Appendix 2

Budget 2023/24: Equality Impact Assessments – Service-Users

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

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

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

Equality Impact Assessments describing impacts on Service-Users
Directorate	Service	EIA number
	Agency placements disabled CYP	1
	Continuing Health Care	2
	Learning disabilities community care	3
	Youth arts award programme	4
	Children’s centres SLAs	5
	Nursery: Bright Start	6
	Skills & employment: paid placement	7
	Safeguarding & care: agency placements	8
Health and Adult Social Care	Community care	9
	Assessment services	10
	Commissioning	11
	Provider servicers	12
Environment, Economy and Culture	Street lighting	13
	Concessionary travel payments	14
	Parking fee	15
	Winter gritting	16
	Public toilets	17
	Bulky waste	18
	Garden waste	19
	Parking in parks	20
	Allotments	21
	Household waste recycling site: charges	22
	Brighton Centre	23
	Visitor services	24
	Seafront property income	25
	Beach hut transfer fee	26
	Outdoor events fees	27
Housing, Neighbourhoods and Communities	Housing needs and supply: adaptions	28
	Temporary accommodation	29
	Libraries	30
	Safer communities: licensing fees and field officers	31
Governance, People and Resources	No service user EIAs required

Budget Equality Impact Assessment 2023/24 – Service-Users

1. Service Area	Specialist Community Disability Service				2. Proposal No. 1
3. Head of Service	Alison Mills-Clarke
4. Budget Proposal	What is the proposal? Use the savings proposal wording and more detail if needed
	Limit the number of expensive external residential placements through commissioning and brokerage work. Through the new HSEND commissioning and brokerage team reduce the use of high-cost placements through using a wider range of frameworks to identify specialist placements and regularly reviewing the high-cost placements to ensure that the package of support changes in line with the progress being made by the child or young person. There will also be a short breaks/respite review that will look at how we ensure that services are more equitable, and more outcome focused and reach a wider number of families to prevent the need of high-cost specialist residential placements. This will help to reduce crisis intervention which will fit in with our Early Help model and prevent a need for high-cost placements. However, this is a demand led budget that must respond to presenting needs and may be hard to achieve. Savings allocated to this piece of work is £250,000.
5. Summary of impacts	Highlight the most significant disproportionate impacts on groups
	This saving will have the most impact upon a small number of families who are finding it very difficult to support their child in the home and whose children are on the edge of care. These are likely to be children with very complex needs that will include having a learning disability and some behaviours that are difficult to manage.
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?
	Use a wider range of frameworks to identify specialist placements to gain better value for money Review regularly the high-cost placements to ensure that the package of support reduces in line with the progress being made by the child or young person. Maximise the local offer which includes respite and short break provision to prevent the need for external residential placements. Review Direct Payments and increase the range of activities that can be accessed by CYP with a disability in the city to prevent the needs for high-cost residential placements. Ensure that staff are equipped and have the necessary training to be able to offer support and strategies to families which is more outcomes focussed rather than reactionary and crisis led.
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 measure will impact upon CYP between the ages of 5-18.	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	There will be a negative impact upon families who have CYP with a disability and who are finding it challenging to cope with their child in the family home. The potential impact is that the child or young person will not have an appropriate placement that meets their needs and could lead to family breakdown.	See section 7
Ethnicity/Race (ethnic or national origins, colour or nationality, including refugees & migrants; and Gypsies & Travellers)	No	19.7% of the CYP supported by SCDS are from black and minority ethnic communities. The 2011 census showed 21% of the under 18 population in Brighton and Hove are from a BME background.
Gender (men and women, girls and boys)	No	In Brighton and Hove 71% of all CYP with EHC plans in the city are boys compared to 73% nationally. However, the numbers of CYP in the high-cost placements are relatively small and the figure often fluctuates between 70 and 80% for boys.
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	More challenging for those families who are on low income to access support/activities as they don’t have the disposable income. 44% of FSM are those CYP with an EHCP.		Targeted intervention for those on low income to ensure they are prioritised during holiday periods for respite and short breaks.
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?	Yes
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)?
	Monitoring will take place through casework supervision, transition tracking meetings, monthly budget monitoring and resource panels. This will include collecting and analysing equality data of service users.
11. Cumulative impacts (proposed changes elsewhere which might worsen impacts identified above)	Might related proposals from other service areas (or other changes) worsen or mitigate impacts from your proposal? Please explain these impacts.
	None

Budget Equality Impact Assessment 2023/24 – Service-Users

1. Service Area	Families, Children and Learning: Adult Learning Disability Assessment				2. Proposal No. 3
3. Head of Service	Cameron Brown, Head of Service 25+, Specialist Community Disability Service
4. Budget Proposal	What is the proposal? Use the savings proposal wording and more detail if needed
	The Financial Recovery Plan proposes a saving of £1.100 million by reducing the spend on the Learning Disabilities Community Care Budget. The total net budget is £34.785 million - Continuation of the 'Move On' project supporting adults with LD to move on from high-cost placements into new living arrangements which promote independence (£500k) - Appropriate joint funding arrangements to be pursued with third parties i.e., Continuing Health Care funding (£250k) - Improved transition planning arrangements for young people. The social work pod will seek to provide a greater focus on this high-cost area (£200k) - Review of existing block contracts for outsourced services, to address any over provision and more effective utilisation of voids (£50k). - Expansion of Shared Lives capacity to reduce existing higher cost placements (£100k)
5. Summary of impacts	Highlight the most significant disproportionate impacts on groups
	Vulnerable adults in the city are assessed in accordance with the Care Act 2014. 823 adults with a learning disability and / or autism have eligible needs under the Act 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 increasing with the cost-of-living crisis and the rate of inflation. There is also 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) 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 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.
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 new Integrated Care System gives opportunities to reduce duplication and work in a more joined-up way to proactively identify those people who may be at risk of going into hospital or residential care and thus 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. A new reviewing framework will invite our partners to join us in reviewing people in a timely way and is intended to release 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. New and VFM commissioning of appropriate supported living and accommodation services for people with Learning Disabilities will add 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 will provide 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 will comply with the new Accessible Information Standards (S.250) of the Health and Social Care Act 2012. Commissioners across Children’s and Adults’ services will work together with providers to prioritise assignment of resources and ensure that the additional focus on all protected groups can continue. The lifelong pathway within the Specialist Community Disability Service also creates a 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	This service is specifically for people 18 years and older with no maximum age threshold. It also works closely with children’s services so young people in that transition phase will also 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	How to manage new 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, however these are not appropriate for a large majority of Service Users with higher support needs.	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 people identifying as transgender, discrimination, abuse and isolation is still a problem, thus 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 still 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.)	Yes	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.
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
11. Cumulative impacts (proposed changes elsewhere which might worsen impacts identified above)	Might related proposals from other service areas (or other changes) worsen or mitigate impacts from your proposal? Please explain these impacts.
	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. NHS Sussex 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 NHS Sussex would have a direct effect on the community care budget.

Budget Equality Impact Assessment 2023/24 – Service-Users

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? Use the savings proposal wording and more detail if needed
	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 Youth Arts Award Programme targets young people aged 11 to 19 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, silver & Gold awards and their aim is to improve mental health and to re-engage 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 living in the city, including CiC, who are disengaged from education, to achieve a nationally accredited award and reintegrate them back into education, training or employment. In addition to CiC, the information provided highlights that young people aged 11 to 19 years (SEND up to 25 years), particularly LGBTQ+ young people, those living in poverty, young people with poor mental health, young women and young people with SEND will be disproportionately impacted on.
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?
	Opportunities for this service to be funded by other services have been explored with no options found. The virtual school provide a service to children who are or were in care to support their education and improve their outcomes.
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 19 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 using the service have identified a disability on their referral form. The award is carefully tailored and delivered to meet each individual young person’s needs, resulting in a high level of success in engaging and sustaining participation from young people with disabilities particularly young people with Autism.	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 2020-2022 data highlighted that 19% of young people using the service are non-White British	As section 7
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.)	YES	The Arts Award service collates gender reassignment data and the 2020-2022 data highlighted that 15% of young people using the service are non-binary or trans	As section 7
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)	YES	The Arts Award service collates sexual orientation data and the 2020-2022 data highlights that 17% of the young people using the service are bisexual, gay, or lesbian	As section 7
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	The Arts Award service collates child poverty data and the 2020-2022 data highlights that 46% of the young people using the service are living in poverty	As section 7
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 The award is carefully tailored and delivered to meet each individual young person’s needs, resulting in a high level of success in engaging and sustaining participation from young people with severe mental health issues including young people who find engaging with other services difficult.	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)?
	Via monitoring if the virtual school team are reaching this targeted group and if they can offer alternative programmes, numbers, demographics and accreditations gained will be evaluated within this service. The Youth Participation team will monitor requests/referrals for support within the groups of young people adversely affected, the numbers of request that can be referred on to other services and report any gaps in support for those young people. Possible increase in complaints if the service is no longer available/ further limiting options for those very vulnerable groups of young people, as listed previously.
11. Cumulative impacts (proposed changes elsewhere which might worsen impacts identified above)	Might related proposals from other service areas (or other changes) worsen or mitigate impacts from your proposal? Please explain these impacts.
	A reduction in the youth service and youth led grants would reduce provision to these programmes and cumulatively a reduction the young people that could have been directed to the Youth Arts Award.

