PRE-EMERGENCY DEPLOYMENT OF FIRE DEPARTMENT RESOURCES: A CALL TO ACTION

BY JAMES G. TAUBER

Fire service managers must do a better job of effectively and efficiently deploying resources. Dramatically improved planning efforts are necessary. We must match resources to actual quantified, or at least qualitatively defined, risks. The technology available today can simplify and standardize the process for doing just this. The time to begin developing a universally accepted process is not tomorrow; IT IS TODAY. Come on, Chiefs, let’s get to work!

Citizens are demanding improved services but are reluctant to pay any additional taxes that may be needed to finance such improvements. Fire departments are increasingly being subjected to public scrutiny and, in some communities, have come to be viewed as an unacceptable drain on limited public financial resources. At the same time, government agencies must demonstrate that present resources are being used in the most effective and efficient manner.

How can these issues be resolved so that these concerns are addressed and community interests are best served? Developing a standard resource deployment model may be the answer. Such a model must be universally accepted, technically valid for determining and providing the most effective and efficient pre-emergency use of resources based on the risks present within the community, and delivered at a cost that is acceptable to the citizens. This model would have to be based on sound risk management and public administration principles. The rationale for developing such a model, some of the essential components of such a model, and suggestions for developing an acceptable model are discussed below.

THE NEED FOR A MODEL

The International City Managers Association (ICMA) in Managing Fire Services states: “Timely and dynamic fire protection planning provides the basis for systematic control of current and future fire risks and effective use of fire protection resources, thereby limiting fire losses and fire protection costs.”¹ Once a neglected area in the fire service, planning has become a significant function of many departments in recent years.

America Burning, the report of the National Commission on Fire Prevention and Control, was largely responsible for improved fire department planning. That report stated: “To be adequate, the fire protection system must respond to local conditions, especially to changing conditions. Planning is the key ellipse.”² According to America Burning, the planning should incorporate the following concepts: an adequate level of fire protection, reasonable community costs, and acceptable risk. The report recommended that each local community develop a master plan for fire protection that includes a number of components, among them the identification of “fire protection problems of the community” and specifications of “current capabilities and future needs of public resources.”³

Here is where the problem for fire service managers begins. No standard, universally accepted model, or methodology exists for identifying and analyzing the risks that exist in a community and for effectively deploying resources to provide a level of protection that is politically and financially acceptable to the local community.

The Commission on Fire Accreditation, Intl., developed by the International Association of Fire Chiefs (IAFC) and adopted by the IAFC and the ICMA, specifies that the nature and magnitude of fire and nonfire risks be assessed, goals and objectives be developed, and a “standard of cover” strategy be established.⁴ “Standard of cover” is defined as “those written policies and procedures that determine the distribution and concentration of fixed and mobile resources of an organization.”⁵ A great deal of information has been developed, some well researched and some very subjective, that can assist the fire protection manager in establishing goals, objectives, and a standard of cover.

Limitations of Existing Models

Many models for effectively locating fire stations exist, but they do not assist in determining how many fire stations are needed based on the specific risks in a community or a community’s ability or willingness to invest. Specifically, a community must be able to determine its own level of acceptable risk and then invest to provide a corresponding level of protection. These issues need to be resolved in advance to make the most effective use of station location models.

In addition to these concerns, personnel needs must be determined. Generally, staffing levels are determined almost through default by how effectively the local fire chief can work within the existing political environment and the community’s economic health. Staff may be justified by benchmarking neighboring communities, following tradition in the community, union contracted minimum staffing requirements, standard critical task analysis that may or may not relate to the community under consideration, and a number of other methods. There is no universally accepted system that evaluates a community and its risks and recommends a corresponding appropriate staffing level acceptable to that community.

Apparatus and equipment resources are also not normally provided on the basis of a risk analysis. Depending on the community, these resources may be provided in accordance with past practices, tradition, the chief’s preferences, or some other generally subjective process. This is not to say that the resource allocation is not valid or that it was not based on generally accepted principles. However, experience has shown that most communities have not conducted a recent comprehensive objective analysis to determine if that allocation of apparatus and equipment is appropriate when evaluated from the perspectives of community risks and a balance of local political and economic issues. Certainly, there is no universally accepted method for making or justifying these resource decisions. Some communities base their decisions on Insurance Services Office (ISO) rating criteria, which may be outdated and may be unrelated to the community’s specific needs or conditions. In Volusia County, decisions are made with ISO criteria in mind (although other factors are also considered) so that we can improve or avoid reducing the community’s rating. “The current [ISO] classification system is not intended to present a complete analysis of the public fire protection needs of a city and should not be used for such an evaluation.”⁶

