Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
THE SELF-ASSESSMENT FIRE ACCREDITATION MODEL
AND AN EVALUATION FOR POSSIBLE APPLICATION BY THE MORAGA-ORINDA FIRE DISTRICT
EXECUTIVE LEADERSHIP
BY: Jim Johnston Moraga-Orinda Fire Protection District Orinda, California
An applied research project submitted to the National Fire Academy As part of the Executive Fire Officer Program
October 2002
2
ABSTRACT
This research project evaluated the benefits, time and costs associated with the
self-assessment accreditation model developed by CFAI and determined the level of
support for the Moraga-Orinda Fire District by key community stakeholders to proceed
utilizing this model. The problem was that the Moraga-Orinda Fire Protection District
(MOFD) has not formally evaluated its efficiency, effectiveness, and quality of service in
meeting vital public safety needs. The purpose was to determine whether the
accreditation model developed by the Commission on Fire Accreditation International
(CFAI) would be an effective and acceptable means for measuring performance and
improving organizational efficiency.
The research employed was evaluative through the utilization of an accreditation
survey, the results of which were used to determine perceived benefits by community
stakeholders and the value of proceeding with accreditation when consideration is given
to time commitment and cost.
The research questions to be answered were:
1. What is the accreditation process?
2. What are the benefits of the accreditation process?
3. Does the accreditation process represent a worthwhile investment of time,
effort, cost and resources for the MOFD?
4. Should the MOFD undertake the accreditation process?
The principal procedure utilized a questionnaire developed to elicit data and
community feedback in the areas of benefits, cost and personnel time associated with the
accreditation process.
3
The results indicated that community stakeholders believed that there are benefits
in proceeding with the self-assessment process, supported the time commitment for
personnel to complete the process, but expressed limits for this support with respect to
cost (no more than $5,000).
It was recommended to proceed with public presentations of the process, create
timelines, and request appropriate political approval from the Board of Directors of the
Moraga-Orinda Fire District to proceed with the self-assessment accreditation process.
4
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT........................................................................................................................2
TABLE OF CONTENTS ..................................................................................................4
INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................5
BACKGROUND AND SIGNIFICANCE........................................................................6
LITERATURE REVIEW .................................................................................................8
PROCEDURES................................................................................................................15
RESULTS .........................................................................................................................18
DISCUSSION ...................................................................................................................21
RECOMMENDATIONS.................................................................................................23
REFERENCES.................................................................................................................24
APPENDIX A Accreditation Survey..............................................................................25
APPENDIX B Results of Accreditation Survey ............................................................27
TABLE 1 Survey Results of Mullen and Branch for Time, Personnel & Cost..........19
TABEL 2 Stakeholder Support Scores for Benefits, Time and Cost ..........................20
5
INTRODUCTION
The problem is that the Moraga-Orinda Fire Protection District (MOFD) has not
formally evaluated its efficiency, effectiveness, and quality of service in meeting vital
public safety needs. Currently, the MOFD has an Insurance Services Offices (ISO)
Rating of Class 3.
This rating serves as a benchmark for staffing, apparatus, equipment, water supply
and fire alarm facilities. The ISO rating however ignores other important elements such
as life safety, public education and code compliance. Nor does it consider other vital
service levels that modern day fire departments provide such as emergency medical
services, swift water rescue, confined space and other heavy rescue, hazardous materials
response, weapons of mass destruction and comprehensive disaster management.
The purpose of this applied research paper was to determine whether the
accreditation model developed by the Commission on Fire Accreditation International
(CFAI) would be an effective and acceptable means for measuring performance and
improving organizational efficiency.
In this study the evaluative research methodology was used to answer the
following questions:
1. What is the accreditation process?
2. What are the benefits of the accreditation process?
3. Does the accreditation process represent a worthwhile investment of time,
effort, cost and resources for the MOFD?
4. Should the MOFD undertake the accreditation process?
6
BACKGROUND AND SIGNIFICANCE
The MOFD was formed on July 1, 1997 when over 80% of the voters of Moraga
and Orinda established a single comprehensive Fire District. A five-member Board
elected by the residents governs the Fire District. The Fire District provides services for
all emergencies including residential and commercial fire, medical emergencies, wildfires
and other hazardous conditions. The service area is approximately 63 square miles and
has a population base of 42,000. The vast majority of building occupancy consists of
residential (98%), with approximately one-half of that (Orinda) located in a high risk,
wildland-interface area.
The MOFD has five fire stations with a current staff of 65.5 employees and an
operating budget of $12.5 million. Five engine companies and two ambulances, all
equipped to provide advanced life support (ALS), respond to approximately 2,100
emergency calls per year.
In January of 1999, the District adopted a five-year strategic plan. The mission of
the District is to provide the “highest level of emergency and non-emergency service in
response to the needs of the communities it serves” (MOFD Five-Year Strategic Plan).
