to highways where these are on the roadside. Permission for putting up posters and banners around the park are via the events manager who will write the permitted locations into the park hire contract.
The event manager advises organisers about Performing Rights Society (PRS) and other permissions such as Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) and provides contacts. The responsibility to get these permissions rests with the organisers. 6.7 Existing premises licences in the borough
The absolute minimum period for a temporary event notice is 10 days and for a premises licence two and a half months, to allow for the 28-days notice period.
Applicants are required to send their applications (hard copies) to all those who will assess the applications – fire service, police, child protection, licensing, building control, health and safety and emergency planning.
There is consultation and if there are objections then the application goes to the licensing board, which meets regularly and consists of councillors and advisory officers.
7 Communications/marketing/partnerships
7.1 Communications with other council departments
The health and safety advisory group meets monthly and is administered by the events manager. It consists of health and safety, licensing, environmental health, building control, trading standards, emergency planning and the events manager. Other advisory officers may be invited if there are agenda items that require their input (for example, traffic management, police, Transport for London).
How event organisers interface with this group depends on the size and complexity of the event. They will either:
- supply a written summary of their event and contact details
- supply a written briefing note
- meet the group to present and discuss their event
Health and safety in the borough is divided into ‘enforcement’ – via environmental health for all businesses and non-council events, and corporate advisory for all services across the council (and therefore covering the council-managed events. Both teams keep the health and safety advisory group informed of Health and Safety Executive updates.
7.2 Marketing events in the borough
There is currently no designated officer in the corporate communications team for the arts and events. Corporate communications are responsible for the design of publicity, and for the marketing and press work in relation to arts and events, although money was spent this year directly from the festivals’ budget on advertisements on radio and on buses (effective but expensive) particularly for Dagenham Town Show (officers from neighbouring boroughs had seen these adverts on buses in their borough), which was a way of raising awareness of events for those residents living near to but not in the borough, alongside the distribution of leaflets and posters in Redbridge (via their arts officers).
Marketing and publicity can be difficult as arts and events are not a high priority for the corporate communications team compared to their other areas of work.
The borough’s website has details of events on a rolling basis. The festivals manager and arts officer are looking to have a comprehensive events calendar including as many as possible of the boroughs events, regardless of who organises or funds them. The difficulty in including non-council events is that these are often not known about until quite late. The Cultural Olympiad publicity includes the council’s key events.
Most council officers are barred from social networking sites but as a pilot project Facebook was used to market the Molten Arts Festival this year and a report is due on its impact.
7.3 Cross-borough communications and projects
The arts development manager works with Newham, Redbridge, Tower Hamlets, Hackney and Waltham Forest on two film partnerships (indoors). The events manager is a member of the London Events Forum (LEF) and of Local Authority Events Organisers Group (LAEOG) and for the latter is currently leading on benchmarking on how staff budgets relate to the number of events organised. The borough is also a Gateway borough.
7.4 Communications and collaborations with non-council organisations
The events manager works closely with community event organisers and they also organise some events in partnership. London Borough of Barnet Outdoor arts events and activity
Barnet is an outer London borough with a population of over 331,552 in 8,700 hectares. There are 206 local authority parks and green spaces (including seven nature reserves) and 20 town centres.
Seven parks managed by the council have Green Flag Award status and 16 parks are promoted as ‘premier parks’. Over a third of the London Borough of Barnet is made up of greenbelt land and Metropolitan Open Land.
The extension to Hampstead Heath, which is owned by City of London, is in Barnet and outdoor spaces at Middlesex University are also occasionally used for events.
1 Staffing
There is one events officer who acts as a conduit for all events that take place in the borough’s parks and open spaces and a culture and arts development officer. There is also a civic events officer.
2 Event programme/activity
Although Barnet does not organise any outdoor arts events specifically, all community events held in the parks and open spaces can feed into the events listed on the council’s website. Events are also listed on www.theseer.info.
2.1 Outdoor events organised by the council
None.
2.2 Events organised by other parts of the council
The civic events officer arranges some events, such as Legacy of Hope, which is a Holocaust Memorial event and has an art element.
2.3 Events organised externally by arts organisations/community groups
There are at least 25 days of events organised by community groups, as detailed below in 2.5
2.4 Commercial arts events
The only commercial hires are funfairs, but some friends groups have opposed these. Enquiries for private hires, including weddings etc, are directed to Avenue House, which has private grounds.
2.5 Events programme (arts events or inclusive of arts activity)
East Barnet Community Group arranges performances for five consecutive Sundays in the summer in Oakhill Park, which has a natural amphitheatre ideal for events and performances.
Barnet Arts Council also arranges theatre performances in this space over a period of several weeks, leading up to a main event at the end of summer, which features a battle of the bands and has an audience of 5,000–10,000. Littlewood Park has a week-long show in the summer that features performances in a natural amphitheatre.
Cherry Tree Wood in East Finchley hosts an annual weekend festival that features local dance and arts groups and an old-fashioned funfair. This park also hosts a charity fundraiser for cerebral palsy in September. It is sponsored by a local estate agent and features a battle of the bands.
Friern Barnet Summer Show is held annually in Friary Park. It is a paid entry traditional style show and has minimal art content but is looking to develop new elements that will attract a wider audience. 3 Policies/strategies/monitoring/aspirations
3.1 Policies and strategies
There is currently a service review in progress for parks. Currently there is no events strategy though events do feature in some of the individual parks management plans.
3.2 Benefits and problems of outdoor arts events and activity
Events in parks encourage residents to take ownership of their local park and to use them more. Surveys in Barnet showed that 92 per cent residents use their local park. Many of the residents on council estates do not have gardens so parks are important to them.
Parking for the larger events in some parks can cause disruption.
3.3 Advantages and disadvantages as a provider or host of outdoor arts events and activities
Barnet has a large range of parks and open spaces. There are many active community groups who arrange their own events.
3.4 Monitoring, evaluation, quality control: which aspects of these events are monitored, how and by whom, and how the results are used
There is no formal system of monitoring or evaluating the community events in the borough’s parks and open spaces.
3.5 Aspirations: desired improvements to the existing events programme and what might make these improvements possible
The borough would like to have more events in the parks and to develop more friends groups. Staff numbers at present make it difficult to develop this, though there is a service review in progress at the moment. Staff are keen to ensure an even spread of events in the borough’s parks, ensuring that the less affluent areas have access to events.
4 Funding for festivals and events
4.1 Income-generation targets/charges for use of parks/licences
There were no income targets set for 2009. Councillors set the daily parks hire rates at £54 for charities, £137 for community groups and £537 for funfairs and circuses.
Deposits for ground damage may be required for events; £500 for small events and £1,000 for larger events and £10,000 for fairgrounds. A £100 deposit is required for those putting up banners and posters in and around a park. In order to reclaim the deposit the organiser must take down all publicity within a set period.
Licences where required are acquired from the licensing team.
4.2 Funding for council events
The civic events team has a budget for its events but there is no central council budget for festivals or outdoor arts activity.
4.3 Funding available for non-council events
Information not currently available.
4.4 Fundraising and sponsorship
The community festivals are responsible for their own fundraising.
5 Support for festivals and events
5.1 Advocates for outdoor arts events and activities
No specific advocates were identified.
5.2 Event-related training/seminars for community-based organisations
There is no event related training for event organisers.
5.3 Guidelines and information available for event organisers pre-application (for example, fact/advice sheets/event toolkit)
For the 16 parks identified as ‘premier’ parks there are individual fact sheets, which include a park map, details of facilities and planned improvements, transport information and park contacts. Some fact sheets need updating. Similar information is on the website.
There is also a general leaflet with a map of the borough’s parks. The leaflet gives details of facilities and contact numbers for transport information, park bookings, sports facilities, etc. Information on the 16 premier parks is also on the website.
The events officer sends event organisers information that includes:
- terms and conditions for use of the parks and open spaces
- an event guidance note – what event organisers will need to do in four stages: pre-planning, organising the event, final preparations and after the event and gives some useful contacts
- a checklist to go with the above guidance note
- safety instructions for outdoor events with contacts for the security industry authority, the fire service, the police and St John Ambulance
- a safety inspection checklist
- an event application form, which also directs applicants to the licensing team, the traffic management team and to planning for permissions to use banners, posters and flyers
- advice on parking and driving in the parks at events
- a notice to put up about driving restrictions and regulations
- an event risk-assessment guidance note
- a template for a risk-assessment and an example of a completed risk-assessment (which is very basic)
- a form for making an accident or incident report that event organisers can photocopy and use
- information on how to book standpipes for the local water authority
- a template for listing event participants and their insurance details
5.4 Equipment resources
The council does not have any equipment resources.
5.5 Maps and site plans
The Barnet website allows visual access to the borough’s Geographic Information System maps. Maps are also printed on leaflets for each of the borough’s 16 ‘premier’ parks. Maps for making site plans are available from the events officer.
6 The process: how an outdoor arts event organiser goes about staging an event
6.1 Pre-application information
See 5.3.
6.2 First points of contact
All initial enquiries go to the events officer who sends out the application pack with all the information listed above in 5.3.
6.3 Requirements from organisations on first contact
The organisers need to submit a completed application form and attach a proposed site-plan, vehicle route plan, risk-assessment and evidence of public liability insurance.
6.4 Timelines advised/required for non-council event organisers
Completed applications are requested eight weeks in advance of an event. Larger events may require a longer lead-in if a premises licence is needed. Traffic management orders need a minimum eight weeks’ notice.
6.5 Once an application is received
The events officer checks through and enters onto the Torex Leisure Management System which makes the bookings, makes double bookings impossible, raises booking forms and invoices and prints the necessary maps and guidance notes.
6.6 Guidelines, advice, support available after first contact
The events officer supports event organisers with guidance but redirects them to licensing, traffic and environmental health for advice on those issues.
6.7 Existing premises licences in the borough
The events officer holds premises licences for five parks. None of these are alcohol licences. 7 Communications/marketing/partnerships
7.1 Communications with other council departments
There is minimal contact with the arts officer who works in the children and young persons directorate. There is no safety advisory group and contact with the licensing, traffic, and environmental health teams is as required.
7.2 Marketing events in the borough
The communications team promotes some events in its regular publication and may also support events with press work if it is a slow news week. The events officer has a calendar of events which is entered on the website.
7.3 Cross-borough communications and projects
The events officer has contact with parks event officers in neighbouring boroughs and, for example, worked with Enfield on the Iranian New Year celebrations.
7.4 Communications and collaborations with non-council organisations
The events officer has good communications with the organisations that hire the borough’s parks for events. London Borough of Bexley Outdoor arts events and activity
The London Borough of Bexley is on the eastern periphery of greater London. Ethnic minorities make up 8.5 per cent of its 223,300 population.
The borough has relatively large areas of open space, with 255 of its 6057 hectares said to be small gardens, river and woodland areas and large parks with many sporting and other facilities.
Several borough parks and open spaces hold Green Flag Awards.
1 Staffing
The arts team has two dedicated officers, one manager and one principal officer. These staff oversee the management and delivery of Bexley’s flagship cultural event, The Danson Festival. The team also delivers smaller arts events and activities throughout the year.
Parks and open spaces manage the open spaces bookings system, which encompasses the hire of all borough parks and open spaces for events. There is a dedicated officer in parks, who deals with the bookings, and parks personnel who support and guide event hirers.
The safer neighbourhoods teams in community services also organises a whole range of outdoor fun days and events for communities across the borough. This is a key part of the area coordinators’ function.
The sports team and the staff in outdoor recreation programmes most of the borough’s sports-related events and offers activities for families at the two borough ‘splash-parks’ – Danson and Belvedere. Both teams have events written into their work-plans.
2 Event programme/activity
2.1 Events organised by the council arts team
These include the Danson Festival, town centre celebrations, a Cultural Olympiad programme, a whole range of community-focused outdoor events, ranging from fun days and family learning events through to arts workshops and activities.
2.2 Events organised by other parts of the council
The library service delivers small indoor events and a regular programme of cultural activities including Bexley Manga Festival. Other events include Summer Sizzler and the neighbourhood service youth football.
2.3 Events organised externally by arts organisations/community groups
- Epiphany celebrations
- Flyball dog training
- boot camp circuit training
- donkey procession
- Easter egg hunt
- Kielder Challenge
- International Canoe Polo Tournament
- orienteering
- tag rugby
- Myra Garrett Run
- Perception Wavehopper
- Water Fun Day
- sponsored dog walk
- Waterside Gardens Fun Day
- Oval Traders Summer Fete
- annual Bexley and Greenwich procession
- St Mary’s Community Fun Day
- school sports days
- Slade Green Community Fun Day
- Spark in the Park
- Lark in the Park
- Triforum Youth Event
- donkey derby
- Twilight Walk • cross country run • London League Cyclo Cross
2.4 Commercial arts events
• Oakleigh Fair • circus • Christmas Experience • funfair • Welling Round Table fireworks • Bexley Heritage Trust events
2.5 Events programme (arts events or inclusive of arts activity)
• Beats ‘n’ Rhymes • Bexley – My City Too! • launches of major public art schemes for example, Erith, Crayford Waterside Gardens and Belvedere Public Art
3 Policies/strategies/monitoring/aspirations
3.1 Policies and strategies
The London Borough of Bexley has adopted an open space strategy and supporting open space strategy technical paper. The cultural strategy for the borough was agreed in 2002 and made recommendations for five years, the completion date being 2007. An arts strategy document is available on the website 2008–2013.
3.2 Benefits and problems of outdoor arts events and activity
The benefits, particularly of running Danson, generally outweigh the problems, as the outsourced events compensate for the lack of cultural infrastructure in the borough and provide opportunities to experience or participate.
3.3 Advantages and disadvantages as a provider or host of outdoor arts events and activities
Advantages (Danson Festival): • community cohesion • celebration and showcase for local talent • a receiving event for national and international artistic and cultural products, putting Bexley on the map and providing exposure to cultural forms not usually seen in the borough • an opportunity to raise Bexley’s profile and offer a broad cultural experience which attracts new audiences.
Disadvantages: • risk to hold events • negative perception of Bexley as not being a cultural borough
3.4 Monitoring, evaluation, quality control: which aspects of these events are monitored, how and by whom, and how the results are used
Danson Festival: by project streaming (BeXfactor), the artistic quality can be monitored.
The arts manager works in partnership with the London Borough of Richmond events management team, which delivers Danson Festival.
All systems in place are scrutinised. De-briefs and evaluations take place with the rest of the safety action group. All contractors take part in a debrief. Customer satisfaction surveys take place and there are informal interviews with the public to give a snapshot of the event.
3.5 Aspirations: desired improvements to the existing events programme and what might make these improvements possible
The branding and profile of the Danson Festival has been successfully refreshed, including the development of a standalone website www.dansonfestival.co.uk and new logo. Further work is planned to improve the promotion of the arts service. The arts service is working to continuously improve the quality and calibre of the arts offer at the events, through securing external funding to support projects and partnerships.
Several large projects are complete and more are underway, informed by the borough arts strategy, the cultural strategy, Erith arts strategy, Crayford strategy and action plan. There are also references to the arts in the unitary development plan.
4 Funding for festivals and events
4.1 Income-generation targets/charges for use of parks
The income-generation target figure is £30,000.
4.2 Funding for council events
Danson Festival receives a modest subsidy of £36,000, uplifted annually linked to the rate of inflation and the council also covers the management costs of the event. However, the remainder of the budget is raised through the sale of concessions, sponsorship, car park income and pitch sale. Other departments have to pay for the use of the parks.
4.3 Funding available for non-council events
Arts Council of Bexley has a small grants funding stream that can support the delivery of arts-based events and activities. Through partnership funding applications the arts service can also support the planning and delivery of arts-based events.
The council has a corporate small grants fund for community and voluntary sector groups, which can also be accessed to support the development of events.
4.4 Fundraising and sponsorship
Danson Festival has an annual sponsorship target and runs an active annual sponsorship campaign, including the production of sponsorship packs.
5 Support for festivals and events
5.1 Advocates for outdoor arts events and activities
The parks and open spaces team and licensing staff do much to support and guide hirers and event organisers with the planning and implementation of their events.
5.2 Event-related training/seminars for community-based organisations
An event toolkit was published by the arts service in 2006 and guidance on organising events can be obtained from parks and open spaces or the arts service.
5.3 Guidelines and information available for event organisers pre-application (for example, fact/advice sheets/event toolkit)
The open spaces booking guidance pack and application form is very informative and could act as a very efficient toolkit resource.
5.4 Equipment resources
There are none at present.
5.5 Maps and site plans
Maps and plans are required for each event planned. The council has access to a Geographic Information System.
6 The process: how an outdoor arts event organiser goes about staging an event
6.1 Pre-application information
Event organisers can access the website for information.
All applicants to use the parks are sent an open space bookings form.
6.2 First points of contact
The first point of contact is Parks and Open Spaces, Room 123, Civic Offices, Broadway, Bexleyheath, DA6 7LB.
6.3 Requirements from organisations on first contact
A completed open space booking form is required.
6.4 Timelines advised/required for non-council event organisers
Open space bookings need to be completed a month in advance of the event for small events, and three months in advance for large events. The following relevant documents also have to be supplied along with the open space booking: risk-assessment, fire risk-assessment, stewards briefing pack, Performing Rights Society (PRS) Phonographic Performance Ltd (PPL), public liability insurance, test certificates for fairground rides and inflatables, public liability insurance and risk-assessments from participants; food hygiene certificates, Criminal Record Bureau (CRB) checks, first aid certificates, and qualifications may be required.
6.5 Once an application is received
The open space booking is sent for consultation to council staff, emergency services etc. The consultation period takes approximately 10 working days. After consultation, terms and conditions are sent to the organiser, which include details gained from consultation and the cost of the event. The organisers are required to sign the terms and conditions stating that they will comply with the conditions. The organisers are also required to pay for the event before final permission can be given to go ahead. After signed terms and conditions are sent back and payment is received permission is given. The organisers are usually requested to hold a pre- and post-event meeting with a grounds maintenance officer to check ground conditions. There may be a fee levied if ground conditions are affected and work is required.
6.6 Guidelines, advice, support available after first contact
The open space booking pack provides guidelines and advice. Meetings can be arranged with the event organiser and advice is given on matters such as logistics, writing risk-assessments, steward briefing packs, emergency procedures, etc. Further meetings can be arranged if required.
6.7 Existing premises licences in the borough
Danson Park, Sidcup Place, Riverside Gardens, Lesnes Abbey, and St Mary’s have an existing premises licence for entertainment.
7 Communications/marketing/partnerships
The organisers market their own event. They can advertise the event on the council website free of charge.
7.1 Communications with other council departments
The event is sent via email to other council departments for consultation. The event organisers may be requested to contact the following council departments: licensing, traffic management, and grounds maintenance.
7.2 Marketing events in the borough
Danson Festival is extensively marketed and has a standalone website www.dansonfestival.co.uk. The festival is promoted using adverts on digital screens in the main Bexleyheath Shopping Centre, through a widespread poster campaign including the use of J C Decaux poster sites and through local print and broadcast media. The borough website can be used to promote events and there are designated banner sites at five locations across Bexley. Libraries, contact centres, community and children’s centres and schools are also used as distribution centres.
7.3 Cross-borough communications and projects
- Neighbourhood youth service
- Summer Sizzler
7.4 Communications and collaborations with non-council organisations
Bexleyheath Heritage Trust is funded by Bexley Council and delivers full events programmes at both Hall Place and Gardens and Danson House. The National Trust Red House also has smaller events running during the season.
Arts Council of Bexley is also funded by the borough and is the voluntary sector arts umbrella organisation. Its membership comprises 38 member organisations and 64 individual artists, including the Geoffrey Whitworth Theatre, the Edward Alderton Theatre, Erith Playhouse, Centrepieces Arts and Community Health Group (80 artist members), local clubs, schools and community groups. The Arts Council of Bexley provides event coordination, funding opportunities and information to members and engages its members with Bexley’s cultural events and activities. London Borough of Brent Outdoor arts events and activity
Brent is an outer London borough with a population of over 270,600 in 4320 hectares. Venues that can be used for outdoor arts events include 80 local authority parks and green spaces and town centres. Five parks managed by the council have Green Flag Award status.
There are also five outdoor spaces around Wembley Arena and Wembley Stadium that can be used for events.
1 Staffing
In the environment and culture directorate, under the head of libraries, arts and heritage, there is a festival manager, an arts and festivals support officer, an arts development officer, a cultural development manager and an assistant arts administrator. There is also an events manager in parks.
2 Event programme/activity
Brent has a diverse programme of over 10 core outdoor arts events delivered by the council events team, plus at least 10 large events delivered by external partners and community groups.
2.1 Outdoor events organised by the council
The festivals team manages four large outdoor events, six smaller events and a selection of one-off events. Most of these events are managed in partnership with community-based organisations and advisory forums.
2.2 Events organised by other parts of the council
The parks service organises Bonfire Night and Countryside Day. The libraries team coordinate and manage Black History Month, but most of these events are indoors. Town centre managers organise outdoor events such as the Christmas lights switch-ons and for Kilburn High Road there is a town centre partnership with Camden.
2.3 Events organised externally by arts organisations/community groups
There are four large outdoor arts events organised independently of the council:
- Gladstonbury
- Queens Park Day
- TriUnity
2.4 Commercial arts events
Details of outdoor commercial arts events in the borough are not known.
2.5 Events programme (arts events or inclusive of arts activity)
- Brent Diwali
- Brent St Patricks Day
- Brent Respect Festival
- Brent Eid (indoor)
- Navrati – organised by a community organisation with funding from Brent
- Brent Christmas (programme of events, some indoor and some outdoor)
- Gladstonbury Festival and Funday – Queens Park
- Roundwood Fireworks
- TriUnity
- Countryside Day
- Brent Dance Month (with some outdoor events)
- Notting Hill Carnival comes into the south of the borough.
- Fairground events with George Irving
- Circus events
- The French Market at High Road Wembley includes music and entertainment
- Kilburn Festival in Kilburn Grange Park
- Wembley World Flavour – food and music festival in town centre • Festival Brazil – market in Willesden Green with carnival music (cancelled in 2009 but possibly to be revived).
3 Policies/strategies/monitoring/aspirations
3.1 Policies and strategies
The draft events strategy was incorporated into a borough cultural strategy and this is currently in a consultation process. The cultural strategy is being finalised.
Events in Brent link into many council policies and strategies, such as the zero waste and sustainability strategy.
3.2 Benefits and problems of outdoor arts events and activity
The main benefits are community cohesion and opportunities to celebrate the borough’s diversity, opportunities for local people to develop a sense of belonging and to make new friends and opportunities to promote the borough and the local authority. Events also promote the cultural economy in Brent through creating opportunities within events and increasing the capacity of artists, performers and organisations to run events.
Noise was identified as a potential problem, particularly for events licensed by a temporary event notice rather than by a premises licence.
3.3 Advantages and disadvantages as a provider or host of outdoor arts events and activities
There are a few very good parks and green spaces in the borough, although some of the 80 parks are very small. Brent’s diverse community is an advantage and allows for a broad range of cultural input into the boroughs events.
The capacity of the police to support events is a consideration as they already provide so much support to events at Wembley.
3.4 Monitoring, evaluation, quality control: which aspects of these events are monitored, how and by whom, and how the results are used
The festivals team monitors its own events with audience and participant questionnaires. The team is looking to develop the questionnaires to include evidence for the economic benefits of events. This has been done and implemented at Diwali, Eid, Chanukah, Christmas and Holocaust Memorial Day. The questionnaire results get fed into the events reports and influence planning for the future.
3.5 Aspirations: desired improvements to the existing events programme and what might make these improvements possible
The festivals team is keen to open up all of its events to more diverse audiences, with the Brent Diwali as a role model. This event has 55 per cent attendance from those who celebrate Diwali as a religious event but the remaining 45 per cent of its audience reflects the borough’s diverse population.
There is also awareness that most of the events programme takes place in the south of the borough and although people in the north of the borough do travel to the events in the south, the festivals team is keen to encourage events in the north.
In 2010 Brent is developing a festivals strategy that will define the events the borough holds and why they are held. It may result in a major change in the current event programme.
4 Funding for festivals and events
4.1 Income-generation targets/charges for use of parks/licences
There are charges for parks hires but these are in review following a benchmarking process. Costs for traffic management orders depend on the event and what is required.
The police currently support some longstanding events free of charge but are starting to charge for new events.
4.2 Funding for council events
There is a core budget to support the authority’s main events. The festivals team also raises £53,000 from a range of sources including sponsorship, trade stands and funfairs.
4.3 Funding available for non-council events
There are arts grants available to support festivals and events with a strong arts element. There are also grants available to community organisations wanting to have a float in Brent Diwali.
The authority also has service level agreements with some of the larger organisations who contribute to the festivals and events programme.
4.4 Fundraising and sponsorship
Brent raises £30,000 sponsorship for its events programme.
5 Support for festivals and events
5.1 Advocates for outdoor arts events and activities
The mayor attends all of Brent’s main events. All major events have a community advisory forum. Members advise on the event and act as ambassadors for it in their communities.
5.2 Event-related training/seminars for community-based organisations
Emergency planning officers from Brent ran training for event organisers in 2009. There will be training for health certification for food stalls at events, aimed at encouraging a showcase for ethnic diversity through food diversity.
Jointly with Western Wedge (seven local authorities: Brent, Ealing, Hammersmith and Fulham, Harrow, Hillingdon, Hounslow and the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea) there will be training in ‘how to run an event’ and sustainability.
5.3 Guidelines and information available for event organisers pre-application (for example, fact/advice sheets/event toolkit)
Guidance, advice and support is available at any time. Brent has produced Brent’s advice pack to organising events in the borough and this will be available online with hard copies available for reference only in all local authority libraries and one-stop shops.
The comprehensive advice pack’s contents are:
- What is an ‘event?’
- Introduction
- Your responsibility as an event organiser
- Elements of an event
- Getting started
- Define your event
- You and your team
- Event management plan
- Site plan/site map
- Costs and budgets
- Emergency planning and risk-assessment
- The Brent process
- Brent council and your event
- Safety advisory group
- Permissions (licensing; permission to use an event site; traffic management orders; permissions for caterers or special treatments; permissions for music and entertainment; Civil Aviation Authority; permissions to publicise or communicate)
- Notification to local residents and local businesses
- Council sustainability policies
- Ready, set...go
- After the event
The pack includes 12 fact sheets:
- References and resources for detailed information
- Brent departments (what they do and contacts)
- The event plan (what it should include)
- Timeline (advice on what needs to be done and how far in advance)
- Risk-assessment (including a brief example)
- Site maps (with an example)
- Brent parks
- Events in Wembley
- Volunteers
- Keep it Green
- Traffic, road closures and parking suspensions
- Publicity
5.4 Equipment resources
None is available.
5.5 Maps and site plans
Brent has a Geographic Information System department that can send CAD (Computer Aided Design) maps to event organisers for use as site plans. The events team also has a bank of maps for use by event organisers working in the borough’s main parks or spaces. 6 The process: how an outdoor arts event organiser goes about staging an event
6.1 Pre-application information
See 5.3.
6.2 First points of contact
Brent is currently reviewing its event application process to allow for a one-stop system. The first point of contact has yet to be confirmed.
6.3 Requirements from organisations on first contact
The application to hold an event in Brent is for all events in the borough, regardless of whether in a park, street or public building. This application replaces the previous parks application. The application advises applicants to read the Brent event guide before completing the application form. No supporting documents are required on first contact. The event application form clearly sets out the Brent process.
6.4 Timelines advised/required for non-council event organisers
Applicants are advised to put in their first application (with basic details only) 9–12 months before an event. Six to nine months’ notice is requested for licence applications.
Traffic management orders need 12 weeks’ notice and need to be agreed before this time.
Events management plans are required within two weeks of an event being approved.
6.5 Once an application is received
The application, which is completed and submitted online, alerts the appropriate council officers about the event. Brent council’s health and safety and licensing department will confirm receipt of the application and will either request clarification on some points, request that applicants attend an informal meeting, or confirm that applicants may continue with their planning.
(Applicants are reminded to look at the timeline fact sheet and check times for permissions.)
If a safety advisory group (SAG) meeting is required, event organisers are contacted and asked to upload their event management plan and risk-assessments including a site plan and emergency plan. Safety advisory group meetings are requested if the events require a premises licence, if alcohol is to be sold, if there is a bonfire or fireworks proposed or if the event requires a road closure. For the more complex events, more than one safety advisory group meeting may be required.
Agreements to hire parks are issued on condition that the safety advisory group approves the event. Members of the safety advisory group may visit the event site during the build and during the event. A safety advisory group debrief is held after the event.
6.6 Guidelines, advice, support available after first contact
Guidance, advice and support is available at any time and Brent officers have close working relationships with event stakeholders through the event-specific advisory forums.
6.7 Existing premises licences in the borough
There are four local authority parks and spaces in Brent that have premises licences. It is not known if these licences cover alcohol. The premises licences are for Roundwood Park, Barham Park, Gladstone Park, South Kilburn Open Space.
7 Communications/marketing/partnerships
7.1 Communications with other council departments
There are very good communications between all of the different teams from arts and events through to all participants in the safety advisory group, which includes health, safety and licensing department, environmental health officers for food and noise and the relevant emergency services.
Other officers pulled into safety advisory group meetings on a needs basis include: traffic management, town regeneration, parks, Wembley liaison, the event security and first aid providers, Brent street care, the emergency planning officer and Brent’s festivals manager. All of the above have worked together to produce the Brent advice pack for organising events in the borough.
7.2 Marketing events in the borough
Events can receive all the support they require from communications, provided they have the budget to pay for it, as the communications team is currently self-financing. Brent’s system of internal charges is, however, under review.
Events marketing complies with corporate guidelines. Where events are organised in partnership with community organisations and the marketing does not totally follow the corporate guidelines, the publicity materials have to be signed off by the communications team.
Brent has its own event Facebook and Twitter pages and an online ‘what’s on’ guide. The Brent Brain, which is an independent website, lists all events in the borough. The Brent website includes publicity for only the council organised or supported events. Brent part funds the Brent Brain.
Brent events and festivals are included in the Western Wedge summer and winter events programmes that cover events and festivals in seven London boroughs.
7.3 Cross-borough communications and projects
Brent is actively involved in the London Events Forum. Brent is one of the seven local authorities that form the Western Wedge (along with Ealing, Hammersmith and Fulham, Harrow, Hillingdon, Hounslow and the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea). The Western Wedge has its own festivals and events website, jointly publishes festivals and events programmes for summer and winter and has collaborated on a bid to secure funding for the development of street arts in black and ethnic minority groups. Western Wedge also joint finances some training.
Brent Dance Month forms part of the West London Dance Festival.
There is a town centre partnership with Camden for Kilburn High Road.
7.4 Communications and collaborations with non-council organisations
The festivals team works closely with community organisations and their representatives through the festival advisory forums set up for each of the borough’s main events.
8 Additional information/examples of best practice
The Brent advice pack for organisers of events in the borough is a good toolkit and contains good fact sheets. London Borough of Camden Outdoor arts events and activity
Camden is an inner London borough with a population of over 202,600 in 2180 hectares. Venues that can be used for outdoor arts events include 68 local authority parks and green spaces. There are also three nature reserves.
Seven parks managed by the council have Green Flag Award status: Bloomsbury Square, Russell Square, Brunswick Square, St George’s Gardens, St Martin’s Gardens, Talacre Gardens and Waterlow Park. Hampstead Heath, which is owned and managed by the City of London, is in the borough, as is part of Regent’s Park, one of London’s Royal Parks. (The other part of Regent’s Park is in the City of Westminster). Bedford Estates and the British Museum also have open space that is occasionally used for events and there are four main town centres.
1 Staffing
Under the head of arts and tourism there is a principal arts officer, a senior arts development officer and an arts information officer. They work closely with the events and premises officer in parks and open spaces. There is also an events officer in the Camden Centre team.
2 Event programme/activity
Camden has a large and diverse programme of events, mostly organised by community and arts organisations, but often in partnership with the council. All events are promoted as part of the borough’s overall events programme.
2.1 Outdoor events organised by the council
The council occasionally organises its own events but predominantly works to support or work in partnership with community organisers.
2.2 Events organised by other parts of the council
No events organised by other parts of the council were identified.
2.3 Events organised externally by arts organisations/community groups
There are a large number of community organisations and individuals who organise their own outdoor arts events. The grants managed by the arts and tourism team encourage this.
2.4 Commercial arts events
Commercial events are occasionally held in the borough’s parks and open spaces. The council does not generally host events in which it is necessary to close off parks to the public.
2.5 Events programme (arts events or inclusive of arts activity)
June
- Charlotte Street Festival
- Hatton Garden Festival
- Equinox Festival – Conway Hall and Camden Centre
- Fair in the Square – Pond Square
- Primrose in the Pink – Chalcot Square community festival
- Friends of Brunswick Square – community celebration
- South End Green Association – community festival
- Wellcome Picnic – Cumberland Market
- Estelle Road Street Party – community festival
July
- Queen Square Fair – 40 community stalls, arts and crafts classes, musical entertainment
- Jester Festival at Fortune Green Open Space • Camden Bangladesh Mela at Regents Park and British Museum • Inkerman Area Residents Association – community celebration • Swiss Cottage Festival community festival with participation of Hampstead Theatre, the Winch, etc • Friends of St Martin’s Gardens Festival • Kilburn Festival, Kilburn Grange Park • Ingestre Road Summer Festival • Kings Cross Country Show, Coram’s Field • Camden New Town Community Festival – Camden Square • Praise Chapel Community Festival • Queens Crescent Community Festival
August • The Camden Fringe – arts festival • Castle Haven Community Festival – large community event
September • Marchmont Street Party: bands on stage, plus dance acts with audience participation and children’s entertainers • Gayton Festival 2009 – annual community street party that has been running for over 30 years with a focus on children • Perfect Day Swiss Cottage • Lady Somerset Road Street Party • Belsize Eco Week – a week long series of events including a Green Fair on Haverstock Hill
October/ November • Return to Camden Town Festival
3 Policies/strategies/monitoring/aspirations
3.1 Policies and strategies
The cultural and events strategies are under review. The arts and tourism team is presently refreshing its plans in light of the economic recession.
3.2 Benefits and problems of outdoor arts events and activity
Benefits: • creating a sense of place and belonging, facilitating social bonding in neighbourhoods • improving quality of life • creating opportunities to engage with the arts (especially for those residents whose financial situation may not allow them access to the range of arts venues available nearby) • providing work experience for volunteers.
Problems: • overcrowding – particularly around Camden Market and during the Camden Crawl • issues with fouling and litter.
3.3 Advantages and disadvantages as a provider or host of outdoor arts events and activities
Advantages: • Camden has a very culturally active community. • There are also very good professional networks among people who work in the borough (at the British Museum and British Library, for example) which enable high-quality arts to be integrated into local community events.
Disadvantages: • Camden has some excellent open spaces but they are mostly very small, which means they cannot accommodate events for over 5,000 people and these larger events are restricted to a few parks. The council has to be sensitive to the impact of the larger events on residents. • Not all friends of parks groups are supportive of events and proposals can be blocked at the consultation stage.
3.4 Monitoring, evaluation, quality control: which aspects of these events are monitored, how and by whom, and how the results are used
All events that receive any grants from the council are required to monitor and evaluate their event, including composition of the audience. A feedback and review meeting is also held annually in October with all the organisers of festivals and events in Camden’s parks and open spaces. The October 2009 debrief included a training session on how to evaluate events and develop audiences. This debrief provides a useful opportunity for the community event organisers to network and to share experiences and expertise. A member of the arts team attends all funded events to monitor quality. There are regular access audits of the borough events.
Camden has a cultural map of the borough and is aware of the area where there is little engagement with the arts. This map has been overlaid onto a map of the borough’s mental health and it was evidenced that mental health issues were more prevalent where there was minimal engagement with the arts. The programme of events being developed will reflect these findings.
3.5 Aspirations: desired improvements to the existing events programme and what might make these improvements possible
Camden would like to reduce the bureaucracy for events, to work more with the other central London boroughs, to encourage more volunteering opportunities and to develop more outdoor promenade performances. It would like to offer more training opportunities to community event organisers. It wants to develop events in the parts of the borough where low engagement with the arts coincides with a higher incidence of poor mental health.
The borough aims to develop and get online the system that it has devised, which reacts automatically to the event checklist that applicants submit with their applications to hold an event.
The checklist itemises all the elements of an outdoor event and all safety issues. Applicants merely have to tick ‘yes’/’no’ or ‘not sure’ boxes.
The system would identify, for example, whether an applicant requires a road closure; if so, it would automatically send the applicant the guidelines on road closures, an application form and the contact details of the relevant officer. If the applicants are unsure whether they need a road closure, the system will send them guidance and advice to help them make that decision and also put them in direct contact with an officer who can offer support. Simultaneously the system would notify the relevant officer either that an application is to be expected, from whom and for what, or tell them that the applicant is in need of support.
4 Funding for festivals and events
4.1 Income-generation targets/charges for use of parks/licences
Camden has an income-generation target for park hires of £40,000. Community groups are not charged for use of the parks and open spaces for festivals and events, but may be charged for equipment loan (such as standpipes), or additional services, such as waste clearance.
Commercial hire rates depend on the size and duration of the event but rates for central London venues start from £2,000 per day. Camden does not actively encourage commercial hires, due to the impact on residents.
All event organisers are liable for any damage to the parks and may be charged a deposit. Traffic management orders are generally free to community organisations and the council supplies and erects the barriers and signage required.
4.2 Funding for council events
The council occasionally organises its own events but mostly it supports community initiatives that demonstrate a quality experience and high levels of engagement.
4.3 Funding available for non-council events
The Camden arts and tourism service manages two grant schemes relevant to outdoor arts events which are designed to reflect the borough’s strategic priorities especially in terms of local legacy as part of the Cultural Olympiad programme leading up to 2012.
The creative projects grant is for up to £1,000 and is suitable for arts performances or projects regardless of whether indoor or outdoor.
The Festival Fund is a programme to support street events and festivals. Events for less than 499 people can apply for up to £750 and events for between 500 and 1500 people can apply for up to £2,000. Events for over 1500 people are advised to talk to the arts team and grants for the larger festivals can be between £10,000 and £20,000.
The Camden website also links into Grant Net, which will search for appropriate funding for organisations in Camden. If organisations identify funds which they think may be appropriate to their event, they are recommended to contact the community development and regeneration team at Camden who will then provide further information and advice on how to take an application forward.
4.4 Fundraising and sponsorship
Camden does not undertake any fundraising activities for events. 5 Support for festivals and events
5.1 Advocates for outdoor arts events and activities
Members involved with plans for the Cultural Olympiad are very supportive of the events programme.
5.2 Event-related training/seminars for community-based organisations
In partnership with Wandsworth Camden is organising a networking and training event for all community organisers from the Central Arts Partnership (CAP) boroughs. It is keen to develop more training opportunities.
5.3 Guidelines and information available for event organisers pre-application (for example, fact/advice sheets/event toolkit)
Guidance, advice and support are available at any time from the arts team. There are useful guidelines on the website on licensing, traffic management orders, and environmental health.
Celebrate Camden (written in 2006), is also available online and is a guide for planning outdoor community events. It is targeted at organisers of small events (up to 100 people) and medium-sized events (up to 499 people). The guide covers: getting organised (including timelines); programming; money matters; permissions; health and safety planning; publicity; contacts; case studies. It also contains advice sheets on working with volunteers, site-planning (with an example site plan), funding applications, identifying hazards and risk assessments.
There is online information about some of the borough’s parks, including those that have a Green Flag.
5.4 Equipment resources
The council does not have event equipment for community groups to borrow. The borough’s traffic management team does however supply and set out signage, barriers and cones free of charge to community groups, where a traffic management order is in place.
5.5 Maps and site plans
Maps of the parks are available from the parks and open spaces team. These are presently being updated and written especially for event organisers.
6 The process: how an outdoor arts event organiser goes about staging an event
6.1 Pre-application information
See 5.3.
6.2 First points of contact
The first points of contact are the parks office – to book a park – and usually the senior arts development officer, who can advise on funding and event development.
6.3 Requirements from organisations on first contact
To book a park, event organisers need to submit a proposal giving their details, dates, times, site required, and the infrastructure that will be used. Event organisers are advised to do this at the start of their planning process. They will usually at the same time approach the arts team regarding funding. In order to submit an application for funding the organiser has to complete an event checklist, which will then alert officers to needs such as a licence, road closure, information on environmental health, etc.
6.4 Timelines advised/required for non-council event organisers
Parks and open spaces request three months’ notice for a small event, and six months at least for large events.
Ten days’ notice is required for a temporary event notice.
Three months’ notice is required for premises licences but this can be longer for larger, more complex events. Traffic management orders need eight weeks’ notice minimum.
6.5 Once an application is received
Local ward councillors are consulted about the proposed event. Stakeholders, including friends groups are usually consulted, especially for new events.
The senior arts development officer assesses the application and the ability of the organisers to deliver a good and safe event. He/she ensures that the relevant council officers are in touch with the organisers and in some circumstances may act as a conduit between the event organisers and the relevant council officers. Festivals and events cannot access funding unless they have completed the event checklist, which ensures that the festivals have the appropriate licences, permissions, safety paperwork etc.
There are guidelines on traffic management for outdoor events attached to the application form for road closures. Organisers are later required by parks to submit risk-assessments, insurance and licence details and site plans. Once an application to hire a park has been approved, a hire agreement is issued by parks.
6.6 Guidelines, advice, support available after first contact
Advice and support are available at any stage of the process and usually the organisers are invited to meet the arts team. The arts team takes organisers through all the requirements and elements from the event guide that is relevant to their event, thus offering a bespoke support service. Arts officers may also attend committee meetings for the larger events.
6.7 Existing premises licences in the borough
There are no local authority parks and spaces in Camden which have premises licences. Part of Regents Park does however have a premises licence.
7 Communications/marketing/partnerships
7.1 Communications with other council departments
There are close working relations between the tourism and arts team, parks and open spaces and colleagues from environmental health, licensing and traffic management. The council is also looking at a joined-up provision of events that integrates staff working on health, sustainability and community cohesion projects. There is a council-wide safety advisory group to review large events.
7.2 Marketing events in the borough
Camden events organise all their own publicity materials, but all events in the boroughs parks are automatically put onto the What’s on and arts pages at Camden’s website, as well as London’s the Seer website, an overall programme is published.
7.3 Cross-borough communications and projects
Parks and arts officers from Camden belong to the London Events Forum. Camden is part of the Central Arts Project and has worked on a range of projects jointly. It is also one of the ‘Gateways to the Games’ boroughs (along with Islington, City of London, Westminster, Wandsworth, Southwark and the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea). One of the projects they are working on together is ‘secret spaces’ – a series of events in unusual places.
Camden worked with City of London and Islington on a dance project on Hampstead Heath.
In 2009 Camden and Islington worked together on the Camden People’s Theatre Voyages performance along the canal. The performance took place in both boroughs but it was agreed that only one licence was required, and Islington accepted that Camden could license the whole event.
7.4 Communications and collaborations with non-council organisations
Camden has very close working relations with all of the organisers of outdoor arts events and community festivals in the borough.
8 Additional information/examples of best practice
Camden keeps its annual list of community festivals on its website throughout the year so that those who may wish to participate or perform know what opportunities there will be in the summer. The list of festivals gives all contact details for the organisers as well as a brief description of the festival, written by the festival organisers. This list is also useful to those who may wish to volunteer at events in the borough or become involved with the organising committees. Camden appears to be the only borough that does this.
Camden aims to develop an online system of applications that automatically provides organisers with information and guidance appropriate to their event. When working, this will enable applicants to receive all the necessary information they require and to connect directly to appropriate officers in the authority. It is, in effect, an event-specific toolkit. City of London Corporation Outdoor arts events and activity
The City of London is situated in inner London with a residential population of approximately 8,000 in just over one square mile. Although the resident population is small there are around 320,000 people who work in the city. It has over 150 parks, gardens, churchyards and plazas. The majority within the City are small spaces. The city’s streets are sometimes used for major public events.
The City of London Corporation (which provides local government services for the City) also owns and manages a large selection of outdoor spaces outside its boundaries – notable examples being Hampstead Heath, Highgate Wood, Epping Forest, Burnham Beeches, West Ham Park and Queen’s Park as well as five bridges across the Thames (Blackfriars, Southwark, London, Tower and Millennium).
Private on-street spaces which have been used for events include the Royal Exchange forecourt, Broadgate Arena, and the area in front of the steps of St Paul’s. The City of London has fifteen Green Flag Awards and seven Green Heritage Awards.
1 Staffing
The City Corporation does not employ dedicated events officers. When an event is due to take place on a street managed by the City Corporation, events are coordinated by the City Corporation’s highways team, to whom a completed application for activity on the highway must be submitted by the event organiser. Liaison is then managed with the emergency services, other City departments, neighbouring highway authorities and other stakeholders to ensure that the event is given appropriate consideration, the necessary approvals are in place, and that City stakeholders are fully informed.
Transport for London (TfL) is responsible for four major routes through the Square Mile (red routes), and where events primarily take place on their road network (such as the London Marathon), then TfL takes the lead coordination role. In that instance, the City’s highways team will liaise closely with their TfL counterparts to ensure a successfully managed event.
The City Corporation’s film office manages all applications for filming within the City, assessing highway, cleansing, parking, environmental health and emergency service considerations, and co-ordinating the necessary parties to suit the requirements of each film shoot.
Major events of which the City Corporation is part – for example, Tour de France, Beijing Torch Relay, Lord Mayor’s Show – are promoted by the City Corporations public relations office who also manage the visitor experience at the event.
The City of London Festival is sponsored by the City Corporation but has its own board of directors and staff. The Barbican Centre is provided by the City Corporation but all programming and event activity is managed by The Barbican in-house.
2 Event programme/activity
Individual events within the City are promoted by the event organiser or venue (or, by the City Corporation if it is the event organiser). The public relations office of the City Corporation publishes a quarterly events highlights leaflet for visitors, residents and workers – this includes a selection of events that are taking place during the period (not all) and will feature a number of events that take place in neighbouring boroughs. where the event is close to the City or easily accessible by its communities. The highways team also circulates details of planned events to key City stakeholders every month, and includes details on its weekly traffic management bulletin that is sent to over 600 individuals, organisations and City businesses by email every week.
2.1 Outdoor events organised by the City of London
The only regular major outdoor event promoted by the City Corporation is its historic Lord Mayor’s Show (second Saturday in November), which regularly attracts around 6,000 participants and 400,000 spectators. One-off major events over recent years in which the City Corporation has been involved include the Tour de France, Beijing Torch Relay and Disney’s A Christmas Carol.
The City of London Festival is an arts festival sponsored by the City of London Corporation. It is held for three weeks in June/July. The festival also organises (on behalf of the City Corporation) a summer programme of free outdoor (and undercover) events which runs June to August and a free winter concerts programme in City churches (January to March).
2.2 Outdoor events organised by other parts of the City of London Corporation
The Barbican Centre is owned by the City of London Corporation and has its own programme of events which has included outdoor events in the past.
There are a number of civic and ceremonial events held in the City – these are not usually open to the public, however there are some exceptions such as the annual Cart Marking Ceremony held in Guildhall Yard in July.
The open spaces teams / rangers occasionally organise their own smaller events – particularly in the spaces outside the City boundaries.
2.3 Outdoor events organised externally by arts organisations/community groups and town centres
Outdoor events organised by external promoters include The Smithfield Nocturne, City of London Festival and concerts and other entertainments in Broadgate Arena and Paternoster Square. Where possible, the City Corporation promotes these events in its quarterly events guide but this is at the editor’s discretion and can be dependent on space and other issues. Some events in neighbouring boroughs that are easily accessible by the City’s communities are also promoted within these publications – these have included the Shoreditch Festival, the Mayor’s Thames Festival and Spitalfields Festival amongst others.
2.4 Commercial arts events
The City has hosted a number of events that access its streets, though most of these have been of a sporting nature (eg London Marathon, Tour de France etc). Corporate and commercial events are accommodated subject to assessment via the application for activity on the highway as detailed in item 1.
2.5 Events programme (arts events or inclusive of arts activity)
Regular, major outdoor events taking place in (or passing through) the City include the following (please note that these are subject to change):
April – May
- London Marathon
- BUPA 10k Road Race
- Race for Life
June – August
- Smithfield Nocturne
- Crisis Square Mile Run
- Spitalfields Festival
- City of London Festival
- Free summer events series
- The Standard Chartered Great City Race
September
- Open House Weekend
- Great River Race
- Thames Festival
- London Cycle Freewheel
November
- The Lord Mayor’s Show
November – March
- Ice rink at Broadgate Arena
3 Policies/strategies/monitoring/aspirations
3.1 Policies and strategies
There is no individual strategy dedicated to outdoor events. The City’s cultural strategy and its visitor strategy cover this topic to some degree. The cultural strategy has recently been drafted and approved and the visitor strategy is in the process of being updated. There is a City arts and culture working party comprised of elected members and a City arts and culture forum comprised of officers and chaired by Graham Sheffield, Artistic Director of the Barbican – this forum reports to the working party.
Parks and open spaces feed into the overall strategies – the City Together Strategy covers spaces within the City limits and the corporate plan covers spaces such as Hampstead Heath which are outside the City limits. The City Corporation’s Street Scene initiative also contributes to overall City cultural strategy.
3.2 Benefits and problems of outdoor arts events and activity
The main benefits of outdoor arts events are considered to be the enhancement of the visitor experience, providing access to the arts for City workers and residents and aiding regeneration.
The City of London is one of the largest funders of the arts in the UK and it is considered important that this is reflected in its event profile – however, outdoor event activity is restricted by the availability of open spaces which are often too small for any large scale activity. These spaces can be “expanded” through road closures which are only viable at weekends or (on occasion) in the evening. Finally, the City’s bylaws prohibit advertising on the public highway, which means that purely commercial events intended to advertise a product or company are prohibited.
3.3 Advantages and disadvantages as a provider or host of outdoor arts events and activities
As discussed under the previous item – the City has a wealth of small open spaces but these are often too small for any major outdoor activity and would require road closures to extend the audience area (only possible at weekends in the main). There are a few “privately-owned” spots that lend themselves to small to mid-scale activity including Paternoster Square, Broadgate Arena and the pavement in front of St Paul’s Cathedral.
One advantage is that the City workers are largely absent over the weekend which means there is more capacity for visitors; the disadvantage is that – outside the areas around the main visitor attractions – many of the cafes and bars and shops close due to this. Also, weekends being the quiet time, this is when the major roadworks and the movement of large plant (required to keep up with the City’s hectic construction schedules) takes place.
On the plus side, transport connections to the City are excellent.
3.4 Monitoring, evaluation, quality control: which aspects of these events are monitored, how and by whom, and how the results are used
A working group of officers has been set up to informally assess applications for events based on quality/appropriateness. The City Corporation monitors and evaluates the events of which it is a part but does not do this for events promoted by external parties. That said, if an event is likely to cause a public order issue or generate complaints from the City’s various communities a full assessment of the situation will be undertaken.
3.5 Aspirations: desired improvements to the existing events programme and what might make these improvements possible
The City Corporation is working towards a more formalised approach to the event application, co-ordination and management process, including event assessment, approval and (if necessary) member involvement. Ideally, the City would like to have dedicated staff to handle the increasing number of applications, but this may depend on available resources.
4 Funding for festivals and events
4.1 Income-generation targets/charges for use of parks/licences
The possibility of using a park or open space for an event depends on the size and nature of the event and the type of organisation. Charges may apply and initial enquiries should be passed to the City gardens manager for sites in the Square Mile and to the appropriate superintendent for open spaces outside of the City.
4.2 Funding for council events
There is no centrally-held budget for City-organised events – the Barbican (part of the City Corporation) and the City of London Festival (an external partner sponsored by the City Corporation) have their own budgets. The City Corporation’s involvement in one-off major events (eg Tour de France) is assessed on an individual basis and where a budget is required, application is made by officers to the relevant committee.
4.3 Funding available for non-council events
Community event organisers can contact the public relations office for funding information and can apply to the policy and resources committee on a one-off basis, though at the moment there are limited funds available. The City's finance sub committee also considers grants from organisations with charitable purposes, including arts/cultural events organisations.
4.4 Fundraising and sponsorship
Private and commercial sponsorship of City Corporation promoted events is sought on an event by event basis where appropriate.
5 Support for festivals and events
5.1 Advocates for outdoor arts events and activities
The City arts and culture working party comprises a number of high profile members who support the arts. The ‘Vibrant and Culturally Rich City’ group – a partnership of City officers and representatives of retail/hotels in the City – also includes a number of advocates of the arts.
5.2 Event-related training/seminars for community-based organisations
There is no training available to community events organisers.
5.3 Guidelines and information available for event organisers pre-application (for example, fact/advice sheets/event toolkit)
Currently, there is no toolkit available for event organisers, but the highways team and City public relations office will soon be developing guidelines that will include contact details, FAQs, approximate timescales for approvals and relevant fees and charges. Those wishing to organise an outdoor event on-street in the city should contact, in the first instance, the Traffic Manager, Department of Environmental Services, City of London, PO Box 270, Guildhall, London EC2P 2EJ. Filming applications should be made direct to the film office – information and application forms are available at www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/film
5.4 Equipment resources
There are no equipment resources.
5.5 Maps and site plans
Site specific plans and maps can be provided by the City gardens manager (or the appropriate superintendents for spaces outside of the City). The City has its own Geographic Information System (GIS).
6 The process: how an outdoor arts event organiser goes about staging an event
6.1 Pre-application information
Please see item 5.3
6.2 First points of contact
Please see item 5.3
6.3 Requirements from organisations on first contact
A clear, written explanation of the proposed event, proposed location, time and date are a pre-requisite. A risk-assessment will be required in the early stages, as will an assessment of the approximate impact on traffic if road closures are required.
6.4 Timelines advised/required for non-council event organisers
There is no advised timeline but events requiring licences are bound by the deadlines set by the Licensing Act. Events requiring road closures require a minimum of six weeks notice for the creation and advertising of the necessary traffic order, but due to the volume of other activities taking place on the City's highway network (such as street works and building site operations), longer notice is strongly advised. Also, where TfL streets (red routes) are affected, additional notice will be required.
6.5 Once an application is received
In general, the event will be assessed by officers and a decision in principle given. Under certain circumstances, it may be necessary to obtain member approval for an event via the City's committee structure. Relevant permissions with the appropriate authorities (eg TfL, police, PLA etc) will then need to be obtained by the organiser – this includes the organiser completing the City Corporation’s application for activity on the highway.
6.6 Guidelines, advice, support available after first contact
See item 5.3.
6.7 Existing premises licences in the borough
Licences can be issued to caterers in some of the larger open spaces outside of the city that have refreshment facilities. Further details can be provided by the appropriate superintendent.
7 Communications/marketing/partnerships
7.1 Communications with other council departments
Through the City Corporation’s Significant External Events Group (SEEG) – an informal group of officers including the City of London police, highway management and the public relations office) – relevant staff affected by the proposed event will be identified and contacted. The visitor strategy group and the City arts and culture forum are also forums used for information sharing between departments.
7.2 Marketing events in the borough
The City Corporation is very strong on promotion of the festivals and events that take place in its parks, open spaces and in its streets. It also includes independently organised events in its publicity where details are known and the event is considered relevant and appropriate to its audiences. The communications all adhere to corporate design guidelines and are marketed as one unit through a range of media. This includes quarterly printed programmes, email shots to 12,000 people who have signed up to receive information and promotion on the City’s visitor website. No street advertising is permitted in the City.
7.3 Cross-borough communications and projects
The City has many partners and liaises frequently with both neighbouring boroughs and also those boroughs whose boundaries include parks or open spaces owned and managed by the City. The City Corporation also has representation on the Central Arts Partnership (CAP) and the London Local Authority Arts Network which are cross-borough communications groups.
The City Corporation promotes events outside the City in its publicity where appropriate – especially those taking place close to its boundaries and that are easily accessible by the City community.
7.4 Communications and collaborations with non-council organisations
The parks and open spaces with Green Flag awards have close community relations. The public relations office works closely with City arts partners and visitor attractions and maintains a calendar of what’s on – this information it uses in the above mentioned publications.
The Barbican and other City arts initiatives are involved in a number of collaborations eg EAST and CREATE.
8 Additional information/examples of best practice
The City Corporation co-ordinates a group of volunteers who are trained to work as stewards at major events in the City. The group are known as the ‘SquareMilers’ and are nurtured by the City as a valuable resource as they not only have appropriate training to work as stewards but also have knowledge of local transport, City history, directions and facilities. This means they are well equipped to deal with visitors’ enquiries and to take a public relations as well as practical role. London Borough of Croydon Outdoor arts events and activity
Croydon is an outer London borough with a population of over 341,800 in 8650 hectares. It has 120 parks, gardens and open spaces. Five parks managed by the local authority have Green Flag Award status.
1 Staffing
In the arts service, which is in the culture directorate, under the head of arts and heritage, there is an arts manager, a freelance programming and freelance marketing officer (solely responsible for the Clocktower venue), two arts development officers, an arts participation officer and a part-time assistant arts participation officer. One of the arts development officers also works on the festival.
The conferences and hires team in the operations department deals with applications for park hires, regardless of the nature of the event. This role is to be reassigned through a safer events group.
2 Outdoor event programme/activity
2.1 Outdoor events organised by the council
The Croydon Festival takes place over two days and consists of World Party and the Mela. It is funded mainly by the council, along with grants from bodies such as Performing Right Society and sponsorship. The production is contracted out to an event management company.
There were also eight other outdoor arts events led by the council, including the Big Lunch street event (with satellite events held across the borough), Black History Month and Can You Dig It. Croydon also included outdoor events in its programme for their On the Map event.
2.2 Outdoor events organised by other parts of the council
See events listed on Events Listing appendix.
2.3 Outdoor events organised externally by arts organisations/community groups and town centres
See events listed on Events Listing appendix.
2.4 Commercial arts events
No list available at present.
3 Policies/strategies/monitoring/aspirations
3.1 Policies and strategies
The events programme links into the council’s overall strategies (young people, sustainability and regeneration, for example) and to the Arts Council England’s priorities.
3.2 Benefits and problems of outdoor arts events and activity
Benefits:
- bringing quality arts to the community thereby improving access to the arts
- promoting community cohesion
- promoting healthy living and use of open spaces
- facilitating intergenerational contact through joint activities and celebrations
- effective launch pads for educational arts activities
3.3 Advantages and disadvantages as a provider or host of outdoor arts events and activities
Advantages:
- Croydon has a rich and multicultural community and a wide range of arts activities and organisations that reflect this diversity
- access to infrastructure and a good technical team to support outdoor events with staging and sound equipment etc.
- the arts team has good working relations with the town centre managers and Croydon businesses
- the licensing and health and safety officers in the council are supportive of the outdoor events.
Disadvantages:
- despite its excellent transport links, Croydon is wrongly perceived as a long way from central London
- the borough has many beautiful parks and open spaces but few of them have good parking facilities
- there have been decreasing budgets for outdoor arts events and the Croydon Summer Festival is now reduced to one weekend (the street arts festival and the finale event having been cut four years ago). The budget for the World Party and Mela has also been reduced in the last few years and looks likely to be further reduced in 2010.
- there is no events team to manage bookings or stimulate interest
- conference and hires are mainly venue-focused.
3.4 Monitoring, evaluation, quality control: which aspects of these events are monitored, how and by whom, and how the results are used
Feedback forms are gathered by the arts team at most events and these inform the event development. There is a steering group for the festival and for Black History Month; these feed back at debrief meetings and their information is used to instigate change for the following year.
3.5 Aspirations: desired improvements to the existing events programme and what might make these improvements possible
The outdoor event programme is being expanded to year-round activity and will be boosted by external funding. The council needs an events team to make the most of the wealth of parks and open spaces in the borough.
4 Funding for festivals and events
4.1 Income-generation targets/charges for use of parks/licences
There is no set income-generation target. There is a daily park hire charge in three categories – commercial £615 per day, charitable events £116 per day and minor events of up to 50 people £64.
4.2 Funding for council events
The council provides a separate budget for the Croydon Summer Festival, with smaller outdoor events funded from the arts development budget, budgets from other council departments (when there is partnership working) along with support from outside funding and sponsorship.
4.3 Funding available for non-council events
There were two levels of arts grant available to arts event organisers – £1,000 and £3,000 with a total of £30,000. As well as the Croydon arts officers, representatives from neighbouring boroughs were on the panel to assess these applications. This has been frozen since March 2009 and has now been assimilated into one large grant (with other small grants from across the council) which is the three-year stronger communities fund.
4.4 Fundraising and sponsorship
The arts team fundraises for its main events and sponsorship packages are put together. Much of the sponsorship is ‘in-kind’.
5 Support for festivals and events
5.1 Advocates for outdoor arts events and activities
The mayor, director of culture and the chief executive are supportive and attend the outdoor events.
5.2 Event-related training/seminars for community-based organisations
There are currently no event-related training schemes or seminars.
5.3 Guidelines and information available for event organisers pre-application (for example, fact/advice sheets/event toolkit)
The website has guidelines on licensing and a Guide to organising safe events. There is also an A-Z list of all the parks and open spaces that gives location, area, facilities, history and a map of the park.
5.4 Equipment resources
The council has access to some technical equipment such as backline, staging and public address systems, via the Clocktower.
There is a stock of tables, chairs and small branded tents for outdoor events. 5.5 Maps and site plans
Basic maps are available online and more detailed maps suitable for site plans are available via the parks department.
6 The process: how an outdoor arts event organiser goes about staging an event
6.1 Pre-application information
Information on the parks and health and safety at events is available online but all other information needs to be obtained from the conference and hires officer.
6.2 First points of contact
This varies, although most commonly enquiries will be put through either to parks or to the events officer.
6.3 Requirements from organisations on first contact
There is a park event enquiry form which is very basic. This directs the applicant to other departments, such as licensing and traffic management. There is no one-stop shop for event organisers who, as well as the parks application, have to complete a ‘notice of a public event’ form and send it to licensing – before then submitting applications for the appropriate licence.
6.4 Timelines advised/required for non-council event organisers
The statutory notice periods are required for event licences. Traffic management orders require a minimum of 10 weeks’ notice.
6.5 Once an application is received
The conference and hires officer processes applications, decides whether the event goes ahead and what other requirements are made of the applicants. Groups are required to produce risk-assessments and to have a minimum of £5 million public liability insurance. The licensing officers may request further documentation, depending on the size and nature of the event.
6.6 Guidelines, advice, support available after first contact
The arts and hires teams are available to offer advice and support. The arts team is forming a festivals forum – potentially providing networking, training/skills sharing, combined marketing, etc for arts events only.
6.7 Existing premises licences in the borough
Three parks in Croydon have premises licences.
7 Communications/marketing/partnerships
7.1 Communications with other council departments
There are good internal communications between arts, events, licensing, health and safety, and community services.
7.2 Marketing events in the borough
Due to the volume of events covered by the Clocktower and around the borough, the arts team does its own marketing and is responsible for all promotions and most press and publicity. This is considered a major advantage as excellent working relations have developed with the local press and although the festival and other events only occasionally pay to advertise their events, they receive excellent coverage.
7.3 Cross-borough communications and projects
The arts development officers are members of the London Events Forum and also the sub-regional arts officer group, the South London Arts Partnership (SLAP) – along with Kingston, Merton, Richmond, Sutton, Bromley.
7.4 Communications and collaborations with non-council organisations
There are good working relations being established with the community organisations who access the borough’s parks and green spaces for events. The borough is also working to increase its relationships with organisers of commercial events.
8 Additional information/examples of best practice
It is very useful that the application to hire a park or open space gives clear information about how the application will be processed, what the next stages are and what further requirements are likely to be made of the event organisers. The London Borough of Ealing is classified as one of the outer London boroughs, although it is not on the periphery. The borough has a population of 309,000 in 5,553 hectares and includes over 100 parks and open spaces. These include allotments, cemeteries, playgrounds, and golf courses, in addition to the larger open spaces, such as nature conservation areas. The borough has three parks that have Green Flag status.
1 Staffing
In 2009 Ealing appointed an external events contractor – Event Umbrella – to manage all its outdoor council events and to coordinate all the outdoor community events that take place in its parks and open spaces and in its streets. The contract will run for four to six years.
The contract manager of Event Umbrella works 1-2 days per week and reports to the head of parks and leisure. There are four full-time staff – an operations manager, two event coordinators, and a community event manager (these staff go to four days a week in the winter), a temporary events assistant for six months in the summer and a part-time coordinator, employed specifically to manage the Greenford Carnival and the Acton Carnival. Event Umbrella also employs all crew and stewards who work on the council’s outdoor events.
2 Outdoor events programme/activity
Ealing has a well-established programme of events.
2.1 Outdoor arts events organised by the council
The main council events managed by Event Umbrella are:
- **July**
- Acton Carnival: £1 entry – taken over from the community as it grew too large for them to manage
- Greenford Carnival: £1 entry – taken over from community as above
- Comedy Festival, Walpole Park – 17 years old: ticketed festival, commercial rates
- Opera Festival, Walpole Park – three years old: ticketed festival, commercial rates
- Jazz Festival, Walpole Park – 25 years old: ticketed festival, £1 per ticket
- Blues Festival, Walpole Park – 10 years old: ticketed festival, £1 per ticket, free for children and families
- Global Festival, Walpole Park – five years old: ticketed festival, £1 per ticket, free for children and a free families area is provided outside the main event site
Also:
- Armed Forces Day – new
- London Mela – Gunnersbury Park. Event Umbrella does production only. Programme, marketing and sponsorship are managed between Remarkable Productions and the Greater London Authority (GLA). The GLA funding was reduced in 2009.
For info: Gunnersbury Park is jointly owned by Ealing and Hounslow. Ealing pays Hounslow for the maintenance of the park. Hounslow holds the premises licence.
2.2 Events organised by other parts of the council
Information not currently available.
2.3 Events organised externally by arts organisations/community groups
There are approximately 25 outdoor arts events in the borough that are organised by the community. There are also five major street events, including the Southall processions in April and October which attract up to 50,000 people, the Hindu chariots procession, and the Hanwell carnival. The council supports these events with traffic management but this service is paid for by the organisers, except for Hanwell.
2.4 Commercial arts events
Information is not currently available.
3 Policies/strategies/monitoring/aspirations
3.1 Policies and strategies
Key points of the borough’s policies and strategies are incorporated into the Event Umbrella contract with Ealing. The annual cabinet report made by Event Umbrella provides information that can inform policy and strategy development.
3.2 Benefits and problems of outdoor arts events and activity
The main benefits identified are community cohesion, sense of place and pride in the borough and opportunities for engaging with the arts. The borough gets good feedback from residents that indicates that the events – especially the music ones – are very good value for money.
3.3 Advantages and disadvantages as a provider or host of outdoor arts events and activities
Advantages:
- Ealing has 100 parks and green spaces, many small but some very large
- very good support from members and communications
- the summer festival is very well-established and well respected by residents.
3.4 Monitoring, evaluation, quality control: which aspects of these events are monitored, how and by whom, and how the results are used
There are comments cards at the information desks at all of the events. The communications team also devises surveys which it sends to its events email group and to friends on Facebook and Twitter. It then collates the information and produces an overall report which feeds into the annual report to cabinet members. This report includes details of spend, achievements and proposals for the following year.
Additionally Event Umbrella has carried out its own surveys, for example, at Global festival, it carried out a survey in the family area and this was how it found that the 15-17 age group was not engaging enough with the programme. It is looking at ways to redress this.
3.5 Aspirations: desired improvements to the existing events programme and what might make these improvements possible
Event Umbrella is exploring the idea of an underage style festival to redress 15-17-year-olds’ limited engagement with the current programme. It also aims to move away from central Ealing and to generate events in other parts of the borough, creating more sustainable and diverse events. There overall aims are to increase standards across all areas of event management, to develop the programme and to continue to professionalise.
4 Funding for festivals and events
4.1 Income-generation targets/charges for use of parks/licences
Event Umbrella needs to generate £1 million from park hires, stalls, sponsorship and ticket sales to produce the event programme.
4.2 Funding for council events
Ealing pays Event Umbrella £186,000 for the staffing of the event team and in addition pays for and supplies office space within the town hall, as well as basic running costs for phones, stationery etc.
There is a £1m budget that is generated by park hires, concessions, sponsorship and ticket sales which is earmarked for spend on the borough’s outdoor events programme, including community events. Ticket sales are outsourced to See Tickets.
Although Event Umbrella manages the programme, all contracts for the events (for example, for suppliers and artists) are with Ealing Council; the council covers the public liability insurance for the events, and the public (and often even council staff) perceive that the events programme is delivered by the council.
4.3 Funding available for non-council events
Event Umbrella does not have any funding available but is able to direct external community organisations to funding from the council’s grants section. There are two main sources of funding: ward forums: Ealing has 16 ward forums, each with three to four councillors as well as members of the community. Each forum has money for improvements, and a percentage of this is earmarked for events: £20,000 for revenue and £20,000 for capital, spread over a number of events.
community chest: grants up to £5,000 for running costs and up to £5,000 one-off grants to do something different – build a new carnival float, for example.
4.4 Fundraising and sponsorship
There is very good sponsorship support from a number of councillors, the communications team, and Ealing’s head of service. Mostly they provide lead contacts that Event Umbrella can follow through. Event Umbrella is aiming to be more proactive in gaining sponsorship for next year.
5 Support for festivals and events
5.1 Advocates for outdoor arts events and activities
Event Umbrella has a very positive relationship with members and receives a lot of support for example, with contacts for sponsorship. Its previous portfolio holder was very involved, would put forward ideas etc. Its current one is less involved, but still supportive. The leader of the council attends most of the events. Members receive free tickets to events.
5.2 Event-related training/seminars for community-based organisations
Event Umbrella does not run any training or seminars.
5.3 Guidelines and information available for event organisers pre-application (for example, fact/advice sheets/event toolkit)
Event Umbrella does not at present have fact or advice sheets but the community event manager does help people get the information they require.
5.4 Equipment resources
There is access to the community store in Walpole Park, which hires out event-related equipment.
6 The process: how an outdoor arts event organiser goes about staging an event
6.1 Pre-application information
There is currently no information pre-application form.
6.2 First points of contact
Initial enquiries are directed to the community event manager at Event Umbrella. Most first enquiries are by phone. Small, low impact events get assessed by the community events manager, larger events that will have a bigger impact on residents, for example, through parking restrictions, will go to the event safety and licensing group. Then the community event manager processes the applications for park hire and sets the licensing processes in action and aims to give as much help as possible.
6.3 Requirements from organisations on first contact
The information required from event organisers on first contact with the borough applicants will vary according to the event and the timing of that first contact. A ‘lead-in’ document is being devised to help organisers navigate the council.
6.4 Timelines advised/required for non-council event organisers
Timelines are not currently set.
6.5 Once an application is received
The community events officer processes all applications.
6.6 Guidelines, advice, support available after first contact
Other support for community organisations includes:
- inclusion in the council’s event programme publicity
- help with negotiating prices with suppliers (easier for Event Umbrella because it has such a large spend with some suppliers through Ealing but also through the other festivals that it produces in London.) The community event manager advises organisers who to contact in the council about food safety, permissions for erection of banners and bunting and other permissions.
7 Communications/marketing/partnerships
7.1 Communications with other council departments
These are generally good with all those on the events licensing and safety group. There has been some contact with the arts officers (for example, the Literature Festival was a partnership project) and this is likely to increase.
7.2 Marketing events in the borough
£60,000 of the budget goes back to the council communications team which is wholly responsible for marketing the events programme from information supplied by Event Umbrella staff.
Events are marketed through advertisements at tube stations, posters on lampposts around the borough, through the local press and radio, branding of the gates at Ealing Broadway tube station, branding of mesh-fencing panels used for the events, through leaflets, summer pull-out in the local newspaper, on the borough’s website and through social networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter. Also as ticket sales are outsourced to See Tickets, the programme of events goes in their marketing, which has a broad reach.
Ealing’s logo goes on all publicity and branding and all design complies with the corporate guidelines at all times, though communications are conscious of giving the designs a festival feel.
The dedicated officer for the events marketing works to the communications manager.
All of the community events are included on the borough website and wherever possible in publicity brochures (for example, if information is available in time). Where there is a need for interviewees, for example for radio, the artistic directors of the particular festival or event would usually be used.
7.3 Cross-borough communications and projects
Officers are on London Events Forum and through Event Umbrella have contact with festivals in other boroughs. They also have been able to network with other London boroughs at GLA events. London Borough of Enfield Outdoor arts events and activity
Enfield is an outer London borough with a population of over 287,600 in 8219 hectares. Local authority outdoor spaces, many of which can be used for arts events, include 26 local parks, 27 open spaces and up to 70 other green spaces – gardens, recreations grounds and sports fields. Three town centres also programme and host events. Six parks managed by the council have the Green Flag Award.
Non-council owned venues which occasionally stage outdoor arts events include: Edmonton Green Shopping Centre.
1 Staffing
In the education, children’s services and leisure department there is a cultural manager, an arts and events development manager and an arts officer. There is currently also a manager of Forty Hall, an indoor venue with a park; the hall has its own programme of events. The cultural services and Forty Hall are due to come together under one manager. The parks department is in the ‘place-shaping and enterprise department’ and is about to take on a member of staff to organise events in parks and open spaces.
2 Event programme/activity
The arts and events team has an annual programme of festivals and events. Festivals and events are included in the ‘what’s on’ page of the council website and communities can feed their events into this.
2.1 Outdoor events organised by the culture/arts/events team
The main outdoor events organised by the arts and events officers are New River Festival and the Enfield Autumn Show.
New River Festival – a free festival held annually in July, this was initially a community-led event started to celebrate the regeneration of a new river loop area. The event grew too large for the community to manage so was taken in-house by the council arts team. The council arts team has introduced a ‘green’ theme and is moving it towards being part of Children’s Art Day. The event is funded by the council and in the past had financial support from Thames Water. The event has been shortlisted in the BT Visit London Awards 2009 under the category of Consumer Event of the Year.
The Autumn Show – a 57-year-old two-day festival held in a park in Enfield Town Centre, with entry charged at £3, £2 concessions and free to under-15s. The show started when Enfield was in the countryside and focuses on horticulture, animals and vegetables. There is a crafts marquee, food and community stalls, a music stage and a central arena for displays – horses, motorcycles, etc. The event management is contracted out, with the cultural team managing the contract and influencing the programming. The event is funded by the council with a contribution from the police.
There is also the, Sights and Sounds of Edmonton, a free, one-day, outdoor arts event which has recently been funded by the council, property developer St Modwens and Arts Council England. This event has a strong participatory programme. It also commissioned an aerial performance to encourage audiences to look up and around and to take in new aspects of their environment. The police have expressed interest in supporting this festival.
2.2 Events organised by other parts of the council
There are events which include arts activity, such as the Teddy Bears Picnic as part of National Play Day, and the fireworks display. Enfield Homes, which manages the council properties, occasionally organise its own events and asks for advice from the arts team about programme and event management. 2.3 Events organised externally by arts organisations/community groups
There is no comprehensive list of events organised by external arts organisations or community groups, but the arts team works with Edmonton Green Shopping Centre, leased from the council to the property developers St Modwen’s. The centre stages four main festivals annually – an event at Easter, a summer event with street arts and workshops, a Halloween Lanterns event and a Winter Festival. These events are core financed by St Modwen’s with support from event specific sponsors, such as ASDA. The role of the arts and events team is to manage, advise and to provide quality control for the events’ content.
2.4 Commercial arts events
Information not known.
2.5 Events programme (arts events or inclusive of arts activity)
- Edmonton Green Shopping Centre – Easter Event
- Teddy Bears’ Picnic
- New River Festival
- Edmonton Green summer events
- three bandstand concerts in Hilly Fields
- Sounds of Edmonton
- Ponder’s End Mela
- Enfield Autumn Show
- Halloween Lanterns at Edmonton Green Shopping Centre
- fireworks display
- Winter Festival at Edmonton Green Shopping Centre
- Various outdoor arts events at Forty Hall
- events organised by Enfield Business Retail Association
- events organised by Palmers Green Town Centre
- Enfield Homes’ work on neighbourhood festivals.
3 Policies/strategies/monitoring/aspirations
3.1 Policies and strategies
The arts and culture strategy is currently in the consultation process. The strategy will be jointly owned by stakeholders and anticipates a wide readership. The strategy refers to ‘the whole borough as an arts venue’, encouraging arts to be experienced in different ways and places ‘as part of the street-scene, in parks, at arts venues, in school life, in busy shopping centres, or quiet health centres’. There is an arts and events mission statement:
The Enfield council arts and events team mission is to develop and nurture high-quality arts and increase participation in creative activities and events across the borough by all sections of our diverse communities.
The arts and events team initiates and promotes high-quality engagement with the arts through arts programmes which include: festivals, exhibitions, installations, performances, outreach and professional development for artists and arts organisations. The arts and events team collaborates with and support artists and arts organisations within the borough and works in partnership with the arts sector regionally and beyond.
Events managed by the council are tailored towards meeting elements of the council’s strategies and vision. The arts and events team works with other council directorates to meet their objectives on the environment, sustainability and equality of access. For example the arts team often works with the foster care team and joint council services produces a dance project for disabled people.
3.2 Benefits and problems of outdoor arts events and activity
The main two benefits identified are the opportunity to:
- broaden access to the arts by taking exciting performance and arts activity to new audiences
- offer artists and performers the challenge of working outside their usual spaces, working with new and mixed audiences.
One challenge mentioned in association with outdoor events was the slight difficulty of gathering reliable audience data at outdoor events, though this is not considered a major problem.
3.3 Advantages and disadvantages as a provider or host of outdoor arts events and activities
There are a number of very good parks and green spaces in the borough. There are strong advocates in the borough for outdoor arts and events. Residents and businesses and other stakeholders in Enfield are very supportive of outdoor arts and events, which are perceived as community celebrations.
One difficulty cited was that the A10 runs through the borough and audiences appear to rarely cross the east/west divide that it creates.
3.4 Monitoring, evaluation, quality control: which aspects of these events are monitored, how and by whom, and how the results are used
All council-led events which the arts and events team are involved in, are monitored. All artists and arts providers have evaluation written into their contracts and work schedules. The marketing officer supports the team with the analysis of audience feedback. Monitoring and evaluation are used to create and maintain high standards and to highlight areas that may require development.
There are standard basic evaluation forms available for the artists and participants and for the audience.
3.5 Aspirations: desired improvements to the existing events programme and what might make these improvements possible
They would like to have an up-to-date event toolkit for the use of community event organisers in the borough. Fact sheets on the outdoor spaces available would also be useful. They would like to encourage more visitors to the borough.
4 Funding for festivals and events
There is no dedicated fund for festivals and events in the borough, though the Autumn Show does have its own budget, and also receives funding from event partners and sponsors. The council does not revenue fund any arts organisations in the borough, apart from the council-owned arts centres, such as Forty Hall. Forty Hall does not have a designated outdoor arts budget but provides outdoor arts events as part of its overall programme.
The arts and events team has a small amount of money available for arts commissions and this has mainly, but not exclusively, been used for innovative, site-specific works and outdoor arts that enable the arts to reach new and mixed audiences. The team is able to offer organisations funding advice.
4.1 Income-generation targets/charges for use of parks/licences
Income-generation targets for the parks are currently unknown. There is a £100 administration fee for those applying to host an event in one of the parks, though final costs are assessed individually. Council event organisers are charged for use of the parks. Depending on the size and nature of the event (and regardless of the event organiser), parks may also take a ‘bond’ payment in advance, in case of damage to the park. The licensing section charges the standard £21 for a temporary event notice but charges for a premise licence are unavailable.
4.2 Funding for council events
Funding varies for the events according to partnerships, ownership and so forth.
4.3 Funding available for non-council events
There is no council funding available for non-council events. Voluntary organisations can however sign up to receive funding news from an online website. The arts and events team has a small budget for commissions.
4.4 Fundraising and sponsorship
The cultural manager manages and raises funds for the events and often brings in sponsorship through networking and council contacts. The arts and events officers also fundraise on an ad hoc basis, particularly when there are new projects they wish to get off the ground.
5 Support for festivals and events
5.1 Advocates for outdoor arts events and activities
The cultural services team has a very good relationship with members and there is a core group of four to five councillors who are very supportive of the borough’s festivals and events. The cultural services manager is a constant advocate for outdoor arts events and is open to ideas from the arts and events team. Council officers invite all members to all events and liaise with members freely. 5.2 Event-related training/seminars for community-based organisations
There is no training available.
5.3 Guidelines and information available for event organisers pre-application (for example, fact/advice sheets/event toolkit)
The arts and events team does not have one available at present. It did have the millennium toolkit but this is now out of date. For those wishing to hold an event in one of the borough’s parks, the parks team website gives access to an event safety guide and information on fire risk-assessments and both are available to download. There is also information on event risk-assessments – including a blank template. Those making bookings are advised to consult these downloads before making an application.
5.4 Equipment resources
There are no equipment resources available.
5.5 Maps and site plans
Blank site maps can be available from the planning department.
6 The process: how an outdoor arts event organiser goes about staging an event
6.1 Pre-application information
The council website has:
- a list of all the main parks with variable information on each regarding history, features and facilities
- an application form that guides applicants and gives pointers to other sources of information within the council
- an event safety document, a fire risk-assessment document, information on risk-assessments for events and a template
6.2 First points of contact
This varies. Possible first points of contact depend on the desired venue. The first point of contact could be the parks department, the town centre managers, or venue specific managers. Parks information on applications for hires is available on the borough’s website.
6.3 Requirements from organisations on first contact
The website implies that a full application form, complete with risk-assessments is required on first contact, along with such items as:
- details of any fairground rides and photocopies of their documentation
- plan of the proposed site layout
- first page of the hygiene inspection report for any caterers
- photocopy of public liability insurance certificate
Applicants are advised that if their event involves animals, pyrotechnics or filming, recording or broadcasting, a separate application may be required.
6.4 Timelines advised/required for non-council event organisers
A minimum of eight weeks is advised for events with up to 2,000 people and a minimum of three months is required for larger events.
6.5 Once an application is received
The process for non-council applicants is administered through the parks team.
For the council-led events, or events where the council is working with external partners, the arts and events team will initiate a safety advisory group and ensure that the appropriate council offices (health and safety, emergency planning and liaison, licensing, environmental health, etc) are brought in to advise and monitor the planning and delivery of the events.
6.6 Guidelines, advice, support available after first contact
Arts and events officers can provide support with monitoring and quality control.
6.7 Existing premises licences in the borough
A number of the large parks have premises licenses. 7 Communications/marketing/partnerships
7.1 Communications with other council departments
There is generally good communication with other council departments and the arts and events team works to ensure the council’s overall strategies and vision are reflected in the events programming. The safety action group meets as and when initiated by the arts and events team for the council’s events.
7.2 Marketing events in the borough
The cultural services team, tourism, town twinning and Forty Hall share their own marketing and press officer. There was a short period when the post was vacant and it was noted that many opportunities to promote events locally and nationally were missed as a result. The marketing and press officer has developed a good working relationship with the local and national press and also deals with all the marketing for the boroughs cultural events. The marketing is targeted not only at the borough’s residents but at those living beyond the borough boundaries. London-wide and national press and audiences are considered important targets in terms of raising the profile of the boroughs arts events and activities.
Marketing materials usually have to adhere to the borough’s corporate style but there are exceptions for projects where the events have external funding or partners and in these circumstances the project may commission an artist to design the marketing materials.
7.3 Cross-borough communications and projects
The arts and events team are very keen to maximise the benefits of inter-borough partnerships. As well as marketing their own events in neighbouring boroughs to increase their audience catchment area, they also receive marketing materials from Barnet, Haringey, Broxbourne and the Royal Parks. They view the display of neighbouring boroughs’ marketing as increasing their own residents’ access to the arts.
The borough has a good working relationship with Haringey. Enfield is working with Haringey and Barnet to develop the marketing of the arts and creative industries in North London. The already successful Enfield Film fund, set up in 2003 has been improved and expanded by amalgamating into the North London Film Fund, working with Haringey, Camden and Islington.
7.4 Communications and collaborations with non-council organisations
Enfield has a number of external providers of arts events, but at present little information is to hand about them.
8 Additional information/examples of best practice
Instances of good practice are:
- vision of the whole borough as a potential arts venue
- commitment to access to the arts for all and track record of taking the arts to communities
- effort and achievements to integrate the arts into the delivery programmes of all council strategies and the overall vision for the borough. London Borough of Greenwich Outdoor arts events and activity
Greenwich is an inner London borough with a population of over 222,600 in 5,000 hectares. Venues that can be used for outdoor arts events include 50 local authority parks and green spaces and three town centres. Six parks managed by the council have the Green Flag Award.
There are also a number of non-council owned venues that stage outdoor arts events: Maritime Museum, Greenwich Park (one of the Royal Parks), Old Royal Naval College and the O2 Arena.
1 Staffing
In the culture and community services directorate there is one arts development officer (part of culture and arts) who programmes the artistic content of all the main outdoor council events. One parks officer takes all the initial park bookings. Both have a close working relationship with the technical manager, who is based in the communications and community engagement directorate. The technical manager is responsible for all production on the council’s own outdoor events and also gets involved with community events held in the borough’s parks.
Town centre managers in the borough also organise events.
2 Event programme/activity
Greenwich has a large and varied ‘umbrella’ programme of outdoor events, delivered by a varied range of council staff, key partners and community groups. The programme is viewed and marketed and promoted as a whole, regardless of who organises or funds the individual events. The marketed programme also includes a number of events not held on local authority-owned property for example, events held at the Maritime Museum or in Greenwich Park, which is one of the Royal parks.
2.1 Events organised by the council
As part of the community engagement programme, there are events which tie in to four managed areas of the borough (Greenwich and Charlton; Eltham and Kidbrooke; Plumstead, Abbey Wood and Thamesmead; Woolwich. Each area has one winter and at least one summer event – the Great Get Together. The arts input is managed and programmed by the arts development officer and the technical manager oversees production.
2.2 Events organised by other parts of the council
Various officers throughout the council organise their own outdoor events (usually themed around issues or campaigns but using the arts to convey their message). They sometimes work with the technical manager for production support. These include events organised by the arts team, town centre managers, housing, health, etc.
2.3 Events organised externally by arts organisations/community groups
Greenwich has a number of key partnership events that it works with and supports in various ways, either through funding, access to the support of the technical manager, etc. These include large events such as the ‘Run to the Beat’ half marathon, Greenwich and Docklands International Festival, the annual fireworks on Blackheath with Lewisham Council – one of the largest free public displays in London – and a number of smaller festivals and events.
The technical manager works with many sporting events such as the London Marathon as well as the arts and community engagement events.
2.4 Commercial arts events
Commercial events are occasionally held in the borough’s parks and open spaces and in the streets (for example, London Marathon) but these are rarely arts-based. Commercial events are not actively encouraged and requests are judged on an individual basis. Hire fees vary greatly.
2.5 2009 events programme (arts events or inclusive of arts activity)
January
- Celebrate Woolwich – Town Centre
May
- Great Get Together – Winns Common, Plumstead
- Funday – Maryon Wilson Park
- Great Get Together – Blackheath Rugby Club – Well Hall
June
- Plumstead Make Merry – Plumstead Common
- Tudor Festival Old – Royal Naval College
- Great Get Together – Royal Arsenal Barracks
- Greenwich and Docklands International Festival – Greenwich Town Centre (four days)
- Greenwich and Docklands International Festival – Woolwich Town Centre (one day)
- Greenwich and Docklands International Festival – Greenwich Peninsula (one day)
- Great Get Together – Charlton Park
- Horn Fayre – Charlton House
- Asian Mela – Plumstead Common
July
- Summer Fayre – Well Hall Pleasaunce
- Trust Thamesmead Festival
- Great Get Together – Birchmere Park
- Greenwich Film Festival including outdoor film events in Well Hall Pleasaunce and Maryon Park and other places where films made/connected to Greenwich
September
- Sega Festival (Mauritian community event)
- Greenwich Comedy Festival Greenwich – Old Royal Naval College grounds
October
- Black History Month
November
- Blackheath fireworks
- Eltham Lights Up – Eltham town centre
- Eltham Christmas Community Event
- Greenwich Lights Up – Greenwich town centre
December
- Charlton Christmas Cracker – Charlton House
- Woolwich Winter Warmer – Woolwich town centre
- annual circus – Blackheath
3 Policies/strategies/monitoring/aspirations
3.1 Policies and strategies
There is a community engagement strategy, which includes the provision of community events in the four areas of the borough. The community engagement team works with a strategic members group that decides on the focus of the borough’s events programme and sets the parameters.
The community engagement team works closely with the arts development officer to programme the artistic content of these events.
3.2 Benefits and problems of outdoor arts events and activity
The main benefit cited was community engagement and cohesion with events bringing members of a diverse community together.
3.3 Advantages and disadvantages as a provider or host of outdoor arts events and activities
There are a number of very good parks and green spaces in the borough, some council-owned, some independent. Greenwich has a diverse and creative community who support the borough’s programme.
3.4 Monitoring, evaluation, quality control: which aspects of these events are monitored, how and by whom, and how the results are used
Information not available.
3.5 Aspirations: desired improvements to the existing events programme and what might make these improvements possible
The local authority would like to have an up-to-date event toolkit for the use of community event organisers in the borough.
4 Funding for festivals and events
4.1 Income-generation targets/charges for use of parks/licences
No income-generation targets, etc, or charges for park hires. Council event organisers are not charged for use of the parks. Community and voluntary event organisers are not charged for use of the parks if it is a public, open, free event. Large events such as ‘Run to the Beat’, fairgrounds and commercial events are charged.
All event organisers are liable for any damage to the parks and are charged for any remedial works required. Organisations may be required to make a deposit to cover this.
4.2 Funding for council events
There is no centrally held budget for council organised events but various directorates have their own budgets and often work in partnership, occasionally sharing costs with other directorates or external organisations, such as regeneration agencies/shopping centres. The community engagement team pays for most of the large community-focused events.
4.3 Funding available for non-council events
Changes in process mean that information is not currently available.
4.4 Fundraising and sponsorship
There is no specific officer to fundraise for events, though officers do fundraise where possible.
5 Support for festivals and events
5.1 Advocates for outdoor arts events and activities
No specific advocates were identified, though the council has a history of valuing and supporting outdoor arts events and the community engagement team is responsible for consulting with members.
5.2 Event-related training/seminars for community-based organisations
None.
5.3 Guidelines and information available for event organisers pre-application (for example, fact/advice sheets/event toolkit)
None available at present. There was a ‘millennium toolkit’, but this is now out of date.
5.4 Equipment resources
The council technical officer can advise groups on where to get marquees, toilets and other infrastructure. For the larger events he/she can occasionally book on behalf of the community groups, thereby accessing cheaper costs.
5.5 Maps and site plans
Event organisers booking the borough’s parks can obtain blank site maps from the planning department. The technical manager is responsible for the site plans for all council-organised events.
6 The process: how an outdoor arts event organiser goes about staging an event
6.1 Pre-application information
The council website has:
- a list of all the parks for hire with descriptions and features
- a simple online application form for park hire
- basic information on licensing for events
6.2 First points of contact
Possible first points of contact are the arts development officer, the parks officer, licensing, or, if organisers are internal, they may go direct to the technical manager. Most people are inclined to contact parks first so they can book the space and may do this via the internet. All applications go to a parks officer.
6.3 Requirements from organisations on first contact
A very simple application form – one side of A4 – asking contact details, name of event, type of event and a very brief description.
6.4 Timelines advised/required for non-council event organisers
Those hiring parks must notify the technical manager of all their technical needs, and provide a site plan four weeks before their event.
6.5 Once an application is received
The parks officer processes applications for simple/small events that do not require any infrastructure or licences. (For instance, small events put on by the parks users groups as part of ‘Park Fest’). All applications that require infrastructure or licensing are passed to the technical manager who will then send applicants the relevant licence application pack and a list of 10 people who must be sent a copy of the licence application. If the event needs a straightforward temporary event notice (TEN) and there are no objections, the TEN is issued by licensing and the technical manager issues a park hire contract, which has a number of conditions related to site and event management: for example, structures, marshals, noise, live animals, food stalls, waste clearance, etc.
Applicants for small events will thereafter mostly be required to liaise directly with environmental health, traffic management, health and safety officers, etc. For larger or more complex events, applications will go to the events licensing safety advisory group, which is administered by the technical manager.
Where this happens, the technical manager liaises between the event organiser and the various council departments and to a limited extent the other bodies such as the police, fire service and ambulance service. Should there be any serious concerns raised by the safety advisory group or any public objections to applications these are taken to the licensing panel/board.
6.6 Guidelines, advice, support available after first contact
Apart from the conditions that go with the park hire contract, and the information in the licence application pack, there are no set guidelines, advice or support available to event organisers. However, on an ad hoc basis, it is clear that community groups as well as council organisers do frequently call on the expertise of the technical manager, (who has been in post for some time and is therefore a well-known ‘resource’).
6.7 Existing premises licences in the borough
Larger events may be able to take advantage of the recently established premises licences that the council has acquired for three of its outdoor spaces (General Gordon Square in Woolwich, for the screen that has been erected and where the BBC wishes to hold BT-sponsored events in the lead up to the Olympics; Winn Common, and Plumstead Common, where the licences will cover three events per year.
7 Communications/marketing/partnerships
7.1 Communications with other council departments
The safety advisory group meets regularly and ensures that those involved in the practical elements of event organisation are in close contact. There is close liaison between the arts development manager, technical officer, community engagement and parks, despite all involved being situated in different directorates.
7.2 Marketing events in the borough
Communications and community engagement are the same department in Greenwich, which means there is a very joined-up approach to marketing both council and community events, as well as events hosted and organised independently of the council. The calendar of events in Greenwich is therefore very accessible to the residents and tourists alike, particularly via the website.
7.3 Cross-borough communications and projects
Information not currently available.
7.4 Communications and collaborations with non-council organisations
Greenwich works with a number of external providers of arts events, with each relationship being individual. For the Thamesmead Trust community festival, for example, Greenwich ‘hires out’ its technical manager, who then takes on the management of health and safety, production and the site management. For the Greenwich and Docklands International Festival, Greenwich makes a financial contribution and promotes via its website, but has no direct organisational input.
8 Additional information/examples of best practice
For large outdoor events in Greenwich the police supply a ‘statement of intent’ which they sign up to in advance. This sets out what they will and will not do, who is responsible for what, and includes an agreed decision-making process. Hackney is an inner London borough with a population of over 209,656, comprising an area of 1,898 hectares. It has the largest expanse of green spaces of all the inner London boroughs, with 62 parks, gardens and open spaces. Nine parks managed by the local authority have Green Flag Award status.
There are also two independent parks that have the Green Flag Award: East Reservoir Community Garden, managed by the London Wildlife Trust, and Hackney Community Tree Nursery and Edible Forest Garden, managed by the Hackney Marsh User Group.
1 Staffing
There is currently an events coordinator and a temporary event assistant in the parks and open spaces team in the community service directorate. Both of these are recently created posts. These officers deal with all third-party applications, (approximately 80–100 per year). There is strong evidence that the number of applications will increase each year preceding the 2012 Olympics. A sports booking officer is employed in the parks department to administer all sports bookings.
The head of museum and culture manages three cultural programme officers: two full-time with the other working three to four days a week. This team is supported by a full-time administrator and the local authority currently employs a freelancer to help deliver the youth arts programme, Discover Young Hackney.
The 2012 Unit employs a full-time cultural officer who is responsible for the Hackney One Carnival, one of council’s 24 core Olympic and Paralympic projects. The 2012 Unit presents a limited amount of sporting events in parks throughout the year; once again this is set to increase in the lead up to 2012.
London Borough of Hackney also employs a corporate events manager, who oversees all internal council events within indoor venues. A town centre coordinator sits within the directorate of neighbourhoods and regeneration and coordinates a number of events in more urban outdoor spaces each year.
2 Outdoor event programme/activity
London Borough of Hackney hosts approximately 100 events in its parks and open spaces each year. This is a mix of community-led events, council-facilitated events and third-party events. The programme is being built up each year and the current development of a strategy for events in green spaces is helping to build the cultural offer in Hackney.
2.1 Outdoor events organised by the London Borough of Hackney
The main event organised by the council is the Hackney One Carnival. The production element of this event has been contracted out to an external events company, with the contract being managed by the borough’s 2012 unit in the past year together with the cultural development team. The green spaces events team works closely with a range of organisations to facilitate a cultural programme in parks throughout the year. Strong cooperation with the council’s cultural development team has lead to a number of successful events in interesting and challenging locations.
The parks events team is presenting a programme of events in 2010 based around health and well-being. The programme is being branded, ‘Parks for Life’ and will present a whole range of activities, programmes and events on the three key themes: physical activity, healthy eating and emotional well-being. Three of these events will be core council events, that is, the events will be designed and managed by the parks events team. The assistant role has just been extended allowing for capacity to deliver this programme. The parks events team will be managing these events from design through to event production, delivery and evaluation.
2.2 Events organised by other parts of the council
There are a small number of events organised by other parts of the council but these mostly do not have an arts content.
2.3 Outdoor events organised externally by arts organisations/community groups and town centre coordinator for Hackney
The list at 2.5 is some of the events staged in 2009 in Hackney’s open spaces.
2.4 Commercial events
When the new events coordinator position was created in early 2009, a benchmarking exercise was carried out to completely revise the hire fees for parks in relation to events. The new fee structure also created categories for commercial and corporate hires, which had previously not existed. The number of events in this category has increased due to a proactive approach and a desire to deliver excellence in customer service. Income has increased significantly.
2.5 Events programme (snapshot of arts events or inclusive of arts activity)
Outdoor events marketed jointly as Hackney’s summer programme (along with indoor events):
- Rooted in the Earth: Joshua Sofaer
- Dancing in the Square – Gillett Square, Dalston (funded by Barbican BITE and Gillett Squared)
- EXY2T at Dalston Mill in conjunction with the Barbican and LBH (in situ for 3 weeks) part of the five host borough CREATE Festival
- Shoreditch Festival run by the Shoreditch Trust
- Wet Sounds at Clissold Pool
- Fete for the Wicked Hackney Wick – launch of Hackney Wicked Festival
- Cabin/et Hackney Road Recreation Ground
- Gillett Square Games Days
- Hackney One Carnival – Hackney Downs Park
Other events:
- 1-2-3-4 Shoreditch Now Music Festival in Shoreditch Park
- Daymer Festival – a week-long festival run by the Turkish community
- May Festival – Well Street Common
- National Youth Theatre – Fast Burn Rehearsals – amphitheatre in Shoreditch Park
- Open Air Open Studios – artist-led workshops event in Clissold Park
- SNUG Annual Picnic – community event on Stoke Newington Common
- StarLit Children’s Literature Festival in Hoxton Square (a week of events)
- Just Dance Auditions – a series of events in Shoreditch Park
- Christmas Market – Clissold Park
3 Policies/strategies/monitoring/aspirations
3.1 Policies and strategies
The existing parks and open spaces strategy states that the development of an events policy will ensure that a range of opportunities will be offered to local community event organisers and larger event promoters. The events coordinator is currently drawing up an events strategy and is revising the existing events policy.
The activities and events objectives included in the parks and open spaces strategy are:
- to ensure that events held in Hackney parks contribute to community objectives and the Cultural Olympiad
- to provide opportunities for people to participate in events and activities in parks
- to increase awareness of parks in Hackney
- to contribute to community cohesion
- to increase the range of people using Hackney’s parks
- to ensure equality of access for all
- to ensure organisational communication is improved to maximise cooperative opportunities
- to ensure parks are used by a greater diversity of people for health and well-being activity
Hackney’s cultural framework has four main strands: • inclusion and participation in the arts • sense of place • developing a sustainable infrastructure for the cultural sector • developing and encouraging creativity
Sustainable community strategy (community cohesion):
Our vision for a sustainable Hackney in 2018: An aspirational, working borough, a vibrant part of this world city, renowned for its innovative and creative economy; a place that values the diversity of its neighbourhoods, and makes the most of their links across the globe to enrich the economic and social life of everyone who lives in the borough; a borough with greater opportunity and prosperity for everyone, whatever their background, and narrowing economic, environmental and health inequality. We will have secured the benefits arising from hosting the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games; a green, cosmopolitan part of London with safe, strong and cohesive communities, and a shared sense of fairness, citizenship, and social responsibility.
Being published shortly and in partnership with Hackney and City Primary Care Trust Making Hackney a great place to grow old Achieving a healthy weight for all in Hackney and the City 2010–18
3.2 Benefits and problems of outdoor events and activity
Hackney acknowledges the many benefits that a well-designed events programme can bring to the wider community. Social cohesion and a sense of place can be achieved by events in open spaces, which have community involvement and participation at their core.
While events have the potential to cause difficulties within the borough, the processes and procedures which are now in place are minimising the risk of events causing issues within the community. The Hackney events advisory team’s committee is the single most important process to ensuring the risks to the community are kept to an absolute minimum.
The three main culturally linked benefits of events identified by officers were:
• encouraging young people to access the parks and open spaces • creating a sense of place for Hackney and its communities • promoting a vibrant cultural sector
Hackney is part of CREATE – a cultural partnership of the five Olympic and Paralympic host boroughs that is run by the five host boroughs unit; Hackney is the lead of the five boroughs for culture. Research such as the CREATE 09 report also demonstrates economic benefits. CREATE Festival events across the five Olympic host boroughs (Waltham Forest, Newham, Hackney, Tower Hamlets and Greenwich) shows a spend per head of around £16 in the local economy.
3.3 Advantages and disadvantages as a provider or host of outdoor arts events and activities
Positive impacts, but costs can be high, particularly when security is required. Can lead to complaints from local residents.
There are a number of large and beautiful venues for outdoor events. The borough’s parks are being linked into the Olympic site via green corridors. A close working relationship is being established between the events officers and the cultural officers of the five host boroughs and the results of this partnership approach are already making positive changes. There is considerable development of the facilities in the borough’s open spaces in the lead up to the Olympics.
Due to local gang culture, certain venues have a particularly negative image, often more in perception than actuality. The council is working with the police and community groups to gradually change this perception and events have a significant part to play within this work. Programming is carefully considered and when relevant the police share information regarding potential issues.
Hackney is one of the greenest inner London boroughs, although the open spaces are not evenly spread and some central wards have no parks.
3.4 Monitoring, evaluation, quality control: which aspects of these events are monitored, how and by whom, and how the results are used
Most events are run by external bodies, not the council and there is no formal comprehensive monitoring or evaluation of these events or of their impact on local communities. Monitoring of council-run events takes place where required, particularly when there are specific targets set by either internal or external funders. Where cultural services has funded externally delivered events from its budget, these events are monitored and the contract with the external supplier contains milestones and outcomes which are measured and recorded.
All events that will be part of the ‘Parks for Life’ programme will be monitored and evaluated to ascertain the success of the programme. Generic social outcomes (from the MLA sector) are under consideration across the council as a way of measuring qualitative outcomes.
3.5 Aspirations: desired improvements to the existing events programme and what might make these improvements possible
A complete revision of the following is almost complete and it is hoped this will make the event application process more accessible and user-friendly as well as improve the quality of events being presented in the borough:
- event application forms and guidance notes
- terms and conditions
- template event management plan for community event organisers
- events policy
- standard evaluation template for internal and external use
- events strategy
- continue to work more cooperatively across council to increase the cultural offer in parks and open spaces
- improve the marketing and promotion of the annual programme of events
- produce an annual events calendar
- ‘Parks for Life’ programme to establish a sustainable programme that improves the general health and well-being for the residents of Hackney
4 Funding for festivals and events
4.1 Income generation targets/charges for use of parks/licences
The parks events team has an income target of £30,000 in 2009/10 and this is anticipated to be reached. This is double what was achieved in the previous year. Forecasts for 2010/11 are anticipated to be greater again and is directly related to the new fees and charges, a more proactive approach to marketing the borough’s open spaces, and the increase in interest in east London in the lead-up the Olympics.
There are nine different hire categories: community, charity, funfairs, circuses, commercial, corporate, private hire, park users and public art installations and performance. Income in 2009/10 was used to fund an assistant events coordinator position, it is hoped in the future that income will be reinvested back into developing and seed funding community and cultural events. Park user groups are not charged for use of the parks.
A bond may be required from those who book the parks for events in case of damage, but this is at the discretion of the events coordinator and depends on the size and nature of the event.
Further park charges may be incurred for water, electricity, waste clearance, skips, PRS fees etc.
4.2 Funding for council events
There is no centrally held budget for council organised events. The events staff are looking to raise funds through commercial hire of their parks. However it is essential that a careful balance is met between commercial use, community use and the park being free of events for the best part of a year for use by local residents. Hackney One Carnival was funded 65 per cent by the council, with the remainder of the money as a grant from by Arts Council England.
4.3 Funding available for non-council events
The cultural development team budget comes from reserves. In 2009/10 this was roughly £100,000 for supporting cultural infrastructure of the borough. The cultural development team does not grant fund but makes strategic commissions that fulfil the aims of the cultural framework.
There are also some grants available from Hackney Community Voluntary Services, which is part of ‘Team Hackney’ – a strategic community partnership. Most events are expected to self fund and advice is given on potential funding sources and how to complete forms by the cultural development team. 4.4 Fundraising and sponsorship
The events team is looking at ways to fundraise for a programme of events. There is no major sponsorship of events at present.
5 Support for festivals and events
5.1 Advocates for outdoor arts events and activities
There is broad support for developing further the cultural offer in parks and open spaces. The joined-up approach by a number of council departments ensures that the programme, and its quality, is growing each year. Hackney is such a rich borough in artistic resources and talent that the role of facilitation is perhaps easier than some other areas of London.
5.2 Event-related training/seminars for community-based organisations
Event training for community groups has been run previously in Hackney and is being looked at again. Discussions are underway between the cultural development team and the events team on developing some workshops for community groups to increase skills and capacity.
5.3 Guidelines and information available for event organisers pre-application (for example, fact/advice sheets/event toolkit)
There is a 2005 Hackney park toolkit available on the council website. Officers are aware that this needs to be updated. The revised event guidance notes are due to go live in the first quarter of 2010. There is basic information on the website regarding the borough’s larger parks.
The events area of the website is to be completely reviewed as it is not as user-friendly as it could be. The revised events area of the website is also due to go live in the first quarter of 2010.
5.4 Equipment resources
The council does not have any significant event equipment resources.
5.5 Maps and site plans
Maps of all parks and open spaces are available on request, as event organisers are required to submit site plans this is essential. For larger event organisers CAD files can be supplied.
6 The process: how an outdoor arts event organiser goes about staging an event
6.1 Pre-application information
An application to hire parks and open spaces is available online along with the terms and conditions for hosting events. Revised event guidance notes, template risk-assessments and community event plans will all be available for download early in 2010.
6.2 First points of contact
All event application for parks and open spaces are dealt with by the events coordinator or the assistant coordinator.
6.3 Requirements from organisations on first contact
A completed five-page application form is required. Other documents requested are:
- signed terms and conditions of hire
- a site plan and/or a route plan
- copy of public liability insurance (minimum £5m)
- first draft risk-assessment
6.4 Timelines advised/required for non-council event organisers
There is no set deadline for applications, but it is required that small events are usually required to submit all necessary paperwork at least 28 days in advance of the event. For larger or more complex events, the organisers are invited to attend a Hackney event advisory team meeting, and the lead-in time will be longer, but there is no fixed timeline.
In practice, however, the events team sometimes has to process applications for events at very short notice (as little as two weeks before an event is due to take place). This is particularly the case for community events organised by park user groups. This more rapid processing is undertaken to ensure that the community gains maximum benefit from the parks and that events are not excessively hampered by the paperwork, particularly when the group undertaking the hire may not have English as a first language. Revision of the current events policy and event guidelines will address minimum lead times for event applications. 6.5 Once an application is received
The events officer will send an advice note, inviting any comments, to all internal stakeholders (for example licensing, culture, parks, environmental health, health and safety, communications), and to the ward councillors and to the parks user group. Also, where relevant, notice will be given to the borough’s safer communities team and to the safer neighbourhoods police team. The events officer will then assess whether it is necessary for the event organisers to attend a Hackney event advisory team meeting.
When this decision is made, assuming the venue is available, a provisional approval letter is sent to the organiser detailing what further requirements they need to meet. Where appropriate they will also receive with this an environmental health questionnaire for caterers, an event method statement template (for small events not requiring a full event management plan), and a risk-assessment template.
The event is entered on the corporate event calendar. The event organisers are required to contact licensing and building control. The core Hackney event advice team consists of events, licensing, pollution, commercial waste, traffic management, police events planning, health and safety, emergency planning, the fire brigade station officer and the ambulance service. Other officers who may attend meetings where needed are trading standards, insurance, cultural development, community safety, parking control, green spaces manager and building control.
6.6 Guidelines, advice, support available after first contact
The events team offer as much help as they are able in supporting groups to work through the application process. This approach is embodied in the council’s corporate customer service policy.
6.7 Existing premises licences in the borough
Currently Hackney has eight parks with overarching premises licenses, although none have alcohol licences and there is currently no intention to change this as it helps in the management of disruptive behaviour in public spaces. This information will be on the web once the revised website is live.
7 Communications/marketing/partnerships
7.1 Communications with other council departments
There are good internal communications between parts of the council and the recently established Hackney event advisory team is a considerable asset towards providing a seamless service.
7.2 Marketing events in the borough
The council’s communications team is responsible for managing all press and publicity. There is a programme of summer events in Hackney that includes events championed by cultural services division. The borough also uses its own fortnightly Hackney Today newspaper to promote its events and those of key partners. Organisers of non-council events can enter their event on the Hackney ‘What’s On’ pages, free of charge. They can also advertise in Hackney Today, although there is a charge for this.
7.3 Cross-borough communications and projects
The events officers are members of London Events Forum and are optimistic that this organisation will facilitate good partnership working across London. There is cross-borough working in CREATE, the five-borough partnership linked to the Olympics.
7.4 Communications and collaborations with non-council organisations
There are good working relations being established with the community organisations who access the borough’s parks and green spaces for events. The borough is also working to increase its relationships with organisers of commercial events.
8 Additional information/examples of best practice
The application to hire a park or open space in Hackney gives clear information about how the application will be processed, what the next stages are and what further requirements are likely to be made of the event organisers. London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham Outdoor arts events and activity
Hammersmith and Fulham is an inner London borough with a population of over 176,800 in 1,640 hectares. It has 53 parks and open spaces, of which 34 are parks.
Three parks managed by the local authority have the Green Flag Award: Frank Banfield, Margravine Cemetery and Ravenscourt Park.
1 Staffing
Established in April 2007, the arts, events and registration service is located within the parks and culture division of the residents’ services department. The events team includes a business development manager, who manages the team, which consists of two event managers who deal with all park and Hammersmith and Fulham Town Hall venue hires and manage internal catering, with support from two assistant event managers, an event officer and a team assistant. There is no specific arts officer.
The events team deals with all third-party applications, supports commercial and community organisers and organises a number of council-led events, both indoor (mostly civic) and outdoor events in borough parks and open spaces.
A facilities management review is in process to address internal hires for meetings.
2 Outdoor event programme/activity
Hammersmith and Fulham promote an outdoor event programme and has a number of public and private, free and paying arts events held in its parks and open spaces. There are two programmes of events published – spring/summer and autumn/winter, which include both indoor and outdoor events.
2.1 Outdoor events organised by the council
The events team directly organised 15 events in 2009 and 12 of these were outdoor events.
2.2 Outdoor events organised by other parts of the council
Along with the events team, the borough’s town centre managers and sports team officers organise outdoor council events.
Fulham Palace and Museum comes under the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham’s parks and culture division, but the venue and its events programme are run independently of the events team.
2.3 Outdoor events organised externally by arts organisations/community groups and town centres
The town centre managers organise their own programmes of free outdoor events in Fulham, Shepherds Bush and Lyric Square. Other externally organised events include Opera in the Park and Shakespeare in the Square.
Community groups and ‘friends of parks’ are encouraged to organise their own outdoor events and the estates teams have active events programmes although the arts content of these can be minimal and the events team is aware of the need to build the capacity and knowledge of these non-professional organisers in order to raise standards.
2.4 Commercial arts events
The events team hosts a range of outdoor commercial events (sporting, arts and other, for example, fairs, private weddings) but has to be sensitive to residents and their needs.
There are three major football stadiums, Chelsea, Fulham, and Queens Park Rangers in close proximity to the parks. As Earls Court and Olympia along with HMV Hammersmith Apollo and O2 Shepherds Bush Empire are within the borough boundaries, there are already many commercial events that attract large audiences.
2.5 Events programme (arts events or inclusive of arts activity)
- Spring Into
- Japanese Festival (in partnership with the Japanese Society): this was a pilot project in 2009 leading to the centenary of the Anglo-Japanese Exhibition in 2010
- Play Day
- Fulham Festival
- Autumn Days
- two fireworks displays in Ravenscourt and Bishop’s Parks
- Cultural Triathlon (as part of 2012 Open Weekend)
- the Boat Race (which goes across four boroughs) has a street arts element
- Celebrate Fulham
- Dance Umbrella on Parsons Green
- library open events
- Lyric Summer Party
- Street Piano
- Polo in the Park
- Open Air Theatre at Fulham Palace
- Fulham Christmas lights
- Greenfest
- Big Lunch
- opera in Ravenscourt Park
- Shakespeare in the Square
- Ceroc
- London Vintage Fashion Fair
- Ceilidh club
- Medium Rare – potential arts event in Ravenscourt Park
3 Policies/strategies/monitoring/aspirations
3.1 Policies and strategies
Hammersmith and Fulham’s event strategy (published September 2009) provides the strategic direction for events in the borough.
Extracts from the executive summary include:
Vision
The vision and strategic priorities for events in Hammersmith and Fulham have been developed in consultation with internal and external stakeholders: To develop and deliver an events programme that creates a lively and vibrant place to live, work and visit, while ensuring the sustainable use of the borough’s venues.
Strategic priorities
Following consultation with stakeholders and in conjunction with national, regional and local policy drivers, the following strategic priorities have been identified:
Priority 1: celebrate Hammersmith and Fulham and engage its residents through diverse events Priority 2: facilitate neighbourhood events and the animation of local open spaces Priority 3: ensure the sustainable use of Hammersmith and Fulham’s parks, open spaces and indoor venues for events.
Action plan
Some of the actions that will deliver the priorities are:
- conduct an annual review of events based on informal and formal feedback and neighbourhood consultations
- establish the Hammersmith and Fulham events advisory group to oversee and review large events
- put in place a policy and selection criteria for hiring out borough venues for events
- improve and extend the use of council media and other communication channels, including digital, to promote borough events and venues
- signpost to guidelines and standardised procedures for local residents wanting to run successful events
- ensure that where appropriate events are discussed with friends groups and residents associations
Implementing the events strategy
Some of this work has already commenced. This includes:
- a diverse events programme is in place.
- feedback from attenders and artists/contractors at events is collected and analysed and used to inform future event planning • a good working relationship is in place with Hammersmith and Fulham Volunteer Centre to promote volunteering opportunities at borough events • consultation meetings have taken place with stakeholders of Bishop’s Park and Ravenscourt Park, Hurlingham Park District Residents’ Association, St Peter’s Square Residents Association and the Peterborough Road and Area Residents’ Association.
The parks and open spaces strategy produced in 2008 differs from other boroughs in that it incorporates a strategy for private as well as public open spaces. The strategy acknowledges that the value of open spaces is steadily increasing as London becomes more crowded.
One of the priorities is to enable more organised entertainment and community events and the borough aims to achieve this through developing facilities (for example, bandstands) and by developing policy and advice for community event organisations.
There is an arts strategy, which runs to 2010.
3.2 Benefits and problems of outdoor arts events and activity
The main benefits are increased access to the parks, promoting healthy lifestyles and supporting community cohesion in a diverse and constantly changing borough.
The problems relate mostly to the perception of large events held in the borough in venues and the inconvenience this can present to residents in terms of impact on spaces, limited access, increased traffic and noise.
3.3 Advantages and disadvantages as a provider or host of outdoor arts events and activities
The borough has begun a programme of park refurbishments and improvements and has a core group of outdoor venues that are accessible, licensed and well spread through the borough.
Transport links in the borough are excellent. A large part of the borough boundary runs along the Thames and this is being developed as a recreational resource.
Shepherds Bush Green has plans for refurbishment.
The borough has a number of excellent arts and theatre venues (such as the Lyric Theatre, Riverside Studios, Bush Theatre, Bush Hall, The Bhavan Centre, Irish Cultural Centre and The Centre for Polish Art and Culture), which often feed into the outdoor arts events programme.
There is awareness of the need to strike a balance between conflicting commercial and community uses of open spaces.
3.4 Monitoring, evaluation, quality control: which aspects of these events are monitored, how and by whom, and how the results are used
Audience feedback surveys are carried out at all events. Volunteers are used to getting audience feedback at events but often there is a limited number of personnel available. This needs to be increased and community organisers need incentives to organise their own monitoring and evaluation processes.
Feedback forms are shortly to go online so that stakeholders will be able to make their views on individual events known. The officers also meet residents and stakeholder groups twice yearly at Ravenscourt and Bishops Park in order to obtain feedback about the borough parks’ premises licences.
Further consultation is carried out through parks’ ‘friends groups’ and event specific consultation for example, Polo event. Part of the event officer’s remit is to bring the arts into the borough’s events, including community events, but there is at present no formal system for monitoring the arts content at events.
3.5 Aspirations: desired improvements to the existing events programme and what might make these improvements possible
The events team is keen to develop more partnership working, particularly as it does not have a dedicated arts officer or budget for outdoor arts events. The team is keen to have a toolkit that will assist event organisers in the borough and help raise standards of good event management practice across the community events. The team plans to have more comprehensive information about individual parks and event organisation on the website. 4 Funding for festivals and events
4.1 Income-generation targets/charges for use of parks/licences
The events team has a significant annual income target in 2009/10 but it is not anticipated that this will be reached. The team has set prices for commercial hires but as the status of each event hire is individually assessed depending on the site, infrastructure and intended audience. The four basic categories are for commercial, private, charity and community rates. There is an administration charge of £120 and mostly this is all the community groups will pay.
For example, a three-day polo event in Hurlingham Park involved intense resident liaison and consultation with monthly meetings and a regular residents’ newsletter. In order to further engage local residents with this paid event, the council and the organisers worked closely with schools and there was a free family fun day for the community held on the Sunday of the event, which was negotiated as part of the contract. The polo event also used the Wimbledon-style system of ballot for access to tickets. The event was a pilot project in 2009 and Hammersmith and Fulham has contracted with the organiser for the event to take place in 2010-2012. Many local residents now support the event and take pride in the fact that it is held in their neighbourhood.
There are five parks and open spaces with premises licences and further licences may be applied for if needed.
4.2 Funding for council events
There is a limited budget for council-organised events, although events like Play Day and Christmas Day lunch have a small core budget to cover infrastructure costs. The events staff are looking to raise funds through income-generating activities and sponsorship.
4.3 Funding available for non-council events
The events team does not have a budget to support community events but organisers are encouraged to apply to the fast track small grants fund, which is in a separate directorate.
4.4 Fundraising and sponsorship
The events staff are looking at ways to fundraise but there is minimal sponsorship of events at present. The events team aims to develop sponsorship packages for some of their events.
5 Support for festivals and events
5.1 Advocates for outdoor arts events and activities
The council’s cabinet member for culture and heritage and cabinet member for residents’ services along with ward councillors are consulted and involved with events. The events strategy was a cabinet decision.
5.2 Event-related training/seminars for community-based organisations
There are currently no event-related training schemes or seminars.
5.3 Guidelines and information available for event organisers pre-application (for example, fact/advice sheets/event toolkit)
There are some existing community guidelines available but they are in the process of being reviewed together with an events toolkit. The council’s environment department have produced guidance for event organisers and traders. The events team also provides one to one support to event organisers.
5.4 Equipment resources
The council has some event equipment resources – for example, a small PA system and a few small outdoor pop-up structures that are used for Hammersmith and Fulham-managed events.
5.5 Maps and site plans
Maps of key parks and open spaces are available on the website.
6 The process: how an outdoor arts event organiser goes about staging an event
6.1 Pre-application information
Applicants need to contact the events team to get an enquiry form.
6.2 First points of contact
All event enquiries and applications for parks and open spaces are directed by the call centre to the events team. Organisers do sometimes however go direct to licensing for a temporary event notice and are redirected to the events team.
6.3 Requirements from organisations on first contact
Event organisers are asked to fill in an initial enquiry form providing details about the proposed event activity.
6.4 Timelines advised/required for non-council event organisers
There is a 21-day guideline for small community event applications and minimum of six weeks for large commercial events; however the events team will consider late event applications on a case by case basis.
6.5 Once an application is received
The event manager and/or assistants process the form and liaise with the organisers to get further information (such as an event plan, risk-assessment and insurance details), and once equipped with the required information, can inform the event organiser of costs based on the application details.
Depending on the size and nature of the event, when necessary, internal consultation is carried out via council colleagues in parks, parks constabulary, environmental health, licensing and highways who are members of an event advisory group. For larger events, police, fire and ambulance services are consulted and once the internal consultation is carried out, if appropriate the events team may consult further with stakeholder groups and residents.
The events team work closely with parks constabulary who have a combined police/community warden role. One inspector, three sergeants and 20 police constables cover the parks in shifts from dawn to dusk.
6.6 Guidelines, advice, support available after first contact
The business development manager, event manager and assistants are available to offer one to one advice and support and a dedicated project officer is allocated to the event application. An initial site visit is arranged with the event organiser, accompanied by additional relevant council officers if required.
6.7 Existing premises licences in the borough
There are four local authority parks that have premises licences:
- Bishops Park
- Ravenscourt Park
- Furnivall Gardens
- Normand Park
Lyric Square also has a premises licence.
7 Communications/marketing/partnerships
7.1 Communications with other council departments
There is good communication with other council departments and there is a desire to continue to develop the close joint working to ensure a smooth internal operations and an efficient customer experience for event organisers.
7.2 Marketing events in the borough
The council communications team is responsible for all aspects of corporate press and publicity but the events team is responsible for developing event specific marketing plans. The events team and communications team have monthly planning meetings. The council’s fortnightly newspaper, Hammersmith and Fulham News (distribution 84,000) provides event-related editorial free of charge; however advertisements do incur a charge.
The communications team has in-house designers who adhere to corporate guidelines when creating event-specific promotional material. The events team uses a wide distribution list of borough organisations to promote events via print and media, posters, banners and e-shots. There are two event programmes produced annually, which include outdoor arts events in the borough and there is a monthly events calendar on the website. The council’s event-related web pages are currently under review. The communications team liaises with members to give press and media interviews and quotations for events.
7.3 Cross-borough communications and projects
The events team belong to London Events Forum and have already reaped benefits from the networking and best practice sharing that this has facilitated. They are also due to take on responsibilities relating to the London-wide mentoring scheme for local authority events officers. They are also members of the West London Alliance and West London 2012 partnership and worked in partnership with the Western Wedge, Momentum and the SEER and are supporting Big Dance 2010.
The events team see cross-borough working as essential to meeting their residents’ needs and have regular contact with borough counterpart colleagues.
7.4 Communications and collaborations with non-council organisations
There are good working relations established with the high-profile arts organisations and venues in the borough and with community organisations who access the borough’s parks and green spaces for events. They consider their key partners to be Hammersmith and Fulham Arts Forum, Hammersmith and Fulham Volunteer Centre, libraries, town centre managers and their local businesses.
8 Additional information/examples of best practice
See references above regarding the community relations established with the commercial polo event held in Hurlingham Park. London Borough of Haringey Outdoor arts events and activity
Haringey is an outer London borough with a population of 225,700 in 2958 hectares. Venues that can be used for outdoor arts events include 60 local authority parks and green spaces as well as the independently managed Alexandra Park and Lee Valley Regional Park. Highgate Woods is managed by City of London. Eleven parks managed by the council have the Green Flag Award.
There are also a number of non-council owned venues, which occasionally stage outdoor arts events, such as Alexandra Palace and the Bernie Grant Arts Centre.
1 Staffing
There is an events and operations manager who works to the head of neighbourhood management, in the policy and partnerships, performance and communications department, under the chief executive. This officer works closely with the seven neighbourhood teams, with the key staff in the parks customer care team, and the regional manager for parks.
2 Event programme/activity
The council actively promotes all of the events in the borough’s parks and open spaces regardless of who the organisers are.
2.1 Outdoor events organised by the council
The council mostly organises events in partnership with local communities, even if these events are initiated and part-funded by the council (Green Fair, for example).
2.2 Events organised by other parts of the council
The events and operations manager works with a range of council departments to provide events that meet their strategic aims, and also sources funding for events from other council departments.
2.3 Events organised externally by arts organisations/community groups
The seven area assemblies have close community contacts with organisations and groups who organise their own events either in partnership or with support from the council.
There are a large number of community arts events and fun days, which include an arts element, held in the borough’s parks and open spaces. Use of the parks for community and arts events is positively encouraged.
2.4 Commercial arts events
Information varies annually.
2.5 Events programme (arts events or inclusive of arts activity)
- Bernie Grant Arts Centre is new but has open spaces for events
- Bruce Castle Park – a programme of events including the Bruce Castle Carnival and Tottenham Carnival as well as a number of arts days
- Stationers Park has a programme of events
- Green Fair on Duckets Common attracting 5,000 people. Partnership working with the community
- Schools Green Fair held on the Friday on Duckets Common
- Peace Rock concert in Finsbury Park
- Hornsey Winter Lantern Festival and Carol Concert
- Car Free Day
- Haringey Green Lanes Food Festival has staged entertainment
- Downhills Park hosts a number of community initiated arts events on an ad hoc basis
- Priory Park hosts a number of fun-days that include arts activity 3 Policies/strategies/monitoring/aspirations
3.1 Policies and strategies
The Haringey open spaces strategy identifies festivals and events as important means of being communities together and for providing access to cultural experiences. It sets as a strategic objective, ‘to develop and promote an increased number of opportunities for people to enjoy cultural experiences and activities’. The strategy is due for review in 2010–2011. The cultural strategy is under review. There is a drive from councillors for more outdoor events in the borough.
3.2 Benefits and problems of outdoor arts events and activity
The benefits include the income raised from park hires. Events are recognised a means of bringing communities together and creating a localised sense of identity. There are economic benefits as local traders benefit from events and in particular Haringey successfully worked in partnership with traders on the Haringey Food Festival.
Problems often relate to traffic congestion.
3.3 Advantages and disadvantages as a provider or host of outdoor arts events and activities
The borough has some good spaces for events, including Finsbury Park, where 20 of the 115 acres are designated as an event area. (For paid events a steel shield is erected). There are good transport links from central London.
Many events have good involvement from the friends groups who have representatives on the festivals and events committees. This engagement with the local community means there is more cooperation and less complaints. The friends group of Finsbury Park, however, is opposed to all big concerts on the basis of increased noise and the potential for increased litter.
Some events are required to be organised at very short notice (for example, less than the recommended lead-in times)
3.4 Monitoring, evaluation, quality control: which aspects of these events are monitored, how and by whom, and how the results are used
The parks officers do site visits but this is more for monitoring of practical issues.
Festivals which are funded through the ‘Making A Difference’ grants have evaluation forms to complete.
The events and operations manager arranges debriefs and evaluations of the larger events, especially where they have been organised in partnership with the community. The debriefs are considered an essential part of event development.
3.5 Aspirations: desired improvements to the existing events programme and what might make these improvements possible
The borough is working towards an increased programme of outdoor events, although the existing staff are already quite overstretched.
4 Funding for festivals and events
4.1 Income-generation targets/charges for use of parks/licences
Not currently known if there are income targets for parks and open spaces and where the income goes. Rates cards are available from the parks customer care team.
4.2 Funding for council events
There is no central outdoor events budget but the principal events and operations manager works with a selection of partners in council departments and through them accesses funding for the council events. Where the council is working with community groups to manage events, the latter are eligible to apply to the ‘Making A Difference’ fund (see 4.3)
4.3 Funding available for non-council events
Each of the seven area assemblies in the borough have £50,000 of council funds that they can spend as they choose. Note: this is subject to a voting system by the residents in the affected area and funds are ‘making the difference’ funds These funds are mostly used for community events and street festivals, at the request of local communities.
4.4 Fundraising and sponsorship
Community festivals often arrange their own fundraising and sponsorship, but the principal events and operations manager often helps events access funds from a range of council departments. 5 Support for festivals and events
5.1 Advocates for outdoor arts events and activities
No specific advocates are identified, but councillors as a whole in Haringey are keen for more outdoor arts events to take place.
5.2 Event-related training/seminars for community-based organisations
There is no training currently available for community event organisers.
5.3 Guidelines and information available for event organisers pre-application (for example, fact/advice sheets/event toolkit)
The Haringey website has quite detailed information on the 11 parks that have been awarded the Green Flag and it also suggests what sort of events might work in the different parks.
The website has online information regarding booking parks and organising events. Applicants are pointed in one of either two directions depending on the size of the event. Organisers of events or performances with audiences up to 100 people are directed to the small events guidelines which can be downloaded. These give basic information, contacts for licensing and set out the process for applying.
Organisers of larger events are directed to the downloadable event guide. This has details of the main parks, explains Haringey’s approach to events and refers to its strategic objective in relation to open spaces, ‘to develop and promote an increased range of opportunities for people to enjoy cultural experiences’. It explains the process for booking a park for an event, gives the assessment criteria that will be used and details all the documentation that will be required. Applicants for events are requested to contact the parks customer care service to talk to an officer and to get an application pack.
5.4 Equipment resources
There is no equipment hire service available.
5.5 Maps and site plans
The Haringey website has a new service where anyone can access maps of any part of the borough including maps of the parks.
6 The process: how an outdoor arts event organiser goes about staging an event
6.1 Pre-application information
See 5.3.
6.2 First points of contact
The parks customer care team is suggested as the first point of contact. For organisers who have already worked on events in the borough, they may go direct to the events and operations manager in the first instance. At any point in the event application process the events and operations manager is available to offer advice and guidance and if necessary to meet community event organisers and support them through the processes, from form filling to risk-assessments and drawing up the event management plan.
6.3 Requirements from organisations on first contact
Organisers of small events for up to 100 people are required to submit an application, an outline event management plan, a signed copy of the park hire terms and conditions and a completed event safety checklist.
Organisers of events for over 100 people are required to send in a brief description of the event, which park they want to use, dates, details of expected audience numbers and how they will market the event plus details of what structures they will use.
6.4 Timelines advised/required for non-council event organisers
For large events there should be 12 weeks between time of enquiry and the event. For small events it is six weeks.
A minimum of six weeks is needed for events requiring a premises licence and three weeks for events needing a temporary event notice. For big concerts in Finsbury park there is 16-week timescale.
6.5 Once an application is received
Once an application for a small event is received it is assessed by parks and if approved the event organisers are then required to complete and return an indemnity form, give the event coordinator’s details, send a developed event-management plan and risk-assessment, site plan, evidence of public liability insurance, and the required fee with a deposit, if any is requested. There will then be a meeting at least three weeks before the event between the organiser of the event and a parks representative. Parks will meet the organiser on site after the event to check the park grounds and have an informal debrief.
For events involving over 100 people, once the brief description is received, parks will advise the organiser whether the council is are happy to proceed and if so it sends an application pack.
The application pack includes an application form, the events guide, an event process guide, an event-management plan guide, a fees and charges card, a safety checklist, the terms and conditions and a request for evidence of public liability insurance.
The event organisers and parks need to meet at least three weeks before the event and for larger events representatives of the police, fire service, environmental health, traffic management, etc, will be invited according to need.
6.6 Guidelines, advice, support available after first contact
The event and operations manager is available at any stage of the process to offer guidance and advice and can help with risk-assessments, the event management plan and form filling as required. Specialist officers (from food safety for example) are also available to offer advice and guidance. The events guide includes advice and contacts for health and safety, licensing and food safety.
6.7 Existing premises licences in the borough
Finsbury Park is the only park with a premises licence, including alcohol. In addition to funfairs it can host five large concerts per year, but in 2009 there were none. This is partly due to the fact that Mean Fiddler is no longer involved in the venue, but the council currently has a lot of interest from other promoters.
7 Communications/marketing/partnerships
7.1 Communications with other council departments
There are strong interdepartmental communications and a number of events are organised and funded in partnership by different parts of the council. The principal events and operations manager occasionally works with the council. The principal events and operations manager occasionally works with the council. The principal events and operations manager occasionally works with the council.
7.2 Marketing events in the borough
All publicity that carries the Haringey logo has to adhere to the corporate guidelines and is managed by the communications team. Communications support for festivals and events varies according to the communication team workload. For press interviews the communications call in either the festival promoters if is an independent event (for partnership with communities).
Email marketing and the use of social networks is not formally managed, though partner community groups may use this to promote events they are linked to.
7.3 Cross-borough communications and projects
The event and operations manager often liaises with colleagues in neighbouring boroughs, especially on practical issues like road closures and traffic implications. They also often liaise with the boroughs that border Finsbury Park for example, Islington and Hackney.
7.4 Communications and collaborations with non-council organisations
There are close working communications and collaborations with a large number of community event organisers and committees. The fact that the events and operations manager works to the head of neighbourhood management enables excellent community links.
8 Additional information/examples of best practice
The guidelines available on the website for events in parks and open spaces include a list of the criteria which applications will be assessed against and the processes for putting on an event are very clear.
Haringey has some excellent examples of working with local communities on events, particularly traders. London Borough of Harrow Outdoor arts events and activity
Harrow is an outer London borough with a population of over 216,200 in 5044 hectares. There are 35 local authority parks and six open spaces plus 11 green belt open spaces, 24 sports and playing fields. There are no town centres that are used for events. Three parks managed by the council have the Green Flag Award.
There are also a number of non-council owned venues that stage outdoor arts events, such as the Kodak Sports Ground (Zoom Leisure Ground) and Harrow School Fields and Farm.
1 Staffing
At present in the community and environment directorate, under libraries and cultural services, there is a service manager for Harrow Arts Centre, Harrow’s only dedicated arts facility. Harrow Arts Centre has a team of three arts staff (artistic programme manager, participation manager, and an administrator). These officers work solely on programming Harrow Arts Centre.
There are no outdoor arts events staff. The centre’s programming staff are supported by box office, business, marketing, facilities and site staff in the operation of the venue.
Officers working in the community development team, who deliver the council’s only outdoor festival, are also in the community and environment directorate, as are parks and sports (public realm), and licensing and highways (community safety). Planning sits in the ‘place-shaping’ directorate.
The grounds maintenance staff for parks report directly to the service manager for public realm, who is responsible for paving, street cleaning, lighting, and parks, among other things.
2 Event programme/activity
Harrow has no overall outdoor events programme, and limited outdoor arts activity.
2.1 Events organised by the council libraries and cultural services
The Harrow Arts Centre has a forecourt, conservation green space and is adjacent to a council-managed sports field. The centre has held open weekend events using its outdoor space. Harrow Museum is in a council-managed park and has its own enclosed field as part of its complex. It holds several outdoor fete-style events through the year, the highlight being The May Day celebration; it also plays host to a monthly farmers’ market.
2.2 Events organised by other parts of the council
Under One Sky is the borough’s only outdoor festival, delivered by the community development team. The main aim of this festival is community cohesion and it has a mixed family and youth audience. There is no specific arts agenda but a number of arts performances and activities are integral to the festival.
The festival is held in the private Zoom Leisure Ground, which has a large number of parking spaces available and is gated, which allows for greater security and for entrance charges to be taken. Admission is £3 or £1 for children and concessions, with under-10s being admitted free of charge. The event attracts 12,000 people. The festival is not funded so needs to generate its own income through sponsorship, concessions and admission charges.
The community development team is looking to develop two or three more small community festivals in other parts of the borough.
2.3 Events organised externally by arts organisations/community groups
Roxeth Show is a free community fair that takes place over a weekend in July and includes the HA2CANDO carnival in which Harrow’s schools take part. It is managed by the Harrow and Pinner Lions and is funded through private sponsorship.
The Pinner Association manages a few annual events, some of which have an arts content. It receives no funding and has minimal contact with the council. It liaises directly with the police for the parade and any streets activity.
In addition there is a:
- pantomime evening
- St George’s Day parade and wheelbarrow race
- Summer Concerts in the Pinner Memorial Park
The Harrow Users and Residents’ Association organises a Spring Day Festival and a Kite Festival on Harrow Recreation Ground. It works in close contact with the public realm team on this.
2.4 Commercial arts events
There are no known commercial outdoor arts events in the borough.
2.5 Events programme (arts events or inclusive of arts activity)
- Spring Day Festival on Harrow Recreation Ground
- St George’s Day parade
- May Day Celebration
- Under One Sky
- Open Weekend
- Kite Festival
- Summer concerts in Pinner Memorial Park
- Roxeth Festival and HA2CANDO carnival
- Pinner Pantomime Evening
(Black History Month and Disability Arts Festival, for example).
3.2 Benefits and problems of outdoor arts events and activity
The main benefit cited was community cohesion.
3.3 Advantages and disadvantages as a provider or host of outdoor arts events and activities
Since the last census in 2001 the population of Harrow has changed considerably. The government grant to Harrow is based on the 2001 census but is now much less than the council actually needs. Availability of funds is therefore a significant issue in Harrow.
There is no specific parks manager or person designated to encourage events in the borough’s parks. Arts officers have only relatively recently taken on the management of the Harrow Arts Centre after its previous management company ran into problems. There is a lot of building work and development happening at the centre, which currently takes up most of the officers’ time.
3.4 Monitoring, evaluation, quality control: which aspects of these events are monitored, how and by whom, and how the results are used
Information not known.
3.5 Aspirations: desired improvements to the existing events programme and what might make these improvements possible
The council would like an up-to-date event toolkit for the use of community event organisers in the borough. A procedure for applying to run events in the borough’s parks and open spaces might encourage more independent organisers to produce events.
4 Funding for festivals and events
4.1 Income-generation targets/charges for use of parks/licences
There are no income-generation targets set for park hires. The council and other organisations might be charged for park hires but there is not a set amount. Event organisers may be liable for any damage to the parks and may be charged for any remedial works required. Organisations may be required to make a deposit to cover this possibility.
4.2 Funding for council events
There is no centrally held budget for council-organised events and Under One Sky – the borough’s only outdoor arts event – has to cover its own costs apart from the staffing.
4.3 Funding available for non-council events
There is no council funding available from the arts team but it is able to advise arts organisations to apply to the community grants scheme which can make small awards and it also refers people on to a few locally active private trust funds.
4.4 Fundraising and sponsorship
There is no member of staff tasked with fundraising or sponsorship for the arts, events or festivals.
5 Support for festivals and events
5.1 Advocates for outdoor arts events and activities
No specific advocates identified.
5.2 Event-related training/seminars for community-based organisations
None.
5.3 Guidelines and information available for event organisers pre-application (for example, fact/advice sheets/event toolkit)
None are available at present. The arts and events officer has on occasion provided event organisers with a copy of the plan of intent for Under One Sky as a model.
5.4 Equipment resources
None available.
5.5 Maps and site plans
The GIS team in the planning department can supply maps to event organisers at a cost, depending on requirements. NB: council departments requesting this service would also be charged. The service is not yet advertised however, so event organisers may not be aware of the facility.
6 The process: how an outdoor arts event organiser goes about staging an event
6.1 Pre-application information
There is a spreadsheet on the website of the parks and open spaces in Harrow and their facilities.
There is guidance on licensing on the website. The community development or the arts team may be able to offer information but neither is publicised as a service offered to event organisers due to the limited capacity of these teams.
6.2 First points of contact
There is no fixed first point of contact. People may approach through public realm or through community development or may go direct to the manager of a specific venue. It is the responsibility of the event organiser to make contact with the relevant council officers.
6.3 Requirements from organisations on first contact
There is currently no formal process for hiring a park or open space in Harrow, although there are systems for booking sports pitches and facilities.
6.4 Timelines advised/required for non-council event organisers
There are no advised timelines except for the standard 10 day notice period for a temporary event notice.
6.5 Once an application is received
There is no formalised application process for using parks. Licensing applications are dealt with by the borough licensing officers.
6.6 Guidelines, advice, support available after first contact
There is no fixed set of advice or guidelines available to event organisers although officers from the arts and community development give support and advice on an ad hoc basis.
6.7 Existing premises licences in the borough
None of the borough’s parks or open spaces have premises licences. The outdoor spaces attached to Harrow Arts Centre and Harrow Museum are licensed for public entertainment.
7 Communications/marketing/partnerships
7.1 Communications with other council departments
All of the council officers who have, or could have involvement with outdoor arts events (with the exception of the communications team) are in the same council directorate – community and environment. Despite this there is currently very little connectivity. A safety advisory group is pulled together for Under One Sky and this group may meet two or three times.
7.2 Marketing events in the borough
Corporate communications is a service that has been contracted out to the City of Westminster. Corporate communications deals with all press liaison. There is no communications officer dedicated to arts and events.
Harrow Arts Centre creates and manages its own Facebook and Twitter presence but can only produce its own publicity provided it gets approval of its copy and designs. Designs have to comply with the corporate style guidelines. Generally it has been pleased with what it has been able to produce.
7.3 Cross-borough communications and projects
Although Harrow is part of the Western Wedge [seven local authorities: Brent, Ealing, Hammersmith and Fulham, Harrow, Hillingdon, Hounslow and the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea] and its event Under One Sky was featured in the joint marketing of outdoor events in west London, the council feels that being part of the Western Wedge is a struggle as in terms of outdoor events it is simply not in the same league as neighbouring boroughs, such as Ealing and Brent.
It was also commented that it is not typical for Harrow residents to access the outdoor festivals in neighbouring boroughs as transport links tend to be easier in and out of central London rather than across neighbouring boroughs. (One exception to this is Harrow-on-the-Hill where residents have good access to the events in Ealing).
The service manager, Harrow Arts Centre is an active member of the London Events Forum.
7.4 Communications and collaborations with non-council organisations
Harrow Arts Centre is part of the Arts Council ‘On the Map’ development programme for outer London venues, providing excellent networking and information sharing with other outer London venues.
8 Additional information/examples of best practice
The borough has identified that it needs to establish and publicise procedures for hiring parks.
Harrow takes part in networking meetings with colleagues from other London boroughs with regard to the National Indicator 11 (NI11) support plan. London Borough of Hillingdon Outdoor arts events and activity
Hillingdon is an outer London borough with a population of over 250,000 in 11,569 hectares, with a large part of the borough in the south occupied by Heathrow airport and a large part being green belt. It is the second largest London borough after Bromley.
Venues that can be used for outdoor arts events include over 200 local authority parks and green spaces (covering 730 hectares); Uxbridge town centre is also used for events. Fourteen parks managed by the council have Green Flag Award status.
There are also a number of non-council owned venues that stage outdoor events, such as the Hillingdon House Farm, where commercial events such as the Auto Show are held and often incorporate arts activity. Brunel University also occasionally has outdoor arts events.
1 Staffing
There is an arts and culture manager, an arts development officer, two site managers and three technicians/operations assistants who are fully involved in events.
2 Event programme/activity
Hillingdon’s events are all posted on the website, including the community-organised events.
2.1 Outdoor events organised by the council
There are three main outdoor events produced by the arts service: Bigfest, Medfest and Hayes Carnival.
2.2 Events organised by other parts of the council
Adult education, green spaces, sports and education also curate outdoor events.
2.3 Events organised externally by arts organisations/community groups
There are a number of community ‘parties’ held in the parks, which often have an element of arts activity.
2.4 Commercial arts events
Commercial events such as fairgrounds and circuses are occasionally held in the borough’s parks and open spaces but are not specifically encouraged. Carters Steam Fair annually visits Uxbridge Common and is well supported by local residents.
2.5 Events programme (arts events or inclusive of arts activity)
- Hayes Carnival
- Bigfest
- Medfest
- Middlesex Show
- Events in the grounds of Southlands Arts Centre
- Events in Hillingdon House Farm
- Carters Steam Fair on Uxbridge Common
- Christmas and other events in Uxbridge town centre
- War Heroes event at the local barracks
- Party in the Park – event for small children organised by the local Sunshine Magazine
3 Policies/strategies/monitoring/aspirations
3.1 Policies and strategies
There are no specific strategies or policies for outdoor arts events. There is however a drive to gain Green Flag Award status for as many spaces as possible in the borough, and part of the criteria for a Green Flag Award is that local residents have a high level of engagement with the park or open space, and that often includes participation in community events in the parks.
The cultural strategy is in development. The borough’s approach to an outdoor events programme is currently reactive rather than strategic. Saying this, the arts service events are specifically tied in with the cultural strategy.
3.2 Benefits and problems of outdoor arts events and activity
The main benefit cited was community engagement with green spaces. The borough has noted the positive impact on residents of the policy to seek Green Flag Award status for its parks. Hillingdon has the largest number of Green Flag Awards of any London borough.
Events can cause discontent among local residents. Residents are always consulted about new events. Proposed events that are opposed by local residents and/or park users may be turned down.
Fireworks displays, particularly where it is a fairground company who wants to organise them, have proved contentious. High standards of grounds maintenance are a priority in Hillingdon’s green spaces, so events are occasionally turned down if parks officers feel the event is inappropriate to a space or if vehicles may cause damage. This issue varies according to time of year and weather. Parks maintenance is contracted out.
3.3 Advantages and disadvantages as a provider or host of outdoor arts events and activities
Advantages:
- the large number of parks and open spaces – especially those with Green Flag Award status.
- support from the cabinet member and the chief executive
Disadvantages:
- parking in the borough can be difficult but is an issue the borough is looking to resolve. For example, the car park at Rockingham Recreation Ground is heavily used by commuters and visitors as a ‘park and ride’ venue for accessing central London. With the proximity of Heathrow airport, there are also issues with car parks and areas around parks being used as airport parking.
- The borough supports events wherever possible but does not have the staff to actively encourage community events.
3.4 Monitoring, evaluation, quality control: which aspects of these events are monitored, how and by whom, and how the results are used
The number of attenders at events is monitored. Community events may have monitoring and evaluation for their own events. Licensing officers from the borough attend all events that are issued with licences and arrange a post-event debrief. For events with 3,000 people or more, this debrief feeds back to the safety advisory group.
3.5 Aspirations: desired improvements to the existing events programme and what might make these improvements possible
The council would like to have a more even spread of events throughout its very large borough, with more happening in the less affluent areas.
4 Funding for festivals and events
4.1 Income-generation targets/charges for use of parks/licences
Hillingdon does not have a specific income-generation target from park hires. Where income is generated from park hires it may occasionally be earmarked for improvements in the park or open space used, but this is not a general policy.
Some green spaces used for commercial hire have set rates dependent on the size and duration of the event.
Community and charitable organisations and council departments are not charged for park hire if their events are free of charge.
If they are charging, a hire rate is set according to the event and what it wants to achieve. A £5,000-£20,000 bond may be required from organisers of large events.
There is a cost for traffic management orders.
The licensing cost for a temporary event notice is the standard £21 and varies for premises licences according to the event location. Services which are part of the parks contractor’s contracts (which have events included) are not charged for, so, for example, waste disposal is not charged for unless the bins overflow. Standpipes need to be brought in by the event organisers. Hillingdon House Farm and Fassnidge Bandstand have electric hook-ups and use is included in the hire fee, if there is one.
4.2 Funding for council events
Information not currently available.
4.3 Funding available for non-council events
Hillingdon Council website has details of funding sources including charitable trusts, local support, government funding and National Lottery funding. There is an online facility to search for suitable funding. For example, the Gannett Foundation Fund offers a Hillingdon-based grant to provide financial assistance to local and voluntary organisations for projects that benefit local residents.
4.4 Fundraising and sponsorship
Individual events seek their own sponsorship. Borough contractors, such as Connaught Environmental, occasionally pay for or supply things needed for events (whether community or council), such as staff or marquees, but this is on an ad hoc basis.
5 Support for festivals and events
5.1 Advocates for outdoor arts events and activities
The chief executive and cabinet member are both very supportive of developing the parks and open spaces in the borough and of using events to increase access.
5.2 Event-related training/seminars for community-based organisations
There are no training schemes at present.
5.3 Guidelines and information available for event organisers pre-application (for example, fact/advice sheets/event toolkit)
There is no event toolkit. There is no obvious contact for external event organisers wishing to use a park or green space within the borough.
5.4 Equipment resources
The council does not have event equipment for community groups to borrow.
5.5 Maps and site plans
Parks or open spaces have maps available.
6 The process: how an outdoor arts event organiser goes about staging an event
6.1 Pre-application information
See 5.3.
6.2 First points of contact
The most common first point of contact is the green spaces team administrator.
6.3 Requirements from organisations on first contact
People wishing to organise events in the borough must submit a booking application form to the green spaces administration team. The application is currently being reviewed and there is a desire for the application to be online.
6.4 Timelines advised/required for non-council event organisers
A minimum of four months’ notice for events is requested, but in reality events often get booked at much shorter notice.
6.5 Once an application is received
This varies according to the event and its location.
6.6 Guidelines, advice, support available after first contact
This varies according to the event.
6.7 Existing premises licences in the borough
There are four local authority parks and spaces in Hillingdon that have premises licences.
7 Communications/marketing/partnerships
7.1 Communications with other council departments
There are very good communications between council departments as part of the ‘one council’ drive to ensure that the borough’s departments are ‘joined up’. 7.2 Marketing events in the borough
The borough’s communications team is responsible for print and press releases for events. It manages a website that includes adding all events to the ‘what’s on’ pages, regardless of whether they are organised by the council or community groups or commercial organisations.
The parks section is also able if desired to produce or commission its own marketing materials, which it checks with communications. Whether publicity materials are produced by the communications staff or the borough event organisers depends on time constraints and target audiences.
Wherever possible, all events in Hillingdon, regardless of the organisers or funders, are included in the borough’s relevant marketing tools and put into links on the website. Hillingdon events are posted on Facebook.
7.3 Cross-borough communications and projects
The arts service works cross-borough via the Western Wedge (seven local authorities: Brent, Ealing, Hammersmith and Fulham, Harrow, Hillingdon, Hounslow and the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea). In 2008 the Wedge was awarded over £100,000 to do a west London festival.
Green space managers have good contacts with other boroughs through the seminars arranged by the Green Flag Award scheme and through the green spaces benchmarking group to which they belong. Green space officers from Hillingdon attend the Institute of Leisure and Amenities Management (ILAM) conference, which is another means of networking.
7.4 Communications and collaborations with non-council organisations
Each of the borough’s green space managers has close working relationships with community organisations and occasionally with commercial companies who are staging events within their allocated areas. London Borough of Hounslow Outdoor arts events and activity
Hounslow is a peripheral borough in south-west London. There is a population of 222,600, 40 per cent of whom are from ethnic minorities within its 5,600 hectares.
The borough’s 120 parks and green spaces together represent one of the highest percentages of green areas of all London boroughs. It contains one of London’s largest nature reserves and part of London’s green belt.
Three parks have been awarded Green Flag Award status, including one park in partnership with Hillingdon council.
1 Staffing
John Laing Integrated Services manages the parks and open spaces in the borough. The contract is managed by the client manager for grounds maintenance, events are managed by the arts, museums and libraries client manager.
2 Event programme/activity
2.1 Events organised by the contractor
On behalf of Hounslow John Laing Integrated Services organises: Bedfont Lake Country Fayre, fireworks displays, and Brentford Festival.
2.2 Events organised by other parts of the council
The council works in partnership with its grant-funded organisations, namely Watermans Arts Centre and Feltham Arts Association, to produce and deliver a programme of outdoor arts activity including Feltham Carnival, and specific events in streets and parks addressing the National indicator 11 target.
2.3 Events organised externally by arts organisations/community groups
The London Mela is jointly organised with Remarkable Productions and Ealing Council.
2.4 Commercial arts events
- SKY ride
- funfairs
2.5 Events programme (arts events or inclusive of arts activity)
See Events Listing appendix.
3 Policies/strategies/monitoring/aspirations
3.1 Policies and strategies
Delivering events is one of the objectives in the annual service plan. There is no arts or culture strategy for the borough at present. An arts strategy will be developed in 2010, of which an events strategy will form an integral part. An emerging museums and historic houses strategy (due to be completed March 2010) will address events in these spaces. Development of a programme of events is being considered for Redlees Studios in Isleworth. A business plan is being developed for the Paul Robeson Theatre in Hounslow.
To enable community groups and charities to take advantage of the parks and outdoor spaces an aspiration is to develop a grants and support programme.
Further aspirations are the development of currently disparate programme of outdoor events into an annual arts festival for the borough, celebrating ‘Borough Pride’, raising the bar through quality programming and commissioned professional work.
In relation to 2012 Hounslow is part of the Western Wedge Arts Partnership (seven local authorities: Brent, Ealing, Hammersmith and Fulham, Harrow, Hillingdon, Hounslow and the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea) and will play an active and visible part in the ‘West London Story’. There is also an aspiration for a large public art project for 2012 along the Great West Road – London’s corridor to the games.
3.2 Benefits and problems of outdoor arts events and activity
Benefits: an outdoor event, free by its very nature is a highly visible statement of intent around developing quality-of-life indicators, increasing access and promoting social cohesion.
3.3 Advantages and disadvantages as a provider or host of outdoor arts events and activities
There are none recorded.
3.4 Monitoring, evaluation, quality control: which aspects of these events are monitored, how and by whom, and how the results are used
All the information about the proposed event is logged into a system run by John Laing. The system is called EQ24/7. All events and evaluation are managed through this system as it self-monitors. At events organised by the council monitoring is carried out through audience questionnaires, artist feedback and production de-briefs.
3.5 Aspirations: desired improvements to the existing events programme and what might make these improvements possible
The council aspires to host several high-profile professional annual events throughout the year that add to the borough’s appeal as a visitor attraction.
4 Funding for festivals and events
4.1 Income-generation targets/charges for use of parks
John Laing declined to answer.
4.2 Funding for council events
The client manager for arts, museums and libraries has a small budget to commission events and development.
4.3 Funding available for non-council events
Community groups are referred to external funders and grants programmes, such as Arts Council England’s Grants for the arts.
4.4 Fundraising and sponsorship
No information available.
5 Support for festivals and events
5.1 Advocates for outdoor arts events and activities
Friends of the parks.
5.2 Event related training/seminars for community-based organisations
John Laing has recruited a parks and development community officer to develop park educational activities to address community needs.
5.3 Guidelines and information available for event organisers pre-application (for example, fact/advice sheets/event toolkit)
An event pack is generated upon application.
5.4 Equipment resources
There are none available in the borough.
5.5 Maps and site plans
The event manager will offer support through every procedure, including supplying maps and site plans upon request.
6 The process: how an outdoor arts event organiser goes about staging an event
6.1 Pre-application information
The website is very clear about whom to contact, with an email and phone number on the events in parks and open space page. The applicant is encouraged to apply for a resource pack.
6.2 First points of contact
The events manager at John Laing will talk through a questionnaire to register the event. The monitoring system EQ 24/7 takes detailed information about the proposed event and once logged gets sent to relevant departments, such as environment, licensing, who are based with the council.
6.3 Requirements from organisations on first contact
Only initial information about the event is required on first contact, no risk-assessments, plans, insurance details at this stage.
6.4 Timelines advised/required for non-council event organisers
Six months for the initial form-filling.
6.5 Once an application is received
The events manager will give support and advice in all areas of production.
6.6 Guidelines, advice, support available after first contact
The event manager will organise site visits and offer support and guidance through any health and safety requirements.
6.7 Existing premises licences in the borough
Gunnersbury Park has a restricted licence.
7 Communications/marketing/partnerships
7.1 Communications with other council departments
John Laing manages all initial event communication and will then communicate with relevant departments. The client manager is responsible for ensuring that the high-level strategy for event management is maintained.
7.2 Marketing events in the borough
Dedicated websites list a range of events in the borough as well as events diaries and newsletters.
7.3 Cross-borough communications and projects
London Mela is delivered jointly with the London Borough of Ealing. A range of events is delivered by the council in partnership with Watermans and Feltham Arts Association.
7.4 Communications and collaborations with non-council organisations
Waterman’s Productions and Remarkable Productions manage events within the borough. Islington is an inner London borough with a population of over 190,900 in 1,485 hectares. It has 127 local authority parks, open spaces and playgrounds, including spaces next to canals and rivers. Events are also held at the town centres, including Angel, Nag’s Head, Holloway and Archway and at community centres across the borough.
Nine parks managed by the local authority have the Green Flag Award. There are also three independent parks that have the Green Pennant Award. These are Thornhill Bridge Community Gardens, which works in partnership with Islington council; Culpepper Community Garden, and King Henry’s Walk Garden, both of which are leased from Islington by the community.
1 Staffing
There are currently two events officers who work in the community and events team. They take the applications for events in the parks and also assist community groups with organising events. The team works closely with four area parks managers, who link into four political areas, working with over 50 park user groups. The area park managers work with the events officers, licensing, environmental health, communications and a range of community groups. From 2010 the festivals and events grant fund will be managed by the council’s arts officer.
2 Event programme/activity
Islington sees its events programme as including all events in the borough, parks and open spaces, regardless of who the organisers are. In addition other departments within the council organise events on their sites, town centres etc.
2.1 Outdoor events organised by the council
- Love Parks Week – events take place in parks across the borough
See events listed on Events Listing appendix.
2.2 Outdoor events organised by other parts of the council
Outdoor events are organised by many council departments, including the cultural services department, greenspace, highways, sustainability, children’s services, the road safety team and homes for Islington. Although none of these are exclusively arts events, they all have an arts activity as part of their programme. Town centre managers also organise outdoor events.
2.3 Outdoor events organised externally by arts organisations/community groups and town centres
See events listed on Events Listing appendix.
2.4 Commercial arts events
- Finsbury Square Farmers Market
2.5 Events programme (arts events or inclusive of arts activity)
- Heatwave – a summer programme of activities for young people in the borough which includes outdoor events
- Love Parks Week
- Fireworks at Regent’s Canal
- Fireworks at Paradise Park
- Halloween in Holloway
- The Big Lunch
- Peter Bedford Housing Association Summer Fete
- The Feelgood Festival 3 Policies/strategies/monitoring/aspirations
3.1 Policies and strategies
The events officers are working on updating their events policy and strategy. The parks have 10 strategic priorities: events are mentioned in the service plan as a direct means of increasing use of the parks. There is a move away from the council staff organising events and towards the community taking ownership of the events.
The council has recently developed a cultural strategy, Cultural matters. This is due to be ratified by the council’s executive in February 2010. It recognises the valuable contribution that festivals and events make to the lives of local residents and recommends that the council: ‘provide a coherent approach to festivals and events within the council through a review of the current management and development arrangements’.
It is proposed that a corporate project group consisting of representatives from Greenspace, cultural services, strategic planning and regeneration and public protection be created to examine the council’s approach to festivals and events.
3.2 Benefits and problems of outdoor arts events and activity
The main benefits cited were community engagement and cohesion, the development of community neighbourhoods, well-being, ownership of public spaces and improving access to cultural provision.
3.3 Advantages and disadvantages as a provider or host of outdoor arts events and activities
Advantages:
- there are a number of beautiful venues for outdoor events – canals and rivers as well as parks and squares. Clissold Park in Hackney, Waterloo Park in Camden and Hampstead Heath are on the doorstep and have large events; although not in the borough, these events are accessible to Islington residents.
- many staff whose work is connected to events are in the same office space, even though in different directorates.
Disadvantages:
- the financial timetable for local authorities is not always compatible with the timetable of organising an outdoor events programme where most of the events will take place in the summer. Decisions on whether events will take place are often taken later than is desirable and this can impact on the accessibility of the events.
- noise nuisance can be an issue in more densely populated areas. It can be difficult to hold large events in their green spaces which are mostly quite small. This makes health and safety an issue for events such as fireworks.
3.4 Monitoring, evaluation, quality control: which aspects of these events are monitored, how and by whom, and how the results are used
There is no formal comprehensive monitoring or evaluation of events by the community events team. Practical and health and safety elements of the events are monitored by parks and licensing and parks does rough head-counts. The festival grants scheme does have a monitoring process although this is again focused on numbers of attenders rather than the quality of the event and the public’s experience of taking part.
Organisers are made aware of the monitoring and evaluation toolkit developed by Audiences London, funded by Arts Council England.
3.5 Aspirations: desired improvements to the existing events programme and what might make these improvements possible
The council would like to have an up-to-date event toolkit for the use of community event organisers in the borough. 4 Funding for festivals and events
4.1 Income-generation targets/charges for use of parks/licences
There is no set income-generation target but there is a sliding scale of charges for the hire of parks. The cost of hiring a park depends on the size and nature of the event and the type of organisation. Two parks (Finsbury Square and Highbury Fields) cost more to hire than the others. The minimum park hire is £150 plus there is an additional administration charge of £200 for any licensable event, but the borough currently does not charge this. The maximum park hire is £10,000 for a corporate or commercial event, but for corporate events the amount is more likely to be £2-5,000. Council event organisers are not charged for use of the parks.
There is a standard £2,000 deposit from all those who book the parks for events in case of damage. Any income generated by park hires is not currently designated for spend on parks or green spaces. This is under consideration as part of the event policy review.
4.2 Funding for council events
There is no centrally held budget for council-organised events, although individual sections do have budgets.
4.3 Funding available for non-council events
There are various pots of funding for community events such as the community chest, local area committees and the community access fund. The council provides grant aid to support festivals and events in the borough. This small grant fund of £17,000 per annum is from 2010 to be managed by the council’s arts officer.
Community groups are given guidance on where they can apply for funding and community engagement is arranging training in fundraising for community groups. A fund specifically available to community groups to improve accessibility of their events will be available for events in 2010.
4.4 Fundraising and sponsorship
The parks receive sponsorship for signs in the parks.
5 Support for festivals and events
5.1 Advocates for outdoor arts events and activities
The community and events team ensures all members are kept informed of events taking place in the parks. The executive member for equalities and leisure is the key advocate for outdoor arts events and activities and has final approval on the distribution of the festival grants fund.
5.2 Event-related training/seminars for community-based organisations
The community and events team has referred community groups to the ‘Reach’ programme at London Metropolitan University, in which students gain work experience by working as volunteers with community groups in the borough. Islington has also provided training for representatives of the ‘friends’ and ‘user’ groups associated with the parks. For instance – via the community chest fund it was able to offer training in first aid training, risk-assessment and fundraising.
The training provision links in with the policy to encourage the community events organisers to be more independent. The arts service is also exploring the development of training for arts festival and event organisers through the Central Arts Partnership.
5.3 Guidelines and information available for event organisers pre-application (for example, fact/advice sheets/event toolkit)
There is no toolkit available at present.
There are guidance notes about making events and advertising more accessible, and some advice sheets that go out with the application pack. Officers are aware of the need to strike a balance between providing information that is needed and not intimidating community organisers with too much paperwork.
There is limited parks information available on the website. There are descriptions and basic facility information on the largest parks. This is in the process of being improved.
5.4 Equipment resources
It is not known whether the council has equipment resources. The area parks managers have a bank of access equipment that community groups can borrow to make their events more accessible, such as induction loops and other equipment to include hard of hearing or deaf people in events, temporary hard-surfacing, and high-visibility jackets for ‘access volunteers’.
5.5 Maps and site plans
Blank site maps are sent to those wishing to use the parks.
6 The process: how an outdoor arts event organiser goes about staging an event
6.1 Pre-application information
Along with the application pack, event organisers are sent guidance notes, including information on licences (in need of updating), a site map, food advice and a risk-assessment template.
6.2 First points of contact
The first point of contact for an event organiser will be the borough’s Greenspace event officers in the community and events team. Organisers wishing to host an event in one of the borough’s town centres would go directly to that town centre manager.
6.3 Requirements from organisations on first contact
A completed application form, site map and risk-assessment and a completed Performing Rights Society form.
6.4 Timelines advised/required for non-council event organisers
For small events in the parks that do not require a licence, 20 days are required to process an application to use a park. For events that require either a temporary event notice or a premises licence for up to 1,000, a minimum of 45 days’ notice is required. For events with more than 1,000 people, a minimum of 90 days’ notice is required. There is often pressure to shorten these timescales. Timescales may be changed with review of event policy.
6.5 Once an application is received
The event officers receive the forms and then they or Greenspace staff check through the received applications and where appropriate will forward it to the newly established safety advisory group, which meets monthly and includes the noise team, licensing, building control and the food officers in environmental health as well as representatives of external organisations such as the police. Event organisers who are required to present their event proposals to the safety advisory group are advised to do so by the events coordinator.
The safety advisory group has the right to reject any event application if it believes, through consensus, that the proposed event organisers cannot demonstrate that they have the planning and expertise to deliver a well designed, well planned and well managed event.
If the safety advisory group has concerns about the use of the park under the council’s premises licence it can also recommend that the applicant applies for a separate premises licence for the event. A new premises application for the park will be required to be submitted under the Licensing Act. Details of how to make application can be found at www.islington.gov.uk/Business/regulations/licences/licensing_act/. A new premises application can take up to two months so all proposals for large events need to be submitted to the events officer as early as possible.
The community and event officers also seek public liability insurance policies from organisers, and where applicable, any third parties involved in the event. Method statements may also be requested if temporary structures are to be erected. The application also gets mailed to the relevant community ranger and area parks manager for information, comment and to find out if any special conditions may be required.
When the all relevant officers have checked there are no issues with the application and when where necessary a temporary notice or premises licence have been issued, the Greenspace officers will issue a memorandum of agreement setting out all the conditions for hire of the site. A copy of this document is sent to the area park managers and Parkguard (who provides parks security). A monthly schedule of all events in green spaces is mailed to all councillors, friends groups, public protection officers, Parkguard and details are passed to communications for inclusion in the What’s on diary. 6.6 Guidelines, advice, support available after first contact
The events officers as well as the area parks officers offer support with organisation but are encouraging community groups to be more independent.
6.7 Existing premises licences in the borough
There are 15 local authority parks that have premises licences and these are listed on the park hire guidelines for applicants. The premises licences are held by the council and the conditions vary. Holloway Road Park is limited to four events per year. Finsbury Square is the only park licensed for alcohol.
7 Communications/marketing/partnerships
7.1 Communications with other council departments
There is very good liaison between community engagement, licensing, parks, environmental health and – when needed – with traffic management and building control, but none of these have to date had any contact with the borough’s cultural services.
The community and events officers with the licensing team are setting up a safety advisory group for events to provide expert advice, input and decision making for larger events that pose greater potential risk for larger events. The group comprises council staff and external agency staff.
The proposed corporate festival development project group will help improve communication between the various departments and ‘provide a coherent approach to festivals and events within the council through a review of the current management and development arrangements’.
7.2 Marketing events in the borough
The council communications team is responsible for all press and publicity for the events managed by council staff. It also has a What’s on page on the website. Community events are included on the website, particularly where they have received funding from the council or take place in local authority venues. Keeping the What’s on website up to date is a challenge, even though the different directorates are only responsible for their own sections. Where the events are jointly managed with community or friends groups, the latter would not need to go through the communications team or meet the corporate style guidelines.
7.3 Cross-borough communications and projects
The events officers are part of London Events Forum. Licensing officers often work with Camden. Parks work with City of London, which owns Fortune Street Park in Islington. The arts officer works with the central London boroughs through the Central Arts Partnership.
7.4 Communications and collaborations with non-council organisations
The parks officers work closely with over 50 park ‘friends and users’ groups and many of these groups organise their own festivals and events. The community and events team also works with a range of community groups and provides varying levels of assistance with event organisation.
The arts officer works with a range of arts providers on an individual basis and through the third sector arts network organisation, Creative Islington.
8 Additional information/examples of best practice
The community engagement team has up to date guidelines available on how to make events more accessible – both in relation to communications and marketing and in practical terms. The officers are happy to make these available to other London boroughs. The question was raised as to whether such guidelines might usefully be included in the London-wide event toolkit that London Events Forum is working towards.
As well as making the guidelines available to all event organisers in the borough, the community engagement team is about to launch an access fund for event organisers wishing to improve access to their events.
Officers noted that accessibility to events was often a casualty of events organised at short notice. Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Outdoor arts events and activity
Kensington and Chelsea is one of London’s two royal boroughs. The borough has a high population density of 180,300 in 1215 hectares and contains many of the most exclusive residential areas of London. Twenty-three per cent of the population is from ethnic minorities.
The borough has less open space than any other area in London (except for the City of London) but has some large parks and open spaces, such as Holland Park and parts of Kensington Gardens, and many smaller areas, some which are open to the public, and others which are for the private use of residents. Three of the borough’s parks have been awarded Green Flag status.
1 Staffing
The borough has one ‘external events’ officer – whose duties include filming, Notting Hill Carnival and other outdoor events – one senior officer for arts and culture, and an arts development officer whose responsibilities are to deliver public art, art events and respond to the public enquiries. Due to a restructure there now is a head of culture. Arts falls under transport, environment and leisure services directorate.
2 Event programme/activity
2.1 Events organised by the council
The council organises:
- Across the Street, Around the World
- In transit in summer
- Jubilee fireworks and displays
- Opera Holland Park, and various public outdoor arts installations, including Exhibition Road and a seven-day festival for the Olympics
2.2 Events organised by other parts of the council
- Mayoral events
- education/sports events
- museums and public galleries
- children’s carnival
2.3 Events organised externally by arts organisations/community groups
- Notting Hill Carnival
- Chelsea Festival
- Earls Court Festival
- Golborne Festival
- numerous community events on the streets and in the borough’s open spaces
- Exhibition Rd – a vibrant centre, with a rich history of encouraging innovation and creativity
- Cultural Group-Music Day.
2.4 Commercial arts events
- Notting Hill and Portobello Film Festivals
- events held at the Saatchi Gallery
- Art London
- London Design week
2.5 Events programme (arts events or inclusive of arts activity)
- Across the Street around the World
- In transit
- Opera Holland Park
- Exhibition Road
These have their own programming but there is not a specific events programme for the borough.
3 Policies/strategies/monitoring/aspirations
3.1 Policies and strategies
There was a 2004-2008 arts strategy, which is still being adopted according to the service delivery plan. A cultural strategy is planned for 2009. 3.2 Benefits and problems of outdoor arts events and activity
Benefits:
- social inclusion
- community cohesion
Problems:
- Opera Holland Park regularly receives noise complaints and has issues with parking
- the carnival receives some complaints (police helicopter during carnival, graffiti damage, banners left up over time and general disruption)
3.3 Advantages and disadvantages as a provider or host of outdoor arts events and activities
Advantages:
- community engagement and cohesion
- educational benefits of providing opportunities for people to experience artforms new to them, such as opera
Disadvantages:
- competing demand for limited outdoor space and balancing that demand with the use of a limited resource for the community as a whole
- costs of maintaining outdoor space and the increased costs associated with providing and hosting events
3.4 Monitoring, evaluation, quality control: which aspects of these events are monitored, how and by whom, and how the results are used
- debrief event with organiser and members of the safety advisory group
- officers also encourage vox pops
- evaluation from film and photos and feedback posted on website
3.5 Aspirations: desired improvements to the existing events programme and what might make these improvements possible
- existing programme needs to be more coordinated with a comprehensive events calendar to make events more accessible
- responsibility for coordinating filming and events in the boroughs parks and open spaces have been transferred to the filming and special events office, which already manages filming and events on the borough’s streets.
4 Funding for festivals and events
4.1 Income-generation targets/charges for use of parks
Filming has an income target set at £50,000 while the parks and events have no set targets, although they are expected to make £25,000.
4.2 Funding for council events
Council events are funded from individual business group budgets. There is no specific funding for council events.
4.3 Funding available for non-council events
There are arts grants schemes available from the arts team for artists and organisations to develop high-quality arts events within the borough. Individuals can apply for grants up to a maximum of £1,000. Organisations can apply for grants up to a maximum of £3,000.
Professional bursaries are also available.
4.4 Fundraising and sponsorship
Opera Holland Park and the council’s museums raise funds from sponsorship and donations.
5 Support for festivals and events
5.1 Advocates for outdoor arts events and activities
Council members are very supportive. Within the borough there is a public arts advisory group, Turtle key arts are also based in the borough
5.2 Event-related training/seminars for community-based organisations
The arts service hosts a festivals forum to allow event organisers to benefit from each others’ experience and get advice from council officers and invited speakers.
5.3 Guidelines and information available for event organisers pre-application (for example, fact/advice sheets/event toolkit)
Arts project planning is offered by art development officer. A toolkit is planned for 2010. Website information is yet to be developed; currently the special events office issues guidance on organising street events. 5.4 Equipment resources
None.
5.5 Maps and site plans
As part of the application, plans and maps are needed. The council uses their own mapping system and OS based software.
6 The process: how an outdoor arts event organiser goes about staging an event
6.1 Pre-application information
There is no formal booking procedure for parks. Bookings go to the sports section, which refers any non-sports enquiries to the special events office. The borough would like to create a better online booking system.
6.2 First points of contact
Applicants go first to the parks bookings office or the filming and special events office.
6.3 Requirements from organisations on first contact
Applicants must supply an event proposal and provisional dates.
6.4 Timelines advised / required for non-council event organisers
Timelines are discussed on application.
6.5 Once an application is received
The events team meets with the applicant.
6.6 Guidelines, advice, support available after first contact
The role of the filming and special events office is to provide a single point of contact with the event organiser – giving support, advice and guidance on obtaining the necessary permissions and planning the event to ensure it is safe and successful with minimum disruption to the surrounding areas.
6.7 Existing premises licences in the borough
There is no premises licence in any of the borough parks.
7 Communications/marketing/partnerships
7.1 Communications with other council departments
The filming and special events office liaises with other council departments as necessary to ensure event organisers have the relevant permissions.
7.2 Marketing events in the borough
All council events have to be flagged up to the marketing and communication department for borough branding. There is a template for posters, etc. Events are on Facebook and Twitter. All marketing for the Notting Hill Carnival is managed by Westminster-media com. Libraries control the events diary on the website. The arts service uses and promotes the Seer for event marketing.
7.3 Cross-borough communications and projects
Kensington and Chelsea belongs to CLAP and the Western Wedge (seven local authorities: Brent, Ealing, Hammersmith and Fulham, Harrow, Hillingdon, Hounslow and the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea).
7.4 Communications and collaborations with non-council organisations
The borough belongs to the National Outdoor Events Association.
8 Additional information/examples of best practice
The borough has sponsored crowd management research by the Health and Safety Executive to look at crowd management at large outdoor events, which will be used in the review of the event safety guide. The borough was also represented on the working group reviewing the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health’s guidance on outdoor catering. Royal Borough of Kingston Outdoor arts events and activity
Kingston is a borough covering 3724 hectares on the periphery of south-west London. Of the 160,100 population 15 per cent of the population belongs to an ethnic minority.
Kingston has a wealth of open spaces including parks, playgrounds, recreational sites, the Hogsmill River, and local nature reserves.
1 Staffing
The borough closed down its events department in 2008; from 1 January 2009 it transferred the function for community outdoor events in the town centre to Kingston First (Business Improvement District). Remaining events in Kingston borough were then distributed among the various neighbourhood managers.
The arts officer comes under the ‘culture arts sports libraries museum learning and children services directorate’ and promotes all art-related initiatives. Responsibility for outdoor events also falls within the remit of the green spaces team in environmental services.
2 Events programme/activity
Council-run events:
- Think in Kingston
- Aspire, Sakoba Youth Dance Festival
- Go Kingston Go (Sports and Art outdoor event)
- Muybridge Festival
Events organised in partnership with external organisations:
- Kingston Readers’ Festival
- Festival of the Voice
- International Youth Arts Festival
- Kingston Summer Arts Season
- Carnival (see below)
2.1 Events organised by Kingston First
Kingston First delivers:
- May Merrie
- The River Festival
- Christmas lights switch-on
The contractor also organises:
- Old London Road Easter Egg-stravaganza
- Thumbs Up It’s Thursday
- Kingston Food Festival
- Health and Beauty Event
The following are organised in partnership:
- Chinese New Year
- Kingston Carnival
2.2 Events organised by other parts of the council
- Paint the Town Green (environmental services)
2.3 Events organised externally by arts organisations/community groups
- Korean festival
- New Malden Arts Festival
- Seething Festival
- Diwali
- Navrati Festival
2.4 Commercial arts events
Circuses are not regular as open spaces limited. The river fest is an annual event.
2.5 Events programme (arts events or inclusive of arts activity)
- Kingston Carnival
- International Youth Arts Festival
3 Policies/strategies/monitoring/aspirations
3.1 Policies and strategies
There is a cultural strategy that states the need to increase the participation of young people. There is no policy specifically for outdoor events, although the International Youth Arts Festival includes street-based events and has aspirations to bring No Fit State Circus to an outdoor site in Kingston.
3.2 Benefits and problems of outdoor arts events and activity
Benefits:
- increased footfall into Kingston town centre so that visitors attracted to events stay and enjoy shops, restaurants, bars, and riverside
- increased the media profile of Kingston as a town with a great programme of arts and entertainment
- a diverse range of cultural facilities/events for all residents to enjoy
Problems:
- noise levels can annoy residents
- the weather!
- getting permission to hold outdoor events from the council can sometimes take time
- getting enough volunteers to run a large event smoothly
- cost of hiring space, suspension of parking bays
- health and safety procedures
- risk assessments
- appropriate public liability insurance
- timescales
3.3 Advantages and disadvantages as a provider or host of outdoor arts events and activities
Advantages:
- presenting potentially imaginative work that will attract a good audience
- presenting diverse arts to bring new people to the town centre – community cohesion
- presenting professionally produced work of a high quality
Disadvantages:
- limited resources, especially in staff time and scheduling – especially in the summer months when the council/Kingston First and its partners are busy producing their own events.
3.4 Monitoring, evaluation, quality control: which aspects of these events are monitored, how and by whom, and how the results are used
Feedback forms and postcards are provided to audiences at most events. Suggestions, quality control is monitored through these. Some information is collated on demographics of audience and postcode mosaicing.
Debriefing takes place after events to monitor what worked well and what improvements are required. Town centre rangers monitor numbers with head counts and the occasional use of vox pops and clickers.
3.5 Aspirations: desired improvements to the existing events programme and what might make these improvements possible
- a wider selection of events
- introduction of new artforms, for example, outdoor circus etc
- additional donations from Kingston businesses or sponsorship
- projects that have secured their own funding
4 Funding for festivals and events
4.1 Income-generation targets/charges for use of parks
Kingston First works for the businesses and therefore there is no income target. The aim is to deliver the event within budget, saving money if possible, which will then carry over to the next year.
There are discounted charges for community events, ranging from £45 to £200. Other large events are charged between £100-£800. Commercial businesses are charged £75-£1400 per day.
4.2 Funding for council events
Council funding is very limited. See the grants section of the website. There are small pots of money normally from a neighbourhood/small project grant.
4.3 Funding available for non-council events
See above.
4.4 Fundraising and sponsorship
Not applicable. 5 Support for festivals and events
5.1 Advocates for outdoor arts events and activities
Kingston First promotes council and other group events via the website. It also helps out by providing admin support, on the day operational support, and lends resources such as tables, chairs, tents, etc.
5.2 Event-related training/seminars for community-based organisations
Risk-assessment training is available.
5.3 Guidelines and information available for event organisers pre-application (for example, fact/advice sheets/event toolkit)
There is none available at present. The borough would value a toolkit.
5.4 Equipment resources
There are no equipment resources held within the borough.
5.5 Maps and site plans
A map of the planned event is required. Maps and site plans of open space in the borough are available.
6 The process: how an outdoor arts event organiser goes about staging an event
The process is as follows:
- confirming budget
- securing date by seeking permission from the council to book space in the town centre
- where needed booking road closures, suspending car bays, permission to put up structures
- booking performers
- securing volunteers
- writing risk-assessment, site plan, programme for the day (a copy to be sent to the council)
- where necessary informing police
6.1 Pre-application information
The arts manager is on hand for meetings re pre-application information.
6.2 First points of contact
The applicant must contact the arts manager and events executive.
6.3 Requirements from organisations on first contact
An event plan, budget is required.
6.4 Timelines advised/required for non-council event organisers
One to three months is needed.
6.5 Once an application is received
Planning meetings are arranged.
6.6 Guidelines, advice, support available after first contact
Green Spaces is responsible for providing permission to stage outdoor events, but enquiries can come to the arts officer and then can be forwarded them to the officer with this responsibility.
6.7 Existing premises licences in the borough
Information not available.
7 Communications/marketing/partnerships
7.1 Communications with other council departments
Information should be sent to the arts manager for distribution.
7.2 Marketing events in the borough
There is an events diary on the website managed by the town centre manager and organisers are encouraged to post their events.
7.3 Cross-borough communications and projects
The borough is a member of South London Arts Partnership (SLAP), along with Merton, Richmond, Sutton, Bromley, and Croydon.
7.4 Communications and collaborations with non-council organisations
There are links with Kingston Arts Council, Global Arts, Kingston University, and Rose Theatre. London Borough of Lambeth Outdoor arts events and activity
Lambeth is an inner London borough with a population of over 272,000 in 2684 hectares. Venues that can be used for outdoor arts events include 60 local authority parks and green spaces. Six parks managed by the council have Green Flag Award status.
There are also a number of non-council owned venues that stage outdoor arts events, including the Southbank Centre, Imperial War Museum and Jubilee Gardens.
1 Staffing
The events team is part of the cultural strategy service and works alongside the arts and 2012 officers. The team is made up of a cultural activity manager and cultural activity project officers.
2 Event programme/activity
The borough has a mixed programme of council, commercial and community events. The event strategy sets out what work the council staff will undertake on these events, from managing to supporting and facilitating.
Of the 230 events held in Lambeth’s parks and open spaces, approximately 30 per cent have an arts and culture content. All events once approved are put onto the council’s online event calendar.
2.1 Outdoor events organised by the council
Lambeth Country Show is a two-day event that is 35 years old and attracts an audience of over 100,000 people. It has been managed in-house by the council for the last two years. In November the council manages three simultaneous fireworks shows across the borough, which are free and have a total audience of approximately 120,000.
2.2 Events organised by other parts of the council
The events service offers technical support to other council departments who organise their own outdoor events.
2.3 Events organised externally by arts organisations/community groups
The events service offers support to community organisers of events such as Day of Portugal, Day of Madeira, Brixton Splash and events that take place on one of the three borough bandstands.
2.4 Commercial arts events
Lambeth is making a concerted effort to encourage commercial events in its parks, while remaining aware of the impact on local residents and the views of ‘friends’ groups.
2.5 Events programme (arts events or inclusive of arts activity)
A sample of the 220 events in the borough’s parks and open spaces:
- Lambeth Country Show
- Fireworks displays (three)
- Colourscape Music Festival
- Stockwell Festival
- Streatham Arts Festival
- bandstands and summer programme of events in Ruskin Park, Myatt Fields Park and on Clapham Common
- Day of Madeira
- Clapham Weekender
- Toast – independent promoter’s event on Clapham Common
- Brixton Splash
3 Policies/strategies/monitoring/aspirations
3.1 Policies and strategies
The Lambeth events strategy 2007–12 is a detailed document about all outdoor events and festivals, with the exception of corporate promotions and conferences. Although a stand-alone, events-specific document, it acknowledges that, ‘events provide cultural, social and economic benefits that reflect the diverse and vibrant community’ in Lambeth, and it clearly sets out the contributions events make to the borough’s overall strategic goals.
It also describes the events service’s aims of delivering different types of events, for example, council-led, community, and commercial. The strategy can be downloaded from the Lambeth website.
3.2 Benefits and problems of outdoor arts events and activity
The Lambeth events strategy sets out the cultural, social and economic benefits of events to the borough and its residents. The provision of events has to be balanced with the impact they have on local residents. Striking the right balance is a challenge.
Problems can be caused by large events organised with insufficient lead-in periods.
3.3 Advantages and disadvantages as a provider or host of outdoor arts events and activities
The borough has some excellent spaces for outdoor events. A large part of the borough is central to London and it has good transport links. There is a very creative community in Lambeth who want to make events happen. No disadvantages were identified.
3.4 Monitoring, evaluation, quality control: which aspects of these events are monitored, how and by whom, and how the results are used
There is an annual review of all the borough’s events and festivals. Officers monitor all events that take place in the borough and detailed de-briefs are held with all organisers.
3.5 Aspirations: desired improvements to the existing events programme and what might make these improvements possible
The borough is working towards ensuring that both the events programme and individual events are accessible and inclusive, appealing to culturally diverse audiences.
It aspires to have an environmentally sustainable event programme and to support local community groups in organising their own events. It is also keen to work with the Southbank Centre and to encourage the centre to extend the high-standard outdoor arts events that it stages further towards the south of the borough.
4 Funding for festivals and events
4.1 Income-generation targets/charges for use of parks/licences
There are set commercial hire rates depending on the size and duration of the event. All event organisers are liable for any damage to the parks and are charged a deposit for any remedial works required. Deposits vary according to the event. For deposits under £500 credit/debit card details are held. For deposits over £500 payment must be made one month in advance. The cost for traffic management orders is not identified.
4.2 Funding for council events
There is a core budget to support the authority’s main events organised in-house.
4.3 Funding available for non-council events
The Lambeth Community Fund is currently under review. There are no specific arts or events grants. The Lambeth website has funding advice and links to many non-council sources of funding.
4.4 Fundraising and sponsorship
Lambeth does not currently have sponsorship for its events. The website directs community event organisers wishing to explore sponsorship to Arts and Business.
5 Support for festivals and events
5.1 Advocates for outdoor arts events and activities
No specific advocates for events were identified.
5.2 Event-related training/seminars for community-based organisations
The borough does not currently have a training provision for community event organisers, although it is keen to encourage community organisations to organise their own events and the event service is able to offer support and guidance. 5.3 Guidelines and information available for event organisers pre-application (for example, fact/advice sheets/event toolkit)
The Lambeth event guide for organisers is a work-in-progress and will be available on the website soon. The website displays basic information on organising an event in one of Lambeth’s parks or open spaces (through the Frequently asked questions document). Organisers of community events are directed to the Voluntary Arts Network document, Health and safety at outdoor events. Organisers of larger events are directed to the Health and Safety Executive website and to the event safety guide. There is also information on licences with applications for temporary events notices and premises licences and an information sheet on noise control at outdoor events.
There are details of 60 parks on the website. Information on each includes the type of activities that take place, facilities, history, features, transport links, postal address and links to a location map, the friends group, and – for the three parks with bandstands – a link to the application form.
The parks information on the website also links to the websites for non-council managed parks and parks outside Lambeth that border the borough.
5.4 Equipment resources
Organisers providing performances at the bandstand on Clapham Common can borrow deckchairs and white picket fencing.
5.5 Maps and site plans
The website provides maps for all its parks. Maps for use as site plans are available through the event service.
6 The process: how an outdoor arts event organiser goes about staging an event
6.1 Pre-application information
See 5.3.
6.2 First points of contact
All initial enquiries are directed by the call centre to the events service. A basic application form for events in parks is available online, which once completed is returned to the event service. There is also an application online for those wishing to stage events at any of the borough’s three bandstands. Applicants requiring a licence or a traffic management order are directed to the appropriate officers in the authority.
While the events team can offer advice on organising street parties, it does not book them. Organisers are required to seek permissions directly from the police, the traffic management officers and where appropriate the licensing team.
6.3 Requirements from organisations on first contact
A basic application is required. If organisers have queries or need support with completing the application, officers can help. Organisers of larger events may be invited to submit a proposal and to arrange a meeting with the events service.
6.4 Timelines advised/required for non-council event organisers
Applications for:
- small events (up to 1,000 people) require two months notice
- medium events (up to 5,000 people) require three months notice
- large events (over 5,000 people) require four months notice
The notice periods for licences are the statutory 10 days for a temporary event notice and 28 days for a premises licence, although in practice the likelihood of issues arising from applications means that organisers are advised to follow the above timelines. A notice period specifically for traffic management orders is not currently identified.
Applicants wishing to stage events on the borough’s bandstands are required to apply by 26 February 2010 for events for the summer season.
6.5 Once an application is received
Applications are assessed by the events service. Where necessary, organisers are requested to meet with the events service. The events service also offers guidance and support in developing events. 6.6 Guidelines, advice, support available after first contact
Guidance, advice and support are available at any time.
6.7 Existing premises licences in the borough
None of the local authority parks and spaces in Lambeth has premises licences.
7 Communications/marketing/partnerships
7.1 Communications with other council departments
The events service and the arts team are joined under cultural strategy and are based in the same offices. There are very good communications between the events service and the parks team. The event safety group incorporating licensing, environmental health, health and safety and traffic management meets twice a year. The events service is able to provide technical support to other council organisers of events but this relationship is in development.
7.2 Marketing events in the borough
The marketing of Lambeth’s events is a corporate priority. It produces its own marketing for its in-house events and follows corporate guidelines. In 2009 there was a marketing officer specifically allocated to Lambeth Country Show and this was extremely successful.
All events taking place in the borough’s parks are entered by the events team onto the online events diary in the festivals and events category. Community groups can approach the communications team to have their events included in this in-house magazine, which is published every two weeks. Any required press interviews relating to Lambeth events are allocated to councillors.
7.3 Cross-borough communications and projects
Lambeth events team belongs to the London Events Forum and has contacts with neighbouring Southwark.
7.4 Communications and collaborations with non-council organisations
The Southbank Centre is a key cultural partner. The council works closely with many community-led events, such as Day of Portugal, Day of Madeira, Brixton Splash and a number of other community events. London Borough of Lewisham Outdoor arts events and activity
The borough of Lewisham is an inner London borough in south-east London. It has a population of 261,600. The borough covers 3526 hectares, 474 of which are defined as sites of nature conservation importance.
The management of the 45 borough-owned parks and facilities is contracted out to Glendale Grounds Management. Lewisham has nine parks that have been awarded the Green Flag status.
1 Staffing
The events team comprises an events manager and an events assistant. The team sits in community and neighbourhood development in the community services directorate. It offers advice and guidance on running events and festivals in the borough. The team also hosts a multi-agency events safety advisory group, which considers and advises on all proposals for major events. The events team produces Lewisham People’s Day, Blackheath Fireworks, the Pride Awards and leads Lewisham’s participation in a range of initiatives, including The Big Lunch, The Big Dance, Next Stop 2012.
2 Event programme/activity
The borough plays host to a huge number of events each year.
Lewisham events are included in the borough event list appended to the report.
2.1 Events organised by the council
- Lewisham People’s Day
- Blackheath fireworks
- Lewisham Country Fayre
- Bike and Kite
- Christmas lights switch-on
2.2 Events organised by other parts of the council
Glendale Grounds Management is contracted by the council to manage the council’s parks and to hire out parks and open spaces for use by event organisers. Glendale works in partnership with the council to deliver an outdoor events programm. Full details on booking procedures are on the Lewisham website.
2.3 Events organised externally by arts organisations/community groups
Lewisham has a large number of events as provided in the borough events list and also there are other external events:
- at Horniman Museum
- Blythe Hill Festival
- Brockley Max
- Forest Fest (Forest Hill School)
- Sydenham Arts Festival
- Sydenham International Music Festival
- Deptford X
2.4 Commercial arts events
There are only fairgrounds only at present. 3 Policies/strategies/monitoring/aspirations
3.1 Policies and strategies
The events team is guided by the community and neighbourhood development departmental plan and more broadly by the sustainable community strategy. It supports festivals and events that contribute to citizens’ sense of place and celebrate local areas and identities. The council’s strategic documents are available on the website.
Events contribute to promoting and delivering a wide range of Lewisham’s strategic priorities across all directorates. In addition to the sustainable community strategy, the Lewisham cultural strategy is also very relevant. The open spaces strategy also refers to events.
3.2 Benefits and problems of outdoor arts events and activity
See the sustainable community strategy for strategic priorities, expectations and aspirations.
3.3 Advantages and disadvantages as a provider or host of outdoor arts events and activities
Advantages:
- Glendale Grounds Management, as external contractors, manage the risks.
- Lewisham has a highly creative community that feeds into events.
- there are a number of parks and open spaces that are suitable for events of different sizes.
Disadvantages:
- it can be a challenge to keep control of the events proposed.
3.4 Monitoring, evaluation, quality control: which aspects of these events are monitored, how and by whom, and how the results are used
The multi-agency safety advisory group monitors all events and meets quarterly to discuss proposals for major events in the borough and to hold debriefs where appropriate.
All events have bespoke evaluation and monitoring systems in place either for funders or as part of legislative requirements.
3.5 Aspirations: desired improvements to the existing events programme and what might make these improvements possible
Lewisham’s aspirations, in addition to those set out in their strategy documents are to:
- continue to develop partnership working opportunities
- diversify their sponsorship portfolio for their main events
- consolidate the internal funding offer
- continue to adhere to the sustainable community strategy
- maintain an open and constructive dialogue with organisations and individuals
- keep appraised of industry best practice
- support event organisers to develop innovative projects
- develop accredited and informal training opportunities
- continue to communicate Health and Safety Executive legislation and industry regulations locally
4 Funding for festivals and events
4.1 Income-generation targets/charges for use of parks
All lettings charges vary according to the scale of the event. Information is available in the application form on the website. All applications go to Glendale Grounds Management with a deposit.
4.2 Funding for council events
Key events are partly funded by the council, and partly sponsored or commercially supported.
4.3 Funding available for non-council events
For funding guidelines see www.lewisham.gov.uk/NewsAndEvents/Events/PlanningEvent/
4.4 Fundraising and sponsorship
The events team can offer advice to organisers seeking funding. 5 Support for festivals and events
5.1 Advocates for outdoor arts events and activities
The events team and all officers working on events act as advocates for events.
5.2 Event-related training/seminars for community-based organisations
Occasional training is offered to community groups.
5.3 Guidelines and information available for event organisers pre-application (for example, fact/advice sheets/event toolkit)
See www.lewisham.gov.uk/NewsAndEvents/Events/PlanningEvent/ Glendale Grounds Management has a comprehensive guideline toolkit for event organisers.
5.4 Equipment resource
There is some equipment available for event organisers to borrow.
5.5 Maps and site-plans
Glendale requires a map and site plan of all events. All council-run events have a detailed site plan. All events presented at the events safety advisory group are required to supply a detailed site plan.
6 The process: how an outdoor arts event organiser goes about staging an event
The process for organising an event is clearly set out on the borough’s website.
6.1 Pre-application information
There is very clear information on the council’s website.
6.2 First points of contact
The first point of contact varies. Enquiries may come to the events team, licensing, Glendale, the police, or health and safety. All of these have good communications with one another so enquiries are directed according to the nature of the event.
6.3 Requirements from organisations on first contact
If applying to Glendale to book a park or open space, event organisers are first required to submit a brief outline of the event, proof of appropriate insurance cover, risk-assessments and method statements.
6.4 Timelines advised/required for non-council event organisers
Glendale asks that the event application is complete and passed to it at least eight weeks before the event date.
6.5 Once an application is received
Glendale informs the council events team and safety advisory group.
6.6 Guidelines, advice, support available after first contact
Glendale does a lot of ‘hand-holding’ help with risk assessments, method statements and licence applications. A multi-agency partnership supports event organisers in the borough. This includes the events team, Glendale, licensing and the police.
6.7 Existing premises licences in the borough
Glendale currently holds five premises licences (for Mountsfield Park, Blackheath, Manor Park, Manor House Gardens and Telegraph Hill) and is in the process of applying for premises licences for Forster Park and Chinbrook Meadows.
