Blue Ribbon Panel

Blue Ribbon Panel
USFA Review

On the afternoon of April 29, 1998, FEMA Director James Lee Witt invited
representatives from several United States fire service organizations to a meeting to
express their candid opinions regarding the federal fire programs—specifically, the
United States Fire Administration and its National Fire Academy. The next evening most
members of this invited group would celebrate the 10th anniversary of the Congressional
Fire Services Institute at its annual dinner with an awareness of two ironies. First, that
during the twenty-four hour period between the meeting and the dinner, approximately
eleven Americans would die in a fire-related incident and, secondly, that the federal fire
programs charged with dealing with the national fire problem were in disarray.
At the Old Executive Office Building, Director Witt listened to fire service leaders
express their doubts and lack of confidence in the United States Fire Administration. The
Director had invited the group to air their concerns and to increase his understanding of
what the consequences were of what was happening to the fire programs under FEMA's
direction. As the Director listened carefully, there emerged an interesting and important
argument from the fire service leaders assembled with him.
Although the fire problem in the United States has improved, they suggested, the
federal programs designated to oversee fire-related issues have declined significantly
over the past decade, thereby putting continued success in jeopardy.

In terms of

providing what they were designed to supply to the fire service, the federal programs
were not poised effectively to meet the challenges of the 21st century. At the conclusion
of this historic meeting, Director Witt asked each group to put their concerns to him in
writing, outlining major issues and suggestions for improvements.

In addition, the

Director pledged that he would appoint a Blue Ribbon Panel to examine their concerns
and “the future role of the USFA to reflect the changes in the fire service, as well as its
new needs.”

This is the report of the Blue Ribbon Panel.

Table of Contents
Focus Piece
List of Blue Ribbon Panel Members . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2
Introduction

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4

Overview of Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7
Report Methodologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10
Findings and Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12
•

Mission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13

•

Organizational Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14

•

Management and Leadership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15

•

Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19

•

Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32

•

Personnel Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35

•

Advocacy and Partnership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .38

•

Concerns about the Future . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41

Conclusion

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .42

Appendices
A Funding Appropriated in Public Law for USFA, 1980-1992 . . . . . .44
B List of Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .45
C USFA Documents Reviewed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .53
D Budget Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .54
E Fire Research Agenda List . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55
F USFA Government Performance and Results Act Goals . . . . . . . .56

Blue Ribbon Panel Members
Stephen P. Austin, Chair
Claim Superintendent, State Farm Fire and Casualty Company,
representing the International Association of Arson Investigators
Steven T. Edwards, Vice Chair
Director, Maryland Fire & Rescue Institute, University of Maryland,
representing the North American Fire Training Directors

Dennis Compton
Chief, Mesa (AZ) Fire Department and Past Chair of the International
Fire Service Training Association (Executive Board)
representing the CFSI National Advisory Committee
Richard A. Dyer
Chief, Lee’s Summit (MO) Fire Department,
representing the International Association of Fire Chiefs
Rocco J. Gabriele
Fire Marshal, State of Maryland,
representing the National Association of State Fire Marshals
Daniel L. Jones
Chief, Chapel Hill (NC) Fire Department,
representing the International Society of Fire Service Instructors
Julie E. Luckey
Firefighter/Paramedic, Chesterfield County (VA) Fire Department,
representing Women in the Fire Service, Inc.

Blue Ribbon Panel Review of USFA

2

E. James Monihan
Vice-President, Administration, Beebe Medical Center (DE),
representing the National Volunteer Fire Council
Salvador Morales
Dallas (TX) Fire Department,
representing the National Association of Hispanic Firefighters
Anthony R. O’Neill
Vice-President, Government Affairs, National Fire Protection Association,
representing the National Fire Protection Association
Robert Sledgeski
Baltimore City Fire Department,
representing the International Association of Fire Fighters
Romeo Spaulding
Past President, International Association of Black Professional
Firefighters, representing the International Association of Black
Professional Firefighters
Cynthia A. Wilk
Assistant Director, Division of Codes and Standards, New Jersey
Department of Community Affairs,
representing the National Fire Academy Board of Visitors

Blue Ribbon Panel Review of USFA

3

Introduction
The United States Fire Administration, a directorate within the Federal
Emergency Management Agency, was established as an entity within the Department of
Commerce by the passage of the Federal Fire Prevention and
Control Act of 1974 (PL 93-498).

