Equality Impact Assessment of Budget Proposals

Published March 2025 An accessible document from southtyneside.gov.uk

Equality Impact Assessment of Budget Proposals

Characteristic Group
Savings Proposal Age Disability Sex Sexual orientation Gender reassignment Marriage or Civil Partnership Pregnancy and maternity Race Religion or belief Care Leavers Armed Forces Veterans Those at risk of socio-economic disadvantage
Use of technology No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact
Review of double handed care requirements No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact
Reduction in Independent Support Living costs No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact
Rationalisation of Learning Disability provision No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact
Review of Help To Live At Home costs No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact
Reduced Residential Care demand through Help To Live At Home and Extra Care No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact
Rationalisation of 1:1 support in Residential Care Placements No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact
Shared Lives expansion No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact
Reduction of posts across Directorate No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact
Client contributions review No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact
Collaborative system diagnostic No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact
Recovery of Business Rates court costs No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact
Revenue contribution to ICT capital programme reduction No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact
Increased Supplier Incentive Scheme income No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact
Increased Contract Rebate income No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact
Modern Fit For Purpose Transformation Workstream efficiency savings No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact
Historic Enhanced Pension payment reductions No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact
Additional investment interest No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact
Banking/Payment charges savings No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact
Corporate training No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact
Reduction of posts across Digital and ICT, Finance, People and Organisational Change and Procurement No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact
Reduction of posts through vacancy management - Council wide No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact
Libraries - reduction of posts/vacancies No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact
Review of contributions to third parties No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact
Additional Leisure income No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact
In-House Fostering development No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact
In-House Residential capacity No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact
Children with Disabilities Services review No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact
Reduced number of young people requiring a care episode No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact
School Meal Charges review No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact
Review of Children's Day Care provision No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact
Review of Family Hub model No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact
School Improvement and SEND project support review No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact
Home to School Transport review Negative Negative No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact
Public Health commissioned contracts review Positive / negative Positive Positive / negative No impact No impact No impact Positive / negative No impact No impact Positive No impact Positive
Energy costs reduction No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact
Waste Disposal tonnages reduction No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact
Building cleaning review No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact
Public Protection and Planning efficiency savings No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact
Increase in commercial lettings No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact
Self-financing of business centres No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact
Increased self-financing of Community Associations No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact
Reduction in posts across Housing & Assets, Investment & Growth and Public Protection No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact
Fees and Charges changes No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact
Grounds Maintenance service review No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact
Weed Management efficiencies Negative Negative No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact
Transport income generation No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact
Re-organisation of Street science No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact
Re-organisation of Handy Estates No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact
Management & Structure Review Governance & Corporate Affairs No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact
Re-organisation of Events No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact
Reduction of posts across Directorate No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact
Reduction in printing for Council and Committee meetings No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact
Reduction in catering for Council meetings and events No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact
Revised approach to public notices No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact

Client Contributions Review

Directorate
Adult Social Care & Commissioning
Service
ASC Financial Assessments
Responsible Officer
Anthony Newham
Date of Assessment
08/09/2024
Brief description of the proposed new or altered policy or service?

The proposal is to update the existing South Tyneside Council Social Care Charging Policy to reflect current Department of Health minimum income guarantee levels more accurately as well as standardise initial disability related expenditure amounts, based upon benefit types and levels whilst still offering individual disability related expenditure assessments at the request of the individual. The updated policy also looks at introducing charges in other areas such as charging for self-funding services when the councils supports and commissions services on behalf of individuals who have been assessed as being able to pay the full cost of their care such as discretionary deferred payments agreements, administration fees and extra care background support.

The change to the policy also looks to introduce an additional allowance for household building insurance.

