Professional Documents
Culture Documents
UK Home Office: Ifp PR pr14
UK Home Office: Ifp PR pr14
Performance Report 14
and
NOVEMBER 2004
STEVE MURPHY
DIRECTOR GENERAL
1
Foreword
This report contains information on the performance of the National Probation Service in the first
half of 2004/05.
There has been a real improvement in the performance of the NPS on most of the main service
delivery targets as can be seen by the table below. Where relevant the actual numbers delivered
are shown with the percentage of the target achieved shown in brackets.
The results for the first six months are very promising and show that the NPS can achieve all its
targets this year provided the good work done so far is maintained across all the 42 areas.
Enforcement is at a record level (87% in September) and if London is excluded the target of 90%
was achieved in July, August and September. London is making real improvements. However, if
the target is to be reached, only London has the “weight” in numbers to make the difference. For
this reason alone, this report will continue to highlight enforcement performance with/without
London.
The results on compliance are excellent. Eight out of ten offenders are still in acceptable contact
after six months supervision. On the compliance measure used by the Prime Minister’s Delivery
Unit (the percentage of offenders on community orders without a second unacceptable failure after
the first six months) performance has improved from 57% in April to 67% in September. The NPD
estimates that this represents 12,000 offenders diverted from court and 3,000 per annum not sent
to Prison.
The results for ECP and Basic Skills are promising but momentum has to be maintained because
the profiled targets rely on good results later in the financial year. The offending behaviour
programme figures, after a disappointing start, have improved considerably over the last two
months, indicating that the target is achievable if that improvement rate is maintained.
2
The DTTO figures are disappointing with 80% of the expected target achieved so far. It should be
noted that there was a 44% increase in the target from last year, and, in terms of numbers, 864
more orders were made between April and September than were made over the same period last
year. I am aware that other initiatives such as the Drug Interventions Programme may be having
an impact on commencements. However, the table on DTTOs shows variation between areas and
I am convinced that there is scope for the poorest performers to improve.
The continued good results for victim contact are welcome and the sustained progress made has
been reflected in its removal from the weighted scorecard now that the target has been achieved.
The reduction in the number of days’ absence per employee is also good news.
The performance management framework has built on the PIATS/SPIATS in 2003. The NPD has
tightened the focus on performance management through the use of the ITPR (Individual Target
Performance Report) framework in London since May and the regions since September. The
provision of timely data from the NPD management information unit has enabled areas to see their
performance in a national context. The NPD will continue its practice of indicating high and low
achieving areas as a means to providing a clear focus on improvement.
The weighted scorecard presented at the end of this report covers the first 6 months of 2004/05. I
am aware that however the weighted scorecard is presented there will always be areas at the
bottom. The crucial aim should be to have as many areas above the zero line as possible. In the
first half of 2004/05 there were 21 areas above or on the line compared with 20 for the whole of
2003/04.
We have continued to report London in its new quadrants and I am encouraged by the
improvement in London’s performance. For the first time ever London is not the bottom area but
all four of its quadrants are in the bottom seven so there is still a long way to go.
At the half-way stage in the year there is still time to take action to improve performance against
targets.
I meet the Chief Executive of NOMS on a monthly basis to discuss performance through the ITPR.
We have adopted this approach with London and the Head of Regions and Performance holds
similar meetings once a month with the Chief Officer and the Chief Operating Officer. This process
seems to have helped to maintain a focus on performance. I am concerned about the performance
of those areas that have appeared in the bottom quartile of the weighted scorecard in both quarters
of 2004/05. I am therefore asking the Head of Regions and Performance to extend this approach to
these areas for the remainder of this financial year. I want this to be a supportive and constructive
process.
I want the NPS to meet its targets and if we all work together this should be possible.
