Stress and Wellbeing
Understanding Employee Wellbeing and the Work Environment in the UK Fire and Rescue Services
Exploring Employee Stress and Wellbeing in the UK FRS
The Stress and Wellbeing dimension of the Fire Culture Monitor offers a comprehensive picture of how employees experience wellbeing and the factors that shape it. Drawing on feedback from across the UK Fire and Rescue Services, this dashboard identifies the organisational pressures and supports that influence psychological health and resilience. The insights presented here are designed to help leadership and teams recognise strengths, address sources of stress, and promote a healthier, more supportive working environment.
This dimension is based on two evidence-based frameworks that together provide a balanced understanding of workplace wellbeing:
- The Psychological Wellbeing Index, derived from the World Health Organisation’s WHO-5 Wellbeing Scale, measures overall positive mental wellbeing.
- The Health and Safety Executive’s Stress Management Standards Indicator Tool, which examines seven critical areas — Demands, Control, Manager Support, Peer Support, Relationships, Role, and Change. Higher scores on these indexes indicate lower risk of workplace stress and stronger organisational support.
Explore Stress and Wellbeing in the UK Fire and Rescue Services
Use the links below to navigate through the key insights and Indexes in this dimension. Each section provides detailed data and analysis to help you understand the experiences and perceptions of stress and wellbeing within the UK FRS.
Psychological Wellbeing Index
The Psychological Wellbeing Index measures respondents’ mental wellbeing using the World Health Organisation’s WHO-5 Wellbeing Scale, an established international measure. Its five questions ask how frequently respondents have felt cheerful, calm, active, rested and interested in daily life over the previous two weeks.
Responses are converted into weighted scores and combined to create an individual index on a 0–100 scale, with higher scores indicating better wellbeing. The headline figure summarises these individual indexes across respondents who completed all five questions. Alongside this, we report the percentage of respondents below the WHO-5 threshold for poor mental wellbeing, providing a further indication of potential support needs.
The index provides a snapshot of wellbeing among participating staff. Examining it alongside workplace experiences, leadership and organisational culture can help services identify patterns and priorities for action. Wellbeing also reflects circumstances outside work, so these findings do not establish that workplace conditions caused the experiences reported.
Psychological Wellbeing Index
Breakdown of responses to individual items within the Psychological Wellbeing Index.
Comparison of Wellbeing Index scores across different groups.
Percentage of UK FRS employees reporting poor mental wellbeing
More than one in three respondents reported poor mental wellbeing
36.8% of respondents scored below the WHO-5 threshold for poor mental wellbeing.
Wellbeing was measured using the WHO-5, which asks five questions about how people have felt over the past two weeks. Each response is scored from 0 to 5. These scores are added together and multiplied by four to produce a score from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating better wellbeing.
Scores below 50 indicate poor mental wellbeing and suggest that further assessment may be beneficial. This is a screening indicator, rather than a diagnosis of a mental health condition.
These findings describe respondents from the two participating services and should not be interpreted as a national estimate for the UK fire and rescue workforce.
%
Percentage of FRS employees reporting poor mental wellbeing
Comparison of the percentage of UK FRS employees reporting poor mental wellbeing
Key Findings
More than one in three respondents (37%) scored below the WHO-5 threshold for poor mental wellbeing. The overall Psychological Wellbeing Index was 57 out of 100. Together, these findings show why it is useful to look beyond the headline index: a substantial proportion of respondents reported wellbeing levels that indicate a potential need for further assessment and support.
Feeling rested was a particular concern. Over half of respondents (54%) reported waking fresh and rested less than half the time, including those who answered “some of the time” or “at no time”. Only 23% felt rested most or all of the time. This highlights rest and recovery as an important area for further investigation, including how working patterns, workload and circumstances outside work may affect staff.
Wellbeing was less favourable among respondents with longer service. Those with two years’ service or less had an index score of 66, compared with 53 among those with 11 or more years. The proportion below the poor-wellbeing threshold increased from 19% to 47% across these groups. This suggests that services should consider how support needs differ throughout a career. It does not establish that wellbeing deteriorates as an individual’s length of service increases.