7 Communications/marketing/partnerships
7.1 Communications with other council departments
Communications are good between all those linked in to the event safety advisory group. Additionally, there is an awareness of other events within the council, but not necessarily a formal working relationship.
7.2 Marketing events in the borough
All council events have to be marketed through the council’s communications team. 7.3 Cross-borough communications and projects
Cross-borough communications and partnerships are event-specific.
7.4 Communications and collaborations with non-council organisations
The events team works with an extensive range of non-council organisations that includes:
- Visit London
- Global Local
- Safer Lewisham Partnership
- the local primary care trust
- Performance Rights Society
- Laban
- Albany Theatre
- TGLP
- London Events Forum
- Local Authority Event Organisers Group
- Lewisham Music Service
- Arts Council England
plus over 100 community groups and commercial sponsors.
8 Additional information/examples of best practice
The events team focuses on supporting and facilitating community-led events:
- offering bespoke, consistent advice on recognised industry best practice
- highlighting funding opportunities for events
- undertaking robust consultation and evaluation
- promoting partnership working and networking opportunities
- maintaining a flexible approach allowing quick responses to the needs of residents and stakeholders. London Borough of Merton Outdoor arts events and activity
The south-west London borough of Merton has a population of over 200,000 in its 3,758 hectares.
Merton is rich in green spaces with 67 parks and green spaces available. Three parks have been awarded Green Flag status.
1 Staffing
Merton has a dedicated ‘greenspaces’ events team of two, which sits in the leisure and green spaces section and is responsible for all of the events that take place in the borough’s parks and open spaces. The two-person arts team sits within the leisure and culture section along with the lead officer for 2012. The licensing team sits within the consumer and business protection section. All of these sections fall under the environment and regeneration umbrella.
2 Event programme/activity
2.1 Events organised by the council
- Mitcham Carnival
- two bonfire and fireworks displays
- Merton in Bloom competition
- Cultural Olympiad events
- Merton Horticultural Show
Leisure and green spaces section facilitates:
- Mitcham Status Fair
- Cannizaro Festival
- Filipino Festival
- Zippo’s Circus
The arts team is responsible for organising:
- The Big Draw
- Black History Month
2.2 Events organised by other parts of the council
- Peace Week (several events take place in parks or open spaces)
- LGBT Month
- Numerous other events are organised by council departments to coincide with their programmes and targets throughout the year – recycling, Safer Merton, road safety, adult education etc.
2.3 Events organised externally by arts organisations/community groups
The green spaces events team received over 100 application forms from external groups, organisations and members of the public requesting to use the council’s parks and open spaces for various events this year.
2.4 Commercial arts events
- The National Trust offer a large selection of outdoor events throughout the year
- Filming of The Bill episodes in Merton’s parks or open spaces is categorised as a commercial event – the applications to film would initially go through the dedicated advertising, filming and sponsorship officer who sits within the communications team.
2.5 Events programme (arts events or inclusive of arts activity)
The parks and open spaces art events calendar for 2009 is summarised below:
May
- Cultural Olympiad event
- art and sculpture display
June
- Filipino Festival
- Mitcham Carnival
- Wimbledon Village Fair July
- music festival
- Abbey Fest
- Cultural Olympiad open weekend
- Cannizaro festival
- children’s holiday activities
August
- community fun days
- jazz lunch
- Mitcham Festival
- Livewire Theatre
- horticultural show
- Change4Life
September
- Peace Week
October
- Wimbledon Bookfest
- arts development event
December
- carol singing
3 Policies/strategies/monitoring/aspirations
3.1 Policies and strategies
Merton has an open spaces policy which is to be implemented by 2010, with a review of the strategy every five years. The strategy was developed in consultation with residents and park users in 2007. Merton also has an arts policy, which fits within the cultural strategy, and refers to the strengthening and promoting of festival and events.
3.2 Benefits and problems of outdoor arts events and activity
Benefits:
- community cohesion and social inclusion
- income-generation
Problems:
- weather dependant – ground conditions permitting
- seasonal
- noise pollution
- cost and resources
3.3 Advantages and disadvantages as a provider or host of outdoor arts events and activities
Advantages:
- autonomy of event
- first-hand rewards (public perception)
- direct feedback from participants (usually positive)
- full management of associated costs/budget
- artist booking is an enjoyable procedure
- can build on relationships already in place to create successful partnerships.
Disadvantages (depending on specific event):
- full responsibility bringing full liability
- stress
- potential lack of partnership cooperation
- complaints
- costs of outsourcing to providers impacting on quality of service
- lack of quality control
- no credit.
3.4 Monitoring, evaluation, quality control: which aspects of these events are monitored, how and by whom, and how the results are used
Events are monitored as a whole with specific aspects of those events being subject to scrutiny to ensure equality, diversity and access to the events. The team responsible for organising the event usually monitors them. Obviously each event is different, and different methods are occasionally employed. For example – the grant-monitoring feedback is different to the monitoring procedures put into place for, say, The Big Draw, which was monitored using participant comments, photographs and paintings. Though there are some similarities between the types of monitoring – it is sometimes important to acknowledge how varied projects require varied approaches.
3.5 Aspirations: desired improvements to the existing events programme and what might make these improvements possible
Ideally, more money/greater resource would benefit the outdoor arts programme; working to a tight budget and strict plan with targets, is difficult. Merton’s events are restricted. While it is understood that it is for the arts team to try to source funds, the probability of that happening within the current economic climate is unlikely.
4 Funding for festivals and events
4.1 Income-generation targets/charges for use of parks
The income target for events and entertainment in 2009 was £56,000.
4.2 Funding for council events
There is an allocated green spaces budget for council-run events such as fireworks, Merton in Bloom, and the horticultural show. All external events fund themselves.
4.3 Funding available for non-council events
The arts development team provide advice and guidance to voluntary arts organisations. There are small grants available to enable voluntary arts organisations to deliver high-quality arts projects in the borough; the maximum grant is £1,500.
4.4 Fundraising and sponsorship
Fundraising and sponsorship is managed by the dedicated advertising, filming and sponsorship officer within the communications team.
5 Support for festivals and events
5.1 Advocates for outdoor arts events and activities
- Friends groups
- residents’ associations
- councillors
- council officers
- local businesses
- community groups
- local press
5.2 Event-related training/seminars for community-based organisations
Not applicable.
5.3 Guidelines and information available for event organisers pre-application (for example, fact/advice sheets/event toolkit)
The green space events team plays a supportive, administrative and advisory role.
An event web page is currently under construction, to include an online application form, advice, instruction, toolkit etc. All Merton’s information will be on the government website Department for Business, Innovation and Skills.
5.4 Equipment resources
Not applicable.
5.5 Maps and site plans
Merton Council has its own mapping system (Planweb).
6 The process: how an outdoor arts event organiser goes about staging an event
6.1 Pre-application information
This can be obtained via:
- events web page currently under construction
- by phone
- by email
6.2 First points of contact
An application pack including examples of risk-assessments will be sent out upon first contact with the green spaces team. The first communication usually establishes whether the application for an event is feasible. The applicant will also be directed to event web pages for further information.
6.3 Requirements from organisations on first contact
An outline of the event is to be submitted, plus risk-assessments and insurance details are required; also the contact details of the organiser.
6.4 Timelines advised/required for non-council event organisers
For larger events, at least 8-12 months’ notice is required. For smaller events requiring temporary event notice, two months’ notice is needed.
6.5 Once an application is received
The green space events team distributes the information to licensing, arts, highways, town centre management, park managers and stakeholder groups where applicable.
6.6 Guidelines, advice, support available after first contact
The event team gives guidance, advice and support throughout the whole process. It will also arrange a site visit.
6.7 Existing premises licences in the borough
Premises licences currently exist for three sites:
- Figges Marsh
- Morden Park (Bandstand)
- Three King’s Piece 7 Communications/marketing/partnerships
7.1 Communications with other council departments
A dedicated communications officer sits in the leisure and cultural services department (formed of leisure and green spaces and leisure and culture). There are good relations built with various council teams and partners.
7.2 Marketing events in the borough
The dedicated communications department is responsible for advertising and promotion of greenspace events. It also supports various external and partner groups if appropriate. The new events/diary web page will also have the facility to advertise council-run and externally organised events.
7.3 Cross-borough communications and projects
The borough takes part in South London Arts Partnership, (SLAP) along with Kingston, Richmond, Sutton, Bromley and Croydon.
7.4 Communications and collaborations with non-council organisations
Non-council events can be added to the web page. London Borough of Newham Outdoor arts events and activity
The London borough of Newham is an outer borough in East London. 249,500 reside within its 3623 hectares. Despite being one of the more highly populated areas of London it has over 20 parks, four of which have Green Flag Award status.
1 Staffing
The events team comprises a head of events and sponsorship, senior events officer, two events officers and two event assistants. From the parks service, the parks team leader (engagement) works on events. The arts team comprises a service group manager (community), an arts and heritage manager and an arts manager.
2 Event programme/activity
2.1 Events organised by the council
All large outdoor and indoor events are organised by the events team in the communications service. Alongside this, the borough uses an external production company to help deliver the largest summer events.
Big outdoors events: March/April • Newham London Run • Sunday Fun Day July • The Mayor’s Newham Show • Newham Carnival August/September • Under the Stars November • Fireworks Display (Bonfire Night)
Other events: • flag-raising ceremonies celebrating various communities on their national days. • Remembrance Sunday and Armistice events • award ceremonies, for example, Children’s Awards
• senior managers conferences • Newham Council’s Annual General Meeting
2.2 Events organised by other parts of the council
• town centre manager organises French market and farmers’ market • community engagement team organises several events a year themed around the council priorities, eg, crime prevention, the environment, getting active. • parks hold events: Easter egg hunt, green gym, nest box building, land art events walking events plant for life hedgerow and bulb planting • children and young people’s services organise play days, award ceremonies for looked after children, foster carers, etc • human resources organises welcome events for new starters • the young mayor team organise an election campaign and election evening event annually • the sports development team organises runs, sporting tournaments, kick racism out of football events, etc, throughout the year.
2.3 Events organised externally by arts organisations/community groups
London City Airport Fun Day is an annual event at which the borough has a presence.
2.4 Commercial arts events
BBC Breathing Spaces
2.5 Events programme (arts events or inclusive of arts activity)
March/April • Sunday Fun Day July • The Mayor’s Newham Show • Newham Carnival August/September • Under the Stars November • Fireworks Display (Bonfire Night) 3 Policies/strategies/monitoring/aspirations
3.1 Policies and strategies
The council follows an outdoor and open spaces policy. An events strategy for the next few years leading up to 2012 and inclusive of events at the time of the Olympic Games is in place.
3.2 Benefits and problems of outdoor arts events and activity
Benefits:
- giving people chances to get active and inspired and to enjoy themselves together, allowing them to break down prejudice, prevent social exclusion and build a stronger sense of community;
- encouraging community cohesion
- bringing different communities together
- promoting healthy living
- promoting engagement with the arts
- promoting green policies
- promoting council initiatives and services
- promoting volunteering among the community by engaging the Newham Volunteers (Newham is running one of the biggest volunteering programmes in the country)
- raising the profile of the borough
Problems:
- attracting a young audience with small sections partaking in anti-social behaviour in surrounding areas
- noise
- parking and traffic
3.3 Advantages and disadvantages as a provider or host of outdoor arts events and activities
See 3.2.
3.4 Monitoring, evaluation, quality control: which aspects of these events are monitored, how and by whom, and how the results are used
A safety advisory group meet regularly pre and post large events. For large events the engagement manager attends. There is no formal direct monitoring. Evaluation forms are distributed throughout the public.
3.5 Aspirations: desired improvements to the existing events programme and what might make these improvements possible
Appealing to new/different communities:
The council needs to factor in different types or events that appeal to Newham’s growing middle-class population.
Using new sites: following the success of the Royal Docks fireworks event the borough wants to discuss using new/different sites in the borough.
Tourism/showcasing the borough to visitors: traditionally council-organised events have focused on attracting local residents. However, the borough is increasingly becoming a visitor destination and moving towards 2012 this will only increase. It is vital that the borough schedules events that appeal to non-Newham residents and showcase the borough as a tourist destination and a place where people choose to live, work, etc.
Once Stratford City opens and the new Olympic Park is finished they will attract even more people from outside Newham. This will inevitably change the clientele of the borough’s events and it is vital that to focus on meeting their needs.
Helping residents organise their own events: building towards 2012 its vital that to capitalise on residents’ inspiration about the Olympic Games and ensure that they get involved and access new opportunities. The focus needs to change towards supporting residents to organise events for themselves.
4 Funding for festivals and events
4.1 Income–generation targets/charges for use of parks
The borough charges on a sliding scale £50.00-£10,000 for use of parks. Commercial events start at £10,000.
4.2 Funding for council events
The communications service budget sets a proportion aside to fund the big four summer events, plus the other events that come under the responsibility of the communications team: Christmas lights switch-on, Remembrance.
4.3 Funding available for non-council events
There is a grant scheme “GO FOR IT” that funds £2012 per application. The grant has to be related to an outdoor activity. 4.4 Fundraising and sponsorship Not applicable.
5 Support for festivals and events
5.1 Advocates for outdoor arts events and activities Key members, the mayor and member of the executive board are very supportive of events.
5.2 Event-related training/seminars for community-based organisations The borough is aiming to start a pack to help community members organise their own events: supplying bunting, grants, information about road closures, etc.
5.3 Guidelines and information available for event organisers pre-application (for example, fact/advice sheets/event toolkit) There is a 40-page booking form, which is complex and needs streamlining.
5.4 Equipment resources Not applicable.
5.5 Maps and site plans Not applicable.
6 The process: how an outdoor arts event organiser goes about staging an event in the borough
6.1 Pre-application information The booking form has 40 pages and is not user-friendly (parks information). The council rarely hosts events organised by external companies (for example London Borough of Hackney renting Victoria Park for Lovebox). It is something that the council wants to do more in the future, especially leading up to 2012.
6.2 First points of contact The events team is the first point of contact.
6.3 Requirements from organisations on first contact A brief outline of the event needs to be emailed to the events team.
6.4 Timelines advised/required for non-council event organisers Eight weeks are required.
6.5 Once an application is received Please see 6.3
6.6 Guidelines, advice, support available after first contact See 6.3
6.7 Existing premises licences in the borough Not applicable.
7 Communications/marketing/partnerships
7.1 Communications with other council departments The events team sits in the council’s communications team, which means that all the big events and most of the smaller ones are being promoted and publicised very well. There is promotion of other small events within the council.
7.2 Marketing events in the borough Press releases are generated by the media team and there is a good relationship with local media. Newham Magazine, a council publication, gets delivered to every household fortnightly. There are posters and leaflets in all public council buildings and the council’s website publicises events. Street banners are very effective and rate highly in feedback.
7.3 Cross-borough communications and projects No cross borough communication and projects are known of.
7.4 Communications and collaborations with non-council organisations The primary care trust and West Ham football club attend Newham Show. Local regeneration partners, such as Westfield have a presence at the Sunday Funday. London Borough of Redbridge Outdoor arts events and activity
Redbridge is an outer London borough encompassing over 5,600 hectares of north-east London. Redbridge is known as the ‘leafy suburb’. Approximately one-third of the borough lies within green belt land and there are 14 conservation areas. In total there are 1,200 acres of forest and 600 acres of green space and parks.
There are nearly 240,000 residents in Redbridge and the area continues to increase in population size. Two open spaces have been awarded Green Flag Award status.
1 Staffing
In the housing and community services cluster are culture, sport and community learning. The arts and events teams are grouped with marketing, libraries and museums. Parks and open spaces are managed by parks development and parks operations, also sitting within culture, sport and community learning. One functions unit manager and an events officer manage the outdoor events programme and take initial bookings.
2 Event programme/activity
2.1 Events organised by the council
Wanstead Festival, Area5 ‘Our Community’ Festival and Inspiration are regular events organised by the council.
The Inspiration festival is an annual sports and arts festival which forms part of Redbridge’s Cultural Olympiad programme. The events team supports Wanstead Festival and Area 5 festival, which are funded through area committee funds.
2.2 Events organised by other parts of the council
The Dance Festival launch and outdoor theatre are organised by the arts development team.
2.3 Events organised externally by arts organisations/community groups
Redbridge has an active community programme. The events team supports the Redbridge Community Forum, Redbridge Carnival Association, local churches, temples, schools and charities in facilitating their annual events.
2.4 Commercial arts events
Redbridge does not run any commercial outdoor arts events.
2.5 Events programme (arts events or inclusive of arts activity)
- rock festival
- various sponsored walks
- arts in the park summer season
- Redbridge Carnival
- public art programme
- youth arts programme
- children’s holiday art programme
- dance festival
- book and media festival
- Eastern Edge Film
- Barnardo’s firework display
3 Policies/strategies/monitoring/aspirations
3.1 Policies and strategies
There is an arts and events strategy which is yet to be formally adopted.
3.2 Benefits and problems of outdoor arts events and activity
The main benefit cited was community engagement and social cohesion with events bringing members of a diverse community together and offering them new experiences.
3.3 Advantages and disadvantages as a provider or host of outdoor arts events and activities
No advantages and disadvantages where listed.
3.4 Monitoring, evaluation, quality control: which aspects of these events are monitored, how and by whom, and how the results are used
Head counts are done at events by the officer in attendance, stewards monitor attendance and feedback forms are handed out. All information feeds into the performance indicators and a report is drafted and fed back to members in a debriefing session. Results are used to improve future events.
3.5 Aspirations: desired improvements to the existing events programme and what might make these improvements possible
The events and parks managers would like to encourage organisers of events to use other parks in the borough. The borough is well served with community events and is popular with the community. Both managers would like there to be more high-profile events and while they encourage ‘go see’ exercises to other borough’s events, with a very small team it is difficult to spare the time.
4 Funding for festivals and events
4.1 Income-generation targets/charges for use of parks
The income target is £25,000, which is achievable but not predictable.
Generally, council event organisers are not charged for use of the parks. If the event is free to the public it is at the discretion of the events manager to charge community and voluntary event organisers. This often depends on the scale of the event and the venue chosen. Large events, fairgrounds and commercial events are charged. All event organisers are liable for any damage to the parks and are charged for any remedial works required through a damage deposit.
4.2 Funding for council events
There is no centrally held budget for council-organised events. Occasional interdepartmental in-kind deals are set up for infrastructure.
4.3 Funding available for non-council events
Local groups and event organisers are encouraged to apply to Redbridge Arts Council. This is an umbrella organisation that receives a grant from the borough’s arts development team in order to support grassroots arts and events activity.
4.4 Fundraising and sponsorship
Not applicable.
5 Support for festivals and events
5.1 Advocates for outdoor arts events and activities
Not applicable.
5.2 Event-related training/seminars for community-based organisations
Community groups are encouraged to attend safety team and emergency planning meetings with borough staff before their event.
5.3 Guidelines and information available for event organisers pre-application (for example, fact/advice sheets/event toolkit)
There is a park hirers’ pack, which can be downloaded from the website and which is given out after receiving application forms. There is also a dedicated events and festivals section on the council website with online forms and ‘frequently asked questions’ (FAQs).
5.4 Equipment resources
There is no equipment held within the borough. The events team gives advice as to where to source equipment.
5.5 Maps and site plans
Event organisers booking the borough’s parks can obtain maps from the parks department.
6 The process: how an outdoor arts event organiser goes about staging an event
6.1 Pre-application information
The council website has a phone number to ring to discuss holding an event in a park, an online form, etc. 6.2 First points of contact
This varies, although the first point of contact is usually the events team, so it can book the space. Customers can also send queries via the internet.
6.3 Requirements from organisations on first contact
This is a simple application form asking for contact details, name and type of event, equipment specification and a brief description of the event. Forms can be downloaded from the website.
6.4 Timelines advised/required for non-council event organisers
For large events, six months.
6.5 Once an application is received
The events officer processes applications and distributes to the relevant members of the Redbridge emergency and safety team.
6.6 Guidelines, advice, support available after first contact
Support is available for community groups although it is not the responsibility of the events team to manage the events.
6.7 Existing premises licences in the borough
Five parks and open spaces within the borough have premises licences.
7 Communications/marketing/partnerships
7.1 Communications with other council departments
Redbridge emergency and safety team meets as and when to discuss applications received.
7.2 Marketing events in the borough
There is an events diary on the website and organisers are encouraged to post their events. The leisure marketing team in partnership with corporate communications manages in-house marketing and publicity. Corporate communications vet all the posters.
7.3 Cross-borough communications and projects
The arts team works in partnership with the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham and the London Borough of Waltham Forest on the Eastern Edge Film Partnership.
The arts and events team is part of the 2012 gateway boroughs partnership (Redbridge, Barking and Dagenham, Bexley, Havering and Lewisham); the partnership is working on a large cross-borough festival collaboration in celebration of 2012.
The arts team is part of the Thames Gateway Dance partnership involving the five Olympic host boroughs and five gateway boroughs. The arts team is delivering a skills training project in partnership with Barking and Dagenham in aerial arts and film-making, which has been funded by London Development Agency and is managed by Arts Council England.
7.4 Communications and collaborations with non-council organisations
Klick Youth Arts project is funded by Arts Council England. The borough is in regular contact with Thames Gateway London Partnership about programming Cultural Olympiad events in the ‘gateway boroughs’. London Borough of Richmond Outdoor arts events and activity
London Borough of Richmond is in south-west London and forms part of outer London. It is the only London borough to straddle the Thames with districts on both sides of the river.
Altogether London Borough of Richmond’s parks section manages 140 parks and open spaces and 21 miles (34 km) of river frontage – five times more green and open space than any other London borough. Parks not managed by the local authority include Kew Gardens and Hampton Court as well as two Royal Parks – Richmond Park and Bushy Park, and Marble Hill, which is managed by English Heritage.
1 Staffing
There is no dedicated events team staff in Richmond Council to manage events; the service development office in parks facilitates the bookings of parks and open spaces for outdoor events. Head of parks has overall authority. The arts team also oversees arts elements of outdoor events.
2 Event programme/activity
2.1 Events organised by the council
- Larks in the Parks
- Holi Festival of Colours
- On the Edge – free festival of world music
- Twickenham carnival
2.2 Events organised by other parts of the council
Town centre managers and tourism section organise and assist in hosting events in the borough.
2.3 Events organised externally by arts organisations/community groups
Most of the events programme is made up of community/charity events, for example:
- May Fair
- Barnes Fair
- Ham Fair
- Hampton Hill Carnival
- Twickenham Green Fete and Family Day
- St Margaret’s Fair
There are also several family fun days, dog shows, sports days, charity walks and runs that take place throughout the year. 2.4 Commercial arts events
There are numerous commercial events in council managed parks including circuses, funfairs, 5 & 10k runs plus rugby, baseball / softball and cricket events run by commercial organisations.
There are several charity fundraising events such as Race for Life, London to Windsor Bike Ride, Leukaemia & Lymphoma Research London Bikeathon, Cancer Research Charity dog walk, Pink Power Walk, & Help the Heroes. Other non charity and non commercial events include the Great River Race, Twickenham Regatta, Richmond Regatta, Devizes to Westminster & various running club races.
2.5 Events programme (arts events or inclusive of arts activity)
Parks does not have a programme of events; a list of all events is filed with parks. The annual outdoor arts programme is described as charity and community-based.
3 Policies/strategies/monitoring/aspirations
3.1 Policies and strategies
The parks and open spaces events policy was updated in 2009 but is under constant review. The central vision of the parks service is to work in partnership with local communities and event providers to enable enjoyable and appropriate events in the borough’s parks and open spaces.
3.2 Benefits and problems of outdoor arts events and activity
Benefits: • providing inclusive community-focused events for local residents and visitors alike.
Problems: • disturbance to local residents’ parking and on occasions noise as well as potential grass damage (this is covered under the deposit).
3.3 Advantages and disadvantages as a provider or host of outdoor arts events and activities
Advantages: • increased visitors to parks therefore enjoying the open space and return visits • income from events pays for improvements in those parks via revenue budget
Disadvantages: • a programme of accessible events is always a positive
3.4 Monitoring, evaluation, quality control: which aspects of these events are monitored, how and by whom, and how the results are used
Parks and open spaces monitors complaints / comments from residents and councillors. Parks staff carry out a site visit after the event and may use the deposit to pay for any reinstatement ground works.
3.5 Aspirations: desired improvements to the existing events programme and what might make these improvements possible
The parks section are reviewing their policy, considering licensing some sites, and looking to increase income by hosting large scale commercial events.
4 Funding for festivals and events
4.1 Income-generation targets/charges for use of parks
The authority will set an annual scale of fees and charges for parks events:
• Small event up to 500 £1,000 or £150 day fee (15 per cent) • Medium event up to 2,000 £4,000 or £600 day fee (15 per cent) • Large event more than 2,000 £8,000 or £1,200 day fee (15 per cent)
The fees will depend on the type of event, the numbers attending and the duration of the event. £11,000 income was made in 2009 (excluding catering annual income) from open spaces.
Circus & Funfairs pay £500 per operational day. £100 per day is paid for sporting events. There is a £2,000 deposit taken for large events to cover any reinstatement works required.
Currently there is no charge for charity or community events.
There is a £2,000 deposit taken for large events to cover any reinstatement works required. 4.2 Funding for council events
The arts team funds a limited number of events, with the parks team & other environment directorate sections also contributing when budgets permit. Larks in the Parks and Twickenham Carnival are examples of supported events.
4.3 Funding available for non-council events
Small grants systems are available for the voluntary sector with information on the borough's website at www.richmond.gov.uk.
4.4 Fundraising and sponsorship
None at present.
5 Support for festivals and events
5.1 Advocates for outdoor arts events and activities
The ‘Arts Advisory Forum’ and ‘Richmond Arts Forum’ advocate for outdoor arts events and activities.
5.2 Event-related training/seminars for community-based organisations
The arts advisory forum can advise where to get training but none is known of at present.
5.3 Guidelines and information available for event organisers pre-application (for example, fact/advice sheets/event toolkit)
The policy is very clear and acts as a guideline. It is available from the events page on their website www.richmond.gov.uk/parks_and_open_spaces. Officers are also always happy to meet and talk through applications.
5.4 Equipment resources
None is available.
5.5 Maps and site plans
These are available from the parks and open spaces Geographical Information System (GIS) officer.
6 The process: how an outdoor arts event organiser goes about staging an event
6.1 Pre-application information
An event application form is available from parks and open spaces [email protected] or from the borough’s website.
6.2 First points of contact
The service development office in parks is the first point of contact.
6.3 Requirements from organisations on first contact
- as much detail as possible about event that is being proposed
- a map of the site, showing a detailed internal layout including all temporary structures and support services, power supplies, toilets, first aid, organiser’s control base, etc
- Supporting documentation:
- an emergency plan
- a risk assessment
- evidence of contact with relevant Metropolitan Police officer
- public liability insurance cover to the value of £5million
- proof of application for a TEN
6.4 Timelines advised/required for non-council event organisers
Organisers of festivals or concerts, who require a premises licence, should contact the licensing authority at least six months in advance. The borough recommend that the temporary event notice be given to the licensing authority and the police at least 20 working days in advance.
6.5 Once an application is received
The procedure for applying to use a park for any event is as follows:
- organisers contact the council
- organisers complete application as fully as possible
- the department consults with local community groups and local councillors (three weeks) • head of parks and cabinet member for the environment decide whether to allow the event • permission also depends on licensing; police and the environmental health section will need to be contacted; proof of public liability, risk-assessments and emergency procedures are required • for a community event, the council might allow use of an area, free of charge
Historically there have been very few music events in the borough’s parks as they tend to provoke controversy; however this is something that the parks section is developing as a viable income generation option.
The council would not help with publicity although the arts section and the press office might be able to display notices in community noticeboards or on the borough website.
6.6 Guidelines, advice, support available after first contact
Parks officer and/or arts officer available to advise and support.
6.7 Existing premises licences in the borough
There are currently no premises licences in the London Borough of Richmond Upon Thames parks.
7 Communications/marketing/partnerships
7.1 Communications with other council departments
The parks department works closely with the arts service, highways, trading, sports bookings, parking and licensing.
7.2 Marketing events in the borough
There is a corporate identity for all council-run events. A3 community noticeboards around the borough are managed by the communications team. The Visit Richmond website offers a comprehensive guide to upcoming events. The communications team may be able to put information regarding non-council events on their website and in community notice boards.
7.3 Cross-borough communications and projects
None known.
7.4 Communications and collaborations with non-council organisations
None known. London Borough of Southwark Outdoor arts events and activity
Southwark is an inner London borough with a population of over 274,000 in 2885 hectares. Venues that can be used for outdoor arts events include over 100 local authority parks and green spaces, pedestrian areas along the riverside and a town square in Peckham.
Seven parks managed by the council have the Green Flag status. There are also several non-council owned venues that stage outdoor arts events.
1 Staffing
Under the head of service for culture there is an events, film and 2012 manager, a senior events officer, 2.2 events development officers, an event locations officer – who works primarily on locations hires – a corporate events officer and a temporary events assistant who offers general support and keeps the website updated. This events team works alongside an arts team and heritage service.
2 Event programme/activity
Southwark has a very large and diverse programme of over 170 outdoor events delivered by the council events team, and external partners (such as the Thames Festival) and community groups. There is a very positive attitude towards making events happen and all staff in the authority pro-actively work to remove obstacles and create solutions.
2.1 Outdoor events organised by the council
The council funds and leads on a broad programme of events, which includes the equality-led festival Silver (a series of events, mostly indoor) The Mix and Bermondsey Carnival, but its events are primarily grown from close working partnerships and collaborations that the event development officers nurture.
2.2 Events organised by other parts of the council
All council organisers of events in parks and open spaces (including the town centres such as Peckham Square) go through Southwark’s events team, with varying levels of input from the team. The Mix, for example, is a partnership between the events team and the youth service and also with the young persons’ steering group. Young people also shadow the council officers in each of the organisational roles.
2.3 Events organised externally by arts organisations/community groups
Aside from the large non-council arts events such as the Thames Festival, Carnaval del Pueblo and the Coin Street Festival, there are a large number of community organisations and individuals who organise their own events. The events team is seeking to let go of its bigger events which are becoming self-sustaining, and is concentrating on supporting, encouraging and creating other events.
2.4 Commercial arts events
Commercial events are occasionally held in the borough’s parks and open spaces but are not encouraged. There is a high density of social housing in the borough and for many residents the parks are their gardens so the council is not keen to close off parks for commercial events, especially where residents perceive that the events attract predominantly visiting audiences and are therefore ‘not for local people’.
Due to its excellent location on the Thames near City Hall and Tower Bridge, Potters Fields Park was much in demand for private and commercial hires but residents often opposed them or, if they went ahead, complained about the noise, litter and disruption – particularly to parking. This situation has since been completely turned around.
A trust, with local representatives, was set up four years ago to manage the space that is leased to the trust by the council. The trust ringfences income from commercial and corporate hires and uses the money to fund community events and to support local community groups and activities. The residents therefore feel much greater ownership of the space and are more independent when making decisions.
2.5 Events programme (arts events or inclusive of arts activity)
There were over 170 events in Southwark in 2009:
- Silver (older persons’ festival over two weeks with 60 events organised by community groups and 10 in-house)
- Black History Month
- Celebrating Women
- Lesbian, Gay, Bi-sexual and Transgender History
- Bermondsey Carnival
- Carnaval del Pueblo in Burgess Park (funded by Southwark and Greater London Authority. Previously a partner event but becoming more independent).
- The Event – Southwark Park. Linked with Bermondsey Carnival
- The Mix (youth led event which the event team produces in partnership with the youth service). This is in Burgess Park at the moment but the team are keen to move the event around the borough.
- Southwark Youth Carnival (linked to The Mix)
- Southwark Irish Festival on Peckham Rye (funded by Southwark)
- Thames Festival (independent but part funded by Southwark)
3 Policies/strategies/monitoring/aspirations
3.1 Policies and strategies
Southwark has a specific events policy. It was produced four years ago and the events team is currently updating it. As well as setting out practical criteria for holding events, it identifies the benefits of events to the borough, links these benefits to Southwark’s overall priorities, and sets out the policy objectives against which the borough’s event programme can be assessed.
The cultural strategy is in development.
3.2 Benefits and problems of outdoor arts events and activity
The main benefit cited was community engagement and cohesion with events bringing a diverse community together. Events also encourage health and well-being as most residents in the borough do not have gardens and events encourage them to make the most of the public outdoor spaces. Other benefits identified include the animation of public spaces, chances to celebrate, the opportunity to create a positive reputation for the borough, with events providing a means of spreading positive messages, generating income and generally enhancing the borough’s cultural programme.
Problems with all large events are the potential for antisocial behaviour resulting from alcohol and the potential for events as a focus for gun crime. All major events in Southwark are assessed by the police on these two issues as well as other standard issues, and further relevant agencies are consulted depending on the individual events. Other problems can result from nuisance and damage to public areas and where local residents do not feel engaged with events in their locality and feel that they are more for visitors. Southwark has, however, developed some innovative ways to counteract this (see Potters Fields Park, at 2.4).
3.3 Advantages and disadvantages as a provider or host of outdoor arts events and activities
There is a dynamic and committed team with strong leadership and an overwhelming ‘can-do’ attitude. There are several very good parks and green spaces in the borough. Although some are very centrally located and high-profile, others are perceived to be a little too south of the river to be accessible from central London. This is generally the case in London for places where there is no tube access.
3.4 Monitoring, evaluation, quality control: which aspects of these events are monitored, how and by whom, and how the results are used
The events development officers are working with Attitude is Everything [an agency set up to improve Deaf and disabled people's access to live music] to undertake access audits of all the main venues in the borough used for events. All council events are monitored by an officer and there are also debriefing meetings for the larger events. Smaller community events are also attended by a council officer wherever possible, although with over 170 events this is a challenge. All events are required to complete evaluation forms (as part of a recently established evaluation process).
These evaluations contribute to an evaluation of the season's events and are particularly useful in identifying audiences and areas of the borough where development is required. Through this evaluation the borough identified the need to simplify the information available to organisations.
3.5 Aspirations: desired improvements to the existing events programme and what might make these improvements possible
The borough events staff would like to have an up-to-date event toolkit for the use of community event organisers and to continue to develop capacity-building for them. The team is developing its online presence and particularly wants to iron out minor discrepancies between information on the website and the current guidelines.
The traffic management team would like to have guidelines for events; all traffic guidelines at the moment are written for utility or construction companies; they are not relevant for events.
4 Funding for festivals and events
4.1 Income-generation targets/charges for use of parks/licences
Southwark has an income-generation target of £20,000. There are set commercial hire rates that depend on the size and duration of the event, and an administration fee of £100. Community and charitable organisations pay a £50 admin cost and are eligible for a potential 50-100 per cent discount on the hire fees.
All event organisers are liable for any damage to the parks and are charged a 20 per cent deposit (or minimum £500) for any remedial works required. There is a cost of £700 for traffic management orders (£300 of which is to cover the cost of placing the required press notice). Street parties are exempt from this. Where special parking arrangements are required there is also a charge to cover the real costs, for example, of the parking enforcement officers.
4.2 Funding for council events
There is a core budget for events to support the local authority's main events and micro-grants are often available for programmes such as Black History Month, Silver, and Celebrating Women.
4.3 Funding available for non-council events
Southwark supports some non-council led events in the borough – such as Carnaval del Pueblo and Thames Festival. For the latter the borough also pays for one member of staff to organise the event.
For smaller events there are arts and culture grants available, which aim to help develop new arts projects, especially in dance and theatre and some of these projects will incorporate outdoor events. There are also funding grants from the community council fund via the borough's wards. Grants are up to £1,000.
Other arts organisations receive financial support for outdoor events through being part of one of the larger borough-themed events such as Silver or Boundless. There is often support given with marketing. The funding page on the website also links to national funding opportunities and officers often refer event organisers to other parts of the council for support.
4.4 Fundraising and sponsorship
Although some Southwark events have attracted sponsorship there are no sponsorship officers. The team has occasionally employed freelance sponsorship officers but this can be a cost rather than a source of income if sponsorship is not forthcoming. 5 Support for festivals and events
5.1 Advocates for outdoor arts events and activities
The executive member for culture is extremely supportive of events in the borough and has a good understanding of their benefits.
5.2 Event-related training/seminars for community-based organisations
A programme of training sessions for community event organisers entitled Revealed was held in 2007 following a needs analysis. It was part funded by the European Social Fund (with a creative enterprise focus) and consisted of several workshops covering fundraising, marketing, evaluation, health and safety, accessibility, licensing and processes.
The programme was delivered by professionals from organisations such as the Media Trust and Attitude is Everything. It successfully supported 80 organisers of community events. There is no funding to repeat this training.
However, the adult learning team is able to fund a shorter version consisting of two days of training in health and safety, risk assessments, event promotions, creative programming, permissions and licensing and 10 steps to event management, with the training primarily being delivered by council staff. The events team is particularly keen to raise awareness of steward training, project planning and timelines, which will directly benefit Southwark in the provision of safe, creative events. This training will also be offered to community wardens and to council officers in parks and leisure.
5.3 Guidelines and information available for event organisers pre-application (for example, fact/advice sheets/event toolkit)
Guidance, advice and support are available at any time. There are useful guidelines on the website on licensing, health and safety precautions, event promotion, accessible events, event evaluation and event funding.
There are also guidelines for organisers on the website, which will help with the completion of the application form. The event development officers can offer support with developing events both before and after the application is made and this may include guidance on the creative content, the building of management teams and working partnerships. Practical support and advice comes from the locations team.
The food officer in environmental health has guidance notes on outside catering and is available to offer advice and guidance.
5.4 Equipment resources
The council does not have event equipment for community groups to borrow. Where a traffic management order is in place the borough’s traffic management contractor supplies signage, barriers and cones free of charge to community groups as a goodwill gesture.
5.5 Maps and site plans
Southwark has a Geographic Information System (GIS) department that can send CAD (Computer Aided Design) maps to event organisers for use as site plans. Southwark covers the licence cost for this so it is free to organisers. The events team also has a bank of maps for event organisers working in the borough’s main parks or spaces.
6 The process: how an outdoor arts event organiser goes about staging an event
6.1 Pre-application information
An event application form is available from parks and open spaces [email protected] or from the borough’s website.
6.2 First points of contact
All initial enquiries are directed by the call centre to the events team (although callers may also be directed to the website). All applications go to the locations team. If organisers have queries or need support with completing the application, officers are available to offer guidance. For small events the locations team supplies a simple matrix to assist organisers with preparing their risk assessment.
The events team used to have a risk-assessment template and examples for organisers to follow but found that this could be more of a hindrance as some organisers merely reproduced it verbatim.
The events team acts as a one-stop shop for event organisers, so, for example, even the website information available on licensing gives the events team as the main point of contact for further information.
6.3 Requirements from organisations on first contact
The application to hold an event in the borough is quite detailed and there is a thorough checklist of supporting documents that are required. Although applicants are encouraged to attach all supporting documents with the original application there is an understanding that this may not always be possible and dates for submission of documentation can be negotiated. The detail required of the supporting documentation varies according to the size and complexity of the event.
Supporting documents required are:
- site plan
- risk assessment
- proof of public liability insurance
- crowd-management plan
- emergency control plan
- first aid provision
- communications plan
- production and event timetable
- artists line-up
- method statement
- fire procedures
- transport plan
- lost children plan
- waste management plan
- environmental impact assessment
- access and interpretation provision
- marketing plan
- equal opportunities statement.
These supporting documents not only help the events team assess the events but also identify areas where the organisers need guidance and support.
6.4 Timelines advised/required for non-council event organisers
Completed applications for the smaller events must be received at least six weeks in advance, although where support is required three months is suggested. Larger events require at least 14 weeks’ notice but again a longer run-in of six months is advised. Traffic management orders need six weeks’ notice or preferably two months.
6.5 Once an application is received
The events team holds a weekly meeting to assess applications, and to decide whether it has sufficient information to put the event to consultation. The level of consultation depends on the size and nature of the event and whether there are any contentious issues (for instance, when assessing applications for Peckham Square the team has to consider that this venue has a potential for over-use). A list of the events is sent to ward councillors, the police, parks managers and licensing.
Stakeholders, including friends groups, local cafes, businesses, and tenants and residents associations are all consulted. The event organisers are required to put up their own notices regarding the event. For large, complex or contentious events, an events safety advisory group meeting will be held with all relevant council officers and external bodies invited.
Events are very rarely turned down. If they are, it is usually either because the information supplied is incomplete or because there are questions regarding the competency of the organisers to manage a safe event.
The application directs applicants to downloadable information on licences and licence application packs. Applicants need to send copies of their licence applications to the police and environmental health as well as licensing. There are no guidelines on traffic management for outdoor events and officers are aware that these need to be developed. Officers currently work with event organisers on a bespoke basis.
6.6 Guidelines, advice, support available after first contact
Guidance, advice and support are available at any time. There are useful guidelines on the website on licensing, health and safety precautions, event promotion, accessible events, event evaluation and event funding.
6.7 Existing premises licences in the borough
There are nine local authority parks and spaces in Southwark that have premises licences but these do not cover alcohol. The premises licences are for Burgess Park, Camberwell... Green, Dulwich Park, Geraldine Mary Harmsworth Park, Goose Green, Lucas Gardens, Peckham Rye Common, Peckham Square and Southwark Park.
7 Communications/marketing/partnerships
7.1 Communications with other council departments
All council officers working on events are based in the same building under the same directorate. There are very good communications between them. There is also a ‘fusion’ group, led by the events team, which brings together all those in the council who have an involvement with events, from youth or health workers to town centre managers.
7.2 Marketing events in the borough
Southwark produces all its own marketing and follows corporate guidelines. The local authority has 30 official marketing campaigns. There is not a specific ‘campaign’ for events but the events programme is promoted within the ‘cultural tourism’ campaign. The events team also arranges direct marketing and promotion for the main season of events. All events can be entered in the online Southwark Events Diary. Southwark manages its own event Facebook pages and the events team also updates its own pages on the website.
7.3 Cross-borough communications and projects
Southwark initiated the London Events Forum (LEF) and facilitates the forum. Although only recently established, the forum is rapidly increasing the opportunities for cross-borough partnerships, benchmarking and joint working. Southwark is also overseeing LEF’s Capital Ambition programme of London-wide improvements to local government events infrastructure.
Cross-borough working on creative projects has proved quite difficult, although there have been a few successes, such as the Southern Exposure film project with Lambeth and Lewisham.
7.4 Communications and collaborations with non-council organisations
The Thames Festival says it has excellent working communications with Southwark and appreciates the officers’ ‘can-do’ attitude and significant support, not only in funding but also in advocacy and facilitating high-level partnerships for the festival. Southwark works closely with the Southwark Arts Forum and one of the events development officers has taken on the contracting and managing role for the I Love Peckham Festival, SE15 Creative Network, and Boundless, Southwark’s disability arts network.
Southwark has a strong, positive working relationship with the police events planning team and the police licensing team. The police do not charge Southwark for any of its own events, but do charge for commercial events. For smaller events, the safer neighbourhood teams provide support. London Borough of Sutton Outdoor arts events and activity
The London Borough of Sutton forms part of outer London. It covers an area of 43 km² (16.6 square miles) and is the 80th largest local authority in England by population. It is one of the southernmost boroughs of London. The borough has three parks with Green Flag Award status.
1 Staffing
There is no events team or anyone specifically responsible for events. There is no arts team. A freelancer delivers an outdoor event each year.
2 Event programme/activity
2.1 Events organised by the council
- Mayor of Sutton’s charity events
- IMAGINE festival
- Take Part, Take PRIDE
- Sutton Christmas lights switch-on
- Shopping events
- 24 farmers’ markets
- markets
- other high street events (around 12 per year)
- environmental fair event annually
- Hackbridge Carnival supported by the local schools and church of Hackbridge
2.2 Events organised by other parts of the council
There is no information about events organised by the other parts of the council. The town centre manager organises markets and Christmas lights, etc.
2.3 Events organised externally by arts organisations/community groups
- Marie Curie Cancer Care event annually
- Belmont Festival
- Wandle Festival
Events organised by the Rotaries:
- Music in the Park, Beddington Park
- Cheam Fair
- Carshalton Carnival
St Helier Festival is organised and run by local residents who belong to Sutton Federation of Tenant and Resident Associations’ (SFTRA) and is supported by Sutton Housing Partnership, local safer neighbourhood teams and the borough. Sutton Housing Partnership (under the umbrella of the borough) manages around 10 residents’ association fun days per year through SFTRA.
2.4 Commercial arts events
There are circuses and funfairs. Smarter Travel Sutton organises an annual sustainable travel event, supported by Transport for London. There are ‘green events’, organised by Eco Local.
2.5 Events programme (arts events or inclusive of arts activity)
There is an events calendar on the website.
3 Policies/strategies/monitoring/aspirations
3.1 Policies and strategies
The council uses the Health and Safety Executive’s Event safety guide for guidance. There is no one set of policies used throughout.
3.2 Benefits and problems of outdoor arts events and activity
Benefits:
- participation opportunities
- seeing, taking part, questions and talking to people
- easier access to community
- reaches more people
- encouraging community to feel and work together
- opportunities to volunteer at the event • inclusion • roads to employment • a way of engaging young people and reducing the fear of crime • welcomes all ages • reaches a diverse audience • breaks down barriers and mistrust between generations • outdoor events are great platforms for launches • provides a platform for engagement in the Cultural Olympiad • attracts new footfall • revitalises public spaces
Problems: • weather • annual events may have limitations
3.3 Advantages and disadvantages as a provider or host of outdoor arts events and activities
Advantages: • council connection • gives a higher profile for the creative industries in regenerating the town centre and the use of the new stages
3.4 Monitoring, evaluation, quality control: which aspects of these events are monitored, how and by whom, and how the results are used
Not applicable.
3.5 Aspirations: desired improvements to the existing events programme and what might make these improvements possible
• more events, a focused approach, a joined-up thinking with other departments • easier access to council departments relevant to organising community events • arts partnerships – to work with local authority officers and other partners, to produce high-quality outdoor arts • artists to work with local people in a range of ways • to embed high-quality artistic practice in the regular programming • getting local business involved and engaged with festivals • working with arts partners will help provide networks • provide new public spaces • a tailored mentoring programme with an arts partnership, for example, Zap Arts • funding – better signposting on funding for community groups; easier access for funding streams – shorter application forms
4 Funding for festivals and events
4.1 Income-generation targets/charges for use of parks
There are targets and without funding events will not run. £40 per annum for town centre.
4.2 Funding for council events
There are very few arts events in the borough. Those that exist are frequently funded directly through the borough. Small grants are available for artists to take part in The IMAGE festival. Who decides on other events’ funding depends on what sort of event it is.
4.3 Funding available for non-council events
Not known.
4.2 Fundraising and sponsorship
Not known.
5 Support for festivals and events
Lots of political support from all parties, including MPs and support via local committees. Each area organises events.
5.1 Advocates for outdoor arts events and activities
The deputy leader takes the lead on Take Part, Take Pride. A community champion leads for the local residents (Sutton Tenant Federation Association) St Helier Festival and the local community outdoor events.
5.2 Event-related training/seminars for community-based organisations
The Sutton Housing Partnership, the management company for the council’s housing, provides fundraising and event training for all council tenants. The Sutton Federation of Tenant and Resident Associations (SFTRA) is a voluntary organisation for resident association and tenants in Sutton and works with Sutton Housing partnership and the borough providing advice and training on a smaller scale. 5.3 Guidelines and information available for event organisers pre-application (for example, fact/advice sheets/event toolkit)
None available but the licensing officer advises on all safety and organising aspects of events and encourages use of the event manual.
5.4 Equipment resources
None are available.
5.5 Maps and site plans
These are held by town centre manager.
6 The process: how an outdoor arts event organiser goes about staging an event
6.1 Pre-application information
There is no or little information on the website.
6.2 First points of contact
The key departments to contact, depending on the venue, would be licensing, parks, highways. The main directorate would be environment and leisure.
6.3 Requirements from organisations on first contact
As there is no events team the requirements change according to the first approach.
6.4 Timelines advised/required for non-council event organisers
As there is no events team the requirements change according to the first approach.
6.5 Once an application is received
As there is no events team the requirements change according to the first approach.
6.6 Guidelines, advice, support available after first contact
All organised event enquiries should be directed through licensing department, but also the Safer Sutton Partnership, which includes the police, who are very keen to be involved and very supportive with advice for organisers of events.
6.7 Existing premises licences in the borough
There are three premises licences in the open space.
7 Communications/marketing/partnerships
7.1 Communications with other council departments
None known of.
7.2 Marketing events in the borough
The council has poster sites around the borough which can be used by other people and there is a council magazine going to all households, which can be used to advertise.
7.3 Cross-borough communications and projects
- South London Arts Partnership
7.4 Communications and collaborations with non-council organisations
- South London Arts Partnership
- Zap Art
- local radio
- Arena
- police
- Scout and Guide Movement
- SCVS
- Residents’ associations
- Army
- Friendly hands
- Sutton Tenant Federation Association
- Eco Local
- London Transport
8 Additional information/examples of best practice
The council is working on a three-day arts-led festival to celebrate the renewal of Sutton High Street. It is working with Zap Art to embed high-quality artistic practice in the regular programming of the ‘arts-centre-without walls’, to demonstrate the newly-installed events infrastructure working to its full potential. Through the work of Zap Arts, there will be a platform for arts work that encourages local people to share experiences, knowledge and skills. London Borough of Tower Hamlets Outdoor arts events and activity
The London Borough of Tower Hamlets is an inner London borough. It has a population of 215,300. The 1,978 hectares within its boundaries include many diverse parks, gardens and open spaces. The borough has six parks with Green Flag Award status: Bethnal Green Gardens, Island Gardens, Mile End Park, Mudchute Park, St George’s Gardens and Victoria Park.
1 Staffing
There are two festivals and events officers working within Tower Hamlets arts and events service, with a manager who has additional areas of responsibility for the arts programme in the borough. The team is responsible for the borough’s programme of outdoor events. Tower Hamlets’ arts and events team works with long-term freelance staff as core office personnel, plus a range of contractors, consultants and suppliers.
2 Event programme/activity
2.1 Events organised by the council
Approximately 90-100 events take place each year, with various levels of involvement from the events team. Approximately 10 of these are directly organised or delivered by the team including Paradise Gardens, fireworks, Baishakhi Mela, plus 2012-related events and other one-offs.
2.2 Events organised by other parts of the council
The sports development team also delivers events.
2.3 Events organised externally by arts organisations/community groups
There are a large number of community-led events.
2.4 Commercial arts events
In 2009-10 these include: Madstock, Lovebox Weekender, Tiesto concert, Field Day, and Underage, as well as funfairs and corporate events.
2.5 Events programme (arts events or inclusive of arts activity)
Please see 2.1.
3 Policies/strategies/monitoring/aspirations
3.1 Policies and strategies
- major event policy — currently in draft form, due for Cabinet July 2010
- creative industries strategy (draft stage)
- public art strategy (draft stage)
The arts and events service plan contributes and responds to Tower Hamlets’ strategic plan and partnership plan.
3.2 Benefits and problems of outdoor arts events and activity
Support for community festivals and events helps to improve the quality of people’s lives, promotes community cohesion, brings visitors to the borough and contributes to local economies. Tower Hamlets administers a grants scheme for festivals and in the coming year will fund 25–30 events.
Work with the commercial event sector brings events such as the Radiohead concerts and the annual return of the Lovebox and Underage festivals to Victoria Park. This raises the profile of the borough, contributes to the local economy, showcases local artists and provides first-class events for people in the borough.
3.3 Advantages and disadvantages as a provider or host of outdoor arts events and activities
Advantages: • experienced dynamic team • good park-based venues • central/east London location • a strong pool of local artists and arts organisations
Disadvantages: • not many ‘town square’ type spaces • all the disadvantages associated with an inner London borough, from crime to traffic congestion
3.4 Monitoring, evaluation, quality control: which aspects of these events are monitored, how and by whom, and how the results are used
• feedback on events programmes • one to one ‘snapshot’ surveys at events • freepost feedback cards • event organisers’ surveys • online surveys • complaints • premises licence consultation periods
The arts and events service is responsible for managing the systems and staffing to undertake monitoring and evaluation and liaising with third-party organisers to gain monitoring information. It summarises the findings of face to face and other surveys.
3.5 Aspirations: desired improvements to the existing events programme and what might make these improvements possible
• additional imaginative corporate and commercial events would produce extra income to fund the free, participatory events programme in the borough and meet the financial challenges in the immediate future • expansion into use of empty council-owned properties as events venues • additional staffing resources and greater connections across London would help
4 Funding for festivals and events
4.1 Income-generation targets/charges for use of parks
The income generated by outdoor events is approx £25,000 in 2009–10. Targets will rise dramatically in years 2010–11 and 2011–12.
4.2 Funding for council events
The commercial income is added to core funding and helps the borough to fund its free flagship events: Paradise Gardens and fireworks. This also facilitates levering-in considerable additional funds from sponsorship, grants, commercial activity on site and other sources. The Baishakhi Mela has some core funding committed for two years but needs additional fundraising effort.
All of these events then have a mix of grant funding, trading income, sponsorship, in-kind support.
4.3 Funding available for non-council events
Events not organised by the borough can be supported by the events fund – a £45,000 fund – supporting small community events with grants of up to £3,000. The grants panel is made up of the borough arts and events staff. Additional funding for events also comes from the borough’s 2012 unit (most of this is focused on Paradise Gardens). Tower Hamlets’ equalities team supports specific event work on equalities themes with approx £100,000. Decisions are agreed by arts and events staff and equalities and diversity staff.
4.4 Fundraising and sponsorship
Most responsibility for fundraising is with officers though they may also use freelance specialists.
5 Support for festivals and events
5.1 Advocates for outdoor arts events and activities
None identified.
5.2 Event-related training/seminars for community-based organisations
Tower Hamlets offers training and seminars for non-council event organisers.
5.3 Guidelines and information available for event organisers pre-application (for example, fact/advice sheets/event toolkit)
Guidelines are available. A toolkit is also available.
5.4 Equipment resources
Some basic signage, tents and use of equipment are held in the resource bank. 5.5 Maps and site plans
Site plans are required by the events team.
6 The process: how an outdoor arts event organiser goes about staging an event
6.1 Pre-application information
Information is available on the website.
6.2 First points of contact
All event enquiries are referred to the arts team, which initially sends the applicant the toolkit.
6.3 Requirements from organisations on first contact
A description of the event plan of action for the event and confirmation of insurance is required.
6.4 Timelines advised/required for non-council event organisers
Three or six months’ notice depending on the scale of the event.
6.5 Once an application is received
The applications are received by the arts team who set up a meeting with the applicant.
6.6 Guidelines, advice, support available after first contact
The arts and events service is responsible for the contractual arrangements for the use of parks and open spaces, road ways (for street parties and processional work) and provides the link and signposting to internal council departments and external partners for example, the police. The arts and events team also coordinate the borough safety advisory group for major events. The arts team also have an events toolkit.
6.7 Existing premises licences in the borough
None.
7 Communications/marketing/partnerships
7.1 Communications with other council departments
- planning groups for specific events (usually major events)
- quarterly safety advisory group meetings
- direct contact on an ad hoc basis
- arts and events website
- individual event websites for the Baishakhi Mela, East End Film festival and Paradise Gardens
- circulated event diary
7.2 Marketing events in the borough
The arts and events team has a three-days a week marketing officer post with a remit to market in-house events and work with commercial and third sector partners to market the event programme. This will use all the main marketing channels from viral and web-based to posters and flyers. For some projects specialist external marketing and press staff are contracted in.
7.3 Cross-borough communications and projects
There is occasional cross-borough work – for example, East Film festival, which works across boroughs and via the CREATE festival programme with the five Olympic host boroughs.
7.4 Communications and collaborations with non-council organisations
In-house staff work with all of the major commercial events hosted in the borough and their marketing and public relations teams.
8 Additional information/examples of best practice
The team works with Attitude is Everything [an agency set up to improve Deaf and disabled people’s access to live music] on access at street arts festivals – specifically Paradise Gardens 2008, 2009, 2010. It also worked with University of East London to evaluate the impact of festivals on community cohesion – this reported in autumn 2007. London Borough of Waltham Forest Outdoor arts events and activity
Waltham Forest is an outer borough of east London. It is a mix of built up residential development, though one-fifth is made up of forest, reservoirs, open spaces, parks and playing fields. Of the 3878 hectares within its borders, over 200 are managed by the borough as open space. In addition to its two parks with Green Flag Award status it is also one of five London boroughs designated as a host borough for 2012 Olympics. The population numbers 223,200, 35 per cent of whom are from ethnic minorities.
Within the borough there are no purpose-built performing arts venues or commercial cinema. The two assembly halls play host to a range of community-led concerts and theatre productions. Continental Drifts and Masquerade 2000 are the only two Arts Council England regularly funded organisations based in the borough.
1 Staffing
Waltham Forest has a dedicated events team within the arts events and halls service group. The service reports to the people policy and partnerships directorate. There are two events officers and all other services are contracted in as and when required.
2 Event programme/activity
2.1 Events organised by the council
The arts and events team delivers a culturally diverse programme, including the key summer events. Some of these events have been running for over 20 years and are very well established.
- Waltham Forest Mela
- Chingford Day
- Green Fayre
- Young People’s Caribbean Carnival
- Leytonstone Car-Free Day
- Light Up Langthorne Park
- fireworks
Within the borough there are fine examples of public art initiatives, including the Hitchcock monument in Jubilee Gardens, Leytonstone.
2.2 Events organised by other parts of the council
None known.
2.3 Events organised externally by arts organisations/community groups
- Chingford Village Festival
- Walthamstow Festival
- E17 Art Trail
- Leytonstone Festival
- Leytonstone Art Trail
- Waltham Forest Drama Festival
- E17 Jazz
- Walthamstow Folk Club
2.4 Commercial arts events
Commercial events include pub-based music and theatre. Parks host commercial funfairs on an occasional basis.
2.5 Events programme (arts events or inclusive of arts activity)
Events are listed on the website. Organisers are encouraged to submit their own events.
www.walthamforest.gov.uk/index/whats-on.htm
3 Policies/strategies/monitoring/aspirations
3.1 Policies and strategies
The council has recently launched its new cultural strategy. 3.2 Benefits and problems of outdoor arts events and activity
Benefits:
- more than 80 per cent public satisfaction with local festivals offer
- council members are very supportive of the arts in the borough and this is evidenced by increased investment in the festivals programme
Problems:
- occasional neighbourhood issues about parking
- some events are at full capacity and there is a need to limit growth in numbers
3.3 Advantages and disadvantages as a provider or host of outdoor arts events and activities
Advantages:
- festival and events programme celebrates and communicates diversity and social cohesion within the borough
- attracting new audiences to different parts of the borough including open spaces and town centres
- provides a platform for local creative product
- improving engagement in arts
Disadvantages:
- occasionally the outdoor events present crowd management issues
- risk to community cohesion where events become a site for other conflicts
3.4 Monitoring, evaluation, quality control: which aspects of these events are monitored, how and by whom, and how the results are used
Quality control is exercised through the collection of customer feedback by events and promotions teams at events. Information gathered is considered and informs in-house improvement planning across festivals delivery. Community-managed festivals are monitored with reference to the outputs defined in their funding contracts. The council also uses ‘resident panel surveys’ to gather views of users and non-users. These show high public satisfaction.
3.5 Aspirations: desired improvements to the existing events programme and what might make these improvements possible
- Increased funding is now available for local community-managed festivals and specifically designated for Leytonstone, Walthamstow, Leyton and Chingford
- Waltham Forest is part of the five boroughs’ CREATE Festival. The aim is to diversify and improve directly provided festivals
- Relocation of Young People’s Caribbean Carnival to Leyton to improve distribution of festivals around the borough
4 Funding for festivals and events
4.1 Income-generation targets/charges for use of parks
Charges are applied to festivals in parks and open spaces. Charges are based on the volume of expected attendance.
4.2 Funding for council events
The council funds all directly provided festivals. A limited income is derived from hire of stalls.
4.3 Funding available for non-council events
The council provides £150,000 in funding to voluntary sector organisations. Of this £50,000 is allocated specifically for community-managed festivals, some of which are outdoors.
4.4 Fundraising and sponsorship
External funding and sponsorship has not been central to the sustainability of events. Sponsorship has in the main been in-kind advertising support to particular events.
5 Support for festivals and events
The council and residents value the festivals programme highly and this is reflected in the increased investment in directly provided and funded festival activities.
5.1 Advocates for outdoor arts events and activities
- councillors are very supportive of the festivals programme
- friends of the parks
- attendances vary between 4,000 and 10,000 with in excess of 50,000 attending directly provided outdoor events and festivals
- the residents’ panel surveys conducted during the summer 2005 of residents who have attended council events showed 80 per cent satisfaction 5.2 Event related training/seminars for community-based organisations
Arts and events training is delivered by Waltham Forest Arts Council/Apex Arts. The events team provides advice and support as and when required.
5.3 Guidelines and information available for event organisers pre-application (for example, fact/advice sheets/event toolkit)
The events team provides advice and support as required. Organisations commissioned to deliver community-managed events are required to demonstrate competence in event management at the application stage.
5.4 Equipment resources
The borough has its own events equipment store, including staging, safety equipment and signage.
5.5 Maps and site plans
Site plans are used for all festivals.
6 The process: how an outdoor arts event organiser goes about staging an event
6.1 Pre-application information
Applications to use open spaces are dealt with by the council’s greenspace group. The licensing section issues temporary event notices.
6.2 First points of contact
The events team is available for all enquiries.
6.3 Requirements from organisations on first contact
Details about the nature of event and anticipated numbers are required.
6.4 Timelines advised/required for non-council event organisers
This depends on the nature of the activity. Any event attracting an audience more than 500 should be discussed with greenspace officers in order that licensing implications may be considered at least three months in advance.
6.5 Once an application is received
The process is set out on the application.
6.6 Guidelines, advice, support available after first contact
Guidelines are attached to the application.
6.7 Existing premises licences in the borough
There are four premises licences in the borough.
7 Communications/marketing/partnerships
7.1 Communications with other council departments
Other departments are advised at confirmation of the event or festival arrangement.
7.2 Marketing events in the borough
All events are marketed through the corporate communications team. The key communications tool is the Waltham Forest newspaper, distributed to every home and business in the borough.
7.3 Cross-borough communications and projects
Waltham Forest is working in partnership with the five-borough cultural festival CREATE which produces joint marketing of the cultural and festivals offer. CREATE is inspired by the 2012 Olympic Games and takes place in late June and July.
7.4 Communications and collaborations with non-council organisations
Waltham Forest provides information to a range of web-based listings including Visit London, GLA campaigns initiatives, London councils as well as commercial press.
8 Additional information/examples of best practice
‘Light Up Langthorne’: this new event was delivered as a one-off to launch the Cultural Olympiad. The park is in one of the borough’s most deprived and ethnically diverse areas and anti-social behaviour had created a perception of the park as unsafe. The light-up event presented circus performers working with fire and light, provided an exhibition of artists working with light and involved art installations using 2012 candles. The event attracted more people than were expected and attenders gave positive responses. Customers’ return showed that residents rated the event as excellent and said that they would come back again to events in the park. Light Up is now a regular event and officers are exploring new ways in which the park can be used for cultural activities. London Borough of Wandsworth Outdoor arts events and activity
The London Borough of Wandsworth is an inner London borough. It has a population of over 284,000.
The 3,427 hectares within its boundaries include many diverse parks, gardens and open spaces which cover over 670 hectares.
Wimbledon Park, managed by the London Borough of Merton and Richmond Park, managed by the Royal Parks partially fall within the borough boundaries.
1 Staffing
There is an events team that works with teams for filming, the arts and a local gallery. The events team has three people full-time and one part-time.
2 Event programme/activity
2.1 Events organised by the council
Events:
- fireworks
- music at the bandstand
- national events planned for 2012
- civic, armed forces, and remembrance events
- Holocaust Memorial Day
- elderly away days
Arts:
- arts festival
- artists’ open house
- photo competition (with filming team)
- young performer showcase
- community outreach projects
- activities organised by the Pump House Gallery – talks, art education, fairs, etc
Filming:
- film awards and screenings
2.2 Events organised by other parts of the council
The economic development office organises several festivals and carnivals, such as York Road Carnival, Balham Music Festival, and Lavender Hill Festival. The libraries organise Black History Month, Children’s Holiday Activities, Summer Reading Challenge, and so on. The sports development section also organises a wide range of outdoor events.
2.3 Events organised externally by arts organisations/community groups
- Furzedown Festival
- Battersea Arts Centre Theatre and Comedy Festival
- Wandle Valley Festival
- Putney Jazz Festival
- Putney Boat Race
- Battersea Park Peace Pagoda Festival
- Thai Festival
- Praise in the Park
- Rotarians Pensioners Christmas Day Party
- Tooting Carnival
- Old York Road Festival
- Roehampton Music Festival
2.4 Commercial arts events
Wandsworth has a history of commercial events. In Battersea Park there is an open air venue that is hired throughout the summer months. Commercial events include the Affordable Art Fair, Designer Wedding Show, Decorative Antiques and Textiles Fair, and Wimbledon Arts Open Studios.
2.5 Events programme (arts events or inclusive of arts activity)
Throughout the year there are community outreach projects, outdoor art education workshops, talks, screenings, private views, launch parties and fairs. Also:
January
- Decorative Antiques and Textiles Fair
February
- Battersea Arts Comedy Festival
- young persons schools filming project • photo competition exhibition • Designer Wedding Show
March • Affordable Art Fair
April • Putney Jazz Festival • Putney Boat Race • Decorative Antiques and Textiles Fair
May • Wandsworth Arts Festival • Battersea Arts Theatre Festival • film seminar
June • Wandle Valley Festival • Furzedown Festival • film awards • Battersea Park Peace Pagoda Festival
July • Music at the Bandstand • national events planned for 2012 • Thai Festival • Tooting Carnival
August • Roehampton Music Festival • Praise in the Park
September • Old York Road Festival • Decorative Antiques and Textiles Fair
October • Affordable Art Fair • Designer Wedding Show • artists open house • photo competition launch
November • Wimbledon Arts Open Studios • fireworks • BFI Fireworks Family Learning Project
December • Rotarians Pensioners Christmas Day Party • Young Performer Showcase
3 Policies/strategies/monitoring/aspirations
3.1 Policies and strategies
Wandsworth has an open spaces strategy, a cultural strategy, an events strategy and – in draft – an arts strategy.
3.2 Benefits and problems of outdoor arts events and activity
Benefits: • local cultural programme
Problems: • impact of events on open spaces
3.3 Advantages and disadvantages as a provider or host of outdoor arts events and activities
Advantages: • a local cultural programme • income-generation • tourism and visitor attraction • economic development
Disadvantages: • potential for complaints • horticultural maintenance • impact of events on open spaces
3.4 Monitoring, evaluation, quality control: which aspects of these events are monitored, how and by whom, and how the results are used
External events are monitored through meetings and management plans. The event operations manager, events manager and parks police attend major events. The operations manager attends medium-sized events to monitor and evaluate. Parks police are allocated to major and medium-sized events and they also monitor small events.
The Metropolitan Police, licensing, noise team, fire brigade, emergency planning, public transport, highways team and parks teams are informed of events. Planning and debrief meetings and notes are made for developing future events.
3.5 Aspirations: desired improvements to the existing events programme and what might make these improvements possible
Extra staffing, funding and more sponsorship is needed. A pan-London events toolkit and application form would be helpful.
4 Funding for festivals and events
Festivals and events are funded internally by the council and externally through funding applications.
4.1 Income-generation targets/charges for use of parks
£1 million income is generated by events and film
4.2 Funding for council events
Fireworks is funded internally and ticketed so its cost is zero. Arts events are funded partly by the council and partly by external funding sources, including Arts Council England.
4.3 Funding available for non-council events
The council offers grants to help local artists and organisations deliver arts projects. Individuals can apply for up to £500 and groups can apply for up to £4,000. The grant can cover up to 70 per cent of a project’s total costs. The council has a community fund which provides one-off grants up to £5,000.
4.4 Fundraising and sponsorship
There is a sponsorship and fundraising officer (in the parks team) who can help with advice and information.
5 Support for festivals and events
5.1 Advocates for outdoor arts events and activities
The arts, events and filming teams all support festival and event organisers to maximise the development of their events.
5.2 Event-related training/seminars for community-based organisations
The team refers events organisers to food hygiene courses and gives them one-to-one training where it is needed. The film team holds seminars on subjects such as distribution, scriptwriting, and funding.
5.3 Guidelines and information available for event organisers pre-application (for example, fact/advice sheets/event toolkit
Guidelines about management and risk-assessment are provided to event organisers, as well as layout plans and advice on design and delivery of events. There is currently no toolkit, but the events operations manager gives step by step support to delivering an event.
5.4 Equipment resources
There is a wide range of technical equipment available for hire.
5.5 Maps and site plans
Maps are available through the website.
6 The process: how an outdoor arts event organiser goes about staging an event
6.1 Pre-application information
There is information on the website and from the events team.
6.2 First points of contact
The events team or arts team are the first points of contact. The events team will ask organisers to complete an application form before any confirmation is made.
6.3 Requirements from organisations on first contact
There is an initial events enquiry form that is followed by the application form. Event organisers are asked to provide the following information:
- stages: size, number
- marquees: size, number
- whether alcohol is to be sold/distributed and/or music played
- the event’s website address
- sponsorship/branding required
- details of the previous event (if it has been held before)
6.4 Timelines advised/required for non-council event organisers
Events need to be booked at least two months in advance. Larger events may require at least 10–12 months’ notice.
6.5 Once an application is received
Meetings are held at the site and elsewhere to discuss event aims and objectives, technical aspects of the event, layout, safety, publicity, planning and licensing.
Confirmation of the event is sent, along with an invoice. Payment is made before the event. Then the draft management plan is developed and risks assessed.
A final management document is agreed and approved. This document includes layout plans, insurance, contractors’ details, first aid, emergency and litter plans. It also sets out roles and responsibilities and a timeline of the event. The timeline includes security briefings, key event timings. This document will be referred to throughout the event to communicate with the organisers.
6.6 Guidelines, advice, support available after first contact
See 5.3 above.
6.7 Existing premises licences in the borough
Licences for outdoor events are applied for as required. There are no premises licences for any of the parks in Wandsworth.
7 Communications/marketing/partnerships
7.1 Communications with other council departments
The cultural strategy officers’ group, representing all council depts holds monthly meetings and monthly event diaries are distributed to other council departments. Telephone contact, meetings and information are shared as necessary.
7.2 Marketing events in the borough
All external marketing is approved with the events team. The council has an internal design and graphics team, which is responsible for producing publicity for council-organised events together with the team that is producing the event. Wandsworth’s website promotes events in the borough.
7.3 Cross-borough communications and projects
The arts team belongs to South London Arts Partnership and Central Arts Partnership. The team is coordinating Big Dance activities with Southwark and Lambeth. The events team belongs to the London Events Forum. An online application form is being produced with Southwark and other boroughs.
The ‘short film’ fund is facilitated with Westminster Arts, with the filming team from Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, and Film London. The filming team attends Film London meetings with other London boroughs. Wandsworth is a member of Go South Go.
7.4 Communications and collaborations with non-council organisations
The council has links with Film London. It holds meetings with key cultural stakeholders under the banner of Creative Wandsworth and has partnerships with external organisations to deliver projects. City of Westminster Outdoor arts events and activity
The City of Westminster borough occupies much of the central area of London. 116 parks and open spaces including four royal parks and 18 parks with Green Flag Award status can be found within its borders. In addition to the open spaces with the borough, the city owns and maintains East Finchley cemetery in the borough of Barnet.
The borough has a population of 236,000 residing in its 2204 hectares.
1 Staffing
There is a special events team, who manage filming, film premieres, etc.
2 Event programme/activity
2.1 Events organised by the council
700 events per year on the streets and squares in the borough, plus 2,500 filming days.
2.2 Events organised by other parts of the council
West End Live is organised by the communications team. The council contracts out programming and production of events in the borough.
2.3 Events organised externally by arts organisations/community groups
All events, apart from West End Live, are organised by external parties: these could be community groups, arts organisations or private companies. Westminster City Council special events team acts as the coordinator and facilitator.
2.4 Commercial (arts) events
- Carnaby Street, Oxford Street and Regent Street events (public events for retail areas)
- regular hire of the north terrace in Leicester Square
- film premieres (public event for film distribution companies)
2.5 Events programme (arts events or inclusive of arts activity)
Events are listed on the website: www.westminster.gov.uk/services/business/specialevents/forthcoming-events/
3 Policies/strategies/monitoring/aspirations
3.1 Policies and strategies
All events delivered are in line with the Westminster City Council policies and strategies. Events organisers are encouraged to consider waste management, recycling and sustainability in line with the ‘go green’ policy; the recycling team at Westminster can also offer advice on this. Arts events will be in line with the arts unit’s cultural strategy. Westminster special events team is revising its policy – to be completed by April 2010.
3.2 Benefits and problems of outdoor arts events and activity
Facilitating events on the public highway enables a large number of people to enjoy free events in central London. It also potentially generates business/income for the area and promotes the Westminster and London as a tourist destination. There are also challenges involved, as Westminster residents and businesses as well as transport partners can be affected by the events. It is the council’s aim to create a balance in this and to minimise impact.
3.3 Advantages and disadvantages as a provider or host of outdoor arts events and activities
None identified. 3.4 Monitoring, evaluation, quality control: which aspects of these events are monitored, how and by whom, and how the results are used
The city monitors most events. There is no formal structure for evaluation other than via the licensing operational safety planning groups. Debriefs are held for all major events. For smaller events debriefs are part of the next planning meeting for future events.
3.5 Aspirations: desired improvements to the existing events programme and what might make these improvements possible
The main desired improvements are to improve processes and activities for events and to update the policy and guidelines for the special events team in the lead-up to the Olympics, not necessarily to improve the event programme.
4 Funding for festivals and events
4.1 Income-generation targets/charges for use of parks
The targets and charges for parks are under the remit of the parks manager.
4.2 Funding for council events
The special events team does not fund events in Westminster, apart from West End Live, which is organised by the communications team.
However, for events organised by community groups organisers are advised to contact local ward councillors to apply for potential funding as each ward has a £100,000 budget assigned for community projects.
4.3 Funding available for non-council events
Same as above.
4.4 Fundraising and sponsorship
The arts unit has some guidance notes to send out to organisers to help them in the process of finding sponsorship or funding. The special events team can send this out to organisers also. However, this is only guidance and the city’s art and special events team tends not to get involved in these activities.
5 Support for festivals and events
5.1 Advocates for outdoor arts events and activities
Councillors are very supportive of outdoor events; one is the lead member for special events, another for the Olympics.
5.2 Event-related training/seminars for community-based organisations
Not applicable.
5.3 Guidelines and information available for event organisers pre-application (for example, fact/advice sheets/event toolkit)
The events team liaises between the police and other council departments to ensure marches, parades and political demonstrations go ahead with as little disruption as possible. The team aims to fulfill the council’s obligations to ensure event and filming activities are carried out safely, with a minimum of disruption to other highway users.
It gives guidance to event organisers and filming companies on the following issues:
- public health and safety
- crowd control
- proposed locations and routes
- noise and environmental parameters
- licensing
- road closures and parking suspensions
- more information about filming on Westminster’s public highways or to applying to hold an event is available online
- information role
The team also acts as a single point of contact within the council for information concerning public events in Westminster and coordinates council services necessary to support such activities. It is in the process of updating guidelines; these will include information on how to organise an event as well as guidance about licences.
5.4 Equipment resources
No equipment is available.
5.5 Maps and site plans
Maps and plans are available on the website. showing areas and parking bays. These can be a little out of date so organisers are advised to make on-site checks.
6 The process: how an outdoor arts event organiser goes about staging an event in the borough
6.1 Pre-application information
Event applications are on the council website. The event manager is available for consultancy and a meeting. The website is very informative and should list all necessary information.
6.2 First points of contact
The switchboard is manned by a call centre in Scotland which has been briefed about the area and about what type of questions might be asked about events. The centre is also sent event-specific information in the lead-up to an event.
6.3 Requirements from organisations on first contact
Two written references are required, detailing the applicants’ knowledge, skills and ability to manage the proposed event. Also required are: a copy of the emergency plan, a risk-assessment, a draft event programme, a copy of public liability/all-risk insurance cover for the entire period of occupation, and a site plan.
6.4 Timelines advised/required for non-council event organisers
Minimum three months
6.5 Once an application is received
If the event proposal is approved the organiser will be asked to set up a planning meeting (licensing operational safety planning group) including external London-based agencies such as transport services, police and emergency services to discuss the proposal in full.
6.6 Guidelines, advice, support available after first contact
Guidelines are on the website: www.westminster.gov.uk/services/business/specialevents/events/
6.7 Existing premises licences in the borough
The City of Westminster currently holds premises licences for 10 areas.
7 Communications/marketing/partnerships
7.1 Communications with other council departments
The team communicates with other council teams daily, including parks, highways, parking, cleansing and recycling, building control, planning, arts, communications and sport and leisure.
7.2 Marketing events in the borough
There is no active marketing campaign for events in the city, but we do have a list of forthcoming applications.
7.3 Cross-borough communications and projects
The city works with neighbouring boroughs on major events and projects, such as Notting Hill Carnival, Chinese New Year, New Year’s Day Parade.
7.4 Communications and collaborations with non-council organisations
None known. The event organiser contacts the council
The events manager will offer advice according to each event. Information required from organisers will vary according to the event and the timing of first contact.
Pre-application information is available on the website. (Temporary event notice forms can also be downloaded here)
Some organisations may initially interface with the arts development manager (eg when commissioned to deliver an outdoor event).
The events manager is a ONE STOP SHOP for events organised by non-council organisations and individuals. Parks and arts staff will also pass enquiries to her. The event manager sends all forms needed. If the event is larger and more complex she will refer the organiser to licensing.
Applicants must send their applications (hard copies) to 7 bodies to assess:
- Fire Service
- Police
- Child Protection
- Licensing
- Building Control
- Health & Safety
- Emergency Planning
Timelines advised Applications for events (to parks and licensing) can come in as little as 2 weeks before an event. The absolute minimum period for a temporary event notice is 10 days. 2½ months is required for premises licence to allow for a 28 days notice period.
There is consultation and if there are objections the application goes to the licensing board which meets regularly and consists of councillors and advisory officers. There are no exemptions or reductions to licence fees.
The events manager supports organisers through the licence and park hire application process, liaising with other departments and officers where required.
Guidelines for event sustainability (making events ‘green’) are issued. The event organiser contacts the council
(First point of contact has yet to be confirmed). The applicant is directed to the online application
The application is for all events in borough including parks, streets and public buildings. The event application form clearly sets out the process. No supporting documents are required on first contact. Applicants are advised that their first application be put in 9-12 months before an event.
Applicants are advised to read the Brent event guide and the timeline factsheet before completing the application online. Applicants are advised that 6-9 months are required for licence applications. Traffic management orders need 12 weeks notice and must be agreed before this time. Events management plans are required within 2 weeks of event approval.
The completed application submitted online alerts appropriate council officers about the event.
An agreement to hire parks is issued only with safety advisory group (SAG) approval. Members of SAG may visit a site during an erection and event. A safety advisory group debrief is held after the event.
Safety advisory group meetings are requested if:
- the event requires premises licence
- alcohol is to be sold
- a bonfire or fireworks are proposed
- the event requires road closure. For more complex events, more than one meeting may be required.
If a safety advisory group (SAG) meeting is required, event organisers are invited to upload their event management plan and risk assessments, including site plan and emergency plan.
Brent health & safety and licencing department confirms receipt of the application, requests clarification on some points, and asks applicants to attend an informal meeting. OR confirms that applicants may continue with their planning. Applicants are reminded to check the ‘Timeline Factsheet’ and check times for permissions. Guidance, advice and support are available at any time. Brent officers work closely with event stakeholders through event-specific advisory forums. The event organiser contacts the council
The senior arts development officer can advise on funding and event development.
The senior arts development officer assesses applications and the ability of organisers to deliver a good & safe event.
For a funding application the organiser must complete an ‘event checklist’. This alerts officers to the need for a licence, a road closure, information on environmental health etc.
Parks Office If a park needs to be booked, the organiser must submit a proposal giving their details, dates, times, site required and the infrastructure that will be used.
Organisers are put in touch with the relevant council officers. The senior arts development officer may act as a conduit between them.
Once an application to hire a park is approved, a hire agreement is issued by parks.
Timelines advised Parks and open spaces request 3 months notice for a small event and at least 6 months for large events. 10 days notice is required for a temporary event notice. 3 months notice is required for a premises licence (or longer for more complex events). 8 weeks notice is needed for traffic management orders.
Advice and support is available at any stage of the process. Organisers are invited to meet with the arts team, who run through all requirements and elements in the event guide relevant to their event, offering a bespoke support service.
Local ward councillors are consulted on the proposed event. Stakeholders including friends groups are consulted, especially for new events.
Festivals and events cannot access funding unless they have completed the event checklist which ensures they have the appropriate licences, permissions, safety paperwork etc. Guidelines on traffic management are attached to the application form. Organisers are later required by parks to submit risk assessments, insurance and licence details and site plans. The event organiser contacts the council
The parks hire officer sends a simple form to the organiser
The form is returned to parks hire office
If the request is a simple tennis court / football pitch booking, the parks hire officer deals with the request. If the request is for an event, the parks hire officer sends to the technical manager, part of the communications & engagement team. The technical manager then assesses the event.
The technical manager sends a temporary event notice application if needed to the organiser, plus other information. This does not constitute a toolkit. The technical manager may also refer the organiser to sources of funding.
If a temporary event notice application is needed, the event organiser must send the application to the Safety advisory group (SAG) including licensing.
If the application is straightforward and there are no police objections, licensing issues a temporary event notice to the organiser and advises the technical manager.
For large or complex events the application will go to the events licensing safety advisory group, administered by the technical manager who will act as a conduit between the organisers and the various council departments, plus limited communication with police and other official bodies.
Applications go to the licensing panel if there are objections
The technical manager issues a park hire contract with conditions, and signposts the organiser to:
Traffic management Health & safety Environmental health
Process Map London Borough of Greenwich The event organiser contacts the council via ‘event applications’ on the council website, or via the event manager who is available to meet and consult. Printed application forms are also available by writing to the events management team.
Application requires two written references detailing the applicant’s knowledge, skills and ability to manage the proposed event.
The application requires a copy of the emergency plan, a risk assessment, a draft event programme, a copy of public liability/all risk insurance cover for the entire period of occupation and a site plan.
Application received The events team check the availability of the facility and make contact with the organisers. No refundable deposit is required at this stage. Formal consultation with park and open spaces stakeholders starts, including other council departments, the police, health & safety advisor, other council officers, eg emergency planning, licensing etc.
Timelines advised 10 months
A licence is issued subject to appropriate licensing information being received.
Before an event is approved the council undertakes an informed decision process based on the following criteria:
- Risk management
- Financial risk
- Legal constraints
- Local residents
- Security and safety
- Impact on park and open space
- Size, location etc
- Quality
- Event organisers’ experience
- How the event meets the council’s priorities
The area park officer undertakes a post-event site visit.
The area park officer and the event manager have an on-site meeting.
The event organiser completes an event feedback report. The event organiser contacts the council
The switchboard is staffed by a call centre in Scotland who have been briefed about the area and what type of questions might be asked in relation to events. (They are also sent specific information in case of queries in the lead-up to an event.)
Organisers may download an event application from the council website. The website is very informative and lists all necessary information.
The event manager is available to meet the event organiser
The event application requires two written references detailing the applicant’s knowledge, skills and ability to manage the proposed event.
Timelines advised Minimum 3 months
If the event proposal is approved the organiser will be asked to set up a planning meeting with the licensing operational planning group, including external London-based agencies such as transport services and emergency services to discuss the proposal in full. | Local authority key information | OUTDOOR EVENTS POLICY | FUNDING | |--------------------------------|-----------------------|---------| | | Is there a specific outdoor events policy? | Is there an income target for parks and open spaces? | Is there a fixed scale for park hires? | Are there exemptions from park hire fees? | | Barking & Dagenham | no, but included in park and cultural strategies | no; only for funfairs | yes but minimal hire charges | yes fees can be waived | | Barnet | no | no | yes | reduced rates according to organisation | | Bexley | no, but fits into openspace, arts and cultural strategies | £30K | yes | yes | | Brent | no, cultural strategy | in review | yes | no | | Camden | culture and events strategy is under review | £40K | yes | community groups are exempt | | City of London | no | no | yes | yes | | Croydon | no, but links into broader strategies | no | yes | reduced rates according to organisation | | Ealing | no, but they feed into other council policies | yes £1 million | yes | no | | Enfield | arts and culture strategy is in consultation | not known | yes | no | | Greenwich | no, included in community engagement strategy | no | yes | yes, council, community and voluntary groups exempt | | Hackney | no, included in the open space strategy | £30K | yes | yes park usergroups not charged | | Hammersmith & Fulham | yes | yes | yes | community groups only pay admin fee | | Haringey | included in open space strategy | no | yes | not known | | Harrow | no, but mentioned in cultural strategy | no | no | yes | | Hillingdon | no | not specific | yes | community, charity and council groups exempt | | Hounslow | no, in development as part of arts strategy | information not available | yes | no | | Islington | no, but in development | no | yes | yes council groups | | Kensington & Chelsea | no | yes £25K parks £50 filming | yes | no | | Kingston Upon Thames | no | no | yes | discounts | | Lambeth | yes | yes £300K | yes | yes | | Lewisham | no, but is included in sustainable community, cultural and open spaces strategies | no | yes | yes | | Merton | no, but fits into the cultural and open spaces strategies | yes £56K | yes | yes | | Newham | in development | yes | sliding scale | no but reduced rates | | Redbridge | no | yes £25K | yes | yes | | Richmond | no but feeds into other strategies | yes £11K | yes | yes dependant on organisation/event | | Southwark | yes have event policy but under review | yes £20K | yes | yes | | Sutton | no | yes | not known | not known | | Tower Hamlets | in development | £250K | yes | no | | Waltham Forest | no, but included in recent cultural strategy | not known | varies | not known | | Wandsworth | yes | yes, £1 million (including film) | yes | no | | Westminster | in development | yes | not known | not known | | Local authority key information | FUNDING | Is there a specific outdoor arts events budget? | Is there funding available for non-council events? | |--------------------------------|---------|-----------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------| | Barking & Dagenham | yes £25K commissioning budget held by arts development officer plus event specific budgets | can submit proposals for commissioning budget; events can receive funding if incorporated into umbrella festival such as the big dance | | Barnet | non specific | information not currently available | | Bexley | yes | small grants from Bexley Arts Council | | Brent | yes plus an additional £53K raised through sponsorship etc | arts grants available | | Camden | not listed | yes various grants ranging from £750– £20,000 | | City of London | no | they consider charities and arts/cultural events for grants | | Croydon | yes plus additional money from sponsorship | yes as grants | | Ealing | yes £1 million which events team generate | yes – through ward forum grants and community chest | | Enfield | varies according to events | no grants but there is a small amount for commissions | | Greenwich | no but different directorates have budgets | not known | | Hackney | no | yes £100K though it is strategic commissions to fulfil the aims of the cultural framework not grant aid. Other non-council grants available | | Hammersmith & Fulham | limited | arts groups encouraged to apply to small grants scheme | | Haringey | no but several departments contribute to events | 7 area Assemblies have £50K each to be used as the local residents decide | | Harrow | no | no arts funding but possible through community grants scheme | | Hillingdon | no | no, only advice on non council funding sources | | Hounslow | yes small budget for commissions and development | no | | Islington | no | grant aid totalling £17k per annum | | Kensington & Chelsea | no | yes but not event specific | | Kingston Upon Thames | no | possible through neighbourhood small project grant | | Lambeth | yes | no grants, only advice | | Lewisham | yes | yes | | Merton | not for arts events but yes for green spaces events | yes, small grants for arts | | Newham | yes for the large scale summer events & smaller events all year long | yes there are grants for outdoor activities | | Redbridge | no | no but encouraged to apply to Redbridge Arts Council | | Richmond | the arts fund a few events | small grant systems for voluntary sector | | Southwark | yes | yes | | Sutton | yes for specific events | small grants to take part in the IMAGE event | | Tower Hamlets | yes | yes £45K via the events fund | | Waltham Forest | yes | yes £50K for community managed festivals | | Wandsworth | no | yes | | Westminster | no | local ward councillors have £100K budget for community projects | | Local authority key information | FUNDING | SUPPORT FOR FESTIVALS AND EVENTS | |--------------------------------|---------|----------------------------------| | | Is there a dedicated fundraising / sponsorship officer? | Is training provided for community organisations? | Is there an event tool kit or event information pack? | Is there an officer to provide advice/ support? | Is there web based information? | | Barking & Dagenham | yes in communications team; events and arts officers also fundraise | no | no | yes | yes | | Barnet | no | no | no, but there is a park booking pack | yes | no | | Bexley | no | no | yes | yes | yes | | Brent | no | yes occasionally | yes | yes | in development | | Camden | no | yes occasionally | yes | yes | yes | | City of London | no | no | no | yes | yes | | Croydon | not one specific person | no | no | yes | yes | | Ealing | events team all fundraise; councillors, communications and Head of Service provide leads | no | no | yes | no | | Enfield | no | no | no | yes | yes | | Greenwich | no | no | no | yes | yes | | Hackney | no | yes | yes | yes | yes | | Hammersmith & Fulham | the events team raise funds and sponsorship | no | in development | yes | yes | | Haringey | no | no | yes | yes | yes | | Harrow | no | no | no | yes | yes | | Hillingdon | no | no | no | yes | no | | Hounslow | no | in development | yes | yes | yes | | Islington | no | yes | no | yes | yes | | Kensington & Chelsea | no | yes | in development | yes | no | | Kingston Upon Thames | no | yes for risk | no | yes | no | | Lambeth | no | assessments | no | yes | yes | | Lewisham | no | yes | yes | yes | yes | | Merton | yes | no | no | yes | no | | Newham | yes | in development | yes | yes | in development | | Redbridge | no | no | no | yes | yes | | Richmond | no | no | no | yes | yes | | Southwark | no | yes | yes | yes | yes | | Sutton | no | yes through Sutton housing partnership | no | no | no | | Tower Hamlets | no | yes | yes | yes | yes | | Waltham Forest | no | yes via Apex Arts | no | yes | yes | | Wandsworth | yes | no | no | yes | yes | | Westminster | no | no | yes | yes | yes | | Local authority key information | PROCESS | COMMUNICATIONS | |--------------------------------|---------|----------------| | | Is there a one stop shop for event organisers? | Is there a SAG or similar? | How many parks have premises licences? | Is there a designated communications officer for arts and events? | Does all publicity get produced through the communications department? | | Barking & Dagenham | yes: event officer | yes | 6 | no | yes unless partnership events | | Barnet | no | no | 5 | no | no | | Bexley | no | yes | 5 | no but Danson Festival | yes has its own marketing | | Brent | being devised now | yes | 4 | yes | yes | | Camden | yes | no | 0 | no | no | | City of London | yes | no | 0 | no | yes | | Croydon | no | yes | 3 | yes | no | | Ealing | no | yes | 1 | no | yes | | Enfield | no | yes | not known | yes | not all | | Greenwich | no | yes | 8 | yes | not all | | Hackney | the events team | yes | 4 | no | yes | | Hammersmith & Fulham | no | no | 1 | no | yes | | Haringey | no | yes | 0 | no | yes | | Harrow | no | no | 0 | no | yes via Westminster | | Hillingdon | no | no | 4 | no | yes | | Hounslow | yes | no | 1 | yes | no | | Islington | no | yes | 15 | no | yes | | Kensington & Chelsea | no | no | 0 | no | yes | | Kingston Upon Thames | no | no | 0 | no | no | | Lambeth | yes | yes | 0 | yes | yes | | Lewisham | no | yes | 5 | no | yes | | Merton | no | no | 3 | yes | yes | | Newham | no | no | 0 | yes | yes | | Redbridge | no | yes | 5 | yes | yes | | Richmond | no | no | 0 | no | yes | | Southwark | yes | yes | 9 | no | yes | | Sutton | no | no | 3 | no | no | | Tower Hamlets | yes | yes | 0 | yes | yes | | Waltham Forest | yes | yes | 4 | no | yes | | Wandsworth | yes | yes | 0 | no | yes | | Westminster | yes | yes | 10 | no | yes | Main contacts for outdoor arts events in the London boroughs
ACE Clive Lyttle [email protected] 020 7606 6114
BARKING & DAGENHAM Janice Hunte Events Manager [email protected] 020 8227 3093
Julia Pearson Events Co-ordinator [email protected] 020 8227 3591
Paul Hogan Head of Service Leisure & Arts [email protected] 020 8227 3314
Catherine Miller-Basi Group Manager for Arts & Events [email protected]
Michael McCormack Arts Development Manager [email protected] 020 8724 8797
BARNET Jakki Redmond Greenspaces Support Manager [email protected] 020 8359 7829
Lloyd Gee [email protected] 020 8359 7760
BEXLEY Christine Ryan Parks & Open Spaces Manager [email protected] 020 8303 7777 ext 2528
Rachael Stanway Principal Arts Officer [email protected]
Jan Williams Parks Project & Policy Officer [email protected]
Saskia Delman Arts Manager [email protected] 020 8294 6991
BRENT Phil Bruce-Green [email protected] 020 8937 5633
Vashti Waite Festival Manager (maternity leave) [email protected] 020 8937 3113
Aida Esposito Cultural Development Manager [email protected] 020 8937 3536
Stephen Gilby Festival Manager (maternity cover) [email protected] 020 8937 3113
BROMLEY Amanda Davies Arts Development Officer [email protected]
Susie Clark B.A.C. my time [email protected] 020 8313 4778
John Gledhill Head of Business Development 020 8461 7527
David Brockhurst Colin Brand Head of Culture 020 8313 4107
CAMDEN Caroline Jenkinson Head of Arts & Tourism [email protected] 020 7974 1685
Chris Mellor Senior Arts Development Manager [email protected] 020 7974 1658
CITY OF LONDON David Pearson Director of Libraries, Archives & Guildhall Art Gallery Dept [email protected] 020 7332 1850
Carol Boswarthack Support Services Manager [email protected] 020 7332 1123
Mick Bagnall Film Liaison Officer [email protected] 020 7332 3182
Helen Kearney Policy Officer, Town Clerk’s Department (no head of culture/arts) [email protected] 020 73321481
CROYDON Jenny Gunston Festival Manager [email protected] 020 8760 5707
Deborah Spencer Conference & Hire Manager [email protected] 020 8253 1038
Miriam Nelkin Arts Manager [email protected] 020 8686 4433 ext 63023
EALING Gus Corcoran Festivals & Events Contract [email protected] 01227 266008
Veronica Meehan Festivals & Events Contract Manager [email protected]
Nick Buckley Community Event Co-ordinator [email protected] 020 8825 5386
Lesli Good Head of Arts, Heritage & Libraries [email protected] 020 8825 6443 / 07717 860586
Carol Swords Programmer [email protected] 020 8825 9806 EALING continued
Zoë Archer Exhibition & Events Co-ordinator [email protected] 020 8825 9803
Anne Ninivin Gallery Manager [email protected] 020 8825 9807
Helen Walker Manager [email protected] 020 8825 9805
Steve Marshall Assistant Director, Leisure [email protected]
ENFIELD
Lorraine Cox Cultural Services Manager [email protected] 020 8379 3659
Zoe Prosser Arts Officer [email protected] 020 8379 1466
Simon Gardener Head of Leisure and Culture [email protected]
GREENWICH
Andrew Bragg Events Manager (Technical) [email protected] 020 8921 6408
Tracey Sage Senior Arts Development Officer [email protected] 020 8921 6109
vacant Head of Arts, Culture and Film 020 8921 5449
Sam Eastop Senior Assistant Director, Department of Culture & Community Services [email protected]
Emma O’Shea Greenwich Town Centre Manager 020 8921 4463
HACKNEY
Donna Walsh Corporate Events Co-ordinator [email protected] 020 8356 3410
Andy Kneebone Events Coordinator [email protected] 020 8356 8215
Georgina Mackie Assistant Events Coordinator [email protected] 020 8356 5378
Ceryl Evans Head of Museums & Culture [email protected] 020 8356 7610
John Wade Head of Green Spaces [email protected] 020 8356 7605
HAMMERSMITH & FULHAM
Heather Thomas Events Officer [email protected] 020 8753 3805
Penny Boyd Business Development Manager [email protected] 020 8753 3806
Donna Pentelow Head of Arts, Events & Registration [email protected] 020 8753 2358
HARINGEY
Lewis Taylor Head of Parks [email protected] 020 7263 5001
Marcia Connell Principal Events & Operations Manager [email protected] 020 8489 4543
Diana Edmonds Assistant Director, Culture Libraries & Learning [email protected] 020 8489 2759
HARROW
Jo Saunders Service Manager, Arts & Events [email protected] 020 8424 1906
Elena Pippou Culture & Arts Manager
Oluwatoyin Odunsi Artistic Programme Manager, Harrow Arts Centre [email protected] 020 8416 8964
HAVERING
Michelle Morris Events Officer (maternity leave) [email protected]
Martin Stanton Parks & Open Spaces Manager [email protected] 01708 432360
Mark Etherington Arts Co-Ordinator [email protected] 01708 433950
Simon Parkinson Head of Service [email protected]
HILLINGDON
Sacha Austin Culture & Events Management [email protected] 01895 277301
Kris Holliday Arts Development Officer (currently only contact – no head of culture) [email protected] 07590 192481
Yassar Ghauri Performance & Business Improvement Officer [email protected] 01895 558 349 Ext 8349
Sue Drummond [email protected]
Howard Griffin [email protected]
Paul Richards [email protected] 01895 250 814 HOUNSLOW
Sandra Bruce-Gordon Arts, Museums, Libraries Client Manager, London Borough of Hounslow [email protected] 07949 404 923
Michelle Morley Business Resources Manager, John Laing Integrated Services [email protected] 07766 416 585
Eimear McKernan Parks Community Development Officer, John Laing Integrated Services [email protected] 07717 735 058
Yasmin Kassam Events Manager, John Laing Integrated Services [email protected] 07920 021449
Hamish Pringle Head of Leisure and Culture, London Borough of Hounslow [email protected] 020 8583 2504
ISLINGTON
Sheena Gladding Community & Events Officer [email protected] 020 7527 3307
Pete Courtie Arts Officer [email protected] 020 7527 3021
Dave Bamford Area Parks Manager – East [email protected] 07825 098 459
Niall Forde Licencing Officer [email protected] 020 7527 3227
ROYAL BOROUGH OF KENSINGTON & CHELSEA
Adrian Hodgson Filming & Special Events Officer [email protected] 020 7341 5133
Rebecca Pelly-Fry Arts Development Officer [email protected] 020 7361 2916
Denis Housden Head of Leisure [email protected]
Samenua Sesher Head of Culture [email protected] 020 7361 2986
John Hampson Senior Strategic Officer – Arts & Culture [email protected]
Joe Cohen-Evans Arts Information Officer [email protected] 020 7361 3844
ROYAL BOROUGH OF KINGSTON
Marie-Claire Edwards Service Manager (Green Spaces) [email protected] 020 8547 5372
Kathryn Woodvine Arts Manager [email protected] 020 8547 5409
Shanta Bhagwandin Events Executive [email protected] 020 8547 2507
LAMBETH
Angie Yeboah Events Officer [email protected] 020 7926 6207
Emma Dagnes Events Manager [email protected] 020 7926 0759
Dawn Bunce Arts Development Officer [email protected] 020 7926 0760
LEWISHAM
Liz Dart Interim Head of Community & Neighbourhood Development [email protected] 020 8314 6115
Kellie Blake Events Manager [email protected] 020 8314 6578
Gemma Faye-Unwin Events Assistant [email protected] 020 8314 7321
Hilary Renwick Head of Cultural Services [email protected] 020 8314 6359
Carmel Langstaff Arts Service Manager [email protected] 020 8314 7729
MERTON
Ash Akhtar Arts Development Officer [email protected] 020 8545 3399
Christine Parsloe Leisure & Culture Development Manager [email protected] 020 8545 3669
Emily Miller Arts Development Officer [email protected] 020 8545 4197
Alan Powell Principal Licensing Officer [email protected] 020 8545 4005
NEWHAM
Sue Meiners Head of Events & Sponsorship [email protected] 020 3373 0407
Catherine Chappell Senior Events Officer [email protected] 020 3373 4797
Evangelos Vanezis Events Officer [email protected] 020 3373 0347 NEWHAM continued
Haitham Ridha Events Officer [email protected] 020 3373 3078
Nick Ely Parks Team Leader – Engagement [email protected] 020 3373 6055
David Curtis Service Group Manager – Community [email protected] 020 3373 4151
Sean Sherman Arts & Heritage Manager [email protected] 020 3373 4118
Kate Denny Arts Manager [email protected] 020 8460 2000 ex 47821
REDBRIDGE
Alison Selby Events Manager (maternity leave) [email protected] 020 8708 2858
Anita Verma Arts Development Manager [email protected] 020 8708 2818
Shakira Greaves Community & Festivals Officer [email protected] 020 8708 2855
Lee Bird Parks Development Officer [email protected] 020 8708 3178
Samantha Goodey Arts Development Officer [email protected] 020 8708 2856
Bonita Cattle Arts Development Officer [email protected] 020 8708 2854
Shermain Philip Arts Development Officer [email protected] 020 8708 2857
Vicky Dewit Head of Cultural Services [email protected] 020 8708 3426
RICHMOND
Ian Dodds Head Of Culture [email protected]
Miranda Stern Arts Coordinator [email protected]
Anna Ramsey Arts Event & Development Co-ordinator [email protected] 020 8831 6460
Rachel Tranter Head of Arts [email protected] 020 8831 6462
Rosie Whitney-Fish Dance Coordinator 020 8831 6463
Angela Ivey Principal Tourism & Marketing Manager [email protected]
Yvonne Kelleher Service Development Manager [email protected] 08456 122660
SOUTHWARK
Catherine Morgan Events Development Officer [email protected] 020 7525 3645
Fitzroy Lewis Events Development Officer [email protected] 020 7525 3084
John Benton Senior Events Officer [email protected] 020 7525 0778
Miranda Clarke Event Locations Officer [email protected] 020 7525 0741
Paul Cowell Events, Film and 2012 Manager [email protected] 020 7525 0857
Alexandra Reynolds-Cocroft Events Assistant [email protected] 020 7525 3422
Millie Cameron Corporate Events Officer [email protected] 020 7525 7207
SOUTHWARK continued
Anya Whitehead Head of Culture [email protected] 020 7525 3552
Coral Flood Arts Manager [email protected] 020 7525 5231
Catherine Hamilton Heritage Collections & Operations Manager [email protected] 020 7525 2169
Judy Aitken Heritage Collections & Operations Manager [email protected] 020 7525 2169
Samantha Lahai-Taylor Culture Support Officer [email protected] 0207 525 3415
Adrian Whittle Head of Culture, Libraries, Learning & Leisure [email protected]
Richard Parkins Health Safety & Licensing Unit Manager [email protected] 020 7525 5767
David Franklin Team Leader – Community Safety & Enforcement [email protected] 020 7525 5800
Chris McCraken Service Manager – Community Safety & Enforcement [email protected] 020 7525 1501
David Sole Parking Services & Development Manager [email protected] 020 7525 2037
Rosie Thornton Principal Area Park Manager (Acting) [email protected] 020 8394 7534
Chas Wood Network Operations Supervisor [email protected] 020 7525 2162 SUTTON Karen Holt Policy & Projects Officer [email protected] 020 8770 5000 ext 4610
Elina Harlas Theatre & Arts Support Officer [email protected] 020 8770 6984
Emily Fahey Town Centre Manager [email protected] 020 8770 5125
Bernadette Kemble Events & Project Officer [email protected] 020 8770 5621
Victoria Nunn Theatre & Arts Service Manager (vacancy) [email protected] 020 8770 6986
TOWER HAMLETS Alison Denning Festivals & Events Officer [email protected] 020 7364 7907
Pam McCrea Senior Arts & Events Manager [email protected] 020 7364 7913
Festivals & Events Officer 020 7364 7914
Steve Murray Head of Arts [email protected] 020 7364 7910
WALTHAM FOREST Eamonn O’Machail Head of Arts & Events [email protected] 020 8496 3589
Dwight Forrester Events Assistant [email protected] 020 8496 3589
Glen Watson Senior Events Officer [email protected] 020 8496 4623
Clive Morton Head of Cultural Services [email protected]
WANDSWORTH Alison Smith Events Manager [email protected] 020 8871 7534
Suzz Bell Events Operations Manager [email protected] 020 8871 7534
Helen Renwick Arts Manager [email protected] 020 8871 7380
Jack Adam Head of Security, Arts, Events & Filming Services [email protected] 020 8871 7636
Justine Kenyon Arts Officer [email protected] 020 8871 7037
Susie Gray Arts Partnerships Manager [email protected] 020 8871 8476
WESTMINSTER Levana Deutschman Commissioning Manager Events, Filming & Contingencies [email protected] 020 7641 5967
Tim Owen Commissioner Events, Filming & Contingencies [email protected] 020 7641 5929
Genevieve Menard-Hayles Events & Filming Group Manager [email protected] 020 7641 2390
Charlotte Fergusson Arts Liaison Officer [email protected] 020 7641 8955
Valentina Wong Arts Information Officer [email protected] 020 7641 2409
David Ruse Director of Libraries [email protected] 020 7641 2496
NON COUNCIL ORGANISATIONS GREATER LONDON AUTHORITY Brian Oakaby [email protected] 020 7983 4794
Kim Richmond-Bailey [email protected] 020 7983 4969
Patrick Loy [email protected]
LONDON COUNCILS Anne-marie Pickup Principal Policy & Project Officer (Culture, Tourism & 2012) [email protected] 020 7934 9756
Catherine Hillis [email protected]
ROYAL PARKS Adam Farrar Head of Events, Arts & Filming [email protected] 020 7298 2079
Sarah Cook Events Manager [email protected] 020 7298 2066
VISIT LONDON Heidi Truman [email protected]
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/0902-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 169,
"total-input-tokens": 427159,
"total-output-tokens": 112468,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
512,
1
],
[
512,
1093,
2
],
[
1093,
2052,
3
],
[
2052,
4753,
4
],
[
4753,
6390,
5
],
[
6390,
8582,
6
],
[
8582,
11301,
7
],
[
11301,
12406,
8
],
[
12406,
15619,
9
],
[
15619,
18992,
10
],
[
18992,
22415,
11
],
[
22415,
26109,
12
],
[
26109,
28380,
13
],
[
28380,
31769,
14
],
[
31769,
35160,
15
],
[
35160,
38341,
16
],
[
38341,
41916,
17
],
[
41916,
44859,
18
],
[
44859,
48399,
19
],
[
48399,
52043,
20
],
[
52043,
54537,
21
],
[
54537,
58080,
22
],
[
58080,
60030,
23
],
[
60030,
63215,
24
],
[
63215,
67035,
25
],
[
67035,
68872,
26
],
[
68872,
72217,
27
],
[
72217,
75525,
28
],
[
75525,
78312,
29
],
[
78312,
81735,
30
],
[
81735,
85300,
31
],
[
85300,
88958,
32
],
[
88958,
92819,
33
],
[
92819,
95619,
34
],
[
95619,
98684,
35
],
[
98684,
102082,
36
],
[
102082,
103043,
37
],
[
103043,
105700,
38
],
[
105700,
109081,
39
],
[
109081,
112431,
40
],
[
112431,
115415,
41
],
[
115415,
118045,
42
],
[
118045,
121762,
43
],
[
121762,
124787,
44
],
[
124787,
128407,
45
],
[
128407,
130641,
46
],
[
130641,
133371,
47
],
[
133371,
137058,
48
],
[
137058,
140943,
49
],
[
140943,
144660,
50
],
[
144660,
148565,
51
],
[
148565,
151845,
52
],
[
151845,
155571,
53
],
[
155571,
159876,
54
],
[
159876,
163442,
55
],
[
163442,
166672,
56
],
[
166672,
169608,
57
],
[
169608,
173230,
58
],
[
173230,
176718,
59
],
[
176718,
179772,
60
],
[
179772,
183539,
61
],
[
183539,
186836,
62
],
[
186836,
188887,
63
],
[
188887,
192350,
64
],
[
192350,
195985,
65
],
[
195985,
199888,
66
],
[
199888,
203070,
67
],
[
203070,
205870,
68
],
[
205870,
209084,
69
],
[
209084,
212474,
70
],
[
212474,
215944,
71
],
[
215944,
219651,
72
],
[
219651,
222965,
73
],
[
222965,
226494,
74
],
[
226494,
230434,
75
],
[
230434,
234488,
76
],
[
234488,
238219,
77
],
[
238219,
242037,
78
],
[
242037,
245052,
79
],
[
245052,
248079,
80
],
[
248079,
252016,
81
],
[
252016,
255706,
82
],
[
255706,
259364,
83
],
[
259364,
260529,
84
],
[
260529,
263397,
85
],
[
263397,
267283,
86
],
[
267283,
270986,
87
],
[
270986,
274984,
88
],
[
274984,
278256,
89
],
[
278256,
281244,
90
],
[
281244,
284456,
91
],
[
284456,
287060,
92
],
[
287060,
289662,
93
],
[
289662,
293462,
94
],
[
293462,
296658,
95
],
[
296658,
298412,
96
],
[
298412,
301155,
97
],
[
301155,
304212,
98
],
[
304212,
305915,
99
],
[
305915,
308591,
100
],
[
308591,
311946,
101
],
[
311946,
315781,
102
],
[
315781,
319835,
103
],
[
319835,
323576,
104
],
[
323576,
326176,
105
],
[
326176,
329483,
106
],
[
329483,
332333,
107
],
[
332333,
334660,
108
],
[
334660,
337832,
109
],
[
337832,
340587,
110
],
[
340587,
343470,
111
],
[
343470,
347095,
112
],
[
347095,
350730,
113
],
[
350730,
352631,
114
],
[
352631,
354790,
115
],
[
354790,
357895,
116
],
[
357895,
360881,
117
],
[
360881,
361942,
118
],
[
361942,
364361,
119
],
[
364361,
367526,
120
],
[
367526,
370461,
121
],
[
370461,
371397,
122
],
[
371397,
374002,
123
],
[
374002,
377545,
124
],
[
377545,
380241,
125
],
[
380241,
382817,
126
],
[
382817,
386248,
127
],
[
386248,
388782,
128
],
[
388782,
390442,
129
],
[
390442,
393782,
130
],
[
393782,
396634,
131
],
[
396634,
398401,
132
],
[
398401,
401092,
133
],
[
401092,
405130,
134
],
[
405130,
409272,
135
],
[
409272,
413214,
136
],
[
413214,
416913,
137
],
[
416913,
419499,
138
],
[
419499,
422058,
139
],
[
422058,
425224,
140
],
[
425224,
427964,
141
],
[
427964,
430766,
142
],
[
430766,
434111,
143
],
[
434111,
437023,
144
],
[
437023,
439523,
145
],
[
439523,
442989,
146
],
[
442989,
446511,
147
],
[
446511,
449081,
148
],
[
449081,
451874,
149
],
[
451874,
455075,
150
],
[
455075,
457051,
151
],
[
457051,
459804,
152
],
[
459804,
463123,
153
],
[
463123,
465571,
154
],
[
465571,
467221,
155
],
[
467221,
469228,
156
],
[
469228,
471113,
157
],
[
471113,
472655,
158
],
[
472655,
474245,
159
],
[
474245,
475175,
160
],
[
475175,
479012,
161
],
[
479012,
482509,
162
],
[
482509,
485304,
163
],
[
485304,
487761,
164
],
[
487761,
490659,
165
],
[
490659,
493591,
166
],
[
493591,
496599,
167
],
[
496599,
499996,
168
],
[
499996,
502761,
169
]
]
} |
5a7cb6ba95f5f2f767041ab5c63489f0bdf8ff5c | ARTS COUNCIL NATIONAL LOTTERY PROJECT GRANTS
How to apply: Supplementary note
July 2020 – April 2021
How we’ll be using Project Grants between July 2020 and April 2021
Published July 2020 This supplementary note relates to Arts Council National Lottery Project Grants. See our website for more information about Project Grants.
In this sheet, we will talk about the following.
**How we’ll use National Lottery Project Grants during July 2020 – April 2021**
**Applying to National Lottery Project Grants in this period**
- Individuals and National Lottery Project Grants
- Demand
**The application form and criteria**
- Public engagement
- Management
- Finance: Match funding
**Updates to Project Grants**
**Timelines**
**Further changes to the programme**
**FAQs**
**Contact us** How we’ll use National Lottery Project Grants during July 2020 – April 2021
This note supplements our main How to apply guidance, which has stayed largely the same as it was before we suspended the programme in March 2020. It sets out how we will be responding to the COVID-19 period, and is a formal part of the programme guidance until April 2021.
All potential applicants should read both this note and the How to Apply guidance before applying.
All strands of Project Grants are reopening, including up to and over £15,000, National Activities, Touring Extensions, and Supporting Grassroots Live Music.
Applying to National Lottery Project Grants in this period
We wanted Project Grants to be available as quickly as possible to support individuals and organisations to get activities up and running again, and to help people take their first steps in getting re-engaged with culture and creativity.
We understand that the context applicants to Project Grants will be working in is very different in the post COVID-19 world. We will be taking the current context into consideration when we make our decisions, and we expect that the type of applications we receive will reflect the changed circumstances.
Project Grants is already able to support a really broad range of types of activity. We can support projects that directly create and deliver creative and cultural activity and content for audiences, visitors and digital users, and also those that have a longer term impact on strengthening the sector, such as organisational development, research and development and sector support. We will continue to support a wide range of different applications, from organisations and from individuals.
We know that we will receive a high number of applications, and we will need to prioritise where our investment can make a significant difference at the moment. Because of the circumstances during this COVID-19 period, we will be particularly keen to support:
- applications from individual creative practitioners (including time to think and plan)
- research and development activity
- organisational development activity
- live activity that can be safely delivered within this period (rather than activity with a start date far in the future)
- activity that closely aligns with our Equality Objectives
**Individuals and National Lottery Project Grants**
We want to make sure that individual applicants are well supported through Project Grants, particularly while other programmes for individuals like Developing your Creative Practice are not available. As we make decisions we will be making sure that the success rate for individual applicants is at least the same as it is for organisations.
In order to support individuals to apply for Project Grants we are currently exploring how we might be able to best use our resources for advice giving - focusing in particular on those who are represented in our Equality Objectives.
**Demand**
We know we will receive a high number of applications to Project Grants as the programme has been closed for some months. Please choose when to make your application carefully. Don’t rush to submit an application before you are ready, and make sure you have thought through the best way to shape your activity and how you are going to manage it. We will carefully manage our budget across the rest of the financial year to ensure there are funds available. The application form and criteria
The four criteria are: Quality, Public engagement, Finance and Management
The criteria for the programme remain the same, but the information you need to provide to answer the questions in the application form might feel a bit different during this period.
When we assess and make decisions, we’ll approach your answers with as much flexibility and openness as we can, and a keen sense of the challenges everyone will be facing at the moment. It’s still important that we ask these questions to help us determine what we will fund.
Public engagement
We know that public engagement, for example, is likely to involve smaller numbers of people for live activities at the moment, and/or a focus on engaging people through digital means. Public engagement might happen as part of the project, or it might happen in the longer term, beyond the boundaries of your project.
If you’re undertaking organisational development or focusing on research and development, you might use this section to tell us how the work you’re proposing will mean you are better able to engage people with your work in the future. We understand that good public engagement will look different – it’s important that we find out about all the different ways the work we support through Project Grants in this period will reach people.
Management
Managing an activity effectively and safely in this period means that applicants will need to take some new and different things into account. If an activity involves working with the public, you will need to have a plan in place to do this as safely as possible and manage risks effectively. You’ll need to use your answers in this section to tell us how you can feasibly deliver the project you’re proposing, and what you’ve done to make sure it is safely delivered. You’ll need to think about contingency plans if the situation changes. We’ll ask everyone who is offered a grant in this period to confirm that they have an appropriate risk management plan in place and that they are able to follow all current UK Government guidance on COVID-19. Our Terms and Conditions set out grantees’ responsibilities around adhering to UK Government guidance.
Finance: Match funding
We know that for most artists, creatives and organisations the current situation will make finding additional financial support extremely challenging. We have removed the requirement for a minimum 10 per cent match funding during this period. If you don’t have match funding, or you have less than 10 per cent, you will still be able to submit your application. If you do have some match funding (cash, in kind or a mix of both), do still tell us about it in your project budget. When we make decisions, we’ll take the difficulty of securing other funding at the moment into account.
We can only support project-related costs through Project Grants. We are not able to fund costs that have already occurred (retrospective funding) or losses (debt mitigation).
Updates to Project Grants
We’ve made some updates to Project Grants, which were already due to launch before the programme was suspended.
The main change is that public library applicants can now apply to Project Grants for activity that delivers against the four Universal Library Offers. This change is covered in the Project Grants and Libraries information sheet and the How to Apply guidance.
There are also some small changes to what type of museums can apply for museum and collections activity. These changes are covered in the Project Grants and Museums information sheet and the How to Apply guidance. Timelines
We’ll be making decisions as quickly as we can during this period. Where we can notify applicants of the outcome of their application more quickly than our standard turnarounds of six weeks (for applications under £15,000) and 12 weeks (for applications over £15,000) we will do so but this depends on the number of applications we receive and may not always be possible.
Further changes to the programme
We reserve the right to introduce new requirements and/or additional conditions based on any further guidance given and/or announcements made by the UK Government and any changing circumstances in relation to COVID-19. We hope to keep the programme open, but we reserve the right to withdraw the programme at any time in response to changing circumstances relating to COVID-19.
FAQs
A detailed list of Frequently Asked Questions is available on our website.
Contact us
Our offices and phone lines are currently closed to protect our staff, but you can contact us via email with any queries:
Email [email protected] Website www.artscouncil.org.uk
© Arts Council England July 2020
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/0903-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 7,
"total-input-tokens": 11113,
"total-output-tokens": 2085,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
192,
1
],
[
192,
795,
2
],
[
795,
2666,
3
],
[
2666,
4213,
4
],
[
4213,
6110,
5
],
[
6110,
7824,
6
],
[
7824,
8937,
7
]
]
} |
6bb34636e20840743bc5760a45422ea09431e9a8 | Acrylamide
Information on the risks of acrylamide and how you can reduce the chances of being harmed by it.
Acrylamide is a chemical substance formed when starchy foods, such as potatoes and bread, are cooked at high temperatures (above 120°C). It can be formed when foods are:
- baked
- fried
- grilled
- toasted
- roasted
Acrylamide is not deliberately added to foods – it is a natural by-product of the cooking process and has always been present in our food.
It is found in a wide range of foods including:
- roasted potatoes and root vegetables
- chips
- crisps
- toast
- cakes
- biscuits
- cereals
- coffee
Potential health effects of acrylamide
Laboratory tests show that acrylamide in the diet causes cancer in animals. Scientists agree that acrylamide in food has the potential to cause cancer in humans as well. We recommend that the amount of acrylamide we all consume is reduced, as a precaution.
What the food industry is doing to reduce acrylamide
The food industry has undertaken a lot of work to identify and implement measures to reduce acrylamide levels in food. This includes developing guidance on ways to limit acrylamide formation in a variety of foods and processes. New legislation will require food business operators to put in place simple, practical steps to manage acrylamide within their food safety management systems.
How to reduce acrylamide at home
To reduce your consumption of acrylamide when preparing food at home, we advise you should:
- aim for a golden yellow colour or lighter when frying, baking, toasting or roasting starchy foods • follow the cooking instructions on the pack when cooking packaged foods like chips and roast potatoes • eat a healthy, balanced diet and get your 5 A Day to help reduce your risk of cancer
You also need to make sure that you don’t store raw potatoes in the fridge if you intend to cook them at high temperatures, such as by roasting or frying. This is because keeping raw potatoes in the fridge can lead to the formation of more free sugars in the potatoes. This process is sometimes called ‘cold sweetening’.
Cold sweetening can increase overall acrylamide levels, especially if the potatoes are then fried, roasted or baked. Raw potatoes should be stored in a dark, cool place at temperatures above 6°C.
FSA EXPLAINS
Acrylamide is formed during high temperature cooking, when water, sugar and amino acids combine to create a food’s characteristic flavour, texture, colour and smell. This process is called the Maillard reaction. Long cooking times and higher temperatures form more acrylamide than short cooking times and lower temperatures.
Organisations including the World Health Organisation, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and UK scientific advisory committees have assessed the risks posed by acrylamide.
In 2015, the EFSA published its risk assessment of acrylamide in food. The assessment confirms that acrylamide levels found in food have the potential to increase the risk of cancer for people of all ages. However, it’s not possible to estimate how much the risk is increased. Acrylamide in your diet could contribute to your lifetime risk of developing cancer.
As it’s not possible to establish a safe level of exposure for acrylamide to quantify the risk, the EFSA used a ‘margin of exposure’ approach. The margin of exposure (MOE) approach provides an indication of the level of health concern posed by a substance’s presence in food.
EFSA’s Scientific Committee states that, for substances that are genotoxic and carcinogenic, a MOE of 10,000 or higher is of low concern for public health. The MOE identified in our total diet study on acrylamide have indicated a concern for public health. These range between 300 for an average adult consumer and 120 for toddlers. Our work on acrylamide
To understand more about acrylamide and how to reduce the risk it presents we are:
- supporting food manufacturers’ initiatives to reduce acrylamide in foods
- conducting and publishing annual monitoring data for acrylamide in a range of foods
- working with industry to help manufacturers comply with the new legislation
- advising people what they can do to reduce acrylamide in food they cook at home
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/0904-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 3,
"total-input-tokens": 4743,
"total-output-tokens": 1059,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
1587,
1
],
[
1587,
3792,
2
],
[
3792,
4220,
3
]
]
} |
8770b5e11f7a6d101b4695f465e3818f44b07751 | Northampton Borough Council – Community Forums – Draft Action Plans 2014
| Forum Action Plan | |-------------------| | **Chair:** Cllr. Larratt and Martin De Rosario | **Responsible Forum:** Disabled People's Forum |
**Outcomes identified within the Corporate Plan:**
- Empowered local communities with a greater capacity to become involved in community life
- Promote integration and cohesion
- Appropriate support provided to those in most need
- Services are fair, accessible and responsive to individual needs residents and customers feel informed and engaged in service quality and design
- Future developments informed by the views of local people
- Delivery of events to celebrate and enjoy the Town’s heritage and culture
**Objectives:**
- Identify issues of importance to disabled people who live or work in the Borough, research/discuss issues and decide on outcomes to achieve
- Promote and sustain effective communication between NBC and disabled people living or working in the Borough.
- Work towards equality of access by disabled people to services, including accessible formats, removing barriers, promoting dialogue and identifying specific requirements.
- Promoting partnership working by statutory and voluntary sector organisations, and Disabled People’s groups and communities
**Actions:**
| Action | Owner | Activity (intelligence led) | Timescale | Cost | Measure | Last Updated | |--------|-------|-----------------------------|-----------|------|---------|--------------| | Improve attendance at forum, bringing different groups together to build upon the forum. Including service providers as well as service users. | All Officers – VR & AM | Officers working on Communications Plan to raise the profile of the forum All forum members to recommend service providers and organisations they believe would be beneficial to be at the forum at the next meeting (May 14). | Ongoing | Nil | % increase at forum | March 14 |
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/0906-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 1,
"total-input-tokens": 2281,
"total-output-tokens": 423,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
1948,
1
]
]
} |
7da23fcef2a2444410f44458d850f042eb6da26a | ## Forum Action Plan
| Chair: | Cllr. Oldham and Roger Rumsey | Responsible Forum: | Pensioner’s Forum | |--------|-----------------------------|--------------------|------------------|
### Outcomes identified within the Corporate Plan:
- Empowered local communities with a greater capacity to become involved in community life
- Promote integration and cohesion
- Appropriate support provided to those in most need
- Services are fair, accessible and responsive to individual needs residents and customers feel informed and engaged in service quality and design
- Future developments informed by the views of local people
- Delivery of events to celebrate and enjoy the Town’s heritage and culture
### Objectives:
- Identify issues of importance to pensioners who live in the Borough, research/discuss issues and decide on outcomes to achieve
- Promote and sustain effective communication between NBC and pensioners living in the Borough.
- Promoting partnership working by statutory and voluntary sector organisations, and Pensioner’s groups and communities
### Actions:
| Action | Owner | Activity (intelligence led) | Timescale | Cost | Measure | Last Updated | |--------|-------|-----------------------------|-----------|------|---------|--------------| | WW1 Zeppelin project: Intergenerational project | AL | Pilot session successfully delivered- youth and pensioners paired up for memory. To be developed in 2016/17 in partnership with Voluntary Impact Northamptonshire’s School of Life Pensioners forum to work with Youth forum to learn about the Northampton woman and her children killed by the Zeppelin. | September 2017 | Nil | Showcase of project at Heritage weekend. | April 2017 | | Dementia Awareness Week | NM | Dementia Awareness Week 16th – 20th May- Jacqueline Parks to attended Forum to discuss Dementia. | May 2017 | Nil | Forum Agenda Item | June 2017 | | Highways Wardens Scheme | AM | Opportunity for forum members to become Highway Warden, who are the eyes and ears on the road network within their local area and a key point of contact between the community and Northamptonshire Highways. A Highway Warden provides valuable information which | January 2017 | Nil | Wardens recruited and liaison set up with Highways | October 2016 | assists in maintaining the highway network ensures the views and requirements of the local community are represented. A Highway Warden is a volunteer who is supported by their parish or town council or residents group and Northamptonshire Highways. [http://www3.northamptonshire.gov.uk/councilservices/northamptonshire-highways/roads-and-streets/Pages/highway-wardens.aspx](http://www3.northamptonshire.gov.uk/councilservices/northamptonshire-highways/roads-and-streets/Pages/highway-wardens.aspx)
| Work with Nene Clinical Commissioning Group to provide the Pensioners Forum with an input into the CCG and represent the needs of older people in Northampton. | AM/JP | Jeanette has confirmed the provision of the following information for future meetings.
- JP to present on Quality Contract.
- PH to present on the Veterans Community Covenant.
- GM to discuss with the forum the best way to provide information around dementia services in the area. | Ongoing | Nil | Presentations held, information cascaded, action plan in place. | May 2016 | |---|---|---|---|---|---|---| | Improve attendance at forum, bringing different groups together to build upon the forum. Include service providers as well as service users. | Officers – VR & LM | Continue to publicise the forum through different communication streams and networks. Age UK- Liam Condon retiring next year, invited to Forum to talk about Age UK. | Ongoing | Nil | % increase at forum | March 15 | | Intergenerational Catwalk | LCW | An intergenerational catwalk lead by Voluntary Impact Northampton. Forum members encouraged to be models. | October 2017 | | | March 2017 | | Tea Dance | Cllr King, LCW, and officers | Tea Dance organised in the Guildhall was well attended. Digital Eagles attended to provide IT support to the Pensioner Forum and others. Event was enjoyed by all. | March 2017 | | | March 2017 |
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/0907-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 2,
"total-input-tokens": 4409,
"total-output-tokens": 1016,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
2265,
1
],
[
2265,
4144,
2
]
]
} |
882c9ed86534232564dbdb91e880aa3acbd5a8d7 | Action research into the more effective strategic commissioning of children’s residential care homes
Final report to the Local Government Association
CLASSIFICATION: OPEN
JULY 2013 If you would like a large text version of this document, please contact us.
OPM 252b Gray's Inn Road, London WC1X 8XG
T: 0845 055 3900 F: 0845 055 1700 E: [email protected] web: www.opm.co.uk Contents
Executive summary .................................................................................................................. 4 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 9 Key research findings and recommendations ........................................................................ 11
1. The commissioning system .......................................................................................... 11
2. Needs analysis ............................................................................................................ 13
3. Matching needs and supply ....................................................................................... 18
4. Quality assurance and monitoring .............................................................................. 31 Executive summary
OPM was commissioned by the Local Government Association to conduct research into the more effective strategic commissioning of children’s residential care homes.
The research focused on three aspects of commissioning: needs analysis; matching needs and supply; and quality assurance and monitoring. We reviewed published literature, undertook extensive interviewing, conducted an online survey of children and young people in care and care leavers and facilitated action learning groups with the ten participating local authorities. The participating local authorities worked together in three action learning groups. They selected five topics to focus on:
- Residential assessment services
- Market intelligence and market shaping
- The use of step-up/step-down services
- Understanding and evidencing outcomes
- Collaborative commissioning.
There was positive feedback from the action learning groups and some participants hope to continue to collaborate around topics of mutual interest. Regions or other council networks or groupings might also want to find ways to continue to share learning and innovations.
Our interim report, published in parallel with this final report, includes the significant body of evidence collected during this research, and case studies of the authorities involved.
This short final report summarises the findings from the research. It describes the current issues and developments in strategic commissioning of residential children’s homes. We are very grateful to the councils and providers who participated. We found aspects of effective strategic commissioning of children’s homes in all the localities involved. We highlight some practice examples from these localities that we feel may be of interest to the sector. These examples include important areas where new developments and innovative work are being taken forward:
- The commissioning system operates at a number of levels, and partners from different agencies need to work together to create commissioning culture and practice. There are examples of re-shaping relationships between commissioners at different levels and of developing health and well-being boards to focus on looked after children; As part of improved analysis and of developing a much clearer aggregated picture of needs (an important objective), some authorities are involving children and young people more extensively or undertaking longitudinal research. At individual level, there are new assessment tools, and short term assessment units for children with more complex needs;
There is a lot still to do – in areas of both under and over capacity – to match needs with supply and to engage with providers about requirements. Two localities have new solutions to emergency placements, one council has started communicating to providers about ‘what good looks like’, and step up and step down models are being developed. But there are persistent and widespread challenges in understanding what services different providers offer in terms of specialist or therapeutic placements and there is little research evidence about what works. As the needs of children get more complex, councils are also taking steps to avoid loss of experienced staff from homes;
There are many different approaches to procurement and types of contracts, including new commissioner/provider relationships within a block contract. There are examples of new provider forums, but generally councils and providers recognise a need for deeper relationships and for better processes to shape the whole market – both in-house and independent;
Collaborative commissioning is widespread with some more recent examples of tactical or issue-based collaborations. Where collaborations work well, they have good buy-in and good processes for sharing information;
Individual councils are seeking to involve children and young people more in decisions about their care, although our survey confirms there is some way to go;
For quality assurance and monitoring, there is lots of data, not all of it useful. There are examples of learning from placement failures and a range of work to develop outcomes frameworks tailored to this target group of children and young people. In one participating council, the approach to quality is being influenced by social pedagogy models;
A number of councils are concerned about transitions to post 16 and leaving care;
Councils want to manage out of area placements in the same way as in-area placements; but there are concerns about monitoring of incoming placements.
There is more to do before strategic commissioning for looked after children and residential home placements is fully effective. There will be many small improvements that any individual authority and their partners could make by drawing on practice and innovation from elsewhere. Examples cited in this report illustrate the range of solutions being applied in local areas; but if this research has confirmed one thing, it is that more effective commissioning of children’s residential care requires all stakeholders to play their part - collaborative effort by the sector is required to improve practice and outcomes.
**Our recommendations** aim to help further improvement in the sector. We focus on local, regional and national level actions. We believe these are the actions that will have most impact. The recommendations are inter-connected and improved practice in any of these areas would support whole-system improvement.
1. **Local level recommendations**
1.1 Multi-agency working has suffered from many distractions recently (e.g. health system changes, budget cuts). Only a few authorities have made much progress with new health and well-being arrangements for children. **We recommend that it is timely to refocus on multi-agency working and to accelerate the development of Heath and Wellbeing Board arrangements for children.** Joint Strategic Needs Assessments and Joint Health and Wellbeing Strategies can be used to ensure looked after children’s needs are integrated into all local commissioning strategies and all local partner agencies are taking responsibility for more effective strategic commissioning of children’s residential care.
1.2 Social workers have to manage extremely high caseloads and generally with tools which do not comprehensively assess needs. **We recommend that more attention is given to supporting social workers and commissioners to enhance needs assessments.** This means identifying additional skills required and improving tools and processes, so needs and outcomes are more adequately captured. This would improve the quality and consistency of needs assessments and placement decisions.
1.3 **We recommend that strategic commissioners look at in-house and independent providers impartially and in the context of the sufficiency duty.** Local commissioning plans and market position statements need to reflect local circumstances and that will mean a different balance of in-house and independent provision in different areas. **The message that residential care homes are a valid, positive and valued part of the continuum of care also needs reinforcing.** 1.4 Local authorities might find it helpful to further develop their understanding and use of evaluation techniques in looked after children’s services. The resulting evaluation approaches and toolkits could be shared with providers and help improve understanding of impact, value and outcomes.
1.5 Workforce development merits further attention. Children’s homes are receiving children and young people with increasingly high level or complex needs; strategies for skills development and to avoid burn out could help in matching needs with supply in the medium to long term.
2. Regional level recommendations
2.1 An incomplete picture of needs can undermine subsequent commissioning activities and contribute to ineffective strategic commissioning. We recommend a greater focus on increasing skills and expertise in collection, collation and analysis of data to inform strategic commissioning. This would include understanding of how qualitative data can be incorporated and analysed and in particular how the views of children and young people are taken into account. This recommendation might be taken forward at regional level as part of improvement planning.
2.2 Development of hybrid service models will enhance the continuum of care and support authorities to meet needs more flexibly, effectively and efficiently. We recommend more work is done to identify and develop ‘hybrid’ models of care such as ‘foster plus respite’ and ‘step down’ services. This can build on local innovation and initiatives already being taken forward and further capture and share learning to date from within the sector.
3. National level recommendations
3.1 Local authorities are interested in the range of collaborative commissioning arrangements that currently exist or are emerging. We recommend more transparency in the sector about collaborative activity.
3.2 We recommend the sector makes arrangements for more longitudinal studies of the impact of different types of residential care provision on different sub-groups of children and young people. This would help clarify what residential care works for whom, why and under what conditions. This could synthesise and build on existing work and might benefit from an appreciative inquiry approach - a lot is known about young people who have been in care who have less good outcomes (for example the numbers who offend) but much less is known about those who achieve positive outcomes.
3.3 Commissioners need to be able to better understand provider offers. Since a number of providers work nationally we recommend further national work to map provision and facilitate conversations between local authorities, providers and partner agencies.
3.4 Market shaping and development could be supported by some inter-linked changes to the way provider offers are defined, communicated, understood and scrutinised by commissioners. We recommend there is a tightening of children’s homes’ formal statement of purpose. We recommend more cross-regional sharing of good sufficiency statements, market position statements and commissioning strategies.
3.5 We recommend a common national outcomes framework is developed for children’s residential care. This framework would capture the particular needs of this group of children (e.g. building personal resilience, forming trusting relationships). National leadership is required to develop this framework and to involve, in particular, the national experts, local authorities and providers who have invested significant effort in work on outcomes to date.
3.6 We recommend that further attention is given to transitions out of care and to services for young people post-16. Further consideration should be given to the regulation and quality assurance of placements and services for looked after children entering post 16 or leaving care provision, and the threshold at which quality assurance of these services ceases. There may be a case for a more staged and segmented approach, proportionate to need and risk. Introduction
There were 67,050 looked after children in England at 31 March 2012; within this group 4,890 children and young people were living in children's homes(^1). For some a children’s home is the best care option but there are many questions about the quality and impact of children’s homes and the outcomes achieved for this group of children and young people. Residential care is also expensive and as such local authorities and central government want to see significant improvements to its efficiency and effectiveness.
It is important to acknowledge the complexity of the environment within which children’s residential care is being commissioned. There are deep current safeguarding pressures including child sexual exploitation and gangs and serious organised crime. It is reported that the needs of looked after children are increasingly complex and challenging and include mental health needs, attachment/relationship challenges and learning disabilities. System reorganisation and major cuts to budgets have impaired connectivity across social care, health and other partner agencies and resulted in reduced organisational memory.
There is intense media coverage and public scrutiny of individual decisions around looked after children; all local authorities involved in this research cited high profile examples of failure in children’s services as a driver for change and improvement locally. This is most clearly a driver of change in the authorities closest to major safeguarding failures; but the response differs locally. In one local authority, interviewees clearly linked high profile safeguarding failures to a very low tolerance for risk and noted the significant impact on caseloads as more children and young people are brought into care. In two other authorities failure uncovered in their region has stimulated a strategic focus on safeguarding and much closer working with local Police forces.
Local authority placement teams and leaving care services have also come under increased pressure in the wake of the Southwark Judgement 2009 (which obliges children’s services to provide accommodation and support to homeless 16 and 17 year olds) and the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (which means young people remanded in
(^1) Department for Education, 2012, Reform of Children's Residential Care: Report of the Expert Group on the quality of children's homes, cited from http://www.education.gov.uk/a00224323/quality-child-homes-report custody are given looked-after status); many older teenagers are entering the system requiring residential placements and leaving care plans within a tight timeframe.
Findings from the different aspects of this research were complex but broadly consistent. Providers (in-house and independent) often raised similar issues to local authorities, albeit from a different perspective. Most local authorities have a clear strategy to reduce the use of residential care through earlier adoption and increased use of fostering and foster plus services, and in parallel there is a push to have access to high quality residential care for more specialist needs. We found evidence of improvement and success in the commissioning of residential homes and a lot of ongoing improvement work at local level. There is evidence of real innovation and new responses to challenges.
**Action research and action learning**
This project employed an action research and action learning approach; this works well when the topic is highly complex, participants are extremely knowledgeable and activity is heavily influenced by factors such as risk, outcomes and cost. Our ten participating local authorities selected five topics to focus on:
- Residential assessment services
- Market intelligence and market shaping
- The use of step-up/step-down services
- Understanding and evidencing outcomes
- Collaborative commissioning.
Our approach to action research aims to take an asset based approach drawing on elements of appreciative inquiry. Instead of looking at problems in isolation, it asks participants to share learning and identify available assets (local, regional and national) and think creatively about how these might be used. In between action learning group meetings the learning journey continues; in this research participating local authorities undertook desk research, visited each others’ services and facilitated meetings with external experts and provider representatives. Some participants hope to continue to collaborate around topics of mutual interest. Regions or other council networks or groupings might also want to find ways to continue to share learning and innovations. Key research findings and recommendations
1. The commissioning system
Commissioning consists of four steps (understand, plan, do, review) and takes place at three levels (strategic, operational and individual – see diagram below). There is (rightly) a strong focus on getting placements and additional services right for the individual child or young person.
Improvements have been brought about in a number of ways, such as through major reviews of children’s residential care commissioning - for example in Shropshire, Lincolnshire and Bradford - and through the work of strategic forums such as Children's Trust or Partnership Boards and Health and Wellbeing Boards. We found aspects of effective strategic commissioning in all the participating councils.
Our evidence shows however that there is more to be done before it can be said that there is fully effective strategic commissioning of services for looked after children. Many local authorities are moving towards a ‘commissioning council’ model corporately; this means there is an increased need for children’s commissioners to participate in and influence strategic discussions at the organisational level and ensure the corporate vision and policies (e.g. local authority wide) work for children in care. Children in residential homes are part of a wider care system and the strategic commissioning of home placements cannot be looked at in isolation.
Diversity across local authorities and local marketplaces means there is no ‘one size fits all’ structural arrangement that will bring about effective commissioning; but there are some common factors. Local authorities with strong commissioning practice have an embedded commissioning culture, clear leadership of the commissioning process and a clear direction of travel. They have designed departmental structures and roles to reflect local circumstance and enable wider support for children’s commissioning processes within the authority and from partners.
As part of their leadership role, effective strategic commissioners recognise the need to establish consistent policies and ‘must do standards’ to enable effective individual and operational level commissioning. Decisions made at these levels have to be sustainable and contribute to wider corporate objectives. Local placement and resource panels can help ensure there is a consistent application of strategic commissioning plans and policies and robust analysis of care plans before placement decisions are made.
Kent County Council is currently developing its Access to Resources Team and, through this, is reshaping relationships between the different tiers of commissioning.
There is growing acknowledgement of the need for and importance of whole system transformation and service redesign. Strategic commissioning can be the vehicle for service reform and should drive the development of multi-agency and collaborative commissioning arrangements. Commissioning effectively as part of a wider system (e.g. outside a single organisation) requires a different set of skills and capabilities; strategic commissioners will be operating as leaders and influencers of the system. They must promote a whole system view of the value and impact of services for those using them, and encourage a move away from commissioning approaches that focus on the costs and benefits to individual agencies.
The Children Act 2004 requires agencies to align their strategies, sharing risk and jointly commissioning services for looked after children. Multi-agency working has suffered from many distractions recently (e.g. health system changes, CCGs etc, and budget cuts). There has been increasing influence from the Police for example around out of area placements. Only a few authorities have made progress with new health and well-being arrangements for looked after children but those that have show promise.
**Hertfordshire County Council** children’s services have been actively working with their Health and Wellbeing Board since its inception and the needs of children in care have been successfully raised with a specific work stream focusing on children living away from home.
Children’s services in **Bradford Metropolitan District Council** have begun working with their Health and Wellbeing Board to provide a more responsive mental health services to children and to staff. They are also connecting with the CCG to ensure looked after children placed within and outside the area have access to health and mental health services.
We recommend that it is timely to refocus on multi-agency working and to accelerate the development of Heath and Wellbeing Board arrangements for children. Joint Strategic Needs Assessments and Joint Health and Wellbeing Strategies can be used to ensure looked after children’s needs are integrated into all local commissioning strategies and all local partner agencies are taking responsibility for more effective strategic commissioning of children’s residential care.
### 2. Needs analysis
**Building a picture of needs**
Most local authorities acknowledge the need for a clear picture of current needs at locality level although the link between robust needs analysis and effective commissioning is sometimes inadequately made. In a small number of the authorities we spoke to there have been significant improvements in the way data on needs is collected, analysed and used, usually as a result of a wider push to improve looked after children’s commissioning or a focused project to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of a particular aspect of these services.
Vast amounts of data exist; at the individual child level data is collected through social worker assessments, ongoing monitoring (by social workers, IROs, advocates, key workers), partner agencies (schools, health, CAMHs, the Police, youth offending teams) and by providers and individual care homes. Home level data is also collected through Ofsted, Regulation 33 and 34 visits and contract monitoring by individual local authorities.
Children and young people are engaged at a minimum through Children in Care Councils, but most admit more needs to be done to engage looked after children, particularly at the ‘understand’ and ‘plan’ stages e.g. in building a picture of need to inform strategy and service design. Just under half of our authorities cited specific examples of work locally to improve the engagement of children and young people, sometimes through the use of innovative methods; however, most admitted they require a better understanding of how to aggregate individual feedback and analyse this data to inform commissioning.
**Derbyshire County Council** is currently delivering a project called UNI-FI; the high level objective is to better support children in care and increase the number of care leavers in employment, education or training. Social Pedagogy principles underpin the UNI-FI programme and associated workforce development. The programme directly engages children and young people to capture needs and experiences and co-design ways forward. Ethnographic research has been used to build a picture of need with researchers spending three days at a time in each participating children’s home to capture qualitative data (experiences, views and interactions in the home). The project also makes use of new technology to record and share young people’s experiences. The impact of mentors is being explored and children and young people are directly involved in the evaluation of the project and capture of learning.
Data captured is generally not consistent in form, quantity or quality and authorities and their partners are often struggling to aggregate and use data to build a really useful picture of need. The barriers to effective needs analysis tend to be process related (e.g. inconsistent or slow feedback of data within the system), content related (e.g. a lack of appropriate diagnostic data, rich qualitative data and data on impact and outcomes) or most commonly a lack of capability or capacity to analyse and interpret available data. **There also needs to be improved data on children on the edge of care and at risk.**
There are divergent views about the value of **forecasting of longer term needs**: some feel that the cohort of children in care is too complex and changeable for medium to longer term forecasts to be useful. Some sites involved in the research have tried to undertake financial modelling and simulations but in many cases found these exercises overly complex because of the number of variables in play and the complexities of this cohort of children and young people. Some authorities, particularly those smaller in size and/or numbers of looked after children struggle to see the added value of such exercises as the numbers of children in care are low. Some would like to take a more strategic approach than they currently do, but do not believe they have the capacity or resource to develop this.
An incomplete picture of needs will result in ineffective strategic commissioning in the rest of the cycle: poor match between needs and placement options (often resulting in placement breakdown); a lack of effective market shaping; lack of confidence about costs, value and appropriate distribution of resource; and risks of worsening trends in outcomes.
We recommend there should be greater focus on increasing skills and expertise in collection, collation and analysis of data to inform strategic commissioning. This would include understanding of how qualitative data can be incorporated and analysed and in particular how the views of children and young people are taken into account. This recommendation might be taken forward at regional level as part of improvement planning.
At individual level data is often not specific enough about the challenges the child or young person is facing, how these challenges manifest themselves and what this means for care planning. For children with specialist or complex needs there can be significant uncertainty about how to classify different groups of needs. At individual level, understanding of what works needs to be more child focused. Drawing on the personalisation agenda, more can be done to understand the child or young person in the round (notably relationships, resilience) and what represents progress and a positive outcome for them. Children can be helped to articulate and work towards short, medium and longer term outcomes and goals (care should be a springboard for future opportunities). Outcomes stars and other ‘whole person’ tools can help capture what works for individual children. Where captured, longitudinal data can be aggregated and analysed to reveal patterns or trends in needs and outcomes where they exist.
Three years ago Darlington Borough Council began a longitudinal study of looked after children. They did a deep dive to analyse the needs of a cohort of children aged 12. They plan to revisit these children now they are aged 15 to identify what has worked for them and whether any of them have been able to return to their families. This year the number of looked after children in Darlington began to reduce.
There are attempts at local, sub-regional or regional level to improve multi-agency assessment and to segment or band needs, and the new requirement for integrated health, education and care plans might further drive the development of ‘whole child’ assessments, but there are also calls for national input. Some authorities have developed new solutions to effective needs assessment at individual level, including the use of short term residential assessment units. Authorities using these units report significant benefits with improvements to needs assessment and matching and increased placement stability for even the most complex children and young people. These units have created a lot of interest during this research and more work might be done to understand how they work and in what circumstances.
**Shropshire County Council** runs an in-house residential assessment home. Young people are placed in the home for 6-12 weeks and staff work with them to assess their needs and find the best placement solution. Once the assessment is complete, the placement recommendation is referred to a local authority budget management panel or (where multi-agency input is required) to a joint solutions panel. The assessment home creates the space for needs assessment and financial planning.
**Social workers and commissioning**
Good commissioning teams often contain both social work and procurement expertise supported by team members with strong analytical and data management skills and some of the best commissioners have experience working on the frontline as a social worker or in care homes; but social workers sometimes need more help to understand how strategic, operational and individual commissioning fit together. It is helpful if strategic commissioners build relationships with social workers, and in some cases they need to find better ways to communicate commissioning strategies, policies and plans and get input from social workers (this would also be of benefit to children's home staff and managers and service managers).
In some authorities commissioners are working with social workers to improve needs assessments and referral information.
One action learning group heard about the **BERRI** standardised tool to assess behaviour and emotional wellbeing for children and young people in or at risk of care.² This checklist explores Behaviour, Emotional well-being, Relationships, Risk and Indicators of psychological distress.
² [http://www.cplaac.org.uk/tools/BERRI_CPLAAC.doc](http://www.cplaac.org.uk/tools/BERRI_CPLAAC.doc) In most local authorities social workers have to manage extremely high caseloads and generally with tools which do not comprehensively assess needs or identify required outcomes.
**We recommend that more attention is given to supporting social workers and commissioners to enhance needs assessments.** This means identifying additional skills required and improving tools and processes so needs and outcomes are more adequately captured. This would improve the quality and consistency of needs assessments and placement decisions.
### Early intervention
Some authorities involved in our research and their regional or multi-agency partners are looking at the factors that influence the looked after children population. The results are being used to support the formation of commissioning strategy and the design and delivery of initiatives to reduce demand through both targeted and universal services.
As part of this project and their ongoing work **Bury Metropolitan Borough Council** has examined step up and step down fostering. Step down services are intended to take a young person from a higher to a lower level of need and support. Step up services are an extra step between for example mainstream fostering and a residential home. These services are one of the ways in which different placement types might form a more flexible continuum of services, better able to respond to different levels of need and changing needs over time. Foster carers working at this level are experienced, have the time to commit to working with these young people and are provided with additional training and support, sometimes specialising in a particular area for example child sexual exploitation, behaviour management or drugs misuse.
More detailed exploration of the pathways into and out of care will support authorities to intervene early with effective interventions. In the London Borough of Haringey a focus on early support is already reducing the numbers of children in care.
Services and pathways for young people aged 16 plus are an area of concern and also require attention. Progress made by services pre-16 will be undone without effective tapered support. Leaving care arrangements need to be improved to ensure children and young people are supported to live independently as part of a planned and managed transition that supports continued progress against outcomes. Some interventions can help prevent escalating need and risk. Outreach services, respite services, crisis arrangements, models of intensive community based support, models of shared care and Multisystemic Therapy (MST) are ways being used to help preserve an existing placement and prevent escalating need. Respite, crisis and transition services might also help reduce the numbers of children taken into care. Development of these service and intervention models will enhance the continuum of care and support authorities to manage demand and meet needs more flexibly, effectively and efficiently.
Development of more hybrid service models will further enhance the continuum of care and support authorities to meet needs more flexibly, effectively and efficiently. **We recommend more work is done to identify and develop ‘hybrid’ models of care such as ‘foster plus respite’ and ‘step down’ services.** This can build on local innovation and initiatives already being taken forward and further capture and share learning to date from within the sector.
### 3. Matching needs and supply
**The Sufficiency Duty and the use of out of area placements**
The sufficiency duty emphasises the requirement to better match needs with supply locally and secure suitable provision in sufficient quantity. Local authorities are clear that the objective is to make sure as many children as possible are accommodated within the boundaries of their local authority or as near as possible to their home communities. The 20 mile radius proximity marker was frequently cited, particularly by smaller authorities surrounded by regional neighbours. Focussing on sufficiency will drive down the need for spot-purchasing and out of area placements. It requires strategic commissioners to step back and consider how to develop and maintain local, fit for purpose supply.
Interviewees agreed that placing in area is beneficial (for most children and young people) and would like to see the right mix of supply in their area; however there was general acknowledgement that many authorities have failed to complete, update or publish sufficiency assessments. Some local authorities are updating them currently. The sufficiency duty feels to some like an additional exercise rather than an integral part of the commissioning process. Some interpretations of sufficiency (and choice) over-emphasise absolute numbers of places and/or providers and don’t cast enough light on the required placement mix. Even in areas with significant over-supply (for example the North West) many out of area placements are still made because local provision is not deemed fit for purpose or suitable for more complex or specialist needs.
In areas of under-supply local authorities say it is a real challenge to meet the sufficiency duty and avoid out of area placements. They cite high property prices and poor transport links as barriers to providers establishing homes in their area. Commissioners say in areas of under-supply they are working in a ‘sellers market’ where providers know demand outweighs supply and this makes it harder for them to challenge costs, quality and overall value for money if they want local placements.
Providers have a different perspective; they are concerned that cost is now the dominant decision making factor and the focus of conversations between commissioners and providers. They feel local authorities are failing to articulate in sufficient detail their local commissioning strategy and service requirements; this lack of clarity over local commissioning plans combined with low margins and the high cost of reshaping or opening a children’s home mean the potential benefits to the provider are outweighed by the commercial risks and thus under-supply persists.
Providers are also worried that in the current financial climate the pressure on fees and short term cost savings has been the main focus of commissioner-provider relationships (over and above commissioning for sufficiency). Detailed conversations about unit costs leave little room for conversations about needs, service offers, quality and innovation. In a context where many local authorities have a policy of only commissioning from good or outstanding providers, increasingly providers are reluctant to accept a child or young person if they believe their behaviour will reflect negatively on the home (for example children and young people who frequently abscond) and on their Ofsted rating.
The providers we spoke to said they would like to build more trusting and collaborative relationships with commissioners to support effective commissioning, reduce commercial risk and uncertainty and support new supply and service innovation.
**Lincolnshire County Council** undertook a best value review of their residential care services. They found vacancies within in-house homes, a large number of young people placed out of area, (comparatively) high cost independent placements and the need to improve outcomes. The authority undertook a systematic analysis of need, benchmarking, remodelling and planned change. They improved and remodelled in-house homes to manage specialist and more complex needs. Small numbers of independent places are still commissioned but at a lower unit cost and with more robust contracting arrangements. Money saved was invested in preventative services including family support and specialist foster care services. Another review is due shortly and will inform a new commissioning strategy for looked after children.
Many interviewees questioned the emphasis on local authority boundaries, particularly for very large or very small authorities. Alternatives might be balancing a combination of factors including: distance from the young person’s home community; the accessibility of the placement for the local authority as corporate parents, for partner agencies and for kith and kin; and, a focus on ensuring services will be available to the young person in that placement, including at a minimum a school place and access to healthcare and mental health support where required.
Emergency placements
All interviewees wanted to see an end to ‘Friday night crises’ and to avoid emergency placements. High caseloads - linked to one or more factors including high demand, failure to intervene upstream, and the authority’s attitude to risk and safeguarding - have a significant impact on the ability of care teams to avoid emergencies and manage individual cases.
Local authorities are using a range of solutions for emergencies: their own emergency beds; short term residential assessment units (see above); specific arrangements with providers which mean they can spot purchase emergency placements at framework or block contract rates; and agreements with neighbouring councils.
**Salford City Council** has opened an in-house 3 bed emergency unit designed as a crisis intervention service for failing foster care placements. Young people remain in the home for a maximum 6 months whilst their needs are comprehensively assessed and the reasons for previous placement breakdown identified. The unit employs an observational approach in a stable setting.
**Darlington Borough Council** has had a Service Level Agreement in place with a neighbouring local authority since 1996. Through this they access an emergency duty team. This partnership was independently reviewed recently to ensure it remains fit for purpose. Understanding provider offers and matching
The matching of needs with supply could be improved in nearly every local authority and could help to reduce placement breakdown. Authorities would generally welcome deeper understanding of the services available across the existing children’s residential home market. A common language to describe offers would help: concerns were raised throughout this research (including from providers) that inflated claims about services mean inappropriate placements are made and needs cannot be fulfilled.
Nearly all participants said more specialist provision is needed nationally and locally as authorities are struggling to match the most complex needs with supply. They also report that the number of children with multiple complex needs is increasing. Authorities seek ‘specialist’ and ‘therapeutic’ placements but across the board (providers included) said there is insufficient understanding amongst local authority commissioners and their partners about what this means in practice and insufficient evidence about what works and for whom.
In some authorities direct conversations between social work teams and commissioners have helped build deeper shared understanding of provider offers. Providers can also do more to articulate the services they offer and to demonstrate the staff and skills available to deliver services. The impact of a misjudged or ineffectual placement is so significant (for that individual child or young person and others in the home, including staff) that there may justification for more formal requirements around ethical advertising. The sector needs to more clearly define ‘specialist’ and ‘therapeutic’ care and promote the use of common language (amongst commissioners and providers) to describe different type of provision.
A national effort could be made to refine understanding of the range of children’s home offers available and where possible to classify these; a home’s offer is inextricably linked to the skills, qualifications and number of staff within it and so this work could be linked to the Department for Education’s proposed analysis of the children’s homes workforce.
Bradford Metropolitan District Council has developed a view of what ‘good’ looks like and applies this consistently to in-house and independent providers. They have a clear sense of what they expect from a home including staff numbers, staff qualifications and training, staff skills (for example the ability to be reflective and outcomes-focused) and leadership qualities.
Interviewees from across the authorities involved in this research, and our scoping interviewees, stated their belief that for most (although not all) children and young people a family environment is preferable to a residential children’s home and commissioners will look to place a young person in a family environment wherever possible; however a small number of interviewees say an over-emphasis on family-based placements can mean a series of placement breakdowns before a young person is matched with a children’s home placement.
**Kent County Council** received support from Kent University on shaping requirements (including resilience) for fostering services. **Kent University** is also completing research with two large cohorts of care leavers from a mix of care settings including residential homes; the findings will be published shortly.
The shortage of evidence about what interventions and settings work for different groups of children and young people exacerbates this issue and debates about placements.
**We recommend the sector makes arrangements for more longitudinal studies of the impact of different types of residential care provision, on different sub-groups of children and young people.** This can build on existing research and help clarify what residential care works, for whom, why, and under what conditions.
These recommendations would further strengthen future commissioning. An appreciative approach might be helpful: a lot is known about young people who have been in care who have less good outcomes (for example the numbers who offend) but much less is known about those who achieve positive outcomes.
**Skills in homes**
Children’s home staff and managers in both in-house and independent provision say they are struggling to meet the needs of increasingly complex and challenging children and young people placed in their care. The skills, knowledge and experience of the children’s home workforce is clearly linked to the range and quality services available and the extent to which a provider can deliver effectively against an offer to commissioners. The Department for Education (DfE) has announced national work on the skills of children’s home workers.
Local authorities taking part in this research are concerned about burn-out and loss of experienced staff from children’s homes as pressure on the frontline increases. Ofsted are clear that home managers are one of the most important factors in determining the quality of care delivered, so this should be of great concern. Whilst the work at national level will help build a picture of current workforce qualifications, capabilities and skills gaps, local authorities want to find ways to encourage peer support, the sharing of effective practice and career progression.
**Derbyshire County Council** has developed flexible contracts so staff can move between homes – care home workers are able to alleviate pressures in particular homes, share expertise and skills and review each others practice. Work should be undertaken at local level in partnership with local providers (both in house and independent), to identify any additional skills required and to establish how skills development might be further supported, building in continuous improvement and career progression.
In **Lincolnshire County Council** the three in-house children’s home managers work between homes, share training and development and substitute for each other when required. Home managers are involved in placement decisions (including decisions to place in an independent home) and are considered valuable experts in the system.
**Workforce development merits further attention.** Children’s homes are receiving children and young people with increasingly high level or complex needs; strategies for skills development and to avoid burn out could help in matching needs with supply in the medium to long term.
**Procurement and contracting**
Procurement and contracting occur within the context of an agreed commissioning policy which describes the agreed approach to contestability and competition, the approach to in-house provision and the use of independent provision, attitude to social value and profit, and approaches to contracting. Children and young people, families and carers, frontline staff and providers should be involved in the shaping of final specifications and (as appropriate) in the selection processes. Performance measurement and management systems are built into the contract and enable contract managers and senior commissioners to monitor whether service delivery is meeting expectations and achieving outcomes. Contracts and service agreements should be flexible enough to require service providers to change the way they do things in order to improve outcomes during the life of the contract. Shropshire County Council has a single block contract with an independent provider underpinned by a ‘no fail’ clause which prevents disruption of placements. The commissioner and the provider attribute the success of this arrangement to a strong corporate relationship, trust and commitment from both sides to work together to overcome challenges. This cooperation is seen as the bedrock of the successful commercial relationship and referred to locally as ‘relational commissioning’.
When local authority commissioners do go to market they do so using a wide range of procurement processes and contract types including framework contracts, preferred provider lists, block contracts and spot purchasing (on or off frameworks or lists). Views on the efficacy of different procurement and contracting models vary and depend in large part on interviewees own procurement experiences as either a commissioner or a bidder.
Providers have found many recent requirements to join frameworks and preferred provider lists bureaucratic and time consuming. Smaller providers in particular can struggle to find the resource, time or expertise to meet the requirements of procurement exercises and thus don’t make it onto frameworks. There is a real unhappiness amongst some who say recent formal procurement exercises have impacted negatively on communication and relationships with commissioners. In some regional collaborative exercises, established local providers have failed to respond adequately to procurement processes and as a consequence some authorities in regional arrangements are procuring off framework or opting out of collaborative procurement processes in favour of a local approach.
Local authorities have been heavily focused on cost and some have developed tools such as cost-calculators to help them ascertain the likely price of a placement. The make up of placement costs is now generally better understood. There is mixed feedback about whether cost negotiations are really an effective way of securing value for money. Failure to clarify in sufficient detail the offer and skills on the table alongside the costs will diminish the efficacy of VFM exercises, and may mean commissioners lack key evidence down the line to challenge providers if they feel standards or value have slipped.
Market shaping and relationships with providers
Effective relationships between commissioners and providers are characterised by a good understanding of needs, clear strategic vision and commissioning policies, open channels of communication and clarity over expectations, responsibilities and accountability. Commissioners and providers must be able to constructively challenge each other and participate in ongoing processes of change and improvement. All of this is possible without compromising procurement regulations or effective commercial practice – a commercial relationship need not be an adversarial one.
The extent to which local authorities ‘shape the market’ - and understand what this means - varies. The concept of ‘market shaping’ is being applied primarily to dealings with independent providers, although there has been a shift in thinking amongst some commissioners. Several local authorities are now trying to reconnect with providers and potential providers.
**Kent County Council** has no remaining in-house homes for looked after children. They have been working with the Independent Children’s Homes Association (ICHA) to develop a local provider forum. The group is led by the ICHA and non-ICHA members can join as associates.
Commissioners in local authorities with under-supply say they would like independent sector providers to fill these gaps; but the market will not respond without more detailed understanding of – and trust in – specific commissioning intentions. Providers must be given the opportunity to plan and consider whether they are in a position to invest in an area and provide identified services. Communicating specific needs and intentions gives providers more commercial confidence and appetite to shoulder a portion of the risk inherent in the development or redesign of services. Some local authorities have reduced the number of providers they commission to work more closely with a selected few. Commissioners expect more from providers in exchange for a closer commissioner-provider relationship, often underpinned by longer term security in the contractual relationship.
Interviewees recognised there needs to be an increasingly robust commissioner-provider relationship with in-house homes and a more developmental relationship with independent providers. These relationships are emerging but not widespread. Positive commissioner-provider relationships are characterised by clear articulation of needs, a transparent commissioning strategy, co-design of services, clarity about desired outcomes, honesty about available resource and a clear business case and decision making. Successful development of in-house provision follows the same process, with commissioners working closely with service and home managers to match needs with supply.
In this context, local commissioners might want to consider what opportunities are offered by new models of ownership (e.g. mutuals, social enterprises or joint ventures). Alternative models (particularly those that are non-profit distributing and apply an asset-lock) could offer value for money and provide an opportunity for a wide range of stakeholders (elected members, children in care and care leavers, families, carers, professionals and community members) to become involved in the governance of children’s homes and shaping of services within them.
Market shaping and development could be supported by some inter-linked changes to the way provider offers are defined, communicated, understood and scrutinised by commissioners. **We recommend a tightening of children’s homes’ formal statement of purpose. We recommend more cross-regional sharing of good sufficiency statements, market position statements and commissioning strategies.**
Commissioners need to be able to better understand provider offers. Since a number of providers work nationally, **we recommend further national work to map provision and to facilitate conversations between local authorities, providers and partner agencies.**
**A mixed marketplace**
The number of in-house children’s homes has been declining; however some authorities, following strategic reviews of residential care in the last few years, have opened or expanded in-house services, to give greater control over the quality and cost of provision and enhance ability to flex provision.
**Lincolnshire County Council** cut high rates of out of area placements after a whole system review and commissioning exercise. This resulted in the redesign and development of in-house homes with regular vacancies, so they better met local needs, and investment in early intervention services to help manage demand and escalation up the continuum of care.
Some authorities are also thinking about how to cross-sell placements to neighbouring authorities and there is more to be done to overcome occupancy challenges and ensure children’s home providers are incentivised to support the onward journey of a child or young person.
Some authorities and sub-regional partnerships have entered new block contracts with independent providers following significant needs analysis and service design exercises. Whilst the contract type can help attract providers, it is the relationships between commissioners and providers developed around these commissioning exercises that are most helpful in shaping of provision that meets needs.
Interviewees are concerned about the impact of private equity investment and trend towards larger providers on market diversity, competition, quality, accountability and sustainability. They are also concerned about the increased risk of significant a reduction in provision should one of these providers collapse or exit the marketplace. The declining numbers of small and medium sized providers and voluntary sector providers is therefore also of concern. Some elected members have particular concerns about ‘for profit’ models of care home ownership and the removal of direct governance of children’s homes; as a result many are currently keen to ensure in-house providers remain part of a mixed local provider landscape.
We recommend that strategic commissioners look at in-house and independent providers impartially and in the context of the sufficiency duty. Local commissioning plans and market position statements need to reflect local circumstances and that will mean a different balance of in-house and independent provision in different areas. The message that residential care homes are a valid, positive and valued part of the continuum of care also needs reinforcing.
Collaborative commissioning
All councils involved in this research are at a minimum involved in discussions with neighbouring authorities in their region and nearly all are involved in more formal collaborative commissioning arrangements.
Where collaborations work there are clear benefits: better coordination at the strategic level across borders; economies of scale; authority with the market; the attraction of new providers; operational support across borders; reducing duplication of effort e.g. visits to homes; and the sharing of best practice, innovation and skills.
Hertfordshire County Council collaborated with six other local authorities to commission a new block contract. The newly commissioned homes incorporate access to education, therapy and CAMHS. Authorities involved in the collaboration report financial savings and access to shared learning. Placements Northwest is a collaboration between 22 local authorities; a considerable amount of information is shared and there are established frameworks for residential care (7 authorities involved), foster care (22 authorities) and care leaver services (22 authorities). The Placements Information Management System (PIMS) records information on providers in the Northwest including type, location, finances, vacancies and quality. Information is disseminated through established networks (including one for residential care), online updates and an annual regional provider forum. Both strategic and operational commissioners engage and there are joint working groups with commissioner and provider representation which cover residential care, fostering, leaving care and education.
But not all collaborations are functioning well, or as effectively as they could. Interviewees said they can be time consuming, there remains a reluctance in some regions to share resource and detailed information about needs, costs and impact of services and it is not always clear to all involved in regional collaborations how these arrangements link to local and regional strategic objectives. Under-supply can also be a barrier to collaboration as authorities are effectively competing with each other for available placements and preferential rates.
We have heard examples of issue-based (as opposed to solely geographically-based) collaborations working well. There is some evidence to suggest that authorities are beginning to think more tactically about the collaborations they choose to join or develop, preferring for example to collaborate with authorities who are similarly advanced in their commissioning practice. This trend may continue and a collaboration based on a strong local business case will always stand the best chance.
During this action research, Darlington Borough Council has continued exploration of when it makes sense to commission collaboratively. They are exploring how to generate an appetite for collaborative working and how to make collaboration work effectively. They are also interested in the process of data aggregation and analysis at the sub-regional or regional level. To date they have approached senior executives and commissioners in neighbouring authorities to assess interest and begin to identify whether or not there is a business case for collaboration.
The ‘business case’ for collaboration must achieve genuine buy-in from senior leaders (both executive officers and elected members); plans must then be operationalised effectively and sustained. Buy-in, energy and input are required at all levels for the collaboration to work well. Consistent membership is helpful, with clear project plans and timeframe, achievable goals and the right skills mix.
Local authorities are interested in the range of collaborative commissioning arrangements that currently exist or are emerging. **We recommend more transparency in the sector about collaborative activity.**
### The involvement of children and young people
All of the authorities involved in this research said that individual children and young people entering care or being moved to a new placement are consulted. Conversations to inform placement selection and care planning usually take place between the looked after child and their social worker, but many participants are concerned that even at this early stage in the commissioning process the views of children can easily be lost or surpassed and fail to have much or any influence over final placement decisions.
Concerns about the extent to which social workers, placement managers and commissioners listen to and act on the wishes of young people are corroborated by the findings in our survey of children and young people in care and care leavers. Our survey (completed by just under 100 young people nationally) showed that children often lack basic information or clarity about where their new home will be and when they will be moving in.
There are some good examples but overall there is an ongoing deficit in matching rhetoric about the involvement of children and young people in decisions about their care with genuine involvement. Whilst concerned, many interviewees struggled to see how they can better match provision with children's wishes in the face of drivers including the push to place in area, limited (high quality) supply and pressures on cost.
**Lincolnshire County Council** deliver an annual looked after children's survey called ‘tell us what you think’. Responses are analysed and actions develop. The council then feed back to those who responded so they understand how their comments are being used and how they will shape commissioning and services.
Our survey showed that looked after children feel they have very little choice about placements; when asked whether they were given a choice of placement before they went to live in a children's home 70% said 'no' and only 18% said 'yes'. Only 27% remember being asked what was important to them about where they lived. When invited to say more young people said they believed they not been given a choice and/or their needs, feelings and preferences were not listened to and/or reflected in the final match; children and young people knew that in many cases they had simply been taken where a bed was available with no opportunity for further discussions about this decision – this issue is exacerbated in emergency or temporary placements.
Once in a home experiences improve, but still 28% of survey respondents say once placed, the home had not given them the home and care they wanted. 63% said if the placement wasn’t working well someone (home managers, staff, social workers, key workers, advocates) worked with them to make it better; but many emphasised the value of a planned and staged process up front, which helps to reduce anxiety and fear and build positive and trusting relationships from the outset.
Survey respondents were also asked whether they thought it was important that social workers and care home managers listen to children and young people when making decisions about their care. The majority said they did think it was important because: such decisions have a significant impact on their lives; because children and young people should be empowered to participate in decisions about their futures; because it avoids assumptions being made about need and the suitability of placements; because it helps build trust and fruitful relationships with social workers; and, because it reduces the chance of a child going missing and of placement breakdown and disruption.
Within all authorities there are mechanisms (such as Children in Care Councils) to engage looked after children more strategically, but the true level of their participation and influence on final decisions is uncertain. Effective engagement means: explaining objectives (and constraints) to young people; ensuring information is accessible and supports decision making; making sure opportunities to participate are timely and will influence final decisions; involvement in the design of services and systems; and feedback where ideas cannot be taken forward.
Young people responding to our survey said they want to be able to talk openly and express their views, feelings and emotions in a safe environment. They want to be able to give feedback through a range of channels both verbal and written, online and off, anonymous and identifiable. They also want the opportunity to co-produce solutions to improve the quality of their own care and children’s homes more widely. 4. Quality assurance and monitoring
Systems and processes
There are widespread questions about the quality assurance and monitoring of placements and homes and about the way data on quality and outcomes should be aggregated and presented to support effective strategic commissioning decisions.
To reduce duplication and share skills some councils in sub-regional or regional collaborations are sharing information on provider offers, quality, costs and (to a lesser extent) impact. The sharing of data on costs has played a major part in the ability of some authorities and regional collaborations to drive down the cost of placements but where low cost deals have been negotiated locally, authorities can be reticent to share information they feel could affect the price a provider is able to offer them. In most places there is little available data on the impact and outcomes of different services and interventions.
Interviewees report that data sharing arrangements have not developed particularly quickly and there is a distinct shortage of evidence about what works and for whom. There are also gaps in understanding about why placements break down.
In Darlington Borough Council commissioners undertook detailed analysis of foster placement breakdowns alongside their fostering service to identify trends and patterns. Analysis of this data revealed a peak in placement breakdown in summer holidays suggesting additional support is required at this time.
The London Borough of Haringey has begun to discuss every failed placement with the providers. They have found these conversations a useful way of establishing what might be necessary to prevent future placement breakdown and a channel through which to build more constructive relationships with providers.
Some interviewees felt strongly that strategic commissioners are not being clear enough about value as a driver of efficiency – that is the link between good outcomes and reduced costs in the medium to longer term – and thus the need for good data on impact and outcomes. In some of the authorities commissioners are beginning to act as critical friends to providers, discussing improvements required openly and developing service improvements more collaboratively, with benefits to outcomes. Measuring quality, value and outcomes
Ofsted assessments play a key part in local authorities’ understanding of whether a children’s home is delivering high quality services. Increasingly authorities will only place in ‘good’ or ‘outstanding’ homes. National Minimum Standards and contract monitoring is also important. Data is collected in visits by social workers, service managers and operational commissioners, Regulation 33 visits, Regulation 34 reviews; Independent Reviewing Officers; elected members and through feedback from children and young people. Different mechanisms are established in each authority for the review and scrutiny of this information. There was some concern within the interviews that providers are treated differently and authorities agree more needs to be done to align expected standards. Providers find the variation in local authority monitoring and performance a challenge, particularly smaller providers.
Ongoing monitoring of individual placements takes place through individual social workers and processes such as looked after children reviews, but there is concern that these reviews do not dig deep enough, challenge progress (or regress) against outcomes sufficiently well and are undermined by the lack of an effective initial needs assessment. Providers are often the first to suggest a child’s needs have changed which can cause tension between providers and commissioners.
There is a lack of aggregated data on outcomes and a high level of agreement that Ofsted, local authorities and providers are still over-reliant on process and output indicators. Sub-regional partnerships and local authorities are working on the development of outcomes frameworks, but in general there is still a widespread lack of understanding about what to measure and what indicators capture outcomes for this group of children and young people.
Authorities are struggling to improve what they measure (inputs, outputs and outcomes), how to measure (ways of capturing outcomes), when to measure (e.g. over what timeframe) and who should be capturing what data (Ofsted, operational commissioners, social workers, providers, IROs). In a couple of authorities more consideration is being given to the use of qualitative data and the role this might play in capturing outcomes, particularly qualitative data collected from children and young people in care and from care home staff.
Kent County Council is part of a regional arrangement to review existing provision and develop a picture of need. An email survey is completed by operational teams across the region, analysed results are then shared. Placements Northwest has published a service specification (parts 1 and 2) for children’s homes. This specification lists the outcomes they expect providers to the framework to achieve at a minimum and for all children. The outcomes build on the five Every Child Matters outcomes and seven outcomes identified by children and young people at the Children’s Rights Conference 2005. Each outcome is linked to associated service requirements. Eight local authorities external to the collaboration have expressed interest in working with Placements Northwest to examine outcomes from children’s homes.
There is significant concern that current local and national quality assurance systems are rigid and can obscure genuine progress – for example placement moves as a result of progress or the need to transition. Questions were also raised over whether the criteria against which the quality of provision is assessed reflects the challenges posed by the most complex children or gives sufficient consideration to ‘distance travelled’ and incremental improvements.
A national outcomes framework for children’s residential care, underpinned by clear pathways to outcomes which capture inputs, intermediate level outcomes and high level outcomes, would enable progress to be demonstrated and assessed in the short, medium and longer term. National leadership is required to develop this framework and it should be co-produced with the national experts, local authorities and providers who have already invested significant time working on outcomes in residential care.
Local authorities might find it helpful to further develop their understanding and use of evaluation techniques in looked after children’s services. The resulting evaluation approaches and toolkits could be shared with providers and help improve understanding of impact, value and outcomes.
We recommend a common national outcomes framework is developed for children’s residential care. This framework would capture the particular needs of this group of children (e.g. building personal resilience, forming trusting relationships). National leadership is required to develop this framework and to involve, in particular, the national experts, local authorities and providers who have invested significant effort in work on outcomes to date. Using monitoring data: quality over quantity
Providers and care home managers from both independent and in-house homes, say they are concerned about the amount of paperwork and data they are being expected to collect and submit, particularly in the context of diminishing resource for delivery. There is a disproportionate impact on small providers who may not have dedicated support for quality assurance and monitoring.
Both commissioners and providers said the significant amount of time spent monitoring and gathering data on quality does not add value in the way it could because there is a lack of capacity to analyse and act on this data. Most want to streamline the data they collect and become more comfortable working with outcomes (as opposed to inputs and outputs) but acknowledge this is a significant cultural shift within a high risk and high cost service.
Some authorities have begun to review referrals to better understand the profile of children placed in care homes, the rationale for placements and outcomes achieved; they hope this will also help them improve the type and quality of the data collected.
Derbyshire County Council’s approach to quality is being influenced by the social pedagogy model. Staff report that it has lead to a more flexible approach to delivery and a more balanced attitude to risk, with a greater focus on outcomes and the longer term personal and social impact of care services.
Post 16 transitions and leaving care
A number of concerns were expressed, particularly in the action learning groups, about transitions out of care and about post 16 provision; successful transitions are important if progress and outcomes for looked after children is to be sustained as they reach age 16 and beyond. The Southwark Judgement means local authorities have a duty towards young people aged 16 and 17, but many are encouraged to move into supported or independent living once they reach 16. There is concern about inadequate planning for older teens, a lack of appropriate tapered support and a lack of regulated accommodation for this age group, many of whom remain extremely vulnerable. Successful transitions are important for teenagers as they reach age 16 and beyond. There is concern at local level about this group, and the possibility that progress pre-16 is being compromised by inadequate transitions. We recommend that further attention is given to transitions out of care and to services for young people post-16. Further consideration should be given to the regulation and quality assurance of placements and services for looked after children entering post 16 or leaving care provision, and the threshold at which quality assurance of these services ceases. There may be a case for a more staged and segmented approach, proportionate to need and risk.
Monitoring of out of area placements
There is a clear expectation within authorities that out of area placements are managed in the same way as home authority placements, but in reality practice varies. Some commissioners and managers were very clear that the monitoring and management of placements is equitable; but other authorities admitted that the further away a child is the harder they find it to quality assure and monitor the placement, particularly when the expectation is that quality assurance and monitoring takes place face to face.
Bradford Metropolitan District Council uses an electronic consultation tool called Viewpoint, designed to support looked after children reviews and encourage young people to participate in quality assurance processes. Viewpoint is a web-based system containing a series of tailored questionnaires. It is a simple, repeatable process of collecting information on the quality of placements directly from children and young people placed both in and out of area. The questionnaires are self-completing and unmediated. IROs, social workers, foster carers and key workers must ensure that children and young people are aware of Viewpoint and have access to it. The data collected is fed to IROs and social workers and aggregated to inform strategic commissioning. The data supports understanding of placement stability, value for money, outputs and outcomes.
There is significant uncertainty on the part of local authorities over how many out of area children they have within their boundaries, where they are placed and how their care is being coordinated and monitored. It is widely recognised that communication and processes surrounding out of area placements need rapid improvement. The Department for Education’s recent proposals to revise the regulation on notification processes for out of area placements should help. Involving children and young people in quality assurance and monitoring
Children and young people in care must have a role in quality assurance and monitoring, but currently they often have fragmented contact with multiple stakeholders and little clear sense of how their views are used to improve their care. Children and young people are asked for their views by home managers and staff, social workers, officers, elected members and IROs and engaged through the Children in Care Council. Online surveys and engagement platforms are increasingly being used but feedback from children and young people suggests there is still a significant gap in the use of this data to inform strategic commissioning decisions and shape future care. Of the children and young people responding to our survey (national cohort) 30% said no one asked them whether their placement was still right for them once they had been placed and 40% said they had never been asked to help with work to improve children’s homes. There are some examples of training of children and young people as ‘young commissioners’ and ‘young inspectors’.
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/0908-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 36,
"total-input-tokens": 63862,
"total-output-tokens": 15248,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
184,
1
],
[
184,
375,
2
],
[
375,
1279,
3
],
[
1279,
3503,
4
],
[
3503,
6119,
5
],
[
6119,
8464,
6
],
[
8464,
10822,
7
],
[
10822,
12469,
8
],
[
12469,
14971,
9
],
[
14971,
17154,
10
],
[
17154,
18089,
11
],
[
18089,
20890,
12
],
[
20890,
23024,
13
],
[
23024,
25963,
14
],
[
25963,
28629,
15
],
[
28629,
30882,
16
],
[
30882,
33267,
17
],
[
33267,
35819,
18
],
[
35819,
38664,
19
],
[
38664,
40695,
20
],
[
40695,
43510,
21
],
[
43510,
45902,
22
],
[
45902,
48053,
23
],
[
48053,
50843,
24
],
[
50843,
53616,
25
],
[
53616,
55589,
26
],
[
55589,
57783,
27
],
[
57783,
60457,
28
],
[
60457,
62877,
29
],
[
62877,
65399,
30
],
[
65399,
67669,
31
],
[
67669,
70295,
32
],
[
70295,
72602,
33
],
[
72602,
74962,
34
],
[
74962,
77290,
35
],
[
77290,
78404,
36
]
]
} |
6c6b0bf0ee107cf665e682e818ae4a07a3cdd7ef | ACTION RESEARCH INTO IMPROVEMENT IN LOCAL CHILDREN’S SERVICES
Final research report, Spring 2016
Ben Bryant, Natalie Parish and Simon Rea Isos Partnership Contents
Executive summary .................................................................................................................. 3 Introduction: Aims of the research ......................................................................................... 3 The improvement journey of local children’s services .......................................................... 3 Key enablers of improvement in children’s services .............................................................. 5 How the current system supports improvement and how this might be made more effective ...... 7 Acknowledgements .............................................................................................................. 9 Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 10 The context of the research .................................................................................................... 10 The aims of the research ........................................................................................................ 11 Our approach to the action research ..................................................................................... 11 The context in which local children’s services are working .................................................. 13 Chapter 1: The improvement journey of local children’s services ........................................ 14 Poor to fair .............................................................................................................................. 14 Fair to good ............................................................................................................................ 15 Good to great .......................................................................................................................... 17 Summarising the improvement journey .............................................................................. 18 The timeline of improvement ............................................................................................... 19 Chapter 2: Key enablers of improvement in children’s services ............................................ 22 Enabler 1: Strategic approach ............................................................................................... 22 Enabler 2: Leadership and governance ................................................................................ 24 Enabler 3: Engaging and supporting the workforce ............................................................. 27 Enabler 4: Engaging partners ............................................................................................... 30 Enabler 5: Building the supporting apparatus ..................................................................... 32 Enabler 6: Fostering innovation ........................................................................................... 33 Enabler 7: Judicious use of resources .................................................................................. 34 How the seven key enablers manifest themselves across the stages of improvement .......... 35 Developing a toolkit for the stages of improvement ............................................................. 36 Three practical steps for new leaders at the outset of an improvement journey .................. 38 Chapter 3: How effectively the current system supports improvement .................................. 41 Space for dialogue on policy and practice .......................................................................... 42 Monitoring performance leading to early warning of weaknesses ...................................... 42 Networks for informal support and peer learning ............................................................... 43 Inspection .............................................................................................................................. 44 Formal improvement support and intervention ................................................................. 45 A well-functioning labour market ...................................................................................... 47 Sufficient investment ........................................................................................................ 48
Chapter 4: Implications and recommendations .................................................................. 49 Space for dialogue on policy and practice ........................................................................ 49 Better monitoring leading to early warning ....................................................................... 49 Networks for informal support and peer learning ............................................................. 50 Inspection and accountability ............................................................................................ 51 Formal improvement support and intervention ................................................................. 51 A well-functioning labour market ...................................................................................... 52
Annex: Local children’s services case studies .................................................................... 54 Case study 1: Achieving for Children (Kingston-upon-Thames and Richmond-upon Thames) .... 54 Case study 2: Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council ..................................................... 56 Case study 3: Doncaster Children’s Services Trust ............................................................ 58 Case study 4: Hampshire County Council and the Isle of Wight Council ......................... 60 Case study 5: Lincolnshire County Council ....................................................................... 62 Case study 6: North Yorkshire County Council ................................................................. 64 Case study 7: Nottinghamshire County Council ............................................................... 66 Executive summary
Introduction: Aims of the research
In 2012, Ofsted introduced a new single inspection framework for children’s services. At the time this action research began (January 2016), 78 local children’s services had been inspected, of which 20 had been found inadequate, 41 were deemed to require improvement, and 17 were judged good. During the time this research was carried out, further inspections have taken place, with two members of the tri-borough authority – Kensington and Chelsea, and Westminster – becoming the first local children’s services departments to receive outstanding judgements under the current framework. The new single inspection framework has not been without controversy. Nevertheless, the profile of inspection outcomes suggests that there is a need for system-wide improvement in children’s services. Understanding how best to enable and support that improvement has been the focus of this research.
This project was commissioned by the Local Government Association (LGA), and has sought to answer two central questions.
a. What are the key enablers of (and barriers to) improvement in local children’s services? b. How can the system as a whole facilitate and support improvement in local children’s services?
This has been done by working in depth with a small sample of nine local areas, at different points on their improvement journeys. We carried out visits to each of these nine local areas, and engaged senior children’s services leaders in two sets of action research workshops. As well as informing the findings set out in this report, these discussions have also enabled us focus on specific improvement activities that each local area has been working on in real time. These have been captured in the case studies in the annex to this report, and have been used to illustrate key points throughout the report. As well as working with the nine local areas, we have also gathered views from a range of national stakeholders and senior leaders in eight other local areas.
The improvement journey of local children’s services
All of the local areas with which we worked saw themselves as being on a journey of improvement, with key milestones they were seeking to reach and pitfalls they needed to avoid. To capture this, we have described the concept of an improvement journey in terms of moving from poor, to fair, to good and eventually to great.
A key finding of our research has been that the improvement activities in which local areas are engaged were consistent, continuous and cumulative. Local areas in the good-to-great stage of their journey had not stopped doing what had enabled them to improve from poor to fair. Instead, they had continued, embedded and built upon these activities. For example, building the vision, values and culture of the organisation and robust self-assessment are both vital activities in the initial stage of the improvement journey, which must be continued and sustained if improvement is to be embedded. Nevertheless, we found that there were distinct emphases of these activities that distinguished each phase of the journey. A second key finding, and an important caveat, is that progressing from phase to phase through the improvement journey is not automatic: just as there are defining characteristics at each phase, there are also specific pitfalls and risks of “slipping back” that must be negotiated. For local areas seeking to improve from poor to fair, we found that there were two distinctive emphases. The first was on putting core systems and processes in place, reasserting control over the system, accurately assessing risk, making sure cases were allocated, clearing backlogs and bringing caseloads down to manageable levels through recruitment and redistribution. The second, however, was on rebuilding the culture and ethos of the organisation so as to support ongoing and sustained improvement. The pitfalls to be avoided during this phase are failing to get to a genuine understanding of why the service has been failing and its current weaknesses and strengths – “getting to a baseline” – and rushing into an ill-thought-out restructure. The premium here is on accurate diagnosis and in-depth engagement with the workforce.
For local areas seeking to move from fair to good, we found that sustaining improvement required that they see improvement as a long-term process underpinned by a long-term strategy. Complacency and short-termism are the risks to be avoided. There are three distinctive features during this phase. First, local areas have sought to develop their capacity for robust self-assessment, once external oversight of improvement, such as an independently-chaired improvement board, has been lifted. Second, the locus of leadership of improvement shifts, with middle managers playing a more significant role in embedding improvements and ensuring greater consistency of frontline practice. Third, the focus of improvement activities moves from certain “mission-critical” aspects of the service (such as the front door) to see children’s services as a single interdependent system, with greater emphasis placed on preventative and early help services.
We found that there were three further distinctive characteristics of the activities of local areas seeking to improve from good to great, or to sustain excellence. First, we found that improvement had ceased to be a discrete project and was part of “core business”. Second, routines to ensure oversight of key services were embedded to the extent that they could embrace disciplined innovation to drive ongoing improvement. Third, senior leaders of good-to-great children’s services may have opportunities to act as system leaders, supporting other local areas.
While the emphasis during this phase was on maintaining consistently high-quality frontline practice and managing risk effectively, the risk was of becoming overstretched and “taking one’s eye off the ball”. The speed at which cases come into children’s services and decisions are required can mean that even ostensibly high-performing local children’s services can be vulnerable to rapid decline if staff in key roles leave or too much of their time is diverted onto other projects. Local areas recognised the importance of embedding improvement so that it was not dependent on a few key individuals in leadership roles. Furthermore, they saw that, if planned correctly, there were significant benefits in staff taking on system leadership roles, such as being able to offer high-calibre staff a range of routes through which to develop themselves and progress in their career.
As well as describing each stage, we also explored the timescales involved in achieving sustained improvement and progressing through the phases of the improvement journey. Local areas cautioned that the improvement journey was seldom linear, and that inhibiting factors – the depth and duration of service failure, the level of acceptance by leaders, and the effectiveness of the initial response – could impede and side-track improvement. Nevertheless, local areas estimated that it took around two years to move from poor to fair, to move from full and frank recognition of weakness to having a safe and effective core service. Doing so required:
- around six months of rigorous diagnostic to get to a baseline position on the organisation’s capacity and competency;
- a further six months to stabilise the service by strengthening core systems, ensuring the right thresholds for entry into children’s services are in place, and clearing backlogs;
- a further year of iterative implementation, checking quality, and problem-solving; and
- all the while, engaging and communicating with the workforce and key partners.
**Estimated timescales for each phase of the improvement journey**
Those local areas that had made the transition right the way through all of the phases of the improvement journey reflected that to move from fair to good and great required around a further three years. This period was characterised by the relentless pursuit of quality and consistency of practice, embedding and normalising of improvement routines, disciplined innovation, and eventually looking to reach out beyond the service to provide more system-wide leadership.
**Key enablers of improvement in children’s services**
During the research, we explored with the participating local areas what had been the most important “enablers” of their improvement. Based on their improvement journeys, we identified seven key enablers of children’s services improvement. These are captured in the figure below.
Put briefly, the first four enablers describe the importance of getting key people in a range of roles and organisations lined up behind a single, coherent strategy for improvement, and the importance of building the organisation culture, ethos and values to sustain improvement. Any attempt to deliver long-term and sustained improvement at scale, irrespective of the service area, requires clarity of vision and a well thought-through strategic approach. Local areas described to us that this must be bought into by those at the top of the organisation, including political and corporate leaders, and shared by all staff. It should be informed by robust self-assessment and frank acceptance of external feedback. All local areas described the crucial role a long-term strategy had played in guiding their improvement; none, however, said that time spent disputing whether their services really were poor had contributed to improvement. Seven enablers of improvement in children’s services
1. Strategic approach
- Rigorous and forensic self-assessment of the organisation’s strengths and weaknesses
- Honest and open response to any external feedback or inspections – focus on improvement, avoid denial
- Develop a vision & strategic plan that is right for the organisation – not to “tick a box” or be seen to be acting
2. Leadership & governance
- Maintain the right, stable, focused leadership at all levels – political, senior leaders & middle managers
- Don’t rush into a restructure – engage staff and develop structures that will best support improving practice
- Effective, professional governance – with key decision-makers from partner agencies to enable swift action
3. Engaging & supporting the workforce
- Change the rhetoric – avoid the “blame game” and ensuing turbulence in staffing
- Articulate high expectations & ambitious goals – provide a clear description of what good practice looks like
- Stabilise the workforce – and support frontline professionals through manageable caseloads and supervision
- Develop staff from within – through a pro-active recruitment and a robust staff development strategy
4. Engaging partners
- Engage senior partners – for example, through well-run, effective LSCBs, to create a mandate to collaborate
- Align thresholds – to ensure consistent decision-making about referrals to the service
- Review practices through multi-agency audits – to drive improvements across all services and agencies
- Remain outward-facing – to avoid the risk of “group-think” or slipping into denial about performance
5. Building the supporting apparatus
- Maintain a secure front door – to ensure the right cases are dealt with in the right way, at the right time
- Ensure the flow of cases reflects a child’s journey – to ensure decisions are taken in the child’s best interests
- Know the business – ensure regular flows of robust evidence that can be used by members, leaders & staff
- Develop routines to track progress, audit quality, monitor improvements and hear from children themselves
6. Fostering innovation
- Create a learning culture – one in which new ideas and initiatives to improve practice are openly encouraged
- Test and pilot new ideas carefully – adopt a measured approach to find out what works in the local context
- Evaluate rigorously – to learn from and respond to innovative practice – and know when to “hold your nerve”
7. Judicious use of resources
- Ensure strategic & financial planning are aligned – to enable and sustain short- and long-term improvements
- Invest where it is needed – deploy additional resources to unblock backlogs or develop critical new processes
- Sustain investment – avoid the risk of diverting resources elsewhere before improvement is embedded
- Focus on long-term priorities – investing in prevention services to reduce demand on other services
A corollary of having a long-term strategy for sustaining improvement is having stable, consistent leadership and governance in place to implement it. Leadership of children’s services must be effective – and those we engaged argued that this required a relentless focus on quality, engagement in frontline practice, and the ability to model the core values and service standards – but it must also be stable. This applies not only to the senior leadership of children’s services, but also to middle managers, who can play a crucial role in embedding improvements and ensuring consistency of frontline practice. Likewise, political and corporate leaders can play a crucial role in catalysing a speedy and effective response to serious weaknesses in children’s services, sustaining improvement through effective long-term planning and scrutiny, and embedding effective frontline practice through, for example, effective corporate parenting arrangements. Political and corporate leaders, who know what good children’s services look like, and are signed up to effective long-term plans for improvement, have a vital role in driving and sustaining improvement.
Even with an effective strategic plan and sound leadership, children’s services cannot improve without effective frontline practitioners. This is why engaging and supporting the workforce is such a crucial part of securing improvement. This requires ensuring that there are sufficient suitably-qualified staff in post to deliver a safe and well-functioning service, retaining those staff and enabling them to deliver high-quality social work through effective support and supervision, professional development, and active caseload management. Ensuring staff feel trusted, valued and supported can be crucial to avoiding the vicious cycle of workforce turbulence, high staff turnover, and consequent rising rates of agency staff that can follow an adverse inspection judgement.
The multifaceted nature of children’s services means that local authorities cannot succeed in delivering a high-quality service on their own. Effectively engaging partners and the intelligent use of external support and challenge to cement partnerships were characteristics of local areas that had improved or maintained a high-quality service. They had done this through personal engagement with senior partners, effective strategic governance arrangements, and multi-agency collaboration, often starting with aligning thresholds and moving onto multi-agency audits to drive practice improvements. The local areas that were most confident about their improvement were those that had been able to foster an overarching vision, a set of values, and an organisational culture that was shared by leaders, practitioners and partners.
The fifth enabler – what we have termed building the supporting apparatus – describes the need to put in place the foundations or essential “wiring” of effective children’s services. The focus here is on ensuring that strong core systems and processes are in place. Furthermore, it is essential that leaders and managers “know the business”, which requires robust routines for collating and triangulating real-time performance data, the results of audits of frontline practice, and feedback from children and families.
The sixth and seventh of our key enablers – fostering innovation and judicious use of resources – describe how local areas have enhanced their practice and sustained improvement. Innovation has a vital role to play in improving children’s services, but must be disciplined if it is to lead to sustained improvements and avoid diverting energy and resources from core business. This means ensuring clarity of purpose, precise planning, effective implementation and rigorous analysis of the effectiveness of any innovation before considering wider roll-out. The use of resources must be equally clear- and far-sighted in order to sustain improvement. The risk to be avoided is for the long-term plan for improvement and the organisation’s financial plan to be misaligned, with pressure to withdraw resources from improving children’s services prematurely.
How the current system supports improvement and how this might be made more effective
During our engagements with the local children’s services and national stakeholders, we asked colleagues to reflect on how effectively the system at national level supported local children’s services to put into practice and sustain the enablers of improvement detailed in the previous chapter. We drew two insights from these discussions.
First, we concluded that the current national system contains the right elements to support children’s services improvement, but requires greater strategic coherence and co-ordination to sustain system-wide improvement. Second, in order to expand the capacity for system leadership and avoid the risk of over-burdening a small number of high-performing local areas, the national system needs to focus not only on intervening in poorly-performing local areas, but also on systematically supporting those on the fair-to-good and good-to-great stages of the improvement journey.
Doing this will require three things to be in place: an evidence base of what works to drive improvement, a graduated approach to support and accountability, and the right underpinning conditions to be in place.
