APSE073Cemetery and Crematorium: Hectares of cemetery land maintained per 10,000 head of population (PI 18)AnnualFinancial Year2013/20140.00Neutral APSE073Cemetery and Crematorium: Hectares of cemetery land maintained per 10,000 head of population (PI 18)AnnualFinancial Year2014/2015NCNeutral APSE073Cemetery and Crematorium: Hectares of cemetery land maintained per 10,000 head of population (PI 18)AnnualFinancial Year2015/20160.05Neutral APSE073Cemetery and Crematorium: Hectares of cemetery land maintained per 10,000 head of population (PI 18)AnnualFinancial Year2016/20170.05Neutral APSE073Cemetery and Crematorium: Hectares of cemetery land maintained per 10,000 head of population (PI 18)AnnualFinancial Year2017/20180.05Neutral APSE073Cemetery and Crematorium: Hectares of cemetery land maintained per 10,000 head of population (PI 18)AnnualFinancial Year2018/20190.05Neutral APSE073Cemetery and Crematorium: Hectares of cemetery land maintained per 10,000 head of population (PI 18)AnnualFinancial Year2019/2020Neutral BSC03% of residents who feel its important for them to feel part of their local communityAnnualFinancial Year2011/2012N/ANeutral BSC03% of residents who feel its important for them to feel part of their local communityAnnualFinancial Year2012/201370.00Neutral BSC03% of residents who feel its important for them to feel part of their local communityAnnualFinancial Year2013/201474.00Neutral BSC03% of residents who feel its important for them to feel part of their local communityAnnualFinancial Year2014/2015NCNeutral BSC03% of residents who feel its important for them to feel part of their local communityAnnualFinancial Year2015/2016NCNeutral BSC04% of CYC residents stating it's important residents can influence decisions in their local areaAnnualFinancial Year2011/2012N/AUp is Good BSC04% of CYC residents stating it's important residents can influence decisions in their local areaAnnualFinancial Year2012/201375.00Up is Good BSC04% of CYC residents stating it's important residents can influence decisions in their local areaAnnualFinancial Year2013/201486.00Up is Good BSC04% of CYC residents stating it's important residents can influence decisions in their local areaAnnualFinancial Year2014/2015NCUp is Good BSC04% of CYC residents stating it's important residents can influence decisions in their local areaAnnualFinancial Year2015/2016NCUp is Good BYS001% of residents who agree that they can influence decisions in their local area - Agree (All Responses)AnnualFinancial Year2011/2012N/AUp is Good BYS001% of residents who agree that they can influence decisions in their local area - Agree (All Responses)AnnualFinancial Year2012/201329.00Up is Good BYS001% of residents who agree that they can influence decisions in their local area - Agree (All Responses)AnnualFinancial Year2013/201424.00Up is Good BYS001% of residents who agree that they can influence decisions in their local area - Agree (All Responses)AnnualFinancial Year2014/2015NCUp is Good BYS001% of residents who agree that they can influence decisions in their local area - Agree (All Responses)AnnualFinancial Year2015/2016NCUp is Good BYS053% of residents who are satisfied with their local area as a place to live - Satisfied (All Responses)AnnualFinancial Year2011/2012N/AUp is Good BYS053% of residents who are satisfied with their local area as a place to live - Satisfied (All Responses)AnnualFinancial Year2012/201391.00Up is Good BYS053% of residents who are satisfied with their local area as a place to live - Satisfied (All Responses)AnnualFinancial Year2013/201483.00Up is Good BYS053% of residents who are satisfied with their local area as a place to live - Satisfied (All Responses)AnnualFinancial Year2014/2015NCUp is Good BYS053% of residents who are satisfied with their local area as a place to live - Satisfied (All Responses)AnnualFinancial Year2015/2016NCUp is Good BYS079% of residents who agree that they belong to their local area - Agree (All Responses)AnnualFinancial Year2011/2012N/AUp is Good BYS079% of residents who agree that they belong to their local area - Agree (All Responses)AnnualFinancial Year2012/201355.00Up is Good BYS079% of residents who agree that they belong to their local area - Agree (All Responses)AnnualFinancial Year2013/201454.00Up is Good BYS079% of residents who agree that they belong to their local area - Agree (All Responses)AnnualFinancial Year2014/2015NCUp is Good BYS079% of residents who agree that they belong to their local area - Agree (All Responses)AnnualFinancial Year2015/2016NCUp is Good BYS105% of residents who agree their local area is a place where people from different backgrounds get on well together - Agree (All Responses)AnnualFinancial Year2011/2012N/AUp is Good BYS105% of residents who agree their local area is a place where people from different backgrounds get on well together - Agree (All Responses)AnnualFinancial Year2012/201373.00Up is Good BYS105% of residents who agree their local area is a place where people from different backgrounds get on well together - Agree (All Responses)AnnualFinancial Year2013/201458.00Up is Good BYS105% of residents who agree their local area is a place where people from different backgrounds get on well together - Agree (All Responses)AnnualFinancial Year2014/2015NCUp is Good BYS105% of residents who agree their local area is a place where people from different backgrounds get on well together - Agree (All Responses)AnnualFinancial Year2015/2016NCUp is Good BYS131% of residents who agree that York is a safe city to live in, relatively free from crime and violence - Agree (All Responses)AnnualFinancial Year2011/2012N/AUp is Good