Research and analysis

Fire risk assessors in England: a survey of competency, capacity, and experience

Published 30 September 2024

Applies to England

1. Executive summary

1.1 Background

The Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order (2005) places a statutory duty on responsible persons (RPs) to make a suitable and sufficient assessment of the risks to which relevant persons are exposed for the purpose of identifying the general fire precautions they need to take to comply with the requirements and prohibitions imposed on them by the Order. RPs can undertake the assessment themselves using statutory guidance published by the government to help them do so. However, our guidance recommends that they appoint a competent fire risk assessor (FRA) in anything other than a simple premises.

There is very limited existing evidence about who FRAs are and how they complete their role. Therefore, the Home Office developed this survey to aid in addressing an evidence gap pertaining to who FRAs are, how they complete their role and to gain a better understanding of the FRA sector in England.

This report looks to understand the above considerations by answering the following research questions (RQs):

Research question 1: What are the functional characteristics of FRAs?

Research question 2: What is the competency of FRAs?

Research question 3: What is the capacity of FRAs?

Research question 4: To what extent do in-house and fee-earner FRAs differ in their capacity and competency levels?

Research question 5: To what extent do certificated, professional body members and non-member FRAs differ in their capacity and competency levels?

This survey took place between 6 July 2023 and 4 September 2023, with a total of 1,404 responses received, of which 1,272 were from FRAs working in England.

As there is no approximation of the number of FRAs in England and the survey was a self-selecting sample, the results reflect the FRAs who participated in this study and will not provide a fully representative view of all FRAs.

1.2 Acknowledgements

With special thanks to all participants in this study who took the time to complete the survey. We would also like to thank the organisations and other departments who helped to promote this survey.

The research team would also like to thank both Home Office analytical and policy colleagues Darrelle Cocozza, Alice Plumridge, Will Dawes, Harrai Singh, Silviya Gancheva, Amy Butler, Clare Lambley, Ruby Newport Spiers, Colin Coxon, and Joseph Lester for their input into the study.

1.3 Key findings

Key findings related to RQ1: What are the functional characteristics of FRAs?

FRAs in this survey are mostly male (87%) and aged 50 years and over (65%).

FRAs surveyed are most likely to have been certificated or registered by a scheme (46%) or have been non-certificated professional body members (40%), while a small proportion have never been a certificated or a non-certificated professional body member (11%). This is likely to be a function of how the survey was distributed through professional bodies and therefore it was less likely to reach those who were not members.

The most common reason given by FRAs for not being certificated or belonging to a professional scheme is ‘cost’ (47%). Of a range of statements, non-member or certificated FRAs were most likely to agree that ‘providing evidence to clients that they are suitably qualified and maintain their continual professional development (CPD)’ could encourage them to join a certified professional scheme (82%).

The FRAs we surveyed tend to conduct fire risk assessments for other organisations as fee-earners (66%) than conduct assessments in-house with no extra charge required (34%).

Key findings related to RQ2: What is the competency of FRAs?

FRAs surveyed typically provided indicators which suggest they have the competencies to conduct fire risk assessments. This involves reviewing their career pathways, previous experience, formal qualifications, and certifications or professional body memberships to better understand the relevant competency levels for undertaking fire risk assessments. As this is a self-reporting survey rather than an independent assessment, we are unable to corroborate an FRA’s self-assessment with their everyday levels of competence.

Most FRAs have several years’ experience of conducting fire risk assessments. Approximately two-thirds (63%) of FRAs have more than 5 years of experience conducting assessments, with one-tenth (11%) having more than 20 years’ experience. Approximately one-fifth (21%) of FRAs have less than 3 years of experience conducting assessments, with a small proportion (6%) having less than one year of experience.

FRAs’ prior job experience is often in roles considered safety related. Almost half (49%) of FRAs had previous experience in a health and safety consultancy or advice role. However, more than a third (35%) have previously undertaken at least one role within a fire and rescue service (FRS), most commonly as a firefighter and/or either a fire protection or prevention role.

Most FRAs receive relevant fire safety training prior to beginning assessments; however, half of FRAs do not undertake regular refresher training, which would inform them of current updates and standards. A large majority of FRAs (84%) have undertaken training prior to conducting fire risk assessments “specifically about conducting fire risk assessments of premises covered by the Fire Safety Order”, while 13% had undertaken training not specifically about fire risk assessment but building and fire safety. However, half (50%) of FRAs do not undertake formal refresher training on fire risk assessments, but state that they keep themselves up to date with the industry or professional body updates.

FRAs generally have high confidence in their own ability to conduct fire risk assessments. When self-assessing their own competence, most FRAs surveyed self-assess their competence as either ‘Advanced – leading assessment of all types of building (including high-risk) unsupervised, looking at more complex solutions and possibly supervising other assessors’ (48%) or ‘Intermediate – assessing low- to medium-risk buildings’ (46%). FRAs who undergo formal annual refresher training are the most likely to self-assess themselves as ‘advanced’ (58%) competence rather than ‘intermediate’ or ‘foundation - assessing low-risk buildings (possibly learning under supervision)’ (38% and 3%, respectively). Note: the descriptors above are not prescriptive and were included for illustrative purposes only. They do not seek to provide a definition for any levels of risk within any building type.

Key findings related to RQ3: What is the capacity of FRAs?

We explored FRAs’ capacity, by which we mean the output they produce (that is, the fire risk assessments they can conduct). This is measured by factors such as their outputs, time available, and the types of buildings they assess. FRAs we surveyed indicated that their capacity is mixed, in terms of the quantity and type of buildings they assess.

There is a wide range in terms of buildings FRAs assess each year. Half of FRAs (53%) conduct assessments on fewer than 50 buildings per year, which includes one-fifth (22%) of assessors who conduct fire risk assessments on no more than 10 buildings per year. Almost one-third (31%) conduct assessments on more than 100 buildings per year, including one-tenth (10%) conducting assessments on more than 250 buildings per year.

FRAs spend varying amounts of their time conducting assessments. Almost half (48%) of FRAs spend between 8 and 30 hours a week on conducting assessments. However, a quarter (27%) spend less than 8 hours a week and another quarter (25%) spend more than 31 hours a week on assessments. When the proportion of time working is considered, approximately two-thirds (63%) of FRAs spend between 40% and 100% of their time conducting assessments.

FRAs assess most building types, but as the complexity of the building increases, the proportion of FRAs who assess them decreases. Most FRAs (88%) assess buildings that are 11 metres in height and under, with fewer conducting assessments on buildings that are 18 metres (34%).

Key findings related to RQ4: To what extent do in-house and fee-earner FRAs differ in their capacity and competence levels?

Of the FRAs we surveyed, fee-earning FRAs are more likely than in-house FRAs to provide indicators that could suggest higher competence and more capacity to conduct fire risk assessments. This does not mean that in-house FRAs are inherently less competent or capable; but they do typically have greater variation in terms of their background, skills and experience.

Fee-earning FRAs are typically more likely than in-house FRAs to:

• be currently certificated (53% versus 31%)
• have undertaken a fire engineering role (17% versus 7%), with roles including design or installation and/or maintenance of equipment
• be almost twice as likely to complete formal refresher training annually (22% versus 13%)
• self-assess their competence as ‘advanced’ (54% versus 38%)
• conduct more assessments per year, particularly on higher buildings and on more types of buildings
• conduct assessments on over 100 buildings per year (35% versus 22%)
• conduct assessments for buildings 11 metres to 18 metres (58% versus 43%) and 18 metres and above (38% versus 24%)

However, in-house FRAs are typically more likely than fee-earning FRAs to:

• be a member of a professional body (48% versus 36%) and non-members (16% versus 8%)
• self-assess themselves as ‘intermediate’ (52% versus 43%)
• conduct assessments on one to 10 buildings per year (31% versus 17%)

Approximately half of both the fee-earning and in-house FRAs we surveyed stated that they do not complete annual formal refresher training, and instead they keep themselves up to date with industry and professional body updates (49% and 52%, respectively).

Key findings related to RQ5: To what extent do certificated, professional body members and non-member FRAs differ in their capacity and competence levels?

Certificated FRAs’ responses typically suggested that they have higher levels of competence and capacity in conducting fire risk assessments, followed by professional body members. Non-member FRAs’ responses suggested they have the lowest levels of competence and capacity.

Certificated FRAs are typically more likely than professional body members and non-member FRAs to:

• undergo training specifically about conducting fire risk assessments of premises covered by the Fire Safety Order (FSO) prior to conducting assessments (90% versus 81% and 68%, respectively)
• have undergone annual refresher training (26% versus 13% and 9%, respectively)
• self-assess their competence as ‘advanced’ (58% versus 44% and 17%, respectively)
• personally conduct assessments on over 100 buildings per year (41% versus 23% and 15%, respectively)
• assess both buildings 11 metres to 18 metres (62% versus 47% and 40%, respectively) and buildings 18 metres and above (42% versus 27% and 14%, respectively)

Certificated member and professional body member FRAs are also typically more likely than non-member FRAs to:

• have more than 10 years’ experience conducting fire risk assessments (42% and 39%, respectively, versus 24%)
• have previously undertaken a role within an FRS (37% and 37%, respectively, versus 13%) and in fire engineering (15% and 15%, respectively, versus 8%)
• assess houses converted to flats, all heights of purpose-built flats, hospitals or care homes, and offices

1.4 Conclusions

This report provides a high-level overview of the FRAs participating in this survey. Considering the limited existing evidence, the intention for this study was to advance understanding of FRAs and attempt to gauge some level of assessment around their competency and capacity. While the survey may not be representative of FRAs in England and there remain questions about the work of FRAs, it begins to fill an evidence gap by providing a better understanding of who FRAs are and how they undertake their role.

The capacity of FRAs responding to this survey is mixed, as seen through a wide variation in the number of buildings FRAs assess, the types of buildings they assess, and the amount of time they spend assessing them. FRAs operate in different ways, have varying capacities to take on different types of fire risk assessments and are potentially responding to local demands. This underscores the importance of further understanding the FRA sector by building a meaningful and representative database to ensure those who are conducting fire risk assessments are doing so on buildings for which they have the appropriate competency.

Despite some limitations in analysing levels of delivery through a self-assessment survey, some of the findings suggest there are reasonably high levels of self-assessed competency in some parts of the sector, particularly for certificated FRAs and those in professional bodies. Most FRAs undergo relevant training prior to conducting assessments and consider themselves to be at, or above, an intermediate level of competence. However, there is likely room for enhancing competency given half of FRAs do not undertake formal annual refresher training, and this may be particularly important as those who undertake annual formal refresher training are more likely to consider themselves to be advanced. This issue is also highlighted by the meaningful numbers of FRAs who have not been certificated, which suggests opportunities for FRAs to further professionalise and establish higher professional standards. There may be scope for the standardisation and verification of competency through compulsory channels via a framework which incentivises good practice and behaviour among FRAs. Any development of certification schemes should consider potential barriers, such as cost, as well as what will draw FRAs to such schemes, to ensure they enable them to evidence the skills they provide their clients.

2. Introduction

This research details the findings of a survey conducted by the Home Office. This survey sought to understand the role of the fire risk assessor (FRA) in England. This research primarily aimed to better understand the capacity and competence of FRAs.

2.1 Context and background

The tragic fire at Grenfell Tower on 14 June 2017 resulted in 72 people losing their lives (Home Office, 2024a). A subsequent review of building regulations and fire safety by Dame Judith Hackitt, and the inquiry into the circumstances leading up to and surrounding the fire, have both highlighted failings in the building and fire safety landscape and made recommendations for improvements. The Grenfell Tower Inquiry Phase 2 Report was published on 4 September and included a recommendation for Government to ‘establish a system of mandatory accreditation to certify the competence of fire risk assessors’. The Government is currently considering all of the recommendations made by the Inquiry and will provide a formal response in the near future.

The Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order (2005) places a statutory duty on responsible persons (RPs) to make a suitable and sufficient assessment of the risks to which relevant persons are exposed for the purpose of identifying the general fire precautions they need to take to comply with the requirements and prohibitions imposed on them by the Order. RPs can undertake the assessment themselves using statutory guidance we publish to help them do so. But our guidance recommends they appoint a competent FRA in anything other than simple premises. FRAs are not a formally recognised profession, often forming a second career for former fire service personnel or an add-on to other health and safety related roles. There is no single professional body overseeing the industry, no clear career pathway and no defined training, qualifications or standards that apply. Nevertheless, it is a critical role for fire safety.

There is very limited existing evidence about the overall size and characteristics of the FRA workforce in England. Several professional membership bodies and competence certification or registration schemes exist but currently only a small percentage of the estimated workforce currently belong to a scheme. Given this, the Home Office developed this survey to aid in addressing an evidence gap pertaining to who FRAs are, how they complete their role and to gain a better understanding of the FRA sectors in England. This research will inform future policy.

Our survey on RPs in England which ran alongside this also seeks to help understand RPs, their buildings, and their approach to carrying out fire risk assessments. It asks questions related to RPs, the buildings for which they are responsible, and the fire risk assessments conducted within those buildings. It also seeks to understand their awareness, preparedness, and experiences in relation to changes to fire safety legislation.

The findings of this survey, alongside our survey on RPs in England, will help inform our understanding of FRAs in England.

2.2 Objectives and research questions

This research primarily aimed to better understand FRAs in England and sought to assess this by answering the following research questions:

Research question 1: What are the functional characteristics of FRAs?

Research question 2: What is the competency of FRAs?

Research question 3: What is the capacity of FRAs?

Research question 4: To what extent do in-house and fee-earner FRAs differ in their capacity and competence levels?

Research question 5: To what extent do certificated, professional body members and non-member FRAs differ in their capacity and competence levels?

Researchers collected and handled data in line with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). Only researchers working on the project had access to the data gathered.

3. Method

3.1 Research approach and design

The research outlined in this report comprises an online survey of FRAs in England only due to this being a devolved issue. Research materials were developed in collaboration with policy leads, the National Fire Chiefs Council (NFCC), and wider input from the FRA sector. We reached our target population (FRAs in England) through various recruitment approaches. This included sending a link to the survey to a pool of known FRAs and key stakeholders, as well as training providers and professional registers and certification bodies. All contacts were encouraged to share the survey with their FRA peers within and beyond their organisations to maximise reach. Participants who agreed to take part in the research completed the survey on the SmartSurvey platform.

3.2 Questionnaire development

We designed a questionnaire to better understand FRAs, including their functional characteristics, and to assess how FRAs assess their capacity and competence levels.

The questionnaire covered themes on:

• who they are
• how they conduct fire risk assessments
• their journey into the role of a fire risk assessor
• any training they have received and their professional development
• membership of industry bodies and certification schemes

See Appendix E for the survey questionnaire.

3.3 Participation of FRAs in the online survey

The population of FRAs is unknown so obtaining a sampling frame to draw a representative sample of assessors in the UK was not practical. It is not mandated for a FRA to register onto a national database. While we considered purchasing a sample of relevant company or job role contact details from a business database provider, this method was discounted as no suitable markers exist to identify FRAs, thus the effectiveness of this approach was highly uncertain.

