Appendix 2

Budget 2022/23: Equality Impact Assessments – Service-Users

The council is legally required by the Equality Act 2010 to evidence how it has rigorously considered its equality duties in the budget-setting process. To achieve this, Equality Impact Assessments (EIAs) have been completed on all budget proposals with a potential impact on service-users, related to their legally protected characteristics.

EIAs assess how proposals may impact on specific groups differently (and whether/how negative impacts can be reduced or avoided) so that these consequences are explicitly considered. Further assessment will be made through the budget consideration process and in relation to implementation, if budget proposals are accepted. An assessment of the cumulative impacts across proposals will also be available with the budget papers for full council in February. Impacts on staff are assessed separately and will be presented at full budget council.

Members are referred to the full text of s149 of the Equality Act 2010 – included at the end of this document – which must be considered when making decisions on budget proposals.

Equality Impact Assessments describing impacts on Service-Users
Directorate	Service	EIA number
Families, Children & Learning	Direct payments	1
	Services for children	2
	Learning disabilities community care	3
	Youth grants	4
	Nursery – Jumpstart	5
	Early years and childcare	6
	Paid placements	7
	Section 17	8
	Contact service	9
	Agency placements	10
Economy, Environment, and Culture	Parking services	11
Housing, Neighbourhoods and Communities	Library services	12
Housing, Neighbourhoods and Communities	Trading standards	13
Strategy, Legal & Governance	Policy, partnerships and scrutiny service	14
	Legal services	15
	Democratic services	16
	Bereavement services	17
	Registration services	18
	Electoral services and local land charges	19
	Performance, improvement, and programmes	20
	Communications service	21
Finance & Resources	There are no service-user EIAs required for proposals in these services
Health and Adult Social Care	There are no service-user EIAs required for proposals in these services

The text of s149 of the Equality Act 2010 is at the end of this document.
Families, Children & Learning

Budget Equality Impact Assessment 2022/23 – Service-Users

1. Service Area	Families, Children & Learning: Health, SEN & Disability; Children’s Disability Service			2. Proposal No. 1
3. Head of Service	Carl Campbell, Head of Service 0-24
4. Budget Proposal	What is the proposal?
	Savings · Direct payments saving = £50,000 (total budget £546,300) Direct Payments saving achieved by: Correctly allocating costs for clients’ post-18 which have already been captured in pressures calculation in adult’s community care budget. Continued reclaim of surpluses
5. Summary of impacts	Highlight the most significant disproportionate impacts on groups
	Disproportionate impacts identified on the following characteristics: Age (young people), disability · There is uncertainty about the ongoing and future impact of Covid-19 and the levels of support required by families particularly if Drove Road and Tudor House are at full capacity. Therefore, if demand rises and cannot be accommodated within current resources the reduction in budget may mean that CYP will not be able to access out of school activities, placing more pressure on the home and parent’s ability to cope. · Reduction in the amount of funding to provide CYP with SEND access to out of school activities risks family breakdown and therefore an increase in the use of respite provision and possible agency placement.
6. Assess level of impact (1 = low, 5 = high)	3
7. Key actions to reduce negative impacts	What actions are planned to reduce/avoid negative impacts and increase positive impacts?
	· Alternative/replacement support options to be available for some young people through the Extended Day. · Additional use of community groups and other funding streams. · Close liaison with parent/carers groups such as PaCC and Amaze in order to improve communication and the co-production of information for alternative support options.
8. Identify disproportionate impacts
Different Groups to be included in assessment	Possible disproportionate impact on group/s? YES/NO	Describe potential impact (positive effects and negative impacts or potential barriers)	Action/s (including details of a full EIA to be completed if required/relevant) Note: Actions should directly relate to the potential impacts identified.
Age (people of all ages)	Yes	See section 5 reference to impact on children and young people	See section 7
Disability (a physical or mental impairment which has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities)	Yes	See section 5 reference to impact on CYP with SEND	See section 7

9. Full EIA?	Full EIA not required. However, EIAs would be required for the proposed actions to reduce negative impact including on expanding the extended day provision, changing existing service contracts, new tenders, new service designs (residential provision and foster care service) and development of a return to area plan for high-cost placements. All these changes would need to consider impact on service users.
10. Monitoring and Evaluation	How will you monitor the impact of this proposal and the success of your mitigating actions on these groups over the coming year (or more)?
10. Monitoring and Evaluation	· Impact upon service users will be monitored via Strengthening Families Assessments, Social Care Reviews and EHCP Annual Reviews · Use of data and performance reports to monitor the progress of service users · There will be a particular focus upon the impact on service users who are in care or subject to Child Protection Plans · Head of Service and other managers will monitor the impact upon decision making and care planning for service users
11. Cumulative impacts (proposed changes elsewhere which might worsen impacts identified above)	Might related proposals from other service areas (or other changes) worsen or mitigate impacts from your proposal?
	· Additional support may not be available to families if there are funding challenges for providers in the Community and Voluntary Sector while the Commissioning Team are reviewing contracts and considering what provision and services will be required to future proof the city for CYP with SEND. · The further development of a foster care service, in-house residential, short breaks and respite providers will be delayed if Covid 19 continues to impact upon service development because of staff capacity and absence.

