I was overjoyed when I was informed that I had been successful at the paper sift stage of the promotion process. I spent hours and hours on my application and so was glad that my investment had paid off. I attended my interview and gave it my best. The result wasn’t what I had hoped it would be, but as a disabled person I am used to barriers. I am used to giving my heart and soul with little recognition in return. That’s what I have come to know of life in policing.

However, what I was and still am happy about, is that my request for reasonable adjustment was agreed and accommodated. It wasn’t your typical reasonable adjustment either. I was able to evidence (using a rather lengthy report packed full of documentary evidence) that a particular element of the assessment criteria put me at a disadvantage.

I was prepared to have to argue my point….but it just wasn’t necessary. The request was made and the very next day it was accepted, much to my surprise! It couldn’t have been easier.

But I have come to question, even with the adjustment, was I still at a disadvantage?

The answer is, I honestly don’t know. At the time I was just pleased that a disadvantage had been acknowledged. I think ultimately, I was just grateful to have had an opportunity.

But should I be ‘grateful’ though?

What is important to note though is that if you don’t ask – you don’t get. If you don’t try – you will never succeed.

I know that many disabled officers feel that which ever way you cut it, the police promotion process just isn’t fair towards those with a disability.

Some feel disadvantaged when gaining the evidence to apply in the first place. Some feel lacking in opportunity, often over looked by Senior officers in favour of those who are ‘fully able’. Others feel that competency based interviews disadvantage them due to their condition, such as those with Autism, Dyslexia or Dyspraxia.

So are they right? Are police promotion and recruitment processes fair? More importantly, are they fair for disabled people?

I won’t give an opinion as I will likely be accused of being ‘bitter’ or ‘sucking up’ in preparation for the next process, depending on which way my opinion leans.

However, if you were to ask the College of Policing for a view, I’m sure the answer would be “yes” it is a fair process.

But, if you asked disabled people in policing, I bet the overwhelming majority would answer “no”.

I don’t feel I have grounds to complain. I requested reasonable adjustment and was granted it. This is more than I had ever imagined I would get.

But then I wonder, am I content because I was given more than I was expecting I would? I had prepared myself to stand up for my entitlement to adjustment and was frankly relieved when it wasn’t necessary.

But was the adjustment actually enough?

I read a great article this week by @Alice_Kirby where she had the opportunity to interview Jeremy Corbyn about disability in politics.

Miss Kirby writes that only 2 of 650 MPs self declare as having a disability, yet if politics were to be truly representative of the people of the UK – 1 in 5 would have a disability.

By the very same logic surely 20% of policing should therefore be made up of disabled people? The numbers currently stand at no more than around 5%. Wasn’t it once said that “the police are the public and the public are the police…”?

Shouldn’t the police be representative of the communities they serve?

There has been a concerted drive from the top by the Prime Minister, (formerly as Home Secretary) to increase BME representation in policing and at every rank. So why too is this not being driven for disability in policing when disabled people are so clearly underrepresented? Why is this not driven in politics also?

Addressing Under representation

So how can this issue of under representation be addressed (assuming someone has the desire to address it)? Or should it even be addressed at all?

I personally believe it should. Disabled people in policing are being left behind without the opportunity to keep up with everyone else. The only commitment we have seen so far on this issue is actually the complete reverse – the desire to reduce the numbers of disabled officers through measures such as Limited duties and Capability Dismissal.

It may sound a contradiction, but my belief is that most disabled people are generally no less able than non disabled people (except in extreme cases). We are merely less able at what are considered to be ‘conventional’ activities, but in fact we are often more able at ‘non conventional’ activities.

An example to illustrate my point – look at the fantastic GB Paralympic team. Are they less able than their able bodied team mates? Or are they just more able at ‘other things’? Could Andy Murray win a Wimbledon title if he had to move around the court in a wheelchair (a less ‘conventional’ way to play tennis)?

So where does the problem lie in police promotion and recruitment?

Well it seems to be in that point I have illustrated – disabled people are ‘able’ at different things in different ways, meaning that conventional promotion and recruitment criteria and formats can put disabled people at a disadvantage when competing against their non disabled colleagues. This is because policing often tests the things that we (disabled officers) are less able to do (than non disabled officers).

This naturally results in disabled people not qualifying for recruitment or promotion processes.

The problem of ‘qualifying‘ for a promotion or recruitment process is sometimes overcome in other sectors, not so far removed from policing, by the use of ‘Guaranteed interview schemes’ (GIS) as run by many places such as the Home Office and even MI5! If a candidate states they are disabled and wish to be considered as part of the GIS, they will at the very least be guaranteed an interview….if they meet the minimum criteria.

Fair enough. Introduce it to policing and then you have one barrier firmly kicked down.