Steve Murphy
Director General
National Probation Service
3
Introduction
Enforcement
The improvement in performance apparent at the end of 2003/04 has been maintained. In the first
half of 2004/05 enforcement within 10 working days rose from 77% for 2003/04 to 85%. If London
were removed from the calculation the result would be 89%. The target of 90% is achievable but
the NPS needs London to improve its performance to reach it.
Compliance
The compliance data in this report includes those offenders who have been breached by the NPS
but where the court has allowed the order to continue. This reflects the principles used in the
weighted scorecard. The overall figure for the first half of the year was 80% compared with the
target of 70% for all orders and licences.
The Prime Minister’s “stocktake” on enforcement in May highlighted the importance of increasing
the number of offenders who complied so well that they did not need to be breached. The NPD
agreed an interim target of 65% compliance for community penalties by December 2004. This
measure was designed to capture all orders where there were no second unacceptable failures,
i.e. it does not include orders that were breached but allowed to continue. In the first half of
2004/05 the 65% target has already been met.
There were 6,827 accredited programme completions in the first half of 2004/05, i.e. 91% of the
profiled target of 7,500. Some of the smaller areas have planned their provision in blocks and are
likely to have significant completions in the next quarter. Although there has been some
improvement since last quarter, the under-performance of three metropolitan areas - South
Yorkshire (59%), London (63%) and West Midlands (73%), - continues to damage the overall
performance of the NPS. If these three areas are excluded, national performance against target
rises to 100%. Therefore, unless there are significant and sustained improvements in these areas
the NPS will find it very difficult to reach its target of 15,000.
ECP completions exceeded their profiled target - 17,761 compared with 11,850 or 150%.
4,847 DTTOs were commenced in the first half of 2004/05 compared with the profiled target of
6,078 i.e. 80%. Only three areas exceeded their profiled target with a further 10 within 10% of it.
Performance will need to improve if the national target of 13,000 is to be reached. The national
completion rate was 33%, with 21 areas meeting or exceeding the target of 35%.
Basic Skills
14,173 offenders commenced work on basic skills in the first half of 2004/05 compared with the
profiled target of 11,520 i.e. 123%. 3,386 awards were achieved compared with a profiled target of
2,960 i.e. 114%. The profiles assume strong performance in the latter part of the year in order to
achieve the targets of 32,000 for starts and 8,000 for awards.
4
Sickness Absence
In the first half of 2004/05 the average days of absence per employee fell from 12.3 in 2003/04 to
11.5 compared with the target of 9 days.
Victims
In the first quarter of 2004/05, 93% of victims were contacted within the 8-week standard,
exceeding the 85% target.
PSR timeliness
The NPD agreed to report on the proportion of court reports that met the deadline set by the court.
Problems with the data that has been received from areas means that the NPS will withhold
publication until the data has been validated or alternative sources found. In the meantime we will
continue to report on the proportion of cases that were written within the 15-working day standard.
In the first half of 2004/05, this figure, nationally, was 78%. The target is 90%.
For enquiries about any issues relating to this report please contact Roger McGarva, Head of
Regions & Performance, Tel: 020 7217 8244; E-mail: Roger.McGarva2@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk.
For enquiries about the data please contact Paris Mikkides, Head of Management Information, Tel:
020 7217 8812; E-mail: Paris.Mikkides@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk.
5
1. Enforcement and Compliance– April to September 2004
The Home Office Delivery plan target (and SDA target) is that the National Probation Service takes
enforcement action in accordance with the National Standard in 90% of cases where the offender
has breached his/her order. To fully meet the standard, three things must be achieved:
breach action taken on or before a second failure assessed as unacceptable (third failure in
licence cases)
the court contacted for a hearing date
all of this achieved within 10 days.
National Standards monitoring on enforcement uses a sample of cases commenced six months
previously, so the sample for the reporting period April to September 2004 will contain cases that
commenced between October 2003 and March 2004.
The overall performance on enforcement has improved considerably and excluding London, the
other areas achieved 89% over the first six months, hitting the 90% target in July, August and
September.
