USFA Under Scrutiny
I. THE BLUE RIBBON PANEL REPORTS
In April, representatives from several fire service organizations met with Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Director James Lee Witt, at his request, to share their assessments of the United States Fire Administration (USFA) and its National Fire Academy (NFA).* Meeting participants arrived at the following conclusions: “Although the fire problem in the United States has improved, the federal programs designated to oversee fire-related issues have declined significantly over the past decade, thereby putting continued success in jeopardy. The federal programs were not poised effectively to meet the challenges of the 21st century.”
Director Witt requested each group represented to submit in writing its concerns, the major issues involved, and its recommendations for improvements. This information was to be reviewed by a Blue Ribbon Panel to be appointed by Witt. The Panel would also focus on “the future role of the USFA to reflect the changes in the fires service, as well as its new needs.”
The Panel, representatives of 13 fire service organizations, was subsequently appointed. It met for two days in Washington, D.C. on July 30-31 to review the comments and recommendations of the fire and EMS organizations and again on September 22.
The Panel, charged with making its own assessments and recommendations concerning the USFA and the NFA, reviewed numerous USFA documents, including “enabling legislation, budgets, annual reports, strategic plans, letters to and between USFA and FEMA officials, committee reports, and various other internal planning tools.”
THE PANEL`S FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The following is a condensed summary of the “Blue Ribbon Panel Review of USFA,” October 1, 1998.
Three areas of “core deficiencies undermining the effectiveness of the USFA” were identified by the Panel: leadership, resource management, and communication. The Panel requested Director Witt to move quickly to improve these areas.
Leadership
The Panel noted the following with regard to leadership:
There has been no “connection” between the fire service community and the highest level of FEMA/USFA leaders in “symbolically or politically meaningful ways.”
“The current Administrator has not been able to demonstrate to FEMA that fire programs, when allowed to languish, directly affect the lives and welfare of all American citizens.”
The lack of dialog between FEMA and USFA leaders can threaten success. The USFA Administrator is to “articulate the nation`s fire problem to the director of FEMA and Congress in order to secure the resources and funding necessary to address the elements of that problem.”
While the position of the Administrator is a Presidential appointment, future candidates for this position in the USFA “must be fully qualified with a demonstrated interest in and knowledge of the fire and emergency services, as well as [have] a track record of exemplary management and supervisory skills U. This position also requires the energy and dynamic vision of a person who is passionately interested in, and committed to, protecting the public from fire and other emergencies. This would be demonstrated by frequent interaction, advocacy, and an often reiterated commitment to teamwork and the development of shared problem-solving techniques.”
“The USFA Administrator should be networked with the nation`s fire service so that talents and solutions at the local level can help solve problems at the national level.”
Resource Management
“At no time since 1974 has the USFA had the resources it needed to address this nation`s fire problems with sustained impact U. Funding for the USFA is inadequate by any standard U. Over 32,000 fire departments across the United States depend on the service of the USFA to help address problems at the local level. This is what the USFA was chartered to do and where the consequence of under-performance most dramatically impacts on citizens.”
There is a misalignment between mission and resources, “largely due to a lack of planning for an uncertain future–not a fundamental flaw in the mission established for and affirmed by the USFA.”
Each of the four program responsibilities of the USFA–data collection, training, public education, and technology advancement–“must be properly funded.”
Communications
Interviews with officials from the federal fire programs revealed “major communication weaknesses within the USFA– and between it and FEMA–that have serious consequences.”
USFA and NFA staffs have “issued position papers highly critical of and questioning the competency of their management.” These reports “describe conditions [that] are seriously undermining how each organization delivers its products to the public and documents the general ineffectiveness of USFA efforts.”
“As noted earlier, because the leadership of the USFA has not nurtured the necessary relationships to strengthen the federal fire programs, FEMA has not put these fire programs in the proper priority they deserve. This lack of attention to the Federal fire programs affects lives and produces economic losses throughout the country. These negative consequences are an everyday reality.”
“There is in effect a broken covenant between the federal fire programs and the people and institutions they were created to serve. Because leadership has failed to envision how things can be better, because funds have not been used in creative, dynamic and impacting ways, and because there is darkness and silence where there ought to be illumination and advocacy, the USFA has become marginalized in the eyes of its constituents.”
