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

FRS Submissions which generally generated positive responses from the TWG were those that not only provide sufficient detail for review but also demonstrated a structured approach towards RMP which is the service’s golden thread throughout all of its decision making. Key to this is demonstrating how a FRSs risk assessment flows through and leaves a footprint in all areas of the RMP, informing activities and decision making:

• Nottinghamshire
• West Midlands
• Cornwall
• Cleveland
• Lancashire
• East Sussex
• Royal Berkshire

A number of TWG members have noted the overt role Strategic Mangers/boards play in developing their RMP, with this engagement deemed important in overseeing the development of RMPs:

• West Midlands
• Cornwall
• South Wales
• East Sussex
• Avon

Overall the TWG found that all FRS submissions, where sufficient detail was provided, utilized a range of local, regional and national data throughout the RMP process and is an important part of its methodologies. Whilst certain data sets and sources feature widely throughout the responses (mainly government and incident data), the TWG found significant evidence of FRSs seeking out data dependent on its own needs, whether this be through partnerships or multi-agency data sharing:

• Northumberland
• Devon and Somerset
• West Midlands
• Warwickshire
• South Wales
• Hertfordshire
• Cheshire
• Merseyside
• Bedfordshire
• East Sussex
• Royal Berkshire
• Surrey
• Avon
• Humberside

As a result, TWG members quoted the use of information from external sources as good practice to underpin risk assessments. Whilst a full list of datasets can be found elsewhere in this report, the good practice drawn out by TWG members is the level of data used to make decisions, inform risk assessments and evaluate activities is good practice as it provides a stronger evidence base to work from whilst providing an audit trail of decision making and rationale.

Setting aside national frameworks and datasets, good practice was found in the use of research when informing decisions made throughout the RMP process. Research has been identified by a number of TWG Members to have been used across RPP to both confirm or inform data analysis and decision making which has been undertaken as part of the FRSs RMP process:

• West Midlands
• Warwickshire
• South Wales

Although in some cases the research is not detailed enough to form an opinion of its robustness or is targeted at specific areas. Of particular note is the use of research to inform response standards, with the strongest use of research linked to decision making being a look by a FRS at the response cycle from the point an incident occurs to the point an intervention needs to have taken place

• West Midlands

TWG members have pulled out the use of software by FRSs as good practice but more from a perspective of risk modelling and also ‘what if’ software which FRSs use to predict the impact of a decision around RMP before making it:

• Nottinghamshire
• West Midlands
• Leicestershire
• Hertfordshire
• Tyne and Wear
• Avon

The good practice here therefore is the use of software to not only aide decision making in the current tense, but also to understand the impact of future decisions.

Geographic information systems (GIS) are widely used by FRSs to utilize data in a geographical way which helps target RPP activities and the distribution of resources:

• Nottinghamshire
• Northumberland
• West Midlands
• Cleveland
• Lancashire
• Cheshire
• Buckinghamshire
• Avon

However, TWG has found that how FRSs utilize GIS systems differs, with some FRS utilizing it to map demand which drives positioning of resources:

• Northumberland
• West Yorkshire
• Cleveland
• Leicestershire
• Lancashire

whilst others use demand data against other data sets such as IMD or Experian to map at risk people/communities (i.e. people based on characteristics):

• Nottinghamshire
• Devon and Somerset
• Cornwall
• West Midlands
• Cleveland
• Warwickshire
• North Yorkshire
• South Wales
• West Sussex
• Northamptonshire
• Tyne and Wear
• Cheshire
• Merseyside
• Buckinghamshire
• East Sussex
• Royal Berkshire
• Surrey
• Avon
• Humberside

The benefits of the latter being a greater foresight of future risk.

However, the underpinning good practice regardless as to whether the opinion is risk or demand comes from the ability of FRSs to drill down into the data and create risk profiles down to ward or LSOA area which allows for FRSs to be more efficient and effective at targeting its RPP activities:

• Nottinghamshire
• Devon and Somerset
• West Midlands
• Cornwall
• Cleveland
• Warwickshire
• North Yorkshire
• South Wales
• West Sussex
• Northamptonshire
• Tyne and Wear
• Cheshire
• Merseyside
• Buckinghamshire
• East Sussex
• Royal Berkshire
• Surrey
• Avon
• Humberside

Where this has helped is the ability of FRSs to categorise communities, businesses, people and buildings in a hierarchical way which determines high, medium and low risk and influences decisions around the type of activities undertaken and the distribution of resources.

There was evidence drawn out of the submissions by TWG members that a number of FRSs take an active look at future risk through looking at the profile of risk and future likely needs of their communities:

• West Midlands
• Northamptonshire
• Hertfordshire
• Cheshire

However, this was largely limited to projected figures around population increases, demographic makeup of communities and housing developments that have been identified.