Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
Thursday 14th January 2016 14.00
Cambridgeshire Fire and Rescue Service HQ Hinchingbrooke Cottage Brampton Road Huntingdon PE29 2NA
AGENDA
1. Apologies (oral) 2. Declarations of Interest (oral) 3. Minutes – 15th October 2015 (attached – pages
3 to 7 ) Overview 4. Rescue Vehicle Workload and Crewing (attached – pages
9 to 60) 5. Comprehensive Spending Review – Activity Update (attached – pages
61 to 70 ) 6. Equality and Inclusion Compliance Report 2014 – 2015 (attached – pages
71 to 100 ) Audit 7. Internal Audit Progress Report (attached – pages
101 to 106)
8. Annual Audit and Inspection Letter 2014/15 (attached – pages
107 to 122) 9. Work Programme 2016 (attached – page
123)
10. Date of next meeting – 24 March 2016 at 14.00 (oral)
Membership of the Committee comprises: Councillors B Ashwood, R Butcher, S Bywater, M Jamil,
J Peach, C Swift and J Wisson
The Fire Authority is committed to open government and the public are welcome to attend this meeting. It supports the principle of transparency and encourages filming, recording and taking
photographs at meetings that are open to the public. It also welcomes the use of social networking and micro-blogging websites (such as Twitter and Facebook) to communicate with people about what is happening, as it happens. These arrangements operate in accordance with a protocol
which can be accessed via http://www.cambsfire.gov.uk/fireauthority/fa_meetings.php
or made available on request.
For more information about this meeting, including access arrangements and facilities for people
with disabilities, please contact Kathrin John in Cambridgeshire County Council’s Democratic Services Section on 01223 699171 or email [email protected].
Agenda Item 3
CAMBRIDGESHIRE AND PETERBOROUGH FIRE AUTHORITY OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMITTEE – MINUTES Date: Thursday 15th October 2015
Time: 14:00 – 15:05pm
Place: Fire Headquarters, Hinchingbrooke Cottage, Huntingdon
Present: Councillors R Butcher (Chairman), S Bywater (Vice-Chairman), M Jamil, J Peach, and J Wisson
In attendance: Daniel Harris (Auditors)
Officers: R Hylton, S Ismail, K John, C Strickland, G Taylor, D Thompson and M Warren
Apologies: Councillors B Ashwood and C Swift
78. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
There were no declarations of interest.
79. MINUTES The minutes of the meeting held on 9th July 2015 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.
80. OPERATIONAL ASSESSMENT ACTION PLAN The Committee considered a report which provided an update on the progress
made against the Operational Assessment (Op/A) action plan. Members were reminded that the Operational Assessment had taken place in November 2014 and the final report and associated action plan had been presented to the Fire Authority in February 2015. Progress against the action plan was detailed in Appendix 1 to the report. Discussion took place on the following items in the action plan:- Item 6a - In response to a question, further information was given about
the work by Cambridgeshire Fire and Rescue Service (CFRS) in connection with the devolution deal being developed by the Public Service Board on behalf of Cambridgeshire and Peterborough. In particular, reference was made to the scope identified for enhanced integration and closer working with partners, including in the area of community safety.
Item 9a - It was reported that the presentation on the Community Safety Review would be made at a Members’ Seminar to take place prior to a meeting of the Fire Authority in 2016.
Item 10b – An update was given on the work in hand to resolve the issue with the Suffolk FRS mobilising arrangements and the expectation that a solution would be in place shortly.
Item 11b – Further information was presented on the review of reward for on-call staff by the On-Call 20-20 Focus Group. It was noted that during 2014 staff working beyond their contracted hours had received a one-off honorarium. There were some reservations about this approach amongst staff working longer contractual hours and it was acknowledged that it was important to review reward to ensure that it was fair to all staff.
Item 11d – It was pointed out that the actions allocated to Tracy Raby would need to be reallocated, given that Tracy had now left the Fire Authority. A further update was given on the introduction of 5 GCSEs for whole-time applications and it was confirmed the current recruitment campaign had included this requirement. It was important that minimum levels of attainment were specified in order to attract applicants with the range of abilities and skills required for the modern day fire and rescue service. Members noted that support was offered to on-call staff who wished to obtain the appropriate qualifications.
It was resolved to acknowledge the progress made against the action plan, as set out in Appendix 1 to the report.
81. OVERVIEW REPORT – TRANSFORMATION FUND
A report was submitted which provided the Overview and Scrutiny Committee with an update on progress with the collaboration to develop a cloud ready service for on-call firefighter recruitment. Members were reminded that Cambridgeshire Fire and Rescue Service (CFRS), in collaboration with Bedfordshire and Devon and Somerset, had submitted a bid to the fund of £1.445m. The focus of the bid had been to utilise the existing successful collaboration with the other Fire and Rescue Authorities and specifically, to produce a cloud based solution that could deliver efficiencies through sharing of common processes. The report updated the Committee on progress to date with the project and it was noted that significant progress had been made in recruiting the development team; signing technological contracts and developing the cloud based solution. As part of the project, the existing collaboration had sought interest from other Fire and Rescue Services in participating in the project and five services had now agreed to be part of the pilot programme. A copy of the project plan was attached at Appendix 1 to the report. During discussion:- It was reported that CFRS would be leading the project, with the five
partners listed in paragraph 5.3 being part of the pilot programme. In response to a question, it was explained that 8 Fire and Rescue
Services had expressed an interest in joining the pilot, whilst others had asked to be kept informed as to progress and future developments on the project.
It was noted that the risk of working with other partners in the project was perceived to be minimal given that, at this stage, partners were just part of the pilot. If partners were to be part of a longer term collaboration it would be necessary to have appropriate agreements in place.
It was confirmed that expenditure from the fund had taken place in respect of recruitment of fixed term staff and placing of technological contracts.
Reference was made to the added resilience that would be achieved by moving to a cloud based solution.
The importance of achieving wider collaboration both with other Fire and Rescue Services and with other public sector partners, in order to ensure the cost effectiveness of the solution, was emphasised.
It was anticipated that a report back on the project would be submitted to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee in about 6 month’s time.
It was resolved to note the progress made on the project to date.
82. REVIEW OF INTERNAL AUDIT EFFECTIVENESS
The Committee received a report and appendix which reviewed the effectiveness of the internal audit function for 2014/15. Members noted that arising from some of the reviews conducted, discussions had taken place with the auditor and it had been agreed that, in future, scoping meetings would occur prior to audit to ensure that reviews were highly focused and provided value. During discussion:
It was noted that all internal audit recommendations had been implemented, with the exception of one recommendation relating to fleet which was no longer relevant.
Daniel Harris, of Baker Tilley Risk Advisory Services LLP explained the background to the forthcoming rebranding of Baker Tilly as RSM.
The Committee was advised that the internal audit service would be retendered during the current year. It was confirmed that a competitive tendering process would be undertaken with the contract being awarded on the basis of cost and quality. The tendering process would be undertaken in collaboration with the Bedfordshire and Essex Fire and Rescue Services. In response to a question on Member involvement in the contract award process, it was suggested that the Chairman/Vice-Chairman might wish to reflect on whether they wished to be part of the selection panel.
It was resolved to note the review of the effectiveness of the internal audit function for 2014/15, as set out in Appendix 1 to the submitted report.
83. INTERNAL AUDIT PROGRESS REPORT The Committee received a report which provided an update on progress against the 2015/16 internal audit plan; summarised the three audit reports completed (Key Financial Controls, Follow up of Previous Internal Audit Recommendations and Management of Key Suppliers) and presented the results of the 2014/15 internal audit plan. Daniel Harris, of Baker Tilly Risk Advisory Services LLP, introduced the report and responded to Members’ questions and comments. During discussion:-
The auditor confirmed that he was content with the reasoning for delaying and expanding the scope of the succession planning audit, namely, to enable the planning and implementation process to be developed to a stage where the Internal Audit could perform the review.
With reference to the Key Financial Controls report, it was noted that the audit had indicated that the Treasury Management Policy was not up to date, but did reflect current practices. The Director of Resources undertook to check whether the review date on the policy had been updated.
In response to a question, further information was given about the nature of debts written off. In noting that some debts written off were likely to relate to special services, the Chairman reminded the Committee that it had been agreed that special services should be subject of a Member-led scrutiny review in 2016.
It was confirmed that references to “Trust” had been included in the report in error and should instead refer to the Fire Authority.
The Director of Resources updated the Committee on progress in implementing the recommendations in the action plan for the Management of Key Suppliers audit and indicated his expectation that all recommendations would be completed by January 2016.
In connection with the findings in the audit that some contracts were agreed and maintained locally, the Director of Resources confirmed that these would be contracts under £5,000. However following a change in procurement rules, in future, all contacts would be subject to competition and would be advertised using the national e-portal, Contracts Finder.
It was resolved to note the Internal Audit Progress Report
84. WORK PROGRAMME 2015/16 The Committee considered its work programme. The Chairman commented that Deb Thomson, Scrutiny and Assurance Manager, would be preparing the work programme in the future. The following changes were agreed:
To include the Member-led scrutiny of special services, to be led by
Councillor Reynolds and Councillor Wisson (agreed at the previous meeting for inclusion in July 2016 (minute 75).
To add the Transfer Policy to the January 2016 meeting. To add review of performance against the Integrated Risk Management
Plan (IRMP) targets as a standing agenda item on a quarterly basis. To add an overview review in respect of the provision of rescue
equipment in the service. To add the Community Safety pilot to the July 2016 meeting.
During discussion, it was noted that a review had previously been included in the work programme in respect of a Member-led review of fleet management. Officers believed that, subject to further discussion with the FBU, the operational issues associated with the Multistar fire engines had now been resolved.
It was resolved to note the work programme, with the updates given above.
85. DATE OF NEXT MEETING 14.00 on Thursday 14th January 2016, at Hinchingbrooke Cottage in Huntingdon.
CHAIRMAN
Agenda Item 4 TO: Overview and Scrutiny Committee FROM: T/Chief Fire Officer PRESENTING OFFICER(S): Chris Strickland
Telephone 01480 444506 [email protected]
DATE: 17 January 2016
OVERVIEW PAPER: RESCUE VEHICLE WORKLOAD AND CREWING 1. Purpose 1.1 To inform Members of work officers have done to review the activity of the
Service specialist rescue capability. 2. Recommendation 2.1 The Overview and Scrutiny Committee is asked to;
a) note the work done by officers to review the workload of rescue vehicles and,
b) confirm that officers should seek agreement from the full Fire Authority to develop a business case to determine how best to re-deploy the full time establishment for Service rescue vehicles.
3. Risk Assessment 3.1 Economic - Failure to consider how best to deploy under utilised staff will lead
to financial resources not being used efficiently or effectively and could lead to CSR budget savings being made from more important parts of the organisation.
3.2 Political - The Authority may be challenged if it is unable to demonstrate that
its frontline resources are providing value for money and being used to effectively mitigate risk within the community.
3.3 Equality Impact Assessment - an equality impact assessment will be carried
out on any potential changes to resourcing that may later be recommended. 4. Background
4.1 Having listened to the pre committee seminar on RTC (Road Traffic Collision)
and special service activity analysis (see appendix one), Members will be aware of the progressive and significant reduction in workload of Service rescue vehicles and are asked to comment on the findings.
4.2 The Authority has an obligation to ensure its resources are used to effectively mitigate all foreseeable risk within its area. Where necessary this will require under utilised human and other resources to be re-directed to more productive areas.
4.3 The Service faces further funding reductions in the region of £2.82 million (not including inflationary impacts) over the next four year period. Where it is found that resources are not being effectively utilised and cannot be redistributed to more productive areas, there will be a need to consider whether they should be dispensed with in order to contribute to the overall saving requirement.
5. Summary of Data Analysis 5.1 The workload of rescue vehicles has progressively reduced for more than ten
years. This is due to the increase in capability of first response vehicles and the introduction of rescue pumps at many stations across the Service.
5.2 In 2013, the predetermined attendance for rescue vehicles was changed to
reflect reducing demand. The result was a further reduction in demand, which was not accompanied by a significant increase in calls from the site of incidents for the assistance of rescue vehicles. This demonstrates that the changes were justified and the requirement for such 24/7 capability is no longer financially or operationally justifiable.
5.3 The workload of rescue vehicles diminished from 435 calls in 2011/12 to 135
calls in 2014/15, a 69% reduction in demand. Of the 135 calls, the vehicles were at the scene for less than 30 minutes on 40% of occasions. This indicates they were utilised for their primary function on 81 occasions. Costs for crewing the vehicles has remained relatively static at approximately £1.2 million per year.
6 Recommended Action 6.1 Extensive analysis demonstrates that the need to crew three specialist rescue
vehicles with 30 staff on a permanent basis is no longer cost effective or operationally justifiable. This is particularly so when the ability of the Service to provide a consistent Service across rural areas is becoming increasingly problematic. The On Call review has demonstrated that reduction in demand is making it increasingly difficult to crew part time appliances across the authority area, particularly in the day and early evening when operational demand is at its highest.
6.2 The review of RTC and special service activity raises an opportunity to review
how best to utilise some or all of the 30 full time staff in order to improve delivery of service across the organisation. Alternatively, if the case for 30 fulltime staff to be re-deployed is not made, the excess resource could be lost through natural wastage, and the resulting finance used to offset ongoing funding reductions.
6.3 Based on the work carried out officers recommend that Members consider whether it would be appropriate for officers seek agreement from the full Fire Authority to develop a business case to determine how best to re-deploy the full time establishment for Service rescue vehicles.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Source Document Location Contact Officer
RTC and Special Service Activity Analysis
Hinchingbrooke Cottage Brampton Road Huntingdon PE29 2NA
T/CFO Strickland [email protected] 01480 444541
Em
erg
ency S
erv
ice P
lannin
gF
ire a
nd
Rescu
e S
erv
ices
This document has been produced by ORH for Cambridgeshire Fire & Rescue Service on 30th September 2015. This document can be reproduced by Cambridgeshire Fire & Rescue Service, subject to it being used accurately and not in a misleading context. When the document is reproduced in whole or in part within another publication or service, the full title, date and accreditation to ORH must be included.
This document is intended to be printed double-sided. As a result, some of the pages in the document are intentionally left blank.
Disclaimer
The information in this report is presented in good faith using the information available to ORH at the time of preparation. It is provided on the basis that the authors of the report are not liable to any person or organisation for any damage or loss which may occur in relation to taking, or not taking, action in respect of any information or advice within the document.
ORH is the trading name of Operational Research in Health Limited, a company registered in England with company number 2676859.
Accreditations
Other than data provided by Cambridgeshire Fire & Rescue Service, this report also contains data from the following sources:
© HERE All rights reserved. Based upon Crown Copyright material
Contents Page
1 Introduction ....................................................................................... 1
1.1 Context ........................................................................................... 1 1.2 Terms of Reference ........................................................................... 1
2 Analysis Results .................................................................................. 2
2.1 Demand Profile ................................................................................ 2 2.2 Response Profile ............................................................................... 4
3 Summary ............................................................................................ 5
Figures Opposite Page
1 2
Demand Profile Response Profile
2 4
Appendices
A Demand Profile
B Response Profile
1
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Context
1.1 ORH has been asked by Cambridgeshire Fire and Rescue Service (CFRS) to carry out analysis of the RTC and other Special Service workload across CFRS.
1.2 On the 9th September 2013, CFRS changed the Pre-Determined Attendance (PDA) to RTCs. The changes removed the requirement for a Rescue Vehicle (RV) to be initially assigned to most RTC incidents. In some cases, an additional pump would be initially assigned in place of an RV. If one of the pumps assigned to the incident did not include a rescue pump, then a rescue pump or RV would be sent as well, depending on which was closer.
1.3 CFRS would like to understand the impact of the change to the PDA on the response rate of RVs and other appliances, and also the time spent at scene to these incidents.
1.2 Terms of Reference
1.1 The overall objective of this project is to analyse the impact of the change to the PDA for RTCs and other Special Service incidents.
1.2 The specific scope of the review, as discussed with CFRS, is to analyse RTCs and other Special Service attendances in relation to:
Number of attendances by appliance type;
Number of RV 'make up' requests to an incident to support wholetime or on-call appliances;
Time spent at scene by appliance type and incident type; and
Number of incidents where RVs are utilised for more than 30 minutes.
Figure 1: Demand Profile
Before After
RTC 715 687 -4%
Other Special Service 746 608 -18%
Fires 2,568 2,171 -15%
False Alarms 4,735 3,698 -22%
Total 8,764 7,164 -18%
Before After
RTC 296 47 -84%
Other Special Service 101 73 -28%
Fires 10 7 -30%
False Alarms 9 6 -33%
Total 416 133 -68%
Before After
Pump 71% 93%
RV 29% 6%
Other Appliance 0% 1%
Total 100% 100%
Before After
Pump 1.6 1.8
RV 0.7 0.1
Total 2.3 1.9
Before After
Cambridge 128 37
Dogsthorpe 134 44
Huntingdon 135 39
Total 397 120
Proportion of Responses to RTCs
Average Vehicles per RTC Incident
Annual Average Responses by RVs to Special Service Incidents
9th September 2013
9th September 2013
9th September 2013
9th September 2013Percentage
ChangePump Annual Average Responses
PercentageChange9th September 2013
RV Annual Average Responses
2
2 ANALYSIS RESULTS
2.1 Demand Profile
2.1.1 The analyses were undertaken using a 4-year incident and mobilisation dataset from the 9th September 2011 to 7th September 2015, which ORH holds for CFRS. A summary of the demand profile before and after the PDA change on 9th September 2013 is presented opposite in Figure 1.
2.1.2 Over the last four years, the number of responses made by Rescue Vehicles (RVs) to incidents has fallen from an annual average of 415 responses pre-PDA change to 133 responses post-PDA change, as shown in Appendix A1a.
2.1.3 The number of annual responses made by pumping appliances has also declined over the four year sample period, however, the number of responses to Road Traffic Collisions (RTCs) has reduced by a smaller amount compared to RVs.
2.1.4 As a proportion of responses to RTCs, RVs accounted for 29% of responses pre-PDA change and 6% post-PDA change, as shown in Appendix A1b. The proportion of responses made by pumps to RTCs has increased from 71% pre-PDA change to 93% post-PDA change.
2.1.5 The graph in Appendix A2a shows the trends in activations and attendances of RVs over the last four years by month. The number of RV attendances fluctuates by month, but a significant difference can be seen in the number of attendances per month before and after the PDA change. Before the 9th September 2013 the minimum number of RV attendances per month to Special Service incidents was 21 attendances; after the 9th September 2013 the maximum number of attendances was 18.
2.1.6 The number of activations of RVs to incidents is similar to the pattern of attendances across the sample period, except for 2012 where the data have been excluded.
2.1.7 Special Service incidents accounted for 96% of RV attendances pre-PDA change and 90% post-PDA as shown in Appendix A2b.
2.1.8 Appendix A3 presents the number of attendances to Special Service incidents by appliance type and the number of appliances in attendance.
2.1.9 The graph in Appendix A3a shows that the average number of RVs per Special Service incident has reduced from 0.38 pre-PDA to 0.13 post-PDA change. The average number of pumps per Special Service incidents has increased from 1.39 pre-PDA change to 1.44 post PDA change. There has been no change to the number of pumps per incident for False Alarms and only a small to Fires, as can be seen on the graph in Appendix A3b.
2.1.10 The number of appliances initially attending an RTC has reduced from 2.3 to 1.9 since the change to PDA, as shown in Appendix A3c-i. Before the PDA change, 49% of RTC incidents had 3 appliances initially attend, but after the change 49% of RTC incidents had 2 appliances attend. The profile of the weight-of-attack to RTC incidents has change from 49% of RTC
3
incidents receiving 1 RV and 2 pumps to 47% of incidents receiving 2 pumps and no RV. The number of incidents receiving 1 RV and 1 pump has reduced from 14% of RTC incidents to 2% and the number of RTC incidents receiving 3 pumps has increased from 0.3% to 8%.
2.1.11 Appendix A3c-ii shows that there has been no significant change to the profile of the responses to non-RTC Special Service incidents.
2.1.12 Appendix A3d details the crew types of the pumps attending Special Service incidents with and without RVs. The number of incidents that on-call pumps attend with and without RVs has decreased since the change to the PDA.
2.1.13 The number of incidents where an RV or pump has been assigned to an incident after the initial assignment of appliances is shown in Appendix A3e. The number of ‘make-up’ responses to Special Service incidents has increased by 10% since the change to the PDA. The number of ‘make-up’ responses has increased by 20% for RVs and 5% for pumps.
2.1.14 Overall, since the PDA change, ‘make-up’ responses account for 26% of RV responses to Special Service incidents compared to 6% before the change, however, this is relative to the overall percentage reduction of RV responses to Special Service incidents of 70%.
