Community Safety Plan -Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service - Case Study Example

Please just send a message if you need anything. Thanks Community Safety Plan Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service Contents Contents 2 1. Introduction The Merseyside Fire and Rescue IRMP or Integrated Risk Management Plan for 2012-2015 is both responding to the Government grant cuts and the need to safeguard the community against fire and other incidents. For this reason, changes have been in the way the MFRS deliver their services including consideration between extensive services reduction and large-scale local taxation. The following is analysis and data interpretation of MFRS IRMP for 2012-15 for developing a community first safety plan. These include identifying risk areas, operational requirements, and other community related challenges that may be faced by the fire and rescue service in pursuing its goals despite financial limitations. 2. Analysis and Data Interpretation of Merseyside FRS IRMP for 2012-15 2.1 Identified Problem Areas Through careful analysis of data contained in the latest integrated management plan, the primary risk areas are those that are directly affected by the government grant cuts. These include employee related expenditures, fire cover (frontline services), response standards, and support services (IRMP, 2012, p.12). Statistically these problems is associated with expenditure cost in capital financing (5.5%), control (1.5%), preparedness/resilience (4.4%), reduction/restore (5.8%), support services and other expenses (10.8%) as shown below. Figure 1- Merseyside IRMP - 2012-2015 Note that around 76% of these expenditures thus a fire and rescue service such as the Merseyside FRS that is heavily reliant on Government Formula Grant will have to generate at least 25% of its annual funding from local sources. In other words, MFRS will have to produce at least £ 9 million for 2011 to 2013 to cover the 13.5% grant cut and may be more if another two thirds of the cuts will be applied from 2013 to 2015 (IRMP, 2012, p.10). Note that getting funds from local sources means higher taxation and balancing the budget in a manner that MFRS save at least £9.2 million. Another problem is maintaining higher level of services using limited budget. This is because the grant cut and savings plan mentioned earlier will likely result to reduction of back office and management cost, pay freeze, and reduction of fire fighter post. In practice, this can be unemployment to some members of the FRS, holding incentives for the next three years, postponing any new equipment purchase, and eliminating some community services for some 1.4 million people. Another problem in terms of higher local taxation and community services is the fact the large areas of Merseyside are socially deprived. According to the IRMP for instance, 20% of the most income-deprived communities in England is in Merseyside council jurisdiction (IRMP, 2012, p.14). Moreover, since deprivation and risk of fire is believed to be correlated (IRMP, 2012, p.14), MFRS will likely consume more resources in this area where the likelihood of increasing taxes is low. The increasing aged population is another problem in Merseyside because older people (with limited mobility and sensory difficulties) are more vulnerable to fire and therefore need greater attention from the FRS. Statistics contained in the IRMP suggest that the aged population is increasing by 17% each year while the number of older people living alone with long-term illness increased by 30% (IRMP, 2012, p.14). This in reality can take up more FRS resources since they (elderly) are more at risk and will need more assistance. 2.2 Operation Cost and Budget Constraints A safe and strong community means safe and effective fire fighters (IRMP, 2012, p.18). However, effective prevention and response to incidents requires more than generic operational approach as such requires competent staff, appliances and equipment. The government grant cuts will negatively affect MRFRS priorities for the next three years including its goal to see safe and stronger communities. The fact that the MFRS has to save at least £ 9 million in operating expenses will make them work in a tight budget while providing the same number of services for the community, which in reality is not possible. This is because more services require more staff, equipment, and effort, which they do not have. In fact, the MFRS IRMP for 2012-20015 clearly stated that their solution to these financial challenges includes reducing the number of fire fighters, removal of non-uniformed staff, and hiring volunteers (IRMP, 2012, p.11). Moreover, in Phase 2 of the proposed solutions to minimize the impact of grant cuts, they are still considering significant services reductions despite 4% increase in council tax. In the summary of MFRS budget for 2011 and 2012, they intend to save £2.0 million by freezing staff pay to its present value in the next three years. Moreover, they are cutting support services and management cost by £1.7 million, and reduce front line cost by £1.8 million (MFRS, 2012, p.2). Overall, the budget reductions for 2011-2012 is about 8.5% or £6.4 million and will increase to £9.0 million by 2013 with 173 of the workforce