HMICFRS Judgment Criteria 2020/21 – Fire and Rescue Services

We will assess each English fire and rescue service, giving graded judgments for the three principal areas in the inspection methodology of efficiency, effectiveness and people. Our categories of graded judgment are: outstanding; good; requires improvement; and inadequate. The three pillar level judgments will provide the public (and services) with a clear and succinct summary of our findings and will help services to promote improvements where necessary.

The judgment criteria provide an indication of the expected levels of performance consistent with each grading. Judgment criteria allow HMICFRS inspectors to make consistent assessments across services and for services to see what they are being graded against. The criteria will also allow the public to see what performance they can expect from FRSs. The criteria are examples to help inspectors to determine appropriate judgments. They are not intended to prescribe specific standards or to be exhaustive lists of how we expect FRSs to perform at these levels. They are designed to be characteristic of these levels.

The judgment criteria take account of existing national operational guidance. We will have regard to existing standards and new standards as they are agreed and adopted when assessing fire and rescue services.

Effectiveness

1.1 How well does the FRS understand the risk of fire and other emergencies?

Question	Good	Requires Improvement
1.1.1 How well does the FRS engage with the local community to build up a comprehensive risk profile?	The FRS engages in dialogue with communities and interested parties to understand local risk.	There is insufficient engagement between the FRS and communities or interested parties to understand local risk.
1.1.2 To what extent does the FRS use information from other sources to build the risk profile?	The FRS routinely gathers a wide range of data (such as social, economic, and environmental) to produce an accurate and clear risk profile and integrated risk management plan.	The FRS use of data is limited; it does not use a sufficiently wide range of data (such as social, economic, and environmental) to produce an accurate and clear risk profile and integrated risk management plan.
1.1.3 How well does the FRS identify and assess current, emerging or future changes in the risk of fire and other risks?	The FRS integrated risk management plan identifies, and clearly articulates, current and future changes in risk. The plan clearly sets out how the FRS will manage risk to the public.	The FRS integrated risk management plan does not identify current risk well, or adequately consider or is not clear about, future changes in risk. The plan is not clear how the FRS will manage risk to the public.
1.1.4 How well does the FRS define the level of community risk, including those communities that are most at risk or seldom heard, and risks affecting the most vulnerable people?	The FRS integrated risk management plan has clear links to community risk registers. The FRS strategic direction for prevention, protection and response activity is clearly outlined in its integrated risk management plan.	The FRS integrated risk management plan does not align with community risk registers, local emergency planning groups or FRS priorities. The FRS strategic direction for prevention, protection and response activity is not clearly outlined in its integrated risk management plan.
1.1.5 To what extent is risk information systematically and accurately gathered by staff?	The FRS routinely gathers relevant risk information about people, places and threats. The FRS ensures that the information it has gathered is accurate and up to date.	The FRS gathers some risk information about people, places or threats but it is limited, inaccurate or is not up to date.
1.1.6 How well is information on risk communicated throughout the FRS?	The FRS has easily accessible systems in place that enable staff to access risk information and can assure itself staff are aware of any significant changes to risk information.	The systems the FRS has in place to share risk information are not sufficiently robust, or are not easily understood by staff, or the FRS cannot assure itself that staff are being made aware of significant changes to risk information.
1.1.7 To what extent are the results of operational activity used to make sure there is a common understanding of risk?	The FRS uses emerging information from operational activity to test its risk profile and challenge its integrated risk management plan. The FRS has an up-to-date risk assessment of reasonably foreseeable fire-related risks and other risks.	The FRS does not consistently use emerging information from operational activity to test its risk profile and challenge its integrated risk management plan. The FRS risk assessment includes reasonably foreseeable fire-related risks and other risks but it is not current.

Outstanding

In addition to performing at levels described in Good:

• The FRS is innovative in gathering and using information to increase the understanding of risk.
• The FRS is proactive in leading, developing and influencing cross-organisational activity to understand local risk.
• Risk information covering people, places and threats is readily accessible and is not held in silos within the FRS.

Inadequate

Having not achieved the performance described in Requires Improvement:

• The FRS understanding of its local risks is not used, or is insufficient, to formulate an effective integrated risk management plan.
• The FRS is not collecting or sharing sufficient risk critical information to effectively manage the risk to the public or staff.
• The FRS does not adequately provide its core function of keeping the public safe and secure from the risk of fire and other emergencies.