To reduce limitations for recruiting FRAs to the survey, and to maximise the survey’s reach, various distribution approaches were undertaken:

• we emailed an invitation to complete the survey to a pool of known FRAs; this included a list of key stakeholders, which was informed by the Home Office and a Fire Risk Assessor Strategy Group (comprising key stakeholders in the sector), who shared the link via their own channels, such as newsletters and distribution lists
• we also shared a link for the survey on the FRA policy and practice team bulletin; additionally, the RP survey running at the same time contained a link to the survey, so an RP could share the FRA survey with their assessors
• ten training providers agreed to share the survey with assessors who have completed their courses, and the editors of 4 fire safety magazines agreed to share the survey on social media
• professional registers and certification bodies, including groups such as the Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (IOSH) Fire Risk Management Group, signalled the potential launch of this survey to FRAs via the Firex exhibition, and the Institute of Fire Safety Managers (IFSM) Trade and Technical event

We encouraged all contacts to share the survey with their FRA peers within and beyond their organisations, otherwise known as ‘snowball sampling’.

3.4 Survey responses

The online platform SmartSurvey hosted the link to the survey. Fieldwork ran between 6 July 2023 and 4 September 2023, and a reminder email was sent to boost the numbers of responses.

The survey received 1,404 responses, of which 1,272 responses were from FRAs working in England. However, the actual base number of responses varied from question to question (for baselines, see Appendix D). This is due to the inclusion of assessors who partially completed the survey and a participant’s ability to skip a question if they were unable to provide information.

3.5 Limitations of the research

While the study provides a rigorous assessment of pathways, capacity and competence among FRAs in England, there are some methodological limitations to consider when reviewing the study:

Representativeness of sample
This survey represents a self-selecting sample of FRAs. Considering they are not required to register with a national database, there is currently no approximation for the number or nature of FRAs in England and so we do not know to what extent the survey sample is representative. We have attempted to maximise the number and breadth of responses (including reaching those who do not interact with government and/or professional bodies) as much as possible by promoting the survey through word-of-mouth. However, this may mean that comparator groups, particularly non-members who are not part of any existing database, are likely to be under-represented in this sample.

Indicative findings
All responses have been self-reported and self-assessed by participants. Therefore, as participants have provided some responses to the best of their knowledge or an approximation, rather than objectively observed by a third party, responses in places reflect a subjective assessment and may be inaccurate. Additionally, some questions do not enable us to fully establish the extent to which these indicators are met. For example, an FRA’s length of experience may indicate progressed competency, but equally those years may have been characterised by sub-standard competency. Some questions should therefore not be considered as a standalone indicator of competency or capacity, and are likely to be indicative alongside other questions.

Terminology
Definitions of competency and capacity were not provided to participants when they filled out the survey. Participants, therefore, may have perceived a definition of these terms, which may not be the same as our analytical assessment.

3.6 Analysis

The research team analysed the survey data collected in SmartSurvey by using SPSS software and then exporting into Excel. They further analysed these descriptive statistics via categorical and sub-group analysis, such as by ‘fee-earner’ and ‘in-house’ FRAs, and by ‘certificated’, ‘professional body members’ and ‘non-members’ FRAs. Where we have reported that there are differences between fee-earning and in-house groups, and between certificated, professional body members and non-member groups, there are statistically significant differences to a 95% level of confidence between the groups (guidance on comparing different sub-groups is set out in Appendix A). Additionally, very few participants selected that their certification or professional body memberships had lapsed. Due to the small numbers of responses for these groups and risk of disclosing their identities, they have not been included in any breakdown analysis when comparing certificated FRAs, professional body members, and non-members. We conducted a thorough quality assurance process by checking all calculations and outputs. For some questions, we have combined results when reporting (for full breakdowns, please see Appendices B, C and D). Furthermore, some percentages do not amount to 100% due to rounding and multiple answer questions being included. Additionally, as questions were voluntary, baselines will be different for each question (for baselines of each question, please see Appendices B, C and D). We also coded and analysed open-ended questions using thematic analysis and provided quality assurance by checking all calculations and outputs.

It is important to note that we have recoded some answers from survey questions into new categories. We have distinguished between ‘in-house’ and ‘fee-earning’ FRAs in this report; however, this was not a categorised question in the survey. Instead, answers to how they determine the charge or fee for conducting an assessment were reclassified appropriately into ‘in-house’ and ‘fee-earning’. Those who responded, “not applicable – I only conduct fire risk assessment for buildings owned/managed for my own organisation, there is no external fee” were categorised as ‘in-house’, while participants who answered any other option were categorised as ‘fee-earners’. Since the survey did not define the difference between these groups, there may be differences between the way FRAs have been categorised, and the way they would self-identify if asked. A total of 15 participants were identified as providing answers in both categories, meaning their answers have been included in both sub-groups. However, this is not anticipated to have an impact on overall results from both groups. Furthermore, those who answered “Yes, I don’t get asked to do anything beyond my competence” and “No, I’ve not been asked to assess beyond my competence” when asked if there are types of building that they do not feel they are competent to fire risk assess alone, have been categorised together, as they are both expressing that they do not feel competent to assess a building, but are not asked to do so.

3.7 Ethics and data protection

The Home Office conducted this research to improve knowledge around FRAs and the sector. To ensure high ethics and safeguarding standards, we conducted this research in accordance with Government Social Research (GSR) guidelines (GSR, 2021). To ensure that FRAs understood the research process entirely, the researchers provided them with a detailed online information sheet and privacy notice to gain fully informed consent to take part in the research. This outlined the project aims, what would be required of FRAs, and how their data would be handled.

Researchers collected and handled data in line with the Data Protection Act 2018. Only researchers working on the project had access to the data gathered.

4. What are the functional characteristics of FRAs?

This chapter seeks to understand FRAs’ demographics, the nature of their employment, and the functional characteristics of their employing organisation.

This report had identified and will review 3 main groups and their responses to questions in the survey. These include:

• all fire risk assessors
• in-house and fee-earning fire risk assessors
• certificated, professional body members and non-members

Please see the Glossary in section 9 for further information on these groups. The findings in this report reflect the FRAs who participated in the study, and it is uncertain if these represent all FRAs in England.

4.1 Who are FRAs?

This section explores the demographics of assessors in this survey to better understand them in terms of their sex, age, the region in which they are based, the region in which they carry out assessments, and their educational qualifications.

Figure 1: Sex, age and highest qualifications of FRAs

Notes:

1. Bases: Sex (all participants = 1,266); Age (all participants = 1,269); Highest qualification (all participants = 1,272).
2. Q2. Do you think of yourself as male, female or do you prefer not to say? (We restrict the gender categories listed to prevent potential identification of individuals identifying in other ways).
3. Q1. What is your age? (Please select one).
4. Q3. What is the highest level of educational qualification you hold in any subject? (Please select the highest only).
5. For a breakdown of these questions by whether they are in-house or fee-earning FRAs, and whether they are certificated member, professional body member, or non-member FRAs, please see Appendices B and C.

4.1.1 What is the sex of FRAs?

FRAs were asked whether they think of themselves as male, female or prefer not to say. FRAs are predominantly male (87%), with only 11% female and 1% preferring not to say.

Fee-earning FRAs are more likely than in-house FRAs to be male (90% versus 83%), while in-house FRAs are more likely than fee-earners to be female (16% versus 9%).

Non-member FRAs are more likely to be female (20%) compared to both certificated FRAs (9%) and professional body members (11%).

4.1.2 What is the age profile of FRAs?

Two-thirds (65%) of FRAs are aged 50 years and over, while 8% are aged 18 to 34, highlighting that this is an older workforce. The most common age range was 50 to 64 years old (54%), followed by those aged 35 to 49 (26%) and aged 65 years and over (11%).

Looking across different sub-groups:

In-house FRAs are more likely than fee-earners to be aged 50 to 64 (60% versus 51%), while fee-earning FRAs are more likely than in-house FRAs to be aged 65 years and over (14% versus 7%), with the latter finding suggesting that a meaningful proportion of fee-earners are an older working age.

Findings suggest that non-members are more likely to be younger and that older FRAs are more likely to become certificated or be professional body members. Non-member FRAs are more likely than both certificated FRAs and professional body members to be aged 18 to 34 (16% versus 8% and 7%, respectively) and aged 35 to 49 (39% versus 27% and 22%, respectively). Professional body members, however, are more likely to be aged 50 to 64 compared to both certificated FRAs and non-member FRAs (60% versus 51% and 40%, respectively). Certificated FRAs are more likely to be aged 65 years and over compared to both professional body members and non-members (14% versus 10% and 4%, respectively).

4.1.3 What is an FRA’s highest qualification?

FRAs were asked what their highest level of educational qualification was in any subject (not necessarily fire-related). The majority (63%) have qualifications between Levels 4 and 6 (for example, between HNC and a degree). One-third (32%) reported their highest qualification as being Level 4 or 5 (typically a further education qualification, for example, CertHE, DipHE or HNC) and a further third (31%) have a degree or other Level 6 qualification. One-fifth (22%) FRAs do not have educational qualifications above A-Level or NVQ Level 3. Around one-seventh (14%) have higher degrees, such as Masters or Doctorates. For all qualifications that fall within the different levels, please see Appendix D.

4.1.4 In which region are FRAs based?

FRAs were asked where their employer’s office was based, or the region in which they lived if they worked from home. Of those surveyed, almost one-third (30%) assessors reported being based in London or the South East. Every other region in England has around one-tenth FRAs (10%) based in it, except for the North East which has 4% of FRAs. Finally, 6% of FRAs reported working part-time in England, but were part of an organisation based in Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland.

4.1.5 In which region are FRAs completing assessments?

FRAs were asked to select all regions of the UK in which they conduct assessments. Two-fifths (39%) of FRAs undertake fire risk assessments in all regions of England. Each of the regions in England has between 47% and 61% of FRAs conducting assessments within it, suggesting assessors operate more widely than the region in which they are based.

Figure 2: Regions where FRAs are based and where they conduct assessments

Notes:

1. Bases: Region conduct assessments (all participants = 1,269); Region based (all participants = 1,270).
2. Q10. In which region(s) of England do you conduct fire risk assessment? (If you work from home, please tell us the region in which you live, rather than where your employer’s office is based).
3. Q8. In which region of the UK are you based? (If you work from home, please tell us the region in which you live, rather than where your employer’s office is based).
4. Graph data points are displayed to the accurate decimal of the results; however, graph labels have been rounded.

4.2 What are the employment characteristics of FRAs?

This section explores who FRAs work for and the functional characteristics of their employers. The findings suggest that for the FRAs surveyed, they are more likely to work as fee-earners and in the private sector.

Figure 3: Whether FRAs are in-house or fee-earning and the sectors they work in

Notes:

1. Bases: In-house versus Fee-earners (all participants = 1,272); Sectors (all participants = 1,259).
2. Q18. Which of the following factors are taken into account when determining the charge/fee for conducting a fire risk assessment for a building? (Please select all that apply). For information on the breakdown of the original question, please see Appendix D, Q.18.
3. Q4. Would you describe your employer as public, private or third sector? (Please select the one option that fits best).

4.2.1 Are FRAs more likely to be in house or fee-earners?

Two-thirds of FRAs (66%) conduct fire risk assessments for other organisations (fee-earners), while a third of FRAs (34%) conduct in-house assessments, with no extra charge required.

4.2.2 Are FRAs more likely to work in the private or public sector?

FRAs were asked if they would describe their employer as private, public or third sector (defined in the survey as working for a registered charity or not-for-profit organisation). Three-quarters (75%) of FRAs reported working in the private sector, while a sixth (17%) reported working in the public sector, and fewer than one-tenth (8%) in the third sector.

Looking across different sub-groups:

Fee-earners are more likely than in-house FRAs to work in the private sector (92% versus 43%), while in-house FRAs are more likely than fee-earning FRAs to work in the public sector (39% versus 6%) and the third sector (18% versus 2%).

Certificated FRAs are more likely to work in the private sector than both non-member FRAs and professional body members (84% versus 70% and 67%, respectively). Conversely, professional body members and non-member FRAs are more likely to work in the public sector than certificated FRAs (24% and 20%, respectively, versus 10%).

4.2.3 What is the main business of an organisation employing an FRA?

FRAs were asked what type of organisation they currently work in. Just over half (53%) of FRAs reported that the main business of their organisation was involvement in fire safety assessment or consultancy; with a further one-fifth (22%) being a property owner or operator.

Looking across different sub-groups:

Fee-earners are more likely than in-house FRAs to work for fire safety assessment or consultancy business (68% versus 24%) and for a health and safety consultancy business (22% versus 6%). However, in-house FRAs are more likely than fee-earners to work for property owners or operators (57% versus 3%) and property or facilities management companies (6% versus 3%).

Certificated FRAs are more likely to work in a fire safety assessment or consultancy business than both professional body members and non-member FRAs (66% versus 44% and 29%, respectively). However, non-member FRAs are more likely to work for a property owner or operator than both professional body members and certificated FRAs (40% versus 26% and 12%, respectively).

Figure 4: Percentage of type of organisation FRAs currently work in, by in-house versus fee-earner and by whether they are certificated, professional body members or non-members

Notes:

1. Bases: In-house FRAs = 432; Fee-earners = 831; Certificated = 575; Professional body members = 502; and Non-member FRAs = 139. 2 Q5. What sort of organisation do you currently work in? (Please select the one option that fits best).
2. This graph has been divided into 2 sections to allow the comparison between: in-house versus fee-earners, and certificated FRAs versus professional body members versus non-members.
3. All main differences between sub-groups have been set out in the bullet points above. Guidance on comparing different sub-groups is set out in Appendix A and full breakdowns are included in Appendices B and C.

4.2.4 How many people work in organisations employing FRAs?

FRAs were asked how many people were employed in their organisation. Two-fifths (41%) of FRAs are individuals employed in organisations with at least 100 staff overall. Almost a fifth (18%) of FRAs are sole traders, whereas just over one-tenth (13%) are employed by micro businesses with 2 to 4 employees.

Looking across different sub-groups:

Fee-earners are more likely than in-house FRAs to work in an organisation of one to 49 employees (75% versus 11%), whereas in-house FRAs are more likely than fee-earners to work in organisations with over 100 employees (84% versus 18%).

Certificated FRAs are more likely than non-member FRAs to be the only person in their organisation (21% versus 14%), or to have 2 to 4 employees in their organisation (15% versus 6%). However, non-member FRAs and professional body members are more likely to work in an organisation of over 100 employees compared to certificated FRAs (53% and 48%, respectively versus 32%). This could suggest that those in larger organisations may be less likely to need a certification to be eligible for their role.

4.2.5 How many FRAs are employed in organisations?

FRAs were asked how many FRAs were employed in their organisation. Approximately two-fifths (38%) of FRAs reported they are the only FRA employed in their organisation, suggesting that they may work alone. Additionally, 3 in 10 (30%) worked with 2 to 4 FRAs within their organisation. In contrast, one-fifth (20%) worked in an organisation with 5 to 19 FRAs, and one-tenth (11%) worked in an organisation where 20 or more staff undertook fire risk assessments.

Looking across different sub-groups:

Fee-earning FRAs are more likely than in-house FRAs to be the only FRA in their organisation (41% versus 32%). However, in-house FRAs are more likely than fee-earning FRAs to work in organisations with 5 to 9 FRAs (14% versus 10%) and more than 100 FRAs (3% versus 1%).

Non-member FRAs are more likely to work in organisations with over 100 FRAs (5%) compared to certificated FRAs and professional body members (both 1%). This further suggests certification for FRAs in larger organisations is less common.

