Fire Communications: Are You Really Listening?
FEATURES
COMMUNICATIONS
Recognizing the dispatcher as the key link between public and firefighter is just the beginning.
Fire department units believe they are operating at a routine refuse compactor in a 35-story residence building. During the operation, the dispatch center receives more than 21 additional phone messages, some from trapped occupants on upper floors, before the chief on the scene declares the minor cellar fire under control. These messages are not transmitted to the fire scene, and seven people on the top two floors perish.
A department operating at a 20th-floor fire of a high-rise office building were never told of repeated calls from a trapped occupant. As the fire grew, the woman changed location and notified dis- patchers of her new whereabouts. The information was recorded, but not transmitted to the fire scene. She was found later—dead.
These two events in New York City and Chicago have highlighted the importance of the dispatcher’s function in the suppression of fire. Not many folks think of the dispatcher in those terms. In fact, because dispatchers usually do their work both excellently and anonymously, not too many folks think about dispatchers at all —until they make headlines.
It’s understandable why the average citizen may not have occasion to think about dispatchers. Compared to the very visible firefighter who roars down the street with lights and sirens announcing his arrival, and whose heroism makes news, the dispatcher is virtually incognito.
Yet, the dispatcher’s low profile belies his important role in saving lives and extinguishing fires. Fire department personnel—and management in particular—can’t allow themselves to become forgetful or complacent about their dispatchers and the work they do.
In most cases, dispatchers do the job day in and day out without great fanfare and without serious error. It’s a very human tendency to take high performance levels for granted. Come budget time, the old adage, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it,” becomes very popular when referring to dispatch operations.
The problem lies not with that philosophy per se, but in neglecting to take steps to find out if it applies in your department’s case. Sometimes it seems that “it ain’t broke”; in reality, it may be very close to the breaking point. The question then becomes, “Do you want to wait until it’s ‘broke’?” Are you willing to sustain the effects of a breakdown in dispatch operations at a critical moment?
If your department is failing to
- initially train new dispatch personnel thoroughly in both the “inside” and “outside” aspects of their jobs;
- continually upgrade and train your veteran dispatch personnel on what’s new in their jobs and
- how to cope with it all;
- do these things in light of a strong analysis of how dispatchers make decisions and what it is they bring to those decisions, then you’re inviting trouble!
I’ve been astonished to find that some of the larger departments in the country rely almost completely on “OJT”—on-the-job training— for their dispatchers, while many smaller cities and rural areas have strong, structured training and certification programs for their emergency communications personnel. OJT is always a component of acclimation to any job. But it can’t be the primary learning method for something as complex and as critical as dispatching fire and rescue forces.
When you’ve come around to this insight, don’t fall prey to the common misconception that the dispatcher’s place is strictly in the communications center. Nothing could be further from the truth. The dispatcher should never be that isolated! She is the link between the fire and the firefighter, the lynchpin upon which the fire process turns from detection and reporting to response and extinguishment.
Sure, the alarms are received in the communications center, and the dispatch decisions are made there. But what is brought to those decisions is a controllable variable which some departments fail to influence. What influences dispatch decisions—at least partially—is the dispatcher’s knowledge of what goes on outside the center.
How do you, as fire chief or dispatch supervisor, make sure that your department isn’t heading for a communications breakdown?
Listen!
Listen to what your dispatchers are telling you. If there is a problem brewing, they are the people most likely to be aware of it.
There is a tendency to dismiss a lot of dispatchers’ complaints as the grumblings of frustrated workers. In some cases, undoubtedly, that can be true, but definitely not in all instances.
Make mental notes of your own conversations with dispatchers. You may keep hearing, for example, that a particular officer is routinely lax in reporting status updates on his company (“Lieutenant Smith never bothers to let us know’ when he has left the fireground….” or “We don’t find out that Engine One is in service until they are back in quarters….” or “If I had known that they were available, I could have sent them to the car fire—they were much closer….”). If you don’t do something about it, then you are contributing to the frustration of your dispatchers.
Don’t be upset by the presence of that frustration. It’s a very positive sign that your crew wants to do a good job.
