1

APPENDIX 2

Proposals for the Early Intervention Service, and allocation of the Early Intervention Grant Phase 2

Equalities Impact Assessment

April 2011

2

Contents

1 Introduction

2 Management of the EIA

3 Identification of the aims and objectives

4 Scope / focus of the EIA and initial assessment of relevance

5 Relevant data and research

6 Consultation

7 Assessment of impact and outcomes

8 Action Plan

9 Formal agreement

10 Publication of results

11 Monitoring

3

1. Introduction This impact assessment was undertaken using the methodology and approach set out Lewisham’s Equalities Impact Assessment (EIA) toolkit. Every service undergoing organisational change or review requires the undertaking of such an assessment to ensure that the proposals address equalities and that implementation meets both the aspirations set out in the Council’s equalities policies and statutory requirements. The Equalities Impact Assessment has been necessitated due to a reduction of resources both nationally and locally. Lewisham has responded to the national economic climate by reviewing its services and making efficiencies of around 25% across all services. The efficiencies will be achieved in Phases which cover financial years 2011-12 (Phase 1) and 2012-14 (Phase 2). The proposal relating to the future allocation of the Early Intervention Grant was included in Phase 2 efficiencies, listed as CYP 13. The Mayor agreed to further work being undertaken in relation to the allocation of the Early Intervention Grant and this EIA considers the proposals. This assessment has considered the content of the proposals and analysed whether these are likely to have a positive or negative impact on different groups within the local community. Having made this assessment it sets out the action to be taken to prevent direct and indirect discrimination and positively promote positive and harmonious community relations. 2. Management of the EIA This assessment was undertaken by Christine Grice, Head of Access and Support supported by: Catherine Bunten, Policy Officer, Commissioning, Strategy & Performance The methodology used for this EIA has been to:

• Collate and analyse relevant data in relation to the proposal

• Review relevant consultations undertaken on the proposal that relate to equalities

• Present a draft EIA to the Directorate Management Team of the Children & Young People’s directorate for recommendation of changes and approval

• This EIA will also be considered at a Mayor and Cabinet meeting in May 2011 as part of the Council’s wider budget savings decision making process.

3. Identification of aims and objectives This proposal is part of a package of budget savings proposals to be considered by Lewisham Council to enable it to achieve the required £1,218,000 in savings.

4

The overall aim of the proposal is to achieve efficiency savings within services for Children and Young People from 2011 – 2014 whilst ensuring that improvements in services for Children and Young People across Lewisham are not lost. Targeting our resources on those children, young people and families most in need is designed to be the most efficient and sensible approach in a context of reduced funding and capacity. The proposals in relation to the future allocation of the Early Intervention Grant are as follows: 3.1. Description of Saving Proposed: Within the context of the 20% cuts to the grants constituting the Early Intervention Grant; we propose to cease to provide universal early years services out of Children’s Centres. The move to targeted services is the most efficent approach in a context of fewer resources; we aim to use our resources to the most effect, promoting equal opportunities and reaching those in the most need. It is proposed that the grant is allocated over the following categories of expenditure: Three to comprise a new Children’s Centre and Early Intervention Service:

1. Children’s Centre services/ Targeted Early Years: our proposal is to move from universal to targeted services, ensuring our resources are focused on those children and families most in need and securing more impact. Children’s Centres will focus on impact for targeted families and will include the 2 year old offer and ‘closing the gap’ improvement work. This will be alongside the universal offer of 15 hours free early education for 3 and 4 year olds and Health Visitors

2. Family Support services providing outreach and family support for children lower down the triangle of need and to prevent the need for them to access higher level services

3. Support for services in conducting ‘Team around the Child’ and ‘Team around the Family’ services: Provision of support to agencies in ensuring that they are able to identify needs and work together in a team around the family approach, with an agreed understanding with the family about what needs to be done and who will be doing it. This will include some quality assurance of Common Assessment Framework assessments (CAFs) and action plans to ensure that clear outcomes are identified and that impact is measured.