5. What are the competencies of FRAs?

This section seeks to cover the self-reported professional competency of FRAs. This involves reviewing their career pathways, previous experience, formal qualifications, and certifications or professional body memberships to better understand the relevant competency levels for undertaking fire risk assessments. It should be noted that this is an indicative exploration of competency and there are other factors linked to competency that this survey was unable to assess. This section also looks at FRAs’ outputs, exploring their level of expertise and experience. The findings in this report reflect the FRAs who participated in the study, and it is uncertain if these represent all FRAs in England.

5.1 For how long have FRAs been conducting assessments?

FRAs were asked how long they had been undertaking assessments to better understand their amount of practical experience. Almost two-fifths (37%) of FRAs have less than 5 years’ experience in conducting fire risk assessments, including 21% with less than 3 years’ experience. A quarter (24%) have 6 to 10 years’ experience, 3 in 10 (29%) have 11 to 20 years’ experience, and one-tenth (11%) have more than 20 years’ experience.

Looking across different sub-groups:

Fee-earning FRAs are more likely than in-house FRAs to have more than 15 years’ experience (25% versus 17%). Though only a small proportion of both fee-earning and in-house FRAs have less than a year of experience, this is slightly more likely for in-house than fee-earners (8% versus 5%).

Findings suggest that FRAs with more years’ experience are increasingly more likely to be certificated or professional body members. Non-member FRAs are more likely to have one to 3 years’ experience than both certificated FRAs and professional body members (37% versus 20% and 19%, respectively). Certificated FRAs and professional body members are also more likely than non-member FRAs to have more than 16 years’ experience (23% versus 23% versus 9%, respectively).

Both findings suggest that fee-earning and certificated FRAs are more likely to have more years’ experience.

Figure 5: FRAs’ years of experience by whether they are in-house or fee-earning FRAs, and by whether they are certificated, professional body members or non-members

Notes:

1. Bases: In-house FRAs = 436; Fee-earners = 836; Certificated = 579; Professional body members = 505; and Non-member FRAs = 139.
2. Q19. How long have you personally been undertaking fire risk assessments? (Please do not include time undertaking similar tasks for alternative purposes, such as auditing building safety or fire prevention installations from an enforcement perspective, for example, within a fire and rescue service).
3. This graph has been divided into 2 sections to allow the comparison between: in-house versus fee-earners, and certificated FRAs versus professional body members versus non-members.
4. All main differences between sub-groups have been set out in the bullet points above. Guidance on comparing different sub-groups is set out in Appendix A and full breakdowns are included in Appendices B and C.

5.2 What are FRAs’ main job occupations before becoming assessors?

FRAs were asked which other roles they had performed prior to undertaking fire risk assessments to help understand an FRA’s career pathway. The survey showed that FRAs have previous experience in a range of roles, with the most common role being health and safety consultancy or advisor (49%).

Approximately one-third (35%) have previously undertaken at least one role within an FRS, most commonly as a firefighter and/or either a fire protection or prevention role, while 14% have previously been involved in some element of fire engineering (design, or installation and maintenance). It should be noted that there are distinct differences between roles within an FRS and the FRA role so one does not indicate competence in the other.

One-fifth (20%) of FRAs have undertaken a property or facilities management role prior to commencing fire risk assessments. Only 7% have had no other previous relevant role, but many indicated multiple types of previous roles or responsibilities (up to 9 types of roles, an average of 2.1 roles). Although generally the previously undertaken roles were consistent between groups, there were a series of often small differences between different groups.

Looking across different sub-groups:

Fee-earning FRAs may have slightly more previous experience with fire-related activities than in-house FRAs. Fee-earning FRAs are more likely than in-house FRAs to have undertaken one role in an FRS (36% versus 32%) and at least one role related to fire engineering (17% versus 7%). Fee-earning FRAs are also more likely to work in ‘other fire safety consultancy’ roles (29% versus 16%). However, in-house FRAs are more likely than fee-earning FRAs to undertake other kinds of roles, including health and safety consultancy (55% versus 46%) and property or facilities management (24% versus 18%).

Certificated FRAs and professional body members are both more likely to have previously undertaken a role within an FRS (both 37%), compared with non-members (13%). A similar proportion had worked in fire engineering, with 15% of certificated FRAs, 15% of professional body members and 8% of non-member FRAs selecting this. Both certificated FRAs and professional body members are also more likely than non-members to have previously had a role in other fire safety consultancy (25% and 29% versus 11%, respectively).

Figure 6: Relevant previous roles held by FRAs by in-house versus fee-earner and by whether they are certificated FRAs, professional body members, or non-members

Notes:

1. Bases: In-house FRAs = 436; Fee-earners = 836; Certificated = 579; Professional body members = 505; and Non-member FRAs = 139.
2. Q20. Which, if any, other types of role(s) have you performed prior to starting to undertake fire risk assessments? (Please select all that apply).
3. This graph has been divided into 2 sections to allow the comparison between: in-house versus fee-earners, and certificated FRAs versus professional body members versus non-members.
4. FRS role (aggregated) includes all FRAs who selected ‘Firefighter’, ‘FRS – fire protection role’ and/or ‘FRS – prevention audit/advice role’. Engineering role (aggregated) includes all FRAs who selected ‘Fire engineering – install/maintain’ and ‘Fire engineering – design’. All main differences between sub-groups have been set out in the bullet points above. Guidance on comparing different sub-groups is set out in Appendix A and full breakdowns are included in Appendices B and C.

5.3 Are FRAs certificated FRAs, professional body members or non-members?

FRAs were asked to best describe their personal situation based on 5 categories:

• certificated
• used to be certificated
• member of a professional body in fire risk assessment
• used to be a member of a professional body in fire risk assessment
• have never been a member of, or certificated by, a professional body in fire risk assessment

This was to help indicate whether FRAs:

• had a certification, which requires proof of their competency
• were a non-certificated professional body member, which does not require any proof of competency, but allows access to information and training that could help increase competency
• have never been certificated or had access to professional body member training

Third-party certification is a good indicator of competency at the point of certification, because to obtain certification, an FRA (or organisation) must demonstrate their skills, knowledge, experience and behaviour.

We then looked to gauge, at the time of completing the survey, whether FRAs had certification or registration to a professional body. Less than half (46%) of FRAs are individually certificated or registered as competent to undertake fire risk assessments, with a further 1% having previously been certificated or registered, but have allowed it to lapse. Two-fifths (40%) are not certificated or registered, but do have membership of a relevant professional body, and a further 2% have allowed their membership to lapse. Just over one-tenth (11%) have ‘never been a member of, or certificated by, a relevant professional body in fire risk’. The number of participants who are not certificated or registered but do have a membership of a relevant professional body is likely to be higher because FRAs were approached by snowball sampling through membership bodies.

Fee-earners are more likely than in-house FRAs to be certificated FRAs (53% versus 31%), whereas in-house FRAs are more likely than fee-earners to be both professional body members (48% versus 36%) and non-members (16% versus 8%).

5.4 What are the main reasons FRAs stated for not belonging to a professional scheme?

FRAs who indicated that they did not have a membership or an affiliation with a professional body or certification scheme for fire risk assessments (non-members) were asked to select all of the reasons they did not. From a list of options, the main reasons FRAs highlighted are:

• cost (47%)
• don’t believe it’s necessary, I can prove my competence without it (31%)
• time requirements (24%)
• assessment criteria (24%)

Similarly, to overall FRAs, ‘cost’ was the most cited reason for lack of membership for both fee-earning and in-house FRAs (54% versus 40%, respectively). However, there were no significant differences between these groups for most reasons, including ‘cost’, ‘time requirements’ and ‘assessment criteria’ (see Appendix B for more details). Fee-earning FRAs who did not have membership or affiliation with a professional body are more likely than in-house FRAs to say they did not believe it was necessary, as they can prove their competence without it (39% versus 24%).

5.5 What are the main reasons that may encourage FRAs to belong to a certification scheme?

FRAs who indicated that they did not have a personal membership or an affiliation with a professional body for fire risk assessment were also asked to what extent they agreed or disagreed with a set of 4 statements of potential reasons to join a fire risk assessment certification scheme or professional membership body. This was with the aim to understand what may encourage FRAs to obtain a certification or professional body membership in the future.

Non-member FRAs have high levels of agreement with each of the statements (selecting either strongly agree or tend to agree). They are most likely to agree with the statement ‘Providing evidence to clients that they are suitably qualified and maintain a CPD’ (82%, with 45% of those saying they strongly agree), followed by the statements ‘Providing evidence to clients that they are suitably qualified to assess specific types of buildings’ (79%, with 46% of those saying they strongly agree) and ‘If necessary, in order to assess some (more complex) types of buildings’ (78%, with 55% of those saying they strongly agree). FRAs are slightly less likely to agree they can be encouraged to join a professional scheme if it could enhance their career and/or earnings (71%, with 36% of those saying they strongly agree).

Figure 7: Potential to encourage membership of a certification scheme

Notes:

1. Base: Non-member FRAs and those with lapsed registration = 175.
2. Q28. To what extent do you agree or disagree that the following statements could encourage you to join a fire risk assessment certification scheme?

5.6 What training did FRAs complete prior to beginning to carry out fire risk assessments?

FRAs were asked if they undertook different forms of training related to fire risk assessments prior to undertaking them, to understand how much preparedness FRAs may have received to competently carry out an assessment. The majority (84%) of FRAs have undertaken training specifically about conducting fire risk assessments of premises covered by the Fire Safety Order (FSO), while 13% had undertaken training which is not specifically about fire risk assessment but building and fire safety. Only 4% had no formal training before commencing fire risk assessments.

Certificated FRAs may undertake the most preparatory training before carrying out a fire risk assessment. Certificated FRAs are more likely to undergo training specifically about conducting fire risk assessments of premises covered by the FSO than professional body members and non-member FRAs (90% versus 81% and 68%, respectively). Non-members and professional body members are more likely than certificated FRAs to undergo training that is not about fire risk assessment but building and fire safety (22% and 15% versus 8%, respectively). Non-member FRAs are more likely to have no formal training (10%) than both certificated FRAs (2%) and professional body member FRAs (4%).

5.7 What refresher training do FRAs complete?

FRAs were asked whether they undertake formal refresher training on fire risk assessments to understand if competency standards delivered in initial training is up to date and maintained over time. Half (50%) of FRAs do not undertake formal refresher training on fire risk assessments but keep themselves up to date with the industry or professional body updates. One-fifth (19%) undertake formal refresher training at least annually, and a further fifth (19%) said that while they did not do annual refresher training, they did undertake formal refresher training at least every 5 years. Almost one-tenth (9%) said they undertake formal refresher training, but probably less often than every 5 years.

Looking across different sub-groups:

Fee-earning FRAs are more likely than in-house FRAs to undertake annual refresher training (22% versus 13%).

Certificated FRAs are more likely to undertake annual refresher training than both professional body members and non-member FRAs (26% versus 13% and 9%, respectively). Non-member FRAs are most likely to have not undergone any form of refresher training than both professional body members and certificated FRAs (60% versus 54% and 44%, respectively).

This suggests both fee-earning and certificated FRAs are the most likely to have refresher training, to support their competence by being reminded of the most current and revised regulations and practices. However, it should still be noted that the majority of non-certificated and non-member FRAs and a substantial amount of certificated FRAs did not undergo any refresher training.

5.8 How do FRAs self-assess their competence?

FRAs were asked how they would currently assess their own competence using an Industry Benchmark Standard for FRA competence (FSF, 2020) and the Approved Code of Practice (FSF, 2022). This was to understand if FRAs were aware of the industry standard and, if so, where would they place themselves in the tiers of competence stated in the standard. Considering this question is self-assessed, categorisation is more likely to be biased and not as accurate as if FRAs were objectively observed by a third party. After making clear that “it is not expected that all FRAs will have complete competence in every aspect of fire risk assessment”, FRAs were provided with the following 4 categories, including the 3 listed in the Industry Benchmark Standards:

• foundation – assessing low-risk buildings (possibly learning under supervision)
• intermediate – assessing low- to medium-risk buildings, (largely) unsupervised
• advanced – leading assessment of all types of building (including high risk) unsupervised, looking at more complex solutions and possibly supervising other assessors
• not sure

The descriptors above are not prescriptive and were included for illustrative purposes only. They do not seek to provide a definition for any levels of risk within any building type.

Nearly half of participants (48%) self-assess that their competence is ‘advanced’, and a slightly smaller proportion (46%) feel they are at an ‘intermediate’ level. One in 20 (5%) FRAs assess their competence as ‘foundation’ level, while the remainder (1%) are not sure.

Fee-earning FRAs are more likely than in-house FRAs to self-assess their competence as ‘advanced’ (54% versus 38%), while in-house FRAs are more likely to self-assess themselves as ‘intermediate’ (52% versus 43%) and ‘foundation’ (8% versus 3%).

Certificated FRAs are more likely to self-assess their competence as ‘advanced’ compared with professional body members and non-members (58% versus 44% and 17%, respectively). In contrast, non-member FRAs are more likely to self-assess themselves as ‘intermediate’ and ‘foundation’ (67% and 14%, respectively) compared to both certificated FRAs (39% and 3%, respectively) and professional body members (50% and 0%, respectively).

This suggests fee-earning and certificated FRAs are the most confident in their competence levels, being the most likely to assess themselves as ‘advanced’.

Figure 8: Self-assessed competency level of FRAs by in-house versus fee-earner and by whether they are certificated, professional body members or non-members

Notes:

1. Bases: In-house FRAs = 436; Fee-earners = 836; Certificated = 579; Professional body members = 505; and Non-member FRAs = 139.
2. Q16. How would you currently assess your own competence? (Please select the one option that fits best).
3. This graph has been divided into 2 sections to allow the comparison between: in-house versus fee-earners, and certificated FRAs versus professional body members versus non-members.
4. All main differences between sub-groups have been set out in the bullet points above. Guidance on comparing different sub-groups is set out in Appendix A and full breakdowns are included in Appendices B and C.

6. What is the capacity of FRAs?

This section explores the height and types of buildings that FRAs conduct assessments on as a potential indicator of the breadth of assessor capacity. The findings in this report reflect the FRAs who participated in the study, and it is uncertain if these represent all FRAs in England.

6.1 What is the average annual number of buildings FRAs conduct per year?

FRAs were asked on average, approximately how many buildings they personally conduct fire risk assessments on per year, to better understand their level of workload and experience. Half of FRAs (53%) conduct assessments on fewer than 50 buildings per year, which includes 22% of assessors conducting fire risk assessments on no more than 10 buildings per year and 12% assessing no more than 5 buildings annually. A further 16% complete fire risk assessments on between 51 and 100 buildings in a year. Almost one-third (31%) conduct assessments on more than 100 buildings per year, including one-tenth (10%) conducting assessments on more than 250 buildings per year. This suggests the number of fire risk assessments being conducted by FRAs varies considerably.

Looking across different sub-groups:

Fee-earning FRAs typically conduct a higher volume of assessments. Fee-earning FRAs compared to in-house are more likely to conduct assessments on over 100 buildings per year (35% versus 22%). Meanwhile, in-house FRAs are more likely to conduct assessments on one to 10 buildings per year, than fee-earning FRAs (31% versus 17%).

