Appendix 6

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

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 and impacts on staff are available in Appendix 7.

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
		Service for children		2
		Learning disability community care		3
		Youth led grants		4
		Youth arts programme		5
		Early years WASP		6
		Section 17		7
		Contact service		8
		Agency placements		9
Health & Adult Social Care		Memory and Cognition Support Day Services		10
Economy, Environment, and Culture		Parking		11
Housing, Neighbourhoods and Communities		Community libraries		12
Strategy, Legal & Governance		Bereavement		13
		Registrations		14
		Land charges		15
		Performance		16
		Communications		17
Finance & Resources		There are no service-user EIAs required for proposals in these services
Equality Impact Assessments describing impacts on Staff
Directorate	Service		EIA number
Families, Children & Learning	Youth arts programme		S1
	Safeguarding and reviewing services team		S2
Health & Adult Social Care	Memory & cognition support day services		S3
Economy, Environment, and Culture	Post and print services		S4
Housing, Neighbourhoods and Communities	Libraries		S5
	Trading standards		S6
Finance & Resources	No staff EIAs
Strategy, Legal & Governance	Civic office		S7

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	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
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?	Full EIA not required as risks are known and there is ongoing liaison PaCC and Amaze in relation to this.
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)?
	· 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	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)	Yes	See section 5.	See section 7.
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?	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)?
	· 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 impact (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.

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 £926,000 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	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.

1. Service Area	FCL – Integrated Team for Families, Youth and Parenting		2. Proposal No. 4
3. Head of Service	Debbie Corbridge
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	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
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
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)?
	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.

1. Service Area	FCL – Integrated Team for Families, Youth and Parenting		2. Proposal No. 5
3. Head of Service	Debbie Corbridge
4. Budget Proposal	What is the proposal?
	The Youth Participation Team provide a range of services for children and young people who are/have been in care or receiving social work support; this includes youth advocacy, Children in Care Council, Independent Visitor Programme. The service also provides an accredited Youth Arts Programme and wider participation activities, e.g., Youth Council, Youth Wise. The Arts Award Programme targets young people aged 11 to 18 years (SEND up to 25 years) particularly Children in Care (CiC), Care leavers (with SEND) or young people who are emotionally distressed and are disengaged from education, training, or employment. The workers (1.21fte) deliver and accredit the bronze and silver awards and their aim is to improve mental health and to reengage the young people into education, training and increase employment opportunities The proposal is to stop the Youth Arts programme.
5. Summary of impacts	Highlight the most significant disproportionate impacts on groups
	This would result in a loss of opportunity for the most vulnerable children, including CiC who are disengaged from education to achieve a nationally accredited award and reintegrate them back into education, training or employment.
6. Assess level of impact	3
7. Key actions to reduce negative impacts	What actions are planned to reduce/avoid negative impacts and increase positive impacts?
	Explore with Adult Community Learning the possibility of funding a Youth Arts Programme for young adults (19 -25 years) with SEND Explore the potential of the Arts Development Service funding a Youth Arts Programme for young people, particularly targeting young people with SEND, children in care and care leavers who are disengaged with education, training and employment.
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 project targets young people aged 11 to 18 years (SEND up to 25 years). Those disengaged from education would stop being supported to achieve a nationally accredited award and reintegrate them back into education, training, or employment	As 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	The Arts Award service collates data and the 2019 YPT EIA highlighted 55% of young people have identified a disability on their referral form.	As section 7
Ethnicity/Race (ethnic or national origins, colour or nationality, including refugees & migrants; and Gypsies & Travellers)	NO	The Arts Award service collates ethnicity data and the 2019 YPT EIA highlighted 89% of young people using the service are White British and 11% are non-White British
Gender (men and women, girls and boys)	YES	The Arts Award service collates data and the 2019 YPT EIA highlighted 67% of young people using the service are female and 33% male; therefore, young women would be disproportionally impacted upon	As section 7
Gender reassignment (a person who proposes to, starts or has completed a process to change gender.)	NO	No data available to evidence impact on this group
Religion or Belief (any religion or philosophical belief with a clear structure and belief system, or lack of religion or belief.)	NO	No data available to evidence impact on this group
Sexual Orientation (bisexual, gay, heterosexual and lesbian people)	NO	No data available to evidence impact on this group
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	No data available to evidence impact on this group
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	This programme targets young people presenting with emotional distress (poor mental health), CiC, Care Leavers (with SEND) and other vulnerable young people that are disengaged from education, training or employment. This would prevent them being supported to achieve a nationally accredited award and reintegrate them back into education, training or employment	As section 7
9. Full EIA?	No there is sufficient equality monitoring information held by the service to understand the impact of the proposal
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)?
	None
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?
	A reduction in either of the youth lead grants will reduce provision through those programmes which the cohorts affected by this budget proposal might have been directed to.