Budget Equality Impact Assessment 2023/24 – Service-Users

1. Service Area	FCL - Early Years and Childcare, Service Level Agreements			2. Proposal No. 5
3. Head of Service	Jo Templeman
4. Budget Proposal	What is the proposal? Use the savings proposal wording and more detail if needed
	Stop funding external Service Level Agreements totalling £: 36,015 Brighton unemployed families centre £11,000 Brighton Oasis creche support £2,000 Amaze £1,000 Early Childhood Project providing toy library and stay and play £22,015.
5. Summary of impacts	Highlight the most significant disproportionate impacts on groups
	Equalities impact: The Service Level agreements fund external agencies to provide service to children and families, stopping funding may impact on their ability to deliver services including to disadvantaged children and families. The funding for the Brighton unemployed centre supports the delivery of childcare for adults accessing the centre, withdrawing funding could impact on under 5’s, women and disadvantaged families. The funding for the Brighton Oasis Creche provides childcare for women accessing the service provided by Oasis for substance misuse support, withdrawing funding could impact on under 5’s and women. The Early Childhood Project funding support via toy library and stay and play sessions in the Tarner Children’s Centre, withdrawing funding could impact on under 5’s, women and disadvantaged families. Options to be considered to support these groups via family hub transformation.
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?
	Service and support to be considered as part of family hubs transformation. Family hub service to provide support for children and families as part of service 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	Impact on children under 5. Removal of funding would reduce the service for under 5’s via creche, childcare and stay and play session.	Ensure families know how to access alternative support. Ensure families can access family hub services.
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	Removing funding from Amaze may impact on the delivery of service for children with SEND.	Ensure families are aware of support for SEND. Map SEND services and support with amaze. Ensure families can access family hub services.

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

Yes

38% of children are white British with 62% identified as other ethnic group. Data per ethnic category withheld due to small numbers per category.

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

Gender (men and women, girls and boys)

Yes

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

Impact on mainly female workforce

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

Re-locate workforce to other council nurseries if vacancies allow or redeployment within BHCC

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

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

Full data set is not available.

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

Child Poverty

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

Yes

There are currently 8 children (17%) attending who are eligible for two year funded childcare places or eligible for Early Years Pupil Premium

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

Work with FIS to source other nursery places

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

Yes

Continuity of childcare is impacted for vulnerable children, particularly LAC, children with child protection plans and CIN plans. 4 Children are CIN, CP or LAC.

Work with social care to identify alternative provision

9. Full EIA?

10. Monitoring and Evaluation

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

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

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

Monitoring information from EMAS

Monitoring information from BHISS

Monitoring information from FIS

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

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

Budget Equality Impact Assessment 2023/24 – Service-Users

1. Service Area	Employment and Skills			2. Proposal No. 7
3. Head of Service	Carla Butler (Head of Skills and Employment)
4. Budget Proposal	What is the proposal? Use the savings proposal wording and more detail if needed
	A reduction of £50,000 will end opportunities for paid placements within the council for disabled people of all ages. Placements have been low in number due to remote working and pandemic. Two have so far been funded in 2022/2023. The project supports the workforce diversity agenda and the wider Fair and Inclusive strategy and City Employment and Skills Plan
5. Summary of impacts	Highlight the most significant disproportionate impacts on groups
	Disability The council would no longer facilitate paid placements for disabled candidates. Adults with a disability are disproportionally impacted by the pandemic and the paid placement scheme has supported residents move into work.
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?
	Increase opportunities for government pre-employment programmes. The Apprenticeship and Pre-employment Team will continue to expand unpaid placements through Sector Work Based Academy programmes, Traineeships, TLevels, Supported Internships and Work Experience.
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	Adults with a disability are disproportionally impacted by the pandemic and the paid placement scheme has supported residents move into work. Placements are open to people of all ages	Expand unpaid placements through Sector Work Based Academy programmes, TLevels, Traineeships, Supported Internships and Work Experience.
Disability (a physical or mental impairment which has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities)	Yes	Adults with a disability are disproportionally impacted by the pandemic and the paid placement scheme has supported residents move into work. These roles would not have been possible within individual service budgets.	Expand unpaid placements through Sector Work Based Academy programmes, TLevels, Traineeships, Supported Internships and Work Experience.

9. Full EIA?	Further assessment is not needed as this saving will not affect existing placements or staff, rather new council paid placements will not be available from April 2023
10. Monitoring and Evaluation	How will you monitor the impact of this proposal and the success of your mitigating actions on these groups over the coming year (or more)?
10. Monitoring and Evaluation	Candidates that may have come through the council’s paid placement scheme will be diverted to other unpaid schemes. These will be monitored to track increase/decrease in participation.
11. Cumulative impacts (proposed changes elsewhere which might worsen impacts identified above)	Might related proposals from other service areas (or other changes) worsen or mitigate impacts from your proposal? Please explain these impacts.
	None identified

Budget Equality Impact Assessment 2023/24 – Service-Users

1. Service Area	Safeguarding and Care				2. Proposal No. 8
3. Head of Service	Anna Gianfrancesco
4. Budget Proposal	What is the proposal?
	A £ 1.282m saving on the cost of agency placements for children in the care of Brighton & Hove City Council. This will be achieved by: continuing to work through the social work model of practice to hold the numbers of children in care, with an 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 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
	This reduction in budget will impact only on children in care of the local authority. Over the last two years we have seen a national sufficiency issues regarding placements, for every 1 placement provided by external commissioned providers there are roughly 100 children seeking to be placed. This means that children with more complex problems, trauma, mental health are becoming more difficult to place, with providers choosing to take those children with less complex issues. It also means that providers will charge more for more vulnerable children. This is placing great pressure on the system and leaving our most vulnerable children at risk of no placement or being placed in unregistered provisions, which nationally are often the only ones who will take highly vulnerable children. A reduction in the funding and planned reduction in the use of agency placements places more pressure on foster carers to manage young people whose needs are better met in residential provision. Alongside this there has been a downturn nationally in the number of people coming forward to become foster cares. Anecdotally we are hearing that some families are choosing to participate in the Homes for Ukraine scheme instead of fostering. This also creates pressure on the care system and is resulting in young people who need foster placement being difficult to place. While we continue to recruit carers and have a high level of children placed with in house carers there is considered pressure overall on the care system, and the pressure of reduced residential placements adds additional pressure on foster carers to hold children who may be better placed in a residential provision. The budget reductions leave us vulnerable to the open market and in part reduces our opportunity to expand and develop the in-house provisions as well as absorb the increasing costs of independent providers.
6. Assess level of impact	4 We are a demand lead service and are therefore not able to reduce the demand as such, while doing everything possible to prevent children coming into care, when needed children are taken into care. Due to the pressure above it is likely that even reducing the numbers of children in care will not see the overall costs reduce. Any reduction in budget will make it hard to place our most vulnerable young people
7. Key actions to reduce negative impacts	What actions are planned to reduce/avoid negative impacts and increase positive impacts?
	We are extending the fostering plus scheme, to increase carers who care for the most vulnerable complex young people. We are developing a scheme along the lines of Mockingbird, a national programme to support foster cares via small community hubs, it is anticipated this will reduce placement breakdown and enable those requiring more support that may currently need to move to residential provision stay with foster carers.
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	All the people this will impact will be under 18 and will be among the most vulnerable children in society, needing not only to be in care but those at risk of high-cost placement due to their needs	As above, continuing to recruit foster carers, development of foster plus placements and fostering hubs
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	Many of the complex, hard to place young people will experience either mental health difficulties or neurodiversity, or both. These disabilities create complexities in care and will put placements under pressure. Often resulting in these young people needing externally provided specialist placements	As above and extending the small Children in Care mental health service, by an OT and some additional psychology hours. This will support carers to manage the complex young people in placement
Ethnicity/Race (ethnic or national origins, colour or nationality, including refugees & migrants; and Gypsies & Travellers)	yes	40% of children in care in Brighton & Hove are Black or from the Global Majority. Of which there are currently 41 UASC and this has to increase to 50 to be in line with the government requirements. UASC are often placed in external providers, due to their age and needs, any reduction in budget and reduction in the use of agency placements will not only affect the Black and global majority children in care but also on the commissioning of placements for the UASC young people as they arrive.		Exploring the possibility of further block tenders for UASC young people.
Gender (men and women, girls and boys)	no	40% of the cohort are female and 60% male.
Gender reassignment (a person who proposes to, starts or has completed a process to change gender.)	yes	A number of children in care identify as non-binary or trans, this may be as a result of trauma and the need for control over their identity, however these young people will often also have additional complex needs and vulnerability and may require placement in more specialist residential provision. Cuts in residential placements will impact these young people.		As above to develop fostering plus placement and fostering hub model to support carers to continue to place complex young people for longer and support step down from residential to fostering at an earlier point.
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 in care are more likely to have come from families in poverty, therefore any cuts in services that impact on children in care will impact on those children affected by childhood poverty
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- children in care	This saving will only impact on children in care. These children are often the most vulnerable children in society, having experienced trauma, abuse and often abandonment by their birth families. While our aim would be for all children to be placed in a family environment, and therefore with foster cares, for some young people this is too much and too triggering for them and the best placement is a residential placement. Cuts in the use of residential placement will impact on these vulnerable children.		As above to develop fostering plus placement and fostering hub model to support carers to continue to place complex young people for longer and support step down from residential to fostering at an earlier point.
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)?
	Monitoring the use of placement via the fostering performance board and continuing to collect and analyse equality data of children in care
11. Cumulative impacts (proposed changes elsewhere which might worsen impacts identified above)	Might related proposals from other service areas (or other changes) worsen or mitigate impacts from your proposal? Please explain these impacts.