2.1.15 The number of ‘make-up’ responses to Special Service incidents where the initial assignment of pumps consisted of only on-call pumps has reduced since the PDA change, as shown in Appendix A3f. Before the PDA change, the majority of ‘make-up’ responses to support on-call pumps at Special Service incidents were made by full-time pumps and this is still the case after the PDA change. After the PDA change, over half of RV make-up responses were to support full-time pumps and 40% of make-up responses were to support crews consisting of full-time and on-call crews at Special Service incidents.
2.1.16 Appendix A4 presents the analysis of responses by RVs to Special Service incidents by hour of the day. Before the PDA change, the average number of responses to Special Service incidents peaked between 08:00 and 10:00 hours and also between 15:00 and 18:00 hours (Appendix A4a-i). After the PDA change, the reduction in responses means that there is only a small increase in the number of responses in the day time, compared to the evening and night, rising to a small peak at 12:00 hours (Appendix A4a-ii).
2.1.17 By day of the week, the average number of responses was highest on Fridays and lowest on Sundays before the PDA change, but highest on Sundays and lowest on Thursdays after the PDA change.
2.1.18 The hourly demand profile for the RV at Cambridge has reduced since the change to the PDA, as shown on the graph in Appendix A4b. There is still a peak at 08:00 hours but a reduction in the number of responses at 16:00 hours.
2.1.19 Before the PDA change, the hourly profile of responses of the RV at Dogsthorpe, was significantly higher between 08:00 and 20:00 hours with a peak at 17:00 hours, as displayed on the graph in Appendix A4c. After the PDA change, the hourly profile peaks at 11:00 hours.
Figure 2: Response Profile
Before After Before After
37:58 38:50 36:58 37:14
less than 30 mins 66% 60% 53% 56%
between 30 and 60 mins 37% 29% 28% 27%
greater than 60 mins 24% 20% 18% 17%
Before After Before After
41:18 54:19 41:37 56:05
less than 30 mins 46% 43% 45% 41%
between 30 and 60 mins 33% 25% 33% 25%
greater than 60 mins 21% 32% 21% 33%
Before After Before After Before After
00:40:50 00:50:10 00:39:13 01:00:13 00:44:40 00:59:35
less than 30 mins 46% 39% 46% 44% 44% 42%
between 30 and 60 mins 32% 35% 37% 21% 31% 22%
greater than 60 mins 22% 26% 17% 35% 25% 36%
Before After Before After Before After
00:55:56 00:59:32 00:51:51 01:09:06 00:59:04 01:17:00
less than 30 mins 29% 28% 31% 28% 23% 20%
between 30 and 60 mins 34% 31% 39% 30% 40% 28%
greater than 60 mins 37% 42% 31% 42% 38% 52%
Percentage of
Responses
All Responses Pump Responses
Special Service IncidentsTime at Scene for
Special Service Incidents
Average Time at Scene (min:sec)
Time at Scene byIncident Type
Percentage of
Responses
Time at Scene byRescue Vehicle Cambridge Dogsthorpe
All Incidents
Rescue Vehicle Responses
SS Incidents
Average Time at Scene (min:sec)
Percentage of
Responses
Special Service Incidents
Huntingdon
Utilisation byRescue Vehicle
Percentage of
Responses
All Incidents
Cambridge Dogsthorpe Huntingdon
Average Time at Scene (hr:min:sec)
Average Utilisation (hr:min:sec)
4
2.1.20 The graph in Appendix A4d shows the hourly profile for the RV at Huntingdon peaking at 09:00 hours and 15:00 hours before the change to the PDA and a peak at 16:00 hours after the change.
2.2 Response Profile
2.2.1 The analyses in this section assess the initial response profile of appliances to incidents and are summarised opposite in Figure 2.
2.2.2 The average time spent at the scene of Special Service incidents by RVs and pumps is shown on the graph in Appendix B1a. Since the PDA change RVs are spending on average 15 minutes longer at the scene of Special Service incidents than before the PDA change. The average time at scene for pumping appliances at Special Service incidents has not changed. As pumping appliance responses account for over 75% of responses, the overall average time at scene for Special Service incidents has also not changed.
2.2.3 The table in Appendix B1b shows the number of responses by time spent at scene for RVs and pumps to Special Service Incidents. Before the PDA change, 45% of RV responses spent less than 30 minutes at the scene of Special Service incidents compared to 42% after the change. RV responses to Special Service incidents with a time at scene over 60 minutes has increased from 21% to 34%.
2.2.4 The graph in Appendix B1c shows the average time at scene for Special Service incidents by month for RVs and pumps. Since the PDA change there is greater variation in the average time spent at scene due to the lower number of attendances by RVs.
2.2.5 The average time at scene to Special Service incidents has increased more for the RV at Dogsthorpe, 21 minutes, compared to that of the RV at Cambridge which has only increased by 9 minutes 20 seconds, as detailed in Appendix B1d.
2.2.6 The distribution of time spent at scene by individual RV by hour of the day for before and after the PDA change is given in Appendix B2. Since the PDA change, the responses to Special Service incidents where time at scene was greater than 1 hour mainly occur in the day period for the RVs at Cambridge and Huntingdon, but the RV at Dogsthorpe attends more incidents in the evening with time at scene over 1 hour.
2.2.7 The amount of time that RVs are utilised for is measured from the time the appliance is assigned to an incident to the time the appliance left the scene of the incident. The time does not include repeat attendances. Appendix B3 shows the utilisation time for each RV.
2.2.8 The average utilisation time per incident for RVs has increased from over 55 minutes to over 1 hour 8 minutes since the PDA change. The RV at Huntingdon is now utilised for over an hour for 52% of responses. Overall, RVs were utilised for over 30 minutes on 73% of responses before the PDA change compared to 75% after the PDA change.
5
3 SUMMARY
3.1 This is the Final Report for the analysis of RTC and other Special Service workload across CFRS as commissioned by Cambridgeshire Fire and Rescue Service.
3.2 The analyses presented in this paper have identified that over the last four years, the number of responses made by Rescue Vehicles (RVs) to incidents has fallen from an annual average of 415 responses before the PDA change on 9th September 2013 to 133 responses after the PDA change. This means that RV responses now account for only 6% of responses to RTCs compared to 29% of responses before the change to the PDA. The number of pump responses to RTCs have also reduced, but only by 4%.
3.3 The average number of appliances per RTC incident has reduced from 2.3 to 1.9 since the change to the PDA. The average number of RVs per RTC incident reduced from 0.7 to 0.1 after the PDA change and the number pumps increased from 1.6 to 1.8.
3.4 The number of ‘make-up’ responses to Special Service incidents has increased by 10% since the change to the PDA. The number of ‘make-up’ responses has increased by 20% for RVs and 5% for pumps.
3.5 Since the PDA change, ‘make-up’ responses account for 26% of RV responses to Special Service incidents compared to 6% before the change; however, this is relative to the overall percentage reduction of RV responses to Special Service incidents of 70%.
3.6 The analyses show that since the PDA change RVs are spending on average 15 minutes longer at the scene of Special Service incidents than before the PDA change. The average time at scene for pumping appliances at Special Service incidents has not changed. As pumping appliance responses account for over 75% of the responses, the overall average time at scene for Special Service incidents has also not changed.
3.7 Overall, since the change to the PDA, RVs are utilised for over 30 minutes to an incident for 77% of responses compared to 73% before the PDA change.
Contents
A Demand Profile
B Response Profile
Cambridgeshire Fire & Rescue Service
RTC & Special Service
Activity Analysis
Final Report
ORH/CF/34
A Demand Profile
A1 Annual Responses by Appliance Type and Incident Type
A1a Number of Responses
A1b Proportion of Responses
A2 Rescue Vehicle Activations and Attendances by Month
A3 Attendances to Special Service Incidents
A3a Average Number of RVs per Incident by Month
A3b Average Number of Pumps per Incident by Month
A3c Weight-of-Attack
A3c-i RTC Incidents
A3c-ii Non-RTC Special Service Incidents
A3d Special Service Incidents Weight of Attack by Pump Crew Type
A3e PDA Make-up by Appliance Type
A3f PDA Make-up by Initial Assignment Type
A4 Special Service Incidents Attended by RVs by Hour of the Day
A4a All RVs by Day of the Week
A4a-i Pre-PDA Change
A4a-ii Post PDA Change
A4b Cambridge RV
A4c Dogsthorpe RV
A4d Huntingdon RV
Responses by Appliance Type and Incident Type4-Year Sample (9th September 2011 to 7th September 2015)
All Incidents
2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15
Pump 9,191 8,327 7,021 7,313 8,765 7,165 -1,600Rescue Vehicle 435 394 132 135 415 133 -281Other 186 125 86 25 156 56 -100
Overall 9,812 8,846 7,239 7,473 9,336 7,354 -1,981
RTC Incidents
2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15
Pump 721 709 712 661 715 687 -28Rescue Vehicle 311 281 53 41 296 47 -249Other 1 1 2 1 1 2 1
Overall 1,033 991 767 703 1,012 735 -277
Non-RTC Special Service Incidents
2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15
Pump 804 687 631 585 746 608 -138Rescue Vehicle 102 99 73 72 101 73 -28Other 24 14 12 6 19 9 -10
Overall 930 800 716 663 866 690 -176
Fire Incidents
2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15
Pump 2,690 2,443 2,019 2,328 2,568 2,171 -397Rescue Vehicle 10 9 2 13 10 7 -2Other 69 56 47 11 63 29 -33
Overall 2,769 2,508 2,068 2,352 2,640 2,208 -432
False Alarm Incidents
2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15
Pump 4,976 4,488 3,659 3,739 4,735 3,698 -1,037Rescue Vehicle 12 5 4 9 9 6 -2Other 92 54 25 7 73 16 -57
Overall 5,080 4,547 3,688 3,755 4,817 3,721 -1,096
Annual Responses(Year Start: 9th September)
Pre-PDA Change Annual Average
Post-PDA Change Annual Average
Impact on Annual Average
Appliance Type
Annual Responses(Year Start: 9th September) Impact on
Annual Average
Post-PDA Change Annual Average
Pre-PDA Change Annual Average
Appliance Type
Annual Responses(Year Start: 9th September) Impact on
Annual Average
Appliance Type
Annual Responses(Year Start: 9th September) Impact on
Annual Average
Post-PDA Change Annual Average
Post-PDA Change Annual Average
Pre-PDA Change Annual Average
Pre-PDA Change Annual Average
Appliance Type
Annual Responses(Year Start: 9th September)
Pre-PDA Change Annual Average
Post-PDA Change Annual Average
Impact on Annual Average
Appliance Type
A1a
Proportion of Responses by Appliance Type and Incident Type4-Year Sample (9th September 2011 to 7th September 2015)
All Incidents
2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15
Pump 93.7% 94.1% 97.0% 97.9% 93.9% 97.4% 3.5%Rescue Vehicle 4.4% 4.5% 1.8% 1.8% 4.4% 1.8% -2.6%Other 1.9% 1.4% 1.2% 0.3% 1.7% 0.8% -0.9%
Overall 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 0.0%
RTC Incidents
2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15
Pump 69.8% 71.5% 92.8% 94.0% 70.7% 93.4% 22.8%Rescue Vehicle 30.1% 28.4% 6.9% 5.8% 29.2% 6.4% -22.9%Other 0.1% 0.1% 0.3% 0.1% 0.1% 0.2% 0.1%
Overall 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 0.0%
Non-RTC Special Service Incidents
2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15
Pump 86.5% 85.9% 88.1% 88.2% 86.2% 88.2% 2.0%Rescue Vehicle 11.0% 12.4% 10.2% 10.9% 11.7% 10.5% -1.1%Other 2.6% 1.8% 1.7% 0.9% 2.2% 1.3% -0.9%
Overall 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 0.0%
Fire Incidents
2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15
Pump 97.1% 97.4% 97.6% 99.0% 97.3% 98.3% 1.0%Rescue Vehicle 0.4% 0.4% 0.1% 0.6% 0.4% 0.3% 0.0%Other 2.5% 2.2% 2.3% 0.5% 2.4% 1.4% -1.0%
Overall 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 0.0%
False Alarm Incidents
2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15
Pump 98.0% 98.7% 99.2% 99.6% 98.3% 99.4% 1.1%Rescue Vehicle 0.2% 0.1% 0.1% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.0%Other 1.8% 1.2% 0.7% 0.2% 1.5% 0.4% -1.1%
Overall 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 0.0%
Appliance Type
Proportion of Responses(Year Start: 9th September)
Pre-PDA Change Annual Average
Post-PDA Change Annual Average
Impact on Annual Average
Appliance Type
Proportion of Responses(Year Start: 9th September)
Pre-PDA Change Annual Average
Post-PDA Change Annual Average
Impact on Annual Average
Appliance Type
Proportion of Responses(Year Start: 9th September)
Pre-PDA Change Annual Average
Post-PDA Change Annual Average
Impact on Annual Average
Appliance Type
Proportion of Responses(Year Start: 9th September)
Pre-PDA Change Annual Average
Post-PDA Change Annual Average
Impact on Annual Average
Appliance Type
Proportion of Responses(Year Start: 9th September)
Pre-PDA Change Annual Average
Post-PDA Change Annual Average
Impact on Annual Average
A1b
0102030405060
SepOctNovDecJanFebMarAprMayJunJul
AugSepOctNovDecJanFebMarAprMayJunJul
AugSepOctNovDecJanFebMarAprMayJunJul
AugSepOctNovDecJanFebMarAprMayJunJul
Aug
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
Number of AttendancesR
escu
e V
ehic
le A
ctiv
atio
ns
and
Att
end
ance
s to
Sp
ecia
l Ser
vice
s b
y M
onth
4-Ye
ar S
ampl
e (9
th S
epte
mbe
r 20
11 t
o 7t
h Sep
tem
ber
2015
)Spe
cial
Ser
vice
- A
ctiv
atio
nsSpe
cial
Ser
vice
- A
tten
danc
esFi
re -
Act
ivat
ions
Fire
- A
tten
danc
esFa
lse
Ala
rm -
Act
ivat
ions
Fals
e Ala
rm -
Att
enda
nces
PDA P
olic
y C
hang
e (0
9/09
/201
3)
A2a
Res
cue
Veh
icle
Wo
rklo
ad b
y In
cid
ent
Typ
e an
d Y
ear
4-Ye
ar S
ampl
e (9
th S
epte
mbe
r 20
11 t
o 7t
h Sep
tem
ber
2015
)
An
nu
al R
esp
onse
s
2011
/12
2012
/13
2013
/14
2014
/15
Fire
109
213
10
7-2
Spec
ial S
ervi
ce41
338
012
611
33
97
12
0-2
77
Fals
e Al
arm
125
49
96
-2
Tota
l4
35
39
41
32
13
54
15
13
3-2
81
Ave
rag
e D
aily
Res
pon
ses
2011
/12
2012
/13
2013
/14
2014
/15
Fire
0.03
0.03
0.01
0.04
0.0
30
.02
0.0
0
Spec
ial S
ervi
ce1.
131.
070.
350.