1

Previously, fire-related issues

and research had been scattered among a number of different
agencies of the federal government. The USFA was created out
of the turmoil of a Presidential report, America Burning, which
painted an alarming and graphic picture of the nation’s fire problem. It was hoped that an agency designed to focus solely on this
national problem would produce dramatic results “to reduce the
nation’s losses caused by fire through better fire prevention and
control.”

In addition to the USFA, Public Law 93-498 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.”
As it was envisioned, the USFA would work intensively on behalf of local fire
authorities through four program areas: data collection, public education, training, and
technology development. The National Fire Academy, the training arm of the USFA, was
envisioned to be an advanced school for fire officers and other allied professionals, providing them with the training they would require to significantly improve fire protection at
the local level. Interestingly, both the USFA and its NFA were created to be cutting-edge
organizations—“To encourage new and improved programs and activities by state and
local governments.”
For a while, that’s exactly what happened. The improvements made in fire protection technology under the aegis of the USFA were outstanding. The advances of the
1970s and 1980s made in the area of residential fire protection systems—both smoke
alarms and rapid-response sprinklers—were due in large part to the leadership and
advocacy of the USFA. Likewise, improvements in firefighter personal protective equipment (PPE), especially self-contained breathing apparatus and turnout gear, were also
greatly improved under this period of USFA pro-activity. During this time, also, the
National Fire Academy was advocating and teaching a paradigm shift for the fire service
from a concentration on response efforts (suppression activities) to a focus on prevention
The National Fire Prevention and Control Administration was renamed the United States Fire Administration on
October 5, 1978.
1

Blue Ribbon Panel Review of USFA

4

as a more effective strategy for saving lives and property. These two achievements—the
development of early intervention technology coupled with an emphasis on prevention—
contributed to early and positive reviews of the USFA and its National Fire Academy.
This optimism was borne out by early successes. In 1987, a review of the 90
goals established in America Burning noted positive trends since the establishment of the
federal fire programs some fourteen years earlier. Indeed, between 1973 and 1987, residential fire death rates fell dramatically, in some years as much as 23%.2 Other indicators were equally positive, including a drop in firefighter fatalities, fewer ignitions reported to local fire departments, and a decrease in the dollar loss rate of fire-related incidents.
Although civilian and firefighter injuries remained high, the overall picture was improving.
But, as we shall see, these early successes have not been followed by a subsequent
period of achievement by the USFA, even though attempts have been made to recreate
the hopefulness and promise of the first ten years.
The most significant of these attempts occurred in 1979
when, with the agreement of many fire service organizations,
the United States Fire Administration was moved by
Executive Order from the Department of Commerce to the
Federal Emergency Management Agency. It was hoped
that a natural affinity of mission would align the interests of
FEMA with the USFA resulting in important outcomes.
Unfortunately, at this same time, FEMA was entering upon its
bleakest days, described in a Congressional report as a deeply troubled agency and a
“political dumping ground.”3 It appeared that the United States Fire Administration had
been placed in one of the darkest holes in Washington.
However, since 1993 and the appointment of James Lee Witt as Director, FEMA
has become recognized as a model for governmental reinvention. Where it was formerly a demoralized and ineffective player in emergency management, FEMA is now one of
the most respected and admired agencies in the federal government. State and local
emergency management officials value FEMA as a thoroughly trustworthy and dependable partner. FEMA, through its energy and adept management of fiscal and staffing
resources, has earned the respect of the emergency management community, its practitioners and the people they serve.

2
3

America Burning Revisited, November 30-Dec 2, 1987, page 8.
Washington Post, August 19, 1998, A19.

Blue Ribbon Panel Review of USFA

5

What has clearly been overlooked in FEMAs reinvention, however, has been a
focus on the federal fire programs for which FEMA is also responsible. The Federal
Emergency Management Agency has consistently concentrated on the development of
the emergency management infrastructure, while allowing the fire programs to deteriorate—even though it is well documented that the everyday emergencies associated with
fires occasion much greater economic damage and claim many more lives than the combined effect of natural emergencies. The emergency management structure is dependent upon fire and rescue services as first responders in all man-made and natural disasters. To ignore the role of fire and rescue in emergency management is inappropriate
and places the public at greater risk.
This concentration on emergency management connected with large-scale natural emergencies has been at the expense of the fire programs. The United States Fire
Administration is now experiencing similar problems of staffing, budget, and morale
which Director Witt found at FEMA in 1993. And yet, the fire problem in America remains
very high—just last year alone, over 4,000 people died in fire-related incidents; every 18
seconds a fire department responded to a fire somewhere in the United States; and
because of this the United States still has one of the worst fire problems in the industrialized world.

