by Simon Nelson
President | Disabled Police Association

Welcome to the second of my bimonthly one page blogs of this year which I publish in the hope they will stimulate thoughts and discussion without taking up too much of your busy time. Please feel free to contribute, challenge and share any comments and ideas about the points raised.

This time I will share some of my thoughts on the police fitness test, fitness in general and our service commitment to staff wellbeing. This has been the subject of much debate recently including the #WeCops discussion and the important gender perspectives raised by Team #BleepKind on Twitter. During my 27 years of police service I have experienced many positive changes, including the greater awareness and support for wellbeing at a local level and through Oscar Kilo. For many years prior to the introduction of the Job-Related Fitness Test (JRFT) and the Alternative Job-Related Fitness Test (AJRFT) the vast majority of police officers maintained their physical fitness through professional pride, however many including myself had not previously considered the importance of investing in our mental health.

In brief, the JRFT was introduced several years ago as a result of a national review. Anecdotal evidence from some Police Chiefs suggested that some forces were struggling to deliver operational policing due to a critical number of their officers not being ‘fully deployable’. It is incredibly important for the police service to be able to discharge its response and mobilisation responsibilities and I do not in any way suggest that a number of officers should be able to chase and restrain, particularly when they join, but I suggest we need to define accurately the actual deployable capacity required. I do not believe a comprehensive equality impact assessment was completed before these substantial changes to Police Regulations were enacted, as it would have identified the significant and disproportionate impact on those from certain protected groups, including those with long-term conditions that result in a substantial impact on their day-to-day lives (disabilities).

The JRFT is a shuttle run between measured distances, requiring the individual to reach each line and turn back in time with an audible bleep which repeats sooner over time. The AJRFT provides the alternative of a treadmill which increases in gradient. There is a lot of technical information relating to the testing of the individual’s oxygen capacity and efficiency which I do not have the space to explain here, but officers are required to reach different levels and duration according to their general or specialist roles. All officers are required to pass the test once a year and if they fail several times they have previously faced the prospect of misconduct procedures or more recently Unsatisfactory Performance Procedures (UPP). Although not enforced to date this also permits a force to remove an ‘X Factor‘ or what is claimed to be an operational element (8%) of an officer’s salary and even exit them from the service under ‘Capability Dismissal‘.

JRFT guidelines actually define the purpose of the test as being a Health and Safety requirement prior to taking part in police safety training, which is the same core package for every officer irrespective of role – we need to consider how proportionate and necessary that is. The test is usually taken on the beginning of day one of the training and the consequences as a result of failure varies greatly across 43 forces. Some allow participation in First Aid training to continue, many send the officer away and others allow a senior officer to assess the specific circumstances of that individual, including any disabilities. Officers who have not shared previously details of their less obvious disability due to being fearful of how they might be treated if they did, have been ‘outed’ by the test and removed from operational duties even though they may be well-respected and effective members of their response teams. Some forces such as my home force have become more measured and supportive in their response to this, including considering reasonable adjustments – others have not.

I am very fortunate in that following the start of my life with a disability in 2005 I have always been able to pass the JRFT since its introduction, however the test is not the motivator for myself and most others to maintain a good standard of fitness. The focus has become the test rather than the importance of being as physically and mentally fit as we can be and in the interests of personal wellbeing. A considerable number of otherwise resilient individuals suffer a disproportionate level of stress caused by having to take the test on the day and these peculiar circumstances sometimes contribute to poor mental health. Now is the ideal opportunity to have a mature conversation about the test, including how our future workforce now has a 35 year career and a normal retirement age of 60, with an even higher probability over time that officers will experience a life-changing injury or illness, as I did. We can still promote fitness and wellbeing whilst ensuring those who can never pass these specific tests are still able to serve their communities with all their experience and many other abilities, I know the public still values.

If we truly value difference there needs to be equity as well as equality, breaking free of some fears and assumptions that those who serve with pride might default to the lowest standards of fitness or ‘try to have the job over’ should the focus shift from testing, to personal continuing professional health development and wellbeing. ∎

by Simon Nelson
President | Disabled Police Association

Welcome to the first of my one page blogs this year which I have been publishing every two months, in the hope they will stimulate thoughts and discussion without taking up too much of your busy time. Please feel free to contribute, challenge and share any comments and ideas about the points raised.

I suppose it would be helpful to first explain what first prompted me to become involved in my local disability staff network around seven years ago, and I suspect my circumstances and motivations will mirror those of others. Like many, I had not considered myself to be ‘disabled’ because that label appeared to ignore everything else I was able to do and on the whole I was able to manage the more challenging days myself – much easier to do I might add for those in more senior positions who have greater flexibility around how we work. That said, being open about my challenges and seeking some reasonable support was liberating and I was keen to work with others with similar lived experiences, to dispel misconceptions and improve equality and inclusion for disabled colleagues, as disability had been historically side-lined as a characteristic. I was lucky to lead our network within a supportive and progressive police force and proud that it has now grown to include in excess of 1,000 members.

There is occasionally some confusion regarding the role of staff networks compared to the Police Federation, Police Superintendents Association and the unions representing police staff. The statutory associations perform important official functions on behalf of their members including providing legal representation, and it is indeed a sad statistic that around 45% of the recent employment tribunals at which the Police Federation have supported police officers relate to claims of disability discrimination. Our diverse staff networks are made up of volunteers with lived experience of having protected characteristics and a source of invaluable and informed information to support the retention, recruitment and development of the diverse workforce our service needs.