Compliance for the first half of 2004-05 has reached 80% (based on the proportion of cases where
there were no 2nd (or 3rd for licences) unacceptable failures or where the order was breached but
allowed to continue). Based on this way of measuring compliance all areas were above the 70%
target.
For the compliance measure in the weighted scorecard we will apply targets for the level of contact
with offenders. The targets are that 90% of appointments are arranged in accordance with national
standards and 65% of appointments are attended (these are averaged across a basket of
standards). Nationally, performance on these over the first six months of the year is 86% and 62%
respectively.
6
Enforcement April - September 2004
7
Enforcement by Month
90%
88%
86%
84%
82%
England and Wales
80%
England & Wales Excluding London
78%
Apr-04 May-04 Jun-04 Jul-04 Aug-04 Sep-04
London
London, April to December by Month
April 2004 - June 2004 90%
80%
Breached Breached Compliance
within 10 70%
Month days
60%
Apr-04 63% 74% 56%
May-04 66% 81% 74% 50%
Jun-04 48% 72% 65%
40% Breached within 10 days
Jul-04 63% 75% 76%
Aug-04 59% 76% 70% Breached
30%
Sep-04 71% 85% 74%
Total 62% 77% 70% 20%
10%
0%
Apr-04 May-04 Jun-04 Jul-04 Aug-04 Sep-04
8
Contact Levels April 2004 - September 2004
Apr-04 May-04 Jun-04 Jul-04 Aug-04 Sep-04 Oct-04 Nov-04 Dec-04 Jan-05 Feb-05 Mar-05
Actual 852 1811 3037 4443 5629 6827
Profile 1250 2500 3750 5000 6250 7500 8750 10000 11250 12500 13750 15000
Percent 68% 72% 81% 89% 90% 91%
14000
Actual
12000
Profile
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
Apr-04 May-04 Jun-04 Jul-04 Aug-04 Sep-04 Oct-04 Nov-04 Dec-04 Jan-05 Feb-05 Mar-05
• The North East and North West regions exceeded their regional profiled targets
• 18 individual areas exceeded their profiled target, compared with 11 in the first quarter
• 5 areas were within 10% of their profiled target
The best performing areas were: The most serious under-achievers were:
The impact of three larger under-achieving metropolitan areas – London, South Yorkshire and
West Midlands – pulls down the performance of the whole NPS on this key target. If they are
excluded from the data the national performance improves to 100%, i.e. on target.
10
Accredited Programmes Completions April 2004 - September 2004
11
3. Enhanced Community Punishment (ECP) - April to September 2004
ECP monitoring was introduced in October 2003 with a target of 25,000 commencements to be
achieved by the end of March 2004. The target was exceeded. In 2004-05 the target was
changed, placing the emphasis on completions. Over the first half of the year, the profiled target
was exceeded by 50%:
The best performing areas were: The most serious under-achievers were:
12
ECP Completions April 2004 - September 2004
Commencements
Apr-04 May-04 Jun-04 Jul-04 Aug-04 Sep-04 Oct-04 Nov-04 Dec-04 Jan-05 Feb-05 Mar-05
Actual 812 1579 2390 3201 4009 4847
Profile 926 1856 2861 4003 5017 6078 7259 8320 9405 10432 11596 13000
Percent 88% 85% 84% 80% 80% 80%
12000
Actual
10000 Profile
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
Apr-04 May-04 Jun-04 Jul-04 Aug-04 Sep-04 Oct-04 Nov-04 Dec-04 Jan-05 Feb-05 Mar-05
The best performing areas were: The most serious under-achievers were:
Completion Rate
A target for the completion rate of DTTOs was set for the first time in 2004-05. The target is for
areas to have at least 35% of their DTTOs completing successfully. The first half of 2004-05
shows that, nationally, the NPS is performing just below target at 33%. The area breakdown is
shown below:
14
DTTOs Commenced April 2004 - September 2004
Apr-04 May-04 Jun-04 Jul-04 Aug-04 Sep-04 Oct-04 Nov-04 Dec-04 Jan-05 Feb-05 Mar-05
Actual 1917 3885 6093 8489 10801 14173
Profile 1920 3840 5760 7680 9280 11520 14400 17280 20480 24000 27840 32000
Percent 100% 101% 106% 111% 116% 123%
30000
Actual
25000 Profile
20000
15000
10000
5000
0
Apr-04 May-04 Jun-04 Jul-04 Aug-04 Sep-04 Oct-04 Nov-04 Dec-04 Jan-05 Feb-05 Mar-05
Over the first half of 2004-05, performance has exceeded the profiled target and improved each
month.
