A five-part series originally published in 2015-2016 in Plumas News.
by Tom Forster
How Good is Your Fire Department? Part I
Ever wonder how good your local fire department is? Perhaps you formed an opinion after they responded to a fire or accident. Maybe you were pleased, or were disappointed after something was lost. Is there any kind of rating system that would help us understand the quality of the FD? “Good” is of course a very subjective term, and we’ll want to understand more objective rating systems.
The following series of columns is intended to explain what the most common rating systems are related to the FD. Each approaches the review from a specific perspective to fulfill certain needs. Gaining a more objective view of your FD requires a basic understanding of the methodologies involved.
We need to start with the awareness that there is no law or regulation that requires a community to provide fire protection. Once a community chooses to do so, however, various laws and regulations come into play, depending on the expected mission or services that will be provided. These requirements may come from federal, state, or local sources that either exist or may be established by the agency in question. In addition, there are national “standards” that are not law, but may be held up as applying across the country, regardless of the law. We’ll cover how that may happen, and how communities may be required to follow those standards.
Let’s start with a look at one of the oldest rating systems, which was created to help serve the needs of the commercial property insurance industry. It has roots going back to the 1830’s, but at that time was primarily for factories and industrial risk. The National Board of Fire Underwriters (NBFU) was created in 1866 to promote fire prevention and public fire protection. A number of conflagrations in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, such as those in Chicago, Baltimore and San Francisco, underscored the need for such a system.
The 1906 San Francisco Earthquake and fires ranks as one of the worst catastrophes in U.S. history in terms of property damage and losses. Estimates of losses total more than $32 billion dollars (2015 equivalent), with much of it due to the fires that followed the earthquake. The insurance industry was hit very hard, with some companies being forced out of business with the very large losses to be paid.
It became obvious that fire losses and fire defenses varied greatly across the country, and there was clearly a need for assessing the individual fire defenses of cities. In 1909, NBFU developed the Municipal Inspection and Grading System, for evaluating fire potential. In 1916, NBFU developed the first public protection evaluation system, “The Standard Grading Schedule for Grading Cities and Towns of the United States With Reference to Their Fire Defenses and Physical Conditions.” The grading schedule assigned deficiency points based on the variance from a set of standard criteria developed from a study of more than 500 cities.
In 1971, several insurance groups, including former state insurance rating bureaus, NBFU, and other similar entities, merged to form the Insurance Services Office (ISO). Many of us have heard or read about an ISO rating. This rating can range from 1-10, with one on the scale considered “superior”, and ten meaning it does not meet the minimum standards. So if your FD gets rated a five by ISO, it must be average, or something like that? It’s not that simple.
An ISO rating of an FD is simply one of many tools for property insurers to use to help in establishing rates based on risk. It’s about helping insurers assess risk. They may or may not choose to use it, and different companies may use it in different ways when setting insurance rates. Add in the fact that fire loss risk is only a part of your homeowner insurance considerations, and we begin to understand it’s more complicated than it first appears.
Most of us are much more likely to have a medical emergency at home than a fire. An earlier series in this column reviewed the evolution of emergency medical services (EMS) provided in the field by FD’s. Usually over three-quarters of the emergency calls that your local FD responds to each year are EMS calls, not fires. The ISO rating does not analyze that capability, nor does it analyze FD capabilities like vehicle accident extrication or other rescue capability. Keep this in mind when we take a closer look at the Public Protection Classification ™ Program, or ISO Rating, in Part II.
Ever wonder how good your local fire department is? Perhaps you formed an opinion after they responded to a fire or accident. Maybe you were pleased, or were disappointed after something was lost. Is there any kind of rating system that would help us understand the quality of the FD? “Good” is of course a very subjective term, and we’ll want to understand more objective rating systems.
The following series of columns is intended to explain what the most common rating systems are related to the FD. Each approaches the review from a specific perspective to fulfill certain needs. Gaining a more objective view of your FD requires a basic understanding of the methodologies involved.
We need to start with the awareness that there is no law or regulation that requires a community to provide fire protection. Once a community chooses to do so, however, various laws and regulations come into play, depending on the expected mission or services that will be provided. These requirements may come from federal, state, or local sources that either exist or may be established by the agency in question. In addition, there are national “standards” that are not law, but may be held up as applying across the country, regardless of the law. We’ll cover how that may happen, and how communities may be required to follow those standards.
