At FireRescue1, we continue to monitor the Trump administration’s efforts to reform FEMA. How that reform manifests will set the stage for local, state and federal responses when disaster strikes.
The Congressional Fire Services Institute is also tracking how the administration’s efforts will affect the fire service, but it has gone a step further to provide recommendations for FEMA reform. As a member of the National Advisory Committee, it was my honor to provide feedback for the report that presents these recommendations. (Download the full document below.) Before I detail the recommendations, let me offer a brief refresher on the fire service role in emergency response as it stands now.
Emergency Support Function 4: Firefighting
The fire service has long been a pillar of the emergency response framework, both in the coordination as Emergency Support Function (ESF) 4 (firefighting), and in the physical supply of personnel and equipment to fulfil emergency management missions. ESF-4 resources are not only a pillar of emergency management resources but are also recognized as the backbone of the nation’s all-hazards response framework.
The service the American fire service provides is a critical national capability, which communities across all 50 states depend on daily. Any efforts to reform FEMA will likely impact fire departments in ways we don’t yet realize. I believe the recommendations provided in the white paper will continue to recognize the fire service’s critical role in emergency response.
FEMA Reform recommendations
Recognizing that FEMA currently provides significant coordination and oversees the support framework for resiliency across multiple layers of critical infrastructure, the CFSI recommendations address all areas of concern — not all will be fire service-centric. There are 32 recommendations organized into 12 sections.
U.S. Fire Administration
The first four sections relate directly to the U.S. Fire Administration.
- Section 1: Recommendations 1 through 5 ensure the U.S. fire administrator is not only elevated in federal status but also included in key decision-making processes and resources deployments.
- Section 2: Recommendations 6 and 7 recognize the importance of the National Fire Academy, and seek to not only maintain but also strengthen the NFA’s core training functions.
- Section 3: Recommendation 8 recognizes the importance of the NERIS switchover and seeks to strengthen the focus on data security.
- Section 4: Recommendation 9 seeks to be resourced and empowered to fulfill the investigative responsibilities that are part of the USFA mandates.
On the surface, some may bristle at the notion of “elevating” anything in an environment where less government appears to be the path. But having the U.S. fire administrator engaged in policymaking and involved in on scene executive coordination is a natural extension to reduce fire deaths and fire loss in the United States. And while less oversight may be the easy path for some to espouse, let us remember that, particularly compared to our law enforcement partners, the fire service has been grossly underfunded and undervalued at the federal level. This imbalance can be traced all the way back to the origins of the fire service — a voluntary and community-funded venture. Elevating the fire service can help provide the justifications and oversight commensurate with fire service public safety responsibilities.
As for data collection, we’ve said it time and time again that data collection is key to telling our story and making the case for systemic change. NERIS will help us in this effort.
An elevated investigative authority will surely face resistance from sister agencies, like ATF. Law enforcement agencies have long shunned fire service-based investigators, but recognizing our existing statutory responsibility should be a no-brainer here. Being a part of the investigative process and understanding causations can play a pivotal role in improving firefighter safety and health in the long run.
FEMA and wildland fire response
Section 5 focuses on recognizing wildfire as an important mission. Specifically, recommendations 10 through 14 address the significance of wildfire in the American landscape, from mitigation efforts to federal payments and grant funding.
FEMA/USFA is currently a peripheral player in wildfire mitigation and wildland management. A single federal parent over multiple fire and EMS agencies, as I have called for in the past, would allow us to prioritize wildland issues. Firefighters and firefighting strategies, including wildland, are scattered across six federal agencies. By comparison, law enforcement agencies have one federal parent — the Department of Justice.
Additionally, it only makes sense to merge existing fire department community risk reduction (CRR) strategies with existing FEMA, Interior and Agriculture wildland and hazard mitigation strategies. The efficiencies of such centralization of policy and personnel management could pay for themselves in one swipe of a pen.
Search and rescue response
Sections 6 and 7 address search and rescue efforts:
- Recommendations 15 and 16 seek to ensure USAR teams are properly resourced, and that host departments are not held liable for funding in federal deployments.
- Recommendations 17 and 18 seek to assign the USFA as the primary agency for ESF-9 (search and rescue) and to strengthen relationships between FEMA, the USFA and local governments.
In the initial midst of the proposed elimination of FEMA, we were struck by the Texas flood disaster. USAR teams were a core response asset that would have normally been on the ground quicker than the decisional dysfunction allowed at the time. As such, the related recommendations simply seek to reinforce past practice and to enhance the spirit of cross-state border cooperation that has existed with USAR teams in the past. Once again, as a collective asset that has proven itself effective time after time, this simply makes sense.
