The American fire service faces a troubling paradox: Although the number of fires has declined significantly, civilian fatalities in residential fires are rising. NFPA reports that, although the U.S. experiences roughly half as many fires annually as it did in the 1980s, the rate of civilian fire deaths has trended upward in recent years. This paradox demands a hard look at how we evaluate fireground performance.

In contrast, EMS operates under systems of accountability. Quality assurance (QA) and quality improvement (QI) programs are mandated by medical directors and reinforced by state regulations.

Fire suppression remains largely unmeasured, dependent on tradition and anecdote rather than data. If the fire service is serious about saving more lives—both civilian and firefighter—it must embrace QA/QI for fireground operations.

EMS as a model

The adoption of QA/QI in EMS wasn’t optional; it was required. Medical directors, licensing oversight and reimbursement structures created a culture in which systematic evaluation of every patient care report became standard practice. In “EMS Quality Improvement Programs” (Erin Lincoln, Essie Reed-Schrader & Jeffrey Jarvis, StatPearls, StatPearls Publishing, January 2026), it was reported that 71 percent of EMS agencies had dedicated quality improvement personnel. These systems emerged because financial accountability—particularly through Medicare, Medicaid and insurance reimbursements—demanded accuracy and performance review.

Today, as more fire departments bill for EMS transports or rescue services, QA/QI is becoming increasingly necessary. Billing creates oversight, and oversight demands data. The fire service can learn from EMS: When accountability is mandated, both outcomes and funding improve.

Fire service funding gap

Unlike EMS, fire suppression is almost entirely taxpayer funded. Chiefs are tasked with defending multimillion-dollar budgets without standardized data to demonstrate performance. This challenge is compounded by the explosion in fire apparatus costs. A new pumper often exceeds $1 million, and aerial ladders can surpass $2 million.

Concerns about cost escalation have reached the national stage. IAFF alongside watchdog organizations has urged the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission to investigate potential price gouging in the fire apparatus market. Bipartisan scrutiny has followed: Senators Jim Banks and Elizabeth Warren launched a federal probe into private equity’s role in apparatus price inflation and market consolidation.

Without QA/QI data, fire chiefs face an uphill battle when they request apparatus, staffing or training funds. Anecdotes can’t compete with spreadsheets in budget hearings. QA/QI for fireground operations provides the evidence that chiefs need to defend taxpayer investment.

Civilian effect and training

Accountability isn’t only about budgets; it is about survival. Civilian fire deaths are increasing despite fewer overall fires. Modern construction methods and synthetic materials mean faster fire growth and shorter survival windows. Firefighters are racing against time more than ever, yet fireground performance rarely is measured systematically.

Grassroots initiatives have demonstrated the power of data. Firefighter Rescue Survey has documented thousands of rescues, to reshape training conversations across the United States. Project Mayday has collected data on firefighter distress calls, to improve mayday training and survivability. Both efforts prove that tracking outcomes changes behaviors. A QA/QI model for fireground operations could elevate training and operational effectiveness similarly nationwide.

A vision for fireground QA/QI

Imagine a fire service in which every working fire produced measurable data, just as every EMS call produces a patient care report. Dispatch intervals, arrival benchmarks, water supply times, search completions and crew sizes all could be documented. Combined with officer after-action reporting and anonymized nationally, these data could establish a baseline for fireground performance.

Potential benefits include:

• Training priorities. Tailoring training to identified performance gaps rather than tradition.
• Benchmarking. Allowing chiefs to compare their department against national averages.
• Funding justification. Supplying data for grants, staffing requests and apparatus replacements.
• Improved outcomes. Measuring civilian rescues and firefighter mayday survivability with precision.

EMS already has proven that QA/QI systems are feasible, sustainable and effective. Fire suppression deserves the same evolution.

Call to action

Tradition remains vital to the fire service, but it can’t substitute for accountability. With apparatus costs soaring, civilian deaths rising and taxpayer trust under strain, the fire service must adopt QA/QI for fireground operations.

This isn’t about second-guessing firefighters or undermining command decisions. It’s about protecting civilians, firefighters and the public’s investment. When time is the enemy, data are the solution. The fire service must begin to measure what matters.

Note: The views that are expressed here are those of the author and don’t represent the views of Montgomery County, MD, Fire and Rescue Service.