BY SILENCE DOGOOD
“The fire service is its own worst enemy.” I’m certain this phrase could be applied to any number of professions, but it seems particularly tragic for the fire service at a time such as this.
Because fire prevention and life safety are near and dear to my heart, I’d like to focus on them and bring to your attention a few things of which you may not be aware. I’m sure you’ll agree they don’t make much sense from an outsider’s point of view.
Most are aware of the fact that two of the major code-promulgating organizations in North America were not able to reach an agreement to create one “family” of codes. For the uninitiated, that would include a building code, a fire code, a plumbing code, a mechanical code, and an electrical code. Throw in a fuel gas code, and you’ve completed this competitive picture. The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) and the International Code Council (ICC) make money promulgating model codes for states and local jurisdictions to adapt and adopt. The money they make pays for continual code updates and may also fund other important projects. The NFPA and ICC are locked in a struggle for survival with no end in sight.
A number of players are interested in the development of these codes, and most of them are not in the fire service. Architects, engineers, developers, builders, contractors, product manufacturers, and many others have an interest in the final product. Representing the interests of public safety (as if the public weren’t concerned about that) are numerous government agency representatives, including building officials, fire marshals, fire chiefs, electrical officials, plumbing and mechanical officials, and many others responsible for the loss-control efforts in their jurisdictions. Add insurance interests to the mix, and you can begin to understand the complexity of the situation.
For comparison, how many people care about the construction methods for fire apparatus besides fire chiefs, firefighters, and manufacturers? The Occupational Safety and Health Administration? Those responsible for insurance and workers’ compensation claims? It’s a very important issue, but the audience of stakeholders is much smaller and much more manageable—or easier to manipulate, if you’re cynical.
So, given the complexity of the code- promulgating issues and the number of players, you might imagine that the fire service would come together to maximize its voice in the matter. Not so.
If you look it up, you’ll find that the National Association of State Fire Marshals (NASFM); the International Association of Fire Chiefs (IAFC); the International Association of Fire Marshals (IAFM, formerly the Fire Marshals Association of North America); the remnants of the International Fire Code Institute; the Uniform Fire Code Association; the International Fire Code Council; and a plethora of regional, state, and local organizations are all devoted to the same cause. All of these organizations represent fire prevention professionals in the fire service and related fields. And all play some kind of role in the code-promulgation arena. Sound complex enough?
It gets better (or worse, depending on your perspective).
Code promulgation is only one of the many important fire prevention and life safety issues facing the fire service today. Especially concerning prevention, what about professional development, training for fire and life safety prevention professionals? What about legislative issues such as laws regarding smoke alarms or fire-safe cigarettes? What about important fire investigation activities, public education programs, and juvenile firesetter programs? What about the move toward performance codes and the need for qualified fire protection engineers to evaluate plans that deviate from the norm?
You would think that with all these important issues, the fire service could at least organize a process to coordinate fire prevention and life safety efforts in a reasonable fashion. But no, repeated attempts to bring the organizations together have failed.
As one of the oldest kids on the block, the IAFM at least attempts to provide a full service menu to its members and to communicate with others. But in many quarters, it’s viewed as a puppet of the NFPA and, therefore, not neutral enough for those who hate the “evil empire” of the NFPA—regardless of the facts presented them about the NFPA’s works.
It’s hard to argue that the NASFM should give up the relative clout and autonomy that comes from governing its own affairs. And it’s understandable that the IAFC would want to host a neutral playground to provide input into either the NFPA or ICC code-promulgating processes. But these disjointed efforts have led to the formation of numerous code- promulgating organizations such as the Uniform Fire Code Association, the International Fire Code Council, and someone’s vision of a modified International Fire Code Institute. Each has its own requirements for re-sources—draining the talent pool. And each has slightly different problems.
You’ve heard that the ICC does not cater to business. Then why aren’t fire sprinklers required in one- and two-family homes? Have you heard that the NFPA codes and standards processes are dominated by business? Well, no one blocks a fire service representative at the door of the technical voting sessions at the NFPA and says they can’t get in. Unfortunately, the last time the fire service turned out in great numbers was for NFPA 1710, the staffing standard for deployment of firefighters. While we’re on that topic, you may have noticed that the International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF) was not mentioned as a significant player in the prevention arena. That’s because its contributions to the field are not significant. You would think the strongest fire service organization in North America would put as much emphasis on fire prevention and life safety as it does on a good cause such as the Muscular Dystrophy Association.
The United States Fire Administration and the National Fire Academy? They’re doing what they can, but as “government,” they must remain neutral, though they sometimes don’t act that way. It is difficult for them to provide leadership when they have a political obligation to play with everyone who wants to feed at their trough.
So does the fire service community, that portion devoted to fire prevention and life safety, speak with one voice? Nope.
And that’s not just for code promulgation. This disjointed approach also weakens efforts to increase the professionalism of fire prevention and life safety. And professionalism is desperately needed. When building officials, contractors, and developers look at the professional qualifications for fire marshals, what do they see?
Nothing. Soon the NFPA will begin a process to establish standard professional qualifications for fire marshals. Who will help validate that? And when the fire service talks about the importance of fire prevention and life safety, how much money does it put toward that end? Not much.
Have you heard that prevention is the key? That it’s more cost effective than responding after the fact? Prove it. Look for a legitimate study that shows the effectiveness of prevention programs. If you dig deep enough, perhaps you’ll find a National Fire Academy research paper or two on the topic. An occasional trade journal article addresses the issue. Tri-Data Corporation did some good (anecdotal) work on public education some years ago, and the NFPA conducted a study on the effectiveness of inspections in the late 1970s. But there has been nothing substantial for about 20 years.
Good luck finding some resources to help those in the field become more professional. Most of the material you see in fire-related journals is related to technology or emergency response activities. Prevention is a luxury when budget cuts happen, even though most leaders continually say how important it is.
So how do we really improve prevention efforts? Get our act together. Organize. The firefighters ought to be able to teach us about that. Make a list of needed resources, and start working to obtain them. Begin with a mechanism to bring these disjointed efforts more into line. Start speaking with one voice instead of competing for the limited resources available.
The efforts to organize the fire service to deal effectively with some of the important fire prevention and life safety issues of the day have failed. The talent involved in each of these organizations is considerable but diluted because they’re headed in different directions. And, as a consequence, the voice of the fire service is weak where prevention is concerned.
A real summit is needed to address this problem. Not another America Burning. Not another Wingspread. A coalition needs to come together for action, not reports. It needs to include Canadian representatives because much of what is done in the United States is really about a North American market. And Canada may have a thing or two to teach the United States about code promulgation. It needs to involve the highest leaders of each organization—not just a representative who won’t have any clout once he returns to his own turf. It needs to consider how the efforts to improve the clout and effectiveness of fire prevention and life safety professionals can be better coordinated. And the leaders who truly care about this issue need to make a commitment to act.
Until that happens, the efforts to improve fire prevention and life safety in North America will remain disjointed—and weak.
SILENCE DOGOOD is a pseudonym used by Benjamin Franklin, the “Father of the American fire service.” In the spirit of Franklin, the author wishes to provoke a revolutionary dialog among modern fire service members.