In terms of an evidence base of what works to drive improvement, currently this can be somewhat fragmented and piecemeal. There is a key role to be played by the sector and its partners in bringing together an active research agenda, leading national policy debates, and strengthening and professionalising the leadership of the children’s services sector. We suggest that there is an opportunity offered by the announcement of the forthcoming Department for Education (DfE)-commissioned ‘What Works Centre for Children’s Social Care’ to bring together the latest research about driving improvement in children’s services. Such a body, working alongside organisations like the Virtual College, Association of Directors of Children’s Services (ADCS), LGA and Society of Local Authority Chief Executives (SOLACE), could play a key role in enhancing practice and leadership within the sector, akin to, for example, the Royal College of Surgeons.
There must also be mechanisms for applying this evidence base in practice. This is what we mean by a graduated approach to support and accountability. Currently, children’s services leaders argue that there is sufficient soft intelligence to identify the early warning signs of serious failure, but a lack of clarity about who is responsible for collating and acting upon this intelligence. Sector-led organisations such the LGA and ADCS have offers of peer review for local areas, but taking part is voluntary, and this limits the effectiveness of peer review as a mechanism for spotting the signs of decline before it becomes terminal. The DfE has recently announced that seven local areas will be designated as partners in practice, and will have a role supporting improvement in other local areas. This is to be welcomed, but there remain questions about the sufficiency of system leadership capacity, given the number of local areas that may require support, and the evidence of the relative effectiveness of different models of support.
In this report, we have outlined a more coherent approach to support and accountability, which would bring together informal and formal accountability and support. We have suggested a more explicit role in collating and acting upon soft intelligence for a representative body or consortium. This could, if aligned with a more targeted approach to peer reviews and commissioning of support from a broad pool of system leaders, play a key role in identifying and seeking to address concerns before they reach crisis-point. They could also act as a trigger for Ofsted inspection and, if appropriate, more formal improvement support and intervention. Local areas suggested that the effectiveness of formal accountability and intervention could, in turn, be improved by ensuring that there was greater alignment of reporting arrangements between the DfE and Ofsted, and through the development of a more explicit evidence base for the effectiveness of different models of intervention.
Lastly, there must also be the right underpinning conditions in place, most notably a well-functioning labour market. Many local areas reported difficulties recruiting and retaining high-calibre social workers, in part due to some of the vagaries of the social work agency market. Addressing these will require a mix of both national and local intervention. Our research suggests that investment in workforce development, with a firm focus on the quality of supervision, practical support, professional development and keeping caseloads manageable, has a vital role to play in retaining a highly-trained, stable workforce within children’s services. At a national level, government and the sector may wish to consider further actions that might be taken collectively to address some of the negative effects of the current agency market and improve the range of recruitment options open to local areas that receive an inadequate inspection judgement. Kite-marking social work agencies may be one way that local areas can be assured of the reliability of the information about prospective agency staff. Fostering the development of pools of social workers who can be deployed to provide short-term additional capacity, which some local areas have explored, may be another means of enabling local areas to draw on staff with the right skills at the right time to support their improvement. Acknowledgements
This project was undertaken by a small team from Isos Partnership, led by Ben Bryant, Natalie Parish and Simon Rea. During the fieldwork stages of the research, we were able to draw on the knowledge of two expert research partners, Andrew Bunyan and Nikki Pace.
During the research itself, we worked with frontline practitioners, heads of service, senior leaders of children’s services and partner agencies, and elected members from nine local areas, whom we engaged in the action research aspects of the project:
- Achieving for Children (Kingston-upon-Thames and Richmond-upon-Thames);
- Barnsley;
- Bexley;
- the Doncaster Children’s Services Trust;
- Hampshire (with the Isle of Wight);
- Leicester City;
- Lincolnshire;
- North Yorkshire; and
- Nottinghamshire.
We also engaged senior leaders from eight other local areas: Birmingham, Buckinghamshire, Derbyshire, East Sussex, Medway, Rotherham, Staffordshire and Wiltshire.
All were at different stages of their improvement journey, and, due to the action research nature of the project, we were privileged to be able to work alongside them on an ongoing basis while they were planning, implementing and refining plans to improve local children’s services. This has proved hugely valuable, and we have sought to capture their experiences of pursuing sustainable and rapid improvement to illustrate the key points made in this report.
We were also able to draw on the knowledge and expertise of a range of national stakeholders, including colleagues from the LGA, ADCS, SOLACE, Ofsted and the DfE.
All colleagues who agreed to take part in this research, in whatever capacity, shared a deep and unshakeable commitment to improving children’s services and to ensuring vulnerable young people are kept safe from harm. We are grateful to them for giving of their time so generously, and we hope that this research proves valuable to them and their counterparts in children’s services across the country. Introduction
The context of the research
In 2012, Ofsted introduced a new single inspection framework for children’s services. At the time this action research began (January 2016), 78 local children’s services had been inspected, of which 20 had been found inadequate, 41 were deemed to require improvement, and 17 were judged good. This is represented in the chart below.
During the course of the research, additional children’s services departments have been inspected. Significantly, during this time, two members of the tri-borough authority – Kensington and Chelsea, and Westminster – have become the first local children’s services departments to receive outstanding judgements under the current framework. (The third member of the tri-borough authority, Hammersmith and Fulham, was judged to be good.)
There has been some controversy in the sector about whether the single inspection framework delivers an accurate judgement of performance in all cases, and particularly whether the category of requiring improvement is too broad, and the boundary between good and outstanding is attainable. It is not the purpose of this research to reopen these debates. Rather, the focus of this action research is to pose the question of how local children’s services can best be supported to improve in the context of the systemic challenge posed by the profile of inspection results. A sector in which more than a quarter of services are deemed to be inadequate and, in addition, over a half are not yet good demands some probing analysis. This includes exploring what conditions or actions are most likely to enable services to improve rapidly and in a sustained way, what inhibits that improvement, and where the capacity for improvement is most likely to be found.
There is a second observation that forms an important backdrop to this research. There is currently a lack of a clear evidence base regarding which of the many forms of support are most likely to lead to improvement, and how these might be delivered at sufficient scale to address the degree of challenge currently facing the sector. The aims of the research
The objective of this research is, therefore, to understand how, in the current financial, political and inspection climate, local children’s services can best be supported to improve rapidly and in a sustained way. The research has sought to answer two central research questions.
c. What are the key enablers of (and barriers to) improvement in local children’s services? d. How can the system as a whole facilitate and support improvement in local children’s services?
In order to fulfil this objective, and answer these two questions, the research has sought to understand:
- the experience of a broad range of local authorities and their partners in the period following inspection, in terms of the actions they took and the constraints they faced;
- the factors or activities that were most likely to support improvement and those which hampered further progress;
- how those factors are influenced by local context;
- whether it is possible to identify an overall improvement journey that local services have broadly followed, and what the stages and phases in this journey are;
- whether there are essential preconditions that must be in place before meaningful improvement can occur; and
- whether some improvement interventions appear to be consistently more effective than others, and the circumstances in which that might hold true.
The research aims to provide a rich evidence base on the challenges and opportunities faced by local authorities in adapting to the current challenging context, combined with practical examples and case studies of good and innovative emerging practice. It is hoped that these will be of direct value both to policy makers in central government and those involved in delivering local children’s services and their partners.
This final report summarises the evidence collected throughout the whole research process. While the initial fieldwork engagement has focused primarily on local authorities, we recognise that truly effective children’s services are a joint enterprise between children’s social care, education, health, the police, corporate functions, the voluntary and community sector, and young people and families themselves. We also recognise that referring to local authorities as the agents of children’s services improvements can be misleading when some responsibilities for delivering local children’s services are placed with independent bodies, such as children’s services trusts. We have sought, therefore, to refer to ‘local children’s services’ as a shorthand for the broad consortia of organisations involved in driving improvement in children’s services in a local area.
Our approach to the action research
The action research has been carried out with nine local children’s services. These were selected on the basis of objective criteria designed to ensure that the research covered local children’s services at different points in the improvement journey, as set out below. The final sample of nine was chosen with a view to achieving a balance in terms of size, geography, urban and rural, and deprivation. The action research was carried out in two main phases: an initial phase focused on gathering evidence and establishing a baseline, and a second phase focused on action learning during which we facilitated joint problem-solving and sharing of ideas between the authorities involved.
During the first phase of the research, from December 2015 to February 2016, the team carried out initial fieldwork visits to each of the nine selected areas, interviewed key national stakeholders, and carried out a brief review of relevant published literature and research. During the fieldwork visits we interviewed a cross-section of members and officers including:
- elected members, in most cases the lead member for children’s services;
- Directors of Children’s Services or their equivalent;
- Assistant Directors for social care, or their equivalent;
- Heads of Service with oversight of key functions such as referral and assessment, adoption or looked-after children, or area-based managers;
- frontline team managers and social workers; and
- leaders in key strategic partners, including local health services and the police.
During the second phase of the research we worked with local areas to identify the specific live challenges on which they were working. We brought the authorities together in structured “action learning sets” as a means to solve problems collaboratively and to identify actions to be trialled. We also carried out some additional interviews with senior officers from local children’s services in eight areas to provide a complementary picture to some of the authorities in our sample and to widen our evidence base. These eight areas were: Birmingham, Buckinghamshire, Derbyshire, East Sussex, Medway, Rotherham, Staffordshire and Wiltshire. They were selected using the same criteria we used to identify the nine local areas that took part in the action research.
In the final phase of the project, in May 2016, we invited colleagues from all of the local areas that had participated in the research to attend a final workshop to test and develop the key themes and messages from the project. The diagram below shows the project in its entirety. Our approach to the action research
| Phase 1 | Phase 2 | Phase 3 | Phase 4 | Phase 5 | |---------|---------|---------|---------|---------| | Qualitative research | Interim report | Action research #1 | Action research #2 | Final report | | December-January | Mid-February | February-March | April-May | End of May |
**Activity**
- Project set up
- Designing research tools
- Selection of local areas
- Interviews with national stakeholders
- Fieldwork in 9 local areas, and one-to-one calls with other local areas
- Drafting interim report
- Discussions with project steering group
- Developing detailed areas of focus to inform the action research, based on the three research topics
- Set up the two action learning sets
- Agree areas of interest and priority action for individual local authorities
- Hold first action learning set engagement
- Hold second action learning set engagement
- Help local areas to refine their areas of focus in light of the work they have done
- Support local authorities to evaluate impact of their actions
- Workshop of all local authorities involved to test and disseminate findings
- Consolidating all the research material into a final report
**Outputs**
- Project plan
- Research tools
- Write-ups of local area fieldwork visits
- Comprehensive interim report
- Outline areas of focus to form a basis for the action research
- Outcomes of the first action learning set written up
- Agreed areas for local area action
- Outcomes of the second action learning set written up
- Facilitated self-evaluations
- Case studies from action research and illustrations of effective practice
- Publication-ready final report
The context in which local children’s services are working
A report by the National Audit Office in November 2014 estimated that the reduction in funding to local authorities between 2010-11 and 2015-16 was 37% (*The impact of funding reductions on local authorities*, National Audit Office, 2014). This equated to a 25% real-terms reduction once council tax had been included. The report found that spend on children’s social care had been protected overall (in fact budgeted spend actually rose slightly during the period) and the bulk of savings had been found in other service areas. However, this is during a period in which demand for children’s services has risen. Between 2010-11 and 2014-15, the number of referrals into children’s social care rose by 3%, the number of children in need throughout the year rose by 6%, the number of children subject to a child protection plan rose by 16% and the number of looked-after children rose by 6%. The latest data from local authorities confirms this trend. This has been driven not just by a rising child population in general, but also increasing numbers of young people coming into care later in their lives with complex and multiple needs. Chapter 1: The improvement journey of local children’s services
The local children’s services that have engaged in this research represent a broad spectrum in terms of where they are currently on their improvement journey, and the steps they have taken to reach that point. This breadth of experience has given us an insight into the key phases of improvement that local children’s services go through, how they inter-relate, and some broad ideas about the typical timescales associated with each phase.
To describe the improvement journey that local children’s services undertake, we have deliberately constructed a language that is not tied to Ofsted inspection judgements. In presenting the evidence of how children’s services improve we are not seeking to second guess what it might take to reach a particular judgement – that is well described in the Ofsted inspection framework. Instead, we are seeking to set out what characterises the activities that a local children’s service might take, and the support that it might benefit from, as it seeks to improve, or sustain, the quality of service that it provides. We have used the descriptors of poor, fair, good and great and the stages of transition between them to describe the different stages of the improvement journey.¹ The sections below set out some of the broad characteristics of each phase of the journey.
In presenting the phases of the improvement journey, we are not suggesting that the improvement journey is linear, nor that progression through the stages is automatic or straightforward. Indeed, the local areas with which we worked emphasised that improvement was cumulative, and that it was necessary to continue to undertake the activities that had enabled the service to move from poor to fair in the fair-to-good and good-to-great phases of the journey. For example, building the vision, values and culture of the organisation and robust self-assessment are both vital activities in the initial stage of the improvement journey, which must be continued and sustained if improvement is to be embedded. Furthermore, the local areas were also keen to stress that, while there are defining characteristics of each phase, there are also specific risks of “slipping back” at each stage of the journey. In the sections that follow, we identify and describe both.
Poor to fair
We found that improving from the point of having a poor service with serious weaknesses to one that was safe and could be described as fair had two defining characteristics.
First, the emphasis was on putting core systems and processes in place, reasserting control over the system, accurately assessing risk, making sure cases were allocated, clearing backlogs and bringing caseloads down to manageable levels through recruitment and redistribution. Local children’s services talked about the need to ‘steady the ship’ or ‘get the basics right’ in the first phase.
Accordingly, the leadership needed during this period tended to be characterised by “command-and-control” approaches, which defined service standards and processes and then monitored the system hard to make sure they were adhered to. Staff who had experienced a service in crisis or failure that had been successfully turned around frequently referred to the fact that the structures put in place to reassert a managerial grip on the service made them feel safer and less exposed in their roles.
¹ See, for example, these descriptors used by Mona Mourshed, Chinezi Chijioke and Michael Barber, in their 2010 report, How the world’s most improved school systems keep getting better. The local areas with which we worked argued, however, that there was a second crucial component of the poor-to-fair journey that was critical to sustaining improvement. As one senior leader put it, the poor-to-fair journey ‘was not just about making the trains run on time’. Focusing solely on top-down leadership would foster compliance in frontline practice, rather than building the foundations for high-quality social work. Many of the social workers we interviewed in participating local areas described how important it was that senior managers engaged them, had a clear moral vision, and focused on quality rather than simply hitting targets.
As such, this second crucial component of the poor-to-fair journey focused on rebuilding the ethos and culture of the organisation. This included developing the long-term strategic direction, a clear approach to delivering high-quality frontline practice, workforce development, and set of organisational values and behaviour. It also involved engaging frontline staff, gathering their ideas, and using their feedback to shape the long-term vision for the organisation. In other words, while the first set of activities aimed to reassert management grip on the service and put in place the core processes, this second set of activities aimed to construct something that existing and prospective staff could buy into, and a touchstone to which leaders and managers could keep referring back in order to maintain focus.
A number of local areas that had either provided support to those which had failed, or that had emerged from failure themselves, reflected on the need to take stock and to assess accurately the specific weaknesses that had contributed to the poor outcomes for children and families. Specifically, they argued that there were two main risks with which to contend during the poor-to-fair journey.
a. **Launching into and imposing a restructure and strategic plan** – local areas spoke of the temptation of launching into a wholesale restructure or new innovation to spearhead a period of turnaround. Indeed, some described the momentum that had been lost in false starts or unnecessary reinvention. There was a strong message that what was needed at this stage was accurate diagnosis and in-depth, open engagement with staff, followed by the relentless application of core systems and processes that are tried and tested, adapted to the local context.
b. **Not getting to a baseline** – the idea of “getting to a baseline” was a recurrent theme during our discussions with children’s services leaders who had been through the poor-to-fair journey. As one experienced senior leader put it, ‘no matter how bad the Ofsted report is, what you will find in reality will be worse’. Children’s services leaders argued for the importance of undertaking a thorough diagnostic across all services to understand the capacity and competency of the organisation, and the quality of frontline practice.
In a number of discussions, senior leaders made the point that it might be necessary during this period to “hold your nerve”: while practice might be improving and foundations being successfully laid, data might still not be improving or initially might be appearing to go in the wrong direction (especially if thresholds needed revisiting).
**Fair to good**
The next stage in the improvement journey, from fair to good, was, in some respects, seen as harder to crack than the first stage. The activities that local areas described during this phase were markedly similar to those identified in the preceding section. There were, however, three subtle shifts of emphasis in how local areas approached improvement in the fair-to-good stage of the journey.
First, in this phase, there is an emphasis on vigilance and developing the capacity for ongoing, robust self-assessment. One authority that had been in intervention spoke of the importance of avoiding the trap of thinking that, once the intervention had been lifted and an external improvement board was no longer in place, the focus on children’s services improvement could be reduced. Local areas saw that avoiding the risk of “slipping back” required:
- recognition that improvement was a long-term process, of which the poor-to-fair stage was only a very short first section;
- an ongoing commitment to a long-term strategic plan for sustaining improvement; and
- developing the capacity for self-assessment and putting in place effective mechanisms for oversight, scrutiny and challenge, including from elected members, the Local Safeguarding Children Board (LSCB) and well-chosen external critical friends.
For improvement to be sustained, the local areas argued, these characteristics needed to become embedded within the day-to-day organisational culture of children’s services and partner agencies. In other words, a key aspect of the fair-to-good stage of the journey is fostering a clear-sighted, evidence-informed culture of improvement that shapes and reinforces day-to-day practice.
Second, at a leadership level, the locus of leadership, which may necessarily have been of a more directive, strategic-level nature during the poor-to-fair stage, starts to shift from senior leaders to middle managers. Improvement becomes something that is owned more broadly across the organisation, rather than something that is done and led by senior leaders. At this point, the emphasis shifts to enabling middle leaders and frontline staff to take greater ownership of decision-making, to apply quality standards confidently, and to develop routines that would embed a culture of continuous self-improvement. Likewise, in relation to partnership working, at this stage of improvement local authorities also saw the nature of their engagement with partners shift from working in parallel towards common goals to more genuine multi-agency working at both strategic and operational levels.
Third, the emphasis of improvement activities shifts from addressing specific “mission-critical” service areas (such as the front door) to considering all children’s services as an interdependent system, and on ensuring the consistency of practice across all parts of that system. There is recognition that initial improvements may not have benefited all parts of the organisation equally, and that practice and quality are not yet consistent across all teams. In several instances, local areas described how, at this stage of their journey, they had a well-functioning front door in operation, but an undeveloped early help, targeted family support and preventative offer or, alternatively, growing numbers of children in care.
The watchword for local areas during this phase was avoiding complacency and the subsequent loss of focus on improving children’s services. Senior leaders described the risk that senior political and corporate leaders within the local authority and in partner agencies, who may have played a pivotal role in ensuring commitment to and investment in the initial improvement activities, may think that the problems in children’s services had been addressed and would be less engaged. Local areas that had successfully avoided this risk described how they had developed a detailed plan for continuous improvement, to which political leaders, corporate leaders and partners were signed up. The Continuous Service Improvement Framework: Barnsley
Having been issued with an improvement notice in 2012, Barnsley had a positive experience of working with an improvement board and an independent chairperson. The challenge, for Barnsley, was how to maintain pace and embed improvements after the improvement notice was lifted. To this end, Barnsley developed the Continuous Service Improvement Framework. This aims to align key elements of improvement so that they are working in tandem to improve services and outcomes. These include:
- a plan for continuous service improvement delivered by partners working together;
- robust and clear system governance – through the children’s trust board, scrutiny from elected members, and the Barnsley Safeguarding Children Board; and
- developing a culture of respectful challenge and making the voice of the child part of business-as-usual for all services and agencies.
Working within the framework, partners have been able to drill down into priority areas in order to embed and spread improvements in frontline practice. The front door has been a key area of focus, and improvement work has resulted in a decrease in the volume of referrals to the service. There have also been reductions in the numbers of child protection plans in the last two years, and improved permanency planning for children in care. Read the full case study in the annex of this report.
Good to great
For those local children’s services that were moving from good to great, or were sustaining excellence, the tempo and focus of improvement shifted again. We identified two significant characteristics of this stage in the improvement journey.
First, having focused initially on “mission-critical” aspects of the social care system, and then turned their attention to embedding improvement across children’s services as a whole system, the emphasis in the good-to-great stage of the improvement journey was on maintaining a consistently high standard of practice across all services. In some ways, this is simply a continuation of the activities that characterised the poor-to-fair and fair-to-good stages of the journey – rigorous analysis of and relentless focus on the quality of frontline practice. What was distinctive about this stage, as described to us by the local areas that we engaged, was that improvement had ceased to become a “project”, something discrete from core business, and had become “the norm”, part of “what we do”.
Improving outcomes for children on the edge of care: North Yorkshire
North Yorkshire has achieved significant improvements in children’s services since 2009, recently being named as one of the DfE partners in practice. Key to this success has been a long-term whole-service strategic plan for embedding effective and consistent frontline practice, and on shifting the focus of support over time from statutory services to prevention and early help. This has three elements. First, North Yorkshire has focused on strengthening routes into children’s services and ensuring consistent decision-making by means of a multi-agency customer contact centre. Second, it adopted a strategic approach to placements and permanency, with weekly routines to ensure oversight of those entering and in care, and the innovative no wrong door approach to provide tailored early support for young people on the edge of care or entering care late in their lives. Third, performance improvement groups enable leaders and managers to exercise ongoing forensic scrutiny of practice. As a result, between 2012 and 2016, there has been a significant reduction in referrals and conversion of referrals to assessments has risen (from 64.9% to 97%). Child protection plans have reduced (by 36%), as has the number of looked-after children (by 15%). Financially, £3 million is no longer being spent on the looked-after children budget, enabling further investment in prevention and early help. Read the full case study in the annex of this report.
Second, these areas continued to focus on the routines designed to ensure consistent high-quality practice and management of risk. In this stage of the journey, these routines have become so well embedded and understood that these local areas are also able to embrace disciplined innovation as a way to improve service delivery and make efficiencies. Openness to challenge, through both external and internal peer review has also become the norm. Planning is longer term, takes place across the whole partnership, and is absolutely rooted in securing the best outcomes for children.
Increasingly for these local children’s services there is the scope to become “system leaders”, systematically sharing their expertise with others and learning from the experience of doing so. We return to this theme in chapter 3. Among the local areas with which we worked, there were some that saw themselves as having successfully navigated each stage of the improvement journey, having been poor and now being on the way to becoming great. They recognised, however, that even local authorities that were ostensibly good could be vulnerable to a loss of focus on key service areas, which could result from key staff leaving or becoming overstretched if they were involved in supporting other local areas. They recognised the importance of embedding improvement so that it was not dependent on a few key individuals in leadership roles.
Local areas that were involved in system leadership roles were considering carefully how they built up the strength and depth in their organisations so that members of staff were able to step up into new roles, either working externally to support others or taking on greater responsibility within their own service. These local areas saw that, if done correctly, this could offer considerable benefits in terms of being able to offer high-calibre staff a range of routes through which to develop themselves and progress in their career.
**Summarising the improvement journey**
A key finding of this research has been that the activities of local areas at each phase of the improvement journey are consistent, continuous and cumulative: local areas that might see themselves as being in the good-to-great phase had not stopped doing what had got them through the poor-to-fair phase. What had enabled them to sustain their improvement was precisely that they had continued, embedded and built on these activities. Nevertheless, there are distinct emphases and risks that define each stage of the improvement journey. These are summarised in the diagram below. Defining characteristics at each stage of the improvement journey
| The three phases | Defining characteristics | |------------------|--------------------------| | Poor-to-fair | 1. Getting the basics right – driven by leadership\
| | 2. Building the ethos and culture – & engaging the workforce | | Fair-to-good | 1. Capacity for robust self-assessment, vigilance\
| | 2. Locus of leadership shifts and becomes more broad\
| | 3. From “mission-critical” aspects to whole-service view | | Good-to-great | 1. Improvement no longer a discrete project – it is the norm\
| | 2. Disciplined innovation embedded within delivery\
| | 3. Openness to others – challenge & system leadership role |
The timeline of improvement
Evidence from the fieldwork engagements demonstrated that improvement in children’s services was seldom perfectly linear and smooth. Even those children’s services with an impressively rapid trajectory described challenges and setbacks along the way. One very consistent message made by the local areas that took part in the research, however, was that securing sustainable improvement was a long-term endeavour. This is to do with the scale, pace and complexity of a typical children’s service. Local areas highlighted three factors that might influence the speed with which progress was made.
a. **The depth and extent of the initial service failure.** Among local authorities judged inadequate for children’s services there was perceived to be a difference between those children’s services where, on the one hand, a small number of crucial elements of the system had become unsafe and jeopardised the quality of the service overall and, on the other, those areas where almost all parts of the system displayed serious and critical weaknesses so as to leave the entire system in a state of crisis. If the service had been failing for a significant period of time, this could also have had a knock-on effect on the children and families being supported by children’s services. For example, those older children preparing to leave care may have had experiences marked by having been taken into care too late, and having been through a series of disrupted and unsuitable foster placements. These factors would influence the complexity of their needs, and the demands placed on services such as leaving care. Typically, and unsurprisingly, local areas that had experienced a history of weak children’s services saw that their improvement journey would take longer than those where weaknesses were contained within some specific areas of practice.
b. **The length of time it took senior leaders, including political and corporate leaders as well as senior children’s services officers, to recognise fully and accept the weaknesses in the service.** Local areas emphasised that this was an essential precondition to making progress. Unless there was full and frank acknowledgement of what had gone wrong by those in positions of authority, no meaningful work could take place to put things right.
c. **The effectiveness of the initial response to failure.** A number of local areas that had improved from poor to fair, or better, described how it was very easy in the early stages after an adverse inspection to embark on the wrong set of actions to kick-start improvement, or to become overwhelmed by factors such as the mass exodus of permanent staff which often follows a poor inspection.
The first two of these factors relate to the conditions that need to be in place before a local children’s service can start making improvements, and what may need to be done to get to the “starting-line” of their improvement journey. The third relates to how effectively a local area starts the improvement journey.
Notwithstanding these differences, many of the local areas that took part in the research described a similar experience in terms of the timescales required for the different phases of the improvement journey. Most local areas suggested that the time needed to get from a poorly functioning service to one which was fair – safe, effective, well-managed and doing the basics well – was around two years. If, however, leaders and partners were not willing to recognise the scale of past failure and if there was not the leadership, partnership-working and governance to support what was required to address those weaknesses, then the poor-to-fair phase could take longer.
Those that had recently undertaken this journey further compartmentalised this phase into an initial diagnostic stage which might last from four to six months. During this time, the extent of weakness in the service would be accurately assessed and a firm strategic plan developed through ongoing and open engagement with the workforce. Leaders spoke of the importance of getting to a baseline position of understanding the organisation’s capacity and competency, and getting into the detail of frontline practice to assess where there were weaknesses as well as any specific areas of strength. This would then be followed by a further six months during which the focus was on strengthening the core systems and processes – putting in place the essential “wiring” that enables a children’s service to function. Several local areas described the focus during this first year of the improvement journey as being on “stabilisation” of the service. In particular, they emphasised the importance of ongoing engagement with the workforce throughout this process to ensure they felt valued, to build their confidence and skills, and to avoid a mass exodus of staff who had been disengaged by the imposition of a new structure or practice model.
Year two was then devoted to rigorous implementation of the new systems. This meant the diligent monitoring of performance information and use of audit to systematically identify those parts of the system which were not working well and putting in place actions to address these weaknesses. One local area described that, after the focus in year one on stabilisation, the focus in year two was on ‘getting back to good social work’, using monitoring, audit and other quality-assurance routines to assess the quality and consistency of practice and solve problems iteratively.
A small number of local areas in our sample had made the entire improvement journey from poor to great. Those that had done this described it as a five-year journey. The period from fair to good, and in some cases on to developing a great service, was seen as requiring roughly three years, and was characterised by the relentless pursuit of quality in practice, the embedding and normalising of improvement routines, disciplined innovation, and eventually looking to reach out beyond the service to provide more system-wide leadership. A broad timeline of the improvement is captured in the diagram below.
*Estimated timescales for each phase of the improvement journey*
These are intended to be indicative timescales, based on the experiences of the children’s services that took part in the research. It is not meant to imply a one-size fits all model: some local areas will progress more quickly; others will do so more slowly, depending to some extent on the factors outlined above. For all, there is a risk that this is not a simple, linear progression, and there are risks of slipping back at each stage of the journey. We hope that setting out the stages and timescales of improvement, and the defining characteristics, rough timescales, and attendant risks at each stage, may provide a useful means of orientating how local areas plan to improve and sustain effective children’s services. Chapter 2: Key enablers of improvement in children’s services
The fieldwork visits and the action learning phase of the research both afforded a clear insight into the actions that local areas were taking to secure improvement. We identified seven clear areas of activity that, taken together, provide a way for local children’s services to address the challenge of improvement. Interestingly, these seven areas of focus were remarkably consistent across areas irrespective of their starting point in terms of the quality of children’s services delivered. They are, to some extent, the DNA of a well-functioning children’s services system. It is also the case, however, that the way these different enablers were applied, and the focus and attention afforded to each, differed depending on where the local authority was on its improvement journey. The diagram below summarises the key enablers of improvement, which are then explored in greater detail.
Seven enablers of improvement in children’s services
Enabler 1: Strategic approach
Any attempt to deliver long-term and sustained improvement at scale, irrespective of the service area, requires clarity of vision and a well-thought-through strategy. It is therefore no surprise that, in our conversations with local areas, the importance of the strategic vision came through strongly. There are, however, a number of specific elements to the development and communication of an effective strategy for children’s services that are worth highlighting.
The first issue, which was raised with us by a number of the lead members to whom we spoke, is that, brutally speaking, children’s social care is not an issue that wins votes. For a local politician, listening to her or his constituents, the issues which will continually be brought to their attention tend to relate to environment, planning, refuse collection, transport or education. Very rarely will a well-functioning children’s services department contribute to a councillor’s chances of being elected or to their relationship with residents. The point at which children’s services does enter the political spotlight is on the rare occasion when something goes disastrously wrong, and in that situation it can rapidly become a vote-loser. At that point, however, in the throes of handling the crisis, it can be too late to engage a council’s political leadership in the development of a well-planned, long-term strategy.
The development of such a strategy must, therefore, start at the very top of the organisation. Ongoing and effective dialogue between elected members and senior officers are vital to establishing:
- the moral imperative for sustaining an effective children’s service;
- sufficient understanding by elected members of how the service manages risk and the implications of the council’s statutory obligations; and
- the long-term political commitment to investment, leadership and scrutiny.
The second feature of children’s services is that they are highly multifaceted services that involve hundreds of decisions being taken on a weekly basis by staff working across multiple teams and organisations. The complexity of the lives of many of the children who come into contact with children’s services means that, over an extended period, they are likely to be supported by a large number of staff, often working across organisational boundaries. It is perhaps no surprise, therefore, that one of the watchwords associated with the development of the strategic vision in our fieldwork group was ‘consistency’.
Local areas emphasised the importance of setting out the vision, clearly and simply, and then reiterating it frequently so that it was fully understood by staff and partners. This was even more the case for local children’s services experiencing the sort of turbulence that can follow an adverse inspection judgement in terms of staffing or leadership. In these situations, establishing the core principles and strategic direction of the service, and then sticking with that through the vicissitudes of implementation, was seen as particularly important.
Crucially, local children’s services distinguished between developing a short-term plan to address a crisis from a long-term, evidence-based strategic plan developed through close engagement with leaders, managers, frontline practitioners and service beneficiaries. They argued that developing a plan for addressing immediate and urgent issues had its place, but only the consistent application of a strategic approach could deliver sustained, service-wide improvement.
A further key determinant of the effectiveness of the strategic vision was the local authority’s capacity for honest self-appraisal. For those local areas seeking to improve after an adverse inspection judgement, it was clear that the speed of improvement was closely related to the authority’s and other partners’ ability and willingness to step back, take a close, hard look at their capacity and quality, take on board the findings of the inspection, and put in place a pragmatic plan for addressing weaknesses. One Director of Children’s Services described this process as ‘getting into the weeds’. Many of those local children’s services that had made slower progress had not been able – or willing – to undertake such a dispassionate and forensic assessment of their areas of weakness. Rather than embracing external feedback and moving forward, these local areas had lost valuable time and energy in attempting to defend a poor-quality service.
It was not only in the period immediately following an inspection, however, that honest and critical self-appraisal was needed. A number of local areas some way down the improvement journey described the importance of maintaining a robust and current understanding of where children’s services may be vulnerable – for example, due to staff turnover or changes in leadership of key services. Those local children’s services that had sustained good or better practice over a number of years were often characterised by their openness to challenge, commitment to internal or external peer evaluations, and their honesty about areas of concern. Precise diagnosis, and clear actions arising from this, was seen to be critical to developing a strong strategic plan at any stage in an authority’s improvement journey. Critically, these characteristics were hardwired into the organisational culture of children’s services departments and partner agencies.
It was clear from our fieldwork that the way the strategic vision is created and refreshed evolves as local children’s services progress on their improvement journey. Some of the critical differences are exemplified in the table below.
| Poor-to-fair | Fair-to-good | Good-to-great | |--------------|--------------|---------------| | **Clear and honest diagnosis** of weaknesses and their causes. | Building systems for ongoing self-evaluation. | Systems for honest appraisal and continuous improvement fully embedded. | | **Developing a collective commitment** and understanding between elected members and senior officers. | Increasingly mature dialogue and scrutiny between elected members and senior officers. | Incisive and productive scrutiny at the political level. | | **A clear, simple vision** developed by leaders, communicated often, delivered through the organisation, and underpinned by a strong, values-led organisational culture. | **Greater opportunities for middle managers and social workers** to contribute to and shape the vision. | **Strong shared culture** in which the long-term vision is co-created with staff and partners. | | | **Wider consultation with partners** and community informing the strategic plan. | **Listening to the voice of children and families** enables the service to assess and refresh its strategic plan. |
**Enabler 2: Leadership and governance**
Closely allied to the concept of a consistent and principled strategic vision, as described above, is the effectiveness of the leadership of children’s services. Senior leadership within children’s services – the Director of Children’s Services, their Assistant Directors and Heads of Service – clearly have a vital role to play in driving and sustaining improvement in children’s services. During the research, local areas described the importance of both achieving stable leadership and of certain qualities of leadership.
Experienced leaders, middle managers and frontline social workers described four key leadership qualities that they considered to be vital in driving improvement and sustaining high-quality children’s services. These were seen clearly in those local areas that had improved rapidly or had sustained strong children’s services.
a. **Relentless pursuit of quality** – the unremitting flow of new cases into children’s social care and the ever-changing nature of the business requires a leadership approach that combines stamina and perseverance.
b. **Sustained, informed and demonstrable engagement in frontline practice** – the most effective senior leaders demonstrated a clear understanding of the complexity of social work practice, and used tools such as audit and frontline visits both to keep in touch with the quality of frontline practice and to remain visible and accessible to staff. c. **A firm focus on the detail, without losing sight of the bigger strategic vision** – this manifested itself in leaders who knew their service well and consequently could manage risk intelligently, while communicating effectively about the connection between frontline practice and the overall vision and strategy.
d. **Able to model the behaviour, values and service standards that they expected from their organisation** – particularly through their determination, commitment and focus on putting children and families first. The need for leadership that was visible was a point that was made many times to us: leaders who were able to engage directly with social workers on visits, review cases with them, and engage in active performance management.
The social workers we engaged echoed these points. They described how important these characteristics were in engendering trust between senior leaders, middle managers, and frontline professionals. They recognised that, by their very nature, their jobs involved high stakes and exposed them to risks. Feeling like they were trusted and supported by their immediate managers and senior leaders was an essential part of making them feel safe in their roles.
As such, while the characteristics above relate to senior leaders within children’s services, an important part of driving and sustaining improvement within local children’s services is empowering and enabling middle leaders to adopt and develop these leadership traits. As we have described in chapter 1, an important shift during the improvement journey is from a more directive leadership approach at the outset to more distributed leadership with middle leaders playing an increasingly vital role. Maintaining, or establishing, an effective group of permanently employed heads of service and team managers was cited as a critical element of the improvement journey in all the local authorities we visited. This is one of the most important levels of the organisation in providing oversight and supervision to frontline social workers, monitoring and auditing cases, and connecting with senior management in investigating issues and solving problems. Performance groups and other fora where middle managers met regularly to review evidence about the quality of frontline practice, if run effectively, could play an important role in embedding a culture of mutual support and challenge across teams, and helping to maintain the consistency of frontline practice.
Conversely, many of the local authorities that had experienced failure or significant weakness in their services reflected that one of the key contributing factors was a lack of capacity in middle-leadership posts which meant roles became unsustainable, or lack of clarity in decision-making delegation and responsibility which left both middle leaders and frontline staff exposed.
Those local areas that sustained good children’s services over a significant period of time attributed much of their success not only to the **characteristics** of their leadership, but also to maintaining **stability** in key children’s services leadership positions. They argued that consistent leadership in key children’s service leadership positions – Director, Assistant Director and Head of Service – had enabled commitment to a long-term strategy, which in turn had bred investment in frontline practice, consistent decision-making and commitment both to and from the workforce.
For children’s services looking to improve after an adverse or challenging inspection outcome, leadership stability was also deemed important, but necessarily had a different complexion. Of the six local authorities in our sample that had previously been judged inadequate, the senior leadership was replaced in four. In many cases, this was seen to be a necessary precursor to getting the service back on track. There are, however, also cases in which rapid and sustained improvement has been achieved. without a change in senior leadership. Clearly, the capacity of the leadership of children’s services to drive improvement will be a crucial determinant of whether a change of leadership is required or not.
Irrespective of the decisions made in the immediate aftermath of inspection, it is undoubtedly the case that, once the right leadership is in place, stability and continuity in leadership have played a critical role in enabling sustained improvement over a period of time from children’s services looking to progress from a low base. This helped to establish consistency in the implementation of the strategic plan, engagement and development of the workforce (to which we turn in the next section), and the continuous holding to account of the service.
Just as effective, stable leadership is needed throughout children’s services, and not just from senior leaders, so too improving and strong children’s services require effective support from a council’s political and corporate leaders. During our research, we found that a council’s corporate and political leaders could play a crucial role in catalysing children’s services improvement. For example, several of the local areas with which we worked described how strong leadership from political leaders and the chief executive had been crucial in avoiding falling into denial and in responding constructively to an adverse Ofsted inspection.
Conversely, where political and corporate leaders do not recognise the full scale of issues in children’s services, this can impede the pace and effectiveness of improvement. Local areas described to us how, in many local areas that had got into difficulty, there had been a lack of understanding of and engagement in children’s services from political and corporate leaders. Children’s services had been seen as “the domain of the Director of Children’s Services”, and there had been a lack of oversight from corporate leaders. A vital pre-condition for improvement was building up not just their engagement, but also a deep understanding on the part of political and corporate leaders of what a good, safe and well-functioning children’s service looked like. For a local area to sustain improvement, and avoid the risk of “slipping back”, political and corporate leaders needed to understand the long-term and ongoing nature of children’s services improvement. Furthermore, they needed to understand that their engagement in the process of improvement was as important in years three and four as it was in years one and two.
Furthermore, political and corporate leaders also play crucial roles in planning and sustaining improvement, anticipating and managing risks, and ensuring high-quality frontline practice. Lead members, working with their cabinet colleagues, can play a crucial role not only in scrutinising children’s services, but also helping to create an enabling environment for improvement by continuing to articulate the council’s improvement priorities and encouraging other services to support this agenda. Likewise, the role of political and corporate leaders, through a council’s corporate parenting arrangements, is vital in ensuring effective support and outcomes for children in care. As we have described in chapter 2, developing effective support for children who are looked-after has been an important part of the work of those local areas that have sustained improvement from poor and fair towards good and great.
We talk more about the need for effective governance, bringing together the local authority and key partner agencies, in the section below about engaging partners. Nevertheless, within local authorities, it is also important that there are effective mechanisms that ensure ongoing oversight of the children’s services improvement strategy by political and corporate leaders, as well as effective and informed scrutiny from elected members. Enabler 3: Engaging and supporting the workforce
The third key pillar of improvement, or sustained good practice, identified by the local authorities in our sample was the engagement of the workforce. The first prerequisite here was getting sufficient permanent long-term staff in post to deliver a stable and well-functioning service. This was demonstrably not the case in many of the local authorities which had been judged inadequate, and remained a key challenge for many of the authorities improving from requires improvement to good. One local authority, for example, described how, at the point at which the inadequate judgement had been made, the service was operating with over 70% of its social work staff as short-term agency workers. Teams described the turbulence this created, with staff leaving and new staff joining on a weekly basis and no consistency of practice, decision-making or culture. The same authority, having made significant progress in addressing many areas of concern, was still contending with a high proportion non-permanent staff, although more of these were choosing to stay for longer periods, creating a greater sense of stability. Another local authority that had improved from inadequate had reduced its reliance on agency workers from 50% to 4%.
The issue of recruiting sufficient permanent staff is not solely a challenge for local areas improving from a low base. One local area that had maintained good or better services for many years described how its local labour market, with the close proximity of a high number of neighbouring authorities aggressively recruiting through higher salaries and use of agencies, led to a greater reliance on non-permanent agency staff (at around 20%) than they would wish.
Despite the challenges, however, local areas were developing a number of successful approaches to recruiting sufficient high-quality staff. For example, many of the nine local areas we visited were actively growing their own social work staff through use of social work academies. A number of authorities were also recruiting from abroad, and many were thinking imaginatively about the range of incentives other than simply a higher salary, such as flexible working or enhanced career prospects, which might induce people to apply for social work positions.
Of course the corollary of recruiting high-calibre staff, in establishing a stable and engaged workforce, is taking active steps to retain those staff already in the service and develop them into effective practitioners. Interestingly, many local areas reflected that even in a service that has been poorly rated the vast majority of staff, with appropriate support, guidance, supervision and structures, can go on to thrive in an improving or good service. They saw the role of leaders and experienced practitioners as articulating high expectations, but also providing clear support and scaffolding about what high-quality frontline social work looked like. Wholesale replacement of staff, therefore, appears rarely to be the solution to failure. One of the pitfalls highlighted to us by local authorities was responding to a crisis by not only rushing to change the personnel but also rushing to reorganise the structure. Having the courage to take the time to consult widely and agree a structure that was right for, and enjoyed broad support across, the organisation was identified as a key trait of effective leadership when tackling underperforming children’s services.
Those areas that were most successful at retaining their workforce were crystal clear about creating a safe environment in which social workers could operate. This meant having good supervisory arrangements, active caseload management, a clear structure for delegating and escalating decisions, and appropriate procedures in place that were understood and owned by staff. As one social worker we interviewed put it, ‘if you look after your workers, they will look after your service. If staff feel valued, they will value the work they are doing.’
**Social Work Support Officers: Nottinghamshire**
Nottinghamshire ran a 12-month pilot to test the use of Social Work Support Officers (SWSOs). Four frontline teams were supported by SWSOs, with one SWSO to five social workers. The role was designed to take routine administrative tasks away from social workers (such as booking meetings), leaving more time for social workers to work with the children and families they were supporting. Another success criterion for the pilot was to improve morale in the pilot teams with the aim of improving retention and reducing the need for agency staff. The authority surveyed both the SWSOs and the frontline teams throughout the pilot, and compared the results with the workforce survey data that was being collected from other teams. The results were extremely encouraging. The data from the pilot frontline teams supported by SWSOs suggested that they had better morale, better work/life balance, and better attendance than the social workers in the non-pilot teams, as well as having more time for direct work with families. While it is not possible to say definitively that all these outcomes were due to the SWSO pilot, the role played by the increased support to the pilot teams was obviously significant. The SWSO role is now being extended to other child protection teams. Read the full case study in the annex of this report.
Another important aspect of retaining high-quality staff is having a well-thought-through and active approach to career development and talent management. That meant creating opportunities for effective staff to accelerate into positions of greater responsibility and leadership as well as taking swift, fair and decisive action with the small minority of staff unable to meet the demands of the role. There is, however, a careful balance to be struck between the necessary steps being taken to widen the recruitment pool for the purposes of filling vacancies and efforts to retain more senior and experienced staff. In more than one local area we were told by social work staff that the caseload protection that had to be given to newly-qualified social workers could lead to the caseloads of more senior members of the team becoming unsustainable. Monitoring the ratio of newly-qualified staff to experienced staff in any single social work unit is therefore an important part of any staff recruitment and retention strategy.
**Creating a talent pool and understanding social workers’ career motivations: Lincolnshire**
Lincolnshire reviewed their recruitment and retention strategy and workforce data, and identified a number of social workers that left once qualified (typically within two or three years of starting employment). They undertook a workforce pilot to identify with team managers staff who were performing well and likely to need a change of role in a given timeframe, thus creating a “talent pool” for the future and eventually reducing reliance on agency workers. The pilot also aimed to understand the career aspirations and motivations of social work staff. Lincolnshire sent invitations to 123 staff to take part in two personality profiling questionnaires that considered working styles and preferences, behaviour and motivators (both positive and negative). The results of the tests are being analysed and used to create a map of behavioural profiles. They show some interesting motivators and preferences across the workforce, and suggest a range of questions to be investigated in more depth. The data should be very useful in helping to inform career trajectories for staff, develop training programmes and toolkits for social workers, and help job descriptions to better reflect the skills and behaviour needed for new employees. In time, it should also be able to influence a refreshed workforce strategy and help the authority to ‘know its workforce’ more deeply. Lincolnshire also want to understand how the profile results compare with staff in other local authorities and are keen to enable other local children’s services to undertake similar exercises. Read the full case study in the annex of this report.
One local area that took part in this research had sought to understand the retention benefits that were most likely to attract and keep high-calibre social workers. It found that while salaries were seen as important, they were not the most important factor. Instead, the key contributing factors were found to be:
- **keeping caseloads manageable** – so that social workers have time to engage with children and families;
- **the quality of line management and supervision** – they have observed a clear connection between the calibre of the individual line manager and the stability of the social work team;
- **training and development** – including secure career pathways to advanced practitioner status or team manager roles or the opportunity to specialise, for example in areas such as preventing domestic violence; and
- **making the practicalities of the job easier** – for example being able to use their car to visit families, park at work, and to be supported by technology to work remotely and have flexible working options – the use of technology in particular was mentioned by several local areas as showing commitment to staff.
As one social worker put it, ‘we bin things that are not very good, and we keep really good evidence-based practice’.
**Stabilising the workforce: Achieving for Children, Kingston-upon-Thames**
Kingston found that, counter to their expectations, the turnover in social work staff increased after they were judged to be good. To address this issue, and to recreate the essential stability in their workforce and team management structure, they instituted a programme of assessing, through staff surveys and exit interviews, what was causing social workers to leave. Based on the findings of this analysis they established a social care workforce board to re-professionalise their approach to recruitment and retention. Crucially, this focused not just on social workers, but also on recruiting permanent team managers – one of the key findings of the initial diagnostic phase was that social workers left when they no longer felt they had consistent team management. The service has now strengthened their ‘retention offer’ through better training pathways, progression, talent management and oversight by heads of service. This is paying dividends – all team leader posts have now been recruited to and the vacancy rate for social workers is heading back towards 10%. Read the full case study in the annex of this report.
The final critical aspect of creating a stable, effective and engaged workforce is engendering a commitment to high-quality social work at all levels of the system. Those children’s services that were securely good were very confident that staff at all levels understood what high-quality frontline social work practice looked like. One authority commented that much of its work was about managing risk, and it was vital that staff throughout the organisation understood this. There was a commitment to ongoing training and development, healthy competition between different teams, and frequent opportunities for staff to observe practice in other areas of the service, for example through internal peer review structures. Local areas seeking to improve from fair to good and great reflected that inculcating a consistent understanding of high-quality social work was one the most challenging aspects of making the leap to a genuinely high-functioning service.
**The Practice Improvement Programme: Doncaster Children’s Services Trust**
In 2014, the first independent children’s services trust was established to deliver children’s services on the council’s behalf. The direction that established the trust includes the goal that children’s services are judged good by 2017 and outstanding by 2019. Doncaster Children’s Services Trust’s leadership recognises that achieving sustained and rapid improvement will depend on building the capacity of the workforce. For this reason, the trust has launched the *Practice Improvement Programme*. This has three elements:
- **a staff learning and development programme**, based on latest policy developments and research, to ensure staff have a consistent set of core skills;
- **a bespoke programme of individual and group coaching and mentoring** to develop the skills of team managers and advanced practitioners; and
- **practice advisers**, who work with frontline social work teams to embed effective practice and build capacity.
The aim is to embed learning in frontline practice. Recent staff feedback has been overwhelmingly positive. Case audit is demonstrating a change in approach to using evidence-based tools and in the quality of assessment and recording. There are also improvements in workforce stability, with a reduction in the rate of agency staff from 18% to 9%, and with 15 former agency staff now becoming permanent. Sickness absence has reduced, and long-term sickness has reduced by half. *Read the full case study in the annex of this report.*
**Enabler 4: Engaging partners**
The multifaceted nature of children’s services means that local authorities cannot succeed in delivering a high-quality service on their own. The effective engagement of institutional partners and the intelligent use of external support and challenge to cement partnerships were characteristics of the areas that had either made sustained progress or had consistently maintained a high-quality service.
No areas, however, were complacent or underestimated the complexity of engaging partners effectively, and the many different contexts in which partners interacted meant that there was no simple or single approach. Nonetheless, it is possible to draw out some key elements which are likely to facilitate the development of good partnerships. At a senior level, a close working relationship between the small number of people with real decision-making power and responsibility was seen as absolutely critical. For a Director of Children’s Services, for example, knowing their counterpart in the health services and the police, and having the sort of relationship that could be used to unblock barriers, was vital. At the frontline there was a clear dividend associated with the frequency and consistency of communication. A common stumbling block was the lack of alignment over thresholds which, when unresolved, rapidly led to lack of trust and frustration. Those areas that had a multi-agency safeguarding hub (MASH) team with strong engagement from partner agencies strongly advocated the benefits of this.
The value of a highly effective LSCB chair and a well-functioning board was also emphasised. At their best these bodies provided genuine scrutiny, oversight and accountability to partners as equals in a shared commitment to keeping children safe. They were able to ask intelligent and probing questions and would complement the authority’s own audit, scrutiny and governance procedures. Those local authorities that had been subject to an externally-chaired improvement board often spoke highly of the impact that an effective external chair could have in bringing partners to the table, facilitating swift decision-making and holding partners to account for progress.
One local area described the ‘tenacious’ focus of the independent chair of its improvement board, which had made a significant contribution to its progress. The board used the data to focus on the 10 to 12 areas for development that were proving the most difficult to shift. The chair would then personally follow up what she had been told at the board through deep-dive investigations into practice and meeting with groups of social workers to triangulate the qualitative and quantitative evidence. Local areas that had achieved and sustained improvement described the role of partnership governance arrangements, as well as regular engagement in sector-led networks, as a crucial means of remaining outward-facing, retaining aspects of independent challenge and avoiding the risk of “group-think” setting in.
In addition to having mechanisms, such as a well-functioning LSCB, for maintaining effective partnerships at a strategic level, local authorities and their partners also highlighted the importance of multi-agency audits as a mechanism for driving improvements in multi-agency working at an operational level. They argued that a genuinely joint approach to planning, carrying out and reporting back from audits of frontline practice was crucial to ensuring that the audits were owned by partners collectively and that the learning was translated into improvements in practice across the work of all partners. One local authority also described the importance of a really well-functioning independent reviewing officer (IRO) service and skilled child protection conference chairs as an important element of operational scrutiny. In this authority, which had previously been inadequate, the IRO and child protection conference chairs had been outsourced and the contract was poorly managed and ineffectively delivered. As part of its improvement plan, the service was brought back in-house and strengthened. Senior managers described how it had evolved to provide really constructive challenge and thoughtful support. It was ‘the eyes and ears’ of good practice, placing the voice of the child at the heart of the service.
Reducing the rate of child protection cases: The Isle of Wight
The Isle of Wight, in partnership with Hampshire, identified that their rate of child protection was much higher than statistical neighbours and rising. Following a forensic audit of cases, they found that the current high rates of child protection were to some extent a justifiable and appropriate reaction to thresholds for intervention being set too high when the service had been inadequate. Specifically, both partners and social workers had become very risk averse in their practice – they were lacking the confidence to manage risk safely and lacked the mutual trust to make decisions that would enable children to be safely taken off child protection plans. The local authority recognised that managing the child protection risk safely, and reducing numbers appropriately over time, would require the meaningful engagement of their partners. They therefore used network meetings as a forum for shared learning on child protection, carried out thematic multi-agency audits around thresholds and held multi-agency lunches as a forum for the exploration of particular casework issues. As a result, a shared culture of trust and confident decision-making with partners is beginning to emerge. Child protection numbers have reduced from 276 to 210 in six months and rates of re-registration have remained stable. Read the full case study in the annex of this report.
One local authority that had improved rapidly from inadequate reflected that during a period of crisis there could be a danger that partners become “invested” in the failures of children’s services because this allows them not to address shortcomings in their own service. Turning around this dynamic required commitment on the part of the authority to reflect honestly on its own weaknesses and take swift action to address these, and strong governance to challenge complacency and ensure there was genuine collective responsibility and mutual accountability between partner agencies. The LSCB, an externally-chaired improvement board, or broad performance and accountability boards were among the ways in which local areas had sought to embed robust partnership governance.
**Enabler 5: Building the supporting apparatus**
All of the enablers of improvement that have been discussed hitherto – the development of a consistent strategic vision, the oversight of effective and informed leadership and governance, and the engagement of a stable staff base – depend on there being high-quality core systems in place. Conversely, in all those areas that had experienced failure or poor aspects of their children’s services, elements of system or procedural weakness were apparent.
This report will not attempt to describe in detail all the systems and procedures needed to underpin a well-functioning local children’s service. Instead, we focus on three specific areas that were highlighted as being particularly critical by the local areas with which we have worked:
1. managing referrals and assessments at the “front end” of the social work system;
2. putting in place structures which facilitate the timely flow of cases between teams; and
3. secure data management and reviewing practice quality.
One of the first actions taken by all the local children’s services that had improved from inadequate was putting in place a secure front-end to their social work system. This meant creating a safe way of managing referrals into the service, allocating cases efficiently, attending to the both the timeliness and quality of initial assessments and achieving security in decision-making. A good dialogue with partners, to establish and secure appropriate thresholds for referrals and make sure that these were consistently applied, was critical. Many areas had made good use of MASH arrangements to provide the all-important front door into social care. For many of those seeking to improve from a position of crisis or failure, clearing a significant backlog of cases while simultaneously attending to new cases entering the system was a particular resourcing challenge. This is not, however, an area for complacency even in the best-functioning children’s services departments. One local authority that has sustained good children’s services over many years commented that the volume and complexity of cases into a typical social care service was such that a good service could become poor within a matter of three months if there was not sufficient grip on referral and assessment processes.
Moving on from the social work front door, many of the authorities we visited described the importance of having a system which supported the timely flow of cases between teams as responsibility for a child shifted. Local areas had achieved this in different ways. For example, one high-performing authority had instituted an area-based management system that meant that all the teams related to a child’s journey through social care were located under a single manager. This, they felt, removed perverse incentives for teams to refuse to take on new cases in order to minimise their caseloads or to dispute role boundaries. They considered that, under a unified management structure, decisions could be taken more quickly in the interests of the child. Other local areas had opted for a performance-management-driven approach, with clear procedures rigorously applied and close monitoring of workflows and caseloads.
Finally, all the local authorities to which we spoke were unanimous in the importance they attached to the intelligent tracking of data and evidence about the quality of frontline practice. Children’s social care is an area of delivery that is awash with performance indicators. The characteristics of those local areas that used these indicators well as a means to improving their service were:
- the frequency and regularity with which data was scrutinised at all levels in the system;
- the development of a core data set that represented for that area the “vital indicators” of the health of the service;
- the intelligent use of benchmarks and comparisons with other children’s services, such as geographical neighbours and similar local areas; and
- a clear understanding of what each indicator really meant, and how it related to other indicators to form an overall picture of how effective children’s services were performing.
This intelligent application of data, metrics and key indicators went hand in hand with strong audit systems that allowed senior managers to triangulate both qualitative and quantitative evidence of performance and quality of practice. In this context, one authority talked about the importance of looking closely at planned changes to ensure that there was not an adverse impact on professionals or service delivery and ruling them out if this might be the case – for example, moving to centralised data collection or quality-assurance processes.
In addition, in the most high-performing local areas with which we worked, leaders and senior managers would routinely ask the question, “would this be good enough for my child?” Those children’s services would also have robust mechanisms for gathering feedback from children and their families who had been supported by children’s services about their experience, and used these routinely to improve the quality of practice.
**Enabler 6: Fostering innovation**
Through the fieldwork phase of this research it became apparent that innovation, in the context of improving children’s services, can be a double-edged sword. Many of the best children’s services departments that we visited were characterised by their openness to new ideas and learning, their creativity (particularly in the face of budgetary constraints) and their willingness to try something different. Likewise, some local areas had used new ideas, co-developed by leaders and frontline staff, as a spur to rapid improvement. Conversely, we also heard examples of where the wholesale embrace of a particular innovation had triggered an over-commitment of senior managers’ time, a lack of attention to detailed casework, a disruption of established processes, and the subsequent decline of the service.
The message, therefore, appears to be that in both improving children’s services departments and those sustaining good or better services over a considerable period, there can and must be attention to innovation. It is, in many ways, what enables an engaged workforce to remain excited, challenged and to renew itself. Equally, however, it must be innovation that is disciplined and controlled. That means:
- using pilots or small-scale trials to test a concept before it is implemented wholesale;
- basing decisions on what works on the forensic use of evidence;
- being willing to re-evaluate and redesign (and if necessary abandon a concept that does not work); and
- achieving the right mix of bottom-up creation of ideas and senior leadership commitment to seeing through change.
One local authority described ‘kicking the tyres’ of an innovation or ‘testing it to destruction’ before implementing it. To do this or any form of innovation well, this local area reflected, broad, deep and meaningful consultation with staff to test and challenge proposed changes was essential.
**Enabler 7: Judicious use of resources**
The final pillar, or enabler, of improvement is the prudent and judicious use of resources. One of the corollaries of stable and consistent leadership that enabled children’s services to thrive was the knowledge that councils would continue to invest in order to maintain a safe, well-functioning and constantly improving service. It was not necessarily the case that the highest levels of investment translated into the best levels of service. What was essential to sustained improvement, however, was for the long-term strategic plan for children’s services and a corresponding long-term financial plan to be absolutely aligned – ‘bolted together’, as one chief executive termed it. This would enable leaders to deliver a core level of staffing, provide ongoing support and training to frontline professionals, and maintain reasonable caseloads, while also being able to invest in ancillary support services where these were needed.
In contrast to long-term alignment in strategic and financial planning for children’s services, the senior leaders we engaged identified two points on the improvement journey when injudicious disinvestment and poorly-planned cuts to services could risk destabilising a service. First, many of those local areas that had experienced a dip in performance could attribute some of that to savings that had not been planned or made judiciously. They saw that these approaches, where cuts to services were made without consideration of their impact on frontline practice, had consequently overloaded key posts and failed to manage demand or risk. It was also notable that one of the frequent challenges highlighted by social workers in authorities where morale had been lower was the paucity of support services to which they could refer families. Social workers spoke of the deep frustration of accurately assessing a family’s needs and knowing what would help that family to progress, for example the provision of counselling and support to deal with victims of domestic violence, but having no local services on to which to refer those families. It was also emphasised that, just as a sudden and poorly planned cut to budgets often contributed to failure, it was very frequently necessary to invest heavily to turn around a poor children’s service. The level of additional investment quoted by local areas involved in the fieldwork ranged from about £1.5 million in a small authority to £35 million in a large authority. Often this investment was needed to overstaff the front end of the service in order to reduce unallocated cases rapidly or to get ahead of the curve of new cases entering the system. There was also investment to bring down caseloads across a service, recruit and attract new staff (often at additional cost through agencies to plug short-term resourcing gaps) and procure new ICT and management information systems.
Second, just as poorly planned and injudicious cuts could destabilise a service, so too could the premature disinvestment from children’s services after a local area had made the transition from poor to fair. Such an approach was one of the characteristics of local areas that had slipped back or “yo-yoed” between poor and fair, rather than sustaining improvement.
In short, local authorities argued for the importance of investing sensibly to address pressing short-term problems, in order to create the conditions where frontline practitioners could deliver high-quality social care services. They also argued, on the other hand, that decisions about long-term investment should be linked to the long-term strategy. Specifically, resources should be focused not only on addressing short-term problems, which admit the temptation to reduce resources once the superficial issue is solved, but also on embedding improvements and developing preventative services that can help to reduce demand in the long term.
How the seven key enablers manifest themselves across the stages of improvement
As explored above, while the seven key enablers have a resonance for local children’s services at all stages of the improvement journey, the way in which they manifest themselves clearly evolves as services progress. The diagram above summarises the key shifts in emphasis in how children’s services leaders might approach the seven key enablers as they move from poor to fair, and on to good and great.
**Developing a toolkit for the stages of improvement**
One of the insights afforded by this action research has been the opportunity to learn from many different local authorities and their partners, in contrasting political, economic and demographic contexts, wrestling with a similar set of challenges and opportunities. Interestingly, opinion between local authorities was divided on whether some processes, procedures or service models could be taken off the shelf and ‘dropped’ effectively into a new context or whether more bespoke service design was needed. Some local areas talked of the importance of having the internal capacity to implement any new processes effectively: without this, an imported procedure could be damaging if implemented poorly. What was striking, however, was that in many cases the core interventions that were made, or the processes that were introduced, varied less by local context than might be imagined. This suggests that there may be a benefit in assembling, over time, a set of tried and tested approaches that might be applied by local children’s services as part of their improvement armoury. This may be particularly valuable in the current situation in which there are many local areas, all across the country, trying to improve simultaneously with a great risk of time and effort being expended on embarking on false starts which might be avoided.
It is beyond the scope of this research to specify all the approaches that might be required. The action learning phase of this project, combined with the fieldwork, has offered some suggestions as to what the building blocks might be.
- **Front door arrangements** – among the local authorities in our sample that were progressing from poor to fair, one of the most pressing issues with which they had to contend was addressing weaknesses in how children were admitted into the social care system. In exploring this further with local authorities, it became apparent that there were only limited variations on a core set of well-defined processes which made for an effective ‘front-door’ to social care. Many local areas had deployed MASH arrangements which were serving them well. The two local authorities which were engaged in a long-term partnership to improve a neighbouring children’s service both described how they were able to integrate the front door arrangements for the two services, essentially bringing in a core system basically unchanged from a well-functioning children’s service to a poorly functioning service.
- **Thresholds** – integral to the effective implementation of a front door into social care is the establishment of clear and consistent thresholds. Again, these appeared to differ less in relation to the context of the local area than might be imagined. Children’s services leaders who had the experience of working across multiple different areas suggested that the level at which a threshold was defined, and the processes needed to implement it consistently, did not differ significantly from one area to another.
- **Policies** – one of the very time-consuming aspects of improvement described by local authorities that were on the journey from poor to fair was reviewing their main social work policies and putting in place the management systems to ensure that they were implemented consistently. Some explained how these two roles (the rewriting of policies and policing their effective use) often converged on key middle managers who might simultaneously be struggling to fulfil the day-to-day requirements of leading a team. However, there was also some suggestion that services could place an over-emphasis on rewriting policies and procedures from scratch and that drawing from a tried and tested bank of material might be equally effective.
- **Performance datasets and reporting** – all the local areas that had really got to grips with addressing weaknesses, finding solutions and establishing an effective (or indeed excellent) service spoke about the importance of the judicious use of performance information. Crucially, this was not just performance reporting for its own sake, but focused scrutiny of how a service was performing in order to drive decisions and changes in frontline practice. It was clear that the children’s services that did this really well had identified a subset of indicators that they would track regularly over time and were clear about the inter-relationships between those indicators. The subsets of indicators used, and the way and frequency with which they were interrogated and used again, did not appear to differ substantially between different areas.
- **Audit routines** – if a performance dataset provides the quantitative evidence to drive progress, it is a well-established routine of auditing frontline practice that delivers the essential qualitative evidence. Again, this was an area where local authorities that were doing this effectively appeared to deploy similar approaches in their selection of cases to audit, the questions they asked during the audit process, and the frequency with which audit was undertaken. As with the scrutiny of key performance data, effective children’s services were also consistent in using the outcomes of audit, including multi-agency audits, to share learning and drive changes in frontline practice. In this way, monitoring and auditing became part of an iterative, action-orientated and practice-focused feedback cycle.
- **Social care workforce strategy** – a large number of the local authorities that were engaged in the research, particularly those moving from fair to good, were developing strategic responses to workforce pressures in their local areas. This is amply evidenced by the number of local authorities which chose to focus on workforce issues during the action learning phase of the research and whose progress is captured in the case studies. In this area there is clear local differentiation in the specific incentives and initiatives that have been tried, and these are a reflection of local labour market conditions. There are, however, similarities and consistencies in both the broad diagnostic approach taken by local areas, and the key themes that they have aimed to address to enhance recruitment and retention, including managing workload, talent management, career progression, reducing administrative burdens and enhancing management skills. It may be, therefore, that assembling examples of effective approaches under these broad themes would have a wider application and resonance.
- **Models of social work practice** – some well-functioning children’s services departments had a strong adherence to a particular social care model of practice. Others described themselves as cherry-picking from a range of different approaches to create a more hybrid approach. There were also examples where the poor implementation of a particular social care model that was not right for the context or stage of development of the service had been one of the catalysts that precipitated failure. This, then, appears to be an area where, although there is a variety of context-specific practice, the system might benefit from a clearer comparative exposition of the core models, links to various sources of support and advice, and prompts to help services choose between the different options and approaches.
- **Disciplines around problem-solving and innovation** – some of the most effective local authorities which took part in the research were characterised by the structured way in which they approached problem-solving and the rigour with which they tested and refined innovations. In these cases the content of the particular problem or innovation was obviously specific to the service and the local context, but the approaches used shared a lot of key elements with well-evidenced techniques for service redesign and service improvement which span sectors and industries. The use of evidence and survey data, the iterative nature of testing and refining, the engagement of partners and the openness to learning from mistakes are all hallmarks of these. It suggests that the collation of broader service redesign and improvement techniques and how they might be applied in a children’s services context may benefit services at an earlier stage in the improvement trajectory.
The suggestion that a bank, or toolkit, of resources might be assembled is not intended to oversimplify the children’s services improvement process. As many of those practised in supporting children’s services improvement pointed out during the course of the research, the best-designed intervention will fail if its implementation is poorly led and if the service does not benefit from going through the process of refining and ultimately owning the change. The development and application of a toolkit therefore should be approached with some caution so as not to give the false impression that there are “quick fixes” that can be applied without proper planning, preparation or leadership. With that caveat in mind, however, the findings of this research suggest that there is more that could be done to build the evidence base and knowledge of what works, to package this in a way which is accessible and easy to use, and to derive the benefits of elements of the system which are consistent in terms of content and approach, thereby freeing up time and resources to develop those aspects which really are unique to individual local areas.
**Three practical steps for new leaders at the outset of an improvement journey**
We would make one final point before we leave the subject of the enablers and phases of improvement at local level and shift our focus to how effectively improvement is supported at a system level. This is that, during the research, one experienced Director of Children’s Services reflected that they would have found it invaluable to have a summary of some very simple practical steps to take when beginning their improvement journey. In the final fieldwork phases of this research, therefore, we worked with a small number of leaders of local children’s services to identify the most important first steps to take as a leader when starting out on the children’s services improvement journey. The three steps we identified are set out in the figure below. Three key steps when embarking on an improvement journey
| What? | Why? | How? | |-------|------|------| | Establishing a baseline | To know for yourself the capacity, competence and quality of practice within the organisation | Get into the performance data and "granularity of practice" to form judgements about current performance & practice | | Stabilising the organisation | You need allies within the organisation to scaffold and model effective frontline practice | Give clarity and confidence by providing visible leadership, engaging widely with staff, using this to develop a vision & strategy | | Getting partners on board | Truly effective children’s services improvement will require all partners working to the same agenda | Engage key partners personally and use effective governance to foster joint responsibility and mutual accountability |
We have noted earlier in this chapter that establishing a baseline was a theme much remarked upon by children’s services leaders during the research. By this, they meant taking steps to establish the weaknesses and strengths of the organisation, where practice was weak and where it was strong, and whether the service had the capacity to improve quickly. Despite the range of data and reports a new leader might receive – some of which, in an underperforming service, may not be reliable – it was important to form a judgement for oneself about the performance and practice of the service. There are three key steps leaders should take during this stage:
- **interrogate the data for yourself**, looking particularly at benchmarks (neighbouring and similar local authorities, national averages and past performance) and “having a fine eye for detail”;
- **getting into the granularity of practice** – going out to see frontline practice, shadowing team managers and social workers, and working with peers to assess the quality of practice and the robustness of decision-making; and
- **assessing the competence of the workforce** – to judge where there are pockets of good practice that can be built upon, what the overall development needs are, and looking at vacancy rates across teams to understand workforce needs.
There are risks, however, that if leaders take these steps, staff may feel threatened or patronised. Children’s services leaders argued that it was important to be firm about the necessity of such steps at the outset of an improvement journey. They also noted, however, that this could help to engage the workforce if presented, not as a means of judging staff, but as a way for them to be open about the areas where they would welcome further support.
As we have noted earlier in this chapter, wholesale replacement of staff rarely appears to be the solution to failure. Indeed, if staff feel that they are not trusted or are being placed in risky situations, the ensuing turnover of staff can make it much harder to secure improvement. This is why, after establishing a baseline, the children’s services leaders spoke about the importance of stabilising the organisation. This meant providing visible leadership and engaging staff openly, and avoiding staff feeling vilified and “done to”. Furthermore, it meant using engagements with staff to listen to their concerns, draw on their ideas for improvement (and draw out the areas where they most need support), and then use these ideas to inform a vision and long-term strategy that has broad support within the organisation. Leaders also talked about “setting out your stall” to staff about standards and expectations. Managers might need to be supported actively in addressing areas of poor performance. Leaders also stressed the importance of identifying allies who can be deployed to support and disseminate effective practice within the service so as to improve practice. Leaders talked about needing to avoid the temptation to “hunker down”, and instead to be open and invite others (for example elected members) to be part of the journey.
As well as establishing a baseline and stabilising the organisation, the leaders we engaged stressed that a third set of initial activities at the outset of an improvement journey was getting partners on board. The children’s services leaders we engaged argued that this should include:
- **building personal relationships with counterparts in partner agencies** – through open and honest discussion about their priorities, current challenges within children’s services, and how they can support improvement;
- **building rapport and commitment to an improvement agenda** – engaging them and their staff in developing a long-term vision and strategy for improvement;
- **testing this through some early forms of collaboration** – developing agreement on consistent thresholds for referrals, and testing their implementation, was seen as an important initial area of focus for partners from which further collaboration could be built; and
- **developing effective multi-agency governance** – with senior leaders engaged to enable swift decision-making and foster joint responsibility and mutual accountability for implementing the improvement strategy. Chapter 3: How effectively the current system supports improvement
During our engagements with the local authorities and national stakeholders, we asked colleagues to reflect on how effectively the system at national level supported local children’s services to put into practice and sustain the enablers of improvement detailed in the previous chapter. We drew two key insights from these discussions.
a. The current national system contains the right elements to support ongoing improvement, but greater strategic coherence and co-ordination is required to sustain system-wide improvement. This will require there to be a clear strategy for improvement, coherent leadership of the agenda by national bodies working in partnership with the sector, and support for a highly-skilled and stable workforce, with focused support for improvement and innovation. In other words, for local children’s services to put into practice the seven enablers outlined in the previous chapter, those same characteristics need to be in place at the level of the national system.
b. There is an inherent fragility in the children’s services system, which the national system should seek to address. Given the constant flow of cases and decisions within children’s services, even ostensibly high-performing services can fall suddenly into rapid decline. Utilising high-performing services to support those in difficulty is sensible and should be encouraged. Nevertheless, it also brings with it a risk of overburdening high-performing local areas. This risk is increased if there are only a small number of high-performing local areas that can act as system leaders. The national system needs, therefore, to focus its efforts not only on intervening in poorly-performing local areas, but also on systematically supporting those on the fair-to-good and good-to-great stages of the improvement journey.
We have mapped these insights from local areas to create the schematic below, which captures the core components of any self-improving system. Typically, self-improving systems are characterised by:
- the regular and free flow of ideas about what works and why;
- an evidence base to inform practice that is well-understood and frequently added to;
- a culture of learning, and in particular the right environment to learn from mistakes;
- a well-functioning accountability regime;
- expert system leadership capacity to drive improvement where needed;
- a labour market that provides sufficient skilled practitioners; and
- investment proportionate to meet expectations and ambitions.
The diagram below illustrates how the key components of the children’s services system might work in concert to deliver these characteristics. Through our research, we have sought views from practitioners on the extent to which these key components are working well, and are sufficiently well-aligned, in the current children’s services system. The core components of a self-improving children’s services system
Space for dialogue on policy and practice
A number of the senior leaders to whom we spoke during the course of the research commented that, compared with other areas of public policy, the space for a well-informed discourse around children’s services, and children’s social care in particular, was slim. They considered that the evidence on what works was rather piecemeal, that social work leadership and practice was not as professionalised as other areas of public service, and that there was not enough investment in research to address these gaps. Despite the work of organisations such as Research in Practice, which works with 90 local authorities to bring together research insights in order to foster evidence-informed practice in social work and across children’s services, there remain many challenges to embedding evidence-informed practice. Furthermore, there also appears to be too few fora in which significant strategic questions about challenges facing the sector and the profession can be debated and system-wide responses considered.
Monitoring performance leading to early warning of weaknesses
The idea of “getting ahead of the curve” and spotting the early warning signs of serious decline is not a new idea, and has been explored before in many different guises. If the sector’s ambition is to move to a more systematic, graduated approach to children’s services improvement and intervention, then early identification and support need to be central to that. Local areas argued that there were two vital questions that needed to be addressed in order to develop an effective system for identifying the signs of decline before a service reached crisis-point.
a. **What are the early warning signs of decline?** Local areas and national stakeholders cautioned against a purely – or even largely – data-driven approach to identifying local children’s services that were at risk of slipping. They argued that there were limitations to the data itself, and that in weaker local areas there were likely to be issues with the accuracy and reliability of the data. Furthermore, some senior leaders argued that there were sources of evidence which would be critical in identifying weaknesses in children’s services before they became endemic (such as complaints), which were only visible to the service in question. Nevertheless, the majority of experienced children’s services leaders we engaged argued that they had sufficient soft intelligence to know when there appeared to be serious weaknesses in a neighbouring local area.
b. Whose role is it to identify these signs, to whom, and to what end? What these experienced children’s services leaders said the system lacked was not this soft intelligence, but rather the mechanisms through which this information could be used to trigger support for local areas before they reached crisis-point.
The challenge for the children’s services system, therefore, is not one of identifying the right datasets to identify local children’s services in decline, but rather how to utilise the intelligence within the system to best effect. There were some dissenting voices, however, about whether this could be a purely sector-led approach. The litmus test, as one experienced children’s services leader put it, was whether collectively children’s services leaders in a region would be willing to go to the chief executive or lead member in a neighbouring local area and tell them there were serious weaknesses in the latter’s children’s services.
Networks for informal support and peer learning
At present, different models of peer review operate across the children’s services sector. There is a national offer, co-ordinated by the LGA as part of its offer of sector-led support, focused on safeguarding services, care practice and diagnostic reviews. In addition, there are also regional and local peer review networks, including those that operate within the ADCS regions.
During our research, there was a range of views put forward about the effectiveness of peer review and peer-to-peer networks across the children’s services system. For the most part, these reflected colleagues’ experience of the regional and local peer review arrangements in which they were involved. Some local areas spoke positively about their experience of being involved in peer review, both as the reviewee and the reviewer. There were two elements that they described as being critical to a valuable peer review experience. The first was the approach taken by the reviewee. Those local areas that had benefited most from peer review described how they used the opportunity to submit their approach to external scrutiny in order to test the accuracy of their self-assessment and to use the outcome to refine their practices. Second, and equally important, was the approach taken by the reviewer. Local areas described how they had deliberately chosen reviewers who would be thorough and inquisitive, but equally would be able to engage positively with professionals and leaders in the service they were reviewing. It was vital that the review leads were focused on the outcome of the peer review, rather than simply telling the receiving local area “this is how I would structure your organisation if I was in charge”.
In some regions, there are strong peer-to-peer networks and peer review arrangements in place. The local areas that took part in the research described effective collaborative working in the East Midlands and the Yorkshire and the Humber regions, focusing on peer review, and regional themes such as adoption, early help and child sexual exploitation. The picture we built up through the research was one of a patchwork of peer-to-peer collaboration, with the more outward-facing, self-confident and entrepreneurial children’s services leaders forging connections with their peers, rather than a vibrant, consistent and extensive culture of peer learning at national, regional and local level. This is an obvious and crucial weakness in the current system: that there is no requirement for local areas to engage in peer review. Only those that volunteer to will receive a peer review, and these are likely to be the local areas most open to challenge. This limits the effectiveness of peer review as a means of identifying and helping to address the early warning signs of weakness before it becomes terminal. There are also other drawbacks to the current approach to peer-to-peer networking, including:
- relatively limited opportunities for peer-to-peer networking for those in middle management positions, particularly in smaller services – middle leaders therefore miss out on what could be an important source of professional development, and further demands are thus placed on senior leaders;
- the lack of immediate practical advice from those that have made the journey from poor to fair and beyond – for local authorities constructing their responses to an inadequate inspection finding; and
- too few opportunities for services to develop practice jointly with others – instead, local areas told us, there is too much emphasis on good practice seminars and “show-and-tell” approaches to peer learning.
**Inspection**
Local children’s services recognised the fundamental importance of inspection. They agreed that the principle of having a mechanism for providing independent, impartial assessment and scrutiny of services, according to a published, transparent framework, was critical to ensuring services improve, that poor performance is flagged up and ultimately that children are kept safe. Several local authorities spoke specifically about the important role that inspection had played in their improvement journey. These included instances where the local authorities and their partners had used the experience of inspection to:
- undertake rigorous self-evaluation of their own strengths and areas for development;
- provide an external view on how they were performing, from which they could learn; and
- provide an independent baseline, which could be used to engage external partners and develop a new strategy for improvement.
Other local authorities, while supporting the principle of impartial inspection, voiced concerns about the way the current inspection framework was applied. Specifically, they voiced three concerns.
a. **The consistency with which the inspection framework was applied** – local areas cited what they perceived to be a risk-averse approach from some inspection teams.
b. **The timing of inspection** – some local authorities considered that, rather than providing a baseline or a judgement on how their plans were progressing, they had been re-inspected at a time when their plans were still embedding. As a result, they argued that the inspection experience had had a counter-productive effect on their organisation. One suggested that the gathering of information through DfE monitoring visits and the trigger for a re-inspection could be better joined up. c. A lack of clarity about what was required to achieve a judgement of outstanding in the current framework – it should be noted that this concern was raised before the outstanding judgements were achieved by Kensington and Chelsea, and by Westminster.
Formal improvement support and intervention
As with inspection, there was also recognition that central government had a necessary function in co-ordinating intervention where serious failures were identified in local children’s services. Many of the local authorities reflected positively on aspects of the support they had received or the intervention mechanisms that were put in place. There were four main types of formal support and/or intervention described by the local authorities in our sample.
a. The creation of improvement boards with independent chair-people – as a mechanism for bringing together senior leaders and key partners, ensuring robust and professional governance, and providing expert external challenge. Where these boards were felt to be most effective, local authorities reflected on the tenacity of independent chairs in following up issues, their ability to bring a broad range of partners to the table, and their willingness to engage middle managers and frontline staff.
b. The support provided by highly-experienced children’s services senior leaders on a peer support model – this provided a regular point of external challenge and support with the capacity to advise on issues in greater depth than an independent chair of an improvement board.
c. Long-term strategic partnerships between neighbouring local authorities where leadership is shared – there were two such partnerships in our sample, and these were reflected on extremely positively by all parties involved. The partnerships were felt to have delivered sustainable improvement rapidly and enabled learning to flow in both directions. They had also broadened the roles and career pathways for social workers and managers, which had in turn had a positive impact on staff retention.
d. Appointing commissioners or creating independent trusts – it was felt that, where appropriate, these could be an effective vehicle for creating the leadership and governance structures that enabled a strong and undiluted focus on improving children’s services.
We should point out, however, that while we came across examples during the research where such approaches had proved effective, there were also instances described to us of similar interventions had not led to the desired improvement. Local areas involved in this research reflected that the effectiveness of formal improvement support and intervention depends on both the quality of the external support and the conditions within the receiving service. In particular, they reflected that a crucial consideration was whether the receiving service had the leadership, management and governance, at political, corporate and service levels, to drive action and respond to challenge.
Local areas were, overall, less positive about the “parachuted leadership” approach, where children’s services were led by a series of individuals appointed on a short-term basis. This was not a comment on interim appointments per se. Instead, it was a comment on the fact that, as we have highlighted in chapter 2, driving and sustaining improvement requires, among other things, a clear long-term strategic plan, stable leadership (including corporate and political leadership), and ongoing engagement between leaders and the workforce. Participating local areas reflected that a high turnover of interim leaders, particularly in the absence of an overarching long-term strategic plan, could de-stabilise a service, demoralise staff, and lead to turbulence and turnover in the workforce.
The research exposed three challenges around how support and intervention are currently deployed.
1. **Local areas felt that there needed to be greater clarity about the respective roles of inspection, intervention, support and post-inspection monitoring.** The effective alignment and the avoidance of duplication between these roles are of vital importance. Local authorities reported to us that a lack of co-ordination could lead to those responsible for leading improvement in local children’s services spending a disproportionate amount of time servicing the parallel but unaligned requirements, including reporting requirements, of multiple external masters. The local authorities we engaged emphasised the difference between *driving improvement* and *monitoring improvement* – they recognised the latter was important in its own right, but only if done proportionately, in a co-ordinated manner, and did not reduce an organisation’s capacity to drive improvement.
2. **There remains a lack of clarity and robust evidence about how the right model of intervention is selected and how interventions are reviewed and escalated where necessary.** As we have described above, some local authorities described examples where their experience of intervention or the experience of other local authorities they had supported had been positive. Others, however, described examples where similar approaches had not had the same effect. They noted the importance of having a robust analysis of the root causes of the problem, including the inter-relationship between children’s services, leadership and the corporate and political governance within a local authority. All argued for a more explicit and evidence-based menu of support options, so that the right approaches could be matched to an individual local area’s circumstances, and intervention could be escalated or de-escalated as needed.
3. **There needs to be greater attention paid to developing the system leadership capacity to provide support to underperforming children’s services from elsewhere in the sector.** The idea of the most effective practitioners playing a role not only within their own institution, but taking on a leadership and improvement role across the wider system is not a new concept. The local areas we engaged were strongly in favour of a more explicit and formal role for system leaders within children’s services, utilising their expertise to support other services, and building capacity and resilience across the sector.
Local areas reflected, however, that at a time when local authority resources are reducing they did not have the spare capacity to deploy leaders, managers and practitioners to support counterparts in other areas. They considered that, for a peer-led approach to be fully effective, there would need to be more effective co-ordination, so that local authorities could plan on the basis that a certain amount of their capacity would be likely to be needed to support others.
In this context, local children’s services welcomed the *partners in practice* approach, announced in late 2015 by the DfE, as one that could bring about a more consistent, evidence-based, graduated approach to intervention. They considered that such an approach was much needed, and would help to put in place approaches to intervention that drew on the expertise and experience of the sector, informed by evidence of what worked at different stages of local authorities’ improvement journeys, and tailored to each local context. The development of partners in practice is an important step in developing the capacity of the sector to be self-improving.
Among the local areas whom we engaged, there was an interesting debate as to the extent to which joint leadership and governance were needed to make peer-led interventions really effective, or whether the same impact could be achieved through a peer support model. Opinion was divided on this question. One senior leader of an authority that had improved from inadequate felt that its progress would have been swifter if it had been partnered with another strong neighbouring service through an executive leadership model (but with each local authority retaining political decision-making responsibilities). Another senior leader who had experience of delivering support both through a shared leadership model and on a peer support basis reflected that it was easier to achieve change and take responsibility for outcomes in the service requiring improvement where there was a single leadership team in place across both services. Conversely, other areas felt strongly that their ability to source support from a wide range of partners but ultimately retain decision-making capacity and leadership within the local authority had been an effective model for improvement. It is clear that both models can be effective in different circumstances. The key message about formal improvement support from this research is that there is a need for a more explicit and evidence-based rationale for the selection of particular models of support and intervention in specific situations, particularly in terms of models of service leadership and political governance.
A well-functioning labour market
In terms of the workforce, while it was not universally the case, a relatively high number of areas described a complexity of market forces which made recruiting and retaining high-calibre social workers extremely difficult. They described a highly mobile and fluid social work agency market that was driving up the cost of social workers, with low barriers to entry and exit. This was most acute in regions of the country where travel between local areas was straightforward and where there was a high concentration of children’s services departments in difficulty and having to pay over-the-odds to fill vacancies.
Local authorities were taking action to counteract some of these market forces, including focusing on the long-term career trajectories available to staff, managing talent and entering into memoranda of understanding with neighbouring authorities to control some of the most pernicious excesses of the agency market. It was feared, however, that this would only go some way towards stemming the tide of competition for social workers based on cost, which few authorities could afford to enter. One local area was considering establishing its own social work agency as an alternative to those available commercially, in order to provide high-quality staff, at less cost, and with the potential of redirecting investment back into the children’s services sector.
A number of local areas expressed the view that there needed to be a more effective and efficient national response to the local workforce crisis that engulfed many children’s services immediately after an inadequate inspection judgement. They also felt that there needed to be action taken to address the basic quality of the children’s services agency market. They described a situation in which too many agency staff were not sufficiently skilled to perform the roles into which they were placed, and where critical information about individuals’ employment history was not made available during the placement process. Sufficient investment
Many of the local areas that took part in the research were very concerned about the scale of cuts facing children’s services over the next period. Many local areas had already made significant savings and were now facing further cuts of the order of 20%. For children’s services departments that were already relatively efficient in terms of unit costs, this presented a particular challenge. A percentage of the children’s services budget will necessarily be tied up in long-term, essential and very high-cost residential placements for the children and young people with the most complex needs. While the most effective local areas will have taken action to reduce the proportion of young people requiring such care through innovative local commissioning, it is not realistic or indeed appropriate to imagine such expenditure can be cut entirely. This, combined with the need to maintain a core statutory service, leaves very little room for discretionary cost savings and efficiencies. The best local authorities were characterised by the innovation of staff in the face of cost pressures, but even some of those areas did not know how they would find the level of savings required over the next period. One local area predicted that a significant minority of children’s services around the country would not be able to set a balanced budget over the next three years.
During a period of financial retrenchment, local areas felt it was essential to have a well-informed national debate about the level of risk that was acceptable in safeguarding children and the investment needed to underpin that level of risk. At present, however, there is not the space or the opportunity to have this discourse at a national level. Those to whom we spoke were realistic that no system could ever guarantee the safety of 100% of children 100% of the time. They also considered, however, that the level of expectation placed on local authorities and the low levels of tolerated risk were not always commensurate with the level of investment in children’s services. During a period in which resources are scarce, they saw that it was essential to find a forum for difficult conversations and decisions about how to prioritise investment. Chapter 4: Implications and recommendations
The evidence collated through this research process paints a picture of a sector in which there are many examples of confident leadership driving real improvement at pace and scale. It is, however, also a sector in which these pockets of sustained improvement have been relatively isolated from each other, without the necessary supporting mechanisms to share expertise in a consistent fashion or to learn from mistakes at a system-wide level. As described in the previous chapter, there can be a somewhat piecemeal and fragmented approach to analysing, recording and disseminating what works, commissioning interventions and support, and identifying weaknesses early before they become entrenched. This has, in turn, contributed to some of the weaknesses that we see in local children’s services departments, declines that have not been arrested early enough, and false starts in the pursuit of rapid improvement. Equally, the barriers and enablers to improvement, described in chapter 2, mirror the barriers and enablers to embedding evidence-informed practice. This can also mean that local areas that do not have a well-developed approach to embedding evidence-informed practice are likely to be less adept at drawing on insights about what helps to drive and sustain improvement in children’s services. In this chapter, we set out a number of recommendations for addressing these system-wide issues for the children’s services sector to consider.
Space for dialogue on policy and practice
There is a key role to be played by the sector and its partners in bringing together an active research agenda, leading national policy debates, and strengthening and professionalising the leadership of the children’s services sector. This role is crucial in maintaining a growing body of evidence about what works in improvement, supplementing that by commissioning new research to fill specific gaps in collective knowledge and disseminating this to leaders and practitioners across the sector. It is also vital in enabling the sector to articulate shared strategic challenges and advocate for effective solutions. At present, the Virtual College, with leadership drawn from the ADCS council and partners in Scotland and Wales, seeks to play this role. Other organisations, such as the LGA and SOLACE, also have a strong interest and part to play in shaping the sector’s research and strategic priorities.
In the current climate, in which opportunities for investment are constrained and the appetite to establish new organisations is limited, we would not advocate the creation of a new body to carry out this role. Instead, we think that there is an opportunity offered by the announcement of the forthcoming DfE-commissioned ‘What Works Centre for Children’s Social Care’ to bring together the latest research about driving improvement in children’s services. Such a forum could also own the development of a toolkit of interventions mooted at the end of chapter 2. Working alongside organisations like the Virtual College, ADCS, LGA and SOLACE, it could play a key role in enhancing practice and leadership within the sector, akin to, for example, the Royal College of Surgeons.
Better monitoring leading to early warning
As set out above, if there is to be meaningful support provided at an earlier stage to local children’s services at risk of decline, there needs to be greater precision about who is responsible for both monitoring and acting upon the early signs of failure. It seems clear from discussions with local children’s services that this should not be part of the formal statutory accountability regime: rather, it should precede it. Therefore, responsibility for designing and executing such a system should properly sit alongside sector-led approaches to improvement.
As noted in chapter 3, the vital question here is whose role it is to identify and share intelligence about the local children’s services at risk of serious service failure, with whom, and to what end. This could be carried out by a representative body, such as the LGA, or by a strategic grouping of key national and sector partners such as the Children’s Improvement Board. We suggest that this body might usefully carry out the following functions.
- **Collating soft intelligence about services that may be on the cusp of serious decline.** This may include intelligence picked up from peer networks and evidence of high staff turnover in leadership or key frontline positions. Colleagues argued strongly against a purely data-driven approach to early identification of serious weaknesses. The emphasis on soft intelligence, rather than data alone, may mean that regional networks are needed in order to provide an appropriate means through which concerns could be raised. This is not to say that analysis of key performance data does not have its place – indeed, we think there would be value in regional groupings of local children’s services sharing current performance data, and there are agreements in place to do this in some regions already. Having this data in easy-to-use dashboards could provide meaningful comparisons with similar local areas for political and corporate leaders, and support peer review activities. Instead, the purpose of collating soft intelligence at a strategic, system-wide level would be in order to inform decisions about early support, rather than produce league tables of local children’s services perceived to be at risk.
- **Targeting peer reviews at those local areas where the intelligence indicates that there may be issues for concern, and strengthening the peer review model to bring into scope the scrutiny of complaints information.** This could be bolstered by a voluntary agreement from local children’s services to agree to a peer review at least every two years, and to submit to a targeted review if the monitoring of data suggests it would be helpful. This would help to identify those local areas where weak data systems or an unwillingness to engage in peer reviews may mask the true extent of declining children’s services. This may, in itself, provide a trigger for further investigation and support. We recognise, however, that a commitment to engage in regular peer reviews (we have suggested every two years) would be a significant investment of time and resource from local areas and the sector as a whole. It would, however, provide a more systematic mechanism for identifying concerns early and mobilising pre-emptive support swiftly.
- **Commissioning follow-on support from another well-performing children’s service on specific issues identified through the peer review service, where it is evident that there is a lack of capacity to address these issues within the local authority in question.**
**Networks for informal support and peer learning**
The evidence from the research suggested that there could helpfully be a strengthening of existing networks for peer learning and greater alignment of the existing offers of peer review, for example through the LGA and ADCS. As noted in chapter 3, ADCS regional groupings already provide a locus for informal peer learning, but feedback from the local areas we have engaged suggests that the value of these arrangements is not consistent across all regions. Building on best practice in other sectors, it may be beneficial to introduce a greater element of joint practice development into the network learning opportunities. This might involve local authorities coming together in small groups of three or four, potentially with involvement from one of the partners in practice or another local authority with noted expertise in that field, to work collectively on developing solutions to specific shared challenges.
**Inspection and accountability**
Feedback from the fieldwork suggests that, once an inadequate inspection judgement has been made, there would be benefit in establishing greater clarity around the reporting requirements on local children’s services. This would include the points at which progress is monitored and by whom – whether Ofsted or the DfE – and how each of these feed into decisions about the timing of re-inspection and the implementation of formal support and/or intervention. There may be an opportunity for better dialogue or information-sharing between those overseeing intervention in a local area (for example improvement board chairs and the DfE) and the inspectorate. Feedback from local areas suggest that this would help to ensure that local areas need only report progress once, in a single format, and that re-inspection occurs at a time when it will contribute to the area’s ongoing progress.
**Formal improvement support and intervention**
There is a range of formal intervention methodologies currently in place, but little concrete evidence of what works best in what circumstances. The announcement by the DfE of a more explicit rationale and approach to providing formal intervention support, through the partners in practice programme, is to be welcomed, and could play a key role in a more strategic approach to intervention. This research has suggested that one of the crucial factors in determining the appropriate form of support and intervention should be the leadership and governance capacity, at both elected member and officer level, within a local authority. For instance:
- **peer support and oversight from an improvement board** may be the most appropriate option where a local children’s service has both the officer and elected member capacity to drive and sustain improvement;
- **an executive partnership model, with joint leadership**, may be the best solution where there is a political commitment to driving change but a lack of leadership capacity in the organisation at both senior and middle leadership levels; and
- **the creation of an independent trust** could be considered in instances in which there is not the leadership commitment to and capacity for driving change at service, corporate and political level.
These contentions need, however, to be properly tested through additional research. Following on from the current research project, we will be undertaking a follow-up research project focusing specifically on assessing the relative effectiveness of different structural models of formal improvement support and intervention. This research could then feed into:
- a growing evidence base of the models of support and intervention that should be considered and in what circumstances; • clearer criteria and processes for how decisions about the different types of intervention are taken, allowing for more timely decisions and fewer false starts; and • a system for ongoing monitoring of the different types of intervention so that interventions can be altered or escalated if necessary.
In tandem with the creation of a stronger evidence base for what type of intervention works best and in what circumstances, there is also the need to secure greater investment in building the capacity for intervention and support. One of the clear messages that has come through this research is the power of peer-led models of improvement. It must be recognised, however, that this comes at a cost, both in terms of leadership and finances, to the local children’s service providing support. If excellent local children’s services are to be more than a sporadic or fortuitous source of improvement capacity, then there will need to be sufficient investment in those local areas to enable them to build a shadow management structure and surplus capacity at key levels of the system in order to enable them to release expertise for the time and at the scale needed to partner another local children’s service. This would most likely need to be a combination of income generation at a local level (through selling services and expertise) with some national investment that enables some stable and ongoing development of the core infrastructure.
The new partners in practice programme, if aligned with an overall strategic approach across the sector and joined up to the LGA and ADCS offers of peer-to-peer support, could play an important role in helping to shape and disseminate the evidence base of what works to drive improvement. To do this, however, it will be vital that the programme focuses equally on:
• building and co-ordinating the system leadership capacity of the children’s services system; • supporting councils to move from, in our terminology, fair to good and great, so as to deepen the pool from which system leaders may be drawn and minimise the burden falling on a small number of councils; • identifying and sharing learning about what has proved effective in driving improvements so that the benefits are felt across the sector; as well as • providing formal support to local authorities experiencing significant difficulties and those subject to formal intervention.
A well-functioning labour market
The evidence from this research suggests that addressing some of the failures in the current social work labour market will require a mix of both national and local intervention. Local areas are already professionalising their workforce development strategies in order to grow, attract and develop high-quality social workers. A firm focus on investing in the workforce and retaining high-calibre staff, through some of incentives mentioned in chapter 2 (supervision, practical support, professional development and keeping caseloads manageable), should also be a vital part of the response at local level.
Alongside this, government and the sector may wish to consider further actions that might be taken collectively to address some of the negative effects of the current agency market and improve the range of recruitment options open to local areas which receive an inadequate inspection judgement. One of the chief concerns around the operation of the current agency market is not only that it drives up cost and creates workforce instability, but also that councils cannot ensure the quality of staff provided. This is compounded in some cases by incomplete or poor-quality information about candidates being provided to local authorities. Given that agency social workers are currently a vital component of the social care workforce, the LGA, the DfE or other partners may wish to consider working with some of the larger agencies to develop a recognised kite-mark of quality. This could act to drive up the quality in the market and provide reassurance to local authorities about the reliability of the information about prospective agency staff. Pilot schemes to encourage those who have left the profession to return might also be encouraged and expanded.
In tandem, some of the best-performing local authorities are considering developing their own pools of social workers from which they and other local areas might draw where they need additional, short-term capacity in specific service areas. These workers would all come with the experience of being trained and having worked in an excellent children’s service, and could generate income for the placing local authority and create savings for the employing local area. If there is appetite in more than one local authority to develop similar schemes, the LGA may wish to consider how it might support and nurture such initiatives on behalf of the sector to secure, for example, wider geographical coverage, greater opportunities for shared learning or greater consistency in standards, quality and approach than may result if individual areas simply develop such initiatives completely independently.
Finally, it may be worth considering how local areas can be supported to counteract the immediate turbulence in the workforce that can follow an inadequate inspection judgement and the local authority entering formal intervention. One option would be to develop an emergency pool of highly-trained social workers, experienced in turning around children’s services in difficulty, who could be contracted for a period of time to help alleviate staff shortages, backlogs of cases, and the churn of multiple short-term agency appointments. This may, however, prove impractical, given that professionals with these skills are precisely those local children’s services departments are keen to recruit, retain, and build a stable, long-term workforce around. An alternative may be to work with the more established and effective agencies to commission fully formed social work teams to work on specific projects in the initial period of the improvement journey. Annex: Local children’s services case studies
The following pages include seven detailed case studies about the work of the local children’s services that have been involved in the action research part of this project. These case studies provide further information about the projects have been highlighted in the main report. We are grateful to the local children’s services involved for their permission to share their work in this way. They are set out in alphabetical order below.
Case study 1: Achieving for Children (Kingston-upon-Thames and Richmond-upon-Thames)
Kingston children’s service: Developing a social care workforce strategy
Local context
Kingston children’s services were judged inadequate in July 2012. The local authority was already in negotiations with neighbouring Richmond around developing a joint leadership approach across both services. These were accelerated and by the end of the year a single leadership team had been created with a joint Director of Children’s Services across Kingston and Richmond. Through this joint leadership arrangement, Richmond was able to deploy its expertise to support the improvement of Kingston. New front-door and social care team structures were implemented based on the successful model in place in Richmond. An improvement board was established and engaged senior-level officers from each of the partner agencies. This oversaw the implementation of a clear and practical improvement plan which detailed the changes in practice that were expected. Just one year after being judged inadequate, Kingston was re-inspected and judged inadequate for a second time. However, the children’s service was inspected again in June 2015 when it was judged to be good.
The issue
Kingston found that despite being judged good their turnover of social work staff was still higher than they wished. In fact, the rate of turnover actually increased after the service was judged good, to 24%. This was contributing to a lack of stability in the service and jeopardising their ability to make sustained and irreversible improvement in the future.
Actions taken
The local authority carried out an analysis of staff survey returns and conducted exit interviews to try to understand better why social workers were leaving the service. One consistent message was that individuals were leaving because they no longer had consistent support from their team manager. It was clear that a number of key individuals in the service had been critical in holding teams together and when they were promoted or left the sense of security felt by staff also disappeared. The local authority therefore concluded that it needed to ensure a strong team management structure in order to retain social workers. To build team manager capacity the local authority: • **established a social care workforce board** to ensure that the whole organisation was focused on recruitment and retention, to give strategic direction to the work, and to ensure that corporate HR fully understood and were able to support the requirements of social care;
• **professionalised recruitment and retention** through the development of new resources such as promotional films;
• **clearly set out their ‘retention story’,** which hinged on low caseloads, investment in continuing professional development (CPD) and management support;
• **strengthened their retention offer** in terms of progression, health packages and addressing practical issues such as a fair car-use policy;
• **ensured heads of service were responsible for phoning new recruits on a weekly basis** to ensure that they were settling in and progressing well; and
• **developed an active talent management strategy** to identify, grow and develop future team managers.
**Impact**
The development of the social care workforce board and the implementation of a recruitment and retention strategy are bearing dividends. All team manager posts in the organisation have now been filled or offered. Some of these have been internal appointments which have resulted from the talent management strategy. The social worker vacancy rate in the organisation is going back towards 10%.
**Learning and reflections**
Kingston reflected that they have had to invest heavily in recruitment and retention, and seriously professionalise their approach to all workforce issues, in order to turn the tide back in their favour in terms of creating a stable and skilled workforce. This is despite being a good children’s service with a very strong reputation. The areas of investment that have borne dividends are in schemes to reward and recognise staff for exceptional work; training and development, with a CPD pathway created for every professional group; coaching and mentoring programmes; and talent management. The local authority is looking to cross-subsidise its significant investment in workforce development by selling its training packages to other local areas. Case study 2: Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council
Barnsley children’s services: The Continuous Service Improvement Framework
Local context
Children’s services in Barnsley have been improving since their inspection in June and July 2012, which judged children’s services overall to be inadequate. The DfE issued an improvement notice, setting out the improvements Barnsley were expected to make, and specifying that Barnsley should establish an improvement board with an independent chairperson. Re-inspected under the single inspection framework in June 2014, the inspection noted the improvements that had been made and judged Barnsley’s children’s services to require improvement. The DfE, having reviewed the improvement notice in October 2014, was confident that Barnsley were maintaining the momentum for improvement and lifted the improvement notice in November 2014.
The issue
Leaders in Barnsley describe the experience of working with the improvement board and the independent chairperson in positive terms. In particular, they highlighted:
- the board’s membership, with senior engagement from key partners to enable decisions to be taken quickly;
- the rigour of being brought to account collectively and the ability to marshal partners around a single plan that was owned collectively; and
- the role of the independent chair in engaging frontline professionals and ensuring absolute transparency by, for example, testing reports to the Secretary of State with frontline staff.
The challenge, for Barnsley, was how to maintain pace and embed improvements after the external impetus for improvement, in the form of the improvement notice and improvement board, were lifted. They began planning for this early, focusing particularly on developing a continuous service improvement framework and new partnership governance arrangements to oversee ongoing improvement.
Actions taken
Barnsley’s ambition is to deliver services that are judged good or better and achieve the best outcomes for young people in Barnsley. Barnsley’s leaders have committed to continuing to work in partnership under the Continuous Service Improvement Framework. The framework sets out the role of all partners in contributing to effective and continuously improving children’s services, and seeks to ensure that there is clear accountability so that these responsibilities are discharged effectively. There are three key elements of the framework.
- **A plan for continuous service improvement** – this plan provides the means by which progress and impact are measured. This is driven by a multi-agency officer group, chaired by the Service Director for Children’s Social Care and Safeguarding and with oversight from the Director of Children’s Services, with dedicated high-quality programme management support to “hold the ring” on the plan.
- **Robust, partnership governance** – a key part of the framework has been transferring governance of the children’s services improvement agenda from the improvement board to the Children and Young People’s Trust Board and the Barnsley Safeguarding Children Board. These bodies receive monthly reports on progress in implementing the plan, following the journey of a young person, which enables them to scrutinise progress. The framework itself is also reviewed annually by these groups.
- **Developing a culture of openness to challenge** – through modelling respectful challenge within children’s services, making effective use of external review and challenge (such as the regional ADCS peer review network), and making the voice of the child part of business-as-usual for all services and agencies.
### Change and impact
In April 2015, the DfE reviewed Barnsley’s approach to improvement and the progress made to date. They concluded that Barnsley were continuing to improve at pace, and were not “slipping back”. Since then, the continuous service improvement framework and plan have enabled the local area to continue to make real improvements in services for vulnerable children in Barnsley. For example:
- the previously high volume of inappropriate contacts and referrals has been reduced;
- there are fewer child protection plans lasting for two years or more and fewer children subject to a formal child protection plan two or more times;
- there is now good placement stability for children in care, less time spent before permanency plans are achieved, and increased use of alternative orders;
- improved timescales for public law care proceedings;
- Barnsley is now in the top quartile for adoptions; and
- there is improved participation from children in care.
Barnsley’s performance data and checks on the quality of practice through frontline visits and audits, including multi-agency audits, suggest that a strong performance management culture has been embedded and that many service areas are good and improving.
### Learning and reflections
Leaders in Barnsley have reflected that there has not been a single key ingredient to their improvement; instead, the key to their improvement has been lining up all of the elements that need to be in place to drive improvement through the continuous service improvement framework and the plan that sits beneath it. These include strong and visible leadership, robust governance and accountability, robust partnerships, external review and challenge, fostering a culture of respectful challenge, and hearing the voices of children and young people. Case study 3: Doncaster Children’s Services Trust
Doncaster Children’s Services Trust: The Practice Improvement Programme
Local context
Children’s services in Doncaster have been through a difficult time over the past decade. These challenges have been well documented and will not be revisited here. Despite interventions from central government, and several changes of political, corporate and service leadership, Professor Julian Le Grand’s 2013 report describes a ‘constant cycle of improvement and regression’. Following Professor Le Grand’s report, the Secretary of State for Education directed the local authority to contract with the Doncaster Children’s Services Trust (DCST). The DCST was the first independent non-profit company to be created to deliver children’s social care services, and began operating in September 2014. The terms of the direction set out that children’s services in Doncaster must be judged good by 2017 and outstanding by 2019. Children’s services in Doncaster were inspected in September 2015. The overall judgement remained inadequate, but the inspection reports made clear that ‘services for children and young people in Doncaster are improving’, but that there was further to go before children’s services could be judged good.
The issue
The leadership of DCST recognised that a significant part of achieving sustained and rapid improvement would be building the capacity of the trust’s workforce to deliver high-quality frontline practice. Following an internal assessment of staff skills and the Ofsted inspection in autumn 2015, the trust’s leadership recognised there was the need for step-change in their approach to workforce development in order to speed and embed improvements in practice. They identified that there were some significant development needs in staff knowledge, practice and confidence that were cropping up regularly, which, if not addressed, could pose a significant risk to rapid and sustainable improvement.
Actions taken
As a result, in February 2016, they launched the Practice Improvement Programme. The framework has three key elements.
a. A staff learning and development programme – DCST has worked with partners Research in Practice to design a bespoke staff learning programme to ensure all staff had a consistent set of core skills and competencies, based on the latest policy guidelines and research, to apply in their practice. The programme focused on, for example, critical thinking in assessment, working with adolescents, public law outline, and relationship-based practice.
b. Coaching and mentoring – working with partners iPeople, DCST has undertaken an assessment of the skills of team managers and advanced practitioners, which has been used to develop a bespoke programme of individual and group coaching and mentoring.
c. Practice advisers – the programme has involved identifying six practice advisers, made up of three members of staff from DCST and three from partners iPeople. The role of the practice adviser is to work with specific frontline social work teams to embed effective and consistent practices, and to build the capacity and confidence of members of those teams.
These three elements were chosen deliberately and are integrally linked. The trust wanted to avoid taking a “tick-box” approach to staff training; instead, they wanted to ensure that the training translated into improvements to frontline practice, which is why the programme has coaching, mentoring and support from practice advisers at its heart.
**Change and impact**
DCST leaders described how the *Practice Improvement Programme* has ‘lifted the service, lifted staff’s enthusiasm for doing things differently’. They described how the majority of staff responded to the programme with a sense of relief – the programme had, in effect, given them permission to express the aspects of their practice about which they were not confident and where they would welcome support. As well as feedback from staff, DCST are also seeing improvements in the stability of the workforce. For example, there has been a reduction in the rate of agency staff from 18% to 9%, with 15 members of staff who had come to the Trust as agency staff now becoming permanent. All team managers and advanced practitioners are now permanent as well. Case audit is demonstrating a change in approach to using evidence-based tools and to the quality of assessment and recording of work. Sickness absence has reduced, and long-term sickness has reduced by half.
**Learning and reflections**
There were two main reflections that the DCST colleagues who took part in this research shared with us. First, they reflected that, in organisations that have previously been performing poorly, staff can become disillusioned and can miss out on development opportunities that keep their practice up-to-date. In organisations like this, a tick-box approach to training will, if anything, breed compliance rather than commitment and enthusiasm. For this reason, workforce development has to be focused on embedding new approaches in practice.
Second, they reflected on the importance of holding a firm line about the *Practice Improvement Programme*. They recognised that not all staff would welcome having their skills assessed, and indeed apologised to anyone who had been offended by this, but explained the rationale for the approach. Nevertheless, the trust’s leadership recognised that this was necessary in order to ensure that there was a shared approach to social work practice to which staff could commit.
The programme has had a very high level of engagement. At the recent staff summit events, the programme received overwhelmingly positive feedback, with just a few voices of concern that there is ‘too much training!’ Case study 4: Hampshire County Council and the Isle of Wight Council
Hampshire and Isle of Wight children’s services: Safely reducing the length of time children remain on child protection plans
Local context
Hampshire local authority has a longstanding reputation for high-quality children’s services and value for money. It has been judged consistently good or outstanding for over a decade. In January 2013 children’s services on the neighbouring Isle of Wight were judged to be inadequate and Hampshire was asked to provide support. A single leadership team was created with one Director leading both children’s services. Hampshire placed key leaders in the Isle of Wight to stabilise the leadership of the service, and set about diagnosing the issues, clearing the backlog of unallocated cases and putting in place the core systems needed for a secure and safe service. These were largely imported directly from Hampshire, although both local authorities recognise and assert that the learning between the two has increasingly become two-way. In November 2014 the Isle of Wight was judged, on re-inspection, to have improved to requires improvement.
The issue
Despite the considerable progress made by the Hampshire-Isle of Wight partnership in developing a good-quality children’s service on the Isle of Wight, the number of children subject to child protection plans remained significantly higher than statistical neighbours and had increased dramatically between 2011 and 2015. The service was concerned about the impact this may be having on children, young people and their families. The high and growing child protection rate was also leading to pressure on the service and its partners, in terms of managing caseloads, attending child protection meetings and finances.
Actions taken
The local authority set about trying to understand forensically what was driving the higher rates of child protection. They carried out a very extensive audit of child protection cases, looking particularly at the quality of plans, the actions that had been taken and the management of risk. The conclusions they drew from the initial audit exercise was that the rise in child protection cases had been to some extent an appropriate response to lack of action taken when the service was inadequate. At that point far too few children had been subject to child protection plans, and some children had been re-referred into social care five or six times in a year. As a result of this historical context, social workers had become more risk averse, and partner agencies had become less confident in supporting decisions to take children off child protection plans or managing risk without subject to plans.
In order to rebuild the confidence of staff to manage risk safely and create a shared language and understanding with partner agencies, the local authority:
- changed the format of child protection plans so that they were more family friendly and easier to use, with a RAG rating to allow a clear assessment of risk;
- carried out presentations on the new approach to child protection to partners at network meetings; • carried out thematic audits with partner agencies to explore thresholds; • unpicked key cases at safeguarding leads meetings; • rebuilt trust through multi-agency lunches at which casework was examined; • shifted the point at which they carry out legal planning on child protection cases from 18 to 24 months after a child was placed on a plan to 12 months; and • worked closely with the LSCB and key partners to ensure senior management engagement across the partnership regarding child protection processes/demands.
Change and impact
The number of children subject to a child protection plan is now heading in the right direction. Between October 2015 and April 2016 the number reduced from 276 to 210. Critically, this has been achieved without seeing any increase in re-registrations.
Learning and reflections
The Isle of Wight reflected that safely bringing down rates of child protection depended on a very clear analysis of what was driving the increase, actions to build the confidence of their own staff to manage risk appropriately and a focused strategy to increase the trust of partner agencies in social workers’ decision-making. Building the trust with partners required creating shared opportunities to explore and understand the issue.
## Case study 5: Lincolnshire County Council
### Lincolnshire children’s services: Creating a talent pool and understanding social worker career motivations
#### Local context
Lincolnshire children’s services have been judged to be good or outstanding for a number of years. They were judged to be good in their 2015 Ofsted inspection of children’s services under the new single inspection framework. In 2010, the Ofsted inspection rated safeguarding as outstanding and looked-after children provision was judged as good with outstanding capacity to improve. Lincolnshire have been working with the DfE as one of the small number of local authorities involved in the *partners in practice* initiative to work with and support other local authorities.
#### The issue
Lincolnshire recently reviewed their recruitment and retention strategy, alongside workforce data, and identified that a number of social workers leave once qualified, typically within two or three years of starting employment. While this number is well below the national attrition levels for social workers, it was determined that it warranted further investigation to understand what changes and improvements may be needed. The authority wanted to understand this issue more deeply and also take action to increase the number of social workers who saw a longer-term career in Lincolnshire. They have therefore undertaken a workforce pilot with two aims.
- **a. Identify with team managers those staff who are performing well and likely to need a move of role in a given timeframe thus creating a “talent pool” for the future and eventually reducing reliance on agency workers.** The intention over time is to improve staff retention further, which has dropped by 3% in 2014-15 from 2013-14, providing succession planning for middle leadership roles, encouraging career progression within Lincolnshire, and developing career pathways that would be attractive to staff.
- **b. Understand the career aspirations and motivations of our social work staff in order to be able to better target training and career development opportunities.** By profiling a group of very capable performers, traits can be identified that should be considered in recruitment and should therefore inform the recruitment strategy.
#### Actions taken
On the second aim above, Lincolnshire sent invitations and internet links to 123 staff to take part in two personality profiling questionnaires, which considered working styles and preferences, behaviour, and motivators (both positive and negative). The results of the tests were then used to create a map of behavioural profiles across all participants.
#### Change and impact
The data and results from the tests are currently being analysed and show some interesting motivators and preferences across the workforce. One immediate learning point has been ensuring that the online testing system was open and accessible remotely to staff: a technical issue in the office meant that the speed of internet connectivity had an impact on the tests and the deadline was extended in order to be able to accommodate this slowness of access.
Learning and reflections
Lincolnshire are currently analysing the results in detail. Already they are suggesting an interesting range of questions that could be investigated in more depth.
- **The initial results show that staff want to work in situations that have frameworks and structure and are less motivated in ambiguous, fluid environments.** This could be an important finding for how new social workers are trained and developed. It is pertinent to consider whether the high levels of regulation and guidance in the profession have created this preference for more structured environments in staff, or whether authorities automatically recruit people with this trait? In the light of social work reform, how comfortable will existing staff be with changes as they come along?
- **Initial findings have shown how confident staff feel in analysing and evaluating their practice,** how able they are to maintain professional distance in their relationships, and how emotionally resilient they are in given situations.
- **Staff had strong inclinations to work with others and in teams, exhibiting high levels of caring traits and curiosity about behaviour.** These traits demonstrate the very human side of the role but did not always sit well with the necessary evaluative elements required.
The data from the testing should be very useful in helping to inform career trajectories for staff, develop training programmes and toolkits for social workers, and help job descriptions better reflect the skills and behaviour needed for new employees. In time, it should also be able to influence a refreshed workforce strategy and help the authority “know its workforce” more deeply.
Lincolnshire want to understand how the profile results compare with staff in other local authorities and are keen to enable other local children’s services to undertake similar exercises and share results to understand whether the behaviour, preferences and motivators are Lincolnshire-specific or have wider implications and learnings for the wider UK social work workforce. Case study 6: North Yorkshire County Council
North Yorkshire children’s service: Embedding whole-service improvements
Local context
In 2009 North Yorkshire had a tricky inspection. While services for looked-after children were good, there were significant shortcomings in safeguarding services. The inspection report cited inconsistencies, unallocated work in one part of the county and plans that were not outcome-focused. A new Assistant Director arrived shortly after an Ofsted inspection that had judged children’s services to be adequate.
There was a clear mandate from the Chief Executive and Director of Children’s Services to bring about change and make rapid and sustained changes. The service was re-inspected shortly afterwards and, in January 2011, was judged to be a strong adequate. Services continued to improve and, in the full single inspection framework inspection in 2014, it was judged to be good across the board with seven good ratings. More recently, in late 2015, North Yorkshire was named as part of the DfE partners in practice programme, through which high-performing children’s services departments would support other local areas on their improvement journey.
The issue
As a result of the inspection findings in 2009, the local authority was under no illusions about the need to achieve significant improvements in children’s services. At the time, there was a lack of oversight of frontline practice, budgets were overspent, and 25% of staff were agency social workers. Specifically, North Yorkshire focused on developing a long-term strategic plan not only for delivering improvements, but for sustaining and embedding these right across the council. To do that, two things were required. First, consistent and effective frontline social work practice had to become the norm across the organisation. Second, over time, the focus of support for children and families had to shift from statutory services to prevention and early help.
Actions taken
Following initial work to secure the basics of the service and establish a long-term vision that was shared by all staff, North Yorkshire adopted a whole-service approach to driving improvements in children’s services. This has three key elements.
a. Strengthening routes into children’s services – North Yorkshire developed a multi-agency customer contact centre, launched in September 2014. The aim was to ensure there were consistent thresholds used by all partner agencies, a single referral process, and the ability to target early help where it was needed most. Signs of Safety was embedded across the service and has played a key role in screening referrals to children’s services. This has been crucial to ensure that there is clear, consistent decision-making at the front door of the service using a solution-focused evidence base.
b. A strategic approach to placements and permanency – North Yorkshire have similarly strong arrangements for managing the local care population. The Head of Safeguarding chairs a weekly pre-screening of all requests of those coming into care. This informs the placement and permanence panel, which exercises oversight of those coming into care, those who are looked after to ensure permanence planning is progressing, and those leaving care. A key focus at present is “preventing drift” and focusing on the best long-term outcomes for children aged 11 to 15 who are looked after. Aligned to these routines is the no wrong door approach, through which tailored early support is put in place to meet the needs of the most vulnerable young people on the edge of care or entering care later in their lives.
c. **Forensic focus on consistency of practice** – performance improvement groups in particular areas, such as safeguarding and looked-after children, have been established to enable senior leaders to scrutinise performance and practice and ask the “hard questions”. This ensures that there is continuous cycle of rigorous self-assessment, forensic analysis and practice improvement. This has been crucial to ensuring senior managers “know the business”, can identify potential risks early, and can take action to ensure practice is of a consistently high standard.
### Change and impact
Between 2012 and 2016, North Yorkshire has seen a significant reduction in unnecessary referrals. The conversion of referrals to assessments has increased from 63.9% in 2012 to 970% in 2016. There are fewer strategy meetings, with a higher proportion of initial child protection conferences (80.4% in 2012, 91.8% in 2016) leading to a child protection plan. There have also been a 36% reduction in child protection plans (from 436 to 279) and a 15% reduction in looked-after children (from 488 to 415), while there has been an increase in early help cases. Financially, £3million is no longer being spent on the looked-after children budget, enabling further investment in prevention and early help. Overall, North Yorkshire leaders and staff are confident that the right cases are reaching the right teams at the right times.
### Learning and reflections
Important though they are, effective routines, processes and structures are not the only factors in North Yorkshire’s improvement journey. As one senior leader put it, ‘systems and processes will not deliver a great organisation: people will’. Settled, consistent leadership, guided by a clear long-term vision and plan that is supported by the whole workforce, has been fundamental to North Yorkshire’s sustained improvements. Social workers echoed these comments, describing specifically how they valued having clarity about the overarching vision, about what effective practice looks like, and about how they would be supported to achieve this.
## Case study 7: Nottinghamshire County Council
### Nottinghamshire children’s service: Piloting Social Work Support Officers
#### Local context
Nottinghamshire children’s services has been on a steady improvement trajectory over the last six years. In late 2009, an unannounced Ofsted inspection judged their contact and referral arrangements to be inadequate. Senior leaders accepted the judgement and used it as an opportunity to re-focus work on child protection. A new strategic vision and plan were put in place for safeguarding and children’s services, additional resources were provided by elected members, and consistent political support has been provided. A new MASH front door to children’s services was established and a new approach to data monitoring was put in place. In 2015, Ofsted judged Nottinghamshire children’s services to be good under the new single inspection framework.
#### The issue
Nottinghamshire were aware that their social workers were spending significant time on lower-level administrative tasks that were “routine and time-consuming – and social workers tend to struggle with bureaucracy”. The authority also wanted to respond to the increasing spend on agency staff by improving the recruitment and retention of their social workers.
They therefore piloted the establishment of a new support role – Social Work Support Officers (SWSOs) – in four frontline teams. The success criteria set for the pilot were:
- social workers spend more time with the children and families they are supporting;
- improved outcomes for children;
- improved morale of social workers leading to improved retention rates;
- improved throughput of social work cases; and
- reduced spend on agency social workers.
#### Actions taken
The aim of the pilot was that the new SWSOs would take on routine tasks and ‘provide a first point-of-contact for service-users’. Each SWSO was embedded within one of the frontline teams. The pilot aimed to test how the SWSOs were able to build relationships with these teams rather than being centralised support. The ratio was one SWSO to five social workers.
The pilot launched in 2015 and lasted 12 months. A job description was established and staff were recruited to new roles. The authority encountered some initial scepticism: some managers thought this was ‘swimming against the tide of the budget reductions by recruiting more administrative staff’. Some other administrative support staff saw it as a possible threat to their roles.
#### Change and impact
Nottinghamshire surveyed the SWSOs regularly, surveyed the pilot frontline teams, and compared this data with the evidence from the other non-pilot teams from the regular workforce health-checks. The main findings were: • social workers in the pilot teams suggested they felt they had more time for direct work with families and had a better work/life balance following the establishment of the pilot; • staff morale improved, with almost three-quarters of social workers in pilot teams describing themselves as happy, compared with one third in other teams; • staff turnover reduced in the pilot teams (by 41%) compared with an increase in the non-pilot teams (by 142%), and sickness absence had reduced in the pilot teams by a third, compared with an increase in non-pilot teams; • partners and other professionals provided positive feedback about the pilot, for example how they were able to have their questions dealt with by someone in the office rather than needing to wait for a social worker to respond; and • there was a smaller increase in the use of agency staff in the pilot teams compared with non-pilot teams (a potential saving of £55,000).
Learning and reflections
Nottinghamshire have seen the pilot as effective: ‘we didn’t expect it to be this successful!’ There has been agreement to expand the pilot to fostering teams and other district child protection teams. Recruitment is currently taking place to the new roles and the new model will be operational from the end of May 2016. Strategy meetings with all the SWSOs will be used to communicate the importance of consistent roles and sharing examples of practice, ‘otherwise they can lose sight of the vision’, and also act as a way of engaging other stakeholders.
Nottinghamshire drew out three specific lessons from the pilot.
a. It was important that the roles remained consistent and SWSOs were not drawn off into undertaking tasks that were not appropriate and should remain the responsibility of social workers, for example completing a case file chronology. ‘We’ve done this by directing the reporting line for SWSOs to two senior SWSOs that are independent of the frontline teams, and reporting to one service manager.’
b. They needed to look across all the support being provided to social workers to ensure business support and SWSOs were aligned.
c. It takes time to see the impact. The authority said, ‘It is not possible to state unequivocally that the introduction of SWSOs is the sole reason for the pilot success criteria having been met, as so many other factors come into play in a frontline operating environment. We found it difficult to measure after six months, but after a year of the pilot running we were able to demonstrate a positive direction of travel for all of the success criteria. We expect that positive evidence will become even clearer as the model is embedded throughout the service. We did need to hold our nerve in the first six months when people were asking “where is the evidence of improvement?”.’
(All quotes and evidence from Nottinghamshire County Council’s internal report on the pilot, and discussions with Steve Edwards (Service Director, Children’s Social Care) and Tara Pasque (project manager for the pilot).)
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/0909-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 68,
"total-input-tokens": 180757,
"total-output-tokens": 41043,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
157,
1
],
[
157,
4169,
2
],
[
4169,
6237,
3
],
[
6237,
9645,
4
],
[
9645,
13520,
5
],
[
13520,
15806,
6
],
[
15806,
21222,
7
],
[
21222,
24722,
8
],
[
24722,
28506,
9
],
[
28506,
30486,
10
],
[
30486,
32590,
11
],
[
32590,
35701,
12
],
[
35701,
37873,
13
],
[
37873,
40727,
14
],
[
40727,
44330,
15
],
[
44330,
47856,
16
],
[
47856,
51657,
17
],
[
51657,
54881,
18
],
[
54881,
58235,
19
],
[
58235,
61187,
20
],
[
61187,
65050,
21
],
[
65050,
65953,
22
],
[
65953,
68184,
23
],
[
68184,
71960,
24
],
[
71960,
75246,
25
],
[
75246,
79203,
26
],
[
79203,
83094,
27
],
[
83094,
86979,
28
],
[
86979,
90810,
29
],
[
90810,
94137,
30
],
[
94137,
97399,
31
],
[
97399,
101255,
32
],
[
101255,
104938,
33
],
[
104938,
108501,
34
],
[
108501,
112017,
35
],
[
112017,
114101,
36
],
[
114101,
117724,
37
],
[
117724,
121506,
38
],
[
121506,
124628,
39
],
[
124628,
127873,
40
],
[
127873,
129763,
41
],
[
129763,
132681,
42
],
[
132681,
134827,
43
],
[
134827,
138369,
44
],
[
138369,
141731,
45
],
[
141731,
145303,
46
],
[
145303,
148990,
47
],
[
148990,
152744,
48
],
[
152744,
154995,
49
],
[
154995,
158672,
50
],
[
158672,
162360,
51
],
[
162360,
165534,
52
],
[
165534,
169074,
53
],
[
169074,
171591,
54
],
[
171591,
174388,
55
],
[
174388,
176536,
56
],
[
176536,
179251,
57
],
[
179251,
181997,
58
],
[
181997,
185001,
59
],
[
185001,
187774,
60
],
[
187774,
190901,
61
],
[
190901,
192159,
62
],
[
192159,
195127,
63
],
[
195127,
197366,
64
],
[
197366,
200376,
65
],
[
200376,
203097,
66
],
[
203097,
205843,
67
],
[
205843,
208863,
68
]
]
} |
4478fa014041f4ab3c17b83029c7f5d800d5ed9f | ACTION RESEARCH INTO IMPROVEMENT IN LOCAL CHILDREN’S SERVICES
Summary from regional workshops
Ben Bryant and Simon Rea Isos Partnership LGA CHILDREN’S SERVICES REGIONAL WORKSHOPS ON IMPROVEMENT IN LOCAL CHILDREN’S SERVICES
Birmingham, London, Manchester and Taunton – October / November 2016
Introduction
This summary report contains the key messages from four regional workshops commissioned by the Local Government Association (LGA) during October and November 2016. It explains the purpose of the workshops, the main issues that were discussed and debated, and some conclusions.
Isos Partnership (www.isospartnership.com) were delighted to be commissioned by the LGA to undertake this research project and run the workshops, and we were grateful for the colleagues from local authorities who attended. We were particularly grateful for those four senior officers who introduced each of the workshops for us: Julia Hassall (DCS, Wirral); Marion Ingram (Operations Director, Hertfordshire); Tony Oakman (Strategic Director, People, Dudley); Julian Wooster (DCS, Somerset).
Isos/LGA action research project and report on improvement in local children’s services
The purpose of this research project was to understand how best to enable and support improvement in local children’s services by seeking answers to two central questions:
a. What are the key enablers of (and barriers to) improvement in local children’s services? b. How can the system as a whole facilitate and support improvement in local children’s services?
Isos Partnership worked with 17 local areas in undertaking the action research, including in-depth engagements with nine that were at different points on their improvement journeys. The research report was published by the LGA in June 2016 and can be found here, and the practical summary for lead members and senior leaders is available here.
Purpose of the four regional workshops
During the autumn, the LGA commissioned Isos Partnership to facilitate four regional workshops (in Birmingham, London, Manchester and Taunton) to which political leaders and senior officers were invited. The purpose of the workshops were to:
- share the learning from Isos’ research and enable local areas to explore and discuss themes and messages from the report that were relevant to their circumstances;
- create opportunities for local areas to share their priorities and learning with their peers, and enable dialogue about the opportunities for improvement; and • create networks of improvement across each region based around common challenges that might be sustained after the workshop.
1. Children’s services improvement journeys – how did the journeys of the participating LAs compare with the Isos research?
The workshops were an opportunity to hear the key messages from the Isos research, explore the issues raised in more depth, and also compare the improvement journeys of participating children’s services with the framework in the Isos report. Colleagues that attended recognised the different stages of the improvement journey that were set out in the report (and included in the graphic below) and agreed with the different characteristics at each stage – “it resonates hugely!” said one senior leader. Some colleagues had used the framework to benchmark where they felt their children’s services were on their improvement journey. Others had used the framework to engage their elected members. Others were using the concept of different stages of improvement to support their own self-evaluations and shape their own improvement priorities and actions required. There was also a consensus that, alongside the helpful concept of different stages of improvement, the report was correct in acknowledging that at every stage there was the risk of “slipping back”.
(a) Defining characteristics at each stage of the improvement journey – from Isos report
| The three phases | Defining characteristics | |------------------|--------------------------| | Poor-to-fair | 1. Getting the basics right – driven by leadership\
| | 2. Building the ethos and culture – & engaging the workforce | | Fair-to-good | 1. Capacity for robust self-assessment, vigilance\
| | 2. Locus of leadership shifts and becomes more broad\
| | 3. From “mission-critical” aspects to whole-service view | | Good-to-great | 1. Improvement no longer a discrete project – it is the norm\
| | 2. Disciplined innovation embedded within delivery\
| | 3. Openness to others – challenge & system leadership role |
The Isos report summarised and explained seven key enablers of improvement in children’s services based on the learning from the action research. Colleagues that attended the workshops agreed with these enablers of improvement and emphasised the importance of:
• the journey before ‘getting to the starting line’ to understand the real depth of the situation; understanding that if the leadership is in denial about the inspection outcomes then the result will be delay – “accept the findings and move on”;
leadership as a crucial driver of strategy, practice and engagement;
grappling with the workforce issues to promote sustainability and continuity, as well as the importance of engaging the workforce in culture and performance change;
building loyalty and understanding social worker motivations;
sustaining improvement when an external inspector recognises improvements have been made, and avoiding the risk of falling back due to a “collective sigh of relief”;
the focus on the quality of practice and having a strong grip on how this was developing;
the importance of and often challenges around working with partners; and
how often it was necessary to hold your nerve around timescales, strategy and finances.
(b) Seven enablers of improvement in children’s services – from Isos report
The Isos action research involved 17 LAs. The regional workshops were an opportunity to engage an additional 40 local areas. This enabled us to capture a broader set of views about different journeys of improvement. There were particular issues that attendees wanted to highlight that were important in terms of their own improvement journeys. These included the need to ensure corporate and member ownership of the challenges faced by children’s services; understanding the drivers of and incentives for the local social worker agency market; dealing with the challenges in recruiting team managers; and the differences in challenges between large rural authorities and small urban ones.
One point for reflection from colleagues was that the concept of innovation in practice should not just be seen as applying to local areas moving to ‘good’; it might be vital for those at an earlier stage of their improvement journey, either because they needed to do things differently to drive rapid improvement or because it was important in building the confidence of staff and breaking out of a perceived narrative of failure.
Finally, colleagues attending also saw much that they recognised in the indicative timescales of the different stages of the journey (and included in the graphic below). Whilst agreeing that this was not designed to be a one-size-fits-all model and contexts would necessarily mean that timescales might be different, there was much that they recognised, particularly in the time needed to move from ‘poor’ to ‘fair’. However the journey was seldom linear and smooth - one colleague describing it “as often more like the Himalayas”.
(c) Estimated timescales for each phase of the improvement journey – from Isos report
2. Improvement priorities – what were the priorities shared by participating LAs?
Following our workshop discussions about the Isos report and how it compared to the improvement journeys of those attending, we asked participants to share some of the improvement priorities on which they were working. Each colleague had the opportunity to explain an aspect of their improvement work, highlight the issues they were seeking to address, and also share some of the learning they had gained from this work. The workshops provided a valuable opportunity for local areas to hear from colleagues and explore issues of mutual interest, as well as discussing some of the benefits that had been gained. We have grouped the improvement priorities that were shared at all the workshops under the following five broad themes with some examples of the priorities and learning below.
### (d) Improvement priorities from participating local areas
| Theme | 1. Workforce development, creating conditions for effective frontline SW practice | 2. Practice improvement | 3. Strengthening key aspects of the children’s services system | 4. Effective scrutiny and role of members, securing efficiencies, or planning for improvement | 5. Innovations in delivering services | |-------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------| | Local areas | Halton, Leicester, Wirral, Tameside, Bracknell Forest, Cornwall, South Gloucestershire, Lambeth, Cheshire East, Dudley, Solihull | Manchester, Cumbria, Lancashire, Surrey, Kent, Essex, Cheshire West and Chester | Blackburn with Darwen, NE Lincolnshire, Halton, Bradford, Trafford, Warrington, Poole, Bexley, Oxfordshire, Bristol, Devon, Somerset, Swindon, Wolverhampton, Blackpool | Barnsley, Bury, Lewisham, Birmingham, Leicestershire | Hertfordshire, Waltham Forest, Islington |
| Examples of priorities | Recruitment and retention of experienced social workers | Developing consistency in practice | Re-establishing an early help offer or support for looked-after children; or strengthening an integrated front door | Strengthening political scrutiny | Bid to the innovation fund to develop multi-agency safeguarding teams | |------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------| | Examples of learning | Use innovative practice on recruitment and retention to make progress | Having a good practice framework e.g. *Signs of Safety*, helps to orientate practice | Importance of culture: difficult to shift and crucial to embed real change | Often need to win over hearts and minds of other council services | Need to describe what the difference will be for social workers’ day-to-day work |
### 3. Support for children’s services improvement
In the final section of each of the workshops, local areas shared their views about the external support that they had sought or experienced to help with their improvement journeys. A number of areas spoke about their experiences of peer reviews. Others shared their experiences of working closely with a single other local authority (for example as an improvement partner), or with a range of other local authorities as part of regional networks.
The participating authorities found it useful to compare and contrast their experiences of external support. Isos were also able to share their learning from a current project for the LGA about the different forms of external support available to support the improvement of local children’s services. Our key lessons from this work will be published by the LGA in the new year.
- the role of external support is an enabling one – it helps leaders, managers, staff and partners to create the conditions for high quality front-line practice. There is no ‘silver bullet’;
- for external support to work best, it needs to be proactive and not simply respond to crises. We heard from several local areas that were moving through the ‘poor’ to ‘fair’ stage of their improvement journey that they had planned for a peer review to take place sometime after an external inspection to both validate the improvements that had been made and also provide a challenging review of where improvements were still required and ‘hold the mirror up’ to their own capacity and performance;
- colleagues agreed that support needed to be chosen wisely and used effectively – brokering (whether from the region, national LGA, or other organisations) could be important in ensuring an appropriate match. This was key to developing a trusting relationship. And it was vital that external support added to the capacity of the organisation rather than detracting from the capacity of the organisation to improve;
- there were examples of strong regional networks for both senior leaders and elected members;
- external support had to engage staff throughout the organisation in order to have a chance of improving frontline practice. It also needed to engage members and corporate leaders – not just children’s services in isolation – to ensure there was a common understanding of challenges and solutions; and
- in considering the particular form of external support that might be appropriate, it was important to take account of the leadership grip, the organisation’s self-assessment of its own capacity, and its strategic priorities.
4. Conclusion
Colleagues welcomed the opportunities the workshops provided to discuss the strategic issues, work with and hear from other local areas, and have the space to reflect on their own improvement journeys. There was clearly an appetite for such events at a regional level, both at a strategic level but also potentially linked to specific improvement priority themes.
The workshops demonstrated the importance of a dialogue about improvement as a way of supporting the sector as a whole to improve. There are clear benefits to be gained in terms of building capacity and knowledge about what enables sustained and rapid improvement, and how the system as a whole supports local areas to achieve this. We welcome the fact that the LGA identified the need for these workshops and supported them in order to share practice, build awareness, and use the findings of the research to support improvement.
Isos Partnership
November 2016
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/0910-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 7,
"total-input-tokens": 16015,
"total-output-tokens": 2998,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
138,
1
],
[
138,
2489,
2
],
[
2489,
4979,
3
],
[
4979,
6916,
4
],
[
6916,
8537,
5
],
[
8537,
11454,
6
],
[
11454,
14311,
7
]
]
} |
f3e8b75d179261ddd8364899066a61cc10edf3b9 | ## Contractor details
**Contractor's name**
**Contractor's address**
## Payment and deduction made in tax month ended
05 MM YYYY
**Employer's Tax Reference**
## Subcontractor details
**Subcontractor's full name**
**Unique Taxpayer reference (UTR)**
**Verification Number**\*
\*Verification number only to be entered where a deduction at the higher rate has been made.
**Gross amount paid (Excl VAT) (A)**
£ 0 0 0 0
**Less cost of materials**
£ 0 0 0 0
**Amount liable to deduction**
£ 0 0 0 0
**Amount deducted (B)**
£ 0 0 0 0
**Amount payable (A-B)**
£ 0 0 0 0
______________________________________________________________________
Subcontractors - Please keep this document safe
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/4564-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 1,
"total-input-tokens": 1646,
"total-output-tokens": 261,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
633,
1
]
]
} |
d73ae9743fb264bff5b1e968d6d5ada1bdac0222 | Local Government Association – Children’s Services Programme
January 2019 Update
The LGAs Children’s Services Programme Team is responsible for delivering a range of activities and support to help local authorities improve services for children. This newsletter is to provide an update on the key developments in the programme and over the last quarter. We have also used the opportunity to provide more information on the role of Children’s Improvement Advisors (CIAs) along with a ‘day in the life of’ one of our CIAs.
This is the first update in recent times and we intend to provide these on a quarterly basis. Those peers who have already been part of either a review, diagnostic or peer challenge will have used the Knowledge Hub to access the pre-review documentation. We have set up a private Knowledge Hub group just for peers – this is anyone who has completed our peer training and/or been part of an LGA peer team in relation to Children’s Services (including Early Years). Later this month we will add peers to the group - we are going to use the group to keep everyone informed as to developments with our children’s programmes and we will also use it to let you know of upcoming peer challenges so that you can let us know if you are available. If you do not want to be added to the group then please get in touch.
Children’s Services Peer Challenge Programme Refresh: to respond to the changing needs of Councils and the different approach now taken by Ofsted through ILACS we are refreshing the safeguarding peer review methodology. A revised model is being piloted in early 2019 and will feature a modular approach where Councils can build a review tailored to their individual needs.
Peer Review Delivery: since April 2018 we have delivered 9 reviews and have 15 more scheduled, with more to come.
Early Years Peer Challenge Programme: funded by the DfE, we have now piloted this in three councils and have agreed the roll out to a further 10 areas. The criteria for identifying the next cohort of councils to receive an early years peer challenge is currently being agreed and will be published soon. In addition, we are busy training early years peers with nearly 60 having completed the training and further sessions in early 2019. We are also working closely with the early Intervention Foundation who have developed an Early Years Maturity Matrix which will be used as part of the peer challenge process. Further developments will include the delivery of three learning and evaluation events over the next 18 months and the agreement that DfE will fund a follow up visit, 12 months after each peer challenge.
Children’s Finance Diagnostic: there has been lots of interest in this new offer and we are piloting this work in two councils in January/February 2019. These pilots will inform the development of a framework and guidance materials to support the roll out of the diagnostic from April onwards – get in touch if you want to explore the possibility of receiving a children’s finance diagnostic.
Elected member support and development: providing support, development opportunities and peer mentoring for lead members and chairs of children’s scrutiny. Delivering regional workshops on topics such as children’s service finance; performance management and corporate parenting and working to ensure effective children’s services lead member network exist in all regions providing the opportunity for shared learning and collaboration.
Peer recruitment: all our peer reviews rely on the expertise, experience and commitment of people already working in the sector. Being a part of a peer team is a hugely rewarding experience and you will receive support and training so that you can participate fully. At the moment we are particularly looking for skills and experience in the following areas:
- Early Years Peer Reviews (council officers, health professionals, school head teachers/education leads)
- Children’s Finance Diagnostics (senior officers involved with children’s services finance and commissioning)
If you, or your colleagues, are interested in getting involved and want to find out more, please get in touch.
Children’s Improvement Advisers (CIA) These are key people in the LGA’s support of Children’s Services at Councils, and we have one covering each local government region in England. A summary of their role is below, and attached is a ‘day in the life’ diary of one of our CIA’s, Claire Burgess.
Working closely alongside the Local Government Association’s Principal Adviser in each region the CIA will be instrumental to the improvement of children’s services within councils. The key purpose of their role is:
- To provide support to the Principal Adviser and work with councils that have been identified for sector-led support and develop strong relationships with Leading Members, Chief Executives and Directors of Children's Services and build a clear understanding of their needs to identify innovative solutions, broker improvement strategies, and ensure they are delivered;
- To provide complementary support and assistance, where required, to existing Regional sector led improvement programmes for children's services and contribute to the development of the Local Government Association's (LGA) peer support service and support improvement in local authorities;
- To deliver programmes to support and develop leadership and best practice in councils and support councils at risk, acting as a broker between the Local Government Association (LGA) and local authorities;
- To commission additional capacity and expertise, through to facilitating staff development and change management programmes. Working with regional networks to ensure best practice, policies and partnerships are shared.
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/4565-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 2,
"total-input-tokens": 5064,
"total-output-tokens": 1186,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
4200,
1
],
[
4200,
5763,
2
]
]
} |
d8d627c1fe5344c5d7da53439dc81a462770aad5 | Permit with introductory note
The Environmental Permitting (England & Wales) Regulations 2016
Mr Raymond Powell Penpound Poultry Unit Penpound Newbridge on Wye Llandrindod Wells Powys LD1 6HR
Permit number EPR/AB1234CD Penpound Poultry Unit Permit number EPR/AB1234CD
Introductory note
This introductory note does not form a part of the permit
The main features of the permit are as follows.
Penpound Poultry Unit is situated approximately 1 kilometre North East from the Newbridge on Wye in Powys. It is approximately centred on National Grid Reference SO 02338 59426.
The installation is to be operated by Mr Raymond Powell and will house a maximum of 100,000 broiler chickens. The birds will be brought to the site at approximately one day old and removed after reaching a commercial weight. The birds will be delivered and removed on an “All In, All Out” basis.
The Birds will be housed in two new buildings each of which will be constructed to the latest BAT standards. The buildings will be equipped with high velocity roof vents and will be heated by lpg fired boilers.
After the birds are removed the litter will be removed and spread on agricultural land. The buildings will then be cleaned, disinfected and dried prior to the next re-stocking of birds. All wash waters will be collected and disposed of appropriately.
The status log of the permit sets out the permitting history, including any changes to the permit reference number.
| Status log of the permit | |--------------------------| | **Description** | **Date** | **Comments** | | Application received PAN-000935 | Received 31/10/16 | Application for 100,000 broiler places installations permit | | Additional Information requested | 23/12/16 | Updated ammonia modelling and Great Crested Newt survey | | Additional information received | 11/01/17 | Updated ammonia modelling report. | | Additional information received | 18/05/17 | Newt Survey | | Additional Information requested | 26/05/17 | Ammonia emission reduction details | | Additional information received | 23/08/17 | Ammonia emission reduction details and updated site layout plan | | Permit determined | DD/MM/YY | Permit issued |
End of introductory note The Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2016
Permit number EPR/AB1234CD
The Natural Resources Body for Wales (“Natural Resources Wales”) authorises, under regulation 13 of the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2016
Mr Raymond Powell (“the operator”),
of
Upper Blaenmilo Aberedw Builth Wells Powys LD2 3UP
to operate an installation at
Penpound Poultry Unit Penpound Newbridge on Wye Llandrindod Wells Powys LD1 6HR
to the extent authorised by and subject to the conditions of this permit as set out in Appendix 1 and in Appendix 2.
Signed
[name of authorised person]
Date
[DD/MM/YYYY]
Authorised on behalf of Natural Resources Wales APPENDIX 1 (version 1 dated April 2017)
Sector Specific Conditions
Introductory note
This introductory note does not form a part of the Condition set
The conditions set out below are incorporated into this permit.
End of introductory note.
1 Management
1.1 General management
1.1.1 The operator shall manage and operate the activities:
(a) in accordance with a written management system that identifies and minimises risks of pollution, including those arising from operations, maintenance, accidents, incidents, non-conformances, closure and those drawn to the attention of the operator as a result of complaints; and
(b) using sufficient competent persons and resources.
1.1.2 Records demonstrating compliance with condition 1.1.1 shall be maintained.
1.1.3 Any person having duties that are or may be affected by the matters set out in this permit shall have convenient access to a copy of it kept at or near the place where those duties are carried out.
1.2 Energy efficiency
1.2.1 The operator shall:
(a) take appropriate measures to ensure that energy is used efficiently in the activities;
(b) review and record at least every four years whether there are suitable opportunities to improve the energy efficiency of the activities; and
(c) take any further appropriate measures identified by a review.
1.3 Efficient use of raw materials
1.3.1 The operator shall:
(a) take appropriate measures to ensure that raw materials and water are used efficiently in the activities;
(b) maintain records of raw materials and water used in the activities; (c) review and record at least every four years whether there are suitable alternative materials that could reduce environmental impact or opportunities to improve the efficiency of raw material and water use; and
(d) take any further appropriate measures identified by a review.
1.4 Avoidance, recovery and disposal of wastes produced by the activities
1.4.1 The operator shall take appropriate measures to ensure that:
(a) the waste hierarchy referred to in Article 4 of the Waste Framework Directive is applied to the generation of waste by the activities; and
(b) any waste generated by the activities is treated in accordance with the waste hierarchy referred to in Article 4 of the Waste Framework Directive; and
(c) where disposal is necessary, this is undertaken in a manner which minimises its impact on the environment.
1.4.2 The operator shall review and record at least every four years whether changes to those measures should be made and take any further appropriate measures identified by a review.
2 Operations
2.1 Permitted activities
2.1.1 The operator is only authorised to carry out the activities specified in schedule 1 table S1.1 (the “activities”).
2.2 The site
See Appendix 2.
2.3 Operating techniques
2.3.1 (a) The activities shall, subject to the conditions of this permit, be operated using the techniques and in the manner described in the documentation specified in schedule 1, table S1.2, unless otherwise agreed in writing by Natural Resources Wales.
(b) If notified by Natural Resources Wales that the activities are giving rise to pollution, the operator shall submit to Natural Resources Wales for approval within the period specified, a revision of any plan specified in schedule 1, table S1.2 or otherwise required under this permit which identifies and minimises the risks of pollution relevant to that plan, and shall implement the approved revised plan in place of the original from the date of approval, unless otherwise agreed in writing by Natural Resources Wales.
2.3.2 The operator shall maintain and implement a system to record the number of animal places and animal movements.
2.3.3 The operator shall maintain and implement a system to record the quantities of solid manure or slurry exported from the installation, as defined on the site plan in schedule 7. The record shall include as a minimum: • the date of export from the site • the quantity exported • details of the receiving site
2.3.4 The operator shall ensure that where waste produced by the activities is sent to a relevant waste operation, that operation is provided with the following information, prior to the receipt of the waste:
(a) the nature of the process producing the waste; (b) the composition of the waste; (c) the handling requirements of the waste; (d) the hazardous property associated with the waste, if applicable; and (e) the waste code of the waste.
2.3.5 The operator shall ensure that where waste produced by the activities is sent to a landfill site, it meets the waste acceptance criteria for that landfill.
2.3.6 The operator shall ensure that a diet formulation and a nutritional strategy is used that minimises as far as is practicable the amount of Phosphorus and Nitrogen excreted.
3 Emissions and monitoring
3.1 Emissions to water, air or land
3.1.1 There shall be no point source emissions to water, air or land except from the sources and emission points listed in tables S3.2, S3.3 and S3.4.
3.2 Emissions of substances not controlled by emission limits
3.2.1 Emissions of substances not controlled by emission limits (excluding odour) shall not cause pollution. The operator shall not be taken to have breached this condition if appropriate measures, including, but not limited to, those specified in any approved emissions management plan, have been taken to prevent or where that is not practicable, to minimise, those emissions.
3.2.2 The operator shall:
(a) if notified by Natural Resources Wales that the activities are giving rise to pollution, submit to Natural Resources Wales for approval within the period specified, an emissions management plan which identifies and minimises the risks of pollution from emissions of substances not controlled by emission limits; (b) implement the approved emissions management plan, from the date of approval, unless otherwise agreed in writing by Natural Resources Wales.
3.2.3 All liquids in containers, whose emission to water or land could cause pollution, shall be provided with secondary containment, unless the operator has used other appropriate measures to prevent or where that is not practicable, to minimise, leakage and spillage from the primary container. 3.2.4 Periodic monitoring shall be carried out at least once every 5 years for groundwater and 10 years for soil, unless such monitoring is based on a systematic appraisal of the risk of contamination.
3.3 Odour
3.3.1 Emissions from the activities shall be free from odour at levels likely to cause pollution outside the site, as perceived by an authorised officer of Natural Resources Wales, unless the operator has used appropriate measures, including, but not limited to, those specified in any approved odour management plan, to prevent or where that is not practicable to minimise the odour.
3.3.2 The operator shall:
(a) if notified by Natural Resources Wales that the activities are giving rise to pollution outside the site due to odour, submit to Natural Resources Wales for approval within the period specified, an odour management plan which identifies and minimises the risks of pollution from odour;
(b) implement the approved odour management plan, from the date of approval, unless otherwise agreed in writing by Natural Resources Wales.
3.4 Noise and vibration
3.4.1 Emissions from the activities shall be free from noise and vibration at levels likely to cause pollution outside the site, as perceived by an authorised officer of Natural Resources Wales, unless the operator has used appropriate measures, including, but not limited to, those specified in any approved noise and vibration management plan to prevent or where that is not practicable to minimise the noise and vibration.
3.4.2 The operator shall:
(a) if notified by Natural Resources Wales that the activities are giving rise to pollution outside the site due to noise and vibration, submit to Natural Resources Wales for approval within the period specified, a noise and vibration management plan which identifies and minimises the risks of pollution from noise and vibration;
(b) implement the approved noise and vibration management plan, from the date of approval, unless otherwise agreed in writing by Natural Resources Wales.
3.5 Monitoring
3.5.1 The operator shall, unless otherwise agreed in writing by Natural Resources Wales, undertake the monitoring specified in the following tables:
(a) emissions specified in tables S3.1, S3.2, S3.3 and S3.4.
3.5.2 The operator shall maintain records of all monitoring required by this permit including records of the taking and analysis of samples, instrument measurements (periodic and continual), calibrations, examinations, tests and surveys and any assessment or evaluation made on the basis of such data.
3.6 Pests
3.6.1 The activities shall not give rise to the presence of pests which are likely to cause pollution, hazard or annoyance outside the boundary of the site. The operator shall not be taken to have breached this condition if appropriate measures, including, but not limited to, those specified in any approved pests management plan, have been taken to prevent or where that is not practicable, to minimise the presence of pests on the site.
3.6.2 The operator shall:
(a) if notified by Natural Resources Wales, submit to Natural Resources Wales for approval within the period specified, a pests management plan which identifies and minimises risks of pollution, hazard and annoyance from pests;
(b) implement the pests management plan, from the date of approval, unless otherwise agreed in writing by Natural Resources Wales.
4 Information
4.1 Records
4.1.1 All records required to be made by this permit shall:
(a) be legible;
(b) be made as soon as reasonably practicable;
(c) if amended, be amended in such a way that the original and any subsequent amendments remain legible, or are capable of retrieval; and
(d) be retained, unless otherwise agreed in writing by Natural Resources Wales, for at least 6 years from the date when the records were made, or in the case of the following records until permit surrender:
(i) off-site environmental effects; and
(ii) matters which affect the condition of the land and groundwater.
4.1.2 The operator shall keep on site all records, plans and the management system required to be maintained by this permit, unless otherwise agreed in writing by Natural Resources Wales.
4.2 Reporting
4.2.1 The operator shall send all reports and notifications required by the permit to Natural Resources Wales using the contact details supplied in writing by Natural Resources Wales.
4.2.2 The operator shall, unless notice under this condition has been served within the preceding four years, submit to Natural Resources Wales, within six months of receipt of a written notice, a report assessing whether there are other appropriate measures that could be taken to prevent, or where that is not practicable, to minimise pollution.
4.3 Notifications
4.3.1 (a) In the event that the operation of the activities gives rise to an incident or accident which significantly affects or may significantly affect the environment, the operator must immediately:
(i) inform Natural Resources Wales; (ii) take the measures necessary to limit the environmental consequences of such an incident or accident; and
(iii) take the measures necessary to prevent further possible incidents or accidents.
(b) In the event of a breach of any permit condition the operator must immediately:
(i) inform Natural Resources Wales; and,
(ii) take the measures necessary to ensure that compliance is restored within the shortest possible time.
(c) In the event of a breach of permit condition which poses an immediate danger to human health or threatens to cause an immediate significant adverse effect on the environment, the operator must immediately suspend the operation of the activities or the relevant part of it until compliance with the permit conditions has been restored.
4.3.2 Any information provided under condition 4.3.1, shall be confirmed by sending the information listed in schedule 5 to this permit within the time period specified in that schedule.
4.3.3 Where Natural Resources Wales has requested in writing that it shall be notified when the operator is to undertake monitoring and/or spot sampling, the operator shall inform Natural Resources Wales when the relevant monitoring and/or spot sampling is to take place. The operator shall provide this information to Natural Resources Wales at least 14 days before the date the monitoring is to be undertaken.
4.3.4 Natural Resources Wales shall be notified within 14 days of the occurrence of the following matters, except where such disclosure is prohibited by Stock Exchange rules:
Where the operator is a registered company:
(a) any change in the operator’s trading name, registered name or registered office address; and
(b) any steps taken with a view to the operator going into administration, entering into a company voluntary arrangement or being wound up.
Where the operator is a corporate body other than a registered company:
(a) any change in the operator’s name or address; and
(b) any steps taken with a view to the dissolution of the operator.
In any other case:
(a) the death of any of the named operators (where the operator consists of more than one named individual);
(b) any change in the operator’s name(s) or address(es); and
(c) any steps taken with a view to the operator, or any one of them, going into bankruptcy, entering into a composition or arrangement with creditors, or, in the case of them being in a partnership, dissolving the partnership.
4.3.5 Where the operator proposes to make a change in the nature or functioning, or an extension of the activities, which may have consequences for the environment and the change is not otherwise the subject of an application for approval under the Regulations or this permit:
(a) Natural Resources Wales shall be notified at least 14 days before making the change; and (b) the notification shall contain a description of the proposed change in operation.
4.3.6 Natural Resources Wales shall be given at least 14 days notice before implementation of any part of the site closure plan.
4.4 Interpretation
4.4.1 In this permit the expressions listed in schedule 6 shall have the meaning given in that schedule.
4.4.2 In this permit references to reports and notifications mean written reports and notifications, except where reference is made to notification being made “without delay”, in which case it may be provided by telephone.
Schedule 1 Operations
See Appendix 2
Schedule 2 Waste types, raw materials and fuels
See Appendix 2
Schedule 3 Emissions and Monitoring
| Emission point ref. & location | Parameter | Source | Limit (incl. unit) | Reference period | Monitoring frequency | Monitoring standard or method | |-------------------------------|-----------|--------|--------------------|------------------|---------------------|-------------------------------| | Weaners | Nitrogen (N) | Excreted | 4.0 kg N/animal place | Per year | Annually | Calculation by using a mass balance of nitrogen and phosphorus based on the feed intake, dietary content of crude protein, total phosphorus and animal performance or Estimation by using manure analysis for total nitrogen and total phosphorus content | | Emission point ref. & location | Parameter | Source | Limit (incl. unit) | Reference period | Monitoring frequency | Monitoring standard or method | |-------------------------------|-----------|--------|-------------------|------------------|---------------------|-----------------------------| | | Phosphorus (as P$\_2$O$\_5$) | Excreted | 2.2 kg P$\_2$O$\_5$ /animal place | Per year | Annually | As above | | | Ammonia as NH$\_3$ | From animal house | 0.53 kgNH$\_3$ /animal place | Per year | Annually | Estimation using emission factors | | Fattening Pigs | Nitrogen (N) | Excreted | 13.0 kg N /animal place | Per year | Annually | Calculation by using a mass balance of nitrogen and phosphorus based on the feed intake, dietary content of crude protein, total phosphorus and animal performance or Estimation by using manure analysis for total nitrogen and total phosphorus content | | | Phosphorus (as P$\_2$O$\_5$) | Excreted | 5.4 | Per year | Annually | As above | | | Ammonia as NH$\_3$ | Animal house | 2.6 | Per year | Annually | Estimation using emission factors | | Sows (including suckling piglets) | Nitrogen (N) | Excreted | 30.0 kg N /animal place | Per year | Annually | Calculation by using a mass balance of nitrogen and phosphorus based on the feed intake, dietary content of crude protein, total phosphorus and animal performance or Estimation by using manure analysis for total nitrogen and total phosphorus content | | | Phosphorus (as P$\_2$O$\_5$) | Excreted | 15 kg P$\_2$O$\_5$ /animal place | Per year | Annually | As above | | Mating and gestating sows | Ammonia as NH$\_3$ | Animal house | 2.7 kg NH$\_3$ /animal place | Per year | Annually | Estimated using excretion factors | | Farrowing sows (including suckling piglets) with crates. | Ammonia as NH$\_3$ | Animal house | 5.6 kg NH$\_3$ /animal place | Per year | Annually | Estimated using excretion factors | | Emission point ref. & location | Parameter | Source | Limit (incl. unit) | Reference period | Monitoring frequency | Monitoring standard or method | |-------------------------------|-----------|--------|-------------------|-----------------|---------------------|-------------------------------| | Laying hens | Nitrogen (N) | Excreted | 0.8 kg N/animal place | Per year | Annually | Calculation by using a mass balance of nitrogen and phosphorus based on the feed intake, dietary content of crude protein, total phosphorus and animal performance or Estimation by using manure analysis for total nitrogen and total phosphorus content | | | Phosphorus (as P₂O₅) | Excreted | 0.45 kg/P₂O₅/animal place | Per year | Annually | As above | | Laying hens in Caged housing | Ammonia as NH₃ | Animal house | 0.08 kg NH₃/animal place | Per year | Annually | Estimation by using emission factors | | Laying hens in Non caged housing | Ammonia as NH₃ | Animal house | 0.13 kg NH₃/animal place | Per year | Annually | Estimation by using emission factors | | Broilers | Nitrogen (N) | Excreted | 0.6 kg N/animal place | Per year | Annually | Calculation by using a mass balance of nitrogen and phosphorus based on the feed intake, dietary content of crude protein, total phosphorus and animal performance or Estimation by using manure analysis for total nitrogen and total phosphorus content | | | Phosphorus (as P₂O₅) | Excreted | 0.25 | Per year | Annually | As above | | | Ammonia as NH₃ | Animal house | 0.08 kg NH₃/animal place | Per year | Annually | Estimation by using emission factors | | Emission point ref. & location | Parameter | Source | Limit (incl. unit) | Reference period | Monitoring frequency | Monitoring standard or method | |-------------------------------|-----------|--------|-------------------|------------------|---------------------|-------------------------------| | Ducks | Nitrogen (N) | Excreted | 0.8 kg N/animal place | Per year | Annually | Calculation by using a mass balance of nitrogen and phosphorus based on the feed intake, dietary content of crude protein, total phosphorus and animal performance or Estimation by using manure analysis for total nitrogen and total phosphorus content | | Turkeys | Nitrogen (N) | Excreted | 2.3 kg N/animal place | Per year | Annually | Calculation by using a mass balance of nitrogen and phosphorus based on the feed intake, dietary content of crude protein, total phosphorus and animal performance or Estimation by using manure analysis for total nitrogen and total phosphorus content | | | Phosphorus (as P₂O₅) | Excreted | 1.0 | Per Year | Annually | As above |
Note 1. There are no BAT emission factors specified for pullets. Table S3.2 – Point source emissions to air emissions limits and monitoring requirements - see Appendix 2.
Table S3.3 – Point source emissions to water (other than sewer) – emission limits and monitoring – see Appendix 2.
Table S3.4 – Point source emissions to land – emission limits and monitoring – see Appendix 2
Schedule 4
Reporting
See Appendix 2 Schedule 5 - Notification
These pages outline the information that the operator must provide.
Units of measurement used in information supplied under Part A and B requirements shall be appropriate to the circumstances of the emission. Where appropriate, a comparison should be made of actual emissions and authorised emission limits.
If any information is considered commercially confidential, it should be separated from non-confidential information, supplied on a separate sheet and accompanied by an application for commercial confidentiality under the provisions of the EP Regulations.
### Part A
| Permit Number | Name of operator | Location of Facility | Time and date of the detection | |---------------|------------------|----------------------|-------------------------------|
(a) Notification requirements for any activity that gives rise to an incident or accident which significantly affects or may significantly affect the environment
| Date and time of the event | To be notified within 24 hours | |----------------------------|-------------------------------| | Reference or description of the location of the event | | Description of where any release into the environment took place | | Substances(s) potentially released | | Best estimate of the quantity or rate of release of substances | | Measures taken, or intended to be taken, to stop any emission | | Description of the failure or accident. |
(b) Notification requirements for the breach of a permit condition
| Emission point reference/ source | To be notified within 24 hours | |---------------------------------|-------------------------------| | Parameter(s) | | Limit | | Measured value and uncertainty | | Date and time of monitoring | | Measures taken, or intended to be taken, to stop the emission |
### Time periods for notification following detection of a breach of a limit
| Parameter | Notification period | |-----------|---------------------| | | |
(c) In the event of a breach of permit condition which poses an immediate danger to human health or threatens to cause an immediate significant adverse effect on the environment:
| Description of where the effect on the environment was detected | To be notified within 24 hours | |------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------| | Substances(s) detected | | | Concentrations of substances detected | | | Date of monitoring/sampling | |
### Part B - to be submitted as soon as practicable
| Any more accurate information on the matters for notification under Part A. | | | Measures taken, or intended to be taken, to prevent a recurrence of the incident | | | Measures taken, or intended to be taken, to rectify, limit or prevent any pollution of the environment which has been or may be caused by the emission | | | The dates of any unauthorised emissions from the facility in the preceding 24 months. | |
| Name\* | | | Post | | | Signature | | | Date | |
- authorised to sign on behalf of the operator Schedule 6 - Interpretation
“accident” means an accident that may result in pollution.
“application” means the application for this permit, together with any additional information supplied by the operator as part of the application and any response to a notice served under Schedule 5 to the EP Regulations.
“authorised officer” means any person authorised by Natural Resources Wales under section 108(1) of The Environment Act 1995 to exercise, in accordance with the terms of any such authorisation, any power specified in section 108(4) of that Act.
“BAT” means “best available techniques” as detailed in the Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2017/302 of 15 February 2017.
“building” means a construction that has the objective of providing sheltering cover and minimising emissions of noise, particulate matter, odour and litter.
“emissions to land” includes emissions to groundwater.
“emission factors” are figures which have been agreed in writing with Natural Resources Wales and can be used in specific calculations.
“emissions of substances not controlled by emission limits” means emissions of substances to air, water or land from the activities, either from the emission points specified in schedule 3 or from other localised or diffuse sources, which are not controlled by an emission limit.
“excretion factors” are figures which have been agreed in writing with Natural Resources Wales and can be used in specific calculations.
“EP Regulations” means The Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations SI 2016 No.675 and words and expressions used in this permit which are also used in the Regulations have the same meanings as in those Regulations.
“groundwater” means all water, which is below the surface of the ground in the saturation zone and in direct contact with the ground or subsoil.
“Industrial Emissions Directive” means DIRECTIVE 2010/75/EU OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 24 November 2010 on industrial emissions
“Manure and slurry” have the following meaning:
- Manures may be either slurries or solid manures.
- Slurries consist of excreta produced by livestock whilst in a yard or building mixed with rainwater and wash water and, in some cases, waste bedding and feed. Slurries can be pumped or discharged by gravity.
- Slurry includes muck effluent, seepage from manure and wash water.
- Solid manures include farmyard manure (FYM) and comprise material from straw-based housing systems, excreta with lots of straw/sawdust/woodchips in it, or solids from mechanical separators.
- Most poultry systems produce solid manure (litter).
- Solid manure can generally be stacked.
“Manure management plan” means the requirements described in Section 2.3 of SGN 6.09 How to Comply – Intensive Farming.
“Pests” means Birds, Vermin and Insects. “SGN How to comply – Intensive Farming” The EPR Sector Guidance Note 6.09 for intensive pig and poultry farmers, version 2 published January 2010.
"year" means calendar year ending 31 December.
Schedule 7 – Site plan – see Appendix 2 APPENDIX 2
Site Specific Conditions
Introductory note
This introductory note does not form a part of the Condition set
The conditions set out below are incorporated into this permit.
End of introductory note.
2 Operations
2.2 The site
2.2.1 The activities shall not extend beyond the site, being the land shown edged in green on the site plan at schedule 7 to this permit.
2.4 Pre-operational conditions
2.4.1 The activities shall not be brought into operation until the measures specified in schedule 1 table S1.3 have been completed.
Schedule 1 - Operations
| Table S1.1 activities | Description of specified activity | Limits of specified activity | |------------------------|-----------------------------------|-----------------------------| | Activity listed in Schedule 1 of the EP Regulations | Section 6.9 A(1)(a) Rearing of poultry or pigs intensively in an installation with more than 40,000 places for poultry. | The rearing of poultry in a broiler facility. | To house a maximum capacity of 100,000 birds. From receipt of birds, raw materials and fuels onto the site, to removal of birds and associated wastes from site. |
| Directly Associated Activity | Description of specified activity | Limits of specified activity | |-----------------------------|-----------------------------------|-----------------------------| | Exhaust Air Scrubbing plant | Treating of air ventilation from the poultry houses by wet scrubbing, including use of acid. | Storage of up to 200kg of acid. | | Dirty water tank | Storage of dirty water from washing of poultry houses. | Temporary storage of wash down water in an underground tank. | | Fuel storage | Storage of fuel oil for standby generator and incinerator. | Temporary storage of fuel for use in back up in two tanks. | | Chemical storage | Storage of chemicals for use on site | Temporary storage of chemicals necessary for operation of the installation. |
### Table S1.2 Operating techniques
| Description | Parts | Date Received | |--------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------| | Application PAN-000935 | Part B2 and B3 of the application and all referenced supporting documents. | 31/10/16 | | Application PAN-000935 | Odour management plan Penpound Farm Noise Management Plan, R Powell, Penpound Farm Poultry Unit | 31/10/16 | | Additional information received | Penpound Farm Ammonia Reduction Proposal | 23/08/17 |
### Table S1.3 Pre-operational measures
| Reference | Pre-operational measures | |-----------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | PO1 | A minimum of 10 days before the commencement of the activities listed in Table S1.1 of this schedule, the Operator shall submit written confirmation to Natural Resources Wales that the necessary procedures are in place for the operation of Ammonia scrubbing plant and that staff have received the necessary training. | | PO2 | Prior to the construction of the installation the recommendations, as far as they relate to amphibians and reptiles, described in the report entitled “Preliminary Ecological Appraisal - Penpound, Newbridge on Wye, Llandrindod Wells’ Powys” dated May 2017 shall be carried out. The outcome of these actions shall be confirmed in writing to Natural Resources Wales a minimum of 10 days before the commencement of the activities listed in Table S1.1 of this schedule. | Schedule 2 - Waste types, raw materials and fuels
| Table S2.1 Raw materials and fuels | |-----------------------------------| | Raw materials and fuel description | Specification | | None set | None set |
Schedule 3 – Emissions and Monitoring
| Table S3.2 Point source emissions to air – emission limits and monitoring requirements | |--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Emission point ref. & location | Parameter | Source | Limit (incl. unit) | Reference period | Monitoring frequency | Monitoring standard or method | |--------------------------------|-----------|--------|-------------------|------------------|---------------------|--------------------------| | Roof fan outlets on poultry houses 1 and 2 as shown on the site layout/ drainage plan in schedule 7 | None Set | Poultry houses 1 and 2 | None Set | None Set | None Set | None Set | | Air scrubbing units high velocity chimneys as shown on the site layout/ drainage plan in schedule 7 | Ammonia | Air scrubbing units at poultry houses 1 and 2 | None Set | One hour | Four per year or other frequency agreed in writing with Natural Resources Wales | BS EN 14791 | | Exhaust from generator as shown on the site layout/ drainage plan in schedule 7 | None Set | Generator | None Set | None Set | None Set | None Set | | Vent from oil tank as shown on the site layout/ drainage plan in schedule 7 | None Set | Diesel Tank | None Set | None Set | None Set | None Set |
### Table S3.3 Point Source emissions to water (other than sewer) – emission limits and monitoring requirements
| Emission point ref. & location | Parameter | Source | Limit (incl. unit) | Reference Period | Monitoring frequency | Monitoring standard or method | |-------------------------------|-----------|--------|--------------------|------------------|----------------------|-------------------------------| | Outlet from clean water drains discharging to ditch as shown on the site layout/drainage plan in schedule 7. | None set | Clean, uncontaminated rainwater draining from the roofs of poultry houses and yard area | None set | None set | None set | None set |
### Table S3.4 Point Source emissions to land – emission limits and monitoring requirements
| Emission point ref. & location | Parameter | Source | Limit (incl. unit) | Reference Period | Monitoring frequency | Monitoring standard or method | |-------------------------------|-----------|--------|--------------------|------------------|----------------------|-------------------------------| | None | None set | None | None set | None set | None set | None set |
### Table S3.5 Annual limits
| Substance | Medium | Limit (including unit) | |-----------|--------|------------------------| | Ammonia | Air | 340 kg (as NH₃) in a year |
### Table S3.6 Process monitoring requirements
| Emission point reference or source or description of point of measurement | Parameter | Monitoring frequency | Monitoring standard or method | Other specifications | |--------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------|----------------------|-------------------------------|----------------------| | Air scrubbing units high velocity chimneys as shown on the site layout/drainage plan in schedule 7 | NH₃ | Daily | None Set | None Set | Schedule 4 - Reporting
Parameters, for which reports shall be made, in accordance with conditions of this permit, are listed below.
| Table S4.1 Reporting of monitoring data | |----------------------------------------| | Parameter | Emission or monitoring point/reference | Reporting period | Period begins | | Ammonia | Scrubbing units | Annual | 01/04/18 |
| Table S4.2: Annual production/treatment | |----------------------------------------| | Parameter | Units | | Ammonia emissions to atmosphere | Kg | | Live birds removed from site | Birds |
| Table S4.3 Performance parameters | |-----------------------------------| | Parameter | Frequency of assessment | Units | | Ammonia | Annually | kg NH₃/animal place/year | | Total Nitrogen excreted | Annually | kg N excreted/animal place/year | | Total Phosphorus excreted | Annually | kg P₂O₅ excreted/animal place/year |
| Table S4.4 Reporting forms | |---------------------------| | Media/parameter | Reporting format | Date of form | | kg N excreted/animal place/year and kg P₂O₅ excreted/animal place/year | Form N&P Excretion 1 or other form as agreed in writing by Natural Resources Wales | DD/MM/YY | | kg NH₃/animal place/year and Ammonia monitoring And Ammonia emissions to atmosphere | Form Air 1 or other form as agreed in writing by Natural Resources Wales | DD/MM/YY | Schedule 7 - Site plan
Site plan
© Crown Copyright and database right 2017. Ordnance Survey licence number 100019741. Site layout/drainage plan (not to scale):
END OF PERMIT Permit Number: EPR/AB3496HZ Operator: Mr Raymond Powell Facility: Penpound Poultry Unit Form Number: Form N&P Excretion 1 / 13/06/17
Reporting of emissions for the period from **DD/MM/YYYY** to **DD/MM/YYYY**
| Emission Point | Substance / Parameter | Source | Emission Limit Value | Reference Period | Result | Test Method | |----------------|-----------------------|--------|----------------------|------------------|--------|-------------| | Broilers | Nitrogen (N) | Excreted | 0.6 kg N /animal place | Per Year | | Calculation by using a mass balance of nitrogen and phosphorus based on the feed intake, dietary content of crude protein, total phosphorus and animal performance or Estimation by using manure analysis for total nitrogen and total phosphorus content | | Phosphorus (as P₂O₅) | Excreted | 0.25 kg/P₂O₅ /animal place | Per Year | | As above |
Signed ……………………………………………………………. Date……………………….
(Authorised to sign as representative of Operator) Permit Number: EPR/AB3496HZ Operator: Mr Raymond Powell Facility: Penpound Poultry Unit Form Number: Air1 / 13/06/17
**Reporting of emissions for the period from DD/MM/YYYY to DD/MM/YYYY**
| Emission Point | Substance / Parameter | Source | Emission Limit Value | Reference Period | Result | Test Method | |----------------|-----------------------|--------|----------------------|------------------|--------|-------------| | Broilers | Ammonia (as NH₃) | Animal House | 0.08 kg NH₃ /animal place | Per Year | | Estimation by using emission factors | | Scrubbing units chimneys | Ammonia (as NH₃) | Scrubbing Units | None Set | One hour | | BS EN 14791 | | Scrubbing units chimneys | Ammonia (as NH₃) | Scrubbing Units | 340 Kg/annum | Per year | | Calculation verified by sample analysis and process monitoring |
Signed ……………………………………………………………. Date………………………
(Authorised to sign as representative of Operator)
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/4566-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 28,
"total-input-tokens": 56152,
"total-output-tokens": 10142,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
222,
1
],
[
222,
2201,
2
],
[
2201,
2891,
3
],
[
2891,
4462,
4
],
[
4462,
6826,
5
],
[
6826,
9152,
6
],
[
9152,
11984,
7
],
[
11984,
14156,
8
],
[
14156,
16977,
9
],
[
16977,
18343,
10
],
[
18343,
20394,
11
],
[
20394,
22104,
12
],
[
22104,
23291,
13
],
[
23291,
23647,
14
],
[
23647,
25489,
15
],
[
25489,
27172,
16
],
[
27172,
29988,
17
],
[
29988,
30224,
18
],
[
30224,
32149,
19
],
[
32149,
34242,
20
],
[
34242,
35758,
21
],
[
35758,
37651,
22
],
[
37651,
38991,
23
],
[
38991,
38991,
24
],
[
38991,
39111,
25
],
[
39111,
39168,
26
],
[
39168,
40171,
27
],
[
40171,
41119,
28
]
]
} |
eb24bb603d481c6c7d98ecd5acbf480f72ea5382 | Overview and Scrutiny Committee
Briefing paper – Serious Acquisitive Crime
Background
All crime levels in Northampton have fluctuated considerably over the past five years. Rates were relatively stable between March 2011 and March 2013, but a significant reduction in all recorded crime followed until March 2014. All crime has risen steadily since then with March 2016 seeing similar levels of recorded crime as in March 2011. Most aspects of the local picture generally reflect national crime trends, with some common patterns due to key changes in police recording of crime. The Police recorded 4.4 million offences nationally in the year ending December 2015 which was an increase of over 7.0% in comparison to the previous year when just over 4.1 million offences were recorded. 39 of the 44 forces of saw an increase in total recorded crimes.
Serious Acquisitive Crime (SAC) is a crime group consisting of theft from and theft of motor vehicles, domestic burglary and robbery offences (personal and business). There have been fluctuations in levels of SAC over the last five years. There was a steady increase in SAC offences recorded between mid-2011 and February 2013 (+30.5% / +953 offences). Strong reductions were seen in the following two and a half years and by August 2015 SAC offences had reduced by over 40% (-1647 crimes). Rates of SAC have since begun to rise with an increase of 46% (+1,239 crimes) when comparing 2016/17 to 2015/16, which has largely been attributed to an increase in vehicle offences.
Figures for 2016/17 are, 2087 thefts from vehicle, 437 thefts of vehicle, 277 robberies and 1029 domestic burglaries. In total a 45.3% increase in Serious Acquisitive Crime
www.northampton.gov.uk/scrutiny Call 01604 837046 or 01604 837408 E-mail: [email protected] Facts & Actions
- Gender is a significant factor within the SAC offender cohort, with males being by far the most likely to commit acquisitive offences. Comparatively, gender doesn’t appear to be such a key indicator in relation to victims, as the gender split between males and females becomes more aligned.
- Offenders are most likely to be aged 15-19 years for all three crime types within SAC, however, victims are more likely to be within a wider age group of 20-49 years.
- Robbery is the only crime type where offending peaks at a particular age group with 15-19 year olds most likely to be victims of robbery offences.
- Mixed race ethnicities are significantly overrepresented in the offender cohort in comparison to the general population where as white other, black and Asian ethnic groups all account for a greater percentage of victims in comparison to their population sizes within Northampton.
- There is a well evidenced link between serious acquisitive crime and illegal drug use, with daily users likely to be responsible for half of all serious acquisitive crime in an area. That said, recent analysis of those arrested for serious acquisitive crime offences indicates that there has been an increase in non-drug users being arrested, suggesting perhaps that the economic recession may be impacting additionally on serious acquisitive crime rate.
- Given that a significant proportion of residential burglars gain access through open windows and unlocked doors, our approach to tackling burglary involves large scale public education about how to reduce risk and prevent burglary. We also undertake a programme of property marking and target hardening of vulnerable households, including those that are victims of burglary in order to prevent re-victimisation. This approach is further support by partnership Weeks of Action in priority locations.
- Focus is also placed on ensuring that drug offenders involved in burglary are prioritised for attention by drug treatment providers and the management of offenders is supported through improving access to housing and employment opportunities.
- Targeting of known serious acquisitive crime offenders continues, with a number of successful arrests and prosecutions being achieved this year.
- Early intervention work with young people and their families is key in addressing youth crime. A multi-agency Early Intervention Hub is being piloted in the east of Northampton. The purpose of the ‘Hib’ is to make contact with young people at risk of involvement in crime and gang related activity, to engage with them and their families, providing support and diverting them into other more constructive pursuits.
- Work with known young offenders to reduce their likelihood of re-offending is led by the Youth Offending Service. Key areas of focus have included: working with parents and other family members to improve outcomes for young offenders; ensuring that young offenders are engaged meaningfully in education, training or employment; and working to improve their sense of identity.
- Tackling vehicle crime is largely restricted to public information campaigns warning of the dangers on leaving vehicles unlocked with property on display. In addition, Car Safe operations, supported by high visibility patrols are being run in hot spot locations.
Conclusion
Serious Acquisitive Crime still remains a priority for the Community Safety Partnership, and partners continue to work together to tackle the underlying issues.
Debbie Ferguson Community Safety Manager
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/4567-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 3,
"total-input-tokens": 7008,
"total-output-tokens": 1272,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
1804,
1
],
[
1804,
4653,
2
],
[
4653,
5349,
3
]
]
} |
fbd22194cd908992648fc49f3f3747a35b202fe5 | 1. Purpose
1.1 To inform Cabinet of the Council’s performance for monthly performance indicators for December 2008 and quarterly for September to December 2008.
2. Recommendations
2.1 That Cabinet note the contents of the report.
3. Issues and Choices
3.1 Report Background
3.1.1. Performance data is collected across a range of Best Value Performance Indicators (BVPI’s) and locally developed indicators. Most BVPI’s are collected monthly, with others collected either quarterly or annually. The reporting of BVPI’s together with a small number of locally determined indicators forms the basis of our performance monitoring process.
3.1.2. Performance data is available by the 20th of the following month; this allows for data to be transferred onto our database and quality assured to ensure that data quality standards are met. This report summarises monthly and quarterly performance data for December and September- December 2008. 3.2 Overall Performance
Monthly Indicators
- 58% of indicators have ‘green’ status and have achieved target, compared to 64% last month.
- 8% of indicators have ‘amber’ status and have performed just below target but within the agreed tolerance, compared to 3% last month.
- 31% of indicators have ‘red’ status, have not achieved target and are outside the agreed tolerance, no change against last month
- 3% of indicators have no status this month, as no data was available
- 64% of all monthly indicators show improved performance against the same time last year, compared to 61% last month.
Quarterly Indicators
Due to the implementation of a new IT system, a significant number of measures could not be reported during this quarter. Therefore, the summary figures below will not be representative of true performance over the period and should be read in that context. Please also refer to section 3.3 below.
- 15.5% of indicators have ‘green’ status and have achieved target, compared to 34% last quarter.
- 12.5% of indicators have ‘amber’ status and have performed just below target but within the agreed tolerance, compared to 6% last quarter.
- 50% of indicators have ‘red’ status, have not achieved target and are outside the agreed tolerance compared to 53% last quarter
- 22% of indicators have no status this month, as no data was available
- 16% of all quarterly indicators show improved performance against the same time last year, compared to 34% last quarter.
Notable performance trends across all monthly and quarterly performance data for December and September–December 2008 include:
Performance Improvement:
Neighbourhood Environmental Services
- Targets are being exceeded in 69% of indicators (9 of 13);
- 100% of flytips have been removed within 2 days for the sixth consecutive month (ELPI 5);
- 100% of missed collections were put right within 24 hours for the ninth consecutive month (ELPI 10);
- The number of kilograms of household waste collected per head has reduced for the third consecutive month, with a 23% reduction since September 2008. This months performance represents the lowest number of kilograms collected this reporting year (BV 84a);
- 100% of new reports of abandoned vehicles were investigated within 24 hours of notification. The overall performance for this indicator is now 4.1% above target (BV 218a); Public Protection
- Three of the monthly indicators have improved when compared to the same time last year and are achieving the annual target to date. The remaining indicator shows equal performance over the same period;
- The number of violent crimes per year, per 1,000 population to date has reduced by 15% when compared to the same time last year (BV 127a);
- The number of vehicles crimes per year has dropped to 0.9 (per 1,000 population). This is the lowest figure reported this year (BV 128);
Revenues and Benefits
- 75% (6 of 8) of indicators are currently exceeding their targets. Another indicator, Percentage of non domestic rates due for the year which were received by the authority, is within the agreed tolerance;
- 88% (7 of 8) of indicators have improved performance when compared to the same time last year;
- The speed of processing new claims and change in circumstances has improved with reductions in time taken of 42% and 34% respectively, compared to the same time last year (BV 78a & BV 78b);
Planning
- 100% (3 out of 3) of comparable monthly indicators show improvement when compared to the same time last year. The new National Indicator that divides large and small scale major applications cannot be compared (NI 157a LM and NI 157a SM);
- Targets are being exceeded in 80% (4 out of 5) of the planning monthly indicators, the exception being small scale major applications (NI 157a & b, NI 157c and PLI 188);
- If current performance levels are maintained for both “minor” and “other” planning applications for the rest of the year, it is likely that the Council will be performing amongst the top 25% of authorities within the country (NI 157b and NI 157c);
Landlord Services
- The proportion of Council House rent collected in December was the highest of the year so far, at 111.36%. Rent income collection includes the collection of current rent due and rent arrears from previous months. The amount of total arrears is being reduced however; the percentage of current rent collected has fallen. Seasonal activity and the effects of the current economic climate are both likely to have impacted on this indicator performance during this period
- The percentage of local tenants with more than 7 weeks (gross) rent arrears reduced to the lowest level since April 2008. (BV66b).
Performance Deterioration:
Neighbourhood Environmental Services
- 88.89% (162 of 169) of abandoned vehicles were removed within 24 hours from the point at which the Authority is legally entitled to remove the vehicle. This fell below 90% in the month, for only the second time this reporting year. Overall performance in this indicator is still above target (BV218b);
- The highest number of missed collections was reported in December. The implementation of Route Smart in June 2008 and the rise in contaminated recycling boxes has impacted on performance of this indicator. (ELPI 6); Public Protection
- The number of domestic burglaries per year, per 1,000 households increased in December. This is consistent with the seasonal trend however; the current economic climate may also be impacting on this measure. Current overall performance is the same as this time last year. Current performance has already exceeded the annual target of 13.9 (BV 126);
Culture & Leisure
- All three indicators are performing below target. Updated guidance requiring staff and contractor visits to be removed from this indicator calculation has impacted on results. This was not known at the time the target was agreed. Benchmarking work with neighbouring authorities has highlighted a similar downturn in numbers of pupils visiting museums and galleries in organised school groups. (BV 170a, 170b and 170c);
Revenues & Benefits
- All quarterly Housing Benefit measures are failing to meet their target. Three have deteriorated in performance since last quarter, the number of fraud investigators employed per 1,000 caseload, housing benefit overpayments recovered and the accuracy of processing benefit claims. (BV 76b, BV76bi, BV79a);
Planning
- The two quarterly indicators are performing below target, deteriorating in performance against last quarter and last year;
- Performance of planning appeals allowed against the authority’s decision to refuse planning applications has deteriorated over the last quarter. An interim Development Control Manager has been appointed to improve performance. (BV 204);
Housing service
- The percentage of tenants evicted as a result of rent arrears increased compared to last month and is the third highest figure of the year so far. The level of evictions is due to the targeting of wilful non-payers. Action is being taken to reach agreements to pay debts rather than undertake enforcement action in instances where tenants wish to resolve their debt. (BV66d).
3.3 Data Quality The Council has processes in place to ensure that the data and information it provides to support management decision-making is as reliable as possible. The Council has a strategy to improve data quality and service areas are working to achieve the objectives within it. This is closely linked to the Council’s risk assessment processes and is monitored monthly as part of the Council’s Performance Management Framework.
Current Key Risks and Issues;
The recent upgrade to the Agresso system is being closely monitored and reports enabling data to be reported have yet to be created tested and validated to ensure data quality. This is a significant issue at this time of the year due to the need to calculate and validate final outturn data in April 2009.
3.4 Choices (Options) None. 4. Implications (including financial implications)
4.1 Policy None.
4.2 Resources and Risk Failure to deliver performance in line with targets exposes the council to reputation risk and impacts on improvement progress.
4.3 Legal None.
4.4 Equality None.
4.5 Consultees (Internal and External) Internal – Performance data is published across the Council External – The Lead Official; Audit Commission; partners; publication of performance data on our website.
4.6 How the Proposals deliver Priority Outcomes Improvement Plan – Performance management, including the monitoring of data, is a key priority in the Improvement Plan
Corporate Plan – Performance management, including the monitoring of data, is critical in ensuring the Corporate Plan objectives are delivered.
4.7 Other Implications None
5. Background Papers
5.1 Monthly Performance Report for December 2008, Quarterly Performance Report for September- December 2008
Dale Robertson, Head of Performance & Improvement Performance & Improvement - Ext 7110
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/4568-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 5,
"total-input-tokens": 13017,
"total-output-tokens": 2460,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
943,
1
],
[
943,
3306,
2
],
[
3306,
6210,
3
],
[
6210,
8923,
4
],
[
8923,
9947,
5
]
]
} |
9688335736564f589bc2135b1260e22aab666094 | Performance How do you know your council is performing well in adult social care? Why do you need to know?
Councils are responsible for their own performance and for leading the delivery of improved outcomes for local people in their area. Lead members will want to enable their councils to perform well in adult social care and to manage any risk.
Councils have the best chance of improving their services when they understand their own strengths and areas for improvement and take steps to deal with any problems.
Sector-led improvement (SLI) is the approach to improvement put in place by local authorities, and sector-led improvement in adult social care has been proactively embraced.
How do you know your council is performing well in adult social care?
Getting the culture right Effective performance management works best in a culture in which individuals and groups take responsibility for the continuous improvement of services, and are prepared to be open with each other. In an open culture, it is also possible to learn from mistakes. As lead member, you can give a lead in promoting and modelling this culture.
You will wish to work with other authorities in your region to compare your performance and to share good practice around improvement. Peer challenges arranged by the Local Government Association (LGA) or within the region form a significant part of the sector-led approach to improving and performance managing services, including adult social care.
Getting the systems right Performance management, and the reporting systems and data on which it is based, can help elected members and chief officers to ensure the quality and effectiveness of their council’s work and allows the public to make judgements about services.
Each council will have a system for managing performance throughout the organisation. If performance management is to work well the links between the different parts of the system need to be strong – and everyone needs to trust each other. To foster this, a good way to approach performance indicators is to be “curious” rather than judgemental.
The current financial pressures mean that local authorities need to reconfigure services fundamentally to achieve the budget reductions required of them while continuing to provide the best possible quality of care: achieving the best possible outcomes, as efficiently as possible. Ideally, your performance management systems should support this by measuring whether value for money is being achieved both for the people who receive care and support and those that care for them, and for the wider community.
You will need to ensure that your council has robust management information and quality assurance systems. This does include up-to-date and user-friendly IT systems. Investment in IT systems can seem hard to afford – but can ultimately save money, if it helps staff to be more efficient and helps the council to understand its business better. Poor quality data (due to poor day-to-day recording) is one of the things that most hampers good performance management.
You might notice that some of the evidence and indicators raise more questions than they answer. It is sometimes necessary to use measures or performance indicators that are ‘proxies’ for longer term outcomes - or which give only rough clues that something may not be working well. In some cases there is no easy way to assess the current situation – and some final outcomes will only emerge in the long term. On some occasions, you might decide to arrange or commission a bespoke investigation – to dive more deeply into something you feel concerned about.
Measuring progress Service transformation and innovation means new organisational and cross-organisational structures have been created in social care. Performance management can be a tool for assessing progress towards collaboration and integration across council services, with public health and the NHS.
It will also help in getting a vital understanding of other organisations’ performance drivers, risks and how they link in with local government.
In adult social care, promoting closer integration with the NHS is a statutory duty of health and wellbeing boards. The health and wellbeing board can be a useful forum to establish common objectives and benchmarks that will be collectively monitored and assured across services and with the NHS. Your local Better Care Fund (BCF) plan is likely to be the most important plan in this respect – and standardised monitoring reports will be available.
This requires better integration in performance management between adult social care, children’s services, public health and NHS programmes – and also the need for a place-based approach drawing on all the services available in an area.
The Care Act 2014 also requires councils to exercise their functions under the legislation with, “a view to ensuring the integration of care and support provision with health provision and health-related provision” where so doing promotes the wellbeing of people with care needs and their carers, contributes to prevention, or improves quality.
The Care Act also seeks to embed a culture of person-centered care, with the aim being to enable people to live independently for as long as possible. Your performance framework should measure how well your council is embedding the principles and overarching objectives of the reform of social care and not just the not just implementing the process and structural changes outlined in the Act.
All of this requires the need for a place-based approach drawing on all the services available in an area - and thus better integration in performance management between adult social care, children’s services, public health and NHS programmes.
Sector led improvement is based on the underlying principles that local authorities are:
- responsible for their own performance
- accountable locally, not nationally
- have a sense of collective responsibility for the performance of the sector as a whole.
To achieve the above, councils should collaborate through sharing of best practice, and actively welcome peer support and benchmarking. The role of the Local Government Association (LGA) is to provide tools and support for sector-led improvement. For more information on these, see the resources below.
### Key messages
**Fully engage with the sector-led improvement programme and its networking and learning opportunities through your director with responsibility for adult social care (DASS), in your lead member regional network and other regional forums.**
**Champion a culture of openness and continuous learning and improvement – and above all, a culture that listens to people’s own views and experience. Specifically:**
- develop a good working relationship with your local Healthwatch organisation
- keep up to date with changes to the Care Quality Commission and the regulatory framework for social care
- see complaints and safeguarding referrals as a way of gaining views from your community on how to improve services.
**Be aware of the potential risks facing adult social care, ensure these are reflected in your corporate risk register, know what is being done to mitigate them and take them fully into account in your decision making.**
**Develop an understanding of the key available data to be confident about performance and the risks to performance.** In particular, understand how your expenditure, costs and financial pressures compare with others. (See Further Resources below for the risk awareness tool and the advisory tool on risk developed by the Association of Directors of Adult Social Care (ADASS) and the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy (Cipfa)).
Be partnership-oriented. Understand, in particular, how the performance of adult social care and NHS services are dependent on each other, and that there is a shared imperative to prevent health problems and to support people in their own homes ie containing admissions to ‘institutional’ services like hospitals and nursing homes. (See also the ‘Must Know’ on integration.)
Be aware of key areas of performance for your local NHS – especially those which Adult Social Care can help to address. This includes emergency admissions to hospital, delayed discharges from hospital, and the success of reablement and rehabilitation services that promote people’s recovery after a hospital episode.
Focus on the outcomes for people who use services and their carers and on their own experience, as enshrined in the Care Act. There are many ways of doing this but the Adult Social Care Outcomes Framework (ASCOF) indicators, most of which are based on annual customer surveys, are a good starting point.
Ensure that your and your partners’ commissioning strategy is outcomes-based, ie that providers you commission are assessed on the basis of outcomes they achieve for your service users and their carers.
Your council officers should be producing robust ‘market position statements’. These will help you understand the social care and housing markets in your area and how they may need to change in response to changing need.
Understand councils’ responsibilities in relation to the safeguarding of vulnerable adults, and the principles of the LGA’s ‘Making safeguarding personal’ (see Useful links).
Ensure you have access to the views of frontline staff, partners, providers, service users and carers on your current strengths and areas for development – and use your local knowledge and networks to drill beneath the data.
Be aware of the pressures that might be facing your front-line staff, and ensure this is monitored. For example, ask about how long people wait for an initial assessment, how long it takes to arrange people’s care packages, and how regularly people are reviewed.
Be aware of the main health and social problems affecting your community, which might impact the demand for adult social care. Understand how ‘social’ factors like poverty, poor housing and social isolation might be contributing to these problems. Explore how Public Health is seeking to address these issues – and how a ‘joined up’ approach might be beneficial.
Develop a good working relationship with your council’s scrutiny function for social care which may include a remit for health (see the Must Know on working with scrutiny). Questions to consider
Questions you may wish to consider when exploring how well your council is performing in adult social care:
• How do you know how well adult social care services are doing in your authority?
• How often do you discuss performance and finance with the director and her/his senior management team? Do you regularly discuss strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats and risks to services?
• Do you understand the reports on performance and finance you receive or could they be presented in a more comprehensible format and language?
• Do you meet with other Cabinet members within the region (and with other directors)? What are you learning from them about best practice elsewhere and how your council’s performance compares?
• Do you understand and discuss with your director the financial challenges faced by adult social care over the next four years including the impact of increasing demand and the possible ways in which adult social care could make further savings in line with corporate savings targets? Do you understand how savings might impact on service users and carers?
• What are service users and carers saying to you about performance of adult social care? How do you involve them in reviewing services?
• Are you clear what you would want to say to opposition members, the public, the local NHS about the performance of adult social care?
• Are you clear about your duties under the Care Act and how it is being implemented in your authority?
• How do you work with your local Safeguarding Adults Board to identify safeguarding risks and how they are addressed, and to agree common objectives and outcomes and monitor progress towards them?