Additionally, ESF-9 has historically rested under law enforcement control and supervision. Even considering that fire and EMS departments arguably provide the lion’s share of personnel and equipment used during ESF-9 events, the fire service has not been at the ESF-9 leadership table. The fire service should share responsibility as a co-leader of ESF-9.
NIMS and mutual aid
Sections 8 and 9 address the National Incident Management System (NIMS) and mutual aid:
- Recommendation 19 emphasizes the need for NIMS training and implementation at all response levels.
- Recommendations 20 through 25 address the importance of mutual aid, especially across state borders, to overall mission success. This includes standardized training and resource typing to reduce confusion and improve coordination for resources operating across state borders.
The reasoning here is simple: We see daily how the uninformed and untrained attempt to influence outcomes without a methodical approach. So, this recommendation seeks to ensure that NIMS continues to be the “law of the land” with respect to incident management across all levels of government and response. This includes the attempt to fix previously mentioned dysfunction that manifests across firefighting agencies working the same mission under separate federal agencies.
Furthermore, one of the more frustrating outcomes of nearly every disaster after-action review is a mention of resource management and communication among jurisdictions that could be fixed with a national sharing model. Several recommendations in this section would strengthen fire service models into a heretofore elusive but viable nationwide mutual-aid system. I fully recognize this is akin to herding cats, but it is a herding that needs to occur.
Resilience infrastructure
Section 10 addresses critical resiliency planning, with recommendations 26 and 27 emphasizing the importance of planning, code adoption and inclusion of fire hazards in tracking tool software.
Prioritizing, adopting and implementing building code and wildland risk reduction standards is undoubtedly an uphill battle. Everything from building materials to automatic fire suppression to separations and distances is in play here.
Anyone who knows me knows how I feel about fire sprinklers. We know many of the sprinkler and mitigation codes and strategies will not only reduce property loss but also save lives. Yet we continually battle with other political interests and builders over costs and owners’ property rights. Noting my past fire service in Prince George’s County, Maryland — the first county in the nation to require residential sprinklers in 1992 — it is unconscionable to me that only two states (Maryland and California) and the District of Columbia have mandatory residential sprinkler requirements jurisdiction wide. I am aware there are 400 or more local codes requiring sprinklers. Doesn’t it make sense that something proven to reduce property loss by 65% and deaths by 85% or more should be universal?
Community preparedness and notifications
Section 11 addresses the need for emergency notification improvements.
- Recommendations 28 and 29 emphasize the importance of uniform use and continued training for the use and implementation of emergency messaging systems.
- Recommendation 30 seeks to strengthen public awareness and understanding of emergency notification systems and processes.
In this digital age, with hundreds of millions of dollars having been dumped into notification systems, it is confounding to me that many jurisdictions do not have the systems or resources to communicate with residents prior to and after a disaster.
Section 12 addresses overall preparedness for state and local resources:
- Recommendation 31 emphasizes the importance of resiliency and recovery grant programs to overall state and local preparedness and recovery.
- Recommendation 32 seeks to ensure FEMA continues to use standards of practice that ensure reliability and credibility.
We must acknowledge the power of grant programs, which have provided infusions of equipment and personnel that would not been available otherwise. Recommendation 31 seeks to sustain those programs and recognize that the AFG programs were never intended to be sustainment grants but rather implementation grants. This is where fire chiefs and jurisdictions need to be realistic in their expectations of sustainment. The federal faucet was never intended to be an endless stream of funding.
The final recommendation seeks to maintain peer review systems that hold fire chiefs accountable to each other. This will help verify and validate our needs versus wants — an important line that can play a vital role in building community trust.
This is NOT an exercise in futility
I have long agreed with and shared frustration with some FEMA processes and (perceived or real) dysfunctionalities. As much as some want to make this about politics, the fire service must resist that urge.
Our communities do not care about our political beliefs when they call us for help. They care that we show up at the right place, at the right time, with the right people to do the right thing. Coordinating that response across imaginary or real borders is critically important to ensure we aren’t providing the best and most efficient services we can provide.
It is incumbent upon our fire service leaders to not sit back with indifference about the potential FEMA reforms. We work hard to limit struggles between neighboring fire departments in our own counties/parishes. We need to work equally hard or harder to not only encourage cooperation, but to provide the framework for coordinated response efforts across the United States.
I suspect many of you have witnessed in life how indifference and silence breeds negative outcomes. If we are to be apart of the solution, it is time now to reach out to your elected officials and make your voice heard. We simply don’t know what the future will hold for decisions on FEMA, however we do know that we have no recourse of blame, if we sit idly by while we get what we get. Call your elected officials today! https://cfsi.org/advocacy-and-outreach/
