Old NFPA fire department staffing recomendations

[Bigjohn24]

I don't think NFPA makes this recommendation any longer, due to political pressure from Fire Administrations trying to get by on the cheap. That's my guess.

The NFPA used to recommend .5 (1/2) a firefighter on duty per 1000 population and 1.875 firefighters on a department per 1000 population with 3 platoon kelly shifts (50.3 hrs week).

[tree68]

That would fly in the face of the the 1710 standard when talking cities less than 30,000. But I'm sure some smaller cities that do staff 15 per shift would prefer to see it that way.

[Bigjohn24]

When we were using the NFPA staffing recommendations to try and bolster our ranks as a soley pro outfit, we had a population of about 30,000 and we were staffed with 7 firefighters that included fire officers and we had ems responsibility for about 50,000, back in the 1980's. Even today this community in Washington State has a population now of 80,000 and about 20 firefighters on duty that includes EMS Medic Units. Many communities in Washington State are run by politicians that see a better payoff in funding police than fire rescue. Just the way it is. Your point is spot on about every fire department should have a minimum 15 firefighters on duty as a minimal fire response, at least handle a single family dwelling fire effectively and maintain larger emergencies until off-duty and mutual aid backup help can arrive

[tree68]

Many communities in Washington State are run by politicians that see a better payoff in funding police than fire rescue.

Unfortunately, many politicians have a mental image of firefighters sitting in their easy chairs in the day room, or in front of the station, waiting ever-so-patiently for the next call... Meanwhile the police are out in their patrol cars, fighting crime...

In these days of reduced actual fires, a good many fire departments took up EMS so they'd be seen as busier.

A city near me is in the midst of a lengthy battle between the firefighters and the city council. While the most anti-fire council members were voted out of office, and the city manager who was leading the charge for them got canned, the battle rages on. At the center of the dispute is the "minimal manning" clause of the contract, whereby at least 15 firefighters must be on duty.

There are some other factors involved, but that's the heart of it.

[Bigjohn24]

Our Fire Department took the EMS from the funeral home back in the 1960's. Conflict of interest, the mortuary hearse hauling patients. They made more money on funerals than saving people? LOL

At first, Fire Rescue and EMS was all tax funded and no charge as part of the fire department. Good deal for taxpayers using their firefighters already working 24/7/365 in emergencies to also provide ambulance. Both the Fire and EMS of the Fire Rescue Service was always no charge.

Then the politicians saw how to make money off separating EMS from Fire, at least on paper. It was still tax funded firefighters running tax funded ambulances out of tax funded fire stations. But now EMS monthly utility fees and fire medic unit user fees have the taxpayers paying three times for their Firefighter/EMS. With the usual property taxes, monthly utility fees for EMS and User fees for EMS. In many of these communities it is WAY cheaper for non-taxpayers to use the Fire/EMS than taxpayers. Unless the taxpayer uses the fire medic units about once a year. Because non-taxpayer rates for emergency ambulance use are usually not much more than a taxpayer pays in monthly ambulance utility bills.

This is what is going on in Washington State. Taking the taxpayers good deal for fire ems as a no charge service and turning the EMS into a cash cow used to supplant general fund property tax dollars away from Fire Department operations and into police, parks, roads, big city manager salaries, etc..

[Bigjohn24]

Now I live in an area outside Seattle that has a fire district.

They use the Osha "2 in/2 out" rule for staffing justification. LOL

You got 4 firefighters; you are good to go!!!!

[johnsb]

"In these days of reduced actual fires, a good many fire departments took up EMS so they'd be seen as busier."

If you're doing EMS, you're not "seen" as busier, you ARE busier. A LOT busier. But generally, it's a good bang for the buck.

[Bigjohn24]

My experience goes back to the late 1970's and EMS calls always kept us running, between fire calls.

Pumper crews working 24 hour shift might get a full night's sleep, Fire EMT/Paramedic Units, rarely got through the night without a call.

And taxpayers tax funding their no charge Fire and EMS got a big bang for their buck. Double duty firefighters as EMT's and Paramedics too.

[tree68]

"In these days of reduced actual fires, a good many fire departments took up EMS so they'd be seen as busier."

If you're doing EMS, you're not "seen" as busier, you ARE busier. A LOT busier. But generally, it's a good bang for the buck.

No question there - the issue is the perception of the public.

[Bigjohn24]

My experience tells me that the public perception of firefighters is good; but their elected officials perception of firefighters, not so good.

Like any city councilman will tell you; At least the Cops are out arresting people.