Other differences identify groups whose experiences warrant closer attention. Among respondents aged 36–45, 46% fell below the poor-wellbeing threshold. The corresponding figure was 43% among supervisory management, compared with 33% among practitioners.
The findings support a broad approach to workforce wellbeing. Accessible individual support should sit alongside examination of working conditions, opportunities for recovery and the experiences of staff at different career stages.
Job Demands Index
Job Demands Index
The Job Demands Index explores how employees in the UK FRS experience the demands placed on them at work. Drawing on the demands questions from the Health and Safety Executive’s Management Standards Indicator Tool, it covers workload, work intensity and pace, competing priorities, deadlines, pressure to work long hours and opportunities to take sufficient breaks.
Respondents report how frequently they have experienced these pressures over the previous six months. Responses are converted into weighted scores and combined into an index ranging from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating more favourable experiences and less frequent exposure to excessive or conflicting demands.
The index provides an overall picture, while the individual questions reveal which pressures are most common. Examining these findings alongside staff wellbeing and feedback can help the UK FRS identify priorities for reviewing workload allocation, staffing, scheduling and task expectations, supporting healthier and more sustainable working conditions.
Job Demands Index
Detailed breakdown of responses to items within the Job Demands Index.
Comparison of Job Demands Index scores across different groups within the FRS.
Key Findings
The overall Job Demands Index was 56 out of 100, with higher scores indicating more favourable experiences. Responses about the previous six months reveal a mixed picture: some pressures were uncommon for many respondents, but intensive working, competing priorities and having more tasks than could be completed were recurring concerns.
Work intensity was the most widespread pressure. Almost two in five respondents (38%) often or always had to work very intensively, while a further 52% experienced this sometimes. 31% often or always faced demands from different groups that were difficult to combine. These pressures also affected respondents’ ability to complete their work: 26%often or always had to neglect some tasks because they had too much to do, and another 40% experienced this sometimes.
There were positive findings. 63% never or seldom found themselves unable to take sufficient breaks, 56% never or seldom felt pressured to work long hours, and 55% never or seldom faced unachievable deadlines. However, these experiences were not universal: 14% often or always lacked sufficient breaks, 15% felt pressured to work long hours, and 16% experienced unachievable deadlines.
Management groups reported less favourable experiences of job demands. Practitioners recorded an index score of 64, compared with 51 for supervisory management and 50 for middle management. Among the role categories presented, station/group managers had the lowest score (46), followed by watch/crew supervisory managers (52). Respondents with 11 or more years’ service also reported less favourable experiences than those with two years or less (51 compared with 68).
Job Control Index
The Job Control Index explores how employees in the UK FRS perceive their ability to influence their work, including its pace, how tasks are carried out, when breaks are taken and flexibility in working time. It draws on the control questions from the Health and Safety Executive’s Management Standards Indicator Tool.
Responses are converted into weighted scores and combined into an index ranging from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating greater perceived control. Examining these findings alongside workload and wellbeing helps identify where staff may benefit from greater influence over their working arrangements.
The findings should be interpreted in the context of different roles. Emergency response, incident command and standard operating procedures necessarily constrain some aspects of operational work. Lower scores therefore need to be explored alongside these requirements, while considering where meaningful opportunities for staff choice and involvement remain.
Job Control Index
Breakdown of responses to items within the Job Control Index.
Comparison of Job Control Index scores across groups in the UK FRS.
Key Findings
The overall Job Control Index was 64 out of 100, with higher scores indicating greater control over work. The responses suggest that many staff have some influence over their working arrangements, although this varies considerably between roles.
There were positive findings around everyday autonomy. Approximately 74% of respondents could often or always decide when to take a break, and 73% agreed that they had some say over the way they worked. Around 59% often or always had a choice in how to carry out their work.
Choice over which tasks to undertake was more limited. Only 36% often or always had a choice in deciding what they did at work, while 26% never or seldom had this choice. This suggests that respondents generally had greater discretion over how they approached their work than over the work allocated to them.
Job control varied considerably between roles. Support staff recorded an index score of 78, compared with 49 for wholetime/shift firefighters, 47 for control staff and 45 for on-call/volunteer firefighters. These differences should be interpreted in the context of the work. Operational staff respond to emergencies whose timing, nature and demands are largely outside their control. Their actions are also guided by incident command arrangements and standard operating procedures that support safe and coordinated responses. Some differences in job control are therefore expected.