The ISO Classification System consists of “ten different ratings with Class 1 receiving the most recognition and Class 10 receiving no recognition.” The ten ratings are derived from the Grading Schedule for Municipal Fire Protection.⁷

“While not all states use the existing Insurance Services Office (ISO) grading schedule, and while not used in other nations, it is applied to many departments in most states approximately every ten years.”(7)

It should be apparent that fire departments need to engage in effective, objective planning. As the ICMA observes: “Few general plans contain community fire protection goals that establish acceptable levels of risk and cost for fire services in coordination with other development interests.”⁸ City managers, legislators, citizen groups, and the general public are subjecting fire departments, as all government agencies, to greater scrutiny. Managers are required to justify the acquisition of resources, demonstrate that the significant resources devoted to public fire protection are being used efficiently and effectively, and prove that the investment in resources is producing measurable and acceptable results. “Most fire protection agencies are experiencing escalating demands for fire suppression and fire prevention services, fire safety education, emergency medical services, and hazardous materials control. However, the resources required to provide these services are limited or diminishing.”⁹ Given the present and expected future political and economic conditions facing public fire protection managers, a universally accepted model or methodology for pre-emergency deployment of resources would be a welcomed and invaluable tool.

RISK ANALYSIS

Note: Do not confuse risk with hazard. A hazard is defined as “the potential for producing an undesired result without regard to how likely such a consequence is.” Risk, on the other hand, includes not only the “potential for an undesired consequence, but also how probable it is that such an event will occur.”¹⁰

Some view risk analysis as encompassing the following: (1) “Risk assessment, [which] is the process through which we attempt to determine the likelihood and extent of harm that may result from a health or safety hazard.” (10) (2) “Risk management [in which] we combine information about risk with economic, political, legal, ethical, and other considerations to make public or private decisions regarding protective policies.”¹¹ (3) “Risk communication, [which] is the two-way exchange of information, concerns, and preferences about risks between decision makers and the public.” (11)

Risk is difficult to define clearly because it has “dimensions of controversy”¹² and various complicated aspects. The dimensions of controversy refer to the fact that risk can be objective or subjective. Objective risk refers to “the product of scientific research, primarily public health statistics, experimental studies, epidemiological surveys, and probabilistic risk analysis.” Subjective risk “refers to non-expert perceptions of that research, embellished by whatever other considerations seize the mind.” (12) In addition, risk can be confusing because it often has associated benefits. For example, the health risks caused by automobile emissions are generally accepted because of the benefits derived from the use of automobiles.

Risk also has various aspects that complicate the analysis process. They relate to the consequences of an event, such as health risk, property loss, economic impact to a community, and ethical and moral issues. “The first step in defining risk is determining which consequences it should include.”¹³ Is the risk the problem of an individual, a group, or society in general? Is it a local, regional, or national issue? Is the risk to life or property value, or is there some other consideration, such as historical value? These issues come into play when considering public safety issues; do not overlook or minimize their importance or potential impact.

Quantifying Risk

The following is a commonly accepted mathematical definition that quantifies risk:

Risk (consequence/unit time) = Frequency (event/unit time) 2 Magnitude (consequence/event). (10)

Several other methods may be used to determine event frequency and ultimately aid in quantifying a given risk.

The actuarial method. Accurate conclusions are drawn when sufficient historical data exist.
Fault tree method. This method can be used when very little historical data exist. It starts with defining an undesired event and then works back to possible causes or sources. This method is intensive, requires that the probability of all the possible causes of failure are known, and works well for mechanical systems.
Event tree method. It begins with a process that is nearly the reverse of the fault tree method. It starts with an initial event, then attempts to trace all possible paths that event could take. This is a complex undertaking and has a number of pitfalls. This method should be used with caution and only by personnel skilled in its use. The key in evaluating risk is that both the potential consequences (magnitude) and frequency be considered together.

Types of Risk

A risk may be “unprotected” or “acceptable.”¹⁴ Unprotected risk is the deficit that exists between the resources needed to deal with an anticipated emergency at a risk site and the capability of the fire department to respond with the needed resources within the required time frame.