Listen to your dispatchers’ interactions with callers, both in person and by randomly reviewing your audio tapes. If your dispatchers are becoming short with people, glib, hostile, or inappropriate in any way, you must intervene. How you intervene will make all the difference in the world.
Analyze!
Take a long, systematic look at what is going on in your dispatch center. Be objective. In your analysis of communications decisions, take care that you don’t become comfortable with what is most often routine business.
At the March 1987 Schomburg Plaza fire in Harlem that took seven lives, headlines blared, “Dispatchers Laughed At Fire Victims’ Calls.” Subsequent release of the telephone tapes revealed that, although there wasn’t any laughing, the dispatchers involved were “rude and insensitive,” according to The New York Times. Folks who read the papers found it incredible that the dispatchers didn’t relay vital information to the chief at the scene—that dozens of additional calls reporting smoke on the upper floors of the residential tower were received. (In 49 minutes following the initial two phone calls, 146 calls were received.)
Unfortunately, it’s all too easy for the dispatcher to become jaded, especially in the busier fire communication centers. It’s not unusual to continue to get calls from residents of the upper floors of multiple dwellings when there has been a minor fire below. Those who have listened to the Schomburg Plaza tapes, though, say that it was the quality of the additional calls that should have tipped off the dispatchers—people reporting intense heat as well as smoke, for instance.
In retrospect, there’s no question that the data presented to the dispatchers should have led them to make a more judicious decision. The chief on the scene reported a minor fire which was under control. And, in turn, this on-thescene assessment was the product of incomplete information, since the chief didn’t have the benefit of all available information for his decision making.
The critical choice point in resolving conflicting input is the dispatcher’s decision. When the dispatcher decides that additional information will not impact the emergency scene, the possibility of immediate further remedial action is preempted.
The amount of information available to the field forces is limited to visible evidence on the scene and data supplied by the dispatcher. Eventually, if firefighters remain on the scene long enough, they may acquire enough intelligence to render dispatch decisions for that particular circumstance unnecessary. However, a fire doesn’t give us the luxury of time, and signs of a serious fire in the making aren’t always obvious. Once they become obvious, it could be too late. The significant role of the dispatcher, therefore, is apparent. A prompt, accurate dispatch response could be the difference between life and death.
The crucial question for those charged with running emergency communications systems is how to ensure the best outcome at that critical dispatcher’s decision point. In order to answer that question, let’s consider the controllable variable of what is brought to the dispatching decision point.
Illustrations by Arthur Arias.
Factors influencing dispatcher decisions are:
• Supervision
As previously stated, if, when listening to your dispatchers’ work, you find something wanting in their performance, you must intervene. The way you intervene can be the most important part of your dispatch supervision. You must be calm and objective. Your true objective shouldn’t be punishment—it should be the improvement of performance. You should present the dispatcher with the offense and explain what it is that your department expects will be done differently. Set measured, expected outcomes.
In a case, for example, where you receive a complaint or you discover that a dispatcher is becoming angry or sarcastic with a caller, you should make it clear what is going to happen:
“We will closely monitor your tapes for the next 90 days. You can sit in on these sessions if you like. There should be no further instances where you are curt or short with a caller, even if he has the wrong department, is irrational, nasty, or stupid! And particularly if he acts poorly with you. We are professional communicators and we will not let an irate or ignorant caller cause us to act unprofessionally. If another such instance occurs during this time, it is guaranteed that you will be facing departmental charges.”
You should also take steps to help the dispatcher to improve performance. After all, you have investments in both your employee and your department’s image. One of the best things a supervisor can do is verbalize concern for the dispatcher—show him that you have consideration for him, not only as a dispatcher, but as a person. It may be that the dispatcher’s behavior is contrary to his performance history. If so, make it clear that, although unacceptable behavior calls for official action, you are aware that some negative personal influence is reducing job effectiveness, and that you are willing to listen and help.
• Personal resources
Anything which influences the dispatcher personally is the supervisor’s concern. As you might guess, this covers a wide variety of circumstances.
