Public perceptions of fire and rescue services in England 2019

Research commissioned by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire and rescue services

Executive summary

Methodology

• HMICFRS commissioned BMG Research to undertake a study of the public’s perceptions of local fire and rescue services across England. The study covers the public’s views and experiences of local fire and rescue services’ activities. A similar study was undertaken by BMG Research in 2018 for HMICFRS. A different methodology was used in the 2019 survey as the results were needed on a national basis only (see Appendix A: Methodology for further information).
• The 2019 survey was undertaken in August and September 2019 and consisted of 10,024 completed surveys across 44 local fire and rescue service areas. The number of completed interviews by FRS ranges from 100 in the Isle of Wight to 1,443 in London. Targets per FRS area were set proportionally according to population statistics, while maintaining a minimum of 100 completed interviews per FRS[1].
• The surveys were conducted online with members of online research panels.
• The results have been weighted to ensure that responses to the survey are representative of the total adult population of England.

Overall awareness and views of fire and rescue services

• Perceived satisfaction with local fire and rescue services is high, with over seven in ten (73%) saying that they are very or fairly satisfied. The proportion who say that they are satisfied has increased compared to 2018 (70%).
• Nearly three-quarters (72%) of respondents consider that the FRS in their local area provides good value for money (versus 70% in 2018). 4 percent disagree with this.
• The vast majority (90%) are confident that the fire and rescue service in their local area provides an effective service overall, which represents an increase compared to 2018 when 86 percent said that they were confident.
• Nearly half of respondents (47%) say that the Grenfell Tower fire in 2017 has made them view fire and rescue services in general more positively. Around one in three (36%) say that it has made no difference to how they view fire and rescue services. A minority say that it has made them view the fire and rescue services in general more negatively (11%).

Local fire and rescue services’ activities

• Perhaps unsurprisingly, responding to fires is the local FRS duty that respondents are most likely to be aware of (90%) when shown a list of FRSs’ statutory duties[2]. Obtaining information from landlords/building owners to improve response if a fire or other emergency occurs in the building has the lowest level of awareness (61%).
• Responding to fires is seen as one of the top three most important duties for local fire and rescue services to prioritise when respondents were shown a list of statutory duties (85%). This is followed by rescuing people from road traffic collisions (62%) and responding to emergencies such as floods and terrorist incidents (48%).
• Responding to medical incidents (either assisting the ambulance service or as a first responder or to serious medical calls) is the most commonly selected activity as one of the top three most important for local fire and rescue services to prioritise when respondents were shown a list of non-statutory duties (77%). This is followed by responding to storms and other natural disasters (74%), and responding to water rescue incidents (73%).
• Respondents were shown the three duties that they selected from the list of statutory duties together with the three they selected from the list of non-statutory duties and asked to indicate which ones they think are the most important for their local FRS to prioritise. Overall, two statutory duties topped the list as part of the top three most important for the FRS to prioritise: responding to fires (77%) and rescuing people from road traffic collisions (49%). However, responding to medical incidents, which is a non-statutory duty, is the third most selected priority overall, with a third (33%) of respondents selecting this.
• Respondents were asked about their knowledge of the staffing arrangements for stations in their local fire and rescue service. Respondents have low awareness of this (42% gave an incorrect answer and a further 28% say they don’t know).
• Residents living in buildings with four floors or more (36%) are seen to be in the top three most important groups for the local FRS to target for fire prevention activities, followed by disabled people or those with restricted mobility (35%), and those aged 65+ (27%).
• Nearly three-fifths (57%) claim to be aware that fire and rescue services can prosecute ‘responsible persons’ in public and commercial buildings if they fail to comply with fire safety regulations[3]. Just over one third say that they are not aware (35%).

Accessing local fire and rescue services

• Around a fifth (21%) of respondents have had contact with their local FRS in the past 12 months. This compares to 16 percent who had had contact in 2018.
• The most common interactions for respondents in the past 12 months are through community events/open days (6%), as a witness to a fire incident (5%) or as part of home safety/fire risk checks (5%).
• Around three-fifths (65%) of those who have had contact with their local FRS say that they felt safer after their interaction. This proportion has decreased compared to 2018 when 72 percent said that they felt safer after their contact.
• Over four-fifths (84%) of respondents who have had contact with their local FRS in the last 12 months are satisfied with the last interaction. Around one in ten (9%) are neutral and 5 percent are dissatisfied.

Public interest in local fire and rescue services

• Over half of respondents (57%) do not feel informed about what their local fire and rescue service is doing. The proportion who feel this way has increased by 5 percentage points compared to 2018 (52%).
• The main reason reported by respondents for not feeling informed about their local FRS is that they haven’t seen any information about it (79%).
• Nearly four-fifths of respondents (78%) are interested in knowing what the fire and rescue service is doing in their local area. 18 percent are not interested.
• The range of services provided by the fire and rescue service is the element respondents would most like to know about (52% of those who are interested in knowing what their local FRS are doing), followed by keeping their property safe from fire (47%) and what their local FRS are doing (44%).
• Around nine in ten respondents (88%) say that they have not been asked about their views on the local fire and rescue service in the area where they live in the past 12 months. Eight percent say that they have been asked about this.

Fire safety

• Around a fifth of respondents (19%) have seen, heard or read something about fire safety in the last three months. Households with smokers are more likely to have seen, heard or read something about this (24%).
• In the example scenario provided to respondents, fire safety concerns have an effect on stated purchase decisions for the vast majority of respondents when buying a new tumble dryer. 90 percent say that they wouldn’t buy the product or that they would find out more information if they had concerns.

Introduction

Background and methodology

In July 2017, Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire and Rescue Services took on inspections for England’s fire and rescue services. To assist these inspections, HMICFRS commissioned BMG Research to undertake a study of the general public’s perceptions of their local fire and rescue service across England. The study covers the public’s views and experiences of local fire and rescue services’ activities. A similar study was undertaken by BMG Research in 2018 for HMICFRS.

The 2019 survey was undertaken in August and September 2019 and consisted of 10,024 completed surveys across 44 local fire and rescue service areas[4]. The number of completed interviews by FRS ranges from 100 in the Isle of Wight to 1,443 in London. The surveys were conducted online with members of online research panels. The results have been weighted to ensure that responses to the survey are representative of the total adult population of England (more information about the approach used for this survey can be found in Appendix A: Methodology).

A different methodology was used in the 2019 survey as the results were needed on a national basis only (see Appendix A: Methodology for further information). Where relevant, results have been compared to the 2018 survey. Although the survey methodology and sample sizes are not identical for the 2018 and 2019 surveys, the results are comparable.

Only changes that are statistically significant have been commented on in this report.