• How do you monitor and assess progress towards integration with the NHS and achieve added value through collaboration with public health and other council departments? Is there more you can do to develop a cross-departmental and cross-sectoral approach to performance management?
• Are you making the best use possible of LG Inform the LGA’s free and interactive online reporting and comparison tool based on council areas? www.local.gov.uk/our-support/benchmarking-data-lg-inform
• There is a range of LGA reports available on the tool, across health, wellbeing and social care themes: www.local.gov.uk/our-support/benchmarking-data-lg-inform What further resources are available?
Key resources The Association of Directors of Adult Social Care (ADASS) worked with the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy (CIPFA) to develop an Advisory Risk Tool to help councils assess their financial risks: www.cipfa.org/socialrisktool
A range of LGA programmes seek to help your council make efficiency savings and generate income. A specific programme on health and adult social care efficiency includes information on efficiency opportunities in integration, public health, commissioning, adult social care and learning disabilities: www.local.gov.uk/our-support/efficiency-and-income-generation/care-and-health-efficiency
The LGA adult social care risk awareness tool supports health and care system leaders in targeting limited resources on the right issues in social care and identifying mitigating action to address their most pressing risks: www.local.gov.uk/our-support/our-improvement-offer/care-and-health-improvement/financial-and-sustainability-risks/managing-risk
The Towards Excellence in Adult Social Care (TEASC) programme (now ended) and Think Local Act Personal (TLAP) programmes produced a self-assessment toolkit in 2014 to enable councils to assess to what extent they are making best use of resources in adult social care: www.local.gov.uk/our-support/our-improvement-offer/care-and-health-improvement/financial-and-sustainability-risks/managing-risk/self-assessment-toolkit
Adult Social Care Outcomes Framework (ASCOF) indicators has data for your own authority: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/375431/ASCOF_15-16.pdf
Key data tools and resources: www.local.gov.uk/our-support/our-improvement-offer/care-and-health-improvement/information-tools-and-resources
General resources in care and health
Care and health efficiency: www.local.gov.uk/our-support/efficiency-and-income-generation/care-and-health-efficiency
Care and health improvement: www.local.gov.uk/our-support/our-improvement-offer/care-and-health-improvement
Informatics and integration: www.local.gov.uk/topics/social-care-health-and-integration/informatics
Financial and sustainability risks: www.local.gov.uk/our-support/our-improvement-offer/care-and-health-improvement/financial-and-sustainability-risks
Market shaping and commissioning: www.local.gov.uk/our-support/our-improvement-offer/care-and-health-improvement/care-and-support-reform/implementation/general-duties/market-shaping
Resources on integration: www.local.gov.uk/our-support/our-improvement-offer/care-and-health-improvement/integration-and-better-care-fund
Leadership of health and wellbeing: www.local.gov.uk/our-support/our-improvement-offer/care-and-health-improvement/health-and-wellbeing-systems
Lead member development opportunities: www.local.gov.uk/lead-member-development
Public health and prevention: www.local.gov.uk/topics/social-care-health-and-integration/public-health Safeguarding:\
www.local.gov.uk/topics/social-care-health-and-integration/adult-social-care/safeguarding-resources
Sector led improvement:\
www.local.gov.uk/our-support/our-improvement-offer
Sustainable funding for adult social care:\
www.local.gov.uk/topics/social-care-health-and-integration/adult-social-care
Systems resilience\
www.local.gov.uk/our-support/our-improvement-offer/care-and-health-improvement/systems-resilience
Principal advisers are the LGA’s focal point for discussions with councils about their improvement needs and the support available:\
www.local.gov.uk/our-support/lga-principal-advisers
Related ‘Must Knows’
How do you know you are making progress in the personalisation of adult social care?
How do you know your council is actively promoting integration of health and social care?
How do you know your council is being effective in keeping people safe?
How do you know you are making the best use of scarce resources?
How do you know that you are implementing care and support reforms effectively?
How do you know you are getting the most out of your relationship with health overview and scrutiny?
www.local.gov.uk/topics/social-care-health-and-integration/adult-social-care/must-knows-lead-members-adult-social-care
Updated April 2017
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/4569-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 8,
"total-input-tokens": 16492,
"total-output-tokens": 3657,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
82,
1
],
[
82,
3791,
2
],
[
3791,
7405,
3
],
[
7405,
10363,
4
],
[
10363,
12705,
5
],
[
12705,
15666,
6
],
[
15666,
16951,
7
],
[
16951,
16951,
8
]
]
} |
685cf384ab9df250c56e6e555842030de9687209 | | CONTENTS | | |------------------------------------------------------------------------|---| | Foreword | 3 | | Executive Summary | 4 | | Food Hygiene Rating System | 5 | | Meat Food Business Operator Compliance | 6 | | Delivering our Corporate Priorities | 7-10 | | Forward Look | 11| | Making the FSA a Great Place to Work – Staff & Attrition | 12| | Making the FSA a Great Place to Work – Sickness | 13| | FSA Food Safety Week | 14| | FSA Key Messages and Media Coverage | 15| | Finance – Spend against HM Treasury Limits | 16| | Finance – Key Areas of Spend | 17| | Finance – Investment in the 2015-2020 Strategic Plan | 18| | Appendix | 19| The FSA’s Performance in the 2nd Quarter against of 2018/19 saw good progress being made against the 3 strategic priorities set by the Board.
On EU Exit, the FSA’s 1st strategic priority, we continue to make good progress on delivery of our EU Exit plans which are designed to ensure food and feed safety is not compromised when the UK exits the EU under any terms of exit. We are two thirds through the recruitment of our enhanced workforce to increase our capacity and expertise across risk assessment, risk management, import controls, incident handling, surveillance and food crime and are in the process of agreeing additional office accommodation in Birmingham. While the majority of our work is progressing very well, some challenges remain and where there are risks to delivery, related to where the FSA is dependent on other departments, we are developing contingency plans that could be implemented in the event that any critical part of a plan does not deliver on time in a no deal scenario. The FSA continues to work closely with other government departments and the Devolved Administrations in progressing its EU Exit delivery plans. Very recently the FSA submitted a bid for EU Exit funding into 2019/20 and we expect to receive a response on this during November.
The FSA’s 2nd strategic priority, Regulating Our Future (ROF) programme continues to make good progress with the ROF digital service. In September the digital service marked a significant milestone, going live with 6 of the LAs participating in the Private Beta. On 25th September we received our first digital registration of a food business. Work continues to drive wider adoption to achieve the target of 40 LAs using the beta service before the end of March 2019, and the subsequent launch of a ‘live’ Minimal Viable Service prior to leaving the EU. In parallel, the team are continuing to work on exploring Primary Authority national inspection strategies for food. In September we published both the evaluation of our pathfinder work with 6 PA partnerships and a set of draft standards to govern the development and operation of national inspection strategies, and of FSA oversight. Next steps are to work with a small number of partnerships as part of phased go live to test and develop the draft standards.
As part of the FSA’s 3rd Strategic Priority this quarter we have included new slides (slide 14 and 15) on Trust in the FSA in relation to our communications, campaigns and media activities. Food Safety Week (slide 14) was held 4-10 June 2018 (reporting completed in Q2). The week focused on raising awareness and understanding of the FSA by showcasing various individuals and their role in ensuring food is safe and what it says it is. The approach to this year was different to previous as we focused on ‘story telling’. We invested in creating good quality, digitally focused content, which proved successful in terms of high engagement rates (especially when tailored to specific countries). The investment in this area represented value for money as we have gone on to use the content at other events e.g. Board Meetings, Parliamentary reception and recruitment for new posts. The breadth of the week also allowed a range of partners to get involved in the week, resulting in an increase in terms of % engagement from partners. Using a more involving approach is key to building relationships and trust.
The FSA is successfully managing its resources to well within all key HM treasury limits, with no overspends. Investment in, and delivery of, both EU Exit and ROF remains on track. The FSA continues to drive efficiency and to improve value for money. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OUR PERFORMANCE IN Q2 2018/19
98.4% meat FBOs rated Satisfactory or above for compliance
69.2% of total food businesses achieved an FHRS rating of 5 (‘very good’)
50% Reach in Q2 to UK Adults was 50% or more for the top three topics FHRS, Allergens and Young People’s Allergy
71 Articles generated in Food Safety Week Reached 22% of UK Adults
100% Total positive Media coverage for Food Safety Week 2018 % of food businesses within the scope of FHRS achieving FHRS rating of ‘5 – very good’ (England, Wales and Northern Ireland consolidated)
% of food businesses within the scope of FHRS achieving FHRS rating of 2 or lower (England, Wales and Northern Ireland consolidated)
% of food businesses within the scope of FHRS with a rating of 5 as at September 30th 2018 by country
Northern Ireland: 77.0% Wales: 67.0% England: 69.0%
Increase of 5 ratings since Q1
Increase since Q1
0% points Number of Meat FBOs rated ‘good’ (England, Wales and Northern Ireland consolidated)
- Sep-17: 54.35%
- Dec-17: 54.35%
- Mar-18: 54.35%
- Jun-18: 54.35%
- Sep-18: 54.35%
Number of Meat FBOs rated ‘improvement necessary’ or ‘urgent improvement necessary’ (England, Wales and Northern Ireland consolidated)
- Sep-17: 1.27%
- Dec-17: 1.27%
- Mar-18: 1.27%
- Jun-18: 1.27%
- Sep-18: 1.27%
Progress towards ambition for year one 25% reduction in improvement and urgent improvement necessary FBO’s
- Ambition: 25% reduction from June 2018 to June 2019
- Jun-17: 60
- Jun-18: 58.73
- Jun-19: 58.41
1. More FBO in improvement and urgent improvement necessary category’s compared to end of Q1
0.1% decrease in FBO’s rated satisfactory or above since Q1
## DELIVERING OUR CORPORATE PRIORITIES
### EU Exit – Preparing for all Scenarios
| Imports | Apr – Jun 18 | Jul – Sep 18 | Oct – Dec 18 | Jan – Mar 19 | |---------|--------------|--------------|--------------|--------------| | Changes to business processes for import controls identified | Pre-Notification (EU High Risk products) principles agreed X-Govt | Recruitment for additional FSA capacity started | Resource available to enable ports / FSA to deliver new processes | Start date for Pre-Notification confirmed by DEFRA. | Additional FSA imports capacity in place | Systems and process for MVP in place | Law is ready to underpin import control regime | | Incidents | Solution build for handling food alerts started | Recruitment for additional capacity started | Stakeholder strategy implemented | Start date for Pre-Notification confirmed by DEFRA. | Solution in place for handling food alerts | Additional FSA incidents capacity in place | Roles and responsibilities clear for incident handling | Law is ready to enable incident response / action | | Legal Consequences | Inoperabilities identified | Fixing SI’s Drafted (extends through to Sep) | Consultations started | Parliamentary process started | Consultations complete | Parliamentary process complete | Law is ready to underpin regulatory regime from Day 1 | | Risk Assessment | Day 1 Lab capacity in place | Recruitment for additional FSA capacity started | Additional FSA RA capacity in place | Scientific committees expanded | Risk Communication methods agreed | Risk Assm’t Principles in place | Law is ready to underpin RA responsibilities | | Risk Management | XGovt agreement to RM proposals | Ministerial response to RM proposals | Shadow Regulatory Forum established | Governance for decision making developed | Process for decision making developed | Resources in place to undertake new responsibilities | FSA Board Agreement to Governance & Process | Food Safety RM Forum Operational (in shadow form) | Law is ready to underpin RM responsibilities | | Surveillance | Specific case studies agreed | Methods & process in place | | | | Case studies completed | Successful outputs operationalised | | Enhanced Registration | Discovery complete | Alpha complete | Private Beta Complete | FBOs understand requirements | Public Beta complete | | Enhanced Reg System Live | | NFCU | HMT approved business case | FSA Board Approval | NFCU Recruitment Launched | Senior Management recruited | Middle Management recruited | Staff Trained | Case Management System live | Law ready to allow full range of activity | | Exports | New Health Mark agreed by FSA | Informal consultation with industry | Plan in place for listing premises with EC. | Consultation on health marks complete | | Industry / Officials understand requirements | Replacement meat stamps issued | DELIVERING OUR CORPORATE PRIORITIES
Q2 2018/19 (July - Sept)
Policy Development
- PA NIS pathfinder report & FSA Standards published
- Developed business rules for food standards
- Developed business options assessment for migration of existing food business data
- Set up tender for establishment survey
FHRS
- Launched Beta testing of new service with 1st group of LA’s
- Started to develop standard API for new service
- Initiate the options assessment for migration of existing food business data
Development of Data & Digital service
- Scoping paper for FSA Board
- Initiate the options assessment for migration of existing food business data
Sustainable funding
- Delivered
Change Management
- Engagement with a small group of LA food leads to assess change readiness
- Develop the change strategy
Operating Model (field operations)
- Mobilisation workshop with SME’s
- Seek agreement with Meat OC supplier to invoke extension
- Operating model options developed
- Rescheduled for Q3 \*
Future proof contractual arrangements
- Food standards: Publish report establishing current practice
- Food standards: Publish report establishing current practice
- Lessons Learned from Current Contract Options
- Delivered
Key
- Delivered to schedule
- Off track but no overall delay anticipated
- Off track DELIVERING OUR CORPORATE PRIORITIES
Q2 2018/19 (July - Sept)
- API Strategy developed
- Delivered
- Blockchain for red meat evaluation
- Delivered
- Digital workplace live
- Delivered
- Content strategy delivered
- Delivered
- Process design enhancement
- Delivered
- ‘Imports’ Work package concluded
- Delivered
Q3 2018/19
- Raw Drinking Milk Discovery data services and notifications
- Delivery underway
- Assessment of GDPR compliance
- Rescheduled for Q3 \*
- Pivigo work on data linking
- Delivered
For amber or red milestones see appendix for explanation DELIVERING OUR CORPORATE PRIORITIES
Q2 2018/19 (July - Sept)
- Develop pay model and determine the submission approach with EMT
- Delivered
- Skills Capability Plan (Phase 1) – key skills top 3 areas
- Delivered
- High level Workforce Plan baselined
- Delivered
- Plant based operational staff are issued with consolidated contracts
- Delivered
- Provide training and support for IT rollout in Operations
- Delivery underway\*
- Embed tutorials for basic digital tools
- Delivered
Q3 2018/19
- People Survey – Launch of Pulse Survey for 2018
- Delivered
- Launch of Talent Schemes
- Delivered
- Implementation of SCS 1-3 pay award
- Delivered
- Transition OWOW activities into BAU
- Delivery underway\*
- Launch of diversity council
- Delivered
- Continue to promote & identify suitable apprenticeships
- Delivered
For amber or red milestones see appendix for explanation Modern, Accountable Excellent Regulator
FORWARD LOOK TO 2020 (MILESTONES)
2018
- EU EXIT
- Delivery plans approved
- Business case to HMT
- Legislate using the powers of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill
- Commence planning for ‘Enduring Regime’ post exit.
- REGULATING OUR FUTURE
- Field trials for registration
- Formal consultation for segmentation
- Define future roles of FSA, Local Authorities and private assurance
- SURVEILLANCE
- Prototype model for surveillance
- Build surveillance capability
- OUR WAYS OF WORKING
- New London office
- Consolidated contracts for plant-based operational staff
- EVOLVE IT
- Exit from Capita contract
- FSA-owned IT model in place
- DATA & DIGITAL
- New Food.gov.uk
- Digital Workplace
- PEOPLE STRATEGY
- 2020 Workforce plan
- Senior Leadership programme
- New performance management scheme
- Talent management
- Diversity strategy and roadmap
2019
- EU EXIT
- UK exits the EU: implement FSA exit plan
- Functioning domestic food law
- Ongoing implementation of EU Exit plans depending on outcome of negotiations
- REGULATING OUR FUTURE
- Implement digital solution for enhanced registration
- Apply Food Business Operator segmentation
- Develop standards for regulated private assurance
- Primary Authority National Inspection Strategy
- SURVEILLANCE
- New functioning surveillance system in place
- PEOPLE STRATEGY
- Staff skills profiles / talent biographies
- FSA Pay Strategy
- Talent Strategy supporting delivery of our workforce plan
- FSA Learning & Development Strategy
2020
- Food we can trust in a global market outside the EU
- New regulatory model launches
- An effective and resilient organisation, with highly skilled and engaging leaders MAKING THE FSA A GREAT PLACE TO WORK – ATTRITION
% Gross Attrition (Leavers) Annualised by Quarter
Target: To be below Civil Service Average calculated at 11%
Starters and Leavers by Business Area Q2 2018/19
Headcount by Quarter July 2017 – Sept 2018
22 more staff at Q2 than Q1 18/19
116 Live vacancies at the end of Q2
16.5 Average number of applications received per vacancy MAKING THE FSA A GREAT PLACE TO WORK – SICKNESS
Rolling 12 Month total Annual Working Days Lost (AWDL) as submitted to Cabinet Office (Q2 reporting period Oct 2017-Sept 2018)
% of total absence taken which were short/long term in a rolling 12 month period as submitted to Cabinet Office (Q2 reporting period Oct 2017-Sept 2018)
% of Staff taking No absence on a rolling 12 month as submitted to Cabinet Office (Q2 reporting period Oct 2017-Sept 2018)
0.6 reduction in AWDL to 5.6 continuing to bring FSA sickness down and remain below target.
1% point reduction in AWDL long term sick leave between Q1 and Q2 (Reporting on a 12 month rolling period) Trust in the FSA - Food Safety Week June 2018
Media Engagement highlights during Food Safety Week
**Top Tweet**
Meet Heather, our Chairman. It’s Food Safety Week and she’s shining the light on food heroes who help to keep our food safe. Follow us all week as we go behind the scenes in a series of stories we’ve never told before about the people
#ProtectingYourPlate food.gov.uk/about-us/the-p... pic.twitter.com/BdgaY0KU1s
**7.2% Engagement**
on Wales Twitter Channel. Average engagement is between 1-3%\*
**Total Media coverage**
100%
Positive
**71** Media articles generated resulted in **22.3 million opportunities**\* for FSA articles to be seen which reached **22%** of UK adults (\*Slide 18 contains all media definitions)
**Top Tweet of 2018 gained 75.6k more impressions**\* compared to the average FSA post.
**Partner engagement during Food Safety Week**
- **Offers of Support**
- **Partners contacted**
- **FSA Average partnership activity**
- **Response rate**
\*Slide 18 contains all media definitions Trust in the FSA - FSA Key Messages and Media Coverage
Top three topics in Q2 were FHRS, Allergens and Young People’s Allergy all having over 50% reach to UK adults
85% of proactive media coverage and 46% of all coverage was slightly or strongly favourable and reached 75% of the UK population
Reach is the number of people who see your content. Impressions are the number of times your content is displayed. Engagement is the number of interactions people have with your content (i.e.: likes, comments, shares, retweets, etc.) Opportunity to see is an indication, on average, that someone has come into contact with the content.
## Affordability – How the FSA is Performing Against HM Treasury Limits
| | 2018/19 Forecast September £m | 2018/19 Limits £m | Availability £m | RAG status | |----------------------|-------------------------------|-------------------|-----------------|------------| | **Westminster** | | | | | | Net Administration Expenditure (exc dep’n) | 44.1 | 44.4 | 0.3 | | | Net Programme Expenditure (exc dep’n) | 39.4 | 43.4 | 4.0 | | | Resource Departmental Expenditure Limit (DEL) | 83.5 | 87.8 | 4.3 | | | Capital (DEL) | 8.9 | 8.9 | 0.1 | | | Of which; EU Exit new funding | 13.3 | 14.0 | 0.7 | | | **Wales** | | | | | | RDEL | 3.3 | 3.5 | 0.2 | | | CDEL Capital – IT / Accommodation | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | | | **Northern Ireland** | | | | | | RDEL | 8.3 | 8.7 | 0.4 | | | CDEL Capital – IT / Accommodation | 0.0 | 0.1 | 0.0 | |
## BREAKDOWN OF CORPORATE PRIORITIES AND KEY AREAS OF SPEND
| | £m June Full Year Forecast 2018/19 | £m September Full Year Forecast 2018/19 | £m Movement Fav / (Adv) | % Movement Fav / (Adv) | |------------------------------|-----------------------------------|----------------------------------------|-------------------------|------------------------| | EU Exit new funding | 14.5 | 13.3 | 1.2 | 9% | | EU Exit FSA | 3.5 | 3.7 | (0.2) | (6%) | | ROF\* | 1.9 | 1.8 | 0.1 | 6% | | Surveillance | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0% | | OWOW | 0.1 | 0.2 | (0.1) | (50%) | | Evolve IT | 0.8 | 0.8 | (0.0) | 0% | | Science | 8.2 | 8.4 | (0.2) | (2%) | | Field ops (inc NI) | 21.4 | 24.3 | (2.9) | (14%) | | **Total Priorities Spend** | **50.4** | **52.5** | **(2.1)** | **(4%)** |
As at end of September (Qtr 2), the above spend on key areas represents approx 48% of the total FSA spend (inc Capex) forecast for 2018-19. This is a similar proportion of total spend as forecast at the end of Qtr1.
The forecast increase in overall FSA spend for 2018-19, as at end of Qtr 2, is approx. 3% compared to Qtr 1 (from £105.1m to £108.4m).
- £2.6m of the £13.3m EU Exit funding figure relates to the ROF Programme. APPENDIX NOTES ON DATA
Slide 3 – More information on the National Inspection strategy can be found on the Food Standards Agency website at: www.food.gov.uk/primary-authority-national-inspection-strategy
Slide 5 – FBO compliance levels are not in direct control of the FSA, so the targets are ones that FSA can influence, but not control. FHRS is operated in partnership with local authorities who deliver the scheme locally, as an added value to their intervention programmes. Whilst LAs aim to address any food safety hazards and legal non-compliance during interventions, the relationship between FBO compliance levels and LA delivery / performance is complex. Various factors outside the remit of the LA may also influence levels of FBO compliance. FHRS based risk indicators already form part of the LA audit/intervention selection criteria, and FHRS data is being incorporated into the Balanced Scorecard/LA Dashboard project to inform our work with under-performing LAs. The figures are for England, Wales and Northern Ireland combined. Individual country ratings differ. More information on FHRS can be found on the Food Standards Agency website at: http://ratings.food.gov.uk/
Slide 8 – RoF - Operating model options developed: Postponed while the cutting plant and cold stores work was progressed. Contractors engaged to produce "as-is" operating model and develop options for future delivery of official controls
Slide 9 – Data & Digital – Raw Drinking Milk (RDM) Discovery data services and notifications: The RDM work is underway. Following some initial Discovery work in the Spring the approach agreed with Policy and Operational Delivery has to engage an organisation with Data Science expertise to review all of the data and identify which data approach is the most appropriate and whether any supplementary data is required. This work will complete in time for the outputs to feed into the December board paper but has taken longer than planned across a number of stages. Process issues are being recorded and reviewed so that they are not repeated in future projects.
Assessment of GDPR compliance: The Agency implemented GDPR in May. The Information Governance Board recommended that the review was not started before 6 months had elapsed, hence the change to the timeline.
Slide 10 – OWOW – Provide training and support for IT rollout in Operations: In Operations Mobile phones have been rolled out, and associated training and support commenced. Due to technical issues, the launch of ‘Thin Client’ to replace chip PCs in operational plants has been delayed, and therefore the OWOW Programme cannot yet deliver support and training to staff.’
Transition OWOW activities into BAU: Following a review of current delivery against the Programme Blue Print, a number of residual activities have been identified that are required to complete the work of the Programme. In October the Programme Board agreed that the Programme will run until March / April 2019, and that the transition into BaU would therefore take place in quarter 4.
Slide 13 – Long term absence is defined as over 21 working days or 29 calendar days, short term absence is defined as anything below this. The data presented represents a rolling 12 month period which is submitted to Cabinet Office at the end of every quarter. Therefore quarter 2 data refers to the 12 months ending September 2018. The data does not represent a report on the specific quarters absence.
Slide 14 – 1 to 3% is the average engagement rate for FSA tweets on all our twitter channels (to note anything above 1% is considered to be good by industry in general).
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/4570-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 19,
"total-input-tokens": 37219,
"total-output-tokens": 6305,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
0,
1
],
[
0,
1266,
2
],
[
1266,
4923,
3
],
[
4923,
5350,
4
],
[
5350,
5840,
5
],
[
5840,
6590,
6
],
[
6590,
9425,
7
],
[
9425,
10735,
8
],
[
10735,
11318,
9
],
[
11318,
12227,
10
],
[
12227,
14006,
11
],
[
14006,
14391,
12
],
[
14391,
15046,
13
],
[
15046,
16071,
14
],
[
16071,
16704,
15
],
[
16704,
18436,
16
],
[
18436,
20699,
17
],
[
20699,
20699,
18
],
[
20699,
24330,
19
]
]
} |
fd4c0c19c3e01434233ddf18a69c0cfc6221a3fb | Performance Management City of York Council Internal Audit Report 2017/18
Business Unit: Customer and Corporate Services Directorate Responsible Officer: Director, Customer & Corporate Services Service Manager: Head of Human Resources & OD Date Issued: 20th March 2018 Status: Final Reference: 11040/011
| Actions | P1 | P2 | P3 | |---------|----|----|----| | Overall Audit Opinion | Reasonable Assurance | Introduction City of York Council is committed to developing confident, capable people, working positively for York. As part of that commitment, all staff are entitled and encouraged to reflect on their performance and discuss future aspirations and work goals through regular one to ones and an annual Personal Development Review (PDR). The annual PDR takes place between May and July. A six monthly update around December is strongly recommended to check on progress and make any adjustments needed.
It is estimated that around 2,400 PDRs would be undertaken across the council with around 75% of PDRs being completed for staff during 2016/17.
Objectives and Scope of the Audit The guidelines and procedures for completing PDRs was updated for 2017 and the audit only reviewed PDRs that were completed between May and July as part of the updated procedures for 2017.
The purpose of this audit was to provide assurance to management that procedures and controls within the system ensure that:
- There are suitable guidelines to ensure PDRs are done appropriately.
- The PDR was done on time and in line with council guidelines.
- The PDR discussed the previous year's performance and confirmed whether targets agreed as part of the previous PDR had been met.
- The PDR set objectives for the coming year that were in line with team and council objectives with training and development needs being undertaken where necessary.
Key Findings The overall approach to Performance and Development Reviews at the council has improved compared to previous years, with completion rates in August 2017 (41%) approximately 30% higher than in August 2016. However, guidance states that 1st August marks the closure of the PDR window and therefore 41% is a low completion rate. By December 2017, completion rates were considerably higher, with 88% complete and some of these simply awaiting authorisation. Of those PDRs completed by August 2017, around 70% had been carried out using the iTrent system with the remaining 30% using a paper version of the PDR. Although iTrent PDRs are desirable for all employees, the logistics of some service areas were thought to be better suited to completing PDRs using the paper template.
There is currently a good level of guidance available to staff, to support both employees and managers in what should be considered during the review and how this should then be uploaded to iTrent. However, there is currently only limited guidance available to support PDRs carried out offline or, furthermore, in a group format. The guidance surrounding PDR exemptions is also unclear because it may not be appropriate to undertake PDRs for temporary staff, those with low hours or new members of staff who had recently started their post.
Those PDRs that had been completed on iTrent, were found to be of generally good quality, where aspects were mostly completed in detail. Most of the PDRs in the sample that were completed on iTrent, reviewed the individual’s performance against previous targets and offered a comprehensive review summary. However, those PDRs tested that were carried out outside of iTrent were not as consistent in their completion. Several bespoke paper PDRs were received, where the form available on the intranet was not used. Paper versions of the PDRs were not completed to the same level as those on iTrent with sections not being completed or objectives not being set. It was also noted that individual objectives on the PDR were not being linked to team or council objectives even though there was a section on iTrent for recording it.
**Overall Conclusions**
The arrangements for managing risk were satisfactory with a number of weaknesses identified. An acceptable control environment is in operation but there are a number of improvements that could be made. Our overall opinion of the controls within the system at the time of the audit was that they provided Reasonable Assurance.
## 1 PDR Completion Rate
| Issue/Control Weakness | Risk | |------------------------|------| | Over half of council employees did not complete a PDR during the review period. | Employees are left without a PDR and their performance and development are difficult to monitor. |
### Findings
The guidance states that all PDRs should be carried out between May and July. However, at the time of the audit, only 41% of staff had undertaken a PDR during this window. This therefore means that over half of council employees had not participated in a review within the advised time.
### Agreed Action 1.1
Reminders to be sent to Grade 9 managers to ensure that they are completing employee PDRs during the May to July PDR window.
| Priority | Responsible Officer | Timescale | |----------|---------------------|-----------| | 2 | Performance & Change HR Manager | 31 July 2018 | 2 Paper PDRs
| Issue/Control Weakness | Risk | |------------------------|------| | The paper form is not the same as the form used on iTrent. | PDRs are not being completed properly or are lost at a later date because a paper version of the PDR was used that was created by the service. |
Findings
The paper template available for download on the intranet is not identical to the PDR form completed using iTrent. These differences include the performance rating by manager and the prompt to attach an objective to a beneficiary: individual, team or organisation. It was also noted that five of the sixteen paper PDRs that were viewed during the audit were not completed on the paper template on the intranet but were instead bespoke PDR forms that had been produced by the service.
There is currently nothing in the guidance to inform staff that any PDRs completed on paper must be scanned and included on iTrent. Currently paper versions of the PDRs are not scanned onto iTrent and of the sample of 20 paper versions that were requested, four were not received from the service, meaning it was not possible to confirm whether these four PDRs were completed satisfactorily.
Overall, there were significantly more errors in those PDRs completed on paper, compared to those completed using iTrent. The results from the paper PDR testing showed that out of sixteen paper PDRs that were viewed:
- Seven did not assess previous year’s performance
- Six did not set any Learning and Development needs.
- Two did not set learning and development objectives
- Four did not give an overall rating of performance
- Eight were without a summary of discussion
- Seven were not signed by both the employee and manager (six by the employee only and one by the manager only)
Agreed Action 2.1
Continue to roll out Employee Self Service and People Manager to employees who currently do not have this facility. In turn, encourage these new users to complete PDRs online by holding training sessions and issuing guidance for both employees and their managers.
| Priority | Responsible Officer | Timescale | |----------|---------------------|-----------| | 2 | Performance & Change HR Manager | 1 September 2018 | **Agreed Action 2.2**
Issue guidance to managers who will be carrying out paper PDRs at the start of the 2018 PDR cycle. Ensure that the paper template is the most up-to-date version and is reflective of the PDR process carried out on iTrent. Finally, make this paper template available and accessible for all relevant managers in time for the 2018 PDR cycle.
| Priority | 2 | |----------|---| | Responsible Officer | Performance & Change HR Manager | | Timescale | 1 May 2018 | 3 Objectives
| Issue/Control Weakness | Risk | |------------------------|------| | Objectives are not been set for all employees, weakening the purpose of a PDR and making it difficult for both staff and management to monitor progression. | Progress made by staff is not being monitored against suitable targets. |
Findings
Objectives were not always being set during the cases reviewed in the sample. Three out of the ten PDRs that were completed on iTrent had not set objectives at the time of the review. Although objectives can be uploaded separately following the completion of a PDR none had been added at the time of the audit.
Of the sixteen paper PDRs that were reviewed during the audit, only nine had objectives that included both a detailed narrative and a target date and another three PDRs that were viewed had narratives but no target dates. The paper PDRs were not in a standard format and in three cases the PDR form did not include a section for completing objectives, whilst in the final case the section for objectives had been left blank.
In previous years, objectives set on iTrent, were able to be linked to the overarching council plan priorities by using an ‘objective linked to’ option. However, this was something that needed to be updated every time the council plan changed and the decision was made to make this feature redundant as too much time was taken updating iTrent. Currently, the PDRs carried out on iTrent are not being linked to council plan priorities, but this is something that could be done using the description box.
Agreed Action 3.1
Review and update guidance around setting objectives and include the requirement of at least one objective to be set at the time of PDR. Promote the updated guidance and ensure managers receive training, to include objective setting, in time for the 2018 PDR cycle.
| Priority | 2 | |----------|---| | Responsible Officer | Performance & Change HR Manager | | Timescale | 1 May 2018 | 4 Exemptions to the PDR process
| Issue/Control Weakness | Risk | |------------------------|------| | There is not enough guidance surrounding the exemptions of the PDR process. | Employees are not completing PDRs when required to do so. |
Findings
There is currently only limited guidance available to staff informing of any exemptions to the PDR process – this appears only in the FAQs section and not in specific PDR guidance notes. These published exemptions currently include temporary staff but there is no mention of staff on low-hour contracts or those who have recently started in their post.
There is information available in the FAQs to state that group PDRs are an option where there are common objectives across a team. However, there is no template available to support the completion of group PDRs. Five out of sixteen paper PDRs were completed using a form designed for group PDRs. There were discrepancies between these forms as each had been manually created by each of the service areas.
At the time of the audit 1,063 PDRs had been completed and of these, 326 had been completed offline. Paper PDRs are necessary at this point in time, due to the logistics of some off-site work areas having access to the iTrent Human Resources system.
Agreed Action 4.1
Review and clarify the exemption criteria and agree this with the Directorate Management Teams. Advise Business Intelligence of the agreed exemptions to enable the criteria to be taken accurately into account when reporting on completion rates. Ensure the exemption criteria is made available to all staff.
| Priority | 3 | |----------|---| | Responsible Officer | Performance & Change HR Manager | | Timescale | 1 May 2018 | Audit Opinions and Priorities for Actions
Audit Opinions
Audit work is based on sampling transactions to test the operation of systems. It cannot guarantee the elimination of fraud or error. Our opinion is based on the risks we identify at the time of the audit.
Our overall audit opinion is based on 5 grades of opinion, as set out below.
| Opinion | Assessment of internal control | |--------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | High Assurance | Overall, very good management of risk. An effective control environment appears to be in operation. | | Substantial Assurance | Overall, good management of risk with few weaknesses identified. An effective control environment is in operation but there is scope for further improvement in the areas identified. | | Reasonable Assurance | Overall, satisfactory management of risk with a number of weaknesses identified. An acceptable control environment is in operation but there are a number of improvements that could be made. | | Limited Assurance | Overall, poor management of risk with significant control weaknesses in key areas and major improvements required before an effective control environment will be in operation. | | No Assurance | Overall, there is a fundamental failure in control and risks are not being effectively managed. A number of key areas require substantial improvement to protect the system from error and abuse. |
Priorities for Actions
| Priority | Description | |----------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Priority 1 | A fundamental system weakness, which presents unacceptable risk to the system objectives and requires urgent attention by management. | | Priority 2 | A significant system weakness, whose impact or frequency presents risks to the system objectives, which needs to be addressed by management. | | Priority 3 | The system objectives are not exposed to significant risk, but the issue merits attention by management. | Where information resulting from audit work is made public or is provided to a third party by the client or by Veritau then this must be done on the understanding that any third party will rely on the information at its own risk. Veritau will not owe a duty of care or assume any responsibility towards anyone other than the client in relation to the information supplied. Equally, no third party may assert any rights or bring any claims against Veritau in connection with the information. Where information is provided to a named third party, the third party will keep the information confidential.
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/4571-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 10,
"total-input-tokens": 16968,
"total-output-tokens": 3402,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
409,
1
],
[
409,
2915,
2
],
[
2915,
4351,
3
],
[
4351,
5236,
4
],
[
5236,
7447,
5
],
[
7447,
7928,
6
],
[
7928,
9902,
7
],
[
9902,
11611,
8
],
[
11611,
13805,
9
],
[
13805,
14405,
10
]
]
} |
d3c2a174ed58bdd341cbdb03a2b4a89d69406554 | Freedom of Information Act 2000 Request
Freedom of Information requests in regards to Hate Crimes
Request
**FOI Request 1**
1. The total number of race hate crimes which were received between April 2018-2019, broken down by months.
2. Further to question 1, of these please provide information on how many led to a successful prosecution, broken down by months. a. Further to question 2, what was the nature of the charges that were upheld?
3. Further to question 1, of these please provide information on how many led to an unsuccessful prosecution, broken down by months. a. Further to question 3, what is the nature of the charges that were brought?
4. Further to question 1, of these please provide information on how many cases were not pursued by the Crown Prosecution Service.
5. Further to question 1, of these please provide a breakdown of the types of criminal acts which occurred, broken down by months.
**FOI Request 2**
1. The total number of Islamophobic hate crime cases which were received between April 2018-2019, broken down by months.
2. Further to question 1, of these please provide information on how many led to a successful prosecution, broken down by months. a. Further to question 2, what was the nature of the charges that were upheld?
3. Further to question 1, of these please provide information on how many led to an unsuccessful prosecution, broken down by months. a. Further to question 3, what is the nature of the charges that were brought?
4. Further to question 1, of these please provide information on how many cases were not pursued by the Crown Prosecution Service.
5. Further to question 1, of these please provide a breakdown of the types of criminal acts which occurred, broken down by months.
**FOI Request 3**
1. The total number of race hates crimes which were recorded between April 2018-2019, broken down by months.
2. Further to question 1, of these please provide the following data for the victim(s) involved in the case: a. please could you include a breakdown of the data by gender for each month; b. please could you include a breakdown of the data by age for each month; c. Please could you include a breakdown by ethnicity including those where ethnic identity was not specified or not recorded? Please ensure the ‘Asian’ category has a breakdown by Pakistani and Bangladeshi victims.
3. Further to question 1, of these please provide the following data for the suspect(s) involved in the case: a. please could you include a breakdown of the data by gender for each month; b. please could you include a breakdown of the data by age for each month; c. Please could you include a breakdown by ethnicity including those where ethnic identity was not specified or not recorded? Please ensure the ‘Asian’ category has a breakdown by Pakistani and Bangladeshi victims.
**FOI Request 4**
1. The total number of race hate crimes which were recorded between April 2018-2019, broken down by months.
2. Further to question 1, of these please provide the following data for the victim(s) involved in the case: a. please could you include a breakdown of the data by gender for each month; b. please could you include a breakdown of the data by age for each month; c. Please could you include a breakdown by ethnicity including those where ethnic identity was not specified or not recorded? Please ensure the ‘Asian’ category has a breakdown by Pakistani and Bangladeshi victims.
3. Further to question 1, of these please provide the following data for the suspect(s) involved in the case: a. please could you include a breakdown of the data by gender for each month; b. please could you include a breakdown of the data by age for each month; c. Please could you include a breakdown by ethnicity including those where ethnic identity was not specified or not recorded? Please ensure the ‘Asian’ category has a breakdown by Pakistani and Bangladeshi victims.
**FOI Request 5**
1. The total number of Islamophobic hate crimes which were recorded between April 2018-2019, broken down by months.
2. Further to question 1, of these please provide a breakdown of the types of criminal acts which occurred, broken down by months (e.g. vandalism, arson, harassment, etc.).
3. Further to question 1, of these please provide information on how many were passed onto the Crown Prosecution Service, broken down by months.
4. Further to question 1, of these please provide the number of cases were no further action was taken due to lack of evidence, broken down by months.
5. Further to question 1, of these please provide the number of cases were no further action was taken due to the victim’s choice, broken down by months.
6. Further to question 1, of these please provide the number of cases that lead to community resolution, broken down by months.
**FOI Request 6**
1. The total numbers of Islamophobic hate crimes which were recorded between April 2018-2019, broken down by months.
2. Further to question 1, of these please provide a breakdown of the types of criminal acts which occurred, broken down by months (e.g. vandalism, arson, harassment, etc.).
3. Further to question 1, of these please provide information on how many were passed onto the Crown Prosecution Service, broken down by months.
4. Further to question 1, of these please provide the number of cases were no further action was taken due to lack of evidence, broken down by months.
5. Further to question 1, of these please provide the number of cases were no further action was taken due to the victim’s choice, broken down by months.
6. Further to question 1, of these please provide the number of cases that lead to community resolution, broken down by months.
**FOI Request 7**
1. The total numbers of Islamophobic hate crimes which were recorded between April 2018-2019 and where the primary, or secondary, location tag was ‘mosque’ (or any other religious institution tag that describes a building used by the Muslim communities for, but not limited to, worship). Please provide this information broken down by months. a. Examples of locations tag include, but may not be limited to: Mosque, Madrasa, Islamic Schools, Islamic Prayer rooms.
2. Further to question 1, of these please provide information on the types of criminal acts which occurred, broken down by months (e.g. vandalism, arson, harassment, etc.).
3. Further to question 1, of these please provide the name of the city/town/village where each attack occurred. Grouping data under one category for each month is fine.
4. Further to question 1, of these please provide the following data for the suspect(s) involved in the case: a. please could you include a breakdown of the data by gender for each month; b. please could you include a breakdown of the data by age for each month; c. Please could you include a breakdown by ethnicity
Response
Section 12(1) of the FOI Act provides that a public authority is not obliged to comply with a request for information if the authority estimates that the cost of complying with the request would exceed the appropriate limit. The appropriate limit is specified in the Freedom of Information and Data Protection (Appropriate Limit and Fees) Regulations 2004 and for central government is set at £600. This represents the estimated cost of one person spending 3.5 working days in determining whether the Department holds the information, and locating, retrieving and extracting the information.
The nature of the information requested in your seven requests has an overarching theme and common thread relating to detailed information for hate crime. A manual review of each case held would have to be undertaken to answer your detailed questions within your requests. As a guide, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) completed total number of 14,151 cases files of hate crime prosecutions for 2017 to 2018 financial year.
For this reason we have aggregated the requests as they relate to the same information as set out in section five of the Freedom of Information and Data Protection (Appropriate Limit and Fees) Regulations 2004. Please refer to the link below:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2004/3244/regulation/5/made
We believe that the cost of responding to all seven of these requests would exceed the appropriate limit. Consequently, the CPS is not obliged to comply with any of your requests in accordance with section 12(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
Please be advised that this cost limit will apply to any new requests that can be considered under the same theme as those seven mentioned above. The cost limit will apply to similar requests received in 60 consecutive working days from 26 June 2019. The cost limit will therefore apply until 19 September 2019.
Requests received that are considered not to fall under the same theme as the current seven requests will be dealt with as normal.
Under section 16 of the FOI Act there is a duty to provide advice and assistance; you may find it helpful and worthwhile to refer to our CPS published data on hate crimes for 2017 to 2018 financial year via link below:
https://www.cps.gov.uk/publication/hate-crime-reports - page 21
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/0378-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 5,
"total-input-tokens": 9145,
"total-output-tokens": 2326,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
1494,
1
],
[
1494,
3978,
2
],
[
3978,
6685,
3
],
[
6685,
9212,
4
],
[
9212,
9212,
5
]
]
} |
dbef9ef1a9a632b1717728545dc6813b8e9a7e33 | Freedom of Information Act 2000 Request
The percentages of the CPS’s contractors that are deemed to be outside IR35, and are therefore being paid with no deduction of taxes and National Insurance
Request
What percentages of your contractors are deemed to be outside IR35 and are therefore being paid with no deduction of taxes and National Insurance?
Response
In response to your question, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) currently has 14 contracted workers. Out of the fourteen contracted, four are classified as in-scope for IR35. Therefore the percentage of out of scope workers is 71%
Information Management Unit 020 3357 0899 [email protected]
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/0379-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 1,
"total-input-tokens": 1461,
"total-output-tokens": 192,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
655,
1
]
]
} |
6bbf730e183e45fc54fb69d9526709e656ead2ae | | Trial completion date | Name | Count | Result | Legislation | Offence | |-----------------------|-----------------------|-------|--------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------| | February 2009 | MOHAMMED, Ahmed | 1 | Acquitted | section 2(1)(a) and 2(a) of the terrorism act 2006 | DISSEMINATION OF TERRORIST PUBLICATIONS | | March 2010 | IQBAL, Abbas | 1 | Convicted | section 2(1)(a) and 2(a) of the terrorism act 2006 | DISSEMINATION OF TERRORIST PUBLICATIONS | | February 2011 | GUL, Mohammed | 1 | Convicted | section 2(1)(a) and 2(a) of the terrorism act 2006 | DISSEMINATION OF TERRORIST PUBLICATIONS | | February 2011 | GUL, Mohammed | 2 | Convicted | section 2(1)(a) and 2(a) of the terrorism act 2006 | DISSEMINATION OF TERRORIST PUBLICATIONS | | February 2011 | GUL, Mohammed | 3 | Convicted | section 2(1)(a) and 2(a) of the terrorism act 2006 | DISSEMINATION OF TERRORIST PUBLICATIONS | | February 2011 | GUL, Mohammed | 4 | Convicted | section 2(1)(a) and 2(a) of the terrorism act 2006 | DISSEMINATION OF TERRORIST PUBLICATIONS | | February 2011 | GUL, Mohammed | 5 | Acquitted | section 2(1)(a) and 2(a) of the terrorism act 2006 | DISSEMINATION OF TERRORIST PUBLICATIONS | | February 2011 | GUL, Mohammed | 6 | Convicted | section 2(1)(a) and 2(a) of the terrorism act 2006 | DISSEMINATION OF TERRORIST PUBLICATIONS | | September 2011 | FAROOQI, Munir | 2 | Guilty Verdict| section 2(1)(a) and 2(a) of the terrorism act 2006 | DISSEMINATION OF TERRORIST PUBLICATIONS | | September 2011 | FAROOQI, Munir | 5 | Guilty Verdict| section 2(1)(a) and 2(a) of the terrorism act 2006 | DISSEMINATION OF TERRORIST PUBLICATIONS | | September 2011 | NEWTON, Matthew | 3 | Guilty Verdict| section 2(1)(a) and 2(a) of the terrorism act 2006 | DISSEMINATION OF TERRORIST PUBLICATIONS | | September 2011 | NEWTON, Matthew | 6 | Guilty Verdict| section 2(1)(a) and 2(a) of the terrorism act 2006 | DISSEMINATION OF TERRORIST PUBLICATIONS | | December 2011 | FARAZ, Ahmed Raza | 1 | Guilty Verdict| section 2(1)(a) and 2(a) of the terrorism act 2006 | DISSEMINATION OF TERRORIST PUBLICATIONS | | December 2011 | FARAZ, Ahmed Raza | 2 | Guilty Verdict| section 2(1)(a) and 2(a) of the terrorism act 2006 | DISSEMINATION OF TERRORIST PUBLICATIONS | | December 2011 | FARAZ, Ahmed Raza | 4 | Guilty Verdict| section 2(1)(a) and 2(a) of the terrorism act 2006 | DISSEMINATION OF TERRORIST PUBLICATIONS | | December 2011 | FARAZ, Ahmed Raza | 5 | Guilty Verdict| section 2(1)(a) and 2(a) of the terrorism act 2006 | DISSEMINATION OF TERRORIST PUBLICATIONS | | December 2011 | FARAZ, Ahmed Raza | 6 | Guilty Verdict| section 2(1)(a) and 2(a) of the terrorism act 2006 | DISSEMINATION OF TERRORIST PUBLICATIONS | | Date | Name | Verdict | Section of the Terrorism Act 2006 | Dissemination of Terrorist Publications | |------------|---------------------|--------------------------|-----------------------------------|----------------------------------------| | December 2011 | FARAZ, Ahmed Raza | Guilty Verdict | section 2(1)(a) and 2(a) | DISSEMINATION OF TERRORIST PUBLICATIONS | | December 2011 | FARAZ, Ahmed Raza | Guilty Verdict | section 2(1)(a) and 2(a) | DISSEMINATION OF TERRORIST PUBLICATIONS | | December 2011 | FARAZ, Ahmed Raza | Acquitted | section 2(1)(a) and 2(a) | DISSEMINATION OF TERRORIST PUBLICATIONS | | December 2011 | FARAZ, Ahmed Raza | Not Guilty by direction | section 2(1)(a) and 2(a) | DISSEMINATION OF TERRORIST PUBLICATIONS | | December 2011 | FARAZ, Ahmed Raza | Not Guilty by direction | section 2(1)(a) and 2(a) | DISSEMINATION OF TERRORIST PUBLICATIONS | | December 2011 | FARAZ, Ahmed Raza | Acquitted | section 2(1)(a) and 2(a) | DISSEMINATION OF TERRORIST PUBLICATIONS | | December 2011 | FARAZ, Ahmed Raza | Acquitted | section 2(1)(a) and 2(a) | DISSEMINATION OF TERRORIST PUBLICATIONS | | December 2011 | FARAZ, Ahmed Raza | Acquitted | section 2(1)(a) and 2(a) | DISSEMINATION OF TERRORIST PUBLICATIONS | | December 2011 | FARAZ, Ahmed Raza | Not Guilty by direction | section 2(1)(a) and 2(a) | DISSEMINATION OF TERRORIST PUBLICATIONS | | December 2011 | FARAZ, Ahmed Raza | Acquitted | section 2(1)(a) and 2(a) | DISSEMINATION OF TERRORIST PUBLICATIONS | | May 2017 | YILDIZ Ayfer | Acquitted | Section 2 (1) of the Terrorism Act 2006 | DISSEMINATION OF TERRORIST PUBLICATION | | September 2017 | YUSEF Hussain | Not Guilty Verdict | s2(1)(a) Terrorism Act 2006 | DISSEMINATION OF A TERRORIST PUBLICATION | | September 2017 | YUSEF Hussain | Guilty Verdict | s2(1)(a) Terrorism Act 2006 | DISSEMINATION OF A TERRORIST PUBLICATION | | December 2017 | HAQUE Mijanul | Guilty Verdict | s2(1)(a) Terrorism Act 2006 | DISSEMINATION OF A TERRORIST PUBLICATION | | December 2017 | HAQUE Mijanul | Acquitted | s2(1)(a) Terrorism Act 2006 | DISSEMINATION OF A TERRORIST PUBLICATION | | January 2018 | ALI Iftikar | 1 | Guilty Verdict | s2(1) and 2 Terrorism Act 2006 | DISSEMINATION OF A TERRORIST PUBLICATION | |-------------|-------------|---|----------------|-------------------------------|------------------------------------------| | January 2018 | ALI Iftikar | 2 | Guilty Verdict | s2(1) and 2 Terrorism Act 2006 | DISSEMINATION OF A TERRORIST PUBLICATION | | January 2018 | ALI Iftikar | 3 | Guilty Verdict | s2(1) and 2 Terrorism Act 2006 | DISSEMINATION OF A TERRORIST PUBLICATION | | January 2018 | ALI Iftikar | 4 | Guilty Verdict | s2(1) and 2 Terrorism Act 2006 | DISSEMINATION OF A TERRORIST PUBLICATION | | January 2018 | ALI Iftikar | 5 | Guilty Verdict | s2(1) and 2 Terrorism Act 2006 | DISSEMINATION OF A TERRORIST PUBLICATION | | Date | Name | Page | Verdict | Section(s) of Act | Description | |------------|------------|------|-------------|-------------------|--------------------------------------------------| | January 2018 | ALI Iftikar | 6 | Guilty Verdict | s2(1) and 2 Terrorism Act 2006 | DISSEMINATION OF A TERRORIST PUBLICATION | | January 2018 | ALI Iftikar | 7 | Guilty Verdict | s2(1) and 2 Terrorism Act 2006 | DISSEMINATION OF A TERRORIST PUBLICATION | | January 2018 | ALI Iftikar | 8 | Guilty Verdict | s2(1) and 2 Terrorism Act 2006 | DISSEMINATION OF A TERRORIST PUBLICATION | | January 2018 | ALI Iftikar | 9 | Guilty Verdict | s2(1) and 2 Terrorism Act 2006 | DISSEMINATION OF A TERRORIST PUBLICATION | | January 2018 | ALI Iftikar | 10 | Guilty Verdict | s2(1) and 2 Terrorism Act 2006 | DISSEMINATION OF A TERRORIST PUBLICATION | | January 2018 | ALI Iftikar | 11 | Guilty Verdict | s2(1) and 2 Terrorism Act 2006 | DISSEMINATION OF A TERRORIST PUBLICATION | | Month | Name | Age | Verdict | Section of Act | Charge | |------------|-----------------|-----|-------------|----------------|---------------------------------------------| | January 2018 | ALI Iftikar | 12 | Guilty Verdict | s2(1) and 2 Terrorism Act 2006 | DISSEMINATION OF A TERRORIST PUBLICATION | | February 2018 | SOARES Christopher | 1 | Guilty Verdict | s2(1) Terrorism Act 2006 | DISSEMINATING A TERRORIST PUBLICATION | | March 2018 | HAQUE Umar Ahmed | 4 | Hung Jury | s2(1) Terrorism Act 2006 | DISSEMINATION OF TERRORIST PUBLICATION |
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/0380-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 5,
"total-input-tokens": 11737,
"total-output-tokens": 2918,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
3772,
1
],
[
3772,
6219,
2
],
[
6219,
6985,
3
],
[
6985,
8011,
4
],
[
8011,
8631,
5
]
]
} |
96363422baaadd48deb593c2fcd4adfedc4fde05 | Freedom of Information Act 2000 Request
Convictions and Acquittals in regards to Section 2 of the Terrorism Act 2006
Request
I am currently studying a master in law at Queens University Belfast. This requires the submission of a 20,000 word dissertation, and my topic involves an analysis of section 2 of the Terrorism Act 2006.
I therefore wish to request as much information as possible on prosecutions under this section, both convictions and acquittals. I would like to analyse the publications which triggered prosecution, their content and why they were considered to be contrary to s2.
I am particularly interested in cases from the past five years, but any information on cases from 2006 onwards will be useful for my analysis.
Response
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) holds information relating to cases involving offences charged by way of S2 of the Terrorism Act 2006 in which a prosecution commenced from 2009, prior to this, data is not held. Please refer to the attached table.
Information Management Unit 020 3357 0899 [email protected]
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/0381-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 1,
"total-input-tokens": 1597,
"total-output-tokens": 294,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
1060,
1
]
]
} |
cd5efd75a7f55298da1668b8faa6633df4773634 | Freedom of Information Act 2000 Request
Confiscation orders issued by the court in favour of the prosecution since 2014, and how many the CPS enforced by making an application for a compliance order
Request
Out of the confiscation orders issued by the court in favour of the prosecution since 2014, how many did the Crown Prosecution Service enforce by making an application for a compliance order?
In line with Section.13A of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, introduced by Section.7 of the Serious Crime Act 2015. For those tendered, how many did the court rule in favour of the prosecution?
Response
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) does not hold a central record of applications made for compliance orders, as described in your request. We therefore do not capture how many orders were made or refused by the court.
Information Management Unit 020 3357 0899 [email protected]
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/0382-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 1,
"total-input-tokens": 1542,
"total-output-tokens": 255,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
884,
1
]
]
} |
fe386cca066b5292f78b14b90a0bb4238cc23cc7 | Disclosure ref: 39 Sent: 26th July 2019
Freedom of Information Act 2000 Request
Information on the CPS’s Prosecutors in regards to the issue of 'ARE', 'Animal Rights', and/or 'Domestic Extremism'. 2003 - 2007
Request
Records of meetings of the CPS Prosecutors Forum, or National Forum of CPS Prosecutors on the issue of 'ARE', 'Animal Rights', and/or 'Domestic Extremism'. 2003 - 2007
Response
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) confirms that it holds no records as described in your request.
Information Management Unit 020 3357 0899 [email protected]
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/0383-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 1,
"total-input-tokens": 1441,
"total-output-tokens": 210,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
557,
1
]
]
} |
abf6af1f27b7504ca7782b0dc8c4eb7f7d454ab1 | Freedom of Information Act 2000 Request
The number of convictions in regards to defendants who have been in possession of a firearm (imitation or otherwise) in a public place during the last five years; bought forward by the Crown Prosecution Service in Greater Manchester.
Request
I am writing to request some statistics under the Freedom of Information act.
I would like to find out the number of convictions for defendants who have been in possession of a firearm (imitation or otherwise) in a public place during the last five years.
I would like the statistics to cover the periods of 2013/14, 2014/15, 2015/16, 2016/17 and 2017/18.
These would come from cases bought forward by the Crown Prosecution Service in Greater Manchester.
Response
The Firearms Act 1968 creates provisions which include controls on the acquiring, possession, sale and conversion of firearms and offences in relation to the criminal use of firearms and air weapons.
Simple possession charges are provided by Sections 1, 2 and 5 of the Act:
- Section 1 – possession of a firearm/specially dangerous air weapon and certain ammunition without a certificate
- Section 2 – possession of a ‘shotgun’ without a certificate
- Section 5 – possession of a prohibited weapon
Please see attached a table of data showing the number of offences created by Sections 1, 2 and 5 of the Firearms Act referred to above, prosecuted by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), reaching a first hearing at the magistrates’ courts, during each of the last five financial years in the Greater Manchester police force area. This data should be read in conjunction with the caveats appended to the table. To identify the number of prosecutions or convictions for these offences would require a manual review of the CPS case files. The 868 offences prosecuted during the five year period identified in the table equate to 419 CPS case files.
Section 12(1) of the FOI Act means public authorities are not obliged to comply with a request for information if it estimates the cost of complying would exceed the appropriate limit. The appropriate limit for central government is set at £600. This represents the estimated cost of one person spending 3.5 working days determining whether the department holds the information, and locating, retrieving and extracting the information.
We believe that the cost of manually reviewing the 419 case files referred to above would exceed the appropriate limit. Consequently, we are not obliged to comply with this part of your request.
There are a number of other Firearms Act offences that may be relevant to your request, depending on the information you are seeking, and these include those listed below. Please let me know if you require the data on any or all of these and I will take this forward as a new request.
- Section 16 – possession of a firearm or ammunition with intent to endanger life
- Section 16A – possession of a firearm or imitation with intent to cause fear or violence
- Section 17(2) – possessing a firearm or imitation to resist or prevent lawful arrest of himself or another
- Section 19 – possession of an air weapon or an imitation firearm in a public place
- Section 21 – possession of a firearm by persons previously convicted of crime
- Sections 22 – 25 possession by and supply to minors and drunk/insane persons; and
- Section 41(1) Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006 – possession of an imitation firearm but not an air weapon.
Under section 16 of the FOI Act we are obliged to offer guidance and assistance. Please note that the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) holds data which breaks down prosecutions and convictions data by specific offences/offence groups and also by Local Criminal Justice Area (which includes Greater Manchester). You may wish to contact the MoJ to see if they can provide the information you are seeking. For ease of reference, I provide below a link to their website:
https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/ministry-of-justice
Information Management Unit 020 3357 0899 [email protected]
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/0384-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 2,
"total-input-tokens": 3731,
"total-output-tokens": 985,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
1666,
1
],
[
1666,
4045,
2
]
]
} |
8aa35141990f8ed4dc5851a99acf0fce05693a67 | Freedom of Information Act 2000 Request
Information relating to the recovery of criminal assets in relation to the Proceeds of Crime Act (POCA) 2002 powers.
Request
I submit this request for the specific information regarding the recovery of criminal assets using the Proceeds of Crime Act (POCA) 2002 powers.
I am requesting this information on behalf of Release for research purposes, to monitor the use of POCA powers (including for ethnic disproportionality and the allocation of public resources), and inform policy and advocacy in this area.
This information request relates to the information collected for the Joint Asset Recovery Database (JARD).
In the most recent financial year for which data is available:
1. What was the total number of confiscation orders issued (Proceeds of Crime Act 2002)? Please breakdown by the defendant’s (self-defined) ethnic group and gender.
2. What was the total number of confiscation order proceedings? Please breakdown by the defendant’s (self-defined) ethnic group and gender.
3. What was the total number of default sentences for non-payment of confiscation orders? Please breakdown by the defendant’s (self-defined) ethnic group and gender.
4. What was the average length of default sentences for non-payment of confiscation orders? Please breakdown by the defendant’s (self-defined) ethnic group and gender.
5. What was the total number of confiscation orders issued (Proceeds of Crime Act 2002), which related to a drug offence conviction? Please breakdown by type of drug offence if possible, and the defendant’s (self-defined) ethnic group and gender.
6. What was the total number of confiscation order proceedings, which related to a drug offence conviction? Please breakdown by type of drug offence if possible, and the defendant’s (self-defined) ethnic group and gender.
7. What was the total number of default sentences for non-payment of confiscation orders, which related to a drug offence conviction? Please breakdown by type of drug offence if possible, and the defendant’s (self-defined) ethnic group and gender.
8. What was the average length of default sentences for non-payment of confiscation orders, which related to a drug offence conviction? Please breakdown by type of drug offence if possible, and the defendant’s (self-defined) ethnic group and gender.
Response
In response to question 1, please see the attachment containing the data you have asked for under the tab ‘Q1-FOI 8596’. Please read the caveats appended to the table in conjunction with the data provided.
In response to questions 2 and 6, the information you have requested is not recorded on JARD.
In response to question 5, please see the attachment containing the data you have asked for under the tab ‘Q5-FOI 8596’. Please read the caveats appended to the table in conjunction with the data provided.
In response to questions 3-4 and 7-8, the default action section is a non-mandatory section on JARD therefore all the requested data may not be recorded and any information may be incomplete, not current and may not be accurate.
Information Management Unit 020 3357 0899 [email protected]
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/0385-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 2,
"total-input-tokens": 3356,
"total-output-tokens": 774,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
1616,
1
],
[
1616,
3144,
2
]
]
} |
375337b847269e2102461b421498587b24a30a2b | Freedom of Information Act 2000 Request
The fraudsters who funded a notorious Nigerian organised crime gang; when the case began and how long it took to complete.
Request
https://www.cps.gov.uk/cps/news/ps1m-fraudsters-who-funded-notorious-nigerian-organised-crime-gang-jailed-16-years
Can you please advise when prosecution for this case began?
It is not evident in the write up and I would like to know how long it took to complete.
Response
A prosecution commences when a defendant makes their first appearance at the Magistrates Court. In this matter the first appearance was 27 April 2017.
The matter concluded on 02 August 2019. The Prosecution case took 2 years 3 months and 5 days to complete.
Information Management Unit 020 3357 0899 [email protected]
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/0386-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 1,
"total-input-tokens": 1545,
"total-output-tokens": 247,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
767,
1
]
]
} |
d7b268776b25e7111409bb13ecce36dbab84741c | Freedom of Information Act 2000 Request
Total prosecution costs for the trial of John Worboys.
Request
John Worboys (John Derek Radford)
Could you tell me the total prosecution costs, broken down by trial, for the above? Are there still amounts outstanding not included?
Response
The total prosecution costs recorded are £119,392.83. The CPS does not record time spent by internal lawyers, paralegals and administrative staff on a case by case basis, therefore this is only counsel costs.
Please note the CPS cannot breakdown this amount by trial date as this information is not held. We can confirm there are no outstanding fees.
Information Management Unit 020 3357 0899 [email protected]
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/0387-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 1,
"total-input-tokens": 1481,
"total-output-tokens": 208,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
695,
1
]
]
} |
ea5bc497915a00336ff77a284ee65bfb0eceab5a | Freedom of Information Act 2000 Request
Convictions rates of all offences involving 18-24 year olds.
Request
I am interested in finding the following information:
a) What is the 2018 conviction rate of all offences involving *18-24 year olds?*
b) Of this information, what is the breakdown of offence type?
Response
On the 26 July 2019 you clarified the word ‘involving’ to mean ‘How many 18-24 year olds were convicted in 2018?’
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) does not hold a central record of all of the offences that 18-24 year olds were convicted of during 2018 as described in part a).
In order to establish each of the offences that were committed, it would be necessary to manually examine all cases in respect of convicted individuals between the ages of 18 and 24 during 2018. As an indication of the work this would involve there were convictions in respect of 83,847 defendants within the described age range.
Section 12(1) of the FOI Act means public authorities are not obliged to comply with a request for information if it estimates the cost of complying would exceed the appropriate limit. The appropriate limit for central government it is set at £600. This represents the estimated cost of one person spending 3.5 working days determining whether the department holds the information, and locating, retrieving and extracting the information.
We believe that the cost of reviewing cases in respect of 83,847 defendants would exceed the appropriate limit. Consequently, we are not obliged to comply with part a) of your request. As a result we are therefore unable to provide a breakdown of the type of offences, as requested in part b). The CPS holds data relating to ‘Principle Offence Categories.’ The most serious offence that a defendant is charged with, at the point of finalisation, determines the Principle Offence Category recorded. A record of the Principle Offence Category recorded against each defendant aged between 18 and 24, convicted during 2018, is held by the CPS. Information relating to the data can be requested via a new Freedom of Information request however, any information is subject to any exemptions under the FoIA that may apply.
Information Management Unit 020 3357 0899 [email protected]
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/0388-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 2,
"total-input-tokens": 3108,
"total-output-tokens": 607,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
1670,
1
],
[
1670,
2249,
2
]
]
} |
42c13a40dfc885d0919521e6b2cf1dd3ebe2b51a | Freedom of Information Act 2000 Request
The total costs of seven prosecution cases.
Request
What was the total cost of the prosecution of the following individuals:-
A Ali Mubarek Ali M Islam Chowdray M Ali Sutton M Younis M Khan T Ahmed
Response
Generally, where a request is made regarding prosecution costs, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) will endeavour to provide counsel’s costs only. This is because the CPS does not record time spent by internal lawyers, paralegals and administrative staff on a case by case basis. We can therefore only provide counsel costs.
Counsel fees for prosecuting the above named defendants came to a total of £17,203. This amount includes VAT.
Information Management Unit 020 3357 0899 [email protected]
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/0389-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 1,
"total-input-tokens": 1559,
"total-output-tokens": 227,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
747,
1
]
]
} |
182e5fb2ad7977e914adeb9f5609ac5b0841104a | Freedom of Information Act 2000 Request
Nature and dates held by the Crown Prosecution Service on a historic child sex abuser.
Request
Concerning the case of R Barton-Wood who was convicted of historic child sex abuse in February 2018.
I would like to know if any information has been received about his case since his conviction at Ipswich Crown court. If so, then I would like to know the nature of the information and the date on which it was received.
Response
Richard Thomas Barton-Wood was convicted on the 31 January 2018, since that date the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has not received any material that relates to Mr Barton-Wood.
Information Management Unit 020 3357 0899 [email protected]
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/0390-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 1,
"total-input-tokens": 1490,
"total-output-tokens": 216,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
707,
1
]
]
} |
5b1aaa2d5f6c40fadbec796d7a390a503b750a31 | Average Time From Arrest To Sentence For Persistent Young Offenders: January 2008
Ministry of Justice Statistics bulletin
Published: 18 April 2008 Executive summary
Background
This Bulletin presents the latest figures on the average time from arrest to sentence for persistent young offenders.
These figures are used to monitor the pledge to halve the average time from arrest to sentence for persistent young offenders in England and Wales from 142 days in 1996 to 71 days.
Main Points
- The average time from arrest to sentence for persistent young offenders in England and Wales was 62 days in January 2008, 1 day higher than in December 2007.
- The overall average time from arrest to sentence for cases sentenced in magistrates’ courts was 53 days in January 2008 – up 3 days from the previous month.
- Cases sentenced in the Crown Court took an average of 222 days from arrest to sentence during January 2008, up 18 days from December 2007. Average Interval from Arrest to Sentence
The bulletin
This bulletin contains statistics on the average time from arrest to sentence for persistent young offenders in England and Wales.
This bulletin presents figures for January 2008. In-year figures for 2008 will be revised as more data is entered onto the Police National Computer, and when the arrest dates survey for 2008 has been completed – please see the Notes section for further details.
The main body of the bulletin is organised in three parts. This first part contains commentary on the latest figures, the second has detailed tables of results, and the final part comprises of notes on the pledge and methodology used and also includes contact points for enquires.
England and Wales
The average time between arrest and sentence for persistent young offenders during January 2008 was 62 days, 1 day higher than in the previous month.
Further figures can be found in table 1 (page 6). A graph showing monthly progress from January 1997 is shown in figure 1 below.
Figure 1: Average time (days) between arrest and sentence for persistent young offenders – England and Wales, January 1997 to January 2008 Cases sentenced at Magistrates’ Courts
For January 2008, cases sentenced at magistrates’ courts represented 94 per cent of all persistent young offender cases. As table 2 (page 7) shows, the overall average time from arrest to sentence for these cases was 53 days, up 3 days from the previous month.
Cases sentenced at the Crown Court
The average time from arrest to sentence for cases sentenced at the Crown Court during January 2008 was 222 days, up 18 days from the previous month. For further figures please see table 3 (page 8).
Cases sentenced at the Crown Court include both time spent in magistrates’ courts before committal to the Crown Court and time spent in Crown Court proceedings after committal. However, it is not possible to provide a breakdown of these periods separately.
The average arrest to sentence times for cases sentenced at the Crown Court and magistrates’ courts between January 1999 and January 2008 are shown separately in figure 2 below.
Figure 2: Average time (days) from arrest to sentence for persistent young offenders by sentencing court – England and Wales, January 1999 to January 2008 Criminal Justice System Areas
A breakdown by criminal justice area on a three-month rolling average basis is shown in table 4 (page 9).
On this basis, the number of areas achieving the 71-day target in the latest period (November 2007 - January 2008) was 38, as shown in figure 3 and 4 below.
Figure 3: Number of Criminal Justice System areas within target by rolling three-month arrest to sentence averages – June 2007 to January 2008 Figure 4: Geographical spread of Criminal Justice System areas within target by rolling three-month arrest to sentence averages – rolling quarter ending January 2008
- Green: areas at or under 65 days
- Yellow: areas between 66 and 71 days
- Red: areas over 71 days Table 1: Average number of days from arrest to sentence for persistent young offenders in England and Wales
| Period | Days | Number of cases | |-----------------|------|-----------------| | 1996 | 142 | - | | 1997 | 141 | 16,010 | | 1998 | 125 | 18,605 | | 1999 | 108 | 21,151 | | 2000 | 93 | 23,130 | | 2001 | 76 | 25,393 | | 2002 | 68 | 26,116 | | 2003 | 66 | 26,083 | | 2004 | 69 | 26,363 | | 2005 | 68 | 27,037 | | 2006 | 72 | 28,252 | | 2007 | 65 | 30,683 |
| Period | Days | Number of cases | |-----------------|------|-----------------| | 2006 January – March | 74 | 7,177 | | April – June | 72 | 7,034 | | July – September | 71 | 7,134 | | October – December | 72 | 6,907 | | 2007 January – March | 72 | 7,813 | | April – June | 67 | 7,928 | | July – September | 62 | 7,766 | | October – December | 60 | 7,176 |
| Period | Days | Number of cases | |-----------------|------|-----------------| | 2007 January | 72 | 2,618 | | February | 70 | 2,486 | | March | 73 | 2,709 | | April | 70 | 2,530 | | May | 67 | 2,733 | | June | 64 | 2,665 | | July | 64 | 2,690 | | August | 62 | 2,668 | | September | 60 | 2,408 | | October | 62 | 2,688 | | November | 59 | 2,625 | | December | 61 | 1,863 |
| Period | Days | Number of cases | |-----------------|------|-----------------| | 2008 January (r) | 62 (+1) | 2,590 (+42) | | February (p) | 59 | 2,333 |
Notes: All period figures denoted by - are not applicable. All period figures denoted by (r) are based on revised data and replace those provided in the last bulletin in the series. All period figures denoted by (p) are based on provisional data.
(1) 1. In-year figures for 2008 will be revised as when the arrest dates from the annual Arrest to Charge survey for 2008 are collected in March 2009. Table 2: Average number of days from arrest to sentence for persistent young offenders sentenced at Magistrates' Courts in England and Wales
| Period | Days | Number of cases | |-------------------------|------|-----------------| | 1999 | 96 | 18,851 | | 2000 | 82 | 21,145 | | 2001 | 68 | 23,752 | | 2002 | 61 | 24,280 | | 2003 | 58 | 24,480 | | 2004 | 61 | 24,698 | | 2005 | 60 | 25,498 | | 2006 | 63 | 26,529 | | 2007 | 57 | 28,904 | | 2006 January – March | 65 | 6,712 | | April – June | 64 | 6,639 | | July – September | 62 | 6,704 | | October – December | 62 | 6,474 | | 2007 January – March | 63 | 7,351 | | April – June | 58 | 7,469 | | July – September | 54 | 7,332 | | October – December | 51 | 6,752 | | 2007 January | 64 | 2,484 | | February | 61 | 2,350 | | March | 63 | 2,517 | | April | 61 | 2,372 | | May | 58 | 2,585 | | June | 56 | 2,512 | | July | 56 | 2,554 | | August | 54 | 2,500 | | September | 51 | 2,278 | | October | 52 | 2,527 | | November | 50 | 2,487 | | December | 50 | 1,738 | | 2008(1) | | | | January (r) | 53 | 2,438 (+34) | | February (p) | 51 | 2,165 |
Notes: All period figures denoted by (r) are based on revised data and replace those provided in the last bulletin in the series. All period figures denoted by (p) are based on provisional data.
(1) 1. In-year figures for 2008 will be revised as when the arrest dates from the annual Arrest to Charge survey for 2008 are collected in March 2009. Table 3: Average number of days from arrest to sentence for persistent young offenders sentenced at the Crown Court in England and Wales
| Period | Days | Number of cases | |----------------------|------|-----------------| | 1999 | 212 | 2,271 | | 2000 | 218 | 1,976 | | 2001 | 196 | 1,632 | | 2002 | 174 | 1,829 | | 2003 | 187 | 1,588 | | 2004 | 186 | 1,653 | | 2005 | 191 | 1,526 | | 2006 | 214 | 1,704 | | 2007 | 206 | 1,769 | | 2006 January – March | 212 | 460 | | April – June | 217 | 387 | | July – September | 210 | 426 | | October – December | 220 | 431 | | 2007 January – March | 210 | 459 | | April – June | 206 | 456 | | July – September | 197 | 433 | | October – December | 213 | 421 | | 2007 January | 213 | 132 | | February | 214 | 136 | | March | 206 | 191 | | April | 208 | 156 | | May | 216 | 148 | | June | 193 | 150 | | July | 200 | 136 | | August | 187 | 167 | | September | 207 | 130 | | October | 220 | 160 | | November | 213 | 138 | | December | 204 | 123 | | 2008(1) January | 222 | 145 |
Notes: All period figures denoted by (r) are based on revised data and replace those provided in the last bulletin in the series. All period figures denoted by (p) are based on provisional data.
(1) In-year figures for 2008 will be revised as when the arrest dates from the annual Arrest to Charge survey for 2008 are collected in March 2009. Table 4: Average number of days from arrest to sentence (three-month rolling averages) for persistent young offenders in England and Wales and by Criminal Justice Area from June 2007 to January 2008(^{(2)})
| Area (^{(1)}) | Jun 07 to Aug 07 (r) | Jul 07 to Sep 07 (r) | Aug 07 to Sep 07 (r) | Sep 07 to Oct 07 (r) | Oct 07 to Nov 07 (r) | Nov 07 to Dec 07 (r) | Nov 07 to Jan 08 | |----------------|----------------------|----------------------|----------------------|----------------------|----------------------|----------------------|------------------| | Avon and Somerset | 71 | 66 | 68 | 67 | 67 | 66 | | Bedfordshire | 73 | 74 | 64 | 69 | 69 | 66 | | Cambridgeshire | 61 | 53 | 56 | 53 | 54 | 49 | | Cheshire | 51 | 45 | 47 | 45 | 38 | 32 | | Cleveland | 70 | 60 | 55 | 58 | 60 | 63 | | Cumbria | 55 | 64 | 66 | 65 | 51 | 53 | | Derbyshire | 62 | 58 | 53 | 53 | 52 | 52 | | Devon and Cornwall | 66 | 59 | 54 | 53 | 58 | 61 | | Dorset | 61 | 59 | 62 | 71 | 65 | 54 | | Durham | 49 | 46 | 47 | 50 | 52 | 48 | | Dyfed-Powys | 45 | 41 | 40 | 50 | 53 | 52 | | Essex | 49 | 53 | 57 | 54 | 55 | 53 | | Gloucestershire | 68 | 78 | 82 | 64 | 64 | 73 | | Greater Manchester | 69 | 65 | 63 | 60 | 62 | 62 | | Gwent | 71 | 72 | 74 | 55 | 40 | 43 | | Hampshire | 59 | 57 | 59 | 62 | 64 | 64 | | Hertfordshire | 71 | 73 | 64 | 72 | 67 | 94 | | Humberside | 70 | 59 | 61 | 57 | 57 | 58 | | Kent | 63 | 69 | 71 | 67 | 59 | 60 | | Lancashire | 56 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 63 | 66 | | Leicestershire | 69 | 67 | 66 | 64 | 59 | 63 | | Lincolnshire | 63 | 59 | 50 | 52 | 41 | 43 | | Merseyside | 56 | 57 | 67 | 68 | 80 | 71 | | Metropolitan | 71 | 67 | 65 | 66 | 69 | 72 | | Norfolk | 47 | 47 | 56 | 52 | 56 | 53 | | North Wales | 54 | 51 | 56 | 46 | 49 | 45 | | North Yorkshire | 55 | 61 | 68 | 73 | 65 | 60 | | Northamptonshire | 55 | 65 | 61 | 55 | 48 | 55 | | Northumbria | 69 | 76 | 72 | 71 | 64 | 61 | | Nottinghamshire | 63 | 66 | 58 | 54 | 53 | 58 | | South Wales | 86 | 83 | 68 | 56 | 56 | 61 | | South Yorkshire | 58 | 61 | 57 | 56 | 65 | 73 | | Staffordshire | 58 | 49 | 50 | 49 | 48 | 51 | | Suffolk | 47 | 60 | 61 | 63 | 52 | 52 | | Surrey | 51 | 43 | 40 | 40 | 51 | 67 | | Sussex | 66 | 62 | 54 | 53 | 60 | 64 | | Thames Valley | 68 | 59 | 60 | 66 | 71 | 65 | | Warwickshire | 60 | 55 | 53 | 44 | 38 | 49 | | West Mercia | 66 | 68 | 74 | 63 | 60 | 51 | | West Midlands | 55 | 56 | 54 | 51 | 51 | 53 | | West Yorkshire | 59 | 57 | 60 | 60 | 63 | 59 | | Wiltshire | 77 | 68 | 75 | 78 | 75 | 61 | | British Transport Police | 79 | 71 | 60 | 66 | 67 | 70 | | England and Wales | 63 | 62 | 61 | 60 | 60 | 61 |
Note: All Figures denoted by * are based on 40 or fewer cases and should be interpreted with particular care. All period figures denoted by (r) are based on revised data and replace those provided in the last bulletin in the series.
(1) The area classification is based on the Police Force that investigated the offence and entered the charge or summons details on the Police National Computer. In a small proportion of cases, prosecution and court proceedings may have been handled in different areas to that which first recorded the cases. Notes to the pledge
The pledge
1. The original Government pledge was to halve the time it takes to deal with persistent young offenders from arrest to sentence in England and Wales from 142 days in 1996 to 71 days by 2002. The timely process of these offenders at the target level remains an ongoing commitment.
2. Overall responsibility for the pledge is shared jointly by all Criminal Justice System departments and agencies. However, the agency with the lead responsibility for overseeing delivery nationally is the Office for Criminal Justice Reform.
3. From 2005, the pledge has been applied to all Criminal Justice System areas, who are required to achieve the compliance target on a consistent basis. The Local Criminal Justice Boards are responsible for delivery in the local areas.
4. Since 1997, this National Statistics bulletin published by the Ministry of Justice has presented national and local performance against the target.
Notes to the data and methodology
Data sources
5. The raw data used to identify persistent young offenders, and to calculate the average time interval from arrest to sentence across relevant cases are:
- the Police National Computer, which is the police’s central management information database. The source provides a full collection of cases, and all the variables needed to determine the offenders classification and to contribute to the calculation of performance against the target; and
- the annual Arrest to Charge survey, which is an annual sample survey designed to enable the calculation of robust representative estimates of subsidiary time from the initial to the process stage.
Please see the definitional and calculation rules for details on data usage.
Paths through the system
6. Offenders can take two paths through the Criminal Justice System:
- one where they are arrested and subsequently processed by the police, then listed to appear in court for however many hearings are necessary until the session where the sentence is passed on them; and • another where they are reported and information is laid against them by the police, then they are summoned to appear in court for however many hearings until the final session where the sentence is passed on them.
Definitional rules
7. The data used to identify whether a defendant found guilty of an offence is a persistent young offender comes from the Police National Computer. Under the counting rules such an offender is:
• a young person who is aged 10 to 17 at the point of process, and 18 or under at the start of the calendar year in which they are sentenced guilty of an offence;
• who has been sentenced guilty of offences by any criminal court in the United Kingdom on three or more separate occasions in the past for one or more recordable offences on each of the occasions; and
• within 3 years of the last of these sentencing occasion is subsequently arrested and then found guilty of at least one more recordable offence.
Under this definition, it is possible for young adults aged 18 and 19 years at sentence, but not those aged 20 years or over, to fall in the category.
Calculation rules
08. The full data used to calculate the overall interval between the initial stage (arrest or reporting / information laid) and the sentence stage for the cases of persistent young offenders comes from the Police National Computer in the main.
09. However, some additional data from the annual Arrest to Charge survey is used in the calculations for an ever-decreasing number of cases. For this minority of cases, survey results are used as proxy for time from the initial to process (charge or summons) stage, where that time is not recorded on the main data source. This time is then added to the usually larger interval from process to sentence stage derived from the aforementioned source.
10. The overall interval is commonly known as the average time from arrest to sentence, owing to the fact the vast majority of cases pass through that path. It can essentially be a national, sentencing court type jurisdiction or local area average of the intervals of all relevant cases in a given period. Additional notes
National Statistics
11. This is a National Statistics publication produced by the Ministry of Justice. National Statistics are produced to high professional standards set out in the National Statistics Code of Practice. They undergo regular quality assurance reviews to ensure that they meet customer needs. They are produced free from any political interference.
The bulletin
12. The Ministry of Justice has produced the figures in this bulletin with assistance from the data source owner in the National Policing Improvement Agency.
13. The figures presented in this bulletin are obtained from separate monitoring exercises run on successive monthly data extractions from the Police National Computer from 1997.
14. In accordance with the counting rules, the bulletin covers all cases sentenced in magistrates' courts and the Crown Court in England and Wales that are recorded on the Police National Computer.
The definition
15. A persistent young offender was first defined in the inter-departmental circular 'Tackling delays in the Youth Justice System' issued on 15 October 1997:
"A persistent young offender is a young person aged 10-17 who has been sentenced by any criminal court in the UK on three or more separate occasions for one or more recordable offence, and within three years of the last sentencing occasion is subsequently arrested or has an information laid against them for a further recordable offence."
16. Individuals can fall within this definition at the date of sentence. This happens where offenders are brought into the group by virtue of one or more offences committed after but dealt with before the fourth sentencing occasion. Essentially, this rearranges the usual order of counting occasions, so that offences which would not be expected to fall on the final occasion do so; with the longest lasting case then contributing to the arrest to sentence averages.
The calculations
17. In the instance where an offender is sentenced for more than one offence on the fourth sentencing occasion, only the longest running of these cases will contribute to the arrest to sentence averages. The extraction
18. All cases in the consecutive counting of sentencing occasions are extracted from the source. However, some of them are then excluded from the monitoring exercise because the offences were:
- committed outside the United Kingdom, Channel Islands and the Isle of Man;
- handled by a police force outside England and Wales, other than cases handled by the British Transport Police;
- proceeded with in courts outside England and Wales;
- resulted in no convictions being brought against the offender, for example where individuals were acquitted or cases against them discounted; and
- breaches of previous sentence order, for example probation orders.
However, from 1 January 2005 breaches of anti-social behaviour orders have been included in the exercise.
The amended methodology
19. From May 2006, all arrest to sentence figures have been calculated using an amended methodology. This new approach has been applied to remove the double counting of Arrest to Charge time for offences processed at arrest, or else that where overall time is recorded on the Police National Computer.
20. The new methodology has been retrospectively applied to backdated periods, so that all time-series are consistent within this bulletin and others released since the change. However, changes to statistics published prior to May 2006 may be partly or wholly due to this amendment and are not comparable.
The provisional statistics
21. From April 2007, more up to date statistics have been made available in this bulletin. The introduction of 2 months in arrears statistics has augmented the headline 3 month in arrears figures.
22. These provisional statistics were introduced after a longitudinal study of data collections from the Police National Computer, which revealed that from January 2005 around 95% of records are consistently inputted 2 months in arrears in England and Wales.
23. The collection of more data earlier has meant that 2 months in arrears statistics have become closer to the published National Statistics for England and Wales and for cases heard in magistrates’ courts. These provisional statistics are adjusted in the order reflect observed historical and seasonal fluctuations. The survey
24. The Arrest to Charge survey collects arrest or information laid dates in March for a representative sample of cases for the previous calendar year.
25. Respondents in each of the police constabularies and the British Transport Police complete the survey forms sent by the Ministry of Justice. Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary champions the survey, and helps to ensure its prompt completion.
26. In the instance where survey forms contain offenders with more than one offence sentenced on a single occasion, only the longest running of these cases will contribute to the survey results.
27. The previous year’s survey estimates are used to calculate in-year arrest to sentence figures until the current survey results are available.
Symbols and conventions
The following symbols have been used throughout the tables in this bulletin:
- Not applicable 0 Nil .. Not available (r) Revised data (p) Provisional data Contact points for further information
Current and previous editions of this publication are available for download at:
www.justice.gov.uk/publications/averagetimearresttosentencepyo.htm
This bulletin, together with other information about delay in persistent young offender cases can also be found on the Youth Justice Board’s reducing delays internet site at:
www.yjb.gov.uk/en-b/practitioners/MonitoringPerformance/ReducingDelays/
Press enquiries should be directed to the Ministry of Justice press office:
Press Office Ministry of Justice 9th Floor Selborne House 54–60 Victoria Street London SW1E 6QW
Tel: 020 7210 8512 / 8513 Email: [email protected]
Other enquires about the statistics and requests for additional copies of this bulletin should be directed to:
Trushar Pandya: Economics and Statistics Division Ministry of Justice 5th floor Selborne House 54–60 Victoria Street London SW1E 6QW
Tel: 020 7210 8910 Email: [email protected]
General enquires about the statistical work of the Ministry of Justice can be e-mailed to: [email protected]
Other National Statistics publications and general information about the official statistics system in the UK are available from: www.statistics.gov.uk
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/4889-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 17,
"total-input-tokens": 29335,
"total-output-tokens": 7823,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
149,
1
],
[
149,
956,
2
],
[
956,
2128,
3
],
[
2128,
3258,
4
],
[
3258,
3697,
5
],
[
3697,
3964,
6
],
[
3964,
6386,
7
],
[
6386,
8678,
8
],
[
8678,
10761,
9
],
[
10761,
13909,
10
],
[
13909,
15942,
11
],
[
15942,
18059,
12
],
[
18059,
20201,
13
],
[
20201,
22419,
14
],
[
22419,
23362,
15
],
[
23362,
24615,
16
],
[
24615,
24615,
17
]
]
} |
bfc31e87d0f1ae19f687edb4ad51ef08090d1728 | Average Time From Arrest To Sentence For Persistent Young Offenders: July 2008
Ministry of Justice Statistics bulletin
Published: 9 October 2008 Executive summary
Background
This Bulletin presents the latest figures on the average time from arrest to sentence for persistent young offenders.
These figures are used to monitor the pledge to halve the average time from arrest to sentence for persistent young offenders in England and Wales from 142 days in 1996 to 71 days.
Main Points
- The average time from arrest to sentence for persistent young offenders in England and Wales was 54 days in July 2008, 2 days lower than in June 2008.
- The overall average time from arrest to sentence for cases sentenced in magistrates’ courts was 45 days in July 2008 – equalling the figure for the previous month.
- Cases sentenced in the Crown Court took an average of 186 days from arrest to sentence during July 2008, down 12 days from June 2008. Average Interval from Arrest to Sentence
The bulletin
This bulletin contains statistics on the average time from arrest to sentence for persistent young offenders in England and Wales.
This bulletin presents figures for July 2008. In-year figures for 2008 will be revised as more data is entered onto the Police National Computer, and when the arrest dates survey for 2008 has been completed – please see the Notes section for further details.
The main body of the bulletin is organised in three parts. This first part contains commentary on the latest figures, the second has detailed tables of results, and the final part comprises of notes on the pledge and methodology used and also includes contact points for enquires.
England and Wales
The average time between arrest and sentence for persistent young offenders during July 2008 was 54 days, 2 days lower than in the previous month.
Further figures can be found in table 1 (page 6). A graph showing monthly progress from January 1997 is shown in figure 1 below.
Figure 1: Average time (days) between arrest and sentence for persistent young offenders – England and Wales, January 1997 to July 2008 Cases sentenced at Magistrates’ Courts
For July 2008, cases sentenced at magistrates’ courts represented 94 per cent of all persistent young offender cases. As table 2 (page 7) shows, the overall average time from arrest to sentence for these cases was 45 days, equalling the figure for the previous month.
Cases sentenced at the Crown Court
The average time from arrest to sentence for cases sentenced at the Crown Court during July 2008 was 186 days, down 12 days from the previous month. For further figures please see table 3 (page 8).
Cases sentenced at the Crown Court include both time spent in magistrates’ courts before committal to the Crown Court and time spent in Crown Court proceedings after committal. However, it is not possible to provide a breakdown of these periods separately.
The average arrest to sentence times for cases sentenced at the Crown Court and magistrates’ courts between January 1999 and July 2008 are shown separately in figure 2 below.
Figure 2: Average time (days) from arrest to sentence for persistent young offenders by sentencing court – England and Wales, January 1999 to July 2008 Criminal Justice System Areas
A breakdown by criminal justice area on a three-month rolling average basis is shown in table 4 (page 9).
On this basis, the number of areas achieving the 71-day target in the latest period (May - July 2008) was 40, as shown in figure 3 and 4 below.
Figure 3: Number of Criminal Justice System areas within target by rolling three-month arrest to sentence averages – December 2007 to July 2008 Figure 4: Geographical spread of Criminal Justice System areas within target by rolling three-month arrest to sentence averages – rolling quarter ending July 2008
- Green: areas at or under 65 days
- Yellow: areas between 66 and 71 days
- Red: areas over 71 days Table 1: Average number of days from arrest to sentence for persistent young offenders in England and Wales
| Period | Days | Number of cases | |-----------------|------|-----------------| | 1996 | 142 | - | | 1997 | 141 | 16,010 | | 1998 | 125 | 18,605 | | 1999 | 108 | 21,151 | | 2000(^1) | 95 | 23,131 | | 2001 | 76 | 25,393 | | 2002 | 68 | 26,116 | | 2003(^2) | 66 | 26,086 | | 2004 | 69 | 26,363 | | 2005 | 68 | 27,037 | | 2006 | 72 | 28,252 | | 2007 | 65 | 30,683 | | 2007 January – March | 72 | 7,813 | | 2007 April – June | 67 | 7,928 | | 2007 July – September | 62 | 7,766 | | 2007 October – December | 60 | 7,176 | | 2008 January – March (r) | 60 | 7,270 (+19) | | 2008 April – June (r) | 56 | 7,425 (+36) | | 2008 January (r) | 62 | 2,636 (+5) | | 2008 February (r) | 62 | 2,431 (+5) | | 2008 March (r) | 56 | 2,203 (+9) | | 2008 April (r) | 57 | 2,646 (+7) | | 2008 May (r) | 56 | 2,414 (+7) | | 2008 June (r) | 56 | 2,365 (+22) | | 2008 July (r) | 54 | 2,677 (+103) | | 2008 August (p) | 52 | 2,123 |
Notes: All period figures denoted by - are not applicable. All period figures denoted by (r) are based on revised data and replace those provided in the last bulletin in the series. All period figures denoted by (p) are based on provisional data.
(1) Full application of the new methodology (to remove double counting of Arrest to Charge survey time) required the re-calculating of time-series figures. This has resulted in the substantive changes on the previously published numbers. (2) In-year figures for 2008 will be revised as when the arrest dates from the annual Arrest to Charge survey for 2008 are collected in March 2009. Table 2: Average number of days from arrest to sentence for persistent young offenders sentenced at Magistrates’ Courts in England and Wales
| Period | Days | Number of cases | |----------------------|------|-----------------| | 1999 | 96 | 18,851 | | 2000(^{(1)}) | 83 | 21,146 | | 2001 | 68 | 23,752 | | 2002(^{(2)}) | 63 | 24,280 | | 2003(^{(1)}) | 58 | 24,481 | | 2004 | 61 | 24,698 | | 2005(^{(1)}) | 61 | 25,498 | | 2006 | 63 | 26,529 | | 2007 | 57 | 28,904 | | 2007 January – March | 63 | 7,351 | | 2007 April – June | 58 | 7,469 | | 2007 July – September| 54 | 7,332 | | 2007 October – December | 51 | 6,752 | | 2008 January – March (r) | 50 | 6,800 (+18) | | 2008 April – June (r) | 46 | 6,919 (+29) | | 2008(^{(2)}) January (r) | 52 | 2,483 (+5) | | 2008(^{(2)}) February (r) | 51 | 2,251 (+5) | | 2008(^{(2)}) March (r) | 46 | 2,066 (+8) | | 2008(^{(2)}) April (r) | 47 | 2,487 (+7) | | 2008(^{(2)}) May (r) | 45 | 2,235 (+4) | | 2008(^{(2)}) June (r) | 45 | 2,197 (+18) | | 2008(^{(2)}) July (r) | 45 | 2,505 (+95) | | 2008(^{(2)}) August (p) | 42 | 1,997 |
Notes: All period figures denoted by (r) are based on revised data and replace those provided in the last bulletin in the series. All period figures denoted by (p) are based on provisional data.
(1) Full application of the new methodology (to remove double counting of Arrest to Charge survey time) required the re-calculating of time-series figures. This has resulted in the substantive changes on the previously published numbers. (2) In-year figures for 2008 will be revised as when the arrest dates from the annual Arrest to Charge survey for 2008 are collected in March 2009. Table 3: Average number of days from arrest to sentence for persistent young offenders sentenced at the Crown Court in England and Wales
| Period | Days | Number of cases | |-----------------|------|-----------------| | 1999 | 212 | 2,271 | | 2000 | 218 | 1,976 | | 2001 | 196 | 1,632 | | 2002(^{(1)}) | 178 | 1,829 | | 2003(^{(1)}) | 188 | 1,590 | | 2004 | 186 | 1,653 | | 2005(^{(1)}) | 192 | 1,526 | | 2006 | 214 | 1,704 | | 2007 | 206 | 1,769 |
| Period | Days | Number of cases | |-----------------|------|-----------------| | 2007 January – March | 210 | 459 | | 2007 April – June | 206 | 456 | | 2007 July – September | 197 | 433 | | 2007 October – December | 213 | 421 | | 2008 January – March (r) | 210 | 454 (+1) | | 2008 April – June (r) | 200 (-1) | 497 (+7) |
| Period | Days | Number of cases | |-----------------|------|-----------------| | 2008(^{(2)}) January (r) | 223 | 145 | | 2008(^{(2)}) February (r) | 204 | 177 | | 2008(^{(2)}) March (r) | 202 | 132 (+1) | | 2008(^{(2)}) April (r) | 201 | 158 | | 2008(^{(2)}) May (r) | 200 (-1) | 176 (+3) | | 2008(^{(2)}) June (r) | 198 (-2) | 163 (+4) | | 2008(^{(2)}) July | 186 | 172 |
Notes: All period figures denoted by (r) are based on revised data and replace those provided in the last bulletin in the series. All period figures denoted by (p) are based on provisional data.
(1) Full application of the new methodology (to remove double counting of Arrest to Charge survey time) required the recalculating of time-series figures. This has resulted in the substantive changes on the previously published numbers.
(2) In-year figures for 2008 will be revised as when the arrest dates from the annual Arrest to Charge survey for 2008 are collected in March 2009. Table 4: Average number of days from arrest to sentence (three-month rolling averages) for persistent young offenders in England and Wales and by Criminal Justice Area from December 2007 to July 2008(2)
| Area | Dec 07 to Feb 08 (r) | Jan 08 to Mar 08 (r) | Feb 08 to Apr 08 (r) | Mar 08 to May 08 (r) | Apr 08 to Jun 08 (r) | May 08 to Jul 08 | |-----------------------|----------------------|----------------------|----------------------|----------------------|----------------------|------------------| | Avon and Somerset | 67 | 69 | 67 | 71 | 76 | 74 | | Bedfordshire | 58 | 56 | 74 | 75 | 68 | 57 | | Cambridgeshire | 56 | 65 | 67 | 68 | 65 | 67 | | Cheshire | 35 | 37 | 41 | 45 | 46 | 44 | | Cleveland | 63 | 63 | 60 | 51 | 53 | 50 | | Cumbria | 52 | 58 | 50 | 49 | 46 | 51 | | Derbyshire | 48 | 46 | 45 | 49 | 53 | 49 | | Devon and Cornwall | 61 | 62 | 58 | 53 | 43 | 45 | | Dorset | 66 | 63 | 78 | 57 | 53 | 45 | | Durham | 55 | 48 | 47 | 35 | 42 | 41 | | Dyfed-Powys | 45 | 54 | 55 | 49 | 38 | 39 | | Essex | 57 | 59 | 52 | 44 | 41 | 50 | | Gloucestershire | 72 | 69 | 55 | 59 | 62 | 71 | | Greater Manchester | 61 | 54 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 51 | | Gwent | 54 | 54 | 58 | 60 | 71 | 64 | | Hampshire | 68 | 66 | 62 | 58 | 61 | 62 | | Hertfordshire | 74 | 69 | 61 | 58 | 66 | 59 | | Humberside | 62 | 62 | 58 | 49 | 51 | 49 | | Kent | 65 | 68 | 67 | 64 | 75 | 65 | | Lancashire | 65 | 56 | 50 | 47 | 48 | 52 | | Leicestershire | 69 | 70 | 73 | 74 | 74 | 65 | | Lincolnshire | 55 | 86 | 78 | 92 | 67 | 87 | | Merseyside | 65 | 57 | 58 | 60 | 59 | 55 | | Metropolitan | 73 | 72 | 71 | 70 | 69 | 65 | | Norfolk | 57 | 48 | 43 | 53 | 54 | 52 | | North Wales | 58 | 61 | 56 | 55 | 53 | 53 | | North Yorkshire | 62 | 60 | 55 | 48 | 46 | 44 | | Northamptonshire | 55 | 59 | 50 | 56 | 61 | 66 | | Northumbria | 59 | 56 | 53 | 53 | 46 | 42 | | Nottinghamshire | 65 | 68 | 71 | 66 | 63 | 58 | | South Wales | 63 | 65 | 56 | 55 | 50 | 52 | | South Yorkshire | 76 | 66 | 69 | 59 | 56 | 52 | | Staffordshire | 60 | 64 | 56 | 49 | 47 | 49 | | Suffolk | 46 | 49 | 47 | 47 | 43 | 47 | | Surrey | 78 | 71 | 56 | 43 | 40 | 48 | | Sussex | 67 | 61 | 53 | 46 | 44 | 49 | | Thames Valley | 66 | 63 | 62 | 60 | 50 | 60 | | Warwickshire | 45 | 62 | 46 | 43 | 31 | 38 | | West Mercia | 44 | 42 | 48 | 48 | 53 | 52 | | West Midlands | 55 | 53 | 52 | 52 | 56 | 56 | | West Yorkshire | 61 | 61 | 65 | 62 | 67 | 63 | | Wiltshire | 62 | 69 | 64 | 50 | 63 | 61 | | British Transport Police | 60 | 51 | 62 | 57 | 68 | 62 | | England and Wales | 62 | 60 | 58 | 56 | 56 | 55 |
Note: All Figures denoted by * are based on 40 or fewer cases and should be interpreted with particular care. All period figures denoted by (r) are based on revised data and replace those provided in the last bulletin in the series.
(1) The area classification is based on the Police Force that investigated the offence and entered the charge or summons details on the Police National Computer. In a small proportion of cases, prosecution and court proceedings may have been handled in different areas to that which first recorded the cases. Notes to the pledge
The pledge
1. The original Government pledge was to halve the time it takes to deal with persistent young offenders from arrest to sentence in England and Wales from 142 days in 1996 to 71 days by 2002. The timely process of these offenders at the target level remains an ongoing commitment.
2. Overall responsibility for the pledge is shared jointly by all Criminal Justice System departments and agencies. However, the agency with the lead responsibility for overseeing delivery nationally is the Office for Criminal Justice Reform.
3. From 2005, the pledge has been applied to all Criminal Justice System areas, who are required to achieve the compliance target on a consistent basis. The Local Criminal Justice Boards are responsible for delivery in the local areas.
4. Since 1997, this National Statistics bulletin published by the Ministry of Justice has presented national and local performance against the target.
Notes to the data and methodology
Data sources
5. The raw data used to identify persistent young offenders, and to calculate the average time interval from arrest to sentence across relevant cases are:
- the Police National Computer, which is the police’s central management information database. The source provides a full collection of cases, and all the variables needed to determine the offenders classification and to contribute to the calculation of performance against the target; and
- the annual Arrest to Charge survey, which is an annual sample survey designed to enable the calculation of robust representative estimates of subsidiary time from the initial to the process stage.
Please see the definitional and calculation rules for details on data usage.
Paths through the system
6. Offenders can take two paths through the Criminal Justice System:
- one where they are arrested and subsequently processed by the police, then listed to appear in court for however many hearings are necessary until the session where the sentence is passed on them; and • another where they are reported and information is laid against them by the police, then they are summoned to appear in court for however many hearings until the final session where the sentence is passed on them.
Definitional rules
7. The data used to identify whether a defendant found guilty of an offence is a persistent young offender comes from the Police National Computer. Under the counting rules such an offender is:
• a young person who is aged 10 to 17 at the point of process, and 18 or under at the start of the calendar year in which they are sentenced guilty of an offence;
• who has been sentenced guilty of offences by any criminal court in the United Kingdom on three or more separate occasions in the past for one or more recordable offences on each of the occasions; and
• within 3 years of the last of these sentencing occasion is subsequently arrested and then found guilty of at least one more recordable offence.
Under this definition, it is possible for young adults aged 18 and 19 years at sentence, but not those aged 20 years or over, to fall in the category.
Calculation rules
08. The full data used to calculate the overall interval between the initial stage (arrest or reporting / information laid) and the sentence stage for the cases of persistent young offenders comes from the Police National Computer in the main.
09. However, some additional data from the annual Arrest to Charge survey is used in the calculations for an ever-decreasing number of cases. For this minority of cases, survey results are used as proxy for time from the initial to process (charge or summons) stage, where that time is not recorded on the main data source. This time is then added to the usually larger interval from process to sentence stage derived from the aforementioned source.
10. The overall interval is commonly known as the average time from arrest to sentence, owing to the fact the vast majority of cases pass through that path. It can essentially be a national, sentencing court type jurisdiction or local area average of the intervals of all relevant cases in a given period. Additional notes
National Statistics
11. This is a National Statistics publication produced by the Ministry of Justice. National Statistics are produced to high professional standards set out in the National Statistics Code of Practice. They undergo regular quality assurance reviews to ensure that they meet customer needs. They are produced free from any political interference.
The bulletin
12. The Ministry of Justice has produced the figures in this bulletin with assistance from the data source owner in the National Policing Improvement Agency.
13. The figures presented in this bulletin are obtained from separate monitoring exercises run on successive monthly data extractions from the Police National Computer from 1997.
14. In accordance with the counting rules, the bulletin covers all cases sentenced in magistrates' courts and the Crown Court in England and Wales that are recorded on the Police National Computer.
The definition
15. A persistent young offender was first defined in the inter-departmental circular 'Tackling delays in the Youth Justice System' issued on 15 October 1997:
"A persistent young offender is a young person aged 10-17 who has been sentenced by any criminal court in the UK on three or more separate occasions for one or more recordable offence, and within three years of the last sentencing occasion is subsequently arrested or has an information laid against them for a further recordable offence."
16. Individuals can fall within this definition at the date of sentence. This happens where offenders are brought into the group by virtue of one or more offences committed after but dealt with before the fourth sentencing occasion. Essentially, this rearranges the usual order of counting occasions, so that offences which would not be expected to fall on the final occasion do so; with the longest lasting case then contributing to the arrest to sentence averages.
The calculations
17. In the instance where an offender is sentenced for more than one offence on the fourth sentencing occasion, only the longest running of these cases will contribute to the arrest to sentence averages. The extraction
18. All cases in the consecutive counting of sentencing occasions are extracted from the source. However, some of them are then excluded from the monitoring exercise because the offences were:
- committed outside the United Kingdom, Channel Islands and the Isle of Man;
- handled by a police force outside England and Wales, other than cases handled by the British Transport Police;
- proceeded with in courts outside England and Wales;
- resulted in no convictions being brought against the offender, for example where individuals were acquitted or cases against them discounted; and
- breaches of previous sentence order, for example probation orders.
However, from 1 January 2005 breaches of anti-social behaviour orders have been included in the exercise.
The amended methodology
19. From May 2006, all arrest to sentence figures have been calculated using an amended methodology. This new approach has been applied to remove the double counting of Arrest to Charge time for offences processed at arrest, or else that where overall time is recorded on the Police National Computer.
20. The new methodology has been retrospectively applied to backdated periods, so that all time-series are consistent within this bulletin and others released since the change. However, changes to statistics published prior to May 2006 may be partly or wholly due to this amendment and are not comparable.
The provisional statistics
21. From April 2007, more up to date statistics have been made available in this bulletin. The introduction of 2 months in arrears statistics has augmented the headline 3 month in arrears figures.
22. These provisional statistics were introduced after a longitudinal study of data collections from the Police National Computer, which revealed that from January 2005 around 95% of records are consistently inputted 2 months in arrears in England and Wales.
23. The collection of more data earlier has meant that 2 months in arrears statistics have become closer to the published National Statistics for England and Wales and for cases heard in magistrates’ courts. These provisional statistics are adjusted in the order reflect observed historical and seasonal fluctuations. The survey
24. The Arrest to Charge survey collects arrest or information laid dates in March for a representative sample of cases for the previous calendar year.
25. Respondents in each of the police constabularies and the British Transport Police complete the survey forms sent by the Ministry of Justice. Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary champions the survey, and helps to ensure its prompt completion.
26. In the instance where survey forms contain offenders with more than one offence sentenced on a single occasion, only the longest running of these cases will contribute to the survey results.
27. The previous year’s survey estimates are used to calculate in-year arrest to sentence figures until the current survey results are available.
Symbols and conventions
The following symbols have been used throughout the tables in this bulletin:
- Not applicable 0 Nil .. Not available (r) Revised data (p) Provisional data Contact points for further information
Current and previous editions of this publication are available for download at:
www.justice.gov.uk/publications/averagetimearresttosentencepyo.htm
This bulletin, together with other information about delay in persistent young offender cases can also be found on the Youth Justice Board’s reducing delays internet site at:
www.yjb.gov.uk/en-b/practitioners/MonitoringPerformance/ReducingDelays/
Press enquiries should be directed to the Ministry of Justice press office:
Press Office Ministry of Justice 10th Floor 102 Petty France London SW1H 9AJ
Tel: 020 3334 3536 Email: [email protected]
Other enquires about the statistics and requests for additional copies of this bulletin should be directed to:
Trushar Pandya Economics and Statistics Division Ministry of Justice 5th floor Selborne House 54–60 Victoria Street London SW1E 6QW
Tel: 020 7210 8910 Email: [email protected]
General enquires about the statistical work of the Ministry of Justice can be e-mailed to: [email protected]
Other National Statistics publications and general information about the official statistics system in the UK are available from: www.statistics.gov.uk
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/4890-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 17,
"total-input-tokens": 29333,
"total-output-tokens": 8181,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
147,
1
],
[
147,
949,
2
],
[
949,
2112,
3
],
[
2112,
3242,
4
],
[
3242,
3669,
5
],
[
3669,
3933,
6
],
[
3933,
5962,
7
],
[
5962,
7968,
8
],
[
7968,
10076,
9
],
[
10076,
18185,
10
],
[
18185,
20206,
11
],
[
20206,
22323,
12
],
[
22323,
24465,
13
],
[
24465,
26683,
14
],
[
26683,
27626,
15
],
[
27626,
28873,
16
],
[
28873,
28873,
17
]
]
} |
056f63e2367cdadcbca054c57638958cbc4061a6 | Average Time From Arrest To Sentence For Persistent Young Offenders: July - September 2008
Ministry of Justice Statistics bulletin
Published: 4 December 2008 Executive summary
Background
This Bulletin presents the latest figures on the average time from arrest to sentence for persistent young offenders.
These figures are used to monitor the pledge to halve the average time from arrest to sentence for persistent young offenders in England and Wales from 142 days in 1996 to 71 days.
Main Points
- The average time from arrest to sentence for persistent young offenders in England and Wales was 55 days for the July-September quarter in 2008 - 1 day lower than in the previous quarter.
- The overall average time from arrest to sentence for cases sentenced in magistrates’ courts was 45 days in July-September 2008 – down 1 day from the previous quarter.
- Cases sentenced in the Crown Court took an average of 202 days from arrest to sentence during the July-September quarter, up 2 days from the previous quarter.
- For the third quarter of 2008, 40 of the 42 criminal justice areas had an average arrest to sentence time of 71 days or less. Average Interval from Arrest to Sentence
The bulletin
This bulletin contains statistics on the average time from arrest to sentence for persistent young offenders in England and Wales.
This bulletin presents figures for July - September 2008. In-year figures for 2008 will be revised as more data is entered onto the Police National Computer, and when the arrest dates survey for 2008 has been completed – please see the Notes section for further details.
The main body of the bulletin is organised in three parts. This first part contains commentary on the latest figures, the second has detailed tables of results, and the final part comprises of notes on the pledge and methodology used and also includes contact points for enquires.
England and Wales
The average time between arrest and sentence for persistent young offenders during July - September 2008 was 55 days, 1 day lower than in the previous quarter.
The monthly figure for September 2008 was 59 days, 6 days higher than in August.
Further figures can be found in table 1 (page 6). A graph showing monthly progress from January 1997 is shown in figure 1 below
Figure 1: Average time (days) between arrest and sentence for persistent young offenders – England and Wales, January 1997 to September 2008 Cases sentenced at Magistrates’ Courts
For July - September 2008, cases sentenced at magistrates’ courts represented 94 per cent of all persistent young offender cases. As table 2 (page 7) shows, the overall average time from arrest to sentence for these cases was 45 days, down 1 day from the previous quarter.
Cases sentenced at the Crown Court
The average time from arrest to sentence for cases sentenced at the Crown Court during July - September 2008 was 202 days, up 2 days from the previous quarter. For further figures please see table 3 (page 8).
Cases sentenced at the Crown Court include both time spent in magistrates’ courts before committal to the Crown Court and time spent in Crown Court proceedings after committal. However, it is not possible to provide a breakdown of these periods separately.
The average arrest to sentence times for cases sentenced at the Crown Court and magistrates’ courts between January 1999 and September 2008 are shown separately in figure 2 below.
Figure 2: Average time (days) from arrest to sentence for persistent young offenders by sentencing court – England and Wales, January 1999 to September 2008 Criminal Justice System Areas
A breakdown by criminal justice area on a three-month rolling average basis is shown in table 4 (page 9).
On this basis, the number of areas achieving the 71-day target in the latest period (July - September 2008) was 40, as shown in figure 3 and 4 below.
Figure 3: Number of Criminal Justice System areas within target by rolling three-month arrest to sentence averages – February 2008 to September 2008 Figure 4: Geographical spread of Criminal Justice System areas within target by rolling three-month arrest to sentence averages – rolling quarter ending September 2008 Table 1: Average number of days from arrest to sentence for persistent young offenders in England and Wales
| Period | Days | Number of cases | |-----------------|------|-----------------| | 1996 | 142 | - | | 1997 | 141 | 16,010 | | 1998 | 125 | 18,605 | | 1999 | 108 | 21,151 | | 2000(^{(1)}) | 95 | 23,131 | | 2001 | 76 | 25,393 | | 2002 | 68 | 26,116 | | 2003(^{(2)}) | 66 | 26,086 | | 2004 | 69 | 26,363 | | 2005 | 68 | 27,037 | | 2006 | 72 | 28,252 | | 2007 | 65 | 30,683 |
| Period | Days | Number of cases | |-----------------|------|-----------------| | 2007 January – March | 72 | 7,813 | | 2007 April – June | 67 | 7,928 | | 2007 July – September | 62 | 7,766 | | 2007 October – December | 60 | 7,176 | | 2008 January – March (r) | 60 | 7,286 (+11) | | 2008 April – June (r) | 56 | 7,473 (+26) | | 2008 July – September | 55 | 7,144 |
| Period | Days | Number of cases | |-----------------|------|-----------------| | 2008 January (r) | 62 | 2,640 (+2) | | 2008 February (r) | 62 | 2,435 (+2) | | 2008 March (r) | 56 | 2,211 (+7) | | 2008 April (r) | 57 | 2,664 (+10) | | 2008 May (r) | 57 | 2,430 (+11) | | 2008 June (r) | 56 | 2,379 (+5) | | 2008 July (r) | 54 | 2,694 (+8) | | 2008 August (r) | 53 (+1) | 2,175 (+14) | | 2008 September (r) | 59 (+1) | 2,275 (+45) | | 2008 October (p) | 55 | 2,452 |
Notes: All period figures denoted by - are not applicable. All period figures denoted by (r) are based on revised data and replace those provided in the last bulletin in the series. All period figures denoted by (p) are based on provisional data.
(1) Full application of the new methodology (to remove double counting of Arrest to Charge survey time) required the recalculating of time-series figures. This has resulted in the substantive changes on the previously published numbers. (2) In-year figures for 2008 will be revised as when the arrest dates from the annual Arrest to Charge survey for 2008 are collected in March 2009. Table 2: Average number of days from arrest to sentence for persistent young offenders sentenced at Magistrates’ Courts in England and Wales
| Period | Days | Number of cases | |-----------------|------|-----------------| | 1999 | 96 | 18,851 | | 2000(1) | 83 | 21,146 | | 2001 | 68 | 23,752 | | 2002(1) | 63 | 24,280 | | 2003(1) | 58 | 24,481 | | 2004 | 61 | 24,698 | | 2005(1) | 61 | 25,498 | | 2006 | 63 | 26,529 | | 2007 | 57 | 28,904 |
| Period | Days | Number of cases | |-----------------|------|-----------------| | 2007 January – March | 63 | 7,351 | | 2007 April – June | 58 | 7,469 | | 2007 July – September | 54 | 7,332 | | 2007 October – December | 51 | 6,752 |
| Period | Days | Number of cases | |-----------------|------|-----------------| | 2008 January – March (r) | 50 | 6,814 (+10) | | 2008 April – June (r) | 46 | 6,962 (+24) | | 2008 July – September | 45 | 6,678 |
| Period | Days | Number of cases | |-----------------|------|-----------------| | 2008(2) January (r) | 52 | 2,486 (+2) | | 2008 February (r) | 51 | 2,256 (+3) | | 2008 March (r) | 47 | 2,072 (+5) | | 2008 April (r) | 47 | 2,503 (+10) | | 2008 May (r) | 45 | 2,249 (+10) | | 2008 June (r) | 45 | 2,210 (+4) | | 2008 July (r) | 45 | 2,519 (+7) | | 2008 August (r) | 43 | 2,044 (+10) | | 2008 September (r) | 47 | 2,115 (+39) | | 2008 October (p) | 46 | 2,286 |
Notes: All period figures denoted by (r) are based on revised data and replace those provided in the last bulletin in the series. All period figures denoted by (p) are based on provisional data.
(1) Full application of the new methodology (to remove double counting of Arrest to Charge survey time) required the re-calculating of time-series figures. This has resulted in the substantive changes on the previously published numbers. (2) In-year figures for 2008 will be revised as when the arrest dates from the annual Arrest to Charge survey for 2008 are collected in March 2009. Table 3: Average number of days from arrest to sentence for persistent young offenders sentenced at the Crown Court in England and Wales
| Period | Days | Number of cases | |-----------------|------|-----------------| | 1999 | 212 | 2,271 | | 2000 | 218 | 1,976 | | 2001 | 196 | 1,632 | | 2002(^{(1)}) | 178 | 1,829 | | 2003(^{(1)}) | 188 | 1,590 | | 2004 | 186 | 1,653 | | 2005(^{(1)}) | 192 | 1,526 | | 2006 | 214 | 1,704 | | 2007 | 206 | 1,769 |
| Period | Days | Number of cases | |-----------------|------|-----------------| | 2007 January – March | 210 | 459 | | 2007 April – June | 206 | 456 | | 2007 July – September | 197 | 433 | | 2007 October – December | 213 | 421 | | 2008 January – March (r) | 209 | 456 (+1) | | 2008 April – June (r) | 200 (+1) | 502 (+2) | | 2008 July - September | 202 | 464 |
| Period | Days | Number of cases | |-----------------|------|-----------------| | 2008(^{(2)}) January (r) | 222 | 146 | | 2008(^{(2)}) February (r) | 205 (+1) | 176 (-1) | | 2008(^{(2)}) March (r) | 202 | 134 (+2) | | 2008(^{(2)}) April (r) | 201 | 160 | | 2008(^{(2)}) May (r) | 203 (+4) | 178 (+1) | | 2008(^{(2)}) June (r) | 197 (-1) | 164 (+1) | | 2008(^{(2)}) July (r) | 187 | 175 (+1) | | 2008(^{(2)}) August (r) | 209 | 131 (+4) | | 2008(^{(2)}) September | 212 | 158 |
Notes: All period figures denoted by (r) are based on revised data and replace those provided in the last bulletin in the series. All period figures denoted by (p) are based on provisional data.
(1) Full application of the new methodology (to remove double counting of Arrest to Charge survey time) required the recalculating of time-series figures. This has resulted in the substantive changes on the previously published numbers.
(2) In-year figures for 2008 will be revised as when the arrest dates from the annual Arrest to Charge survey for 2008 are collected in March 2009. Table 4: Average number of days from arrest to sentence (three-month rolling averages) for persistent young offenders in England and Wales and by Criminal Justice Area from February 2008 to September 2008(2)
| Area (1) | Feb 08 to Apr 08 (r) | Mar 08 to May 08 (r) | Apr 08 to May 08 (r) | May 08 to Jun 08 (r) | Jun 08 to Jul 08 (r) | Jul 08 to Aug 08 (r) | Jul 08 to Sep 08 | |---------------------------|-----------------------|-----------------------|----------------------|----------------------|----------------------|----------------------|------------------| | Avon and Somerset | 67 | 71 | 76 | 75 | 73 | 69 | | Bedfordshire | 74 | 75 | 68 | 57 | 51 | 67 | | Cambridgeshire | 67 | 68 | 65 | 67 | 58 | 52 | | Cheshire | 41 | 45 | 46 | 44 | 38 | 42 | | Cleveland | 60 | 51 | 53 | 50 | 55 | 54 | | Cumbria | 50 | 49 | 46 | 51 | 51 | 51 | | Derbyshire | 45 | 49 | 53 | 49 | 49 | 49 | | Devon and Cornwall | 58 | 53 | 43 | 45 | 46 | 47 | | Dorset | 78 | 57 | 53 | 45 | 41 | 48 | | Durham | 47 | 35 | 42 | 41 | 50 | 49 | | Dyfed-Powys | 55 | 49 | 38 | 39 | 49 | 52 | | Essex | 55 | 51 | 47 | 53 | 55 | 59 | | Gloucestershire | 55 | 60 | 62 | 72 | 65 | 64 | | Greater Manchester | 52 | 53 | 54 | 51 | 50 | 51 | | Gwent | 58 | 61 | 72 | 64 | 53 | 52 | | Hampshire | 62 | 58 | 61 | 63 | 62 | 63 | | Hertfordshire | 61 | 58 | 66 | 60 | 57 | 60 | | Humberside | 58 | 49 | 51 | 48 | 50 | 48 | | Kent | 69 | 66 | 75 | 65 | 61 | 51 | | Lancashire | 50 | 47 | 48 | 52 | 52 | 53 | | Leicestershire | 73 | 75 | 75 | 65 | 51 | 50 | | Lincolnshire | 78 | 92 | 67 | 87 | 67 | 70 | | Merseyside | 59 | 61 | 59 | 55 | 50 | 47 | | Metropolitan | 71 | 70 | 69 | 65 | 64 | 66 | | Norfolk | 43 | 53 | 54 | 52 | 41 | 41 | | North Wales | 55 | 55 | 53 | 51 | 44 | 48 | | North Yorkshire | 55 | 48 | 46 | 44 | 47 | 56 | | Northamptonshire | 50 | 56 | 61 | 66 | 60 | 54 | | Northumbria | 53 | 53 | 46 | 42 | 37 | 43 | | Nottinghamshire | 71 | 66 | 64 | 59 | 62 | 59 | | South Wales | 56 | 55 | 50 | 52 | 52 | 49 | | South Yorkshire | 70 | 60 | 56 | 52 | 60 | 67 | | Staffordshire | 56 | 49 | 47 | 49 | 50 | 48 | | Suffolk | 47 | 47 | 43 | 47 | 42 | 43 | | Surrey | 56 | 44 | 41 | 49 | 66 | 72 | | Sussex | 53 | 46 | 44 | 52 | 54 | 60 | | Thames Valley | 62 | 60 | 50 | 60 | 64 | 72 | | Warwickshire | 45 | 43 | 31 | 38 | 42 | 37 | | West Mercia | 47 | 47 | 53 | 52 | 54 | 60 | | West Midlands | 53 | 52 | 56 | 56 | 51 | 46 | | West Yorkshire | 65 | 64 | 68 | 64 | 63 | 62 | | Wiltshire | 64 | 50 | 63 | 61 | 63 | 43 | | British Transport Police | 62 | 57 | 68 | 62 | 55 | 50 | | England and Wales | 59 | 57 | 56 | 55 | 54 | 55 |
Note: All Figures denoted by * are based on 40 or fewer cases and should be interpreted with particular care. All period figures denoted by (r) are based on revised data and replace those provided in the last bulletin in the series.
(1) The area classification is based on the Police Force that investigated the offence and entered the charge or summons details on the Police National Computer. In a small proportion of cases, prosecution and court proceedings may have been handled in different areas to that which first recorded the cases. Notes to the pledge
The pledge
1. The original Government pledge was to halve the time it takes to deal with persistent young offenders from arrest to sentence in England and Wales from 142 days in 1996 to 71 days by 2002. The timely process of these offenders at the target level remains an ongoing commitment.
2. Overall responsibility for the pledge is shared jointly by all Criminal Justice System departments and agencies. However, the agency with the lead responsibility for overseeing delivery nationally is the Office for Criminal Justice Reform.
3. From 2005, the pledge has been applied to all Criminal Justice System areas, who are required to achieve the compliance target on a consistent basis. The Local Criminal Justice Boards are responsible for delivery in the local areas.
4. Since 1997, this National Statistics bulletin published by the Ministry of Justice has presented national and local performance against the target.
Notes to the data and methodology
Data sources
5. The raw data used to identify persistent young offenders, and to calculate the average time interval from arrest to sentence across relevant cases are:
- the Police National Computer, which is the police’s central management information database. The source provides a full collection of cases, and all the variables needed to determine the offenders classification and to contribute to the calculation of performance against the target; and
- the annual Arrest to Charge survey, which is an annual sample survey designed to enable the calculation of robust representative estimates of subsidiary time from the initial to the process stage.
Please see the definitional and calculation rules for details on data usage.
Paths through the system
6. Offenders can take two paths through the Criminal Justice System:
- one where they are arrested and subsequently processed by the police, then listed to appear in court for however many hearings are necessary until the session where the sentence is passed on them; and • another where they are reported and information is laid against them by the police, then they are summoned to appear in court for however many hearings until the final session where the sentence is passed on them.
Definitional rules
7. The data used to identify whether a defendant found guilty of an offence is a persistent young offender comes from the Police National Computer. Under the counting rules such an offender is:
• a young person who is aged 10 to 17 at the point of process, and 18 or under at the start of the calendar year in which they are sentenced guilty of an offence;
• who has been sentenced guilty of offences by any criminal court in the United Kingdom on three or more separate occasions in the past for one or more recordable offences on each of the occasions; and
• within 3 years of the last of these sentencing occasion is subsequently arrested and then found guilty of at least one more recordable offence.
Under this definition, it is possible for young adults aged 18 and 19 years at sentence, but not those aged 20 years or over, to fall in the category.
Calculation rules
08. The full data used to calculate the overall interval between the initial stage (arrest or reporting / information laid) and the sentence stage for the cases of persistent young offenders comes from the Police National Computer in the main.
09. However, some additional data from the annual Arrest to Charge survey is used in the calculations for an ever-decreasing number of cases. For this minority of cases, survey results are used as proxy for time from the initial to process (charge or summons) stage, where that time is not recorded on the main data source. This time is then added to the usually larger interval from process to sentence stage derived from the aforementioned source.
10. The overall interval is commonly known as the average time from arrest to sentence, owing to the fact the vast majority of cases pass through that path. It can essentially be a national, sentencing court type jurisdiction or local area average of the intervals of all relevant cases in a given period. Additional notes
National Statistics
11. This is a National Statistics publication produced by the Ministry of Justice. National Statistics are produced to high professional standards set out in the National Statistics Code of Practice. They undergo regular quality assurance reviews to ensure that they meet customer needs. They are produced free from any political interference.
The bulletin
12. The Ministry of Justice has produced the figures in this bulletin with assistance from the data source owner in the National Policing Improvement Agency.
13. The figures presented in this bulletin are obtained from separate monitoring exercises run on successive monthly data extractions from the Police National Computer from 1997.
14. In accordance with the counting rules, the bulletin covers all cases sentenced in magistrates' courts and the Crown Court in England and Wales that are recorded on the Police National Computer.
The definition
15. A persistent young offender was first defined in the inter-departmental circular 'Tackling delays in the Youth Justice System' issued on 15 October 1997:
"A persistent young offender is a young person aged 10-17 who has been sentenced by any criminal court in the UK on three or more separate occasions for one or more recordable offence, and within three years of the last sentencing occasion is subsequently arrested or has an information laid against them for a further recordable offence."
16. Individuals can fall within this definition at the date of sentence. This happens where offenders are brought into the group by virtue of one or more offences committed after but dealt with before the fourth sentencing occasion. Essentially, this rearranges the usual order of counting occasions, so that offences which would not be expected to fall on the final occasion do so; with the longest lasting case then contributing to the arrest to sentence averages.
The calculations
17. In the instance where an offender is sentenced for more than one offence on the fourth sentencing occasion, only the longest running of these cases will contribute to the arrest to sentence averages. The extraction
18. All cases in the consecutive counting of sentencing occasions are extracted from the source. However, some of them are then excluded from the monitoring exercise because the offences were:
- committed outside the United Kingdom, Channel Islands and the Isle of Man;
- handled by a police force outside England and Wales, other than cases handled by the British Transport Police;
- proceeded with in courts outside England and Wales;
- resulted in no convictions being brought against the offender, for example where individuals were acquitted or cases against them discounted; and
- breaches of previous sentence order, for example probation orders.
However, from 1 January 2005 breaches of anti-social behaviour orders have been included in the exercise.
The amended methodology
19. From May 2006, all arrest to sentence figures have been calculated using an amended methodology. This new approach has been applied to remove the double counting of Arrest to Charge time for offences processed at arrest, or else that where overall time is recorded on the Police National Computer.
20. The new methodology has been retrospectively applied to backdated periods, so that all time-series are consistent within this bulletin and others released since the change. However, changes to statistics published prior to May 2006 may be partly or wholly due to this amendment and are not comparable.
The provisional statistics
21. From April 2007, more up to date statistics have been made available in this bulletin. The introduction of 2 months in arrears statistics has augmented the headline 3 month in arrears figures.
22. These provisional statistics were introduced after a longitudinal study of data collections from the Police National Computer, which revealed that from January 2005 around 95% of records are consistently inputted 2 months in arrears in England and Wales.
23. The collection of more data earlier has meant that 2 months in arrears statistics have become closer to the published National Statistics for England and Wales and for cases heard in magistrates’ courts. These provisional statistics are adjusted in the order reflect observed historical and seasonal fluctuations. The survey
24. The Arrest to Charge survey collects arrest or information laid dates in March for a representative sample of cases for the previous calendar year.
25. Respondents in each of the police constabularies and the British Transport Police complete the survey forms sent by the Ministry of Justice. Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary champions the survey, and helps to ensure its prompt completion.
26. In the instance where survey forms contain offenders with more than one offence sentenced on a single occasion, only the longest running of these cases will contribute to the survey results.
27. The previous year’s survey estimates are used to calculate in-year arrest to sentence figures until the current survey results are available.
Symbols and conventions
The following symbols have been used throughout the tables in this bulletin:
- Not applicable 0 Nil .. Not available (r) Revised data (p) Provisional data Contact points for further information
Current and previous editions of this publication are available for download at:
www.justice.gov.uk/publications/averagetimearresttosentencepyo.htm
This bulletin, together with other information about delay in persistent young offender cases can also be found on the Youth Justice Board’s reducing delays internet site at:
www.yjb.gov.uk/en-b/practitioners/MonitoringPerformance/ReducingDelays/
Press enquiries should be directed to the Ministry of Justice press office:
Press Office Ministry of Justice 9th Floor Selborne House 54–60 Victoria Street London SW1E 6QW
Tel: 020 7210 8512 / 8513 Email: [email protected]
Other enquires about the statistics and requests for additional copies of this bulletin should be directed to:
Trushar Pandya Economics and Statistics Division Ministry of Justice 8.02, 8th Floor 102 Petty France London SW1H 9AJ
Tel: 020 3334 3095 Email: [email protected]
General enquires about the statistical work of the Ministry of Justice can be e-mailed to: [email protected]
Other National Statistics publications and general information about the official statistics system in the UK are available from: www.statistics.gov.uk
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/4891-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 17,
"total-input-tokens": 31769,
"total-output-tokens": 8559,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
160,
1
],
[
160,
1156,
2
],
[
1156,
2430,
3
],
[
2430,
3586,
4
],
[
3586,
4024,
5
],
[
4024,
4192,
6
],
[
4192,
6565,
7
],
[
6565,
8903,
8
],
[
8903,
11136,
9
],
[
11136,
19745,
10
],
[
19745,
21778,
11
],
[
21778,
23895,
12
],
[
23895,
26037,
13
],
[
26037,
28255,
14
],
[
28255,
29198,
15
],
[
29198,
30453,
16
],
[
30453,
30453,
17
]
]
} |
ae4aa526bf8c10abd79776343fe2c21257a999c6 | Average Time From Arrest To Sentence For Persistent Young Offenders: April - June 2008
Ministry of Justice Statistics bulletin
Published: 4 September 2008 Executive summary
Background
This Bulletin presents the latest figures on the average time from arrest to sentence for persistent young offenders.
These figures are used to monitor the pledge to halve the average time from arrest to sentence for persistent young offenders in England and Wales from 142 days in 1996 to 71 days.
Main Points
- The average time from arrest to sentence for persistent young offenders in England and Wales was 56 days for the April-June quarter in 2008 - 4 days lower than in the previous quarter.
- The overall average time from arrest to sentence for cases sentenced in magistrates’ courts was 46 days in April-June 2008 – down 4 days from the previous quarter.
- Cases sentenced in the Crown Court took an average of 201 days from arrest to sentence during the April-June quarter, down 9 days from the previous quarter.
- For the second quarter of 2008, 39 of the 42 criminal justice areas had an average arrest to sentence time of 71 days or less. Average Interval from Arrest to Sentence
The bulletin
This bulletin contains statistics on the average time from arrest to sentence for persistent young offenders in England and Wales.
This bulletin presents figures for April - June 2008. In-year figures for 2008 will be revised as more data is entered onto the Police National Computer, and when the arrest dates survey for 2008 has been completed – please see the Notes section for further details.
The main body of the bulletin is organised in three parts. This first part contains commentary on the latest figures, the second has detailed tables of results, and the final part comprises of notes on the pledge and methodology used and also includes contact points for enquires.
England and Wales
The average time between arrest and sentence for persistent young offenders during April - June 2008 was 56 days, 4 days lower than in the previous quarter.
The monthly figure for June 2008 was 56 days, equalling the figure for May.
Further figures can be found in table 1 (page 6). A graph showing monthly progress from January 1997 is shown in figure 1 below
Figure 1: Average time (days) between arrest and sentence for persistent young offenders – England and Wales, January 1997 to June 2008 Cases sentenced at Magistrates’ Courts
For April - June 2008, cases sentenced at magistrates’ courts represented 93 per cent of all persistent young offender cases. As table 2 (page 7) shows, the overall average time from arrest to sentence for these cases was 46 days, down 4 days from the previous quarter.
Cases sentenced at the Crown Court
The average time from arrest to sentence for cases sentenced at the Crown Court during April - June 2008 was 201 days, down 9 days from the previous quarter. For further figures please see table 3 (page 8).
Cases sentenced at the Crown Court include both time spent in magistrates’ courts before committal to the Crown Court and time spent in Crown Court proceedings after committal. However, it is not possible to provide a breakdown of these periods separately.
The average arrest to sentence times for cases sentenced at the Crown Court and magistrates’ courts between January 1999 and June 2008 are shown separately in figure 2 below.
Figure 2: Average time (days) from arrest to sentence for persistent young offenders by sentencing court – England and Wales, January 1999 to June 2008 Criminal Justice System Areas
A breakdown by criminal justice area on a three-month rolling average basis is shown in table 4 (page 9).
On this basis, the number of areas achieving the 71-day target in the latest period (April - June 2008) was 39, as shown in figure 3 and 4 below.
Figure 3: Number of Criminal Justice System areas within target by rolling three-month arrest to sentence averages – November 2007 to June 2008 Figure 4: Geographical spread of Criminal Justice System areas within target by rolling three-month arrest to sentence averages – rolling quarter ending June 2008 Table 1: Average number of days from arrest to sentence for persistent young offenders in England and Wales
| Period | Days | Number of cases | |-----------------|------|-----------------| | 1996 | 142 | - | | 1997 | 141 | 16,010 | | 1998 | 125 | 18,605 | | 1999 | 108 | 21,151 | | 2000(^{(1)}) | 95 | 23,131 | | 2001 | 76 | 25,393 | | 2002 | 68 | 26,116 | | 2003(^{(1)}) | 66 | 26,086 | | 2004 | 69 | 26,363 | | 2005 | 68 | 27,037 | | 2006 | 72 | 28,252 | | 2007 | 65 | 30,683 |
| Period | Days | Number of cases | |-----------------|------|-----------------| | 2007 January – March | 72 | 7,813 | | April – June | 67 | 7,928 | | July – September | 62 | 7,766 | | October – December | 60 | 7,176 | | 2008 January – March (r) | 60 | 7,251 (+18) | | April – June | 56 | 7,389 |
| Period | Days | Number of cases | |-----------------|------|-----------------| | 2007 January | 72 | 2,618 | | February(^{(1)}) | 69 | 2,486 | | March | 73 | 2,709 | | April | 70 | 2,530 | | May(^{(1)}) | 66 | 2,733 | | June | 64 | 2,665 | | July | 64 | 2,690 | | August | 62 | 2,668 | | September | 60 | 2,408 | | October | 62 | 2,688 | | November | 59 | 2,625 | | December | 61 | 1,863 | | 2008 January (r) | 62 | 2,631 (+2) | | February (r) | 62 | 2,426 (+12) | | March (r) | 56 | 2,194 (+4) | | April (r) | 57 | 2,639 (+12) | | May (r) | 56 | 2,407 (+13) | | June (r) | 56 | 2,343 (+43) | | July (p) | 54 | 2,574 |
Notes: All period figures denoted by - are not applicable. All period figures denoted by (r) are based on revised data and replace those provided in the last bulletin in the series. All period figures denoted by (p) are based on provisional data.
(1) Full application of the new methodology (to remove double counting of Arrest to Charge survey time) required the recalculating of time-series figures. This has resulted in the substantive changes on the previously published numbers. (2) In-year figures for 2008 will be revised as when the arrest dates from the annual Arrest to Charge survey for 2008 are collected in March 2009. Table 2: Average number of days from arrest to sentence for persistent young offenders sentenced at Magistrates’ Courts in England and Wales
| Period | Days | Number of cases | |-----------------|------|-----------------| | 1999 | 96 | 18,851 | | 2000(1) | 83 | 21,146 | | 2001 | 68 | 23,752 | | 2002(1) | 63 | 24,280 | | 2003(1) | 58 | 24,481 | | 2004 | 61 | 24,698 | | 2005(1) | 61 | 25,498 | | 2006 | 63 | 26,529 | | 2007 | 57 | 28,904 | | 2007 January – March | 63 | 7,351 | | 2007 April – June | 58 | 7,469 | | 2007 July – September | 54 | 7,332 | | 2007 October – December | 51 | 6,752 | | 2008 January – March (r) | 50 | 6,782 (+15) | | 2008 April – June | 46 | 6,890 | | 2007 January | 64 | 2,484 | | 2007 February | 61 | 2,350 | | 2007 March | 63 | 2,517 | | 2007 April | 61 | 2,372 | | 2007 May | 58 | 2,585 | | 2007 June | 56 | 2,512 | | 2007 July | 56 | 2,554 | | 2007 August | 54 | 2,500 | | 2007 September | 51 | 2,278 | | 2007 October | 52 | 2,527 | | 2007 November | 50 | 2,487 | | 2007 December | 50 | 1,738 | | 2008(2) January (r) | 52 | 2,478 (+2) | | 2008(2) February (r) | 51 | 2,246 (+11) | | 2008(2) March (r) | 46 | 2,058 (+2) | | 2008(2) April (r) | 47 | 2,480 (+10) | | 2008(2) May (r) | 45 | 2,231 (+14) | | 2008(2) June (r) | 45 | 2,179 (+38) | | 2008(2) July (p) | 45 | 2,410 |
Notes: All period figures denoted by (r) are based on revised data and replace those provided in the last bulletin in the series. All period figures denoted by (p) are based on provisional data.
(1) Full application of the new methodology (to remove double counting of Arrest to Charge survey time) required the re-calculating of time-series figures. This has resulted in the substantive changes on the previously published numbers. (2) In-year figures for 2008 will be revised as when the arrest dates from the annual Arrest to Charge survey for 2008 are collected in March 2009. Table 3: Average number of days from arrest to sentence for persistent young offenders sentenced at the Crown Court in England and Wales
| Period | Days | Number of cases | |--------------|------|-----------------| | 1999 | 212 | 2,271 | | 2000 | 218 | 1,976 | | 2001 | 196 | 1,632 | | 2002<sup>(1)</sup> | 178 | 1,829 | | 2003<sup>(1)</sup> | 188 | 1,590 | | 2004 | 186 | 1,653 | | 2005<sup>(1)</sup> | 192 | 1,526 | | 2006 | 214 | 1,704 | | 2007 | 206 | 1,769 |
| Period | Days | Number of cases | |--------------|------|-----------------| | 2007 January – March | 210 | 459 | | 2007 April – June | 206 | 456 | | 2007 July – September | 197 | 433 | | 2007 October – December | 213 | 421 | | 2008 January – March (r) | 210 | 453 (+3) | | 2008 April – June | 201 | 490 |
| Period | Days | Number of cases | |--------------|------|-----------------| | 2007 January | 213 | 132 | | 2007 February | 214 | 136 | | 2007 March | 206 | 191 | | 2007 April | 208 | 156 | | 2007 May | 216 | 148 | | 2007 June | 193 | 150 | | 2007 July | 200 | 136 | | 2007 August | 187 | 167 | | 2007 September| 207 | 130 | | 2007 October | 220 | 160 | | 2007 November | 213 | 138 | | 2007 December | 204 | 123 | | 2008 January (r) | 223 | 145 | | 2008 February (r) | 204 (+1) | 177 (+1) | | 2008 March (r) | 202 (-1) | 131 (+2) | | 2008 April (r) | 201 | 158 (+2) | | 2008 May (r) | 201 | 173 (-1) | | 2008 June | 200 | 159 |
Notes: All period figures denoted by (r) are based on revised data and replace those provided in the last bulletin in the series. All period figures denoted by (p) are based on provisional data.
(1) Full application of the new methodology (to remove double counting of Arrest to Charge survey time) required the re-calculating of time-series figures. This has resulted in the substantive changes on the previously published numbers. (2) In-year figures for 2008 will be revised as when the arrest dates from the annual Arrest to Charge survey for 2008 are collected in March 2009. Table 4: Average number of days from arrest to sentence (three-month rolling averages) for persistent young offenders in England and Wales and by Criminal Justice Area from November 2007 to June 2008
| Area | Nov 07 to Jan 08 (r) | Dec 07 to Jan 08 (r) | Jan 08 to Feb 08 (r) | Feb 08 to Mar 08 (r) | Mar 08 to Apr 08 (r) | Apr 08 to May 08 (r) | Jun 08 | |-----------------------------|----------------------|----------------------|----------------------|----------------------|----------------------|----------------------|--------| | Avon and Somerset | 66 | 67 | 69 | 67 | 71 | 76 | | | Bedfordshire | 66 | 58 | 49 | 66 | 68 | 68 | | | Cambridgeshire | 49 | 56 | 65 | 67 | 68 | 65 | | | Cheshire | 32 | 35 | 37 | 41 | 44 | 44 | | | Cleveland | 63 | 63 | 63 | 60 | 51 | 53 | | | Cumbria | 53 | 52 | 58 | 50 | 49 | 46 | | | Derbyshire | 52 | 48 | 46 | 45 | 51 | 55 | | | Devon and Cornwall | 60 | 61 | 62 | 58 | 53 | 43 | | | Dorset | 54 | 64 | 61 | 75 | 57 | 53 | | | Durham | 48 | 55 | 48 | 47 | 35 | 42 | | | Dyfed-Powys | 52 | 45 | 54 | 55 | 49 | 38 | | | Essex | 53 | 57 | 59 | 52 | 44 | 41 | | | Gloucestershire | 74 | 72 | 69 | 55 | 60 | 62 | | | Greater Manchester | 62 | 61 | 54 | 52 | 53 | 54 | | | Gwent | 42 | 54 | 54 | 58 | 59 | 69 | | | Hampshire | 63 | 67 | 65 | 62 | 58 | 61 | | | Hertfordshire | 95 | 74 | 69 | 61 | 58 | 66 | | | Humberside | 58 | 62 | 62 | 58 | 49 | 51 | | | Kent | 59 | 65 | 68 | 68 | 65 | 77 | | | Lancashire | 66 | 65 | 56 | 50 | 47 | 48 | | | Leicestershire | 63 | 69 | 70 | 73 | 75 | 74 | | | Lincolnshire | 43 | 55 | 86 | 78 | 92 | 68 | | | Merseyside | 71 | 65 | 57 | 58 | 60 | 59 | | | Metropolitan | 72 | 73 | 72 | 71 | 70 | 69 | | | Norfolk | 52 | 57 | 48 | 43 | 53 | 54 | | | North Wales | 45 | 58 | 61 | 56 | 55 | 53 | | | North Yorkshire | 60 | 62 | 59 | 55 | 48 | 46 | | | Northamptonshire | 53 | 56 | 59 | 50 | 55 | 60 | | | Northumbria | 61 | 59 | 56 | 53 | 53 | 46 | | | Nottinghamshire | 58 | 65 | 68 | 71 | 67 | 63 | | | South Wales | 60 | 63 | 65 | 56 | 55 | 51 | | | South Yorkshire | 72 | 76 | 66 | 69 | 59 | 55 | | | Staffordshire | 51 | 60 | 64 | 56 | 49 | 47 | | | Suffolk | 52 | 46 | 49 | 47 | 47 | 43 | | | Surrey | 66 | 78 | 71 | 56 | 43 | 40 | | | Sussex | 64 | 67 | 60 | 52 | 44 | 43 | | | Thames Valley | 64 | 65 | 63 | 62 | 60 | 51 | | | Warwickshire | 49 | 45 | 62 | 46 | 43 | 31 | | | West Mercia | 50 | 44 | 42 | 48 | 48 | 52 | | | West Midlands | 53 | 55 | 53 | 52 | 52 | 56 | | | West Yorkshire | 59 | 61 | 61 | 65 | 62 | 67 | | | Wiltshire | 59 | 62 | 69 | 64 | 50 | 63 | | | British Transport Police | 69 | 60 | 51 | 62 | 57 | 68 | | | England and Wales | 60 | 62 | 60 | 58 | 56 | 56 | |
Note: All Figures denoted by * are based on 40 or fewer cases and should be interpreted with particular care. All period figures denoted by (r) are based on revised data and replace those provided in the last bulletin in the series.
(1) The area classification is based on the Police Force that investigated the offence and entered the charge or summons details on the Police National Computer. In a small proportion of cases, prosecution and court proceedings may have been handled in different areas to that which first recorded the cases. Notes to the pledge
The pledge
1. The original Government pledge was to halve the time it takes to deal with persistent young offenders from arrest to sentence in England and Wales from 142 days in 1996 to 71 days by 2002. The timely process of these offenders at the target level remains an ongoing commitment.
2. Overall responsibility for the pledge is shared jointly by all Criminal Justice System departments and agencies. However, the agency with the lead responsibility for overseeing delivery nationally is the Office for Criminal Justice Reform.
3. From 2005, the pledge has been applied to all Criminal Justice System areas, who are required to achieve the compliance target on a consistent basis. The Local Criminal Justice Boards are responsible for delivery in the local areas.
4. Since 1997, this National Statistics bulletin published by the Ministry of Justice has presented national and local performance against the target.
Notes to the data and methodology
Data sources
5. The raw data used to identify persistent young offenders, and to calculate the average time interval from arrest to sentence across relevant cases are:
- the Police National Computer, which is the police’s central management information database. The source provides a full collection of cases, and all the variables needed to determine the offenders classification and to contribute to the calculation of performance against the target; and
- the annual Arrest to Charge survey, which is an annual sample survey designed to enable the calculation of robust representative estimates of subsidiary time from the initial to the process stage.
Please see the definitional and calculation rules for details on data usage.
Paths through the system
6. Offenders can take two paths through the Criminal Justice System:
- one where they are arrested and subsequently processed by the police, then listed to appear in court for however many hearings are necessary until the session where the sentence is passed on them; and • another where they are reported and information is laid against them by the police, then they are summoned to appear in court for however many hearings until the final session where the sentence is passed on them.
Definitional rules
7. The data used to identify whether a defendant found guilty of an offence is a persistent young offender comes from the Police National Computer. Under the counting rules such an offender is:
• a young person who is aged 10 to 17 at the point of process, and 18 or under at the start of the calendar year in which they are sentenced guilty of an offence;
• who has been sentenced guilty of offences by any criminal court in the United Kingdom on three or more separate occasions in the past for one or more recordable offences on each of the occasions; and
• within 3 years of the last of these sentencing occasion is subsequently arrested and then found guilty of at least one more recordable offence.
Under this definition, it is possible for young adults aged 18 and 19 years at sentence, but not those aged 20 years or over, to fall in the category.
Calculation rules
08. The full data used to calculate the overall interval between the initial stage (arrest or reporting / information laid) and the sentence stage for the cases of persistent young offenders comes from the Police National Computer in the main.
09. However, some additional data from the annual Arrest to Charge survey is used in the calculations for an ever-decreasing number of cases. For this minority of cases, survey results are used as proxy for time from the initial to process (charge or summons) stage, where that time is not recorded on the main data source. This time is then added to the usually larger interval from process to sentence stage derived from the aforementioned source.
10. The overall interval is commonly known as the average time from arrest to sentence, owing to the fact the vast majority of cases pass through that path. It can essentially be a national, sentencing court type jurisdiction or local area average of the intervals of all relevant cases in a given period. Additional notes
National Statistics
11. This is a National Statistics publication produced by the Ministry of Justice. National Statistics are produced to high professional standards set out in the National Statistics Code of Practice. They undergo regular quality assurance reviews to ensure that they meet customer needs. They are produced free from any political interference.
The bulletin
12. The Ministry of Justice has produced the figures in this bulletin with assistance from the data source owner in the National Policing Improvement Agency.
13. The figures presented in this bulletin are obtained from separate monitoring exercises run on successive monthly data extractions from the Police National Computer from 1997.
14. In accordance with the counting rules, the bulletin covers all cases sentenced in magistrates' courts and the Crown Court in England and Wales that are recorded on the Police National Computer.
The definition
15. A persistent young offender was first defined in the inter-departmental circular 'Tackling delays in the Youth Justice System' issued on 15 October 1997:
"A persistent young offender is a young person aged 10-17 who has been sentenced by any criminal court in the UK on three or more separate occasions for one or more recordable offence, and within three years of the last sentencing occasion is subsequently arrested or has an information laid against them for a further recordable offence."
16. Individuals can fall within this definition at the date of sentence. This happens where offenders are brought into the group by virtue of one or more offences committed after but dealt with before the fourth sentencing occasion. Essentially, this rearranges the usual order of counting occasions, so that offences which would not be expected to fall on the final occasion do so; with the longest lasting case then contributing to the arrest to sentence averages.
The calculations
17. In the instance where an offender is sentenced for more than one offence on the fourth sentencing occasion, only the longest running of these cases will contribute to the arrest to sentence averages. The extraction
18. All cases in the consecutive counting of sentencing occasions are extracted from the source. However, some of them are then excluded from the monitoring exercise because the offences were:
- committed outside the United Kingdom, Channel Islands and the Isle of Man;
- handled by a police force outside England and Wales, other than cases handled by the British Transport Police;
- proceeded with in courts outside England and Wales;
- resulted in no convictions being brought against the offender, for example where individuals were acquitted or cases against them discounted; and
- breaches of previous sentence order, for example probation orders.
However, from 1 January 2005 breaches of anti-social behaviour orders have been included in the exercise.
The amended methodology
19. From May 2006, all arrest to sentence figures have been calculated using an amended methodology. This new approach has been applied to remove the double counting of Arrest to Charge time for offences processed at arrest, or else that where overall time is recorded on the Police National Computer.
20. The new methodology has been retrospectively applied to backdated periods, so that all time-series are consistent within this bulletin and others released since the change. However, changes to statistics published prior to May 2006 may be partly or wholly due to this amendment and are not comparable.
The provisional statistics
21. From April 2007, more up to date statistics have been made available in this bulletin. The introduction of 2 months in arrears statistics has augmented the headline 3 month in arrears figures.
22. These provisional statistics were introduced after a longitudinal study of data collections from the Police National Computer, which revealed that from January 2005 around 95% of records are consistently inputted 2 months in arrears in England and Wales.
23. The collection of more data earlier has meant that 2 months in arrears statistics have become closer to the published National Statistics for England and Wales and for cases heard in magistrates’ courts. These provisional statistics are adjusted in the order reflect observed historical and seasonal fluctuations. The survey
24. The Arrest to Charge survey collects arrest or information laid dates in March for a representative sample of cases for the previous calendar year.
25. Respondents in each of the police constabularies and the British Transport Police complete the survey forms sent by the Ministry of Justice. Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary champions the survey, and helps to ensure its prompt completion.
26. In the instance where survey forms contain offenders with more than one offence sentenced on a single occasion, only the longest running of these cases will contribute to the survey results.
27. The previous year’s survey estimates are used to calculate in-year arrest to sentence figures until the current survey results are available.
Symbols and conventions
The following symbols have been used throughout the tables in this bulletin:
- Not applicable 0 Nil .. Not available (r) Revised data (p) Provisional data Contact points for further information
Current and previous editions of this publication are available for download at:
www.justice.gov.uk/publications/averagetimearresttosentencepyo.htm
This bulletin, together with other information about delay in persistent young offender cases can also be found on the Youth Justice Board’s reducing delays internet site at:
www.yjb.gov.uk/en-b/practitioners/MonitoringPerformance/ReducingDelays/
Press enquiries should be directed to the Ministry of Justice press office:
Press Office Ministry of Justice 9th Floor Selborne House 54–60 Victoria Street London SW1E 6QW
Tel: 020 7210 8512 / 8513 Email: [email protected]
Other enquires about the statistics and requests for additional copies of this bulletin should be directed to:
Trushar Pandya Economics and Statistics Division Ministry of Justice 5th floor Selborne House 54–60 Victoria Street London SW1E 6QW
Tel: 020 7210 8910 Email: [email protected]
General enquires about the statistical work of the Ministry of Justice can be e-mailed to: [email protected]
Other National Statistics publications and general information about the official statistics system in the UK are available from: www.statistics.gov.uk
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/4892-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 17,
"total-input-tokens": 29936,
"total-output-tokens": 8878,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
157,
1
],
[
157,
1146,
2
],
[
1146,
2403,
3
],
[
2403,
3544,
4
],
[
3544,
3973,
5
],
[
3973,
4136,
6
],
[
4136,
6855,
7
],
[
6855,
9213,
8
],
[
9213,
11667,
9
],
[
11667,
20646,
10
],
[
20646,
22667,
11
],
[
22667,
24784,
12
],
[
24784,
26926,
13
],
[
26926,
29144,
14
],
[
29144,
30087,
15
],
[
30087,
31339,
16
],
[
31339,
31339,
17
]
]
} |
0d5248a13c5ac40be5a05cb43c9b9e1e17d9e1bc | Average Time From Arrest To Sentence For Persistent Young Offenders: January - March 2008
Ministry of Justice Statistics bulletin
Published: 5 June 2008 Executive summary
Background
This Bulletin presents the latest figures on the average time from arrest to sentence for persistent young offenders.
These figures are used to monitor the pledge to halve the average time from arrest to sentence for persistent young offenders in England and Wales from 142 days in 1996 to 71 days.
Main Points
- The average time from arrest to sentence for persistent young offenders in England and Wales was 60 days for the January-March quarter in 2008 - equalling the figure for the previous quarter.
- The overall average time from arrest to sentence for cases sentenced in magistrates’ courts was 50 days in January-March 2008 – down 1 day from the previous quarter.
- Cases sentenced in the Crown Court took an average of 211 days from arrest to sentence during the January-March quarter, down 2 days from the previous quarter.
- For the first quarter of 2008, 38 of the 42 criminal justice areas had an average arrest to sentence time of 71 days or less. Average Interval from Arrest to Sentence
The bulletin
This bulletin contains statistics on the average time from arrest to sentence for persistent young offenders in England and Wales.
This bulletin presents figures for January - March 2008. In-year figures for 2008 will be revised as more data is entered onto the Police National Computer, and when the arrest dates survey for 2008 has been completed – please see the Notes section for further details.
The main body of the bulletin is organised in three parts. This first part contains commentary on the latest figures, the second has detailed tables of results, and the final part comprises of notes on the pledge and methodology used and also includes contact points for enquires.
England and Wales
The average time between arrest and sentence for persistent young offenders during January - March 2008 was 60 days, equalling the figure for the previous quarter.
The monthly figure for March 2008 was 56 days, 6 days lower than in February.
Further figures can be found in table 1 (page 6). A graph showing monthly progress from January 1997 is shown in figure 1 below
Figure 1: Average time (days) between arrest and sentence for persistent young offenders – England and Wales, January 1997 to March 2008 Cases sentenced at Magistrates’ Courts
For January - March 2008, cases sentenced at magistrates’ courts represented 94 per cent of all persistent young offender cases. As table 2 (page 7) shows, the overall average time from arrest to sentence for these cases was 50 days, down 1 day from the previous quarter.
Cases sentenced at the Crown Court
The average time from arrest to sentence for cases sentenced at the Crown Court during January - March 2008 was 211 days, down 2 days from the previous quarter. For further figures please see table 3 (page 8).
Cases sentenced at the Crown Court include both time spent in magistrates’ courts before committal to the Crown Court and time spent in Crown Court proceedings after committal. However, it is not possible to provide a breakdown of these periods separately.
The average arrest to sentence times for cases sentenced at the Crown Court and magistrates’ courts between January 1999 and March 2008 are shown separately in figure 2 below.
Figure 2: Average time (days) from arrest to sentence for persistent young offenders by sentencing court – England and Wales, January 1999 to March 2008 Criminal Justice System Areas
A breakdown by criminal justice area on a three-month rolling average basis is shown in table 4 (page 9).
On this basis, the number of areas achieving the 71-day target in the latest period (January - March 2008) was 38, as shown in figure 3 and 4 below.
Figure 3: Number of Criminal Justice System areas within target by rolling three-month arrest to sentence averages – August 2007 to March 2008 Figure 4: Geographical spread of Criminal Justice System areas within target by rolling three-month arrest to sentence averages – rolling quarter ending March 2008
- Green: areas at or under 65 days
- Yellow: areas between 66 and 71 days
- Red: areas over 71 days Table 1: Average number of days from arrest to sentence for persistent young offenders in England and Wales
| Period | Days | Number of cases | |-----------------|------|-----------------| | 1996 | 142 | - | | 1997 | 141 | 16,010 | | 1998 | 125 | 18,605 | | 1999 | 108 | 21,151 | | 2000(1) | 95 | 23,131 | | 2001 | 76 | 25,393 | | 2002 | 68 | 26,116 | | 2003(1) | 66 | 26,086 | | 2004 | 69 | 26,363 | | 2005 | 68 | 27,037 | | 2006 | 72 | 28,252 | | 2007 | 65 | 30,683 |
| Period | Days | Number of cases | |-----------------|------|-----------------| | 2006 January – March | 74 | 7,177 | | April – June | 72 | 7,034 | | July – September | 71 | 7,134 | | October – December | 72 | 6,907 | | 2007 January – March | 72 | 7,813 | | April – June | 67 | 7,928 | | July – September | 62 | 7,766 | | October – December | 60 | 7,176 | | 2008 January – March | 60 | 7,169 |
| Period | Days | Number of cases | |-----------------|------|-----------------| | 2007 January | 72 | 2,618 | | February(1) | 69 | 2,486 | | March | 73 | 2,709 | | April | 70 | 2,530 | | May(1) | 66 | 2,733 | | June | 64 | 2,665 | | July | 64 | 2,690 | | August | 62 | 2,668 | | September | 60 | 2,408 | | October | 62 | 2,688 | | November | 59 | 2,625 | | December | 61 | 1,863 | | 2008(2) January (r) | 62 | 2,610 (+10) | | February (r) | 62 | 2,394 (+14) | | March (r) | 56 (+3) | 2,165 (+61) | | April (p) | 57 | 2,512 |
Notes: All period figures denoted by - are not applicable. All period figures denoted by (r) are based on revised data and replace those provided in the last bulletin in the series. All period figures denoted by (p) are based on provisional data.
(1) Full application of the new methodology (to remove double counting of Arrest to Charge survey time) required the recalculating of time-series figures. This has resulted in the substantive changes on the previously published numbers. (2) In-year figures for 2008 will be revised as when the arrest dates from the annual Arrest to Charge survey for 2008 are collected in March 2009. Table 2: Average number of days from arrest to sentence for persistent young offenders sentenced at Magistrates’ Courts in England and Wales
| Period | Days | Number of cases | |-----------------|------|-----------------| | 1999 | 96 | 18,851 | | 2000(1) | 83 | 21,146 | | 2001 | 68 | 23,752 | | 2002(1) | 63 | 24,280 | | 2003(1) | 58 | 24,481 | | 2004 | 61 | 24,698 | | 2005(1) | 61 | 25,498 | | 2006 | 63 | 26,529 | | 2007 | 57 | 28,904 |
| Period | Days | Number of cases | |-----------------|------|-----------------| | 2006 January – March | 65 | 6,712 | | 2006 April – June | 64 | 6,639 | | 2006 July – September | 62 | 6,704 | | 2006 October – December | 62 | 6,474 | | 2007 January – March | 63 | 7,351 | | 2007 April – June | 58 | 7,469 | | 2007 July – September | 54 | 7,332 | | 2007 October – December | 51 | 6,752 | | 2008 January – March | 50 | 6,709 |
| Period | Days | Number of cases | |-----------------|------|-----------------| | 2007 January | 64 | 2,484 | | 2007 February | 61 | 2,350 | | 2007 March | 63 | 2,517 | | 2007 April | 61 | 2,372 | | 2007 May | 58 | 2,585 | | 2007 June | 56 | 2,512 | | 2007 July | 56 | 2,554 | | 2007 August | 54 | 2,500 | | 2007 September | 51 | 2,278 | | 2007 October | 52 | 2,527 | | 2007 November | 50 | 2,487 | | 2007 December | 50 | 1,738 |
| Period | Days | Number of cases | |-----------------|------|-----------------| | 2008 January (r)| 53 | 2,456 (+9) | | 2008 February (r)| 51 | 2,221 (+11) | | 2008 March (r) | 46 | 2,032 (+57) | | 2008 April (p) | 47 | 2,359 |
Notes: All period figures denoted by (r) are based on revised data and replace those provided in the last bulletin in the series. All period figures denoted by (p) are based on provisional data.
(1) Full application of the new methodology (to remove double counting of Arrest to Charge survey time) required the recalculating of time-series figures. This has resulted in the substantive changes on the previously published numbers. (2) In-year figures for 2008 will be revised as when the arrest dates from the annual Arrest to Charge survey for 2008 are collected in March 2009. Table 3: Average number of days from arrest to sentence for persistent young offenders sentenced at the Crown Court in England and Wales
| Period | Days | Number of cases | |-----------------|------|-----------------| | 1999 | 212 | 2,271 | | 2000 | 218 | 1,976 | | 2001 | 196 | 1,632 | | 2002(^{(1)}) | 178 | 1,829 | | 2003(^{(1)}) | 188 | 1,590 | | 2004 | 186 | 1,653 | | 2005(^{(1)}) | 192 | 1,526 | | 2006 | 214 | 1,704 | | 2007 | 206 | 1,769 |
| Period | Days | Number of cases | |-----------------|------|-----------------| | 2006 January – March | 212 | 460 | | 2006 April – June | 217 | 387 | | 2006 July – September | 210 | 426 | | 2006 October – December | 220 | 431 | | 2007 January – March | 210 | 459 | | 2007 April – June | 206 | 456 | | 2007 July – September | 197 | 433 | | 2007 October – December | 213 | 421 | | 2008 January – March | 211 | 444 |
| Period | Days | Number of cases | |-----------------|------|-----------------| | 2007 January | 213 | 132 | | 2007 February | 214 | 136 | | 2007 March | 206 | 191 | | 2007 April | 208 | 156 | | 2007 May | 216 | 148 | | 2007 June | 193 | 150 | | 2007 July | 200 | 136 | | 2007 August | 187 | 167 | | 2007 September | 207 | 130 | | 2007 October | 220 | 160 | | 2007 November | 213 | 138 | | 2007 December | 204 | 123 |
| Period | Days | Number of cases | |-----------------|------|-----------------| | 2008 January (r)| 222 | 146 | | 2008 February (r)| 207 | 170 (+3) | | 2008 March | 203 | 128 |
Notes: All period figures denoted by (r) are based on revised data and replace those provided in the last bulletin in the series. All period figures denoted by (p) are based on provisional data.
(1) Full application of the new methodology (to remove double counting of Arrest to Charge survey time) required the re-calculating of time-series figures. This has resulted in the substantive changes on the previously published numbers.
(2) In-year figures for 2008 will be revised as when the arrest dates from the annual Arrest to Charge survey for 2008 are collected in March 2009. Table 4: Average number of days from arrest to sentence (three-month rolling averages) for persistent young offenders in England and Wales and by Criminal Justice Area from August 2007 to March 2008(2)
| Area | Aug 07 to Oct 07 (r) | Sep 07 to Nov 07 (r) | Oct 07 to Dec 07 (r) | Nov 07 to Jan 08 (r) | Dec 07 to Feb 08 (r) | Jan 08 to Mar 08 | |-----------------------|-----------------------|-----------------------|-----------------------|-----------------------|-----------------------|------------------| | Avon and Somerset | 68 | 67 | 67 | 66 | 67 | 69 | | Bedfordshire | 64 | 69 | 69 | 66 | 58 | 49 | | Cambridgeshire | 56 | 53 | 54 | 49 | 56 | 65 | | Cheshire | 47 | 45 | 38 | 32 | 35 | 37 | | Cleveland | 55 | 58 | 59 | 63 | 63 | 63 | | Cumbria | 66 | 65 | 51 | 53 | 52 | 58 | | Derbyshire | 53 | 53 | 52 | 53 | 48 | 46 | | Devon and Cornwall | 54 | 53 | 58 | 60 | 61 | 63 | | Dorset | 62 | 71 | 65 | 54 | 64 | 61 | | Durham | 47 | 50 | 52 | 48 | 55 | 48 | | Dyfed-Powys | 40 | 50 | 53 | 52 | 45 | 54 | | Essex | 57 | 54 | 55 | 53 | 55 | 56 | | Gloucestershire | 82 | 64 | 64 | 73 | 72 | 65 | | Greater Manchester | 63 | 60 | 62 | 62 | 61 | 55 | | Gwent | 74 | 54 | 39 | 42 | 54 | 54 | | Hampshire | 59 | 61 | 64 | 64 | 67 | 65 | | Hertfordshire | 64 | 72 | 67 | 95 | 74 | 69 | | Humberside | 61 | 57 | 57 | 58 | 62 | 62 | | Kent | 71 | 67 | 58 | 59 | 65 | 68 | | Lancashire | 56 | 57 | 63 | 66 | 65 | 56 | | Leicestershire | 66 | 64 | 59 | 63 | 69 | 70 | | Lincolnshire | 50 | 52 | 41 | 43 | 55 | 86 | | Merseyside | 67 | 68 | 80 | 71 | 65 | 57 | | Metropolitan | 65 | 66 | 69 | 72 | 73 | 72 | | Norfolk | 55 | 51 | 55 | 52 | 57 | 48 | | North Wales | 56 | 46 | 49 | 45 | 58 | 61 | | North Yorkshire | 68 | 72 | 65 | 60 | 62 | 59 | | Northamptonshire | 61 | 54 | 46 | 53 | 56 | 62 | | Northumbria | 72 | 71 | 64 | 61 | 59 | 56 | | Nottinghamshire | 58 | 54 | 53 | 58 | 65 | 68 | | South Wales | 68 | 56 | 56 | 60 | 63 | 65 | | South Yorkshire | 57 | 56 | 65 | 72 | 75 | 65 | | Staffordshire | 50 | 49 | 48 | 51 | 60 | 64 | | Suffolk | 60 | 63 | 52 | 52 | 45 | 48 | | Surrey | 40 | 40 | 51 | 66 | 79 | 72 | | Sussex | 54 | 53 | 60 | 64 | 67 | 61 | | Thames Valley | 60 | 66 | 71 | 65 | 66 | 64 | | Warwickshire | 53 | 44 | 38 | 49 | 45 | 62 | | West Mercia | 74 | 63 | 60 | 50 | 44 | 43 | | West Midlands | 54 | 51 | 51 | 53 | 55 | 53 | | West Yorkshire | 60 | 60 | 63 | 59 | 61 | 61 | | Wiltshire | 75 | 78 | 74 | 60 | 65 | 72 | | British Transport Police | 60 | 66 | 67 | 69 | 60 | 51 | | England and Wales | 61 | 60 | 60 | 60 | 62 | 60 |
Note: All Figures denoted by * are based on 40 or fewer cases and should be interpreted with particular care. All period figures denoted by (r) are based on revised data and replace those provided in the last bulletin in the series.
(1) The area classification is based on the Police Force that investigated the offence and entered the charge or summons details on the Police National Computer. In a small proportion of cases, prosecution and court proceedings may have been handled in different areas to that which first recorded the cases. Notes to the pledge
The pledge
1. The original Government pledge was to halve the time it takes to deal with persistent young offenders from arrest to sentence in England and Wales from 142 days in 1996 to 71 days by 2002. The timely process of these offenders at the target level remains an ongoing commitment.
2. Overall responsibility for the pledge is shared jointly by all Criminal Justice System departments and agencies. However, the agency with the lead responsibility for overseeing delivery nationally is the Office for Criminal Justice Reform.
3. From 2005, the pledge has been applied to all Criminal Justice System areas, who are required to achieve the compliance target on a consistent basis. The Local Criminal Justice Boards are responsible for delivery in the local areas.
4. Since 1997, this National Statistics bulletin published by the Ministry of Justice has presented national and local performance against the target.
Notes to the data and methodology
Data sources
5. The raw data used to identify persistent young offenders, and to calculate the average time interval from arrest to sentence across relevant cases are:
- the Police National Computer, which is the police’s central management information database. The source provides a full collection of cases, and all the variables needed to determine the offenders classification and to contribute to the calculation of performance against the target; and
- the annual Arrest to Charge survey, which is an annual sample survey designed to enable the calculation of robust representative estimates of subsidiary time from the initial to the process stage.
Please see the definitional and calculation rules for details on data usage.
Paths through the system
6. Offenders can take two paths through the Criminal Justice System:
- one where they are arrested and subsequently processed by the police, then listed to appear in court for however many hearings are necessary until the session where the sentence is passed on them; and • another where they are reported and information is laid against them by the police, then they are summoned to appear in court for however many hearings until the final session where the sentence is passed on them.
Definitional rules
7. The data used to identify whether a defendant found guilty of an offence is a persistent young offender comes from the Police National Computer. Under the counting rules such an offender is:
• a young person who is aged 10 to 17 at the point of process, and 18 or under at the start of the calendar year in which they are sentenced guilty of an offence;
• who has been sentenced guilty of offences by any criminal court in the United Kingdom on three or more separate occasions in the past for one or more recordable offences on each of the occasions; and
• within 3 years of the last of these sentencing occasion is subsequently arrested and then found guilty of at least one more recordable offence.
Under this definition, it is possible for young adults aged 18 and 19 years at sentence, but not those aged 20 years or over, to fall in the category.
Calculation rules
08. The full data used to calculate the overall interval between the initial stage (arrest or reporting / information laid) and the sentence stage for the cases of persistent young offenders comes from the Police National Computer in the main.
09. However, some additional data from the annual Arrest to Charge survey is used in the calculations for an ever-decreasing number of cases. For this minority of cases, survey results are used as proxy for time from the initial to process (charge or summons) stage, where that time is not recorded on the main data source. This time is then added to the usually larger interval from process to sentence stage derived from the aforementioned source.
10. The overall interval is commonly known as the average time from arrest to sentence, owing to the fact the vast majority of cases pass through that path. It can essentially be a national, sentencing court type jurisdiction or local area average of the intervals of all relevant cases in a given period. Additional notes
National Statistics
11. This is a National Statistics publication produced by the Ministry of Justice. National Statistics are produced to high professional standards set out in the National Statistics Code of Practice. They undergo regular quality assurance reviews to ensure that they meet customer needs. They are produced free from any political interference.
The bulletin
12. The Ministry of Justice has produced the figures in this bulletin with assistance from the data source owner in the National Policing Improvement Agency.
13. The figures presented in this bulletin are obtained from separate monitoring exercises run on successive monthly data extractions from the Police National Computer from 1997.
14. In accordance with the counting rules, the bulletin covers all cases sentenced in magistrates' courts and the Crown Court in England and Wales that are recorded on the Police National Computer.
The definition
15. A persistent young offender was first defined in the inter-departmental circular 'Tackling delays in the Youth Justice System' issued on 15 October 1997:
"A persistent young offender is a young person aged 10-17 who has been sentenced by any criminal court in the UK on three or more separate occasions for one or more recordable offence, and within three years of the last sentencing occasion is subsequently arrested or has an information laid against them for a further recordable offence."
16. Individuals can fall within this definition at the date of sentence. This happens where offenders are brought into the group by virtue of one or more offences committed after but dealt with before the fourth sentencing occasion. Essentially, this rearranges the usual order of counting occasions, so that offences which would not be expected to fall on the final occasion do so; with the longest lasting case then contributing to the arrest to sentence averages.
The calculations
17. In the instance where an offender is sentenced for more than one offence on the fourth sentencing occasion, only the longest running of these cases will contribute to the arrest to sentence averages. The extraction
18. All cases in the consecutive counting of sentencing occasions are extracted from the source. However, some of them are then excluded from the monitoring exercise because the offences were:
- committed outside the United Kingdom, Channel Islands and the Isle of Man;
- handled by a police force outside England and Wales, other than cases handled by the British Transport Police;
- proceeded with in courts outside England and Wales;
- resulted in no convictions being brought against the offender, for example where individuals were acquitted or cases against them discounted; and
- breaches of previous sentence order, for example probation orders.
However, from 1 January 2005 breaches of anti-social behaviour orders have been included in the exercise.
The amended methodology
19. From May 2006, all arrest to sentence figures have been calculated using an amended methodology. This new approach has been applied to remove the double counting of Arrest to Charge time for offences processed at arrest, or else that where overall time is recorded on the Police National Computer.
20. The new methodology has been retrospectively applied to backdated periods, so that all time-series are consistent within this bulletin and others released since the change. However, changes to statistics published prior to May 2006 may be partly or wholly due to this amendment and are not comparable.
The provisional statistics
21. From April 2007, more up to date statistics have been made available in this bulletin. The introduction of 2 months in arrears statistics has augmented the headline 3 month in arrears figures.
22. These provisional statistics were introduced after a longitudinal study of data collections from the Police National Computer, which revealed that from January 2005 around 95% of records are consistently inputted 2 months in arrears in England and Wales.
23. The collection of more data earlier has meant that 2 months in arrears statistics have become closer to the published National Statistics for England and Wales and for cases heard in magistrates’ courts. These provisional statistics are adjusted in the order reflect observed historical and seasonal fluctuations. The survey
24. The Arrest to Charge survey collects arrest or information laid dates in March for a representative sample of cases for the previous calendar year.
25. Respondents in each of the police constabularies and the British Transport Police complete the survey forms sent by the Ministry of Justice. Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary champions the survey, and helps to ensure its prompt completion.
26. In the instance where survey forms contain offenders with more than one offence sentenced on a single occasion, only the longest running of these cases will contribute to the survey results.
27. The previous year’s survey estimates are used to calculate in-year arrest to sentence figures until the current survey results are available.
Symbols and conventions
The following symbols have been used throughout the tables in this bulletin:
- Not applicable 0 Nil .. Not available (r) Revised data (p) Provisional data Contact points for further information
Current and previous editions of this publication are available for download at:
www.justice.gov.uk/publications/averagetimearresttosentencepyo.htm
This bulletin, together with other information about delay in persistent young offender cases can also be found on the Youth Justice Board’s reducing delays internet site at:
www.yjb.gov.uk/en-b/practitioners/MonitoringPerformance/ReducingDelays/
Press enquiries should be directed to the Ministry of Justice press office:
Press Office Ministry of Justice 9th Floor Selborne House 54–60 Victoria Street London SW1E 6QW
Tel: 020 7210 8512 / 8513 Email: [email protected]
Other enquires about the statistics and requests for additional copies of this bulletin should be directed to:
Trushar Pandya Economics and Statistics Division Ministry of Justice 5th floor Selborne House 54–60 Victoria Street London SW1E 6QW
Tel: 020 7210 8910 Email: [email protected]
General enquires about the statistical work of the Ministry of Justice can be e-mailed to: [email protected]
Other National Statistics publications and general information about the official statistics system in the UK are available from: www.statistics.gov.uk
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/4893-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 17,
"total-input-tokens": 29835,
"total-output-tokens": 8831,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
155,
1
],
[
155,
1155,
2
],
[
1155,
2425,
3
],
[
2425,
3573,
4
],
[
3573,
4004,
5
],
[
4004,
4269,
6
],
[
4269,
6977,
7
],
[
6977,
9637,
8
],
[
9637,
12257,
9
],
[
12257,
20592,
10
],
[
20592,
22613,
11
],
[
22613,
24730,
12
],
[
24730,
26872,
13
],
[
26872,
29090,
14
],
[
29090,
30033,
15
],
[
30033,
31289,
16
],
[
31289,
31289,
17
]
]
} |
1901f4012470da493b4664bb164158611753a751 | Average Time From Arrest To Sentence For Persistent Young Offenders: November 2008
Ministry of Justice Statistics bulletin
Published: 12 February 2009 Executive summary
Background
This Bulletin presents the latest figures on the average time from arrest to sentence for persistent young offenders.
These figures are used to monitor the pledge to halve the average time from arrest to sentence for persistent young offenders in England and Wales from 142 days in 1996 to 71 days.
Main Points
- The average time from arrest to sentence for persistent young offenders in England and Wales was 58 days in November 2008, 2 days higher than in October 2008.
- The overall average time from arrest to sentence for cases sentenced in magistrates’ courts was 45 days in November 2008 – 2 days lower than the figure for the previous month.
- Cases sentenced in the Crown Court took an average of 222 days from arrest to sentence during November 2008, up 38 days from October 2008.
Conclusion of the Persistent Young Offenders pledge
On 10 December 2008, the Secretary of State for Justice announced to Parliament that the Persistent Young Offenders pledge would be discontinued with effect from the end of the 2008 calendar year. The full text of his statement can be seen on the UK Parliament website at the following link:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmhansrd/cm081210/wmstext/81210m0002.htm#08121029000071
This monthly bulletin, whose purpose is to monitor the pledge, will therefore cease with effect from the edition covering December 2008, due for publication on 12 March 2009. Arrest-to-Charge survey
In previous years, the figures presented in this bulletin have been updated retrospectively to take account of results from the annual 'Arrest to Charge' survey. This exercise generates estimates (at police force area level) of the average time interval between arrest and charge, for the minority of cases where this information is not recorded on the Police National Computer.
This annual survey is normally carried shortly after the completion of a calendar year. However, in the light of the announced discontinuation of the Persistent Young Offenders pledge, we will not be running an 'Arrest to Charge' survey covering 2008, and we will instead be rolling forward the most recent pre-existing survey results for the year 2007.
During 2008 (up to and including November data), some 89% of cases had full information on the arrest to charge interval recorded on the Police National Computer. The survey results are therefore only applied to the remaining 11%. For this reason, and based on recent years' experience of applying these retrospective updates, we expect the absence of a 2008 survey to have a minimal effect on reported 'pledge' statistics. Average Interval from Arrest to Sentence
The bulletin
This bulletin contains statistics on the average time from arrest to sentence for persistent young offenders in England and Wales.
This bulletin presents figures for November 2008. In-year figures for 2008 will be revised as more data is entered onto the Police National Computer – please see the Notes section for further details.
The main body of the bulletin is organised in three parts. This first part contains commentary on the latest figures, the second has detailed tables of results, and the final part comprises of notes on the pledge and methodology used and also includes contact points for enquires.
England and Wales
The average time between arrest and sentence for persistent young offenders during November 2008 was 58 days, 2 days higher than in the previous month.
Further figures can be found in table 1 (page 7). A graph showing monthly progress from January 1997 is shown in figure 1 below.
Figure 1: Average time (days) between arrest and sentence for persistent young offenders – England and Wales, January 1997 to November 2008 Cases sentenced at Magistrates’ Courts
For November 2008, cases sentenced at magistrates’ courts represented 93 per cent of all persistent young offender cases. As table 2 (page 8) shows, the overall average time from arrest to sentence for these cases was 45 days, 2 days lower than the figure for the previous month.
Cases sentenced at the Crown Court
The average time from arrest to sentence for cases sentenced at the Crown Court during November 2008 was 222 days, up 38 days from the previous month. For further figures please see table 3 (page 9).
Cases sentenced at the Crown Court include both time spent in magistrates’ courts before committal to the Crown Court and time spent in Crown Court proceedings after committal. However, it is not possible to provide a breakdown of these periods separately.
The average arrest to sentence times for cases sentenced at the Crown Court and magistrates’ courts between January 1999 and November 2008 are shown separately in figure 2 below.
Figure 2: Average time (days) from arrest to sentence for persistent young offenders by sentencing court – England and Wales, January 1999 to November 2008 Criminal Justice System Areas
A breakdown by criminal justice area on a three-month rolling average basis is shown in table 4 (page 10).
On this basis, the number of areas achieving the 71-day target in the latest period (September – November 2008) was 39, as shown in figure 3 and 4 below.
Figure 3: Number of Criminal Justice System areas within target by rolling three-month arrest to sentence averages – April 2008 to November 2008 Figure 4: Geographical spread of Criminal Justice System areas within target by rolling three-month arrest to sentence averages – rolling quarter ending November 2008 Table 1: Average number of days from arrest to sentence for persistent young offenders in England and Wales
| Period | Days | Number of cases | |-----------------|------|-----------------| | 1996 | 142 | - | | 1997 | 141 | 16,010 | | 1998 | 125 | 18,605 | | 1999 | 108 | 21,151 | | 2000(^1) | 95 | 23,131 | | 2001 | 76 | 25,393 | | 2002 | 68 | 26,116 | | 2003(^2) | 66 | 26,086 | | 2004 | 69 | 26,363 | | 2005 | 68 | 27,037 | | 2006 | 72 | 28,252 | | 2007 | 65 | 30,683 |
| Period | Days | Number of cases | |-----------------|------|-----------------| | 2007 January – March | 72 | 7,813 | | April – June | 67 | 7,928 | | July – September | 62 | 7,766 | | October – December | 60 | 7,176 | | 2008 January – March (r) | 61(+1) | 7,312 (+19) | | April – June (r) | 57 | 7,507 (+14) | | July – September (r) | 55 | 7,205 (+34) |
| Period | Days | Number of cases | |-----------------|------|-----------------| | 2008 January (r) | 62 | 2,651 (+8) | | February (r) | 63 | 2,442 (+5) | | March (r) | 57 | 2,219 (+6) | | April (r) | 57 | 2,674 (+4) | | May (r) | 57 | 2,440 (+5) | | June (r) | 56 | 2,393 (+5) | | July (r) | 54 | 2,711 (+13) | | August (r) | 53 | 2,197 (+9) | | September (r) | 59 | 2,297 (+12) | | October (r) | 56 | 2,564 (+18) | | November (r) | 58 | 2,145 (+94) | | December (p) | 58 | 1,995 |
Notes: All period figures denoted by - are not applicable. All period figures denoted by (r) are based on revised data and replace those provided in the last bulletin in the series. All period figures denoted by (p) are based on provisional data.
(^1) Full application of the new methodology (to remove double counting of Arrest to Charge survey time) required the re-calculating of time-series figures. This has resulted in the substantive changes on the previously published numbers. However, the results of the 2007 Arrest to Charge survey will be applied to both 2007 and 2008 data since, unlike earlier years, an Arrest to Charge survey will not operate for 2008. Table 2: Average number of days from arrest to sentence for persistent young offenders sentenced at Magistrates' Courts in England and Wales
| Period | Days | Number of cases | |-----------------|------|-----------------| | 1999 | 96 | 18,851 | | 2000(1) | 83 | 21,146 | | 2001 | 68 | 23,752 | | 2002(1) | 63 | 24,280 | | 2003(1) | 58 | 24,481 | | 2004 | 61 | 24,698 | | 2005(1) | 61 | 25,498 | | 2006 | 63 | 26,529 | | 2007 | 57 | 28,904 |
| Period | Days | Number of cases | |-----------------|------|-----------------| | 2007 January – March | 63 | 7,351 | | 2007 April – June | 58 | 7,469 | | 2007 July – September | 54 | 7,332 | | 2007 October – December | 51 | 6,752 |
| Period | Days | Number of cases | |-----------------|------|-----------------| | 2008 January – March (r) | 50 | 6,839 (+18) | | 2008 April – June (r) | 46 | 6,991 (+12) | | 2008 July – September (r) | 45 | 6,734 (+35) |
| Period | Days | Number of cases | |-----------------|------|-----------------| | 2008(1) January (r) | 52 | 2,496 (+7) | | 2008 February (r) | 51 | 2,263 (+5) | | 2008 March (r) | 47 | 2,080 (+6) | | 2008 April (r) | 48 (+1) | 2,509 (+2) | | 2008 May (r) | 45 | 2,259 (+5) | | 2008 June (r) | 45 | 2,223 (+5) | | 2008 July (r) | 45 | 2,535 (+13) | | 2008 August (r) | 43 | 2,064 (+9) | | 2008 September (r) | 48 (+1) | 2,135 (+13) | | 2008 October (r) | 47 | 2,388 (+15) | | 2008 November (r) | 45 (-1) | 1,994 (+86) | | 2008 December (p) | 45 | 1,854 |
Notes: All period figures denoted by (r) are based on revised data and replace those provided in the last bulletin in the series. All period figures denoted by (p) are based on provisional data.
(1) Full application of the new methodology (to remove double counting of Arrest to Charge survey time) required the recalculating of time-series figures. This has resulted in the substantive changes on the previously published numbers. However, the results of the 2007 Arrest to Charge survey will be applied to both 2007 and 2008 data since, unlike earlier years, an Arrest to Charge survey will not operate for 2008. Table 3: Average number of days from arrest to sentence for persistent young offenders sentenced at the Crown Court in England and Wales
| Period | Days | Number of cases | |-----------------|------|-----------------| | 1999 | 212 | 2,271 | | 2000 | 218 | 1,976 | | 2001 | 196 | 1,632 | | 2002(^{(1)}) | 178 | 1,829 | | 2003(^{(1)}) | 188 | 1,590 | | 2004 | 186 | 1,653 | | 2005(^{(1)}) | 192 | 1,526 | | 2006 | 214 | 1,704 | | 2007 | 206 | 1,769 |
| Period | Days | Number of cases | |-----------------|------|-----------------| | 2007 January – March | 210 | 459 | | 2007 April – June | 206 | 456 | | 2007 July – September | 197 | 433 | | 2007 October – December | 213 | 421 | | 2008 January – March (r) | 209 | 457 (+1) | | 2008 April – June (r) | 200 | 507 (+2) | | 2008 July – September (r) | 201 | 469 (-1) |
| Period | Days | Number of cases | |-----------------|------|-----------------| | 2008(^{(1)}) January (r) | 222 | 147 (+1) | | 2008 February | 205 | 176 | | 2008 March | 202 | 134 | | 2008 April (r) | 201 | 164 (+2) | | 2008 May | 203 | 178 | | 2008 June | 196 | 165 | | 2008 July | 187 | 176 | | 2008 August | 208 | 133 | | 2008 September (r) | 210 | 160 (-1) | | 2008 October (r) | 184 | 175 (+3) | | 2008 November | 222 | 151 |
Notes: All period figures denoted by (r) are based on revised data and replace those provided in the last bulletin in the series. All period figures denoted by (p) are based on provisional data.
(^{(1)}) Full application of the new methodology (to remove double counting of Arrest to Charge survey time) required the re-calculating of time-series figures. This has resulted in the substantive changes on the previously published numbers. However, the results of the 2007 Arrest to Charge will be applied to both 2007 and 2008 data since, unlike earlier years, an Arrest to Charge survey will not operate for 2008. Table 4: Average number of days from arrest to sentence (three-month rolling averages) for persistent young offenders in England and Wales and by Criminal Justice Area from April 2008 to November 2008
| Area | Apr 08 to Jun 08 (r) | May 08 to Jul 08 (r) | Jun 08 to Aug 08 (r) | Jul 08 to Sep 08 (r) | Aug 08 to Oct 08 (r) | Sep 08 to Nov 08 | |-----------------------|----------------------|----------------------|----------------------|----------------------|----------------------|------------------| | Avon and Somerset | 76 | 75 | 73 | 69 | 70 | 66 | | Bedfordshire | 68 | 57 | 51 | 67 | 79 | 87 | | Cambridgeshire | 65 | 67 | 58 | 52 | 44 | 50 | | Cheshire | 45 | 44 | 38 | 42 | 42 | 49 | | Cleveland | 53 | 50 | 55 | 54 | 61 | 56 | | Cumbria | 46 | 51 | 51 | 51 | 48 | 55 | | Derbyshire | 53 | 48 | 49 | 49 | 58 | 52 | | Devon and Cornwall | 43 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 54 | 65 | | Dorset | 53 | 45 | 41 | 48 | 51 | 58 | | Durham | 42 | 41 | 50 | 49 | 54 | 59 | | Dyfed-Powys | 38 | 39 | 49 | 52 | 57 | 71 | | Essex | 47 | 53 | 55 | 59 | 55 | 56 | | Gloucestershire | 62 | 72 | 65 | 66 | 52 | 56 | | Greater Manchester | 54 | 51 | 50 | 51 | 53 | 56 | | Gwent | 72 | 64 | 53 | 52 | 39 | 45 | | Hampshire | 61 | 63 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 62 | | Hertfordshire | 66 | 60 | 57 | 60 | 50 | 54 | | Humberside | 51 | 48 | 50 | 48 | 51 | 57 | | Kent | 75 | 65 | 61 | 52 | 55 | 59 | | Lancashire | 48 | 52 | 52 | 52 | 56 | 58 | | Leicestershire | 75 | 65 | 51 | 50 | 54 | 51 | | Lincolnshire | 67 | 87 | 67 | 74 | 59 | 70 | | Merseyside | 59 | 54 | 49 | 47 | 41 | 44 | | Metropolitan | 70 | 65 | 64 | 66 | 68 | 64 | | Norfolk | 54 | 52 | 41 | 41 | 43 | 45 | | North Wales | 53 | 51 | 44 | 48 | 53 | 54 | | North Yorkshire | 46 | 44 | 47 | 56 | 60 | 56 | | Northamptonshire | 59 | 63 | 57 | 53 | 50 | 51 | | Northumbria | 46 | 42 | 37 | 43 | 45 | 45 | | Nottinghamshire | 64 | 59 | 62 | 60 | 57 | 55 | | South Wales | 51 | 51 | 51 | 48 | 53 | 49 | | South Yorkshire | 56 | 52 | 60 | 67 | 67 | 69 | | Staffordshire | 47 | 49 | 52 | 50 | 48 | 48 | | Suffolk | 43 | 47 | 43 | 44 | 42 | 43 | | Surrey | 41 | 48 | 65 | 74 | 78 | 65 | | Sussex | 44 | 51 | 54 | 59 | 51 | 52 | | Thames Valley | 51 | 61 | 64 | 71 | 67 | 58 | | Warwickshire | 31 | 38 | 42 | 37 | 39 | 44 | | West Mercia | 55 | 52 | 53 | 60 | 72 | 78 | | West Midlands | 57 | 56 | 52 | 46 | 48 | 56 | | West Yorkshire | 68 | 64 | 63 | 62 | 66 | 74 | | Wiltshire | 63 | 61 | 63 | 43 | 59 | 59 | | British Transport Police | 68 | 62 | 55 | 50 | 46 | 64 | | England and Wales | 57 | 55 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 58 |
Note: All Figures denoted by * are based on 40 or fewer cases and should be interpreted with particular care. All period figures denoted by (r) are based on revised data and replace those provided in the last bulletin in the series.
(1) The area classification is based on the Police Force that investigated the offence and entered the charge or summons details on the Police National Computer. In a small proportion of cases, prosecution and court proceedings may have been handled in different areas to that which first recorded the cases. Notes to the pledge
The pledge
1. The original Government pledge was to halve the time it takes to deal with persistent young offenders from arrest to sentence in England and Wales from 142 days in 1996 to 71 days by 2002. The timely process of these offenders at the target level remains an ongoing commitment.
2. Overall responsibility for the pledge is shared jointly by all Criminal Justice System departments and agencies. However, the agency with the lead responsibility for overseeing delivery nationally is the Office for Criminal Justice Reform.
3. From 2005, the pledge has been applied to all Criminal Justice System areas, who are required to achieve the compliance target on a consistent basis. The Local Criminal Justice Boards are responsible for delivery in the local areas.
4. Since 1997, this National Statistics bulletin published by the Ministry of Justice has presented national and local performance against the target.
Notes to the data and methodology
Data sources
5. The raw data used to identify persistent young offenders, and to calculate the average time interval from arrest to sentence across relevant cases are:
- the Police National Computer, which is the police’s central management information database. The source provides a full collection of cases, and all the variables needed to determine the offenders classification and to contribute to the calculation of performance against the target; and
- the annual Arrest to Charge survey, which is an annual sample survey designed to enable the calculation of robust representative estimates of subsidiary time from the initial to the process stage.
Please see the definitional and calculation rules for details on data usage.
Paths through the system
6. Offenders can take two paths through the Criminal Justice System:
- one where they are arrested and subsequently processed by the police, then listed to appear in court for however many hearings are necessary until the session where the sentence is passed on them; and another where they are reported and information is laid against them by the police, then they are summoned to appear in court for however many hearings until the final session where the sentence is passed on them.
Definitional rules
7. The data used to identify whether a defendant found guilty of an offence is a persistent young offender comes from the Police National Computer. Under the counting rules such an offender is:
- a young person who is aged 10 to 17 at the point of process, and 18 or under at the start of the calendar year in which they are sentenced guilty of an offence;
- who has been sentenced guilty of offences by any criminal court in the United Kingdom on three or more separate occasions in the past for one or more recordable offences on each of the occasions; and
- within 3 years of the last of these sentencing occasion is subsequently arrested and then found guilty of at least one more recordable offence.
Under this definition, it is possible for young adults aged 18 and 19 years at sentence, but not those aged 20 years or over, to fall in the category.
Calculation rules
08. The full data used to calculate the overall interval between the initial stage (arrest or reporting / information laid) and the sentence stage for the cases of persistent young offenders comes from the Police National Computer in the main.
09. However, some additional data from the annual Arrest to Charge survey is used in the calculations for an ever-decreasing number of cases. For this minority of cases, survey results are used as proxy for time from the initial to process (charge or summons) stage, where that time is not recorded on the main data source. This time is then added to the usually larger interval from process to sentence stage derived from the aforementioned source.
10. The overall interval is commonly known as the average time from arrest to sentence, owing to the fact the vast majority of cases pass through that path. It can essentially be a national, sentencing court type jurisdiction or local area average of the intervals of all relevant cases in a given period. Additional notes
National Statistics
11. This is a National Statistics publication produced by the Ministry of Justice. National Statistics are produced to high professional standards set out in the National Statistics Code of Practice. They undergo regular quality assurance reviews to ensure that they meet customer needs. They are produced free from any political interference.
The bulletin
12. The Ministry of Justice has produced the figures in this bulletin with assistance from the data source owner in the National Policing Improvement Agency.
13. The figures presented in this bulletin are obtained from separate monitoring exercises run on successive monthly data extractions from the Police National Computer from 1997.
14. In accordance with the counting rules, the bulletin covers all cases sentenced in magistrates' courts and the Crown Court in England and Wales that are recorded on the Police National Computer.
The definition
15. A persistent young offender was first defined in the inter-departmental circular 'Tackling delays in the Youth Justice System' issued on 15 October 1997:
"A persistent young offender is a young person aged 10-17 who has been sentenced by any criminal court in the UK on three or more separate occasions for one or more recordable offence, and within three years of the last sentencing occasion is subsequently arrested or has an information laid against them for a further recordable offence."
16. Individuals can fall within this definition at the date of sentence. This happens where offenders are brought into the group by virtue of one or more offences committed after but dealt with before the fourth sentencing occasion. Essentially, this rearranges the usual order of counting occasions, so that offences which would not be expected to fall on the final occasion do so; with the longest lasting case then contributing to the arrest to sentence averages.
The calculations
17. In the instance where an offender is sentenced for more than one offence on the fourth sentencing occasion, only the longest running of these cases will contribute to the arrest to sentence averages. The extraction
18. All cases in the consecutive counting of sentencing occasions are extracted from the source. However, some of them are then excluded from the monitoring exercise because the offences were:
- committed outside the United Kingdom, Channel Islands and the Isle of Man;
- handled by a police force outside England and Wales, other than cases handled by the British Transport Police;
- proceeded with in courts outside England and Wales;
- resulted in no convictions being brought against the offender, for example where individuals were acquitted or cases against them discounted; and
- breaches of previous sentence order, for example probation orders.
However, from 1 January 2005 breaches of anti-social behaviour orders have been included in the exercise.
The amended methodology
19. From May 2006, all arrest to sentence figures have been calculated using an amended methodology. This new approach has been applied to remove the double counting of Arrest to Charge time for offences processed at arrest, or else that where overall time is recorded on the Police National Computer.