Acceptable risk is that level of deficit the community is willing to accept to avoid the additional cost of the needed resources. “Acceptable risk is a matter of judgment, and nowadays judgments differ. Between private, subjective perception and public, physical science, there lies a culture, a middle area of values and beliefs.”¹⁵ The public’s judgment on what is an acceptable level of risk is affected by many things, not the least of which is reliance on public administrators to provide the citizens with objective, balanced data so informed decisions can be reached.

ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF A STANDARD FIRE DEPARTMENT MODEL

The elements that must be considered when developing a standard fire department resource deployment model are the following: risk assessment of the local community, an evaluation of the existing fire department capability, the willingness and ability of the community to invest in resources (the level of risk the community is willing to accept), and the development of goals and objectives based on what is learned from the preceding three steps. The four categories of essential elements for pre-emergency deployment of resources all fall within the scope of risk analysis and its three subdivisions-risk assessment, risk management, and risk communication-because any methodology or model for resource deployment should be based on an accepted body of knowledge.

There are several existing valid models for assessing community risk and evaluating fire department capability; however, they are not universally accepted or used in the fire service. Although a willingness and ability to invest in resources are specific to a given locality, an acceptable, general process can be defined.

Risk Assessment

What essential elements should the fire department consider during a risk assessment of the community? The fire department must find a balance between evaluating all possibilities and working with a volume of data it can reasonably manage. An overabundance of data will make it more difficult to draw valid conclusions. Fire risks and nonfire risks must be identified and, to the extent possible, defined quantitatively. Fire risks include structures, wildland, vehicles, flammable liquid facilities and processes, utility lines, and any other fuel sources that could potentially be involved in an uncontrolled, unwanted fire. Nonfire risks include such things as vehicle accidents involving automobiles, heavy trucks, trains, and aircraft; emergency medical emergencies; industrial processes that could result in trauma cases; structural collapse; excavation cave-ins; hazardous materials; confined spaces; elevated structures; natural risks such as weather, earthquakes, volcanoes, and so on; and potential terrorist targets. This list can be expanded significantly; however, the process for identifying all the potential fire and nonfire risks in a community should be apparent. You must conduct a comprehensive and methodical review of the community.

Approaches

Three approaches for accomplishing this immediately come to mind.

Develop a comprehensive list of all potential fire and nonfire risk types. Then survey the community, and identify those locations that contain risks. This approach demands that the list of risks, prepared in advance, is complete, or there is a good chance that a potential risk may be overlooked.
Survey the community to identify all potential risks. This method would include, for example, evaluating every occupancy type and, in some cases, every building of a given occupancy type. The resources required to implement this survey in a complex urban area can be extensive and may be cost prohibitive. This approach would also make it difficult to identify emergency medical risks.
Look at historical emergency response data to identify what has taken place in the community in the past. This approach, however, could fail to identify real risks that occur infrequently or that have never occurred, such as a dam break or a nuclear plant emergency.

The most efficient way to use each approach is to apply the method(s) best suited for the situation. For example, using a hazard checklist to evaluate natural risks may be the best way to proceed. Surveying the community and key buildings is a better approach for identifying fire risks. Using historical data is probably the best approach for identifying the potential types of medical emergencies.

How can such a comprehensive undertaking be effectively managed or organized? There appears to be a consensus within the fire service community on how to accomplish this task. The Fire Chief’s Handbook recommends identifying the “fire management areas” that divide the community into “manageable pieces.”¹⁶ In addition, “organizing the community” (16) into geographical planning zone(s) for purposes of analyzing needs for the provision of services is identified as a “core competency” in the Fire and Emergency Service Self-Assessment Manual, Commission on Fire Accreditation, Intl. A core competency is a performance measure a fire department must meet to be recognized as an accreditable) organization.¹⁷

Designating Fire Management Areas

Fire management areas can be designated in one of several ways:

Divide the community “into fire management areas utilizing natural geographical separations,” such as roads, rail lines, and natural cover areas. (16)
Place “a grid overlay on a map of the community.” Examples of grids that may be used are tax grids, townships, and latitude and longitude grids.
The “first-in district” of fire stations can also be used as fire management areas. (16)

The key is to find an appropriate balance for the specific community under consideration. Too many or too few fire management areas can complicate the process and fail to assist in managing the risk data. A sound approach is to use a system that finds the necessary balance in the number of fire management areas so that the resulting sections contain a dominant fire risk and/or nonfire risk type category.

