Tameside Council CM Index

Understand council performance, one indicator at a time.

Council profile

FINANCIAL HEALTH · LIVE SCORE

68/ 100

GoodMethodology 1.0

The overall multi-category CM Index is not yet calculated.

COMPARISON GROUP

Metropolitan district councils

Financial Health Score · 2024/25

PEER RANK10 / 34

PEER AVERAGE50.1 / 100

COMPONENTS4 / 4

Tameside Council68.0

Peer average50.1

OVERALL CM INDEX

— /100

In development

The combined index is withheld while service responsibilities, category eligibility and comparable peer groups are validated.

Financial score available · High confidence

CM INDEX · COUNCIL COMPARISON

Compare two councils

Select another Metropolitan district council to compare financial health and matching-period indicator values. This does not produce a combined ranking.

CM INDEX · BENCHMARKING OVERVIEW

Council services and local outcomes

These views are intentionally separate. No service-and-area composite or overall CM Index is calculated.

Council service performance

Service-related comparisons for functions within this authority’s remit. Financial health is shown separately because it uses a different scoring methodology.

2 / 2provisional categories scored10 / 10individual indicators scored

Financial healthExisting independent financial methodology68.0 / 100

Environment & servicesProvisional service comparison77.2 / 100

Adult social careProvisional service comparison29.3 / 100

Planning indicators are service-related where applicable, but Housing & Planning has no composite score because affordability is an area outcome. Unscored or inapplicable measures remain visible in the explorer.

Local-area outcomes

Conditions affecting residents and communities. These are not direct ratings of council effectiveness.

3 / 3provisional categories scored16 / 16individual indicators scored

EducationProvisional area comparison37.1 / 100

Public healthProvisional area comparison21.6 / 100

Crime & safetyProvisional area comparison54.3 / 100

Housing affordability is an area outcome, but the mixed Housing & Planning category is deliberately excluded from category scores. Individual housing measures remain in the explorer.

EXPLORE THE EVIDENCE

Notable peer comparisons

Individual indicator percentiles are exploratory. Local-area outcomes must not be interpreted as direct council-performance ratings.

26 indicators with peer scores

Higher relative percentiles

Lower relative percentiles

A higher percentile means a more favourable position for that indicator, not proof of better council management. Select a row to inspect its underlying evidence.

DATA QUALITY · PROVISIONAL EVIDENCE CHECK

How much evidence supports these comparisons?

Evidence availability is separate from performance. A high percentile is not proof of better services, and a low percentile is not proof of poor council management.

26Scored non-financial indicators

5 / 6Categories with all required themes

3Social care measures with published margins of error

Read the evidence and scoring rules

Comparable observations: a provisional indicator score requires at least five peers with the same measure and reporting period. Five to nineteen peers are flagged as a small comparison group. Twenty or more indicates broader peer coverage, not statistical certainty.

Category completeness: each required theme must contain at least one scored indicator. Service-related categories additionally require all listed measures. Themes receive equal weight; this does not imply equal statistical reliability.

Survey uncertainty: adult social care survey margins of error are shown where supplied. Percentile ranks do not account for overlapping uncertainty intervals, case mix or demographic differences.

Interpretation: crime rates are recorded local outcomes, not direct measures of council effectiveness. Public health and housing results are also affected by factors beyond council control. Different categories use different eligible comparison groups and reporting years.

Publication status: the existing Financial Health Score uses a separate methodology. All other category scores are provisional; no combined CM Index is published.

How council responsibilities are classifiedRead the council-type eligibility notes and limitations

These provisional classifications distinguish local-area outcomes from council service responsibilities. A high or low area outcome is not, by itself, evidence of council effectiveness.

EducationLocal area outcomeSchool outcomes describe pupils and schools in the area. They do not, on their own, measure council effectiveness.

Public healthLocal area outcomePopulation health reflects wider social, economic and healthcare influences beyond council control.

