NRF LSP Performance Management 2005/06
This note outlines the 2005/06 performance management arrangements for all Local Strategic Partnerships (LSPs) that receive Neighbourhood Renewal Fund (NRF).
This note includes 4 sections: 1. Key messages
2. Performance management arrangements 3. Delivery support arrangements
4. Timetable
It also includes the following annexes: Annex A – Traffic light assessments Annex B – Annual review guidance
Annex C – Flow chart for LSPs developing/implementing a LAA Annex D – LAA mandatory neighbourhood renewal outcomes
SECTION 1: KEY MESSAGES
1. LSPs are now well established and Government expects them to deliver real, measurable improvements on the ground. NRF LSPs must continue to use performance management to support delivery of neighbourhood renewal.
2. The Neighbourhood Renewal Unit (NRU) has liaised with the Local Government LAA team, Government Offices (GOs) and LSPs to ensure that these arrangements are consistent with ODPM’s aim of reducing bureaucracy and developing LAA policy.
3. A key outcome from the 2005/06 performance management arrangements is a progress report on delivery of neighbourhood renewal during 2005/06 that will inform Ministers' consideration of 2007/08 NRF allocations where these remain to be confirmed during the early part of 2006. (This applies to all LSPs assessed as amber/green, amber/red or red in 2005.)
Key aspects of the 2005/06 performance reporting arrangements are:
• Performance management arrangements for LSPs that have not included NRF and embedded neighbourhood renewal in a LAA being implemented in 2006/7 will remain broadly as they were for 2004/05. NRF reporting arrangements will remain unchanged
• LSPs that implement a LAA in 2006/7 that includes NRF and embeds neighbourhood renewal will have to complete a streamlined review covering performance in 2005/06 but all subsequent reporting on performance and spend will be through the LAA performance management arrangements.
SECTION 2: PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT ARRANGEMENTS
4. As this is a transitional year, different performance management arrangements apply to LSPs depending on where they are in the LAA development process. However all NRF LSPs should fall into one of the two groups below:
Group 1 - LSPs that have not developed a LAA or those that have done so but not yet included NRF and embedded neighbourhood renewal in their LAA
Group 2 – LSPs that will implement a LAA in 2006/7 that includes NRF and embeds neighbourhood renewal
5. There are four exceptions to the arrangements which are explained below: 6. ‘Green LSPs’
LSPs assessed as ‘Green’ overall in 2005 have already had their NRF for both 2006/7 and 2007/08 confirmed. Consequently, while the same performance management arrangements apply to them as the rest of their group, they have the flexibility to complete the relevant performance management requirements at any point up until November 2006. This means that they can choose the most appropriate time to fit in with other reviews, for example the LAA mid year reviews. 7. LSPs that will not receive NRF after April 2006
LSPs that received NRF for 2001/2006 that will not receive NRF from April 2006 need to review delivery of neighbourhood renewal in 2005/06 in accordance with section 1 of the core requirements. LSPs should review progress against the 6 key thematic outcome areas (crime, health, education, housing, worklesseness, and liveability) during May 2006. A short report based on this should be submitted to GOs during June 2006.
8. LSPs that will receive NRF for the first time in April 2006
LSPs receiving NRF for the first time in 2006 will need to put in place appropriate performance management arrangements to meet the accreditation criteria. The requirements to report on delivery of neighbourhood renewal in 2005/06 will not apply. GOs have already written to the 3 LSPs to whom these arrangements apply with full details.
9. LSPs that were assessed as ‘Amber Red’ in 2005
LSPs that were assessed as ‘amber red’ in the 2005 LSP assessments were asked to show that they had an improvement plan and the capacity to deliver it in place by the 13th of January. A number of LSPs have been asked to undertake additional work on aspects of these by April and this should be covered in the annual review with GOs.
10. Timetable
The time table for 2005/06 performance management reviews for LSPs not assessed as ‘Green’ overall in 2005 has been brought forward. This is to allow early confirmation of 2007/08 NRF allocations.
Group 1 Who
LSPs that have not developed a LAA or those that have done so but not yet included NRF and embedded neighbourhood renewal in their LAA.
Key aspects
Performance management arrangements will remain broadly unchanged from the 2004/05 arrangements.