The best performing areas were: The most serious under-achievers were:
17
Basic Skills Awards
Apr-04 May-04 Jun-04 Jul-04 Aug-04 Sep-04 Oct-04 Nov-04 Dec-04 Jan-05 Feb-05 Mar-05
Actual 445 842 1336 1924 2545 3386
Profile 480 960 1440 1920 2320 2960 3680 4400 5120 5920 6880 8000
Percent 93% 88% 93% 100% 110% 114%
8000
7000 Actual
Profile
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
Apr-04 May-04 Jun-04 Jul-04 Aug-04 Sep-04 Oct-04 Nov-04 Dec-04 Jan-05 Feb-05 Mar-05
Performance over the first half of 2004-05 has exceeded the profile target.
However, the area breakdown shows large variations with a number of areas exceeding their
target, some quite substantially. In total:
The best performing areas were: The most serious under-achievers were:
18
Basic Skills, April 2004 - September 2004
Region Area Profiled Starts % Profiled Performance Profiled Awards % Profiled Performanc
Starts Target against Awards Target e against
Target Achieved starts Target Achieved awards
19
6. Race and Ethnic Monitoring
At the end of December 2000, 9.8% of probation staff were from minority ethnic backgrounds (see
regional breakdown below) compared with a target of 8.4% set for 2009. Probation Statistics
published for the year ending March 2003 (the latest available) show that overall the representation
of minority ethnic groups in NPS staff for England and Wales, was 11.3% against 9% in the Labour
Force Survey 2001 (LFS).
All of the regional targets have already been met across the NPS with some significant
improvements since 2000. Some additional achievements have been made:
• There are 6 minority ethnic board chairs. (None of the previous 54 committee chairs was.)
• There are presently 84 minority ethnic board members (there were only a handful previously on
probation committees).
• There are particularly encouraging trends in specific probation areas. Bedfordshire, Greater
Manchester, Leicestershire & Rutland, London, Merseyside, Nottinghamshire, South Yorkshire,
Warwickshire, West Midlands & West Yorkshire all indicate that over 10% of their staff are from
minority ethnic groups. As these are local areas with significant clusters of people from
minority ethnic communities, it reflects a Service that is increasingly representative of the
communities it seeks to serve.
• ACO/Area Manager grades have seen a small rise from 13 at the end of 2001 to 15 at the end
of March 2003. A scheme to provide for development needs such as mentoring and coaching
is being implemented to identify and develop talented minority ethnic staff.
• 9.2% of senior probation officers (middle managers) are from minority ethnic groups. This has
increased from 8.6% in 2001 and exceeds the March 2009 target of 6.5%.
• Overall the March 2003 figures show the proportion of minority ethnic main grade probation
officers at 12.1%.
• Each of the 42 probation boards published a Race Equality Scheme by 31st May 2002. The
Actions Plans within each of these Schemes will help to ensure that the NPS, as an
organisation, fulfils its duties under the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000 and promotes
race equality and equality of opportunity for all staff.
• Implementation of race and ethnic monitoring according to the Census 2001 16+1
categorisation.
• More focussed approaches to work with racially motivated offenders are being developed.
Interventions are being tailored to minority ethnic offenders and community safety work with
minority ethnic groups is being reviewed.
