Hi all,

Just had a college student (client is a group of colleges) complain that the BAME element in our Covid risk assessments is 'racial profiling' and 'race blaming'?

The consideration in the risk assessment is not invasive or personal, it's just an extra consideration based on the statistics that a disproportionate number of BAME persons are contracting and dying from Covid and what controls or support could be offered to mitigate that at our sites. This specific assessment was regarding the sites Prayer Room being missused; breaches of social distancing, no masks being worn, eating, ignoring the room capacity, and abuse to cleaning staff, so I've closed the prayer room until it can be better controlled.

It wasn't my decision to put the BAME element into the Covid assessments, it's there in previous RA's by the Client which I've been using as a template, but on this element the subject pushed back and I want some clarity on the appropriateness of identifying them as an at risk group due to the statistics?

"We have seen disproportionate numbers of BAME doctors and other healthcare workers die from COVID-19:

• 21% of all staff are BAME – 63% of healthcare workers who died were BAME.
• 20% of nursing staff are BAME – 64% of nurses who died were BAME.
• 44% of medical staff are BAME – 95% of doctors who died were BAME.

(Figures from March and April 2020 - source)

PHE’s review of disparities in risks and outcomes of COVID-19 found that:

• the highest age standardised diagnosis rates of COVID-19 per 100,000 population were in people of black ethnic groups (486 in females and 649 in males) and the lowest were in people of white ethnic groups (220 in females and 224 in males)
• after accounting for the effect of sex, age, deprivation and region, people of Bangladeshi ethnicity had around twice the risk of death when compared to people of white British ethnicity.
• People of Chinese, Indian, Pakistani, other Asian, Caribbean and other black ethnicity had between 10 and 50% higher risk of death when compared to white British."

Any feedback or suggestions welcome, as I said this isn't my choice to put this element into the RA, but the complaint has come to me.

The WOKE generation don't catch Covid much less suffer any symptoms or acknowledge cold hard fact.

Take a deep breath and resist the temptation to introduce their backside to your boot.

Originally Posted by: Wailes900134

Hi, You wrote a risk assessment on the misuse of a prayer room? That makes no sense. I can see how you might have a general C19 assessment of the business and that misuse of the prayer room being a breach of the agreed control measures. In which case breaching the agreed control measures is the issue regardless of ethnicity. Would you be ok with young healthy white people breaching your agreed control measures? Or with them citing their statistical good fortune as a defence for doing so.

Sorry, think I've not explained myself properly, each and every room being used at the colleges is undergoing a risk assessment, to ensure that the control systems we've put in place are sufficient and operational in mitigating the risk as far as reasonably possible. During the risk assessment of the Prayer Room the above breaches were noted and so the room has been shut down until we can control it, no other rooms have had this issue. The BAME element is in lots of the Covid RA's not just for this prayer room.

The breaches are unacceptable regardless of who is breaching, that isn't the issue, the breaches are identified and the initial solution is locking the door to the room till we can control it better. The issue is that a student has taken umbridge to is issues of race being asked in a risk assessment. The BAME element has been included by the colleges when the higher risk and mortality was highlighted externally.

We do have 'generic' classroom risks/controls which are included in the relevant classrooms risk assessments, but only half the classrooms are standard classrooms, the other half are workshops, studios, salons, theatres, darkrooms, garages, libraries, shops, science labs, cafeterias, kitchens, etc.

Whilst many elements and controls are the same its very lazy to just do a generic risk assessment for all rooms and hope for the best, the differences we've found between activities and therefore control measures have been vast and there simply isn't a one-size-fits-all solution for colleges.

I've spoken with peers in schools and colleges and I'm glad I'm at the group of colleges I'm at for this client as they have secured resources to be able to afford excellent systems of control, other colleges and schools (apparently) have little to no control or enforcement in place.

Originally Posted by: Self and Hasty

We do have 'generic' classroom risks/controls which are included in the relevant classrooms risk assessments, but only half the classrooms are standard classrooms, the other half are workshops, studios, salons, theatres, darkrooms, garages, libraries, shops, science labs, cafeterias, kitchens, etc.

Whilst many elements and controls are the same its very lazy to just do a generic risk assessment for all rooms and hope for the best, the differences we've found between activities and therefore control measures have been vast and there simply isn't a one-size-fits-all solution for colleges.