This document has provided the MOFD with a valuable planning tool that
emphasizes a high level of service identifying internal needs, fiscal responsibility,
operational readiness, public education and customer service. The strategic plan creates a
road map to achieving the goals and objectives for the District within the subjective
measurements of staff and community members. It does not address a broader context of
measuring efficiency of all fire department programs against local and national standards.
7
Rating of fire department defense capabilities by ISO has been a long recognized
measurement tool by the fire and insurance industry. The ratings range from 1 to 10 with
a Class 1 rating signifying a high level of fire suppression ability. These ratings in turn
translate to insurance premium charges to businesses and residences of the affected area.
As fire department ratings improve there is a corresponding and relative decrease in
insurance premiums.
In turn, fire departments have utilized the evaluation by ISO, called a Fire
Suppression Rating Schedule (FSRS), to grade themselves. Within the fire service
culture a Class “2”, and especially a Class “1” rating assumes a comprehensive superior
service. Many fire departments proudly display their rating on the cab doors of their
apparatus. The problem with this understanding is that the FSRS was never designed for
this use and fire departments were not involved with its development. The ISO has stated
that the FSRS was never intended to serve as an evaluation tool for judging fire
department adequacy. “ The Schedule is a fire insurance rating tool, and is not intended
to analyze all aspects of a comprehensive public fire protection program. It should not be
used for purposes other than insurance rating”. (ISO, 1980, p.1).
In 2002 the Commission on Fire Accreditation International (CFAI) published its
sixth edition of a guidebook for self-assessment titled Fire and Emergency Services Self-
Assessment Manual (2002) that serves as a means for measuring performance and
improving organizational efficiency. The self-assessment process involves an
organizational audit wherein efficiency is measured against local and national standards
as applied to all fire department programs and services.
8
The MOFD has an interest in improving the quality of service and organizational
effectiveness that is the emphasis for the entire CFAI self-assessment and accreditation
program. This applied research paper seeks to address issues regarding the
implementation of a self-assessment and accreditation model within the MOFD to
determine if this process would be a worthwhile commitment of time, effort and
resources.
The Executive Fire Officer Program course on Leadership directly relates to this
project. The skills learned through the Leadership curriculum will be essential in
working towards a common goal with diverse stakeholder groups such as the Board of
Directors of the MOFD, management staff, the local union and key members of the
community.
LITERATURE REVIEW
The 6th edition of the Fire and emergency Services Self-Assessment Manual
(2002) defines accreditation as:
“A process by which an association or agency evaluates and recognizes a program of study or an institution as meeting certain predetermined standards or qualification. It applies only to institutions or agencies and their programs of study or their services.”
Accreditation differs with certification wherein an individual is tested and
evaluated; and standardization, which is a process wherein the service is assessed.
The concept of accreditation arose out of the evaluation process for post-
secondary education and the health care profession (Mullen, 1995). It has served as a
“...means for self-regulation, a way to promote their fields by raising institutional
standards, and an opportunity to protect the public from incompetent practitioners by
identifying quality institutions” (Mullen, 1995).
9
The fire service first began utilizing an evaluation process through the ISO and its
former agency, the National Board of Fire Underwriters (NBFU). The primary purpose
of these organizations were to determine a fire department’s ability to suppress fires
through an evaluation of training, staffing, communications and water supply (Sauter,
2000). The ISO grading schedule fails to focus on other important components of fire
protection such as life safety, fire investigation, public education and code compliance
that can have a significant impact on the outcome on the mission of saving lives and
protecting property. The modern fire service provides a broader range of services and
activities than it did in the past including emergency medical services, weapons of mass
destruction, specialized rescue, hazardous materials response, disaster management, and
risk management (Mullen, 1995).
In recognition of these inadequacies, the International Association of Fire Chiefs
(IAFC) in 1987 authorized the creation of an Accreditation Committee to begin work on
a National Fire Service Accreditation Project. According to Mullen through his interview
with Ray Picard, a Committee member and former editor of Managing Fire Services, the
accreditation process seeks “...to fill a void created by the lack of a recognized industry
self-analysis model, the problems with using the ISO engineering model for just such a
purpose, and the needs of city managers and other government officials for an analysis
methodology” (Mullen, 1995).
In 1988 the International City/County Management Association (ICMA) and the
IAFC Executive Boards signed a memorandum of understanding that committed both
organizations to the development of a voluntary national fire service accreditation
10
system; and in January, 1993 the Tempe, Arizona Fire Department was the first test site
to evaluate the accreditation model.