Certificated FRAs are more likely than both professional body members and non-member FRAs to conduct assessments on over 100 buildings per year (41% versus 23% versus 15%). In contrast, non-member FRAs are more likely than both certificated and professional body member FRAs to conduct assessments on one to 5 buildings per year (27% versus 6% and 13%, respectively).

Figure 9: Number of buildings FRAs conduct fire risk assessments on per year by in-house versus fee-earner and by whether they are certificated, professional body members or non-members

Notes:

1. Bases: In-house FRAs = 435; Fee-earners = 836; Certificated = 578; Professional body members = 504; and Non-member FRAs = 139.
2. Q13. On average, for approximately how many buildings do you personally conduct fire risk assessments per year? (Please select one).
3. This graph has been divided into 2 sections to allow the comparison between: in-house versus fee-earners, and certificated FRAs versus professional body members versus non-members.
4. All main differences between sub-groups have been set out in the bullet points above. Guidance on comparing different sub-groups is set out in Appendix A and full breakdowns are included in Appendices B and C.
5. Graph data points are displayed to the accurate decimal of the results; however, graph labels have been rounded.

6.2 How much time do FRAs spend doing assessments?

When reviewing how much time FRAs spend completing assessments, we look at both the approximate percentage of their annual work that is spent conducting assessments, and the number of hours per week they spend on each assessment.

Approximate percentage of time conducting FRAs:

FRAs were asked to approximate what percentage of their annual work accounts for conducting fire risk assessments (1% to 100%).

Overall, the average percentage of time spent working on fire risk assessments was 51%. Looking at specific percentage bands:

• one-fifth (21%) of FRAs reported fire risk assessments represent no more than 10% of their work overall
• almost a quarter (23%) of FRAs reported fire risk assessments represent 11% to 40% of their work
• almost a quarter (23%) of FRAs reported fire risk assessments account for 41% to 70% of their work
• one-third (34%) of FRAs reported fire risk assessments represent more than 70% of their work

Figure 10: Approximate percentage of work that is annually taken up by fire risk assessments

Notes:

1. Base: All participants = 1,237.
2. Q11. Approximately, what percentage of your work annually is taken up by fire risk assessments? (Type in a whole number from 0 to 100 – you cannot enter a % sign).
3. Graph data points are displayed to the accurate decimal of the results; however, graph labels have been rounded.

Looking across different sub-groups:

In-house FRAs are more likely than fee-earning FRAs to spend up to 10% of their work annually conducting assessments (29% versus 16%). However, fee-earning FRAs are more likely than in-house FRAs to spend over 70% of their work annually conducting assessments (39% versus 23%).

Certificated FRAs are more likely to spend between 71% and 100% of their time on fire risk assessments than both professional body members and non-members (45% versus 24% and 18%, respectively). In contrast, non-member FRAs are more likely spend up to 10% of their time conducting fire risk assessments than certificated FRAs and professional body members (39% versus 25% and 13%, respectively).

This suggests since fee-earning and certificated FRAs are more likely to spend their time conducting assessments, they may have more experience in conducting them. It should be noted that some FRAs may not feel the need to become certificated as they only spend a small proportion of their work time conducting assessments.

Approximate number of hours working on fire risk assessments:

FRAs were asked to select categories on how many hours per week they work on fire risk assessments and the associated admin, so that we could determine how much time they typically spend on fire risk assessments. A quarter (25%) of FRAs spend 31 hours or more on assessments per week, while a similar proportion (27%) dedicate less than 8 hours a week. The remaining half (48%) spend between 8 and 30 hours a week on assessments. This suggests assessors spend varying degrees of time within the week dedicated to conducting fire risk assessments.

Figure 11: Approximate number of hours per week FRAs work on fire risk assessments and associated administration

Notes:

1. Bases: In-house FRAs = 436; Fee-earners = 834; Certificated = 577; Professional body members = 505; and Non-member FRAs = 139.
2. Q12. On average, approximately how many hours a week do you work on fire risk assessment and associated admin? (Please select one).
3. Graph data points are displayed to the accurate decimal of the results; however, graph labels have been rounded.

Looking across different sub-groups:

Fee-earning FRAs are more likely to spend more hours in a week conducting assessments. Fee-earning FRAs are more likely than in-house FRAs to spend 16 or more hours per week conducting assessments (56% versus 38%), while in-house FRAs are more likely than fee-earning FRAs to spend less than 8 hours per week conducting assessments (36% versus 22%).

Certificated assessors are more likely to spend 16 or more hours per week conducting assessments compared to professional body members and non-member FRAs (64% versus, 41% and 27%, respectively). In contrast, non-members are more likely to spend less than 8 hours per week conducting assessments compared to professional body members and non-member FRAs (47% versus 33% and 16%, respectively).

This again suggests fee-earners and certificated FRAs may have more experience conducting fire risk assessments, as they are spending more hours conducting them. However, it may also indicate that certificated FRAs take up membership, as they are spending more time on assessments as part of their job. It may also indicate that professional body members work part-time or only spend part of their time on assessments, amongst other responsibilities.

6.3 Do FRAs have experience conducting assessments in buildings with specific characteristics?

What height of building do FRAs assess?

FRAs were asked to select all the building heights for which they personally complete fire risk assessments. The majority (88%) of FRAs reported they conduct fire risk assessment for buildings under 11 metres in height. Just over half (54%) of FRAs work on buildings in the 11 metres to 18 metres range, while a third (34%) reported that some or all their fire risk assessment work is on buildings of 18 metres and above. Less than 1% of assessors were unable to state a building height range, as they mainly or solely conduct assessments for construction sites or for underground facilities. Of those who conduct assessments on buildings of 18 metres and above, 85% also conduct assessments on both buildings of 11 metres to 18 metres and on buildings under 11 metres.

Looking across different sub-groups:

Fee-earning FRAs are more likely than in-house FRAs to conduct assessments for buildings in the 11 metres to 18 metres range (58% versus 43%) and the 18 metres and above range (38% and 24%).

Certificated FRAs are more likely than both certificated and professional body members to assess both buildings in the 11 metres to 18 metres height range (62% versus 47% and 40%, respectively) and the 18 metres and above height range (42% versus 27% and 14%, respectively).

This suggests fee-earners and certificated FRAs are more likely to assess buildings of increased height.

Figure 12: Building heights assessed by FRAs by in-house versus fee-earner and by whether they are certificated, professional body members or non-members

Notes:

1. Bases: In-house FRAs = 436; Fee-earners = 836; Certificated = 579; Professional body members = 505; and Non-member FRAs = 139.
2. Q14. For which height(s) of buildings do you personally undertake fire risk assessments? (Please select all that apply).
3. This graph has been divided into 2 sections to allow the comparison between: in-house versus fee-earners, and certificated FRAs versus professional body members versus non-members.
4. All main differences between sub-groups have been set out in the bullet points above. Guidance on comparing different sub-groups is set out in Appendix A and full breakdowns are included in Appendices B and C. This data was recoded to reflect the proportions of FRAs who may be able to undertake assessments in buildings of these 3 height ranges (for example, assuming that those who work on buildings of 18 metres or more also work on lower buildings) as well as new categories for underground and for low-level largely open/outdoor structures.

What type of building do FRAs conduct fire risk assessments on?

FRAs were asked to select each of the types of buildings they conduct fire risk assessments on, so we could gain a better understanding of the breadth of experience FRAs have when conducting assessments.

The most common types of buildings that FRAs reported having experience in fire risk assessing were:

• shops, public buildings or other premises open to the public (68%)
• factories or warehouses – including labs (64%)
• purpose-built flats of one to 3 storeys (57%)
• HMOs (house in multiple occupation), hostels or other accommodation (54%)
• houses converted to flats (51%)

Figure 13: Building types assessed by FRAs

Notes:

1. Base: All participants = 1,268.
2. Q15. For what type(s) of buildings do you currently undertake fire risk assessments? (Please select all that apply).
3. FRAs could choose more than one option on the type of building they fire risk assess.

The proportion of FRAs with current experience of assessing other purpose-built flats reduced as height increased: 57% have experience of purpose-built flats at one to 3 storeys, while 43% have experience with purpose-built flats with 4 to 9 storeys, and 28% with purpose-built flats with 10 or more storeys.

Almost half (45%) of FRAs have experience of assessing buildings within the ‘hospitals or care homes’ category, but many note that they do not have experience of acute hospitals and instead concentrate on care homes. Furthermore, 35% of FRAs report having experience of assessing hotels (including boarding houses).

A small number of responses were also received from the education sector (both schools and colleges or universities, some with residential buildings and/or complex science labs). There were fewer instances of FRAs who have experience in specialist skills for historic buildings, transport infrastructure and for construction sites.

It should be noted for all findings in this section that due to the snowball approach to gaining a sample, FRAs who conduct assessments on one type of building may be over-represented. This is because FRAs and RPs who shared the survey may be more likely to know others who work on similar kinds of buildings.

Fee-earning FRAs and certificated FRAs are the most likely to conduct assessments on multiple building types. This suggests they are more likely to have experience conducting assessments in a broader range of buildings. These buildings include HMOs, hostels or other accommodations, purpose-built flats (one to 3 storeys), purpose-built flats (4 to 9 storeys), purpose-built flats (10 or more storeys), hotels (including boarding homes), offices, factories or warehouses (including labs), shops and public buildings.

Looking across different sub-groups:

In-house FRAs are more likely than fee-earning FRAs to conduct assessments on office buildings (68% versus 35%).

Professional body members are more likely than non-members to conduct assessments on houses converted to flats, all purpose-built flats (one to 3 storeys, 4 to 9 storeys, and 10 or more storeys), hospitals or care homes, and offices.

What is the association between the types of buildings FRAs assess per year and the time they spend doing assessments?

We assessed the relationship between the number of hours per week an FRA spends conducting assessments and the specific building types that may have particularly complex risk profiles (taking into consideration e.g. occupancy type, hazardous materials, fire spread, size), such as hospitals or care homes. However, it should be noted there is no specific definition for what is considered a building with added complexity. We found the more hours an FRA works, the more likely they are to conduct assessments in more buildings with added complexity. However, this may be for several reasons including having more time to attend different building types including buildings with added complexity, having more time to learn to conduct assessments on buildings with added complexity, or buildings with added complexity taking longer to conduct an assessment.

FRAs who work more than 31 hours per week on fire risk assessments are more likely than average to work on all building types covered in the survey. Of note are the differences in FRAs who spend more than 31 hours per week on fire risk assessments compared on the following buildings with those who spend less time conducting assessments:

• hospital buildings or care homes (60% compared with 51% who spend 16 to 30 hours per week on assessments, 47% spending 8 to 15 hours per week and 21% less than 8 hours per week)
• purpose-built flats with 4 to 9 storeys (69% compared with 52% who spend 16 to 30 hours per week on assessments, 38% spending 8 to 15 hours per week and 16% spending less than 8 hours per week)
• purpose-built flats with 10 or more storeys (48% compared with 32% who spend 16 to 30 hours per week on assessments, 25% spending 8 to 15 hours per week and 9% spending less than 8 hours per week)

Those who work 8 to 15 hours per week are also more likely to conduct assessments on all 3 kinds of building than those who work less than 8 hours per week. There were no notable differences on these buildings between those who worked 8 to 15 hours per week and those who work 16 to 30 hours per week.

This suggests FRAs who spend more time conducting assessments are more likely to conduct assessments on certain types of buildings that often have added complexity (for example, purpose-built flats with 4 to 9 storeys and 10 or more storeys, and in hospital buildings or care homes). This may be because FRAs who spend more time conducting assessments may gradually assess or have specifically specialised on conducting assessments on these types of buildings. However, it should be noted that this may not always be the case, as some experienced assessors may work fewer hours (for example, those who are semi-retired).

Figure 14: Hours per week on fire risk assessments, by building type

Notes:

1. Bases: Less than 8 hours = 341; 8 to 15 hours = 293; 16 to 30 hours = 314; and 31+ hours = 322.
2. Q12. On average, approximately how many hours a week do you work on fire risk assessment and associated admin? (Please select one).
3. Q15. For what type(s) of buildings do you currently undertake fire risk assessments? (Please select all that apply).
4. This graph has been divided into 2 sections to allow the comparison between: in-house versus fee-earners, and certificated FRAs versus professional body members versus non-members.
5. FRAs could choose more than one option on the type of building they fire risk assess.

6.4 Are there building types that FRAs not feel competent to assess alone?

FRAs were asked if there were any types of buildings that they did not feel competent to fire risk assess alone (selecting the option best applying to them), after clarifying that they “may feel that for some types or situations (they) require additional/specialist input”. This was to understand where FRAs feel like there may be a gap in their assessment knowledge.

Two-thirds (65%) of FRAs indicated that there are some types of building that they do not currently feel competent to assess alone. The findings suggest that while most FRAs identified they do not feel competent in assessing some building types alone, they are unlikely to conduct a fire risk assessment they are uncomfortable conducting alone. Of those that do not feel competent to assess some buildings alone, the majority (54%) said they do not get asked to do anything beyond their self-assessed competence, while a quarter (25%) reported being comfortable in engaging or signposting to other more suitable FRAs. However, around 5% either noted they have difficulties finding suitable alternative assessors to signpost to or have felt under pressure to conduct the assessment themselves (against their judgement).

The remaining third (35%) indicated that there are no types of buildings that they do not feel comfortable assessing alone. However, almost one-sixth (16%) of this group said that they felt sufficiently competent to assess any type of building, with a further one-fifth (20%) indicating that they have not been asked to assess anything beyond their competence.

Looking across different sub-groups:

In-house FRAs are more likely than fee-earning FRAs to report that there are some buildings they do not feel competent assessing alone, but they do not get asked to assess anything beyond their self-assessed competence (44% versus 29%). However, fee-earning FRAs are more likely than in-house FRAs to report that they do not feel there are any buildings they can’t assess and haven’t been asked to do so (21% versus 16%). They are also more likely than in-house FRAs to indicate that they do not feel competent to assess alone, but that they have colleagues or other FRAs they can engage or signpost to (28% versus 20%).

Non-member FRAs are more likely to report that there are some types of buildings that they do not currently feel competent to assess alone, but that they do not get asked to assess anything beyond their self-assessed competence (45% compared with 34% of professional body members and 32% of certificated FRAs). They are also more likely to report that there are buildings they do not feel comfortable assessing and that they have felt under pressure to undertake an assessment anyway (8% versus 2% each among both professional body members and certificated FRAs). Certificated FRAs and professional body members were more likely than non-member FRAs to report that they do not feel there are any building they can’t assess and haven’t been asked to do so (19% and 15% versus 6%, respectively). This suggests both certificated and professional body members are more likely than non-members to feel equipped to assess any building.

6.5 What is the relationship between FRAs’ self-assessed levels of competency and the types of buildings they assess?

We looked at the relationship between the level of self-assessed competency and the type of building they tend to assess. This was to understand the level of confidence FRAs may have in their assessment of those buildings. However, it should be noted that FRAs were not asked to assess their competency levels for these types of buildings, but instead were asked about their overall competency. This means that an FRA’s competency level cannot be directly attributed to that building type, as they may have answered with another type of knowledge gap in mind.