331
.10
0.3
4-0
.76
Fals
e Al
arm
0.03
0.01
0.01
0.03
0.0
20
.02
-0.0
1
Tota
l1
.19
1.1
10
.37
0.3
91
.15
0.3
8-0
.77
Pro
por
tion
of
Res
pon
ses
2011
/12
2012
/13
2013
/14
2014
/15
Fire
2.3%
2.3%
1.5%
9.6%
2.3
%5
.6%
3.3
%
Spec
ial S
ervi
ce94
.9%
96.4
%95
.5%
83.7
%9
5.6
%8
9.6
%-6
.1%
Fals
e Al
arm
2.8%
1.3%
3.0%
6.7%
2.1
%4
.8%
2.8
%
Tota
l1
00
.0%
10
0.0
%1
00
.0%
10
0.0
%1
00
.0%
10
0.0
%0
.0%
Pre
-PD
A
Ch
ang
e A
vera
ge
Imp
act
on
Ave
rag
e
Imp
act
on
Ave
rag
e
Imp
act
on
Ave
rag
eIn
cid
ent
Typ
eY
ear
(sta
rts
9th
Sep
tem
ber
)
Inci
den
t Ty
pe
Yea
r (s
tart
s 9
th S
epte
mb
er)
Inci
den
t Ty
pe
Yea
r (s
tart
s 9
th S
epte
mb
er)
Pos
t-P
DA
C
han
ge
An
nu
al
Ave
rag
e
Pos
t-P
DA
C
han
ge
Ave
rag
e
Pos
t-P
DA
C
han
ge
Ave
rag
e
Pre
-PD
A
Ch
ang
e A
nn
ual
A
vera
ge
Pre
-PD
A
Ch
ang
e A
vera
ge
A2b
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.91
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
Average Rescue Vehicles per IncidentA
vera
ge
Res
cue
Veh
icle
s p
er I
nci
den
t b
y M
onth
an
d I
nci
den
t Ty
pe
4-Ye
ar S
ampl
e (9
th S
epte
mbe
r 20
11 t
o 7t
h Sep
tem
ber
2015
)
Fire
Fals
e Ala
rmSpe
cial
Ser
vice
- M
onth
ly A
vera
geSpe
cial
Ser
vice
- A
nnua
l Ave
rage
PDA P
olic
y C
hang
e (0
9/09
/201
3)
A3a
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.81
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
Average Pumps Per IncidentA
vera
ge
Pu
mp
s p
er I
nci
den
t b
y M
onth
an
d I
nci
den
t Ty
pe
4-Ye
ar S
ampl
e (0
9/09
/201
1 to
07/
09/2
015)
Fire
- M
onth
ly A
vera
geSpe
cial
Ser
vice
- M
onth
ly A
vera
geFa
lse
Ala
rm -
Mon
thly
Ave
rage
Fire
- A
nnua
l Ave
rage
Spe
cial
Ser
vice
- A
nnua
l Ave
rage
Fals
e Ala
rm -
Ann
ual A
vera
ge
PDA P
olic
y C
hang
e (0
9/09
/201
3)
2011
/12
2012
/13
2013
/14
2014
/15
Fire
1.33
1.34
1.39
1.32
Spe
cial
Ser
vice
1.38
1.39
1.44
1.44
Fals
e A
larm
1.16
1.14
1.16
1.14
Inci
den
t T
ype
Ave
rag
e P
um
ps
per
In
cid
ent
by
Yea
r(S
epte
mbe
r 9t
h S
tart
)
A3b
RTC Incident Weight-of-Attack: Rescue Vehicles and Pumps4-Year Sample (9th September 2011 to 7th September 2015)
Annual RTC Incidents
2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15
1 0 8 6 5 1 7 3 -4
0 1 98 110 124 125 104 124 21
106 116 129 126 111 128 17
2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1 1 60 62 4 9 61 6 -55
0 2 31 46 191 179 38 185 147
91 108 195 188 99 192 92
3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 -1
1 2 226 200 34 24 213 29 -184
0 3 1 2 33 31 1 32 31
228 202 67 55 215 61 -154
15 13 11 9 14 10 -4
440 439 402 378 440 390 -49
Proportion of RTC Incidents
2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15
1 0 1.8% 1.4% 1.2% 0.3% 1.6% 0.8% -0.8%
0 1 22.3% 25.1% 30.8% 33.1% 23.6% 31.9% 8.3%
24.1% 26.4% 32.1% 33.3% 25.2% 32.7% 7.4%
2 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
1 1 13.6% 14.1% 1.0% 2.4% 13.9% 1.7% -12.2%
0 2 7.0% 10.5% 47.5% 47.4% 8.7% 47.4% 38.7%
20.7% 24.6% 48.5% 49.7% 22.6% 49.1% 26.5%
3 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
2 1 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% -0.1%
1 2 51.4% 45.6% 8.5% 6.3% 48.5% 7.5% -41.1%
0 3 0.2% 0.5% 8.2% 8.2% 0.3% 8.2% 7.9%
51.8% 46.0% 16.7% 14.6% 49.0% 15.7% -33.3%
3.4% 3.0% 2.7% 2.4% 3.2% 2.6% -0.6%
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 0.0%
Average Pumps and Rescue Vehicles per Year
2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15
1.64 1.62 1.77 1.75 1.63 1.76 0.14
0.71 0.64 0.13 0.11 0.67 0.12 -0.55
2.35 2.26 1.90 1.86 2.30 1.88 -0.42
3
All 1-Appliance
All 2-Appliance
1
2
All 3-Appliance
Impact on Annual
Average
Number of RVs
All 1-Appliance
All 2-Appliance
Number of Appliances
Number of Pumps
Year (9th September Start) Pre-PDA Change Annual
Average
Post-PDA Change Annual
Average
1
2
Pre-PDA Change Annual
Average
Post-PDA Change Annual
Average
Impact on Annual
Average
Total
Number of Appliances
Number of Pumps
Year (9th September Start)
Total
4+ Appliance
4+ Appliance
Number of RVs
All 3-Appliance
3
Year (9th September Start) Pre-PDA Change Annual
Average
Post-PDA Change Annual
Average
Impact on Annual
Average
Pumps and Rescue Vehicles
Appliances per RTC Incident
Rescue Vehicles
Pumps
A3c-i
Non-RTC Special Service Incident Weight-of-Attack: Rescue Vehicles and Pumps4-Year Sample (9th September 2011 to 7th September 2015)
Annual non-RTC Special Service Incidents
2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15
1 0 5 4 6 9 5 7 3
0 1 507 421 414 371 465 393 -72
512 425 420 380 469 400 -69
2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1 1 29 24 20 15 27 18 -9
0 2 51 41 44 39 46 42 -5
80 65 64 54 73 59 -14
3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1 2 60 63 42 43 61 42 -19
0 3 8 6 3 5 7 4 -3
68 69 45 48 68 46 -22
7 6 5 6 7 5 -1
667 565 534 488 617 511 -105
Proportion of non-RTC Special Service Incidents
2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15
1 0 0.7% 0.7% 1.1% 1.8% 0.7% 1.5% 0.7%
0 1 76.0% 74.5% 77.5% 76.0% 75.3% 76.8% 1.5%
76.8% 75.2% 78.7% 77.9% 76.1% 78.3% 2.2%
2 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
1 1 4.3% 4.2% 3.7% 3.1% 4.3% 3.4% -0.9%
0 2 7.6% 7.3% 8.2% 8.0% 7.5% 8.1% 0.7%
12.0% 11.5% 12.0% 11.1% 11.8% 11.6% -0.2%
3 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
2 1 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
1 2 9.0% 11.2% 7.9% 8.8% 10.0% 8.3% -1.7%
0 3 1.2% 1.1% 0.6% 1.0% 1.1% 0.8% -0.4%
10.2% 12.2% 8.4% 9.8% 11.1% 9.1% -2.0%
1.0% 1.1% 0.9% 1.2% 1.1% 1.1% 0.0%
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 0.0%
Average Pumps and Rescue Vehicles per Year
2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15
1.20 1.22 1.18 1.20 1.21 1.19 -0.02
0.15 0.18 0.14 0.15 0.16 0.14 -0.02
1.36 1.39 1.32 1.34 1.37 1.33 -0.04
Pre-PDA Change Annual
Average
Year (9th September Start)
3
All 3-Appliance
4+ Appliance
Total
2
All 2-Appliance
Year (9th September Start) Pre-PDA Change Annual
Average
Post-PDA Change Annual
Average
Number of Appliances
Number of RVs
Number of Pumps
Impact on Annual
Average
1
All 1-Appliance
Pre-PDA Change Annual
Average
Post-PDA Change Annual
Average
Impact on Annual
Average
3
All 3-Appliance
4+ Appliance
Total
Number of Appliances
Number of RVs
Number of Pumps
Post-PDA Change Annual
Average
Impact on Annual
Average
1
All 1-Appliance
2
All 2-Appliance
Pumps
Rescue Vehicles
Pumps and Rescue Vehicles
Appliances per RTC IncidentYear (9th September Start)
A3c-ii
Special Service Incident Weight-of-Attack: Rescue Vehicles and Pumps by Crewing4-Year Sample (9th September 2011 to 7th September 2015)
Annual Special Service Incidents
FT OC 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15
1 0 436 377 388 392 407 390 -17
2 0 28 25 104 95 27 100 73
0 1 169 154 150 104 162 127 -34
0 2 22 23 25 32 22 28 6
1 1 32 39 106 91 35 99 63
9 8 37 39 9 38 29
0 0 13 10 11 10 12 11 -1
1 0 71 64 23 21 68 22 -46
2 0 112 111 37 41 112 39 -73
0 1 18 22 1 3 20 2 -18
0 2 34 35 3 1 34 2 -32
1 1 140 117 36 25 129 31 -98
21 17 15 12 19 14 -6
2 2 2 0 0 2 0 -2
1,107 1,004 936 866 1,056 901 -155
Proportion of Special Service Incidents
FT OC 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15
1 0 39.4% 37.5% 41.5% 45.3% 38.5% 43.3% 4.9%
2 0 2.5% 2.5% 11.1% 11.0% 2.5% 11.0% 8.5%
0 1 15.3% 15.3% 16.0% 12.0% 15.3% 14.0% -1.3%
0 2 2.0% 2.3% 2.7% 3.7% 2.1% 3.2% 1.0%
1 1 2.9% 3.9% 11.3% 10.5% 3.4% 10.9% 7.5%
0.8% 0.8% 4.0% 4.5% 0.8% 4.2% 3.4%
0 0 1.2% 1.0% 1.2% 1.2% 1.1% 1.2% 0.1%
1 0 6.4% 6.4% 2.5% 2.4% 6.4% 2.4% -4.0%
2 0 10.1% 11.1% 4.0% 4.7% 10.6% 4.3% -6.2%
0 1 1.6% 2.2% 0.1% 0.3% 1.9% 0.2% -1.7%
0 2 3.1% 3.5% 0.3% 0.1% 3.3% 0.2% -3.1%
1 1 12.6% 11.7% 3.8% 2.9% 12.2% 3.4% -8.8%
1.9% 1.7% 1.6% 1.4% 1.8% 1.5% -0.3%
2 0.2% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% -0.2%
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 0.0%Total
Total
Post-PDA Change Annual
Average
Post-PDA Change Annual
Average
Impact on Annual
Average
Impact on Annual
Average
All Incs
All Incs
0
3+ Pumps
1
3+ Pumps
Pump Crews
3+ Pumps
0
3+ Pumps
Number of RVs
Year (September 9th Start) Pre-PDA Change Annual
Average
1
Number of RVs
Year (September 9th Start) Pre-PDA Change Annual
Average
Pump Crews
A3d
PD
A M
ake-
Up
by
Ap
plia
nce
Typ
e4-
Year
Sam
ple
(9th
Sep
tem
ber
2011
to
7th
Sept
embe
r 20
15)
Nu
mb
er o
f M
ake-
Up
Res
pon
ses
to S
pec
ial
Ser
vice
In
cid
ents
2011
/12
2012
/13
2013
/14
2014
/15
Res
pon
ses
Per
cen
tag
e
Res
cue
Vehi
cle
2723
3822
25
30
52
0.3
%
Pum
p59
4757
545
35
62
4.6
%
Tota
l8
67
09
57
67
88
68
9.6
%
Nu
mb
er o
f R
esp
onse
s to
Sp
ecia
l S
ervi
ce I
nci
den
ts
2011
/12
2012
/13
2013
/14
2014
/15
Res
pon
ses
Per
cen
tag
e
Res
cue
Vehi
cle
413
380
126
113
39
71
20
-27
7-6
9.9
%
Pum
p1,
525
1,39
61,
343
1,24
61
,46
11
,29
5-1
66
-11
.4%
Tota
l1
,93
81
,77
61
,46
91
,35
91
,85
81
,41
5-4
43
-23
.9%
Pro
por
tion
of
Res
pon
ses
wh
ich
are
Mak
e-U
ps
2011
/12
2012
/13
2013
/14
2014
/15
Res
cue
Vehi
cle
6.5%
6.1%
30.2
%19
.5%
6.3
%2
6.1
%
Pum
p3.
9%3.
4%4.
2%4.
3%3
.6%
4.3
%
Tota
l4
.4%
3.9
%6
.5%
5.6
%4
.2%
6.1
%
Ap
pli
ance
Typ
eP
rop
orti
on o
f R
esp
onse
s b
y Y
ear
Pre
-PD
A
Ch
ang
e A
nn
ual
A
vera
ge
Pos
t P
DA
C
han
ge
An
nu
al
Ave
rag
e
Imp
act
on A
vera
ge
Ap
pli
ance
Typ
eR
esp
onse
s b
y Y
ear
Pre
-PD
A
Ch
ang
e A
nn
ual
A
vera
ge
Pos
t P
DA
C
han
ge
An
nu
al
Ave
rag
e
Imp
act
on A
vera
ge
Pre
-PD
A
Ch
ang
e A
nn
ual
A
vera
ge
Pos
t P
DA
C
han
ge
An
nu
al
Ave
rag
e
19
.8%
0.7
%
1.8
%
Imp
act
on A
vera
ge
Mak
e-U
p R
esp
onse
s b
y Y
ear
Ap
pli
ance
Typ
e
A3e
PD
A M
ake-
Up
by
Init
ial A
ssig
nm
ent
4-Ye
ar S
ampl
e (9
th S
epte
mbe
r 20
11 t
o 7t
h Sep
tem
ber
2015
)
Nu
mb
er o
f M
ake-
Up
Res
pon
ses
to S
pec
ial S
ervi
ce I
nci
den
ts
2011
/12
2012
/13
2013
/14
2014
/15
Res
pon
ses
Per
cen
tag
e
Full-
Tim
e Pu
mp
1210
107
11
9-2
-22
.6%
On-
Cal
l Pum
p7
50
36
1-5
-75
.4%
Res
cue
Veh
icle
53
12
41
-3-6
2.8
%To
tal
24
18
11
12
21
11
-10
-45
.4%
Full-
Tim
e Pu
mp
1314
1711
13
14
14
.1%
On-
Cal
l Pum
p12
75
101
07
-2-2
1.7
%Res
cue
Veh
icle
1213
2113
12
17
53
6.5
%To
tal
37
34
43
34
36
39
38
.6%
Full-
Tim
e Pu
mp
75
129
61
15
75
.0%
On-
Cal
l Pum
p8
613
147
13
69
2.4
%Res
cue
Veh
icle
107
167
91
23
35
.7%
Tota
l2
51
84
13
02
23
61
46
5.1
%
86
70
95
76
78
86
82
8.3
%
Pro
por
tion
of
Mak
e-U
p R
esp
onse
s to
Sp
ecia
l Ser
vice
In
cid
ents
2011
/12
2012
/13
2013
/14
2014
/15
Full-
Tim
e Pu
mp
50.0
%55
.6%
90.9
%58
.3%
52
.3%
74
.1%
On-
Cal
l Pum
p29
.2%
27.8
%0.
0%25
.0%
28
.6%
12
.9%
Res
cue
Veh
icle
20.8
%16
.7%
9.1%
16.7
%1
9.1
%1
3.0
%To
tal
10
0.0
%1
00
.0%
10
0.0
%1
00
.0%
10
0.0
%1
00
.0%
Full-
Tim
e Pu
mp
35.1
%41
.2%
39.5
%32
.4%
38
.0%
36
.4%
On-
Cal
l Pum
p32
.4%
20.6
%11
.6%
29.4
%2
6.8
%1
9.4
%Res
cue
Veh
icle
32.4
%38
.2%
48.8
%38
.2%
35
.2%
44
.2%
Tota
l1
00
.0%
10
0.0
%1
00
.0%
10
0.0
%1
00
.0%
10
0.0
%
Full-
Tim
e Pu
mp
28.0
%27
.8%
29.3
%30
.0%
27
.9%
29
.6%
On-
Cal
l Pum
p32
.0%
33.3
%31
.7%
46.7
%3
2.5
%3
7.9
%Res
cue
Veh
icle
40.0
%38
.9%
39.0
%23
.3%
39
.5%
32
.5%
Tota
l1
00
.0%
10
0.0
%1
00
.0%
10
0.0
%1
00
.0%
10
0.0
%
Mak
e-U
p R
esp
onse
s b
y Y
ear
Pre
-PD
A
Ch
ang
e A
nn
ual
A
vera
ge
Pos
t P
DA
C
han
ge
An
nu
al
Ave
rag
e
Imp
act
on A
vera
ge
Mak
e-u
p
Ass
ign
men
t
On-
Cal
l Pum
p(s)
Full-
Tim
e Pu
mp(
s)
On-
Cal
l and
Ful
l-Ti
me
Pum
p(s)
Init
ial
Ass
ign
men
tM
ake-
up
A
ssig
nm
ent
Init
ial
Ass
ign
men
t
0.0
%
0.0
%9
.1%
Ove
rall
Pre
-PD
A
Ch
ang
e A
nn
ual
A
vera
ge
Pos
t P
DA
C
han
ge
An
nu
al
Ave
rag
e
On-
Cal
l Pum
p(s)
Full-
Tim
e Pu
mp(
s)
On-
Cal
l and
Ful
l-Ti
me
Pum
p(s)
1.7
%5
.4%
-7.0
%
Mak
e-U
p R
esp
onse
s b
y Y
ear
Per
cen
tag
e
Imp
act
on A
vera
ge
-7.5
%-1
.6%
0.0
%-6
.1%
-15
.7%
21
.8%
A3f
Pre
-PD
A C
han
ge:
Sp
ecia
l Ser
vice
Att
end
ance
Pro
file
for
All
Res
cue
Veh
icle
s4-
Year
Sam
ple
(9th
Sep
tem
ber
2011
to
7th
Sep
tem
ber
2015
)
Ave
rag
e A
nn
ual
Att
end
ance
s (P
re-P
DA
Ch
ang
e)
01
23
45
67
89
1011
1213
1415
1617
1819
2021
2223
Mon
day
0.5
10.
50
0.5
03
3.5
45
32
3.5
42.
52
44.
51.
52
20.
51.
51
52
.0
Tues
day
10.
50
1.5
0.5
1.5
04.
55
32.
51.
52.
53
2.5
42.
54
4.5
31.
50.
51
0.5
51
.0
Wed
nesd
ay1
00
0.5
0.5
13
13
4.5
32.
52
44.
52.
56
62.
54
22
31.
56
0.0
Thur
sday
10.
50.
50
0.5
04
34.
55.
52
2.5
33
3.5
53.
53.
53.
51.
51.
50.
51
05
3.5
Frid
ay1
10.
50.
50.
51
33.
55
3.5
48.
52.
51.
54
76
44
4.5
43
11.
57
5.0
Sat
urda
y1
02.
50.
51
1.5
2.5
1.5
34
5.5
34
4.5
1.5
3.5
32.
52
3.5
22
12.
55
8.0
Sun
day
0.5
0.5
1.5
11.
50
0.5
13
2.5
41
43
24.
54
32.
53
1.5
10.
51
47
.0
Ove
rall
63
.55
.54
55
16
18
27
.52
82
42
12
1.5
23
20
.52
8.5
29
27
.52
0.5
21
.51
4.5
9.5
98
39
6.5
Hou
rD
ayTo
tal
024681012141618202224262830
01
23
45
67
89
1011
1213
1415
1617
1819
2021
2223
Average Annual Responses
Hou
r of
the
Day
All
Res
cue
Veh
icle
s: S
pec
ial
Ser
vice
Ave
rag
e A
nn
ual
Att
end
ance
s b
y H
our
of t
he
Day
Pre-
PDA
Cha
nge
(9th
Sep
tem
ber
2011
to
8th
Sept
embe
r 20
13)
A4a-i
Pos
t-P
DA
Ch
ang
e: S
pec
ial S
ervi
ce A
tten
dan
ce P
rofi
le f
or A
ll R
escu
e V
ehic
les
4-Ye
ar S
ampl
e (9
th S
epte
mbe
r 20
11 t
o 7t
h Sep
tem
ber
2015
)
Ave
rag
e A
nn
ual
Att
end
ance
s (P
ost-
PD
A C
han
ge)
01
23
45
67
89
1011
1213
1415
1617
1819
2021
2223
Mon
day
0.5
10
00
01
21.
50.
50.
51
0.5
1.5
02
11
30.
50
00.
50
18
.0
Tues
day
00
00.
50
00
11.
51
4.5
10
0.5
12
11
0.5
00.
50
00.
51
6.5
Wed
nesd
ay0.
50
00
01.
50
0.5
3.5
0.5
0.5
1.5
1.5
12.
51
01.
50.
51
0.5
00
01
8.0
Thur
sday
00
00
00.
50.
50
11
10
20
01.
51
0.5
00.
50.
51
0.5
01
1.5
Frid
ay0.
50
00.
50
00
0.5
11.
50.
53
11.
52
0.5
22
10.
51
0.5
00
19
.5
Sat
urda
y0.
50.
50
00
00
00
1.5
02
20.
51.
51.
51.
50.
50.
50.
50
0.5
01.
51
5.0
Sun
day
10
00
0.5
10
12
01.
52.
52.
50.
51
20.
50.