Budget Equality Impact Assessment 2022/23 – Service-Users

1. Service Area	Families, Children and Learning: Adult Learning Disability Assessment			2. Proposal No. 3
3. Head of Service	Georgina Clarke-Green, Assistant Director, Health, SEN & Disability
4. Budget Proposal	What is the proposal?
	The Financial Recovery Plan proposes a saving of £526,000 by reducing the spend on the Learning Disabilities Community Care Budget. The total budget is £33,017million
5. Summary of impacts	Highlight the most significant disproportionate impacts on groups
	Vulnerable people in the City are assessed in accordance with the Care Act 2014 to see if their eligible needs need to be met with care and support. 823 adults with a learning disability and / or autism have eligible needs and are currently receiving a service paid for via the Community Care budget. Services being provided are: Residential Care, Supported Living, Community Support and Day Options. Any reduction in the community care budget will have a direct effect on the amount or the way support and care is offered. Care costs are steadily increasing and there is an increasing level of complex needs being identified resulting in higher care costs. This is a trend reflected nationally as well as locally. For people and their families there could be a perceived reduction in the level of service they receive or potentially a change in provider and approach, which can be unsettling for users and families. Disability: managing these conversations will require staff to manage any changes in expectations carefully and skilfully. Direct payments must continue to be promoted (Care Act 2014) as a way to deliver more creative and sustainable modes of support and care, which will also be more person centred. Ethnicity: People from minority ethnic groups may continue to face disproportionate impacts, for example reduction in budgets for translators or for more in-depth work. Gender reassignment: As we are trying to increase engagement with this group, and recent research shows that despite the city being ‘trans-friendly’ for people identifying as trans discrimination, abuse and isolation are still a problem, thus any reduction in funding may impact negatively on any extra initiatives in this area. Sexual orientation: Some LGBTQ+ people still remain silent or hidden. At a time of resource realignment there is a risk that these groups become more distant or marginalised. Other groups: People with Learning Disabilities who are in transition from Children’s to Adults’ services at this time of resource realignment may be adversely affected, as transition can take longer if not managed creatively and resources are not targeted effectively. This can mean young people with Learning Disabilities could experience a delay in accessing services they are entitled to when reaching 18, such as extra benefits. The Care Act 2014 places a requirement on Local Authorities to assess Carers. Work provided by carers in the city is of huge value, representing a huge saving. Any threat including any funding restrictions could have a direct effect on carers to continue in their caring role. There is an obligation to meet statutory need and there is a clear plan to implement a method of operating using the wellbeing and prevention approach as well as an asset-based approach to our support and care offer: see below.
6. Assess level of impact (1 = low, 5 = high)	2
7. Key actions to reduce negative impacts	What actions are planned to reduce/avoid negative impacts and increase positive impacts?
	The Care Act asks for more than just Adult Social Care to look to offer support to people, instead recognising that a city-wide approach must be embraced, encompassing all services from housing through to leisure, to enhance the lives of vulnerable people. Therefore, a new asset-based approach is needed, a fundamental and radical rethink to help develop a new conversation with the public about how people, friends, and families as well as communities can help people to remain independent. 1. The integration with health gives opportunities to reduce duplication and work in a more joined-up way to proactively identify people who may be at risk of going into hospital or residential care and manage risk, help people to live life and have a good death. Together we will ensure improvements in consistency particularly around the giving of information and advice to service users in how to access information and get support to manage their own care needs. We aim to carry this out by: Providing individuals living with families support to manage and sustain their care arrangements for as long as possible. Ensuring the right level of support takes place in the most appropriate setting, maximising independence, health and wellbeing. Promoting direct payments as a means of stimulating more creativity and choice about how people can meet their eligible needs. Technology must be available for people to be supported remotely and in a modern way from telecare through to telehealth and other technologies and a raft of equipment which can help people remain independent. Our reviewing framework continues to facilitate our partners joining us in reviewing people in a timely way and has released care capacity and target those most in need. Reviews will also include a focus on readiness to move on to more independence, and therefore release some resources for those who need more support. Continued VFM commissioning of appropriate supported living and accommodation services for people with Learning Disabilities adds to the savings in the long term and increase the quality of life for a small but significant cohort of people. An enhanced crisis provision service within the Community Learning Disability Team has provided targeted prevention work to the highest need service users in the city, working to prevent hospital admissions and placement breakdowns, which can result in higher cost placements being required in the future. The Service complies with the new Accessible Information Standards (S.250) of the Health and Social Care Act 2012, to improve access to information about support and services. Commissioners across Children’s and Adults’ services continue to work together with providers to prioritise assignment of resources and ensure that the additional focus on all protected groups can continue. The recent redesign, integrating Children with Disabilities and Adult Learning Disability services will create greater focus and efficiencies for young people as they prepare for adulthood.
8. Identify disproportionate impacts
Different Groups to be included in assessment	Possible disproportionate impact on group/s? YES/NO	Describe potential impact (positive effects and negative impacts or potential barriers)	Action/s (including details of a full EIA to be completed if required/relevant) Note: Actions should directly relate to the potential impacts identified.
Age (people of all ages)	Yes	Disability does not have age limits so people of all ages will be affected.	Commissioners across Children’s and Adults services will work together with providers to prioritise assignment of resources and ensure that the additional focus on these groups can continue.
Disability (a physical or mental impairment which has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities)	Yes	Direct payments must continue to be promoted (Care Act 2014) as a way to deliver more creative and sustainable modes of support and care, however these are not appropriate for a large majority of Service Users with higher support needs. People with Learning Disabilities who are in transition from Children’s to Adults services at this time of resource realignment may be adversely affected as transition can take longer if not managed creatively and resources are not targeted effectively. This can mean young people with Learning Disabilities could experience a delay in accessing services they are entitled to when reaching 18, such as extra benefits.	Commissioners across Children’s and Adults services will work together with providers to prioritise assignment of resources and ensure that the additional focus on these groups can continue.
Ethnicity/Race (ethnic or national origins, colour or nationality, including refugees & migrants; and Gypsies & Travellers)	Yes	People already in the minority prior to these savings may continue to face disproportionate impacts, for example reduction in budgets for translators or for more in-depth work.	Commissioners across Children’s and Adults services will work together with providers to prioritise assignment of resources and ensure that the additional focus on these groups can continue.
Gender (men and women, girls and boys)	Yes	Women tend to live longer than men and thus may experience the need for longer funded care.	Commissioners across Children’s and Adults services will work together with providers to prioritise assignment of resources and ensure that the additional focus on these groups can continue.
Gender reassignment (a person who proposes to, starts or has completed a process to change gender.)	Yes	As we are trying to increase engagement with this group, and recent research shows that despite the city being ‘trans-friendly’ for trans individuals’ discrimination, abuse and isolation persists. Therefore, any reduction in funding may impact negatively on any extra initiatives in this area	Commissioners across Children’s and Adults services will work together with providers to prioritise assignment of resources and ensure that the additional focus on these groups can continue.
Religion or Belief (any religion or philosophical belief with a clear structure and belief system, or lack of religion or belief.)	Yes	the onus is on individual carers to assist people in meeting these needs, for example in accessing activities relating to their religion and the surrounding communities, all of which may be negatively impacted by reductions in funding.	Commissioners across Children’s and Adults services will work together with providers to prioritise assignment of resources, so that additional focus on these groups can continue.
Sexual Orientation (bisexual, gay, heterosexual and lesbian people)	Yes	Some LGBT people remain silent or hidden. At a time of resource realignment there is a risk that these groups become more distant or marginalised.	Commissioners across Children’s and Adults services will work together with providers to prioritise assignment of resources and ensure that the additional focus on these groups can continue.
Child Poverty (Children and young people in families living on less than 60% of national median income before housing costs. In B&H around 22% of all children.)	No	Data unavailable
Other groups relevant to this proposal (Specific and relevant to the service, including but not only: carers, people experiencing domestic or sexual violence, looked after children, homeless people…)	Yes	The Care Act 2014 places a requirement on Local Authorities to assess Carers. Work provided by carers in the city is of huge value, representing a huge saving. Any threat including any funding restrictions could have a direct effect on carers to continue in their caring role	Commissioners across Children’s and Adults services will work together with providers to prioritise assignment of resources and ensure that the additional focus on these groups can continue.
9. Full EIA?	No
10. Monitoring and Evaluation	How will you monitor the impact of this proposal and the success of your mitigating actions on these groups over the coming year (or more)?
	Service users will have their statutory individual Care Reviews Contracts will be monitored via the Commissioning and Performance Team Establish effective monitoring and reporting of equalities data Continue to collect and monitor equality data of clients to understand who is accessing the service in comparison to the city’s population
11. Cumulative impacts (proposed changes elsewhere which might worsen impacts identified above)	Might related proposals from other service areas (or other changes) worsen or mitigate impacts from your proposal?
	Housing is a key player to deliver good support and care. Any significant reduction in access to suitable housing will have a direct effect on the Community Care Budget. Public health as a partner is key in promoting wellbeing and healthy lives: this is critical to stem any future and immediate demand. The CCG are a key partner and currently there are some joint funding arrangements in place to share some community care costs for people being discharged from specialist LD hospitals. Any reduction in funding from the CCG would have a direct effect on the community care budget.

Budget Equality Impact Assessment 2022/23 – Service-Users

1. Service Area	Families, Children and Learning; Integrated Team for Families, Youth and Parenting			2. Proposal No. 4
3. Head of Service	Debbie Corbridge, Integrated Team for Families Manager
4. Budget Proposal	What is the proposal?
	Young people are responsible for the distribution of the £110,000 allocated for the annual Youth Led Grants programme. Young people take a lead on how this money is spent, making decisions on the priorities, framework for allocating funds, writing bids and evaluating the bids. The current agreed priorities for this programme are: · Improving young people’s mental health · Reducing the harm from young people’s alcohol and substance misuse · Increasing volunteering and work experience opportunities · Increasing opportunities for young people to participate in new and challenging experiences · Supporting young people who have faced additional disadvantage due to Covid-19 The eligibility criteria include: · Benefiting young people aged 11-19 (up to 25 if they have special educational needs) · Ensuring distribution of funding takes into account the geographical areas of the city and groups of young people facing challenges in their lives, particularly around equality issues · Working in partnership with one of the lead Youth Service Grant Providers listed above Succeeding in encouraging participation with the voice of young people being embedded across all work, broadening the area of influence for young people. Your project will have a clear approach as to how young people are involved in and shape the activities and be part of the offer. Operating in a manner compliant with the Equalities Act 2010 (see below) The proposal is to reduce the Youth Led Grants funding from £110k to £80k. A reduction in the Youth Led Grants Programme would result in 6-8 less youth projects being funded each year for disadvantaged young people across the city.
5. Summary of impacts	Highlight the most significant disproportionate impacts on groups
	All funded projects target disadvantaged young people. A reduction in funding would result in 6-8 less projects being funded, and this would impact on young people aged between 11 – 19 years (up to 25 if they have special educational needs), particularly those with SEND, those financially disadvantaged, BAME young people, gender specific groups and those impacted by Covid (particularly worsened mental health).
6. Assess level of impact (1 = low, 5 = high)	3
7. Key actions to reduce negative impacts	What actions are planned to reduce/avoid negative impacts and increase positive impacts?
	To compensate for this reduction in funding a proportion of the Holiday Activity and Food (HAF) programme funding (if continued; dependant on annual spending review decisions) could be ringfenced for youth groups most impacted on to focus on providing holiday activities with a healthy meal for young people taking up free school meals. Youth providers targeting these groups would be supported in seeking other funding opportunities
8. Identify disproportionate impacts
Different Groups to be included in assessment	Possible disproportionate impact on group/s? YES/NO	Describe potential impact (positive effects and negative impacts or potential barriers)	Action/s (including details of a full EIA to be completed if required/relevant) Note: Actions should directly relate to the potential impacts identified.
Age (people of all ages)	Yes	This will impact on young people aged between 11 years – 19 years (up to 25 years if they have special educational needs). Less projects will be available to support them with the priorities outlined in section 2	Agreement that a proportion of HAF funding is ringfenced for this age group and youth projects encouraged to apply for this funding (only applicable for young people eligible for Free School Meals)
Disability (a physical or mental impairment which has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities)	Yes	This programme awarded 20% of this funding (in 2021-22) to specific programmes for young people with SEND. There would be a reduction in funded projects for this group	Agreement that a proportion of HAF funding is ringfenced for holiday activity programmes targeting SEND young people and youth projects encouraged to apply for this funding (only applicable for young people eligible for Free School Meals therefore will not fund 19–25-year-olds).Youth providers targeting this group to be supported in seeking and applying for other funding opportunities

9. Full EIA?	A further short EIA is recommended on the process for applying the saving
10. Monitoring and Evaluation	How will you monitor the impact of this proposal and the success of your mitigating actions on these groups over the coming year (or more)?
10. Monitoring and Evaluation	Monitor HAF applications and successful bids to check youth projects targeting these groups are applying and are successful with their bids. In addition, monitor those groups of young people impacted by the reduction of funding are being targeted in other HAF funded projects via HAF report.
11. Cumulative impacts (proposed changes elsewhere which might worsen impacts identified above)	Might related proposals from other service areas (or other changes) worsen or mitigate impacts from your proposal?
	Any other proposed budget savings that fund youth activity by third sector organisation may potentially impact on the same cohorts of young people i.e., disabled young people, BME young people.