Budget Equality Impact Assessment 2023/24 – Service-Users

1. Service Area	Health and Adult Social Care: Physical Support and Sensory Support / Memory & Cognition / Mental Health Support			2. Proposal No. 9
3. Head of Service	Steve Hook
4. Budget Proposal	What is the proposal? Use the savings proposal wording and more detail if needed
	The overall net budget for this service area is £48,921,000 and the proposed saving is £2,365,000. This is proposed to be done by continuing with the agreed direction of travel for Adult Social Care focusing upon reducing demand through several approaches: · increasing the reablement offer to those who require it · negotiating costs to the Local Authority with care providers · reduction of long-term care placements through improved care pathways. · increased use of assistive technology · focus on preventative interventions, including advice and signposting · increasing the Direct Payments offer · maximising alternative funding and income options
5. Summary of impacts	Highlight the most significant disproportionate impacts on groups
	Disproportionate impacts identified on the following characteristics: Age (older), Disability (mental health, physical and sensory impairments) Community Care budget funds packages of care to meet statutory responsibilities across adult care groups apart from Learning Disability. Services include community support, home care, supported accommodation, residential and nursing care. The proposals could impact on all these service user groups. Increasing the opportunity for reablement thus reducing the need for long term care will positively impact in that it will enable people to be more independent, requiring less ongoing care and the ability to stay living in their own home for longer. However, reablement is a short-term intervention, and if some long-term care is required after reablement this may require a change of service provider, which some people and families may find unsettling. Increasing the use of assistive technology, and a focus on preventative interventions will have a positive impact in that it will enable people to live more independently for longer. However, some people and families may have concerns about living independently at home with assistive technology for support. Increasing the offer of Direct Payments will positively impact in that Direct Payments offer more choice in care delivery for the individual. However, for some people and families a Direct Payment may cause anxiety to manage. The proposed negotiated contract costs to the Local Authority and seeking additional funding options has no impact on service provision.
6. Assess level of impact	2: The Community Care budget is used to purchase services for a range of vulnerable people and their carers and proposals will impact on older people, people with mental health issues, a physical disability, long term conditions, sensory impairment, and those with substance misuse problems
7. Key actions to reduce negative impacts	What actions are planned to reduce/avoid negative impacts and increase positive impacts?
	· Assessments undertaken to establish care needs will be person centred and take into account individual needs and requirements · Those in a caring role will be offered a Carer’s Assessment and a person budget, in line with the requirements of the Care Act, to enable them to maintain their caring role and the right care is available · The provision of a direct payment will be made where appropriate to enable choice and control of care provision · Quality of commissioned care and reablement outcomes will be monitored.
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 (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
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?	Potentially
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 Annual User Survey will monitor effectiveness and any negative impacts. Customer Feedback monitors specific user experience. The statutory review process will also monitor impact. Quality Monitoring arrangements will monitor quality of care, linking with Care Quality Commission outcomes.
11. Cumulative impacts (proposed changes elsewhere which might worsen impacts identified above)	Might related proposals from other service areas (or other changes) worsen or mitigate impacts from your proposal? Please explain these impacts.
	Any changes in Health Service provision in the city can impact particularly on those people the Community Care budget supports. This will be closely monitored through the integrated health agenda and other joint planning mechanisms.

Budget Equality Impact Assessment 2023/24 – Service-Users

1. Service Area	Health and Adult Social Care: Assessment			2. Proposal No. 10
3. Head of Service	Steve Hook
4. Budget Proposal	What is the proposal? Use the savings proposal wording and more detail if needed
	The budget for this area is £11,741,000 and the proposed saving is £246,000. This savings proposed are: - To seek alternative funding for 2 x social work posts in the Hospital Social Team to support hospital discharge (£92,000) - Review of the S.75 agreement in partnership with the mental health trust, including financial risk share arrangements (£122,000) - Increasing fees and charges for services (£32,000)
5. Summary of impacts	Highlight the most significant disproportionate impacts on groups
	A Section 75 (S.75) agreement is in place for the provision of Adult Mental Health in Brighton & Hove. This agreement is made under the S.75 of the NHS Act 2006 between a local authority and an NHS body which includes delegating certain NHS and local authority functions to the other partner. This partnership agreement allows budgets to be pooled between health and social care planners/providers and resources and management structures that can be integrated. Brighton and Hove City Council (BHCC) have a S.75 agreement in place with Sussex Partnership Foundation Trust (SPFT) which is under review. Review of the S.75 arrangement is not planned to impact on service delivery, focussing on funding arrangements and risk share agreements. However, knowledge that the arrangement for integrated working are being reviewed could cause anxiety for users of the service or their families that this could result in changes to services or ways that they are delivered. Funding sources of hospital social workers will not impact on service delivery. Increasing charges will impact users of the Carelink service. This fee is not means tested, so is applied across all users of the service. Fee increases are applied on a yearly basis, and service users are informed of the increases.
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 proposed review of s75 arrangements is not planned to impact on service delivery to those with mental health needs in the city. A project board is in place to oversee the review and monitor any potential impact on service delivery. Service user involvement is planned within the ongoing project workstreams. Service users who require the services of Carelink, but choose not to have them, may be engaged in a care assessment to ascertain the risk to them, and to consider alternative 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?	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 Executive Director for Health and Adult Social Care retains the responsibility for professional leadership and operational delivery for delegated services and will ensure governance arrangements support social work professional leadership and demonstrate a commitment to excellent social work practice, ensure that performance management systems and monitoring arrangements capture social work and social care outcomes as part of integrated arrangements, i.e. how lives are changed for the better and ensure that there are clear lines of accountability back to the local authority so that statutory duties and responsibilities are appropriately met.
11. Cumulative impacts (proposed changes elsewhere which might worsen impacts identified above)	Might related proposals from other service areas (or other changes) worsen or mitigate impacts from your proposal? Please explain these impacts.
	Any changes in Health Service provision in the city can impact particularly on those people the S.75 arrangement supports. This will be closely monitored through the integrated health agenda and other joint planning mechanisms.

Budget Equality Impact Assessment 2023/24 – Service-Users

1. Service Area	Health and Adult Social Care, Commissioning			2. Proposal No. 11
3. Head of Service	Andrew Witham
4. Budget Proposal	What is the proposal? Use the savings proposal wording and more detail if needed
	The net budget for this area is £3,441,000 and the savings proposal is £222,000. Savings have been enabled by managing contract cost for services and managing system contract costs. The savings proposals in detail are: Seeking alternative funding route for non-statutory community advocacy and community support worker contract. This element will continue. No inflationary increase to block contracts Managing inflationary uplift for community equipment service There will be no impact on front line service delivery.
5. Summary of impacts	Highlight the most significant disproportionate impacts on groups
	No disproportionate negative impacts on service-users sharing protected characteristics are identified.
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?
	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)	None identified
Gender (men and women, girls and boys)	None identified
Gender reassignment (a person who proposes to, starts or has completed a process to change gender.)	None identified
Religion or Belief (any religion or philosophical belief with a clear structure and belief system, or lack of religion or belief.)	None identified
Sexual Orientation (bisexual, gay, heterosexual and lesbian people)	None identified
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
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 services provide carer support for those caring for people at home, providing residential respite care.
9. Full EIA?	Yes
10. Monitoring and Evaluation	How will you monitor the impact of this proposal and the success of your mitigating actions on these groups over the coming year (or more)?
10. Monitoring and Evaluation	The 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? Please explain these impacts.
	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.

Budget Equality Impact Assessment 2023/24 – Service-Users

1. Service Area	EEC – City Transport – Transport Projects & Engineering - street lighting			2. Proposal No. 13
3. Head of Service	David Parker
4. Budget Proposal	What is the proposal? Use the savings proposal wording and more detail if needed
	To use savings that have been gained from the invest to save programme. This amounts to £300k reduction in management and maintenance of street lighting. These savings have been earmarked as a contribution for the Historic Street Lighting Improvement Scheme.
5. Summary of impacts	Highlight the most significant disproportionate impacts on groups
	None of the protected groups are at risk of suffering a reduction in service. Lighting units are being changed from filament bulbs to LED lights. Under the old filament bulb, when it fails the area of street will not be lit. With an LED system there are several LED units within the light, and so if a unit fails, there should be no noticeable reduction in lighting. This is ensuring safer streets. By using the funding for the Heritage Street Lights, this will continue the use of LED units throughout the city.
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?
	No actions identified
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		No further assessment required
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 further assessment required

9. Full EIA?	Not Required
10. Monitoring and Evaluation	How will you monitor the impact of this proposal and the success of your mitigating actions on these groups over the coming year (or more)?
10. Monitoring and Evaluation	We will monitor and analyse concessionary travel pass demand and maintain our regular dialogue with the bus company to ascertain the impact of this decision on their commercial decisions and any disproportionate impact that may have on any groups.
11. Cumulative impacts (proposed changes elsewhere which might worsen impacts identified above)	Might related proposals from other service areas (or other changes) worsen or mitigate impacts from your proposal? Please explain these impacts.

