The College of Policing has released an update to the Competency and Values Framework (CVF), the document describing the behaviours required for recruitment, assessment and development across the UK police service.
The CVF is typically used as a basis for designing police recruitment, promotion and selection processes. The 2024 update replaces the previous version released in 2016.
The new version of the CVF explicitly references neurodiversity and disability, and acknowledges that assessment processes should allow candidates of all abilities to demonstrate their strengths:
The CVF should be used in ways which allow for differing abilities, including those which stem from disabilities or neurodiversity. If your organisation is using the CVF as part of an assessment, the assessment should allow for different expression of the competencies and, where appropriate, allow candidates to demonstrate strengths in different areas. Reasonable adjustments should be provided for those who need them under the Equality Act (2010).
If you have a disability under the Equality Act 2010, you can ask for reasonable adjustments to the assessment to enable you to fully demonstrate your abilities. If you have a diagnostic report or professional workplace assessment, this will be helpful to the assessment team to ensure you’re given the right adjustments.
The updated CVF also states that competencies and values under assessment should be clearly signposted. This eliminates a potential source of ambiguity which has been found to adversely impact on ND candidates.
Why do neurodivergent police officers and staff resort to legal action against their employers?
by John Nelson Chair | National Police Autism Association
In December 2023, the People Management website published an article on an Employment Tribunal case involving Lauren Crawford, an autistic and dyslexic police officer from Cumbria Constabulary who won a direct discrimination claim against her employer when she was excluded from Authorised Firearms Officer (AFO) training due to her conditions. This was notable as being one of the first – if not the first – widely-reported neurodiversity-related cases involving a police force. It probably won’t be the last.
Employment tribunals – civil legal cases arising from disputes over unlawful treatment under the Equality Act, and other breaches of employment law – are something of a taboo subject in policing. Accurate figures on the number and nature of disputes involving protected characteristics are difficult to assess due to the common practice of cases being settled out-of-court, typically with a non-disclosure agreement as part of the settlement – it is estimated that cases that go to court typically cost a Force in excess of £100,000, regardless of outcome. The corporate stigma around ETs is perhaps understandable, given that each case represents an alleged failure of an organisation dedicated to enforcing the law to treat its own staff lawfully and fairly; and yet each ET case represents a unique opportunity to learn from what has gone wrong and to make the police service a better employer. The reluctance to talk openly about ETs, the use of NDAs and an implicit tendency to blame the complainant means that these opportunities are often lost.
In this blog I aim to shine a light on the subject of neurodiversity-related employment disputes, and to share some of the experiences of our members gleaned over the years since the launch of our network. This article also serves as a resource for the presentation on employment tribunals which featured as part of the third Neurodiversity in Poicing conference in March 2024.
Before we go any further, a common-sense disclaimer: any police colleague involved in a dispute with their employer is advised to seek advice from the Federation, police staff union or qualified legal counsel before making any decisions concerning their employment. The information in this article is provided for interest only.
Firstly, what does the Equality Act say about neurodiversity? Although there is an ongoing debate about how neurodiversity fits into the wider sphere of disability, ND conditions must fit under the disability umbrella in order to be afforded protection under the Act for the purposes of unlawful discrimination. The Equality Act states that a physical or mental condition (an ‘impairment’ in the wording of the Act, which some may disagree with) has to represent a ‘substantial’ and ‘long-term’ negative effect on a person’s ability to do normal daily activities. This obviously depends on the individual, since ND conditions affect everyone differently. More on this later.
A few ET facts and figures:
Disability (and nerodiversity as a facet of disability) feature disporportionately. An oft-quoted figure provided by the Police Federation of England & Wales is that over 40% of police ET cases are related to disability.
The PFEW will only fund legal representation if there is a 51% chance or greater of winning a case. Although ET fees were abolished in 2017, legal representation is recommended for claimants – respondents (employers) can be expected to vigorously defend ET cases. The PFEW will only fund cases for Federation members if the likelihood is of a win.
An ET finding will become part of the permanent public record. In the age of the Internet and Google, this means your name and details of the case will be available on the Web in perpetuity for anyone to view.
A few common themes we have identified:
The level of disability assessed by an ET would need to represent a ‘significant impairment’ for the individual. This links back to the definition of a disability in the Equality Act. The ‘significant’ element is particularly relevant for officers who have already experienced some success with their careers: in a recent case, a ND condition was found not to meet this test as the officer had already achieved promotion in their career without the benefit of adjustments.
People ask for help too late in the process. We have been approached for support at the point of an ET application being made – it is much better for staff networks to be involved when the problem first appears, in order that we can assist with requesting adjustments and liaising with line management to broker a resolution, as part of a grievance procedure if necessary.