Notes on this report

The following points should be noted when reading this report:

• Descriptions of question wording and base sizes for the data used in figures can be found in Appendix F: Question wording and base descriptions for figures.
• As the survey was conducted with members of large online panels, the findings refer to ‘respondents’ rather than residents or the general public. However, findings can be considered to be indicative of the wider public’s views.
• Data have been weighted at a national level, based on the criteria of age, gender, geographical region, IMD quartile (Indices of Multiple Deprivation) and ethnicity.
• Unless stated otherwise, all differences noted in this report are statistically significant at a 95 percent confidence level. This means that there is only a 5 percent probability that the difference has occurred by chance (a commonly accepted level of probability), rather than being a ‘real’ difference. Only differences of five percentage points or greater have been reported when analysing results by sub-groups. This is because there is a wealth of sub-groups that have been included in the analysis. Additionally, due to the relatively large base sizes some differences are statistically significant even though the proportion has not changed markedly. Therefore, this report focuses on the largest and most pertinent differences.
• Results are based on all respondents unless otherwise specified.
• In the tables and charts contained in this report, a * symbol denotes a proportion that is less than 0.5 percent, but greater than zero.
• Where results do not sum to 100 percent, this is either due to rounding or due to multiple responses being allowed for the question.
• The following acronyms are used in this report:
  • BAME – Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic groups.
  • FRS – fire and rescue service.
  • IMD – Indices of Multiple Deprivation. This official statistic measures relative deprivation in small areas called lower-layer super output areas. For the analysis, all areas were divided into 4 quartiles based on their IMD score. References to the ‘most deprived’ areas in this report pertain to the 25 percent with the lowest IMD score, while references to the ‘least deprived’ areas pertain to the 25 percent with the highest IMD score[5].
• Throughout this report references have been made to sub-groups where their results differ from the total by a statistically significant amount (see Appendix C: Demographic profile of participants), and are at least 5 percentage points. A number of variables have been taken into account when analysing sub-groups:
  • Age
  • Disability – When disabled respondents are referred to in this report, only people with mobility-related disabilities are included
  • Ethnicity
  • Gender
  • Groups at higher risk of fire death: people with disabilities (mobility-related), those aged 65+ and households with smokers. These groups were categorised as being at higher risk of fire death in research published by the DCLG in 2006[6]
  • Households where a member of the household works in the public sector
  • Households with children
  • Households with smokers – This term refers to respondents who live in a household where either they smoke themselves or someone else in the household smokes
  • How happy respondents felt the day before completing the survey
  • IMD
  • Perceptions of change in service offered by local FRS
  • Perceptions of local FRS providing value for money
  • Perceptions of local FRS providing an effective service
  • Perceptions of whether FRS listen to the public when setting priorities
  • Reason for last contact with the FRS
  • Satisfaction with the local area (within 15 minutes walking distance from respondents’ homes)
  • Satisfaction with local FRS
  • Sexuality
  • Urban / Rural[7]
  • Whether respondents feel informed about their local FRS
  • Whether respondents have been asked for their views on their local FRS
  • Whether respondents have had any formal contact with their FRS in the past 12 months

Overall awareness and views of fire and rescue services

This section covers respondents’ overall perceptions of the FRS, including perceived satisfaction with the local FRS, confidence in the overall service the FRS provides in the local area and perceptions on whether the local FRS provides good value for money.

Perceived satisfaction with the local FRS is high and positively correlates with satisfaction with the local area, feeling informed about the local FRS and being asked about views on the local FRS.

The majority of respondents are confident that the FRS in their local area provides an effective service overall.

Overall perceived satisfaction with local fire and rescue services

Almost three-quarters say that they are satisfied with their local fire and rescue service (73%). This proportion has increased compared to 2018 (70%).

Figure 1: Perceived satisfaction with local fire and rescue services

Respondents who agree that their local FRS listens to the public when setting priorities are more likely to say that they are satisfied with their local FRS (90%). This also applies to respondents who feel informed about what their FRS is doing in the local area (89%) and respondents who have had contact with their local FRS in the past year (86%).

Conversely, those who disagree that their local FRS provides good value for money are less likely to say they are satisfied (53%).

Additionally, those who do not feel informed about what their FRS is doing in the local area are less likely to say they are satisfied (64%).

More information about significant differences regarding satisfaction with the local FRS can be found in Appendix D: Significant differences for perceived satisfaction.

Confidence in the overall service provided by local fire and rescue services

Nine in ten (90%) are confident that the fire and rescue service in their local area provides an effective service overall. Three percent of respondents say that they are not confident. The proportion that are confident has increased compared to 2018 (90% in 2019 versus 86% in 2018).

Figure 2: Confidence in local fire and rescue services to provide effective overall service

Perhaps unsurprisingly, those who agree that their local FRS provides good value for money are more likely to be confident that the FRS provides an effective service overall in the local area (98%). The same holds true for those who are satisfied with their local FRS (97%) and those who agree that their local FRS listens to the views of the public when setting priorities (97%). Those who feel informed about their local FRS (96%) and those who think that the service provided by the FRS in their local area got better over the past 12 months (96%) are also more likely to say that they are confident.

Perceptions of value for money of local fire and rescue services

Almost three-quarters (72%) of respondents agree that the fire and rescue service in their local area provides good value for money (versus 70% in 2018), while four percent disagree. The remainder are either neutral (12%) or don’t know (13%).

Figure 3: Perceptions of local fire and rescue services providing good value for money

Respondents who agree that the service provided by their local FRS got better over the past year are more likely to agree that the FRS in their local area provides good value for money (87%). So too are those who are satisfied with their local FRS (84%). Those who have had contact with their local FRS in the past year (79%) and respondents aged 65+ (79%) are also more likely to agree with this.

In addition, those who say they felt happy the day before completing the survey being more likely to agree that the FRS in their local area provides good value for money (77%).

On the other hand, those who are dissatisfied with the local FRS are more likely to disagree that the local FRS provides good value for money (34% versus 4% overall). This is also true of those who say that they are not confident that their local FRS provides an effective service overall (34%).

Furthermore, those who agree that the service provided by their local FRS got worse over the past year are more likely to disagree that the local fire and rescue service provides good value for money (19%).

Impact of Grenfell Tower fire on perceptions of fire and rescue services

This sub-section examines the impact of the Grenfell Tower fire in 2017 on views of fire and rescue services in general. The majority of respondents say either that the Grenfell Tower fire has made them view fire and rescue services in general more positively (47%) or that it has made no difference (36%)[8]. A minority say that it has made them view the FRS more negatively (11%). The proportion who say that the Grenfell Tower fire has made them view fire and rescue services in general more negatively has increased compared to 2018 (11% in 2019 versus 7% in 2018).

Figure 4: Impact of Grenfell Tower fire on views of fire and rescue services in general

Respondents who agree that the service provided by their local FRS got better over the past year are more likely to say that the Grenfell Tower fire has made them view the FRS more positively (65%); as are respondents who agree that their local FRS listens to the views of the public when setting priorities (59%) and those who feel informed about their local FRS (56%). Those who have had contact with local FRSs are also more likely to agree with this (55%). This is also true of those who agree that the FRS in their local area provides good value for money (54%).

Perhaps unsurprisingly, respondents who say that they are satisfied with their local FRS are more likely to say that the Grenfell Tower fire has made them view FRSs more positively (53%).

Disabled respondents are also more likely to say that the Grenfell Tower fire has made them view FRSs more positively (52%), as are female respondents (52%) and those who live in households with children (52%).

Conversely, respondents who have been asked about their views on the local FRS in the past 12 months are more likely to state that the Grenfell Tower fire has made them view FRSs more negatively (30% versus 11% overall), as are respondents who disagree that the local FRS listens to the views of the public when setting priorities (26%) and those who are not confident that their local FRS provides an effective service overall (25%).

Local fire and rescue services’ activities

This section covers respondents’ awareness and views of FRS statutory and non-statutory duties.

The statutory functions that fire and rescue services need to provide are listed in the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004, namely: fire safety, firefighting, rescuing people in road traffic collisions, and responding to emergencies. In addition, the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 requires services to enforce the provisions of the Order, namely auditing the fire risk assessment of certain premises.

Services also carry out other activities (non-statutory) beyond those set out in the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004. These differ from service to service and reflect local risks. Non-statutory emergency response activities include: responding to medical incidents, responding to storms and other natural disasters, and water rescue. Non-statutory prevention activities include promoting road safety and promoting water safety.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, responding to fires is the activity that respondents are most aware that their local FRS performs and this is seen as the most important duty for their local FRS to prioritise overall. This is followed by rescuing people from road traffic collisions.

