By Fire Chief Christian Tubbs
The fire service has historically defined success by the number of calls we respond to, how quickly we arrive, the number of inspections we complete and whether we leave the scene better than we found it. These measures were familiar, defensible and widely accepted by our communities. They told us we were busy, engaged and operationally capable.
What they did not tell us was whether our communities were actually safer, more resilient or better prepared because of our services.
These traditional measures are outputs. They describe what we did, but not why it mattered.
| BETTER EVERY SHIFT: Chief Dan Munsey talks visionary leadership
The distinction between outputs and outcomes is not academic. It is the difference between activity and impact, effort and effect, and reporting what we do and proving why it matters. As the demands on the fire service continue to grow — through increasing wildfire risk, medical complexity, fiscal pressure and rising public expectations — we can no longer afford to confuse motion with progress.
Defining outputs and outcomes
If we are to provide meaningful information to our residents about the impact of our services, we must be clear about what we measure.
- Outputs answer a simple question: What did we do?
- Outcomes answer a far more important question: What changed as a result of what we did?
This distinction does not diminish the importance of outputs. Outputs remain essential for accountability, operational readiness and informed decision-making. But outputs alone cannot explain value. Outcomes connect our work to results the community can understand, evaluate and trust.
A wildfire risk reduction example
In 2020, residents of Marin County, California, passed an initiative that led to the creation of a Joint Powers Authority (JPA) dedicated to reducing wildfire risk. The catalyst for this initiative was the devastating 2017 North Bay fires, which fundamentally changed the community’s understanding of wildfire threat.
One of the JPA’s primary strategies is defensible space inspections. Trained personnel inspect every parcel of property throughout the county. Crews track numerous outputs: the number of inspections completed; the volume of fuels removed through mitigation programs; and the number of properties achieving Zone Zero compliance, an ember-resistant zone of 0–5 feet around a structure.
What these outputs do not measure is the most important question: Do these efforts reduce wildfire loss?
We are working actively to verify and validate that these efforts do, in fact, reduce loss. That is the outcome the community ultimately cares about because it is most visibly reflected in the home insurance challenges we are experiencing in California. The same challenge exists across many areas of our service, including emergency medical response.
Cardiac survivability as an outcome measure
During my time in King County, Washington, the county published annual cardiac survivability data using the Utstein methodology for each community. Fire agencies routinely reported outputs — call volumes, response types, training hours and public education events — but the outcome data told a much more meaningful story.
At the time, cardiac survival rates in the Seattle/King County region were approximately 48%, compared with a national average of roughly 10%. That outcome data provided powerful context for residents, visitors and business owners. It communicated clearly that if someone suffered a cardiac arrest in King County, their likelihood of survival was significantly higher than in most of the country.
More importantly, it reinforced the critical role of early intervention and bystander CPR. The data demonstrated not just performance but also value.
Public value and community definition
Dr. Mark Moore’s public value framework offers a useful lens for understanding why outcomes matter. As a public service, we exist not simply to perform tasks but also to create value that is meaningful to the public, legitimate in the political environment and operationally feasible.
Measuring outputs without outcomes may satisfy administrative reporting, but it falls short of demonstrating public value.
In my previous articles, I have discussed Moore’s framework and its influence on my thinking:
- What is substantively valuable to the public we serve?
- What is legitimate and politically sustainable?
- What is operationally and administratively feasible?
Over time, I have come to believe that additional questions are equally critical:
- How does the community define public value?
- What values are they willing to invest in?
- How do we measure those values?
- How do we report performance in a way that builds trust and respect?
Outcomes force us to confront these questions directly:
- Did our prevention efforts reduce risk?
- Did our engagement efforts build trust?
- Did our investments improve resilience?
- Did our strategy alter the trajectory of harm?
As I noted in “Beyond response: Leading the fire service toward lasting public value,” a fire department is ultimately a reflection of a community’s tolerance for risk. Communities define public value, not us. That reality underscores the importance of sustained outreach, listening and partnership.
From data to meaning
Even well-designed outcome measures can fail if they are not understood. Data alone rarely changes belief or behavior. Meaning must be created.
This is where storytelling becomes essential, not as embellishment but as translation.
As I explored in “Storytelling: Bringing public value to life in the fire service,” stories provide the context that allows outcomes to be felt, remembered and trusted. A statistic showing reduced wildfire loss gains power when paired with the story of a family whose home survived because of mitigation. A chart showing improved bystander CPR rates becomes real when connected to a life saved before responders arrived.
Outcomes tell us what changed. Stories help people understand why it mattered. Together, they create a complete narrative of public value.
Strategy, culture and outcomes
To truly change the trajectory of harm, outcome data and its meaning must be woven into strategy and reinforced by culture.
Seattle and King County’s cardiac survivability success is a clear example. The Medic One program recognizes that survival outcomes depend heavily on early intervention. Over time, CPR training became cultural. It is uncommon in that region to encounter residents who lack basic CPR knowledge or the willingness to act before 9-1-1 arrives.
Strategic plans must clearly articulate desired outcomes, not just activities. -When firefighters and support staff understand how their daily work contributes to outcomes the community values, measurement stops feeling like oversight and starts feeling like purpose.
Reporting as trust-building
Outcome reporting is not merely a compliance exercise; it is a trust-building act.
Regular, transparent reporting demonstrates respect for the public’s investment. It reinforces legitimacy by showing where progress is real and humility by acknowledging where improvement is needed. Over time, this consistency builds a reservoir of trust that becomes essential when difficult decisions or investments are required.
Trust is not created by perfection. It is created by honesty, clarity and follow-through.
Final thoughts
The fire service has earned extraordinary public trust over generations. But trust, like relevance, must be continually renewed.
Moving from outputs to outcomes does not diminish our proud response tradition; rather, it completes the picture. It demonstrates that beyond answering the call, we are actively shaping safer, stronger and more resilient communities.
As leaders, our responsibility is clear: Measure what matters, tell the story of why it matters, and align our organizations around outcomes that reflect the values of those we serve.
When we do that, we are no longer just reporting performance; we are also proving public value.
REFERENCES
- Denning, S. “The Leader’s Guide to Storytelling: Mastering the Art and Discipline of Business Narrative.” Wiley, 2011.
- Eisenberg, M.S. “Resuscitate!” Second Edition. University of Washington Press, 2015.
- Gottschall, J. “The Storytelling Animal: How Stories Make Us Human.” Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2012.
- Guber, P. “Tell to Win: Connect, Persuade, and Triumph with the Hidden Power of Story.” Crown Business, 2011.
- Hasson, U., et al. “Neural substrates of narrative comprehension and memory.” Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 2008.
- Kent, S. “Strategic Planning & Organizational Culture for Public Safety Agencies.” 2021.
- Moore, M.H. “Creating Public Value: Strategic Management in Government.” Harvard University Press, 1995.
- Moore, M.H. “Recognizing Public Value.” Harvard University Press, 2013.
- Tubbs, C. “Storytelling: Bringing public value to life in the fire service.” FireRescue1, 2026.
- Tubbs, C. “Beyond response: Leading the fire service toward lasting public value.” FireRescue1, 2025.
- Zak, P.J. “How Stories Change the Brain.” Greater Good Magazine, UC Berkeley, 2013.
- Zak, P.J. “Why Inspiring Stories Make Us React: The Neuroscience of Narrative.” Harvard Business Review, 2014.
