DNV Risk
Review
Management
Summary
Aim
This study provides an independent assessment of the risks
of 8 improvement objectives proposed for the Warwickshire Fire and Rescue
Service (WFRS). The scope of the work covers all risks to the organisation of
WFRS, including impacts on life, property and the environment.
The improvement objectives are grouped as follows:
1.
Duty system and resources
2.
False alarm attendance policy
3.
Smoke detector ownership
4.
Hot fires training
5.
Performance management
6.
Flooding response
7.
Road traffic collision unit
8.
Small fires unit
Approach
In this study, the impacts of the improvement objectives
have been identified in qualitative terms. In order to be able to evaluate such
diverse changes in a consistent way, the impacts have been quantified and
expressed in monetary units, in order to show whether they are expected to
produce a favourable balance of benefits and costs. Given the 3-week timescale
of the present study, this quantification has relied on previous analyses and
simplifying assumptions. The results are therefore approximate, and may need to
be revised using the judgement of experienced WFRS managers.
Results
The summary results of the review of each objective are as
follows.
Improvement objective 1:
Duty system and resources
|
|
Positive effects
|
Negative effects
|
|
Summary of change
|
·
Proportion of whole-time firefighters
increased from 60% to 77%.
·
A 5-watch system to provide extra resilience
at whole-time stations.
·
A 10-person resilience shift to cover against
absence elsewhere.
·
Day-crew hours adjusted to match peaks in
demand.
|
·
Overall number of firefighters reduced by 58.
·
Fire response from 12 stations instead of 19.
|
|
Effect on safety
|
·
Continues to meet emergency response standards
of 10 minutes (urban) and 20 minutes (rural).
·
5th watch, resilience shift and adjusted
day-crew hours will improve availability.
·
Whole-time firefighters are more extensively
trained, less vulnerable to accidents, possibly more effective in
firefighting and more quickly available when needed.
|
·
18 sec increase in average response times, and
consequent increase in fire and road accident risks.
·
Requires careful management of change.
|
|
Cost-benefit balance
|
·
Reduction in direct cost of £134,000 per year.
·
Net benefit of £70,000 per year.
|
·
Increase in risk valued at £64,000 per year,
but this is sensitive to response time estimates.
|
|
Other effects
|
·
Provides personnel for small fires unit
(objective 8).
|
|
|
Conclusion
|
·
Reduction in cost outweighs the risk.
·
Provides resources for other objectives.
|
|
Improvement objective 2:
False alarm attendance policy
|
|
Positive effects
|
Negative effects
|
|
Summary of change
|
·
Continued emergency response to automatic fire
alarms at defined premises that are slow to evacuate (e.g. hospitals, care
homes).
|
·
No attendance at other automatic fire alarms
without human confirmation of a fire.
|
|
Effect on safety
|
·
Large reduction in callouts for false alarms,
reducing wear & tear, fuel consumption and road accident risk.
|
·
Slower response to fires detected
automatically, and consequent increase in fire damage risks.
|
|
Cost-benefit balance
|
·
Reduction in false alarm callouts valued at
£655,000 per year (including staff time).
·
Net benefit of £643,000 per year
|
·
Small direct cost of £5,000 per year.
·
Increase in risk valued at £7,000 per year,
but this is sensitive to delay time.
|
|
Other effects
|
·
Provides time for fire prevention activity
(objective 3), but is not essential for it.
·
Reduces resources needs, but is not essential
for objective 1.
|
|
|
Conclusion
|
·
Provides resources for other objectives.
·
Reduction in risk outweighs the cost.
|
·
Contrasts with recent cost-benefit study for
CLG.
|
Improvement objective 3:
Smoke detector ownership
|
|
Positive effects
|
Negative effects
|
|
Summary of change
|
·
10-fold increase in home fire safety checks
(HFSCs) and smoke detector (SD) delivery.
·
HFSCs would be by operational firefighters
(approx 20%) and voluntary organisations (80%).
|
|
|
Effect on safety
|
·
HFSCs promote fire prevention and so reduce
dwelling fires.