A non-statutory duty, responding to medical incidents (either assisting the ambulance service or as a first responder to serious medical calls), is seen as the third most important priority for the FRS.

Awareness of local fire and rescue services’ statutory duties

Respondents were presented with a list of local FRS statutory duties and were asked to select the duties that they think their local FRS performs. They were able to select as many activities as they wanted.

Responding to fires is the FRS statutory duty that respondents are most likely to be aware of (90%) when shown a list of FRS statutory duties. This is followed by preventing fires and promoting fire safety (87%), and rescuing people from road traffic collisions (84%). In contrast, obtaining information from landlords/building owners to improve response if a fire or other emergency occurs in the building is the statutory duty with the lowest level of awareness (61%).

Figure 5: Awareness of local fire and rescue services’ statutory duties

Respondents aged 65+ are more likely to say that they are aware of all statutory duties shown on Figure 5, as are those aged 55 to 64. In contrast, respondents aged 16 to 24 and 25 to 34 and BAME respondents are less likely to be aware of all statutory duties listed above. This also applies to respondents who say that their sexuality is ‘other’ and respondents who live in households with public sector workers. Moreover, respondents who live in households with children are less likely to be aware of all statutory activities even though they are more likely than average to feel informed about what the FRS are doing in their local area.

Disabled respondents are more likely to be aware of the following non-emergency response activities: collaborating with other organisations (88%), ensuring those responsible for public and commercial buildings comply with fire safety regulations (82%) and obtaining information from landlords/building owners to improve response if a fire or another emergency occurs in the building (69%). Similarly, disabled respondents are also more likely to be aware of the following emergency response activities: rescuing people from road traffic collisions (89%) and responding to emergencies such as flooding and terrorist incidents (87%).

Those in the least deprived IMD quartile are more likely to know that collaborating with other organisations for example the police and ambulance service is something the FRS does (87% versus 82% overall) while those in the most deprived IMD quartile are less likely to be aware of this (77%)[9]. Similarly, respondents in the least deprived areas are more likely to be aware that the FRS are responsible for responding to emergencies such as flooding and terrorist incidents (85% versus 80% overall), while those in the most deprived areas are less likely to be aware (75%).

Statutory priorities for local fire and rescue services

Respondents were presented with a list of fire and rescue services’ statutory duties. They were asked to select three statutory activities that they think their local fire and rescue services should prioritise.

Responding to fires is seen as one of the top three most important statutory duty for local fire and rescue services to prioritise (85%). This is followed by rescuing people from road traffic collisions (62%) and responding to emergencies such as floods and terrorist incidents (48%).

Figure 6: Most important statutory priorities for local fire and rescue services (in top three)

Those aged 65+ are more likely to say that the following three activities should be prioritised: responding to fires (91%), rescuing people from road traffic collisions (69%) and responding to emergencies such as flooding and terrorist incidents (54%).

Respondents aged 25-34 are more likely to say that enforcement and protection activities should be prioritised: ensuring those responsible for public and commercial buildings comply with fire safety regulations (25%) and obtaining information from landlords/building owners to improve emergency response (17%).

This trend can also be observed among BAME respondents, who are more likely to select the following statutory priorities: preventing fires and promoting fire safety (54%); ensuring those responsible for public and commercial buildings comply with fire safety regulations (30%); and obtaining information from landlords/building owners to improve response if a fire or other emergency occurs in the building (18%).

Those dissatisfied with their local FRS are also more likely to say that enforcement and protection activities should be prioritised: ensuring those responsible for public and commercial buildings comply with fire safety regulations (27%), collaborating with other organisations for example the police and ambulance service (27%) and obtaining information from landlords/building owners to improve response if a fire or other emergency occurs in the building (16%).

In contrast, respondents in rural areas are more likely to consider that rescuing people from road traffic collisions should be prioritised (68%).

Non-statutory priorities for local fire and rescue services

Respondents were then presented with a list of activities that some fire and rescue services carry out which are non-statutory. They were asked to select three non-statutory activities that they think their local fire and rescue services should prioritise.

Responding to medical incidents is seen as one of the top three most important duties for local fire and rescue services to prioritise when respondents were shown a list of non-statutory duties (77%). This is followed by responding to storms and other natural disasters (74%), and responding to water rescue incidents (73%).

Figure 7: Most important non-statutory priorities for local fire and rescue services (in top three)

Respondents aged 65+ are more likely to say that activities relating to emergency response should be a priority: 85 percent selected responding to medical incidents, 83 percent selected responding to storms and other natural disasters, and 80 percent selected responding to water rescue incidents. Conversely, respondents aged 65+ are less likely to think that promoting water safety (7%) and promoting road safety (14%) should be prioritised. This is also true of respondents aged 55 to 64.

Respondents aged 16 to 24, and aged 25 to 34 are more likely to say that prevention activities should be a priority: 34 percent of 25 to 34 year old respondents and 33 percent of 16 to 24 year old respondents think that promoting road safety should be a priority. Furthermore, 20 percent of 25 to 34 year old respondents and 17 percent of 16 to 24 year old respondents think that promoting water safety should be a priority. 16 to 24 year old respondents are also more likely to think that responding to animal rescue should be a priority (33%).

BAME respondents are more likely to say that promoting road safety (31%) and promoting water safety (21%) should be a priority. Conversely, they are less likely to say that responding to water rescue incidents (63%), responding to storms and other natural disasters (68%) and responding to medical incidents (71%) should be a priority.

Similarly, respondents who live in households with children are more likely to say that promoting road safety (32%) and promoting water safety (18%) should be a priority.

Overall priorities for local fire and rescue services

Respondents who had selected answers when asked about the top three most important statutory and non-statutory priorities were presented with the six responses they had selected (three statutory and three non-statutory activities). They were then asked to select which three out of those six options they considered most important for their local FRS to prioritise. Figure 8 shows the most commonly selected overall priorities.

Responding to fires is seen as the overall top priority for the FRS (77%), followed by rescuing people from road traffic collisions (49%).

A non-statutory duty, responding to medical incidents, is seen as the third most important priority for the FRS (33%).

Figure 8: Overall priorities for local fire and rescue services

Local fire service stations’ arrangements

Fire and rescue services in England are made up of wholetime and on-call or retained staff. On-call staff may have other primary employment but commit to respond to emergencies when required. Wholetime firefighters are generally based at and mobilised from fire stations.

Respondents were asked about their knowledge of their local fire services’ staffing arrangements for fire stations. They were given four options with possible staffing arrangements for fire stations in their local FRS and were asked to select the one that they thought was true about their local FRS.

The options given were:

1. All of the fire stations in my service have firefighters who are at the station all of the time;
2. Most of the fire stations in my service have firefighters who are at the station all of the time, but some of the stations have on-call firefighters who travel to the station before responding to an incident;
3. Most of the stations have on-call firefighters who travel to the station before responding to an incident, but some of the fire stations in my service have firefighters who are at the station all of the time;
4. All of the stations have on-call firefighters who travel to the station before responding to an incident.

Responses were then compared to the actual arrangements of the fire service area in which the respondents are based. An explanation of how the actual arrangements for each fire service area were calculated can be found in Appendix F: Question wording and base descriptions for figures.

Respondents are not well informed about how their fire and rescue services’ stations are staffed. 42 percent of respondents selected an incorrect answer[10], while a further 28 percent stated that they did not know. Three in ten (30%) provided a correct answer.

