An EIA toolkit, workshop content, and guidance for completing an Equality Impact Assessment (EIA) form are available on the EIA page of the EDI Internal Hub. Please read these before completing this form.
For enquiries and further support if the toolkit and guidance do not answer your questions, contact your Equality, Diversity, and Inclusion (EDI) Business Partner as follows:
· Economy, Environment and Culture (EEC) – Chris Brown,
· Families, Children, and Learning (FCL) – Jamarl Billy,
· Governance, People, and Resources (GPR) – Eric Page.
· Health and Adult Social Care (HASC) – Zofia Danin,
· Housing, Neighbourhoods, and Communities (HNC) – Jamarl Billy
Processing Time:
· EIAs can take up to 10 business days to approve after a completed EIA of a good standard is submitted to the EDI Business Partner. This is not considering unknown and unplanned impacts of capacity, resource constraints, and work pressures on the EDI team at the time your EIA is submitted.
· If your request is urgent, we can explore support exceptionally on request.
· We encourage improved planning and thinking around EIAs to avoid urgent turnarounds as these make EIAs riskier, limiting, and blind spots may remain unaddressed for the ‘activity’ you are assessing.
Process:
· Once fully completed, submit your EIA to your EDI Business Partner, copying in your Head of Service, Business Improvement Manager (if one exists in your directorate), Equalities inbox, and any other relevant service colleagues to enable EIA communication, tracking and saving.
· When your EIA is reviewed, discussed, and then approved, the EDI Business Partner will assign a reference to it and send the approved EIA form back to you with the EDI Manager or Head of Communities, Equality, and Third Sector (CETS) Service’s approval as appropriate.
· Only approved EIAs are to be attached to Committee reports. Unapproved EIAs are invalid.
Throughout this form, ‘activity’ is used to refer to many different types of proposals being assessed.
Read the EIA toolkit for more information.
|
Weed Management |
|
|
Directorate: |
Economy, Environment & Culture |
|
Service: |
City Environment |
|
Team: |
City Clean |
|
Is this a new or existing activity? |
N/A – This is the first EIA completed for weed management |
|
Are there related EIAs that could help inform this EIA? Yes or No (If Yes, please use this to inform this assessment) |
No |
|
Responsible Lead Officer: |
Lynsay Cook, Head of Strategy & Service Improvement |
|
Accountable Manager: |
Melissa Francis, Head of Cityclean Operations |
|
Additional stakeholders collaborating or contributing to this assessment: |
City Environment officers Equalities, Diversity & Inclusion Team |
Briefly describe the purpose of the activity being assessed:
|
In November 2019, the Environment, Transport & Sustainability Committee agreed that City Environmental Management services end the use of glyphosate with immediate effect other than in exceptional cases to kill invasive plant species, such as Japanese Knotweed or to kill tree stumps. Committee was advised it would not be possible to remove all weeds from highways and pavements manually and there would be more visible weeds for longer periods of time.
Since 2019, Cityclean has been using manual methods of weed removal while looking at other alternative weed control techniques. Feedback suggests that the manual approach is not sufficient for managing weeds across the city. Therefore, a Weed Management Report is to be presented to City Environment, South Downs & The Sea (CESS) Committee in January 2024. Committee is being asked to agree either:
To continue with the current policy on weed management and instruct the council’s City Environmental Management Services to continue to use manual techniques to manage and remove weeds from across the city, as described more fully in paragraphs 3.17 to 3.19 of the main report. This is until a cost-effective and viable non-glyphosate option is available. Or Subject to approval at Budget Council, to amend the current policy to support the use of glyphosate to manage weeds on all hard surfaces and instruct the council’s City Environmental Management Services to engage with contractors to use a controlled-droplet application to manage and remove weeds from across the city in 2024/25, as described more fully in paragraphs 3.21 to 3.24 and 3.28 to 3.29 of the main report. Further to this, Committee agrees to delegate authority to the Executive Director – Economy, Environment & Culture, in consultation with the Committee Chair, to determine the most effective approach for weed management in future years based on the outcomes achieved in 2024/25. Or Subject to approval from Budget Council, to amend the current policy to support the use of glyphosate to manage weeds on all hard surfaces and instruct the council’s City Environmental Management Services to engage with contractors to use traditional glyphosate to manage and remove weeds from across the city in 2024, as described more fully in paragraphs 3.25 to 3.29 of the main report. This will be subject to a review in winter 2024 to see if there is an option to move to a controlled-droplet application for 2025. Further to this, Committee agrees to delegate authority to the Executive Director – Economy, Environment & Culture, in consultation with the Committee Chair, to determine the most effective approach for weed management in future years based on the outcomes achieved in 2024.