The Early Intervention Grant will also be allocated to five other areas of key activity:

4. Diversion from care through intensive family support, and the Community Budgets pilot.

5. Support for families of children with complex needs. To include, for example, short breaks; support for children with Autistic Spectrum Disorders; support for children with Special Educational Needs; the Multi Agency Planning Pathway (MAPP); transition work; support for behaviour disorders

5

6. Youth Services, including targeted youth activity; links with Youth Offending Service (YOS), detached youth work; intervention to reduce substance misues and teenage pregnancy.

7. NEET reduction work. This will entail three strands: intensive keywork support for people who have been NEET for a long period of time; intensive short courses for NEETs; and keywork support for 13-16 year olds idenitifed as at high risk of becoming NEET. Target groups will include those with special needs, Looked After Children and links to post 19. A separate EIA has been completed for this NEET reduction work

8. Family Information Service, to ensure quality information to families looking for childcare provision and support. Proposals are to incorporate this function into the new corporate website.

It is estimated that a range of outcomes could be delivered with a value of £14m against a grant allocation of £17.65m. This would enable grant substitution of £1.7m to be undertaken in 2011/12. In addition a £1m could continue to support children’s social care costs as in 2010/11 from the Sure Start grant. This will mean stopping contracts for sure start and other providers and retendering against new specifications. New specifications will promote the involvement of the local community and voluntary organisations. The transitional issues and costs are under consideration. The creation of the early intervention service will involve the merging of two existing service manager roles with a net loss of one post. The net budget shown is the current council contribution towards all current early years services which are largely funded by grant. As the detailed work on stopping and retendering activity is ongoing it is estimated that up to 100 posts could be affected.

The overall objectives of the proposal are that: 1 Vulnerable Children and Young People in Lewisham receive the services they need,

and that children are stopped from rising ‘up the triangle’ through improved outcomes and impact.

2. The following savings are achieved over the next three years:

Year 2011-12 2012-2013 2013-2014 Total

£1695,000 £1000,000 £2695,000

4. Scope / focus of the EIA and assessment of relevance The main aim of this EIA is to determine the answer to the following two questions: - Do the proposals discriminate against or adversely impact on individuals or groups who are using or who would potentially benefit from the services provided? - Can the proposals be delivered in a way that further promotes equal opportunities? Please see table 4.1 below::

6

4.1 Assessment of the proposals Below is an initial assessment of the proposal that looks at the potential impact and relevance on seven equality strands: gender, race, disability, age, sexual orientation, religion and belief, and socio-economic factors.

Equalities category

Key equalities legislation

Assessment of POTENTIAL impact

High, Medium, Low, Neutral (Positive or Negative)

Reason for this initial assessment

Age Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006 Equality Act 2010

Low, Negative The Regulations make it unlawful to discriminate directly or indirectly on the grounds of a person’s age; the regulations have a wide impact on other areas of employment law including unfair dismissal and redundancy provisions. SERVICE USERS / STAKEHOLDERS: The current proposals are relevant to children and young people, especially Children’s Centres, which provide services for our youngest children. Any reduction in services will therefore have the greatest impact upon this age group. The proposals have been developed to ensure that work across the partnership continues to focus on positive outcomes and targets for Children and Young People, and a ‘team around the child’/’team around the family’ approach is designed to ensure positive outcomes for the child, and their family. STAFFING: It is not expected that the proposals will have a disproportionate impact on staff of any age.

Disability Disability Discrimination Act 1995 / 2005 Equality Act 2010

Neutral The DDA 1995 requires local authorities to have due regard to: eliminating unlawful discrimination against disabled people; eliminating harassment of disabled people; and promoting equality of opportunity. The Disability Equality Duty (part of the DDA 2005) also places a duty on public authorities to promote equal opportunities for disabled people.

7

SERVICE USERS / STAKEHOLDERS: There are a number of local and national targets relating to services for children with disabilities and the current proposals have been developed to ensure that services for this group continues to be a priority. This is central to the work of the Children with Disabilities team, the dedicated team and provision at Kaleidoscope. The proposed new service will continue this focus to support children with disabilities and their families through support for children with complex needs and targeted early intervention. STAFFING: It is not expected that the proposals will have a disproportionate impact on staff with disabilities.

