By Richard Marinucci
On June 25, 2016, the New York Times ran an article titled “When You Dial 911 and Wall Street Answers.” The article states, “Since the 2008 financial crisis, private equity firms have increasingly taken over public services like emergency care and firefighting, often with dire effects.” Those in the fire service probably reacted with a “duh!” But, those not immediately aware of the emergency services could think, like many do, that privatization is the answer to government’s problems. The article pointed out many deficiencies and is probably worth the read. But, what really needs to happen is that those in the fire service need to know some logical, unemotional responses to those who advocate this approach.
I learned a long time ago in government class that the government was to provide services for the greater good and that making a profit wasn’t the goal. Of course, there are some who believe that in a capitalistic society, everything is up for grabs as long as there is a payout in the end. Apparently there are still some who believe fire and emergency medical services (EMS) are in the mix and they can do it better and still make a profit. They promote their concept of efficiency and point to examples of government waste. They “cherry pick” the communities with resources, low fire rates, and gullible citizens—or at least those who ascribe to the “smaller government” mantra.
The fire and emergency services are susceptible for a couple reasons. First, they are labor-intensive and require “expensive” humans in order to “do” it properly. Second, there is generally no good measuring stick that is easily understood that would benchmark organizations. If a building burns down, it is because there was a delayed notice, no good water supply, poor construction, or a host of other excuses. Rarely does it ever come out that the fire department was under staffed, ill-prepared, or ill-equipped to handle the emergency. As long as someone shows up for an emergency, many in the public are satisfied. As such, it doesn’t matter who or what you respond with. Rarely are results considered. So if you are in the profit-making business, you can under staff, under train, and under equip knowing that the only thing that matters is the bottom line.
Communities with few fires are attractive targets. They either have low density or are more affluent. As such, the chances of having a fire are probably lower than in other communities. Those with an eye on profit can hang around long enough to get their pay—provided the “significant or disastrous” fire doesn’t occur too early in their takeover (i.e. before making the profit). To put it another way, I could get a pick up truck and a couple of fire extinguishers and call myself a fire department. As long as the fire wasn’t bigger than what I could handle with an extinguisher, I would be OK. But, sooner or later something would happen that would overtax my limited resources. Then I would probably be replaced. If this event didn’t happen for a couple of years, I could make some money. This is probably not much different than how some look at automobile insurance. They buy the cheapest they can get so they can get a registration. As long as they don’t get in a crash and need to make a claim, everyone is happy. The purchaser saves money and the company makes money. Then disaster strikes, and people wonder why their cheap insurance won’t pay the bills!
I don’t want to imply that this is all on the hands of the companies. They are just delivering what they are asked to do. At some point the citizenry must wake up and know what they are buying. Those in the fire service must also be educated so they can intelligently debate the pros