Stop unauthorised encampments work. There is no statutory duty to undertake this work.

Summarise the most significant impacts identified by this assessment including which groups will be disproportionally negatively affected drawing out intersectional impacts as applicable:

The Encampments Team was set up 18 months ago because unauthorised encampment enquiries were being passed around different parts of the Council (housing, estates, seafront, highways, parks etc) and there was a lack of co-ordination and ownership. Without that co-ordination there is a risk of encampment ghettos if enquiries are not responded to quickly enough.

The current Encampment Team (2 officers) can provide a rapid response service offering welfare support advice and sign posting as well as enforcement action by co-ordinating the relevant services. The service helps the council meet its homelessness strategy by early interventions and stopping unauthorised encampments becoming problematic. Without that service it would need to be picked up by the relevant “land managers”.

Removing the unauthorised encampments team means there will be no service co-ordinating the council's front-line response to persons living in tents and vehicles in public spaces, at a time of rising homelessness. This includes taking enforcement action if there is associated anti-social behaviour.

The encampment team’s records show 118 new cases being recorded between July 1^st and September 30^th and stakeholder outcome records show 87 active cases between July 1^st and September 30^th. New cases will vary as some will be recorded prior to these dates however remain active during this period.

This proposal will increase pressure on land managers and commissioned outreach services.

Unauthorised encampments does not include Gypsy, Roma and Travellers, who are supported by the Traveller Liaison Team.

Early engagement with other council departments on the impact of this proposal and the Police and Crime Commissioner.

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

With the stopping of the service there is no intention to try and capture equality data of people who might to have been engaged with by the team other than that which is recorded by other services such as the commissioned homelessness outreach service delivered by Change, Grow, Live (CGL).

There are no arrangements for monitoring and reviewing the impact of this proposal as there will be no one central point for that information to be gathered and analysed. It is probably that the council will get feedback from residents, councillors, businesses and other partners service about people in unauthorised encampments. However, this will go into the council through various different services/land managers across the council.

Assess impact for different population groups

Is there a possible disproportionate negative impact?

State Yes or No

Describe the potential negative impact, considering for differences within groups For example, different ethnic groups, and peoples intersecting identities e.g. disabled women of faith

OR

If no impact is identified, briefly state why.

Age

including those under 16, young adults, multiple ethnicities, those with various intersections.

Unknown

Due to lack of data collected locally and available nationally it is not possible to determine if one specific equality group will be disproportionally impacted.

Disability includes physical and sensory disabled, D/deaf, deafened, hard of hearing, blind, neurodiverse people, people with non-visible disabilities.

Unknown

Due to lack of data collected locally and available nationally it is not possible to determine if one specific equality group will be disproportionally impacted.

Nationally, it is recognised that people with disabilities or mental health conditions, are disproportionately represented among the homeless populations. Although there is no local data it could reasonably be assumed that some of the local tent and vehicle dwellers are disabled or have long term and/or fluctuating health conditions including mental health.

Ethnicity, ‘Race’, ethnic heritage including Gypsy, Roma, Travellers

Unknown

Due to lack of data collected locally and available nationally it is not possible to determine if one specific equality group will be disproportionally impacted.

Religion, Spirituality, Faith, Atheism, and philosophical belief

Unknown

Due to lack of data collected locally and available nationally it is not possible to determine if one specific equality group will be disproportionally impacted.

Gender and Sex including non-binary and intersex people

Unknown

Due to lack of data collected locally and available nationally it is not possible to determine if one specific equality group will be disproportionally impacted.

It would be reasonable to conclude that women in unauthorised encampments may be at higher risk of vulnerability, violence and exploitation. However, we do not know the number/proportion of women in tens or vehicles in the city.

Gender Reassignment

Unknown

Due to lack of data collected locally and available nationally it is not possible to determine if one specific equality group will be disproportionally impacted.

Sexual Orientation

Unknown

Due to lack of data collected locally and available nationally it is not possible to determine if one specific equality group will be disproportionally impacted.

Marriage and Civil Partnership

Unknown

Due to lack of data collected locally and available nationally it is not possible to determine if one specific equality group will be disproportionally impacted.

Pregnancy, Maternity, Paternity, Adoption, Menopause, (In)fertility (across intersections and non-binary gender spectrum)

Unknown

Due to lack of data collected locally and available nationally it is not possible to determine if one specific equality group will be disproportionally impacted.

Armed Forces Personnel, their families, and Veterans

Unknown

Due to lack of data collected locally and available nationally it is not possible to determine if one specific equality group will be disproportionally impacted.

Expatriates, Migrants, Asylum Seekers, and Refugees considering for age, language, and various intersections

Unknown

Due to lack of data collected locally and available nationally it is not possible to determine if one specific equality group will be disproportionally impacted.

Carers considering for age, language, and various intersections

Unknown

Due to lack of data collected locally and available nationally it is not possible to determine if one specific equality group will be disproportionally impacted.

Looked after children, Care Leavers, Care and fostering experienced people considering for age, language, and various intersections

Unknown

Due to lack of data collected locally and available nationally it is not possible to determine if one specific equality group will be disproportionally impacted.

Domestic and/or sexual abuse and violence survivors

Unknown

Due to lack of data collected locally and available nationally it is not possible to determine if one specific equality group will be disproportionally impacted.

Socio-economic disadvantage considering for age, disability, D/deaf/ blind, ethnicity, expatriate background, and various intersections

Unknown

Due to lack of data collected locally and available nationally it is not possible to determine if one specific equality group will be disproportionally impacted.

Based on informal evidence from local services and the encampment team it can reasonably be concluded that people living in vehicles may be doing so due to cost of living pressures. Individuals living in tents and vehicles are likely to be experiencing extreme poverty and complex needs, which can intersect with other protected characteristics, worsening inequalities.

Homeless and rough sleepers considering for age, veteran, ethnicity, language, and various intersections

Yes

People sleeping rough die younger, are more likely to get ill and are more vulnerable to violence than those in the wider population. The unauthorised encampments team co-ordinates the front-line response to people living in tents and vehicles in public spaces. Removing the team will have a disproportionately negative impact on this group of people.

Human Rights

No

Another relevant group (please specify here and add additional rows as needed)

Yes

Based on informal evidence from local services and the encampment team it can reasonably be concluded that people living in tents/vehicles are more likely to have multiple complex needs. This alongside other intersectionality such as disability, ethnicity, sexual orientation will make some people using this service more vulnerable than others to its ending.

 Potentially any other budget proposals that impact on people with socio-economic disadvantage, homeless people and people with multiple complex needs.

SMART action 1: the council’s land managers will be trained up in the process and procedure for managing unauthorised encampments an/or people living in vehicles, on public land

SMART action 2:  All statutory partners will be informed of the ceasing of the service and directed to the council’s land managers.

Proposal’s impact score:

Potentially 4 - unknown due to lack of equality data, however likely will impact most people with multiple complex needs and/or in socio-economic disadvantage and struggling with the cost of living, with a potential risk for women.

Signatory:

Name and Job Title:

Date:

Responsible Lead Officer:

Pete Wileman, Community Safety Manager

14/01/25

Accountable Manager:

Anna Gianfrancesco, Director – Commissioning & Communities

14/01/25

Subject to local consultation, a proposed £210k saving from reduction in staffed hours at Jubilee and Hove libraries and closure of up to three community libraries.

Reduction in opening hours to remove one late night and Sunday afternoon hours at Jubilee and Saturday afternoon hours at Hove. £69k part savings in 2025-26. Full savings from April 2026.

These times have been identified as the quietest times of the week in those libraries, therefore having the least impact on customer use.

An analysis is being conducted of the use of each library and the needs of the local residents to identify those libraries whose closure would have least impact on customers.

Most community libraries are open on Sundays with Libraries Extra access. Their opening hours would also reduce, as the management support for them would cease on Sunday afternoons.

Summarise the most significant impacts identified by this assessment including which groups will be disproportionally negatively affected drawing out intersectional impacts as applicable:

The proposed libraries affected are part of the council’s statutory library provision

In reducing opening hours at the city’s two principal libraires and closing up to three community libraries, the council must be satisfied that it continues to meet its statutory duty to provide a comprehensive service to the city.