The table below shows performance against regional targets as at December 2000 and March
2003 along with the 2009 targets.
20
Region Target set 2000 2003 Above/Below
Achieved Achieved Target
West Midlands 11.6 13.3 18.0 Above
North East 1.4 1.7 4.0 Above
East 4.9 4.9 6.1 Above
North West 5.4 6.1 8.4 Above
East Midlands 7.2 8.6 10.2 Above
Yorks & Humber 5.1 8.4 9.7 Above
South East 3.6 4 5.0 Above
South West 2.6 3.3 3.6 Above
London 26.5 30.2 26.6 Above
Wales 1.7 2.3 3.9 Above
Missing Data
The 16+1 census classification of race and ethnicity became mandatory in April 2003. In
Performance Report 13, we published data from RDS (from Areas’ quarterly listings, formerly Form
20 returns) showing the proportion of new orders and licences made between January and April
2004 that did not have a correctly entered race and ethnic classification.
The table below shows the proportion of new orders and licences made between April and June
2004 that did not have a correctly entered race and ethnic. Any codes that do not match the 16+1
classification are regarded as missing. This shows the situation getting better in most areas but
London is a major concern with almost a third of all new orders and over 40% of licenses missing
the ethnic classification code. This data will continue be monitored routinely on a quarterly basis
and may become a cash-linked target included in the weighted scorecard in 2005-06.
21
Persons commencing supervision by the Probation Service April 2004 - June 2004
Total excl. London 29,429 1,430 4.9 125 0.4 8,500 595 7.0 84 1.0
22
7. Sickness Absence - April to September 2004
From 1st July 2001, local areas were required to monitor sickness absence using a standard
format and provide quarterly monitoring returns to the NPD. Reporting was increased to monthly
in July 2002.
The target for 2002-03 was 10 days or fewer sickness absences per employee. This was reduced
to an average of 9 days per employee for 2003-04.
Many areas already have good systems for monitoring and managing absence and such good
practice is being shared across the national HR network.
This includes:
The national headline figure for 2003/04 was 12.3 days, up from 11.9 in 2002/03. There has been
some improvement in the first half of 2004-05 with on average 11.5 days lost due to staff sickness.
The average number of days’ absence per employee is split by long and short-term sickness to
highlight the variation in performance between areas.
Seven areas are currently achieving the target by having fewer than 9 days sickness per employee
per year, with a further 7 areas achieving the old target by having fewer than 10 days.
The best performing areas were: The most serious under-achievers were:
Details of area and regional performance are shown on the next page.
23
Sickness Absence, April 2004 - September 2004
Region Area Short Long DDA - Total Total Ave Ave Ave Average Performance
term term related days staff days days days days (target = 9
sickness sickness sickness lost years Short Long DDA - absence days)
term term related
West Staffordshire 957 872 0 1830 192 5.0 4.5 0.0 9.5 Near miss
Midlands Warwickshire 366 618 195 1179 92 4.0 6.8 2.1 12.9 Above
West Mercia 879 1017 81 1977 179 4.9 5.7 0.5 11.0 Above
West Midlands 3163 2873 0 6036 504 6.3 5.7 0.0 12.0 Above
Regional Sub Total 5365 5380 276 11021 967 5.5 5.6 0.3 11.4