But, the GIS only gets you as far as the interview or assessment process, where you are then expected to compete against non disabled colleagues on your ability to do ‘conventional’ activities.

The interview or assessment itself is usually competency based, requiring the candidate to provide structured answers set against a list of criteria.

I have recently heard this process described in another way;

“…...(the interview) requires the applicant to answer complex ‘low-baller’ questions and mold one’s evidence to fit on the turn of a dime…..which can present a challenge to those with a number of conditions”, says John Nelson, the Chair of the National Police Autism Association.

So how can we overcome this problem?

Interestingly, Miss Kirby’s article talks about ‘disabled only shortlisting’, an opportunity for disabled people to compete against other disabled people only, something Labour’s Jeremy Corbyn said he was not adverse to in politics and that apparently the Lib Dems have committed to introducing by 2020 (but why wait so long?).

I can visualise this working in policing like so:-

A promotion process is looking for 5 candidates. Therefore, 1 position (20% representation) could be competed for in a ‘disabled only’ promotion process, whilst all non disabled candidates compete for the other 4 positions in a separate process. The ‘disabled only’ process could then be tailored appropriately to fit individual needs of those shortlisted.

Could it work? There is only one way to find out!

I do like this idea but I can’t ever see it getting of the blocks in policing. What better way to guarantee representation from disabled people and in a process which makes the chance of success much more achievable, virtually eliminating the possibility of discrimination.

Personally, I’m torn between whether or not this would be a good thing.

Some may argue that this type of idea is demeaning to disabled people as it indicates they could not possibly be successful against non disabled candidates. I can guarantee others will firmly ask “why disabled people should be given such an advantage”?

The counter question to that however is; “Why are disabled people still put at such a disadvantage?”

Isn’t it about time we stop worrying about offending people and start doing what is right for the good of everyone in society, the public we serve?

Would disabled people, (who account for about 20% of our population don’t forget) rather be represented by disabled or non disabled politicians? People who actually understand them.

Would the welfare reforms have so badly affected disabled people if the decisions were made by disabled politicians? I very much doubt it!

Likewise, would victims of disability hate crime, or any crime for that matter, rather be helped by an officer who can empathise with them because they too are disabled, or an officer who has never known what it is to be disabled?

We can fix representation in policing, but it won’t be achieved through treating people “fairly”, it will be achieved through treating people according to their needs.

What will the police work force have to worry about in the future? Has Boris Johnson become the Home Secretary? Has Tom Winsor been commissioned to give his insights into policing again? Will our pay ever rise by more than 1%?

One question that is almost certain for many: “How will I manage to hold down the office of constable at 59 years old?”

With limited or even no back office roles existing in a future police service, the expectation of officers being ‘fully deployable’; increased risk of dismissal; and a higher probability of injury, illness or disability – how difficult will it be to hang on in there until full pension age?

An interesting question. The short sighted approach to building a ‘new police workforce’, would be to expect every officer to be fully operationally deployable. It is easy to assume this may be the intention when reading about Limited duties and Capability Dismissal. But with the best will in the world this is unrealistic in any occupation, especially policing.

In a world of an ever changing definition of the ‘front line’ what does operational resilience really mean? Will it really require an entire workforce to be fully fit? You only have to look at the amount of crime taking place on-line to see why this ideology may be flawed.

So how important is personal resilience when trying to ensure you have a workforce that is ‘fit for purpose’?

Personal resilience is not to be under estimated when seeking to improve the ‘resilience’ of your workforce.

Now I know that in this context the term ‘resilience’ refers to two different things, but isn’t there a point of convergence?

Operational resilience refers to the number of officers you can deploy to the ‘front line’ in times of urgent need, the extreme scenario being the London riots. Is it likely that you will need to ever deploy every officer at the Chief Officers disposal to the ‘front line’?

Even in the event of a Terrorist attack, how could Policing continue to operate if every officer was on the ‘front line’. What even is the ‘front line’?

Personal resilience on the other hand is an individuals ability to persevere in the face of adversity. A trait the public would expect from those who are there to protect them.

Seemingly two different things – but where do they converge?

Who is likely to have the greater personal resilience – a 21 year old probationary officer or a 45 year old officer of 20 years service?

What about the officer who has never (fortunately for them) had to endure a personal, chronic battle with pain or fatigue compared to the officer who survived cancer?

Which one is more likely to press on and go to work even when they don’t feel 100%? Which one is more likely to give 100% of what they have to give even when they are not feeling at their best?

The answer is not always the same, of course it depends on individuals and circumstances. However, I am sure many can testify to the claim that a disabled person will work harder than someone who isn’t disabled.

How do I know this? As a disabled person I know that I constantly have to prove myself. I often have to work harder to achieve the same as others. I have to make my own opportunities, as they are rarely handed to me. I have to fight for career progression. So how do I do this?

