TOWARD A STANDARD OF DELIVERY FOR FIRE PROTECTION SERVICES
You may not know this, but you’re the subject of a computer simulation game, and this time the fire department isn’t the hero. The game is called SimCity, and the players are city managers. When budget time rolls around, one of the decisions a player must make is whether to expend dollars for police and fire protection or repair potholes in the street. As each player makes these critical decisions, the computer conducts “surveys” to determine the player’s popularity and the city residents’ level of concern. Players may intensify their level of play by increasing the size and population of the city and adding disasters like storms, fires, and floods. To some degree, crime is always present. One of the key barometers for each player’s performance is the rate of public approval. That’s the game: balancing the delivery of services, the budget, and the level of community approval. To those of us in the fire service, the game is all too real.
There aren’t a lot of answers around, either. Small rural communities hold bake sales to purchase equipment for their volunteer departments, while large city unions clamor for minimum staffing levels. The problem —fire —is the same in both communities; the fires differ only in scale, frequency, complexity, and size of the area affected. The solution to the problem remains constant: Prevent fires. If you can’t prevent the fire, then you must deliver sufficient personnel and equipment to stop the fire’s progress and minimize the community’s loss. How much is enough? How much is too much? Aren’t there models to follow? Can’t someone put this on a computer and figure out how much we need? In SimCity, maybe; but not where you live. We don’t have those kinds of universal standards.
A standard is a common measurement that means the same thing wherever it is applied. Those who use standards usually do so without concern for opinion or misinterpretation. That ‘s what makes a standard useful as a tool for measurement or comparison. As an example, the calibration of a foot or a meter does not vary among geographical locations, societies, or languages.
Once something is accepted as a standard, it then becomes the point by which all other activities are measured. That is how we distinguish bad from good, low from high, warm from cold, and dangerous from safe. From a professional standpoint, a standard is that which holds a practitioner responsible, a discipline that is considered rational, acceptable, and in the best interest of a client (if applicable) by those who practice.
To examine the issue objectively, one must step outside the fire service to look at other models; plenty abound. Probably the most useful and common is the delivery of medical services. Most communities have some level of medical service, even if it is only one doctor in the neighboring town. The delivery of that medical service (treatment) is standardized— i.e., w ithin the practice of medicine, the physician must either deliver medical care to a certain standard or refer the patient to the next higher level of care where the standard will be delivered.
If a patient explains that he fell; that his forearm is swollen, red, painful to the touch; and that he cannot move his wrist, the physician probably would require an X ray before making a diagnosis. If an X-ray machine is unavailable, the physician would refer the patient to the next higher level of care, the hospital, for the X ray. The physician wouldn’t “make do” with bandages and aspirin just because an X-ray machine wasn’t available in the office.
At the hospital, the patient expects the X ray of his arm to proceed within accepted medical standards. X rays of arms aren’t any different in New’ York than they are in Kansas. There’s a standard. If the arm is broken, there’s a standard of treatment, depending on the severity of the break. If the break is severe enough, the physician doesn’t “make do” unless it is an unanticipated, life-threatening emergency; most often the physician will stabilize the patient and have him/her transported to a larger hospital with surgical facilities. That is the standard for medical practice. You expect that; and if you don’t get the standard, you have the right to seek compensation for your suffering within our system of jurisprudence.
As communities expand, so does the availability of medical services. There are more people, and there is more demand for services. Hospitals in large cities have surgeons on duty 24 hours a day. There are the computerized axial tomography (CAT) scan machines, psychiatric clinics, research laboratories, and cancer treatment centers. But keep in mind that if you break your arm in that large city, you’re still going to get the same standard X ray and the same standard medical treatment. The treatment may be faster, the physicians more experienced, and the equipment much newer, but the standard is still the same.
FIRE SERVICES
What about the delivery of fire services? To a degree, w’e already have some standards. There are standards for pumper apparatus, aerial and elevating platform apparatus, ground ladders, and water supplies (Fire Protection Handbook, National Fire Protection Association, 1991). There are standards relative to the weight of a vehicle, the size of the brakes, and the number of seats; but no one has yet defined a standard unit of fire service delivery.