Housing & planningMixed responsibilityPlanning timeliness and housing delivery involve council functions; affordability is a wider local-area outcome.

Crime & safetyLocal area outcomeRecorded crime describes local conditions, not a direct assessment of council service performance.

Environment & servicesService-related · verify remitWaste indicators require comparisons within the relevant Defra collection, disposal or unitary authority classification.

Adult social careService-related · provisionalAdult social care outcomes are relevant to this authority type, subject to data completeness and survey uncertainty.

This is an initial responsibility classification, not a completed indicator-by-indicator statutory-function audit. No overall council-performance ranking is published.

CM INDEX · METHODOLOGY PROPOSAL 0.1

Publication readiness

Transparent rules for assessing whether a combined council index can be published. These are proposed release criteria, not a certification that the data has passed them.

Overall index withheld

01 · Comparability

Verify definitions, direction, time periods and eligible peer populations for every scored indicator.

02 · Coverage

Require complete, documented themes and a published missing-data policy across eligible council functions.

03 · Fair weighting

Publish category weights and test sensitivity to different reasonable weightings and missing indicators.

04 · Independent review

Check source provenance, reproducibility, survey uncertainty and interpretation before release.

What is scored today, and what is not?

The financial score is an existing separate model. Non-financial categories use provisional within-peer percentile scores, averaged within themes and then equally across complete themes. Service-related categories require all defined measures; mixed housing and planning measures are displayed separately without a combined category score; area-outcome scores are not council-performance ratings. Adult social care compares reporting care authorities rather than council-type peers. Economy & benefits is contextual only. None of these provisional scores contributes to an overall index.

Provisional indicator eligibility requires a matching measure and period, an explicit direction, and at least five comparable peers. This minimum permits exploration; it is not a publication-quality statistical assurance threshold. Publication also requires review of service responsibilities, demographic confounding, small denominators, changes in methodology and the meaning of apparent rank differences.

INDICATOR EXPLORER

Performance breakdown

Explore individual measures and their position within the comparison group.