Recommendations
The Panel`s recommendations target the following “eight major areas of concern, voiced consistently by the fire service organizations asked to submit commentary”:
Mission,
Organizational Structure,
Leadership and Management,
Funding and Resource Management,
Planning,
Personnel and Human Resource Issues,
Advocacy and Partnership, and
Concerns About the Future.
All of these areas are in some way associated with the categories of leadership, resources, and communication. All recommendations have the same degree of importance. “All are intended to support the improvements required for the future success of the USFA and its NFA.”
Mission
Recommendation 1. The Panel endorses the FEMA and the USFA mission statements “regarding their sensitivity to the nation`s fire problem but suggests that the NFA develop a mission statement that more accurately describes the importance of its training and educational activities for the fire service and the resulting benefits for the public.”
1.1 [The] “FEMA, USFA, and NFA should revisit their mission statements regularly to ensure that each is responding to the fire problems to the best of their capabilities and that the concerns of their fire service and allied professional constituents remain prominent.”
The Panel was satisfied with FEMA`s mission statement but noted that “the name of the Federal Emergency Management Agency reflects a discipline loyalty to emergency management, the public safety sector created by FEMA that deals with large-scale natural disasters. The Panel encourages the Director to consider adding `fire` to the name of FEMA.”
Recommendation 2. Demonstrate the importance of fire safety by renaming FEMA the Fire and Emergency Management Agency.
2.1. “Use the occasion of the name change to demonstrate loyalty and commitment to the fire service community and promote fire issues to the public at large.”
The Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act of 1974 [Public Law (P.L.) 93-498] does not need revision at this time. (This law established the United States Fire Administration, a directorate within the Federal Emergency Management Agency, as an entity within the Department of Commerce and also created a National Fire Academy to “advance the professional development of fire service personnel and of other persons engaged in fire prevention and control activities.” )
Organizational Structure
Recommendation 3. ” … the reporting relationships between the United States Fire Administrator, the Deputy Fire Administrator, and the Superintendent of the National Fire Academy [should] be redefined so that these working relationships can be improved in terms of empowerment, delegation of authority, and accountability.”
3.1 “Determine if the current system of the Superintendent and the Deputy Administrator both reporting directly to the Fire Administrator is one which best encourages the flow of information toward positive and productive outcomes.”
3.2. “[The] USFA should demonstrate a willingness and eagerness to reconfigure reporting relationships if they are not understood or not working efficiently.”
Leadership and Management
Recommendation 4. “The current USFA does not have the confidence of the fire emergency services U. FEMA Director [Witt] and/or the Fire Administrator should take the following actions:
4.1 “Demonstrate a higher and sustained level of understanding about fire and emergency services issues through an advocate at the federal level of those challenges facing fire and EMS managers through vigorous justification of USFA program goals and objectives.”
4.2. “Increase visibility at emergencies where a federal response is necessary to demonstrate that fire and EMS personnel are America`s first responders to all hazards and, as such, deserve the same interest and funding that FEMA has shown to the emergency management sector.”
4.3. “Relocate the office of the USFA Administration, including staff, to FEMA`s Washington, D.C., headquarters in order to be a constant advocate of fire issues, especially during budget and resource negotiations. The staff of the National Fire Academy, however, should remain in Emmitsburg, Maryland.”
4.4. “FEMA must develop a job description for the United States Fire Administrator, which lists the qualities and attributes of an effective administrator, including performance objectives and standards. It is strongly encouraged that these attributes include demonstrated professional ability in fire and rescue disciplines.”
Recommendation 5. FEMA`s leadership and organizational culture “must change by altering its views of fire [and] EMS issues in order to make programmatic changes which reflect the real impact of fire-related hazards and emergencies (in terms of deaths, injuries and impact on the American economy), which greatly exceed those associated with large-scale natural disasters.”
5.1. “Include the USFA Administrator in decisions of all FEMA`s directorates, as USFA fire and EMS customers represent those who are first responders in the field to FEMA`s initiatives.”
