Kent 2021/22

Kent Fire and Rescue Service is outstanding at understanding risk.

Kent Fire and Rescue Service was good in its 2018/19 assessment.

Each fire and rescue service should identify and assess all foreseeable fire and rescue-related risks that could affect its communities. Arrangements should be put in place through the service’s prevention, protection and response capabilities to prevent or mitigate these risks for the public.

We set out our detailed findings below. These are the basis for our judgment of the service’s performance in this area.

The service has a thorough understanding of the risks it faces

The service has assessed an appropriate range of risks and threats after a thorough risk management planning process. This is presented in a ten-year customer safety plan. There is a clear risk profile, and the data is reviewed and evaluated annually.

When assessing risk, it has considered relevant information collected from a broad range of internal and external sources and data sets. The service has a collaboration team that works with diverse communities to determine risk. There is also a business intelligence team which analyses risks using a variety of different sources.

The service regularly consults and undertakes constructive dialogue with communities and others such as local businesses and organisations, elected members and staff to both understand the risk and explain how it intends to mitigate it. This is managed through its safety and well-being plan.

The communications team is actively involved in consulting and working with the public, using a variety of different methods. The service has successfully reached wider communities through relevant social media platforms. It is continually working to improve its methods of establishing, understanding and responding to changing risks.

There is an effective risk management plan

After assessing relevant risks, the service has recorded its findings in an easily understood and well-presented customer safety plan. The plan clearly explains current risk, and future anticipated changes in risk. It describes how prevention, protection and response activity is to be effectively resourced to mitigate or reduce the risks and threats the community faces, both now and in the future. There are six corporate strategies and supporting action plans which clearly direct activity.

Since our last inspection the service has reviewed the number of fire appliances it needs to meet anticipated operational need and has satisfied the previous area for improvement.

The service gathers, maintains and shares a wide range of risk information

The service routinely collects and updates the information it has about the people, places and threats it has identified as being at greatest risk. This includes through a data sharing agreement with members of Kent Integrated Dataset and the Kent Public Service Network.

This information is readily available for the service’s prevention, protection and response staff, which helps it to identify, reduce and mitigate risk effectively. For example, the service’s risk information can be accessed by operational staff and is routinely shared between teams. Where appropriate, risk information is passed on to other organisations such as neighbouring fire and rescue services. Access to operational risk information through mobile data terminals has improved since our last inspection and the previous area of improvement has been satisfied.

The service has been innovative in developing a process to improve the gathering and use of risk information called ‘Response Assessment Visits – Intelligence’. It makes sure that relevant risk information can be gathered and shared with those who need it in all functions of the service. Firefighters can visit premises and upload risk information on companion devices that are carried on fire engines. They can make immediate referrals for building safety matters, risk intelligence and safeguarding and vulnerability issues. Information is efficiently managed and shared throughout the organisation by a central risk information team.

The service told us it plans to expand the process to include more prevention activity.

The service builds its understanding of risk from operational activity well

The service records and communicates risk information effectively. It also routinely updates risk assessments and uses feedback from local and national operational activity to inform its planning assumptions. For example, during the prevention desktop review that we carried out we found that the service applied learning from its operational activities and from sharing information with response and protection colleagues. A similar review of protection files revealed that risk summaries are created for the benefit of firefighters following fire safety audits.

The service has used learning from the Grenfell Tower Inquiry to reduce risk

During this round of inspections, we sampled how each fire and rescue service has responded to the recommendations and learning from Phase 1 of the Grenfell Tower Inquiry.

Kent Fire and Rescue Service has responded positively and proactively to learning from this tragedy. The service had assessed the risk of every high-rise building in its service area by the end of 2021.

It has carried out a fire safety audit and collected and passed relevant risk information to its prevention, protection and response teams about buildings identified as high risk and all high-rise buildings that have cladding similar to the cladding installed on Grenfell Tower.

Kent Fire and Rescue Service is good at preventing fires and other risks.

Kent Fire and Rescue Service was good in its 2018/19 assessment.

Fire and rescue services must promote fire safety, including giving fire safety advice. To identify people at greatest risk from fire, services should work closely with other organisations in the public and voluntary sector, and with the police and ambulance services. They should provide intelligence and risk information with these other organisations when they identify vulnerability or exploitation.

We set out our detailed findings below. These are the basis for our judgment of the service’s performance in this area.

The prevention strategy is clearly linked to the service’s customer safety plan

The service’s prevention strategy is clearly linked to the risks identified in its risk management process.

