Using a Composite Core Priority
Index to assess partnership
priorities in Birmingham
Indices of Priority Combining
Multi-Agency Indicators
Partnership Structure
CDRP/DAT
Core
Priority
Core
Priority
Safer
& Cleaner
Neighbourhoods
Offender
Management
& Drug
Treatment
Community
Treatment
Core
Priority
Core
Priority
Core
Priority
Youth
Violence &
Vulnerability
Birmingham
Reducing
Gang
Violence
Young
People
Young
People
Availability
Local Delivery
Groups
Information
&
Intelligence
Core Priority Indicators
Core Priority 1:
Safer & Cleaner
Neighbourhoods
(Key Crime Indicators)
Core Priority 5:
Birmingham Reducing
Gang Violence
‰Firearms Offences
‰Stabbings/Gunshot Wounds
‰ Residential Burglary
‰ Robbery
‰ Vehicle Crime
‰ Violence against the Person
‰ Arson
Composite Core
Priority Index
‰Criminal Damage
‰Class A Offences
‰Disorder
‰False & Malicious Ignitions
Core Priority 2:
Offender Management
& Drug Treatment
Core Priority 4:
Young People
‰Juvenile Repeat Offenders
‰Juvenile Drug Offenders
‰Juvenile Recorded Crime
Core Priority 1:
Safer & Cleaner
Neighbourhoods
(Anti Social Behaviour)
Core Priority 3:
Violence & Vulnerability
‰Hate Crime
‰Domestic Disputes
‰Adult Repeat Offenders
‰Adult Class A Offenders
‰OD/Ingestion/Poisoning
Data Sources
„
„
„
„
„
„
Recorded Crime
Offenders Residence
Incident/Command & Control
Special Interest Crime Markers
Fire Service Arsons
Ambulance Service 999 Call Outs
Creating an Indexed Indicator
1. 200m Grid Across Study Area
0
0
1
0
0
2
3
0
6
4
2
8
10 4
2
8
0
0
7
9
2
8
4
0
0
2
2
2
1
2
1
1
4
1
3
0
0
2
2. Count of events by Grid Square
3. Divide by the average x 100
0
0
40
0
0
80
80
0
240 160
80
320 400
80
80
320
0
0
280 360
80
320
160
0
0
40
80
80
40
80
40
40
160 40
120
0
0
80
4. Index 100 equals Average
Why use an Index?
„
„
„
„
Comparison of different variables
Measure variance to the average
Combining Variables without bias
Easy to understand,
<100 = Below Average
100 = Average
>100 = Above Average
Combining Variables
Residential Burglary (index)
= 120
Vehicle Crime (index)
= 180
Robbery (index)
= 90
Violence Against the Person (index)
= 110
Flourishing Neighbourhoods 1(a)
(Composite Index)
=
(120+180+90+110)
4
= 125
Mapping
the Indices
Core Priority 1(a)
Safer & Cleaner
Neighbourhoods
(Volume Crime)
Perry Barr District (LDG)
Mapping
the Indices
Core Priority 1(b)
Safer & Cleaner
Neighbourhoods
(Anti-Social Behaviour)
Perry Barr District (LDG)
Mapping
the Indices
Core Priority 2
Offender Management
& Drug Treatment
Perry Barr District (LDG)
Mapping
the Indices
Core Priority 3
Youth
Perry Barr District (LDG)
Mapping
the Indices
Core Priority 4
Violence & Vulnerability
Perry Barr District (LDG)
Mapping
the Indices
Core Priority 5
Birmingham Reducing
Gang Violence
Perry Barr District (LDG)
Mapping
the Indices
Composite Index of
Core Priorities
Perry Barr District (LDG)
Index of Multiple
Deprivation
Comparison to Core Priority
Index
Perry Barr District (LDG)
Index of Multiple Deprivation
Comparison to Core Priority Index
Core Priority Composite Index
500
400
9%
Top 20% Deprived
Average of Core Priority Index (Within)
Linear (Average of Core Priority Index (Within))
Top 5% Deprived
600
y = 4.2029x - 16.121
2
R = 0.5594
15%
47%
300
200+ Composite Score
200
100+ Composite Score
100
35%
0
0.00
10.00
9%
20.00
30.00
40.00
IMD 2004
50.00
60.00
70.00
80.00
Core Priority Index
Clear definition of priorities allowing..
„ Holistic
target & objective setting at
Pan Birmingham and LDG scales
„ Audit and strategy formulation
„ Funding allocation and justification
Knowledge Gaps/Issues
„ Data
– Council/Health
„ Public Perception – Survey Results
„ Unreported Crime
„ Data Accuracy
„ Easy to understand?..
„ No assessment of change or Atypical activity
Conclusions
„ Clear
spatial definition of core
priorities
„ Engaged partners due to holistic
approach
„ Revisit with more data, picture of
change
„ Next step to clearly define hard
boundary priority neighbourhoods.