Those who self-assessed themselves as ‘advanced’ competence are most likely to conduct fire risk assessments in all types of buildings, compared with those who self-assessed themselves as ‘foundation’ or ‘intermediate’. This includes:

• hospitals and care homes - 70% of FRAs self-assessed themselves as ‘advanced’ on hospitals and care homes, compared with 27% of FRAs who self-assessed as ‘intermediate’ and 1% as ‘foundation’
• high-rise residential buildings - When assessing purpose-built flats (10 or more storeys), 84% of FRAs self-assessed that they are ‘advanced’, while 15% self-assessed themselves as ‘intermediate’ and less than 1% as ‘foundation’

Figure 15: Building type assessed by level of self-assessed competence of FRAs

Notes:

1. Bases: All participants = 1,270; Offices = 1,000; Factories or warehouses (including labs) = 810; Shops, public buildings = 870; Purpose-built flats (one to 3 storeys) = 720; HMOs, hostels or other accommodation = 680; Hospitals or care homes = 570; Hotels (including boarding houses = 450; Purpose-built flats (4 to 9 storeys) = 550; and Purpose-built flats (10 or more storeys) = 360. Totals have been rounded to avoid disclosure.
2. Q15. For what type(s) of buildings do you currently undertake fire risk assessments? (Please select all that apply).
3. Q16. How would you currently assess your own competence? (Please select the one option that fits best).
4. FRAs could choose more than one option on the type of building they fire risk assess.

6.6 What is the relationship between FRAs self-assessed levels of competency and the previous roles they have undertaken?

We looked at the relationship between the level of self-assessed competency and the previous roles that FRAs had undertaken. This was to understand if FRAs from different occupational backgrounds have different levels of confidence in conducting assessments.

FRAs who had a previous role in an FRS (firefighter, fire protection role and/or prevention audit/advice role), a fire safety consultancy/advice role, or a fire engineering role (‘install/maintain’ and ‘fire engineering – design’) are more likely to self-assess themselves as ‘advanced’ competence than ‘intermediate’ or ‘foundation’.

Figure 16: Previous role by level of self-assessed competence of FRAs

Notes:

1. Bases: All participants = 1,272; FRS (aggregated) = 930; Other fire safety consultancy/ advice (including advising on fire protection and prevention) = 310; Fire engineering (aggregated) = 220; Building safety and inspection consultancy = 160; Structural engineering/construction consultancy (including beyond fire) = 40; Property/facilities management = 250; and Health and safety consultancy/advice = 620. Totals have been rounded to avoid disclosure.
2. Q16. How would you currently assess your own competence? (Please select the one option that fits best).
3. Q20. Which, if any, other types of role(s) have you performed prior to starting to undertake fire risk assessments?
4. FRAs could choose more than one option of previous roles they have undertaken. FRS role (aggregated) includes all FRAs who selected ‘Firefighter’, ‘FRS – fire protection role’ and/or ‘FRS – prevention audit/advice role’. Engineering role (aggregated) includes all fire risk assessors who selected ‘fire engineering – install/maintain’, and/or ‘fire engineering – design’. All main differences between sub-groups have been set out in the bullet points above. Guidance on comparing different sub-groups is set out in Appendix A and full breakdowns are included in Appendices B and C.

6.7 What is the relationship between FRAs’ self-assessed levels of competency and undertaking refresher training?

We looked at the relationship between the level of self-assessed competency and the kind of refresher training they undertake. This was to understand if FRAs who undergo refresher training more frequently are more likely to self-assess themselves higher in competence.

FRAs who undergo formal annual refresher training are the most likely to self-assess themselves as “advanced’ (58%) competency than ‘intermediate’ (38%) or ‘foundation’ (3%). Those who did not undergo any formal refresher training or keep themselves up to date with industry or professional body updates were the least likely to rate themselves as ‘advanced’ (13%) and most likely to self-assess themselves as ‘intermediate’ (55%).

Figure 17: Refresher training by level of self-assessed competence of FRAs

Notes:

1. Bases: All participants = 1,272; Yes, annually = 240; Yes, every 2 to 5 years = 240; Yes, probably less than every 5 years, for example, when there’s been a change in the industry = 110; No formal refresher training, but I keep myself up to date with industry/professional body updates = 630); and None of the above = 40. Totals have been rounded to avoid disclosure.
2. Q16. How would you currently assess your own competence? (Please select the one option that fits best)
3. Q30. Do you consider that you undertake formal refresher training on fire risk assessments at all? (Please select the one option that fits best)

6.8 What is the relationship between FRAs’ self-assessed levels of competency and how many years of experience they have conducting assessments?

We looked at the relationship between the level of self-assessed competency and the number of years FRAs have been undertaking fire risk assessments. This was to understand if FRAs who have more years of experience conducting assessments are more likely to self-assess themselves higher in competence.

FRAs who have more than 20 years’ experience are the most likely to self-assess themselves as ‘advanced’ (74%) competence than ‘intermediate’ or ‘foundation’ (24% and 1%, respectively). Those who have less than a years’ experience are the least likely to rate themselves as ‘advanced’ (6%) and most likely to rate themselves as ‘foundation’ (42%).

It is of note that FRAs’ competence increases according to the number of years in which they have been undertaking fire risk assessments, as shown in figure 18.

Figure 18: Number of years conducting fire risk assessments by level of self-assessed competence of FRAs

Notes:

1. Bases: All participants = 1,261; More than 20 years = 130; 16 to 20 years = 150; 11 to 15 years = 220; 6 to 10 years = 300; 4 to 5 years = 200; 1 to 3 years = 200; and Less than a year = 70. Totals have been rounded to avoid disclosure.
2. Q16. How would you currently assess your own competence? (Please select the one option that fits best)
3. Q19. How long have you personally been undertaking fire risk assessments?

7. Conclusions

This report provides a high-level overview of the FRAs participating in this survey. Considering the limited existing evidence, the intention for this study was to advance understanding of FRAs and attempt to gauge some level of assessment around their competency and capacity. While the survey may not be representative of FRAs in England and there remain evidence gaps about the work of FRAs, it begins to provide a better understanding of who FRAs are and how they undertake their role.

Some of the findings suggest there may be reasonably high levels of competency by FRAs themselves within the sector, as most undergo relevant training prior to conducting assessments and consider themselves to be at, or above, an intermediate level of competence. However, there is likely room for competency to be enhanced as most do not feel comfortable assessing some building types alone, many do not have certification, and half of FRAs do not undertake formal annual refresher training. The latter may be particularly important given that those who undertake annual formal refresher training are more likely to consider themselves to be advanced.

The capacity of FRAs responding to this survey was mixed, as seen through a wide variation in the number of buildings FRAs assess, the types of buildings they assess, and how long they spend assessing buildings. However, it was noted that smaller proportions of FRAs assess building with added complexity (such as hospitals and care homes).

Fee-earning FRAs and certificated FRAs appear to be more likely to have characteristics that could be linked to indicators of competence. In relation to this, the report ‘Responsible persons in England: changes in fire safety legislation’ (Home Office, 2024b) highlights that RPs utilising fee-earning FRAs emphasise professional qualifications and formal hiring processes more than those using in-house FRAs. A possible implication from this is that expectations set by RPs through the hiring fee-earners could provide further motivators to establish and maintain competency. While in-house FRAs had a greater mix of characteristics than fee-earners, it does not mean they are less competent, but lower levels of certification do offer an opportunity for more formalised assessment.

These findings highlight that while there are indicators potentially linked to higher levels of competency and capacity, the sector has a great deal of variety in the background of FRAs in terms of factors like experience, background and qualifications. Equally, the survey highlights that many FRAs are not certificated and do not undertake formal refresher training, something which suggests opportunities to professionalise and establish higher professional standards of FRAs. This suggests opportunities for the standardisation and verification of competence through compulsory channels.

However, there are limitations in this survey which should be considered. Firstly, FRAs typically participated in the survey following engagement from membership bodies and so the findings will predominantly reflect these FRAs. Additionally, the survey questions asked do not enable us to fully establish the extent to which these indicators are met. For example, an FRA’s length of experience may indicate progressed competency, but equally those years may have been characterised by sub-standard competency. Without other measures of assessment that can provide meaningful evidence, such as third-party assessment of knowledge and behaviours, we are unable to make a complete assessment. This research highlights how observation-based behavioural methods could be more effective in measuring FRA competence and capacity, and how sampling could be improved if there is a requirement for FRAs to register that they work in the sector. Therefore, the findings provide partial evidence.

Any development of certification schemes should consider potential barriers such as cost, as well as what will draw FRAs to complete them, such as the evidence it can enable them to provide their clients.

8. References

Home Office (2024a) Fire statistics definitions. Accessed here on 19 July 2024.

Home Office (2024b) Responsible persons in England: changes in fire safety legislation.

FSF (2020) Approved Code of Practice: A National Framework for Fire Risk Assessor Competency. Fire Sector Federation. Accessed here on 19 July 2024.

FSF (2022) Industry Benchmark Standards for Fire Risk Assessors. Fire Sector Federation. Accessed here on 19 July 2024.

GSR (2021) GSR Ethical Assurance for Social and Behavioural Research. Government Social Research. Accessed here on 19 July 2024.

9. Glossary

The following definitions were not provided to survey participants but are provided here to aid understanding of this report.

Capacity: Refers to a fire risk assessor’s (FRA) output (the fire risk assessments they can conduct), measured by such factors as their productivity and which types of buildings they assess.

Certificated FRAs: Individuals or organisations who are certificated or registered as competent to undertake a fire risk assessment through a certification scheme or professional body (please see question 23 in Appendix D for more information). When certificating FRAs, certification schemes and professional bodies require varying levels of evidence (dependent on the body) to verify their competency. This may include evidence of their skills, knowledge, experience and behaviours against the Industry Benchmark Standard (Fire Sector Federation, 2022) and Approved Code of Conduct (Fire Sector Federation, 2020). For the purposes of this report, this encompasses those who responded ‘I am currently certificated or on a register as competent to undertake fire risk assessment’ to question 25 asking the participant to select which option in relation to certification, registration or membership of a professional body in the field most applied to them (see Appendix D).

Competency: The demonstrable skills, knowledge, experience, behaviours, qualifications, and certifications or professional body memberships that are held by FRAs that help to inform how proficient they may be to complete their role.

Engineering role: For the purposes of this report, when referring to the previous roles undertaken by an FRA, an engineering role includes those who answered they were previously in a ‘Fire engineering – design’ and/or ‘Fire engineering – installation and maintenance’ role. It should be noted that these roles are different in nature to FRA roles and may not be comparable.

Fee-earning FRAs: This refers to those FRAs who, like contractors, are hired for a limited amount of time to conduct a fire risk assessment(s). This encompasses those who selected any response to question 18, except ‘Not applicable – I only conduct fire risk assessment for buildings owned/managed for my own organisation, there is no external fee/charge’. In the RP survey, there are 2 possible equivalents to this group – external FRAs and internal FRAs. External FRAs are defined as individuals or companies hired to carry out fire risk assessments on behalf of others and can be sole traders or part of a fire risk assessment company. ‘Internal FRAs’ are defined as a self-employed sub-contractor working solely for the RP or their organisation. However, due to question wording being different in both surveys, these categories are not exact equivalents (please see Appendix E of this survey and Appendix A of the RP survey).

Fire risk assessor (FRA): The person who conducts a fire risk assessment. An RP can carry this out themselves, or they can select a person to carry out the assessment on their behalf.

FRS role: For the purposes of this report, when referring to the previous roles undertaken by an FRA, an FRS role is someone who selected that they were previously in a ‘firefighter’, ‘FRS – fire protection role’ and/or a ‘FRS – prevention audit/advice role’.

In-house FRAs: This refers to those FRAs employed by an organisation to conduct assessments for the building(s) owned by the organisation, either as the focus of their role or alongside other duties. This encompasses those who responded ‘Not applicable – I only conduct fire risk assessment for buildings owned/managed for my own organisation, there is no external fee/charge’ to question 17. In the RP survey, the equivalent to this group would be ‘in-house fire risk assessors’ who are defined as employees within a company or organisation who complete fire risk assessments solely for premises that the company or organisation owns or manages. However, due to differences of question wording between surveys, these categories are not exact equivalents (please see Appendix E of this survey and Appendix A of the RP survey).

Non-members: Individuals who have either never been certificated by a certification scheme, nor have been a member of a professional body. This encompasses those who responded ‘I have never been a member of, or certificated by, a relevant professional body in fire risk’ to question 25. This asked the participant to select which option in relation to certification, registration or membership of a professional body in the field most applied to them (see Appendix D).

Professional body: An organisation which holds subscribed members who have an interest in or practise a profession.

Professional body members: Individuals who are members of a professional body in fire risk assessment but not certificated or registered for assessments by a certification scheme. They do not require any proof of competency, but do have access to information and training that could help increase competency. This encompasses those who responded ‘I am not specifically certificated or registered for competence in fire risk assessment but I am currently a member of a relevant professional body’ to question 25. This asked the participant to select which option in relation to certification, registration or membership of a professional body in the field most applied to them (see Appendix D).

Responsible person (RP): The person responsible for fire safety in a premises regulated under the FSO and who has a duty to complete a suitable and sufficient fire risk assessment of their premises.

Self-assessed competency: When FRAs assess their ability to assess a type of building. These were presented in the levels: Foundation – assessing low-risk buildings (possibly learning under supervision); Intermediate – assessing low- to medium-risk buildings, (largely) unsupervised; Advanced – leading assessment of all types of building (including high-risk) unsupervised, looking at more complex solutions and possibly supervising other assessors. The descriptors above are not prescriptive and were included for illustrative purposes only. They do not seek to provide a definition for any levels of risk within any building type.

Appendix A: Confidence intervals and interpretation of data

The confidence intervals that apply to the percentage between different sub-groups in the survey are outlined in table 1. This table shows the possible range of result from a sample, rather than the whole population responding to the survey. These confidence intervals allow us to be sure that results for different groups are statistically different. Confidence intervals vary by the size of the sample and the percentage results. These confidence intervals provide an indication of when a percentage difference of at least a certain size can be considered statistically significant. Two sets of figures which fall out of these ranges for their respective sample sizes may be due to chance and do not reflect ‘real’ statistically significant differences.

Table A1: Confidence intervals for sub-groups

Approximate sample size	10% or 90%	30% or 70%	50%
	+/-	+/-	+/-
1,000 versus 1,000	2.6	4.0	4.4
500 versus 500	4.7	5.7	6.2
139 versus 139 (that is, non-members)	6.8	10.4	11.4

Appendix B: Fee-earning versus In-house FRAs

Fee-earning FRAs are individuals or organisations who conduct fire risk assessments and use a variety of factors to determine the charge or fee for conducting the assessment. In-house FRAs are individuals or organisations who only conduct fire risk assessments for buildings owned or managed by their own organisation.