20. The new methodology has been retrospectively applied to backdated periods, so that all time-series are consistent within this bulletin and others released since the change. However, changes to statistics published prior to May 2006 may be partly or wholly due to this amendment and are not comparable.
The provisional statistics
21. From April 2007, more up to date statistics have been made available in this bulletin. The introduction of 2 months in arrears statistics has augmented the headline 3 month in arrears figures.
22. These provisional statistics were introduced after a longitudinal study of data collections from the Police National Computer, which revealed that from January 2005 around 95% of records are consistently inputted 2 months in arrears in England and Wales.
23. The collection of more data earlier has meant that 2 months in arrears statistics have become closer to the published National Statistics for England and Wales and for cases heard in magistrates’ courts. These provisional statistics are adjusted in the order reflect observed historical and seasonal fluctuations. The survey
24. The Arrest to Charge survey collects arrest or information laid dates in March for a representative sample of cases for the previous calendar year.
25. Respondents in each of the police constabularies and the British Transport Police complete the survey forms sent by the Ministry of Justice. Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary champions the survey, and helps to ensure its prompt completion.
26. In the instance where survey forms contain offenders with more than one offence sentenced on a single occasion, only the longest running of these cases will contribute to the survey results.
27. The previous year’s survey estimates are used to calculate in-year arrest to sentence figures until the current survey results are available.
28. The results of the 2007 Arrest to Charge will be applied to both 2007 and 2008 data since, unlike earlier years, an Arrest to Charge survey will not operate for 2008 – please see page 2 of this bulletin.
Symbols and conventions
The following symbols have been used throughout the tables in this bulletin:
- Not applicable 0 Nil .. Not available (r) Revised data (p) Provisional data Contact points for further information
Current and previous editions of this publication are available for download at:
www.justice.gov.uk/publications/averagetimearresttosentencepyo.htm
This bulletin, together with other information about delay in persistent young offender cases can also be found on the Youth Justice Board’s reducing delays internet site at:
www.yjb.gov.uk/en-b/practitioners/MonitoringPerformance/ReducingDelays/
Press enquiries should be directed to the Ministry of Justice press office:
Press Office Ministry of Justice 10th Floor 102 Petty France London SW1H 9AJ
Tel: 020 3334 3536 Email: [email protected]
Other enquires about the statistics and requests for additional copies of this bulletin should be directed to:
Trushar Pandya Economics and Statistics Division Ministry of Justice 8.02, 8th Floor 102 Petty France London SW1H 9AJ
Tel: 020 3334 3095 Email: [email protected]
General enquires about the statistical work of the Ministry of Justice can be e-mailed to: [email protected]
Other National Statistics publications and general information about the official statistics system in the UK are available from: www.statistics.gov.uk
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/4895-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 18,
"total-input-tokens": 31435,
"total-output-tokens": 9023,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
153,
1
],
[
153,
1609,
2
],
[
1609,
2793,
3
],
[
2793,
3907,
4
],
[
3907,
5059,
5
],
[
5059,
5498,
6
],
[
5498,
5665,
7
],
[
5665,
8134,
8
],
[
8134,
10607,
9
],
[
10607,
12920,
10
],
[
12920,
21025,
11
],
[
21025,
23046,
12
],
[
23046,
25159,
13
],
[
25159,
27301,
14
],
[
27301,
29519,
15
],
[
29519,
30671,
16
],
[
30671,
31906,
17
],
[
31906,
31906,
18
]
]
} |
e72fa7a59e67cb7d8b190708ef9f5f9e96659a0f | Average Time From Arrest To Sentence For Persistent Young Offenders: October 2008
Ministry of Justice Statistics bulletin
Published: 8 January 2009 Executive summary
Background
This Bulletin presents the latest figures on the average time from arrest to sentence for persistent young offenders.
These figures are used to monitor the pledge to halve the average time from arrest to sentence for persistent young offenders in England and Wales from 142 days in 1996 to 71 days.
Main Points
- The average time from arrest to sentence for persistent young offenders in England and Wales was 56 days in October 2008, 3 days lower than in September 2008.
- The overall average time from arrest to sentence for cases sentenced in magistrates’ courts was 47 days in October 2008 – equalling the figure for the previous month.
- Cases sentenced in the Crown Court took an average of 184 days from arrest to sentence during October 2008, down 26 days from September 2008. Average Interval from Arrest to Sentence
The bulletin
This bulletin contains statistics on the average time from arrest to sentence for persistent young offenders in England and Wales.
This bulletin presents figures for October 2008. In-year figures for 2008 will be revised as more data is entered onto the Police National Computer, and when the arrest dates survey for 2008 has been completed – please see the Notes section for further details.
The main body of the bulletin is organised in three parts. This first part contains commentary on the latest figures, the second has detailed tables of results, and the final part comprises of notes on the pledge and methodology used and also includes contact points for enquires.
England and Wales
The average time between arrest and sentence for persistent young offenders during October 2008 was 56 days, 3 days lower than in the previous month.
Further figures can be found in table 1 (page 6). A graph showing monthly progress from January 1997 is shown in figure 1 below.
Figure 1: Average time (days) between arrest and sentence for persistent young offenders – England and Wales, January 1997 to October 2008 Cases sentenced at Magistrates’ Courts
For October 2008, cases sentenced at magistrates’ courts represented 93 per cent of all persistent young offender cases. As table 2 (page 7) shows, the overall average time from arrest to sentence for these cases was 47 days, equalling the figure for the previous month.
Cases sentenced at the Crown Court
The average time from arrest to sentence for cases sentenced at the Crown Court during October 2008 was 184 days, down 26 days from the previous month. For further figures please see table 3 (page 8).
Cases sentenced at the Crown Court include both time spent in magistrates’ courts before committal to the Crown Court and time spent in Crown Court proceedings after committal. However, it is not possible to provide a breakdown of these periods separately.
The average arrest to sentence times for cases sentenced at the Crown Court and magistrates’ courts between January 1999 and October 2008 are shown separately in figure 2 below.
Figure 2: Average time (days) from arrest to sentence for persistent young offenders by sentencing court – England and Wales, January 1999 to October 2008 Criminal Justice System Areas
A breakdown by criminal justice area on a three-month rolling average basis is shown in table 4 (page 9).
On this basis, the number of areas achieving the 71-day target in the latest period (August - October 2008) was 39, as shown in figure 3 and 4 below.
Figure 3: Number of Criminal Justice System areas within target by rolling three-month arrest to sentence averages – March 2008 to October 2008 Figure 4: Geographical spread of Criminal Justice System areas within target by rolling three-month arrest to sentence averages – rolling quarter ending October 2008 Table 1: Average number of days from arrest to sentence for persistent young offenders in England and Wales
| Period | Days | Number of cases | |-----------------|------|-----------------| | 1996 | 142 | - | | 1997 | 141 | 16,010 | | 1998 | 125 | 18,605 | | 1999 | 108 | 21,151 | | 2000(1) | 95 | 23,131 | | 2001 | 76 | 25,393 | | 2002 | 68 | 26,116 | | 2003(2) | 66 | 26,086 | | 2004 | 69 | 26,363 | | 2005 | 68 | 27,037 | | 2006 | 72 | 28,252 | | 2007 | 65 | 30,683 | | 2007 January – March | 72 | 7,813 | | April – June | 67 | 7,928 | | July – September| 62 | 7,766 | | October – December | 60 | 7,176 | | 2008 January – March (r) | 60 | 7,293 (+7) | | April – June (r) | 57 (+1) | 7,493 (+20) | | July – September (r) | 55 | 7,171 (+27) | | 2008(2) January (r) | 62 | 2,643 (+3) | | February (r) | 63 (+1) | 2,437 (+2) | | March (r) | 57 (+1) | 2,213 (+2) | | April (r) | 57 | 2,670 (+6) | | May (r) | 57 | 2,435 (+5) | | June (r) | 56 | 2,388 (+9) | | July (r) | 54 | 2,698 (+4) | | August (r) | 53 | 2,188 (+13) | | September (r) | 59 | 2,285 (+10) | | October (r) | 56 (+1) | 2,546 (+94) | | November (p) | 58 | 2,051 |
Notes: All period figures denoted by - are not applicable. All period figures denoted by (r) are based on revised data and replace those provided in the last bulletin in the series. All period figures denoted by (p) are based on provisional data.
(1) Full application of the new methodology (to remove double counting of Arrest to Charge survey time) required the recalculating of time-series figures. This has resulted in the substantive changes on the previously published numbers. (2) In-year figures for 2008 will be revised as when the arrest dates from the annual Arrest to Charge survey for 2008 are collected in March 2009. Table 2: Average number of days from arrest to sentence for persistent young offenders sentenced at Magistrates’ Courts in England and Wales
| Period | Days | Number of cases | |-----------------|------|-----------------| | 1999 | 96 | 18,851 | | 2000(1) | 83 | 21,146 | | 2001 | 68 | 23,752 | | 2002(1) | 63 | 24,280 | | 2003(1) | 58 | 24,481 | | 2004 | 61 | 24,698 | | 2005(1) | 61 | 25,498 | | 2006 | 63 | 26,529 | | 2007 | 57 | 28,904 |
| Period | Days | Number of cases | |-----------------|------|-----------------| | 2007 January – March | 63 | 7,351 | | 2007 April – June | 58 | 7,469 | | 2007 July – September | 54 | 7,332 | | 2007 October – December | 51 | 6,752 |
| Period | Days | Number of cases | |-----------------|------|-----------------| | 2008 January – March (r) | 50 | 6,821 (+7) | | 2008 April – June (r) | 46 | 6,979 (+17) | | 2008 July – September (r) | 45 | 6,699 (+21) |
| Period | Days | Number of cases | |-----------------|------|-----------------| | 2008(2) January (r) | 52 | 2,489 (+3) | | 2008 February (r) | 51 | 2,258 (+2) | | 2008 March (r) | 47 | 2,074 (+2) | | 2008 April (r) | 47 | 2,507 (+4) | | 2008 May (r) | 45 | 2,254 (+5) | | 2008 June (r) | 45 | 2,218 (+8) | | 2008 July (r) | 45 | 2,522 (+3) | | 2008 August (r) | 43 | 2,055 (+11) | | 2008 September (r) | 47 | 2,122 (+7) | | 2008 October (r) | 47 (+1) | 2,373 (+87) | | 2008 November (p) | 46 | 1,908 |
Notes: All period figures denoted by (r) are based on revised data and replace those provided in the last bulletin in the series. All period figures denoted by (p) are based on provisional data.
(1) Full application of the new methodology (to remove double counting of Arrest to Charge survey time) required the recalculating of time-series figures. This has resulted in the substantive changes on the previously published numbers.
(2) In-year figures for 2008 will be revised as when the arrest dates from the annual Arrest to Charge survey for 2008 are collected in March 2009. Table 3: Average number of days from arrest to sentence for persistent young offenders sentenced at the Crown Court in England and Wales
| Period | Days | Number of cases | |--------------|------|-----------------| | 1999 | 212 | 2,271 | | 2000 | 218 | 1,976 | | 2001 | 196 | 1,632 | | 2002(1) | 178 | 1,829 | | 2003(1) | 188 | 1,590 | | 2004 | 186 | 1,653 | | 2005(1) | 192 | 1,526 | | 2006 | 214 | 1,704 | | 2007 | 206 | 1,769 |
| Period | Days | Number of cases | |--------------|------|-----------------| | 2007 January – March | 210 | 459 | | 2007 April – June | 206 | 456 | | 2007 July – September| 197 | 433 | | 2007 October – December | 213 | 421 |
| Period | Days | Number of cases | |--------------|------|-----------------| | 2008 January – March (r) | 209 | 456 | | 2008 April – June (r) | 200 | 505 (+3) | | 2008 July – September (r) | 201 (-1) | 470 (+6) |
| Period | Days | Number of cases | |--------------|------|-----------------| | 2008(2) January (r) | 222 | 146 | | 2008(2) February (r) | 205 | 176 | | 2008(2) March (r) | 202 | 134 | | 2008(2) April (r) | 201 | 162 (+2) | | 2008(2) May (r) | 203 | 178 | | 2008(2) June (r) | 196 (-1) | 165 (+1) | | 2008(2) July (r) | 187 | 176 (+1) | | 2008(2) August (r) | 208 (-1) | 133 (+2) | | 2008(2) September | 210 (-2) | 161 (+3) | | 2008(2) October | 184 | 172 |
Notes: All period figures denoted by (r) are based on revised data and replace those provided in the last bulletin in the series. All period figures denoted by (p) are based on provisional data.
(1) Full application of the new methodology (to remove double counting of Arrest to Charge survey time) required the re-calculating of time-series figures. This has resulted in the substantive changes on the previously published numbers. (2) In-year figures for 2008 will be revised as when the arrest dates from the annual Arrest to Charge survey for 2008 are collected in March 2009. Table 4: Average number of days from arrest to sentence (three-month rolling averages) for persistent young offenders in England and Wales and by Criminal Justice Area from March 2008 to October 2008(2)
| Area | Mar 08 to May 08 (r) | Apr 08 to Jun 08 (r) | May 08 to Jul 08 (r) | Jun 08 to Aug 08 (r) | Aug 08 to Sep 08 (r) | Sep 08 to Oct 08 | |-----------------------|----------------------|----------------------|----------------------|----------------------|----------------------|------------------| | Avon and Somerset | 71 | 76 | 75 | 73 | 69 | 70 | | Bedfordshire | 75 | 68 | 57 | 51 | 67 | 79 | | Cambridgeshire | 68 | 65 | 67 | 58 | 52 | 44 | | Cheshire | 45 | 46 | 44 | 38 | 42 | 42 | | Cleveland | 51 | 53 | 50 | 55 | 54 | 61 | | Cumbria | 49 | 46 | 51 | 51 | 51 | 48 | | Derbyshire | 49 | 53 | 49 | 49 | 49 | 58 | | Devon and Cornwall | 53 | 43 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 54 | | Dorset | 57 | 53 | 45 | 41 | 48 | 51 | | Durham | 35 | 42 | 41 | 50 | 49 | 54 | | Dyfed-Powys | 49 | 38 | 39 | 49 | 52 | 57 | | Essex | 51 | 47 | 53 | 55 | 59 | 55 | | Gloucestershire | 60 | 62 | 72 | 65 | 64 | 50 | | Greater Manchester | 53 | 54 | 51 | 50 | 51 | 53 | | Gwent | 61 | 72 | 64 | 53 | 52 | 39 | | Hampshire | 58 | 61 | 63 | 62 | 63 | 63 | | Hertfordshire | 58 | 66 | 60 | 57 | 60 | 49 | | Humberside | 49 | 51 | 48 | 50 | 48 | 51 | | Kent | 69 | 75 | 65 | 61 | 52 | 55 | | Lancashire | 47 | 49 | 53 | 52 | 53 | 56 | | Leicestershire | 75 | 75 | 65 | 51 | 50 | 54 | | Lincolnshire | 92 | 67 | 87 | 67 | 70 | 55 | | Merseyside | 61 | 59 | 54 | 49 | 47 | 42 | | Metropolitan | 71 | 70 | 65 | 64 | 66 | 68 | | Norfolk | 53 | 54 | 52 | 41 | 41 | 43 | | North Wales | 55 | 53 | 51 | 44 | 48 | 53 | | North Yorkshire | 48 | 46 | 44 | 47 | 56 | 60 | | Northamptonshire | 55 | 59 | 65 | 59 | 54 | 50 | | Northumbria | 53 | 46 | 42 | 37 | 43 | 45 | | Nottinghamshire | 66 | 64 | 59 | 62 | 59 | 57 | | South Wales | 55 | 50 | 51 | 51 | 48 | 52 | | South Yorkshire | 60 | 56 | 52 | 60 | 67 | 67 | | Staffordshire | 49 | 47 | 49 | 52 | 50 | 49 | | Suffolk | 47 | 43 | 47 | 42 | 43 | 41 | | Surrey | 44 | 41 | 48 | 65 | 74 | 78 | | Sussex | 46 | 44 | 52 | 54 | 60 | 53 | | Thames Valley | 61 | 51 | 61 | 64 | 72 | 67 | | Warwickshire | 43 | 31 | 38 | 42 | 37 | 39 | | West Mercia | 47 | 52 | 51 | 53 | 60 | 72 | | West Midlands | 52 | 56 | 56 | 51 | 46 | 47 | | West Yorkshire | 64 | 68 | 64 | 63 | 62 | 67 | | Wiltshire | 50 | 63 | 61 | 63 | 43 | 58 | | British Transport Police | 57 | 68 | 62 | 55 | 50 | 46 | | England and Wales | 57 | 57 | 55 | 54 | 55 | 56 |
Note: All Figures denoted by * are based on 40 or fewer cases and should be interpreted with particular care. All period figures denoted by (r) are based on revised data and replace those provided in the last bulletin in the series.
(1) The area classification is based on the Police Force that investigated the offence and entered the charge or summons details on the Police National Computer. In a small proportion of cases, prosecution and court proceedings may have been handled in different areas to that which first recorded the cases. Notes to the pledge
The pledge
1. The original Government pledge was to halve the time it takes to deal with persistent young offenders from arrest to sentence in England and Wales from 142 days in 1996 to 71 days by 2002. The timely process of these offenders at the target level remains an ongoing commitment.
2. Overall responsibility for the pledge is shared jointly by all Criminal Justice System departments and agencies. However, the agency with the lead responsibility for overseeing delivery nationally is the Office for Criminal Justice Reform.
3. From 2005, the pledge has been applied to all Criminal Justice System areas, who are required to achieve the compliance target on a consistent basis. The Local Criminal Justice Boards are responsible for delivery in the local areas.
4. Since 1997, this National Statistics bulletin published by the Ministry of Justice has presented national and local performance against the target.
Notes to the data and methodology
Data sources
5. The raw data used to identify persistent young offenders, and to calculate the average time interval from arrest to sentence across relevant cases are:
- the Police National Computer, which is the police’s central management information database. The source provides a full collection of cases, and all the variables needed to determine the offenders classification and to contribute to the calculation of performance against the target; and
- the annual Arrest to Charge survey, which is an annual sample survey designed to enable the calculation of robust representative estimates of subsidiary time from the initial to the process stage.
Please see the definitional and calculation rules for details on data usage.
Paths through the system
6. Offenders can take two paths through the Criminal Justice System:
- one where they are arrested and subsequently processed by the police, then listed to appear in court for however many hearings are necessary until the session where the sentence is passed on them; and • another where they are reported and information is laid against them by the police, then they are summoned to appear in court for however many hearings until the final session where the sentence is passed on them.
Definitional rules
7. The data used to identify whether a defendant found guilty of an offence is a persistent young offender comes from the Police National Computer. Under the counting rules such an offender is:
• a young person who is aged 10 to 17 at the point of process, and 18 or under at the start of the calendar year in which they are sentenced guilty of an offence;
• who has been sentenced guilty of offences by any criminal court in the United Kingdom on three or more separate occasions in the past for one or more recordable offences on each of the occasions; and
• within 3 years of the last of these sentencing occasion is subsequently arrested and then found guilty of at least one more recordable offence.
Under this definition, it is possible for young adults aged 18 and 19 years at sentence, but not those aged 20 years or over, to fall in the category.
Calculation rules
08. The full data used to calculate the overall interval between the initial stage (arrest or reporting / information laid) and the sentence stage for the cases of persistent young offenders comes from the Police National Computer in the main.
09. However, some additional data from the annual Arrest to Charge survey is used in the calculations for an ever-decreasing number of cases. For this minority of cases, survey results are used as proxy for time from the initial to process (charge or summons) stage, where that time is not recorded on the main data source. This time is then added to the usually larger interval from process to sentence stage derived from the aforementioned source.
10. The overall interval is commonly known as the average time from arrest to sentence, owing to the fact the vast majority of cases pass through that path. It can essentially be a national, sentencing court type jurisdiction or local area average of the intervals of all relevant cases in a given period. Additional notes
National Statistics
11. This is a National Statistics publication produced by the Ministry of Justice. National Statistics are produced to high professional standards set out in the National Statistics Code of Practice. They undergo regular quality assurance reviews to ensure that they meet customer needs. They are produced free from any political interference.
The bulletin
12. The Ministry of Justice has produced the figures in this bulletin with assistance from the data source owner in the National Policing Improvement Agency.
13. The figures presented in this bulletin are obtained from separate monitoring exercises run on successive monthly data extractions from the Police National Computer from 1997.
14. In accordance with the counting rules, the bulletin covers all cases sentenced in magistrates' courts and the Crown Court in England and Wales that are recorded on the Police National Computer.
The definition
15. A persistent young offender was first defined in the inter-departmental circular 'Tackling delays in the Youth Justice System' issued on 15 October 1997:
"A persistent young offender is a young person aged 10-17 who has been sentenced by any criminal court in the UK on three or more separate occasions for one or more recordable offence, and within three years of the last sentencing occasion is subsequently arrested or has an information laid against them for a further recordable offence."
16. Individuals can fall within this definition at the date of sentence. This happens where offenders are brought into the group by virtue of one or more offences committed after but dealt with before the fourth sentencing occasion. Essentially, this rearranges the usual order of counting occasions, so that offences which would not be expected to fall on the final occasion do so; with the longest lasting case then contributing to the arrest to sentence averages.
The calculations
17. In the instance where an offender is sentenced for more than one offence on the fourth sentencing occasion, only the longest running of these cases will contribute to the arrest to sentence averages. The extraction
18. All cases in the consecutive counting of sentencing occasions are extracted from the source. However, some of them are then excluded from the monitoring exercise because the offences were:
- committed outside the United Kingdom, Channel Islands and the Isle of Man;
- handled by a police force outside England and Wales, other than cases handled by the British Transport Police;
- proceeded with in courts outside England and Wales;
- resulted in no convictions being brought against the offender, for example where individuals were acquitted or cases against them discounted; and
- breaches of previous sentence order, for example probation orders.
However, from 1 January 2005 breaches of anti-social behaviour orders have been included in the exercise.
The amended methodology
19. From May 2006, all arrest to sentence figures have been calculated using an amended methodology. This new approach has been applied to remove the double counting of Arrest to Charge time for offences processed at arrest, or else that where overall time is recorded on the Police National Computer.
20. The new methodology has been retrospectively applied to backdated periods, so that all time-series are consistent within this bulletin and others released since the change. However, changes to statistics published prior to May 2006 may be partly or wholly due to this amendment and are not comparable.
The provisional statistics
21. From April 2007, more up to date statistics have been made available in this bulletin. The introduction of 2 months in arrears statistics has augmented the headline 3 month in arrears figures.
22. These provisional statistics were introduced after a longitudinal study of data collections from the Police National Computer, which revealed that from January 2005 around 95% of records are consistently inputted 2 months in arrears in England and Wales.
23. The collection of more data earlier has meant that 2 months in arrears statistics have become closer to the published National Statistics for England and Wales and for cases heard in magistrates’ courts. These provisional statistics are adjusted in the order reflect observed historical and seasonal fluctuations. The survey
24. The Arrest to Charge survey collects arrest or information laid dates in March for a representative sample of cases for the previous calendar year.
25. Respondents in each of the police constabularies and the British Transport Police complete the survey forms sent by the Ministry of Justice. Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary champions the survey, and helps to ensure its prompt completion.
26. In the instance where survey forms contain offenders with more than one offence sentenced on a single occasion, only the longest running of these cases will contribute to the survey results.
27. The previous year’s survey estimates are used to calculate in-year arrest to sentence figures until the current survey results are available.
Symbols and conventions
The following symbols have been used throughout the tables in this bulletin:
- Not applicable 0 Nil .. Not available (r) Revised data (p) Provisional data Contact points for further information
Current and previous editions of this publication are available for download at:
www.justice.gov.uk/publications/averagetimearresttosentencepyo.htm
This bulletin, together with other information about delay in persistent young offender cases can also be found on the Youth Justice Board’s reducing delays internet site at:
www.yjb.gov.uk/en-gb/practitioners/MonitoringPerformance/ReducingDelays
Press enquiries should be directed to the Ministry of Justice press office:
Press Office Ministry of Justice 10th Floor 102 Petty France London SW1H 9AJ
Tel: 020 3334 3536
Other enquires about the statistics and requests for additional copies of this bulletin should be directed to:
Trushar Pandya Economics and Statistics Division Ministry of Justice 8.02, 8th Floor 102 Petty France London SW1H 9AJ
Tel: 020 3334 3095 Email: [email protected]
General enquires about the statistical work of the Ministry of Justice can be emailed to: [email protected]
Other National Statistics publications and general information about the official statistics system in the UK are available from: www.statistics.gov.uk
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/4896-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 17,
"total-input-tokens": 29407,
"total-output-tokens": 8377,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
150,
1
],
[
150,
971,
2
],
[
971,
2143,
3
],
[
2143,
3285,
4
],
[
3285,
3718,
5
],
[
3718,
3884,
6
],
[
3884,
6040,
7
],
[
6040,
8426,
8
],
[
8426,
10717,
9
],
[
10717,
18828,
10
],
[
18828,
20849,
11
],
[
20849,
22966,
12
],
[
22966,
25108,
13
],
[
25108,
27326,
14
],
[
27326,
28269,
15
],
[
28269,
29458,
16
],
[
29458,
29458,
17
]
]
} |
7d9be9db0b7772438c39d77bf6fcf5604f599885 | ACCIDENT
Aircraft Type and Registration: P&M Aviation Quik GT450, G-MCFK No & Type of Engines: 1 Rotax 912ULS piston engine Year of Manufacture: 2014 (Serial no: 8696) Date & Time (UTC): 6 November 2014 at 1035 hrs Location: Plaistow Airfield, Hertfordshire Type of Flight: Private Persons on Board: Crew - 2 Passengers - None Injuries: Crew - None Passengers - N/A Nature of Damage: Damage to propeller, pod and right spat, substantial damage to wing Commander's Licence: National Private Pilot's Licence Commander's Age: 50 years Commander's Flying Experience: 1,390 hours (of which 561 were on type) Last 90 days - 28 hours Last 28 days - 11 hours Information Source: Aircraft Accident Report Form submitted by the pilot
Synopsis
The purpose of the flight was to familiarise a reasonably experienced pilot of another type of weight-shift microlight with the Quik GT450. After an uneventful circuit and landing, the pilot told the passenger to taxi the aircraft to the runway and perform another, similar circuit. However, this time, contrary to the pilot's instructions, the passenger adopted an incorrect technique and, despite intervention by the pilot who eventually tried to abandon the takeoff, the aircraft had to be steered left to avoid over-running the runway. During the turn, the aircraft tipped onto its right side.
History of the flight
The pilot, who occupied the rear seat, was conducting a familiarisation flight on the GT450 for the benefit of a passenger who was also a pilot and who had 242 hours experience flying the P&M Aviation Quantum. The pilot briefed his passenger that one of the differences he would need to be aware of is that the control bar should not be pushed forward to initiate lift off at an indicated airspeed of less than 50 mph. With the passenger handling the aircraft, but with prompts from the pilot, they taxied to the threshold of Runway 30, stopped, levelled the wing and set it to neutral pitch. The passenger then set full power and released the brakes. The aircraft accelerated normally and at 50 mph indicated, the pilot told the passenger to start moving the control bar forward. The aircraft lifted off and the rest of the circuit and landing was uneventful. The pilot then briefed the passenger that he should taxi the aircraft back to the threshold of Runway 30 and repeat the circuit as before. This he did but, instead of lining up and stopping once he reached the runway, the passenger immediately applied full power whilst pushing the control bar fully forward. The pilot immediately pulled the control bar back to neutral, telling the passenger that he needed to minimise the drag until 50 mph was reached, but the aircraft was under full power and seemed to be accelerating normally. Again, on reaching 40 mph, the passenger pushed the control bar forward as far as it would go, effectively stalling the wing, and the aircraft started to slow down.
The pilot pulled the control bar back to neutral and shouted that he had control – at this stage he believed that there was still enough runway left to take off safely. However, this time the acceleration was not as great as he expected and he called an aborted takeoff. In this aircraft, only the front seat occupant can control the brakes. The pilot felt the passenger apply them, immediately causing a skid on the wet grass. The passenger then released the brakes and the pilot instructed him to reapply them; he complied, but did not brake as strongly as previously.
The pilot now realised that they would not stop before the end of the runway and, rather than face a one metre drop onto a road, he steered the aircraft to the left (encountering some resistance from the passenger on the steering bar). Unfortunately, their speed was too great and the aircraft tipped on to its right side before coming to rest.
The passenger could not explain why he had done a rolling start with the control bar fully forward; neither could he explain why he had tried to lift off at 40 mph, beyond saying that “it felt about right”. He also admitted that he may have been resting his foot on the brake when the pilot re-took control.
The pilot believes that he may have been too relaxed about the situation because of misplaced confidence in his passenger, on account of the latter’s experience and the previously satisfactory circuit.
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/4897-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 2,
"total-input-tokens": 3978,
"total-output-tokens": 1049,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
2219,
1
],
[
2219,
4346,
2
]
]
} |
8cf43c8c16707a6cb2f92cc0c8a17153fb484eab | HM REVENUE & CUSTOMS
Business Expenses: 1st April – 30th June 2009
Please note – these figures may not include some expenses that have yet to be invoiced and will be updated to reflect any additional spend.
| DATES | DESTINATION | PURPOSE | TRAVEL | OTHER (Including Hospitality Given) | TOTAL COST | |-------------|-------------|-----------------------|--------------|-------------------------------------|------------| | | | | Air | Rail | | | | | | Taxi/Car/ | Accommodation/Meals | | | | | | Mileage | | | | 15/04/2009 | London | Departmental Business | £11.32 | | £11.32 | | 21/04/2009 | London | Conference | £44.02 | | £44.02 | | 21/04/2009 | London | Departmental Business | £24.62 | | £24.62 | | 23/04/2009 | Sunningdale | Top 200 Event | £20.92 | £231.77 | £252.69 | | 24/04/2009 | | | | | | | 05/05/2009 | London | Evening Reception | £11.32 | | £11.32 | | 07/05/2009 | Sunningdale | Spring Sunningdale | £20.92 | £154.66 | £175.58 | | 08/05/2009 | | | | | | | 11/05/2009 | London | Departmental Business | £54.54 | | £54.54 | | 14/05/2009 | Edinburgh | Staff Event | £327.60 | £32.00 | £419.94 | | 20/05/2009 | London | Official meeting | £29.70 | | £29.70 | | Date | Location | Description | Amount | |------------|----------|-------------|---------| | 25/06/2009 | London | Meeting | £54.65\* | | | | | £54.65 | | DATES | DESTINATION | PURPOSE | TRAVEL | TOTAL COST | |-------------|-------------|-----------------------|-----------------|------------| | | | | Air | Rail | Taxi/Car/ Mileage | Accommodation /Meals | | | 03/04/2009 | Amsterdam | Conference | £125.00 | £113.00 | £238.00 | | | 06/04/2009 | London | Meeting | £13.00 | | £13.00 | | | 17/04/2009 | London | Meeting | | | £22.00 | | | 21/04/2009 | Lincoln | Speaking Engagement | | | £196.00 | £55.00 | £251.00 | | 23/04/2009 - 24/04/2009 | Sunningdale | Top 200 Event | £3.00 | | £147.00 | | £150.00 | | 04/05/2009 | Paris | Meeting | £396.00 | | £47.00 | | £443.00 | | 05/05/2009 | London | Meeting | | | £35.00 | | £35.00 | | 08/05/2009 - 09/05/2009 | Sunningdale | Spring Sunningdale | £7.00 | | £6.00 | | £13.00 | | 11/05/2009 | London | Interviews | | | £22.00 | | £22.00 | | 13/05/2009 | London | Speaking Engagement | | | £32.00 | | £32.00 | | 14/05/2009 | Sheffield | Speaking Engagement | £118.00 | | £13.00 | | £131.00 | | Date | Location | Event Type | Amount 1 | Amount 2 | Amount 3 | Amount 4 | Amount 5 | |------------|----------|---------------------|----------|----------|----------|----------|----------| | 18/05/2009 | London | Meeting | £35.00 | | | | | | 19/05/2009 | London | Meeting | £28.00 | | | | | | 20/05/2009 | London | Meeting | £26.00 | | | | | | 20/05/2009 | London | Speaking Engagement | £23.00 | | | | | | 20/05/2009 | London | Speaking Engagement | £29.00 | | | | | | 21/05/2009 | London | Meeting | £26.00 | | | | | | 22/05/2009 | London | Official Overseas Visitors | | | | £76.00 | £76.00 | | 26/05/2009 - 29/05/2009 | Paris | Conference/speaking engagement | £340.00 | £79.00 | £1016.00 | £158.00 | £1593.00 | | 02/06/2009 | Birmingham | Meeting | £70.00 | £36.00 | | | | | 04/06/2009 | London | Speaking Engagement | £32.00 | | | | | | 04/06/2009 | London | Speaking Engagement | £31.00 | | | | | | 05/06/2009 | London | Official Overseas Visitors | £29.00 | | | £173.00 | £202.00 | | 09/06/2009 | London | Meeting | £21.00 | | | | | | 16/06/2009 | London | Speaking Engagement | £10.00 | | | | | | 18/06/2009 | London | Speaking engagement | £46.00 | | | | | | Date | Location | Event Description | Amount | Amount | |------------|----------|-------------------------|--------|--------| | 23/06/2009 | London | Meeting | £30.00 | £30.00 | | 24/06/2009 | London | Speaking Engagement | £31.00 | £31.00 | | 24/06/2009 | London | Meeting | £20.00 | £20.00 | | 26/06/2009 | London | Meeting | £20.00 | £20.00 | | DATES | DESTINATION | PURPOSE | TRAVEL | OTHER (Including Hospitality Given) | TOTAL COST | |-------------|-------------|--------------------------|-----------------|-------------------------------------|------------| | | | | Air | Rail/Tube | | | | | | Taxi/Car/ Mileage | Accommodation /Meals | | | 01/04/2009 | Manchester | Office Visit | £195.76 | £14.75 | £210.51 | | 03/04/2009 | Sunningdale | Meeting | £9.80 | | £9.80 | | 23/04/2009 - | Sunningdale | Top 200 Event | £18.20 | | £18.20 | | 24/04/2009 | | | | | | | 27/04/09 | Home | Taken ill at work | | £51.12 | £51.12 | | 29/04/2009 | London | Opportunity Now Advisory Board Awards | £82.31 | £250 | £332.31 | | 07/05/2009 - | London | Workshop | £6.40 | | £6.40 | | 08/05/2009 | | | | | | | 12/05/2009 - | Lillyhall | Office Visit | £400.60 | £85.00 | £485.60 | | 13/05/2009 | | | | | | | 21/05/2009 | London | Staff Event | £3.20 | | £3.20 | | 08/06/2009 | London | Meeting | £1.60 | £5.60 | £7.20 | | 10/06/2009 | Manchester | Office Visit | £388.32 | £38.30 | £426.62 | | Date | Location | Description | Amount 1 | Amount 2 | Amount 3 | |------------|----------|----------------|----------|----------|----------| | 17/06/2009 | Cardiff | Office Visit | £278.52 | £27.40 | £305.92 | | 24/06/2009 – 25/06/2009 | Lincoln | Staff Event | £208.72 | £71.90 | £280.62 | | DATES | DESTINATION | PURPOSE | TRAVEL | OTHER (Including Hospitality Given) | TOTAL COST | |------------|-------------|------------------|-----------------|-------------------------------------|------------| | 01/04/2009 - 02/04/2009 | Cardiff | Office Visit | £163.32 | £49.45 | £103.50 | £316.27 | | 16/04/2009 | Preston | Staff Event | £270.32 | £33.45 | | £303.77 | | 30/04/2009 | Belfast | Office Visit | £194.99 | £112.41 | | £307.40 | | 12/05/2009 | Milton Keynes | Staff event | £25.60 | £140.00 | | £165.60 | | 20/05/2009 | Oxford | Departmental Business | £85.00 | £40.81 | £80.00 | £205.81 | | 01/06/2009 | Portsmouth | Departmental Business | £76.72 | | | £76.72 | | 04/06/2009 - 05/06/2009 | Preston | Office Visit | £141.64 | £42.50 | £90.00 | £274.14 | | 10/06/2009 | Cardiff | Office Visit | £190.15 | £89.50 | | £279.65 | | 15/06/2009 - 16/06/2009 | Dorking | Staff Event | £19.62 | £12.00 | £170.00 | £8.75 | £210.37 | | 22/06/2009 | Newark | Office Visit | £48.32 | £61.00 | | £109.32 | | DATES | DESTINATION | PURPOSE | TRAVEL | OTHER (Including Hospitality Given) | TOTAL COST | |------------|-------------|------------------|-----------------|-------------------------------------|------------| | 01/04/2009 | Manchester | Office Visit | £154.50 | £6.20 | £237.20 | | 02/04/2009 | | | | | | | 23/04/2009 | Sunningdale | Top 200 Event | £9.40 | | £9.40 | | 06/05/2009 | London | Departmental Business | £16.20 | | £16.20 | | 07/05/2009 | Nottingham | Staff Event | £131.00 | | £131.00 | | 14/05/2009 | London | Departmental Business | £10.00 | £6.50 | £16.50 | | 21/05/2009 | Oxford | Office visit | £46.50 | | £46.50 | | 03/06/2009 | Belfast | Staff Event | £145.99 | £105.49 | £251.48 | | 08/06/2009 | Leicester | Conference | £111.00 | £15.00 | £126.00 | | 10/06/2009 | Rugby | Conference | £103.00 | £32.20 | £135.20 | | 11/06/2009 | Manchester | Staff Event | £267.50 | £37.90 | £305.40 | | 16/06/2009 | London | Departmental Business | £30.80 | | £30.80 | | 17/06/2009 | Sunningdale | Event | £9.40 | | £9.40 | | Date | Location | Event | Amount 1 | Amount 2 | Total | |------------|----------|-----------|----------|----------|---------| | 22/06/2009 | Maidenhead | Conference | £22.44 | £15.00 | £37.44 | | 24/06/2009 | London | Conference | £8.60 | | £8.60 | | DATES | DESTINATION | PURPOSE | TRAVEL | OTHER (Including Hospitality Given) | TOTAL COST | |------------|-------------|-----------------------|-----------------|-------------------------------------|------------| | 05/04/2009 - 08/04/2009 | Australia | International Conference | £4,274.20 | £56.85 | £530.71 | £4,861.76 | | 17/04/2009 | Sunningdale | Top 200 Event | | £40.52 | | £40.52 | | 22/04/2009 | London | Conference | | £16.80 | | £16.80 | | 01/05/2009 | London | Meeting | | £24.38 | | £24.38 | | 13/05/2009 - 15/05/2009 | Manchester | Office Visit | £351.00 | £34.93 | £170.00 | £555.93 | | 19/05/2009 | London | Departmental Business | | £21.41 | | £21.41 | | 21/05/2009 | London | Staff Event | | £7.00 | | £7.00 | | 25/06/2009 - 26/06/2009 | Budapest | International Conference | £184.70 | | £428.63 | £613.33 | | 03/06/2009 - 04/06/2009 | Swansea | Office Visit | £331.32 | £11.00 | £70.00 | £412.32 | | Date Range | Location | Description | £167.00 | £40.22 | £79.00 | £286.22 | |---------------------|----------|----------------------|---------|--------|--------|---------| | 11/06/2009 - 12/06/2009 | Leeds | Office Visit | | | | | | 19/06/2009 | London | Departmental Business| | | £9.00 | £9.00 | | 24/06/2009 - 27/06/2009 | Brussels | International Conference | £59.68 | £567.00 | £137.72 | £677.00 | £1,441.40 | | DATES | DESTINATION | PURPOSE | TRAVEL | OTHER (Including Hospitality Given) | TOTAL COST | |-------------|-------------|------------------|--------------|-------------------------------------|------------| | | | | Air | Rail/Tube | | | | | | Taxi/Car/ | Mileage | | | | | | Accommodation| /Meals | | | 02/04/2009 | Worthing | Office visit | £22.56 | | £22.56 | | 16/04/2009 | London | Office visit | £3.20 | | £3.20 | | 17/04/2009 | Portsmouth | Office visit | £17.00 | | £17.00 | | 20/04/2009 | Shipley | Office visit | £206.66 | £56.90 | £263.56 | | 23/04/2009 | Sunningdale | Top 200 Event | £20.92 | | £20.92 | | 30/04/2009 | Newcastle | Office visit | £227.99 | £66.20 | £294.19 | | 06/05/2009 | Nottingham | Staff Event | £90.32 | £90.00 | £180.32 | | 08/05/2009 | London | Office visit | £3.20 | | £3.20 | | 21/05/2009 | Oxford | Departmental Business | £28.51 | | £28.51 | | 24/06/2009 | London | Office visit | £3.20 | | £3.20 | | DATES | DESTINATION | PURPOSE | TRAVEL | OTHER (Including Hospitality Given) | TOTAL COST | |-----------|-------------|--------------------|-----------------|-------------------------------------|------------| | | | | Air | Rail/Tube | | | | | | Taxi/Car/ | Accommodation/Meals | | | 02/04/2009| Manchester | Office Visit | £387.00 | £11.90 | £398.90 | | 16/04/2009| London | Civil Service | £8.60 | | £8.60 | | | | Business | | | | | 20/04/2009| London | Staff Event | | £5.20 | £5.20 | | 21/04/2009| Sunningdale | Top 200 Event | £40.52 | | £40.52 | | 24/04/2009| Sunningdale | Top 200 Event | £20.00 | | £20.00 | | 30/04/2009| Southend | Office Visit | | £22.00 | £22.00 | | 13/05/2009| London | Departmental | £9.40 | | £9.40 | | | | Business | | | | | 14/05/2009| Cheltenham | Civil Service | £273.48 | £6.00 | £279.48 | | | | Business | | | | | 20/05/2009| Cheltenham | Civil Service | £40.50 | £150.00 | £190.50 | | 22/05/2009 | | | | | | | 25/05/2009| Cheltenham | Civil Service | £203.00 | £75.00 | £278.00 | | Date | Location | Description | £85.35 | £133.32 | £60.20 | £75.00 | £353.87 | |------------|----------|-------------------|--------|---------|--------|--------|---------| | 28/05/2009 - 29/05/2009 | Newquay | Civil Service Business | | | | | £353.87 | | 03/06/2009 - 04/06/2009 | Cheltenham | Civil Service Business | £31.60 | £98.55 | | | £130.15 | | DATES | DESTINATION | PURPOSE | TRAVEL | OTHER (Including Hospitality Given) | TOTAL COST | |-----------|-------------|--------------------|--------|-------------------------------------|------------| | 01/04/2009 | Zurich | Departmental Business | £106.45 | | £106.45 | | 02/04/2009 | London | Meeting | | £14.85 | £14.85 | | 06/04/2009 | London | Meeting | | £14.85 | £14.85 | | 21/04/2009 | London | Meeting | | £14.85 | £14.85 | | 22/04/2009 | London | Meeting | | £14.85 | £14.85 | | 23/04/2009 | Sunningdale | Top 200 Event | | £100.45 | £100.45 | | 11/05/2009 | London | Departmental Business | | £15.36 | £15.36 | | 15/05/2009 | London | Departmental Business | | £13.39 | £13.39 | | 18/05/2009 | Sunningdale | Civil Service Business | | £78.54 | £78.54 | | 18/05/2009 | Sunningdale | Civil Service Business | | £78.54 | £78.54 | | 11/06/2009 | London | Canadian delegation | | £17.08 | £17.08 | | Date | Location | Description | Amount | |------------|------------|-----------------|--------| | 22/06/2009 | Sunningdale| Civil Service Business | £138.54 | | DATES | DESTINATION | PURPOSE | TRAVEL | OTHER (Including Hospitality Given) | TOTAL COST | |-------------|-------------|------------------|-----------------|-------------------------------------|------------| | | | | Air | Rail | | | | | | Taxi/Car/ Mileage | Accommodation/ Meals | | | 01/04/2009 | Newcastle | Office Visit | £362.32 | £8.00 | £376.82 | | 06/04/2009 | London | Departmental Business | £23.00 | £128.50 | £151.50 | | 20/04/2009 | London | Departmental Business | £17.00 | £143.00 | £160.00 | | 27/04/2009 | London | Departmental Business | £8.00 | | £8.00 | | 29/04/2009 | London | Departmental Business | £15.00 | £108.70 | £123.70 | | 30/04/2009 - 01/05/2009 | Telford | Office Visit | £11.00 | £75.95 | £86.95 | | 06/05/2009 - 08/05/2009 | Birmingham | Staff Event | £86.40 | £284.00 | £370.40 | | 14/05/2009 - 15/05/2009 | Telford | Departmental Business | £77.80 | £95.95 | £173.75 | | 19/05/2009 | Cambridge | Staff Event | £10.90 | | £10.90 | | Date | Location | Event | Amount 1 | Amount 2 | Amount 3 | Amount 4 | |------------|--------------|----------------|----------|----------|----------|----------| | 21/05/2009 | London | Conference | £23.00 | £165.95 | £188.95 | | | 09/06/2009 - 10/06/2009 | Telford | Departmental Business | £125.82 | £38.00 | £145.82 | £309.64 | | 10/06/2009 - 12/06/2009 | Liverpool | Departmental Business | £35.00 | £220.80 | | £255.80 | Please note – due to the process for our Non Executive Directors claiming business expenses, the returns relate to expenses claimed within the period, rather than expenses incurred.
| DATES | DESTINATION | PURPOSE | TRAVEL | OTHER (Including Hospitality Given) | TOTAL COST | |-----------|-------------|-----------|--------------|-------------------------------------|------------| | | | | Air | Rail | | | | | | Taxi/Car/ Mileage | Accommodation /Meals | | | 15/04/2009 | London | Meeting | | | £22.64 | | 22/04/2009 | Southend | Office Visit | | | £41.00 | | 20/05/2009 | Nottingham | Office Visit | £92.00 | £20.01 | £184.01 | | 28/05/2009 | London | Meeting | | | £66.00 | | 25/06/2009 | London | Meeting | | £54.65\* | £54.65 | John Spence – Non Executive Director John Spence is registered blind therefore the expenses claimed are higher than that of other Non Executive Directors
| DATES | DESTINATION | PURPOSE | TRAVEL | OTHER (Including Hospitality Given) | TOTAL COST | |-----------|-------------|--------------------|-----------------|-------------------------------------|------------| | | | | Air | Rail | | | | | | Taxi/Car/ Mileage | Accommodation /Meals | | | 02/04/2009| London | Interviews | £14.50 | £26.50 | £41.00 | | 07/04/2009| London | Board Meeting | £14.50 | £27.60 | £42.10 | | 22/04/2009| London | Departmental Business | £14.50 | £23.70 | £38.20 | | 23/04/2009| London | Departmental Business | £14.50 | £21.40 | £35.90 | | 28/04/2009| London | Departmental Business | £14.50 | £27.50 | £42.00 | | 05/05/2009| London | Board Meeting | £8.05 | £21.40 | £29.45 | | 19/05/2009| London | Committee Meeting | £14.50 | £24.80 | £39.30 | | 20/05/2009| London | Departmental Business | £8.05 | £18.00 | £26.05 | | 02/06/2009| London | Board Meeting | £8.05 | £28.00 | £36.05 | | 08/06/2009| London | Meeting | £14.50 | £26.40 | £40.90 | | 22/06/2009| London | Committee Meeting | £14.50 | £31.80 | £46.30 | | 24/06/2009| London | Meeting | £8.05 | £13.80 | £21.85 | | Date | Location | Description | Amount | Amount | |------------|----------|-------------|---------|--------| | 25/06/2009 | London | Meeting | £54.65\* | £54.65 | | DATES | DESTINATION | PURPOSE | TRAVEL | OTHER (Including Hospitality Given) | TOTAL COST | |-----------|-------------|------------------|--------------|-------------------------------------|------------| | 28/04/2009| London | Departmental Business | Air: £41.00, Rail: £4.00, Taxi/Car/Mileage: £45.00 | £45.00 | | 20/05/2009| London | Departmental Business | Air: £41.00, Rail: £4.00, Taxi/Car/Mileage: £45.00 | £45.00 | | 02/06/2009| London | Board Meeting | Air: £41.00, Rail: £4.00, Taxi/Car/Mileage: £45.00 | £45.00 | | 25/06/2009| London | Meeting | Air: £29.00, Rail: £4.00, Taxi/Car/Mileage: £54.65\* | £83.65 | | DATES | DESTINATION | PURPOSE | TRAVEL | OTHER (Including Hospitality Received/Given) | Total Cost £ | |-----------|-------------|------------------|--------|---------------------------------------------|--------------| | | | | Air | Rail | Taxi / Car | Accommodation / Meals | | | 02/04/2009 | London | Interviews | £22.60 | | | | £22.60 | | 06/04/2009 | London | Interviews | £12.10 | | | | £12.10 | | 07/04/2009 | London | Board meeting | £22.60 | | | | £22.60 | | 22/04/2009 | London | Departmental Business | £12.10 | | | | £12.10 | | 15/05/2009 | Portsmouth | Departmental Business | | | | £28.00 | £28.00 | | 19/05/2009 | London | Departmental Business | £12.10 | | | £13.45 | £25.55 | | 20/05/2009 | London | Departmental Business | £27.20 | | | £4.60 | £31.80 | | 21/05/2009 | London | Departmental Business | £12.10 | | | | £12.10 | | 02/06/2009 | London | Board meeting | £22.60 | | | | £22.60 | | 25/06/2009 | London | Meeting | £12.10 | | | £13.00 | £25.10 | Philippa Hird – Non Executive Director Philippa does not make individual claims for business expenses.
| DATES | DESTINATION | PURPOSE | TRAVEL | OTHER (Including Hospitality Given) | TOTAL COST | |---------|-------------|---------|--------|-------------------------------------|------------| | 25/06/2009 | London | Meeting | Air | Rail | £54.65\* | £54.65 | Sue Street – Non Executive Director Sue does not make individual claims for business expenses.
| DATES | DESTINATION | PURPOSE | TRAVEL | OTHER (Including Hospitality Given) | TOTAL COST | |-----------|-------------|---------|--------|-------------------------------------|------------| | 25/06/2009 | London | Meeting | Air | Rail | £54.65\* | £54.65 | | DATES | DESTINATION | PURPOSE | TRAVEL | OTHER (Including Hospitality Given) | TOTAL COST | |-----------|-------------|------------------|--------------|-------------------------------------|------------| | | | | Air | Rail | | | | | | Taxi/Car/ Mileage | Accommodation /Meals | | | 07/04/2009 | London | Board Meeting | £2.20 | | £2.20 | | 28/04/2009 | London | Departmental Business | £3.20 | | £3.20 | | 01/05/2009 | Portsmouth | Departmental Business | £104.80 | | £104.80 | | 05/05/2009 | London | Board Meeting | £3.80 | | £3.80 | | 25/06/2009 | London | Meeting | | £54.65\* | £54.65 |
- These costs are a proportion of a Corporate Business Cost
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/4898-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 27,
"total-input-tokens": 39537,
"total-output-tokens": 10496,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
2130,
1
],
[
2130,
2330,
2
],
[
2330,
3703,
3
],
[
3703,
5467,
4
],
[
5467,
5887,
5
],
[
5887,
8036,
6
],
[
8036,
8352,
7
],
[
8352,
9949,
8
],
[
9949,
11715,
9
],
[
11715,
11999,
10
],
[
11999,
13195,
11
],
[
13195,
13700,
12
],
[
13700,
15424,
13
],
[
15424,
17548,
14
],
[
17548,
17956,
15
],
[
17956,
19403,
16
],
[
19403,
19576,
17
],
[
19576,
21148,
18
],
[
21148,
21626,
19
],
[
21626,
22778,
20
],
[
22778,
24835,
21
],
[
24835,
25012,
22
],
[
25012,
25699,
23
],
[
25699,
27257,
24
],
[
27257,
27663,
25
],
[
27663,
28066,
26
],
[
28066,
29153,
27
]
]
} |
aed883e30481c7b4a6cef4372668fe3ede0d00b0 | ## Hospitality Register
### 1 April 2009 – 30 June 2009
| Date | Organisation | Type of Hospitality Received | |------------|---------------------------------------------------|------------------------------| | 21/04/2009 | Deloitte’s | Lunch | | 05/05/2009 | Institute of Indirect Taxation | Evening Reception | | 13/05/2009 | Association of Revenue & Customs | Dinner | | 24/06/2009 | AT Kearney | Evening Reception |
### Dave Hartnett, Permanent Secretary for Tax
| Date | Organisation | Type of Hospitality Received | |------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------| | 03/04/2009 | American Bar Association/Tax Committee of the International Bar Association | Lunch | | 28/04/2009 | PriceWaterhouse Cooper | Lunch | | 05/05/2009 | Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland | Dinner | | 12/05/2009 | Chartered Institute of Taxation | Dinner | | 13/05/2009 | Norton Rose | Supper | | 18/05/2009 | Tax Practitioners | Dinner | | 19/05/2009 | Goldman Sachs | Supper | | 21/05/2009 | Lexis Nexis | Dinner |
### Bernadette Kenny, Director General, Personal Tax
| Date | Organisation | Type of Hospitality Received | |------------|-----------------------|------------------------------| | 29/04/2009 | Opportunity Now | Reception | | Date | Organisation | Type of Hospitality Received | |------------|---------------------------------------|------------------------------| | 20/05/2009 | Unipart | Dinner | | 03/06/2009 | PriceWaterhouse Cooper | Dinner |
| Date | Organisation | Type of Hospitality Received | |------------|---------------------------------------|------------------------------| | 29/04/2009 | Rt Hon Stephen Timms MP | Breakfast Seminar | | 05/05/2009 | Institute of Indirect Taxation | Reception | | 12/05/2009 | Chartered Institute of Taxation | Dinner | | 13/05/2009 | Association of Revenue & Customs | Dinner | | 18/05/2009 | Tax Practitioners | Dinner | | 22/06/2009 | KPMG | Lunch and Dinner |
| Date | Organisation | Type of Hospitality Received | |------------|---------------------------------------|------------------------------| | 08/04/2009 | Chartered Institute of Taxation | Reception | | 15/04/2009 | New Zealand Revenue Administration | Reception |
| Date | Organisation | Type of Hospitality Received | |------------|---------------------------------------|------------------------------| | Nil return | Nil return | Nil return |
| Date | Organisation | Type of Hospitality Received | |------------|---------------------------------------|------------------------------| | Nil return | Nil return | Nil return |
### Anthony Inglese, General Counsel and Solicitor
| Date | Organisation | Type of Hospitality Received | |------------|---------------------------------------|-----------------------------| | 22/04/2009 | Baroness Ruth Deech | Supper | | 11/05/2009 | Stephenson Harwood | Lunch | | 13/05/2009 | Association of Revenue & Customs | Dinner | | 19/05/2009 | The Romney Street Group | Lunch | | 21/05/2009 | Lovells | Lunch | | 03/06/2009 | Dods | Reception | | 04/06/2009 | Whitehall & Westminster Group | Breakfast | | 11/06/2009 | Baroness Ruth Deech | Dinner | | 17/06/2009 | KPMG | Dinner |
### Deepak Singh, Acting Chief Information Officer
| Date | Organisation | Type of Hospitality Received | |------------|---------------------------------------|-----------------------------| | 06/04/2009 | Aspire | Dinner | | 20/04/2009 | Harvey Nash | Dinner | | 27/04/2009 | Fujitsu | Dinner | | 29/04/2009 | Cable & Wireless | Dinner | | 09/06/2009 | CIO Advisory Board | Dinner | | 30/06/2009 | CIO Round Table | Dinner |
### Mike Clasper, Non-Executive Chairman
| Date | Organisation | Type of Hospitality Received | |------------|---------------------------------------|-----------------------------| | Nil return | | |
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/4899-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 3,
"total-input-tokens": 4584,
"total-output-tokens": 1358,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
2209,
1
],
[
2209,
4105,
2
],
[
4105,
6134,
3
]
]
} |
0a0dc26f9d5db91977282a608bd0ae3432e83aec | HM Revenue & Customs Business Expenses: 1st April 2010 – 30th June 2010
Please note – these figures may not include some costs that have yet to be invoiced and will be updated to reflect any additional spend.
| DATES | DESTINATION | PURPOSE | TRAVEL | OTHER (Including Hospitality Received/Given) | Total Cost £ | |---------|-------------|-----------------------|--------------|---------------------------------------------|--------------| | | | | Air | Rail | | | | | | Taxi/Car/Other | Accommodation/Meals | | | 13/04/10| London | Departmental Business | £52.10 | | £52.10 | | 16/04/10| Darlington | Staff Event | £371.67 | £82.25 | £453.92 | | 27/04/10| Sunningdale | Civil Service Business| £20.15 | £14.08 | £34.23 | | 04/05/10| London | Departmental Business | £18.05 | | £18.05 | | 19/05/10| London | Departmental Business | £23.55 | | £23.55 | | 10/06/10| Birmingham | Staff Event | £56.01 | | £56.01 | | DATES | DESTINATION | PURPOSE | TRAVEL | OTHER (Including Hospitality Received/Given) | Total Cost £ | |---------|-------------|--------------------|--------|---------------------------------------------|--------------| | | | | Air | Rail | Taxi/Car/Other | Accommodation/Meals | | | 08/04/10 | London | Meeting | | | £23.00 | £23.00 | £23.00 | | 13/04/10 | London | Departmental Business | | | | £52.10 | £52.10 | | 15/04/10 | Leeds | Meeting | £116.00| | £20.00 | | £136.00 | | 15/04/10 | London | Meeting | | | £34.00 | | £34.00 | | 16/04/10 | London | Conference | | | £23.00 | | £23.00 | | 20/04/10 | Sunningdale | Meeting | £4.00 | | £6.00 | | £10.00 | | 20/04/10 | London | Meeting | | | £9.00 | | £9.00 | | 21/04/10 | Lincoln | Speaking Engagement | £25.00| | £88.00 | | £113.00 | | 26/04/10 | London | HMRC Board | | | £17.00 | | £17.00 | | 28/04/10 | France | Meeting | £133.00| | £30.00 | £329.00 | £492.00 | | 29/04/10 | London | Meeting | | | £16.00 | | £16.00 | | 05/05/10 | Switzerland | Meeting | £173.00| £52.00| £32.00 | | £257.00 | | 17/05/10 | London | Meeting | | | £15.00 | | £15.00 | | 18/05/10 | London | Departmental Business | | | £9.00 | | £9.00 | | 20/05/10 | London | Departmental Business | | | £8.00 | | £8.00 | | 20/05/10 | London | Office Visit | | | £17.00 | | £17.00 | | 21/05/10 | Cambridge | Conference | | | £37.00 | | £37.00 | | Date | Location | Event Type | Cost 1 | Cost 2 | Cost 3 | Total | |------------|--------------|---------------------|--------|--------|--------|--------| | 25/05/10 | Netherlands | Speaking Engagement | £118.00| £72.00 | | £190.00| | 01/06/10 | London | Meeting | £18.00 | | | £18.00 | | 03/06/10 – 04/06/10 | Copenhagen | Speaking Engagement | £113.00| £33.00 | | £146.00| | 06/06/10 – 07/06/10 | Switzerland | Meeting | £277.00| £52.00 | | £329.00| | 10/06/10 – 11/06/10 | France | Meeting | £125.00| £113.00| £102.00| £340.00| | 18/06/10 | London | Meeting | £13.00 | | | £13.00 | | 22/06/10 – 24/06/10 | France | Conference | £139.00| £98.00 | £503.00| £740.00| | DATES | DESTINATION | PURPOSE | TRAVEL | OTHER (Including Hospitality Received/Given) | Total Cost £ | |---------|-------------|---------------|--------------|---------------------------------------------|--------------| | | | | Air | Rail | | | | | | Taxi/Car/ | Other | | | | | | Accommodation/Meals | | | | 15/04/10 | Shipley | Office Visit | £135.55 | | £135.55 | | 28/04/10 | London | Awards Dinner | £91.60 | | £91.60 | | 27/05/10 | Newcastle | Office Visit | £180.49 | £52.00 | £232.49 | | DATES | DESTINATION | PURPOSE | TRAVEL | OTHER (Including Hospitality Received/Given) | Total Cost £ | |-------------|-------------|---------------|--------------|---------------------------------------------|--------------| | 07/04/10 | London | Meeting | | | £41.70 | | 15/04/10 | Washington | Staff Event | £362.35 | £86.60 | £454.95 | | 23/04/10 | Preston | Staff Event | £115.66 | £35.00 | £150.66 | | 28/04/10 | Preston | Staff Event | £85.66 | £40.00 | £131.66 | | 12/05/10 – 13/05/10 | Preston | Meeting | £86.56 | £63.00 | £225.06 | | 14/05/10 | Croydon | Staff Event | £7.90 | | £7.90 | | 19/05/10 | Liverpool | Staff Event | £232.94 | £24.27 | £335.21 | | 27/05/10 | Preston | Staff Event | £127.56 | £30.00 | £157.56 | | DATES | DESTINATION | PURPOSE | TRAVEL | OTHER (Including Hospitality Received/Given) | Total Cost £ | |------------|-------------|------------------|--------|---------------------------------------------|--------------| | 19/04/10 – 20/04/10 | Newcastle | Staff Event | £168.75 | £21.00 | £68.00 | £257.75 | | 21/04/10 | Home | Speaking Engagement | | £11.00 | | £11.00 | | 26/04/10 – 28/04/10 | Riga | Meeting | £647.10 | £48.00 | £6.50 | £148.72 | £850.32 | | 01/06/10 | London | Meeting | | £10.30 | | £10.30 | | 09/06/10 | London | Meeting | | £10.00 | | £10.00 | | 10/06/10 | East Kilbride | Office Visit | £77.80 | £18.00 | £28.00 | £123.80 | | 17/06/10 | Lincoln | Staff Event | £48.52 | £66.00 | | £114.52 | | DATES | DESTINATION | PURPOSE | TRAVEL | OTHER (Including Hospitality Received/Given) | Total Cost £ | |-----------|-------------|--------------------|-----------------|---------------------------------------------|--------------| | | | | Air | Rail | Taxi/Car/ Other | Accommodation/ Meals | | | 26/04/10 | London | Departmental Business | £1.80 | £90.54 | | | £92.34 | | 28/04/10 | London | Office Visit | | | £27.49 | | £27.49 | | 29/04/10 | London | Office Visit | £3.60 | | | | £3.60 | | 12/05/10 | London | Office Visit | £3.60 | | | | £3.60 | | 09/06/10 – 10/06/10 | Birmingham | Departmental Business | £69.57 | | £87.00 | | £156.57 | | 24/06/10 | Coventry | Office Visit | £82.12 | | | | £82.12 | | DATES | DESTINATION | PURPOSE | TRAVEL | OTHER (Including Hospitality Received/Given) | Total Cost £ | |-------|-------------|---------|--------|---------------------------------------------|--------------| | | | | Air | Rail | Taxi/Car/Other | Accommodation/Meals | |
NIL RETURN | DATES | DESTINATION | PURPOSE | TRAVEL | OTHER (Including Hospitality Received/Given) | Total Cost £ | |---------|-------------|-------------|--------------|---------------------------------------------|--------------| | | | | Air | Rail | | | | | | Taxi/Car/Other | Accommodation/Meals | | | 21/04/10| Nottingham | Office Visit| £216.35 | | £216.35 | | 13/05/10| Newcastle | Office Visit| £229.00 | £75.00 | £304.00 | | DATES | DESTINATION | PURPOSE | TRAVEL | OTHER (Including Hospitality Received/Given) | Total Cost £ | |---------|-------------|-----------------------|-----------------|---------------------------------------------|--------------| | 26/04/10| London | Departmental Business | Air | £8.20 | £8.20 | | 27/04/10| London | Meeting | Rail | £7.50 | £7.50 | | 05/05/10| London | Speaking Engagement | Taxi/Car/Other | £20.53 | £20.53 | | 24/05/10| Sunningdale | Speaking Engagement | Accommodation/ Meals | £77.99 | £77.99 | | 07/06/10| Zurich | Departmental Business | £325.98 | | £325.98 | | 21/06/10| Sunningdale | Speaking Engagement | £16.68 | | £16.68 | | DATES | DESTINATION | PURPOSE | TRAVEL | OTHER (Including Hospitality Received/Given) | Total Cost £ | |-------------|-------------------|------------------|-----------------|---------------------------------------------|--------------| | 13/04/10 – 14/04/10 | Telford | Staff Event | £176.32 | £23.00 | £199.32 | | 26/04/10 | London | Departmental Business | £3.60 | | £3.60 | | 28/04/10 – 29/04/10 | Telford and Shipley | Staff Visit | £3.60 | £136.77 | £177.12 | | 30/04/10 | Southend | Staff Visit | £25.66 | | £25.66 | | 05/05/10 | Liverpool | Staff Visit | £200.20 | £4.19 | £204.39 | | 10/05/10 | Worthing and London | Staff Visit | £3.60 | £7.50 | £11.10 | | 12/05/10 | Telford | Staff Visit | £114.12 | £4.29 | £118.41 | | 17/05/10 – 18/05/10 | Telford | Staff Visit | £146.93 | | £146.93 | | 24/06/10 | Exeter | Departmental Business | £75.00 | | £75.00 | | 26/05/10 | Lincoln | Speaking Engagement | £16.41 | | £16.41 | | 30/06/10 | London | Departmental Business | £3.60 | | £3.60 | | 06/07/10 – 07/07/10 | Newcastle | Staff Visit | £229.45 | £67.00 | £296.45 | | DATES | DESTINATION | PURPOSE | TRAVEL | OTHER (Including Hospitality Received/Given) | Total Cost £ | |---------|-------------|--------------------|--------|---------------------------------------------|--------------| | | | | Air | Rail | Taxi/Car/Other | Accommodation/Meals | | | 13/04/10 | London | Departmental Business | | | £11.32 | £52.10 | £63.42 | | 27/04/10 – 28/04/10 | Sunningdale | Civil Service Business | | | £39.00 | | £39.00 | | 29/04/10 | London | Departmental Business | | | £42.27 | | £42.27 | | 11/05/10 | London | Meeting | | | £15.00 | | £15.00 | | 19/05/10 | London | Departmental Business | | | £32.39 | | £32.39 | | 21/06/10 | Liverpool | Office Visit | £74.00 | | | £101.00 | £175.00 | | 22/06/10 | Preston | Office Visit | £42.00 | | | | £42.00 | **JOHN SPENCE – NON EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR**
- John Spence is registered blind therefore the expenses claimed are higher than that of other Non Executive Directors
| DATES | DESTINATION | PURPOSE | TRAVEL | OTHER (Including Hospitality Received/Given) | Total Cost £ | |---------|-------------|------------------|-----------------|---------------------------------------------|--------------| | | | | Air | Rail | Taxi/Car/ Other | Accommodation/ Meals | | | 08/04/10 | London | HMRC Board | £14.50 | £24.50 | | | £39.00 | | 13/04/10 | London | Departmental Business | | £34.50 | £52.10 | | £86.60 | | 19/04/10 | London | Meeting | £14.50 | £30.00 | | | £44.50 | | 21/04/10 | London | Meeting | | £25.50 | | | £25.50 | | 06/05/10 | London | HMRC Board | £14.50 | £27.50 | | | £42.00 | | 18/05/10 | London | Meeting | £12.80 | £28.50 | | | £41.30 | | 26/05/10 | London | Meeting | £18.50 | | | | £18.50 | | 27/05/10 | London | Meeting | £16.75 | £32.40 | | | £49.15 | | 03/06/10 | London | HMRC Board | £14.50 | £31.20 | | | £45.70 | | 23/06/10 | London | Meeting | £14.50 | £32.40 | | | £46.90 | | 24/06/10 | London | Meeting | £14.50 | £13.60 | | | £28.10 | | DATES | DESTINATION | PURPOSE | TRAVEL | OTHER (Including Hospitality Received/Given) | Total Cost £ | |---------|-------------|------------------|--------|---------------------------------------------|--------------| | | | | Air | Rail | Taxi/Car/Other | Accommodation/Meals | | | 13/04/10 | London | Departmental Business | | | | £52.10 | £52.10 | | 03/06/10 | London | HMRC Board | £23.50 | £4.10 | | | £27.60 | | DATES | DESTINATION | PURPOSE | TRAVEL | OTHER (Including Hospitality Received/Given) | Total Cost £ | |---------|-------------|------------------|--------|---------------------------------------------|--------------| | | | | Air | Rail | Taxi/Car/Other | Accommodation/Meals | | | 13/04/10 | London | Departmental Business | | | | £52.10 | £52.10 | | DATES | DESTINATION | PURPOSE | TRAVEL | OTHER (Including Hospitality Received/Given) | Total Cost £ | |-------|-------------|---------|--------|---------------------------------------------|--------------| | | | | Air | Rail | Taxi/Car/Other | Accommodation/Meals | | | NIL RETURN | | | | | | | | PHILIPPA HIRD – NON EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
- Philippa Hird does not make individual claims for business expenses.
| DATES | DESTINATION | PURPOSE | TRAVEL | OTHER (Including Hospitality Received/Given) | Total Cost £ | |---------|-------------|---------------|--------|---------------------------------------------|--------------| | 13/04/10 | London | Departmental Business | Air | £52.10 | £52.10 | DAME SUE STREET – NON EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
- Dame Sue Street does not make individual claims for business expenses.
| DATES | DESTINATION | PURPOSE | TRAVEL | OTHER (Including Hospitality Received/Given) | Total Cost £ | |---------|-------------|---------------|--------|---------------------------------------------|--------------| | 13/04/10 | London | Departmental Business | Air | £52.10 | £52.10 |
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/4900-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 18,
"total-input-tokens": 25603,
"total-output-tokens": 6092,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
1474,
1
],
[
1474,
3772,
2
],
[
3772,
4593,
3
],
[
4593,
5519,
4
],
[
5519,
6744,
5
],
[
6744,
7478,
6
],
[
7478,
8547,
7
],
[
8547,
8873,
8
],
[
8873,
9573,
9
],
[
9573,
10608,
10
],
[
10608,
12525,
11
],
[
12525,
13541,
12
],
[
13541,
15295,
13
],
[
15295,
15868,
14
],
[
15868,
16325,
15
],
[
16325,
16743,
16
],
[
16743,
17200,
17
],
[
17200,
17660,
18
]
]
} |
bdd9547e1f48d1198009500d563dcdf7aad1adcf | ## HM REVENUE & CUSTOMS
### HOSPITALITY REGISTER
1st April 2010 – 30th June 2010
| Date | Organisation | Type of Hospitality Received | |------------|---------------------------------------------------|------------------------------| | 19/05/10 | Association of Revenue and Customs | Dinner | | 15/04/10 | Toronto Dominion bank | Supper | | 20/04/10 | Deloitte | Supper | | 18/05/10 | International Tax Review Magazine Awards | Dinner | | 19/05/10 | Association of Revenue and Customs | Dinner | | 20/05/10 | LexisNexis Tax Journal | Dinner | | 10/06/10 | Steptoe & Johnson | Supper |
| Date | Organisation | Type of Hospitality Received | |------------|---------------------------------------------------|------------------------------| | 20/04/10 | IBM | Breakfast | | 28/04/10 | Opportunity now Awards | Dinner | | 19/05/10 | Association of Revenue and Customs | Dinner | | Steve Lamey, Director General, Benefits & Credits | |-----------------------------------------------| | Date | Organisation | Type of Hospitality Received | | NIL RETURN |
| Melanie Dawes, Director General, Business Tax | |---------------------------------------------| | Date | Organisation | Type of Hospitality Received | | 18/05/2010 | Chartered Institute of Taxation | Drinks and canapés | | 19/05/2010 | Association of Revenue and Customs | Dinner |
| Mike Eland, Director General, Enforcement and Compliance | |---------------------------------------------------------| | Date | Organisation | Type of Hospitality Received | | 19/05/2010 | Association of Revenue and Customs | Dinner |
| Simon Bowles, Chief Finance Officer | |-------------------------------------| | Date | Organisation | Type of Hospitality Received | | 19/05/10 | Association of Revenue and Customs | Dinner | | 20/05/10 | Stork & May | Reception |
| Mike Falvey, Chief People Officer | |-----------------------------------| | Date | Organisation | Type of Hospitality Received | | NIL RETURN | | Date | Organisation | Type of Hospitality Received | |------------|---------------------------------------------------|------------------------------| | 21/04/10 | The VAT Practitioners’ Group | Reception | | 05/05/10 | Linklaters | Lunch | | 06/05/10 | Individual | Drinks | | 07/05/10 | Clifford Chance | Working lunch | | 19/05/10 | Association of Revenue and Customs | Dinner | | 10/06/10 | Globe Business Publishing – LawCareers.Net | Awards reception | | 14/06/10 | Freshfields | Working lunch | | 18/06/10 | Linklaters | Working lunch | | 24/06/10 | McGrigors | Dinner |
| Date | Organisation | Type of Hospitality Received | |------------|---------------------------------------------------|------------------------------| | | Phil Pavitt, Chief Information Officer | | | | Date | Organisation | | | | Type of Hospitality Received |
| Date | Organisation | Type of Hospitality Received | |------------|---------------------------------------------------|------------------------------| | | Mike Clasper, Non-Executive Chairman | | | | Date | Organisation | | | | Type of Hospitality Received | | | NIL RETURN | |
| Date | Organisation | Type of Hospitality Received | |------------|---------------------------------------------------|------------------------------| | | John Spence, Non-Executive Director | | | | Date | Organisation | | | | Type of Hospitality Received | | | NIL RETURN | | | Name | Date | Organisation | Type of Hospitality Received | |-------------------------------|------|--------------|------------------------------| | Mark Haysom, Non-Executive Director | NIL RETURN | | | | Phil Hodkinson, Non-Executive Director | NIL RETURN | | | | Colin Cobain, Non-Executive Director | NIL RETURN | | | | Philippa Hird, Non-Executive Director | NIL RETURN | | | | Dame Sue Street, Non-Executive Director | NIL RETURN | | |
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/4901-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 4,
"total-input-tokens": 5546,
"total-output-tokens": 1238,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
1457,
1
],
[
1457,
2535,
2
],
[
2535,
5279,
3
],
[
5279,
5957,
4
]
]
} |
ca0012785590ea87a4e88f38b0e4f4afceef66e6 | Prison Population Projections 2014 – 2020 England and Wales
Ministry of Justice Statistics Bulletin
Published 27th November 2014 Contents
Key points 2
1. Central Scenario 4
2. Recent trends in the population 6
3. Modelling methodology and projection scenarios 8
4. Results 11
5. Previous Projections 13
6. Caveats on prison population projections 14 Appendix A: Additional tables 15 Appendix B: Detail of models, scenarios and assumptions 21 Contact Points for further information 28 Key points
This bulletin presents projections of the prison population in England and Wales from November 2014 to December 2020. The prison population projections are based on assumptions about future custodial convictions and incorporate the anticipated impacts of agreed policy and procedural initiatives.
The “Central Scenario” estimates that the prison population will increase from the current position 85,925(^1) to 87,700 by June 2015. By the end of June 2020 the prison population is projected to be 90,200. This Central Scenario is our best estimate based on the available information. The projected prison population under our Central Scenario is shown in Chart 1.
The prison population projections are produced using a model of flows of offenders into and out of prison which counts the resulting prison population each month.
Chart 1: Projected prison population (Central Scenario)
The Central Scenario has been modelled assuming custodial convictions are broadly in line with recent trends and average length of sentence to be flat based on recent trends.
The projections do not attempt to estimate the impact of any future Government policy that is yet to achieve Royal Assent, and therefore become less certain over time.
______________________________________________________________________
(^1) As at 21 November 2014: www.gov.uk/government/statistics/prison-population-figures-2014 The assumptions used are based on consultation with policy and operational experts at the Ministry of Justice and the National Offender Management Service. They also take into account observed data trends:
- These projections represent a change from last year where the 2013 Scenario 2 (central) saw the population gradually falling over the six year lifetime of the projection. The Central Scenario in the projections this year shows the population rising over the next six years. This change arises from the fact that the latest projections capture a recent upward trend in prosecutions of more serious offences.
- Despite the fact that overall crime is falling there has been an increase in recorded crime for certain offence types:
o Prosecutions for sexual offences are the highest in the decade and increased by 19% in the 12 months ending June 2014, in line with a 21% increase in recorded crime. Offenders sentenced for sexual offences had an Average Custodial Sentence Length (ASCL) of 59.7 months, a rise of 2.4 months, compared with year ending June 2013.
o Violence against the person proceedings for indictable offences have increased by 7% in the 12 months ending June 2014. This is in line with an 11% increase in recorded crime.
Further statistics and commentary on the changes seen in Court proceedings and sentencing over the last year is presented in the Criminal Justice System Statistics Quarterly publication. This is available online on GOV.UK at: www.gov.uk/government/collections/criminal-justice-statistics-quarterly
1. Central Scenario
This bulletin presents prison population projections for England and Wales from November 2014 to December 2020. The central projection is produced to aid development, capacity planning and resource allocation within the Criminal Justice System (CJS) and the National Offender Management Service (NOMS). The latest published useable operational capacity (21 November 2014) is 88,015(^2).
The Central Scenario estimates that the prison population will rise to 87,700 by the end of June 2015 and to 90,200 by the end of June 2020.
The Central Scenario tracks the impact of current trends in sentencing on custodial convictions, custodial sentence lengths and hence on the resulting prison population. These assumptions have been agreed through a consultative process. Government policy is only included in these projections when it has received Royal Assent. These projections also take into account other drivers including:
- trends in the age, gender and offence of defendants entering the system and in the flow of cases through the courts;
- assumptions regarding future parole hearing frequency and expected outcomes for indeterminate (Life and Indeterminate for the Public Protection) sentences;
- the Home Office gaining access to all 580 places at the Verne Immigration Removal Centre (IRC) by January 2015;
- the impacts of the Offender Rehabilitation Act 2014(^3) which achieved Royal Assent on 13 March 2014 meaning offenders sentenced to custodial sentences of less than 12 months will be released subject to licence. There will also be a new post-sentence supervision period following licence for offenders released from custodial sentences of less than 2 years;
- the impacts of the Release on Temporary Licence (ROTL) review deciding that all offenders who have previously absconded will no longer be allowed to return to the open estate or be released on temporary licence except in exceptional circumstances.
(^2) www.gov.uk/government/statistics/prison-population-figures-2014 (^3) www.justice.gov.uk/transforming-rehabilitation Two illustrative scenarios are produced that consider the impact of; 1) a decrease in custodial convictions and sentence lengths; 2) an increase in custodial convictions and sentence lengths, compared to current trends. 2. Recent trends in the population
The ‘Story of the Prison Population 1993 to 2012’ is an in-depth look at what happened to the prison population between 1993 and 2012 and the major factors contributing to the changes.4
The prison population grew rapidly between 1993 to 2008, at an average of 4% a year. This rapid rise was driven by:
- increased numbers of people sentenced to immediate custody from 1993 to 2002;
- increases in the average custodial sentence length and increased use of indeterminate sentences; and
- an increase in numbers recalled to prison following breaches of the conditions of licence and these offenders spending longer in prison once recalled.
The rise in the prison population slowed considerably from the summer of 2008, in part due to the introduction of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act (CJIA) 20085 which changed sentencing and offender management in ways which helped to reduce growth in the prison population.
This flatter trend continued until the public disorder seen in UK cities from 6 to 9 August 2011 which had an immediate but temporary impact on the prison population.
During 2012 and into 2013, the prison population began to fall due to a falling remand population and a continued decline in the number of under 18s in custody. The falling remand population during 2012 reflected falling volumes going through the courts plus the introduction, in December 2012, of measures restricting the use of remand for all offenders who would be unlikely to receive a custodial sentence.6
From the end of August 2013 to the end of October 2013, the remand population rose sharply, driving an overall increase in the prison population. This was being driven by an increase in demand in the Crown Courts, especially among more serious tri-able either way cases. The total population has continued to rise since the beginning of 2014 and reached 85,9257 on the
______________________________________________________________________
4 Story of the Prison Population: www.gov.uk/government/publications/story-of-the-prison-population-1993-2012 5 services.parliament.uk/bills/2007-08/criminaljusticeandimmigration.html 6 http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2010-11/legalaidsentencingandpunishmentofoffenders.html 7 www.gov.uk/government/statistics/prison-population-figures-2014 21 November 2014. The latest projections assume demand in the courts remains at this higher level.
Table 1 summarises these changes.
**Table 1: Population in custody changes from 2006 to 2014**
| Start of Year | End of Year | Year on year % difference | |---------------------|-------------------|---------------------------| | June 2006 to June 2007 | 77,982 | 79,734 | 2.2% | | June 2007 to June 2008 | 79,734 | 83,194 | 4.3% | | June 2008 to June 2009 | 83,194 | 83,454 | 0.3% | | June 2009 to June 2010 | 83,454 | 85,002 | 1.9% | | June 2010 to June 2011 | 85,002 | 85,374 | 0.4% | | June 2011 to June 2012 | 85,374 | 86,048 | 0.8% | | June 2012 to June 2013 | 86,048 | 83,842 | -2.6% | | June 2013 to June 2014 | 83,842 | 85,509 | 2.0% |
Further statistics and commentary on the changes seen in prison population over the last year, is presented in the Offender Management Statistics Quarterly publication. This is available online on GOV.UK at: www.gov.uk/government/collections/offender-management-statistics-quarterly 3. Modelling methodology and projection scenarios
The prison projections model is part of wider work within the Ministry of Justice to develop a consistent and coherent suite of models of the criminal courts and offender management, driven by common projections of demand for the Ministry of Justice’s services.
The custodial convictions model uses projections of numbers of defendants entering the criminal courts. In order to project volumes of defendants being given a custodial sentence, it also takes into account:
- the age, gender and offence of defendants entering the system;
- the flow of cases through the courts; and
- the sentences which concluded cases attract.
The prison population projections model takes projections of custodial convictions, converts them to projections of prison receptions and then models the amount of time that offenders spend in prison to calculate the resulting prison population.
The benefits of this method are that it allows us to:
- explicitly project custodial convictions (rather than just convictions);
- understand the Criminal Justice System factors which contribute to change in the prison population, such as time served, sentences given, trial and sentencing court changes or shifts in defendant demographics; and
- more easily model the impact on the prison population of specific Ministry of Justice and other Criminal Justice Agency policy changes relating to specific offences or specific sentences.
Appendix B provides details of the methods used to produce the prison population projections and the assumptions behind them.
The assumptions informing these projections, and therefore the projections themselves, are subject to significant uncertainty. This is represented by the three scenarios, with each scenario being only as likely as the assumptions which inform it.
The method used for generating projections of the prison population in England and Wales for the 2014-2020 projections is consistent with the approach used to generate the 2013-2019 projections published on 7 November 2013. At the core of the method is a model of flows of offenders into and out of prison which counts the resulting prison population each month for sentenced, recall and remand prisoners.
Inputs to the prison projections model include projections of future custodial convictions. These are generated from time series projections of numbers of defendants entering the criminal courts and take into account the age, gender and offence of defendants entering the system, the flow of cases through the courts and the sentences which concluded cases attract.
The prison projections model monitors the sizes of the sentenced, recall and remand prison populations. These populations depend on the inflows defined above and the outflows. These outflows are defined by observed distributions of custodial sentence lengths, and the proportion of custodial sentences served for subsets of these populations. The model also simulates the ageing of the prison population over time.
The projection model is based on data up to June 2014 from various sources including court proceedings and performance data, sentencing data and prison receptions and population data.
The results of the prison projections model are supplemented with an estimate of the future non-criminal and fine defaulter populations, which is based on the latest available data to September 2014.
Three scenarios have been modelled. These scenarios track the impact of three different incremental changes in sentencing behaviour:
- The Central Scenario assumes custodial convictions are broadly in line with recent trends. The average length of sentence is assumed to be flat based on recent trends in sentence lengths. This broadly reflects the assumptions for Scenario 2 in the November 2013 projections.
We also consider two illustrative scenarios
- Scenario 1 assumes that custodial convictions will fall against recent trends. The average length of sentence is assumed to be lower than what has been observed in recent trends in sentence lengths.
- Scenario 2 assumes a rise in custodial convictions when compared to recent trends. Also the average length of sentence is assumed to be higher than what has been observed in recent trends in sentence lengths.
The three scenarios also incorporate the impact of:
- trends in the age, gender and offence of defendants entering the system and in the flow of cases through the courts; • assumptions regarding future parole hearing frequency and expected outcomes for indeterminate sentences;
• the Home Office gaining access to all 580 places at the Verne IRC by January 2015;
• the impacts of the Offender Rehabilitation Act 2014, whereby offenders with custodial sentences of less than 12 months will be released subject to licence and a new post-sentence supervision period following licence for offenders released from custodial sentences of less than 2 years;
• the impacts of the ROTL review deciding that all offenders who have previously absconded will no longer be allowed to return to the open estate or be released on temporary licence except in exceptional circumstances;
The scenarios modelled are not predictions of what will happen to the prison population, but rather indications of what the prison population would look like if scenario conditions were to be fulfilled.
Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 do not represent bounds on our central projection of the prison population, nor do they represent the likelihood of changes above or below our central projection. 4. Results
The Central Scenario estimates that the prison population will rise to 87,700 by the end of June 2015 and to 90,200 by the end of June 2020.
Chart 2 presents Prison population projections from November 2014 to December 2020.
Chart 2: Projected monthly prison population (all scenarios)
Illustrative Scenario 1 estimates that the prison population will rise to 87,100 by the end of June 2015 and then fall to 81,400 by the end of June 2020.
Illustrative Scenario 2 estimates that the prison population will rise to 88,900 by the end of June 2015 and to 98,900 by the end of June 2020.
The projected trends reflect the cumulative impacts of the various sentencing, legislative and procedural assumptions that are used to generate the projections. The seasonal pattern reflects the dip in the prison population which is always seen around the Christmas period.
In the Central Scenario, the prison population is expected to rise to 90,200 by June 2020. The projected population increase is largely due to the recent trends in case mix where we have seen more serious cases come before the courts. This results in offenders receiving longer custodial sentence lengths, which in turn places an upward pressure on the prison population. The growth in this scenario is largely driven by the rise in the determinate population which is projected to grow to 60,200 by June 2020. This is partially due to the introduction of the Extended Determinate Sentence (EDS) as part of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders(^8) (LASPO) Act which commenced in December 2012. Some of the growth in the determinate population has been offset by a decline in the indeterminate population following the removal of the Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP) sentence in the LASPO act.
Appendix A contains tables for annual projected end of June populations, average financial year populations and total monthly populations for each scenario along with detailed breakdown of the projections for our sub-populations.
(^8) services.parliament.uk/bills/2010-11/legalaidsentencingandpunishmentofoffenders.html 5. Previous Projections
At the end of September 2014 the published prison population was within 1.8 % of the 2013 Scenario 2 (central) projection, and within 3.4 % of the 2013 Scenario 1 projection and 0.2 % of the 2013 Scenario 3 projection. This does not indicate which scenario the actual prison population will track going forward.
Differences between the 2013 projections and the actual population could be explained by changes, different to those projected, in overall demand, offence mix, age and gender of defendants, court routes, custody rates or sentence lengths.
Chart 3 plots the 2014 Central Scenario projection against the three 2013 prison population projections. The 2014-2020 Central Scenario projection is above all three scenarios from last year. The higher level of the new projections can be attributed to a more serious case mix coming into the courts with a resulting increase in average custodial sentence lengths. The projection for June 2019 in the Central Scenario this year is 10.2 % above the equivalent scenario (Scenario 2) last year.
Chart 3: Comparing 2013 and 2014 projections (November 2014 – December 2020) 6. Caveats on prison population projections
The projections presented reflect the impact of three possible trends in sentencing, combined with trends in the age, gender and offence of defendants entering the system and in the flow of defendants through the courts. The impacts of changes to legislation and guidance which took place before June 2014 and views of future parole hearing frequency and outcomes for indeterminate sentence prisoners have also been taken into account.
The projections do not reflect the impact of legislative, policy, operational or procedural change or guidance for which there is no definite timetable for implementation. The projections therefore provide a set of “baseline” scenarios against which the impacts of future changes can be assessed.
Even without these possible changes, the actual future prison population may not match any of the projected scenarios. Changes to criminal justice processes could influence the numbers of offenders being brought to the point of sentence or the way that offenders are managed. Changes to sentencing behaviour may also be different from those modelled. Finally, both sentencing behaviour and criminal justice processes, as well as policy decisions, can respond to a multitude of environmental factors which cannot be anticipated, such as high profile criminal cases, events like the August 2011 public disorder events, and public debate.
Assumptions for modelling and scenario development were captured through consultation with policy and operational experts at the Ministry of Justice and the National Offender Management Service. The assumptions are based on analysis (where reliable data are available) and on expert judgement from policy makers, key deliverers and system influencers. The assumptions are therefore likely to be more robust for those measures and processes that have a well-defined boundary than for those that do not. Appendix A: Additional tables
Annual tables of overall projected prison population
Table A1: Projected prison population (end of June figures)
| Sentencing Scenarios | Scenario 1 | Central | Scenario 2 | |----------------------|------------|---------|------------| | Jun-15 | 87,100 | 87,700 | 88,900 | | Jun-16 | 86,800 | 89,100 | 92,000 | | Jun-17 | 85,200 | 89,300 | 93,600 | | Jun-18 | 83,900 | 89,700 | 95,800 | | Jun-19 | 82,600 | 90,100 | 97,600 | | Jun-20 | 81,400 | 90,200 | 98,900 |
Table A2: Average projected prison population (financial year figures)
| Sentencing Scenarios | Scenario 1 | Central | Scenario 2 | |----------------------|------------|---------|------------| | 2015/16 | 87,000 | 88,200 | 89,700 | | 2016/17 | 86,200 | 89,100 | 92,400 | | 2017/18 | 84,700 | 89,300 | 94,100 | | 2018/19 | 83,400 | 89,800 | 96,300 | | 2019/20 | 82,200 | 90,100 | 97,900 |
Table A3: Comparison of 2013 based Scenario 2 and 2014 Central Scenario projections (end of June figures)
| Sentencing Scenarios | 2013 | 2014 | Difference | |----------------------|------|------|------------| | Jun-14 | 83,400 | -- | -- | | Jun-15 | 82,100 | 87,700 | 6.8% | | Jun-16 | 82,000 | 89,100 | 8.6% | | Jun-17 | 81,600 | 89,300 | 9.4% | | Jun-18 | 81,500 | 89,700 | 10.1% | | Jun-19 | 81,800 | 90,100 | 10.2% | | Jun-20 | -- | 90,200 | -- |
9 All figures are rounded to the nearest hundred. Sub-populations may not sum to total populations due to rounding and due to overlaps in some sub-population categories. Annual tables of subgroups within the overall projected prison population
**Table A4: Projected determinate sentence prison population (end of June figures)**
| | Scenario 1 | Central | Scenario 2 | |-------|------------|---------|------------| | Jun-15 | 54,600 | 55,500 | 56,600 | | Jun-16 | 54,400 | 57,000 | 60,000 | | Jun-17 | 53,500 | 57,900 | 62,300 | | Jun-18 | 52,600 | 58,800 | 64,900 | | Jun-19 | 51,800 | 59,600 | 67,200 | | Jun-20 | 51,000 | 60,200 | 68,900 |
**Table A5: Projected indeterminate sentence prison population (end of June figures)**
| | Scenario 1 | Central | Scenario 2 | |-------|------------|---------|------------| | Jun-15 | 12,200 | 12,200 | 12,200 | | Jun-16 | 11,700 | 11,700 | 11,700 | | Jun-17 | 11,000 | 11,000 | 11,000 | | Jun-18 | 10,500 | 10,500 | 10,500 | | Jun-19 | 10,100 | 10,100 | 10,100 | | Jun-20 | 9,600 | 9,600 | 9,600 |
**Table A6: Projected remand prison population (end of June figures)**
| | Scenario 1 | Central | Scenario 2 | |-------|------------|---------|------------| | Jun-15 | 12,900 | 12,300 | 11,700 | | Jun-16 | 13,000 | 12,300 | 11,600 | | Jun-17 | 12,900 | 12,300 | 11,600 | | Jun-18 | 13,000 | 12,300 | 11,600 | | Jun-19 | 13,000 | 12,300 | 11,700 | | Jun-20 | 13,000 | 12,300 | 11,700 |
**Table A7: Projected recall prison population (end of June figures)**
| | Scenario 1 | Central | Scenario 2 | |-------|------------|---------|------------| | Jun-15 | 5,400 | 5,700 | 6,300 | | Jun-16 | 5,700 | 6,100 | 6,700 | | Jun-17 | 5,800 | 6,100 | 6,800 | | Jun-18 | 5,800 | 6,100 | 6,800 | | Jun-19 | 5,800 | 6,100 | 6,800 | | Jun-20 | 5,800 | 6,100 | 6,800 | Table A8: Projected non-criminal prison population (end of June figures)\\textsuperscript{10}
| | Scenario 1 | Central | Scenario 2 | |-------|------------|---------|------------| | Jun-15 | 1,800 | 1,800 | 1,800 | | Jun-16 | 1,800 | 1,800 | 1,800 | | Jun-17 | 1,800 | 1,800 | 1,800 | | Jun-18 | 1,800 | 1,800 | 1,800 | | Jun-19 | 1,800 | 1,800 | 1,800 | | Jun-20 | 1,800 | 1,800 | 1,800 |
Table A9: Projected fine defaulter prison population (end of June figures)\\textsuperscript{8}
| | Scenario 1 | Central | Scenario 2 | |-------|------------|---------|------------| | Jun-15 | 100 | 100 | 100 | | Jun-16 | 100 | 100 | 100 | | Jun-17 | 100 | 100 | 100 | | Jun-18 | 100 | 100 | 100 | | Jun-19 | 100 | 100 | 100 | | Jun-20 | 100 | 100 | 100 |
\\textsuperscript{10} Note that these projections are the same under all three projected scenarios Table A10: Projected male 21 years and over prison population (end of June figures)
| Scenario | Total Population | Determinates | |----------|-----------------|--------------| | | Scenario 1 | Central | Scenario 2 | Scenario 1 | Central | Scenario 2 | | Jun-15 | 76,500 | 77,100 | 78,700 | 47,400 | 48,200 | 49,800 | | Jun-16 | 75,800 | 78,300 | 82,000 | 46,800 | 49,500 | 53,300 | | Jun-17 | 74,400 | 78,500 | 83,700 | 45,900 | 50,400 | 55,700 | | Jun-18 | 73,200 | 78,900 | 85,800 | 45,200 | 51,300 | 58,200 | | Jun-19 | 72,200 | 79,300 | 87,500 | 44,600 | 52,000 | 60,300 | | Jun-20 | 71,100 | 79,400 | 88,700 | 44,000 | 52,600 | 62,000 |
| Scenario | Indeterminates | Remand | |----------|----------------|--------| | | Scenario 1 | Central | Scenario 2 | Scenario 1 | Central | Scenario 2 | | Jun-15 | 11,700 | 11,700 | 11,700 | 10,800 | 10,200 | 9,600 | | Jun-16 | 11,200 | 11,200 | 11,200 | 10,800 | 10,200 | 9,600 | | Jun-17 | 10,500 | 10,500 | 10,500 | 10,800 | 10,200 | 9,500 | | Jun-18 | 10,100 | 10,100 | 10,100 | 10,800 | 10,200 | 9,600 | | Jun-19 | 9,600 | 9,600 | 9,600 | 10,900 | 10,200 | 9,600 | | Jun-20 | 9,200 | 9,200 | 9,200 | 10,800 | 10,200 | 9,600 |
| Scenario | Recall | Non Criminal | |----------|--------|--------------| | | Scenario 1 | Central | Scenario 2 | Scenario 1 | Central | Scenario 2 | | Jun-15 | 4,900 | 5,200 | 5,800 | 1,700 | 1,700 | 1,700 | | Jun-16 | 5,200 | 5,500 | 6,100 | 1,700 | 1,700 | 1,700 | | Jun-17 | 5,300 | 5,600 | 6,100 | 1,700 | 1,700 | 1,700 | | Jun-18 | 5,300 | 5,600 | 6,100 | 1,700 | 1,700 | 1,700 | | Jun-19 | 5,300 | 5,600 | 6,100 | 1,700 | 1,700 | 1,700 | | Jun-20 | 5,300 | 5,600 | 6,100 | 1,700 | 1,700 | 1,700 |
Table A11: Projected male 18-20 years old prison population (end of June figures)
| Scenario | Sentencing Scenarios | |----------|----------------------| | | Scenario 1 | Central | Scenario 2 | | Jun-15 | 5,700 | 5,700 | 5,300 | | Jun-16 | 6,300 | 5,900 | 4,900 | | Jun-17 | 6,200 | 5,900 | 4,700 | | Jun-18 | 6,200 | 5,900 | 4,800 | | Jun-19 | 6,100 | 5,900 | 4,800 | | Jun-20 | 6,000 | 5,900 | 4,800 | Table A12: Projected female 18 years and over prison population (end of June figures)
| | Scenario 1 | Central | Scenario 2 | |-------|------------|---------|------------| | Jun-15 | 4,100 | 4,100 | 4,300 | | Jun-16 | 3,900 | 4,100 | 4,600 | | Jun-17 | 3,800 | 4,100 | 4,700 | | Jun-18 | 3,600 | 4,100 | 4,800 | | Jun-19 | 3,600 | 4,200 | 4,900 | | Jun-20 | 3,500 | 4,200 | 4,900 |
Table A13: Projected 15-17 years old prison population (end of June figures)(^{11})
| | Scenario 1 | Central | Scenario 2 | |-------|------------|---------|------------| | Jun-15 | 700 | 700 | 600 | | Jun-16 | 800 | 800 | 500 | | Jun-17 | 800 | 800 | 500 | | Jun-18 | 800 | 800 | 500 | | Jun-19 | 800 | 700 | 500 | | Jun-20 | 800 | 800 | 500 |
(^{11}) This population only includes those aged 15-17 in Youth Offending Institutions. 15-18 year olds housed in Secure Children’s Homes or Secure Training Centres are not included. Monthly tables of overall projected prison population
Table A14: Monthly values of the overall projected prison population (end of month figures)
| Scenario 1 | Central | Scenario 2 | |------------|---------|------------| | Nov-14 | 85,800 | 86,100 | | Dec-14 | 84,300 | 84,600 | | Jan-15 | 85,900 | 86,200 | | Feb-15 | 86,400 | 86,800 | | Mar-15 | 86,700 | 87,200 | | Apr-15 | 86,700 | 87,400 | | May-15 | 86,900 | 87,500 | | Jun-15 | 87,100 | 87,700 | | Jul-15 | 87,100 | 88,000 | | Aug-15 | 87,300 | 88,400 | | Sep-15 | 87,400 | 88,700 | | Oct-15 | 87,300 | 88,600 | | Nov-15 | 87,200 | 88,600 | | Dec-15 | 86,900 | 88,500 | | Jan-16 | 87,100 | 88,900 | | Feb-16 | 87,100 | 89,000 | | Mar-16 | 87,100 | 89,000 | | Apr-16 | 87,000 | 89,000 | | May-16 | 86,900 | 89,000 | | Jun-16 | 86,800 | 89,100 | | Jul-16 | 86,500 | 89,200 | | Aug-16 | 86,700 | 89,400 | | Sep-16 | 86,800 | 89,600 | | Oct-16 | 86,500 | 89,400 | | Nov-16 | 86,300 | 89,400 | | Dec-16 | 84,400 | 87,600 | | Jan-17 | 85,600 | 88,900 | | Feb-17 | 85,600 | 89,200 | | Mar-17 | 85,600 | 89,200 | | Apr-17 | 85,400 | 89,300 | | May-17 | 85,300 | 89,300 | | Jun-17 | 85,200 | 89,300 | | Jul-17 | 85,000 | 89,300 | | Aug-17 | 85,200 | 89,600 | | Sep-17 | 85,200 | 89,800 | | Oct-17 | 84,900 | 89,600 | | Nov-17 | 84,700 | 89,500 |
| Scenario 1 | Central | Scenario 2 | |------------|---------|------------| | Dec-17 | 82,900 | 87,800 | | Jan-18 | 84,200 | 89,200 | | Feb-18 | 84,200 | 89,500 | | Mar-18 | 84,100 | 89,600 | | Apr-18 | 84,100 | 89,600 | | May-18 | 84,000 | 89,700 | | Jun-18 | 83,900 | 89,700 | | Jul-18 | 83,700 | 89,800 | | Aug-18 | 83,700 | 90,100 | | Sep-18 | 83,800 | 90,300 | | Oct-18 | 83,400 | 90,100 | | Nov-18 | 83,400 | 90,100 | | Dec-18 | 81,600 | 88,300 | | Jan-19 | 82,900 | 89,700 | | Feb-19 | 83,000 | 90,000 | | Mar-19 | 83,000 | 90,100 | | Apr-19 | 83,000 | 90,100 | | May-19 | 82,800 | 90,100 | | Jun-19 | 82,600 | 90,100 | | Jul-19 | 82,600 | 90,200 | | Aug-19 | 82,800 | 90,500 | | Sep-19 | 82,800 | 90,700 | | Oct-19 | 82,400 | 90,500 | | Nov-19 | 82,200 | 90,400 | | Dec-19 | 80,300 | 88,600 | | Jan-20 | 81,500 | 89,900 | | Feb-20 | 81,700 | 90,200 | | Mar-20 | 81,800 | 90,300 | | Apr-20 | 81,700 | 90,300 | | May-20 | 81,500 | 90,300 | | Jun-20 | 81,400 | 90,200 | | Jul-20 | 81,400 | 90,300 | | Aug-20 | 81,600 | 90,600 | | Sep-20 | 81,800 | 90,700 | | Oct-20 | 81,300 | 90,500 | | Nov-20 | 81,100 | 90,400 | | Dec-20 | 79,200 | 88,700 | Appendix B: Detail of models, scenarios and assumptions
The updated modelling approach
The prison projections form part of the Ministry of Justice’s wider work to develop a consistent and coherent suite of models of the criminal courts and offender management, driven by common projections of demand for the Ministry of Justice’s services.
The prisons model used to generate the 2014 projections has not changed substantially from that used in the 2013 projections. As in the 2013 projections custodial sentence lengths used in the model are disaggregated by gender, age of the offender and offence type. The total time to be served in prison by projected future prisoners is assigned by matching their gender and age characteristics to relevant distributions of (i) custodial sentence lengths and (ii) the percentage of custodial sentence served. These distributions are derived from data for the period October 2013 to April 2014. This allows us to:
- understand the Criminal Justice System factors which contribute to change in the prison population, including sentences lengths issued, the percentage of sentence served in custody, trial court and sentencing court changes, or shifts in the demographic characteristics of defendants;
- model the impact on the prison population of specific Ministry of Justice and other Criminal Justice Agency policy changes; and
- quantify the impact of uncertainty around the time a defendant serves in prison on the prison population.
Overview of the modelling approach
Central to the modelling approach is the Prison Population Stock-Flow model. Projections of future custodial convictions are fed into this model and outputs are adjusted to account for the impact of changes in legislation and process on the prison population, as shown in Figure B1, and described below. Figure B1: Key Components of the prisons projections modelling system
1. Future Defendants Proceeded Against by Offence Type
- Historical Defendants Proceeded Against
- Impacts of Legislation and Process Change
2. Future Offenders Disposed of by Disposal, Age and Gender
- Historical Court Disposals Data
- Historical Age and Gender Data
- Historical Court Route Data
3. Prison Projections
- Historical Prison Receptions
- Historical Time Served Data
- Prison Population Stock-Flow Model
- Impacts of Legislation and Process Changed
Key
- Model
- Input
- Output
1. Producing projections of defendants proceeded against
Projections of defendants proceeded against at court are chosen as the entry point to the modelling system because this is the entry point of defendants into the MoJ’s area of responsibility. Underlying crime levels and the activities of the police and CPS will have an impact on the volume of defendants proceeded against.
The Demand Projections Model produces baseline projections of all defendants proceeded against at court for 12 high-level offence categories. This is based on historical time series data (January 2002 to June 2014) at a monthly resolution out to 2020, sub-divided by region and age for the Magistrates’ court and region for the Crown Court.
The demand projections are based on time series forecasting methods such as Seasonal Exponential Smoothing (SES). A ‘middle-out’ forecast is used, centred at the offence level. The other levels in the hierarchy are reconciled so that the levels below (e.g. region or offender age) when disaggregated, and the levels above (i.e. totals) when aggregated, are consistent with the forecasts derived at the offence level.
It should be noted that these projections cannot be expected to track actual volumes of defendants proceeded against if there is any sudden or cumulative change which takes demand volumes or offence mix well outside the trends seen historically.
2. Converting the demand projections into custodial convictions
A Courts and Sentencing Module converts the demand projections into a set of projections of disposals by disposal type (including custodial convictions), offence, sex and age band at a monthly resolution. These projections of custodial convictions by sex, age and offence type are used as a key input for the Prison Population Stock-Flow model.
The Courts and Sentencing Module is a combination of the Magistrates’ and Crown Court Workload Models and the Sentencing Module. The demand projections are used as an input into a Magistrates’ Workload Model, which uses historical data to split defendants into court routes (Table B1) and tracks their flow through the system.
The Crown Court workload model takes forecasts of caseload and assigns various attributes (e.g. early guilty plea, effective trial mix) to estimate likely hearing times and the resulting flow of cases through the system. The cases disposed of are then converted to the number of defendants disposed of using recent data for the observed ratio between cases and defendants.
The key assumptions that are used in the Courts and Sentencing Module are: that there is no prioritisation of any age or sex group within the Magistrates’ and Crown Court;
- the number of working days in each month is the primary driver of seasonality within the Magistrates’ and Crown Court;
- no change in offence type occurs as cases move through the system;
- defendants that are tried at the Magistrates’ Court proceed to sentencing without delay;
- delays within the Magistrates’ Court are not significant for the monthly timescales used in the modelling; and
- a Magistrates’ Court backlog will not develop during the forecast period.
The Sentencing Module takes the number of defendants disposed of in the Magistrates’ Workload Model and the Crown Court Workload Model and applies sentencing splits based on analysis of court proceedings data from January 2004 to June 2014. This results in a set of projections as broken down in Table B1. These are aggregated providing forecasts for each offence, gender, age and disposal category, which are used as the custodial conviction projections.
### Table B1: Courts and Sentencing Module Splits Dimensions
| Offence Type | Gender | Age Band | Court Route | Disposal | |-------------------------------|--------|----------|-------------|---------------------------| | Burglary | Male | Age 10-17| MC | Discharge | | Criminal Damage | Female | Age 18-20| MCCC | Fine | | Fraud and Forgery | | Age 21+ | CC | Community Sentence | | Indictable Motoring | | | | Suspended Sentence | | Other | | | | Custodial \<6 months | | Robbery | | | | Custodial 6 months - \<1year| | Sexual Offences | | | | Custodial 1year - 4 year | | Summary Motoring | | | | Custodial 4 year+ | | Summary Non-Motoring | | | | Indeterminate | | Theft and handling | | | | Otherwise Deal With | | Violence Against the Person | | | | |
Key to the court route splits: MC: those tried and sentenced in the Magistrates Court; MCCC: those who are tried in the Magistrates Court and Sentenced in the Crown Court; CC: combines those defendants who are committed for trial in the Crown Court and sent for trial in the Crown Court into a single category.
If required, the Courts and Sentencing Module allows trends in offender demographics and courts and sentencing processes to be incorporated into custodial convictions projections. This procedure was implemented to create the custodial convictions projections used in the three published scenarios. 3a) Producing prison population projections
Prison population projections are produced using the Prison Population Stock-Flow Model. The principal sub-populations in prison – determinate sentence, life sentence, imprisonment for public protection (IPP) and remand – are modelled using stock-flow structures based on the generic structure shown in Figure B2. The stock-flow structures model the flow of offenders into and out of prison and count the resulting prison population at the end of each month.
Figure B2: Generic stock-flow structure in the Prison Population Stock-Flow Model
For the determinate population, the monthly inflows to prison are based on the custodial convictions projections described above. These custodial convictions include offenders that may already be serving a sentence for a previous crime or those who would serve their whole custodial sentence on remand, meaning that they would not be a new reception to prison. To convert from custodial convictions to prison receptions we apply a conversion ratio derived from the historical proportions of custodial convictions to prison receptions for each sub-population averaged over the last twelve months of historical data (April 2013 to March 2014 inclusive).
Monthly outflows for the determinate population are based on observed custodial sentence lengths and the observed percentage of sentence length served taken from October 2013 to April 2014. Each projected offender that enters the model is given a custodial sentence length that is randomly selected from the relevant distribution. These distributions are populated with custodial sentence lengths from actual offender receptions who share the same characteristics of offence, gender and age group in the observed time period. The percent of custodial sentence length served is derived in the same manner, except that the observed distribution is made up of discharged offenders further disaggregated by custodial sentence length band.
For offenders who receive the new EDS sentence an adjustment is made to the percent of custodial length served to reflect that these offenders will spend a greater proportion of their sentence in custody than standard determinate sentenced offenders discharged to date.
Projected prison receptions are sub-divided by age category (Juvenile, Young Adult, Adult) with the exact age of the offender attributed in the same manner as the custodial sentence lengths. This allows the model to explicitly age the offenders whilst in prison (e.g. move from Juvenile to Young Adult categories). The approach for the other sub-populations is similar and has not been substantially revised since the 2013 publication. The methodology applied to each is briefly outlined below.
The recall population is projected going forward based on time-series data available to October 2014.
For remand prisoners the average time served on remand is calculated from the ratio of the remand population to remand receptions. The modelled stock of prisoners is calibrated to historical actuals by varying levels of receptions. The remand population is generated in two parts both using this approach – untried remand and unsentenced remand populations being treated separately.
IPP and life sentence prisoners have an extra section in the stock-flow structure which models the indeterminate nature of their sentence lengths. Outflows for IPP and life sentence prisoners depend on the tariff lengths they receive and on the frequency and outcome of Parole Board hearings. The values of these parameters are set and calibrated to reflect the most recent data on Parole Board outcomes.
NOMS have made an agreement with the Home Office to hold an increased number of immigration detainees, which are only seen in the final two periods of historical data. The projected size of the non-criminal population is therefore set equal to the average size of the non-criminal population over the last two months of available data. This ensures that the non-criminal projections reflect the latest and most accurate count of the non-criminal population.
The population in prison at the end of each modelled month is aggregated into the categories defined by gender, current age group and, for determinate sentence prisoners, sentence length band, to produce raw, unadjusted prison population projections.
3b) Accounting for the impacts of circumstance, legislation, and for seasonal effects
The raw, unadjusted prison population projections are subject to model adjustments to show the impact of certain provisions in the Offender Rehabilitation Act 2014, changes at the Verne and the ROTL review. Model adjustments are also used to account for seasonal variation in the population. Model adjustments have been applied equally to all the scenarios modelled.
The Home Office is to gain access to all 580 places at the Verne IRC by January 2015. The estimated impacts have been applied to the non-criminal projection in the model.
Provisions in the Offender Rehabilitation Act 2014 will mean that offenders sentenced to custodial sentences of less than 12 months will be released subject to licence (in the same way as offenders currently released from longer custodial terms). During the licence period, offenders are under probation supervision and can be subject to various conditions for the purposes of rehabilitation and public protection. The 2014 Act will also introduce a new post-sentence supervision period that follows licence for offenders released from custodial sentences of less than 2 years. Breaches of these licence or supervision periods could result in the offender being recalled or committed to custody, impacting the prison population. The estimated impacts have been applied to the recall populations in the model.
The impact of the ROTL review has also been included as a post model adjustment. The review decided that all offenders who have previously absconded will no longer be allowed to return to the open estate or be released on temporary licence except in exceptional circumstances. Alongside protecting the public this may have the impact of delaying the release decision for such offenders impacting the prison population. The estimated impacts have been applied to the determinate population with sentences of greater than 12 months and the indeterminate population.
Other ongoing changes within the system – included in previous published projections as model adjustments – are assumed to be captured in the past data and the trends detected therein.
Custodial conviction projections for each sub-population were smoothed using a centred 12 month average. No seasonality in prison receptions and discharges was modelled explicitly. Seasonality was measured in the historical prison population and applied as a series of percentage adjustments to the final population projections. Seasonal factors for a set of sub-population categories (Remand, Determinate by sentence length band and Recall) were identified for each month by measuring statistically significant deviations from a centred 12 month average. Contact Points for further information
Current and previous editions of this publication are available for download from www.justice.gov.uk/publications/statistics-and-data/index.htm
Press enquiries should be directed to the Ministry of Justice press office, telephone: 020 3334 3536
Other enquiries about these statistics should be directed to:
Justice Statistics Analytical Services Ministry of Justice 7th Floor 102 Petty France London SW1H 9AJ
General enquiries about the statistical work of the Ministry of Justice can be e-mailed to: [email protected]
General information about the official statistics system of the UK is available from www.statistics.gov.uk
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/4746-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 31,
"total-input-tokens": 56908,
"total-output-tokens": 14923,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
131,
1
],
[
131,
131,
2
],
[
131,
487,
3
],
[
487,
1833,
4
],
[
1833,
3387,
5
],
[
3387,
5464,
6
],
[
5464,
5684,
7
],
[
5684,
7942,
8
],
[
7942,
9391,
9
],
[
9391,
11454,
10
],
[
11454,
13849,
11
],
[
13849,
14945,
12
],
[
14945,
16361,
13
],
[
16361,
17065,
14
],
[
17065,
18213,
15
],
[
18213,
20132,
16
],
[
20132,
22038,
17
],
[
22038,
23930,
18
],
[
23930,
24967,
19
],
[
24967,
27559,
20
],
[
27559,
28668,
21
],
[
28668,
31781,
22
],
[
31781,
33602,
23
],
[
33602,
34195,
24
],
[
34195,
36773,
25
],
[
36773,
39725,
26
],
[
39725,
42288,
27
],
[
42288,
44922,
28
],
[
44922,
46817,
29
],
[
46817,
47510,
30
],
[
47510,
47510,
31
]
]
} |
0b804094e118a2311426f1464c7a5ed4351ac29f | Prison Population Projections 2015 – 2021 England and Wales
Ministry of Justice Statistics Bulletin
Published 26th November 2015 Contents
Introduction 2 Key Findings 3
1. The 2015 Projection 5
2. Comparison to previous projection 7
3. Experimental statistics 8
4. Modelling Methodology 10
5. Caveats on Prison Population Projections 11 Appendix A: Additional tables 12 Appendix B: Method for calculating projection uncertainty 14 Appendix C: Detail of Models and Assumptions 16 Contact Points for Further Information 22 Introduction
This bulletin presents prison population projections for England and Wales from November 2015 to March 2021. It is produced to aid policy development, capacity planning and resource allocation within the Criminal Justice System (CJS) and the National Offender Management Service (NOMS). The latest published useable operational capacity (20 November 2015) is 87,7301.
The projection is produced using a model of flows of offenders into and out of prison which counts the resulting prison population each month. It is based on assumptions about future custodial convictions and incorporates the anticipated impacts of agreed policy and procedural initiatives. It does not, however, attempt to estimate the impact of any future Government policy that is yet to achieve Royal Assent, and therefore becomes less certain over time.
Following consultation earlier this year, there have been some changes to the content of this publication. The high and low population scenarios have been removed and replaced with a fan chart based on how previous published projections performed against actuals. Projections of the over 50 and over 60 year old prison population have also been provided for the first time. These changes are currently marked as experimental statistics.
For further information on:
- Criminal Court Statistics visit: www.gov.uk/government/statistics/criminal-court-statistics-quarterly-april-to-june-2015
- Criminal Justice Statistics visit: www.gov.uk/government/statistics/criminal-justice-system-statistics-quarterly-june-2015
- Offender Management Statistics visit: www.gov.uk/government/statistics/offender-management-statistics-quarterly-april-to-june-2015
- The Story of the Prison Population 1993-2012 visit: www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/218185/story-prison-population.pdf
The next edition of the Annual Prison Population Projections will be published on Thursday 25th August 2016 9:30am.
______________________________________________________________________
1 Source: Weekly population figures www.gov.uk/government/statistics/prison-population-figures-2015 Key Findings
In the 2015 projection the prison population in England and Wales is estimated to increase from the current position(^2) of 85,977 to 86,700 by June 2016. By March 2021 (the end of the projection period) it is projected to be 89,900. The projected prison population under the 2015 projection is shown in Chart 1.
The prison population projections are produced using a model of flows of offenders into and out of prison which counts the resulting prison population each month. Additional policy measures which have achieved Royal Assent and which are expected to have an impact on the future prison population are incorporated into the projection.
The 2015 projection has been modelled assuming custodial convictions are broadly in line with recent trends. Assumptions related to the projection are based on consultation with policy and operational experts at the Ministry of Justice and the National Offender Management Service (NOMS).
Chart 1: Projected total prison population
The projected increase to the prison population is largely due to recent trends in offender case mix, where we have seen more serious cases (e.g. sexual offences) come before the courts. This results in offenders receiving longer custodial sentence lengths, which in turn places an upward pressure on the prison population.
(^2) Measured on Friday 20(^{th}) November 2015 For the first time projections are being published for the over 50 and over 60 year old prison populations. These are presented here as experimental statistics. Both over 50 and over 60 populations are projected to rise in absolute terms and as increasing proportions of the total population. This is because projected shifts to a more serious case mix (e.g. sexual offences) have a larger impact on these age-groups than on the general prison population.
The projections in this publication are subject to significant uncertainty, so the actual future prison population may not match the published projection.
Further statistics and commentary on the changes seen in Court proceedings and sentencing over the last year is presented in the Criminal Justice System Statistics Quarterly publication. This is available online on GOV.UK at: www.gov.uk/government/collections/criminal-justice-statistics-quarterly
Further statistics and commentary on the changes in the prison population can be found in the Offender Management Statistics Quarterly publication. This is available online on GOV.UK at: www.gov.uk/government/collections/offender-management-statistics-quarterly
1. The 2015 Projection
The prison population is estimated to rise from 85,977 (at 20 November 2015) to 86,700 by the end of June 2016 and to 89,900 by the end of the financial year 2020/21. Chart 1 above presents the prison population projection from November 2015 to March 2021.
The projected trends in the population reflect the cumulative impacts of the various sentencing, legislative and procedural assumptions that are used to generate the projections. The seasonal pattern reflects the dip in the prison population which is always seen around the Christmas period.
Appendix A contains tables for projected end of June populations(^3), average financial year populations and total monthly populations for the projections along with detailed breakdown of the projections for specific sub-populations.
The projected increase to the prison population is largely due to recent and expected future trends in offender case mix, resulting in more serious cases coming before the courts. This results in offenders receiving longer custodial sentence lengths, which in turn places an upward pressure on the prison population. Further pressure is expected through the impact of agreed future policies, which are outlined in more detail below.
The result of this is concentrated in a projected rise in the determinate sentenced population which is projected to grow from a current level of 54,500(^4) to 59,400 by June 2020.
This projected increase in the determinate sentenced population is further concentrated in the population of offenders serving sentences of four years or more. A large part of this increase is attributable to the growing population sentenced to extended determinate sentence (EDS), again driven by an increased number of offenders sentenced for more serious offences (e.g. sexual offences).
Further projected growth in the prison population is a result of the expected impact of a range of policies already in effect, or expected to come into effect, over the projection horizon. The projections take into account the impact of government policies which have achieved Royal Assent. These include:
- The impacts of the Offender Rehabilitation Act 2014 which achieved Royal Assent on 13 March 2014, meaning offenders sentenced to custodial sentences of less than 12 months will be released subject to licence with resulting likelihood of recall to custody. There will also be a new post-sentence supervision period following licence for offenders released from custodial sentences of less than 2 years;
______________________________________________________________________
(^3) June is chosen as it is a month relatively free from seasonal effects and therefore provides a robust measure of the prison population for comparison
(^4) Measured 30(^{th}) September 2015 • The impacts of the Release on Temporary Licence (ROTL) review deciding that all offenders who have previously absconded will no longer be allowed to return to the open estate or be released on temporary licence except in exceptional circumstances;
• The impacts of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 which includes provision for minimum custodial sentences for a second offence of possession of a blade or offensive weapon⁵;
• The impacts of the Serious Crime Act 2015 which includes provision for custodial sentences relating to controlling or coercive behaviour in an intimate or family relationship⁶;
• The impacts of the Prisoner Transfer Framework Decision which means that the UK can utilise the Prisoner Transfer Framework Decision to transfer to and receive prisoners from other EU member states⁷.
Further details and commentary on the latest prison population can be found in the Offender Management Statistics publication: www.gov.uk/government/collections/offender-management-statistics-quarterly
⁵ www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/2/part/1/crossheading/repeat-offences-involving-offensive-weapons-etc ⁶ www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/9/section/76/enacted ⁷ www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/326699/41670_Cm_8897_Print_Ready.pdf 2. Comparison to previous projection
At the end of September 2015 the prison population was within 3.2% of the 2014 Central Scenario, and within 1.7% of the (lower) Scenario 1 projection and 4.7% of the (higher) Scenario 2 projection. A comparison of the 2014 projections against actuals to date and the latest projection are presented in Chart 2.
The 2015 projection reflects lower growth in the population than anticipated over the last 12 months. This lower growth was due to a mix of factors, including lower than expected numbers of offenders sentenced to custody, a falling remand population and reduction in the number of offenders being held in Immigration Removal Centres (IRCs) following the decommissioning of the IRCs operated by NOMS at Haslar and Dover.
Chart 2: Comparing 2014 and 2015 projections (November 2014 – March 2021)
Compared to the 2014 Central Scenario projection the 2015 projection continues to project a rise in the population to the end of December 2020 but from the lower, current position. This higher rate of population growth is due to a more serious offence mix – with associated longer sentences – being projected.
Commentary on shifts in the remand population is included in the quarterly Offender Management Statistics publication www.gov.uk/government/collections/offender-management-statistics-quarterly 3. Experimental statistics
Uncertainty in the projection
Following user consultation(^9) the higher and lower scenarios presented in previous publications have been removed from this bulletin. These have been replaced with an alternative measure of uncertainty in the projection. The fan chart presented in Chart 3 is based on comparing how previous projections performed against actuals over time.
Chart 3: Uncertainty in 2015 projection
Chart 3 shows the 2015 projection as a solid line. This can be interpreted as the single most likely population projection, given the agreed set of assumptions. Around the projection are three bands, indicating the range of expected populations with estimated 30%, 60% and 90% likelihoods. For all bands the width increases over time, as the level of uncertainty increases with time after the date of projection.
This interpretation is conditional on the assumption that there are no significant differences between the methodology and conditions under which the previous projections were made and the methodology and conditions under which the current projection has been generated.
These bands are included as an experimental statistic. The methodology for calculating the fan chart is set out in Annex B of this publication. Users are invited
(^9) www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/472329/consultation-response.pdf to comment on the new methodology and presentation of projection uncertainty in Chart 3. Contact details can be found at the end of this publication.
**Projection of over 50 and 60 year old population**
Following user consultation(^{10}) this bulletin includes for the first time breakdowns of the over 50 and over 60 year old prison population projection.
The over 50 year old population is projected to grow from 11,980 as at 30 June 2015(^{11}), to 15,100 by the end of June 2020. The over 60 year old population is projected to grow from 4,109 to 5,500 over the same time period.
Both over 50 and over 60 populations are projected to rise in absolute terms and as increasing proportions of the total population. This is because projected shifts to a more serious case mix (e.g. sexual offences) have a larger impact on these age-groups than on the general prison population.
These projections of specific age-band populations are included as an experimental statistic. Users are invited to comment on the presentation of these projections. Contact details can be found at the end of this publication.
______________________________________________________________________
(^{10}) www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/472329/consultation-response.pdf
(^{11}) Table 1.5 Offender Management Statistics Quarterly : www.gov.uk/government/statistics/offender-management-statistics-quarterly-april-to-june-2015 4. Modelling Methodology
The prison projections model is part of wider work within the Ministry of Justice to develop a consistent and coherent suite of models of the criminal courts and offender management, driven by common projections of demand for the Ministry of Justice’s services. Two key components of this suite are used to develop these projections, a custodial convictions model and a prison population projection model.
The custodial convictions model is driven by projections of numbers of defendants entering the criminal courts. In order to project volumes of defendants being given a custodial sentence, it also takes into account:
- the age, gender and offence of defendants entering the system;
- resources required to process cases through the courts; and
- the sentences which concluded cases attract.
The prison population projections model takes projections of custodial convictions, converts them to projections of prison receptions and then models the amount of time that offenders spend in prison to calculate the resulting prison population. The model also simulates the ageing of the prison population over time.
The benefits of this method are that it allows us to:
- explicitly project custodial convictions (rather than just convictions);
- understand the Criminal Justice System factors which contribute to change in the prison population, such as time served, sentences given, trial and sentencing court changes or shifts in defendant demographics; and
- more easily model the impact on the prison population of specific Ministry of Justice and other Criminal Justice Agency policy changes relating to specific offences or specific sentences.
The assumptions informing these projections, and therefore the projections themselves, are subject to significant uncertainty. The level of uncertainty of the projections is presented in Chart 3 above and outlined in Annex B.
The projection model is based on latest available data from various sources including court proceedings and performance data, sentencing data and prison receptions and population data.
The method used for generating projections of the prison population in England and Wales for the 2015-2021 projections is consistent with the approach used to generate the 2014-2020 projections published on 27 November 2014.
Appendix C provides further details of the methods used to produce the prison population projections and the assumptions behind them. 5. Caveats on Prison Population Projections
The projections presented reflect the impact of trends in sentencing, combined with trends in the age, gender and offence of defendants entering the system and in the flow of defendants through the courts. The impacts of publically announced changes to legislation and guidance which took place before November 2015 and views of future parole hearing frequency and outcomes for indeterminate sentence prisoners have also been taken into account.
The projections do not reflect the impact of legislative, policy, operational or procedural change or guidance for which there is no definite timetable for implementation. The projections therefore provide a “baseline” against which the impacts of future changes can be assessed.
Even without these possible changes, the actual future prison population may not match the projection. Changes to criminal justice processes could influence the numbers of offenders being brought to the point of sentence or the way that offenders are managed. Changes to sentencing behaviour may also be different from those modelled. Finally, both sentencing behaviour and criminal justice processes, as well as policy decisions, can respond to a multitude of environmental factors which cannot be anticipated, such as high profile criminal cases, events like the August 2011 public disorder events, and public debate.
Assumptions for modelling were captured through consultation with policy and operational experts at the Ministry of Justice and the National Offender Management Service. The assumptions are based on analysis (where reliable data are available) and on expert judgement from policy makers, key deliverers and system influencers. The assumptions are therefore likely to be more robust for those measures and processes that have a well-defined boundary than for those that do not. Appendix A: Additional tables
Table A1: Projected prison population (end of June figures)
| | Total | Determinate | Indeterminate | Remand | Recall | Non-Criminal | Fine | |-------|--------|-------------|---------------|--------|--------|--------------|------| | Jun-16| 86,700 | 55,400 | 11,500 | 11,500 | 6,700 | 1,500 | 100 | | Jun-17| 87,400 | 56,300 | 11,000 | 11,600 | 6,800 | 1,500 | 100 | | Jun-18| 88,200 | 57,400 | 10,600 | 11,700 | 6,900 | 1,500 | 100 | | Jun-19| 89,000 | 58,600 | 10,200 | 11,700 | 7,000 | 1,500 | 100 | | Jun-20| 89,600 | 59,400 | 9,800 | 11,700 | 7,100 | 1,500 | 100 |
Table A2: Average projected prison population (financial year figures)
| | Total | |-------|-------| | 2016/17| 86,800 | | 2017/18| 87,600 | | 2018/19| 88,400 | | 2019/20| 89,200 | | 2020/21| 89,600 |
Table A3: Comparison of 2014 Central Scenario projection and 2015 projection (end of June figures)
| | 2014 | 2015 | Difference | |-------|------|------|------------| | Jun-15| 87,700 | -- | -- | | Jun-16| 89,100 | 86,700 | -2.6% | | Jun-17| 89,300 | 87,400 | -2.1% | | Jun-18| 89,700 | 88,200 | -1.8% | | Jun-19| 90,100 | 89,000 | -1.2% | | Jun-20| 90,200 | 89,600 | -0.7% |
Table A4: Juvenile, young adult and adult populations by gender (end of June figures)
| | Male | Female | |-------|------|--------| | | 15-17 | 18-20 | 21+ | 15-17 | 18-20 | 21+ | | Jun-16| 700 | 4,800 | 77,400 | 0 | 200 | 3,700 | | Jun-17| 700 | 4,700 | 78,000 | 0 | 200 | 3,700 | | Jun-18| 700 | 4,800 | 78,800 | 0 | 200 | 3,700 | | Jun-19| 700 | 4,800 | 79,600 | 0 | 100 | 3,800 | | Jun-20| 700 | 4,800 | 80,100 | 0 | 100 | 3,800 |
12 All figures are rounded to the nearest hundred. Sub-populations may not sum to total populations due to rounding and due to overlaps in some sub-population categories.
13 The prison population projections cover offenders held in National Offender Management Service (NOMS) estate. Currently this includes a number of juvenile males in the 15-17 age group, but no females. We do not project any female juveniles to enter the prison population. Table A5: Projected male 21 years and over prison population (end of June figures)
| | Total | Determinate | Indeterminate | Remand | Recall | Non-Criminal | Fine | |-------|--------|-------------|---------------|--------|--------|--------------|------| | Jun-16| 77,400 | 49,200 | 11,000 | 9,600 | 6,100 | 1,400 | 100 | | Jun-17| 78,000 | 50,100 | 10,500 | 9,700 | 6,200 | 1,400 | 100 | | Jun-18| 78,800 | 51,100 | 10,100 | 9,700 | 6,300 | 1,400 | 100 | | Jun-19| 79,600 | 52,300 | 9,700 | 9,700 | 6,400 | 1,400 | 100 | | Jun-20| 80,100 | 53,000 | 9,400 | 9,700 | 6,500 | 1,400 | 100 |
Table A6: Projected over 50 year old and over 60 year old prison population (end of June figures)
| | Over 50 year old | Over 60 year old | |-------|------------------|------------------| | Jun-16| 12,500 | 4,400 | | Jun-17| 13,300 | 4,800 | | Jun-18| 14,000 | 5,000 | | Jun-19| 14,600 | 5,300 | | Jun-20| 15,100 | 5,500 |
Table A7: Monthly values of the overall projected prison population (end of month figures)
| | 2015/16 | 2016/17 | 2017/18 | 2018/19 | 2019/20 | 2020/21 | |-------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------| | April | - | 86,500 | 87,200 | 88,100 | 88,900 | 89,500 | | May | - | 86,700 | 87,400 | 88,100 | 89,000 | 89,600 | | June | - | 86,700 | 87,400 | 88,200 | 89,000 | 89,600 | | July | - | 86,900 | 87,500 | 88,200 | 89,100 | 89,600 | | August| - | 87,100 | 87,700 | 88,500 | 89,300 | 89,800 | | September | - | 87,200 | 87,800 | 88,600 | 89,400 | 89,900 | | October| - | 87,200 | 87,800 | 88,700 | 89,400 | 89,900 | | November| 86,100 | 87,100 | 87,800 | 88,700 | 89,400 | 89,800 | | December| 85,000 | 85,900 | 86,700 | 87,600 | 88,300 | 88,700 | | January| 85,900 | 86,700 | 87,600 | 88,400 | 89,100 | 89,500 | | February| 86,300 | 87,000 | 87,900 | 88,800 | 89,400 | 89,900 | | March | 86,400 | 87,100 | 88,000 | 88,900 | 89,400 | 89,900 | Appendix B: Method for calculating projection uncertainty
As with any projection, there is uncertainty in the projection of the prison population, arising from several sources, including uncertainty in model parameters as well as future changes in behaviour or policy that are uncertain or unexpected at the time of projection.
In previous publications, this uncertainty has been communicated using illustrative scenarios based on hypothetical trends in custodial convictions and sentence lengths. While the scenarios were useful to illustrate how changes in certain parameters can affect the population, they did not represent insights into the likelihood of any particular outcome.
For this publication, the performance of previous published projections against the actual population has been analysed and used to estimate the uncertainty in the prison population. The results are displayed as a fan chart, a commonly-used method of communicating uncertainty in a time series projection.
Projections of the total prison population have been published annually since 2008. There are therefore 7 projections with one year of actual population to compare against, 6 projections with two years to compare against and so on. While this is a rather small data set, estimates of the uncertainty in the population projection can still be made. The fan chart should be considered an estimate of the expected levels of uncertainty, informed by past performance, rather than a precise set of limits on the population.
Fan chart and interpretation
Chart 3 shows the prison population projection as a solid line. This can be interpreted as the single most likely population, given the agreed set of assumptions. Around the projection are three bands, indicating the range of populations with estimated 30%, 60% and 90% likelihoods. The interpretation is that, assuming no significant differences between the conditions under which the previous projections were made and the conditions under which the current projection has been made, there is a 30% likelihood that the population will stay within the inner band, a 60% likelihood that the population will stay within the second band and a 90% likelihood that the population will stay within the outer band. The shaded portion of the chart indicates the period more than 2 years after the time of projection. This is shaded to indicate that estimates of uncertainty for this time are based on extrapolation, not measurement of performance, as explained below.
Technical details
A normal distribution has been used for this initial calculation for simplicity and ease of reproduction. As more published projections become available in future, it may be possible to further refine the characterisation of uncertainty (for example assessing whether a skewed two-piece normal distribution is more appropriate).
A normal distribution is characterised by a mean and a standard deviation. For this fan chart, the mean is assumed to be the prison population projection. The standard deviation at each time point is calculated in the following way:
1. Calculate the percentage difference between the projected and actual populations for each time interval (i.e. difference one month after forecast, two months after forecast etc.), up to two years after the forecast date.
2. Calculate the standard deviation of the percentage differences for each time interval.
3. Fit a power law to the standard deviation as a function of time (i.e. a function of the form $y = ax^b$, where $y$ is the standard deviation and $x$ is the time after projection).
4. Use this function to produce estimates of the standard deviation of errors at each time interval up to the end of the projection period. Appendix C: Detail of Models and Assumptions
The modelling approach
The prison projections form part of the Ministry of Justice’s wider work to develop a consistent and coherent suite of models of the criminal courts and offender management, driven by common projections of demand for the Ministry of Justice’s services.
The prisons model used to generate the 2015 projections has not changed substantially from that used in the 2014 projections. As in the 2014 projections, custodial sentence lengths used in the model are disaggregated by gender, age of the offender and offence type. The total time to be served in prison by projected future prisoners is assigned by matching their gender and age characteristics to relevant distributions of (i) custodial sentence lengths and (ii) the percentage of custodial sentence served. These distributions are derived from latest available data. This allows us to:
- understand the Criminal Justice System factors which contribute to change in the prison population, including sentence lengths issued, the percentage of sentence served in custody, trial court and sentencing court changes, or shifts in the demographic characteristics of defendants;
- model the impact on the prison population of specific Ministry of Justice and other Criminal Justice Agency policy changes; and
- quantify the impact of uncertainty around the time a defendant serves in prison on the prison population.
Overview of the modelling approach
Central to the modelling approach is the Prison Population Stock-Flow model. Projections of future custodial convictions are fed into this model and outputs are adjusted to account for the impact of changes in legislation and process on the prison population, as shown in Figure C1, and described below.
1. Producing projections of defendants proceeded against
Projections of defendants proceeded against at court are chosen as the entry point to the modelling system because this is the entry point of defendants into the MoJ’s area of responsibility. Underlying crime levels and the activities of the police and CPS will have an impact on the volume of defendants proceeded against. The Demand Projections Model produces baseline projections of all defendants proceeded against at court for 12 high-level offence categories. This is based on historical time series data at a monthly resolution out to March 2021, sub-divided by region and age for the Magistrates’ court and region for the Crown Court.
The demand projections are based on time series forecasting methods such as Seasonal Exponential Smoothing (SES). It should be noted that these projections cannot be expected to track actual volumes of defendants proceeded against if there is any sudden or cumulative change which takes demand volumes or offence mix well outside the trends seen historically.
2. Converting the demand projections into custodial convictions
A Courts and Sentencing Module converts the demand projections into a set of projections of disposals by disposal type (including custodial convictions), offence, sex and age band at a monthly resolution. These projections of custodial convictions by sex, age and offence type are used as a key input for the Prison Population Stock-Flow model.
The Courts and Sentencing Module is a combination of the Magistrates’ and Crown Court Workload Models and the Sentencing Module. The demand projections are used as an input into a Magistrates' Workload Model, which uses historical data to split defendants into court routes (Table C1) and tracks their flow through the system.
The Crown Court workload model takes forecasts of caseload and assigns various attributes (e.g. early guilty plea, effective trial mix) to estimate likely hearing times and the resulting flow of cases through the system. The cases disposed of are then converted to the number of defendants disposed of using recent data for the observed ratio between cases and defendants.
The key assumptions that are used in the Courts and Sentencing Module are:
- that there is no prioritisation of any age or sex group within the Magistrates’ and Crown Court;
- the number of working days in each month is the primary driver of seasonality within the Magistrates’ and Crown Court;
- no change in offence type occurs as cases move through the system;
- defendants that are tried at the Magistrates' Court proceed to sentencing without delay;
- delays within the Magistrates’ Court are not significant for the monthly timescales used in the modelling; and
- a Magistrates’ Court backlog will not develop during the forecast period.
The Sentencing Module takes the number of defendants disposed of in the Magistrates' Workload Model and the Crown Court Workload Model and applies sentencing splits based on analysis of court proceedings data. This results in a set of projections as broken down in Table C1. These are aggregated providing forecasts for each offence, gender, age and disposal category, which are used as the custodial conviction projections. Table C1: Courts and Sentencing Module Splits Dimensions
| Offence Type | Gender | Age Band | Court Route | Disposal | |-------------------------------|--------|----------------|-------------|---------------------------| | Burglary | Male | Age 10-17 | MC | Discharge | | Criminal Damage | Female | Age 18-20 | MCCC | Fine | | Fraud and Forgery | | Age 21+ | CC | Community Sentence | | Indictable Motoring | | | | Suspended Sentence | | Other | | | | Custodial \<6 months | | Robbery | | | | Custodial 6 months - \<1year| | Sexual Offences | | | | Custodial 1 year - 4 year | | Summary Motoring | | | | Custodial 4 year+ | | Summary Non-Motoring | | | | Indeterminate | | Theft and handling | | | | Otherwise Dealt With | | Violence Against the Person | | | | |
Key to the court route splits: MC: those tried and sentenced in the Magistrates Court; MCCC: those who are tried in the Magistrates Court and Sentenced in the Crown Court; CC: combines those defendants who are committed for trial in the Crown Court and sent for trial in the Crown Court into a single category.
If required, the Courts and Sentencing Module allows trends in offender demographics and courts and sentencing processes to be incorporated into custodial convictions projections. This procedure was implemented to create the custodial convictions projections used in this projection.
3a) Producing prison population projections
Prison population projections are produced using the Prison Population Stock-Flow Model. The principal sub-populations in prison – determinate sentence, life sentence, imprisonment for public protection (IPP) and remand – are modelled using stock-flow structures based on the generic structure shown in Figure C2. The stock-flow structures model the flow of offenders into and out of prison and count the resulting prison population at the end of each month.
Figure C2: Generic stock-flow structure in the Prison Population Stock-Flow Model
For the determinate population, the monthly inflows to prison are based on the custodial convictions projections described above. These custodial convictions include offenders that may already be serving a sentence for a previous crime or those who would serve their whole custodial sentence on remand, meaning that they would not be a new reception to prison. To convert from custodial convictions to prison receptions we apply a conversion ratio derived from the historical proportions of custodial convictions to prison receptions for each sub-population averaged over the last twelve months of historical data. Monthly outflows for the determinate population are based on observed custodial sentence lengths and the observed percentage of sentence length served. Each projected offender that enters the model is given a custodial sentence length that is randomly selected from the relevant distribution. These distributions are populated with custodial sentence lengths from actual offender receptions who share the same characteristics of offence, gender and age group in the observed time period. The percent of custodial sentence length served is derived in the same manner, except that the observed distribution is made up of discharged offenders further disaggregated by custodial sentence length band.
For offenders who receive the new EDS sentence an adjustment is made to the percent of custodial length served to reflect that these offenders will spend a greater proportion of their sentence in custody than standard determinate sentenced offenders discharged to date.
Projected prison receptions are sub-divided by age category (Juvenile, Young Adult, Adult) with the exact age of the offender attributed in the same manner as the custodial sentence lengths. This allows the model to explicitly age the offenders whilst in prison (e.g. move from Juvenile to Young Adult categories).
The approach for the other sub-populations is similar and has not been substantially revised since the 2014 publication. The methodology applied to each is briefly outlined below.
The remand and recall populations are projected going forward based on latest available time-series data and take into account population growth relating to related populations (e.g. recalls relating to numbers of offenders released).
IPP and life sentence prisoners have an extra section in the stock-flow structure which models the indeterminate nature of their sentence lengths. Outflows for IPP and life sentence prisoners depend on the tariff lengths they receive and on the frequency and outcome of Parole Board hearings. The values of these parameters are set and calibrated to reflect the most recent data on Parole Board outcomes.
The population in prison at the end of each modelled month is aggregated into the categories defined by gender, current age group and, for determinate sentence prisoners, sentence length band, to produce raw, unadjusted prison population projections.
3b) Accounting for the impacts of circumstance, legislation, and for seasonal effects
The raw, unadjusted prison population projections are subject to model adjustments to show the impact of certain provisions in the Offender Rehabilitation Act 2014, the ROTL review, the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015, the Serious Crime Act 2015 and the EU Prisoner Transfer Framework Decision. Model adjustments are also used to account for seasonal variation in the population. Custodial conviction projections for each sub-population were smoothed using a centred 12 month average. No seasonality in prison receptions and discharges was modelled explicitly. Seasonality was measured in the historical prison population and applied as a series of percentage adjustments to the final population projections. Seasonal factors for a set of sub-population categories (Remand, Determinate by sentence length band and Recall) were identified for each month by measuring statistically significant deviations from a centred 12 month average. Contact Points for Further Information
Current and previous editions of this publication are available for download from www.justice.gov.uk/publications/statistics-and-data/index.htm
Press enquiries should be directed to the Ministry of Justice press office, telephone: 020 3334 3536
Other enquiries about these statistics should be directed to:
Justice Statistics Analytical Services Ministry of Justice 7th Floor 102 Petty France London SW1H 9AJ
General enquiries about the statistical work of the Ministry of Justice can be e-mailed to: [email protected]
General information about the official statistics system of the UK is available from statisticsauthority.gov.uk/about-the-authority/uk-statistical-system
Alternative format versions of this report are available on request from the Ministry of Justice at [email protected]
© Crown copyright Produced by the Ministry of Justice
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/4747-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 23,
"total-input-tokens": 41337,
"total-output-tokens": 10130,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
131,
1
],
[
131,
523,
2
],
[
523,
2592,
3
],
[
2592,
3968,
4
],
[
3968,
5142,
5
],
[
5142,
7882,
6
],
[
7882,
9171,
7
],
[
9171,
10521,
8
],
[
10521,
11921,
9
],
[
11921,
13307,
10
],
[
13307,
15761,
11
],
[
15761,
17632,
12
],
[
17632,
19837,
13
],
[
19837,
22055,
14
],
[
22055,
25143,
15
],
[
25143,
25783,
16
],
[
25783,
27943,
17
],
[
27943,
28377,
18
],
[
28377,
30808,
19
],
[
30808,
33995,
20
],
[
33995,
36827,
21
],
[
36827,
37383,
22
],
[
37383,
38318,
23
]
]
} |
2c55b9e31d0eb0393482ad32c03f60709f7d5099 | Prison Population Projections 2016 – 2021 England and Wales
Ministry of Justice Statistics Bulletin
Published 25th August 2016
## Contents
Introduction 2\
Key findings 3
1. The 2016 projection 4
2. Comparison to previous projection 7
3. Uncertainty in the projection 8
4. Projection of over 50, 60 and over 70 year old populations 9
5. Modelling methodology 10
6. Caveats on prison population projections 11\
Appendix A: Additional tables 13\
Appendix B: Detail of models and assumptions 15\
Appendix C: Method for calculating projection uncertainty 21\
Contact points for further information 23 Introduction
This bulletin presents prison population projections for England and Wales from August 2016 to March 2021. It is produced to aid policy development, capacity planning and resource allocation within the criminal justice system (CJS) and the National Offender Management Service (NOMS). The latest published useable operational capacity (19 August 2016) is 87,0011.
The projection is produced using a model of flows of offenders into and out of prison which counts the resulting prison population each month. It is based on assumptions about future custodial convictions and incorporates the anticipated impacts of agreed policy and procedural initiatives. It does not, however, attempt to estimate the impact of any future Government policy that is yet to achieve Royal Assent, and therefore becomes less certain over time.
The latest statistics and commentary on the current and historic prison population are published in the Offender Management Statistics Quarterly publication. This is available online on GOV.UK at: www.gov.uk/government/collections/offender-management-statistics-quarterly
The Story of the Prison Population provides a summary of what happened to the prison population between 1993 and 2016 and the major factors contributing to these changes: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/story-of-the-prison-population-1993-to-2016
The next edition of the Annual Prison Population Projections will be published on Thursday 24th August 2017 9:30am.
1 https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/prison-population-figures-2016 Key findings
- The prison population is projected to remain largely stable over the projection horizon to March 2021.
- The projection of a small decline in the prison population reflects a lower level of demand on the criminal justice system that has been observed in upstream crime levels and court receipts. Falls in court receipts have already been reflected in a lower remand population, with the determinate sentenced population taking longer to adjust to the lower level of demand.
- In the longer term underlying growth in the determinate sentenced population is expected due to recent trends in offender case mix, where we have seen more serious cases (e.g. sexual offences) come before the courts. This results in offenders receiving longer custodial sentence lengths, which in turn places an upward pressure on the prison population.
- The over 50, over 60 and over 70 year old populations are projected to rise both in absolute terms and as increasing proportions of the total population. This is driven by projected shifts in the offence mix of prisoners towards offences which have a disproportionate impact on these age-groups relative to the rest of the prison population (e.g. increases in the number of sexual offenders).
Chart 1: Total population projections for August 2016
The seasonal pattern in the projection reflects the dip in the prison population which is always seen around the Christmas period.
1. The 2016 projection
The prison population is projected to remain largely stable over the projection horizon to March 2021. In the short run the population is projected to increase to a peak of 85,400 in November 2016. It is then projected to decline in the medium term to a lower position of 83,700 in March 2019 (ignoring the seasonal low in December 2018), as the population responds fully to lower projected levels of court receipts. The population is then projected to rebound to 84,300 at the end of the projection horizon in March 2021. Chart 1 presents the prison population projection from August 2016 to March 2021.
Chart 1: Total population projection for August 2016
The small projected decline in the medium-term population, relative to current levels, reflects lower levels of demand on the criminal justice system observed in upstream crime levels and court receipts. Receipts into both the magistrate’s court and the Crown Court have declined since 2014, most noticeably in Triable-either-way cases which account for the majority of custodial sentences issued. Falls in court receipts are already reflected in a lower remand population, while the determinate sentenced population(^2) is expected to take some time to adjust to the lower level of demand.
In the longer term, underlying growth in the determinate sentenced population is expected due to recent trends in offender case mix, where we have seen more serious cases (e.g. sexual offences) come before the courts. This results in offenders receiving longer custodial sentence lengths, which in turn places an upward pressure on the prison population. Growth in the sentenced determinate
(^2) The remand population is made up of defendants who spend time in custody before their trial and sentence. A determinate sentence is one where the court has set the length of the sentence imposed, for example 12 months’ imprisonment. population serving custodial sentences of 4 or more years further reflects the abolition of Sentences of Imprisonment for Public Protection(^3) (IPPs) and the resulting increase in offenders receiving longer determinate tariffs, including those sentenced to Extended Determinate Sentences(^4) (EDS).
The indeterminate population is projected to continue declining over time. The indeterminate population consists of those offenders who continue to serve Sentences of Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPPs) and life sentences. As a result of the abolition of the IPP sentence in 2012, offenders are no longer receiving these sentences. IPP prisoners are only therefore being released or recalled. All indeterminate recalls are counted in the recall projection.
The Recall population(^5) is projected to increase slightly above current levels. This reflects growth in the population of offenders recalled under the Offender Rehabilitation Act (ORA) 2014, which is explained in more detail below. Further growth is driven by the increases in the indeterminate recall population. Prisoners released from indeterminate sentences remain on license for long periods following their release from prison. As the number of indeterminate sentenced offenders released from prison increases, driven by the declining IPP population, the number of indeterminate recalls is projected to increase.
Further changes in the prison population are expected as the result of a range of policies, including those already in effect but not yet fully represented in the population and those expected to take effect over the projection horizon. The projections only take into account the impact of government policies which have achieved Royal Assent(^6). These include:
- The impacts of the Offender Rehabilitation Act 2014, whereby offenders sentenced to custodial sentences of less than 12 months are now released subject to licence with a resulting possibility of being recalled to custody. This also incorporates a new post-sentence supervision period following licence for offenders released from custodial sentences of less than 2 years, again with potential for breach and return to custody for that breach offence(^7);
______________________________________________________________________
(^3) Sentences of Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPPs) were created by the Criminal Justice Act 2003 and started to be used in April 2005. Offenders sentenced to an IPP are set a minimum term (tariff) which they must spend in prison. After they have completed their tariff they can apply to the Parole Board for release. The Parole Board will release an offender only if it is satisfied that it is no longer necessary for the protection of the public for the offender to be confined.
(^4) Extended Determinate Sentences are sentences for dangerous criminals convicted of serious sexual and violent crimes with no automatic release from prison halfway through their sentence. Offenders are only released when they have served at least two-thirds of their prison sentence and may be kept inside prison until the end of their term.
(^5) When an offender is released from custody they may be released under licenced supervision to the Probation Service. They will be subject to a set of licence conditions such as living at an address approved by the Probation Service. If the offender breaches the conditions of their licence they may be recalled into prison.
(^6) Once a bill has completed all parliamentary stages, it is ready to receive Royal Assent. This is when the Queen formally agrees to make the bill into an Act of Parliament (source: http://www.parliament.uk/about/how/laws/passage-bill/lords/lrds-royal-assent/)
(^7) https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/199804/offender-rehabilitation-bill-impact-assessment.pdf • Following the Release on Temporary Licence (ROTL) review in January 2014, all offenders who have previously absconded are no longer returned to the open estate or released on temporary licence except in exceptional circumstances;
• The impacts of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 which includes provisions for restricting the use of cautions; changes to the framework for the sentencing and release of serious and dangerous sexual and violent offenders; and the introduction of a new test for the release of recalled determinate sentence prisoners⁸;
• The impacts of the Serious Crime Act 2015 which includes provisions for additional caseload and associated custodial sentences relating to new offences for controlling or coercive behaviour in an intimate or family relationship⁹;
• The impacts of the Prisoner Transfer Framework Decision allowing the UK to deport and receive prisoners to and from other EU member states¹⁰;
• The impacts of the Modern Slavery Bill, which introduces Slavery and Trafficking Prevention Orders (STPOs) and Slavery and Trafficking Risk Orders (STROs). Breach of these orders may result in a prison sentence¹¹.
Appendix A contains tables for projected end of June populations¹², average financial year populations and total monthly populations. More detailed breakdowns of the projections are provided for specific sub-populations.
______________________________________________________________________
⁸ https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/criminal-justice-and-courts-bill-impact-assessments ⁹ https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/370943/Serious_Crime_Bill\_-_Overarching_Impact_Assessment_-_Commons_Intro.pdf https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/393814/Impact_Assessment_-\_Strengthening_the_Law_on_Domestic_Abuse.pdf ¹⁰ www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/326699/41670_Cm_8897_Print_Ready.pdf ¹¹ https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/371057/MSB_IA.pdf ¹² June is chosen as it is a month relatively free from seasonal effects and therefore provides a robust measure of the prison population for comparison 2. Comparison to previous projection
A comparison of the November 2015 total population projection against actuals to date and the latest August 2016 projection is presented in Chart 2. At the end of July 2016 the total prison population was tracking 1,800 places below the November 2015 projection (-2%).
Chart 2: Comparison of November 2015 total population projection against actuals and latest August 2016 projection
The 2016 projection reflects the reduction in criminal justice system demand observed since the previous projection. Falls in remand relative to levels projected previously account for the majority of this decline to date. The delayed impact of continuing lower demand on the sentenced determinate population drives further divergence from the previous projection in the longer term. 3. Uncertainty in the projection
Chart 3 shows the 2016 projection as a solid line. This can be interpreted as the single most likely population projection, given the agreed set of assumptions. Around the projection are three bands, indicating the range of expected populations with estimated 30%, 60% and 90% likelihoods. For all bands the width increases over time, as the level of uncertainty increases with time after the date of projection.
Chart 3: Uncertainty in 2016 total population projection
Table A.8 in appendix A provides measures of each likelihood bound relative to the population projection.
The methodology for calculating the fan chart is described in appendix C of this publication. The methodology has been refined since the previous publication, where this fan chart was included as an experimental statistic. An additional 9 months of observed data has been included for comparison against previous projections.
As there are only a limited number of previous published projections, sufficient data on past performance of published projections beyond a three year horizon is not yet available. The shaded portion of the chart is therefore estimated based on extrapolation rather than past measurement of performance. 4. Projection of over 50, 60 and over 70 year old populations
The over 50, over 60 and over 70 year old populations are projected to rise both in absolute terms and as increasing proportions of the total population. This is driven by projected shifts in the offence mix of prisoners (e.g. increase in the number of sexual offenders) which has a disproportionate impact on these age-groups relative to the general prison population.
The over 50 year old population is projected to grow from 12,700 as at 30 June 2016\\textsuperscript{13}, to 13,900 by the end of June 2020. The over 60 year old population is projected to grow from 4,500 to 5,400 over the same period.
We have extended the age projection methodology this year to include projections of the over 70 year old prison population. This group is projected to grow from 1,400 at June 2016 to 1,900 in June 2020.
\\textsuperscript{13} Table 1.3 Offender Management Statistics Quarterly : https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/offender-management-statistics-quarterly-january-to-march-2016 5. Modelling methodology
The prison projections model is part of wider work within the Ministry of Justice to develop a consistent and coherent suite of models of the criminal courts and offender management, driven by common projections of demand for the Ministry of Justice’s services. Two key components of this suite are used to develop these projections, a custodial convictions model and a prison population projection model.
The custodial convictions model is driven by projections of numbers of defendants entering the criminal courts. In order to project volumes of defendants being given a custodial sentence, it also takes into account:
- the age, gender and offence of defendants entering the system;
- resources required to process cases through the courts; and
- the sentences which concluded cases attract.
The prison population projections model takes projections of custodial convictions, converts them to projections of prison receptions and then models the amount of time that offenders spend in prison to calculate the resulting prison population. The model also simulates the ageing of the prison population over time. The benefits of this method are that it allows us to:
- explicitly project custodial convictions (rather than just convictions);
- understand the criminal justice system factors which contribute to change in the prison population, such as time served, sentences given, changes to court processes or shifts in defendant demographics; and
- more easily model the impact on the prison population of specific Ministry of Justice and other criminal justice agency policy changes relating to specific offences or specific sentences.
The assumptions informing these projections, and therefore the projections themselves, are subject to uncertainty. The level of uncertainty of the projections is estimated and presented in Chart 3 above and Table A.8 in appendix A. The methodology applied to estimate the uncertainty in the projection is outlined in appendix C.
The projection model is based on latest available data from various sources including court proceedings and performance data, sentencing data and prison receptions and population data.
The method used for generating projections of the prison population in England and Wales for the 2016-2021 projections is consistent with the approach used to generate the 2015-2021 projections published on 26 November 2015.
Appendix B provides further details of the methods used to produce the prison population projections and the assumptions behind them. 6. Caveats on prison population projections
The projections presented reflect the impact of trends in sentencing, in the age, gender and offence of defendants entering the system and in the flow of defendants through the courts. The impacts of publically announced changes to legislation and guidance which took place before August 2016 and views of future parole hearing frequency and outcomes for indeterminate sentence prisoners have also been taken into account.
The projections do not reflect the impact of legislative, policy, operational or procedural change or guidance for which there is no definite timetable for implementation. The projections therefore provide a “baseline” against which the impacts of future changes can be assessed.
Even without these possible changes, the actual future prison population may not match the projection. Changes to criminal justice processes could influence the numbers of offenders being brought to the point of sentence or the way that offenders are managed. Changes to sentencing behaviour may also be different from those modelled. Finally, both sentencing behaviour and criminal justice processes, as well as policy decisions, can respond to a multitude of environmental factors which cannot be anticipated, such as high profile criminal cases, events like the August 2011 public disorder events, and public debate.
Assumptions for modelling were agreed through consultation with policy and operational experts at the Ministry of Justice, National Offender Management Service, Home Office and Crown Prosecution Service. The assumptions are based on analysis (where reliable data are available) and on expert judgement from policy makers, key deliverers and system influencers. The assumptions are therefore likely to be more robust for those measures and processes that have a well-defined boundary than for those that do not. 7. Links to related Ministry of Justice statistics
For further information on:
- The latest statistics on court receipts visit: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/criminal-court-statistics
- The latest statistics on the criminal justice system, including information on sentencing, visit: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/criminal-justice-statistics-quarterly
- The latest statistics and commentary on the prison population visit: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/offender-management-statistics-quarterly
- The Story of the Prison Population 1993-2016 visit: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/story-of-the-prison-population-1993-to-2016
- Weekly prison population and capacity figures visit: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/prison-population-statistics Appendix A: Additional tables
Table A1: Projected prison population (end of June figures)
| | Total | Determinate | Indeterminate | Remand | Recall | Non-Criminal | Fine | |-------|--------|-------------|---------------|--------|--------|--------------|------| | Jun-17| 84,600 | 56,400 | 10,800 | 9,000 | 6,700 | 1,500 | 100 | | Jun-18| 83,700 | 56,100 | 10,300 | 8,900 | 6,800 | 1,500 | 100 | | Jun-19| 83,800 | 56,500 | 9,900 | 8,900 | 7,000 | 1,500 | 100 | | Jun-20| 84,000 | 56,900 | 9,500 | 8,900 | 7,100 | 1,500 | 100 |
Table A2: Average projected prison population (financial year figures)
| | Total | |-------|-------| | 2017/18| 84,300 | | 2018/19| 83,700 | | 2019/20| 83,800 | | 2020/21| 84,100 |
Table A3: Comparison of 2015 projection and 2016 projection (end of June figures)
| | 2015 | 2016 | Difference | |-------|------|------|------------| | Jun-16| 89,100 | -- | -- | | Jun-17| 87,400 | 84,600 | -3.2% | | Jun-18| 88,200 | 83,700 | -5.1% | | Jun-19| 89,000 | 83,800 | -5.8% | | Jun-20| 89,600 | 84,000 | -6.3% |
Table A4: Juvenile, young adult and adult populations by gender (end of June figures)
| | Male | Female | |-------|------|--------| | | 15-17| 18-20 | 21+ | 15-17(1)| 18-20 | 21+ | | Jun-17| 600 | 4,000 | 76,100 | 0 | 100 | 3,800 | | Jun-18| 600 | 3,900 | 75,300 | 0 | 100 | 3,700 | | Jun-19| 600 | 3,900 | 75,500 | 0 | 100 | 3,700 | | Jun-20| 600 | 3,900 | 75,600 | 0 | 100 | 3,700 |
Table A5: Projected male 21 years and over prison population (end of June figures)
| | Males 21 years and over | |-------|-------------------------| | | Total | Determinates | Indeterminate | Remand | Recall | Non-Criminal | Fine | | Jun-17| 76,100 | 50,100 | 10,400 | 8,000 | 6,200 | 1,400 | 100 | | Jun-18| 75,300 | 49,800 | 9,900 | 7,900 | 6,300 | 1,400 | 100 | | Jun-19| 75,500 | 50,300 | 9,500 | 7,900 | 6,400 | 1,400 | 100 | | Jun-20| 75,600 | 50,600 | 9,100 | 7,900 | 6,500 | 1,400 | 100 |
14 All figures are rounded to the nearest hundred. Sub-populations may not sum to total populations due to rounding and due to overlaps in some sub-population categories. 15 June is chosen as it is a month relatively free from seasonal effects and therefore provides a robust measure of the prison population for comparison. Table A6: Projected over 50, over 60 and over 70 year old prison population (end of June figures)
| | Over 50 year old | Over 60 year old | Over 70 year old | |-------|------------------|------------------|------------------| | Jun-17| 13,200 | 4,800 | 1,600 | | Jun-18| 13,300 | 4,900 | 1,600 | | Jun-19| 13,600 | 5,200 | 1,800 | | Jun-20| 13,900 | 5,400 | 1,900 |
Table A7: Monthly values of the overall projected prison population (end of month figures)
| | 2016/17 | 2017/18 | 2018/19 | 2019/20 | 2020/21 | |-------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------| | April | - | 85,000 | 83,800 | 83,800 | 83,900 | | May | - | 84,800 | 83,800 | 83,800 | 83,900 | | June | - | 84,600 | 83,700 | 83,800 | 84,000 | | July | - | 84,500 | 83,700 | 83,800 | 84,000 | | August| 85,200 | 84,500 | 83,900 | 83,900 | 84,200 | | September | 85,300 | 84,400 | 83,900 | 84,000 | 84,200 | | October| 85,300 | 84,300 | 83,900 | 83,900 | 84,300 | | November| 85,400 | 84,300 | 83,900 | 84,000 | 84,300 | | December| 84,600 | 83,400 | 83,100 | 83,300 | 83,600 | | January| 85,000 | 83,700 | 83,500 | 83,700 | 84,000 | | February| 85,300 | 83,900 | 83,700 | 83,900 | 84,200 | | March | 85,300 | 83,800 | 83,700 | 83,900 | 84,300 |
Table A8: Uncertainty bands on projected total prison population (end of June figures)
| | 5% | 20% | 35% | 50%16 | 65% | 80% | 95% | |-------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------| | Jun-17| 82,400 | 83,500 | 84,100 | 84,600 | 85,100 | 85,700 | 86,800 | | Jun-18| 80,900 | 82,300 | 83,100 | 83,700 | 84,400 | 85,200 | 86,600 | | Jun-19| 80,500 | 82,100 | 83,100 | 83,800 | 84,600 | 85,500 | 87,100 | | Jun-20| 80,300 | 82,100 | 83,100 | 84,000 | 84,900 | 85,900 | 87,700 |
16 50% position reflects our prison population projection, the single most likely population given the agreed set of assumptions. Appendix B: Detail of models and assumptions
The modelling approach
The prison projections form part of the Ministry of Justice’s wider work to develop a consistent and coherent suite of models of the criminal courts and offender management, driven by common projections of demand for the Ministry of Justice’s services.
The prisons model used to generate this projection has not changed substantially from that used in the last projections. As in the 2015 projections, custodial sentence lengths used in the model are disaggregated by gender, age of the offender and offence type. The total time to be served in prison by projected future prisoners is assigned by matching their gender and age characteristics to relevant distributions of (i) custodial sentence lengths and (ii) the percentage of custodial sentence served. These distributions are derived from latest available data. This allows us to:
- understand the criminal justice system factors which contribute to change in the prison population, including sentence lengths issued, the percentage of sentence served in custody, trial court and sentencing court changes, or shifts in the demographic characteristics of defendants;
- model the impact on the prison population of specific Ministry of Justice and other criminal justice agency policy changes; and
- quantify the impact of uncertainty around the time a defendant serves in prison on the prison population.
Overview of the modelling approach
Central to the modelling approach is the Prison Population Stock-Flow model. Projections of future custodial convictions are fed into this model and outputs are adjusted to account for the impact of changes in legislation and process on the prison population, as shown in Figure B1, and described below.
1. Producing projections of defendants proceeded against
Projections of defendants proceeded against at court are chosen as the entry point to the modelling system because this is the entry point of defendants into the Ministry of Justice’s area of responsibility. Underlying crime levels and the activities of the police and CPS will have an impact on the volume of defendants proceeded against. The Demand Projections Model produces baseline projections of all defendants proceeded against at court for high-level offence categories. This is based on historical time series data at a monthly resolution sub-divided by region and age for the Magistrates’ court and region for the Crown Court.
The demand projections are based on time series forecasting methods such as Seasonal Exponential Smoothing (SES). It should be noted that these projections cannot be expected to track actual volumes of defendants proceeded against if there is any sudden or cumulative change which takes demand volumes or offence mix well outside the trends seen historically.
2. Converting the demand projections into custodial convictions
A Courts and Sentencing Module converts the demand projections into a set of projections of disposals by disposal type (including custodial convictions), offence, sex and age band at a monthly resolution. These projections of custodial convictions by sex, age and offence type are used as a key input for the Prison Population Stock-Flow model.
The Courts and Sentencing Module is a combination of the Magistrates’ and Crown Court Workload Models and the Sentencing Module. The demand projections are used as an input into a Magistrates’ Workload Model, which uses historical data to split defendants into court routes (Table B1) and tracks their flow through the system.
The Crown Court workload model takes forecasts of caseload and assigns various attributes (e.g. early guilty plea, effective trial mix) to estimate likely hearing times and the resulting flow of cases through the system. The cases disposed of are then converted to the number of defendants disposed of using recent data for the observed ratio between cases and defendants.
The key assumptions that are used in the Courts and Sentencing Module are:
- that there is no prioritisation of any age or sex group within the Magistrates’ and Crown Court;
- the number of working days in each month is the primary driver of seasonality within the Magistrates’ and Crown Court;
- no change in offence type occurs as cases move through the system;
- defendants that are tried at the Magistrates’ Court proceed to sentencing without delay;
- delays within the Magistrates’ Court are not significant for the monthly timescales used in the modelling; and
- a Magistrates’ Court backlog will not develop during the forecast period.
The Sentencing Module takes the number of defendants disposed of in the Magistrates’ Workload Model and the Crown Court Workload Model and applies sentencing splits based on analysis of court proceedings data. This results in a set of projections as broken down in Table C1. These are aggregated providing forecasts for each offence, gender, age and disposal category, which are used as the custodial conviction projections.
Table B1: Courts and Sentencing Module Splits Dimensions | Offence Type | Gender | Age Band | Court Route | Disposal | |------------------------------|--------|----------------|-------------|-------------------------------| | Burglary | Male | Age 10-17 | MC | Discharge | | Criminal Damage | Female | Age 18-20 | MCCC | Fine | | Fraud and Forgery | | Age 21+ | CC | Community Sentence | | Indictable Motoring | | | | Suspended Sentence | | Other | | | | Custodial \<6 months | | Robbery | | | | Custodial 6 months - \<1year | | Sexual Offences | | | | Custodial 1 year - 4 year | | Summary Motoring | | | | Indeterminate | | Summary Non-Motoring | | | | Otherwise Dealt With | | Theft and handling | | | | | | Violence Against the Person | | | | |
Key to the court route splits: MC: those tried and sentenced in the Magistrates Court; MCCC: those who are tried in the Magistrates Court and Sentenced in the Crown Court; CC: combines those defendants who are committed for trial in the Crown Court and sent for trial in the Crown Court into a single category.
If required, the Courts and Sentencing Module allows trends in offender demographics and courts and sentencing processes to be incorporated into custodial convictions projections. This procedure was implemented to create the custodial convictions projections used in this projection.
3a) Producing prison population projections
Prison population projections are produced using the Prison Population Stock-Flow Model. The principal sub-populations in prison – determinate sentence, life sentence, imprisonment for public protection (IPP) and remand – are modelled using stock-flow structures based on the generic structure shown in Figure C2. The stock-flow structures model the flow of offenders into and out of prison and count the resulting prison population at the end of each month.
Figure C2: Generic stock-flow structure in the Prison Population Stock-Flow Model
For the determinate population, the monthly inflows to prison are based on the custodial convictions projections described above. These custodial convictions include offenders that may already be serving a sentence for a previous crime or those who would serve their whole custodial sentence on remand, meaning that they would not be a new reception to prison. To convert from custodial convictions to prison receptions we apply a conversion ratio derived from the historical proportions of custodial convictions to prison receptions for each sub-population averaged over the last twelve months of historical data.
Monthly outflows for the determinate population are based on observed custodial sentence lengths and the observed percentage of sentence length served. Each projected offender that enters the model is given a custodial sentence length that is randomly selected from the relevant distribution. These distributions are populated with custodial sentence lengths from actual offender receptions who share the same characteristics of offence, gender and age group in the observed time period. The percent of custodial sentence length served is derived in the same manner, except that the observed distribution is made up of discharged offenders further disaggregated by custodial sentence length band.
For offenders who receive the new EDS sentence an adjustment is made to the percent of custodial length served to reflect that these offenders will spend a greater proportion of their sentence in custody than standard determinate sentenced offenders discharged to date.
Projected prison receptions are sub-divided by age category (Juvenile, Young Adult, Adult) with the exact age of the offender attributed in the same manner as the custodial sentence lengths. This allows the model to explicitly age the offenders whilst in prison (e.g. move from Juvenile to Young Adult categories).
The approach for the other sub-populations is similar and has not been substantially revised since the 2015 publication. The methodology applied to each is briefly outlined below.
The remand population is projected based on latest available time-series data around remand stocks and flows of offenders into and out of remand. The projection takes account of changes in operational performance and policies that are expected to have impacts on time served on remand via the Courts and Sentencing Module.
IPP and life sentence prisoners have an extra section in the stock-flow structure which models the indeterminate nature of their sentence lengths. Outflows for IPP and life sentence prisoners depend on the tariff lengths they receive and on the frequency and outcome of Parole Board hearings. The values of these parameters are set and calibrated to reflect the most recent data on Parole Board outcomes.
The recall population is projected based on latest available time-series data on the stock of offenders on recall. Indeterminate recalls are treated explicitly based on data and assumptions around future release and recall rates, and conditional on Parole Board capacity as per the indeterminate population.
The population in prison at the end of each modelled month is aggregated into the categories defined by gender, current age group and, for determinate sentence prisoners, sentence length band, to produce raw, unadjusted prison population projections.
3b) Accounting for the impacts of circumstance, legislation, and for seasonal effects
The raw, unadjusted prison population projections are subject to model adjustments to show the impact of certain provisions in the Offender Rehabilitation Act 2014, the ROTL review, the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015, the Serious Crime Act 2015 and the EU Prisoner Transfer Framework Decision. Model adjustments are also used to account for seasonal variation in the population. Custodial conviction projections for each sub-population were smoothed using a centred 12 month average. No seasonality in prison receptions and discharges was modelled explicitly. Seasonality was measured in the historical prison population and applied as a series of percentage adjustments to the final population projections. Seasonal factors for the determinate population were identified for each month by measuring statistically significant deviations from a centred 12 month average. Appendix C: Method for calculating projection uncertainty
As with any projection, there is uncertainty in the projection of the prison population, arising from several sources. This includes uncertainty in model parameters as well as future changes in behaviour or policy that are uncertain or unexpected at the time of projection.
This publication includes a fan chart, a commonly-used method of communicating uncertainty in a time series projection. The performance of previous published projections against the actual population has been analysed and used to estimate the uncertainty in the prison population.
Projections of the total prison population have been published annually since 2008. We therefore have several years’ worth of projections to compare estimates against actuals. The fan chart should be considered an estimate of the expected levels of uncertainty, informed by past performance, rather than a precise set of limits on the population.
Fan chart and interpretation
Chart 3 shows the prison population projection as a solid line. This can be interpreted as the single most likely population, given the agreed set of assumptions. Around the projection are three bands, indicating the range of populations with estimated 30%, 60% and 90% likelihoods. The interpretation is that, assuming no significant differences between the conditions under which the previous projections were made and the conditions under which the current projection has been made, there is a 30% likelihood that the population will stay within the inner band, a 60% likelihood that the population will stay within the second band and a 90% likelihood that the population will stay within the outer band.
The shaded portion of the chart indicates the period beyond which estimates of uncertainty are based on extrapolation, not explicit measurement of performance, as explained below.
Technical details
The fan chart is calculated by fitting a distribution to the percentage errors between prior projections and observed actual population figures. Distributions of errors are calculated at each time interval from date of start of projection. We fit a normal distribution at each interval, characterised by a mean and a standard deviation. For this fan chart, the mean is assumed to be the prison population projection. As more published projections become available in future, it may be possible to further refine the characterisation of uncertainty (for example assessing whether a skewed two-piece normal distribution is more appropriate).
The standard deviation at each time point is calculated in the following way:
1. Calculate the percentage difference between the projected and actual populations for each time interval (i.e. difference one month after forecast, two months after forecast etc.) after the forecast date;
2. Calculate the standard deviation of the percentage differences for each time interval from date of projection;
3. Fit a power law to this series of standard deviations as a function of time interval (i.e. a function of the form $y = ax^b$, where $y$ is the standard deviation and $x$ is the time after projection);
4. Use this function to infer estimates of the standard deviation of errors at each time interval up to the end of the projection period.
This method is in line with the method used in the previous 2015 publication. We now have additional data on past projection performance that has allowed us to extend the horizon used to fit trends in standard deviations in step (3) up to an interval of 3 years following projection. We have also reviewed the methodologies used for previous projections and adjusted these for data improvements observed since the projections were published. This has allowed us to more accurately estimate the expected uncertainty given the latest data and methodological improvements applied in the projection method. Contact points for further information
Current and previous editions of this publication are available for download from www.justice.gov.uk/publications/statistics-and-data/index.htm
Press enquiries should be directed to the Ministry of Justice press office, telephone: 020 3334 3536
Other enquiries about these statistics should be directed to:
Justice Statistics Analytical Services Ministry of Justice 7th Floor 102 Petty France London SW1H 9AJ
General enquiries about the statistical work of the Ministry of Justice can be e-mailed to: [email protected]
General information about the official statistics system of the UK is available from statisticsauthority.gov.uk/about-the-authority/uk-statistical-system
Alternative format versions of this report are available on request from the Ministry of Justice at [email protected]
© Crown copyright Produced by the Ministry of Justice
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/4748-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 24,
"total-input-tokens": 55670,
"total-output-tokens": 10705,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
129,
1
],
[
129,
616,
2
],
[
616,
2176,
3
],
[
2176,
3607,
4
],
[
3607,
5517,
5
],
[
5517,
9318,
6
],
[
9318,
11452,
7
],
[
11452,
12260,
8
],
[
12260,
13504,
9
],
[
13504,
14556,
10
],
[
14556,
17104,
11
],
[
17104,
18986,
12
],
[
18986,
19787,
13
],
[
19787,
22251,
14
],
[
22251,
24355,
15
],
[
24355,
26526,
16
],
[
26526,
26938,
17
],
[
26938,
29427,
18
],
[
29427,
32990,
19
],
[
32990,
35824,
20
],
[
35824,
36315,
21
],
[
36315,
39146,
22
],
[
39146,
40208,
23
],
[
40208,
41143,
24
]
]
} |
e4af39fde9879a2c2ac1af73b8d331d886a841a6 | Privacy policy
How we handle your personal data, your rights and our privacy notices.
The Food Standards Agency (FSA), is the ‘Data Controller’ of the personal information we collect from you or which is provided to us.
This Privacy Policy will describe how we collect and use data in relation to our website. It will also list specific Privacy Notices that we provide to you where we collect your personal data for various specific services and purposes in order to carry out our duties.
Please refer to our Personal Information Charter to understand further about how and why the FSA collects and processes information, what types of information that we collect, how and where we store your data and what your rights are.
We respect and value the privacy of everyone and only collect and use information in ways that are consistent with your rights and our obligations under the law, including the UK General Data Protection Regulation (UK GDPR) and the Data Protection Act 2018 (DPA).
Why we need your personal information
We process your personal data in a number of ways to deliver our Public Services which are set out in law. Unless we tell you otherwise our legal basis for collecting this information under UK GDPR is our Public Task which includes but is not limited to collecting information:
- to regulate food by engaging with organisations both directly, and indirectly through Local Authorities and Other Competent Authorities, Government Agencies and Industry Bodies, both in the UK and Internationally, to ensure they conform to the standards that we set
- to analyse and evaluate risks around food generally
- to receive advice and information to formulate policy and consult on that policy so that is it fairly implemented
- to inform our policies and standards by understanding issues facing the general public and food business operators in relation to food and food safety, including issues around health, social or economic factors
- to raise awareness around food safety, for example by providing alerts around issues such as product recalls and allergies
- to help promote best practice through signposting information and providing training resources to interested and relevant parties
- to investigate and take enforcement action as necessary where we become aware of practices that are not carried out in the best interest of consumers and that contravene our policies, standards or the law
When we collect information from you, we:
- make sure you know why we need it and why we are allowed to hold it where we are required to do so by law
- only ask for what we need, and not to collect too much or irrelevant information
- protect it and make sure nobody has access to it who is not permitted to have access under the law
- make sure we don’t keep it longer than necessary What information do we collect through our website?
Training
When you register for a training account with us, we will collect personal data from you such as name, email address, job role, employers name and password.
We collect this information for the purpose of educating a range of stakeholders. We will only use this information to enable you to access our training and certificates and to administer your account. When you registered for an account, we may have made you aware one of our specific Privacy Notices relating to the training that you requested which will be accessible through a link at the end of this Policy.
Contact us section of website
In the Contact Us section of the website, we provide channels that you can use to raise a query, report a problem or receive assistance. When we collect information from you whether you are a Business or a Consumer, we will generally require your name and contact information and details of your query, request or any issue that you may be reporting. We need this information to understand why you are contacting us and respond accordingly in accordance with our Public Task. The following services are provided through the Contact Us section for Businesses and Consumers respectively:
For consumers – Report a food problem
If you are reporting a food problem, for example, if you suspect food poisoning, have issues with a food product or wish to report poor food safety and hygiene practices, we may ask you in the webform, or when you contact us, where you encountered the problem so we can direct your report to the Local Authority that is best placed to investigate it. The information reported on the webform will be transferred to and dealt with directly by the Local Authority and the FSA will not hold a record of your contact details. Alternatively, we may just signpost you to other organisations who are better placed to address your query. For example, if you identify a problem with food labelling, we would advise that you contact Trading Standards.
For businesses – Report a food concern
This section of the website is only intended for use by operators of businesses related to the food sector or local authorities and other agencies that we work with so that they can meet their legal obligations. Consumers should not contact us using webforms or other contact details in this area of the Website.
Where you 'Report a Food Safety Incident' on behalf of your organisation – we will collect your name, role, email address and the address of the organisation that you work for as well as details of the Incident. This will be referred directly to our Incidents Team who will follow up the report with your business. We use Notify.gov.uk to confirm that we have received your report and provide you with a reference.
For businesses – Find business services
Where you wish to 'Find Business Services' for example to register your business, apply for food premises approval or make an appeal against a decision by us or a local authority then information with be collected by us either directly or through the website and shared with the Local Authority where required so we can deal with your request. Where we collect information to provide the service, we will provide you with a specific Privacy Notice which will be listed at the end of this Privacy Policy or you will agree to our Terms and Conditions of Service which will include a Privacy Notice.
For businesses and consumers – Report a food crime
If you ‘Report a food crime’ then the information that you provide will be transferred to and dealt with directly by the National Food Crime Unit (NFCU), which is a dedicated law enforcement function of the FSA. Information about NFCU can be found on our website. NFCU will process your information safely and confidentially in accordance with GDPR and the Law Enforcement Directive as appropriate. You can access our Privacy notice - National Food Crime Unit and Privacy notice - Criminal Investigation and Prosecution Team through links at the end of this Policy.
For business and consumers – Give us feedback
Whether you are a business contact or a consumer we will use the information that you provide to make a complaint in accordance with the Complaints Policy that is linked to on our website. Please note that in order to progress a complaint investigation your identity may become known to those who the complaint is made about. This will only arise where it is otherwise impossible to prevent, or it is necessary in order to progress the case. Where applicable, we will explain this to you beforehand. A separate Privacy notice for external complaints made against the FSA is provided at the end of this Privacy Policy.
Subscribe to News, Alerts and Consultations
You have a choice about being contacted for food alerts, allergy alerts, our news and consultations. We will collect certain information from you, for example, email and password, to create an account for you, and so that you are able to consent to what you would like to receive from us and how it is delivered.
These may include updates on:
- information relating to topic/s selected in user subscription preferences
- general website / service updates
- our user surveys
Where we are processing your information on the basis that we have your consent, you can withdraw your consent at any time by updating your subscription preferences in your account or by unsubscribing to the service.
FSA Dashboards
The FSA provides a range of dashboards which we compile from information that we hold to inform stakeholders about various aspects of Food and Feed Regulation and Safety. We will collect information from you when you register to access those service including name, email address, job role, employers name and password and provide you with Terms and Conditions and a Privacy Notice at the Point of Service. You can access it on the The Privacy Notice for Users Registering for Access to FSA Dashboards page.
The information we present in a dashboard, and who we share that information with, is dependent on the purpose of the dashboard. We may combine and analyse information obtained in the course of our regulatory functions, for example about sole traders and businesses, both in the UK and Internationally, together with information we have obtained from public and private sources. We may gather information from publicly available sources such as websites and make use of web scraping software to carry out our legal powers including for the purpose of helping us evaluate risk.
We do this in line with the exercise of official authority vested in us under the Food Standards Act and the performance of a task carried out in the public interest.
**Other services accessed through websites that we operate**
From time to time we may provide access to other services through our websites or request feedback in survey linked to through our website. Where these involve the collection of personal information, we will provide you with a specific Privacy Notice at the point of service or we may update this Policy.
**How and where we store your data and who we may share it with**
We treat the security of your information very seriously and only process it in accordance with our Information Security Standards and Policies. All our staff get regular mandatory training about how to handle information properly and keep it safe.
The majority of information we collect is stored and processed in the UK or the European Economic Area (EEA).
For financial, organisational or technical reasons, we may engage third parties to process data on our behalf. We will not share your personal information with any such third party unless we are satisfied that they are able to provide an adequate level of protection in respect of your personal information. We do this by taking steps to ensure that these organisations have in place suitable technical and organisational safeguards either through contracts or agreements we hold with them and/or by obtaining robust assurances from them that they operate in accordance with the UK GDPR.
We also work closely with Local Authorities and Other Competent Authorities, Government Agencies and Industry Bodies both within and outside the UK and have broad powers to share information with those organisations where it is proportionate and necessary to meet our objectives. We will only share information where we have a legal basis to do so.
**International transfers**
Where we have a legal basis for sending or transferring personal data to third parties based in countries outside the UK, including those that process data on our behalf, we will ensure appropriate safeguards are in place in accordance with UK GDPR.
We regularly process data with third parties in the EEA. The EEA has been deemed as having adequate safeguards to meet the requirements of UK GDPR.
Where we have a legal basis to process personal data for our Law Enforcement purposes, we may also transfer data outside the UK under the provisions of Part 3 of the Data Protection Act 2018.
Also, where we transfer information to authorities or organisations in the substantial public interest, for example, around preventing or detecting crime, or monitoring and evaluating risks to Food Safety, we seek to take appropriate steps to safeguard your information in accordance with UK GDPR. We may rely on the derogations in UK GDPR where necessary for this purpose.
Your rights
You have a legal right to see a copy of the personal data that we keep about you and to require us to correct any inaccuracies, subject to certain exemptions. In some circumstances, you may also have the right to:
- request that we erase any personal data held about you
- restrict our processing of your personal data (for example to ask to suspend the processing of personal information to establish its accuracy or the reasons for processing it)
- data portability (i.e. to request the transfer of personal data to a third party)
- object to our processing of your personal data
If you are not satisfied with our response or believe we are processing your personal data not in accordance with the law, you can complain to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO).
EU citizens
Where we process the personal information of data subjects located in the EU, including data collected before 1 January 2021, under provisions of the Withdrawal Agreement, we will do so in accordance with the requirements and obligations of the EU GDPR, including in relation to transfers to the extent that these are any different to those of the UK GDPR.
This privacy notice covers EU and UK citizens and will be reviewed and updated should those regulations diverge over time. Where any differences emerge we update this section to reflect how this affects the way we process your information and/or we will tell you in a specific privacy notice when we collect your data.
If you are not satisfied by the way we are processing your data or responding to a rights requests, you are entitled to raise a complaint with the ICO and/or the Supervisory Authority in your country of residence.
About cookies
When we provide services, we want to make them easy, useful and reliable. food.gov.uk puts small files (known as ‘cookies’) onto your computer to collect information about how you browse the site. Find out how we use cookies and how you can control them.
Other websites
Our website contains links to other websites. This privacy policy only applies to this website and websites that we operate. So, if you follow a link to other websites you should read their privacy policy.
Changes to our privacy policy
We will keep our privacy policy under regular review and will place any updates on this web page. This privacy policy was last updated on the 10 December 2020. Contact us
If you have any queries concerning this Privacy Policy, your personal information or any questions on our use of the information, please email our Data Protection Officer in the FSA is the Information Management and Security Team Leader who can be contacted at the email address below.
Privacy notices
We provide privacy notices for the following services:
- Animal Feed, TSES and animal by-products legislation and policy
- Animal Feed GB Representation List
- Annual surveillance to monitor levels of acrylamide and furans
- Appointments to Advisory Committees, the Science Council and Associated Subgroups
- Approved meat establishments and applications for approval
- Better Training for Safer Food courses
- Board Members
- Business Continuity Alerts Service
- Campylobacter retail survey
- Consultations
- Correspondence regarding policies on food and feed hygiene, safety and standards
- COVID-19 Incidents
- Criminal Investigation and Prosecution Team
- Exception reports for Approved Assurance Schemes
- External complaints against the FSA
- Evidence Package Tracker
- Evidence Portfolio including Strategic Evidence Fund
- Feed Registrations and Approvals Lists
- Food and feed importers
- Food and You Survey
- Food chain information
- Food contact materials
- Food Hygiene Rating Scheme
- Food incidents
- Freedom of Information and Environmental Information requests
- Guest User Access
- Health, Safety and Wellbeing Unit
- Honours and Awards
- HR staff data
- Invitation and circulation of information about FSA board meetings Job application and pre-employment screening data
- Labelling and Standards in Northern Ireland
- Local Authority contacts
- Local Authority Enforcement Monitoring System (LAEMS)
- MyHACCP
- National Food Crime Unit
- News and alerts subscription service
- Northern Ireland Food Advisory Committee
- Northern Ireland Official Controls for Food and Feed
- Notification of a prohibited person database
- Novel foods and GM foods policy
- Policy development records for meat hygiene
- Private Office correspondence
- Procurement contracts
- Procurement tenders
- Records from GM research programmes
- Register a food business
- Register a food business support service for Local Authorities
- Register a food business feedback
- Registering as a milk production holding
- Register of Specialists
- Regulated Plastic recycling Businesses
- Regulated products Application Service
- Regulating Our Future Newsletter
- Reporting a food problem
- Research participants
- Risk Analysis Tracker
- Shellfish sanitary survey data
- Stakeholder contact information
- Stakeholder contact information in Northern Ireland
- Temporary Certificate of Competence and Certificate of Competence
- UK Food Surveillance System
- UK Wine Producers
- Users Registering for Access to FSA Dashboards
- Welsh Food Advisory Committee
- Welsh language services
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/4749-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 8,
"total-input-tokens": 14172,
"total-output-tokens": 3712,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
2814,
1
],
[
2814,
5842,
2
],
[
5842,
8892,
3
],
[
8892,
12102,
4
],
[
12102,
14661,
5
],
[
14661,
16218,
6
],
[
16218,
17443,
7
],
[
17443,
17549,
8
]
]
} |
0d6e2bdb47e90b957a7acd8173756b71763817d4 | Privacy Notice for Housing ICT Programme Survey
We will keep this privacy notice under regular review; it was last updated in November 2020. When we use your personal data, City of York Council (CYC) complies with data protection legislation, and is the registered ‘Controller’. Our data protection notification is registered with the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) – reference Z5809563.
Why is information being collected? We would like to understand your current IT setup and your knowledge on IT in general. We are doing this in order to find if we can offer any additional support in advance of and when we begin training.
The survey is anonymous but we have asked for contact information at the end of the survey. We ask that you fill that in if you have any concerns in regard to the training so that we may contact you and assist (where possible) with these concerns.
We only use your personal data with your explicit and informed consent for the purposes described in this privacy notice.
Participation is voluntary and you can choose not to answer some of the survey questions. You can withdraw your consent at any time, by contacting: [email protected] or 01904 551550.
What information will be collected? We are asking in the survey the current place of your work (this for many is currently at home), IT equipment and your level of proficiency in IT.
What will we do with the information? The information we collect will be used to help us understand the current working environment and IT setup of Housing and Building Services. The information will only be used by the Housing ICT Programme.
We will not use the data for any other purpose than stated and will not disclose to a third party i.e other companies or individuals, unless we are required to do so by law for the prevention of crime and detection of fraud, etc.
Online data will be collected using SurveyMonkey. To find out how they use your information here: https://www.surveymonkey.com/mp/legal/privacy/?ut_source=footer.
Where will the information be kept? We will keep the information you give us and your personal data in the council’s secure network drive and make sure it can only be accessed by authorised staff at City of York Council.
How long will we keep the information? We will keep the information you give us and your personal data for up to one year and then will securely destroy it. Where required or appropriate to, at the end of the retention period, we will pass onto the City Archives any relevant information.
Further processing If we wish to use your personal data for a new purpose, not covered by this Privacy Notice, then we will provide you with a new notice explaining this new use prior to commencing the processing and setting out the relevant purposes and processing conditions. Where and whenever necessary, we will seek your prior consent to the new processing, if we start to use your personal data for a purpose not mentioned in this Privacy Notice.
**Your rights** To find out about your rights under data protection law, you can go to the Information Commissioners Office (ICO) https://ico.org.uk/for-the-public/ You can also find information about your rights at https://www.york.gov.uk/privacy If you have any questions, want to exercise your rights, or if you have a complaint about how your information has been used, please contact us at [email protected] or on 01904 554145 or write to:
Data Protection Officer\
City of York Council\
West Offices\
Station Rise\
York\
YO1 6GA
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/4750-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 2,
"total-input-tokens": 3664,
"total-output-tokens": 848,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
2565,
1
],
[
2565,
3537,
2
]
]
} |
35ec20a31c696342565c9e8a684745fc9470fabf | Privacy Notice for Tenant Satisfaction Survey
All City of York Council (CYC) Privacy Notices are regularly reviewed. This Notice was last reviewed and updated in December 2020. When we use your personal data, CYC complies with data protection legislation and is the registered ‘Controller’. Our data protection notification is registered with the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) – reference Z5809563.
Why is information being collected? The Business Intelligence Hub conducts the Tenant Satisfaction Survey on behalf of Housing. We do this in order to gauge council tenant satisfaction across our landlord services. Participation in this survey is voluntary and you may opt out of answering some or all of the survey questions.
Why do we need personal information from you? We only use your personal information with your explicit and informed consent for the purposes described/as set out in this Privacy Notice, in order to improve services for particular groups of people where they identify appropriate concerns.
What information will be collected? We will collect information about you including age, gender and ethnicity and also your opinions on our services.
What will we do with the information? The data we collect will be included in reports, in our performance framework and to identify potential service improvements. Geographical analysis will be used to compare levels of satisfaction. All data will be anonymised and will not identify individuals and we will never use your name in any reports. We will not use the data for any other purpose than stated and will not disclose to a third party i.e. other companies or individuals, unless we are required to do so by law for the prevention of crime and detection of fraud, etc. Online data will be collected using SurveyMonkey. To find out how they use your information, please go to http://www.surveymonkey.com/mp/legal/privacy-policy/?ut_source=footer
Storage of information We will keep the information you give us in CYC’s secure network drive and make sure it can only be accessed by authorised staff. If you complete a paper copy of a survey, we will transfer information you have given onto CYC’s secure network drive and then destroy the paper copy once the transfer is complete.
How long will we keep the information? We will keep the information you give us for up to three years and then will destroy it. Where required or appropriate to, at the end of the retention period, we will pass onto the City Archives any relevant information. Your rights To find out about your rights under data protection law, you can go to the Information Commissioners Office (ICO) https://ico.org.uk/for-the-public/
You can also find information about your rights at https://www.york.gov.uk/privacy If you have any questions about this email, want to exercise your rights, or if you have a complaint about how your information has been used, please contact us at [email protected] or on 01904 554145 or write to: Data Protection Officer, City of York Council, West Offices, Station Rise, York YO1 6GA.
If we wish to use your personal data for a new purpose, not covered by this Privacy Notice, we will provide you with a new notice explaining the purpose prior to commencing the processing and the processing conditions. Where and whenever necessary, we will seek your consent prior to the new processing.
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/4751-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 2,
"total-input-tokens": 3520,
"total-output-tokens": 767,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
2527,
1
],
[
2527,
3377,
2
]
]
} |
95ac7d31f544970727c48b2587e798ba028b6a86 | Public Protection Committee 14 October 2003
Report of Borough Solicitor Directorate: Chief Executive and Town Clerk Author/Contact Officer: Mr P Bayliss Licensing Enforcement Officer Tel: 01604 837837 ext 7099
Title of Report Private Hire Vehicle. Introduction of age policy. Private Hire Vehicle. Increase of engine size.
Purpose
1. To request the Committee consider whether it is appropriate that an age policy be introduced in respect of Private Hire Vehicles.
2. To request that Committee consider whether it is appropriate to increase the minimum engine size of a Private Hire Vehicle from the present 1300 cc to 1600 cc.
Recommendations That all vehicles be subject to an age policy when application is made for a Private Hire Vehicle Licence.
That all Private Hire Vehicles have an engine capacity of at least 1600 cc.
Background Members will recall that there are two trades providing exclusive driver and car hire services.
(a) Taxis which ply for hire from taxi ranks (hackney carriages) and can be hired in the streets; and (b) Private Hire Vehicles, which must be pre-booked by telephone or by calling in person at the operator’s office (mini-cabs).
The Councils current policy with regard to Hackney carriages (October 1997) is that they must all be less than 3 years old when licensed for the first time. There is no upper age limit placed on these vehicles. These are, however, a purpose built vehicle and as such are generally more robust than the average family saloon.
Private Hire Vehicles are usually “normal” vehicles representative of the private car fleet eg medium/large saloon cars, people carriers with up to 8 passengers capacity and some limousine type vehicles for specialist hire. Our policy being a vehicle, 4 door saloon or estate of not less than 1300 cc, and other nominated specialist vehicles.
The licensing authority may not restrict the number of such vehicles.
The Council has no policy at present as regards the age of Private Hire Vehicles.
A number of Councils have introduced an age policy with regard to these vehicles, all have proved successful in improving the quality of Private Hire vehicles and enhancing the image of the trade in general. There has also been a noticeable decrease in the failure rate when these vehicles are tested. Daventry introduced an age policy in 1995, both Kettering and Wellingborough more recently.
There is no doubt that having an age policy in respect of Hackney Vehicles has helped to maintain a fleet of vehicles that are a credit to the licence issuing authority.
Recommendations
The proposal is that with effect from 1 January 2004 any Private Hire Vehicle licensed for the first time will be no more than 3 years old from the date of registration and, provided the quality remains, the vehicle will be licensed for a further 5 years.
The maximum age of a licensed vehicle will be no more than 8 years from the date of first registration.
It is also recommended that the minimum CC of any new vehicle should be increased from the present 1300cc to 1600cc.