The following groups are more likely to have selected a correct answer: those who have been asked about their views on their local FRS (44%), those who think that the service provided by their local FRS got better over the past 12 months (41%), and those who have had contact with the local FRS in the past 12 months (39%).

By type of contact, those who have had contact to report a non-fire incident are the most likely to state a correct answer (50%), followed by respondents who reported a fire incident (46%) and those who had contact through a fire safety audit/inspection (46%).

Overall, respondents are more likely to think that all fire stations in their fire service have wholetime firefighters than is actually the case (21% of respondents think this, compared to 14 percent of fire service areas in which this is the actual arrangement).

Figure 9: Knowledge of local fire and rescue services stations’ staffing arrangements

Target groups for prevention activities

To reduce the number and severity of fires in the home, fire and rescue services must promote fire safety, this includes prevention activity. Home safety/fire risk checks are just one of the methods fire and rescue services use to help reduce the risk of fire and other emergencies in the community. These checks involve fire and rescue service staff visiting someone at home to identify and advise of the potential fire risks and how to reduce or prevent these risks, putting together an escape plan and ensuring there are working smoke alarms.

Respondents were asked who they consider to be the most important groups that should be targeted for these prevention activities. They were asked to select the most important, the second most important and the third most important. Over one in three respondents state that residents living in an apartment / flat in a building with four floors or more (36%) and people with disabilities or those with restricted mobility (35%) are among the three most important target groups for prevention activities.

However, it is worth noting that overall around one in five respondents (19%) say that none of the groups provided should be prioritised for prevention activities and that everyone should be targeted equally.

Figure 10: Target groups for prevention activities

Perhaps unsurprisingly, respondents with children in the household are more likely to say children should be targeted for prevention activities (30%, compared to 22% overall). Similarly, around half of disabled respondents say people with disabilities or those with restricted mobility are an important target for prevention activities (49%, compared to 35% overall).

Views on fire safety checks in homes

Increasingly, fire and rescue services are expanding home safety/fire risk checks to include wellbeing. These expanded assessments are known as ‘wellness checks’ or ‘safe and well checks’. Safe and well checks are a more rounded approach to prevention and public safety. Those carrying out wellness checks go beyond identifying fire risks. They look for other potential risks to health and wellbeing.

Respondents were asked what elements should be included in home safety/fire safety checks in homes. They were able to select as many from the list provided as they wished. Around four in five respondents agree that identifying potential fire risks (80%), ensuring working smoke alarms are fitted (80%) and taking actions to reduce fire risks (78%) are elements that should be included in fire safety checks in homes. Respondents aged 65+, those aged 55 to 64 and aged 45 to 54 are more likely to agree with all three of these statements.

Around one in three (32%) respondents agree that referrals to other agencies should be included in home safety/fire risk checks, with bisexual (42%), gay/lesbian (41%) and disabled respondents (39%) being more likely to agree.

Health screening/detection is the element that respondents are least likely to say should be part of fire safety checks in homes (9%). However, BAME respondents are more likely to agree that this element should be included (15%).

Figure 11: Views on elements that should be included in fire safety checks in homes

Awareness of the fire and rescue services’ prosecution powers

Responsibility for fire safety in buildings sits with a ‘responsible person’. This might be the building owner or managing agent. Fire and rescue services provide education and business support and, if necessary, use enforcement powers to make premises as safe as possible. This helps to protect people, property and the environment by either preventing fires from occurring in the first place or limiting the effects of fires when they do occur.

A definition of ‘responsible persons’ can be found in section 3 of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005.

Nearly three in five (57%) respondents state that they are aware that fire and rescue services can prosecute ‘responsible persons’ in public and commercial buildings if they fail to comply with fire safety regulations. Around one in three are not aware (35%) and the reminder don’t know (8%).

Awareness of the FRS’s prosecution powers is particularly high among respondents who have been asked about their views on FRS in the area where they live (88%), those who think the service provided by their local FRS got better over the past 12 months (76%), those who have had contact with the local FRS in the past year (72%) and those who feel well informed (72%). This also applies to: those who agree that their local FRS listens to the views of the public when setting priorities (69%), respondents aged 65+ (64%), respondents who live in households with public sector workers (64%) and disabled respondents (63%).

Awareness of the FRS’s prosecution powers is also linked to satisfaction with the local FRS, with 63 percent of those who are satisfied with their local FRS saying that they are aware that the fire and rescue service can prosecute ‘responsible persons’ in public and commercial buildings if they fail to comply with fire safety regulations.

Accessing local fire and rescue services

This section explores the nature of interactions of respondents with local fire and rescue services, and how it may impact respondents’ feelings of safety.

One in five have had contact with their local FRS in the past 12 months; with community events/open days, as a witness to a fire incident and as part of home safety/fire risk checks being the most common types of interaction.

Almost two in three respondents who have had contact with their local FRS in the last 12 months felt safer after their interaction and less than one in ten say that they felt less safe.

Contact with local fire and rescue services in the past 12 months

Around one in five of all respondents (21%) state they have had contact with their local fire and rescue service in the past 12 months. This is a significant increase of five percentage points compared to 2018 (16% in 2018).

Figure 12: Contact with local fire and rescue services in the past 12 months

Respondents who are more likely to have had contact with their local FRS in the past 12 months are: households with public sector workers (35%), those who live with children in the households (33%), those aged 25 to 34 (33%), BAME individuals (29%), households with smokers (28%), those aged 16 to 24 (26%) and those living in the most deprived areas (26%).

Respondents were then asked what types of interaction they have had with their local FRS. Respondents were able to select multiple types of interaction. The most common interaction with local fire and rescue services is through attending community events/open days (6%).

Figure 13: Type of contacts respondents have had with local fire and rescue services in the past 12 months

Respondents who live with children in the household are more likely to have interacted with their local FRS through attending a community event/open day (11%).

In addition, five percent of respondents have had contact as a witness to a fire incident. A similar proportion have had interactions as part of a home safety/fire risk check (5%). Disabled (10%) and BAME (10%) respondents are more likely to have had contact through home safety/fire risk checks. There are no differences in the type of contact that respondents have had with their local FRS compared to the 2018 survey.

Satisfaction with last contact with local fire and rescue services

Over four in five (84%) respondents who have had contact with their local FRS in the last 12 months are satisfied with their last interaction. Around one in ten (9%) are neutral and five percent are dissatisfied. The proportion who say that they are dissatisfied with their last contact has decreased by five percentage points compared to 2018 (10% said that they were dissatisfied with their last contact with their local FRS in 2018).

Figure 14: Satisfaction with last contact with local fire and rescue services

Respondents who have had contact in the past 12 months to install fire safety equipment are more likely to say that they are satisfied with their last interaction with their local FRS (94%). Respondents who agree that the FRS in their local area listens to the public when setting priorities are also more likely to say that they are satisfied (93%). This also applies to those who think that the service provided by their local FRS got better over the past 12 months (92%), and to respondents who agree that their local FRS provides good value for money (92%). Those aged 45 to 54 are also more likely to say that they are satisfied (89%), as are those satisfied with the local area (89%), those who say that they are satisfied with their local FRS overall (89%) and those who have had contact in the past 12 months as part of a home safety/fire risk check (89%).

Gay/lesbian respondents are less likely to say that they are satisfied with their last interaction with the local FRS (66%), as are: those who think the service provided by their local FRS got worse over the past year (57%), those who disagree that their local FRS provides good value for money (49%), those who are dissatisfied with their local FRS (39%), those who are not confident that their local FRS provides an effective service overall (38%) and those who disagree that their local FRS listens to the views of the public when setting priorities (34%).