It’s hard for the manager of a communications system to provide an immediate response to, say, a headache. But a systematic way of reducing stress is entirely possible. Such stress-relieving measures as limiting the number of hours worked, or requiring that leave days be taken, can help. Efforts to rejuvenate individual intrapsychic strength—such as demonstrating concern on a personal level—are beneficial, as are relaxation and sensitization techniques. After the Schomburg Plaza incident, for example, FDNY Commissioner Joseph Spinnato made it public that steps would be taken to provide sensitivity training for dispatchers.
• Training
There should be both a formal orientation period and continuous, structured training. A thorough familiarity with department policies and resources is essential. Drilling for anticipated demands is an often overlooked part of communications operations, and it shouldn’t be limited to alarm traffic.
Dispatchers who know what to expect from themselves, as well as from the calling public, make for a top-notch, reliable dispatching force. Each individual dispatcher should be familiar with the importance of his personal resources. Each should be trained to recognize the early signs of compromise of these resources. It should be a matter of policy that any dispatcher reporting the onset of such compromise (“I’m beginning to feel like yelling back at the screamers and the liars….” or “I’m finding it difficult to hustle and get the phone on the first ring….”) will be assisted, not penalized.
The department’s attitudes toward its dispatching force should reflect awareness for the changing world it protects.
The job is constantly changing, and training should reflect this. Don’t just train your people in the basic radio code signals, street maps, and unit locations. Don’t assign them a communications center and forget about them until errors are made. Training curricula should demonstrate the department’s awareness of the changing world it protects.
The average dispatcher wants to know as much as he can to help people. Take advantage of that basic positive attitude towards the delivery of service by giving the dispatcher as much information as possible. Whether it be how to deal with hazardous materials, or keeping up to date on new occupancies in the protection area, it’s to everyone’s advantage—the dispatchers’, the field forces’, and the taxpayers’—to keep communications personnel informed.
• Experience
Just about anybody can get experience in “nuts-and-bolts” dispatching. You answer the phone, you look up street locations and alarm assignments, you talk on the radio. If someone spends enough time in the communications center, he’ll get experience in these “inside” operations. He may even acquire some new and quicker ways to do things, such as computer-assisted dispatch. This only scratches the surface of what it takes for a good dispatcher to make good dispatch decisions.
Optimal dispatch performance is at least partly a product of knowing what goes on in the field. Outside experience makes for a good inside dispatcher. Familiarization with apparatus, equipment, occupancies, terrain, and other agencies’ capabilities is the basic field background information that the dispatchers should bring to their decision making.
Fireground experience is invaluable. It makes it easier for the new dispatcher to understand why, for instance, a caller reporting a car fire can be so excited. I can remember a rookie dispatcher becoming exasperated with shouting callers reporting car fires. “For crying out loud,” he said. “It’s just a car fire. We only send one piece, there’s no exposure problem, and they hardly ever blow up! What’s the big deal?” This was the same guy who, several weeks later, ran breathlessly into the communications center just before the start of his shift, yelling, “Better get an engine down the corner! There’s a Caddy on fire and boy is it going!” Like most citizens who called on him for help, he had never actually seen one of these events in the street. He had become limited by his own perspective of the fire process—-but that changed in a hurry.
What do you bring to your decision-making process?
The same type of benefit is gained from witnessing all types of fire and rescue operations. As a dispatcher becomes more seasoned, he can fine-tune his decision making. If at 6 p.m. he has a lot of alarm traffic and only one call for an explosion in a manhole at an intersection which he knows is surrounded by several retail establishments (that have been closed for the day), he may feel better covering it with less than a full first-alarm assignment if resources are deployed at other incidents.
These skills can develop only if the dispatcher develops a good working knowledge of his area of protection. Many dispatchers go out and do this on their own time. But if you want to hone your entire dispatching force into the best possible first link between the people in need and those who deliver the help, you’ll take the time to build outside familiarization into your training budget.
Don’t wait for something to happen before you make an analysis of your emergency communications operation. Consider it to be an essential prevention activity. Listen to your dispatchers, look at what they are doing, and give them the means to do the good job that they want to do. Those means include constructive and consistent supervision, the necessary tools for self-awareness and evaluation, an ongoing training program, and good field experience.
If your first reaction to these suggestions is to protest the cost involved, then consider the cost of not doing them. The decision is yours. What do you bring to your decision-making process?
