APPENDIX
B
Consultation on plans to modernise
The Isle of Wight Fire and Rescue Service
- Final Report
By Peter Harrington and Katherine Taylor
Questions
Answered Brackenhill St George’s Place York YO24 1DT 01904 632039
By
Questions Answered Brackenhill St George’s Place York YO24 1DT 01904 632039 By
Questions Answered Brackenhill St George’s Place York YO24 1DT 01904 632039 By
Questions Answered Brackenhill St George’s Place York YO24 1DT 01904 632039 By
Questions Answered Brackenhill St George’s Place York YO24 1DT 01904 632039
Contents Page Numbers
6..... Recommendations
for Action
1 Introduction
This public report details the findings of the consultation that has taken place concerning the planned modernisation of the Isle of Wight Fire and Rescue Service.
The report has been written by Peter Harrington and Katherine Taylor, both of who work for the York-based independent market research agency, Questions Answered Ltd. Peter Harrington established the company in 1989 and over the past 15 years it has become a specialist agency engaged in public sector research and consultation.
In compiling this report, Questions Answered worked closely with the Fire and Rescue Service to obtain the views and perceptions of staff, residents, stakeholders and community organisations. Throughout the 12-week consultation process, both Peter and Katherine have sought to be totally objective and impartial. By approaching the project in this manner it has been possible to reach representative conclusions and make fair and robust recommendations for action.
It should be noted that the modernisation of the Fire and Rescue Service is a sensitive and complex subject that is all about change. Throughout the consultation process we have gathered some key facts, but the majority of the findings relate to peoples’ perceptions of the situation. The range of differing perspectives arises because people do not have access to the same information, but this does take away the fact that two people of absolute integrity can see different truths in the same set of circumstances.
1.1 Background
National Standards of Fire Cover have underpinned the Fire and Rescue Service, since 1936, apart from minor changes. These standards have only governed the level and speed of response to fires based on the density of buildings in the area rather than the numbers of residents; there are no national standards for any other type of incident they deal with.
In 2003 the Government set out its vision for the Fire and Rescue Service within the White Paper ‘Our Fire and Rescue Service’. This vision seeks to respond to the changing needs of society. The White Paper states that the Fire and Rescue Service will:
· Be proactive in preventing fires and other risks, rather than simply reacting to fires
· Act in support of the Government’s wider agenda of social inclusion, neighbourhood renewal and crime reduction
· Have effective institutions that support its role and purpose
· Be well managed and effective
· Be committed to developing and adapting to changing circumstances, including the growing threat of terrorism
The Isle of Wight Fire and Rescue Service needs to work within this Government framework and the Isle of Wight Council’s modernising agenda, which focuses on social inclusion and environmental protection, to become more responsive and adaptable to changes in society and the environment. The Fire Service has produced a Fire Authority Integrated Risk Management Plan (FAIRMaP) that brings these themes together.
The overall theme of the FAIRMaP is to shift the emphasis of the Fire and Rescue Service from reaction and intervention to prevention. Also central are the themes of collaboration and partnership, the Fire and Rescue Service plans to increasingly work in partnership with other agencies to enhance service provision. The five main strategies set out in the plan are:
· Integrated Risk Management Plan including methodologies
· Prevention Strategies
· Intervention Strategies
· Social and Environmental Strategies
· Support Strategies
In order to implement the strategies, a yearly improvement programme will be devised to outline the changes that are to be made. However, to achieve an improvement programme that meets the needs of the Islanders consultation is recognised as being vital. The FAIRMaP states that an extensive programme of consultation will be undertaken with the public and stakeholders and the FAIRMaP and improvement programme will be adapted to take into account the feedback that is received.
Context for the consultation
As stated in the Introduction, this research has been completed at a time of major change and uncertainty in the Fire and Rescue Service. The recent industrial dispute, the proposed changes to structure and direction and the local concerns over the regionalisation and link up to mainland services are factors that are present in the minds of consultees.
Understandably, people and particularly staff are nervous of these changes and quite naturally want reassurances about future decisions and direction from the Fire Authority. However, at the same time, all Fire and Rescue Services are seeking their own reassurances from central Government. Such a dynamic is a cause for significant tension and doubt as well as being a catalyst for rumours and stories. In this difficult time it is essential that an open report such as this provides and reflects the views and opinions of all stakeholders and recommends a suitable[1] way forward for all parties.
It is important to reiterate that this report is an independent assessment. The recommendations for action are written with the very best of intentions for all those people who work for or who are affected by the actions of the Isle of Wight Fire Authority. The recommendations have been written very carefully and every effort has been made by the authors to consider and listen to all the comments received during the 12-week consultation period (26th September – 19th December).
1.2 Aims and Objectives
The overall aim of the project was to consult with residents, staff and stakeholders, in line with Government modernisation requirements, report back all results and make recommendations as to how the Service should move forward.
Within this aim lie the following objectives:
· To provide the Isle of Wight Fire Service with the necessary support and advice to undertake consultation with staff, stakeholders and residents.
· To run three focus groups throughout the autumn of 2003 (within the 12 week consultation period).
· To draft and write questionnaires that would be completed by staff, stakeholders and residents.
· To receive and analyse all data from the questionnaires and focus groups.
· To complete a report which highlights all key findings and makes recommendations for action.
2 Executive Summary
This section of the report summarises the whole project.
Background
Questions Answered Ltd undertook the consultation work in
partnership with the Isle of Wight Fire and Rescue Service. Peter Harrington,
Managing Director at Questions Answered, led on the project. Katherine Taylor
supported him.
The goal of the work was to consult with residents, staff and stakeholders, in line with Government modernisation requirements. The key consultation issue was the introduction of FAIRMAP – a move towards prevention strategies rather than intervention.
This work was completed at a time of real uncertainty within the industry and particularly on the Isle of Wight. Underpinning issues such as the recent industrial dispute, pay awards and regionalisation were all at the forefront of peoples’ minds at the time the research was completed.
The consultation process combined focus groups and self-completion questionnaires. In total, 59 staff returned surveys, 8 community organisations provided feedback and an average of 12 residents attended 3 separate focus groups held in Ryde. The consultation process was carried out of a 12-week period (26th September – 19th December).
Staff Survey
·
Overall, staff were more negative than positive about the proposed
changes
· Fifty nine employees responded to the staff survey. A separate report entitled “The Workers’ Response was also submitted to Questions Answered. This report whilst not being explicit about the numbers of people it represented, raised a number of concerns about the management and delivery of key aspects of the Fire and Rescue Service and challenged the validity of assumptions and key points within the FAIRMaP report.
· Positive aspects of the shift of emphasis were perceived to be that prevention is inherently preferable to intervention and that members of the public will be better educated about safety.
· The most negative aspects of the change of emphasis were perceived to be that there would be an increased threat to life due to the decrease in watch strength.
· Employee’s personal fears about the changes were: job losses and decline in morale of remaining staff, that lives would be lost because of the decrease in personnel at incidents.
· Personal hopes for the Service included: those that stated that they hoped the plans would improve the Service while other employees hoped that the plans would not go ahead.
· The majority of employees had found the FAIRMaP report difficult to read and understand, and were concerned about the ease of understanding for the general public.