This EIA should be read in conjunction with the Weed Management Report and appendices being presented to Committee.
Glyphosate is the active substance in many herbicides (weed killers) and is widely used around the world. It is a non-selective, systemic herbicide and was first used in the UK in 1976. Glyphosate is effective in controlling most weed species, including perennials and grasses in many situations, including amenity, forestry, aquatic and industrial situations. Since it is approved for use in many countries, it has been subjected to extensive testing and regulatory assessment in the EU, USA and elsewhere and by the World Health Organisation.
As indicated in the main report, there are differing views on whether glyphosate is safe to use given the reported impact on human beings and wildlife.
|
What are the desired outcomes of the activity?
|
This EIA has been prepared to help inform the decision making of the CESS Committee in relation to weed management. The EIA should be read in conjunction with Weed Management Report presented to CESS Committee on 23 January 2023. The council must meet its statutory duty to maintain a safe and usable highway network. The council also has commitments following the declaration of climate and biodiversity emergencies in 2018. |
Which key groups of people do you think are likely to be affected by the activity?
|
All residents and visitors to the city. |
What consultations or engagement activities have already happened that you can use to inform this assessment?
· For example, relevant stakeholders, groups, people from within the council and externally consulted and engaged on this assessment. If no consultation has been done or it is not enough or in process – state this and describe your plans to address any gaps.
|
A Weed Working Group was set up and met in October 2023 to carry out a ‘vertical slice’ consultation, with stakeholders from every aspect and at relevant level to form part of the working group. The stakeholders included councillors, officers from Cityclean, City Parks, Highways and Biodiversity, plus Pesticide Action Network UK and a local resident. The range of perspectives and experiences from this meeting was extremely useful. The outcome of this Working Group is the Weed Management Report to Committee to make a decision on future weed management. |
Do you currently collect and analyse the following data to enable monitoring of the impact of this activity? Consider all possible intersections.
(Delete and indicate as applicable from the options Yes, No, Not Applicable)
|
Age |
No |
|
Disability and inclusive adjustments, coverage under equality act and not |
No |
|
Ethnicity, ‘Race’, ethnic heritage (including Gypsy, Roma, Travellers) |
No |
|
Religion, Belief, Spirituality, Faith, or Atheism |
No |
|
Gender Identity and Sex (including non-binary and Intersex people) |
No |
|
Gender Reassignment |
No |
|
Sexual Orientation |
No |
|
Marriage and Civil Partnership |
No |
|
Pregnant people, Maternity, Paternity, Adoption, Menopause, (In)fertility (across the gender spectrum) |
No |
|
Armed Forces Personnel, their families, and Veterans |
No |
|
Expatriates, Migrants, Asylum Seekers, and Refugees |
No |
|
Carers |
No |
|
Looked after children, Care Leavers, Care and fostering experienced people |
No |
|
Domestic and/or Sexual Abuse and Violence Survivors, and people in vulnerable situations (All aspects and intersections) |
No |
|
Socio-economic Disadvantage |
No |
|
Homelessness and associated risk and vulnerability |
No |
|
Human Rights |
No |
|
Another relevant group (please specify here and add additional rows as needed) |
No |
Additional relevant groups that may be widely disadvantaged and have intersecting experiences that create exclusion and systemic barriers may include:
· Ex-offenders and people with unrelated convictions
· Lone parents
· People experiencing homelessness
· People facing literacy and numeracy barriers
· People on a low income and people living in the most deprived areas
· People who have experienced female genital mutilation (FGM)
· People who have experienced human trafficking or modern slavery
· People with experience of or living with addiction and/ or a substance use disorder (SUD)
· Sex workers
If you answered “NO” to any of the above, how will you gather this data to enable improved monitoring of impact for this activity?