Categorizing Risks

The term risk category refers to assigning risks a quantitative or qualitative value and then placing them in one of several predefined categories. A number of methods can be used for accomplishing this task:

One method outlined in the National Fire Academy’s (NFA) Fire Risk Analysis: A Systems Approach¹⁸ is to categorize the risk as a life risk, a property risk, or a community consequence risk. Life risk refers to the number of people threatened by a given risk such as a fire, a transportation accident, or a chemical spill. The greater the number of people at risk, the greater the concern with the risk.

Property risk can be measured by dollar value. An obvious strategy employed by fire departments or any other risk management organization is to concentrate efforts to prevent one incident from resulting in a major dollar loss.

Community consequence risks, a more subjective category, looks at the political impact of a potential incident and the impact on the tax base, local employment, the loss of community pride, the loss of a historical treasure, and other factors.

Categorize the risk into defined categories such as High Risk, Moderate Risk, and Low Risk. Creating and Evaluating Standards of Response Coverage for California Fire Departments¹⁹ suggests that the following categories be considered: Maximum/ Worst Risk, High Hazard/Key Risks, Moderate/Typical Risk, Low Risk, Remote/Isolated Risks, and Special Risks.

Each of these risk categories is defined to aid the user in assigning a risk to a category. However, categorizing risks cannot be limited to consideration of the defined category types, which, in most cases, refer to a hazard and not a risk. As stated earlier, the frequency of occurrence and possible consequences must also be considered. A high-hazard risk may include, for example, high-rise buildings because of the potential of large life and dollar losses. The concern for this risk must be balanced by the anticipated chance of a major incident’s occurring in the high-rise building. Other questions must be asked: What do historical records show with respect to rate of occurrence? What in-place fire protection features exist that can reduce the possibility of a major incident? What is the use of the property, and how does this influence the risk of a major incident? Is the building used for office or residential purposes?

Tools are available that can aid departments in categorizing the risks that exist in a community. American Society for the Testing of Materials (ASTM) E931-85, Standard Practice for Assessment of Fire Risk by Occupancy Classification, 1996 (page 8), is one such tool. “This practice is a means of determining the relative risk to life and property resulting from fire inherent in a specific occupancy type.”²⁰

The risk of conflagration in buildings in a community can be assessed using methods outlined in A System for Local Assessment of the Conflagration Potential of Urban Areas.²¹ The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 101, Code for Safety to Life from Fire in Buildings and Structures, 1997, and NFPA 101A, Guide on Alternative Approaches of Life Safety, 1998, may be used to evaluate life risk in buildings. Other tools and guidelines exist, but none are part of any universally recognized method or model for evaluating community risk.

If consequences and probability of occurrence are considered together, risks may be placed into one of four relationships: low probability, low consequence; high probability, low consequence; low probability, high consequence; and high probability, high consequence.²²These relationships are part of standard evaluation techniques used in risk management and can be used to help define the categories previously discussed such as High Risk, Moderate Risk, and Low Risk.

Lastly, after a risk is categorized, it ultimately should be linked to the fire management area in which it is located. As stated earlier, a preferable way of designating fire management areas is to use a method that results in each area’s representing a dominant risk category. Using the methods previously discussed, it is possible to designate each fire management area as a life risk area, property risk area, community consequence risk area, or a combination of these risk categories. As an alternative, the categories of Maximum Risk, High Risk, Moderate Risk, Low Risk, Remote Risk, and Special Risk may be assigned to fire management areas, as determined by the predominant risk that exists within each fire management area. Conversely, the various risks could be located on a map so that the fire management areas can be geographically defined so as to include a predominant risk category. Whatever method is used, it is important to be able to categorize fire risk management areas based on the categories of risk that exist within each area.

Note: The risk analysis process is, without question, labor-intensive and time-consuming. Volusia County Fire Services is making effective use of response data, Geographic Information Systems (GIS), and software such as ArcInfo 7.2. and ArcView 3.2. Volusia County Geographic Information Services is providing invaluable service in our efforts to conduct a comprehensive risk analysis. The process draws information from a number of databases that contain parcel data, building permit data, building and population density data, and more. Much of the data we need is already available; the challenge is in developing the ability to effectively use what is available while providing the necessary missing data.

The Volusia County Fire Chief’s Association has adopted a standard operating procedure for conducting a community risk analysis. The intent is to standardize the process as much as possible within the multiple jurisdictions. This will allow us to make effective integrations and comparisons that ultimately will improve the overall emergency service delivery within Volusia County.

