Vision 20/20 was the name applied to a national strategic planning process for fire prevention that was held in Washington, D.C., on March 31 and April 1, 2008. By the time this article reaches print, I’m confident this strategic vision will be bearing fruit. The process makes a good case study for how to plan prevention programs with stakeholder support, which can be a painful process, but is ultimately the most prudent course of action.
A Plan into Action
To back up a bit, the planning process began in earnest in Orlando, Fla., in conjunction with a National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) meeting in 2006. What began as a discussion on a Web-based chat group dubbed E-PARADE led to a meeting to see what course of action should be taken to improve our national fire loss statistics (“The National Front,” FireRescue magazine, February 2007). Some advocated increased public education. Others said we needed to be more inclusive of all prevention disciplines (e.g. engineering, enforcement). And still others maintained that we needed a true national prevention conference to focus our efforts. Wayne Powell of Marriott Corporation, Ben May of Disney and Ozzie Mirkhah, the fire protection engineer for the City of Las Vegas Fire Department, among others, advocated a planning conference similar to what President Truman convened in 1947, during which numerous suggestions were made by top officials to improve fire safety in the United States.
The group convening in Orlando included many of the major fire service acronyms–the USFA, NFPA, ICC, IAFC, IFMA, NASFM, HSC, NFFF and so on–as well as some field practitioners. The group’s conclusion: We need a national strategic planning process to yield a national vision for fire prevention, and we must gather as much energy as possible to sustain the process.
It’s an understatement to say that a great deal of work and planning went into both the application for Department of Homeland Security grant funds (ultimately approved and awarded to the Institution of Fire Engineers, U.S. branch) and the actual implementation of Vision 20/20. Peg Carson of Carson Associates, Ed Comeau of Writer-Tech.com and Bill Kehoe of the Institution of Fire Engineers worked with me as the core team responsible for the grant. We received guidance from the steering committee, which comprises many of the same organizations signing on to help in Orlando, as well as others who were added as the process unfolded.
We followed the basic elements of a strategic planning process–environmental scan, including national fire loss data, futures research and development of a stakeholder list for potential participants. The difference: We sought to create action, not just recommendations to sit on a shelf like so many other reports. We wanted to involve as many stakeholders as possible, and we didn’t want to duplicate what was already being done.
Getting Together
A Web forum was developed to get a “first cut” of national priorities. Participants in satellite locations around the nation “chatted” informally about perceived gaps that could be filled while advocating for existing efforts. What came from that process, which included more than 500 participants, including the satellite locations, were three top strategies that dealt with the nature and quality of our national fire-loss data, a national education/social marketing campaign focused on prevention that was sustainable over the long-term and an effort to improve the standing of fire prevention within the fire service.
A list of the participants’ ideas was then provided, along with the environmental scan information, to the more than 170 participants (leaders in fire and related fields) at the forum in Washington, D.C. That 2-day planning process yielded some surprises, but ultimately, a general consensus on five strategic areas for national focus and attention.
The 5 Improvements
First, the strategy regarding fire loss data was refined by the participants and spread among other areas of strategic interest, which were “roughed out” in a general session that was at times, frankly, testy. Eventually, though, we got things moving toward a broad consensus. The resulting five strategic areas of interest include:
- Establishing a new level of advocacy for fire prevention efforts (externally focused);
- Establishing a higher level of status for fire prevention programs within the fire service (internally focused advocacy involving organizational culture);
- Establishing a national education/social marketing campaign designed to improve fire safety (a topic is still being refined as I write this);
- Advocating for existing and new technologies that improve fire safety; and
- Advocating for increased emphasis on codes and standards.
Each of these strategic areas has a number of related action items. In fact, the development of action items was the real point of the meeting: It allowed us to pick the brains of participants collectively. Sign-up sheets were passed around to enlist volunteers to support the action items and strategies, so that they could be turned into something more than just a report.
The Steering Committee, which represents a variety of stakeholder interests, will be responsible for refining action items and formatting strategies. They will also yield the items that are most quickly acted upon, as well as those that will require more time and money. And hopefully, as this goes to print, there will already be some common ground established to facilitate progress in our national strategic agenda for fire loss prevention.
In Sum
We know we’re capable of better fire loss records–death, injury and economic losses–than we’ve been able to accomplish in the United States so far. And even though we’ve done a lot since America Burning (1973) to improve safety, we know we can and should do more collectively to realize our potential.
Those interested in finding out more, including ways to help, can visit www.strategicfire.org.
