Planning Automatic Aid Agreements

In the modern fire service, we live by a common creed: Deliver service in the most efficient and effective manner possible. We know that everyone is a potential customer, and the demands for our services only continue to grow. So when it comes to service delivery, we must stay ahead of the game.

The phrase “doing more with less” is a reality, meaning our jobs will only become more challenging. From 1980 to 2003:

• Total number of responses have doubled;
• Medical aid responses and false alarms have more than doubled;
• Fire responses have dropped 47 percent; and
• Mutual aid calls have more than tripled.¹

A 2006 e-mail survey conducted by the International Association of Fire Chiefs (IAFC) shows that fire service leaders are feeling the pinch. More than 1,000 respondents listed the most common and resounding challenges facing their fire departments. The top three: staffing (61 percent), funding (55 percent) and increased demands for service (23 percent).² Such challenges have likely only grown in the past 2 years.

How can we stay ahead of these challenges? One answer is to form automatic aid agreements. But is automatic aid appropriate for every department? When is mutual aid sufficient? This article will provide your department, regardless of size or type, a practical reference on what to consider when planning automatic aid agreements.

The Foundation of Automatic Aid

Automatic aid is based on the concept of mutual aid: a shared process of giving and receiving built on cooperation. Of all the forms of cooperative efforts in the fire service, mutual aid is the most common. What differentiates mutual aid from automatic aid is one fundamental concept: Mutual implies “Call when you need help,” and automatic implies “No need to call, already coming!”

Whether it’s a large-scale disaster or simply help for too many EMS calls, we primarily think of mutual aid as a response-oriented concept. Regardless of what calls us to the scene, however, mutual and automatic aid have at their foundation the mission of the fire service: to provide the community with the most efficient and effective service.

But where does a department start in crafting a mutual or automatic aid agreement? The Fire Protection Handbook specifies two important aspects to any good plan: 1) the plan itself, which must be practical and have clear goals, and 2) the process in how the plan is developed, which must ensure all goals are considered, stakeholders are involved and a consensus is reached.³

In addition, we must refer to NFPA 1201: Standard for Providing Emergency Services to the Public, which provides the requirements on the structure and operations of emergency service organizations (ESOs). In Section 4.6, Intercommunity Organization (Mutual Aid), it states, “Where practical and as conditions require, the ESO shall have written mutual aid and automatic arrangements with other jurisdictions or providers of special operations or particular services.” In Section 4.6.2, the standard lists that mutual aid agreements shall address the following issues:

• Indemnity;
• Liability for injuries;
• Reimbursement for cost of service;
• Authorization to respond;
• Level of staffing;
• Types of equipment;
• Resources to be made available; and
• Designation of the incident commander.

These issues are abstract, though, and it can be difficult to start with them. It may simplify matters by breaking down the process into five steps:

1. Establish goals and objectives;
2. Identify resources;
3. Ensure communication systems are compatible;
4. Identify and resolve differences in operations and training; and
5. Define how incident command will operate.

Let’s take a closer look at each of these steps.

Establish Goals & Objectives

The easy part is coming up with goals and then creating objectives for how to meet each entity’s needs. The hard part: making it happen. Following are a few aspects to focus on.

Is the plan feasible from an administrative perspective? It goes without saying that before a mutual/automatic aid agreement can start, certain conditions must exist between the two organizations. Specifically, the leaders of the effort must be identified by the organizations and those involved must know their counterparts in the other organization. Open communication is necessary throughout the process.

The participating parties must agree to comply with applicable laws and the shared goals of the plan. Legal issues will affect agreements, so it’s imperative that procedures and details be in writing. Participating parties must establish a schedule (at a minimum, annually) to review the agreement. Note: Any mutual/automatic aid agreement should include a provision for terminating the agreement if one or more parties so desires.

Is the plan politically feasible? Politicians such as the mayor, council members and trustees must be educated and informed to ensure the agreement doesn’t induce political conflict between communities. Be prepared by doing the research and involving your local politicians from the get-go.

How will the stakeholders react? Fire service leaders must account for internal and external cultures. Issues that separate departments, such as union and non-union, career and volunteer, can be challenging when forming an automatic aid agreement. If the departments have worked together effectively in previous situations, the job at hand will be much easier. If there’s been a history of conflict, however, or if the departments are largely unfamiliar with one another, you must anticipate what types of conflict could occur and ensure that the agreement resolves them.

And don’t forget that the agreement has ramifications beyond the fire service as well. The public should be informed and involved to ensure their support. Use the media, public meetings, newsletters and Web site updates to educate your citizens. Be prepared for questions such as “Why is the neighboring town’s ambulance always coming into our city?” and “Why do I keep seeing our city’s brand-new ladder truck outside our city limits?” These are legitimate questions, and providing information prior to the start of an agreement will help to quell concerns.