1.2 How effective is the FRS at preventing fires and other risks?

Question	Good	Requires Improvement
1.2.1 To what extent is preventative activity, such as the home fire safety check programme, focused on the people most at risk?	The FRS has developed and implemented an ambitious prevention strategy which is informed by local risk and complies with statutory requirements. The FRS prevention plan is clear about where the greatest risks lie within its area and sets out a clear rationale for the level of activity to prevent fires and other risks. The FRS uses the findings from prevention, protection and response activity to adapt its prevention plan. FRS prevention activity meets community expectations, and its core functions are sustained regardless of other discretionary priorities for the FRS.	The FRS has a prevention strategy and plan is informed by risk and statutory requirements, but it is limited in scope or not current or unclear. The FRS prevention plan is not clear about where the greatest risks lie within its area or does not set out a clear rationale for the level of activity to prevent fires and other risks. The FRS does not make sufficient use of the findings from prevention, protection or response activity to adapt its prevention plan. FRS prevention activity does not meet community expectations, or is secondary to the core functions of the FRS.
1.2.2 How well does the FRS raise awareness and campaign to prevent fires and promote community safety?	The FRS targets its communications to provide information about fire prevention and to promote community safety. The FRS has a comprehensive understanding of the diverse needs of its communities and ensures that its engagement and communication is designed to be appropriate and accessible to meet those diverse needs.	The FRS communicates with the community, but activity is limited or not designed to be appropriate or accessible for diverse needs.
1.2.3 What progress has the FRS, with partner organisations, made in preventing fires and keeping people safe?	FRS staff are able to recognise the opportunity to prevent fires and other risks, and are able to take appropriate action. The FRS works with other FRSs, a wide range of partner organisations and diverse sections of the community to reduce the number of fires and other risks. The FRS evaluates the impact of its prevention activity and uses this evaluation to improve its own and partners’ approaches.	FRS staff recognise some opportunities to prevent fires and other risks, but action taken is inconsistent. The FRS works with some partner organisations and sections of the community to reduce the number of fires and other risks, but activity is limited or inconsistent, or the FRS cannot evidence the impact of this work. Responsibility and accountability in the FRS for the evaluation of its prevention strategy is not clear.
1.2.4 To what extent does FRS identify vulnerability and safeguard vulnerable people?	Staff understand how to identify vulnerability and take action to safeguard vulnerable people.	Staff do not consistently identify vulnerability or opportunities to safeguard vulnerable people are missed.
1.2.5 How well does the FRS work with partner organisations to promote road safety and reduce the number of people killed and seriously injured on the roads?	The FRS promotes road safety to reduce the numbers of people killed and seriously injured on the roads.	The FRS has undertaken limited action to promote road safety in order to reduce the numbers killed and seriously injured on the roads.
1.2.6 How well does the FRS work with partner organisations to tackle fire setting behaviour and support the prosecution of arsonists?	The FRS is identifying and targeting individuals who display signs of fire setting behaviour for intervention activity and routinely shares information with partners to support the  prosecution of arsonists.	The FRS has limited involvement with individuals who display signs of fire setting behaviour and are sharing limited or no information with partners to support the prosecution of arsonists.

Outstanding

In addition to performing at levels described in Good:

• FRS prevention activity is innovative and reduces the risk of fire and other risks.
• The FRS prevention activities have had a significant impact on reducing fire and fire-related risk.
• The FRS is at the forefront of developing, sharing and influencing plans to prevent fire and other risks.
• The FRS has an established culture of continuous improvement with outstanding examples of sustained service development and improvement that translate into better service for the public.

Inadequate

Having not achieved the performance described in Requires Improvement:

• Prevention is not a sufficiently high priority for the FRS with insufficient resource allocated to prevention activity and only limited prevention activity with partner organisations.
• Prevention activity does not align sufficiently with the risks identified in the integrated risk management plan.
• The FRS does not adequately provide its core function of keeping the public safe and secure from the risk of fire and other emergencies.

