Cultures are tough to change, and the fire service is a prime example. We like control. We like to do things “our way.” Perhaps this is because, in our primary mission, we are constantly trying to bring chaos under our control and management — and perhaps we let that extend to anything in our orbit.
| READ NEXT: Leading across generations: How people-focused leadership strengthens public safety teams
Building relationships with external groups, like a neighboring department or local organization, even internal groups, like a different division within the department, is one area where our need for control can undermine our mission. We’ve all seen it — departments intent on maintaining the “I’ll stay in my sandbox and you stay in yours” mindset. Ultimately, it is our communities — and our members — that lose when we operate in silos.
Who’s responding?
As with any relationship, good communication can build a lot of bridges. But if one department refuses to communicate with a neighboring department due to old biases, then nothing will ever change.
Consider this example: A department doesn’t want to work with a neighboring department for various reasons. As a result, instead of having the closest next-due unit in the event of a fire, their response plans are set up so that responsibility falls to another unit within the same agency that is much farther away or another mutual-aid department that, in some cases, had to travel past the “blacklisted” department to get to a fire scene. (Read more about this in Deputy Chief Billy Goldfeder’s article “‘Who Likes Who’ mutual aid.”)
Why do we tolerate this? The public does not care what name is on a fire truck or what color of turnout gear shows up at their emergency, but they do expect the closest resource to be dispatched. There are a lot of places where this doesn’t always happen.
While there may be some valid reasons for this, it’s important to always look for ways to overcome these concerns for the good of the community. That might mean coordinating on radio systems or training together. It also means putting aside any long-defunct stigmas that are standing in the way of opening your doors to new ideas, partnerships and response relationships.
Bridging these gaps, particularly the lack of communication with other departments, can be as simple as two chiefs meeting every so often to discuss departmental issues. After all, we can’t expect improved communication channels to develop when crews show up to the same incident once or twice a year. It takes the initiative of at least one individual to reach out to a neighboring department to start a conversation, even if it’s not related to the services you provide, because any conversation can jumpstart a relationship.
Internal divisions
There may also be internal divisions within departments or a lack of cooperation among members. Some members who fail to remember that everyone in the department is working toward the same underlying mission may become territorial in their respective areas of expertise. This can be exacerbated by perceived slights or lack of recognition. For example, a community risk reduction division may not get the credit or respect it deserves from the emergency response division or vice versa, and unhealthy competition or discourse emerges.
Additionally, I’ve found that the adage, “the left hand doesn’t know what the right hand is doing,” is quite common in fire departments and can further divide groups. There are methods to bridge these gaps, such as personnel working together on independent department projects. This could mean collaborating on truck committees or task groups, including accreditation work groups.
Our department has multiple work groups that focus on goals identified in our strategic plan. We purposely seek out a cross-section of members who might not work in the same division, but still have a common interest associated with the task group’s mission — anything that can bring people together for a common goal and bond can produce results. These results can include seeing each other’s perspective and building mutual respect between individuals, and ultimately, divisions within the same department.
Partnerships in action
The good news: Recently, I’ve observed more fire department partnerships, including those with local nonprofits, educational institutions and other public safety agencies, taking priority for the good of the community. Here are several examples.
Automatic aid: Due to incompatible operational tactics, two departments were not working together. They rarely interacted, even though they bordered each other and frequently had calls near each other’s boundaries — incidents where they could have benefited from a dual response. Fortunately, through changes in administration and partnering with a local nonprofit, relationships were established and an automatic-aid agreement was formed. Now, in the event of a major incident, the cooperation allows for more fire units to remain in service instead of drawing internal resources from further distances and putting more strain on the system. Furthermore, the collaboration wasn’t only at the chief and administrative level, but personnel of all ranks began to interact and work together to benefit their respective communities.
Regional fire academies: Another partnership opportunity of value is regional fire academies at community colleges that train recruits for multiple departments. These collaborations create partnerships that extend beyond training fire recruits in their initial fire certifications. Our training division has more time to focus efforts on existing department personnel and internal training, while instructors are also given the opportunity to teach at the academy. Furthermore, the academy provided us with a larger hiring base — firefighters who were part of this academy but unaffiliated with a department. This was especially helpful when our own personnel were able to assess the skills and mentalities of these recruits before we entered the hiring process.
EMS: I have worked in an environment where separate EMS agencies provided funding to fire departments to jointly construct stations and be housed together. While many fire departments already provide EMS transport, there are many across the country that supplement EMS systems with non-transport first response agencies. Just like a sports team that practices together and spends time together off hours, the co-location of EMS and fire apparatus provides opportunities for better response, as well as agency and crew integration.
Police department: Another example of a beneficial relationship is my department’s collaboration with our police department and its first responder drone program. The program is crucial for many of our incidents, including all structure fires and any incident where situational awareness from above is beneficial.
Final thoughts
These partnerships would never occur if it wasn’t for the openness of the administrations and line personnel to communicate with one another and seek what is best for their communities. It’s refreshing to see fire departments both stepping out of their sandbox and inviting others in so they can make a bigger difference in their communities, from faster, more efficient responses to expanding ideas on training and working together outside of emergency services to benefit the people we protect daily.
We can and should do better for our communities by bridging gaps through building relationships with our neighbors and other agencies. When someone experiences an emergency, they see us all as equals and as someone to help them. Maybe we should consider a similar perspective.