Budget Equality Impact Assessment Template 2021/22 – Service-Users

1. Service Area	Families, Children and Learning; Early Years and Childcare			2. Proposal No. 5
3. Head of Service	Helen Cowling, Interim Head of Early Years/Service Manager – Children’s Centres
4. Budget Proposal	What is the proposal? Use the savings proposal wording and more detail if needed
	Closure or Restructure of Jump Start Nursery Jump Start is situated within Moulsecoomb Children’s Centre and is registered to provide 34 full day care and funded EYFE places each day. Demand for under two’s places has reduced over the last two years and the nursery currently only accepts 2–5-year-olds. Staffing has reduced accordingly as numbers of children attending have reduced. Summer term 2021: 46 families registered. This includes 9 two-year funded places and 21 children eligible for EYPP Autumn term 2021: 32 families registered. This includes 12 two-year funded childcare places, and 14 children eligible for Early Years Pupil Premium (EYPP). The only other early years provision in the area is Moulsecoomb Primary Nursery Class. This has spaces for 3- and 4-year-olds (25 out of 50 places filled in summer 2021) but does not take two-year-olds. The school is moving to academy status in November 2021. Once the school is an academy, they would need to make a proposal to the Regional Schools Commissioner if they wished to change the age range of the school to take two-year-olds including consulting with the LA. Advice would be needed on whether they could use the fast-track process or would need to submit a full business case. The nursery has potential to be re-structured to provide places for 2–5-year-olds on a term time only basis for school hours. This would involve consultation with staff and families to move to term time only model. Total saving approx. 100K. This model would need to be fully costed if the proposal is to progress, however a similar model has operated in other council nurseries at a lower cost than providing full year/full day places. To note: The Moulsecoomb development which includes 240 new housing units and a Hub for extended services for families with children of all ages is currently in the planning phase and building work is due to commence in 2022.
5. Summary of impacts	Highlight the most significant disproportionate impacts on groups
	Risks are: - No full day-care in Moulsecoomb. The nearby university nursery closed in summer 2021 - No funded places for two-year-olds in Moulsecoomb - the closest settings which take two-year-olds are a 25-minute walk or a bus/car journey from Jump Start and only have limited spaces. Families must travel further for full day care, and stand-alone free early education places are limited across the private and voluntary sector. Council nurseries provide totally free places. Some other providers will only offer funded places if parents agree to buy additional hours. - Possible shortage of childcare places in the future when the new housing development is completed - Loss of DSG early years funding for the city if children cannot attend childcare places elsewhere. - Possible capital clawback for the children’s centre nurseries. - Disability - Lack of childcare places for children with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities. Jump Start has always taken a high proportion of children with SEND (currently 50%) - Gender - Staff redundancies, implications for women in a mainly female workforce Child Poverty – 81% of the children attending Jumpstart are eligible for EYPP or two year funded childcare places.
6. Assess level of impact (1 = low, 5 = high)	4
7. Key actions to reduce negative impacts	What actions are planned to reduce/avoid negative impacts and increase positive impacts?
	Other council departments detailed below and including social care to be made aware of the need for alternative provision from the planned closure date. Early planning with key professionals working with families, particularly for vulnerable children, those with SEND and BAME families. All families to be supported by Family Information Service (FIS) to access alternative places in nearby nurseries if required.
8. Identify disproportionate impacts
Different Groups to be included in assessment	Possible disproportionate impact on group/s? YES/NO	Describe potential impact (positive effects and negative impacts or potential barriers)	Action/s (including details of a full EIA to be completed if required/relevant) Note: Actions should directly relate to the potential impacts identified.
Age (people of all ages)	Yes	The nursery is attended by children aged under 5 years, with service users/customers across all ranges (parents, carers and grandparents)
Disability (a physical or mental impairment which has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities)	Yes	The nursery has very high numbers of children attending with SEND who live locally. 16 (50%) children attending are identified with additional or special educational and/or medical needs. This includes 4 children who have additional support funding (ASF) with a 1-1 worker	Work with Brighton and Hove Inclusion Support Service (BHISS) to identify alternative provision for children with SEND.

Ethnicity/Race (ethnic or national origins, colour or nationality, including refugees & migrants; and Gypsies & Travellers)

Yes

21% of the children attending identify as other ethnic groups and 79% as White British

Indian	1
Information Not Yet Obtained	2
Other Black	1
Other Ethnic Group	1
White British	26
White-other	2
White/Black African	1
White/Black Caribbean	1

Work with Ethnic Minority Achievement Service (EMAS) to identify families most in need of support to access alternative nursery provision

Gender (men and women, girls and boys)

Yes

Impact on both male and female parents and carers who use the nursery to be able to attend work.

Impact on mainly female workforce

Work with Family Information Service (FIS) to support families to access alternative provision

Re-locate workforce to other council nurseries if vacancies allow.

Gender reassignment (a person who proposes to, starts or has completed a process to change gender.)

Religion or Belief (any religion or philosophical belief with a clear structure and belief system, or lack of religion or belief.)

Full data set is not available however the breakdown of ethnicity above does not suggest that one specific religion would be disproportionately impacted

Sexual Orientation (bisexual, gay, heterosexual and lesbian people)

Child Poverty

(Children and young people in families living on less than 60% of national median income before housing costs. In B&H around 22% of all children.)

Yes

Jumpstart is located Moulsecoomb in one of the most deprived areas in the city. There are currently 26 children (81%) attending who are eligible for two year funded childcare places or eligible for Early Years Pupil Premium.

Ensure places are reserved at nearby nurseries from the planned closure date.

Work with FIS to source other nursery places

Other groups relevant to this proposal (Specific and relevant to the service, including but not only: carers, people experiencing domestic or sexual violence, looked after children, homeless people…)

Yes

Continuity of childcare is impacted for vulnerable children, particularly Looked After Children, children with child protection plans and Child In Need plans. Children are less likely to attend nursery regularly if they are travelling longer distances. There are currently 3 children attending who are CP/CIN/LAC

Work with social care to identify possible other placements in local nurseries

9. Full EIA?

A full EIA will be required if the proposal to close is approved

10. Monitoring and Evaluation

How will you monitor the impact of this proposal and the success of your mitigating actions on these groups over the coming year (or more)?

Childcare sufficiency assessments carried out by the Early Years and Childcare team

Take up of Early years Free Entitlement nursery places across Private, Voluntary and Independent nurseries

Monitoring information from EMAS

Monitoring information from BHISS

Monitoring information from FIS

11. Cumulative impacts (proposed changes elsewhere which might worsen impacts identified above)

Might related proposals from other service areas (or other changes) worsen or mitigate impacts from your proposal?

There is a linked proposal for Early Years and Childcare to reduce management costs of the council nurseries.

Budget Equality Impact Assessment Template 2021/22 – Service-Users

1. Service Area	Families, Children and Learning; Early Years and Childcare			2. Proposal No. 6
3. Head of Service	Helen Cowling, Interim Head of Early Years/Service Manager – Children’s Centres
4. Budget Proposal	What is the proposal?
	End funding to the Whitehawk After School Club (WASP) holiday provision and fund from the Holiday Activities and Food Programme (HAF) budget, the continuation of which was announced in the autumn budget and spending review 2021 (£9,000). End funding to the Resource Centre to support voluntary sector childcare providers (£8,000).
5. Summary of impacts	Highlight the most significant disproportionate impacts on groups
	HAF can only fund holiday playscheme places for children on benefits-related free school meals, and therefore the saving will mean that Impact initiatives, which runs WASP, will have to use/secure alternative revenue funding for ineligible children attending the scheme. Note that WASP was not able to run in summer 2021 because of staff shortages The Resource Centre Brighton (the Welfare and Educational Trust Ltd) assists voluntary childcare providers in disadvantaged areas of the city to work towards achieving sustainability. Early Years and Childcare has provided a grant to this organisation for more than 15 years. Ending this grant may have an impact on this type of provision, thereby reducing options for more disadvantaged families. While there is sufficient childcare provision across the city, where voluntary sector providers close they are replaced with private providers which may be more restrictive in their offer of free standalone early years free entitlement places.
6. Assess level of impact (1 = low, 5 = high)	1
7. Key actions to reduce negative impacts	What actions are planned to reduce/avoid negative impacts and increase positive impacts?
	WASP – fund through the Holiday Activities and Food (HAF) programme Resource Centre – refer providers to online support where this is available
8. Identify disproportionate impacts
Different Groups to be included in assessment	Possible disproportionate impact on group/s? YES/NO	Describe potential impact (positive effects and negative impacts or potential barriers)	Action/s (including details of a full EIA to be completed if required/relevant) Note: Actions should directly relate to the potential impacts identified.
Age (people of all ages)	Yes	Impact on children and young people Removal of the sustainability grant for WASP may impact on the organisation’s ability to offer reduced cost holiday playscheme provision to children aged five to 11 not in receipt of free school meals The removal of the grant to the Resource Centre may mean that voluntary sector childcare providers who run pre-schools for early years children (aged two to five) and after school clubs/holiday playschemes for school-age children are not able to access tailored support if/when they face sustainability issues. This could result in a reduction of this type of provision for children in the more disadvantaged areas of the city	Ensure that WASP knows to refer families to the government’s Childcare Choices website and our Family Information Service for other sources of support with childcare costs Ensure that the early years and childcare team refers childcare providers with sustainability challenges to other sources of support, which will be generic, online and not tailored Where childcare provision closes, we refer families to the Family Information Service for support in finding an alternative
Disability (a physical or mental impairment which has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities)	No	No disproportionate impacts
Ethnicity/Race (ethnic or national origins, colour or nationality, including refugees & migrants; and Gypsies & Travellers)	No	No disproportionate impacts
Gender (men and women, girls and boys)	Yes	Impact on women Any reduction in childcare provision disproportionately affects women who tend to take responsibility for these arrangements. The childcare workforce is overwhelmingly female	Where childcare provision closes, we refer families to the Family Information Service for support in finding an alternative. A recruitment and retention crisis in the sector means that early years practitioners seldom face difficulty in finding alternative employment
Gender reassignment (a person who proposes to, starts or has completed a process to change gender.)	No	No disproportionate impacts
Religion or Belief (any religion or philosophical belief with a clear structure and belief system, or lack of religion or belief.)	No	No disproportionate impacts
Sexual Orientation (bisexual, gay, heterosexual and lesbian people)	No	No disproportionate impacts
Child Poverty (Children and young people in families living on less than 60% of national median income before housing costs. In B&H around 22% of all children.)	Yes	WASP runs from City Academy Whitehawk which is in one of the 10% most deprived areas nationally according to IDACI. HAF supports children on benefits-related FSM but removal of its sustainability grant may impact its ability to offer reduced cost holiday playscheme provision to children aged five to 11 from lower income families	Ensure that WASP is able to access HAF funding for provision for the most disadvantaged children Ensure that WASP knows to refer families to the government’s Childcare Choices website and our Family Information Service for other sources of support with childcare costs
Other groups relevant to this proposal (Specific and relevant to the service, including but not only: carers, people experiencing domestic or sexual violence, looked after children, homeless people…)

