Outcome Report (HTML)
Updated 16 December 2025
© Crown copyright 2025
This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3 or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or email: psi@nationalarchives.gov.uk.
Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned.
This publication is available at https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/strengthening-partnerships-consultation/outcome/outcome-report-html
Executive Summary
The Government has considered the findings of the public consultation to strengthen partnership working requirements between Category 1 emergency responders and Voluntary, Community, and Faith Sector (VCFS) organisations, as recommended by the Grenfell Tower Inquiry. This consultation, which received 165 responses (100 from VCFS organisations and 65 from Category 1 and 2 emergency responders), highlights a strong, shared commitment to collaboration and partnership working, but exposes significant differences in existing experiences and perceived resource capacity challenges to implement a strengthened statutory duty.
1. Differences in perceived partnership effectiveness
There is a stark difference in how VCFS organisations and Category 1 and 2 responders (categorised responders) perceive the existing approach to partnership working, and its operational impact.
A significant number of VCFS organisations (46%) reported that a lack of engagement resulted in a significant delay or failure in their organisations ability to effectively respond to an emergency situation. This contrasts sharply with 5% of categorised responders, who reported delay or failure of their organisations ability to effectively respond. While the majority of both groups acknowledged there are “sometimes” barriers to partnership working, 14% of VCFS organisations stated they “always” face barriers, compared to only 2% of categorised responders.
2. Shared views of the key benefits and barriers to partnership working
Despite differing experiences, both groups strongly agreed on what makes existing partnerships between VCFS organisations and categorised responders valuable, and the current barriers to partnership working.
The top benefits within existing partnership working for both VCFS organisations and categorised responders were: “improved capabilities to respond to emergencies”, “sharing of community knowledge”, and “clear communication channels”.
“Insufficient funding for joint initiatives” was the number one barrier within current partnership working for categorised responders , and the second highest for VCFS organisations. Limited awareness of each other’s capabilities was also noted by both groups.
3. Implications of a strengthened statutory duty
When asked to think about the projected implications of a strengthened statutory duty, both categorised responders and VCFS organisations had concerns, and shared perspectives on potential challenges such as finance, personnel and time.
Categorised responders and VCFS organisations most commonly anticipated a “moderate impact” on financial resources (42% of categorised responders and 37% of VCFS organisations). 35% of categorised responders anticipated a “major” or “critical” financial impact (requiring additional funding), compared to 25% of VCFS organisations. The majority of both VCFS organisations and categorised responders reported that they could not absorb the costs of enhanced partnership working within their current budgets (60% of categorised responders and 57% of VCFS organisations).
42% of categorised responders anticipated “insufficient” personnel resources to engage effectively under strengthened partnership working, a view shared by less VCFS organisations (31%). For both groups, having dedicated personnel for partnership working correlated with higher perceived resource sufficiency.
Both groups most commonly expected a “moderate investment” of time. However, categorised responders (30%) were more likely to anticipate a “high” or “very high” time investment, compared to VCFS organisations (20%).
The most significant concerns for implementing a strengthened partnership working duty were based on resource and administration. The top concerns for categorised responders were “existing financial constraints” (77%) and “increased administrative burden” (75%). The top concerns for VCFS organisations were “limited existing paid personnel capacity” (65%) and “existing financial constraints” (61%).
The most common changes that categorised responders considered necessary to implement strengthened partnership working were ‘“increased funding / additional financial resources” (71% of categorised responders and 70% of VCFS organisations), followed by “clearer guidelines and frameworks to define roles, responsibilities, and processes for partnership formation and maintenance”, which was within the top three responses for both groups.
Government response and next steps
The public consultation on strengthening partnerships, collected valuable data on existing working practices between VCFS organisations and categorised responders, and the complex potential effects of an enhanced statutory duty. The data reveals there is no consensus in favour of one particular course of action and differences in views between the two groups within some elements. It is therefore not clear that amending the regulation for partnership working would meet the intent of the Grenfell Tower recommendation.
Based on this evidence, the Government will undertake further analysis on the data and consider alternative options. We remain committed to engaging with stakeholders as we develop and implement any future changes and confirm that no immediate action - beyond existing duties and practices - is required from categorised responders or VCFS organisations. While we anticipate non-regulatory changes to strengthen partnership working will be implemented sooner, a final decision on regulatory changes will be taken as part of the post-implementation review of the Civil Contingencies Act in 2027.
Introduction
The tragedy at Grenfell Tower and other emergencies have emphasised the vital role of voluntary, charitable, community and faith-based organisations (also known as the Voluntary, Community, and Faith Sector, or VCFS) in providing support, coordination, and care for those affected by emergencies.
The Grenfell Tower Inquiry recommends strengthening partnership working requirements between Category 1 emergency responders and the VCFS.[footnote 1] The recommendation to strengthen partnerships would be implemented by amending existing regulations in the Civil Contingencies Act (2004) to require Category 1 emergency responders to establish and maintain partnerships with VCFS, in areas where responders are responsible for preparing for and responding to emergencies.
In considering this recommendation, it is necessary for Government to balance the benefits of structured collaboration, with an understanding of the ability and resource of both statutory emergency responders and VCFS organisations. The VCFS is diverse, ranging from large, established organisations, to smaller, localised groups, each uniquely contributing to community building and emergency preparedness, response and recovery. Some VCFS organisations have specialist training or skills that are needed in an emergency, whilst others contribute to the overall wellbeing of their communities, have strong existing relationships with those delivering locally, and understand the specific needs of the people they support. The Government recognises the critical role of the VCFS in enhancing community preparedness, and within emergency response and recovery activity, and are committed to building stronger relationships and collaborating with the VCFS.
This report summarises the findings from the public consultation on strengthening partnership working requirements between Category 1 emergency responders and VCFS organisations, undertaken between the 8th of July and the 16th of September 2025. It consolidates the range of views and evidence received from individuals and organisations, highlights the principal themes raised, and sets out next steps.
Consultation responses
Information on respondents
The consultation received 165 completed responses, 100 from voluntary, charitable, community or faith-based (VCFS) organisations, and 65 from Category 1 or 2 Responders (categorised responders).
Table 1: Number of responding organisations
| Consultation responder | Number of responses |
|---|---|
| Representative of a Category 1 or 2 Responder (CCA 2004) | 65 |
| Representative of a voluntary, charitable, community or faith-based organisation | 100 |
| Total | 165 |
The respondents were predominantly from England (113 responses), 66 from the VCFS and 47 from categorised responders. There were 21 responses representing only Scotland or Wales, or Great Britain more broadly (England, Scotland and Wales). 31 responses were UK-wide (England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland), 25 from the VCFS and 6 from categorised responders.
