Skip to page content
Return to homepage

Inspection Judgement Criteria

Outcomes and benefits aligned to HMIFRS Judgement Criteria

The Hub is committed to delivering value to all end users of our services. 

Value can be defined as many things, but most importantly for our Sector, value must deliver products and services that ensure continuity of our critical front-line services; align to our emerging operational environments; are inclusive; and keep our firefighters and end users safe from harm.

We have been tracking our outcomes against a methodology that has been developed and endorsed by the Home Office, but it predominantly looks at procurement efficiencies. Further information about the current methodology can be found here.

We believe that we can do more to track the benefits that we collectively deliver through our pipeline of projects, ensuring that we continue to align with the priorities and focus of the Sector. The Hub has therefore taken the decision to develop a methodology that expands our value proposition to capture efficiencies and benefits that link directly to specific relevant HMICFRS Inspection judgement criteria, which will enable us to record benefits that not only look at how we spend our money efficiently through collaboration, but crucially the operational benefits that the products and services enable. We won’t do this in isolation, this absolutely must be a methodology that works for us all.  We are pleased therefore to be supported by colleagues within the NFCC Productivity and Efficiency Committee and will ask for views and feedback as the model is developed prior to its launch.

The judgement criteria that we feel we can best support in terms of providing evidence based data are;

Efficiency:

2.1 How well does the FRS use resources to manage risk?

2.1.6 To what extent is the FRS actively exploring all opportunities for collaboration within and beyond the fire and rescue sector, and are the anticipated benefits from collaboration being realised?

Good: The FRS proactively meets its statutory duty to consider emergency service collaboration. The FRS collaborative activity fits with the priorities set out in its integrated risk management plan and improves the provision of core functions or achieves work force efficiencies. The FRS comprehensively monitors, reviews and evaluates the benefits and outcomes of any collaboration and can demonstrate that it improves the provision of core functions or achieves work force efficiencies.
Requires Improvement: The FRS has not appropriately discharged its statutory duty to collaborate. FRS collaborative activity is not planned or does not fit with the priorities set out in its integrated risk management plan. The FRS monitors, reviews and evaluates the benefits and outcomes of collaborative activity, but this is limited and is not used to learn or change decisions.

2.1.8 To what extent does the FRS show sound financial management of non-pay costs, including estates, fleet and equipment through benchmarking, contract renegotiation and procurement?

Good: The FRS can demonstrate savings from non-pay costs. It routinely reviews non-pay costs and regularly challenges itself to make sure that it is achieving value for money.
 
Requires improvement: The FRS has taken some action to reduce non-pay costs but this has been limited or savings are not used in a managed way. It cannot demonstrate how it has achieved value for money. The FRS is not making sufficient use of national procurement contracts.

2.1.9 To what extent can the FRS show that the efficiencies it has made have sustained or improved its operational performance?

Good: The FRS can demonstrate that the efficiencies it has made have enabled it to sustain an appropriate level of service to the public. Savings identified are subjected to benefits/ impact analysis to make sure there is no disproportionate impact on operational performance and service to the public.
 
Requires improvement: Efficiencies have had a disproportionate impact on operational performance and service to the public.

Outstanding

In addition to performing at levels described in Good:
  • The FRS provides high-performing services to the public through innovative and flexible working patterns, which have led to demonstrable cost savings/service improvements.
  • The FRS has had a significant impact in bringing about cross-service or collaborative savings which can be reinvested in service provision.
  • The FRS is at the forefront across services nationally, of improving productivity and making excellent or innovative use of its resources.

Inadequate

Having not achieved the performance described in Requires Improvement:
  • The FRS does not have an agreed financial plan that sufficiently meets the priorities set out in the integrated risk management plan.
  • The FRS has not allocated enough of its resources, or is not making enough use of its resources, to meet the priorities set out in the integrated risk management plan.
  • The FRS has not reduced non-frontline operational costs sufficiently or has not used savings in a well-managed way.
  • Collaborative activity has an adverse impact on the provision of the FRS core functions or workforce efficiencies.

People:

How well does the FRS promote its values and culture?

3.1.3 How well does the FRS understand the wellbeing needs of its workforce and act to improve workforce wellbeing?

Good: The FRS has well-understood and effective wellbeing policies and procedures. These policies and procedures are available to and are understood by staff. The FRS effectively promotes the mental and physical health and wellbeing of staff. FRS staff understand and have confidence in wellbeing support processes.

Requires improvement: Some practices to support mental and physical health exist, but these are limited in scope and ambition. FRS staff have limited confidence in support processes.