Key steps
1 - LSP self assessment, including traffic light assessment 2 - LSP and GO annual review
3 - LSP traffic light assessment and short report submitted to NRU
Step 1 - LSP self-assessment
11. LSPs are required to have a performance management framework in place that meets the NRU’s core requirements. The core requirements remain the same as in 2005. This means that, like last year, LSPs should carry out a review of outcomes and partnership working and produce an improvement plan by the end of May 2006. The core requirements are available through the following link: http://www.neighbourhood.gov.uk/page.asp?id=533. Although we recognise that performance management cycles have been agreed locally, it is important that this information is available to feed into the GOs’ annual review of LSP performance. 12. Traffic light assessments As last year, LSPs will self-assess their 2005/06
performance using the traffic light approach set out in annex A. LSPs will probably want to discuss their traffic light assessments with their GO.
Step 2 – LSP and GO annual review
13. LSPs will have an annual review meeting with their GO. Guidance on the annual review process is attached at annex B. Annual reviews should be proportionate
and GOs may provide additional guidance on arrangements locally.
Step 3 – LSP traffic light assessment and short report submitted to NRU
14. GOs should submit a LSP traffic light assessment and a short report using the template provided in the annual review guidance to the NRU by 7th July 2006.
This information will be used by Ministers to consider confirmation of 2007/08 NRF allocations.
Group 2 Who
LSPs that are implementing a LAA in 2006/7 that both includes NRF and embeds neighbourhood renewal. Further guidance on this is included below.
Key aspects
The performance management arrangements for these LSPs will streamline their review of performance in 2005/06 and all subsequent reporting on performance and spend will be through the LAA performance management arrangements only.
Key steps
1 - Report on delivery of neighbourhood renewal for 2005/06 2 - LSP and GO discussions
3 - LSP traffic light assessment and short report submitted to NRU 4 - LSP and LAA performance management arrangements integrated
Embedding neighbourhood renewal in a LAA
15. As outlined in Jon Bright’s letter to GO regeneration directors on 27th January, before LSP and LAA performance management arrangements can be integrated the LSP needs to demonstrate both that NRF has been included and neighbourhood renewal has been embedded in the LAA. This means that the LAA will:
• include all 6 mandatory neighbourhood renewal outcomes;
• underpin the outcomes with analysis, targets and indicators that identify priority neighbourhoods and priority groups to narrow the gap; populated with data and;
• put in place a robust performance management system to monitor delivery of the LAA.
Step 1 – Report on delivery of neighbourhood renewal for 2005/06
16. To report on progress in 2005/06 (before the LAA mandatory neighbourhood renewal outcomes were in place) LSPs should review progress against the 6 key thematic outcome areas (crime, health, education, housing, worklesseness, and liveability) during May 2006. A short report based on this should be submitted to GOs during June 2006.
17. Traffic light assessments LSPs should self-assess their 2005/06 performance using the traffic light approach set out in annex A. Group 2 LSPs will only need to provide an overall assessment traffic light assessment and one for each of the six thematic areas reviewed.
Step 2 – LSP and GO discussions
18. GOs and LSPs should discuss and agree the LSP self assessments as appropriate. The minimum requirement is that members of the LSP and GO meet to agree the assessment.
Step 3 – LSP traffic light assessment and short report submitted to NRU
19. GOs should submit a LSP traffic light assessment and a short report using the template provided in the annual review guidance to the NRU by 7th July 2006. This information will be used by Ministers to consider confirmation of 2007/08 NRF allocations.
Step 4 - LSP and LAA performance management integration
20. LSPs should report on progress against neighbourhood renewal outcomes delivered from April 2006 onwards through their LAA.
21. The only reporting on NRF spend in 2006/07 will be through the LAA.
22. The flowchart at annex C demonstrates how performance management will work for LSPs developing or implementing a LAA in 2006.
SECTION 3: DELIVERY SUPPORT ARRANGEMENTS
23. All LSPs that are assessed as ‘amber red’ may be required by Ministers to meet additional requirements before their full 2007/08 NRF allocation is confirmed. Consequently the NRU and GOs will continue to give particular attention to LSPs assessed as ‘amber red’ or ‘red,’ and will agree a support package to improve delivery with them. Priority will also be given to supporting LSPs that are failing, or at risk of failing, to meet several floor targets.
24. LSPs assessed as ‘amber red’ as a result of performance in both 2004/05 and 2005/06 that cannot demonstrate sufficient progress will be at risk of losing 100% of their NRF allocation for 2007/08. LSPs assessed as ‘amber red’ for the first time as a result of performance in 2005/06 that cannot demonstrate sufficient progress will be at risk of losing 10% of their NRF allocation for 2007/08.
