Back in the last century when I became a volunteer firefighter, things at the fire station sure were different. In 1969 when I rode on the back of that 1941 Peter Pirsch engine to a dwelling fire as a teenager, I was thinking, “Wow! What a feeling to be on the tailboard, the air hitting my face, going at high speeds, with snow flying in the air!”

Just imagine the risks I took to get to the fire that day. Thirty-five years later I look back and see that although many things have changed, there are some critical situations developing that will change the nature of the service even more in the future.

During the past two years, several organizations have conducted surveys or investigated changes in the small to mid-size fire departments in the United States. Couple this with the programs being presented at various conferences on strategic planning, standard-of-response cover, supervisory skills and other topics, and it doesn't take one long to see some transitions occurring in the fire service.

Obviously, people can offer many interpretations and statistical inferences to promote their own idea of what ought to be or what will be. However, there are four significant forces of change that will be what we make of them. If we choose to address these issues, we manage the forces of change. If we choose not to, the issues manage the organization. These four issues are at the core of the small to mid-size volunteer and combination department.

1. People

   People demands are changing, challenging volunteerism and altering operational models.

2. Equipment

   Aging and deteriorating apparatus and equipment, along with high replacement costs, new technology and limited finances, are challenges to departments.

3. Organization

   Organizational concepts are changing to meet new demands of financing and operations, such as fire districts and authorities. Population and response volume appear to set the demarcation point for changes in organizational design and functional responsibilities.

4. Service delivery system

   What is provided in the way of service, the expectations of the population and community leadership, and available funding are forcing many organizations to rethink their approach to providing emergency response service.

People power

We have heard this for several years now: “Volunteerism is down; we can't get volunteer firefighters anymore.” However, figures released by the NFPA in 2002 show 816,600 volunteer firefighters. This is up from a 2001 report by the National Volunteer Fire Council that showed 784,700 volunteer firefighters.

But whether we have more or fewer isn't the issue. The significant factor is whether volunteer personnel are being developed and managed properly so that they stay in the service. The reality is that people are changing, and the fire service doesn't necessarily change with them. In fact, the reasons people leave the fire service today are the same reasons they left 10 years ago.

As a general rule, people's demands are changing, which challenges volunteerism. Yet those of us who manage volunteer and combination departments expect the organizations to continue to operate in the same fashion. When a business refuses to look at its people's needs, the future of the business doesn't look good.

People's needs also have changed traditional approaches to recruitment and retention. Today, people are driven by personal situations, not group situations. Incentives believed to be important in the past may not have the same weight today, and there may be people within each organization who have different needs.

There will always be interests and needs that organizations can provide in the way of supplemental insurance coverage, length-of-service award programs and cash per call. However, there are developing needs that differ between young and old, married and single, with children and without children, with and without health coverage — the variables go on.

Department officers can't be all-knowing without querying their organization's members, so they need to be proactive to learn what motivates the volunteers in their organization. They then can find ways to make the incentives consistent with the short- and long-term wants and needs of the membership.

Equipment squeeze

Aging and deteriorating apparatus and equipment, coupled with high replacement cost, are problems for departments. The introduction of new and different equipment into the workplace is also a factor.

What's the right equipment to buy? What's the right amount to pay for the equipment? How many thermal imagers do you need? Are you doing all that's possible with built-in detection, alarm and suppression systems to avoid relying solely on the equipment carried on the apparatus? Your risk analysis should answer these questions.

In terms of apparatus, the 2003 USFA report, A Needs Assessment of the U.S. Fire Service, vividly portrayed this situation:

• Used vehicles represent 42% of apparatus in departments protecting 2,500 in population; converted vehicles account for 16%.
• 16% of all engines are 15-19 years old, 21% are 20-29 years old and just over 13% are more than 30 years old; thus half of all engines are at least 15 years old.

Fire apparatus fleets may be aging, but so is every other component of community infrastructure. Like many other situations in America, we are beginning to see a demarcation of the “haves” and the “have-nots.” Some departments have access to proper equipment because they have access to funding, whether it be from tax bases, contributions, grants or other means. Others are lucky to make utility payments.