North East County Durham 512 886 0 1398 131 3.9 6.8 0.0 10.7 Above
Northumbria 1485 2405 0 3890 314 4.7 7.7 0.0 12.4 Above
Teesside 782 1261 78 2121 152 5.1 8.3 0.5 13.9 Above
Regional Sub Total 2779 4552 78 7409 597 4.7 7.6 0.1 12.4
East Bedfordshire 518 369 0 887 116 4.5 3.2 0.0 7.6 Below
Cambridgeshire 422 472 144 1037 107 3.9 4.4 1.3 9.7 Near miss
Essex 1333 1138 0 2471 209 6.4 5.4 0.0 11.8 Above
Hertfordshire 410 486 86 983 92 4.5 5.3 0.9 10.7 Above
Norfolk 963 393 64 1420 130 7.4 3.0 0.5 10.9 Above
Suffolk 502 428 0 930 99 5.1 4.3 0.0 9.4 Near miss
Regional Sub Total 4148 3285 294 7727 753 5.5 4.4 0.4 10.3
North West Cheshire 652 1246 47 1945 176 3.7 7.1 0.3 11.1 Above
Cumbria 469 394 274 1137 75 6.2 5.2 3.6 15.1 Above
Greater Manchester 3039 4450 0 7489 616 4.9 7.2 0.0 12.2 Above
Lancashire 1694 1837 127 3657 304 5.6 6.0 0.4 12.0 Above
Merseyside 1149 3418 353 4920 370 3.1 9.2 1.0 13.3 Above
Regional Sub Total 7003 11345 801 19149 1541 4.5 7.4 0.5 12.4
East Derbyshire 705 536 9 1250 171 4.1 3.1 0.1 7.3 Below
Midlands Leicestershire & Rutland 1255 851 0 2106 230 5.5 3.7 0.0 9.2 Near miss
Lincolnshire 817 215 225 1257 110 7.5 2.0 2.1 11.5 Above
Northamptonshire 7129 7593 0 14722 1355 5.3 5.6 0.0 10.9 Above
Nottinghamshire 631 1909 330 2870 276 2.3 6.9 1.2 10.4 Above
Regional Sub Total 10537 11104 564 22205 2141 4.9 5.2 0.3 10.4
Yorkshire & Humberside 1365 1253 48 2666 213 6.4 5.9 0.2 12.5 Above
Humberside North Yorkshire 389 434 0 823 114 3.4 3.8 0.0 7.2 Below
South Yorkshire 1331 1643 413 3387 350 3.8 4.7 1.2 9.7 Near miss
West Yorkshire 1920 2698 0 4618 587 3.3 4.6 0.0 7.9 Below
Regional Sub Total 5004 6028 461 11494 1264 4.0 4.8 0.4 9.1
South East Hampshire 1405 937 0 2342 263 5.4 3.6 0.0 8.9 Below
Kent 819 2074 16 2909 228 3.6 9.1 0.1 12.8 Above
Surrey 522 465 25 1012 118 4.4 4.0 0.2 8.6 Below
Sussex 790 508 130 1428 177 4.5 2.9 0.7 8.1 Below
Thames Valley 1982 1695 66 3743 298 6.7 5.7 0.2 12.6 Above
Regional Sub Total 5518 5679 237 11434 1083 5.1 5.2 0.2 10.6
South West Avon & Somerset 2327 817 0 3144 257 9.1 3.2 0.0 12.2 Above
Devon & Cornwall 842 1465 0 2307 216 3.9 6.8 0.0 10.7 Above
Dorset 376 553 0 929 94 4.0 5.9 0.0 9.9 Near miss
Gloucestershire 317 463 0 780 78 4.1 5.9 0.0 10.0 Above
Wiltshire 230 437 0 667 69 3.3 6.3 0.0 9.6 Near miss
Regional Sub Total 4091 3735 0 7827 714 5.7 5.2 0.0 11.0
London London East 1530 1322 54 2906 189 8.1 7.0 0.3 15.4 Above
London North 2296 1832 1 4130 200 11.5 9.1 0.0 20.6 Above
London South 1990 1864 2 3855 249 8.0 7.5 0.0 15.5 Above
London West 1907 2077 74 4058 200 9.5 10.4 0.4 20.3 Above
London Central 2557 2165 0 4723 415 6.2 5.2 0.0 11.4 Above
London London Sub Total 10281 9261 131 19673 1253 8.2 7.4 0.1 15.7
Wales Dyfed-Powys 353 525 64 942 71 5.0 7.4 0.9 13.3 Above
Gwent 701 451 0 1152 113 6.2 4.0 0.0 10.2 Above
North Wales 566 1370 0 1935 115 4.9 11.9 0.0 16.8 Above
South Wales 1210 2098 0 3308 269 4.5 7.8 0.0 12.3 Above
Regional Sub Total 2829 4443 64 7336 568 5.0 7.8 0.1 12.9
ENGLAND & WALES 57554 64814 2907 125275 10882 5.3 6.0 0.3 11.5
24
8. Victim Contact – April to June 2004
'Bold Steps' makes it clear that the National Probation Service delivers services to victims as well
as offenders. The importance of this area of practice is reflected in Stretch Objective 6, namely
”providing a quality service to the victims of serious sexual and other violent crime".
