By REID A. WODICKA
It’s two o’clock in the morning, and you’re crawling down a dark hallway minutes after waking from a deep sleep. It’s smoky and hot. You can barely see your hand in front of your face when, suddenly, you see an orange glow coming from one of the rooms down the hall. As flames sweep over your head, you knock down the fire, perform a little ventilation, and check for extension. In minutes, you have significantly limited the damage and have saved someone’s possessions; someone’s life; and, quite literally, the day.
This is a story that is repeated every day throughout the country, and it is the reason nearly all of us joined the fire service. Whether the role on scene was the pump operator or nozzleman, most firefighters enjoy engaging in emergency operations more than any other activity in their profession. However, the fire service does not exist in a vacuum; it exists within an environment of scarce resources that must be allocated among various important public and charitable functions. This applies to both the volunteer system as well as the career firefighting system, though perhaps in slightly different ways.
Decisions made by politicians and bureaucrats at all levels of government, nongovernment actors, and the desires of individual members of the public all play a significant role in the fire service’s ability to provide a high level of service. As such, fire service leaders and members must have a strong command of the dynamics of the public policy process. Although no one really enjoys talking about it, the only way for this understanding to begin is for fire service members to have some theoretical understanding of public policy.
Following the path of problem identification, agenda setting, and decision making, this article provides a brief general overview of some of the prevailing theories of public policy and explains how they might be applied in the fire service.
PUNCTUATED-EQUILIBRIUM THEORY
Throughout the history of the fire service, a handful of events has led to significant changes to the way we do business. The most obvious example is the tragedy of 9/11, which resulted in such changes as the development and implementation of the National Incident Management System (NIMS), now ubiquitous throughout the fire and emergency services. This change had been preceded by decades of smaller changes in the ways incidents, ranging from all types of national incidents to the simplest traffic crashes, are managed in the United States.
Additionally, in the decade since NIMS implementation, there have been small, incremental changes but not a significant change in the way we operate. The reason is the maintenance of control over an issue, known as a policy monopoly. When these monopolies are broken, we see institutional changes.
Punctuated-Equilibrium Theory seeks to explain that public policy is characterized by punctuations of significant change brought about by crisis. Every department can point to events that have not gone well (i.e., someone was badly injured or perhaps the department was embarrassed) and have led to a significant change in policy.
Although it would be wrong to characterize this method as reactive, it would also be fairly negligent not to react when a significant organizational deficiency leads to implementation problems. For instance, it would be extremely negligent for the President of the United States and other senior federal officials to ignore some of the deficiencies in the response system and simply hope for a better outcome in the next event. However, crises that lead to punctuations do not necessarily have to be on the national news and occur in a matter of minutes to be significant.
A crisis can also occur at the local level and over a lengthy period of time. For instance, if a volunteer rescue squad responds to one out of every 10 calls to which it is dispatched and members of the public are left waiting for another unit to respond, clearly there is a crisis that decision makers must address. Again, perhaps the issue is not seen on the national news, but from the individual patient’s perspective there is a major problem that could have life-or-death implications. You may need to develop a significant change or punctuation in policy that ensures that service is provided. It is negligent to fail to take some positive action.
Punctuated-Equilibrium Theory inherently suggests that fire service leaders must have the skills necessary to identify problems with implementing existing policy. Although there are a number of skills that are necessary to identify problems (understanding and applying statistics and so on), leaders must first have a clear understanding of the expectations of the system. From there, leaders can determine if there are systematic deficiencies and if those deficiencies reach the level of crisis.
MULTIPLE STREAMS FRAMEWORK
I have discussed how problems can and should lead to various changes in policy, but how does this occur functionally in a dynamic political environment? You can point to organizational problems that need to be addressed in your department such as funding from the local government for a career department that provides what you feel are too few people working on the ladder truck. Perhaps a volunteer company has allocated too few resources to volunteer recruitment and, as a result, has staffing problems when responding to calls. These are both serious problems with very different solutions. However, the circumstances that lead to action to solve these problems are similar.
Developed by John Kingdon and examined more closely by Nikolaos Zahariadis, the Multiple Streams Framework suggests that policy change occurs when there is a confluence of a problem that can be solved, the availability of alternative solutions, and the existence of political support. These three “streams”-problems, politics, and solutions-must converge at the same time for a change in policy to occur. For instance, if there is a problem and viable solutions have been identified but there is no political support, it is unlikely that the problem can be solved. When all three converge, there exists a “policy window” that provides an opportunity for action.
This all seems pretty logical, but from a functional perspective, it is important for fire service leaders to be able to couple the three streams when there is a policy window available. Known in theory as the policy entrepreneur, this person expends effort and resources to make policy windows apparent to decision makers and to facilitate the policy change. This is the role that leaders in the fire service must play. A fire service member who desires changes in organizational policy must be capable of creating and taking advantage of policy windows. Communicating problems and potential solutions and working toward building political support for solving the problems are functions that members must be capable of accomplishing if policy change is to be a reality.