Of the 1,272 responses received in this survey:

• fee-earners: 836 FRAs reported that they were fee-earning FRAs
• in-house: 436 FRAs reported that they were in-house FRAs

Table B1: Comparison of all questions between those who indicated they were fee-earners and who were in-house FRAs

	Fee-earning FRAs	In-house FRAs
Q1. What is your age (please select one)	Base: 834	Base: 435
18 to 34	9%	7%
35 to 49	26%	26%
50 to 64	51%	60%
65 or more	14%	7%
Prefer not to say	1%	0%
Q2. Do you think of yourself as male, female or do you prefer not to say? (We restrict the gender categories listed to prevent potential identification of individuals identifying in other ways)	Base: 832	Base: 434
Male	90%	83%
Female	9%	16%
Prefer not to say	1%	1%
Q3. What is the highest level of educational qualification you hold, in any subject? (Please select the highest only)	Base: 836	Base: 436
No formal qualifications	1%	1%
Level 1 or 2 (for example, GCSE, O level, NVQ level 1 or level 2)	7%	4%
Level 3 (for example, A level, international Baccalaureate diploma, NVQ level 3, OND, ONCM BTEC National, City and Guilds Advanced Craft)	13%	19%
Level 4 or 5 (for example, CertHE - certificate of higher education, DipHE – diploma of higher education, HNC – higher national certificate, HND – higher national diploma, NVQ level 4 or level 5)	33%	29%
Level 6 (for example, degree – BA, BSc, degree apprenticeship, graduate certificate/diploma)	30%	33%
Level 7 (for example, master’s degree – MA, MSc, MEng, PGCE) and Level 8 (for example, doctorate – PhD, DPhil)	14%	12%
Prefer not to say	1%	0%
Q4. Would you describe your employer as public, private or third sector? (Please select the one option that fits best)	Base: 827	Base: 432
Public sector - including local authorities, education, NHS	6%	39%
Private sector - a commercial organisation, for example, sole trader, Ltd or PLC	92%	43%
Third sector - a registered charity or not-for-profit organisation	2%	18%
Q5. What organisation do you currently work in? (Please select the one option that fits best)	Base: 831	Base: 432
Fire safety assessment/consultancy	68%	24%
Health and safety consultancy	22%	6%
Construction related consultancy	4%	5%
Property/facilities management company	3%	6%
Property owner/operator	3%	57%
Other	0%	1%
Q6. In total, approximately how many people are employed in your organisation? (Please provide your best estimate)	Base: 831	Base: 434
1 (sole trader / consultant)	27%	1%
2 to 4	19%	1%
5 to 9	12%	2%
10 to 19	9%	2%
20 to 49	8%	4%
50 to 99	7%	5%
100 or more	18%	84%
Q7. In total, approximately how many of those people employed in your organisation undertake fire risk assessments? (Please provide your best estimate)	Base: 834	Base: 436
1 (just me)	41%	32%
2 to 4	29%	32%
5 to 9	10%	14%
10 to 19	9%	9%
20 to 49	7%	7%
50 to 99	2%	2%
100 or more	1%	3%
Q8. In which region of the UK are you based? (If you work from home, please tell us the region in which you live, rather than where your employer’s office is based)	Base: 835	Base: 435
East of England	10%	7%
East Midlands	9%	10%
London	9%	11%
North East	4%	6%
North West	11%	10%
South East	20%	20%
South West	13%	10%
West Midlands	9%	11%
Yorks and Humber	8%	9%
Scotland	2%	2%
Wales	4%	3%
Northern Ireland	0%	0%
Q10. In which of the following regions of England do you conduct fire risk assessments?	Base: 836	Base: 436
East of England	61%	30%
East Midlands	61%	30%
London	71%	36%
North East	57%	28%
North West	63%	30%
South East	70%	42%
South West	67%	29%
West Midlands	61%	33%
Yorks and Humber	59%	29%
Q11. Approximately, what percentage of your work annually is taken up by fire risk assessments?	Base: 814	Base: 423
Up to 10%	16%	29%
11 to 20%	8%	10%
21 to 30%	7%	10%
31 to 40%	7%	5%
41 to 50%	12%	14%
51 to 60%	6%	4%
61 to 70%	6%	4%
71 to 80%	12%	10%
81 to 90%	9%	5%
91 to 100%	18%	9%
Q12. On average, approximately how many hours a week do you work on fire risk assessments and associated admin?	Base: 834	Base: 436
Less than 8 hours	22%	36%
8 to 15 hours	22%	25%
16 to 30 hours	27%	20%
31 hours or more	29%	18%
Q13. On average, for approximately how many buildings do you personally conduct fire risk assessments per year?	Base: 835	Base: 435
1 to 5 per year	8%	19%
6 to 10 per year	9%	12%
11 to 25 per year	13%	15%
26 to 50 per year	18%	16%
51 to 100 per year	16%	16%
101 to 250 per year	23%	15%
More than 250 per year	12%	7%
Q14. For which height(s) of buildings do you personally undertake fire risk assessments?	Base: 836	Base: 436
11 metres and under	87%	83%
11 to 18 metres	58%	43%
18 metres and above	38%	24%
Q15. For what type(s) of buildings do you currently undertake fire risk assessments?	Base: 836	Base: 436
Houses converted to flats	63%	26%
HMOs, hostels or other accommodation	65%	32%
Purpose built flats (1 to 3 storeys)	69%	32%
Purpose built flats (4 to 9 storeys)	53%	25%
Purpose built flats (10 or more storeys)	35%	16%
Hotels (including boarding houses)	49%	9%
Hospitals or care homes	51%	32%
Offices	35%	68%
Factories or warehouses (including labs)	76%	41%
Shops, public buildings	81%	43%
Schools (assumed non-residential)	6%	4%
Further/Higher education (and residential schools)	1%	2%
Transport / construction	2%	3%
Historic buildings	1%	2%
Q16. How would you currently assess your own competence?	Base: 836	Base: 436
Foundation	3%	8%
Intermediate	43%	52%
Advanced	54%	38%
Not sure	0%	2%
Q17. Are there any types of building that you do not feel yourself to be competent to fire risk assess alone?	Base: 834	Base: 435
I don’t get asked to do anything beyond my competence	29%	44%
I can engage/ signpost to other FRAs	28%	20%
It’s hard to find suitable alternatives to signpost to	3%	2%
I have felt pressure assess anyway	2%	3%
I’ve not been asked to assess beyond my competence	21%	16%
I feel sufficiently competent to assess any type	16%	16%
Q19. How long have you personally been undertaking fire risk assessments?	Base: 836	Base: 436
Less than a year	5%	8%
1 to 3 years	15%	17%
4 to 5 years	14%	18%
6 to 10 years	24%	24%
11 to 15 years	18%	16%
16 to 20 years	14%	9%
More than 20 years	12%	8%
Q20. Which, if any, other types of role(s) have you performed prior to starting to undertake fire risk assessments?	Base: 836	Base: 436
Building safety / inspection	13%	11%
Firefighter	30%	27%
FRS - fire protection role	26%	21%
FRS - prevention audit/advice role	21%	19%
Fire engineering (design)	10%	5%
Fire engineering (install/maintain)	12%	4%
Health and safety consultancy/advice	46%	55%
Other fire safety consultancy	29%	16%
Property/facilities management	18%	24%
Structural engineering/construction consult	4%	3%
No other relevant roles	6%	9%
Q21. Did you undertake any form of training related to fire risk assessment prior to starting to undertake fire risk assessments? (Please select one)	Base: 801	Base: 431
Yes, specifically about conducting fire risk assessment of premises covered by the Fire Safety Order	85%	82%
Yes, not specifically about fire risk assessments but about building fire safety	12%	13%
No, I had no formal training before commencing fire risk assessments	3%	5%
Q25. Which of the following options best describes your personal situation in relation to certification, registration, or membership of professional bodies in the field of fire risk assessment? (Please select the one option that fits best)	Base: 834	Base: 435
Currently certified/registered	53%	31%
Lapsed (certified/registered)	1%	2%
Not certified/registered, but have membership	36%	48%
Lapsed membership	1%	4%
Never certified/registered or had membership	8%	16%
Q27. Reason(s) that you do not currently subscribe to a professional membership body or certification scheme for fire risk assessment? (Please select all that apply). N.B. Asked only those without current membership, certification, or registration	Base: 84	Base: 92
Cost	54%	40%
Time requirements	26%	23%
Assessment criteria	29%	20%
Don’t believe it’s necessary	39%	24%
Q28. To what extent do you agree or disagree that the following statements could encourage you to join a fire risk assessment certification scheme? N.B. Fee earners only	Base: 84
	Strongly agree	Tend to agree	Tend to disagree	Strongly disagree
Evidence to ‘clients’ that I am suitably qualified and maintain CPD	36%	40%	21%	2%
Evidence to ‘clients’ that I am suitably qualified to assess specific types of buildings	37%	33%	26%	4%
If necessary in order to assess some (more complex) types of building	43%	24%	25%	7%
If could enhance my career and/or earnings	31%	33%	25%	11%
Q28. To what extent do you agree or disagree that the following statements could encourage you to join a fire risk assessment certification scheme? N.B. In-house only	Base: 92
	Strongly agree	Tend to agree	Tend to disagree	Strongly disagree
Evidence to ‘clients’ that I am suitably qualified and maintain CPD	54%	33%	9%	4%
Evidence to ‘clients’ that I am suitably qualified to assess specific types of buildings	55%	32%	11%	2%
If necessary, in order to assess some (more complex) types of building	66%	22%	10%	2%
If could enhance my career and/or earnings	41%	36%	13%	10%
Q30. Do you consider that you undertake formal refresher training on fire risk assessments at all? (Please select the one option that fits best)	Fee-earning FRAs	In-house FRAs
	Base: 832	Base: 431
Yes, annually	22%	13%
Yes, every 2 to 5 years	18%	20%
Yes, probably less than every 5 years	8%	10%
No formal refresher training, but I keep myself up-to-date	49%	52%
None of the above	2%	5%

Appendix C: Certificated versus professional body members versus non-member FRAs

Of the 1,272 responses received:

• certificated: 579 FRAs were either certificated or registered for FRA
• professional body membership: 505 FRAs were not certificated or registered, but were a member of a professional body
• non-members: 139 FRAs had never been certificated or registered for FRA; no analysis was completed of the 46 FRAs who previously had been certificated or registered but this had lapsed

Table C1: Comparison of answers to each survey question by whether they were certificated FRAs, professional body members or non-members

	Certificated	Professional body members	Non-members
Q1. What is your age (please select one)	Base: 577	Base: 504	Base: 139
18 to 34	8%	7%	16%
35 to 49	27%	22%	39%
50 to 64	51%	60%	40%
65 or more	14%	10%	4%
Prefer not to say	1%	0%	1%
Q2. Do you think of yourself as male, female or do you prefer not to say? (We restrict the gender categories listed to prevent potential identification of individuals identifying in other ways)	Base: 577	Base: 502	Base: 138
Male	90%	87%	78%
Female	9%	11%	20%
Prefer not to say	0%	2%	2%
Q3. What is the highest level of educational qualification you hold, in any subject? (Please select the highest only)	Base: 579	Base: 505	Base: 139
No formal qualifications	1%	1%	1%
Level 1 or 2 (for example, GCSE, O level, NVQ level 1 or level 2)	6%	5%	7%
Level 3 (for example, A level, international Baccalaureate diploma, NVQ level 3, OND, ONCM BTEC National, City and Guilds Advanced Craft)	15%	15%	18%
Level 4 or 5 (for example, CertHE - certificate of higher education, DipHE – diploma of higher education, HNC – higher national certificate, HND – higher national diploma, NVQ level 4 or level 5)	36%	30%	24%
Level 6 (for example, degree – BA, BSc, degree apprenticeship, graduate certificate/diploma)	29%	31%	37%
Level 7 (for example, master’s degree – MA, MSc, MEng, PGCE) and Level 8 (for example, doctorate – PhD, DPhil)	12%	17%	10%
Prefer not to say	2%	1%	2%
Q4. Would you describe your employer as public, private or third sector? (Please select the one option that fits best)	Base: 572	Base: 501	Base: 137
Public sector– including local authorities, education, NHS	10%	24%	20%
Private sector– a commercial organisation, for example, sole trader, Ltd or PLC	84%	67%	70%
Third sector - a registered charity or not-for-profit organisation	6%	9%	9%
Q5. What organisation do you currently work in? (Please select the one option that fits best)	Base: 575	Base: 502	Base: 139
Fire safety assessment/consultancy	66%	44%	29%
Health and safety consultancy	14%	19%	19%
Construction related consultancy	4%	6%	5%
Property/facilities management company	3%	5%	5%
Property owner/operator	12%	26%	40%
Other	0%	1%	1%
Q6. In total, approximately how many people are employed in your organisation? (Please provide your best estimate)	Base: 577	Base: 501	Base: 138
1 (sole trader / consultant)	21%	17%	14%
2 to 4	15%	11%	6%
5 to 9	9%	7%	9%
10 to 19	8%	6%	5%
20 to 49	8%	5%	7%
50 to 99	7%	5%	7%
100 or more	32%	48%	53%
Q7. In total, approximately how many of those people employed in your organisation undertake fire risk assessments? (Please provide your best estimate)	Base: 577	Base: 505	Base: 139
1 (just me)	36%	41%	38%
2 to 4	29%	31%	31%
5 to 9	12%	10%	14%
10 to 19	12%	7%	5%
20 to 49	8%	7%	6%
50 to 99	2%	2%	1%
100 or more	1%	1%	5%
Q8. In which region of the UK are you based? (If you work from home, please tell us the region in which you live, rather than where your employer’s office is based)	Base: 579	Base: 505	Base: 138
East of England	8%	10%	8%
East Midlands	11%	8%	6%
London	10%	10%	7%
North East	4%	5%	7%
North West	11%	12%	9%
South East	22%	17%	20%
South West	10%	13%	14%
West Midlands	10%	10%	9%
Yorks and Humber	8%	8%	14%
Scotland	2%	2%	4%
Wales	4%	4%	3%
Northern Ireland	0%	0%	0%
Q10. In which of the following regions of England do you conduct fire risk assessments?	Base: 579	Base: 505	Base: 139
East of England	59%	45%	37%
East Midlands	60%	43%	35%
London	69%	51%	45%
North East	55%	42%	33%
North West	60%	47%	37%
South East	71%	53%	47%
South West	62%	49%	45%
West Midlands	62%	46%	32%
Yorks and Humber	58%	44%	33%
Q11. Approximately, what percentage of your work annually is taken up by fire risk assessments?	Base: 563	Base: 489	Base: 137
Up to 10%	13%	25%	39%
11 to 20%	6%	12%	11%
21 to 30%	6%	9%	11%
31 to 40%	6%	7%	6%
41 to 50%	13%	12%	9%
51 to 60%	6%	5%	3%
61 to 70%	6%	6%	3%
71 to 80%	14%	9%	4%
81 to 90%	12%	4%	4%
91 to 100%	19%	11%	9%
Q12. On average, approximately how many hours a week do you work on fire risk assessments and associated admin?	Base: 577	Base: 505	Base: 139
Less than 8 hours	16%	33%	47%
8 to 15 hours	19%	26%	26%
16 to 30 hours	29%	23%	14%
31 hours or more	35%	18%	12%
Q13. On average, for approximately how many buildings do you personally conduct fire risk assessments per year?	Base: 578	Base: 504	Base: 139
1 to 5 per year	6%	13%	27%
6 to 10 per year	7%	13%	14%
11 to 25 per year	11%	17%	12%
26 to 50 per year	17%	19%	19%
51 to 100 per year	18%	15%	13%
101 to 250 per year	27%	15%	12%
More than 250 per year	14%	8%	4%
Q14. For which height(s) of buildings do you personally undertake fire risk assessments?	Base: 579	Base: 505	Base: 139
11 metres and under	86%	87%	83%
11 to 18 metres	62%	47%	40%
18 metres and above	42%	27%	14%
Q15. For what type(s) of buildings do you currently undertake fire risk assessments?	Base: 579	Base: 505	Base: 139
Houses converted to flats	62%	44%	31%
HMOs, hostels or other accommodation	65%	46%	39%
Purpose built flats (1 to 3 storeys)	70%	49%	33%
Purpose built flats (4 to 9 storeys)	55%	37%	20%
Purpose built flats (10 or more storeys)	40%	21%	9%
Hotels (including boarding houses)	48%	26%	21%
Hospitals or care homes	53%	40%	25%
Offices	85%	75%	66%
Factories or warehouses (including labs)	72%	57%	58%
Shops, public buildings	80%	60%	55%
Schools (assumed non-residential)	5%	5%	8%
Further/Higher education (and residential schools)	2%	2%	2%
Transport / construction	2%	2%	2%
Historic buildings	2%	1%	1%
Q16. How would you currently assess your own competence?	Base: 579	Base: 505	Base: 139
Foundation	3%	0%	14%
Intermediate	39%	50%	67%
Advanced	58%	44%	17%
Not sure	0%	1%	2%
Q17. Are there any types of building that you do not feel yourself to be competent to fire risk assess alone?	Base: 579	Base: 502	Base: 139
I don’t get asked to do anything beyond my competence	32%	34%	45%
I can engage/ signpost to other FRAs	26%	26%	21%
It’s hard to find suitable alternatives to signpost to	3%	3%	3%
I have felt pressure assess anyway	2%	2%	8%
I’ve not been asked to assess beyond my competence	20%	21%	18%
I feel sufficiently competent to assess any type	19%	15%	6%
Q19. How long have you personally been undertaking fire risk assessments?	Base: 579	Base: 505	Base: 139
Less than a year	3%	6%	15%
1 to 3 years	17%	13%	22%
4 to 5 years	15%	16%	17%
6 to 10 years	24%	26%	21%
11 to 15 years	18%	16%	15%
16 to 20 years	14%	11%	4%
More than 20 years	10%	11%	5%
Q20. Which, if any, other types of role(s) have you performed prior to starting to undertake fire risk assessments?	Base: 579	Base: 505	Base: 139
Building safety / inspection	12%	15%	9%
Firefighter	32%	31%	9%
FRS - fire protection role	25%	26%	9%
FRS - prevention audit/advice role	22%	22%	6%
Fire engineering (design)	9%	9%	1%
Fire engineering (install/maintain)	10%	9%	8%
Health and safety consultancy/advice	44%	53%	53%
Other fire safety consultancy	25%	29%	11%
Property/facilities management	18%	22%	18%
Structural engineering/construction consult	2%	5%	2%
No other relevant roles	6%	6%	13%
Q21. Did you undertake any form of training related to fire risk assessment prior to starting to undertake fire risk assessments? (Please select one)	Base: 563	Base: 485	Base: 137
Yes, specifically about conducting fire risk assessment of premises covered by the Fire Safety Order	90%	81%	68%
Yes, not specifically about fire risk assessments but about building fire safety	8%	15%	22%
No, I had no formal training before commencing fire risk assessments	2%	4%	10%
Q27. Reason(s) that you do not currently subscribe to a professional membership body or certification scheme for fire risk assessment? (Please select all that apply). N.B. Asked only those without current membership, certification, or registration	N/A	N/A	Base: 139
Cost	N/A	N/A	42%
Time requirements	N/A	N/A	26%
Assessment criteria	N/A	N/A	23%
Don’t believe it’s necessary	N/A	N/A	29%
Q30. Do you consider that you undertake formal refresher training on fire risk assessments at all? (Please select the one option that fits best)	Base: 575	Base: 501	Base: 138
Yes, annually	26%	13%	9%
Yes, every 2 to 5 years	21%	20%	12%
Yes, probably less than every 5 years	7%	11%	9%
No formal refresher training, but I keep myself up-to-date	44%	54%	60%
None of the above	2%	2%	9%