Even so, I recently visited a department that was installing touch-screen computers in all of its apparatus for response, pre-planning, hazmat management and a host of other data services. Grant money was not used for the purchases; the department's planning process identified these as operational needs. The purchases were budgeted, obtained and implemented.

Equipment changes can be far-reaching. Consider these factors: Passive and active fire protection systems continue to be installed throughout the facility infrastructure of our communities; fire apparatus and equipment become more sophisticated; and analyses are completed to allow us to better understand how to deal with different hazards. With these changes in mind, shouldn't we be approaching the entire science of emergency response differently?

After all, if 90% of responses are to automatic fire alarms and only 1 in 200 are actual problems, what's the rationale for keeping responses the same as they were 25 years ago, with all calls receiving full complements of response? If you don't find a way to change, the result will be extended drains on your assets and resources.

Organizational issues

In Fire Protection in the 21st Century, Daniel B.C. Gardiner and I wrote:

“Fire service organizations increasingly feel pressure to relinquish their historic paramilitary structure in favor of the leaner, more flexible structures favored by U.S. businesses. In response to all of the forces affecting the fire service, emergency service organizations not only see these pressures from within, but externally. We have already seen municipal management begin to think differently about community services of all types, and as funds get tighter, so will the availability to serve communities.”

We continue to see corporate business practices such as multi-year budgeting and strategic planning, long taboo in the fire service, become part of operational expectations by the leadership of the community and the citizenry, as they hold fire department officers responsible for proper and appropriate planning and provision of services.

There have been a number of assessments that demonstrate how population bases and call numbers drive changes in organizational design. Not only do they drive demands and expectations on the organization, they force changes in its responsibilities, planning and results.

Also from our book: “Every year sees a spate of new theories on how to best organize corporations. In previous years, such theories emphasized leanness (fewer workers), flatness (fewer middle managers and supervisors), flexibility, and innovation. More recent management theories focus on the idea of rethinking (reinventing, re-engineering) elements of corporate structure, especially process and systems (using risk analysis to determine what emergency response should be, versus sending the engines). As Reengineering the Corporation authors Michael Hammer and James Champy explain it, the new management theory is not to do less with less, but to do more with less, by doing it entirely different.”

Service delivery systems

In those days of the last century that I described earlier, the service delivery was simple. The call for help came; you responded as best you could; did what was possible to the best of your ability; and hopefully limited damage, prevented injury and death, and solved the problems for the person who called for help.

Today's expectations are different. We now have an extensive array of tools to analyze risk. Community risks may be measured by what type of emergency medical calls we receive, whether structures have automatic detection and alarm systems, or whether passive or active fire suppression systems are common.

Yet how many departments have conducted a risk analysis of their community; determined response, equipment, procedural and personnel demands based on the risk analysis; and then developed a standard-of-response cover and strategic plan to meet the risks posed? In a conversation with a chief, he told me of his organization's plan to reassign apparatus responses based on what's at risk, move apparatus among stations to ensure timely responses of specific apparatus, and redefine and reduce staffing and management. These changes would be based on his department's new deployment model, which was created to meet new demands.

In contrast, how many fire departments ignored change by buying new apparatus and tools and by responding with all equipment, just as they did in 1969? Another chief told me not long ago, “We are volunteers, and we can't force our people to do anything.” That may be true, but if you can't meet the expectations of community leaders and citizens by knowing in advance what problems face you and how to solve those problems, then chances are your days as an officer are numbered and your organization's design may quickly change anyway.

People, equipment, organizational issues and planning are the focal points for managing change from the emergency service of today to that of tomorrow. Progressive, proactive management is the role of today's volunteer and combination fire chief. Know when to change the organization to meet changing demands, before it's too late.

---

Dr. William Jenaway is the executive vice president of VFIS, responsible for their education, training and consulting services to insureds and clients. He is also the chief executive officer of the King of Prussia (Pa.) Volunteer Fire Company. He was named Volunteer Fire Chief of the Year by FIRE CHIEF in 2001 and is a member of the board of trustees of the Commission on Fire Accreditation International.