Equality impact assessment (EIA) form: evidencing paying due regard to protected characteristics
(form updated June 2023)
2026/2027 School Funding Consultation
|
If you would like this information in another language or format such as Braille, large print or audio, please contact the Communications Unit on 01609 53 2013 or email communications@northyorks.gov.uk.
|
|
Equality Impact Assessments (EIAs) are public documents. EIAs accompanying reports going to County Councillors for decisions are published with the committee papers on our website and are available in hard copy at the relevant meeting. To help people find completed EIAs, we also publish them in our website's Equality and Diversity section. This will help people to see for themselves how we have paid due regard in order to meet statutory requirements.
|
Name of Directorate and Service Area |
Central Services - Resources
|
|
Lead Officer and contact details |
Howard Emmett – Assistant Director – Resources howard.emmett@northyorks.gov.uk
|
|
Names and roles of other people involved in carrying out the EIA |
Sally Dunn – Head of Finance – Schools. Early Years & High Needs
|
|
How will you pay due regard? for example, working group, individual officer |
The proposal will be subject to a school wide consultation process from 19 September 2025 ending 24 October 2025 and this EIA will be updated during and following the consultation responses. The item will be discussed at the North Yorkshire School Forum meetings on 18 September 2025 and 20 November 2025.
|
|
When did the due regard process start? |
In setting School Funding each year, it is necessary to consider the level at which the Minimum Funding Guarantee (MFG) is set within the parameters determined by the DfE and to consider any other local school funding formula decisions for the following financial year. This EIA considers these issues in respect of 2026-27 School Funding.
|
|
Section 1. Please describe briefly what this EIA is about. (for example, are you starting a new service, changing how you do something, stopping doing something?)
The EIA considers the review of the level of the MFG and school funding decisions to be considered for the 2026-27 financial year.
In setting School Funding each year, it is necessary to consider the level at which the Minimum Funding Guarantee (MFG) is set within the parameters determined by the DfE. The DfE allow local authorities to set a MFG in local funding formulae between a minimum and a maximum level. This allows every school, dependent on the local decision on the level of the MFG, the opportunity to benefit up to the maximum level in pupil-led funding per pupil compared to its 2025-2026 National Funding Formula (NFF) baseline.
In the event of there being a funding shortfall or funding surplus in the Schools Block Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) after the school funding formula allocations have been calculated using the NFF values as determined by the DfE, the methodology which will be used to allocate funding to or clawback funding from school budgets needs to be considered.
NYC consulted schools on a request to transfer either 0.5% or 1% funding from the Schools Block DSG to the High Needs budget for the 2026-2027 financial year. This request was based on the continued and increasing cost pressures on the High Needs block in North Yorkshire; the High Needs cumulative budget deficit is forecast to be c£24m by March 2026 and the deficit position is forecast to continue to escalate for future financial years if the present demand trend for high needs support continues. Based on the 2025-26 Schools Block funding, a 0.5% transfer would equate to £2.3m and a 1% would equate to £4.6m; the proposed block transfer options for the 2026-27 financial are expected to be similar amounts. The unmitigated in-year deficit on the High Needs Block for 2026-27 is estimated to be £16m based on assumptions on the continued trend for an increase in the number of children and young people assessed as requiring a funded Education, Health and Care Plan (EHCP), inflationary pressures, and the mix of placements across different types of education provision.
The local authority must also consider whether to increase the E3 banded top-up value and, if so, consider the value/uplift factor to be applied.
|
|
Section 2. Why is this being proposed? What are the aims? What does the authority hope to achieve by it? (for example, to save money, meet increased demand, do things in a better way.)
The DfE require each local authority to determine the level of the MFG to be used within their local school funding formula each financial year.
In order to ensure the effective and affordable use of the Schools Block DSG funding, consideration needs to be given to the methodology for managing any surplus or shortfall in funding after the calculation of school funding formula allocations using the NFF values as determined by the DfE.
The deficit on the High Needs Block DSG for NYC if forecast to be £24m at the end of the 2025-2026 financial year. Unmitigated, this position is forecast to deteriorate further for the 2026-2027 financial year by a further £16m based on assumptions on the continued trend for an increase in the number of children and young people assessed as requiring a funded EHCP, inflationary pressures, and the mix of placements across different types of education provision. It is recognised that the proposed funding transfer from the Schools Block to the High Needs budget for the 2026-2027 financial year presents a cost pressure to school budgets. However, given the significance of the levels of concern, at both local authority level and national DfE level, in relation to the High Needs budget deficit position within North Yorkshire, the local authority feels that this option must be considered as part of the overall financial recovery plan strategy for the High Needs budget. The local authority is seeking to mitigate the impact of the funding transfer through the use of additional funding support from reserves and other funding sources.