The National Standard for victim contact work is that probation areas should offer face-to-face
contact between the victim (or family) and a member of the probation service (or agent) within 8
weeks of the offender being sentenced. The NPS target is to make initial contact within that
timescale in 85% of all eligible cases. This was exceeded in 2003/04 and performance continues
to improve in 2004/05 with 93% of victims contacted in accordance with the national standard.
• 39 areas met or exceeded the 85% target and are classed as green
• 2 area made contact within 5% of the target and are amber
• Only 1 area fell more than 5% short of the target
These areas hit 100%: The areas failing to achieve the target were:
25
All Cases, April 2004 - June 2004
The aim is to improve the timeliness of the NPS reports (PSRs) to the magistrates' courts.
National Standards specify that the report should be provided within 15 working days.
The figures presented here do not reflect those occasions on which courts adjourn for longer than
15 days, i.e. where the court's timetable is satisfied but the National Standard is not.
In some local areas, discussions with sentencers continue to try to ensure that PSRs are only
sought on cases where a community penalty or imprisonment is the likely outcome. Capacity
issues are increasingly important in the light of OASys and local workload agreements.
Performance peaked in 2001/2 when this was a cash performance-linked measure and fell sharply
last year. The first half of 2004-05 shows some improvement on last year’s performance.
1996-97 55%
1997-98 58%
1998-99 63%
1999-00 68%
2000-01 75%
2001-02 79%
2002-03 78%
2003-04 65%
2004-05 (Apr-Sep) 78%
The best performing areas were: The most serious under-achievers were:
Details of area and regional performance are shown on the next page.
27
Timeliness of Court Reports to Magistrates Court
April to Sptember 2004
28
10. Weighted Scorecard Q2 2004-05
The Weighted Scorecard covering April to September 2004 is shown in below. In addition to the
table, the information has been presented to highlight the variations in performance between
areas.
The table shows comparisons between the latest position and that in the previous. It shows that:
The most improving areas are: The most declining areas are:
29
Weighted Scorecard Quarter 2, 2004/05
Please note:
The above relates to data covering the period April 2004 - September 2004
Position last time relates to the last update of the weighted scorecard which covered the following
period: April 2004 - June 2004
Accredited programmes, DTTOs, ECP and basic skills have been capped so areas will not get any
extra credit for scores over 120% in each of these indicators.
30
Dorset
100 Leicestershire & Rutland
Teesside
Humberside
Sussex
Lincolnshire
BAND 1
County Durham
West Yorkshire
Northumbria
Warwickshire
50
Cheshire
North Yorkshire
Bedfordshire
BAND 2 Greater Manchester
Hampshire
Lancashire
Hertfordshire
Derbyshire
0 West Mercia
Wiltshire
Cambridgeshire
BAND 3 Gloucestershire
Northamptonshire
Suffolk
Thames Valley
Dyfed/Powys
-50 Surrey
Staffordshire
North Wales
Gwent
BAND 4 Norfolk
South Yorkshire
Merseyside
South Wales
Essex
-100
Cumbria
Kent
Nottinghamshire
BAND 5 London East
London South
West Midlands
Avon & Somerset
London North
-150 London West
Devon & Cornwall
31
Appendix 1
32