Skip to content

Archives for incident-management

See all posts in the network tagged with incident-management

The Case for Credentialing – An Opposing View

2 comments

I’m distressed that a comment got sent to my spam filter regarding an earlier post and for that I apologize.  The poster made the comment that he didn’t think I’d print it.  As it is, I would hope by now that readers understand that I welcome opposing views, because it is only by listening to what others have to say that we can grow.  Thus, I’m interested in discussing the issues intelligently and understanding the emerging challenges in the emergency service industry.  So since the comment got sent to the spam folder, I don’t feel that it was shared with you all, and I wanted to insure we had equal opportunity to present our views.  If you have a point to make and it can sway my view, then I encourage it. 

First, an excerpt from a letter Mr. Doug Copp sent to my employer:

In his zeal to please some nefarious people at FEMA I believe he has decided than he will promote himself, at my expense..and your town’s expense. I have had a running battle with FEMA for 20 years because they have used major disasters as an opportunity for military and espionage activities while the ‘victim’ country has been in chaos, from the disaster.

As a person who only cares about saving lives..they hate my guts.
Before 911, I was the most experienced rescuer, in the world; since, 911 I have been sick every minute of every day and after 8 years am still being treated by 7 MD Specialists, for my 911 injuries.

 

This is twisted, perverted and a disgrace that this little man should find it necessary to cause me harm. 
How much do I have to suffer? How much abuse do I need to put up with? If he is so twisted…then he should spend his time mutilating small animals and leave me alone.
 

 

 

Then, his comment, which I retrieved from the spam folder:

This is what I submitted to him as a comment, on his blog site. I do not expect that he will have the courage to post it:

http://www.firehousezen.com/2009/05/29/the-case-for-credentialing/

 “It is disgusting that my name which was so destroyed by a psychotic, twisted pervert,,,aka Thomopson Lang..owner of the Albuquerque Journal ..because I refused to give him an emergency pass,,not because he was wearing women’s clothes..not because of his disgusting behavior but mainly because he was an evil, evil man..and even more so because some wannabee phony pretend rescuers see me as an easy target..get a life..go credential your phony ass.

My 20 years of selfless volunteering saved the lives of more than 200,000 lives..go see the proof at www.amerrescue.org

As far as Mr. Copp’s claims that I have offended him in some way, I hope he continues to read this blog and understand that I’m not about divisiveness but about seeking the truth, and as far as I am concerned (and this is my blog) there is a discussion that should be made about the merits and demerits of credentialing.  We presented some opposing ideas and we will discuss others as well.  But as far as dismissing the idea of credentialing because Mr. Copp feels it goes against him and some of the others out there, well, I’m sorry that he feels this animosity toward me. 
Instead of threatening me with a lawsuit, perhaps he can let us all know just what it is he has in the way of scientific evidence defending his points.  I’m only interested in discussing the facts.  I happen to be opposed to self-deploying groups posing as rescue teams and not showing evidence of having met any recognized consensus standards.

I have nothing to gain from only presenting one point of view here on FHZ.  As I said before and I’ll say a thousand times, I don’t blog on duty and I don’t speak for any of the organizations I work for on this blog, so they have nothing to do with anything on here except to serve as good examples of organizations using best practices.

 

Enjoy and have a nice day.
Posted by on June 18, 2009 • Filed under: change, credentialing, DHS, FEMA, government, leadership, NIMS, politics, professionalism, rescue, SAR, Uncategorized, US&R, USAR • Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Case for Credentialing – Those Who Can't Get In

No comments

sctf1-333My final group of people who are not happy with credentialing efforts are the “outsiders”.  To me, they are the ones with the most logical and compelling concerns about credentialing.  Ironically, these people are often those already with some responsibility for response, or they are in the process of trying to improve the capability.  In more than one case I am aware of, these efforts went about to fill a vacuum where poor or absent service existed.  And interestingly enough, the people working hard to improve the service have been effectively kept out of the loop by those who guard the credentialing development process.

Now to those who I hear constantly venting that they can’t understand who comes up with “these standards”, I tell these people all the time that as far as the NFPA standards go, THEY have an opportunity to write them if they were to just apply.  The NFPA standards process is very transparent and open to anyone who cares to get involved.  If you’re new to the process, sometimes it takes a little of help navigating the process, but there are people (like me) who help people find the information they want and point them in a direction on a regular basis.  Even if you aren’t on a committee, you are still encouraged to comment on proposed standards.  The public can attend NFPA committee meetings and the public and interested responders can discuss standards with principal members. 

However, there are groups making standards that may very well be used for credentialing purposes where I, and many in my same position, have no idea how the committees got picked.  When pushed for information, there have been slow or no communications in response to the standards being created. When asked, the individuals involved in these standards aren’t so forthcoming with their process or their logic.  In fact, in some cases these groups have ignored the people who aren’t in their “circle”. So I can certainly understand the frustration, because I’m one of you.

There was a time in my early career that I wanted to get involved in improving my chosen profession and interestingly enough, met with resistance from those in control.  One situation I am referring to was while dealing with a committee appointed by a training institution for the purpose of developing curriculum that frankly, was teaching information and skills about ten years behind the existing technical rescue methodology.  The excuse?  “That’s not how we do it HERE”.

In fact, there have been times in the US&R industry (and this is occurring literally, right this minute), where players that have political power but no clue about US&R are actively pushing for control of that “legally authorized responder” designation for their own ill-prepared organizations, despite the presence of already qualified and genuinely proactive individuals who are already leading efforts.

So to me, here is the place where the credentialing talks meet resistance and an extreme amount of concern. I am not interested in a credentialing process that excludes individuals from contributing to the development of the standards used.  The concern is especially strong when in some cases, the standards are slanted toward keeping people in positions rather than in insuring qualified people have the qualifications.  There is a fine line between saying we require you to maintain certification from a certain agency and permitting equivalency in order to permit other certifications that meet the intent of the certification.  The easy way would be to simply identify objective criteria for people and organizations to meet and to certify to that standard, but then there comes the difficult (and expensive) method of evaluating that capability.