|
Some data is gathered through formal complaints and compliments from residents and visitors. City Environmental Management does not have data split by protected characteristics to assess intersectional, cumulative, or direct impacts other than through analysing of complaints and compliments feedback content from residents. This is shared below. It is recognised this a data gap and the council and service need to explore improved data gathering that enables more informed impact analysis and decision-making. Since 2019, the council has received: · Six compliments to the Customer Feedback Team about the new, manual approach to weed management, including: · “I love seeing more wildflowers and long grasses in my neighbourhood”. · “there are many of us who love seeing such an abundance of plant life thriving in our city”. · Five Stage 1 complaints about the decision not to use pesticides, and suggesting the manual approach to weed removal is not effective. · 51 Stage 1 complaints about the state of pavements / highways and overgrown weeds, suggesting the council is not doing enough to manage weeds. · One Stage 1 complaint about removing weeds from a resident’s street as they were “providing miniature nature reserves”.
Of the Stage 1 complaints received: · Five were concerned about weeds causing trip hazards for the elderly. · Two were concerned about weeds and the impact on disabled people. · One commented on the issues caused by weeds for wheelchair users and those with walkers and other mobility aids. · One commented that their elderly mother had tripped and had to visit hospital due to weeds. · One parent commented that they sometimes had to go into the road with their pushchair, with another commenting they struggle to get their pushchair “through the gap”. · One commented on the issues caused by the weeds for those with wheelchairs and pushchairs.
One of the options presented in the report to CESS Committee is to use glyphosate to manage the weeds on the city’s highways and pavements. If this method is approved, it can be argued that highways and pavements will be less hazardous for certain groups of people in terms of slips, trips, and falls. If the council continues to manage weeds manually, not all weeds will be removed, and some areas will be more hazardous.
Two insurance claims, relating to slips, trips, or falls due to weeds, have been made to the council since 2019 to the time of writing. Of these two claims, one was settled, and the claimant was awarded £210. For the other, council liability was denied.
|
What are the arrangements you and your service have for monitoring, and reviewing the impact of this activity?
|
City Environment will continue to review the feedback it receives in relation to weed management, following a decision being made by CESS Committee.
If Committee agrees to the use of herbicide / glyphosate, appropriate monitoring arrangements will be put in place with the contractor. This will include, for example, ensuring the contractor complies with the Control of Pesticides Act 1986 and any new legislation introduced during the contract duration. Furthermore, daily updates will be provided by the contractor, including the work completed and what is planned. City Environment will undertake inspections of the work completed by the contractor on a regular basis.
The council and service need to improve data gathering and analysis through equality and intersectional lenses as a service to improve future insights and decision-making, addressing any assumptions and gaps in data today due to lack of protected characteristics and extended equalities data gathering.
|
Advisory Note:
· Impact:
o Assessing disproportionate impact means understanding potential negative impact (that may cause direct or indirect discrimination), and then assessing the relevance (that is: the potential effect of your activity on people with protected characteristics) and proportionality (that is: how strong the effect is).
o These impacts should be identified in the EIA and then re-visited regularly as you review the EIA every 12 to 18 months as applicable to the duration of your activity.
· SMART Actions mean: Actions that are (SMART = Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic, T = Time-bound)
· Data analysis and Insights:
o In each protected characteristic or group, in answer to the question ‘If “YES”, what are the positive and negative disproportionate impacts?’, describe what you have learnt from your data analysis about disproportionate impacts, stating relevant insights and data sources.
o Find and use contextual and wide ranges of data analysis (including community feedback) to describe what the disproportionate positive and negative impacts are on different, and intersecting populations impacted by your activity, especially considering for Health inequalities, review guidance and inter-related impacts, and the impact of various identities.
o For example: If you are doing road works or closures in a particular street or ward – look at a variety of data and do so from various protected characteristic lenses. Understand and analyse what that means for your project and its impact on different types of people, residents, family types and so on. State your understanding of impact in both effect of impact and strength of that effect on those impacted.