Will the agreement bring economic equity and efficiency? One of the main goals behind mutual/automatic aid is economic efficiency. No mutual aid agreement should be undertaken without a thorough examination of the economic impact and potential imbalances to ensure a sound cost/benefit relationship. Principles of compensation must be clearly stated and defined; matters of insurance and liability must be addressed. The bottom line: Think about reciprocity. If Department A consistently runs into Department B’s area, and Department B rarely responds into Department A’s area, how is this imbalance accounted for?

How will you evaluate the agreement’s success? Some ways that organizations commonly evaluate the success of their agreements include:

• Whether response time standards are improving or being met;
• Whether duplicative services were able to be modified and/or eliminated, resulting in cost savings;
• Whether there’s been an impact on fire casualties and community fire loss; and
• Whether customer service goals are being met. 

Identify Resources

Once you set goals and objectives, examine what resources you have to work with. For each entity, determine the following resources:

Equipment and apparatus: Identify the type and number of all apparatus that will be subject to the agreement. Provide detailed information on the resources and capabilities of each apparatus used. Identify areas of duplication, such as hazmat, technical rescue or fire investigation. If the organizations conclude that they can share a hazmat team, for example, it can significantly reduce costs.

Other issues to identify when dealing with equipment and apparatus: Are apparatus similar? Will cross-training be needed for equipment or apparatus that aren’t similar? Are hose threads compatible?

Deployment locations: Identify situations affecting response times. Does it make sense to have automatic aid to your entire city with one department if another can be there 5 minutes quicker just by mutual aid? Are there geographical factors hindering response (railroads, interstates, rough terrain, etc.)? Are there areas currently under-protected? Are there areas where the agreement will allow for better coverage? Preplanning response areas and setting boundaries prior to forming the agreement will ensure a more efficient response.

Personnel resources: Identify availability of personnel. This is especially critical for volunteer departments whose staffing can vary depending on the time of day. It may be best to break the day into blocks of times, such as:

• 600 hrs—1200 hrs
• 1200 hrs—1800 hrs
• 1800 hrs—0000 hrs
• 0000 hrs—0600 hrs

In addition, you must determine whether the minimum number of staff you place on each fire apparatus is different from the other organization and if so, how this will be addressed in terms of fireground responsibilities and NFPA standards.

Finally, do you anticipate any real or perceived issues between full-time and volunteer personnel?

Other resources: Be sure to involve any agencies that will be affected by the agreement, including law enforcement, private EMS agencies, public works, emergency management, etc.

Ensure Communication Systems Are Compatible

Identify communication differences and similarities. This can include lack of common dispatch facilities, radio frequency differences, different terminology and apparatus numbering issues.

If facilities are separate, you may require upgrades; if you’re able to use existing dispatch and fireground frequencies, you may require frequency simulcasting or patching. Also consider CAD and mobile computer terminals. Ensure all radios are upgraded with necessary frequencies.

In addition to communications equipment, terminology must be addressed. Departments must be able to understand each other completely, and train before implementation. Miscommunication can occur when departments use a common descriptor for similar but different terms. Example: “Squad” can mean an ambulance or a five-man rescue company. Similarly, if Department A’s Engine 23 is second-due to a fire with Department B’s Engine 23, this may be a problem.

Identify & Resolve Differences in Operations & Training

One fire department may require only Firefighter I certification, while another requires Firefighter II. Training can vary greatly from department to department. Knowing the levels of training can ensure safer operations by allowing incident commanders the ability to assign tasks appropriately.4 It can even allow for new training opportunities to enhance and upgrade skills.

Once the training is maximized, real-time operation policies and protocols can be implemented. Questions to consider include:

• Are medical protocols different?
• Will there be any differences in strategies and tactics (SOPs/SOGs)?
• What type of training preparation is needed?
• How will joint training be performed?

 Define How Incident Command Will Operate

Naturally, one department’s use of “incident command” may very well differ from another. Therefore, to ensure incident mitigation, command-and-control issues must be clearly defined. These defined issues must then be trained on and used at actual incidents. This includes an inclusive accountability system for all responding departments.

Example: the method of command transfer. A battalion chief from Department A is on the scene in Department B’s area and takes command. Five minutes later, the battalion chief of Department B arrives. Is command transferred automatically? Does it need to be at all? What type of misinterpretations will occur if several officers are on the same scene, giving conflicting orders? Having a unified command system provides clear-cut objectives, strategies and priorities.

Is Automatic Aid the Answer?

