Misconduct in fire and rescue services in England: Research commissioned by His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services

Conclusions in this report are those of the research authors, not HMICFRS.

Authors

This report has been authored by Crest Advisory which was commissioned by His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services (HMICFRS) in October 2023 to conduct research into the handling of misconduct in fire and rescue services in England.

The authors would like to express their gratitude to the participants who took part in this research. We would especially like to acknowledge the open and honest contributions of former fire and rescue services staff who participated in interviews.

We would also like to thank those who help to facilitate this research by disseminating information about it through their networks.

Crest Advisory is a purpose-led consultancy focused on improving justice, policing and public safety. The research team was:

• Jessica Lumley
• James Stott
• Alex Stacey
• Serina Fuller
• Ollie Glick
• Jamie King
• Delene Adams
• Sarah Kincaid
• Samantha Cunningham

Introduction and scope

In October 2023, Crest Advisory was commissioned by His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services (HMICFRS) to conduct research into the handling of misconduct in fire and rescue services (FRS) in England. This research is intended to support the thematic inspection of the handling of misconduct in fire and rescue services. This inspection was commissioned by the then Home Secretary Rt. Hon, Suella Braverman KC MP. The terms of reference for this inspection can be found here.

For the purposes of this inspection, misconduct, also known as prejudicial and improper behaviour, is defined as any unacceptable or inappropriate behaviour or acts that breaks workplace rules. Misconduct includes bullying, harassment, insubordination or being absent without permission, and can include behaviour outside of work that can have a bad effect on the organisation.

The fieldwork conducted by Crest as part of this research featured current FRS staff and former FRS staff from the 44 fire and rescue services in England. This report details the analysis of this fieldwork:

• A survey for current staff (n=4,422, 10 percent of the total workforce as at the year ending March 2023). The survey used a voluntary sampling method meaning that although there was a considerable number of respondents, we are unable to make general findings about the workforce, or compare fire and rescue services, due to sampling error. However, these findings do provide a baseline to support future iterations of the survey and can be used with other sources to understand the handling of misconduct (triangulation).
• Interviews with former staff (n=30). To be eligible to take part in the research, participants were required to have left the FRS within the previous five years and experienced and/or witnessed some form of misconduct while in the service. Thirty-one individuals were interviewed during the fieldwork of which one was discounted from the analysis because they did not meet the eligibility criteria.

Fieldwork was completed between November 2023 and February 2024. This report summarises the findings of this fieldwork.

Key findings

Values, culture and attitudes to misconduct

The majority of staff survey respondents (68 percent) believe fire and rescue services take reports of misconduct seriously and that their service discourages such behaviour (71 percent). Policies and procedures relating to unacceptable behaviour were generally well understood.

However, staff survey respondents were more undecided about the extent to which there had been improvements in attitudes and behaviour within the fire service. Overall, 52 percent of respondents believe that prejudicial behaviours and attitudes have got better in the last year, but this fell to below half for those in non-managerial positions.

Black or Black British respondents were less likely to agree that behaviours or attitudes had got better over the past three years (30 percent vs average: 51 percent) or five years (24 percent vs average: 44 percent).

Further insight into values and culture was provided in interviews with former staff who have experienced and/or witnessed misconduct. Working in fire and rescue was described as being like a ‘family’, both positively and negatively, and characterised the culture as exclusive, lacking in challenge, and consisting of predominantly men.

This final characteristic was particularly relevant to the experience of the female ex‑staff interviewed, who had experienced misogyny both in the behaviours and attitudes of colleagues and in the handling of misconduct.

These findings suggest that improvements have not been felt by all staff, and that some of the positive values and culture within the fire service such as its ‘family’ ethos, might have a more negative effect, for example in there being pressure to fit in or to conform.

Prevalence of misconduct in the workforce

Based on the staff survey, at the very minimum, 7 percent of the workforce have experienced and/or witnessed misconduct at any time in their service. This is likely to be a considerable underrepresentation – more than half of survey respondents (54 percent) had experienced and/or witnessed misconduct in the last 12 months with 74 percent experiencing and/or witnessing misconduct over their service career.

Fewer strategic managers have experienced and/or witnessed any form of misconduct at any time, suggesting they are shielded or distanced from the reality of misconduct. There is also a question as to why strategic managers who normally spend long periods of service in fire and rescue, have not had comparable experiences to other colleagues.

Respondents from mixed or multiple ethnic backgrounds (80 percent) were more likely to have experienced and/or witnessed misconduct than other ethnic groups (average: 70 percent) in their career and over the past 12 months than White respondents (64 percent vs 52 percent).

Male respondents were more likely to have experienced and/or witnessed various aspects of misconduct than female respondents (for example witnessing misconduct during their career; experiencing and/or witnessing multiple forms of misconduct and experiencing and/or witnessing intimidation).

These findings might be explained by the predominantly masculine environment that persists in the fire service especially in more operational contexts. However, it was interesting to note that male and female experience of misconduct over the previous 12 months was broadly similar. Female respondents were more likely to face discrimination and sexual harassment although male respondents were more likely to witness this.

Types of misconduct

Rude and offensive behaviour was the most common form of misconduct followed by abuse of power – which seemed particularly relevant in the context of people being concerned about reporting misconduct (discussed below). Other forms of misconduct included intimidation, discrimination, bullying and sexual harassment.

Despite a majority feeling confident in reporting misconduct, in practice, it was often hard to report

A considerable majority were confident in how to report misconduct (89 percent) although this fell among Black or Black British respondents (73 percent), along with Asian or Asian British (78 percent) compared to 91 percent of White respondents. This is of concern in that Black or Black British and Mixed ethnicity respondents were more likely to experience and/or witness misconduct.

However interviewees had found that in practice, a report of misconduct could be difficult to make, with informal approaches being ignored, disregarded and reporting actively discouraged in some cases. Importantly, interviewees described the negative influence of more senior colleagues who were seen to set the values and culture within the service, and sometimes acted as barriers to reporting misconduct.

There was a common perception that reporting misconduct could impact your career

A strong theme ran through the free-text responses to the survey and in interviews that reporting bad behaviour and misconduct would have negative consequences for their career and relationship with colleagues. The experience of interviewees was that these concerns were often borne out.

Some were threatened if they spoke out and references to being ‘blacklisted’ and being a trouble-maker were frequently made. There were particular concerns about the lack of confidentiality when reporting to the extent that there were hundreds of survey free-text comments expressing doubts about the confidentiality of the survey or expressing concern that if they shared their experiences, they would be vulnerable to reprisal.

Some former staff had reached breaking point by the time they eventually made a report, and felt like they had no other option.

There were some indications, particularly for women, that the barriers to reporting were more difficult to overcome. This was also mentioned to a lesser extent (but likely due to the sample size) in relation to staff from the LGBTQA+ community and from some ethnic backgrounds.

These findings present challenges for the fire service in promoting and encouraging the reporting of unacceptable behaviour. They suggest that strong cultural factors are getting in the way of a more open and challenging environment in which reporting misconduct carries less perceived risks.

Formal misconduct processes were seen as a big escalation, suggesting informal processes represent an important step as well as assuring individuals of an independent reporting process

The process of handling formal misconduct was seen as flawed, with impartiality and confidentiality two key areas that were mentioned. The length of time taken to reach an outcome and lack of communication during the process also had considerable impact on individuals. This was the case both in the survey and in the interviews.

The experience of reporting had major impacts on individuals including on their mental health

Reporting did have demonstrable effects on individuals, including exclusion and marginalisation from colleagues. Interviewees described negative effects on their mental health and personal suicidal ideation and attempts were explicitly mentioned by one in five interviewees. Their experience was that limited support was offered or made available.

The experiences of interviewees contributed to their leaving the service.

Respondents’ lived experiences affected their attitudes to misconduct and how it was dealt with

The confidence of staff survey respondents in the misconduct system was lower if they had experienced and or witnessed misconduct. This is not just related to the outcomes of reporting (people are often disappointed) but the processes involved too. They were less likely to believe that improper or prejudicial attitudes had improved over time, less likely to think that the fire service takes reports of misconduct seriously and discourages misconduct and less likely to have found training and guidance useful.

The lived experiences of current and former staff in respect of misconduct provides rich information and insight into both the processes and procedures in relation to misconduct and also the wider cultural and behavioural pressures that make following such processes more difficult.

Methods

Staff survey

Crest Advisory conducted an online survey with the staff from each of the 44 fire and rescue services in England. The objective was to capture the experiences and perceptions of misconduct within fire and rescue services, whether they had experience and/or witnessed misconduct or not. The survey featured closed and open-ended questions to allow quantitative and qualitative analysis.