This can be achieved through completion of a needs assessment, local consultation, an Equalities Impact Assessment, and a series of mitigations to ensure that local people have access to the statutory library services in the city.

Those in employment with traditional working hour (9-5) or people with caring responsibilities could be negatively impacted, due to the reduction in access at the weekend and evenings. This is mitigated by retaining three late openings in the week (one at Hove and two at Jubilee) and retaining full day Saturday and half day Sunday opening at Jubilee.

University and college students make up a high proportion of visitors to Jubilee, particularly in exam periods; this change could impact their use of the study spaces. 

Those less able to travel could be disproportionately impacted by the closures, as they may need to travel further to access library services. Those with disabilities, caring responsibilities, older people and families with young children could be negatively impacted.

This is mitigated by retaining 10 libraries across the city, maintaining a geographic spread. Jubilee and Hove Libraries will maintain services 6 days/week, including three late openings/week (one at Hove and two at Jubilee). Libraries Extra enables customers to access libraries when they are unstaffed which contributes to the accessibility of services in the city.

Unaccompanied children (under 16 years old) cannot use Libraries Extra, so this would not mitigate the Jubilee and Hove Libraries’ hours reductions for this group. Disabled customers could also find Libraries Extra more challenging to access than staffed libraries. Alternative mitigations could be put in place, such as community book collections and activities. A full range of online services, with free access to e-books and e-audio, are available 24/7.

The Home Delivery Service delivers library resources direct to the homes of those who cannot come to a library due to disability or caring responsibilities.

Libraries. A needs analysis would be conducted to understand the potential impact of the changes for residents. This would include analysis of travel times between libraries, areas of deprivation, demographic data etc.   

 The government Department for Culture, Media and Sport requires a public consultation period, to engage with residents, users and non-users, for any proposals to reduce library services. It is proposed the opening hour changes and libraries closures are included in one public consultation which will run for 12 weeks in the spring/summer of 2025. This is likely to be a survey on Your Voice (the council’s on-line consultation platform) and more specific engagement with partners and stakeholders for each of the libraries affected.

We will consider how to target seldom-heard or marginalised groups, exploring options for accessible formats for disabled people, non-digital engagement for those without internet access, and inclusive language for people with different literacy or language needs. We will also analyse our consultation feedback/data intersectionally where possible.  

Library staff at several levels will be affected by the proposals and a consultation with over 60 colleagues will be required, once the public consultation has closed, likely to be summer/autumn 2025.

Once results are collated and shared, final decisions will be confirmed and at least one month’s notice given to the public regarding changes, likely to be autumn/winter 2025.

Age

Yes

Disability and inclusive adjustments, coverage under equality act and not

Yes

Ethnicity, ‘Race’, ethnic heritage (including Gypsy, Roma, Travellers)

Yes

Religion, Belief, Spirituality, Faith, or Atheism

Yes

Gender Identity and Sex (including non-binary and Intersex people)

Yes

Gender Reassignment

Yes

Sexual Orientation

Yes

Marriage and Civil Partnership

Yes

Pregnant people, Maternity, Paternity, Adoption, Menopause, (In)fertility (across the gender spectrum)

Yes

Armed Forces Personnel, their families, and Veterans

Yes

Expatriates, Migrants, Asylum Seekers, and Refugees

Yes

Carers

Yes

Looked after children, Care Leavers, Care and fostering experienced people

Yes

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)

Not applicable

Data is gathered by Library Management System when customers join the library. Not all points above have all been covered for the full period of time the service has been collecting data.

Staff data is managed through BHCC HR systems.

Numbers of visitors and items loaned at libraries affected.

Feedback via comments and complaints.

Informal engagement with partners and stakeholders.

Formal consultation with staff, 1:1s, team meetings.

Data and feedback will be monitored by the Libraries Senior Management Team and reported to the Communities and Commissioning Director and Senior Leadership Team.

Assess impact for different population groups

Is there a possible disproportionate negative impact?

State Yes or No

Describe the potential negative impact, considering for differences within groups For example, different ethnic groups, and peoples intersecting identities e.g. disabled women of faith

OR

If no impact is identified, briefly state why.

Age

including those under 16, young adults, multiple ethnicities, those with various intersections.

Yes

Unaccompanied children (under 16 year old) cannot use Libraries Extra, so this being available in community libraries will not mitigate loss of opening hours in Jubilee and Hove libraries and would have limited impact in areas where their library has closed.

A high number of customers are students or older people; the changes are likely to impact them disproportionately.

Younger children and young people may not be able to travel independently to access a library further from their home. Families may find it more difficult to visit libraries further from their home or school.  

Disability includes physical and sensory disabled, D/deaf, deafened, hard of hearing, blind, neurodiverse people, people with non-visible disabilities.

Yes

Brighton & Hove has an aging population and a significant proportion of residents with long-term health conditions, mental health issues, or disabilities.  

Disabled customers may not be able to travel independently to access a library further from their home. They may also face additional costs through the increased travel especially people who need to use a private vehicle for travel. Disabled households are already more likely to be under greater financial strain due lower income and greater household costs.  

They could find Libraries Extra more challenging to use than staffed library services, so this being available in community libraries will have limited impact in areas where their library has closed and will not mitigate loss of opening hours in Jubilee and Hove libraries. 

Ethnicity, ‘Race’, ethnic heritage including Gypsy, Roma, Travellers

Yes

Certain Black and racially minoritised communities may be disproportionately affected, dependent on the demographic of the areas affected by library closures.

Religion, Spirituality, Faith, Atheism, and philosophical belief

Possible

Considering for the intersection of faith and ethnicity some faith communities may be disproportionately affected dependent on the demographic of the areas affected by library closures.   

Potential for additional impact on women as predominantly primary child carers, especially for young children. Lack of a local library facility could disproportionately impact on women. Community libraries provide a neutral safe social space for women with young children

Gender and Sex including non-binary and intersex people

Yes

Potential for additional impact on women as predominantly primary child carers, especially for young children. Lack of a local library facility could disproportionately impact on women. Community libraries provide a neutral safe social space for women with young children

Gender Reassignment

No

Sexual Orientation

No

Marriage and Civil Partnership

No

Pregnancy, Maternity, Paternity, Adoption, Menopause, (In)fertility (across intersections and non-binary gender spectrum)

No

Armed Forces Personnel, their families, and Veterans

No

Expatriates, Migrants, Asylum Seekers, and Refugees considering for age, language, and various intersections

No

Carers considering for age, language, and various intersections

Yes

Carers may have restrictions in the times and days they can access services, therefore a reduction in access hours could disproportionately affect their use of services.

Looked after children, Care Leavers, Care and fostering experienced people considering for age, language, and various intersections

No

Domestic and/or sexual abuse and violence survivors

No

Socio-economic disadvantage considering for age, disability, D/deaf/ blind, ethnicity, expatriate background, and various intersections

Yes

Customers at a socio-economic disadvantage may be less able to pay for travel to alternative provision.

Homeless and rough sleepers considering for age, veteran, ethnicity, language, and various intersections

Yes

There are a number of vulnerably or un-housed customers who regularly use Jubilee Library as a safe, warm space, particularly in winter. Any reduction in opening hours could disproportionately affect this group.

Human Rights

No

Another relevant group (please specify here and add additional rows as needed)

N/A

 The proposed closure of community libraries could worsen the impacts of this proposal. It may also compound other service proposals from across the council that impact on older people, disabled people and people from socio-economic disadvantage.

SMART action 1: The Home Delivery Service could mitigate reduced access by delivering library resources direct to customers’ homes, for disabled customers and customers with caring responsibilities.

SMART action 2:  Monitoring the impact through data collection enables the service to focus remaining resources in areas of need. For example, if the number of families using the service were to drop, staff could prioritise working with schools and clubs in community library areas, to encourage sign up to Libraries Extra for families.

SMART action 3: Libraries Extra enables BHCC libraries to offer services in customer’s communities and provides a far higher number of accessible hours than most other library services. Libraries Extra services could be promoted across the city to increase use.

SMART action 4: clear and timely communications with customers and non-users in advance of the changes will enable customers to engage with the service early and identify alternative options before the change happens, e.g. signing customers up to Libraries Extra.