The service’s teams work well together and with other relevant organisations on prevention, and it shares relevant information when needed. Information is used to adjust planning assumptions and direct activity between the service’s prevention, protection and response functions. For example, the service works to identify and engage with groups and individuals at higher risk who may not have equitable access to the available services. It makes good use of people impact assessments (PIAs) for this purpose. The service has trained staff to develop an awareness of these issues so they can identify and engage with these groups more effectively.

The service has developed its prevention work well since the pandemic

We considered how the service had adapted its prevention work during our COVID-19 specific inspection in 2020. At that time, we found it had adapted its public prevention work appropriately. Since then, we are encouraged to find that the service has continued to develop its online presence to raise awareness of prevention matters, and benefits from improved working relationships with other organisations, including various charities.

There is a risk-based approach to prevention activity

Prevention activity is clearly prioritised using a risk-based approach towards people most at risk from fire and other emergencies. For example, risk profiles are regularly updated based on relevant information and aligned to the customer service plan. The service takes a person-centred approach and uses evaluation techniques well, including understanding how its work brings about behavioural changes among the public.

The service takes account of a broad range of information and data to target its prevention activity at vulnerable individuals and groups. It holds events to target activity in higher-risk communities using different staff groups effectively. In the year to 31 March 2021, 80 percent of home fire safety visits (HFSVs) were conducted for vulnerable groups of people – higher than the England average of 57 percent. Eighty-three percent of safe and well visits were carried out for vulnerable groups of people. This is higher than the England average of 58 percent.

It provides a range of interventions that it adapts to the level of risk in its communities. We were told by the service how it actively identifies new and transient communities.

The prevention strategy is well supported by the central communications team and they are involved in many of the service’s activities. The service considers the issues that customers face in accessing services and actively works to ensure equality of access, including for online content and recruitment purposes.

Staff are competent to carry out home fire safety visits and safe and well checks

Staff told us they have the right skills and confidence to carry out home fire safety and safe and well visits. The work is allocated as appropriate between operational firefighters, an HFSV task force and the safe and well team. These checks cover an appropriate range of hazards that can put vulnerable people at greater risk from fire and other emergencies. The service has response standards for its prevention activity based on risk, with timings for making first contact and visiting.

The service responds well to safeguarding concerns

Staff we interviewed told us about occasions when they had identified safeguarding problems and gave us specific examples. They told us they feel confident and trained to act appropriately and promptly.

There is a safeguarding competency framework in place for all staff, who complete mandatory training. The service’s e-learning package has also been adopted by two other services.

The service continues to learn from events, such as domestic homicide reviews, safeguarding adult reviews and serious case reviews. These are actioned and monitored through the service’s operational learning processes. Since our last inspection the service has also introduced a dedicated safeguarding team.

The service collaborates well with others

The service works well with a wide range of other organisations such as other emergency services, road safety partnership and various community groups to prevent fires and other emergencies.

We found good evidence that it routinely refers people at greatest risk to other organisations which may be better able to meet their needs. These organisations include other members of the community safety partnership. Arrangements are in place to receive referrals from others, including multi-disciplinary health teams who have fire safety criteria in their own assessments. The service acts appropriately on the referrals it receives and prioritises its response based on risk.

The service routinely exchanges information with other public sector organisations about people and groups at greatest risk. It uses the information to challenge planning assumptions and target prevention activity.

Fire-setting behaviour is tackled

The service has a range of suitable and effective interventions to target and educate people of different ages who show signs of fire-setting behaviour. This includes setting up arson task forces to target specific problem areas. The service told us that this had led to a significant reduction in deliberate fire setting.

When appropriate, it routinely shares information with other relevant organisations such as the police and social services to support the prosecution of arsonists. Data is also shared with other organisations to help reduce deliberate fire setting and other anti-social behaviour.

Good evaluation is used to improve services

The service has some good evaluation tools in place. These tools measure how effective its work is so that it knows what works, and its communities get prevention activity that meets their needs. For example, the service has evaluated the effectiveness of its education programmes and adjusted the way it delivers them.

Prevention activities take account of feedback from the public, other organisations, and other parts of the service. Work is routinely quality assured and peer reviewed. The service has used evaluation to provide evidence of behavioural change. It has used the learning well and it has run further campaigns to address specific risks such as kitchen safety and smoking.

Feedback is used by the service to inform its planning assumptions and amend future activity, so it is focused on what the community needs and what works.