Table 2: Region of responding organisations
| Region | Representative of a Category 1 or 2 Responder (CCA 2004) | Representative of a voluntary, charitable, community or faith-based organisation |
|---|---|---|
| England only | 47 | 66 |
| Scotland only | 4 | - |
| Wales only | 5 | 4 |
| Great Britain (England, Scotland and Wales) | 3 | 5 |
| UK-wide (England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland) | 6 | 25 |
| Total | 65 | 100 |
Most VCFS organisations responding to the consultation had an annual income of less than £1 million (77%), with 95% of VCFS organisations with an income below £10 million. Only 5% of VCFS organisations had more than 250 employees, with 65% noting between 0 to 9 employees. VCFS organisations responding to the consultation were mainly those involved in community support and mutual aid, or emergency planning and response.
Table 3: Income bands of responding VCFS organisations
| Income band | Percentage of responses |
|---|---|
| Less than £10,000 | 20% |
| £10,000 to £100,000 | 29% |
| £100,000 to £1 million | 28% |
| £1 million to £10 million | 18% |
| £10 million to £100 million | 2% |
| More than £100 million | 3% |
Table 4: Number of employees and volunteers of responding VCFS organisations
| Category | 0 to 9 employees | 10 to 49 employees | 50 to 249 employees | 250 or more employees |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 to 9 volunteers | 17 | 8 | 0 | 0 |
| 10 to 49 volunteers | 24 | 10 | 4 | 0 |
| 50 to 249 volunteers | 13 | 0 | 5 | 1 |
| 250 or more volunteers | 11 | 1 | 2 | 4 |
| Total number of responses | 65 | 19 | 11 | 5 |
Table 5: Main purpose of responding VCFS organisations
| Purpose of organisation | Percentage of respondents |
|---|---|
| Community support and mutual aid | 25% |
| Emergency planning and response | 24% |
| Local infrastructure organisations or local membership body | 15% |
| Religion, belief or faith | 13% |
| Village halls | 8% |
| Other (less than 5 organisations in the consultation) | 15% |
Section one
Questions in Section One of the Strengthening Partnerships Consultation asked respondents to think about how Category 1 responders currently establish and maintain partnerships with VCFS organisations, in areas where responders are responsible for preparing for and responding to emergencies.
Effectiveness of partnership working
When asked about the effectiveness of current partnership working, there was a difference in perceptions between VCFS organisations and categorised responders. A significant number of VCFS organisations reported negative outcomes from a lack, or poor quality of engagement. 45% of VCFS organisations noted a lack of engagement resulted in a failure or significant delay in their response. In contrast, only 5% of categorised responders reported delay or failure of their organisations ability to effectively respond. 41% of VCFS organisations said that ineffective engagement had led to failure or delay in their organisation’s ability to respond effectively to an emergency situation, compared to only 9% of categorised responders.
Table 6: Perceptions of lack of engagement for categorised responders and VCFS organisations
| Has there been any occasions where a lack of engagement has resulted in a failure or significant delay in your organisation’s ability to respond effectively to an emergency situation? | Responses from categorised responders | Responses from VCFS organisations |
|---|---|---|
| Yes | 5% | 45% |
| No | 84% | 36% |
| Don’t know or not applicable | 11% | 19% |
Table 7: Perceptions of engagement quality for categorised responders and VCFS organisations
| Has there been any occasions where the quality of engagement (i.e engagement has occurred but it was not effective) has resulted in a failure or significant delay in your organisation’s ability to respond effectively to an emergency situation? | Responses from categorised responders | Responses from VCFS organisations |
|---|---|---|
| Yes | 9% | 41% |
| No | 80% | 39% |
| Don’t know or not applicable | 11% | 20% |
VCFS organisations and categorised responders acknowledged there were “sometimes” barriers in establishing and maintaining partnerships (49% of categorised responders and 48% of VCFS organisations), however views primarily differed at the extremes. 14% of VCFS organisations stated that they “always” faced barriers, compared to only 2% of categorised responders.
Table 8: Perceptions of engagement barriers for categorised responders and VCFS organisations
| How often does your organisation face barriers in establishing and maintaining partnerships for activities that are relevant to emergency planning and response? | Responses from categorised responders | Responses from VCFS organisations |
|---|---|---|
| Always (barriers always impact collaboration) | 2% | 14% |
| Usually (barriers usually impact collaboration) | 10% | 9% |
| Sometimes (barriers sometimes impact collaboration) | 49% | 48% |
| Rarely (barriers rarely impact collaboration) | 26% | 21% |
| Never (barriers never impact collaboration) | 13% | 8% |
| Don’t know or not applicable | - | - |
Benefits of partnership working
Despite differences within perceptions of effectiveness within current partnership working, both VCFS organisations and categorised responders strongly agreed on what makes partnership working valuable. The top three benefits identified by both groups, suggested shared priorities for VCFS organisations and categorised responders.
- Improved capabilities to respond to emergencies (79% of categorised responders and 52% of VCFS organisations);
- Sharing of community knowledge (65% of categorised responders and 53% of VCFS organisations);
- Clear communication channels (43% of categorised responders and 47% of VCFS organisations).
Notably, 71% of categorised responders think that partnership working has had a positive impact on emergency preparedness and response activity (41% of VCFS organisations).
Table 9: Top five benefits of partnership working
| Benefits of partnership working | Percentage of categorised responders who listed the benefit within their top five | Percentage of VCFS organisations who listed the benefit within their top five |
|---|---|---|
| Sharing of community knowledge | 65% | 53% |
| Improved capabilities to respond to emergencies | 79% | 52% |
| Clear communication channels | 43% | 47% |
| Greater access to training and exercising opportunities | 29% | 47% |
| Increased overall positive impact on emergency preparedness and response | 71% | 41% |
| Increased opportunities for engagement | 48% | 35% |
| Improved clarity of roles and responsibilities | 29% | 34% |
| Supporting alignment of priorities and objectives | 13% | 22% |
| Improved accountability among partners | 8% | 9% |
| Increased funding for joint initiatives | 3% | 9% |
| Stronger incentives for collaboration | 10% | 9% |
| Pooling of personnel resources | 22% | 6% |
| There have been no benefits from partnership working | - | 6% |
| Excluded all “Don’t know” respondents |
Barriers within partnership working
VCFS organisations and categorised responders were also in agreement about barriers to establishing and maintaining partnerships.
- “Insufficient funding for joint initiatives” was one of the top barriers for both groups, ranked as the highest for categorised responders (64%), and second highest for VCFS organisations (42%);
- “Limited awareness of each other’s capabilities” (49% of VCFS organisations and 41% of categorised responders);
- “Differing priorities and objectives” (33% of VCFS organisations and 45% of categorised responders).
