City of York Council and Centre for Applied Human Rights
Human Rights and Equity Analysis Tool (HREAT)
An Equity Analysis Tool is an evidence-based
approach designed to help organisations ensure that any Policy,
Criterion or Practice (PCP), is fair and does not create barriers
to participation or disadvantage any protected groups from
participation. This covers both strategic and operational
activities.
City of York Council (CYC) combines this
approach with York’s commitment as a Human Rights City to
produce a Human Rights and Equity Analysis Tool (HREAT).
This document enables CYC to evidence its
legal duty to give ‘due regard’ to those with protected
characteristics under the Equality Act and consider Human Rights at
the same time.
Whether a HREAT is needed or not will depend
on the likely impact that a PCP may have and relevance of the
activity to Equity and Human Rights.
The HREAT should be started when the need for
a new PCP is first identified, or when an existing one is reviewed.
It is essential to continue to update the HREA during the life of
the PCP, as and when new information is learned. It is not complete
until the PCP is complete.
Non-discrimination is a minimum standard. The
development of the HREAT should prompt critical discussion and
highlight disproportionate impacts.
Balancing residents’ rights and CYC
duties can be very complex and sometimes there will be no
‘win-win’, so compromises or mitigations may need to be
identified to ensure the best outcomes.
Finally, the value in a HREAT is in both the
short and long term, by investing in this process CYC will create
robust, meaningful, and empowering policies that are more likely to
stand the test of time.
Who is submitting the proposal?
Directorate
|
Adult Social Care
and Integrated Commissioning
|
Service Area
|
Adult Socia Care and
Integration
|
Name of proposal
|
Occupational Therapy
and Social Worker Contract – Waiting lists
|
Lead Officer
|
Anne Howgate (Assistant Director Access,
Prevention & Improvement)
|
Date Assessment Started
|
13/05/2026
|
Date Assessment Completed
|
14/05/2026
|
Names of those who contributed to the assessment
|
Name
|
Job Title
|
Organisation
|
Area of Expertise
|
|
Sara Storey
|
Corporate Director Adult Social Care &
Integration
|
City of York Council
|
Adult Social Care
|
|
Mark
Woolford
|
Category Manager
– Commercial Procurement Team
|
City of York
Council
|
Procurement
|
|
Anna
Wooding
|
Senior Lawyer Legal
Services
|
City of York
Council
|
Law
|
|
Rumayna
Warren
|
Principal Accountant
Corporate services
|
City of York
Council
|
Finance
|
|
|
|
|
|
Step 1 – Aims and intended outcomes
1.1
|
What is the purpose of the proposal
|
|
Please explain your proposal in plain English
avoiding acronyms and jargon. Consider using Age 9
English.
|
|
Adult Social Care currently have a
waiting list for Care Act assessments, including initial
assessments, carers assessments, safeguarding investigations,
Deprivation of Liberty Safeguard (DoLS)
authorisations, occupational therapy assessments, sensory
assessments, financial assessments, and
reviews. This proposal is intended to address the
waiting list, ensuring the service is assessing
individuals in a timely
manner and taking every opportunity to
prevent, reduce and delay the need for adult social
care.
This proposal
requests a decision to award an external contract to appoint a
supplier following the completion of a
framework mini-competition exercise.
The Care
Act 2014 places a statutory duty on the council to
undertake assessments and reviews for residents of York who have an
appearance of need. The act is silent on timescales and
waiting lists, leaving the judgement about appropriate
timescales for the most part to local authorities
to decide. The recent CQC report
however identified waiting times as a challenge
that does need to be resolved, and this was an issue raised as part
of the s50 notification made to the Secretary of
State.
The council was assessed as failing to
deliver one or more aspects of the following duties to an
acceptable standard: - assessment of needs; carers
assessment; determination of eligibility; care and support
planning; market shaping and sustainability;
preventing needs for care and support; promoting
wellbeing; cooperation between authorities; prevention;
promoting wellbeing; safeguarding enquiries.
The council's overall aims
are:
·
to reduce
delays and improve timescales for assessments and plans for new
people
·
to increase
capacity to pro-actively and more frequently review
existing people
·
to reduce
failure demand associated with reactive responses and
delays
·
to develop
and apply strengths based and preventive approaches to reduce the
level of needs
·
to develop
new models of triaging and managing initial enquiries/referrals
for/from adults to reduce the number of people who require full
assessment
·
to better
support carers who are providing informal
care.