· Employees felt it was particularly important that the Fire and Rescue Service built strong partnerships with other emergency services.
·
Overall the majority of the responses suggest a
resistance to change from employees.
Focus Group
One
·
The first focus group provided respondents with a history of the Fire
and Rescue service (nationally and locally) as well as presenting reasons for
the move to a more preventative strategy. Respondents were able to question the
process, the rationale and the thinking behind such a change.
· Twelve members of the public attended the first focus group.
· Questions participants asked suggested they wanted more clarity about how the change of focus from intervention to prevention would be implemented.
· Some participants questioned whether resources would still be available when intervention was necessary.
· Participants were concerned about the cost of the modernisation of the Service.
· There was concern about which groups of the community would be targeted for prevention.
· Participants questioned the current partnership working undertaken by the Fire Service and also made suggestions for future partnerships e.g. neighbourhood watch.
· One participant was keen to see the changes in the wider context of Fire Services around the world.
·
Overall, questions suggested a curiosity and desire to
learn more about the proposed changes.
Focus Group Two
· The second focus group provided respondents with an opportunity to question the modernisation process in more detail as well as examine the deeper issues and implications underpinning the proposed change.
· Fifteen members of the community attended the second group, six had not been present at Group One.
· The group built on the discussion in group one, with a greater focus on the practical implementation of the shift from intervention to prevention.
· Some participants were concerned that the shift of emphasis would mean spreading the existing fire fighters too thinly.
· Difficulties about the practicality of implementation that the participants foresaw were: that some groups of the public would be difficult to educate and others felt it would be difficult to form partnerships.
· It was suggested that people beyond the island should also be educated e.g. furniture manufacturers.
· Some of the participant’s questions suggested that they were unsure about the services that the Fire and Rescue Service could provide.
· Suggestions for educating the public included: setting up a customer service centre and communicating through the local media e.g. Radio Solent and local websites.
· It was asserted by participants that shock tactics would be an effective way of helping to change behaviour.
· Participants felt that it was important that the status of the Isle of Wight as an Island was recognised when the changes were being implemented.
Focus Group Three
· Fourteen members of the public attended the third focus group; all had been present at the second group.
· The Chief Fire Officer gave a presentation on the current Service position and how some specific elements of FAIRMaP were going to be implemented. Fundamental aspects of the presentation included: the fleet and staff resource, breakdown of incidents by type, location, resource and results; current costs; forthcoming bids and a summary of proposed improvements.
· Participants at the group were given the opportunity to ask specific questions about the implementation of FAIRMaP. Questions that were asked related to: the movement and siting of resources; the implementation of home visits; the promotion and communication of home safety; the problems associated with reaching all sectors of the community.
· When asked, the majority of the group definitely felt that prevention was a positive way forward. Notably, no one person in the focus group criticised or openly challenged the proposed changes.
· Participants commented that friends and relatives that hadn’t been involved in the consultation were concerned that they would lose their local fire station.
· Participants felt the Fire and Rescue Service should prioritise the following groups with their prevention strategy: the elderly, schools, single parents and isolated rural areas.
· It was clear that by the end of the third meeting, people were much more open and positive about the issue of prevention as opposed to intervention. This change in attitude had occurred over the consultation period.
Community consultation
· Only four members of the public showed an interest in being involved in further research concerning the changes to the Service. Considering the fact that 45,000 leaflets were printed and widely distributed throughout the Island, this response is very poor and either highlights the fact that people were either apathetic about the issue or simply considered it unnecessary to get involved with the process.
· Fourteen key stakeholders/ members of the public sent letters of comment about the FAIRMaP.
· The comments from stakeholders were both positive and negative. In many cases, stakeholders only commented on the quality and clarity of the FAIRMaP report.
· Overall, the respondents’ comments fell into the following areas: that prevention is ‘idealistic’; suggestions for preventative measures; concerns about the lack of trained Fire Fighters; the perceived expense of consultation and the lack of clarity of FAIRMaP.
·
The lack of response from the community does imply
that people are happy with the management and performance of the Service.
However, robust consultation with the public is often very difficult because
peoples’ time is very precious and people don’t go out of their way to act if
they feel they will not be adversely affected by change. Although it would be
dangerous to consider in isolation, the very poor response suggests that people
are open to the proposed changes and do not see it as a contentious issue.
Conclusions
· Staff have predominantly negative feelings about the changes, although a minority are very positive about it.
· Staff feel that there are significant risks associated with reducing the resources available for intervention work. This is a view shared by some residents.
· To drive through change demanded by Government at a time when the workforce is not supportive, is extremely difficult. Underpinning the comments from staff is a desire for greater confidence in the managements’ performance and future management of the Service as well as trust that current fears (public safety, job losses, Service performance etc.) are ill founded.
· One key stakeholder commented that it will take strong leadership for staff to accept the changes and staff are concerned that they will lose their jobs and become de-motivated when the changes do occur.
· The Fire Authority and staff must seek ways to work more closely together. This means ways need to be found that allow staff and management to listen carefully to the concerns and aspirations of each other and accept that ‘opposing parties’ see different truths in the same set of current circumstances.
· There are concerns from staff, residents and other key stakeholders that some accidents can’t be prevented.
· All groups have useful suggestions to put forward about partnerships that the Fire and Rescue Service should forge and groups of the community that should be targeted for prevention.
· Those that have more information about the ‘reality’ of the shift of emphasis seem to be those groups that are more positive about it.
Recommendations
The recommendations for action within this report focus
mainly on further communication and consultation with staff in order to deliver
improved performance to the public. In order for the recommendations to work,
all parties need to listen carefully to the views of others but accept that
some movement is needed in order that a common goal of intervention to
prevention is achieved.
The
recommendations also suggest continued consultation with stakeholders and
residents although the key priority, at least in the short-term, is with the
staff.
The rudder is set and the move to modernise is afoot, the process of implementation is critical and the continued communication to all stakeholders (and particularly staff) is paramount. If this is done properly and people see planned actions becoming reality (and as such realise that there is no hidden agenda), so will others accept and agree that this is the right way forward and put their weight behind the new philosophy.
3 Method
The method used to consult with residents and stakeholders has been both quantitative and qualitative and has had three separate elements; a staff survey, distribution of leaflets to the general public, and three focus groups held with stakeholders.
Staff Survey
A short survey (2 pages) was devised by QA with approval by the Fire and Rescue Service. These surveys were then distributed to all staff. The surveys were anonymous and employees were asked to return their completed surveys in Freepost envelopes to QA for inputting and analysis. They comprised open-ended questions about the following issues:
· Employee’s opinions of the negative and positive aspects of changing the emphasis of the Service from intervention to prevention
· Employee’s personal hopes and fears about the changes to the Service
· The ease of understanding of the FAIRMaP
· Suggestions for future partnerships
Fifty nine surveys were completed and returned. Based on a total staff of 266 people, the response represents 22% of the Fire and Rescue Service. Whilst all staff were given the opportunity to be involved in this quantitative[2] consultation process, this response figure indicates a fairly high degree of representativeness.
Workers Response Document
In addition to the surveys received and as part of the consultation process, Questions Answered were provided with the ‘Workers Response Document to the Fire Authority Integrated Risk Management Plan.
