What is the symbol of modern fire protection? In other words, what one thing tells members of our community that they have fire protection? Is it the profile of a firefighter's helmet? Is it a sign on the outside of a fire station down the boulevard? Or, is it the fire truck parked in the apparatus bay that can be seen as they drive down the street? The answer is that all three of those symbols have come to mean different things to society; simultaneously they may mean nothing to the average citizen. While it may seem to be contradictory, those symbols stand for the idea of fire protection but they in fact may or may not be present when a person demands their availability.
What I am talking about is the fact that fire trucks, firefighters and fire stations do not mean fire protection. They are the resources that we use to provide fire protection. And I would submit that when all three are in place, it is very likely that something positive will happen when they are called upon. However, I also would submit that a fire station that has no fire truck in it or a piece of apparatus that has no firefighters on it might be symbolically present, but that is not fire protection.
The reason for this contemplation has to do with the contemporary term that is emerging as a result of our economic problems. How many of you have heard about a concept described as “browning out a fire station”? The idea is that under certain economic conditions, a fire station can be turned off and on like a light switch. The use of the phrase “brown out” sort of sounds like we are treating this phenomenon the same as we treat the phenomenon of lower levels of electricity being available to a community — a short-term phenomenon with short-term consequences.
In contrast, I believe fire protection is like an umbrella. You either have it or you don't. If you go out when it's raining and you have an umbrella and you can open it up above your head, there is a possibility that you will remain dry. But, if you walk out in a rain storm without that umbrella, then you are going to get wet.
The notion of closing a fire station for economic reasons is very serious. Whenever you provide a community with a fire station, there is an expectation that it will be readily available for the majority of the population whenever there is a demand for service.
In the fire service, there are — metaphorically speaking — two types of umbrellas. Constant availability is defined as a fire station that has a crew and apparatus ready to deploy 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year. An interim-availability fire station only is open for specific hours and for specific reasons.
Constant staffing means the umbrella is open. Intermittent staffing means that the umbrella is at least partially closed, which makes the department less effective. The latter case isn't a brown out. Rather, I would characterize it as a black out — a much more serious phenomenon.
What to do about intermittent staffing is a crucial challenge that the modern fire service faces. I know that there will be individuals who will make an argument that in cases of inadequate staffing it is totally inappropriate to keep a fire station open. On the other hand, a person is five to seven times more likely to call for emergency medical aid than for fire protection. Therefore, during periods of intermittent staffing, is it better to change the mission alignment and accept that limitation? Or, is it better to black out the station?
No one wants to contemplate such weighty matters. Everyone hopes that all of the economic conditions will eventually right themselves and we will be back to the point where there are no questions about a fire station's availability. But there always are going to be cyclical economic downturns that will place fiscal burdens on fire departments. And whenever the system fails to sustain itself, this argument is going to come back onto the table. When it does, you'll be forced to contemplate different ways of managing fire department availability.
One of the arguments that I have heard posed in such cases is that if you can afford to get by with closing a station on an interim period, why can't you just get rid of it entirely? I don't have enough time in this column to get into an in-depth review of the consequences of total closure. The point I am trying to make is that interim coverage — should that option be chosen — needs to be measured. Whatever interim coverage is put into service, the effectiveness and efficiency of that level of service should be analyzed in order to measure the consequences of that action.
The issue of closing fire stations isn't over by a long shot. What this article proposes is that we spend a lot more time talking about intermittent levels of service, before deciding to “brown out” a facility. The importance of data collection and documentation is paramount to this discussion. If you are going to provide interim fire protection, it is highly desirable that it be based upon some kind of data-driven decision rather than an emotional one.
With more than 40 years in the fire service, Ronny J. Coleman has served as fire chief in Fullerton and San Clemente, Calif., and was the fire marshal of the state of California from 1992 to 1999. He is a certified fire chief and a master instructor in the California Fire Service Training and Education System. A Fellow of the Institution of Fire Engineers, he has an associate's degree in fire science, a bachelor's degree in political science and a master's degree in vocational education.
Subscribe
Subscribe
Subscribe
Subscribe
Subscribe
Subscribe
