The Career Progression Gateway (CPG) Feedback LITE offers the main features and advantages of the CPG Online Assessment Solution, but with more streamlined marking offering a lower cost option.

As with the CPG, the CPG Feedback LITE comprises:

  • An Online Case Study
  • A Video/ Telephone Role-play


  • Exercises are set in a fictitious FRS context
  • Realistic management scenarios
  • Assesses the NFCC Leadership Qualities (LQ)
  • Appropriate for uniformed and support staff roles
  • Improved candidate perceptions of relevance and fairness
  • Online scoring
  • Detailed feedback reports and developmental guidance

Key Difference:

In the LITE version the assessor will read the candidate response (written case study or a transcript of the role-play), choose scores that are most appropriate based on the guidance supplied and select two, pre-written evidence statements in support of the score. In the CPG the evidence statements are personalised, written by the assessor for each individual candidate.

What do the reports look like?

This example is from one Case Study Leadership Quality, from the same candidate:

Example 1 – CPG Feedback Report Example- FULL

You showed some evidence of looking for opportunities to develop people and promote a learning culture.

You mentioned ‘developing out reach and experience’ and ‘Learning from the pilot could then be utilised and shared to develop the idea further’ but there was scope to address more explicitly the continuous learning and development of your team, in relation to the opportunities presented by this scenario. You referred to mentoring and support for community groups, and the opportunity to gain from new experiences, but might also have considered the benefits of this when applied to FRS staff.

You demonstrated significant evidence of setting clear work and objectives.
You were clear on your plan and aims e.g. ‘establish a 12 month pilot programme of a tri or bi-service type blue light partnership to support the aims of the Forum’. ‘This Project would provide short term, tangible work related placements and other experiences for the young people they work with.’ You recognised the value of establishing performance expectations ‘Establishing early “ground rules” for participation’. Consider how you might apply the same approach to working with your team.

You provided limited evidence of devolving responsibility for work.
You implied sharing responsibility e.g. ‘I know there are a number of station based staff with youth working/sports coaching type skills who have expressed an interest in wider community engagement’, ‘Open out initially to volunteers (some have already expressed an interest)’ but there was scope to define more explicitly how you would empower your team to maximise their contribution and sense of involvement.

Example 2 – CPG feedback report example- LITE

You showed some evidence of looking for opportunities to develop people and promote a learning culture.

You included ideas which were supportive of development, recognising the value of involvement and continuous learning. You might have expanded on this further . You were aware of the value of mentoring and coaching and explored some practical uses, although have discussed this more fully.

You demonstrated significant evidence of setting clear work and objectives.
You included actions to demonstrate the value of creating a clear vision and strategy in order to direct and motivate others. You covered some performance expectations and targets to manage outcomes.

You provided limited evidence of devolving responsibility for work.
You implied or briefly mentioned involving the team. Make sure you are clear on the reasons and provide some specifics on how this would be delivered to more fully demonstrate your understanding of the value of empowerment. Although you implied awareness of the need for delegation, you might have shown your understanding of the value of supporting ownership and your planned actions more explicitly.

The main differences are in the length of the report and degree of personal evidence noted. Both reports rely on the same assessment completed by an assessor.

The CPG Feedback LITE can be marked either by VCA or internal FRS assessors. FRS Assessors will be supported by VCA to ensure reliability and standardisation of evaluations. A minimum of two assessments per internal assessor will be second marked by a VCA assessor, with follow-up where required.

When could the CPG Feedback LITE be used?

  • For FRS’s with high numbers of candidates
  • For FRS’s with tight budgets
  • For FRS’s which are currently only using one CPG exercise but would prefer to benefit from the greater depth of assessment from both
  • For FRS’s which only use the CPG at certain managerial levels and wish to increase consistency to include other levels

When should the CPG Feedback LITE not be used?

We recommend the full version of the CPG for:

  • Promotion activity above station manager level
  • Lower volume projects e.g support staff roles

Want to see the Career Progression Gateway LITE for yourself?

Contact us to arrange an informal, ‘virtual tour’ around the CPG for you (and your team), where we can answer your
exercise, feedback, and any other questions.

How we know the CPG assessments are fair and valid?
The CPG has been designed according to BPS standards of best practice and ethics, with fair and accurate assessment methodology and standardised assessor scoring. CPG exercises are quality assured by an external Occupational Psychologist and assessed for adverse impact.

Following log-in, candidates answer demographic questions, including relating to neuro-diversity, for data analysis and monitoring purposes. The CPG is used by eight FRS’s and is an integral part of their promotions and development process. The CPG is highly defensible, even in challenging contexts. Validity and reliability studies on all client results are conducted annually. Candidate records are maintained for audit purposes and performance monitoring in compliance with GDPR regulations. Assessments are allocated a candidate number to avoid any potential assessor bias.