The findings provide a starting point for examining where greater discretion is feasible within these requirements. This could include staff involvement in planning routine work, organising training, arranging breaks when operationally possible, and contributing to decisions about working practices. Follow-up discussions can help distinguish necessary operational constraints from areas where staff could reasonably have more influence.
Manager Support Index
The Manager Support Index explores how employees in the UK FRS experience support from their line managers, including helpful feedback, encouragement, assistance with work problems and opportunities to discuss concerns. It also considers whether staff feel supported through emotionally demanding work.
Higher scores indicate more favourable experiences of managerial support. The findings help identify strengths in everyday management and areas where support could be more accessible and consistent, informing how the service equips managers to support their teams.
Manager Support Index
Item-level responses within the Manager Support Index.
Comparison of Manager Support Index scores across groups in the UK FRS.
Key Findings
The overall Manager Support Index was 68 out of 100, with higher scores indicating more favourable experiences. Responses about the previous six months highlight positive relationships with line managers for many staff, alongside areas where support could be more consistent.
Being able to talk to a manager was a particular strength. Three quarters of respondents (75%) agreed that they could discuss something that had upset or annoyed them about work. 70% agreed that their line manager encouraged them, and 68% could often or always rely on their manager for help with a work problem. These findings suggest that managers provide an accessible source of support for many respondents.
Supportive feedback was less consistently experienced. Just over half (54%) often or always received supportive feedback, while 22% never or seldom received it. A further 25% received it sometimes. This identifies an opportunity to strengthen regular conversations about staff contributions, progress and development.
Support through emotionally demanding work also warrants attention. 57% agreed that they received this support, while 18% disagreed and 26% were neutral. Neutral responses should not be treated as evidence of inadequate support, but further discussion could clarify whether they reflect mixed experiences, uncertainty about available support or limited exposure to emotionally demanding work.
Experiences differed across the workforce. Respondents with two years’ service or less recorded an index score of 79, compared with 60 among those with 11 or more years. Supervisory management scored 62, below practitioners (72) and middle management (68). Within the role categories presented, on-call/volunteer firefighters (56) and watch/crew supervisory managers (57) reported the least favourable experiences.
The findings suggest priorities around regular supportive feedback, support for emotionally demanding work, and ensuring that supervisors themselves receive sufficient support. Follow-up discussions with on-call staff and longer-serving respondents could help identify barriers to accessing consistent managerial support.
Peer Support Index
The Peer Support Index explores how employees in the UK FRS experience support from their colleagues, including receiving help when work becomes difficult, having someone willing to listen to work-related problems, and being treated with respect.
The index draws on the Health and Safety Executive’s Management Standards Indicator Tool, which assesses working conditions associated with work-related stress. Higher scores indicate stronger peer support, while lower scores highlight limitations in support that may contribute to stress. The findings help identify where strengthening everyday working relationships and mutual support could improve staff experiences and wellbeing.
Peer Support Index
Item-level responses within the Peer Support Index.
Comparison of Peer Support Index scores across groups in the UK FRS.
Key Findings
Peer support: strong foundations, but experiences are not universal
The overall Peer Support Index was 73 out of 100, with higher scores indicating more favourable experiences. Responses about the previous six months suggest that colleagues provide an important source of practical help and support for many staff.
Being willing to listen was a particular strength. 80% of respondents agreed that colleagues were willing to listen to their work-related problems, and 78% agreed that they received the help and support they needed from colleagues. 73%reported that colleagues often or always helped when work became difficult.
However, positive experiences were not shared by everyone. One in ten respondents reported never or seldom receiving help when work became difficult. While 72% agreed that they received the respect they deserved from colleagues, 10%disagreed and 18% were neutral. These findings indicate that practical support and respectful treatment both warrant attention when strengthening team relationships.
Peer support was less favourably rated by longer-serving respondents. Those with two years’ service or less recorded an index score of 82, compared with 68 among those with 11 or more years. Supervisory management also reported less favourable experiences (69) than practitioners (76). Among the role categories presented, on-call/volunteer firefighters (65) and station/group managers (66) recorded the lowest scores, compared with 77 among support staff.