In effect, the fire service organizations who met with Director Witt in

Washington last April described to him a situation which they find intolerable.
Thus members of the Blue Ribbon Panel worked hard to convey the gravity of the
situation regarding the United States Fire Administration and its National Fire Academy,
while remaining optimistic that this troubled agency can also be restored to fulfill its mission. As was noted repeatedly during its deliberations, the Panel is convinced that the
USFA must be a vital and vigorous partner in the nation’s public safety responsibilities.
To do so means that the USFA and its fire programs must be first and foremost adequately funded. Beyond money, however, lie crises of faith and confidence which money
will not fix. Faith and confidence are leadership issues—harder to address but, in the
long run, more enduring and important.

FEMA’s own Strategic Plan, Partnership for a Safer Future (1997) notes that “...the loss of life and property resulting
from fire far exceeds that of all other natural disasters combined” (6).
5
National Fire Protection Association, August 1998.

4

Blue Ribbon Panel Review of USFA

6

Overview of Findings
During its review of documents and through interviews with officials of the federal fire programs, the Blue Ribbon Panel consistently found three core deficiencies that
are undermining the effectiveness of the United States Fire Administration. These areas
are leadership, resource management, and communication. It may be argued that deficiencies in any one of
these areas should warrant great concern; when all three
are weak, grave consequences follow. The Panel finds
that this is indeed the case, and urges Director Witt to take
immediate steps needed to create rapid improvements.
In terms of leadership, the Panel finds that current
leadership has not provided the level of advocacy or level of interest in fire and
emergency services necessary to justify continued support by these constituencies. Leadership at the highest level of the FEMA/USFA has not “connected” in symbolically or politically meaningful ways with the fire service community.

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
absence of this dialog between the leaders of FEMA and USFA has consequences
beyond those of ordinary leadership problems that can threaten success.

The

Administrator of the USFA is responsible for articulating the nation’s fire problem to the
Director of FEMA and Congress in order to secure adequate resources and funding necessary to address the elements of that problem.
The Panel notes that while the position of the Administrator is a Presidential
appointment, future candidates for this position in the United States Fire Administration
must be fully qualified with a demonstrated interest in and knowledge of the fire
and emergency services, as well as a track record of exemplary management and
supervisory skills. There is no time for a long learning curve when there is a civilian
injury due to a fire-related incident every 22 minutes in the United States (NFPA, 1998).
In addition to work-related experience, this position also requires the energy and dynamic vision of a person who is passionately interested in, and committed to, protecting the

Blue Ribbon Panel Review of USFA

7

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 also be

networked with the nation’s fire service so that talents and solutions at the local level can
be identified to help solve problems at the national level.
In its recommendations, the Panel suggests ways in which the current administrator can demonstrate substantial improvements to restore the confidence of the constituents this office was created to serve. Furthermore, changes in FEMA’s orientation
toward the fire programs will be examined and improvements suggested.
At no time since 1974 has the USFA had the resources it needs to address
this nation’s fire problems with sustained impact (see Appendix A: Appropriations vs.
Actual Funding, 1980-1992). Funding for the USFA is
inadequate by any standard. To make matters worse,
precious dollars which have been spent recently have
not consistently returned measurable value. USFA cannot continue doing business as usual. Over 32,000 fire
departments across the United States depend on the
services of the USFA to help address problems at the
local level. This is what USFA was chartered to do
and where the consequence of under-performance most dramatically impacts on
citizens.
Resources, as will be discussed in the recommendations portion of this report,
should be closely aligned with Mission. The current misalignment between mission and
resources is, the Panel notes, 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. In fact,
the Panel strongly endorses the four program responsibilities of the USFA (data collection, training, public education, and technology advancement) and maintains that each
must be properly funded.
It became apparent during interviews with officials from the federal fire programs
that there exist major communication weaknesses within the USFA, and between it
and FEMA, that have serious consequences. The staffs of both the USFA and its

Blue Ribbon Panel Review of USFA

8

National Fire Academy have issued position papers highly critical of and questioning the
competency of their management.6 Each of these reports describes conditions which are
seriously undermining how each organization delivers its products to the public and documents the general ineffectiveness of USFA efforts.
As noted earlier, because leadership of the USFA has not nurtured the necessary relationships to strengthen the federal fire programs, FEMA has not put these
fire programs into 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. This report will explore, in depth, these three critical areas of leadership,
resource management, and communication through a series of findings and recommendations made by the Blue Ribbon Panel.7