Budget Equality Impact Assessment 2023/24 – Service-Users

1. Service Area	EEC – City Transport - Parking Services			2. Proposal No. 15
3. Head of Service	Charles Field
4. Budget Proposal	What is the proposal? Use the savings proposal wording and more detail if needed
	· Removing all Parking pay & display machines across the city · Extend all parking restrictions across the city to 8am-8pm · Remove one hour tariff across the city so that all parking fees & charges require minimum 2 hours charge. · Introduce new parking schemes across the city as part of ongoing priority timetable. · Change low tariff zones for paid parking near the city centre to high tariff. · Conversion of all light touch schemes and event day schemes to full schemes over a 4-year period. · No consultation on light touch parking schemes in future consultations. The increases generate approximately an additional £1,436,000 income per annum of which £500,000 contributes towards EEC budget savings and the remaining £936,000 for the 3% inflationary increase requirement. This 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
	Any increase in price for fees and charges could lead to a decrease in demand from users, as the cost of parking becomes too expensive or off-putting for some. Members of the public may choose not to, or not be able to afford to, pay to park on or off-street due to price increases. This may disproportionately impact residents on lower incomes and cause an inclusion issue, as high parking charges may become a barrier to accessing facilities, services and jobs. In particular, the removal of pay & display machines is likely to lead to cases of digital exclusion, as all users will be required to register and use an app to pay for their parking; not everyone will have or be able to afford a smart phone to do this. This may create additional barriers and disadvantage for some older and/or disabled people who rely on private vehicles / visitors to access facilities and services. However, these proposals are in line with transport objectives of supporting sustainable and active transport options and reducing vehicle use in the city. Although, it is appreciated that not all disabled people can use public transport, walk or cycle to make the journeys they need to.
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?
	Officers will work to ensure any negative impacts as a result of an increase in fees are avoided 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. A discount for low-income households (based on council tax / housing benefit / universal credit) for residents’ permits is planned to be introduced. Any surplus parking income is mainly spent on providing free concessionary bus passes for elderly and disabled people to encourage alternative sustainable transport choices
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	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. Age UK report found here: lr-6064-age-uk-financial-hardship-final_v1.pdf (ageuk.org.uk) The higher tariff charges in some current parking schemes and new parking schemes being implemented 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. 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. Carers UK report found here: Research: Financial pressure of caring unpaid for a loved one intensifies over time - Carers UK	The cost of professional carers' permits and carers permits remain unchanged to reflect the positive impact this brings to all members of society.
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	Research carried out by the disability charity, 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. Scope report found here: Disability Price Tag \| Disability charity Scope UK	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. 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 free 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.
Ethnicity/Race (ethnic or national origins, colour or nationality, including refugees & migrants; and Gypsies & Travellers)	Yes	Changes to a digital payment system for parking will potentially disproportionally impact on people for who English is a second language.
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	Increase in fees will impact on those experiencing in-work poverty and who may need to drive for their employment.
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…)	N/A	See age section above re: impact on carers

9. Full EIA?	Not needed
10. Monitoring and Evaluation	How will you monitor the impact of this proposal and the success of your mitigating actions on these groups over the coming year (or more)?
10. Monitoring and Evaluation	Impact will be monitored through contract management.
11. Cumulative impacts (proposed changes elsewhere which might worsen impacts identified above)	Might related proposals from other service areas (or other changes) worsen or mitigate impacts from your proposal? Please explain these impacts.
	No

Budget Equality Impact Assessment 2023/24 – Service-Users

1. Service Area	City Environment – Cityclean, Public Toilets				2. Proposal No. 17
3. Head of Service	Rachel Chasseaud, Assistant Director – City Environment
4. Budget Proposal	What is the proposal? Use the savings proposal wording and more detail if needed
	Identify the best option for each toilet site to allow the service to operate within the agreed budget and remove the budget pressure. This will save £300,000. Under the Public Health Act 1936, local authorities in England and Wales have a power, but not a duty, to provide toilets for use by the public. Brighton & Hove City Council currently has a portfolio of 36 public toilet sites across the city. Under this proposal, each site will be reviewed to consider what the most appropriate option is for the site. The options to be considered are: keep open and introduce charging; keep open and do not introduce charging; handover to a third party; close permanently. Savings will be achieved through reductions in maintenance, energy and consumable costs, plus income generation at some sites. It is likely that charging will be introduced in the sites that are refurbished, starting with Daltons, Kings Esplanade and Station Road. Charging will also be introduced at Shelter Hall and West Pier Arches. For those that are recommended for handover, which are likely to be in parks, some may have to be closed pending handover to ensure the service does not introduce a further budget pressure.
5. Summary of impacts	Highlight the most significant disproportionate impacts on groups
	There will likely be impacts on Groups of people. The most disproportionately impacted groups will be: Age Disability Gender Rough sleepers Carers Small children
6. Assess level of impact	3: there will likely be impacts on all Groups of people
7. Key actions to reduce negative impacts	What actions are planned to reduce/avoid negative impacts and increase positive impacts?
	Publicise other toilets available, such as libraries, museums, shopping centres etc. Encourage businesses to sign up to a Community Toilet Scheme / Use Our Loo Scheme, to allow the public to use their toilets.
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	Older people may be disproportionately impacted if some public toilets are closed. Older people may have mobility issues which limit access to other toilets. They may need to use the toilet more often.	Seek to keep open as many sites as possible. Publicise other toilets available, such as libraries, museums, shopping centres etc. Encourage businesses to sign up to a Community Toilet Scheme / Use Our Loo Scheme, to allow the public to use their toilets.
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	Some people with certain disabilities may be disproportionately impacted if some public toilets are closed. People with certain disabilities may have mobility issues which limit access to other toilets. They may need to use the toilet more often.	Seek to keep open as many sites as possible. Publicise other toilets available, such as libraries, museums, shopping centres etc. Encourage businesses to sign up to a Community Toilet Scheme / Use Our Loo Scheme, to allow the public to use their toilets.
Ethnicity/Race (ethnic or national origins, colour or nationality, including refugees & migrants; and Gypsies & Travellers)	No
Gender (men and women, girls and boys)	Yes	Women and girls may be disproportionately impacted if some public toilets are closed. Women and girls may need to use the toilet more often due to being on their period or going through the menopause.		Seek to keep open as many sites as possible. Publicise other toilets available, such as libraries, museums, shopping centres etc. Encourage businesses to sign up to a Community Toilet Scheme / Use Our Loo Scheme, to allow the public to use their toilets.
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	Lower income families may be disproportionately affected if charging is introduced in some public toilets.		Publicise other toilets available, such as libraries, museums, shopping centres etc. Encourage businesses to sign up to a Community Toilet Scheme / Use Our Loo Scheme, to allow the public to use their toilets.
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	Rough sleepers may be disproportionately impacted if some public toilets are closed. They may not be able to access other toilets that are not open at certain times of the day. They may use public facilities as somewhere to wash. They may feel a greater stigma when using other facilities and may not feel welcome. Could lead to more street fouling if they have fewer places to go. Carers of young children may need more frequent access to public toilets for baby changing facilities. Small children have less control over their bladders and outings can be abruptly shortened if a child needs to use a toilet. People who are pregnant may need to use the toilet more often.		Seek to keep open as many sites as possible. Publicise other toilets available, such as libraries, museums, shopping centres etc. Encourage businesses to sign up to a Community Toilet Scheme / Use Our Loo Scheme, to allow the public to use their toilets.
9. Full EIA?	Yes
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 number of businesses signing up to a Community Toilet Scheme / Use Our Loo Scheme will be monitored. The number of complaints about charging for public toilets will be monitored. The number of reports of public defecation and urination will be monitored.
11. Cumulative impacts (proposed changes elsewhere which might worsen impacts identified above)	Might related proposals from other service areas (or other changes) worsen or mitigate impacts from your proposal? Please explain these impacts.
	N/A