Really, where do you draw the line on “equivalency”?  If the Acme Fire Department issues a certification as a Rescue Technician, should that carry the same weight as someone with a certification from their state fire academy?  Or from a third-party provider?

These are hard questions to answer and the chief argument against credentialing.  It’s because there are those of us in the industry fighting against those who have drawn a line benefiting a few to the exclusion of many.  My inner skeptic says that these standards have been established simply to promote someone’s agenda.  Now this is an argument that has been inappropriately used against NFPA standards for a while- that a certain interest group would control the standards in order to further their own agenda.  If there is anyplace where that is less true, it would be in NFPA committees.  Especially in professional qualifications committees, if a certain balance isn’t achieved to avoid self-interest, there are marked efforts to re-balance the committee.  I can’t say that to be true about some of the credentialing proposals I have seen.

We do, however, have to insist not necessarily on adopting a certification from a certain agency to be credentialed, but instead to insist on adherence to evaluation and confirmation of knowledge, skills, and abilities that meet the needs of a certain position, or in the case of organizations and teams, meeting objective criteria that define a type and kind of response asset.  From here, this is where we will transition into the argument in favor of credentialing.  See you next time.

Posted by on June 17, 2009 • Filed under: Uncategorized • Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Case for Credentialing – Those Who Can't Get In

No comments

sctf1-333My final group of people who are not happy with credentialing efforts are the “outsiders”.  To me, they are the ones with the most logical and compelling concerns about credentialing.  Ironically, these people are often those already with some responsibility for response, or they are in the process of trying to improve the capability.  In more than one case I am aware of, these efforts went about to fill a vacuum where poor or absent service existed.  And interestingly enough, the people working hard to improve the service have been effectively kept out of the loop by those who guard the credentialing development process.

Now to those who I hear constantly venting that they can’t understand who comes up with “these standards”, I tell these people all the time that as far as the NFPA standards go, THEY have an opportunity to write them if they were to just apply.  The NFPA standards process is very transparent and open to anyone who cares to get involved.  If you’re new to the process, sometimes it takes a little of help navigating the process, but there are people (like me) who help people find the information they want and point them in a direction on a regular basis.  Even if you aren’t on a committee, you are still encouraged to comment on proposed standards.  The public can attend NFPA committee meetings and the public and interested responders can discuss standards with principal members. 

However, there are groups making standards that may very well be used for credentialing purposes where I, and many in my same position, have no idea how the committees got picked.  When pushed for information, there have been slow or no communications in response to the standards being created. When asked, the individuals involved in these standards aren’t so forthcoming with their process or their logic.  In fact, in some cases these groups have ignored the people who aren’t in their “circle”. So I can certainly understand the frustration, because I’m one of you.

There was a time in my early career that I wanted to get involved in improving my chosen profession and interestingly enough, met with resistance from those in control.  One situation I am referring to was while dealing with a committee appointed by a training institution for the purpose of developing curriculum that frankly, was teaching information and skills about ten years behind the existing technical rescue methodology.  The excuse?  “That’s not how we do it HERE”.

In fact, there have been times in the US&R industry (and this is occurring literally, right this minute), where players that have political power but no clue about US&R are actively pushing for control of that “legally authorized responder” designation for their own ill-prepared organizations, despite the presence of already qualified and genuinely proactive individuals who are already leading efforts.

So to me, here is the place where the credentialing talks meet resistance and an extreme amount of concern. I am not interested in a credentialing process that excludes individuals from contributing to the development of the standards used.  The concern is especially strong when in some cases, the standards are slanted toward keeping people in positions rather than in insuring qualified people have the qualifications.  There is a fine line between saying we require you to maintain certification from a certain agency and permitting equivalency in order to permit other certifications that meet the intent of the certification.  The easy way would be to simply identify objective criteria for people and organizations to meet and to certify to that standard, but then there comes the difficult (and expensive) method of evaluating that capability.

Really, where do you draw the line on “equivalency”?  If the Acme Fire Department issues a certification as a Rescue Technician, should that carry the same weight as someone with a certification from their state fire academy?  Or from a third-party provider?

These are hard questions to answer and the chief argument against credentialing.  It’s because there are those of us in the industry fighting against those who have drawn a line benefiting a few to the exclusion of many.  My inner skeptic says that these standards have been established simply to promote someone’s agenda.  Now this is an argument that has been inappropriately used against NFPA standards for a while- that a certain interest group would control the standards in order to further their own agenda.  If there is anyplace where that is less true, it would be in NFPA committees.  Especially in professional qualifications committees, if a certain balance isn’t achieved to avoid self-interest, there are marked efforts to re-balance the committee.  I can’t say that to be true about some of the credentialing proposals I have seen.

We do, however, have to insist not necessarily on adopting a certification from a certain agency to be credentialed, but instead to insist on adherence to evaluation and confirmation of knowledge, skills, and abilities that meet the needs of a certain position, or in the case of organizations and teams, meeting objective criteria that define a type and kind of response asset.  From here, this is where we will transition into the argument in favor of credentialing.  See you next time.

Posted by on June 17, 2009 • Filed under: Uncategorized • Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Case for Credentialing – Answering Your Comments

No comments

I hate to break free in the middle of this series like this, but there were some comments made that I wanted to discuss.  Since one is on one post and the other is on another post, I felt the need to tie them together and talk really quickly to the issue.

On June 15, Steve said:

Yes, credentials would help but WHO is the final authority on issuing them? WHO sets the standards? How are you going to avoid the age old paid vs volunteer bias in any credentialing agency?

My quick answer: I am against the bias in the career vs. volunteer.  If you can meet the standard, you can meet the standard.  I think there is plenty of room for volunteers, especially in disaster response.  So some career guy is going to tell me my docs can’t be part of the team because they aren’t career guys somewhere?  And I have said in regard to SC-TF1, where I do have some pull, if one person in a one-station volunteer department down the road wants to be part of our team, we need to let him if he meets our criteria (background check, physical agility, etc.)  As Ray Wilkinson, our past Director once said, “I can teach someone to break rocks, what I can’t teach is desire.”  If someone wants to do the job, and goes through the requirements to meet a position, why should I care if he’s a member of FDNY or of Acme Fire Department?  So Steve, I’m with ya, brother.