Gender (inc Gender reassignment, pregnancy and maternity)

Equal Pay Act 1970 Sex Discrimination Act 1975 Equality Act 2010

Neutral The Sex Discrimination Act requires local authorities to have due regard to the need to eliminate unlawful discrimination and harassment and to promote equality of opportunity between men and women. The Equality Act gives local authorities and schools duties to promote gender equality as employers and as providers of services. SERVICE USERS / STAKEHOLDERS: No implications relating to gender have been identified within the current proposals. STAFFING: The majority of Children’s Centre staff are female and so the impact of the proposed changes would be felt most significantly by women

Race Race Relations Act 1976 Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000 Equality Act 2010

Low (negative) The Race Relations Act 1976 makes it unlawful to treat a person less favourably than other on racial grounds; it also provides protection from race discrimination in employment, education, training, housing and the provision of goods, facilities and services. The Equality Act 2010 requires public sector bodies to have “due regard” to eliminating unlawful discrimination (direct, associative, perception and indirect), harassment, and victimisation on the grounds of race; to advance equality of opportunity between different groups; and to foster good relations between different groups. The proposed changes will take place across some of the areas containing the greatest levels of ethnic diversity in the borough. There is therefore a possibility of a disproportionate impact upon these communities. SERVICE USERS / STAKEHOLDERS: The school population of Lewisham is ethnically diverse with more that 73% of the borough’s pupils population being

8

from black and minority ethnic groups. Any changes to support provided to our children and young people is therefore likely to impact more significantly upon these groups. STAFFING: The Children and Young People’s directorate has an ethnically diverse workforce, with a large proportion of Children’s Centre staff from black and minority ethnic groups.

Religion / Belief

Employment Equality (Religion or belief) Regulations 200

Neutral The Employment Equality Regulations 2003 make it unlawful to discriminate directly or indirectly or to harass an employee on the grounds of their religion or belief. The Equality Act 2010 requires public sector bodies to have “due regard” to eliminating unlawful discrimination (direct, associative, perception and indirect), harassment, and victimisation on the grounds of faith/belief; to advance equality of opportunity between different groups; and to foster good relations between different groups. SERVICE USERS / STAKEHOLDERS: The proposed changes will take place in areas which contain some of the greatest levels of ethnic diversity across the whole borough; this ethnic diversity is likely to be similarly reflected in the range of faiths / beliefs that are practiced. Some staff at centres are trained to be able to offer facilities (e.g. preparation of certain foods) that address specific cultural and religious needs of users. It is therefore anticipated that these proposals are more likely to impact significantly on these groups. STAFFING: No implications relating to the faith / beliefs of staff have been identified within the current proposals.

Sexual Orientation

Employment equality (sexual orientation) Regulations 2003 Equality Act 2010

Neutral The Employment Equality Regulations 2003 make it unlawful to discriminate directly or indirectly or to harass an employee on the grounds of their sexual orientation The Equality Act 2010 requires public sector bodies to have “due regard” to eliminating unlawful discrimination (direct, associative, perception and indirect), harassment, and victimisation on the grounds of sexual orientation ; to advance equality of opportunity between different groups; and to foster good relations between different groups. SERVICE USERS / STAKEHOLDERS: No specific implications relating to sexual orientation have been identified within the current proposals. STAFFING: No implications relating to the sexual orientation of staff have been

9

identified.

Socio-economic (i.e. the combination of factors including income, level of education, and occupation)

Equality Act 2010 Low (Negative) SERVICE USERS / STAKEHOLDERS: About 28% of children in Lewisham are eligible for free school meals, this group may be negatively impacted on by the reduction in universal services. However, some of these children will be recipients of the targeted early intervention services delivered within the proposal. STAFFING: The proposals include the deletion of posts; those Council staff directly affected will be included in the Council’s redeployment processes and this may lead to redundancy if suitable alternative employment cannot be identified. It is noted that the posts proposed for deletion are across a range of different salary grades.