The findings suggest a strong foundation of collegial support to sustain and build upon. Priorities include understanding why some staff experience limited help or respect, and whether working arrangements affect opportunities to connect with colleagues. Follow-up discussions with on-call staff, managers and longer-serving respondents could help identify practical ways to make support more consistent.
Work Relationships Index
The Work Relationships Index examines how effectively relationships within North Yorkshire Fire and Rescue Service are managed to minimise conflict and promote mutual respect. As part of the Health and Safety Executive’s Stress Management Standards, this measure explores the quality of interpersonal dynamics, teamwork, and everyday interactions that shape the working environment. Healthy relationships are a cornerstone of psychological safety and a respectful workplace culture.
Work Relationships Index
Item-level responses within the Work Relationships Index.
Comparison of Work Relationships Index scores across groups in the UK FRS.
Key Findings
The overall Work Relationships Index was 76 out of 100, with higher scores indicating more favourable experiences. Most respondents reported never experiencing personal harassment (65%) or bullying (76%) during the previous six months, and 58% disagreed that relationships at work were strained. However, the headline index sits alongside negative experiences for a substantial minority.
35% reported personal harassment in the form of unkind words or behaviour at least seldom, including 17% who experienced this sometimes, often or always. Similarly, 24% reported bullying at least seldom, including 12% who experienced it sometimes, often or always. These figures show why it is important to examine individual responses alongside the index: infrequently reported behaviour still warrants attention. The harassment and bullying percentages may include the same respondents and should not be added together.
Wider tensions were also evident. 17% reported friction or anger between colleagues often or always, with a further 28%experiencing this sometimes. 19% agreed that workplace relationships were strained. These findings suggest that addressing everyday conflict and how colleagues treat one another should accompany action on bullying and harassment.
Experiences varied across the workforce. On-call/volunteer firefighters recorded the lowest index among the role categories presented (64), followed by watch/crew supervisory managers (68), compared with 82 among support staff. Respondents with 11 or more years’ service also reported less favourable experiences than those with two years or less (71 compared with 85).
The findings support priorities around clear behavioural expectations, early resolution of conflict, accessible reporting routes and confidence that concerns will receive a fair response. Further discussion with groups reporting less favourable experiences could help identify where action is most needed.
Work Role Index
The Work Role Index explores how clearly employees in the UK FRS understand what is expected of them, their duties and responsibilities, and how to carry out their work. It also considers whether staff understand their department’s objectives and how their work contributes to the organisation’s wider aims.
The index draws on the Health and Safety Executive’s Management Standards Indicator Tool, which assesses working conditions associated with work-related stress. Higher scores indicate greater role clarity, while lower scores highlight uncertainty that may contribute to stress. The findings help identify where clearer expectations, communication and guidance could support staff in their work.
Work Role Index
Item-level responses within the Work Role Index.
Comparison of Work Role Index scores across groups in the UK FRS.
Key Findings
The overall Work Role Index was 75 out of 100, with higher scores indicating greater role clarity. Responses about the previous six months suggest that most staff understood how to carry out their work and what was expected of them.
Day-to-day understanding was a particular strength. 86% of respondents often or always knew how to get their job done, 81% were clear about their duties and responsibilities, and 79% understood what was expected of them. However, clarity was not consistent for everyone: 8% were never or seldom clear about expectations, while another 13% were clear only sometimes.
Understanding of wider goals was less consistently reported. 70% were often or always clear about their department’s goals and objectives, and 73% understood how their work fitted into the organisation’s overall aim. Conversely, 30%were clear about departmental goals only sometimes, seldom or never. This suggests an opportunity to make the connection between everyday tasks, team priorities and organisational objectives more explicit.
Experiences also differed across groups. On-call/volunteer firefighters recorded the lowest index among the role categories presented (61), compared with 84 among control staff and 79 among support staff. Supervisory management scored 70, below practitioners (79) and middle management (75). Respondents with 11 or more years’ service also reported less favourable experiences (70) than those with two years or less (81).
The findings suggest that role clarity should remain an ongoing management priority beyond induction. Regular conversations about responsibilities, changing expectations and departmental objectives could help sustain clarity throughout a career. Further discussion with on-call staff and supervisors could identify where communication or clarification is most needed.