BYS131% of residents who agree that York is a safe city to live in, relatively free from crime and violence - Agree (All Responses)AnnualFinancial Year2012/201374.00Up is Good BYS131% of residents who agree that York is a safe city to live in, relatively free from crime and violence - Agree (All Responses)AnnualFinancial Year2013/201480.00Up is Good BYS131% of residents who agree that York is a safe city to live in, relatively free from crime and violence - Agree (All Responses)AnnualFinancial Year2014/2015NCUp is Good BYS131% of residents who agree that York is a safe city to live in, relatively free from crime and violence - Agree (All Responses)AnnualFinancial Year2015/2016NCUp is Good BYS254% of residents who volunteer at least once a month (All Responses)AnnualFinancial Year2011/2012N/AUp is Good BYS254% of residents who volunteer at least once a month (All Responses)AnnualFinancial Year2012/201326.00Up is Good BYS254% of residents who volunteer at least once a month (All Responses)AnnualFinancial Year2013/201433.00Up is Good BYS254% of residents who volunteer at least once a month (All Responses)AnnualFinancial Year2014/2015NCUp is Good BYS254% of residents who volunteer at least once a month (All Responses)AnnualFinancial Year2015/2016NCUp is Good BYS300% of residents who agree their local area is a safe place to live (All Responses)AnnualFinancial Year2011/2012N/AUp is Good BYS300% of residents who agree their local area is a safe place to live (All Responses)AnnualFinancial Year2012/201379.00Up is Good BYS300% of residents who agree their local area is a safe place to live (All Responses)AnnualFinancial Year2013/201479.00Up is Good BYS300% of residents who agree their local area is a safe place to live (All Responses)AnnualFinancial Year2014/2015NCUp is Good BYS300% of residents who agree their local area is a safe place to live (All Responses)AnnualFinancial Year2015/2016NCUp is Good BYS301% of residents that think CYC/partners are doing well at reducing crime and anti social behaviourAnnualFinancial Year2011/2012N/AUp is Good BYS301% of residents that think CYC/partners are doing well at reducing crime and anti social behaviourAnnualFinancial Year2012/201356.00Up is Good BYS301% of residents that think CYC/partners are doing well at reducing crime and anti social behaviourAnnualFinancial Year2013/201448.00Up is Good BYS301% of residents that think CYC/partners are doing well at reducing crime and anti social behaviourAnnualFinancial Year2014/2015NCUp is Good BYS301% of residents that think CYC/partners are doing well at reducing crime and anti social behaviourAnnualFinancial Year2015/2016NCUp is Good BYS302% of residents that think CYC/partners are working well to make communities saferAnnualFinancial Year2011/2012N/AUp is Good BYS302% of residents that think CYC/partners are working well to make communities saferAnnualFinancial Year2012/201354.00Up is Good BYS302% of residents that think CYC/partners are working well to make communities saferAnnualFinancial Year2013/201445.00Up is Good BYS302% of residents that think CYC/partners are working well to make communities saferAnnualFinancial Year2014/2015NCUp is Good BYS302% of residents that think CYC/partners are working well to make communities saferAnnualFinancial Year2015/2016NCUp is Good CJGE172Housing affordability (lower quartile house prices to earnings ratio)AnnualFinancial Year2008/20098.62Up is Bad CJGE172Housing affordability (lower quartile house prices to earnings ratio)AnnualFinancial Year2009/20107.42Up is Bad CJGE172Housing affordability (lower quartile house prices to earnings ratio)AnnualFinancial Year2010/20117.93Up is Bad CJGE172Housing affordability (lower quartile house prices to earnings ratio)AnnualFinancial Year2011/20127.99Up is Bad CJGE172Housing affordability (lower quartile house prices to earnings ratio)AnnualFinancial Year2012/20137.88Up is Bad CJGE172Housing affordability (lower quartile house prices to earnings ratio)AnnualFinancial Year2013/20147.97Up is Bad CJGE172Housing affordability (lower quartile house prices to earnings ratio)AnnualFinancial Year2014/20158.18Up is Bad CJGE172Housing affordability (lower quartile house prices to earnings ratio)AnnualFinancial Year2015/20168.64Up is Bad CJGE172Housing affordability (lower quartile house prices to earnings ratio)AnnualFinancial Year2016/20178.90Up is Bad CJGE172Housing affordability (lower quartile house prices to earnings ratio)AnnualFinancial Year2017/20189.09Up is Bad CJGE172Housing affordability (lower quartile house prices to earnings ratio)AnnualFinancial Year2018/20199.29Up is Bad CJGE172Housing affordability (lower quartile house prices to earnings ratio)AnnualFinancial Year2019/20208.85Up is Bad PHOF15% of adult social care users who have as much social contact as they would likeAnnualFinancial Year2011/201245.80Up is Good PHOF15% of adult social care users who have as much social contact as they would likeAnnualFinancial Year2012/201342.70Up is Good PHOF15% of adult social care users who have as much social contact as they would likeAnnualFinancial Year2013/201443.00Up is Good PHOF15% of adult social care users who have as much social contact as they would likeAnnualFinancial Year2014/201546.60Up is Good PHOF15% of adult social care users who have as much social contact as they would likeAnnualFinancial Year2015/201645.80Up is Good PHOF15% of adult social care users who have as much social contact as they would likeAnnualFinancial Year2016/201749.50Up is Good PHOF26Statutory homelessness - households in temporary accommodation (per 1,000 estimated total households)AnnualFinancial Year2011/20121.11Up is Bad PHOF26Statutory