Evaluating Existing Capability

“After identifying the level of risk in the community, the level of fire protection available to address that risk will need to be studied.”²³ The process of evaluating existing fire department capability, while labor-intensive, is not nearly as difficult as it may first appear. Fire departments generally have some of the key data readily available. Apparatus types, apparatus locations, pumping capacity, and booster tank size are easily accessible. Staffing levels are generally available; however, departments using volunteers may have to rely on average staffing numbers. Water supplies, if not known specifically, are usually obtainable with minimal effort.

The information referenced in the preceding paragraph can be used to compare present capability with the risks identified in each fire management area. To do this, evaluate the risks or representative risks in each fire management area. Conducting a task analysis will determine staffing needs. Water supply or other extinguishing agent needs may be determined by evaluating the potential hazards (buildings, fuels, and so on). Identify other special service needs such as aerial ladder, technical rescue capability, and so on.

Task analysis is nothing more than an examination of a potential emergency incident to determine, in advance, what tasks must be accomplished to successfully manage the incident, how many personnel are needed to handle the various tasks, and the acceptable time frames for the personnel’s arrival on-scene and completion of the tasks. Examples of critical tasks are advance and use attack line(s), rapid intervention team, incident commander, ventilation, search and rescue, victim extrication, patient care, and scene safety. A good source of information on how to conduct a critical task analysis is Unit IV of the NFA’s Fire Risk Analysis: A Systems Approach.

Water Supply

Water supply refers to the rate of delivery and the total volume needed to sustain the rate of delivery for a specified period of time. An evaluation of the hazard will determine water supply requirements. The literature on this subject is extensive and familiar to fire service professionals. Generally speaking, the methods available are variations on making estimates based on the cubic footage of a building with an average fuel load, the square footage for various types of constructions and occupancy classifications, and evaluating the fuel load by estimating its weight and heat of combustion. In some cases, manufacturers’ recommendations for a special extinguishing agent can give guidance.

Consider the fire department’s ability to use the water supply. This involves evaluating the pumping capacity of the engines available to the department and the methods used to apply the water. Evaluating engines’ pumping capacities is a fairly straightforward endeavor. The pump ratings for the various apparatus are documented, and evaluating the apparatus that can be assembled at each potential risk site can determine if the response is adequate to effectively use the available water supply.

An evaluation of each potential risk site can reveal the best methods for using the available water supply effectively. How many hose streams and master stream devices are needed to employ an effective tactical plan of operation? The answer, in turn, will provide insight into the number of personnel needed to manage the various hose streams and is a critical component of the task analysis process mentioned earlier. The need for special apparatus, equipment, and skilled personnel can also be determined by evaluating each potential risk site. The height of buildings and structures; the presence of special hazards, such as confined spaces and hazardous materials; and the potential need for special rescue equipment, including heavy equipment such as cranes, can be identified. The need for skilled equipment operators and specialized training for fire department personnel can also be recognized by this process.

Finally, you must determine the time it will take to assemble the needed resources at each potential risk site. Charting response times from each fire station or each resource location to each fire management area makes it easier to manage the volume of response time data and facilitates future resource planning as new risk sites are created in the community. You can develop for each fire management area a matrix identifying resources needed and the time it will take to assemble those resource(s). Comparing response time data against resource requirements will answer the question, Can adequate resources be assembled in the necessary time frame for each fire management area or potential risk site in the community? The deficiencies noted can be used to determine what resources are needed and where they should be located. The cost of those resources can then be determined. The deficiencies represent the community’s level of unprotected risk; the cost of the needed resources indicates how much money it will take to eliminate the unprotected risk. This endeavor provides insight only. Other options to reduce the unprotected risk-such as automatic sprinkler legislation or amending the building code-must be considered.

Evaluating fire department capability is not a complex task, but it is labor-intensive. Any acceptable standard model should help reduce the time and resources needed to complete the evaluation.

Community Willingness to Pay

Community risk policy. The risk policy should associate identified risks with the fire department’s ability to provide an appropriate response that will effectively deal with any anticipated emergency. Many times, the fire department evaluation reveals that the department’s manner of resource deployment needs adjustments to increase efficiency. The evaluation of the fire department’s capability, as previously outlined, reveals how much it will cost to add the resources needed to manage the anticipated emergencies. Alternatives to managing the unprotected risk, such as automatic sprinkler legislation, and the costs associated with them also should have been identified. This section focuses on the community’s willingness and ability to provide the additional resources.