SECTION 4: TIMETABLE
ACTIVITY DATE NRU send out performance management guidance to
Government Offices
February 2006
Government Offices discuss and clarify performance management arrangements for 2006/07 with LSPs
February/March 2006
‘Amber green’ and amber red’ LSPs complete their traffic light self assessments
May 2006
Government Offices and LSPs have their annual review and discuss progress with ‘amber green’ and ‘amber red’ LSPs that have not included NRF and embedded neighbourhood renewal in a LAA for implementation in 2006/7
June/July 2006
Government Offices provide reports on ‘amber green’ and ‘amber red’ LSPs to NRU
By 7th July 2006
‘Green’ LSPs complete traffic light self assessments By end of November 2006 Government Offices and LSPs have their annual
review and discuss progress with ‘green’ LSPs that have not included NRF and embedded neighbourhood renewal in a LAA for implementation in 2006/7
Up until mid December 2006
Government Offices provide reports on ‘green’ LSPs to NRU
ANNEX A
TRAFFIC LIGHT ASSESSMENTS
This year, we are again asking LSPs to self-assess themselves. To ensure consistency across the country LSPs should use the guidance below. Group 1LSPs should provide:
• Six traffic light assessments for delivery in 2005/06 (one for each of the six theme areas of crime, education, housing, health, employment and liveability) based on the LSPs performance over the last 12 months
• One traffic light assessment for partnership management based on performance over the last 12 months
• One traffic light assessment for improvement planning based on LSP priorities for the next 12 months and their capability to deliver them Group 2 LSPs should provide:
• Six traffic light assessments for delivery in 2005/06 (one for each of the six theme areas of crime, education, housing, health, employment and liveability) based on the LSPs performance over the last 12 months
All LSPs should use the below traffic light assessments as a basis to reach an overall traffic light assessment for their LSP. To do this, LSPs should the numerical system in the table below. Group 2 LSPs should refer to column 4 for the minimum points required for each overall assessment.
1 2 3 4
Traffic light assessment Point per assessment
Minimum points required from all 8 assessments Minimum points required from the 6 thematic assessments
Green 4 26 – 32 22
Amber/green 3 22 – 25 18
Amber/red 2 16 – 19 12
Red 1 15 or less 11 or less
Indications of the type of evidence required for each assessment are included in the tables below.
This note is a guide. It is important that LSPs and GOs also apply local knowledge in forming assessments. The assessments and evidence used to make the assessments will be reviewed and challenged at the annual review. Providing information on the key factors behind current LSP plans, how the self assessment was arrived at, and any external factors influencing performance would allow for a more productive discussion.
REVIEW OF THEMATIC DELIVERY (assessment based performance over the last 12 months)
Green Amber/green Amber/red Red
Evidence showing strong progress in narrowing the gap between priority neighbourhoods and groups (including BME groups) and the rest.
Strong progress means priority outcomes/targets have been agreed and either met/exceeded or that significant progress towards them has been made. The gap should be narrowed both within the LSP area and also between the LSP area and the rest of the country.
Evidence showing good progress in narrowing the gap between priority neighbourhoods and groups (including BME groups) and the rest.
Good progress means priority outcomes/targets have been agreed and convincing improvement is being made towards meeting these in future. The gap should be narrowed both within the LSP area and also between the LSP area and the rest of the country.
Evidence showing limited progress in narrowing the gap between priority neighbourhoods and groups
(including BME groups) and the rest.
Limited progress means priority outcomes/targets have been agreed but that, while there may be some or reasonable progress towards meeting these, improvement is insufficient to demonstrate that outcomes/targets will be met in future. The gap should be narrowed both within the LSP area and also between the LSP area and the rest of the country.
Evidence showing poor progress in narrowing the gap between priority neighbourhoods and groups (including BME groups) and the rest.
Poor progress means that priority outcomes/targets may not have been identified and that progress towards identified
outcomes/targets is insufficient to make an impact. The gap should be narrowed both within the LSP area and also between the LSP area and the rest of the country.
REVIEW OF PARTNERSHIP MANAGEMENT (assessment based performance over the last 12 months)
Green Amber/green Amber/red Red
The LSP has carried out a robust performance management review and has fully integrated the
performance management process across the partnership. Partners are engaged below Board level.
Performance management review has been carried out within specific themes but not across the LSP as a whole. Some partners yet to
embrace performance management.
The performance management review has not involved partners and has largely been carried out by support staff. As a result it is not owned by the partnership.
No effective performance management review.
Involvement of key players is monitored and analysed. This analysis is used to improve engagement. Representatives have authority to speak for their organisation.