5.2. “Create opportunities for interaction between the federal, state and local emergency managers and fire service managers to coordinate activities regarding risk identification and mitigation efforts.”
5.3. “Partner with the fire service in supporting changes on the level of those directed toward the emergency managers: Make FIRE a part of FEMA through increasing the role of the USFA in FEMA.”
5.4. “Recognize that the fire service model of risk reduction through prevention efforts has created the finest emergency services infrastructure in the world, and use these professionals to further the work of FEMA through such initiatives as Project Impact.”
Recommendation 6. “The Fire Administrator [should] carefully consider the recommendations made by the Program Chairs of the MFA Local 1983 of FEMA regarding the USFA and its four program areas. Management [should] participate in ongoing dialog to enhance positive labor/management relations.”
Funding and Resource Management
Recommendation 7. “Increase USFA support (allocate resources and staffing) for new [National Fire Incident Reporting System] NFIRS Version 5 as follows:
7.1. “Increase USFA assistance and quality assurance to new and existing NFIRS states. Support would include installing and testing new systems in each state and training state coordinators as well as providing support to state and local users as they convert to Version 5.”
7.2. “[The] USFA would process and [exercise] quality-control [over] incoming data, generate state reports, and compile and distribute the annual database.”
7.3. “Increase [the] budget for NFIRS support by $2 million per year.”
7.4. “Develop periodic grants to states to upgrade computer equipment to handle the new NFIRS Version 5 and to enhance analysis capabilities at an overall funding level of $200,000 per year for the next several fiscal years to the designated state fire authority. Ten to twenty thousand dollar grants per state would upgrade all NFIRS states over a five-year period of conversion.” [Editor`s note: Footnote reads: A similar grant program was administered by USFA during the original formative years of NFIRS.]
7.5. “USFA should outsource, when appropriate, most fire data analysis activities now carried out by USFA to describe the overall U.S. fire problem (e.g., `A Profile of Fire in the United States`) and any special fire analysis or fire report projects. This should be done through cooperative agreements, contracts or grants at a level of $250,000 per year.”
[Editor`s note: The footnote reads as follows: “The Panel concludes there are adequate private sector sources for these services, including those of the National Fire Protection Association, which regularly reports nearly all of the same information and more, and on a more timely basis.”)
7.6. Introduce regulation “requiring all states to report using the NFIRS system within five years. Future participation in USFA programs would be tied to participation in the NFIRS reporting system.”
7.7. “An additional $2 million per year be put toward state grants for the marketing, training, and creation of incentives to ensure 100 percent NFIRS 5 participation.”
Recommendation 8. “[The] USFA should focus on a number of critical [research and development] R & D tasks identified in Public Law 93-498, which are as important today as they were in 1974 and still have not been fully addressed. They include specifically [the following]:
8.1. “The role of the USFA as a proactive leader, helping set the direction for the entire national fire safety R & D agenda in partnership with other research organizations and major users of research.”
8.2. “Invest much more heavily in technology R & D programs to support the fire safety community in the areas of
“a. firefighter health and safety,
“b. advanced information technologies for fire management,
“c. advanced technologies for fire prevention and protection,
“d. advanced firefighting technologies, and
“e. burn care and rehabilitation.”
(The Panel would like to see “burn prevention research be coordinated with fire prevention research in an effort to reduce injury to the public and firefighters.”)
8.3. “Provide leadership for the fire safety community in the transition to performance-based codes and standards. This role could include the following:
“a. Financial support of fire service participation in R & D activities of voluntary codes and standards committees.
“b. Provide leadership and financial support to public and private academic institutions in support of degree and continuing education programs to equip fire safety professionals for active participation in [the] use of performance-based regulations and standards.
“c. Support of research needed to address public interest concerns/issues associated with such codes and standards.”
Recommendation 9. “[The] USFA should make effective use of the capabilities in the National Institute of Standards and Technologies (NIST), Department of Commerce, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, and other public and private sector organizations for R & D aimed at advancing fire safety in the nation.”
Recommendation 10. “U funding $10 million per year to carry out these R & D plus an additional $2 million for research grants to academic and other allied institutions.”