The survey opened on 1 November 2023 and closed on 15 December 2023, using an online survey platform. Each service received a unique link to the survey via their Service Liaison Officer, allowing the number of completions and the response rate per service to be recorded. The survey was completed by 4,422 individuals, equating to 10 percent of the workforce.

The limitations of the survey means this finding and others are not representative of the entire sector’s workforce and we cannot make comparisons across services due to the variability in response rates – the main factors here are the voluntary sampling approach and the method of dissemination (the limitations are set out in more detail in the Annex). 4,422 respondents is a sizable cohort and there is detail in the Annex on the demographic makeup of the cohort. The results are useful in setting a baseline understanding of the topics covered and can be used with other data sources, including inspection fieldwork and interviews.

Former staff interviews

Crest Advisory conducted online interviews with former fire and rescue service staff. The selection criteria was that the participant (1) previously worked for a FRS in the last 5 years and (2) had personal experience relating to misconduct whilst in service.

Participants were recruited online, in collaboration with stakeholders, by asking fire and rescue services and other sector organisations to encourage potential participants within their own networks.

The objective of these interviews was to discuss the participant’s perceptions and personal experiences of misconduct while in service and their general perceptions of values, culture, and misconduct within the service(s) they served in. These interviews were largely narrative in approach, exploring the story of the participants’ experiences while in service, using a semi-structured discussion guide. A target was set to interview 20 former staff. In total, 31 former staff were interviewed between 6 December 2023 and 8 February 2024. Of these, 30 interviews were analysed.

More details on methods can be found in the Annex.

Findings: staff survey

4,422 individuals completed the survey. The objective was to capture the experiences and perceptions of misconduct within fire and rescue services, whether they had experience and/or witnessed misconduct or not. The survey featured closed and open-ended questions to allow quantitative and qualitative analysis. Free-text responses have been subject to a thematic analysis which summarises the key themes that emerged across responses.

Experiences of misconduct: general experiences

When asked about misconduct, 75 percent of respondents had experienced and/or witnessed misconduct at some time during their career in a fire and rescue service – this equates to 7 percent of the fire and rescue workforce in England. ‘Experienced’ means being personally affected by improper behaviour in the workplace, whereas ‘witnessed’ means that you have seen someone else be affected.

54 percent of respondents reported having experienced and/or witnessed misconduct in the last 12 months, with 34 percent of current staff having experienced misconduct and 41 percent having witnessed misconduct in the last 12 months (note that a proportion had both experienced and witnessed misconduct). Since some services returned a low number of responses, this is likely to be a considerable under‑representation of the proportion of staff who have recently experienced and/or witnessed misconduct in fire and rescue services in England.

There are clear consistencies in the demographics of survey respondents who have experienced and/or witnessed misconduct, both in the last 12 months and beyond. Male respondents (76 percent) were significantly more likely to have experienced and/or witnessed misconduct than female respondents (66 percent). This finding is statistically significant.

However, experiences of misconduct in the last 12 months were more similar between male and female staff, with 31 percent of female and 32 percent of male respondents having experienced misconduct.

It is not clear why female respondents were less likely in particular to say they had witnessed misconduct in general, despite being more likely to experience forms of misconduct like sexual harassment and discrimination. It might be related to the fact that the workforce consists predominantly of men, especially in more operational contexts. This requires further exploration.

80 percent of respondents from mixed or multiple ethnic backgrounds had experienced and/or witnessed any form of misconduct over their career compared to 70 percent of other ethnic groups. These respondents were also significantly more likely to have experienced and/or witnessed any form of misconduct in the past 12 months than White respondents (64 percent vs 52 percent).

Supervisory managers and middle managers were consistently more likely to have experienced and/or witnessed any form of misconduct than other ranks which may in part link to their involvement in and responsibility for resolving misconduct reported to them in the workplace, as well as their length of service. The proportion of strategic managers who have experienced any form of misconduct at any time (30 percent) differs greatly to the proportion who have witnessed any form of misconduct at any time (74 percent) – this further supports the idea that managers will witness misconduct through their role in responding to misconduct reported to them, rather than experiencing it directly. However, this may be impacted by the lower base size for the strategic manager cohort (n. 57). Please see the Annex for more detail on the demographics of the survey cohort. There is also a question about why strategic managers who would normally have spent long periods of service in fire and rescue, and therefore have experience within junior roles and operational contexts, do not have comparable experiences to other colleagues. This requires further exploration.

Experiences of misconduct: types of misconduct

21 percent of respondents reported having experienced multiple incidents of misconduct (defined as two or more different types of misconduct) in the last 12 months while 39 percent of respondents reported experiencing this during their career. 51 percent of respondents reported witnessing two or more types of misconduct during their career, equating to 5 percent of the workforce, with a quarter witnessing two or more types of misconduct in the last 12 months.

Rude or offensive behaviour

967 current staff have experienced rude or offensive behaviour in the last 12 months – 2 percent of the workforce (10 percent of the workforce responded to the survey). Rude or offensive behaviour was the most common form of misconduct experienced by respondents, both at any time and in the past 12 months.

22 percent of respondents had experienced and/or witnessed rude or offensive behaviour in the last 12 months, making it the most prevalent form of misconduct reported in the survey. Free-text responses about rude and offensive behaviour referenced frequent use of bad language, particularly noting how common and frequent bad language was within their fire and rescue service, such as in internal meetings. Building on this, behaviour was often described as aggressive, with references to colleagues shouting at others (which links to the findings on intimidation below).

Others reported more serious forms of misconduct including foul and abusive language, misogyny, racism, and homophobia, directed at them, other staff, and members of the public.

Some respondents highlighted how ‘banter’ was not always intended or taken in a friendly way and could contribute to the marginalisation of those subject to it. There was also a theme of rude behaviour towards those who challenge poor culture within their fire and rescue service.

Finally, there was a common thread of responses highlighting the role of more senior colleagues in ignoring or tolerating rude or offensive behaviour within the workplace, as well as senior colleagues also being responsible for this behaviour.

Abuse of power

Abuse of power was the second most common form of misconduct reported in the survey. 29 percent of respondents have experienced or witnessed it in the past year while 34 percent have witnessed this at some time during their service. A number of free-text responses relating to the abuse of power described senior management as ‘sticking together’ to ignore, excuse or facilitate misconduct. Examples were also given of intimidatory behaviour by senior colleagues towards others, including as part of the misconduct process itself. There was a common thread of defensiveness throughout the free-text responses among senior colleagues when challenged – there were even responses where respondents did not want to share their experiences in the survey due to the fear of repercussions from more senior colleagues. References were made to exclusive circles of senior colleagues which are perceived as impenetrable or unchallengeable.

Intimidation

23 percent of respondents reported experiencing intimidation during their service, with one in ten reporting experiencing this in the last 12 months. In terms of the intimidation participants reported, there was an overwhelming tendency to report aggression and hyper-masculinity, including both verbal and physical threats and actions.

Within the fire and rescue service, responses suggested that rank can be used to intimidate more junior colleagues by abusing the hierarchical structure – in one instance, the hierarchical structure was used as a reason to say that a colleague should not challenge poor culture. Moreover, some respondents suggested that operational colleagues used their role to intimidate non-operational colleagues.

Sexual harassment

Female respondents are more likely to experience sexual harassment than male respondents, both at any time and within the last 12 months. For example, 4 percent of female respondents have experienced sexual harassment in the past 12 months, compared to 2 percent of male respondents – a statistically significant finding.

Male respondents on the other hand were more likely to witness sexual harassment. In total, 16 percent of respondents reported witnessing sexual harassment at any time during their service.

Free-text responses featured descriptions of sexist and degrading language – including messages on social media, unwanted touching, indecent exposure, unsolicited content of a sexual nature, and revenge porn. Sexual assault was also mentioned within the free-text responses. These experiences were not just limited to female staff but also to members of the public, including one report of ‘fanny runs’ where men would use fire trucks to go out and look at women.

There were also descriptions of complainants in sexual harassment cases being intimidated and serious allegations being dismissed.

Discrimination

20 percent of respondents reported witnessing discrimination at some time during their career. Discrimination against other protected characteristics was mentioned consistently in the free-text responses, particularly involving sexism, racism, ableism (including neurodiversity), and LGBTQA+ discrimination.

Sexism was the most frequently mentioned form of discrimination, including discriminatory views of female colleagues in the fire services and differential management of female colleagues by senior members of staff. Alongside wider societal misogyny within the context of the fire service, the sexist trope that women cannot be firefighters appears to influence the experiences of misconduct of women in the fire service.