Involvement of key players is monitored and analysed. But little evidence to suggest analysis informs action planning. Not all partners have the authority to speak for their organisation.
Involvement of key players is monitored but no evidence of analysis of this involvement. Gaps still need to be addressed.
Involvement of key players is not monitored. Conflict between partners is impacting upon ability of LSP to deliver.
Partners have agreed priorities and targets and incorporated these into their own business plans.
Most partners have agreed
priorities but have yet to incorporate these into their business plans.
Some partners have agreed to priorities.
Most or all partners have yet to agree to priorities.
NRF spend within 5% of allocation. NRF spend within 5% of allocation. NRF underspend 5% - 10% Over 10% NRF underspend. Evidence that NRF has been and
will be spent strategically. The LSP has allocated NRF and other resources to its priority themes and neighbourhoods.
No evidence of strategic spend to date, LSP now have plans to remedy this in future. The LSP has allocated NRF resources to its priority themes and
neighbourhoods.
No evidence of strategic spend to date with some early stage plans in place for future spend to be strategic.
No evidence of strategic spend to date and no plans in place to redress this shortcoming.
The LSP is developing an integrated performance management framework with related local initiatives (LAAs, SSCF, CENs, NDCs,
Neighbourhood Management initiatives, Business Brokers etc).
The LSP yet to develop an integrated performance management framework with related local initiatives. Strategic links are in place.
The LSP has plans to increase its links with related local initiatives.
The LSP does not work effectively with related local initiatives and has no plans to improve its effectiveness.
IMPROVEMENT PLANNING (based on Improvement Plan for the next 12 months and capacity to deliver it. You should also refer to the good improvement planning checklist http://www.neighbourhood.gov.uk/publications.asp?did=1503 )
Green Amber/green Amber/red Red
The LSP has clearly built on their Improvement Plan from last year and has an approach which takes account of the 5 steps set out in the Floor Target toolkit*.
Some evidence the LSP has built on their Improvement Plan from last year and on the 5 steps set out in the Floor Target toolkit*.
Limited evidence that the LSP has used their Improvement Plan from last year. Some attempt to follow the 5 steps set out in the Floor Target toolkit*.
No evidence that the LSP has used their Improvement Plan from last year and no attempt to use the 5 steps set out in the Floor Target toolkit*.
Improvement plan identifies key actions to drive forward
improvement.
Improvement plan contains some key actions with links to outcomes, but also actions that appear unrelated to agreed priorities.
Improvement plan identifies some key actions but not clear how these have been arrived at.
Improvement plan not available or contains a long list of `priorities’ which are very broad. No clear sense of improvement.
The Improvement Plan has prioritised neighbourhoods, BME and other disadvantaged groups and LSP outcomes.
The Improvement Plan has prioritised neighbourhoods, BME and other disadvantaged groups and has plans to prioritise LSP outcomes.
The Improvement Plan has prioritised neighbourhoods or BME and other disadvantaged groups but has not yet made plans to prioritise LSP
outcomes.
The Improvement Plan does not prioritise neighbourhoods or BME and other disadvantaged groups or LSP outcomes.
There are plausible links between outcomes and actions being implemented.
Some evidence of plausible links between outcomes and actions implemented.
Limited evidence of plausible links between outcomes and actions implemented.
No plausible link between outcomes and actions implemented.
Identifies partner organisations to be accountable for agreed targets.
Generally has identified partner organisations to be accountable for agreed targets.
Limited evidence of which partner organisations will be accountable for agreed targets.
No evidence of which partner organisations will be accountable for actions identified.
Identifies how NRF will be used to support delivery of
outcomes/targets and its impact on mainstreaming.
Identifies how some NRF will be used to support delivery of
outcomes/targets and its impact on mainstreaming.
Identifies how some NRF will be used to support delivery of outcomes/targets but there is no link to its impact on mainstreaming.
Doesn’t identify how NRF will be used to support delivery of outcomes/targets or its impact on mainstreaming.
The LSP to regularly monitors and analyses delivery. Risk management in is place.
The LSP regularly monitors and analyses delivery. Limited evidence of risk management.
The LSP monitors delivery. However, limited evidence of analysis or challenge. Also, limited evidence of risk management.
The LSP only monitors delivery annually. No evidence of analysis or risk management.
ANNEX B
THE ANNUAL REVIEW GUIDANCE Introduction
1. This guidance provides an outline of the process GOs should follow when carrying out an annual review with a LSP that has not included NRF and embedded neighbourhood renewal in a LAA for implementation in 2006/7.