The amount of unprotected risk a community is willing to accept is primarily a public policy issue that must be resolved in the local political arena. Assemble the information obtained during the community risk assessment and the evaluation of present fire department capability and present it in a clear, concise, and understandable format. Any acceptable model should assist in accomplishing this.

Answers to the following types of questions should be included: Are the community’s citizens satisfied with the present level of service provided by the fire department? Would the citizens want to resolve the unprotected risk problem if they were fully informed on the issues? Are the citizens willing to accept additional taxation to pay for increased service, and how much of an increase will they accept? How much of an increase can they afford? Are there alternatives to increasing fire department resources that would be acceptable to the community? Does the fire chief have a supportive legislative body, or does an adversarial relationship exist?

To obtain answers to these questions, conduct mail, phone, or personal surveys. Citizen feedback can also be obtained at public hearings. Use the various media to help educate the public on the issues. The issues can also be explained in an appropriate format at meetings of citizen groups.

Compare the community’s tax rates with those of neighboring jurisdictions. What is the per-capita income in the community and surrounding jurisdictions? Identifying sources of revenue other than through taxation can garner political support for funding the balance. Citizens’ priorities for funding the proposed increases in relation to other services provided by the local government are important.

Determine citizen reaction to alternative protection measures such as contracting for mutual aid, mandatory automatic sprinkler legislation, zoning amendments, changes to the building code, and increased public education efforts to reduce the frequency or probability of an unwanted event. What measure can be taken to increase citizen support at the grassroots level? These kinds of questions must be answered and the citizens’ desires must be understood if a sound and responsible public risk policy is to be developed.

The fire department response policy developed must have the community’s political and financial support regardless of how much reliance on alternative protection has been incorporated into the community’s plan to manage its risks. The response time policies determine the level of public fire department service and limit the cost of providing emergency services. Therefore, formulate these policies carefully with full understanding of their impact.

Develop a minimum of two separate response time policy statements. In the first, define the response time policy for the fire department’s placing one unit on-scene to initiate emergency service. In the second, define the response time policy for the arrival of sufficient resources: an “effective response force”²⁴ to effectively manage an anticipated emergency. State these policies in a way that provides the community with the level of service desired but avoids excessive cost. For example, a policy can require a unit to arrive on-scene within a specified number of minutes from time of dispatch for a specified percentage of all calls. Using this format gives the community the ability to obtain the response times it desires at a frequency it can afford. This type of statement also recognizes that fire stations should be located centrally in areas where incidents are occurring most frequently to obtain the percentages specified with the minimal investment of resources. This policy establishes parameters fire department managers can use in conjunction with station location models to obtain optimal station locations to conform to the public response time policies.

A key policy question for community leaders, then, is: How safe is safe enough? A “pragmatic definition of sufficient safety becomes a level at which the political pressure dies down or the budget runs out, which is almost the same thing. Since society’s resources are limited, attention lavished on risks that either do not exist or are trivial inevitably reduces efforts to deal with real risks. Or, for that matter, feed the hungry.”²⁵ Local government has many responsibilities to its citizens and limited financial resources to meet those responsibilities. A reasonable balance must be found to achieve an acceptable level of safety from fire, accidents, medical emergencies, crime, public health, pollution, and so on, as well as meeting the community’s social welfare needs.

Recognizing that a level of unprotected risk will always exist in the community and that the resources provided to a fire department are intended to provide protection that creates a level of acceptable risk to the community is essential. A fire department’s efforts to provide a level of protection greater than necessary, greater than desired by the citizens, or that cannot be afforded by the community are irresponsible, harm the community, and can ultimately lead to the citizens’ withdrawing their support of the fire department. A universally recognized methodology or model can prevent fire service managers from intentionally or mistakenly pursuing excessive resources while simultaneously assisting them in obtaining the level of resources needed to provide the level of protection the public desires.

Goals and Objectives

Goals and objectives are based on what is learned in the community risk assessment, the evaluation of the fire department’s present capability, and efforts to determine the community’s willingness and ability to invest in additional resources.