The document presents a number of important issues that are raised within the key findings of this report. However, it should be noted that since the document does not give a clear indication of the numbers of people who support the comments within this piece of work (other than the names of two firefighters represented on the cover), it is not possible to be clear about its representativeness.
Focus Groups
In October 2003 the first of three planned focus groups was held, the group was independently chaired by Peter Harrington (MD at Questions Answered). Twelve members of the public attended the group. The session comprised three presentations by Fire Officers on the history, current situation and future of the Fire Service, followed by opportunities for participants to ask the officers questions about the changes.
The second of the three planned focus groups was held in November 2003; again this group was independently chaired by Peter Harrington. On this occasion fifteen members of the public attended, six of whom had not been present at the first group. This session gave participants the opportunities to discuss in greater depth the issues that were raised at the first group and to undertake group based work to come up with suggestions for how preventative measures could be implemented.
The third and final focus group was held in late November 2003. The group was chaired by Peter Harrington. Fourteen members of the public attended the group, all of these had been present at the second group. On this occasion Richard Hards the Chief Fire Officer gave a presentation on some of the practical changes that the modernisation would encompass and members of the audience were invited to ask questions and express their views on these changes.
The concerns and suggestions put forward by the participants at these groups have been analysed and the responses written up as themes.
Community consultation
A leaflet was devised by the Fire and Rescue Service, and approximately 45,000 were distributed to the general public as mail shots and in local libraries, council offices, the local press etc. The leaflet informed readers of the changes to be made to the Fire and Rescue Service, sign-posted individuals to where they could access copies of the FAIRMaP and the Improvement Plan and it also asked individuals to send their details to QA if they were interested in further research or if they had any comments they wanted to make.
Only a small number of responses (eighteen) were returned. Four were people showing interest in further research and fourteen were letters with comments on the proposed plans. Some of these responses come from key stakeholders, these are detailed below:
· Brighstone Parish Council
· Niton and Whitwell Parish Council
· Gurnard Parish Council
· Newchurch Parish Council
· Godshill Village Partnership
· Hampshire Constabulary
· Isle of Wight NHS – Primary Care Trust
· Hospital Fire Officer
4 Key Findings
4.1 Staff Survey
The survey sought employee’s opinions of the modernisation of the Fire and Rescue Service. In particular, the positive and negative aspects of the Fire and Rescue Service shifting its emphasis from intervention to prevention, and suggestions for future partnerships. Overall, there was a clear majority of respondents who expressed negative views towards the proposed changes.
The responses to these questions are detailed below[3] and a copy of the survey used is included within the appendix.
Perceived positive aspects of the shift of emphasis
Their responses suggest that staff foresee there being a
number of positive aspects to the change from intervention to prevention. These
have been grouped into themes:
· Prevention is inherently preferable to intervention
· Reduction of house fires
· Better education of the public and distribution of safety equipment
· Closer integration with the community
· An acknowledgement of a shift that is already taking place
· Other
The greatest proportion of respondents commented that the most positive aspect of the shift is that prevention is always preferable to intervention, since to not have a fire in the first place is better than having to put one out (twelve). Nine, respondents felt that a positive aspect of the shift of emphasis is that members of the general public will be generally better educated and aware in the areas of prevention than they are at present. Similarly, six respondents felt that supplying the public with free safety equipment was the most positive aspect of the shift of emphasis. Other respondents (six) felt that the perceived reduction of house fires i.e. a reduction in injuries and loss of property was the most positive aspect. Two staff members commented that it would lead to a closer integration between the Fire and Rescue Service and the community and two respondents asserted that FAIRMaP and the changes it proposes acknowledged the shift towards prevention that had already begun to happen over the last few years.
Six respondents gave comments that do not fit in to the themes above. These included two respondents that perceived a positive aspect of the shift to be that it would reduce costs.
Examples of respondent’s comments are given below to illustrate these views:
‘Preventing a fire in the first place has always got to be better than putting a fire out’
‘Hopefully the reduction of injuries and loss of property’
‘Informing members of the public in fire safety issues for the home, targeting vulnerable groups, making homes safer, educating at risk groups and receptive audiences i.e. schools’
‘Informing people to take responsibility, to have a clearer view of risks in the community, may lead to changes in planning etc’
‘ . . . The only positive aspect is the acknowledgement of this shift instead of pretending it hasn’t happened’
‘Reduce deaths, cut costs’
Negatively, a number of respondents (thirteen) did not foresee there being any positive elements to the change.
‘No positive aspects at all’
‘None – any reduction in ability to respond to incidents will increase the risk to the public’
Perceived negative aspects of the shift of emphasis
The negative aspects of the shift of emphasis put forward by staff can be grouped into themes:
· Fewer fully trained staff members/ reduction in watch strength
· Loss of skilled staff to prevention
· It will be an increased risk to public
· Some accidents can’t be prevented/ some groups can’t be reached
· It is a cost cutting exercise
· Other
A negative aspect of the shift mentioned by the greatest number of respondents (twenty) was that there would be a reduction in watch strength which would mean a greater risk to the public. Similarly five respondents mentioned that a negative aspect would mean that there would be a loss of skilled staff to prevention. Six respondents made the more general comment that the shift of emphasis would mean a greater risk to the public. Four respondents made the comment that some incidents are very difficult to prevent and thus, it would not be worthwhile to implement preventative measures. Three respondents were concerned that it is a cost cutting exercise; a couple of respondents felt that it was merely a cost cutting exercise by the Government, while others stated that it would be an unnecessary cost to the tax payer. Eight respondents made comments which did not fit into the themes that included two respondents who felt it would lead to the de-motivation of staff. The following verbatim quotes illustrate the comments made.
‘Fire cover may suffer if personnel are concentrated on prevention’
‘Removal of primary crewing rescue tender puts safety of public at risk’
‘A reduction in the professional workforce that will be available to maintain and operate equipment effectively when it is required’
‘Incidents will still occur therefore intervention will always be necessary’
‘Added financial burden to tax payers for badly thought through re-deployment of resources’
Positively five respondents
felt that there were no negative aspects to the shift of emphasis.
‘I don’t feel there are any
negative aspects as long as levels of intervention cover remains in place
whilst prevention measures are put in place and success measured’
Personal fears about the Service’s change of emphasis
Employees were asked what they personally feared most about the impact the changes would make to the Fire Service. The themes that arose from the verbatim responses were concerns about:
· Job losses and decrease in morale amongst staff
· Increased reliance on less experienced, less well trained, part-time staff
· Increased danger to the public/ loss of life due to fewer staff and resources
· An unnecessary cost-cutting exercise
A personal fear of the greatest proportion (eighteen) of respondents is that there would be an increased danger to the public or lives lost because of the decrease in full-time fire-fighters that would be present at emergency incidents and the decrease in appliances that would be available. A similar concern of seven respondents was that there would be increased reliance on less well trained part-time staff.
Loss of jobs was a further concern mentioned by eleven respondents and naturally resulting from this it was feared that there would be a decrease in morale amongst the staff that remained. Four respondents were concerned that it was an unnecessary cost cutting exercise.
Two respondents were concerned that regionalisation will lead to a loss of local knowledge amongst staff, and two were concerned that the changes would lead to a loss in the prompt action to rural communities.