The primary differences in the perception of barriers were related to resource and communication. 41% of VCFS organisations noted a lack of clear communication channels, compared to 26% of categorised responders, and 40% of VCFS organisations noted a limited understanding of each other’s roles, compared to 16% of categorised responders. Categorised responders were significantly more concerned with barriers due to limited personnel resources (55% of categorised responders and 24% of VCFS organisations).
Table 10: Top five barriers within partnership working
| Barriers to partnership working | Percentage of categorised responders who listed the barrier within their top five | Percentage of VCFS organisations who listed the barrier within their top five |
|---|---|---|
| Limited awareness of each other’s capabilities | 37% | 47% |
| Insufficient funding for joint initiatives | 57% | 39% |
| Lack of clear communication channels | 23% | 39% |
| Limited understanding of each other’s roles | 14% | 39% |
| Differing priorities and objectives | 40% | 31% |
| Limited opportunities for engagement | 17% | 29% |
| Limited personnel resources | 49% | 25% |
| Lack of opportunities for joint training and exercising | 23% | 23% |
| Lack of accountability | 14% | 10% |
| Limited incentives | 14% | 8% |
| Engagement for partnership working is of low importance to our organisation | 2% | 5% |
| Limited value in engaging | 3% | 5% |
| There are no known issues that present barriers to partnership working | 5% | 7% |
| Don’t know | - | 1% |
| Not applicable | 6% | 3% |
Personnel for partnership working
Across both VCFS organisations and categorised responders, personnel resources were most commonly noted to be “sufficient” (42% of VCFS organisations and 41% of categorised responders). A similar number of VCFS organisations and categorised responders stated having a dedicated person to establish and maintain engagement with other organisations (51% of VCFS organisations and 50% of categorised responders). The majority of remaining organisations confirmed that they do not have a dedicated person, though engagement still takes place (36% of VCFS organisations and 48% of categorised responders). 13% of VCFS organisations reported that they had no current engagement, compared to only 2% of categorised responders.
Table 11: Current personnel resources for partnership working
| How sufficient are your organisation’s current personnel resources for participating effectively in partnership activities relevant to emergency planning and response? | Categorised responders | VCFS organisations |
|---|---|---|
| Fully sufficient (dedicated staff available to engage and support partner working) | 2% | 9% |
| Sufficient (able to engage, but may need to reprioritise other tasks occasionally) | 41% | 42% |
| Mostly sufficient (generally able to engage; may need additional surge support during peak periods) | 26% | 28% |
| Insufficient (often unable to allocate staff for partnership activities) | 26% | 16% |
| Very insufficient (staff capacity is severely limited; unable to engage in partnership activities) | 5% | 5% |
Table 12: Dedicated person to establish or maintain engagement for partnership working
| Does your organisation have at least one dedicated person whose role is to establish or maintain engagement with other organisations, for the purpose of partnership working for activities that are relevant to emergency planning and response? | Categorised responders | VCFS organisations |
|---|---|---|
| Yes, at least one person dedicated to partnership development | 50% | 51% |
| No dedicated role, but engagement takes place | 48% | 36% |
| No engagement is currently undertaken | 2% | 13% |
Time commitment for partnership working
When considering current time investment for partnership working, the most common response for both groups was a “moderate investment” (63% of VCFS organisations and 47% of categorised responders). Compared to VCFS organisations, categorised responders were twice as likely to report a high time investment (a combined 20% of categorised responders reported time commitment as “high” and “very high”).
Table 13: Current time investment for partnership working
| Thinking about your existing resource. Describe the current time investment for your organisation to participate in partnership activities for emergency planning and response. | Categorised responders | VCFS organisations |
|---|---|---|
| Very high investment (extensive time investment required with significant impact on other tasks) | 3% | 3% |
| High investment (significant time required that often impacts other tasks) | 17% | 7% |
| Moderate investment (moderate time required that sometimes means prioritisation of other tasks) | 47% | 63% |
| Low investment (some time required, but manageable with current workload and resource) | 24% | 18% |
| Very low investment (minimal time required to engage) | 9% | 8% |
Financial commitment for partnership working
When considering adequacy of financial resources, responses from both groups were highly similar, with the most frequent response from both groups indicating that financial resource was “somewhat adequate” (56% of VCFS organisations and 52% of categorised responders). Very few respondents from either group felt their existing resource was “fully adequate”, with the vast majority of respondents falling into the lower two categories of “somewhat adequate” and “not adequate”, selected by 77% of VCFS organisations and 71% of categorised responders.
The estimated annual costs of partnership working, within current practices, were concentrated within the lower cost bands for both VCFS organisations and categorised responders. The majority of all respondents estimated annual costs at £50,000 or less (85% of VCFS organisations and 83% of categorised responders), and the most frequent response for both groups was “less than £10,000 per year” (58% of VCFS organisations and 46% of categorised responders).
Table 14: Current financial commitment for partnership working
| Thinking about how you engage now. How adequate are the current financial resources available for your organisation to undertake partnership working for emergency planning and response? | Categorised responders | VCFS organisations |
|---|---|---|
| Completely adequate (ring-fenced funding or budget that enables proactive engagement to support ongoing activity related to emergency planning and response) | 3% | 3% |
| Very adequate (dedicated budget or funding that allows for ongoing engagement) | 3% | 2% |
| Adequate (budget exists to cover necessary costs required to maintain and support regular activity, without major issues) | 22% | 17% |
| Somewhat adequate (there is limited funding that covers only partial costs associated with participation, leading to constraints) | 52% | 56% |
| Not adequate (the organisation lacks funding essential for even basic engagement, making participation impractical) | 19% | 21% |
Table 15: Estimated current annual cost of partnership working
| If possible, estimate the current annual cost of providing resources to support partnership working for activities that are relevant to emergency planning and response? | Categorised responders | VCFS organisations |
|---|---|---|
| More than £100,000 per year | 7% | 5% |
| Between £50,001 and £100,000 per year | 10% | 10% |
| Between £10,000 and £50,000 per year | 37% | 27% |
| Less than £10,000 per year | 46% | 58% |
Overall resources for joint initiatives within partnership working
When considering the sufficiency of overall resources for joint initiatives (i.e. collaborative efforts to achieve common goals or address shared challenges), there were similar responses across VCFS organisations and categorised responders. The majority of both groups noted that overall resources were “insufficient” or “very insufficient” (53% of VCFS organisations and 55% of categorised responders). A similar proportion of both groups reported having at least “sufficient” resources, a total of 36% of categorised responders and 29% of VCFS organisations.