SMART action 5: explore the feasibility of creating a programme of stakeholder engagement activities to inform the Libraries Services Management team over the coming years on changes to libraries services to ensure meet statutory duty, remain inclusive and accessible with resource pressures.

SMART action 6: Revisit how we communicate/advertise Libraries Extra and the Home Delivery Service considering for proactively communication to affected communities about how to sign up and use these services. 

Proposal’s impact score:

3

Signatory:

Name and Job Title:

Date:

Responsible Lead Officer:

Ceris Howard

27/01/25

Accountable Manager:

Anna Gianfrancesco

27/01/25

 The removal of a 1.0 FTE Independent Reviewing Officer (M7) saving on the Safeguarding and Reviewing Service Budget.

This will provide a saving of £80k.

This equates to a 3.5% saving on the whole budget for the Safeguarding and Reviewing Service (SARS) of £861,700.

This will be achieved through not recruiting to existing vacancies during 2025

Summarise the most significant impacts identified by this assessment including which groups will be disproportionally negatively affected drawing out intersectional impacts as applicable:

Brighton & Hove City Council (BHCC) has a statutory duty to provide a quality and assurance role in Children’s Services. The Safeguarding and Review Service (SARS) team include statutory roles of Independent Reviewing Officers (IROs) for all Children in the care (CIC) of BHCC. And the Child Protection Reviewing Officers (CPROs) oversee the plans for children at risk of significant harm in Brighton & Hove.

These proposals would not impact upon the threshold for children to come into the care system or decisions on who should be subject to Child Protection Plans.

Current SARS position;

·         8.8 FTE covering 258 Child Protection Plans and 343 CIC. This equates to mixed caseload of 68 children.

·         After the savings the team would be 7.8 FTE. This equates to mixed caseload of 77 children.

A CPRO/ IRO would expect to carry 50 to 70 CIC or up to 100 child protection cases. As a 50/50 caseload this would be around 80. Therefore the savings would not increase caseloads beyond expected levels. (National IRO Handbook recommends caseload between 50 and 70 of CIC)

No consultation is planned, however work has been undertaken and continues with SARS, social work teams and managers to look at how we continue to provide an excellent service to children and families to help them make changes where possible and to provide the right alternative plans if change cannot be achieved. Consultation with Children and Families happens individually at every level of service interaction and is within current recording policies. Wider consultation with Service Users happens through our feedback surveys. We also engage fully with gathering ad hoc feedback, sent via Customer Feedback Team, and report on that alongside any complaints process learning quarterly through our QA Audit reports to Performance Board.

Age

Yes

Disability and inclusive adjustments, coverage under equality act and not

Yes

Ethnicity, ‘Race’, ethnic heritage (including Gypsy, Roma, Travellers)

Yes

Religion, Belief, Spirituality, Faith, or Atheism

Yes

Gender Identity and Sex (including non-binary and Intersex people)

Yes

Gender Reassignment

Yes

Sexual Orientation

Yes

Marriage and Civil Partnership

Not applicable

Pregnant people, Maternity, Paternity, Adoption, Menopause, (In)fertility (across the gender spectrum)

Yes

Armed Forces Personnel, their families, and Veterans

Not applicable

Expatriates, Migrants, Asylum Seekers, and Refugees

Yes

Carers

Yes

Looked after children, Care Leavers, Care and fostering experienced people

Yes

Domestic and/or Sexual Abuse and Violence Survivors, and people in vulnerable situations (All aspects and intersections)

Yes

Socio-economic Disadvantage

Yes

Homelessness and associated risk and vulnerability

Yes

Human Rights

Not applicable

Another relevant group (please specify here and add additional rows as needed)

Substance Misuse

Yes

Armed Forces data is not currently gathered or reported as not related to children however for parents this can be reviewed.

This will be monitored through monthly performance meetings for the Family Help and Protection Senior Leadership Team as well as quarterly Directorate Performance Board.

Assess impact for different population groups

Is there a possible disproportionate negative impact?

State Yes or No

Describe the potential negative impact, considering for differences within groups For example, different ethnic groups, and peoples intersecting identities e.g. disabled women of faith

OR

If no impact is identified, briefly state why.

Age

including those under 16, young adults, multiple ethnicities, those with various intersections.

yes

These proposals will impact on families and children, with the greatest impact being on children under 18. These children will be among the most vulnerable children in the city, including those assessed to be in need, at risk of significant harm or to be in care. This is due to the inevitable caseload rise for Child Protection Reviewing Officers and Independent Reviewing Officers.

Disability includes physical and sensory disabled, D/deaf, deafened, hard of hearing, blind, neurodiverse people, people with non-visible disabilities.

yes

Children with disabilities are over-represented in our services. 23% of children in need are disabled children compared with 19% of children residents of the city.

Ethnicity, ‘Race’, ethnic heritage including Gypsy, Roma, Travellers

yes

29% of children in need are Black or from the Global Majority. Black and Global Majority children are over-represented as Children in Need (22% of school aged children in the city).  This is especially the case for children of mixed heritage or from Gypsy, Roma, Traveller backgrounds. Children who identify as Asian or Asian British are under-represented as children in need.

Religion, Spirituality, Faith, Atheism, and philosophical belief

yes

The over representation of Black and Global Majority children in our system implies an impact also on people relating to religious and philosophical belief.

Gender and Sex including non-binary and intersex people

Yes

A number of children in need identify as non-binary or trans, up to 4% in the latest data, in comparison to 1% of children residents in the city. These young people will often have additional complex needs and vulnerabilities.

Gender Reassignment

See box above

Sexual Orientation

Yes

We believe that children who identify as LGBTQ+ are overrepresented within our services although data on sexual orientation and children is not clearly defined for safeguarding reasons.

Marriage and Civil Partnership

N/A

N/A

Pregnancy, Maternity, Paternity, Adoption, Menopause, (In)fertility (across intersections and non-binary gender spectrum)

Yes

The social work teams support pregnant parents, completing pre-birth assessments and offering support to parents so that they can meet the needs of their children.

Armed Forces Personnel, their families, and Veterans

Unknown

Data is not collected from service users regarding if they are armed forces families

Expatriates, Migrants, Asylum Seekers, and Refugees considering for age, language, and various intersections

Yes

Unaccompanied asylum-seeking children (UASC) are supported by dedicated teams that are not effected by this budget saving proposal. However this may affect the Independent Reviewing Officers capacity to ensure good oversight of that support.

Carers considering for age, language, and various intersections

Yes

Young Carers are by definition Children in Need and part of our support services. They could be affected if they are also under a Child Protection Plan or are Looked After Children with the reduction in oversight from the SARS Team.

Looked after children, Care Leavers, Care and fostering experienced people considering for age, language, and various intersections

yes

Approximately a quarter of children open to social work services are children in care and will be directly impacted by these proposals.

Domestic and/or sexual abuse and violence survivors

yes

Domestic violence is the most common factor identified in the assessments of children in need. Children and parents who have experienced domestic violence will be disproportionately impacted by these proposals.  Children may also be in need due to having experienced sexual abuse, for example 4% of children protection plans are currently under the category of sexual abuse.

Socio-economic disadvantage considering for age, disability, D/deaf/ blind, ethnicity, expatriate background, and various intersections

yes

Children in need are more likely to have come from families in poverty, therefore any cuts in services that impact on children in need will impact on those children affected by childhood poverty

Homeless and rough sleepers considering for age, veteran, ethnicity, language, and various intersections

Yes

Families in need are more likely to have experienced homelessness or insecure housing and so will be disproportionately impacted by these proposals.

Human Rights

N/A

N/A

Another relevant group Substance Misuse

Yes

Along with domestic violence and mental health issues, substance misuse (including alcohol and drug misuse) are the most common factors identified in the assessment of children in need.  

 Increasing social work demand due to unforeseen social, policy or demographic changes could increase the impact of these proposals.

The impact of growing levels of inequality within Brighton and Hove alongside decreasing access to services to mitigate levels of inequality, could lead to greater levels of demand upon social work services.

SMART action 1: Continuing the actions defined in the model of practice, which are proving effective:

·         Continued the relationship-based practice model with a focus on a proportionate, strengths-based approach, monitored via Quality Assurance activity and scrutinised via FCL Performance Board.