removed by natural retirements and compulsory redundancy (MFRS, 2012, p.2) Figure 2- Budget for 2012-2013 (MFRS, 2012) Although MFRS claim that their financial plans and the money they received from the grant (£41.906 million) and council tax (£27.242 million) as shown below can maintain its “high performing status” (MFRS, 2012, p.5), it is still doubtful that its performance will be 100% . This is because such financial plan by analysis can only minimize the impact of grant cut on services rather than maintaining the correct proportion between safe and effective fire fighters and community safety. Figure 3 - Budget Sources (MFRS, 2012) 2.3 Staff and Equipment Requirements As mentioned earlier, the solution seen by MFRS is to reduce their staff and maintain the number of their appliances by flexible staffing arrangements to minimize the impact of grant cuts (IRMP, 2012, p.11). In detail, this means 20% reduction in the back office workforce and management staff including 10% of fire fighters and seven senior managers. Statistically, 40% of Merseyside population is children and people over pension age while 10% are disabled. There are more females (51.63%) than male (48.37%) while majority of the population are white (95.11%). Moreover, a large majority of the population are income-deprived which means greater risk of fire (IRMP, 2012, p.15). These statistics suggest that MFRS has more work to do in terms of fire prevention and response. By analysis, doing more work does not necessarily mean having a large FRS as proper planning, prioritizing critical areas, and flexible staff arrangement can do the same. For instance, MFRS staff and resources may concentrate more on population that are at greater risk and maintain a minimal back office workforce just enough to keep the MFRS operating. A good example of this approach is Operation Jake, a specific operational plan and a pre-determined response to an incident detailing the assets and resources required in a worst-case scenario (IRMP, 2012, p.18). Training programmes that enable fire fighters to realistically deal with incidents in the safest manner without wasting resources. Application of lessons learned from previous incidents in order to match staff against a certain incident and risk assessment so that MFRS can make the necessary preparation for any incident that will likely affect Merseyside (IRMP, 2012, p.20). The above is by analysis feasible in the sense that it all involves sensible use of available assets and resources while maintaining the balance between risk and services. However, it does necessary to consider the impact of staff reduction despite these approaches as incidents can occur at the same time and there may be incidents that requires greater share of resources than the one previously allocated. 3. Community Fire Safety Plan 3.1 Mission Our mission is to maintain a safe community through safe and effective fire fighters. 3.2 Aims Maintain high level of operational preparedness through training, information gathering and review, strategic procedures, and reliable equipment to ensure safe and effective response for all type of emergencies. Maintain high level of operational response by being familiar with risk areas across Merseyside Maintain high level of prevention and protection through partnership working and community interaction, risk reduction, and application of legal powers. Maintain good working relationship with our people by respecting diversity and equality, and developing our employees’ skills. 3.3 Priorities to realized our aims and objectives Operational Preparedness Risk Assessment and Planning Best practices in FRS suggest that community fire safety starts with a comprehensive assessment of areas at risk (Kemshall & Wilkinson, 2011, p.10). In this community fire safety plan, all initiatives are based on the result of a comprehensive risk assessment that reflects the main issues and problems in the area. The response plan will be developed from this information to ensure that assets and resources are used in the most effective way. This will maximize the limited budget for the FRS. Training Train frontline staff on safe and proper use of equipment, standard procedures, and fire fighting in realistic training conditions. These include crew based training and e-learning that would ensure safety on the incident ground during emergencies and performance based on operational best practices. Incident Analysis Record experiences and analyse data to determine that most appropriate and effective approach to a particular incident. Provide seminars and increase staff awareness of different incident scenarios using case studies. Comply with National Guidance and Best Practice Provide computerized risk information and standard procedure guidelines to frontline members so they can tackle incidents in the most safe and effective manner. Operational Response Maintain response standards to fire in property from 5 to 12 minutes. Maintain response standards to RTC or Road Traffic Collisions at 8 minutes from first notification. Teamwork and monthly performance audit of operation members against set criteria. Efficient communication using state of the art communication and mobilising centre for answering 999 calls and fast appliances deployment Ensure rescue capability for large scale incidents and accidents using USAR or Urban Search and Rescue, a 24 hour unit with specialist expertise and equipment. These include water and height rescue anywhere in Merseyside and beyond. Reduce risk from incidents involving hazardous and environmentally destructive materials using 24/7 ready, highly trained and well equipped HAZMAT group based near areas with known chemical risks. Efficient terrorism and CBRN (Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear and Explosive) response through effective decontamination work using highly reliable staff and equipments. 