1. Service Area	Early Years and Childcare		2. Proposal No. 6
3. Head of Service	Helen Cowling
4. Budget Proposal	What is the proposal?
	Replace core 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). WASP will therefore be funded for the next three years through the Holiday Activities and Food (HAF) programme.
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, however, that WASP was not able to run in summer 2021 because of staff shortages.
6. Assess level of impact	1
7. Key actions to reduce negative impacts	What actions are planned to reduce/avoid negative impacts and increase positive impacts?
	Fund holiday provision using HAF funding for Easter, Summer and Christmas to ensure access to activities and food for children in receipt of benefits-related free school meals. 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. Early years and childcare team continues to offer childcare providers experiencing sustainability difficulties with information and advice. Where childcare provision changes, closes or reduces, we refer families to the Family Information Service for support in finding an alternative.
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 with HAF 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	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 or reduces, 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 and replacement with HAF 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)?
	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

1. Service Area	Families, Children & Learning: Safeguarding & Care	2. EIA No. 7
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. · While this does not impact on the Local Authority’s ability to deliver services to children in care, section 17 monies are used to support extended families to care for a child and prevent them entering care. Given the rise in the cost of living and pressure on families, alongside a rise in the number of children in care and those being looked after by extended families, we are over the next year likely to see a rise in demand for s.17, but this in part will be dependent on the current rise in cost of living and subsequent pressure on extended families.
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 SLT .
10. Cumulative impacts	Might related proposals from other service areas (or other changes) worsen or mitigate impacts from your proposal?
	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.

1. Service Area	Contact Service	2. Proposal No. 8
3. Head of Service	Gerry Brandon
4. Budget Proposal	What is the proposal?
	Savings of £70,000 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 these are all BAME but do not have supervised contact needs) BAME 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	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?	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)?
	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?
	None identified

1. Service Area	Children’s Safeguarding & Care - Children’s Agency Placements	2. EIA No. 9
3. Head of Service	Anna Gianfrancesco, Assistant Director
4. Budget Proposal	What is the proposal?
	A £1,064,000 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, with an ultimate aim to 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. Block contract commissioned placements for some UASC 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. The increase in child mental health has resulted in a rise in young people being hospitalised. This has led to an increase in the number of  young people needing to be accommodated or for those already looked after being offered specialist care and accommodation upon leaving hospital. We have also seen a rise in the number of children with autistic traits who have struggled due to the pandemic and as a result have needed more specialist placements. 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.

Health and Adult Social Care

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

1. Service Area	Health and Adult Social Care: Provider Services		2. Proposal No.10
3. Head of Service	Michelle Jenkins
4. Budget Proposal	What is the proposal?
	The budget for this area is £6,935,000 and the proposed saving is £62,000.  This is proposed to be achieved through stopping the provision of day services at Wayfield Avenue Resource Centre.
5. Summary of impacts	Highlight the most significant disproportionate impacts on groups
	Wayfield Avenue Resource Centre currently provides day services across 3 days per week, for 12 individuals. Individuals are older people with mental health needs. The day service provides services for those with functional and organic mental health needs. Impact may also be on carers, as day service supports the cared for individuals to enable carer respite.
6. Assess level of impact	3
7. Key actions to reduce negative impacts	What actions are planned to reduce/avoid negative impacts and increase positive impacts?
	The 12 individuals impacted will be reviewed and alternative provision to meet their needs will be sought. This could be through alternative day care, or a range of other options suitable for that individual such as the use of a personal assistant or carer support. Assessments for those with eligible needs for day activities or carer support will meet these needs through a variety of provision such as alternative day care, the use of a personal budget and personal assistant, and carer assessment and support, tailored to that individual through the statutory assessment process.
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 day service provides support for those mainly over 65 years of age.	Full EIA will be carried out to identify mitigation actions
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 day service provides support for those with mental health needs, including dementia.	Full EIA will be carried out to identify mitigation actions
Ethnicity/Race (ethnic or national origins, colour or nationality, including refugees & migrants; and Gypsies & Travellers)	None identified		Full EIA to be carried out to determine impact
Gender (men and women, girls and boys)	None identified		Full EIA to be carried out to determine impact
Gender reassignment (a person who proposes to, starts or has completed a process to change gender.)	None identified		Full EIA to be carried out to determine impact
Religion or Belief (any religion or philosophical belief with a clear structure and belief system, or lack of religion or belief.)	None identified		Full EIA to be carried out to determine impact
Sexual Orientation (bisexual, gay, heterosexual and lesbian people)	None identified		Full EIA to be carried out to determine impact
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.)	None identified		Full EIA to be carried out to determine impact
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 day service provides carer support for those caring for people at home with mental health needs.	Full EIA to be carried out to identify mitigating actions