‘Other’ responses included those that feared it would lead to non-family friendly shift patterns
‘Diverting resources to prevent fires must not put crews and the public at risk when fires do occur’
‘Reductions of stations and appliances resulting in less fire coverage’
‘Creeping job losses (reduction in establishment levels) Civilianisation of uniformed roles within service. Non-operational managers leading to uninformed decision making and incident command concerns.’
‘I feel this supposed shift to prevention will give senior managers the green light to cut back on operational firefighters jobs’
‘This is a thinly guised cost cutting exercise . . . cuts cost lives’
‘Loss of local control, reduced knowledge in geography of the area, increase in deaths due to loss of local control. From experience in police regionalisation response times will drop, care and efficiency will lower, public will be let down’
Three respondents did not have any fears about the shift of emphasis.
‘I have no fears – I am optimistic about the safety of myself and those I care about . . . ‘
Personal hopes regarding the impact of the changes
Several types of feeling have emerged from employee’s responses about their hopes for the changes. These have been grouped into the following themes:
· A more efficient service, reacting to the changes in society
· Intervention is still carried out at its existing level
· That consultation is acted upon
· That the modernisation does not go ahead
A high proportion of respondents (twenty-one) hoped that the changes resulted in an improved and more forward thinking service, that led to a safer community and a more efficient service. Five respondents asserted that they hoped that intervention continued to be carried out at its existing standard and that this side of the service did not change. Three respondents made the assertion, which is pertinent to this document that they hoped that the views they expressed were listened to.
Other responses included those that hoped the changes would not go ahead or would not work (seven). Three respondents commented that they hoped that the changes would lead to re-structuring of the management of The Service. One respondent commented that they hoped the changes would lead to a charge for non-essential work. Two respondents stated that they hoped the changes improved opportunities for retained fire-fighters.
The following verbatim comments illustrate employee’s hopes regarding the changes:
‘We can only hope for a ‘better’ and more flexible service’
‘To become more qualified and competent as a professional to deal with greater challenges as the service expands its roles and functions’
‘A more forward moving/ thinking brigade as regards to equipment, training, productivity, resources, procurement and the removing of barriers in communication between managers and workforce’
‘The people who are consulted are listened to, and the consensus of opinion is followed’
‘To be better informed about risk and how to deal with it. To know the service has reflected on issues and decided this is the best way forward for them and the community’
‘That it does not work and we go back to normal’
‘That the brigade’s no
longer allow the myth to perpetuate the retained fire-fighters are
‘retards’ . . . and open the door to
equality in terms of pay, responsibility and good old fashioned respect’
Ease of understanding of draft plan
Respondents were asked for their feedback on how easy they had found the draft plan to read and understand. The majority of respondents (twenty-four) suggested that they had found the plan difficult to understand, while others had found the document understandable but were concerned that the general public would not (fifteen). In addition to this some respondents felt that the document was trying to deflect from its true intentions with ‘jargon’ and statistics’ (nine).
Conversely thirteen respondents commented that they had found the draft report fairly easy to read, although some of these commented that the public would find it more difficult to comprehend.
‘’It isn’t and won’t be [easy to understand] if you are a member of the public’
‘For anyone outside the fire and rescue service I would imagine the plan is gobble-dee-gook . . .’
‘There is too much play on
words and figures to understand in layman’s terms’
‘It’s ok’
Suggestions for future partnerships
Employees suggested a range of agencies that they felt the Fire and Rescue Service should be working with in the future. The most commonly mentioned were the Police and the Ambulance Service (twenty-five) - it was felt that good partnerships with these would be particularly effective at RTAs. A range of other partners were suggested and these included; education, social services, housing community groups, the media and safety organisations.
‘The Fire Service needs to work closely with both the Police and the Ambulance Services. We need to understand each others’ roles more closely (communication is the key; we don’t communicate)’
‘Police and ambulance for better understanding of each others roles and what is required at incidents from whom . . .’
‘Ambulance service to have a better understanding of our work together and to use joint facilities, police to reduce road accidents, also to reduce fire service response times to such incidents involving persons trapped’
Further Comments
As the responses above suggest and as we would have expected, employees clearly have strong feelings about the proposed changes to the Fire and Rescue Service. These strong feelings were also reflected in the additional comments that respondents made. Some of the comments made are constructive while others are quite negative[4].
A couple of respondents made the point that it is important that the changes take into account the views of the employees and that it becomes a working partnership. Others mentioned that the shift of emphasis would be very good for the service because it would raise their profile in the community. One respondent expressed that they strongly hoped the changes improved the opportunities for retained fire-fighters. One respondent expressed concern that the changes would result in a less family friendly shift system.
On the other hand, one respondent commented that s/he didn’t feel it was the job of the Fire Service to do preventative work and others felt it wasn’t making the best use of the skills of trained Firemen. A selection of further comments are included below:
‘There has to be a working partnership especially management and employees views and feelings listened to, and work towards a common solution’
‘ . . .this would give the fire service a much higher profile within the community this can only be good for the Service if it is to continue’
‘It is not the role of the Fire Service to educate members of the public to prevent RTAs, people will fall through the net’
‘The only way this process can be judged as successful is if the workforce can be persuaded it is not a cost cutting exercise but a genuine attempt to improve the service offered and improve the safety of the community’
‘I have appreciated the opportunity to put my thoughts forward . . . However, if it is proven that this process of consultation was not taken into account and not allowed to influence the process and therefore the development of this service, I would very quickly become less positive . . .’
‘
‘The point I am making is simple. You have a majority retained workforce, a workforce that remained loyal during industrial action and can be trusted for their community involvement and service. Simply unlock this talent, allow it to flourish, allow development, allow flexibility, apply modern practices of health, safety, equality and true fairness and dignity . . . then implement FAIRMaP and watch it succeed’
Workers’ Response Document
The Workers’ Response Document
was provided to Questions Answered as a separate piece of consultation. The
short report highlighted a number of specific concerns about the proposed changes
and challenged elements of the FAIRMaP report.
The key issues within the
Workers’ Response document are highlighted below:
The workers assert that the
Community Fire Safety Plan within the FAIRMaP is flawed for three reasons:
‘1. It takes no account of existing fire assessments that require two personnel to carry out Home Fire Safety Checks, 2. It allows no time for meal breaks, travel time etc, 3. It assumes that all 64,000 homes on the island would wish to have a Home Fire Safety Check’
The document sets out a plan
which the authors suggest is:
‘1.Realistic and achievable, 2.Maintains highly skilled intervention whilst carrying out prevention work’
They propose a formula which
they assert makes it possible to maintain existing watch levels at 10 personnel
per watch and ensure that 1/3 of households per annum would be offered a Home
Fire Safety Check.
4.2 Focus Groups
This section provides all the findings to the three focus groups held at the Fire Authority’s Training Headquarters in Ryde. Richard Hards (Chief Fire Officer), George Bryson (Deputy Chief Fire Officer), Paul Street (Third Officer), Steve Apter (IRMP Liaison Officer), Giles Lowe (Brigade Training Officer) and Jan Alexander (Corporate Services Manager) were present at each meeting.