·         This aims to maintain or lower the number of Children subject to Child Protection Plans and our numbers of Children in Care.

·         This continues to align CPRO and IRO caseloads with national and local expectations.

SMART action 2:  quality assurance activity takes place, which is overseen by FCL Performance Board, chaired by Corporate Director for FCL

SMART action 3: FCW Performance Board to monitor numbers of CIC and children subject to CP Plans to discuss any concerns about capacity.

Proposal’s impact score:

3

Signatory:

Name and Job Title:

/Date: /

Responsible Lead Officer:

Justin Grantham

08/10/24

Accountable Manager:

Anna Gianfrancesco

27/01/25

 £824,000 saving on the cost of independent placements for children in care by increasing in -house placements.  This will be achieved by:

• continuing to work through the social work model of practice to hold the numbers of children in care, including relationship-based practice and the specialist adolescence service diverting children from the care system
• for those already in care, a stepping down to in house and/or less expensive placements.
• work to further increase the number of in-house foster placements and reduce reliance on more expensive independent provider provision
• rolling out the Mockingbird Model to support in-house foster carers to improve placement stability for children, preventing escalation to more expensive options, and to support ‘going home’
• development of in-house residential options, including a new residential children’s home and a new long-term residential home for disabled children
• The council is part of the Department for Education initiative to develop regional fostering recruitment hubs, it is hoped this will bring in more in-house foster carers
• 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 Unaccompanied Asylum-Seeking Children (UASC)
• development of framework and commissioning for care leavers accommodation
• continued scrutiny of placement costs contributing to a reduction in unit costs   

Summarise the most significant impacts identified by this assessment including which groups will be disproportionally negatively affected drawing out intersectional impacts as applicable:

This reduction in budget will impact on children in care of the local authority. Black and Global majority children, including unaccompanied asylum-seeking children, are over-represented in this cohort and so will be disproportionately affected.  A significant number of the children in the service are disabled children, children with mental health issues, neurodivergent children and will also be disproportionately impacted.

National sufficiency issues regarding placements for children in care continue. Providers continue to choose children with low complex needs and/or charge more for children with high complex needs. This results in some of the most vulnerable children being at risk of no placement or being placed in unregistered provision, as these providers are often the only ones which will take highly vulnerable children.

Families are involved in the planning for their young person and will feed into their own individual plan that looks at accommodation options and how to prevent their child coming into care.  Work with external partners, police and health takes place to look at how to support families to remain together and reduce the demand for placements.  Work has been undertaken and continues with social work teams and managers to look at how we reduce the number of children in care and the need for high-cost placements.

Age

YES

Disability and inclusive adjustments, coverage under equality act and not

YES

Ethnicity, ‘Race’, ethnic heritage (including Gypsy, Roma, Travellers)

YES

Religion, Belief, Spirituality, Faith, or Atheism

YES

Gender Identity and Sex (including non-binary and Intersex people)

YES

Gender Reassignment

YES

Sexual Orientation

Not applicable

Marriage and Civil Partnership

Not applicable

Pregnant people, Maternity, Paternity, Adoption, Menopause, (In)fertility (across the gender spectrum)

Not applicable

Armed Forces Personnel, their families, and Veterans

Not applicable

Expatriates, Migrants, Asylum Seekers, and Refugees

YES

Carers

YES

Looked after children, Care Leavers, Care and fostering experienced people

YES

Domestic and/or Sexual Abuse and Violence Survivors, and   people in vulnerable situations (All aspects and intersections)

YES

Socio-economic Disadvantage

YES

Homelessness and associated risk and vulnerability

Not applicable

Human Rights

Not applicable

Another relevant group:

Those experiencing substance misuse

 YES

Not applicable

This will be monitored by the Entry to Care and Placement Review board as well as by the fostering placement and permanency board which meets quarterly and includes reviewing the placement budget. As part of the monthly performance meeting ethnicity data is looked at and quarterly the ethnicity dashboard is reviewed to ensure and address any bias or disproportionality in the system

Assess impact for different population groups

Is there a possible disproportionate negative impact?

State Yes or No

Describe the potential negative impact, considering for differences within groups For example, different ethnic groups, and peoples intersecting identities e.g. disabled women of faith

OR

If no impact is identified, briefly state why.

Age

including those under 16, young adults, multiple ethnicities, those with various intersections.

yes

All the people this will impact will be under 18 years old and will be among the most vulnerable children in the city.

Disability includes physical and sensory disabled, D/deaf, deafened, hard of hearing, blind, neurodiverse people, people with non-visible disabilities.

yes

All the children in SCDS service have a  disability. In the last 6 months (up to January 2025) 23% of children who had an assessment completed by Family Help and Protection had a disability.

Ethnicity, ‘Race’, ethnic heritage including Gypsy, Roma, Travellers

yes

35% of children in care in Brighton & Hove are Black or from the Global Majority. Of which there are currently 50 Unaccompanied Asylum Seeker Children. Black and Global Majority Children are over-represented in Children in Care and this is especially the case for children of mixed heritage or from Gypsy, Roma, Traveller backgrounds.

Religion, Spirituality, Faith, Atheism, and philosophical belief

Unknown

Service does not hold sufficient data to determine if any faith(s) are over/under represented.

Gender and Sex including non-binary and intersex people

Yes

A number of children in care identify as non-binary or trans. These young people will often have additional complex needs and vulnerabilities and may require placement in more specialist residential provision. Reduction in residential placements will impact these young people.

Gender Reassignment

N/a

N/a

Sexual Orientation

N/a

N/a

Marriage and Civil Partnership

N/a

N/a

Pregnancy, Maternity, Paternity, Adoption, Menopause, (In)fertility (across intersections and non-binary gender spectrum)

N/a

N/a

Armed Forces Personnel, their families, and Veterans

N/a

N/a

Expatriates, Migrants, Asylum Seekers, and Refugees considering for age, language, and various intersections

yes

It will impact on all our UASC and UASC care leavers.   UASC are often placed in external providers, due to their age and needs. Any reduction in budget and the use of agency placements will affect the Black and global majority children in care and new arriving UASC.

Carers considering for age, language, and various intersections

n/a

n/a

Looked after children, Care Leavers, Care and fostering experienced people considering for age, language, and various intersections

yes

All the children will be in care or care leavers.

Domestic and/or sexual abuse and violence survivors

yes

Children in care are more likely to have come from families that have experienced domestic violence.

A report from Coram BAAF estimates that "at least 60% of children in foster, adoption or kinship placements have been victims of domestic abuse prior to living with their new families."

Source: Caring for children who have experienced domestic abuse | CoramBAAF

Socio-economic disadvantage considering for age, disability, D/deaf/ blind, ethnicity, expatriate background, and various intersections

yes

Children in care are more likely to have come from families in poverty.

It is estimated that between approximately 50-75% of the differences between local authorities in the proportion of children on child protection plans or who are ‘looked after’ in care can be explained by family socio-economic circumstances and income inequality (Webb et al., 2020a, 2020b). Children in the most deprived 10% of neighbourhoods in England are over ten times more likely to be in care or on a protection plan than children in the least deprived 10% (Bywaters et al., 2018)

Source: https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/23089/pdf/

Homeless and rough sleepers considering for age, veteran, ethnicity, language, and various intersections

n/a

n/a

Human Rights

n/a

n/a

Another relevant group: Substance misuse

Yes

Children in care are more likely to have come from families who have experienced substance misuse.

Savings against the social work establishment may impact on the support for children and families and lead to an increase in the number of children in care, worsening the impact of these budget proposals.

SMART action 1:

We are a demand lead service and therefore unable to reduce demand.  While we do everything possible to prevent children coming into care, at times children will need to be safeguarded by entering our 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.

From January 2025 to March 2026, we will roll out 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. 

SMART action 2: By March 2026 we will develop an in-house residential home for children in care and a long-term residential home for children with disabilities.

Proposal’s impact score:

4

Signatory:

Name and Job Title:

Date:

Responsible Lead Officer:

Anna Gianfrancesco

26.11.24

Accountable Manager:

Anna Gianfrancesco

26.11.24

Offer the use of the vacant flat at Drove Road residential respite provision to East and West Sussex County Councils to generate income of £225K rather than BHCC using the flat.