50
2.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
21
.0
Ove
rall
31
.50
10
.53
1.5
51
0.5
68
.51
19
.55
.58
10
.57
75
.55
.53
2.5
1.5
2.5
11
9.5
Day
Hou
rTo
tal
024681012141618202224262830
12
34
56
78
910
1112
1314
1516
1718
1920
2122
2324
Average Annual Responses
Hou
r of
the
Day
All
Res
cue
Veh
icle
s: S
pec
ial
Ser
vice
Ave
rag
e A
nn
ual
Att
end
ance
s b
y H
our
of t
he
Day
Post
-PD
A C
hang
e (9
th S
epte
mbe
r 20
13 t
o 7t
h Se
ptem
ber
2015
)
A4a-ii
02468101214
01
23
45
67
89
1011
1213
1415
1617
1819
2021
2223
Average Annual Attendances
Hou
r of
the
Day
Cam
bri
dg
e R
V:
Sp
ecia
l S
ervi
ce A
vera
ge
An
nu
al A
tten
dan
ces
by
Hou
r of
th
e D
ay4-
Year
Sam
ple
(9th
Sep
tem
ber
2011
to
7th
Sep
tem
ber
2015
)
Pre-
PDA C
hang
ePo
st-P
DA C
hang
e
A4b
02468101214
01
23
45
67
89
1011
1213
1415
1617
1819
2021
2223
Average Annual Attendances
Hou
r of
the
Day
Dog
sth
orp
e R
V:
Sp
ecia
l Ser
vice
Ave
rag
e A
nn
ual
Att
end
ance
s b
y H
our
of t
he
Day
4-
Year
Sam
ple
(9th
Sep
tem
ber
2011
to
7th
Sep
tem
ber
2015
)
Pre-
PDA C
hang
ePo
st-P
DA C
hang
e
A4c
02468101214
01
23
45
67
89
1011
1213
1415
1617
1819
2021
2223
Average Annual Attendances
Hou
r of
the
Day
Hu
nti
ng
on R
V:
Sp
ecia
l S
ervi
ce A
vera
ge
An
nu
al A
tten
dan
ces
by
Hou
r of
th
e D
ay
4-Ye
ar S
ampl
e (9
th S
epte
mbe
r 20
11 t
o 7t
h Sep
tem
ber
2015
)
Pre-
PDA C
hang
ePo
st-P
DA C
hang
e
A4d
B Response Profile
B1 Time at Scene for RVs and Special Service Incidents
B1a Average Time at Scene
B1b Responses by Time at Scene
B1c Average Time at Scene for Special Service incidents by Month and Appliance Type
B1d Average Time at Scene for RVs by Callsign and Year
B2 Distribution of Responses to Special Service Incidents by Time at Scene and Hour
B2a Cambridge RV
B2a-i Pre-PDA Change
B2a-ii Post PDA Change
B2b Dogsthorpe RV
B2b-i Pre-PDA Change
B2b-ii Post PDA Change
B2c Huntingdon RV
B2c-i Pre-PDA Change
B2c-ii Post PDA Change
B3 RV Utilisation
00:0
0:00
00:1
0:00
00:2
0:00
00:3
0:00
00:4
0:00
00:5
0:00
01:0
0:00
01:1
0:00 20
11/1
220
12/1
320
13/1
420
14/1
5
Average Time at Scene
Year
(Sta
rtin
g Sep
tem
ber
9th)
Ave
rag
e Ti
me
at S
cen
e b
y Y
ear,
In
cid
ent
Typ
e an
d R
esp
onse
Veh
icle
4-Ye
ar S
ampl
e (9
th S
epte
mbe
r 20
11 t
o 7t
h Sep
tem
ber
2015
)
Spe
cial
Ser
vice
- O
vera
llSpe
cial
Ser
vice
- P
ump
Spe
cial
Ser
vice
- R
VAll
Inci
dent
s -
RV
PDA P
olic
y C
hang
e (0
9/09
/201
3)
B1a
Res
pon
ses
by
Tim
e at
Sce
ne
for
Res
cue
Veh
icle
s an
d S
pec
ial
Ser
vice
In
cid
ents
4-Ye
ar S
ampl
e (9
th S
epte
mbe
r 20
11 t
o 7t
h Sep
tem
ber
2015
)
2011
/12
2012
/13
2013
/14
2014
/15
<30
min
s18
618
855
561
87
.05
5.5
-13
1.5
30-6
0 m
ins
147
121
3329
13
4.2
31
.0-1
03
.260
+ m
ins
102
7339
448
7.7
41
.5-4
6.2
Tota
l4
35
38
21
27
12
94
08
.91
28
.0-2
80
.9
<30
min
s17
417
952
431
76
.54
7.6
-12
8.9
30-6
0 m
ins
141
120
3125
13
0.6
28
.0-1
02
.660
+ m
ins
9870
3839
84
.23
8.5
-45
.7To
tal
41
33
69
12
11
07
39
1.3
11
4.1
-27
7.2
<30
min
s78
574
069
465
17
62
.86
72
.8-9
0.0
30-6
0 m
ins
409
399
320
330
40
4.1
32
4.9
-79
.160
+ m
ins
324
205
220
192
26
5.3
20
6.2
-59
.1To
tal
15
18
13
44
12
34
11
73
14
32
.21
20
3.9
-22
8.3
2011
/12
2012
/13
2013
/14
2014
/15
<30
min
s42
.8%
49.2
%43
.3%
43.4
%4
5.7
%4
3.4
%-2
.4%
30-6
0 m
ins
33.8
%31
.7%
26.0
%22
.5%
32
.8%
24
.2%
-8.6
%60
+ m
ins
23.4
%19
.1%
30.7
%34
.1%
21
.4%
32
.4%
10
.9%
Tota
l1
00
.0%
10
0.0
%1
00
.0%
10
0.0
%1
00
.0%
10
0.0
%0
.0%
<30
min
s42
.1%
48.5
%43
.0%
40.2
%4
5.3
%4
1.6
%-3
.7%
30-6
0 m
ins
34.1
%32
.5%
25.6
%23
.4%
33
.3%
24
.5%
-8.8
%60
+ m
ins
23.7
%19
.0%
31.4
%36
.4%
21
.4%
33
.9%
12
.5%
Tota
l1
00
.0%
10
0.0
%1
00
.0%
10
0.0
%1
00
.0%
10
0.0
%0
.0%
<30
min
s51
.7%
55.1
%56
.2%
55.5
%5
3.4
%5
5.9
%2
.5%
30-6
0 m
ins
26.9
%29
.7%
25.9
%28
.1%
28
.3%
27
.0%
-1.3
%60
+ m
ins
21.3
%15
.3%
17.8
%16
.4%
18
.3%
17
.1%
-1.2
%To
tal
10
0.0
%1
00
.0%
10
0.0
%1
00
.0%
10
0.0
%1
00
.0%
0.0
%
Nu
mbe
r of
Res
pon
ses
(Yea
r Sta
rt:
9th
Sep
tem
ber)
Pre
-PD
A
Ch
ang
e A
vera
ge
Pos
t-P
DA
C
han
ge
Ave
rage
Impa
ct o
n
Ave
rage
Inci
den
t Ty
pe
Res
cue
Veh
icle
Res
cue
Veh
icle
App
lian
ce T
ype
Tim
e S
pen
t at
Sce
ne
All
Inci
dent
s
Spe
cial
Ser
vice
Pum
ps
App
lian
ce T
ype
Tim
e S
pen
t at
Sce
ne
Pro
port
ion
of
Res
pon
ses
(Yea
r Sta
rt:
9th
Sep
tem
ber)
Pre
-PD
A
Ch
ang
e A
vera
geIn
cide
nt
Type
All
Inci
dent
s
Spe
cial
Ser
vice
Spe
cial
Ser
vice
Impa
ct o
n
Ave
rage
Res
cue
Veh
icle
Res
cue
Veh
icle
Pum
ps
Pos
t-P
DA
C
han
ge
Ave
rage
Spe
cial
Ser
vice
B1b
00:0
0:00
00:1
0:00
00:2
0:00
00:3
0:00
00:4
0:00
00:5
0:00
01:0
0:00
01:1
0:00
01:2
0:00
01:3
0:00
01:4
0:00
01:5
0:00
02:0
0:00
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
Average Time at SceneA
vera
ge
Tim
e at
Sce
ne
for
Sp
ecia
l S
ervi
ce I
nci
den
ts b
y M
onth
an
d A
pp
lian
ce T
ype
4-Ye
ar S
ampl
e (9
th S
epte
mbe
r 20
11 t
o 7t
h Sep
tem
ber
2015
)
Res
cue
Veh
icle
Pum
ping
App
lianc
e
PDA P
olic
y C
hang
e (0
9/09
/201
3)
B1c
Ave
rag
e Ti
me
at S
cen
e fo
r R
escu
e V
ehic
les
by
Cal
lsig
n a
nd
Yea
r4-
Year
Sam
ple
(9th
Sep
tem
ber
2011
to
7th
Sep
tem
ber
2015
)
Ave
rag
e Ti
me
at S
cen
e -
All
Inci
den
ts
2011
/12
2012
/13
2013
/14
2014
/15
00:4
1:36
00:3
8:42
00:3
9:40
00:5
0:58
00
:40
:20
00
:46
:30
00
:06
:10
00:4
4:51
00:3
2:39
01:0
4:19
00:4
9:00
00
:39
:05
00
:56
:44
00
:17
:39
00:4
3:39
00:4
5:00
00:5
7:41
01:0
8:19
00
:44
:19
01
:01
:59
00
:17
:40
00:4
3:21
00:3
8:59
00:5
5:15
00:5
4:35
00
:41
:18
00
:54
:55
00
:13
:37
Ave
rag
e Ti
me
at S
cen
e -
Sp
ecia
l Ser
vice
In
cid
ents
2011
/12
2012
/13
2013
/14
2014
/15
00:4
1:55
00:3
9:22
00:4
0:09
00:5
7:05
00
:40
:50
00
:50
:10
00
:09
:20
00:4
5:36
00:3
2:07
01:0
5:24
00:5
3:56
00
:39
:13
01
:00
:13
00
:21
:00
00:4
4:46
00:4
4:34
00:5
7:41
01:0
2:47
00
:44
:40
00
:59
:35
00
:14
:55
00:4
4:04
00:3
8:52
00:5
6:21
00:5
7:29
00
:41
:37
00
:56
:53
00
:15
:16
Cam
brid
ge
Res
cue
Veh
icle
Ave
rag
e T
ime
at S
cen
e b
y Y
ear
(Sep
tem
ber
9th
Sta
rt)
Pre
-PD
A
Ch
ang
e A
nn
ual
A
vera
ge
Po
st-P
DA
C
han
ge
An
nu
al
Ave
rag
e
Imp
act
on
A
vera
ge
Pre
-PD
A
Ch
ang
e A
nn
ual
A
vera
ge
Po
st-P
DA
C
han
ge
An
nu
al
Ave
rag
e
Imp
act
on
A
vera
ge
All
Res
cue
Veh
icle
s
Dog
stho
rpe
Hun
tingd
on
All
Res
cue
Veh
icle
s
Res
cue
Veh
icle
Ave
rag
e T
ime
at S
cen
e b
y Y
ear
(Sep
tem
ber
9th
Sta
rt)
Cam
brid
ge
Dog
stho
rpe
Hun
tingd
on
B1d
01
23
45
67
89
1011
1213
1415
1617
1819
2021
2223
<30
10
00
0.5
0.5
42.
56.
52.
56
2.5
1.5
4.5
33
6.5
4.5
32.
52
0.5
00
57
30-6
00.
50
0.5
0.5
1.5
0.5
2.5
33
3.5
12.
51
42.
53
21.
52.
51
20.
50
1.5
40.5
>60
00.
50.
50.
50
00.
52
22
12
2.5
1.5
0.5
1.5
1.5
01.
52
02.
50.
52.
527
.5
Tim
e sp
ent
at s
cen
e (m
ins)
An
nu
al A
vera
ge
Res
po
nse
s b
y H
ou
r o
f th
e D
ayO
vera
ll A
nn
ual
A
vera
ge
02468101214
01
23
45
67
89
1011
1213
1415
1617
1819
2021
2223
Average Annual Responses
Hou
r of
the
Day
Cam
bri
dg
e R
V -
Dis
trib
uti
on o
f R
esp
onse
s to
Sp
ecia
l Ser
vice
In
cid
ents
by
Tim
e at
Sce
ne
and
Hou
r Pr
e-PD
A c
hang
e (0
9/09
/201
1 to
09/
09/2
013)
<30
min
at
scen
e30
-60
min
s at
sce
ne60
+ m
ins
at s
cene
B2a-i
01
23
45
67
89
1011
1213
1415
1617
1819
2021
2223
<30
00.
50
0.5
0.5
00
0.5
2.5
1.5
0.5
1.5
00.
50.
51
00.
51
0.5
11
00.
514
.5
30-6
00
00
00
10.
50.
51.
50
11
1.5
21
00
10
10.
50
00.
513
>60
00
00
00.
50
10.
50.
51
01.
50.
51
1.5
0.5
10
00
00
09.
5
Tim
e sp
ent
at s
cen
e (m
ins)
An
nu
al A
vera
ge
Res
po
nse
s b
y H
ou
r o
f th
e D
ayO
vera
ll A
nn
ual
A
vera
ge
02468101214
01
23
45
67
89
1011
1213
1415
1617
1819
2021
2223
Average Annual Responses
Hou
r of
the
Day
Cam
bri
dg
e R
V -
Dis
trib
uti
on o
f R
esp
onse
s to
Sp
ecia
l Ser
vice
In
cid
ents
by
Tim
e at
Sce
ne
and
Hou
r Po
st-P
DA c
hang
e (0
9/09
/201
3 to
07/
09/2
015)
<30
min
at
scen
e30
-60
min
s at
sce
ne60
+ m
ins
at s
cene
B2a-ii
01
23
45
67
89
1011
1213
1415
1617
1819
2021
2223
<30
0.5
0.5
2.5
1.5
11.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54
34.
53.
54
4.5
46
1.5
3.5
1.5
12.
51
60
30-6
02
20.
50.
50
0.5
1.5
12.
51.
54
2.5
32.
53.
54
23
4.5
4.5
0.5
1.5
10
48.5
>60
0.5
00.
50
0.5
0.5
10.
52.
52
10.
51
20
0.5
32
0.5
0.5
20.
51
022
.5
Tim
e sp
ent
at s
cen
e (m
ins)
An
nu
al A
vera
ge
Res
po
nse
s b
y H
ou
r o
f th
e D
ayO
vera
ll A
nn
ual
A
vera
ge
02468101214
01
23
45
67
89
1011
1213
1415
1617
1819
2021
2223
Average Annual Responses
Hou
r of
the
Day
Dog
sth
orp
e R
V -
Dis
trib
uti
on o
f R
esp
onse
s to
Sp
ecia
l Ser
vice
In
cid
ents
by
Tim
e at
Sce
ne
and
Hou
r Pr
e-PD
A c
hang
e (0
9/09
/201
1 to
09/
09/2
013)
<30
min
at
scen
e30
-60
min
s at
sce
ne60
+ m
ins
at s
cene
B2b-i
01
23
45
67
89
1011
1213
1415
1617
1819
2021
2223
<30
1.5
0.5
00
00.
50.
50.
51
10
23
0.5
21.
50
11.
51.
50.
50
00
19
30-6
00
00
00
00.
50.
50.
51
21
20
00.
50
00
00.
50
00.
59
>60
00
00.
50
00.
51.
50.
50
0.5
20
11
21
0.5
01.
50.
51
0.5
0.5
15
Tim
e sp
ent
at s
cen
e (m
ins)
An
nu
al A
vera
ge
Res
po
nse
s b
y H
ou
r o
f th
e D
ayO
vera
ll A
nn
ual
A
vera
ge
02468101214
01
23
45
67
89
1011
1213
1415
1617
1819
2021
2223
Average Annual Responses
Hou
r of
the
Day
Dog
sth
orp
e R
V -
Dis
trib
uti
on o
f R
esp
onse
s to
Sp
ecia
l Ser
vice
In
cid
ents
by
Tim
e at
Sce
ne
and
Hou
r Po
st-P
DA c
hang
e (0
9/09
/201
3 to
07/
09/2
015)
<30
min
at
scen
e30
-60
min
s at
sce
ne60
+ m
ins
at s
cene
B2b-ii
01
23
45
67
89
1011
1213
1415
1617
1819
2021
2223
<30
0.5
0.5
0.5
01
0.5
2.5
23
3.5
33
33.
52
76
3.5
3.5
2.5
21.
53.
51.
559
.5
30-6
00.
50
00.
50.
51
1.5
42
62
32
0.5
2.5
2.5
1.5
3.5
1.5
31.
51
0.5
0.5
41.5
>60
0.5
00.
50.
50
02
1.5
2.5
31.
51.
51.
51
2.5
22.
53.
51.
52
2.5
0.5
01
34
Tim
e sp
ent
at s
cen
e (m
ins)
An
nu
al A
vera
ge
Res
po
nse
s b
y H
ou
r o
f th
e D
ayO
vera
ll A
nn
ual
A
vera
ge
02468101214
01
23
45
67
89
1011
1213
1415
1617
1819
2021
2223
Average Annual Responses
Hou
r of
the
Day
Hu
nti
ng
don
RV
-D
istr
ibu
tion
of
Res
pon
ses
to S
pec
ial S
ervi
ce I
nci
den
ts b
y Ti
me
at S
cen
e an
d H
our
Pre-
PDA c
hang
e (0
9/09
/201
1 to
09/
09/2
013)
<30
min
at
scen
e30
-60
min
s at
sce
ne60
+ m
ins
at s
cene
B2c-i
01
23
45
67
89
1011
1213
1415
1617
1819
2021
2223
<30
0.5
00
00
0.5
00.
51.
51
12.
51.
50.
51.
50.
50.
51.
51
10
00.
50
16
30-6
00
00
00
0.5
00
0.5
01.
50.
50
01.
50
1.5
00.
50
00.
50.
51
8.5
>60
10
00
00
00.
50.
51.
50.
51
0.5
0.5
0.5
2.5
31.
50.
50
00
00
14
Tim
e sp
ent
at s
cen
e (m
ins)
An
nu
al A
vera
ge
Res
po
nse
s b
y H
ou
r o
f th
e D
ayO
vera
ll A
nn
ual
A
vera
ge
02468101214
01
23
45
67
89
1011
1213
1415
1617
1819
2021
2223
Average Annual Responses
Hou
r of
the
Day
Hu
nti
ng
don
RV
-D
istr
ibu
tion
of
Res
pon
ses
to S
pec
ial S
ervi
ce I
nci
den
ts b
y Ti
me
at S
cen
e an
d H
our
Post
-PD
A c
hang
e (0
9/09
/201
3 to
07/
09/2
015)
<30
min
at
scen
e30
-60
min
s at
sce
ne60
+ m
ins
at s
cene
B2c-ii
Total Utilised Time (Time Assigned to Time Clear) for Rescue Vehicles by Callsign and Year4-Year Sample (9th September 2011 to 7th September 2015)
Average Utilised Time
2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15
00:57:10 00:54:25 00:55:50 01:01:57 00:55:56 00:59:32 00:03:36
00:57:32 00:45:50 01:18:42 00:59:43 00:51:51 01:09:06 00:17:15
00:57:17 01:00:53 01:12:57 01:22:54 00:59:04 01:17:00 00:17:57
00:57:19 00:53:46 01:10:22 01:06:12 00:55:38 01:08:15 00:12:37
Incident Distribution of Utilised Time
2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15
<30 mins 37 40 11 14 38 12 -26
30-60 mins 54 37 8 20 46 14 -32
60+ mins 57 42 17 21 50 19 -31
All Responses 148 119 36 55 134 45 -88
<30 mins 41 44 10 17 42 13 -29
30-60 mins 53 55 15 13 54 14 -40
60+ mins 49 36 23 17 43 20 -23
All Responses 143 135 48 47 139 48 -92
<30 mins 31 33 8 8 32 8 -24
30-60 mins 61 51 15 8 56 12 -45
60+ mins 52 56 25 17 54 21 -33
All Responses 144 140 48 33 142 41 -101
<30 mins 109 117 29 39 113 34 -79
30-60 mins 168 143 38 41 156 39 -116
60+ mins 158 134 65 55 146 60 -86
All Responses 435 394 132 135 415 133 -281
Proportional Distribution of Utilised Time
2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15
<30 mins 25.0% 33.6% 30.6% 25.5% 28.8% 27.5% -1.3%
30-60 mins 36.5% 31.1% 22.2% 36.4% 34.1% 30.7% -3.4%
60+ mins 38.5% 35.3% 47.2% 38.2% 37.1% 41.8% 4.7%
All Responses 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 0.0%
<30 mins 28.7% 32.6% 20.8% 36.2% 30.5% 28.3% -2.2%
30-60 mins 37.1% 40.7% 31.3% 27.7% 38.8% 29.5% -9.3%
60+ mins 34.3% 26.7% 47.9% 36.2% 30.6% 42.2% 11.6%
All Responses 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 0.0%
<30 mins 21.5% 23.6% 16.7% 24.2% 22.5% 19.7% -2.8%
30-60 mins 42.4% 36.4% 31.3% 24.2% 39.5% 28.4% -11.0%
60+ mins 36.1% 40.0% 52.1% 51.5% 38.0% 51.9% 13.9%
All Responses 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 0.0%
<30 mins 25.1% 29.7% 22.0% 28.9% 27.2% 25.4% -1.8%
30-60 mins 38.6% 36.3% 28.8% 30.4% 37.5% 29.6% -8.0%
60+ mins 36.3% 34.0% 49.2% 40.7% 35.2% 45.0% 9.8%
All Responses 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 0.0%
Post-PDA Change Annual Average
Impact on Average
Pre-PDA Change Annual Average
Year (9th September Start)Rescue Vehicle Length of
Utilised Time
Year (9th September Start) Pre-PDA Change Annual Average
Post-PDA Change Annual Average
Impact on Average
All Rescue Vehicles
Cambridge
Cambridge
Dogsthorpe
Huntingdon
All Rescue Vehicles
Dogsthorpe
Huntingdon
All Rescue Vehicles
Rescue Vehicle Length of Utilised Time
Cambridge
Dogsthorpe
Huntingdon
Average Length of Utilised Time by Year(9th September Start)
Pre-PDA Change Annual Average
Post-PDA Change Annual Average
Impact on AverageRescue Vehicle
B3
FIND OUT MORE
You can find out
more about our
range of services at:
www.orhltd.com
If you would like to
talk to one of our
consultants please call:
+44(0)118 959 6623
Or click:
Alternatively write
to us at:
ORH Ltd 19-23 Queen Victoria Street Reading Berkshire RG1 1SY United Kingdom
Optimising Locations
Software Solutions
Emergency Service
Planning
Agenda Item 5 TO: Overview and Scrutiny Committee FROM: Group Commander (Training) on behalf of Chief Fire Officer DATE: 14 January 2016
COMPREHENSIVE SPENDING REVIEW – ACTIVITY UPDATE
1. Purpose 1.1 To provide the Overview and Scrutiny Committee with an update of
activity completed and proposed actions with regard to the Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR) settlement.
2. Recommendation 2.1 The Committee is asked to acknowledge the work undertaken and make
comment as they deem appropriate. 3. Risk Assessment 3.1 Political – Government have now made Fire and Rescue Services
aware of the grant funding settlement for the period of 2016-2020. This will see Cambridgeshire Fire and Rescue Service (CFRS) see a further total reduction of £2.85 Million* over that period. These savings will likely require a number of changes that will impact upon the Service, our staff and communities.
3.2 Economic – The total reduction in grant finding settlement of £2.85
million* (2016 – 2020 period), however the second, third and fourth years figures are only indicative and have the potential to change.
3.3 Legal –The Fire and Rescue Service Act (2004) and the Civil
Contingencies Act (2004) places a number of requirements to provide a Fire and Rescue Service, that Service should be able to respond to, mitigate its effect, to supporting actions and continue to provide a service should an emergency occur.
4. Equality Impact Assessment 4.1 An equality impact assessment has not yet been completed. Once
specific work streams have been identified these will have specific equality impact assessments completed.
5. Background 5.1 As the coalition government formed in 2010, the economic backdrop
necessitated a change in the financial structure of the UK.
5.2 This influenced the CSR for the 2011 – 2015 periods. It saw a reduction in grant funding provided by governments to individual Fire and Rescue Services. As a result, CFRS saw a £4.2 million reduction in its revenue budget over this period.
5.3 CFRS proactively achieved the £4.2 million savings by redesigning a number of aspects of the organisation whilst still delivering a high level of service to the community.
5.4 The proactive approach saw a large number of changes such as: Development and introduction of the 5 watch system Development and introduction of the Tactical Delivery Group Review of and redesign of support services and the introduction of
Business Support Group. Removal of Operational Support Unit and Turntable Ladders with
other more efficient systems in place to deliver the functions Reductions in all non-operational budgets.
5.4.1 Whilst achieving the required savings in a proactive, astute and effective
way, CFRS was subsequently able to reinvest significant funding back in to the operational service, some examples of this are: Introduction of new operational equipment
o New state of the art Breathing Apparatus o Purchase and introduction of Positive Pressure Ventilation o Purchase and introduction of 52mm hose o Introduction of Rescue Pumps at Whole-time stations
Offering improved rescue equipment Improved water and flooding rescue equipment
o Introduction of 9 light rescue pumps at On-Call stations o Improvement of lighting provision across the entire fleet
5.5 Government has now confirmed the grant settlement for the period of
2016 – 2020 as £2.85 million*.
6.0 ACTIVITY UNDERTAKEN 6.1 In anticipation and in a similar approach to 2010, proactive work and staff
engagement has been undertaken to assist in identifying potential areas for savings and efficiencies.
6.2 In June and July 2015 a series of eight open workshops were held
across the Service. 6.2.1 The workshops were well attended from all areas of the Service and
engaged with 121 staff members and gained in excess of 250 suggestions. All of the suggestions were recorded and shared across the Service.
