As you probably know, Firehouse Magazine Editor-In-Chief Tim Sendelbach wrote his October editor’s letter in response to a Washington Post opinion piece regarding the reduction in fires and the expansion of the career firefighter. Fire departments across the country have opined on both the volunteer and union side of the proverbial fence, with extremes and individual albatross examples used to make broad justifications to support the notion of the need for fewer paid firefighters as a result of fewer fires.
While we won’t get anything done by attacking the author of the Washington Post piece, much of what he has generated deserves clarity. So let’s briefly explore the opinion before addressing the really important part of this story: Is the author correct?
Who am I?
I recognize that the author may say, “Who is Bashoor to say this stuff?” Well, this opinion comes from someone who has operated on both sides of that paid and volunteer “fence,” in both combination and all-volunteer settings, spanning the past 34 years. For the purpose of understanding the expertise brought to this opinion, as opposed to a professed educational pedigree, please indulge a resume-in-brief.
For nearly five years, I have served as chief of the Prince George’s County, MD, Fire and Emergency Medical Services Department (PGFD), and I currently serve as chairman of the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments Fire Chiefs Committee. PGFD is the largest combination paid/volunteer fire/EMS department in North America. We support more than 900 sworn and civilian employees with more than 1,500 certified volunteers. An additional 1,000-plus volunteers provide administrative, auxiliary and non-emergency support to the 37 independent volunteer corporations [(501(c)(3)] that were covered under the County Fire Chief and County Charter that was formed in 1970.
My career in the fire/EMS department began as a volunteer in 1981—a choice I maintained until being hired as a paid firefighter in 1987.
Like many in the fire service, my experiences are not limited to my home department. After rising through the ranks of the PGFD, I spent nearly five years as the emergency manager for Mineral County, WV (all volunteer fire departments), before returning to the PGFD to serve as chief in 2010.
While an emergency manager, I also spent four years as an adjunct with the National Emergency Response and Rescue Training Center at Texas A&M in College Station, TX, specifically supporting disaster exercise delivery across the United States. As an unpaid “expert” for the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), I have lectured in China about fire service training and consulted in Brazil about the establishment of combination fire departments.
The opinion
The Washington Post opinion comes to a stark conclusion that the International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF) is the “devil-in-the-details” reason as to why career firefighters have increased while fires have decreased. The IAFF certainly advocates for career firefighters; that’s their mission. However, the supposition that fires have decreased, and that organized labor’s efforts to cover more firefighters are therefore a waste of money, and that there should be a fire-dropping-corresponding decrease in career firefighter ranks, is extremely linear and ludicrous at first glance. We have a responsibility as government officials to ensure that our communities are protected. Using an elementary approach, as suggested, to justify service levels in the public safety continuum would be dangerously irresponsible. As is addressed below in the questions, it is important to note that we also have a responsibility to ensure that our service is meeting the expectations of our communities.
Yes, as the opinion observes, many of our forefathers were volunteer firemen, and I will opine that they rode horses to get from point A to point B. Many things have evolved in the United States since 1776, including the transition of many larger fire departments into paid departments.
There are myriad reasons for the transition; family time and job requirements, significantly increased training requirements, EMS, legal challenges, systemic changes, community expectations, government funding capacity, cultural differences and, yes, organized labor, among other factors. As those challenges began impacting volunteers 40 years ago, the National Volunteer Fire Council (NVFC) was formed to represent the interests of volunteer firefighters at the national level. Much like the IAFF advocates politically for unionized firefighters, the NVFC advocates politically for volunteers. The NVFC provides a significant resource for volunteer fire departments to recruit and share strategies for retention nationwide.
Volunteerism in the United States has been decreasing for some time. Using the State of Pennsylvania as an example, during the same time period that the NFPA reports fires decreasing by 40 percent (1976 to present), the number of volunteer firefighters in Pennsylvania has decreased by 80 percent. During that same time frame, the IAFF membership in Pennsylvania increased by less than 2 percent. Yes, this looks like an extreme example; however, it is a statewide reflection of a national trend. Recognizing that 90 percent of Pennsylvania is still covered by volunteer firefighters, I find it nearly impossible to correlate IAFF activities having anything significant to do with the decline in volunteer numbers.
There are hardline tactics on both the labor and volunteer side. I won’t spend significant space arguing those tactics. Let’s grow up and make sure we’re getting the job done. And where we’re not getting the job done, the solution likely boils down to one of three things: 1) the need to hire more firefighters; 2) the need to find more volunteers; or 3) the need to refocus our mission.
Different Roles
Firefighters, both paid and volunteer, have accepted all-encompassing roles that probably justify a name-change (discussion for another day). Firefighters have always taken care of the cat-in-the-tree, the power line down, the stranded motorist in high water, fires, first-provider EMS, inspections, the “I smell something” calls, etc. While “fires” have declined, “fires” never were, nor are they now, the only thing firefighters deal with.