·
SDs provide early warning of dwelling fires,
and so reduce human and damage risk.
|
·
HFSCs distract firefighters from fire
mitigation.
·
HFSCs might be less effective if done in bulk
contractors.
·
Fire damage will increase at the end of SD
battery life.
|
|
Cost-benefit balance
|
·
Reduction in risk valued at £830,000 per year,
but this is sensitive to how risk accumulates over several years.
·
Net benefit of £389,000 per year.
|
·
Direct cost is £441,000 per year (SDs).
|
|
Other effects
|
·
Reduces resources needs, but is not essential
for objective 1.
|
|
|
Conclusion
|
·
Reduction in risk outweighs the cost.
·
Consistent with other cost-benefit studies.
|
·
Other solutions (e.g. 1 SD per HFSC) may be
more cost-effective.
|
Improvement objective 4:
Hot fires training
|
|
Positive effects
|
Negative effects
|
|
Summary of change
|
·
2-fold increase in hot fire training for all
crew.
·
Incident command system (ICS) training
integrated with hot fire training.
|
|
|
Effect on safety
|
·
Training makes firefighters less vulnerable to
accidents and more effective in fighting hot fires.
|
·
Training takes time and reduces availability.
|
|
Cost-benefit balance
|
·
Reduction in risk valued at £865,000 per year,
but this is sensitive to the assumed benefit of training.
·
Net benefit of £585,000 per year.
|
·
Direct cost is £280,000 per year.
|
|
Other effects
|
·
Appropriate response to Atherstone accident.
|
|
|
Conclusion
|
·
Reduction in risk outweighs the cost.
|
|
Improvement objective 5:
Performance management
|
|
Positive effects
|
Negative effects
|
|
Summary of change
|
·
Management attention to motivate personnel to
avoid unnecessary sickness absence.
·
Temporary promotions to be time-limited to
encourage stability in the organisation.
·
Updated fitness facilities and instructors at
fire stations.
|
|
|
Effect on safety
|
·
Health and fitness improves firefighting
performance.
·
Reduced sickness absence improves availability
|
·
Fitness activities may distract firefighters
from fire prevention.
|
|
Cost-benefit balance
|
·
Reduction in risk is uncertain.
·
Net benefit is unknown at present.
|
·
Direct cost is uncertain.
|
|
Other effects
|
·
Response to sickness absence being below FRS
average.
|
|
|
Conclusion
|
·
Evaluation is not possible at present.
|
|
Improvement objective 6:
Flooding response
|
|
Positive effects
|
Negative effects
|
|
Summary of change
|
·
A second boat unit, covering the south of the
county.
|
|
|
Effect on safety
|
·
Faster response to flooding events in south
Warwickshire.
·
Extra resources for major flooding events in
north Warwickshire.
·
Reduced risks to firefighters from improvised
rescues while waiting for the existing boat to arrive.
|
·
Training takes time and reduces availability.
|
|
Cost-benefit balance
|
·
Reduction in risk valued at £50,000 per year,
but this is sensitive to the assumed benefit of the boat unit.
·
Net benefit of £41,200 per year.
|
·
Direct cost is £8,800 per year.
|
|
Other effects
|
·
Pro-active response to growth in flood risks.
|
|
|
Conclusion
|
·
Reduction in risk outweighs the cost.
|
|
Improvement objective 7:
Road traffic collision unit
|
|
Positive effects
|
Negative effects
|
|
Summary of change
|
·
A dedicated road traffic collision (RTC) unit.
·
It will carry cutting and heavy lift
equipment.
·
It will be deployed at satellite locations
where road accidents are common
·
It will attend complicated accidents in
addition to conventional pumps.
|
|
|
Effect on safety
|
·
Faster extrication of casualties from road
accidents.
·
Figurehead for road accident prevention.
|
|
|
Cost-benefit balance
|
·
Reduction in risk valued at £196,000 per year,
but this is sensitive to the assumed effect of the RTC unit.
