Staffing has become an epidemic of sorts in the modern fire service, one that we seem afraid to acknowledge but inept to fix. From the taboo that surrounds the not-so-secret decline of our volunteers, to the steady reduction of career personnel in cash-strapped municipalities, a growing number of departments, large and small, are battling shrinking rosters.
Although many factors are involved in reductions of staffing levels, the introduction of corporate management strategies, which suggest that the bottom line is about what we spend instead of what we save, is partially to blame. For as much as we have evolved in safety, technology and capability, we seem to have fallen behind in our ability to defend our brand as a product that’s worth financing.
To further complicate staffing woes, we either perpetuate or accept the belief that we constantly must justify our existence. Despite the fact that we are the only department in every jurisdiction that extinguishes fires, we have bought into the crazy notion that the communities that we serve eventually will eliminate us if we fail to keep adding to our cache of capabilities. In many ways, we have put the cart before the horse and concocted the “all hazards” model. Although it should seem obvious that expanding our mission while simultaneously battling reductions in staffing are conflicting propositions, we allow our grit, dedication and civic nature to fool us into believing that we can accomplish both. Even though we are happy to serve citizens in any capacity, continuously adding to the disciplines at which we ask personnel to remain proficient comes at a cost. For many departments, the increased demand that they create on response and training is stretching already-thin resources even thinner.
The myth
From a cat that’s stuck in a tree, to a structure fire, we market ourselves as the last line of defense when there isn’t anybody who is left to call. Through public education, media and the silver screen, we program citizens at a young age to believe that we will arrive with an army of trained personnel to mitigate any problem, anytime, anywhere. Furthermore, we slowly shifted to obedience from outrage, as our numbers continued to dwindle—a sign that we are conceding in the fight for adequate staffing.
Even worse, some embrace our staffing plight in a weird, twisted way. More and more, we hear of departments who wear their shrinking rosters as a badge of honor, as if reduced staffing is somehow a source of pride. In fact, we even champion a dreaded term to justify such practices, one that makes me cringe every time that I hear it. Today, we love to advertise how proud that we are to be doing “more with less.” It’s a ruse that does nothing more than sabotage our efforts to secure more personnel.
“More with less” is an innocent enough phrase at first glance. It generally is deployed to justify things that either look good on paper or negate common sense but rationally can’t be explained. It defends cuts to budgets, resources and staffing.
The comfort of this statement is the equivalent of putting a Band-Aid on an arterial bleed: We try to soften the blow of the reality that we no longer might be capable of delivering the things that we tell communities that we will.
If we can be blatantly honest for a minute, let’s call it what it really is: deception. In an occupation in which time never is on our side, any reduction in resources swings the pendulum farther and farther away from operational success. Even as significant advances in science and technology create innovative ways to carry out our mission smarter, safer and more efficiently, people always will be the one factor that we can’t replace.
Reality
Today’s companies and chief officers must accept the fact that there is a serious disconnect between the expectations that we nurture in the community and the resources that we provide to achieve them. In the age of “efficiency,” we must acknowledge that we operate at a time in the fire service when, for most of us, it is anything but business as usual. Automatic and mutual aid are only as effective as the resources and personnel that are available. Vision statements, strategic plans and tactical objectives are difficult to translate without the people to carry them out. We can load down giant apparatus with tools of every discipline, continue to make our PPE safer and more resilient, and increase the size of our SCBA cylinders to permit us to work longer, but all of these innovations essentially are useless without the correct number of trained, competent firefighters to utilize them.
We need to stop pretending that we can reduce our rosters, cross-staff apparatus or shut down stations but still respond with the same effectiveness that we once did. There is a reason that the NFPA makes staffing recommendations. Studies show that each person who we add or subtract from our crew results in approximately one minute gained or lost in the completion of fireground tasks. That effect is closer to three minutes when it comes to search, which is a task that we certainly can’t afford to lose time on. The National Institute of Standards and Technology and Underwriters Laboratories give us plenty of scientific data to quantify the fire characteristics that we are up against and the decreasing amount of time that we have to effectively combat them. These facts should remind us that no matter how badly that we want something to work without adequate resources, it doesn’t mean that it will.