On June 16, Kevin said:

I live in a state where there is no agency tasked with certifying or credentialing Search and Rescue dogs. I have seen (many times) where someone will buy lights for their POV and load their pet dog into the truck and call themselves a SAR team! If I didn’t know better, I might think all volunteer SAR teams were like this. However, there are a number of excellent non-governmental SAR teams in my state as well. I myself and a member of a volunteer K9 team.

Kevin goes on to say that they have a volunteer K9 SAR team because there isn’t an existing asset and law enforcement has asked for it.  Well, Kevin, as they say in Australia, “good on ya”.  You have identified a need and you have tried to meet that need.  No one else has that asset and it sounds like you have tried to do a good job of using accepted industry standards to meet the need.  THAT is good stuff.

However, I just went to discuss the concept of “those of us who want to do this right, but there are people with authority screwing things up so we can’t get in”, and realized that the post I wrote for that last week never posted as scheduled!  So that is now on the post schedule and I hope it does discuss some of the feelings I personally have in that regard. 

On June 16th, SAR Volunteer also commented:

I totally agree with your points. Please understand this are a handful of small volunteer K9 SAR teams in the state of SC who do NOT self deploy, do NOT work for anyone but the proper state or municipal authorities, train hard, carry their own liability and workmenscomp insurance, align their standards with NIMS Resource Typing, and are working to ensure they meet the proposed credentialing requirements.

And to you too, SAR Vollie, I applaud your efforts.  I think there is a place for the small volunteer K9 teams at the table as well, if they meet a standard.  Let’s take SC-TF1 again for example.  I have said over and over again, if we have people out there who want to do this stuff, let’s get them involved.  But not being a canine guy, I have some difficulty understanding some of the things the canine types are telling me.  So when I get national experts telling me one thing, and some guy with Rover in a pickup truck (or Expedition, as it were) saying his dog can detect live scent, cadavers, lost pets, and get a beer and catch a frisbee, understand that I am skeptical.  And the self-deploying thing is just purely bad in my book, but that’s a whole other issue as well that doesn’t stop with canine SAR teams, and DOES include career guys, departments, and organized teams, etc.  Frankly, if you (SAR Vollie) or anyone else in SC have dogs trained to find LIVE HUMANS in collapsed or damaged buildings, and feel like you can meet a standard, send me an e-mail.  I’d love to hear from you.  But anyone who calls themselves “Urban Search and Rescue” and they are running around doing wilderness searches, well, go back to my box of rocks comment.  Be what you say you are.

Anyway, I hope this illustrates some of the issues considered so far and we’ll get back on track with the next post (which should have published before the last one- go figure).  Please continue with your comments.  I certainly appreciate your perspectives.  Stay safe.

Posted by on June 16, 2009 • Filed under: change, command, credentialing, DHS, education, FEMA, government, leadership, National Fire Academy, NIMS, officership, politics, professionalism, rescue, safety, SAR, Uncategorized, US&R, USAR • Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Argument for Credentialing – Moving On

2 comments

crimson-060aNow that we have discussed the four major players in the argument against credentialing, lets talk about the argument for it.

A credential is only as good as the standard by which it is issued.  The point of having a credential should be to identify an individual or other resource as a certain type and kind.  If there is no standard, you might as well tell the carrier of a credential, “just stand over there until I can find something you can’t screw up.”

A worthwhile credential should also have some security associated with it.  After all, if anyone could get one, what good would it be?  So there are issues of validation involved as well.

In disaster after disaster, free-deploying individuals and “organizations” (and I use that term very loosely) go to “help” and in many cases, put a drain on an already over-taxed system and cause the diversion of legitimate resources from going to areas in need.  And while there is obviously some merit in the use of bystanders for certain aspects of disaster response, that has to be weighed seriously against the risk of their involvement, including the risk to themselves and the affected community, as well as the risk to rescuers, who ultimately must rescue the well-meaning if things don’t go according to plan.

There is no way to eliminate the truly altruistic in their quest to render aid.  Nor should there be.  But likewise, the civilians must understand implicitly that there comes a point when they must be diverted from the scene so the professionals can take over, especially when it comes to the extremely hazardous parts.

The standards in themselves seem to be quite the sticking point with some.  Standards utilized for the purpose of credentialing should be consensus standards and all keyholders included in the development of those standards, versus the exclusivity of some of the currently suggested drafts.  But once these are done, ratified, and chosen to be the driving force in identification of the qualified, there needs to be the embracing of the concept.  If organizations can’t agree on and use a standard that has meaning, then the credential is useless.

Like anything else, the change in this concept might be painful for some.  There are departments out there who are struggling with the unfunded mandates.  I can also sympathize with the organizations who want to become part of a greater plan like a National Mutual Aid Box Alarm System but don’t seem to know where to start or how to get involved.  I guess my first order of business, then, is to tell you how to get involved.  If there’s anything I can do, it’s point you in a direction toward activism.

Change will only come about if we work together to make it happen.  If you won’t stand for change, you don’t stand a chance to change.  Our industry is going through some important times but as you might notice (as I do all too well, sometimes), these initiatives take off for a while then they lose momentum.  Of course, that’s just until the next disaster.

Let’s work together to make something move.  In the next post, I’ll talk about opportunities to get involved.

Posted by on June 15, 2009 • Filed under: change, command, credentialing, fire service, Firefighter Nation, government, leadership, NIMS, politics, professionalism, safety, SAR, Uncategorized, US&R, USAR • Tagged: , , , , , , ,

The Case for Credentialing – Opportunists and Profiteers

1 comment
SC-TF1 in Chalmette, LA during Katrina ops.

SC-TF1 in Chalmette, LA during Katrina ops.

And then, there are the profiteers.  My intent with Firehouse Zen is not to use it as a place to vent, but as a place to enlighten.  Venting may be entertaining for some, but for the most part, productive it isn’t.

So let’s talk about why opportunists would be against credentialing, which should probably be obvious.  The reason is because for most of them, it would require them to validate their claims of expertise, and thus exposed as not having the skills or knowledge, would blunt their mercenary motives for financial reward. 

