RESOURCE ALLOCATION STUDY LEADS TO MORE EFFICIENT COVERAGE

RESOURCE ALLOCATION STUDY LEADS TO MORE EFFICIENT COVERAGE

TIMOTHY T. KUEHNERT

The study of fire service resource allocation seeks to answer the simple question: “What do we need to do our job?” The task of trying to answer this short question can get extremely complicated in a hurry. Considering the ever-expanding list of services we provide, it is increasingly important for departments to identify service level goals and the resources required to achieve them. Among the tools available to complete these tasks are strategic planning and risk analysis, which the Tulsa (OK) Fire Department (TFD) employs to the benefit of those we protect.

The TFD has 690 uniformed personnel, who operate from 30 stations and serve a community of 380,000. One station is within airport grounds. In early 1996, the TFD was about to begin a comprehensive resource allocation study,¹ examining fire station locations, apparatus specification and placement, and fire company staffing levels. A committee was formed, and the project was begun.

FIRE STATION LOCATIONS

The first area of focus was the fire station location study–the subject of this article. The objectives of the analysis were (1) to evaluate the risk profile of the existing stations` first-in areas, (2) to recommend the optimum station locations for the future, and (3) to evaluate the risk profile of the proposed stations` first-in areas.

As an intern from the Fire Protection Program at Oklahoma State University, I was assigned to the project to support the committee`s research and analysis needs. The committee`s goal was to develop fact-based recommendations on resource allocation using only data-driven methods.

Before evaluating the adequacy of a department`s resources, it helps to examine the different perspectives from which one can view fire resource allocation issues. Certainly, a city manager or mayor`s perspective is important to understand. Having the responsibility for balancing funding for a wide range of services to the community, the city manager must be well versed in many areas so he can make informed budgetary decisions. This demand typically prevents the manager from becoming an expert in any single area, including fire service resource allocation.

Comparatively, our perspective as fire service professionals is focused solely on the resources required to meet our goals and response standards. A fire department`s responsibility is to provide the best possible fire suppression and emergency services to the community. To best meet those responsibilities, our understanding of fire service resource allocation issues must be comprehensive. Specifically, fire departments must identify the resources needed to meet all emergency response goals completely. This resource level provides an important benchmark against which current or proposed resource levels can be compared. In short, we must answer the question “What resources do we need to do our job?` in an objective, fact-based manner so there is no question about what we will need to meet our response goals.

Researching the topic of fire station locations led me to several outside resources: the International City Management Association,^2,3 IFSTA, the National Fire Academy, the National Fire Protection Association, and numerous journal articles. I was looking for a truly quantitative way of evaluating existing and proposed fire station locations. After searching for an outside resource, I turned to our department`s own Mission Statement and Strategic Goals. After all, there is no better way to break down a complex question than to step back and eyeball the “big picture.” That`s what mission statements are designed for. I identified our strategic goals that directly apply to the topic of fire station location:

•Establish and perform in accordance with emergency response standards based on community expectations and available resources.

•Provide proper levels of personnel, apparatus, and equipment at emergencies to all areas of the city of Tulsa within an appropriate time.

These two goals provided the framework for evaluating our station locations. Looking at these two goals led to the fundamental question pertaining to fire station locations: “What response standards dictate the spacing of our re-sources?” The answer depends directly on the services you provide and the level to which you provide them.

TFD`s primary services are fire suppression and emergency medical. On the fire suppression front, our level of service centers on the ability to prevent flashover of a fire reported in its incipient stage. This means providing the personnel and equipment needed to perform an effective initial response on a structure fire within seven minutes, a time frame supported by National Institute of Standards and Technology research.⁴ In 1993, TFD increased its services by training all members to an emergency medical first-responder level and responding to basic life support (BLS) incidents. On this EMS front, our level of service is based on providing an effective BLS response. American Medical Association findings have shown that the greatest survival rates for cardiac patients are obtained when BLS is provided within four minutes.⁵ Resources must be placed in a specific manner to meet this response goal.

The EMS and flashover prevention response time frames directly dictate where fire stations should be placed. If your resources must reach the scene within a specified number of minutes, it stands to reason that they must be spaced in a manner that will allow this. Basing locations on the more stringent of the two response time goals, the four-minute EMS time frame, allows our resources to arrive within the time that will be established for an effective first response to both EMS and fire incidents.