homelessness - households in temporary accommodation (per 1,000 estimated total households)AnnualFinancial Year2012/20131.11Up is Bad PHOF26Statutory homelessness - households in temporary accommodation (per 1,000 estimated total households)AnnualFinancial Year2013/20140.94Up is Bad PHOF26Statutory homelessness - households in temporary accommodation (per 1,000 estimated total households)AnnualFinancial Year2014/20150.76Up is Bad PHOF26Statutory homelessness - households in temporary accommodation (per 1,000 estimated total households)AnnualFinancial Year2015/20160.65Up is Bad PHOF26Statutory homelessness - households in temporary accommodation (per 1,000 estimated total households)AnnualFinancial Year2016/20170.70Up is Bad PHOF26Statutory homelessness - households in temporary accommodation (per 1,000 estimated total households)AnnualFinancial Year2017/20180.50Up is Bad PHOF46Mortality rate from causes considered preventable (per 100,000 population)AnnualFinancial Year2011/2012187.19Up is Bad PHOF46Mortality rate from causes considered preventable (per 100,000 population)AnnualFinancial Year2012/2013189.91Up is Bad PHOF46Mortality rate from causes considered preventable (per 100,000 population)AnnualFinancial Year2013/2014490.77Up is Bad PHOF46Mortality rate from causes considered preventable (per 100,000 population)AnnualFinancial Year2014/2015176.11Up is Bad PHOF46Mortality rate from causes considered preventable (per 100,000 population)AnnualFinancial Year2015/2016169.27Up is Bad PHOF46Mortality rate from causes considered preventable (per 100,000 population)AnnualFinancial Year2016/2017162.85Up is Bad PHOF46Mortality rate from causes considered preventable (per 100,000 population)AnnualFinancial Year2017/2018168.90Up is Bad PHOF46Mortality rate from causes considered preventable (per 100,000 population)AnnualFinancial Year2018/2019175.00Up is Bad PHOF50Under 75 mortality rate from all cardiovascular diseases (per 100,000 population) - MaleAnnualFinancial Year2011/2012119.32Up is Bad PHOF50Under 75 mortality rate from all cardiovascular diseases (per 100,000 population) - MaleAnnualFinancial Year2012/2013114.10Up is Bad PHOF50Under 75 mortality rate from all cardiovascular diseases (per 100,000 population) - MaleAnnualFinancial Year2013/2014115.70Up is Bad PHOF50Under 75 mortality rate from all cardiovascular diseases (per 100,000 population) - MaleAnnualFinancial Year2014/2015102.10Up is Bad PHOF50Under 75 mortality rate from all cardiovascular diseases (per 100,000 population) - MaleAnnualFinancial Year2015/201698.50Up is Bad PHOF50Under 75 mortality rate from all cardiovascular diseases (per 100,000 population) - MaleAnnualFinancial Year2016/201793.30Up is Bad PHOF50Under 75 mortality rate from all cardiovascular diseases (per 100,000 population) - MaleAnnualFinancial Year2017/201894.70Up is Bad PHOF50Under 75 mortality rate from all cardiovascular diseases (per 100,000 population) - MaleAnnualFinancial Year2018/201996.30Up is Bad PHOF56Under 75 mortality rate from cancer (per 100,000 population) - MaleAnnualFinancial Year2011/2012160.09Up is Bad PHOF56Under 75 mortality rate from cancer (per 100,000 population) - MaleAnnualFinancial Year2012/2013163.67Up is Bad PHOF56Under 75 mortality rate from cancer (per 100,000 population) - MaleAnnualFinancial Year2013/2014171.06Up is Bad PHOF56Under 75 mortality rate from cancer (per 100,000 population) - MaleAnnualFinancial Year2014/2015163.27Up is Bad PHOF56Under 75 mortality rate from cancer (per 100,000 population) - MaleAnnualFinancial Year2015/2016154.45Up is Bad PHOF56Under 75 mortality rate from cancer (per 100,000 population) - MaleAnnualFinancial Year2016/2017145.79Up is Bad PHOF56Under 75 mortality rate from cancer (per 100,000 population) - MaleAnnualFinancial Year2017/2018148.30Up is Bad PHOF56Under 75 mortality rate from cancer (per 100,000 population) - MaleAnnualFinancial Year2018/2019143.30Up is Bad PHOF62Under 75 mortality rate from liver disease (per 100,000 population) - MaleAnnualFinancial Year2011/201215.35Up is Bad PHOF62Under 75 mortality rate from liver disease (per 100,000 population) - MaleAnnualFinancial Year2012/201316.71Up is Bad PHOF62Under 75 mortality rate from liver disease (per 100,000 population) - MaleAnnualFinancial Year2013/201416.16Up is Bad PHOF62Under 75 mortality rate from liver disease (per 100,000 population) - MaleAnnualFinancial Year2014/201516.45Up is Bad PHOF62Under 75 mortality rate from liver disease (per 100,000 population) - MaleAnnualFinancial Year2015/201618.51Up is Bad PHOF62Under 75 mortality rate from liver disease (per 100,000 population) - MaleAnnualFinancial Year2016/201720.28Up is Bad PHOF62Under 75 mortality rate from liver disease (per 100,000 population) - MaleAnnualFinancial Year2017/201823.30Up is Bad PHOF62Under 75 mortality rate from liver disease (per 100,000 population) - MaleAnnualFinancial Year2018/201921.00Up is Bad PHOF67Under 75 mortality rate from respiratory disease (per 100,000 population) - MaleAnnualFinancial Year2011/201237.82Up is Bad PHOF67Under 75 mortality rate from respiratory disease (per 100,000 population) - MaleAnnualFinancial Year2012/201336.12Up is Bad PHOF67Under 75 mortality rate from respiratory disease (per 100,000 population) - MaleAnnualFinancial Year2013/201438.30Up is Bad PHOF67Under 75 mortality rate from respiratory disease (per 100,000 population) - MaleAnnualFinancial Year2014/201536.24Up is Bad PHOF67Under 75 mortality rate from respiratory disease (per 100,000 population) - MaleAnnualFinancial Year2015/201632.98Up is Bad PHOF67Under 75 mortality rate from respiratory disease (per 100,000 population) - MaleAnnualFinancial