Feeling safe after having contact with local fire and rescue services

Of those respondents who have had contact with their local FRS in the past year, around two in three (65%) felt safer after their last contact with their local fire and rescue service and 21 percent say that it made no difference. Seven percent say either that they don’t know, that they prefer not to say or that this is not applicable to them.

The overall proportion of respondents who felt safer after their interaction with their local FRS has decreased compared to 2018 when nearly three in four respondents (72%) stated they felt safer after their last contact (a reduction of seven percentage points). Overall, the percentage of respondents who feel less safe is in line with the 2018 results (6%).

Figure 15: Feeling safe after having contact with local fire and rescue services

Respondents that believe their local FRS’s services have become better in the last 12 months are more likely to say they felt safer after their last contact (81%), while the opposite holds true for those who believe their local FRS’s service has become worse (35% felt safer, compared to 65% overall).

Just seven percent of respondents felt less safe after their last contact with their local FRS.

Those who are not confident that their local fire and rescue service provides an effective service (33%) and respondents who have had four or more contacts with their local fire and rescue service (26%) are more likely to say they felt less safe.

By type of contact, those who had contact to install fire safety equipment are more likely to say that they felt safer after their interaction (82% versus 65% overall). This is also true of respondents who had contact through home safety/fire risk checks (76%) or to report a fire incident (75%). Respondents who had contact through fire safety audits/inspections are also more likely to say that they felt safer (74%).

In contrast, respondents who had an interaction as a witness to a non-fire incident are more likely to say they felt less safe after their contact (15% versus 7% overall). It should be noted, however, that these feelings may not necessarily be as a consequence of the actions of the FRS.

Public interest in local fire and rescue services

This section examines: the extent to which respondents are interested in and feel informed about their local fire and rescue service; the means of communication they have used to find out about it and the reasons for not feeling informed.

A majority of respondents don’t feel informed about what the FRS is doing in their local area. The main reason given for not feeling informed is not seeing any information about their local FRS. More respondents feel uninformed compared to 2018. Nonetheless, over a third feel informed, with local or national news being the most common way of hearing about the local FRS.

Feeling informed about local fire and rescue services

Around three in five (57%) do not feel informed about what the fire and rescue service is doing in their local area, a proportion that has increased compared to 2018 (57% in 2019 versus 52% in 2018). Similarly, nearly two in five (38%) feel informed. However, compared to 2018, fewer respondents feel informed (42% in 2018 versus 38% in 2019).

Figure 16: Feeling informed about local fire and rescue services

Respondents dissatisfied with their local area (65%) and those who haven’t had contact with their FRS (65%) are more likely to feel not informed. This is also true of gay/lesbian respondents (63%), respondents in the least deprived areas (62%) and those who have not been asked about their views on FRS in the area where they live (62%).

Those who stated they don’t feel informed were then asked about their reasons for feeling this way. The main reason given by respondents for not feeling informed is because they haven’t seen any information about their local FRS (79% of those who don’t feel informed). Only one in ten (10%) say that they are not interested in finding out more.

Those who have been asked about their views on their local FRS are more likely to feel informed (86%), as are those who have had contact with their local FRS (68%), and respondents who live with children in the household (47%) and households with public sector workers (47%). In addition, respondents aged 25 to 34 (44%), BAME (43%) and disabled respondents (43%) are also more likely to feel informed.

Local or national news is the most common way of hearing about the local FRS (18%), followed by social media (13%).

Interest in local fire and rescue services

Around four in five (78%) are interested in knowing what the fire and rescue service is doing in their local area (versus 77% in 2018). 18 percent are not interested (versus 19% in 2018).

Figure 17: Interest in knowing what the fire and rescue services are doing in the local area

Respondents who think the service provided by their local FRS has got better over the past 12 months are more likely to say that they are interested (96%), as are respondents who have been asked about their views on the local FRS (93%), those who have had contact with their local FRS in the last 12 months (90%), those who feel well informed about their local FRS (90%) and those who agree that their local FRS listens to the views of the public when setting priorities (90%).

The following groups are also more likely to say that they are interested in knowing what the FRS is doing in the local area: respondents aged 65+ (84%), those living in households with children (83%) and households with public sector workers (82%), and disabled respondents (82%). This is also true of those who say that they felt happy the day before completing the survey (82%).

In contrast, respondents who say that their sexuality is ‘other’ are more likely to state that they are not interested in knowing what the fire and rescue service is doing in the local area (36% versus 18% overall). This also applies to those who are not confident that their local FRS provides an effective service overall (30%) and those aged 16 to 24 (29%).

Areas of interest about local fire and rescue services

Respondents who say that they are interested in knowing what the FRS are doing in the local area were asked about the areas that they are most interested in knowing about. Respondents were presented with the list shown in Figure 18 and were asked to select up to three options.

The range of services provided by the fire and rescue service is the element respondents are most interested in knowing about (52%), followed by keeping their property safe from fire (47%) and what their local FRS are doing (44%).

Conversely, who runs the local fire and rescue service is the element that respondents are least interested in knowing about (12%).

Figure 18: Areas of local fire and rescue services respondents are most interested in knowing about

Being asked about views on local fire and rescue services

Around nine in ten respondents (88%) say that they have not been asked about their views on fire and rescue services in the area where they live in the past 12 months. This compares to 91 percent who said that they had not been asked about their views on local fire and rescue services in 2018. Eight percent say that they have been asked about this (versus 6% in 2018).

Figure 19: Being asked about views on fire and rescue services in the local area

Households with public sector workers (18%), those aged 25 to 34 (17%) and BAME respondents (17%) are more likely to say that they have been asked about their views. This also applies to those who live in households with children (16%), respondents aged 16-24 (14%), bisexual respondents (14%) and households with smokers (13%).

Conversely, respondents aged 65+ are more likely to state that they have not been asked about their views on local fire and rescue services in the last 12 months (95% versus 88% overall), as are: those who feel not well informed about what the FRS are doing in the local area (95%), and those who haven’t had contact with their local FRS in the past 12 months (95%).

Fire safety

This section explores respondents’ awareness of fire safety adverts, the effect fire safety concerns could have on purchase decisions, and what actions respondents may take at different stages of a fire.

Around a fifth have seen, heard or read something about fire safety in the last three months. The majority of respondents who recall such material report that it was telling them to test their smoke alarms.

In addition, it is possible that fire safety concerns could impact purchase decisions, with nine in ten respondents saying either they would not buy the product (in this case a tumble dryer) or that they would find out more information before doing so when presented with a hypothetical scenario.

In terms of actions that may be taken in the event of a fire, over half say they would call 999 at the early stages of a fire (see picture 1 on page 42), with the proportion that would do so increasing to over nine in ten respondents for an advanced fire scenario (see picture 3 below).

Awareness of fire safety campaigns

One in five (19%) respondents have seen, read or heard something about fire safety in the last three months. Those who feel well informed about their local FRS (32%) and households with public sector workers (31%) are more likely to have seen something about this topic, as are: BAME (28%) and bisexual respondents (28%), and respondents aged 25 to 34 (27%). This also applies to: respondents who live with children in the household (27%), those aged 16 to 24 (26%), households with smokers (24%) and those in the most deprived areas (24%).

Respondents aged 65+ are less likely to have seen, read or heard something about fire safety in the last three months (14%), as are those aged 55 to 64 (14%).

Of those that have seen, read or heard something about fire safety in the last three months, the majority (61%) state the advert or story was trying to tell them to test their smoke alarms. The second most common message recalled is encouraging people to have a smoke alarm, with nearly half (46%) referring to this.

Possible effects of fire safety concerns on purchase choice

Respondents were given a hypothetical scenario of wanting to purchase a tumble dryer and being drawn to a model, but hearing that the brand has recalled similar models over fire safety concerns. They were asked what they would do in this situation.