Public Education and Awareness Mission of the USFA
Recommendation 11. “U the USFA increase its awareness of how diversity and multiculturalism affect the fire problem through redirecting current resources and new funding toward specific at-risk populations.”
11.1. “Partner with representatives of cultural/ethnic groups to seek input and understanding regarding public education effectiveness and develop new pathways for delivery.”
11.2. “Develop relationships with minority-owned corporations to codevelop fire prevention campaigns designed specifically for at-risk groups.”
Recommendation 12. “U an additional $4 million per year be directed to expand outreach efforts on community hazard assessment and at-risk groups, including technical assistance to fire departments serving populations under 2,500.”
Recommendation 13. “Create a local matching funds federal grant program designed to fund the hiring of public fire and safety educators over the next three years with a focus on states with a documented high life loss history.”
Training Mission of the USFA
Recommendation 14. Increase the NFA budget “to increase student capacity by 50%, to improve off-campus course delivery, and to ensure that all first responders have access to the excellent courses that have been and can be developed by the NFA staff through continuation of the student manual support and utilization of the resources at the Learning Resource Center (LRC).”
14.1. “U an additional 110 rooms (plus supporting facilities) to be made available for NFA resident program students. This can be accomplished by a capital construction project or [relocating] EMI to another FEMA facility, thereby freeing space at the NFA for additional students.
14.2. “In order to increase the student capacity by 50%, an additional $2.5 million in operating funds is required for additional faculty and staff, course development and delivery costs, and increased student stipends.”
14.3. “Increased funding for student manual support be maintained for at least five years as the programs are handed off to the various states.”
14.4. “The Learning Resource Center (LRC) be staffed and open for reasonable hours (including evenings and weekends) whenever students are on campus.”
14.5. “The NFA should recognize the benefits of having a diverse student population participate in [its] courses. Therefore, the admission process of the NFA should be strengthened to enhance the numbers of women and ethnic group members participating in the various programs.”
Recommendation 15. “The Academy should consider a very limited time when basic courses (i.e., arson investigation, inspection practices, basic haz mat, etc.) are taught at Emmitsburg. These should be handed off to the states, with residential courses focusing on executive-level management, advanced technology, and U the introduction of new ideas into the fire service.”
Recommendation 16. “State and local fire training programs are an integral component of the NFA`s training and educational services. To maintain and strengthen this important partnership, grants to support state fire training programs need to be improved. The grants should be in the $100,000 range per state as follows:
“* $75,000 to deliver NFA courses at the state level, including program materials and delivery costs.”
“* $25,000 (.5FTE) to coordinate delivery of NFA programs at the state and local levels and to provide for the management and accountability of NFA courses.”
Recommendation 17. Director Witt should “evaluate policies currently affecting the Board of Visitors (BOV) to ensure that it is permitted to operate as it was intended.”
17.1. “Funds budgeted for the BOV travel and meetings should be separate from the salary and expenses of the USFA/NFA.”
17.2. “The staff person assigned to work with the BOV should be a staff member from the FEMA Director`s office and not from the USFA.”
17.3. “The Board should be funded for a minimum of four meetings per year.”
Planning
Recommendation 18. “… Planning within FEMA [should] more substantively incorporate the goals and objectives of the fire and EMS constituencies in this country, recognizing the fire/EMS system as the primary mitigation and prevention infrastructure in service to the citizens.”
Recommendation 19. “As a starting point for revitalization, it is strongly recommended that the USFA develop a strategic plan utilizing valuable stakeholder contributions that have already been made and others that will be sought directly.”
Recommendation 20. “Effective strategic plans have to be realistic, measurable, and achievable. [The] USFA should ensure that it can meet the two goals established in FEMA`s strategic plan regarding the fire programs.” (Editor`s note: Footnote reads as follows: “The first is to reduce `by 5% the rate of loss of life and property from fire and fire-related hazards`; the second is to `improve by 15% the efficiency with which the USFA delivers its services.`”)
Recommendation 21. “The USFA needs to be an active partner and have a proactive role in the National Disaster & Terrorism Response effort U. $15 million should be appropriated for this effort.”