These are not “buffs” or “whackers”.  I have heard some of my colleagues use the term “buff” when referring to these groups, but I feel that this gives the real fire buff community a bad name, since there are so many out there who genuinely have a deep interest in the fire service but are unable for whatever reason to gain membership, (or just don’t care to be IN the fire service) and many really do contribute in their own way either by helping operationally, or contributing to the body of knowledge about the history of the fire service.  And although I wonder if those who choose to call themselves “whackers” really get that we aren’t laughing with them, we are laughing at them, the “whacker” mindset might be annoying and mostly about self-esteem issues; they act on more of an emotional reward for their ego, and still don’t come close to the opportunists I am referring to.

Opportunists are those who profit financially from being associated with response to a disaster.  How does this work?  Those who attempt to profit by defrauding the response community do so either by direct effect or by diverting attention from legitimate organizations. 

Profiteering also comes in the form of using the event to establish credibility, despite the individuals questionable contribution toward the outcome (and again, detracting from the actual attempts to mitigate the event), which also often comes through self-deployment to an event.  In doing so, these groups divert attention from the real responders.  While they were taking short-cuts, the ones who did all the hard work of meeting requirements and responsibilities given to them by their legal authority were not able to get the legitimate message out.  Likewise, these individuals and groups intentionally or unintentionally siphon off donations and community support from groups that legitimately could use that support.

In one way or another, these opportunists find ways to profit from their involvement in the disaster, be it reinforcing their claims for injury or from “credibility”, despite their lack of official involvement.  It should really go without saying that credentialing will help keep these people away; if forced to produce a recognized credential, most of these people would have been stopped at the door.  In the case of others, it would allow us to at least force them to affiliate themselves with a legally authorized responder, hopefully requiring them to undergo some background check and examination of their reason for obtaining credentials (“Why do you want to be a disaster responder?”). But by requiring the credential it also causes them to be placed in a group of some sort for accountability and would keep them from wandering off to do their own thing.

I wrote an article in 2002 for withthecommand.com discussing even back then, accountability in regard to disaster resource management.  Accountability doesn’t stop at causing you to know where people are, as you know, it keeps people from freelancing and doing things outside of the operational plan, as well as eliminating the unauthorized from accessing the scene.  Control and command of an incident requires that you isolate and deny entry to anybody that doesn’t have the authority to be in that hot zone.  These types of people clearly have no business being where they are and the negative things they bring to this type of incident don’t even begin to scratch the surface against requiring credentials, in fact, they reinforce the argument. 

In the next installment, we’ll talk about the final area of concern with credentialing, which really isn’t a valid argument against credentialing, but the concern of who determines who gets credentials and how they go about measuring the KSAs of people who genuinely desire to help.  After that, we’ll talk about the pros and cons and discuss other initiatives that also benefit from credentialing.

Posted by on June 7, 2009 • Filed under: change, command, credentialing, DHS, FEMA, fire service, NIMS, planning, politics, SAR, technology, Uncategorized, US&R, USAR • Tagged: , , , , , , , , , ,

Update to the Series – Spontaneous Bystanders Unite

No comments

I guess I had an idea ahead of its time, even if it was only 48 hours ahead.:

There are indeed a few challenges with this kind of emergent response, problems that if resolved, would go a long way toward goodwill with the community in general (it seems like everyone’s got some kind of beef with FEMA in every disaster, despite their extraordinary efforts to educate people that they need to be more self-sufficient and less reliant on the government), and provide resources to the jurisdictionally responsible agencies that seem to be strapped for bodies when the big one rolls around to their neighborhood.

What am I talking about?  This announcement, from FEMA’s Craig Fugate, which came out in today’s Washington Post, advocates the idea that the public could effectively be used.  What a concept.

Posted by on June 4, 2009 • Filed under: change, command, credentialing, DHS, FEMA, fire service, government, motivation, NIMS, planning, politics, professionalism, SAR, US&R, USAR • Tagged: , , , , , ,

The Case for Credentialing – The Spontaneous Bystander

2 comments

First, we have the genuine thing, the spontaneous bystander, who sees a need for action, then does something about it.  Rescue911 commented on the story of the Good Samaritan and how a traveler, with no reason to do so other than to help his fellow man, went out of the way to assist another.  This lends a certain amount of credibility to the discussion that nothing should prohibit people who wish to help others in their time of need.  Now realize, of course, when I am referring to these individuals, I am referring to people who just have a desire to help their neighbors and do the right thing.

 Quarantelli discusses the social aspects of the emergent response of spontaneous bystanders in Katrina, but also in the Guadalajara gasoline spill and fire.  There is also discussion on the subject by Kirschenbaum that the current philosophy of governmental and NGO response to disasters effectively dilutes the response of neighbors and has resulted in an over-reliance on these agencies to provide assistance.  After all, man has been besieged by disasters since time immemorial and it’s not like they had FEMA to come to the rescue back in biblical times.

There’s something very beautiful (albeit, chaotic) in the spontaneous response of the altruistcally motivated.  But call me skeptical, I see a lot of response from people who claim that altruism is their motive, but I’m not seeing that generosity of spirit coming out when they’re busy operating video cameras to sell tape to the media or taking souvenirs, rather than manning a sand-bag line.  More about THAT kind of person later.

There are indeed a few challenges with this kind of emergent response, problems that if resolved, would go a long way toward goodwill with the community in general (it seems like everyone’s got some kind of beef with FEMA in every disaster, despite their extraordinary efforts to educate people that they need to be more self-sufficient and less reliant on the government), and provide resources to the jurisdictionally responsible agencies that seem to be strapped for bodies when the big one rolls around to their neighborhood.

The main problem faced by those of us in the disaster community when it comes to spontaneous response, is the fact that as the designated adult supervision at these events, we have a responsibility to insure not only mitigation (or depending on the complexity and scope, control) of the incident, but the safety of those who were not necessarily part of the problem before, but now are. 

Let’s step down a wee bit and look at it from the perspective of the first-due engine arriving at the scene of a water rescue.  Let’s even go further to relieve the complication of the situation, and let’s say this is a static water body and it’s just one person involved.  Now I understand that the vast majority of those of you reading the are responders, so bear with me as I educate those who are not.