An official CFAI commission was established in 1996 with the signing of a Trust
Document. The commission is comprised of the following members:
1. Agency head representing a fire department serving a population of greater than 250,000;
2. Agency head representing a fire department serving a population of 100,000-249,999;
3. Agency head representing a fire department serving a population of 25,000-99,000;
4. Agency head representing a fire department serving a population of up to 24,999;
5. International fire service representative; 6. Consensus standards making organization representative; 7. CEO representing city government; 8. Labor representative; 9. Insurance industry representative; 10. Federal fire service representative; and 11. CEO representing county government.
The commission is responsible for conducting onsite peer assessment visits and
determining which agencies will receive accreditation based on the self-assessment and
peer assessment process. Other responsibilities include training and education programs
as research and development within the self-assessment model (Fire and Emergency
Services Self-Assessment Manual, 6th ed., 2002).
The objectives of the accreditation program are:
1. To create organizational motivation and self improvement; 2. To provide a voluntary activity focused on evaluation and education as a
viable means to improve service delivery; 3. To provide a means to recognize quality performance; and 4. To protect the interests of the general public and assist users to identify
methods for organizational improvement.
These objectives are achieved through an evaluation process of the following 10
categories of performance:
11
1. Governance and Administration 2. Assessment and Planning 3. Goals and Objectives 4. Financial Resources 5. Programs 6. Physical Resources 7. Human Resources 8. Training and Competency 9. Essential Resources 10. External Systems Relations
The Self-Assessment and Accreditation process begins with an application for
registration. This initial application is good for 3 years and provides a time period
whereby the agency staff will receive newsletters, training of the accreditation process,
and become an official member of CFAI.
Once an agency has developed a sense of readiness, a formal application to
commence the self-assessment process may be made. This is accomplished through a
letter of commitment and various other documentation forms. At this point the time
clock begins and the agency has 18 months within which to complete and return the self
assessment manual.
Upon completion of the self-assessment manual the accreditation candidate will
proceed with a peer assessment that will take between 3 months to 1 year to complete.
This involves an on-site visit by a group of individuals to validate the information
prepared through the self-assessment process. Their primary emphasis will be to ensure
the maximum accuracy of the findings.
The CFAI commission is the final step in the initial accreditation process. They
will review all components to ensure that there is compliance with all categories and
criteria before awarding full accreditation. This accreditation will be valid for 5 years
before re-accreditation must occur. Each year the accredited agency is required to submit
12
an annual compliance report 45 days in advance of the anniversary date of accreditation
(Fire and Emergency Services Self-Assessment Manual, 6th ed., 2002).
Research of literature reveals that there are substantial benefits utilizing the Self-
Assessment process. Spiegel (1999) stated that one of the positive outcomes linked to
accreditation was an improvement in risk management and risk reduction, which helps
protect the fire department from possible liability claims. Smith (2001) described in his
research that the accreditation process was helpful in justifying budget allocations,
development of strategic plans and elevating the level of professionalism within an
organization.
Mullen (1995) stated that the fact that accreditation is voluntary implies a desire
on the part of the organization to improve the state of programs and services offered. He
found the accreditation process of great value as an evaluative tool to “...improve the
essential character of services”. Other benefits that he noticed were the validation
components through the peer evaluation to ensure compliance with established standards
and that a formal decision by the CFAI committee “...signifies public recognition of
institutional accomplishments”.
Some of the benefits found in the research performed by Sauter (2000) were
overall positive results in organizational growth, improved service, self-analysis,
professional growth, and increased marketing opportunities. Sauter also found benefits in
improved planning, an improved budget process, and critical peer evaluation.
The 6th edition of the Fire and Emergency Services Self-Assessment Manual
(2002) provided its own listing of benefits. These benefits include:
• the promotion of excellence within your fire/emergency service organization;
13
• encouraging quality improvement through a continuous self assessment process;
• providing related assurance to peers and the public that the organization has defined a mission and related objectives that will result in improving organizational performance;
• providing a detailed evaluation of the department and the services it provides to the community;
• identifying areas of strength and weakness within the department; • a methodology for building on strong points and addressing deficiencies; • providing for departmental growth; • provides a forum for the communication of management and leadership
philosophies; • a system for national recognition for the department; • a mechanism for developing concurrent documents, such as strategic and
business plans and a “desktop manual” of everything your agency is involved in (often referred to as a turnover/takeover document for a new CEO); and
• fostering pride in an organization, from department members, community leaders and citizens.
The accreditation process does require a significant amount of time, effort, cost
and resources, is a conclusion drawn by all fire service researchers found by this author.
Mullen (1995) found in his survey of 12 fire departments that time spent on the process
from initial training until the end of the Site Team visit varied from 7 to 13 months with
the mean average being 9.55 months. The self-assessment portion took anywhere from 5
to 10 months with an average of 7.44 months. The number of average hours devoted to
the process amounted to 1945, with individual hourly commitments ranging from 417
hours to a high of 6000.