10

5. Relevant data and research

5.1. Grants The Early Intervention Grant replaces what was previously 22 grants consisting of:

• Sure Start Children’s Centres

• Early Years Sustainability – including sufficiency and access, quality and inclusion, buddying, holiday childcare and disabled access to childcare

• Early Years Workforce – quality and inclusion, graduate leader fund and every child a talker

• Two year old offer – Early Learning and Childcare

• Aiming High for Disabled Children

• Connexions

• Think Family

• Youth Opportunity Fund

• Youth Crime Action Plan

• Challenge and Support

• Children’s Fund

• Positive Activities for Young People Programme

• Youth Taskforce

• Young People Substance Misuse

• Teenage Pregnancy

• Key Stage 4 Foundation Learning

• Targeted Mental Health in Schools Grant

• Contact Point

• Children’s Social Care Workforce

• Intensive Intervention Grant

• January Guarantee

• Child Trust Fund

Ring-fencing has been removed from the Early Intervention Grant. The grant has been reduced from £22m to £17.6million, a £4.4m cut representing a 20% reduction in these grants. This significant cut from the Government requires us to rethink how services should be shaped

The Government expects local authorities to use the new funding in support of a wide range of services for children, young people and families, including

• Sure Start children’s centres

• free early education places for disadvantaged two-year-olds

• short breaks for disabled children

• targeted support for vulnerable young people

• targeted mental health in schools

• targeted support for families with multiple problems.

In line with this expectation, the proposal is to move from universal to targeted services, particularly in the early years, ensuring our resources are focused on those children and families most in need. The proposal is therefore to stop current provision and to re-commission new activity that is targeted and has more impact from children and families most in need.

11

5.2 Proposed Service It is proposed that the Early Intervention Grant is allocated over eight areas of proposed activites as described on pages 4 and 5 of this report.

While it is proposed that services funded through the Early Intervention Grant should focus on improving outcomes for targeted children and famillies, there will still be strong universal services provided for all children in Lewisham, including through the free 3 and 4 year old childcare offer, schools, primary health care from GPs, and the Health Visiting service. We propose to maintain a strong network of Children’s Centres in partnership with Health and others. However, the Council is proposing that the services provided through its Children Centres should be commissioned from third sector or other providers and that its resources should be focused on those most in need. Centres will also be available to groups who wish to run unfunded activity from them. Those successful in winning contracts for providing the new services would also be responsible for encouraging such groups to use the Children Centres.

The aim is to maintain the area structure, with four hubs offering a range of services. Working with local groups, the intention is that centres will be available to groups to offer universal services. The Council’s resources will not be used to purchase health delivery, but continued partnership work with health will ensure access to these services. An ‘outcomes based’ specification for each Children’s Centre area is proposed, based on that area’s profile, with an element of payment by results. A number of Children’s Centres are on school sites, and schools will be given a different specification taking into account their unique position, and with the expectation that they will not need to enter a competitive process. If they do not wish to deliver to the new specifications, alternative providers will be sought. The specifications will not preclude providers providing services for a mix of families but they will need to ensure that they reach the most in need and deliver the improved outcomes. 5.3 Specifications: Specifications will be designed to improve outcomes for targeted children, young people and their families using Children’s Centres, primarily in relation to:

• Improved parenting and attachment

• Improved school readiness

• Prevention of escalation to more specialist services.

Indicators used will be those that assure us of securing improved life chances, and must be robust and manageable.

The indicators we are currently considering, under the three outcomes, are:

• Improved Parenting and attachment

o Increased evidence of positive parenting o Increased bonding and evidence of strengthened

12

attachment

• Improved school readiness

o Improved communication, language and literacy skills o Improved social and emotional development

• Prevention of escalation

o Improved outcomes against family specific objectives o Improved self esteem and resilience

In addition to the focus on outcomes, the specifications will provide clarity about demographics and local need, using the area children centre profiles; an identification numbers of families needing targeted levels of service; requirements to engage with schools, GP’s , health visitors, and other services; a requirement to engage with other non-LA funded activity and to encourage other usage of children centres, and a requirement to use evidence based approaches.