Appendix D: Responses by question

Question 1: Percentages of FRAs by age.

Notes:

1. Base: All FRAs = 1,269.
2. In response to question 1, ‘What is your age?’, FRAs’ responses included: 18 to 34 (8%); 35 to 49 (26%); 50 to 64 (54%); 65 or more (11%); and prefer not to say (1%).

Question 2: Percentages of FRAs by sex

Notes:

1. Base: All FRAs = 1,266.
2. In response to question 2, ‘Do you think of yourself as male, female, or do you prefer not to say? (We restrict the gender categories listed to prevent potential identification of individuals identifying in other ways)’, FRAs’ responses included: Male (87%), Female (11%), and Prefer not to say (1%).

Question 3: Level of educational qualification FRAs hold in any subject

Notes:

1. Base: All FRAs = 1,272.
2. In response to question 3, ‘What is the highest level of educational qualification you hold in any subject? (Please select the highest only)’, FRAs’ responses included: No formal qualifications (1%); Level 1 or 2 (6%); Level 3 (15%); Level 4 or 5 (32%); Level 6 (degree) (31%); Level 7 or 8 (14%); and Prefer not to say (1%).

Question 4: Percentage of FRAs by employment sector

Notes:

1. Base: All FRAs = 1,259.
2. In response to question 4, ‘Would you describe your employer as public, private or third sector? (Please select the one option that fits best)’, FRAs’ responses included: Private sector (75%); Public sector (17%); and Third sector (8%).

Question 5: Percentage of FRAs by organisation they currently work in

Notes:

1. Base: All FRAs = 1,263.
2. In response to question 5, ‘What sort of organisation do you currently work in? (Please select the one option that fits best)’, FRAs’ responses included: Fire safety assessment/consultancy (53%); Property owner/operator (22%); Health and safety consultancy (17%); Construction-related consultancy (5%); Property/facilities management company (4%); and Other (1%).

Question 6: Percentage of FRAs by number of FRAs in their organisation by headcount

Notes:

1. Base: All FRAs = 1,265.
2. In response to question 6, ‘In total, approximately how many people are employed in your organisation? (Please provide your best estimate)’, FRAs’ responses included: 1 sole trader/ consultant (18%); 2 to 4 (13%); 5 to 9 (8%); 10 to 19 (7%); 20 to 49 (7%); 50 to 99 (6%); and 10 or more (41%).

Question 7: Percentage of those people employed in their organisation that undertake fire risk assessments

Notes:

1. Base: All FRAs = 1,270.
2. In response to question 7, ‘In total, approximately how many of those people employed in your organisation undertake fire risk assessments? (Please provide your best estimate)’, FRAs’ responses included: 1 (just me) (38%); 2 to 4 (30%); 5 to 9 (11%); 10 to 19 (9%); 20 to 49 (7%); 50 to 99 (2%); and 100 or more (2%).

Question 8: Percentage of FRAs by UK region they are based in

Notes:

1. Base: All FRAs = 1,270.
2. In response to question 8, ‘In which region of the UK are you based??(If you work from home, please tell us the region in which you live, rather than where your employer’s office is based)’, FRAs’ responses included: South East (20%); South West (12%); North West (11%); London (10%); West Midlands (10%); Yorks and Humber (9%); East Midlands (9%); East of England (9%); North East (4%); Wales (4%); Scotland (2%); and Northern Ireland (0%).

Question 10: Percentage of FRAs by UK region(s) they conduct fire risk assessments

Notes:

1. Base: All FRAs = 1,269.
2. In response to question 10, ‘In which region(s) of England do you conduct fire risk assessment?’ FRAs’ responses included all regions (39%); South East (61%); London (59%); South West (54%); North West (52%); West Midlands (52); East of England (51%); East Midlands (51%); Yorks and Humber (49%); and North East (47%).

Question 11: Percentage of work annually that is taken up by fire risk assessments?

Notes:

1. Base: All FRAs = 1,237.
2. In response to question 11, ‘Approximately, what percentage of your work annually is taken up by fire risk assessments? (Type in a whole number from 0 to 100 – you cannot enter a % sign)’, FRAs’ responses included: Up to 10% (21%); 11 to 20% (9%); 21 to 30% (8%); 31 to 40% (6%); 41 to 50% (13%); 51 to 60% (5%); 61 to 70% (5%); 71 to 80% (11%); 81 to 90% (8%); and 91 to 100% (15%).

Question 12: Percentage of hours a week worked on fire risk assessment and associated admin

Notes:

1. Base: All FRAs = 1,270.
2. In response to question 12, ‘On average, approximately how many hours a week do you work on fire risk assessment and associated admin? (Please select one)’, FRAs’ responses included less than 8 hours (27%); 8 to 15 hours (23%); 16 to 30 hours (25%); and 31 hours or more (25%).

Question 13: Number of buildings a year FRAs conduct fire risk assessment at

Notes:

1. Base: All FRAs = 1,270.
2. In response to question 13, ‘On average, for approximately how many buildings do you personally conduct fire risk assessments per year? (Please select one)’, FRAs responded by: 1 to 5 per year (12%); 6 to 10 per year (10%); 11 to 25 per year (14%); 26 to 50 per year (17%); 51 to 100 per year (16%); 101 to 250 per year (20%); and more than 250 per year (10%).

Question 14: Percentage of building heights assessed by FRAs

Notes:

1. Base: All FRAs = 1,242.
2. In response to question 14, ‘For which heights of buildings do you personally undertake fire risk assessments? (Please select all that apply)’, FRAs responded by: 11 metres and under (88%); 11 to 18 metres (54%); and 18 metres and above (34%).

Question 15: Percentage of building types assessed by FRAs

Notes:

1. Base: All FRAs = 1,268.
2. In response to question 15, ‘For what type(s) of buildings do you currently undertake fire risk assessments? (Please select all that apply)’, FRAs responded by: Shops, public buildings (68%); Factories or warehouses (including labs) (64%); Purpose-built flats (1 to 3 storeys) (57%); HMOs, hostels or other accommodation (54%); Houses converted to flats (51%); Offices (47%); Hospitals or care homes (45%); Purpose-built flats (4 to 9 storeys) (43%); Hotels (including boarding houses) (35%); Purpose-built flats (10 or more storeys) (28%); Schools (5%); Transport/construction (2%); Further/higher education (2%) and Historic buildings (1%).

Question 16: Percentage of FRAs by their self-assessed competence level

Notes:

1. Base: All FRAs = 1,272.
2. In response to question 16, ‘How would you currently assess your own competence? (Please select the one option that fits best)’, FRAs responded by: Foundation – assessing low-risk buildings (possibly learning under supervision) (5%); Intermediate – assessing low- to medium-risk buildings (largely) unsupervised (46%); Advanced – leading assessment of all types of building (including high-risk) unsupervised looking at more complex so (48%); and Not sure 1%.

Question 17: Percentage of FRAs by types of building they do not feel competent to fire risk assess alone

Notes:

1. Base: All FRAs = 1,269.
2. In response to question 17, ‘Are there any types of building that you do not feel yourself to be competent to fire risk assess alone? (Please select the one option that fits best)’, FRAs responded by: I don’t get asked to do anything beyond my competence (34%); I can engage/ signpost to other FRAs (25%); It’s hard to find suitable alternatives to signpost to (3%); I have felt pressure to assess anyway (3%); I’ve not been asked to assess beyond my competence (20%); and I feel sufficiently competent to assess any type (16%).

Question 18: Percentage of the factors FRAs take into account to determine the fee for conducting a fire risk assessment

Notes:

1. Base: All FRAs = 836.
2. In response to question 18, ‘Which of the following factors are taken into account when determining the charge/fee for conducting a fire risk assessment for a building? (Please select all that apply)’, FRAs responded by: Rate card (23%); Fixed flat rate (15%); Distance from ‘office’ base (55%); Hourly rate (44%); Area / square footage/ footprint (7%); Risk/complexity (overall) (63%); Use of building (55%); Height of building (40%); Number of residential units (34%); Construction type (21%); Existence/type of The Cladding External Wall System (EWS) (16%); and Not involved in costings (3%).

Question 19: Percentage of FRAs by time they have been undertaking fire risk assessments

Notes:

1. Base: All FRAs = 1,272.
2. In response to question 19, ‘How long have you personally been undertaking fire risk assessments? (Please do not include time undertaking similar tasks for alternative purposes, such as auditing building safety or fire prevention installations from an enforcement perspective, for example, within a fire and rescue service)’, FRAs responded by: Less than a year (6%); 1 to 3 years (15%); 4 to 5 years (15%); 6 to 10 years (24%); 11 to 15 years (17%); 16 to 20 years (12%); and More than 20 years (11%).

Question 20: Percentage of FRAs by previous roles relevant to fire risk assessment

Notes:

1. Base: All FRAs = 1,259.
2. In response to question 20, ‘Which, if any, other types of role(s) have you performed prior to starting to undertake fire risk assessments?’, FRAs responded by: Building safety / inspection (13%); Firefighter (29%); FRS – fire protection role (24%); FRS – prevention audit/advice role (20%); Fire engineering (design) (8%); fire engineering (install/maintain) (9%); Health and safety consultancy/advice (49%); Other fire safety consultancy (25%); Property/facilities management (20%); Structural engineering/ construction consult (3%); and No other relevant roles (7%).

Question 21: Percentage of FRAs by related training they completed prior to undertaking fire risk assessments

Notes:

1. Base: All FRAs = 1,232.
2. In response to question 21, ‘Did you undertake any form of training related to fire risk assessment prior to starting to undertake fire risk assessments? (Please select one)’, FRAs responded by: Yes, specifically about conducting fire risk assessment of premises covered by the Fire Safety Order (84%); Yes, not specifically about fire risk assessments but about building fire safety (13%); and No, I had no formal training before commencing fire risk assessments (4%).

Question 22: Percentage of FRAs and whether they were offered a mentor with initial training

Notes:

1. Base: All FRAs = 1,186.
2. In response to question 22, ‘Did the training you undertook prior to starting to undertake fire risk assessments include access to a mentor? (Please select all that apply)’, FRAs responded by: Yes, mentor available during the training course (45%); Yes, mentor offered for a period beyond the training course (27%); and No, access to a mentor was offered (35%); and I do not remember (it may have been offered, but I did not use it) (6%).

Question 23: Percentage of FRAs who have a company membership scheme

Notes:

1. Base: All FRAs = 1,258.
2. In response to question 23, ‘Does your company have third-party certification to carry out fire risk assessments under either of the following schemes? (Please select all that apply)’, FRAs responded by: BAFE SP205 (British Approvals for Fire Equipment) through SSAIB or NSI (27%); Warrington FRACS (Company scheme) 3%; and None of the above 71%.

Question 24: Percentage of FRAs whose company ensures that individuals carrying out fire risk assessments belong to any certification/registration scheme

Notes:

1. Base: All FRAs = 1,253
2. In response to question 24, ‘Does your company ensure that individuals carrying out fire risk assessments belong to any certification/registration schemes?’, FRAs responded by: Yes (57%); No (35%); and Not sure (8%).

Question 25: Percentage of FRAs by which option describes their personal situation in relation to certification, registration or membership of professional bodies in the field of fire risk assessment?