· Data Sources:
o Consider a wide range (including but not limited to):
§ Census and local intelligence data
§ Service specific data
§ Community consultations
§ Insights from customer feedback including complaints and survey results
§ Lived experiences and qualitative data
§ Joint Strategic Needs Assessment (JSNA) data
§ Good practice research
§ National data and reports relevant to the service
§ Workforce, leaver, and recruitment data, surveys, insights
§ Feedback from internal ‘staff as residents’ consultations
§ Insights, gaps, and data analyses on intersectionality, accessibility, sustainability requirements, and impacts.
§ Insights, gaps, and data analyses on ‘who’ the most intersectionally marginalised and excluded under-represented people and communities are in the context of this EIA.
· Learn more about the Equality Act 2010 and about our Public Sector Equality Duty.
|
Does your analysis indicate a disproportionate impact relating to any particular Age group? For example: those under 16, young adults, with other intersections. |
Yes |
If “YES”, what are the positive and negative disproportionate impacts?
Please share relevant insights from data and engagement to show how conclusions about impact have been shaped. Include relevant data sources or references.
|
Negative: Of the complaints received since 2019, five were specifically concerned about weeds causing trip hazards for the elderly. A further complaint commented that their elderly mother had tripped and had to visit hospital due to weeds. This suggests that the current approach to weed removal could have a negative disproportionate impact on a particular Age group, with large and unmanaged weeds causing trip hazards and obstructions for the elderly.
|
|
Does your analysis indicate a disproportionate impact relating to Disability, considering our anticipatory duty? |
Yes |
If “YES”, what are the positive and negative disproportionate impacts?
Please share relevant insights from data and engagement to show how conclusions about impact have been shaped. Include relevant data sources or references.
|
Negative: Of the complaints received since 2019, two were specifically concerned about weeds causing trip hazards for disabled people. A further complaint commented on the issues caused by weeds for wheelchair users and those with walkers and other mobility aids. Another commented on the issues caused by the weeds for those with wheelchairs [and pushchairs]. This suggests that the current approach to weed removal could have a negative disproportionate impact on disabled people, with large and unmanaged weeds causing trip hazards and obstructions for those who are blind, partially sighted, have mobility issues or for those using wheelchairs or mobility scooters.
|
What inclusive adjustments are you making for diverse disabled people impacted? For example: D/deaf, deafened, hard of hearing, blind, neurodivergent people, those with non-visible disabilities, and with access requirements that may not identify as disabled or meet the legal definition of disability, and have various intersections (Black and disabled, LGBTQIA+ and disabled).
|
As 5.2 above. |
|
Does your analysis indicate a disproportionate impact relating to ethnicity? |
No |
If “YES”, what are the positive and negative disproportionate impacts?
Please share relevant insights from data and engagement to show how conclusions about impact have been shaped. Include relevant data sources or references.
|
N/A |
|
Does your analysis indicate a disproportionate impact relating to Religion, Belief, Spirituality, Faith, or Atheism? |
No |
If “YES”, what are the positive and negative disproportionate impacts?
Please share relevant insights from data and engagement to show how conclusions about impact have been shaped. Include relevant data sources or references.
|
N/A |
|
Does your analysis indicate a disproportionate impact relating to Gender Identity and Sex (including non-binary and intersex people)? |
No |
If “YES”, what are the positive and negative disproportionate impacts?
Please share relevant insights from data and engagement to show how conclusions about impact have been shaped. Include relevant data sources or references.
|
N/A |
|
Does your analysis indicate a disproportionate impact relating to Gender Reassignment? |
No |
If “YES”, what are the positive and negative disproportionate impacts?
Please share relevant insights from data and engagement to show how conclusions about impact have been shaped. Include relevant data sources or references.
|
N/A |
|
Does your analysis indicate a disproportionate impact relating to Sexual Orientation? |
No |
If “YES”, what are the positive and negative disproportionate impacts?
