Keeping It Safe Robert Tutterow
In recent conversations and presentations, I have noticed a recurring topic. Simply put, the fire service has a messaging problem. It is an issue we all experience, but perhaps it has not been framed in that particular wording.
It was the topic of National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) President Jim Pauley’s keynote address at its Annual Conference & Expo this past June. The origin of this topic stems from a lawsuit that says that if an authority having jurisdiction adopts an NFPA standard and it becomes law, then that standard must be made available at no cost.
On the surface, this might seem like common sense. But departments must realize that the standards are not developed cost-free. For example, although NFPA technical committee members volunteer their time to develop the standards, there are costs in finalizing the work and making sure the formatting, wording, etc. are consistent with other possibly related standards. This is the job of paid NFPA personnel, referred to as technical committee staff liaisons.
Now, imagine if all our NFPA standards were developed by government bureaucrats. What a nightmare that would be, as the process would be even more cumbersome, more outdated, and infiltrated with toxic political agendas. Admittedly, the NFPA does have a messaging problem, and particularly with the fire service. We have all heard the spin on the acronym NFPA—not for practical application. The messaging is minimal and not particularly relatable to the fire service.
When we look at research and science-based information to help us improve as a service, often it will be rejected if it does not fit the traditional norms. Is this a messaging problem? Maybe. Historically, most fire service research has been published to impress peer reviewers, not the fire service. Thankfully, under the leadership of Dr. Sara Jahnke’s Science to the Station organization, this is being overcome. Summaries are written in “firefighter-ese.” And, researchers are starting to include firefighters in their research more than ever.
From a safety and health perspective, messaging is a particular challenge, as it is compounded by social media “influencers.” They have a habit of shooting down safety initiatives, as they have the false assumption that safety prevents a firefighter from being a firefighter. If you follow these influencers, try to learn about their credentials and where they get their mindset. Are they speaking at fire service conferences? What is the basis of their positions? Do they get out of the shadow of their own fire station to gain a grasp of the overall fire service? As long as we live in our silos, we will have a messaging problem.
Most departments struggle with messaging to their stakeholders. As I was writing this column, a friend forwarded me a master plan for a metro department that was written by a consulting team. The plan revealed mass shortcomings in staffing, response times, number of stations, condition of stations, and fleet. And, this was in a rapidly growing metro area. How sad, and how much of a risk to the community is that? Had the fire department been properly messaging, it would likely not have been in this position. Are consultants better messengers? Probably not, as this situation is probably a trust issue among the department, the city governance, and the public.
Perhaps the most compelling proof of a messaging problem can be found in reviewing our line-of-duty-death (LODD) reports. In more than 95% of the cases, the death is not a unique cause. The causes continue to repeat. And, they are A