In a more recent study, Branch (2000) made personal contact with 19 of the 27
accredited agencies listed by CFAI and found that time spent on the process from the
initial training through the Site Team visit varied from 6 to 60 months, with an average of
24 months to complete the process. He found the average work hours devoted to the
project equaled 2270.
14
Salary equivalent was a common factor used by other researchers in determining
cost of the process and hard costs were added to come up with a total expression of cost.
Naperville Fire Department spent approximately $31,000 in work hours, $1,200 in
clerical staff, $200 in training expenses, $800 in printing/mailing, $1,600 for Site Team
travel and lodging for a total of $34,800, according to Mullen (1995). Overall, in his
study he found that salary equivalent costs were as high as $120,000 and as low as
$18,920, with the average at $50,009 for salaries and $1,900 for other incidental
expenses.
Branch (2000) found different results in his survey than did Mullen. Branch
found the average cost of hours recorded was $23,750. The average incidental costs
associated with the assessment were $7,125.
Opinions of fire departments found in the research literature that had participated
in the self-assessment process support that the MOFD should undertake the process.
Sauter (2000) found overwhelming support is his research noting “...the unanimous
approval of the accreditation process by organizations who have experienced the process
as they advise others.” CFAI (2002) quoted several participants of the process. Chief
Alan Rohlfs of the Naperville Illinois Fire Department stated that it was a “...very
worthwhile process...It was a good process for us to take an in-depth look at our
organization, the services we provide, how we do it, how well we do it, and determine
what improvements are desirable.” Chief Dennis Murphy of the Springfield Oregon Fire
department stated that “...the process was well worth the time and effort...Because of our
experience, the document we produce at the end of the planning process will more
realistically address community needs.”
15
In summary, the literature review indicates that the accreditation process while
has long standing in other professions, is a relatively new concept the fire service. There
is strong support for the fire service accreditation process by members who have
participated and have found significant benefits derived through their involvement. Any
fire department, such as the MOFD should expect to spend a significant amount of time,
cost and resources on the process and therefore should have a strong commitment from
the organization and community leaders before starting the accreditation process.
PROCEDURES
Definition of Terms
Accreditation. A process by which an association or agency evaluates and recognizes a
program of study or an institution as meeting certain pre determined standards or
qualifications. It applies only to institutions and their programs of study or their services.
Certification. A process whereby an individual is tested and evaluated in order to
determine his/her mastery of a specific body of knowledge or some portion of a body of
knowledge.
Commission of Fire Service Accreditation International (CFAI). A non-profit
organization dedicated to the improvement of fire and emergency services agencies
through self-assessment and accreditation. The Commission is the determining body for
which agencies will receive accreditation.
Insurance Services Office (ISO). A national organization that provides rating information
to insurance companies based on an evaluation of a fire department’s ability to prevent
and suppress fire.
16
International Association of Fire Chiefs (IAFC). A professional organization whose
membership is derived principally from the rank of fire chief serving the fire service.
International City Management Association (ICMA). A professional organization whose
membership is derived primarily from municipal officials such as city managers serving
municipal government.
National Fire Protection Association (NFPA). A non-profit, voluntary membership
organization that develops standards for fire fighting procedures, fire prevention, and
methods of fire protection.
Self-Assessment. The process whereby an organization evaluates itself using pre-
determined standards, certain, and performance indications. The goal is to assist the
agency in continued evaluation and improving service.
Stakeholder. Involves the representation of individuals or groups who have an impact or
influence on the outcome of and issue. Their involvement is critical to the acceptance or
resolution of the issue.
Standardization. A process whereby a service is assessed against some fixed standard of
performance and quality.
Research Methodology
The desired outcome of this research was to determine whether or not it was cost
effective and a worthwhile utilization of resources to engage in the CFAI accreditation
process; and whether that endeavor would be supported by managers, labor leaders,
political officials and key members of the community. The research was evaluative in
that a survey was conducted to determine the level of support for proceeding with the
accreditation process from these stakeholder groups.
17
The survey instrument utilized for this research consisted of a questionnaire
developed to elicit data and perceptions in the areas of benefits, cost and resource
(personnel time) allocation. Research of other authors has reported benefits, costs and
personnel time required; and was conducted after the accreditation process had been
completed. Their findings were incorporated into a survey (Appendix A) that was
distributed to the stakeholder groups to determine their level of support before the actual
accreditation process commenced. Generally speaking, the survey sought the answer to
this question, “If you know that these listed benefits will result from the accreditation
process and will require the time and cost as reflected, would you support proceeding?
Contained in the 2-page survey were eight questions relating to the benefits of the
accreditation process, one question regarding the time needed to complete the
accreditation process, one question that provided a range of cost, and one question that
identified the stakeholder group that was being represented.