Because they are often used together, the terms “goals” and “objectives” tend to be used interchangeably. This is a mistake because they have separate and distinct meanings. Goals can be defined “in general terms that provide focus for the organization to accomplish its mission.”²⁶ A goal is a “term that designates the general end towards which an effort is directed.”²⁷ Objectives are much more specific. They can be thought of as tactical as opposed to strategic. An objective is “the specific end toward which effort is being directed” and “must be achievable within a certain planning period and be able to be measured in some quantifiable way.”²⁸

Goals and objectives can be developed through strategic planning and community master planning. These two processes have different focuses but, if developed with adequate forethought, can complement one another. “Strategic planning is rooted in future-oriented, proactive thinking that anticipates change and adopts long-range strategies to meet the demands of change.” The strategic planning process focuses on the organization-in this case, the fire department-and establishes a set of “goals, critical success factors (objectives), performance measures, and action plans” (26) designed to move toward a strategic vision that is consistent with the organization’s mission.

One of the critical success factors can be the development of a community master plan. Master planning is “a participative process which should result in the establishment of a fire prevention and control system which is goal-oriented, long term, comprehensive, provides known cost/loss performance, and adapts continually to the changing needs of your community.”²⁹ Master planning must involve all local government agencies that in any way affect or support the fire protection system, including, for example, the building official, public works, the planning department, community development, the water department, the road and bridge department, and similar agencies.

The two processes, strategic planning and community master planning, can be developed independently or separately, but one must complement the other. The way to accomplish this is to plan both processes so that data developed for one can support the other. Each plan may have to be revised periodically as the two processes move forward. One suggestion may be to develop a strategic plan first and establish relatively short-term and modest objectives in the appropriate key areas until the community master plan is developed and approved. This approach can prevent expending effort and funds on programs and resources that may not be consistent with the priorities established in the approved community master plan.

Strategic planning and community master planning, although time-consuming and labor-intensive, are key to the fire department’s future success and support its primary mission and reason for existing. Therefore, a great deal of time, effort, and resources should be devoted to these endeavors.

Fortunately, an excellent tool for assisting in developing strategic plan goals and objectives has recently been developed-the IAFC’s Fire and Emergency Service Self-Assessment Manual, developed jointly by the IAFC and the ICMA. Using tools that have the approval, recognition, and support of organizations such as the IAFC, ICMA, NFPA, and International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF) is instrumental to achieving universal acceptance of a proposed standard model or methodology for effectively and efficiently deploying fire department resources.

Involving the public in the policy development process is essential. You can do this through citizen committees; public hearings; and, when appropriate, participation in the master planning meetings. Remember, the level of unprotected risk the community is willing to accept is a public policy issue. The more informed the citizens are on the issues, the greater the probability that sound policy will be developed. “There’s a difference between public judgment and public opinion.”³⁰ A legislative body will be unwilling to spend more on fire department resources if public opinion does not support such an expenditure. A master planning process that informs and includes citizens can result in “public judgment” by the committee that can sway public opinion. Fire service managers must have faith in the public’s wisdom. As Thomas Jefferson noted: “I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of society but the people themselves, and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion ….”³¹

CAN A STANDARD MODEL BE DEVELOPED?

Indications are that a model for efficient and effective pre-emergency deployment of fire department resources can be developed. Generally accepted principles and processes already exist for dealing with many of the challenges posed by the four general category components-risk assessment of the local community, evaluation of existing fire department capability, the willingness of the community to invest in resources, and the development of goals and objectives. Where there is no consensus on the essential elements because of the absence of a detailed accepted process, it is still obvious that such a process can be developed. There are, after all, a finite number of issues that need to be addressed.

A key feature of a standard model is whether it can be adapted to any given community. Again, the answer is clear. It can. Although each community is different, there are a limited number of issues that must be addressed. The answer to various questions will differ, and so will the conclusions drawn, but the essential questions are the same. The development of any model must include input from a large number of diverse communities to ensure the key issues are addressed. The ability to ignore questions and issues that are not relevant to a specific community must be incorporated into the model.

To gain universal acceptance in the fire service community, the process must be spearheaded and supported by organizations that have recognized credibility. Form a partnership with organizations such as the IAFC, ICMA, NFPA, and IAFF. Joining forces with a major software development company could reduce costs, provide technical resources, speed the development process, as well as lend additional credibility to the final product. Circulate draft documents throughout the fire service and local government communities to obtain feedback. Carefully select an appropriate number of widely diverse alpha and beta test sites. The final product has to be user-friendly and dynamic, capable of being adapted by any community, and able to be amended and updated as needed. Finally, the significant resources and influence of the partner organizations must be used to market the product and assist in gaining its widespread acceptance.