Personnel and Human Resource Issues
Recommendation 22. “U staffing levels at the NFA should be established at the appropriate level through the adoption of the budget recommendations made in this report and in a separate study regarding the NFA.”
Recommendation 23. “U an interest-based conflict resolution system [should] be developed and used by these groups during points of impasse and all negotiations about the future concerning mission and resource.”
Recommendation 24. “The staff of the USFA [should] develop a decision-making model which is well integrated throughout the Fire Administration.”
Recommendation 25. “Train staff at all levels to be effective managers in skills they identify as critical to job performance (e.g., teamwork, empowerment, etc.)”
Advocacy and Partnership
Recommendation 26. “The USFA [should] continue outreach programs for the dissemination of information about fire problems in the United States U strive to ensure that all data [are] current and presented in a user-friendly format. The USFA should utilize existing public and private sector resources wherever possible through partnership agreements to achieve this objective.”
Recommendation 27. The USFA and its NFA are urged “to consider the ramifications of what it does for its institutional partners and provide increased support for `Degrees at a Distance` and other fire service college curriculum programs.”
Recommendation 28. “At all points, FEMA must inject a consciousness of the fire problem into its programs and outward into federal government policy whenever appropriate, especially in the area of health care, occupational safety and health, DOT standards, etc. [A] Congressional liaison from FEMA to Congress must develop a feed-back loop to the fire service.”
Recommendation 29. “In order to promote loyalty and demonstrate advocacy U the FEMA Director [should] sponsor an annual meeting of representative stakeholder interests regarding fire concerns and issues, similar to that conducted on behalf of the emergency management community.”
Recommendation 30. “FEMA/USFA [should] develop fellowships for senior fire officers at the local level, whereby they would serve under the highest levels of FEMA/USFA administrators for six-month periods. This would strengthen the connections between FEMA/USFA [and] fire leaders in the field and [would] give senior USFA personnel regular input from local leaders on needs, perceptions, ideas, and problem-solving. In turn, this would begin to build a cadre of fire officers across the nation with intimate working knowledge of the federal fire programs–officers who would then be a resource/talent pool during major national emergencies.”
Recommendation 31. “In order to improve the effectiveness of the USFA developments at the local level, the Panel urges the creation of a federal grant/local matching program that would enable fire/EMS departments to acquire training resources, new technology, specialized equipment, and safety resources.”
Recommendation 32. “Ensure [that] when there is a major fire, large-scale explosion or similar event that warrants national media coverage that the USFA be a more visible advocate [and] provide commentary, data, [and] interpretation and analysis in support of local fire authorities.”
Recommendation 33. “Recognize that the study of the U.S. fire problem could benefit from examining success models elsewhere and that the USFA should have a major role in brokering an international flow of information on such issues as technology development, training initiatives, and cultural aspects of fire prevention.”
Concerns about the Future
Recommendation 34. “As a starting point for rebuilding, the Director, Congress, and the President of the United States should create a commission to continue the work begun in America Burning (the Presidential report that painted an alarming and graphic picture of the nation`s fire problem; the USFA was created as a result of this report). Due to the continuing seriousness of the fire problem in the United States, this body [should] begin its work in Washington, D.C., in June of 1999 and complete it in eighteen months time.”
* * *
Director Witt has set November 15 as the deadline (after press time) for receiving public comments on the Blue Ribbon Panel report.
USFA Administrator Carrye B. Brown issued a response to the report on October 21, 1998. It is presented verbatim below. n
Thank you for sending me a copy of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Director Witt`s Blue Ribbon Panel review of the United States Fire Administration (USFA). I appreciate your interest in improving the USFA. I want to take this opportunity to respond to some of the recommendations contained in the Panel`s October 1, 1998, report. I have already sent a copy of my response to Director James L. Witt and Deputy Director Mike Walker.
BUDGET LEADERSHIP AND MANAGEMENT
On one hand, I very much appreciate the time and effort that each one of the representatives of the 13 fire service organizations contributed toward the review. Examination of the USFA by our customers will contribute to better customer service. On the other hand, I think the conclusions could be characterized as “shooting the messenger” because the Panel did not like the message.