Following each question, the respondent was asked whether they strongly agreed
(SA), agreed (A), neither agreed or disagreed (N), disagreed (D), or strongly disagreed
(SD).
The survey was handed out all participants. Three members of IAFF Local
1230’s negotiating team received the survey (3 out of 3 were returned); five management
employees received the survey (4 out of 5 were returned); five members of the MOFD
Board of Directors, two members of the Moraga Town Council and their Town Manager,
two members of the Orinda City Council and their City Manager received the survey (7
out of 11 were returned); and ten other key members of the community received the
survey (8 out of 10 were returned). Their responses were tabulated and collated
18
(Appendix B). A numeric value was assigned to each response: SA=5, A=4, N=3, D=2,
and SD=1. Utilizing this data, a level of support was determined from each of the
stakeholder groups and cumulatively. This information will be valuable to the MOFD as
to whether proceed with the accreditation process and is helpful in identifying groups that
may require further attention and education should there be a decision to proceed.
Assumptions and Limitations
It was assumed that all of the respondents had at least a very basic understanding
of the MOFD and its service delivery system. The stakeholder groups, including key
members of the community, were selected based upon this authors’ assumption of they
were leaders, concerned and/or involved citizens whose opinions are held with high
regard. A limitation of this process might be to introduce an unintentional bias because
the sample was not randomly selected. This limitation had to be balanced against a
broader, random pool of respondents, who might not have had enough of a basic
understanding of the MOFD and its service delivery system.
Another limitation was the lack of extensive research literature on the topic of fire
service accreditation.
RESULTS
Research Questions One and Two. Review of the literature found that while
accreditation has been a valuable tool in other professions such as health care and
education, it is a relatively new concept for the fire service. Accreditation within the fire
service involves the evaluation of programs and other components of a fire service
agency in relation to predetermined standards or qualifications. Accreditation also
includes recognition of the fire agency for meeting those thresholds.
19
The literature supports a finding that the following benefits accrued as a result of
participating in the accreditation process:
• the promotion of excellence within your fire/emergency service organization; • encouraging quality improvement through a continuous self assessment
process; • providing related assurance to peers and the public that the organization has
defined a mission and related objectives that will result in improving organizational performance;
• providing a detailed evaluation of the department and the services it provides to the community;
• identifying areas of strength and weakness within the department; • a methodology for building on strong points and addressing deficiencies; • providing for departmental growth; • provides a forum for the communication of management and leadership
philosophies; • a system for national recognition for the department; • a mechanism for developing concurrent documents, such as strategic and
business plans and a “desktop manual” of everything your agency is involved in (often referred to as a turnover/takeover document for a new CEO); and
• fostering pride in an organization, from department members, community leaders and citizens;
• improving risk management and risk reduction; • improving and justifying budget allocations; • improved planning.
The research literature revealed two studies that examined the amount of time it
took to complete the accreditation process, the total amount of personnel hours, and
incidental costs associated with the process. Utilizing the survey results of Mullen (1995)
and Branch (2000) the following Table 1 provides a summary of their findings. Mullen
reported survey results from 12 fire departments and Branch reported survey results from
19 fire departments that had participated in the accreditation process.
Table 1 Survey Results of Mullen and Branch For Time, Personnel Hours, & Incidental Costs
Avg. Tot. Time for
Accreditation Avg. Tot. Hours for
Accreditation Avg. Incidental Cost for
Accreditation Mullen Survey 9.55 Months 1945 Hours $1,900 Branch Survey 24 Months 2270 Hours $7,125
20
Questions Three and Four. The above data for benefits, cost and time was incorporated
into the MOFD survey that was useful in addressing whether the accreditation process
would be a worthwhile investment of time, cost and resources; and whether the MOFD
should undertake such a process. The results of the MOFD Accreditation Survey
(Appendix B) have been incorporated into the following Table 2. Table 2 shows a
comparison of the attitudes of various stakeholder groups with respect to the benefits of
accreditation, and the time and cost necessary to participate in the accreditation process.
Table 2 Stakeholder Support *Scores for Benefits, Time and Cost
Labor Management Comm./Pol. Citizens Combined Benefit Quest. Question 1 3.65 4.5 3.57 4.5 4.09 Question 2 3.67 4.5 3.43 4.37 4.0 Question 3 4.0 5.0 4.43 4.87 4.64 Question 4 3.67 5.0 4.71 4.87 4.68 Question 5 3.0 4.25 4.29 3.75 3.90 Question 6 4.0 4.75 4.71 4.63 4.45 Question 7 4.0 4.5 3.86 4.38 4.18 Question 8 4.0 4.5 4.71 4.86 4.67 Benefit Score Average
3.75 4.63 4.09 4.53 4.33
Time Quest. 3.0 3.75 3.29 4.63 3.82 Cost Quest. Up to $2500 3.0 4.5 3.71 4.5 4.05 Up to $5000 3.0 4.5 3.29 4.5 3.90 Up to $7500 3.0 4.25 2.43 4.13 3.45 Up to $10000 3.0 3.75 2.26 3.88 3.23
*Scores are the average of respondents from each stakeholder group. Numerical values were assigned as follows: Strongly Agree=5, Agree=4, Neither Agree or Disagree=3, Disagree=2, and Strongly Disagree=1.