4 financial measures scored · 32 additional measures

INDICATOR	LATEST VALUE	PEER AVERAGE	CM SCORE	POSITION ON SCALE	PEER RANK
Financial health 4 scored measures68.0 /100
Reserves coverFinancial resilience and reserves coverage	0.11	—	94.3/100	Component score, not peer percentile	—
Debt burdenDebt relative to population	473.78	—	90.9/100	Component score, not peer percentile	—
LiquidityShort-term financial flexibility	0.10	—	36.4/100	Component score, not peer percentile	—
Debt directionMovement in debt over the reporting period	0.09	—	3.0/100	Component score, not peer percentile	—
Education 4 indicators · Local area outcome37.1 /100 Provisional area comparison
Attainment 8Local area outcome · Local-area outcomePeer data available2024/25 · Higher is better	43.4	44.4	28.6/100 · provisional	Value within peer range	25 / 36
Attainment 8 — comparison detailsReporting period: 2024/25Comparable peers: 36Peer range: 38.1 to 55.8Rank uses higher values first; tied values share a rank.CM score: 28.6/100 (provisional percentile, ties share a midpoint).
Progress 8Local area outcome · Local-area outcomePeer data available2023/24 · Higher is better	-0.2	-0.1	41.4/100 · provisional	Value within peer range	21 / 36
Progress 8 — comparison detailsReporting period: 2023/24Comparable peers: 36Peer range: -0.7 to 0.3Rank uses higher values first; tied values share a rank.CM score: 41.4/100 (provisional percentile, ties share a midpoint).
Grade 5+ English and mathsLocal area outcome · Local-area outcomePeer data available2024/25 · Higher is better	40.6%	42.3%	37.1/100 · provisional	Value within peer range	23 / 36
Grade 5+ English and maths — comparison detailsReporting period: 2024/25Comparable peers: 36Peer range: 30.5% to 60.4%Rank uses higher values first; tied values share a rank.CM score: 37.1/100 (provisional percentile, ties share a midpoint).
EBacc entry rateLocal area outcome · Context only2024/25 · Context indicator	35.5%	36.8%	Not scored	Value within peer range	—
EBacc entry rate — comparison detailsReporting period: 2024/25Comparable peers: 36Peer range: 25.3% to 50.7%Rank uses no performance direction; tied values share a rank.CM score: Not scored.
Public health 6 indicators · Local area outcome21.6 /100 Provisional area comparison
Life expectancy at birth — maleLocal area outcome · Local-area outcomePeer data available2025 · Higher is better	77.5 years	78.2 years	25.7/100 · provisional	Value within peer range	26 / 36
Life expectancy at birth — male — comparison detailsReporting period: 2025Comparable peers: 36Peer range: 76.7 years to 80.7 yearsRank uses higher values first; tied values share a rank.CM score: 25.7/100 (provisional percentile, ties share a midpoint).
Life expectancy at birth — femaleLocal area outcome · Local-area outcomePeer data available2025 · Higher is better	80.9 years	82.2 years	1.4/100 · provisional	Value within peer range	35 / 36
Life expectancy at birth — female — comparison detailsReporting period: 2025Comparable peers: 36Peer range: 80.9 years to 84.4 yearsRank uses higher values first; tied values share a rank.CM score: 1.4/100 (provisional percentile, ties share a midpoint).
Healthy life expectancy at birth — maleLocal area outcome · Local-area outcomePeer data available2022 - 24 · Higher is better	55.2 years	57.3 years	21.4/100 · provisional	Value within peer range	28 / 36
Healthy life expectancy at birth — male — comparison detailsReporting period: 2022 - 24Comparable peers: 36Peer range: 52.7 years to 63.8 yearsRank uses higher values first; tied values share a rank.CM score: 21.4/100 (provisional percentile, ties share a midpoint).
Healthy life expectancy at birth — femaleLocal area outcome · Local-area outcomePeer data available2022 - 24 · Higher is better	56.0 years	57.6 years	32.9/100 · provisional	Value within peer range	24 / 36
Healthy life expectancy at birth — female — comparison detailsReporting period: 2022 - 24Comparable peers: 36Peer range: 51.3 years to 65.2 yearsRank uses higher values first; tied values share a rank.CM score: 32.9/100 (provisional percentile, ties share a midpoint).
Under-75 preventable mortality — personsLocal area outcome · Local-area outcomePeer data available2024 · Lower is better	196.2 per 100,000	186.2 per 100,000	31.4/100 · provisional	Value within peer range	25 / 36
Under-75 preventable mortality — persons — comparison detailsReporting period: 2024Comparable peers: 36Peer range: 126.1 per 100,000 to 254.3 per 100,000Rank uses lower values first; tied values share a rank.CM score: 31.4/100 (provisional percentile, ties share a midpoint).
