HMICFRS evaluates fire and rescue service inspections
His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services (HMICFRS) has published an evaluation of its fire and rescue service inspection programme, focusing on the second inspection cycle carried out in 2021 and 2022.
The report assesses whether inspections were implemented as intended, what outcomes inspection activity is producing, and what HMICFRS has changed in response to the evaluation findings.
What the inspection programme is
HMICFRS inspects all 44 fire and rescue services (FRSs) in England against three pillars: effectiveness, efficiency and people.
Inspections produce graded judgments and may also identify causes of concern, recommendations, areas for improvement and promising and innovative practice, with findings communicated through a service debrief and then a published inspection report.
The evaluation published now looks only at the second inspection cycle, which ran from February 2021 to December 2022.
HMICFRS notes that inspection processes described in the evaluation are historical and relate to 2021 to 2022, and that there have been other changes since that are outside the scope of this report.
Why HMICFRS carried out the evaluation
HMICFRS frames the work as part of assessing its own performance as an inspectorate, alongside scrutiny of the services it inspects.
His Majesty’s Inspector of Fire & Rescue Services Roy Wilsher OBE QFSM writes that evaluating how inspections are carried out is needed “to understand their impact and to continue to make improvements for future inspection cycles.”
He adds: “This approach will also reassure the public we are holding ourselves to account and shining a light, not only on the fire and rescue services (FRSs) and police forces we inspect, but also on how we carry out those inspections.”
HMICFRS also says the findings have already fed into changes to inspection processes and have been considered in planning later inspection cycles.
How the evaluation was carried out
HMICFRS’s Insight portfolio, described as its analytical and research unit, evaluated the second inspection cycle over a two-year period between April 2021 and March 2023.
The evaluation used a mixed-methods, self-reported, theory-based design built around a theory of change for inspections.
Data collection included interviews, focus groups and surveys with service staff, focus groups with HMICFRS inspection and portfolio staff, interviews with sector stakeholders including the National Fire Chiefs Council, the Home Office and unions, observations of meetings and events, and analysis of administrative data.
HMICFRS says the findings are mostly qualitative and reflect participants’ perceptions, and are not necessarily representative of all services or stakeholders.
Quantitative inputs include analysis of around 52,000 evidence database entries from the 2021 to 2022 inspections and 11,486 responses to the staff survey used across the cycle.
Have inspections been implemented as intended
The evaluation assesses implementation across evidence gathering and judgment-forming, communication of findings, and staff wellbeing in both services and the inspectorate.
Evidence gathering and triangulation
HMICFRS describes its approach as collecting evidence from a broad range of sources, recording it in an evidence database, then triangulating evidence to form judgments and moderating grades to support fairness and consistency.
On triangulation by source, HMICFRS reports that “in 90 percent of cases the evidence relating to 1 inspection question came from at least 3 different types of inspection activity,” which it presents as assurance that multiple data sources are being used.
Inspectorate participants reported confidence in triangulating evidence, and the evaluation found inspection meetings such as moderation supported fairness and consistency when forming judgments.
At the same time, participants identified time and resourcing pressures, particularly around document review, data review and the time available for service liaison leads to consolidate evidence before presenting conclusions.
HMICFRS reports it changed the timetable in response, including adding “a dedicated two-week window to review documents and data before fieldwork” and reducing activity mid-fieldwork to support consolidation.
The evaluation also found inconsistencies in how triangulation was documented outside the evidence database, with service liaison leads taking different approaches.
HMICFRS says it introduced “a mandatory gap analysis template” to improve consistency in approach and documentation.
Perceptions of rigour and transparency
Internally, the evaluation describes scrutiny processes involving the same groups of HMIs, portfolio and inspection staff across all services to reduce bias and support consistency.
Moderation meetings are described as testing the rationale for grades and drawing comparisons with similar services, with HMIs playing a key role in scrutiny and context.