The Chief Fire Officer, Deputy Chief Fire Officer and the Third Officer provided responses to questions. These responses are shown in shaded boxes below and are referred to as SMT (Senior Management Team) Response. The comments within the shaded boxes are not direct quotes, but a summary of what was said at the meeting.
Focus Group One
The first of three planned focus groups with representatives from local communities, Parish Councillors, private and voluntary sector groups and organisations, was held on the 8th October 2003. It was chaired by Peter Harrington (MD of Questions Answered) as an independent facilitator. Twelve members of the community representing various agencies attended the session.
The purpose of the group was to present the proposed changes to the Service, with particular focus on the FAIRMaP, and to give members of the public the opportunity to ask questions of the three presenters and raise concerns about the changes. The agenda of the ninety-minute meeting is set out below:
1 Introduction by Peter Harrington
2 Three 15 minute presentations each followed by a short question and answer session:
The History of the Fire and Rescue Service - George Bryson (Deputy Chief Fire Officer)
The Current Fire and Rescue Service – Paul Street (Third Officer)
The Future of the Fire and Rescue Service – Richard Hards (Chief Fire Officer)
3 A 30-minute question and answer session
The type of questions that participants asked might be indicative of the concerns of the wider community and the themes that emerged in the respondents’ questions are discussed below.
Concerns about the shift of emphasis from intervention to prevention
As might be expected the majority of concerns participants expressed were about the effect that the shift from intervention to prevention would have, in particular the effect it would have on the Fire Service’s capacity to cope when intervention was necessary if resources were shifted to prevention. For example one participant made the comment:
‘Talking about prevention is fine but what are you doing about the rescue side’
|
Response from SMT |
There are a number of initiatives in place and a significant amount of work is being undertaken with the Police and Road Safety agencies in order to help reduce accidents. |
One participant also made the point that he did not feel that the presentations which the Fire Service had given had explained how they were going to achieve these results. Another participant also asked about how the Fire and Rescue Service was planning to measure prevention.
‘The presentations have looked at the infrastructure – but you’re not saying how they are going to achieve it?’
|
Response from SMT |
The shift of personnel to prevention will increase the resources in this area. Home fire safety visits are the focus for reducing fires. |
General concerns about the change of service
As well as concerns about the change from intervention to prevention, participants also had concerns about other aspects of the modernisation of the Service. One participant asked whether there was any truth in the rumour that the control centre would move to the main land. Another participant had concerns about staffing and asked to what extent the Fire Service would be able to continue to sustain retained Fire Officers.
‘I’m wondering how sustainable the Fire and Rescue Service will be if it relies heavily on retaining firemen?’
|
Response from SMT |
The retained fire fighters have been part of the Service for a long time and there have not been sustainability problems. There will be continued reliance on retained fire fighters since they provide a consistently good service and cost effective resource. |
Peter also asked a question which reflected the concerns of the participants, he asked about the cost the changes would have to the tax payer and what changes they should expect to see.
‘As a tax payer what are we going to see that is going to be new, that is undoubtedly going to cost money?’
|
Response from SMT |
The Fire Service will become far more visible and active in the community spreading the message about preventative fire and safety measures. N.b. notes in focus group 3 explains budget issues. |
Queries about current preventative measures and partnerships
As the questions above suggest, participants were clearly concerned about how great the changes would be, they asked questions about current measures that were in place that might be more widely implemented when the changes go ahead.
One participant asked what preventative measures the Fire Service were currently using, another asked how they planned to engage the audience that they were intending to reach. One respondent also asked who the Service’s main audience would be for preventative measures.
‘Which aspects of our community are the most vulnerable?’
|
Response from SMT |
The young, the old and the hard-to-reach groups[5] are most vulnerable. |
‘Who are the hardest to treat the young or the eldest?’
|
Response from SMT |
Neither group is more vulnerable than the other since both groups have specific and particular needs. |
‘What are you doing to interest young teenagers in the Service . . . ?’
|
Response from SMT |
There are a number of initiatives in place that stimulate interest and learning. The annual Careers event at Medina Theatre provides an opportunity for young people to learn about the Service and there is a BTEC public services course which is held in partnership with the IOW College. People also have the opportunity to join the Young Fire Fighter’s Association. |
Participants also asked about partnerships that currently existed within the Fire Service and another participant suggested that the Fire Service should work more in partnership with the neighbourhood watch and the police service.
‘Is there any cross Fire Service, Ambulance Service, Police service working?’
|
Response from SMT |
Yes. The Chief is Chair of the Emergency Services Joint Liaison Group which includes high level representation from the Police, Ambulance, Coast Guard and Emergency Planning Services. One tier down is the Practitioner’s Group which also provides a platform for cross communication and working. There is also a major training exercise carried out every year which brings all the services together. |
‘Neighbourhood watch sees a policeman a month and that spreads the message’
Response from SMT “We are looking at an initiative called neighbourhood wardens.
General enquiries about the current Fire and Rescue Service
As well as more specific questions about the proposed changes to the Fire and Rescue Service participants questions revealed that they also had more general concerns about the current provision. One participant questioned the current provision that was available to support maritime fires and another asked whether the current provision was over generous. Two other participant’s questions suggested that they wanted to see the changes in a wider context with one asking how the UK Fire and Rescue services current setup compared to the Service in the rest of the world and another asked what they felt were the greatest strengths and weaknesses of the Isle of White service at present.
|
Response from SMT |
Maritime fires are covered by Hampshire Fire and Rescue Service, the Coastguard and South Coast brigades. Links are continually being established with European organisations in order to establish best practice and be able to learn from other experienced people. |
The overall tone of the question and answer session suggested that the public were curious and interested in the changes, particularly about how they were to be implemented rather than that they were in opposition to them.
Focus Group 2
The second of three planned focus groups with representatives from local communities, Parish Councillors, private and voluntary sector groups and organisations, was held on the 5th November 2003 chaired by Peter Harrington (MD of Questions Answered) as an independent facilitator. On this occasion the group included fifteen members of the community, six participants had not attended the first group. The majority of respondents had seen the FAIRMaP before the meeting and about half asserted that they had read it thoroughly.
Building on the discussion in Focus Group One the purpose of the second group was to discuss how the changes were going to be implemented, what particular aspects of the changes members felt were particularly important and the participant’s fears and hopes for the future. The agenda of the meeting is set out below:
1 Introduction by Peter Harrington
2 A short presentation by Richard Hards summarising the presentations given in Group One, followed by a question and answer session.
3 An opportunity for participants to get into three groups to discuss various areas of implementation and then feedback to the whole group.
As with group one, the type of questions that participants asked and the suggestions that they raised might be indicative of the views of the wider community. The themes that emerged in the respondents questions are discussed below.
Perceived positive and negative aspects of the change of emphasis
Few participants gave examples of their positive feelings about the change. However rather than this being an indication of their feelings about the change it seemed more to do with a reluctance of the participants to speak at this stage of the group . One participant made the point that they liked the idea of the Fire Service changing direction.
Participants’ fears about the change of direction included those that were concerned about resources. Participants also seemed to be unsure whether the shift of emphasis would mean employing more people to undertake the prevention work or whether it would mean spreading the existing resources more thinly.