In terms of a E3 banded uplift factor, the local authority seeks to balance the high needs financial pressures that exist throughout the high needs funding system in North Yorkshire – including within the local authority as well as in education settings at primary and secondary level, mainstream and special, and PRS/AP. A recommendation of a 2% uplift has been proposed – broadly consistent with overall NFF increases and consistent with an approach which seeks to support an inclusive mainstream education offer across the county.
|
|
Section 3. What will change? What will be different for customers and/or staff?
The impact on individual schools may vary in relation to: · the proposed level of the MFG to be implemented in 2026-2027 and the methodology used for managing any surplus or shortfall in funding on the Schools Block DSG after the calculation of school funding formula allocations using the NFF values as determined by the DfE · the level of deficit on the DSG high needs budget will be partially mitigated by a transfer of funding from the Schools Block DSG and the High Needs budget. The transfer is reflective of the shared budget responsibility within the high needs system for the provision of support for pupils with SEN. However, it is recognised that any funding transfer will result in an additional cost pressure on school budgets. The local authority is seeking to mitigate the impact of the funding transfer through the use of additional funding support from reserves and other funding sources.
|
|
Section 4. Involvement and consultation (What involvement and consultation has been done regarding the proposal and what are the results? What consultation will be needed and how will it be done?)
Whilst the DfE have provided summary policy information for the 2026-2027 financial year, the detailed funding information has not been released; this is expected later in the Autumn 2025 term. In this respect the 2026-2027 school funding consultation was principle-based. The North Yorkshire Schools Forum was updated on the 2026-2027 funding arrangements and notified on the intention to consult with schools at its meeting on the 18 September 2025.
A consultation was undertaken with schools and academies between 19 September 2025 and 24 October 2025.
The responses and results from the consultation exercise were presented at the Schools Forum on 20 November 2025. This EIA will be updated during and following the consultation responses. Schools will be notified of the outcome of this process in early / mid-December 2025
|
|
Section 5. What impact will this proposal have on council budgets? Will it be cost neutral, have increased cost or reduce costs?
Please explain briefly why this will be the result.
The specific proposal in the EIA is cost neutral as all costs will be contained within the ring-fence of the 2026-27 Schools and High Needs Block DSG
|
|
Section 6. How will this proposal affect people with protected characteristics? |
No impact |
Make things better |
Make things worse |
Why will it have this effect? Provide evidence from engagement, consultation and/or service user data or demographic information etc. |
|
Age |
ü |
|
|
It is anticipated there will be no specific identifiable impact as a result of this proposal for this characteristic. The proposal will be applied to both primary and secondary schools. |
|
Disability |
|
ü |
|
It is anticipated that the proposal will provide additional funding support to the High Needs budget, thus supporting provision to pupils with SEND |
|
Sex |
ü |
|
|
It is anticipated there will be no specific identifiable impact as a result of this proposal for this characteristic. |
|
Race |
ü |
|
|
It is anticipated there will be no specific identifiable impact as a result of this proposal for this characteristic |
|
Gender reassignment |
ü |
|
|
It is anticipated there will be no specific identifiable impact as a result of this proposal for this characteristic |
|
Sexual orientation |
ü |
|
|
It is anticipated there will be no specific identifiable impact as a result of this proposal for this characteristic |
|
Religion or belief |
ü |
|
|
It is anticipated there will be no specific identifiable impact as a result of this proposal for this characteristic |
|
Pregnancy or maternity |
ü |
|
|
It is anticipated there will be no specific identifiable impact as a result of this proposal for this characteristic |
|
Marriage or civil partnership |
ü |
|
|
It is anticipated there will be no specific identifiable impact as a result of this proposal for this characteristic |
|
Section 7. How will this proposal affect people who… |
No impact |
Make things better |
Make things worse |
Why will it have this effect? Provide evidence from engagement, consultation and/or service user data or demographic information etc. |
|
..live in a rural area? |
ü
|
|
|
It is anticipated there will be no specific identifiable impact as a result of this proposal for this characteristic |
|
…have a low income? |
ü
|
|
|
It is anticipated there will be no specific identifiable impact as a result of this proposal for this characteristic |
|
…are carers (unpaid family or friend)?