Let’s start with a look at one of the oldest rating systems, which was created to help serve the needs of the commercial property insurance industry. It has roots going back to the 1830’s, but at that time was primarily for factories and industrial risk. The National Board of Fire Underwriters (NBFU) was created in 1866 to promote fire prevention and public fire protection. A number of conflagrations in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, such as those in Chicago, Baltimore and San Francisco, underscored the need for such a system.
The 1906 San Francisco Earthquake and fires ranks as one of the worst catastrophes in U.S. history in terms of property damage and losses. Estimates of losses total more than $32 billion dollars (2015 equivalent), with much of it due to the fires that followed the earthquake. The insurance industry was hit very hard, with some companies being forced out of business with the very large losses to be paid.
It became obvious that fire losses and fire defenses varied greatly across the country, and there was clearly a need for assessing the individual fire defenses of cities. In 1909, NBFU developed the Municipal Inspection and Grading System, for evaluating fire potential. In 1916, NBFU developed the first public protection evaluation system, “The Standard Grading Schedule for Grading Cities and Towns of the United States With Reference to Their Fire Defenses and Physical Conditions.” The grading schedule assigned deficiency points based on the variance from a set of standard criteria developed from a study of more than 500 cities.
In 1971, several insurance groups, including former state insurance rating bureaus, NBFU, and other similar entities, merged to form the Insurance Services Office (ISO). Many of us have heard or read about an ISO rating. This rating can range from 1-10, with one on the scale considered “superior”, and ten meaning it does not meet the minimum standards. So if your FD gets rated a five by ISO, it must be average, or something like that? It’s not that simple.
An ISO rating of an FD is simply one of many tools for property insurers to use to help in establishing rates based on risk. It’s about helping insurers assess risk. They may or may not choose to use it, and different companies may use it in different ways when setting insurance rates. Add in the fact that fire loss risk is only a part of your homeowner insurance considerations, and we begin to understand it’s more complicated than it first appears.
Most of us are much more likely to have a medical emergency at home than a fire. An earlier series in this column reviewed the evolution of emergency medical services (EMS) provided in the field by FD’s. Usually over three-quarters of the emergency calls that your local FD responds to each year are EMS calls, not fires. The ISO rating does not analyze that capability, nor does it analyze FD capabilities like vehicle accident extrication or other rescue capability. Keep this in mind when we take a closer look at the Public Protection Classification ™ Program, or ISO Rating, in Part II.
How Good is Your Fire Department? Part II
In Part I we started to review one of the older systems of rating community fire protection – the Insurance Services Office (ISO) system. Today the ISO business is owned and operated by a for-profit company named Verisk Analytics. They offer risk assessment services and decision analytics for many fields, including that of property and casualty insurance. The ISO rating in your community may be used by your agent to help determine your property/casualty insurance rates.
ISO uses a system called the Fire Suppression Rating Schedule (FSRS), analyzing relevant fire protection data and assigning a Public Protection Classification (PPCTM) number from 1 to 10. Class 1 generally represents superior property fire protection, and Class 10 indicates that the area's fire suppression program does not meet ISO's minimum criteria. For the purposes of this article and simplicity we’ll call it the ISO Rating, as it is typically known in the fire service.
In general, the price of fire insurance in a community with a good ISO rating is lower than with a poor one, assuming all other factors are equal. There is no requirement to use the rating or system. Insurance companies can choose to what degree it will be used, or not use it at all. For example, perhaps your community has a nine rating, suggesting a higher risk and insurance rate.
However, in this case your home is new and built to the latest fire code, has a residential fire sprinkler system installed, a good water supply, and very good defensible space. The agent could choose to give you a much better rate, as their risk of fire loss would be lower. On the other end, some insurance companies have pulled out of offering any insurance in high-risk areas such as those in wildland-urban interface settings, and could do so even in an area that has a good ISO rating. Those are business decisions.
ISO historically evaluated three major categories of fire suppression: your fire department, the emergency communications system, and the water supply and system available for fire suppression. In addition, it now includes a Community Risk Reduction section that recognizes community efforts to reduce losses through fire prevention, public fire safety education, and fire investigation.