‘It is going to have a budgetary effect, and it may also have a performance effect to do too much, are you going to get more manpower it doesn’t always follow’
|
Response from SMT |
Bids have been placed with Council to seek more money to allow the Fire Authority to do what it needs to do. This subject is covered in more detail in the third focus group. |
Other participants were concerned that a focus on intervention would not be practical because there were other factors involved in accidents, such as dangerous roads, that couldn’t be prevented by educating people about them.
‘As far as fires go, people are more conscious of fire risk these days, but as far as road accidents are concerned I feel that is a much wider thing’
Participants concerns and suggestions about practical implementation
Several participants made the point that the FAIRMaP does not recognise that it might be more difficult to educate some groups of the general public than others. From his own experience of dangerous drivers, that have been repeatedly told about driving safety but still drive dangerously, one participant made the point that it would be very difficult to get the message across to some people. Another participant mentioned the difficulties of educating those groups with mental health problems.
‘The biggest problem is going to be educating and training people and getting it into their heads that what you want them to do is for their own benefit’
‘One area we haven’t established is those suffering from mental health problems . . . how are we going to get the message across to them.’
|
Response from SMT |
There is currently a formal agreement with the Health Authority providing partnerships with Health Visitors in terms of reaching people who might otherwise not be engaged in the process. |
It was felt that partnerships were going to be important when educating the public, although it was commented by one participant that it would be difficult to get commitment from partners to become involved.
One participant questioned why furniture makers couldn’t be encouraged to use fire retardant material, and another suggested that the different types of fire extinguishers should be made more easily identifiable. These views suggest a recognition that education on prevention needs to go beyond the general public and the island.
‘Most of the deaths are caused in the house, surely if we were to educate some of the main manufacturers of furniture to use fire retardant material rather than foam . . . we would save a lot of lives’
|
Response from SMT |
Legislation now prevents furniture makers from using the wrong materials. It was pointed out that legislation does not stop fires starting. |
‘Once upon a time you used to know exactly what type of extinguisher you were picking up before reading it, now you have to read the damn thing because they are all the same colour’
|
Response from SMT |
Yes, extinguishers are all red. This has come about through European legislation. The message is to get people to read the label and select the correct extinguishers. Again, it is about preventing fires rather than simply intervening when they happen. |
Furthermore in terms of educating the public some of the respondent’s questions suggested that they were unsure about the services that the Fire Service could currently provide.
‘Can we invite you to attend meetings?’
|
Response from SMT |
Definitely. The Fire and Rescue Service is always very keen to attend meetings. |
Outcomes of Group work
The participants were separated into small groups and were asked to discuss practical suggestions for implementing changes, the main points to come out of the three groups are detailed below.
Group One – Communicating with people
The group suggested that communicating information about fire safety to the general public could be done in the following ways: through opening a customer service centre, the radio, Solent TV, local websites, the neighbourhood watch and residents associations.
It was felt that it was particularly important to communicate the message to the rural community because they have a longer response time.
‘We were looking at how we are going to get to people . . . we felt that we weren’t empowered even though the resource was there’
Group Two – Changing attitude and behaviour
It was felt that an effective way of changing the behaviour of islanders would be through shock tactics. It was suggested that the damage caused by fires and road accidents should be documented in the media.
‘What we would like to see is accidents that have happened profiled in picture form, same thing with fires . . . if we were educated in what they [Firemen] see and what they’ve done I think this would educate everybody’
Group Three – Resources, performance and finance
The group felt it was important that the control centre remained on the Isle of Wight, they also felt that it was important that the Government recognised the status of the island as an island.
‘We don’t want to see any reduction in manpower . . . we do feel the Government should recognise the island status for funding’
Focus Group 3
In the third and last focus group, Richard Hards gave a twenty-five minute presentation outlining aspects of the practical implementation of the modernisation, this was followed by a question and answer session in which the group could ask questions and express their views on the plan. The agenda of the meeting is set out below:
1 Introduction by Peter Harrington
2 Presentation by Richard Hards, Chief Fire Officer – explaining specific elements of the plan
3 A question and answer session
We have also included a summary of the points raised by Richard Hards in his presentation to the group and an outline of the questions that were asked and the views that were expressed.
A summary of the presentation by Richard Hards
Using a PowerPoint presentation, Richard made the point that the underlying philosophy of FAIRMaP is to make the Island safer.
He produced a chart outlining how the Isle of Wight Fire and Rescue Service is currently structured, explaining the roles of members of staff and the equipment that is currently based at each Fire Station on the island. He made the point that most of the fire stations are around the periphery of the island because this is where most of the settlements are. Richard also outlined the number of staff that are currently employed in different roles in the service.
The number of incidents that the Fire and Rescue service have dealt with in the last year has been 1754 and they’ve had 2767 call outs. Richard explained the proportions of call outs that they have had over the last year to different types of incidents, they have rescued more people over the last year from road traffic accidents than from fires. He also made the point that there has been concern on the island about the numbers of malicious calls that they receive.
Richard outlined how much it currently costs to run the Isle of Wight Fire and Rescue Service and made the point that ‘fire fighting and rescue operations’ are the bulk of the cost, £5.15 million is spent on this from the £5.5 million annual budget.
Richard explained that the Isle of Wight Fire and Rescue Service has to put bids in November each year for their funding for the following year. He outlined the most significant bids that they have put in this year, which have FAIRMaP in mind, this is outlined below:
· Information Technology - £250,000
· Integrated Personal Development System - £100,000
· Fire Service Emergency Cover Model - £100,000
Richard then went on to go into more detail about the most significant changes outlined in FAIRMaP.
He explained that they are looking to redeploy eight operational fire-fighters that are currently on shifts working on intervention to prevention. This will mean that two fire-fighters from each of the four watches will refocus their time wholly onto prevention work. He made the point that they can do this and still maintain the crewing levels on appliances and the existing number of appliances and they feel it will be the best way to decrease the numbers of incidents across the whole range of incidents that they attend.
He made the point that they currently have two height vehicles based at Newport Fire Station. They are planning to move one of the vehicles from Newport to Ryde. He discussed that it is atypical to have two vehicles at Newport and because they have a significant risk in the Ryde area it will be providing better cover across the whole island if they move one vehicle to Ryde.
Because they respond to a lot of unwanted fire signals that are generated by automatic fire alarms, they wanted to introduce a system which is currently being piloted in Oxfordshire. They are going to introduce a full challenge policy whereby they ask premises that have an alarm ‘Do you actually need us?’ and then only respond to calls where they are actually needed.
They also intend to introduce an ICT strategy to ensure that the IT plan integrates with FAIRMaP, analysis and monitoring.
Questions asked by the audience
The respondent’s asked specific questions about elements of the presentation that they wanted clarifying.
One question was concerning the movement of a fire engine from Newport Fire Station. The respondent queried whether there were plans to replace the engine that was being moved to Ryde.
‘Is anything going to replace the engine at Newport or are we going to lose an engine?’
|
Response from SMT |
This point was clarified. No engine is being moved. However, one of two height vehicles will be moved from Newport and be based at Ryde. |
Another respondent queried whether the Fire and Rescue service was planning to regionalise.
