National review of community risk methodology across UK Fire and Rescue Service

Whilst FRS generally provided an overview of their approach to RMP, the work of the TWG was limited by the level of detail provided. A caveat to the narrative below therefore should be that where the submission was not detailed enough this may have presented gaps which under closer scrutiny a FRS may have filled but just not submitted it to the Research Project.

The role of strategic boards and managers was highlighted as good practice by TWG. However, the gap that has been identified based on some submissions is the competencies, knowledge and understanding that is required in order to develop an RMP at all levels. This ranges from strategic level through to the practitioners actually developing the RMP with 2 submissions specifically raising skillsets in compiling RMPs.

The use of data is widespread and has been identified as good practice by TWG. However, the detailed description regarding the use of data within a methodology or approach has been limited or absent from many submissions which has impacted on the ability to understand whether it has been applied or handled correctly. In addition, the quality of data is unknown although on a number of occasions the data sets are those used by other agencies. Whilst TWG members have highlighted as good practice the process of RMP being joined up and the use of data, there have been gaps identified which suggest that the lack of evidence, data or research at points throughout the RMP process impacts on the quality and robustness of decisions and planning assumptions made further down the line within the RMP process.

How this fits together during the RMP process has also been flagged by TWG members, for example a number of submissions would suggest to the TWG that weightings based on severity of injury are given to risk types when mapping risk geographically in their RMP. A problem identified with this is the lack of detail around how FRSs approach this weighting and also get around a scenario whereby an area suffers a fatal fire but is generally low risk, against an area that may not see many injuries or deaths but has a higher frequency of incidents.

Although research was mentioned to be used by FRSs, this was only the case in a limited number of cases (4), suggesting a significant gap in research may exist across the sector. The absence of either data or research limits the evidence base sitting behind decision making. One area where this was evident is knowledge and use of research around the response cycle to inform decisions around response standards. There is little evidence to show that when basing its decisions around response time standards that these are linked to an evidence base, but instead more based on what is achievable with the resources a FRS has and which is available. It is this that PIs would appear to be focused around.

Very limited FRSs have overtly detailed what, if any, its approach is towards horizon scanning and how its RMP process takes into account any future change in risk and how they ensure they are able to react to it in a timely manner. In total only 5 of the 41 submissions assessed by the TWG explicitly detailed the approach taken to identifying future risk and demand.

Whilst not detailed specifically in the questions reviewed by the TWG, evaluation was distinctly absent from the responses in all but a few submissions. Whilst only raised explicitly in 4 submissions, there is a general view of the need for greater evaluation of all activities which is also a requirement under national frameworks. Whilst few FRSs did refer to the use of evaluation for its prevention, protection and response activities the robustness of these processes is unknown as some of these FRSs have designed in house evaluation measures or are utilizing out of date data sets (economic cost of fire). A number of submissions did refer to financial evaluation, however this appeared to be in relation to its financial planning functions so set against efficiencies as opposed to effectiveness of delivery models set against risk. Within the exercise conducted by the practitioner group, five FRS submissions regarding methodology was determined to be influenced heavily by financial restrictions ahead of risk, although this is not a reliable figure as it only includes those FRSs who have openly stated it. Figure 32 illustrates these findings.

Figure 32. The extent to which the methodology is driven by financial restriction ahead of risk.

Virtually all FRS submissions to the research project unsurprisingly stated either explicitly or through describing its approach to its risk analysis, that the use of software takes place (36 submissions). However, what is evident is that digital solutions including software is wide ranging and many different supplies are used. Whilst not a gap, an opportunity has been discussed amongst some members for smarter procurement of software where large numbers of FRSs utilize systems but under single contracts between the FRS and software provider.