21
Overall, there was strong support that the accreditation would be a beneficial
process. The highest level of perceived benefits came from management staff, followed
by citizens that were surveyed. The lowest average came from the labor group, but even
in that group the response was in the area of agreement that the process would be
beneficial for the MOFD.
The overall support, when considering the time commitment, was on average
3.82, close to an agreement that the time would be well spent on this endeavor. There
was a slightly higher rating from the citizen group (4.63) while the other groups were not
nearly as supportive of the time versus the benefits.
Cost for the accreditation process was supported for an amount up to $5,000, but
after that the support dropped off, especially with the political officials. They did not
support paying more than $5,000 for the accreditation process.
The results indicate an agreement from the stakeholder groups that they perceive
benefits from participating in the accreditation process. The groups either agree or are
neutral with respect to the time required for the process. If the cost for the accreditation
process for the MOFD exceeds $5,000, further justification would need to be made to
political officials for continued support.
DISCUSSION
Research Question One and Two. The accreditation process incorporates a
broader review of overall fire-related programs, activities, capabilities and services then
does the traditional reliance on the ISO rating schedule. While the ISO has a value in
rating fire defense capabilities within a narrow and specific scope of criteria, it is clear
that the accreditation, self-evaluation model, will provide greater value as a tool for
measuring the fire service. Utilizing the Coleman (1999) definition of accreditation, fire
service accreditation allows a fire department the opportunity to compare all of its
programs and services against predetermined standards or qualifications.
The ISO has stated that their regulations were never intended to design fire
departments or to be utilized as an evaluation of fire services. The ISO was only meant
to measure the fire defenses of a community within three narrow categories, namely, fire
alarm, fire department (apparatus, equipment, company personnel and training), and
water supply. Other critical components of fire protection such as life safety, fire
22
investigation, public education and code, are not considered relevant in the ISO grading
schedule (Mullen, 1995). Additional activities and factors include insuring a proper
installation and maintenance of automatic sprinkler systems, plan review, and field
inspections (Coleman, 1999).
Moreover, the ISO grading schedule does not include any evaluation of other
critical services such a emergency medical response, hazardous material response, heavy
rescue, confined space rescue and the latest, preparation for weapons of mass destruction
(Mullen, 1995).
Even though the ISO still remains a strong political influence, the time has come
for fire departments to more effectively evaluate their programs and service to the
communities that they serve.
The accreditation self-evaluation model is inclusive of what the modern day fire
department delivers to its communities in terms of programs and service.
All of the authors agree that accreditation is an appropriate review process with
valuable benefits for the organization and the community (Mullen, 1995; Coleman, 1999;
Branch, 2000, Sauter, 2000; Smith, 2001). Survey results from the stakeholder groups of
the MOFD support that conclusion and they believe that the listed benefits would be
advantageous to the MOFD within some parameters of time and cost.
Research Question Three and Four. Research authors also agree that the impacts
of time for the accreditation process as well as cost are important factors to consider
before embarking on the accreditation process (Mullen, 1995; Branch, 2000).
An initial application with CFAI is good for three years. An agency that
subsequently applies for the self-assessment process needs to be fully aware of its state of
readiness through training opportunities and available educational information. This is
important because once a formal application is made to commence the self-assessment
process, the agency only has eighteen months to complete it (Fire and Emergency
Services Self-Assessment Manual, 6th ed., 2002).
Following the submission of the self-assessment, it will take between three to
twelve months for an on-site peer assessment to be conducted. The CFAI commission
conducts the final review to ensure compliance.
23
Mullen (1995) and Branch (2000) support the finding that the self-assessment
process requires a significant amount of staff hours (Table 1), in addition to the overall
time period discussed above.
The accreditation survey conducted for the MOFD (Appendix A) allowed the fire
district to consider an analysis of cost, time and benefit up front (Table 2), before making
a full commitment to the fire service accreditation model.
This approach has assisted the MOFD in recognizing that the benefits of fire
service accreditation would well received by the policy makers and those holding key
community positions, both formal and informal. It also identified areas of caution,
namely, the amount of personnel staff time required and cost.
The self-assessment accreditation model is a nationally recognized fire service
evaluation system (Fire and Emergency Services Self-Assessment Manual, 6th ed., 2002).