9. Full EIA?	No
10. Monitoring and Evaluation	How will you monitor the impact of this proposal and the success of your mitigating actions on these groups over the coming year (or more)?
10. Monitoring and Evaluation	The HAF programme has robust monitoring processes on children and families’ take up of the offer. HAF will continue to engage with WASP to support them to offer places under the scheme
11. Cumulative impacts (proposed changes elsewhere which might worsen impacts identified above)	Might related proposals from other service areas (or other changes) worsen or mitigate impacts from your proposal?
	None identified

Budget Equality Impact Assessment Template 2022/23 – Service-Users

1. Service Area	Families, Children and Learning, Employment and Skills			2. Proposal No. 7
3. Head of Service	Carla Butler, Head of Skills and Employment
4. Budget Proposal	What is the proposal?
	Removal of £20,000 from a total budget of £164,000 £65,000 of this budget funds redeployed former Able and Willing staff. Able and Willing a council funded supported business - was closed in 2018. Most staff took voluntary redundance. The remaining staff were redeployed in the council. However, their new roles are funded from this budget. The remaining 99k funds paid placements. A reduction of £20,000 will reduce number of paid placements within the council for disabled people of all ages with a particular focus on Looked After Children (LAC), young people: Not in Employment, Education or Training (NEET), who have a disability or Education and Health Care Plan (EHCP) under the age of 25 or who have been disproportionately affected by Covid and Brexit. Due to post pandemic ways of working it has been difficult to source paid placements across the council, funds have however supported Kick Start Placements for under 25s on Universal Credit. Kick Start ends March 2022.
5. Summary of impacts	Highlight the most significant disproportionate impacts on groups
	Disability and Age Adults with a disability and young people are disproportionally impacted by the pandemic and the paid placement scheme has supported residents move into sustainable jobs within the council through the paid placement fund. These roles would not have been possible through the normal recruitment process. There is a focus on cohorts of young people described in section 4
6. Assess level of impact (1 = low, 5 = high)	2
7. Key actions to reduce negative impacts	What actions are planned to reduce/avoid negative impacts and increase positive impacts?
	Greater focus on other pre-employment programmes that are not paid. The pre-employment Coordinator will look to expand unpaid placements through Sector Work Based Academy programmes, Traineeships, Supported Internships, and work experience. These programmes will be targeted at Children in Care, Care Leavers, and young people with SEND.
8. Identify disproportionate impacts
Different Groups to be included in assessment	Possible disproportionate impact on group/s? YES/NO	Describe potential impact (positive effects and negative impacts or potential barriers)	Action/s (including details of a full EIA to be completed if required/relevant) Note: Actions should directly relate to the potential impacts identified.
Age (people of all ages)	Yes	Adults with a disability are disproportionally impacted by the pandemic and the paid placement scheme has supported residents move into sustainable jobs within the council through the paid placement fund. These roles would not have been possible through the normal recruitment process. Placements are open to people of all ages however there is a focus on cohorts of young people are described in section 4.	The pre-employment Coordinator will look to expand unpaid placements through Sector Work Based Academy programmes, Traineeships, Supported Internships and work experience.
Disability (a physical or mental impairment which has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities)	Yes	Adults with a disability are disproportionally impacted by the pandemic and the paid placement scheme has supported residents move into sustainable jobs within the council through the paid placement fund. These roles would not have been possible through the normal recruitment process. Placements are open to people of all ages however there is a focus on cohorts of young people are described in section 4.	The pre-employment Coordinator will look to expand unpaid placements through Sector Work Based Academy programmes, Traineeships, Supported Internships and work experience.
Ethnicity/Race (ethnic or national origins, colour or nationality, including refugees & migrants; and Gypsies & Travellers)	No
Gender (men and women, girls and boys)	No
Gender reassignment (a person who proposes to, starts or has completed a process to change gender.)	No
Religion or Belief (any religion or philosophical belief with a clear structure and belief system, or lack of religion or belief.)	No
Sexual Orientation (bisexual, gay, heterosexual and lesbian people)	No
Child Poverty (Children and young people in families living on less than 60% of national median income before housing costs. In B&H around 22% of all children.)	No
Other groups relevant to this proposal (Specific and relevant to the service, including but not only: carers, people experiencing domestic or sexual violence, looked after children, homeless people…)	No

9. Full EIA?	Further assessment is not needed as this saving will not affect existing placements or staff.
10. Monitoring and Evaluation	How will you monitor the impact of this proposal and the success of your mitigating actions on these groups over the coming year (or more)?
10. Monitoring and Evaluation	n/a
11. Cumulative impacts (proposed changes elsewhere which might worsen impacts identified above)	Might related proposals from other service areas (or other changes) worsen or mitigate impacts from your proposal?
	The Pre-employment Co-ordinator post is covered by DWP Flexible Support Fund until June 2022. It is then the intention to fund the post permanently from this budget. This will reduce further the opportunities for paid placements but will allow for the ongoing brokerage, coordination, administration, and promotion of pre-employment opportunities.

Budget Equality Impact Assessment Template 2022/23 – Service-Users

1. Service Area	Families, Children & Learning: Safeguarding & Care	2. EIA No. 8
3. Head of Service	Anna Gianfrancesco, Assistant Director, safeguarding and Care
4. Budget Proposal	What is the proposal?
	The s.17 budget ensures that the Council is able to fulfil its statutory duties to support families in need. The current s.17 budget is £442k and the proposed saving is £100k A child is defined as being in need if: S/he is unlikely to achieve or maintain, or to have the opportunity of achieving or maintaining, a reasonable standard of health or development without the provision for her/him of services by a local authority or Her/his health or development is likely to be significantly impaired or further impaired, without the provision of such services. or S/he is disabled. Financial assistance in terms of goods or services, or in exceptional circumstances cash, can be provided to a child, parent or carer to address identified needs to safeguard and promote a child's welfare where there is no other legitimate source of financial assistance, e.g. via benefits system. Payments must support and promote the welfare of the child.
5. Summary of impacts	Highlight the most significant disproportionate impacts on groups
	Disproportionate impacts identified on the following characteristics: Age, disability Many families as a result of covid have seen their levels of deprivation increase over the last year, alongside this we are seeing rising cost of food, heating and general living increase alongside a reduction in benefits. Over the last few years due to tight financial management and scrutiny within social work and care we have brought down the spend against section 17. However, we do not yet fully know what the impact of the current cost of living increase will be alongside the reduction in benefits and whether many families experiencing deprivation will need additional section 17 support. We do know that while we have seen an increase in cases coming to the front door for help and support, we have been able to continue to manage and support these families without a corresponding rise in section 17 spend. The below contextual breakdown refers to the cohort of 1422 young people identified on 18th August 2021 as having a social worker and being within the ages of 4 and 17 inclusive on 1st September 2021. Of the cohort of 1422 young people, 938 (66.0%) have been identified as White British or White English. 441 (31.0%) have been identified as other ethnic groups, and the remaining 43 (3.0%) are Information Not Yet Obtained, Not Stated or Unknown. There is a higher proportion of children classed as non-white British ( 31%) than the Brighton & Hove January 2021 school census (28.1%). 666 young people (66.9%) were listed as eligible for FSM on the census. As a comparison, overall 21.6% of children in the school census were eligible for FSM. 274 young people (27.5%) were listed as having an EHCP on the census, and 53.2% were listed as having an EHCP or SEN Support. For all children in the Brighton & Hove school census, the percentage with SEN is far lower, with 4.1% having an EHCP and 14.0% having SEN Support. This means that children in the expanded cohort are over six and a half times more likely to have an EHCP, and almost three times more likely to have an EHCP or SEN Support.
6. Assess level of impact (1 = low, 5 = high)	3
7. Key actions to reduce negative impacts	What actions are planned to reduce/avoid negative impacts and increase positive impacts?
	· We will continue to work with wider partners to divert families into early help and charitable support · To work with health to consider how best to support families where they are experiencing pressure due to managing a child’s health and disability, to ensure they are accessing all services available to them. · Managers to continue to manage the s.17 budget for their pod this enables Pod Managers to look at overall need and work with families, often on creative longer-term resolutions.
8. Full EIA?	No
9. Monitoring and Evaluation	How will you monitor the impact of this proposal and the success of your mitigating actions on these groups over the coming year (or more)?
	Through the management of s.17 budget. This is managed within each pod, with heads of service having oversight of their pods, and managing the budget across their area. Where it is known that there are high-cost s.17 needs these are overseen and reviewed by Senior Leadership Team.
10. Cumulative impacts	Might related proposals from other service areas (or other changes) worsen or mitigate impacts from your proposal? Please explain these impacts.
	The reduction in benefits may lead to an increased demand both on the s.17 budget, from families open to us and a family’s ability to manage difficulties, thus increasing demand for social work support. Budget decision regarding discretionary funds provided from other services, for example, revenue and benefits may have cumulative impact on the struggling families supported by S17.