1.3 How effective is the FRS at protecting the public through the regulation of fire safety?

Question	Good	Requires Improvement
1.3.1 To what extent is enforcement and inspection based on risk?	The FRS has developed and implemented a fire safety enforcement strategy and risk-based inspection programme which is informed by local risk. The FRS regulatory activities comply with statutory requirements to reduce the risk of fire. The FRS enforcement plan prioritises the highest risks and includes a proportionate level of activity to reduce risk. The FRS carries out a programme of fire safety audits in line with its enforcement plan.	The FRS has a fire safety enforcement strategy and risk-based inspection programme informed by risk but it is limited in scope or not up-to-date.   The FRS regulatory activities are informed by statutory requirements but are limited in scope or do not consistently meet local service standards. The FRS enforcement plan is unclear and does not consistently target the highest risks or include a proportionate level of activity to reduce risk. The FRS enforcement plan does not clearly set out the level of activity the FRS takes.
1.3.2 To what extent is a systematic, consistent and robust fire safety audit undertaken by staff?	The FRS is undertaking systematic, consistent and robust fire safety audits. The FRS is assuring itself that fire safety audits are being carried out in a systematic, consistent and robust way.	The FRS is not routinely undertaking systematic, consistent and robust fire safety audits. There is limited evaluation of enforcement activity to assess its contribution to fire safety.
1.3.3 How well does the FRS take enforcement action against those who fail to comply with fire safety regulations?	The FRS is using its enforcement powers in a proportionate way. The FRS regulatory activities keep people safe and secure from the risk of fire.	The FRS is making insufficient or inappropriate use of its enforcement powers. The FRS regulatory activities are insufficient to mitigate the risk of fire.
1.3.4 How well does the FRS work with other enforcement agencies to share information on risk and take joint enforcement action?	The FRS systematically and routinely shares relevant information on fire safety risk with staff who use it to carry out fire safety audits. FRS staff work, and share information with, enforcement partners and take appropriate enforcement action in line with the FRS plan.	The FRS shares limited information on fire safety risk with staff and partner organisations. FRS staff work with some enforcement partners undertaking enforcement action, but activity is limited or is inconsistent. FRS staff carry out fire safety audits but this activity is not part of a comprehensive programme targeting the greatest risks.
1.3.5 To what extent is the FRS working in partnership to reduce the burden of unwanted fire signals?	The FRS has a risk-based system in place to manage its response to unwanted fire signals.	The FRS does not have an effective risk-based system to manage its response to unwanted fire signals.
1.3.6 To what extent does the FRS engage with local businesses or large organisations to share information and expectations on compliance with fire safety regulations?	FRS staff engage with local businesses or large organisations and share information and expectations on compliance with fire safety regulations. The FRS has a system to enable all local businesses to have easy and timely access to clear, relevant and consistent guidance on compliance with fire safety regulations.	Engagement with local businesses or large organisations and sharing information about compliance with fire safety regulations with local business or large organisations is limited. The FRS has a mechanism for businesses to obtain information about compliance with fire safety regulation but it is not easy for all local businesses to access, does not provide relevant information, or is not used.

Outstanding

In addition to performing at levels described in Good:

• The FRS regulatory activities has had a significant impact on keeping people safe and secure from the risk of fire and other risks.
• The FRS is at the forefront of developing, sharing and influencing regulatory activity to keep people safe and secure from fire and other risks.
• The FRS has established a culture of continuous improvement with outstanding examples of sustained service development and improvement that translate into better service for the public.

Inadequate

Having not achieved the performance described in Requires Improvement:

• Regulatory activity is not a sufficiently high priority for the FRS, with insufficient resource allocated to regulation, and only limited activity with partner organisations.
• Regulatory activity does not align sufficiently with the risks identified in the integrated risk management plan.
• The FRS does not adequately provide its core function of keeping the public safe and secure from the risk of fire and other emergencies.