3.4 Home and Commercial Property Safety Reduce accidental dwelling fires, deaths, and injuries through skills development of operation crews and community safety awareness. Reduce fire occurrence by increasing knowledge and understanding of young people Reduce risk of fire, injury, and death by raising awareness and installation of fire alarms in elderly and disabled population. 3.5 Youth Engagement Reduce anti-social behaviour and arson through partnership working Promote health and well-being by increasing engagement with the community and reducing vulnerability factors and, encourage young people to engage in sports, and promote healthy food using support groups. 3.6 Prevention and Protection Understand challenges, problems, and concerns of local people by making the community fire and rescue station the centre of activities for young and old that want to engage in cooking healthy foods, sports, fire safety education, and skills development. Reduce the number of accidental dwelling fires through need and risk assessment. These include identifying the most vulnerable people in the community and efficient intervention using multi-agency data and risk map. Develop a community safety delivery plan that contain responses to key risk and community needs in every fire and rescue station around Merseyside. 3.7 Partnership and Organizational Development Improve community safety by working together with other concerned agencies and the local community in relation to risk of fire, social isolation, and health related problems. The FRS will also seek out new opportunities and develop itself into an organization committed to educate and support the local community by cultivating the right values to our staff. 3.8 Value for Money Stakeholders are typically looking for value for money from services (Canwell & Sutherland, 2005, p.68) and with the grant cuts and higher council tax, this community fire safety plan will make the most of the limited budget. First, resources will be allocated in line with the priorities discussed earlier (see section 3.3). The FRS financial for the following years will also reflect the need to spend wisely and maximize opportunity in generating more income from FRS facilities and services such as revenues from commercial fire fighting skills development and rental from conference facilities. Our priorities, operational preparedness and response will make sure that services are delivered in the safest and most efficient way, which in essence is beneficial and advantageous to both community and the FRS. Despite grant cuts and some uncertainties, the FRS will continue to provide high quality services and maintain the shortest response time as much as possible. Moreover, in order to ensure that the FRS is always doing its job well, the management intends to conduct a monthly performance audit of our members and update their skills when necessary. As before, the service will use our communication and mobilization centre efficiently to ensure rapid deployment of appliances. More importantly, the FRS is ready to perform rescue operations and terrorism response anywhere in Merseyside. 4. Conclusion Review of Merseyside FRS Integrated Risk Management Plan for 2012-2015 suggest that government grant cuts will greatly affect the services being provided by the FRS. Responding to financial challenges, MFRS management made some changes in the way services are delivered such as reducing the number of staff and acquiring additional funds from local sources. Statistical analysis shows that the main problem is maintaining the balance between reduced workforce and quality service while on a very tight budget. Another is the increasing number of people at risk as shown in the IRMP where large areas of Merseyside are income-deprived. The increasing population of old and disabled people is also a problem as they are more vulnerable to fire. However, despite financial difficulties and reduced workforce, the community fire safety plan developed in this assignment will ensure a safe and stronger community by maintaining effective fire fighters, high level of operation preparedness and response, prevention and protection through teamwork and partnership, and good working relationship between members of the FRS. 5. References Canwell D. & Sutherland J, (2005), BTEC Diploma in Business: Level 2, Nelson Thornes, UK IRMP, (2012), Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service: Integrated Risk Management Plan 2012/15, MFRS, pp.1-63 Kemshall H. & Wilkinson B, (2011), Good Practice in Risk Assessment and Risk Management, Vol. 3, Jessica Kingsley Publishers, UK MFRS, (2012), Merseyside Fire & Rescue Authority 2011/2012 Budget, MFRS, pp.1-9 Read More