Who are the main customer or employee groups affected by this new or altered policy or service?
The main customer groups affected by the proposed changes to the Adult Social Care Charging Policy are residents in receipt of social care services including residents with physical, learning and mental health needs of pensionable and working age.
What evidence and engagement has been considered to inform this assessment? (Please reference and summarise data sources or engagement exercises and their findings)
  • Detailed analysis of existing charges and impact of the changes in thsoe charging rates
  • Liquidlogic data extract identified those with changes to existing charges and where charges will remain the same
  • Comparative demographics such as age, gender, ethnicity, wards and under/over pensionable age have been analysed in detail
  • Consultation process to be undertaken that will further inform proposals and this Equality Impact Assessment
  • Initial consultations have been held with internal stakeholders including Social Care Senior Management and leadership Team, Director of Adult Social Service & Commissioning, Director of Business & Resources, Cllr Carter - Lead Member for Governance, Finance & Corporate Services, Cllr Berkely – Lead Member for Adults Health & Independence, Cllr Dixon – Leader of the Council and the councils CLT (Corporate Leadership Team)
  • The Director of Business & Resources also commissioned an external independent specialist to review and challenge the proposals which return no significant changes to the proposal
  • Proposals have also recently been circulated to Adult Safeguarding, Health & Wellbeing Scrutinee Committee
Characteristic / Group Impact Description
The Nine Protected Characteristics (as identified by the Equalities Act 2010)
Age Negative Part of the proposal looks to address the disproportionate amount of Minimum Income Guarantee (MIG) that is allowed as part of the calculation to determine charges. Currently older people are benefitting South Tyneside MIG Allowance being greater than Department of Work & Pensions MIG allowances more so than working age adults by the very nature of the allowances and benefits they receive. This correction of allowance level will more negatively impact older people although in all instances the service will ensure every person is claiming the maximum permissible income which may mean the amount they are left with is still greater than when they had no financial assessment.
Disability Negative Due to the nature of the proposal and its focus on charging for social care services people with a disability will be impacted by the proposal. People with that characteristic and in receipt of services will likely see an increase in their charge as opposed to someone without a disability and by very nature of the fact they are not receiving services will not be impacted as they do not receive chargeable services or a financial assessment to determine their charge.
Sex Neutral / No impact No significant impact on this protected characteristic due to the proposals predominately focussing on charging for social care services. Analysis of gender show no significant disproportionate impact.
Sexual orientation Neutral / No impact No significant impact on this protected characteristic due to the proposals predominately focussing on charging for social care services.
Gender reassignment Neutral / No impact No significant impact on this protected characteristic due to the proposals predominately focussing on charging for social care services.
Marriage or Civil Partnership (in employment only) Negative If the couple are in employment but receiving care services and of working age there maybe instances that lead to an increase in the financially assessed charge towards their care although this will likely be significantly lower than someone of pensionable age as current allowances for pensionable age are greater than that of working age adults due to benefit disparities.
Pregnancy and Maternity Neutral / No impact No significant impact on this protected characteristic due to the proposals predominately focussing on charging for social care services. Analysis of gender show no significant impact.
Race (including colour, ethnicity, nationality or national origin) Neutral / No impact No significant impact on this protected characteristic due to the proposals predominately focussing on charging for social care services. Analysis of ethnicity/race show no significant disproportionate impact.
Religion or belief Neutral / No impact No significant impact on this protected characteristic due to the proposals predominately focussing on charging for social care services.
Other (non-protected) characteristics Neutral / No impact Non-protected characteristics such as social class, income level, homeless households, armed forces veterans and care experienced people are covered individually below.
Other groups
Care Leavers Neutral / No impact Unless the care leavers continue to receive Adult Social Care Services into adulthood they will not be impacted although if they do, they are less likely to see an increase than that of someone receiving the same services but of pensionable age.
Armed Forces Veterans Neutral / No impact No significant impact on this protected characteristic due to the proposals predominately focussing on charging for social care services.
Those at risk of socio-economic disadvantage Negative The Kings Fund highlights that lower socio-economic groups tend to have a higher prevalence of higher-risk health behaviours, worse access to care and less opportunity to lead healthy lives when compared with higher socio-economic groups. This would indicate that people in lower socio-economic groups are more likely to receive care services than higher groups and as such more likely to be impacted by changing to charging policies. Given the number of people who receive services and who are residents of South Tyneside living in lower socio-economic groups it is likely they will be negatively impacted
Please indicate what actions you intend to take to mitigate negative impact, where it has been identified

When a request for financial assessment is triggered and income reviewed, the Financial Assessments Team take a holistic view of their total capital and income to ensure they are claiming all available income thus ensuring the persons income is maximised thus ensuring they are claiming all benefits and financial support available to them. People will be supported to maximise their income where it is evident income could increase.