That message has been to balance the Federal budget and cut the Federal bureaucracy. All Federal agencies made a contribution to one degree or another, which resulted in a Federal budget surplus, for the first time in almost 30 years. The impact of this significant accomplishment cannot be overemphasized because it benefited every American including each person–his/her family–in the fire/emergency community. Having accomplished this goal, we can–and are–moving ahead to request significant increases in USFA funding and personnel levels.
To many, the message of level funding was not welcome. To the vast majority of Americans, the results were worth it because the end result of this and the belt-tightening by other Federal agencies resulted in an almost miraculous accomplishment–a balanced Federal budget.
While the USFA`s contribution to the Presidential and Congressional balanced budget policy was a level budget, at the same time, not a single employee lost his/her job, and 30 percent received promotions over the past 3 years. Level funding has not been an easy path to take because hard decisions–privatizing programs, eliminating lower priority programs, etc.–had to be made. If the final decision were mine alone, the USFA would have had increases in resources, which I have recommended many times since 1994.
The balanced budget government-wide policy must be included by the Panel in its recommendations as the single most constraining issue on USFA`s resources since 1994. Otherwise, the recommendations do not accurately reflect a correct funding picture, nor do they reflect the leadership and management necessary to implement this policy.
USFA MISSION–GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
Many of the issues, including the USFA mission, raised by the Panel are currently being addressed in long-term goals and objectives that are directly linked to our funding. Since I became Administrator, we have been developing the concept of managing for results under the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) of 1993. All Federal agencies fall under the jurisdiction of GPRA.
Reducing Nation`s Fire Losses by 5 Percent
One significant objective that directly links USFA with the fire service community and the American public is, “By the end of fiscal year 2002, reduce by 5 percent the rate of loss of life and property from fire and fire-related hazards.” Other Federal agencies share the same goal. We will measure success in accomplishing this goal with performance indicators.
They include [the following]:
“Transition 30% of contributing states to NFIRS 5.0.”
“Bring in to or return to NFIRS 20% of non-contributing states.”
“Research and publish a minimum of 4 analytical reports annually on topics suggested by NFIRS data and the fire service community.”
“Increase usage of public education materials by 4% in the general public.”
“Increase hotel/motel master list by 20%.”
“Increase by 4% the use of USFA`s fire mitigation materials at the Federal, State, and local levels.”
“Increase the fire community knowledge of fire and technological hazards and their application of mitigation technologies through the improved targeted distribution of research reports.”
“A U goal of training 300,000 students annually.”
Improving Efficiency by 15 Percent
And finally, another USFA objective is to “improve by 15 percent the efficiency with which USFA delivers its services.”
Involvement of Fire/Emergency Community
These measurements of success have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and sent to Congress. Moreover, in the development of the GPRA Goals and Objectives, the draft was distributed for review to all USFA staff, approximately 70 Fire Service Organizations, the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, and the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). Based on input received from Fire Service Organizations, the CPSC, USFA staff, OMB, and Members of Congress, the goals and objectives were finalized, approved by me and sent through the proper channels for final approval and distribution.
This explanation of our plans, already “in concrete,” of where the USFA will be between now and the year 2002 should, I think, have allayed many of the concerns expressed by the Panel in several of the recommendations.
This is another example of both the President and Congress working to improve the Federal government. I am committed to [seeing] these goals and objectives successfully implemented because it will benefit our customers greatly–the American people and each member of the Nation`s fire/emergency community.
In order to reflect accurately the future of USFA and to assess the leadership at USFA, the details of GPRA must be used as the foundation and cornerstone for any realistic recommendations on improvement.
RECOGNITION OF ALL USFA STAFF ACCOMPLISHMENTS
I was especially disappointed that the Panel did not recognize the excellent staff and excellent work of ALL the USFA personnel. ALL 100 staff members are crown jewels in the USFA and for the fire/emergency community. Much of the excellent work involves the cooperative agreements and other funded efforts that the USFA has with most of the organizations represented on the Panel. I think the work products have been outstanding and widely beneficial.
Since I did not attend the Panel`s discussions, I am mystified why the Panel chose to ignore these important ongoing cooperative programs and their successful work products. In fact, these cooperative arrangements should be a major focus of any recommendations regarding ALL USFA staff.