The ratings are established, maintained, and updated through field and other surveys conducted by ISO staff. The Emergency Communications System review accounts for 10 points out of 105.5 total points possible. It focuses on facilities and support for handling and dispatching reports and alarms for structure fires. In the case of Plumas County, there are two public safety dispatch centers – the Plumas County Sheriff’s Office in Quincy, dispatching central, southern and eastern portions of the County; and the Susanville Interagency Fire Center, dispatching fire services in the Lake Almanor area and other locations outside of the county.
The Water Supply review considers adequacy of water supply for fire protection purposes, and accounts for 40 points. This includes fire hydrant systems - types, size, installation, and testing programs. For example, how much water can the system provide to help fight a fire and for how long?
The Fire Department analysis accounts for 50 points, and includes review of fire suppression capabilities. Factors like staffing, fire engines, deployment, equipment carried, pumping capacity, reserve engines, hose testing, and ladder or service companies are included. Full-time staff gets more credit than volunteer firefighters per person, since volunteers may or may not be available to fight a fire at any given time.
Finally, the new category of Risk Reduction is considered to be “extra credit”, with another 5.5 points possible, totaling 105.5 points in the four categories. This includes fire prevention code adoption and enforcement, fire investigation, and fire safety public education efforts. The system is focused on property and casualty insurance risk assessment, and does not include some very important FD needs or qualities. The rating does not, for example, analyze emergency medical or rescue services. It does not assess the quality of leadership, recruiting, retention, fundraising, or customer service. It is a very useful tool, but like all tools has limitations to be aware of.
For more information, go to https://www.isomitigation.com. For your current FD rating, the Plumas County Office of Emergency Services maintains a list of ratings under the fire districts section at http://www.countyofplumas.com/index.aspx?nid=2126. In Part III, we’ll look at a newer evaluation system with a more comprehensive look at FD’s for different reasons, and not meant to replace the ISO tool.
In Part I we started to review one of the older systems of rating community fire protection – the Insurance Services Office (ISO) system. Today the ISO business is owned and operated by a for-profit company named Verisk Analytics. They offer risk assessment services and decision analytics for many fields, including that of property and casualty insurance. The ISO rating in your community may be used by your agent to help determine your property/casualty insurance rates.
ISO uses a system called the Fire Suppression Rating Schedule (FSRS), analyzing relevant fire protection data and assigning a Public Protection Classification (PPCTM) number from 1 to 10. Class 1 generally represents superior property fire protection, and Class 10 indicates that the area's fire suppression program does not meet ISO's minimum criteria. For the purposes of this article and simplicity we’ll call it the ISO Rating, as it is typically known in the fire service.
In general, the price of fire insurance in a community with a good ISO rating is lower than with a poor one, assuming all other factors are equal. There is no requirement to use the rating or system. Insurance companies can choose to what degree it will be used, or not use it at all. For example, perhaps your community has a nine rating, suggesting a higher risk and insurance rate.
However, in this case your home is new and built to the latest fire code, has a residential fire sprinkler system installed, a good water supply, and very good defensible space. The agent could choose to give you a much better rate, as their risk of fire loss would be lower. On the other end, some insurance companies have pulled out of offering any insurance in high-risk areas such as those in wildland-urban interface settings, and could do so even in an area that has a good ISO rating. Those are business decisions.
ISO historically evaluated three major categories of fire suppression: your fire department, the emergency communications system, and the water supply and system available for fire suppression. In addition, it now includes a Community Risk Reduction section that recognizes community efforts to reduce losses through fire prevention, public fire safety education, and fire investigation.
The ratings are established, maintained, and updated through field and other surveys conducted by ISO staff. The Emergency Communications System review accounts for 10 points out of 105.5 total points possible. It focuses on facilities and support for handling and dispatching reports and alarms for structure fires. In the case of Plumas County, there are two public safety dispatch centers – the Plumas County Sheriff’s Office in Quincy, dispatching central, southern and eastern portions of the County; and the Susanville Interagency Fire Center, dispatching fire services in the Lake Almanor area and other locations outside of the county.
The Water Supply review considers adequacy of water supply for fire protection purposes, and accounts for 40 points. This includes fire hydrant systems - types, size, installation, and testing programs. For example, how much water can the system provide to help fight a fire and for how long?
The Fire Department analysis accounts for 50 points, and includes review of fire suppression capabilities. Factors like staffing, fire engines, deployment, equipment carried, pumping capacity, reserve engines, hose testing, and ladder or service companies are included. Full-time staff gets more credit than volunteer firefighters per person, since volunteers may or may not be available to fight a fire at any given time.