Around half of respondents (53%) state they would not buy the product. Around two in five (38%) state they would find out more information before buying it. And six percent of respondents state they would buy the product anyway.

Figure 20: Possible effects of fire safety concerns on purchase choice

Respondents aged 65+ are more likely to state they would not buy the product (62%).

Those who have had contact in the past 12 months as part of a fire safety audit/inspection are more likely to state they would find out more information (55% versus 38% overall).

Respondents who have had contact with the local FRS in the past 12 months are more likely to say that they would buy the product anyway (32% versus 6% overall).

More information on significant differences regarding possible effects of fire safety concerns on purchase choice can be found in Appendix E: Significant differences for possible effects of fire safety concerns on purchase choice.

Actions that may be taken at different stages of a fire

Respondents were presented with the three images[11] below depicting different stages of a house fire. They were asked what they would do if that scenario took place in their home:

Figure 21: Picture 1

Figure 22: Picture 2

Figure 23: Picture 3

Respondents could select one of the following options for each scenario pictured:

1. Nothing
2. Try to put it out yourself
3. Ask a family member/neighbour for help
4. Call 999
5. Other (please specify)

After being shown the pictures above, the following fire advice message[12] was displayed for respondents:

• In the event of a fire in your home:
• Don’t tackle fires yourself. Leave it to the professionals.
• Keep calm and act quickly, get everyone out as soon as possible.
• Don’t waste time investigating what’s happened or rescuing valuables.
• If there’s smoke, keep low where the air is clearer.
• Before you open a door check if it’s warm. If it is, don’t open it – fire is on the other side.
• Call 999 as soon as you’re clear of the building.

When shown picture number 1 (see Figure 24), over half of respondents (53%) state they would call 999. Those aged 65+ are more likely to say this (62%). Nearly two in five (37%) say they would try to put out the fire themselves, with males being more likely to say so (42%).

Figure 24: Actions that may be taken in the event of fire

The proportion of respondents who say they would call 999 when shown picture 2 increases to three-quarters (74%). Those aged 65+ are more likely to say they would do this (81%).

Respondents who have been asked about their views on their local fire and rescue service in the past 12 months are less likely to say they would call 999 (59%, compared to 74% overall). And they are more likely to state they would try to put out the fire themselves (26%, compared to 20% overall) or ask a family member/neighbour for help (10%, compared to 3% overall). Those who are not confident that their local FRS provides an effective service overall are also more likely to say they would try to put out the fire themselves (31%, compared to 20% overall).

In relation to picture number 3, over nine in ten (92%) respondents state they would call 999. Respondents who have been asked about their views on local fire and rescue services in the past 12 months are less likely to state they would call 999 (68%, compared to 92%). They are more likely to say they would try to put out the fire themselves (18%, compared to 3%). As with the previous image, those who are not confident that their local FRS provides an effective service are more likely to state that they would try to put out the fire themselves (12%, compared to 3% overall).

Individuals who said they were unhappy the day before completing the survey are less likely to say they would call 999 than average for every picture (45% for picture 1, 65% for picture 2, and 86% for picture 3), as are those who believe their local FRS service has become worse over the last 12 months (43% for picture 1, 61% for picture 2, and 76% for picture 3).

Appendix A: Methodology

Overall approach

This survey was carried out in August and September 2019 on behalf of Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services (HMICFRS). A similar study was undertaken by BMG Research in 2018.

The survey of 10,024 members of the public was conducted online using BMG’s approved network of panel providers. This approved network has access to over 500,000+ UK residents who have signed up to be invited to participate in research in exchange for rewards. These rewards usually take the form of points which can be redeemed for vouchers or money.

A sample was drawn from the 500,000+ UK residents based on their key socio-demographic data. Those who were sampled received a notification email or alert from their panel inviting them to take part in the survey. Targets were set for each fire and rescue service area to ensure that the number of surveys achieved is proportionally representative of the population of that area, while taking into account a minimum base size of 100 per FRS area. The number of surveys completed ranges from 100 in the Isle of Wight to 1,443 in London. Due to the small population of the Isles of Scilly (less than 2,000 people), it was not feasible to collect responses for this FRS. Within each geographical area; age, gender and ethnicity were monitored to help ensure that a representative sample was achieved.

The main benefits to the online approach used for this study are:

• A cost-effective way of maximising the total number of responses.
• Greater ability to gather responses from traditionally hard-to-reach groups, such as BAME, young people and low-income respondents, through use of a panel network.
• Improved data quality through blending online samples across providers.

It should be noted that an online only approach means that the sample consisted entirely of people who have signed up to an online panel and have access to the internet. It can be argued that an online only approach can create difficulties in achieving a satisfactory number of responses from hard-to-reach groups as they are less likely to be registered on an online panel. However, the size of BMG’s panel network (500,000+ UK residents) combined with careful quota management and weighting mitigates against this.

Weighting

Weighting is used to adjust the results of a survey to account for any differences between the sample achieved and the target population. For instance, if a sample contains 40 percent males but the target population contains 49% males, a weight can be applied in order to help correct for this difference.

In this research, results have been weighted at a national level using the following criteria: gender by age, ethnicity, gender by geographic region and IMD quartile. Weights for all factors were applied simultaneously based on population counts. The minimum weight used was 0.51 and the maximum weight was 3.74.

Comparison of survey methodologies used in 2018 and 2019

Both the 2019 and the 2018 surveys were commissioned to better understand the general public’s perceptions of their local Fire and rescue service across England. Both studies cover the public’s views and experiences of local fire and rescue activities and explore topical FRS issues. However, new questions have been added to the 2019 survey in order to gather new insights. Consequently, some questions that were included in the 2018 survey were not asked in the 2019 survey.

Where questions have remained the same, 2019 results have been compared to the 2018 survey.

In 2018, a minimum target of 400 completes per FRS (excluding Isles of Scilly) was enforced. This allowed analysis to be conducted at both a national level and at the level of individual FRSs.

In 2019, results were only needed at a national level. Therefore, a minimum target of 100 completes per FRS (excluding Isles of Scilly) was enforced, with the remainder of the surveys being proportioned in accordance with population statistics. This means that a greater number of surveys have been completed in areas that have the largest populations. Due to the relatively smaller number of completes for the 2019 survey, and the proportionate approach that was taken to sampling by FRS area, results for 2019 have been analysed at a national level only.

In 2018, a mixed mode methodology was used to reach the 17,976 completes. While the majority of respondents completed the survey online, through online research panels, a minority of the surveys were conducted face-to-face with trained interviewers in respondents’ homes (757). These face-to-face surveys were specifically targeted to groups of the population that are traditionally under represented on online panels (e.g. older people and BAME individuals).

In 2019, a purely online approach was used, again reaching respondent through online panels.

Notwithstanding these differences, the results of both surveys are comparable at a national level.

Appendix B: Number of surveys per fire and rescue service area

Table 1: Number of completed surveys per fire and rescue service

Area	Number of surveys
Avon	191
Bedfordshire	150
Buckinghamshire	150
Cambridgeshire	150
Cheshire	176
Cleveland	150
Cornwall	150
County Durham and Darlington	151
Cumbria	150
Derbyshire	176
Devon & Somerset	295
Dorset & Wiltshire	257
East Sussex	150
Essex County	300
Gloucestershire	150
Greater Manchester	456
Hampshire	307
Hereford & Worcester	150
Hertfordshire	195
Humberside	156
Isle of Wight	100
Kent	302
Lancashire	249
Leicestershire	178
Lincolnshire	150
London	1,443
Merseyside	240
Norfolk	153
North Yorkshire	150
Northamptonshire	150
Northumberland	150
Nottinghamshire	192
Oxfordshire	150
Royal Berkshire	150
Shropshire	150
South Yorkshire	233
Staffordshire	189
Suffolk	150
Surrey	195
Tyne and Wear	192
Warwickshire	151
West Midlands	467
West Sussex	150
West Yorkshire	380

Appendix C: Demographic profile of participants

This report focuses on key differences for specific sub-groups of the population. The table below outlines the number of surveys completed by each of these sub-groups.