So how does this four-minute response requirement translate into a fire station spacing standard? This depends largely on a city`s street system. Tulsa is fortunate enough to have a neatly gridded arterial street system, with major roads intersecting roughly every mile. Historical run data showed how far our apparatus could travel in four minutes (timed from when the tones hit at the station to when the company reaches the scene).

Using this diamond as a model for four-minute response, each station was overlaid with a diamond. The resulting map quickly showed areas where first-in response deficiencies could exist or where the density of stations may be too high. Where gaps between the station`s response diamonds existed, our resources would not be able to provide our most time-restrictive service within the desired time frame. In our case, this means performing BLS within four minutes. Significant overlap of response diamonds also revealed areas where resources exceeded this response goal. However, care must be taken not to arbitrarily remove resources from an area that appears “overprotected.” The overall staffing requirements of an area may very well dictate a dense grouping of fire stations.

These diamonds gave us an excellent indication of where stations should be located. The next, and more complicated, consideration was determining when a station should be built and staffed. The committee chose a method employed by Sybesma in 1994 for the Austin (TX) Fire Department,⁶ which assigns numerical values to physical and demographic factors of each station`s unique first-in response area. After lengthy discussion, our committee decided to employ a similar method whereby we identified five factors, each assigned equal weighting, that best characterized the need for a fire station in Tulsa, Oklahoma:

•residential and employment population of the area,

•number of emergency runs to the area,

•number of high life-hazard occupancies,

•first-in response time,

•second-in response time.

Using a drive-time modeling program, first-in response areas were plotted. Within each area, sums for each factor listed above were calculated. These five sums were then translated into a single total representing the comparative need for a fire station in each first-in area.

These totals serve several purposes. First, existing stations that received low totals were examined further to see if the resource could be used more effectively. Once again, stations cannot be blindly shut down on the sole basis of a low total. Each station not only serves its immediate first-in response area; it is also part of a larger system of stations and helps to provide a specified level of personnel for fire suppression operations in areas of varying degrees of fire risk.

Also, as a community continues to grow, previously undeveloped areas will be in need of protection. Fire service resources must respond accordingly to ensure that the new risks are evaluated and protected. This involves determining the first-in response areas of proposed fire stations and calculating the respective “station need” total. These future station locations can be pinpointed by applying the previously described spacing standard to undeveloped areas of the city. Coupled with an evaluation of the personnel available to perform critical services, such as fire suppression operations, the department will have a clear picture of when new stations should be built.

Applying these methods in Tulsa yielded excellent results. The first goal was to analyze our current station locations. By overlaying the response zone diamonds, it was readily apparent where we might need new stations. Other areas were overlapped by several stations` response zones, indicating possible “overcoverage.” The stations with overlapping response zones were noted and targeted for a deeper analysis of the area`s fire suppression staffing requirements.

The process was flowing smoothly, which often points to impending disaster. We were, in fact, presented with an unexpected challenge. From the beginning, the committee knew the department had been allocated money to build three stations. Construction had not yet begun on any of them, but their locations had been previously chosen without the aid of our response analysis. One station was to be a brand new facility serving the far southeast corner of the city. Applying the response diamond to the new location showed that, in fact, the station was to be located in the right place. The second station (31) was to replace an existing station (the one within airport grounds), which was to be moved because it sat in the middle of a taxiway for a planned runway. Further investigation showed that the new runway had been put off for at least 10 more years, eliminating the immediate need to move the station.

The third station, a new Station 7, presented a much greater challenge. The plan called for a new Station 7 to replace the existing Station 7 and Station 3. New 7 was to be placed between the two closing stations. Unfortunately, the response zone model revealed that the plan was not an efficient use of our resources. It created large gaps in our ability to provide a first response within four minutes.

The most effective station arrangement in this area was determined by aligning the station`s response zones in a manner that maximized first-in coverage and minimized overlap.