Table 16: Current overall resources for partnership working
| How sufficient are the current resources (human, financial, or material) for your organisation to engage in joint initiatives, for activities that are relevant to emergency planning and response? | Categorised responders | VCFS organisations |
|---|---|---|
| Fully sufficient (able to engage regularly in collaborative emergency planning and response activities without resource constraints) | 2% | 3% |
| Sufficient (sufficient resources to participate in initiatives without significant strain on existing capabilities or capacity) | 34% | 26% |
| Mostly sufficient (resources available to support engagement in joint initiatives with minimal issues) | 9% | 18% |
| Insufficient (limited resources, creating challenges to effectively participate in or contribute to joint activities) | 41% | 44% |
| Very insufficient (lacking essential resources, making participation in joint initiatives unfeasible or severely restricted) | 14% | 9% |
Section two
Questions in Section Two of the Strengthening Partnerships Consultation asked respondents to think about a future where there is a strengthened requirement for Category 1 responders to establish and maintain partnerships with VCFS organisations, in areas where responders are responsible for preparing for and responding to emergencies.
Changes required to establish and maintain effective partnerships
Respondents were asked what changes, if any, were necessary for organisations to establish and maintain effective partnerships, for the purposes of emergency planning and response. The most common response from both categorised responders (71%) and VCFS organisations (70%) was ‘“increased funding / additional financial resources”. Both groups also identified “clearer guidelines and frameworks to define roles, responsibilities, and processes for partnership formation and maintenance” within their top three responses. 70% of VCFS organisations noted the need for “improved communication to facilitate collaboration and information sharing between partner organisations”.
Table 17: Changes required to establish and maintain effective partnerships
| What changes (if any) do you believe are necessary for your organisation to establish and maintain effective partnerships, for the purposes of emergency planning and response? | Responses from categorised responders | Responses from VCFS organisations |
|---|---|---|
| Improved communication to facilitate collaboration and information sharing between partner organisations | 42% | 70% |
| Increased funding / additional financial resources | 71% | 70% |
| Clearer guidelines and frameworks to define roles, responsibilities, and processes for partnership formation and maintenance | 62% | 66% |
| More opportunities for training and capacity building | 57% | 64% |
| Ongoing assessment and evaluation of partnerships to ensure they are functioning effectively | 35% | 49% |
| No changes necessary | 6% | - |
| Other | 15% | 17% |
| Don’t know | 2% | 2% |
| Not applicable | 5% | 1% |
Challenges with implementing enhanced partnership working
When asked how challenging it would be for organisations to implement enhanced partnership working, both VCFS organisations and categorised responders answered highly similarly, with “moderately challenging” as the most common answer for both (41% of categorised responders and 41% of VCFS organisations). Organisations with at least one person dedicated to partnership development, generally perceived the implementation of a strengthened statutory duty as less challenging.
Table 18: Challenges of implementing an enhanced statutory duty
| How challenging would it be for your organisation to implement enhanced partnership working, for emergency preparedness and response activities? | Responses from categorised responders | Responses from VCFS organisations |
|---|---|---|
| Extremely challenging (significant challenges and implementation is unlikely) | 5% | 2% |
| Very challenging (challenges would complicate implementation) | 11% | 8% |
| Moderately challenging (potential challenges that may require attention) | 41% | 41% |
| Slightly challenging (some logistical issues may arise, but easily manageable) | 23% | 30% |
| Not challenging (implementation would be straightforward with minimal issues) | 11% | 14% |
| Don’t know | 6% | 3% |
| Not applicable | 3% | 2% |
| Total number of respondents | 64 | 100 |
Personnel for strengthened partnership working
When considering the expected personnel resource to effectively engage with a strengthened statutory duty, 53% of categorised responders reported having “insufficient” (42%) or “very insufficient” (11%) resource, stating that they would be unable to regularly allocate personnel. 39% of VCFS organisations reported having “insufficient” (31%) or “very insufficient” (8%) resource, demonstrating lower percentages of perceived insufficiency than categorised responders. For both groups, having existing dedicated personnel for partnership working, correlated with higher perceived resource sufficiency.
Table 19: Projected personnel resources for implementing a strengthened statutory duty
| If a strengthened statutory duty existed for partnership working, to prepare for and respond to emergencies, how would you rate your personnel resource to be able to engage effectively? | Responses from categorised responders | Responses from VCFS organisations |
|---|---|---|
| Fully sufficient (dedicated staff would be available to engage and support partner activity) | 2% | 6% |
| Sufficient (the organisation could engage, with some adjustments to ensure wider service delivery) | 30% | 32% |
| Mostly sufficient (staff would generally be available; may need additional surge support during peak periods) | 12% | 17% |
| Insufficient (the organisation would be unable to regularly allocate staff for partnership activities) | 42% | 31% |
| Very insufficient (staff capacity would be severely limited; the organisation would not have the required staff to engage in emergency planning activities) | 11% | 8% |
| Don’t know | 2% | 2% |
| Not applicable | 2% | 3% |
| Total number of respondents | 64 | 99 |
Time investment for strengthened partnership working
When considering the expected time investment to implement a strengthened statutory duty, both VCFS organisations and categorised responders estimated this to require a “moderate investment” of their time. This was the top response for both VCFS organisations (57%) and categorised responders (53%). 30% of categorised responders expected a “high” or “very high” time investment, with 20% of VCFS organisations indicating a “high” or “very high” time investment would be required.
Organisations with at least one person dedicated to partnership engagement were more likely to anticipate a “low investment” of their time (28% of VCFS organisations and 24% of categorised responders with an existing dedicated role). A “moderate investment” of time was still the most common answer for both VCFS organisations and categorised responders with a dedicated role (52% of VCFS and 45% of categorised responders).
Table 20: Projected time investment for implementing a strengthened statutory duty, based on whether the organisation has at least one dedicated employee whose role is to establish or maintain engagement with other organisations (for the purpose of partnership working for activities that are relevant to emergency planning and response).
| If a strengthened statutory duty existed for partnership working, to prepare for and respond to emergencies, how would you rate the expected time investment for your organisation? | All respondents | Has at least one person dedicated to partnership involvement | Has no dedicated role, but engagement takes place |
|---|---|---|---|
| VCFS organisations | - | - | - |
| Very high investment (extensive time investment expected, with significant impact on other tasks) | 5% | 7% | 3% |
| High investment (significant time investment expected, that will often impact other tasks) | 15% | 11% | 20% |
| Moderate investment (moderate increase in time investment required, and may require reprioritisation of other tasks) | 56% | 52% | 63% |
| Low investment (some additional time would be needed, but manageable with current workload and resources) | 21% | 28% | 11% |
| Very low investment (minimal additional time would be required to partner) | 3% | 2% | 3% |
| Categorised responders | - | - | - |
| Very high investment (extensive time investment expected, with significant impact on other tasks) | 7% | 3% | 7% |
| High investment (significant time investment expected, that will often impact other tasks) | 23% | 28% | 20% |
| Moderate investment (moderate increase in time investment required, and may require reprioritisation of other tasks) | 53% | 45% | 63% |
| Low investment (some additional time would be needed, but manageable with current workload and resources) | 15% | 24% | 7% |
| Very low investment (minimal additional time would be required to partner) | 2% | - | 3% |
Financial resources for strengthened partnership working
When considering the impact, if any, on current financial resources to implement a strengthened statutory duty, both categorised responders and VCFS organisations most commonly anticipated a “moderate impact” on financial resources (42% of categorised responders and 37% of VCFS organisations). However, categorised responders were more likely to expect a “major” or “critical” impact on financial resources (35%) than VCFS organisations (25%).