What does a standard unit of fire service delivery do? It prevents and extinguishes fires. Big city, frequent fires, bigger problems? Many units of delivery. Small city, infrequent fires, smaller problems? Few units of delivery. The community demographics and demands for service should determine the number of standard units required; but a standard unit of delivery should be the same in Manhattan, Kansas, as it is in Manhattan, New York.
Using the medical model as a comparison, Manhattan, Kansas, may not be large enough to support the research hospital that Manhattan, New York, can; but the standard arm X ray is the same in both hospitals. Manhattan, Kansas, may not have the fire frequency that Manhattan, New York, does; but the standard unit of fire service delivery should be the same in both cities. Manhattan, New York, simply would require more units.
There are enough data with which to develop criteria for establishing the number of fire service delivery units required by a community. Although not inclusive, the list most likely would include the following:
- Building stock. The age of building stock, the percentage sprinklered, the percentage alarmed, the percentage of high-rise or special-hazard structures or occupancies, the building density within an area, occupancy, occupancy density, percentage owner occupied, code-enforcement practices, and frequency of inspection.
- Population. Population size, population density, socioeconomic status, and dwelling unit density.
- Demands for service. Fire frequency, number of alarms, frequency of simultaneous or sequential alarms/ fires, alarm receipt and dispatch, and delivery of other than fire services (EMS/rescue/haz mat).
- The community. Proximity to hazardous transportation, aberrant weather patterns, proximity to wildlands, water supply and delivery system. road quality, traffic movement, and unusual terrain features.
With some brain-stretching, you can see that some of these data (population/population density, demands for services, the community) are probably similar to the types of data used to determine the level of medical services required by a populace or the best type of shopping mall to build. Aren’t these data similar to those used by insurance companies to determine car insurance premiums? Are our fire service delivery problems so special, so different, that we can’t apply or develop similar algorithms to the delivery of fire services?
Without yet trying to define what one of these units looks like, try to imagine the implications of a community that calculates its need for fire service delivery as 50 units. That number of delivery units (however it is developed) establishes a criterion that the mayor, the voters, the municipal finance people, and the fire chief all understand as being the community’s need. If the fire department can provide only 40 units of delivery, then some decisions must be made. The community can increase the number of delivery units to SO or greater, decrease the number of delivery units required by changing some of the aforementioned demographics, or assume the risk with its litigious and political ramifications.
Providing greater or fewer than the number of units required probably would affect the amount of fire insurance each building owner would have available, the premium cost, as well as the city’s premium for general liability insurance. Voters would have a very clear idea of the level of fire protection they are paying for (and receiving), and industrial occupants would be able to decide whether they want to stay in the community or relocate (if fire protection is a major factor in their decision). Quantifying the delivcry of fire service would remove fire department administration from the vagaries of political whim, more clearly identify the cost/benefit ratio of more or less fire delivery service, and require that the municipality maintain the standard or suffer the litigious consequences.
The process for developing the number of delivery units in each community, be it New York or Kansas, wouldn’t change. The criteria remain the same. Whether the department is career, volunteer, or some combination thereof doesn’t affect the process of developing unit requirements either. The number of fire service delivery units required is based on community need, not the fire department’s present size or structure. The fire department’s role is to provide the number of delivery units equal to the community’s calculated need.
If you find the concept appealing, or even sound, then little remains but the challenge of identifying the appropriate community demographics and developing the definition of a fire service delivery unit. Keep in mind that the criteria established must apply to all communities, large and small. They must take into account all manner of fire department organizations and must comply with already established fire service standards (NFFA, OSHA, etc.). And therein lies the challenge. We need dialogue.
You see, developing in this article a suggested system to define a fire service delivery unit would banish the idea to the realm of firehouse lawyers, dubious rhetoricians, and naysayers, who would point to the irresponsibility of a particular canon of an untested premise. That would get us nowhere.
So think about it. Are the aforementioned community demographics complete? Are there data available we could add to the demand criteria? What has been included here that shouldn’t have been?