1.4 How effective is the FRS at responding to fires and other emergencies?

Question	Good	Requires Improvement
1.4.1 To what extent does FRS operational policy reflect national operational guidance?	The FRS understands what action it needs to take to adopt national operational guidance, including joint and national learning, and is actively implementing a plan to do so.	The FRS is either unaware of industry good practice or takes insufficient action to improve services in line with national operational guidance.
1.4.2 To what extent does the FRS respond proportionately to incidents based on risk?	The FRS has developed a response strategy that is based on a thorough assessment of risk to the community. The FRS has an appropriate range of resources (people and equipment) available to respond to personal, property and environmental risk in line with its IRMP. The FRS understands and actively manages the resources and capabilities available for deployment. The FRS is able to handle calls in a timely manner to ensure public safety. The FRS is able to manage fairly the deployment (and temporary redeployment) of resources to meet operational need.	The FRS has developed a response strategy that is based on a limited assessment of risk to the community.  In some instances, the FRS has an inappropriate range of resources (people & equipment) available to respond to personal, property & environmental risk in line with its IRMP. The FRS has some understanding of the resources and capabilities available to it, but does not always actively manage their deployment. The FRS does not consistently handle calls from the public in a timely manner. The FRS is not able to manage fairly the deployment (and temporary redeployment) of resources to meet operational need.
1.4.3 How well does the FRS use and communicate information about incident risk?	The FRS is able to make the relevant risk information it has collected and sorted easily accessible to staff responding to emergency incidents in an easily usable format.	The systems the FRS has in place to share risk information with staff responding to emergency incidents is limited, or not up to date or is unreliable.
1.4.4 How well does the FRS command fire service assets at incidents?	FRS staff are able to command fire service assets assertively, effectively and safely at incidents. FRS staff ensure the public are protected at incidents.	FRS staff are able to command FS assets at incidents, but do not consistently do so assertively, effectively or safely. Incident commanders take insufficient action to ensure the public are protected.
1.4.5 How well does the FRS respond to cross-border incidents with other FRSs?	The FRS can mobilise sufficient resources to respond to local and cross-border incidents.	The FRS can mobilise resources to respond to local and cross-border incidents, but this is not timely &/ or does not include the right mix.
1.4.6 How well does the FRS communicate information about incidents and risks to the public?	The FRS provides relevant information to the public about ongoing incidents to help keep the public safe during and following incidents.	The FRS sometimes communicates with the public about ongoing incidents but this is not consistent or does not help keep the public safe during or following an incident.
1.4.7 To what extent are consistent, rigorous and open systems in place to evaluate operational performance and make operational improvements?	FRS staff use learning to improve operational response and incident command.	FRS staff do not consistently identify learning to improve future operational response or incident command.

Outstanding

In addition to performing at levels described in Good:

• The FRS is at the forefront of developing, sharing and influencing best practice in the response to fire and other emergencies.
• The FRS has established a culture of continuous improvement with outstanding examples of sustained service development and improvement that translate into better service for the public.

Inadequate

Having not achieved the performance described in Requires Improvement:

• The FRS has an insufficient resource or an inappropriate range of resources (people and equipment) available to respond to personal, property and environmental risk in line with its integrated risk management plan.
• The FRS is not consistently able to assertively, effectively or safely command incidents.
• The FRS has insufficient regard to national operational guidance for response.
• The FRS does not adequately provide its core function of keeping the public safe and secure from the risk of fire and other emergencies.

1.5 How well prepared is the FRS to respond to major and multi-agency incidents?

Question	Good	Requires Improvement
1.5.1 To what extent has the FRS anticipated and assessed community risks likely to require a multi-agency response?	The FRS understands national and cross-border risks, and has sufficiently assessed reasonably foreseeable local community risks that are likely to require a major or multi-agency response.	The FRS has a limited understanding of national and cross-border risks or has not sufficiently assessed reasonably foreseeable local community risks that are likely to require a major or multi-agency response.
1.5.2 How well has the FRS established response plans for dealing with major and multi-agency incidents?	The FRS has response plans based on risk assessments to respond to major or multi-agency incidents.	The FRS has response plans based on risk assessments to respond to major or multi-agency incidents, but these are not consistent, or not sufficiently understood by staff or some elements of the plans are limited.
1.5.3 How well has the FRS trained, exercised and tested arrangements for dealing with major and multi-agency incidents?	The FRS undertakes a joint exercise programme to test arrangements for major and multi-agency incidents, using the learning to improve its capabilities and inform local and national developments	The FRS undertakes a joint exercise programme to test arrangements for major and multi-agency incidents, but this is infrequent or is limited in scope, or does not sufficiently evaluate the exercise to improve its and its partners’ capability.
1.5.4 How well prepared is the FRS to form part of a multi-agency response in line with JESIP?	FRS staff are able to work with neighbouring FRSs and form part of a multi-agency response in line with JESIP. The FRS actively participates in the Local Resilience Forum and is well prepared or routinely contributes to multi-agency debriefs.	FRS staff are not consistently able to work with neighbouring FRSs or form part of a multi-agency response in line with JESIP. The FRS is a member of the Local Resilience Forum but is unprepared or has limited evidence of contributing to multi-agency debriefs.
1.5.5 How well prepared is the FRS to respond to major incidents with other FRSs?	The FRS local arrangements comply with, and support, the requirements within the National Co-ordination and Advisory Framework (NCAF).	The FRS local arrangements mainly comply with the requirements and support the National Co-ordination and Advisory Framework (NCAF).
1.5.6 How well does the FRS exchange learning and notable practice with other FRSs, including learning from local, regional and national incidents?	The FRS is aware of joint organisational and national operational learning, and takes sufficient action to improve services in line with industry good practice.	The FRS awareness of joint organisational and national operational learning is limited or the FRS has taken insufficient action to improve services in line with industry good practice.

