Equality Impact Assessment

Final Draft HR Strategy May 2013

Equality Impact Assessment – Olympics Annual Leave Restrictions Closing Review

Introduction

In June 2011 an Equality Impact Assessment was completed in order to assess the impact of annual leave restrictions placed on officers and staff, in response to the operational demand created by the Olympics and Paralympics in 2012.

This original EIA was reviewed at regular intervals throughout the Olympic period.

EIA – June 2011

The original report examined the application of annual leave restrictions on personnel, focusing specifically on the Gender, Ethnicity and Disability protected characteristics.

Officers and staff groups within the areas of business were categorised as having low, medium, or high impact from 2012 Olympic operational demands. The groups were categorised as such by the force Olympic lead, Superintendent Swann, having due regard for the range of demands required.

Prior to the Olympics all annual leave restrictions were lifted for those officers and staff in the ‘medium’ and ‘low’ risk groups.

Appendix A gives full details of the breakdown of departments categorised in the ‘high’ risk group.

Appendix B details the assessment of likely impacts on the high risk groups for police officers and police staff.

Recommendations

A number of recommendations for action were approved by the Chief Officers Team and implemented prior to the Olympics.

These included:

1. All officers within the Force were required to use up all their annual leave entitlement (2011 to 2012 leave year) prior to April 2012, therefore there was no carry over entitlement, unless there were operational or exceptional reasons for being able to carry over leave.

2. Operational police staff in the high risk group were also encouraged to take all their annual leave by the end of the leave year and not to carry over excess leave into the Olympic year.

1 Final Draft HR Strategy May 2013

3. Officers and staff (throughout the Leicestershire Police) were allowed to apply to bring forward up to 5 days annual leave from the leave year 2012 to 2013 into the leave year 2011 to 2012, and could take this additional leave at any time (subject to the usual approval).

4. All police staff were allowed to take leave in hours and were not restricted in relation to only taking annual leave in full or half days. This was considered for police officers but sits outside Police Regulations and therefore following consultation with the Staff Associations was not implemented.

5. The annual leave for officers and staff in the high risk group was restricted to a total of 9 days over the restricted period May 28, to September 1, 2012 to provide resilience bearing in mind the demand profile.

6. Officers and staff in the high risk group were allowed to carry over an increased annual leave entitlement (10 days) from the annual leave year 1 April 2012 to 31 March 2013 following the Olympics to the next leave year 1 April 2013 to 31 March 2014.

7. The decision regarding the option of introducing a ‘sale of annual leave’ scheme for the 2013 to 2014 leave year for the high risk group was considered and not implemented. The reason for the decision not to implement was that success with the other recommendations meant that by December 2012 most police officers only had an average of five days of leave to take over the final three months, and therefore it was deemed an unnecessary measure.

8. The Federation and Trade Unions were consulted and involved in the discussions regarding the strategy and management of annual leave prior to and throughout the Olympic period.

9. A process was put in place to ensure fairness & transparency in terms of the allocation leave when restrictions are lifted. Again this has the involvement of the Federation and the Unions.

Conclusion

The above recommendations and actions were implemented over the Olympic period and communicated to all officers and staff via latest news, local news letters and through the Olympic website.

In relation to recommendation number 1, this recommendation was implemented successfully, with all officers using up all their leave by the end of the leave year.

There were a small number of officers who were able to evidence why they had not taken all their leave. An independent panel sat to review these cases and the majority of officers and staff were allowed a carry over entitlement.

In consideration of cases the panel took into account current legislation (Working Time Directive) and case law (Stringer and others. 2009) in relation to the provision for statutory leave to be carried over for individuals who have been long term sick. Allowance was also made for officers and staff on maternity/adoption/paternity leave in line with legislation.

Full details regarding the break down of specific equality groups is contained in Appendix C. Essentially out of 47 officers and operational staff who applied to carry annual leave over from the 2011/2012 annual leave year to the 2013/2014 annual leave year only three applications were declined. The reason for declining these applications was that the carry over of leave request was not related to Olympic restrictions and therefore fell outside the remit of the panel.

Overall, the recommendations implemented were constructive and successful. The HMIC reported that Leicestershire Police had made good use of these levers in managing leave.

Leicestershire Police were also recognised by the HMIC for innovative ideas in relation to the sale of annual leave scheme.

There were also a number of learning points gained from the process which inform future good practice. These include;

 Proactive management regarding carry over of leave, reminding officers regarding the details of Police Regulations in carry over entitlement (up to 40 hours) and coaching for managers in relation to robust management of leave carry over.

 Ongoing consideration of schemes that enable the sale of annual leave

 Better understanding of the legislation in relation to the interaction between annual leave and sickness absence

Appendix A - Departments in the ‘High Risk’ Group

Department/Section Unit/Team HQ Operations Force Planning Unit TSG EMASU TDFU EMA SCIU RPU Traffic Management City and Counties BCU LSTO PCSO Police officers Force Intelligence Bureau FIB (D/Supt and DCI) FIB (DI and DS) FIB (IO and Senior Analyst, Analyst, Researchers) Covert Authorities Bureau CAB (DS, DC and staff) Dedicated Source Unit DSU (DI, DS and PC) Intelligence Management Unit IMU ( DI, DS, PIO, PC and staff) PNC Bureau PNC Manager, Supervisors and Team Leaders, PNC operators. Phoenix Supervisor, Team leader and operators. Delivering Justice Intelligence DJ Executive Group, DS, IO, Senior Analyst, Analyst and Researcher. Threat Assessment Unit TAU, DI, Senior Analyst, Analyst and Researcher. Safeguarding CAIU, SIGNAL, Comprehensive Referral, DAIO, MAPPA, Vulnerability, PPMT. Investigations ECU, SOU, Major Crime, FTT Spartan, Local investigations, TSU. Learning and Development Police Officers Criminal Justice Detention Officers, Custody Sergeants, PACE Inspectors. Corporate Development Police Officers Staff Associations Police Officers

Appendix B - Assessment of Likely Impacts

High Risk - Police Officers

Gender – 93.9% of all police officers within the Constabulary fall into the high risk group, the remainder 6.1% fall into the medium risk group and there are no police officers in the low risk group.