‘Regionalisation, is there any movement in that area?’
|
Response from SMT |
The issue of regionalisation is not part of the FAIRMaP remit. This issue is being examined as a separate document via the Fire Services National Framework consultation process. |
Another respondent queried how some of the preventative measures i.e. making home visits, would be implemented.
‘Will the home visits be voluntary or legislative? Because I can see a lot falling through the net’
|
Response from SMT |
All home visits will be voluntary and discussions will be held particularly with partnership agencies (see earlier) to best see how to reach those people who are more difficult to get the message to. |
In the second half of the session respondents asked questions but also answered some questions that were put to them by Peter about the changes.
Peter asked the respondents how many were satisfied that prevention is the way forward. The responses suggested that the majority were satisfied with this.
Peter also asked respondents how their friends and family had reacted when they had told them about the changes. Two responses were:
‘They feel like somebody is going to cut costs’
‘As long as we don’t lose our fire station is all that I hear’
Peter also asked the group, which members of the community they felt should be being targeted first for prevention, the following groups were suggested:
· Schools
· Isolated areas
· The elderly
· Single mothers
The participants were asked what they felt the fire and rescue service should be doing to get in touch with communities. It was suggested that they could go through: local community partnerships, councils, help the aged and libraries. It was suggested that ways of reaching people could be through their homes and through a mobile unit.
4.3 Community consultation
Of the large number of leaflets that were distributed at various locations only a small number, four, returned the leaflet suggesting that they would be interested in undertaking further research about the modernisation of the Service. It is worth noting that there is often a low response rate when respondents are asked to respond to mail shots.
Fourteen respondents sent comments about the modernisation of the Fire and Rescue Service and their perception of FAIRMaP. As was mentioned in the methodology some of these responses have come from key stakeholders. These comments should be treated tentatively but may be indicative of the views of the wider population.
The main views expressed in the correspondence were around the following issues: that prevention is ‘idealistic’, suggestions for preventative measures, concerns about the lack of trained Firemen at emergency incidents and the perceived expense of consultation and the lack of clarity of FAIRMaP. We have also included an ‘other’ category which outlines those comments which do not fall under any of the themes.
Idealism
Three respondents felt that the shift of emphasis was idealistic. One respondent commented that she didn’t feel the prevention would stop arsonists from committing offences, the second commented that she did not think that the prevention that FAIRMaP sets out will prevent non-fire emergencies, similarly the third respondent was unsure how the Fire and Rescue service would prevent road traffic accidents which were the most common incidents on the island.
‘I cannot see how this can be achieved as surely it is not within the Fire Service’s powers to control actions from arsonists etc – idealistic but I cannot see achievable’
‘I believe that a major road safety campaign is needed but to make people drive safer then the authorities must set rules and make sure they are obeyed. How exactly does this report help to reduce non fire emergencies?’
‘. . . It [the parish council] is concerned that the Isle of Wight road traffic accident (RTA) statistics do not appear to be improving, and therefore the resources need to deal with this aspect of the authority’s work are unlikely to diminish and yet despite this the documents make little mention of the demands that result from RTA’s’
Suggestions for methods of prevention
Three respondents made suggestions for ways that prevention could be implemented. One respondent wrote a short letter commenting that it would be helpful if routine checks could be made to show that domestic fire alarms were working. Another person suggested some preventative measures that the FAIRMaP should be implementing. Suggestions included; safer heating methods, discouraging smoking, making thatched houses safer and stopping fire work displays. A third respondent suggested distributing free smoke alarms and advice at supermarkets.
‘By having safer heating methods, by trying harder to discourage smoking . . .’
‘The type of scheme I envisage involves a CFS Fire-Fighter being stationed at the supermarket entrance with a copy of the electoral role or similar list of residential properties. As customers enter the store they would be offered a free smoke alarm on production of Household I.D. and then be crossed off the list’
Reduction in resources
Four respondents were concerned that the proposed changes would mean a reduction in the number of fully trained firemen attending emergencies and the implications that this would have. Another respondent was positive about the changes but felt that they wouldn’t be if the resources were reduced and another was positive about most elements of FAIRMaP but was concerned about a reduction in watch strength at Newport Fire Station
‘Am I right in thinking it was absolutely crucial for a full whole time fire crew to attend [a road accident] as they have the expertise to deal with such a situation’
‘”Prevention is at the heart of our core” – of course it is but that does not mean the fire authority can be spread so thin that it stops being an emergency service’
‘I very much welcome the
Fire Authority’s intention to give greater emphasis to prevention, . . . Were
the Fire and Rescue resources to be reduced on the island, the island’s ability
to respond to a major incident will be compromised’
‘ . . . This watch strength, considering the small numbers involved, would require only one additional sickness episode to reduce the ability to supply cover for the first pump to calls within the Newport area’
Cost of Consultation and the lack of clarity of the FAIRMaP
Three respondents expressed concern about the cost of the consultation process. Furthermore, three respondents commented that they had found the FAIRMaP difficult to understand.
‘The cost of producing these documents concerns me greatly and it does no way deter me from thinking of “Consultation for the sake of consultation”’
‘I have been instructed by my council to advise you that . . . it [the FAIRMaP] is too lengthy and the cost of the Plan’s production is resented due to its glossy nature’
Other
One respondent made the point that they are positive about FAIRMaP but feel that it will be a big change for staff so needs to be dealt with in a sensitive way.
‘It is understood that a workforce that has seen their role primarily as fires may have reservations about what is being proposed and I do believe it will take a great deal of skill and leadership from both within the organisation and outside the organisation to reconcile the new direction with existing attitudes’
5 Conclusions
This section sets out the conclusions that can be drawn from the consultation that has taken place with staff, the public and community groups about the modernisation of the Isle of Wight Fire and Rescue Service.
The findings of the staff survey suggest that the employees have predominantly negative feelings about the proposed changes although a small number are very positive about it. A high proportion of staff appear to feel that ultimately prevention is preferable to intervention, since to prevent a fire in the first place is better than to have to put one out. However it is a common view of many that while prevention is very important intervention should remain at its existing level. It is a fear of many staff that if intervention is reduced it will put residents of the Isle of Wight at risk. This is a concern shared by a few stakeholders and members of the public.
Views on modernisation appear to be most strident amongst staff within the Service. As a result, the issue it seems has become a point of divide between a number of staff and management. In order for the organisation to move forward, trusted and confident communication is required. Unfortunately, at times of change, communication is often the first casualty because people have divergent views and no one person has access to all information.
Fear of change and
fear of changes
Responses from some staff suggest that if change and/or cuts were to happen they are concerned about a number of issues including: the safety of people, job losses and the de-motivation of remaining staff. But, other respondents see it as an opportunity to improve the existing structure of The Service. The point was well made by a key stakeholder in his letter regarding the changes that, “It will take strong leadership for the staff to come to accept the changes that are being proposed.”
Whilst change is rarely a comfortable process to experience, it can be discerned from all the evaluation that different ‘fears’ exist within the minds of staff and stakeholders. To better understand these fears, the two paragraphs below summarise two ways in which people typically react to change.
· People do not like change because of the unpredictable consequences that will necessarily occur in personal and professional lives. This thought process is often irrational but is a natural reaction. People are creatures of habit and tradition. The stronger the bonds of habit, the more people will resist change because it means moving out of existing comfort zones.