Outstanding

In addition to performing at levels described in Good:

• The FRS is fully intraoperable with other FRSs and is fully able to form part of a multi-agency response in line with Joint Emergency Services Interoperability Principles (JESIP).
• The FRS is at the forefront in using learning to inform national developments in the fire and rescue service.
• The FRS has established a culture of continuous improvement with outstanding examples of sustained service development and improvement that translate into better service for the public.

Inadequate

Having not achieved the performance described in Requires Improvement:

• Multi-agency activity undertaken by the FRS is limited and intraoperability with neighbouring services isn’t tested or can’t be demonstrated.
• The FRS is not sufficiently prepared to form part of a multi-agency response.
• The FRS does not adequately provide its core function of keeping the public safe and secure from the risk of fire and other emergencies.

Efficiency

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

Question	Good	Requires Improvement
2.1.1 To what extent do FRS plans address the risks identified in the integrated risk management plan?	The FRS budget and resource allocation is proportionate and supports the activity set out in the integrated risk management plan and strategic priorities.	The FRS budget or resource allocation is not proportionate or does not sufficiently support its integrated risk management plan or strategic priorities.
2.1.2 To what extent are the FRS plans built on sound planning assumptions, subject to informed challenge and meet financial requirements?	FRS plans are built on sound planning assumptions, including scenario plans, are  subject to informed external independent challenge and meet financial requirements. The FRS has an affordable workforce model which provides the right skills and capabilities mix, linked to its integrated risk management plan and priorities. The FRS financial plans help to secure sustainability of service to the public, continuous improvement and result in a balanced budget. The FRS has financial controls and financial risk control mechanisms to reduce the risk of inappropriate use of public money.	Existing plans have not been based on accurate forecasting. Plans are only subject to internal or informal or limited challenge. The FRS has a workforce model linked to its integrated risk management plan and priorities but the FRS financial plans secure a short-term or limited period of sustainability, and there is a risk that the future aims of the integrated risk management plan are unaffordable. The FRS financial controls and financial risk control mechanisms are weak or may fail to mitigate financial risk.
2.1.3 To what extent does the FRS have the capacity and capability it needs to achieve operational performance, including the allocation of resources to prevention, protection and response activity?	The FRS has allocated sufficient resources to prevention, protection and response activity, and there is a clear rationale for the levels of such activity linked to its integrated risk management plan. The FRS workforce model allows it to undertake its core functions effectively and efficiently.	The FRS has allocated resources to prevention, protection and response, but has not demonstrated a clear rationale for the levels of activity. Resources are not clearly linked to its plans.
2.1.4 How well does the FRS make sure its workforce’s time is productive?	The FRS arrangements for managing performance ensure resource use is clearly linked to its integrated risk management plan and strategic priorities. Productive worktime should include making sure that staff make the most contribution they can at all times they are available.	The FRS arrangements for managing performance are weak or do not ensure that resource use is in line with its integrated risk management plan or strategic priorities. The FRS is unable to demonstrate how it makes the most of its workforce’s time.
2.1.5 How well is the service making use of new ways of working, including having a flexible workforce and flexible working pattern?	The FRS is making use of new ways of working, including flexible workforce patterns to ensure provision of its services proportionate to risk and public safety. The FRS can demonstrate how this is cost effective.	The FRS uses some new ways of working, including flexible workforce patterns, but the link to risk or public safety is not clear. The FRS is unable to demonstrate how its use of new ways of working including flexible working is cost effective. The FRS is over reliant on overtime and carries significant vacancies.
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?	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.	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.
2.1.7 To what extent are business continuity arrangements in place and how often are they tested?	The FRS has business continuity arrangements in place for high risk areas which are updated and tested regularly.	The FRS has gaps in its business continuity arrangements. Plans are not updated or tested regularly.
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?	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.	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?	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.	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.