Kent Fire and Rescue Service is good at protecting the public through fire regulation.

Kent Fire and Rescue Service required improvement in its 2018/19 assessment.

All fire and rescue services should assess fire risks in certain buildings and, when necessary, require building owners to comply with fire safety legislation. Each service decides how many assessments it does each year. But it must have a locally determined, risk-based inspection programme (RBIP) for enforcing the legislation.

We set out our detailed findings below. These are the basis for our judgment of the service’s performance in this area.

The service has a protection strategy linked to the risk it has identified

We are pleased to see the progress that the service has made with its protection work since our last inspection.

The service’s protection strategy is clearly linked to the risk it has identified from its risk management process.

Staff across the service are involved in this activity, with information effectively exchanged as needed. For example, a new database has been set up to share information effectively. Information is then used to adjust planning assumptions and direct activity between the service’s protection, prevention and response functions. This means resources are properly aligned to risk.

Protection work is back on track since the pandemic

We considered how the service had adapted its protection activity during our COVID‑19 specific inspection in 2020. At that time, we found it had chosen to adapt its protection work outside national guidance. Since then, we are encouraged to find that the service has reassessed its protection work; it is well planned and resourced, and scheduled audits are on track.

Activity is aligned to risk

The service’s RBIP is focused on the service’s highest risk buildings. It has been re‑written since our last inspection using data from a wide range of internal and external sources. The programme defines high-risk buildings.

The audits we reviewed were completed in the timescales the service has set itself, and in line with its own policies.

The service has carried out fire safety audits at high-rise buildings

The service has carried out audits at all high-rise buildings, including those it has identified as having cladding similar to the type installed on Grenfell Tower. It makes information gathered during these audits available to response teams and control operators, so they can respond more effectively in an emergency. We also found evidence that the service works well and communicates effectively with other agencies and organisations, and responsible persons.

By the end of 2021 it had visited all the high-rise and high-risk buildings identified in its service area.

Fire safety audits are completed to a high standard

We reviewed a range of audits of different types of premises. This included audits:

• which were part of the service’s RBIP;
• which were carried out after fires at premises where fire safety legislation applies;
• where enforcement action was taken; and
• at high-rise, high-risk buildings.

The audits we reviewed were mainly completed to a high standard, in a consistent, systematic way. They were in line with the service’s policies. But the service should make sure that information from post-incident inspection activity is recorded consistently and is sufficiently detailed.

Protection activity is quality assured

Quality assurance of protection activity takes place in a proportionate way. There are robust processes in place; protection activity is well embedded within the service’s systems and is recorded.

The service has good evaluation tools in place to measure the effectiveness of its activity and to make sure all sections of its communities get appropriate access to the protection services that meet their needs.

Enforcement powers are used consistently and appropriately

The service consistently uses its full range of enforcement powers, and when appropriate, prosecutes those who don’t comply with fire safety regulations.

In the year to 31 March 2021, the service issued:

• 3 alteration notices;
• 535 informal notifications;
• 26 enforcement notices;
• 10 prohibition notices; and
• undertook 1 prosecution.

It completed 4 prosecutions in the 5 years from 2016/17 to 2020/21.

Protection work is well resourced

The service has enough qualified protection staff to meet the requirements of its RBIP. The service told us it has increased the number of protection staff from 44 to 73 since 2019. This helps the service to provide the range of audit and enforcement activity needed, both now and in the future.

Staff get the right training and work to appropriate accreditation.

The service works well with other enforcement agencies

The service works closely with other enforcement agencies to regulate fire safety and routinely exchanges risk information with them. It belongs to multiple partnerships, for example with private sector housing groups. The service also works closely with the Environment Agency.

There is a memorandum of understanding in place with local government throughout the county setting out enforcement responsibilities. There is also an agreement in place with the Health and Safety Executive.

Building consultation responses are timely

The service responds to building consultations on time, so consistently meets its statutory responsibility to comment on fire safety arrangements at new and altered buildings. Therefore, the area for improvement from our last inspection has been satisfied.

In 2020/21 the service responded to 97.6 percent of consultations in the required time frame but fell to 85.8 percent during 2021/22 whilst changing to a new system. Since then, the service has reported a response rate of 99.1 percent for January to March 2022, and 99.5 percent for April to June 2022.

The service works well with businesses and other organisations

The service proactively engages with local businesses and other organisations to promote compliance with fire safety legislation and it has dedicated business support officers. There is a self-service feature for businesses on its website, where a range of products and guides about fire safety are available. There are also regular webinars which can be viewed live or later.