Notes:

1. Base: All FRAs = 1,269.
2. In response to question 25, ‘Which of the following options best describes your personal situation in relation to certification, registration or membership of professional bodies in the field of fire risk assessment? (Please select the one option that fits best)’, FRAs responded by: I am currently certificated or on a register as competent to undertake fire risk assessment (46%); I used to be certificated as competent to undertake fire risk assessment, but certification or registration has lapsed (1%); I am not specifically certificated or registered for competence in fire risk assessment but I am currently a member of a relevant professional body (40%); I used to be a member of a relevant professional body (and I am not specifically certificated or registered for competent (2%); and I have never been a member of, or certificated by a relevant professional body in fire risk (11%).

Question 26: Do you have personal membership of/ affiliation to a professional body for fire risk assessment?

A chart has not been included due to a very low base. This was in response to question 26, ‘Do you have personal membership of/affiliation to a professional body for fire risk assessment?’

Question 27: Percentage of FRAs who are not certificated nor part of a professional membership body by reasons they do not currently subscribe to a professional membership body or certification scheme for fire risk assessment

Notes:

1. Base: All FRAs = 176.
2. In response to question 27, ‘Using the list below, please indicate the reason(s) that you do not currently subscribe to a professional membership body or certification scheme for fire risk assessment? (Please select all that apply)’, FRAs responded by: Cost (47%); Time requirements (24%); Assessment criteria (24%); Don’t believe it’s necessary, I can prove my competence without it (31%); and Other (0%).

Question 28: Extent to which FRAs agree or disagree that the following statements could encourage you to join a fire risk assessment certification scheme

Notes:

1. Base: All FRAs = 175.
2. In response to question 28, ‘To what extent do you agree or disagree that the following statements could encourage you to join a fire risk assessment certification scheme?’, FRAs responded by: Evidence to ‘clients’ that I am suitably qualified and maintain CPD – Strongly agree (45), Tend to agree (37), Tend to disagree (15), Strongly disagree (3); Evidence to ‘clients’ that I am suitably qualified to assess specific types of buildings – Strongly agree (46), Tend to agree (33), Tend to disagree (18), Strongly disagree (3); If necessary in order to assess some (more complex) types of building – Strongly agree (55), Tend to agree (23), Tend to disagree (17), Strongly disagree (5); If could enhance my career and/or earnings – Strongly agree (36), Tend to agree (34), Tend to disagree (19), Strongly disagree (10).

Question 29: In the average year, within the course of your work as a fire risk assessor, which (if any) of the following activities do you engage in?

Notes:

1. Base: All FRAs = 1,272.
2. In response to question 29, ‘In the average year, within the course of your work as a fire risk assessor, which (if any) of the following activities do you engage in? (Please select all that apply)’, FRAs responded by: Checking website, prof. body (78%); Checking website, cert/reg scheme (50%); Newsletters prof body, cert/reg (89%); Checking legislation/regs (92%); Question to prof body/cert scheme (37%); Investigating prof training options (69%); Discussion with FRA mentor (37%); Discussion with FRA colleague (82%); and None of the above (1%).

Question 30: Percentage of FRAs that consider themselves undertaking formal refresher training on fire risk assessments at all

Notes:

1. Base: All FRAs = 1,263.
2. In response to question 30, ‘Do you consider that you undertake formal refresher training on fire risk assessments at all? (Please select the one option that fits best)’, FRAs responded by: Yes, annually (19%); Yes, every 2 to 5 years (19%); Yes, probably less than every 5 years (9%); No formal refresher training, but I keep myself up to date (50%); and None of the above (3%).

Appendix E: Survey questionnaire

Section 1: About you

We would like to begin by asking a few questions about your background, then we will move on to explore more about your role in conducting fire risk assessments.

Q1. What is your age?

(Please select one)

18 to 34

35 to 49

50 to 64

65+

Prefer not to say

Q2. Do you think of yourself as male, female or do you prefer not to say?

(We restrict the gender categories listed to prevent potential identification of individuals identifying in other ways)

Male

Female

Prefer not to say

Q3. What is the highest level of educational qualification you hold, in any subject?

(Please select the highest only)

No formal qualifications

Level 1 or 2 (e.g. GCSE, O level, NVQ level 1 or level 2)

Level 3 (e.g. A level, international Baccalaureate diploma, NVQ level 3, OND, ONCM BTEC National, City & Guilds Advanced Craft)

Level 4 or 5 (e.g. CertHE - certificate of higher education, DipHE – diploma of higher education, HNC – higher national certificate, HND – higher national diploma, NVQ level 4 or level 5)

Level 6 (e.g. degree – BA, BSc, degree apprenticeship, graduate certificate/diploma)

Level 7 (e.g. master’s degree – MA, MSc, MEng, PGCE)

Level 8 (e.g. doctorate – PhD, DPhil)

Prefer not to say

Section 2: Where you work and conduct fire risk assessments

Q4. Would you describe your employer as public, private or third sector?

(Please select the one option that fits best)

Public sector – including local authorities, education, NHS

Private sector – a commercial organisation e.g. sole trader, Ltd or PLC

Third sector – a registered charity or not-for-profit organisation

Q5. What sort of organisation do you currently work in?

(Please select the one option that fits best)

Fire safety assessment/consultancy (inc all fire safety/protection specialists/advisors)

Building safety and inspection consultancy (inc LA building control)

Health and safety consultancy (inc all H&S focussed organisations)

Structural engineering/construction consultancy (also working beyond fire) (inc construction contractors/firms, also Mechanical & Electrical engineering)

Property/facilities management company (contracting to building owners/operators)

Property operator (where buildings are leased from an owner, and self-managed – and you conduct assessment ‘in-house’) Used where property ownership is not clear

Property owner (you conduct assessment ‘in-house’) (inc LAs, Housing Assoc, NHS, Churches, Higher Educ, Transport infrastructure)

Other (please describe)

Q6. In total, approximately how many people are employed in your organisation?

(Please provide your best estimate)

1 (sole trader / consultant)

2 to 4

5 to 9

10 to 19

20 to 49

50 to 99

100+

Q7. In which region of the UK are you based?

(If you work from home, please tell us the region in which you live, rather than where your employer’s office is based)

East of England

East Midlands

London

North East

North West

South East

South West

West Midlands

Yorkshire and the Humber

Scotland

Wales

Northern Ireland

Q8. In which part(s) of the UK do you conduct fire risk assessments?

(Please select all that apply)

England (continue to Q10)

Scotland (skip to Q11)

Wales (skip to Q11)

Northern Ireland (skip to Q11)

Q9. In which of the following regions of England do you conduct fire risk assessments?

All regions of England

(or select the individual regions that apply from the list below)

East of England

East Midlands

London

North East

North West

South East

South West

West Midlands

Yorkshire and the Humber

Section 3: Your involvement in conducting fire risk assessments

Q10. Approximately, what percentage of your work annually is taken up by fire risk assessments? (Type in a whole number from 0 to 100 – you cannot enter a % sign)

Q11. On average, approximately how many hours a week do you work on fire risk assessment and associated admin? (Please select one)

Less than 8 hours

8 to 15 hours

16 to 30 hours

31 hours or more

Q12. On average, for approximately how many buildings do you personally conduct fire risk assessments per year? (Please select one)

1 to 5 per year

6 to 10 per year

11 to 25 per year

26 to 50 per year

51 to 100 per year

101 to 250 per year

More than 250 per year

Q13. For which height(s) of buildings do you personally undertake fire risk assessments? (Please select all that apply)

11 metres and under

11 to 18 metres

18 metres and above

Other (please describe)

Q14. For what type(s) of buildings do you currently undertake fire risk assessments? (Please select all that apply)

Houses converted to flats

HMOs, hostels or other sleeping accommodation

Purpose built flats (1 to 3 storeys)

Purpose built flats (4 to 9 storeys)

Purpose built flats (10+ storeys)

Hotels (inc boarding houses/ B&B etc)

Hospitals or care homes

Offices

Factories or warehouses (inc laboratories)

Shops, public buildings or other premises open to the public

Other (please describe – inc stadia and participation sports facilities, caravan parks)

It is not expected that all fire risk assessors will have complete competence in every aspect of fire risk assessments.

Q15. How would you currently assess your own competence?

(Please select the one option that fits best)

Foundation – assessing low risk buildings (possibly learning under supervision)

Intermediate – assessing low to medium risk buildings, (largely) unsupervised

Advanced – leading assessment of all types of building (including high risk) unsupervised, looking at more complex solutions and possibly supervising other assessors

Not sure

We are aware that there is a wide range of building types requiring a fire risk assessment, and that you might even find when you start an assessment that the building is outside your current competence. While some buildings are quite straightforward to fire risk assess, you may feel that for some types or situations you require additional/specialist input.

Q16 Are there any types of building that you do not feel yourself to be competent to fire risk assess alone?

(Please select the one option that fits best)

Yes, but in this role, I do not get asked to do anything outside my competence.

Yes, but I have colleagues / other fire risk assessors I can engage or signpost to

Yes, and it is difficult to identify suitable alternative assessors to signpost to

Yes, and I have felt under pressure to undertake an assessment anyway

No, while there are some types of building that I don’t feel appropriately competent to assess, I’ve not been asked to do so

No, I feel sufficiently competent to assess any type of building

You may use the space below to give any further explanation you wish to provide

Q17. Which of the following factors are taken into account when determining the charge/fee for conducting a fire risk assessment for a building?

(Please select all that apply)

Not applicable – I only conduct fire risk assessment for buildings owned /managed for my own organisation, there is no external fee / charge

There is a fixed flat rate for all fire risk assessments

There are a small number of fixed rates for fire risk assessments (a rate card) and it is clear which rate would apply to any building

Hourly rate (charging for the time expected / actually expended on the assessment)

Distance from ‘office’ base, travel and or increased time costs

Height of building

Construction materials /methods known in advance

Existence/type of external wall systems

Use of building (e.g. residential only, mixed use, high fire risk uses)

Number of residential units within the building

Other factor(s) contributing to final fee charged (please describe)

Section 4: Your route into conducting fire risk assessments

We would now like to understand more about how people move into conducting fire risk assessments, what they did before starting this work, and what experiences have helped them.

Q18. How long have you personally been undertaking fire risk assessments?

(Please do not include time undertaking similar tasks for alternative purposes, such as auditing building safety or fire prevention installations from an enforcement perspective e.g. within a fire and rescue service)

Less than a year

1 to 3 years

4 to 5 years

6 to 10 years

11 to 15 years

16 to 20 years

More than 20 year

Q19. Which, if any, other types of role(s) have you performed prior to starting to undertake fire risk assessments?

(Please select all that apply)

Building safety and inspection consultancy

Firefighter

Fire and Rescue Service - fire protection role

Fire and Rescue Service - prevention audit/advice role

Fire engineering (design)

Fire engineering (installation and/or maintenance of equipment)

Other fire safety consultancy/advice (including advising on fire protection and prevention)

Property/facilities management

Structural engineering/construction/ architectural consultancy (including beyond fire)

No other relevant roles

Other relevant role (please describe)

Section 5: Initial training to conduct fire risk assessments

Q20. Did you undertake any form of training related to fire risk assessment prior to starting to undertake fire risk assessments?

(Please select one)

Yes, specifically about conducting fire risk assessment of premises covered by the Fire Safety Order

Yes, not specifically about fire risk assessments but about building fire safety

No, I had no formal training before commencing fire risk assessments

You may use the space below to name the course title and/or any qualification it led to, or describe the type of training you did

If ‘Yes above’

Q21. Did the training you undertook prior to starting to undertake fire risk assessments include access to a mentor?

(Please select all that apply)

Yes, mentor available during the training course

Yes, mentor offered for a period beyond the training course

No access to a mentor was offered

I do not remember (it may have been offered, but I did not use it)

Section 6: Scheme membership, continuous professional development and support

Q22. Does your company have third party certification to carry out fire risk assessments under either of the following schemes?

(Please select all that apply)

BAFE SP205 (British Approvals for Fire Equipment) through SSAIB or NSI

Warrington FRACS (Company scheme)

None of the above

Q23. Does your company ensure that individuals carrying out fire risk assessments belong to any certification/registration schemes?

Yes

No

Not sure

Q24. Which of the following options best describes your personal situation in relation to certification, registration or membership of professional bodies in the field of fire risk assessment?

(Please select the one option that fits best)

I am currently certificated or on a register as competent to undertake fire risk assessment – Skip to Q29

I used to be certificated as competent to undertake fire risk assessment, but certification or registration has lapsed – Continue to Q26

I am not specifically certificated or registered for competence in fire risk assessment but I am currently a member of a relevant professional body – Skip to Q29.

I used to be a member of a relevant professional body (and I am not specifically certificated or registered for competence in fire risk assessment) - Skip to Q27

I have never been a member of, or certificated by a relevant professional body in fire risk – Skip to Q27

Q25. Do you have personal membership of / affiliation to a professional body for fire risk assessment?

Yes - Skip to Q29

No - Continue to Q27

Q26. Using the list below, please indicate the reason(s) that you do not currently subscribe to a professional membership body or certification scheme for fire risk assessment? (Please select all that apply)

Cost

Time Requirements

Don’t believe it’s necessary, I can prove my competence without it

Other (please describe)

Q27. To what extent do you agree or disagree that the following statements could encourage you to join a fire risk assessment certification scheme?

(Please select one response for each statement)

Scale: Strongly Agree / Tend to Agree / Tend to Disagree / Strongly Disagree

Certification would provide evidence to ‘clients’ that I am suitably qualified to assess specific types of buildings

Certification would provide evidence that I am suitably qualified and maintain regular technical continuous professional development (CPD)

Certification would be necessary in order to assess some (more complex) types of building

Certification could enhance my career and/or earnings

Q28. In the average year, within the course of your work as a fire risk assessor, which (if any) of the following activities do you engage in? (Please select all that apply)

Checking the website of a professional membership body for up-to-date information (whether or not you or your company are a member)

Checking the website of a certification or registration scheme (e.g. to review the requirements of membership / competence tiers)

Reading newsletters/emails from a professional membership body, certification or registrations scheme that you are subscribed to

Checking the detail of legislation and regulations e.g. the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 / Fire Safety Act 2021 / Fire Safety (England) Regulations 2022

Asking questions to a professional membership body or certification scheme

Investigating additional/professional training options

Discussing fire risk assessment issues with a mentor

Discussing fire risk assessment issues with a colleague / personal contact who is also involved in fire risk assessment

None of the above

Q29. Do you consider that you undertake formal refresher training on fire risk assessments at all?

(Please select the one option that fits best)

Yes, annually

Yes, every 2 to 5 years

Yes, probably less than every five years, e.g. when there’s been a change in the industry

No formal refresher training, but I keep myself up-to-date with industry / professional body updates

None of the above

Section 7: Final thoughts

Thanks for all the information you have already shared about your career path relating to fire risk assessment work.

We would like to know if you have any concerns or foresee any opportunities for the future in the sector as changes take place.

Q30. Please use the space below to share any thoughts you have about the training, qualifications and competence of the future fire risk assessor workforce

Q31. Would you be happy to be re-contacted (within the next 12 months) for any of the following reasons?

Yes, but only to clarify any answers provided in this survey

Yes, either to clarify answers in this survey OR to be invited to participate in further research

No, I prefer not to be re-contacted following this survey

Q32. If permission is given for re-contact

Please provide your email address

(We will only use it for purposes you have given us permission for))