Finally, the new category of Risk Reduction is considered to be “extra credit”, with another 5.5 points possible, totaling 105.5 points in the four categories. This includes fire prevention code adoption and enforcement, fire investigation, and fire safety public education efforts. The system is focused on property and casualty insurance risk assessment, and does not include some very important FD needs or qualities. The rating does not, for example, analyze emergency medical or rescue services. It does not assess the quality of leadership, recruiting, retention, fundraising, or customer service. It is a very useful tool, but like all tools has limitations to be aware of.
For more information, go to https://www.isomitigation.com. For your current FD rating, the Plumas County Office of Emergency Services maintains a list of ratings under the fire districts section at http://www.countyofplumas.com/index.aspx?nid=2126. In Part III, we’ll look at a newer evaluation system with a more comprehensive look at FD’s for different reasons, and not meant to replace the ISO tool.
How Good is Your Fire Department? Part III
In our first two parts we reviewed one of the oldest systems of rating community fire protection – the Insurance Services Office (ISO) system. Today in Part III we’ll review one of the National Fire Protection Association standards for FD’s. Part IV in January will focus on a relatively new FD accreditation system, and finally in Part V, some common sense questions about the FD you should ask that are not specifically covered in any of the systems.
The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) is a trade association that creates and maintains private, copyrighted standards and over 380 codes for usage and adoption by local governments. The group was formed in 1896 by a group of insurance companies to standardize the new business of fire sprinkler systems. An initial focus on model codes and standards expanded into almost all aspects of building design and construction, along with comprehensive standards for firefighting.
NFPA membership expanded starting in 1905 to include fire departments, manufacturing associations, some trade unions, many related trade associations, individuals, and engineering associations. There are over 65,000 members today, including some internationally. Publications offered today range from building codes to many on equipment, training, and safety requirements utilized by firefighters and FD’s.
NFPA is *not* a government agency, and it has no formal authority or regulatory control over your local FD. However, your FD may already be or may become subject to meeting various NFPA standards through a variety of actions. For example, if your FD applies for and receives an Assistance to Firefighters (AFG) grant through FEMA, they are agreeing to meet various NFPA standards including those for firefighter training and safety. Fire Departments may also choose to adopt NFPA standards independently for many reasons, including to achieve safe operations.
NFPA’s 1720 Standard applies to volunteer and some combination FD’s (those with both career and volunteer firefighters.) Called “The Standard for the Organization and Deployment of Fire Suppression Operations, Emergency Medical Operations, and Special Operations to the Public by Volunteer Fire Departments,” it describes minimum standards in the most recent edition that was completed in 2012. 1710 is the similar standard that applies to career FD’s.
Even though NFPA is not a public agency, it is by far the most recognized fire service standards group. Their standards are widely used by most fire service groups, including the California Fire Training & Education System (CFSTES) operated by the State Fire Marshal’s Office. Right now the entire state fire training system is being aligned with NFPA standards, as part of a long-term goal to achieve national recognition and reciprocity for the overall program.
Locally, our regional fire academy led by the Quincy FPD for new firefighters is aligned with state fire training standards, and therefore with the NFPA Firefighter 1001 Standard. In addition, most Plumas County FD’s have received AFG/FEMA grants over the past 15 years, ranging from fire hose and protective clothing, to fire engines and training. This means that most are subject to NFPA standards already.
FD’s that do not follow the standards do so with some risk of liability concerns. While not mandated by laws or regulations, the standards may be referenced in legal actions, including in cases of firefighter injury or death. When in reality most FD’s follow the standards, it would be easy to ask the question “How come your FD does not?”
Following national standards that are updated every few years can help assure safe and effective operations. NFPA 1720 covers service delivery, response capabilities, and resources, including health and safety, training, incident management, communications, and pre-incident planning. It does not cover fire prevention, community education, fire investigation, personnel management, support services, or budgeting. For more information, see www.nfpa.org.
In our first two parts we reviewed one of the oldest systems of rating community fire protection – the Insurance Services Office (ISO) system. Today in Part III we’ll review one of the National Fire Protection Association standards for FD’s. Part IV in January will focus on a relatively new FD accreditation system, and finally in Part V, some common sense questions about the FD you should ask that are not specifically covered in any of the systems.
