It is that time of year again when departments formulate and defend their requests for funds as cities, counties and boards weigh anticipated revenues against requested expenditures. Department leaders are faced with making tough decisions on programs, projects and needs as they work to draft a budget that enables them to carry out the mission of their department knowing that, most likely, not all of their requests will be met. These same leaders are tasked with presenting and defending these requests to their elected bodies and citizens.
During the budgeting process, department leaders are going to be asked to justify and validate the requests that they have made in order to ensure that there is no fiscal waste or irresponsibility in their requests. In formulating and preparing a budget, it is vital that these leaders put their personnel, equipment and training (PET) projects at the top of the list. Developing a budget that focuses on the well being of your personnel, ensuing they have the needed equipment to do their job and the training to perform their job, is easily defendable and puts the safety of firefighters as a top priority.
There is no shortage of classes, seminars, websites, social media sites and other mediums for discussions of firefighter health and safety, and there is certainly no shortage of fire service members who are willing to engage in those mediums. The question that departments and administrators need to ask themselves as they prepare their next budget request is this: Are we practicing what we preach?
If you are preparing your budget, here are some keys areas you should focus on to ensure that you are meeting the mark.
Personnel
Every budget should include funding for annual physicals. This applies to all fire departments, both paid and volunteer, no exceptions. I hear all the arguments about lack of funding and potential for loss of volunteers, but if we truly are in the business of protecting lives and property as we so proudly state, isn’t this easiest way to potentially save a life?
I have the upmost admiration and respect for anyone who is willing to serve in public safety, but I don’t feel like they should unnecessarily put themselves risk.
Are there some pretty substantial cost with annual physicals? The obvious answer is yes, but what is a life of a firefighter worth? Way more than a physical, in my opinion.
Ask any chief what their most valuable tool is and they will tell you their people, so why don’t we act that way when it comes to allocation of funding? Some departments will state that they don’t have the funds for physicals and, in those cases, I have many more questions about the financial stability and existence of the department. If you can’t afford to ensure that members are healthy before you send them out the door, then you should reevaluate if the door even needs to open. Why should we send people in to an IDLH without first ensuring that they are medically capable? Nothing happens without people, and we state every year that we want to reduce line-of-duty deaths. This is step one.
The other argument that is often presented is that physicals may force some of our members off the job and we can’t afford to lose any more members. But how do we knowing let someone continue to do something they are not physical prepared for?
Cost and retention are excuses for not having to make hard decisions and having tough conversations. Lack of funding is not an excuse to send people with medical risk into an IDLH, nor is an unwillingness to tell someone they are not medically fit for duty. If we are truly are in the business of saving people, then let’s start with our own.
Equipment
If a member checks out good physically and is ready to provide this vital public service, the next thing we need to ensure is that they have the appropriate PPE to keep them safe. Sending members to emergency events without the proper PPE creates an event where members are exposed to unnecessary risks that are both predictable and preventable.
Similar to annual physicals, the argument of cost will come up, but I again counter with a question: If you can’t ensure that members have the adequate PPE to respond, should you even respond to begin with?
From eye protection to SCBA, departments and administrators should ensure that they have the appropriate PPE for the risks in their jurisdiction, so that members can carry out the mission without being unnecessarily exposed.
The other important piece of this is enforcement of use. There should be a zero-tolerance stance. Similar to seatbelts, if you refuse to wear your PPE, you will be sent home. This may seem very elementary to some, but know that will still have departments in this country that have non-compliant PPE, insufficient number of SCBAs for the responders on scene and/or members who refuse to wear the provided PPE.
Training
Assuming that your members are physical fit for duty and have the appropriate PPE to perform the job, the next area of focus should be training. There has and most likely will always be a debate about training standards and whether they be the same for everyone. Having been in a volunteer and career organization, I can tell you that I don’t ever see a situation where we have a single training plan that we all follow across this country. This is not a free pass to blow off NFPA standards regarding training, as it should still be your goal to meet those standards whenever possible, but also being aware of when you are not. Chief officers should have a good idea of the risk in their jurisdiction and the capabilities of their department and people.
If you don’t have the training and equipment to perform technical rescue response, then develop a plan for mutual aid or automatic aid support from the closest available unit/team. If you don’t have the training in hazardous materials, identify and isolate, and call someone else. If you haven’t trained your members in interior fire attack, hold the fire to the building of origin using tactics commensurate with the level of training and equipment available (i.e., exterior attack). The point: Don’t ask members to do something they aren’t trained or equipped to do; if you do, you are putting them at an unacceptable risk.
Training is one of the hardest lines to increase in most budgets, but it is one of the most important. Make sure your decision-making bodies know what training it takes to safely perform the task of firefighters. If you aren’t telling them what you need, how can they know what to fund?
Final thoughts
To many of you, the idea of getting an annual physical, having compliant PPE and engaging in training that covers all aspects of your job may be a given; however, you are actually in the minority of the American fire service. There are still more firefighters in this country who are not getting an annual medical evaluation than those that are. Firefighters continue to respond without the proper PPE or refuse to wear what they have. And many firefighters continue to respond to calls with little to no training in how to safely perform their task.
The argument will be made that not every department can ensure that all of these basic assurances have been made due to a lack of funding, and that there is no way those budgetary requests can be funded. At some point, the risk versus benefit model must be evaluated. Any human being who has the courage to sign up and be a public servant has already made a tremendous sacrifice, but that doesn’t require that they knowingly take extraordinary risk with their health.
If communities, boards or elected bodies aren’t willing to provide the basic funding to ensure that the members who are responding to emergency events in their jurisdiction are safe, then they should have the conversation about the expectations of their fire service. This is your opportunity to explain that these are essential needs for firefighter safety and items that should be considered essential and primary when it comes to budget planning.
I am not advocating for 100 percent career departments, as there are places where that is simply not financially possible or the needed model. I am advocating for keeping all firefighters safe, both career and volunteer, by providing some basic requirements. The fire service has always done more with less, but we have more data and examples available today about why these items are essential to firefighter safety that better inform our citizens of the need for funding.
If you presently have the funding to ensure these basics are in place, remember to appreciate what you have. If you have the funds and aren’t ensuring that your PET projects are taken care of, you need to refocus your priorities. If you don’t have the money to ensure these PET projects happen, then it’s time to talk to your constituents about their expectations and your abilities to meet those expectations.