However, the evaluation records concerns from parts of the sector about robustness, linked to perceived lack of transparency, including uncertainty about how some evidence sources, such as the staff survey, contribute to findings.
The report also notes examples raised by participants of attempts to influence inspection activities, such as staff being “cherry picked” for focus groups, alongside HMICFRS’s position that triangulation, anonymous surveys and reporting lines help mitigate these risks.
Communication of findings
The report describes a sequence where senior leaders first receive an early debrief shortly after fieldwork, followed by a draft report shared for factual accuracy checking ahead of publication.
Some senior staff said they acted following the debrief, while others waited for the inspection report because they felt the debrief did not provide enough information to act on.
Participants generally praised reports as balanced and reflective of services, but some said reports were stronger at identifying issues than recognising positives and wanted more detail and context in the narrative to support understanding of the rationale for judgments.
A consistent criticism was the time taken to publish reports when they were released in three large batches, with a view that slow publication reduced impact because findings became out of date.
HMICFRS says it has since reduced the time between inspection and publication, and from the 2023 to 2025 cycle it scheduled inspections in smaller batches through the cycle to publish more quickly while maintaining quality in judgment-forming.
Staff wellbeing
Service participants said inspections “gave them a voice,” while also describing strains linked to balancing inspection requests with normal work, intimidation during fieldwork, and worries about anonymity or reprisal.
HMICFRS reports it strengthened processes to support service staff wellbeing, including routes to raise concerns through an inspection reporting line or by contacting the service’s HMI or chief of staff, and welfare support where concerns were raised.
For HMICFRS inspection staff, participants reported feeling supported, while also describing fatigue from overlapping inspections, timetables that did not allow for management tasks, and the burden of entering evidence into the database.
HMICFRS reports that analysis found most inspection staff were entering evidence outside typical working hours, with 69 percent doing so outside 7am to 7pm.
In response, HMICFRS says it reduced overlap by moving away from three large groups of inspections, reduced mid-timetable activity to support administration and evidence recording, and changed evidence database requirements to remove fields that added “no clear benefit” to judgment-forming.
Outcomes linked to inspection activity
The evaluation asks whether anticipated outcomes in the inspection theory of change are being achieved, based on feedback from services and stakeholders.
Participants described the inspection programme as a “lever”, “catalyst” or “driver” of improvement, while also describing inspections as one factor among several influencing change.
Services reflect and prepare
Service participants reported anticipating inspection and using the assessment framework to understand what will be examined, which helped them prioritise improvements and assess current performance.
Workforces also reported recognising inspection was approaching because they could see the service preparing.
Services learn about their own performance
Participants described inspections as an assurance process that “holds a mirror up to the service,” including surfacing overlooked issues and adding weight to known issues.
The report also records agreement among sector stakeholders and workforces that inspections identify good practice across the sector, with pride where practice was highlighted.
Services address findings and act on plans
A central mechanism described in the evaluation is services developing action plans in response to findings.
The report states that three quarters of respondents to the inspection staff survey agreed their service made positive changes as a result of HMICFRS inspection feedback, with variation between services.
The report provides the survey totals, showing 8,472 respondents agreed with the statement “My service has made positive changes as a result of HMICFRS inspection feedback,” while 3,014 disagreed.
On negative changes, 2,452 respondents agreed their service had made negative changes as a result of inspection feedback, while 9,034 disagreed.
Senior staff described action plans feeding into business planning, community risk management plans, strategy and budgeting, with tasks distributed across teams and individuals.
The workforce described observing positive changes linked to action plans, with one description quoted as the action plan being the “golden thread that runs through the service”.
The report also describes faster action where services received a cause of concern, with senior staff viewing these as particularly urgent and using them to focus leadership attention and, in some cases, support funding discussions when timing aligned with budget cycles.
Services learn from each other
Most participants reported reading inspection reports from other services, particularly those seen as similar or strong in an area, then applying learning locally, sometimes through direct relationships between senior leaders.