Budget Equality Impact Assessment 2023/24 – Service-Users

1. Service Area	City Environment – Cityclean, Commercial Team – bulky waste				2. Proposal No. 18
3. Head of Service	Rachel Chasseaud, Assistant Director – City Environment
4. Budget Proposal	What is the proposal? Use the savings proposal wording and more detail if needed
	Increase Bulky Waste collection fees and remove the discount. This will save £10k. As a local authority, Brighton & Hove City Council has a duty to provide for the collection and disposal of household waste items. This includes the collection of bulky waste items – items too large or otherwise inappropriate for the council’s domestic waste collection service. This might include mattresses, domestic electrical items, furniture etc. The collection service allows residents to have bulky items picked up and legally disposed of, rather than having to transport the items to one of the city’s Household Waste Recycling Sites or be illegally fly tipped. The council is permitted to charge fees for these collections. The proposal to increase the cost and remove the discount will enable the service to meet its statutory responsibilities and to generate a small surplus to reinvest in services.
5. Summary of impacts	Highlight the most significant disproportionate impacts on groups
	There will likely be impacts on groups of people. The most disproportionately impacted groups will be: Age Disability People on low incomes People without access to a car
6. Assess level of impact	It is difficult to determine the level of impact as the service is demand led and customer equality data is not collected. There are many other companies that provide a similar service that someone can choose to dispose of their bulky waste, this includes free methods of disposal such as via the HWRS or through charities. It is unknown how many customers fall within the disproportionately impacted groups and historic data is not available to analyse. As an estimate, it is likely to be a small impact (2) on a moderate group of people (2). However, the data is not available to confirm this.
7. Key actions to reduce negative impacts	What actions are planned to reduce/avoid negative impacts and increase positive impacts?
	Continue to promote other means of disposing of bulky waste, such as: · donating to organisations in the city. · taking to our recycling sites. · finding a waste service on LoveJunk, an online marketplace for waste removal and reuse
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	People of all ages on low incomes may be disproportionately impacted by the proposals, particularly the elderly and young, working families who might be on lower incomes.	Continue to promote other means of disposing of bulky waste, such as: · donating to organisations in the city. · taking to our recycling sites. · finding a waste service on LoveJunk, an online marketplace for waste removal and reuse
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	Disabled people may have a lower income than other working age adults and so be disadvantaged in terms of the charges for waste. Disabled people are significantly more likely to be unemployed or in low-waged work than non-disabled people[1].	Continue to promote other means of disposing of bulky waste, such as: · donating to organisations in the city. · taking to our recycling sites. · finding a waste service on LoveJunk, an online marketplace for waste removal and reuse
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…)	Yes	People on low incomes may be disproportionately impacted by the proposals. They may not be able to afford to pay for the goods to be collected. People without access to a car may be disproportionately impacted by the proposals. They may not be able to access the HWRS to dispose of the items for free.		Continue to promote other means of disposing of bulky waste, such as: · donating to organisations in the city. · finding a waste service on LoveJunk, an online marketplace for waste removal and reuse
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)?
	Budgets will be monitored. Equality data about customers and customer feedback will be collected to understand the demand for the service. This will include anecdotal feedback from the Commercial Team during telephone calls, as to whether people decide not to proceed with the service when they are provided with a quote.
11. Cumulative impacts (proposed changes elsewhere which might worsen impacts identified above)	Might related proposals from other service areas (or other changes) worsen or mitigate impacts from your proposal? Please explain these impacts.
	Another proposal is to increase the cost of the garden waste collection service. There are other companies across Brighton & Hove who provide this service to residents. There are also potential other fee increases in other services across the council which will have an impact on the same groups as this proposal.

Budget Equality Impact Assessment 2023/24 – Service-Users

1. Service Area	City Environment – Cityclean, Commercial Team – garden waste			2. Proposal No. 19
3. Head of Service	Rachel Chasseaud, Assistant Director – City Environment
4. Budget Proposal	What is the proposal? Use the savings proposal wording and more detail if needed
	Increase the Garden Waste fee from to £85. It is estimated this will generate £125k additional income. The council currently provides a chargeable fortnightly garden waste collection to residents that sign up to the service. The proposal to increase the cost to generate a surplus to reinvest in services.
5. Summary of impacts	Highlight the most significant disproportionate impacts on groups
	There will likely be impacts on groups of people. The most disproportionately impacted groups will be: Age Disability Child Poverty People without access to a car
6. Assess level of impact	It is difficult to determine the level of impact as the service is demand led and customer equality data is not collected. There are other companies that provide garden waste collections. Residents can also dispose of their garden waste for free at one of the HWRS. It is unknown how many customers fall within the disproportionately impacted groups and data is not available to analyse. As an estimate[EM1] , it is likely to be a small impact (2) on a moderate group of people (2). However, the data is not available to confirm this.
7. Key actions to reduce negative impacts	What actions are planned to reduce/avoid negative impacts and increase positive impacts?
	Continue to promote other means of disposing of garden waste, such as taking to the HWRS or using another service.
8. Identify disproportionate impacts
Different Groups to be included in assessment	Possible disproportionate impact on group/s? YES/NO	Describe potential impact (positive effects and negative impacts or potential barriers)	Action/s (including details of a full EIA to be completed if required/relevant) Note: Actions should directly relate to the potential impacts identified.
Age (people of all ages)	Yes	People of all ages on low incomes may be disproportionately impacted by the proposals, particularly the elderly and young, working families who might be on lower incomes.	Continue to promote other means of disposing of garden waste, such as taking to the HWRS or using another service.
Disability (a physical or mental impairment which has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities)	Yes	Disabled people may have a lower income than other working age adults and so be disadvantaged in terms of the charges for waste. Disabled people are significantly more likely to be unemployed or in low-waged work than non-disabled people[2].	Continue to promote other means of disposing of garden waste, such as taking to the HWRS or using another service.

Budget Equality Impact Assessment 2023/24 – Service-Users

1. Service Area	City Environment – City Parks – Parking at Parks				2. Proposal No. 20
3. Head of Service	Rachel Chasseaud, Assistant Director – City Environment
4. Budget Proposal	What is the proposal? Use the savings proposal wording and more detail if needed
	Increase existing parking charges in some car parks in parks and introduce parking charges in parks’ car parks across the city. This will save £100,000. The proposal is to: · Increase the fees relating to the Preston Park car park to mirror those of on-street parking. (It is currently free at weekends causing displacement of parking, making it difficult for park users to use the car park) · Introduce car parking fees in other parks’ car parks across the city The proposal to introduce costs to generate a surplus to reinvest in services.
5. Summary of impacts	Highlight the most significant disproportionate impacts on groups
	There will likely be impacts on all Groups of people. The most disproportionately impacted groups will be: Age Disability People on lower incomes
6. Assess level of impact	It is difficult to determine the level of impact as it is not known how many park users travel to the city’s parks by car, nor how long they park for.
7. Key actions to reduce negative impacts	What actions are planned to reduce/avoid negative impacts and increase positive impacts?
	There is good coverage of the city by our public transport network, so there are alternatives for people wanting to access parks where car parking charges will be introduced. Active modes of travel to and from the city’s parks will also be encouraged.
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	People of all ages on low incomes may be disproportionately impacted by the proposals, particularly the elderly and young, working families who might be on lower incomes and not able to afford the parking charges.	Promote active modes of travel to the city’s parks and use of public transport
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	Disabled people may have a lower income than other working age adults and so be disadvantaged in terms of the charges for parking. Disabled people are significantly more likely to be unemployed or in low-waged work than non-disabled people[3].	Promote active modes of travel to the city’s parks and use of public transport
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…)	Yes	People on low incomes may be disproportionately impacted by the proposals. They may not be able to afford car parking charges.		Promote active modes of travel to the city’s parks and use of public transport
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)?
	Budgets will be monitored. The number of complaints about charging for parking in the city’s parks will be monitored along with the demographic of complainants. Where possible, data will be collected on park visitors’ length of stay in the car park, the number of visitors using the car park and their demographic to ascertain if there is under usage by any particular groups.
11. Cumulative impacts (proposed changes elsewhere which might worsen impacts identified above)	Might related proposals from other service areas (or other changes) worsen or mitigate impacts from your proposal? Please explain these impacts.
	N/A

Budget Equality Impact Assessment 2023/24 – Service-Users

1. Service Area	City Environment – City Parks				2. Proposal No. 21
3. Head of Service	Rachel Chasseaud, Assistant Director – City Environment
4. Budget Proposal	What is the proposal? Use the savings proposal wording and more detail if needed
	Increase the current fee for allotments. This will save £45k.
5. Summary of impacts	Highlight the most significant disproportionate impacts on groups
	Increased allotment fees may have a disproportionate impact on people living in low-income households or reduce equality of opportunity for groups who already do not use green spaces, exercise or eat healthy food less often. Data is not currently available on the protected characteristics of allotment users. There will likely be impacts on all groups of people. The most disproportionately impacted groups will be: Age Disability People on lower incomes
6. Assess level of impact	2 - Moderate impact on a small group of people
7. Key actions to reduce negative impacts	What actions are planned to reduce/avoid negative impacts and increase positive impacts?
	All allotment tenants will be notified of the proposed increase in rent and given sufficient notice of the proposed increase. A concession will continue to be offered to people over the age of 60, disabled people, full-time students and residents on lower incomes.
8. Identify disproportionate impact
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	People of all ages on low incomes may be disproportionately impacted by the proposals, particularly the elderly and young, working families who might be on lower incomes and unable to afford the fee increase.	Continue to offer concessions for people over the age of 60, full-time students and residents on lower incomes
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	Disabled people may have a lower income than other working age adults and so be more likely to be unable to afford the fees. Disabled people are significantly more likely to be unemployed or in low-waged work than non-disabled people[4].	Continue to offer a concession to people who receive long-term disability allowance
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	People on low incomes may be disproportionately impacted by the proposals. They may not be able to afford the increased charge.
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	People on low incomes may be disproportionately impacted by the proposals. They may not be able to afford the increased charge. Some protected groups are less likely to regularly access green spaces, get enough exercise, or eat fresh food etc. – there is a risk that increasing fees may place an additional barrier in the way of people benefiting from allotments in this context.		Continue to offer a concession to people on lower incomes
9. Full EIA?	Yes as equality data is unavailable for allotment 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)?
	Budgets will be monitored. The number of complaints about the increased cost of allotments will be monitored. Monitoring of allotment holders falling into arrears. Feedback from user groups Ongoing review of charges.
11. Cumulative impacts (proposed changes elsewhere which might worsen impacts identified above)	Might related proposals from other service areas (or other changes) worsen or mitigate impacts from your proposal? Please explain these impacts.
	There is potential that fees increase in other services across the council may have a cumulative impact for example the changes to parking fees at parks.