If, as the officer of the first arriving fire apparatus on scene, we have a single person in need of assistance in a pond (or lagoon as we call them here on Hilton Head Island), it’s really just a cut-and-dried approach to the situation.  Providing we have the resources (water rescue equipment, trained and prepared personnel), it’s a matter of assessing the scene, determining the problem, solving and planning a solution, and putting the solution into action.

Our problem, however, is that more often than not, it isn’t that easy.  In a lot of cases, when we roll up, there are people in the water trying to make a rescue.  In a lot of cases, one or two of these people are now ALSO in distress.  There are bystanders who are interfering with the operation because they don’t understand that standing for a second and looking over the scene for additional hazards is necessary so that we ourselves don’t also become part of the problem (“WHY AREN’T YOU DOING SOMETHING?!!!”).  There are those who parked their vehicle in our way so they could get a better look.  These days there are people video taping so they can sell it to the media or even better, catch you doing something wrong.  Without beating this horse too much, suffice it to say that there are a whole lot of other things going on here.

Now how, you might ask, does this apply to me as a spontaneous responder?  Well, the video taping and the access issues aside (you are a Good Samaritan, after all), let’s go to that first issue: those of you in the water.  Think for a moment, while you are in front of your computer, why this person got into trouble to begin with.  It might very well mean that they can’t swim.  It might be, however, that there is another danger you don’t see.  Thus the need for experienced and equipped responders who can provide an effective rescue.  There is an oft-quoted saying in the confined space rescue community, that 50% of the victims in confined space emergencies are the first responders.  These are often well-intentioned, but less-than-educated or undisciplined responders who failed to take into account the dangers associated with space entry themselves.

My whole reason for saying this is that while most of us in the response community can certainly appreciate the bystander response to an emergency, there are cases upon cases in every aspect of disaster and technical rescue response where the spontaneous bystander response in and of itself became an additional rescue mission for us on our arrival.

So, how can the person who doesn’t have a desire to be part of an organized response help?  Take CPR and first aid courses.  Attend a seminar on what to do in a disaster.  Know that there are other ways to help (“throw, tow, row” come to mind BEFORE “go”).  Put your name on a volunteer reserve list or call your local jurisdiction and ask if there is some way to help if needed.  But more importantly than anything, when you are inclined to go and help, if the legally authorized incident commander (or their designee) gives you an assignment, no matter how mundane, it is what they DO need done for the management of the incident.  You may not understand or appreciate the IC’s request, but in our eyes, there may very well be a method of allowing you to contribute at your level of expertise and to permit your contributions without adding to the complexity of the situation (when something goes wrong and you aren’t equipped or prepared).

This all being said, in times of disaster, people do want to help and the response community has to be proactive enough to have a mechanism for channeling the energy of these responders.  The big issue in my eyes is to make sure people know in advance what they can do, create programs to educate lay responders, and tap them when you can to promote interest.  Furthermore, it is a good practice to identify a place they can report to and get information on them, credential them to the extent possible, and assign them according to their quickly-identified expertise.

I will tie this into the argument about credentialing later, but this is the first discussion regarding the “interested parties” against the argument for credentialing, so be on the lookout for the next post.  Thanks and feel free to comment or help illustrate your view on the subject.

Posted by on June 2, 2009 • Filed under: change, credentialing, DHS, education, FEMA, fire service, government, leadership, professionalism, rescue, safety, SAR, US&R, USAR • Tagged: , , , , , , , , , ,

The Case For Credentialing – The Argument

11 comments
SC-TF1 in Chalmette, September 2005

SC-TF1 in Chalmette, September 2005

As discussed in the last post, there are those who are against credentialing, for their own reasons.  Because I have had plenty of discussions about the subject, I think I have the discussions channeled into four groups (and if you have a different argument, let me know, because I don’t want to miss anything on the subject).  I plan to talk about each of these in a little more depth, but I wanted to at least put the parameters of the argument out there.

First, we have the genuine thing, the spontaneous bystander, who sees a need for action, then does something about it.  The discussion I have heard so far from this camp is that there should be nothing that would stand in the way of people who just have a desire to help their neighbors and do the right thing.  Quarantelli discusses the social aspects of emergent response from spontaneous bystanders in Katrina, but also in the Guadalajara gasoline spill and fire.  Plain ol’ people like every other neighbor you ever had saved lives, and were not agents of the government, had no training, and only did so in the effort to help others.  There’s something very beautiful in that, but call me skeptical, I see a lot of response from people who claim that is their motive, but I’m not seeing that altruism coming out when they’re out operating the video camera or taking souvenirs, rather than manning a sand-bag line.  More about THAT kind of person later.

We also have the disaffected group/person I call the “outsider”.  Having been one on a few occasions, I can certainly empathize with their cause, but I don’t necessarily sympathize with their way of handling things all the time.  Often, these are people who have a lot of training, or maybe come from somewhere where they had a lot of training and experience, and the place they are now in life won’t make room to allow them in.  There are dozens of reasons we will discuss, but there are also some issues regarding the credentialing side of things that would STRENGTHEN their position if they were in fact, truly qualified but being marginalized.

Then there are those who are currently the jurisdictional responder but are afraid the light of truth will expose that their organization/agency is not following industry standards, or that they are not ready, or are failing in any number of reasons.  These people really don’t have much sympathy from me in regard to their argument against credentialing.  However, there might be some discussion that merits a look.  I’ll reserve my judgement for now.

And finally, there are the thrill and glory seekers.  They might be there for the attention, they might be there for the notch in their gun, or they may be there to profit by defrauding the response community.  So as of now, this is where I stand and these are the arguments I want to discuss at first.  There are in some, compelling ideas.  There are in the others, no possible way you’ll be able to get me to support their theory.  But we’ll talk about them and I’d love to get your thoughts on the subject.  See you in a few.