6.3 All suggestions were reviewed and where applicable grouped into
common themes or trends. This resulted in 71 distinct areas/suggestions.
6.4 All 71 areas were then allocated to the appropriate manager to complete
an initial investigation into the level of savings, impact and timescale to implement the suggestion.
6.5 The 71 initial investigations have now been documented and returned
and grouped into 4 areas: o Already underway – Work is already being undertaken in this
area, such as a project etc. (27) o Suggestion recommended to be introduced (7) o Further investigation required before recommendation (13) o Not recommended for progression at this time (24)
6.6 Existing efficiency savings already made and in place to contribute £750k
towards the £2.85 million. 7.0 NEXT STEPS 7.1 Share outcomes of initial investigations with staff (Jan 2016). This will be
done by a second series of workshops to give staff a face to face opportunity to fully understand the rationale behind both the areas of progression and the ones not being progressed. This will also be supported by both emails and items on the staff intranet.
7.2 Meet with Trade Unions to share findings and discuss rationale for both
progression and no further actions (Jan/Feb 2016). 7.3 Commence planning work to introduce areas suggested, before
presenting to Fire Authority for approval (2016). At this stage only initial fact finding has been undertaken, prior to submission to full Fire Authority and full business case will need to be completed to present all savings and any potential risks.
7.4 Commence feasibility studies in areas identified as “further investigation
required before recommendation” (May/June 2016). A number of the suggestions in this category are large and significant pieces of work that attract a number of higher impact scores either to the community or CFRS. To ensure that all factors are fully considered, including all implications and mitigation more time is required to undertake these areas. All completed investigations will be reported back to the Authority
BIBLIOGRAPHY Source Documents
Location
Contact Officer
Fire and Rescue Service Act 2004
Hinchingbrooke Cottage Brampton Road Huntingdon
Callum Faint 07780 663764 [email protected]
Civil Contingencies Act 2004 Hinchingbrooke Cottage Brampton Road Huntingdon
Callum Faint 07780 663764 [email protected]
65
Appendix 1 – Staff suggestions – groupings and recommendations for progression
Already underway
Suggestion to be recommended
Further Investigation needed before recommendation
Not recommended for progressions/not in CFRS control/No savings
Rescue Vehicle Crews into Tactical Delivery Group, or invest in 5 day crewed stations to make them 7 day crewed.
Outcomes of
Review the number of On Call Support Officers
Review in 2016
Review the number of middle managers and Flexi Duty Officers
Operational Rota review required before progression
Merger of two Peterborough Stations in to 1 site
Capital outlay would be cost prohibitive against savings for decades to come for a new site/building - further investigations surrounding response times may also limit this option from one of our existing sites. Limited savings for considerable effort with large risks associated
Project 075 (Review of Rescue capability) and P088 (strategic review of On-Call) will influence
Day Crewed plus model - Explore savings for introduction at WT stations
Outcomes of
investigate the provision of Telicare/care line provision
Business case requested with consideration to implementation
CFS management structure - does it need to be a grey book post?
Operational Rota review required before progression
Review full time crewing model to look for more savings
The only other system that would provide efficiencies is a 3 eights system - This is not being explored at this time.
Project 075 (Review of Rescue capability) and P088 (strategic review of On-Call) will influence
Rescue Vehicle crews re-deployed to uplift crewing at strategic On-call stations
Outcomes of
Green energy - solar panels to offset station costs or to charge hybrid vehicles of setting fuel costs
Business case requested with consideration to implementation for property only
Review the number of middle managers in Fire Control
CFC Rota review required before progression
Reduce CFS delivery to legislative requirements only
CFRS Vision is specifically about making our communities safer -this would be going against the Services values and vision, leaving large risks both in terms of legislative areas and reputation. This may well be offset by utilising a self-funded grant finder role to contribute meaningful funds to the CFS provision.
Project 075 (Review of Rescue capability) will influence.
Rescue Vehicle crews re-deployed to uplift crewing at day crewed stations to day crewed plus
Outcomes of
Review station heating and lighting - we heat On-call stations when no-one is generally on the stations - why?
Business case requested with consideration to implementation
Investigate if the Driver Training provision can be outsourced?
Further investigation required - will take time to fully evaluate
Re-introduce Hydrant testing to Full Time Crews reducing Hydrant testing team
Project 075 (Review of Rescue capability), P082 (Huntingdon Crewing) will influence.
Large training implication to ensure initial and maintenance training is delivered - this is a requirement for operatives working in the roadways. This would offset any savings as we would still need to maintain hyd maintenance staff to fulfil planning and legal requirements as well as testing On-Call areas of the county. No savings in terms of financial benefit and likely to be a negative effect on efficiencies (due to operational and CFS demands on WT).
Number of Senior managers and further exploration of shared Gold
Already Underway
Day crewed stations to maintain self-help for their home station and grounds reducing the costs of contractors
Implement trial at A20 and B05 for 1 year period
Revenue Generation for external training
Further investigation required - seek other FRS data
Expand Primary Authority Scheme
This work will continue - but PAS is cost recovery and not generation, still a legislative need to maintain all other areas of protection work.
66
Review On-Call second away appliances for cost v Benefit
Already Underway
Cost of coffee/refreshment provisions at HQ - Remove them
Business case requested with consideration to implementation - review of provision
Could the training function be shared with other Services
Further investigation
required - Complex issue that needs significant work looking at costs, resilience, travel time/distance and feasibility
Re-introduction of
hose and BA set maintenance with WT watches
No Savings (financial or efficiencies). Hose maintenance costs are low. Cost incurred to the Service of training and maintaining staff as well as time needing to be allocated to this would prove more costly in terms of money and efficiencies
Project 088 (strategic review of On-Call)
BA - The BA provision is held within a managed service (or total care) contract. Roughly speaking the guaranteed Service provided to CFRS equates to the same cost as training and maintaining BA servicing FF's without any of the associated risks or logistical issues
Review number of On-Call stations for cost V's benefit
Already Underway
Removal of all buffet provisions - Service Wide
Business case requested with consideration to implementation - excluding external partner provisions
Review number of Middle Managers/Flexi Duty Officers such as:-
Operational Rota review required before progression
Better local management of lost or broken assets
System in place has driven down costs incurred to approx. £6K per year. Nature of damages and losses make this hard to remove from budget as a year on year saving. Efforts will continue to keep this costs as low as possible.
Project 088 (strategic review of On-Call)
1 Group Commander for Community Fire Safety
1 Group commander for Training and Ops Support Group
1 Station Commander for Day Crewed stations.
Could different crewing models for On-call be more effective both in costs and availability etc.
Already Underway
Review management spans of control - Some managers only have single line reports to them.
Operational Rota review required before progression for Grey Book posts, all green book posts are independently graded for appropriate bandings
Regional approach to specialist vehicles - aerials, RV’s etc., does each county need them or could they be regional assets and locations considered
RV's currently under review, Only 1 water carrier - savings off set by payments to use OTB appliances. Mutual aid arrangements unlikely to be agreed by other Services as they will want their vehicles for their communities
Project 088 (strategic review of On-Call)
67
Can any more stations be merged such as Burwell/Swaffham
Already Underway
Review pool car provision - numbers, type for example the golfs are always used by the "Ups" not so
Report undertaken - further review of data being conducted
Full review of ICT provision - Cost of improving and adding bolt on’s compared to an entire new system or outsourcing
Not cost effective (approx. 20% increase). Full report available on details, some positives and some risks but this will come at a cost to CFRS
Project 088 (strategic review of On-Call)
Consider the potential of different appliance types - e.g. smaller initial response vehicles with smaller crews
Already Underway
Review number of vehicles - Cost benefit analysis of pool vehicle V’s private mileage costs.
Report undertaken - further review of data being conducted - initially showing pool cars are cheaper than private mileage
Look at the number of projects - do we really need them all, do we need them now?
Delaying or cancelling projects will not save money as Service still needs to do them to move forward or keep up. Programme board approves all projects based on business needs and capacity.
Project 088 (strategic review of On-Call)
Consider appliance/station provision with OTB Services in mind i.e. Burwell/Newmarket and Wisbech/West Walton for shared savings
Already Underway
Income generation - trading arm/charity status
Further investigation required - will take time to fully evaluate
Investigate if the entire Training provision can be outsourced?
As demonstrated in London this is possible - large risks associated in many arenas. This is a large piece of work that will require advanced levels of contract negotiation, planning, and implementation that will take at least 2 years to fully explore. All hinges on a willing provider that would need to see a viable business opportunity - this is yet to be established if CFRS is attractive to them to.
Project 088 (strategic review of On-Call)
Integration of BSI standards
Completed
Offsite venues - used, for meetings and recruitment could we use internal venues
Currently our property portfolio does not meet the needs for recruitment campaigns. This may change with new HQ/STN/TC building. Costings of current building used has been reviewed to ensure competitive pricing, however, review with new HQ building
Review the number of staff in the Media and Comms team for cost V's benefit
Unlikely to proceed. Legal requirements, Corporate risk is high, already a efficient team
68
Explore the provision of private health care - Days lost to sickness V’s cost of private care and getting them back sooner
Already Underway
Train Phase 1 Wt recruits internally
Under contract for this provision - further investigation during that period to ascertain viability, true costs in terms of time and money and organisational capacity
Can other staff manage the social media functions - such as full time stations
Whilst in theory this is possible, it is primary communication channel for external comms and needs managing and coordinating centrally. Managing our social media channels is a lot more involved than it may appear. This function also significantly contributes to our legal requirement under the Civil Contingencies Act (warn and inform the community). Given the lean make up of the Comms and Media team along with other functions performed little savings can be achieved when viewed against the potential risks associated.
Presentation at HQ
New technologies to reduce wasted travel time and costs - such as video conferencing, phone calls over the internet etc.
Already Underway
Is there really the need to re-brand and costs incurred?
Cost £1800 - already completed not likely to revisited for 5-8 years
Share property portfolios with other emergency Services - to reduce overall number of properties across the board
Already Underway
consider/explore providing hybrid vehicles
re-sale value of hybrid vehicles is unknown - not progressing until this becomes evident. Until this is known it may end up costing the authority money (additional costs for purchase of Hybrid against less returns when selling vehicle on)
Number of examples with Wisbech being developed
Development of our sites to include a revenue generation aspect - build and rent flats etc.
Undertaken where possible
Flexi Duty Officers and SMT provision - Vehicle type, come to work in own vehicle and pick up a pool vehicle.
Would result in large loss of productivity and efficiency offsetting a financial saving. Terms and conditions of staff would need to be re-negotiated. Full report available
Streamline waste contacts
Already Underway, being reviewed by H&S
Joint purchasing power of vehicles (red + Silver fleet) with another Service
Silver fleet - on review, current purchasing is already competitive providing best value for CFRS
Red fleet - on review, current purchasing is already competitive providing best value for CFRS
Pass the costs on - can we share all the trail blazing work we do in projects with another Service and share the costs?
This is done where possible - and will continue to be done. STEP, CFC, VDI etc.
Review current stationary/furniture providers for value for money - cheaper, quicker and better providers locally
Current provider still provides value for money in most aspects - mainly due to warranties and delivery (this has been compared to other similar providers). Other procurement routes are locally available if needed for areas that are cheaper than current provider (full report and comparison available)
69
Review Crewing models in Combined Fire Control - 5 watch has proven successful elsewhere
Already Underway
Increase Council
Tax precept (above the permitted %)
This would need to be a Fire Authority decision and would likely attract a referendum. Not progressed unless directed by the Fire Authority as this is a political decision to move forward.
Project 090 (Crewing system in Combined Fire Control)
Mobilisation policy to AFA's - do we need to go to any?
Already Underway
Review provision and expenses on all corporate credit cards including refreshment
Expenses are reviewed on credit cards and any spending on food and drink is connected to a specific event/trip/conference/project. Spending on general staff refreshments are not permitted.
Policy review
Better succession planning for specialist skills - such as Training Instructors, Fire Protection officers etc.
Already Underway
Review crewing to 4 on a pump across the Service
Whilst possible - this is not being explored due to geography, crewing, safe systems of work and locally negotiated agreements.
Operational Balancing Board established to consider this - As well as staff development and business needs
Workshops provision - Outsourcing, or shared services (FRS or other).
Already Underway
Partial of full merger with another Service
Would be explored if a willing partner became apparent - none at this time
Looking at shared Services with Council (2020)
Extend life of silver and red fleet vehicles
Post March 2017 all lease vehicles are returned - proposal for red fleet life to be extended by two years. Silver fleet (pool) being extended to 4 years (mileage dependant).
Station redevelopment program - why all the money spent on Yaxley when Stanground is about 2 miles away?
This was agreed and budgeted for pre-CSR. Work already underway and funds committed. Any new works/re-developments etc. will go through programme board who consider financial and other constraints at that time
Streamline all non-STEP processes now making some savings immediately until STEP get around to them all
Already Underway
STEP full review of money invested and current level of return - Is it saving anything?
Set up costs provided by innovation Grant, partner working producing savings estimated at approx. £30K per year
Individual HoG's continually review processes as business as usual
70
Review charging for incidents - Special Services etc. How much revenue is created can we charge for more?
Already Underway
Review to presented to Fire Authority 2016
Review expenses paid to staff and policies - do they need to be at this level?
Already Underway
Review to presented to Fire Authority 2016
Number of Principal Officer’s and pay
Already Underway
Agenda Item 6 TO: Overview and Scrutiny Committee FROM: Equality and Diversity Adviser DATE: 14th January 2016 Equality and Inclusion Compliance Report 2014 – 2015 1. PURPOSE 1.1 To inform Fire Authority, staff, public and partners on equality progress in the
year 2014-15 and identify areas for attention in future years. 1.2 To meet the requirements of Equality Act 2010 (Specific Duties) Regulations
2011 - “to publish information to demonstrate compliance with the public sector equality duty and update this at least annually” and make this available to stakeholders above and regulators.
2. RECOMMENDATIONS 2.1 Overview and Scrutiny Committee are asked to agree the attached report
(Appendix A) and take to Fire Authority. 3. RISK ASSESSMENT 3.1 Legal
The Equality Act 2010 requires the Fire Authority to publish information demonstrating our compliance with the public sector equality duty. The duty requires us to have due regard to the need to:
eliminate discrimination, including harassment and victimisation. advance equality of opportunity between people who share a
protected characteristic and those who don’t.
foster good relations between people who share a relevant protected characteristic and those who don’t.
We achieve the publishing requirement by communicating this annual report to relevant partners and agencies and placing it on the Service website
3.2 Political By reporting equality trends and outcomes relevant to workforce and service delivery, the Authority is able to carry out its scrutiny role, ensuring positive outcomes for the most disadvantaged and vulnerable communities.
3.3 Social
By communicating our progress towards improved equality outcomes for communities, we aim to improve our engagement with disadvantaged and vulnerable groups. This in turn allows us to learn more about what they need from our services and how we can bring about positive outcomes for them.
Source Document
Location
Contact Officer
Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Fire Authority Equality Strategy and action plan 2015-18
Service HQ Hinchingbrooke Cottage Brampton Road Huntingdon
Alison Scott Equality and Diversity Adviser 01480 444537 [email protected]
Equality Act 2010 Service HQ Hinchingbrooke Cottage Brampton Road Huntingdon
Alison Scott Equality and Diversity Adviser 01480 444537 [email protected]
Service Equality Impact Assessments
Service HQ Hinchingbrooke Cottage Brampton Road Huntingdon
Alison Scott Equality and Diversity Adviser 01480 444537 [email protected]
2014/2015 1
Appendix A
Equality Compliance Report
Equality Act 2010 (Specific Duties) Regulations 2011 April 2014 – March 2015
2014/2015 2
Introduction Our progress 2010-15 Part A – Community Service 1. Responding to our communities – our vision 2. Inclusive services 3. Community engagement, satisfaction and complaints Part B – Staff Profile 1. Workforce diversity and distribution - age, gender, disability, ethnicity, religion or belief, sexual orientation. 2. Analysis of leavers. 3. Analysis of disciplinary cases and grievances. 4. Return to work after maternity leave 5. Equal pay gap 6. Recruitment analysis – attraction and success rate of job applicants 7. Analysis of training. Appendices: Appendix 1 - Demography of Cambridgeshire & Peterborough
(census 2011)
Appendix 2 - Equality Assessment Summary
2014/2015 3
Introduction The purpose of this report is to provide members of the public, service users, staff, Fire Authority, regulators and other interested parties with information relating to how Cambridgeshire Fire & Rescue Service complied with the public sector equality duty for the year 2014-15 as required by the Equality Act 2010. The general duty requires Peterborough and Cambridgeshire Fire Authority to:
Eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment, victimisation and other conduct prohibited by the Equality Act 2010
Advance equality opportunity between people who share a protected
characteristic and those who do not.
Foster good relations between people who share a protected characteristic and those who do not.
There are nine protected characteristics defined by the Equality Act 2010: age, disability, ethnicity (including race, national origin, nationality and colour), gender, gender reassignment, maternity and pregnancy, marriage or civil partnership, sexual orientation, religion or belief. Under the specific duties of the public sector equality duty, we are also required to prepare and publish at least one equality objective which aims to meet the above general duty and to publish information that shows the diversity of our workforce. When our equality action plan for 2011-14 was completed, we set a further three equality objectives for the year 2014-15. These objectives are published on our website and are:
Cambridgeshire Fire & Rescue Service will become a “Dementia Friendly” organisation by March 2015 using the national Dementia Friends initiative to provide free awareness training for staff and encourage Watch/Team challenges to be “dementia friends” and engage with existing Dementia Action Alliances.
Work in partnership with police, local authority environmental health and
housing and other relevant agencies to identify and reduce fire risks to vulnerable groups housed in sub-standard accommodation. These groups may include vulnerable migrant workers living in accommodation where there is evidence of overcrowding, sub-standard living conditions, poor maintenance and fire safety.
Understand and review differences in development and progression between
men and women in supervisory/management operational roles. Development Steering Group will ensure current development routes are inclusive for all and allow women operational staff to develop their full potential.
This report will provide evidence of progress against these objectives as well as giving examples of how inclusion and equality are considered and delivered in our day to day work.
2014/2015 4
To ensure we consider the impact of our activities on different groups and identify specific needs of different communities, we assess all proposed new activities and decisions for equality impact. This helps us remove any inadvertent discrimination and take opportunities to advance equal opportunity. A summary of the equality assessments carried out in 2014-15 is at Appendix 1. Our progress 2010-15 In 2014 we invited a peer assessment against the Fire and Rescue Service equality framework. Having been awarded “achieving” standard in July 2009, we invited assessment against the next “excellent” level and in November enjoyed a three day visit by a team of five external assessors from Fire and Rescue, local government and equality and inclusion specialisations. The peer team concluded “Cambridgeshire Fire and Rescue Service has made significant progress since it was last peer reviewed against the Equality Framework in 2009 and with some further work in a number of key areas, the Service should be able to achieve the Excellent award.” An action plan was provided to help us achieve this and a desk top review of our progress is planned for November 2015. The full report of the Peer Team can be found on our website. Part A – Community Service 1. Responding to our communities – our vision Cambridgeshire Fire & Rescue Service has a vision of “a safe community where there are no preventable deaths or injuries in fires or other emergencies.” Fire incident and risk information is analysed regularly to identify those who are at highest risk of being injured or killed in a fire so the Service can plan and make interventions to prevent this. The information monitored is most likely to be about the nature of the premises, cause and origin of fire etc. However human behaviour and safety awareness also plays a part in fire risk and so information about the gender, age, ethnicity, mobility and other relevant circumstances is also collected to help us identify those most at risk and therefore take action to keep them safe. Population census data is also used to help us understand our different communities and to compare how effective we are at delivering prevention services with the population demographic as a whole. This helps us identify any barriers that may exist in providing prevention services to all who need it. Detail of the population of Cambridgeshire and Peterborough by demographic group is given at Appendix 1. Age, gender, ethnicity The number of accidental primary fires has decreased over the past five years by 17%. However, the number of accidental primary fires resulting in an injury has remained fairly static and in 2014 – 15 was slightly higher (37) than the previous year (30). This equates to 50 people injured in a fire, the highest numbers occurring in Fenland (17) and Peterborough (13). An analysis of those injured in fires shows 71% of all accidental primary fires which resulted in an injury occurred in a home. Further analysis, and comparison with population data shows that those over age 75 and in the age group 25-39 are
2014/2015 5
disproportionately likely to be injured in an accidental fire when compared to census data. There is variation between the genders with women in these groups more likely to sustain injury. Chart 1. Age Range and Gender of those Injured in Accidental Primary Fires Chart 2 Age and gender demography in Cambridgeshire and Peterborough (census 2011) An analysis of ethnicity of those injured shows that people who sustain an injury and identify as White – Other White (11.4%) are slightly over represented compared to their population (9%). Injuries occurring to those who identify as belonging to an “other” ethnic group (2%) are also slightly higher than in the population generally (1%).