So how do we KNOW we’re being effective? How do we KNOW that’s acceptable to our community? And how do we KNOW that our “performances” are still valid? I submit to you that we must conduct this critical analysis on a regular basis. How do we institutionalize effective mechanisms that could provide an overarching answer to these questions across a broad spectrum of the country? While we don’t have space to REALLY answer these questions here, following are some thought/talk-provoking “opinions.”
Critical questions
As much as we may dislike it, part of a critical analysis of an unpopular hypothesis is to determine whether the hypothesis COULD be correct. Fortunately, I don’t believe we need to look too far to answer that question with any level of surety. We may have to dig deeper though, to answer the REAL questions:
1. When was the last time we ASKED our communities how well we were doing AND asked them what they wanted/expected out of their fire service?
There are departments that routinely survey their communities, some on an “every call” basis. The opportunity here is significant, not only from a quality assurance perspective, but also to ask/answer the “did we meet your expectations?” question. Recognizing that return rates of this type of survey are sketchy, they should only be PART of the solution. You HAVE to become more than just another “part” of your community. We must engage community organizations, homeowners associations, business groups, etc., to conduct a TRUE evaluation of their expectations and level of satisfaction. After we solicit the information, our next challenge becomes maintaining the positive elements, and/or improving the negative elements OR changing our mission to reflect the expectation OR figuring out how to influence the expectation. Easy, right? Wrong. However, if you are going to maintain your customer base (those who support your organization), it will be critical for you to “go down this road.”
2. What evidence exists to confirm how well are we educating our communities and elected officials about what we do? What level of risk are our communities willing to accept?
Nationally, the number of fires has decreased over the past 40 years; fire deaths have decreased; volunteerism has decreased; generally speaking, insurance rates have continued to rise; sprinkler and smoke alarm legislation is under attack. What do you know about YOUR community’s public education efforts? Most departments go to their elementary schools for the “friendly firefighter” and “9-1-1” demonstrations. When was the last time you brought an elected official into your station or to a training event? Have you given them the opportunity to “try it out”? Have you analyzed your ISO/insurance rating as a tool to educate your community about the risks they unknowingly accept by supporting the level of protection they currently have? Is this a “risk” they are willing to accept? We should be constantly proactive about that education.
3. Have we as a provider taken an evidence-based look at our approaches to service provision? Do we KNOW why we do what we do?
I suspect in many cases the answer is “because that’s what we’ve always done.” (Go back to the 1776 horse discussion.) There is a certain amount of inherent understanding about the evidence for “firefighting” as it relates to “fire departments” providing fire protection. What about EMS? Are WE the right people to provide that service? What evidence supports that—“Emergency!”? I’m confident that using the funeral home or towing operator approach of prior-to-current EMS is NOT the answer. Are there opportunities with Mobile Integrated Healthcare (MIH) to affect better patient outcomes, better response times, better turn-around times, better maintenance history, less provider fatigue? How about inspections? Most fire departments do them. Why? Because the building department doesn’t do them to OUR standard? Because the third-party provider doesn’t “get it”? Are there opportunities to take SOME inspection load off of your personnel? Maybe. Maybe not. But what evidence do you have to support your decision?
Wrapping up
I submit that the author’s rationale of fewer fires having a direct correlation to the need for fewer paid firefighters would be similar to saying, “Life expectancy has improved; therefore, we need fewer paid doctors.” The reality is that much of the improvements in fire safety and reductions in fires is a DIRECT result of increased firefighter engagement within their communities, both paid and volunteer. Reduction of a portion of that resource, purely at the desire to reduce expenditures, is likely to result in reversal of those improvements in a wave of destruction similar to the cycle that is currently occurring in several European communities.
I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard “when we don’t know who to call, we call the fire department.” In many communities, this is reality because of the evolution of small-town America and because the fire service has typically stepped up to the plate and answered the call, regardless of what that call is. Few (if any) other agencies can demonstrate that reality.
As human beings, our first response to confrontation is typically defensive, followed by survival instincts in an all-on offensive mode to get OUT of whatever we’re IN. We will get nowhere by purely attacking the messenger. We CANNOT allow ONE opinion by ONE person to get so far under our skin. We also cannot allow a culture of complacency to become the reason that answers the question of why we do what we do. Communities need to decide what level of risk they are willing to accept and decide what fits their community. Justifying your agency’s existence is likely to be a continuous struggle, so you’re going to need to get over your disdain for justifying yourself. Welcome to 2016 (almost)!
There is room and there are opportunities for all types of departments—volunteer, combination and paid. Fire departments need to continue to embrace EMS and community risk reduction as the “new” pillars of the American fire service. You are welcome to go the way of the wooly mammoth, if that’s what YOU choose. I hope you choose to continuously ensure that your fire/EMS department justifies its existence through quality service with honor and integrity.