Racism was also mentioned in free-text responses particularly relating to racial bias in the treatment of colleagues. Also mentioned was the feeling of isolation in some teams about being the only, or one of the only, minority staff members. Similarly, there were experiences of seeing racist messages on social media.

Potential criminality

More than one in ten respondents had reported witnessing criminal activity at some time in their service. Fraud, specifically in respect to overtime, misuse of donated funds, and theft were the most common forms of criminal activity identified.

Impact on male and female staff

Similarly to the finding that male respondents were more likely to have experienced and/or witnessed misconduct than female respondents, male respondents were more likely to experience certain forms of improper behaviour than female respondents, namely rude or offensive behaviour, intimidation and abuse of power. Whereas female respondents were more likely to report experiencing sexual harassment and discrimination in the past 12 months – this finding was statistically significant. It would be interesting to further investigate the experience of higher volume lower harm misconduct versus low form high harm misconduct across demographic cohorts in future surveys.

The differences experienced here may reflect the varying workplaces across fire and rescue services where role types have different cultures, including in operational roles where there are typically more men than women, and the higher numbers of women in non-operational roles. The combination of discrimination and sexual harassment being more prevalent for women than for men is indicative of workplace culture that is hostile for women respondents, with women referencing in free-text responses their experiences of sexism and misogyny.

Impact on staff of different ethnicities

There were clear differences in the experiences of staff survey respondents from mixed or multiple ethnic backgrounds, suggesting they were more likely to experience improper behaviour in their career. 58 percent of respondents from mixed or multiple ethnic backgrounds experienced multiple forms of misconduct in the last 12 months, compared to an average of 44 percent across other ethnic groups. In terms of representation, the survey sample broadly aligned with the workforce population. Respondents from mixed or multiple ethnic backgrounds were more likely to report experiencing individual forms of improper behaviour, including rude or offensive behaviour, abuse of power, intimidation, sexual harassment and discrimination.

Respondents from ethnic minority backgrounds referenced in free-text responses their experiences of racism and discrimination, demonstrating the adversity they’ve experienced in the workplace. Some respondents also mentioned that they found being a staff member from an ethnic minority background to be an isolating and lonely experience within fire and rescue services.

Impact on staff in different roles, including management responsibilities

Multiple instances of misconduct appear to be more prevalent in operational contexts, which may reflect the specific workplace culture experienced by these roles compared to control room and support staff. 61 percent of wholetime firefighters and 51 percent of retained/on-call firefighters reported witnessing multiple forms of misconduct at any time, compared to 37 percent of non-operational support staff. Intimidation was also more likely to be either experienced and/or witnessed by operational staff. 13 percent of wholetime firefighters have experienced intimidation in the past 12 months, compared to 8 percent of support staff. This finding is statistically significant.

Reporting misconduct

62 percent of respondents found the reporting process to be clear compared to 20 percent who found it unclear (and 18 percent who found it neither clear nor unclear). The higher a respondent’s rank, the more likely they were to believe the process was clear. In addition, those respondents who had experienced misconduct over the previous 12 months were less likely to think the process was clear (58 percent) compared to those who had not experienced misconduct (76 percent). This finding is statistically significant and may suggest that the misconduct process is not as clear for those who have cause to use it. This further resonates with the point made above that higher ranks experience/ witness misconduct less frequently.

59 percent of respondents were dissatisfied with the outcome(s) compared to 5 percent who were satisfied and 17 percent who were neither satisfied or dissatisfied. Again, 67 percent of respondents who had experienced misconduct in the previous 12 months were dissatisfied compared to 32 percent who were satisfied with the outcome. This finding is statistically significant.

The survey did give respondents the opportunity to explain how they felt about the outcome, but did not ask all respondents whether the outcome was favourable or not. However, dissatisfaction with the outcome of a grievance or a misconduct case was among the most frequent reasons participants used the free-text function in the survey.

Dissatisfaction with the outcome for those who had raised a complaint or a grievance frequently involved a perceived lack of consequence, either because no further action was taken or the response was not deemed appropriate. There were particular concerns around the behaviour of individuals/situations not being managed by more senior colleagues in the fire and rescue service, reducing the confidence among respondents that misconduct will be tackled and perpetuating a feeling of being ignored or not listened to. This was particularly linked to the informal management of lower level misconduct to prevent it continuing and/ or escalating.

Dissatisfaction for those subject to misconduct processes concerned their perception of unfairness in terms of the process and/or the severity of the outcome. In some cases, there were concerns about the weaponisation of misconduct processes against staff within the service. Linked to the point above about management of misconduct, some responses articulated a concern, sometimes fear, about managing misconduct as this might be perceived as bullying.

The dissatisfaction across both cohorts is noteworthy; those who responded do not feel satisfied regardless of which side of the process they have experienced. Common claims across both cohorts were that there were defaults in the process. An unfavourable outcome will undoubtedly contribute to dissatisfaction for the individual impacted, but could be mitigated if the process can be seen to have been followed. The theme of managing misconduct being important from both perspectives is also an important point of reflection.

Culture, values and training

Views on values and culture

The staff survey did not establish a widely held belief that improper or prejudicial behaviour or attitudes have got better, either in the past year or the last three to five years. However, nor was there an overwhelming view that things had got worse. Overall, 52 percent of respondents believe that attitudes have got better in the past year, this is especially the case for those who have not experienced and/or witnessed misconduct at any time, with 48 percent of all respondents stating that attitudes had stayed the same or got worse.

The higher a person’s rank, the more likely they are to consider that behaviours have got better. Less than half of those with no management responsibilities (44 percent) felt things had got better over the past 12 months; rising to 48 percent for supervisory managers and 63 percent for middle managers. This pattern is broadly similar across three to five year periods. This claim should be further investigated to understand why if efforts are being made to improve culture within fire and rescue services, why is this being felt less by staff with non-management responsibilities and whether this is an indication that these efforts are not entirely successful.

A number of free-text respondents indicated their fire and rescue services were improving, and that there was an ongoing focus on improving values and culture. However, other respondents stated that their fire and rescue service had become worse. While efforts to improve values and culture may be observable by current staff, there was a degree of scepticism about how deep these changes went. This range of views adds weight to the view that there are challenges in properly embedding cultural change in fire and rescue services.

Respondents largely agreed that their service takes reports of misconduct seriously and that their service discourages such behaviour. Two thirds (66 percent) agree that their service takes reports of improper and prejudicial behaviour or attitudes seriously. One in five respondents, however, disagreed.

Similarly, 71 percent agreed their service’s culture discourages improper and prejudicial behaviour and attitudes, compared to 17 percent who disagreed and 11 percent who neither agreed nor disagreed. Experiencing or witnessing misconduct substantially affects whether respondents agree that their service’s culture discourages misconduct: 64 percent of respondents who had experienced and/or witnessed misconduct agreeing with this statement, compared to 92 percent who had not. Those who have not experienced or witnessed misconduct are likely to think that one of the reasons for this is that their service’s culture has some impact on discouraging it in their experience.

In addition, only 61 percent of Black or Black British respondents agreed that their service’s culture discourages improper and prejudicial behaviour and attitudes, compared to an average of 73 percent of respondents across other ethnic groups.

77 percent of respondents were confident about reporting misconduct involving colleagues, and agreed that their team would support them when doing so.

However, some respondents described concerns with reporting such as a negative impact on their career and reprisals, with fears expressed of being labelled as a troublemaker or too challenging. Other concerns included a lack of confidentiality and impartiality, with experiences of details of investigations being shared more widely and becoming common knowledge within that team. Other responses indicated scepticism in the outcome of a complaint due to the connections between those reported and those involved in their investigation.

Concerns about abuse of power also led to a fear that reporting bad behaviour and misconduct might lead to punishment or reprisal, meaning misconduct is not challenged when it emerges. This was frequently mentioned in the free-text responses, highlighting a level of mistrust in the ability of fire and rescue services to successfully deal with complaints about misconduct. Concerns included not wanting to be open and honest in this survey due to fears that any information they shared could be used against them in the future.

Training and guidance on discrimination and related matters

Training and guidance relating to misconduct-related behaviours or attitudes were considered useful, across all types of training and guidance.

The majority of respondents found training and guidance on the following subjects to be useful: discrimination (70 percent), cultural awareness (67 percent), bullying and harassment (66 percent) and unconscious bias (62 percent).