Budget Equality Impact Assessment 2023/24 – Service-Users

1. Service Area	City Environment – Cityclean, Household Waste Recycling Sites			2. Proposal No. 22
3. Head of Service	Rachel Chasseaud, Assistant Director – City Environment
4. Budget Proposal	What is the proposal? Use the savings proposal wording and more detail if needed
	Introduce charges for some types of waste at the two Household Waste Recycling Sites (HWRS). It is estimated this will save £80k. The types of waste are soil, hardcore, plasterboard, bonded asbestos and tyres.
5. Summary of impacts	Highlight the most significant disproportionate impacts on groups
	There will likely be impacts on groups of people. The most disproportionately impacted groups will be: Age Disability People on low incomes
6. Assess level of impact	4
7. Key actions to reduce negative impacts	What actions are planned to reduce/avoid negative impacts and increase positive impacts?
	Extensive communications will take place to let residents know that this charge will be applied and to forewarn them to include the cost of disposal in their budgeting for any home improvement works.
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	People of all ages on low incomes may be disproportionately impacted by the proposals, particularly the elderly and young, working families who might be on lower incomes and young people with limited income.	Communication to forewarn residents to include the cost of disposal in their home improvement budgets.
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	Disabled people may have a lower income than other working age adults and so be disadvantaged in terms of the charges for waste. Disabled people are significantly more likely to be unemployed or in low-waged work than non-disabled people[5].	Communication to forewarn residents to include the cost of disposal in their home improvement budgets.

9. Full EIA?	No
10. Monitoring and Evaluation	How will you monitor the impact of this proposal and the success of your mitigating actions on these groups over the coming year (or more)?
10. Monitoring and Evaluation	Fly tipping will be monitored Complaints will be monitored
11. Cumulative impacts (proposed changes elsewhere which might worsen impacts identified above)	Might related proposals from other service areas (or other changes) worsen or mitigate impacts from your proposal? Please explain these impacts.
	Many fee charges across the council may be impacting on the same groups of people

Budget Equality Impact Assessment 2023/24 – Service-Users

1. Service Area	Economy, Environment & Culture - Culture, Tourism & Sport –Tourism & Venues				2. Proposal No. 23
3. Head of Service	Howard Barden
4. Budget Proposal	What is the proposal? Use the savings proposal wording and more detail if needed
	Introduce a £1.50 facility fee on all ticket sales at the Brighton Centre. Reduce the annual subvention paid to the Brighton Centre from £1,334,000 to £1,268,000 (A reduction of £66,000)
5. Summary of impacts	Highlight the most significant disproportionate impacts on groups
	The introduction of a £1.50 facility fee will impact on ticket buyers; ticket buying for events is a personal decision and the facility fee will form part of the overall cost to attend the event. The overall impacts on groups will be limited. The reduction of the annual subvention will directly impact on the bottom line of the Brighton Centre and have limited impacts on protected groups. The shortfall will have to be made up through additional commercial activity or savings on additional expenditure budgets.
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 – although by introducing a £1.50 facility fee on all tickets purchased at the Brighton Centre, this may require clear and transparent comms as to the rationale for introducing a facility fee on tickets. Facility fees are generally considered as an industry standard, and many venues operate a facility fee on top of the purchase price of a ticket.
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	By introducing a £1.50 facility fee, this will marginally increase the cost to attend events at the Brighton Centre. The reduction of the annual subvention will have no impact.	None
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 introduction of a facility fee may have an impact on the affordability of attending events at the Brighton Centre for customers who are on lower incomes. Disabled People are more likely to have lower incomes and spend a greater portion of their incomes on daily living expenses and therefore have less disposal income for leisure and social activities. The reduction of the annual subvention will have no impact.	None
Ethnicity/Race (ethnic or national origins, colour or nationality, including refugees & migrants; and Gypsies & Travellers)	No	By introducing a £1.50 facility fee, this will marginally increase the cost to attend events at the Brighton Centre. The reduction of the annual subvention will have no impact.		None
Gender (men and women, girls and boys)	No	By introducing a £1.50 facility fee, this will marginally increase the cost to attend events at the Brighton Centre. The reduction of the annual subvention will have no impact.		None
Gender reassignment (a person who proposes to, starts or has completed a process to change gender.)	No	By introducing a £1.50 facility fee, this will marginally increase the cost to attend events at the Brighton Centre. The reduction of the annual subvention will have no impact.		None
Religion or Belief (any religion or philosophical belief with a clear structure and belief system, or lack of religion or belief.)	No	By introducing a £1.50 facility fee, this will marginally increase the cost to attend events at the Brighton Centre. The reduction of the annual subvention will have no impact.		None
Sexual Orientation (bisexual, gay, heterosexual and lesbian people)	No	By introducing a £1.50 facility fee, this will marginally increase the cost to attend events at the Brighton Centre. The reduction of the annual subvention will have no impact.		None
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	By introducing a £1.50 facility fee, this will marginally increase the cost to attend events at the Brighton Centre. The reduction of the annual subvention will have no impact.		None
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	By introducing a £1.50 facility fee, this will marginally increase the cost to attend events at the Brighton Centre. The introduction of a facility fee may have an impact on the affordability of attending events at the Brighton Centre for customers who are on lower incomes. The reduction of the annual subvention will have no impact.		None
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)?
	Ticket sales – monitoring of all ticket sales, especially more marginal/less popular events.
11. Cumulative impacts (proposed changes elsewhere which might worsen impacts identified above)	Might related proposals from other service areas (or other changes) worsen or mitigate impacts from your proposal? Please explain these impacts.
	Other services across the council are likely to be increasing charges/fees and therefore households/individuals on low/fixed incomes may be impacted by multiple proposals.

Budget Equality Impact Assessment 2023/24 – Service-Users

1. Service Area	Economy, Environment & Culture - Culture, Tourism & Venues			2. Proposal No. 24
3. Head of Service	Howard Barden
4. Budget Proposal	What is the proposal? Use the savings proposal wording and more detail if needed
	Stop the work of Visitor Services, including answering all visitor enquiries made by phone and email, cessation of the VisitBrighton volunteer Greeter Scheme, the City Champions Scheme and loss of 14 official Visitor Information Points across the city.
5. Summary of impacts	Highlight the most significant disproportionate impacts on groups
	Stopping the work of Visitor Services, would mean: •Closure of 14 official Visitor Information Points (VIPs) across the city. •Loss of service responding to visitor enquiries made by telephone and email. •Loss of the VisitBrighton volunteer Greeter Scheme. •Loss of the VisitBrighton City Champions Programme. The impacts will be on both residents and visitors to the city in terms of contact, signposting and information giving. Brighton & Hove welcomes 12.37 million visitors, of which 1.67 million usually stay overnight. The Visitor Economy is worth just under £1billion (£976.4m) in economic benefit and supports more than 24,000 jobs in the city, which equates to 17.5% of all employee jobs in Brighton & Hove. (source: Economic Impact of Tourism 2019) Some of the key impacts will be: Potential negative impact on the economic value of the Visitor economy with the loss of business and leisure tourism. Loss of access to visitor information for residents and visitors who are unable to navigate digital information or who have specific information requests in order to facilitate their trip, which can often be related to accessibility (older people, disabled people, international visitors whose first language is not English) Loss of connectivity within the City’s businesses engaged in tourism and VisitBrighton partners. Reputational issues, as this would send a message that Brighton & Hove are devaluing the visitor economy. This proposal will also have an impact on staff currently operating Visitor Services – a separate analysis of staffing impacts will be undertaken in relation to budget proposals.
6. Assess level of impact	Medium - 3
7. Key actions to reduce negative impacts	What actions are planned to reduce/avoid negative impacts and increase positive impacts?
	None. Accessibility support and promotion would be left solely to the businesses and attractions.
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	Loss of access to Citywide information to our residents and visitors. More older visitors to the City who have difficulty accessing digital information are most likely to use the telephone and email service currently offered by Visitor Services. Similarly, more older visitors are likely to use the Visitor Information Points, which distribute printed literature including City Maps; cessation of the service will mean Visitor Information Points are deleted as the current postholder trains VIP staff and collates and supplies materials to them on a regular basis.	None - this is stopping a service, and therefore the impacts cannot be mitigated.
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	Loss of access to Citywide information to our residents and visitors. Visitors with a disability will often require information specific to their own needs. They are likely to use the telephone and email service currently offered by Visitor Services to answer very specific questions.	None - this is stopping a service, and therefore the impacts cannot be mitigated.