9. Full EIA?	Full EIA is to be completed as part of this proposal
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)?
	The Executive Director for Health and Adult Social Care retains the responsibility for professional leadership and operational delivery for meeting statutory need, and will ensure governance arrangements support social work professional practice to ensure that statutory duties and responsibilities are appropriately met and best practice is followed.
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 changes in Health Service provision in the city can impact particularly on those people impacted by this proposal. This will be closely monitored through the integrated health agenda and other joint planning mechanisms.

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
4. Budget Proposal	What is the proposal?
	Parking Fees & Charges · Raising price of resident permits and visitor permits · Increasing on-street tariffs across the city by 15% · Increases to Traders permits. · Increasing tariffs in four off-street car parks (Trafalgar Street, The Lanes, Regency Square and London Road) by 15% and other off street car parks by 15%.             The increases generate approximately an additional £2,022,000 income per annum of which £1,522,000 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 / visitors 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?
	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. 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. 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 are also regular meeting 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.

Housing, Neighbourhoods & Communities

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

1. Service Area	HNC / Libraries & Information Services		2. Proposal No. 12
3. Head of Service	Sally McMahon / Kate Rouse
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	2
7. Key actions to reduce negative impacts	What actions are planned to reduce/avoid negative impacts and increase positive impacts?
	The Library 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)	yes	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	The Library Service would need to look at how to reach out effectively to children impacted by the proposed changes through working with partners
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.

Strategy, Governance & Law

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

1. Service Area	Life Events, Strategy, Governance & Law		2. Proposal No. 13
3. Head of Service	Paul Holloway
4. Budget Proposal	What is the proposal?
	Saving of £52,000 through 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.
6. Assess level of impact	1
7. Key actions to reduce negative impacts
	None
8. Identify disproportionate impacts[i]
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)?
	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	Life Events – Strategy, Governance & Law		2. Proposal No.14
3. Head of Service	Paul Holloway
4. Budget Proposal	What is the proposal?
	14k 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
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		Families with children are impacted, however there are choices for people who have low budgets, with statutory Register Office ceremonies available.
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)?
	Life Events services have continual monitoring and reporting in place. This includes recording and analysing the  volume of registration transactions and value of fees and charges generated.
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	Life Events, Strategy, Governance & Law		2. Proposal No. 15
3. Head of Service	Paul Holloway
4. Budget Proposal	What is the proposal?
	Saving of £10,000 through 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. Saving of £24,000 through increase some Local Land Charges fees.
5. Summary of impacts	Highlight the most significant disproportionate impacts on groups
	Increases in Local Land Charges fees; 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
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?
	None

1. Service Area	Performance, Improvement & Programmes		2. Proposal No. 16
3. Head of Service	Rima Desai
4. Budget Proposal	What is the proposal?
	Saving of £33,000 through 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 – 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 + 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)?
	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	Communications		2. Proposal No. 17
3. Head of Service	Clare Saul
4. Budget Proposal	What is the proposal?
	The proposed budget reduction is £158k, of which £48k 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 £128,680 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	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
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)?
	Feedback will be requested from DMTs on the impact of the saving.
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 council’s commitment to accessible information may be a risk as from 22/23 all council services will be asked to fund their own communications unless agreed as a corporate priority to be delivered by the communications service. With most services experiencing a budget saving their ability to fund accessible, high quality communication will be in jeopardy.