Year2016/201730.76Up is Bad PHOF67Under 75 mortality rate from respiratory disease (per 100,000 population) - MaleAnnualFinancial Year2017/201832.00Up is Bad PHOF67Under 75 mortality rate from respiratory disease (per 100,000 population) - MaleAnnualFinancial Year2018/201938.30Up is Bad PHOF72Mortality from communicable diseases (per 100,000 population)AnnualFinancial Year2011/201270.91Up is Bad PHOF72Mortality from communicable diseases (per 100,000 population)AnnualFinancial Year2012/201364.75Up is Bad PHOF72Mortality from communicable diseases (per 100,000 population)AnnualFinancial Year2013/201460.81Up is Bad PHOF72Mortality from communicable diseases (per 100,000 population)AnnualFinancial Year2014/201554.49Up is Bad PHOF72Mortality from communicable diseases (per 100,000 population)AnnualFinancial Year2016/20176.98Up is Bad PHOF72Mortality from communicable diseases (per 100,000 population)AnnualFinancial Year2017/20187.90Up is Bad PHOF72Mortality from communicable diseases (per 100,000 population)AnnualFinancial Year2018/201910.00Up is Bad POPPI01Total population aged 65 and over predicted to have dementiaAnnualFinancial Year2013/20142623.00Up is Bad POPPI01Total population aged 65 and over predicted to have dementiaAnnualFinancial Year2014/20152680.00Up is Bad POPPI01Total population aged 65 and over predicted to have dementiaAnnualFinancial Year2015/20162717.00Up is Bad POPPI01Total population aged 65 and over predicted to have dementiaAnnualFinancial Year2016/20172788.00Up is Bad POPPI01Total population aged 65 and over predicted to have dementiaAnnualFinancial Year2017/20182788.00Up is Bad POPPI01Total population aged 65 and over predicted to have dementiaAnnualFinancial Year2018/20192779.00Up is Bad POPPI01Total population aged 65 and over predicted to have dementiaAnnualFinancial Year2019/20202834.00Up is Bad PP11% certificate applications dealt with within 5 days of receiptMonthlyFinancial Year2011/2012100.00Up is Good PP11% certificate applications dealt with within 5 days of receiptMonthlyFinancial Year2012/2013100.00Up is Good PP11% certificate applications dealt with within 5 days of receiptMonthlyFinancial Year2013/2014100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00Up is Good PP11% certificate applications dealt with within 5 days of receiptMonthlyFinancial Year2014/2015100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00Up is Good PP11% certificate applications dealt with within 5 days of receiptMonthlyFinancial Year2015/2016NCUp is Good PP11% certificate applications dealt with within 5 days of receiptMonthlyFinancial Year2016/2017100.00100.00100.00100.00Up is Good TAP01a% of Talkabout panel satisfied with their local area as a place to liveQuarterlyFinancial Year2012/201391.00Up is Good TAP01a% of Talkabout panel satisfied with their local area as a place to liveQuarterlyFinancial Year2013/201483.00Up is Good TAP01a% of Talkabout panel satisfied with their local area as a place to liveQuarterlyFinancial Year2014/2015NCUp is Good TAP01a% of Talkabout panel satisfied with their local area as a place to liveQuarterlyFinancial Year2015/2016NCUp is Good TAP01a% of Talkabout panel satisfied with their local area as a place to liveQuarterlyFinancial Year2016/201789.8491.90NC89.84NCUp is Good TAP01a% of Talkabout panel satisfied with their local area as a place to liveQuarterlyFinancial Year2017/201889.9491.23NC89.94NCUp is Good TAP01a% of Talkabout panel satisfied with their local area as a place to liveQuarterlyFinancial Year2018/201988.6188.09NC88.61NCUp is Good TAP01a% of Talkabout panel satisfied with their local area as a place to liveQuarterlyFinancial Year2019/202084.4788.45NC84.47NCUp is Good TAP01b% of Talkabout panel dissatisfied with their local area as a place to liveQuarterlyFinancial Year2012/20134.00Up is Bad TAP01b% of Talkabout panel dissatisfied with their local area as a place to liveQuarterlyFinancial Year2013/201410.00Up is Bad TAP01b% of Talkabout panel dissatisfied with their local area as a place to liveQuarterlyFinancial Year2014/2015NCUp is Bad TAP01b% of Talkabout panel dissatisfied with their local area as a place to liveQuarterlyFinancial Year2015/2016NCUp is Bad TAP01b% of Talkabout panel dissatisfied with their local area as a place to liveQuarterlyFinancial Year2016/20176.185.60NC6.18NCUp is Bad TAP01b% of Talkabout panel dissatisfied with their local area as a place to liveQuarterlyFinancial Year2017/20186.296.80NC6.29NCUp is Bad TAP01b% of Talkabout panel dissatisfied with their local area as a place to liveQuarterlyFinancial Year2018/20198.027.80NC8.02NCUp is Bad TAP01b% of Talkabout panel dissatisfied with their local area as a place to liveQuarterlyFinancial Year2019/202010.128.81NC10.12NCUp is Bad TAP02a% of panel satisfied with the way the council runs thingsQuarterlyFinancial Year2012/201363.00Up is Good TAP02a% of panel satisfied with the way the council runs thingsQuarterlyFinancial Year2013/201454.00Up is Good TAP02a% of panel satisfied with the way the council runs thingsQuarterlyFinancial Year2014/2015NCUp is Good TAP02a% of panel satisfied with the way the council runs thingsQuarterlyFinancial Year2015/2016NCUp is Good TAP02a% of panel satisfied with the way the council runs thingsQuarterlyFinancial Year2016/201765.5465.60NC65.54NCUp is Good TAP02a% of panel satisfied with the way the council runs thingsQuarterlyFinancial Year2017/201862.1364.76NC62.13NCUp is Good TAP02a% of panel satisfied with the way the council runs thingsQuarterlyFinancial Year2018/201957.3360.29NC57.33NCUp is Good TAP02a% of panel satisfied with the way the council runs thingsQuarterlyFinancial Year2019/202051.0055.56NC51.00NCUp