9. Full EIA?	Yes
10. Monitoring and Evaluation	How will you monitor the impact of this proposal and the success of your mitigating actions on these groups over the coming year (or more)?
10. Monitoring and Evaluation	N/A
11. Cumulative impacts (proposed changes elsewhere which might worsen impacts identified above)	Might related proposals from other service areas (or other changes) worsen or mitigate impacts from your proposal? Please explain these impacts.
	No

Budget Equality Impact Assessment 2023/24 – Service-Users

1. Service Area	EEC/CTS/Sport & Leisure/Seafront			2. Proposal No. 25
3. Head of Service	Mark Fisher
4. Budget Proposal	What is the proposal? Use the savings proposal wording and more detail if needed
	Increase the seafront property income target/budget by £40,000 achieved by new lettings, lease renewals and rent reviews.
5. Summary of impacts	Highlight the most significant disproportionate impacts on groups
	None
6. Assess level of impact	1 = minimal impact on small number of people
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.)	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…)	None
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)?

11. Cumulative impacts (proposed changes elsewhere which might worsen impacts identified above)	Might related proposals from other service areas (or other changes) worsen or mitigate impacts from your proposal? Please explain these impacts.
	Cost of living and inflation increase will impact on seafront businesses along with all other residents. Rent reviews are generally undertaken based on market rates and comparable but are always static or upwards. This is written into the lease agreements so is standard practice at the time the rent review is due – usually every 5 years.

Budget Equality Impact Assessment 2023/24 – Service-Users

1. Service Area	EEC/CLT/Sport & Leisure/Seafront			2. Proposal No. 26
3. Head of Service	Mark Fisher
4. Budget Proposal	What is the proposal? Use the savings proposal wording and more detail if needed
	To change the Beach Hut administration fee from £82 to a transfer fee of 10% of the sale price of the beach hut or £2,500 whichever is lower. Beach huts are currently for sale with a guide price or have sold for between £29,000 - £38,000. The beach huts are privately owned, and the owner pays an annual licence to place the hut on council land. The annual licence fee payable to the council is currently £457.82 including VAT. There is no mechanism in the current licences for increasing the administration charge / transfer fee. The only option available to the council if it wishes to adopt this proposal is to terminate the licences and let new licences on different terms to the beach hut owners. This would require the consent of the owners. The new licences would contain modernised terms including the new transfer fee. If beach hut owners do not agree to the new terms, the council can ultimately terminate the licence and remove the hut from the site. The council would have to threaten to do this to secure the agreement of the owners to the new terms.
5. Summary of impacts	Highlight the most significant disproportionate impacts on groups
	A beach hut can only be bought by residents of Brighton & Hove. The terms of the licence state the hut cannot be re-sold for a minimum of 3 years after purchase – except under extenuating circumstances. All existing beach hut owners would be impacted by this proposal but only if/when they choose to sell their beach hut. Profit from the sale of the hut will be less for those who have recently bought a beach hut (minimum of 3 years ago) as the prices for huts have been increasing in recent years. However, they are likely to have spent less on maintenance. Under the current licence terms it is possible that beach huts are bought as investments to profit from the increasing value of council owned land.
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?
	This proposal will only impact beach hut owners if/when they choose to sell their beach hut. The seller is liable for the current administration fee. At the time of sale, the owner is likely to profit considerably from the increase in the value of the hut which is purely as a result of market forces and the desirability of the location on the seafront which is council owned land. Using a percentage (10%) of the sale price to calculate the fee payable makes it fairer for hut owners whose hut may not command the highest price, i.e, if it is not in the most popular location.
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…)	None
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)?
	Sales will be monitored and reported as usual.
11. Cumulative impacts (proposed changes elsewhere which might worsen impacts identified above)	Might related proposals from other service areas (or other changes) worsen or mitigate impacts from your proposal? Please explain these impacts.
	If the annual licence fee is also increased at the same time and by more than the corporate inflation rate Beach Hut owners might feel that they are being unfairly targeted. However, ownership of a beach hut could be a luxury and is only available to a small section of residents who can afford to purchase one.

Budget Equality Impact Assessment 2023/24 – Service-Users

1. Service Area	Economy, Environment & Culture - Culture, Tourism & Sport – Sport & Leisure / Tourism & Venues			2. Proposal No. 27
3. Head of Service	Ian Baird
4. Budget Proposal	What is the proposal? Use the savings proposal wording and more detail if needed
	Introduction of £1.50 facilities charge on all outdoor event tickets
5. Summary of impacts	Highlight the most significant disproportionate impacts on groups
	Likely to discourage smaller community events with limited ticketing administration Would push ticket cost beyond acceptable levels for many highly pressured audiences reducing attendance
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?
	Reduction of the fee or exclusion of community/charity events would be advantageous.
8. Identify disproportionate impacts
Different Groups to be included in assessment	Possible disproportionate impact on group/s? YES/NO	Describe potential impact (positive effects and negative impacts or potential barriers)	Action/s (including details of a full EIA to be completed if required/relevant) Note: Actions should directly relate to the potential impacts identified.
Age (people of all ages)	No
Disability (a physical or mental impairment which has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities)	No

1. Service Area	Specialist Community Disability Service			2. Proposal No. 2
3. Head of Service	Alison Mills-Clarke
4. Budget Proposal	What is the proposal? Use the savings proposal wording and more detail if needed
	To increase the amount of Continuing Health Care (CHC) funding for the children and young people we are supporting with complex needs up to the age of 18. Many of the children and young people who are in specialist placements or who receive other specialist support are being fully funded through the local authority. A proportion of this cohort have significant health needs which we believe should be funded through the Continuing Health Care budget administered through the Integrated Care Board. We currently benchmark poorly against our statistical nearest neighbours for CHC funding which suggests that there is an opportunity to access a greater level of funding through making further applications for CHC funding for individual CYP. In addition, where we have not been successful in achieving the funding appeals will be lodged with the ICB. Savings to be achieved using this approach is £200,000.
5. Summary of impacts	Highlight the most significant disproportionate impacts on groups
	This saving should not have an impact upon individuals’ packages of support as it is purely a funding issue, the package of support identified through the child or young person’s care plan should not change it is only how it is funded that will. The funding form CHC might be for the whole package of support or be part of a dual funded agreement by the ICB and the local authority. There is a positive impact to this change as if it funded through the CHC then more specialist care will be provided in line with the needs of the individual.
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?
	There are no negative impacts, but the positive impact is that the child or young person will receive more specialist care provided by a more highly skilled and trained workforce.
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 measure will impact upon CYP between the ages of 5-18. Positive impact is that the child or young person will receive more specialist care provided by a more highly skilled and trained workforce
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	Health needs will be better managed in the home environment and in the community rather than in the hospital. This will also support families and improve the quality of family life.

Ethnicity/Race (ethnic or national origins, colour or nationality, including refugees & migrants; and Gypsies & Travellers)	No	Approximately 19.7% of the CYP supported by SCDS are from black and minority ethnic communities. The 2011 census showed 21% of the under 18 population in Brighton and Hove are from a BME background.
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

Ethnicity/Race (ethnic or national origins, colour or nationality, including refugees & migrants; and Gypsies & Travellers)	Unknown	Service user data by ethnicity is unavailable and therefore impact cannot be determined.
Gender (men and women, girls and boys)	yes	Impact on women Any reduction in childcare provision disproportionately affects women who tend to take responsibility for these arrangements. The childcare workforce is overwhelmingly female	Where childcare provision closes we refer families to the Family Information Service for support in finding an alternative. Ensure families can access family hub services. 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	The early childhood project, Brighton Unemployed Families Project and Oasis all run in Tarner children’s centre area with a focus on supporting disadvantaged children.	Services offered via family hubs focussed on disadvantaged children and families. Family Hub network linked to Tarner Children Centre and providing services. Ensure families can access family hub services.
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	Oasis provides support to women experiencing substance misuse issues.	Support Oasis delivery via family hub services. Ensure families can access family hub services.

9. Full EIA?	Further assessment required and data on service users is limited and therefore impact needs further investigation.
10. Monitoring and Evaluation	How will you monitor the impact of this proposal and the success of your mitigating actions on these groups over the coming year (or more)?
10. Monitoring and Evaluation	Family hubs will have robust equality monitoring processes in place and will work with partner agencies to ensure ongoing support via family hub model.
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? Please explain these impacts.
	Changes to nursery may impact on childcare provision.