In line with other findings, there are clear differences in the usefulness of training and guidance according to respondents’ rank and their experience of misconduct. Across all four subjects, 53 percent of respondents with no management responsibilities found the training and guidance to be useful, rising to 66 percent for supervisory managers, 81 percent for middle managers and 94 percent for strategic managers. There is a clear disconnect to be explored here to understand why this training and guidance is less useful across different roles. Importantly, if more senior staff believe training and guidance on these topics useful, it may limit their motivation to improve the training and guidance for those who do not hold the same view or realise that improvements are required in the first place.

Similarly, on average across all four subjects, 63 percent of those having experienced and/or witnessed misconduct at any time found them useful, compared to 77 percent of respondents who had not experienced and/or witnessed misconduct. Training and guidance might usefully be reviewed to reflect the needs, circumstances, and experiences of different audiences. In particular, there is a question as to what extent lived experience has informed the development of training to ensure it is effective in challenging unwanted behaviours, or indeed whether those with lived experience lose faith in the training and guidance as a result of their experiences.

Understanding of policies and procedures on misconduct, including on use of social media

90 percent of respondents agreed they knew how to report improper and prejudicial behaviour or attitudes. This clarity in the process builds on the confidence shown in respondents’ fire and rescue services taking misconduct seriously. However, this clarity in reporting was lower among Black or Black British respondents (73 percent) and Asian or Asian British (78 percent) respondents than among White (91 percent) respondents.

Survey respondents were also specifically asked about the clarity of policies on social media use. There is further reassurance that these specific policies are clear. 90 percent agree they know what is expected in respect of appropriate use of social media and messaging. While these expectations may be clear, this does not necessarily mean the guidance is met.

Background checks

Knowledge about and confidence in the background check process is fairly strong, though some are unsure how confident they are in the process. 60 percent of respondents agreed that they know what changes in circumstances they need to report for background check or clearance purposes, although this was higher for female respondents (67 percent) than for male respondents (54 percent).

A substantial minority (30 percent) neither agreed or disagreed that they were confident that reported changes in their circumstances would be dealt with fairly, suggesting a degree of uncertainty or unfamiliarity in this area. However, in common with other findings, 56 percent of respondents who had experienced and/or witnessed misconduct at any time were confident that changes in circumstance would be dealt with fairly compared to 74 percent of respondents who had not.

Findings: former staff interviews

Values and culture

Views on values and culture

Across the interviews, values and culture in fire and rescue services were characterised as exclusive, lacking in challenge, male-dominated and influenced by senior colleagues. However, there were positive reflections and references to positive change. For instance, multiple former staff said that they felt their FRS was like a ‘family’ and that they were supported by their peers, even if not supported by their seniors.

“I still felt supported and part of a big family while that was going on, now whether others would do or whether others did, or certainly would do now, I don’t know. But I must admit I felt included, I felt looked after, I felt protected.” – Participant 28

“The culture was generally pretty positive, I didn’t really have any negative experiences [at my old FRS], and actually, they were quite supportive.” – Participant 20

“So I think [FRS] had a really clear set of values. And it was, the culture was definitely on a change journey. That was their language, you know ‘we’re on change journey’ … they were bringing everyone along with them. They have really clear values and expectations and the culture was ‘all-in-it-together’ kind of thing.” – Participant 2

Many mentioned experiences working with colleagues who upheld strong values. It was clear from interviews that culture varied from service to service. Whilst most FRSs in England suffered from sometimes poor culture and values, interviewees also praised a few for fostering environments which allowed staff to feel supported, heard, and seen.

“I think that there are diamonds of value-centred leadership.” – Participant 25

“So I think for me, the culture was one where it was quite, I suppose it, as I said, quite mixed, it was sort of good in some areas and committed to other areas, and it very much fell down to individuals who were propagating those values and cultures.” – Participant 18

A common theme expressed by former staff was the existence of an exclusive culture built on close, personal relationships between individuals within their fire and rescue service who had served together over a long time. Connections were drawn between senior officers who were close friends or took part in activities together outside of work.

“The first time I worked there, it felt like quite a family. People seem to take care of each other.” – Participant 3

“Just being part of [the brigade], you know, being part of the family and just helping people, which is what I love to do so.” – Participant 7

Former staff spoke, however, of less positive consequences of this ‘family’ culture and its implications for reporting misconduct.

“If your face fits, you’ll get on.” – Participant 22

“… there’s lots of great things about families, but there’s also some negative aspects of that kind of culture. So, you know, pressure to conform to those types of behaviour.” – Participant 11

“You suddenly see how many people started together and how many people are still here […] so you’ve got somebody who’s now an area manager, or a chief officer, and somebody who’s a firefighter retiring, so they’ve literally sort of grown up and worked in the fire service for 30 years together. And I think that had a huge impact on the way people would feel.” – Participant 18

Some interviewees said that the culture within their fire and rescue service had forced them to fit a certain ‘mould’, or risk being excluded by their peers and put in the ‘out group’ (some even said they had experienced disciplinary action taken against them for not fitting the expected norm).

Others reported that they found the culture of their former FRS to be impenetrable, sometimes as a result of their gender, sexuality, or race (see the spotlight on sexism on page 22). One interviewee, Participant 13, told us that they set up a support group for Black members of staff and heard some ‘harrowing stories’. Black, Asian and ethnic minority staff were ‘scared of being ostracised’ when they were asked to join the group.

Former staff tended to characterise the culture of their previous service(s) as having a lack of challenge, with some more senior colleagues seemingly resistant to change and critique. In some cases, this protective aspect of FRS culture led to those proponents of change or challenge being further marginalised by their peers.

“There is a lack of challenge towards authority […] if you start speaking truth to authority, which I think I did over the years, you then get labelled as non-collegiate, a troublemaker.” – Participant 25

Individuals described being branded as ‘trouble makers’ or ‘disruptors’ and claimed to have been made targets by senior management. Criticising FRS culture could have an impact on members of staff which came through particularly strongly in the interviews. Individuals often reported experiencing bullying and harassment, verbal abuse, isolation, a lack of career progression, and even mental illness as a result. These themes were also seen when reporting misconduct.

“And I’ve consistently challenged from that point onwards, a lot of the times to my detriment, because I’ve been shut out, closed down, you know, moved around, all sorts.” – Participant 19

“There were good managers, but they never tended to get high up in the ranks. It sort of became shut off to them or they were just destroyed by trying to challenge the system all the time.” – Participant 24

England’s fire sector consists predominantly of men (80.5 percent as at 31 March 2023) – with the workforce, and particularly operational staff and the senior leadership, being largely made up of men. This lack of diversity was experienced specifically by women, reinforcing the ‘boys club’ image mentioned frequently in interviews. Former staff spoke of unfair promotion processes, the devaluing of womens’ contributions and abilities and open misogyny and sexual harassment. Interviewees said that women firefighters had been marginalised for questioning the status quo during their careers, such as a lack of hairdryers, sanitary products, and women-only spaces in the workplace. A key aspect of the misogyny we were told about in fire and rescue was the view that women are less able than men to be firefighters.

The historic and current lack of diversity at the top of England’s FRSs was seen as a driving influence of the state of values and culture in fire and rescue services. Participants often mentioned that the viewpoints of individuals who do not share the same background as more senior colleagues were not considered and were often disregarded.

“I think we need to root out actually some of the leaders who are kind of smoke and mirrors, and they’re actively perpetuating another generation of people who are going to mirror that behaviour, because that’s what they think leaders do. So it’ll be another generation before we kind of remove the toxicity and masculine toxicity from the Fire and Rescue Service.” – Participant 12

Negative culture was seen to originate from the top of England’s fire and rescue services, with more senior colleagues often regarded as responsible for perpetuating poor behaviour. This was linked to the hierarchical structure of the fire and rescue service, similar to other professions such as the police.

“We hang on to that comfort blanket of hierarchy. And some people thrive on being called ‘Sir’ and ‘Ma’am’, and hark back to people standing up when they come in the room.” – Participant 9

“[The CFO] put people around him using his terms. He wanted a bulldog. And he wanted a yes-man. So he appointed people that I don’t think were right for those roles. And then that culture that had been built fractured very, very quickly.” – Participant 5

Quote 2: “The senior managers were basically a bunch of bullies. And they continued to be the same, up until the time I left.” – Participant 23

The rank hierarchy appeared to promote the perception of a lack of challenge, a culture of defensiveness, and perceived interference in the handling of misconduct. This hierarchy added to the fear of reporting that was widely discussed during interviews. Specifically, FRS staff did not feel secure raising concerns or criticisms that may make their way back to senior leadership due to the threat of professional or personal retribution. Some individuals who reported misconduct mentioned having the grievance processes weaponized against them by senior staff, as well as being threatened with this.