5.4 Short Breaks Services It is proposed that existing core services providing short breaks for families with disabled children are extended in line with existing Service Specifications from April 1st to Aug 31st 2011, to enable service delivery to continue while a commissioning process is commenced. The proposed new service delivery is anticipated to start on 1st September 2011. The recommissioning process will have outcome based specifications, ensuring impact, and will be designed with input from service users. 5.5 Positive Activities for Young People & NEET Reduction Strategy A report was presented to the Mayor & Cabinet 20th April 2011 with details of the allocation of resources from the EIG to Positive Activities for Young People. A separate EIA on the NEET reduction strategy has been completed 5.6 Context: There are four Early Childhood Centres in Lewisham. Two of them are in Children’s Services Area 1 and two in Children’s Services Area 2. Areas 3 and 4 do not have directly managed Early Childhood Centres Early Childhood Centres have evolved over a 16 year period when they were transferred from Social Care and Health to a newly integrated Early Years Service combining Education and Social services provision into one Service Unit. The new Service added early education into the offer and broadened the scope of the centres to provide places for children of low income working families. Early Childhood Centres today provide early education and childcare for both working parents with children aged 0-5 and for children deemed to have a priority need as set out in the agreed criteria. Children will be considered in priority need of day integrated education and daycare services if:

• The child has a Child Protection (CP) or Child in Need (CIN) Plan, and is an open case to children’s social care

13

And/Or

• The child has a Statement as agreed through the Special Educational Needs (SEN) Panel

And

• That childcare is identified as the most appropriate intervention to meet the needs identified in the CIN/CP Plan or Statement

And

• The parents/carers have been assessed as not being in a financial position to pay for the childcare themselves

And

• Alternatives have been explored where appropriate, e.g. childcare provided by family members

And

• The parents/carers views have been taken into account when making a referral

The referral needs to be accompanied by the minutes from the Multi Agency Meeting that has agreed the need for the referral. Each referral will be reviewed at the same time as the CIN/CP/Statement is reviewed or earlier if the family situation changes. There should be an agreement that childcare remains the most appropriate service for the family. 5.6.1 Children’s Centre Service Areas

• Children’s Centre Service Area One Area one has the highest number of 0-4 year olds registered on Connect at February 2011, Evelyn has the highest number of all wards in the borough, and all wards are above average. The population is predicted to grow across Area One, with Evelyn seeing a huge rise predicted by 2026. Deprivation1

This area serves the northern part of the borough and two of its four wards (Evelyn and New Cross) have the highest concentrations of overall deprivation in the whole of the borough. At least 66% of each of these wards has at least 90% of their Lower Super Output Areas (or localities) in the 20% most deprived in the country. Health and disability deprivation: Four of Evelyn wards’ localities (and one of Brockley’s) are amongst the 20% most deprived in the country for health and disability deprivation. The area also has the highest instance of registered children with a disability, with New Cross, Evelyn and Telegraph Hill having the highest distribution of children registered with a disability in the borough. Brockley has the fifth highest. Income deprivation affecting children: Twelve of Area One’s localities are amongst the 10% most deprived in the country for income deprivation affecting children, and 29 are amongst the 20% most deprived.

1 Indices of Deprivation, Dept for Communities & Local Government 2007

14

• Children’s Centre Service Area Two Deprivation This area serves the eastern and central part of the borough and has pockets of deprivation across its six wards. It contains the lowest levels of overall deprivation in Lewisham and three of its wards (Crofton Park, Ladywell and Lee Green) contain no Lower Super Output areas (or localities) in the 20% most deprived in the country; Catford South is the only other ward in the borough that has this. However, there are aspects of deprivation in which certain wards figure relatively highly (see below). Heath and disability deprivation: Lewisham Central and Rushey Green wards each contain one locality which is amongst the 10% most deprived in the country; New Cross is the only other ward in the borough that has such a locality. Area 2 has the second highest incidence of 0-4 year old children registered with a disability in the borough. Income deprivation affecting children: Across the borough there are 38 localities amongst the 10% most deprived in the country for income deprivation affecting children. In Area 2, three of these localities are in Blackheath and three are in Lewisham Central. The other three wards contain none of these localities.