The service has reduced the number of unwanted fire signals

An effective risk-based approach is in place to manage the number of unwanted fire signals. There are effective response procedures in place and the service actively monitors and supports businesses and responsible persons to manage their premises. It gets fewer calls because of this work. In the year to 31 December 2021, 25.7 percent of incidents in Kent were fire false alarms. This is considerably lower than the national rate of 40.5 percent. Fewer unwanted calls means that fire engines are available to respond to a genuine incident rather than responding to a false one. It also reduces the risk to the public if fewer fire engines travel at high speed on the roads.

Kent Fire and Rescue Service is good at responding to fires and other emergencies.

Kent Fire and Rescue Service was good in its 2018/19 assessment.

Fire and rescue services must be able to respond to a range of incidents such as fires, road traffic collisions and other emergencies in their area.

We set out our detailed findings below. These are the basis for our judgment of the service’s performance in this area.

The service’s response is aligned to risk

The service’s response strategy is linked to the risks identified in its IRMP. Its fire engines and response staff, as well as its working patterns, are designed and located to help the service to respond flexibly to fires and other emergencies with the appropriate resources. The resourcing model is based on a clear methodology and makes sure the service meets the standards it has set itself.

The service meets its own response standards

There are no national response standards of performance for the public. But the service has set out its own response standards in its customer safety plan. It has set out that it will attend 71 percent of life-threatening calls within 10 minutes.

The service consistently meets its standards. Home Office data shows that in the year to 31 December 2021, the service’s response time to primary fires was 10 minutes and 11 seconds. This is in line with the average for significantly rural services.

The availability of fire engines is closely managed

Since the last inspection the service has reviewed its risk profiles and the number of fire engines it needs. To support its response strategy, the service has a flexible approach to the number of fire engines that it has available at any time. The normal operating range is 32 to 44 engines, and the availability of fire engines is closely managed by a resourcing team. At the time of the inspection, we saw good evidence of the service making additional resources available to match demand during extremely hot weather.

Most staff understand how to command incidents safely

The service has trained incident commanders who are assessed regularly and properly, aligned to national operational guidance. This helps the service to safely, assertively and effectively manage the whole range of incidents that it could face, from small and routine ones to complex multi-agency incidents.

As part of our inspection, we interviewed incident commanders from across the service. Most incident commanders we interviewed are familiar with risk assessing, decision-making and recording information at incidents in line with national best practice, as well as the Joint Emergency Services Interoperability Principles (JESIP). During our last inspection we found that some incident commanders did not understand operational discretion. We were pleased to find that this area for improvement has now been addressed. All incident commanders who we asked had a good understanding of operational discretion and felt that they would be supported by the service in using it.

However, we were disappointed to find that some level one incident commanders lacked a good understanding of decision-making models, and how to apply them. The service should make sure this is addressed.

Control is involved in wider service activities

We are pleased to see the service’s control staff integrated into the service’s command, training, exercise, debrief and assurance activity. Staff told us that they are included in service-wide debriefing. We also found evidence of some control staff attending exercises with firefighters.

The service should make sure it can handle multiple fire survival guidance calls

Not all control room staff we interviewed were confident they could provide fire survival guidance to many callers simultaneously. This was identified as learning for fire services after the Grenfell Tower fire. Staff told us that they had received some training but the service plans to do more.

Control has systems in place, including a ‘persons at risk’ spreadsheet, to exchange real-time risk information with incident commanders, other responding partners and other supporting fire and rescue services. Maintaining good situational awareness helps the service to communicate effectively with the public, providing them with accurate and tailored advice. The service doesn’t currently have a ‘control buddy’ (another fire and rescue service that can support it with its control function) and it should assure itself that it can handle a high number of multiple simultaneous calls effectively.

The service is good at managing risk information

We sampled a range of risk information including what is in place for firefighters responding to incidents at high-risk, high-rise buildings and what information is held by fire control.

The information we reviewed was up to date and detailed. It could be easily accessed and understood by staff, including in control. Encouragingly, it had been completed with input from the service’s prevention, protection and response functions when appropriate. The service has improved access to risk information for firefighters since our last inspection, with more reliable mobile data terminals and newer companion devices on fire engines.

The service is good at evaluating operational performance

As part of the inspection, we reviewed a range of emergency incidents and training events.