is Good TAP02b% of panel dissatisfied with the way the council runs thingsQuarterlyFinancial Year2012/201319.00Up is Bad TAP02b% of panel dissatisfied with the way the council runs thingsQuarterlyFinancial Year2013/201429.00Up is Bad TAP02b% of panel dissatisfied with the way the council runs thingsQuarterlyFinancial Year2014/2015NCUp is Bad TAP02b% of panel dissatisfied with the way the council runs thingsQuarterlyFinancial Year2015/2016NCUp is Bad TAP02b% of panel dissatisfied with the way the council runs thingsQuarterlyFinancial Year2016/201720.3220.80NC20.32NCUp is Bad TAP02b% of panel dissatisfied with the way the council runs thingsQuarterlyFinancial Year2017/201822.8020.26NC22.80NCUp is Bad TAP02b% of panel dissatisfied with the way the council runs thingsQuarterlyFinancial Year2018/201922.1023.05NC22.10NCUp is Bad TAP02b% of panel dissatisfied with the way the council runs thingsQuarterlyFinancial Year2019/202019.6521.62NC19.65NCUp is Bad TAP03a% of panel agree the council provides value for moneyQuarterlyFinancial Year2012/201345.00Up is Good TAP03a% of panel agree the council provides value for moneyQuarterlyFinancial Year2013/201442.00Up is Good TAP03a% of panel agree the council provides value for moneyQuarterlyFinancial Year2014/2015NCUp is Good TAP03a% of panel agree the council provides value for moneyQuarterlyFinancial Year2015/2016NCUp is Good TAP03a% of panel agree the council provides value for moneyQuarterlyFinancial Year2016/201745.3347.20NC45.33NCUp is Good TAP03a% of panel agree the council provides value for moneyQuarterlyFinancial Year2017/201845.4548.57NC45.45NCUp is Good TAP03a% of panel agree the council provides value for moneyQuarterlyFinancial Year2018/201943.1442.68NC43.14NCUp is Good TAP03a% of panel agree the council provides value for moneyQuarterlyFinancial Year2019/202038.0743.00NC38.07NCUp is Good TAP03b% of panel disagree the council provides value for moneyQuarterlyFinancial Year2012/201325.00Up is Bad TAP03b% of panel disagree the council provides value for moneyQuarterlyFinancial Year2013/201431.00Up is Bad TAP03b% of panel disagree the council provides value for moneyQuarterlyFinancial Year2014/2015NCUp is Bad TAP03b% of panel disagree the council provides value for moneyQuarterlyFinancial Year2015/2016NCUp is Bad TAP03b% of panel disagree the council provides value for moneyQuarterlyFinancial Year2016/201724.0622.20NC24.06NCUp is Bad TAP03b% of panel disagree the council provides value for moneyQuarterlyFinancial Year2017/201823.8921.10NC23.89NCUp is Bad TAP03b% of panel disagree the council provides value for moneyQuarterlyFinancial Year2018/201917.2123.51NC17.21NCUp is Bad TAP03b% of panel disagree the council provides value for moneyQuarterlyFinancial Year2019/202019.7619.00NC19.76NCUp is Bad TAP04a% of panel satisfied with York as a place to liveQuarterlyFinancial Year2012/201392.00Up is Good TAP04a% of panel satisfied with York as a place to liveQuarterlyFinancial Year2013/201489.00Up is Good TAP04a% of panel satisfied with York as a place to liveQuarterlyFinancial Year2014/2015NCUp is Good TAP04a% of panel satisfied with York as a place to liveQuarterlyFinancial Year2015/2016NCUp is Good TAP04a% of panel satisfied with York as a place to liveQuarterlyFinancial Year2016/201792.2091.90NC92.20NCUp is Good TAP04a% of panel satisfied with York as a place to liveQuarterlyFinancial Year2017/201891.7092.65NC91.70NCUp is Good TAP04a% of panel satisfied with York as a place to liveQuarterlyFinancial Year2018/201989.6391.51NC89.63NCUp is Good TAP04a% of panel satisfied with York as a place to liveQuarterlyFinancial Year2019/202087.5387.07NC87.53NCUp is Good TAP04b% of panel dissatisfied with York as a place to liveQuarterlyFinancial Year2012/20134.00Up is Bad TAP04b% of panel dissatisfied with York as a place to liveQuarterlyFinancial Year2013/20146.00Up is Bad TAP04b% of panel dissatisfied with York as a place to liveQuarterlyFinancial Year2014/2015NCUp is Bad TAP04b% of panel dissatisfied with York as a place to liveQuarterlyFinancial Year2015/2016NCUp is Bad TAP04b% of panel dissatisfied with York as a place to liveQuarterlyFinancial Year2016/20174.403.10NC4.40NCUp is Bad TAP04b% of panel dissatisfied with York as a place to liveQuarterlyFinancial Year2017/20185.534.01NC5.53NCUp is Bad TAP04b% of panel dissatisfied with York as a place to liveQuarterlyFinancial Year2018/20196.704.46NC6.70NCUp is Bad TAP04b% of panel dissatisfied with York as a place to liveQuarterlyFinancial Year2019/20205.878.28NC5.87NCUp is Bad TAP05a% of panel agree the council treated them fairly and with respect in the last 12 monthsQuarterlyFinancial Year2012/2013NCUp is Good TAP05a% of panel agree the council treated them fairly and with respect in the last 12 monthsQuarterlyFinancial Year2013/201440.00Up is Good TAP05a% of panel agree the council treated them fairly and with respect in the last 12 monthsQuarterlyFinancial Year2014/2015NCUp is Good TAP05a% of panel agree the council treated them fairly and with respect in the last 12 monthsQuarterlyFinancial Year2015/2016NCUp is Good TAP05a% of panel agree the council treated them fairly and with respect in the last 12 monthsQuarterlyFinancial Year2016/201760.8161.70NC60.81NCUp is Good TAP05a% of panel agree the council treated them fairly and with respect in the last 12 monthsQuarterlyFinancial Year2017/201850.3362.81NC50.33NCUp is Good TAP05a% of panel agree the council treated them fairly and with respect in the last 12 monthsQuarterlyFinancial Year2018/201951.3150.64NC51.31NCUp is Good TAP05a% of panel agree the council treated them fairly and with respect in the last 12 monthsQuarterlyFinancial