The Social Network & Community JUST for Firefighters
ISO Considering Change, input wanted.
I’ve been invited to sit in on a discussion, along with several others, with ISO. Purpose here is to brain storm ideas for changes in their rating system. Since my brain is only partly cloudy today, I’ll entertain ideas from the members. Hear is your chance, I’ll pass along any good ideas.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Tony P on
-
I think a name change would be a good idea - ISO stands for International Standards Organisation. Confusing.
-
Permalink Reply by Joe Stoltz on
-
One question would be: "How many insurance companies still pay any attention to your ratings?" I've been told that there are not too many that do, anymore.
-
Permalink Reply by firechief911 on
-
i was told the same thing state farm tried tostop useing it a few years not sure what tthey are using
-
Permalink Reply by Ben Waller on
-
How about changing the rating schedule away from ancient history and get it lined up with what fire departments actually do in the 21st century?
For starters, ISO needs to change the ratings system from only considering reactive, manual firefighting by the fire department and consider ACTUAL fire loss in the community. If a community has a track record of minimizing fire loss with sprinkler ordinances, fire codes, fire resistant construction, and monitored alarm systems, then it's not an ISO Class 9, no matter the size or type of fire department. There are ways to keep community fire loss down without relying solely on manual firefighting.
ISO claims to emphasize life safety, but they ignore what most fire departments really do - EMS. Life safety - ALL life safety - is our first priority, but ISO doesn't count manpower that works the ambulances. That means that the 70% to 90% of the fire department's actual call volume is considered to be a nuisance that gets in the way of our "real" job. Additionally, the ISO ratings have skewed fire protection away from life safety and toward property protection for years. If you don't believe me, check on how much ISO credit you get for a fully staffed rescue company.
On the other hand, you have a pickup truck full of salvage covers, some spare SCBA and hooks, and an old portable monitor, and voila, it's a "service" company and you get half a ladder company credit for it.
The ISO ratings system is designed to protect the bottom line of insurance companies that sell fire insurance, not life insurance.
The training ratings system need to take real calls, state EMS regulations, and all hazard response into account, too.
Lastly, the ratings system is a closely-held secret. If ISO doesn'g make the ratings system transparent so that fire departments can figure out how to maximize their points without hiring consultants, consulting the Magic 8-Ball, or going to Wally World and buying a Ouija board, then more and more places will start either ignoring ISO or legislating the ratings system out of the jurisdiction.
ISO has become increasingly irrelevant.
The Accreditation process provides much better community all-hazards protection.
It accounts for all hazards, not just fire.
It forces the department to conduct master planning.
It forces the department to conduct risk assessments, and steer resources toward the primary risks, and primary call types.
It involves everyone in the department in the self-assessment process.
It forces the department to take an honest look at performance measures and how to improve performance, based on actuall call history.
If you think an ISO Class 1 rating really means anything, look up June 18, 2007.
-
Permalink Reply by Art "ChiefReason" Goodrich on
-
They need to change their flow rates and credit for mutual aid.
Ben stole my thunder.
They need to quit using "pi over thumb squared" and get into the 21st century.
Loss isn't just about FIRES anymore.
Deal with it.
TCSS.
Art
-
-
Ted,
We carry 2.5 inch hose jackets on every engine because ISO gives points for them.
We have never used a single one, as far as I know.
We rarely use 2.5 inch line except for an occasional leader line.
We use 1.75 inch attack lines most of the time and 5 inch supply line every time.
So much for hose jacket relevance.
Ben
-
-
The basic rule of firefighting validation is setting the objectives, then ensuring that everyone knows exactly what the objectives are. If the objectives aren't made clear, accurate, precise, and reproduceable, then the objectives are pretty useless. Hmmm...
-
Permalink Reply by Frosty on
-
I guess I am "special" and have done fairly well working with ISO. What I would like to see is credit in fire flow for companies that run CAFS.
And State Farm - while they do not use the ISO ratings blindly, they still purchase the ISO product in coming up with their ratings.
-
Permalink Reply by Fireyladd - Retired Chief Sharp on
-
ok, we should understand that ISO isnt about us. Its about insurance. So you have a conflict of interest from the start. ISO looks at us with a jaundiced eye bent on covering the bottom line. They arnt about giving us a break. They work for the insurance service. Personally I'de just as soon they went away but since they are here I'll try and find a way to get along with them. Kinda like NFPA. We've got folks that have a business interest controlling a system that ultimately effects us. Dosnt matter how reality is they will work the numbers to work for them. Its all about the dollar. ISO is based out of Chicago, Ill. How about a rating system that works for the West coast? I agree with whats been said already. Its a out-dated system thats broke. Lets not fix it. Send them away with all that stuff that we have no use for that they say we must have.
-
Permalink Reply by Aussie_Wildfire on
-
Trainer-- Advice from an Aussie. If you read the posts, ISO is too old now. it needs to be put down and you need to start from scratch again.
I don't know what ISO does over there, but they definitely needs a name change:I think a name change would be a good idea - ISO stands for International Standards Organisation.
-
-
Now I am getting very confused. You state that ISO is too old, and needs to be put down, and then you say you don't know what they do here?
-
Permalink Reply by Trainer on
-
My guess for this brain storm session is the fact the not everyone is using them anymore, and I agree 100% on moving into the 21 century. What kind of info does an insurance company want? Property loss is a biggie, but I can see the value of a good EMS program, but now were talking 2 different types of insurance. City codes are good, but with the exception of fire prevention premium discounts are given. A good prevention program is worthy of credit. All hazards protection is a good one, I like that. There training points system just plain sucks, even the best dept don’t score that well, this needs work. Name change is also needed; I’m not sure if they do anything else other then provide data for structure fires. I believe there only goal is to provide information on our ability to limit property damage, are they looking to expand beyond that; maybe I’ll find out. As far as I know this is the only report card we get and it’s only a portion of what we do. About it being kept a secret, the last time we had an audit, we were sent a document that listed everything they looked at and its corresponding points. In the AAR we received our class plus where we needed improvement, specific information was easily obtained by the chief requesting it in a letter on department letterhead. I’ve seen this ratting do good, at least around here, a dept will get a 9 or 10 and it’s a wake-up call and have improved within a year. The fact that I need to carry a piece of equipment that I’ll never use is where change is needed, Capt the IRD is funny as hell.
© 2024 Created by Firefighter Nation WebChief.
Powered by