Stakeholders also described using national reporting, including themes and trends, to inform their own work.
Stakeholders hold services to account
The evaluation presents public reporting as a route to accountability, with senior staff describing having to “answer to” governance bodies about action after inspection.
Participants also linked accountability to scrutiny from media, the wider sector and communities once reports are public.
State of Fire and Rescue reports inform reform
The report describes the annual State of Fire and Rescue report as a national overview of inspection findings that highlights themes and trends across services.
Participants said it influenced strategic thinking, identified national themes, and helped support discussions about reform and funding, with the report referencing the 2022 Fire Reform White Paper as an example of reform activity participants connected to national themes.
What HMICFRS changed because of the evaluation
The evaluation sets out multiple changes HMICFRS says it has implemented in response to findings from the second cycle.
These include timetable changes to create more structured time for document and data review before fieldwork and evidence consolidation during fieldwork, plus limiting inspection teams so they typically do not include more than one short-term member.
They also include introducing a mandatory gap analysis template to standardise and evidence triangulation documentation.
On reporting timeliness, HMICFRS says it moved away from publishing reports in three large batches and instead schedules inspections in smaller batches, from the 2023 to 2025 cycle onwards, to reduce time from inspection to publication.
On grading, the evaluation reports that some participants saw a large perceived gap between ‘good’ and ‘requires improvement’, and HMICFRS responded by introducing a fifth graded judgment, ‘adequate’, between ‘good’ and ‘requires improvement’, aligning with PEEL grading.
On staff wellbeing and workload, HMICFRS reports changes to reduce overlapping inspections, improve scheduling space for administration, and streamline evidence database requirements to reduce time burdens and out-of-hours working.
On sector engagement, HMICFRS reports strengthening expectations for at least monthly meetings between service liaison leads and services, and between HMIs and chiefs, to support structured and frequent communication.
On learning across the sector, HMICFRS describes work to increase sharing of positive practice, including making its monitoring system for tracking progress against causes of concern, recommendations and areas for improvement visible to all services, co-hosting positive practice events, and supporting the National Fire Chiefs Council positive practice portal.
What still limits impact, according to participants
The report describes barriers that participants said can limit the extent and pace of improvement following inspections.
These barriers include limited time to implement changes between inspection cycles, the practical load of inspection preparation, and constraints linked to report timing and inspection scheduling changes that reduce time to act.
Participants also described reduced capacity and competing priorities, including other sector demands from inquiries, policy work and guidance bodies, and financial pressures in services.
The evaluation also records a view that limited national prioritisation can restrict sector-wide reform momentum, with some senior staff wanting stronger pressure at national level to support reform.
Finally, participants discussed “diminishing returns over time”, with a view that repeated inspection programmes can deliver less additional impact as earlier improvements bed in, and HMICFRS responds by saying it consults on priorities between cycles and that the 2025 to 2027 programme has increased focus on governance, culture, misconduct and leadership.
Ongoing evaluation and performance monitoring
HMICFRS says it has published evaluations of other inspection programmes and of remote inspection methods, and that it monitors progress against all areas for improvement, causes of concern and recommendations through its monitoring portal.
It also says it used findings on how impact is achieved to develop metrics to monitor its own performance, risk and assurance, which are reported regularly to the HMICFRS board.
What the evaluation means in practice
For services, the evaluation points to inspections operating through several linked mechanisms: preparation against a known framework, external assurance that validates and prioritises internal improvement agendas, action planning tied into governance and budgets, and public reporting that increases accountability.
For HMICFRS, the evaluation describes a programme that depends on rigorous evidence collection and triangulation, with credibility shaped by both internal processes and how clearly the sector understands those processes.
The report also positions relationships as part of delivery, with participants pointing to the service liaison lead relationship as “vital” for services understanding findings and moving from report content to implemented change.