The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) is a trade association that creates and maintains private, copyrighted standards and over 380 codes for usage and adoption by local governments. The group was formed in 1896 by a group of insurance companies to standardize the new business of fire sprinkler systems. An initial focus on model codes and standards expanded into almost all aspects of building design and construction, along with comprehensive standards for firefighting.
NFPA membership expanded starting in 1905 to include fire departments, manufacturing associations, some trade unions, many related trade associations, individuals, and engineering associations. There are over 65,000 members today, including some internationally. Publications offered today range from building codes to many on equipment, training, and safety requirements utilized by firefighters and FD’s.
NFPA is *not* a government agency, and it has no formal authority or regulatory control over your local FD. However, your FD may already be or may become subject to meeting various NFPA standards through a variety of actions. For example, if your FD applies for and receives an Assistance to Firefighters (AFG) grant through FEMA, they are agreeing to meet various NFPA standards including those for firefighter training and safety. Fire Departments may also choose to adopt NFPA standards independently for many reasons, including to achieve safe operations.
NFPA’s 1720 Standard applies to volunteer and some combination FD’s (those with both career and volunteer firefighters.) Called “The Standard for the Organization and Deployment of Fire Suppression Operations, Emergency Medical Operations, and Special Operations to the Public by Volunteer Fire Departments,” it describes minimum standards in the most recent edition that was completed in 2012. 1710 is the similar standard that applies to career FD’s.
Even though NFPA is not a public agency, it is by far the most recognized fire service standards group. Their standards are widely used by most fire service groups, including the California Fire Training & Education System (CFSTES) operated by the State Fire Marshal’s Office. Right now the entire state fire training system is being aligned with NFPA standards, as part of a long-term goal to achieve national recognition and reciprocity for the overall program.
Locally, our regional fire academy led by the Quincy FPD for new firefighters is aligned with state fire training standards, and therefore with the NFPA Firefighter 1001 Standard. In addition, most Plumas County FD’s have received AFG/FEMA grants over the past 15 years, ranging from fire hose and protective clothing, to fire engines and training. This means that most are subject to NFPA standards already.
FD’s that do not follow the standards do so with some risk of liability concerns. While not mandated by laws or regulations, the standards may be referenced in legal actions, including in cases of firefighter injury or death. When in reality most FD’s follow the standards, it would be easy to ask the question “How come your FD does not?”
Following national standards that are updated every few years can help assure safe and effective operations. NFPA 1720 covers service delivery, response capabilities, and resources, including health and safety, training, incident management, communications, and pre-incident planning. It does not cover fire prevention, community education, fire investigation, personnel management, support services, or budgeting. For more information, see www.nfpa.org.
How Good is Your Fire Department? Part IV
This series has included reviewing the Insurance Services Office (ISO) rating system and the National Fire Protection Association’s (NFPA) 1720 Standard. Today in Part IV we’ll review a relatively new fire department accreditation system. Finally, we’ll wrap up the series in Part V with some common sense questions about your FD not specifically covered in any of these rating systems.
Accreditation is a process in which recognition or credit is given to organizations that meet certain standards of quality. You have probably heard of this in at least two areas – the health care field, such as hospitals, and in educational institutions such as colleges. There is now an accreditation system for the fire service, although it is voluntary and not required for any fire department.
Work on this program started in the 1986, according to one of the founding leaders, Chief Ronny J. Coleman, retired California State Fire Marshal and a nationally recognized fire service leader and author. Coleman is an honorary member of the Plumas County Fire Chiefs Association. According to Ronny, the goal was to “raise the bar of quality” within the fire service, while the ISO system remained focused more on quantity and the needs of the insurance industry. They are not in conflict, however – ISO serves on the Board of Advisors to the system.
The NFPA standards, meanwhile, serve very specific purposes that have great value, but are not meant to assess the overall quality of the FD. The system was formally implemented in 1997 when the Commission on Fire Accreditation International (CFAI) was created to administer the new comprehensive evaluation program. Out of this came the non-profit Center for Public Safety Excellence (CPSE), a partnership between the International City/County Management Association (ICMA) and the International Association of Fire Chiefs (IAFC).
Like a similar law enforcement system, the process involves a self-assessment and evaluation model, comparing the agency in question to a set of industry best practices. This encourages each agency to determine community risk and safety needs and a standard of cover, along with evaluating overall performance against goals. In addition, the system establishes a method for continuous organizational improvement.