Even though the public holds us in high regard, we must continue to deliver more “bang for the buck.” Consider this question from the article in the Boston Globe series, “Twenty Questions for Your Fire Chief”: “If the nearest fire station to my home is in the next community, which fire department is dispatched first? Is the response from another department ‘mutual aid’ (slower) or ‘automatic aid’ (faster)?”⁵

How much could you improve service by cooperating with neighboring departments? Is your mutual aid plan really providing the best service? You must remember automatic aid does not diminish your responsibilities in your jurisdiction, nor is it a substitute of resources within your area.⁶

Whatever your individual circumstance, collaborate and examine the facts, but don’t be quick to jump to the conclusion that automatic aid will never work in your community. When the public has an emergency, they don’t care who responds, just that someone does–and promptly.

Automatic aid has clear and practical benefits. Yet at the same time, don’t forget the obstacles. Each and every department is unique; staffing, geographical aspects, internal and external politics all play a role in determining whether automatic aid agreements will work. In the end, the standard should be whether the agreement can improve the health and welfare of the public and your personnel.

Note:For a complete guide to automatic aid planning written by the author, e-mail the author at loboschefski-brandon@maumee.org.

REFERENCES

1. NFPA. U.S. Fire Department Profile through 2003. Quincy, MA: 2003.
2. International Association of Fire Chiefs. “Staffing concerns, budget cuts continue to plague fire departments nationally.” Jan. 9, 2006. Downloaded Jan. 26, 2009 from www.iafc.org/displayindustryarticle.cfm?articlenbr=29074.
3. NFPA. (1997). Fire Protection Handbook, 18th ed. (Vol.1). Quincy, MA.
4. Coleman, K. (1992). “The Foundation of Mutual Aid.” Fire Chief, Vol. 36, Issue 3, p. 51—52.
5. Dedman, Bill. (2005, January 30). “Slower arrival at fires in US is costing lives.” Boston Globe. Downloaded March 7, 2006, from www.boston.com/news/specials/fires.
6. McCallister, D. (2000). Achieving Balance of Fiscal Inequities Associated with Mutual Aid Agreements. (Applied Research Project). Emmitsburg, MD: National Fire Academy, Executive Fire Officer Program. 

 

The Good & the Bad

There are countless examples of successful and unsuccessful mutual/automatic aid agreements. Here are three that illustrate just some of the potential benefits and pitfalls.

The Good: Emergency fire and medical services aid agreement benefits residents.

The Board of County Commissioners in Osceola County authorized an “Automatic Aid Agreement” in 1998 between Polk, Lake, Orange and Osceola counties; it later formed another agreement with the City of St. Cloud to provide fire/EMS to unincorporated areas surrounded by or adjacent to St. Cloud.¹

Osceola County Fire Rescue Chief Richard Collins notes that the agreements have been central in removing boundaries and increasing the level of service to the community and safety to firefighters: “The program has been very successful to date, with positive feedback from both the community and firefighters. The crews work well together and regularly train together. The agreement has contributed to decreased response times and increased first-due availability.”

Recently, FireGeezer.com² reported on a new agreement between Columbia, Mo., and its neighbor Boone County. The article states: “Columbia is protected by an all-paid department with eight fire stations and Boone County has an all- volunteer FD operating 14 stations. They have re-worked their older pact primarily because of the large growth of the city into the suburbs … Under the new arrangement all fringe areas will be served by the ‘closest station’ format.” The agreement sets out plans for creating common terminology, standards, training and certifications for city and county firefighters.

The Bad: Failure to communicate contributes to firefighter death.

In November 2003, a 31-year-old male volunteer firefighter died after becoming trapped while fighting a basement fire. Several different fire departments responded to the incident, all through mutual aid requests.

Of the several critical factors contributing to the death, NIOSH investigators found that there was a severe communication problem between the responding departments due to different radio frequencies and channels. In addition, there were no alarm assignments or “alarm cards” for the units dispatched. The IC had to decide on the fireground which units and departments he wanted to respond to the incident.

The recommendations issued by NIOSH included:³

• Implement joint training on response protocols with mutual aid departments;
• Establish one central dispatch center to coordinate and communicate activities involving units from multiple jurisdictions; and
• Ensure that companies responding to mutual aid incidents are equipped with mobile and portable communications equipment capable of handling the volume of radio traffic and allow communications between all responding companies within their jurisdiction. 
•  

REFERENCES

1. Osceola County Online. (2005). “Emergency Fire and Medical Services Aid Agreement Benefits Residents.” Retrieved April 12, 2006, from www.osceola.org/index.cfm?lsFuses=department/PublicInformation/4754.
2. www.firegeezer.com/2009/03/04/missouri-citycounty-agree-on-mutual-aid
3. NIOSH. (2004). “Basement Fire Claims the Life of Volunteer Firefighter — Massachusetts.” Retrieved March 2, 2006, from www.cdc.gov/niosh/fire/reports/face200402.html.