A vehicle suitable for licensing as a Private Hire Vehicle can be purchased for an average price below £5,000 depending on the make and model.
Not only is this in line with most other authorities but also takes into consideration the diversity of journeys that these vehicles now have to make. Initially Mini-Cabs were as the name implied, small cars making short journeys. This has now changed and a great deal more is expected from each individual driver and vehicle. On the request of the hirer airport runs are a part of everyday life and a two to three hundred mile round trip is not unusual. An engine of a reasonable size is essential for both the safety and comfort of passengers and drivers.
It is recommended that the seat width condition remains the same. Vehicles of exceptional condition and low mileage will still be considered for a licence but each vehicle will be assessed on its own merits.
It is considered important that for reasons of public safety and quality control the same standards should apply to both hackney carriage and private hire vehicles.
It is the responsibility of the Local Authority to ensure that members of the public travel in a comfortable, safe and secure environment. It is recognised that any vehicle used as a Private Hire Vehicle becomes a “tool of the trade” and takes on an arduous life covering over five times the UK average vehicle mileage. The vehicle is normally used for both Private Hire and personal use.
A ten year old vehicle will emit approximately 20 times the emissions of a new vehicle.
Private Hire Vehicles whether undertaking a local short journey or a long motorway airport trip are subject to sustained heavy use when compared to “normal” vehicle usage. Conveying up to eight passengers plus the driver.
The European Union has developed a number of emission control measures that all new vehicles must comply with. The aim of the Euro standards is to reduce overall vehicle pollution by over 25% by the year 2008. Requiring Private Hire Vehicles to be new or less than three years old when first licensed would meet Euro 2 emission regulations. Reducing significantly emission from the vehicles exhaust.
The three year limit would also ensure that Private Hire Vehicles would not only benefit from European Union emission controls but also manufacturers improvements in technology which offer greater safety and security for both passengers and drivers. Features such as anti-lock brakes, side impact bags and bars, air bags, intelligent seat belts etc.
Introducing an age limit on Private Hire Vehicles would bring their entry age limit into the trade in line with Hackney Carriage Vehicles. It would also ensure that persons entering the trade are committed to their investment and not just out to make a rapid profit to the detriment of committed Private Hire and Hackney Carriage Proprietors.
Granting licenses only to suitable new or used vehicles less than three years old on entry to the Private Hire trade would lead to a high quality fleet of more reliable, safer, less polluting vehicles supporting the Council’s objective of improving the local environment.
At present, all licensed vehicles, Hackney and Private Hire, are tested bi-annually by the testing station approved by the council. Recently, over a short period of time, vehicles have been found with the following faults prior to licence renewal.
Veh 1: 1996 Rover. Mileage 144758. 24 faults including brake, suspension and steering faults. (Having its first test, new plate). Veh 2: 1993 Vauxhall. Mileage 139418. 24 faults including brake faults, lights hanging off and serious oil leak.
Veh 3: 1993 Peugeot. Mileage 325458. 14 faults including brake and suspension faults.
Veh 4: 1996 Hyundai. Mileage 102661. 13 faults including brake and suspension faults.
Veh 5: 1993 Proton. Mileage 81791. 12 faults including steering problems. The general condition of this vehicle was poor.
Veh 6: 1993 Vauxhall. Mileage 228280. 15 faults including brakes, suspension and lights.
Veh 7: 1994 Rover. Mileage 112847. 5 faults including serious brakes and steering faults.
Veh 8: 1996 Mercedes. Mileage 270089. 11 faults including serious suspension faults.
Veh 9: 1998 Audi. Mileage 129888. 16 faults including serious brake and steering faults.
Veh 10: 1995 Citroen. Mileage 243286. 12 faults including lighting and serious brake and steering problems.
Veh 11: 1997 Renault. Mileage 212242. 5 faults including serious steering and brake faults.
Veh 12: 1994 Fiat. Mileage 85634. 11 faults including steering, brake and suspension faults.
Veh 13: 1995 Ford. Mileage 129487. 6 faults including serious brake and suspension faults.
Veh 14: 1994 Vauxhall. Mileage 97818. 13 faults including serious brake and suspension faults.
Veh 15: 1995 Citroen. Mileage 293544. 9 faults including serious brake and suspension faults.
It is of concern to the enforcement officers that these faults were present when fare paying passengers had hired the vehicle, sometimes the day before its test.
As can be seen from these examples both the high and low mileage older vehicles develop serious faults. Vehicles of most makes and models are affected. So-called prestige vehicles are not immune when faults start to develop due to high mileage and general wear and tear. The prime consideration when licensing these vehicles must be the safety of the public.
Although there may be a slight decrease in licensed vehicles initially, we are no doubt able to minimise this by staggering the introduction of the vehicle upper limit (8 years) over two years.
Having said this, no significant reduction in the number of vehicles licensed has been experienced by other authorities on introduction of these policies.
The intention is to renew those licenses of vehicles at present over 8 years until they reach an upper age limit of 10 years, subject to satisfactory testing by the council approved testing station. This will only apply to those vehicles reaching 8 years at their next plating. Together with the Licensing Officer the two Enforcement Officers are already enforcing the Private Hire Operator, Driver and Vehicle conditions. They will continue to do so.
Consultations
There have been ongoing consultations with the trade and other authorities. Some of those within the trade have already realised the advantage of purchasing newer vehicles. Others have consistently purchased older vehicles in the hope that they will pass the council test for two to three years, after which they will purchase another “old” vehicle with similar expectations.
In accordance with the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985, background papers used in the preparation of this report were:-
1. Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976.
2. Conditions of fitness and licensing of Private Hire Vehicles.
3. European Union emission control standards.
4. Ford Motor Company research.
Directorates and Agencies Consulted
Wellingborough Council, Kettering Borough Council, Daventry District Council, Peterborough City Council and members of the National Association of Taxi and Private Hire Licensing and Enforcement Officers.
Background Papers
As file
Author and Contact Officer
Mr Bayliss Licensing Enforcement Officer Tel 01604 837837 x 7099
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/4752-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 5,
"total-input-tokens": 9323,
"total-output-tokens": 2588,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
1254,
1
],
[
1254,
3826,
2
],
[
3826,
6664,
3
],
[
6664,
9084,
4
],
[
9084,
10354,
5
]
]
} |
074696e47f3e44ec4fb84610d81d415ec93f885e | PRIVATE SECTOR LICENSING IN WALTHAM FOREST: IMPROVING QUALITY OF LIFE
CLEAN GREEN SAFE LOVED www.walthamforest.gov.uk/mystreet We know that Waltham Forest is a great place to live. More people are being attracted to the borough by our great transport links, open green spaces, and vibrant community life. The diversity of our borough is one of its strengths, and we want to continue to grow and to secure a high quality of life for everyone. Housing will be an essential part of this and the Council has already committed to an ambitious house building programme, creating 12,000 new homes by 2020. However this is only part of the housing picture in Waltham Forest.
Many residents rely on the Private Rented Sector for their housing – and this number is increasing across the country. Currently 27 per cent of Waltham Forest households rent privately. For many this is a choice, whilst for others, it is the tenure of last resort. We know that the majority of landlords provide good quality homes for our residents. However, there are a significant number who provide sub-standard accommodation for their tenants. That is why it is so important for Waltham Forest to ensure the Private Rented Sector provides good quality, safe accommodation that works for everyone, including addressing blights on the community such as Anti-Social Behaviour.
To address this issue head-on we launched our Private Rented Property Licensing Scheme in April 2015, with the goal of registering all private sector landlords in the borough. We have already achieved a number of successes through this, and believe we can achieve more if we are given the right tools to do so. This briefing sets out the background of our Licensing Scheme, the results so far and what steps we believe central government and the in-coming London Mayor need to take to ensure we have the tools to do even more to improve the Private Rented Sector for all of our residents. Our ambition in Waltham Forest is to ensure that all of our residents can enjoy a good quality of life. A secure and high quality home is a vital part of this, but at the moment, too many of our residents are missing out, particularly those living in the Private Rented Sector (PRS).
The Private Rented Sector is an important part of the housing mix and across the country the number of people living in privately rented accommodation is rising – the proportion is up 69 per cent since 2001. Yet more than one third of these homes fail to meet the Decent Homes Standard.¹
Waltham Forest Council is determined to drive up the standard of rented accommodation locally by working with landlords, tenants, and communities. With Anti-Social Behaviour more prevalent in the Private Rented Sector, we also know that working within this sector will be critical to meeting our commitment to keeping residents safe. To meet these commitments the Council introduced a Private Rented Property Licensing Scheme in April 2015. This means that all privately rented properties in the borough must be licensed with the Council.
This report provides an introduction to the Licensing Scheme in Waltham Forest, and sets out our early achievements. It also explains what we believe needs to happen on a national and pan-London level to ensure that our efforts to improve rented accommodation can be even more effective.
We want to ensure that renting in Waltham Forest means access to high quality and secure housing and that everyone understands their part in delivering it. To do this we are always looking at ways to develop and enhance our work further.
¹ Shelter, Improving Private Renting, available at: http://england.shelter.org.uk/campaigns/why_we_campaign/improving_private_renting ² GLA, London Datastore, Housing Tenure of Households, Borough, 2014 CONTENTS
1. THE PRIVATE RENTED SECTOR IN WALTHAM FOREST: THE CASE FOR ACTION
2. MAKING A DIFFERENCE: PRIVATE RENTED PROPERTY LICENSING
3. THE STORY SO FAR
4. OUR ASKS TO GOVERNMENT AND THE MAYOR OF LONDON
5. THE PRIVATE RENTED SECTOR IN WALTHAM FOREST: THE CASE FOR ACTION
The Private Rented Sector is an important part of the housing on offer in Waltham Forest. 32 per cent of homes or an estimated 26,000 properties across the borough are privately rented, greater than the average of 26 per cent across London.
The cost of renting a home in Waltham Forest has increased significantly in recent years. Since 2012, the cost of renting one bedroom properties has gone up 16 per cent, two bedroom properties’ rents have increased by 19 per cent, and three bedroom properties now cost 21 per cent more to rent. Properties with four or more bedrooms have seen a 32 per cent increase in rent in the last three years.
PRICES OF PRS IN WALTHAM FOREST
As the cost of renting rises we want to ensure that the quality of privately rented accommodation on offer keeps pace. However we know from research within Waltham Forest that many properties in the PRS are not adequately managed. Compared to other tenures, privately rented properties in the borough are more likely to be over-crowded, considered ‘non-decent’, and to have Class 1 Hazards.
STATE OF THE PRS IN WALTHAM FOREST
Poor quality accommodation is unacceptable for our residents. But we also know that there is a clear link between Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB) in the borough and the Private Rented Sector, with 16 per cent of PRS properties the subject of an ASB complaint between 2011 and 2013, and areas of the Borough with greater levels of PRS accommodation seeing higher levels of Anti-Social Behaviour.
Tackling Anti-Social Behaviour is an important part of meeting the Council’s commitment to keeping our neighbourhoods clean and safe, so addressing the link with the PRS is a priority.
______________________________________________________________________
3 2011 Stock Survey. https://www.walthamforest.gov.uk/documents/2011-lbwf-final-private-sector-report.pdf 4 https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Housing%20in%20London%202015%20v2.pdf 5 Update on Housing Strategy, July 2013, https://www.walthamforest.gov.uk/Documents/landlords%20forum-update-on-housing-strategy.pdf 6 Waltham Forest, Anti-Social Behaviour and the Private Rented Housing Sector: Evidence base in Waltham Forest http://democracy.walthamforest.gov.uk/documents/s42604/Appendix%20-%20SL%20ASB%20and%20PRS%20Evidence%20Base%20with%20Maps.pdf 7 Gov.uk Private rental market statistics (England Only) Years 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2015. 8 http://democracy.walthamforest.gov.uk/documents/s42604/Appendix%20-%20SL%20ASB%20and%20PRS%20Evidence%20Base%20with%20Maps.pdf In spring 2015, Waltham Forest introduced a Private Rented Property Licensing (PRPL) Scheme, otherwise known as a Selective Licensing Scheme. The key aims of the Scheme are to:
- Ensure that landlords take responsibility for tackling Anti-Social Behaviour in their properties; and
- Ensure that all of our residents can live in decent quality housing.
The Licence which we have introduced costs £500 per property, is valid for up to 5 years, and carries with it 24 conditions\*. The conditions make the licence holder (the landlord) responsible for their tenants’ behaviour, the condition of their property, and any management arrangements. This includes:
- Dealing with Anti-Social Behaviour
- Ensuring all housing is of a decent standard
- Ensuring that all outhouses, garages and sheds are kept secured and used for their intended purpose.
Under these provisions local authorities can also apply a ‘fit and proper person’ test to landlords. This test relates to the person rather than a specific address and this means that, where significant issues are identified with a particular landlord, steps may be taken to exclude them from direct involvement in the rental market.
**PRIVATE SECTOR LICENSING CONDITIONS**
The scheme has 24 conditions setting out landlords’ responsibilities across a range of areas. These include:
**Health and Safety:** including gas and electricity safety, and fire safety
**Tenancy rights and conditions:** including the duty to provide tenants with a written statement of terms and conditions, and an inventory of the property; compliance with regulations around houses in multiple occupation, and the tenant’s responsibilities around refuse
**Property management:** Confirming that the licence holder is a ‘fit and proper person’, and requiring them to make six monthly inspections of the property
**Anti-Social Behaviour:** Setting out the landlord’s responsibility to deal with any Anti-Social Behaviour by tenants; and
**Environmental and neighbourhood management:** Requiring the landlord to maintain the exterior of the property in decent condition.
- From February 2016, the cost of the Licence will be £650 per property
9 The Full list of conditions can be seen here: http://www.walthamforest.gov.uk/pages/services/sl-selective-licensing.aspx 3. THE STORY SO FAR
Our Private Rented Property Licensing Scheme was launched in April 2015. In the nine months since, we are already seeing positive impacts, with a significant number of landlords registering for the scheme, steps taken to tackle Anti-Social Behaviour, improvements in the standard of accommodation, and an increase in our Council Tax base.
By the end of 2016 we hope to achieve the following:
- Complete 30 Actions Days
- Identification of 1,000 unlicensed properties
- Completion of 2,500 programmed inspections of properties of concern
- An increase in the number of prosecutions of rogue landlords
- A decrease in Anti-Social Behaviour in the Private Rented Sector.
SUCCESSFUL TAKE UP OF THE SCHEME
We recognise the important contribution that the PRS makes to our housing mix and the approach that has been taken so far has encouraged cooperation between the Council and the sector. We were encouraged by the large number of Early Bird applications made to the scheme, and exceeded our Early Bird target. Since the Early Bird period closed, we have received over 1,000 further applications. In total, we have now had over 17,000 applications. The take-up of the scheme within each ward is broadly in-line with our expectations about the number of PRS properties in the area.
Following this initial phase, and the launch of the scheme in April 2015, we have been working closely with landlords to support compliance with the requirements of the Licence, through:
- Ensuring landlords know about the scheme
- Confirming that they are registered with the scheme
- Working with landlords to make any improvements needed in their properties. We know that there is a link between the PRS and ASB. The level of Council recorded ASB linked to private rented properties is 16 per cent. That is ASB was recorded at 16 per cent of PRS properties in the borough between December 2011 and December 2013. We also know that this link is stronger in some wards than in others. In one ward, the percentage of PRS properties with one or more incidents of ASB was 6.6 per cent, whilst in another this figure is 22.9 per cent. The licence sets out the responsibilities of landlords to prevent Anti-Social Behaviour.
Under our scheme, the landlord is required to take all reasonable steps to prevent and deal with ASB. Steps to ensure this include:
- Clauses in contracts which make clear that tenants are responsible for any ASB by themselves and their visitors
- Responding to complaints of ASB within 14 days, and informing tenants of the complaint and any consequences of its continuation
- If requested the licence holder must provide us details of investigations undertaken in relation to their tenant’s and/or their visitors’ ASB.
By introducing the scheme the Council can act swiftly and effectively to tackle ASB.
______________________________________________________________________
10 Waltham Forest, Anti-Social Behaviour and the Private Rented Housing Sector: evidence Base in Waltham Forest http://democracy.walthamforest.gov.uk/documents/s42604/Appendix%207%20-%20SL%20ASB%20and%20PRS%20Evidence%20Base%20with%20Maps.pdf OUR APPROACH IN ACTION: CLAMPING DOWN ON ASB
Property: Block of flats in Church Hill Area
Situation: The Council identified anti-social behaviours such as fly-tipping in the communal stair-well and outside areas such as garages and the car park. We also found hazards within the property such as damaged glass in communal areas. The flats within the block are owned by multiple landlords. The freeholder of the block of flats also acts as the management committee.
Action: We worked with the local Resident Association and our local Neighbourhood Officer to identify the breaches of licence conditions which included unsecured garages, rubbish on the stair-well, fire safety hazards and hazardous windows. The Licensing Team contacted the management committee who agreed to:
- Clear the rubbish and make the communal drying room safe
- Clear the garage area of all fly tipping and rubbish and secure all garages
- Extend camera coverage to cover more of the car park area to prevent fly tipping
- Write to all tenants advising them that decent levels of cleanliness in the communal areas such as stairwells, parking and garage areas and gardens should be maintained
- Remind all tenants to put their rubbish in the provided bins, or that for larger articles such as furniture, beds, appliances they can contact the Council who will collect and remove this rubbish for free and that failure to do so would result in the management committee writing directly to the owner advising them of their tenant’s Anti-Social Behaviour
- Repair the damaged glazed window on communal staircase
- Repair and extend the property’s fence to prevent further fly-tipping.
Waltham Forest Council continued to monitor conditions at the block of flats. Eventually, we served the management company formal notices regarding the ASB occurring within the block and the various hazards which were still evident.
Result: The Council have now written to all the landlords involved informing them of our intention to issue one year licences. We have used the powers within licensing to hold the management company to account for the Anti-Social Behaviour and for the hazards within the block. We expect to see a decrease in Anti-Social Behaviour and an improvement in the standard of housing being provided. We will continue to work with the landlords and regularly check on the progress made in the block. STANDARDS ARE IMPROVING
The Private Rented Sector is, and will continue to be, an important part of the London housing mix. It often provides the right tenure for many people in London – be they students, young professionals who need to remain mobile, or those who are opting not to buy.
We also know that the PRS is often the sector of last resort. Many low income families and vulnerable people find themselves housed in private rented accommodation largely as a result of a shortage of good quality affordable homes. All tenants, especially these vulnerable tenants, need the law on their side against rogue landlords.
OUR APPROACH IN ACTION: IMPROVING STANDARDS IN PRIVATE RENTED PROPERTIES
Property: A two-storey, three bedroom ex-Council home was identified where there was an outbuilding in the back garden which was being used as a ‘Bed in a Shed’.
Situation: The property has been let out to multiple households or individuals for several years as a House of Multiple Occupancy (HMO). There were a total of ten people living at the property, including two children and two adults who were occupying the ‘Bed in Shed’ structure in the rear garden.
The owners live in Kent and have little or no interest in the up-keep of the property. There is no locally appointed managing agent and rent is paid in cash to a locally-based relative of the owners.
Action: The Council took formal action under part 1 of the Housing Act. We instructed the landlord to make improvements to the main house and to stop using the ‘Bed in Shed’ structure at the back. We also informed the landlord that they had a responsibility to comply with all the requirements of HMO properties.
Despite this, conditions in the house deteriorated further. Several small fires highlighted a serious – and dangerous – electrical defect, the central heating boiler was not working, part of the kitchen ceiling had collapsed, and the first floor bathroom and WC were unusable because of a collapsed floor.
At this point the Council stepped in. Our contractor carried out emergency works on the electrics, boiler, and floor. The cost of this will be recharged to the landlord.
Result: Soon after this case the Council introduced our Selective Licensing Scheme and the owner of this property applied for a licence. The Scheme requires us to be satisfied that the licence holder is a ‘fit and proper person’ to be in control of a rented home. In this case, and bearing in mind the history of the property, we have used the additional licensing powers available to insist that the owners appoint a managing agent to manage the address on their behalf.
The Licensing Scheme we have introduced should make it easier for us to ensure that landlords provide good quality and safe housing for their tenants. ELIMINATING UNACCEPTABLE PROPERTIES
London is facing a growing problem with so called ‘Beds in Sheds’. These are sub-standard, usually illegal, structures which are rented out as accommodation often to vulnerable people who are in desperate need of housing.
We had already been proactively seeking out ‘Beds in Sheds’ and the licensing arrangements have made it easier for us to identify these illegal practices. As this is a hidden problem, it is difficult to know how many ‘Beds in Sheds’ there are but Waltham Forest have received nearly 200 cases since August 2012. Across the country, since 2013, there have been more than 3,000 enforcement actions or prosecutions against landlords who provide this type of accommodation.11
OUR APPROACH IN ACTION: ELIMINATING DANGEROUS AND ILLEGAL STRUCTURES
Property: The Council discovered an unlicensed property on Garner Road during a day of action aimed at identifying dangerous or illegal buildings.
Situation: The structure was found at an address in Garner Road – and was one of 24 properties linked to the landlord of the main property.
Action: The Council conducted audit checks on all 24 addresses linked with the landlord. Further undeclared HMOs were found at the other properties— including two where the wrong licence had been applied for. Faced with the possibility of having all licence applications refused or approvals revoked, the landlord has since been more cooperative.
Result: The two illegal HMOs in Garner Road have been returned to single family use without the need to take formal enforcement action. The two applications that were submitted with the wrong type of licence will be refused and one year licence will be given for the remaining addresses to reflect the fact the owner is a ‘landlord of concern’. The Council will monitor compliance with licence conditions over the next 12 months and a decision will then be made as to the length of any future licence at the renewal stage.
Our licensing conditions have allowed us to get rid of the illegal ‘Beds in Sheds’ and to identify a landlord who was providing poor quality, potentially dangerous, properties to tenants.
11 https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-funding-to-crack-down-on-rogue-landlords-and-tackle-beds-in-sheds We believe that the Licensing Scheme also offers an opportunity for us to work more closely with our central government partners. In our experience, many of our rogue landlords also operate in the “grey economy” and we have already encountered situations where tenants are have not been provided with any written tenancy agreement and where all rental payments are made “cash in hand”.
We want to explore and exploit all possible legal avenues in order to impose the highest possible penalties on landlords who flout the law. With this in mind, the Council is keen to work closely and collaboratively with central government departments such as HMRC to crack down on criminal landlords. Through licensing, we are compiling a powerful database of private landlords and addresses, often multiple homes that are linked to them. We are keen to explore options for Waltham Forest to share intelligence and data with HMRC and others.
**OUR APPROACH IN ACTION: INCREASING THE COUNCIL TAX BASE**
**Property:** High Road Leytonstone
**Action:** The Licensing Team, working with colleagues in the Enforcement and Planning Team, alongside our Council Tax Team to identify two new properties where Council Tax was owed. We are now able to claim backdated Council Tax payments for the past six years of around £11,000 on the two properties.
The Licensing Team have identified another 10 properties which are under investigation for Council Tax underpayments.
**Result:** This will generate more income for the borough in the short and long term. In the first six months of the scheme we have identified an additional 160 properties and we will start the process of claiming the unpaid Council Tax on these properties.
We believe that the Licensing Scheme also offers an opportunity for us to work more closely with our central government partners. In our experience, many of our rogue landlords also operate in the “grey economy” and we have already encountered situations where tenants are have not been provided with any written tenancy agreement and where all rental payments are made “cash in hand”.
We want to explore and exploit all possible legal avenues in order to impose the highest possible penalties on landlords who flout the law. With this in mind, the Council is keen to work closely and collaboratively with central government departments such as HMRC to crack down on criminal landlords. Through licensing, we are compiling a powerful database of private landlords and addresses, often multiple homes that are linked to them. We are keen to explore options for Waltham Forest to share intelligence and data with HMRC and others. OUR ASKS TO GOVERNMENT AND THE MAYOR OF LONDON
NEXT STEPS: WHAT WE NEED TO GO FURTHER
Waltham Forest Council is ambitious about improving the quality of privately rented properties in the borough and we are using the tools available to us to do this. We know that licensing can make a real impact, however more could be achieved with the combined efforts of the government and the Mayor of London.
Together we can provide better rights and security for private sector tenants which will drive improvements in quality of housing and Anti-Social Behaviour.
NATIONAL GOVERNMENT
At a national level the government has the opportunity to help raise the standard of PRS properties and improve the experiences of both landlords and tenants across the country. We welcome many of the provisions set out in the recent Housing and Planning Bill on tackling rogue landlords, including data sharing between the Tenancy Deposit Scheme and Councils, and the introduction of a database of landlords and letting agents who have been convicted of certain criminal offences.12
But there is more that could be done to ensure that the aspiration for decent quality accommodation for everyone can be met:
PROMOTING TENANCY AGREEMENTS
We welcome the Government’s promotion of a Model Tenancy Agreement to promote secure and stable tenancies. However, the success of a voluntary scheme is not assured. Government should conduct a review of the success of the Model Tenancy Agreement in promoting better conditions for tenants after one year, and consider introducing mandatory provisions if take-up of the model agreement is low.
12 DCLG, Tackling rogue landlords and improving the private rental sector, Government’s Response, Nov 2015 APPROVING PRIVATE SECTOR LICENSING SCHEMES
Since April 2015, local authorities that want to introduce a Private Sector Licensing Scheme that covers more than 20 per cent of the area or 20 per cent of private rented homes must seek permission from the Secretary of State. This threatens to make the process unnecessarily cumbersome, and could limit the scale and therefore effectiveness of these schemes.
London has a unique housing market, and with strategic responsibility for housing in the capital, the power to approve Private Sector Licensing Schemes should be devolved to the Mayor of London.
The Mayor should also be empowered to set the criteria for establishing private sector licensing schemes, and to modify the conditions that the schemes should cover.
As a minimum, we would expect these conditions to include ensuring that properties are fit for human habitation. Current legislation permits enforcement of this only where the rental value of a London property is less than £80 annually. This is clearly inadequate.
CLOSER WORKING ON TAX AVOIDANCE AND EVASION
Our work on private sector licensing has already discovered significant Council Tax evasion. We believe that there is also the potential to discover evasion and avoidance of national taxes. We are therefore keen to ensure that the government actively promotes cooperation between HMRC and local authorities, and believe that HMRC could set out a wider approach to working with local authorities in this way.
THE MAYOR OF LONDON
The London Rental Standard, which encourages private landlords to sign up and agree to a certain quality of services, is in place however we believe that more can be done.
In 2012/13, 13 per cent of rented households in London were overcrowded and around 22 per cent of London homes do not meet the “Decent Homes” standard. Alongside this, 27,000 landlord possession orders were delivered in London in 2014/15 which allows tenants to be evicted immediately. This was twice the rate in other areas in England. Problems in the PRS, such as a lack of security and regulation, are of particular concern for people with vulnerabilities, which may present even greater challenges.
As we set out above, we believe that the power to set the conditions of licensing schemes should be devolved to the London Mayor in order to strengthen their ability to promote high standards within the Private Rented Sector across the capital.
13 https://www.london.gov.uk/priorities/housing-land/renting-home/london-rental-standard/for-tenants 14 Trust for London, London’s Poverty Profile, Housing 15 Crisis and Shelter, A Roof Over My Head: The final report of the Sustain project, 2014 However, we believe that the Mayor could also use their current powers and influence more effectively.
Ensuring that tenants know that they have redress against rogue landlords is vital to the success of licensing schemes. The Mayor should consider launching a campaign to inform tenants of their rights across Transport for London and work with local authorities to include details of their schemes.
As the GLA’s Housing and Regeneration Committee set out in its report on the Private Rented Sector, many small landlords lack access to large cash resources to make improvements that may be needed to their properties. To ensure that necessary improvements can be made, the Mayor should consider the viability of a low-cost loan fund to support private landlords to make improvements to their properties in London to raise standards.
Good progress has been made in addressing some of the key concerns for those renting in the private sector. However it is clear that more could be done and this presents a great opportunity for the Mayor of London to take action to drive up standards in the sector. MAKING SURE YOUR STREET IS CLEAN GREEN SAFE LOVED
www.walthamforest.gov.uk/mystreet
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/4753-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 16,
"total-input-tokens": 30023,
"total-output-tokens": 6536,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
128,
1
],
[
128,
1937,
2
],
[
1937,
3782,
3
],
[
3782,
3991,
4
],
[
3991,
6528,
5
],
[
6528,
8823,
6
],
[
8823,
10490,
7
],
[
10490,
11907,
8
],
[
11907,
14292,
9
],
[
14292,
17071,
10
],
[
17071,
19332,
11
],
[
19332,
21973,
12
],
[
21973,
23696,
13
],
[
23696,
26375,
14
],
[
26375,
27478,
15
],
[
27478,
27562,
16
]
]
} |
04cacb87addcfd68bc2baf72de825b533aa564bc | What to do if your public body is being privatised
© Crown copyright 2011
You may re-use this information (excluding logos) free of charge in any format or medium, under the terms of the Open Government Licence. To view this licence, visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence or email [email protected].
Where we have identified any third-party copyright information, you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned.
This publication is available for download at nationalarchives.gov.uk. Contents
1 Introduction..................................................................................................................3 1.1 What is the purpose of this guidance?.................................................................3 1.2 Whom is this guidance for?..................................................................................4
2 What do to if your public body is being privatised.................................................4 2.1 The joint information transition team.................................................................5 2.2 Action plan ...........................................................................................................6 2.3 The information survey .......................................................................................13 2.4 Reviewing your records to assess value ............................................................14 2.4.1 Records for permanent preservation .........................................................14 2.4.2 Records with ongoing business value .......................................................15 2.4.3 Ephemeral records .....................................................................................16 2.5 Assigning ownership of records .........................................................................17 2.6 Preserving publicly available material ...............................................................18 2.6.1 Websites ......................................................................................................18 2.6.2 Datasets ......................................................................................................18 2.6.3 Maintaining usability through and after transfer .......................................19 2.7 Post-privatisation .................................................................................................20
3 Further reading .........................................................................................................20 3.1 Public Record Bodies ..........................................................................................20 3.2 Conducting an information survey ......................................................................20 3.3 Copyright ............................................................................................................20 3.4 Transferring digital records ................................................................................21 1 Introduction
The National Archives is the central advisory body on the care of records and archives, in all media, from creation to long-term preservation. We provide advice to government departments and the wider public sector on the management of digital and paper records, and their selection and transfer to The National Archives.
This guidance forms part of a suite of guidance that The National Archives is delivering to support information management across government and the public sector.
1.1 What is the purpose of this guidance?
This guidance provides a plan for the actions you must take to manage information if your public body is being privatised. It will help you to understand your obligations for the long term preservation of your Public Records and also to make sure that your successor organisation has access to the information it needs to function.
This guidance complements Machinery of Government Changes: Guidance on Transfer of Records, Information and Knowledge(^1). This guidance gives more detailed guidance on how to transfer information, whether you are transferring to The National Archives, your parent government department, another department or agency, or to a private body. Guidance on other key implementation challenges is available from the Cabinet Office and from The National Archives.
(^1) nationalarchives.gov.uk/documents/information-management/machinery_of_government.pdf 1.2 Whom is this guidance for?
This guidance is primarily aimed at Departmental Records Officers(^2) (DROs) or the equivalent role in your organisation. It may also be useful for Heads of Knowledge and Information Management, Senior Information Risk Owners, change or project managers, that is, anyone within your organisation responsible for managing information risk, or managing change.
2 What do to if your public body is being privatised
If your public body is being privatised, your information needs to be properly disposed of or transferred to another organisation (either your parent department, or a successor body). You need to build this into your planning at the earliest stages. If you are the Departmental Records Officer (DRO) for the public body being privatised, get in touch with your parent department’s DRO and The National Archives(^3) as soon as you can, to discuss the future management of, and access to, your records.
Department or agency records created prior to privatisation will remain public records after privatisation.
They must be safeguarded according to obligations laid down by the Public Records Act, the Freedom of Information Act, and any other relevant
(^2) A departmental records officer (DRO) is responsible for looking after an organisation’s records and information
(^3) Please email: [email protected] legislation or codes of practice. Make sure that your successor body is aware of these requirements. Get specialist advice on the management of records held by approved Places of Deposit from The National Archives as soon as you are aware of proposals for privatisation.
You must discuss ownership and access rights with your parent department and consult your parent department’s legal and legislative teams as soon as possible to finalise ownership, copyright and intellectual property requirements. See 2.5 for further information.
When a function or body is privatised, loss of staff and expertise will be extensive and sudden. It is vital to take early decisions on the disposal of records and the sensitivity of selected records while the expertise is still available.
2.1 The joint information transition team
The first action you need to take is to establish a joint information transition team including officials from the public body, the parent department and the successor organisation (if possible) and include expertise from information management, information technology, information assurance and change management. This will help you to ensure that information is protected and usable after transition. Your joint information transition team is responsible for information management before, during and after the transition programme.
______________________________________________________________________
4 nationalarchives.gov.uk/information-management/legislation/public-records-system.htm
## 2.2 Action plan
| Action | Responsibility | Evidence of completion | |-----------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Set up a Joint Information Transition Team | • Heads of KIM, Departmental Records Officers (DROs) in parent department, public body and successor body | • Team established<br>• Terms of reference documented and agreed<br>• Parent department commits to team remaining in place after privatisation, until all actions are completed and responsibility transferred to the parent department’s DRO | | • Include expertise from a range of disciplines | | | | • Include people from the public body | | | | • Include people from the parent department | | | | • Include people from your successor body (if possible) | | | | Get in touch as soon as you hear you may be being privatised | • DRO in public body, or Head of Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) | • Contact made | | • Contact The National Archives | | | | • Contact the Departmental Records Officer (DRO) of your parent department | | |
### Carry out a comprehensive information survey
- Document your records, their business and operational use and the technology that supports them; legal requirements and intellectual property rights for each record. Perform a sensitivity review. (2.3)
- Share the results with the DRO of your parent department
| DRO for public body with guidance from DRO of parent department | | Information survey documented | | Major record series identified prior to privatisation | | Public record status agreed |
### Categorise your records
Each record must be categorised:
- Does it have historical value, requiring permanent preservation?
- Is it required by the successor body?
- Is it required by the parent department?
- Is it ephemeral (with no historical or business value)?
The answer may be no to all, yes to all, or a mixture of the two. (2.4)
When categorising your records, think about legal requirements, intellectual property rights and operational requirements.
| DRO for public body and The National Archives | | Records categorised and documented on information survey |
### Decide on the action(s) required for each record:
1. **Transfer to parent department for permanent preservation as a public record**
2. **Transfer to parent department for ongoing business use**
3. **Successor body to agree access rights/loan arrangements**
4. **Dispose of record**
| Action | Details | |--------|---------| | 1) **Transfer records to parent department for permanent preservation** | - Records with permanent value transferred to the parent department prior to privatisation
- Transition team is responsible for ensuring transferred records are still usable as required
- Agree ownership, legal requirements and intellectual property rights with the parent department | | 2) **DRO for public body, The National Archives** |
- DRO in public body transfers documents to parent department
- DRO of parent department | | 3) **Actions recorded on information survey** |
- Ownership of records agreed prior to privatisation. IAO assigned
- Public record status agreed |
______________________________________________________________________
Last updated April 2011 | The National Archives | |-----------------------| | **2) Transfer records to parent department for ongoing business use** | | - Clarify copyright and database right status of the new body | | - Assign non Crown Copyright to successor body or the Controller of HM Stationery Office at The National Archives | | - DRO of public body, in consultation with your legal and legislative teams | | - Copyright and database rights assigned and documented | | - If successor body requires access to the record agree access rights or loan arrangements with the parent department prior to privatisation | | - Successor body agrees access/loan rights with DRO in parent department consulting The National Archives where appropriate | | - Documented loan agreement | | - Agree ownership, legal requirements and intellectual property rights of transferred records with the parent department | | - DRO of public body and DRO of parent department, and legal and legislative teams in parent department | | - Ownership of records agreed prior to privatisation | | 3) Transfer records to successor organisation for ongoing business use | • Transfer to the successor body via statutory instrument, transitional agreement, Memorandum of Understanding or similar | • DRO of public body reviews records | • Agreement between parent department and successor body on management, transfer, ownership and access to records – prior to privatisation | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | | • DRO in parent department and successor body agree transfer processes (statutory instrument, or other agreed mechanism) | | • Records are transferred in a way that ensures that they are still usable as required | | | • Transfer records to parent department | • DRO in public body transfers them to parent department (with a copy to successor body if agreed) | • Records are transferred in a way that ensures that they are still usable as required | | | • Agree with your parent department if your successor body can have a copy of the records for ongoing business use | • Successor body agrees access/loan rights with DRO in parent department | • Access/loan arrangements agreed prior to privatisation | | 4) Delete unrequired records | • Dispose of ephemeral records appropriately and securely | • DRO in public body | • Records disposed of appropriately prior to privatisation | |-----------------------------|-------------------------------------------------|-----------------|--------------------------------------------------| | • Agree who has the authority to retrieve and provide access to records once they are transferred to The National Archives, including who assists in FOI enquiries | • DRO in parent department agrees access with The National Archives | • Parent department DRO and The National Archives agree access to closed records prior to privatisation |
**Preserve publicly available material**
- Ensure websites are captured into the UK Government’s web archive
- DRO in public body informs The National Archives' web archiving team of need to capture website no later than six weeks prior to privatisation
- NB: any web content added after this date will not be archived
- Website captured into UK Government Archive
- Archive datasets as part of your website capture, or transfer them to your parent department. Investigate any planned updates to datasets
- If they are yet to be published, ensure they are posted to your website before the date of the final website capture
- Document the technical dependencies; make arrangements for transfer of technology, licences and documentation if needed. Collect and transfer information on how the data was captured, processed and arranged
- Identify documents made available for public inspection, agree if they are still required, and make them available through appropriate sources
- Agree selection and disposal of unpublished reports
| The National Archives | |-----------------------| | Archive datasets as part of your website capture, or transfer them to your parent department. Investigate any planned updates to datasets. If they are yet to be published, ensure they are posted to your website before the date of the final website capture. Document the technical dependencies; make arrangements for transfer of technology, licences and documentation if needed. Collect and transfer information on how the data was captured, processed and arranged. Identify documents made available for public inspection, agree if they are still required, and make them available through appropriate sources. Agree selection and disposal of unpublished reports. | | DRO in public body informs The National Archives' web archiving team of need to capture dataset(s) no later than six weeks prior to privatisation. DRO in public body transfers unpublished datasets. | | Datasets captured as part of the website capture. Unpublished datasets transferred to your parent department prior to privatisation. | | DROs in public body and parent department agree documents required after privatisation. | | Documents previously made available for public inspection available through appropriate sources after privatisation. | | DRO in public body and The National Archives agree selection and disposal of unpublished reports. | | Reports disposed of, or transferred to The National Archives or your parent department, as agreed, prior to privatisation. | 2.3 The information survey
Your comprehensive information survey should include the information creator, the current owner, the format, and how the information needs to be used. By ‘used’ we mean how to find, open, work with, understand and trust your information. For digital information this must include the main software formats and an inventory of all IT hardware and software used for managing and disseminating information (including servers, hard drives, laptops, data sticks, databases, internet/intranet and information held by other organisations).
The information survey should cover:
- documentation and records
- email and communication logs
- database and/or file lists
- organisation charts
- contracts with external storage [paper/electronic] organisations
- previous information surveys/inventories
The survey should cover all the areas information could be stored in and information in all media – both physical filing locations and digital ones. Take particular care with personal filing systems, which may contain both original records and ‘working copies’. These must be evaluated by the individual members of staff alongside information management teams and re-integrated into the main information repositories or disposed where appropriate.
You may have existing surveys or inventories that you can build upon, such as an information asset register or a configuration management database. The National Archives
(CMDB). The National Archives has produced a range of guidance that can help you to document your information and IT assets(^5).
You must review the sensitivity of records of historical value \\textit{before} your public body is privatised. This means you must identify information that may be exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act and the Environmental Information Regulations (EIR). You must note categories of records with particular storage and handling requirements, for example, sensitive personal data or protectively marked material. Further guidance on reviewing records for sensitivity is available from the Ministry of Justice and the Information Commissioner’s Office.(^6)
\\section\*{2.4 Reviewing your records to assess value}
Every record must be assessed for potential historical value and ongoing business value.
\\subsection\*{2.4.1 Records for permanent preservation}
- Identify records of historical value that clearly merit permanent preservation. These will eventually need to be transferred to The National Archives or an approved Place of Deposit.(^7) Consult The National Archives on the method of selection and review.
- Carry out an accelerated second review on these records and transfer them to your parent department who will safeguard them until they are sent to The National Archives as part of a planned transfer.
(^5) Guidance is available at nationalarchives.gov.uk/information-management/our-services/digital-continuity.htm
(^6) www.justice.gov.uk/guidance/foi-exemptions-guidance.htm www.ico.gov.uk/tools_and_resources/document_library/freedom_of_information.aspx
(^7) There is a general statutory duty “to make arrangements for the selection of those records which ought to be permanently preserved and for their safe-keeping”. This is to be done under National Archives’ supervision. Section 3(1) and (2) of the Public Records Act 1958 Your parent department will need to identify officials who are authorised to retrieve and provide access to any selected records when they are eventually transferred to The National Archives. This will include officials responsible for assisting in FOI enquiries.
If the successor body want access to records of permanent value that are being transferred to the parent department, they have to requisition them. Ideally the access and loan rights should be agreed with the parent department prior to privatisation.
In most cases the successor body should be given a copy of the record. If this is not possible due to size or cost limitations a formal loan agreement for the original records should be agreed. The agreement should outline access restrictions and should stipulate that requisitioned originals are not damaged in any way, that nothing is added or removed, and that the records are returned as soon as they are finished with, and not later than one year after requisition.
If the record has been subsequently transferred from the parent department to The National Archives or another Place of Deposit, the request must still go via the parent department.
Access to records of permanent value is something that you may need to discuss on a case-by-case basis with your parent department, the successor body and The National Archives.
2.4.2 Records with ongoing business value
Records with ongoing business value may be required by your parent department or by the successor organisation (or both).
If both the parent department and the successor body want the records: transfer them to your parent department. Make arrangements for transfer of technology, licences and documentation if needed. The successor body will need to agree access and loan rights with your parent department, and in some cases they may be given a copy of the record. This is something you should discuss on a case-by-case basis with your parent department, the successor body and The National Archives.
If you do not yet know who your successor body is, you should flag to your parent department that they will need to agree access or loan rights with the successor body once they come into existence.
**If the successor body wants access to open public records that have already been transferred for permanent preservation:** they can requisition copies from The National Archives or other Place of Deposit. If copies are not available due to size or cost limitations, the relevant bodies must sign a formal loan agreement. See 2.4.1. If the successor body wants access to closed public records, they must discuss this with the parent department.
**If just the successor body wants the records:** you should agree this with your parent department and The National Archives, and transfer records via statutory instrument (or similar, for example a Memorandum of Understanding). You can find more information about transferring records in this way in our guidance: Machinery of Government Changes: Guidance on Transfer of Records, Information and Knowledge.
### 2.4.3 Ephemeral records
Records not deemed worthy of permanent preservation, and not required by government or the successor body, should be securely disposed of according to approved retention policies.
______________________________________________________________________
8 [nationalarchives.gov.uk/documents/machinery_of_government.pdf](http://nationalarchives.gov.uk/documents/machinery_of_government.pdf) 2.5 Assigning ownership of records
Discuss ownership of records with your parent department’s legal and legislative teams as soon as you can, and finalise ownership before your public body is privatised. Then assign copyright. Information and databases produced by Crown bodies are subject to Crown Copyright and Crown Database protection which is centrally managed by the Controller of HM Stationery Office.
The copyright in records and databases created by non-Crown bodies can be assigned to your successor body or to the Controller of HM Stationery Office, who will then allow the material to be made available for re-use. You should agree this with your parent body and The National Archives prior to privatisation.
If you’re not sure whether you are a Crown body or a non-Crown body, please refer to Information Policy team at The National Archives. Crown bodies include central government departments, NDPBs and Executive Agencies.
Before you are privatised, you must agree the status of your records with your parent body, and ensure your successor body is aware of this. This means
9 Copyright and related rights nationalarchives.gov.uk/documents/information-management/copyright-related-rights.pdf
10 Information and databases produced by Crown bodies are subject to Crown copyright protection under s163 Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 or [for databases] under s14 (3) of the Copyright and Rights in Databases Regulations 1997. Crown copyright and database right are managed centrally by the Controller of HM Stationery Office [an official within The National Archives], who is also responsible for the Re-use of Public Sector Information Regulations 2005. agreeing and documenting what remain public records after transfer. Note that any records owned by your parent body are automatically public records.
2.6 Preserving publicly available material
Before your body is privatised, consider archiving/capturing websites, datasets, information made available for public inspection, and published/unpublished reports.
2.6.1 Websites
All central government websites (including those of arms'-length bodies) are routinely captured and archived by The National Archives. Your information survey should include websites and you should determine whether you need any supplementary web archiving. If so, discuss at the earliest opportunity with the National Archives Web Archiving team. For more information on website archiving and managing website content see web guidelines TG105 and TG125, produced by the Central Office of Information (COI)(^\\text{11}).
2.6.2 Datasets
According to the government’s transparency agenda, all datasets not containing sensitive data should be published on the organisation’s website, in a format that will enable them to be captured into the UK Government’s web archive. Before privatisation, as part of the information survey, datasets should be reviewed and published wherever possible. Datasets that are too sensitive to publish, but which have been selected for permanent preservation, should be transferred to your parent department in a usable format—along with any supporting information (see the chart on page 7 for more detail). Your parent department should maintain the dataset until the
(^{11}) [coi.gov.uk/guidance.php?page=239](http://coi.gov.uk/guidance.php?page=239), [coi.gov.uk/guidance.php?page=265](http://coi.gov.uk/guidance.php?page=265) sensitivity falls away. You must transfer data according to the recommendations in Data Handling Procedures in Government Final Report.(^\\text{12})
### 2.6.3 Maintaining usability through and after transfer
It is vital that the usability of the records is not lost during transfer to the parent body or to the successor organisation. You must maintain the continuity of your information so that you do not lose the ability to find, access, work with, understand and trust the information in the way that you need. For paper records this may mean maintaining filing structures, listing files, or updating catalogues.
For digital records maintaining the continuity of the information may mean transferring or replicating entire technology support systems – it is not enough to transfer the digital files themselves if the recipient does not have the software or hardware to open the files. This is something you need to discuss and agree with your parent department at the earliest opportunity.
These issues must be covered by the information survey and you should consult Information Asset Owners, Knowledge and Information Managers, Information Assurance Managers, change managers and IT service providers (both in-house and external) to agree how records need to be used after transfer, and take the actions required to maintain that use.
The National Archives has a Digital Continuity Service that anyone in the public sector can use to help manage your digital information through changes.(^\\text{13}) This includes guidance, technical tools and services, risk assessment, and a free file profiling tool called DROID.
(^{12}) [www.cesg.gov.uk/products_services/iatp/documents/data_handling_review.pdf](http://www.cesg.gov.uk/products_services/iatp/documents/data_handling_review.pdf)
(^{13}) The Digital Continuity Service is available from [nationalarchives.gov.uk/information-management/our-services/digital-continuity.htm](http://nationalarchives.gov.uk/information-management/our-services/digital-continuity.htm) 2.7 Post-privatisation Records created after the date of privatisation are not public records.
3 Further reading
3.1 Public Record Bodies
- More information on the Public Records Act, Public Record Bodies and selection processes
- Public Bodies Reforms – checklist for departments: available from the Cabinet Office.
- Machinery of Government changes - guidance on transfer of records, information and knowledge
3.2 Conducting an information survey
- Identify Information Assets and Business Requirements
- Mapping the Technical Dependencies of Information Assets
- Conducting a sensitivity review: www.justice.gov.uk/guidance/foi-exemptions-guidance.htm www.ico.gov.uk/tools_and_resources/document_library/freedom_of_information.aspx
3.3 Copyright
- Copyright and related rights 3.4 Transferring digital records
- A wide range of digital continuity guidance
- Migrating Information between EDRMS
- Digital Continuity for Change Managers
- Data handling review – transferring datasets
- Web archiving and managing website content, web guidelines TG105 and TG125:
- coi.gov.uk/guidance.php?page=239
- coi.gov.uk/guidance.php?page=265
- Exporting and Transferring Electronic Data
- Interpretation of the metadata standard – the record management application profile of the e-GMS
If you need any further advice or assistance, please contact the Information Management team at The National Archives:
[email protected]
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/4754-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 21,
"total-input-tokens": 42660,
"total-output-tokens": 6499,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
546,
1
],
[
546,
3107,
2
],
[
3107,
4539,
3
],
[
4539,
5931,
4
],
[
5931,
7380,
5
],
[
7380,
10016,
6
],
[
10016,
11103,
7
],
[
11103,
12132,
8
],
[
12132,
13177,
9
],
[
13177,
14291,
10
],
[
14291,
15332,
11
],
[
15332,
17502,
12
],
[
17502,
18920,
13
],
[
18920,
20856,
14
],
[
20856,
22519,
15
],
[
22519,
24262,
16
],
[
24262,
25944,
17
],
[
25944,
27685,
18
],
[
27685,
29720,
19
],
[
29720,
30509,
20
],
[
30509,
31178,
21
]
]
} |
2a6cadf95d41a700cd404094a7c14a7333c99e7c | To holders of GB station licences and passenger SNRPs
Dear licence and SNRP holder,
Rail passengers’ rights and obligations regulation (PRO): Notice of changes to station licences and passenger SNRPs
We wrote to you on 11 June 2010 explaining the changes we were proposing to make to your station licence (issued under the Railways Act 1993 (the Act)) and/or your passenger train statement of national regulatory provisions (SNRP) issued under the Railway (Licensing of Railway Undertakings) Regulations 2005.
We are now issuing this notice to make those changes. The changes take effect immediately.
The changes and who they affect are set out in schedules 1 to 4 of this notice:
- Schedule 1 covers changes to station licences;
- Schedule 2 covers changes to GB passenger SNRPs held by charter operators;
- Schedule 3 covers changes to all other GB passenger SNRPs (apart from Eurostar’s); and
- Schedule 4 covers changes to Eurostar’s passenger SNRP and its station licence.
We are making these changes under powers given to us on 25 June 2010(^1) to ensure compliance with the PRO(^2). Although we could make these changes without your consent, we wanted to hear your views first.
I would like to thank all those who responded to our consultation. We received several helpful comments asking for clarification on particular points and about how we will enforce
(^1) In regulations 14(2) and 15(2), as appropriate, of The Rail Passengers’ Rights and Obligations Regulations 2010 SI 2010/1504 (the UK PRO Regulations).
(^2) EC Regulation number 1371/2007. the new obligations. As a result of these we have made one change to our proposals in respect of condition 3.
**PRO regulation**
DBS questioned why we referred back to the EU legislation rather than the UK transposition instrument in the definition of PRO Regulation. This is because the PRO Regulation is directly applicable in all member states and does not require any national implementing measures before taking effect in UK law. The statutory instruments relate to specific articles that require decisions by the individual member states.
**Enforcement policy**
Network Rail asked how we would use our powers to enforce the PRO. As these are now licence obligations, we will follow our economic enforcement policy and penalties statement(^3), concentrating on serious and systemic failures. The process in place envisages that most complaints will be directed to Passenger Focus or London TravelWatch in the first instance and that they will draw our attention to any serious or systemic non-compliance. However, we may also investigate complaints made directly to us; indeed, we must do so if there is a specific complaint about a potential licence breach.
**Condition 3 - through ticketing and network benefits**
Several people commented on the proposal to include a new paragraph 3 in condition 3 that followed closely article 29 of the PRO. This would have required operators to inform passengers of their rights and obligations under the PRO. ATOC questioned whether this should be included as it thought it went further than is required and could incur extra costs. Others questioned how we expected operators to make the information available and whether they would have to cover extra costs producing leaflets.
We have reconsidered this idea. The proposed obligation will be superfluous when work to update the National Conditions of Carriage (NCoC) to reflect the PRO is complete. Therefore, we will not include it. We think it is important passengers can understand their rights and obligations when buying a ticket, so we encourage the industry to quickly finalise changes to the NCoC to avoid confusion.
(^3) ORR’s Economic enforcement policy and penalties statement, April 2009, can be found at [http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/upload/pdf/395.pdf](http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/upload/pdf/395.pdf) Charter operators
DBS questioned whether charter operators should be obliged in condition 3 to comply with article 9 of the PRO. This requires railway undertakings and ticket vendors to offer, where available, tickets, through tickets and reservations. We consider that they are obliged to do so because charter operators are not exempt and article 9 applies to railway undertakings and ticket vendors equally. However, we note DBS’s comment that charter operators normally work at arm’s length from passengers, with tickets sold through an intermediary. In such situations, we would normally expect to focus our attention on the party responsible for selling the tickets. We will be contacting ticket vendors later to check they understand their obligations.
DBS questioned how we would enforce compliance with article 9, relating to through ticketing, given charter services do not normally offer through ticketing. Article 9 only applies where through tickets are available, so we would not expect to take any action in such circumstances.
Condition 5 - dependent persons
Arriva Trains noted that ORR will have to ensure compatibility between this provision and the Secretary of State’s code of practice. We agree, and we have discussed the need to update the code of practice to reflect PRO requirements with the Department of Transport. However, it is important to note when revising disabled people’s protection policies that the PRO obligations have been in force since 4 December 2009 so if there is a conflict between them, the PRO requirements must take precedence.
I am placing a copy of this letter on our website and on our public register for all affected licence and SNRP holders. We will also update all relevant licences and SNRPs on our website.
Yours sincerely
John Larkinson
### Schedule 1: Station licences
The station licences subject to this schedule 1, with date of issue and reference numbers, are:
| Station licence holder | Date and number | Station licence holder | Date and number | |------------------------|-----------------|------------------------|-----------------| | Arriva Trains Wales Ltd | 3 Dec 03 UK0320030016 | London and South Eastern Railway Ltd | 28 Mar 06 UK0320060005 | | c2c Rail Ltd | 14 Dec 94 UK0319940007 | London Eastern Railway Ltd (National Express East Anglia) | 26 Mar 04 UK0320040006 | | Chiltern Railway Company Ltd DB Regio Tyne and Wear Ltd | 30 Apr 95 UK0319950015 24 Mar 10 UK0320100002 | London Overground Rail Operations Ltd Merseyrail Electrics 2002 Ltd | 7 Nov 07 UK0320070026 17 Jul 03 UK0320030013 | | East Coast Main Line Company Ltd | 26 Oct 09 UK0320090004 | Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd | 31 Mar 94 UK0319940004 | | East Midlands Trains Ltd | 6 Nov 07 UK0320070019 | Northern Rail Ltd | 26 Nov 04 UK0320040016 | | First Capital Connect Ltd | 29 Mar 06 UK0320060008 | Rail for London Ltd | 25 Oct 07 UK0320070017 | | First Greater Western Ltd | 28 Mar 06 UK0320060002 | Southern Railway Ltd | 11 Sep 09 UK03200901(02) | | First ScotRail Ltd First/Keolis Transpennine Ltd | 11 Oct 04 UK0320040012 28 Jan 04 UK0320040002 | Stagecoach South Western Trains Ltd Tyne & Wear Passenger Transport Executive | 26 Jan 07 UK0320070004 26 Mar 02 UK0320020003 | | Glasgow Prestwick International Airport Ltd | 2 Sep 94 UK0319940006 | Wensleydale Railway PLC | 23 Apr 03 UK0320030008 | | London and Birmingham Railway Ltd | 7 Nov 07 UK0320070023 | West Coast Trains Ltd (Virgin Trains) | 28 Apr 95 UK031995 0013 | | London Underground Limited | 31 March 1994 UK0320040009 | | | Modifications
The modifications for each station licence listed in this schedule 1 are:
A. Interpretation
Insert between the definitions of LTUC and the RPC: “the PRO Regulation” means Regulation (EC) No. 1371/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on rail passengers' rights and obligations.
B. Condition 5
Insert after 'section 71B of the Act' at 5(2): and to article 19(1) of the PRO Regulation
C. Condition 7
Insert after ‘Part I of the Act’ in paragraph 1: including the handling of complaints made about an alleged infringement of the PRO Regulation Schedule 2: Charter train operators' passenger SNRPs
The statements of national regulatory provisions (SNRPs) subject to this schedule 2, with date of issue and reference numbers, are:
| SNRP holder | Date and number | |------------------------------------|--------------------------| | Direct Rail Services Ltd | 28 Nov 2005 UK02 2005 0024 | | GB Railfreight Ltd | 23 Jun 2009 UK02 2009 0001 | | Rail Express Systems Ltd | 28 Nov 2005 UK02 2005 0071 | | West Coast Railway Company Ltd | 28 Nov 2005 UK02 2005 0079 | **Modifications**
The modifications for each SNRP listed in this schedule 2 are:
**A. Table of contents**
Insert: Condition 3: Passenger rights
**B. Interpretation**
Insert between the definitions of LTUC and the RPC: "the PRO Regulation" means Regulation (EC) No. 1371/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on rail passengers' rights and obligations.
**C. Condition 3**
Insert new condition and title Condition 3: Passenger rights
Insert new paragraph 1: 1. Not used.
Insert new paragraph 2: 2. The SNRP holder shall comply with article 9 of the PRO Regulation.
**D. Condition 5**
Insert after ‘section 71B of the Act’ at 5(2): and to articles 19 and 20(1) of the PRO Regulation
**E. Condition 7**
Insert after ‘Part I of the Act’ at paragraph 1: including the handling of complaints made about an alleged infringement of the PRO Regulation Schedule 3: Passenger SNRPs
The statements of national regulatory provisions (SNRPs) subject to this schedule 3, with date of issue and reference numbers, are:
| SNRP holder | Date and number | SNRP holder | Date and number | |-------------------------------------------------|-----------------------|-------------------------------------------------|-----------------------| | Arriva Trains Wales Ltd | 28 Nov 05 UK02 2005 0011 | London Eastern Railway Ltd | 28 Nov 05 UK02 2005 0057 | | Broadway Rail Ltd | 20 Sep 06 UK02 2006 0007 | London Overground Rail Operations Ltd | 7 Nov 2007 UK02 2007 0012 | | C2C Rail Ltd | 28 Nov 05 UK02 2005 0015 | Northern Rail Ltd | 28 Nov 05 UK02 2005 0067 | | Chiltern Railway Company Ltd | 28 Nov 05 UK02 2005 0019 | OQS Rail Ltd | 20 Sep 06 UK02 2006 0010 | | East Coast Main Line Company Ltd | 20 Sep 06 UK02 2006 0006 | Orchard Rail Ltd | 20 Sep 06 UK02 2006 0011 | | East Midlands Trains Ltd | 6 Nov 2007 UK02 2007 0009 | Rail for London Ltd | 25 Oct 2007 UK02 2007 0008 | | First Capital Connect Ltd | 29 Mar 06 UK02 2006 0004 | SOLR1 Ltd | 10 Oct 2007 UK02 2007 0006 | | First Greater Western Ltd | 28 Mar 06 UK02 2006 0002 | SOLR2 Ltd | 10 Oct 2007 UK02 2007 0007 | | First ScotRail Ltd | 28 Nov 05 UK02 2005 0035 | South Eastern Trains Ltd | 28 Nov 05 UK02 2005 0077 | | First/Keolis Transpennine Ltd | 28 Nov 05 UK02 2005 0039 | Southern Railway Ltd | 11 Sep 09 UK02 2009 0002 | | Golding’s Rail Ltd | 20 Sep 06 UK02 2006 0008 | Stagecoach South Western Trains Ltd | 26 Jan 07 UK02 2007 0001 | | Grand Central Railway Company Ltd | 4 Jun 07 UK02 2007 0003 | Strutton Rail Ltd | 20 Sep 06 UK02 2006 0012 | | Hay’s Rail Ltd | 20 Sep 06 UK02 2006 0009 | West Coast Trains Ltd | 28 Nov 05 UK02 2005 0083 | | Hull Trains Ltd | 28 Nov 05 UK02 2005 0055 | Westminster Rail Ltd | 20 Sep 06 UK02 2006 0013 | | London and Birmingham Railway Ltd | 7 Nov 2007 UK02 2007 0011 | Wrexham Shropshire and Marylebone Railway Company Ltd | 19 Mar 2008 UK02 2008 0001 | | London and South Eastern Railway Ltd | 28 Mar 06 UK02 2006 0003 | XC Trains Ltd | 7 Nov 2007 UK02 2007 0010 | **Modifications**
The modifications for each SNRP listed in this schedule 3 are:
**A. Table of contents**
Between ‘Condition 3:' and ‘Through Tickets', insert: Passenger rights,
**B. Interpretation**
Insert between the definitions of LTUC and the RPC: "the PRO Regulation” means Regulation (EC) No. 1371/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on rail passengers’ rights and obligations.
**C. Condition 3**
Insert after ‘Condition 3:': Passenger rights,
Insert after ‘tickets’ at the end of condition 3(1)(d): and the PRO Regulation
Insert after ‘as shall have been approved by the Secretary of State’: or are required to ensure arrangements reflect the provisions of the PRO Regulation listed in paragraph 2
Insert new paragraph 2: 2. The SNRP holder shall comply with article 9 of the PRO Regulation.
**D. Condition 5**
Insert after ‘section 71B of the Act' at 5(2): and to articles 19 and 20(1) of the PRO Regulation
**E. Condition 7**
Insert after ‘Part I of the Act' at paragraph 1: including the handling of complaints made about an alleged infringement of the PRO Regulation Schedule 4: Eurostar
The statement of national regulatory provisions (SNRPs) and station licence subject to this schedule 4, with date of issue and reference numbers, are:
| SNRP holder | Date and number | Station licence holder | Date and number | |------------------------------|-----------------------|------------------------|-----------------------| | Eurostar International Limited | 28 Nov 2005 UK0220050027 | Eurostar International Limited | 31 March 1994 UK0319940001 |
The modifications to the SNRP listed in this schedule 4 are:
A. Table of contents
Insert: Condition 3: Passenger rights
B. Interpretation
Insert between the definitions of LTUC and the RPC: "the PRO Regulation" means Regulation (EC) No. 1371/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on rail passengers’ rights and obligations.
C. Condition 3.
Insert new condition and title: Condition 3: Passenger rights
Insert new paragraph 1: 1. Not used.
Insert new paragraph 2: 2. The SNRP holder shall comply with articles 4-10, 15-18 and 28-29 of the PRO Regulation.
D. Condition 5
Insert after ‘section 71B of the Act’ at 5(2): and to articles 19 to 24 of the PRO Regulation
E. Condition 6
Insert after ‘customers and potential customers’ in paragraph 1: and shall comply with article 27 of the PRO Regulation
F. Condition 7
Insert after ‘Part I of the Act’ in paragraph 1: including the handling of complaints made about an alleged infringement of the PRO Regulation The modifications to the station licence listed in this schedule 4 are:
A. Table of contents
Insert as appropriate: Condition 3: Passenger rights
B. Interpretation
Insert between the definitions of LTUC and the RPC: “the PRO Regulation” means Regulation (EC) No. 1371/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on rail passengers’ rights and obligations.
C. Condition 3
Insert new condition and title Condition 3: Passenger rights
Insert new paragraph 1: 1. Not used.
Insert new paragraph 2: 2. The SNRP holder shall comply with articles 18 and 29 of the PRO Regulation.
D. Condition 5
Insert after ‘section 71B of the Act’ at 5(2): and to articles 19(1), 21, 22 and 24 of the PRO Regulation
E. Condition 7
Insert after ‘the Channel Tunnel Act 1987’ in paragraph 1: including the handling of complaints made about an alleged infringement of the PRO Regulation
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/4755-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 11,
"total-input-tokens": 20529,
"total-output-tokens": 4941,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
1576,
1
],
[
1576,
3897,
2
],
[
3897,
5699,
3
],
[
5699,
7444,
4
],
[
7444,
8038,
5
],
[
8038,
8629,
6
],
[
8629,
9516,
7
],
[
9516,
12493,
8
],
[
12493,
13619,
9
],
[
13619,
15132,
10
],
[
15132,
16030,
11
]
]
} |
9b7c81a16d083e407d08552c6fc61a08e55318b7 | Proactive engagement – Multi-agency Travellers Unit in Leicestershire
Background
Leicestershire County Council has led on the establishment of a multi-agency unit to act as a ‘one-stop shop’ for all Traveller-related issues, including complaints, access to services, advice and training.
The unit became operational on 9 July 2009 and comprises specialist staff from the county council, city council, NHS and Leicestershire Constabulary. It is responsible for site management of the current local authority sites in the area and is also working closely with all partners towards a long-term solution to the issues facing the local Traveller population and the settled community.
Summary
Traditionally, the role of Gypsy and Traveller liaison officer has been an isolated role, mostly hosted by county councils and generally, expected to be a ‘Jack of all trades’. This was the case in Leicestershire with both the county council and Leicester City Council employing two Gypsy and Traveller liaison officers, as well as site managers, and the district authorities tagging the responsibility onto other roles (often environmental health officers). The responsibilities for issues were passed from one person to the next without any consistency of service for both the Gypsy and Traveller population or other members of the public. By drawing up an agency agreement between all the local authorities and other services, such as the police, Travelling Families Health Service, Housing-related Support and the Traveller Education Service we have been able to coordinate a consistent approach to delivering services across the whole of the county, including Leicester city.
Pooling staff has enabled individuals to specialise particular areas of work such as site management, planning, enforcement and community engagement improving the level of service given and saving money.
Who is involved?
All of these projects have a lead officer from the service that is most relevant to their area of work:
Health Ambassadors project – The project was set up using a £20,000 grant from the Pacesetters scheme within the NHS and the lead officer is the specialist nurse for Travellers.
GATE – The project was set up with a £19,000 grant from the Dept for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) and a £3,000 grant from Leicestershire Constabulary to tackle hate crime. The lead officer is the Travellers sites and liaison officer at the Multi-agency Travellers Unit (MATU).
UNIQUE – The project was set up with a £10,000 grant from Innovation Challenge to encourage user participation and social enterprise, and for community members to become mentors for service users. The lead officer is the housing-related support worker from STAR at Leicester City Council.
Aston First Consultation Group – The project is funded from the sites own operational budget and small Leicestershire County Council grants and lead officer is the site manager.
All of these projects have their own sets of volunteers from the Gypsy and Traveller community some people are involved in more than one project.
The MATU manager has an overview of all the different projects and is able to direct enquiries to the most relevant service.
The challenges for us
The unit liaises with local travellers to tackle some of the more deep-rooted social problems. This is something unique to the Leicestershire team as other areas often focus on an enforcement model, which just moves the problem from one place to another, or a support model which fails to tackle the very public issues surrounding unauthorised encampments.
The specialist team is only one aspect of the work that MATU carry out. The unit carry out effective engagement with the Gypsy and Traveller communities, as well as providing training for other services, and raising awareness with the wider public on Gypsy and Traveller lifestyle.
One project started by the Travelling Families Health Service is that of Health Ambassadors, where a number of volunteers from the Gypsy and Traveller communities provided training to healthcare professionals about Gypsy and Traveller life, and the barriers to accessing healthcare. Training delivered by members of the community and not through Gypsy Liaison Officers has proved beneficial and productive.
Based on this success, further projects have been set up by MATU:
**Gypsy and Traveller Equality Project (GATE)** (PDF, 10 pages, 554KB)
The project aims to explore the key issues within Leicestershire relating to Gypsies and Travellers, to train Gypsy and Traveller volunteers so they are confident in speaking to community groups, and host events raising awareness of the issues to the wider public. The volunteers also raise the profile of the Hate Incident Monitoring Project to the Gypsy and Traveller population thereby increasing reporting and hopefully reducing hate incidents and crimes.
Work has also taken place in some schools where GATE members have been involved in delivering a cultural awareness session with children, which is important in feeder schools that do not regularly have Gypsy and Traveller children.
We have been successful in training the Gypsy and Traveller community to give presentations and empowering them to get actively involved in promoting their culture. The community representatives act as a floating resource and are often invited to attend meetings of community forums and other specific events. They can also be used for training sessions for members in all tiers of local government.
**Aston Firs Consultation Group**
The Aston Firs Consultation Group organise activities for the Gypsy and Traveller Community to engage with partners and the wider community. The aims are
- To address community cohesion in relation to the integration and engagement of Gypsies and Travellers within the local community.
- To address perceived discrimination in service delivery.
- To improve the quality of life and opportunities for the Gypsy and Traveller community.
- To promote Gypsy and Traveller culture.
Although the aims and objectives are similar to that of GATE project, the purpose of this group is to work on a local level on specific issues instead of looking at general issues.
The project involves more than 100 members of the Gypsy and Traveller Community that live on and adjacent to the Aston Firs caravan site, approximately 33 Statutory and voluntary organisations and some local members of the general public.
Prior to the project, residents were feeling out of touch and neglected by the local authority and other services. By meeting with residents, organisations were able to understand the barriers Gypsies and Travellers were encountering in accessing services. More than a hundred families were living on a site that had been forgotten about when services had been designed, such as bus links, road improvements, child care, library services, home care and so forth. Residents have been informed about the services that are available to them and measures have also been put in place to help them access services.
There was also a need for improvements to the site and surrounding area. Through the Consultation Group, improved footpaths and lighting have been introduced to the area. The county council site is currently undergoing £1.6 million refurbishment and since the commencement of this project, there has been less incidents of fly-tipping and littering, as residents are taking action themselves to keep the area they live in clean and tidy.
Outcomes
The proactive engagement and consultations with the Gypsy and Traveller communities has resulted in some tangible outcomes, including Gypsy and Traveller communities attending community events and helping to bust myths commonly held by local residents. The projects have led to improved cohesion and better relationships between Gypsy residents and other local people.
What we learnt
We wanted to use our approach to address some of the more difficult issues, such as the perception of rubbish on roadside encampments or unauthorised developments. In some of the early sessions, things did not go as well as planned, as arguments arose between different members of the community. One of the factors was that not enough training had been provided to the Gypsy and Traveller representatives that were involved in the project. We have now provided comprehensive training on giving presentations, listening to others when debates are taking place, training on managing difficult discussions using role plays. The training and thorough practice has led to the volunteers of the GATE project to confidently attend meetings without officer support.
Public opposition to provision of new sites for Gypsies and Travellers has also been a huge issue in Leicester and Leicestershire. We have been able to take representatives from GATE along to public meetings to answer questions about Gypsies and Travellers and to also meetings with members and officers about how sites are provided.
In the past, there has been a lack of consultation with Gypsies and Travellers in policy making and service delivery. By encouraging community representatives to attend meetings relating to service delivery, we have been able to make difficult decisions about the cuts to service. We have been able to retain the parts of the service that are the most needed or have altered the method of delivery in a way that fits the modern Gypsy and Traveller lifestyle.
The project has operated for three years for £10,000 (not including officer time). The main costs have been linked to displays, promotional material and expenses. It is intended that the project will become a social enterprise in the future.
Contact
Mat Bagley, Multi-agency Travellers Unit (MATU) Manager Email: [email protected]
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/4756-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 3,
"total-input-tokens": 6114,
"total-output-tokens": 2064,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
3440,
1
],
[
3440,
6869,
2
],
[
6869,
9791,
3
]
]
} |
724a00b5e9e58fab741a4a3a12fe3ac6e0407b7d | Proven re-offending statistics: definitions and measurement
Published October 2012 Contents
Proven re-offending statistics quarterly bulletin 3 Early estimates of proven re-offending statistics 11 Local adult re-offending statistics quarterly bulletin 14 Data quality 16 Statistical modelling and coefficients 26 Appendix A: List of serious offences 34 Appendix B: Glossary of terms 39 Appendix C: Comparison of the three measures of re-offending 47 Contact details and further information 48 Proven re-offending statistics quarterly bulletin
Background
The Ministry of Justice launched a statistical consultation on improvements to the transparency and accessibility of our information in 2010 and a response to the consultation was published in March 2011. One aspect of the consultation was the measurement of proven re-offending. Responses have supported the proposals to move to a single framework for measuring re-offending where adult and youth data can be provided at the national and local level on a consistent basis. The response to the consultation is available here:
www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/consultations/improvements-moj-statistics-consultation-response.pdf
Prior to this consultation there were six different measures of proven re-offending:
- national adult proven re-offending;
- local adult proven re-offending;
- national youth proven re-offending;
- local youth proven re-offending;
- prolific and other priority offending (PPO); and
- drug-misusing proven offending.
The current framework for measuring proven re-offending integrates these approaches into a single framework. This allows users to:
- form a clear picture of proven re-offending at national and local levels;
- compare adult and youth results, and enable other work on transition between the youth and adult system;
- understand how results for different offender groups (such as those managed by the prison and probation services, those under the PPO schemes, drug-misusing offenders, first time entrants, etc.) fit into the overall picture on proven re-offending; and
- continue to analyse proven re-offending behaviour for particular types of offender. Measurement
The underlying principle of measuring re-offending (or recidivism, which is the most commonly used term internationally) is that someone who has received some form of criminal justice sanction (such as a conviction or a caution) goes on to commit another offence within a set time period.
Measuring true re-offending is difficult. Official records are taken from either the police or courts, but they will underestimate the true level of re-offending because only a proportion of crime is detected and sanctioned and not all crimes and sanctions are recorded on one central system. Other methods of measuring re-offending, such as self report studies, are likely to also underestimate the rate.
Following the Ministry of Justice consultation on Improvements to Ministry of Justice Statistics (2010), a **proven re-offence is defined** as any offence committed in a one year follow-up period and receiving a court conviction, caution, reprimand or warning in the one year follow-up or a further six month waiting period. The data source is the extract of the Police National Computer (PNC) held by the Ministry of Justice.
Definitions for the measurement of proven re-offending
**Cohort** This is the group of individuals whose re-offending is measured. For the Proven Re-offending Statistics Quarterly Bulletin, this is defined as all offenders in any one year who received a caution (for adults), a final warning or reprimand (for juveniles), a non-custodial conviction, or were discharged from custody.
Offenders who were discharged from custody or secure accommodation (juveniles only) or commenced a Court Order are matched to the PNC database. A proportion of cases are lost in this process because they cannot be matched (see the section below titled “Matching offender records” for further details). Additionally, offenders who appear multiple times in the cohort are only included once (see the section below titled “Multiple offender entries” for further details).
The group of offenders whose offending behaviour is proven is likely to be a sub-group of all active offenders. The Offending, Crime and Justice Survey (2003)(^1) estimated that around one in ten people in England and Wales aged between ten and 65 had committed an offence in the previous 12 months,
(^1) The Offending, Crime and Justice Survey (2003) was a random probability survey of 10,079 people aged from ten to 65 and asked people about their offending history. Like any such survey, its accuracy is dependent upon the level of honesty with which respondents completed the survey. which translates into approximately 3.8 million people. This compares to 632,000 offenders in the 2002 cohort used to measure proven re-offending, underlining that the offenders whose proven re-offending behaviour is presented in the Proven Re-offending Statistics Quarterly Bulletin are a small and probably unrepresentative sample of the population of all active offenders.
**Index disposal (sentence type)** The index disposal of the offender is the type of sentence the offender received for their index offence. For the Proven Re-offending Statistics Quarterly Bulletin, this is defined as custody, court order, other disposal resulting from a conviction at court, such as a fine or discharge, caution (adult offenders), reprimand or final warning (young offenders).
**Index offence** The index offence is the proven offence that leads to an offender being included in the cohort. An offence is only counted as an index offence if it is:
- recordable (see below);
- committed in England and Wales;
- prosecuted by the police; and
- not a breach offence.
There are around 3,000 offence codes on the PNC and these have been classified into the following 21 groups:
- violence (non serious)
- violence (serious)
- robbery
- public order or riot
- sexual
- sexual (child)
- soliciting or prostitution
- domestic burglary
- other burglary
- theft
- handling • fraud and forgery • absconding or bail offences • taking and driving away and related offences • theft from vehicles • other motoring offences • drink driving offences • criminal or malicious damage • drugs import/export/production/supply • drugs possession/small scale supply • other
Start point (index date) This is the set point in time from when proven re-offences are measured. For the Proven Re-offending Statistics Quarterly Bulletin, this is defined as the date of prison discharge, date of court conviction for non-custodial sentences, date of receipt for a caution, reprimand or final warning or the date of a positive drug test.
Follow-up period This is the length of time proven re-offending is measured over. For the Proven Re-offending Statistics Quarterly Bulletin, this is defined as 12 months from the start point.
Waiting period This is the additional time beyond the follow-up period to allow for offences which are committed towards the end of the follow-up period to be proven by a court, resulting in a conviction, caution, reprimand or final warning. For the Proven Re-offending Statistics Quarterly Bulletin, this is six months.
Figure 1 below illustrates why different offences for an example offender are included or excluded in the proven re-offending measure. Events A to E all occur in the one year follow-up period, but events F and G are outside this period, so would not be counted. Events A to D are all counted because they were all proven within the one year follow-up period or the further six month waiting period, but event E, even though the offence took place in the one year follow-up period, would not be counted, as the conviction did not occur within either the one year follow-up period, or the further six month waiting period. The offender has, therefore, committed seven proven offences during the one year follow-up period (two for event A, one for event B, three for event C, and one for event D).
**Proven re-offence**
Offences are counted as proven re-offences if they meet all of the following criteria:
- They are recordable. Not all offences are on the PNC and more recordable offences are entered than non-recordable offences. Analysis comparing offences proven at court with offences recorded on the PNC suggests the most cost common offences that are not recorded relates to motor vehicles, e.g. using a motor vehicle whilst uninsured against third party risks, speeding offences, keeping a vehicle on the highway without a driving licence or television licence evasion.
- They were committed in England or Wales.
- They are offences that were prosecuted by the police. PNC data is collected and input by the police and offences prosecuted by the police are likely to be recorded more comprehensively on the PNC than offences that are prosecuted by other organisations. For example, benefit fraud is prosecuted by the Department for Work and Pensions. Therefore, benefit fraud offences may be poorly represented on the PNC.
- Offences are only counted if they are proven through caution (for adults), reprimands or final warnings (for juveniles) and court convictions. Offences that are not proven, or which meet with other responses from the Criminal Justice System, are not counted. The Offending, Crime and Justice Survey (2003) estimated that six per cent of all offences resulted in any contact with the Criminal Justice System.
- The offence is not a breach offence, i.e. breach of a court order, since we are only interested in new offences.
**Adjusted baseline (predicted rate)** Proven re-offending is related to the characteristics of offenders which means that any overall rate of proven re-offending will depend, in part, on the characteristics of offenders coming into the system (just as the examination pass rate of a school will be related to the characteristics of its pupils). We use a modelling technique to produce a baseline figure adjusted to match the characteristics of the cohort we are comparing. For more details on this, refer to the chapter on “Statistical modelling and coefficients”.
**Measures of proven re-offending** Proven re-offending data are presented in the following ways:
- The number of offenders.
- The proportion of offenders who are proven re-offenders.
- The average number of proven re-offences among re-offenders.
- The average number of proven re-offences among all offenders including those who committed no proven re-offences (previously the frequency rate).
- The proportion of proven offenders who committed a proven serious re-offence against the person. Refer to Annex A for details on what counts as a serious offence.
- The proportion of proven offenders who committed a proven serious acquisitive re-offence. Refer to Annex A for details on what counts as a serious acquisitive offence.
- The proportion of offenders who are proven to re-offend, adjusted to control for changes in offender characteristics. This measure is different from the other measures in that it does not come from actual re-offences, but from a statistical model created for the baseline year of 2008. This gives a better indication of actual change against a baseline. Refer to the chapter on “Statistical modelling and coefficients” for further details.
**Multiple offender entries** Each offender is tracked over a fixed period of time and any proven offence committed in this period is counted as a proven re-offence. A multiple offender entry refers to an offender who, after entering the cohort in a given year, commits a re-offence and is either cautioned, discharged from prison or gets a non-custodial conviction in the same cohort year. This re-offence could also be included as a second entry for this offender into the cohort.
Figure 2: Example of an offender with multiple offender entries
| Offender Cautioned | Re-offence 1 | Offender starts a community sentence | Re-offence 2 | Offender sentenced to 3mnths in prison then released | Re-offence 3 | |--------------------|-------------|-------------------------------------|-------------|-----------------------------------------------------|-------------| | | | | | | |
1 year cohort period
To date, publications have avoided the double counting of these multiple offender entries (MOE) by only counting an individual once based on their first proven offence in the relevant time period. In the illustration above, the caution would be counted as the index disposal and the further two proven offences would be counted as re-offences. This avoids double counting of proven re-offences.
In this publication the main tables (tables 1 to 17) in the report have been produced on the basis of the 'first proven offence in the relevant time period' which led to an offender being included. This provides a picture of proven re-offending which is consistent with previous publications and tracks an offender, irrespective of the disposal they receive, to when they commit a proven re-offence.
The measure of proven re-offending now covers all offenders in any one year instead of the first quarter of a calendar year as in previous proven re-offending publications. The result is many more offenders with multiple entries.
In addition, including cautions to identify a proven offence means many offenders’ first offence will be associated with a caution since cautions account for around a third of adult offenders in one year. Table 1 shows the number of offenders in each cohort period by their number of entries.
Table 1: Number of offenders and their respective number of entries for 2000, 2002 to 2010 cohorts
| Multiple Offender Entries | 2000 | 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | |---------------------------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------| | 1 | 512,551 | 522,376 | 544,032 | 551,265 | 582,840 | 622,096 | 638,495 | 610,329 | 578,644 | 535,394 | | 2x | 75,311 | 77,813 | 81,651 | 78,969 | 81,120 | 87,589 | 91,695 | 88,207 | 83,785 | 79,067 | | 3x | 19,565 | 21,208 | 22,073 | 20,855 | 20,926 | 21,974 | 23,757 | 23,662 | 22,125 | 21,466 | | 4x | 6,195 | 6,689 | 7,074 | 6,835 | 6,725 | 6,807 | 7,652 | 7,917 | 7,360 | 7,425 | | 5x | 1,998 | 2,314 | 2,392 | 2,357 | 2,355 | 2,425 | 2,795 | 2,911 | 2,938 | 2,909 | | 6 to 10x | 1,240 | 1,510 | 1,689 | 1,641 | 1,505 | 1,513 | 1,966 | 2,341 | 2,308 | 2,368 | | Greater than 10x | 164 | 155 | 129 | 131 | 119 | 115 | 114 | 160 | 202 | 193 | | Total MOEs | 104,473 | 109,689 | 115,008 | 110,788 | 112,750 | 120,423 | 127,979 | 125,198 | 118,718 | 113,428 | | % of total cohort | 16.9% | 17.4% | 17.5% | 16.7% | 16.2% | 16.2% | 16.7% | 17.0% | 17.0% | 17.5% |
The number of offenders with multiple entries has remained fairly constant over time - the proportion of the total that had multiple offender entries has remained at about 16 to 17 per cent between 2000 and 2010. Proven re-offending by index disposal, probation trust and prison
In order to measure proven re-offending on a consistent and representative basis by offender management groups, it is necessary to distinguish between the disposal (sentence) types that led to an offender being included. Doing this allows the cohort to be defined according to the relative start point of an offender’s interaction with the prison (released from custody) or probation services (court order commencement).
Tables 18 to 21 provide re-offending rates by disposal (sentence) types. These are produced on the basis of an individual’s first disposal (sentence) in that category. In the illustration above the individual would appear once in the caution category, once in the community order category and once in the custody category. These tables will include an overall prison and probation proven re-offending rate which will be the figures we quote publicly. However, these figures should not be used when comparing proven re-offending rates across different disposals to compare effectiveness. Instead the ‘Compendium of Re-offending Statistics and Analysis 2011’ (at the link below) should be referred to as this analysis controls for offender characteristics in order to give a more reliable estimate of the relative effectiveness of different disposals.
www.justice.gov.uk/statistics/reoffending/compendium-of-reoffending-statistics-and-analysis
Tables 22 to 25 provide re-offending rates by individual prison and probation trust. These are produced on the basis of an individual’s first disposal from each specified prison or probation trust. If the individual offender is discharged from two different prisons in the year they will appear in both of the prison’s re-offending rates. The same applies for offenders commencing court orders in more than one probation trust within the year. This is to allow prisons and probation services to track their caseload of offenders. Early estimates of proven re-offending statistics
Background
Responses from the consultation and from earlier engagement with representatives of front-line offender management services supported the proposal to produce early estimates of proven re-offending using shorter follow-up and waiting periods. This is intended to provide offender managers feedback on the proven re-offending trends of offenders they are working with in time for them to adjust or build on offender management operational policy. This section of the new bulletin addresses these issues.
Early estimates of proven re-offending are presented for four particular offender groups who are subject to specific offender management arrangements. These are offenders managed by the probation service, Prolific and other Priority Offenders (PPO) who are managed by a partnership of local front-line services, drug-misusing offenders who are managed by Drug Action Teams, and young offenders who are managed by Youth Offending Teams.
Proven re-offending for the early estimates is measured in exactly the same way as for the headline proven re-offending measure except that the follow-up period and waiting period are both three months each. (For the headline measure of proven re-offending they are 12 months and six months, respectively.)
The headline figures and early estimates differ in the following ways:
- Early estimates of proven re-offending rates are considerably lower than in the headline publication. This is because they cover a shorter time period.
- The shorter follow-up period and waiting period allow rates to be calculated for more recent groups of proven offenders.
- Early estimates of proven re-offending rates provide local offender management services with information on proven re-offending trends for the offenders they are working with. The headline re-offending publication presents the public with information on a wide range of proven re-offending trends and provides proven re-offending rates by a variety of breakdowns, such as age, gender, disposal, etc.
- The shorter follow-up period and waiting period provides insufficient time for many serious re-offences to be committed and convicted. For this reason, early estimates of proven re-offending rates do not include information on serious re-offending.
- Results in the headline measure are compared to a baseline rate, adjusted for changes in the offender profile. This relies on an estimate of the relationship between offender characteristics and proven re-offending behaviour over 12 months. An equivalent estimate has been carried out for the proven re-offending behaviour of offenders commencing court order over three months. This uses the same variables as the headline measure plus additional variables to ensure that the actual and predicted rates are identical for every probation trust in the baseline period (2008). The tables accompanying the early estimates present the adjusted baseline for each trust, and the text identifies those trusts where the actual rate is significantly higher or lower than the predicted rate in the most recent results available.
Measurement
Coverage Results are provided for four types of offenders: probation offenders by probation trust, PPO offenders by upper-tier local authority, drug-misusing offenders by Drug Action Team, and young offenders by Youth Offending Team.
Cohort For probation offenders, the cohort is made up of all offenders who commenced a court order within a 12 month period. For PPO offenders, the cohort is made up of all offenders identified as a PPO who were discharged from custody, convicted at court, received a caution (adults), reprimand or final warning (juveniles) or tested positive for opiates or cocaine within a 12 month period. For drug-misusing offenders, the cohort is made up of all offenders identified as drug-misusing who were discharged from custody, convicted at court, received a caution or tested positive for opiates or cocaine within a 12 month period. For juveniles, the cohort is made up of all young offenders who were discharged from custody, convicted at court or received a reprimand or final warning within a 12 month period.
Start point (index date) Same as for the headline proven re-offending figures presented in the Re-offending Statistics Quarterly Bulletin.
Follow-up period This is the length of time proven re-offending is measured over. For the Early Estimates of Proven Re-offending, this is defined as three months from the start point.
Waiting period This is the additional time beyond the follow-up period to allow for offences which are committed towards the end of the follow-up period to be proven by a court, resulting in a conviction, caution, reprimand or final warning. For the Early Estimates of Proven Re-offending Statistics, this is three months.
Proven re-offence Same as for the headline proven re-offending figures presented in the Re-offending Statistics Quarterly Bulletin. Adjusted baseline (predicted rate) Proven re-offending is related to the characteristics of offenders which means that any overall rate of proven re-offending will depend, in part, on the characteristics of offenders coming into the system (just as the examination pass rate of a school will be related to the characteristics of its pupils). We use a modelling technique to produce a baseline figure adjusted to match the characteristics of the cohort we are comparing. For more details on this, refer to the chapter on “Statistical modelling and coefficients”.
Multiple offender entries Same as for the headline proven re-offending figures presented in the Re-offending Statistics Quarterly Bulletin. Local adult re-offending statistics quarterly bulletin
Background
Proven re-offending results from this measure have been published by the Ministry of Justice since February 2009 at Government Office Region, probation trust and local authority level. This data is used to measure probation performance and the Ministry of Justice will continue to produce these measures while offender management systems still require them. The Local Adult Re-offending Statistics Quarterly Bulletin can be found on the Ministry of Justice website at the following link:
www.justice.gov.uk/statistics/reoffending/local-adult-reoffending
The local proven re-offending data measure the re-offending of all offenders on the probation caseload. This includes offenders on licence and serving court orders.
Local proven re-offending rates use the same follow-up period and waiting period to those for the early estimates. However, there are several key differences between the local measure and the early estimates. These include:
- The sample of offenders - local rates are estimated using all offenders on the probation caseload, including those on licence and those serving court orders. Offenders on the caseload are identified through four ‘snapshots’ of the caseload, which are taken each quarter. Offenders are included if they are on the caseload even if they have been on licence or serving the court order for longer than 12 months. The early estimates are based on offenders who commence a court order within a 12 month period.
- Local rates define the period reported on by the period of re-offending. The early estimates refer to the year of the index disposal.
Measurement
Cohort All offenders on the probation caseload taken from four quarterly snapshots.
Start point The date of the snapshot.
Follow-up period This is the length of time proven re-offending is measured over. For the Local Adult Re-offending Statistics Quarterly Bulletin, this is defined as three months from the start point. **Waiting period** This is the additional time beyond the follow-up period to allow for offences which are committed towards the end of the follow-up period to be proven by a court, resulting in a conviction, caution, reprimand or final warning. For the Local Adult Re-offending Statistics Quarterly Bulletin, this is three months.
**Proven re-offence** Same as for the headline proven re-offending figures presented in the Re-offending Statistics Quarterly Bulletin.
**Adjusted baseline (predicted rate)** The predicted rate is the proportion of offenders we would expect to re-offend given the known characteristics of the offenders in the snapshot and re-offending rates in the baseline period. More detail on the predicted rate, and the statistical model used to calculate it, is provided in Appendix B of the Local Adult Re-offending Statistics Bulletin. Data quality
The data required for measuring proven re-offending are based on a range of data sources (prison data, probation data, identification of drug-misusing offenders, identification of prolific and other priority offenders, young offenders in secure accommodation, and criminal records from the Police National Computer) from a range of agencies (the National Offender Management Service, probation trusts, the Youth Justice Board, Drug Action Teams, local authorities and the National Police Improvement Agency). These figures have been derived from administrative IT systems which, as with any large scale recording system, are subject to possible errors with data entry and processing.
Police National Computer data
Information regarding the proven re-offending behaviour of offenders has been compiled using the Ministry of Justice’s extract from the Police National Computer (PNC). The process involves matching offender details from the prison and probation data to the personal details recorded on the PNC. A proportion of cases cannot be matched and the figures presented in Table 2 below are expressed as a percentage of the offenders that are matched. Like any large scale recording system, the PNC is subject to errors with data entry and recording. The PNC is regularly updated so that further analysis at a later date will generate revised figures.
The quality of the information recorded on the PNC is generally assumed to be relatively high as it is an operational system on which the police depend, but analysis can reveal errors that are typical when handling administrative datasets of this scale. The extent of error or omitted records on the PNC is difficult to estimate because it is a unique data-source. As a result, there is not always an obvious source of data to provide a baseline from which to assess data quality. For some types of results, however, comparisons can be made. For example, the trend in receptions into prison in each month is very similar using the PNC and prisons data (see below for details). Although the number of receptions recorded on the PNC is consistently slightly lower because prisons data include cases on remand whereas the PNC does not. Another example is the number of cases that are given a custodial sentence, broken down by offence type, which is similar using the PNC and the Court Proceedings Database with a match rate of 97 per cent.
A number of improvements are routinely carried out:
- Updates to the coding and classification of offences and court disposals, including the reduction of uncoded offences, the reduction in the use of miscellaneous offence codes and the clarification of the coding of breach offences;
- Updates to the methods used to identify the primary offence, where several offences are dealt with on the same occasion, and the methods used to identify the primary disposal, where an offence attracts more than one court disposal; and
- Removal of some duplication of records within the database resulting in improvements to the efficiency and reliability of the matching process.
**Prison data**
Prison establishments record details for individual inmates on the prison IT system (Prison-NOMIS or LIDS). The information recorded includes details such as date of birth, gender, religion, nationality, ethnic origin, custody type, offence, reception and discharge dates and, for sentenced prisoners, sentence length. The data from individual prison establishments then feeds through to a central computer database, called the Inmate Information System (IIS).
In May 2009, the National Offender Management Service (NOMS) began the roll-out of a new case management system for prisons (Prison-NOMIS). During the phased roll-out, data collection issues emerged that affected the supply of data for statistical purposes from July 2009 to February 2010. Specifically, statistical information on sentence length and offence group are not available on any of our prison datasets for this period.
In order to ensure the fullest possible set of data from July 2009 to February 2010, sentence lengths were estimated for those prisoners received or discharged before the problems were resolved. At the point when the problems were resolved, a small number of prison establishments were still using the old LIDS case management system; data for prisoners received or discharged from these prisons was assumed to be unaffected.
For those prisoners received or discharged from prisons operating Prison-NOMIS, efforts were made to populate their record with the correct sentence length using other data extracts. For example, many prisoners discharged in January 2010 were originally received into prison prior to July 2009, so their sentence length was taken from unaffected datasets before the problems began. Similarly, the majority of those received in early 2010 were still in prison in March 2010 when the problems were resolved, so the sentence length from the corrected prison population data was used.
Where it was not possible to populate a sentence length using other datasets, prisoners were allocated a sentence length band based on the number of days they spent in custody (taking account of early release schemes where relevant).
As a check on the methodology, an alternative estimation process was designed and the number of discharges in each sentence length band for the second half of 2009 was compared using the two methods.
A number of estimation methods were considered and tested on the 2008 data (prior to the data problems) to see which yielded estimates closest to the actual 2008 data. This identified the following method:
1. Calculate data for the first half of the year as a proportion of the full calendar year, for each year from 2001 to 2008; separately for each sentence length band or offence group (the two key breakdowns to be estimated).
2. Apply the average of these proportions to the January to June 2009 data to estimate the 2009 annual totals; separately for each sentence length band or offence group.
3. Scale the estimated numbers in each sentence length band or offence group to sum to the annual total recorded in the raw data (where the totals are known to be correct).
The maximum difference between the two approaches was 2.6 per cent in the band ‘12 months to less than 4 years’; for all other bands the difference was less than 1 per cent.
**Indeterminate sentence prisoners**
In addition to the above, data on the discharge of prisoners on indeterminate sentence (prisoners given a life sentence or an Indeterminate sentence for Public Protection (IPP) is provided from the Public Protection Unit Database (PPUD). This holds data jointly owned by the Offender Management and Public Protection Group (OMPPG) in NOMS and the Parole Board.
PPUD records details of all indeterminate sentence prisoners at the point of conviction, those engaged in the Generic Parole Process and prisoners (determinate and indeterminate) who have been recalled from licence. It also covers those who have received a restricted hospital order/direction from a Crown Court, and those remand and convicted prisoners who have been transferred from prison/detention centres to psychiatric hospital under the relevant sections of mental health legislation.
All decisions taken by the NOMS casework sections and the Parole Board are recorded on the system.
Personal information recorded includes (but is not limited to) name, date of birth, gender, identifying numbers, ethnicity, last known address, probation area and sentencing information.
OMPPG and the Parole Board run monthly and ad hoc reports to cleanse data that are not otherwise identified by data validation routines built into the system.
**Probation data**
Since 2005, detailed information on the supervision of offenders (at the individual offender level) has been submitted by probation trusts on a monthly basis. These monthly ‘probation listings’ include information on offenders starting probation supervision. Between 2002 and 2005, this information was submitted quarterly, and prior to 2002 a different data collection system was in place, which meant that information on caseload had to be calculated based on the number of people starting supervision and the number of terminations.
The quality of the information recorded on the probation data is generally assumed to be relatively high as it is a direct extract from an operational system upon which the probation service depends for managing offenders locally. The extract consists of a small number of key fields for which completion is mandatory. Probation trusts have their own IT departments which manage their own data validation processes and when the data is received centrally it is subject to another set of data validation processes. Trends from the data are consistent with comparable time-series from the Courts Proceeding Database. Any large scale recording systems are subject to possible errors with data entry and processing, but there are no known issues regarding the probation commencements data.
**Identification of drug-misusing offenders**
There are four ways a drug-misusing offender can be identified:
- Individuals who have tested positive for heroin or crack/cocaine following an arrest or charge for ‘trigger’ offences (largely acquisitive crime offences) as part of the Drug Interventions Programme (DIP) are included as adult proven offenders.
- Any offender that received an OASys assessment whilst on licence or on a community sentence and are either recorded as being subject to a current Drug Treatment and Testing Order (DTTO) or Drug Rehabilitation Requirement (DRR), or are assessed as having a criminogenic drug need.
- Any offender identified as requiring further drug interventions by Counselling, Assessment, Referral, Advice, Throughcare (CARAT) teams in prison, and now being released into the community.
- Any offender identified by local Criminal Justice Integrated Teams (CJITs) as requiring further intervention for their drug use and offending as part of DIP.
**Drug Interventions Programme**
The Drug Interventions Programme (DIP) was introduced in April 2003 with the aim of developing and integrating measures for directing adult drug-misusing offenders into drug treatment and reducing offending behaviour. The programme comprises of a number of interrelated interventions:
- Drug testing in police custody for specified Class A drugs – heroin, cocaine and crack cocaine – for individuals arrested for trigger offences (primarily offences related to acquisitive crime). • Assessment following a positive test to establish the extent of the individual's drug-misuse, and whether the individual might benefit from further assessment, assistance or treatment.
• Conditional cautioning which may include a DIP drug rehabilitative condition, tailored to the offender’s drug use and offending.
• Restriction on bail for adults who have tested positive and whose offence is a drug offence or is drug-related.
• CJITs manage offenders who have been referred to treatment and co-ordinate agencies and services so they offer access to joined-up treatment and support. They maintain strong links with both the National Probation Service and Prison Service to ensure the continuity of care whilst the offender is within the Criminal Justice System.
Legislative changes have broadened the scope of the programme:
• A major expansion of DIP took place in April 2006 to move the point of drug testing from the point of charge to the point of arrest and to introduce required (rather than voluntary) assessments. This change broadened the scope and size of the cohort coming into contact with DIP.
• The latest changes took effect from April 2011, when the authorisation to conduct drug testing on arrest was extended across England and Wales. Drug testing on arrest previously occurred only in ‘intensive’ DIP areas, which had high levels of acquisitive crime.
Data sources Records of those who test positive are logged onto the Drugs Intervention Management Information System (DIMIS), which is managed by the Home Office. An extract of positive drug test records for the relevant period is used for a match to the PNC.
Offenders identified as drug-misusers via CARAT teams and CJITs are also recorded onto DIMIS, from which an extract is taken for the relevant period to match to the PNC. OASys records are collated centrally within the Ministry of Justice in the OASys Data, Evaluation and Analysis Team (O-DEAT) database, from which an extract is taken for the relevant period to match to the PNC.
Identification of prolific and other priority offenders
The Prolific and other Priority Offenders Programme (PPO) aims to use a multi-agency approach to focus on a very small, but hard core group of prolific/persistent offenders who commit disproportionate amounts of crime and cause disproportionate harm to their local communities. Full implementation of all three strands had commenced by the beginning of February 2005. In 2009, all local areas were asked to review their PPO schemes to ensure that the programme remained squarely focused on those offenders that were of most concern to the communities in which they live.
The identification of a PPO is undertaken at a local level involving police, local authorities, prison and probation services and youth offending teams. The factors that influence the decision of whether an offender is included in the PPO programme are:
- the nature and volume of crimes they commit;
- the nature and volume of other harm they cause; and
- the detrimental impact they have on their community.
This process will typically involve police, prison and probation information systems and other tools available.
The size of the PPO caseload at a local level is influenced by a range of factors, including the number of offenders who meet the locally agreed selection criteria and the capacity of local partner agencies to provide the intensive management of offenders under PPO supervision.
PPO cohort data are derived from JTRACK, which is a management information and tracking tool used by practitioners in various criminal justice agencies to record details of the offenders being managed as PPOs in a local area. JTRACK relies on the accurate input of data by local users to ensure that the details of the caseload on the system reflect the caseload being managed. An extract of the caseload from JTRACK is taken for the relevant period to match to the PNC.
**Young offenders in secure accommodation**
Information about secure training centres (STCs) and secure children's homes (SCHs) comes from the Youth Justice Board's (YJB) Secure Accommodation Clearing House System (SACHS) database. The under 18 year olds in Young Offender Institutes (YOIs) is also from SACHS, whereas information about young people aged 18 and held in YOIs is supplied by the Prison Service and private YOIs.
The quality of the information recorded on the SACHS database is generally assumed to be relatively high as it is a direct extract from an operational system which is used to place young people in custody. The extract uses a number of key fields for which completion is mandatory when booking a young person into custody.
**Data processing and analysis**
The data underpinning the results are considered by Ministry of Justice to be broadly robust. Considerable work has been carried out ensuring data quality, and the data have been used for research publications. Scrutiny of the data source continues in order to ensure the data remains reliable.
The National Audit Office (NAO) identified risk factors in its review of the reporting of PSA targets (NAO, 2005). The remainder of this section addresses these.
Matching offender records
This process involves matching data on prison discharges and court order commencements to the PNC database. The process uses automated matching routines that look at offenders’ surnames, initials, and dates of birth, using direct name matching along with a variety of ‘sounds like’ algorithms. The matching algorithm also searches through PNC held information on alias names and dates of birth for offenders. However, not all offenders are matched and a thorough analysis of bias in the matching system has yet to be undertaken. Table 2 below shows that the overall matching rates between 2000 and 2010 have remained high.
Table 2: Matching rates for the different data sources for 2000, 2002 to 2010 cohorts
| | 2000 | 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | |----------------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------| | **Prison** | | | | | | | | | | | | Prison discharges | 87,083| 87,338| 85,920| 86,970| 84,897| 83,725| 87,340| 95,824| 94,114| 91,044| | Automatically matched to the PNC | 80,572| 81,211| 80,121| 81,125| 79,398| 78,285| 81,874| 90,021| 88,745| 87,845| | Matched to an index date | 73,610| 76,121| 73,327| 73,390| 71,246| 68,185| 69,741| 76,668| 74,169| 65,278| | Percentage matched to the PNC | 92.5% | 93.0% | 93.3% | 93.3% | 93.5% | 93.5% | 93.7% | 93.9% | 94.3% | 96.5% | | Percentage matched to the PNC and index offences (not breach etc.) | 84.8% | 86.0% | 85.3% | 84.4% | 83.9% | 81.4% | 79.9% | 80.0% | 78.8% | 71.7% | | **Court Orders** | | | | | | | | | | | | Court order starts | 136,023| 154,621| 158,750| 164,831| 163,681| 176,346| 187,386| 189,643| 191,784| 186,417| | Automatically matched to the PNC | 123,540| 142,838| 148,257| 154,075| 158,416| 172,906| 184,740| 187,253| 190,128| 185,112| | Matched to an index date | 105,685| 115,108| 119,446| 122,927| 130,307| 148,072| 159,279| 163,519| 167,378| 164,579| | Percentage matched to the PNC | 90.8% | 92.4% | 93.4% | 93.5% | 96.8% | 98.0% | 98.6% | 98.7% | 99.1% | 99.3% | | Percentage matched to the PNC and index offences (not breach etc.) | 77.7% | 74.4% | 75.2% | 74.6% | 79.6% | 84.0% | 85.0% | 86.2% | 87.3% | 88.3% | | **YJB** | | | | | | | | | | | | YJB discharges | - | 1,337 | 1,612 | 1,521 | 1,551 | 1,564 | 1,553 | 1,647 | 1,626 | 1,770 | | Automatically matched to the PNC | - | 1,226 | 1,502 | 1,425 | 1,448 | 1,464 | 1,463 | 1,537 | 1,564 | 1,682 | | Matched to an index date | - | 680 | 818 | 785 | 860 | 769 | 780 | 845 | 817 | 916 | | Percentage matched to the PNC | - | 91.7% | 93.2% | 93.7% | 93.4% | 93.6% | 94.2% | 93.3% | 96.2% | 95.0% | | Percentage matched to the PNC and index offences (not breach etc.) | - | 50.9% | 50.7% | 51.6% | 51.6% | 49.2% | 50.2% | 51.3% | 50.2% | 51.8% |
The total number of offenders matched to the PNC is substantially higher than the final figure for the cohorts – for example, in 2010 there were 274,639 matched offenders, but a final cohort size of 230,773. The main reasons for these discrepancies are:
- Conviction dates for the beginning of the community, suspended or custodial sentence do not match the conviction date within seven days of the criminal records from the PNC database;
- The index offence was not dealt with by a Home Office police force – this ensures that only offences in England and Wales are counted;
- Exclusion of all offenders where the index offence is a breach, since we are only interested in new offences; and Exclusion of multiple offender entries (see section above titled “Multiple offender entries” for further details).
Counting rules
The counting rules for choosing which prison discharges to include offer a variety of choices. For instance, it makes little sense to include offenders deported on release or who have died. These counting rules were enumerated and discussed to ensure a more accurate and consistent count and are reviewed on an annual basis to ensure a consistent approach.
Complexity of data processing and analysis
The data processing involved for measuring re-offending is complex. To analyse re-offending behaviour by previous offending or disposal history requires the extraction of criminal histories that can span a number of decades, and the subsequent matching of these histories against the probation caseload files and prison discharges in order to generate a dataset.
The extraction of the criminal histories
To quality assure the extraction of criminal histories, a small set of random samples of offenders was taken after the analysis to check, via a basic validation, that outputs of the SQL (Structured Query Language) program were accurate. The Ministry of Justice is confident that this process has been successful.
Level of subjectivity
There is relatively little subjectivity in the system. Occasional judgements are required (e.g. where to classify an offence), but these will not significantly influence the results.
Maturity and stability of the data system
The system is well established having been used a number of times to produce re-offending statistics for publication. Nonetheless, vigilance continues to be exercised to ensure the validity of the results.
Expertise of those who operate the system
Prison and court order data-feeds are continually monitored and improvement work is regularly undertaken to improve the reliability and the accuracy of datasets. The internal processing of the results within the Ministry of Justice has been subject to dip sampling of criminal histories and the statistical model has been extensively tested. Interpreting trends in the proportion of offenders who commit a serious re-offence against the person
Care should be taken when interpreting the severity rate for the following reasons:
- **Time through the Criminal Justice System** – more serious offences are likely to take a longer time to progress through the Criminal Justice System than less serious offences. The proven re-offending statistics track proven re-offending behaviour for a year upon offenders entering the cohort, plus an additional six months for convictions to be updated on the system. There is a risk that this time scale is not long enough to capture the most serious offences. However, analysis suggests that the number of serious proven re-offences picked up by the measure remains comparatively stable year on year, ensuring performance is comparable over time.
- **Reporting variation** – variation in reporting time between police force areas and courts may also have an impact on how many serious offences are captured during the one year follow-up period.
Data on historical trends
The data used to measure proven re-offending is from the PNC. Police forces started to enter criminal records locally in 1995. In order to allow time for good practice among police forces in entering data onto the PNC to become embedded, PNC data was used to measure proven re-offending for the first time in 2000. In the headline bulletin, results are compared to 2000 to highlight long-term trends because it is the earliest data on proven re-offending that exists on a comparable basis. Results prior to 2000 cannot be compared to results from 2000 onwards for two main reasons:
- **Change in data source** – re-offences are measured using data from the PNC (which covers recordable offences), whereas data from years before 2000 were measured using the offenders index (which covered a narrower range of offences).
- **Change in measurement** – the concept being measured from 2000 onwards in these reports is that of using the offence date to measure re-offences (a period of time is allowed for offences to be committed, and a further period allowed for these offences to be proved by caution, reprimand, final warning or court conviction), whereas the concept being measured prior to 2000 was that of using the conviction date to measure re-convictions (any conviction occurring in a set period of time, whether or not the offence occurred in that time period).
However the ‘Compendium of Re-offending Statistics and Analysis 2010’, published in November 2010, provides the most consistent statistical series possible between 1971 and 2006, adjusting for known methodological changes. For more information, please refer to Chapter 4.4 at the following link: Results for 2001 cannot be calculated for offenders on court orders because of a problem with archived data on court orders. Local breakdowns of the headline proven re-offending rates are available from 2005 onwards. Proven re-offending data are broken down by locality using the address and post-code information of the offender. Where this information is missing, the location of the processing police force is used instead. This is not a completely reliable indicator of the offender’s home address as offenders may offend in a different locality than where they reside. The completeness of this information has improved over time. In 2000, this information was omitted for 29 per cent of cases, which was considered too high to produce reliable results. By 2005, this was reduced to 16.5 per cent, and there has been a continuing downward trend since then. Statistical modelling and coefficients
Introduction
The characteristics of proven offenders are likely to be systematically different over time and by sentence type as the Criminal Justice System targets particular sentences to offenders most likely to benefit from that type. It is therefore important to note that it is not possible to reach firm conclusions about changes in rates over time, nor about the relative effectiveness of different sentence types, from actual proven re-offending rates.
The Ministry of Justice has developed models to address these two issues:
- modelling to adjust the baseline to reflect changes in offender characteristics (see below).
- modelling to match offenders across sentence types to make valid comparisons. Refer to the ‘Compendium of Re-offending Statistics and Analysis 2011’ at the link below for this analysis:
www.justice.gov.uk/statistics/reoffending/compendium-of-reoffending-statistics-and-analysis
Modelling to adjust for the varying composition of the cohort of offenders over time
If the composition of the cohorts of offenders being compared differs significantly over time so that the type of offenders in one year is inherently more (or less) likely to re-offend, this may result in an apparent rise or fall in the proven re-offending rates even when there may be no ‘real’ difference for similar offenders over that time. In order to address this problem, we have adopted the following solution:
- modelling the likelihood of proven re-offending based on known offender characteristics using historic data (which will be defined as the baseline);
- identifying the characteristics of the most recent cohort;
- using the model, adjusting the baseline proven re-offending rate to match these characteristics; and
- comparing this adjusted rate with the current rate to make a more realistic estimate of trends over time.
In previous publications of proven re-offending statistics, this approach has been referred to as the predicted rate of proven re-offending. Statistical model
The 2008 statistical model is an update and improvement on the 2000 and 2005 logistic regression models and includes a range of offender characteristics available from the PNC, such as age, gender, offence group and criminal history.
The logistic regression model based on the 2008 data identifies a statistically significant set of variables that are related to proven re-offending and based on these provides a probability of proven re-offending for each offender. However, other factors, for which data on these samples are not available, such as drug and alcohol use, employment, accommodation and marital background are likely to be significantly related to re-offending.
This means that the adjusted proven re-offending rates are only valid for terms included in the final model. Any adjusted proven re-offending rates for groups of offenders that have a common characteristic that is not in the final model (e.g. employment status or disposal type) can suffer from statistical biases and are, therefore, unreliable.
For the 2008 model additional developments were included to ensure that the adjusted rate model was a more parsimonious model, more robust against changes in the number of offenders, and that interaction terms and non-linear terms were included where appropriate. The final decision for inclusion or exclusion of particular variables was heavily influenced by their statistical significance (typically p < 0.10).
The Ministry of Justice believes that the method used for the construction of the statistical model for producing adjusted rates is robust and fit for purpose.
Variables included
The following notes provide some further detail on the 2008 model and show the relative impacts of different variables when holding all other variables constant.
Gender Gender is included in the model as a categorical variable separating out males and females. Generally, males are more likely to commit a proven re-offence than females.
Age Age is included in the model for adults as a linear, quadratic and cubed term and is included for juveniles as a categorical variable separating offenders into seven age bands. Generally, younger adults are more likely to commit a proven re-offence than older adults, and older juveniles are more likely to re-offend than younger juveniles. Index offence The index offence represents the offence that led to the offender entering the cohort. Index offences were classified into 21 broad categories and their relative coefficients are shown in relation to the reference category ‘violence’. To ensure the reliability and replicability of the model coefficients, any index offences with low numbers were grouped with the ‘other’ index offence group.
Ethnicity Ethnicity is derived from the PNC and reflects the officer’s view of the offender’s ethnicity. Thus, ethnicity in this model should be taken as a proxy for the actual ethnicity and the results should not be over-interpreted because any biases in the assessment are unknown. Ethnicity was a statistically significant factor, making it an important factor to control for and, therefore, it was included in the model.
Copas rate The Copas rate (Copas and Marshall, 1998) controls for the rate at which an offender has built up convictions throughout their criminal career. The higher the rate, the more convictions an offender has in a given amount of time, and the more likely it is that an offender will be re-convicted. The Copas rate formula is:
[ \\text{copas rate} = \\log_e \\left( \\frac{\\text{Number of court appearances or cautions} + 1}{\\text{Length of criminal career in years} + 10} \\right) ]
For adults the Copas rate is included as a linear and quadratic, but for juveniles it is included as a linear term only. As mentioned above, inclusion of variables was heavily influenced by their statistical significance.
Length of criminal career An offender’s criminal career is a significant factor in predicting the likelihood of a re-offence and this relationship is quadratic, thus both linear and quadratic terms were included in the model.
Total number of previous offences The total number of previous offences is a significant factor in predicting the likelihood of re-offending. The previous offending variables counted cautions and convictions and were included as linear and logged variables.
Previous custodial sentences For adults, the number of previous custodial sentences was implemented as a continuous variable in both linear and quadratic terms. For juveniles, previous custodial sentences were included as a binary term: had the offender received one or more previous custodial sentences, yes or no. The difference in treatment reflects the more limited custodial history juvenile offenders generally possess compared to adult offenders.
Counts of previous offending by type of offence For adults, the number of previous offences by type of offence was an improvement over simple yes/no variables for recording the presence of prior offences in the relevant categories. For juvenile offenders, simple yes/no variables for recording the presence of prior offences in the relevant categories performed better. The difference in treatment reflects the more limited offending history juvenile offenders generally possess compared to adult offenders.
**Interaction terms**
Interaction terms are calculated by multiplying two factors together. The inclusion of these terms allows the effect of one variable to vary according to the values of another, improving the quality of predictions. This is important because three factors (gender, age and total number of previous offences) are not completely independent of each other.
For adults, interaction terms were also included for drug-misusing offenders as they showed some trends in their proven re-offending behaviour that were different from the more general offending population.
**Model assessment**
The model is assessed by calculating the level of discrimination between offenders that committed a proven re-offence and offenders that did not. The adult logistic regression model achieved a 78.9 per cent overall discrimination level on the 2008 cohort and 72.4 per cent for the juvenile logistic regression model. A level of discrimination of about 70 per cent was deemed to be acceptable and the model should predict results accurately enough for the predicted rate to be used. The discrimination can also be evaluated by calculating the Area Under Curve (AUC) for the Receiver Operator Characteristic curve. Again, the value for the model was 0.784 for the adult regression model in 2008 and 0.716 for the youth regression model which means a satisfactory level of discrimination (Hosmer and Lemeshow, 2000, p.162).
**Coefficients of the 2008 statistical model**
The following tables (3 and 4) show the parameter estimates for the various components of the logistic regression model for the predicted one year proven re-offending rates for adults and young offenders.
Each logistic coefficient is multiplied by the variable value for each offender to calculate a linear prediction. To calculate each offender’s predicted probability of committing a proven re-offence in the follow-up period or a further six month waiting period we transform the linear prediction $Z$ using the following formula:
$$\\text{Predicted Probability of Reoffending} = \\frac{\\exp(Z)}{1 + \\exp(Z)}$$
The exponent of the coefficient is the odds ratio of committing a proven re-offence corresponding to the particular coefficient and enables us to make comparisons between different categories. For factors with interactions (e.g. age and gender) the interpretation is more complex. The significance (p-value) gives us an assessment of how significant each variable is in predicting the likelihood of an offender to commit a proven re-offence within one year. For modelling purposes, a probability value (p-value) of less than 0.05 is considered to be significant.
Table 3: List of variables in the logistic regression model applied to the 2008 data on adult offenders and their respective coefficients
| Variables | Coefficient | Logs-odd ratios | P-value | Variables | Coefficient | Logs-odd ratios | P-value | |----------------------------------|-------------|-----------------|---------|----------------------------------|-------------|-----------------|---------| | Constant | 1.940 | 6.958 | 0.000 | Reference category | | | | | Gender: | | | | Violence | -0.361 | 0.697 | 0.000 | | Female | Reference category | | | Robbery | 0.482 | 1.620 | 0.000 | | Male | 0.645 | 1.906 | 0.000 | Theft | 0.173 | 1.189 | 0.000 | | Age: | | | | Handling | 0.180 | 1.198 | 0.000 | | Age | -0.250 | 0.779 | 0.000 | Taking and driving away | -0.465 | 0.628 | 0.000 | | Age squared | 0.006 | 1.006 | 0.000 | Sexual child | 0.253 | 1.288 | 0.000 | | Age cubed | -0.00004 | 1.000 | 0.000 | Domestic burglary | 0.148 | 1.159 | 0.000 | | Male * age interaction | -0.013 | 0.988 | 0.000 | Other burglary | 0.337 | 1.401 | 0.000 | | General criminal career variables:| | | | Theft from vehicles | 0.478 | 1.612 | 0.000 | | Previous offences | -0.006 | 0.994 | 0.000 | Drink driving | -0.154 | 0.857 | 0.000 | | Previous offences (logged) | 0.391 | 1.478 | 0.000 | Criminal damage | 0.226 | 1.254 | 0.000 | | Male * previous offences interaction | -0.003 | 0.997 | 0.000 | Drug supply | -0.400 | 0.670 | 0.000 | | Previous prison sentences | 0.045 | 1.046 | 0.000 | Drug possession | 0.074 | 1.077 | 0.000 | | Previous prison sentences (logged)| -0.060 | 0.942 | 0.000 | Drug test | -1.167 | 0.311 | 0.000 | | Career length | -0.0001 | 1.000 | 0.000 | Fraud forgery | -0.213 | 0.808 | 0.000 | | Career length squared | 0.000 | 1.000 | 0.069 | Absconding and bail | 0.364 | 1.440 | 0.000 | | Copas rate | 0.385 | 1.469 | 0.000 | Number of previous offences: | | | | | Copas rate squared | -0.064 | 0.938 | 0.000 | Public order | 0.052 | 1.053 | 0.000 | | PPO offender | 0.528 | 1.696 | 0.000 | Sexual | 0.035 | 1.036 | 0.000 | | Drug-misusing offender | 1.422 | 4.146 | 0.000 | Domestic burglary | -0.006 | 0.994 | 0.005 | | Ethnicity: | | | | Theft | 0.012 | 1.012 | 0.000 | | White | Reference category | | | Handling | -0.010 | 0.990 | 0.002 | | Unknown | -0.663 | 0.516 | 0.000 | Taking and driving away | -0.007 | 0.993 | 0.003 | | White other | 0.324 | 1.383 | 0.000 | Criminal damage | 0.017 | 1.017 | 0.000 | | Black | 0.161 | 1.175 | 0.000 | Drug supply | -0.044 | 0.957 | 0.000 | | Pacific | 0.210 | 1.233 | 0.000 | Drug possession | 0.013 | 1.013 | 0.000 | | Middle East | 0.130 | 1.138 | 0.003 | Other | -0.002 | 0.998 | 0.073 |
Interaction with drug-misusing offenders:
| Previous offences (logged) | -0.156 | 0.855 | 0.000 | | Index offence of drug supply | -0.430 | 0.651 | 0.000 | | Index offence of drug possession | -0.550 | 0.577 | 0.000 | Table 4: List of variables in the logistic regression model applied to the 2008 data on young offenders and their respective coefficients
| Variables | Coefficient | Logs-odd ratios | P-value | Variables | Coefficient | Logs-odd ratios | P-value | |-----------|-------------|-----------------|---------|-----------|-------------|-----------------|---------| | Constant | -1.495 | 0.224 | 0.000 | Index offence: | Reference category | | | | Gender: | | | | Robbery | 0.130 | 1.139 | 0.003 | | Female | Reference category | | | Public order or riot | 0.178 | 1.195 | 0.000 | | Male | 0.527 | 1.693 | 0.000 | Sexual offences | -0.578 | 0.561 | 0.000 | | Age: | | | | Sexual offences against children | -1.157 | 0.314 | 0.000 | | Aged 10-11| Reference category | | | Domestic burglary | 0.233 | 1.262 | 0.000 | | Aged 12 | 0.354 | 1.425 | 0.000 | Other burglary | -0.083 | 1.087 | 0.026 | | Aged 13 | 0.448 | 1.566 | 0.000 | Theft | -0.088 | 0.916 | 0.000 | | Aged 14 | 0.431 | 1.538 | 0.000 | Robbery | 0.101 | 1.106 | 0.011 | | Aged 15 | 0.186 | 1.195 | 0.000 | Public order or riot | 0.143 | 1.154 | 0.000 | | Aged 16 | -0.124 | 0.883 | 0.017 | Domestic burglary | 0.166 | 1.181 | 0.000 | | Aged 17 | -0.202 | 0.817 | 0.000 | Other burglary | 0.099 | 1.104 | 0.001 | | Interactions between age and gender: | | | | Theft | 0.135 | 1.144 | 0.000 | | Female at any age | Reference category | | | Handling | 0.107 | 1.113 | 0.009 | | Male aged 10-11 | Reference category | | | Absconding or bail offences | 0.096 | 1.101 | 0.032 | | Male aged 12 | -0.276 | 0.759 | 0.000 | Taking and driving away | -0.088 | 1.093 | 0.012 | | Male aged 13 | -0.214 | 0.807 | 0.000 | Theft from vehicles | 0.125 | 1.133 | 0.012 | | Male aged 14 | -0.157 | 0.855 | 0.000 | Drunk driving | -0.245 | 0.783 | 0.033 | | Male aged 16 | 0.134 | 1.144 | 0.002 | Criminal or malicious damage | 0.069 | 1.071 | 0.001 | | Male aged 17 | 0.113 | 1.120 | 0.013 | Other | 0.138 | 1.148 | 0.001 | | General criminal career variables: | | | | Miscellaneous | -0.689 | 0.502 | 0.014 | | Career length squared | 0.000 | 1.000 | 0.000 | Breaches | 0.762 | 2.144 | 0.007 | | Copas rate | 0.128 | 1.137 | 0.001 | | | | | | Previous offences | -0.036 | 0.964 | 0.000 | | | | | | Previous offences (logged) | 0.920 | 2.510 | 0.000 | | | | | | Previous prison sentence(s) | 0.124 | 1.132 | 0.022 | | | | | | PPO offender | 0.930 | 2.534 | 0.000 | | | | | | Ethnicity: | | | | | | | | | White | Reference category | | | | | | | | Unknown | -0.823 | 0.439 | 0.000 | | | | | | White (other) | 0.196 | 1.217 | 0.000 | | | | | | Black | 0.187 | 1.206 | 0.000 | | | | | | Asian | -0.200 | 0.819 | 0.000 | | | | | | Pacific | -0.468 | 0.626 | 0.001 | | | | | Additional modelling for prison performance
Assessing the performance of individual prisons in reducing re-offending is difficult because the particular characteristics of offenders that are at a particular prison are likely to be the main drivers behind re-offending.
A statistical methodology has been developed to examine prison re-offending rates that not only takes account of offence and offender characteristics, but also takes account of the hierarchical structure of the data, i.e. that offenders are within prisons.
Two separate models were developed: for prisoners receiving sentences of fewer than 12 months and prisoners with sentences of 12 months or over. The separate models for prisoners with sentences of fewer than 12 months and 12 months or more reflects differences in prisoners’ re-offending behaviour by prison sentence length.
The model used for both types of offender was a logistic regression model with mixed effects (fixed and random). The outcome variable is a binary yes/no variable representing whether an offender re-offends or not. Offender characteristics are included as fixed independent variables and the prisons are included as a random effect component which allows each prison to interact with the fixed effects differently.
The variables included in the model were similar to those used to develop the adjusted baseline described above: age, ethnicity, index offence, previous offences, previous prison sentences, Copas scores, and criminal career, as well as the random effects component of prisons. The goodness-of-fit by AUC was satisfactory, above 0.77 in all cases.
Considerable preliminary analysis has been undertaken investigating the relative important of offence, offender and prison level variables in explaining custodial re-offending. This analysis has overwhelmingly shown that offence and offender level variables shape re-offending whereas prison-level variables refine re-offending behaviour. For this reason, the model uses offender and offence level variables and only models prison level effects using a single random effects component.
This model generates an expected probability of re-offending for each offender. When aggregated up to the prison it produces an expected proportion of offenders who re-offend. This can be compared with the actual rate of re-offending.
Where the model-predicted re-offending rate was statistically significantly different to actual re-offending rates, two possible explanations are plausible:
1. Missing characteristics: it is possible that there are underlying offence, offender or prison characteristics affecting re-offending behaviour that are not included in the current model; or
2. A genuine difference: there is something specific to these prisons that make them better/worse than predicted.
Additional modelling for probation performance
Results in the headline measure are compared to a baseline rate, adjusted for changes in the offender profile. This relies on an estimate of the relationship between offender characteristics and proven re-offending behaviour over 12 months. An equivalent estimate has been carried out for the proven re-offending behaviour specifically of offenders commencing court orders. This uses the same variables as the headline measure plus additional variables to ensure that the actual and predicted rates are identical for every probation trust in the baseline period (2008). The tables accompanying the report present the adjusted baseline for each trust.
Differences between the prison and probation trusts models and the model for the adjusted baseline for the headline measure
- The adjusted baseline for the headline measure applies to all offenders; the prison and probation models only apply to offenders discharged from custody or given a court order.
- The adjusted baseline for the headline measure is created using a fixed effects model using only offender and offence level variables; the probation model does the same, but the prison models use offender and offence level variables and also include a random component to reflect that prisoners are located within prisons.
- The adjusted baseline for the headline measure and for the probation model is derived using data from a baseline year (2008). The observed re-offending is equal to the predicted re-offending for the baseline year; the model coefficients are then applied to subsequent years and the predicted rates begins to differ from the actual rates. Provided the baseline year model is frequently refreshed, this ensures that any deviations of the actual re-offending rate from the predicted rate are due to system changes and not due to changes in the cohort make up. This approach enables us to assess progress in reducing re-offending. Whereas, the prison model is generated from scratch every year and assesses if any prison differs from the national average. As with the previous approach, the observed re-offending rate is still equal to the predicted re-offending for the prison population as a whole. It will not necessarily be the case for individual prisons. This approach provides an idea of which prisons have significantly lower (or higher) re-offending rates than predicted.
- Work is underway to develop an equivalent model for probation trusts to the one used for prisons. Appendix A: List of serious offences
Serious violence against the person
1. Murder:
1. Of persons aged 1 year or over.
2. Of infants under 1 year of age.
2. Attempted murder.
3. Manslaughter, etc.:
1. Manslaughter.
2. Infanticide.
3. Child destruction.
4. Wounding or other act endangering life:
01. Wounding, etc. with intent to do grievous bodily harm, etc. or to resist apprehension.
02. Shooting at naval or revenue vessels.
03. Attempting to choke, suffocate, etc. with intent to commit an indictable offence (garrotting).
04. Using chloroform, etc. to commit or assist in committing an indictable offence.
05. Burning, maiming, etc. by explosion.
06. Causing explosions or casting corrosive fluids with intent to do grievous bodily harm.
07. Impeding the saving of life from shipwreck.
08. Placing, etc. explosives in or near ships or buildings with intent to do bodily harm, etc.
09. Endangering life or causing harm by administering poison.
10. Causing danger by causing anything to be on road, interfering with a vehicle or traffic equipment.
11. Possession, etc. of explosives with intent to endanger life.
12. Possession of firearms, etc. with intent to endanger life or injure property, etc. (Group I).
13. Possession of firearms, etc. with intent to endanger life or injure property, etc. (Group II).
14. Possession of firearms, etc. with intent to endanger life or injure property, etc. (Group III).
15. Using, etc. firearms or imitation firearms with intent to resist arrest, etc. (Group I).
16. Using, etc. firearms or imitation firearms with intent to resist arrest, etc. (Group II).
17. Using, etc. firearms or imitation firearms with intent to resist arrest, etc. (Group III). [Group I - Firearms, etc. other than as described in Group II or III. Group II - Shotguns as defined in s.1 (3)(a) of the Firearms Act 1968. Group III - Air weapons as defined in s.1 (3)(b) of the Firearms Act 1968]
18. Use etc. of chemical weapons.
19. Use of premises or equipment for producing chemical weapons.
20. Use, threat to use, production or possession of a nuclear weapon.
21. Weapons related acts overseas.
22. Use of noxious substances or things to cause harm or intimidate.
23. Performing an aviation function or ancillary function when ability to carry out function is impaired because of drink or drugs.
24. Endangering safety at sea/aerodromes.
25. Torture.
5. Other wounding, etc.:
1. Wounding or inflicting grievous bodily harm (inflicting bodily injury with or without weapon).
6. Racially aggravated wounding or inflicting grievous bodily harm (inflicting bodily injury with or without weapon).
7. Religiously aggravated malicious wounding or GBH.
8. Racially or religiously aggravated malicious wounding or grievous bodily harm.
Sexual offences
017. Sexual assault on a male (previously indecent assault on a male):
018. Indecent assault on male person under 16 years.
019. Indecent assault on male person 16 years or over.
020. Assault on a male by penetration.
021. Assault of a male child under 13 by penetration.
022. Sexual assault on a male.
023. Sexual assault of a male child under 13.
024. Rape:
025. Man having unlawful sexual intercourse with a woman who is a defective.
026. Male member of staff of hospital or mental nursing home having unlawful sexual intercourse with female patient.
027. Man having unlawful sexual intercourse with mentally disordered female patient who is subject to his care.
028. Rape of a female aged under 16.
029. Rape of a female aged 16 or over.
030. Rape of a male aged under 16.
031. Rape of a male aged 16 or over.
032. Attempted rape of a female aged under 16.
033. Attempted rape of a female aged 16 or over.
034. Attempted rape of a male aged under 16.
035. Attempted rape of a male aged 16 or over.
036. Rape of female child under 13 by a male.
037. Rape of a male child under 13 by a male.
038. Attempted rape of a female child under 13 by a male.
039. Attempted rape of a male child under 13 by a male.
040. Sexual assault on female (previously indecent assault on a female):
041. On females under 16 years of age.
042. On females aged 16 years and over.
043. Assault on a female by penetration.
044. Assault on a female child under 13 by penetration.
045. Sexual assault on a female.
046. Sexual assault on a female child under 13.
047. Sexual activity (male and female) (including with a child under 13) (previously unlawful intercourse with a girl under 13):
048. Causing or inciting a female child under 13 to engage in sexual activity - penetration.
049. Causing or inciting a female child under 13 to engage in sexual activity - no penetration.
050. Causing or inciting a male child under 13 to engage in sexual activity - penetration.
051. Causing or inciting a male child under 13 to engage in sexual activity - no penetration.
052. Sexual activity with a female child under 13 - offender aged 18 or over - penetration.
053. Sexual activity with a male child under 13 - offender aged 18 or over - penetration.
054. Causing or inciting a female child under 13 to engage in sexual activity - offender aged 18 or over – penetration.
055. Causing or inciting a male child under 13 to engage in sexual activity - offender aged 18 or over - penetration.
056. Engaging in sexual activity in the presence of a child under 13 (offender aged 18 or over).
057. Causing a child under 13 to watch a sexual act (offender aged 18 or over).
058. Sexual activity with a female child under 13 - offender aged under 18.
059. Sexual activity with a male child under 13 - offender aged under 18.
060. Causing of inciting a female child under 13 to engage in sexual activity - offender under 18.
061. Causing or inciting a male child under 13 to engage in sexual activity - offender under 18.
062. Engaging in sexual activity in the presence of a child under 13 - offender under 18.
063. Causing a child under 13 to watch a sexual act - offender under 18.
064. Sexual activity with a female under 13 - offender aged 18 or over - no penetration.
065. Sexual activity with a male child under 13 - offender aged 18 or over - no penetration.
066. Causing or inciting a female child under 13 to engage in sexual activity - offender aged 18 or over - no penetration.
067. Causing or inciting a male child under 13 to engage in sexual activity - offender aged 18 or over - no penetration.
068. Sexual activity with a female child under 16 - offender aged 18 or over - no penetration.
069. Sexual activity with a male child under 16 - offender aged 18 or over - no penetration.
070. Causing or inciting a female child under 16 to engage in sexual activity - offender aged 18 or over - no penetration.
071. Causing or inciting a male child under 16 to engage in sexual activity - offender aged 18 or over - no penetration.
072. Sexual activity (male and female) (including with a child under 16) (previously unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl under 16):
073. Unlawful sexual intercourse with girl under 16 (offences committed prior to 1 May 2004).
074. Causing a female person to engage in sexual activity without consent – penetration.
075. Causing a male person to engage in sexual activity without consent – penetration.
076. Causing a female person to engage in sexual activity without consent - no penetration.
077. Causing a male person to engage in sexual activity without consent - no penetration.
078. Sexual activity with a female child under 16 (offender aged 18 or over) – penetration.
079. Sexual activity with a male child under 16 (offender aged 18 or over) – penetration.
080. Causing or inciting a female child under 16 to engage in sexual activity (offender aged 18 or over) - penetration
081. Causing of inciting a male child under 16 to engage in sexual activity (offender aged 18 or over) – penetration.
082. Engaging in sexual activity in the presence of a child under 16 (offender aged 18 or over).
083. Causing a child under 16 to watch a sexual act (offender aged 18 or over).
084. Sexual activity with a female child under 16 - offender aged 18 or over - no penetration.
085. Sexual activity with a male child under 16 - offender aged 18 or over - no penetration.
086. Causing or inciting a female child under 16 to engage in sexual activity (offender aged 18 or over) - no penetration.
087. Causing or inciting a male child under 16 to engage in sexual activity (offender aged 18 or over) - no penetration.
088. Sexual activity etc. with a person with a mental disorder:
089. Sexual activity with a male person with a mental disorder impeding choice – penetration.
090. Sexual activity with a female person with a mental disorder impeding choice – penetration.
091. Sexual activity with a male person with a mental disorder impeding choice - no penetration.
092. Sexual activity with a female person with a mental disorder impeding choice - no penetration.
093. Causing or inciting a male person with a mental disorder impeding choice to engage in sexual activity – penetration.
094. Causing or inciting a female person with a mental disorder impeding choice to engage in sexual activity – penetration.
095. Causing or inciting a male person with a mental disorder impeding choice to engage in sexual activity – penetration.
096. Causing or inciting a female person with a mental disorder impeding choice to engage in sexual activity - no penetration.
097. Engaging in sexual activity in the presence of a person with a mental disorder impeding choice.
098. Causing a person with a mental disorder impeding choice to watch a sexual act.
099. Inducement, threat or deception to procure sexual activity with a person with a mental disorder – penetration.
100. Inducement, threat or deception to procure sexual activity with a person with a mental disorder - no penetration.
101. Causing a person with a mental disorder to engage in sexual activity by inducement, threat or deception - penetration.
102. Causing a person with a mental disorder to engage in sexual activity by inducement, threat or deception - no penetration.
103. Engaging in sexual activity in the presence, procured by inducement, threat or deception, of a person with a mental disorder.
104. Causing a person with a mental disorder to watch a sexual act by inducement, threat or deception.
105. Care workers: Sexual activity with a male person with a mental disorder - penetration.
106. Care workers: Sexual activity with a female person with a mental disorder - penetration.
107. Care workers: Sexual activity with a male person with a mental disorder - no penetration.
108. Care workers: Sexual activity with a female person with a mental disorder - no penetration.
109. Care workers: Causing or inciting sexual activity (person with a mental disorder) - penetration.
110. Care workers: Causing or inciting sexual activity (person with a mental disorder) - no penetration.
111. Care workers: Sexual activity in the presence of a person with a mental disorder.
112. Care workers: Causing a person with a mental disorder impeding choice to watch a sexual act.
113. Abuse of children through prostitution and pornography (previously child prostitution and pornography):
114. Arranging or facilitating the commission of a child sex offence.
115. Paying for sex with a female child under 13 - penetration
116. Paying for sex with a male child under 13 - penetration
117. Paying for sex with a female child under 16 - no penetration.
118. Paying for sex with a male child under 16 - no penetration.
119. Paying for sex with a female child aged 16 or 17.
120. Paying for sex with a male child aged 16 or 17.
121. Causing or inciting child prostitution or pornography - child aged 13-17.
122. Controlling a child prostitute or a child involved in pornography - child aged 13-17.
123. Arranging or facilitating child prostitution or pornography - child aged 13-17.
124. Causing or inciting child prostitution or pornography - child under 13.
125. Controlling a child prostitute or child involved in pornography - child under 13.
126. Arranging or facilitating child prostitution or pornography - child under 13.
127. Paying for sex with a female child aged under 16 – penetration.
128. Paying for sex with a male child aged under 16 – penetration.
129. Trafficking for sexual exploitation:
130. Arranging or facilitating arrival of a person into the UK for sexual exploitation (trafficking).
131. Arranging or facilitating travel of a person within the UK for sexual exploitation (trafficking).
132. Arranging or facilitating departure of a person from the UK for sexual exploitation (trafficking).
Taking and driving away and related offences
37. Aggravated vehicle taking:
38. Where, owing to the driving of the vehicle, an accident occurs causing the death of any person.
Other motoring offences
4. Manslaughter, etc.: 4. Causing death by dangerous driving. 8. (Offences) Causing death by careless or inconsiderate driving (Offences due to commence in Autumn 2007).
Drink driving offences
4. Manslaughter, etc.: 6. Causing death by careless driving when under the influence of drink or drugs.
Serious acquisitive offences
Burglary
1. Burglary in a dwelling with intent to commit or the commission of an offence triable only on indictment.
2. Burglary in a dwelling with violence or the threat of violence.
3. Other burglary in a dwelling.
4. Aggravated burglary in a dwelling (including attempts).
Robbery
1. Robbery.
2. Assault with intent to rob.
Taking and driving away
1. Aggravated taking where the vehicle was driven dangerously on a road or other public place.
2. Aggravated taking where owing to the driving of the vehicle an accident occurred causing injury to any person or damage to any property other than the vehicle.
Theft from or of vehicles
1. Stealing from motor vehicles.
2. Stealing from other vehicles.
3. Theft of motor vehicle.
4. Unauthorised taking of a motor vehicle. Appendix B: Glossary of terms
Re-offending terms
**Cohort** – this is the group of individuals whose re-offending is measured.
**Index offence** – the index offence is the proven offence that leads to an offender being included in the cohort.
**Index disposal** – the index disposal of the offender is the type of sentence the offender received for their index offence.
**Start point (index date)** – this is the set point in time from when re-offences are measured.
**Follow-up period** – this is the length of time proven re-offending is measured over.
**Waiting period** – this is the additional time beyond the follow-up period to allow for offences committed towards the end of the follow-up period to be proved by a court conviction, caution, reprimand or final warning.
**Adjusted to baseline** – proven re-offending is related to the characteristics of offenders which means that any overall rate of proven re-offending will depend, in part, on the characteristics of offenders coming into the system (just as the examination pass rate of a school will be related to the characteristics of its pupils). We use a modelling technique to produce a baseline figure adjusted to match the characteristics of the cohort we are comparing.
**Re-conviction** – where an offender is convicted at court for an offence committed within a set follow-up period and convicted within either the follow-up period or waiting period.
**Proven re-offence** – where an offender is convicted at court or receives some other form of criminal justice sanction for an offence committed within a set follow-up period and disposed of within either the follow-up period or waiting period.
**Cohort definition used in the Proven Re-offending Statistics Quarterly Bulletin** – the proven re-offending cohort consists of all offenders discharged from custody, otherwise sanctioned at court, receiving a caution, reprimand or warning or tested positive for opiates or cocaine in each year. This cohort’s criminal history is collated and criminal behaviour is tracked over the following one year. Any offence committed in this one year period which is proven by a court conviction or out-of-court disposal (either in the one year period, or in a further six months waiting period) counts as a proven re-offence. The latest available publication is the Proven Re-offending Statistics Quarterly Bulletin in England and Wales; Ministry of Justice, October 2012. Cohort definition used in the Local Adult Re-offending Quarterly Bulletin – the local adult re-offending measure takes a snapshot of all offenders, aged 18 or over, who are under probation supervision at the end of a quarter, and combines four such snapshots together. This cohort’s criminal history is collated and criminal behaviour is tracked over the following three months. Any offence committed in this three month period which is proven by a court conviction or out-of-court disposal (either in the three month period, or in a further three months waiting period) counts as a proven re-offence. The latest available publication is the Local Adult Re-offending: 1 April 2011 – 31 March 2012, England and Wales; Ministry of Justice, August 2012.
Disposal (sentence type)
Fine – a financial penalty imposed following conviction.
Court orders – court orders include community sentences, community orders and suspended sentence orders supervised by the Probation Service. They do not include any pre or post release supervision.
Criminal Justice Act 2003 (CJA03) – for offences committed on or after 4 April 2005, the new community order replaced all existing community sentences for adults. The Act also introduced a new suspended sentence order for offences which pass the custody threshold. It also changed the release arrangements for prisoners. See Appendix A of Offender Management Caseload Statistics 2009 for more information.
Community order – for offences committed on or after 4 April 2005, the new community order introduced under the CJA 2003 replaced all existing community sentences for those aged 18 years and over. This term refers to all court orders except suspended sentence orders and deferred sentences which may have a custodial component to the sentence. The court must add at least one, but could potentially add all 12 requirements depending on the offences and the offender. The requirements are:
- unpaid work (formerly community service/community punishment) – a requirement to complete between 40 and 300 hours’ unpaid work;
- activity – for example, to attend basic skills classes;
- programme – there are several designed to reduce the prospects of re-offending;
- prohibited activity – a requirement not do so something that is likely to lead to further offence or nuisance;
- curfew – which is electronically monitored; • exclusion – this is not used frequently as there is no reliable electronic monitoring yet available;
• residence – requirement to reside only where approved by probation officer;
• mental health treatment (requires offender’s consent);
• drug rehabilitation (requires offender’s consent);
• alcohol treatment (requires offender’s consent);
• supervision – meetings with probation officer to address needs/offending behaviour; and
• attendance centre – between a minimum of 12 hours and a maximum of 36 in total which includes three hours of activity.
Typically, the more serious the offence and the more extensive the offender’s needs, the more requirements there will be. Most orders will comprise of one or two requirements, but there are packages of several requirements available where required. The court tailors the order as appropriate and is guided by the Probation Service through a pre-sentence report.
**Suspended sentence order (SSO)** – the CJA 2003 introduced a new suspended sentence order which is made up of the same requirements as a community order and, in the absence of breach is served wholly in the community supervised by the Probation Service. It consists of an ‘operational period’ (the time for which the custodial sentence is suspended) and a ‘supervision period’ (the time during which any requirements take effect). Both may be between six months and two years and the ‘supervision period’ cannot be longer than the ‘operational period’, although it may be shorter. Failure to comply with the requirements of the order or commission of another offence will almost certainly result in a custodial sentence.
**Pre CJA03 Court Orders – Community sentences**
**Community punishment order (CPO)** – the offender is required to undertake unpaid community work.
**Community rehabilitation order (CRO)** - a community sentence which may have additional requirements such as residence, probation centre attendance or treatment for drug, alcohol or mental health problems.
**Community punishment and rehabilitation order (CPRO)** – a community sentence consisting of probation supervision alongside community punishment, with additional conditions like those of a community rehabilitation order. Drug treatment and testing order (DTTO) – a community sentence targeted at offenders with drug-misuse problems.
Custody – the offender is awarded a sentence to be served in prison or a Young Offenders Institute (YOI). If the offender is given a sentence of 12 months or over, or is aged under 22 on release, the offender is supervised by the Probation Service on release. It is important to note that the sentence lengths and youth disposals awarded will be longer than the time served in custody. For more information please refer to Appendix A of Offender Management Caseload Statistics 2009.
Short sentences (under 12 months) – those sentenced to under 12 months (made under the Criminal Justice Act 1991) spend the first half of their sentence in prison and are then released and considered ‘at risk’ for the remaining period. This means they are under no positive obligations and do not report to the Probation Service, but if they commit a further imprisonable offence during the ‘at risk’ period, they can be made to serve the remainder of the sentence in addition to the punishment for the new offence. The exception to this is those aged 18 to 20 who have a minimum of three month’s supervision on release.
Sentences of 12 months or over – the CJA03 created a distinction between standard determinate sentences and public protection sentences. Offenders sentenced to a standard determinate sentence serve the first half in prison and the second half in the community on licence.
Youth disposal (sentence type)
Reprimand or warning – a reprimand is a formal verbal warning given by a police officer to a juvenile offender who admits they are guilty for a minor first offence. A final warning is similar to a reprimand, but can be used for either the first or second offence, and includes an assessment of the juvenile to determine the causes of their offending behaviour and a programme of activities is designed to address them.
First-tier penalties
Discharge – a juvenile offender is given an absolute discharge when they admit guilt, or are found guilty, with no further action taken. An offender given a conditional discharge also receives no immediate punishment, but is given a set period during which, if they commit a further offence, they can be brought back to court and re-sentenced.
- Fine – the size of the fine depends on the offence committed and the offender’s financial circumstances. In the case of juveniles under 16, the fine is the responsibility of the offender’s parent or carer.
- Referral order – this is given to juveniles pleading guilty and for whom it is their first time at court (unless the offence is so serious it merits a custodial sentence or it is of a relatively minor nature). The offender is required to attend a Youth Offender Panel to agree a contract, aimed to repair the harm caused by the offence and address the causes of the offending behaviour.
- **Reparation order** – the offender is required to repair the harm caused by their offence either directly to the victim or indirectly to the community.
**Youth Rehabilitation Order** – a community sentence for juvenile offenders, which came into effect on 30 November 2009 as part of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008. It combines a number of sentences into one generic sentence and is the standard community sentence used for the majority of children and young people who offend. The following requirements can be attached to a Youth Rehabilitation Order (YRO):
- activity requirement
- curfew requirement
- exclusion requirement
- local authority residence requirement
- education requirement
- mental health treatment requirement
- unpaid work requirement
- drug testing requirement
- intoxicating substance misuse requirement
- supervision requirement
- electronic monitoring requirement
- prohibited activity requirement
- drug treatment requirement
- residence requirement
- programme requirement
- attendance centre requirement
- intensive supervision and surveillance
- intensive fostering The following community sentences are replaced by the YRO, but will continue to exist for those that committed an offence before 30 November 2009. The YRO is only available for those that committed an offence on or after the 30 November 2009.
- action plan order
- curfew order
- supervision order
- supervision order and conditions
- community punishment order
- community punishment and rehabilitation order
- attendance centre order
- drug treatment and testing order
- exclusion order
- community rehabilitation order
**Prison categories**
**Category B and category C prisons** hold sentenced prisoners of their respective categories, including life sentenced prisoners. The regime focuses on programmes that address offending behaviour and provide education, vocational training and purposeful work for prisoners who will normally spend several years in one prison.
**High security prisons** hold category A and B prisoners. Category A prisoners are managed by a process of dispersal, and these prisons also hold a proportion of category B prisoners for whom they provide a similar regime to a category B prison. The category B prisoners held in a High Security Prison are not necessarily any more dangerous or difficult to manage than those in category B prisons.
**Female prisons**, as the name implies, hold female prisoners. Because of the smaller numbers, they are not divided into the same number of categories although there are variations in security levels.
**Local prisons** serve the courts in the area. Historically their main function was to hold un-convicted and un-sentenced prisoners and, once a prisoner had been sentenced, to allocate them on to a category B, C or D prison as appropriate to serve their sentence. However, pressure on places means that many shorter term prisoners serve their entire sentence in a local prison, while longer term prisoners also complete some offending behaviour and training programmes there before moving on to lower security conditions. All local prisons operate to category B security standards.
**Open prisons** have much lower levels of physical security and only hold category D prisoners. Many prisoners in open prisons will be allowed to go out of the prison on a daily basis to take part in voluntary or paid work in the community in preparation for their approaching release.
**Miscellaneous terms**
**Drug-misusing offenders**
There are four ways a drug-misusing offender can be identified:
- Individuals who have tested positive for heroin or crack/cocaine following an arrest or charge for ‘trigger’ offences (largely acquisitive crime offences) as part of the Drug Interventions Programme (DIP) are included as adult proven offenders.
- Any offender that received an OASys assessment whilst on licence or on a community sentence and are either recorded as being subject to a current Drug Treatment and Testing Order (DTTO) or Drug Rehabilitation Requirement (DRR), or are assessed as having a criminogenic drug need.
- Any offender identified as requiring further drug interventions by Counselling, Assessment, Referral, Advice, Throughcare (CARAT) teams in prison, and now being released into the community.
- Any offender identified by local Criminal Justice Integrated Teams (CJITs) as requiring further intervention for their drug use and offending as part of DIP.
**National Probation Service** – the National Probation Service generally deals with those aged 18 years and over. (Those under 18 are mostly dealt with by Youth Offending Teams, answering to the Youth Justice Board.) They are responsible for supervising offenders who are given community sentences and suspended sentence orders by the courts, as well as offenders given custodial sentences, both pre and post their release.
**Police National Computer** – the Police National Computer (PNC) is the police’s administrative IT system used by all police forces in England and Wales and managed by the National Policing Improvement Agency. As with any large scale recording system the PNC is subject to possible errors with data entry and processing. The MoJ maintains a database based on weekly extracts of selected data from the PNC in order to compile statistics and conduct research on re-offending and criminal histories. The PNC largely covers recordable offences – these are all indictable and triable-either-way offences plus many of the more serious summary offences. All figures derived from the MoJ’s PNC database, and in particular those for the most recent months, are likely to be revised as more information is recorded by the police. **Prolific and other priority offenders** – the Prolific and other Priority Offenders Programme (PPO) aims to use a multi-agency approach to focus on a very small, but hard core group of prolific/persistent offenders who commit disproportionate amounts of crime and cause disproportionate harm to their local communities. The identification of a PPO is undertaken at a local level involving police, local authorities, prison and probation services and youth offending teams. The factors that influence the decision of whether an offender is included in the PPO programme are:
- the nature and volume of crimes they commit;
- the nature and volume of other harm they cause; and
- the detrimental impact they have on their community.
**Recordable offences** – recordable offences are those that the police are required to record on the PNC. They include all offences for which a custodial sentence can be given plus a range of other offences defined as recordable in legislation. They exclude a range of less serious summary offences, for example television licence evasion, driving without insurance, speeding and vehicle tax offences.
**Indictable and summary offences** – summary offences are triable only by a magistrates’ court. This group includes motoring offences, common assault and criminal damage up to £5,000. More serious offences are classed either as triable-either-way (these can be tried either at the Crown Court or at a magistrates’ court and include criminal damage where the value is £5,000 or greater, theft and burglary) or indictable-only (the most serious offences that must be tried at the Crown Court; these ‘indictable-only’ offences include murder, manslaughter, rape and robbery). The term indictable offences is used to refer to all triable-either-way and ‘indictable-only’ offences.
**Offence group** – a split of offences into 21 separate groups. A more detailed split of the 10 indictable offence groups (violence against the person, sexual offences, burglary, robbery, theft and handling and stolen goods, fraud and forgery, criminal damage, drug offences, other indictable offences (excluding motoring), indictable motoring) and the two summary offence groups (summary non-motoring and summary motoring offence types). Appendix C: Comparison of the three measures of re-offending
Figure A1 below compares how the three measures of re-offending (the headline proven re-offending measure, the early estimates of re-offending and local adult re-offending) are constructed. It shows the period over which the re-offending cohort is formed, the time over which re-offending is measured, the additional time allowed for re-offending to be proven, and the time taken to collect and analyse the data, and then to publish.
Figure A1: how the three re-offending measures are constructed
| Measure | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | |--------------------------|------|------|------| | **Headline measure** | | | | | Cohort formation | | | | | Re-offences | | | | | Re-offences proven | | | | | Data collection and analysis | | | | | Publication | | | Oct-11| | **Early Estimates measure** | | | | | Cohort formation | | | | | Re-offences | | | | | Re-offences proven | | | | | Data collection and analysis | | | | | Publication | | | Oct-11| | **Local Re-offending measure** | | | | | Cohort formation based on probation caseload snapshots at end of each quarter | | | | | Re-offences | | | | | Re-offences proven | | | | | Data collection and analysis | | | | | Publication | | | Nov-11|
Cohort formation Headline measure and early estimates: offenders enter the cohort when they receive a caution (adults), a final warning or reprimand (juveniles), are given a non-custodial conviction, are released from custody or test positive for cocaine or opiates in the cohort formation period shown.
Local adult re-offending: this uses a snapshot of all offenders aged 18 or over, who are under probation supervision at the end of a quarter, and combines four such snapshots together.
Re-offences Headline measure: A re-offence is counted if the offence occurs within the "Re-offences" period shown. This is within 12 months of entering the cohort.
Early estimates and local adult re-offending: A re-offence is counted if the offence occurs within three months of entering the cohort for the early estimates measure and within three months following each of the four caseload snapshots for the local re-offending measure.
Re-offences proven Headline measure: For a re-offence to be counted it must also be proven within the "Re-offences proven" period shown. This is within six months of the re-offence.
Early estimates and local adult re-offending: For a re-offence to be counted it must also be proven within the "Re-offences proven" period shown. This is within three months of the re-offence. Contact details and further information
For queries, comments or further information, please contact:
**Nick Mavron**\
Justice Statistics Analytical Services\
Ministry of Justice\
7th floor\
102 Petty France\
London\
SW1H 9AJ
Email: [[email protected]](mailto:[email protected])
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/4811-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 48,
"total-input-tokens": 94964,
"total-output-tokens": 28220,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
84,
1
],
[
84,
495,
2
],
[
495,
2156,
3
],
[
2156,
4742,
4
],
[
4742,
6105,
5
],
[
6105,
7399,
6
],
[
7399,
9430,
7
],
[
9430,
11698,
8
],
[
11698,
15371,
9
],
[
15371,
17334,
10
],
[
17334,
19782,
11
],
[
19782,
22312,
12
],
[
22312,
23015,
13
],
[
23015,
25013,
14
],
[
25013,
25875,
15
],
[
25875,
28706,
16
],
[
28706,
31522,
17
],
[
31522,
33988,
18
],
[
33988,
36466,
19
],
[
36466,
38973,
20
],
[
38973,
41331,
21
],
[
41331,
45341,
22
],
[
45341,
47437,
23
],
[
47437,
50174,
24
],
[
50174,
51035,
25
],
[
51035,
53061,
26
],
[
53061,
55386,
27
],
[
55386,
58061,
28
],
[
58061,
60754,
29
],
[
60754,
66135,
30
],
[
66135,
69752,
31
],
[
69752,
72444,
32
],
[
72444,
75070,
33
],
[
75070,
77665,
34
],
[
77665,
80548,
35
],
[
80548,
83770,
36
],
[
83770,
87224,
37
],
[
87224,
89036,
38
],
[
89036,
91480,
39
],
[
91480,
93842,
40
],
[
93842,
96072,
41
],
[
96072,
98873,
42
],
[
98873,
100097,
43
],
[
100097,
102021,
44
],
[
102021,
104698,
45
],
[
104698,
106955,
46
],
[
106955,
109875,
47
],
[
109875,
110206,
48
]
]
} |
775aace2fa2450dd70d617ed1b60b31daad6bd30 | Early estimates of proven reoffending January to December 2010, England and Wales
Published 27 October 2011 Early estimates of proven re-offending: results from 2010
Early estimates of proven re-offending use shorter follow-up and waiting periods. This is intended to provide offender managers feedback on the proven re-offending trends of offenders they are working with in time for them to adjust or build on offender management operational policy.
Proven re-offending for these early estimates is measured in exactly the same way as for the headline proven re-offending measure except that the follow-up period and waiting period are both three months each. Therefore the early estimates provide 3 month proven re-offending rates (rather than the headline one year proven re-offending rate). Please see the definitions and measurements document for more information www.justice.gov.uk/publications/statistics-and-data/reoffending
Early estimates are presented for four particular offender groups who are subject to specific offender management arrangements. These are:
- offenders managed by the probation service,
- Prolific and other Priority Offenders (PPO) who are managed by a partnership of local front-line services,
- drug-misusing offenders who are managed by Drug Action Teams (DAT),
- young offenders who are managed by Youth Offending Teams (YOT).
Key Results
Probation trusts
Early estimates of proven re-offending ranged from 10.1 per cent to 19.7 per cent in the 35 probation trusts. Overall, 15 had lower early estimates of proven re-offending in 2010 than 2009, 20 had higher while none remained the same.
Compared with the predicted rate of re-offending, two trusts had significantly lower rates of re-offending than expected. These were Gloucestershire and Staffordshire and West Midlands. Three trusts had significantly higher rates of re-offending than expected. These were Bedfordshire, Hertfordshire and West Mercia. Figure 1 shows trusts' re-offending rates compared to the predicted rate, by the expected number of re-offenders. Figure 1: Funnel plot showing changes in re-offending at the probation trust level Prolific and other Priority Offenders (PPO) Early estimates of proven re-offending ranged from 7.1 per cent to 100.0 per cent in the 173 local authorities with PPO offenders in 2010. PPO's in 37 local authorities showed lower early estimates of proven re-offending in 2010 than in 2009 and PPO's in 42 showed higher.
Drug misusing offenders Early estimates of proven re-offending ranged from 6.1 per cent to 66.7 per cent. Overall, 41 DATs had lower proven re-offending rates in 2010 than 2009 and 123 had higher.
Young offenders Early estimates of proven re-offending ranged from 2.3 per cent to 24.2 per cent. Overall, 48 YOTs showed lower proven re-offending rates in 2010 than 2009 and 109 showed higher.
List of quarterly tables
Table 1 Early estimates of proven adult re-offending by probation trust based on first commencement from each trust, 2009 – 2010
Table 2 Early estimates of proven re-offending of Prolific and other Priority Offenders by upper tier local authority, 2009 – 2010
Table 3 Early estimates of proven re-offending of drug-misusing offenders by Drug Action Team, 2009 - 2010
Table 4 Early estimates of proven juvenile re-offending, by Youth Offending Team, 2009 - 2010
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/4812-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 4,
"total-input-tokens": 5885,
"total-output-tokens": 979,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
109,
1
],
[
109,
2065,
2
],
[
2065,
2148,
3
],
[
2148,
3353,
4
]
]
} |
1548ec3650321ae1e72b8b7cb5cb131fc42de157 | Proven Re-offending Statistics Quarterly Bulletin January to December 2009, England and Wales
Ministry of Justice Statistics bulletin
27 October 2011
## Contents
| Section | Page | |------------------------------------------------------------------------|------| | Introduction | 4 | | Executive Summary | 7 | | Chapter 1 – Overall proven re-offending rates | 15 | | Chapter 2 – Adult proven re-offending rates | 22 | | Chapter 3 – Juvenile proven re-offending rates | 26 | | Chapter 4 – Proven re-offending by index disposal (sentence type), Prison and Probation Trust | 30 | | List of quarterly tables | 39 | | Annex A: How the measure has changed and the effect of these changes | 42 | | Appendix A: Glossary of terms | 57 | | Explanatory notes | 64 | Introduction
The Proven Re-offending Statistics Quarterly bulletin is a new Ministry of Justice publication which provides key statistics on proven re-offending in England and Wales. It gives proven re-offending figures for offenders, who were released from custody, received a non-custodial conviction at court, received a caution, reprimand, warning or tested positive for opiates or cocaine between January and December 2009. Proven re-offending is defined as any offence committed in a one year follow-up period and receiving a court conviction, caution, reprimand or warning in the one year follow up or a further six months waiting period. This is referred to as a proven re-offence.
This report merges 6 previous measures of re-offending which were split across many publications into a single coherent overview of proven re-offending for the first time. It is a significant step forward for measuring re-offending as for the first time users can:
- get figures for the total number of proven re-offenders in an area and the total number of offences they commit in a year;
- see re-offending rates for adults, juveniles, drug misusing and prolific offenders measures on a consistent basis both nationally and locally;
- measure individual prison and probation level re-offending on a consistent basis.
This report presents the proportion of offenders who re-offend (proven re-offending rate) and the number of proven re-offences those offenders commit by age group, gender, ethnicity, criminal history, offence type, serious proven re-offending, prolific and priority offenders and drug misusing offenders. Also included are proven re-offending rates for different types of sentence and by individual prison, probation trust and youth offending team.
Latest figures for 2009 are provided with comparisons to 2008, results are also compared to 2000 to highlight long-term trends; 2000 is the earliest re-offending data that exists on a comparable basis. The accompanying ‘Definitions and Measurement’ document gives more information. [www.justice.gov.uk/publications/statistics-and-data/reoffending/proven-reoffending-quarterly.htm](http://www.justice.gov.uk/publications/statistics-and-data/reoffending/proven-reoffending-quarterly.htm)
Measuring proven re-offending
There is no agreed international standard for measuring and reporting re-offending. An offender’s journey through the justice system can be a complex one; offenders can appear on numerous occasions.
Measuring true re-offending is difficult. Official records are taken from either the police or courts, but they will underestimate the true level of re-offending because only a proportion of crime is detected and not all crimes are recorded on one central system. Other methods of measuring re-offending, such as self report studies, are likely to be unreliable. Therefore this report aims to measure proven re-offending.
Since re-offending is now measured on a consistent basis across all groups it is possible to tailor analysis of re-offending to meet specific requirements. This report and the accompanying ‘Early Estimates of proven re-offending’ www.justice.gov.uk/publications/statistics-and-data/reoffending/proven-reoffending-quarterly.htm present measures on three different levels to meet users needs:
- The headline measure – this is the main measure of re-offending and is presented for different demographic groups and by offence. To provide this overview of proven re-offending, offenders are tracked and their proven re-offending behaviour is recorded, taking the first event in the relevant period as the start point and subsequent events as proven re-offences.
- A headline measure where the first event is related to criminal justice and offender management – this provides a realistic and relevant view of proven re-offending by disposal (sentence type), prison and probation trust. Offenders are tracked and their proven re-offending behaviour is recorded within each disposal (caution, court order, discharge from prison, etc) or operational unit (prison or probation trust) taking the first event within each as the start point and subsequent events as re-offences.
- Early estimates of re-offending – these use shorter follow-up and waiting periods but otherwise measure re-offending in exactly the same way as the headline measure. This is intended to provide offender managers feedback on the proven re-offending trends of offenders they are working with in time for them to adjust or build on offender management operational policy.
For a more detailed explanation, please see the accompanying ‘Definitions and Measurement’ document at www.justice.gov.uk/publications/statistics-and-data/reoffending/proven-reoffending-quarterly.htm
Differences in data compared to previous publications
This new measure has been developed in response to public consultation (see below). It is a single measure of proven re-offending which reflects the need to provide a complete picture of re-offending which is easily understood by all. The new framework creates far more flexibility to break the data down into offender groups of interest.
______________________________________________________________________
1 An event is one of the following: a release from custody, convicted at court with a non-custodial sentence, received a caution, reprimand, warning or tested positive for opiates or cocaine As such, this measure is substantially different from the previous National Statistics on adult re-convictions and juvenile re-offending. These differences are mainly due to:
- the inclusion of a wider range of offenders
- measuring re-offending based on offenders identified across a whole year rather than only one quarter of a year
- measuring proven re-offending for all offenders rather than just re-convictions for adults
For more detail and a summary of the differences between the results please refer to Annex A
Consultation
This report has been developed in response to a consultation in late 2010 and early 2011 by the Ministry of Justice on “Improvements to Ministry of Justice Statistics”. The main points from the consultation that affect this publication can be found in Annex A.
Users
The contents of the report will be of interest to government policy makers, the agencies responsible for offender management at both national and local levels, providers, practitioners and others who want to understand more about proven re-offending.
In particular there are two Ministry of Justice impact indicators(^2) which will be monitored using results from this report;
- adult and juvenile re-offending – the percentage of adult and juvenile offenders who re-offend, measured quarterly by local authority
- the percentage of adults released from custody who re-offend measured annually, by prison
Government policy makers also use these statistics to develop, monitor and evaluate key elements of its policies including those on payments by results, legal aid, sentencing guidelines and drug and alcohol policies. Offender management agencies use these statistics to gain a local understanding of the criminal justice system, understand performance and to highlight best practice. Key agencies include; the National Offender Management Service, Youth Justice Board, private and voluntary sector providers of prison and probation services and local authorities.
As proven re-offending is related to the characteristics of offenders, the actual rate of proven re-offending will depend, in part, on the characteristics of
(^2) [www.justice.gov.uk/publications/corporate-reports/moj/index.htm](http://www.justice.gov.uk/publications/corporate-reports/moj/index.htm) This is a new bulletin produced in response to a consultation. The MOJ has addressed the main issues from the consultation. We have separately announced plans for further analysis on proven re-offending rates using a two year follow up period and to develop a measure of re-offending while on license under probation supervision for publication in May 2012.
If you have any feedback, questions or requests for further information about this statistical bulletin, please direct them to the appropriate contact given at the end of this report. Executive Summary
This report provides key statistics on proven re-offending in England and Wales. It gives proven re-offending figures for offenders who were released from custody, received a non-custodial conviction at court, received a caution, reprimand, warning or tested positive for opiates or cocaine between January and December 2009. Proven re-offending is defined as any offence committed in a one year follow-up period and receiving a court conviction, caution, reprimand or warning in the one year follow up. Following this one year period, a further 6 months is allowed for cases to progress through the courts.
Between January and December 2009, there were just under 700,000 offenders who were cautioned, convicted (excluding immediate custodial sentences) or released from custody. Just over 180,000 of these offenders committed a proven re-offence within a year. This gives a one-year proven re-offending rate of 26.3 per cent.
These re-offenders committed an average of 2.79 offences each - around 510,000 offences in total – 79 per cent were committed by adults and 21 per cent were committed by juveniles.
- Just over half of these offences were committed by offenders with 11 or more previous offences.
- 0.7 per cent (around 3,400) were serious violent/sexual proven re-offences.
Recent Changes
Between 2008 and 2009, the proven re-offending rate decreased slightly from 26.9 per cent to 26.3 per cent. This trend held across most sub-groups looked at.
Between 2008 and 2009, the average number of proven re-offences per re-offender decreased by 3.3 per cent from 2.89 to 2.79.
______________________________________________________________________
3 A certain proportion of offenders could not be matched to the Police National Computer (PNC) and are therefore not included. Therefore this number does not represent ALL proven offenders. Please refer to the Definitions and Measurement document for more detail www.justice.gov.uk/publications/statistics-and-data/reoffending/proven-reoffending-quarterly.htm
This means that numbers of offenders in this bulletin will be different from the numbers published in the Offender Management Caseload Statistics www.justice.gov.uk/publications/statistics-and-data/prisons-and-probation/oms-quarterly.htm and Criminal Justice Systems statistics www.justice.gov.uk/publications/statistics-and-data/criminal-justice/criminal-justice-statistics.htm
4 Includes reprimands and warnings for juveniles
5 Also includes those who tested positive for opiates or cocaine Table 1.1: Overview – latest period compared to the previous year and 2000
| | 2000 | 2008 | 2009 | Percentage change 2000 to 2009 | Percentage change 2008 to 2009 | |----------------------|------|------|------|-------------------------------|-------------------------------| | **All Offenders** | | | | | | | Proportion of offenders who re-offend (%) | 27.9 | 26.9 | 26.3 | -1.6pp ↓ | -0.6pp ↓ | | Average number of re-offences per re-offender | 3.37 | 2.89 | 2.79 | -17.3% ↓ | -3.3% ↓ | | Proportion of offenders who re-offend - Adjusted to baseline (%) (predicted) | 25.5 | 26.9 | 27.1 | - | - | | Average number of re-offences per offender (frequency rate) | 0.94 | 0.78 | 0.73 | -21.9% ↓ | -5.6% ↓ | | Number of re-offences | 579,770 | 571,469 | 511,668 | -11.7% ↓ | -10.5% ↓ | | Number of re-offenders | 171,935 | 197,958 | 183,382 | 6.7% ↑ | -7.4% ↓ | | Number of offenders in cohort | 617,024 | 735,527 | 697,362 | 13.0% ↑ | -5.2% ↓ | | **Adult offenders** | | | | | | | Proportion of offenders who re-offend (%) | 26.2 | 25.4 | 24.9 | -1.0pp ↓ | -0.5pp ↓ | | Average number of re-offences per re-offender | 3.39 | 2.93 | 2.80 | -17.4% ↓ | -4.4% ↓ | | Proportion of offenders who re-offend - Adjusted to baseline (%) (predicted) | 23.6 | 25.4 | 25.7 | - | - | | Average number of re-offences per offender (frequency rate) | 0.89 | 0.75 | 0.70 | -21.3% ↓ | -6.3% ↓ | | Number of re-offences | 423,989 | 439,539 | 402,409 | -5.1% ↓ | -8.4% ↓ | | Number of re-offenders | 125,023 | 150,067 | 143,715 | 15.0% ↑ | -4.2% ↓ | | Number of offenders in cohort | 477,698 | 589,948 | 576,255 | 20.6% ↑ | -2.3% ↓ | | **Juvenile offenders** | | | | | | | Proportion of offenders who re-offend (%) | 33.7 | 32.9 | 32.8 | -0.9pp ↓ | -0.1pp ↓ | | Average number of re-offences per re-offender | 3.32 | 2.75 | 2.75 | -17.1% ↓ | 0.0% → | | Proportion of offenders who re-offend - Adjusted to baseline (%) (predicted) | 32.0 | 32.9 | 33.5 | - | - | | Average number of re-offences per offender (frequency rate) | 1.12 | 0.91 | 0.90 | -19.3% ↓ | -0.4% ↓ | | Number of re-offences | 155,781 | 131,930 | 109,259 | -29.9% ↓ | -17.2% ↓ | | Number of re-offenders | 46,912 | 47,891 | 39,667 | -15.4% ↓ | -17.2% ↓ | | Number of offenders in cohort | 139,326 | 145,579 | 121,107 | -12.1% ↓ | -16.8% ↓ |
1. pp = percentage point and percentage changes may not add up due to rounding of raw figures
2. See the definitions and measurement paper for an explanation on how to use and interpret the predicted rate.
**Longer term changes**
In the longer term, between 2000 and 2009, the proven re-offending rate fell overall from 27.9 per cent to 26.3 per cent. The rate:
- fell a similar amount for both adults and juveniles
- fell for offenders commencing court orders, for offenders discharged from prison, for those given reprimands, warnings and first tier penalties, but rose for cautions, fines, discharges and youth community penalties.
- fell for offenders aged 15 to 29 and rose for all other age groups.
- fell more for adult women (-2.5 percentage points) than adult men (-0.8 percentage points).
Between 2000 and 2009 the average number of proven re-offences per re-offender fell from 3.37 to 2.79, a fall of 17.3%.
______________________________________________________________________
6 This can include a discharge, fine, referral order, or reparation order. Please see Glossary for more information Re-offending by age
In 2009, as in previous years, 15 to 17 year olds had the highest proven re-offending rate at 34.3 per cent (Table 3). The proven re-offending rate falls with increasing age (after 15-17) as shown in Figure 1.
Between 2000 and 2009, the proven re-offending rate rose for 10-14 year olds and for those aged 30 or more, but fell for offenders aged 15 to 29. The largest decreases in the average number of re-offences per re-offender were among those aged in the 21-24 age group (of around 25 per cent). Previous offences
Offenders with a large number of previous offences have a higher rate of proven re-offending and this is true for both adults and juveniles. Compared to 2000 the largest decrease in the proven re-offending rate was among offenders who had 7 or more previous offences (-3.8 percentage points):
- Adult offenders with 11 or more previous offences represented just over a quarter (27.8 per cent) of adult offenders in 2009 but committed almost two thirds of all adult proven re-offences.
- For juveniles, there were 5,800 offenders with 11 or more previous offences and they had a proven re-offending rate of 76.8 per cent. This group make up only 4.8 per cent of juvenile offenders in 2009 but committed almost a fifth of all juvenile proven re-offences.
Re-offending by Index offence
The offence that leads to a offender being included in the relevant year is called the index offence. In 2009, as in most previous years, domestic burglary had the highest proven re-offending rate at 48.1 per cent (Table 5c) with sexual (child) offences the lowest at 9.8 per cent. The largest decrease between 2000 and 2009 in the proven re-offending rate was for soliciting and prostitution, a decrease of 18.6 percentage points while other motoring offences had the second largest decrease of 9.7 percentage points. Figure E3: Proportion of adult and juvenile proven offenders who commit a proven re-offence, by index offence type, 2009
Adult proven re-offending
In 2009, there were around 580,000 adult offenders. Just over 140,000 of these offenders were proven to have committed a re-offence within a year. This gives a one year proven re-offending rate of 24.9 per cent. The average number of proven re-offences committed by these re-offenders was 2.80.
Since 2008, there has been a slight decrease in the proven re-offending rate of 0.5 percentage points from 25.4 per cent.
Overall there was a 1.2 percentage point decrease in the proven re-offending rate between 2000 and 2009 (from 26.2 to 24.9 per cent). However compared to 2000 the offenders in 2009 had characteristics which meant they were more likely to re-offend. This means that after controlling for offender characteristics the decrease was larger at 3.4 percentage points. Proven re-offending rates for offenders discharged from prison or commencing a court order
In 2009, there were around 200,000 adult offenders who were discharged from prison or commenced a court order. Just over 72,000 of these offenders were proven to have committed a proven re-offence within a year. This gives a one year proven re-offending rate of 36.2 per cent. The average number of proven re-offences committed by these re-offenders was 3.27.
Overall there was a 4.7 percentage point decrease (from 40.9 to 36.2) in the proven re-offending rate between 2000 and 2009 and a 20.8 per cent decrease (from 4.13 to 3.27) in the average number of proven re-offences per re-offender. Prisoner's proven re-offending
In 2009, around 64,000 adult offenders(^3) were discharged from custody. Just under 30,000 of these (46.8 per cent) were proven to have committed a proven re-offence within a year. These offenders committed around 120,000 proven re-offences, an average of 4.03 each.
Almost 55 per cent of adult offenders discharged from custody were released from sentences of less than 12 months. These offenders had a one year proven re-offending rate of 56.8 per cent an increase of 2.6 percentage points from 2000 (54.3 per cent)
Proven re-offending of adults starting court orders
In 2009, just under 110,000 adult offenders(^3) started a community order. Around 39,000 of these (35.6 per cent) committed a proven re-offence within a year. These proven re-offenders committed just under 123,000 proven re-offences, an average of 3.15 proven re-offences each. Similarly, of the 37,000 adult offenders starting a suspended sentence order, 31.0 per cent committed a proven re-offence within a year, committing an average of 2.86 proven re-offences each.
Juvenile proven re-offending
In 2009, there were just 120,000 juvenile offenders. Just under 40,000 of these offenders were proven to have committed a proven re-offence within a year. This gives a one year proven re-offending rate of 32.8 per cent. The average number of proven re-offences committed by these re-offenders was 2.75.
Since 2008, there has been a very slight decrease in the proven re-offending rate of 0.1 percentage points from 32.9 per cent.
Overall there was a 0.9 percentage point decrease in the proven re-offending rate between 2000 and 2009 (from 33.7 to 32.8 per cent). Compared to 2000 the characteristics of the offenders meant that they were more likely to re-offend in 2009 therefore after controlling for offender characteristics this was a decrease of 2.5 percentage points.
Prolific and Priority Offenders (PPO)
Around 8,000 offenders (adult and juvenile) were on the PPO scheme at some point during 2009. Of these just over 6,000 committed a proven re-offence within a year (75.1 per cent). These offenders represented 1.2 percent of all offenders but were responsible for 5.6 per cent of all proven re-offences committed. The proportion of PPO offenders who committed a proven re-offence decreased by 2.1 percentage points between 2008 and 2009. This compares to a decrease of 1.9 percentage points since the scheme began in 2005.
**Drug Misusing Offenders (DMO)**
Around 53,000 adult offenders were identified as drug misusers at some point during 2009. Of these just over 29,000 committed a proven re-offence within a year (54.7 per cent). These offenders represented 9.2 percent of all adult offenders but were responsible for 27.8 per cent of all proven re-offences committed.
The proportion of drug-misusing offenders who committed a proven re-offence fell slightly between 2008 and 2009 (1.7 percentage points). Looking longer term there was a decrease of 10.6 percentage points between 2005 and 2009, although most of this change occurred between 2005 and 2006 when there was a large expansion in the drug intervention programme.
*Iain Bell*
*Chief Statistician* Chapter 1 - Overall proven re-offending rates
One of the key changes from previous publications is that we can now present overall proven re-offending rates for offenders aged 10 years and over. Adult and juvenile re-offending rates are presented in subsequent sections.
Between January and December 2009(^7), there were just under 700,000 offenders(^1) who were cautioned(^8), convicted (excluding immediate custodial sentences) or released from custody. Just over 180,000 of these offenders were proven to have committed a proven re-offence within a year. This gives a one-year proven re-offending rate of 26.3 per cent. These re-offenders committed an average of 2.79 offences each (around 510,000 offences in total) (Table 1).
Figure 1: Proportion of offenders who commit a proven re-offence, 2000, 2002 - 2009
Overall, the one year proven re-offending rate fell by 1.6 percentage points from 27.9 per cent in 2000 to 26.3 per cent in 2009. Between 2008 and 2009 the re-offending rate fell slightly by 0.6 percentage points from 26.9.
An adjusted proven re-offending rate based on the 2008 cohort has been developed to control for changes in the composition of the relevant year group which could affect the estimates. It can be applied back to 2000 to measure progress between 2000 and 2009 in the proven re-offending rate after controlling for changes in offender characteristics.(^9)
(^7) Also includes those who tested positive for opiates or cocaine (^8) Includes reprimands and warnings for juveniles (^9) For more information on the adjusted proven re-offending rate please refer to the ‘Definitions and measurement’ www.justice.gov.uk/publications/statistics-and-data/reoffending/proven-reoffending-quarterly.htm Compared to 2000 the offenders in 2009 had characteristics which meant they were more likely to re-offend. This means that after controlling for offender characteristics the decrease in the overall one year proven re-offending rate was larger at 3.2 percentage points.
Between 2000 and 2009, the overall number of offenders rose by 13 percent, from just under 620,000 in 2000 to just under 700,000 in 2009, while the number of proven re-offences fell by 11.7 per cent, from around 580,000 in 2000 to just above 510,000 in 2009.
The rise in the number of offenders was primarily driven by an increase among adult offenders with an index offence of non-serious violence which has more than doubled from just under 66,000 in 2000 to around 140,000 in 2009, and among offenders who received a caution with an increase of nearly 50 per cent from just over 140,000 in 2000 to just over 210,000 in 2009.
The fall in the number of proven re-offences was mainly a result of a fall in the number of proven re-offences committed by juvenile offenders which fell by almost a third (30 per cent), compared to adult offenders, where the number of proven re-offences fell by 5.1 per cent.
Between 2000 and 2009 the average number of proven re-offences per re-offender fell from 3.37 to 2.79.
**Figure 2: Average number of proven re-offences per re-offender, 2000, 2002 - 2009** Age
In 2009, as in previous years, 15 to 17 year olds had the highest proven re-offending rate at 34.3% (Table 3). The proven re-offending rate falls with increasing age (after 15-17) as shown in Figure 3.
Figure 3: Proportion of offenders who commit a proven re-offence, by age, 2000, 2008 and 2009
Between 2008 and 2009, there was a slight decrease in the proven re-offending rate for most age groups apart from those aged 15-17 or 45 and over, whose re-offending rates rose slightly. Among those offenders who committed a proven re-offence the average number of proven re-offences fell for offenders aged 15-50 but rose for offenders aged 50 or more.
Over the longer-term, between 2000 and 2009, the proven re-offending rate rose for 10-14 year olds and for those aged 30 or more, but fell offenders aged 15 to 29.
The largest decreases in the average number of re-offences per re-offender were among those aged in the 21-24 age group (of around 25 per cent). Gender
Among the offenders in 2009, 80 per cent (around 560,100) were males and 20 per cent (around 140,000) were females. Just under 160,000 male offenders were proven to have committed a proven re-offence within a year - a proven re-offending rate of 28.3 per cent, which was higher than for females (18.3 percent or around 26,000 females). This difference was true for both adults (26.7 per cent compared with 17.3 per cent) and for juveniles (36.9 per cent compared to 21.6 per cent), and is similar to previous years. (Table 2)
However, on average both male and female adult offenders commit a similar number of proven re-offences each within a year (2.82 and 2.70 on average). Male juveniles, on average, commit slightly more proven re-offences than female juveniles (2.84 compared to 2.38).
Previous offences
Offenders with a large number of previous offences have a higher rate of proven re-offending and this is true for both adults and juveniles. (Table 6) Compared to 2000 the largest decrease in the proven re-offending rate was among offenders with 7 to 10 previous offences and those with 11 or more previous offences (-3.8 percentage points):
- 46.5 per cent of adult offenders with 11 or more previous offences committed a proven re-offence within a year, compared with 8.7 per cent of those who had no previous offences.
- Adult offenders with 11 or more previous offences represented just over a quarter (27.8 per cent) of offenders in 2009 but committed almost two thirds of all proven re-offences.
- For juveniles, there were 5,800 offenders with 11 or more previous offences and they had a proven re-offending rate of 76.8 per cent. This group make up only 4.8 per cent of juvenile proven offenders in 2009 but committed almost a fifth of all re-offences.
Trends in proven re-offending across the country
Map 1 shows proven re-offending rates by Upper Tier Local Authority. This chart is not controlled for the characteristics of offenders and is designed for users to gain an understanding of what the level of proven re-offending is in their area and how it is changing over time.
When comparing between Local Authorities, the differences may be due to: • different types of offenders; areas where the offenders have high numbers of previous offences are likely to have higher proven re-offending rates • police activity; areas with high police detection rates are likely to have higher proven re-offending rates • age profile of offenders in the area; areas with a younger population are likely to have higher proven re-offending rates.
When comparing proven re-offending over time within Local Authorities, any significant changes in these factors may affect the comparison.
Very few local authorities have shown substantial change compared to the same period last year. The largest decrease was seen in York (4.3 percentage points), the largest increase was in Darlington (4.5 percentage points). (Table 13) Map 1: Overall proven re-offending rates by upper tier local authority for adults and juveniles, 2009
Legend Re-offending Rates Rate
- 0 - 20%
- 20 - 25%
- 25 - 30%
- 30 - 35%
- 35% +
© Crown copyright. All rights reserved. Ministry of Justice 100037819 2011 Serious proven re-offending
Serious violent/sexual re-offences
The proportion of offenders who committed a serious violent/sexual proven re-offence is very small; around 3,100 out of just under 700,000 proven offenders (0.4 per cent) committed a serious re-offence. Just over 3,400 serious violent/sexual proven re-offences were committed. (Table 8)
Serious acquisitive re-offences
The proportion of offenders who committed a serious acquisitive proven re-offence is small; out of just under 70,000 offenders, around 18,000 (2.7 per cent) committed a serious acquisitive proven re-offence. Just over 27,000 serious acquisitive proven re-offences were committed.
The proportion of juvenile offenders who committed a serious acquisitive re-offence was notably higher than for adult offenders (5.4 per cent (around 10,000) compared to 2.1 per cent (around 17,000)).
Compared to 2000 the proportion of offenders who committed a serious acquisitive offence fell for both adults and juveniles. However, since 2008 there has been a slight increase for juvenile offenders, although the proportion of offenders who committed a serious re-offence remains low.
All serious re-offences
The proportion of offenders who committed a serious proven re-offence is just under 22,000 out of just under 700,000 proven offenders (3.1 per cent) committed a serious re-offence. Just under 30,000 serious proven re-offences were committed.
______________________________________________________________________
10 Serious re-offences against the person include offences such as murder, GBH, rape and causing death by dangerous driving. The complete list of offences can be found in the ‘Definitions and Measurement’ document www.justice.gov.uk/publications/statistics-and-data/reoffending/proven-reoffending-quarterly.htm
11 Serious acquisitive re-offences include robbery and theft from vehicles. The complete list of offences can be found in the ‘Definitions and Measurement’ document www.justice.gov.uk/publications/statistics-and-data/reoffending/proven-reoffending-quarterly.htm Chapter 2 - Adult proven re-offending
This section provides proven re-offending rates for adults with a section for juveniles to follow. In 2009, there were around 580,000 adult offenders(^3). Just over 140,000 of these offenders were proven to have committed a proven re-offence within a year. This gives a one year proven re-offending rate of 24.9 per cent. The average number of proven re-offences committed by these re-offenders was 2.80. (Table 1)
Figure 4: Proportion of adult proven offenders who commit a proven re-offence and average number of proven re-offences, 2000, 2002 to 2009 Changes between 2008 and 2009
Overall there was a 0.5 percentage point decrease (from 25.4 to 24.9) in the proven re-offending rate between 2008 and 2009 and a 4.4 per cent decrease (from 2.93 to 2.80) in the average number of proven re-offences per re-offender.
Between 2008 and 2009 the proven re-offending rate remained broadly stable for most groups. The largest changes were seen in the following groups:
- those with 11 or more previous offences, a fall of 1.3 percentage points.
- offenders with an index offence of domestic burglary (-3.2 percentage points), soliciting and prostitution (+2.4 percentage points) and theft from vehicles (-3.6 percentage points)
- offenders discharged from custody, a fall of 2.4 percentage points
Changes between 2000 and 2009
Overall there was a 1.2 percentage point decrease (from 26.2 to 24.9) in the proven re-offending rate between 2000 and 2009 and a 17.4 per cent decrease (from 3.39 to 2.80) in the average number of proven re-offences per re-offender.
Using the adjusted proven re-offending rate to control for changes in the composition of the relevant year group there was a reduction of 3.4 percentage points in the proven re-offending rate(^\\text{12}).
The average number of proven re-offences per re-offender fell more steeply than the proportion who re-offended due to the large fall in proven re-offending among the most prolific offenders.
Between 2000 and 2009, the following groups showed the largest changes in proven re-offending rates:
- young adults aged 18-24, a fall of 2.9 percentage points
- females, a fall of 2.5 percentage points
- those with 11 or more previous offences, a fall of 3.4 percentage points.
- offenders with an index offence of domestic burglary (-10.7 percentage points), taking and driving away (-11.2 percentage points), soliciting and prostitution (-18.5 percentage points) and other offences (+7.7 percentage points)
- offenders commencing court orders, a fall of 3.4 percentage points
- offenders discharged from custody, a fall of 2.6 percentage points
(^{12}) For more information on the adjusted proven re-offending rate please refer to the ‘Definitions and measurement’ [www.justice.gov.uk/publications/statistics-and-data/reoffending/proven-reoffending-quarterly.htm](http://www.justice.gov.uk/publications/statistics-and-data/reoffending/proven-reoffending-quarterly.htm) Comparison with previous measure
The new adult proven re-offending rate includes all people who were released from custody, received a non-custodial conviction at court, or received a caution\\textsuperscript{13} in a full year not just those who started a community sentence or were released from prison in the first quarter of the year (as previously).
The previous adult re-conviction measure shows that the one-year re-conviction rate among those starting a community sentence or being released from custody was 39.3% in 2009 and had fallen by 0.8 percentage points since 2008 and 3.7 percentage points since 2000. When controlling for changes in the offender mix this change from 2000 was 4.6 percentage points.
Therefore although the proportion identified as re-offenders was higher in the old measure, the trends are similar between both measures. Comparisons between levels of re-offending among those discharged from prison or those starting Court Orders are also broadly similar between both measures. Please see Annex A for more details on the differences between the old measure and the new measure of re-offending.
Index offence type
Table 5a shows that among adults, the highest proportion of offenders who committed a proven re-offence had an index offence of theft from vehicles (a proven re-offending rate of 47.7 per cent), domestic burglary (47.4 per cent) and other burglary (48.1 per cent). The offences with the lowest proven re-offending rates were sexual (child) offences (9.3 per cent), drink driving (12.0 per cent) and fraud and forgery (14.0 per cent). (Table 5a)
For certain index offences the proven re-offending rate has increased since 2000. The largest increase was for those with a first offence of ‘other’ - driven by the introduction of Anti-Social Behaviour Orders (ASBO) which when breached lead to a conviction. There were also rises in proven re-offending rates for those with an index offence of sexual offences, public order, theft from vehicles, drugs possession/small scale supply and criminal and malicious damage.
Re-offence type
Table 10 shows that for adult offenders the most common proven re-offence type was theft (23.0 per cent of all proven re-offences) and the second most common was non-serious violence (14.9 per cent).
\\textsuperscript{13} Also including tested positive for opiates or cocaine The proportion of all proven re-offences which were non-serious violence showed the largest overall increase compared to 2000 (6.6 percentage points from 8.2 to 14.9 of all proven re-offences). The proportion of proven offences which were other motoring offences showed the largest overall decrease since 2000 (9.4 percentage points). This is consistent with findings from the Criminal Justice System Statistics Quarterly.
www.justice.gov.uk/publications/statistics-and-data/criminal-justice/index.htm
In 2009, just under a third (29.3%) of proven re-offences were in the same offence category as the index offence. The categories with the largest proportion in the same category were theft (51.6 per cent), motoring offences (34.2 per cent), sexual offences (31.4 per cent) and public order (31.3 per cent). (Table 11) Chapter 3- Juvenile proven re-offending
In 2009, there were just over 120,000 juvenile offenders, of whom 32.8 per cent (around 40,000) committed a proven re-offence within one year. Those who committed a proven re-offence committed an average of 2.75 proven re-offences each, just under 110,000 proven re-offences in total. (Table 1)
Figure 5: Proportion of juvenile proven offenders who commit a proven re-offence and average number of proven re-offences, 2000, 2002 to 2009 Changes between 2000 and 2009
Overall, there was a 0.9 percentage point decrease (from 33.7 to 32.8) in the proven juvenile re-offending rate between 2000 and 2009 and a 17.1 per cent decrease (from 3.32 to 2.75) in the average number of proven re-offences per re-offender.
Between 2000 and 2009, the following groups saw the largest changes in proven re-offending rates:
- Offenders aged 15-17, a fall of 2.1 percentage points
- Juvenile Offenders with 11 or more previous offences (-5.4 percentage points) and 1-2 previous offences (-5.2 percentage points)
- Offenders with an index offence of taking and driving away, motoring and drink driving all showed decreases of around 7 percentage points, whereas those offenders with an index offence of ‘other’ increased by 12.7 percentage points
- Offenders who had an first tier penalty index disposal or were discharged from custody showed a decrease of around 6 percentage points whereas offenders commencing a youth community penalty showed an increase of 5 percentage points
Using the adjusted proven re-offending rate to control for changes in the composition of the relevant year group there was a reduction of 2.5 percentage points in the proven re-offending rate(^\\text{14}) between 2000 and 2009.
Changes between 2008 and 2009
Compared to 2008 the level of juvenile proven re-offending has remained stable, 32.9 per cent compared to 32.8 per cent in 2009. The average number of proven re-offences per re-offender also remained stable at 2.75. However, the number of juvenile proven offenders has decreased by 16.8 per cent. This is in line with the pattern of first time entrants to the criminal justice system where the number of young people receiving their first reprimand, warning or conviction has also decreased. More information on first time entrants for both adults and juveniles can be found in the Criminal Justice System Statistics Quarterly at
[www.justice.gov.uk/publications/statistics-and-data/criminal-justice/index.htm](http://www.justice.gov.uk/publications/statistics-and-data/criminal-justice/index.htm)
The proven re-offending rate remained broadly stable for most juvenile groups between 2008 and 2009.
(^{14}) For more information on the adjust proven re-offending rate please refer to the 'Definitions and measurement' [www.justice.gov.uk/publications/statistics-and-data/reoffending/proven-reoffending-quarterly.htm](http://www.justice.gov.uk/publications/statistics-and-data/reoffending/proven-reoffending-quarterly.htm) Comparison with previous juvenile measure
The new juvenile proven re-offending rate includes all people who were released from custody, convicted at court, or received a reprimand or warning in a full year not just those in the first quarter of the year (as previously).
The previous juvenile re-offending measure showed that one year re-offending rates among those convicted, cautioned or discharged from prison in the first quarter of the year were 36.9% in 2009 and had fallen by 0.4 percentage points since 2008 and 3.3 percentage points since 2000. After controlling for changes in the offender mix this change on the previous measure was 4.0 percentage points since 2000. These figures are broadly similar to those based on the new measure. Please see Annex A for more details on the differences between the old measure and the new measure of re-offending.
Index offence type
Among juveniles, the highest proportion of offenders who committed a proven re-offence had an index offence in the categories of absconding or bail offences (a proven re-offending rate of 64.7 per cent), domestic burglary (49.9 per cent) and other (42.4 per cent). With the exception of sexual (child) offences, the proportion committing a proven re-offence was higher than 20 per cent for every index offence category. (Table 5b)
Compared to 2000, there were a number of categories of index offence that showed an increase in the proportion who commit a re-offence. The largest increase was ‘other’ (12.7 per cent). As was the case for adult offenders, this increase is mainly the result of the introduction of Anti-Social Behaviour Orders (ASBO) which, when breached, lead to a conviction.
Re-offence type
For juveniles the most common proven re-offence was non-serious violence (20.2 per cent) and the second most common was theft (15.9 per cent). (Table 15)
As was the case for adults, the proportion of proven re-offences which were non-serious violence showed the largest overall increase compared to 2000 (7.9 percentage points).
In 2009, 22.0 per cent of proven re-offences were in the same offence category as the index offence. The categories with the largest proportion in the same category were theft (28.5 per cent) and non-serious violence (30.3 per cent). Chapter 4- Proven re-offending by index disposal (sentence type), prison and Probation Trust
As described in the Introduction, this section presents measures of re-offending related to criminal justice and offender management. To provide a realistic and relevant view of proven re-offending by disposal (sentence type) or prison or probation trust, offenders are tracked and their proven re-offending behaviour is recorded within each disposal (caution, court order, discharge from prison, etc) or operational unit (prison or probation trust) taking the first event within each as the start point and subsequent events as re-offences.
Please see ‘Definitions and Measurement’ for more details. www.justice.gov.uk/publications/statistics-and-data/reoffending/proven-reoffending-quarterly.htm
Proven re-offending by index disposal (sentence type)
The disposal (sentence type) that leads to an offender being included in the relevant year is called the index disposal. This can be an out of court disposal such as a caution, court conviction (excluding immediate custodial sentences) or discharge from custody that occurs in the relevant period. Re-offending rates by disposal (sentence type) should not be compared to assess the effectiveness of sentences, as there is no control for known differences in offender characteristics and the type of sentence given. The Compendium of Re-offending Statistics and Analysis 2011 compares like for like offenders which enables a more reliable comparison of proven re-offending rates between offenders receiving different sentences.