Budget Equality Impact Assessment Template 2022/23 – Service-Users

1. Service Area	Contact Service	2. Proposal No. 9
3. Head of Service	Gerry Brandon
4. Budget Proposal	What is the proposal? Use the savings proposal wording and more detail if needed
	Savings of £50,000 will be realised from the Contact Service budget through: Efficiency savings from review of contact arrangements systems currently in place Review of use of sessional workers, and transportation costs Some limited use of virtual contact (use of IT platform Zoom to facilitate contact in cases where the child/ family cannot attend direct contact in a contact service due to Covid risk management). Above measures are also in the context of close monitoring of our numbers of children in care with the profile of our new admission to care being older teenagers and UASC, neither group needing supervised contact arrangements
5. Summary of impacts	Highlight the most significant disproportionate impacts on groups
	Disproportionate impacts identified on the following characteristics: - Children in Care and vulnerable parents – supervised contact is a LA statutory responsibility in line with the child’s individual care plan. - As noted above in relation to new admissions into care although these numbers have increased, it is noted that supervised contact arrangements are in the main put in place to protect younger children (generally under age 14) therefore the impact of increased CIC numbers is mitigated to a degree by the age profile of new admissions to care in relation to older teenagers and UASC. There are no issues re transportation costs as this relates to foster carers transporting children to contact and this is included in fostering allowances. Excluding UASC (as while BME children and young they do not have supervised contact needs) BME families or disabled children are not disproportionately numbered in CIC, so this has been considered. In terms of digital platforms savings will not impact in terms of issues re digital poverty, as where necessary costs of devices/ data is funded – In terms of digital literacy the number likely to be effected is small and face to face contact would be offered.
6. Assess level of impact (1 = low, 5 = high)	There is likely to be a minimal impact in terms of delivery of supervised contact given core service offer will continue to be provided and statutory responsibilities met.
7. Key actions to reduce negative impacts	What actions are planned to reduce/avoid negative impacts and increase positive impacts?
	This budget reduction will not impact upon the LA’s ability to meet its statutory responsibility toward, children in care. There will be ongoing close monitoring of our numbers of children in care, with a focus on the profile of our new admission to care in terms of age and hence need for supervised contact arrangements.
8. Full EIA?	No
9. Monitoring and Evaluation	How will you monitor the impact of this proposal and the success of your mitigating actions on these groups over the coming year (or more)?
	Data on numbers and age profile of children in care Service user feedback
10. Cumulative impacts	Might related proposals from other service areas (or other changes) worsen or mitigate impacts from your proposal? Please explain these impacts.
	None identified

Budget Equality Impact Assessment Template 2022/23 – Service-Users

1. Service Area	Families, Children and Learning; Children’s Safeguarding & Care, Children’s Agency Placements	2. EIA No. 10
3. Head of Service	Anna Gianfrancesco, Assistant Director
4. Budget Proposal	What is the proposal?
	A £612,000 saving on the cost of agency placements for children in the care of Brighton & Hove City Council. This will be achieved by via: While we have seen a rise in the number of children in care during the covid period, we continue to work through the social work model of practice to hold the numbers and ultimately further reduce them. We are working to further increasing the number of in-house foster placements and reducing reliance on more expensive independent provider provision. Provision of high quality, value for money provision though contracted services with external providers supported by the children's services framework contract arrangements and preferred provider guidelines. Agreed commissioning framework with health for children who need specialist accommodation when discharged from hospital. Through the newly developed framework and commissioning in process for care leavers. Relationship based social work practice and the specialist adolescence service to continue to divert children from the care system. For those already in care, a stepping down to in house and/or less expensive placements. Continued scrutiny of placement costs contributing to a reduction in unit costs.
5. Summary of impacts	Highlight the most significant disproportionate impacts on groups
	Disproportionate impacts identified on the following characteristics: Covid has had a significant impact on families, adult and child mental health and their resistance and ability to manage deprivation and adversity. This has over the last year resulted in a slow rise in the number of children in care. Brighton & Hove City Council has a statutory duty to provide alterative care for children who otherwise would suffer significant harm if left in the care of their family. These proposals would not impact upon the threshold for children to come into the care system. The savings are primarily related to reducing the cost of placements by providing in-house alternatives rather than more expensive agency placements and by supporting families, in the wider sense, to provide safe and effective care so their children can remain in their care.
6. Assess level of impact (1 = low, 5 = high)	1
7. Key actions to reduce negative impacts	What actions are planned to reduce/avoid negative impacts and increase positive impacts?
	Continuing the actions defined in the model of practice, which are proving effective: · Continued embedding of relationship-based practice with a focus on a proportionate, strengths-based approach, monitored via Quality Assurance activity and scrutinised via FCL Performance Board. · Continuation of Entry to Care Panel chaired by Assistant Director to ensure that those children who need to be in the care of the Local Authority receive a timely and effective response · Continuing use of placement review board to have oversight of placements within the independent sector. · Develop a pathway with the CCG to agree accommodation needs for those children who need specialist accommodation when leaving hospital setting.
8. Full EIA?	No. However, EIA recommended for the pathway to accommodation for children who need specialist accommodation when leaving hospital as this will potentially impact on children with a disability or long-term health condition.
9. Monitoring and Evaluation	How will you monitor the impact of this proposal and the success of your mitigating actions on these groups over the coming year (or more)?
	· Regular quality assurance activity takes place, which is overseen by FCL Performance Board, chaired by Executive Director for FCL · Entry to Care Panel, chaired by Assistant Director Children’s Safeguarding & Care, will continue to ensure that children who need to be placed in LA care receive a timely and effective service. · Placement review board will continue to have oversight of placements made in the independent sector
10. Cumulative impacts	Might related proposals from other service areas (or other changes) worsen or mitigate impacts from your proposal?
	Increasing social work demand due to unforeseen social, policy or demographic changes could increase the impact of these proposals. The impact of growing levels of inequality, Brexit and covid, within Brighton and Hove alongside decreasing access to services to mitigate levels of inequality, could lead to greater levels of demand upon social work services.

Economy, Environment and Culture

Budget Equality Impact Assessment Template 2022/23 – Service-Users

1. Service Area	Economy, Environment and Culture: Parking Services Group	2. EIA 11
3. Head of Service	Charles Field, Head of Parking Services
4. Budget Proposal	What is the proposal?
	Parking Fees & Charges · Raising price of resident permits · Increasing on-street tariffs across the city by 10% · Increases to Traders permits. · Increasing tariffs in four off-street car parks (Trafalgar Street, The Lanes, Regency Square and London Road) by 10% and other off street car parks by 10%. The increases generate approximately an additional £1,200,000 income per annum of which £709,000 contributes towards savings, and will meet traffic management objectives, including improving air quality, reducing demand and congestion as well as achieving a higher turnover of spaces and supporting economic growth in the city.
5. Summary of impacts	Highlight the most significant disproportionate impacts on groups
	Disproportionate impacts identified on the following characteristics: Age (older people), Disability, Carers Any increase in price for fees and charges allows for a decrease in demand from users. Members of the public may choose not or not be able to afford to pay to park on or off street due to price increases. This may create additional barriers and disadvantage for some older and disabled people who rely on private vehicles to access facilities and services. This could lead to inclusion issue with impacts on lower income residents as the amount they pay to park on and off street would increase. However, these proposals are in line with transport objectives of supporting sustainable transport options and reducing vehicles. Although it is appreciated that not all disabled people can use public transport. This may mean carers have to pay more if they live in a different parking zone to the person they visit although there are carers’ permit or visitor permits available. Age UK tell us that many older people face a difficult existence in retirement as a result of having a limited income combined with the extra costs of ageing. Increases in parking charges add to financial pressures. Link to research lr-6064-age-uk-financial-hardship-final_v1.pdf (ageuk.org.uk) Research carried out by Scope found that the cost of living with a disability or families with disabled children is significantly higher than households with no disabled people. Transport was identified as one of the main drivers for this increase in costs. Increasing parking fees will add to financial pressures on these families. Link to research. Disability Price Tag \| Disability charity Scope UK Research carried out by Carers UK found that many unpaid carers experience financial hardship because of their caring role. Increases in parking charges will add to the financial pressures. Link to research Research: Financial pressure of caring unpaid for a loved one intensifies over time - Carers UK
6. Assess level of impact (1 = low, 5 = high)	2
7. Key actions to reduce negative impacts	What actions are planned to reduce/avoid negative impacts and increase positive impacts?
	Officers will work to ensure any increase in fees will avoid negative impacts as much as possible. Fee increases are targeted at areas where parking is at capacity to help provide drivers with better access to currently congested areas. There is also good coverage of the city centre/seafront by our public transport network, so there are alternatives for people wanting to access these areas where we’re increasing car park charges. The ongoing work identifying Blue Badge fraud frees up parking spaces for eligible blue badge holders and we will continue with Blue Badge fraud investigation work to protect disabled bays from misuse. A discount for low-income households (based on council tax / housing benefit / universal credit) for residents’ permits will be introduced this financial year within full resident parking schemes. The cost of professional carers permits and carers permits remain unchanged to reflect the positive impact this brings to all members of society. Any surplus parking income is mainly spent on providing free concessionary bus passes for elderly and disabled people to encourage alternative sustainable transport choices. The hours residents of Brighton and Hove can use an older person’s concessionary travel pass has been extended to between 9.30am – 4.30am on weekdays and 24hrs a day on weekends. Those unable to use the concessionary travel pass can swap the pass for an annual allocation of £70 worth of Taxi Vouchers. The hours residents of Brighton and Hove can use a disabled person’s concessionary travel pass has been extended to 24hrs a day. Those unable to use the concessionary travel pass can swap the pass for an annual allocation of £70 worth of Taxi Vouchers Blue badges are issued to disabled people who are drivers or non-drivers allowing free parking for an unlimited amount of time in pay and display bays and parking in disabled bays. Where the blue badge can be used has been extended to include all permit bays in light touch schemes which cover a significant area of the controlled parking zones in Brighton & Hove.
8. Full EIA?	Not required.
9. Monitoring and Evaluation	How will you monitor the impact of this proposal and the success of your mitigating actions on these groups over the coming year (or more)?
	Regular review meetings are held to review on-street and off-street parking usage and there is also regular meetings with the disabled car user group. Parking Services have applied for and been awarded People’s Parking accreditation. This scheme was set up to provide independent feedback about the facilities and public car park experience from a disabled user perspective, with regular monitoring and reviews. Parking Services have also received Park Mark accreditation from the police for our off-street car parks as safe car parks to use. It is nationally recognised, and we receive significant feedback that we were chosen via the Park Mark website. Parking Services produce an annual Parking Annual Report providing transparency and meaningful insight into the overall service including how and where funding is raised and distributed.
10. Cumulative impacts	Might related proposals from other service areas (or other changes) worsen or mitigate impacts from your proposal?
	We have expanded Concessionary travel scheme for disabled passes for 24-hour use which will mitigate some of the impacts from increases to fees & charges by encouraging / improving access to public transport use.