There are three main areas that are assessed. First, the agency needs a strategic plan, covering their vision, mission, values, key goals, and action plans. Second, a Standards of Cover need to be developed. This involves analyzing risks and deployment in the service area, and assessing the “speed and weight” of the response. Geographic Information System (GIS) tools are often used here, to map out how long it will take various FD resources to arrive to given risks and incidents.
The third area includes evaluation of ten performance categories: 1. Assessment and Planning; 2. Essential Resources; 3. External Systems Relations; 4. Financial Resources; 5. Goals and Objectives; 6. Governance and Administration; 7. Human Resources; 8. Physical Resources; 9. Programs; and 10. Training and Competency.
The self-assessment takes about 18 months and is labor intensive. Once it is complete, the applicant agency hosts several peer assessors from out of state to review all of the work and confirm accuracy. If approved, the agency becomes accredited for five years, after which they need to update everything and apply for re-accreditation.
Note that the agency may have some significant areas of weakness. This is acceptable as long as there are goals for improvement, and progress is made by the next assessment. The overall process requires investments of time, resources and money – fees are paid, the expenses of the peer assessors must be paid, and there is no guarantee that quality will be maintained over time.
So why do this? According to Ronny, the program was meant to provide a ‘high bar’ of quality for the ‘best of the best’ in the fire service. The process is meant to confirm and improve service delivery, and is completely voluntary. The system has been in operation since the 1990’s, and there are currently 217 FD’s that are accredited nationally, with seventeen of those in California, and another 10 in the application process. The overwhelming majority are career departments, without volunteers. Many are at Department of Defense (DOD) facilities, like military bases. Most fire protection today at DOD facilities is contracted out, and the CFAI system is a tool used to make sure the government is getting good quality from the contractors.
Volunteer or combination departments can participate, but only a few have done so given the costs and time commitment required. Each FD can, however, work through these assessments over a longer period of time without the fees, etc. for the purposes of self-improvement. The thinking and analysis required is not unique to CFAI, just the formal accreditation system.
In our final part in this series, we’ll ask three fire service leaders for some simple questions you can use to assess your FD that are not specifically included in any of the systems previously described.
This series has included reviewing the Insurance Services Office (ISO) rating system and the National Fire Protection Association’s (NFPA) 1720 Standard. Today in Part IV we’ll review a relatively new fire department accreditation system. Finally, we’ll wrap up the series in Part V with some common sense questions about your FD not specifically covered in any of these rating systems.
Accreditation is a process in which recognition or credit is given to organizations that meet certain standards of quality. You have probably heard of this in at least two areas – the health care field, such as hospitals, and in educational institutions such as colleges. There is now an accreditation system for the fire service, although it is voluntary and not required for any fire department.
Work on this program started in the 1986, according to one of the founding leaders, Chief Ronny J. Coleman, retired California State Fire Marshal and a nationally recognized fire service leader and author. Coleman is an honorary member of the Plumas County Fire Chiefs Association. According to Ronny, the goal was to “raise the bar of quality” within the fire service, while the ISO system remained focused more on quantity and the needs of the insurance industry. They are not in conflict, however – ISO serves on the Board of Advisors to the system.
The NFPA standards, meanwhile, serve very specific purposes that have great value, but are not meant to assess the overall quality of the FD. The system was formally implemented in 1997 when the Commission on Fire Accreditation International (CFAI) was created to administer the new comprehensive evaluation program. Out of this came the non-profit Center for Public Safety Excellence (CPSE), a partnership between the International City/County Management Association (ICMA) and the International Association of Fire Chiefs (IAFC).
Like a similar law enforcement system, the process involves a self-assessment and evaluation model, comparing the agency in question to a set of industry best practices. This encourages each agency to determine community risk and safety needs and a standard of cover, along with evaluating overall performance against goals. In addition, the system establishes a method for continuous organizational improvement.
There are three main areas that are assessed. First, the agency needs a strategic plan, covering their vision, mission, values, key goals, and action plans. Second, a Standards of Cover need to be developed. This involves analyzing risks and deployment in the service area, and assessing the “speed and weight” of the response. Geographic Information System (GIS) tools are often used here, to map out how long it will take various FD resources to arrive to given risks and incidents.
The third area includes evaluation of ten performance categories: 1. Assessment and Planning; 2. Essential Resources; 3. External Systems Relations; 4. Financial Resources; 5. Goals and Objectives; 6. Governance and Administration; 7. Human Resources; 8. Physical Resources; 9. Programs; and 10. Training and Competency.
