Leeds Neighbourhood

Index

Key Drivers

□To make information more accessible and improve understanding of issues affecting neighbourhoods

across the City

□To develop a shared understanding of neighbourhood needs between partners

□To provide a robust evidence based approach to formulating policies and allocating resources

□To improve performance management at a local level by monitoring the impact of key services on a

range of agreed indicators

Aims

□To develop an Index to:

§ provide an overall picture of the relative ‘health’ of all neighbourhoods across the city

§ be used to measure the relative success of neighbourhoods across the city over time

§ provide a mechanism to measure the combined impact of interventions in a local area

Defining the Neighbourhoods

Middle Super Output Areas (MSOAS) have been used as the basis for the Index. There are 108 MSOAs in the city.

□ They provide a “ready made” set of boundaries for which a range of data is easily available

□ They are recognised by all partner agencies

□ They are of a comparable size in terms of population (each containing approximately 7,000 people)

□ They meet Government guidance that a “neighbourhood” should contain between 5,000 to 10,000 people

Structure of the Index

□A multiple domain and indicator based Index

□Reports on a basket of indicators (26 in total) grouped into 7 domains

□Generates a neighbourhood score for each indicator and for each domain which can be compared to the averages for the city

□Generates a combined single Neighbourhood Index score

Domains and Indicators

Environment:

Flytipping

Graffiti

Waste Issues

Community Safety:

Crimes against individuals

Acquisitive property crime

Environmental property crime & disorder

Other Community Disorders

Housing:

Average house prices

Price to Income Ratio

Housing turnover

Empty properties

Education:

Persistent absenteeism

Foundation Stage attainment

KS2 attainment

KS4 attainment

NEETs

Low Income:

Children in workless households

Working households claiming LCC benefits

Older age households claiming LCC benefits

Debt (count of LCC liability orders)

Health:

Circulatory Disease Mortality (under 75s)

Cancer Mortality (under 75s)

Low Birthweight

Economic Activity:

Job Seekers Allowance,

Income Support (Lone Parents)

Incapacity Benefit

Outputs

□The production of an annual set of neighbourhood profiles to an agreed template

□Set of city-wide maps (an Atlas of Local Conditions)

□Set of tables showing the comparative position of neighbourhoods across the range of indicators and within each domain

□An “Annual Report” providing commentary on the results

Sample Area Profile

Sample Map

Inner North West

On a best fit basis the Inner North West area contains 13 MSOAs

The following slides show the ranked positions of each MSOA in Inner North West within each domain, highlighting those with significantly poorer outcomes

Leeds IndexSignificantly poorer outcomes

□ Little London / Sheepscar 20

□ Hawksworth Wood 26

Average or better

□ Burley 31

□ Little Woodhouse 39

□ Kirkstall 40

□ Hyde Park / Burley 42

□ Tinshill 43

□ Ireland Wood / Lawnswood 57

□ Hyde Park / Woodhouse 58

□ Headingley Central 76

□ South Headingley 81

□ Far Headingley 89

□ West Park / Weetwood 100

Community Safety DomainSignificantly poorer outcomes

□ Little London / Sheepscar 7

□ Little Woodhouse 27

□ Hawksworth Wood 30

Average or better

□ Burley 34

□ Headingley Central 44

□ Hyde Park / Woodhouse 45

□ Hyde Park / Burley 46

□ Kirkstall 50

□ Tinshill 53

□ Ireland Wood / Lawnswood 63

□ Far Headingley 67

□ South Headingley 76

□ West Park / Weetwood 91

Economic Activity DomainSignificantly poorer outcomes

□ Hawksworth Wood 25

Average or better

□ Little London / Sheepscar 33

□ Tinshill 34

□ Kirkstall 43

□ Ireland Wood / Lawnswood 46

□ Burley 61

□ Little Woodhouse 80

□ Hyde Park / Woodhouse 84

□ Hyde Park / Burley 89

□ Far Headingley 98

□ Headingley Central 105

□ West Park / Weetwood 106

□ South Headingley 108

Education DomainSignificantly poorer outcomes

□ Little London / Sheepscar 7

□ Little Woodhouse 22

□ Hyde Park / Burley 23

□ Hawksworth Wood 29

□ Burley 30

□ Tinshill 32

□ Hyde Park / Woodhouse 33

Average or better

□ South Headingley 40

□ Kirkstall 43

□ Ireland Wood / Lawnswood 51

□ Headingley Central 73

□ West Park / Weetwood 95

□ Far Headingley 97

Environment DomainSignificantly poorer outcomes

□ Hyde Park / Burley 2

□ Burley 7

□ Little Woodhouse 9

□ Little London / Sheepscar 11

□ Headingley Central 14

□ Hyde Park / Woodhouse 19

□ South Headingley 20

Average or better

□ Kirkstall 25

□ Hawksworth Wood 27

□ Far Headingley 34

□ Tinshill 37

□ Ireland Wood / Lawnswood 77

□West Park / Weetwood 79

Health DomainSignificantly poorer outcomes

□ Hawksworth Wood 26

□ Burley 28

Average or better

□ Kirkstall 36

□ Little London / Sheepscar 40

□ Hyde Park / Burley 45

□ Headingley Central 48

□ Little Woodhouse 58

□ Far Headingley 65

□ South Headingley 76

□ Ireland Wood / Lawnswood 87

□ Tinshill 88

□ Hyde Park / Woodhouse 99

□ West Park / Weetwood 104

Housing DomainSignificantly poorer outcomes

□ Little London / Sheepscar 5

□ Burley 7

□ Hyde Park / Woodhouse 9

□ Hyde Park / Burley 11

□ Little Woodhouse 13

□ Kirkstall 18

□ Far Headingley 22

Average or better

□ Headingley Central 23

□ South Headingley 31

□ Hawksworth Wood 60

□ Ireland Wood / Lawnswood 68

□ Tinshill 84

□ West Park / Weetwood 97

Low Income DomainSignificantly poorer outcomes

□ Little London / Sheepscar 14

□ Hawksworth Wood 20

Average or better

□ Burley 33

□ Tinshill 41

□ Kirkstall 43

□ Ireland Wood / Lawnswood 48

□ Little Woodhouse 62

□ Hyde Park / Burley 72

□ Hyde Park / Woodhouse 80

□ Headingley Central 94

□ South Headingley 98

□ Far Headingley 99

□ West Park / Weetwood 105

Using the Neighbourhood Index

□Standard outputs to meet growing demand for small area data to better describe and understand neighbourhoods

□‘Tin opener’ for other studies / research

□Evidence base to inform policy formulation, priority setting and resource allocation

□Improving performance management by monitoring impact of key services on a locality

Forward Work Programme

□Gather feedback / evaluate the original outputs

□Reformatting the area profiles (improving the map and incorporating time series / direction of travel information)

□Explore the feasibility of including additional indicators (particularly in the Economic Activity, Environment and Health domains)

□Annual data refresh (summer 2010)