The key results from the Compendium were:
- those sentenced to 1 to 2 years in custody had lower re-offending rates than those given sentences of less than 12 months – the difference was 4.4 percentage points in 2008
- custodial sentences of less than 12 months were less effective at reducing re-offending than both community orders and suspended sentence orders – between 5 and 9 percentage points in 2008.
www.justice.gov.uk/publications/statistics-and-data/reoffending/compendium-of-reoffending-statistics-and-analysis.htm
Proven re-offending rates for offenders discharged from prison or commencing a court order
The previous measure of adult re-convictions was based on offenders discharged from prison or commencing court orders under probation
______________________________________________________________________
15 Includes reprimands and warnings for juveniles 16 Also includes those who tested positive for opiates or cocaine supervision, i.e. they were or had been in contact with offender management agencies in the relevant year. This section looks at this specific group of offenders. However these results will not be directly comparable with the previous measure. This is because the new measure is based on proven re-offending rather than re-conviction and uses a full year of offenders instead of the first quarter (see Annex A).
In 2009, there were around 200,000 adult offenders who were discharged from prison or commenced a court order. Just over 72,000 of these offenders were proven to have committed a proven re-offence within a year. This gives a one year proven re-offending rate of 36.2 per cent. The average number of proven re-offences committed by these re-offenders was 3.27.
Overall there was a 4.7 percentage point decrease (from 40.9 to 36.2) in the proven re-offending rate between 2000 and 2009 and a 20.9 per cent decrease (from 4.13 to 3.27) in the average number of proven re-offences per re-offender.
Table 1. Proven re-offending measure for offenders discharged from prison or commencing a court order
| Year | Proportion of offenders who re-offend (%) | Average number of re-offences per re-offender | Average number of re-offences per offender (frequency rate) | Number of offenders in cohort | |------|------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------| | 2000 | 40.9 | 4.13 | 1.69 | 148,052 | | 2002 | 43.0 | 4.36 | 1.87 | 157,243 | | 2003 | 42.4 | 4.15 | 1.76 | 159,686 | | 2004 | 39.8 | 3.87 | 1.54 | 163,775 | | 2005 | 38.4 | 3.65 | 1.40 | 170,021 | | 2006 | 37.6 | 3.48 | 1.31 | 181,726 | | 2007 | 37.9 | 3.46 | 1.32 | 190,418 | | 2008 | 37.9 | 3.46 | 1.31 | 197,035 | | 2009 | 36.2 | 3.27 | 1.18 | 200,077 |
Proven re-offending of adult offenders discharged (released) from prison
The figures in this section relate to the proven re-offending of adult offenders released from prison overall.
In 2009, around 64,000 adult offenders were discharged (released) from prison, of whom 46.8 per cent (just under 30,000) committed a proven re-offence within one year. Those who committed a proven re-offence committed just over 120,000 proven re-offences in total, an average frequency of 4.03 proven re-offences each. (Table 18a and 19)
Among offenders discharged from short sentences (less than 12 months), long term trends show that the proportion who committed a proven re-offence increased, but that the average number of offences committed by those re-offenders decreased:
- the one year proven re-offending rate for this group was 56.8 per cent in 2009, an increase of 2.6 percentage points from 2000 (54.3 per cent)
- the average number of proven re-offences committed per re-offender has decreased by 9.9 per cent from 4.99 in 2000 to 4.50 proven re-offences in 2009. However, between 2008 and 2009 the one year proven re-offending rate has decreased by 2.6 percentage points from 59.4 per cent.
Among offenders given any sentence of more than 12 months the proportion who committed a proven re-offence decreased by 7.4 percentage points compared to 2000. The average number of proven re-offences committed per re-offender also decreased and by a larger amount than for the short sentence prisoners (23.5 per cent compared with 9.9 per cent).
Figure 7: Proportion of adult proven offenders who commit a proven re-offence, by index disposal custodial sentence length, 2000, 2002-2009
Adult proven re-offending rates by individual prison
Tables 22a and 22b show the number of adult offenders discharged (released) from each prison and their respective proven re-offending rates for those serving sentences of less than 12 months and those serving sentences of 12 months or more. This takes the first discharge from within each prison as the start point for measuring re-offending and subsequent events as re-offences.(^{17})
(^{17}) See ‘Definitions and measurement’ for more information regarding counting techniques [http://www.justice.gov.uk/publications/statistics-and-data/reoffending/proven-reoffending-quarterly.htm](http://www.justice.gov.uk/publications/statistics-and-data/reoffending/proven-reoffending-quarterly.htm) Among prisons which discharged thirty or more offenders in 2009 re-offending rates varied considerably from 10.6 per cent to 87.1 per cent for offenders sentenced to under twelve months and 5.1 per cent to 70.6 per cent for offenders sentenced to more than twelve months. A large part of this variability reflects the mix of offenders who are held in different prisons and therefore comparisons between prisons should not be made using these raw re-offending rates.
The Ministry of Justice has developed a model that aims to account for differences in the mix of prisoners to help explain if re-offending rates are affected by the specific prison they are discharged from or if the rate of re-offending reflects the mix of offenders. For example, a group of prisoners with a high number of previous offences is more likely to re-offend than a group with a low number of previous offences.
The model estimates an expected rate of re-offending taking into account the mix of offenders discharged from each prison. If the actual rate is significantly different from the expected rate than this could mean that there is something specific to the prison that is impacting prisoners’ proven re-offending behavior. For details of the model please see the 'Definitions and Measurement' document www.justice.gov.uk/publications/statistics-and-data/reoffending/proven-reoffending-quarterly.htm
Among prisons discharging prisoners serving sentences of less than 12 months only three prisons showed significantly different re-offending rates than expected. Wellingborough and Ashkam Grange had lower (better) than expected re-offending rates while re-offending rates for Hindley were higher (worse).
Among prisons discharging offenders serving sentences of 12 months or more, two prisons showed significantly lower (better) re-offending rates (Latchmere house and Askham Grange) than expected and only one (Warren Hill) showed higher (worse).
Proven re-offending of adults starting court orders
As described previously, the measure of re-offending for adults starting court orders takes the first commencement for each court order as the start point for measuring re-offending and subsequent events as re-offences. The figures in this section relate to the proven re-offending of all adult offenders starting court orders, while the following section looks at these figures for individual Probation Trusts.
______________________________________________________________________
18 The majority of these are community orders and suspended sentence orders 19 See ‘Definitions and measurement’ for more information regarding counting techniques www.justice.gov.uk/publications/statistics-and-data/reoffending/proven-reoffending-quarterly.htm In 2009, just under 100,000 adult offenders started a community order. Just under 39,000 of these (35.6 per cent) committed a proven re-offence within a year. These proven re-offenders committed around 123,000 proven re-offences, an average of 3.15 proven re-offences each. Similarly, of the 37,000 adult offenders starting a suspended sentence order, 31.0 per cent committed a proven re-offence within a year, committing an average of 2.86 further offences each. (Table 20 and 21)
The Compendium of Re-offending Statistics and Analysis 2011 compares like for like offenders which enables a more reliable comparison of proven re-offending rates between offenders receiving different sentences. The results showed that after controlling for differences between offenders, the proven re-offending rate of offenders given short term prison sentences (less than 12 months) was 8.3 percentage points higher than for similar offenders given Community Orders and 8.8 percentage points higher than for similar offenders given Suspended Sentence Orders (in 2008).
www.justice.gov.uk/publications/statistics-and-data/reoffending/compendium-of-reoffending-statistics-and-analysis.htm
The proportion of offenders starting community orders who committed a proven re-offence within a year has decreased by 2.2 percentage points since their introduction in 2005. Offenders starting suspended sentence orders showed a larger decrease of 5.3 percentage points.
There was some variation in the proven re-offending rates depending on the requirements attached to these orders; this reflects the differing characteristics of offenders receiving each combination of requirements. For both community orders and suspended sentence orders, proven re-offending was lowest among those with a standalone work requirement (25.4 per cent and 17.3 per cent respectively). There was a slight reduction in proven re-offending for most combinations of requirements. Although care should be taken with this comparison as it has yet to be controlled for different mixes of offenders.
Proven re-offending rates by probation trust
Offenders given a Court Order are managed by the probation service which comprises 35 Probation Trusts. Proven re-offending rates of these offenders are presented by Probation Trust in Table 24. This takes the first court order commencement from within each probation trust as the start point for measuring re-offending and subsequent events as proven re-offences.
Re-offending rates varied considerably between probation trusts from 28.2 per cent to 43.7 per cent in 2009. A large part of this variability reflects the mix of offenders who are given a Court Order and therefore comparisons between probation trusts should not be made using these raw re-offending rates. For probation trusts an adjusted proven re-offending rate to control for differences in the composition of the offender group in each trust has been developed from the national model. Proven re-offending among juveniles by index disposal (sentence)
Among juvenile proven offenders there have been overall reductions in the proportion who committed a proven re-offence for most disposals since 2000. The largest falls have been:
- Offenders commencing first tier penalties(^{20}). There was a decrease of 5.7 percentage points (from 50.9 per cent to 45.2 per cent). This was driven by the decrease in the re-offending rates for youth referral orders (4.1 percentage points). There was also a slight decrease when comparing with the same period last year (0.4 percentage points).
- Offenders discharged from custodial sentences. There was a decrease of 6.3 percentage points (from 76.8 per cent to 70.6 per cent). There was also a slight decrease when comparing the same period last year (1.6 percentage points).
However, for community penalties(^{21}) compared to 2000, the proportion of juvenile offenders who committed a proven re-offence has increased by 5.0 percentage points from 60.5 per cent to 65.6 per cent, although the average number of proven re-offences per proven re-offender has decreased by 19.4 per cent from 4.60 to 3.70 proven re-offences. (Table 18b)
Proven re-offending rates by YOT
Offenders between the ages of 10 and 17 who receive a pre-court disposal or court conviction are managed by Youth Action Teams (YOT). These are made up of representatives from the police, Probation Service, social services, health, education, drugs and alcohol misuse and housing officers. Proven re-offending data are presented by YOT in Table 17(^{22}). Re-offending rates varied considerably between YOTs from 21.4 per cent to 46.3 per cent in 2009. A large part of this variability reflects the mix of offenders in a given YOT and therefore comparisons between YOTs should not be made using these raw re-offending rates.
Differences between the previously published measures of youth re-offending within Youth Action Teams and the current measure are discussed in Annex A.
______________________________________________________________________
(^{20}) Youth discharge, youth fine, reparation order, and referral order
(^{21}) Youth attendance centre, youth supervision order, youth action plan order, youth CRO, youth CPO, youth curfew order, other youth community penalties
(^{22}) See ‘Definitions and measurement’ for more information regarding counting techniques [www.justice.gov.uk/publications/statistics-and-data/reoffending/proven-reoffending-quarterly.htm](http://www.justice.gov.uk/publications/statistics-and-data/reoffending/proven-reoffending-quarterly.htm) Prolific and Priority Offenders (PPO)
The Prolific and Priority Offenders (PPO) scheme targets those who pose the greatest threat to the safety and confidence of their local communities. It allows local partners to concentrate their joint efforts on those people identified locally as causing most harm to their communities. (Table 16)
Figure 8: Proportion of offenders on the PPO scheme who commit a proven re-offence and average number of proven re-offences, 2005 to 2009
______________________________________________________________________
23 See ‘Definitions and measurement’ for more information www.justice.gov.uk/publications/statistics-and-data/reoffending/proven-reoffending-quarterly.htm Around 8,000 offenders\\textsuperscript{24} were on the PPO scheme at some point during 2009. Of these just over 6,000 committed a proven re-offence within a year (75.1 per cent), which is considerably higher than the national rate of 26.3 per cent. The average number of proven re-offences committed by these re-offenders was 4.65 compared to the national figure of 2.79. These differences reflect the profile of offenders who are selected to go onto the scheme. For example, PPO offenders have committed an average of 57.5 previous offences, compared to 10.3 previous offences among offenders in general.
These offenders represented 1.2 percent of all offenders but were responsible for 5.6 per cent of all proven re-offences committed.
The proportion of PPO offenders who committed a proven re-offence decreased (2.1 percentage points) between 2008 and 2009. Looking longer term there was a decrease of 1.9 percentage points since the scheme began in 2005.
**Drug Misusing Offenders**
Around 53,000 adult offenders were identified as drug misusers at some point during 2009. Of these just over 29,000 committed a proven re-offence within a year (54.7 per cent). These offenders represented 9.2 percent of all adult offenders but were responsible for 27.8 per cent of all proven re-offences committed. (Table 15)
A higher proportion of drug-misusing offenders\\textsuperscript{25} committed a proven re-offence than adult offenders in general (54.7 per cent compared to 24.9 per cent). The average number of proven re-offences committed by re-offenders was 3.84 for this group compared with 2.80 overall. This difference reflects the profile of drug misusing offenders. For example, drug-misusing offenders have committed an average of 35.7 previous offences, compared to 11.9 previous offences among adult offenders in general.
The proportion of drug-misusing offenders who committed a proven re-offence fell slightly between 2008 and 2009 (1.7 percentage points). Looking longer term there was a decrease of 10.6 percentage points between 2005 and 2009, although most of this change occurred between 2005 and 2006 when there was a large expansion in the drug intervention programme. The expansion of this programme led to a change in the characteristics of the drug misusing offender group (a lower average number of previous offences) which meant they were less likely to re-offend.
\\textsuperscript{24} Includes adult and juvenile offenders
\\textsuperscript{25} See ‘Definitions and measurement’ for more information
[www.justice.gov.uk/publications/statistics-and-data/reoffending/proven-reoffending-quarterly.htm](http://www.justice.gov.uk/publications/statistics-and-data/reoffending/proven-reoffending-quarterly.htm) Figure 9: Proportion of Drug Misusing Offenders who commit a proven re-offence and average number of proven re-offences, 2004 to 2009 List of quarterly tables
Proven re-offending - overview
Table 1 Summary proven re-offending data, by adults and juveniles, 2000, 2002 - 2009 Table 2 Proven re-offending data, by gender, 2000, 2002 -2009 Table 3 Proven re-offending data, by age, 2000, 2002-2009 Table 4a Adult proven re-offending data, by ethnicity, 2000, 2002-2009 Table 4b Juvenile proven re-offending data, by ethnicity, 2000, 2002-2009 Table 4c Adult and juvenile proven re-offending data, by ethnicity, 2000, 2002-2009 Table 5a Adult proven re-offending data, by index offence, 2000, 2002-2009 Table 5b Juvenile proven re-offending data, by index offence, 2000, 2002-2009 Table 5c Adult and juvenile proven re-offending data, by index offence, 2000, 2002-2009 Table 6a Adult proven re-offending data, by number of previous offences, 2000, 2002-2009 Table 6b Juvenile proven re-offending data, by number of previous offences, 2000, 2002-2009 Table 6c Adult and juvenile proven re-offending data, by number of previous offences, 2000, 2002-2009 Table 7a Adult proven re-offending data, by number of previous custodial sentences, 2000, 2002-2009 Table 7b Juvenile proven re-offending data, by number of previous custodial sentences, 2000, 2002-2009 Table 8 Serious proven re-offending data, 2000, 2002-2009 Table 9 Number and proportion of proven re-offences by month of offence into the one-year follow-up period, 2000 to 2009 Table 10 Number and proportion of proven re-offences committed in the follow-up period, 2000 to 2009 Table 11 Proven re-offending by index offence group and re-offence group, 2009
Table 12 Proven re-offending by index disposal and first re-offence disposal, 2009
Table 13 Proven re-offending of adult and juvenile offenders by upper-tier local authority, 2005 to 2009 rolling quarters
Table 14 Proven re-offending of adult offenders by lower-tier local authority, 2005 to 2009 rolling quarters
Table 15 Proven re-offending of drug-misusing offenders by DAT, 2004 to 2009
Table 16 Proven re-offending of Prolific and other Priority Offenders by upper tier local authority, 2005 to 2009
Table 17 Proven re-offending by Youth Offending Team: 2005 to 2009 cohorts
Proven re-offending by index disposal, prison and probation trust
Table 18a Adult proven re-offending data, by index disposal, 2000, 2002-2009
Table 18b Juvenile proven re-offending data, by index disposal, 2000, 2002-2009
Table 19 Adult proven re-offending data, by custodial sentence length, 2000, 2002-2009
Table 20 Adult proven re-offending data, by the most frequently-used combinations of requirements for offenders starting Community Orders, 2005-2009
Table 21 Adult proven re-offending data, by the most frequently-used combinations of requirements for offenders starting Suspended Sentence Orders, 2005-2009
Table 22a Proven re-offending of adult offenders given sentences of less than 12 months by individual prison, first discharge from each prison, 2007 to 2009
Table 22b Proven re-offending of adult offenders given sentences of 12 months or more by individual prison, first discharge from each prison, 2007 to 2009 Table 23 Proven re-offending of juvenile offenders by individual prison, first discharge from each prison, 2007 to 2009
Table 24 Adult proven re-offending by probation trusts based on first commencement from each trust, 2005 to 2009 Annex A
HOW THE MEASURE OF PROVEN RE-OFFENDING HAS CHANGED AND THE EFFECT OF THESE CHANGES
Background
The Ministry of Justice launched a statistical consultation on improvements to the transparency and accessibility of our information in 2010 and a response to the consultation was published in March 2011. One aspect of the consultation was the measurement of proven re-offending.
Prior to the consultation there were six different measures of proven re-offending:
- national adult proven re-offending;
- local adult proven re-offending;
- national youth proven re-offending;
- local youth proven re-offending;
- Prolific and other Priority Offending (PPO); and
- drug-misusing proven offending.
The new approach to measuring proven re-offending integrates these approaches into a single framework. This allows users to:
- form a clear picture of proven re-offending at national and local levels;
- compare adult and youth results, and enable other work on transition between the youth and adult criminal justice systems;
- understand how results for different offender groups (such as those managed by the prison and probation services, those under the PPO schemes, drug-misusing offenders, first time entrants, etc) fit in to the overall picture on proven re-offending; and
- continue to be able to analyse proven re-offending behaviour of particular types of offender.
Comparing trends in re-offending
Table A1 shows the proportion of offenders with a proven re-offence/re-conviction using the new measure of re-offending and the previous measures of adult re-conviction and juvenile re-offending.
Re-offending rates are lower using the new measure than using the previous measure. The differences are as follows:
- For adult and juvenile offenders the new measure is based on all offenders released from custody, receiving a non-custodial conviction
______________________________________________________________________
26 The response to the consultation is available here www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/consultations/improvements-moj-statistics-consultation-response.pdf at court, a caution, reprimand, warning or tested positive for opiates or cocaine over a 12 month period, but the previous measures only included offenders released from custody or commencing a court order in the first three months of the year. Using a 3 month sample over-represents prolific offenders in comparison to a full year’s worth of data.
- For adults the new measure counts all offenders including those who received a caution, fine or discharge, where the previous adult measure only included those who commenced a court order or were discharged from custody.
- For adult offenders, the new measure is a measure of proven re-offending (which counts offences proven through a court conviction or a caution) whereas the previous measure is a measure of re-conviction (which only counts offences proven through a court conviction).
As a result, re-offending rates are 14.4 percentage points lower for adults and rates for juveniles are 4.1 percentage points lower using the new measure.
However, the re-offending rates are similar for adults given a court order or who received a custodial sentence, including those given a sentence of less than 12 months. Rates are between 1.0 and 2.6 percentage points lower using the new measure.
**Table A1: Re-offending using the new and previous measures, 2009**
| | New measure | Previous measure(s) | |----------------------|-------------|---------------------| | Adults | 24.9 | 39.3 | | Juveniles | 32.8 | 36.9 | | Adults given a court order | 34.5 | 35.5 | | Adults given a custodial sentence | 46.8 | 48.5 | | Adults given a custodial sentence of less than 12m | 56.8 | 59.4 |
Figure A1 shows re-offending rates for adult offenders between 2000 and 2009 using the new and previous measure.
In 2009 24.9 per cent of adult offenders have a proven re-offence within twelve months using the new measure compared to 39.3 per cent re-convicted using the previous measure. However, trends for adult offenders are similar using the two measures. The proportion of offenders with a proven re-offence/re-conviction rose between 2000 and 2002, fell between 2002 and 2006, rose between 2006 and 2008, and fell between 2008 and 2009 using both measures. The overall reduction in re-offending is smaller using the new measure (1.2 percentage points between 2000 and 2009 and 0.5 percentage points between 2008 and 2009) than using the previous measure (3.7 percentage points between 2000 and 2009 and 0.8 percentage points between 2008 and 2009).
Figure A2 shows re-offending rates for juvenile offenders between 2000 and 2009 using the new and previous measure.
In 2009, 32.8 per cent of young offenders re-offended within twelve months using the new measure compared to 36.9 per cent using the previous measure. The reduction in re-offending is smaller using the new measure (0.9 percentage points between 2000 and 2009 and 0.1 percentage points between 2008 and 2009) than using the previous measure (3.3 percentage points between 2000 and 2009 and 0.4 percentage points between 2008 and 2009). Overall, the trends are broadly similar. Trends in proven re-offending/re-conviction rates for adult custodial offenders are similar using the new and previous measures. The proportion of offenders given a custodial sentence of less than 12 months who re-offended rose between 2000 and 2009 using both measures (by 2.6 percentage points using the new measure and 1.4 percentage points using the previous measure). The proportion of offenders given any custodial sentence who re-offended fell between 2000 and 2009 using both measures (by 2.6 percentage points using the new measure and 2.9 percentage points using the previous measure). The change in methodology
The following sections provide a detail regarding the change in methodology between the methods in measuring re-offending and how those changes impact on the data.
The table below provides a comparison of the previous methodologies with the new approach. Table A2: Re-offending using the new and previous measures
Comparison of previous and new measures of proven re-offending
| The cohort | Previous measures of re-offending | New measure of re-offending | |------------|----------------------------------|-----------------------------| | National adult re-conviction | Offenders aged 18+ discharged from custody or commencing court orders under probation supervision between January to March | All offenders who received a caution/reprimand or warning, were convicted at court (other than custody), were discharged from custody, or tested positive for cocaine or opiates on arrest over a 12 month period. | | Local adult re-offending | Offenders aged 18+ on the probation caseload at the end of each calendar quarter | | | National youth re-offending | Offenders aged 10-17 discharged from custody, receiving a court conviction or receiving a caution/reprimand or final warning between January and March | | | Local youth re-offending | Offenders aged 10-17 discharged from custody, receiving a court conviction or receiving a caution/reprimand or final warning between January and March | | | Prolific and other Priority Offending (PPO) | All offenders identified as being on the PPO scheme as at 1 April | | | Drug misusing offending | All Class A drug offenders identified through positive drug tests on arrest, OASyS or drug requirement as part of a court order, CJIT identification, or identification on prison release between January and March | | | The follow up period to measure re-offending | 12 months for offences to occur and a further 6 months for offences to be proved | 12 months for offences to occur and a further 6 months for offences to be proved | | | 3 months for offences to occur and a further 3 months for offences to be proved | 12 months for offences to occur and a further 3 months for offences to be proved | | | 12 months for offences to occur and a further 6 months for offences to be proved | 12 months for offences to occur and a further 6 months for offences to be proved | | | 12 months for offences to occur and a further 3 months for offences to be proved | 12 months for offences to occur and a further 6 months for offences to be proved | | | 12 months for offences to occur and a further 3 months for offences to be proved | 12 months for offences to occur and a further 6 months for offences to be proved | | The headline measure | Frequency of re-offending (the number of proven re-offences per 100 offenders) | Proportion of offenders re-offending, compared to the rate that would be expected based on the offender characteristics | Frequency of re-offending (the number of proven re-offences per 100 offenders) | Frequency of re-offending (the number of proven re-offences per 100 offenders) | Number of further offences compared to number in previous year, against the reduction that would be expected given time on the PPO scheme | Number of further offences compared to what would be expected based on their previous offending history | Proportion of offenders re-offending | |----------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | What counts as a proven re-offence | Offences committed within the follow up period which were proved by a court conviction either within the follow up period or in a further six months | Offences committed within the follow up period which were proved by a court conviction or caution either within the follow up period or in a further three months | Offences committed within the follow up period which were proved by a court conviction or reprimand or final warning either within the follow up period or in a further six months | Offences committed within the follow up period which were proved by a court conviction or reprimand or final warning either within the follow up period or in a further three months | Breach offences that lead to substantive recorded convictions are included | Breach offences that lead to substantive recorded convictions are included | We also include information on the frequency of re-offending and information on the predicted rate based on offender characteristics |
What counts as a proven re-offence:
- Offences committed within the follow up period which were proved by a court conviction either within the follow up period or in a further six months.
- Offences committed within the follow up period which were proved by a court conviction or caution either within the follow up period or in a further three months.
- Offences committed within the follow up period which were proved by a court conviction or reprimand or final warning either within the follow up period or in a further six months.
- Offences committed within the follow up period which were proved by a court conviction or reprimand or final warning either within the follow up period or in a further three months.
- Breach offences that lead to substantive recorded convictions are included. Use of a predicted rate
Data source Geographic breakdown
A predicted rate of re-offending was included for the proportion of offenders expected to reoffend based on their characteristics
A predicted rate of re-offending was included for the proportion of offenders expected to reoffend based on their characteristics
A predicted rate of re-offending was included for the proportion of offenders expected to re-offend based on their characteristics
Logistic regression was used
Logistic regression was used
Logistic regression was used
Police National Computer None
Police National Computer Region, Probation area, Local Authority
Police National Computer None
No predicted rate
Evidence on the link between time on the PPO scheme and expected reductions in further offending were used to assess reductions in number of offences compared to the previous year
A predicted rate of re-offending was included for the proportion of offenders expected to reoffend based on their previous criminal history Response surface methodology was used
A predicted rate of re-offending is included for the proportion of offenders expected to re-offend based on their characteristics Logistic regression is used
Youth Offending Teams data Youth Offending Team level
Police National Computer Police Force and Local Authority level
Police National Computer Drug Action team and Local Authority level
Police National Computer Upper and lower tier local authority areas for all offenders. Other breakdowns for specific categories of offender.
49
The effect of the changes
Adults
Differences in methodology are reflected in different results. Table A3 shows the impact on reported rates of adult re-conviction/re-offending. The table breaks down the changes between the previous measure and the new measure to identify the different effects of the changes in methodology.
Table A3: Re-offending/re-convictions data for adult offenders
| Year | Previous measure: re-convictions (prison and probation offenders only), first quarter of the year | Previous measure: re-convictions (prison and probation offenders only), whole year | New measure: re-offending (prison and probation offenders only), whole year | New measure: proven re-offending (all offenders), whole year | |------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------| | 2000 | 43.0 | 40.0 | 40.9 | 26.2 | | 2002 | 45.5 | 42.0 | 43.0 | 27.6 | | 2003 | 45.4 | 41.5 | 42.4 | 26.9 | | 2004 | 42.9 | 38.6 | 39.8 | 25.5 | | 2005 | 41.2 | 36.6 | 38.4 | 24.9 | | 2006 | 38.6 | 35.6 | 37.6 | 24.6 | | 2007 | 39.0 | 35.9 | 37.9 | 24.8 | | 2008 | 40.1 | 36.1 | 37.9 | 25.4 | | 2009 | 39.3 | 34.7 | 36.2 | 24.9 |
Proportion
| Year | Proportion | |------|------------| | 2000 | 1.85 | | 2002 | 2.13 | | 2003 | 2.05 | | 2004 | 1.81 | | 2005 | 1.66 | | 2006 | 1.44 | | 2007 | 1.47 | | 2008 | 1.55 | | 2009 | 1.41 |
Frequency (average per offender)
| Year | Frequency (average per offender) | |------|----------------------------------| | 2000 | 4.30 | | 2002 | 4.68 | | 2003 | 4.52 | | 2004 | 4.23 | | 2005 | 4.03 | | 2006 | 3.73 | | 2007 | 3.79 | | 2008 | 3.88 | | 2009 | 3.57 |
Frequency of re-offenders (average per re-offender)
| Year | Frequency of re-offenders (average per re-offender) | |------|-----------------------------------------------------| | 2000 | 4.15 | | 2002 | 4.39 | | 2003 | 4.18 | | 2004 | 3.91 | | 2005 | 3.70 | | 2006 | 3.54 | | 2007 | 3.53 | | 2008 | 3.51 | | 2009 | 3.31 |
Number of offenders
| Year | Number of offenders | |------|---------------------| | 2000 | 42,734 | | 2002 | 43,247 | | 2003 | 44,095 | | 2004 | 46,532 | | 2005 | 43,429 | | 2006 | 50,281 | | 2007 | 50,085 | | 2008 | 53,718 | | 2009 | 56,616 |
1. Based on the national adult re-convictions publication (March 2011)
Among adult offenders in 2009, the previous national measure (the first column) shows that 39.3 per cent of adult offenders were re-convicted within a year based on a sample of 56,616 offenders.
The second column shows the re-conviction rates from the previous measure looking at offenders who were released from custody or commenced a court order but at any point during the year. The inclusion of offenders from a full twelve month period means the results are calculated using the full proven offender population rather than a sample – this ensures we do not over-represent prolific offenders in the cohort, which is a problem in using a January to March sample as in the previous adult re-conviction measure.
This leads to a lower proportion of re-convicted offenders (between three and five percentage points, eg 34.7 per cent compared to 39.3 per cent in 2009). The change to a full year also increases the number of offenders, to 200,077 in 2009.
The third column shows the proven re-offending rates from the new measure but still based only on those offenders who were released from custody or commenced a court order at any point during the year. Proven re-offending includes offences which result in a caution in addition to those resulting in a conviction at court. The proportion of offenders who were proven to re-offend is between 1 and 2 percentage points higher than for those who were re-convicted (36.2 per cent compared to 34.7 per cent in 2009). There is little difference at this stage because we are still only considering offenders who already have a prison or a court order.
The fourth column shows the re-offending rates from the new measure looking at all adult offenders who received a caution, a conviction at court, discharged from custody, or tested positive for cocaine or opiates. The inclusion of these offenders increases the numbers considerably. In 2009, the previous adult measure tracks the re-offending behaviour of 56,616 offenders; the new measure tracks 576,255 offenders. The inclusion of offenders who received less severe disposals and are generally less prolific in nature reduces the proportion who re-offend by around 11 to 16 percentage points (36.2 per cent compared to 24.9 per cent in 2009).
**Change over time**
Compared to the previous measure, the reduction over time in the proportion of offenders who re-offend is much lower using the new measure. Using the previous measure, between 2000 and 2009 the proportion of offenders who were re-convicted fell 3.7 percentage points (from 43.0 per cent to 39.3 per cent). Using the new measure, the proportion of offenders who committed a proven re-offence fell 1.2 percentage points (from 26.2 per cent to 24.9 per cent).
**Juveniles**
The only change between the previous measure and the new measure of re-offending among young people is the move from a one quarter sample to including all young offenders over the period of a year.
______________________________________________________________________
27 The previous measure includes offenders released from custody or who commenced a court order in the first three months of the year, shown in column 1. Column 2 includes offenders released from custody or who commenced a court order in the twelve month period. The number of offenders shown in column 2 is less than 4 times as many as in column 1. This is because some offenders commence a court order or are discharged from custody more than once in a year. These calculations only count each offender once e.g. offender Y is discharged from custody in the first quarter of the year, and discharged again in the second quarter but he is only counted as a single offender. Table A4: Re-offending data for juvenile offenders
| Year | Previous measure\* proven re-offending | New measure proven re-offending | |------|--------------------------------------|---------------------------------| | | Proportion | | | 2000 | 40.2 | 32.7 | | 2002 | 38.5 | 33.4 | | 2003 | 39.0 | 34.3 | | 2004 | 38.6 | 33.6 | | 2005 | 38.4 | 33.6 | | 2006 | 38.7 | 33.9 | | 2007 | 37.5 | 32.5 | | 2008 | 37.3 | 32.9 | | 2009 | 36.9 | 32.8 | | | Frequency (average per offender) | | | 2000 | 1.51 | 1.12 | | 2002 | 1.42 | 1.10 | | 2003 | 1.42 | 1.09 | | 2004 | 1.32 | 1.03 | | 2005 | 1.25 | 0.98 | | 2006 | 1.23 | 0.97 | | 2007 | 1.16 | 0.90 | | 2008 | 1.14 | 0.91 | | 2009 | 1.10 | 0.90 | | | Frequency of re-offenders (average per re-offender) | | | 2000 | 3.77 | 3.32 | | 2002 | 3.69 | 3.29 | | 2003 | 3.63 | 3.19 | | 2004 | 3.43 | 3.06 | | 2005 | 3.26 | 2.91 | | 2006 | 3.18 | 2.86 | | 2007 | 3.08 | 2.77 | | 2008 | 3.06 | 2.75 | | 2009 | 2.99 | 2.75 | | | Number of offenders | | | 2000 | 41,176 | 139,326 | | 2002 | 40,753 | 136,401 | | 2003 | 40,297 | 138,379 | | 2004 | 44,153 | 149,452 | | 2005 | 45,337 | 163,545 | | 2006 | 48,938 | 171,061 | | 2007 | 52,544 | 171,454 | | 2008 | 44,837 | 145,579 | | 2009 | 37,472 | 121,107 |
1. Based on the national juvenile re-offending publication (March 2011) publication
As for adults, using the whole year reduces the proportion of offenders who re-offended because we do not over-represent prolific offenders in the cohort, which is a problem in using a January to March sample. Table A4 shows the reduction is between four and seven percentage points. For 2009 with the previous measure, 36.9 per cent commit a proven re-offence within one year; with the new measure, 32.8 per cent do so. The new measure, which is based on offenders from a 12 month period, includes over three times as many offenders as the existing measure.
Change over time
Compared to the previous measure, the reduction in the proportion of offenders who re-offend between 2000 and 2009 is much lower using the new measure.
Using the previous measure, between 2000 and 2009, the proportion of offenders who were proven to re-offend fell 3.3 percentage points (from 40.2 per cent to 36.9 per cent). Using the new measure, the proportion of offenders who committed a proven re-offence fell 0.9 percentage points (from 33.7 per cent to 32.8 per cent).
**Drug-misusing offenders**
Published results for drug-misusing offenders on the previous measure covered 2008 and 2009; results using the new measure cover from 2004 onwards.
The previous measure:
- Includes offenders who have been identified in the first quarter of the year, whereas the new measure includes offenders from any point during the year,
- Includes all drug-misusing offenders irrespective of the date of proven offence, whereas the new measure includes identified drug-misusing offenders who have received a caution, been convicted at court, been discharged from custody, or tested positive for cocaine or opiates on arrest during a twelve month period.
- Counts re-offences that were proven through a court conviction, whereas the new measure counts re-offences that were proven by a court conviction or caution.
As for adult and juvenile offenders, using the whole year to identify offenders reduces the proportion of offenders who re-offend, because we do not over-represent prolific offenders in the cohort, which is a problem in using a January to March sample. Table A5 shows the impact on reported rates of re-offending/re-conviction by drug-misusing offenders.
**Table A5: Re-offending data for drug-misusing offenders**
| Year | Previous measure¹ proven re-conviction | New measure of proven re-offending | |------|----------------------------------------|-----------------------------------| | | Proportion | | | 2004 | 67.3 | | | 2005 | 65.3 | | | 2006 | 58.6 | | | 2007 | 57.2 | | | 2008 | 61.0 | 56.4 | | 2009 | 57.0 | 54.7 | | | Frequency (average per offender) | | | 2004 | 3.20 | | | 2005 | 2.94 | | | 2006 | 2.37 | | | 2007 | 2.34 | | | 2008 | 2.6 | 2.29 | | 2009 | 2.2 | 2.10 | | | Frequency of re-offenders (average per re-offender) | | | 2004 | 4.75 | | | 2005 | 4.51 | | | 2006 | 4.03 | | | 2007 | 4.09 | | | 2008 | 4.3 | 4.06 | | 2009 | 3.9 | 3.84 | | | Number of offenders | | | 2004 | 20,652 | | | 2005 | 29,112 | | | 2006 | 44,597 | | | 2007 | 54,474 | | | 2008 | 20,934 | 59,039 | | 2009 | 20,109 | 53,109 |
1. Based on the national drug-misusing offenders publication (December 2010) Table A5 shows that the proportion of offenders who commit a proven re-offence is between two and five percentage points lower using the new measure (57.0 per cent using the previous measure compared to 54.7 per cent using the new measure). The new measure, which follows offenders over a 12 month period, includes between two and three times as many offenders as the existing measure.
**Prolific and other Priority Offenders (PPO)**
Published results for PPOs on the previous measure presented the frequency of proven re-offending for all PPOs; results using the new measure cover the proportion of offenders proven to re-offend, and the frequency of proven re-offending for all offenders and for re-offenders from 2005 onwards.
The previous measure:
- Includes offenders who have been identified in the first quarter of the year, whereas the new measure includes offenders from any point during the year. However, PPOs are generally on the PPO programme for a sustained period of time so this only has a moderate impact on numbers of offenders included.
- Includes all identified PPOs, whereas the new measure includes identified PPOs who have tested positive for cocaine or opiates, received a caution, been convicted at court, or been discharged from custody during a twelve-month period.
- Counts re-offences that are proven through a court conviction or caution and also includes breach offences that lead to substantive recorded convictions. The new measure only includes re-offences proven through a court conviction or caution.
Table A6 shows the impact on reported rates of proven re-offending by Prolific and other Priority Offenders and on numbers of offenders included in the measure.
**Table A6: Re-offending data for Prolific and other Priority Offenders**
| Year | Previous measure proven re-offending | New measure of proven re-offending | |------|-------------------------------------|----------------------------------| | 2005 | 77.0 | 56.0 | | 2006 | 75.7 | 75.1 | | 2007 | 75.8 | | | 2008 | 77.2 | | | 2009 | 56.0 | 75.1 |
| Year | Frequency (average per offender) | Frequency of re-offenders (average per re-offender) | Number of offenders | |------|---------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------|---------------------| | 2005 | 4.01 | 5.21 | 8,555 | | 2006 | 3.83 | 5.06 | 8,239 | | 2007 | 3.80 | 5.01 | 8,309 | | 2008 | 2.6 | 4.93 | 10,771 | | 2009 | 2.4 | 4.65 | 10,635 |
1. Based on the national Prolific and other Priority Offenders publication (March 2010) The average number of proven re-offences committed by PPOs in 2009 is lower for the previous measure than for the new measure in 2008 (2.4 re-offences per offender using the previous measure, but 3.49 using the new). The previous measure includes PPOs who have not been proven guilty of an offence or been discharged from custody in the twelve month period when the re-offending cohort is formed. This type of offender is likely to have a lower level of re-offending.
These differences may help to explain
- why the frequency of re-offending is lower for the previous measure than for the new measure in 2009 (2.4 re-offences per offender using the previous measure, but 3.49 using the new), and
- why the previous measure includes nearly 2,500 more PPOs in 2009 than does the new measure.
Local adult re-offending The most similar results for the new measure of re-offending and the existing local measure of adult re-offending are the early estimates of re-offending of offenders given a court order. Like the existing measure of local adult re-offending, the early estimates of offenders given a court order:
- measure re-offending over three months,
- only measures offenders under probation supervision,
- provides results by probation trust,
- compares actual re-offending rates with an predicted re-offending rate.
There remain significant differences between the early estimates and the existing local adult measure of re-offending, including
- The existing local adult measure includes offenders on license – the early estimates include offenders commencing court orders only.
- The existing local adult measure uses a 'snapshot' approach. This means offenders are counted if they are on the caseload at certain times in the year. Offenders who are on the caseload for a short period of time may not get counted with the existing measure. The early estimates count every offender who commences a court order.
- Because the existing local adult measure uses a 'snapshot' approach some offenders may get counted up to four times if they are on the caseload for over twelve months. The early estimates count every offender once.
- The existing local adult measure measures the re-offending of offenders at any point during the court order – the early estimates measure re-offending in the first three months after an offender commenced a court order.
- The predicted score for the existing local adult measure was derived from analysis of 2007 re-offending data - the prediction for the early estimates was derived from analysis of 2008 re-offending data.
These differences explain why the re-offending rate is higher with the early estimates of re-offending by offenders commencing a court order than with the existing measure of local adult re-offending:
- offenders on license have lower rates of re-offending than those commencing a court order, and
- offenders serving a court order have lower rates of re-offending the longer they are on that court order. However, the prediction for the early estimates has been tailored specifically to the relevant group of offenders.
**Local youth re-offending** The previous measure of youth re-offending used data that Youth Offending Teams (YOT) collected themselves from their local police and courts. The measure was used as management information and was never published or put into the public domain. The new measure uses data from the Police National Computer (PNC). Internal analysis and discussion with stakeholders has highlighted a number of differences between the two data-sources:
- The PNC includes a number of offenders who have received a reprimand or final warning which do not always appear on the YOT systems. As a result, there are more youth offenders and a higher overall youth re-offending rate using the new measure than using the previous local youth re-offending measure.
- The PNC includes more comprehensive data on re-offending as adults by offenders who originally offended as youths.
- Using PNC data reduces the data-collection burden on YOT and local police forces.
- PNC data measures re-offending on recordable offences and YOT data measures re-offending on all offences. Offences which are not recordable include speeding offences, parking offences and other minor motoring offences. As a result, YOT data is more comprehensive for motoring re-offences.
- The new measure allocates offenders to a locality using their home address data from the PNC; the previous local youth measure allocated offenders using offender management data. As a result, Looked After Children (LAC) who are in foster care, or in a children’s home, or in a boarding school or live with another adult known to children’s services, maybe allocated to a different YOT under the previous youth measure than the new measure.
- For their re-offending to be included in the new measure, administrative data on young people in custody and secure accommodation has to be matched to the PNC. Some cases are not successfully matched. This process was not required for these offenders to be included in the previous local youth measure. As a result, YOT data can be more comprehensive regarding custodial offenders or those in secure accommodation.
- Using PNC data provides an external measure of youth re-offending, which makes it an appropriate data-source to support any future policies which tie local funding to re-offending performance.
- Using PNC data allows local youth re-offending to be measured on the same basis as national youth re-offending and adult re-offending, permitting adult and youth re-offending to be measured on a like-for-like basis and a more comprehensive picture of re-offending to be formed.
Work is underway to fully quantify the extent of these differences. Appendix A: Glossary of terms
Re-offending terms
**Cohort** - this is the group of individuals whose re-offending is measured.
**Index offence** - the index offence is the proven offence that leads to an offender being included in the cohort.
**Index disposal** - the index disposal of the offender is the type of sentence the offender received for their index offence.
**Start point (also known as the index date)** - this is the set point in time from when re-offences are measured.
**Follow up period** - this is the length of time proven re-offending is measured over.
**Waiting period** - this is the additional time beyond the follow up period to allow for offences committed towards the end of the follow up period to be proved by a court conviction, caution, reprimand or final warning.
**Adjusted baseline** - proven re-offending is related to the characteristics of offenders which means that any overall rate of proven re-offending will depend, in part, on the characteristics of offenders coming into the system (just as the examination pass rate of a school will be related to the characteristics of its pupils). We use a modelling technique to produce a baseline figure adjusted to match the characteristics of the cohort we are comparing. For more details see the chapter on Statistical modelling and coefficients (p x)
**Reconviction** – where an offender is convicted at court for an offence committed within a set follow up period and convicted within either the follow up period or waiting period
**Proven re-offence** – where an offender is convicted at court or receives some other form of criminal justice sanction for an offence committed within a set follow up period and disposed of within either the follow up period or waiting period.
**Cohort defined used in the Proven Re-offending statistic quarterly bulletin in England and Wales publication**
The proven re-offending cohort consists of all offenders discharged from custody, otherwise sanctioned at court, receiving a caution, reprimand or warning or tested positive for opiates or cocaine in each year. This cohort’s criminal history is collated and criminal behaviour is tracked over the following one year. Any offence committed in this one-year period which is proven by a court conviction or out-of-court disposal (either in the one-year period, or in a further six months waiting period) counts as a proven re-offence.
The latest available publication is the Proven Re-offending statistic quarterly bulletin in England and Wales: results from the 2009 cohort; Ministry of Justice, October 2011. Cohort defined used in the Local Measure of Re-offending quarterly bulletin publication
The local adult re-offending measure takes a snapshot of all offenders, aged 18 or over, who are under probation supervision at the end of a quarter, and combines four such snapshots together. This cohort’s criminal history is collated and criminal behaviour is tracked over the following three months. Any offence committed in this three month period which is proven by a court conviction or out-of-court disposal (either in the three month period, or in a further three months waiting period) counts as a proven re-offence. The latest available publication is the Local Adult Re-offending: 1 April 2010 – 31 March 2011 England and Wales; Ministry of Justice, August 2011. http://www.justice.gov.uk/publications/statistics-and-data/reoffending/local-adult-reoffending.htm
Cohort defined used in the Adult re-convictions in England and Wales publication
The adult re-conviction cohort consists of adults discharged from custody or commencing a court order under probation supervision in the first quarter of each year. This cohort’s criminal history is collated and criminal behaviour is tracked over the following one year. Any offence committed in this one-year period which is proven by a court conviction (either in the one-year period, or in a further six months waiting period) counts as a reconviction. The latest available publication is the Adult re-convictions: results from the 2009 cohort; Ministry of Justice, March 2011. http://www.justice.gov.uk/publications/statistics-and-data/reoffending/adults.htm
Cohort definition used in the Reoffending of juveniles in England and Wales publication
The juvenile reoffending cohort is formed of juvenile offenders discharged from custody, otherwise sanctioned at court, or receiving a reprimand or warning in January to March of each year. This cohort’s criminal history is collated and criminal behaviour is tracked over the following one year. Any offence committed in this one-year period which is proven by a court conviction or out-of-court disposal (either in the one-year period, or in a further six months waiting period) counts as proven reoffending. The latest available publication is the Reoffending of juveniles: results from the 2009 cohort; Ministry of Justice, March 2011. www.justice.gov.uk/publications/statistics-and-data/reoffending/juveniles.htm
Disposals (Sentences)
Fine A financial penalty imposed following conviction.
Court orders Court orders include community sentences, community orders and suspended sentence orders supervised by the Probation Service. They do not include any pre or post release supervision.
Criminal Justice Act 2003 (CJA03) For offences committed on or after 4 April 2005, the new community order replaced all existing community sentences for adults. The Act also introduced a new suspended sentence order for offences which pass the custody threshold. It also changed the release arrangements for prisoners. See Appendix A of Offender Management Caseload Statistics96 for more information.
Community order
For offences committed on or after 4 April 2005, the new community order introduced under the CJA 2003 replaced all existing community sentences for those aged 18 years and over. This term refers to all court orders except suspended sentence orders and deferred sentences which may have a custodial component to the sentence. The court must add at least one (but could potentially comprise of all 12) requirements depending on the offences and the offender. The requirements are:
- unpaid work (formerly community service/community punishment) – a requirement to complete between 40 and 300 hours' unpaid work;
- activity – for example, to attend basic skills classes;
- programme – there are several designed to reduce the prospects of reoffending;
- prohibited activity – a requirement not do so something that is likely to lead to further offender or nuisance;
- curfew – which is electronically monitored;
- exclusion – this is not used frequently as there is no reliable electronic monitoring yet available;
- residence – requirement to reside only where approved by probation officer;
- mental health treatment (requires offender’s consent);
- drug rehabilitation (requires offender's consent);
- alcohol treatment (requires offender’s consent);
- supervision – meetings with probation officer to address needs/offending behaviour; and,
- attendance centre – three hours of activity, between a minimum of 12 hours and a maximum of 36 in total.
Typically, the more serious the offence and the more extensive the offender’s needs, the more requirements there will be. Most orders will comprise one or two requirements but there are packages of several requirements available where required. The court tailors the order as appropriate and is guided by the Probation Service through a pre-sentence report.
Suspended Sentence Order (SSO)
The Criminal Justice Act 2003 introduced a new suspended sentence order which is made up of the same requirements as a community order and, in the absence of breach is served wholly in the community supervised by the Probation Service. It consists of an ‘operational period’ (the time for which the custodial sentence is suspended) and a ‘supervision period’ (the time during which any requirements take effect). Both may be between six months and two years and the ‘supervision period’ cannot be longer than the ‘operational period’, although it may be shorter. Failure to comply with the requirements of the order or commission of another offence will almost certainly result in a custodial sentence.
Pre CJA03 Court Orders - Community sentences:
Community punishment order (CPO): the offender is required to undertake unpaid community work.
Community rehabilitation order (CRO): a community sentence which may have additional requirements such as residence, probation centre attendance or treatment for drug, alcohol or mental health problems.
Community punishment and rehabilitation order (CPRO): a community sentence consisting of probation supervision alongside community punishment, with additional conditions like those of a community rehabilitation order.
Drug treatment and testing order (DTTO): a community sentence targeted at offenders with drug misuse problems.
Custody - the offender is awarded a sentence to be served in prison or YOI (Youth Offenders Institute). If the offender was given a sentence of 12 months or over, or was aged under 22 on release, the offender is supervised by the Probation Service on release. It is important to note that the sentence length awarded will be longer than the time served. For more information please refer to Appendix A of the Offender Management Caseload Statistics.
Prison categories
Category B and Category C prisons hold sentenced prisoners of their respective categories, including life sentenced prisoners. The regime focuses on programmes that address offending behaviour and provide education, vocational training and purposeful work for prisoners who will normally spend several years in one prison.
High Security Prisons hold Category A and B prisoners. Category A prisoners are managed by a process of dispersal, and these prisons also hold a proportion of Category B prisoners for whom they provide a similar regime to a Category B prison. The Category B prisoners held in a High Security Prison are not necessarily any more dangerous or difficult to manage than those in category B prisons.
Female prisons. As the name implies, they hold women prisoners. Because of the smaller numbers, they are not divided into the same number of categories although there are variations in security levels.
Local prisons serve the courts in the area. Historically their main function was to hold unconvicted and unsentenced prisoners and, once a prisoner had been sentenced, to allocate them on to a Category B, C or D prison as appropriate to serve their sentence. However, pressure on places means that many shorter term prisoners serve their entire sentence in a local prison, while longer term prisoners also complete some offending behaviour and training programmes there before moving on to lower security conditions. All local prisons operate to category B security standards. Open prisons have much lower levels of physical security and only hold Category D prisoners. Many prisoners in open prisons will be allowed to go out of the prison on a daily basis to take part in voluntary or paid work in the community in preparation for their approaching release.
Prisoner Categories These categories are based on a combination of the type of crime committed, the length of sentence, the likelihood of escape, and the danger to the public if they did escape. The four categories are:
**Category A** prisoners are those whose escape would be highly dangerous to the public or national security
**Category B** prisoners are those who do not require maximum security, but for whom escape needs to be made very difficult
**Category C** prisoners are those who cannot be trusted in open conditions but who are unlikely to try to escape
**Category D** prisoners are those who can be reasonably trusted not to try to escape, and are given the privilege of an open prison.
Short sentences – under twelve months Those sentenced to **under twelve months** (made under the Criminal Justice Act 1991) spend the first half of their sentence in prison and are then released and considered ‘at risk’ for the remaining period. This means they are under no positive obligations and do not report to the probation service but, if they commit a further imprisonable offence during the at risk period, they can be made to serve the remainder of the sentence in addition to the punishment for the new offence. The exception to this is those aged 18 to 20 who have a minimum of three months’ supervision on release.
Sentences of 12 months or over The Criminal Justice Act 2003 created a distinction between **standard determinate sentences** and **public protection sentences**. Offenders sentenced to a standard determinate sentence serve the first half in prison and the second half in the community on licence.
Reprimand or warnings A reprimand is a formal verbal warning given by a police officer to a juvenile offender who admits they are guilty for a minor first offence. A final warning is similar to a reprimand, but can be used for either the first or second offence, and includes an assessment of the juvenile to determine the causes of their offending behaviour and a programme of activities is designed to address them.
First-tier penalties **Discharge** – a juvenile offender is given an absolute discharge when they admit guilt, or are found guilty, with no further action taken. An offender given a conditional discharge also receives no immediate punishment, but is given a set period, during which if they commit a further offence, they can be brought back to court and re-sentenced. **Fine** – the size of the fine depends on the offence committed and the offender’s financial circumstances. In the case of juveniles under 16, the fine is the responsibility of the offender’s parent or carer.
**Referral order** – this is given to juveniles pleading guilty and for whom it is their first time at court (unless the offence is so serious it merits a custodial sentence or it is of a relatively minor nature). The offender is required to attend a Youth Offender Panel to agree a contract, aimed to repair the harm caused by the offence and address the causes of the offending behaviour.
**Reparation order** – the offender is required to repair the harm caused by their offence either directly to the victim or indirectly to the community. Miscellaneous terms
National Probation Service The National Probation Service generally deals with those aged 18 years and over. (Those under 18 are mostly dealt with by Youth Offending Teams, answering to the Youth Justice Board.) They are responsible for supervising offenders who are given community sentences and suspended sentence orders by the courts, as well as offenders given custodial sentences, both pre and post their release.
Police National Computer The Police National Computer (PNC) is the police's administrative IT system used by all police forces in England and Wales and managed by the National Policing Improvement Agency. As with any large scale recording system the PNC is subject to possible errors with data entry and processing. The Ministry of Justice maintains a database based on weekly extracts of selected data from the PNC in order to compile statistics and conduct research on reoffending and criminal histories. The PNC largely covers recordable offences – these are all indictable and triable-either-way offences plus many of the more serious summary offences. All figures derived from the Ministry of Justice’s PNC database, and in particular those for the most recent months, are likely to be revised as more information is recorded by the police.
Recordable offences Recordable offences are those that the police are required to record on the Police National Computer. They include all offences for which a custodial sentence can be given plus a range of other offences defined as recordable in legislation. They exclude a range of less serious summary offences, for example television licence evasion, driving without insurance, speeding and vehicle tax offences.
Indictable and summary offences - Summary offences are triable only by a magistrates’ court. This group includes motoring offences, common assault and criminal damage up to £5,000. More serious offences are classed either as triable either way (these can be tried either at the Crown Court or at a magistrates’ court and include criminal damage where the value is £5,000 or greater, theft and burglary) or indictable (the most serious offences that must be tried at the Crown Court. These ‘indictable-only’ offences include murder, manslaughter, rape and robbery).
Offence Group - A split of offences into twelve separate groups. A more detailed split of the ten indictable offence groups (violence against the person, sexual offences, burglary, robbery, theft and handling and stolen goods, fraud and forgery, criminal damage, drug offences, other indictable offences (excluding motoring), indictable motoring) and the two summary offence groups (summary non-motoring and summary motoring offence types). Explanatory notes
The United Kingdom Statistics Authority has designated these statistics as National Statistics, in accordance with the Statistics and Registration Service Act 2007 and signifying compliance with the Code of Practice for Official Statistics.
Designation can be broadly interpreted to mean that the statistics: • meet identified user needs; • are well explained and readily accessible; • are produced according to sound methods, and • are managed impartially and objectively in the public interest.
Once statistics have been designated as National Statistics it is a statutory requirement that the Code of Practice shall continue to be observed.
The statistics in this bulletin relate to re-offending data in England and Wales. This is the first set of quarterly re-offending statistics to be published by the Ministry of Justice, subsuming a number of previous publications including: Adult re-convictions, juvenile re-offending, drug misusing offenders and prolific and priority offenders.
Symbols used
| Symbol | Description | |--------|--------------------------------------------------| | . | not available | | 0 | nil or less than half the final digit shown | | - | not applicable | | * | One or both of the comparison figures are less than 50 | | (p) | Provisional data | Contact points
Press enquiries should be directed to the Ministry of Justice press office:
Tel: 020 3334 3536
Other enquiries about these statistics should be directed to:
Iain Bell Ministry of Justice Justice Statistics Analytical Services 7th Floor 102 Petty France London SW1H 9AJ Tel: 020 3334 3737
General enquiries about the statistical work of the Ministry of Justice can be e-mailed to: [email protected]
General information about the official statistics system of the UK is available from www.statistics.gov.uk
© Crown copyright Produced by the Ministry of Justice Alternative formats are available on request from [email protected]
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/4813-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 65,
"total-input-tokens": 120985,
"total-output-tokens": 31653,
"total-fallback-pages": 1
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
152,
1
],
[
152,
1173,
2
],
[
1173,
3816,
3
],
[
3816,
6511,
4
],
[
6511,
8797,
5
],
[
8797,
9340,
6
],
[
9340,
11810,
7
],
[
11810,
16312,
8
],
[
16312,
16835,
9
],
[
16835,
18160,
10
],
[
18160,
19090,
11
],
[
19090,
19777,
12
],
[
19777,
22016,
13
],
[
22016,
22969,
14
],
[
22969,
24714,
15
],
[
24714,
26082,
16
],
[
26082,
27050,
17
],
[
27050,
29237,
18
],
[
29237,
29996,
19
],
[
29996,
30257,
20
],
[
30257,
32261,
21
],
[
32261,
32857,
22
],
[
32857,
35241,
23
],
[
35241,
37601,
24
],
[
37601,
38423,
25
],
[
38423,
38902,
26
],
[
38902,
41420,
27
],
[
41420,
43682,
28
],
[
43682,
46137,
29
],
[
46137,
50400,
30
],
[
50400,
51768,
31
],
[
51768,
54436,
32
],
[
54436,
57208,
33
],
[
57208,
57392,
34
],
[
57392,
59942,
35
],
[
59942,
60579,
36
],
[
60579,
63313,
37
],
[
63313,
63447,
38
],
[
63447,
64951,
39
],
[
64951,
66567,
40
],
[
66567,
66803,
41
],
[
66803,
68826,
42
],
[
68826,
71186,
43
],
[
71186,
72072,
44
],
[
72072,
72668,
45
],
[
72668,
72951,
46
],
[
72951,
75348,
47
],
[
75348,
78552,
48
],
[
78552,
80098,
49
],
[
80098,
86489,
50
],
[
86489,
89567,
51
],
[
89567,
94037,
52
],
[
94037,
98083,
53
],
[
98083,
101351,
54
],
[
101351,
104323,
55
],
[
104323,
107101,
56
],
[
107101,
109697,
57
],
[
109697,
112680,
58
],
[
112680,
115076,
59
],
[
115076,
118003,
60
],
[
118003,
120710,
61
],
[
120710,
121466,
62
],
[
121466,
124180,
63
],
[
124180,
125647,
64
],
[
125647,
126339,
65
]
]
} |
65876de5ca860b5e0c73ef62f325b0e59b78fff6 | Proven Re-offending Statistics Quarterly Bulletin January to December 2010, England and Wales
Ministry of Justice Statistics Bulletin
25 October 2012
## Contents
Introduction .................................................................................................................. 3\
Executive summary ..................................................................................................... 7\
List of quarterly tables ............................................................................................... 20\
Annex A - Payment by results .................................................................................... 23\
Annex B - How the measure of proven re-offending has changed and the effect of these changes ........................................................................................................... 25\
Annex C - Glossary of terms ...................................................................................... 42\
Explanatory notes ........................................................................................................ 51\
Contact points ............................................................................................................ 52 Introduction
The Proven Re-offending Statistics Quarterly Bulletin provides key statistics on proven re-offending in England and Wales. It gives proven re-offending figures for offenders, who were released from custody, received a non-custodial conviction at court, received a caution, reprimand, warning or tested positive for opiates or cocaine between January and December 2010. Proven re-offending is defined as any offence committed in a one year follow-up period and receiving a court conviction, caution, reprimand or warning in the one year follow-up or within a further six month waiting period. This is referred to as a proven re-offence.
This is the fifth quarterly bulletin in a new series. This series merges six previous measures of re-offending which were split across many publications into a single coherent overview of proven re-offending for the first time. It is a significant step forward for measuring re-offending as for the first time users can:
- obtain figures for the total number of proven re-offenders in an area and for the total number of offences they commit in a year;
- see proven re-offending rates for adults, juveniles, drug-misusing and prolific offenders measured on a consistent basis both nationally and locally; and
- measure individual prison and probation level re-offending on a consistent basis.
This quarterly bulletin presents the proportion of offenders who re-offend (proven re-offending rate) and the number of proven re-offences those offenders commit by age group, gender, ethnicity, criminal history and offence type. Also included are proven re-offending rates for serious proven re-offending, different types of offenders (e.g. adult, juvenile, drug-misusing and prolific and other priority offenders); different types of sentence; and by individual prison, probation trust and youth offending team. Furthermore since this publication presents results for the 2010 calendar year, additional tables are included for:
- proven re-offences committed by month of offence;
- proven re-offences by re-offence group;
- proven re-offences by index offence and re-offence group; and
- proven re-offenders by re-offence disposal.
Latest figures are provided with comparisons to 2009 and the year 2000 in order to highlight long-term trends; 2000 is the earliest year for which proven re-offending data exist on a comparable basis. The full set of results is provided separately in Excel tables at:
www.justice.gov.uk/statistics/reoffending/proven-re-offending
The accompanying ‘Definitions and Measurement’ document, which is available at the same link, provides more detailed information.
**Measuring proven re-offending**
There is no agreed international standard for measuring and reporting re-offending. An offender’s journey through the criminal justice system can be a complex one; offenders can appear on numerous occasions.
Measuring true re-offending is difficult. Official records are taken from either the police or courts, but they will underestimate the true level of re-offending because only a proportion of crime is detected and not all crimes are recorded on one central system. Furthermore, other methods for measuring re-offending, such as self report studies, are likely to be unreliable. Therefore, this report aims to measure proven re-offending.
Since re-offending is now measured on a consistent basis across all groups, it is possible to tailor analysis of re-offending to meet specific requirements. This quarterly bulletin and the accompanying ‘Early estimates of proven re-offending’ present measures on four different levels to meet users’ needs:
- The headline measure – this is the main measure of re-offending and is presented for different demographic groups and by offence. To provide this overview of proven re-offending, offenders are tracked and their proven re-offending behaviour is recorded, taking the first event in the relevant period as the start point and subsequent events as proven re-offences.
- A headline measure where the first event is related to criminal justice and offender management – this provides a realistic and relevant view of proven re-offending by disposal (sentence type), prison and probation trust. Offenders are tracked and their proven re-offending behaviour is recorded within each disposal (caution, court order, discharge from prison, etc.) or operational unit (prison or probation trust) taking the first event within each as the start point and subsequent events as re-offences.
- Early estimates of proven re-offending – these use shorter follow-up and waiting periods, but otherwise measure re-offending in exactly the same way as the headline measure. This is intended to provide offender managers with an earlier indication of proven re-offending.
______________________________________________________________________
1 An event is one of the following: a release from custody, convicted at court with a non-custodial sentence, received a caution, reprimand, warning or tested positive for opiates or cocaine trends so they can adjust or build on offender management operational policy.
- A re-conviction measure for use by payment by results – this is the measure used in the prison pilots since court convictions are more closely associated with costs to the criminal justice system. For more details, please refer to Annex A.
For a more detailed explanation, please see the accompanying ‘Definitions and Measurement’ document at:
www.justice.gov.uk/statistics/reoffending/proven-re-offending
Consultation
This quarterly bulletin has been developed in response to a consultation in late 2010 and early 2011 by the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) on “Improvements to Ministry of Justice Statistics”. The main points from the consultation that affect this publication can be found in Annex B.
Users
The contents of this bulletin will be of interest to Government policy makers, the agencies responsible for offender management at both national and local levels, providers, practitioners and others who want to understand more about proven re-offending.
In particular there are two MoJ impact indicators(^2) which will be monitored using results from this bulletin:
- Adult and juvenile re-offending – the percentage of adult and juvenile offenders who re-offend, measured quarterly by local authority.
- The percentage of adults released from custody who re-offend, measured annually by prison.
Government policy makers also use these statistics to develop, monitor and evaluate key elements of its policies including those on payments by results, legal aid, sentencing guidelines and drug and alcohol policies. Offender management agencies use these statistics to gain a local understanding of the criminal justice system, understand performance and to highlight best practice. Key agencies include: the National Offender Management Service, the Youth Justice Board, private and voluntary sector providers of prison and probation services and local authorities.
As proven re-offending is related to the characteristics of offenders, the actual rate of proven re-offending will depend, in part, on the characteristics of offenders coming into the system. This actual rate provides users with sufficient information on what the level of re-offending is (e.g. in their local
(^2) www.justice.gov.uk/publications/corporate-reports/moj/index.htm area) and how it is changing over time. This bulletin also presents an adjusted proven re-offending rate to control for differences in the composition of the offender group which can be used by those who want to understand how changes in types of offenders coming through the justice system drives re-offending.
This is the fifth bulletin in a new series of publications produced in response to a consultation. The MoJ has addressed the main issues from the consultation. Furthermore, individual Probation Trust proven re-offending rates for offenders released from prison on licence are now published on a quarterly basis within this bulletin after first appearing in the ‘Compendium of Re-offending Statistics and Analysis 2012’.
www.justice.gov.uk/statistics/reoffending/compendium-of-reoffending-statistics-and-analysis
Also, in response to further user requests, this bulletin now includes, for the first time, juvenile proven re-offending data by custodial sentence length and re-offending breakdowns for the youth estate by secure children homes and secure training centres.
This bulletin is published alongside three inter-related bulletins:
- **Offender Management Statistics Quarterly Bulletin, April to June 2012**: provides key statistics relating to offenders who are in prison or under Probation Service supervision. It covers flows into these services (receptions into prison or probation starts) and flows out (discharges from prison or probation terminations) as well as the caseload of both services at specific points in time.
- **Safety in Custody Statistics Quarterly update to June 2012**: provides statistics on death, self harm and assault incidents whilst in prison custody.
- **MAPPA (Multi agency public protection arrangements) Annual Report 2011/12**: this annual publication presents the number of MAPPA eligible offenders in England and Wales, and information related to these offenders, including a summary of the information provided in the MAPPA reports published by each of the areas.
Taken together, these publications present users with a more coherent overview of offender management including MAPPA eligible offenders, re-offending among both adults and young people and the safety of offenders whilst in prison custody.
If you have any feedback, questions or requests for further information about this statistical bulletin, please direct them to the appropriate contact given at the end of this report. Executive summary
This report provides key statistics on proven re-offending in England and Wales. It gives proven re-offending figures for offenders who were released from custody, received a non-custodial conviction at court, received a caution, reprimand, warning or tested positive for opiates or cocaine between January and December 2010. Proven re-offending is defined as any offence committed in a one year follow-up period and receiving a court conviction, caution, reprimand or warning in the one year follow-up. Following this one year period, a further six month waiting period is allowed for cases to progress through the courts.
Between January and December 2010, around 650,000 offenders(^3) were cautioned(^4), convicted (excluding immediate custodial sentences) or released from custody(^5). Around 170,000 of these offenders committed a proven re-offence within a year. This gives a one year proven re-offending rate of 26.7 per cent, which represents a rise of 0.4 percentage points compared to the previous 12 months and a fall of 1.2 percentage points since 2000 (Table 1).
These re-offenders committed an average of 2.87 re-offences each. In total, this represents around 500,000 re-offences of which 81.0 per cent were committed by adults and 19.0 per cent were committed by juveniles (Table 1).
- 55.3 per cent (around 280,000) were committed by re-offenders with 11 or more previous offences (Table 6c).
- 0.7 per cent (around 3,300) were serious violent/sexual proven re-offences (Table 8).
- 5.2 per cent (around 26,000) were committed by re-offenders on the Prolific and other Priority Offender Programme (PPO) (Table 16).
______________________________________________________________________
(^3) A certain proportion of offenders could not be matched to the Police National Computer (PNC) and are, therefore, not included. Therefore, this number does not represent all proven offenders. Please refer to the ‘Definitions and Measurement’ document for more detail at www.justice.gov.uk/statistics/reoffending/proven-re-offending. This means that the number of offenders in this bulletin will be different from the numbers published in the Offender Management Quarterly Statistics Bulletin available at www.justice.gov.uk/publications/statistics-and-data/prisons-and-probation/oms-quarterly.htm, and the Criminal Justice Statistics report available at www.justice.gov.uk/publications/statistics-and-data/criminal-justice/criminal-justice-statistics.htm.
(^4) Includes reprimands and warnings for juveniles
(^5) Also includes those who tested positive for opiates or cocaine Key trends in proven re-offending
Adult offenders
Around 560,000 adult offenders(^3) were cautioned(^4), convicted or released from custody(^5) between January and December 2010. Around 140,000 of them committed a re-offence. This gives a proven re-offending rate of 25.3 per cent, which represents an increase of 0.3 percentage points compared to the previous 12 months and a fall of 0.9 percentage points since 2000 (Table 1).
However, compared to 2000, the offenders in 2010 had characteristics which meant they were more likely to re-offend. This means that, after controlling for offender characteristics, the decrease was larger at 3.1 percentage points (Table 1).
The average number of re-offences per re-offender was 2.87, a rise of 2.6 per cent compared to the previous 12 months and a fall of 15.3 per cent compared to 2000 (Table 1).
Looking at specific groups within the cohort:
- The proven re-offending rate for those released from custody was 47.5 per cent, a rise of 0.7 percentage points compared to the previous 12 months and a fall of 1.9 percentage points since 2000. The average number of re-offences committed per re-offender for this group was 4.16, an increase of 3.4 per cent compared to the previous 12 months and down 11.0 per cent since 2000 (Table 18a).
- The proven re-offending rate for those starting a court order (Community Order or Suspended Sentence Order) was 34.1 per cent, down 0.3 percentage points compared to the previous 12 months and down 3.7 percentage points since 2000. The average number of re-offences per re-offender was 3.18, up 3.2 per cent compared to the previous 12 months and down 17.7 per cent since 2000 (Table 18a).
- The proven re-offending rate for drug-misusing offenders (all offenders who are given drug orders as part of their sentence or test positive for opiates upon arrest) was 58.0 per cent, up 3.2 percentage points compared to the previous 12 months (Table 15).
Juvenile offenders
Around 93,000 juvenile offenders(^3) were cautioned(^4), convicted or released from custody(^5) between January and December 2010. Around 33,000 of them committed a re-offence. This gives a proven re-offending rate of 35.3 per cent. This represents an increase in the rate of 2.6 percentage points compared to the previous 12 months and a rise of 1.7 percentage points since 2000 (Table 1). However, users should be aware that the cohort has changed considerably over the period since 2000 and is 33.1 per cent smaller than in 2000 and is comprised of offenders whose characteristics mean they are more likely to re-offend than those in the 2000 cohort. In order to account for this, we can control for changes in offender characteristics to give a more consistent view of changes over time. After controlling for these changes, the proven re-offending rate has actually decreased by 1.4 percentage points since 2000 (Table 1).
The average number of re-offences per re-offender was 2.87, an increase of 4.3 per cent compared to 2009 and down 13.5 per cent since 2000 (Table 1).
Table E1: Overview – 2010 compared to 2000 and 2009
| | 2000 | 2009 | 2010 | Percentage change 2000 to 2010 | Percentage change 2009 to 2010 | |----------------------|------|------|------|-------------------------------|-------------------------------| | **All offenders** | | | | | | | Proportion of offenders who re-offend (%) | 27.9 | 26.3 | 26.7 | -1.2pp ↓ | 0.4pp ↑ | | Average number of re-offences per re-offender | 3.37 | 2.79 | 2.87 | -14.8% ↓ | 3.0% ↑ | | Proportion of offenders who re-offend - Adjusted to baseline2 (%) | 25.5 | 27.1 | 27.1 | -18.3% ↓ | -4.6% ↑ | | Number of re-offences | 579,770 | 511,668 | 497,969 | -14.1% ↓ | -2.7% ↓ | | Number of re-offenders | 172,935 | 183,382 | 173,274 | -0.8% ↑ | -5.5% ↓ | | Number of offenders in cohort | 617,024 | 697,362 | 648,822 | 5.2% ↑ | -7.0% ↓ | | **Adult offenders** | | | | | | | Proportion of offenders who re-offend (%) | 26.2 | 24.9 | 25.3 | -0.9pp ↓ | 0.3pp ↑ | | Average number of re-offences per re-offender | 3.39 | 2.80 | 2.87 | -15.3% ↓ | 2.6% ↑ | | Proportion of offenders who re-offend - Adjusted to baseline2 (%) | 23.6 | 25.7 | 25.8 | -18.2% ↓ | 4.0% ↑ | | Number of re-offences | 423,989 | 402,409 | 403,396 | -4.9% ↓ | 0.2% ↑ | | Number of re-offenders | 125,023 | 143,715 | 140,364 | 12.3% ↑ | -2.3% ↓ | | Number of offenders in cohort | 477,698 | 576,255 | 555,656 | 16.3% ↑ | -3.6% ↓ | | **Juvenile offenders** | | | | | | | Proportion of offenders who re-offend (%) | 33.7 | 32.8 | 35.3 | 1.7pp ↑ | 2.6pp ↑ | | Average number of re-offences per re-offender | 3.12 | 2.75 | 2.87 | -12.5% ↓ | 4.3% ↑ | | Proportion of offenders who re-offend - Adjusted to baseline2 (%) | 32.0 | 33.5 | 35.0 | -12.5% ↓ | - | | Average number of re-offences per re-offender | 1.12 | 0.90 | 1.02 | -9.2% ↓ | 12.5% ↑ | | Number of re-offences | 155,781 | 109,259 | 94,573 | -36.3% ↓ | -13.4% ↓ | | Number of re-offenders | 46,912 | 39,667 | 32,910 | -29.8% ↓ | -17.0% ↓ | | Number of offenders in cohort | 139,326 | 121,107 | 93,166 | -32.1% ↓ | -23.1% ↓ |
1. pp = percentage point and percentage changes may not add up due to rounding of raw figures
2. See the definitions and measurement paper for an explanation on how to use and interpret the baseline rate
Groups with the biggest changes in the proven re-offending rate since 2000
Biggest reductions:
- Adult females (a fall of 2.3 percentage points) (Table 2).
- 21 to 24 year olds (a fall of 2.7 percentage points) (Table 3).
- Adults with 7 to 10 previous offences (a fall of 3.1 percentage points) (Table 6a).
- Juveniles with 7 to 10 previous offences (a fall of 5.5 percentage points) (Table 6b).
- Adults who received Court Orders (a fall 3.7 percentage points) (Table 18a).
- Adults who received custodial sentences of 12 months to less than 4 years (a fall of 8.4 percentage points) (Table 19a). • Juveniles who received a custodial sentence (a fall of 5.8 percentage points) (Table 18b).
Biggest increases:
• 45 to 49 year olds (a rise of 4.3 percentage points) (Table 3).
• Adults who received custodial sentences of less than 12 months (a rise of 3.3 percentage points) (Table 19a).
All offenders
Proven re-offending by age
In 2010, as in previous years, 15 to 17 year olds had the highest proven re-offending rate at 36.2 per cent. The proven re-offending rate falls with increasing age (after those aged 15 to 17) as shown in Figure E1 (Table 3).
Compared to 2000, the proven re-offending rate for 2010 rose for 10 to 14 year olds and for those aged 30 and over, but fell for offenders aged 15 to 29 (Table 3).
The largest decrease in the average number of re-offences per re-offender was among those aged 21 to 24, which fell from 3.61 in 2000 to 2.76 in 2010 (a fall of 23.5 per cent) (Table 3). Proven re-offending by criminal history
Offenders with a large number of previous offences have a higher rate of proven re-offending and this is true for both adults and juveniles. The proven re-offending rates range from 11.3 per cent for offenders with no previous offences to 48.2 per cent for offenders with 11 or more previous offences. Compared to 2000, the largest decrease in the proven re-offending rate for 2010 was among offenders who had seven to 10 previous offences (a fall of 4.3 percentage points) (Table 6c).
Adult offenders with 11 or more previous offences represented 28.2 per cent of all adult offenders in 2010. Around 74,000 offenders in this group committed 63.7 per cent of all adult proven re-offences (Table 6a).
For juveniles, there were around 5,200 offenders with 11 or more previous offences and they had a proven re-offending rate of 77.9 per cent. This group make up only 5.6 per cent of juvenile offenders, but committed almost a fifth (19.7 per cent) of all juvenile proven re-offences (around 19,000) (Table 6b).
Proven re-offending by index offence
The offence that leads to an offender being included in the relevant year is called the index offence. In 2010, as in most previous years, domestic burglary had the highest proven re-offending rate at 48.5 per cent, and sexual (child) offences the lowest at 9.6 per cent. The largest decrease between 2000 and 2010 in the proven re-offending rate was for soliciting or prostitution with a decrease of 21.4 percentage points, followed by other motoring offences with a decrease of 11.9 percentage points (Table 5c). Adult proven re-offending
In 2010, there were around 560,000 adult offenders. Around 140,000 of these offenders were proven to have committed a re-offence within a year. This gives a one year proven re-offending rate of 25.3 per cent, up slightly from 2009 by 0.3 percentage points (Table 1).
These re-offenders committed an average of 2.87 re-offences, up from 2.80 in 2009 (Table 1).
Overall there has been a 0.9 percentage point decrease in the proven re-offending rate since 2000 (from 26.2 to 25.3 per cent). However, compared to 2000, the offenders in 2010 had characteristics which meant they were more likely to re-offend. This means that, after controlling for offender characteristics, the decrease was larger at 3.1 percentage points (Table 1). Figure E3: Proportion of adult offenders who commit a proven re-offence, 2000, 2002 to 2010
1. Data are not available for 2001 due to a problem with archived data on Court Orders
Figure E4: Average number of proven re-offences per adult re-offender, 2000, 2002 to 2010
1. Data are not available for 2001 due to a problem with archived data on Court Orders Proven re-offending rates for adult offenders discharged from prison or commencing a court order
Between January and December 2010, around 190,000 adult offenders(^3) were discharged from prison or commenced a court order. Around 69,000 of these offenders were proven to have committed a re-offence within a year. This gives a one year proven re-offending rate of 36.0 per cent. The average number of proven re-offences committed by these re-offenders was 3.35.
Overall there was a 4.9 percentage point decrease (from 40.9 to 36.0 per cent) in the proven re-offending rate between 2000 and 2010 and an 18.8 per cent decrease (from 4.13 to 3.35) in the average number of proven re-offences per re-offender.
Proven re-offending rates for adults discharged from prison
Between January and December 2010, around 56,000 adult offenders(^3) were discharged from prison. Around 27,000 of these (47.5 per cent) were proven to have committed a re-offence within a year. These offenders committed around 110,000 proven re-offences, an average of 4.16 each (Table 18a).
More than half (54.2 per cent) of adult offenders discharged from prison were released from a sentence of less than 12 months. These offenders had a one year proven re-offending rate of 57.6 per cent, an increase of 3.3 percentage points from 2000 (54.3 per cent) (Table 19a).
Figure E5: Proportion of adult offenders discharged from prison who commit a proven re-offence, by custodial sentence length, 2000, 2002 to 2010(^1)
______________________________________________________________________
1. Data are not available for 2001 due to a problem with archived data on Court Orders Adult proven re-offending rates by individual prison
Among prisons which discharged 30 or more offenders between January and December 2010, proven re-offending rates varied considerably from 15.6 per cent to 78.8 per cent for offenders with a sentence of less than 12 months and from 3.3 per cent to 69.5 per cent for offenders with a sentence of 12 months or more. A large part of this variability reflects the mix of offenders who are held in different prisons and, therefore, comparisons between prisons should not be made using these raw re-offending rates (Tables 22a and 22b).
To account for this variability in the mix of prisoners, a model has been developed to help explain if re-offending rates are affected by the specific prison they are discharged from or if the rate of re-offending reflects the mix of offenders. For example, a group of prisoners with a high number of previous offences is more likely to re-offend than a group with a low number of previous offences.
Among prisons discharging offenders serving sentences of less than 12 months, four prisons (Haverigg, Kirkham, Moorland Open and Sudbury) had significantly lower proven re-offending rates than expected and three (Ashfield, Feltham and Wetherby) had significantly higher (Table 22a).
Among prisons discharging offenders serving sentences of 12 months or more, four prisons had significantly lower proven re-offending rates (Canterbury, Askham Grange, East Sutton Park and Kirklevington Grange) than expected and none had significantly higher (Table 22b).
Proven re-offending for adults commencing a court order
Between January and December 2010, around 110,000 adult offenders started a community order. Around 38,000 of these (35.5 per cent) committed a proven re-offence within a year. These proven re-offenders committed around 120,000 proven re-offences, an average of 3.25 each. Similarly, of the 39,000 adult offenders starting a suspended sentence order, 30.2 per cent committed a proven re-offence within a year, with an average of 2.95 proven re-offences each (Tables 20 and 21).
Proven re-offending rates by probation trust
Offenders given a court order are managed by the Probation Service which comprises 35 probation trusts. Proven re-offending rates for these offenders are presented by probation trust in Table 24. This takes the first court order commencement from within each probation trust as the start point for measuring re-offending and subsequent events as proven re-offences.
Proven re-offending rates varied considerably between probation trusts from 26.6 per cent to 44.7 per cent. A large part of this variability reflects the mix of offenders who are given a court order and, therefore, comparisons between probation trusts should not be made using these raw re-offending rates (Table 24). For probation trusts an adjusted proven re-offending rate to control for differences in the composition of the offender group in each trust has been developed from the national model. Six probation trusts showed significantly lower proven re-offending rates than expected. These were Gloucestershire, Humberside, Northamptonshire, Staffordshire and West Midlands, Thames Valley and Warwickshire. One (Nottinghamshire) showed significantly higher proven re-offending rates than expected (Table 24).
Proven re-offending rates by index disposal (sentence type) should not be compared to assess the effectiveness of sentences, as there is no control for known differences in offender characteristics and the type of sentence given. The ‘Compendium of Re-offending Statistics and Analysis 2011’ compares like for like offenders which enables a more reliable comparison of proven re-offending rates between offenders receiving different sentences.
The key results from the Compendium were:
- Those sentenced to one to two years in custody had lower re-offending rates than those given sentences of less than 12 months – the difference was 4.4 percentage points in 2008.
- Custodial sentences of less than 12 months were less effective at reducing re-offending than both community orders and suspended sentence orders – between five and nine percentage points in 2008.
www.justice.gov.uk/statistics/reoffending/compendium-of-reoffending-statistics-and-analysis
**Juvenile proven re-offending**
Between January and December 2010, there were around 93,000 juvenile offenders. Around 33,000 of these offenders were proven to have committed a re-offence within a year. This gives a one year proven re-offending rate of 35.3 per cent, an increase of 2.6 percentage points from 32.8 per cent in 2009 (Table 1).
These re-offenders committed an average of 2.87 re-offences, an increase from 2.75 in 2009 (Table 1).
However, the number of juvenile proven offenders has decreased by 33.1 per cent since 2000 (Table 1). This is in line with the pattern of first time entrants to the criminal justice system where the number of young people receiving their first reprimand, warning or conviction has also decreased. More information on first time entrants for both adults and juveniles can be found in the ‘Criminal Justice Statistics Quarterly Bulletin’ at:
www.justice.gov.uk/statistics/criminal-justice/criminal-justice-statistics Overall there has been a 1.7 percentage point increase in the proven re-offending rate of juveniles since 2000 (from 33.7 to 35.3 per cent). However, compared to 2000, the characteristics of juvenile offenders in 2010 meant that they were more likely to re-offend. Therefore, after controlling for offender characteristics, the proven re-offending rate actually decreased by 1.4 percentage points (Table 1).
Among Youth Offending Teams (YOTs), proven re-offending rates varied considerably from 25.5 per cent to 49.1 per cent. A large part of this variability reflects the mix of offenders who are managed by different YOTs and, therefore, comparisons between YOTs should not be made using these raw re-offending rates (Table 17).
More information on youth criminal statistics is available at:
www.justice.gov.uk/statistics/youth-justice
**Trends in proven re-offending across the country**
Map 1 shows proven re-offending rates by upper-tier local authority. This chart is not controlled for the characteristics of offenders and is designed for users to gain an understanding of what the level of proven re-offending is within their area and how it is changing over time.
When comparing between local authorities, the differences may be due to:
- Different types of offenders; areas where the offenders have high numbers of previous offences are likely to have higher proven re-offending rates.
- Police activity; areas with high police detection rates are likely to have higher proven re-offending rates.
- Age profile of offenders in the area; areas with a younger population are likely to have higher proven re-offending rates.
When comparing proven re-offending over time within local authorities, any significant changes in these factors may affect the comparison.
In 2010, very few local authorities showed substantial change compared to 2009. For local authorities with 30 or more offenders, the largest decrease was seen in Warwickshire (down 4.3 percentage points) and the largest increase was in York (up 5.2 percentage points) (Table 13c). Map E1: Overall proven re-offending rates by upper-tier local authority for adults and juveniles, 2010
Legend Re-offending Rates Rate
- 0 - 20%
- 20 - 25%
- 25 - 30%
- 30 - 35%
- 35% + Re-offending rate is not shown as it is based on less than 30 offenders
© Crown copyright. All rights reserved. Ministry of Justice 100037819 2012 Prolific and other priority offenders
The Prolific and other Priority Offender Programme (PPO) aims to use a multi-agency approach to focus on a very small, but hard-core group of prolific/persistent offenders who commit a disproportionate amount of crime. Please refer to the ‘Definitions and Measurement’ document for more detail:
www.justice.gov.uk/statistics/reoffending/proven-re-offending
Around 7,200 offenders(^3) (adult and juvenile) were on the PPO scheme at some point between January and December 2010. Of these, around 5,600 committed a proven re-offence within a year (76.9 per cent). These re-offenders represented 0.9 per cent of all offenders, but were responsible for 5.2 per cent of all proven re-offences committed (Table 16).
Compared to 2009, the proportion of PPO offenders who committed a proven re-offence increased by 1.8 percentage points. This compares to an overall decrease of 0.1 percentage points since the scheme began in 2005 (Table 16).
Drug-misusing offenders
The Drug Interventions Programme (DIP) was introduced in April 2003 with the aim of developing and integrating measures for directing adult drug-misusing offenders into drug treatment and reducing offending behaviour. There are a number of ways offenders can be identified as drug-misusers. Please refer to the ‘Definitions and Measurement’ document for more detail:
www.justice.gov.uk/statistics/reoffending/proven-re-offending
Around 47,000 adult offenders(^3) were identified as drug-misusers at some point between January and December 2010. Of these, around 27,000 committed a proven re-offence within a year (58.0 per cent). These re-offenders represented 4.9 percent of all adult offenders, but were responsible for 27.3 per cent of all proven re-offences committed by adult offenders (Table 15).
Compared to 2009, the proportion of drug-misusing offenders who committed a proven re-offence has increased by 3.2 percentage points. Since 2005, there has been a decrease of 7.4 percentage points, although most of this change occurred between 2005 and 2006 when there was a large expansion in the drug intervention programme (Table 15). List of quarterly tables
Proven re-offending – overview
Table 1 Summary proven re-offending data, by adults and juveniles 2000, 2002 to 2010 Table 2 Proven re-offending data, by gender, 2000, 2002 to 2010 Table 3 Proven re-offending data, by age, 2000, 2002 to 2010 Table 4a Adult proven re-offending data, by ethnicity, 2000, 2002 to 2010 Table 4b Juvenile proven re-offending data, by ethnicity, 2000, 2002 to 2010 Table 4c Adult and juvenile proven re-offending data, by ethnicity, 2000, 2002 to 2010 Table 5a Adult proven re-offending data, by index offence, 2000, 2002 to 2010 Table 5b Juvenile proven re-offending data, by index offence, 2000, 2002 to 2010 Table 5c Adult and juvenile proven re-offending data, by index offence, 2000, 2002 to 2010 Table 6a Adult proven re-offending data, by number of previous offences, 2000, 2002 to 2010 Table 6b Juvenile proven re-offending data, by number of previous offences, 2000, 2002 to 2010 Table 6c Adult and juvenile proven re-offending data, by number of previous offences, 2000, 2002 to 2010 Table 7a Adult proven re-offending data, by number of previous custodial sentences, 2000, 2002 to 2010 Table 7b Juvenile proven re-offending data, by number of previous custodial sentences, 2000, 2002 to 2010 Table 8 Serious proven re-offending data, 2000, 2002 to 2010 Table 9 Proven re-offences committed in the one year follow-up period, by month of offence, 2000, 2002 to 2010 Table 10 Proven re-offences committed in the one year follow-up period, by re-offence group, 2000, 2002 to 2010
Table 11 Proven re-offences committed in the one year follow-up period, by index offence group and re-offence group, 2010
Table 12 Proven re-offenders, by index offence disposal and first re-offence disposal, 2010
Table 13a Proven re-offending of adult offenders, by upper-tier local authority, 2005 to 2010 rolling quarters
Table 13b Proven re-offending of juvenile offenders, by upper-tier local authority, 2005 to 2010 rolling quarters
Table 13c Proven re-offending of adult and juvenile offenders, by upper-tier local authority, 2005 to 2010 rolling quarters
Table 14a Proven re-offending of adult offenders, by lower-tier local authority, 2005 to 2010 rolling quarters
Table 14b Proven re-offending of juvenile offenders, by lower-tier local authority, 2005 to 2010 rolling quarters
Table 14c Proven re-offending of adult and juvenile offenders, by lower-tier local authority, 2005 to 2010 rolling quarters
Table 15 Proven re-offending of adult drug-misusing offenders, by Drug Action Team, 2004 to 2010 rolling quarters
Table 16 Proven re-offending of adult and juvenile prolific and other priority offenders, by upper-tier local authority, 2005 to 2010 rolling quarters
Table 17 Juvenile proven re-offending data, by Youth Offending Team and upper-tier local authority, 2005 to 2010 rolling quarters
Proven re-offending by index disposal, probation trust and prison
Table 18a Adult proven re-offending data, by index disposal, 2000, 2002 to 2010
Table 18b Juvenile proven re-offending data, by index disposal, 2000, 2002 to 2010
Table 19a Adult proven re-offending data, by custodial sentence length, 2000, 2002 to 2010
Table 19b Juvenile proven re-offending data, by custodial sentence length, 2000, 2002 to 2010 Table 20 Adult proven re-offending data, by most frequently-used combinations of requirements for offenders starting Community Orders, 2005 to 2010
Table 21 Adult proven re-offending data, by most frequently-used combinations of requirements for offenders starting Suspended Sentence Orders, 2005 to 2010
Table 22a Proven re-offending of adult offenders given sentences of less than 12 months, by individual prison, based on first discharge from each prison, 2007 to 2010
Table 22b Proven re-offending of adult offenders given sentences of 12 months or more, by individual prison, based on first discharge from each prison, 2007 to 2010
Table 23 Juvenile proven re-offending data, by individual prison or secure accommodation, based on first discharge from each prison or secure accommodation, 2007 to 2010
Table 24 Adult proven re-offending data by probation trust based on first commencement from each trust, 2005 to 2010
Table 25 Proven re-offending data for adult offenders released from prison on licence, by probation trust, 2008 to 2010 Annex A
Payment by results
Background
The “Breaking the Cycle” Green Paper(^6) outlined the MoJ’s commitment to commission at least six ‘payment by results’ (PbR) projects covering a significant proportion of the offender population.
The MoJ intends to test the principle that PbR can result in service improvements, delivering better outcomes for the public at the same or less cost. In order to achieve this, the MoJ will pilot ‘payment by results’ at a number of prisons and local areas to test the concept and measure the results.
The statistical “outcome” that MoJ is interested in is whether the PbR pilots can drive a real reduction in the proportion of offenders who are re-convicted (the re-conviction rate) in the 12 months following release from prison or from commencing a court order.
Prison results
The re-conviction rate used for the PbR pilot prisons presented below differs from the National Statistics re-offending measure. It measures the proportion of offenders who are convicted at court in the 12 months following release from prison with a further six months to allow for cases to progress through the courts. It excludes those who receive an out-of-court disposal only. This is because, for PbR purposes, we want to measure a change in the proportion of offenders who are convicted at court as court convictions are more closely associated with costs to the Criminal Justice System. Offenders are counted in the cohort if they are discharged from the prison at any time during the cohort period. The measure excludes those who serve the whole of their custodial sentence on remand as well as the usual National Statistics exclusions as explained in the ‘Definitions and Measurement’ document(^7).
Table A1 below will be included in the Proven Re-offending Quarterly Bulletin each quarter and will show, for each pilot prison or area that uses the re-conviction rate as its outcome measure, the baseline re-conviction rate, the target re-conviction rate(^8) and the outcome re-conviction rate. The only prison pilot included in Table A1, at present, is HMP Doncaster, but this will be updated on an ongoing basis as new pilots begin and outturn results become available.
______________________________________________________________________
(^6) [www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/consultations/breaking-the-cycle.pdf](http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/consultations/breaking-the-cycle.pdf)
(^7) [www.justice.gov.uk/statistics/reoffending/proven-re-offending](http://www.justice.gov.uk/statistics/reoffending/proven-re-offending)
(^8) The rate at which the PbR outcome payment is first triggered at any given pilot site Table A1: Payment by results pilot prisons, baseline and target re-conviction rates
| Prison / Area | Start date of pilot | Baseline re-conviction rate (Jan to Dec 2009) | Target re-conviction rate (Oct 2011 to Sept 2012) | Outcome re-conviction rate (Oct 2011 to Sept 2012) | |------------------------|---------------------|-----------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------| | HMP Doncaster | 1 October 2011 | 58.2% | 53.2% | To be published in 2014 |
Number of eligible offenders in Payment by results pilots
As part of the Department's Business Plan (2011-2015), the Ministry of Justice is committed to publishing quarterly data on the number of pilot rehabilitation schemes established and the number of participants, subject to commercial confidentiality and Office for National Statistics guidance.
Table A2: Payment by results pilots commenced
| Prison / Area | Start date of pilot | Length of pilot | Number of eligible participants to date | |----------------------------------------------------|---------------------|-----------------|----------------------------------------| | Peterborough Social Impact Bond (SIB)(^9) | 9 September 2010 | Six years | 1,000(^{10}) (end of cohort 1) | | HMP Doncaster | 1 October 2011 | Four years | 1,178(^{11}) |
There is a Justice Reinvestment PbR pilot across five London boroughs and Greater Manchester, which use a different outcome measure, namely a reduction in demand on the Criminal Justice System. The results will be published separately.
(^9) The Peterborough 'Social Impact Bond' uses a different outcome measure (the frequency of re-conviction events) and its success is measured against a control group. The results will be published separately.
(^{10}) Cohort 1 ended after the 1,000(^{th}) eligible offender was released from Peterborough in June 2012
(^{11}) Eligible participants from 1 October 2011 to 30 June 2012 Annex B How the measure of proven re-offending has changed and the effect of these changes
Background
The MoJ launched a statistical consultation on improvements to the transparency and accessibility of our information in 2010 and a response to the consultation was published in March 2011. One aspect of the consultation was the measurement of proven re-offending.
Prior to the consultation there were six different measures of proven re-offending:
- National adult proven re-offending;
- Local adult proven re-offending;
- National youth proven re-offending;
- Local youth proven re-offending;
- Prolific and other priority offending (PPO); and
- Drug-misusing proven offending.
The new approach to measuring proven re-offending integrates these approaches into a single framework. This allows users to:
- form a clear picture of proven re-offending at national and local levels;
- compare adult and youth results, and enable other work on transition between the youth and adult criminal justice systems;
- understand how results for different offender groups (such as those managed by the prison and probation services, those under the PPO schemes, drug-misusing offenders, first time entrants, etc.) fit in to the overall picture on proven re-offending; and
- continue to analyse proven re-offending behaviour for particular types of offender.
Comparing trends in re-offending
______________________________________________________________________
12 The response to the consultation is available here www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/consultations/improvements-moj-statistics-consultation-response.pdf Table B1 shows the proportion of offenders with a proven re-offence/re-conviction using the new measure of re-offending and the previous measures of adult re-conviction and juvenile re-offending. Comparisons we make use cohorts up to 2009.
Re-offending rates are lower using the new measure than using the previous measure. The differences are as follows:
- For adult and juvenile offenders the new measure is based on all offenders released from custody, receiving a non-custodial conviction at court, a caution, reprimand, warning or tested positive for opiates or cocaine over a 12 month period, but the previous measures only included offenders released from custody or commencing a court order in the first three months of the year. Using a three month sample over-represents prolific offenders in comparison to a full year’s worth of data.
- For adults the new measure counts all offenders including those who received a caution, fine or discharge, where the previous adult measure only included those who commenced a court order or who were discharged from custody.
- For adult offenders, the new measure is a measure of proven re-offending (which counts offences proven through a court conviction or a caution) whereas the previous measure is a measure of re-conviction (which only counts offences proven through a court conviction).
As a result, re-offending rates are 14.4 percentage points lower for adults and rates for juveniles are 4.1 percentage points lower using the new measure.
However, the re-offending rates are similar for adults given a court order or who received a custodial sentence, including those given a sentence of less than 12 months. Rates are between 1.0 and 2.6 percentage points lower using the new measure.
Table B1: Re-offending using the new and previous measures, 2009
| | New measure | Previous measure(s) | |----------------------|-------------|---------------------| | Adults | 24.9 | 39.3 | | Juveniles | 32.8 | 36.9 | | Adults given a court order | 34.5 | 35.5 | | Adults given a custodial sentence | 46.8 | 48.5 | | Adults given a custodial sentence of less than 12m | 56.8 | 59.4 |
Figure B1 shows re-offending rates for adult offenders between 2000 and 2009 using the new and previous measure.
For 2009, 24.9 per cent of adult offenders have a proven re-offence within 12 months using the new measure compared to 39.3 per cent using the previous re-conviction measure. However, trends for adult offenders are similar using the two measures. The proportion of offenders with a proven re-offence/re- conviction rose between 2000 and 2002, fell between 2002 and 2006, rose between 2006 and 2008, and fell between 2008 and 2009 using both measures.
**Figure B1: Adult re-conviction/re-offending, by re-offending measure, 2000, 2002 to 2009**
The overall reduction in re-offending is smaller using the new measure (1.2 percentage points between 2000 and 2009 and 0.5 percentage points between 2008 and 2009) than using the previous measure (3.7 percentage points between 2000 and 2009 and 0.8 percentage points between 2008 and 2009).
Figure B2 shows re-offending rates for juvenile offenders between 2000 and 2009 using the new and previous measure.
In 2009, 32.8 per cent of young offenders re-offended within 12 months using the new measure compared to 36.9 per cent using the previous measure. The reduction in re-offending is smaller using the new measure (0.9 percentage points between 2000 and 2009 and 0.1 percentage points between 2008 and 2009) than using the previous measure (3.3 percentage points between 2000 and 2009 and 0.4 percentage points between 2008 and 2009). Overall, the trends are broadly similar. Trends in proven re-offending/re-conviction rates for adult custodial offenders are similar using the new and previous measures. The proportion of offenders given a custodial sentence of less than 12 months who re-offended rose between 2000 and 2009 using both measures (by 2.6 percentage points using the new measure and 1.4 percentage points using the previous measure). The proportion of offenders given any custodial sentence who re-offended fell between 2000 and 2009 using both measures (by 2.6 percentage points using the new measure and 2.9 percentage points using the previous measure). The change in methodology
The following sections provide detail regarding the change in methodology between the methods in measuring re-offending and how those changes impact on the data.
The table below provides a comparison of the previous methodologies with the new approach. Table B2: Re-offending using the new and previous measures
Comparison of previous and new measures of proven re-offending
| The cohort | Previous measures of re-offending | New measure of re-offending | |------------|----------------------------------|-----------------------------| | National adult re-conviction | Offenders aged 18+ discharged from custody or commencing court orders under probation supervision between January to March | All offenders who received a caution/reprimand or warning, were convicted at court (other than custody), were discharged from custody, or tested positive for cocaine or opiates on arrest over a 12 month period. | | Local adult re-offending | Offenders aged 18+ on the probation caseload at the end of each calendar quarter | | | National youth re-offending | Offenders aged 10-17 discharged from custody, receiving a court conviction or receiving a caution/reprimand or final warning between January and March | | | Local youth re-offending | Offenders aged 10-17 discharged from custody, receiving a court conviction or receiving a caution/reprimand or final warning between January and March | | | Prolific and other Priority Offending (PPO) | All offenders identified as being on the PPO scheme as at 1 April | | | Drug-misusing offending | All Class A drug offenders identified through positive drug tests on arrest, OASyS or drug requirement as part of a court order, CJIT identification, or identification on prison release between January and March | | | The follow-up period to measure re-offending | 12 months for offences to occur and a further 6 months for offences to be proved | 12 months for offences to occur and a further 6 months for offences to be proved | | | 3 months for offences to occur and a further 3 months for offences to be proved | 12 months for offences to occur and a further 3 months for offences to be proved | | | 12 months for offences to occur and a further 6 months for offences to be proved | 12 months for offences to occur and a further 6 months for offences to be proved | | | 12 months for offences to occur and a further 3 months for offences to be proved | 12 months for offences to occur and a further 6 months for offences to be proved | | The headline measure | Frequency of re-offending (the number of proven re-offences per 100 offenders) | Proportion of offenders re-offending, compared to the rate that would be expected based on the offender characteristics | Frequency of re-offending (the number of proven re-offences per 100 offenders) | Frequency of re-offending (the number of proven re-offences per 100 offenders) | Number of further offences compared to number in previous year, against the reduction that would be expected given time on the PPO scheme | Number of further offences compared to what would be expected based on their previous offending history | Proportion of offenders re-offending | |----------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | What counts as a proven re-offence | Offences committed within the follow-up period which were proved by a court conviction either within the follow-up period or in a further six months | Offences committed within the follow-up period which were proved by a court conviction or caution either within the follow-up period or in a further three months | Offences committed within the follow-up period which were proved by a court conviction or reprimand or final warning either within the follow-up period or in a further six months | Offences committed within the follow-up period which were proved by a court conviction or caution either within the follow-up period or in a further three months | Breach offences that lead to substantive recorded convictions are included | Breach offences that lead to substantive recorded convictions are included | We also include information on the frequency of re-offending and information on the predicted rate based on offender characteristics | Use of a predicted rate
Data source Geographic breakdown
A predicted rate of re-offending was included for the proportion of offenders expected to reoffend based on their characteristics
A predicted rate of re-offending was included for the proportion of offenders expected to reoffend based on their characteristics
A predicted rate of re-offending was included for the proportion of offenders expected to re-offend based on their characteristics
Logistic regression was used
Logistic regression was used
Logistic regression was used
Police National Computer None
Police National Computer Region, Probation area, Local Authority
Police National Computer None
No predicted rate
Evidence on the link between time on the PPO scheme and expected reductions in further offending were used to assess reductions in number of offences compared to the previous year
A predicted rate of re-offending was included for the proportion of offenders expected to reoffend based on their previous criminal history Response surface methodology was used
A predicted rate of re-offending is included for the proportion of offenders expected to re-offend based on their characteristics Logistic regression is used
Youth Offending Teams data Youth Offending Team level
Police National Computer Police Force and Local Authority level
Police National Computer Drug Action team and Local Authority level
Police National Computer Upper and lower tier local authority areas for all offenders. Other breakdowns for specific categories of offender.
32
The effect of the changes
Adults
Differences in methodology are reflected in different results. Table B3 shows the impact on reported rates of adult re-conviction/re-offending. The table breaks down the changes between the previous measure and the new measure to identify the different effects of the changes in methodology.
Table B3: Re-offending/re-convictions data for adult offenders, 2000, 2002 to 2009
| Year | Previous measure: re-convictions (prison and probation offenders only), first quarter of the year | Previous measure: re-convictions (prison and probation offenders only), whole year | New measure: re-offending (prison and probation offenders only), whole year | New measure: proven re-offending (all offenders), whole year | |------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------| | | Proportion | | | | | 2000 | 43.0 | 40.0 | 40.9 | 26.2 | | 2002 | 45.5 | 42.0 | 43.0 | 27.6 | | 2003 | 45.4 | 41.5 | 42.4 | 26.9 | | 2004 | 42.9 | 38.6 | 39.8 | 25.5 | | 2005 | 41.2 | 36.6 | 38.4 | 24.9 | | 2006 | 36.6 | 35.6 | 37.6 | 24.6 | | 2007 | 39.0 | 35.9 | 37.9 | 24.8 | | 2008 | 40.1 | 36.1 | 37.9 | 25.4 | | 2009 | 39.3 | 34.7 | 36.2 | 24.9 | | | Frequency (average per offender) | | | | | 2000 | 1.85 | 1.66 | 1.69 | 0.89 | | 2002 | 2.13 | 1.84 | 1.87 | 0.99 | | 2003 | 2.05 | 1.73 | 1.76 | 0.93 | | 2004 | 1.81 | 1.51 | 1.54 | 0.83 | | 2005 | 1.66 | 1.36 | 1.40 | 0.77 | | 2006 | 1.44 | 1.26 | 1.31 | 0.73 | | 2007 | 1.47 | 1.27 | 1.32 | 0.73 | | 2008 | 1.55 | 1.27 | 1.31 | 0.75 | | 2009 | 1.41 | 1.15 | 1.18 | 0.70 | | | Frequency of re-offenders (average per re-offender) | | | | | 2000 | 4.30 | 4.15 | 4.13 | 3.39 | | 2002 | 4.68 | 4.39 | 4.36 | 3.59 | | 2003 | 4.52 | 4.18 | 4.15 | 3.44 | | 2004 | 4.23 | 3.91 | 3.87 | 3.27 | | 2005 | 4.03 | 3.70 | 3.65 | 3.10 | | 2006 | 3.73 | 3.54 | 3.48 | 2.95 | | 2007 | 3.78 | 3.53 | 3.48 | 2.94 | | 2008 | 3.88 | 3.51 | 3.46 | 2.93 | | 2009 | 3.57 | 3.31 | 3.27 | 2.80 | | | Number of offenders | | | | | 2000 | 42,734 | 148,052 | 148,052 | 477,698 | | 2002 | 43,247 | 157,243 | 157,243 | 495,664 | | 2003 | 44,095 | 159,686 | 159,686 | 520,660 | | 2004 | 46,532 | 163,775 | 163,775 | 512,600 | | 2005 | 43,429 | 170,021 | 170,021 | 532,045 | | 2006 | 50,281 | 181,726 | 181,726 | 571,458 | | 2007 | 50,085 | 190,418 | 190,418 | 595,020 | | 2008 | 53,718 | 197,035 | 197,035 | 589,948 | | 2009 | 56,616 | 200,077 | 200,077 | 576,255 |
1. Based on the national adult re-convictions publication (March 2011)
Among adult offenders in 2009, the previous national measure (the first column) shows that 39.3 per cent of adult offenders were re-convicted within a year based on a sample of 56,616 offenders. The second column shows the re-conviction rates from the previous measure looking at offenders who were released from custody or commenced a court order, but at any point during the year. The inclusion of offenders from a full 12 month period means the results are calculated using the full proven offender population rather than a sample – this ensures we do not over-represent prolific offenders in the cohort, which is a problem in using a January to March sample as in the previous adult re-conviction measure.
This leads to a lower proportion of re-convicted offenders (between three and five percentage points, e.g. 34.7 per cent compared to 39.3 per cent in 2009). The change to a full year also increases the number of offenders, to 200,077 in 2009\\textsuperscript{13}.
The third column shows the proven re-offending rates from the new measure, but still based only on those offenders who were released from custody or commenced a court order at any point during the year. Proven re-offending includes offences which result in a caution in addition to those resulting in a conviction at court. The proportion of offenders who were proven to re-offend is between one and two percentage points higher than for those who were re-convicted (36.2 per cent compared to 34.7 per cent in 2009). There is little difference at this stage because we are still only considering offenders who already have a prison or a court order.
The fourth column shows the re-offending rates from the new measure looking at all adult offenders who received a caution, a conviction at court, discharged from custody, or tested positive for cocaine or opiates. The inclusion of these offenders increases the numbers considerably. In 2009, the previous adult measure tracks the re-offending behaviour of 56,616 offenders; the new measure tracks 576,255 offenders. The inclusion of offenders who received less severe disposals and are generally less prolific in nature reduces the proportion who re-offend by around 11 to 16 percentage points (36.2 per cent compared to 24.9 per cent in 2009).
**Change over time**
Compared to the previous measure, the reduction over time in the proportion of offenders who re-offend is much lower using the new measure. Using the previous measure, between 2000 and 2009, the proportion of offenders who were re-convicted fell 3.7 percentage points (from 43.0 to 39.3 per cent). Using the new measure, the proportion of offenders who committed a proven re-offence fell 1.2 percentage points (from 26.2 to 24.9 per cent).
\\textsuperscript{13} The previous measure includes offenders released from custody or who commenced a court order in the first three months of the year, shown in column one. Column two includes offenders released from custody or who commenced a court order in the 12 month period. The number of offenders shown in column two is less than four times as many as in column one. This is because some offenders commence a court order or are discharged from custody more than once in a year. These calculations only count each offender once e.g. offender Y is discharged from custody in the first quarter of the year, and discharged again in the second quarter, but he is only counted as a single offender. Juveniles
The only change between the previous measure and the new measure of re-offending among young people is the move from a one quarter sample to including all young offenders over the period of a year.
Table B4: Re-offending data for juvenile offenders, 2000, 2002 to 2009
| Year | Previous measure proven re-offending | New measure proven re-offending | |------|-------------------------------------|---------------------------------| | | Proportion | | | 2000 | 40.2 | 33.7 | | 2002 | 38.5 | 33.4 | | 2003 | 39.0 | 34.3 | | 2004 | 38.6 | 33.6 | | 2005 | 38.4 | 33.6 | | 2006 | 38.7 | 33.9 | | 2007 | 37.5 | 32.5 | | 2008 | 37.3 | 32.9 | | 2009 | 36.9 | 32.8 | | | Frequency (average per offender) | | | 2000 | 1.51 | 1.12 | | 2002 | 1.42 | 1.10 | | 2003 | 1.42 | 1.09 | | 2004 | 1.32 | 1.03 | | 2005 | 1.25 | 0.98 | | 2006 | 1.23 | 0.97 | | 2007 | 1.16 | 0.90 | | 2008 | 1.14 | 0.91 | | 2009 | 1.10 | 0.90 | | | Frequency of re-offenders (average per re-offender) | | | 2000 | 3.77 | 3.32 | | 2002 | 3.69 | 3.29 | | 2003 | 3.63 | 3.19 | | 2004 | 3.43 | 3.06 | | 2005 | 3.26 | 2.91 | | 2006 | 3.18 | 2.86 | | 2007 | 3.08 | 2.77 | | 2008 | 3.06 | 2.75 | | 2009 | 2.99 | 2.75 | | | Number of offenders | | | 2000 | 41,176 | 139,326 | | 2002 | 40,753 | 136,401 | | 2003 | 40,297 | 138,379 | | 2004 | 44,153 | 149,452 | | 2005 | 45,337 | 163,545 | | 2006 | 48,938 | 171,061 | | 2007 | 52,544 | 171,454 | | 2008 | 44,837 | 145,579 | | 2009 | 37,472 | 121,107 |
1. Based on the national juvenile re-offending publication (March 2011)
As for adults, using the whole year reduces the proportion of offenders who re-offended because we do not over-represent prolific offenders in the cohort, which is a problem in using a January to March sample. Table B4 shows the reduction is between four and seven percentage points. For 2009, with the previous measure, 36.9 per cent commit a proven re-offence within one year; with the new measure, 32.8 per cent do so. The new measure, which is based on offenders from a 12 month period, includes over three times as many offenders as the existing measure.
**Change over time**
Compared to the previous measure, the reduction in the proportion of offenders who re-offend between 2000 and 2009 is much lower using the new measure.
Using the previous measure, between 2000 and 2009, the proportion of offenders who were proven to re-offend fell 3.3 percentage points (from 40.2 to 36.9 per cent). Using the new measure, the proportion of offenders who committed a proven re-offence fell 0.9 percentage points (from 33.7 to 32.8 per cent).
**Drug-misusing offenders**
Published results for drug-misusing offenders on the previous measure covered 2008 and 2009; results using the new measure cover from 2004 onwards.
The previous measure:
- Includes offenders who have been identified in the first quarter of the year, whereas the new measure includes offenders from any point during the year.
- Includes all drug-misusing offenders irrespective of the date of proven offence, whereas the new measure includes identified drug-misusing offenders who have received a caution, been convicted at court, been discharged from custody, or tested positive for cocaine or opiates on arrest during a 12 month period.
- Counts re-offences that were proven through a court conviction, whereas the new measure counts re-offences that were proven by a court conviction or caution.
As for adult and juvenile offenders, using the whole year to identify offenders reduces the proportion of offenders who re-offend, because we do not over-represent prolific offenders in the cohort, which is a problem in using a January to March sample. Table B5 shows the impact on reported rates of re-offending/re-conviction by drug-misusing offenders. Table B5: Re-offending data for drug-misusing offenders, 2004 to 2009
| Year | Previous measure proven re-conviction | New measure of proven re-offending | |------|--------------------------------------|-----------------------------------| | | Proportion | Frequency (average per offender) | | | 2004 67.3 | 2004 3.20 | | | 2005 65.3 | 2005 2.94 | | | 2006 58.6 | 2006 2.37 | | | 2007 57.2 | 2007 2.34 | | | 2008 61.0 | 2008 2.6 | | | 2009 57.0 | 2009 2.2 | | | Frequency of re-offenders (average per re-offender) | | | | 2004 4.75 | 2004 4.75 | | | 2005 4.51 | 2005 4.51 | | | 2006 4.03 | 2006 4.03 | | | 2007 4.09 | 2007 4.09 | | | 2008 4.3 | 2008 4.3 | | | 2009 3.9 | 2009 3.9 | | | Number of offenders | | | | 2004 20,652 | 2004 20,652 | | | 2005 29,112 | 2005 29,112 | | | 2006 44,597 | 2006 44,597 | | | 2007 54,474 | 2007 54,474 | | | 2008 20,934 | 2008 20,934 | | | 2009 20,109 | 2009 20,109 |
1. Based on the national drug-misusing offenders publication (December 2010)
Table B5 shows that the proportion of offenders who commit a proven re-offence is between two and five percentage points lower using the new measure (57.0 per cent using the previous measure compared to 54.7 per cent using the new measure). The new measure, which follows offenders over a 12 month period, includes between two and three times as many offenders as the existing measure.
**Prolific and other priority offenders**
Published results for prolific and other priority offenders (PPOs) on the previous measure presented the frequency of proven re-offending for all PPOs; results using the new measure cover the proportion of offenders proven to re-offend, and the frequency of proven re-offending for all offenders and for re-offenders from 2005 onwards. The previous measure:
- Includes offenders who have been identified in the first quarter of the year, whereas the new measure includes offenders from any point during the year. However, PPOs are generally on the PPO programme for a sustained period of time so this only has a moderate impact on numbers of offenders included.
- Includes all identified PPOs, whereas the new measure includes identified PPOs who have tested positive for cocaine or opiates, received a caution, been convicted at court, or been discharged from custody during a 12 month period.
- Counts re-offences that are proven through a court conviction or caution and also includes breach offences that lead to substantive recorded convictions. The new measure only includes re-offences proven through a court conviction or caution.
Table B6 shows the impact on reported rates of proven re-offending by PPOs and on numbers of offenders included in the measure.
**Table B6: Re-offending data for Prolific and other Priority Offenders, 2005 to 2009**
| Year | Previous measure proven re-offending | New measure of proven re-offending | |------|-------------------------------------|-----------------------------------| | | Proportion | | | 2005 | 77.0 | | | 2006 | 75.7 | | | 2007 | 75.8 | | | 2008 | 77.2 | | | 2009 | 56.0 | 75.1 | | | Frequency (average per offender) | | | 2005 | 4.01 | | | 2006 | 3.83 | | | 2007 | 3.80 | | | 2008 | 2.6 | 3.80 | | 2009 | 2.4 | 3.49 | | | Frequency of re-offenders (average per re-offender) | | | 2005 | 5.21 | | | 2006 | 5.06 | | | 2007 | 5.01 | | | 2008 | 4.93 | | | 2009 | 4.3 | 4.65 | | | Number of offenders | | | 2005 | 8,555 | | | 2006 | 8,239 | | | 2007 | 8,309 | | | 2008 | 10,771 | 8,607 | | 2009 | 10,635 | 8,156 |
1. Based on the national Prolific and other Priority Offenders publication (March 2010) The average number of proven re-offences committed by PPOs in 2009 is lower for the previous measure than for the new measure in 2008 (2.4 re-offences per offender using the previous measure, but 3.49 using the new).
The previous measure includes PPOs who have not been proven guilty of an offence or been discharged from custody in the 12 month period when the re-offending cohort is formed. This type of offender is likely to have a lower level of re-offending.
These differences may help to explain:
- why the frequency of re-offending is lower for the previous measure than for the new measure in 2009 (2.4 re-offences per offender using the previous measure, but 3.49 using the new); and
- why the previous measure includes nearly 2,500 more PPOs in 2009 than does the new measure.
**Local adult re-offending**
The most similar results for the new measure of re-offending and the existing local measure of adult re-offending are the early estimates of re-offending of offenders given a court order. Like the existing measure of local adult re-offending, the early estimates of offenders given a court order:
- measure re-offending over three months;
- only measures offenders under probation supervision;
- provides results by probation trust; and
- compares actual re-offending rates with a predicted re-offending rate.
There remain significant differences between the early estimates and the existing local adult measure of re-offending, including:
- The existing local adult measure includes offenders on licence – the early estimates include offenders commencing court orders only;
- The existing local adult measure uses a ‘snapshot’ approach. This means offenders are counted if they are on the caseload at certain times in the year. Offenders who are on the caseload for a short period of time may not get counted with the existing measure. The early estimates count every offender who commences a court order;
- Because the existing local adult measure uses a ‘snapshot’ approach some offenders may get counted up to four times if they are on the caseload for over 12 months. The early estimates count every offender once; The existing local adult measure measures the re-offending of offenders at any point during the court order – the early estimates measure re-offending in the first three months after an offender commenced a court order; and
The predicted score for the existing local adult measure was derived from analysis of 2007 re-offending data and the prediction for the early estimates was derived from analysis of 2008 re-offending data.
These differences explain why the re-offending rate is higher with the early estimates of re-offending by offenders commencing a court order than with the existing measure of local adult re-offending:
- offenders on licence have lower rates of re-offending than those commencing a court order; and
- offenders serving a court order have lower rates of re-offending the longer they are on that court order.
However, the prediction for the early estimates has been tailored specifically to the relevant group of offenders.
**Local youth re-offending**
The previous measure of youth re-offending used data that Youth Offending Teams (YOT) collected themselves from their local police and courts. The measure was used as management information and was never published or put into the public domain. The new measure uses data from the Police National Computer (PNC). Internal analysis and discussion with stakeholders has highlighted a number of differences between the two data sources:
- The PNC includes a number of offenders who have received a reprimand or final warning which do not always appear on the YOT systems. As a result, there are more youth offenders and a higher overall youth re-offending rate using the new measure than using the previous local youth re-offending measure.
- The PNC includes more comprehensive data on re-offending as adults by offenders who originally offended as youths.
- Using PNC data reduces the data-collection burden on YOT and local police forces.
- PNC data measures re-offending on recordable offences and YOT data measures re-offending on all offences. Offences which are not recordable include speeding offences, parking offences and other minor motoring offences. As a result, YOT data is more comprehensive for motoring re-offences. The new measure allocates offenders to a locality using their home address data from the PNC; the previous local youth measure allocated offenders using offender management data. As a result, Looked After Children (LAC) who are in foster care, or in a children’s home, or in a boarding school or live with another adult known to children’s services, maybe allocated to a different YOT under the previous youth measure than the new measure.
For their re-offending to be included in the new measure, administrative data on young people in custody and secure accommodation has to be matched to the PNC. Some cases are not successfully matched. This process was not required for these offenders to be included in the previous local youth measure. As a result, YOT data can be more comprehensive regarding custodial offenders or those in secure accommodation.
Using PNC data provides an external measure of youth re-offending, which makes it an appropriate data-source to support any future policies which tie local funding to re-offending performance.
Using PNC data allows local youth re-offending to be measured on the same basis as national youth re-offending and adult re-offending, permitting adult and youth re-offending to be measured on a like-for-like basis and a more comprehensive picture of re-offending to be formed.
Work is underway to fully quantify the extent of these differences. Annex C
Glossary of terms
Re-offending terms
**Cohort** – this is the group of individuals whose re-offending is measured.
**Index offence** – the index offence is the proven offence that leads to an offender being included in the cohort.
**Index disposal** – the index disposal of the offender is the type of sentence the offender received for their index offence.
**Start point (also known as the index date)** – this is the set point in time from when re-offences are measured.
**Follow-up period** – this is the length of time proven re-offending is measured over.
**Waiting period** – this is the additional time beyond the follow-up period to allow for offences committed towards the end of the follow-up period to be proved by a court conviction, caution, reprimand or final warning.
**Adjusted to baseline** – proven re-offending is related to the characteristics of offenders which means that any overall rate of proven re-offending will depend, in part, on the characteristics of offenders coming into the system (just as the examination pass rate of a school will be related to the characteristics of its pupils). We use a modelling technique to produce a baseline figure adjusted to match the characteristics of the cohort we are comparing. Please refer to the ‘Definitions and Measurement’ document for more detail at [www.justice.gov.uk/statistics/reoffending/proven-re-offending](http://www.justice.gov.uk/statistics/reoffending/proven-re-offending).
**Re-conviction** – where an offender is convicted at court for an offence committed within a set follow-up period and convicted within either the follow-up period or waiting period.
**Proven re-offence** – where an offender is convicted at court or receives some other form of criminal justice sanction for an offence committed within a set follow-up period and disposed of within either the follow-up period or waiting period.
**Cohort used in the Proven Re-offending Statistics Quarterly Bulletin** – the proven re-offending cohort consists of all offenders discharged from custody, otherwise sanctioned at court, receiving a caution, reprimand or warning or tested positive for opiates or cocaine in each year. This cohort’s criminal history is collated and criminal behaviour is tracked over the following one year. Any offence committed in this one year period which is proven by a court conviction or out-of-court disposal (either in the one year period, or in a further six months waiting period) counts as a proven re-offence.
**Cohort used in the Local Adult Re-offending Quarterly Bulletin** – the local adult re-offending measure takes a snapshot of all offenders, aged 18 or over, who are under probation supervision at the end of a quarter, and combines four such snapshots together. This cohort’s criminal history is collated and criminal behaviour is tracked over the following three months. Any offence committed in this three month period which is proven by a court conviction or out-of-court disposal (either in the three month period, or in a further three months waiting period) counts as a proven re-offence. The latest available publication is the Local Adult Re-offending: 1 April 2011 – 31 March 2012, England and Wales; Ministry of Justice, August 2012.
[www.justice.gov.uk/statistics/reoffending/local-adult-reoffending](http://www.justice.gov.uk/statistics/reoffending/local-adult-reoffending)
**Disposal (sentence type)**
**Fine** – a financial penalty imposed following conviction.
**Court orders** – court orders include community sentences, community orders and suspended sentence orders supervised by the Probation Service. They do not include any pre or post release supervision.
**Criminal Justice Act 2003 (CJA03)** – for offences committed on or after 4 April 2005, the new community order replaced all existing community sentences for adults. The Act also introduced a new suspended sentence order for offences which pass the custody threshold. It also changed the release arrangements for prisoners. See Appendix A of Offender Management Caseload Statistics 2009 for more information.
**Community order** – for offences committed on or after 4 April 2005, the new community order introduced under the CJA 2003 replaced all existing community sentences for those aged 18 years and over. This term refers to all court orders except suspended sentence orders and deferred sentences which may have a custodial component to the sentence. The court must add at least one, but could potentially add all 12 requirements depending on the offences and the offender. The requirements are:
- unpaid work (formerly community service/community punishment) – a requirement to complete between 40 and 300 hours’ unpaid work;
- activity – for example, to attend basic skills classes;
- programme – there are several designed to reduce the prospects of re-offending;
- prohibited activity – a requirement not do so something that is likely to lead to further offence or nuisance;
- curfew – which is electronically monitored; • exclusion – this is not used frequently as there is no reliable electronic monitoring yet available;
• residence – requirement to reside only where approved by probation officer;
• mental health treatment (requires offender’s consent);
• drug rehabilitation (requires offender’s consent);
• alcohol treatment (requires offender’s consent);
• supervision – meetings with probation officer to address needs/offending behaviour; and
• attendance centre – between a minimum of 12 hours and a maximum of 36 in total which includes three hours of activity.
Typically, the more serious the offence and the more extensive the offender’s needs, the more requirements there will be. Most orders will comprise of one or two requirements, but there are packages of several requirements available where required. The court tailors the order as appropriate and is guided by the Probation Service through a pre-sentence report.
**Suspended sentence order (SSO)** – the CJA 2003 introduced a new suspended sentence order which is made up of the same requirements as a community order and, in the absence of breach is served wholly in the community supervised by the Probation Service. It consists of an ‘operational period’ (the time for which the custodial sentence is suspended) and a ‘supervision period’ (the time during which any requirements take effect). Both may be between six months and two years and the ‘supervision period’ cannot be longer than the ‘operational period’, although it may be shorter. Failure to comply with the requirements of the order or commission of another offence will almost certainly result in a custodial sentence.
**Pre CJA03 Court Orders – Community sentences**
**Community punishment order (CPO)** – the offender is required to undertake unpaid community work.
**Community rehabilitation order (CRO)** - a community sentence which may have additional requirements such as residence, probation centre attendance or treatment for drug, alcohol or mental health problems.
**Community punishment and rehabilitation order (CPRO)** – a community sentence consisting of probation supervision alongside community punishment, with additional conditions like those of a community rehabilitation order. Drug treatment and testing order (DTTO) – a community sentence targeted at offenders with drug-misuse problems.
Custody – the offender is awarded a sentence to be served in prison or a Young Offenders Institute (YOI). If the offender is given a sentence of 12 months or over, or is aged under 22 on release, the offender is supervised by the Probation Service on release. It is important to note that the sentence lengths and youth disposals awarded will be longer than the time served in custody. For more information please refer to Appendix A of Offender Management Caseload Statistics 2009.
Short sentences (under 12 months) – those sentenced to under 12 months (made under the Criminal Justice Act 1991) spend the first half of their sentence in prison and are then released and considered ‘at risk’ for the remaining period. This means they are under no positive obligations and do not report to the Probation Service, but if they commit a further imprisonable offence during the ‘at risk’ period, they can be made to serve the remainder of the sentence in addition to the punishment for the new offence. The exception to this is those aged 18 to 20 who have a minimum of three month’s supervision on release.
Sentences of 12 months or over – the CJA03 created a distinction between standard determinate sentences and public protection sentences. Offenders sentenced to a standard determinate sentence serve the first half in prison and the second half in the community on licence.
Youth disposal (sentence type)
Reprimand or warning – a reprimand is a formal verbal warning given by a police officer to a juvenile offender who admits they are guilty for a minor first offence. A final warning is similar to a reprimand, but can be used for either the first or second offence, and includes an assessment of the juvenile to determine the causes of their offending behaviour and a programme of activities is designed to address them.
First-tier penalties
Discharge – a juvenile offender is given an absolute discharge when they admit guilt, or are found guilty, with no further action taken. An offender given a conditional discharge also receives no immediate punishment, but is given a set period during which, if they commit a further offence, they can be brought back to court and re-sentenced.
Fine – the size of the fine depends on the offence committed and the offender’s financial circumstances. In the case of juveniles under 16, the fine is the responsibility of the offender’s parent or carer.
Referral order – this is given to juveniles pleading guilty and for whom it is their first time at court (unless the offence is so serious it merits a custodial sentence or it is of a relatively minor nature). The offender is required to attend a Youth Offender Panel to agree a contract, aimed to repair the harm caused by the offence and address the causes of the offending behaviour.
**Reparation order** – the offender is required to repair the harm caused by their offence either directly to the victim or indirectly to the community.
**Youth Rehabilitation Order** – a community sentence for juvenile offenders, which came into effect on 30 November 2009 as part of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008. It combines a number of sentences into one generic sentence and is the standard community sentence used for the majority of children and young people who offend. The following requirements can be attached to a Youth Rehabilitation Order (YRO):
- activity requirement
- curfew requirement
- exclusion requirement
- local authority residence requirement
- education requirement
- mental health treatment requirement
- unpaid work requirement
- drug testing requirement
- intoxicating substance misuse requirement
- supervision requirement
- electronic monitoring requirement
- prohibited activity requirement
- drug treatment requirement
- residence requirement
- programme requirement
- attendance centre requirement
- intensive supervision and surveillance
- intensive fostering The following community sentences are replaced by the YRO, but will continue to exist for those that committed an offence before 30 November 2009. The YRO is only available for those that committed an offence on or after the 30 November 2009.
- action plan order
- curfew order
- supervision order
- supervision order and conditions
- community punishment order
- community punishment and rehabilitation order
- attendance centre order
- drug treatment and testing order
- exclusion order
- community rehabilitation order
**Prison categories**
**Category B and category C prisons** hold sentenced prisoners of their respective categories, including life sentenced prisoners. The regime focuses on programmes that address offending behaviour and provide education, vocational training and purposeful work for prisoners who will normally spend several years in one prison.
**High security prisons** hold category A and B prisoners. Category A prisoners are managed by a process of dispersal, and these prisons also hold a proportion of category B prisoners for whom they provide a similar regime to a category B prison. The category B prisoners held in a High Security Prison are not necessarily any more dangerous or difficult to manage than those in category B prisons.
**Female prisons**, as the name implies, hold female prisoners. Because of the smaller numbers, they are not divided into the same number of categories although there are variations in security levels.
**Local prisons** serve the courts in the area. Historically their main function was to hold un-convicted and un-sentenced prisoners and, once a prisoner had been sentenced, to allocate them on to a category B, C or D prison as appropriate to serve their sentence. However, pressure on places means that many shorter term prisoners serve their entire sentence in a local prison, while longer term prisoners also complete some offending behaviour and training programmes there before moving on to lower security conditions. All local prisons operate to category B security standards.
**Open prisons** have much lower levels of physical security and only hold category D prisoners. Many prisoners in open prisons will be allowed to go out of the prison on a daily basis to take part in voluntary or paid work in the community in preparation for their approaching release.
**Prisoner categories**
These categories are based on a combination of the type of crime committed, the length of sentence, the likelihood of escape, and the danger to the public if they did escape. The four categories are:
**Category A** prisoners are those whose escape would be highly dangerous to the public or national security.
**Category B** prisoners are those who do not require maximum security, but for whom escape needs to be made very difficult.
**Category C** prisoners are those who cannot be trusted in open conditions, but who are unlikely to try to escape.
**Category D** prisoners are those who can be reasonably trusted not to try to escape and are given the privilege of an open prison.
**Miscellaneous terms**
**Drug-misusing offenders**
There are four ways a drug-misusing offender can be identified:
- Individuals who have tested positive for heroin or crack/cocaine following an arrest or charge for ‘trigger’ offences (largely acquisitive crime offences) as part of the Drug Interventions Programme (DIP) are included as adult proven offenders.
- Any offender that received an OASys assessment whilst on licence or on a community sentence and are either recorded as being subject to a current Drug Treatment and Testing Order (DTTO) or Drug Rehabilitation Requirement (DRR), or are assessed as having a criminogenic drug need.
- Any offender identified as requiring further drug interventions by Counselling, Assessment, Referral, Advice, Throughcare (CARAT) teams in prison, and now being released into the community. Any offender identified by local Criminal Justice Integrated Teams (CJITs) as requiring further intervention for their drug use and offending as part of DIP.
**National Probation Service** – the National Probation Service generally deals with those aged 18 years and over. (Those under 18 are mostly dealt with by Youth Offending Teams, answering to the Youth Justice Board.) They are responsible for supervising offenders who are given community sentences and suspended sentence orders by the courts, as well as offenders given custodial sentences, both pre and post their release.
**Police National Computer** – the Police National Computer (PNC) is the police’s administrative IT system used by all police forces in England and Wales and managed by the National Policing Improvement Agency. As with any large scale recording system the PNC is subject to possible errors with data entry and processing. The MoJ maintains a database based on weekly extracts of selected data from the PNC in order to compile statistics and conduct research on re-offending and criminal histories. The PNC largely covers recordable offences – these are all indictable and triable-either-way offences plus many of the more serious summary offences. All figures derived from the MoJ's PNC database, and in particular those for the most recent months, are likely to be revised as more information is recorded by the police.
**Prolific and other priority offenders** – the Prolific and other Priority Offenders Programme (PPO) aims to use a multi-agency approach to focus on a very small, but hard core group of prolific/persistent offenders who commit disproportionate amounts of crime and cause disproportionate harm to their local communities. The identification of a PPO is undertaken at a local level involving police, local authorities, prison and probation services and youth offending teams. The factors that influence the decision of whether an offender is included in the PPO programme are:
- the nature and volume of crimes they commit;
- the nature and volume of other harm they cause; and
- the detrimental impact they have on their community.
**Recordable offences** – recordable offences are those that the police are required to record on the PNC. They include all offences for which a custodial sentence can be given plus a range of other offences defined as recordable in legislation. They exclude a range of less serious summary offences, for example television licence evasion, driving without insurance, speeding and vehicle tax offences.
**Indictable and summary offences** – summary offences are triable only by a magistrates’ court. This group includes motoring offences, common assault and criminal damage up to £5,000. More serious offences are classed either as triable-either-way (these can be tried either at the Crown Court or at a magistrates’ court and include criminal damage where the value is £5,000 or greater, theft and burglary) or indictable-only (the most serious offences that must be tried at the Crown Court; these 'indictable-only' offences include murder, manslaughter, rape and robbery). The term indictable offences is used to refer to all triable-either-way and 'indictable-only' offences.
**Offence group** – a split of offences into 21 separate groups. A more detailed split of the 10 indictable offence groups (violence against the person, sexual offences, burglary, robbery, theft and handling and stolen goods, fraud and forgery, criminal damage, drug offences, other indictable offences (excluding motoring), indictable motoring) and the two summary offence groups (summary non-motoring and summary motoring offence types). Explanatory notes
The United Kingdom Statistics Authority has designated these statistics as National Statistics, in accordance with the Statistics and Registration Service Act 2007 and signifying compliance with the Code of Practice for Official Statistics.
Designation can be broadly interpreted to mean that the statistics:
- meet identified user needs;
- are well explained and readily accessible;
- are produced according to sound methods; and
- are managed impartially and objectively in the public interest.
Once statistics have been designated as National Statistics it is a statutory requirement that the Code of Practice shall continue to be observed.
The statistics in this bulletin relate to re-offending data in England and Wales. This is the fifth set of quarterly re-offending statistics to be published by the MoJ, subsuming a number of previous publications including: adult re-convictions, juvenile re-offending, drug-misusing offenders and prolific and other priority offenders.
Symbols used
| Symbol | Description | |--------|--------------------------------------------------| | .. | Not available | | 0 | Nil or less than half the final digit shown | | - | Not applicable | | * | One or both of the comparison figures are less than 30 | | (p) | Provisional data | Contact points
Press enquiries should be directed to the Ministry of Justice press office:
Tel: 020 3334 3536
Other enquiries about these statistics should be directed to:
Jo Peacock Ministry of Justice Justice Statistics Analytical Services 7th Floor 102 Petty France London SW1H 9AJ Tel: 020 3334 5066
General enquiries about the statistical work of the Ministry of Justice can be e-mailed to: [email protected]
General information about the official statistics system of the United Kingdom is available from www.statistics.gov.uk
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/4814-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 52,
"total-input-tokens": 98684,
"total-output-tokens": 26734,
"total-fallback-pages": 1
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
152,
1
],
[
152,
1247,
2
],
[
1247,
3583,
3
],
[
3583,
6231,
4
],
[
6231,
8575,
5
],
[
8575,
11028,
6
],
[
11028,
13582,
7
],
[
13582,
15948,
8
],
[
15948,
20540,
9
],
[
20540,
21455,
10
],
[
21455,
23061,
11
],
[
23061,
23820,
12
],
[
23820,
24179,
13
],
[
24179,
25769,
14
],
[
25769,
28578,
15
],
[
28578,
31003,
16
],
[
31003,
33066,
17
],
[
33066,
33400,
18
],
[
33400,
35550,
19
],
[
35550,
36984,
20
],
[
36984,
38849,
21
],
[
38849,
39906,
22
],
[
39906,
42504,
23
],
[
42504,
44770,
24
],
[
44770,
46315,
25
],
[
46315,
49027,
26
],
[
49027,
50151,
27
],
[
50151,
50747,
28
],
[
50747,
51028,
29
],
[
51028,
53255,
30
],
[
53255,
55642,
31
],
[
55642,
57188,
32
],
[
57188,
71231,
33
],
[
71231,
74472,
34
],
[
74472,
78595,
35
],
[
78595,
80447,
36
],
[
80447,
83296,
37
],
[
83296,
86554,
38
],
[
86554,
88698,
39
],
[
88698,
90917,
40
],
[
90917,
92315,
41
],
[
92315,
94681,
42
],
[
94681,
97348,
43
],
[
97348,
99578,
44
],
[
99578,
102334,
45
],
[
102334,
103597,
46
],
[
103597,
105454,
47
],
[
105454,
107503,
48
],
[
107503,
110426,
49
],
[
110426,
111167,
50
],
[
111167,
112624,
51
],
[
112624,
113184,
52
]
]
} |
810d283219640f670753644ad08b7da9e77ffee2 | Proven Re-offending Statistics Quarterly Bulletin July 2009 to June 2010, England and Wales
Ministry of Justice Statistics Bulletin
26 April 2012 Contents
Introduction .................................................................................................................. 3 Executive summary .................................................................................................... 7 List of quarterly tables ............................................................................................. 20 Annex A: Payment by results .................................................................................. 23 Annex B: How the measure of proven re-offending has changed and the effect of these changes ........................................................................................................ 25 Annex C: Glossary of terms ..................................................................................... 42 Explanatory notes ..................................................................................................... 49 Contact points .......................................................................................................... 50 Introduction
The Proven Re-offending Statistics Quarterly Bulletin provides key statistics on proven re-offending in England and Wales. It gives proven re-offending figures for offenders, who were released from custody, received a non-custodial conviction at court, received a caution, reprimand, warning or tested positive for opiates or cocaine between July 2009 and June 2010. Proven re-offending is defined as any offence committed in a one year follow-up period and receiving a court conviction, caution, reprimand or warning in the one year follow-up or within a further six month waiting period. This is referred to as a proven re-offence.
This is the third quarterly bulletin in a new series. This series merges six previous measures of re-offending which were split across many publications into a single coherent overview of proven re-offending for the first time. It is a significant step forward for measuring re-offending as for the first time users can:
- obtain figures for the total number of proven re-offenders in an area and for the total number of offences they commit in a year;
- see re-offending rates for adults, juveniles, drug-misusing and prolific offenders measured on a consistent basis both nationally and locally; and
- measure individual prison and probation level re-offending on a consistent basis.
This quarterly bulletin presents the proportion of offenders who re-offend (proven re-offending rate) and the number of proven re-offences those offenders commit by age group, gender, ethnicity, criminal history and offence type. Also included are proven re-offending rates for serious proven re-offending, different types of offenders (e.g. adult, juvenile, drug-misusing and prolific and other priority offenders); different types of sentence; and by individual prison, probation trust and youth offending team.
Latest figures are provided with comparisons to the previous 12 months (July 2008 to June 2009) and the year 2000 in order to highlight long-term trends; 2000 is the earliest year for which re-offending data exists on a comparable basis. The full set of results is provided separately in Excel tables at:
www.justice.gov.uk/statistics/reoffending/proven-re-offending
The accompanying ‘Definitions and Measurement’ document, which is available at the same link, provides more detailed information. Measuring proven re-offending
There is no agreed international standard for measuring and reporting re-offending. An offender’s journey through the justice system can be a complex one; offenders can appear on numerous occasions.
Measuring true re-offending is difficult. Official records are taken from either the police or courts, but they will underestimate the true level of re-offending because only a proportion of crime is detected and not all crimes are recorded on one central system. Other methods of measuring re-offending, such as self report studies, are likely to be unreliable. Therefore, this report aims to measure proven re-offending.
Since re-offending is now measured on a consistent basis across all groups it is possible to tailor analysis of re-offending to meet specific requirements. This quarterly bulletin and the accompanying ‘Early estimates of proven re-offending’ present measures on four different levels to meet users’ needs:
- The headline measure – this is the main measure of re-offending and is presented for different demographic groups and by offence. To provide this overview of proven re-offending, offenders are tracked and their proven re-offending behaviour is recorded, taking the first event in the relevant period as the start point and subsequent events as proven re-offences.
- A headline measure where the first event is related to criminal justice and offender management – this provides a realistic and relevant view of proven re-offending by disposal (sentence type), prison and probation trust. Offenders are tracked and their proven re-offending behaviour is recorded within each disposal (caution, court order, discharge from prison, etc.) or operational unit (prison or probation trust) taking the first event within each as the start point and subsequent events as re-offences.
- Early estimates of re-offending – these use shorter follow-up and waiting periods, but otherwise measure re-offending in exactly the same way as the headline measure. This is intended to provide offender managers with an earlier indication of proven re-offending trends so they can adjust or build on offender management operational policy.
- A re-conviction measure for use by payment by results – this is the measure used in the prison pilots since court convictions are more closely associated with costs to the criminal justice system. For more details, please refer to Annex A.
______________________________________________________________________
1 An event is one of the following: a release from custody, convicted at court with a non-custodial sentence, received a caution, reprimand, warning or tested positive for opiates or cocaine For a more detailed explanation, please see the accompanying ‘Definitions and Measurement’ document at:
www.justice.gov.uk/statistics/reoffending/proven-re-offending
Consultation
This quarterly bulletin has been developed in response to a consultation in late 2010 and early 2011 by the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) on “Improvements to Ministry of Justice Statistics”. The main points from the consultation that affect this publication can be found in Annex B.
Users
The contents of this bulletin will be of interest to Government policy makers, the agencies responsible for offender management at both national and local levels, providers, practitioners and others who want to understand more about proven re-offending.
In particular there are two MoJ impact indicators(^2) which will be monitored using results from this bulletin:
- Adult and juvenile re-offending – the percentage of adult and juvenile offenders who re-offend, measured quarterly by local authority.
- The percentage of adults released from custody who re-offend, measured annually by prison.
Government policy makers also use these statistics to develop, monitor and evaluate key elements of its policies including those on payments by results, legal aid, sentencing guidelines and drug and alcohol policies. Offender management agencies use these statistics to gain a local understanding of the criminal justice system, understand performance and to highlight best practice. Key agencies include: the National Offender Management Service, the Youth Justice Board, private and voluntary sector providers of prison and probation services and local authorities.
As proven re-offending is related to the characteristics of offenders, the actual rate of proven re-offending will depend, in part, on the characteristics of offenders coming into the system. This actual rate provides users with sufficient information on what the level of re-offending is (e.g. in their local area) and how it is changing over time. This bulletin also presents an adjusted proven re-offending rate to control for differences in the composition of the offender group which can be used by those who want to understand how changes in types of offenders coming through the justice system drives re-offending.
(^2) www.justice.gov.uk/publications/corporate-reports/moj/index.htm This is the third bulletin in a new series of publications produced in response to a consultation. The MoJ has addressed the main issues from the consultation. We have separately announced plans for further analysis on proven re-offending rates using a two and five year follow-up period and to develop a measure of re-offending while on licence under probation supervision for publication in July 2012.
If you have any feedback, questions or requests for further information about this statistical bulletin, please direct them to the appropriate contact given at the end of this report. Executive summary
This report provides key statistics on proven re-offending in England and Wales. It gives proven re-offending figures for offenders who were released from custody, received a non-custodial conviction at court, received a caution, reprimand, warning or tested positive for opiates or cocaine between July 2009 and June 2010. Proven re-offending is defined as any offence committed in a one year follow-up period and receiving a court conviction, caution, reprimand or warning in the one year follow-up. Following this one year period, a further six month waiting period is allowed for cases to progress through the courts.
In the 12 months ending June 2010, around 670,000 offenders were cautioned, convicted (excluding immediate custodial sentences) or released from custody. Around 180,000 of these offenders committed a proven re-offence within a year. This gives a one-year proven re-offending rate of 26.4 per cent, which represents a fall of 0.2 percentage points compared to the previous 12 months and a fall of 1.5 percentage points since 2000 (Table 1).
These re-offenders committed an average of 2.82 offences each. In total, this represents around 500,000 offences of which 79.6 per cent were committed by adults and 20.4 per cent were committed by juveniles (Table 1).
- 53.8 per cent of these offences were committed by re-offenders with 11 or more previous offences (Table 6c).
- 0.6 per cent (around 3,200) were serious violent/sexual proven re-offences (Table 8).
- 5.4 per cent (around 27,000) were committed by re-offenders on the Prolific and other Priority Offender Programme (PPO) (Table 16).
______________________________________________________________________
3 A certain proportion of offenders could not be matched to the Police National Computer (PNC) and are, therefore, not included. Therefore, this number does not represent all proven offenders. Please refer to the ‘Definitions and Measurement’ document for more detail at www.justice.gov.uk/statistics/reoffending/proven-re-offending. This means that the number of offenders in this bulletin will be different from the numbers published in the Offender Management Quarterly Statistics Bulletin available at www.justice.gov.uk/publications/statistics-and-data/prisons-and-probation/oms-quarterly.htm, and the Criminal Justice Statistics report available at www.justice.gov.uk/publications/statistics-and-data/criminal-justice/criminal-justice-statistics.htm.
4 Includes reprimands and warnings for juveniles
5 Also includes those who tested positive for opiates or cocaine Key trends in re-offending
Adult offenders
Around 560,000 adult offenders(^3) were cautioned(^4), convicted or released from custody(^5) between July 2009 and June 2010. Just over 140,000 of them committed a re-offence. This gives a re-offending rate of 24.9 per cent, which represents a fall of 0.3 percentage points compared to the previous 12 months and a fall of 1.2 percentage points since 2000 (Table 1).
However, compared to 2000, the offenders in July 2009 to June 2010 had characteristics which meant they were more likely to re-offend. This means that after controlling for offender characteristics, the decrease was larger at 3.3 percentage points (Table 1).
The average number of re-offences per re-offender was 2.82, a fall of 1.0 per cent compared to the previous 12 months and a fall of 16.9 per cent compared to 2000 (Table 1).
Looking at specific groups within the cohort:
- The re-offending rate for those released from custody was 47.3 per cent, a fall of 0.5 percentage points compared to the previous 12 months and a fall of 2.1 percentage points since 2000. The average number of re-offences committed per re-offender for this group was 4.06, a fall of 1.1 per cent compared to the previous 12 months and down 13.2 per cent since 2000 (Table 18a).
- The re-offending rate for those starting a court order (Community Order or Suspended Sentence Order) was 34.0 per cent, down 1.1 percentage points compared to the previous 12 months and down 3.9 percentage points since 2000. The average number of re-offences per offender was 3.13, down 0.5 per cent compared to the previous 12 months and down 19.1 per cent since 2000 (Table 18a).
- The re-offending rate for drug-misusing offenders (all offenders who are given drug orders as part of their sentence or test positive for opiates upon arrest) was 56.4 per cent, up 1.1 percentage points compared to the previous 12 months (Table 15).
Juvenile offenders
Around 110,000 juvenile offenders(^3) were cautioned(^4), convicted or released from custody(^5) between July 2009 and June 2010. Just under 36,000 of them committed a re-offence. This gives a re-offending rate of 34.1 per cent which represents a rise of 1.5 percentage points compared to the previous 12 months and a rise of 0.4 percentage points since 2000 (Table 1). However, compared to 2000, the characteristics of juvenile offenders in the year ending June 2010 meant that they were more likely to re-offend. After controlling for offender characteristics, the re-offending rate actually decreased by 2.0 percentage points (Table 1).
The average number of re-offences per re-offender was 2.82, a fall of 2.7 per cent compared to the previous 12 months and down 15.1 per cent since 2000 (Table 1).
Table E1: Overview – latest 12 month period compared to the previous 12 month period and 2000
| | 12 months ending June 2000 | 12 months ending June 2010 | Percentage change 2000 to 12 months ending June 2010 | Percentage change 12 months ending June 2009 to 12 months ending June 2010 | |----------------------|-----------------------------|-----------------------------|------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------| | **All offenders** | | | | | | Proportion of offenders who re-offend (%) | 27.9 | 26.6 | 26.4 | -1.5pp ↓ | -0.2pp ↓ | | Average number of re-offences per re-offender | 3.37 | 2.82 | 2.82 | -16.4% ↓ | -2.9% ↓ | | Proportion of offenders who re-offend - Adjusted to baseline2 (%) | 25.5 | 27.1 | 27.0 | -20.8% ↓ | -2.1% ↓ | | Average number of re-offences per offender | 0.64 | 0.75 | 0.74 | -14.4% ↓ | -7.9% ↓ | | Number of re-offences | 579,770 | 538,713 | 496,141 | -14.4% ↓ | -7.9% ↓ | | Number of re-offenders | 172,835 | 190,745 | 176,053 | -2.4% ↑ | -7.7% ↓ | | Number of offenders | 617,024 | 716,034 | 667,088 | 8.1% ↑ | -6.8% ↓ | | **Adult offenders** | | | | | | Proportion of offenders who re-offend (%) | 26.2 | 25.3 | 24.9 | -1.2pp ↓ | -0.3pp ↓ | | Average number of re-offences per re-offender | 3.39 | 2.85 | 2.82 | -16.9% ↓ | -1.0% ↓ | | Proportion of offenders who re-offend - Adjusted to baseline2 (%) | 23.6 | 25.7 | 25.6 | -2.9% ↓ | -2.9% ↓ | | Average number of re-offences per offender | 0.89 | 0.72 | 0.70 | -20.8% ↓ | -2.3% ↓ | | Number of re-offences | 423,989 | 418,858 | 394,685 | -6.9% ↓ | -5.8% ↓ | | Number of re-offenders | 125,023 | 147,100 | 140,065 | 12.0% ↑ | -4.8% ↓ | | Number of offenders | 477,698 | 582,069 | 561,561 | 17.6% ↑ | -3.5% ↓ | | **Juvenile offenders** | | | | | | Proportion of offenders who re-offend (%) | 33.7 | 32.6 | 34.1 | 0.4pp ↑ | 1.5pp ↑ | | Average number of re-offences per re-offender | 3.32 | 2.75 | 2.82 | -15.1% ↓ | -2.7% ↑ | | Proportion of offenders who re-offend - Adjusted to baseline2 (%) | 32.0 | 33.2 | 34.4 | -14.9% ↓ | -7.5% ↑ | | Average number of re-offences per offender | 1.12 | 0.89 | 0.96 | -34.9% ↓ | -25.4% ↓ | | Number of re-offences | 155,781 | 119,655 | 101,456 | -34.9% ↓ | -25.4% ↓ | | Number of re-offenders | 46,912 | 43,645 | 35,988 | -23.3% ↓ | -17.5% ↓ | | Number of offenders | 139,326 | 133,965 | 105,527 | -24.3% ↓ | -22.2% ↓ |
1. pp = percentage point and percentage changes may not add up due to rounding of raw figures
2. See the definitions and measurement paper for an explanation on how to use and interpret the baseline rate
Groups with the biggest changes in the re-offending rate since 2000
Biggest reductions:
- Adult females (a fall of 2.5 percentage points) (Table2).
- 21 to 24 year olds (a fall of 3.2 percentage points) (Table 3).
- Adults with 11 or more previous offences (a fall of 3.3 percentage points) (Table 6a).
- Juveniles with 3 to 6 previous offences (a fall of 4.9 percentage points) (Table 6b).
- Adults who received Court Orders (a fall 3.9 percentage points) (Table 18a).
- Adults who received custodial sentences of 1 to 4 years (a fall of 7.3 percentage points) (Table 19). • Juveniles who received a custodial sentence (a fall of 7.5 percentage points) (Table 18b).
Biggest increases:
• 40 to 44 year olds (a rise of 3.9 percentage points) (Table 3).
• Adults who received custodial sentences of less than 12 months (a rise of 2.6 percentage points) (Table 19).
• Juveniles who received a community penalty (a rise of 5.5 percentage points) (Table 18b).
All offenders
Re-offending by age
Between July 2009 and June 2010, as in previous years, 15 to 17 year olds had the highest proven re-offending rate at 35.4 per cent. The proven re-offending rate falls with increasing age (after those aged 15 to 17) as shown in Figure E1 (Table 3).
Compared to 2000, the proven re-offending rate for the 12 months ending June 2010 rose for 10 to 14 year olds and for those aged 30 and over, but fell for offenders aged 15 to 29 (Table 3).
The largest decrease in the average number of re-offences per re-offender was among those aged 21 to 24, which fell from 3.61 in 2000 to 2.71 in the 12 months ending June 2010 (a fall of 24.8 per cent) (Table 3). Previous offences
Offenders with a large number of previous offences have a higher rate of proven re-offending and this is true for both adults and juveniles. The proven re-offending rates range from 11.5 per cent for offenders with no previous offences to 47.6 per cent for offenders with 11 or more previous offences. Compared to 2000, the largest decrease in the proven re-offending rate for the 12 months ending June 2010 was among offenders who had one to two and seven to 10 previous offences (a fall of 4.0 percentage points) (Table 6c).
Adult offenders with 11 or more previous offences represented 27.9 per cent of all adult offenders in July 2009 to June 2010. Just over 73,000 offenders in this group committed 62.9 per cent of all adult proven re-offences (Table 6a).
For juveniles, there were around 5,400 offenders with 11 or more previous offences and they had a proven re-offending rate of 77.6 per cent. This group make up only 5.2 per cent of juvenile offenders, but committed almost a fifth (18.5 per cent) of all juvenile proven re-offences (around 19,000) (Table 6b).
Re-offending by index offence
The offence that leads to an offender being included in the relevant year is called the index offence. In July 2009 to June 2010, as in most previous years, domestic burglary had the highest proven re-offending rate at 48.7 per cent, and sexual (child) offences the lowest at 10.2 per cent. The largest decrease between 2000 and July 2009 to June 2010 in the proven re-offending rate was for soliciting prostitution with a decrease of 19.6 percentage points, followed by motoring offences with a decrease of 11.1 percentage points (Table 5c).
Figure E2: Proportion of adult and juvenile offenders who commit a proven re-offence, by index offence, 12 months ending June 2010
Adult proven re-offending
In July 2009 to June 2010, there were around 560,000 adult offenders(^3). Just over 140,000 of these offenders were proven to have committed a re-offence within a year. This gives a one year proven re-offending rate of 24.9 per cent, down slightly from 25.3 per cent in the previous 12 months (Table 1).
These re-offenders committed an average of 2.82 re-offences in July 2009 to June 2010, down slightly from 2.85 in the previous 12 months (Table 1).
Overall there has been a 1.2 percentage point decrease in the proven re-offending rate since 2000 (from 26.2 to 24.9 per cent). However, compared to 2000, the offenders in July 2009 to June 2010 had characteristics which meant they were more likely to re-offend. This means that after controlling for offender characteristics, the decrease was larger at 3.3 percentage points (Table 1). Figure E3: Proportion of adult offenders who commit a proven re-offence and average number of proven re-offences per adult re-offender, 2000, 2002 to 12 months ending June 2010\\textsuperscript{1,2}
1. Data are not available for 2001 due to a problem with archived data on Court Orders
2. Quarterly data are only available from July 2005 onwards Proven re-offending rates for adult offenders discharged from prison or commencing a court order
Between July 2009 and June 2010, there were 190,000 adult offenders who were discharged from prison or commenced a court order. Around 69,000 of these offenders were proven to have committed a re-offence within a year. This gives a one year proven re-offending rate of 35.9 per cent. The average number of proven re-offences committed by these re-offenders was 3.29.
Overall there was a 5.0 percentage point decrease (from 40.9 to 35.9) in the proven re-offending rate between 2000 and the 12 months ending June 2010 and a 20.4 per cent decrease (from 4.13 to 3.29) in the average number of proven re-offences per re-offender.
Adult prisoner’s proven re-offending
Between July 2009 and June 2010, around 58,000 adult offenders were discharged from prison. Around 28,000 of these (47.3 per cent) were proven to have committed a re-offence within a year. These offenders committed around 112,000 proven re-offences, an average of 4.06 each (Table 18a).
More than half (54.6 per cent) of adult offenders discharged from prison were released from a sentence of less than 12 months. These offenders had a one year proven re-offending rate of 56.8 per cent, an increase of 2.6 percentage points from 2000 (54.3 per cent) (Table 19).
Figure E4: Proportion of adult offenders discharged from prison who commit a proven re-offence, by custodial sentence length, 2000, 2002 to 12 months ending July 2010 Adult proven re-offending rates by individual prison
Among prisons which discharged 30 or more offenders between July 2009 and June 2010, re-offending rates varied considerably from 22.5 per cent to 79.3 per cent for offenders with a sentence of less than 12 months and from 5.5 per cent to 80.7 per cent for offenders with a sentence of 12 months or more. A large part of this variability reflects the mix of offenders who are held in different prisons and, therefore, comparisons between prisons should not be made using these raw re-offending rates (Tables 22a and 22b).
To account for this variability in the mix of prisoners, a model has been developed to help explain if re-offending rates are affected by the specific prison they are discharged from or if the rate of re-offending reflects the mix of offenders. For example, a group of prisoners with a high number of previous offences is more likely to re-offend than a group with a low number of previous offences.
Among prisons discharging those serving sentences of less than 12 months, none had re-offending rates that were significantly different from the expected rate (Table 22a).
Among prisons discharging those serving sentences of 12 months or more, three prisons had significantly lower re-offending rates (Usk/Prescoed, Askham Grange and East Sutton Park) than expected and one (Hindley) had higher (Table 22b).
Proven re-offending for adults commencing a court order
Between July 2009 and June 2010, around 110,000 adult offenders started a community order. Around 37,000 of these (35.3 per cent) committed a proven re-offence within a year. These proven re-offenders committed around 120,000 proven re-offences, an average of 3.20 each. Similarly, of the 38,000 adult offenders starting a suspended sentence order, 30.2 per cent committed a proven re-offence within a year, with an average of 2.90 proven re-offences each (Tables 20 and 21).
Proven re-offending rates by probation trust
Offenders given a court order are managed by the probation service which comprises 35 probation trusts. Proven re-offending rates for these offenders are presented by probation trust in Table 24. This takes the first court order commencement from within each probation trust as the start point for measuring re-offending and subsequent events as proven re-offences.
Re-offending rates varied considerably between probation trusts from 28.1 per cent to 43.6 per cent. A large part of this variability reflects the mix of offenders who are given a court order and, therefore, comparisons between probation trusts should not be made using these raw re-offending rates (Table 24). For probation trusts an adjusted proven re-offending rate to control for differences in the composition of the offender group in each trust has been developed from the national model. Six probation trusts showed significantly lower re-offending rates than expected. These were Essex, Gloucestershire, Staffordshire and West Midlands, Thames Valley, Warwickshire and West Yorkshire. None showed higher re-offending rates than expected (Table 24).
Re-offending rates by index disposal (sentence type) should not be compared to assess the effectiveness of sentences, as there is no control for known differences in offender characteristics and the type of sentence given. The ‘Compendium of Re-offending Statistics and Analysis 2011’ compares like for like offenders which enables a more reliable comparison of proven re-offending rates between offenders receiving different sentences.
The key results from the Compendium were:
- Those sentenced to one to two years in custody had lower re-offending rates than those given sentences of less than 12 months – the difference was 4.4 percentage points in 2008.
- Custodial sentences of less than 12 months were less effective at reducing re-offending than both community orders and suspended sentence orders – between five and nine percentage points in 2008.
www.justice.gov.uk/statistics/reoffending/compendium-of-reoffending-statistics-and-analysis
**Juvenile proven re-offending**
Between July 2009 and June 2010, there were around 110,000 juvenile offenders. Just under 36,000 of these offenders were proven to have committed a re-offence within a year. This gives a one year proven re-offending rate of 34.1 per cent, an increase of 1.5 percentage points from 32.6 per cent in the previous 12 months (Table 1).
These re-offenders committed an average of 2.82 re-offences in July 2009 to June 2010, an increase from 2.75 in the previous 12 months (Table 1).
However, the number of juvenile proven offenders has decreased by 24.3 per cent since 2000 (Table 1). This is in line with the pattern of first time entrants to the criminal justice system where the number of young people receiving their first reprimand, warning or conviction has also decreased. More information on first time entrants for both adults and juveniles can be found in the ‘Criminal Justice Statistics Quarterly Bulletin’ at:
www.justice.gov.uk/statistics/criminal-justice/criminal-justice-statistics
Overall there has been a 0.4 percentage point increase in the proven re-offending rate of juveniles since 2000 (from 33.7 to 34.1 per cent). However, compared to 2000, the characteristics of juvenile offenders in the year ending June 2010 meant that they were more likely to re-offend. Therefore, after controlling for offender characteristics, the re-offending rate actually decreased by 2.0 percentage points (Table 1).
Among Youth Offending Teams (YOTs), re-offending rates varied considerably from 23.3 per cent to 48.8 per cent. A large part of this variability reflects the mix of offenders who are managed by different YOTs and, therefore, comparisons between YOTs should not be made using these raw re-offending rates (Table 17).
More information on youth criminal statistics is available at:
www.justice.gov.uk/statistics/youth-justice
Trends in proven re-offending across the country
Map 1 shows proven re-offending rates by upper-tier local authority. This chart is not controlled for the characteristics of offenders and is designed for users to gain an understanding of what the level of proven re-offending is within their area and how it is changing over time.
When comparing between local authorities, the differences may be due to:
- Different types of offenders; areas where the offenders have high numbers of previous offences are likely to have higher proven re-offending rates.
- Police activity; areas with high police detection rates are likely to have higher proven re-offending rates.
- Age profile of offenders in the area; areas with a younger population are likely to have higher proven re-offending rates.
When comparing proven re-offending over time within local authorities, any significant changes in these factors may affect the comparison.
Between July 2009 and June 2010, very few local authorities showed substantial change compared to the previous 12 months. For local authorities with more than 100 offenders, the largest decrease was seen in Rutland (5.1 percentage points) and the largest increase was in Monmouthshire (5.9 percentage points) (Table 13c). Map 1: Overall proven re-offending rates by upper-tier local authority for adults and juveniles, 12 months ending June 2010
Legend Re-offending Rates Rate
- 0 - 20%
- 20 - 25%
- 25 - 30%
- 30 - 35%
- 35% + Re-offending rate is not shown as it is based on less than 30 offenders
© Crown copyright. All rights reserved. Ministry of Justice 100037819 2012 Prolific and other priority offenders
The Prolific and other Priority Offender Programme (PPO) aims to use a multi-agency approach to focus on a very small, but hard-core group of prolific/persistent offenders who commit a disproportionate amount of crime. Please refer to the ‘Definitions and Measurement’ document for more detail:
www.justice.gov.uk/statistics/reoffending/proven-re-offending
Around 7,600 offenders(^3) (adult and juvenile) were on the PPO scheme at some point between July 2009 and June 2010. Of these, around 5,800 committed a proven re-offence within a year (75.6 per cent). These re-offenders represented 0.9 per cent of all offenders, but were responsible for 5.4 per cent of all proven re-offences committed by all offenders (Table 16).
Compared to the previous 12 months, the proportion of PPO offenders who committed a proven re-offence decreased by 1.1 percentage points. This compares to an overall decrease of 1.4 percentage points since the scheme began in 2005 (Table 16).
Drug-misusing offenders
The Drug Interventions Programme (DIP) was introduced in April 2003 with the aim of developing and integrating measures for directing adult drug-misusing offenders into drug treatment and reducing offending behaviour. There are a number of ways offenders can be identified as drug-misusers. Please refer to the ‘Definitions and Measurement’ document for more detail:
www.justice.gov.uk/statistics/reoffending/proven-re-offending
Around 46,000 adult offenders(^3) were identified as drug-misusers at some point between July 2009 and June 2010. Of these, around 26,000 committed a proven re-offence within a year (56.4 per cent). These re-offenders represented 4.7 percent of all adult offenders, but were responsible for 26.3 per cent of all proven re-offences committed by adult offenders (Table 15).
Compared to the previous 12 months, the proportion of drug-misusing offenders who committed a proven re-offence has increased by 1.1 percentage points. Since 2005, there has been a decrease of 8.9 percentage points, although most of this change occurred between 2005 and 2006 when there was a large expansion in the drug intervention programme (Table 15).
Iain Bell Chief Statistician List of quarterly tables
Proven re-offending – overview
Table 1 Summary proven re-offending data, by adults and juveniles, 2000, 2002 to June 2010 Table 2 Proven re-offending data, by gender, 2000, 2002 to June 2010 Table 3 Proven re-offending data, by age, 2000, 2002 to June 2010 Table 4a Adult proven re-offending data, by ethnicity, 2000, 2002 to June 2010 Table 4b Juvenile proven re-offending data, by ethnicity, 2000, 2002 to June 2010 Table 4c Adult and juvenile proven re-offending data, by ethnicity, 2000, 2002 to June 2010 Table 5a Adult proven re-offending data, by index offence, 2000, 2002 to June 2010 Table 5b Juvenile proven re-offending data, by index offence, 2000, 2002 to June 2010 Table 5c Adult and juvenile proven re-offending data, by index offence, 2000, 2002 to June 2010 Table 6a Adult proven re-offending data, by number of previous offences, 2000, 2002 to June 2010 Table 6b Juvenile proven re-offending data, by number of previous offences, 2000, 2002 to June 2010 Table 6c Adult and juvenile proven re-offending data, by number of previous offences, 2000, 2002 to June 2010 Table 7a Adult proven re-offending data, by number of previous custodial sentences, 2000, 2002 to June 2010 Table 7b Juvenile proven re-offending data, by number of previous custodial sentences, 2000, 2002 to June 2010 Table 8 Serious proven re-offending data, 2000, 2002 to June 2010
-----------------Tables 9 to 12 are published annually in October----------------- Table 13a Proven re-offending of adult offenders, by upper-tier local authority, 2005 to June 2010 rolling quarters
Table 13b Proven re-offending of juvenile offenders, by upper-tier local authority, 2005 to June 2010 rolling quarters
Table 13c Proven re-offending of adult and juvenile offenders, by upper-tier local authority, 2005 to June 2010 rolling quarters
Table 14a Proven re-offending of adult offenders, by lower-tier local authority, 2005 to June 2010 rolling quarters
Table 14b Proven re-offending of juvenile offenders, by lower-tier local authority, 2005 to June 2010 rolling quarters
Table 14c Proven re-offending of adult and juvenile offenders, by lower-tier local authority, 2005 to June 2010 rolling quarters
Table 15 Proven re-offending of adult drug-misusing offenders, by Drug Action Team, 2004 to June 2010 rolling quarters
Table 16 Proven re-offending of adult and juvenile prolific and other priority offenders, by upper-tier local authority, 2005 to June 2010 rolling quarters
Table 17 Juvenile proven re-offending data, by Youth Offending Team 2005 to June 2010 rolling quarters
Proven re-offending by index disposal, probation trust and prison
Table 18a Adult proven re-offending data, by index disposal, 2000, 2002 to June 2010
Table 18b Juvenile proven re-offending data, by index disposal, 2000, 2002 to June 2010
Table 19 Adult proven re-offending data, by custodial sentence length, 2000, 2002 to June 2010
Table 20 Adult proven re-offending data, by most frequently-used combinations of requirements for offenders starting Community Orders, 2005 to June 2010
Table 21 Adult proven re-offending data, by most frequently-used combinations of requirements for offenders starting Suspended Sentence Orders, 2005 to June 2010
Table 22a Proven re-offending of adult offenders given sentences of less than 12 months, by individual prison, based on first discharge from each prison, 2007 to June 2010 Table 22b Proven re-offending of adult offenders given sentences of 12 months or more, by individual prison, based on first discharge from each prison, 2007 to June 2010
Table 23 Juvenile proven re-offending data, by individual prison, based on first discharge from each prison, 2007 to June 2010
Table 24 Adult proven re-offending data by probation trust based on first commencement from each trust, 2005 to June 2010 Annex A
Payment by results
Background
The “Breaking the Cycle” Green Paper(^6) outlined the MoJ’s commitment to commission at least six ‘payment by results’ (PbR) projects covering a significant proportion of the offender population.
The MoJ intends to test the principle that PbR can result in service improvements, delivering better outcomes for the public at the same or less cost. In order to achieve this, the MoJ will pilot ‘payment by results’ at a number of prisons and local areas to test the concept and measure the results.
The statistical “outcome” that MoJ is interested in is whether the PbR pilots can drive a real reduction in the proportion of offenders who are re-convicted (the re-conviction rate) in the 12 months following release from prison or from commencing a court order.
Prison results
The re-conviction rate used for the PbR pilot prisons presented below differs from the National Statistics re-offending measure. It measures the proportion of offenders who are convicted at court in the 12 months following release from prison with a further six months to allow for cases to progress through the courts. It excludes those who receive an out-of-court disposal only. This is because, for PbR purposes, we want to measure a change in the proportion of offenders who are convicted at court as court convictions are more closely associated with costs to the Criminal Justice System. Offenders are counted in the cohort if they are discharged from the prison at any time during the cohort period. The measure excludes those who serve the whole of their custodial sentence on remand as well as the usual National Statistics exclusions as explained in the ‘Definitions and Measurement’ document(^7).
Table A1 below will be included in the Proven Re-offending Quarterly Bulletin each quarter and will show, for each pilot prison or area that uses the re-conviction rate as its outcome measure, the baseline re-conviction rate, the target re-conviction rate(^8) and the outcome re-conviction rate. The only prison pilot included in Table A1, at present, is HMP Doncaster, but this will be updated on an ongoing basis as new pilots begin and outturn results become available.
______________________________________________________________________
(^6) [www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/consultations/breaking-the-cycle.pdf](http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/consultations/breaking-the-cycle.pdf)
(^7) [www.justice.gov.uk/statistics/reoffending/proven-re-offending](http://www.justice.gov.uk/statistics/reoffending/proven-re-offending)
(^8) The rate at which the PbR outcome payment is first triggered at any given pilot site Table A1: Payment by Results pilot prisons, baseline and target re-conviction rates
| Prison / Area | Start date of pilot | Baseline re-conviction rate (Jan to Dec 2009) | Target re-conviction rate (Oct 2011 to Sept 2012) | Outcome re-conviction rate (Oct 2011 to Sept 2012) | |---------------|---------------------|---------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------| | HMP Doncaster | 1 October 2011 | 58.2% | 53.2% | To be published in 2014 |
1. There is a PbR pilot ongoing at HMP Peterborough (the Peterborough ‘Social Impact Bond’). This pilot uses a different outcome measure (the frequency of re-conviction events) and its success is measured against a control group. The results will be published separately.
2. There is a Justice Reinvestment PbR pilot across five London boroughs and Greater Manchester, which use a different outcome measure, namely a reduction in demand on the Criminal Justice System. The results will be published separately.
3. PbR pilots for offenders managed by the Probation Service are likely to begin in early 2013. When these are underway Table A1 will be updated to reflect these new PbR areas. Annex B
How the measure of proven re-offending has changed and the effect of these changes
Background
The MoJ launched a statistical consultation on improvements to the transparency and accessibility of our information in 2010 and a response to the consultation was published in March 2011. One aspect of the consultation was the measurement of proven re-offending.
Prior to the consultation there were six different measures of proven re-offending:
- National adult proven re-offending;
- Local adult proven re-offending;
- National youth proven re-offending;
- Local youth proven re-offending;
- Prolific and other priority offending (PPO); and
- Drug-misusing proven offending.
The new approach to measuring proven re-offending integrates these approaches into a single framework. This allows users to:
- form a clear picture of proven re-offending at national and local levels;
- compare adult and youth results, and enable other work on transition between the youth and adult criminal justice systems;
- understand how results for different offender groups (such as those managed by the prison and probation services, those under the PPO schemes, drug-misusing offenders, first time entrants, etc.) fit in to the overall picture on proven re-offending; and
- continue to analyse proven re-offending behaviour for particular types of offender.
9 The response to the consultation is available here www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/consultations/improvements-moj-statistics-consultation-response.pdf Comparing trends in re-offending
Table B1 shows the proportion of offenders with a proven re-offence/re-conviction using the new measure of re-offending and the previous measures of adult re-conviction and juvenile re-offending. Comparisons we make use cohorts up to 2009.
Re-offending rates are lower using the new measure than using the previous measure. The differences are as follows:
- For adult and juvenile offenders the new measure is based on all offenders released from custody, receiving a non-custodial conviction at court, a caution, reprimand, warning or tested positive for opiates or cocaine over a 12 month period, but the previous measures only included offenders released from custody or commencing a court order in the first three months of the year. Using a three month sample over-represents prolific offenders in comparison to a full year's worth of data.
- For adults the new measure counts all offenders including those who received a caution, fine or discharge, where the previous adult measure only included those who commenced a court order or who were discharged from custody.
- For adult offenders, the new measure is a measure of proven re-offending (which counts offences proven through a court conviction or a caution) whereas the previous measure is a measure of re-conviction (which only counts offences proven through a court conviction).
As a result, re-offending rates are 14.4 percentage points lower for adults and rates for juveniles are 4.1 percentage points lower using the new measure.
However, the re-offending rates are similar for adults given a court order or who received a custodial sentence, including those given a sentence of less than 12 months. Rates are between 1.0 and 2.6 percentage points lower using the new measure.
Table B1: Re-offending using the new and previous measures, 2009
| | New measure | Previous measure(s) | |----------------------|-------------|---------------------| | Adults | 24.9 | 39.3 | | Juveniles | 32.8 | 36.9 | | Adults given a court order | 34.5 | 35.5 | | Adults given a custodial sentence | 46.8 | 48.5 | | Adults given a custodial sentence of less than 12m | 56.8 | 59.4 |
Figure B1 shows re-offending rates for adult offenders between 2000 and 2009 using the new and previous measure.
For 2009, 24.9 per cent of adult offenders have a proven re-offence within 12 months using the new measure compared to 39.3 per cent using the previous re-conviction measure. However, trends for adult offenders are similar using the two measures. The proportion of offenders with a proven re-offence/re-conviction rose between 2000 and 2002, fell between 2002 and 2006, rose between 2006 and 2008, and fell between 2008 and 2009 using both measures.
Figure B1: Adult re-conviction/re-offending, by re-offending measure, 2000, 2002 to 2009
The overall reduction in re-offending is smaller using the new measure (1.2 percentage points between 2000 and 2009 and 0.5 percentage points between 2008 and 2009) than using the previous measure (3.7 percentage points between 2000 and 2009 and 0.8 percentage points between 2008 and 2009).
Figure B2 shows re-offending rates for juvenile offenders between 2000 and 2009 using the new and previous measure.
In 2009, 32.8 per cent of young offenders re-offended within 12 months using the new measure compared to 36.9 per cent using the previous measure. The reduction in re-offending is smaller using the new measure (0.9 percentage points between 2000 and 2009 and 0.1 percentage points between 2008 and 2009) than using the previous measure (3.3 percentage points between 2000 and 2009 and 0.4 percentage points between 2008 and 2009). Overall, the trends are broadly similar. Trends in proven re-offending/re-conviction rates for adult custodial offenders are similar using the new and previous measures. The proportion of offenders given a custodial sentence of less than 12 months who re-offended rose between 2000 and 2009 using both measures (by 2.6 percentage points using the new measure and 1.4 percentage points using the previous measure). The proportion of offenders given any custodial sentence who re-offended fell between 2000 and 2009 using both measures (by 2.6 percentage points using the new measure and 2.9 percentage points using the previous measure). The change in methodology
The following sections provide detail regarding the change in methodology between the methods in measuring re-offending and how those changes impact on the data.
The table below provides a comparison of the previous methodologies with the new approach. Table B2: Re-offending using the new and previous measures
Comparison of previous and new measures of proven re-offending
| The cohort | Previous measures of re-offending | New measure of re-offending | |------------|----------------------------------|-----------------------------| | | National adult re-conviction | National youth re-offending | Prolific and other Priority Offending (PPO) | Drug-misusing offending | All offenders who received a caution/reprimand or warning, were convicted at court (other than custody), were discharged from custody, or tested positive for cocaine or opiates on arrest over a 12 month period. | | | Local adult re-offending | Local youth re-offending | All offenders identified as being on the PPO scheme as at 1 April | | The cohort | Offenders aged 18+ discharged from custody or commencing court orders under probation supervision between January to March | Offenders aged 10-17 discharged from custody, receiving a court conviction or receiving a caution/reprimand or final warning between January and March | All offenders identified as being on the PPO scheme as at 1 April | | The follow-up period to measure re-offending | 12 months for offences to occur and a further 6 months for offences to be proved | 12 months for offences to occur and a further 6 months for offences to be proved | 12 months for offences to occur and a further 3 months for offences to be proved | 12 months for offences to occur and a further 6 months for offences to be proved | 12 months for offences to occur and a further 6 months for offences to be proved | | The headline measure | Frequency of re-offending (the number of proven re-offences per 100 offenders) | Proportion of offenders re-offending, compared to the rate that would be expected based on the offender characteristics | Frequency of re-offending (the number of proven re-offences per 100 offenders) | Frequency of re-offending (the number of proven re-offences per 100 offenders) | Number of further offences compared to number in previous year, against the reduction that would be expected given time on the PPO scheme | Number of further offences compared to what would be expected based on their previous offending history | Proportion of offenders re-offending | |----------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | What counts as a proven re-offence | Offences committed within the follow-up period which were proved by a court conviction either within the follow-up period or in a further six months | Offences committed within the follow-up period which were proved by a court conviction or caution either within the follow-up period or in a further three months | Offences committed within the follow-up period which were proved by a court conviction or reprimand or final warning either within the follow-up period or in a further six months | Offences committed within the follow-up period which were proved by a court conviction or caution either within the follow-up period or in a further three months | Breach offences that lead to substantive recorded convictions are included | Breach offences that lead to substantive recorded convictions are included | We also include information on the frequency of re-offending and information on the predicted rate based on offender characteristics | Use of a predicted rate
Data source Geographic breakdown
A predicted rate of re-offending was included for the proportion of offenders expected to reoffend based on their characteristics
A predicted rate of re-offending was included for the proportion of offenders expected to reoffend based on their characteristics
A predicted rate of re-offending was included for the proportion of offenders expected to re-offend based on their characteristics
Logistic regression was used
Logistic regression was used
Logistic regression was used
Police National Computer None
Police National Computer Region, Probation area, Local Authority
Police National Computer None
No predicted rate
Evidence on the link between time on the PPO scheme and expected reductions in further offending were used to assess reductions in number of offences compared to the previous year
A predicted rate of re-offending was included for the proportion of offenders expected to reoffend based on their previous criminal history Response surface methodology was used
A predicted rate of re-offending is included for the proportion of offenders expected to re-offend based on their characteristics Logistic regression is used
Youth Offending Teams data Youth Offending Team level
Police National Computer Police Force and Local Authority level
Police National Computer Drug Action team and Local Authority level
Police National Computer Upper and lower tier local authority areas for all offenders. Other breakdowns for specific categories of offender.
32
The effect of the changes
Adults
Differences in methodology are reflected in different results. Table B3 shows the impact on reported rates of adult re-conviction/re-offending. The table breaks down the changes between the previous measure and the new measure to identify the different effects of the changes in methodology.
Table B3: Re-offending/re-convictions data for adult offenders, 2000, 2002 to 2009
| Year | Previous measure: re-convictions (prison and probation offenders only), first quarter of the year | Previous measure: re-convictions (prison and probation offenders only), whole year | New measure: re-offending (prison and probation offenders only), whole year | New measure: proven re-offending (all offenders), whole year | |------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------| | | Proportion | | | | | 2000 | 43.0 | 40.0 | 40.9 | 26.2 | | 2002 | 45.5 | 42.0 | 43.0 | 27.6 | | 2003 | 45.4 | 41.5 | 42.4 | 26.9 | | 2004 | 42.9 | 38.6 | 39.8 | 25.5 | | 2005 | 41.2 | 36.6 | 38.4 | 24.9 | | 2006 | 36.6 | 35.6 | 37.6 | 24.6 | | 2007 | 39.0 | 35.9 | 37.9 | 24.8 | | 2008 | 40.1 | 36.1 | 37.9 | 25.4 | | 2009 | 39.3 | 34.7 | 36.2 | 24.9 | | | Frequency (average per offender) | | | | | 2000 | 1.85 | 1.66 | 1.69 | 0.89 | | 2002 | 2.13 | 1.84 | 1.87 | 0.99 | | 2003 | 2.05 | 1.73 | 1.76 | 0.93 | | 2004 | 1.81 | 1.51 | 1.54 | 0.83 | | 2005 | 1.66 | 1.36 | 1.40 | 0.77 | | 2006 | 1.44 | 1.26 | 1.31 | 0.73 | | 2007 | 1.47 | 1.27 | 1.32 | 0.73 | | 2008 | 1.55 | 1.27 | 1.31 | 0.75 | | 2009 | 1.41 | 1.15 | 1.18 | 0.70 | | | Frequency of re-offenders (average per re-offender) | | | | | 2000 | 4.30 | 4.15 | 4.13 | 3.39 | | 2002 | 4.68 | 4.39 | 4.36 | 3.59 | | 2003 | 4.52 | 4.18 | 4.15 | 3.44 | | 2004 | 4.23 | 3.91 | 3.87 | 3.27 | | 2005 | 4.03 | 3.70 | 3.65 | 3.10 | | 2006 | 3.73 | 3.54 | 3.48 | 2.95 | | 2007 | 3.78 | 3.53 | 3.48 | 2.94 | | 2008 | 3.88 | 3.51 | 3.46 | 2.93 | | 2009 | 3.57 | 3.31 | 3.27 | 2.80 | | | Number of offenders | | | | | 2000 | 42,734 | 148,052 | 148,052 | 477,698 | | 2002 | 43,247 | 157,243 | 157,243 | 495,664 | | 2003 | 44,095 | 159,686 | 159,686 | 520,660 | | 2004 | 46,532 | 163,775 | 163,775 | 512,600 | | 2005 | 43,429 | 170,021 | 170,021 | 532,045 | | 2006 | 50,281 | 181,726 | 181,726 | 571,458 | | 2007 | 50,085 | 190,418 | 190,418 | 595,020 | | 2008 | 53,718 | 197,035 | 197,035 | 589,948 | | 2009 | 56,616 | 200,077 | 200,077 | 576,255 |
1. Based on the national adult re-convictions publication (March 2011)
Among adult offenders in 2009, the previous national measure (the first column) shows that 39.3 per cent of adult offenders were re-convicted within a year based on a sample of 56,616 offenders. The second column shows the re-conviction rates from the previous measure looking at offenders who were released from custody or commenced a court order, but at any point during the year. The inclusion of offenders from a full 12 month period means the results are calculated using the full proven offender population rather than a sample – this ensures we do not over-represent prolific offenders in the cohort, which is a problem in using a January to March sample as in the previous adult re-conviction measure.
This leads to a lower proportion of re-convicted offenders (between three and five percentage points, e.g. 34.7 per cent compared to 39.3 per cent in 2009). The change to a full year also increases the number of offenders, to 200,077 in 2009.(^\\text{10})
The third column shows the proven re-offending rates from the new measure, but still based only on those offenders who were released from custody or commenced a court order at any point during the year. Proven re-offending includes offences which result in a caution in addition to those resulting in a conviction at court. The proportion of offenders who were proven to re-offend is between one and two percentage points higher than for those who were re-convicted (36.2 per cent compared to 34.7 per cent in 2009). There is little difference at this stage because we are still only considering offenders who already have a prison or a court order.
The fourth column shows the re-offending rates from the new measure looking at all adult offenders who received a caution, a conviction at court, discharged from custody, or tested positive for cocaine or opiates. The inclusion of these offenders increases the numbers considerably. In 2009, the previous adult measure tracks the re-offending behaviour of 56,616 offenders; the new measure tracks 576,255 offenders. The inclusion of offenders who received less severe disposals and are generally less prolific in nature reduces the proportion who re-offend by around 11 to 16 percentage points (36.2 per cent compared to 24.9 per cent in 2009).
**Change over time**
Compared to the previous measure, the reduction over time in the proportion of offenders who re-offend is much lower using the new measure. Using the previous measure, between 2000 and 2009, the proportion of offenders who were re-convicted fell 3.7 percentage points (from 43.0 per cent to 39.3 per cent). Using the new measure, the proportion of offenders who committed a
______________________________________________________________________
(^{10}) The previous measure includes offenders released from custody or who commenced a court order in the first three months of the year, shown in column one. Column two includes offenders released from custody or who commenced a court order in the 12 month period. The number of offenders shown in column two is less than four times as many as in column one. This is because some offenders commence a court order or are discharged from custody more than once in a year. These calculations only count each offender once e.g. offender Y is discharged from custody in the first quarter of the year, and discharged again in the second quarter, but he is only counted as a single offender. proven re-offence fell 1.2 percentage points (from 26.2 per cent to 24.9 per cent).
**Juveniles**
The only change between the previous measure and the new measure of re-offending among young people is the move from a one quarter sample to including all young offenders over the period of a year.
**Table B4: Re-offending data for juvenile offenders, 2000, 2002 to 2009**
| Year | Previous measure\* proven re-offending | New measure proven re-offending | |------|--------------------------------------|---------------------------------| | | Proportion | | | 2000 | 40.2 | 33.7 | | 2002 | 38.5 | 33.4 | | 2003 | 39.0 | 34.3 | | 2004 | 38.6 | 33.6 | | 2005 | 38.4 | 33.6 | | 2006 | 38.7 | 33.9 | | 2007 | 37.5 | 32.5 | | 2008 | 37.3 | 32.9 | | 2009 | 36.9 | 32.8 | | | Frequency (average per offender) | | | 2000 | 1.51 | 1.12 | | 2002 | 1.42 | 1.10 | | 2003 | 1.42 | 1.09 | | 2004 | 1.32 | 1.03 | | 2005 | 1.25 | 0.98 | | 2006 | 1.23 | 0.97 | | 2007 | 1.16 | 0.90 | | 2008 | 1.14 | 0.91 | | 2009 | 1.10 | 0.90 | | | Frequency of re-offenders (average per re-offender) | | | 2000 | 3.77 | 3.32 | | 2002 | 3.69 | 3.29 | | 2003 | 3.63 | 3.19 | | 2004 | 3.43 | 3.06 | | 2005 | 3.26 | 2.91 | | 2006 | 3.18 | 2.86 | | 2007 | 3.08 | 2.77 | | 2008 | 3.06 | 2.75 | | 2009 | 2.99 | 2.75 | | | Number of offenders | | | 2000 | 41,176 | 139,326 | | 2002 | 40,753 | 136,401 | | 2003 | 40,297 | 138,379 | | 2004 | 44,153 | 149,452 | | 2005 | 45,337 | 163,545 | | 2006 | 48,938 | 171,061 | | 2007 | 52,544 | 171,454 | | 2008 | 44,837 | 145,579 | | 2009 | 37,472 | 121,107 |
1. Based on the national juvenile re-offending publication (March 2011) publication
As for adults, using the whole year reduces the proportion of offenders who re-offended because we do not over-represent prolific offenders in the cohort, which is a problem in using a January to March sample. Table B4 shows the reduction is between four and seven percentage points. For 2009, with the previous measure, 36.9 per cent commit a proven re-offence within one year; with the new measure, 32.8 per cent do so. The new measure, which is based on offenders from a 12 month period, includes over three times as many offenders as the existing measure.
**Change over time**
Compared to the previous measure, the reduction in the proportion of offenders who re-offend between 2000 and 2009 is much lower using the new measure.
Using the previous measure, between 2000 and 2009, the proportion of offenders who were proven to re-offend fell 3.3 percentage points (from 40.2 per cent to 36.9 per cent). Using the new measure, the proportion of offenders who committed a proven re-offence fell 0.9 percentage points (from 33.7 per cent to 32.8 per cent).
**Drug-misusing offenders**
Published results for drug-misusing offenders on the previous measure covered 2008 and 2009; results using the new measure cover from 2004 onwards.
The previous measure:
- Includes offenders who have been identified in the first quarter of the year, whereas the new measure includes offenders from any point during the year.
- Includes all drug-misusing offenders irrespective of the date of proven offence, whereas the new measure includes identified drug-misusing offenders who have received a caution, been convicted at court, been discharged from custody, or tested positive for cocaine or opiates on arrest during a 12 month period.
- Counts re-offences that were proven through a court conviction, whereas the new measure counts re-offences that were proven by a court conviction or caution.
As for adult and juvenile offenders, using the whole year to identify offenders reduces the proportion of offenders who re-offend, because we do not over-represent prolific offenders in the cohort, which is a problem in using a January to March sample. Table B5 shows the impact on reported rates of re-offending/re-conviction by drug-misusing offenders. Table B5: Re-offending data for drug-misusing offenders, 2004 to 2009
| Year | Previous measure proven re-conviction | New measure of proven re-offending | |------|--------------------------------------|-----------------------------------| | | Proportion | Frequency (average per offender) | | | 2004 67.3 | 2004 3.20 | | | 2005 65.3 | 2005 2.94 | | | 2006 58.6 | 2006 2.37 | | | 2007 57.2 | 2007 2.34 | | | 2008 61.0 | 2008 2.6 | | | 2009 57.0 | 2009 2.2 | | | Frequency of re-offenders (average per re-offender) | | | | 2004 4.75 | 2004 4.75 | | | 2005 4.51 | 2005 4.51 | | | 2006 4.03 | 2006 4.03 | | | 2007 4.09 | 2007 4.09 | | | 2008 4.3 | 2008 4.3 | | | 2009 3.9 | 2009 3.9 | | | Number of offenders | | | | 2004 20,652 | 2004 20,652 | | | 2005 29,112 | 2005 29,112 | | | 2006 44,597 | 2006 44,597 | | | 2007 54,474 | 2007 54,474 | | | 2008 20,934 | 2008 20,934 | | | 2009 20,109 | 2009 20,109 |
1. Based on the national drug-misusing offenders publication (December 2010)
Table B5 shows that the proportion of offenders who commit a proven re-offence is between two and five percentage points lower using the new measure (57.0 per cent using the previous measure compared to 54.7 per cent using the new measure). The new measure, which follows offenders over a 12 month period, includes between two and three times as many offenders as the existing measure.
**Prolific and other priority offenders**
Published results for prolific and other priority offenders (PPOs) on the previous measure presented the frequency of proven re-offending for all PPOs; results using the new measure cover the proportion of offenders proven to re-offend, and the frequency of proven re-offending for all offenders and for re-offenders from 2005 onwards. The previous measure:
- Includes offenders who have been identified in the first quarter of the year, whereas the new measure includes offenders from any point during the year. However, PPOs are generally on the PPO programme for a sustained period of time so this only has a moderate impact on numbers of offenders included.
- Includes all identified PPOs, whereas the new measure includes identified PPOs who have tested positive for cocaine or opiates, received a caution, been convicted at court, or been discharged from custody during a 12 month period.
- Counts re-offences that are proven through a court conviction or caution and also includes breach offences that lead to substantive recorded convictions. The new measure only includes re-offences proven through a court conviction or caution.
Table B6 shows the impact on reported rates of proven re-offending by PPOs and on numbers of offenders included in the measure.
**Table B6: Re-offending data for Prolific and other Priority Offenders, 2005 to 2009**
| Year | Previous measure proven re-offending | New measure of proven re-offending | |------|-------------------------------------|-----------------------------------| | | Proportion | | | 2005 | 77.0 | | | 2006 | 75.7 | | | 2007 | 75.8 | | | 2008 | 77.2 | | | 2009 | 56.0 | 75.1 | | | Frequency (average per offender) | | | 2005 | 4.01 | | | 2006 | 3.83 | | | 2007 | 3.80 | | | 2008 | 2.6 | 3.80 | | 2009 | 2.4 | 3.49 | | | Frequency of re-offenders (average per re-offender) | | | 2005 | 5.21 | | | 2006 | 5.06 | | | 2007 | 5.01 | | | 2008 | 4.93 | | | 2009 | 4.3 | 4.65 | | | Number of offenders | | | 2005 | 8,555 | | | 2006 | 8,239 | | | 2007 | 8,309 | | | 2008 | 10,771 | 8,607 | | 2009 | 10,635 | 8,156 |
1. Based on the national Prolific and other Priority Offenders publication (March 2010) The average number of proven re-offences committed by PPOs in 2009 is lower for the previous measure than for the new measure in 2008 (2.4 re-offences per offender using the previous measure, but 3.49 using the new).
The previous measure includes PPOs who have not been proven guilty of an offence or been discharged from custody in the 12 month period when the re-offending cohort is formed. This type of offender is likely to have a lower level of re-offending.
These differences may help to explain:
- why the frequency of re-offending is lower for the previous measure than for the new measure in 2009 (2.4 re-offences per offender using the previous measure, but 3.49 using the new); and
- why the previous measure includes nearly 2,500 more PPOs in 2009 than does the new measure.
**Local adult re-offending**
The most similar results for the new measure of re-offending and the existing local measure of adult re-offending are the early estimates of re-offending of offenders given a court order. Like the existing measure of local adult re-offending, the early estimates of offenders given a court order:
- measure re-offending over three months;
- only measures offenders under probation supervision;
- provides results by probation trust; and
- compares actual re-offending rates with a predicted re-offending rate.
There remain significant differences between the early estimates and the existing local adult measure of re-offending, including:
- The existing local adult measure includes offenders on licence – the early estimates include offenders commencing court orders only;
- The existing local adult measure uses a ‘snapshot’ approach. This means offenders are counted if they are on the caseload at certain times in the year. Offenders who are on the caseload for a short period of time may not get counted with the existing measure. The early estimates count every offender who commences a court order;
- Because the existing local adult measure uses a ‘snapshot’ approach some offenders may get counted up to four times if they are on the caseload for over 12 months. The early estimates count every offender once; • The existing local adult measure measures the re-offending of offenders at any point during the court order – the early estimates measure re-offending in the first three months after an offender commenced a court order; and
• The predicted score for the existing local adult measure was derived from analysis of 2007 re-offending data and the prediction for the early estimates was derived from analysis of 2008 re-offending data.
These differences explain why the re-offending rate is higher with the early estimates of re-offending by offenders commencing a court order than with the existing measure of local adult re-offending:
• offenders on licence have lower rates of re-offending than those commencing a court order; and
• offenders serving a court order have lower rates of re-offending the longer they are on that court order.
However, the prediction for the early estimates has been tailored specifically to the relevant group of offenders.
Local youth re-offending
The previous measure of youth re-offending used data that Youth Offending Teams (YOT) collected themselves from their local police and courts. The measure was used as management information and was never published or put into the public domain. The new measure uses data from the Police National Computer (PNC). Internal analysis and discussion with stakeholders has highlighted a number of differences between the two data sources:
• The PNC includes a number of offenders who have received a reprimand or final warning which do not always appear on the YOT systems. As a result, there are more youth offenders and a higher overall youth re-offending rate using the new measure than using the previous local youth re-offending measure.
• The PNC includes more comprehensive data on re-offending as adults by offenders who originally offended as youths.
• Using PNC data reduces the data-collection burden on YOT and local police forces.
• PNC data measures re-offending on recordable offences and YOT data measures re-offending on all offences. Offences which are not recordable include speeding offences, parking offences and other minor motoring offences. As a result, YOT data is more comprehensive for motoring re-offences. The new measure allocates offenders to a locality using their home address data from the PNC; the previous local youth measure allocated offenders using offender management data. As a result, Looked After Children (LAC) who are in foster care, or in a children’s home, or in a boarding school or live with another adult known to children’s services, maybe allocated to a different YOT under the previous youth measure than the new measure.
For their re-offending to be included in the new measure, administrative data on young people in custody and secure accommodation has to be matched to the PNC. Some cases are not successfully matched. This process was not required for these offenders to be included in the previous local youth measure. As a result, YOT data can be more comprehensive regarding custodial offenders or those in secure accommodation.
Using PNC data provides an external measure of youth re-offending, which makes it an appropriate data-source to support any future policies which tie local funding to re-offending performance.
