Number Crunching
Initial conclusions from reader input to FireFighterCloseCalls.com about nationwide public safety budget cuts

By Shannon Pieper

Note: This article is part of a special FireRescue magazine series on the economy and its effects on the fire service.

If you read the Secret List, the noncommercial and free e-newsletter from FireFighterClosecalls.com (FFCC), you know that for a few months now FFCC has been asking readers to share how their departments are being affected by the budget cuts. In May, the site added a new page featuring the information received from approximately 500 e-mails from departments around the country.

Compiled by veteran fire protection analyst and master statistician Ignatius “Iggy” Kapalczynski, the statistics paint a dire picture: budget cuts of up to 20 percent, pay cuts of up to 10 percent, brownouts, fire-prevention programs eliminated, and in one case, an entire fire department disbanded.

Key Findings
According to Kapalczynski, the key findings from the information gathered thus far are:
• Cuts are happening everywhere; it’s not a local problem.
• Cuts are being made in different ways—compensation concessions, staffing reductions, resource reductions, etc.
• Performance measures of present staffing levels and resource deployments are not documented, thus reductions in service levels cannot be specifically determined.
• Performance measures vary from city to city, the most common measure being response time, which doesn’t thoroughly describe the impact of staffing cuts or availability reductions.

Not surprisingly, Kapalczynski notes, such cutbacks have a predictable effect. “Fires and medical emergencies tend to get progressively more serious until trained intervention is initiated,” he says. “Measures that extend the initiation of emergency actions due to longer response times, that cause longer times to assemble the staff necessary for safe operations and that diminish availability of resources to handle service demand loads have the greatest impacts on the public. Deferred acquisitions of safety equipment, deferred maintenance and reduction of training have the greatest impact on emergency responder safety.”

Of the actions reported to FFCC, Kapalczynski says that rotating fire company brownouts is by far the most illogical measure. “The on again/off again, sometimes this neighborhood/sometimes that neighborhood deployment of staff and resources is simple gambling,” he says. “It defies and thwarts the study and definition of service levels by being a moving target that is not present long enough to be evaluated. It sets the stage for permanent reductions.”

Public Safety Cutbacks Matter More
Our nationwide economic situation, of course, necessitates that we must all sacrifice a little, as many industries are making cutbacks. But both Kapalczynski and Chief Billy Goldfeder, the driving force behind FFCC, note that equating emergency response to other city services is dangerous, because lives are at stake. “A fire department with less funding, staffing and related resources will not arrive quicker, the fire will spread faster and firefighters’ abilities to effectively slow or stop the fire—and perform the needed searches and rescues—will be measurably and negatively impacted,” Goldfeder says.

Kapalczynski echoes that thought: “The most dangerous cuts are those made on the assumption that all services are equal—cutting the grass in the parks less often, more students in the classrooms or the library not open evenings may be comparable inconveniences, but the fire department no longer being able to handle two calls at once is more like shutting off traffic-control lights to save electricity. People will be hurt by the consequences rather than just being annoyed.”

What Can You Do?
So what advice do Goldfeder and Kapalczynski have for chiefs facing budget cut situations? “It’s the nature of firefighters to try to maintain levels of service above and beyond the resources afforded to them,” Kapalczynski says. “This is when their safety is compromised. Without a clearly and realistically stated municipal performance-level expectation, the chief must establish how service levels will be reduced.”

Example: Fires may no longer be confined to the room of origin but rather to the floor of origin because they will have more time to grow, or response-time goals will only be met 70 percent of the time rather than 90 percent because units are less available, or timely medical care will not be available to every caller. Calls for service may also be shifted to adjacent departments and private providers.

Whatever the service reduction, the key is communication with the community. “The chief has a clear obligation to make sure everyone, from the citizens to the elected officials, understand exactly what the cuts mean prior to them being made,” Goldfeder says. “To tell a community that less staffing, brownouts or reduced companies will not impact service is ridiculous, and unfortunately some are saying just that.”

Goldfeder notes that communicating with personnel is equally important. “The chief must make it clear to the firefighters, based upon the cuts, what should be expected of the members and what may no longer be possible. Simply put, if a department is arriving minutes later with fewer firefighters, there will be more fire and a greater chance that potentially trapped victims may not be saved—no matter how brave or heroic the firefighters may be.”
That’s not to say that firefighters will not or should not make every possible attempt to save a life, Goldfeder stresses, “but that because of decisions made by short-sighted elected officials who fail to understand that fire/EMS is as basic and critical a service that local government can provide, there is an increased risk of danger to civilians and firefighters.”

What’s Next
FFCC notes that the real cuts will come during FY 09/10 as cities see four quarters of diminished incomes, and that federal funding through SAFER and AFG won’t make up for local funding cuts. “Federal funding is a temporary fix,” Kapalczynski says. “Money from Washington is only a refund of our tax dollars to the local community where delivery of local services is a direct example of our tax dollars at work. If there’s insufficient money locally, then there’s less money federally. It’s all drying up. It’s not as much about funding as it is about the will to set local priorities for public safety.”

FFCC hopes that by documenting cutbacks from around the country, departments will be able to make “before and after” comparisons of the effects of cutbacks and avoid permanent reductions. In the past, the fire service has absorbed significant cuts because of advances in technology or improved working conditions. Today’s cutbacks are different. “Governments are cutting because they cannot afford to provide service at previous levels,” Kapalczynski says. “They’re implying that the public has become accustomed to too much service and that if they cannot afford it then they do not truly need it. Although post-reduction studies may show increased losses to property and greater losses in health and life safety, pre-reduction studies define service levels against which reductions can be measured. It’s ultimately up to an informed public to decide how much service they expect.”

Note: If your department is facing cutbacks, e-mail staffing@firefighterclosecalls.com with the details, and visit the staffing page on FFCC to see whether other departments are facing similar cuts. You’re encouraged to contact the departments listed to work together to generate solutions that can help minimize the impact on service and firefighter safety.

Shannon Pieper is managing editor for FireRescue magazine.

View the other articles from this series:

Training During Tough Times

How to Inform Your Personnel about Layoffs

Demonstrating Your Department’s Value

Creating Revenue in a Down Economy (on the FRI blog)