2.2 How well is the FRS securing an affordable way of managing the risk of fire and other risks now and in the future?

Question	Good	Requires Improvement
2.2.1 To what extent does the FRS understand and take action to mitigate its main or significant financial risks?	The FRS understands the likely financial challenges (beyond the current spending review) based on relatively robust, realistic and prudent assumptions, which take account of the wider external environment and include some scenario planning for future spending reductions.	The FRS understanding of the likely financial challenges (beyond the current spending review) is limited or not based on relatively robust, realistic and prudent assumptions, which take account of the wider external environment and include some scenario planning for future spending reductions.
2.2.2 To what extent does the FRS have a track record for achieving savings and avoiding any residual future budget gaps?	The FRS identifies savings and investment opportunities that improve service to the public or generate further savings.	The FRS identifies some savings and investment opportunities that improve service or generate further savings, but this is limited or not significant.
2.2.3 To what extent is the FRS use of reserves sustainable and promoting new ways of working?	The FRS has a plan for using reserves and is able to provide good evidence of using reserves in a sensible and sustainable way.	The FRS plan for the use of financial reserves is unclear or is not sensible or unsustainable.
2.2.4 To what extent does the FRS estate and fleet strategy, and changes to estate and fleet, support future service provision?	The FRS estate and fleet strategies have clear links to the integrated risk management plan. The FRS actively considers how changes in fleet and estate provision and status and future innovation may have an impact on risk, and the FRS exploits opportunities presented by changes in fleet and estate to improve efficiency and effectiveness.	The FRS rarely considers changes in estate and fleet strategies for future service provision.
2.2.5 How is the FRS planning to invest in future innovation and use technology and new ways of working?	The FRS actively considers how changes in technology and future innovation may have an impact on risk, and the FRS exploits opportunities presented by changes in technology to improve efficiency and effectiveness.	The FRS rarely considers how changes in technology and future innovation may have an impact on risk, or the FRS does not exploit opportunities presented by changes in technology to improve efficiency and effectiveness.
2.2.6 To what extent does the service have the capacity and capability it needs to achieve future change?	The FRS has the capacity and capability it needs to achieve future change. It has the skills and to achieve sustainable change	The FRS has limited capacity and capability it needs to achieve future change
2.2.7 To what extent does the FRS influence how it works with others in the future in order to improve efficiency?	The FRS actively and routinely seeks opportunities to work with others in order to improve efficiency in the future. It has ambitious plans to improve efficiency.	The FRS works with others in order to improve efficiency, but benefits are not clearly defined.
2.2.8 To what extent has the FRS considered and exploited external funding opportunities, or options for generating income?	The FRS secures funding to invest in improvements to the service provided to the public and is proactive in identifying additional funding sources.	The FRS has identified other funding sources but has not secured funding, or its ambition is limited.

People

3.1 How well does the FRS promote its values and culture?

Question	Good	Requires Improvement
3.1.1 To what extent are service values and behaviours demonstrated throughout the organisation?	The FRS has well-defined values and behaviours that are understood and demonstrated at all levels within the organisation.	The FRS has well-defined values but awareness of them within the organisation is limited or not routinely demonstrated.
3.1.2 How well do leaders model and maintain the values that the FRS expects of them?	FRS senior managers act as role models and demonstrate commitment to service values through their behaviours.	Some examples are evident of behaviours that are not in line with the values and behaviours statement. Staff do not think that senior managers demonstrate the service values.
3.1.3 How well does the FRS understand the wellbeing needs of its workforce and act to improve workforce wellbeing?	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.	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?	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.	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.

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.