·
Net benefit of at least £191,000 per year.
|
·
Small direct cost of £5000 due to converting
existing vehicle.
|
|
Other effects
|
|
|
|
Conclusion
|
·
Reduction in risk outweighs the cost.
·
Large benefit suggests other RTC measures may
be effective.
|
|
Improvement objective 8: Small
fires unit
|
|
Positive effects
|
Negative effects
|
|
Summary of change
|
·
Two dedicated small fires units (SFU),
consisting of 4x4 targeted response vehicles.
·
They will have a crew totalling 20 whole-time
firefighters.
·
They will be located near the main areas for
small fires.
·
They will also undertake community-based fire
prevention.
|
|
|
Effect on safety
|
·
Prevention of small fires through
community-based work.
·
Reduced response cost for small fires.
·
Improved performance in extinguishing small
fires.
|
|
|
Cost-benefit balance
|
·
Reduction in risk valued at £86,000 per year.
·
Reduction in response cost estimated as
£198,000, including time released for HFSCs.
·
Net benefit of £284,000 per year.
|
·
Negligible direct cost due to using existing
vehicles.
|
|
Other effects
|
|
·
Depends on duty system (objective 1).
|
|
Conclusion
|
·
Reduction in risk and cost.
|
|
Comparison of
Improvements
Figure 1 compares the direct
costs for these improvements. Direct costs include salaries and purchases of
equipment and services. Negative values indicate cost savings. Objective 1 is
cost-saving, and objectives 3 and 4 involve major investments. The combined
cost is £606,000 per year, but most of this is due to objectives 3 and 4.
Figure 1
Direct Costs
Figure 2 compares the estimated safety impacts, expressed
in monetary units. These include valuations of risks to life and property, and
time savings. Negative values indicate extra risk. Objective 1 causes a slight
increase in risk. All the others are predicted to reduce risk (especially
objectives 3 and 4). The combined benefit is valued at £2.8 million per year.
Figure 2
Value of Safety Impacts
Figure 3 combines the costs and safety impacts to show the
overall net benefit for each improvement objective, expressed in monetary
units. Negative values indicate that costs and extra risks outweigh any risk
reduction. All the objectives are predicted to be beneficial (especially
objectives 2, 3 and 4). The combined net benefit is £2.2 million per year.
Figure 3
Net Benefits
Conclusions
This study concludes that the overall package of
improvement objectives will be beneficial. Two of the objectives (objectives 3
and 4) imply a large investment in smoke detectors and training, but they also
make a large reduction in risk and are beneficial overall. The other objectives
involve either cost reductions or small cost increases, and also reduce risk.
Objective 1 is different because it increases risk, but this is outweighed by
the significant cost saving.
The package as a whole is predicted to make a significant
reduction in the risk from fires and road accidents. Hence the work supports
the overall package of improvement options.
Uncertainties
This work is uncertain because it has been completed over
a short timescale, and uses preliminary assumptions that have had only
preliminary validation by WFRS. It also makes use of national calculations of the
effects of response time, whereas local models would be preferable. At present
it is based on WFRS fire statistics from 2006/07, fire damage costs from 2004.
Updates to use more recent data would be expected to have a small impact
because fire frequencies have reduced but costs have increased.
Recommendations
The study also suggests that there may be opportunities to
make further improvements for WFRS:
· Some
of the improvement objectives are more cost-effective than others. This may be because
of the assumptions made in the present analysis. However, there may be
potential to optimise the improvements to make them more cost-effective
· A
more comprehensive study of the risks associated with fire and rescue in
Warwickshire would provide the basis for a fully risk-based set of
improvements, which might be able to increase the benefits from the current
objectives.
· The
same risk study would provide the basis for a comparison between WFRS and other
areas. This might indicate areas for efficiency savings, both in Warwickshire
and elsewhere.
· The
potential amalgamation of the FRS in Warwickshire and neighbouring counties
could also be addressed in the same way. However, quantifying this type of
change would require more detailed modelling of economies of scale.
It is therefore recommended that WFRS continue to use the
quantitative approach from the present study to prioritise and evaluate changes
as they are planned in the future.