60% of categorised responders and 57% of VCFS organisations stated that they could not absorb the costs of enhanced partnership working within their current budgets. Both groups also showed similar levels of uncertainty, with “don’t know” stated by 30% of categorised responders and 28% of VCFS organisations. Only 10% of categorised responders and 15% of VCFS believed they could absorb the costs of enhanced partnership working.
Table 21: Projected financial resources for implementing a strengthened statutory duty
| If a strengthened statutory duty existed for partnership working, to prepare for and respond to emergencies, what would the impact be (if any) on your organisation’s current financial resources? | Categorised responders | VCFS organisations |
|---|---|---|
| Critical impact (current resource would not be sufficient and additional funding would be required to support engagement) | 13% | 5% |
| Major impact (current resources may not be sufficient and additional funding would likely be required to support engagement) | 22% | 20% |
| Moderate impact (current resources may be sufficient, but additional funding may be required to support engagement) | 42% | 37% |
| Slight impact (current resources are generally sufficient, with some minor adjustments needed internally) | 13% | 22% |
| Minimal impact (sufficient financial resources available) | 5% | 7% |
| Don’t know | 5% | 9% |
Table 22: Ability to absorb or fund enhanced partnership working
| Following your estimate, could your organisation absorb or fund the costs associated with enhanced partnership working within your current budgets? | Categorised responders | VCFS organisations |
|---|---|---|
| Yes | 10% | 15% |
| No | 60% | 57% |
| Don’t know | 30% | 28% |
Capacity for joint initiatives within strengthened partnership working
When considering their organisation’s overall capacity for joint initiatives to implement a strengthened statutory duty, “insufficient” was the most common single response for both groups (38% of VCFS organisations and 49% of categorised responders). 56% of categorised responders anticipated “insufficient” or “very insufficient” capacity, compared to 42% of VCFS organisations. 34% of categorised responders noted “fully sufficient” or “sufficient” capacity, compared to 40% of VCFS organisations.
Table 23: Projected capacity for joint initiatives within strengthened partnership working
| If a statutory requirement existed for strengthened engagement, to support preparing for and responding to emergencies, how would you rate your organisation’s capacity for joint initiatives? | Categorised responders | VCFS organisations |
|---|---|---|
| Fully sufficient (anticipate fully adequate resources to undertake joint initiatives) | 4% | 12% |
| Sufficient (anticipate adequate resourcing to participate in joint initiatives) | 30% | 28% |
| Mostly sufficient (anticipate very adequate resourcing to undertake joint initiatives) | 11% | 18% |
| Insufficient (anticipate limited resources to participate in joint initiatives) | 49% | 38% |
| Very insufficient (anticipate very limited resources to participate in joint initiatives) | 7% | 4% |
Perceived future challenges for strengthened partnership working
For categorised responders, financial and administrative issues were their most significant concerns. The primary issue identified was “existing financial constraints” (77%), closely followed by an “increased administrative burden” (75%), and “limited existing paid personnel capacity” (61%). Only 5% of categorised responders stated that there would be “no issues.”
For VCFS organisations, primary concerns were related to capacity and funding. The primary issue identified was “limited existing paid personnel capacity” (65%), which was closely followed by “existing financial constraints” (61%). “Increased administrative burden” (54%) and the “need for additional training” (52%) was also noted by VCFS organisations. Only 4% of organisations stated that there would be “no issues”.
While both groups shared similar concerns, their priorities differed notably. Categorised responders were more likely to note “existing financial constraints” and an “increased administrative burden”, when compared to VCFS organisations. Personnel capacity was the primary concern for VCFS organisations, whilst this was the third-ranked concern for categorised responders . VCFS organisations were also more likely to see “legal and regulatory complications” as an issue, when compared to categorised responders.
Table 24: Perceived challenges of a strengthened statutory duty for partnership working
| Thinking about the implementation of a strengthened statutory duty for partnership working to prepare for and respond to emergencies, which of the following (if any) could cause issues for your organisation? | Categorised responders | VCFS organisations |
|---|---|---|
| Existing financial constraints | 77% | 61% |
| Increased administrative burden | 75% | 54% |
| Limited existing paid personnel capacity | 61% | 65% |
| Need for additional training | 48% | 52% |
| Legal and regulatory complications | 30% | 42% |
| Limited material resource constraints | 26% | 27% |
| There would be no issues | 5% | 4% |
| Excluded all “Don’t know” respondents |
What we will do next
The public consultation on strengthening partnership working between VCFS organisations and categorised responders, collected valuable data on existing partnership working practices, and the complex potential effects of strengthening regulations. The data reveals there is no consensus in favour of one particular course of action and differences in views between VCFS organisations and categorised responders, within some areas. It is therefore not clear that amending the regulation for partnership working would meet the intent of the Grenfell Tower recommendation.
Based on this evidence, the Government will undertake further analysis on the data collected from the public consultation, and will consider further options, alongside the development of alternative strategies. A final decision on regulatory changes will be taken as part of the post-implementation review of the Civil Contingencies Act in 2027, although non-regulatory work to strengthen partnership working is likely to take place before that. No immediate action is required by categorised responders or VCFS organisations as a result of this consultation, beyond their existing duties and practices. Any future changes will be communicated to relevant stakeholders through existing communication channels.