Table 2: Demographic profile of respondents

Sub-group	Base
Male	3,627
Female	6,379
Aged 16-24	528
Aged 25-34	1,565
Aged 35-44	1,853
Aged 45-54	1,976
Aged 55-64	2,091
Aged 65+	2,005
White	9,163
BAME	807
Have a disability	3,582
Have a mobility-related disability	1,433
Do not have a disability	6,351
Respondent themselves are smokers	1,707
Someone in respondents’ household is a smoker	1,524
Households with smokers (Respondents themselves or someone else)	2,496
Urban area	5,040
Rural area	4,984
Heterosexual	9,254
Gay/Lesbian	241
Bisexual	242
Sub-group	Base
Other sexuality	53
1st IMD quartile (Least deprived)	2,293
2nd IMD quartile	2,522
3rd IMD quartile	2,678
4th IMD quartile (Most deprived)	2,531
Have children in household	2,783
Do not have children in household	7,177
Households with public sector workers	2,018
No public sector workers in household	7,950
Satisfied with local area	7,659
Dissatisfied with local area	1,164
Satisfied with local FRS	7,322
Dissatisfied with local FRS	231
Well informed about local FRS	3,675
Not well informed about local FRS	5,826
Have had contact with local FRS	1,912
Have not had contact with local FRS	7,855
Have had contact once with local FRS	1,089
Have had contact two or three times with local FRS	522
Have had contact four or more times with local FRS	115
Have had contact reporting a fire incident	304
Have had contact reporting a non-fire incident	205
Have had contact as a witness to a fire incident	282
Have had contact as a witness to a non-fire incident	202
Have had contact through community event/open day	493
Sub-group	Base
Have had contact through home safety/fire risk check	363
Have had contact for installing fire safety equipment	247
Have had contact through fire safety audit/inspection	147
Asked about views on local FRS	575
Not asked about views on local FRS	9,006
Believe local FRS’s service got better over the past 12 months	882
Believe local FRS’s service stayed about the same over the past 12 months	306
Believe local FRS’s service got worse over the past 12 months	5,945
Confident that the local FRS provides an effective service overall	9,123
Not confident that the local FRS provides an effective service overall	281
Agree the local FRS provides good value for money	7,369
Disagree the local FRS provides good value for money	347
Agree the local FRS listens to the views of the public when setting priorities	3,554
Disagree the local FRS listens to the views of the public when setting priorities	311

Appendix D: Significant differences for perceived satisfaction

The charts below show the sub-groups who are more likely to say that they are satisfied with their local FRS and those who are less likely to say so.

More likely to be satisfied

Group	Base	%
Total	10,024	73%
Respondents who think the service provided by their local FRS has got better over the past 12 months	882	95%
Respondents who agree their local FRS listens to the public when setting priorities	3,554	90%
Respondents who feel well informed about their local FRS	3,675	89%
Respondents who have had contact with their local FRS on 2 or 3 occasions in the past year	522	89%
Respondents whose last contact with their local FRS was to report a non-fire incident	205	87%
Respondents whose last contact with their local FRS was as a witness to a fire incident	282	87%
Respondents whose last contact with their local FRS was at a community event/open day	493	87%
Respondents whose last contact with their local FRS was through a home safety/fire risk check	363	87%
Respondents who have been asked about their views on their local FRS in the past 12 months	575	86%
Respondents who have had contact with their local FRS in the past 12 months	1,912	86%
Respondents whose last contact with their local FRS was to report a fire incident	304	86%
Respondents who agree their local FRS provides good value for money	7,369	85%
Respondents whose last contact with their local FRS was through a fire safety audit/inspection	147	84%
Respondents who think the service provided by their local FRS has stayed the same over the past 12 months	5,945	83%
Respondents who are 65+, have a mobility disability and a smoker in their household	97	83%
Respondents whose last contact with their local FRS was as a witness to a non-fire incident	202	82%
Respondents whose last contact with their local FRS was to install fire safety equipment	247	82%
Respondents who smoke themselves	1,707	79%
Respondents who have a mobility disability and a smoker in their household	714	79%
Respondents who are aged 65+ and have a smoker in their household	207	79%
Respondents who are interested in finding out more about their local FRS	7,972	79%
Respondents who have at least one child in their household	2,783	78%
Respondents who have a smoker in their household	2,496	78%
Respondents who are satisfied with their local area	7,659	78%
Respondents who are confident that their local FRS provides an effective service overall	9,123	78%

Less likely to be satisfied

Group	Base	%
Total	10,024	73%
Respondents who are not confident their local FRS provides an effective service overall	281	38%
Respondents who are not interested in finding out more about their FRS	1,651	51%
Respondents with other sexuality	53	52%
Respondents who disagree their local FRS provides good value for money	347	53%
Respondents who disagree their local FRS listens to the public when setting priorities	311	56%
Respondents who are dissatisfied with their local area	1,164	57%
Respondents who think the service provided by their local FRS has got worse over the past 12 months	306	60%
Respondents who do not feel well informed about their local FRS	5,826	64%
Respondents with a social or behavioural disability	146	64%
Respondents who are aged 16-24 years old	528	68%
BAME respondents	807	68%

Appendix E: Significant differences for possible effects of fire safety concerns on purchase choice

The charts below show significant differences by sub-groups for the following question:

Please tell us what you would do in the following hypothetical scenario.

You are looking to buy a new tumble dryer. When you get to the shop, you are drawn to a well-known model as it’s reasonably priced and it seems to have all the functionalities that you were looking for. However, you’ve heard that the brand has recalled other models of tumble dryers over fire safety concerns. What would you do?

1. I would not buy the tumble dryer that I have just seen
2. I would try and find more information about the models of the well-known brand tumble dryers that were recalled before buying the product
3. I would buy the product anyway
4. Don’t know

More likely to state that they would not buy the tumble dryer

Group	%	Base
Total	53%	10,024
Smoker and 65+ and disabled (mobility)	69%	97
Aged 65+ and smoker	64%	207
Aged 65+	62%	2,005
Disabled (mobility) and 65+	61%	885
Aged 55 to 64	58%	2,091

More likely to state that they would find out more information

Group	%	Base
Total	38%	10,024
Have had contact with the local FRS in the past 12 months as part of a fire safety audit/inspection	55%	147
Have had contact in the past 12 months as a witness to a fire incident	46%	282
Have had contact with the local FRS in 2 or 3 occasions in the past year	45%	522
Have had contact in the past 12 months reporting a fire incident	45%	304
Have had contact in the past 12 months to install fire safety equipment	45%	247
Have had contact in the past 12 months through a community event/open day	44%	493
Aged 16 to 24	45%	528
Have had contact in the past 12 months as through a home safety/ fire risk check	43%	363