We are pleased to see the service routinely follows its policies to assure itself that staff command incidents in line with operational guidance. Internal risk information is updated with the information received. ‘Hot’ debriefs are carried out routinely after incidents and the service carries out formal structured debriefs later. There was good evidence of operational learning being used to make changes, including the use of an action tracker. Where relevant, this information is exchanged with interested partners such as other fire and rescue services.

The service has responded to learning from incidents to improve its service for the public. It uses learning from incidents to evaluate customer outcomes as part of the customer safety plan. Operational assurance processes have been identified as good practice by the National Fire Chiefs Council.

We are encouraged to see the service is contributing towards, and acting on, learning from other fire and rescue services or operational learning gathered from other emergency service partners. This includes chairing the regional fire and rescue service group meetings where learning is shared, and recent examples were given by staff including near misses involving hydrants.

The service is good at communicating information about incidents to the public

The service has good systems in place to inform the public about ongoing incidents and to help keep them safe during and after incidents. It uses a range of social media platforms, as well as traditional press releases. The intranet and internet sites are both accessible and use accessibility tools to good effect.

Kent Fire and Rescue Service has good communication arrangements with other organisations throughout the county. For example, working with and hosting on its estate the local resilience forum on warning and informing the public.

Kent Fire and Rescue Service is good at responding to major and multi-agency incidents.

Kent Fire and Rescue Service was good in its 2018/19 assessment.

All fire and rescue services must be able to respond effectively to multi-agency and cross-border incidents. This means working with other fire and rescue services (known as intraoperability) and emergency services (known as interoperability).

We set out our detailed findings below. These are the basis for our judgment of the service’s performance in this area.

The service is prepared for major and multi-agency incidents

The service has effectively anticipated and considered the reasonably foreseeable risks and threats it may face. These risks are listed in both local and national risk registers as part of its integrated risk management planning. We found evidence that it works with other members of the Kent Resilience Forum to establish and assess local risks and produce multi-agency response plans.

It is also familiar with the significant risks that could be faced by neighbouring fire and rescue services that it might reasonably be asked to respond to in an emergency. There are memorandums of understanding in place with these. Firefighters have access to risk information from neighbouring services through mobile data terminals and companion devices.

We reviewed the arrangements the service has in place to respond to different major incidents, including for high-rise, wide-area flooding and marauding terrorist attack incidents.

The service has good arrangements in place, which are well understood by staff. In addition to the specialist response team, all firefighters are trained to respond to marauding terrorist attack-type incidents. However, some staff felt they would benefit from more practical training and the opportunity to be involved in the service’s major incident exercises.

The service works well with other fire and rescue services

The service supports other fire and rescue services responding to emergency incidents. It is intraoperable with these services and can form part of a multi-agency response. This includes having emergency plans in place with fire service counterparts in France for the Channel Tunnel, and maritime response plans in place with France, Holland and Belgium.

The service understands how to deploy to other services and use national assets itself.

Cross-border and multi-agency exercising isn’t consistent

We found evidence during the inspection that opportunities for staff to take part in cross-border exercising could be improved. Sixty-seven percent (227 out of 341) of respondents to our staff survey told us they have not participated in training with other neighbouring services in the past 12 months.

The service acknowledges this and has recently reviewed and is strengthening its arrangements with neighbouring services. Similarly, 53 percent (180 out of 341) of respondents to our staff survey told us they have not participated in training with other agencies in the past 12 months, and this too should be addressed. It should also continue to make sure that learning from exercising is used to inform risk information and service plans.

Incident commanders have been trained in JESIP

The incident commanders we interviewed had been trained in and were familiar with JESIP. We found that most incident commanders were confident in their knowledge of JESIP, although some staff told us that they hadn’t done practical training or exercising.

The service could provide us with strong evidence that it consistently follows these principles.

It also showed it had participated effectively in the local resilience forum during the pandemic.

The service works well with partners

The service has good arrangements in place to respond to emergencies with other partners that make up the Kent Resilience Forum. The service has two emergency planners on the forum, which creates multi-agency response plans for different risks.

The service is a valued partner in the forum and is integral to the different groups within it. It takes part in regular training events with other members of the local resilience forum and uses the learning to develop planning assumptions about responding to major and multi-agency incidents. This includes at multiple sites in Kent.

The service uses national learning

The service keeps itself up to date with national operational learning updates from other fire services and joint organisational learning from other emergency organisations, such as the police service and ambulance trusts. This learning is used to inform planning assumptions that have been made with other partners.