Under the new charging proposal when a person is not already in receipt of all their benefits some individuals may still be better off than if they had not received services and been charged at all as the increase in income is greater than the increase in the charge for their care services.

South Tyneside Council has continually strengthened its information and advice offer and is currently in the process of developing an online financial assessment offer to allow individuals to calculate their own contributions to make upfront decisions regarding the care that they receive and be aware of the level of charge will pay towards that care.

The changes to the benefit allowances more closely aligns both working age and none working age adults, bringing charges closer together thus creating a fairer system for all regardless of age and other protected characteristics.

The new proposals are more fairly and closely aligned to regional and national charging allowances creating an overall fairer system, for charging.

Are there any negative impacts that cannot reasonably be avoided? If so, on balance, please describe your rationale for why it is still appropriate to proceed with the proposal.
The changes to the benefit allowances more closely aligns both working age and none working age adults, bringing charges closer together thus creating a fairer system for all regardless of age and other protected characteristics. Due to existing South Tyneside allowances being more generous than standard Department of Work and Pensions Allowances, particularly for people of pensionable age, people particularly those who are aged 65 and over will unavoidably be negatively impacted as they will likely see an increase in charges.
How do you plan to monitor ongoing impact and the effectiveness of any identified mitigation activities?

We have carried out a line-by-line reassessment process based upon the proposals so will be able to carry out reassessments at any time to ensure proposals are accurate and assumptions and calculations correct.

Ongoing annual reassessments will identify if any particular group or groups are disproportionately impacted and will also prevent long periods between changes in assessed charges.

We will continue to monitor debt to consider affordability for charges for care and overall income and debt will be monitored to identify trends and issues. People will be supported to access advice and support to maximise income.

We anticipate that this Equality Impact Assessment will be amended, updated and reconsidered through various consultation exercises until such a time as the policy proposals can be drafted into a new policy. This document will be reviewed and amended accordingly up to the proposals being considered by Council.

Responsible Officer Name
A Newham
Head of Service Name
J Penman

Home to School Transport review

Directorate
Children's Services
Service
Education, SEND & Inclusion
Responsible Officer
Anthony Newham
Date of Assessment
08/09/2024
Brief description of the proposed new or altered policy or service?

Post-16 transport is provided free of charge for those considered eligible under the SEND Transport policy in South Tyneside although legislation allows local authorities to charge for this. All non- SEND students pay for their transport costs in full.

This proposal asks that a contribution is made to the costs of travel for eligible SEND students who are above the free school meals, higher working tax credits threshold.

Who are the main customer or employee groups affected by this new or altered policy or service?
Students aged 16-25 with disabilities / Education, Health and Care Plans
What evidence and engagement has been considered to inform this assessment? (Please reference and summarise data sources or engagement exercises and their findings)

DfE transport guidance for both Years 1 - 11 and Post 16

All Local Authorities within the UK were consulted regarding their PTB offer and centralised pick-up points, 29 LAs responded.

197 responses received, 175 are parents of school-aged children, 171 of which have identified SEND needs and 161 are currently in receipt of Home to School Transport.

In response to the questions on Post-16 charges:

Is the proposal clear and easy to understand?

  • 157 (81%) answered yes
  • 15 (8%) answered no
  • 25 (13%) answered neither clear or unclear

Is the proposal fair and reasonable?

  • 37 (19%) answered yes
  • 121 (61%) answered no
  • 39 (20%) answered maybe

In response to the same questions on centralised pick-up points:

Is the proposal clear and easy to understand?