The number of quotations coded as referencing a generally ‘toxic culture’ greatly exceeded the number of those coded as referencing a generally ‘healthy culture’ (163 vs 19) – see figure 1 below to see the ways in which ‘toxic’ fire and rescue culture was explained by participants.

Figure 1. Word cloud for excerpts coded as referencing a ‘toxic culture’

Changes to values and culture over time

In the interviews, participants were asked if values and culture had changed during their time in service. Former staff acknowledged efforts to improve values and culture but argued initiatives such as statements promoting equality, tolerance, and transparency, while common and visible, had not made a positive difference to their day-to-day work.

Many stated that the code of ethics, published fire standards, and professional values, promoted by the service, were not seen to be applied fairly or consistently. Interviewees identified a degree of hypocrisy, with more senior colleagues publicly endorsing these improvements to values and culture but not necessarily demonstrating them personally. These changes were seen as merely ‘lip service’ which allowed senior staff to deflect criticism and be seen to be doing something positive. Participant 13 remarked that “they’re not interested in change.”

“We had a great shop window, but nothing in stock. Okay, so we had all the values [and] the policy is to say ‘we did this’ and ‘we did that’ and we would do this and everybody can bring themselves to work and be themselves. But the practicalities of that didn’t actually come to fruition. So we had all of the right things in place, but we just didn’t operate to those values.” – Participant 17

“You can talk the talk, but it’s whether you walk that talk as well. And that was, that was sort of sometimes missing […] you would hear the words, but you wouldn’t see it in the actions.” – Participant 18

“When HMI came in for their first inspection, there were posters everywhere, people could reel them off. But … if you went out to a station, they weren’t there. If you kind of walked around headquarters and heard some of the conversations that were happening, the culture and values weren’t there. People could say them by rote, but they didn’t understand them, or they weren’t showing them. And the culture was poor.” – Participant 5

Interviewees also suggested that whilst the overtly negative cultures of England’s FRSs have appeared to decline during their time in service, they have been replaced by subtler forms of misconduct.

“Whether it’s driven it underground, or whether there’s an actual, genuine change, it’s hard to tell sometimes from some of the behaviour” – Participant 24

Interviewees tended to attribute change not to policy, but to the attitudes of individual staff, and generational change. For instance, whilst staff ‘called out’ inexcusable and intolerable behaviour, they often did not feel comfortable instigating a formal grievance process due to fears it would not be seen as a serious matter to investigate.

Other influences on values and culture

There were a number of other influences on values and culture in fire and rescue services. One factor was the role of unions and in particular their approach to misconduct.

“There is more than one trade union but there was a clearly very dominant one who see it as their role in their rationale to always challenge, always be hostile, you’ve only got to look at how, if you just looked back at the last 10 tweets that the fire brigades union will issue, you’ll see the word fight, you’ll see the world, you’ll see the word battle, you’ll see, in every one of them, you will see words that drip hostility and conflict in them every time and they bring that approach to the way that they represent their members.” – Participant 30

“The Fire Brigades Union have got a very real responsibility for how they influence a culture within a service.” – Participant 11

“Nationally, I think they [the FBU] are the biggest bullies on the planet, I think they bully their own members, I think they operate from a place of fear.” – Participant 6

“But I just think the management need to realise the FBU are like a defence barrister. They know full well some of their members have done wrong. But they, you could be sitting with someone whose, this is an extreme, who’s committed like murder. They’d go ‘No, no, no, they haven’t. You haven’t followed policy X, Y and Z’.” – Participant 8

“I didn’t feel I was supported adequately from the union. But I ended up talking to one of the top guys at the union later, and they said ‘yeah, we’re well aware of the fact that all these investigations are, well not all, obviously, but a lot of them are corrupt, and people don’t get the justice that they deserve’.” – Participant 23

The prevalence of the references to unions in the qualitative analysis shows the importance of widening the focus of research into culture and standards beyond the FRS to the nexus of groups, organisations, charities, and informal networks which surround FRS and directly impact their culture and standards.

Types of misconduct

Across the interviews, the three most dominant themes of misconduct experienced and/or witnessed by interviewees were sexism and bullying and harassment:

• Sexism was coded at least once across 18 interviews, with sexual abuse/ assault mentioned in 9 interviews
• Bullying and harassment was coded at least once across 22 interviews

Sexism

Sexism manifested in rude and offensive behaviour, such as ‘jokes’ and use of foul and misogynistic language. It also included bullying and discrimination specifically targeting them because they were women, including marginalisation. This behaviour seemed to be rooted in the idea that firefighters can only be men, the sexualisation of women colleagues, and the use of common misogynistic words.

“They said, ‘oh, you’ve joined because you wanted a man’s job or you’re a slut.’ That was just two reasons as to why I would want to be a firefighter.” – Participant 4

“Then there’s always comments about all the women being gay.” – Participant 24

Female interviewees shared their stories of experiencing or witnessing sexual harassment, abuse, and assault. Male participants also shared their experiences of witnessing women suffer from sexual harassment, abuse, and assault.

“There’s so called, pardon my French, fanny runs. Well, they’d drive around, specifically just in the town centres to look at women. That’s what goes on every single Friday and Saturday night.” – Participant 26

“The other crew manager sat next to me driving past the main road back in the station and said ‘well look at her. I want to have sex with her’ and all those sorts of comments. And when you’re driving past young girls that are coming out of places it’s bizarre that’s coming from managers that have been there 20 years.” – Participant 29

“One of the candidates in the promotion process was a woman coming up through the ranks. And he basically propositioned to her that if he had had sex with her, that she would then get the next rank. So that was, you know, he’s an Area Manager. This is a strategic manager within a fire and rescue service, who wrote on, I think it was messenger on Facebook, because they were friends on Facebook, to a female officer who was going for promotion. He was running the promotion process. And he basically said, ‘if you have sex with me, you’ll get the next job’.” – Participant 25

Bullying and harassment

A common experience across all interviewees was experiencing and/or witnessing bullying or harassment, again particularly marginalisation by colleagues. One participant recounted being pushed repeatedly into a canal in fire kit ‘as part of a joke’ before attending a house fire ‘absolutely soaking wet … breathing apparatus, put the fire out and obviously search for people in the house’.

“I joined as a 19 year old young man, very green, naive, young man. I served my probation at one fire station transferred to another. And the officer in charge of the watch that I joined told me that he was going to treat me like a cancerous cell until I proved otherwise. So that was the welcome.” – Participant 27

“Other people, if they didn’t like you, if you didn’t go out on nights out with them, if you didn’t drink, if you didn’t go into the banter as it was called, it was bullying banter, you’d be isolated out of the watch. And they target you basically and obviously that’d get around the service, so certain watches wouldn’t talk to you, they’d just get up and walk out.” – Participant 26

This included marginalisation if the individual was seen to question and challenge within their role.

“I started challenging authority, I started speaking truth to power. And I got ostracised, I was told I was ‘non-collegiate’, there were things like birthday parties at that top level that I was never invited to. I was labelled and promoted within the Fire Authority as being a troublemaker, or being someone who wasn’t collegiate.” – Participant 25

This also included further bullying and harassment if the individual had put in a grievance.

“She went through a really hard time, you know, as people were refusing to talk to her. People, you know, saying inappropriate things to her because, you know, that she’d she’d, you know, made a complaint against some, some of their friends or mates. And it really did damage, you know, the individual who put in the who put in the complaint, so and it absolutely set a tone, because what that then starts is that starts rumours doesn’t it?” – Participant 11

Barriers to reporting

Opinions of colleagues

Interviewees were asked about their experience of reporting misconduct. One theme identified was deciding not to report misconduct because of the fear of being treated as a ‘problem’, not wanting to ‘put their head above the parapet’ or ‘rock the boat’. In one instance, reporting misconduct was compared to whistleblowing or being a ‘double agent’.

“It is still really difficult for people to come forward, for the reasons that I spoke about, in so much that when people do come forward, because of that background culture, people are, to a point almost, like persecuted, vilified, because they have, like, blown the whistle on individuals.” – Participant 11

“Some people are just taking the abuse, the harassment because they don’t want to put a target on their back.” – Participant 26

“And the complaining system is just awful, you just know it’s gonna come back against you.” – Participant 4

“And if you put your head above the parapet, you basically got it shot off. So I shut up.” – Participant 25

“Like I know that, whether disciplinary proceedings are supposed to be confidential, obviously people talk, I’m not completely blind to that. And I just think it would have made my life really difficult. And I think the fear of that may, you know, have stopped me.” – Participant 20

Fear about the impact on career

A number of participants mentioned that reporting misconduct would be detrimental to their career (for example, see quote from participant 9). One participant even likened raising a grievance to being put on ‘death row’. A theme emerged of tolerating and accepting misconduct to protect your own career due to the negative impact it would have on the way they were viewed within their fire and rescue service.