The council has a statutory duty to
deliver best value (the optimum combination
of efficiency, effectiveness quality of outcomes) and
economy. CYC through this programme of assessments
can identify a reduction to the number
of people requiring a full assessment and
also reduce the total long term spend on care and
support.
|
1.2
|
Are there any external considerations?
|
|
Legislation / government directive / codes of
practice etc.
|
|
Yes. The proposal is informed by:
National legislation:
|
The Care Act 2014 - the local authority must
carry out a needs assessment for adults who have an appearance of
care and support needs. Similarly, under section 10 Care Act
2014 the local authority must carry out a carer’s assessment
for carers with an appearance of support needs. Care and plans
produced as a result of both type of assessment must be
produced in a timely fashion. Needs and care’s
assessments must include the impact of the person’s needs on
their wellbeing; detail the outcomes they wish to achieve
and whether the provision of care and support could contribute to
achieving those outcomes. Needs and carer’s assessments must
also consider whether the adult or carer
would benefit from the provision of information or advice
or preventative services, facilities or resources to
reduce needs or prevent deterioration.
Other relevant legislation and
policy:
·
Mental Capacity Act 2005
·
The Equality Act 2010
·
The Human Rights Act 1998
·
Compliance with Care Quality Commission (CQC) regulation.
Local policies and strategies:
·
City of York Council Plan 2023-2027
·
Adult Social Care Strategy 2025-2028
·
York Carers
Strategy 2026-2032
|
1.3
|
Who are the stakeholders and what are their interests?
|
|
Consider both internal and external
stakeholders.
|
|
Stakeholders: Adult Social Care, All directorates in CYC, Voluntary
and Community and Social Enterprise Organisations (VCSE), Residents
of York.
Interests: The
residents of York with an appearance of care or support needs who
have contacted CYC Adult Social Care are currently waiting for an
assessment. While they wait, they may not have access to the vast
VCSE network available in York and their needs could be growing,
resulting in reduced independence and wellbeing. Increased
financial burden to on CYC to meet increased need.
|
1.4
|
What results / outcomes do we want to achieve and for
whom?
|
|
Explain what outcomes you want to achieve for
stakeholders, staff and the wider community. Demonstrate how
the proposal links to the Council Plan (2023- 2027) and other
corporate strategies and plans. Highlight how the proposal meets
the objectives of Equalities, Affordability, Climate and
Health.
|
|
|
For people and
carers
·
Earlier access to information and advice, strength-based assessment
and appropriate support
·
Increased choice and control over their life with support that
promotes independence
·
Improved health and wellbeing
For services
·
Reduced reactive response to urgent need
·
Improved opportunity to find creative solutions, taking an
Occupational therapy lens to assessment
·
Compliance with statutory responsibilities
·
Financial resilience through preventing, reducing and delaying the
need for care and support.
|
The
proposal supports the Council Plan (2023–2027), particularly
objectives relating to health and wellbeing, equality,
affordability and prevention. It supports the Adult Social Care
Strategy (2025-2028), particularly its commitment to valuing
carers, working together with people with lived experience and
improved joint working. It supports the Joint Health and Wellbeing
Strategy (2022-2032) and its objectives to improve people’s
health and wellbeing at all stages of life and make health
fairer.
|
Step 2 – Resources utilised
3.1
|
What sources of data, evidence and consultation feedback have
you used to help understand the impact of the proposal on equality
rights and human rights?
|
|
Please consider a range of sources, including
consultation exercises, surveys, feedback from staff, stakeholders,
participants, research reports, the views of equality groups, as
well your own experience of working in this area etc.
|
Source of data / supporting evidence
|
Reason for using this source
|
|
|
CQC assessment published December 2025
|
The assessment incorporated evidence from
people, partners and staff in formulating an opinion on how adult
social care are currently performing. This led to a s.50
notification and a government appointed Adviser from the Department
of Health and Social Care.
|
Step 3 – Screening the impacts or effects.
3.1
|
Equality-related obligations derive from the Equality Act of
2010 and the Human Rights Act of 1998.
|
|
Once you have engaged with stakeholders you
will need to identify how this proposal impacts on their human
rights and equalities.
Although the table below one looks complex,
its purpose is to facilitate an initial screening of equalities and
human rights impacts of your proposal. Many human rights and
equalities will not be affected by the decision you are seeking
Executive or Council approval for and so can be left blank. The aim
here is to identify pressure points regarding human rights and
equalities that require attention.