Housings, Neighbourhoods and Communities

Budget Equality Impact Assessment Template 2022/23 – Service-Users

1. Service Area	Housing, Neighbourhoods and Communities, Libraries & Information Services			2. Proposal No. 12
3. Head of Service	Sally McMahon / Kate Rouse, Head of Libraries and Information Services
4. Budget Proposal	What is the proposal?
	Reduce staffed opening hours in all community libraries to a maximum of three days a week (affecting Patcham, Hangleton, Whitehawk and Portslade Libraries). Estimated budget saving £17,000
5. Summary of impacts	Highlight the most significant disproportionate impacts on groups
	Impact on young people as children under 16 are not allowed in the library during unstaffed Libraries Extra access days and therefore could be impacted by the reduction in staffed hours.
6. Assess level of impact (1 = low, 5 = high)	2
7. Key actions to reduce negative impacts	What actions are planned to reduce/avoid negative impacts and increase positive impacts?
	The Libraries Service would need to look at how to reach out effectively to children impacted by the proposed changes through working with partners
8. Identify disproportionate impacts
Different Groups to be included in assessment	Possible disproportionate impact on group/s? YES/NO	Describe potential impact (positive effects and negative impacts or potential barriers)	Action/s (including details of a full EIA to be completed if required/relevant) Note: Actions should directly relate to the potential impacts identified.
Age (people of all ages)	No
Disability (a physical or mental impairment which has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities)	No
Ethnicity/Race (ethnic or national origins, colour or nationality, including refugees & migrants; and Gypsies & Travellers)	No
Gender (men and women, girls and boys)	No
Gender reassignment (a person who proposes to, starts or has completed a process to change gender.)	No
Religion or Belief (any religion or philosophical belief with a clear structure and belief system, or lack of religion or belief.)	No
Sexual Orientation (bisexual, gay, heterosexual and lesbian people)	No
Child Poverty (Children and young people in families living on less than 60% of national median income before housing costs. In B&H around 22% of all children.)	Yes	Children under 16 are not allowed in the library during unstaffed Libraries Extra access days and therefore could be impacted by the reduction in staffed hours.	The Library Service would need to look at how to reach out effectively to children impacted by the proposed changes through working with partners.
Other groups relevant to this proposal (Specific and relevant to the service, including but not only: carers, people experiencing domestic or sexual violence, looked after children, homeless people…)	No
9. Full EIA?	No
10. Monitoring and Evaluation	How will you monitor the impact of this proposal and the success of your mitigating actions on these groups over the coming year (or more)?
	Libraries already collect substantial amounts of data about usage, and this would be used to continue to monitor the impact of any changes.
11. Cumulative impacts (proposed changes elsewhere which might worsen impacts identified above)	Might related proposals from other service areas (or other changes) worsen or mitigate impacts from your proposal?
	None identified that might impact the Libraries budget proposals, however any large-scale closure of libraries is likely to impact the delivery of other council services and key outcomes. There is potential for a cumulative impact on children in poverty depending on the budget proposals in FCL.

Budget Equality Impact Assessment Template 2022/23 – Service-Users

1. Service Area	Housing, Neighbourhoods and Communities, Safer Communities			2. Proposal No. 13
3. Head of Service	Jo Player, Head of Safer Communities
4. Budget Proposal	What is the proposal?
	Delete part time Senior Fair Trading Standards Officer Post - no statutory responsibility to provide civil consumer advice
5. Summary of impacts	Highlight the most significant disproportionate impacts on groups
	Key impacts may be lack of support for the most vulnerable consumers on basis of age or disabilities.
6. Assess level of impact (1 = low, 5 = high)	1
7. Key actions to reduce negative impacts	What actions are planned to reduce/avoid negative impacts and increase positive impacts?
	Civil advice provided by national consumer advice services already available for all consumers and we would sign post clients to that service.
8. Identify disproportionate impacts
Different Groups to be included in assessment	Possible disproportionate impact on group/s? YES/NO	Describe potential impact (positive effects and negative impacts or potential barriers)	Action/s (including details of a full EIA to be completed if required/relevant) Note: Actions should directly relate to the potential impacts identified.
Age (people of all ages)	Yes	Deletion of SFTO may result in lack of support for older residents experiencing problems with consumer goods	National consumer advice service available we would sign post clients to that service.
Disability (a physical or mental impairment which has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities)	No
Ethnicity/Race (ethnic or national origins, colour or nationality, including refugees & migrants; and Gypsies & Travellers)	No
Gender (men and women, girls and boys)	No
Gender reassignment (a person who proposes to, starts or has completed a process to change gender.)	No
Religion or Belief (any religion or philosophical belief with a clear structure and belief system, or lack of religion or belief.)	No
Sexual Orientation (bisexual, gay, heterosexual and lesbian people)	No
Child Poverty (Children and young people in families living on less than 60% of national median income before housing costs. In B&H around 22% of all children.)	No
Other groups relevant to this proposal (Specific and relevant to the service, including but not only: carers, people experiencing domestic or sexual violence, looked after children, homeless people…)	No

9. Full EIA?	No
10. Monitoring and Evaluation	How will you monitor the impact of this proposal and the success of your mitigating actions on these groups over the coming year (or more)?
10. Monitoring and Evaluation
11. Cumulative impacts (proposed changes elsewhere which might worsen impacts identified above)	Might related proposals from other service areas (or other changes) worsen or mitigate impacts from your proposal?
	None

Strategy, Governance and Law

Budget Equality Impact Assessment 2022/23 – Service-Users

1. Service Area	Strategy, Governance and Law; Policy, Partnerships and Scrutiny			2. Proposal No. 14
3. Head of Service	Simon Newell, Head of Policy, Partnerships and Scrutiny
4. Budget Proposal	What is the proposal?
	Deletion of vacant part time policy, partnerships, and scrutiny officer post
5. Summary of impacts	Highlight the most significant disproportionate impacts on groups
	No impact as the post is currently vacant and has been for some time, and work has been absorbed into the existing filled posts.
6. Assess level of impact	0
7. Key actions to reduce negative impacts	What actions are planned to reduce/avoid negative impacts and increase positive impacts?
	n/a
8. Identify disproportionate impacts
Different Groups to be included in assessment	Possible disproportionate impact on group/s? YES/NO	Describe potential impact (positive effects and negative impacts or potential barriers)	Action/s (including details of a full EIA to be completed if required/relevant) Note: Actions should directly relate to the potential impacts identified.
Age (people of all ages)	No
Disability (a physical or mental impairment which has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities)	No
Ethnicity/Race (ethnic or national origins, colour or nationality, including refugees & migrants; and Gypsies & Travellers)	No
Gender (men and women, girls and boys)	No
Gender reassignment (a person who proposes to, starts or has completed a process to change gender.)	No
Religion or Belief (any religion or philosophical belief with a clear structure and belief system, or lack of religion or belief.)	No
Sexual Orientation (bisexual, gay, heterosexual and lesbian people)	No
Child Poverty (Children and young people in families living on less than 60% of national median income before housing costs. In B&H around 22% of all children.)	No
Other groups relevant to this proposal (Specific and relevant to the service, including but not only: carers, people experiencing domestic or sexual violence, looked after children, homeless people…)	No
9. Full EIA?	No
10. Monitoring and Evaluation	How will you monitor the impact of this proposal and the success of your mitigating actions on these groups over the coming year (or more)?

11. Cumulative impacts (proposed changes elsewhere which might worsen impacts identified above)	Might related proposals from other service areas (or other changes) worsen or mitigate impacts from your proposal? Please explain these impacts.