|
ü |
|
|
It is anticipated there will be no specific identifiable impact as a result of this proposal for this characteristic |
|
….. are from the Armed Forces Community |
ü |
|
|
It is anticipated there will be no specific identifiable impact as a result of this proposal for this characteristic |
|
Section 8. Geographic impact – Please detail where the impact will be (please tick all that apply) |
|
|
North Yorkshire wide |
ü
|
|
Craven district |
|
|
Hambleton district |
|
|
Harrogate district |
|
|
Richmondshire district |
|
|
Ryedale district |
|
|
Scarborough district |
|
|
Selby district |
|
|
If you have ticked one or more districts, will specific town(s)/village(s) be particularly impacted? If so, please specify below. |
|
|
|
|
|
Section 9. Will the proposal affect anyone more because of a combination of protected characteristics? (for example, older women or young gay men) State what you think the effect may be and why, providing evidence from engagement, consultation and/or service user data or demographic information etc.
None identified
|
|
Section 10. Next steps to address the anticipated impact. Select one of the following options and explain why this has been chosen. (Remember: we have an anticipatory duty to make reasonable adjustments so that disabled people can access services and work for us) |
Tick option chosen |
|
1. No adverse impact - no major change is needed to the proposal. There is no potential for discrimination or adverse impact identified. |
ü
|
|
2. Adverse impact - adjust the proposal - The EIA identifies potential problems or missed opportunities. We will change our proposal to reduce or remove these adverse impacts, or we will achieve our aim in another way which will not make things worse for people. |
|
|
3. Adverse impact - continue the proposal - The EIA identifies potential problems or missed opportunities. We cannot change our proposal to reduce or remove these adverse impacts, nor can we achieve our aim in another way which will not make things worse for people. (There must be compelling reasons for continuing with proposals which will have the most adverse impacts. Get advice from Legal Services) |
|
|
4. Actual or potential unlawful discrimination - stop and remove the proposal – The EIA identifies actual or potential unlawful discrimination. It must be stopped. |
|
|
Explanation of why the option has been chosen (include any advice given by Legal Services.)
No significant adverse impacts have been identified from the EIA affecting one or more protected characteristic. Whilst it is acknowledged that the proposed funding transfer from the Schools Block DSG to the High Needs budget for the 2026-2027 financial year presents a cost pressure to school budgets, the funding reduction will be implemented proportionately across all primary and secondary schools. It is considered that the impact will be across all mainstream schools within North Yorkshire and no greater adverse impact will be experienced by anyone with a protected characteristic.
An increase in E3 top-up funding will be beneficial for mainstream schools and academies, special schools and academies and Pupil referral schools and academies.
The consultation with schools will conclude on the 24 October 2025. This EIA will be updated during and following the consultation responses should this be required.
|
|
|
Section 11. If the proposal is to be implemented how will you find out how it is really affecting people? (How will you monitor and review the changes?)
The school financial governance processes operating within the LA monitor the position of school budgets and the associated impact on the operations of schools.
The high needs budget is monitored on a monthly basis, with quarterly formal reporting.
|
|
Section 12. Action plan. List any actions you need to take which have been identified in this EIA, including post implementation review to find out how the outcomes have been achieved in practice and what impacts there have actually been on people with protected characteristics. |
||||
|
Action |
Lead |
By when |
Progress |
Monitoring arrangements |
|
1. To undertake a formal consultation with schools
|
Howard Emmett – Asst. Director |
24 October 2025 |
|
|
|
2. To report outcomes to School Forum
|
Howard Emmett – Asst. Director |
20 November 2025 |
|
|
|
Section 13. Summary Summarise the findings of your EIA, including impacts, recommendation in relation to addressing impacts, including any legal advice, and next steps. This summary should be used as part of the report to the decision maker.
The Equality Impact Assessment has assessed the impact of the proposal namely:
At this stage of the EIA there is no evidence to suggest that the proposal made will significantly disadvantage one or more protected characteristics
|
|
Section 14. Sign off section
This full EIA was completed by:
Name: Sally Dunn Job title: Head of Finance – Schools, Early Years & High Needs Directorate: Central Services - Resources Signature: Sally Dunn
Completion date: 10/09/2025
Authorised by relevant Assistant Director (signature): Howard Emmett
Date: 10/12/2025
|