Fire safety guidance - existing high rise domestic buildings and specialised housing and similar premises: impact and effectiveness

2. Approach to the research

2.1 Approach

The research comprised two elements: (i) qualitative depth interviews; and (ii) a quantitative online survey. Interviews were carried out with housing and care providers across Scotland (see section 2.2). Interviews were also carried out with a number of other relevant informants:

Representative organisations within the housing sector, including the Scottish Federation of Housing Association (the SFHA) and the Association of Local Authority Chief Housing Officers (ALACHO)

Unpaid carers: eight interviews with a carers across Scotland providing support and care for relatives and friends in their own homes

All interviews were conducted between 20 January and 8 April 2021. The interviews lasted up to 90 minutes. Unpaid carers each received £40 as a thank you for participating; the other respondents did not receive a monetary incentive for participating. A copy of the topic guides used for the discussions are included in Appendix C. This element of the research was used to both inform the questionnaire development for the quantitative research (online survey) and to contextualise the quantitative results.

The quantitative survey was conducted online. The questionnaire was developed to cover both the evaluation of the Practical Fire Safety Guidance for Existing High Rise Domestic Buildings and the Practical Fire Safety Guidance for Existing Specialised Housing, with automated routing taking respondents to the relevant sections of the survey. This approach ensured that feedback was gathered from organisations that owned or managed both high rise domestic buildings and specialised housing. The fieldwork took place between 11 March and the 6 April 2019. A copy of the questionnaire is included in Appendix D.

2.2 Sample

The first stage in the research process was to develop the sampling frame, which was used for both the qualitative and quantitative stages. This work was undertaken in collaboration with the Scottish Government policy team. The Scottish Government policy team provided an initial set of sample information, covering local authorities, private organisations and other stakeholders. The detail available for each 'contact' varied, with fields provided including some or, in a few cases, all of the following: property address, tenure, local authority area, generic contact details (for example info@ email, the organisation switchboard phone number, the chief executive's name); or specific contact details (named contact, direct dial, direct email address of the personnel responsible for fire safety in high-rise buildings, job role, telephone number and email address).

A small team within Progressive worked through the list:

Contacting the listed organisations to update/refine the information to include contact details of personnel responsible for fire safety

Identifying additional organisations to be included in the sample frame

Removing organisations which did not wish to be included in the research. Notably, several private sector management compaines requested they be excluded from the research, either during this stage or later when they were approached to take part in the qualitative interviews or the online survey. Generally these organisations wished to be excluded because resources were, at the time, too stretched to participate in the qualitative/quantitative research.

There are around 774 high rise properties in Scotland. These were grouped on the Scottish Government contact database: under 15 local authorities, 15-20 housing associations and a list of around 250 mainly privately owned blocks. On review, it was established that a relatively small number of property management companies/factors were responsible for the listed properties. Once this list was cleaned, and all duplicates removed, there were some 70 high rise contacts covering local authorities, housing assocations and management companies/factors.

Contacts were also provided for specialised housing, mainly social housing providers and relevant stakeholders. Once the contact list was cleaned, there were 32 contacts.

The list also included a number of umbrella organisations. These organisations were approached and three agreed to publicise the survey and circulate the survey link to their membership. These organisations covered local authority housing, social rented housing and care providers.

2.3 Qualitative research

A target of 12 depth interviews was set for the high rise consultation phase of the research, split between local authorities, social landlords, private owners/managers and stakeholders. This target proved challenging (see section 2.7 below). In total 8 interviews were conducted with relevant organisations: 6 housing providers and 2 representative organisations (4 of these were also consulted on the specialised housing guidance). While the target was not achieved, the organisations interviewed included several very large organisations, and achieved a spread across local authority, housing association and property management organisations.

The users of the specialised housing guidance are a diverse group, potentially encompassing primarily housing providers, but also care providers and friends and family. A target of 10 interviews with housing and care providers was therefore set for the specialised housing phase of the research. A total of 11 interviews were conducted with relevant staff from organisations: 10 from housing and care providers and one from a representative organisation (as noted above, 4 of these were also consulted on the high rise guidance).

A further target of 8 depth interviews with unpaid carers (people who care for friends/family in their own homes) was also set. Eight interviews were conducted with unpaid carers.

Table 2.1: Profile of depth interview participants

	Depth interviews
High rise only1	4
High rise and Specialised housing2	4
Specialised housing only	7
Unpaid carers	8
Total	23

Notes:

1 – includes 1 stakeholder organisation

2 – includes 1 stakeholder organisation

Participants were recruited from the sampling frame by Progressive's team of experienced recruiters. Typically an introductory email was sent to the named contact/organisation, and followed up by a telephone call. The recruiter would often require several calls to identify the correct person within the organisation. A follow-up email with additional information about the project would be provided where requested. Given the nature of this research, we did not offer incentives to respondents from organisations to participate. Unpaid carers were each given £40 as a thank you for their time.

The aim was to interview the member of staff with strategic oversight for fire safety for the organisation; someone who would have a clear understanding of the policy, strategy and investment within the organisation.

Topic guides were developed to cover all research objectives: one each for high rise housing staff, specialised housing staff, other stakeholders and unpaid carers. These were provided to the Scottish Government for review and sign off.

To maximise opportunities to take part in the research process, all respondents were offered the choice of being interviewed by telephone or online. All opted for online (either Teams or Zoom depending on preference) and each interview lasted around 45 minutes to an hour. Staff (housing and care providers, and representative bodies) were provided with a link to the guidance (High Rise and/or Specialised Housing) prior the interview, so they had an opportunity to review it before the discussion. Unpaid carers were emailed an extract from the Specialised Housing guidance, containing Part 1: Person-centred fire safety risk assessment and Annexes 3-5. Paper copies of this extract were made available as required.