In some cases, this created a higher bar for reporting misconduct (see participant 28): individuals did not feel comfortable raising concerns about behaviour which the culture at large treated as being commonplace, even if they caused extreme distress.

The career risks from reporting misconduct mentioned in the interviews included the risk of jeopardising their career or financial stability and security, for example by not being able to take their pension when they retired.

“Well, generally, yeah, you’re just either blacklisted for the rest of your life and you’re a troublemaker and you won’t go anywhere.” – Participant 4

“So there was this sort of fear of what people would think and the impact it would have on their careers and that I’ve seen right across my three years of people sort of raising grievances.” – Participant 18

“The culture of what I was brought up in, putting grievance in is a surefire way of ending your career.” – Participant 9

“I knew I had aspirations to go further in my career. So I wanted to not rock any boats, I suppose, back then.” – Participant 27

“Now if it was somebody that was hurting somebody, or it was somebody that was abusing children or something like that, I wouldn’t think twice about it. It’s worth the risk of losing your pension because I’m doing the right thing and for the greater good. I’ll take the risk and I’ll take the chances. When it’s someone that’s just pissing people off … it’s like, well on this occasion, I’m just gonna swallow my pride and just let it go. So it might seem two-faced, duplicitous, but it’s not meant to be. It’s just protecting what we worked so hard to get.” – Participant 28

Influence of colleagues on reporting

Some participants did not report because they did not trust that colleagues, including more senior colleagues, would take the complaint seriously.

Interviewees stated that in some cases, colleagues would disregard or ignore issues raised by staff informally. This meant they were less likely to formally report problems; for example, stating that behaviour displayed was ‘just how he is’ suggests it is acceptable. There was a lack of professional curiosity or interest in misconduct unless a formal report came in. One participant received a comment that ‘bullying doesn’t happen in the fire service’.

“When I did generically raise it at senior leadership team meetings, that I’m getting a lot of people coming to me talking about issues that they’re having around bullying, harassment and victimisation, it was almost as if I said ‘I’ve got a lot of people, but I am not going to name them’, it was almost like ‘well, if you don’t name them, as far as we’re concerned it doesn’t exist’ sort of thing. So for me, that was quite a bit of sort of thinking ‘hold on a second, this is happening, people are coming to me’.” – Participant 18

Reasons for reporting

Some interviewees did report but only once they had reached breaking point and felt they had no choice, even if it would have an effect on their professional and personal lives. In one case, an investigation was started as a result of an occupational health report, which gave the line manager in question no choice but to report the misconduct on an individual’s behalf. Another only reported what had happened to them when they knew they had secured employment elsewhere. Some felt that an escalation to a formal process might not always be the most appropriate solution (see quote from participant 24 on page 36) because this may put everyone involved under unnecessary pressure. Others benefited from informal channels, such as having the ‘ear’ of senior colleagues, for example, one participant who petitioned a Deputy Chief Fire Officer about men watching porn on station.

Participants discussed the need for more independence both in the reporting and misconduct process to support more people to come forward.

“I was just sick to death of this type of behaviour. So I put a complaint in.” – Participant 19

“It was at that point that I decided I couldn’t take any more … I thought ‘I can’t take another year of this man being my boss’.” – Participant 23

“When you’re in, like, done something for 20 years, it’s a lot to risk. I did manage to get some mediation, So recently, I went through HR. And I’ve managed to get the ear of the head person to say, look, I don’t want this as a formal investigation, I just, he’s getting it wrong, and we need to sit down and talk. So we understand.” – Participant 24

“Maybe there needs to be somewhere on the service website to fill a form in, send it off, and not at station. Keep it off station … because you don’t always want to speak to a group manager or a watch manager on station because you know there is a divide, there’s people that are friends, and if you’re not in that group, you don’t get the benefits you need.” – Participant 29

“I would want to see real … I would want to see true independence. A truly independent means of report concerns.” – Participant 6

Process of reporting misconduct

Lack of impartiality

Interviewees were asked about their experience of how reporting misconduct was handled. Some described how they were advised by their colleagues, line-managers, their HR department, and even their union representative against instigating proceedings, particularly due to who might be handling the case. It was commonplace for there to be a perceived conflict of interest between senior colleagues and the incidents they were responsible for investigating as a result of connections with parties involved. This included investigators working in the same watches, who had friendships with those being investigated, or who had knowledge of previous incidents that could taint the investigator’s perception of the individual reporting.

This lack of impartiality, according to some interviewees, resulted in policies and processes being disregarded, evidence being ignored, investigations being stopped, and individuals being protected. Individuals were left dissatisfied at the process and outcome and without the justice they felt they deserved. In response, many highlighted the need for greater independence or an external body to take responsibility for investigations in fire and rescue services.

“I asked if I could submit a grievance. I was told by HR that the person that would hear my grievance would be the same person that I had the grievance against.” – Participant 23

“It’s very hard to raise issues, because you’re raising it to the same people, like half of them trained together, or are old mates, or play golf together […] it’s very difficult to get an outside ear.” – Participant 24

“HR advised me not to put a complaint in because he was best friends with the Chief. That was coming from HR, which didn’t fill me with confidence about how the system would work.” – Participant 5

“So an individual went through quite a serious discipline procedure, which was found to be false. They requested an external organisation to come in to review the conduct of the Fire and Rescue Service and to basically see why it had got as far as it had. The Fire and Rescue Service employed a consultant who was a retired fire officer and very good friends with the Chief Fire Officer, that was no way independent, because he worked for the organisation previously, had left the organisation to be a consultant and was brought back in. So he had pre-existing knowledge of the service, pre-existing knowledge of the individuals involved. So there’s no way that could have been a neutral process.” – Participant 22

Breach of confidentiality

Interviewees gave examples of anonymity and confidentiality being breached during investigations of misconduct. This resulted in cases becoming common knowledge by individuals who were not directly involved.

Sometimes, information appeared to have been spread on the basis that ‘people talk’; at other times, there was a clear lack of privacy. For example, a number of interviewees described how others had accessed the details of statements they had made as part of the misconduct investigation via a Freedom of Information request, despite being told they were confidential HR records. Others reported failings in redacting names in evidence collected or using the initials of the individual who reported the misconduct. In one instance, and a symptom of a general lack of privacy around values and culture, Inspectorate reports and staff surveys have been reviewed with the aim of trying to identify who has responded (see quote from participant 6 below).

“Now I had to go back to that station, that they knew that I’d put in a complaint about them, but nothing was being done. So it was like I had no kind of support or protection from anywhere. And then, as you can imagine, things just got worse, more things started to happen” – Participant 1

“If someone does put in a grievance, the confidentiality needs to be so much better than it is. That person should be entitled to have a career afterwards.” – Participant 24

“Within the space of … I think it was about an hour, I got a text message saying ‘What’s this you’ve put a complaint in against [name]?’ … And I’ve literally just left the interview and I told no-one about the meeting.” – Participant 26

“I’ve seen them pour over reports HMI reports and say ‘who said that?’ … even down to the point of you’ve got senior members of staff waiting for members of staff coming out of interviews, saying ‘what have you told them?’ so that they can get in and end up seeing … the first job that they do, particularly in this team, those individuals sit and pour over reports and surveys?” – Participant 6

“The actual statements we all gave, ended up around all the fire stations, I turned up on our fire station on the detached duty. And I found my personal confidential statement just lying on a bed somewhere and people were having a great laugh about it, because they were taking things out of context.” – Participant 24

Length of time

Many interviewees felt frustrated waiting to hear back about their complaint. The longer an investigation takes, the longer an individual has to work alongside the individual or within the workplace about which they have made a complaint, allowing the reported issues to persist and exacerbate and further impact on the wellbeing of the individual. The length of the misconduct process proved to be an exhausting process for all parties to an incident to endure, especially in cases where the individual(s) subject to the complaint had no case to answer.