Please share relevant insights from data and engagement to show how conclusions about impact have been shaped. Include relevant data sources or references.
|
N/A |
|
Does your analysis indicate a disproportionate impact relating to Marriage and Civil Partnership? |
No |
If “YES”, what are the positive and negative disproportionate impacts?
Please share relevant insights from data and engagement to show how conclusions about impact have been shaped. Include relevant data sources or references.
|
N/A |
|
Does your analysis indicate a disproportionate impact relating to Pregnant people, Maternity, Paternity, Adoption, Menopause, (In)fertility (across the gender spectrum)? |
Yes |
If “YES”, what are the positive and negative disproportionate impacts?
Please share relevant insights from data and engagement to show how conclusions about impact have been shaped. Include relevant data sources or references.
|
Negative: Of the complaints received since 2019, one parent commented that they sometimes had to go into the road with their pushchair, with another commenting they struggle to get their pushchair “through the gap”. A further complainant commented on the issues caused by the weeds for those with [wheelchairs] and pushchairs. This suggests that the current approach to weed removal could have a negative disproportionate impact on parents and carers of small children, with large and unmanaged weeds causing obstructions for those using pushchairs and prams.
|
|
Does your analysis indicate a disproportionate impact relating to Armed Forces Members and Veterans? |
No |
If “YES”, what are the positive and negative disproportionate impacts?
Please share relevant insights from data and engagement to show how conclusions about impact have been shaped. Include relevant data sources or references.
|
N/A |
|
Does your analysis indicate a disproportionate impact relating to Expatriates, Migrants, Asylum seekers, Refugees, those New to the UK, and UK visa or assigned legal status? (Especially considering for age, ethnicity, language, and various intersections) |
No |
If “YES”, what are the positive and negative disproportionate impacts?
Please share relevant insights from data and engagement to show how conclusions about impact have been shaped. Include relevant data sources or references.
|
N/A |
|
Does your analysis indicate a disproportionate impact relating to Carers (Especially considering for age, ethnicity, language, and various intersections). |
Yes |
If “YES”, what are the positive and negative disproportionate impacts?
Please share relevant insights from data and engagement to show how conclusions about impact have been shaped. Include relevant data sources or references.
|
Negative: Of the complaints received since 2019, two complainants referred to the issues caused by weeds for wheelchair users which, in turn, could cause issues for anyone pushing the wheelchair. This suggests that the current approach to weed removal could have a negative disproportionate impact on carers, with large and unmanaged weeds causing obstructions for those supporting wheelchair users.
|
|
Does your analysis indicate a disproportionate impact relating to Looked after children, Care Leavers, Care and fostering experienced children and adults (Especially considering for age, ethnicity, language, and various intersections). Also consider our Corporate Parenting Responsibility in connection to your activity. |
No |
If “YES”, what are the positive and negative disproportionate impacts?
Please share relevant insights from data and engagement to show how conclusions about impact have been shaped. Include relevant data sources or references.
|
N/A |
|
Does your analysis indicate a disproportionate impact relating to people experiencing homelessness, and associated risk and vulnerability? (Especially considering for age, veteran, ethnicity, language, and various intersections) |
No |
If “YES”, what are the positive and negative disproportionate impacts?
Please share relevant insights from data and engagement to show how conclusions about impact have been shaped. Include relevant data sources or references.
|
N/A |
|
Does your analysis indicate a disproportionate impact relating to Domestic Abuse and Violence Survivors, and people in vulnerable situations (All aspects and intersections)? |
No |
If “YES”, what are the positive and negative disproportionate impacts?
Please share relevant insights from data and engagement to show how conclusions about impact have been shaped. Include relevant data sources or references.
|
N/A |
|
Does your analysis indicate a disproportionate impact relating to Socio-economic Disadvantage? (Especially considering for age, disability, D/deaf/ blind, ethnicity, expatriate background, and various intersections) |
No |
If “YES”, what are the positive and negative disproportionate impacts?
Please share relevant insights from data and engagement to show how conclusions about impact have been shaped. Include relevant data sources or references.
|
N/A |
|
Will your activity have a disproportionate impact relating to Human Rights? |
No |
If “YES”, what are the positive and negative disproportionate impacts?