Annex of data tables
Raw data
| Question: How many paid employees are there in your organisation? (VCFS organisations) | Responses from VCFS organisations | Responses from categorised responders |
|---|---|---|
| 0 to 9 employees | 65% | - |
| 10 to 49 employees | 19% | - |
| 50 to 249 employees | 11% | - |
| 250 or more employees | 5% | - |
| Total number of respondents | 100 | - |
| How many volunteers are there in your organisation? (VCFS organisations) | Responses from VCFS organisations | Responses from categorised responders |
|---|---|---|
| 0 to 9 volunteers | 25% | - |
| 10 to 49 volunteers | 38% | - |
| 50 to 249 volunteers | 19% | - |
| 250 or more volunteers | 18% | - |
| Total number of respondents | 100 | - |
| What is the annual income band for your organisation? (VCFS organisations) | Responses from VCFS organisations | Responses from categorised responders |
|---|---|---|
| Less than £10,000 | 20% | - |
| £10,000 to £100,000 | 29% | - |
| £100,000 to £1 million | 28% | - |
| More than £1 million | 23% | - |
| Total number of respondents | 100 | - |
| What is the main purpose of your organisation? (VCFS organisations) | Responses from VCFS organisations | Responses from categorised responders |
|---|---|---|
| Community support and mutual aid | 25% | - |
| Emergency planning and response | 24% | - |
| Local infrastructure organisations or local membership body | 15% | - |
| Religion, belief or faith | 13% | - |
| Village halls | 8% | - |
| Other (less than 5 organisations in the consultation) | 15% | - |
| Total number of respondents | 100 | - |
| We would like to know more about the reach of your organisation. Where does your organisation primarily operate? Select one answer | Responses from VCFS organisations | Responses from categorised responders |
|---|---|---|
| UK-wide (England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland) | 25% | 9% |
| Great Britain (England, Scotland and Wales) | 5% | 5% |
| England only | 66% | 72% |
| Scotland only | - | 6% |
| Wales only | 4% | 8% |
| Total number of respondents | 100 | 64 |
| Have there been any occasions where a lack of engagement with a categorised responder / VCFS organisation has resulted in a failure or significant delay in your organisation’s ability to respond effectively to an emergency situation? | Responses from VCFS organisations | Responses from categorised responders |
|---|---|---|
| Yes | 45% | 5% |
| No | 36% | 84% |
| Don’t know | 3% | 5% |
| Not applicable | 16% | 6% |
| Total number of respondents | 100 | 64 |
| Have there been any occasions where the quality of engagement (i.e. engagement has occurred but it was not effective) with a categorised responder / VCFS organisation has resulted in a failure or significant delay in your organisation’s ability to respond effectively to an emergency situation? | Responses from VCFS organisations | Responses from categorised responders |
|---|---|---|
| Yes | 41% | 9% |
| No | 39% | 80% |
| Don’t know | 8% | 5% |
| Not applicable | 12% | 6% |
| Total number of respondents | 100 | 64 |
| The percentage of respondents which listed the following benefits as a top 5 benefit of partnership working | Responses from VCFS organisations | Responses from categorised responders |
|---|---|---|
| Sharing of community knowledge | 46% | 63% |
| Improved capabilities to respond to emergencies | 45% | 77% |
| Clear communication channels | 41% | 42% |
| Greater access to training and exercising opportunities | 40% | 28% |
| Increased overall positive impact on emergency preparedness and response | 35% | 69% |
| Increased opportunities for engagement | 30% | 46% |
| Improved clarity of roles and responsibilities | 29% | 28% |
| Supporting alignment of priorities and objectives | 19% | 12% |
| Improved accountability among partners | 8% | 8% |
| Increased funding for joint initiatives | 8% | 3% |
| Stronger incentives for collaboration | 8% | 9% |
| Pooling of personnel resources | 6% | 22% |
| There have been no benefits from partnership working | 5% | - |
| Don’t know | 3% | 2% |
| Not applicable | 12% | 2% |
| Total number of respondents | 100 | 65 |
| How often does your organisation face barriers in establishing and maintaining partnerships, with categorised responders / VCFS organisations, for activities that are relevant to emergency planning and response? | Responses from VCFS organisations | Responses from categorised responders |
|---|---|---|
| Always (barriers always impact collaboration) | 13% | 2% |
| Usually (barriers usually impact collaboration) | 8% | 9% |
| Sometimes (barriers sometimes impact collaboration) | 43% | 47% |
| Rarely (barriers rarely impact collaboration) | 19% | 25% |
| Never (barriers never impact collaboration) | 7% | 12% |
| Don’t know | 3% | 2% |
| Not applicable | 7% | 3% |
| Total number of respondents | 100 | 64 |
| The percentage of respondents which listed the following barriers as a top 5 barrier of establishing and maintaining partnerships with categorised responders / VCFS organisations. | Responses from VCFS organisations | Responses from categorised responders |
|---|---|---|
| Limited awareness of each other’s capabilities | 47% | 37% |
| Insufficient funding for joint initiatives | 39% | 57% |
| Lack of clear communication channels | 39% | 23% |
| Limited understanding of each other’s roles | 39% | 14% |
| Differing priorities and objectives | 31% | 40% |
| Limited opportunities for engagement | 29% | 17% |
| Limited personnel resources | 25% | 49% |
| Lack of opportunities for joint training and exercising | 23% | 23% |
| Lack of accountability | 10% | 14% |
| Limited incentives | 8% | 14% |
| Engagement for partnership working is of low importance to our organisation | 5% | 2% |
| Limited value in engaging | 5% | 3% |
| There are no known issues that present barriers to partnership working | 7% | 5% |
| Don’t know | 1% | - |
| Not applicable | 3% | 6% |
| Total number of respondents | 100 | 65 |
| How sufficient are your organisation’s current personnel resources for participating effectively, with categorised responders / VCFS organisations, in partnership activities relevant to emergency planning and response? | Responses from VCFS organisations | Responses from categorised responders |
|---|---|---|
| Fully sufficient (dedicated staff available to engage and support partner working) | 9% | 2% |
| Sufficient (able to engage, but may need to reprioritise other tasks occasionally) | 40% | 39% |
| Mostly sufficient (generally able to engage; may need additional surge support during peak periods) | 27% | 25% |
| Insufficient (often unable to allocate staff for partnership activities) | 15% | 25% |
| Very insufficient (staff capacity is severely limited; unable to engage in partnership activities) | 5% | 5% |
| Don’t know | 2% | 3% |
| Not applicable | 2% | 2% |
| Total number of respondents | 100 | 64 |
| Does your organisation have at least one dedicated person whose role is to establish or maintain engagement with other organisations, for the purpose of partnership working for activities that are relevant to emergency planning and response? | Responses from VCFS organisations | Responses from categorised responders |
|---|---|---|
| Yes, at least one person dedicated to partnership development | 50% | 48% |
| No dedicated role, but engagement takes place | 35% | 47% |
| No engagement is currently undertaken | 13% | 2% |
| Not applicable | 2% | 2% |
| Don’t know | - | 2% |
| Total number of respondents | 100 | 64 |
| Thinking about your existing resource. Describe the current time investment for your organisation to participate in partnership activities, with categorised responders / VCFS organisations, for emergency planning and response. | Responses from VCFS organisations | Responses from categorised responders |
|---|---|---|
| Very high investment (extensive time investment required with significant impact on other tasks) | 3% | 3% |