Using PNC data allows local youth re-offending to be measured on the same basis as national youth re-offending and adult re-offending, permitting adult and youth re-offending to be measured on a like-for-like basis and a more comprehensive picture of re-offending to be formed.
Work is underway to fully quantify the extent of these differences. Annex C
Glossary of terms
Re-offending terms
Cohort – this is the group of individuals whose re-offending is measured.
Index offence – the index offence is the proven offence that leads to an offender being included in the cohort.
Index disposal – the index disposal of the offender is the type of sentence the offender received for their index offence.
Start point (also known as the index date) – this is the set point in time from when re-offences are measured.
Follow-up period – this is the length of time proven re-offending is measured over.
Waiting period – this is the additional time beyond the follow-up period to allow for offences committed towards the end of the follow-up period to be proved by a court conviction, caution, reprimand or final warning.
Adjusted to baseline – proven re-offending is related to the characteristics of offenders which means that any overall rate of proven re-offending will depend, in part, on the characteristics of offenders coming into the system (just as the examination pass rate of a school will be related to the characteristics of its pupils). We use a modelling technique to produce a baseline figure adjusted to match the characteristics of the cohort we are comparing. Please refer to the ‘Definitions and Measurement’ document for more detail at www.justice.gov.uk/statistics/reoffending/proven-re-offending.
Re-conviction – where an offender is convicted at court for an offence committed within a set follow-up period and convicted within either the follow-up period or waiting period.
Proven re-offence – where an offender is convicted at court or receives some other form of criminal justice sanction for an offence committed within a set follow-up period and disposed of within either the follow-up period or waiting period.
Cohort used in the Proven Re-offending Statistics Quarterly Bulletin – the proven re-offending cohort consists of all offenders discharged from custody, otherwise sanctioned at court, receiving a caution, reprimand or warning or tested positive for opiates or cocaine in each year. This cohort’s criminal history is collated and criminal behaviour is tracked over the following one year. Any offence committed in this one-year period which is proven by a court conviction or out-of-court disposal (either in the one-year period, or in a further six months waiting period) counts as a proven re-offence.
**Cohort used in the Local Adult Re-offending Quarterly Bulletin** – the local adult re-offending measure takes a snapshot of all offenders, aged 18 or over, who are under probation supervision at the end of a quarter, and combines four such snapshots together. This cohort’s criminal history is collated and criminal behaviour is tracked over the following three months. Any offence committed in this three month period which is proven by a court conviction or out-of-court disposal (either in the three month period, or in a further three months waiting period) counts as a proven re-offence. The latest available publication is the Local Adult Re-offending: 1 October 2010 – 30 September 2011, England and Wales; Ministry of Justice, February 2011.
[www.justice.gov.uk/statistics/reoffending/local-adult-reoffending](http://www.justice.gov.uk/statistics/reoffending/local-adult-reoffending)
**Disposal (sentence type)**
**Fine** – a financial penalty imposed following conviction.
**Court orders** – court orders include community sentences, community orders and suspended sentence orders supervised by the Probation Service. They do not include any pre or post release supervision.
**Criminal Justice Act 2003 (CJA03)** – for offences committed on or after 4 April 2005, the new community order replaced all existing community sentences for adults. The Act also introduced a new suspended sentence order for offences which pass the custody threshold. It also changed the release arrangements for prisoners. See Appendix A of Offender Management Caseload Statistics 2009 for more information.
**Community order** – for offences committed on or after 4 April 2005, the new community order introduced under the CJA 2003 replaced all existing community sentences for those aged 18 years and over. This term refers to all court orders except suspended sentence orders and deferred sentences which may have a custodial component to the sentence. The court must add at least one (but could potentially add all 12) requirements depending on the offences and the offender. The requirements are:
- unpaid work (formerly community service/community punishment) – a requirement to complete between 40 and 300 hours’ unpaid work;
- activity – for example, to attend basic skills classes;
- programme – there are several designed to reduce the prospects of re-offending;
- prohibited activity – a requirement not do so something that is likely to lead to further offence or nuisance; • curfew – which is electronically monitored;
• exclusion – this is not used frequently as there is no reliable electronic monitoring yet available;
• residence – requirement to reside only where approved by probation officer;
• mental health treatment (requires offender’s consent);
• drug rehabilitation (requires offender’s consent);
• alcohol treatment (requires offender’s consent);
• supervision – meetings with probation officer to address needs/offending behaviour; and
• attendance centre – between a minimum of 12 hours and a maximum of 36 in total which includes three hours of activity.
Typically, the more serious the offence and the more extensive the offender’s needs, the more requirements there will be. Most orders will comprise of one or two requirements, but there are packages of several requirements available where required. The court tailors the order as appropriate and is guided by the Probation Service through a pre-sentence report.
**Suspended sentence order (SSO)** – the CJA 2003 introduced a new suspended sentence order which is made up of the same requirements as a community order and, in the absence of breach is served wholly in the community supervised by the Probation Service. It consists of an ‘operational period’ (the time for which the custodial sentence is suspended) and a ‘supervision period’ (the time during which any requirements take effect). Both may be between six months and two years and the ‘supervision period’ cannot be longer than the ‘operational period’, although it may be shorter. Failure to comply with the requirements of the order or commission of another offence will almost certainly result in a custodial sentence.
**Pre CJA03 Court Orders – Community sentences**
**Community punishment order (CPO)** – the offender is required to undertake unpaid community work.
**Community rehabilitation order (CRO)** - a community sentence which may have additional requirements such as residence, probation centre attendance or treatment for drug, alcohol or mental health problems.
**Community punishment and rehabilitation order (CPRO)** – a community sentence consisting of probation supervision alongside community punishment, with additional conditions like those of a community rehabilitation order. Drug treatment and testing order (DTTO) – a community sentence targeted at offenders with drug-misuse problems.
Custody – the offender is awarded a sentence to be served in prison or a Young Offenders Institute (YOI). If the offender is given a sentence of 12 months or over, or is aged under 22 on release, the offender is supervised by the Probation Service on release. It is important to note that the sentence lengths and youth disposals awarded will be longer than the time served in custody. For more information please refer to Appendix A of Offender Management Caseload Statistics 2009.
Short sentences (under 12 months) – those sentenced to under 12 months (made under the Criminal Justice Act 1991) spend the first half of their sentence in prison and are then released and considered ‘at risk’ for the remaining period. This means they are under no positive obligations and do not report to the Probation Service, but if they commit a further imprisonable offence during the ‘at risk’ period, they can be made to serve the remainder of the sentence in addition to the punishment for the new offence. The exception to this is those aged 18 to 20 who have a minimum of three month’s supervision on release.
Sentences of 12 months or over – the CJA03 created a distinction between standard determinate sentences and public protection sentences. Offenders sentenced to a standard determinate sentence serve the first half in prison and the second half in the community on licence.
Youth disposal (sentence type)
Reprimand or warning – a reprimand is a formal verbal warning given by a police officer to a juvenile offender who admits they are guilty for a minor first offence. A final warning is similar to a reprimand, but can be used for either the first or second offence, and includes an assessment of the juvenile to determine the causes of their offending behaviour and a programme of activities is designed to address them.
First-tier penalties
Discharge – a juvenile offender is given an absolute discharge when they admit guilt, or are found guilty, with no further action taken. An offender given a conditional discharge also receives no immediate punishment, but is given a set period during which, if they commit a further offence, they can be brought back to court and re-sentenced.
Fine – the size of the fine depends on the offence committed and the offender’s financial circumstances. In the case of juveniles under 16, the fine is the responsibility of the offender’s parent or carer.
Referral order – this is given to juveniles pleading guilty and for whom it is their first time at court (unless the offence is so serious it merits a custodial sentence or it is of a relatively minor nature). The offender is required to attend a Youth Offender Panel to agree a contract, aimed to repair the harm caused by the offence and address the causes of the offending behaviour.
**Reparation order** – the offender is required to repair the harm caused by their offence either directly to the victim or indirectly to the community.
**Prison categories**
**Category B and category C prisons** hold sentenced prisoners of their respective categories, including life sentenced prisoners. The regime focuses on programmes that address offending behaviour and provide education, vocational training and purposeful work for prisoners who will normally spend several years in one prison.
**High security prisons** hold category A and B prisoners. Category A prisoners are managed by a process of dispersal, and these prisons also hold a proportion of category B prisoners for whom they provide a similar regime to a category B prison. The category B prisoners held in a High Security Prison are not necessarily any more dangerous or difficult to manage than those in category B prisons.
**Female prisons**, as the name implies, hold female prisoners. Because of the smaller numbers, they are not divided into the same number of categories although there are variations in security levels.
**Local prisons** serve the courts in the area. Historically their main function was to hold un-convicted and un-sentenced prisoners and, once a prisoner had been sentenced, to allocate them on to a category B, C or D prison as appropriate to serve their sentence. However, pressure on places means that many shorter term prisoners serve their entire sentence in a local prison, while longer term prisoners also complete some offending behaviour and training programmes there before moving on to lower security conditions. All local prisons operate to category B security standards.
**Open prisons** have much lower levels of physical security and only hold category D prisoners. Many prisoners in open prisons will be allowed to go out of the prison on a daily basis to take part in voluntary or paid work in the community in preparation for their approaching release.
**Prisoner categories**
These categories are based on a combination of the type of crime committed, the length of sentence, the likelihood of escape, and the danger to the public if they did escape. The four categories are:
**Category A** prisoners are those whose escape would be highly dangerous to the public or national security. **Category B** prisoners are those who do not require maximum security, but for whom escape needs to be made very difficult.
**Category C** prisoners are those who cannot be trusted in open conditions, but who are unlikely to try to escape.
**Category D** prisoners are those who can be reasonably trusted not to try to escape and are given the privilege of an open prison.
**Miscellaneous terms**
**Drug-misusing offenders**
There are four ways a drug-misusing offender can be identified:
- Individuals who have tested positive for heroin or crack/cocaine following an arrest or charge for ‘trigger’ offences (largely acquisitive crime offences) as part of the Drug Interventions Programme (DIP) are included as adult proven offenders.
- Any offender that received an OASys assessment whilst on licence or on a community sentence and are either recorded as being subject to a current Drug Treatment and Testing Order (DTTO) or Drug Rehabilitation Requirement (DRR), or are assessed as having a criminogenic drug need.
- Any offender identified as requiring further drug interventions by Counselling, Assessment, Referral, Advice, Throughcare (CARAT) teams in prison, and now being released into the community.
- Any offender identified by local Criminal Justice Integrated Teams (CJITs) as requiring further intervention for their drug use and offending as part of DIP.
**National Probation Service** – the National Probation Service generally deals with those aged 18 years and over. (Those under 18 are mostly dealt with by Youth Offending Teams, answering to the Youth Justice Board.) They are responsible for supervising offenders who are given community sentences and suspended sentence orders by the courts, as well as offenders given custodial sentences, both pre and post their release.
**Police National Computer** – the Police National Computer (PNC) is the police’s administrative IT system used by all police forces in England and Wales and managed by the National Policing Improvement Agency. As with any large scale recording system the PNC is subject to possible errors with data entry and processing. The MoJ maintains a database based on weekly extracts of selected data from the PNC in order to compile statistics and conduct research on re-offending and criminal histories. The PNC largely covers recordable offences – these are all indictable and triable-either-way offences plus many of the more serious summary offences. All figures derived from the MoJ’s PNC database, and in particular those for the most recent months, are likely to be revised as more information is recorded by the police.
**Prolific and other priority offenders** – the Prolific and other Priority Offenders Programme (PPO) aims to use a multi-agency approach to focus on a very small, but hard core group of prolific/persistent offenders who commit disproportionate amounts of crime and cause disproportionate harm to their local communities. The identification of a PPO is undertaken at a local level involving police, local authorities, prison and probation services and youth offending teams. The factors that influence the decision of whether an offender is included in the PPO programme are:
- the nature and volume of crimes they commit;
- the nature and volume of other harm they cause; and
- the detrimental impact they have on their community.
**Recordable offences** – recordable offences are those that the police are required to record on the PNC. They include all offences for which a custodial sentence can be given plus a range of other offences defined as recordable in legislation. They exclude a range of less serious summary offences, for example television licence evasion, driving without insurance, speeding and vehicle tax offences.
**Indictable and summary offences** – summary offences are triable only by a magistrates’ court. This group includes motoring offences, common assault and criminal damage up to £5,000. More serious offences are classed either as triable-either-way (these can be tried either at the Crown Court or at a magistrates’ court and include criminal damage where the value is £5,000 or greater, theft and burglary) or indictable-only (the most serious offences that must be tried at the Crown Court; these ‘indictable-only’ offences include murder, manslaughter, rape and robbery). The term indictable offences is used to refer to all triable-either-way and ‘indictable-only’ offences.
**Offence group** – a split of offences into 21 separate groups. A more detailed split of the 10 indictable offence groups (violence against the person, sexual offences, burglary, robbery, theft and handling and stolen goods, fraud and forgery, criminal damage, drug offences, other indictable offences (excluding motoring), indictable motoring) and the two summary offence groups (summary non-motoring and summary motoring offence types). Explanatory notes
The United Kingdom Statistics Authority has designated these statistics as National Statistics, in accordance with the Statistics and Registration Service Act 2007 and signifying compliance with the Code of Practice for Official Statistics.
Designation can be broadly interpreted to mean that the statistics:
- meet identified user needs;
- are well explained and readily accessible;
- are produced according to sound methods, and
- are managed impartially and objectively in the public interest.
Once statistics have been designated as National Statistics it is a statutory requirement that the Code of Practice shall continue to be observed.
The statistics in this bulletin relate to re-offending data in England and Wales. This is the third set of quarterly re-offending statistics to be published by the MoJ, subsuming a number of previous publications including: adult re-convictions, juvenile re-offending, drug-misusing offenders and prolific and other priority offenders.
Symbols used
| Symbol | Description | |--------|--------------------------------------------------| | .. | Not available | | 0 | Nil or less than half the final digit shown | | - | Not applicable | | * | One or both of the comparison figures are less than 30 | | (p) | Provisional data | Contact points
Press enquiries should be directed to the Ministry of Justice press office:
Tel: 020 3334 3536
Other enquiries about these statistics should be directed to:
Iain Bell Ministry of Justice Justice Statistics Analytical Services 7th Floor 102 Petty France London SW1H 9AJ Tel: 020 3334 3737
General enquiries about the statistical work of the Ministry of Justice can be e-mailed to: [email protected]
General information about the official statistics system of the United Kingdom is available from www.statistics.gov.uk
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/4815-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 50,
"total-input-tokens": 94909,
"total-output-tokens": 25527,
"total-fallback-pages": 1
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
148,
1
],
[
148,
1209,
2
],
[
1209,
3560,
3
],
[
3560,
6184,
4
],
[
6184,
8518,
5
],
[
8518,
9107,
6
],
[
9107,
11621,
7
],
[
11621,
13938,
8
],
[
13938,
18155,
9
],
[
18155,
19231,
10
],
[
19231,
20795,
11
],
[
20795,
21901,
12
],
[
21901,
22247,
13
],
[
22247,
23744,
14
],
[
23744,
26389,
15
],
[
26389,
28971,
16
],
[
28971,
30926,
17
],
[
30926,
31281,
18
],
[
31281,
33510,
19
],
[
33510,
35003,
20
],
[
35003,
36960,
21
],
[
36960,
37384,
22
],
[
37384,
39982,
23
],
[
39982,
41324,
24
],
[
41324,
42830,
25
],
[
42830,
45424,
26
],
[
45424,
46695,
27
],
[
46695,
47291,
28
],
[
47291,
47572,
29
],
[
47572,
49195,
30
],
[
49195,
51582,
31
],
[
51582,
53128,
32
],
[
53128,
67095,
33
],
[
67095,
70258,
34
],
[
70258,
74310,
35
],
[
74310,
76404,
36
],
[
76404,
79253,
37
],
[
79253,
82511,
38
],
[
82511,
84655,
39
],
[
84655,
86874,
40
],
[
86874,
88272,
41
],
[
88272,
90449,
42
],
[
90449,
93156,
43
],
[
93156,
95433,
44
],
[
95433,
98112,
45
],
[
98112,
100655,
46
],
[
100655,
103130,
47
],
[
103130,
105541,
48
],
[
105541,
106999,
49
],
[
106999,
107558,
50
]
]
} |
cd5fd9a3934062d5e6e2b83a45b53be36be41e99 | Proven Re-offending Statistics Quarterly Bulletin July 2010 to June 2011, England and Wales
Ministry of Justice Statistics Bulletin
25 April 2013 Contents
Contents .................................................................................................................................2 Introduction ..........................................................................................................................3 Executive summary .............................................................................................................7 Annex A ...............................................................................................................................24 Annex B ...............................................................................................................................27 Annex C ...............................................................................................................................44 Explanatory notes ..............................................................................................................53 Contact points ...................................................................................................................54 Introduction
The Proven Re-offending Statistics Quarterly Bulletin provides key statistics on proven re-offending in England and Wales. It gives proven re-offending figures for offenders, who were released from custody, received a non-custodial conviction at court, received a caution, reprimand, warning or tested positive for opiates or cocaine between July 2010 and June 2011. Proven re-offending is defined as any offence committed in a one year follow-up period and receiving a court conviction, caution, reprimand or warning in the one year follow-up or within a further six month waiting period. This is referred to as a proven re-offence.
This quarterly bulletin presents the proportion of offenders who re-offend (proven re-offending rate) and the number of proven re-offences those offenders commit by age group, gender, ethnicity, criminal history and offence type. Also included are proven re-offending rates for serious proven re-offending, different types of offenders (e.g. adult, juvenile, drug-misusing and prolific and other priority offenders); different types of sentence; and for individual prisons, probation trusts and youth offending teams.
Latest figures are provided with comparisons to July 2009 to June 2010 and the year 2000 in order to highlight long-term trends; 2000 is the earliest year for which proven re-offending data exist on a comparable basis. The full set of results is provided separately in Excel tables at:
www.gov.uk/government/publications/proven-re-offending--2
The accompanying ‘Definitions and Measurement’ document, which is available at the same link, provides more detailed information. Measuring proven re-offending
There is no agreed international standard for measuring and reporting re-offending. An offender’s journey through the criminal justice system can be a complex one; offenders can appear on numerous occasions.
Measuring true re-offending is complex. Official records are taken from either the police or courts, but they will underestimate the true level of re-offending because only a proportion of crime is reported and/or detected and not all crimes are recorded on one central system. Furthermore, other methods for measuring re-offending, such as self report studies which do not identify the offender, are likely to be unreliable. Therefore, this report aims to measure proven re-offending.
Since re-offending is now measured on a consistent basis across all groups, it is possible to tailor analysis of re-offending to meet specific requirements. This quarterly bulletin and the accompanying ‘Early estimates of proven re-offending’ present measures on four different levels to meet users’ needs:
- The headline measure – this is the main measure of re-offending and is presented for different demographic groups and by offence. To provide this overview of proven re-offending, offenders are tracked and their proven re-offending behaviour is recorded, taking the first event in the relevant period as the start point and subsequent events as proven re-offences.
- A headline measure where the first event is related to criminal justice and offender management – this provides a realistic and relevant view of proven re-offending by disposal (sentence type), prison and probation trust. Offenders are tracked and their proven re-offending behaviour is recorded within each disposal (caution, court order, discharge from prison, etc.) or operational unit (prison or probation trust) taking the first event within each as the start point and subsequent events as re-offences.
- Early estimates of proven re-offending – these use shorter follow-up and waiting periods, but otherwise measure re-offending in exactly the same way as the headline measure. This is intended to provide offender managers with an earlier indication of proven re-offending trends so they can adjust or build on offender management operational policy.
- A re-conviction measure for use by payment by results – this is the measure used in the prison pilots since court convictions are more closely associated with costs to the criminal justice system. For more details, please refer to Annex A.
______________________________________________________________________
1 An event is one of the following: a release from custody, convicted at court with a non-custodial sentence, received a caution, reprimand, warning or tested positive for opiates or cocaine For a more detailed explanation, please see the accompanying ‘Definitions and Measurement’ document at:
www.gov.uk/government/publications/proven-re-offending--2
Consultation
This quarterly bulletin was developed in response to a consultation in late 2010 and early 2011 by the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) on “Improvements to Ministry of Justice Statistics”. The main points from the consultation that affect this publication can be found in Annex B.
Users
The contents of this bulletin will be of interest to Government policy makers, the agencies responsible for offender management at both national and local levels, providers, practitioners and others who want to understand more about proven re-offending.
In particular there are two MoJ impact indicators(^2) which will be monitored using results from this bulletin:
- Adult and juvenile re-offending – the percentage of adult and juvenile offenders who re-offend, measured quarterly by local authority.
- The percentage of adults released from custody who re-offend, measured annually by prison.
Government policy makers also use these statistics to develop, monitor and evaluate key elements of its policies including those on payments by results, legal aid, sentencing guidelines and drug and alcohol policies. Offender management agencies use these statistics to gain a local understanding of the criminal justice system, understand performance and to highlight best practice. Key agencies include: the National Offender Management Service, the Youth Justice Board, private and voluntary sector providers of prison and probation services and local authorities.
As proven re-offending is related to the characteristics of offenders, the actual rate of proven re-offending will depend, in part, on the characteristics of offenders coming into the system. This actual rate provides users with sufficient information on what the level of re-offending is (e.g. in their local area) and how it is changing over time. This bulletin also presents an adjusted proven re-offending rate to control for differences in the composition of the offender group which can be used by those who want to understand how changes in types of offenders coming through the justice system drives re-offending rates.
(^2) www.gov.uk/government/publications?departments%5B%5D=ministry-of-justice This bulletin is published alongside two inter-related bulletins:
- **Offender Management Statistics Quarterly Bulletin, October to December 2012 and 2012 annual tables, England and Wales:** provides key statistics relating to offenders who are in prison or under Probation Service supervision. It covers flows into these services (receptions into prison or probation starts) and flows out (discharges from prison or probation terminations) as well as the caseload of both services at specific points in time. It also includes information on returns to custody following recall.
- **Safety in Custody Statistics Quarterly update to December 2012 and 2012 annual tables, England and Wales:** provides statistics on death, self harm and assault incidents whilst in prison custody.
Taken together, these publications present users with a more coherent overview of offender management, re-offending among adults and young people and the safety of offenders whilst in prison custody.
Additional analyses on proven re-offending that are not covered by this bulletin are presented in the 'Compendium of re-offending statistics and analysis'. The 2012 Compendium was published by the MoJ on 12 July 2012 and includes, for example, analyses on longer-term trends in re-offending; and the relative effectiveness of different juvenile sentences in reducing re-offending.
[www.gov.uk/government/publications/compendium-of-reoffending-statistics-and-analysis](http://www.gov.uk/government/publications/compendium-of-reoffending-statistics-and-analysis)
If you have any feedback, questions or requests for further information about this statistical bulletin, please direct them to the appropriate contact given at the end of this report. Executive summary
This report provides key statistics on proven re-offending in England and Wales. It gives proven re-offending figures for offenders who were released from custody, received a non-custodial conviction at court, received a caution, reprimand, warning or tested positive for opiates or cocaine between July 2010 and June 2011. Proven re-offending is defined as any offence committed in a one year follow-up period and receiving a court conviction, caution, reprimand or warning in the one year follow-up. Following this one year period, a further six month waiting period is allowed for cases to progress through the courts.
Between July 2010 and June 2011, around 630,000 offenders were cautioned, convicted (excluding immediate custodial sentences) or released from custody. Around 170,000 of these offenders committed a proven re-offence within a year. This gives a one year proven re-offending rate of 26.9 per cent, which represents a rise of 0.5 percentage points compared to the previous 12 months and a fall of 1.0 percentage points since 2000 (Table 1).
These re-offenders committed an average of 2.88 re-offences each. In total, this represents around 490,000 re-offences of which 82 per cent were committed by adults and 18 per cent were committed by juveniles (Table 1).
- 56.5 per cent (around 280,000) were committed by re-offenders with 11 or more previous offences (Table 6c).
- 0.7 per cent (around 3,300) were serious violent/sexual proven re-offences (Table 8).
- 5.1 per cent (around 25,000) were committed by re-offenders on the Prolific and other Priority Offender Programme (PPO) (Table 16).
______________________________________________________________________
3 A certain proportion of offenders who could not be matched to the Police National Computer (PNC) are excluded from the offender cohort. Therefore, this number does not represent all proven offenders. Please refer to the ‘Definitions and Measurement’ document for more detail at www.gov.uk/government/publications/proven-re-offending. This means that the number of offenders in this bulletin will be different from the numbers published in the Offender Management Quarterly Statistics Bulletin available at www.gov.uk/government/publications/offender-management-statistics-quarterly and the Criminal Justice Statistics report available at www.gov.uk/government/publications/criminal-justice-statistics.
4 Includes reprimands and warnings for juveniles
5 Also includes those who tested positive for opiates or cocaine Key trends in proven re-offending
Adult offenders
Around 550,000 adult offenders(^3) were cautioned(^4), convicted or released from custody(^5) between July 2010 and June 2011. Around 140,000 of them committed a re-offence. This gives a proven re-offending rate of 25.5 per cent, which represents an increase of 0.6 percentage points compared to the previous 12 months and a fall of 0.7 percentage points since 2000 (Table 1).
However, compared to 2000, the offenders in the 12 months ending June 2011 had characteristics which meant they were more likely to re-offend. This means that, after controlling for offender characteristics, the decrease was larger at 3.1 percentage points (Table 1).
The average number of re-offences per re-offender was 2.88, a rise of 2.4 per cent compared to the previous 12 months and a fall of 14.9 per cent compared to 2000 (Table 1).
Looking at specific groups within the cohort:
- The proven re-offending rate for those released from custody was 46.9 per cent, a fall of 0.4 percentage points compared to the previous 12 months and a fall of 2.5 percentage points since 2000. The average number of re-offences committed per re-offender for this group was 4.19, an increase of 3.1 per cent compared to the previous 12 months and down 10.5 per cent since 2000 (Table 18a).
- The proven re-offending rate for those starting a court order (Community Order or Suspended Sentence Order) was 34.2 per cent, a rise of 0.2 per cent compared to the previous 12 months and down 3.7 percentage points since 2000. The average number of re-offences per re-offender was 3.21, up 2.6 per cent compared to the previous 12 months and down 17.0 per cent since 2000 (Table 18a).
- The proven re-offending rate for drug-misusing offenders (all offenders who are given drug orders as part of their sentence or test positive for opiates upon arrest) was 57.2 per cent, up 0.8 percentage points compared to the previous 12 months (Table 15).
Juvenile offenders
Around 83,000 juvenile offenders(^3) were cautioned(^4), convicted or released from custody(^5) between July 2010 and June 2011. Around 30,000 of them committed a re-offence. This gives a proven re-offending rate of 36.0 per cent. This represents an increase in the rate of 1.9 percentage points compared to the previous 12 months and a rise of 2.4 percentage points since 2000 (Table 1). However, the cohort has changed considerably over the period since 2000; it is now 40 per cent smaller, and is comprised of offenders whose characteristics mean they are more likely to re-offend than those in the 2000 cohort. In order to account for this, we can control for changes in offender characteristics to give a more consistent view of changes over time. After controlling for these changes, the proven re-offending rate has actually decreased by 1.0 percentage points since 2000 (Table 1).
The average number of re-offences per re-offender was 2.88, an increase of 2.2 per cent compared to the previous 12 months and down 13.2 per cent since 2000 (Table 1).
Table E1: Overview – latest 12 month period compared to the previous 12 month period and 2000
| | 12 months ending June 2010 | 12 months ending June 2011 | Percentage change 2000 to 12 months ending June 2011 | Percentage change 12 months ending June 2010 to 12 months ending June 2011 | |----------------------|-----------------------------|-----------------------------|------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------| | All offenders | | | | | | Proportion of offenders who re-offend (%) | 27.9 | 26.4 | 26.9 | -2pp ↓ | | Average number of re-offences per re-offender | 3.37 | 2.62 | 2.88 | -14.5% ↓ | | Proportion of offenders who re-offend - Adjusted to baseline1 (%) | 25.5 | 27.0 | 27.2 | -7.5% ↓ | | Average number of re-offences per offender | 0.94 | 0.74 | 0.78 | -17.5% ↓ | | Number of re-offences | 579,770 | 496,141 | 490,346 | -15.4% ↓ | | Number of re-offenders | 171,935 | 176,053 | 169,991 | -2.1% ↓ | | Number of offenders in cohort | 617,024 | 667,088 | 632,294 | -2.5% ↓ | | Adult offenders | | | | | | Proportion of offenders who re-offend (%) | 26.2 | 24.9 | 25.5 | -0.7pp ↓ | | Average number of re-offences per re-offender | 3.39 | 3.82 | 2.88 | -14.9% ↓ | | Proportion of offenders who re-offend - Adjusted to baseline1 (%) | 23.6 | 25.6 | 26.0 | -2.4% ↑ | | Average number of re-offences per offender | 0.89 | 0.70 | 0.74 | -17.1% ↓ | | Number of re-offences | 423,989 | 394,685 | 403,726 | -4.8% ↓ | | Number of re-offenders | 125,023 | 140,065 | 139,941 | -0.1% ↓ | | Number of offenders in cohort | 477,698 | 561,561 | 548,911 | -2.3% ↓ | | Juvenile offenders | | | | | | Proportion of offenders who re-offend (%) | 33.7 | 34.1 | 36.0 | 2.4pp ↑ | | Average number of re-offences per re-offender | 3.32 | 3.82 | 2.88 | -13.2% ↓ | | Proportion of offenders who re-offend - Adjusted to baseline1 (%) | 32.0 | 34.4 | 35.4 | -2.2% ↑ | | Average number of re-offences per offender | 1.12 | 0.96 | 1.04 | -7.1% ↓ | | Number of re-offences | 155,781 | 101,456 | 86,620 | -44.4% ↓ | | Number of re-offenders | 46,912 | 35,988 | 30,050 | -35.9% ↓ | | Number of offenders in cohort | 139,326 | 105,527 | 83,383 | -40.2% ↓ |
1. pp = percentage point and percentage changes may not add up due to rounding of raw figures
2. See the definitions and measurement paper for an explanation on how to use and interpret the baseline rate
Groups with the biggest changes in the proven re-offending rate since 2000
Biggest reductions:
- Adult females (a fall of 2.1 percentage points) (Table 2).
- 21 to 24 year olds (a fall of 2.4 percentage points) (Table 3).
- Adults with 7 to 10 previous offences (a fall of 3.1 percentage points) (Table 6a).
- Juveniles with 11 or more previous offences (a fall of 5.5 percentage points) (Table 6b).
- Adults who received court orders (a fall 3.7 percentage points) (Table 18a). • Juveniles who received first tier penalties (a fall of 6.4 percentage points) (Table 18b).
• Adults who received custodial sentences of 12 months to less than 4 years (a fall of 9.7 percentage points) (Table 19a).
Biggest increases:
• Juvenile females (a rise of 3.5 percentage points) (Table 2).
• 40 to 44 year olds (a rise of 4.9 percentage points) (Table 3).
• Adults who received custodial sentences of less than 12 months (a rise of 3.9 percentage points) (Table 19a). All offenders
Proven re-offending by age
Between July 2010 and June 2011, as in previous years, 15 to 17 year olds had the highest proven re-offending rate at 36.8 per cent. The proven re-offending rate falls with increasing age (after those aged 15 to 17) as shown in Figure E1 (Table 3).
Compared to 2000, the proven re-offending rate for the 12 months ending June 2011 rose for 10 to 17 year olds and for those aged 30 and over, but fell for offenders aged 18 to 29 (Table 3).
The largest decrease in the average number of re-offences per re-offender was among those aged 21 to 24, which fell from 3.61 in 2000 to 2.73 in the 12 months ending June 2011 (a fall of 24.2 per cent) (Table 3).
Figure E1: Proportion of offenders who commit a proven re-offence, by age, 2000, 12 months ending June 2010 and 12 months ending June 2011
Proven re-offending by criminal history
Offenders with a large number of previous offences have a higher rate of proven re-offending and this is true for both adults and juveniles. The proven re-offending rates range from 11.3 per cent for offenders with no previous offences to 48.3 per cent for offenders with 11 or more previous offences. Compared to 2000, the largest decrease in the proven re-offending rate for the 12 months ending June 2011 was among offenders who had one to two previous offences (a fall of 4.6 percentage points) (Table 6c). Adult offenders with 11 or more previous offences represented 28.7 per cent of all adult offenders, but committed 64.0 per cent of all adult proven re-offences in the 12 months ending June 2011 (Table 6a).
For juveniles, there were around 4,800 offenders with 11 or more previous offences and they had a proven re-offending rate of 76.7 per cent. This group make up only 5.7 per cent of juvenile offenders, but committed almost a fifth (19.6 per cent) of all juvenile proven re-offences (around 17,000) (Table 6b).
Proven re-offending by index offence
The offence that leads to an offender being included in the relevant year is called the index offence. Between July 2010 and June 2011, as in most previous years, domestic burglary had the highest proven re-offending rate at 49.8 per cent, and sexual (child) offences the lowest at 8.9 per cent. The largest decrease between 2000 and the 12 months ending June 2011 in the proven re-offending rate was for soliciting or prostitution with a decrease of 17.4 percentage points, followed by other motoring offences with a decrease of 12.0 percentage points (Table 5c).
Figure E2: Proportion of adult and juvenile offenders who commit a proven re-offence, by index offence, 12 months ending June 2011 Adult proven re-offending
Between July 2010 and June 2011, there were around 550,000 adult offenders. Around 140,000 of these offenders were proven to have committed a re-offence within a year. This gives a one year proven re-offending rate of 25.5 per cent, up slightly from the previous 12 months by 0.6 percentage points (Table 1).
These re-offenders committed an average of 2.88 re-offences, up from 2.82 in the previous 12 months (Table 1).
Overall there has been a 0.7 percentage point decrease in the proven re-offending rate since 2000 (from 26.2 to 25.5 per cent). However, compared to 2000, the offenders in 2010 had characteristics which meant they were more likely to re-offend. This means that, after controlling for offender characteristics, the decrease was larger at 3.1 percentage points (Table 1).
Figure E3: Proportion of adult offenders who commit a proven re-offence, 2000, 2002 to 12 months ending June 2011
1. Data are not available for 2001 due to a problem with archived data on Court Orders Proven re-offending rates for adult offenders discharged from prison or commencing a court order
Between July 2010 and June 2011, around 190,000 adult offenders were discharged from prison or commenced a court order. Around 69,000 of these offenders were proven to have committed a re-offence within a year. This gives a one year proven re-offending rate of 36.0 per cent. The average number of proven re-offences committed by these re-offenders was 3.37.
Overall there was a 4.9 percentage point decrease (from 40.9 to 36.0 per cent) in the proven re-offending rate between 2000 and the 12 months ending June 2011 and an 18.5 per cent decrease (from 4.13 to 3.37) in the average number of proven re-offences per re-offender.
Proven re-offending rates for adult offenders discharged from prison
Between July 2010 and June 2011, around 57,000 adult offenders were discharged from prison. Around 27,000 of these (46.9 per cent) were proven to have committed a re-offence within a year. These offenders committed around 110,000 proven re-offences, an average of 4.19 each (Table 18a).
Just over half (52.1 per cent) of adult offenders discharged from prison were released from a sentence of less than 12 months. These offenders had a one year proven re-offending rate of 58.2 per cent, which represents an increase of 1.3 percentage points compared to the previous 12 months and an increase of 3.9 percentage points since 2000 (54.3 per cent) (Table 19a). Proven re-offending rates for adult offenders by individual prison
Among prisons which discharged 30 or more offenders between July 2010 and June 2011, proven re-offending rates varied considerably from 17.8 to 90.9 per cent for offenders with a sentence of less than 12 months and from 1.8 to 63.3 per cent for offenders with a sentence of 12 months or more. A large part of this variability reflects the mix of offenders who are held in different prisons and, therefore, comparisons between prisons should not be made using these raw re-offending rates (Tables 22a and 22b).
To account for this variability in the mix of prisoners, a model has been developed to help explain if re-offending rates are affected by the specific prison they are discharged from or if the rate of re-offending reflects the mix of offenders. For example, a group of prisoners with a high number of previous offences is more likely to re-offend than a group with a low number of previous offences.
Among prisons discharging offenders serving sentences of less than 12 months, one prison (Stafford) had significantly lower proven re-offending rates than expected and three (Ashfield, Feltham and Wetherby) had significantly higher (Table 22a).
Among prisons discharging offenders serving sentences of 12 months or more, four prisons had significantly lower proven re-offending rates (Canterbury, Askham Grange, East Sutton Park and Kirklevington Grange) than expected and one (Werrington) had significantly higher (Table 22b). Proven re-offending for adult offenders commencing a court order
Between July 2010 and June 2011, around 100,000 adult offenders(^3) started a community order. Around 37,000 of these (35.8 per cent) committed a proven re-offence within a year. These proven re-offenders committed around 120,000 proven re-offences, an average of 3.28 each. Similarly, of the 39,000 adult offenders starting a suspended sentence order, 30.1 per cent committed a proven re-offence within a year, with an average of 2.97 proven re-offences each (Tables 20 and 21).
Proven re-offending rates for adult offenders by probation trust
Offenders given a court order are managed by the Probation Service which comprises 35 probation trusts. Proven re-offending rates for these offenders are presented by probation trust in Table 24. This takes the first court order commencement from within each probation trust as the start point for measuring re-offending and subsequent events as proven re-offences.
Proven re-offending rates varied considerably between probation trusts from 28.0 per cent to 43.6 per cent. A large part of this variability reflects the mix of offenders who are given a court order and, therefore, comparisons between probation trusts should not be made using these raw re-offending rates (Table 24).
For probation trusts an adjusted proven re-offending rate to control for differences in the composition of the offender group in each trust has been developed from the national model. Six probation trusts showed significantly lower proven re-offending rates than expected. These were Gloucestershire, London, Northamptonshire, Staffordshire and West Midlands, Thames Valley and Warwickshire. Three (Greater Manchester, Lancashire and Nottinghamshire) showed significantly higher proven re-offending rates than expected (Table 24).
Proven re-offending rates by index disposal (sentence type) should not be compared to assess the effectiveness of sentences, as there is no control for known differences in offender characteristics and the type of sentence given. The ‘2011 Compendium of Re-offending Statistics and Analysis’ compares like for like offenders which enables a more reliable comparison of proven re-offending rates between offenders receiving different sentences.
The key results from the Compendium were:
- Those sentenced to one to two years in custody had lower re-offending rates than those given sentences of less than 12 months – the difference was 4.4 percentage points in 2008.
- Custodial sentences of less than 12 months were less effective at reducing re-offending than both community orders and suspended sentence orders – between five and nine percentage points in 2008. Juvenile proven re-offending
Between July 2010 and June 2011, there were around 83,000 juvenile offenders. Around 30,000 of these offenders were proven to have committed a re-offence within a year. This gives a one year proven re-offending rate of 36.0 per cent, an increase of 1.9 percentage points from 34.1 per cent in the previous 12 months (Table 1).
These re-offenders committed an average of 2.88 re-offences, an increase from 2.82 in the previous 12 months (Table 1).
However, the number of juvenile proven offenders has fallen by 40 per cent since 2000 (Table 1). This is in line with the pattern of first time entrants to the criminal justice system where the number of young people receiving their first reprimand, warning or conviction has also decreased. More information on first time entrants for both adults and juveniles can be found in the ‘Criminal Justice Statistics Quarterly Bulletin’ at:
www.gov.uk/government/publications/criminal-justice-statistics--2
Overall there has been a 2.4 percentage point increase in the proven re-offending rate of juveniles since 2000 (from 33.7 to 36.0 per cent). However, compared to 2000, the characteristics of juvenile offenders in the 12 months ending June 2011 meant that they were more likely to re-offend. Therefore, after controlling for offender characteristics, the proven re-offending rate actually decreased by 1.0 percentage points (Table 1).
Among Youth Offending Teams (YOTs), proven re-offending rates varied considerably from 26.6 to 49.8 per cent. A large part of this variability reflects the mix of offenders who are managed by different YOTs and, therefore, comparisons between YOTs should not be made using these raw re-offending rates (Table 17).
More information on youth criminal statistics is available at:
www.gov.uk/government/organisations/ministry-of-justice/series/youth-justice-statistics Trends in proven re-offending across the country
Map 1 shows proven re-offending rates by upper-tier local authority. This chart is not controlled for the characteristics of offenders and is designed for users to gain an understanding of what the level of proven re-offending is within their area and how it is changing over time.
When comparing between local authorities, the differences may be due to:
- Different types of offenders; areas where the offenders have high numbers of previous offences are likely to have higher proven re-offending rates.
- Police activity; areas with high police detection rates are likely to have higher proven re-offending rates.
- Age profile of offenders in the area; areas with a younger population are likely to have higher proven re-offending rates.
When comparing proven re-offending over time within local authorities, any significant changes in these factors may affect the comparison.
Between July 2010 and June 2011, very few local authorities showed substantial change compared to the previous 12 months. For local authorities with 30 or more offenders, the largest decrease was seen in the City of London (down 9.9 percentage points) and the largest increase was in Bath and North East Somerset (up 3.2 percentage points) (Table 13c). Map E1: Overall proven re-offending rates by upper-tier local authority for adults and juveniles, 12 months ending June 2011
Legend Re-offending Rates Rate
- 0 - 20%
- 20 - 25%
- 25 - 30%
- 30 - 35%
- 35% + Re-offending rate is not shown as it is based on less than 30 offenders
© Crown copyright. All rights reserved. Ministry of Justice 100037819 2013 Prolific and other priority offenders
The Prolific and other Priority Offender Programme (PPO) aims to use a multi-agency approach to focus on a very small, but hard-core group of prolific/persistent offenders who commit a disproportionate amount of crime. Please refer to the ‘Definitions and Measurement’ document for more detail:
www.gov.uk/government/publications/proven-re-offending--2
Around 7,000 offenders³ (adult and juvenile) were on the PPO scheme at some point between July 2010 and June 2011. Of these, around 5,300 committed a proven re-offence within a year (76.3 per cent). These re-offenders represented 0.8 per cent of all offenders, but were responsible for 5.1 per cent of all proven re-offences committed (Table 16).
Compared to the previous 12 months, the proportion of PPO offenders who committed a proven re-offence increased by 0.7 percentage points. This compares to an overall decrease of 0.7 percentage points since the scheme began in 2005 (Table 16).
Drug-misusing offenders
The Drug Interventions Programme (DIP) was introduced in April 2003 with the aim of developing and integrating measures for directing adult drug-misusing offenders into drug treatment and reducing offending behaviour. There are a number of ways offenders can be identified as drug-misusers. Please refer to the ‘Definitions and Measurement’ document for more detail:
www.gov.uk/government/publications/proven-re-offending--2
Around 45,000 adult offenders³ were identified as drug-misusers at some point between July 2010 and June 2011. Of these, around 26,000 committed a proven re-offence within a year (57.2 per cent). These re-offenders represented 4.7 percent of all adult offenders, but were responsible for 25.9 per cent of all proven re-offences committed by adult offenders (Table 15).
Compared to the previous 12 months, the proportion of drug-misusing offenders who committed a proven re-offence has increased by 0.8 percentage points. Since 2005, there has been a decrease of 8.1 percentage points, although most of this change occurred between 2005 and 2006 when there was a large expansion in the drug intervention programme (Table 15). List of quarterly tables
Proven re-offending – overview
Table 1 Summary proven re-offending data, by adults and juveniles 2000, 2002 to June 2011 Table 2 Proven re-offending data, by gender, 2000, 2002 to June 2011 Table 3 Proven re-offending data, by age, 2000, 2002 to June 2011 Table 4a Adult proven re-offending data, by ethnicity, 2000, 2002 to June 2011 Table 4b Juvenile proven re-offending data, by ethnicity, 2000, 2002 to June 2011 Table 4c Adult and juvenile proven re-offending data, by ethnicity, 2000, 2002 to June 2011 Table 5a Adult proven re-offending data, by index offence, 2000, 2002 to June 2011 Table 5b Juvenile proven re-offending data, by index offence, 2000, 2002 to June 2011 Table 5c Adult and juvenile proven re-offending data, by index offence, 2000, 2002 to June 2011 Table 6a Adult proven re-offending data, by number of previous offences, 2000, 2002 to June 2011 Table 6b Juvenile proven re-offending data, by number of previous offences, 2000, 2002 to June 2011 Table 6c Adult and juvenile proven re-offending data, by number of previous offences, 2000, 2002 to June 2011 Table 7a Adult proven re-offending data, by number of previous custodial sentences, 2000, 2002 to June 2011 Table 7b Juvenile proven re-offending data, by number of previous custodial sentences, 2000, 2002 to June 2011 Table 8 Serious proven re-offending data, 2000, 2002 to June 2011
-----------------Tables 9 to 12 are published annually in October-----------------
Table 13a Proven re-offending of adult offenders, by upper-tier local authority, 2005 to June 2011 rolling quarters Table 13b Proven re-offending of juvenile offenders, by upper-tier local authority, 2005 to June 2011 rolling quarters
Table 13c Proven re-offending of adult and juvenile offenders, by upper-tier local authority, 2005 to June 2011 rolling quarters
Table 14a Proven re-offending of adult offenders, by lower-tier local authority, 2005 to June 2011 rolling quarters
Table 14b Proven re-offending of juvenile offenders, by lower-tier local authority, 2005 to June 2011 rolling quarters
Table 14c Proven re-offending of adult and juvenile offenders, by lower-tier local authority, 2005 to June 2011 rolling quarters
Table 15 Proven re-offending of adult drug-misusing offenders, by Drug Action Team, 2004 to June 2011 rolling quarters
Table 16 Proven re-offending of adult and juvenile prolific and other priority offenders, by upper-tier local authority, 2005 to June 2011 rolling quarters
Table 17 Juvenile proven re-offending data, by Youth Offending Team and upper-tier local authority, 2005 to June 2011 rolling quarters
Proven re-offending by index disposal, probation trust and prison
Table 18a Adult proven re-offending data, by index disposal, 2000, 2002 to June 2011
Table 18b Juvenile proven re-offending data, by index disposal, 2000, 2002 to June 2011
Table 19a Adult proven re-offending data, by custodial sentence length, 2000, 2002 to June 2011
Table 19b Juvenile proven re-offending data, by custodial sentence length, 2000, 2002 to June 2011
Table 20 Adult proven re-offending data, by most frequently-used combinations of requirements for offenders starting Community Orders, 2005 to June 2011
Table 21 Adult proven re-offending data, by most frequently-used combinations of requirements for offenders starting Suspended Sentence Orders, 2005 to June 2011 Table 22a Proven re-offending of adult offenders given sentences of less than 12 months, by individual prison, based on first discharge from each prison, 2007 to June 2011
Table 22b Proven re-offending of adult offenders given sentences of 12 months or more, by individual prison, based on first discharge from each prison, 2007 to June 2011
Table 23 Juvenile proven re-offending data, by individual prison or secure accommodation, based on first discharge from each prison or secure accommodation, 2007 to June 2011
Table 24 Adult proven re-offending data by probation trust based on first commencement from each trust, 2005 to June 2011
Table 25 Proven re-offending data for adult offenders released from prison on licence, by probation trust, 2008 to June 2011 Annex A Payment by results
Background
The “Breaking the Cycle” Green Paper(^6) included a commitment for the MoJ to commission a series of initial ‘payment by results’ (PbR) pilot projects to test the principle that PbR can result in service improvements by delivering better outcomes for the public at the same or less cost. In autumn 2012, Ministers decided to suspend introduction of a number of planned PbR pilots, while they considered the strategic direction for the use of PbR as part of the overall reform of probation and the wider system. Ten pilot projects are underway, testing a range of approaches and performance measures in different areas.
For the pilots at Peterborough and Doncaster prisons, the outcome measure is defined as a real reduction in re-convictions among offenders during the 12 months following release from prison.
The Local Justice Reinvestment PbR pilots in operation across five London boroughs and Greater Manchester use a different outcome measure, namely a reduction in demand on the Criminal Justice System. The results for the first year of this pilot have been published separately at the following link:
www.gov.uk/government/publications/justice-reinvestment-pilots-first-year-results
The MoJ published ‘Transforming Rehabilitation – a revolution in the way we manage offenders’ on 9 January 2013 at the following link.
consult.justice.gov.uk/digital-communications/transforming-rehabilitation
This consultation closed on 22 February and the MoJ will respond shortly. The proposals include plans to open up the market for delivery of rehabilitation services to a diverse range of providers, who will be incentivised to focus on reducing re-offending under PbR contracts. The pilot projects currently in operation continue to inform our plans to roll out PbR across the criminal justice system.
Prison results
The re-conviction measures used for the PbR pilot prisons presented below differ from the National Statistics re-offending measure. It counts offenders who are convicted at court in the 12 months following release from prison with a further six months to allow for cases to progress through the courts. It excludes those who receive an out-of-court disposal only. This is because, for these pilots, we want to measure a change in numbers of court convictions which are more closely associated with costs to the Criminal Justice System.
(^6) www.gov.uk/government/consultations/breaking-the-cycle-effective-punishment-rehabilitation-and-sentencing-of-offenders--2 Offenders are counted in the cohort after their first discharge from the prison at any time during the cohort period. The measure excludes those who serve the whole of their custodial sentence on remand as well as the usual National Statistics exclusions as explained in the ‘Definitions and Measurement’ document.
7 www.gov.uk/government/publications/proven-re-offending--2 Table A1 below is included in the Proven Re-offending Quarterly Bulletin each quarter and shows, for each of the pilot prisons, the baseline and target re-conviction rate.
**Table A1: Payment by results pilot prisons, baseline and target re-conviction rates**
| Prison / Area | Start date of pilot | Baseline re-conviction rate (Jan to Dec 2009) | Target re-conviction rate (Oct 2011 to Sep 2012) | Outcome re-conviction rate (Oct 2011 to Sept 2012) | |---------------|---------------------|-----------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------| | Peterborough Social Impact Bond (SIB) | 9 September 2010 | To be determined by comparison with control group | To be determined by comparison with control group | To be published in 2014 | | HMP Doncaster | 1 October 2011 | 58.2% | 53.2% | To be published in 2014 |
**Number of eligible offenders in payment by results pilots**
As part of the Department’s Business Plan (2011-2015), the MoJ is committed to publishing quarterly data on the number of pilot rehabilitation schemes established and the number of participants, subject to commercial confidentiality and UK Statistics Authority guidance.
**Table A2: Payment by results pilots commenced**
| Prison / Area | Start date of pilot | Length of pilot | Number of eligible participants for Cohort 1 | Number of eligible participants to date for Cohort 2 | |---------------|---------------------|-----------------|---------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------| | Peterborough Social Impact Bond (SIB) | 9 September 2010 | Six years | 1,034<sup>11</sup> | 273<sup>12</sup> | | HMP Doncaster | 1 October 2011 | Four years | 1,503<sup>13</sup> | 378<sup>14</sup> |
______________________________________________________________________
<sup>8</sup> The rate at which the PbR outcome payment is first triggered at any given pilot site <sup>9</sup> The Peterborough ‘Social Impact Bond’ uses a different outcome measure (the frequency of re-conviction events) and its success is measured against a control group. The results will be published separately <sup>10</sup> For Doncaster prison the outcome measure is the proportion of offenders who are convicted at court in the 12 months following release from prison with a further six months to allow for cases to progress through the courts <sup>11</sup> Eligible participants from Cohort 1 from 9 September 2010 to 1 July 2012 <sup>12</sup> Eligible participants from Cohort 2 from 2 July 2012 to 31 December 2012 <sup>13</sup> Eligible participants from Cohort 1 from 1 October 2011 to 30 September 2012 <sup>14</sup> Eligible participants from Cohort 2 from 1 October 2012 to 31 December 2012 Annex B How the measure of proven re-offending has changed and the effect of these changes
Background
The MoJ launched a statistical consultation on improvements to the transparency and accessibility of our information in 2010 and a response to the consultation was published in March 2011. One aspect of the consultation was the measurement of proven re-offending.
Prior to the consultation there were six different measures of proven re-offending:
- National adult proven re-offending;
- Local adult proven re-offending;
- National youth proven re-offending;
- Local youth proven re-offending;
- Prolific and other priority offending (PPO); and
- Drug-misusing proven offending.
The new approach to measuring proven re-offending integrates these approaches into a single framework. This allows users to:
- form a clear picture of proven re-offending at national and local levels;
- compare adult and youth results, and enable other work on transition between the youth and adult criminal justice systems;
- understand how results for different offender groups (such as those managed by the prison and probation services, those under the PPO schemes, drug-misusing offenders, first time entrants, etc.) fit in to the overall picture on proven re-offending; and
- continue to analyse proven re-offending behaviour for particular types of offender.
15 The response to the consultation is available here www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/consultations/improvements-moj-statistics-consultation-response.pdf Comparing trends in re-offending
Table B1 shows the proportion of offenders with a proven re-offence/re-conviction using the new measure of re-offending and the previous measures of adult re-conviction and juvenile re-offending. Comparisons we make use cohorts up to 2009.
Re-offending rates are lower using the new measure than using the previous measure. The differences are as follows:
- For adult and juvenile offenders the new measure is based on all offenders released from custody, receiving a non-custodial conviction at court, a caution, reprimand, warning or tested positive for opiates or cocaine over a 12 month period, but the previous measures only included offenders released from custody or commencing a court order in the first three months of the year. Using a three month sample over-represents prolific offenders in comparison to a full year's worth of data.
- For adults the new measure counts all offenders including those who received a caution, fine or discharge, where the previous adult measure only included those who commenced a court order or who were discharged from custody.
- For adult offenders, the new measure is a measure of proven re-offending (which counts offences proven through a court conviction or a caution) whereas the previous measure is a measure of re-conviction (which only counts offences proven through a court conviction).
As a result, re-offending rates are 14.4 percentage points lower for adults and rates for juveniles are 4.1 percentage points lower using the new measure.
However, the re-offending rates are similar for adults given a court order or who received a custodial sentence, including those given a sentence of less than 12 months. Rates are between 1.0 and 2.6 percentage points lower using the new measure.
Table B1: Re-offending using the new and previous measures, 2009
| | New measure | Previous measure(s) | |----------------------|-------------|---------------------| | Adults | 24.9 | 39.3 | | Juveniles | 32.8 | 36.9 | | Adults given a court order | 34.5 | 35.5 | | Adults given a custodial sentence | 46.8 | 48.5 | | Adults given a custodial sentence of less than 12m | 56.8 | 59.4 |
Figure B1 shows re-offending rates for adult offenders between 2000 and 2009 using the new and previous measure.
For 2009, 24.9 per cent of adult offenders have a proven re-offence within 12 months using the new measure compared to 39.3 per cent using the previous re-conviction measure. However, trends for adult offenders are similar using the two measures. The proportion of offenders with a proven re-offence/re-conviction rose between 2000 and 2002, fell between 2002 and 2006, rose between 2006 and 2008, and fell between 2008 and 2009 using both measures.
**Figure B1: Adult re-conviction/re-offending, by re-offending measure, 2000, 2002 to 2009**
The overall reduction in re-offending is smaller using the new measure (1.2 percentage points between 2000 and 2009 and 0.5 percentage points between 2008 and 2009) than using the previous measure (3.7 percentage points between 2000 and 2009 and 0.8 percentage points between 2008 and 2009).
Figure B2 shows re-offending rates for juvenile offenders between 2000 and 2009 using the new and previous measure.
In 2009, 32.8 per cent of young offenders re-offended within 12 months using the new measure compared to 36.9 per cent using the previous measure. The reduction in re-offending is smaller using the new measure (0.9 percentage points between 2000 and 2009 and 0.1 percentage points between 2008 and 2009) than using the previous measure (3.3 percentage points between 2000 and 2009 and 0.4 percentage points between 2008 and 2009). Overall, the trends are broadly similar. Trends in proven re-offending/re-conviction rates for adult custodial offenders are similar using the new and previous measures. The proportion of offenders given a custodial sentence of less than 12 months who re-offended rose between 2000 and 2009 using both measures (by 2.6 percentage points using the new measure and 1.4 percentage points using the previous measure). The proportion of offenders given any custodial sentence who re-offended fell between 2000 and 2009 using both measures (by 2.6 percentage points using the new measure and 2.9 percentage points using the previous measure). The change in methodology
The following sections provide detail regarding the change in methodology between the methods in measuring re-offending and how those changes impact on the data.
The table below provides a comparison of the previous methodologies with the new approach. Table B2: Re-offending using the new and previous measures
Comparison of previous and new measures of proven re-offending
| The cohort | Previous measures of re-offending | New measure of re-offending | |------------|----------------------------------|-----------------------------| | National adult re-conviction | Offenders aged 18+ discharged from custody or commencing court orders under probation supervision between January to March | All offenders who received a caution/reprimand or warning, were convicted at court (other than custody), were discharged from custody, or tested positive for cocaine or opiates on arrest over a 12 month period. | | Local adult re-offending | Offenders aged 18+ on the probation caseload at the end of each calendar quarter | | | National youth re-offending | Offenders aged 10-17 discharged from custody, receiving a court conviction or receiving a caution/reprimand or final warning between January and March | | | Local youth re-offending | Offenders aged 10-17 discharged from custody, receiving a court conviction or receiving a caution/reprimand or final warning between January and March | | | Prolific and other Priority Offending (PPO) | All offenders identified as being on the PPO scheme as at 1 April | | | Drug-misusing offending | All Class A drug offenders identified through positive drug tests on arrest, OASyS or drug requirement as part of a court order, CJIT identification, or identification on prison release between January and March | |
The follow-up period to measure re-offending
| 12 months for offences to occur and a further 6 months for offences to be proved | 3 months for offences to occur and a further 3 months for offences to be proved | 12 months for offences to occur and a further 6 months for offences to be proved | 12 months for offences to occur and a further 3 months for offences to be proved | 12 months for offences to occur and a further 6 months for offences to be proved | 12 months for offences to occur and a further 6 months for offences to be proved | | The headline measure | Frequency of re-offending (the number of proven re-offences per 100 offenders) | Proportion of offenders re-offending, compared to the rate that would be expected based on the offender characteristics | Frequency of re-offending (the number of proven re-offences per 100 offenders) | Frequency of re-offending (the number of proven re-offences per 100 offenders) | Number of further offences compared to number in previous year, against the reduction that would be expected given time on the PPO scheme | Number of further offences compared to what would be expected based on their previous offending history | Proportion of offenders re-offending We also include information on the frequency of re-offending and information on the predicted rate based on offender characteristics | |----------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | What counts as a proven re-offence | Offences committed within the follow-up period which were proved by a court conviction either within the follow-up period or in a further six months | Offences committed within the follow-up period which were proved by a court conviction or caution either within the follow-up period or in a further three months | Offences committed within the follow-up period which were proved by a court conviction or reprimand or final warning either within the follow-up period or in a further six months | Offences committed within the follow-up period which were proved by a court conviction or caution either within the follow-up period or in a further three months | Breach offences that lead to substantive recorded convictions are included | Breach offences that lead to substantive recorded convictions are included | Breach offences that lead to substantive recorded convictions are included | | | Offences committed within the follow-up period which were proved by a court conviction or caution either within the follow-up period or in a further three months | Offences committed within the follow-up period which were proved by a court conviction or reprimand or final warning either within the follow-up period or in a further six months | Offences committed within the follow-up period which were proved by a court conviction or caution either within the follow-up period or in a further three months | Breach offences that lead to substantive recorded convictions are included | Breach offences that lead to substantive recorded convictions are included | Breach offences that lead to substantive recorded convictions are included | Breach offences that lead to substantive recorded convictions are included | | | Offences committed within the follow-up period which were proved by a court conviction or caution/reprimand or warning either within the follow-up period or in a further six months | Offences committed within the follow-up period which were proved by a court conviction or caution/reprimand or warning either within the follow-up period or in a further six months | Offences committed within the follow-up period which were proved by a court conviction or caution/reprimand or warning either within the follow-up period or in a further six months | Offences committed within the follow-up period which were proved by a court conviction or caution/reprimand or warning either within the follow-up period or in a further six months | Offences committed within the follow-up period which were proved by a court conviction or caution/reprimand or warning either within the follow-up period or in a further six months | Offences committed within the follow-up period which were proved by a court conviction or caution/reprimand or warning either within the follow-up period or in a further six months | Offences committed within the follow-up period which were proved by a court conviction or caution/reprimand or warning either within the follow-up period or in a further six months | Use of a predicted rate
Data source Geographic breakdown
A predicted rate of re-offending was included for the proportion of offenders expected to reoffend based on their characteristics
A predicted rate of re-offending was included for the proportion of offenders expected to reoffend based on their characteristics
A predicted rate of re-offending was included for the proportion of offenders expected to re-offend based on their characteristics
Logistic regression was used
Logistic regression was used
Logistic regression was used
Police National Computer None
Police National Computer Region, Probation area, Local Authority
Police National Computer None
No predicted rate
Evidence on the link between time on the PPO scheme and expected reductions in further offending were used to assess reductions in number of offences compared to the previous year
A predicted rate of re-offending was included for the proportion of offenders expected to reoffend based on their previous criminal history Response surface methodology was used
A predicted rate of re-offending is included for the proportion of offenders expected to re-offend based on their characteristics Logistic regression is used
Youth Offending Teams data Youth Offending Team level
Police National Computer Police Force and Local Authority level
Police National Computer Drug Action team and Local Authority level
Police National Computer Upper and lower tier local authority areas for all offenders. Other breakdowns for specific categories of offender.
34
The effect of the changes
Adults
Differences in methodology are reflected in different results. Table B3 shows the impact on reported rates of adult re-conviction/re-offending. The table breaks down the changes between the previous measure and the new measure to identify the different effects of the changes in methodology.
Table B3: Re-offending/re-convictions data for adult offenders, 2000, 2002 to 2009
| Year | Previous measure: re-convictions (prison and probation offenders only), first quarter of the year | Previous measure: re-convictions (prison and probation offenders only), whole year | New measure: re-offending (prison and probation offenders only), whole year | New measure: proven re-offending (all offenders), whole year | |------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------| | | Proportion | | | | | 2000 | 43.0 | 40.0 | 40.9 | 26.2 | | 2002 | 45.5 | 42.0 | 43.0 | 27.6 | | 2003 | 45.4 | 41.5 | 42.4 | 26.9 | | 2004 | 42.9 | 38.6 | 39.8 | 25.5 | | 2005 | 41.2 | 36.6 | 38.4 | 24.9 | | 2006 | 36.6 | 35.6 | 37.6 | 24.6 | | 2007 | 39.0 | 35.9 | 37.9 | 24.8 | | 2008 | 40.1 | 36.1 | 37.9 | 25.4 | | 2009 | 39.3 | 34.7 | 36.2 | 24.9 | | | Frequency (average per offender) | | | | | 2000 | 1.85 | 1.66 | 1.69 | 0.89 | | 2002 | 2.13 | 1.84 | 1.87 | 0.99 | | 2003 | 2.05 | 1.73 | 1.76 | 0.93 | | 2004 | 1.81 | 1.51 | 1.54 | 0.83 | | 2005 | 1.66 | 1.36 | 1.40 | 0.77 | | 2006 | 1.44 | 1.26 | 1.31 | 0.73 | | 2007 | 1.47 | 1.27 | 1.32 | 0.73 | | 2008 | 1.55 | 1.27 | 1.31 | 0.75 | | 2009 | 1.41 | 1.15 | 1.18 | 0.70 | | | Frequency of re-offenders (average per re-offender) | | | | | 2000 | 4.30 | 4.15 | 4.13 | 3.39 | | 2002 | 4.68 | 4.39 | 4.36 | 3.59 | | 2003 | 4.52 | 4.18 | 4.15 | 3.44 | | 2004 | 4.23 | 3.91 | 3.87 | 3.27 | | 2005 | 4.03 | 3.70 | 3.65 | 3.10 | | 2006 | 3.73 | 3.54 | 3.48 | 2.95 | | 2007 | 3.78 | 3.53 | 3.48 | 2.94 | | 2008 | 3.88 | 3.51 | 3.46 | 2.93 | | 2009 | 3.57 | 3.31 | 3.27 | 2.80 | | | Number of offenders | | | | | 2000 | 42,734 | 148,052 | 148,052 | 477,698 | | 2002 | 43,247 | 157,243 | 157,243 | 495,664 | | 2003 | 44,095 | 159,686 | 159,686 | 520,660 | | 2004 | 46,532 | 163,775 | 163,775 | 512,600 | | 2005 | 43,429 | 170,021 | 170,021 | 532,045 | | 2006 | 50,281 | 181,726 | 181,726 | 571,458 | | 2007 | 50,085 | 190,418 | 190,418 | 595,020 | | 2008 | 53,718 | 197,035 | 197,035 | 589,948 | | 2009 | 56,616 | 200,077 | 200,077 | 576,255 |
1. Based on the national adult re-convictions publication (March 2011)
Among adult offenders in 2009, the previous national measure (the first column) shows that 39.3 per cent of adult offenders were re-convicted within a year based on a sample of 56,616 offenders. The second column shows the re-conviction rates from the previous measure looking at offenders who were released from custody or commenced a court order, but at any point during the year. The inclusion of offenders from a full 12 month period means the results are calculated using the full proven offender population rather than a sample – this ensures we do not over-represent prolific offenders in the cohort, which is a problem in using a January to March sample as in the previous adult re-conviction measure.
This leads to a lower proportion of re-convicted offenders (between three and five percentage points, e.g. 34.7 per cent compared to 39.3 per cent in 2009). The change to a full year also increases the number of offenders, to 200,077 in 2009\\textsuperscript{16}.
The third column shows the proven re-offending rates from the new measure, but still based only on those offenders who were released from custody or commenced a court order at any point during the year. Proven re-offending includes offences which result in a caution in addition to those resulting in a conviction at court. The proportion of offenders who were proven to re-offend is between one and two percentage points higher than for those who were re-convicted (36.2 per cent compared to 34.7 per cent in 2009). There is little difference at this stage because we are still only considering offenders who already have a prison or a court order.
The fourth column shows the re-offending rates from the new measure looking at all adult offenders who received a caution, a conviction at court, discharged from custody, or tested positive for cocaine or opiates. The inclusion of these offenders increases the numbers considerably. In 2009, the previous adult measure tracks the re-offending behaviour of 56,616 offenders; the new measure tracks 576,255 offenders. The inclusion of offenders who received less severe disposals and are generally less prolific in nature reduces the proportion who re-offend by around 11 to 16 percentage points (36.2 per cent compared to 24.9 per cent in 2009).
**Change over time**
Compared to the previous measure, the reduction over time in the proportion of offenders who re-offend is much lower using the new measure. Using the previous measure, between 2000 and 2009, the proportion of offenders who were re-convicted fell 3.7 percentage points (from 43.0 to 39.3 per cent). Using the new measure, the proportion of offenders who committed a proven re-offence fell 1.2 percentage points (from 26.2 to 24.9 per cent).
\\textsuperscript{16} The previous measure includes offenders released from custody or who commenced a court order in the first three months of the year, shown in column one. Column two includes offenders released from custody or who commenced a court order in the 12 month period. The number of offenders shown in column two is less than four times as many as in column one. This is because some offenders commence a court order or are discharged from custody more than once in a year. These calculations only count each offender once e.g. offender Y is discharged from custody in the first quarter of the year, and discharged again in the second quarter, but he is only counted as a single offender. Juveniles
The only change between the previous measure and the new measure of re-offending among young people is the move from a one quarter sample to including all young offenders over the period of a year.
Table B4: Re-offending data for juvenile offenders, 2000, 2002 to 2009
| Year | Previous measure proven re-offending | New measure proven re-offending | |------|-------------------------------------|---------------------------------| | | Proportion | | | 2000 | 40.2 | 33.7 | | 2002 | 38.5 | 33.4 | | 2003 | 39.0 | 34.3 | | 2004 | 38.6 | 33.6 | | 2005 | 38.4 | 33.6 | | 2006 | 38.7 | 33.9 | | 2007 | 37.5 | 32.5 | | 2008 | 37.3 | 32.9 | | 2009 | 36.9 | 32.8 | | | Frequency (average per offender) | | | 2000 | 1.51 | 1.12 | | 2002 | 1.42 | 1.10 | | 2003 | 1.42 | 1.09 | | 2004 | 1.32 | 1.03 | | 2005 | 1.25 | 0.98 | | 2006 | 1.23 | 0.97 | | 2007 | 1.16 | 0.90 | | 2008 | 1.14 | 0.91 | | 2009 | 1.10 | 0.90 | | | Frequency of re-offenders (average per re-offender) | | | 2000 | 3.77 | 3.32 | | 2002 | 3.69 | 3.29 | | 2003 | 3.63 | 3.19 | | 2004 | 3.43 | 3.06 | | 2005 | 3.26 | 2.91 | | 2006 | 3.18 | 2.86 | | 2007 | 3.08 | 2.77 | | 2008 | 3.06 | 2.75 | | 2009 | 2.99 | 2.75 | | | Number of offenders | | | 2000 | 41,176 | 139,326 | | 2002 | 40,753 | 136,401 | | 2003 | 40,297 | 138,379 | | 2004 | 44,153 | 149,452 | | 2005 | 45,337 | 163,545 | | 2006 | 48,938 | 171,061 | | 2007 | 52,544 | 171,454 | | 2008 | 44,837 | 145,579 | | 2009 | 37,472 | 121,107 |
1. Based on the national juvenile re-offending publication (March 2011) publication
As for adults, using the whole year reduces the proportion of offenders who re-offended because we do not over-represent prolific offenders in the cohort, which is a problem in using a January to March sample. Table B4 shows the reduction is between four and seven percentage points. For 2009, with the previous measure, 36.9 per cent commit a proven re-offence within one year; with the new measure, 32.8 per cent do so. The new measure, which is based on offenders from a 12 month period, includes over three times as many offenders as the existing measure.
**Change over time**
Compared to the previous measure, the reduction in the proportion of offenders who re-offend between 2000 and 2009 is much lower using the new measure.
Using the previous measure, between 2000 and 2009, the proportion of offenders who were proven to re-offend fell 3.3 percentage points (from 40.2 to 36.9 per cent). Using the new measure, the proportion of offenders who committed a proven re-offence fell 0.9 percentage points (from 33.7 to 32.8 per cent).
**Drug-misusing offenders**
Published results for drug-misusing offenders on the previous measure covered 2008 and 2009; results using the new measure cover from 2004 onwards.
The previous measure:
- Includes offenders who have been identified in the first quarter of the year, whereas the new measure includes offenders from any point during the year.
- Includes all drug-misusing offenders irrespective of the date of proven offence, whereas the new measure includes identified drug-misusing offenders who have received a caution, been convicted at court, been discharged from custody, or tested positive for cocaine or opiates on arrest during a 12 month period.
- Counts re-offences that were proven through a court conviction, whereas the new measure counts re-offences that were proven by a court conviction or caution.
As for adult and juvenile offenders, using the whole year to identify offenders reduces the proportion of offenders who re-offend, because we do not over-represent prolific offenders in the cohort, which is a problem in using a January to March sample. Table B5 shows the impact on reported rates of re-offending/re-conviction by drug-misusing offenders. Table B5: Re-offending data for drug-misusing offenders, 2004 to 2009
| Year | Previous measure proven re-conviction | New measure of proven re-offending | |------|--------------------------------------|-----------------------------------| | | Proportion | Frequency (average per offender) | | | 2004 67.3 | 2004 3.20 | | | 2005 65.3 | 2005 2.94 | | | 2006 58.6 | 2006 2.37 | | | 2007 57.2 | 2007 2.34 | | | 2008 61.0 | 2008 2.6 | | | 2009 57.0 | 2009 2.2 | | | Frequency of re-offenders (average per re-offender) | | | | 2004 4.75 | 2004 4.75 | | | 2005 4.51 | 2005 4.51 | | | 2006 4.03 | 2006 4.03 | | | 2007 4.09 | 2007 4.09 | | | 2008 4.3 | 2008 4.3 | | | 2009 3.9 | 2009 3.9 | | | Number of offenders | | | | 2004 20,652 | 2004 20,652 | | | 2005 29,112 | 2005 29,112 | | | 2006 44,597 | 2006 44,597 | | | 2007 54,474 | 2007 54,474 | | | 2008 20,934 | 2008 20,934 | | | 2009 20,109 | 2009 20,109 |
1. Based on the national drug-misusing offenders publication (December 2010)
Table B5 shows that the proportion of offenders who commit a proven re-offence is between two and five percentage points lower using the new measure (57.0 per cent using the previous measure compared to 54.7 per cent using the new measure). The new measure, which follows offenders over a 12 month period, includes between two and three times as many offenders as the existing measure.
**Prolific and other priority offenders**
Published results for prolific and other priority offenders (PPOs) on the previous measure presented the frequency of proven re-offending for all PPOs; results using the new measure cover the proportion of offenders proven to re-offend, and the frequency of proven re-offending for all offenders and for re-offenders from 2005 onwards. The previous measure:
- Includes offenders who have been identified in the first quarter of the year, whereas the new measure includes offenders from any point during the year. However, PPOs are generally on the PPO programme for a sustained period of time so this only has a moderate impact on numbers of offenders included.
- Includes all identified PPOs, whereas the new measure includes identified PPOs who have tested positive for cocaine or opiates, received a caution, been convicted at court, or been discharged from custody during a 12 month period.
- Counts re-offences that are proven through a court conviction or caution and also includes breach offences that lead to substantive recorded convictions. The new measure only includes re-offences proven through a court conviction or caution.
Table B6 shows the impact on reported rates of proven re-offending by PPOs and on numbers of offenders included in the measure.
**Table B6: Re-offending data for Prolific and other Priority Offenders, 2005 to 2009**
| Year | Previous measure proven re-offending | New measure of proven re-offending | |------|-------------------------------------|-----------------------------------| | | Proportion | | | 2005 | 77.0 | | | 2006 | 75.7 | | | 2007 | 75.8 | | | 2008 | 77.2 | | | 2009 | 56.0 | 75.1 | | | Frequency (average per offender) | | | 2005 | 4.01 | | | 2006 | 3.83 | | | 2007 | 3.80 | | | 2008 | 2.6 | 3.80 | | 2009 | 2.4 | 3.49 | | | Frequency of re-offenders (average per re-offender) | | | 2005 | 5.21 | | | 2006 | 5.06 | | | 2007 | 5.01 | | | 2008 | 4.93 | | | 2009 | 4.3 | 4.65 | | | Number of offenders | | | 2005 | 8,555 | | | 2006 | 8,239 | | | 2007 | 8,309 | | | 2008 | 10,771 | 8,607 | | 2009 | 10,635 | 8,156 |
1. Based on the national Prolific and other Priority Offenders publication (March 2010) The average number of proven re-offences committed by PPOs in 2009 is lower for the previous measure than for the new measure in 2008 (2.4 re-offences per offender using the previous measure, but 3.49 using the new).
The previous measure includes PPOs who have not been proven guilty of an offence or been discharged from custody in the 12 month period when the re-offending cohort is formed. This type of offender is likely to have a lower level of re-offending.
These differences may help to explain:
- why the frequency of re-offending is lower for the previous measure than for the new measure in 2009 (2.4 re-offences per offender using the previous measure, but 3.49 using the new); and
- why the previous measure includes nearly 2,500 more PPOs in 2009 than does the new measure.
**Local adult re-offending**
The most similar results for the new measure of re-offending and the existing local measure of adult re-offending are the early estimates of re-offending of offenders given a court order. Like the existing measure of local adult re-offending, the early estimates of offenders given a court order:
- measure re-offending over three months;
- only measures offenders under probation supervision;
- provides results by probation trust; and
- compares actual re-offending rates with a predicted re-offending rate.
There remain significant differences between the early estimates and the existing local adult measure of re-offending, including:
- The existing local adult measure includes offenders on licence – the early estimates include offenders commencing court orders only;
- The existing local adult measure uses a ‘snapshot’ approach. This means offenders are counted if they are on the caseload at certain times in the year. Offenders who are on the caseload for a short period of time may not get counted with the existing measure. The early estimates count every offender who commences a court order;
- Because the existing local adult measure uses a ‘snapshot’ approach some offenders may get counted up to four times if they are on the caseload for over 12 months. The early estimates count every offender once; • The existing local adult measure measures the re-offending of offenders at any point during the court order – the early estimates measure re-offending in the first three months after an offender commenced a court order; and
• The predicted score for the existing local adult measure was derived from analysis of 2007 re-offending data and the prediction for the early estimates was derived from analysis of 2008 re-offending data.
These differences explain why the re-offending rate is higher with the early estimates of re-offending by offenders commencing a court order than with the existing measure of local adult re-offending:
• offenders on licence have lower rates of re-offending than those commencing a court order; and
• offenders serving a court order have lower rates of re-offending the longer they are on that court order.
However, the prediction for the early estimates has been tailored specifically to the relevant group of offenders.
Local youth re-offending
The previous measure of youth re-offending used data that Youth Offending Teams (YOT) collected themselves from their local police and courts. The measure was used as management information and was never published or put into the public domain. The new measure uses data from the Police National Computer (PNC). Internal analysis and discussion with stakeholders has highlighted a number of differences between the two data sources:
• The PNC includes a number of offenders who have received a reprimand or final warning which do not always appear on the YOT systems. As a result, there are more youth offenders and a higher overall youth re-offending rate using the new measure than using the previous local youth re-offending measure.
• The PNC includes more comprehensive data on re-offending as adults by offenders who originally offended as youths.
• Using PNC data reduces the data-collection burden on YOT and local police forces.
• PNC data measures re-offending on recordable offences and YOT data measures re-offending on all offences. Offences which are not recordable include speeding offences, parking offences and other minor motoring offences. As a result, YOT data is more comprehensive for motoring re-offences. The new measure allocates offenders to a locality using their home address data from the PNC; the previous local youth measure allocated offenders using offender management data. As a result, Looked After Children (LAC) who are in foster care, or in a children’s home, or in a boarding school or live with another adult known to children’s services, maybe allocated to a different YOT under the previous youth measure than the new measure.
For their re-offending to be included in the new measure, administrative data on young people in custody and secure accommodation has to be matched to the PNC. Some cases are not successfully matched. This process was not required for these offenders to be included in the previous local youth measure. As a result, YOT data can be more comprehensive regarding custodial offenders or those in secure accommodation.
Using PNC data provides an external measure of youth re-offending, which makes it an appropriate data-source to support any future policies which tie local funding to re-offending performance.
Using PNC data allows local youth re-offending to be measured on the same basis as national youth re-offending and adult re-offending, permitting adult and youth re-offending to be measured on a like-for-like basis and a more comprehensive picture of re-offending to be formed.
Work is underway to fully quantify the extent of these differences. Annex C Glossary of terms
Re-offending terms
**Cohort** – this is the group of individuals whose re-offending is measured.
**Index offence** – the index offence is the proven offence that leads to an offender being included in the cohort.
**Index disposal** – the index disposal of the offender is the type of sentence the offender received for their index offence.
**Start point (also known as the index date)** – this is the set point in time from when re-offences are measured.
**Follow-up period** – this is the length of time proven re-offending is measured over.
**Waiting period** – this is the additional time beyond the follow-up period to allow for offences committed towards the end of the follow-up period to be proved by a court conviction, caution, reprimand or final warning.
**Adjusted to baseline** – proven re-offending is related to the characteristics of offenders which means that any overall rate of proven re-offending will depend, in part, on the characteristics of offenders coming into the system (just as the examination pass rate of a school will be related to the characteristics of its pupils). We use a modelling technique to produce a baseline figure adjusted to match the characteristics of the cohort we are comparing. Please refer to the ‘Definitions and Measurement’ document for more detail at [www.gov.uk/government/publications/proven-re-offending--2](http://www.gov.uk/government/publications/proven-re-offending--2).
**Re-conviction** – where an offender is convicted at court for an offence committed within a set follow-up period and convicted within either the follow-up period or waiting period.
**Proven re-offence** – where an offender is convicted at court or receives some other form of criminal justice sanction for an offence committed within a set follow-up period and disposed of within either the follow-up period or waiting period.
**Cohort used in the Proven Re-offending Statistics Quarterly Bulletin** – the proven re-offending cohort consists of all offenders discharged from custody, otherwise sanctioned at court, receiving a caution, reprimand or warning or tested positive for opiates or cocaine in each year. This cohort’s criminal history is collated and criminal behaviour is tracked over the following one year. Any offence committed in this one year period which is proven by a court conviction or out-of-court disposal (either in the one year period, or in a further six months waiting period) counts as a proven re-offence. Cohort used in the Local Adult Re-offending Quarterly Bulletin – the local adult re-offending measure takes a snapshot of all offenders, aged 18 or over, who are under probation supervision at the end of a quarter, and combines four such snapshots together. This cohort's criminal history is collated and criminal behaviour is tracked over the following three months. Any offence committed in this three month period which is proven by a court conviction or out-of-court disposal (either in the three month period, or in a further three months waiting period) counts as a proven re-offence. The latest available publication is the Local Adult Re-offending: 1 October 2011 – 30 September 2012, England and Wales; Ministry of Justice, February 2013.
www.gov.uk/government/publications/local-adult-reoffending
Disposal (sentence type)
Fine – a financial penalty imposed following conviction.
Court orders – court orders include community sentences, community orders and suspended sentence orders supervised by the Probation Service. They do not include any pre or post release supervision.
Criminal Justice Act 2003 (CJA03) – for offences committed on or after 4 April 2005, the new community order replaced all existing community sentences for adults. The Act also introduced a new suspended sentence order for offences which pass the custody threshold. It also changed the release arrangements for prisoners. See Appendix A of Offender Management Caseload Statistics 2009 for more information.
Community order – for offences committed on or after 4 April 2005, the new community order introduced under the CJA 2003 replaced all existing community sentences for those aged 18 years and over. This term refers to all court orders except suspended sentence orders and deferred sentences which may have a custodial component to the sentence. The court must add at least one, but could potentially add all 12 requirements depending on the offences and the offender. The requirements are:
- unpaid work (formerly community service/community punishment) – a requirement to complete between 40 and 300 hours’ unpaid work;
- activity – for example, to attend basic skills classes;
- programme – there are several designed to reduce the prospects of re-offending;
- prohibited activity – a requirement not do so something that is likely to lead to further offence or nuisance;
- curfew – which is electronically monitored; • exclusion – this is not used frequently as there is no reliable electronic monitoring yet available;
• residence – requirement to reside only where approved by probation officer;
• mental health treatment (requires offender’s consent);
• drug rehabilitation (requires offender’s consent);
• alcohol treatment (requires offender’s consent);
• supervision – meetings with probation officer to address needs/offending behaviour; and
• attendance centre – between a minimum of 12 hours and a maximum of 36 in total which includes three hours of activity.
Typically, the more serious the offence and the more extensive the offender’s needs, the more requirements there will be. Most orders will comprise of one or two requirements, but there are packages of several requirements available where required. The court tailors the order as appropriate and is guided by the Probation Service through a pre-sentence report.
**Suspended sentence order (SSO)** – the CJA 2003 introduced a new suspended sentence order which is made up of the same requirements as a community order and, in the absence of breach is served wholly in the community supervised by the Probation Service. It consists of an ‘operational period’ (the time for which the custodial sentence is suspended) and a ‘supervision period’ (the time during which any requirements take effect). Both may be between six months and two years and the ‘supervision period’ cannot be longer than the ‘operational period’, although it may be shorter. Failure to comply with the requirements of the order or commission of another offence will almost certainly result in a custodial sentence.
**Pre CJA03 Court Orders – Community sentences**
**Community punishment order (CPO)** – the offender is required to undertake unpaid community work.
**Community rehabilitation order (CRO)** - a community sentence which may have additional requirements such as residence, probation centre attendance or treatment for drug, alcohol or mental health problems.
**Community punishment and rehabilitation order (CPRO)** – a community sentence consisting of probation supervision alongside community punishment, with additional conditions like those of a community rehabilitation order.
**Drug treatment and testing order (DTTO)** – a community sentence targeted at offenders with drug-misuse problems. **Custody** – the offender is awarded a sentence to be served in prison or a Young Offenders Institute (YOI). If the offender is given a sentence of 12 months or over, or is aged under 22 on release, the offender is supervised by the Probation Service on release. It is important to note that the sentence lengths and youth disposals awarded will be longer than the time served in custody. For more information please refer to Appendix A of Offender Management Caseload Statistics 2009.
**Short sentences (under 12 months)** – those sentenced to under 12 months (made under the Criminal Justice Act 1991) spend the first half of their sentence in prison and are then released and considered ‘at risk’ for the remaining period. This means they are under no positive obligations and do not report to the Probation Service, but if they commit a further imprisonable offence during the ‘at risk’ period, they can be made to serve the remainder of the sentence in addition to the punishment for the new offence. The exception to this is those aged 18 to 20 who have a minimum of three month’s supervision on release.
**Sentences of 12 months or over** – the CJA03 created a distinction between standard determinate sentences and public protection sentences. Offenders sentenced to a standard determinate sentence serve the first half in prison and the second half in the community on licence.
**Youth disposal (sentence type)**
**Reprimand or warning** – a reprimand is a formal verbal warning given by a police officer to a juvenile offender who admits they are guilty for a minor first offence. A final warning is similar to a reprimand, but can be used for either the first or second offence, and includes an assessment of the juvenile to determine the causes of their offending behaviour and a programme of activities is designed to address them.
**First-tier penalties**
**Discharge** – a juvenile offender is given an absolute discharge when they admit guilt, or are found guilty, with no further action taken. An offender given a conditional discharge also receives no immediate punishment, but is given a set period during which, if they commit a further offence, they can be brought back to court and re-sentenced.
**Fine** – the size of the fine depends on the offence committed and the offender's financial circumstances. In the case of juveniles under 16, the fine is the responsibility of the offender’s parent or carer.
**Referral order** – this is given to juveniles pleading guilty and for whom it is their first time at court (unless the offence is so serious it merits a custodial sentence or it is of a relatively minor nature). The offender is required to attend a Youth Offender Panel to agree a contract, aimed to repair the harm caused by the offence and address the causes of the offending behaviour.
**Reparation order** – the offender is required to repair the harm caused by their offence either directly to the victim or indirectly to the community.
**Youth Rehabilitation Order** – a community sentence for juvenile offenders, which came into effect on 30 November 2009 as part of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008. It combines a number of sentences into one generic sentence and is the standard community sentence used for the majority of children and young people who offend. The following requirements can be attached to a Youth Rehabilitation Order (YRO):
- activity requirement
- curfew requirement
- exclusion requirement
- local authority residence requirement
- education requirement
- mental health treatment requirement
- unpaid work requirement
- drug testing requirement
- intoxicating substance misuse requirement
- supervision requirement
- electronic monitoring requirement
- prohibited activity requirement
- drug treatment requirement
- residence requirement
- programme requirement
- attendance centre requirement
- intensive supervision and surveillance
- intensive fostering The following community sentences are replaced by the YRO, but will continue to exist for those that committed an offence before 30 November 2009. The YRO is only available for those that committed an offence on or after the 30 November 2009.
- action plan order
- curfew order
- supervision order
- supervision order and conditions
- community punishment order
- community punishment and rehabilitation order
- attendance centre order
- drug treatment and testing order
- exclusion order
- community rehabilitation order
**Prison categories**
**Category B and category C prisons** hold sentenced prisoners of their respective categories, including life sentenced prisoners. The regime focuses on programmes that address offending behaviour and provide education, vocational training and purposeful work for prisoners who will normally spend several years in one prison.
**High security prisons** hold category A and B prisoners. Category A prisoners are managed by a process of dispersal, and these prisons also hold a proportion of category B prisoners for whom they provide a similar regime to a category B prison. The category B prisoners held in a High Security Prison are not necessarily any more dangerous or difficult to manage than those in category B prisons.
**Female prisons**, as the name implies, hold female prisoners. Because of the smaller numbers, they are not divided into the same number of categories although there are variations in security levels.
**Local prisons** serve the courts in the area. Historically their main function was to hold un-convicted and un-sentenced prisoners and, once a prisoner had been sentenced, to allocate them on to a category B, C or D prison as appropriate to serve their sentence. However, pressure on places means that many shorter term prisoners serve their entire sentence in a local prison, while longer term prisoners also complete some offending behaviour and training programmes there before moving on to lower security conditions. All local prisons operate to category B security standards.
**Open prisons** have much lower levels of physical security and only hold category D prisoners. Many prisoners in open prisons will be allowed to go out of the prison on a daily basis to take part in voluntary or paid work in the community in preparation for their approaching release.
**Prisoner categories**
These categories are based on a combination of the type of crime committed, the length of sentence, the likelihood of escape, and the danger to the public if they did escape. The four categories are:
**Category A** prisoners are those whose escape would be highly dangerous to the public or national security.
**Category B** prisoners are those who do not require maximum security, but for whom escape needs to be made very difficult.
**Category C** prisoners are those who cannot be trusted in open conditions, but who are unlikely to try to escape.
**Category D** prisoners are those who can be reasonably trusted not to try to escape and are given the privilege of an open prison.
**Miscellaneous terms**
**Drug-misusing offenders**
There are four ways a drug-misusing offender can be identified:
- Individuals who have tested positive for heroin or crack/cocaine following an arrest or charge for ‘trigger’ offences (largely acquisitive crime offences) as part of the Drug Interventions Programme (DIP) are included as adult proven offenders.
- Any offender that received an OASys assessment whilst on licence or on a community sentence and are either recorded as being subject to a current Drug Treatment and Testing Order (DTTO) or Drug Rehabilitation Requirement (DRR), or are assessed as having a criminogenic drug need.
- Any offender identified as requiring further drug interventions by Counselling, Assessment, Referral, Advice, Throughcare (CARAT) teams in prison, and now being released into the community. Any offender identified by local Criminal Justice Integrated Teams (CJITs) as requiring further intervention for their drug use and offending as part of DIP.
**National Probation Service** – the National Probation Service generally deals with those aged 18 years and over. (Those under 18 are mostly dealt with by Youth Offending Teams, answering to the Youth Justice Board.) They are responsible for supervising offenders who are given community sentences and suspended sentence orders by the courts, as well as offenders given custodial sentences, both pre and post their release.
**Police National Computer** – the Police National Computer (PNC) is the police’s administrative IT system used by all police forces in England and Wales and managed by the National Policing Improvement Agency. As with any large scale recording system the PNC is subject to possible errors with data entry and processing. The MoJ maintains a database based on weekly extracts of selected data from the PNC in order to compile statistics and conduct research on re-offending and criminal histories. The PNC largely covers recordable offences – these are all indictable and triable-either-way offences plus many of the more serious summary offences. All figures derived from the MoJ's PNC database, and in particular those for the most recent months, are likely to be revised as more information is recorded by the police.
**Prolific and other priority offenders** – the Prolific and other Priority Offenders Programme (PPO) aims to use a multi-agency approach to focus on a very small, but hard core group of prolific/persistent offenders who commit disproportionate amounts of crime and cause disproportionate harm to their local communities. The identification of a PPO is undertaken at a local level involving police, local authorities, prison and probation services and youth offending teams. The factors that influence the decision of whether an offender is included in the PPO programme are:
- the nature and volume of crimes they commit;
- the nature and volume of other harm they cause; and
- the detrimental impact they have on their community.
**Recordable offences** – recordable offences are those that the police are required to record on the PNC. They include all offences for which a custodial sentence can be given plus a range of other offences defined as recordable in legislation. They exclude a range of less serious summary offences, for example television licence evasion, driving without insurance, speeding and vehicle tax offences.
**Indictable and summary offences** – summary offences are triable only by a magistrates’ court. This group includes motoring offences, common assault and criminal damage up to £5,000. More serious offences are classed either as triable-either-way (these can be tried either at the Crown Court or at a magistrates’ court and include criminal damage where the value is £5,000 or greater, theft and burglary) or indictable-only (the most serious offences that must be tried at the Crown Court; these 'indictable-only' offences include murder, manslaughter, rape and robbery). The term indictable offences is used to refer to all triable-either-way and 'indictable-only' offences.
**Offence group** – a split of offences into 21 separate groups. A more detailed split of the 10 indictable offence groups (violence against the person, sexual offences, burglary, robbery, theft and handling and stolen goods, fraud and forgery, criminal damage, drug offences, other indictable offences (excluding motoring), indictable motoring) and the two summary offence groups (summary non-motoring and summary motoring offence types). Explanatory notes
The United Kingdom Statistics Authority has designated these statistics as National Statistics, in accordance with the Statistics and Registration Service Act 2007 and signifying compliance with the Code of Practice for Official Statistics.
Designation can be broadly interpreted to mean that the statistics:
- meet identified user needs;
- are well explained and readily accessible;
- are produced according to sound methods; and
- are managed impartially and objectively in the public interest.
Once statistics have been designated as National Statistics it is a statutory requirement that the Code of Practice shall continue to be observed.
Symbols used
| Symbol | Description | |--------|--------------------------------------------------| | .. | Not available | | 0 | Nil or less than half the final digit shown | | - | Not applicable | | * | One or both of the comparison figures are less than 30 | | (p) | Provisional data | Contact points
Press enquiries should be directed to the Ministry of Justice press office:
Tel: 020 3334 3536
Other enquiries about these statistics should be directed to:
Mike Elkins Ministry of Justice Justice Statistics Analytical Services 7th Floor 102 Petty France London SW1H 9AJ Tel: 020 3334 2946
General enquiries about the statistical work of the Ministry of Justice can be e-mailed to: [email protected]
General information about the official statistics system of the United Kingdom is available from www.statistics.gov.uk
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/4816-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 54,
"total-input-tokens": 101459,
"total-output-tokens": 26936,
"total-fallback-pages": 1
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
148,
1
],
[
148,
1242,
2
],
[
1242,
2886,
3
],
[
2886,
5590,
4
],
[
5590,
7930,
5
],
[
7930,
9660,
6
],
[
9660,
12120,
7
],
[
12120,
14504,
8
],
[
14504,
21911,
9
],
[
21911,
22393,
10
],
[
22393,
23783,
11
],
[
23783,
25035,
12
],
[
25035,
26057,
13
],
[
26057,
27515,
14
],
[
27515,
29024,
15
],
[
29024,
31724,
16
],
[
31724,
33608,
17
],
[
33608,
34897,
18
],
[
34897,
35253,
19
],
[
35253,
37417,
20
],
[
37417,
39027,
21
],
[
39027,
40826,
22
],
[
40826,
41599,
23
],
[
41599,
44130,
24
],
[
44130,
44507,
25
],
[
44507,
47229,
26
],
[
47229,
48735,
27
],
[
48735,
51329,
28
],
[
51329,
52604,
29
],
[
52604,
53200,
30
],
[
53200,
53481,
31
],
[
53481,
55530,
32
],
[
55530,
60008,
33
],
[
60008,
61554,
34
],
[
61554,
75597,
35
],
[
75597,
78838,
36
],
[
78838,
82878,
37
],
[
82878,
84825,
38
],
[
84825,
87674,
39
],
[
87674,
90932,
40
],
[
90932,
93076,
41
],
[
93076,
95295,
42
],
[
95295,
96693,
43
],
[
96693,
99198,
44
],
[
99198,
101617,
45
],
[
101617,
103964,
46
],
[
103964,
106615,
47
],
[
106615,
107906,
48
],
[
107906,
109649,
49
],
[
109649,
111812,
50
],
[
111812,
114735,
51
],
[
114735,
115476,
52
],
[
115476,
116596,
53
],
[
116596,
117157,
54
]
]
} |
ec0409e9e902ad39b4ad910ebf1eeddf930a0fe0 | Proven Re-offending Statistics Quarterly Bulletin October 2009 to September 2010, England and Wales
Ministry of Justice Statistics Bulletin
24 July 2012 Contents
Introduction .........................................................................................................................3 Executive summary .............................................................................................................7 List of quarterly tables .....................................................................................................20 Annex A: Payment by results ..........................................................................................23 Annex B: How the measure of proven re-offending has changed and the effect of these changes ........................................................................................................25 Annex C: Glossary of terms ............................................................................................42 Explanatory notes .............................................................................................................49 Contact points ................................................................................................................50 Introduction
The Proven Re-offending Statistics Quarterly Bulletin provides key statistics on proven re-offending in England and Wales. It gives proven re-offending figures for offenders, who were released from custody, received a non-custodial conviction at court, received a caution, reprimand, warning or tested positive for opiates or cocaine between October 2009 and September 2010. Proven re-offending is defined as any offence committed in a one year follow-up period and receiving a court conviction, caution, reprimand or warning in the one year follow-up or within a further six month waiting period. This is referred to as a proven re-offence.
This is the fourth quarterly bulletin in a new series. This series merges six previous measures of re-offending which were split across many publications into a single coherent overview of proven re-offending for the first time. It is a significant step forward for measuring re-offending as for the first time users can:
- obtain figures for the total number of proven re-offenders in an area and for the total number of offences they commit in a year;
- see proven re-offending rates for adults, juveniles, drug-misusing and prolific offenders measured on a consistent basis both nationally and locally; and
- measure individual prison and probation level re-offending on a consistent basis.
This quarterly bulletin presents the proportion of offenders who re-offend (proven re-offending rate) and the number of proven re-offences those offenders commit by age group, gender, ethnicity, criminal history and offence type. Also included are proven re-offending rates for serious proven re-offending, different types of offenders (e.g. adult, juvenile, drug-misusing and prolific and other priority offenders); different types of sentence; and by individual prison, probation trust and youth offending team.
Latest figures are provided with comparisons to the previous 12 months (October 2008 to September 2009) and the year 2000 in order to highlight long-term trends; 2000 is the earliest year for which proven re-offending data exist on a comparable basis. The full set of results is provided separately in Excel tables at:
www.justice.gov.uk/statistics/reoffending/proven-re-offending
The accompanying ‘Definitions and Measurement’ document, which is available at the same link, provides more detailed information. Measuring proven re-offending
There is no agreed international standard for measuring and reporting re-offending. An offender’s journey through the criminal justice system can be a complex one; offenders can appear on numerous occasions.
Measuring true re-offending is difficult. Official records are taken from either the police or courts, but they will underestimate the true level of re-offending because only a proportion of crime is detected and not all crimes are recorded on one central system. Furthermore, other methods for measuring re-offending, such as self report studies, are likely to be unreliable. Therefore, this report aims to measure proven re-offending.
Since re-offending is now measured on a consistent basis across all groups, it is possible to tailor analysis of re-offending to meet specific requirements. This quarterly bulletin and the accompanying ‘Early estimates of proven re-offending’ present measures on four different levels to meet users’ needs:
- The headline measure – this is the main measure of re-offending and is presented for different demographic groups and by offence. To provide this overview of proven re-offending, offenders are tracked and their proven re-offending behaviour is recorded, taking the first event in the relevant period as the start point and subsequent events as proven re-offences.
- A headline measure where the first event is related to criminal justice and offender management – this provides a realistic and relevant view of proven re-offending by disposal (sentence type), prison and probation trust. Offenders are tracked and their proven re-offending behaviour is recorded within each disposal (caution, court order, discharge from prison, etc.) or operational unit (prison or probation trust) taking the first event within each as the start point and subsequent events as re-offences.
- Early estimates of proven re-offending – these use shorter follow-up and waiting periods, but otherwise measure re-offending in exactly the same way as the headline measure. This is intended to provide offender managers with an earlier indication of proven re-offending trends so they can adjust or build on offender management operational policy.
- A re-conviction measure for use by payment by results – this is the measure used in the prison pilots since court convictions are more closely associated with costs to the criminal justice system. For more details, please refer to Annex A.
______________________________________________________________________
1 An event is one of the following: a release from custody, convicted at court with a non-custodial sentence, received a caution, reprimand, warning or tested positive for opiates or cocaine For a more detailed explanation, please see the accompanying ‘Definitions and Measurement’ document at:
www.justice.gov.uk/statistics/reoffending/proven-re-offending
Consultation
This quarterly bulletin has been developed in response to a consultation in late 2010 and early 2011 by the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) on “Improvements to Ministry of Justice Statistics”. The main points from the consultation that affect this publication can be found in Annex B.
Users
The contents of this bulletin will be of interest to Government policy makers, the agencies responsible for offender management at both national and local levels, providers, practitioners and others who want to understand more about proven re-offending.
In particular there are two MoJ impact indicators(^2) which will be monitored using results from this bulletin:
- Adult and juvenile re-offending – the percentage of adult and juvenile offenders who re-offend, measured quarterly by local authority.
- The percentage of adults released from custody who re-offend, measured annually by prison.
Government policy makers also use these statistics to develop, monitor and evaluate key elements of its policies including those on payments by results, legal aid, sentencing guidelines and drug and alcohol policies. Offender management agencies use these statistics to gain a local understanding of the criminal justice system, understand performance and to highlight best practice. Key agencies include: the National Offender Management Service, the Youth Justice Board, private and voluntary sector providers of prison and probation services and local authorities.
As proven re-offending is related to the characteristics of offenders, the actual rate of proven re-offending will depend, in part, on the characteristics of offenders coming into the system. This actual rate provides users with sufficient information on what the level of re-offending is (e.g. in their local area) and how it is changing over time. This bulletin also presents an adjusted proven re-offending rate to control for differences in the composition of the offender group which can be used by those who want to understand how changes in types of offenders coming through the justice system drives re-offending.
(^2) www.justice.gov.uk/publications/corporate-reports/moj/index.htm This is the fourth bulletin in a new series of publications produced in response to a consultation. The MoJ has addressed the main issues from the consultation. Furthermore, the 2012 Compendium of re-offending statistics and analysis, which was published by the MoJ on 12 July 2012, includes additional analyses on proven re-offending rates using two, five and nine year follow-up periods. It also presents individual Probation Trust proven re-offending rates for offenders released from prison on licence. These results are available at:
www.justice.gov.uk/statistics/reoffending/compendium-of-reoffending-statistics-and-analysis
This bulletin is published alongside two inter-related bulletins:
- **Offender Management Statistics Quarterly Bulletin, January to March 2012**: provides key statistics relating to offenders who are in prison or under Probation Service supervision. It covers flows into these services (receptions into prison or probation starts) and flows out (discharges from prison or probation terminations) as well as the caseload of both services at specific points in time.
- **Safety in Custody Statistics Quarterly Bulletin, January to March 2012**: provides statistics on death, self harm and assault incidents whilst in prison custody.
Taken together, these publications present users with a more coherent overview of offender management, re-offending among both adults and young people and the safety of offenders whilst in prison custody.
If you have any feedback, questions or requests for further information about this statistical bulletin, please direct them to the appropriate contact given at the end of this report. Executive summary
This report provides key statistics on proven re-offending in England and Wales. It gives proven re-offending figures for offenders who were released from custody, received a non-custodial conviction at court, received a caution, reprimand, warning or tested positive for opiates or cocaine between October 2009 and September 2010. Proven re-offending is defined as any offence committed in a one year follow-up period and receiving a court conviction, caution, reprimand or warning in the one year follow-up. Following this one year period, a further six month waiting period is allowed for cases to progress through the courts.
In the 12 months ending September 2010, around 660,000 offenders were cautioned, convicted (excluding immediate custodial sentences) or released from custody. Around 170,000 of these offenders committed a proven re-offence within a year. This gives a one-year proven re-offending rate of 26.5 per cent, which represents no change when compared to the previous 12 months and a fall of 1.3 percentage points since 2000 (Table 1).
These re-offenders committed an average of 2.85 re-offences each. In total, this represents around 500,000 re-offences of which 80.3 per cent were committed by adults and 19.7 per cent were committed by juveniles (Table 1).
- 54.5 per cent (around 270,000) were committed by re-offenders with 11 or more previous offences (Table 6c).
- 0.7 per cent (around 3,200) were serious violent/sexual proven re-offences (Table 8).
- 5.2 per cent (around 26,000) were committed by re-offenders on the Prolific and other Priority Offender Programme (PPO) (Table 16).
______________________________________________________________________
3 A certain proportion of offenders could not be matched to the Police National Computer (PNC) and are, therefore, not included. Therefore, this number does not represent all proven offenders. Please refer to the ‘Definitions and Measurement’ document for more detail at www.justice.gov.uk/statistics/reoffending/proven-re-offending. This means that the number of offenders in this bulletin will be different from the numbers published in the Offender Management Quarterly Statistics Bulletin available at www.justice.gov.uk/publications/statistics-and-data/prisons-and-probation/oms-quarterly.htm, and the Criminal Justice Statistics report available at www.justice.gov.uk/publications/statistics-and-data/criminal-justice/criminal-justice-statistics.htm.
4 Includes reprimands and warnings for juveniles
5 Also includes those who tested positive for opiates or cocaine Key trends in proven re-offending
Adult offenders
Around 560,000 adult offenders(^3) were cautioned(^4), convicted or released from custody(^5) between October 2009 and September 2010. Just under 140,000 of them committed a re-offence. This gives a proven re-offending rate of 25.1 per cent, which represents a slight fall of 0.1 percentage points compared to the previous 12 months and a fall of 1.1 percentage points since 2000 (Table 1).
However, compared to 2000, the offenders in October 2009 to September 2010 had characteristics which meant they were more likely to re-offend. This means that, after controlling for offender characteristics, the decrease was larger at 3.2 percentage points (Table 1).
The average number of re-offences per re-offender was 2.85, a rise of 1.2 per cent compared to the previous 12 months and a fall of 16.1 per cent compared to 2000 (Table 1).
Looking at specific groups within the cohort:
- The proven re-offending rate for those released from custody was 47.9 per cent, a rise of 0.6 percentage points compared to the previous 12 months and a fall of 1.5 percentage points since 2000. The average number of re-offences committed per re-offender for this group was 4.10, an increase of 1.6 per cent compared to the previous 12 months and down 12.3 per cent since 2000 (Table 18a).
- The proven re-offending rate for those starting a court order (Community Order or Suspended Sentence Order) was 34.0 per cent, down 0.8 percentage points compared to the previous 12 months and down 3.9 percentage points since 2000. The average number of re-offences per re-offender was 3.16, up 1.7 per cent compared to the previous 12 months and down 18.3 per cent since 2000 (Table 18a).
- The proven re-offending rate for drug-misusing offenders (all offenders who are given drug orders as part of their sentence or test positive for opiates upon arrest) was 57.3 per cent, up 2.3 percentage points compared to the previous 12 months (Table 15).
Juvenile offenders
Around 100,000 juvenile offenders(^3) were cautioned(^4), convicted or released from custody(^5) between October 2009 and September 2010. Around 34,000 of them committed a re-offence. This gives a proven re-offending rate of 34.8 per cent. This represents an increase in the rate of 2.2 percentage points compared to the previous 12 months and a rise of 1.1 percentage points since 2000 (Table 1). However, users should be aware that the cohort has changed considerably over the period since 2000 and is 29.2 per cent smaller than in 2000 and is comprised of offenders whose characteristics mean they are more likely to re-offend than those in the 2000 cohort. In order to account for this, we can control for changes in offender characteristics to give a more consistent view of changes over time. After controlling for these changes, the proven re-offending rate has actually decreased by 1.7 percentage points since 2000 (Table 1).
The average number of re-offences per re-offender was 2.85, an increase of 3.8 per cent compared to the previous 12 months and down 14.3 per cent since 2000 (Table 1).
Table E1: Overview – latest 12 month period compared to the previous 12 month period and 2000
| | 2000 | 12 months ending September 2009 | 12 months ending September 2010 | Percentage change 2000 to 12 months ending September 2010 | Percentage change 12 months ending September 2009 to 12 months ending September 2010 | |----------------------|------|---------------------------------|---------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | **All offenders** | | | | | | | Proportion of offenders who re-offend (%) | 27.9 | 26.5 | 26.5 | -1.3pp ↓ | 0.9pp ↓ | | Average number of re-offences per re-offender | 3.37 | 2.80 | 2.85 | -15.6% ↓ | 1.8% ↑ | | Proportion of offenders who re-offend - Adjusted to baseline (%) | 25.5 | 27.1 | 27.0 | - | - | | Average number of re-offences per offender | 0.94 | 0.74 | 0.75 | -12.7% ↓ | 1.9% ↑ | | Number of re-offences | 579,770 | 523,497 | 495,670 | -14.5% ↓ | -5.3% ↓ | | Number of re-offenders | 171,935 | 187,206 | 174,172 | 2.3% ↑ | -7.0% ↓ | | Number of offenders in cohort | 617,024 | 706,981 | 656,819 | 6.4% ↑ | -7.1% ↓ | | **Adult offenders** | | | | | | | Proportion of offenders who re-offend (%) | 26.2 | 25.1 | 25.1 | -1.2pp ↓ | -0.1pp ↓ | | Average number of re-offences per re-offender | 3.39 | 2.81 | 2.85 | -10.1% ↓ | 1.2% ↑ | | Proportion of offenders who re-offend - Adjusted to baseline (%) | 23.6 | 25.7 | 25.6 | - | - | | Average number of re-offences per offender | 0.89 | 0.71 | 0.71 | -10.9% ↓ | 0.9% ↑ | | Number of re-offences | 423,989 | 409,055 | 398,110 | -6.1% ↓ | -3.7% ↓ | | Number of re-offenders | 125,023 | 145,467 | 139,891 | 12.9% ↑ | -3.8% ↓ | | Number of offenders in cohort | 477,698 | 576,776 | 558,223 | 16.9% ↑ | -3.6% ↓ | | **Juvenile offenders** | | | | | | | Proportion of offenders who re-offend (%) | 33.7 | 32.6 | 34.8 | 1.2pp ↑ | 2.2pp ↑ | | Average number of re-offences per re-offender | 3.32 | 2.74 | 2.85 | -14.3% ↓ | 3.8% ↑ | | Proportion of offenders who re-offend - Adjusted to baseline (%) | 33.0 | 33.3 | 34.8 | - | - | | Average number of re-offences per offender | 1.12 | 0.89 | 0.99 | -12.5% ↓ | 20.8% ↑ | | Number of re-offences | 46,912 | 41,739 | 34,281 | -26.9% ↓ | -17.9% ↓ | | Number of re-offenders | 139,526 | 128,055 | 98,596 | -29.2% ↓ | -23.1% ↓ |
1. pp = percentage point and percentage changes may not add up due to rounding of raw figures
2. See the definitions and measurement paper for an explanation on how to use and interpret the baseline rate
Groups with the biggest changes in the proven re-offending rate since 2000
Biggest reductions:
- Adult females (a fall of 2.3 percentage points) (Table 2).
- 21 to 24 year olds (a fall of 3.0 percentage points) (Table 3).
- Adults with seven to 10 previous offences (a fall of 3.1 percentage points) (Table 6a).
- Juveniles with seven to 10 previous offences (a fall of 4.8 percentage points) (Table 6b).
- Adults who received Court Orders (a fall 3.9 percentage points) (Table 18a). • Adults who received custodial sentences of one to four years (a fall of 7.1 percentage points) (Table 19).
• Juveniles who received a custodial sentence (a fall of 6.8 percentage points) (Table 18b).
Biggest increases:
• 45 to 49 year olds (a rise of 4.0 percentage points) (Table 3).
• Adults who received custodial sentences of less than 12 months (a rise of 3.1 percentage points) (Table 19).
• Juveniles who received a community penalty (a rise of 5.6 percentage points) (Table 18b).
All offenders
Proven re-offending by age
Between October 2009 and September 2010, as in previous years, 15 to 17 year olds had the highest proven re-offending rate at 35.9 per cent. The proven re-offending rate falls with increasing age (after those aged 15 to 17) as shown in Figure E1 (Table 3).
Compared to 2000, the proven re-offending rate for the 12 months ending September 2010 rose for 10 to 14 year olds and for those aged 30 and over, but fell for offenders aged 15 to 29 (Table 3).
The largest decrease in the average number of re-offences per re-offender was among those aged 21 to 24, which fell from 3.61 in 2000 to 2.73 in the 12 months ending September 2010 (a fall of 24.4 per cent) (Table 3). Proven re-offending by criminal history
Offenders with a large number of previous offences have a higher rate of proven re-offending and this is true for both adults and juveniles. The proven re-offending rates range from 11.4 per cent for offenders with no previous offences to 47.9 per cent for offenders with 11 or more previous offences. Compared to 2000, the largest decrease in the proven re-offending rate for the 12 months ending September 2010 was among offenders who had one to two previous offences (a fall of 4.2 percentage points) (Table 6c).
Adult offenders with 11 or more previous offences represented 28.0 per cent of all adult offenders in October 2009 to September 2010. Around 73,000 offenders in this group committed 63.2 per cent of all adult proven re-offences (Table 6a).
For juveniles, there were around 5,000 offenders with 11 or more previous offences and they had a proven re-offending rate of 77.8 per cent. This group make up only 5.4 per cent of juvenile offenders, but committed almost a fifth (19.1 per cent) of all juvenile proven re-offences (around 19,000) (Table 6b).
Proven re-offending by index offence
The offence that leads to an offender being included in the relevant year is called the index offence. In October 2009 to September 2010, as in most previous years, domestic burglary had the highest proven re-offending rate at 48.4 per cent, and sexual (child) offences the lowest at 9.9 per cent. The largest decrease between 2000 and October 2009 to September 2010 in the proven re-offending rate was for soliciting prostitution with a decrease of 19.9 percentage points, followed by motoring offences with a decrease of 11.6 percentage points (Table 5c).
**Figure E2: Proportion of adult and juvenile offenders who commit a proven re-offence, by index offence, 12 months ending September 2010**
**Adult proven re-offending**
In October 2009 to September 2010, there were around 560,000 adult offenders. Just under 140,000 of these offenders were proven to have committed a re-offence within a year. This gives a one year proven re-offending rate of 25.1 per cent, down slightly from the previous 12 months by 0.1 percentage points (Table 1).
These re-offenders committed an average of 2.85 re-offences, up from 2.81 in the previous 12 months (Table 1).
Overall there has been a 1.1 percentage point decrease in the proven re-offending rate since 2000 (from 26.2 to 25.1 per cent). However, compared to 2000, the offenders in October 2009 to September 2010 had characteristics which meant they were more likely to re-offend. This means that, after controlling for offender characteristics, the decrease was larger at 3.2 percentage points (Table 1). Figure E3: Proportion of adult offenders who commit a proven re-offence, 2000, 2002 to 12 months ending September 2010\\textsuperscript{1,2}
1. Data are not available for 2001 due to a problem with archived data on Court Orders
2. Quarterly data are only available from July 2005 onwards
Figure E4: Average number of proven re-offences per adult re-offender, 2000, 2002 to 12 months ending September 2010\\textsuperscript{1,2}
1. Data are not available for 2001 due to a problem with archived data on Court Orders
2. Quarterly data are only available from July 2005 onwards Proven re-offending rates for adult offenders discharged from prison or commencing a court order
Between October 2009 and September 2010, around 190,000 adult offenders were discharged from prison or commenced a court order. Just under 69,000 of these offenders were proven to have committed a re-offence within a year. This gives a one year proven re-offending rate of 36.0 per cent. The average number of proven re-offences committed by these re-offenders was 3.32.
Overall there was a 4.9 percentage point decrease (from 40.9 to 36.0 per cent) in the proven re-offending rate between 2000 and the 12 months ending September 2010 and a 19.7 per cent decrease (from 4.13 to 3.32) in the average number of proven re-offences per re-offender.
Proven re-offending rates for adults discharged from prison
Between October 2009 and September 2010, around 56,000 adult offenders were discharged from prison. Around 27,000 of these (47.9 per cent) were proven to have committed a re-offence within a year. These offenders committed around 110,000 proven re-offences, an average of 4.10 each (Table 18a).
More than half (54.6 per cent) of adult offenders discharged from prison were released from a sentence of less than 12 months. These offenders had a one year proven re-offending rate of 57.3 per cent, an increase of 3.1 percentage points from 2000 (54.3 per cent) (Table 19).
Figure E5: Proportion of adult offenders discharged from prison who commit a proven re-offence, by custodial sentence length, 2000, 2002 to 12 months ending September 2010
1. Data are not available for 2001 due to a problem with archived data on Court Orders
2. Quarterly data are only available from July 2005 onwards Adult proven re-offending rates by individual prison
Among prisons which discharged 30 or more offenders between October 2009 and September 2010, proven re-offending rates varied considerably from 18.1 per cent to 80.2 per cent for offenders with a sentence of less than 12 months and from 2.6 per cent to 77.3 per cent for offenders with a sentence of 12 months or more. A large part of this variability reflects the mix of offenders who are held in different prisons and, therefore, comparisons between prisons should not be made using these raw re-offending rates (Tables 22a and 22b).
To account for this variability in the mix of prisoners, a model has been developed to help explain if re-offending rates are affected by the specific prison they are discharged from or if the rate of re-offending reflects the mix of offenders. For example, a group of prisoners with a high number of previous offences is more likely to re-offend than a group with a low number of previous offences.
Among prisons discharging offenders serving sentences of less than 12 months, two prisons (Kirkham and Sudbury) had significantly lower proven re-offending rates than expected and one (Wetherby) had significantly higher (Table 22a).
Among prisons discharging offenders serving sentences of 12 months or more, three prisons had significantly lower proven re-offending rates (Askham Grange, East Sutton Park and Kirklevington Grange) than expected and one (Hindley) had significantly higher (Table 22b).
Proven re-offending for adults commencing a court order
Between October 2009 and September 2010, around 110,000 adult offenders started a community order. Around 38,000 of these (35.4 per cent) committed a proven re-offence within a year. These proven re-offenders committed around 120,000 proven re-offences, an average of 3.23 each. Similarly, of the 39,000 adult offenders starting a suspended sentence order, 30.2 per cent committed a proven re-offence within a year, with an average of 2.92 proven re-offences each (Tables 20 and 21).
Proven re-offending rates by probation trust
Offenders given a court order are managed by the probation service which comprises 35 probation trusts. Proven re-offending rates for these offenders are presented by probation trust in Table 24. This takes the first court order commencement from within each probation trust as the start point for measuring re-offending and subsequent events as proven re-offences.
Proven re-offending rates varied considerably between probation trusts from 27.8 per cent to 44.3 per cent. A large part of this variability reflects the mix of offenders who are given a court order and, therefore, comparisons between probation trusts should not be made using these raw re-offending rates (Table 24). For probation trusts an adjusted proven re-offending rate to control for differences in the composition of the offender group in each trust has been developed from the national model. Four probation trusts showed significantly lower proven re-offending rates than expected. These were Gloucestershire, Staffordshire and West Midlands, Thames Valley and Warwickshire. Two (Lancashire and Nottinghamshire) showed significantly higher proven re-offending rates than expected (Table 24).
Re-offending rates by index disposal (sentence type) should not be compared to assess the effectiveness of sentences, as there is no control for known differences in offender characteristics and the type of sentence given. The ‘Compendium of Re-offending Statistics and Analysis 2011’ compares like for like offenders which enables a more reliable comparison of proven re-offending rates between offenders receiving different sentences.
The key results from the Compendium were:
- Those sentenced to one to two years in custody had lower re-offending rates than those given sentences of less than 12 months – the difference was 4.4 percentage points in 2008.
- Custodial sentences of less than 12 months were less effective at reducing re-offending than both community orders and suspended sentence orders – between five and nine percentage points in 2008.
www.justice.gov.uk/statistics/reoffending/compendium-of-reoffending-statistics-and-analysis
**Juvenile proven re-offending**
Between October 2009 and September 2010, there were around 100,000 juvenile offenders. Around 34,000 of these offenders were proven to have committed a re-offence within a year. This gives a one year proven re-offending rate of 34.8 per cent, an increase of 2.2 percentage points from 32.6 per cent in the previous 12 months (Table 1).
These re-offenders committed an average of 2.85 re-offences, an increase from 2.74 in the previous 12 months (Table 1).
However, the number of juvenile proven offenders has decreased by 29.2 per cent since 2000 (Table 1). This is in line with the pattern of first time entrants to the criminal justice system where the number of young people receiving their first reprimand, warning or conviction has also decreased. More information on first time entrants for both adults and juveniles can be found in the ‘Criminal Justice Statistics Quarterly Bulletin’ at:
www.justice.gov.uk/statistics/criminal-justice/criminal-justice-statistics Overall there has been a 1.1 percentage point increase in the proven re-offending rate of juveniles since 2000 (from 33.7 to 34.8 per cent). However, compared to 2000, the characteristics of juvenile offenders in the year ending September 2010 meant that they were more likely to re-offend. Therefore, after controlling for offender characteristics, the re-offending rate actually decreased by 1.7 percentage points (Table 1).
Among Youth Offending Teams (YOTs), proven re-offending rates varied considerably from 22.2 per cent to 49.7 per cent. A large part of this variability reflects the mix of offenders who are managed by different YOTs and, therefore, comparisons between YOTs should not be made using these raw re-offending rates (Table 17).
More information on youth criminal statistics is available at:
www.justice.gov.uk/statistics/youth-justice
Trends in proven re-offending across the country
Map 1 shows proven re-offending rates by upper-tier local authority. This chart is not controlled for the characteristics of offenders and is designed for users to gain an understanding of what the level of proven re-offending is within their area and how it is changing over time.
When comparing between local authorities, the differences may be due to:
- Different types of offenders; areas where the offenders have high numbers of previous offences are likely to have higher proven re-offending rates.
- Police activity; areas with high police detection rates are likely to have higher proven re-offending rates.
- Age profile of offenders in the area; areas with a younger population are likely to have higher proven re-offending rates.
When comparing proven re-offending over time within local authorities, any significant changes in these factors may affect the comparison.
Between October 2009 and September 2010, very few local authorities showed substantial change compared to the previous 12 months. For local authorities with more than 100 offenders, the largest decrease was seen in The Vale of Glamorgan (down 3.7 percentage points) and the largest increase was in Monmouthshire (up 5.4 percentage points) (Table 13c). Map E1: Overall proven re-offending rates by upper-tier local authority for adults and juveniles, 12 months ending September 2010
Legend Re-offending Rates Rate
- 0 - 20%
- 20 - 25%
- 25 - 30%
- 30 - 35%
- 35% + Re-offending rate is not shown as it is based on less than 30 offenders
© Crown copyright. All rights reserved. Ministry of Justice 100037819 2012 Prolific and other priority offenders
The Prolific and other Priority Offender Programme (PPO) aims to use a multi-agency approach to focus on a very small, but hard-core group of prolific/persistent offenders who commit a disproportionate amount of crime. Please refer to the ‘Definitions and Measurement’ document for more detail:
www.justice.gov.uk/statistics/reoffending/proven-re-offending
Just over 7,300 offenders(^3) (adult and juvenile) were on the PPO scheme at some point between October 2009 and September 2010. Of these, just under 5,600 committed a proven re-offence within a year (76.5 per cent). These re-offenders represented 0.9 per cent of all offenders, but were responsible for 5.2 per cent of all proven re-offences committed by all offenders (Table 16).
Compared to the previous 12 months, the proportion of PPO offenders who committed a proven re-offence increased by 0.7 percentage points. This compares to an overall decrease of 0.5 percentage points since the scheme began in 2005 (Table 16).
Drug-misusing offenders
The Drug Interventions Programme (DIP) was introduced in April 2003 with the aim of developing and integrating measures for directing adult drug-misusing offenders into drug treatment and reducing offending behaviour. There are a number of ways offenders can be identified as drug-misusers. Please refer to the ‘Definitions and Measurement’ document for more detail:
www.justice.gov.uk/statistics/reoffending/proven-re-offending
Around 46,000 adult offenders(^3) were identified as drug-misusers at some point between October 2009 and September 2010. Of these, around 26,000 committed a proven re-offence within a year (57.3 per cent). These re-offenders represented 4.7 percent of all adult offenders, but were responsible for 26.4 per cent of all proven re-offences committed by adult offenders (Table 15).
Compared to the previous 12 months, the proportion of drug-misusing offenders who committed a proven re-offence has increased by 2.3 percentage points. Since 2005, there has been a decrease of 8.0 percentage points, although most of this change occurred between 2005 and 2006 when there was a large expansion in the drug intervention programme (Table 15). List of quarterly tables
Proven re-offending – overview
Table 1 Summary proven re-offending data, by adults and juveniles 2000, 2002 to September 2010
Table 2 Proven re-offending data, by gender, 2000, 2002 to September 2010
Table 3 Proven re-offending data, by age, 2000, 2002 to September 2010
Table 4a Adult proven re-offending data, by ethnicity, 2000, 2002 to September 2010
Table 4b Juvenile proven re-offending data, by ethnicity, 2000, 2002 to September 2010
Table 4c Adult and juvenile proven re-offending data, by ethnicity, 2000, 2002 to September 2010
Table 5a Adult proven re-offending data, by index offence, 2000, 2002 to September 2010
Table 5b Juvenile proven re-offending data, by index offence, 2000, 2002 to September 2010
Table 5c Adult and juvenile proven re-offending data, by index offence, 2000, 2002 to September 2010
Table 6a Adult proven re-offending data, by number of previous offences, 2000, 2002 to September 2010
Table 6b Juvenile proven re-offending data, by number of previous offences, 2000, 2002 to September 2010
Table 6c Adult and juvenile proven re-offending data, by number of previous offences, 2000, 2002 to September 2010
Table 7a Adult proven re-offending data, by number of previous custodial sentences, 2000, 2002 to September 2010
Table 7b Juvenile proven re-offending data, by number of previous custodial sentences, 2000, 2002 to September 2010
Table 8 Serious proven re-offending data, 2000, 2002 to September 2010 Tables 9 to 12 are published annually in October.
Table 13a Proven re-offending of adult offenders, by upper-tier local authority, 2005 to September 2010 rolling quarters
Table 13b Proven re-offending of juvenile offenders, by upper-tier local authority, 2005 to September 2010 rolling quarters
Table 13c Proven re-offending of adult and juvenile offenders, by upper-tier local authority, 2005 to September 2010 rolling quarters
Table 14a Proven re-offending of adult offenders, by lower-tier local authority, 2005 to September 2010 rolling quarters
Table 14b Proven re-offending of juvenile offenders, by lower-tier local authority, 2005 to September 2010 rolling quarters
Table 14c Proven re-offending of adult and juvenile offenders, by lower-tier local authority, 2005 to September 2010 rolling quarters
Table 15 Proven re-offending of adult drug-misusing offenders, by Drug Action Team, 2004 to September 2010 rolling quarters
Table 16 Proven re-offending of adult and juvenile prolific and other priority offenders, by upper-tier local authority, 2005 to September 2010 rolling quarters
Table 17 Juvenile proven re-offending data, by Youth Offending Team 2005 to September 2010 rolling quarters
Proven re-offending by index disposal, probation trust and prison
Table 18a Adult proven re-offending data, by index disposal, 2000, 2002 to September 2010
Table 18b Juvenile proven re-offending data, by index disposal, 2000, 2002 to September 2010
Table 19 Adult proven re-offending data, by custodial sentence length, 2000, 2002 to September 2010
Table 20 Adult proven re-offending data, by most frequently-used combinations of requirements for offenders starting Community Orders, 2005 to September 2010
Table 21 Adult proven re-offending data, by most frequently-used combinations of requirements for offenders starting Suspended Sentence Orders, 2005 to September 2010 Table 22a Proven re-offending of adult offenders given sentences of less than 12 months, by individual prison, based on first discharge from each prison, 2007 to September 2010
Table 22b Proven re-offending of adult offenders given sentences of 12 months or more, by individual prison, based on first discharge from each prison, 2007 to September 2010
Table 23 Juvenile proven re-offending data, by individual prison, based on first discharge from each prison, 2007 to September 2010
Table 24 Adult proven re-offending data by probation trust based on first commencement from each trust, 2005 to September 2010 Annex A
Payment by results
Background
The “Breaking the Cycle” Green Paper(^6) outlined the MoJ’s commitment to commission at least six ‘payment by results’ (PbR) projects covering a significant proportion of the offender population.
The MoJ intends to test the principle that PbR can result in service improvements, delivering better outcomes for the public at the same or less cost. In order to achieve this, the MoJ will pilot ‘payment by results’ at a number of prisons and local areas to test the concept and measure the results.
The statistical “outcome” that MoJ is interested in is whether the PbR pilots can drive a real reduction in the proportion of offenders who are re-convicted (the re-conviction rate) in the 12 months following release from prison or from commencing a court order.
Prison results
The re-conviction rate used for the PbR pilot prisons presented below differs from the National Statistics re-offending measure. It measures the proportion of offenders who are convicted at court in the 12 months following release from prison with a further six months to allow for cases to progress through the courts. It excludes those who receive an out-of-court disposal only. This is because, for PbR purposes, we want to measure a change in the proportion of offenders who are convicted at court as court convictions are more closely associated with costs to the Criminal Justice System. Offenders are counted in the cohort if they are discharged from the prison at any time during the cohort period. The measure excludes those who serve the whole of their custodial sentence on remand as well as the usual National Statistics exclusions as explained in the ‘Definitions and Measurement’ document(^7).
Table A1 below will be included in the Proven Re-offending Quarterly Bulletin each quarter and will show, for each pilot prison or area that uses the re-conviction rate as its outcome measure, the baseline re-conviction rate, the target re-conviction rate(^8) and the outcome re-conviction rate. The only prison pilot included in Table A1, at present, is HMP Doncaster, but this will be updated on an ongoing basis as new pilots begin and outturn results become available.
______________________________________________________________________
(^6) [www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/consultations/breaking-the-cycle.pdf](http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/consultations/breaking-the-cycle.pdf)
(^7) [www.justice.gov.uk/statistics/reoffending/proven-re-offending](http://www.justice.gov.uk/statistics/reoffending/proven-re-offending)
(^8) The rate at which the PbR outcome payment is first triggered at any given pilot site Table A1: Payment by results pilot prisons, baseline and target re-conviction rates
| Prison / Area | Start date of pilot | Baseline re-conviction rate (Jan to Dec 2009) | Target re-conviction rate (Oct 2011 to Sept 2012) | Outcome re-conviction rate (Oct 2011 to Sept 2012) | |------------------------|---------------------|-----------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------| | HMP Doncaster | 1 October 2011 | 58.2% | 53.2% | To be published in 2014 |
Number of eligible offenders in Payment by results pilots
As part of the Department's Business Plan (2011-2015), the Ministry of Justice is committed to publishing quarterly data on the number of pilot rehabilitation schemes established and the number of participants, subject to commercial confidentiality and Office for National Statistics guidance.
Table A2: Payment by results pilots commenced
| Prison / Area | Start date of pilot | Length of pilot | Number of eligible participants to date | |--------------------------------------|---------------------|-----------------|----------------------------------------| | Peterborough Social Impact Bond (SIB) | 9 September 2010 | Six years | 86410 | | HMP Doncaster | 1 October 2011 | Four years | 91411 |
There is a Justice Reinvestment PbR pilot across five London boroughs and Greater Manchester, which use a different outcome measure, namely a reduction in demand on the Criminal Justice System. The results will be published separately.
PbR pilots for offenders managed by the Probation Service are likely to begin in early 2013. When these are underway Table A1 will be updated to reflect these new PbR areas.
______________________________________________________________________
9 The Peterborough 'Social Impact Bond' uses a different outcome measure (the frequency of re-conviction events) and its success is measured against a control group. The results will be published separately. 10 Eligible participants from 9 September 2010 to 31 March 2011 11 Eligible participants from 1 October 2011 to 31 March 2011 Annex B
How the measure of proven re-offending has changed and the effect of these changes
Background
The MoJ launched a statistical consultation on improvements to the transparency and accessibility of our information in 2010 and a response to the consultation was published in March 2011. One aspect of the consultation was the measurement of proven re-offending.
Prior to the consultation there were six different measures of proven re-offending:
- National adult proven re-offending;
- Local adult proven re-offending;
- National youth proven re-offending;
- Local youth proven re-offending;
- Prolific and other priority offending (PPO); and
- Drug-misusing proven offending.
The new approach to measuring proven re-offending integrates these approaches into a single framework. This allows users to:
- form a clear picture of proven re-offending at national and local levels;
- compare adult and youth results, and enable other work on transition between the youth and adult criminal justice systems;
- understand how results for different offender groups (such as those managed by the prison and probation services, those under the PPO schemes, drug-misusing offenders, first time entrants, etc.) fit in to the overall picture on proven re-offending; and
- continue to analyse proven re-offending behaviour for particular types of offender.
12 The response to the consultation is available here www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/consultations/improvements-moj-statistics-consultation-response.pdf Comparing trends in re-offending
Table B1 shows the proportion of offenders with a proven re-offence/re-conviction using the new measure of re-offending and the previous measures of adult re-conviction and juvenile re-offending. Comparisons we make use cohorts up to 2009.
Re-offending rates are lower using the new measure than using the previous measure. The differences are as follows:
- For adult and juvenile offenders the new measure is based on all offenders released from custody, receiving a non-custodial conviction at court, a caution, reprimand, warning or tested positive for opiates or cocaine over a 12 month period, but the previous measures only included offenders released from custody or commencing a court order in the first three months of the year. Using a three month sample over-represents prolific offenders in comparison to a full year's worth of data.
- For adults the new measure counts all offenders including those who received a caution, fine or discharge, where the previous adult measure only included those who commenced a court order or who were discharged from custody.
- For adult offenders, the new measure is a measure of proven re-offending (which counts offences proven through a court conviction or a caution) whereas the previous measure is a measure of re-conviction (which only counts offences proven through a court conviction).
As a result, re-offending rates are 14.4 percentage points lower for adults and rates for juveniles are 4.1 percentage points lower using the new measure.
However, the re-offending rates are similar for adults given a court order or who received a custodial sentence, including those given a sentence of less than 12 months. Rates are between 1.0 and 2.6 percentage points lower using the new measure.
Table B1: Re-offending using the new and previous measures, 2009
| | New measure | Previous measure(s) | |----------------------|-------------|---------------------| | Adults | 24.9 | 39.3 | | Juveniles | 32.8 | 36.9 | | Adults given a court order | 34.5 | 35.5 | | Adults given a custodial sentence | 46.8 | 48.5 | | Adults given a custodial sentence of less than 12m | 56.8 | 59.4 |
Figure B1 shows re-offending rates for adult offenders between 2000 and 2009 using the new and previous measure.
For 2009, 24.9 per cent of adult offenders have a proven re-offence within 12 months using the new measure compared to 39.3 per cent using the previous re-conviction measure. However, trends for adult offenders are similar using the two measures. The proportion of offenders with a proven re-offence/re-conviction rose between 2000 and 2002, fell between 2002 and 2006, rose between 2006 and 2008, and fell between 2008 and 2009 using both measures.
**Figure B1: Adult re-conviction/re-offending, by re-offending measure, 2000, 2002 to 2009**
The overall reduction in re-offending is smaller using the new measure (1.2 percentage points between 2000 and 2009 and 0.5 percentage points between 2008 and 2009) than using the previous measure (3.7 percentage points between 2000 and 2009 and 0.8 percentage points between 2008 and 2009).
Figure B2 shows re-offending rates for juvenile offenders between 2000 and 2009 using the new and previous measure.
In 2009, 32.8 per cent of young offenders re-offended within 12 months using the new measure compared to 36.9 per cent using the previous measure. The reduction in re-offending is smaller using the new measure (0.9 percentage points between 2000 and 2009 and 0.1 percentage points between 2008 and 2009) than using the previous measure (3.3 percentage points between 2000 and 2009 and 0.4 percentage points between 2008 and 2009). Overall, the trends are broadly similar. Trends in proven re-offending/re-conviction rates for adult custodial offenders are similar using the new and previous measures. The proportion of offenders given a custodial sentence of less than 12 months who re-offended rose between 2000 and 2009 using both measures (by 2.6 percentage points using the new measure and 1.4 percentage points using the previous measure). The proportion of offenders given any custodial sentence who re-offended fell between 2000 and 2009 using both measures (by 2.6 percentage points using the new measure and 2.9 percentage points using the previous measure). The change in methodology
The following sections provide detail regarding the change in methodology between the methods in measuring re-offending and how those changes impact on the data.
The table below provides a comparison of the previous methodologies with the new approach. Table B2: Re-offending using the new and previous measures
Comparison of previous and new measures of proven re-offending
| The cohort | Previous measures of re-offending | New measure of re-offending | |------------|----------------------------------|-----------------------------| | | National adult re-conviction | National youth re-offending | Prolific and other Priority Offending (PPO) | Drug-misusing offending | All offenders who received a caution/reprimand or warning, were convicted at court (other than custody), were discharged from custody, or tested positive for cocaine or opiates on arrest over a 12 month period. | | | Local adult re-offending | Local youth re-offending | All offenders identified as being on the PPO scheme as at 1 April | | The cohort | Offenders aged 18+ discharged from custody or commencing court orders under probation supervision between January to March | Offenders aged 10-17 discharged from custody, receiving a court conviction or receiving a caution/reprimand or final warning between January and March | All offenders identified as being on the PPO scheme as at 1 April | | The follow-up period to measure re-offending | 12 months for offences to occur and a further 6 months for offences to be proved | 12 months for offences to occur and a further 6 months for offences to be proved | 12 months for offences to occur and a further 6 months for offences to be proved | 12 months for offences to occur and a further 6 months for offences to be proved | 12 months for offences to occur and a further 6 months for offences to be proved | | The headline measure | Frequency of re-offending (the number of proven re-offences per 100 offenders) | Proportion of offenders re-offending, compared to the rate that would be expected based on the offender characteristics | Frequency of re-offending (the number of proven re-offences per 100 offenders) | Frequency of re-offending (the number of proven re-offences per 100 offenders) | Number of further offences compared to number in previous year, against the reduction that would be expected given time on the PPO scheme | Number of further offences compared to what would be expected based on their previous offending history | Proportion of offenders re-offending | |----------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | What counts as a proven re-offence | Offences committed within the follow-up period which were proved by a court conviction either within the follow-up period or in a further six months | Offences committed within the follow-up period which were proved by a court conviction or caution either within the follow-up period or in a further three months | Offences committed within the follow-up period which were proved by a court conviction or reprimand or final warning either within the follow-up period or in a further six months | Offences committed within the follow-up period which were proved by a court conviction or caution either within the follow-up period or in a further three months | Breach offences that lead to substantive recorded convictions are included | Breach offences that lead to substantive recorded convictions are included | We also include information on the frequency of re-offending and information on the predicted rate based on offender characteristics | Use of a predicted rate
Data source Geographic breakdown
A predicted rate of re-offending was included for the proportion of offenders expected to reoffend based on their characteristics
A predicted rate of re-offending was included for the proportion of offenders expected to reoffend based on their characteristics
A predicted rate of re-offending was included for the proportion of offenders expected to re-offend based on their characteristics
Logistic regression was used
Logistic regression was used
Logistic regression was used
Police National Computer None
Police National Computer Region, Probation area, Local Authority
Police National Computer None
No predicted rate
Evidence on the link between time on the PPO scheme and expected reductions in further offending were used to assess reductions in number of offences compared to the previous year
A predicted rate of re-offending was included for the proportion of offenders expected to reoffend based on their previous criminal history Response surface methodology was used
A predicted rate of re-offending is included for the proportion of offenders expected to re-offend based on their characteristics Logistic regression is used
Youth Offending Teams data Youth Offending Team level
Police National Computer Police Force and Local Authority level
Police National Computer Drug Action team and Local Authority level
Police National Computer Upper and lower tier local authority areas for all offenders. Other breakdowns for specific categories of offender.
32
The effect of the changes
Adults
Differences in methodology are reflected in different results. Table B3 shows the impact on reported rates of adult re-conviction/re-offending. The table breaks down the changes between the previous measure and the new measure to identify the different effects of the changes in methodology.
Table B3: Re-offending/re-convictions data for adult offenders, 2000, 2002 to 2009
| Year | Previous measure: re-convictions (prison and probation offenders only), first quarter of the year | Previous measure: re-convictions (prison and probation offenders only), whole year | New measure: re-offending (prison and probation offenders only), whole year | New measure: proven re-offending (all offenders), whole year | |------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------| | | Proportion | | | | | 2000 | 43.0 | 40.0 | 40.9 | 26.2 | | 2002 | 45.5 | 42.0 | 43.0 | 27.6 | | 2003 | 45.4 | 41.5 | 42.4 | 26.9 | | 2004 | 42.9 | 38.6 | 39.8 | 25.5 | | 2005 | 41.2 | 36.6 | 38.4 | 24.9 | | 2006 | 36.6 | 35.6 | 37.6 | 24.6 | | 2007 | 39.0 | 35.9 | 37.9 | 24.8 | | 2008 | 40.1 | 36.1 | 37.9 | 25.4 | | 2009 | 39.3 | 34.7 | 36.2 | 24.9 | | | Frequency (average per offender) | | | | | 2000 | 1.85 | 1.66 | 1.69 | 0.89 | | 2002 | 2.13 | 1.84 | 1.87 | 0.99 | | 2003 | 2.05 | 1.73 | 1.76 | 0.93 | | 2004 | 1.81 | 1.51 | 1.54 | 0.83 | | 2005 | 1.66 | 1.36 | 1.40 | 0.77 | | 2006 | 1.44 | 1.26 | 1.31 | 0.73 | | 2007 | 1.47 | 1.27 | 1.32 | 0.73 | | 2008 | 1.55 | 1.27 | 1.31 | 0.75 | | 2009 | 1.41 | 1.15 | 1.18 | 0.70 | | | Frequency of re-offenders (average per re-offender) | | | | | 2000 | 4.30 | 4.15 | 4.13 | 3.39 | | 2002 | 4.68 | 4.39 | 4.36 | 3.59 | | 2003 | 4.52 | 4.18 | 4.15 | 3.44 | | 2004 | 4.23 | 3.91 | 3.87 | 3.27 | | 2005 | 4.03 | 3.70 | 3.65 | 3.10 | | 2006 | 3.73 | 3.54 | 3.48 | 2.95 | | 2007 | 3.78 | 3.53 | 3.48 | 2.94 | | 2008 | 3.88 | 3.51 | 3.46 | 2.93 | | 2009 | 3.57 | 3.31 | 3.27 | 2.80 | | | Number of offenders | | | | | 2000 | 42,734 | 148,052 | 148,052 | 477,698 | | 2002 | 43,247 | 157,243 | 157,243 | 495,664 | | 2003 | 44,095 | 159,686 | 159,686 | 520,660 | | 2004 | 46,532 | 163,775 | 163,775 | 512,600 | | 2005 | 43,429 | 170,021 | 170,021 | 532,045 | | 2006 | 50,281 | 181,726 | 181,726 | 571,458 | | 2007 | 50,085 | 190,418 | 190,418 | 595,020 | | 2008 | 53,718 | 197,035 | 197,035 | 589,948 | | 2009 | 56,616 | 200,077 | 200,077 | 576,255 |
1. Based on the national adult re-convictions publication (March 2011)
Among adult offenders in 2009, the previous national measure (the first column) shows that 39.3 per cent of adult offenders were re-convicted within a year based on a sample of 56,616 offenders. The second column shows the re-conviction rates from the previous measure looking at offenders who were released from custody or commenced a court order, but at any point during the year. The inclusion of offenders from a full 12 month period means the results are calculated using the full proven offender population rather than a sample – this ensures we do not over-represent prolific offenders in the cohort, which is a problem in using a January to March sample as in the previous adult re-conviction measure.
This leads to a lower proportion of re-convicted offenders (between three and five percentage points, e.g. 34.7 per cent compared to 39.3 per cent in 2009). The change to a full year also increases the number of offenders, to 200,077 in 2009.(^{13})
The third column shows the proven re-offending rates from the new measure, but still based only on those offenders who were released from custody or commenced a court order at any point during the year. Proven re-offending includes offences which result in a caution in addition to those resulting in a conviction at court. The proportion of offenders who were proven to re-offend is between one and two percentage points higher than for those who were re-convicted (36.2 per cent compared to 34.7 per cent in 2009). There is little difference at this stage because we are still only considering offenders who already have a prison or a court order.
The fourth column shows the re-offending rates from the new measure looking at all adult offenders who received a caution, a conviction at court, discharged from custody, or tested positive for cocaine or opiates. The inclusion of these offenders increases the numbers considerably. In 2009, the previous adult measure tracks the re-offending behaviour of 56,616 offenders; the new measure tracks 576,255 offenders. The inclusion of offenders who received less severe disposals and are generally less prolific in nature reduces the proportion who re-offend by around 11 to 16 percentage points (36.2 per cent compared to 24.9 per cent in 2009).
**Change over time**
Compared to the previous measure, the reduction over time in the proportion of offenders who re-offend is much lower using the new measure. Using the previous measure, between 2000 and 2009, the proportion of offenders who were re-convicted fell 3.7 percentage points (from 43.0 to 39.3 per cent). Using the new measure, the proportion of offenders who committed a proven re-offence fell 1.2 percentage points (from 26.2 to 24.9 per cent).
______________________________________________________________________
(^{13}) The previous measure includes offenders released from custody or who commenced a court order in the first three months of the year, shown in column one. Column two includes offenders released from custody or who commenced a court order in the 12 month period. The number of offenders shown in column two is less than four times as many as in column one. This is because some offenders commence a court order or are discharged from custody more than once in a year. These calculations only count each offender once e.g. offender Y is discharged from custody in the first quarter of the year, and discharged again in the second quarter, but he is only counted as a single offender. Juveniles
The only change between the previous measure and the new measure of re-offending among young people is the move from a one quarter sample to including all young offenders over the period of a year.
Table B4: Re-offending data for juvenile offenders, 2000, 2002 to 2009
| Year | Previous measure proven re-offending | New measure proven re-offending | |------|-------------------------------------|---------------------------------| | 2000 | 40.2 | 33.7 | | 2002 | 38.5 | 33.4 | | 2003 | 39.0 | 34.3 | | 2004 | 38.6 | 33.6 | | 2005 | 38.4 | 33.6 | | 2006 | 38.7 | 33.9 | | 2007 | 37.5 | 32.5 | | 2008 | 37.3 | 32.9 | | 2009 | 36.9 | 32.8 |
| Year | Frequency (average per offender) | Frequency of re-offenders (average per re-offender) | |------|---------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------| | 2000 | 1.51 | 3.77 | | 2002 | 1.42 | 3.69 | | 2003 | 1.42 | 3.63 | | 2004 | 1.32 | 3.43 | | 2005 | 1.25 | 3.26 | | 2006 | 1.23 | 3.18 | | 2007 | 1.16 | 3.08 | | 2008 | 1.14 | 3.06 | | 2009 | 1.10 | 2.99 |
| Year | Number of offenders | | |------|---------------------|---| | 2000 | 41,176 | 139,326 | | 2002 | 40,753 | 136,401 | | 2003 | 40,297 | 138,379 | | 2004 | 44,153 | 149,452 | | 2005 | 45,337 | 163,545 | | 2006 | 48,938 | 171,061 | | 2007 | 52,544 | 171,454 | | 2008 | 44,837 | 145,579 | | 2009 | 37,472 | 121,107 |
1. Based on the national juvenile re-offending publication (March 2011) publication
As for adults, using the whole year reduces the proportion of offenders who re-offended because we do not over-represent prolific offenders in the cohort, which is a problem in using a January to March sample. Table B4 shows the reduction is between four and seven percentage points. For 2009, with the previous measure, 36.9 per cent commit a proven re-offence within one year; with the new measure, 32.8 per cent do so. The new measure, which is based on offenders from a 12 month period, includes over three times as many offenders as the existing measure.
**Change over time**
Compared to the previous measure, the reduction in the proportion of offenders who re-offend between 2000 and 2009 is much lower using the new measure.
Using the previous measure, between 2000 and 2009, the proportion of offenders who were proven to re-offend fell 3.3 percentage points (from 40.2 to 36.9 per cent). Using the new measure, the proportion of offenders who committed a proven re-offence fell 0.9 percentage points (from 33.7 to 32.8 per cent).
**Drug-misusing offenders**
Published results for drug-misusing offenders on the previous measure covered 2008 and 2009; results using the new measure cover from 2004 onwards.
The previous measure:
- Includes offenders who have been identified in the first quarter of the year, whereas the new measure includes offenders from any point during the year.
- Includes all drug-misusing offenders irrespective of the date of proven offence, whereas the new measure includes identified drug-misusing offenders who have received a caution, been convicted at court, been discharged from custody, or tested positive for cocaine or opiates on arrest during a 12 month period.
- Counts re-offences that were proven through a court conviction, whereas the new measure counts re-offences that were proven by a court conviction or caution.
As for adult and juvenile offenders, using the whole year to identify offenders reduces the proportion of offenders who re-offend, because we do not over-represent prolific offenders in the cohort, which is a problem in using a January to March sample. Table B5 shows the impact on reported rates of re-offending/re-conviction by drug-misusing offenders. Table B5: Re-offending data for drug-misusing offenders, 2004 to 2009
| Year | Previous measure proven re-conviction | New measure of proven re-offending | |------|--------------------------------------|-----------------------------------| | | Proportion | Frequency (average per offender) | | | 2004 67.3 | 2004 3.20 | | | 2005 65.3 | 2005 2.94 | | | 2006 58.6 | 2006 2.37 | | | 2007 57.2 | 2007 2.34 | | | 2008 61.0 | 2008 2.6 | | | 2009 57.0 | 2009 2.2 | | | Frequency of re-offenders (average per re-offender) | | | | 2004 4.75 | 2004 4.75 | | | 2005 4.51 | 2005 4.51 | | | 2006 4.03 | 2006 4.03 | | | 2007 4.09 | 2007 4.09 | | | 2008 4.3 | 2008 4.3 | | | 2009 3.9 | 2009 3.9 | | | Number of offenders | | | | 2004 20,652 | 2004 20,652 | | | 2005 29,112 | 2005 29,112 | | | 2006 44,597 | 2006 44,597 | | | 2007 54,474 | 2007 54,474 | | | 2008 20,934 | 2008 20,934 | | | 2009 20,109 | 2009 20,109 |
1. Based on the national drug-misusing offenders publication (December 2010)
Table B5 shows that the proportion of offenders who commit a proven re-offence is between two and five percentage points lower using the new measure (57.0 per cent using the previous measure compared to 54.7 per cent using the new measure). The new measure, which follows offenders over a 12 month period, includes between two and three times as many offenders as the existing measure.
**Prolific and other priority offenders**
Published results for prolific and other priority offenders (PPOs) on the previous measure presented the frequency of proven re-offending for all PPOs; results using the new measure cover the proportion of offenders proven to re-offend, and the frequency of proven re-offending for all offenders and for re-offenders from 2005 onwards. The previous measure:
- Includes offenders who have been identified in the first quarter of the year, whereas the new measure includes offenders from any point during the year. However, PPOs are generally on the PPO programme for a sustained period of time so this only has a moderate impact on numbers of offenders included.
- Includes all identified PPOs, whereas the new measure includes identified PPOs who have tested positive for cocaine or opiates, received a caution, been convicted at court, or been discharged from custody during a 12 month period.
- Counts re-offences that are proven through a court conviction or caution and also includes breach offences that lead to substantive recorded convictions. The new measure only includes re-offences proven through a court conviction or caution.
Table B6 shows the impact on reported rates of proven re-offending by PPOs and on numbers of offenders included in the measure.
**Table B6: Re-offending data for Prolific and other Priority Offenders, 2005 to 2009**
| Year | Previous measure proven re-offending | New measure of proven re-offending | |------|-------------------------------------|-----------------------------------| | | Proportion | | | 2005 | 77.0 | | | 2006 | 75.7 | | | 2007 | 75.8 | | | 2008 | 77.2 | | | 2009 | 56.0 | 75.1 | | | Frequency (average per offender) | | | 2005 | 4.01 | | | 2006 | 3.83 | | | 2007 | 3.80 | | | 2008 | 2.6 | 3.80 | | 2009 | 2.4 | 3.49 | | | Frequency of re-offenders (average per re-offender) | | | 2005 | 5.21 | | | 2006 | 5.06 | | | 2007 | 5.01 | | | 2008 | 4.93 | | | 2009 | 4.3 | 4.65 | | | Number of offenders | | | 2005 | 8,555 | | | 2006 | 8,239 | | | 2007 | 8,309 | | | 2008 | 10,771 | 8,607 | | 2009 | 10,635 | 8,156 |
1. Based on the national Prolific and other Priority Offenders publication (March 2010) The average number of proven re-offences committed by PPOs in 2009 is lower for the previous measure than for the new measure in 2008 (2.4 re-offences per offender using the previous measure, but 3.49 using the new).
The previous measure includes PPOs who have not been proven guilty of an offence or been discharged from custody in the 12 month period when the re-offending cohort is formed. This type of offender is likely to have a lower level of re-offending.
These differences may help to explain:
- why the frequency of re-offending is lower for the previous measure than for the new measure in 2009 (2.4 re-offences per offender using the previous measure, but 3.49 using the new); and
- why the previous measure includes nearly 2,500 more PPOs in 2009 than does the new measure.
**Local adult re-offending**
The most similar results for the new measure of re-offending and the existing local measure of adult re-offending are the early estimates of re-offending of offenders given a court order. Like the existing measure of local adult re-offending, the early estimates of offenders given a court order:
- measure re-offending over three months;
- only measures offenders under probation supervision;
- provides results by probation trust; and
- compares actual re-offending rates with a predicted re-offending rate.
There remain significant differences between the early estimates and the existing local adult measure of re-offending, including:
- The existing local adult measure includes offenders on licence – the early estimates include offenders commencing court orders only;
- The existing local adult measure uses a ‘snapshot’ approach. This means offenders are counted if they are on the caseload at certain times in the year. Offenders who are on the caseload for a short period of time may not get counted with the existing measure. The early estimates count every offender who commences a court order;
- Because the existing local adult measure uses a ‘snapshot’ approach some offenders may get counted up to four times if they are on the caseload for over 12 months. The early estimates count every offender once; The existing local adult measure measures the re-offending of offenders at any point during the court order – the early estimates measure re-offending in the first three months after an offender commenced a court order; and
The predicted score for the existing local adult measure was derived from analysis of 2007 re-offending data and the prediction for the early estimates was derived from analysis of 2008 re-offending data.
These differences explain why the re-offending rate is higher with the early estimates of re-offending by offenders commencing a court order than with the existing measure of local adult re-offending:
- offenders on licence have lower rates of re-offending than those commencing a court order; and
- offenders serving a court order have lower rates of re-offending the longer they are on that court order.
However, the prediction for the early estimates has been tailored specifically to the relevant group of offenders.
**Local youth re-offending**
The previous measure of youth re-offending used data that Youth Offending Teams (YOT) collected themselves from their local police and courts. The measure was used as management information and was never published or put into the public domain. The new measure uses data from the Police National Computer (PNC). Internal analysis and discussion with stakeholders has highlighted a number of differences between the two data sources:
- The PNC includes a number of offenders who have received a reprimand or final warning which do not always appear on the YOT systems. As a result, there are more youth offenders and a higher overall youth re-offending rate using the new measure than using the previous local youth re-offending measure.
- The PNC includes more comprehensive data on re-offending as adults by offenders who originally offended as youths.
- Using PNC data reduces the data-collection burden on YOT and local police forces.
- PNC data measures re-offending on recordable offences and YOT data measures re-offending on all offences. Offences which are not recordable include speeding offences, parking offences and other minor motoring offences. As a result, YOT data is more comprehensive for motoring re-offences. The new measure allocates offenders to a locality using their home address data from the PNC; the previous local youth measure allocated offenders using offender management data. As a result, Looked After Children (LAC) who are in foster care, or in a children’s home, or in a boarding school or live with another adult known to children’s services, maybe allocated to a different YOT under the previous youth measure than the new measure.
For their re-offending to be included in the new measure, administrative data on young people in custody and secure accommodation has to be matched to the PNC. Some cases are not successfully matched. This process was not required for these offenders to be included in the previous local youth measure. As a result, YOT data can be more comprehensive regarding custodial offenders or those in secure accommodation.
Using PNC data provides an external measure of youth re-offending, which makes it an appropriate data-source to support any future policies which tie local funding to re-offending performance.
Using PNC data allows local youth re-offending to be measured on the same basis as national youth re-offending and adult re-offending, permitting adult and youth re-offending to be measured on a like-for-like basis and a more comprehensive picture of re-offending to be formed.
Work is underway to fully quantify the extent of these differences. Annex C
Glossary of terms
Re-offending terms
Cohort – this is the group of individuals whose re-offending is measured.
Index offence – the index offence is the proven offence that leads to an offender being included in the cohort.
Index disposal – the index disposal of the offender is the type of sentence the offender received for their index offence.
Start point (also known as the index date) – this is the set point in time from when re-offences are measured.
Follow-up period – this is the length of time proven re-offending is measured over.
Waiting period – this is the additional time beyond the follow-up period to allow for offences committed towards the end of the follow-up period to be proved by a court conviction, caution, reprimand or final warning.
Adjusted to baseline – proven re-offending is related to the characteristics of offenders which means that any overall rate of proven re-offending will depend, in part, on the characteristics of offenders coming into the system (just as the examination pass rate of a school will be related to the characteristics of its pupils). We use a modelling technique to produce a baseline figure adjusted to match the characteristics of the cohort we are comparing. Please refer to the ‘Definitions and Measurement’ document for more detail at www.justice.gov.uk/statistics/reoffending/proven-re-offending.
Re-conviction – where an offender is convicted at court for an offence committed within a set follow-up period and convicted within either the follow-up period or waiting period.
Proven re-offence – where an offender is convicted at court or receives some other form of criminal justice sanction for an offence committed within a set follow-up period and disposed of within either the follow-up period or waiting period.
Cohort used in the Proven Re-offending Statistics Quarterly Bulletin – the proven re-offending cohort consists of all offenders discharged from custody, otherwise sanctioned at court, receiving a caution, reprimand or warning or tested positive for opiates or cocaine in each year. This cohort’s criminal history is collated and criminal behaviour is tracked over the following one year. Any offence committed in this one-year period which is proven by a court conviction or out-of-court disposal (either in the one-year period, or in a further six months waiting period) counts as a proven re-offence.
**Cohort used in the Local Adult Re-offending Quarterly Bulletin** – the local adult re-offending measure takes a snapshot of all offenders, aged 18 or over, who are under probation supervision at the end of a quarter, and combines four such snapshots together. This cohort’s criminal history is collated and criminal behaviour is tracked over the following three months. Any offence committed in this three month period which is proven by a court conviction or out-of-court disposal (either in the three month period, or in a further three months waiting period) counts as a proven re-offence. The latest available publication is the Local Adult Re-offending: 1 October 2010 – 30 September 2011, England and Wales; Ministry of Justice, February 2011.
[www.justice.gov.uk/statistics/reoffending/local-adult-reoffending](http://www.justice.gov.uk/statistics/reoffending/local-adult-reoffending)
**Disposal (sentence type)**
**Fine** – a financial penalty imposed following conviction.
**Court orders** – court orders include community sentences, community orders and suspended sentence orders supervised by the Probation Service. They do not include any pre or post release supervision.
**Criminal Justice Act 2003 (CJA03)** – for offences committed on or after 4 April 2005, the new community order replaced all existing community sentences for adults. The Act also introduced a new suspended sentence order for offences which pass the custody threshold. It also changed the release arrangements for prisoners. See Appendix A of Offender Management Caseload Statistics 2009 for more information.
**Community order** – for offences committed on or after 4 April 2005, the new community order introduced under the CJA 2003 replaced all existing community sentences for those aged 18 years and over. This term refers to all court orders except suspended sentence orders and deferred sentences which may have a custodial component to the sentence. The court must add at least one (but could potentially add all 12) requirements depending on the offences and the offender. The requirements are:
- unpaid work (formerly community service/community punishment) – a requirement to complete between 40 and 300 hours’ unpaid work;
- activity – for example, to attend basic skills classes;
- programme – there are several designed to reduce the prospects of re-offending;
- prohibited activity – a requirement not do so something that is likely to lead to further offence or nuisance; • curfew – which is electronically monitored;
• exclusion – this is not used frequently as there is no reliable electronic monitoring yet available;
• residence – requirement to reside only where approved by probation officer;
• mental health treatment (requires offender’s consent);
• drug rehabilitation (requires offender’s consent);
• alcohol treatment (requires offender’s consent);
• supervision – meetings with probation officer to address needs/offending behaviour; and
• attendance centre – between a minimum of 12 hours and a maximum of 36 in total which includes three hours of activity.
Typically, the more serious the offence and the more extensive the offender’s needs, the more requirements there will be. Most orders will comprise of one or two requirements, but there are packages of several requirements available where required. The court tailors the order as appropriate and is guided by the Probation Service through a pre-sentence report.
**Suspended sentence order (SSO)** – the CJA 2003 introduced a new suspended sentence order which is made up of the same requirements as a community order and, in the absence of breach is served wholly in the community supervised by the Probation Service. It consists of an ‘operational period’ (the time for which the custodial sentence is suspended) and a ‘supervision period’ (the time during which any requirements take effect). Both may be between six months and two years and the ‘supervision period’ cannot be longer than the ‘operational period’, although it may be shorter. Failure to comply with the requirements of the order or commission of another offence will almost certainly result in a custodial sentence.
**Pre CJA03 Court Orders – Community sentences**
**Community punishment order (CPO)** – the offender is required to undertake unpaid community work.
**Community rehabilitation order (CRO)** - a community sentence which may have additional requirements such as residence, probation centre attendance or treatment for drug, alcohol or mental health problems.
**Community punishment and rehabilitation order (CPRO)** – a community sentence consisting of probation supervision alongside community punishment, with additional conditions like those of a community rehabilitation order. Drug treatment and testing order (DTTO) – a community sentence targeted at offenders with drug-misuse problems.
Custody – the offender is awarded a sentence to be served in prison or a Young Offenders Institute (YOI). If the offender is given a sentence of 12 months or over, or is aged under 22 on release, the offender is supervised by the Probation Service on release. It is important to note that the sentence lengths and youth disposals awarded will be longer than the time served in custody. For more information please refer to Appendix A of Offender Management Caseload Statistics 2009.
Short sentences (under 12 months) – those sentenced to under 12 months (made under the Criminal Justice Act 1991) spend the first half of their sentence in prison and are then released and considered ‘at risk’ for the remaining period. This means they are under no positive obligations and do not report to the Probation Service, but if they commit a further imprisonable offence during the ‘at risk’ period, they can be made to serve the remainder of the sentence in addition to the punishment for the new offence. The exception to this is those aged 18 to 20 who have a minimum of three month’s supervision on release.
Sentences of 12 months or over – the CJA03 created a distinction between standard determinate sentences and public protection sentences. Offenders sentenced to a standard determinate sentence serve the first half in prison and the second half in the community on licence.
Youth disposal (sentence type)
Reprimand or warning – a reprimand is a formal verbal warning given by a police officer to a juvenile offender who admits they are guilty for a minor first offence. A final warning is similar to a reprimand, but can be used for either the first or second offence, and includes an assessment of the juvenile to determine the causes of their offending behaviour and a programme of activities is designed to address them.
First-tier penalties
Discharge – a juvenile offender is given an absolute discharge when they admit guilt, or are found guilty, with no further action taken. An offender given a conditional discharge also receives no immediate punishment, but is given a set period during which, if they commit a further offence, they can be brought back to court and re-sentenced.
Fine – the size of the fine depends on the offence committed and the offender’s financial circumstances. In the case of juveniles under 16, the fine is the responsibility of the offender’s parent or carer.
Referral order – this is given to juveniles pleading guilty and for whom it is their first time at court (unless the offence is so serious it merits a custodial sentence or it is of a relatively minor nature). The offender is required to attend a Youth Offender Panel to agree a contract, aimed to repair the harm caused by the offence and address the causes of the offending behaviour.
**Reparation order** – the offender is required to repair the harm caused by their offence either directly to the victim or indirectly to the community.
**Prison categories**
**Category B and category C prisons** hold sentenced prisoners of their respective categories, including life sentenced prisoners. The regime focuses on programmes that address offending behaviour and provide education, vocational training and purposeful work for prisoners who will normally spend several years in one prison.
**High security prisons** hold category A and B prisoners. Category A prisoners are managed by a process of dispersal, and these prisons also hold a proportion of category B prisoners for whom they provide a similar regime to a category B prison. The category B prisoners held in a High Security Prison are not necessarily any more dangerous or difficult to manage than those in category B prisons.
**Female prisons**, as the name implies, hold female prisoners. Because of the smaller numbers, they are not divided into the same number of categories although there are variations in security levels.
**Local prisons** serve the courts in the area. Historically their main function was to hold un-convicted and un-sentenced prisoners and, once a prisoner had been sentenced, to allocate them on to a category B, C or D prison as appropriate to serve their sentence. However, pressure on places means that many shorter term prisoners serve their entire sentence in a local prison, while longer term prisoners also complete some offending behaviour and training programmes there before moving on to lower security conditions. All local prisons operate to category B security standards.
**Open prisons** have much lower levels of physical security and only hold category D prisoners. Many prisoners in open prisons will be allowed to go out of the prison on a daily basis to take part in voluntary or paid work in the community in preparation for their approaching release.
**Prisoner categories**
These categories are based on a combination of the type of crime committed, the length of sentence, the likelihood of escape, and the danger to the public if they did escape. The four categories are:
**Category A** prisoners are those whose escape would be highly dangerous to the public or national security.
**Category B** prisoners are those who do not require maximum security, but for whom escape needs to be made very difficult. Category C prisoners are those who cannot be trusted in open conditions, but who are unlikely to try to escape.
Category D prisoners are those who can be reasonably trusted not to try to escape and are given the privilege of an open prison.
Miscellaneous terms
Drug-misusing offenders
There are four ways a drug-misusing offender can be identified:
- Individuals who have tested positive for heroin or crack/cocaine following an arrest or charge for ‘trigger’ offences (largely acquisitive crime offences) as part of the Drug Interventions Programme (DIP) are included as adult proven offenders.
- Any offender that received an OASys assessment whilst on licence or on a community sentence and are either recorded as being subject to a current Drug Treatment and Testing Order (DTTO) or Drug Rehabilitation Requirement (DRR), or are assessed as having a criminogenic drug need.
- Any offender identified as requiring further drug interventions by Counselling, Assessment, Referral, Advice, Throughcare (CARAT) teams in prison, and now being released into the community.
- Any offender identified by local Criminal Justice Integrated Teams (CJITs) as requiring further intervention for their drug use and offending as part of DIP.
National Probation Service – the National Probation Service generally deals with those aged 18 years and over. (Those under 18 are mostly dealt with by Youth Offending Teams, answering to the Youth Justice Board.) They are responsible for supervising offenders who are given community sentences and suspended sentence orders by the courts, as well as offenders given custodial sentences, both pre and post their release.
Police National Computer – the Police National Computer (PNC) is the police’s administrative IT system used by all police forces in England and Wales and managed by the National Policing Improvement Agency. As with any large scale recording system the PNC is subject to possible errors with data entry and processing. The MoJ maintains a database based on weekly extracts of selected data from the PNC in order to compile statistics and conduct research on re-offending and criminal histories. The PNC largely covers recordable offences – these are all indictable and triable-either-way offences plus many of the more serious summary offences. All figures derived from the MoJ’s PNC database, and in particular those for the most recent months, are likely to be revised as more information is recorded by the police. **Prolific and other priority offenders** – the Prolific and other Priority Offenders Programme (PPO) aims to use a multi-agency approach to focus on a very small, but hard core group of prolific/persistent offenders who commit disproportionate amounts of crime and cause disproportionate harm to their local communities. The identification of a PPO is undertaken at a local level involving police, local authorities, prison and probation services and youth offending teams. The factors that influence the decision of whether an offender is included in the PPO programme are:
- the nature and volume of crimes they commit;
- the nature and volume of other harm they cause; and
- the detrimental impact they have on their community.
**Recordable offences** – recordable offences are those that the police are required to record on the PNC. They include all offences for which a custodial sentence can be given plus a range of other offences defined as recordable in legislation. They exclude a range of less serious summary offences, for example television licence evasion, driving without insurance, speeding and vehicle tax offences.
**Indictable and summary offences** – summary offences are triable only by a magistrates’ court. This group includes motoring offences, common assault and criminal damage up to £5,000. More serious offences are classed either as triable-either-way (these can be tried either at the Crown Court or at a magistrates’ court and include criminal damage where the value is £5,000 or greater, theft and burglary) or indictable-only (the most serious offences that must be tried at the Crown Court; these ‘indictable-only’ offences include murder, manslaughter, rape and robbery). The term indictable offences is used to refer to all triable-either-way and ‘indictable-only’ offences.
**Offence group** – a split of offences into 21 separate groups. A more detailed split of the 10 indictable offence groups (violence against the person, sexual offences, burglary, robbery, theft and handling and stolen goods, fraud and forgery, criminal damage, drug offences, other indictable offences (excluding motoring), indictable motoring) and the two summary offence groups (summary non-motoring and summary motoring offence types). Explanatory notes
The United Kingdom Statistics Authority has designated these statistics as National Statistics, in accordance with the Statistics and Registration Service Act 2007 and signifying compliance with the Code of Practice for Official Statistics.
Designation can be broadly interpreted to mean that the statistics:
- meet identified user needs;
- are well explained and readily accessible;
- are produced according to sound methods, and
- are managed impartially and objectively in the public interest.
Once statistics have been designated as National Statistics it is a statutory requirement that the Code of Practice shall continue to be observed.
The statistics in this bulletin relate to re-offending data in England and Wales. This is the fourth set of quarterly re-offending statistics to be published by the MoJ, subsuming a number of previous publications including: adult re-convictions, juvenile re-offending, drug-misusing offenders and prolific and other priority offenders.
Symbols used
| Symbol | Description | |--------|--------------------------------------------------| | .. | Not available | | 0 | Nil or less than half the final digit shown | | - | Not applicable | | * | One or both of the comparison figures are less than 30 | | (p) | Provisional data | Contact points
Press enquiries should be directed to the Ministry of Justice press office:
Tel: 020 3334 3536
Other enquiries about these statistics should be directed to:
**Jo Peacock** Ministry of Justice Justice Statistics Analytical Services 7th Floor 102 Petty France London SW1H 9AJ Tel: 020 3334 3737
General enquiries about the statistical work of the Ministry of Justice can be e-mailed to: [email protected]
General information about the official statistics system of the United Kingdom is available from www.statistics.gov.uk
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/4817-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 50,
"total-input-tokens": 96015,
"total-output-tokens": 26001,
"total-fallback-pages": 1
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
155,
1
],
[
155,
1261,
2
],
[
1261,
3642,
3
],
[
3642,
6297,
4
],
[
6297,
8631,
5
],
[
8631,
10288,
6
],
[
10288,
12803,
7
],
[
12803,
15214,
8
],
[
15214,
23162,
9
],
[
23162,
24373,
10
],
[
24373,
25975,
11
],
[
25975,
27077,
12
],
[
27077,
27769,
13
],
[
27769,
29468,
14
],
[
29468,
32237,
15
],
[
32237,
34684,
16
],
[
34684,
36831,
17
],
[
36831,
37192,
18
],
[
37192,
39414,
19
],
[
39414,
40911,
20
],
[
40911,
42815,
21
],
[
42815,
43433,
22
],
[
43433,
46031,
23
],
[
46031,
48361,
24
],
[
48361,
49868,
25
],
[
49868,
52462,
26
],
[
52462,
53737,
27
],
[
53737,
54333,
28
],
[
54333,
54614,
29
],
[
54614,
56237,
30
],
[
56237,
58618,
31
],
[
58618,
60164,
32
],
[
60164,
74209,
33
],
[
74209,
77433,
34
],
[
77433,
80559,
35
],
[
80559,
82411,
36
],
[
82411,
85260,
37
],
[
85260,
88518,
38
],
[
88518,
90662,
39
],
[
90662,
92881,
40
],
[
92881,
94279,
41
],
[
94279,
96456,
42
],
[
96456,
99163,
43
],
[
99163,
101440,
44
],
[
101440,
104196,
45
],
[
104196,
106788,
46
],
[
106788,
109266,
47
],
[
109266,
111523,
48
],
[
111523,
112982,
49
],
[
112982,
113546,
50
]
]
} |
13ed74ca3517b837dc432a5e71e19be8a490cec4 | Proven Reoffending Statistics Quarterly Bulletin, April 2014 to March 2015
Main points
This bulletin provides key statistics on Proven Reoffending for adult and juvenile offenders who were released from custody, received a non-custodial conviction at court, or received a caution in the period April 2014 to March 2015. This bulletin and associated tables and data tools present the proportion of offenders who reoffend (proven reoffending rate) and the number of proven reoffences by offender history, demographics, individual prisons, probation area, local authorities and youth offending teams.
The overall proven reoffending rate was 25.3%.
There is a 0.9 percentage point decrease in the overall proven reoffending rate compared to the previous 12 months and a 2.0 percentage point decrease since 2004. However, the rate has remained fairly flat, fluctuating between 25% and 27% since 2004.
Adult offenders had a proven reoffending rate of 24.3%.
The adult proven reoffending rate is down 0.9 percentage points compared to the previous 12 months and 1.2 percentage points since 2004. The adult reoffending rate has remained fairly flat since 2004, fluctuating around 25%.
Juvenile offenders had a proven reoffending rate of 37.9%.
The juvenile reoffending rate has increased by 4.3 percentage points since 2004. However, the size of the cohort has fallen by around 76% over the same period. The rate has remained broadly the same as 12 months earlier.
Adults released from custody had a proven reoffending rate of 44.7%.
The proven reoffending rate for adult offenders released from custody was 44.7%, a decrease of 1.1 percentage points compared to the previous 12 months and 3.9 percentage points since 2004.
Latest figures are provided with comparisons to April 2013 to March 2014, and 2004 in order to highlight long-term trends. For full and detailed commentary please refer to the annual publication, and for technical details and how proven reoffending is measured to the accompanying guide to proven reoffending statistics.
We are changing how our quarterly bulletins look, and would welcome any feedback to [email protected]
For other feedback related to the content of this publication, please let us know at [email protected] How is proven reoffending measured?
A proven reoffence is defined as any offence committed in a one year follow-up period that leads to a court conviction, caution, reprimand or warning in the one year follow-up or within a further six month waiting period to allow the offence to be proven in court as shown in the diagram below.
An offender enters the cohort if they are released from custody, received a non-custodial conviction at court or received a reprimand or warning in the period April 2014 to March 2015.
For further detail on how proven reoffending is measured, please see the guide to proven reoffending statistics.
1. Overall – adult and juvenile offenders
25.3% of offenders in the April 2014 to March 2015 cohort reoffended within a year
In April 2014 to March 2015 around 477,000 adult and juvenile offenders were cautioned(^1), received a non-custodial conviction at court or released from custody. Around 121,000 of these offenders committed a proven re-offence within a year. This gives an overall proven reoffending rate of 25.3%. This rate has remained fairly stable since 2004, fluctuating between 25% and 27%.
Figure 1: Proportion of adult and juvenile offenders in England and Wales who commit a proven re-offence, 2004 to March 2015 (Source: Table A1)
The latest overall proven reoffending rate represents a small decrease of 0.9 percentage points compared to the previous 12 months and a fall of 2.0 percentage points since 2004. Around 390,000 proven reoffences were committed over the one year follow-up period, with those that reoffended committing, on average, 3.23 reoffences each.
In the April 2014 to March 2015 cohort, 82% were male and 18% were female, a split that has changed little since 2004. Male offenders reoffended at a higher rate of 26.8% compared to female offenders who reoffended at a rate of 18.7%. Both rates have remained broadly stable since 2004.
Less than 1% of all proven reoffences committed over the one year follow-up period were indictable only(^2). This is compared to 1.16% in 2004 – its highest level over the 10 years.
______________________________________________________________________
(^1) Includes reprimands and warnings for juveniles.
(^2) Indictable-only offences cover the most serious offences that must be tried at the Crown court; these ‘indictable-only’ offences include murder, manslaughter, rape and robbery. 2. Adult offenders
24.3% of adult offenders in the April 2014 to March 2015 cohort reoffended within a year
Adult offenders accounted for 92% (around 440,000) of the April 2014 to March 2015 cohort and juvenile offenders account for 8% (around 36,000). Around 107,000 of all adult offenders were proven to have committed a reoffence within a year, giving a proven reoffending rate of 24.3%.
Figure 2: Proportion of adult offenders in England and Wales who commit a proven reoffence, by number of previous offences, April 2014 to March 2015 (Source: A5a)
The latest adult reoffending rate represents a small decrease of 0.9 percentage points compared to the previous 12 months and a fall of 1.2 percentage points since 2004. This rate has been fairly flat since 2004 fluctuating between 24.3% and 25.4%.
Around 345,000 proven reoffences were committed by adults over the one year follow-up period. Those that reoffended committed on average 3.22 reoffences each.
Generally, offenders with a large number of previous offences have a higher rate of proven reoffending than those with fewer previous offences. In the cohort, the proven reoffending rates for adults ranged from 7.5% for offenders with no previous offences to 44.7% for offenders with 11 or more previous offences. Adult offenders with 11 or more previous offences represented just under a third of all adult offenders in the cohort, but committed over two thirds of all adult proven reoffences.
______________________________________________________________________
3 A certain proportion of offenders who could not be matched to the Police National Computer (PNC) are excluded from the offender cohort. Therefore, this number does not represent all proven offenders. This means that the number of offenders in this bulletin will be different from the numbers published in Offender Management Statistics Quarterly and Criminal Justice Statistics. Please refer to the Guide for proven reoffending statistics for further information. 3. Juvenile offenders
37.9% of juvenile offenders in the April 2014 to March 2015 cohort reoffended within one year
Around 36,000 juvenile offenders were cautioned, convicted or released from custody in the April 2014 to March 2015 cohort and around 14,000 of them committed a reoffence. This gives a proven reoffending rate of 37.9%, which is broadly the same as the previous 12 months and an increase of 4.3 percentage points since 2004. However, the cohort has fallen by around 76% since 2004, a trend also seen in Criminal Justice Statistics.
Figure 3: Proportion of adult and juvenile offenders in England and Wales who commit a proven reoffence, by age, 2004 and April 2014-March 2015 (Source: Table A3)
Around 45,000 proven reoffences were committed by juveniles over the one year follow-up period. Those that reoffended committed on average 3.30 reoffences each. Juvenile offenders with 11 or more previous offences have a higher reoffending rate than those with no previous offences –74.5% compared to 24.6%.
The highest reoffending rate by age group is 39.0%, for offenders aged 10 to 14. However, the number of offenders in this age group has fallen by around 84% since 2004. The reoffending rate for this age group overtook offenders aged 15 to 17 in 2013/14, who previously had a consistently higher reoffending rate but are now second highest. Figure 3 shows that the proven reoffending rate generally falls with increasing age.
______________________________________________________________________
4 Juveniles are defined as those aged 10 to 17 years old.
5 https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/criminal-justice-system-statistics-quarterly-june-2016 4. Index disposal - adults
Adults released from custody had a proven reoffending rate of 44.7%
The index disposal of the offender is the type of sentence the offender received for their index offence. For the Proven Reoffending Statistics Quarterly Bulletin, this is defined as custody, court order, or other disposal resulting from a conviction at court, such as a fine or discharge, or caution.
Figure 4: Proportion of adult offenders released from custody who commit a proven reoffence, by custodial sentence length, 2004 to March 2015 (Source: Table C2a)
The proven reoffending rate for adult offenders starting a court order (Community sentence or Suspended Sentence Order) was 32.0%, a fall of 5.4 percentage points since 2004, and a fall of 1.9 percentage points compared to the previous 12 months.
The proven reoffending rate for adult offenders released from custody between April 2014 and March 2015 was 44.7%. This represents a fall of 1.1 percentage points compared to the previous 12 months and a fall of 3.9 percentage points since 2004. Since 2004, the overall rate for those released from custody has remained relatively stable at around 45% to 49%. The rate for those released from short sentences has been consistently higher compared to those released from longer sentences. Adults who served sentences of less than 12 months reoffended at a rate of 59.7%, compared to 32.2% for those who served determinate sentences of 12 months or more. The trends for those released from short and long sentences have both remained broadly flat since 2005 and are consistent with the overall trend.
Proven reoffending rates by index disposal should not be compared to assess the effectiveness of sentences, as there is no control for known differences in offender characteristics and the type of sentence given. For further information see the annual October publication and the guide to proven reoffending statistics. 5. Index disposal – juveniles
Juvenile offenders given a reprimand, warning or youth caution
The reoffending rate for juvenile offenders given a youth caution was 30.7%, which is broadly the same as the previous year and an increase of 4.8 percentage points since 2004. Reprimands and warnings for youths were abolished under Legal Aid Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 with effect from 8 April 2013 and replaced with youth cautions.
Youth cautions are a formal out-of-court disposal that can be used as an alternative to prosecution for juvenile offenders in certain circumstances. A Youth Caution may be given for any offence where the young offender admits an offence, there is sufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction but it is not in the public interest to prosecute.
Figure 5: Proportion of juvenile offenders released from custody or given a reprimand, warning or caution who commit a proven reoffence, 2004 to March 2015 (Source: Table C1b)
Juvenile offenders released from custody
Between April 2014 and March 2015 around 1,000 juvenile offenders were released from custody and around 700 of these (68.7%) were proven to have committed a reoffence within a year. This represents a fall of 6.8 percentage points since 2004, but an increase of 1.5 percentage points compared to the previous 12 months. 6. Index Offences
In the April 2014 to March 2015 cohort, adult offenders with an index offence of ‘Theft’ had the highest reoffending rate at 42.2%.
The offence that leads to an offender being included in the offender cohort is called the index offence. In the April 2014 to March 2015 cohort, adult offenders with an index offence of ‘Theft’ had the highest proven reoffending rate of 42.2%. The second highest reoffending rate for adult offenders was for those with an index offence of ‘Robbery’ with a rate of 32.7%.
Figure 6: Proportion of adult and juvenile offenders in England and Wales who commit a proven reoffence, by index offence, April 2014 to March 2015 (Source: Table A4a/b)
Those with the lowest rate had an index offence of ‘Fraud’ and reoffended at a rate of 9.6%. Additionally, with a fall of 9.3 percentage points, the ‘Fraud’ index offence category saw the largest decrease between 2004 and March 2015. In contrast, the largest increase of 6.0 percentage points over the same period occurred for those with an index offence of ‘Public Order’ with a reoffending rate of 29.0%.
In the juvenile cohort those with an index offence of ‘Robbery’ had the highest proven reoffending rate at 44.2%, closely followed by those with an index offence of ‘Theft’ at 43.2%. Those with the lowest rate had a ‘Sexual’ index offence and reoffended at a rate of 14.4%. The ‘Summary motoring’ index offence category, had the largest decrease between 2004 and April 2014 to March 2015 with a fall of 8.9 percentage points to a reoffending rate of 32.2%. The largest increase of 11.6 percentage points over the same period occurred for those with an index offence of ‘Theft’. Further information
Accompanying files As well as this bulletin, the following products are published as part of this release:
- A technical guide to proven reoffending statistics providing information on how proven reoffending is measured, and the data sources used.
- A set of overview tables, covering each section of this bulletin.
- A number of data tools which provide proven reoffending data by demographics, offender history, individual prison and probation area and geography.
National Statistics status National Statistics status means that official statistics meet the highest standards of trustworthiness, quality and public value.
All official statistics should comply with all aspects of the Code of Practice for Official Statistics. They are awarded National Statistics status following an assessment by the Authority’s regulatory arm. The Authority considers whether the statistics meet the highest standards of Code compliance, including the value they add to public decisions and debate.
It is the Ministry of Justice’s responsibility to maintain compliance with the standards expected for National Statistics. If we become concerned about whether these statistics are still meeting the appropriate standards, we will discuss any concerns with the Authority promptly. National Statistics status can be removed at any point when the highest standards are not maintained, and reinstated when standards are restored.
Contact Press enquiries should be directed to the Ministry of Justice press office:
Tel: 020 3334 3536 Email: [email protected]
Other enquiries about these statistics should be directed to the Justice Statistics Analytical Services division of the Ministry of Justice:
Nick Mavron, Head of Prison, Probation, Reoffending and PbR Statistics Ministry of Justice, 7th Floor, 102 Petty France, London, SW1H 9AJ Email: [email protected]
Next update: April 2017
URL: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/proven-reoffending-statistics
© Crown copyright Produced by the Ministry of Justice
Alternative formats are available on request from [email protected]
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/4818-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 9,
"total-input-tokens": 22834,
"total-output-tokens": 4201,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
2299,
1
],
[
2299,
2931,
2
],
[
2931,
4641,
3
],
[
4641,
6576,
4
],
[
6576,
8187,
5
],
[
8187,
10118,
6
],
[
10118,
11465,
7
],
[
11465,
13146,
8
],
[
13146,
15299,
9
]
]
} |
938b8a23ab37d8623fdba74619c251a800fcf1ef | Providing a quality service to victims of bereaved families in terrorist incidents, disasters and multi-fatality cases Introduction
Under Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the right to life, there is a duty on the state to carry out a proper investigation where a death occurs and there is an obligation on those carrying out such investigations to involve the families to the extent necessary to safeguard their legitimate interests. The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has policies to support victims and bereaved families(^1) and the duty to provide an enhanced level of service required under the Code of Practice for Victims of Crime.(^2) Nothing within this guidance affects these rights and responsibilities.
This guidance applies where there is a criminal investigation into the death of multiple victims,(^3) particularly where it is suspected that there may be potential evidence of:
- Terrorism
- Corporate or gross negligence manslaughter
- Other crimes with a corporate or state element
The following considerations do not create rights and responsibilities but suggest best practice to ensure that victims and bereaved families are properly supported and informed.
The CPS recognises that those who have been affected by terrorist atrocities, disasters and incidents where there are multiple fatalities often have additional needs and concerns, not least because such cases take a considerable amount of time to investigate, but also because there are additional logistical challenges to any case involving a large number of parties and often there are multiple public agencies involved. Victims and bereaved families therefore face a more complex set of factors when dealing with the criminal justice system and other public authorities. There are additional considerations that might assist the CPS to support victims and bereaved families appropriately.
When establishing who to engage with often the police can assist with appropriate contacts. Victims are defined in the Victims Code and whilst there is a definition of ‘family members’ in the CPS Bereaved Family guidance, prosecutors should use their common sense and discuss with those involved who needs to be consulted or informed. Families may be fractured and need to be consulted separately or a more dominant family member may ‘self-appoint’ themselves as spokesperson to the detriment of others. This is not easy and may present challenges.
Every case will differ so it is important when considering engagement beyond the existing policies to consult victims and families about their preferred approach and needs before deciding how to engage in each case. There may also be cultural sensitivities or other needs that need to be considered. For example, a case might involve people with disabilities who need additional assistance, a different method of communication or communication through an intermediary; communications need to be age appropriate for young victims, and older children may wish to communicate directly rather than through a carer.
______________________________________________________________________
(^1) CPS Bereaved Families Guidance and Deaths in Custody (^2) Code of Practice for Victims of Crime (^3) Applies where there are three or more victims In creating this guidance, we have consulted with some families and organisations which have experience of these cases and we are grateful to them for sharing their views. Key points that were emphasised were:
- Ensuring that investigations and decisions are independent, and seen to be so, so that victims and families can have confidence in the process; public authorities need to provide reassurance that the reality matches the written policy and responsibilities;(^4)
- Providing as much information as possible to help those affected to understand how the process works, know who is responsible for what, provide broad timeframes and explain what assistance may be available to them and from whom.(^5) Information leaflets or flowcharts can be useful so that people have these to look at as things progress;
- Give consideration to how information is shared and, in particular, whilst the process is likely to be distressing for everyone involved, giving additional thought to how to handle the needs of particularly vulnerable victims and/or bereaved family members; remember that each person is an individual and they may have differing needs;
- Remember that people who are traumatised may find it difficult to understand or absorb information so it will need to be presented in a clear, easy to follow manner and may need reinforcing or repeating.
Bishop James Jones’ recent report into the experiences of the Hillsborough families(^6) sets out points of learning for public organisations and this policy corresponds closely with those principles.
**Who does this apply to**
Most cases to which this applies are dealt with by the Special Crime and Counter Terrorism Division (SCCTD).
These cases usually complex and resource intensive so it is essential to ensure:
- Early identification of a senior manager to have responsibility for victim/family liaison and support for the CPS team,
- A lead prosecutor (or prosecutors depending on the case) to carry out the review
- Sufficient other resources identified to support the work that will need doing
- That roles are clearly defined
- A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) or joint strategy is in place
______________________________________________________________________
(^4) Reassurance is essential to ensure that those affected can have confidence in the system, and demonstration of independence is the only way in which some people will feel reassured. Explaining the independent role of the CPS and being open and transparent about our work advising investigators will help.
(^5) This will include early provision of flowcharts, information leaflets, website links and telephone numbers for Victim Support, Inquest, Citizens Advice agencies, reference to other Departments for them to answer questions on legal aid or financial support
(^6) The patronising disposition of unaccountable power’ – A report to ensure the pain and suffering of the Hillsborough families is not repeated SCCTD will ensure that prosecutors appointed to these cases are given appropriate training and support in order to ensure they have the skills needed to deal with this type of case both in terms of case handling and supporting victims and bereaved families professionally and with empathy.
**Timing**
Each case will depend on its own circumstances but it will be useful to discuss engagement with the investigators at an early stage however the CPS intends to make initial contact. Existing guidance provides for the stages at which engagement should take place. In these cases though, earlier engagement may be appropriate to ensure that victims and bereaved families understand the various roles and responsibilities, to avoid confusion and, in appropriate cases, to build confidence in the criminal justice process. It is important to have early contact to explain timescales and why these cases can take a significant amount of time to progress; being open and explaining realistic challenges from the outset helps victims and family members understand what is happening and when to expect progress.
Often there will be other agencies involved (coroners, inquiries, Health and Safety Executive); it is important to factor in parallel engagement to ensure consistency and prevent victims and bereaved families from being overwhelmed with separate contact and information. Guidance for engaging with these other agencies already exists. In a complex or multi-agency case, a joint engagement strategy or MOU may be helpful. Alternatively, engagement issues could be incorporated into the Joint Investigative Strategy (JIS).
It is important that a ‘family first’ policy is adopted so that victims and families do not hear or read about key messages in the media. There may be times when others need to know at the same time or shortly afterwards (for example, charging announcements), but it will be rare that information needs to be shared with anyone other than parties directly involved before it is shared with families.
**Making contact**
In the early stages, the Family Liaison Officers (FLO) will be able to assist in making initial contact and advising on what families may need or want in the particular case. Alternatively, victims and families may have organised themselves into groups and the CPS may be able to liaise with the group leaders or they may be represented so initial contact can be made with solicitors. It is important however to ensure that all those affected agree to the method of communication and consultation going forward. There needs to be a clear understanding on which issues you can liaise with group leaders or solicitors and those which may need a more personal approach requiring engagement and communication extended to every victim and/or family member. Also, not everyone will be a member of the group so it is important to ensure those people are included in any plans going forward. In cases with larger numbers, it may be helpful to sign up to a written agreement about how communication, consultation and information giving will be handled and agree it with everyone.
______________________________________________________________________
7 See Agreement with the CPS, NPCC, Chief Coroner and Coroners’ Society and Work-Related Death Protocol involved. This will also allow the CPS to explain any logistical issues and get agreement to a compromise where it may be necessary.
**Method**
The appropriate method of communication will differ in each case and at each stage. This may be in writing or face to face or a combination of both. It may be appropriate to do it jointly with the investigators to avoid multiple contact and meetings.
In the early stages, a written introduction with information about who is dealing with the case and an explanation about the CPS role may suffice. Information leaflets and flow charts can also assist greatly. However, some cases, depending on the background and circumstances, may benefit from an early meeting with families, solicitors who are acting for families and/or, where they exist, groups representing families in order to provide information, build rapport and answer immediate questions.
There may be existing methods of communication in place with investigators including closed social media sites such as Yammer, regular newsletters, or FLO contact; the CPS could use these jointly with the investigators to ensure that the right information and messages are getting through at each stage of the case. Alternatively, the CPS team may wish to set up additional mechanisms such as a shared email address, an inbox to communicate directly with victims and families, regular newsletters or using the CPS website in appropriate circumstances. It is important however to ensure that those affected are comfortable with the method of communication. Whilst most people now use digital communication, not everyone will be comfortable with it so that needs to be factored in and different methods may be needed. It is essential that there is good communication between the agencies to ensure there is no duplication and that messages are consistent.
It is also important to ensure that victims and families are informed how they should and can communicate directly with the CPS and provide timescales for update; even short periods of time can seem lengthy for those who have been deeply affected by tragic events. Confidentiality is key and prosecutors must consider how communications are delivered, who to or through, and consider when it is appropriate to share information with others. For example, consider where written communications are sent and how they are marked or how much to say if a telephone call is answered by someone else; victims may not want others to know their business.
**Meetings**
Once the CPS has an established role, meetings may be appropriate and it will be important to ensure that all victims and families who want to engage are able to and that it is done in such a way that the CPS is able to handle the resource implications. It is a fine balance and will inevitably mean group meetings in cases with multiple victims.
______________________________________________________________________
8 The Deaths in Custody leaflet might be useful or parts of it can be used in other case types It is essential however that the integrity of the investigations and potential prosecutions is protected at all times. It may be appropriate to agree early terms of reference to ensure that everyone understands the clear parameters of what can be shared and what can’t be. Notes should be kept and if possible agreed with all attendees. If questions are asked which cannot be answered, it is essential to explain why and where no further information is available, say so. Even if an explanation is likely to be unpopular, it is important to be straightforward, open and transparent. Where decisions are for other agencies, it is important to explain that and distinguish between roles. That does not mean however that the CPS cannot assist families by making enquiries of other agencies, providing contact details and sharing information through our mechanisms.
**Logistics**
Issues to consider include:
- Where to hold meetings particularly if victims and families live in different places;
- Is there more than one group? Are there different issues? How many meetings are needed?
- Which organisations should attend? Who from CPS? Who should chair any meetings?
- Arranging the meetings – do not underestimate what is needed to make the arrangements. Are there existing mechanisms that could be used?
- Do you need help from a communications officer?
- Who may need to attend to support victims and families
- How will victims and families travel to the venue? Are there any expenses available for travel? If so, who should pay?
- If some parties are overseas, how will the CPS keep them up to date?
- What if the relationship with the victim or bereaved families breaks down or simply doesn’t work? Should someone else in the prosecution team take on the liaison role?
**Media interest**
Cases of this type inevitably have wide media interest. It is therefore important that a media strategy is in place. This can form part of the engagement plan. Information provided to families may be passed onto the media or find its way onto social media quickly. CPS press office need to be aware so that they can deal with any questions and proactive lines will be appropriate at some stages on the process.
**Political interest**
Political interest is also a common feature. There may be an All Party Parliamentary Group or interest from the Home Office, No. 10 or other Departments. Almost always, local MPs and/or Mayors will have an interest. It is important to ensure that these parties are appropriately briefed at key stages, although level of involvement will vary from case to case. Other parties
Contact with coroners and engagement with public inquiries is already covered by existing policies. If there are other interested parties, they need to be included in any engagement or handling plans. About the Crown Prosecution Service
The CPS is responsible for prosecuting most cases heard in the criminal courts in England and Wales. It is led by the Director of Public Prosecutions and acts independently on criminal cases investigated by the police and other agencies. The CPS is responsible for deciding the appropriate charge in more serious or complex cases and provides information, assistance and support to victims and witnesses.
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/4819-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 8,
"total-input-tokens": 13275,
"total-output-tokens": 3251,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
119,
1
],
[
119,
3228,
2
],
[
3228,
6133,
3
],
[
6133,
9364,
4
],
[
9364,
12325,
5
],
[
12325,
14918,
6
],
[
14918,
15134,
7
],
[
15134,
15575,
8
]
]
} |
Subsets and Splits