More likely to state that they would buy the product anyway

Group	%	Base
Total	6%	10,024
Have had contact with the local FRS in 4 or more occasions in the past year	32%	115
Have had contact in the past 12 months as a witness to a non-fire incident	27%	202
Asked about views on local FRS in the past 12 months	25%	575
Households with public sector workers in police forces	20%	247
Have had contact in the past 12 months reporting a non-fire incident	20%	205
Have had contact in the past 12 months as a witness to a fire incident	19%	282
Have had contact with the local FRS in 2 or 3 occasions in the past year	18%	522
Not confident that the local FRS provide an effective service overall	17%	281
Have had contact in the past 12 months reporting a fire incident	17%	304
Have a vision-related disability	15%	336
Have had contact with the local FRS in the past 12 months	14%	1,912
Believes service provided by local FRS got better over the past 12 months	13%	882
Believes service provided by local FRS got worse over the past 12 months	12%	306
Have had contact in the past 12 months to install fire safety equipment	12%	247
Aged 25-34	11%	1,565
Have had contact in the past 12 months as through a community event/open day	11%	493
Have had contact in the past 12 months through a fire safety audit/inspection	11%	147

Appendix F: Question wording and base descriptions for figures

Figure	Question text	Base description
Figure 1	Q2. How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the fire & rescue service in your local area?	All respondents 2019 (10,024), all respondents 2018 (17,976)
Figure 2	Q10. How confident are you, if at all, that the fire & rescue service in your local area provides an effective service overall?	All respondents 2019 (10,024), all respondents 2018 (17,976)
Figure 3	Q7. To what extent do you agree or disagree that the fire & rescue service in your local area provides good value for money?	All respondents 2019 (10,024), all respondents 2018 (17,976)
Figure 4	QNEW. In the early hours of Wednesday 14th June 2017, a fire broke out in Grenfell Tower in London and 72 people lost their life. How, if at all, did the Grenfell fire impact your views of fire & rescue services?	All respondents 2019 (10,024), all respondents 2018 (17,976)
Figure 5	Q6. What do you think your local fire & rescue service does?	All respondents 2019 (10,024)
Figure 6	Q6NEW. Which of the following activities do you think are the most important for your local fire & rescue service to prioritise? Please select which is the most important, the second most important and the third most important.	All respondents 2019 (10,024)
Figure 7	Q26. Fire & rescue services across England need to prioritise what they provide in terms of time and resources committed. Apart from extinguishing fires and the other work fire & rescue services have responsibility for doing, which other activities do you think they should prioritise? Please select which is the most important, the second most important and the third most important.	All respondents 2019 (10,024)
Figure 8	Q26NEW. In the previous two questions you selected the below six activities as important for your local fire & rescue service to prioritise, which include activities that they have responsibility for doing and things that they could do in addition to their main tasks. Overall, out of the six options below, which do you think are the three most important? Please select which is the most important, the second most important and the third most important.	All respondents 2019 who selected answers at Q6NEW and Q26 (9,953)
Figure 9	QSTAFF. Which of the following statements do you think is true about your local fire and rescue service? Percentages for actual arrangements have been obtained by calculating the proportion of FTE staff who were wholetime in each service. Depending on this percentage, services were then matched to one of the four arrangements listed in this question: Services with between 100% and 90% of wholetime FTE staff were classed as code 1 (All of the fire stations in my service have firefighters who are at the station all of the time) Those with between 55% to 89% were classed as code 2 (Most of the fire stations in my service have firefighters who are at the station all of the time, but some of the stations have on-call firefighters who travel to the station before responding to an incident) Code 3 was assigned to those services with between 0% and 54% wholetime FTE staff (Code 3’s wording is: All of the stations have on-call firefighters who travel to the station before responding to an incident) And those with no wholetime staff were classed as code 4 (All of the stations have on-call firefighters who travel to the station before responding to an incident)	All respondents 2019 (10,024)
Figure 10	QGROUPS. In England and Wales, the Fire and Rescue Services Act (2004) created a statutory duty on fire & rescue services to promote fire safety, placing the prevention of fires at the heart of their activity. Fire and rescue services must carefully consider how to fulfil this duty when producing strategic plans and deciding how to prioritise their resources. Which of the following do you think are the three most important groups for your local fire & rescue service to target for fire prevention activities?	All respondents 2019 (10,024)
Figure 11	QSAF. To reduce the number and severity of fires, fire & rescue services must promote fire safety. Increasingly, fire & rescue services are expanding fire safety checks in people’s homes to include other aspects of wellbeing. Which of the following do you think these checks should include?	All respondents 2019 (10,024)
Figure 12	Q19. Have you had any contact or interaction with your local fire & rescue service for any of the following reasons in the past 12 months?	All respondents 2019 (10,024), all respondents 2018 (17,976)
Figure 13	Q19. Have you had any contact or interaction with your local fire & rescue service for any of the following reasons in the past 12 months?	All respondents 2019 (10,024)
Figure 14	Q23. Thinking back to the last occasion when you had contact with your local fire & rescue service, overall how satisfied or dissatisfied were you with the service you received?	All who had contact with fire and rescue service in last 12 months (1,912)
Figure 15	Q23NEW. Did you feel safer after your last contact with your local fire & rescue service?	All who have had contact 2019 (1,912), all who had contact 2018 (2,712)
Figure 16	Q11. Overall, how well informed do you feel about what the fire & rescue service in your local area is doing?	All respondents 2019 (10,024), all respondents 2018 (17,976)
Figure 17	Q12. How interested, if at all, are you in knowing what the fire & rescue service are doing in your local area?	All respondents 2019 (10,024)
Figure 18	Q13. And what are you most interested in knowing about? Please select up to three responses.	All interested in knowing what the local fire and rescue service is doing in the local area (7,972)
Figure 19	Q14. In the past 12 months have you been asked about your views on fire & rescue services in the area where you live?	All respondents 2019 (10,024)
Figure 20	QPURCH. Please tell us what you would do in the following hypothetical scenario. You are looking to buy a new tumble dryer. When you get to the shop, you are drawn to a well-known model as it’s reasonably priced and it seems to have all the functionalities that you were looking for. However, you’ve heard that the brand has recalled other models of tumble dryers over fire safety concerns. What would you do?	All respondents 2019 (10,024)
Figure 24	Q18a, Q18b, Q18c. Please look at the scenario pictured below. If this happened in your home, what do you think you would do?	All respondents 2019 (10,024)

References

[1] Due to the small size of the population of the Isles of Scilly (less than 2,000 people), it was not feasible to collect responses for this FRS.

[2] The statutory functions that fire and rescue services need to provide are listed in the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004[2], namely: fire safety, firefighting, rescuing people in road traffic collisions, and responding to emergencies. In addition, the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005[2] requires services to enforce the provisions of the Order, namely auditing the fire risk assessment of certain premises. Services also carry out other activities (non-statutory) beyond those set out in the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004.

[3] A definition of ‘responsible persons’ can be found in section 3 of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005.

[4] Due to the small size of the population of the Isles of Scilly (less than 2,000 people), it was not feasible to collect responses for this FRS.

[5] More information on Indices of Multiple Deprivation can be found on the Government website.

[6] DCLG (2006). Learning lessons from real fires.

[7] Defra (2016). Rural Urban Classification.

[8] The survey was undertaken in August and September 2019. The Phase 1 of the Grenfell Tower Inquiry was published on the 30th October 2019

[9] See introduction for definition and explanation.

[10] An answer is considered incorrect when it doesn’t match the average fire stations’ staffing arrangements assigned to the fire and rescue service where the respondent lives. More information on how actual staffing arrangements for fire stations in each fire service area have been calculated can be found in Appendix F: Question wording and base descriptions for figures.

[11] Photos provided by Cheshire Fire and Rescue Service.

[12] Home Office (2015). Make your home safe from fire.

Back to publication

Public perceptions of fire and rescue services in England 2019