| High investment (significant time required that often impacts other tasks) | 6% | 16% |
| Moderate investment (moderate time required that sometimes means prioritisation of other tasks) | 55% | 42% |
| Low investment (some time required, but manageable with current workload and resource) | 16% | 22% |
| Very low investment (minimal time required to engage) | 7% | 8% |
| Don’t know | 4% | 6% |
| Not applicable | 9% | 3% |
| Total number of respondents | 100 | 64 |
| Thinking about how you engage now. How adequate are the current financial resources available for your organisation to undertake partnership working, with categorised responders / VCFS organisations, for emergency planning and response? | Responses from VCFS organisations | Responses from categorised responders |
|---|---|---|
| Completely adequate (ring-fenced funding or budget that enables proactive engagement to support ongoing activity related to emergency planning and response) | 3% | 3% |
| Very adequate (dedicated budget or funding that allows for ongoing engagement) | 2% | 3% |
| Adequate (budget exists to cover necessary costs required to maintain and support regular activity, without major issues) | 15% | 20% |
| Somewhat adequate (there is limited funding that covers only partial costs associated with participation, leading to constraints) | 48% | 47% |
| Not adequate (the organisation lacks funding essential for even basic engagement, making participation impractical) | 18% | 17% |
| Don’t know | 5% | 5% |
| Not applicable | 9% | 5% |
| Total number of respondents | 100 | 64 |
| If possible, estimate the current annual cost of providing resources to support partnership working with categorised responders / VCFS organisations, for activities that are relevant to emergency planning and response? | Responses from VCFS organisations | Responses from categorised responders |
|---|---|---|
| Less than £10,000 per year | 42% | 30% |
| Between £10,000 and £50,000 per year | 20% | 23% |
| Between £50,001 and £100,000 per year | 7% | 6% |
| More than £100,000 per year | 4% | 5% |
| Don’t know | 12% | 30% |
| Not applicable | 15% | 6% |
| Total number of respondents | 100 | 64 |
| How sufficient are the current resources (human, financial, or material) for your organisation to engage in joint initiatives with categorised responders / VCFS organisations, for activities that are relevant to emergency planning and response? | Responses from VCFS organisations | Responses from categorised responders |
|---|---|---|
| Fully sufficient (able to engage regularly in collaborative emergency planning and response activities without resource constraints) | 3% | 2% |
| Sufficient (sufficient resources to participate in initiatives without significant strain on existing capabilities or capacity) | 25% | 31% |
| Mostly sufficient (resources available to support engagement in joint initiatives with minimal issues) | 17% | 8% |
| Insufficient (limited resources, creating challenges to effectively participate in or contribute to joint activities) | 42% | 38% |
| Very insufficient (lacking essential resources, making participation in joint initiatives unfeasible or severely restricted) | 9% | 12% |
| Don’t know | 3% | 5% |
| Not applicable | 1% | 5% |
| Total number of respondents | 100 | 64 |
| What changes (if any) do you believe are necessary for your organisation to establish and maintain effective partnerships, for the purposes of emergency planning and response? | Responses from VCFS organisations | Responses from categorised responders |
|---|---|---|
| Improved communication to facilitate collaboration and information sharing between partner organisations | 70% | 42% |
| Increased funding / additional financial resources | 70% | 71% |
| Clearer guidelines and frameworks to define roles, responsibilities, and processes for partnership formation and maintenance | 66% | 62% |
| More opportunities for training and capacity building | 64% | 57% |
| Ongoing assessment and evaluation of partnerships to ensure they are functioning effectively | 49% | 35% |
| No changes necessary | - | 6% |
| Other | 17% | 15% |
| Don’t know | 2% | 2% |
| Not applicable | 1% | 5% |
| Total number of respondents | 100 | 65 |
| How challenging would it be for your organisation to implement enhanced partnership working with categorised responders / VCFS organisations, for emergency preparedness and response activities? | Responses from VCFS organisations | Responses from categorised responders |
|---|---|---|
| Extremely challenging (significant challenges and implementation is unlikely) | 2% | 5% |
| Very challenging (challenges would complicate implementation) | 8% | 11% |
| Moderately challenging (potential challenges that may require attention) | 41% | 41% |
| Slightly challenging (some logistical issues may arise, but easily manageable) | 30% | 23% |
| Not challenging (implementation would be straightforward with minimal issues) | 14% | 11% |
| Don’t know | 3% | 6% |
| Not applicable | 2% | 3% |
| Total number of respondents | 100 | 64 |
| In what way do you expect a strengthened statutory duty for stronger partnership working with categorised responders / VCFS organisations to affect your organisation’s overall resource allocation (including time, financial resources, and personnel)? | Responses from VCFS organisations | Responses from categorised responders |
|---|---|---|
| Very positive impact (it would lead to significant positive impacts from resource allocation to meet new requirements) | 13% | 8% |
| Positive impact (there would be some positive impacts from resource allocation to meet the new requirements) | 27% | 25% |
| Neutral (there would be no negative or positive impacts from resource allocation to meet new requirements) | 18% | 20% |
| Negative impact (there would be some negative impacts from resource allocation to meet new requirements) | 25% | 33% |
| Very negative impact (there would be significant negative impacts from resource allocation to meet new requirements) | 5% | 6% |
| Don’t know | 10% | 8% |
| Not applicable | 2% | - |
| Total number of respondents | 100 | 64 |
| Thinking about the implementation of a strengthened statutory duty for partnership working to prepare for and respond to emergencies, which of the following (if any) could cause issues for your organisation? | Responses from VCFS organisations | Responses from categorised responders |
|---|---|---|
| Limited existing paid personnel capacity | 63% | 58% |
| Existing financial constraints | 58% | 72% |
| Increased administrative burden | 51% | 71% |
| Need for additional training | 50% | 45% |
| Legal and regulatory complications | 40% | 28% |
| Limited material resource constraints | 26% | 25% |
| There would be no issues | 4% | 5% |
| Not applicable | 3% | 2% |
| Don’t know | 2% | 5% |
| Total number of respondents | 100 | 65 |
| If a strengthened statutory duty existed for partnership working with categorised responders / VCFS organisations, to prepare for and respond to emergencies, how would you rate your personnel resource to be able to engage effectively? | Responses from VCFS organisations | Responses from categorised responders |
|---|---|---|
| Fully sufficient (dedicated staff would be available to engage and support partner activity) | 6% | 2% |
| Sufficient (the organisation could engage, with some adjustments to ensure wider service delivery) | 32% | 30% |
| Mostly sufficient (staff would generally be available; may need additional surge support during peak periods) | 17% | 12% |
| Insufficient (the organisation would be unable to regularly allocate staff for partnership activities) | 31% | 42% |
| Very insufficient (staff capacity would be severely limited; the organisation would not have the required staff to engage in emergency planning activities) | 8% | 11% |
| Don’t know | 2% | 2% |
| Not applicable | 3% | 2% |
| Total number of respondents | 99 | 64 |
