Civilianise enforcement- you know it makes sense

[Dunbar]

There is so much more to enforcement than prosecutions!

There are thousands of visits where the enforcing officers do a hell of a lot of good and pick up very dangerous situations. There are countless seminars and initiatives plus advice and guidance for businesses from all our fire services across the UK. There are going to be times when an enforcing officer or authority get it wrong and they will be open to criticism and challenge on competence etc.  But they are a 'uniformed' service  with good intentions at heart and for me it should stay with the FRS, as we all know what happens when it becomes a free for all in an open marketplace; there is a very high chance that standards will not improve and the lowest common denominator will prevail within any different approach to enforcement. What would be interesting is to see some research on the incidents of when the FRS have got it wrong on a visit and see what kind of % that equates to in terms of the total number of visits. I obviously don't have figure for this but my gut feeling is the enforcing authorities do a very good job in general and like everyone they do make mistakes, hence the provision for challenge. Is it any different to negligent healthcare professionals or police officers/forces or children's services. Not really! The intent is to do 'good' the reality is they will fall short, but no shorter than other enforcers or service providers I suggest.

If we look at a couple of examples;
Police to Private Security, not renowned for quality and why? Lack of money and companies making profits.
NHS to Private Medical Care, renowned for quality and why? There is money and companies are making profits.

Which way would a change in fire safety enforcement go? My guess is that many of the issues caused in enforcement are caused through a lack of money and if anything that would only get worse if enforcement moved to another model.

[colin todd]

Wee B, the difference is civilians often realise they have been stupid (I cite as an example, my marriage to the former Mrs Todd). Certain FRS, such as the second best in a capital city, but not the capital of Scotland , Northern Ireland or Wales) dont recognise stupidity when it stares them in the face.  I have an article from an academic psychology journal (provided to me by Auntie Lin's Uncle Dave) which explains why stupid people dont realise they are stupid.  In short, the answer is that they are too stupid to realise, but there are other reasons, which include many applicable to certain FRS officers, such as they are in a position of authority so for a quiet life no one tells them not to be so stupid.

[wee brian]

Blimey, this is all getting very deep.

I can relate to some of this. Back in the day when I was but a simple building inspector, people used to ask me stuff. I would tell them and they would scurry away and do it. I felt good about this.

Then I realised that they would do what I said even if they were quite sure I was wrong. I then realised that I was sometimes wrong and this worried me. I am now much more careful about what I say and how I say it.

It probably took me a couple of years to realise all of this.

I was a civilain of course but I guess some of the comments people have made about fire service guys coming in and out of fire safety maybe they dont have time to see the light.

[SamFIRT]

I believe you may be discussing cognitive bias... specifically; that an incompetent or under-confident person may not realise the level of their incompetence. Dunning and Kruger (1999) tell us that cognitive bias may exist where a persons confidence outweighs their ability, the 'Dunning-Kruger Effect', or conversely the opposite where a competent person lacks confidence, the 'Imposter Effect'.

Examples. The know it all fire-fighter or CM who thinks there is no room for 'book learning'. Dunning-Kruger Effect.
The bloke down the pub, or radio phone in, or on line encyclopaedia, sounding off about politics, or whatever takes their fancy at that moment in time. Dunning-Kruger Effect. ( perhaps that is me today???).  
The newly promoted SM who feels threatened by external experts and who will not take advice, or back down. Dunning-Kruger Effect.
The academically trained expert who will not listen to the experienced fire officer. Dunning-Kruger Effect.

The newly appointed person, academically trained, or experientially trained, who knows they have the right answer but will not speak up for fear of looking foolish. The imposter effect. (Perhaps the 'perhaps that's me today' comment means I am suffering from that today)  

Both the efffects can be overcome by partnership working and peer review of work. So let's get on guys.

[Demontim]

Great post Sam, it made me think that some of our regular and vocal contributors may be subject to confirmation bias...

[wee brian]

Is it the Freddy Krueger effect?

[Messy]

Is it the Freddy Krueger effect?

Now that is a stupid remark, which presumably means as i recognise that fact, I am not stupid (is that how it works?)

[wee brian]

or was I being clever by using a stupid remark??

[SamFIRT]

You are being clever by having your stupid remarks reviewed by your peers. 

[kurnal]

Unless the peers consider the remarks to be stupid.

[SamFIRT]

He is still being clever... as he is getting honest feedback.    As long as he reflects on it and modifies his behaviours. 

[Bruce89]

There has been much said about whether or not having an operational background makes for a better fire safety officer, what about the statement being made by some senior officers i.e. Having a fire safety background makes for a better operational officer!

[Mike Buckley]

A good fire safety officer does not necessarily have to be a good operational officer, similarly a good operational officer does not have to be a good fire safety officer, however the best officers are good at both.

The main  issue used to occur when firefighter started their career on a fire station and as soon as possible moved into fire safety got promoted and then several years later appeared on a fireground as an officer sent on to take control.

[Bruce89]

I agree Mike as far as to say the best all round officer will be good at both ops and fire safety, however I have known some fantastic ops officers that know almost nothing about fire safety and equally some fantastic fire safety officers that were hopeless ops officers. My point is that the sweeping statements being made about having been an operational firefighter or having had a fire safety background make the best fire safety officers or ops officers respectfully is a complete load of old tosh! Everyone is different, there are some good and some bad, this is more about protecting fire safety jobs within local authority fire services rather than sound logic.

[kurnal]

My point is that the sweeping statements being made about having been an operational firefighter or having had a fire safety background make the best fire safety officers or ops officers respectfully is a complete load of old tosh!  

Can't argue with that - my initial posts were over the top to say the least but it prompted discussion!

this is more about protecting fire safety jobs within local authority fire services rather than sound logic.

There we disagree. One point of this thread  was to point out that under the previous system there was a designated career path and qualifications, with a graduated role based  structure culminating in the SFPO long course and more latterly on the modular approach.  This system ensured a consistent level of the essential underpinning knowledge.

But we all recognise that that ship has sailed and when Colin suggested civilianisation of the fire safety role it struck me that there are many issues- it needs thinking through properly from basic principles.  For example who should enforce?  Should it stop with the fire service or another body? What skills are required and where would these be sourced and delivered? What  underpinning knowledge is required for competence? How should this be delivered and measured?  Who should audit the enforcers?

It strikes me that there is something missing at present. I don't think (IMHO) the existing CFOA audit report system gives an appropriate picture of fire safety compliance.  As a result there appears to be no standard training or competence regime and it appears to me that fire services are using a variety of training providers and courses in an inconsistent way. I have met IOS who have only completed the Nebosh Gen Cert with fire module and a weeks in house course. Can this deliver the underpinning knowledge? I think not. I recognise that some services still send staff to Moreton for the modules. It would be interesting to know how widespread this is..
I would be interested to hear your opinions  whether I have missed something and if I have this wrong?