  • 144 (73%) answered yes
  • 23 (12%) answered no
  • 30 (15%) answered maybe

Is the proposal fair and reasonable?

  • 23 (12%) answered yes
  • 130 (66%) answered no
  • 44 (22%) answered maybe
Characteristic / Group Impact Description
The Nine Protected Characteristics (as identified by the Equalities Act 2010)
Age Negative

Age 16-19 – If families are outside of the criteria for exemption from payment and have low levels of disposable income, then they may find it difficult to fund the contribution for transport to take their child to the Post-16 education of their choice.

Age 19-25, although covered under the ‘Adult Duty’ whereby transport to education must be provided free of charge, the potential of dropping out of education is higher as a result of the point raised above for ages 16-19.

Disability Negative

Age 16-19 – If families are outside of the criteria for exemption from payment and have low levels of disposable income, then they may find it difficult to fund the contribution for transport to take their child to the Post-16 education of their choice.

Age 19-25, although covered under the ‘Adult Duty’ whereby transport to education must be provided free of charge, the potential of dropping out of education is higher as a result of the point raised above for ages 16-19.

Sex Neutral / No impact
Sexual orientation Neutral / No impact
Gender reassignment Neutral / No impact
Marriage or Civil Partnership (in employment only) Neutral / No impact
Pregnancy and Maternity Neutral / No impact
Race (including colour, ethnicity, nationality or national origin) Neutral / No impact
Religion or belief Neutral / No impact
Other groups
Care Leavers Neutral / No impact
Armed Forces Veterans Neutral / No impact
Those at risk of socio-economic disadvantage Neutral / No impact
Please indicate what actions you intend to take to mitigate negative impact, where it has been identified

Independent travel training offer to support pre 16 students to travel to school / college independently and to prepare for adulthood.

Flexible payment options to fund the contribution such as monthly or termly payments.

Bursaries are accessible from age 16 for vulnerable groups defined as those in care or care leavers; those receiving Income Support, Universal Credit or Employment and Support Allowance because they are financially supporting themselves, in receipt of Disability Living Allowance or Personal Independence Payments, have a household income of less than £32,300.

Colleges and other providers can make discretionary bursary awards to students to help them overcome individual barriers to participation and can be used to help with the cost of travel, to buy essential books, equipment etc

Local colleges provide free travel in the form of a voucher for Tyne and Wear public transport passes.

Additionally, those students aged 16 and over who are eligible for DLA have a Motability payment included within that payment so can use that payment to fund any assessed contribution.

Are there any negative impacts that cannot reasonably be avoided? If so, on balance, please describe your rationale for why it is still appropriate to proceed with the proposal.
No
How do you plan to monitor ongoing impact and the effectiveness of any identified mitigation activities?

Comparison of year-on-year applications for Post-16 transport.

Monitor number of appeals against Post-16 charges and compare year-on-year data.

Risk assess students and identified centralised pick-up points.

Monitor uptake for Independent Travel Training and Personal Travel Budgets and compare year-on-year data.

Responsible Officer Name
Catherine Round
Head of Service Name
Andy Ritchie

Public Health commissioned contracts review

Directorate
Public Health
Service
Public Health
Responsible Officer
Paula Phillips & Claire Mawson
Date of Assessment
23/10/2024
Brief description of the proposed new or altered policy or service?
The intended proposal is to recommission the 0-19 service (health visiting and School nursing). There are a number of options being considered to recommend a preferred option to Cabinet in March 2025.
Who are the main customer or employee groups affected by this new or altered policy or service?
The main customers are all future parents, parents/carers and their children within the Borough of South Tyneside. The employees affected are South Tyneside and Sunderland NHS Foundation Trust who are the current employer of the staff operating within the 0-19 contract currently.
What evidence and engagement has been considered to inform this assessment? (Please reference and summarise data sources or engagement exercises and their findings)

The existing providers performance have been reviewed as the 0-5 mandated contacts offered to all families are nationally reported on a quarterly basis. We have seen a decline in child development which is not local to South Tyneside but also being seen nationally impacting on readiness for school.