3.2 How well trained and skilled are FRS staff?

Question	Good	Requires Improvement
3.2.1 How well does the FRS understand the skills and capabilities of its workforce?	The FRS regularly updates its understanding of the skills and risk-critical safety capabilities of the workforce to ensure that it meets current and future organisational needs.	The FRS does not undertake a regular assessment of staff skills and risk-critical safety capabilities; there is limited evidence that planning takes any account of workforce skills or gaps in risk-critical safety capabilities.
3.2.2 How well does the FRS ensure it has the right workforce mix of skills and capabilities?	The skills and capabilities of FRS personnel are aligned with the delivery of the integrated risk management plan. Staff are appropriately trained for their role. The FRS training plans are used to develop and maintain competence and capability. Risk-critical safety training is given sufficient priority. The FRS has an effective mechanism to monitor and assure staff competence and service provision to the public. The FRS has systems in place to identify gaps in workforce capability and resilience issues. The FRS is tailoring its future workforce plans to meet longer-term changes in risk in a financially sustainable way.	The FRS workforce plan does not take full account of the requisite skills and capabilities the FRS needs to carry out the integrated risk management plan. Some training plans exist but they are limited and do not sufficiently maintain the competence or capability of staff. Insufficient priority is given to risk-critical safety training. The FRS does not have an effective mechanism to monitor and assure staff competence and service provision to the public. The FRS has a system to review workforce capabilities but it is not used effectively to consider future needs. The FRS does not have a credible succession plan, for all levels of its business.
3.2.3 To what extent has the FRS established a culture of learning and improvement?	The FRS has established a culture of continuous improvement and has effective systems in place for staff and the organisation to continually learn and develop.	Some means of learning and development exist, but they do not meet the needs of staff or the organisation or are not used to their full effect.

Outstanding

In addition to performing at levels described in Good:

• The FRS has a good understanding of current and future skills requirements, has a credible plan and has filled any current capability gaps with clear plans to address future requirements.
• The FRS has established a culture of continuous improvement with outstanding examples of sustained service development and improvement that translate into better service for the public.
• Risk information covering people, places and threats is readily accessible and is not held in silos within the FRS.

Inadequate

Having not achieved the performance described in Requires Improvement:

• The FRS has a poor understanding of the workforce skills and capabilities and has no credible plan to rectify gaps.
• Staff do not have the necessary skills and capabilities to enable the FRS to carry out its core functions effectively.
• The FRS does not have an effective system to evidence and assure the competence of its staff in risk-critical areas.

3.3 How well does the FRS ensure fairness and diversity?

Question	Good	Requires Improvement
3.3.1 How well do leaders seek feedback and challenge from all parts of the workforce?	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.	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.
3.3.2 How well does the FRS identify and resolve workforce concerns?	FRS leaders can demonstrate that they act on and have made changes as a direct result of feedback from staff. The FRS engages with all representative bodies and staff associations. The FRS resolves staff grievances, discipline, and dignity at work issues in a timely, effective and supportive manner.	Evidence of making significant change as a result of staff feedback is limited. Some engagement takes place with representative bodies, but this is limited and does not include all. The FRS does not consistently resolve staff grievances, discipline, and dignity at work issues in a timely, effective and supportive manner.
3.3.3 How well does the FRS identify and address potential disproportionality in recruitment, retention and progression?	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.	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?	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.	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.

3.4 How well does the FRS develop leadership and capability?

Question	Good	Requires Improvement
3.4.1 How well does the FRS manage and develop the individual performance of its staff?	The FRS has arrangements in place to assess and develop the individual performance of all staff. FRS staff have clear, personal and specific goals or objectives, and have regular assessments of performance.	The FRS arrangements for performance assessment are inconsistent. The link between performance assessment and staff development needs is limited. Some staff do not have personal objectives and have not received a meaningful performance assessment in the last year.
3.4.2 To what extent are the career pathways of all staff effectively managed?	The FRS has open and transparent selection processes and actively manages the career pathways of all staff, including those with specialist skills.	The FRS does not have fully open or transparent selection processes. The FRS does not actively manage the career pathways of all staff, including those with specialist skills.
3.4.3 How fairly does the FRS identify high potential members of the workforce to become senior leaders?	The FRS has an open and fair process to identify, develop and support high potential staff and aspiring leaders.	The FRS processes to openly and transparently identify and select high potential staff are inconsistent.
3.4.4 How fairly does the FRS select staff for leadership roles at all levels?	The FRS has an open and fair process to select staff for leadership roles and this is reflected in the diversity of staff represented at all levels of the organisation. FRS staff think that the selection and promotion process is fair.	The FRS has a promotion process to select staff for leadership roles but it lacks fairness or openness at some levels. Staff do not think that selection and promotion processes are fair.

Outstanding

In addition to performing at levels described in Good:

• The FRS approach to leadership development and workforce performance is open and highly innovative.
• The FRS can demonstrate that its performance management arrangements are significantly increasing overall capability to serve the public.

Inadequate

Having not achieved the performance described in Requires Improvement:

• The FRS approach to leadership development and workforce performance does not enable the FRS to manage the performance of staff or enable the FRS to identify and select leaders fairly.