It should, and in all probability will, replace the ISO grading schedule as the benchmark
for measuring and recognizing the delivery of fire services to the community. The
literature review and the accreditation survey support the conclusion that the self-
assessment accreditation model represents a worthwhile investment of time, effort, cost
and resources for the MOFD. The MOFD should undertake such a process.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The MOFD has registered with CFAI to receive additional educational
information and training regarding the self-assessment accreditation process.
It is recommended that the MOFD staff present a summary of the findings of the
accreditation survey and literature review to its political body, the Board of Directors of
the Moraga-Orinda Fire District.
Utilizing the information obtained through this research, it is recommended that a
timeline be developed for implementing the self-assessment process for the MOFD. Key
staff people that would be willing and able to make the appropriate time commitment
would be identified. Expenses related to the process would be planned for the upcoming
2003-04 fiscal year operations budget.
It is further recommended that the MOFD request and receive approval from its
governing Board to commence the Self-Assessment Accreditation process.
24
REFERENCES
Branch, Terry. (2000). Fire Service Accreditation Self-Assessment: Instrument
for Success, Executive Leadership. Emmitsburg, MD. National Fire Academy.
Commission of Fire Accreditation International, (2002). Fire and Emergency
Services Self-Assessment Manual, Sixth Edition. Fairfax, VA: Commission on Fire
Accreditation International.
Insurance Services Office. (1980). Fire Suppression Rating Schedule.
Unpublished Manuscript.
Moraga-Orinda Fire District. (1999). Moraga-Orinda Fire Protection District
Five-Year Strategic Plan. Unpublished Manuscript.
Mullen, Patrick. (1995). Fire Service Accreditation: Issues and Impacts on Local
Fire Departments. Emmitsburg, MD. National Fire Academy.
Sauter, Mark. (2000). An Assessment of the Fire Accreditation Process and its
Benefits for the Downey Fire Department. Emmitsburg, MD. National Fire Academy.
Smith, Jonathan. (2001). Accreditation: A Measure of Success. Emmitsburg, MD.
National Fire Academy.
Spiegal, J. (1999, January). On the Fast Track. Fire Chief, 26-31.
25
APPENDIX A
ACCREDITATION SURVEY This survey centers on potential accreditation benefits, time required to participate in the self-assessment process and incidental costs. Please indicate your agreement with the following statements by circling the response that most nearly coincides with your own. SA=Strongly Agree; A=Agree; N=Neither Agree nor Disagree; D=Disagree; SD=Strongly Disagree. MOFD=Moraga-Orinda Fire District. 1. The MOFD should implement an evaluation process that measures itself against
national standards and benchmarks.
SA A N D SD
2. Applying for an evaluation that could result in national recognition would benefit the
MOFD.
SA A N D SD 3. The MOFD should promote and develop standards of excellence for its fire and
emergency service delivery system.
SA A N D SD 4. The MOFD should evaluate the effectiveness of the services that it currently provides
to the community.
SA A N D SD 5. I believe that the MOFD has a defined mission and has established related objectives
that result in improving performance.
SA A N D SD 6. Pride in the organization is an important value to foster for the MOFD from District
personnel, its leaders and the community.
SA A N D SD 7. The MOFD should develop an improved forum for the communication of
management and leadership philosophies.
SA A N D SD
26
8. The MOFD should develop a program/process that results in continuing quality improvement for all services provided by the District.
SA A N D SD
9. Assume that the following statement is true: Self-assessment and agency accreditation
will assist the MOFD in improving its goal direction, future orientation, level of organization, equipment and staffing needs, training, and overall service to the community. Over a 2-year period of time each District manager would be required to spend approximately 100-200 total hours on the process. This would be a worthwhile utilization of staff time.
SA A N D SD
10. Assume that the following statement is true: During the self-assessment and
accreditation process the MOFD would incur incidental costs of up to $2,500 over a 2-year period of time for training, mailing, site-team evaluator travel and lodging, and registration fees. This would be a worthwhile expense.