2014/2015 6
Age, disability, mental ill-health While many factors contribute to being injured or killed in a fire, analysis of the above data; data relating to fatalities over a number of years, and national data, all indicate that vulnerable people over 65 are at highest risk of being injured or killed in a fire in their homes. Fire deaths and injuries have a strong link with social deprivation, health and well being. National research also indicates someone who suffers from poor mental health is far more likely to be a victim of fire. These are areas that we focused on in 2014-15 and paragraph 2 below gives examples of what we did. 2. Inclusive Services Equality monitoring and analysis As most accidental fires occur in the home, free home fire safety checks are offered to those at most risk and involve a full assessment of the resident’s home and fitting of a smoke alarm where necessary. To ensure that our targeting is reaching the right people and that no particular group is less likely to take up the offer, we monitor the age, gender, disability, ethnicity, religion or belief of residents. The Service delivered 3781 home fire safety checks in 2014-15 and 69% of those residents provided equality data. The tables below show the distribution of these by age, gender, ethnicity, disability and religion and compares the data with the percentage of population group in Cambridgeshire and Peterborough.
Gender % Home fire safety checks done
% in Cambs and Peterborough (2011 census)
Age
% Home fire safety checks done
% in Cambs and Peterborough (2011 census)
Males 36% 49.5% Under
17 0.2% 20%
Females 64% 50.5% 18 -
24 3% 10%
25 –
39 14% 21%
40 -
59 17% 27%
60 -
74 32% 14%
75
and Over
35% 7%
There is a higher engagement rate with women than with men. As the home fire safety check service is targeted at older people, the high proportion of home fire safety checks done to that sector of the population is appropriate.
2014/2015 7
Ethnic Group
% Home fire safety checks done
% in Cambs and Peterborough (2011 census)
Religion
% Home fire safety checks done
% in Cambs and Peterborough (2011 census)
White British, English, Scottish Welsh, N Irish
89% 81% Buddhist
0.4% 0.5%
Other White- Irish, Gypsy Traveller, Other
6% 9% Christian
67% 58%
Mixed/Multiple Ethnic group
0.4% 2% Hindu 0.6% 1%
Asian/Asian British
4.1% 6% Jewish 0% 0.2%
Black or Black British
0.7% 1% Muslim 4% 3%
Other Ethnic group – other
0.4% 1% Sikh 0.2% 0.3%
Any other
religion or belief
2% 0.4%
No religion
or belief 26%% 29%
Religion not
stated 8%
The proportion of home fire safety checks delivered to minority ethnic communities is slightly lower than the population totals. Most of the ethnic minority communities have a lower age demographic than White British population which may account for it, but monitoring will continue to ensure engagement with these groups does not fall further. The proportion of home fire safety checks delivered to people who identify as Christian is high when compared to census data but is more consistent for other religions. As the population demography varies from city to rural area this would benefit from closer analysis at district/unitary authority level.
Disability1 % Home fire safety checks done
% in Cambs and Peterborough (2011 census) where day to day activities are limited a little
% in Cambs and Peterborough (2011 census) where day to day activities are limited a lot
No disability 60% Learning disability 1% Mental disability 5% Mobility disability 27% Physical disability 16% Sensory disability 0% Total disability
49% 9% 7%
The proportion of home fire safety checks carried out for those with disabilities is high (49%) compared to the number in the population generally (16%) and reflects the Service’s focus on delivering these to those at most risk. The nil return for those delivered to people with sensory disabilities (speech, hearing, visual impairments
1 More than one disability may have been declared by a respondent so this will not total to 100%
2014/2015 8
etc.) is surprising. Further investigation has shown that home fire safety checks have been carried out for those with sensory disabilities and that where Watches experience this they do refer these to Community Safety Officers who have specialist knowledge and skills to do a revisit. It is unclear whether the issue is about disclosure or recording of this data and that will be pursued as part of our data improvement work. Although it is a protected characteristic, information about sexual orientation is not requested as it is sensitive personal data. However national and local research into the needs and views of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender population indicates that older people in this community often feel isolated; lack trust and confidence in many public services based on past experience and believe there is a lack of awareness among public service staff – particularly around transgender issues2. In 2014 we introduced an e-learning training package covering transgender awareness and take opportunities (e.g. Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual And Transgender History Month) to engage with this community. Older age groups, disability, mental ill-health. We continued to work in partnership with housing, social and health care agencies and increasingly the voluntary sector, to provide home fire safety check services and promote fire safety to most at risk communities. In 2014-15 we received 1,599 referrals for home fire safety checks from agencies including Age UK, Bobby Scheme, Adult Social Care Services in both Peterborough City Council and Cambridgeshire County Council; British Oxygen Company; Occupational Therapy Service and Care and Repair. One hundred and seventy two referrals were made by our staff to other agencies. We identified that hoarding behaviours were a significant fire risk and developed procedures and training for staff to be more aware of this behaviour and able to respond to it confidently. Given the age profile of those most at risk and the national focus on encouraging dementia friendly communities, Cambridgeshire Fire & Rescue Service undertook to become a “dementia friendly” organisation in the year 2014-5. Case Study 1 - Dementia Friends. With support from volunteers at Peterborough City Council and Salvation Army, dementia friendly sessions were first delivered to crews at Dogsthorpe and Stanground Fire Stations. The national Dementia Friends campaign was launched by the Alzheimer’s Society to help people understand what it is like to live with dementia and turn that understanding into action. The aim nationally was to recruit one million Dementia Friends nationwide by 2015. Following this pilot, the Service became members of the Peterborough Dementia Action Alliance and undertook to deliver dementia friends sessions to its entire staff. Four staff became Dementia Friends Champions and delivered awareness sessions to operational, support and Control staff, managers and members of the Fire Authority. This has resulted in the Service having around 270 dementia friends by March 2015 and the number is still growing.
2 Cambridge City and South Cambridgeshire LESBIAN, GAY, BISEXUAL AND TRANSGENDER Q Needs Assessment 2014 – Encompass Network
2014/2015 9
The sessions emphasise that people can live a happy and healthy life with dementia. Staff learned the facts about dementia, dispelled myths, learned what they can do to help those with dementia and importantly, made the Dementia Friends pledge to think of ways they can go on and make a difference. Following on from this, staff of Blue Watch at Dogsthorpe Fire Station organised a drop in day at Peterborough Dementia Resource Centre with Police and Age UK. Other staff have been involved in both volunteering and giving fire safety information to people affected by dementia and their carers at dementia cafes in St Ives and Ely. Youth engagement and deliberate fire reduction Youth engagement activities to educate children and young people about fire safety; reduce risk taking behaviours and improve life chances remains a high priority and an example is below.
Case Study 2 – Right Choices
Huntingdon Youth Centre worked with a group of hard to reach young people to produce a documentary focusing on the theme of choices after it received a grant of £7,230 from Cambridgeshire Fire & Rescue Service's Community Fund.
Participants, aged between 11 and 15 and from Huntingdon's Oxmoor Estate, spent three days with Huntingdon Black Watch as cadet firefighters experiencing life as a firefighter, learning about deliberate fire setting, road safety and the importance of how their behaviour impacts on the community. As part of the project, they also visited Cambridgeshire Constabulary, residents in the community, the prison service and community support officers to gather information and interview people for the film about deliberate fire setting and anti-social behaviour. The finished film was premiered on October 8 2014 at the youth centre, in front of an audience of family and dignitaries. The young people were also presented with certificates at the event.
“The change in these young people since coming on to this programme has been very noticeable. They've got increased awareness of the consequences of arson and how devastating it can be for the community.
"Some have been really quite shocked by what they've seen and heard and have changed their behaviour as a result. Safety in the home has been brought to the forefront of their minds as well, with many of them living in overcrowded homes - some without a smoke alarm - but now they understand the effect fire can have on them and their families." Development Officer, Huntingdon Locality Team.
Mental health Reducing the risk of arson remains a major objective for us. While the number of deliberate fires has reduced over the past 5 years by 34%, we saw a slight rise in 2014-15 (531) compared to previous year (517) although this is still well below our target (640). Education in schools and colleges about the danger of deliberate fires as part of our youth engagement work continues to address part of this issue as well as youth interventions as described in case Study 2. A recent development identified a link between repeat arson offenders and mental health issues. Recognising that there was no rehabilitation programme in place anywhere in the country for serial arsonists, Community Safety staff have worked with a forensic psychologist and Peterborough Prison to develop and deliver a programme to people convicted of arson and still serving prison sentences.
2014/2015 10
Case Study 3 – Project Icarus. Project Icarus is the first of its kind in the UK and has involved Cambridgeshire Fire & Rescue Service working in partnership with Peterborough Prison and a forensic psychologist to assist convicted arsonists prior to their release from prison. A 20- session treatment programme was developed by the forensic psychologist and two Community Fire Safety Officers volunteered to be trained as treatment facilitators. With no prior training in psychology the Community Fire Safety Officers had to invest considerable personal time in developing the skills required for dealing with extremely complex cases. The work enables the individual and their treatment facilitator to understand the function of their fire setting, identify risk factors and undertake initial treatment to reduce risk. The programme includes work to understand the consequences of fire setting, problem solving, self-esteem and self-awareness, social skills training and relapse prevention. The Community Safety Officers have worked with 6 prisoners and this investment and commitment has had a positive impact on their lives. In one example, an offender who had numerous convictions has been released without re-offending and feels her life is now back on track. Migrant Communities Operation Pheasant is a multi-agency project which began in 2013 to tackle migrant exploitation and poor conditions in private rented housing and focused on Wisbech. Work continued in 2014 and won national awards - the Trading Standards and Environmental Health and Delivering Better Outcomes categories of the annual Municipal Journal Achievement Awards. Our involvement with this project led to the Service setting a particular equality objective about overcrowding in 2014-15. Progress has been slow as we rely on good quality data from partners to obtain address data. It is also acknowledged that people living in overcrowded, dangerous conditions - and their landlords - are unlikely to welcome intervention. However by September 2014 we had made the following progress:
Set a process up in our internal database to allow crews to flag overcrowded addresses if found whilst carrying out other work.
Built good links with O2 and the Department of Work & Pensions to hopefully
share data with them.
Trained all Watches in identifying and dealing with overcrowded properties
and houses of multiple occupancy.
Learning from our experience of delivering workshops on fire regulations to specific business communities in 2013/14, we have increased the number of business seminars we hold and placed more emphasis on engagement and education rather than enforcement. In 14/15 we held 33 business seminars for a wide range of companies. Equality monitoring to ensure we are engaging with business owners across all ethnic, religious and gender groups etc. has been low and this will be a focus for next year.
2014/2015 11
3. Community engagement, satisfaction and complaints Fire crews and staff build up a good knowledge of their communities through every - day engagement with them. While many tools exist to help crews understand different needs, values and cultures and so help them engage with all communities, we recognise that we do not know everything about all our communities and strive to fill the gaps in this understanding. The following case studies are just a few examples of how we did that in 2014/15. Case Study 4 – Understanding Polish community’s perceptions of Cambridgeshire Fire & Rescue Service A member of staff who speaks a number of languages was aware that Eastern European migrant communities did not appear to know much about opportunities for work within Cambridgeshire Fire & Rescue Service and may not know much about fire safety. After winning approval for his business case, he undertook a piece of research to find out more. Working in partnership with local businesses in Huntingdon, he contacted a number of people from Eastern European communities and provided opportunities (via questionnaires and one to one interviews) to feedback their views on the Fire & Rescue Service. This also gave an opportunity to raise their awareness of work opportunities – particularly with on-call duty system. The research found that general awareness of the fire service within these communities is very low and majority had never heard of the on-call duty system. All involved recognised the benefit of having members of their community within the fire service particularly, with regards to languages and communication during incidents and community work. While there were no specific barriers to recruitment apart from lack of knowledge, the differences and similarities between Cambridgeshire Fire & Rescue Service and Fire and Rescue Services in Eastern Europe need to be considered when planning recruitment campaigns to attract these groups. Research was passed on to Recruitment Team and Group Commander for on-call to support recruitment practice. Case study 5 – Extending knowledge of migrant communities While operational and Control staff have access to information and resources to better understand ethnic, cultural and religious diversity in the community, it was identified that we had little information about our most recently arrived migrant communities. A piece of work was undertaken to build relationships with members of a specific migrant community (Lithuanian), to research that community and extend the existing resources we have. This resulted in the Lithuanian community being added to our on-line “working with diverse communities” guidance. Further Eastern European communities will be added in due course. As the population of our cities and main towns becomes more nationally diverse, access to language translations is becoming more challenging. Crews make use of a Fire & Rescue phrase book in 40 languages to aid communications in emergency situations. Members of the Equality Network carried out an audit of this resource and identified a preference for a technology based translation tool and this has been built into an ongoing project to renew access to critical information while at an incident.
2014/2015 12
Building relationships with faith communities In July 2014, a follow up to a fire safety audit of a Muslim girls’ school in Peterborough resulted in a visit by operational and community safety staff. The half day session with the students encompassed identifying fire risks and safety in the home as well as providing information about careers – including fire fighting – in Cambridgeshire Fire & Rescue Service. Following a threat to the local Muslim community at their new place of worship, a crew at Ely worked with Police to reassure the community, ensure fire protection of the new mosque and that security and fire safety were all assessed and improved at the home of a community member. As a result of this engagement, Ely station plan to involve the local Muslim community in recruitment campaigns and gain a better understanding of the views of this community to working for Cambridgeshire Fire & Rescue Service. Supporting Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual And Transgender networks. We continued to support Cambridge based lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender network, Encompass Network, offering them Parkside Fire Station as a free venue for meetings and sponsoring publicity for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender History Month in February. During this month, SHQ and Wisbech Fire Stations again flew the Rainbow flag and we plan to extend this to other stations in 2016. We ran a poster campaign developed by Stonewall to continue to raise awareness of the need to challenge homophobia and encouraged staff to sign up to Stonewall’s “No Bystanders” campaign. Stonewall guidance on preventing homophobic bullying was made available to staff via the intranet and new guidance on transgender and gender reassignment was produced. Complaints from Public The Service received a total of 15 complaints from the public which were satisfactorily resolved. These covered: 1 procurement related 8 driving/appliance/turnout related 3 fire safety related 1 information sharing related plus One of these complaints was an allegation of “offensive” and “sexist” behaviour by Cambridgeshire Fire & Rescue Service staff at a community fire safety event. This was investigated with witness statements being obtained. However there was no evidence to support the complaint and the behaviour of staff was described by a witness as professional at all times.
2014/2015 13
Part B - Staff Profile 1. Workforce diversity and distribution - age, gender, disability, ethnicity, religion or belief, sexual orientation. CAMBRIDGESHIRE FIRE & RESCUE SERVICE monitors staff protected characteristics at point of recruitment and provides existing staff with the facility to input or update their details in the Human Resources database on a self-service basis. As at 31st March 2015, CAMBRIDGESHIRE FIRE & RESCUE SERVICE employed 644 staff. The staff profile by role and protected characteristic is given in Tables 1 - 6 and Charts 1- 6. Some protected characteristic information is sensitive personal data and is not reported where there could be a chance of identifying individuals. Therefore information on sexual orientation, disability, ethnicity and religion or belief is not disaggregated by workgroup. Table 1a – gender by staff group and role Protected Characteristic
Wholetime On Call Control Support Total FFs Managers1 FFs Managers1 FFs Managers1 Staff Managers2
Gender
Male 119 108 157 77 4 2 41 16 524 % 18.5% 16.8% 24.4% 12.0% 0.6% 0.3% 6.4% 2.5% 81.4%Female 10 1 10 0 16 18 48 17 120 % 1.6% 0.2% 1.6% 0% 2.5% 2.8% 7.5% 2.6% 18.6%
Table 1b – gender distribution – operational staff only Protected Characteristic
Wholetime On Call Total FFs & Managers FFs & Managers
Gender
Male 227 234 461 % 95.4 96% 95.6%Female 11 10 21 % 4.6% 4% 4.4%
Chart 1 – gender by staff group and role
2014/2015 14
The above tables and chart show gender distribution across the Service. It is a similar picture to previous year, with women under-represented in operational roles; men under represented in Control, and a more even distribution in all support roles. The reasons behind this are historical and complex. Nationally there were no women firefighters until the 1970s and in those early days there were undeniable challenges facing women in a role that was historically seen as “male”. In recent years the absence of wholetime recruitment has brought little opportunity for change although efforts have been made to ensure our promotional material for on call duty system is equally appealing to women. However progress has been slow and the proportion of operational staff who are women stands at 4.4% which is consistent with the national average of 4.5%. However the vast majority of these posts are at firefighter level and progress in developing women operational staff into more senior roles is disappointing with only 0.5% operational management roles held by women. This is a reduction from previous year, attributable to retirement and resignation of two long-serving women Crew Commanders. An equality objective for 2014 -15 was to understand better the barriers affecting operational women with regards to promotion. A piece of research was carried out and while the results were limited, they did point to very little in the way of “gender difference” but raised concerns about the transparency and understanding of the promotion process overall and this is now being addressed. Table 2 – age by staff group and role
Protected Characteristic
Wholetime On Call Control Support Total FFs Managers1 FFs Managers1 FFs Managers1 Staff Managers2
Age
< 36 41 7 79 17 9 9 30 6 198 % 6.4% 1.1% 12.3% 2.6% 1.4% 1.4% 4.7% 0.9% 30.7%36 - 55
88 97 76 53 11 8 32 16 381
% 13.7% 15.1% 11.8% 8.2% 1.7% 1.2% 5.0% 2.5% 59.2%> 55 0 5 12 7 0 3 27 11 65 % 0% 0.8% 1.9% 1.1% 0% 0.5% 4.2% 1.7% 10.1%
Chart 2 – age by staff group and role
2014/2015 15
The proportion of operational managers and fire-fighters in the 36 and above age group shows that succession planning is a key issue for the Service and a Workforce Development Steering Group was established in 2014 to address this. Table 3 – ethnicity by staff role Protected Characteristic
FFs / Staff Managers3 Total
Staff Total 405 239 644 Total declaring 357 222 White British/Irish
347 213 560
% 97% 96% 95.6%White other 3 4 7 % 0.8% 1.8% 1.2% Mixed ethnic 3 3 6 % 0.8% 1.3% 1.0% Asian/Asian British
3 2 5
% 0.8% 1% 0.9% Black/Black British
0 0 0
% 0% 0% 0% Other ethnic group
1 0 1
% 0.2% 0% 0.2% Not Stated 48 18 58 % 12% 4.5% 9.0%
% ethnicity based on those declaring, proportionate to all FFs/Staff (357) or all Managers (222). % “not stated” based on total FFs/Staff or total Managers Chart 3 – ethnicity by staff role The proportion of Black, Asian and minority ethnic staff (including white other) is 2.8% and is slightly lower than previous year (3.1%). This is also small compared to the percentage of working age population in the county (9.8%). However the proportion of Black, Asian and minority ethnic staff in management posts is more
3 Managers refers to Crew Commanders and all roles above.
2014/2015 16
positive at 4.2% of managers, although these are predominantly at Crew and Watch Commander. Restrictions on where we can recruit on-call firefighters and limited wholetime recruitment is a challenging context to improve this, however both the attraction of Black, Asian and minority ethnic staff to all posts and their success in being appointed continues to be monitored. A piece of work to investigate the views of Polish community to working for the Fire and Rescue Service took place (see case study 5 above) and we continue to use a variety of approaches to attracting a diverse workforce supported now by a full-time on-call Recruitment Officer. Table 4 – disability of workforce Protected Characteristic
FFs / Staff Managers1 & 2 Total
Staff Total 405 239 644
Disabled 5 10 15 % 1.6% 3.3% 4.9% Not Stated 213 124 337 % 33.1% 19.3% 52.3%
% disability based on those declaring. % not stated based on staff total. Chart 4 disability of workforce
While the overall number of disabled staff is low compared to estimates of disabled people in Cambridgeshire of working age, this is not unexpected in a Service where majority of staff have a physical role. However the proportion of those in management posts is better. In July, the Service was awarded “Positive about Disability “status for the 7th consecutive year. This commits us to:
interviewing all disabled applicants who meet the minimum criteria for a job vacancy
ensuring there is a mechanism to discuss annually with disabled employees what can be done to make sure they can develop and use their abilities
making every effort when employees become disabled to make sure they stay in employment
taking action to ensure that all employees develop the appropriate level of disability awareness needed to make these commitments work
review the five commitments annually.