Summarise the most significant impacts identified by this assessment including which groups will be disproportionally negatively affected drawing out intersectional impacts as applicable:

There are currently 2 residential respite provisions (Drove Road and Tudor House) for children and young people with disabilities in the city. Both provisions are well used and highly valued by parents and carers and the local SEND community. The Local Authority has a statutory duty to provide short breaks to families of disabled children under the Children Act 1989 (“the 1989 Act”) to provide, as part of the range of services they provide for families, breaks from caring for carers of disabled children to support them to continue to care for their children at home and to allow them to do so more effectively. Local authorities should enable carers of disabled children to have breaks from caring by providing, as appropriate, a reliable range of services including a provision of overnight care for disabled children.

Both provisions already currently struggle to meet demand, and both have waiting lists for overnight respite. To use the vacant flat to generate income rather than expand the current offer will further delay those children and young people on the waiting list to accessing overnight respite. 

Planned to consult with parents/carers and staff at Drove Road by the end of February.

Age

YES

Disability and inclusive adjustments, coverage under equality act and not

YES

Ethnicity, ‘Race’, ethnic heritage (including Gypsy, Roma, Travellers)

YES

Religion, Belief, Spirituality, Faith, or Atheism

YES

Gender Identity and Sex (including non-binary and Intersex people)

YES

Gender Reassignment

YES

Sexual Orientation

YES

Marriage and Civil Partnership

Not applicable

Pregnant people, Maternity, Paternity, Adoption, Menopause, (In)fertility (across the gender spectrum)

Not applicable

Armed Forces Personnel, their families, and Veterans

YES

Expatriates, Migrants, Asylum Seekers, and Refugees

YES

Carers

YES

Looked after children, Care Leavers, Care and fostering experienced people

YES

Domestic and/or Sexual Abuse and Violence Survivors, and people in vulnerable situations (All aspects and intersections)

YES

Socio-economic Disadvantage

YES

Homelessness and associated risk and vulnerability

YES

Human Rights

YES

Another relevant group (please specify here and add additional rows as needed)

YES, Lone parents/carers and people facing literacy and numeracy barriers

We will seek to establish data on whether the families who are accessing these provisions are Armed Forces personnel, their families or veterans. This can be undertaken through the social care assessment process.

The children and young people impacted by the change will also have the support of their social worker and review assessments will be undertaken to ensure their needs will continue to be met while they wait for an overnight respite placement to become available. Feedback from social workers will also be gathered to help monitor the impact of the proposal.

Assess impact for different population groups

Is there a possible disproportionate negative impact?

State Yes or No

Describe the potential negative impact, considering for differences within groups For example, different ethnic groups, and peoples intersecting identities e.g. disabled women of faith

OR

If no impact is identified, briefly state why.

Age

including those under 16, young adults, multiple ethnicities, those with various intersections.

YES

Both providers are registered for young people between the ages of 8 and 18. Therefore this proposal will impact disproportionately on children and young people.

Disability includes physical and sensory disabled, D/deaf, deafened, hard of hearing, blind, neurodiverse people, people with non-visible disabilities.

YES

Both provisions are specifically for children and young people with complex disabilities. There is a lack of other provisions available to meet their needs within the city; by not utilising the spare bed for children who reside in the city it may cause children and young people to have to access provisions outside of the city which would be more costly to the local authority. 

Ethnicity, ‘Race’, ethnic heritage including Gypsy, Roma, Travellers

YES

18% of children and young people with an Education Health and Care plan are either Black or from the Global Majority. A number of the young people who access the provision are of a Black and Global majority identity and their cultural understanding of disability can impact on their wider familiar support network meaning that these provisions are an invaluable service for respite and support.

Religion, Spirituality, Faith, Atheism, and philosophical belief

YES

The majority of service users are of Islamic faith.

Gender and Sex including non-binary and intersex people

YES

The gender split of children and young people with SEN and Disabilities is 29% female and 71% male. We would therefore expect to see a similar proportionate gender split in those children and young people attending the short breaks respite provision. Consequentially, the proposal will have a disproportionate impact on young males.

Where young people have identified as non-binary or intersex both homes will need to work closely with families and social care to ensure they have the right advice and support them appropriately and adapt any material or make any necessary adjustments to the home environment to meet their needs.

The loss of this space is likely to impact disproportionately on women, specifically single mothers.  

Gender Reassignment

NO

We know that parents/carers may not want to disclose information about gender reassignment for reasons such as the perceive lack of support, fear of discrimination, personal choice.

Due to the unreliability of the data we do not know if there would be a disproportionately negative impact on this group.

Sexual Orientation

NO

Due to the unreliability of the data we do not know if there would be a disproportionately negative impact on this group.

Marriage and Civil Partnership

NO

The young people attending the short breaks provision, or the residential home will be between the ages of 8 and18. It is unlikely this would apply. However, if a young person who is between the ages of 16 and 18 and has parental consent to enter a marriage or civil partnership support will be provided to the young person and family concerned. A mental capacity assessment will be completed if required.

Pregnancy, Maternity, Paternity, Adoption, Menopause, (In)fertility (across intersections and non-binary gender spectrum)

YES

There are likely to be children and young people who have been fostered or adopted accessing these provisions and the loss of this additional bed is likely to negatively impact on the support this family receives.

There are times when the parents of children using these facilities are expecting another child or are on maternity / paternity leave and they rely on their short breaks so would be negatively impacted upon.

There is a recent example that Drove Road has been able to provide a week’s respite for a child who’s baby sister was born with a heart defect and had to stay in intensive care in a specialist hospital in London, it was not appropriate for her to be in London with her mother and due to her learning disabilities and behaviours that challenge this would not have been a safe place for her or others around her. Without the provision of Drove Road this child may have had to come into Local Authority care.

Armed Forces Personnel, their families, and Veterans

NO

We do not know if there would be a disproportionate impact on this group because the data available about parent/carer profession is not available.

Expatriates, Migrants, Asylum Seekers, and Refugees considering for age, language, and various intersections

NO

There is no comprehensive data available and further work needs to be undertaken into whether any of the children or young people who will be accessing Drove Road and Tudor House are Expatriates, Migrants, Asylum Seekers or Refugees.

Carers considering for age, language, and various intersections

YES

Reduced provision will have a significant impact on carers of disabled children. The provisions provide much needed respite for the carers and in many cases prevent their children coming into full time local authority care.

Looked after children, Care Leavers, Care and fostering experienced people considering for age, language, and various intersections

YES

Some of the young people attending these provisions are Looked After by the council due to the number of nights they stay at the provisions (75+ nights in a year). Not having the additional capacity could result in more children coming into full time local authority care.

Domestic and/or sexual abuse and violence survivors

YES

It there are children or young people accessing the short breaks provision who are living in a home where there is domestic and/or sexual abuse and violence, having a reduced provision may impact upon family life and place the children at a greater risk of significant harm.

Socio-economic disadvantage considering for age, disability, D/deaf/ blind, ethnicity, expatriate background, and various intersections

YES

Having a disabled child impacts on a family’s potential earnings and financial resilience. For two parent households one parent/carer is often the primary carer. For single parent households, part time employment is often the only viable employment option.

For these families a reduction in access to respite provision is likely to have a negative impact.

Homeless and rough sleepers considering for age, veteran, ethnicity, language, and various intersections

NO

As far as we are aware none of the families who access short breaks are currently homeless or rough sleeping. Therefore, there is no disproportionate impact upon this group.

Human Rights

YES

The reduction of these provisions could impact on the human rights of the young people and their families as this will likely lead to disadvantage and impact on their family life.

Another relevant group (please specify here and add additional rows as needed)

Unknown

No mitigation actions are available due to:

The savings proposal is not to use a bed that is due to become vacant in January and generate income by offering it to East or West Sussex. Because this is a physical resource required for an overnight stay rather than a staffing issue it would be difficult to mitigate with the other tools usually available such as flexible staffing arrangements or other like for like provision. 

Proposal’s impact score:

5

Signatory:

Name and Job Title:

Date:

Responsible Lead Officer:

Lorraine Hughes

09.12.24

Accountable Manager:

Georgina Clarke-Green

09.12.24

£100,000 saving by reducing the number of children and families social workers by 1.4 full time equivalent. 