• Children’s Centre Service Area Three Deprivation This area serves the southern part of the borough and has pockets of deprivation across its four wards, concentrated in the southern areas. Heath and disability deprivation: Whitefoot and Downham wards each contain localities that frequently appear at the top of the list for deprivation, mortality rates and life expectancy. Area 3 has the least number of children registered with a disability in the borough. Income deprivation affecting children: In Area 3, 8 areas (across 3 wards: Whitefoot, Downham, Grove Park) are in the 10% most deprived in the country, with an additional 12 in the top 20% (in the same three wards).

• Children’s Centre Service Area Four Deprivation This area serves the south western part of the borough and has pockets of deprivation across all of its four wards. Heath and disability deprivation Bellingham has high health deprivation. There are less children registered with a disability in Area Four than in Area One or Two, however, Perry Vale ward has the fourth highest distribution of children registered with a disability across all wards. Income deprivation affecting children

15

Bellingham has a high level of deprivation with 66.7% of SOAs in the worst 20% in England. Forest Hill, Sydenham and Perry Vale all have at least one SOA in the worst 10% in the country. Ethnicity:

Disability:

16

5.7 Existing service staffing information

This proposal will affect staff teams across the Children and Young People’s Directorate, specifically: Early Years Family Support Youth Services Family Information Service Ethnicity/Gender/Religion/Sexuality/Disability/Age of staff, and Staff post gradings: As work on retendering continues, it is estimated that up to 100 posts could be affected. Staff across services and partners reflect the population context of Lewisham however, there is a greater proportion of female staff in the Children’s Centres, Childcare and Play service and women are therefore more likely to be affected by staffing restructures.

6. Consultation 6.1. Informal consultation All organisations that will be impacted by the proposal were informed in December 2010. Many contracts were always going to be ending on 31.03.11. An informal consultation took place with organisations affected by the proposals through to February 2011. This consultation was reported to Mayor and Cabinet in as part of the Phase 2 savings proposals on 17th February 2011. The main concerns expressed in this consultation were:

• Early Years taking a disproportionate effect nationally

• Concerns around other grant from the Community Sector Unit (CSU) and any additional impact from this.

6.2 Formal Consultation An extensive consultation process took place throughout March 2011 using three approaches:

1. Children’s Centres Service Users Meetings 2. Online consultation using UEngage 3. Meetings with stakeholders and partners: Voluntary Action Lewisham CYP

Forum, CYP Strategic Partnership Board, Joint Commissioning Group, School Strategic Boards, Lewisham Safeguarding Children Board, Young Mayor & Advisors.

17

6.2.1 Summary of Consultation responses from Service User Meetings The council received 174 responses from Children’s Centre service users. The main issues raised during the consultation were:

• The need to maintain a network of Children Centre Services

• Concerns with the proposal to target support on parents/carers with the greatest need

• The intrinsic importance and value of Children’s Centres for children and families, and their importance as a service to provide help and support early to families to prevent escalation of need

• Support for the local groups being encouraged to use the centres to provide services

• Concerns regarding the costs, funding and practicalities of other groups and volunteers providing services

• The need for centres to be open and used frequently

• Some service users thought the reduction of sites restricted access and some parents pointed out some difficulties in travelling to centres

6.2.2 Feedback from the schools that have Children Centres on site

The schools in this category welcome the proposals to give them more autonomy in the running of their centre.