SA A N D SD Up to $5,000. SA A N D SD Up to $7,500 SA A N D SD Up to $10,000 SA A N D SD
11. My representation for this survey could be best described as:
a. Management Staff
b. Labor Representative
c. Community/Political Official
d. Citizen Stakeholder
27
APPENDIX B
Results of Accreditation Survey
This survey centers on potential accreditation benefits, time required to participate in the self-assessment process and incidental costs. Please indicate your agreement with the following statements by circling the response that most nearly coincides with your own. SA=Strongly Agree; A=Agree; N=Neither Agree nor Disagree; D=Disagree; SD=Strongly Disagree. MOFD=Moraga-Orinda Fire District. 1. The MOFD should implement an evaluation process that measures itself against
national standards and benchmarks. SA=5 A=4 N=3 D=2 SD=1 Support Avg. Labor 2 1 3.67 Management 2 2 4.5 Comm./Pol. 2 1 3 1 3.57 Citizens 5 2 1 4.5 Combined 9 7 5 1 4.09 2. Applying for an evaluation that could result in national recognition would benefit
the MOFD. SA=5 A=4 N=3 D=2 SD=1 Support Avg. Labor 2 1 3.67 Management 2 2 4.5 Comm./Pol. 1 2 3 1 3.43 Citizens 4 3 1 4.37 Combined 7 9 5 1 4.0 3. The MOFD should promote and develop standards of excellence for its fire and
emergency service delivery system. SA=5 A=4 N=3 D=2 SD=1 Support Avg. Labor 3 4.0 Management 4 5.0 Comm./Pol. 4 2 1 4.43 Citizens 7 1 4.87 Combined 15 6 1 4.64
28
APPENDIX B
Results of Accreditation Survey
4. The MOFD should evaluate the effectiveness of the services that it currently provides to the community.
SA=5 A=4 N=3 D=2 SD=1 Support Avg. Labor 2 1 3.67 Management 4 5.0 Comm./Pol. 5 2 4.71 Citizens 7 1 4.87 Combined 16 5 1 4.68 5. I believe that the MOFD has a defined mission and has established related
objectives that result in improving performance. SA=5 A=4 N=3 D=2 SD=1 Support Avg. Labor 3 3.0 Management 1 3 4.25 Comm./Pol. 4 1 2 4.29 Citizens 2 2 4 3.75 Combined 7 6 9 3.90 6. Pride in the organization is an important value to foster for the MOFD from
District personnel, its leaders and the community. SA=5 A=4 N=3 D=2 SD=1 Support Avg. Labor 3 4.0 Management 3 1 4.75 Comm./Pol. 6 1 4.71 Citizens 6 1 1 4.63 Combined 15 5 2 4.45 7. The MOFD should develop an improved forum for the communication of
management and leadership philosophies. SA=5 A=4 N=3 D=2 SD=1 Support Avg. Labor 3 4.0 Management 2 2 4.5 Comm./Pol. 2 2 3 3.86 Citizens 5 1 2 4.38 Combined 9 8 5 4.18
29
APPENDIX B
Results of Accreditation Survey 8. The MOFD should develop a program/process that results in continuing quality
improvement for all services provided by the District. SA=5 A=4 N=3 D=2 SD=1 Support Avg. Labor 3 4.0 Management 2 2 4.5 Comm./Pol. 5 2 4.71 Citizens 7 1 4.86 Combined 14 8 4.67 9. Assume that the following statement is true: Self-assessment and agency
accreditation will assist the MOFD in improving its goal direction, future orientation, level of organization, equipment and staffing needs, training, and overall service to the community. Over a 2-year period of time each District manager would be required to spend approximately 100-200 total hours on the process. This would be a worthwhile utilization of staff time.
SA=5 A=4 N=3 D=2 SD=1 Support Avg. Labor 3 3.0 Management 1 1 2 3.75 Comm./Pol. 1 3 1 1 1 3.29 Citizens 6 1 1 4.63 Combined 8 5 7 1 1 3.82 10. Assume that the following statement is true: During the self-assessment and
accreditation process the MOFD would incur incidental costs of up to $2,500 over a 2-year period of time for training, mailing, site-team evaluator travel and lodging, and registration fees. This would be a worthwhile expense.
SA=5 A=4 N=3 D=2 SD=1 Support Avg. Labor 3 3.0 Management 2 2 4.5 Comm./Pol. 3 1 2 1 3.71 Citizens 6 2 4.5 Combined 11 3 7 1 4.05
30
APPENDIX B
Results of Accreditation Survey
Up to $5,000
SA=5 A=4 N=3 D=2 SD=1 Support Avg. Labor 3 3.0 Management 2 2 4.5 Comm./Pol. 2 1 2 1 1 3.29 Citizens 6 2 4.5 Combined 10 3 7 1 1 3.90
Up to $7,500
SA=5 A=4 N=3 D=2 SD=1 Support Avg. Labor 3 3.0 Management 2 1 1 4.25 Comm./Pol. 5 2 2.43 Citizens 4 1 3 4.13 Combined 6 2 12 2 3.45
Up to $10,000
SA=5 A=4 N=3 D=2 SD=1 Support Avg. Labor 3 3.0 Management 1 1 2 3.75 Comm./Pol. 4 1 2 2.26 Citizens 4 3 1 3.88 Combined 5 1 12 2 2 3.23
11. My representation for this survey could be best described as:
a. Management Staff (4)
b. Labor Representative (3)
c. Community/Political Official (7)
d. Citizen Stakeholder (8)