1. Service Area	FCL - Early Years and Childcare, Brightstart Nursery			2. Proposal No. 6
3. Head of Service	Jo Templeman
4. Budget Proposal	What is the proposal? Use the savings proposal wording and more detail if needed
	The existing building requires significant building works as identified in the conditions report. To ensure the safety of the building and ensure it is suitable for Early Years provision there will be high repair costs which would need budgeting. It is proposed for closure or alternative model out of Tarner CC to be considered. There is a significant amount of alternative provision within two miles of Bright Start with 42 PVI's within 2 miles and 5 maintained nurseries/nursery classes, most of which is open all year round and takes children from birth however Bright Start is also a provider of EYFE for eligible two-year-olds.
5. Summary of impacts	Highlight the most significant disproportionate impacts on groups
	Equalities impact: Child Poverty –17 % of the children attending are eligible for EYPP, or 2 years funded childcare and 25% live in 10% IDACI Disability – 38% of the children attending are SEND Staff redundancies. Impact on access to childcare for funded 2-year-old, EYPP and ASF children Equalities impact for women and young children.
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?
	Other council departments detailed below and including social care to be made aware of the need for alternative provision from the planned closure date. Early planning with key professionals working with families, particularly for vulnerable children, those with SEND and BAME families. All families to be supported by Family Information Service (FIS) to access alternative places in nearby nurseries if required.
8. Identify disproportionate impacts
Different Groups to be included in assessment	Possible disproportionate impact on group/s? YES/NO	Describe potential impact (positive effects and negative impacts or potential barriers)	Action/s (including details of a full EIA to be completed if required/relevant) Note: Actions should directly relate to the potential impacts identified.
Age (people of all ages)	Yes	The nursery is attended by children aged under 5 years, with services users/customers across all ranges (parents, carers and grandparents)
Disability (a physical or mental impairment which has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities)	Yes	18 children (38%) attending are identified with additional or special educational and/or medical needs, this includes 3 children who have additional support funding with a 1-1 worker.	Work with Brighton and Hove Inclusion Support Service (BHISS) to identify alternative provision for children with SEND

1. Service Area	Health and Adult Social Care: Provider Services			2. Proposal No. 12
3. Head of Service	Michelle Jenkins
4. Budget Proposal	What is the proposal? Use the savings proposal wording and more detail if needed
	The budget for this area is £6,511,000 and the proposed saving is £264,000 This is proposed to be achieved by: · increasing fees and charges to services (£52,000) · external rental income for an area of one of the buildings and increasing long term beds to enhance client contributions (£212,000)
5. Summary of impacts	Highlight the most significant disproportionate impacts on groups
	The savings proposal in relation to increased fees and charges will impact on people who use the service who pay full cost, meaning they self-fund their care. This would increase the cost for in house residential and home care for this client group. The impact on these individuals would be that their services, if provided by in house services, would be more expensive per hour (for home care) and per week (for residential care). However, this group would have been financially assessed as having the funds to pay these costs. This group also have the option of receiving social care from the independent sector, though costs are comparable.
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?
	Charges for social care are means tested and provide protection for people on low incomes.
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 services provide support for those mainly over 65 years of age.
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 services provide support for those with mental health needs, including dementia.

1. Service Area	EEC – City Transport - Parking Services – concessionary travel			2. Proposal No. 14
3. Head of Service	Charles Field
4. Budget Proposal	What is the proposal? Use the savings proposal wording and more detail if needed
	Reduce Concessionary Travel payments to align with current patronage levels
5. Summary of impacts	Highlight the most significant disproportionate impacts on groups
	The reduction of payments to bus companies for Concessionary travel passes issued is not actually reducing travel or number of passes issued. It would reduce the payments to the bus companies to reflect the current usage which is estimated to currently be at 70% to 75% of pre pandemic levels. The risk of this is that bus companies may choose to remove commercially marginal bus services which may have an impact on users.
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?
	Any surplus parking income is mainly spent on providing free concessionary bus passes for elderly and disabled people to encourage alternative sustainable transport choices. The proposed reduction in payments for concessionary travel is to reflect the current patronage figures which are lower than before the pandemic. The hours residents of Brighton and Hove can use an older person’s concessionary travel pass were 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 were 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
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 proposal may lead to bus companies choosing to remove commercially marginal bus services which may have an impact on users.	If taken forward discussions would need to take place with the bus company to outlines the Council concerns. This is also linked to the potential supported bus services funding reductions from the Council.
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 proposal may lead to bus companies choosing to remove commercially marginal bus services which may have an impact on users.	If taken forward discussions would need to take place with the bus company to outlines the Council concerns. This is also linked to the potential supported bus services funding reductions from the Council.

1. Service Area	EEC – City Transport - Traffic Management – winter gritting			2. Proposal No. 16
3. Head of Service	Andrew Westwood
4. Budget Proposal	What is the proposal? Use the savings proposal wording and more detail if needed
	Reviewing the Winter Service to increase efficiency and reduce costs, including Agency costs and impacts on wider Council operations. A review is planned to commence in early 2023 and will involve consultation with staff and service users
5. Summary of impacts	Highlight the most significant disproportionate impacts on groups
	There is no impact on any protected groups as the change will not affect the service users.
6. Assess level of impact	0
7. Key actions to reduce negative impacts	What actions are planned to reduce/avoid negative impacts and increase positive impacts?
	None
8. Identify disproportionate impacts
Different Groups to be included in assessment	Possible disproportionate impact on group/s? YES/NO	Describe potential impact (positive effects and negative impacts or potential barriers)	Action/s (including details of a full EIA to be completed if required/relevant) Note: Actions should directly relate to the potential impacts identified.
Age (people of all ages)	no
Disability (a physical or mental impairment which has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities)	no

1. Service Area	Housing Needs & Supply			2. Proposal No. 28
3. Head of Service	Paul Cooper, Assistant Director Housing Needs & Supply
4. Budget Proposal	What is the proposal? Use the savings proposal wording and more detail if needed
	Private Sector Housing & Integrated Housing Adaptations Service (Savings: £70k) Reduction in baseline budget because of bringing part of the service in-house
5. Summary of impacts	Highlight the most significant disproportionate impacts on groups
	Impact is minimal. This has been an underspend in 2022/23 after part of the service being brough in-house in year with no impact to the service. The projected £70k is based on a full year saving, operating the service at the current level
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	N/A	N/A
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	N/A	N/A

1. Service Area	Housing Needs & Supply			2. Proposal No. 29
3. Head of Service	Paul Cooper, Assistant Director Housing Needs & Supply
4. Budget Proposal	What is the proposal? Use the savings proposal wording and more detail if needed
	Temporary Accommodation · Full year effect of the reductions made in 2022/23, including reduced block booked by 45 (Savings: £725k) · Reduce need for 25 block booked properties by 31/10/23 (Savings: £593k) · Improvement to void turnaround times. Reduces rent loss and council tax costs (Savings: £70k) · Better Income Collection (Savings: £90k)
5. Summary of impacts	Highlight the most significant disproportionate impacts on groups
	Impact is minimal from an equality’s perspective. This is a statutory service which is driven by demand (i.e., households who are homeless or threatened with homelessness and are owed a housing duty (both interim and main). Although there is a risk in delivering this saving – especially in the context of an increased risk of homelessness due to the Cost-of-Living Crisis – the statutory duty remains. The risk is a financial one and is not equalities related.
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	N/A	N/A
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	N/A	N/A

1. Service Area	Libraries Services HNC			2. Proposal No. 30
3. Head of Service	Sally McMahon and Kate Rouse
4. Budget Proposal	What is the proposal? Use the savings proposal wording and more detail if needed
	Reduce staffed opening hours in all community libraries to a maximum of two days a week, running them as Libraries Extra for the other days where this is possible. The staffed days would vary across the city to ensure that there is a library open with staff within a reasonable traveling distance on every day of the week.
5. Summary of impacts	Highlight the most significant disproportionate impacts on groups
	Children under 16 cannot use Libraries Extra alone, so the decrease in staffed days in community libraries and increase in Libraries Extra will disadvantage them. Some neurodiverse adults and adults with a Learning Disability may wish to have support when using a library and this would be unavailable during Libraries Extra times
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?
	Spread the staffed days in community libraries evenly across the city so that there is a staffed library within reasonable travelling distance, if more local library is operating as Libraries Extra. Consider recruiting volunteers to help library users self-serve when libraries operate as Libraries Extra. Subject to H&S and safeguarding assessments.
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	Children under 16 cannot use Libraries Extra alone, so the decrease in staffed days in community libraries and increase in Libraries Extra will disadvantage them.	Spread the staffed days in community libraries evenly across the city so that there is a staffed library within reasonable travelling distance, if more local library is operating as Libraries Extra.
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	Some neurodiverse adults and adults with a Learning Disability may wish to have support when using a library and this would be unavailable during Libraries Extra times	Spread the staffed days evenly across the city so that there is a staffed library within reasonable travelling distance, if more local library is operating as Libraries Extra. Consider recruiting volunteers to help library users self-serve when libraries operate as Libraries Extra. Subject to H&S and safeguarding assessments.

1. Service Area	Safer Communities HNC			2. Proposal No. 31
3. Head of Service	Jo Player
4. Budget Proposal	What is the proposal? Use the savings proposal wording and more detail if needed
	Agreed reduction in staff hours Increase discretionary licensing fees by 6% rather than corporate rate of inflation Cease field officer service with some reallocation of resource to statutory services
5. Summary of impacts	Highlight the most significant disproportionate impacts on groups
	No significant disproportionate impact on any one group
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?
	Reallocation of some resource from field officer service to other statutory services and other administration priority areas.
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