6.2.3 Summary of consultation responses from provider and partner meetings At the VAL CYP Forum and LBL CYP event, 57 were in attendance (3 from LBL + 1 member) representing 44 organisations, in addition, 10 responses were emailed directly to Council Officers. The main issues raised during the consultation were:

• Issues the Voluntary and Community sector may face with a payments by results scheme, and the need for simple and achievable monitoring and reporting arrangements

• Clarification on the timescale and process for change

• Queries regarding the range of funding opportunities

• Support for the overarching outcomes proposed, with additional priorities and indicators for measurement suggested

• The importance of support to VCS to enable them to submit bids

• Practicalities in forming partnership and consorita

6.2.4 Summary of Consultation Responses from UEngage We received 22 responses from UEngage. The responses to the consultation from UEngage showed:

18

• Support for the overarching outcomes

• Some responses wanted further clarification on how the indicators would be measured within these three outcomes.

• Concerns with how PBR would be implemented 6.2.5 Consultation with the Young Mayor and Advisors The Young Mayor and Advisors recognised the need to re-evaluate our services and delivery in the light of reduced resources. They felt an important area to cover was the group of young people who don't quite meet the targeted criteria, and ensuring that a network of support and services still existed to support these, and all young people.

The Young Mayor and Advisors would also be interested in further updates as the proposals are developed, with specific regard to what targeted criteria would encompass, and details of which services and organisations would see a reduction or end. 7. Assessment of impact and outcomes This EIA has been conducted to ensure that, in considering the Early Intervention Grant proposals, the Council has met its responsibilities under equalities legislation, specifically:

� The Sex Discrimination Act section 76, and the requirement to have due regard to the need to eliminate unlawful discrimination and harassment and promote equality of opportunity between men and women

� The Race Relations Act section 71 and the requirement to have due regard to the need to eliminate unlawful racial discrimination and to promote equality of opportunity between persons of different racial groups

� The Disability Discrimination Act section 49 and the requirement to have due regard to the need to eliminate unlawful discrimination, eliminate harassment of disabled people, promote equality of opportunity, take steps to take account of disabilities even when that involves treating people more favourably, promote positive attitudes towards disabled people and encourage participation by disabled people in public life

In order to meet these duties, following the scoping of the assessment and identification of potential areas for discrimination, analysis of data and research and specific consultation, the assessment must check whether the delivery of the savings proposal –

- would lead to unlawful discrimination - would have an adverse impact on one or more equality categories - would mean that some equality categories are, or may be, excluded from

service benefits - would mean that some equality categories are disadvantaged

19

If an adverse impact is identified, then options for reducing that must be considered. If it were actually unlawful, then it would need to be changed. Assessment of the potential impact on equalities groups has been based on analysis of data and feedback through research with staff and partner organisations (including Health). Assessment The overall assessment is that these savings proposals will have some adverse impact upon some equalities groups but will not lead to unlawful discrimination. The proposals can also be seen, in some areas, to provide opportunities to positively promote equal opportunities. Age: - the proposals relate to services for children and young people and so will have the greatest impact on them. However, this needs to be seen in the context of the whole package of savings proposals being considered by the Council where impact will apply across a whole range of groups. Disability: - the refocusing of services on vulnerable groups may have a positive impact on Children with SEN as the proposals seek to promote equal opportunities for this group in the provision of targeted services Gender: - the proposals include ending or not renewing contracts with some organisations who provide activities for parents and young children. As females are more likely to use these services, they will feel a more significant impact from the proposals. - the proposals for staff reductions are likely to impact negatively and disproportionately upon female employees as this group is more highly represented in the overall staffing population of inner city local authorities such as Lewisham. 82% of employees in CYP are female . The Council has processes in place to minimise impact on staff in terms of redundancies and this includes consideration of alternative suitable employment through the redeployment procedures. The Council is also committed to enabling all directly affected staff to access support and training in order to increase their skills and employability. Ethnicity: - a large proportion of Lewisham’s population of children and young people are from black and ethnic minority communities and speak over 170 different languages. However, the targeting of services will see a reduction in services, offering less but without impacting disproportionately on these groups . - the proposals include ending or not renewing contracts with some organisations who provide dedicated support for children and young people from a number of different black and ethnic minority communities in the borough, including