Posted by on May 30, 2009 • Filed under: command, credentialing, DHS, FEMA, General, Media Relations, NIMS, planning, politics, professionalism, rescue, safety, USAR • Tagged: , , , , , , , , , ,

Firefighting as Asymetrical Warfare

2 comments

2005-1139There used to be a day when warriors considered it less than chivalrous to take cover or to shoot from a prone position.  Most of us in this millennium probably would never consider it a good idea to stand up and march forward upright into a withering hail of bullets unless we were certain we wanted to end it all right there.  While Napoleonic tactics continued to be used on the battlefield well into the 1900′s, for centuries, experts in the art of warfare were aware that when fighting a battle with an enemy that had a decided advantage, less than conventional tactics had to be applied.

As anybody who has ever been in the military knows, the one of the least preferable places to engage the enemy is on his own ground.  This is especially true in urban warfare, where going house to house can bring on any sort of undesired surprise.  Again, marching down the street in perfect formation, wheeling into position to the left or right, and moving forward to the center of the contested area is likely going to result in a heavy body count.

The advantage for the opposing force utilizing unconventional tactics is surprise; your force doesn’t know where or when the attack will come, you are unfamiliar with the terrain, you are unfamiliar with the weapons that will be used against you, and the attack is most likely going to come where your units are concentrated and have little ability to maneuver or escape.

Likewise, as we engage a fire in a building, especially in commercial occupancies, we have a disadvantage in that we are relatively unfamiliar with the layout, we may or may not be familiar with the fire load and the construction, and we don’t know for sure how long the fire has been burning, where it has extended to, or what components have been impacted.  We can get good reconnaissance when we do our preplans, but even then, unless it is a building you are in routinely, you probably aren’t going to have a good feel for the “terrain”.

Nonetheless, we have some holdouts in the fire service who continue to embrace the romantic image of the valiant firefighter, bolt upright, dashing into the flames with no regard for his own safety, and emerging unscathed with babe in arms, to the cheers of the crowd.  And before some of you haters out there begin to judge, realize that I come from four generations of these, of whom I am extraordinarily proud to be descended from.

And although I’m okay with that image in my heart, there’s a point where my head takes over.  Because while there is a certain amount of adrenaline surge in the glory of headlong engagement with the enemy, my years of education and experience kick in and I realize that I am locked in mortal combat with an enemy that has a decidedly favorable advantage.

If I choose to ignore the risks involved to the point that only the mission matters, if we had an unlimited amount of resources with which to throw at the enemy, maybe that would be okay (stick with me, now).  I don’t know about your department,  but in my department, we would have a limit of about one dead firefighter before things get a little crazy on scene (I’m being facetious; I hate to spell that out, but I’m heading off the hate mail).

There is nothing wrong with that image of valor I discussed before, but as I said in my earlier post, misusing the resources we have been allocated, of which losing personnel would be probably the most severe (at least it would be in my department), is a seriously poor contribution to minimizing the disaster and bringing it under control.  In fact, in most cases, it exacerbates it.

In no way should my opinion be construed as being against taking risk.  Risk is part of my job and if God strikes me down while taking what I considered to be a good risk versus an appropriate return, than so be it.  But risk to the exclusion of common sense isn’t valiant, it’s stupid.

Most of the firefighter deaths in this nation don’t come from valiantly charging into a burning building to save a life.  Most of them come from preventable issues, like cardiac-related incidents and motor vehicle collisions.  And while I mourn my fallen brethren just as terribly whether done on scene or in training, my job as a responsible emergency service leader is to insure that we aren’t throwing away souls toward lost causes or through poor judgement.  I know my family is appreciative when I come home intact, and so should yours be.

Saying you are for doing the job regardless of the safety aspects isn’t manly, it’s irresponsible.  Being cognizant of safe working practices doesn’t mean I stand outside a building and tremble when I roll up on a structure fire, but it does mean that I look at the fire progress, the extent of involvement, the building construction, and the likelihood of interior tenability (among other things) before committing my personnel.  Realize that this comes from a guy who has charred several helmets off the top of his head in his day and has had his share of hairy saves.  And I loved riding the tailboard just as much, if not more, than any of you out there as well.  But there comes a time when you look at what you are doing, and remember how close you came to throwing everything you had at the fire, only to have the insurance company write it off and be out there with a track-hoe the next day, hauling your “saved” building into a dumpster.

As Chris Naum says in his post on The Kitchen Table, there is a place in between overly cautious and overly aggressive that the good firefighters take their place in the line.  I ask that you consider that location and mark it out, and strive for the use of thorough size-up, sound tactics, and reasonable safety measures while remembering that there are more out there who depend upon you than just that victim.  Don’t throw everything you have at a situation you can’t win.  Choose your battles through knowledge and skill, and do the best you can do.

Posted by on May 9, 2009 • Filed under: "accident prevention", command, fire service, firefighting, LODD, officership, professionalism, safety • Tagged: , , , , , , , , ,

Let's Take an Unemotional Look at the Problem

2 comments

webimg_0912While I have been pursuing the discussion on The Kitchen Table only peripherally as I have been very busy lately, I noted an undertone of something that I guess has nagged at me for quite some time.  After thinking about it for a few days, I realized that the issues could actually be approached from a very pragmatic view which I’d love to share with you all today.

Let’s just clarify some statements.  I was not at FDIC for the big discussion, so I am only acting on what I am reading.  But let’s just say that the argument that some organizations are too worried about safety and are not pursuing fires aggressively enough, and are therefore doing a disservice to their communities is a valid one.  And let’s also bring into play another thing I keep hearing, that it is ridiculous to refer to the people we serve as “customers”, as also valid, although I think that customers is a better term for them than some of the other names I have called them under my breath at 0400.  But I digress.

So then, what are they?  Well, I guess the best thing to say is that they are “taxpayers”.  After all, our service is largely supported by tax revenue in one way or another, so I think that is probably a pretty accurate definition, although I could argue that some of them aren’t paying taxes and maybe should be deserving of no service, but then again, I digress.  Let’s say that even in a community that supports a robust volunteer response agency by way of donations only, the citizens and other potential users are in some form or fashion, paying for a service in which they expect some competency, timeliness, and efficiency.

As users of funds that don’t belong to us (they belong to YOU, the taxpayers), I would expect that you probably hold us (the emergency service providers) to a higher expectation, simply because on a daily basis, you don’t use our service.  Therefore, you continue to pay fees, taxes, and donations in the hope that, God forbid, if you needed us, we would come.  And if we did come, we would be prepared, equipped, and with sufficient resources to bring the disaster to bear.