Summarise the most significant impacts identified by this assessment including which groups will be disproportionally negatively affected drawing out intersectional impacts as applicable:

This reduction in budget will impact on children and families open to social work, in particular vulnerable children and families and those experiencing deprivation as well as children in care and care leavers. Black and Global majority children, including unaccompanied asylum-seeking children, are over-represented in this cohort and so will be disproportionately affected.  A significant number of the children in the service are also disabled children, children with mental health issues and/or neurodivergent and will also be disproportionately impacted.

No consultation is planned, however work has been undertaken and continues with social work teams and managers to look at how we continue to provide an excellent service to children and families to help them make changes where possible and to provide the right alternative plans if change cannot be achieved.

Age

YES

Disability and inclusive adjustments, coverage under equality act and not

YES

Ethnicity, ‘Race’, ethnic heritage (including Gypsy, Roma, Travellers)

YES

Religion, Belief, Spirituality, Faith, or Atheism

YES

Gender Identity and Sex (including non-binary and Intersex people)

YES

Gender Reassignment

YES

Sexual Orientation

YES

Marriage and Civil Partnership

Not applicable

Pregnant people, Maternity, Paternity, Adoption, Menopause, (In)fertility (across the gender spectrum)

YES

Armed Forces Personnel, their families, and Veterans

Not applicable

Expatriates, Migrants, Asylum Seekers, and Refugees

YES

Carers

YES

Looked after children, Care Leavers, Care and fostering experienced people

YES

Domestic and/or Sexual Abuse and Violence Survivors, and   people in vulnerable situations (All aspects and intersections)

YES

Socio-economic Disadvantage

YES

Homelessness and associated risk and vulnerability

YES

Human Rights

Not applicable

Another relevant group:

Those experiencing substance misuse

 YES

Not applicable

This will be monitored through monthly performance meetings for the Family Help and Protection Senior Leadership Team as well as quarterly FCLS Performance Board.

Assess impact for different population groups

Is there a possible disproportionate negative impact?

State Yes or No

Describe the potential negative impact, considering for differences within groups For example, different ethnic groups, and peoples intersecting identities e.g. disabled women of faith

OR

If no impact is identified, briefly state why.

Age

including those under 16, young adults, multiple ethnicities, those with various intersections.

yes

These proposals will impact on families and children, with the greatest impact being on children under 18.  These children will be among the most vulnerable children in the city, including those assessed to be in need, at risk of significant harm or to be in care

Disability includes physical and sensory disabled, D/deaf, deafened, hard of hearing, blind, neurodiverse people, people with non-visible disabilities.

yes

Children with disabilities are over-represented in our services.  23% of children in need are disabled children compared with 19% of residents of the city.

Ethnicity, ‘Race’, ethnic heritage including Gypsy, Roma, Travellers

yes

29% of children in need are Black or from the Global Majority. Black and Global Majority children are over-represented as Children in Need (22% of school aged children in the city).  This is especially the case for children of mixed heritage or from Gypsy, Roma, Traveller backgrounds.  Children who identify as Asian or Asian British are under-represented as children in need.

Religion, Spirituality, Faith, Atheism, and philosophical belief

no

no disproportionate impact for this group

Gender and Sex including non-binary and intersex people

Yes

A number of children in need identify as non-binary or trans, up to 4% in the latest data, in comparison to 1% of residents in the city. These young people will often have additional complex needs and vulnerabilities.

Gender Reassignment

See box above

Sexual Orientation

N/a

N/a

Marriage and Civil Partnership

N/a

N/a

Pregnancy, Maternity, Paternity, Adoption, Menopause, (In)fertility (across intersections and non-binary gender spectrum)

Yes

The social work teams support pregnant parents, completing pre-birth assessments and offering support to parents so that they can meet the needs of their children.

Armed Forces Personnel, their families, and Veterans

Unknow

Data is not collected from service users regarding if that are armed forces families

Expatriates, Migrants, Asylum Seekers, and Refugees considering for age, language, and various intersections

No

Unaccompanied asylum-seeking children (UASC) and UASC care leavers are supported by dedicated teams that are not effected by this budget saving proposal.

Carers considering for age, language, and various intersections

?

Looked after children, Care Leavers, Care and fostering experienced people considering for age, language, and various intersections

yes

Approximately a quarter of children open to social work services are children in care and will be directly impacted by these proposals.  These budget savings will not be directly impact as they are supported by Personal Advisers within a dedicated Leaving Care Team.

Domestic and/or sexual abuse and violence survivors

yes

Domestic violence is the most common factor identified in the assessments of children in need. Children and parents who have experienced domestic violence will be disproportionately impacted by these proposals.  Children may also be in need due to having experienced sexual abuse, for example 4% of children protection plans are currently under the category of sexual abuse.

Socio-economic disadvantage considering for age, disability, D/deaf/ blind, ethnicity, expatriate background, and various intersections

yes

Children in need are more likely to have come from families in poverty, therefore any cuts in services that impact on children in need will impact on those children affected by childhood poverty

Homeless and rough sleepers considering for age, veteran, ethnicity, language, and various intersections

Yes

Families in need are more likely to have experienced homelessness or insecure housing and so will be disproportionately impacted by these proposals.

Human Rights

n/a

n/a

Another relevant group: Substance misuse

Yes

Along with domestic violence and mental health issues, substance misuse (including alcohol and drug misuse) are the most common factors identified in the assessment of children in need. 

Savings against the independent placements for children in care may impact on the support for children who need to come into care and worsen the impact of these budget proposals.

SMART action 1:

We are a demand-led service and unable to reduce the demand.  However, we have seen a significant reduction in the number of children open to our service (for example between 2018 and 2024 this reduction was 20%).  We believe that this is due to improvements to the quality of our support to families, underpinned by our model of practice.  This was evidenced in our outstanding Ofsted report in 2024.  Families in the city experience increasing challenges, including the impact of poverty and mental health issues.  In implementing these budget savings we would spread the reduction in social worker establishment across our 15 safeguarding pods so that the loss of posts is not felt in one area in particular and good relationship-based practice can be supported.  The impact of these proposals will be monitored via the Family Help and Protection Senior Leadership Team Performance Meetings.

SMART action 2: The Family Hubs will continue to provide support to families to reduce the need for social work intervention.  In 2025-26, this will be jointly managed via the Family Help and Protection Senior Leadership Team as the Family Hubs will move to this branch of the FCLS directorate.

Proposal’s impact score:

4

Signatory:

Name and Job Title:

Date:

Responsible Lead Officer:

Anna Gianfrancesco

26.11.24

Accountable Manager:

Anna Gianfrancesco

26.11.24

Further work on making best use of the equality data collected and to fill gaps in equality data would assist the service’s robust consideration of equality implications as it implements this change. As would exploring how to engage with service users to hear and use their feedback about their experiences of the service, giving due consideration to engagement with the equality groups most affected by this proposal.

 The proposal is to cease the Youth Led Grants funding in total; a saving of £40,000.

Young people are responsible for the distribution of funding (up to £3,000 per application) allocated to the annual Youth Led Grants programme. Young people take a lead on how this money is spent, making decisions on the priorities, framework for allocating funds, and writing and evaluating the bids. The current agreed priorities for this programme are:

·         Improving young people’s mental health ·

·         Reducing the harm from young people’s alcohol and substance misuse

·         Increasing volunteering and work experience opportunities

·         Increasing opportunities for young people to participate in new and challenging experiences

·         Supporting young people who have faced additional disadvantage due to Covid-19

The eligibility criteria include: 

·         Benefiting young people aged 11-19 (up to 25 if they have special educational needs)

·         Ensuring distribution of funding considers the geographical areas of the city and groups of young people facing challenges in their lives, particularly around equality issues

·         Working in partnership with one of the lead Youth Service Grant Providers listed above

·         Succeeding in encouraging participation with the voice of young people being embedded across all work, broadening the area of influence for young people. Your project will have a clear approach as to how young people are involved in and shape the activities and be part of the offer.