“The grievance, I think, was nine months to complete.” – Participant 27

“It had been two years down the line and still nothing. I was still trying to process everything.” – Participant 7

“There were timescales set out in the policy, but obviously, they would ask me if I would grant an extension, which I did, because all I wanted was for the truth to come out … it went on for probably about eight months.” – Participant 23

“But I think one of the things I came up with, with quite a number of incidents, even at the very start was the length of time it took to address some of those issues … And in some cases over a year, for 18 months I think I saw for one, it was just being passed around from manager to manager.” – Participant 18

Lack of support

Interviewees spoke about the impact of being given a ‘no case to answer’ decision or when they received no response at all regarding the conclusion of an investigation. Individuals were typically left feeling disappointed or in the dark; a feeling that was often exacerbated by the length of time it had taken for the fire and rescue service to reach that conclusion and the lack of consideration for their welfare.

Throughout, participants described the impact of going through the misconduct process. Individuals report misconduct with the expectation that it will be dealt with. However, those who did report were often left feeling unsupported and confused.

This was a crucial aspect of the misconduct system that negatively impacted individuals’ mental wellbeing. The treatment of individuals throughout the misconduct process had left some feeling that they and their years of service were not appreciated or valued by the organisation; that they were “treated like a number”. This included a lack of communication on the welfare of individuals during the misconduct process.

“I didn’t know from one month to the next whether I’d be back on shift or whether I would still be working from home, so I couldn’t make any plans.” – Participant 3

“It’s too easy for them to just brush me under the carpet. They’re not responding to my emails. [HR] promised an answer a month ago. I’ve chased it up and I still don’t even have a courteous email to say ‘thanks for your email’.” – Participant 21

“Over the summer period, I think it was probably 16 weeks, there was probably 10 to 12 weeks where I wasn’t contacted by anyone, to check on my welfare.” – Participant 12

Impact of reporting misconduct

Impact on career

Concerns from interviewees that involving themselves in the misconduct system would be detrimental to how they were subsequently treated were often borne out. We consistently heard phrases such as ‘blacklisted’ and ‘trouble-maker’ to describe individuals who raised misconduct concerns.

Those who experienced misconduct, particularly those who instigated formal proceedings, found themselves marginalised by their colleagues for ‘turning against the team’. Many interviewees referred to the tendency for fire and rescue staff to ‘close ranks’, by ignoring, disregarding and sometimes bullying victims.

Individuals said that their reputation within the fire service was tarnished and affected their career progression. There were several comments to the effect that “life can be very difficult if people decide to make it so in the fire service”. Some said that others refused to talk to them as a result of bringing a misconduct allegation against an individual they were friends with within the service.

“When I’ve spoken to other people, they’ve had a really tough time, and, you know, a lot of them then get this reputation that they don’t shake the rest of their careers.” – Participant 24

“All of a sudden, this female was then ignored and blanked by individuals on a watch, then the whole watch, including the management team, and then people on the whole fire station. And this was a female, a Black female firefighter” [in response to raising a complaint about bullying on a WhatsApp group] – Participant 27

“I remember coming home and saying, well to my girlfriend at the time, wife now, saying, I’ve just ruined my career in the fire service because I challenged him. And I knew that was me done. I knew that there’d be no coming back from that, really. So I challenged him and was happy to do that.” – Participant 5

Contrast with the treatment of the accused

Interviewees also spoke of attempts to protect the interests of the accused by moving them horizontally or out of the service, re-hiring them after a misconduct process delivered an unfavourable result, ensuring they had access to their full pension or giving them the opportunity to retire prior to the start of formal proceedings. This added to the sense of injustice felt by interviewees.

Participants said repeatedly that those who experienced misconduct were treated with contempt when they raised issues, with senior staff often encouraging marginalisation and aiming abuse at those who object to their treatment.

Impact on wellbeing

A number of individuals described taking weeks and months off from work on sick leave due to symptoms of depression, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress. Symptoms described included difficulty sleeping, disruption to family life and relationships, irritability, and feelings of reaching a “low point”, feeling “broken” or “tipped over the edge”.

“I’m in a position where I’ve got unwell family members, my own mental health is starting to seriously fall apart now, and I’ve got an unsupportive employer that’s basically saying ‘well, tough’.” – Participant 22

Concerningly, personal suicidal ideation and attempts were explicitly mentioned by 6 of the 30 interviewees we spoke to, with others implying that is how they felt.

“I’d never considered suicide […], but going through this whole process, I was very close, I’d been looking on maps to find woods around [my] station to decide where I was going to hang myself.” – Participant 23

“I ended up off for six months with mental health issues, PTSD … I generally wanted to try and deal with these things. I was getting nowhere with it. It tipped me over the edge.” – Participant 16

“I found myself uncontrollably sobbing all the way to work, uncontrollably sobbing all the way home, unable to function in my kind of private life.” – Participant 22

Leaving the service

Fifteen of the participants had left within the last one or two years. Many stated that they had loved working in the fire and rescue service and expected to do so for the rest of their career. They left believing that they had no choice due to lack of support or protection from the service. It was not clear that anything had been done to prevent individuals from leaving the fire service after raising an issue of misconduct.

One individual highlighted that exit interviews were insufficient and did not tackle the truth of why individuals were leaving the fire and rescue service given they were vulnerable to the same flaws of the misconduct system. Exit interviews often involved speaking to the same individuals: “who wants to go and sit in front of that person that’s made your life hell?”

“I think if the environment had been less toxic and oppressive and corrupt, I think I would have quite happily stayed for another three or four years.” – Participant 6

“If you looked at the turnover of women from [my] Fire and Rescue Service, it’s really high, how many have left. And I know, a lot of them were broken when they left, they were absolutely destroyed by the service.” – Participant 24

“I needed to get away from the current culture and behaviours I was experiencing in the senior leadership team.” – Participant 9

“And so I didn’t I couldn’t see a way out any other way out really, but to leave. And actually, when I left and I joined my new job. It was only then I realised just how toxic the fire service was.” – Participant 3

Annex: staff survey

Demographics of survey respondents (n=4,422)

Age

Age	Number
24 years or younger	77
25 to 44 years	1,701
44 to 64 years	2,136
65 to 75+ years	47
Skipped or preferred not to say	461

Sex

Sex	Number
Male	2,486
Female	1,235
Preferred not to say	701

Ethnicity

Ethnic group	Number
White	3,667
Asian or Asian British	47
Black or Black British	49
Mixed or multiple ethnic group	123
Other ethnic group	11
Preferred not to say	525

Rank (this question was only shown to those in operational roles)

Rank	Number
No management	749
Middle manager	387
Supervisory manager	967
Strategic manager	57

Role (note that respondents can select more than one role)

Role	Number
Support staff	1,532
Wholetime firefighter	2,146
Retained or on-call firefighter	574
Control staff	193
Other	341

Fire and rescue services

The response rates of individual fire and rescue services ranged from 0.2 percent to 51.2 percent. No fire and rescue services returned zero responses.

Limitations of the survey sample, survey and analytical approach

In total, we surveyed 4,422 staff members – based on 2022/23 Home Office workforce figures, this represents 10 percent of the workforce.

Statistical significance

In the survey, we have noted where findings are statistically significant. This means the p-value: <0.01. P-values measure how likely it is that any difference between groups is due to chance. A low p-value (typically less than 0.05) suggests the observed result is unlikely to happen by chance. However, this must be read in the context of our comments on sampling error outlined below.

Sampling error

Sampling error is the difference between sample statistics and the population of the survey – in this case the population is the workforce based on 2022/23 figures. There will be sampling errors in any sampling approach where you are unable to survey the whole population. In this case, we did not use a representative sampling method but a voluntary response sampling approach – all staff were intended to be given the opportunity to respond to the survey during the survey window.

As you can see from the table below, male staff and on-call staff were particularly underrepresented in the sample, whereas female staff and support staff were particularly overrepresented in the sample.

Wholetime and control staff were fairly well represented, and we achieved good representation in the sample based on White and ethnic minority respondents.

We had variable representation geographically, meaning we are unable to make comparisons between fire and rescue services. The bias introduced through the sampling error means we are unable to make generalisations that apply to the entire workforce.