Budget 2022-23: Equality Impact Assessments – Youth Participation Team- Families Children & Learning

EIA No. S1	EIA Proposal
	Propose stopping the Youth Arts programme.
Groups potentially impacted	Impacts identified	Mitigating Actions
Note:  As not more than 20 employees affected to preserve employee confidentiality, no employee equalities data has been gathered or analysed from the council’s employee database. Comments are based on evident information.	We know that in the Council as a whole and in the directorate that most protected characteristics are under-represented.  In Families, Children and Learning, this is the case for White Other staff, Disabled staff and Male staff.	1.Ensure staff support information is made clear in the staff consultation document. 2. Ensure management, trade union and HR support is available for all staff. 3. Ensure there are opportunities in the consultation process for staff to raise any issues in relation to protected characteristics. 4. Ensure any reasonable adjustments are considered and implemented as appropriate 5. Ensure that mental health support is highlighted to staff throughout the consultation in recognition that change management can impact adversely on mental health/stress/anxiety.

Budget 2022-23: Equality Impact Assessments – Children’s Safeguarding & Quality Assurance- Families Children & Learning

EIA No. S2	EIA Proposal
	The Safeguarding and Reviewing Service Team to absorb the tasks of a role in the Safeguarding & Performance area, which is becoming vacant later in the year. The manager of the Team will hold the main responsibility for the completion of the tasks but will also delegate to the Team. The capacity for this extra work is created by the dropping of Child Protection case numbers in the team and a review of working practices.
Groups potentially impacted	Impacts identified	Mitigating Actions
Note:  As not more than 20 employees affected to preserve employee confidentiality, no employee equalities data has been gathered or analysed from the council’s employee database. Comments are based on evident information.	We know that in the Council as a whole and in the directorate that most protected characteristics are under-represented.  In Families, Children and Learning, this is the case for White Other staff, Disabled staff and Male staff.	1.Ensure staff support information is made clear in the staff consultation document. 2. Ensure management, trade union and HR support is available for all staff. 3. Ensure there are opportunities in the consultation process for staff to raise any issues in relation to protected characteristics. 4. Ensure any reasonable adjustments are considered and implemented as appropriate 5. Ensure that mental health support is highlighted to staff throughout the consultation in recognition that change management can impact adversely on mental health/stress/anxiety.

Budget 2022-23: Equality Impact Assessment – Health & Adult Social Care, Memory & Cognition Support Day Services

EIA No. S3	EIA Proposal
	Closure of Wayfield Avenue Day Centre
Groups potentially impacted	Impacts identified	Mitigating Actions
Note:  As not more than 20 employees affected to preserve employee confidentiality, no employee equalities data has been gathered or analysed from the council’s employee database. Comments are based on evident information.	We know that in the council as a whole and in the directorate that most protected characteristics are under-represented in the workforce.  In Provider Services this is the case for Disability, White Other and Male employees.	1.Ensure staff support information is made clear in the staff consultation document. 2. Ensure management, trade union and HR support is available for all staff. 3. Ensure there are opportunities in the consultation process for staff to raise any issues in relation to protected characteristics. 4. Ensure any reasonable adjustments are considered and implemented as appropriate 5. Ensure that mental health support is highlighted to staff throughout the consultation in recognition that change management can impact adversely on mental health/stress/anxiety.

Budget 2022-23: Equality Impact Assessment – Economy Environment & Culture, Property & Design

EIA No. S4	EIA Proposal
	Review the Post & Courier, Print/Copy Services in respect of service level requirements across the council for post, courier, print/copy.
Groups potentially impacted	Impacts identified	Mitigating Actions
Note:  As not more than 20 employees affected to preserve employee confidentiality, no employee equalities data has been gathered or analysed from the council’s employee database. Comments are based on evident information.	We know that in the council as a whole and in the directorate that most protected characteristics are under-represented in the workforce.  In Property & Design this is the case for Disability, White Other, and Sexual Orientation.	1.Ensure staff support information is made clear in the staff consultation document. 2. Ensure management, trade union and HR support is available for all staff. 3. Ensure there are opportunities in the consultation process for staff to raise any issues in relation to protected characteristics. 4. Ensure any reasonable adjustments are considered and implemented as appropriate 5. Ensure that mental health support is highlighted to staff throughout the consultation in recognition that change management can impact adversely on mental health/stress/anxiety.

