IS THERE SAFETY IN NUMBERS?

IS THERE SAFETY IN NUMBERS?

SPEAKING OF SAFETY

An old-time captain said, “I used to go to a fire with six longshoremen; now I have to go with three clerks.”

Many captains reading that remark will say. “He’s lucky. I have to go with two.”

Over the past 50 years, the three issues that have created the most controversy in the fire service are the length of firefighters’ hair, the color of apparatus, and the staffing of companies. Neither of the first two has much impact on the outcome of a fire, but the last one does—and perhaps in more ways than one.

One way, of course, is efficiency; until recently, that was the prime consideration. But lately, emphasis—and the controversy—has shifted to firefighter safety.

In analyzing a problem, the first steps are to determine if the problem really exists and, if so, to what extent. In this case, considerable amounts of data show that reductions in company staffing began in the late ’60s and continue today. In some departments, company shift staffing has been reduced by 50 percent since the 1960s. According to one nationwide study, in 1982 engine and truck companies in cities with populations of 100,000 or more were staffed with an average of 3.8 people, including officer and driver.1 Another study of the same population group, conducted in 1992, showed an even lower average.2 And in 1993, to gauge the situation in smaller cities, 1 made a check of career departments in 40 cities with populations of less than 100.0(H) and found that engine companies were averaging 2.92 firefighters per shift. Truck companies were even lower, with 1.52 per shift.

AVAILABLE STAFFING STUDIES

Those statistics can be good or bad news, depending on whether you are fighting a fire or preparing a budget. But what evidence exists to show the effects such staffing reductions have on safety? The few staffing studies available concentrate on efficiency, with time being the measure of it —beginning with tests we conducted in Wisconsin and followed by those in Dallas.”* Both tests briefly discussed the physical fatigue resulting from understaffing. But the test results largely showed that, with a few exceptions, the more firefighters in a team, the quicker the team accomplished its objectives. The studies gave relative times for crews of various sizes, w-ithout getting into safety.

JUSTIFICATIONS FOR STAFFING REDUCTIONS

The next question is, have any changes taken place in the fire service that justify reduction in company personnel? With regard to the intensity and complexity of fires, the answer is essentially negative. Fires today are as hazardous as those of the past—in some cases, they are even more so. Furthermore, we can find no improvement in apparatus and extinguishing equipment significant enough to justify such reductions.

However, we do encounter a significant change when we look at protective equipment for personnel. The increased emphasis on self-contained breathing apparatus and heavily insulated, ignition-resistant clothing has had considerable impact. This equipment allows today’s firefighters entering hot and smoky atmospheres to advance faster and stay longer than their predecessors, who had to be relieved frequently because they lacked protection against heat and smoke. This relief and rotation required more people.

Furthermore, reduction in discomfort level reduces the need for ventilation. There are several valid reasons for ventilation. varying w-ith the circumstances. The most common reason is to permit the engine crew to advance a hoseline and extinguish the fire, which requires prompt action by the truck company. But many fire departments have virtuallyabandoned this practice because hose can be advanced without it. Smoke-stained windows in place and unopened after a fire are common in many cities today. Years ago, they would have been considered the mark of an untrained department. Today, they may just be an indication of how tactics are being altered to accommodate for reductions in truck company staffing.

City managers are ever alert for costsaving technolog), and the elimination of one firefighter position will buy a lot of protective equipment. There is no need to blame those responsible for the changes in protective equipment and its use—that is, the various organizations with an interest in firefighter safety, including the U.S. Fire Administration, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, and manufacturers. Their motives were pure. They wanted to accomplish two goals—more effective firefighting and improved firefighter safety. They evidently accomplished the first goal, but what about the second?

STAFFING AND SAFETY

Every fire requires a given amount of work for the needed results to be accomplished. This work, when divided by the number of firefighters assigned to do it, will show the amount of work each firefighter must perform. It is obvious that the fewer the firefighters, the greater will be the energy expended by each. This increase in physical stress could cause immediate or future heart problems and, as some studies indicate, other injuries as well.

Tlie International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF) has compiled an imposing amount of evidence that reduced staffing is followed by an increased number of firefighter injuries. It includes the fact that, although total fire service injuries tfave declined in the past few years, the number of injuries per thousand fires has increased despite national and local safety programs.⁵

In 1980, Ohio State University made a study of fireground operations in Columbus, Ohio. Fire-spread and injury data were compiled for 404 structural fires. Tlie results indicated that firefighter injuries were more frequent when the total number of personnel on the fireground was lower than 15 at residential fires and 23 at “large-risk” fires. The difference was impressive—46 percent higher at residential fires and 73 percent higher at the others.⁶

A study that was done using statistics from the Seattle (WA) Fire Department showed a relationship between reduced staffing and injuries, especially in the amount of time lost. The three-member engine crews and four-member truck crews fared worse than more strongly staffed companies.

CRITICAL ISSUES

At what number does the company shift strength become critical? The IAFF maintains it is the drop from four members to three and is prepared to prove statistically that such a drop causes an increase in firefighter injuries, making “manpower a legitimate health and safety concern for this union and therefore a negotiable item.”⁸

A great deal of debate and maneuvering has taken place regarding the staffing issue, accompanied by some misconceptions and ill-considered statements. The issue lends itself to discussions of efficiency, cost effectiveness, and public safety. All are legitimate concerns that have been discussed elsewhere, and especially well in Jersey City (NJ) Fire Department Deputy Chief Denis G. Onieal’s comprehensive article “In Response to the Demand for Fire Department Cutbacks” (Fire Engineering, August 1993)The purpose of this piece is simply to give a presentation of information focusing on firefighter health and safety.

Endnotes

1. Report to FEMA, “Survey of Fire Suppression Crew Practices,” Centaur Associates, Washington, DC, 1982.
2. International Association of Fire Fighters, “Analysis of Fire Fighter Injuries and Minimum Staffing Per Piece of Apparatus in Cities with Populations of 150,000 or More” (Washington, DC, 1992).
3. Clark, William E., Firefighting Principles and Practices, second ed. (Fire Engineering Books, Saddle Brook, NJ, 1991), 53-60.
4. O’Hagan, John T. and Associates, “Dallas Fire Department Staffing bevel Study” (Dallas, TX, 1984).
5. International Association of Fire Fighters.
6. Ohio State University and Columbus Fire Division. “Measuring Firefighting Effectiveness” (Columbus, OH, 1980).
7. Cushman, Jon, “Demand Analysis Resource Allocation, Productivity, Manpower Utilization” (Seattle Fire Department, Seattle, WA, 1981).
8. “Report to the Executive Board,” unattributed but based on report cited in note 7 above, 1981.