Year2019/202051.5053.29NC51.50NCUp is Good TAP05b% of panel disagree the council treated them fairly and with respect in the last 12 monthsQuarterlyFinancial Year2012/2013NCUp is Bad TAP05b% of panel disagree the council treated them fairly and with respect in the last 12 monthsQuarterlyFinancial Year2013/201411.00Up is Bad TAP05b% of panel disagree the council treated them fairly and with respect in the last 12 monthsQuarterlyFinancial Year2014/2015NCUp is Bad TAP05b% of panel disagree the council treated them fairly and with respect in the last 12 monthsQuarterlyFinancial Year2015/2016NCUp is Bad TAP05b% of panel disagree the council treated them fairly and with respect in the last 12 monthsQuarterlyFinancial Year2016/20177.477.00NC7.47NCUp is Bad TAP05b% of panel disagree the council treated them fairly and with respect in the last 12 monthsQuarterlyFinancial Year2017/201810.687.35NC10.68NCUp is Bad TAP05b% of panel disagree the council treated them fairly and with respect in the last 12 monthsQuarterlyFinancial Year2018/20197.2110.04NC7.21NCUp is Bad TAP05b% of panel disagree the council treated them fairly and with respect in the last 12 monthsQuarterlyFinancial Year2019/20208.258.03NC8.25NCUp is Bad TAP06a% of panel who agree it is important to feel part of their local areaQuarterlyFinancial Year2012/201370.00Up is Good TAP06a% of panel who agree it is important to feel part of their local areaQuarterlyFinancial Year2013/201474.00Up is Good TAP06a% of panel who agree it is important to feel part of their local areaQuarterlyFinancial Year2014/2015NCUp is Good TAP06a% of panel who agree it is important to feel part of their local areaQuarterlyFinancial Year2015/2016NCUp is Good TAP06a% of panel who agree it is important to feel part of their local areaQuarterlyFinancial Year2016/201789.2088.80NC89.20NCUp is Good TAP06a% of panel who agree it is important to feel part of their local areaQuarterlyFinancial Year2017/201886.0589.53NC86.05NCUp is Good TAP06a% of panel who agree it is important to feel part of their local areaQuarterlyFinancial Year2018/201991.9288.61NC91.92NCUp is Good TAP06a% of panel who agree it is important to feel part of their local areaQuarterlyFinancial Year2019/202087.9488.73NC87.94NCUp is Good TAP06b% of panel who disagree it is important to feel part of their local areaQuarterlyFinancial Year2012/201330.00Up is Bad TAP06b% of panel who disagree it is important to feel part of their local areaQuarterlyFinancial Year2013/201426.00Up is Bad TAP06b% of panel who disagree it is important to feel part of their local areaQuarterlyFinancial Year2014/2015NCUp is Bad TAP06b% of panel who disagree it is important to feel part of their local areaQuarterlyFinancial Year2015/2016NCUp is Bad TAP06b% of panel who disagree it is important to feel part of their local areaQuarterlyFinancial Year2016/201710.4010.80NC10.40NCUp is Bad TAP06b% of panel who disagree it is important to feel part of their local areaQuarterlyFinancial Year2017/201813.099.58NC13.09NCUp is Bad TAP06b% of panel who disagree it is important to feel part of their local areaQuarterlyFinancial Year2018/20197.219.92NC7.21NCUp is Bad TAP06b% of panel who disagree it is important to feel part of their local areaQuarterlyFinancial Year2019/202011.5610.45NC11.56NCUp is Bad TAP07a% of panel who agree that they belong to their local areaQuarterlyFinancial Year2012/201355.00Up is Good TAP07a% of panel who agree that they belong to their local areaQuarterlyFinancial Year2013/201454.00Up is Good TAP07a% of panel who agree that they belong to their local areaQuarterlyFinancial Year2014/2015NCUp is Good TAP07a% of panel who agree that they belong to their local areaQuarterlyFinancial Year2015/2016NCUp is Good TAP07a% of panel who agree that they belong to their local areaQuarterlyFinancial Year2016/201774.7075.20NC74.70NCUp is Good TAP07a% of panel who agree that they belong to their local areaQuarterlyFinancial Year2017/201875.2778.44NC75.27NCUp is Good TAP07a% of panel who agree that they belong to their local areaQuarterlyFinancial Year2018/201980.2276.41NC80.22NCUp is Good TAP07a% of panel who agree that they belong to their local areaQuarterlyFinancial Year2019/202077.7878.06NC77.78NCUp is Good TAP07b% of panel who disagree that they belong to their local areaQuarterlyFinancial Year2012/201345.00Up is Bad TAP07b% of panel who disagree that they belong to their local areaQuarterlyFinancial Year2013/201446.00Up is Bad TAP07b% of panel who disagree that they belong to their local areaQuarterlyFinancial Year2014/2015NCUp is Bad TAP07b% of panel who disagree that they belong to their local areaQuarterlyFinancial Year2015/2016NCUp is Bad TAP07b% of panel who disagree that they belong to their local areaQuarterlyFinancial Year2016/201725.1024.40NC25.10NCUp is Bad TAP07b% of panel who disagree that they belong to their local areaQuarterlyFinancial Year2017/201823.0319.11NC23.03NCUp is Bad TAP07b% of panel who disagree that they belong to their local areaQuarterlyFinancial Year2018/201919.3321.71NC19.33NCUp is Bad TAP07b% of panel who disagree that they belong to their local areaQuarterlyFinancial Year2019/202021.7120.46NC21.71NCUp is Bad TAP08a% of panel agree their local area is a place where people from different backgrounds get on well togetherQuarterlyFinancial Year2012/201373.00Up is Good TAP08a% of panel agree their local area is a place where people from different backgrounds get on well togetherQuarterlyFinancial Year2013/201458.00Up is Good TAP08a% of panel agree their local area is a place where people from different backgrounds get on well togetherQuarterlyFinancial Year2014/2015NCUp is Good TAP08a% of