USFA WORKLOAD STUDY
I understand that many USFA staff feel underappreciated and some feel overworked. Therefore, I convened a Workload Task Group (WTG), composed of three union and three manager members, to examine the workload issue. The WTG report concluded that “There was no absolute confirmation as to whether or not there is workload overload throughout USFA.” In other words, the study found that workload overload is not a critical issue. On June 8, 1998, I asked the Deputy Administrator and the Superintendent to review the WTG recommendations and recommend a plan for implementation.
This 1998 study is the only one conducted that specifically addresses USFA staff overwork in which all staff had the opportunity to participate. Therefore, it must be used as a significant factor in any of the Panel`s recommendations on staff overwork.
INSPECTOR GENERAL REPORT–Sound Management
I presented to the Panel the FEMA Inspector General`s August 27, 1998 “Auditors` Report,” which apparently was not included in the report. I think it is very important because it gives an independent review of USFA. Two conclusions are important.
The first is the PROGRAM PERFORMANCE.
“Based on the initiatives of the NFIRS, National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), Center for Disease Control (CDC), National Center for Health Statistics (CHS), and the Bureau of the Census, there has been a steady decline in the number of fire deaths, injuries and property loss due to fire.”
Supporting that conclusion, the 1997 U.S. fire death toll was the lowest, 4,050, in the last 20 years, according to NFPA.
The Inspector General continued: “This has recently been validated through the NFA`s long-term evaluation data, where more than half of the respondents indicated that they had seen a decrease in the risk of fire hazards in their communities as a direct result of their subordinates attending training at the NFA and other ongoing public education and awareness, research, technology, and data collection activities of the USFA.”
The second important conclusion by the Inspector General is the FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE.
“It continues to be difficult to meet the ever-changing needs of our constituents within current budget constraints.”
The Inspector General`s report is also important for what it does not contain–no finding of waste, fraud or abuse. When the Panel considers management and leadership issues at USFA, this report, from an independent office, should be considered as a significant professional assessment that must be included.
ADMINISTRATOR`S JOB DESCRIPTION
The job description, the specific responsibilities and duties of the Administrator are presented in great detail in Public Law 93-498, as amended. The following are some of the Administrator`s duties required by law.
“There shall be at the head of the Administration the Administrator of the United States Fire Administration. The Administrator shall be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate U. The Administrator shall report and be responsible to the Director.”
“The Deputy Administrator shall perform such functions as the Administrator shall from time to time assign or delegate U.”
“The Administrator is authorized to take all steps necessary to educate the public and to overcome public indifference as to fire and fire prevention. The Administrator shall sponsor and encourage research, testing, and experimentation to determine the most effective means of such public education.”
“The Administrator is authorized, to the extent that he determines is necessary to meet the needs of the Nation, to encourage new programs and to strengthen existing programs of education and training …. by providing technical assistance and advice U.”
“The Administrator is authorized to provide assistance to State and local fire service training programs through grants, contracts, or otherwise.”
“[The] Administrator is authorized to provide stipends to students attending Academy courses and programs U.”
“The superintendent of the Fire Academy U shall be subject to the exclusive direction of the Administrator, United States Fire Administration U.”
In addition, there are over 35 more specific references to duties assigned by law to the Administrator. Together, these constitute the minimum duties required of the Administrator. In order to change any of those duties, Congress must change the law. However, additional duties may be assigned to the Administrator. Moreover, the law specifically delineates, as noted above, the reporting relationship of the Deputy Administrator, Superintendent and the Administrator.
I think it is important for the Panel to examine the specific public law mandating the duties of the Administrator and the reporting chain of the Deputy Administrator and the Superintendent in making recommendations to change either, thereby avoiding legal conflicts.
VISIBILITY OF ADMINISTRATOR at Major Fires or Large-Scale Explosions
To a degree, the law that created the USFA spoke to the visibility relationship between the Federal government and the State and local governments. Specifically, Public Law 93-498 states:
“The Congress finds that
“While fire prevention and control is and should remain a State and local responsibility, the Federal government must help if a significant reduction in fire losses is to be achieved.”