We use the National Child Measurement programme data to review the health and wellbeing of our children at reception and year 6.

We also have additional KPI information from the contract to monitor performance.

A review of the 5-19 service offer was carried out with a number of recommendations to improve outcomes within this aspect of the service and to redefine the priorities for the school nurses to target as part of the public health prevention work.

As part of the 5-19 service review teachers, staff, stakeholders and partners were involved in sharing their views on what was good about the service and what could be improved.

The outcomes of the review were shared with the provider, service specification was updated, and an improvement plan is in place to monitor progress.

With regards to the commissioning options key partners will be involved at the various stages however there will be an element of confidentiality and sensitivity depending on which option is agreed as this is commercially sensitive.

Characteristic / Group Impact Description
The Nine Protected Characteristics (as identified by the Equalities Act 2010)
Age Positive

Through the commissioning review we are looking to improve the outcomes for children, with clear define action to address child development and readiness for school, key transitions and risk-taking behaviours that will be carried through to adulthood. Identifying issues at the earliest point and provide the support and interventions at the right time.

The service is a key element of the best start for children and young people to deliver the key actions within the health and wellbeing strategy and BSIL action plan.

Disability Positive The service will provide identification of any disabilities that present within the family, offer support and signposting into specialist services. Will support families through period of adjustment, assessment and transition. The service will also make suitable adjustments for parents/Carers with a disability to enable them to care for their child(ren).
Sex Neutral / No impact
Sexual orientation Neutral / No impact
Gender reassignment Neutral / No impact
Marriage or Civil Partnership (in employment only) Neutral / No impact
Pregnancy and Maternity Positive

The service offer an antenatal contact to ensure the transfer of care from midwife to health visitor is seamless for the Family. Identifying any issues early, supporting a healthy pregnancy and childhood e.g. promoting a smoke free, alcohol free pregnancy and childhood, promoting breastfeeding and guiding families through the healthy child programme and key milestones in their development.

The service also provides additional support to those pregnant mothers requiring more contact or support as part of the vulnerable parent pathway.

The service also works closely with maternity and in particular the Public Health midwife.

Race (including colour, ethnicity, nationality or national origin) Neutral / No impact
Religion or belief Neutral / No impact
Other groups
Care Leavers Positive Care leavers would be supported via the vulnerable parent pathway if additional support was required.
Armed Forces Veterans Neutral / No impact
Those at risk of socio-economic disadvantage Positive

The service provides support and contact in relation to need, so any family requiring more than the core healthy child programme will be offered additional visits, further interventions and support which would include those living within our most deprived areas, providing early help at the earliest point, preventing escalation where possible.

Staff will work with local food banks, charities and services to ensure families have a safe, warm and healthy home – escalating any issues of concern.

Please indicate what actions you intend to take to mitigate negative impact, where it has been identified
We don’t see any negative impact occurring from this service review. However, any changes in performance, increase in complaints will be monitored via the contract meetings and actioned accordingly.
Are there any negative impacts that cannot reasonably be avoided? If so, on balance, please describe your rationale for why it is still appropriate to proceed with the proposal.
No
How do you plan to monitor ongoing impact and the effectiveness of any identified mitigation activities?
Everything will be monitored via the contract performance meeting.
Responsible Officer Name
Claire Mawson
Head of Service Name
Paula Phillips

Directorate
Public Health
Service
Public Health - Commissioning
Responsible Officer
Paula Phillips
Date of Assessment
23/10/2024
Brief description of the proposed new or altered policy or service?

The sexual health service provides support via pregnancy options to continue with the pregnancy or to terminate. The service also provides contraception and links postnatally. The service also provides STI screening and treatment and if STI’s go undetected or treated this can impact on a females fertility.

As part of the contract discussions and agreement of the model it is important to ensure these functions are accessible and monitored to prevent limited resources and capacity don’t negatively impact on patient outcomes.