Furthermore, I would expect that as a taxpayer, you expect any funds expended would be done so in a responsible manner.  You would expect some financial discipline, that the agency would be responsible and accountable, and that any real property and other assets would be lovingly cared for and maintained, just as if it belonged to someone else.  Because you know what, THEY DO.  Those red trucks and your uniforms and everything else was paid for by someone else (in most cases).

Likewise, if I, as a taxpayer, saw you doing something irresponsible with those assets, I’d be upset, regardless of how right you thought it was.  If you were using those assets recklessly, I’d suggest that perhaps you should consider that I worked very hard to acquire the funds with which I surrendered to you for the purpose of protecting my community, and I’d rather that you used good judgement in how you used that asset.  Just as I’d hope none of you would drive an engine into a burning building to put the fire out, I’d ask that if you did see some compelling reason to do so, that maybe you would share it with me so I too, could be enlightened and could understand.

Therefore, when I (as a Battalion Chief for the organization I work for) am given a certain number of assets, paid for by you the taxpayer, entrusted to care for and to use prudently, efficiently, and competently to provide emergency service, I take it VERY seriously.  I am, believe it or not, a pretty conscientious guy.  And when those assets include, but are not limited to, a station, an engine and truck company, a bunch of expensive equipment, and most importantly, the eight people assigned to those companies, I am called upon to use the best judgement and skill to bring those assets together to create a life-saving, fire-kicking, roof-chopping machine.

However, if I (as the BC), fail to take a reasonable assessment of each situation in hand, and determine the real problem, the cost involved, and the efficacy of the plan using the assets I have, I am negligent in my duties as a steward of the public trust.  I would hope that the fire service has come far enough that you all see yourselves as better than cannon fodder, but I really think that sometimes, the thought that we aren’t anymore, troubles some of you.

If I have a life that needs to be saved, I will risk a lot to save a lot.  If I have a reasonable expectation that to take a little risk, I can make a significant difference in the outcome of the emergency, I will weigh my options against the risk and put my plan into effect if so moved.  But I absolutely refuse to believe that in this day and age, with insurance companies condemning a structure in which firefighters died saving, that this is a GOOD thing, well, if not for the emotional attachment I have to my brother firefighters, as a steward of taxpayer funds, I’d suggest that it is neither wise, prudent, efficient, etc., etc.  In fact, now that I have opened us up for the possible long-term care of injured firefighters, the possible loss of civilian lives, the possible lawsuits, the unbelievable amount of time that will be required investigating the loss, and the mounds of paperwork, my decision to do so would be such that any reasonable individual would take one look at it and say, “What were you thinking?”

Again, taking the emotional aspect of it out of play, people screamed bloody murder about a plane flight over New York that cost the taxpayers over a quarter-million dollars (not to mention the sheer stupidity of the decision, but again, I digress), think of how angry taxpayers would be if you said that you just chucked several million dollars out the window in insurance claims, medical bills, replacement personnel, and overtime to deal with this problem? 

Hey, if you don’t want to approach safety from an emotional and traditional standpoint, then don’t.  But as a responsible supervisor of taxpayer funds, failing to approach this from a purely pragmatic standpoint, is more than just foolish, it is irresponsible.

Posted by on May 1, 2009 • Filed under: command, customer service, education, fire service, Firefighter Nation, firefighting, government, insurance, leadership, LODD, officership, politics, professionalism, safety • Tagged: , , , , , , ,

Let's Take an Unemotional Look at the Problem

2 comments

webimg_0912While I have been pursuing the discussion on The Kitchen Table only peripherally as I have been very busy lately, I noted an undertone of something that I guess has nagged at me for quite some time.  After thinking about it for a few days, I realized that the issues could actually be approached from a very pragmatic view which I’d love to share with you all today.

Let’s just clarify some statements.  I was not at FDIC for the big discussion, so I am only acting on what I am reading.  But let’s just say that the argument that some organizations are too worried about safety and are not pursuing fires aggressively enough, and are therefore doing a disservice to their communities is a valid one.  And let’s also bring into play another thing I keep hearing, that it is ridiculous to refer to the people we serve as “customers”, as also valid, although I think that customers is a better term for them than some of the other names I have called them under my breath at 0400.  But I digress.

So then, what are they?  Well, I guess the best thing to say is that they are “taxpayers”.  After all, our service is largely supported by tax revenue in one way or another, so I think that is probably a pretty accurate definition, although I could argue that some of them aren’t paying taxes and maybe should be deserving of no service, but then again, I digress.  Let’s say that even in a community that supports a robust volunteer response agency by way of donations only, the citizens and other potential users are in some form or fashion, paying for a service in which they expect some competency, timeliness, and efficiency.

As users of funds that don’t belong to us (they belong to YOU, the taxpayers), I would expect that you probably hold us (the emergency service providers) to a higher expectation, simply because on a daily basis, you don’t use our service.  Therefore, you continue to pay fees, taxes, and donations in the hope that, God forbid, if you needed us, we would come.  And if we did come, we would be prepared, equipped, and with sufficient resources to bring the disaster to bear.

Furthermore, I would expect that as a taxpayer, you expect any funds expended would be done so in a responsible manner.  You would expect some financial discipline, that the agency would be responsible and accountable, and that any real property and other assets would be lovingly cared for and maintained, just as if it belonged to someone else.  Because you know what, THEY DO.  Those red trucks and your uniforms and everything else was paid for by someone else (in most cases).

Likewise, if I, as a taxpayer, saw you doing something irresponsible with those assets, I’d be upset, regardless of how right you thought it was.  If you were using those assets recklessly, I’d suggest that perhaps you should consider that I worked very hard to acquire the funds with which I surrendered to you for the purpose of protecting my community, and I’d rather that you used good judgement in how you used that asset.  Just as I’d hope none of you would drive an engine into a burning building to put the fire out, I’d ask that if you did see some compelling reason to do so, that maybe you would share it with me so I too, could be enlightened and could understand.