An excellent example of a problem in the fire service is the turnover rate of employees in some career departments. It takes considerable effort to train firefighters and emergency medical technicians in initial certification and in building practical experience. When a department member leaves for another department, it is extremely expensive to replace that person financially and in terms of the higher service that this more experienced member provides. There are a number of potential solutions to this problem such as increasing salary and benefits, improving working conditions, and others that depend on the nature of the department. When crafting a strategy for the improvement of policy, it is important to understand why it has not been in place before. Consider a policy monopoly and how it could be strategically broken.
Clearly, these policy changes will require support from members of the local governing body such as the city council and the county board of supervisors. The policy entrepreneur must demonstrate how the high turnover rate is affecting finances and service delivery and how solutions will improve that condition, and he must do so while working with politicians to garner their support. Although that sounds pretty simple, it is a fairly complicated process. However, it is clear that effectively coupling these three streams will provide the best chance for policy to change. Once that happens, the change desired by the policy entrepreneur will most likely occur when he has framed the issues in a way that captures the attention of decision makers and other stakeholders. But, what happens if there are multiple groups trying to solve the same problem, and through different means?
ADVOCACY COALITION FRAMEWORK
Some of the most politically charged and nasty debates occur during the monthly membership meetings of volunteer fire companies and rescue squads. Sometimes in our field, people have big egos and, invariably, groups within the larger organization form. I would argue that generally everyone has a desire to work for the good of the organization and the public as a whole, but sometimes there are very different methods by which people advocate for organizational improvement. For instance, one group may argue that the department needs to focus on spending money to replace apparatus while some might argue that more emphasis needs to be placed on fire stations. These are pretty simple examples, but even they can create some serious tension! As stated by Paul Sabatier and Christopher Weible in Theories of the Policy Process, the Advocacy Coalition Framework is designed to “deal with the ‘wicked’ problems-those involving substantial goal conflicts, important technical disputes, and multiple actors.”
Assuming that all other circumstances surrounding the issue and the organization remain constant, various groups within the organization might advocate for different solutions to a problem faced by the organization, depending on their understanding of the problem. At some point, a solution to a problem has to be chosen, and there are only two potential options for this solution: (1) One group will “win,” or (2) there will be a compromise among the solutions advocated by the two or more groups. Exceptional fire service leaders will be able to reconcile the difference between groups.
Moving beyond the scope of inside the fire service, governments face issues that affect the fire service. For instance, in recent years, local governments in the United States have faced some of the most difficult budgets in recent history. As a result, some might advocate for cutting funding to the fire department in ways that would place firefighters and the public in danger. Clearly, the fire department needs to participate politically with others that have alternative proposals to balance the budget. Although the fire department may have to compromise on some issues, hopefully the budget will not be balanced on the backs of firefighters.
I hope that fire service leaders and members can conceptually gain an understanding of the theoretical issues in public policy and apply them to problems they face in their departments. This article is not intended to be a step-by-step explanation of how to accomplish certain organizational goals; it is intended as a general framework for how someone might be able to understand the issues faced by the organization and provide a basis for the development of a strategy to solve those issues.
Every organization is different, and the issues in every community are slightly different. Understanding these basic ideas should provide a leader with the basis with which to intelligently and strategically solve problems.
Author’s note: Thanks to Dr. Claudia Avellaneda, assistant professor of political science at the University of North Carolina-Charlotte, for her review and comments on this article.
REFERENCES
True, James, Bryan Jones and Frank Baumgartner. “Punctuated Equilibrium Theory: Explaining Stability and Change in Public Policymaking” in Theories of the Policy Process 2nd Ed. Paul Sabatier, ed. Chapter 6. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press. 2007.
Kingdon, John. Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies. 2nd ed. New York: Harper Collins. 1995.
Zahariadis, Nikolaos. “The Multiple Streams Framework.” In Theories of the Policy Process, 2nd ed. Paul Sabatier, ed. Chapter 3. Boulder, Coloarado: Westview Press. 2007.
Sabatier, Paul and Christopher Weible. “The Advocacy Coalition Framework: Innovations and Clarifications” Theories of the Policy Process, 2nd ed. Paul Sabatier, ed. Chapter 7. Boulder, Colorado Westview Press. 2007.
● REID A. WODICKA is a 10-year fire service veteran; most of most of these years were as a volunteer with Hose Company #4 in Harrisonburg, Virginia, and as a part-time employee with the Rockingham County (VA) Department of Fire and Rescue. Wodicka has a B.S. in public policy and administration and a master of public administration degree with a concentration in local government management from James Madison University. He is a PhD student in public policy at the University of North Carolina-Charlotte.
Fire Engineering Archives