| If a strengthened statutory duty existed for partnership working with categorised responders / VCFS organisations, to prepare for and respond to emergencies, how would you rate the expected time investment for your organisation? | Responses from VCFS organisations | Responses from categorised responders |
|---|---|---|
| Very high investment (extensive time investment expected, with significant impact on other tasks) | 4% | 6% |
| High investment (significant time investment expected, that will often impact other tasks) | 13% | 22% |
| Moderate investment (moderate increase in time investment required, and may require reprioritisation of other tasks) | 51% | 50% |
| Low investment (some additional time would be needed, but manageable with current workload and resources) | 18% | 14% |
| Very low investment (minimal additional time would be required to partner) | 3% | 2% |
| Don’t know | 9% | 6% |
| Not applicable | 2% | - |
| Total number of respondents | 99 | 64 |
| If a strengthened statutory duty existed for partnership working with categorised responders / VCFS organisations, to prepare for and respond to emergencies, what would the impact be (if any) on your organisation’s current financial resources? | Responses from VCFS organisations | Responses from categorised responders |
|---|---|---|
| Critical impact (current resource would not be sufficient and additional funding would be required to support engagement) | 5% | 13% |
| Major impact (current resources may not be sufficient and additional funding would likely be required to support engagement) | 19% | 21% |
| Moderate impact (current resources may be sufficient, but additional funding may be required to support engagement) | 36% | 40% |
| Slight impact (current resources are generally sufficient, with some minor adjustments needed internally) | 21% | 13% |
| Minimal impact (sufficient financial resources available) | 7% | 5% |
| Don’t know | 9% | 5% |
| Not applicable | 2% | 3% |
| Total number of respondents | 99 | 62 |
| If possible, estimate the projected annual cost of providing resources to support partnership working with categorised responders / VCFS organisations, for emergency preparedness and response activities. | Responses from VCFS organisations | Responses from categorised responders |
|---|---|---|
| Less than £10,000 per year | 35% | 11% |
| Between £10,000 and £50,000 per year | 29% | 34% |
| Between £50,001 and £100,000 per year | 7% | 10% |
| More than £100,000 per year | 1% | 10% |
| Don’t know | 22% | 32% |
| Not applicable | 5% | 3% |
| Total number of respondents | 99 | 62 |
| Following your estimate, could your organisation absorb or fund the costs associated with enhanced partnership working within your current budgets? | Responses from VCFS organisations | Responses from categorised responders |
|---|---|---|
| Yes | 14% | 10% |
| No | 55% | 58% |
| Don’t know | 27% | 29% |
| Not applicable | 4% | 3% |
| Total number of respondents | 99 | 62 |
| If a statutory requirement existed for strengthened engagement with categorised responders / VCFS organisations, to support preparing for and responding to emergencies, how would you rate your organisation’s capacity for joint initiatives? | Responses from VCFS organisations | Responses from categorised responders |
|---|---|---|
| Fully sufficient (anticipate fully adequate resources to undertake joint initiatives) | 11% | 3% |
| Sufficient (anticipate adequate resourcing to participate in joint initiatives) | 27% | 28% |
| Mostly sufficient (anticipate very adequate resourcing to undertake joint initiatives) | 17% | 10% |
| Insufficient (anticipate limited resources to participate in joint initiatives) | 36% | 46% |
| Very insufficient (anticipate very limited resources to participate in joint initiatives) | 4% | 7% |
| Don’t know | 2% | 5% |
| Not applicable | 2% | 2% |
| Total number of respondents | 99 | 61 |
Data analysis
| How challenging would it be for your organisation to implement an enhanced partnership working, for emergency preparedness and response activities? | All respondents | Does your organisation have at least one dedicated person whose role is to establish or maintain engagement with other organisations, for the purpose of partnership working for activities that are relevant to emergency planning and response? Yes, at least one person dedicated to partnership development | Does your organisation have at least one dedicated person whose role is to establish or maintain engagement with other organisations, for the purpose of partnership working for activities that are relevant to emergency planning and response? No dedicated role, but engagement takes place |
|---|---|---|---|
| VCFS organisations | - | - | - |
| Extremely challenging (significant challenges and implementation is unlikely) | 2% | - | 6% |
| Very challenging (challenges would complicate implementation) | 8% | 4% | 6% |
| Moderately challenging (potential challenges that may require attention) | 43% | 42% | 54% |
| Slightly challenging (some logistical issues may arise, but easily manageable) | 32% | 38% | 26% |
| Not challenging (implementation would be straightforward with minimal issues) | 15% | 16% | 9% |
| Categorised responders | - | - | - |
| Extremely challenging (significant challenges and implementation is unlikely) | 5% | - | 7% |
| Very challenging (challenges would complicate implementation) | 12% | 11% | 14% |
| Moderately challenging (potential challenges that may require attention) | 45% | 39% | 52% |
| Slightly challenging (some logistical issues may arise, but easily manageable) | 26% | 36% | 17% |
| Not challenging (implementation would be straightforward with minimal issues) | 12% | 14% | 10% |
| If a strengthened statutory duty existed for partnership working, to prepare for and respond to emergencies, how would you rate your personnel resource to be able to engage effectively? | All respondents | Does your organisation have at least one dedicated person whose role is to establish or maintain engagement with other organisations, for the purpose of partnership working for activities that are relevant to emergency planning and response? Yes, at least one person dedicated to partnership development | Does your organisation have at least one dedicated person whose role is to establish or maintain engagement with other organisations, for the purpose of partnership working for activities that are relevant to emergency planning and response? No dedicated role, but engagement takes place |
|---|---|---|---|
| VCFS organisations | - | - | - |
| Fully sufficient (dedicated staff would be available to engage and support partner activity) | 6% | 12% | - |
| Sufficient (the organisation could engage, with some adjustments to ensure wider service delivery) | 34% | 35% | 34% |
| Mostly sufficient (staff would generally be available; may need additional surge support during peak periods) | 18% | 27% | 9% |
| Insufficient (the organisation would be unable to regularly allocate staff for partnership activities) | 33% | 25% | 43% |
| Very insufficient (staff capacity would be severely limited; the organisation would not have the required staff to engage in emergency planning activities) | 9% | - | 14% |
| Categorised responders | - | - | - |
| Fully sufficient (dedicated staff would be available to engage and support partner activity) | 2% | - | 3% |
| Sufficient (the organisation could engage, with some adjustments to ensure wider service delivery) | 30% | 37% | 23% |
| Mostly sufficient (staff would generally be available; may need additional surge support during peak periods) | 13% | 23% | 3% |
| Insufficient (the organisation would be unable to regularly allocate staff for partnership activities) | 44% | 30% | 60% |
| Very insufficient (staff capacity would be severely limited; the organisation would not have the required staff to engage in emergency planning activities) | 11% | 10% | 10% |
-
Recommendations 43. Grenfell Tower Inquiry Phase 2 Report: Government response ↩