Category	Total population (proportion of population)	Actual sample (proportion of sample)	Sampling error – difference between proportions
Male	35,254 (79%)	2,486 (56%)	23% (U)
Female	8,502 (19%)	1,235 (28%)	9% (O)
Wholetime	22,815 (51%)	2,146 (49%)	3% (U)
On-call	12,042 (27%)	574 (35)	14% (U)
Control	1,146 (3%)	193 (4%)	2% (O)
Support	8,593 (19%)	1,532 (35%)	15% (O)
White	36,951 (83%)	3,667 (83%)	0% (=)
Ethnic minority	3,427 (8%)	230 (5%)	2% (U)
Total workforce	44,596 (100%)	4,422 (100%)	–

Note: U=underrepresentation; O=overrepresentation

The objective was to recruit current staff by sharing the survey through Service Liaison Officers (SLO) in each of the 44 fire and rescue services. The SLO is a nominated individual within each service who facilitates information sharing between the service and inspectorate. There are a number of limitations as a result of the recruitment and sampling of this group:

1. Sampling: This survey utilised voluntary response sampling, a form of non‑probability sampling. This approach can result in self-selection bias, where the sample is not representative of the broader population as it may be skewed towards individuals with stronger opinions or interest relating to this topic – the handling of misconduct in fire and rescue services. The nature of the topic may have dissuaded individuals from responding, especially if their understanding was that they had to have experienced and/or witnessed misconduct to take part. We have outlined the effect of the sampling error above.
2. Sample size: The sample represents 10 percent of the fire and rescue workforce as at 31 March 2023, but does not proportionately represent the views of each service as response rates between services varied considerably and no weighting was applied. The unweighted voluntary sample therefore means that we are unable to reduce the bias introduced, meaning we cannot make generalisations about the entire workforce.
3. Survey window: The survey opened on 1 November 2023 and closed on 15 December 2023 (incorporating a two-week extension to the original survey window). A longer survey window may have provided more opportunity to increase response rates, including pushing responses of underrepresented groups. This limitation means we were unable to counter the sampling error introduced by voluntary response sampling.
4. Communication: The survey was designed for all staff to complete but as the title of the survey was ‘Misconduct’, those who disseminated the survey (SLOs) and those who were sent the survey might have believed the survey was not intended for them if they had never experienced and/or witnessed misconduct, and may have been less inclined to respond if they did not have strong views on the topic. This might have been further influenced by the methods of dissemination. Communication materials were amended to improve clarity and boost engagement.
5. Effect of previous engagement: fire and rescue services are engaged with by the inspectorate, including a staff survey, inspection fieldwork and data collection, alongside staff balancing this request with their day-to-day role and requests from other organisations. This engagement, especially if sent after previous surveys, may have had an effect on the response rate (so-called “survey/engagement fatigue”).
6. Limitations of dissemination through networks: The dissemination approach relied on our ability to reach current staff through each fire and rescue service SLO. This relies on each of the 44 SLOs to disseminate the survey throughout their service at all levels (different ranks) and in all contexts (operational to non-operational) throughout the survey window – however, this approach did allow us to make sure the responses were valid.

Approach to supporting participants who participated in the survey

The survey with current staff was supported by an ethical framework and process involving internal and external stakeholders. A number of key considerations were made to prioritise the welfare and wellbeing of participants in the fieldwork:

1. Launch of research project: The website landing page outlined what topics the survey might cover and outlined how Crest Advisory would approach safeguarding, confidentiality, and anonymity during the research, including signposting to support services.
2. Survey: The survey began by setting out what participation in the survey would involve and how Crest Advisory would approach safeguarding, confidentiality, and anonymity during the research, including signposting to support services. Consent was used as the lawful basis to collect information from participants. Individuals were allowed to skip certain questions they did not wish to answer, except for certain demographic questions that were needed for subsequent question routing. Participants were redirected to support services once they completed the survey.

Annex: former staff survey

Demographics of interviewees (n=30)

Age

Age	Number
44 or younger	8
45 or older	21
Preferred not to say	1

Sex

Sex	Number
Male	17
Female	11
Preferred not to say	2

Ethnicity

77 percent (n=23) of interviewees were White English, Welsh, Scottish, Northern Irish or British. The remaining 23 percent (n=7) were from other ethnic minority backgrounds or preferred not to disclose their ethnicity.

Rank

60 percent (n=18) of interviewees were in roles with managerial responsibilities, with the remaining 40 percent (n=12) in non-managerial roles.

Role

77 percent (n=23) of interviewees were in operational roles, with the remaining 23 percent (n=7) either in other or non-operational roles.

Period when left service

50 percent (n=15) of interviewees had left the fire service within the last two years, with the remaining interviewees (n=15) having left between two and five years ago.

Fire and rescues services represented

Interviewees served in 26 of the 44 fire and rescue services in England. Many interviewees served in multiple FRSs throughout their careers.

Limitations of the sampling, interviews and analytical approach

The objective was to recruit former staff to participate in the fieldwork, and this group was harder to access than current staff. There are a number of limitations as a result of the recruitment and sampling of this group:

1. Digital marketing: The marketing of the opportunity was largely conducted using digital tools, including social media. The tool used to collect information as part of registering interest was an online questionnaire. This may have hindered access to those who do not use or face barriers accessing digital platforms.
2. Sample size: The sample size is small – the minimum number of interviews expected was 20, and 30 interviews have been used to inform the findings in this report. This sample size limits the ability to apply the findings more generally, especially as some fire and rescue services were not represented in the interviews.
3. Self-selection bias: The sample was based on volunteers – individuals had to actively access and complete the online questionnaire to express interest in taking part in an online interview. This means the sample is likely to represent those who are more likely to volunteer to discuss their experiences (self-selection bias) and not represent those who have not, or would not normally, volunteer to share their experiences.
4. Limitations of dissemination through networks: The marketing approach relied on the ability to reach former staff who met the selection criteria, including relying on others to share the online questionnaire with their networks. The representation of these networks, and therefore who were able to access and complete the online questionnaire, may not reflect the composition of the cohort of former staff who meet the selection criteria.
5. Sampling approach: We used a stratified approach to sampling to ensure adequate representation of key groups based on (gender, age, and ethnicity) and further reviewed these groups to ensure further representation (location of service and role held within the service) – all individuals could be stratified. However, this approach was also disproportionate because researchers applied a minimum threshold for typically under-represented groups which would otherwise be too small if a proportionate approach was taken. Some judgements were made by researchers in selecting individuals within certain key groups to ensure the sampling approach was met.
6. Discussion guide: Given the nature of the information collected through the interviews, researchers are unable to validate the experiences of the participants objectively and comprehensively. The online questionnaire and discussion guide allowed researchers to validate the experiences of former staff to an extent, as well as the approach of questioning about the personal experiences of participants. The questions asked and interview format (for example, online interviews and interview time frame) may not always allow researchers to collect all the necessary information.
7. Thematic analysis: As with most qualitative research, these online interviews provide a significant amount of data but due to the number of people interviewed limit the ability of researchers to apply any insight from this data more generally. Researchers used thematic analysis in order to generalise the experiences of former staff, using codes to identify themes across all of the interviews. While thematic analysis enables researchers to identify themes across a number of interviews, the codes and their application to the interview transcripts involve the subjective judgement of the researcher.

Approach to supporting participants who participated in interviews

The interviews with former staff were supported by an ethical framework and process involving internal and external stakeholders. A number of key considerations were made to prioritise the welfare and wellbeing of participants in the fieldwork:

1. Launch of research project: The website landing page outlined what topics the interview might cover and outlined how Crest Advisory would approach safeguarding, confidentiality, and anonymity during the research, including signposting to support services.
2. Expression of interest: The online questionnaire also set out what participation in interviews would involve and how Crest Advisory would approach safeguarding, confidentiality, and anonymity during the research, including signposting to support services. Individuals were allowed to skip certain questions they did not wish to answer.
3. Invitation to interview: When invitations were sent out, a participation information and consent form, a discussion guide and privacy notice were also shared with potential participants – participants were given time and flexibility to book an appointment (up and until 24 hours ahead of the interview). Those who were not asked to participate in an interview but completed the questionnaire and expressed an interest in the research were sent an email asking them to submit short written responses about their experiences – no written responses were received.
4. Interview: The interview was conducted and recorded using the lawful basis of consent (with the exception of where the participant did not wish to be recorded, notes were taken instead). Researchers were matched with participants if a gender preference was expressed. The discussion guide was designed to be trauma-informed, with the opportunity to opt out questions at the beginning of the interview and throughout. Experienced researchers were used and followed company policies to ensure the welfare of participants throughout, including engaging internal and external safeguarding processes.
5. Debrief: Following each interview, researchers shared information with participants signposting them to support, if required, following their interview due to the sensitive nature of the content. This included a direct self-referral into services provided by The Fire Fighters Charity. If necessary, researchers engaged internal and external safeguarding processes to further support participants.
6. Use of information: All participants were informed how their data would be used and that they could withdraw their consent at any time during the process – that it would be kept confidential unless there were safeguarding concerns or concerns about an unreported crime. Participants consented to the use of quotes in reporting. All information used in the final report would be unattributable to the participant or anyone else mentioned during the course of the interview to prevent the risk of re-identification.

Back to publication

Standards of behaviour: The handling of misconduct in fire and rescue services