“The unacceptably high rates of death, injury, and property loss from fire can be reduced if the Federal Government establishes a coordinated program to support and reinforce the fire prevention and control activities of State and local governments.”
Congress made [its] intention very clear, the State and local governments have the lead responsibility for fire prevention and control, and the Federal Government`s role is to provide support and coordinate activities with them.
Accordingly, the authority for the Administrator to appear at major fires and large-scale explosions is dependent on an invitation to the Administrator from the State and local governments involved. If the Panel is using FEMA as the role model for the increased visibility of USFA, it must be noted that FEMA officially enters a State when the President declares, at the request of the State, a Federal disaster. Therefore, if the Administrator is to be a Federal, State and local spokesperson for all of the fire/emergency community, it will require an agreement with OMB, Congress and the parties involved. However, with the support of groups like those represented on the Panel, this is an important step toward making the Federal Spokesperson role become a reality.
MOVING THE TECHNICAL AND MANAGEMENT BRANCHES TO D.C.
The recommendation to move the USFA Administration, including staff except for NFA staff, to Washington, D.C., is very puzzling. The recommendation is not well justified; the full extent of the advantages and disadvantages are not known. Moreover, it would be very expensive to pay for the move of approximately 60 staff to D.C., which would cast serious doubt on cost-benefit ratio to implement this recommendation. Finally, when the same recommendation was attempted to be implemented by a previous FEMA Director, the Maryland Congressional delegation inserted language in the appropriation bill to prohibit the transfer.
This type of recommendation on face value is very disruptive to the USFA staff and serves to seriously divide USFA rather than bring us together.
IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Many of the Panel`s recommendations have great merit, and I have already begun to implement them. I have discussed with the Deputy Administrator and the Superintendent the need to improve our communications as well as improve communications with the fire/emergency community. We are in the process of scheduling both facilitated meetings and retreats. I am committed to overcoming any communications barriers.
Increasing the visibility of USFA and the Administrator is an excellent recommendation. I have started to implement this recommendation at every opportunity. To that end, I would appreciate it if the various fire/emergency groups would renew their efforts to include me on the program at national and regional meetings and events.
Finally, the budget and staff increases requested for FY2000 would address most, if not all, of the budget and staff resource issues addressed by the Panel.
CONCLUSION
I do not want to leave the impression that I oppose the blue Ribbon Panel or [its] recommendations. There are many facts, outlined above, that had the Panel included in the report it would have made for a more fair and balanced review. The omissions gave the appearance of “shooting” the messenger because the message was misinterpreted.
I look forward to working with the Panel, Director Witt, Deputy Director Walker and Congress to improve and enhance the USFA so that we can effectively address the needs of the fire/emergency community. Working together, we can continue to reduce the losses due to fire to even lower levels and serve our customers now and into the 21st century. n
blue ribbon panel members
Following is a list of the Blue Ribbon Panel members and the fire service organization they represent:
Stephen P. Austin, chair, International Association of Arson Investigators;
Steven T. Edwards, vice chair, North American Fire Training Directors;
Dennis Compton, chief, Mesa (AZ) Fire Department, CFSI National Advisory Committee;
Richard A. Dyer, International Association of Fire Chiefs;
Rocco J. Gabriele, National Association of State Fire Marshals;
Daniel L. Jones, International Society of Fire Service Instructors;
Julie E. Luckey, Women in the Fire Service, Inc.;
E. James Monihan, National Volunteer Fire Council;
Salvador Morales, National Association of Hispanic Firefighters;
Anthony R. O`Neill, vice president, National Fire Protection Association;
Robert Sledgeski, International Association of Fire Fighters;
Romeo Spaulding, International Association of Black Professional Firefighters; and
Cynthia A. Wilk, National Fire Academy Board of Visitors. n
II. USFA ADMINISTRATOR CARRYE B. BROWN RESPONDS
* A White Paper To The National Fire Academy Board Of Visitors was signed by the Program Chairs of the National Fire Academy and presented on January 29, 1998. Building a Fire Safe America: The Campaign for a Stronger USFA was submitted by Local 1983, American Federation of Government Employees, FEMA, on March 13, 1998. These documents prompted Witt`s actions.