Budget Equality Impact Assessment 2022/23 – Service-Users

1. Service Area	Strategy, Governance and Law, Legal Services			2. Proposal No 15
3. Head of Service	Elizabeth Culbert, Head of Legal Services
4. Budget Proposal	What is the proposal? Use the savings proposal wording and more detail if needed
	Increase external income (£55k) Voluntary reduction in hours (30k) Replacement of 1 x lawyer with 1 x trainee solicitor (20k)
5. Summary of impacts	Highlight the most significant disproportionate impacts on groups
	No impact on specific groups has been identified.
6. Assess level of impact	0
7. Key actions to reduce negative impacts	What actions are planned to reduce/avoid negative impacts and increase positive impacts?
	The additional work created by income generation has been supported by additional recruitment, which can still be resourced and generate a profit. Negotiation with clients as to the service offer that can be expected to ensure that the level of demand is manageable with the staffing available.
8. Identify disproportionate impacts
Different Groups to be included in assessment	Possible disproportionate impact on group/s? YES/NO	Describe potential impact (positive effects and negative impacts or potential barriers)	Action/s (including details of a full EIA to be completed if required/relevant) Note: Actions should directly relate to the potential impacts identified.
Age (people of all ages)	No
Disability (a physical or mental impairment which has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities)	No
Ethnicity/Race (ethnic or national origins, colour or nationality, including refugees & migrants; and Gypsies & Travellers)	No
Gender (men and women, girls and boys)	No
Gender reassignment (a person who proposes to, starts or has completed a process to change gender.)	No
Religion or Belief (any religion or philosophical belief with a clear structure and belief system, or lack of religion or belief.)	No
Sexual Orientation (bisexual, gay, heterosexual and lesbian people)	No
Child Poverty (Children and young people in families living on less than 60% of national median income before housing costs. In B&H around 22% of all children.)	No
Other groups relevant to this proposal (Specific and relevant to the service, including but not only: carers, people experiencing domestic or sexual violence, looked after children, homeless people…)	No

Budget Equality Impact Assessment 2022/23 – Service-Users

1. Service Area	Strategy, Governance & Law, Life Events				2. Proposal No. 19
3. Head of Service	Paul Holloway, Head of Life Events
4. Budget Proposal	What is the proposal?
	Redesign of Electoral Services – proposal for differing staff structures related to scheduled elections with savings opportunities in non-election years – no reduction in current staffing numbers. Combined with changes to the annual canvass which introduces the use of data matching to reduce printing and canvassing costs. Increase some Local Land Charges fees.
5. Summary of impacts	Highlight the most significant disproportionate impacts on groups
	Those on low income have other options to ensure that access to the local property register is available. They can choose to use a Personal Search company, who will have their own fee structure.
6. Assess level of impact (1 = low, 5 = high)	1
7. Key actions to reduce negative impacts	What actions are planned to reduce/avoid negative impacts and increase positive impacts?
	None
8. Identify disproportionate impacts
Different Groups to be included in assessment	Possible disproportionate impact on group/s? YES/NO	Describe potential impact (positive effects and negative impacts or potential barriers)	Action/s (including details of a full EIA to be completed if required/relevant) Note: Actions should directly relate to the potential impacts identified.
Age (people of all ages)	No
Disability (a physical or mental impairment which has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities)	No
Ethnicity/Race (ethnic or national origins, colour or nationality, including refugees & migrants; and Gypsies & Travellers)	No
Gender (men and women, girls and boys)	No
Gender reassignment (a person who proposes to, starts or has completed a process to change gender.)	No
Religion or Belief (any religion or philosophical belief with a clear structure and belief system, or lack of religion or belief.)	No
Sexual Orientation (bisexual, gay, heterosexual and lesbian people)	No
Child Poverty (Children and young people in families living on less than 60% of national median income before housing costs. In B&H around 22% of all children.)	Yes	Those on low income have other options to ensure that access to the local property register is available.		Signpost to Personal Search companies that have their own fee structure.
Other groups relevant to this proposal (Specific and relevant to the service, including but not only: carers, people experiencing domestic or sexual violence, looked after children, homeless people…)	No
9. Full EIA?	No
10. Monitoring and Evaluation	How will you monitor the impact of this proposal and the success of your mitigating actions on these groups over the coming year (or more)?
	Changes to the annual canvass require the Electoral Registration Officer to use data to match the electoral register. Promotion and use of digital channels for correspondence reduce printing costs – with all properties receiving paper forms should they not respond/receive digital communications. All paper correspondence provides online and paper response methods.
11. Cumulative impacts (proposed changes elsewhere which might worsen impacts identified above)	Might related proposals from other service areas (or other changes) worsen or mitigate impacts from your proposal? Please explain these impacts.
	None

9. Full EIA?	Full EIA not required as risks are known and there is ongoing liaison PaCC and Amaze.
10. Monitoring and Evaluation	How will you monitor the impact of this proposal and the success of your mitigating actions on these groups over the coming year (or more)?
10. Monitoring and Evaluation	· Impact upon service users will be monitored via Strengthening Families Assessments, Social Care Reviews and EHCP Annual Reviews · Monitor the outcomes of the resource panel through Social Care review process. · Use of data and performance reports to monitor the progress of service users. · There will be a particular focus upon the impact on service users who are in care or subject to Child Protection Plans.
11. Cumulative impacts (proposed changes elsewhere which might worsen impacts identified above)	Might related proposals from other service areas (or other changes) worsen or mitigate impacts from your proposal?
	· Additional support may not be available to families if there are funding challenges for providers in the Community and Voluntary Sector.

1. Service Area	Families, Children & Learning: Health, SEN & Disability; Children’s Disability Service			2. Proposal No. 2
3. Head of Service	Carl Campbell, Head of Service 0-24
4. Budget Proposal	What is the proposal?
	Savings · Services for children with disabilities - £70,000 (total budget £559,400) For services for children with disabilities these savings will be made by: Embedding Brokerage & Commissioning Team for the HSEND branch to review the value for money of current contracts and high-cost placements. Progress the recommendations of the Peopletoo review for children’s in-house respite provision. Expansion of the Extended Day and Day Services strategy through a range of invest to save initiatives Development of complex needs foster care service to prevent the need to make high-cost agency placements
5. Summary of impacts	Highlight the most significant disproportionate impacts on groups
	Disproportionate impacts identified on the following characteristics: Age (young people) · Possible re-location of CYP from high-cost agency placements through returning to the city. Wrap around planning will be required to ensure this is experienced as a positive experience by service users.
6. Assess level of impact (1 = low, 5 = high)	3
7. Key actions to reduce negative impacts	What actions are planned to reduce/avoid negative impacts and increase positive impacts?
	· Expand the Extended Day through invest to save initiatives thereby reducing the pressure on respite provision. · Savings achieved through the new HSEND Brokerage & Commissioning Team by re-negotiation / re-tendering / bringing in-house Children's Disability Service contracts. Calculated at 10% of current contract value. · Consideration of the provision of full time in house residential provision for CYP with complex needs that reduces pressure both on respite provision and agency placements. · Through developing a complex needs foster care service prevent the need for CYP to be placed in high-cost agency placements. · Review those CYP currently in high-cost agency placements and plan a return to the city through the further development of the local offer.
8. Identify disproportionate impacts
Different Groups to be included in assessment	Possible disproportionate impact on group/s? YES/NO	Describe potential impact (positive effects and negative impacts or potential barriers)	Action/s (including details of a full EIA to be completed if required/relevant) Note: Actions should directly relate to the potential impacts identified.
Age (people of all ages)	Yes	See section 5.	See section 7.
Disability (a physical or mental impairment which has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities)	No

Ethnicity/Race (ethnic or national origins, colour or nationality, including refugees & migrants; and Gypsies & Travellers)	Yes	BMEYPP and Friends, Families and Travellers were funded in 2021-22. These may not be funded in future rounds.	Agreement that a proportion of HAF funding is ringfenced for holiday activity programmes targeting BAME and Gypsies and Travellers young people and youth projects encouraged to apply for this funding (only applicable for young people eligible for Free School Meals).Youth providers targeting this group to be supported in seeking and applying for other funding opportunities
Gender (men and women, girls and boys)	Yes	Specific groups for young women and young men were funded in 2021-22, addressing gender related issues. These may not be funded in future rounds.	Youth providers targeting this group to be supported in seeking and applying for other funding opportunities
Gender reassignment (a person who proposes to, starts or has completed a process to change gender.)	No	No specific projects funded related to gender reassignment	N/A
Religion or Belief (any religion or philosophical belief with a clear structure and belief system, or lack of religion or belief.)	No	No specific projects funded related to religion or belief	N/A
Sexual Orientation (bisexual, gay, heterosexual and lesbian people)	No	No specific projects funded related to sexual orientation	N/A
Child Poverty (Children and young people in families living on less than 60% of national median income before housing costs. In B&H around 22% of all children.)	Yes	Projects funded that are based in areas of highest level of deprivation in the city, e.g., Whitehawk, Hangleton, Moulsecoomb and young people financially disadvantaged are targeted for the funded projects.	Youth projects encouraged to apply for HAF funding (applicable for young people up to 19 years eligible for Free School Meals). Youth providers targeting this group to be supported in seeking and applying for other funding opportunities
Other groups relevant to this proposal (Specific and relevant to the service, including but not only: carers, people experiencing domestic or sexual violence, looked after children, homeless people…)	Yes	Young people who have faced additional disadvantage due to Covid-19, particularly those whose mental health has worsened during this period. These projects may not be funded in future rounds.	Youth providers targeting this group to be supported in seeking and applying for other funding opportunities