The sexual health service provides a range of functions to support safe sex, access to testing, treatment and advice and support. Those patients from LGBTQ+ and MSM are known to undertake risk taking behaviours and therefore more at risk of STI’s. It is important to identify, treat and manage STI’s, outbreaks and responding to national campaigns such as HIV and Mpox.

Monitoring the performance of the service via the KPI’s and contract meetings. Monitoring the prevalence of STI’s within the population groups looking for any trends, increases and potential outbreaks. Responding to outbreaks with vaccination, treatment and contact tracing. Targeting interventions to those most at risk.

Sexual health services have particular age groups that access the service more than others: younger people, adults who may have recently left a long terms relationship, Women within childbearing age, however the service is open to anyone sexually active.

Monitoring activity via the contract performance. Provide messaging suitable to the audience to ensure safe sex and contraception is understood. Ensure that access to testing, treatment and partner notification is carried out. Women have a access to a full range of contraception including LARC.

Who are the main customer or employee groups affected by this new or altered policy or service?
  • Men or Women (including impacts due to pregnancy / maternity)
  • People of particular sexual orientation
  • People in particular age groups
What evidence and engagement has been considered to inform this assessment? (Please reference and summarise data sources or engagement exercises and their findings)
  • Sexual health service performance and outcomes data
  • Sexual health service equity audit
  • Consultation on any impact on the model would be undertaken with the Sexual Health Partnership members
Characteristic / Group Impact Description
The Nine Protected Characteristics (as identified by the Equalities Act 2010)
Age Negative

Sexual health services have particular age groups that access the service more than others such as younger people, adults who may have recently left long term relationships, women within childbearing age, however the service is open to anyone sexually active.

Mitigations:

  • Monitoring activity via the contract performance
  • Provide messaging suitable to the audience to ensure safe sex and contraception is understood
  • Ensure that access to testing, treatment and partner notification is carried out
  • Women have access to a full range of contraception including LARC
Disability Neutral / No impact
Sex Negative

The sexual health service provides support via pregnancy options to continue with the pregnancy or to terminate.

The service also provides contraception and links postnatally.

The service also provides STI screening and treatment and if STI's go undetected or untreated this can impact on a female's fertility.

Mitigations:

  • As part of the contract discussions and agreement of the model it is important to ensure these functions are accessable and monitored to prevent limited resources and capacity don’t negatively impact on patient outcomes.
Sexual orientation Negative

The sexual health service provides a range of functions to support safe sex, access to testing, treatment and advice and support.

Those patients from LGBTQ+ and MSM are known to undertake risk taking behaviours and therefore more at risk of STI's.

It is important to identify, treat and manage STI's, outbreaks and responding to national campaigns such as HIV and Mpox.

Mitigations:

  • Monitoring the performance of the service via the KPI's and contract meetings
  • Monitoring the prevalence of STI's within the population groups looking for any trends, increases and potential outbreaks
  • Responding to outbreaks with vaccination, treatment and contact tracing
  • Targeting interventions to those most at risk
Gender reassignment Neutral / No impact
Marriage or Civil Partnership (in employment only) Neutral / No impact
Pregnancy and Maternity Negative See impacts under "sex"
Race (including colour, ethnicity, nationality or national origin) Neutral / No impact
Religion or belief Neutral / No impact
Other groups
Care Leavers Neutral / No impact
Armed Forces Veterans Neutral / No impact
Those at risk of socio-economic disadvantage Neutral / No impact
Please indicate what actions you intend to take to mitigate negative impact, where it has been identified
See above for mitigations per protected characteristic potential impact.
Are there any negative impacts that cannot reasonably be avoided? If so, on balance, please describe your rationale for why it is still appropriate to proceed with the proposal.
No
How do you plan to monitor ongoing impact and the effectiveness of any identified mitigation activities?
Through contracting and performance reviews of the provider.
Responsible Officer Name
Paula Phillips
Head of Service Name
Tom Hall

Weed Management Efficiencies

Directorate
Community Operations
Service
Community and Place
Responsible Officer
Andy Whittaker
Date of Assessment
18/09/2024
Brief description of the proposed new or altered policy or service?