panel agree their local area is a place where people from different backgrounds get on well togetherQuarterlyFinancial Year2015/2016NCUp is Good TAP08a% of panel agree their local area is a place where people from different backgrounds get on well togetherQuarterlyFinancial Year2016/201770.1169.50NC70.11NCUp is Good TAP08a% of panel agree their local area is a place where people from different backgrounds get on well togetherQuarterlyFinancial Year2017/201872.8475.24NC72.84NCUp is Good TAP08a% of panel agree their local area is a place where people from different backgrounds get on well togetherQuarterlyFinancial Year2018/201968.4775.06NC68.47NCUp is Good TAP08a% of panel agree their local area is a place where people from different backgrounds get on well togetherQuarterlyFinancial Year2019/202061.8862.17NC61.88NCUp is Good TAP08b% of panel disagree their local area is a place where people from different backgrounds get on well togetherQuarterlyFinancial Year2012/20138.00Up is Bad TAP08b% of panel disagree their local area is a place where people from different backgrounds get on well togetherQuarterlyFinancial Year2013/201415.00Up is Bad TAP08b% of panel disagree their local area is a place where people from different backgrounds get on well togetherQuarterlyFinancial Year2014/2015NCUp is Bad TAP08b% of panel disagree their local area is a place where people from different backgrounds get on well togetherQuarterlyFinancial Year2015/2016NCUp is Bad TAP08b% of panel disagree their local area is a place where people from different backgrounds get on well togetherQuarterlyFinancial Year2016/20179.449.40NC9.44NCUp is Bad TAP08b% of panel disagree their local area is a place where people from different backgrounds get on well togetherQuarterlyFinancial Year2017/201811.856.55NC11.85NCUp is Bad TAP08b% of panel disagree their local area is a place where people from different backgrounds get on well togetherQuarterlyFinancial Year2018/20196.918.86NC6.91NCUp is Bad TAP08b% of panel disagree their local area is a place where people from different backgrounds get on well togetherQuarterlyFinancial Year2019/20208.919.20NC8.91NCUp is Bad TAP11a% of Talkabout panel who agree that they can influence decisions in their local areaQuarterlyFinancial Year2012/201329.00Up is Good TAP11a% of Talkabout panel who agree that they can influence decisions in their local areaQuarterlyFinancial Year2013/201424.00Up is Good TAP11a% of Talkabout panel who agree that they can influence decisions in their local areaQuarterlyFinancial Year2014/2015NCUp is Good TAP11a% of Talkabout panel who agree that they can influence decisions in their local areaQuarterlyFinancial Year2015/2016NCUp is Good TAP11a% of Talkabout panel who agree that they can influence decisions in their local areaQuarterlyFinancial Year2016/201725.6529.00NC25.65NCUp is Good TAP11a% of Talkabout panel who agree that they can influence decisions in their local areaQuarterlyFinancial Year2017/201826.8728.41NC26.87NCUp is Good TAP11a% of Talkabout panel who agree that they can influence decisions in their local areaQuarterlyFinancial Year2018/201928.9525.68NC28.95NCUp is Good TAP11a% of Talkabout panel who agree that they can influence decisions in their local areaQuarterlyFinancial Year2019/202029.0627.37NC29.06NCUp is Good TAP11b% of Talkabout panel who disagree that they can influence decisions in their local areaQuarterlyFinancial Year2012/201342.00Up is Bad TAP11b% of Talkabout panel who disagree that they can influence decisions in their local areaQuarterlyFinancial Year2013/201449.00Up is Bad TAP11b% of Talkabout panel who disagree that they can influence decisions in their local areaQuarterlyFinancial Year2014/2015NCUp is Bad TAP11b% of Talkabout panel who disagree that they can influence decisions in their local areaQuarterlyFinancial Year2015/2016NCUp is Bad TAP11b% of Talkabout panel who disagree that they can influence decisions in their local areaQuarterlyFinancial Year2016/201739.9639.50NC39.96NCUp is Bad TAP11b% of Talkabout panel who disagree that they can influence decisions in their local areaQuarterlyFinancial Year2017/201840.9437.22NC40.94NCUp is Bad TAP11b% of Talkabout panel who disagree that they can influence decisions in their local areaQuarterlyFinancial Year2018/201941.0143.16NC41.01NCUp is Bad TAP11b% of Talkabout panel who disagree that they can influence decisions in their local areaQuarterlyFinancial Year2019/202037.9339.30NC37.93NCUp is Bad TAP12a% of panel who state it is important that residents can influence decisions in their local areaQuarterlyFinancial Year2012/201375.00Up is Good TAP12a% of panel who state it is important that residents can influence decisions in their local areaQuarterlyFinancial Year2013/201486.00Up is Good TAP12a% of panel who state it is important that residents can influence decisions in their local areaQuarterlyFinancial Year2014/2015NCUp is Good TAP12a% of panel who state it is important that residents can influence decisions in their local areaQuarterlyFinancial Year2015/2016NCUp is Good TAP12a% of panel who state it is important that residents can influence decisions in their local areaQuarterlyFinancial Year2016/201790.8588.20NC90.85NCUp is Good TAP12a% of panel who state it is important that residents can influence decisions in their local areaQuarterlyFinancial Year2017/201889.9190.27NC89.91NCUp is Good TAP12a% of panel who state it is important that residents can influence decisions in their local areaQuarterlyFinancial Year2018/201992.2489.66NC92.24NCUp is Good TAP12a% of panel who state it is important that residents can influence decisions in their local areaQuarterlyFinancial