·         Operating in a manner compliant with the Equalities Act 2010 (see below)

Summarise the most significant impacts identified by this assessment including which groups will be disproportionally negatively affected drawing out intersectional impacts as applicable:

All funded projects target disadvantaged young people. A reduction in funding would result in between 20 -25 different youth projects/activities not being funded, and this would impact on young people aged between 11 – 19 years (up to 25 if they have special educational needs), particularly those with SEND, those financially disadvantaged, Black and Global Majority young people, gender specific groups, including trans and non-binary young people and those impacted by Covid (particularly worsened mental health). It will impact on projects that support young people's intersectionality.

Discussions took place with the Youth Led Grants panel members around the reduction of the Grants for 24/25. No formal consultation has taken place with young people regarding ceasing Youth Led Grants for 25/26, however, there has been ongoing consultation with young people regarding youth voice and participation as part of a review of Youth Wise, which will continue over the coming months.

Age

Yes 11-25 yr olds

Disability and inclusive adjustments, coverage under equality act and not

Yes

Ethnicity, ‘Race’, ethnic heritage (including Gypsy, Roma, Travellers)

Yes

Religion, Belief, Spirituality, Faith, or Atheism

Not applicable

Gender Identity and Sex (including non-binary and Intersex people)

Yes

Gender Reassignment

No

Sexual Orientation

No

Marriage and Civil Partnership

Not applicable

Pregnant people, Maternity, Paternity, Adoption, Menopause, (In)fertility (across the gender spectrum)

Not applicable

Armed Forces Personnel, their families, and Veterans

Not applicable

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

Yes

Homelessness and associated risk and vulnerability

No

Human Rights

No

Another relevant group (please specify here and add additional rows as needed)

No

Equality data forms part of the application and assessment process.

The impact of this proposal will not be monitored.

Assess impact for different population groups

Is there a possible disproportionate negative impact?

State Yes or No

Describe the potential negative impact, considering for differences within groups For example, different ethnic groups, and peoples intersecting identities e.g. disabled women of faith

OR

If no impact is identified, briefly state why.

Age

including those under 16, young adults, multiple ethnicities, those with various intersections.

Yes

This will impact on young people aged between 11 years – 19 years (up to 25 years if they have special educational needs). There will be no funding for projects for this group.

Disability includes physical and sensory disabled, D/deaf, deafened, hard of hearing, blind, neurodiverse people, people with non-visible disabilities.

Yes

This programme awards funding to activities for young people with disabilities. This will impact on young people aged between 11–19 years (up to 25 years if they have special educational needs). There will be no funding for projects for this group.

Ethnicity, ‘Race’, ethnic heritage including Gypsy, Roma, Travellers

Yes

This programme awards funding to activities for Black and Global Majority young people and specifically activities for a Gypsy, Roma and Traveller girls' group. There will be no funding for projects for this group.

Religion, Spirituality, Faith, Atheism, and philosophical belief

No

No disproportionate impact for this group

Gender and Sex including non-binary and intersex people

Yes

This programme awards funding to activities for young women and men re: gender-related issues and disadvantages. There is also an intersect with ethnicity as the programme funds a Gypsy, Traveller, Roma girls project.  There will be no funding for project for this group.  

Gender Reassignment

No

No disproportionate impact for this group.

Sexual Orientation

No

No disproportionate impact for this group

Marriage and Civil Partnership

n/a

Pregnancy, Maternity, Paternity, Adoption, Menopause, (In)fertility (across intersections and non-binary gender spectrum)

n/a

Armed Forces Personnel, their families, and Veterans

n/a

Expatriates, Migrants, Asylum Seekers, and Refugees considering for age, language, and various intersections

Yes

This programme awards funding to activities for Black and Global Majority young people, within this cohort of young people some will identify as refugee and or migrant.  There will be no funding for projects for this group.  

Carers considering for age, language, and various intersections

No

No disproportionate impact for this group.

Looked after children, Care Leavers, Care and fostering experienced people considering for age, language, and various intersections

Yes

Children/young people in care/care leavers in Brighton and Hove can apply for a Youth Led Grant via the Children in Care Councils and Care Leaver’s forum. There will be no funding for projects for this group.

Domestic and/or sexual abuse and violence survivors

n/a

Socio-economic disadvantage considering for age, disability, D/deaf/ blind, ethnicity, expatriate background, and various intersections

Yes

Financially disadvantaged young people are particularly targeted for the funded projects. There will be no funding for projects for this group

Homeless and rough sleepers considering for age, veteran, ethnicity, language, and various intersections

n/a

Human Rights

n/a

Another relevant group (please specify here and add additional rows as needed)

Yes

 The Youth Service Grants Programme 2021-2025 aims to assist organisations financially so that they can deliver the desired outcomes, building on the assets of the third sector, promoting enterprise and social value.

This funding is to:

·         Provide safe physical, digital and outreach spaces in the community that delivers open access, non-formal education to young people that will support their personal and social development through activities that young people need, want and value.

·         Deliver regular activities and opportunities for young people to participate in decision making forums, social action and volunteering.

·         Provide targeted and specialist youth work to engage young people with specialist needs, disadvantaged young people or marginalised population groups.

·         Work in partnership with the Council, other youth providers and specialist agencies, acting as a bridge and supporting young people to access other services and being part of a multi-agency group where appropriate.

·         Empower young people to co-design and co-produce activities, projects and services

Proposal to cut the Youth Service Grants by 47% for 25/26 which will reduce youth provision across the city.

Youth Led Grants provide additional activity/resource for disadvantaged children and young people in the city. However, when faced with multiple proposals affecting the same cohort, youth led grants are seen to be the less impactful budget saving when compared to Youth Service Grants. However, cumulative savings that impact young people will deepen disadvantage faced by some young people due to their protected characteristics as identified in this EIA.

SMART action 1: Youth providers will be supported to seek and apply for other funding opportunities via BHCC youth commissioning service manager.

SMART action 2:  Youth providers will be supported to seek HAF funding for young people eligible for free school meals.

SMART action 3: A small number of young people from the Youth Led Grants panel will be part of the HAF funding panel and steering group.

Proposal’s impact score:

3

Signatory:

Name and Job Title:

Date:

Responsible Lead Officer:

Gemma Doughty

28/01/25

Accountable Manager:

To decommission the service care pathway for sexual dysfunction (female) to realise a budget saving of £43,650 per annum.

Summarise the most significant impacts identified by this assessment including which groups will be disproportionally negatively affected drawing out intersectional impacts as applicable:

The most significant impact will be experienced by women with pain and penetration sexual function issues who are unable to identify or afford a paid for therapy service.

None, however, NHS colleagues have been notified of the proposal.

Age

Yes

Disability and inclusive adjustments, coverage under equality act and not

Yes

Ethnicity, ‘Race’, ethnic heritage (including Gypsy, Roma, Travellers)

Yes

Religion, Belief, Spirituality, Faith, or Atheism

No

Gender Identity and Sex (including non-binary and Intersex people)

Yes

Gender Reassignment

N/A

Sexual Orientation

Yes

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

Not applicable

Expatriates, Migrants, Asylum Seekers, and Refugees

No

Carers

Not applicable

Looked after children, Care Leavers, Care and fostering experienced people

Not applicable

Domestic and/or Sexual Abuse and Violence Survivors, and people in vulnerable situations (All aspects and intersections)

Service provider collects

Socio-economic Disadvantage

No

Homelessness and associated risk and vulnerability

No

Human Rights

Not applicable

Another relevant group (please specify here and add additional rows as needed)

Yes / No/ Not applicable

No arrangements have been agreed as commissioning this service is not a public health function.

Assess impact for different population groups

Is there a possible disproportionate negative impact?

State Yes or No

Describe the potential negative impact, considering for differences within groups For example, different ethnic groups, and peoples intersecting identities e.g. disabled women of faith

OR

If no impact is identified, briefly state why.

Age

including those under 16, young adults, multiple ethnicities, those with various intersections.

No

Disability includes physical and sensory disabled, D/deaf, deafened, hard of hearing, blind, neurodiverse people, people with non-visible disabilities.