In comparing male (93.6%) versus females (94.9%) in the high risk group by gender type, the slight variation is statistically insignificant between male and females and we can conclude therefore that there is no specific adverse affect against one particular gender group.

Ethnicity – Within the high risk group of police officers 92.1% are White and 6.8% are BME, this is overall reflective and corresponds to the breakdown of police officers within the Constabulary which is 92% white and 6.6% BME.

In comparing BME (95.9%) against White (94%) in the high risk group by ethnicity type, the slight variation is statistically insignificant between BME and White and we can conclude therefore that there is no specific adverse affect against one particular ethnicity group.

Disability- 1.3% of police officers in the high risk group have declared a disability, 26.7% have not declared a disability and 72% have not stated whether they have a disability or not.

This reflects the overall breakdown of disability within the Constabulary, with 1.4% declaring a disability, 25.2% declaring no disability and 73.4% not disclosing whether they have a disability or not.

In comparing non disabled police officers (99.6%) against disabled police officers (87.1%) in the high risk group only we can conclude that non disabled personnel are significantly more disadvantaged in terms of the annual leave ban, this is to be expected given that a number of disabled officers will be on restricted duties and are more likely to be employed in the medium risk category.

Both high risk and medium risk groups are subject to the same annual leave ban at the moment although the ban is likely to be lifted for those officers in the medium risk group earlier that those in the high risk group.

High Risk – Police Staff

Gender – 61.3% of all police staff are employed within the high risk group, 31.1% fall into the medium risk group and the remainder 7.6% are in the low risk group. Out of the 61.3%, 40.8% are male and 59.2 % are female.

In comparing male (62.6%) versus females (60.4%) in the high risk by gender type, the slight variation is statistically insignificant between males and

5 Final Draft HR Strategy May 2013 females and we can conclude therefore that there is no specific adverse affect against one particular gender group.

Ethnicity – Out of 61.3% of police staff in the high risk group, 90.7% are white and 8.1% are BME. 1.2% declined to state their ethnic origin. This is generally reflective of the overall Constabulary breakdown with 89% of all police staff being White and 9.6% BME with 1.4% declining to state their ethnicity.

In comparing BME (51.7%) against White (62.5%) in the high risk group by ethnicity type, the variation is statistically significant between BME and White (10.8%) and we can conclude therefore that more White police staff are affected by the annual leave ban proportionately than BME. These figures have to take into account that 52.4% of police staff who have chosen not to state their ethnic origin are in the high risk category and this may distort the figures.

Disability – Out of the 61.3% of police staff that are employed within the high risk group 55.7.1% are not disabled and 3.8% have declared a disability; 40.4% have not disclosed their disability status. In relation to the Constabulary breakdown of (3.4%) the majority of police staff who have declared a disability sits within the high risk group (2.4%) this is because the Call Management Centre is categorised as a high risk department. 34% of all disabled police staff are employed within the Call Management Centre.

In comparing non disabled police staff (68.0%) against disabled police staff (70.1%) the slight variation is statistically insignificant and therefore we can conclude that there is no specific adverse affect against one particular group.

Summary of assessment

In analysis of the relevant data we can conclude that there are no specific groups of police officers or police staff with protected characteristics (gender/ethnicity/disability) that are particularly adversely affected by the annual leave ban more so than their corresponding group.

Where some slight variations have been identified, the validity and reliability of the data has to be questioned due to the lack of data availability. For example in relation to data availability for disabled status, there is no available data for 73.4% of police officers and 46.4% of police staff. This is because officers and staff that joined before a specific date were not asked their disability status and there is no current facility on HR Gateway self service to update the disability status field.

In the high risk for police staff category more white staff are affected by the ban than BME staff; however 1.4% of staff have not stated their ethnic origin. Whereas in the medium risk category more BME police staff are affected by the ban than white police staff, however again 1.9% of police staff have not declared their ethnic origin.

Appendix C – Carry Over of Annual Leave.

Officers Number Percentage Male 30 71% Female 12 29% Total 42 100%

Officers Number Percentage Asian Or Asian British - Indian 4 10% Asian Or Asian British - Pakistani 1 2% White - Any Other White 4 10% Background White - British 33 79% Total 42 100%

Staff Number Percentage Male 0 0% Female 5 100% Total 5 100%

Staff Number Percentage White - British 4 80% White - Irish 1 20% Total 5 100%

Totals Number Percentage Male 30 64% Female 17 36% Total 47 100%

Totals Number Percentage Asian Or Asian British - Indian 4 10% Asian Or Asian British - Pakistani 1 2% White - Any Other White 4 10% Background White - British 37 88% White - Irish 1 2% Total 47 112%