The self-assessment takes about 18 months and is labor intensive. Once it is complete, the applicant agency hosts several peer assessors from out of state to review all of the work and confirm accuracy. If approved, the agency becomes accredited for five years, after which they need to update everything and apply for re-accreditation.
Note that the agency may have some significant areas of weakness. This is acceptable as long as there are goals for improvement, and progress is made by the next assessment. The overall process requires investments of time, resources and money – fees are paid, the expenses of the peer assessors must be paid, and there is no guarantee that quality will be maintained over time.
So why do this? According to Ronny, the program was meant to provide a ‘high bar’ of quality for the ‘best of the best’ in the fire service. The process is meant to confirm and improve service delivery, and is completely voluntary. The system has been in operation since the 1990’s, and there are currently 217 FD’s that are accredited nationally, with seventeen of those in California, and another 10 in the application process. The overwhelming majority are career departments, without volunteers. Many are at Department of Defense (DOD) facilities, like military bases. Most fire protection today at DOD facilities is contracted out, and the CFAI system is a tool used to make sure the government is getting good quality from the contractors.
Volunteer or combination departments can participate, but only a few have done so given the costs and time commitment required. Each FD can, however, work through these assessments over a longer period of time without the fees, etc. for the purposes of self-improvement. The thinking and analysis required is not unique to CFAI, just the formal accreditation system.
In our final part in this series, we’ll ask three fire service leaders for some simple questions you can use to assess your FD that are not specifically included in any of the systems previously described.
How Good is Your Fire Department Part V, Conclusion
This series is concluding with some simple questions you can consider that are not specifically covered in any of the previously discussed industry rating systems. Several fire service experts with ties to Plumas County ‘weigh in’ with some key questions that give insight into volunteer or combination FD’s.
Chief Ronny J. Coleman served as California State Fire Marshal for eight years under Governor Wilson, and is considered a legend in the American Fire Service. He has a very long list of honors from his 55+ years of experience as a Fire Chief, industry author, consultant, teacher, and leader. Both the California Fire Chiefs Association and the Center for Public Safety Excellence have named perpetual leadership awards after him.
His most recent passion was serving as the Chairman of the California State Firefighters Association Committee for Volunteers for many years. He volunteered to instruct grant-funded courses on leadership, recruiting, and retention throughout the state for over four years, including in Plumas County, concluding in 2014. He has written and consulted internationally for decades, including in the evaluation of fire departments.
Coleman asks what he calls the “The Basic 5 Questions” when approaching a volunteer fire department. "First, what is the image of the department from the street? Can I tell it is a volunteer department or not? Does the building appear properly maintained? Second, when entering the building, is it clean, orderly and does it look ready for business? Third, what is on the bulletin board? Is it neat and orderly or does it look like a mess of out of date and irrelevant information?
Fourth, what does the apparatus look like? Regardless of age, does the equipment look like it is being properly maintained and ready to respond? Lastly, is there clear evidence displayed that the department has a training program, even if it is only for a couple of hours per week?"
According to Coleman, “First impressions count. In a department that cares about itself and appears healthy, the answers to these five basic questions are always positive. The opposite is also true. A volunteer or combination fire company that is un-kept and not properly maintained tells a lot about its ability to carry out its basic functions.”
Retired City of San Rafael Fire Chief Bob Marcucci also has over 55 years of fire service experience, and was the co-recipient of the very first “Ronny J. Coleman Fire Chief of the Year Award” in California in 2000, along with Fremont Chief Dan Lydon. A long-time peer of Coleman’s, Marcucci has also consulted and volunteered extensively in the fire service since retirement. This has included volunteering for the Quincy Fire Protection District to help with a Deployment Analysis using Geographic Information Systems (GIS).
Marcucci expands on the insights gained from studying the inside of a fire house. “It can tell you a lot about department activities and culture… Where is the station library, and is it current? What types of pictures adorn the walls? These are often a window into the culture and values of the group.”
He adds “…speaking to the firefighters and chief officers will tell you a lot about the culture, values and ethics of the FD, and their vision for the future…do they have a yearly training schedule? Is there any evidence of fire prevention or public and community education projects?”