Interviews were recorded with participants' permission and transcribed to ensure the appropriate level of detail was captured in the analysis^[1].

2.4 HSEU consultation

The Housing Support Enabling Unit (HSEU) hosted a fire safety roundtable event on 10 March 2021. There were delegates from organisations at the event covering a wide geography across the country and a broad range of stock sizes, support and building types. HSEU produced a report from the discussion, which was made available to Scottish Government, and which is now available from the SFHA and the Housing Support Enabling Unit. The findings and recommendations from this roundtable discussion are taken into account in chapter 4.

2.5 Quantitative research

Questionnaire development

The questionnaire was designed to be administered as an online survey. The questionnaire covered all of the questions outlined in the research brief and was informed by the ongoing programme of qualitative research. It was piloted internally for timing and sense. The survey length was estimated at around 15 minutes.

The final questionnaire was scripted using SNAP software and the survey link thoroughly checked by Progressive to ensure it was accurate and all routing was in place. Review and approval from the Scottish Government policy team was also sought at all stages of design and script testing.

Distribution

The survey was launched online on 11 March 2021. It was accompanied by an introductory email which explained why the research was being conducted and how the data will be used. The email was sent directly from Progressive to all contacts on the database with a unique survey link for every respondent.

In addition, umbrella organisations who had said they would be willing assist by publicising and/or distributing the survey link were contacted and provided with information about the survey and unique links. Scottish Government was also provided with a link in case anyone asked them for a survey link.

In order to maximise the response:

The survey length was kept short, and was indicated on the covering email

A clear description of the survey purpose and relevance to the organisation was provided

Two reminder emails were sent to those on the contact database who had not responded.

The survey deadline was extended to enable more people to respond

Towards the end of fieldwork Progressive telephone interviewers telephoned non-responders and asked them to complete the survey. It was also hoped this would pick up any instances where the original email had been missed or been swept into a 'junk' folder.

Ethical issues relating to the survey being conducted online, such as access to online facilities, were not considered an issue, due to this being a business to business survey. It was considered that business respondents would not experience any barriers to responding to an online survey. We did not include a prize draw as we considered that most respondents would be within the social sector, and would be uncomfortable/unable to accept this inducement.

Survey response

A total of 24 responses were achieved. This was a response rate of around 24%, somewhat below our target of 35%. However, given many of the contacts available on the database were not named or had a generic email address, this was considered reasonable response from the sample frame. Table 2.2 below provides a profile of those responding.

Six of the survey respondents also took part in the qualitative depth interviews. This means that responses have been received from 33 organisations in total across both the qualitative and quantitative phases of the evaluation.

Table 2.2: Profile of the response

SQ1. Firstly, what description best fits your organisation or business
	Total Sample	High rise	Specialised	Both High rise and Specialised
Housing association	13	2	7	4
Local authority	6	3	1	2
Building management company	2	2	-	-
Care provider	2	-	2	-
Other	1	-	1	-
Base: All	24	7	11	6

2.6 Limitations to the research

Qualitative research

The overall sample of achieved depth interviews was smaller than anticipated. Recruiting the participants was challenging because of the smaller contact list, fewer direct contacts within the list, and difficulties encountered contacting those organisations without direct contacts. However, those interviews that were achieved included representation of organisations with significant high rise and specialised stock within Scotland, and covered a range of tenures.

The one aspect of the research that was not so well reflected within the qualitative research was there was only limited representation of organisations who were unaware/less aware of the guidance. Of the 15 participants representing organisations, one would be categorised as 'less aware' and one 'not aware' prior to their interaction with Progressive. While it seems likely that most in the social housing sector will have some awareness, it is less clear cut that those in the wider care sector and the private housing sector will do so.

Quantitative research

Our expectation for the research was that the online survey would provide robust quantitative data as a key element of the evaluation. Information provided during the tendering process indicated that there were around 280 separate high rise contacts covering 15 local authorities, 15 to 20 housing associations and around 250 from mainly privately owned blocks.

However, early analysis revealed that the 250 privately-owned blocks were not individual cases, but under various group management arrangements; meaning the total number of high rise contacts would be significantly lower than anticipated.

The sampling frame for specialised housing and care providers was to be compiled from umbrella organisations, housing associations, charities, regulators and local government. The likely number of possible contacts was not known at the outset of the evaluation.

Once the all duplicates removed, there were just over 100 contacts: high rise (70 contacts) and specialised housing (32 contacts). In addition to those contacts included on the lists, the survey link was sent to key stakeholders/umbrella bodies who agreed to send it on to their members, principally social housing providers and care providers.

The limited contact list sample frame impacted on the quantitative response: a total of 24 responses was received. While this equates to a 25% response rate, the actual number is small, and does not permit detailed quantitative analysis. We would make the following observations.

We would expect the contact list to provide a reasonable reflection of the high rise stock. Indeed, the organisations who took part in the research are responsible for c.34% of the high rise stock in Scotland.

The contact list itself could have been more precise – as noted above, in many cases, it contained only general contact details despite several attempts to track down the appropriate person within the organisation. Home-working and reduced staffing levels were undoubtedly limiting factors within the organisations contacted.

The specialised housing list was less complete. We would expect more than 32 organisations across Scotland to provide specialised housing and care. Development of a more complete contact list – both to underpin further research and dissemination of guidance, would be indicated.

Interviews held at the end of the fieldwork period suggested there may have been merit in extending the scope of the survey and/or depth interviews, to include a wider range of informants, such as residential lettings, surveyors, architects; as well as involving professional bodies such as the Property Managers Association Scotland

To reflect the limitations in the quantitative sample, an adjustment has been made to the reporting approach. The report focuses on the qualitative (depth interview) research, the survey data are reported as absolutes (not percentages) and no sub-group analysis is provided.