20

Supplementary Schools. However, these organisations will be included in opportunities to bid to provide services in the proposed Early Intervention service. Religion/Belief: - no disproportionate impact on religious/belief groups is anticipated in the proposals. Sexual Orientation: - no disproportionate impact on these groups is anticipated in the proposals. These proposals should be seen in the context of the Council’s duty to set a balanced budget. These savings proposals, alongside considered at Mayor and Cabinet in February 2011 will help meet that legal requirement. Lewisham Children and Young People’s services are committed to ensuring that they promote equality and prevent discrimination across all their areas of responsibility. The current proposals have been developed to ensure that key programmes are mainstreamed for more effective support regarding concerns about vulnerable and underachieving children and young people. 8. Action Plan

Issue Equality category

Recommendation / Action

The need to maintain a network of Children Centre Services

Age There is a general agreement to the Council’s intention to maintain the network of Children Centres.

The impact of targeted services on current users: How will the benefits of universal services be safeguarded (e.g peer support and social cohesion) Risk of “stigmatising”.

Socio-economic

The Council does not have the funds to continue running the Children Centres in the same way. Help to the children and families with the greatest need continues to be the priority, and will have a positive equalities impact for these families. The Children Centres will continue to provide a core offer of signposting to other services and advice on the universal 3 & 4 year old entitlement to the 15 hours free early education, as well as the universal health visiting service. The new specifications will not prevent service providers continuing to provide a universal service, however, the Local Authority will hold providers to account for the outcomes for targeted families and the number of these their services reach. The new specifications will require providers to make accommodation available for local groups. Groups will be able to apply for funding from other sources. There is a specific recommendation about prioritisation of working with local groups during the transition period to help them to be sustainable in delivering universal services. The fact that providers will be able to target families through a mixed provision was not well understood and we will need to improve our communication significantly on this issue. Specifications will be designed to avoid the possibilities of

21

services becoming stigmatised

The reduction of sites may risk restricted access and parents may have difficulties in travelling to centres.

Socio-economic Disability

There are currently 19 designated Children Centres, although two, Brockley and Heathside and Lethbridge, are currently out of commission. The proposal is to maintain all the designated centres and to develop one in each area as a “hub” with a greater range of services with easier and extended access. There will be continued provision in other designated Children Centres. In order to increase access some sites, outside of the designated centres, have been used. These will be closed in order to reduce costs.

Officers will discuss with Kelvin Grove and Eliot Bank schools about the development of a complimentary offer and explore the scope for greater efficiencies.

As deprivation and disability are not evenly spread across the borough, the proposals may have a disproportionate affect in the wards with the highest instance

Disability

Resources will be targeted at children with Special Needs and disabilities.

The proposals relate to services for children and young people and so will have greatest impact on them.

Age This needs to be seen in the context of the whole package of savings proposals being considered by the Council where impact will apply across a whole range of groups. The Council aims to work with partners, VCS and other providers to ensure that a range of services are available to our children and young people

The proposals include ending or not renewing contracts with some organisations who provide dedicated support for CYP from a number of different black and ethnic minority communities in the borough, including Supplementary Schools.

Ethnicity These organisations will be included in opportunities to bid to provide services in the proposed Early Intervention service.

The proposals include ending or not renewing contracts with some organisations who provide activities for parents and young children. As females are more likely to use these services, they will feel a more significant impact from the proposals. The proposals for staff reductions are likely to impact negatively and disproportionately upon female employees as this group is more highly represented in the overall staffing population of inner city local authorities such as Lewisham.

Gender The Council has processes in place to minimise impact on staff in terms of redundancies and this includes consideration of alternative suitable employment through the redeployment procedures. The Council is also committed to enabling all directly affected staff to access support and training in order to increase their skills and employability.

22

9. Formal agreement The completed Equalities Impact Assessment will be signed off by Lewisham’s Mayor and Cabinet during consideration of the budget savings in February 2011. 10. Publication of results The EIA will be available as part of the reports on the Early Intervention Grant proposals that are presented to Mayor and Cabinet on 20th May 2011. 11. Monitoring The achievement of changes, amendments and recommendations arising from the EIA will be monitored through the Service Plan which will be endorsed by the Senior Management Team of the Access and Support division.