The fire service needs to engage in comprehensive planning efforts that include, among other things, comprehensive risk analysis. There must be a matching of resources to the actual risks that exist, balanced by the political and financial realities in the community. The use of Geographical Information Systems, available in an increasing number of communities, in conjunction with Global Positioning System technology, also readily available, can simplify the collection and processing of data. A standard model as described in this article can significantly assist fire service managers and policy makers in the effective and efficient deployment of fire department resources.

Since this article was written, new standards that can assist in resource deployment decisions are moving forward in the development process. Readers should review NFPA 1710, Standard for the Organization and Deployment of Fire Suppression Operations, Emergency Medical Operations, and Special Operations to the Public by Career Fire Department, and NFPA 1720, Standard for the Organization and Deployment of Fire Suppression, Emergency Medical Operations, and Special Operations to the Public by Volunteer Fire Departments. These documents contain recommended response time, staffing, apparatus, and similar criteria that could have an impact on and assist in the decision process.

Endnotes

Managing Fire Services, International City Managers Association (ICMA), 1988, 77.
America Burning, National Commission on Fire Prevention and Control, 1989, 27.
Ibid., 30.
Fire and Emergency Service Self-Assessment Manual, International Association of Fire Chiefs (IAFC), 1995 , 4-1.
Ibid., 6-2.
The Fire Chief’s Handbook, Fifth Edition, Fire Engineering Books and Videos, 1995, 180.
Granito, John, “Evaluation and Planning of Public Fire Protection,” NFPA Fire Protection Handbook, Seventeenth Edition, Arthur E. Cote. P.E., Jim L. Lingville, eds., National Fire Protection Association, Sec. 10, Chapter 4, 10-43.
Managing Fire Services, ICMA, 80.
Ibid., 77.
“The Application of Probabilistic Risk Assessment Techniques to Energy Technologies” by Norman C. Rasmussen. In Readings in Risk, Theodore S. Glickman and Michael Gough, eds. (Washington, DC: Resources for the Future, 1991), 196.
Ibid., xi.
Ibid., 31.
Ibid., 34.
Fire Risk Analysis: A Systems Approach, National Fire Academy, 5-4.
Risk and Culture, Mary Douglas and Aaron Wildavsky, University of California Press, Berkley, Los Angeles, London, 1983, 194.
The Fire Chief’s Handbook, 955.
Fire and Emergency Service Self-Assessment Manual, IAFC, 4-4, 4-1.
Fire Risk Analysis, NFA, IG 3-7.
Stewart, Gary. Creating and Evaluating Standards of Response Coverage for California Fire Departments, 1996, 11-13. California State Fire Academy, Asilomar (Adapted from: The IAFC Fire Service Accreditation Manual – Standards of Cover Appendix).
American Society for the Testing of Materials E-931-85, Standard Practice for Assessment of Fire Risk by Occupancy Classification, 1986, 1-1.
B.M. Cohn, P.E.; L.E. Almgren; M. Curless, P.E.. A System for Local Assessment of the Conflagration Potential or Urban Areas (Chicago: Gage-Babcock & Associates, Inc., 1965).
Stewart, 8.
Carter, Harry R., Managing Fire Service Finances (Ashland, Mass.: International Society of Fire Service Instructors, 1989), 67.
Stewart, 2
1. Willits, James W., “Strategic Choices for Future Planning in the Fire Service,” Responder Magazine; Aug. 1996, 3:7.
2. IAFC Self-Assessment Manual, 6-57.
3. Ibid., 6-58.
4. Fire Protection Handbook, Eighteenth Edition, National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), 1997, 10-41.
5. Watkins, Kezziah, Engaging the Citizen ellipse A Workshop on Citizen Involvement, 1997, 25
6. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Volume VII, H.A. Washington, ed. (Washington, D.C.: Riker, Thorne and Co., Taylor & Maury, 1854), 179.
JAMES G. TAUBER, a third-generation firefighter and 32-year veteran of the fire service, is chief and director of Volusia County (FL) Fire Services. He previously served as a battalion chief in the Prince George’s County (MD) Fire Department, from which he retired. He has an associate’s degree in general education and a bachelor’s degree in fire science technology and is presently working on a master’s degree in public administration. He is a member of the NFPA 1600 Committee on Disaster Management.