Year2019/202090.5991.58NC90.59NCUp is Good TAP12b% of panel who state it is not important that residents can influence decisions in their local areaQuarterlyFinancial Year2012/201325.00Up is Bad TAP12b% of panel who state it is not important that residents can influence decisions in their local areaQuarterlyFinancial Year2013/201414.00Up is Bad TAP12b% of panel who state it is not important that residents can influence decisions in their local areaQuarterlyFinancial Year2014/2015NCUp is Bad TAP12b% of panel who state it is not important that residents can influence decisions in their local areaQuarterlyFinancial Year2015/2016NCUp is Bad TAP12b% of panel who state it is not important that residents can influence decisions in their local areaQuarterlyFinancial Year2016/20177.3610.50NC7.36NCUp is Bad TAP12b% of panel who state it is not important that residents can influence decisions in their local areaQuarterlyFinancial Year2017/20188.377.74NC8.37NCUp is Bad TAP12b% of panel who state it is not important that residents can influence decisions in their local areaQuarterlyFinancial Year2018/20196.218.02NC6.21NCUp is Bad TAP12b% of panel who state it is not important that residents can influence decisions in their local areaQuarterlyFinancial Year2019/20208.176.74NC8.17NCUp is Bad TAP20a% of panel who agree that York is a safe city to live in, relatively free from crime and violenceQuarterlyFinancial Year2012/201374.00Up is Good TAP20a% of panel who agree that York is a safe city to live in, relatively free from crime and violenceQuarterlyFinancial Year2013/201480.00Up is Good TAP20a% of panel who agree that York is a safe city to live in, relatively free from crime and violenceQuarterlyFinancial Year2014/2015NCUp is Good TAP20a% of panel who agree that York is a safe city to live in, relatively free from crime and violenceQuarterlyFinancial Year2015/2016NCUp is Good TAP20a% of panel who agree that York is a safe city to live in, relatively free from crime and violenceQuarterlyFinancial Year2016/201777.0377.00NC77.03NCUp is Good TAP20a% of panel who agree that York is a safe city to live in, relatively free from crime and violenceQuarterlyFinancial Year2017/201870.5174.72NC70.51NCUp is Good TAP20a% of panel who agree that York is a safe city to live in, relatively free from crime and violenceQuarterlyFinancial Year2018/201977.1973.21NC77.19NCUp is Good TAP20a% of panel who agree that York is a safe city to live in, relatively free from crime and violenceQuarterlyFinancial Year2019/202079.7573.35NC79.75NCUp is Good TAP20b% of panel who disagree that York is a safe city to live in, relatively free from crime and violenceQuarterlyFinancial Year2012/201311.00Up is Bad TAP20b% of panel who disagree that York is a safe city to live in, relatively free from crime and violenceQuarterlyFinancial Year2013/201410.00Up is Bad TAP20b% of panel who disagree that York is a safe city to live in, relatively free from crime and violenceQuarterlyFinancial Year2014/2015NCUp is Bad TAP20b% of panel who disagree that York is a safe city to live in, relatively free from crime and violenceQuarterlyFinancial Year2015/2016NCUp is Bad TAP20b% of panel who disagree that York is a safe city to live in, relatively free from crime and violenceQuarterlyFinancial Year2016/201712.8011.50NC12.80NCUp is Bad TAP20b% of panel who disagree that York is a safe city to live in, relatively free from crime and violenceQuarterlyFinancial Year2017/201817.5214.41NC17.52NCUp is Bad TAP20b% of panel who disagree that York is a safe city to live in, relatively free from crime and violenceQuarterlyFinancial Year2018/201910.3114.14NC10.31NCUp is Bad TAP20b% of panel who disagree that York is a safe city to live in, relatively free from crime and violenceQuarterlyFinancial Year2019/202010.0012.60NC10.00NCUp is Bad TF2-A01Number of Troubled Families (Families identified with 2 or more headline criteria) - (Snapshot)QuarterlyFinancial Year2014/201552.0052.00Up is Good TF2-A01Number of Troubled Families (Families identified with 2 or more headline criteria) - (Snapshot)QuarterlyFinancial Year2015/2016500.00299.00349.00377.00500.00Up is Good TF2-A01Number of Troubled Families (Families identified with 2 or more headline criteria) - (Snapshot)QuarterlyFinancial Year2016/2017742.00547.00581.00617.00742.00Up is Good TF2-A01Number of Troubled Families (Families identified with 2 or more headline criteria) - (Snapshot)QuarterlyFinancial Year2017/2018891.00761.00786.00815.00891.00Up is Good TF2-A01Number of Troubled Families (Families identified with 2 or more headline criteria) - (Snapshot)QuarterlyFinancial Year2018/20191078.00934.00965.001025.001078.00Up is Good TF2-A01Number of Troubled Families (Families identified with 2 or more headline criteria) - (Snapshot)QuarterlyFinancial Year2019/20201328.001155.001242.001287.001328.00Up is Good TF2-A02% of Troubled Families who have achieved an outcome - (Snapshot)QuarterlyFinancial Year2014/20150.000.00Up is Good TF2-A02% of Troubled Families who have achieved an outcome - (Snapshot)QuarterlyFinancial Year2015/20160.000.000.000.000.00Up is Good TF2-A02% of Troubled Families who have achieved an outcome - (Snapshot)QuarterlyFinancial Year2016/20176.000.001.003.006.00Up is Good TF2-A02% of Troubled Families who have achieved an outcome - (Snapshot)QuarterlyFinancial Year2017/201810.006.006.006.0010.00Up is Good TF2-A02% of Troubled Families who have achieved an outcome - (Snapshot)QuarterlyFinancial Year2018/201920.0010.0014.0015.0020.00Up is Good TF2-A02% of Troubled Families who have achieved an outcome - (Snapshot)QuarterlyFinancial Year2019/202031.0024.0026.0028.0031.00Up is Good