Therefore, when I (as a Battalion Chief for the organization I work for) am given a certain number of assets, paid for by you the taxpayer, entrusted to care for and to use prudently, efficiently, and competently to provide emergency service, I take it VERY seriously.  I am, believe it or not, a pretty conscientious guy.  And when those assets include, but are not limited to, a station, an engine and truck company, a bunch of expensive equipment, and most importantly, the eight people assigned to those companies, I am called upon to use the best judgement and skill to bring those assets together to create a life-saving, fire-kicking, roof-chopping machine.

However, if I (as the BC), fail to take a reasonable assessment of each situation in hand, and determine the real problem, the cost involved, and the efficacy of the plan using the assets I have, I am negligent in my duties as a steward of the public trust.  I would hope that the fire service has come far enough that you all see yourselves as better than cannon fodder, but I really think that sometimes, the thought that we aren’t anymore, troubles some of you.

If I have a life that needs to be saved, I will risk a lot to save a lot.  If I have a reasonable expectation that to take a little risk, I can make a significant difference in the outcome of the emergency, I will weigh my options against the risk and put my plan into effect if so moved.  But I absolutely refuse to believe that in this day and age, with insurance companies condemning a structure in which firefighters died saving, that this is a GOOD thing, well, if not for the emotional attachment I have to my brother firefighters, as a steward of taxpayer funds, I’d suggest that it is neither wise, prudent, efficient, etc., etc.  In fact, now that I have opened us up for the possible long-term care of injured firefighters, the possible loss of civilian lives, the possible lawsuits, the unbelievable amount of time that will be required investigating the loss, and the mounds of paperwork, my decision to do so would be such that any reasonable individual would take one look at it and say, “What were you thinking?”

Again, taking the emotional aspect of it out of play, people screamed bloody murder about a plane flight over New York that cost the taxpayers over a quarter-million dollars (not to mention the sheer stupidity of the decision, but again, I digress), think of how angry taxpayers would be if you said that you just chucked several million dollars out the window in insurance claims, medical bills, replacement personnel, and overtime to deal with this problem? 

Hey, if you don’t want to approach safety from an emotional and traditional standpoint, then don’t.  But as a responsible supervisor of taxpayer funds, failing to approach this from a purely pragmatic standpoint, is more than just foolish, it is irresponsible.

Posted by on May 1, 2009 • Filed under: command, customer service, education, fire service, Firefighter Nation, firefighting, government, insurance, leadership, LODD, officership, politics, professionalism, safety • Tagged: , , , , , , ,

Multiplicity of Command

No comments

2005-10111How many more times does disaster have to strike before responders finally learn the lesson of the need for unified command?  How many times do agencies need to experience a tug-of-war over resources, slow response to needs due to poor inter-agency communication, and lousy coordination all because the “powers that be” refuse to put their egos aside and agree to play nicely together?

As evidenced by disaster after disaster, when jurisdictions experiencing wide-spread disaster fail to work together to coordinate, their problems become exacerbated.

I know there are plenty of responders out there who have their own little bit of heartburn over NIMS.  Sometimes it is a little too clunky, and the feelings have been documented by researchers like Buck, Trainor and Aguirre.  Decision-making in disasters has been a problem for long before we began to study disaster management.  An interesting paper by Thomas Drabek in the 1983 International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters, “Alternative  Patterns of Decisionmaking in Emergent Disasters“, indicated several qualities found in disasters that influenced decision-making.  The disasters were multi-organizational in that they exceeded the capabilities of locals and thus required outside assistance.  The disasters had a diverse array of resources needed, therefore there was much in the way of technical understanding that needed expert overview.  There were “loose couplings”, in that the players often had little to no interaction prior to the event taking place, therefore unfamiliarity with personalities and capabilities.  The organization that emerged from the disaster grew over time, often overwhelming the initial responders.  Finally, the disasters still retained much in the way of local control and for whatever reason, the AHJ maintained that control even when faced with being overwhelmed by the incident.

I found the last point to be an interesting one; while in my opinion it is important that the AHJ retain control over an incident, the incident commander must have the courage and the intelligence to determine when and at what point the incident is overwhelming his/her ability to manage the incident, and to not be afraid of developing a unified command.  With rare exception, local managers are generally lacking in the experience of confronting a managerial problem of this complexity, and instead of riding it out and insisting everything is “just fine”, they need to reach out to the assistance being offered from regional and state (and federal authorities, if indicated) to provide advice and resources to bring the suffering of their community to bear.  Failing to do so is tantamount to abandoning your community.

The basics of NIMS are sound; the principal tenets revolving around division of labor and the unity of command are borne out on a daily basis on firegrounds and every other kind of emergency we can think of.  Multiple “commands” at a large, wide-area incident, absent the coordination of a local emergency operations center and a more centralized command structure, will only end up in the waste of valuable resources, time, and patience.  One unified incident command managing several Area Commands works.  Doing so will minimize the confusion and add to the  proper allocation of resources, and insure that the overall incident is managed.

When you don’t play the game, you are saying that it is your world, and we’re all just living in it.  I realize the intense pressure of having to deal with a rapidly deteriorating condition and the inability, sometimes, to just get your hands around it.  When I have had this happen, I have found that sometimes its best to take a step back, look over the situation, and take it one bite at a time.  But when you have entrenched yourself and refuse to plan in advance for disasters, thinking that you are going to handle everything yourself and that your community doesn’t need help from the outside, well, you are setting yourself up for a fall.  And when you stray from the basics of incident management, something will eventually give.

Don’t be afraid to let others help, especially in areas where you may not be as experienced.  If you have resources being offered to you to help manage things, consider them a tool to use, not a crutch.  And realize that in the face of a major disaster, it’s not just about you; your community has neighbors and they too may need assistance. It’s a good idea to work with them ahead of time so you know where everyone is coming from.  Realize that all resources are limited and that’s a good reason to be talking with everyone involved, because each of these stakeholders have a lot to contribute, but as stakeholders, they also have a lot to lose.  A unified command at a major incident is definitely the way to go.

Posted by on April 24, 2009 • Filed under: command, FEMA, fire service, officership, planning, politics, professionalism • Tagged: , , , , , ,