What about a unit of fire service delivery? What should that look like, and what components should it include? Some standards already have been established: the standards for firefighter qualifications, officer qualifications, protective clothing, and apparatus. Other long-held standards may require scrutiny—for example, “travel distance.” Most realize that the time/temperature curve is a scientifically reproducible indicator of fire development (and increased suppression need). It is much more indicative of fire suppression need than the travel distance from the fire station to the fire building. Traffic patterns in Manhattan, Kansas, and Manhattan, New York, are very different. It takes much more time to travel in New York. Although frequently mentioned, arrival and operation times have not been established as a standard. They also would serve as more reliable criteria than the criterion of travel distance —i.e., a certain amount of fire service delivery units arriving at the scene of a fire within a specific amount of time delivering suppression services at an established rate of performance. The issue is more complicated than “two engines, a truck, and a chief.”
What about apparatus staffing? Whether a person volunteers his/her time or is paid for that time matters little on the fireground. A certain number of required tasks must be performed; and unless sufficient personnel are there to perform them, the tasks w ill remain unaccomplished. Incomplete task assignments render delayed, inadequate, and dangerous fireground operations.
Sufficient research data are available to support a minimum crew staffing of four firefighters per apparatus. Staffing studies in Dallas, Texas; Phoenix, Arizona; Seattle, Washington; and Clark County, Nevada, have empirically demonstrated the safety and proficiency of this staffing level. Portions of some of these studies further suggest that areas of high hazard/risk would require engine staffing of five and ladder staffing of six.
How about training? How does it fit into the equation? Standards for Firefighter I, II, and III as well as Fire Officer, Inspector, and Educator already are established and should be met, but there are no established standards for continuing education. In-service training, drills, and familiarization inspections all are part of the professional development of the firefighter/officer; and with rare exception, this type of training is continuous in most fire departments. Unfortunately, this body of knowledge never has been formalized and documented into some professional standard. You “do the work” and apply the knowledge, but there is no documented credit for it. Other professions stipulate attendance at some accredited forum for continuing education, and those requirements are fairly explicit with respect to content and time. We must develop these types of universal in-service training standards and factor them in as part of the definition of a fire service delivery unit.
How are fire prevention activities going to be standardized into part of the fire service delivery unit? What type, and how much of the fire prevention message or service should each member of a community receive? How frequently should members receive it? Effective fire prevention programs are widely available; there’s no need to expend precious resources developing more of them. One interesting, fairly well-known document is “Proving Public Fire Education Works” (TriData Corporation, Arlington, Virginia, 1990). In it, the authors succinctly present more than 75 effective fire prevention programs, divided into specific target areas, from around the country. These are proven winners! If programs like these are so effective, why don’t we all know about them? If we had standards for fire prevention and for continuing education, quite possibly we would.
Perhaps the time has come for some standard unit of fire service delivery. It seems that every government official elected or appointed since the invention of the steam engine has an opinion on how the fire department should run and how well it should be funded, but few’ actually have felt the fire’s heat. Public arena debates about levels of community fire protection frequently deteriorate into tangential issues and emotional rhetoric. Why? It’s a Tower of Babel; no one has a common language, an anchor point. No one can begin that debate talking about the same issue; there is no standard.
The purposes of this article are to argue for some standard of fire service delivery, similar to the standards established by other professions, and to provoke you into thought and dialogue with your colleagues. Look at other professions. Don’t be surprised to find that the standards in your state for the training, practice, and continuing education of hairdressers are more stringent than the standards that have been established for firefighters. Disagree, debate, and discuss. Write to Fire Engineering with your ideas and comments. Include some examples; defend your position. Answers are out there, but not one of us has them all.
Collectively we quite possibly can develop a formula that will serve to educate the public: a quantifiable system for the delivery of fire service that will permit the voter, the property owner, the fire insurer, and the municipality’s liability insurer to decide the level of risk they are willing to accept. It may serve as a community development catalyst —i.e., empower industry and individuals to choose to move to (or away from) a community on the basis of its level of fire protection, as now occurs with education and other municipal services.
It also will enable you, the practitioner, to decide whether you want to be part of an organization that delivers below-standard service. The standard, if met or exceeded, may serve to attract those who wish to render superior service to the community, to work in a “first-class” organization. As with any other standard of professional practice, the primary responsibility for action lies with the practitioner.