2. Detailed guidance is included for reference purposes, but the need for flexibility within the process is recognised and it is important that GOs use their discretion and take a proportionate approach when implementing the guidance. GOs and LSPs are also encouraged to build on existing knowledge and processes where possible rather than duplicate these.
3. A number of elements contribute to the effectiveness of LSPs and the annual review process is intended to consider each element to provide an overview of the LSP’s performance. LSPs will do their own traffic light assessment, which will be discussed at the annual review. This will help LSPs prioritise actions and ensure support is targeted appropriately.
Background
4. The annual review will be similar to last year. GOs still have the following responsibilities:
• To review the effectiveness of LSPs
• To challenge and probe performance and the supporting evidence • To help LSPs identify learning needs and access appropriate support • To develop relationships that will support improvement.
5. LSPs assess their own progress using a ‘traffic light’ system rather than this being done by GOs. These assessments and the supporting evidence will be reviewed and challenged by the GO at the annual review.
Outputs
6. There will be two main outputs from the annual review process:
• Written feedback in the form of a letter from the GO to each LSP. This will highlight progress made and identify any future support needs and actions for improvement agreed between the GO and LSP. These will be included in the LSP improvement plan, and
• GOs will produce a short report to the NRU which includes the agreed traffic light assessment by Friday 7th July 2006.
The Annual Review Process
7. GO staff may want to prepare for the review by assessing progress as follows: • Review of outcomes by theme
• Partnership management • Improvement Planning
This will help GO staff to decide if the traffic light assessment the LSP has given itself is justified.
Review of Outcomes
8. This section should assess progress made by theme in meeting national and local targets and milestones. There should be evidence of delivery for priority neighbourhoods and groups to support assessments. This evidence will be useful in developing LAA proposals. Mainstreaming is a key component of successful delivery and GOs will probe how well the LSP is working to achieve this and how successful it has been.
Partnership Management
9. Partnerships are only required to complete a full partnership working review once every three years. However any areas of weakness should be reviewed each year. The LSP should pick up any outstanding actions from the last review year.
10. Using the evidence of NRF spend, the review should take into account:
• the level of LSP spend against its allocation, ensuring that any carry over for 2005/06 does not exceed 5%, except where LSPs and GOs have previously established - and obtained agreement from the NRU - that the LSP has robust plans for strategically and cost-effectively utilising all of their carry over in 2006/07.
• whether the NRF spend has been targeted at activities agreed by the LSP and has had an impact on achieving outcomes in accordance with the LNRS, including national floor targets.
Improvement Planning
11. The improvement planning process brings together recommendations from the review of outcomes and partnership working and summarises what needs to be done to strengthen performance. It should also include priority outcomes agreed through your Local Area Agreement, the Safer and Stronger Communities Fund, and Local Public Service Agreements.
LSP. This will include evidence of the impact on mainstream services. It will form the main tool for focusing the work of the LSP in the coming months and therefore needs to be updated at least annually. The LSP board should receive updates on progress against the plan at least every six months.
13. GOs will encourage all LSPs to use the five steps identified in the FTAP toolkit
(http://www.neighbourhood.gov.uk/displaypagedoc.asp?id=195) when assessing the
LSP contribution to national floor targets in the six key outcome areas (crime, education, health, housing, worklessness and liveability). GOs should use expert advice and bring in performance improvement specialists where necessary.
GO/LSP Annual Review Meeting
14. The annual review meeting should involve partners from across the LSP. The purpose of the meeting is to share the LSP self-assessment with the GO. The meeting will provide an opportunity to acknowledge progress made, identify good practice and discuss areas where further work is needed. The meeting will also allow GOs to probe any areas requiring further clarification and enable LSPs to respond to specific concerns. The GO will agree an agenda with the LSP.
15. The GO and LSP should agree any additional steps to be taken to improve performance that are not already identified in the LSP improvement plan. The GO should confirm action agreed in writing after the annual review.
16. The GO and LSP should agree the final traffic light assessments that will be included in the report by the GO to NRU on the 7th July 2006.
Assessment of LSP Performance
17. LSPs should provide evidence to justify their assessment, and should be able to give examples of interventions that have demonstrably led to improved delivery of outcomes for priority neighbourhoods and groups.
18. GOs will provide a report (using the template below) for the NRU by the 7th of July 2006 on the performance of each LSP.
19. For LSPs awarded an overall `red’ assessment, attention should be drawn to the possibility of withdrawal of accredited status if progress fails to be made and the GO considers the shortcomings to be so serious and systematic that they are a threat to the future of the LSP.