I've spoken with peers in schools and colleges and I'm glad I'm at the group of colleges I'm at for this client as they have secured resources to be able to afford excellent systems of control, other colleges and schools (apparently) have little to no control or enforcement in place.

its not lazy, its smart and its not hope for the best either if you do it properly. You can make a risk assessment for general movement around the college or something. each room is a wasteful use of time and money. IMO. 

The problem is the facts do not tell the full story. The death rate for BAME persons may be disproportionate but that does not necessarily mean that it is their ethnicity directly that is causing this. Obesity, underlying health issues (e.g. Type 2 diabetes), home living arrangements, nature of job done will also have an influence and these factors may not be equal for the whole population.

Another thing to bear in mind is that for younger people (under 60) the death rate having contracted COVID is very low. The fact that it may be double for certain parts of the population does not really mean it is a major factor (i.e. double very low is still very low).

I suspect that removing reference to BAME will make no substantial difference to your risk controls so why include it?

I can't see why BAME needed addressing specifically in the RA. You don't need specific controls for specific ethnic groups. As long as your controls are sufficient then everyone should be receiving an adequate level of protection.

Until there is hard science to suggest the increased risk is soley down to ethnicity, rather than socioeconmic reasons (such as the ones outlined by @andybz) then it could be considered racial profiling. After all you would basically be saying that because this person has a specific skin colour they live a specfic life style.

I understand the urge to include it in order to protect people to the best of your ability, but it will undoubtedly throw up more problems that it solves.

This isn't race blaming, it is protecting those who may be more vulnerable due to their race.  It's not about BAME individuals spreading the virus, it is about the effects on them if they catch it.  Maybe it hasn't come across this way to the person who complained.

Risk assessments have always needed to address individual vulnerability, such as pregnancy and various health conditions such as asthma that can be exacerbated by workplace conditions.  Manual handling risk assessments may distinguish between men and women and we don't complain that this is sex discrimination.

The government guidance about this in businesses (I haven't looked at the guidance for education) is that being BAME is a risk factor and needs to be considered (alongside health conditions, age and so on), and that extra measures can be taken to protect the more vulnerable.  These extra measures can include home working, a preferential position in a workplace further away from others, or a change in the type of work to one with less risk of catching Covid.

It makes me uncomfortable too, but I can't argue against the logic of it.

I note that HSE guidance explicitly states that you should include consideration of BAME in your risk assessment:

https://www.hse.gov.uk/coronavirus/working-safely/risk-assessment.htm : "The Public Health England report Disparities in the risk and outcomes of COVID-19 shows that some groups of people may be at more risk of being infected and/or an adverse outcome if infected. You should consider this in your risk assessment."

https://www.hse.gov.uk/coronavirus/working-safely/protect-people.htm : "The higher-risk groups include those who: are older males, have a high body mass index (BMI), have health conditions such as diabetes, are from some black, Asian or minority ethnicity (BAME) backgrounds"

So if you you don't consider BAME background specifically in your risk assessment, you're not following HSE guidance.  That guidance does say "There are currently no expectations of additional controls for these groups." but also "you need to support these individuals/groups in your workforce. You should support them by ensuring that: you emphasise the importance of individual and wider workforce engagement, buy-in and cooperation to ensure controls are applied stringently, [continues]" 

This gets very sticky, with respect to having a special additional emphasis to anyone BAME that they really must follow the rules…?  I can see that genuinely upsetting anyone from such a racial background, who could (justifiably, I think) believe they are being unfairly singled out.

Did I read the OP correctly that the BAME RA came in because of the prayer room?   If so, I'd start to feel very uncomfortable.   Did it mean there was a BAME for the whole site and by the way the breaches were higher in that room/ area.  If the latter the surely that can either be closed for the reasons above that it is a meeting room, could you use the elders to help educate and implement.

Hi,

I would suggest that you are purley advising based on statistical facts, surely personnel can understand that you are doing this to help, I would continue to show your duty of care and due dilligence as you are currently demonstrating, you are tackleing the proplem at source and not  "beating around the Bush"  for fear of being marginalised for race profiling, you are acting on facts!.

Maybe there is a genetical reason for the higher mortality rate, if so, then all the more reason to focus on the issue in order to help. Some personel may be ill disiplined with adhering to control measures, I would monitor this closely and educate all personnel not co-operating, remember the last line of the hierarchy of control "Discipline" that appiles to all.

You may get push back on this, but as long as you can justify your reasons then race should not be brought into it.

Edited by user 18 September 2020 08:26:58(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

Discipline? Not with college students - that tends to terminate your career as they launch a Social Media tirade of character and personallity assassination until your employer for peace and quiet indicates it is time to go.