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

The survey deadline was the 7th of November 2018 and although we had a number of late responses, we are no longer aware of any services wishing to respond. In total 43 responses were received, out of 51 Fire and Rescue Services in the UK. These can be classified as follows:

• Metropolitan authorities (5 responses received out of 6)
• Combined authorities (24 responses received out of 26)
• County authorities (10 responses received out of 13)
• Large services (3 received out of 3)
• Small, independent authorities (1 received out of 3).

We asked participating FRSs if they would like to be identified in any areas of good practice. Where good practice is identified from non-consenting FRSs, this is reported as being from anonymous FRSs. All summary analyses are anonymous to avoid implicit comparisons between services.

We are not aware of any difficulties in completing the survey from the FRSs perspective. There were no follow up questions from services and no requests for clarification came in to the research team. The only requests we received were to extend the deadline for some FRSs. Responses included both qualitative (i.e. written narratives about the service’s approach to community risk management) and quantitative (i.e. from multiple choice options). Qualitative responses were coded and analysed by the academic team. There was evidence that some FRSs used different individuals to complete the submission. This was evident in multiple submissions from single FRSs were different sections were completed. This reflects the extensive nature of the survey, but also the spread of roles within services contributing to the risk assessment process. One question where we can see some confusion from respondents is the question focussing on social targeting (i.e. targeting particular socio-demographics based on aspects of risk relating to social categories). Some submissions discussed their service’s view on using social media within their prevention activities. This clearly highlights a lack of awareness of social targeting, either by the individual respondent or by the service.