As the operating environment continues to change, government officials, such as city managers, are under increased pressure to evaluate and improve the efficiency and quality of public services offered. This is especially true in light of the constant pressure by the public to reduce government spending. Making said improvements, however, requires that public departments like the fire department use evaluation and accreditation system like the Insurance Services Office (ISO) grading classification (O’Neal, 2017). Alternatively, fire departments can use the newer Commission on Fire Accreditation International (CFAI) self-assessment and accreditation process. The problem is that public officials and city managers are still contemplating the usefulness and applicability of the two and deciding which they should use. This paper is a brief description and comparative analysis of ISO and CFAI in the context of a fire department that wants to implement either or both. At the end of the paper, a justification will be provided on whether the fire department should pursue agency accreditation through the CFAI accreditation model.
Comparative Analysis
ISO Grading
ISO is a nationwide non-profit service organization that was formed to standardize the fire rating and services across the nation. As a result, ISO applied improvements on the Grading Schedule that fire departments have been using for decades as an evaluation tool for their effectiveness (Stewart, 2019). The Grading Schedule has also been used to evaluate a community’s fire defences. However, ISO Grading Schedules were never meant to be use by fire departments. Instead, they are a tool designed for the insurance industry to be used assess the insurance rates for communities and fire departments. Unfortunately, most fire chiefs will relentlessly pursue ISO grade ratings in an attempt to lower their grade (thus make them more attractive to insurance companies) but are unaware of the other implications. For instance, the ISO grade ratings might make recommendations that are difficult to implement, such as adding more engine companies without specifying where the resources to implement the recommendation will come from.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The situation is understandable because when ISO was formed, there were no other standards fire departments could use to gauge their effectiveness and efficiency. As a result, ISO ratings have become an integral part of any fire department’s operations. At the center of it all, however, is that ISO Grading Schedules were built to serve the purposes of the insurance industry. Therefore, the ratings should not be used either as a planning tool or as justification for appropriating additional funding for manpower and apparatus due to the poor rating a fire department gets. Furthermore, fire departments should not be satisfied or become complacent when they continuously get low ratings on the grading schedule as the costs of operations increase. After all, taxpayer money will be the source of the funds and if the public is pushing for reduced government spending, using the grading schedule will not help.
Regardless of the need to change, ISO standards are deeply engrained in the fire department’s operations and in society. Furthermore, the public has an incentive to grade the performance of a fire departments through the lens of the insurance rates they have to pay out. Therefore, if the public believes that a fire department’s design lowers the insurance rates, they will be less willing to switch to a new standard that might be more cost effective. The outcome will be that the public will have unrealistic expectations on the fire department. For instance, instead of evaluating the performance of a fire department based on the systems implemented to prevent fires, the fire will do their evaluation based on the department’s emergency response time. As a result, there will be a constant drive to increase spending on emergency departments even when concerns on increased government spending arise. Alternatively, ISO standards will keep the public from understanding why the appropriations for the fire department might be increasing despite the lower ratings. Their satisfaction with the fire department and emergency services will, therefore, be impacted.
CFAI Accreditation
Understanding the potential CFAI has in improving a fire department’s efficiency and effectiveness requires understanding the importance of accreditation. In professional contexts, accreditation is the process that an individual or entity, such as an agency or institution, receives acknowledgement for conforming to a pre-determined body of standards. Accreditation is generally pursued when ensuring the effectiveness of an organization through periodic evaluations (Hickel, 2016). Accreditation is also valuable when attempting to raise the level of professionalism in an organization or industry. As a result, fire departments pursue accreditation as a means for self-organization, evaluation, and a means to implement and manage change that is inevitable. Therefore, ISO and CFAI are similar in that they are standards through which fire departments are evaluated.
Unlike ISO standards, however, CFAI standards and its accreditation process is designed and performed for the fire departments. Therefore, CFAI is better suited to solving a fire department’s issues that impact their effectiveness and performance, as compared to the ISO grading schedule. It should be noted, however, that CFAI accreditation is not a guarantee of success. instead, CFAI provides a uniform methodology that any fire department can used to assess their performance against industry-established performance indicators, while helping to implement organizational goals. Therefore, what follows after the accreditation are the activities to either improve performance, monitor performance, or maintain a desired level of effectiveness. Since more fire departments set their goals and performance objectives, CFAI will provide the tools to achieve them.
The other difference between ISO and CFAI accreditation is that CFAI takes the form of a self-assessment while ISO ratings are established by external evaluators. In other words, ISO ratings are mandatory if a fire department wants to reduce their insurance rates. Therefore, fire departments might strive to lower their ratings primarily to reduce their insurance rates. On the other hand, CFAI accreditation is a voluntary process and involves the fire department dedicating personnel and resources to performing the evaluation (French, 2016). Therefore, any fire department that conducts the CFAI evaluation process genuinely wants to establish its performance and compare it against industry standards. Through CFAI accreditation, fire departments can objectively allocate its resources according to its set mission and vision. Furthermore, independent evaluation of a fire department’s operation is a marker for a self-driven and committed department.
Regardless, CFAI is more versatile since it gives fire departments the opportunity to set their objectives. As a result, the performance objectives can be aligned to the department’s mission and vision. For instance, if a fire department’s vision is to reduce the number of emergency responses per month, CFAI can help it to set up preventative policies and protocols and help them monitor their performance according to the available resources and schedule. The only disadvantage, therefore, is that CFAI fire departments have to dedicate resources, such as personnel and time, to perform the self-assessment process. The amount of work and time to be done increases with the size of the fire department. This commitment, therefore, detracts from doing the actual work, especially if the fire department lacks adequate resources.
Conclusion
In summary, ISO and CFAI are similar in that they are standards through which fire departments are evaluated. The evaluation takes the form of accreditation, which is the process that an individual or entity, such as an agency or institution, receives acknowledgement for conforming to a pre-determined body of standards. This is the only similarity between ISO and CFAI, however. The differences between them are numerous. For instance, ISO ratings are performed by the ISO on a schedule determined by each state. Unlike ISO standards, however, CFAI standards and its accreditation process is designed and performed by the fire departments through a self-evaluation process. However, ISO Grading Schedules were never meant to be use by fire departments. Instead, they are a tool designed for the insurance industry to be used assess the insurance rates for communities and fire departments. Unfortunately, most fire chiefs will relentlessly pursue ISO grade ratings in an attempt to lower their grade but are unaware of the other implications.
Recommendations
It is recommended that the fire department uses both the ISO ratings and pursue CFAI accreditation. ISO ratings should be maintained mainly to comply with state regulations while reducing the insurance rates. As a result, the public will be less critical of the department’s appropriations as the insurance rates are maintained at low levels. However, ISO ratings are not real performance indicators to be used by fire departments. Therefore, it is recommended that the fire department starts to incorporate CFAI accreditation processes for the following reasons. First, to establish their effectiveness. Secondly, to ensure that their goals are being met. Lastly, to document the reasons for success and derive best practices.
References
French, S. A. (2016). A Metaevaluation of the Commission on Fire Accreditation International Accreditation Process.
Hickel, D. R. (2016). The Impact of Compliance with a Certified Accreditation Standard for Municipal Fire Departments.
O'Neal, N. (2017). Evaluating the Performance of Rural Fire Departments in California: Discerning Appropriate Indicators . California State University, Long Beach.
Stewart, G. G. (2019). Planning for Routine Emergencies: Establishing Collaboration to Increase the ISO Rating of the City of Niagara Falls, NY: a Master's Project in Public Administration and Nonprofit Management (Doctoral dissertation).
