Subscribe to our Newsletter
|
|
|
Can the Centre of Excellence heal ‘knowledge gaps’? |
|
|
|
In this special report, David Wright examines the implications of the proposed Centre of Excellence in terms of the Fire and Rescue Service’s knowledge base
MODERNISATION HAS BEEN GIVEN AS the reason for many of the changes that have been thrust upon the Fire and Rescue Service in recent times. Either from development within the Service itself or through imposition, it has generally accepted that the Fire and Rescue Service must change or be changed.
The latest proposal for managing some of the aspects of the change – the self – termed ‘Centre of Excellence’ – appears to be vying for the title of being all things to all people all at once. Is this to be as effective as hoped or is it just another initiative placed upon a service already claimed to be wilting under the strain of constant change?
Given the tight spending agreements for the next three years, could it be a tool for improving service delivery or reducing costs of that service delivery by joining up a number of aspects of the Service into a single efficient body? The new proposals try to draw a wide variety of fire and rescue issues and attempt to address them through a single entity.
The rationale behind the proposals are clear – the Fire and Rescue Service can no longer cope with servicing the delivery of all aspects of change. It recognises that the challenges facing the Service are great and include environmental and sociological change, together with the risk of terrorism. It does see the need for the future Service to widen the scope of activities and response but it also recognises that existing institutions – such as the Chief Fire Officers Association and regional management boards – do not have the remit or capacity to help FRAs in the delivery of functions on a national basis. The need to deliver a more efficient service is also a key driver in this search for excellence. Given the loss of many of the previous institutions that fulfilled the role, many areas of work are now left undone. One of the key issues identified is that there are potential risks emerging that could appear due to the gaps in operational doctrine which exposes the Service to legal challenge. There is also only a limited ability to strategically co-ordinate on issues such as health and safety, diversity and leadership of the Service.
The proposals for the Centre of Excellence, were issued for consultation in October for which responses had to be received by January 31 2008. The tripartite proposers – CFOA, the Local Government Association and Communities and Local Government – see the benefits as being:
• Allowing the Service to take a greater role in direction-setting and managing the present service
• Enabling the Service to be more responsive to the needs of the community
• Streamlining the multiple impacts of the modernisation of the Service to a more manageable level, making efficiencies where possible
• Building capacity and leadership for a modern service
• Achieving efficiency, effectiveness and economy
• Promoting good working practices and interoperability between fire and rescue services and other agencies.
But what is the intent of the proposal? Training delivery by the Fire Service College (which is probably one of the most important activities to an operationally-based risk critical service) has been put on hold by CLG. It will not be included in the CoE until the completion of another review of the college. However, there are a number of functions that the CoE would take on which would have benefits for both CLG and the FRS itself:
• Organisational research, including supporting the implementation and validation of national firefighter selection tests. There would also be a remit for the provision of guidance and advice on recruitment, progression and development of staff
• Equality and diversity. The CoE would help services achieve targets and support the introduction of the National Equality And Diversity Strategy and delivery of good practice through facilitating networking opportunities
• Operational doctrine. Providing operational guidance and improving interoperability between services through the issue of standardised notable practice guides
• Health and safety. Providing advice and support to maintain high standards of H&S
• Fire prevention support. Providing guidance and disseminating good practice through an effective networking structure and also providing guidance based upon sound evidence and practice
• Technology and research. Providing research to underpin policy and disseminate research though direct or commissioned research. It would also co-ordinate the bids for access to funding to support fire research
• Sceptics may be forgiven for asking what is new about the CoE that has not existed before albeit in another form.
At one time, all these functions were carried out by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Fire Services or the Fire Service College, albeit in a different form. The demise of the inspectorate, has in effect led to the loss of focus for the Service, which only the re–emergence of a strong Chief Fire and Rescue Advisors Unit can restore. There is, however, strong support for the CoE from chief officers, although one wonders what level of support there would be for the restoration of some form of an enhanced CFRAU? The delivery of the outputs for the CoE would occur through one of three proposed options. The first is through ‘direct delivery’ employing its own staff working to a CLG/FRS work programme. Staff would need to be experts from the FRS and elsewhere. The second option is for the CoE to be a coordination body (‘brokered delivery’) with little or no expertise of its own. Other bodies would determine its programme. The final model is a ‘hybrid model’ combining both models, similar to some research already carried out by CLG in the fire and rescue arena.