3.1.4 To what extent is a culture of promoting health and safety evident at all levels of the FRS?

Good: The FRS has well-understood and effective health and safety policies and procedures. These policies and procedures are available to, and help to afford protections to, staff. The FRS effectively promotes the health and safety of staff.

Requires improvement: The FRS has health and safety policies but these are not well understood and staff do not think that they are fully effective. Some practices to support health and safety exist, but these are limited in scope and ambition.

An example of to what Extent is a culture of promoting health and safety evident at all levels of the FRS

fleet supply chain update August 2022 - NFCC - HP Coventry - red fire truck with a ladder extended

A good health and safety culture should be evident at all levels of FRSs and demonstrated by good leadership, two way communications, employee involvement (consultation), a learning culture with a mature attitude to blame.

The use of British, European and Internal standards throughout organisations is a good indication of how the health and safety is promoted at all levels. In the supply of PPE for example product standards ensure that the basic, health and safety requirements of the PPE at Work Regulations are met whilst the the use of product standards for other operational equipment would demonstrate compliance with Provision and Use of Equipment at Work Regulations (PUWER).

Outstanding

In addition to performing at levels described in Good:

  • The FRS senior leaders embody a clear vision for the service. All staff understand that this is a service priority and positive behaviours are firmly in place, accepted, demonstrated and understood across the whole organisation.

Inadequate

Having not achieved the performance described in Requires Improvement:

  • The FRS has a limited understanding of the wellbeing needs of the workforce.
  • The FRS has not clearly set out, or senior managers do not demonstrate sufficiently, acceptable behaviours and values.
  • The FRS has not established a culture where behaviours that are not in line with service values are routinely challenged.

3.3 How well does the FRS ensure fairness and diversity?

3.3.1 How well do leaders seek feedback and challenge from all parts of the workforce?

Good: The FRS regularly seeks feedback from staff at all levels to measure and monitor staff engagement. The FRS feedback mechanisms carry credibility with staff and as such help to gather valuable information.
Requires Improvement: Some means of gathering staff feedback exist, but these are inconsistent and not wide ranging. The FRS does not have a regular and effective system to measure and monitor staff engagement (across the whole service). Staff do not think that feedback mechanisms work or are effective.

3.3.3 How well does the FRS identify and address potential disproportionality in recruitment, retention and progression?

Good: The FRS operates an open, fair and honest recruitment process for staff or those wishing to work for the FRS. The FRS is exploiting opportunities to ensure that its workforce better reflects the community it represents and it promotes diversity at all levels within the organisation. The FRS has an effective system to understand and remove the risk of discrimination in recruitment and promotion processes and has firmly established equality throughout strategies, plans, training and practice.
Requires Improvement: There is some evidence that FRS recruitment processes are not open or there is limited evidence that the FRS assesses or evaluates the fairness of the recruitment process. The FRS has a plan to increase the diversity of the workforce in line with its community, but it is not leading to change. FRS recruitment campaigns are not directed at, or are not accessible to, under-represented groups. The FRS does not evaluate recruitment and promotion processes and there is no evidence that the FRS assesses or evaluates the fairness of the recruitment process. Equality is not an integral part of policy and practice.

3.3.4 How well does the FRS promote equality, diversity and inclusion to ensure fair and open opportunities for all?

Good: The FRS promotes equality diversity and inclusion and engages with under-represented groups in the workforce to resolve staff concerns and ensure fair and open opportunities for all.
 
Requires Improvement: The FRS takes limited action to promote equality, diversity and inclusion or has limited engagement across the workforce with under-represented groups or does not have a specific means of supporting staff from under-represented groups.

Outstanding

In addition to performing at levels described in Good:
  • The FRS can demonstrate that it has taken successful steps to remove inequality and that it has made progress in improving fairness, diversity and inclusion at every level within the organisation. There is an inclusive work environment and equality is firmly established and understood throughout the policy and practice of the FRS.

 

Inadequate

Having not achieved the performance described in Requires Improvement:
  • The mechanisms to engage and seek feedback from staff do not enable the FRS to sufficiently understand the needs of staff.
  • The FRS understanding of the diversity of its workforce is not used, or is insufficient, to formulate an effective diversity plan.
  • The FRS cannot demonstrate that it has taken sufficient steps to remove unfairness or that it has done enough to improve equality, diversity and inclusion at every level within the organisation.

If you have taken part in or been part of a collaboration initiative, please get in touch. We would be happy to provide evidence to link into the judgement criteria.