By giving a minimum of 100% every time I go to work.

By going to work even when I am unwell and have an acceptable reason not to be there.

By always reminding myself that I have to work harder than others to get what I want, what I deserve.

I am not alone in doing this. It is a common trait of disabled people.

This week I was told about the ex armed forces veteran who is applying to become an officer in one of the police forces in the north of the country. Doesn’t sound particularly unique does it?

Well what about when I tell you they are an amputee? The fact that this person is seeking employment is testament to their personal resilience, let alone setting their sights on the challenge of being a police officer. But why shouldn’t they?

Workforce resilience is not just about having a young, healthy, fully fit workforce. It is about experience, determination, personal journeys, all of which create ‘personal resilience’ – something disabled people have in abundance.

So when planning the future workforce, don’t underestimate what people have to give, especially those who have already lived through tougher battles than many will ever experience. There is much more to resilience than ‘fully deployable officers’. Personal resilience may be the ingredient that makes a workforce truly ‘operationally resilient’.

Jamie Mills
DPA General Secretary

By Jamie Mills
DPA General Secretary

For the past three years the DPA have been working hard to change hearts and minds to change the culture in policing for disabled officers and staff to a culture that first considers what disabled officers and staff can do rather than what they can’t do.

This ethos must also be mirrored by disabled officers and staff themselves, as arguably we have a greater responsibility for our own career and career development than does the police service.

By focusing on what we can do, rather than what we can’t, managers and employers are much more likely to find a person well suited to the gap they are trying to fill. They will also be making best use of that person’s skills, abilities and training, reaping the reward of the investment they or someone else have already made. Its a ‘no brainer’ really!

But, all too often over the years, even today, we hear from some leaders who freely admit that they “don’t want the sick, the lame or the lazy on their team”.

Too much time has been spent thinking about and developing strategies to get ‘that’ individual “moved to another team”, rather than looking for their strengths and developing them.

If only these efforts were put towards being creative and making the best use of that individual, they would soon realise what a blessing, rather than a burden that person truly is.

Hence the drive to shift policing culture from “can’t do” to “can do”.

As mentioned previously, the individual in question must also adapt to this cultural change. Disabled officers and staff are the true leaders of this change. Adopting an approach of telling a senior officer how you can solve their problem, rather than the problems you want them to solve for you, will inevitably lead to an increased demand for what you have to offer.

After all, you wouldn’t go to a job interview and tell the interviewer about everything you can’t do and expect to be given the job, would you?

This cultural change is starting to slowly embed, with regular references to the “can do” phrase now being made by Home Office policy makers, Chief Constables, HR professionals and the Police Federation of England & Wales. The Limited Duties recommendations by Sir Tom Winsor have ironically provided the perfect platform to ‘turn the tide’.

But is it working?

Plenty of people are now saying it, but how many are actually doing it?

Momentum is building, but we are far away from the tipping point whereby it becomes embedded as ‘normal practice’ in policing.

Sadly, stories are already emerging from forces trying to implement new Limited Duties policies and struggling to get it right, causing disabled officers to feel undervalued and in fear of being pushed out of a career they once loved.

As if having to live with the challenges of a disability wasn’t enough.

Officers are already being told by line managers, senior leaders and even HR professionals: “that’s not an adjusted duties role so you can’t apply for that”, and “we only have one role available for a limited duties officer”.

These conversations aren’t malicious, well not as far as I can tell, usually just misguided and insensitive.

It must not be forgotten that people, human beings, come in all different shapes and sizes, its commonly referred to as ‘diversity’. So too do health conditions and disabilities. We were all made different to the person standing next to us, and so to that difference and variation exists amongst illness, injury and disablement.

For example, one person with an ileostomy (an abdominal stoma) may have a totally different level of ability to the next person with an ileostomy. One may have suffered surgical complications, or practical difficulties based on their size or stature, or any number of other factors. They may not even be able to be able to continue in employment. The other, may have no limitations whatsoever and is now defined as being ‘fully deployable’.

So, taking account of this level of difference in one single medical condition, not even considering the many hundreds, thousands or even millions of other health conditions in existence, how can it possibly be said that a policing role has been classified ‘suitable’ or ‘unsuitable’ for an officer on adjusted duties (an officer with a disablement)?

The message is getting out – not quickly enough, but it is starting to permeate with those who are more open to change and dialogue.

We are seeing some great examples of this cultural shift, with key people in policing and stakeholders asking the right questions. For example: where could the skills of disabled officers be best utilised in modern policing?

However, these questions and conversations don’t yet appear to be translating into actual strategy.

How can we truly understand the needs of the communities we serve when we don’t even understand our own staff?

It takes good leaders to see potential. It takes the best leaders to turn it into something.