LSP 2006 Annual Review Report - [Insert LSP name]
LSP Overall Assessment –
Health
Self Assessed Traffic Light – Amber/red GO Assessed Traffic Light - Amber/red
Strengths (to include progress towards targets) Issues to be addressed
Education
Self Assessed Traffic Light – Amber/red GO Assessed Traffic Light - Amber/red
Strengths (to include progress towards targets) Issues to be addressed
Employment
Self Assessed Traffic Light - Amber/green GO Assessed Traffic Light - Amber/red
Strengths (to include progress towards targets) Issues to be addressed
Crime
Self Assessed Traffic Light - Green GO Assessed Traffic Light - Green
Strengths (to include progress towards targets) Issues to be addressed
Housing
Self Assessed Traffic Light - Amber/green GO Assessed Traffic Light - Amber/green
Strengths (to include progress towards targets) Issues to be addressed
Liveability
Self Assessed Traffic Light - Amber/green GO Assessed Traffic Light - Amber/green
Strengths (to include progress towards targets) Issues to be addressed
Qualitative aspects of LSP Performance (including review of partnership working/NRF spend)
Self Assessed Traffic Light - Green GO Assessed Traffic Light - Amber/green
Strengths Issues to be addressed
Improvement Planning
Self Assessed Traffic Light - Green GO Assessed Traffic Light - Amber/green
Strengths Issues to be addressed
ANNEX C
FLOWCHART FOR LSPS DEVELOPING/IMPLEMENTING A LAA
SEPT 2005 – APRIL 2006
LSPs developing or implementing LAAs being implemented in 2006/07 that include NRF must include the 6
mandatory neighbourhood renewal outcomes. LSP does self-assessment of
progress in 2005/06 against neighbourhood renewal outcomes during May 2006.
IF NRF IS INCLUDED AND NEIGHBOURHOOD RENEWAL EMBEDDED IN THE LAA TO BE IMPLEMENTED IN 2006/7
IF NRF IS NOT INCLUDED AND NEIGHBOURHOOD RENEWAL IS NOT EMBEDDED IN THE LAA TO BE IMPLEMENTED IN 2006/7
*LSPs assessed as ‘green’ overall in 2005 can provide the final 2005/06 progress report at any point until November 2006
JUNE 2006*
GOs send agreed FINAL report on LSP progress in 2005/06 to NRU. If the LSP is including NRF
in their LAA being implemented form 2006/07. All subsequent reporting on performance and spend will be through the LAA performance management
arrangements only. No separate report to NRU is
required.
Existing NRF LSP performance management arrangements
ANNEX D
LAA MANDATORY NEIGHBOURHOOD RENEWAL OUTCOMES
Areas that pool Neighbourhood Renewal Unit (NRU) funding as part of their LAA must demonstrate how the LAA will help narrow the gap between the most deprived neighbourhoods and the rest of the district. Outcomes should demonstrate how they will have a positive impact within deprived neighbourhoods and for BME and other groups that have been identified as disadvantaged.
For any area in receipt of Neighbourhood Renewal Fund (NRF), there are six mandatory neighbourhood renewal outcomes which must be included in the agreement. Indicators and targets for these outcomes will be agreed during negotiations.
• CRIME – Reduce overall crime in line with local Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership targets and narrow the gap between the worst performing wards/neighbourhoods and other areas across the district. • EDUCATION – Raise standards in English, maths, and science in
secondary education so that by 2008, in all schools located in the districts in receipt of NRF, at least 50% of pupils achieve level 5 or above in each English, maths and science.
• HEALTH – Reduce premature mortality rates [by x%], and reduce inequalities in premature mortality rates between wards/neighbourhoods [by x%], with a particular focus on reducing the risk factors for heart disease, stroke and related diseases (CVD) (smoking, diet and physical activity). x will be determined during discussions.
• HOUSING – As part of an overall housing strategy for the district, improve housing conditions within the most deprived neighbourhoods/wards, with a particular focus on ensuring that all social housing is made decent by 2010.
• LIVEABILITY – Improve the quality of the local environment by reducing the gap in aspects of liveability between the worst wards/neighbourhoods and the district as a whole, with a particular focus on reducing levels of litter and detritus.
• WORKLESSNESS – For those living in the wards with the worst labour market position that are also located within the districts in receipt of NRF, significantly improve their overall employment rate, and reduce the difference between their employment rate and the overall employment rate for England.