2014/2015 17
Table 5 – sexual orientation of workforce Chart 5 – sexual orientation of workforce
National data on sexual orientation varies, with estimates of those who identify as lesbian, gay or bisexual ranging from 2% (ONS) to 10% (Stonewall). We currently have a high proportion of staff who do not disclose any sexual orientation and work is underway to understand the reasons for this and, where necessary, build trust. Table 6 – religion or belief of workforce
4 % not stated is of total workforce. Other %ges are of those declaring
Protected Characteristic
Total
Staff Total 644
Staff declaring 297
Heterosexual 292
% 89.3%
Lesbian, Gay or Bisexual 5
% 1.5%
Not declaring 317
% 49.2%
Protected Characteristic
Total
Staff Total 644
Total declaring 300
Christian 174
% 58%
Buddhist 3
% 1%
Hindu 0
% 0%
Jewish 0
% 0%
Muslim 2
% 0.6%
Sikh 0
% 0%
No religion 121
% 40.3%
Not Stated4 301
% 46.7%
2014/2015 18
The proportion of staff of no religion is higher than the county average of 29% (census 2011); lower than the Muslim population (3%) but consistent with the Christian population (58%). Towards the end of the year, the need to refresh our positive action approach was recognised and a positive action strategy to address lack of diversity across the Service has since been developed. 2. Analysis of leavers Table 7a – reasons for leaving Reason Operations Control & Support Total Compromise Agreement 1 1 2 Redundancy 0 1 1 Redundancy (Voluntary) 2 0 2 Retirement (Age Related) 5 2 7 Retirement (Ill Health Not Service Related) 3 0 3 Retirement (Length of Service) 11 0 11 Transfer to another Brigade 2 2 4 Voluntary resignation 56 10 66 Withdrawal of Contract 1 0 1 Other 1 0 1 Total 82 16 98 Table 7b – diversity of leavers
The proportion of people in each equality group leaving the Service is in keeping with overall numbers and gives no cause for concern from an equality perspective. 3. Analysis of disciplinary cases and grievances Discipline cases (informal and formal) and grievance cases are monitored across the protected characteristics to see if there are any trends that indicate specific groups are more likely to be affected. Table 8 shows an analysis of formal disciplinary cases for 2014 -15 and Table 9 shows grievances.
Leavers gender ethnicity disability religion or belief
sexual orientation
age groups
male female minority ethnicity
disabled minority religion
LGB 17-25
26-35
36-45
>45
Resignation 56 10 1 0 3 1 11 25 17 13 Other reason
28 4 1 3 0 0 2 1 6 23
Total 84 14 2 3 3 1 13 26 23 36
2014/2015 19
Table 8 – Discipline
Table 9 – Grievances Grievance cases 2014
Total numbers 2
Issues Terms & conditions of employment – 1 New working practices - 1
Outcomes Not upheld - 2
Gender Male - 2
Ethnicity White British – 1 Undisclosed - 1
Sexual orientation Heterosexual – 1 Undisclosed - 1
Age 36-45 - 2
Disability 1
4. Return to work after maternity. Six employees were on maternity leave in 2014-15 of which 3 returned, 2 remain on maternity leave and one did not return. This continues a positive year on year trend with only 20% of staff who had maternity leave not returning over a 4 year period, giving a maternity return rate of 80%. Most of the staff not returning were in support roles and one was an on-call FF.
Disciplinary cases 2014 1st formal stage 2nd formal stage
Total numbers 6 3
Issues Failure to comply with policy/procedure – 4 Unauthorised absence – 1 On-call availability management – 1
Alcohol abuse – 1 Bad behaviour – 1 On-call availability management – 1
Outcomes First Written Warning – 6 Final Written Warning - 3
Gender Male – 5 Female – 1
Male – 3
Ethnicity White British - 6 White British - 3
Sexual orientation Heterosexual – 2 Undisclosed - 4
Heterosexual – 3
Age Group 18-25 – 1 26-35 – 0 36-45 – 3 46-55 – 2
18-25 – 1 26-35 – 1 36-45 – 0 46-55 – 1
Disability 0 0
2014/2015 20
5. Equal pay gap A full equal pay audit for support staff pay was conducted in 2009 and reported on in 2010. Since then reviews of this data have been carried out for May 2011 and March 2015. Operational salaries were not included since these are governed by national terms and conditions of employment. However as variations in duty systems grows – some of them attracting premiums – the need to carry out an equal pay audit for all salaries will be considered for next year. All support posts are subject to job evaluation and use the HAY system. Job evaluations for Cambridgeshire Fire & Rescue Service are carried out by Cambridgeshire County Council. Equal pay “gap” is the difference between average male salary and female salary in each band. This may be in favour of men (shown in red) or women (blue). Where a gap is greater than 3%, further investigation is recommended. 5 Where there are only men or women in a particular pay band, this has been discounted as no comparison can be made. Table 10 - Support pay data -March 15 Male Female Count Av Basic
Pay £ Count Av Basic Pay £ Difference (£) Pay Gap
(£) Scale 3 2 16,802 0 0 16,802 100.0% Scale 4 9 18,760 7 18,483 277 1.5% Scale 5 7 22,212 7 20,679 1,533 6.9% Scale 6 10 24,241 16 23,990 251 1.0% S01 8 26,284 14 26,706 -422 1.6% S02 6 29,558 5 29,069 489 1.7% MB1 5 34,395 5 34,260 134 0.4% MB2 5 41,383 7 40,025 1,358 3.3% MB3 1 49,639 1 44,165 5,474 11.0% MB4 4 52,915 4 50,731 2,184 4.1% Non Spinal 2 59,974 0 0 59,974 100.0% Total 59 33,265 66 28,811 4,454 13.4%
The above shows pay gaps in excess of 3% at Scale 5, at MB2, MB3 and MB4 all in favour of men. The differential in Scale 5 is accounted for to some extent by length of service as men on that scale have an average of 6 years and 9 months in role compared to the female average of 1 year 7 months length of service. However there is one instance of an employee being placed in a new role on the top band of that scale (convention is normally to place new starters in lower quartile or lower mid-quartile of grade). Current practices and pay policy need to be reviewed to ensure consistency and this is planned for 2016 -17. At MB3 and MB4 the differential also appears to be length of service in role as all men in these bands have longer length of service in that role than women in those bands.
5 Equality & Human Rights Commission, Equal Pay Guidance
2014/2015 21
At MB2 the gap cannot be accounted for by length of service as average length of service for women in role is 3 years 11 months and for men 3 years 5 months. Compared to the women’s posts, a significant number of the male posts are in ICT where there is market pressure in Cambridgeshire which may explain this. When pay policy is reviewed (2016-17) consideration will be given to separating out market pressure premiums from base salary to ensure there is consistency and a clear relation to market. 6. Recruitment analysis – attraction and success rate. On- call duty system Tables 11a and 11b below give diversity data for applicants and recruits to the on-call duty service and a comparison with the previous year. Table 11a On – call applicant criteria 2014-15 (158 total) 2013-14 (160 total) Female Male Female Male Num/% by gender 22/14% 136/86% 10/6% 150/94% Black/minority
ethnicity White other Black/minority
ethnicity White other
Num/% ethnic group 8/ 5% 17/11% 7/4% 13/8% Num/% with disability 4/3% 7/4% Num/% age group 17-25 53/34% 75/47% 26-35 63/40% 53/33% 36-45 25/16% 20/13%
46+ 10/6% 8/5% not stated 7/4% 4/3%
Num/% gay, lesbian or bisexual 6/4% 6/4%
No religion
Christian Other religion
No religion Christian Other religion
Num/% religion or belief 80/55% 59/40% 4/3% 92/64% 46/32% 5/2% There was an increase in the proportion of women applicants – the first time in 5 years this has been above 7% - as well as applicants from Black, Asian and minority ethnic groups including “other white”. There has been a deliberate focus on improving the diversity of applicants to on-call duty system where there is an acknowledged difficulty in recruiting and retaining staff. Publicity and promotional material was revised to ensure it appealed to a wider variety of people in the community and a full-time Recruitment Officer was dedicated to supporting on-call attraction. Regular information evenings are held and existing staff from under-represented groups are encouraged to attend. Table 11b On-call recruit criteria 2014-15 (24 total) 2013-14 (22 total) Female Male Female Male % by gender 3/13% 21/87% 3/14% 19/86% Black/minority
ethnicity White other Black/minority
ethnicity White other
% ethnic group 0 0 0 0 % age group 17-25 1/4% 9/41% 26-35 15/63% 9/41% 36-45 4/17% 4/18% 46+ 4/17% 0 Disability and sexual orientation Data sets too small to disclose
2014/2015 22
The number of recruits with a disability, of different religions and sexual orientations are not given as numbers are low enough to risk a data protection breach. For the fifth successive year, success by Black, Asian and minority ethnic applicants (including “white other” applicants) has been extremely low with only three recruits in that time coming from a minority ethnic background. Further analysis of the reasons for this in 2013-14 shows a variety of “exit” points including failure at written tests; location or availability not suitable; and self withdrawals. While White British candidates also leave the process at these exit points, it is clear that a higher proportion of Black, Asian and minority ethnic and White other candidates in that year failed at written test stage and this needs further attention. The picture is less clear for 14-15 as a number of candidates are still in the process but this will continue to be monitored. While the proportion of women passing the selection process is consistent with the applicant rate, only 5 (50%) of women recruits in the last two years (2013 – 15) completed their training course along with 52 (72%) male applicants. This needs further investigation to understand the reasons for losing recruits at this early stage. Wholetime duty system The first recruitment campaign in eight years began in February 2014 following a number of unexpected retirements and resignations. The timescales for attracting, assessing and recruiting suitable candidates precluded any proactive positive action although information events were held in community centres and colleges where populations are particularly diverse. The criteria for applying were reviewed and GCSE level qualifications were introduced along with a new swimming test and geographical boundaries were set for applicants to ensure we were recruiting form our own communities. Applicant and recruit diversity at each stage is analysed and a summary is given below. Table 13a Wholetime applicant criteria
2014-15 (225 total)
Female Male Num/% by gender 17/7.5% 208/92.5% Black/minority
ethnicity White other
Num/% ethnic group 7/3% 1/0.4% Num/% with disability 7/3% Num/% age group 17-24 95/42% 26-35 110/49% 36-45 18/8% 46+ 2/<1% Num/% gay, lesbian or bisexual
7/3%
No religion Christian Other religion
Not disclosed
Num/% religion or belief 138/61% 77/34% 4/2% 6/3% The diversity of applicants with regard to gender, ethnic group, disability, age group and religion was not in keeping with the demography of the county. There was particular under-representation by gender (7.5% compared to 50%); Black, Black British and other ethnic group (each 0.4% compared to 1%) and Asian (0.4% compared to 6%). While proportion of applicants with a disability was expected to be below the demographic trend given the physical nature of the job, the proportion is
2014/2015 23
still very low given that approximately 10% of people have dyslexia and this is an area where we have done a lot to support recruits and staff. Majority of applicants were under 35, and the religions declared are also inconsistent with what we know of our communities (58% Christian and 5% other religions of which 4% are Muslim or Hindu). Table 13b Wholetime recruit criteria 2014-15 (16 total)
Female Male
Num/% by gender 1/6.3% 15/93.7
Black/minority ethnicity
White other
Num/% ethnic group 0 0
Num/% with disability 0 0
Num/% age group 17-25 4/25%
26-35 11/69%
36-45 1/6%
46+ 0
Num/% gay, lesbian or bisexual Data sets too small to disclose.
Num/% religion or belief
While this data set is too small to report in full it can be noted that success was relatively proportionate to applicants’ rate for gender but not for minority ethnic groups. Also a high proportion of those in 26-35 age group were successful compared to applicant rate. As a result of this analysis, it is clear that work is needed to engage under-represented groups, provide accurate information about the nature of the role and the wider Fire and Rescue Service and encourage them to consider firefighting as a career. This was reflected in the equality peer review of November 14 and work to develop a positive action workplan began in 2015. We know that for minority ethnic communities this is expected to be a long term piece of work which needs to be based on positive engagement, sustained and embedded into “business as usual” for all our staff.
2014/2015 24
Support and Control Recruitment A total of 15 support and Control vacancies were advertised for in the year. The diversity of applicants and successful recruits is below. Support and Control applicant criteria
2014-15 (176 applicants total)
Female Male Num/% by gender 60/34% 116/66% Black/minority
ethnicity White other White British
Num/% ethnic group 12/7% 13/8% 151/85% Num/% with disability 12/7% Num/% age group 17-24 28/16% 25-35 46/26% 36-45 33/19% 46+ 61/35%
Not stated 8/5%
Num/% gay, lesbian or bisexual
5/3%
No religion Christian Other religion Num/% religion or belief 75/45% 84/50% 8/5% As data set is small only percentages of successful candidates are given. Support and Control recruit criteria
2014-15
Female Male % by gender 57% 43%
Black/minority ethnicity
White other White British
Num/% ethnic group 7% 0 93%
Num/% with disability 15%
Num/% age group 17-25 15%
26-35 54%
36-45 8%
46-55 15%
55 + 8%
% gay, lesbian or bisexual 8%
% religion or belief No religion Christian Other religion
54% 46% 0
The success rate is broadly consistent with applicant rate across most protected characteristics with the exception of gender where success rate of male candidates seems disproportionately low compared to the number applying. The gender diversity of support and Control staff will continue to be monitored to identify whether there is an underlying trend that needs further analysis and to identify what positive action measures may help.
2014/2015 25
7. Analysis of training This is the first year we have aimed to report on the uptake of training by different equality groups. While the data this year is limited, we hope to expand on it in future years. There was no promotions process in 2014-15. Much of operational training is mandatory so the courses reported on below are for “discretional” training – i.e. where an individual applies for a course that will help them develop further skills or which is required for promotion. Officer In-charge training This training course is the first requirement for a competent FF to become an Officer in charge – a requirement for potential Crew Commanders. Officer in charge training 2014-15 (23 total)
Female Male
Num by gender 0 23 (100%) Black/minority
ethnicity Undisclosed White British
Num ethnic group 0 5 18
Num with disability 1
Gay, lesbian or bisexual 0 Sexuality undisclosed 15
Religion or belief No religion Christian Other Not disclosed
4 5 0 14
Non– disclosure rates are high on some protected characteristics. Attitudes of women staff towards development and training has also been investigated and both these issues formed part of the action plan for 2015-16.
2014/2015 26
Appendix 1
2014/2015 27
Equality Impact Assessment Summary 2014-15 Appendix 2 Plan, policy or decision assessed
Function Document reference
Impact issues considered Change or mitigation
Virtual Desktop Integration
ICT #358675 Disability, specifically vision impairment and learning difficulties, e.g. dyslexia
Needs cannot be fully met by existing accessibility features. Project to review assistive technology needs and identify a product started.
Support works project ICT project #348582 Disability Ensure access to Supportworks Servicedesk is provided through a variety of ways.
Hoarding procedure Community Fire Safety
#346305 Disability, mental health Ensure community safety staff have understanding of this disorder and it’s likely protection under Equality Act
Prince’s Trust Community Fire Safety
#369082 Disability, pregnancy, learning difficulty Ensure needs of participants are understood at start of each course and meet accordingly.
Asset Management Software
ICT #355944 Disability Ensure product incorporates W3C accessibility standards.
Post incident support and recovery policy
Combined Fire Control
#359144 Nationality (preferred language), disability - understanding of the service may be affected by disability or language barrier.
If feedback shows understanding of service is affected by disability or language barrier, consideration will be given to making information available in alternate formats.
Wholetime firefighter recruitment
Recruitment #336273 Attraction rate is lower for women and certain ethnic groups. Selection criteria – disability and ethnicity. People with learning difficulties and some ethnic groups are less likely to attain new GCSE requirements. Assessments - religion; disability Pregnancy – risk assessment indicates pregnant candidates are not able to undergo physical selection tests
Begin positive action to attract higher numbers of currently under-represented groups The level of education required is consistent with national firefighter selection tests and necessary to ensure succession to managerial roles. Promote new requirements at college, school career days. Make appropriate provision for those observing fasts on religious grounds. Ensure reasonable adjustment needs are identified and put in place.
2014/2015 28
Pregnant candidates to be made aware of this and supported for future processes.
On-call recruitment (refresh)
Recruitment #367787 Ethnicity - applications from minority ethnic groups are consistent with county demographics but their success rate is low. Gender - recruit rate of women to men is consistent (although attraction rate for women is lower)
Further analysis needed to understand and put in support measures as per positive action plan. Advertising and promotion of on-call to focus on women and men with a view to improving diversity of applicants.
Transferee promotion – new requirement for firefighter transferees to meet GCSE requirements
Recruitment #380246 Ethnicity – a higher proportion of firefighters from certain ethnic minority groups in other Services are less likely to meet this requirement – particularly those in 30s and 40s. Gender – using transfers to resource means applicant pool is more likely to be male.
Use Asian Fire Services Association network to optimise attraction from black, Asian and minority ethnic groups. Use Women in the Fire Service network to advertise transfer opportunities.
Promotion FF- CC Resource Management Unit Board
#378909 Gender – women historically have been less likely to apply than men and are under-represented in supervisory management posts. Pregnancy & maternity
Work with women staff to understand barriers and address. Adverts for promotions processes are sent to staff on maternity, paternity and long term sick leave.
CAMBRIDGESHIRE AND PETERBOROUGH FIRE AUTHORITY
Internal Audit Progress Report
Overview & Scrutiny Committee
14 January 2016
Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Fire Authority Internal Audit Progress Report | 1
CONTENTS 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................... 2
2 Other matters ............................................................................................................................................................... 3
For further information contact .......................................................................................................................................... 5
As a practising member firm of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales (ICAEW), we are subject to its ethical and other professional requirements which are detailed at http://www.icaew.com/en/members/regulations-standards-and-guidance. The matters raised in this report are only those which came to our attention during the course of our review and are not necessarily a comprehensive statement of all the weaknesses that exist or all improvements that might be made. Recommendations for improvements should be assessed by you for their full impact before they are implemented. This report, or our work, should not be taken as a substitute for management’s responsibilities for the application of sound commercial practices. We emphasise that the responsibility for a sound system of internal controls rests with management and our work should not be relied upon to identify all strengths and weaknesses that may exist. Neither should our work be relied upon to identify all circumstances of fraud and irregularity should there be any. This report is supplied on the understanding that it is solely for the use of the persons to whom it is addressed and for the purposes set out herein. Our work has been undertaken solely to prepare this report and state those matters that we have agreed to state to them. This report should not therefore be regarded as suitable to be used or relied on by any other party wishing to acquire any rights from RSM Risk Assurance Services LLP for any purpose or in any context. Any party other than the Board which obtains access to this report or a copy and chooses to rely on this report (or any part of it) will do so at its own risk. To the fullest extent permitted by law, RSM Risk Assurance Services LLP will accept no responsibility or liability in respect of this report to any other party and shall not be liable for any loss, damage or expense of whatsoever nature which is caused by any person’s reliance on representations in this report. This report is released to our Client on the basis that it shall not be copied, referred to or disclosed, in whole or in part (save as otherwise permitted by agreed written terms), without our prior written consent. We have no responsibility to update this report for events and circumstances occurring after the date of this report.
RSM Risk Assurance Services LLP is a limited liability partnership registered in England and Wales no. OC389499 at 6th floor, 25
Farringdon Street, London EC4A 4AB.
Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Fire Authority Internal Audit Progress Report | 2
The Internal Audit Plan for 2015/16 was approved by the Overview & Scrutiny Committee in March 2015. This report
provides a summary update on progress against that plan and summarises the work completed and results of the
2014/15 internal audit plan.
1 REPORTS ISSUED
The following table informs the Committee of the audit assignments that have been completed from the 2015/16
internal audit plan.
2 LOOKING AHEAD
Assignment area Timing per approved
IA plan 2015/16
Status
ICT Q4 Scoping and dates in discussion with management.
Governance 26 Janaury 2016 Scope and date agreed with client.
Key Financial Controls 22 February 2016 Scope and date agreed with client.
Succession Planning
29 February 2016 Delayed from May 2015 at request of client due to
current work in the area.
Scope and revised date now agreed with
management.
Training & Development 7 March 2016 Delayed from October 2015 at request of client.
Scope and revised date agreed with client.
Risk Management 8 March 2016 Scope and date agreed with client.
Follow up
14 March 2016 Date agreed with client.
1 INTRODUCTION
Assignment Opinion issued Actions agreed
L M H
Management of Key Suppliers (1.15/16) AMBER / GREEN
(Reasonable Assurance) 0 4 0
Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Fire Authority Internal Audit Progress Report | 3
2 OTHER MATTERS
2.1 Thematic Reviews
In addition to providing detailed reports to Cambridgeshire, Essex and Bedfordshire Fire on their respective control
environments relating to the subjects of Communication and Fuel Management, we have produced a thematic report
to combine the findings from each of those individual audit assignments.
These thematic reports included identifying areas of common controls, any different approaches, good practice and
any areas of common weakness.
2.2 Changes to audit plan
Management have requested that Procurement is removed from the Internal Audit Plan as these systems were
covered as part of the Management of Key Suppliers review; the budget released from this change is to be used to
expand the scope of the Succession Planning audit.
The date for Succession Planning has also been moved back in the calendar to allow the planning and implementation
process to be developed to a stage where Internal Audit can perform the review.
The review of training has also been delayed at the request of management given the changes in system in this area
and to ensure the audit adds the most value.
The Committee should note that the assurances given in our audit assignments are included within our Annual
Assurance report. In particular the Committee should note that any negative assurance opinions will need to be noted
in the annual report and may result in a qualified or negative annual opinion. We have not issued any reports to date
that will negatively impact our year end opinion.