Not known

Ethnicity, ‘Race’, ethnic heritage including Gypsy, Roma, Travellers

No

Religion, Spirituality, Faith, Atheism, and philosophical belief

No known

Gender and Sex including non-binary and intersex people

Yes

The vast majority of clients of this service are female and will therefore be disproportionately impacted

Gender Reassignment

N/A

Sexual Orientation

No

Marriage and Civil Partnership

N/A

Pregnancy, Maternity, Paternity, Adoption, Menopause, (In)fertility (across intersections and non-binary gender spectrum)

N/A

Armed Forces Personnel, their families, and Veterans

N/A

Expatriates, Migrants, Asylum Seekers, and Refugees considering for age, language, and various intersections

Not known

Carers considering for age, language, and various intersections

N/A

Looked after children, Care Leavers, Care and fostering experienced people considering for age, language, and various intersections

N/A

Domestic and/or sexual abuse and violence survivors

Yes

Service provider reports that significant numbers of women will have experienced childhood sexual abuse, violence, rape, sexual assault and other sexual violence.

Socio-economic disadvantage considering for age, disability, D/deaf/ blind, ethnicity, expatriate background, and various intersections

Yes

The only other counselling/therapy for sexual dysfunction available is a paid for service which will disproportionally impact those experience socio economic disadvantage

Homeless and rough sleepers considering for age, veteran, ethnicity, language, and various intersections

Yes

As above

Human Rights

N/A

Another relevant group (please specify here and add additional rows as needed)

N/A

No mitigation actions are available due to:   This service is not assessed to be a public health function.

SMART action 1: Ensure the ICB is aware of the gap this proposal creates.

SMART action 2: Request that this service is included in the development of the women’s health delivery network

Proposal’s impact score:

5 if mitigation is not successful

Signatory:

Name and Job Title:

Date:

Responsible Lead Officer:

Caroline Vass, Director Public Health

29/01/25

Accountable Manager:

Decommission the general practice LCS for young persons’ sexual health to realise savings of £12,000 per annum

Summarise the most significant impacts identified by this assessment including which groups will be disproportionally negatively affected drawing out intersectional impacts as applicable:

No significant impacts are identified.  The majority of the young persons’ sexual health service provision is from a small number of practices.  Re-providing appointments, self-sampling and information provision from the integrated sexual health service and ensuring effective sign posting is in place will mitigate changes to the service model

None

Age

Yes

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

Not applicable

Gender Identity and Sex (including non-binary and Intersex people)

Yes

Gender Reassignment

Yes

Sexual Orientation

Yes

Marriage and Civil Partnership

Not applicable

Pregnant people, Maternity, Paternity, Adoption, Menopause, (In)fertility (across the gender spectrum)

Yes

Armed Forces Personnel, their families, and Veterans

Not applicable

Expatriates, Migrants, Asylum Seekers, and Refugees

Not applicable

Carers

Not applicable

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

Not applicable

Homelessness and associated risk and vulnerability

No

Human Rights

Not applicable

Another relevant group (please specify here and add additional rows as needed)

Not applicable

Monitoring activity and demographic data from the integrated sexual health service, the chlamydia screening programme and the pharmacy EHC service

Assess impact for different population groups

Is there a possible disproportionate negative impact?

State Yes or No

Describe the potential negative impact, considering for differences within groups For example, different ethnic groups, and peoples intersecting identities e.g. disabled women of faith

OR

If no impact is identified, briefly state why.

Age

including those under 16, young adults, multiple ethnicities, those with various intersections.

Yes

Young people under 25 years old experience the highest rates of sexually transmitted infections.

This is an age targeted service, withdrawal will disproportionately affect those aged 13 – 24 years.

Disability includes physical and sensory disabled, D/deaf, deafened, hard of hearing, blind, neurodiverse people, people with non-visible disabilities.

No

Ethnicity, ‘Race’, ethnic heritage including Gypsy, Roma, Travellers

No

Religion, Spirituality, Faith, Atheism, and philosophical belief

No

Gender and Sex including non-binary and intersex people

No

Gender Reassignment

No

Sexual Orientation

No

Marriage and Civil Partnership

No

Pregnancy, Maternity, Paternity, Adoption, Menopause, (In)fertility (across intersections and non-binary gender spectrum)

No

Armed Forces Personnel, their families, and Veterans

No

Expatriates, Migrants, Asylum Seekers, and Refugees considering for age, language, and various intersections

No

Carers considering for age, language, and various intersections

No

Looked after children, Care Leavers, Care and fostering experienced people considering for age, language, and various intersections

No

Domestic and/or sexual abuse and violence survivors

No

Socio-economic disadvantage considering for age, disability, D/deaf/ blind, ethnicity, expatriate background, and various intersections

No

Homeless and rough sleepers considering for age, veteran, ethnicity, language, and various intersections

No

Human Rights

No

Another relevant group (please specify here and add additional rows as needed)

No

N/A

SMART action 1: Increase capacity at the integrated sexual health and contraception (SHAC) service from 1^st April 2025

SMART action 2:  Ensure comprehensive information and signposting on the service change is in place by March 2025

SMART action 3: Monitor demographic and activity data from the integrated sexual health service, the chlamydia screening programme, and the community pharmacy emergency hormonal contraception (EHC) service

Proposal’s impact score:

1

Signatory:

Name and Job Title:

Date:

Responsible Lead Officer:

Caroline Vass, Director Public Health

29/01/25

Accountable Manager:

To cease the grant funding contribution to Mind Out LGBT mental health service to support the inclusion of HIV prevention as part of the peer support group work offer to realise savings of £5,370 per annum

Summarise the most significant impacts identified by this assessment including which groups will be disproportionally negatively affected drawing out intersectional impacts as applicable:

Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender individuals experiencing mental health issue who attend the Mind Out peer support groups will be disproportionally negatively affected by the closure of the group if Mind Out are not able to support its facilitation.  The most recent data shows an annual membership of 44 people with an average attendance of four people each week.

None, however, the provider has been notified of this proposal.

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)

Not applicable

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

Not applicable

Another relevant group (please specify here and add additional rows as needed)

Not applicable

This is a funding contribution to support the inclusion of HIV prevention as part of the peer support group work offer.  It does not commission a specific programme of work and as such we do not receive detailed monitoring information.

Support and materials provided to Mind Out from THT will be monitored as part of THT contract monitoring.  Feedback from Mind Out to THT on any additional needs in the HIV prevention support will also be collated.

Assess impact for different population groups

Is there a possible disproportionate negative impact?

State Yes or No

Describe the potential negative impact, considering for differences within groups For example, different ethnic groups, and peoples intersecting identities e.g. disabled women of faith

OR

If no impact is identified, briefly state why.

Age

including those under 16, young adults, multiple ethnicities, those with various intersections.

Yes

The group supports LGBT people experiencing mental health issues which includes specific sessions for those age 50+

Disability includes physical and sensory disabled, D/deaf, deafened, hard of hearing, blind, neurodiverse people, people with non-visible disabilities.

Yes

The group supports LGBT people experiencing mental health issues which may include non-visible disabilities

Ethnicity, ‘Race’, ethnic heritage including Gypsy, Roma, Travellers

No

Religion, Spirituality, Faith, Atheism, and philosophical belief

No

Gender and Sex including non-binary and intersex people

Yes

The group supports Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people experiencing mental health issues

Gender Reassignment

Sexual Orientation

Yes

The group supports Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people experiencing mental health issues

Marriage and Civil Partnership

N/A

Pregnancy, Maternity, Paternity, Adoption, Menopause, (In)fertility (across intersections and non-binary gender spectrum)

N/A

Armed Forces Personnel, their families, and Veterans

N/A

Expatriates, Migrants, Asylum Seekers, and Refugees considering for age, language, and various intersections

N/A

Carers considering for age, language, and various intersections

N/A

Looked after children, Care Leavers, Care and fostering experienced people considering for age, language, and various intersections

N/A

Domestic and/or sexual abuse and violence survivors

N/A

Socio-economic disadvantage considering for age, disability, D/deaf/ blind, ethnicity, expatriate background, and various intersections

N/A

Homeless and rough sleepers considering for age, veteran, ethnicity, language, and various intersections

N/A

Human Rights

N/A

Another relevant group (please specify here and add additional rows as needed)

 N/A

SMART action 1: Terrence Higgins Trust to liaise with Mind Out regarding the HIV prevention needs of service users and to provide and signpost to appropriate materials