Methodology

1. A fundamental precept for In2People was to facilitate open and honest discussions in a space, in which community groups / participants could share their views, without judgement, to support engagement moving forward. The priority was to review, understand and listen to suggestions to address the potential barriers which prevent able women and racially minoritised groups from considering the NFRS as a potential employer.
2. Our approach was as follows:
  1. A questionnaire was issued to participants in scope. The format of the questionnaire was initially piloted with a small group of NFRS staff and refined following comments. The questionnaire was provided as both a paper copy and online for ease of access.
  2. The communities and groups we engaged with were broadly representative of the population profile of the City of Nottingham. [See Section 8]. Groups were diverse, ensuring a wide range of perspectives. We met with young people in schools and colleges, faith groups, community organisations, youth and sports groups, Nottingham’s LGBTQ network, unemployed and employed people, staff network groups, managers from women’s organisations and senior citizens. Specific consultations were coordinated with the NFRS Project Coordinator to target individuals previously or currently engaged with NFRS, including refugees from emerging communities such as Kurdistan, Syria, Poland, and Ukraine. Appendix C provides a breakdown of the statistical data from groups that participated in this exercise.
  3. Participants received comprehensive information about NFRS and career opportunities, with a particular focus on operational firefighter roles due to the lack of diversity in these positions. This information was provided through the consultant Anita Davies, who on occasion was supported by an NFRS representative. An informational leaflet with a QR code was provided for participants to access further information about NFRS job opportunities.
  4. Focus groups, held from April to early June 2024, varied in size from small groups to sessions with up to 50 members. 35 targeted groups agreed to take part with more than 400 members of the community. (Appendix 8)
  5. Whilst the focus groups were semi-structured in nature, we explored key themes with participants such as:
    - Their perception of the Fire Service and where this is derived from.
    - What they considered to be the barriers to engagement – perceived and actual.
    - Ways in which the Fire Service could become more accessible and engage more with local communities and businesses.
    - Suggestions on what should be included in the NFRS long term diversity planning.
  6. Where practicable, the questionnaire was distributed to the focus groups in advance, or on the day of the session, to obtain quantitative and qualitative data that has informed our understanding of the profile of participants.
  7. The dual purpose of the focus groups and questionnaire was to provide an independent and impartial perspective of views expressed whilst exploring the areas specified as priorities by the Terms of Reference.
  8. We used a semi-structured questioning style in the focus group meetings, whereby we asked the same initial questions to all groups but let the conversation develop organically and used that to guide the follow-up questions to elicit further understanding, where those interviewed gravitated towards several similar themes. The objective was to ensure the group sessions were outcomes focused in order to provide a robust basis for the development of meaningful recommendations. Each focus group session lasted for approximately 40 minutes.
  9. Whilst respondents spoke freely and openly in the focus groups, we have taken care not to reveal individual identities in this report and have only referenced organisations where they agreed as relevant to this review.
  10. We set out our findings from the questionnaire and focus group discussions using a narrative approach to summarise the information collected, though have included some direct quotes from respondents as these provide the profound context to their lived experiences.
  11. It is also important to note that the comments made by respondents during the focus group sessions were taken at face value, as we were considering people’s lived experiences and perception. For ease of reference, the report does not seek to replicate every comment made under each heading, but instead reflect the generic views of the respondents.
  12. Where focus groups were not practicable, a questionnaire was distributed to groups and individuals to encourage their participation.
  13. There was also an extensive review of NFRS organisational policies and workforce data. This was supported by a questionnaire completed by Mr Matt Sismey, Mr Sonny Roberts and Ms Guninder Nagi to ensure their perspectives are reflected in this report. [See Appendix A].
  14. Our report is supported by a series of recommendations written as ‘next steps’ to achieve the positive changes required within the NFRS’s long term diversity planning. Our recommendations are based on the feedback we received from respondents as well as our own professional expertise in this area.
3. Qualitative and quantitative data from the questionnaires can be found in Appendix C. The tables represent the responses given so where this was not recorded on the respondent submission, we have considered the response to be blank and not recorded as such.
4. Although diversity data was collected to provide a more accurate understanding of the different racially minoritised groups, genders and ages; we have not disclosed any information that identifies an individual in our report or presentation. All diversity data and views collected by In2People are stored in line with GDPR requirements and will be securely destroyed following submission of the final report to NFRS.

Limitations of this Listening and Learning Exercise

1. A constraint of this review is that not all community groups had access to PowerPoint facilities or Wi-Fi, so we were unable to show an informative video about the NFRS during some of the focus group sessions.
2. The time constraints and timing of this review limited the number of community groups and organisations that we could meet.
3. Some groups did not complete the monitoring data.
4. Not all groups completed the questionnaire.
5. Not all groups attended a focus group session.
6. Given the time constraints, it was not practicable to issue respondents with a pre and post questionnaire to benchmark their levels of understanding as stipulated in the Terms of Reference.
7. The participants do not purport to be a spokesperson for the community groups/ organisations that they represent.