Please share relevant insights from data and engagement to show how conclusions about impact have been shaped. Include relevant data sources or references.
|
N/A |
What cumulative or complex impacts might the activity have on people who are members of multiple Minoritised groups?
· For example: people belonging to the Gypsy, Roma, and/or Traveller community who are also disabled, LGBTQIA+, older disabled trans and non-binary people, older Black and Racially Minoritised disabled people of faith, young autistic people.
· Also consider wider disadvantaged and intersecting experiences that create exclusion and systemic barriers:
o People experiencing homelessness
o People on a low income and people living in the most deprived areas
o People facing literacy and numeracy barriers
o Lone parents
o People with experience of or living with addiction and/ or a substance use disorder (SUD)
o Sex workers
o Ex-offenders and people with unrelated convictions
o People who have experienced female genital mutilation (FGM)
o People who have experienced human trafficking or modern slavery
|
There may be complex impacts for residents who are disabled and older, or disabled parents/carers or those who have other intersections contributing towards mobility issues. |
What SMART actions will be taken to address the disproportionate and cumulative impacts you have identified?
· Summarise relevant SMART actions from your data insights and disproportionate impacts below for this assessment, listing appropriate activities per action as bullets. (This will help your Business Manager or Fair and Inclusive Action Plan (FIAP) Service representative to add these to the Directorate FIAP, discuss success measures and timelines with you, and monitor this EIA’s progress as part of quarterly and regular internal and external auditing and monitoring)
|
1. SMART Action 1: Continue to review the feedback received in relation to weed management |
|
2. SMART Action 2: Explore how intersectional equalities data gathering and analysis and, in turn, decision making can be improved with regards to weed management |
Which action plans with the identified actions be transferred to?
· For example: FIAP (Fair and Inclusive Action Plan) – mandatory noting of the EIA on the Directorate EIA Tracker to enable monitoring of all equalities related actions identified in this EIA. This is done as part of FIAP performance reporting and auditing. Speak to your Directorate’s Business Improvement Manager (if one exists for your Directorate) or to the Head of Service/ lead who enters actions and performance updates on FIAP and seek support from your Directorate’s EDI Business Partner.
|
This action has been added to the City Environmental Management Improvement Programme. Note: if a contractor is to be used for weed management, biodiversity and sustainability mitigations will be managed through contract management. |
What decision have you reached upon completing this Equality Impact Assessment? (Mark ‘X’ for any ONE option below)
|
Stop or pause the activity due to unmitigable disproportionate impacts because the evidence shows bias towards one or more groups. |
|
|
Adapt or change the activity to eliminate or mitigate disproportionate impacts and/or bias. |
|
|
Proceed with the activity as currently planned – no disproportionate impacts have been identified, or impacts will be mitigated by specified SMART actions. |
|
|
Proceed with caution – disproportionate impacts have been identified but having considered all available options there are no other or proportionate ways to achieve the aim of the activity (for example, in extreme cases or where positive action is taken). Therefore, you are going to proceed with caution with this policy or practice knowing that it may favour some people less than others, providing justification for this decision. |
X |
If your decision is to “Proceed with caution”, please provide a reasoning for this:
|
This EIA has been prepared to help inform the decision making of the CESS Committee in relation to weed management. The EIA has identified some disproportionate negative impacts and some possible positive impacts that should be read in conjunction with Weed Management Report presented to CESS Committee on 23 January 2023. |
Summarise your overall equality impact assessment recommendations to include in any committee papers to help guide and support councillor decision-making:
|
This EIA has been prepared to help inform the decision making of the CESS Committee in relation to weed management. The EIA has identified some disproportionate negative impacts and some possible positive impacts that should be read in conjunction with Weed Management Report presented to CESS Committee on 23 January 2024.