Please see the Appendix for details of the
protected characteristics and human rights to consider
|
The rights listed below in the first column
are the relevant ones from the Human Rights Act, and the York Human
Rights City Network Indicator Report (non-discrimination,
education, health and social care, housing, a decent standard of
living). The human rights in the Indicator Report were selected by
residents of York as their priority rights. In the first row the
protected characteristics under the Equality Act are listed, to
which ‘Everyone’ has been added to capture impacts that
affect everyone without distinction.
|
Step 3.2 Table 2 – Assessing the impact of your
proposal
Here you will need to record the details on
all the impacts identified for both Human Rights and those with
Protected Characteristics.
Where you have identified an impact on a
protected characteristic / human right in the table above, please
indicate whether this is positive or negative and give a
description of this impact. If you run out of rows, please add as
necessary.
Rights clashes and restrictions
Where rights clash or are being restricted,
you will need to explain how the decision has been taken, that the
limitation on human rights is provided by law, for a legitimate
purpose (justified), and proportionate (the minimum necessary
restriction on rights).
First, think about what equalities or rights
might be engaged by the proposal, and describe the likely impact of
the proposal, and provide an evaluation.
Use the following questions to inform your
responses if human rights or equalities are limited or qualified in
any way:
·
Why are a person’s rights being restricted?
·
What is the problem being addressed by the restriction on
someone’s rights?
·
Will the restriction lead to a reduction in the problem?
·
Does that restriction involve a blanket policy, or does it allow
for different cases to be treated differently?
·
Does a less restrictive alternative exist?
·
Has sufficient regard been paid to the rights and interests of
those affected?
·
Do safeguards exist against error or abuse?
Table 2
|
|
|
|
|
|
Age
|
positive
|
Improved access to assessment and appropriate
support for all adults
|
Proportionate and preventative
|
|
Disability
|
positive
|
Improved access to strength-based assessment,
preventing, reducing and delaying the need for care and support
|
Improved outcomes and preventative
|
|
Carers
|
positive
|
Improved access to assessment and appropriate
support that enables carers to balance caring responsibilities with
own aspirations
|
Improved outcomes
|
|
Right to private and family life
|
positive
|
Promotes independence and maintains the
importance of relationships with family and friends
|
Enhances rights.
|
|
Everyone
|
positive
|
Improved access and outcomes for all through
earlier access to advice and guidance, assessment, care and
support
|
Improved outcomes
|
Step 4 – Gaps in data and knowledge
4.1
|
What are the main gaps in information and understanding of the
impact of your proposal?
|
|
When conducting your screening, you may have
discovered gaps in data or knowledge that make it difficult to
assess whether your proposal had a positive or negative impact on
human rights/equalities.
Please indicate actions you will take to
resolve this gap.
As your proposal progresses you may be able to
resolve this knowledge gap –please indicate when it was
resolved.
|
|
|
Gaps in data or knowledge
|
Action to deal with this
|
Date resolved
|
|
|
People who are not known to adult social
care
|
Improved partnership work to identify people
with characteristics who are likely to require support in the
future to offer information and advice early intervention and
prevention
|
Ongoing
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Step 5 - Maximising positive impacts
5.1
|
What has been done to optimise opportunities to advance
equality / human rights or foster good relations?
|
|
Monitoring the existing waiting lists to
understand risk and seek to allocate within existing teams. The
introduction of the external contract will enable all people to be
assessed and supported within a 6 month timeframe allowing
opportunity to prevent, reduce and delay the need for care. Pilots
are in place to change the approach to people who are new to adilt
social care.
|
Step 6 – Recommendations and conclusions of the
assessment
6.1
|
Having considered the potential or actual impacts you should be
in a position to make an informed judgement on what should be done.
In all cases, document your reasoning that justifies your
decision.
|
|
|
Important: If there are any adverse
impacts you cannot mitigate, please provide a compelling reason in
the justification column. There are four main options you can
take:
|
|
|
No major change to the proposal
|
The HREAT demonstrates the proposal is
robust. There is no potential for unlawful discrimination or
adverse impact and you have taken all opportunities to advance
equality / human rights and foster good relations, subject to
continuing monitor and review.
|
|
|
Adjust the proposal
|
The HREAT identifies potential problems or
missed opportunities. This involves taking steps to remove any
barriers, to better advance quality or to foster good
relations.
|
|
|
Continue with the proposal (despite the potential for adverse
impact)
|
You should clearly set out the justifications
for doing this and how you believe the decision is compatible with
our obligations
|
|
|
Stop and remove the proposal
|
If there are adverse effects that are not
justified and cannot be mitigated, you should consider stopping the
proposal altogether. If a proposal leads to unlawful discrimination
it should be removed or changed.
|
Option Selected
|
Conclusion / justifications
|
No major change to the proposal
|
The HREAT demonstrates the proposal is
robust. There is no potential for unlawful discrimination or
adverse impact and you have taken all opportunities to advance
equality / human rights and foster good relations, subject to
continuing monitor and review.
