Project 1 – The New National Framework  Responding to the Fire Ministers announcement of a Strategic Review of the National Framework for Fire and Rescue Services (4 Outputs envisaged) Project 2 – The IRMP and Service Reconfiguration at local level in an Era of Austerity  The implementation of Integrated Risk Management Planning Process in an Era of Austerity through a case study of the Fire Cover Review in Nottingham and Nottinghamshire. (4 Outputs) Project 3 – Support and Recovery arrangements for Fire and Rescue Services  The development of new engagement, intervention, support and recovery arrangements in the new era of self-regulation and self-improvement – to align with other public services arrangements such as those emerging for local government, criminal justice and health. (2 Outputs)

Working Paper 1 Fire and Rescue Service Reconfiguration in an Era of Austerity, A case study of the Fire Cover Review in Nottinghamshire Evaluation of Stages 1 and 2. Working Paper 2 The Fire Cover Review in Nottinghamshire. A case study of Stage 3 of the Fire and Rescue Service Reconfiguration in an Era of Austerity

 Stage IRMP published, FRC started - review of the existing service, and the levels of risk;  Stage 2 - Develop, test and appraise, alternative options for services  Stage 3 – Publish and consult on preferred option for service reconfiguration.  Stage 4 - The authority will consider the response to the public consultation and determine any changes to the future deployment of the service and implement it in accordance with the resource envelope available.

 Fire & Rescue Service Act 2004  National Framework  Integrated Risk Management Planning  Civil Contingencies Act 2004  National Security  Organisational Security  Audit Commission – Rising to the Challenge/ Fire Futures  Sustainable Communities Act  Localism  Community Resilience  Health and Safety  Working Time Regulations  Part Time Workers’ Regulations  Drivers’ Regulations  Equalities  Alternative Crewing Models  Pre-Determined Attendance (PDA)  Economic Loss  The Regional Perspective

Other than the legislative frameworks and the national standards and requirements these were:  The nature levels and distribution of NFRS existing resources and the efficiency effectiveness and economy in which NFRS resources are planned, deployed and managed.  The economic and social geography of the Fire Authority’s administrative area as reflected in the mapping of Indices of Multiple Deprivation and the community profiles as analysed by the MOSAIC descriptors  The level of access (or response time ) to different parts of the county from different stations and premises calculated for both by Whole-Time and Retained Emergency Stations and Sections.  The quality and quantity of preventative activity both by NFRS and by NFRS in collaboration with its key partners and stakeholders

 A robust, consistent and comprehensive review and comparison of risk was made across the county area.  Complete assessment necessitated cross boundary assessment.  Current configuration based on historical decisions, unsophisticated risk mapping and out-dated standards and information.  This results in less than optimal patterns of resource deployment.  Decisions are politically contested, generate considerable public interest and are difficult to expedite despite the urgent need for efficiency savings.  Independent scrutiny and assurance appears to have been helpful.

 The Nottinghamshire Fire Services presented 3 Options or packages of interdependent proposals, including a “preferred option”  Each package had 3 groups of proposals or recommendations › Stations and Appliances › Management Capacity and › Other considerations  The Fire Authority’s decided to consult on one package and its constituent parts. As the CFO reported: It is not feasible to present a series of recommendations, or indeed options, around individual units. The reality is that for every action there is a consequent reaction in the provision of fire cover. Changing the availability of one appliance or station will have a knock on effect to the next nearest appliance or station. (NFRS 2011)  All Background information and details of options and the consultation process published on open part of the website

 Timescale Originally 1 st August to 23 rd October (12 weeks) – extended to 15 th November.  Appointment of Opinion Research Services – independent consultants, specialists in fire service consultations and accredited by DCLG  Largest and most extensive consultation ever carried out by NFRS.  Expected to be extremely sensitive and potentially highly contentious.

 Family groups, originally defined by CIPFA, adopted by the Audit commission and by CLG.  The 18 FRS websites were examined (including the 2 beyond English boundaries) although 1 has insufficient information for our analysis  Extracted information with respect to the detail provided within IRMP

 17 out of the 18 FRSs had (easily accessible) IRMP documentation.  It has to be acknowledged that NFRS are relatively advanced through the FCR process in comparison to other FRSs undertaking FCR since the imposed reductions in public funding.  Unlike the majority of other FRS’s NFRS have not cited the reduction in public funding as the prevailing factor for reviewing the fire cover in their area.  The level of detail and the earliest release of information by NFRS appears to be matched by only 3 other services

 ORS Fire Cover Review official on-line consultation  Web campaigns and lobbying around stations e.g. Bridgford may lose its Fire station.  Campaigns by representative bodies such as the FBU

This was the focus of the consultation document:  Public – Vast majority of responses and the object of most mis-information.  Business Community – surprisingly few responses.  Representative bodies – close scrutiny but dominated by vested interests  Key partners – generally supportive

This generated few responses:  Public- “at least you’ve got your priorities right!”  Business Community ?  Representative bodies – concentrated upon the impacts upon whole-time or retained staff on stations and appliances.  Key partners – acknowledged the fiscal environment that led to a supportive rather than critical response.

This are implementation issues, the details of which are undeterminable at this stage of the process.  Public- generally unaware of or uninterested  Business Community- very few comments  Representative bodies – all took a close interest (not just the representative of uniformed staff)  Key partners – Relatively few but what about the response to the Fire control centre?

 General constraints on public expenditure have manifestly ‘contextualised’ the response from all sections.  Clear distinction of the roles and responsibility of members of the FRS and FRA.  Level of detail and transparency adopted for FCR welcomed at this stage.  Proactive and comprehensive exercise.  Impact of modern technology and the use of the WWW.

 Completing ethnographic comparative analysis through comparison of the consultations reports publically available through the FRS websites and NFRSs report  Complete the working paper on stage 3 via a series of semi-structured interviews  Write a report of lessons learnt from stages 1 to 3 of the project.  Stage 4 ?

International Journal of Emergency Services Joint Practise Editors I