A Clean Sweep. Delivering cleaner streets in diverse neighbourhoods. Nigel Tyrrell London Borough of Lewisham.
Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.
Delivering cleaner streetsin diverse neighbourhoods
Nigel TyrrellLondon Borough of Lewisham
A Clean Sweep?Narrowing the gap between deprived and better off neighbourhoodsAnnette Hastings Glen BramleyNick BaileyRob Croudace David WatkinsUniversity of Glasgow Heriot-Watt University
To understand more about how different neighbourhood contexts predict environmental problems;
To explore the organisational challenges and financial costs involved of meeting different kinds and levels of need ;
To examine different approaches to narrowing the gap;
To provide ideas, strategies and tools which local authorities can use to design policy and practices capable of narrowing the gap with relation to street cleanliness.
Three case-study local authorities – contrasting urban locations
Quantitative and qualitative methods
Assessment of distribution of service inputs and cleanliness outcomes by area deprivation
Test hypotheses from previous research on neighbourhood context and environmental challenges
Research funded by Joseph Rowntree Foundation
Different neighbourhoods present distinctive challenges – one size doesn’t fit all
Need to show ‘continuous improvement’
Moral imperative – consistency or ‘justice’
2009 Social Mobility White Paper :
“tackling socio-economic disadvantage and narrowing gaps in outcomes for people from different backgrounds is a core function of key public services”
All three case studies:
meet or exceed national benchmarks
have shown improvement over time
where is there scope for further improvement?
But what about the distribution of outcomes?
Street deprivation (estd.)
Street deprivation (estd.)
- Flats and non-traditional forms of housing; small properties
Open spaces; Physical regeneration
Alleys; unfenced gardens
Economic inactivity; Poverty
Overcrowding; Population density
Child/youth density; Lone parent density
Density of vulnerable households
Using national data sets
density, overcrowding, flats and lone parents associatedwith litter, rubbish, weed growth
non-employment, lone parents associated with graffiti and vandalism
(n=1030, range of correlations at the 10% significance level)
Detailed bespoke survey
Hedged gardens, open areas, wind tunnels, derelict sites associated with litter, rubbish and weeds
Grass verges, planted beds, alleys, on street parking, street furniture, bus shelters, open areas, building sites associated with flytipping, flyposting and graffiti
(n=52, range of correlations at 10% significance level)
Deprived streets have much higher incidence of the factors thought to be associated with more challenging service context
N=1030, using national data sets
Pathway one: topping up standardised services
dedicated ‘beat’ sweepers, topped up with responsive mobile squads
Informal targeting of problem areas by operatives
“I can get away with giving (place A) only one sweep, but would give (place B) three .. Don’t tell my supervisor, but he probably knows anyway”
Standardised programmed services?? outcomes
Pathway two: using non-mainstream resources and services
May be based on standardised or targeted programmed service
Our example: targeted mechanical and manual sweeping
Topped up by ‘additional’ resources in the most disadvantaged areas
Additional resources involved new ways of working
Pathway Three: Programmed adjustments to standardised services
Core services engineered to target need
May involve dedicated ‘beat’ operatives (squads or individuals)
May involve a ‘cover up’ of the extent of targeting
All streets swept twice weekly
But sweepers with more challenging areas, given smaller workload
Operatives in affluent areas work smartly
In an affluent and high workload (in street length) beat, Clive contends with ‘moany people’ as well as comments like “don’t you come down here anymore”.
He consciously leaves his barrow on show in prominent places to show that he is around and tries to work “in ways to keep people happy”, which include doing “extras” (unpaid).
NB Recall the lack of ‘A’s in this case study
Absolute levels of resources as well as distribution
Requires sufficient basic service in most needy areas – otherwise doomed to fail
May mean less ‘A’ grades elsewhere
Different modes of working may suit particular neighbourhood contexts
Know your area – multiple sources of intelligence?
Challenges of achieving a ‘win win’ situation
Final report to be published by Joseph Rowntree summer/autumn 2009 as
A Clean Sweep: Narrowing the gap between deprived and better off neighbourhoods
Download for free a www.jrf.org.uk or email [email protected]
Previous report: Cleaning up Neighbourhoods: Environmental problems and service provision in deprived areas free download www.jrf.org.uk
Nigel Tyrell outcomes
Love Lewisham etc.
£25 per resident PA
All streets swept at least once a week
– over 700 miles of roads (135 beats)
10,000 tonnes of fly tips cleared
6,000 tonnes of litter
Filled 900,000 blue bags
2,500 litter bins emptied 364 days a year
144 Street Sweepers
22 mobile team workers
26 mobile estate sweepers
4 mechanical broom/mini RCV drivers
I Scarab driver
4.9 days per operative p.a.
Lower than the Council ‘office worker average’
Key element of our approach to efficiency
Love Lewisham, staff & community engagement
Clean & Green Schools Programme
Business Environmental Excellence
River Clean Up’s
Awareness Raising Community Groups
Letters to markets traders
Ability to show "before" and "after" pictures
Staff can demonstrate what has been achieved
Councillors and citizens can see that a problem has been dealt with
Environmental issues are now far easier to report.
More staff report problems - fewer issues to irritate residents
Open resident/Member engagement
Our response is public and accountable
Dramatic improvement in the time taken to remove graffiti
From 2.78 days in 2003 (before ‘Love Lewisham’) to 0.50 days to complete now
Reports of graffiti have fallen by about 30% this year.
Metres removed and the number of jobs has also fallen.
Less graffiti has been observed from our own monitoring, down from 18% (05/06) to 9.43% this year
In the same period the number of graffiti removal jobs reported has trebled.
The resources to do the job stayed the same.
Building on Love Lewisham