Adjust and prepare
Any prudent manager continually should identify ways to reduce financial waste. However, even if we trim some fat, increase efficiency, thwart bureaucracy and change our tactics, at the end of the day, it’s impossible to do more with less. If we’re lucky, we can try to accomplish the same with less. That’s the approach that we should take when staffing doesn’t match the requirements that are set forth by our industry and training. To do so, all members must commit to maintaining a high level of competency, which only can be obtained by actively investing in our skills, fitness and communication. It means we likely will wear multiple hats throughout our tour, juggling roles that often place us in situations that are inconsistent with our formal education or policies. It means companies and chief officers need to get their hands dirty; driver operators might have to dress out; firefighters inevitably will be forced to work away from the traditional model of direct supervision. It means that we need to have some difficult conversations, to advocate a little more aggressively and to accept some additional risk, because, at the end of the day, we promise the community that we’re coming for them.
Yes, operating with limited staffing presents unique challenges that require serious preparation, lots of training and an open mind to overcome.
The best way to succeed with short staffing is to set clear expectations and to ensure development is centered around decision-making. There isn’t any room for micromanagement and rigidity when we often will employ ad hoc strategies that are dictated by the incident. Everyone needs to be on the same page in the fire station if there is any hope of working seamlessly on the fireground.
From there, we must promote and perfect fundamental firefighting skills at all levels of the organization. Little things, such as how we organize our apparatus, load our hose and stage our gear, have a big effect when we’re trying to steal valuable seconds. Size-up is even more critical as we set tactical priorities for the staffing and resources that we have. Our crews must be armed with multiple playbooks that can expand and contract with the number of personnel that’s available on scene. We might have to combine smaller companies to create a crew of four or five, rethink our water supply strategies, and learn how to make the stretch, throw ladders or force entry by ourselves. We also should consider that, absent obvious rescues, fire suppression likely is the best way to protect trapped occupants when we don’t have enough people to perform search and attack simultaneously.
Practice how you play
As we face scenarios that force us to conduct fireground operations with inadequate staffing, we must be willing to challenge not only how we do things but the values that dictate why we do them. This means regularly trying and adapting new tactics, constantly critiquing our efforts, evolving our practices and not being afraid to fail. We can’t train to advance an attack line with four people if we only will have two. It hardly is beneficial to train with companies out of convenience if they aren’t on most of our run cards. We can’t allow other units to mark on scene in 60 seconds when training if they would be six minutes down the road on an actual run. Sometimes, just finding a location and the equipment to conduct a training session while staying in service is difficult. In these cases, we should build, borrow and repurpose to satisfy our needs. We might need to utilize spare apparatus, find vacant buildings, or improvise in our stations and parking lots. I hate to say it, but forgiveness is often a greater tool than permission in these cases. That isn’t an invitation to be insubordinate but rather the reality that our mandate to train our people sometimes requires flexibility. If we put our people and citizens first, a little humbleness and accountability goes a long way when we need a little latitude.
Culture matters
Perhaps the biggest challenge of the “more with less” environment is keeping our traditions and maintaining a culture that prevents the “just another job” mentality from taking over. Culture often is overlooked or ignored, because it can be difficult to maintain in firehouses that have few personnel. Whether we have two people or 20, it’s important to divide duties, retain riding assignments, take pictures, preserve company pride and conduct roll call. We still should eat meals together, have chats on the bumper and watch a movie when the work is done.
Although we should invest in spending time together, we also should know when it’s time to spend time apart. Remember, balance is the key to success, particularly with the added discomfort of shouldering more responsibilities to uphold the standard that we set for our communities.
To be fair, I never had the privilege of serving as the chief of a department, so I won’t pretend to know, or even understand, the struggle that occurs behind the scenes as we jockey with policymakers to secure funding. I won’t suggest that I have the solution for stopping the exodus of volunteers or a fool-proof plan to stop the staffing bleed in combination and paid departments. However, what I do have is some experience with running a short-staffed company and the resulting stresses, realities and decisions that accompany it. By continuing to take away resources while asking people to suck it up and make it work, we are creeping toward the threshold that eventually will make luck our primary operational strategy. Although I understand that conversations that concern how or why low staffing is allowed to occur usually are uncomfortable and often are unproductive, if we don’t stop bailing water and fix the leak, eventually our ship will sink. It’s time that we change the way that we educate, train and develop operational personnel to give them the tools that are necessary for success with the staffing that they actually have.
Instead of worrying about doing more with less, how about we focus on doing the most with what we have and grow from there, because our mission remains the same, even if our staffing does not.
Marc Aloan
Marc Aloan is a battalion chief with the West Columbia, SC, Fire Department and the creator of The Fire Inside blog. He is an active speaker, author and instructor who has 20 years of combined volunteer and career service. Aloan holds a bachelor's degree in fire protection administration and a master's degree in organizational leadership.