Adult smoking prevalence — personsLocal area outcome · Local-area outcomePeer data available2024 · Lower is better	13.6%	11.8%	14.3/100 · provisional	Value within peer range	31 / 36
Adult smoking prevalence — persons — comparison detailsReporting period: 2024Comparable peers: 36Peer range: 7.4% to 16.8%Rank uses lower values first; tied values share a rank.CM score: 14.3/100 (provisional percentile, ties share a midpoint).
Housing & planning 6 indicators · Mixed responsibilityNot scored
House price to earnings ratioMixed responsibility · Local-area outcomePeer data available2025-09-30 · Lower is better	6.2	6.0	34.3/100 · provisional	Value within peer range	24 / 36
House price to earnings ratio — comparison detailsReporting period: 2025-09-30Comparable peers: 36Peer range: 4.6 to 8.7Rank uses lower values first; tied values share a rank.CM score: 34.3/100 (provisional percentile, ties share a midpoint).
Average private monthly rentMixed responsibility · Context only2026-07-01 · Context indicator	£927	£922	Not scored	Value within peer range	—
Average private monthly rent — comparison detailsReporting period: 2026-07-01Comparable peers: 36Peer range: £683 to £1,367Rank uses no performance direction; tied values share a rank.CM score: Not scored.
Median house priceMixed responsibility · Context only2025-09-30 · Context indicator	£211,000	£217,383	Not scored	Value within peer range	—
Median house price — comparison detailsReporting period: 2025-09-30Comparable peers: 36Peer range: £152,000 to £372,500Rank uses no performance direction; tied values share a rank.CM score: Not scored.
Planning decisions made in timeMixed responsibility · Service-related measurePeer data available2026-03-31 · Higher is better	95.4%	92.1%	63.6/100 · provisional	Value within peer range	13 / 34
Planning decisions made in time — comparison detailsReporting period: 2026-03-31Comparable peers: 34Peer range: 77.1% to 100.0%Rank uses higher values first; tied values share a rank.CM score: 63.6/100 (provisional percentile, ties share a midpoint).
Major planning decisions in timeMixed responsibility · Service-related measurePeer data available2026-03-31 · Higher is better	100.0%	92.1%	69.7/100 · provisional	Value within peer range	1 / 34
Major planning decisions in time — comparison detailsReporting period: 2026-03-31Comparable peers: 34Peer range: 50.0% to 100.0%Rank uses higher values first; tied values share a rank.CM score: 69.7/100 (provisional percentile, ties share a midpoint).
Housing Delivery Test resultMixed responsibility · Service-related measurePeer data available2025-03-31 · Higher is better	232.0%	105.0%	97.0/100 · provisional	Value within peer range	2 / 34
Housing Delivery Test result — comparison detailsReporting period: 2025-03-31Comparable peers: 34Peer range: 34.0% to 245.0%Rank uses higher values first; tied values share a rank.CM score: 97.0/100 (provisional percentile, ties share a midpoint).
Crime & safety 6 indicators · Local area outcome54.3 /100 Provisional area comparison
Total recorded crime (excluding fraud)Local area outcome · Local-area outcomePeer data available2026-03-31 · Lower is better	96.4 per 1,000	96.1 per 1,000	42.9/100 · provisional	Value within peer range	21 / 36
Total recorded crime (excluding fraud) — comparison detailsReporting period: 2026-03-31Comparable peers: 36Comparison group: same-type councils with unique single-council CSP coverage. Recorded crime rates describe local outcomes, not council service effectiveness.Peer range: 71.1 per 1,000 to 142.7 per 1,000Rank uses lower values first; tied values share a rank.CM score: 42.9/100 (provisional percentile, ties share a midpoint).
Violence with injuryLocal area outcome · Local-area outcomePeer data available2026-03-31 · Lower is better	9.3 per 1,000	9.3 per 1,000	57.1/100 · provisional	Value within peer range	16 / 36
Violence with injury — comparison detailsReporting period: 2026-03-31Comparable peers: 36Comparison group: same-type councils with unique single-council CSP coverage. Recorded crime rates describe local outcomes, not council service effectiveness.Peer range: 5.7 per 1,000 to 12.3 per 1,000Rank uses lower values first; tied values share a rank.CM score: 57.1/100 (provisional percentile, ties share a midpoint).
Residential burglaryLocal area outcome · Local-area outcomePeer data available2026-03-31 · Lower is better	3.1 per 1,000	3.0 per 1,000	45.7/100 · provisional	Value within peer range	20 / 36