The proposal will have a positive impact,
promoting equality and human rights.
|
Step 7 – Summary of agreed actions resulting from the
assessment
7.1
|
What action, by whom, will be undertaken as a result of the
impact assessment.
|
|
List below the actions or mitigations that
have been identified and who will be responsible to carrying them
out. Add as many lines as you need.
|
|
|
Impact / Issue
|
Actions to be taken
|
Person Responsible
|
Timescale
|
|
|
People not known to adult social care
|
Engagement with VCSE and partner agencies
|
Anne Howgate
|
August 2026
|
Step 8 - Monitor, review and improve
8.1
|
How will the impact of your proposal be monitored and improved
upon going forward?
|
|
Consider how will you identify the impact of
activities on protected characteristics, other marginalised groups
and human rights going forward? How will any learning and
enhancements be capitalised on and embedded?
|
|
|
Quality assurance processes will be in place
to ensure that the contract delivers in line with legislation and
promotes human rights.
To test approach, compliance with criteria and
to understand outcomes for people a small number of assessments
will be sent to the awarded contract initially. If desired outcomes
are not achieved there will be no commitment to continue sending.
All opportunities to adapt and learn will be shared across all
adult social care to promote equality and human rights.
|
Appendix
Equity, Diversity & Inclusion (EDI): Protected
characteristics
Under the public sector duties introduced by
the Equality Act 2010 public bodies must have due regard for the
need to:
·
Eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment and victimisation and
other conduct prohibited by the act, such as the failure to make
reasonable adjustments for disabled people
·
Advance equality of opportunity between people who share a
protected characteristic and those who do not
·
Foster good relations between people who share a protected
characteristic and those who do not
These duties relate to the nine protected
characteristic groups defined by the Equality Act 2010 (outlined in
the table below).
The Council recognises that a person’s
socio-economic background and whether they live in a rural or urban
location can be important factors in determining fair access to
services, employment and treatment. When carrying out analysis, you
must also consider socio-economic issues and rural / urban location
issues. In addition to the nine protected characteristic the HREAT
includes the following equality groups:
·
Carers
·
Low income groups
·
Veterans, armed forces community
·
Experience of care/Other (other groups that are impacted)
Human rights differ from equalities in two main ways:
-
First, human rights apply to everyone and not just groups with
protected characteristics.
-
Second, they allow for the balancing of rights, priorities, and
risks. Many rights are not absolute and can be limited or qualified
in particular circumstances.
The following guidance identifies which rights
are most likely to be engaged by proposals in certain policy areas.
This doesn’t mean that you should not consider whether other
rights might be engaged.
Three types of human rights
There are three types of human rights in the
Human Rights Act:
-
Absolute rights – cannot be breached in any
circumstances e.g. right to life and to protection from torture and
inhuman or degrading treatment.
-
Limited rights – can only be restricted in specific
situations e.g. a person can be deprived of their liberty if they
are convicted of an offence and imprisoned.
-
Qualified rights – human rights can be restricted if
it is in the interests of the wider community or to protect other
people’s rights e.g. freedom of movement and assembly were
restricted during the Covid-19 pandemic in the interests of public
health.
As limited and qualified rights are not
absolute, they sometimes have to be balanced in decision making. In
Table 1, absolute rights are indicated with an *; limited rights
with a **; and qualified rights with a ***.
Right
|
Description
|
Focus Area
|
|
|
·
|
|
|
|
|
|
·
|
|
|
|
|
|
·
|
|
|
·
|
|
|
·
|
|
|
·
|
|
|
·
|
|
|
·
|
|
|
·
|
|
|
·
|
|
|
·
|
|
|
·
|
|
|
·
|
The wording of each description box has
been adapted from the following sources:
Equality and Human Rights Commission or British
Institute for Human Rights.