Unfortunately there is no consistent funding or support for these volunteers meaning the time they are afforded to do this important work and the resources available to them depends on what is negotiable within 43 different police forces. If I had not been granted half of each week by my Force to support me as a national lead it would have been impossible for me to do it. Unfortunately there are also real inconsistencies in terms of how much support with time and funds is offered to some national protected groups, compared with others and whilst recognising the financial pressures on policing remain consistently high, valuing difference is also consistently referred to as a priority? It is interesting that some Governments have decided to fund their national police association positions, understanding the value those who are also members of their communities could have in informing how those communities are served by their police.

There are occasions when I believe some leaders perceive staff networks to be a barrier, yet in my experience they are usually keen to be part of the solution. Only this week a Force taking part in a national programme chose not to accept a local offer of advice and support, before going on to include incorrect information on a slide which caused avoidable offence. I would argue that one of the reasons some previous diversity strategies did not result in real change was due to insufficient engagement with our diverse networks, to ensure informed delivery plans delivered tangible improvements. As a police service we are fully invested in Independent Advisory Groups to shape how we serve our communities and yet we often choose not to adequately support or invest in the diverse knowledge within our service. This needs to change as the pressures on network volunteers has become intolerable in recent years and particularly some of those with disabilities who are becoming increasingly exhausted and having to step down in the face of multiple, conflicting pressures.

The Diversity Equality and Inclusion in Policing Survey Report, published last August by Durham University revealed some shocking findings. These included 41.8% of officers having been subjected to derogatory comments from colleagues regarding their disability, and 29.6% having experienced jokes about their disability. We need the senior leaders of all 43 forces and Police Chiefs Council to stand with us, agree that is wrong and share our determination to make things better by providing suitable and consistent support to the staff groups representing the statutory protected identities – we are neither antagonistic nor apologetic, we simply want to be part of the change we wish to see in our service. ∎

by Simon Nelson
President | Disabled Police Association

Welcome to the third of my bi-monthly one page blogs this year and thank you for the support you offer, even if that is simply a desire to know more. The timing for this could not be better as we are now into Disability History Month which runs between the 18^th November and 18^th December.

This is the time for the pride enjoyed by other groups during their own history months, when they celebrate their identity, difference, rich heritage, and some of the freedoms they have finally secured. Disability should be celebrated and championed with equal fanfare, as those I know who live with those conditions tend to be incredible problem-solvers and resilient achievers in so many ways due to their coping routines and ‘work arounds’. Our routines typically include tough days (over and above someone’s typical) and better days, bouncing back on each occasion to crack on with what needs to be done. This demonstrates why, if a disabled colleague requests support from you, they really need it! We also need to recognise why the term ‘disabled’ is not an easy one to shout out with enthusiasm as it focuses on what we are unable to do rather than all that we are able to do. Terms such as ‘diversability’ and ‘differentability’ truly reflect what those with disabilities or live with neurodiversity have to offer our society and our service. Unfortunately, the Equality Act, which replaced the Disability Discrimination Act, will always bring us back to that familiar term.

It is incredible that it is only 25 years since the Disability Discrimination Act was enacted – let’s pause and reflect on that – only 25 years since it became illegal to discriminate based upon an individual’s long-term, life affecting difference. Unfortunately I believe there are many occasions when ‘disability’ disproportionately evokes stereotypes of the ill or old; and for those of working age, work-avoidance or absence – this influences how policies are written; support offered; and opportunities for inclusion and progression provided. Only the other day I heard a news journalist refer to a disabled person living with a ‘disease’ when they were simply endeavouring to have the best possible life, living with a condition that was part of who they were since birth. ‘Suffers with’ is another regular association – they rarely do, but they often do suffer from intolerance and exclusion. Imperfections are not inadequacies – ‘normal’ is nonsense and on that note the film industry needs to stop associating non-typical physical features as a source of fear.

The theme for Disability History Month this year is Access, which is likely to prompt thoughts of wheelchairs, an image typically associated with disability and although around half of disabled persons have mobility challenges, the access issues are far wider in terms of opportunity. I believe the police service has reached one of the most important points in its history when we need to consider how much we value disability within the service, particularly disabled officers. Only around 17% of disabled persons are born with their disability, so with a new normal retirement age of 60 we can expect an increase in the total number of those who experience a life-changing illness or injury. Our service can chose to ‘exit’ those individuals along with the abilities and experience they have amassed, or support them as representatives of a community we serve. Other protected groups are campaigning for better advancement, representation, and equality – we desperately strive for retention. Of course the service needs some fully-operational number of officers to ‘chase and restrain’ or fulfil other mobilisation commitments, but how many roles genuinely, routinely and typically require that? We also need to understand that disabled candidates should be encouraged to apply to join, to increase difference within the service, if they meet the entry requirements which includes the fitness test.

History is filled with disabled achievers (oxymoron?), including Albert Einstein whose condition prevented him from speaking until he was 3 years old; and Horatio Nelson – my shorter and more famous namesake! We sometimes forget that we continue to write history, so let’s fill it with fairness and inclusion – we can support and unlock diversability talent as well as all of the discretionary effort that comes with that. ∎