Budget 2022-23: Equality Impact Assessment – Housing Neighbourhoods & Communities

Libraries Services

EIA No. S5	EIA Proposal
	Reduce staffed opening hours in all community libraries
Groups potentially impacted	Impacts identified	Mitigating Actions
Note:  As not more than 20 employees affected to preserve employee confidentiality, no employee equalities data has been gathered or analysed from the council’s employee database. Comments are based on evident information.	We know that in the council as a whole and in the directorate that most protected characteristics are under-represented in the workforce.  In Libraries Services this is the case for BME, White Irish, and Male staff. Libraries Services has an above average number of disabled staff working in the service.	1.Ensure staff support information is made clear in the staff consultation document. 2. Ensure management, trade union and HR support is available for all staff. 3. Ensure there are opportunities in the consultation process for staff to raise any issues in relation to protected characteristics. 4. Ensure any reasonable adjustments are considered and implemented as appropriate 5. Ensure that mental health support is highlighted to staff throughout the consultation in recognition that change management can impact adversely on mental health/stress/anxiety.

Budget 2022-23: Equality Impact Assessment – Housing Neighbourhoods & Communities, Trading Standards

EIA No. S6	EIA Proposal
	Review non statutory functions in Trading Standards to see if efficiencies can be made.
Groups potentially impacted	Impacts identified	Mitigating Actions
Note:  As not more than 20 employees affected to preserve employee confidentiality, no employee equalities data has been gathered or analysed from the council’s employee database. Comments are based on evident information.	We know that in the council as a whole and in the directorate that most protected characteristics are under-represented in the workforce.  In Regulatory Services this is the case for BME, White Other, and Male employees	1.Ensure staff support information is made clear in the staff consultation document. 2. Ensure management, trade union and HR support is available for all staff. 3. Ensure there are opportunities in the consultation process for staff to raise any issues in relation to protected characteristics. 4. Ensure any reasonable adjustments are considered and implemented as appropriate 5. Ensure that mental health support is highlighted to staff throughout the consultation in recognition that change management can impact adversely on mental health/stress/anxiety.

Budget 2022-23: Equality Impact Assessment – Democratic Services – Civic Office

EIA No. S7	EIA Proposal
	Review of chauffeur support to Mayor. This would impact on the Civic Office and Mayor who would need to attend engagements and use alternative transport that will have associated costs if the support was not provided in-house.
Groups potentially impacted	Impacts identified	Mitigating Actions
Note:  As not more than 20 employees affected to preserve employee confidentiality, no employee equalities data has been gathered or analysed from the council’s employee database. Comments are based on evident information.	We know that in the council as a whole and in the directorate that most protected characteristics are under-represented.  In Strategy Governance and Law this is the case for all protected characteristics.	1.Ensure staff support information is made clear in the staff consultation document. 2. Ensure management, trade union and HR support is available for all staff. 3. Ensure there are opportunities in the consultation process for staff to raise any issues in relation to protected characteristics. 4. Ensure any reasonable adjustments are considered and implemented as appropriate 5. Ensure that mental health support is highlighted to staff throughout the consultation in recognition that change management can impact adversely on mental health/stress/anxiety.

---

[i] Identify disproportionate impacts - In the first column indicate whether or not there is likely to be a disproportionate impact. If so, complete the other two columns.

· Potential impact: how will the proposed change affect people in the group identified? Also consider differences within groups (eg: different impacts on different ethnic groups); and multiple identities (eg: women of different ages may be impacted differently).

· Actions: what do you propose to do to remove, avoid or reduce the negative impact? The actions should relate directly to the identified impact. If unlawful discrimination is identified then that must be removed or the proposal withdrawn.

If there will not be an impact for a group, briefly explain why. Absence of data does not mean there will not be an impact. Briefly state where data is from (with a link to it, if appropriate) and what it tells you (eg: ‘Service-user monitoring shows that XX% are…’ or ‘BME groups said…’) Highlight gaps in engagement so you can gather views before final EIAs are due (in January). Focus on what is proportionate: big impacts on small numbers of people and/or impacts on a large number of people are important.