Residential burglary — comparison detailsReporting period: 2026-03-31Comparable peers: 36Comparison group: same-type councils with unique single-council CSP coverage. Recorded crime rates describe local outcomes, not council service effectiveness.Peer range: 1.2 per 1,000 to 5.2 per 1,000Rank uses lower values first; tied values share a rank.CM score: 45.7/100 (provisional percentile, ties share a midpoint).
Vehicle offencesLocal area outcome · Local-area outcomePeer data available2026-03-31 · Lower is better	4.7 per 1,000	5.8 per 1,000	62.9/100 · provisional	Value within peer range	14 / 36
Vehicle offences — comparison detailsReporting period: 2026-03-31Comparable peers: 36Comparison group: same-type councils with unique single-council CSP coverage. Recorded crime rates describe local outcomes, not council service effectiveness.Peer range: 2.0 per 1,000 to 10.2 per 1,000Rank uses lower values first; tied values share a rank.CM score: 62.9/100 (provisional percentile, ties share a midpoint).
Criminal damage and arsonLocal area outcome · Local-area outcomePeer data available2026-03-31 · Lower is better	7.8 per 1,000	8.7 per 1,000	65.7/100 · provisional	Value within peer range	13 / 36
Criminal damage and arson — comparison detailsReporting period: 2026-03-31Comparable peers: 36Comparison group: same-type councils with unique single-council CSP coverage. Recorded crime rates describe local outcomes, not council service effectiveness.Peer range: 5.4 per 1,000 to 11.8 per 1,000Rank uses lower values first; tied values share a rank.CM score: 65.7/100 (provisional percentile, ties share a midpoint).
RobberyLocal area outcome · Local-area outcomePeer data available2026-03-31 · Lower is better	1.3 per 1,000	1.4 per 1,000	60.0/100 · provisional	Value within peer range	15 / 36
Robbery — comparison detailsReporting period: 2026-03-31Comparable peers: 36Comparison group: same-type councils with unique single-council CSP coverage. Recorded crime rates describe local outcomes, not council service effectiveness.Peer range: 0.6 per 1,000 to 3.1 per 1,000Rank uses lower values first; tied values share a rank.CM score: 60.0/100 (provisional percentile, ties share a midpoint).
Economy & benefits 2 indicators · Context onlyNot scored
People receiving Universal CreditContext only · Context only2026-05-01 · Context indicator	38,418 people	54,736 people	Not scored	Value within peer range	—
People receiving Universal Credit — comparison detailsReporting period: 2026-05-01Comparable peers: 34Peer range: 22,460 people to 247,150 peopleRank uses no performance direction; tied values share a rank.CM score: Not scored.
Universal Credit — 12-month changeContext only · Context only2026-05-01 · Context indicator	7.6%	8.0%	Not scored	Value within peer range	—
Universal Credit — 12-month change — comparison detailsReporting period: 2026-05-01Comparable peers: 34Peer range: 4.7% to 12.3%Rank uses no performance direction; tied values share a rank.CM score: Not scored.
Environment & services 3 indicators · Service-related · verify remit77.2 /100 Provisional service comparison
Household recycling rateService-related · verify remit · Service-related measurePeer data available2025-03-31 · Higher is better	47.5%	41.9%	71.8/100 · provisional	Value within peer range	56 / 196
Household recycling rate — comparison detailsReporting period: 2025-03-31Comparable peers: 196Peer range: 17.9% to 63.9%Rank uses higher values first; tied values share a rank.CM score: 71.8/100 (provisional percentile, ties share a midpoint).
Residual waste per householdService-related · verify remit · Service-related measurePeer data available2025-03-31 · Lower is better	358.2 kg	442.5 kg	82.6/100 · provisional	Value within peer range	35 / 196
Residual waste per household — comparison detailsReporting period: 2025-03-31Comparable peers: 196Peer range: 256.3 kg to 698.0 kgRank uses lower values first; tied values share a rank.CM score: 82.6/100 (provisional percentile, ties share a midpoint).
Household waste per personService-related · verify remit · Context only2025-03-31 · Context indicator	301.0 kg	337.2 kg	Not scored	Value within peer range	—
Household waste per person — comparison detailsReporting period: 2025-03-31Comparable peers: 196Peer range: 201.1 kg to 411.2 kgRank uses no performance direction; tied values share a rank.CM score: Not scored.
Adult social care 5 indicators · Service-related · provisional29.3 /100 Provisional service comparison