Change Index
The Change Index explores how employees in the UK FRS experience organisational change, including opportunities to question managers, consultation with staff, and clarity about how changes will work in practice.
The index draws on the Health and Safety Executive’s Management Standards Indicator Tool, which assesses working conditions associated with work-related stress. Higher scores indicate more favourable experiences of change, while lower scores highlight gaps in involvement and understanding that may contribute to uncertainty and stress. The findings help identify where clearer communication, meaningful consultation and practical guidance could better support staff through change.
Change Index
Item-level responses within the Change Index.
Comparison of Change Index scores across groups in the UK FRS.
Key Findings
The overall Change Index was 50 out of 100, with higher scores indicating more favourable experiences. Responses about the previous six months identify opportunities to strengthen staff involvement in change and explain what changes will mean in practice.
Opportunities to question managers were more positively rated than consultation. Just over half of respondents (53%) agreed that they had sufficient opportunities to question managers about change, although 27% disagreed. Only 27% agreed that staff were always consulted about change, while 42% disagreed and 30% were neutral. This suggests that opportunities to ask questions are more widely experienced than consistent consultation. Disagreement with being “always consulted” does not necessarily mean consultation never occurs.
Practical clarity was also limited. Around one third (32%) agreed that they understood how changes would work out in practice. 30% disagreed, while 37% were neutral. These findings suggest scope for clearer explanations of how changes will affect everyday responsibilities, working arrangements and expectations. Neutral responses should be distinguished from explicit reports of insufficient clarity.
Experiences varied across the workforce. On-call/volunteer firefighters recorded an index score of 37, while wholetime/shift firefighters and watch/crew supervisory managers both scored 39, compared with 61 among support staff. Supervisory management reported less favourable experiences (44) than middle management (58). Respondents with 11 or more years’ service also scored lower (43) than those with two years or less (62).
The findings point towards earlier and more consistent consultation, clearer explanations of practical implications, and feedback on how staff views inform decisions. Follow-up discussions could explore how change communication reaches different working patterns and whether supervisors have the information and support needed to help their teams through change.
Summary — Stress and Wellbeing Dimension
The Stress and Wellbeing dimension brings together the World Health Organisation’s WHO-5 Wellbeing Scale and the Health and Safety Executive’s Management Standards Indicator Tool to explore staff wellbeing and working conditions across the participating fire and rescue services. Together, these measures show how respondents are feeling alongside their experiences of workload, control, support, working relationships, role clarity and organisational change.
The findings reveal strengths in everyday support and role clarity, alongside substantial wellbeing concerns. The Psychological Wellbeing Index was 57 out of 100, with 37% of respondents scoring below the threshold for poor mental wellbeing. Over half (54%) reported waking fresh and rested less than half the time, highlighting rest and recovery as an area requiring closer attention.
Colleagues and line managers provide an important foundation for a supportive workplace culture. Around 80% of respondents agreed that colleagues would listen to work-related problems, and 75% felt able to discuss upsetting or frustrating work experiences with their line manager. Most also understood their responsibilities: 86% often or always knew how to get their job done. However, supportive feedback and support through emotionally demanding work were less consistently experienced.
These strengths coexist with pressures around workload and organisational change. 38% often or always worked very intensively, and 26% had to neglect tasks because they had too much to do. Only 27% agreed that staff were always consulted about change, while 32% understood how changes would work in practice. These findings identify potential workplace stressors around competing expectations, limited involvement and uncertainty. Differences in job control also warrant exploration, recognising that emergency response necessarily constrains some aspects of operational work.
Supportive relationships should not obscure experiences of harmful behaviour. During the previous six months, 35% reported personal harassment through unkind words or behaviour and 24% reported bullying at least seldom. These overlapping figures suggest that positive team relationships can coexist with experiences of exclusion or mistreatment. A supportive culture therefore requires consistent behavioural expectations and confidence that concerns will receive a fair response.
Taken together, the findings suggest that wellbeing should be addressed through both individual support and the way work is organised and managed. Priorities include clearer workload expectations, meaningful consultation, practical guidance during change, and consistent access to managerial and peer support. Less favourable experiences among longer-serving respondents and supervisory staff across several measures also warrant further investigation.