Struggling without adjustments can weaken your case. People will naturally try to adapt and work through adversity before approaching staff networks, the Police Federation or staff unions for help; however coping without adjustments for an extended period of time can weaken a future ET case. Where an employee’s performance or sickness record is affected, it also risks performance or misconduct action being taken.
On the subject of misconduct – which can arise from poorly-supported ND and feature in ET cases – it is important to note the effect of disclosing ND. We have found that ND being used as mitigation in misconduct cases can be used against the claimant – for example, being used to cast doubt on an officer’s competence. On the other hand, in cases where misconduct is proven, ND has led to the severity of a sanction being reduced – for example, a written warning remaining ‘live’ for a shorter period of time – rather than a lesser level of sanction being implemented.
It is useful to look at lessons learned from individual ET cases from within and outside policing, the key details of which are often left buried in case findings unless picked up by the media. Two notable cases are Buchanan v The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis (2016), and Ramphal v Department for Transport (2015). The case of Buchanan involved a police motorcycle officer who suffered serious injuries whilst responding to an emergency call, resulting in an extended period of sick leave. The case finding, won on appeal, was that the implementation of the Force’s unsatisfactory performance procedure (UPP) in relation to Buchanan’s sick leave had to be justified on an individual basis – in Buchanan’s case, the Force was found to have applied the policy unfairly in relation to a physical condition which met the criteria of a disability. In other words, when it comes to applying rules around performance and attendance, ‘one size doesn’t fit all’.
In the case of Ramphal – again won on appeal – a finding of unfair dismissal was found in relation to a misconduct investigation concerning the complainant’s expense claims. The Tribunal found that the manager appointed to undertake the investigation had initially found in Ramphal’s favour, but had allowed themselves to be unduly influenced by the Human Resources (HR) department, which ultimately led to Ramphal’s dismissal. The key takeaway from this case was that the role of HR in a fair and transparent disciplinary investigation should be limited to providing advice on law and procedure, and that the outcome decision by the investigation manager should be theirs alone and not swayed by the opinion of third parties.
The case of Crawford v The Chief Constable of Cumbria Constabulary is sadly typical of the experiences of some of our members, who have found their neurodivergent conditions to be viewed in a negative light in the workplace. In summary: PC Crawford applied to be an AFO, having been supported by her managers and passing the pre-course assessments. The officer’s application was subsequently blocked by the Deputy Chief Constable, on the basis of an outdated ‘personal profile’ document drawn up when Crawford was first diagnosed as autistic and prior to her joining the Force as a regular officer. The DCC’s decision was found to be direct discrimination on the basis of the officer’s neurodivergency.
The Crawford case bears the hallmarks of confirmation bias: a decision-maker holding a belief – in this case that a neurodivergent colleague could not, or should not, perform a particular role – cherry-picking evidence to support their view and ignoring evidence to the contrary. Any disabled person who has interviewed for a position and found the interviewer more concerned with their disability rather than the qualities they can bring to the role will be familiar with this, as will disabled candidates who find themselves refused an interview despite meeting the role criteria.
Looking back over the cases we’ve been involved in and those reported in the media, the good news is that there doesn’t seem to be a common thread of police forces, locations or roles. If anything, the commonality in ET cases is randomness: individual managers making bad decisions, and officers and staff happening to fall foul of policies designed for neurotypical minds – in some cases after enjoying successful careers. The latter reveals a fact of life for neurodivergent professionals: no matter how successful and settled you may be, an unlucky change of circumstances – role, working environment, team or manager – can quickly lead to problems. The number of colleagues needing recourse to grievance procedures and legal action will hopefully drop as neurodiversity becomes better understood and accommodated in policing; however it may also rise due to an increased awareness of ND and willingness to challenge the status quo.
The Baroness Casey review of the workplace culture of the Metropolitan Police Service highlighted the negative attitudes towards disability – and, by extension, neurodiversity – that still exist in policing. Although understanding and acceptance of neurodiversity has progressed enormously since the NPAA launched in 2015, individual officers can still experience discrimination due to ignorance and stigma around neurodivergent conditions such as autism. Most would agree that employment tribunals are something to be avoided for all concerned; our advice to ND colleagues is to challenge poor treatment and negative attitudes at the earliest opportunity, and to use the resources of the NPAA, our sister groups the ADHD Alliance and Police National Dyslexia Association, and the Disabled Police Association, to educate and inform colleagues and decision-makers of the value of our neurodivergent talent. ∎
‘You can’t have an autistic cop with a gun.’ Temporary Inspector Gav Skevington has heard it many times before.
Gav is Nottinghamshire Police’s Chief Firearms Instructor. He’s also autistic and is sharing his story for Neurodiversity Celebration Week to help break down barriers, and to support neurodivergent colleagues and those who want to enter policing.