South Tyneside Council currently uses herbicides to control weed growth on highways, council land, parks and open spaces. This allows the Borough to conform to both the Weeds Act (1959) and the Countryside Act (1981).

Herbicides provide the most effective treatment for controlling weeds, which are required to be controlled for a number of reasons, including aesthetic (they detract from the overall appearance of an area and trap litter) and structural (weed growth can destroy paving surfaces, force apart kerbs and crack walls, therefore increasing maintenance costs).

Who are the main customer or employee groups affected by this new or altered policy or service?

A less effective treatment, or increased time period between treatments would likely lead to higher rates of re-growth. This may cause structural issues such as an increase in cracked pavements, which would potentially have an adverse effect on all pavement users, but particularly those members of the community with mobility issues.

In terms of reduced aesthetics, the proposed reduction in service is likely to affect all residents, businesses, and visitors to the Borough.

What evidence and engagement has been considered to inform this assessment? (Please reference and summarise data sources or engagement exercises and their findings)

No engagement has been completed or considered at this time.

The Council recognise that the Borough’s parks, open spaces, and estates provide significant opportunities for habitat enhancement to help buffer and connect the existing network of natural green spaces already designated and managed for their biodiversity value.

We also recognise that unwanted vegetation growing on hard surfaces associated with the public realm can compromise the structural integrity of these assets and create a public health and safety risk, including slips, trips and falls.

Characteristic / Group Impact Description
The Nine Protected Characteristics (as identified by the Equalities Act 2010)
Age Negative Older people and those with children in pushchairs may benefit more from open/accessible entrances and even and unobstructed paths. Uneven or inaccessible pathways are a particular barrier to older users or people with physical impairments and their carers. This is an impact that can result from excessive weed growth. Effective weed control practices help to preserve an open, safe passageway for pedestrians.
Disability Negative Disabled people or parents of disabled children may benefit more from open/accessible entrances and even and unobstructed paths. Uneven or inaccessible pathways are a particular barrier to wheelchair users or people with physical and sensory impairments and their guardians/parents/carers.
Sex Neutral / No impact
Sexual orientation Neutral / No impact
Gender reassignment Neutral / No impact
Marriage or Civil Partnership (in employment only) Neutral / No impact
Pregnancy and Maternity Neutral / No impact
Race (including colour, ethnicity, nationality or national origin) Neutral / No impact
Religion or belief Neutral / No impact
Other groups
Care Leavers Neutral / No impact
Armed Forces Veterans Neutral / No impact
Those at risk of socio-economic disadvantage Neutral / No impact
Please indicate what actions you intend to take to mitigate negative impact, where it has been identified

Explore the extended working day for mechanical sweeping brushes. However, this would present additional risks of vehicle breakdown, additional wear and tear, increased mileage and fuel usage which may impact on leasing arrangements. Staff shift patterns may also need to be reviewed to accommodate this.

Additional work with Friends of Groups in the wider community. This engagement may not be sustainable over a longer period of time.

Increased social media to explain the resource changes and frequencies.

Are there any negative impacts that cannot reasonably be avoided? If so, on balance, please describe your rationale for why it is still appropriate to proceed with the proposal.

It is inevitable that a reduced service is likely to result in increased weeds across the Borough and impact on our communities as outlined above.

The Council will be much less likely to be proactive in weed reduction and will continue to operate a reactive service.

However, it is anticipated that reduced weed spraying could help improve local biodiversity and wildlife.

How do you plan to monitor ongoing impact and the effectiveness of any identified mitigation activities?
This will be monitored though enquiries received through the Members’ Enquiry System, feedback received through Council’s complaints system and feedback to social media posts (positive or negative).
Responsible Officer Name
Jayne Ingram
Head of Service Name
Andrew Whittaker