Michael Williams volunteers as the Executive Director of the Fire Services Training Institute (FSTI), and also as a volunteer Fire Chief in Santa Barbara County. FSTI has sponsored training and helped provide firefighter textbooks in Plumas County over the last several years through grants. He hosts an Internet based radio show every week called “Community Alert”, where he interviews emergency service leaders from around the country on a wide variety of topics.
Williams wants to learn about how the FD handles “… the community needs and wants, and are those needs being met?” He also would want to learn about “…how well the FD members work together as a team, including with their board - in both emergency and non-emergency settings, and with other agencies. Do they work well with others and participate in regional training and groups, or is it a case of ‘us vs. them’ thinking and ‘not playing well’ with others?”
In conclusion, there are many methods, systems, and tools to consider when evaluating your community fire department. Coleman adds a final caution that “…running a volunteer or combination fire department today is complex and very challenging. One should always be careful to use the information gained to help make the FD better, rather than being an ‘armchair quarterback,’ just criticizing and adding to the difficulties of those who serve.”
Chief Ronny J. Coleman served as California State Fire Marshal for eight years under Governor Wilson, and is considered a legend in the American Fire Service. He has a very long list of honors from his 55+ years of experience as a Fire Chief, industry author, consultant, teacher, and leader. Both the California Fire Chiefs Association and the Center for Public Safety Excellence have named perpetual leadership awards after him.
His most recent passion was serving as the Chairman of the California State Firefighters Association Committee for Volunteers for many years. He volunteered to instruct grant-funded courses on leadership, recruiting, and retention throughout the state for over four years, including in Plumas County, concluding in 2014. He has written and consulted internationally for decades, including in the evaluation of fire departments.
Coleman asks what he calls the “The Basic 5 Questions” when approaching a volunteer fire department. "First, what is the image of the department from the street? Can I tell it is a volunteer department or not? Does the building appear properly maintained? Second, when entering the building, is it clean, orderly and does it look ready for business? Third, what is on the bulletin board? Is it neat and orderly or does it look like a mess of out of date and irrelevant information?
Fourth, what does the apparatus look like? Regardless of age, does the equipment look like it is being properly maintained and ready to respond? Lastly, is there clear evidence displayed that the department has a training program, even if it is only for a couple of hours per week?"
According to Coleman, “First impressions count. In a department that cares about itself and appears healthy, the answers to these five basic questions are always positive. The opposite is also true. A volunteer or combination fire company that is un-kept and not properly maintained tells a lot about its ability to carry out its basic functions.”
Retired City of San Rafael Fire Chief Bob Marcucci also has over 55 years of fire service experience, and was the co-recipient of the very first “Ronny J. Coleman Fire Chief of the Year Award” in California in 2000, along with Fremont Chief Dan Lydon. A long-time peer of Coleman’s, Marcucci has also consulted and volunteered extensively in the fire service since retirement. This has included volunteering for the Quincy Fire Protection District to help with a Deployment Analysis using Geographic Information Systems (GIS).
Marcucci expands on the insights gained from studying the inside of a fire house. “It can tell you a lot about department activities and culture… Where is the station library, and is it current? What types of pictures adorn the walls? These are often a window into the culture and values of the group.”
He adds “…speaking to the firefighters and chief officers will tell you a lot about the culture, values and ethics of the FD, and their vision for the future…do they have a yearly training schedule? Is there any evidence of fire prevention or public and community education projects?”
Michael Williams volunteers as the Executive Director of the Fire Services Training Institute (FSTI), and also as a volunteer Fire Chief in Santa Barbara County. FSTI has sponsored training and helped provide firefighter textbooks in Plumas County over the last several years through grants. He hosts an Internet based radio show every week called “Community Alert”, where he interviews emergency service leaders from around the country on a wide variety of topics.
Williams wants to learn about how the FD handles “… the community needs and wants, and are those needs being met?” He also would want to learn about “…how well the FD members work together as a team, including with their board - in both emergency and non-emergency settings, and with other agencies. Do they work well with others and participate in regional training and groups, or is it a case of ‘us vs. them’ thinking and ‘not playing well’ with others?”
In conclusion, there are many methods, systems, and tools to consider when evaluating your community fire department. Coleman adds a final caution that “…running a volunteer or combination fire department today is complex and very challenging. One should always be careful to use the information gained to help make the FD better, rather than being an ‘armchair quarterback,’ just criticizing and adding to the difficulties of those who serve.”