· People do not like change because the information that they possess at that moment in time creates a real fear that modification will be damaging and/or detrimental in one or more ways. This thought process is normally rational and natural, although thinking can be coloured by the irrational fear of change (see above).
Interestingly, the research found that focus group participants changed their view towards the proposed changes over a period of three meetings. Participants became more positive as they learnt more about the Fire and Rescue Service and the consequences of the move towards prevention. In other words, their rational fear of change altered as they became more reassured on specific issues of concern.
However, staff within the Service are closer to the issues and for the majority, their fears (rational and irrational) have not yet been allayed. This hurdle must be overcome (through work by all parties – see recommendations).
FAIRMaP
Throughout the report the FAIRMaP document received quite a lot of criticism. Its complexity, lack of inclusiveness, length and perceived cost were causes for some complaint. However, it is worth noting that the Primary Care Trust and Police Service were predominantly positive.
In fairness to the Service, whilst FAIRMaP is not perfect, a lot of work (completed in a relatively short space of time) went into researching, writing and disseminating a draft document that seeks to communicate how a complex organisation works now and how it proposed to work in the future. As publishers of such reports, we know that FAIRMaP is not an expensive document, although it may be best in future to only distribute a clear and reader-friendly ‘Executive Summary’, and then offer the full report on request.
In conclusion, in terms of consultation, the Fire Authority should be applauded for all its efforts with the draft FAIRMaP report, but learn important lessons from the process. Whilst people were on the whole negative about the report as a document, most of the responses were relatively cosmetic and did not do justice to the work that had been completed.
Delivery and
Performance
Consultation found that people felt it may be difficult to prevent certain incidents and to reach some groups in the community. As a result respondents questioned whether the shift of emphasis would be more or less effective. A particular concern arose regarding Road Traffic Accidents; some respondents raised concerns about and/or mentioned the fact that they did not feel that there was enough information in FAIRMaP about how the Isle of Wight Fire and Rescue Service intended to prevent these types of incidents.
Despite this, consultation suggests that public, stakeholders and staff have positive suggestions to make about the groups of the community that might benefit from these preventative measures e.g. children, young people, the elderly and other groups which are ‘hard to reach’. Letters from members of the public suggest that they can have suggestions to offer about the preventative measures that should be put in place and staff have put forward a lot of suggestions for partnerships. Staff reported that they would like to see stronger links between the Fire and Rescue Service and the other emergency services which it is felt will be particularly beneficial at Road Traffic Accidents.
Where now?
Staff expressed the greatest number of negative comment about the shift in emphasis and some reticence was expressed by members of the public. However, this has to be balanced against the positive staff reaction and the positive viewpoint of the focus group attendees.
Having reviewed the Government’s vision for the Fire and Rescue Service within the White Paper ‘Our Fire and Rescue Service’ this report must conclude that the move to prevention is the right way forward for the Service. The sheer scale of the technological advances that have taken place over the past 10 years will allow the Service to operate far more effectively since it will have access to much more information – all of which will be available at its fingertips.
With this knowledge and resource alone, it would be wrong and foolhardy for any Government or Fire Authority not to act and thus change its working practices.
However, whilst the rudder is set and the move to modernise is afoot, the process of implementation is critical and the continued communication to all stakeholders (and particularly staff) is paramount. If this is done properly and people see planned actions becoming reality (and as such realise that there is no hidden agenda), so will others accept and agree that this is the right way forward and put their weight behind the new philosophy.
The recommendations that follow focus primarily on the issue of further consultation.
6 Recommendations for Action
Overview
This
report has examined a wide range of viewpoints within a complex and changing
Authority and industry. Whether you approve or not with central Government’s
agenda for change, it is the responsibility of the Fire Authority to make it
happen but at the same time consult with staff, residents and stakeholders
about the issue.
As such,
the Authority has an extremely difficult job since on the one hand it must do
what it is told and the other it must consult widely on the issue. Furthermore,
its job of modernisation is made more difficult by the recent problems
experienced within the industry as a whole.
On the
other side of the coin, stakeholders and residents are keen to be reassured
about the proposed changes. More significantly perhaps, staff have a number of
real concerns about the consequences of change. These concerns must be
considered and addressed before changes are made.
Change in
such an environment and such a scale is always very uncomfortable. To allow for
modernisation the Fire Authority has bid for additional money to provide the
resources. It is important that all parties appreciate that much hidden time
has gone into the preparation of these bids as well as the work involved in
completing this consultation process.
Nevertheless,
there are questions that need to be answered, mainly from staff, about the whole
modernisation process and the following course of action is recommended to move
the Service forward.
Engage with Staff
The tone
and nature of the majority of ‘negative’ responses from staff working for the
Service cannot be ignored. Whilst the strength of the concern is not uniform
across all staff, there does appear to be a culture that is underpinned by lack
of confidence, belief and trust in what the Senior Management within the
Authority say will happen.
In order
to move forward and take all staff along the same road, the Fire Authority must
gain trust and confidence. Actions will speak louder than words and the first
step for the Authority is to listen to and understand the concerns of staff
concerning the proposed changes within the Service. Staff need to be able to
express themselves truthfully and in an environment where there is no fear of
recrimination.
But if the
Authority is to seek to engage with staff, staff must appreciate: the political
pressures facing the Authority; that change is always uncomfortable; that the
Authority does not necessarily have all the answers and power; that there is no
secret and hidden agenda.
The Workers’ Response
It is very
important that this document receives a proper response. As with the time and
energy that has gone into the Authority’s consultation and this report, a
significant amount of thought has gone into the Workers’ Response. It is
recommended that representatives of the Service sit down with the authors of
the Workers’ Response document and listen to and discuss the issues arising
from this work and then agree a way forward in line with the conclusions and
recommendations in this report.
A process for communication and
consultation
The
Authority should continue to meet with small groups of staff (4 – 6) to listen
to concerns and share information. As the report highlights, no one person has
all the information and it would be very useful to share knowledge so that all
parties better understand the other’s point of view.
It is
strongly recommended that people within the meetings accept that the Authority
must follow Government guidelines, but it is also strongly recommended that all
parties consider the possible alternative ways of achieving the goal. It is
important that both parties accept they may have to move their goalposts a
little in order to go forward. If this can be achieved, actions then must
follow in line with stated agreements.
It is
recommended that the Authority proposes changes that can be measured clearly
and openly over an agreed period of time. For example, people are worried about
resident safety once the proposed changes are implemented. Therefore, if
short-term goals can be agreed, actions taken and then performance measured
using agreed criteria, then confidence and trust should follow to assist in
formulating (ideas) initiatives.
Ongoing communication -
Implementation
Using a
stepping stone approach with SMART (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic
and Time-bound) objectives will create momentum and as long as the whole
process is completed openly, the honesty within the work will lead to much
greater trust within the organisation. This process will naturally spill out to
other stakeholders and residents.
The
consultation process should not be a stop-start affair, but instead should
become a permanent feature within the Authority. As such, the Authority should
seek to create stakeholder, resident and staff teams that are consulted with
throughout the FAIRMaP Improvement Plan cycle,
so that as many people affected by the changes are aware of and in touch with
the information and issues on a continual basis.