To compound the situation, the citizens had already voted their approval of this as part of a large sales tax extension package. To alter the use of the tax money would require a special vote of the City Council. Adding to our challenge was the fact that the neighborhood for which the new Station 7 was planned had been waiting for it for several years. The idea of changing the original plan was not popular with the neighborhood associations that were affected. Our task was to convince the Council and citizens beyond a shadow of a doubt that the new recommendations would allow TFD to provide the best possible service.

This task was made considerably easier because the recommendations were rooted firmly in TFD`s Strategic Goals. By doing this, each recommendation was directly linked to the ongoing mission of proiding the best protection for the citizens of Tulsa. On the other hand, carefully planned analysis in no way guarantees that your resulting recommendations will be accepted. If the interested parties cannot recognize the connection between your department`s strategies and the methods used to implement them, your time and effort have been wasted. In other words, how do these recommendations fit in with the “big picture” of providing services?

To communicate our recommendations and the reasoning behind them, we developed a presentation that summarized the key aspects of the final report. Before putting together the presentation, we took into account the knowledge level of our intended audience?the City Council and neighborhood associations?on the subject. To be safe, we assumed that the individuals in the audience would have a limited understanding of fire service strategies. For us to be successful, we first had to educate the audience on resource allocation issues and then compare the Onew?O? and OoldO station location plans.

First, we had to explain the key issues involved in spacing fire stations. This involved linking the two Strategic Goals previously listed to the spacing standard of four-mile diamonds. This information would lay a solid foundation in the audience?s mind of how these response diamonds should Ofit together.O

This illustration was immediately followed by diagrams that compared the arrangement of response zones for the two sets of recommendations Oon the tableO. To the uninformed, these diagrams are virtually meaningless. But, given a little background information on response standards, audience members will be able to convince themselves of the option that provides better protection.

Another important concept included in the presentation was that an area?s fire protection is not entirely defined by the resources of the nearest fire station. This issue goes straight to the heart of many citizens? misconceptions of metropolitan fire service strategy. In fire scenarios, several companies?usually more than are available at any single station?are needed to conduct a safe, effective interior attack. This fact magnifies the importance of well-spaced stations that would allow multiple resources to begin operating within the needed time frame. From an EMS standpoint, the proximity of second-, third-, and forth-in companies becomes critical when the OclosestO resource is working another incident, is training, or is unavailable for whatever reason. These points were illustrated in.

The preceding diagrams and explanations represented the core of TFD?s presentation to the City Council and citizens. The process was overwhelmingly successful. Most importantly, the citizens were assured that the department?s actions provided them with the best possible protection. Equally convinced, the Council unanimously approved the recommended revision to the sales tax ordinance. Finally, many members of city government expressed enthusiastic confidence in TFD?s ability to conduct a solid analysis of their resource needs.

Using strategic planning and quantitative methods to evaluate fire service resources offers a wide range of benefits. In Tulsa, these benefits include a greater efficiency in coverage and decreased response times. With ongoing analysis, the greatest reward will stem from living up to the public?s trust that the fire service will employ modern protection strategies in a highly efficient manner.

Figure 1. Individual response times from Station 27. As you can see, the four-minute responses (green points) form a neat “diamond”–approximately three miles across–(due solely to the gridded street system) around the station.

Figure 2. The existing first-in response areas, colored according to their relative need for a fire station. Dark red = highest need; green = lowest need.

Figure 3. Application of three-mile response zone to existing fire station locations. Green areas are outside any station`s response zone, thereby beyond the ability to provide BLS within four minutes.

Figure 4. The inefficient coverage of the original plan. A large response gap (red area) is created by placing Station 7 too far north.

Figure 5. Recommended location of Station 7. This equitable distribution of resources is obtained by placing Station 7 farther south and east.

Figure 6. Optimum spacing of fire stations that would allow for the delivery of BLS within four minutes.

Figure 7. Under the recommended spacing, the area of concern is protected by four well-spaced stations. The average travel time of the stations is 3.3 minutes.

Figure 8. In addition to creating the coverage gaps shown in Figure 5, the original proposal is also less efficient in providing multiple resources; the average travel time of the four closest stations is 3.9 minutes.

TIMOTHY T. KUEHNERT is a firefighter with the City of Tulsa (OK) Fire Department and the owner of American Fire Research, a private company that provides planning services for municipal fire departments. He has a degree in fire protection and safety engineering technology from Oklahoma State University.