Gav said: “I’m the Chief Firearms Instructor and I’m autistic, so straight away people’s alarm bells go and they say ‘You can’t have an autistic cop with a gun’.
“Well, they’re wrong.
“Exactly the same as neurotypical people, neurodivergent people are fit for roles as long as we’re given the right opportunities and support.”
Gav added: “If it wasn’t for the way my brain works I wouldn’t have been as good an Operational Firearms Commander as I was.
“I can look at problems in a different way.
“There are the positives and negatives of every element of it.
“I can switch off emotion really well, which for a job that’s high risk is brilliant.”
Gav said he always knew he was autistic but it wasn’t until later in life that he was diagnosed.
Describing himself as being ’36 years in denial’, he said it was only when his children displayed signs that he decided to do something.
“I did everything to build a mask around me where I’d fit in and I didn’t have to talk about it,” he said.
“It wasn’t until my own children started to show signs that I had to look in the mirror and say to myself to get it sorted and stop being selfish.
“When I disclosed it to work, I sat in the car park for ages trying to work out how to say it. I looked in my rearview mirror and said ‘I’m Gav and I’ve got autism’. Saying it to myself was a huge step for me.
“I remember going to my own Chief Firearms Instructor and saying ‘This is the diagnosis I’ve got’ and expecting to lose my firearms authorisation. But I didn’t.
“I got overwhelming support, which was brilliant for me.
“The moment that happened was a turning point for me because I could say I’d achieved all of this in the firearms world – I was five years in firearms at that point.
“I’d been an Operational Firearms Commander, a Tactical Rifle Officer, an instructor, and I did that despite, or because of the fact I’m neurodivergent.”
Gav is part of Nottinghamshire Police’s Neurodiversity Working Group. It’s been running for three years.
“It’s chaired by Inspector Nick Wood, who comes from a dyslexia point of view,” Gav said.
“We’ve got Inspector Adam Pace, who comes from the managerial support side. I come from an autism point of view.
“We’re trying to find the best ways we can encourage neurodivergent members of staff to come forward, and provide them the necessary support.
“It’s not just neurodivergent individuals, or people who think they are, or who are going through that process who come to us. We’re getting line managers coming for some advice.
“More people are open and willing to talk about it.
“We want to lead from the front and share those experiences that will break down people’s natural barriers.”
Gav said that more people in the Force were contacting the group for advice, and that it was trying to build a network of support for officers and staff.
“If I go to give a talk, afterwards I’ll have a flurry of emails, which is great,” he said.
“Our group’s concern is that we’re doing this on top of the day job and will have people reaching out to us on the verge of crisis or going through bad times.
“We’re trying to build those mechanisms to show that as a neurodiversity group we’re here to support you, to guide you through a diagnosis process and those sorts of things.
“And it’s then signposting to other services like wellbeing support, EAPs, so that we don’t hold it all. It’s joined up.”
He said that people could also turn to national groups – the National Police Autism Association, the ADHD Alliance, and the Police National Dyslexia Association.
“If people don’t want to talk in their own Force there are those national forums where they can get advice,” he said.
The Nottinghamshire Police’s Neurodiversity Working Group’s work has led to Gav being invited to sit on the College of Policing’s Neurodiversity in Specialist Operations Policing Group.
And he said that policing needed ‘central guidance’ that Forces could draw on and would provide consistency across the service.
“I’ve spoken to Forces who have two people in a room who are the neurodiversity contact on top of their day jobs,” he said.
“We’re lucky here. Yes we do it on top of the day job but there are a number of us who can spread that out.
“Other Forces have huge groups and have conferences and events, and it’s that inconsistency. We need a central drive.
“In Nottinghamshire we have a really good connection with chief officer level. Deputy Chief Constable Steve Cooper welcomes the Neurodiversity Group into a bi-monthly meeting where we talk things through.
“Having that connection to the ‘top corridor’ is really good because you feel listened to and empowered.
“But I think that on a national level we need that input to steer us in the right direction.”
Away from policing, Gav runs a clothing line and writes fiction books, which are about empowering people.
“Over 18 years of policing I spent the first 13 trying to fit in, trying to fit that mould and expectation of what Gav the firearms cop should be,” he said.
“Then there’s the little man inside me saying that’s not me.
“It’s only as I’ve got more confident that I’ve been able to change that.
“The mask still goes on but I am a lot more comfortable with me as a person.
“I’ve had to challenge that, realise my blockers, the biggest one of which is me.
“My fiction books are about characters who have to accept themselves and realise they are their only limit.
“If you internalise it, you’re the one stopping yourself.” ∎