There are several options for governance arrangements. They are the establishment of a new executive agency (been there – Fire Service College); a new non-departmental public body; enhancing and existing executive agency (still there – Fire Service College); enhancing the Chief Fire Officers Association, or establishing a joint committee of stakeholders. The pros and cons of each are set out in the consultation document. Reviewing the options given in the paper, the easiest appears to be the option of extending the remit of the Fire Service College, although this would require a significant amount of organisational restructuring. Emotionally this would put the college back at the heart rather than leaving it marginalised at the edge of the Fire and Rescue Service where it has languished for the last decade or so. As ever, the final section of the paper relates to funding. The projection of costs are for £1.3 million in the first year, which will be borne by CLG. In the second and subsequent years the total cost of £3.3 million is apportioned as £1 million to CLG and the remainder to the fire and rescue services. It is recognised that the success of the CoE will be very much dependent upon the commitment shown by individual FRSs in the way they will support the body, irrespective of governance model. Each FRA will be required to indicate what functions it is prepared to support. There is an explicit warning in the text that it may not be desirable or practical to set up a body that does not have the full support of all FRAs and FRSs.
And so, to what could be (and usually is) the most contentious of items – who pays for what? The paper gives two options – equal shares for all FRAs or by population size. Divided equally the sum would be about £50,000 per FRS. By population the sum would vary between £340,000 for London Fire Brigade and £96 for the Isles of Scilly. Lots of room for debate there then? So what are the general views of senior Fire and Rescue Service management? The document itself includes several endorsements from current CFOs which perhaps indicates a good level of support at the highest level. The phraseology in the consultation document itself indicates a degree of ambivalence on the part of CLG – a take it or leave it approach, which could be seen as a challenge to the Service to decide for itself what it wants.
There is a Season
‘The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun’ Book of Ecclesiastes. What other options could exist for the Centre of Excellence? The role of the CFRAU is one which, at the moment the consultation appears to view as being on the margins – relegated to providing assurance on a number of issues, particularly on New Dimensions work, monitoring operational effectiveness and assessment. It also has a number of advisory roles in providing advice to ministers in the event of a major emergency. This view underplays the key role the CFRAU could have in determining the strategic direction of the Fire and Rescue Service, together with providing the co-ordinating role that has been recognised as missing in the FRS for a number of years.
There is, however, the alternative to consider. What would happen if there is no consensus on a centre of excellence? Would the world fall apart tomorrow? Probably not tomorrow; however, what would happen the day after is not so certain. The pace of change has not slowed down despite some desperate noises being made off stage left, as FRSs struggle to keep their collective heads above the rising tide of inspection, audit and assessment, together with the plethora of new guidance on Local Area Agreements and Crime and Disorder reduction initiatives. That something needs to be done to address the gaps emerging is not in doubt. The burden of 46 fire and rescue services developing policies and procedures and carrying out the same research is unnecessary, resource-intensive and does not best service the community. At its most extreme, it could put the lives of firefighters and members of the public at increased risk. On those grounds alone, investment in the CoE seems worthwhile. There is a broad level of support among senior officers for the principles of the centre of excellence. Whether any of the options for the governance or costing models are acceptable to the whole of the Service are acceptable is another issue. A number of ‘what ifs’ arise. For example, what happens if one or two fire and rescue authorities do not support any of the proposals? Does this in effect mean a veto on the whole principle? Or is there another way of ensuring that the members of the CoE club do not end up subsidising the non payers? Another issue that stands out is that as the main financial supporter of the CoE, the Fire and Rescue Service does not in any of the governance models appear to have the necessary critical mass of the governance structure to be the major influence at the Board level. A case of ‘no taxation without representation’.
Finally, the term ‘Centre of Excellence’. Such a title lends itself to subversion and malicious inventiveness that could undermine the worthy intent by sounding more like a marketing tagline rather than the name of a body that could help turn around a fire and rescue service in its hour of need. A Centre of Excellence (or whatever it will eventually be termed) has the potential to reduce many of the burdens facing the Service and lighten the load on FRSs and on CLG. What also should not be forgotten is that the Service already has some jewels in its crown and these should be used to help deliver the new baby that is the Centre of Excellence. |
|
|