If the decision is to use herbicide / glyphosate, then the limitations of manual weed removal may be mitigated and all areas could widely be weed-free potentially leading to less slips, trips, and falls or other risks and hazards for those who may be elderly, disabled, wheelchair and pushchair users or be impacted in another way due to the presence of weeds on pavements and other areas.
|
All Equality Impact Assessments will be published. If you are recommending, and choosing not to publish your EIA, please provide a reason:
|
N/A |
|
Signatory: |
Name and Job Title: |
Date: DD-MMM-YY |
|
Responsible Lead Officer: |
Lynsay Cook, Head Strategy & Service Improvement at City Environment |
03-Jan-24 |
|
Accountable Manager: |
Melissa Francis, Head of Cityclean Operations |
03-Jan-24 |
Notes, relevant information, and requests (if any) from Responsible Lead Officer and Accountable Manager submitting this assessment:
|
|
EDI Business Partner to cross-check and indicate which aims of the equality duty, public sector duty and our civic responsibilities the EIA activity meets (enter Y/N/comments for all applicable options):
|
Y |
Eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment and victimisation and other conduct prohibited by the Equality Act. (i.e., the activity removes or minimises disadvantages suffered by different people due to their protected characteristics under the Act and beyond) |
|
Y |
Advance equality of access, opportunity, and representation of voice between those who share a protected characteristic and those who do not. (i.e., the activity takes steps to meet the needs of different people from protected groups under the Equality Act (and beyond) where these are different from the needs of other people) |
|
Y |
Creating community cohesion - Foster good relations between people who share a protected characteristic and those who do not. (i.e., the activity encourages different people from protected groups under the Equality Act (and beyond) to participate in public life or in other activities where their participation is disproportionately low) |
|
Y – impact identified, recommendation made |
Sustainability checklist elements and supporting pragmatic achievement of Carbon Neutral goals. Refer to the sustainability checklist. |
|
Y |
Addressing and providing inclusive and reasonable adjustments, and/ or meeting our anticipatory duties as a public sector provider, employer, and local authority. |
|
Y |
Addressing and removing health inequalities. Meeting the BHCC Joint Health and Wellbeing Strategy. |
|
N/A |
Consider if any corporate parental responsibilities are impacted, for example for care experienced people. |
|
N/A |
Creating social value and community wealth. |
|
N/A – Should source from sustainable and eco-friendly suppliers |
Creates and proactively considers for more inclusive and diverse suppliers, commissioned providers, procured service providers and/ or another procurement and commissioning outcome. Refer to our social value framework guidance and guidance around procurement and commissioning. |
|
Y – but with data and engagement improvements identified |
Meeting our core priority actions, strategic themes of engagement, data, policy, and procedure and workstream activities in the Fair & Inclusive Action Plan (FIAP), Our council plan, Our strategic approach, Workforce Equality reports, Performance Management Framework, and Council-wide Equality Strategies such as Anti-Racism, Accessible City, Gender and more. Also refer to the EDI Internal Hub. |
|
Y – potentially |
Creates efficiencies, savings, improves public spending, and has other positive budgetary outcomes or impacts in the public interest and/ or for our people. |
|
Y – for some |
Improves our people and/ or user experience, creating equity of access, opportunity, experiential, and wellbeing outcomes. |
EIA Reference number assigned: EEC62-03-Jan-24 -Weed-Management
For example, HNC##-25-Dec-23-Home-Energy-Saving-Landlord-Scheme
Once the EDI Business Partner has checked the above have been considered for by those submitting the EIA for approval, they will get the EIA signed off and send to the requester copying the Head of Service, Business Improvement Manager, Equalities inbox, any other service colleagues as appropriate to enable EIA tracking and saving.
|
Signatory: |
Name: |
Date: DD-MMM-YY |
|
EDI Business Partner: |
Chris Brown |
03-Jan-24 |
|
EDI Manager: |
Sabah Holmes |
03-Jan-24 |
|
Head of Communities, Equality, and Third Sector (CETS) Service: (For Budget EIAs/ in absence of EDI Manager/ as final approver) |
N/A |
|
Notes and recommendations from EDI Business Partner reviewing this assessment:
|
Approved |
Notes and recommendations (if any) from EDI Manager reviewing this assessment:
|
Approved |
Notes and recommendations (if any) from Head of CETS Service reviewing this assessment:
|
N/A |