1. Service Area	Strategy Governance & Law / Democratic Services/Civic Office			2. Proposal No. 16
3. Head of Service	Mark Wall, Head of Democratic Services
4. Budget Proposal	What is the proposal?
	An overall savings target £45k will be achieved through: · A re-alignment of staffing budgets and service redesign, including the deletion of a vacant post previously used to support webcasting. There are sufficient resources in the service to support the webcasting service provided by the premises team. · A reduction in the Civic Office will contribute to the overall savings target The service redesign does not provide for the service pressure identified in supporting the democratic process which has been covered for 2021/22 with the goodwill of the team initially and from September with the appointment of a temporary DSO for 6-months. If demand on the service increases in 22/23 there is insufficient capacity to meet these, and service priorities will have to be re-examined. This may reduce some of the functions/service delivery of the team.
5. Summary of impacts	Highlight the most significant disproportionate impacts on groups
	The proposal does not have a disproportionate impact on any specific group based on their protected characteristics. The revised service structure will reduce the level of direct officer support in the committee process and require a change in working processes to ensure that all meetings can be effectively managed and statutory deadlines maintained. For example, there will be a need for the use of electronic agendas to be embraced by all elected Members and the adoption of an electronic system for councillors' casework. The reduction in service provision in the Mayor’s office will reduce the level of direct officer support to the Mayor and reduce number of hosted events/engagements. There may be potential impacts on capacity to form member working groups, which may mean that residents see a delay in Members’ addressing case work or impact on Members’ ability to consider and respond to city-wide issues.
6. Assess level of impact (1 = low, 5 = high)	1
7. Key actions to reduce negative impacts	What actions are planned to reduce/avoid negative impacts and increase positive impacts?
	No savings proposals discriminate against a particular protected group. Democratic Services Officers will work with Members to enable greater flexibility and use of their tablet devices for agendas and committee papers, and with officers to ensure that they are more self-confident in using the report management system on the council’s intranet. Continual training on the use of the ModernGov app and the new casework system will be offered to Members and to officers for the report management system.
8. Identify disproportionate impacts
Different Groups to be included in assessment	Possible disproportionate impact on group/s? YES/NO	Describe potential impact (positive effects and negative impacts or potential barriers)	Action/s (including details of a full EIA to be completed if required/relevant) Note: Actions should directly relate to the potential impacts identified.
Age (people of all ages)	No
Disability (a physical or mental impairment which has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities)	No

1. Service Area	Strategy, Governance & Law, Life Events			2. Proposal No. 17
3. Head of Service	Paul Holloway, Head of Life Events
4. Budget Proposal	What is the proposal?
	Review of Bereavement and Coroner's services including of fees, charges and service costs. The fees and charges review considers business knowledge and benchmarking information to keep the service competitive.
5. Summary of impacts	Highlight the most significant disproportionate impacts on groups
	Proposed changes will not significantly impact any one specific group. A restructuring of a Coroner’s service to incorporate a merger of jurisdictions will be managed in such a way to minimise disruption to the bereaved families. There will be no change to the delivery of the Coroner’s service, as post-mortems and inquests will still be held in the Brighton & Hove Coroner’s jurisdiction.
6. Assess level of impact (1 = low, 5 = high)	0
7. Key actions to reduce negative impacts
	None
8. Identify disproportionate impacts
Different Groups to be included in assessment	Possible disproportionate impact on group/s? No with care taken in service provision	Describe potential impact (positive effects and negative impacts or potential barriers)	Action/s (including details of a full EIA to be completed if required/relevant) Note: Actions should directly relate to the potential impacts identified.
Age (people of all ages)	No
Disability (a physical or mental impairment which has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities)	No
Ethnicity/Race (ethnic or national origins, colour or nationality, including refugees & migrants; and Gypsies & Travellers)	No
Gender (men and women, girls and boys)	No
Gender reassignment (a person who proposes to, starts or has completed a process to change gender.)	No
Religion or Belief (any religion or philosophical belief with a clear structure and belief system, or lack of religion or belief.)	No
Sexual Orientation (bisexual, gay, heterosexual and lesbian people)	No
Child Poverty (Children and young people in families living on less than 60% of national median income before housing costs. In B&H around 22 % of all children.)	No
Other groups relevant to this proposal (Specific and relevant to the service, including but not only: carers, people experiencing domestic or sexual violence, looked after children, homeless people…)	No

9. Full EIA?	EIA may be required on the service redesign depending on its scale
10. Monitoring and Evaluation	How will you monitor the impact of this proposal and the success of your mitigating actions on these groups over the coming year (or more)?
10. Monitoring and Evaluation	All Life Events services and provision of services will continue to be monitored and reported on. Services in this area are very much demand led, so statistical information about numbers of cremations booked with Woodvale are continually monitored, along with income generation from the services.
11. Cumulative impacts (proposed changes elsewhere which might worsen impacts identified above)	Might related proposals from other service areas (or other changes) worsen or mitigate impacts from your proposal?
	None

1. Service Area	Strategy, Governance & Law, Life Events			2. Proposal No. 18
3. Head of Service	Paul Holloway, Head of Life Events
4. Budget Proposal	What is the proposal?
	10k saving through increasing some registration fees and charges.
5. Summary of impacts	Highlight the most significant disproportionate impacts on groups
	No significant disproportionate impact on groups. Increase in fees will affect all residents, although statutory services, including a Statutory Register Office ceremony remain available at lower rates and there are options at the higher end of budgets, should couples wish to spend more. The setting of registration fees requires sensitive and careful consideration. Proposals are based on benchmarking information from other service providers and as part of the corporate fees and charges policy, all costs for service provision are within the fee charges.
6. Assess level of impact (1 = low, 5 = high)	1
7. Key actions to reduce negative impacts	What actions are planned to reduce/avoid negative impacts and increase positive impacts?
	None
8. Identify disproportionate impacts
Different Groups to be included in assessment	Possible disproportionate impact on group/s? YES/NO	Describe potential impact (positive effects and negative impacts or potential barriers)	Action/s (including details of a full EIA to be completed if required/relevant) Note: Actions should directly relate to the potential impacts identified.
Age (people of all ages)	No
Disability (a physical or mental impairment which has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities)	No

1. Service Area	Strategy, Governance and Law; Performance, Improvement & Programmes			2. Proposal No. 20
3. Head of Service	Rima Desai, Head of Performance, Improvement and Programmes
4. Budget Proposal	What is the proposal? Use the savings proposal wording and more detail if needed
	Reduced support for risk management and corporate governance. As a result, there is a risk that council could make a costly mistake, reputation may get adversely affected or not having the right information needed for effective decision making and prioritisation of deployment of resources.
5. Summary of impacts	Highlight the most significant disproportionate impacts on groups
	Not anticipated to have any additional adverse impact on customers from protected characteristics as the savings relate to reduced support for the whole organisation and therefore will affect all customers equally.
6. Assess level of impact (1 = low, 5 = high)	1 – minimum impact on small numbers of people
7. Key actions to reduce negative impacts	What actions are planned to reduce/avoid negative impacts and increase positive impacts?
	Improved prioritisation of support deployment to minimise impact and strengthen guidance and capacity building across the organisation so less reliance on corporate support.
8. Identify disproportionate impacts
Different Groups to be included in assessment	Possible disproportionate impact on group/s? YES/NO	Describe potential impact (positive effects and negative impacts or potential barriers)	Action/s (including details of a full EIA to be completed if required/relevant) Note: Actions should directly relate to the potential impacts identified.
Age (people of all ages)	No
Disability (a physical or mental impairment which has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities)	No
Ethnicity/Race (ethnic or national origins, colour or nationality, including refugees & migrants; and Gypsies & Travellers)	No
Gender (men and women, girls and boys)	No
Gender reassignment (a person who proposes to, starts or has completed a process to change gender.)	No
Religion or Belief (any religion or philosophical belief with a clear structure and belief system, or lack of religion or belief.)	No
Sexual Orientation (bisexual, gay, heterosexual and lesbian people)	No
Child Poverty (Children and young people in families living on less than 60% of national median income before housing costs. In B&H around 22% of all children.)	No
Other groups relevant to this proposal (Specific and relevant to the service, including but not only: carers, people experiencing domestic or sexual violence, looked after children, homeless people…)	No

9. Full EIA?	Not required
10. Monitoring and Evaluation	How will you monitor the impact of this proposal and the success of your mitigating actions on these groups over the coming year (or more)?
10. Monitoring and Evaluation	N/A
11. Cumulative impacts (proposed changes elsewhere which might worsen impacts identified above)	Might related proposals from other service areas (or other changes) worsen or mitigate impacts from your proposal?
	None

1. Service Area	Strategy, Governance and Law, Communications			2. Proposal No. 21
3. Head of Service	Clare Saul, Head of Communications
4. Budget Proposal	What is the proposal?
	The proposed budget reduction is £143k, of which £33k will be a budget saving for 2022/23. Proposal is: £8,660 from the service’s ‘Service and Supplies’ budget £20,660 from campaigns budget A service redesign which sees a saving of £113,680 from deletion of two posts equivalent to 1.7FTE and lower regrading of other posts
5. Summary of impacts	Highlight the most significant disproportionate impacts on groups
	There will be no disproportionate impacts because of the saving proposal. However, any additional demands above agreed corporate communication priorities will be difficult to absorb and services will need to fund/deliver their own communications. Therefore, depending on the service and their target audience this may impact on some groups more than others.
6. Assess level of impact (1 = low, 5 = high)	2
7. Key actions to reduce negative impacts	What actions are planned to reduce/avoid negative impacts and increase positive impacts?
	The two posts are currently vacant so there will be no compulsory redundancies but losing establishment posts will reduce capacity. The principal action to mitigate the budget saving is for individual services across the council to be responsible for funding their communications if they are not corporate priorities agreed by senior officer and member leadership.
8. Identify disproportionate impacts
Different Groups to be included in assessment	Possible disproportionate impact on group/s? YES/NO	Describe potential impact (positive effects and negative impacts or potential barriers)	Action/s (including details of a full EIA to be completed if required/relevant) Note: Actions should directly relate to the potential impacts identified.
Age (people of all ages)	No
Disability (a physical or mental impairment which has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities)	No