No common weaknesses have been identified within our reports so far for 2015/16.
2.3 Information and briefings
The December 2015 Emergency services news briefing has been issued since the last meeting, please find below the
highlights for Fire Authorities information:
Fire
Funding reductions on the fire and rescue service
The National Audit Office (NAO) has published two reports analysing how fire and rescue services have coped with
funding cuts and how well providers are organised for future cuts expected in the governments autumn spending
review. The twin reports by NAO find that fire and rescue services are coping well with funding impacts and that
financial reserves have increased, but the NAO warns there are signs that with further funding reductions some forces
capability of handling major incidents will be affected.
Read more
Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Fire Authority Internal Audit Progress Report | 4
National coordination and advisory framework for England
The Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) has released an updated framework for fire and
rescue services. The updated framework is designed to provide a ‘robust and flexible’ response for services dealing
with major incidents. DCLG stresses that the frameworks effectiveness is reliant on each authority deploying when
needed.
Read more
rsmuk.com
The UK group of companies and LLPs trading as RSM is a member of the RSM network. RSM is the trading name used by the members of the RSM network. Each member of the RSM network is an independent accounting and consulting firm each of which practises in its own right. The RSM network is not itself a separate legal entity of any description in any jurisdiction. The RSM network is
administered by RSM International Limited, a company registered in England and Wales (company number 4040598) whose registered office is at 11 Old Jewry, London EC2R 8DU. The brand and trademark RSM and other intellectual property rights used by members of the network are owned by RSM International Association, an association governed by article 60 et seq of the Civil Code of Switzerland whose seat is in Zug.
RSM UK Consulting LLP, RSM Corporate Finance LLP, RSM Restructuring Advisory LLP, RSM Risk Assurance Services LLP, RSM Tax and Advisory Services LLP, RSM UK Audit LLP, RSM Employer Services Limited and RSM UK Tax and Accounting Limited are not authorised under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 but we are able in certain circumstances to offer a limited
range of investment services because we are members of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales. We can provide these investment services if they are an incidental part of the professional services we have been engaged to provide. Baker Tilly Creditor Services LLP is authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority for credit-related regulated activities. RSM & Co (UK) Limited is authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority to conduct a range of investment business activities. Before accepting an engagement, contact with the existing
accountant will be made to request information on any matters of which, in the existing accountant’s opinion, the firm needs to be aware before deciding whether to accept the engagement.
© 2015 RSM UK Group LLP, all rights reserved.
Daniel Harris, Head of Internal Audit
Tel: 07792 948767
Suzanne Lane, Senior Manager
Tel: 07720 508148
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
Agenda Item 8 TO: Overview and Scrutiny Committee FROM: Director of Resources - Matthew Warren PRESENTING OFFICER(S): Matthew Warren
Telephone 01480 444619 [email protected]
DATE: 14 January 2016
ANNUAL AUDIT AND INSPECTION LETTER 2014/15 1. Purpose 1.1 To update the Committee on the contents of the appointed auditors’ annual
audit letter for 2014/15. 2. Recommendations 2.1 The Committee is asked to note the annual audit and inspection letter
2014/15.
3. Risk Assessment 3.1 Economic and Technological – Recommendations raised within the reports
highlight specific action required to counter any potential financial loss of the current financial systems of internal control.
4. Background 4.1 PricewaterhouseCoopers (PWC) are the Fire Authority’s appointed external
auditor. This is the final year of the appointment. The Audit Commission appointed BDO as the external auditor for this Authority from financial year 2015/16.
4.2 The Audit report attached at Appendix 1 provides a high level summary of the
2014/15 audit work undertaken at Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Fire Authority.
4.3 As part of PWC’s annual audit under the Audit Commission’s Code of Audit Practice, International Standards on Auditing and other guidance issued by the Audit Commission, they are required to provide an audit opinion on the Authority’s Accounts and this is set out in Appendix 1 to this report. The scope of their work in these areas was described in their 2014/15 Audit Plan. The majority of PWC’s work on the Authority’s Statement of Accounts for the year ended 31 March 2015 was completed during audit visits in April and July 2015. Appendix 2 summarises the findings from this work.
4.4 Within this Code of Audit Practice, PWC are also required to review and report
on whether the Authority has made proper arrangements for securing economy, efficiency and effectiveness in its use of resources (‘Use of resources opinion’). The PWC report attached summarises the matters arising from their work on the internal financial controls in place at the Authority.
5. Audit Findings 5.1 With regard to Accounts and Governance, the report by PWC states that an
unqualified audit opinion in respect of the 2014/15 statement of accounts had been issued.
BIBLIOGRAPHY Source Documents
Location
Contact Officer
2014/15 Annual Audit Letter
Hinchingbrooke Cottage Brampton Road Huntingdon
Matthew Warren 01480 444619 [email protected]
www.pwc.co.uk
Cambridgeshire andPeterborough FireAuthorityAnnual Audit Letter
2014/15Government andPublic Sector
22 October 2015
Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Fire Authority PwC Contents
Code of Audit Practice and
Statement of Responsibilities
of Auditors and of Audited
Bodies
In April 2010 the Audit Commission
issued a revised version of the
‘Statement of responsibilities of
auditors and of audited bodies’. It is
available from the Chief Fire
Officer. The purpose of the
statement is to assist auditors and
audited bodies by explaining where
the responsibilities of auditors begin
and end and what is to be expected
of the audited body in certain areas.
Our reports and management
letters are prepared in the context of
this Statement. Reports and letters
prepared by appointed auditors and
addressed to members or officers
are prepared for the sole use of the
audited body and no responsibility
is taken by auditors to any Member
or officer in their individual
capacity or to any third party.
Introduction 1
Audit Findings 4
Other matters reported to those charged with governance 5
Final Fees 6
Contents
Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Fire Authority PwC 1
The purpose of this letterThis letter summarises the results of our 2014/15 audit workfor members of the Authority.
We have already reported the detailed findings from ouraudit work to the Policy and Resources Committee in thefollowing reports:
Audit opinion for the 2014/15 financial statements,
incorporating conclusion on the proper arrangements to
secure economy, efficiency and effectiveness in its use of
resources; and
Report to those charged with Governance (ISA (UK&I)
260).
The matters reported here are the most significant for theAuthority.
Scope of WorkThe Authority is responsible for preparing and publishing itsStatement of Accounts, accompanied by the AnnualGovernance Statement. It is also responsible for putting inplace proper arrangements to secure economy, efficiency andeffectiveness in its use of resources.
As an administering Authority of a pension fund, theAuthority is also responsible for preparing and publishingAccounting Statements for the Firefighters’ Pension Fund.Our 2014/15 audit work has been undertaken in accordancewith the Audit Plan that we issued on 26 March 2015 and isconducted in accordance with the Audit Commission’s Codeof Audit Practice, International Standards on Auditing (UK
and Ireland) and other guidance issued by the AuditCommission.
We met our responsibilities as follows:
AuditResponsibility
Results
Perform anaudit of theaccounts andFirefighters’pension fundaccountingstatements inaccordancewith theAuditingPracticeBoard’sInternationalStandards onAuditing(ISAs(UK&I)).
We reported our findings to thePolicy and Resources Committee on24 September 2015 in our 2014/15Report to those charged withgovernance (ISA (UK&I) 260).
On 30 September 2015 we issued anunqualified audit opinion.
Introduction
An audit is not designed toidentify all matters that may berelevant to those charged withgovernance. Our audit does notordinarily identify all suchmatters.
Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Fire Authority PwC 2
AuditResponsibility
Results
Report to theNationalAudit Officeon theaccuracy oftheconsolidationpack theAuthority isrequired toprepare forthe Whole ofGovernmentAccounts.
We were not required to report onthe accuracy of the Authority’sconsolidation pack in relation to theWhole of Government Accounts asit was below the threshold set forreview of £350m.
Form aconclusion onthearrangementsthe Authorityhas made forsecuringeconomy,efficiency andeffectivenessin its use ofresources.
We issued an unqualifiedconclusion on the Authority’sarrangements for securingeconomy, efficiency andeffectiveness in its use of resourceson 30 September 2015.
AuditResponsibility
Results
Consider thecompletenessof disclosuresin theAuthority’sannualgovernancestatement,identify anyinconsistencies with theotherinformation ofwhich we areaware fromour work andconsiderwhether itcomplies withCIPFA /SOLACEguidance.
We had no matters to reportfollowing our review of theAuthority’s Annual GovernanceStatement.
Considerwhether, inthe publicinterest, weshould make areport on anymattercoming to ournotice in thecourse of theaudit.
We had no matters to report in thepublic interest.
Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Fire Authority PwC 3
AuditResponsibility
Results
Determinewhether anyother actionshould betaken inrelation to ourresponsibilities under theAuditCommissionAct.
We identified no other action to betaken in relation to ourresponsibilities under the AuditCommission Act.
Issue acertificatethat we havecompleted theaudit inaccordancewith therequirementsof theAuditCommissionAct 1998 andthe Code ofPracticeissued by theAuditCommission.
We issued our audit completioncertificate on 30 September 2015.
AuditResponsibility
Results
Issue a reportnotingwhether ornot thepension fundfinancialstatements inthe pensionfund annualreport andaccounts areconsistentwith those inthe authority’sstatement ofaccounts.
The Authority is not required toproduce an annual report on thePension Fund and as a result thisrequirement is not applicable.
Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Fire Authority PwC 4
AccountsWe audited the Authority’s accounts in line with approvedAuditing Standards and issued an unqualified audit opinionon 30 September 2015.
We noted significant issues arising from our audit within ourReport to Those Charged with Governance (ISA (UK&I) 260).This report was presented to the Policy and ResourcesCommittee on 24 September 2015. We wish to draw thefollowing points, included in that report, to your attention inthis letter.
Quality of the draft accounts presented forauditThe quality of the draft accounts presented for audit was notto the standard we would expect. Our initial review of thefirst draft financial statements identified the following:
No balances had been included in the draft accountsfor two disclosure notes and the explanatory foreword;
The narrative in several notes had not been updatedfrom 2013/14 and as a result was either out of date orreferred to/or was related to the prior year balances;and
Immaterial disclosures were presented.
In addition to the above, our audit testing identified anumber of minor disclosure misstatements on notes relatingto incorrect narrative or where amounts disclosed did notagree to supporting information.
Whilst none of the disclosure matters identified areindividually significant, collectively the number of disclosureupdates required to the accounts was significant. These
matters were discussed with officers and amendments weremade to the accounts to correct for errors identified.
We have recommended that procedures be implemented toensure that a thorough independent review of the draftaccounts is performed prior to submitting the draft accountsfor audit. Any matters identified during the review should beappropriately updated in the accounts prior to the draftaccounts being submitted to audit.
Use of ResourcesWe carried out sufficient, relevant work in line with the AuditCommission’s guidance, so that we could conclude onwhether you had in place, for 2014/15, proper arrangementsto secure economy, efficiency and effectiveness in your use ofthe Authority’s resources.
In line with Audit Commission requirements, our conclusionwas based on two criteria:
that the organisation has proper arrangements inplace for securing financial resilience; and
that the organisation has proper arrangements forchallenging how it secures economy, efficiency andeffectiveness.
To reach our conclusion, we carried out a programme of workthat was based on our risk assessment.
We issued an unqualified conclusion, on 30 September 2015,on the ability of the organisation to secure properarrangements to secure economy, efficiency and effectivenessin its use of resources.
Audit Findings
We identified one significant
issue arising from our audit of
the Authority’s Statement of
Accounts.
Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Fire Authority PwC 5
Annual Governance StatementLocal authorities are required to produce an AnnualGovernance Statement (AGS) that is consistent withguidance issued by CIPFA/SOLACE. The AGS accompaniesthe Statement of Accounts.
We reviewed the AGS to consider whether it complied withthe CIPFA/SOLACE guidance and whether it might bemisleading or inconsistent with other information known tous from our audit work. We found no areas of concern toreport in this context.
Whole of Government Accounts (WGA)We undertook our work on the Whole of GovernmentAccounts consolidation pack as prescribed by the NationalAudit Office.
Given that the Authority’s income, expenditure, assets andliabilities are below the materiality threshold for the WGA2014/15, we were not required to undertake an audit of theWGA pack. We therefore submitted a return noting this, tothe National Audit Office, in accordance with the groupreporting requirements. This was submitted on 30September 2015.
Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Fire Authority PwC 5
The recommendations arising from our work in 2014/15 were contained within Appendix 3 ‘Internal ControlRecommendations’ to our Report to those charged with Governance (ISA (UK&I) 260, which was presented to the Policy andResources Committee on 24 September 2015.
This schedule, which contained 7 recommendations including 3 we re-raised from prior years, was agreed with the Director ofResources and his team and included the actions the Authority will take to address our recommendations.
Since presenting our ISA 260 report to the Policy and Resources Committee, 4 further recommendations were identified infinalising our audit work. These were not considered to be significant matters and have been bought to the attention of theDirector of Finance.
The following table includes the matter we consider to be the most significant for the Authority.
Other matters reported to those chargedwith governance
Recommendation Management Response TargetImplementationDate
Procedures should be implemented to ensurethat a thorough independent review of the draftaccounts is performed prior to submitting thedraft accounts for audit.
Particular attention should be paid to identifyingany balances/narrative not updated from theprior year and any omissions in balances.
Any matters identified during the review shouldbe appropriately updated in the accounts priorto the draft accounts being submitted to audit.
Agreed. To be completedduring the 2015/16accounts preparationprocess.
Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Fire Authority PwC 6
Final Fees for 2014/15We reported our fee proposals in our audit plan 2014/15.
We have varied our audit fees from those included within our Audit Plan as a result of the change in our audit risk assessmentand as a result of overrun costs in auditing the Authority’s Statement of Accounts. As noted below, we are currently in theprocess of agreeing certain of the fees over and above the scale element with Public Sector Audit Appointments Limited(PSAA) and will report the final position in due course. Some of the additional fees have already been agreed by PSAA.
Our fees charged were therefore:
2014/15 outturn 2014/15fee proposal
2013/14 finaloutturn
Indicative audit fee - Audit work performed under theCode of Audit Practice
- Statement of Accounts
- Conclusion on the ability of the organisation to secureproper arrangements for the economy, efficiency andeffectiveness in its use of resources
- Whole of Government Accounts
42,487 42,487 42,487
Additional fees as a result of audit risk assessment (seenote 1)
4,335 3,060 3,000
Audit overrun fees (first stage - see note 2) 1,614 08,795
Audit overrun fees (second stage – see note 3) 6,541 0
Sub-total 54,977 45,547 54,282
Non Audit Work (see note 4) 8,750 8,750 0
TOTAL 63,727 54,297 54,282
Final Fees
Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Fire Authority PwC 7
Notes
1. In 2014/15, the Authority implemented a new fixed asset system and as a result additional work was required toassess the completeness and accuracy of the data transferred to the new system. The proposed fee for this work of£3,060 was included within our Audit Plan 2014/15 and has been agreed with the Public Sector Audit Appointments(PSAA) Ltd.
As detailed within our ISA 260 report to the Policy and Resources Committee, presented on 24th September 2015, wereassessed our audit risks during the year which resulted in one risk, on the valuation of Property, Plant andEquipment, being raised from an elevated to a significant risk. This required additional audit testing and therefore wevaried our fee by £1,275 to £4,335 to meet the costs of this additional work. We have agreed this additional fee withthe Director of Resources and are in the process of agreeing this with the Public Sector Audit Appointments (PSAA)Ltd.
2. Additional audit fees have been agreed with the Director of Resources for the following additional work performed: Reviewing and agreeing amendments to a number of the disclosure notes within the Statement of Accounts where
balances were omitted or notes had not been updated from prior years; Resolving issues relating to the fair value / historical cost depreciation adjustment and impairment reversals, the
accounting for which appeared to be omitted from the draft accounts/supporting evidence provided; and Reviewing a number of sets of draft accounts to ensure that all amendments have all been appropriately made.
Our fee proposals included an assumption we would review 3 sets of accounts – to date we have reviewed 5 sets.We are in the process of agreeing the fee of £1,614 with Public Sector Audit Appointments Ltd.
3. In finalising our work on the audit of the Statement of Accounts additional audit time has been required in
performing the following:
Audit testing and agreement of accounting adjustments in relation to the provision for lump sums as a result ofthe GAD decision on commutation factors;
Audit testing and agreement of narrative disclosures in relation to the contingent liability included within theaccounts for the new fire fighters pension scheme; and
Additional work performed in checking amendments had been appropriately made to the accounts and reviewing2 further sets of accounts.
We have agreed this fee with the Director of Resources and are in the process of agreeing this fee with Public Sector
Audit Appointments Ltd.
4. During 2014/15, the Authority engaged us to perform work to prepare a proforma set of accounts. This work was
undertaken outside of the remit of the Audit Commission Code of Audit Practice and is therefore reported as non-
audit work.
Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Fire Authority PwC 8
As detailed within the ISA 260 report presented to the Policy and Resources Committee on 24 September 2014, in
order to maintain independence in undertaking this work, we put in place safeguards to mitigate the threat or
perceived threats to independence. A completely independent team and engagement partner were used to undertake
this work and no members of the audit engagement team were involved in this work. As a result, we concluded we
have maintained our independence in undertaking this work.
In the event that, pursuant to a request which Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Fire Authority has received under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, it is required to disclose anyinformation contained in this report, it will notify PwC promptly and consult with PwC prior to disclosing such report. Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Fire Authority agrees to pay due regardto any representations which PwC may make in connection with such disclosure and Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Fire Authority shall apply any relevant exemptions which may exist underthe Act to such report. If, following consultation with PwC, Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Fire Authority discloses this report or any part thereof, it shall ensure that any disclaimer which PwChas included or may subsequently wish to include in the information is reproduced in full in any copies disclosed.
This document has been prepared only for Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Fire Authority and solely for the purpose and on the terms agreed through our contract with Public Sector Audit
Appointments Limited. We accept no liability (including for negligence) to anyone else in connection with this document, and it may not be provided to anyone else.
© 2015 PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. All rights reserved. In this document, "PwC" refers to the UK member firm, and may sometimes refer to the PwC network. Each member firm is a separatelegal entity. Please see www.pwc.com/structure for further details.
130610-142627-JA-UK
Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Fire Authority
Report to Management
The following matters were identified in concluding our audit. These matters are additional to those
raised within our ISA 260 report.
Matter Recommendation
One property held by the Authority had notbeen appropriately impaired and written downat the year end, (Yaxley Fire Station). This wasalso the case in relation to two properties held atthe prior year end.
In these cases, the impairment was required asthe stations had been identified as not fit forpurpose and capital investment was being madeto replace the assets.
Going forward, a thorough impairment reviewshould be performed at the year end. TheAuthority should pay particular attention towhether there have been any changes inproperties which may result in impairmentsbeing required.
Declaration forms were not available for twomembers who left the organisation in May andJune 2014. This was a matter we also raised inthe prior year.
We repeat our previous recommendation - theAuthority should ensure that Members wholeave the Authority are contacted on a timelybasis to ensure that a declaration form isobtained.
Senior management payroll and expenses codeshad not been appropriately apportioned to theheadings within net cost of services in theComprehensive Income and ExpenditureStatement. The apportionments did not agreewith the underlying supporting evidencedetailing senior management roles and timeapportionment.
This did not have a material impact on theclassification of costs in the ComprehensiveIncome and Expenditure Statement.
The Authority should ensure that updatedpercentages are appropriately recorded in the2015/16 financial statements.
We understand that checks are performed onlong outstanding purchase orders. Howeverthese are not documented.
Consideration should be given to evidencingchecks undertaken.
Agenda Item 9
OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMITTEE
WORK PROGRAMME 2016
14 January 2016
Time
Agenda Item Corporate Aim Member/Officer
13:30 – 14:00
Pre Briefing session Councillor Butcher Director of Resources
14.00 to 16.30 Meeting
Scrutiny No items
Overview Comprehensive Spending Review progress and initial findings
Value for Money
T/Chief Fire Officer Strickland Director of Resources
Road Traffic Collision (RTC) and Special Services Report
Operational Excellence T/Chief Fire Officer Strickland
Equality and Inclusion Compliance 2014/15 Report
T/ACFO Hylton Equality and Inclusion Advisor
Audit Internal Audit Progress
Reports Annual Audit Letter
2014/15
Value for Money
Director of Resources
Review Future Work Programme 2015/2016
Governance Chairman Deb Thompson
24 March 2016
Time
Agenda Item Corporate Aim Member/Officer
13:30 – 14:00
Pre Briefing session Councillor Butcher Director of Resources
14.00 to 16.30 Meeting
Annual meeting with Chair of Fire Authority and Chief Fire Officer to inform development of Future Work Programme 2016/17
FA Chair T/CFO
Scrutiny Member led review Service Transformation & Efficiency Programme (STEP)
Director of Resources
Audit External Audit Plan 2015/16 Internal Audit Strategy and Audit Plan 2016/17
Governance Statement
Value for Money
Director of Resources