Social care-related quality of lifeService-related · provisional · Service-related measurePeer data available2024-25 · Higher is better	19.1	19.0	51.3/100 · provisional	Value within peer range	65 / 151
Social care-related quality of life — comparison detailsReporting period: 2024-25Comparable peers: 151Comparison group: councils reporting adult social care outcomes (not restricted by council type).Published margin of error: ±0.4; small peer differences may not be significant.Peer range: 16.1 to 20.5Rank uses higher values first; tied values share a rank.CM score: 51.3/100 (provisional percentile, ties share a midpoint).
Service-user satisfactionService-related · provisional · Service-related measurePeer data available2024-25 · Higher is better	61.0%	64.9%	18.3/100 · provisional	Value within peer range	123 / 151
Service-user satisfaction — comparison detailsReporting period: 2024-25Comparable peers: 151Comparison group: councils reporting adult social care outcomes (not restricted by council type).Published margin of error: ±4.1 percentage points; small peer differences may not be significant.Peer range: 52.6% to 79.6%Rank uses higher values first; tied values share a rank.CM score: 18.3/100 (provisional percentile, ties share a midpoint).
Carer satisfactionService-related · provisional · Service-related measurePeer data available2024-25 · Higher is better	29.3%	37.2%	13.2/100 · provisional	Value within peer range	131 / 152
Carer satisfaction — comparison detailsReporting period: 2024-25Comparable peers: 152Comparison group: councils reporting adult social care outcomes (not restricted by council type).Published margin of error: ±5.8 percentage points; small peer differences may not be significant.Peer range: 22.1% to 57.9%Rank uses higher values first; tied values share a rank.CM score: 13.2/100 (provisional percentile, ties share a midpoint).
Reablement without further support requestService-related · provisional · Service-related measurePeer data available2024-25 · Higher is better	67.6%	70.5%	32.2/100 · provisional	Value within peer range	102 / 150
Reablement without further support request — comparison detailsReporting period: 2024-25Comparable peers: 150Comparison group: councils reporting adult social care outcomes (not restricted by council type).Peer range: 0.0% to 100.0%Rank uses higher values first; tied values share a rank.CM score: 32.2/100 (provisional percentile, ties share a midpoint).
Safeguarding risk reduced or removedService-related · provisional · Service-related measurePeer data available2024-25 · Higher is better	86.5%	90.3%	18.1/100 · provisional	Value within peer range	123 / 150
Safeguarding risk reduced or removed — comparison detailsReporting period: 2024-25Comparable peers: 150Comparison group: councils reporting adult social care outcomes (not restricted by council type).Peer range: 33.5% to 100.0%Rank uses higher values first; tied values share a rank.CM score: 18.1/100 (provisional percentile, ties share a midpoint).

CATEGORY BREAKDOWN

Index categories

Financial health is live. Non-financial scores are provisional; education, public health and crime are local-area outcomes, not council-performance ratings. Service-related categories require complete measures. Housing & planning has no combined category score because it mixes market outcomes with council functions. Universal Credit is contextual and unscored.

PEER POSITION

Financial ranking

10 of 34

Metropolitan district councils with published financial scores.

Highest scoreLowest score

METHODOLOGY

How scores work

The financial score and its four components are drawn directly from the existing CouncilMetrics scoring system.

Non-financial indicator scores are provisional percentiles calculated within same-period, same-council-type peers. Tied values share a midpoint score. Education, housing, environment, public health, crime and adult social care category scores are provisional, equally weighting their defined themes. Crime scores use single-council Community Safety Partnership areas, same-period and same-council-type peers; recorded crime is not a direct measure of council effectiveness. Adult social care compares same-year Total outcomes across reporting care authorities, not council-type peers; survey differences may fall within margins of error. Universal Credit counts and changes are contextual, not performance scores. No provisional categories are included in an overall CM Index.

View source council profile