See A White Paper to the National Fire Academy Board of Visitors, (1998) and Building a Fire Safe America: The
Campaign for a Stronger USFA (1998).
7
A complete and separate list of all the recommendations in this report can be found as Appendix B.
6

Blue Ribbon Panel Review of USFA

9

Report Methodologies
The recommendations made by the Blue Ribbon Panel in this report were based on the
following:

• A two-day meeting of the Blue Ribbon Panel in Washington, D.C. on July 3031, 1998, to review commentary from fire and EMS organizations regarding the
effectiveness and future direction of the USFA and NFA. The Blue Ribbon Panel,
representing thirteen fire service organizations, was asked to hold its own deliberations regarding the two organizations in question and to make recommendations to the Director. During this meeting, officials from the USFA and NFA were
asked to make presentations regarding the challenges facing their organizations
and to describe their expectations for the future.

A second meeting of the Blue Ribbon Panel was convened on September 22,
1998, in Washington, D.C. to complete deliberations and finalize this report.

• Dozens of documents were submitted to the Panel from the United States Fire
Administration for review. These included enabling legislation, budgets, annual
reports, strategic plans, letters to and between USFA and FEMA officials, committee reports, and various other internal planning tools. A full list of these documents is included as Appendix C.

• A period of four weeks following the first Washington D.C. meeting was used to
analyze data which had been collected in other venues and meetings regarding
the federal fire programs. Letters and telephone calls from individuals outside the
official process were considered and responded to during this period.

As an aid to the process, a specialized fire service consulting group, Greenridge
Associates, Inc., was hired to facilitate the Panel’s meetings and guide the preparation of
its report.

The Blue Ribbon Panel recognizes the expertise and professionalism of

Blue Ribbon Panel Review of USFA

10

Greenridge Associates, Inc., throughout the process. In addition, the liaison provided by
Director Witt to the Blue Ribbon Panel was outstanding and greatly appreciated.
The recommendations in this report are not based on the findings of an on-going
Presidential or Congressional commission.

Rather, they are the result of Delphi

Techniques, which tapped the knowledge base of experts, and traditional research methods.

8

Given the high degree of corroboration between the Blue Ribbon Panel findings

and those of other interest groups looking into the federal fire programs, the Panel is
comfortable with the depth of its research and conclusions.

The Delphi Technique is group forecasting tool that uses estimates from experts and feedback summaries of these
estimates for additional estimates by these experts until reasonable consensus occurs.

8

Blue Ribbon Panel Review of USFA

11

Findings and Recommendations
The Blue Ribbon Panel began its deliberations by reviewing the letters sent to Director James
Lee Witt by those who attended the meeting at the
Old Executive Office Building in April, 1998. These
documents revealed that there were eight major
areas of concern voiced consistently by the fire service organizations asked to submit commentary.
These included:

I. Mission
II. Organizational Structure
III. Leadership and Management
IV. Funding and Resource Management
V. Planning
VI. Personnel and Human Resource Issues
VII. Advocacy and Partnership
VIII. Concerns About the Future

For the purposes of this report, these topic areas will be considered, but it should
be noted that, in one way or another, all areas concern the three categories of
leadership, resources, and communication. There are no greater or lesser recommendations; rather they are all intended to support the improvements required for the
future success of the USFA and its National Fire Academy. While the Panel hopes that
all pathways to success will be considered, the implementation of any group of recommendations should precipitate dramatic progress for the federal fire programs. And while
this is not a strategic plan for the United States Fire Administration, there are within this
report suggestions for planning which will aid the USFA throughout its rebuilding phase.

Blue Ribbon Panel Review of USFA

12

I. Mission
To begin its work, the Panel reviewed the Public Law (P.L. 93-498) which created
the USFA.9 The Panel also examined the mission statements of both FEMA and USFA
to see if there did indeed exist an alignment of interests between the two agencies and
whether, in particular, FEMA’s mission statement adequately reflected its responsibility
relative to fire-related issues.
The Blue Ribbon Panel concluded that the mission statements of both FEMA and
the USFA demonstrate an adequate recognition of their goals as established by Public
Law 93-498. Although FEMA’s statement does not mention the word “fire,” it also does
not mention any other particular public safety threat, such as floods. The USFA mission
statement, it was felt by the group, adequately represents the four program areas of the
USFA and requires no changes to be made to it.
Upon examination of the mission statement of the National Fire Academy, however, there emerged some concern that the paragraph given to the Panel as a mission
statement fell short in terms of capturing how important the work of the NFA is for firefighters, fire officers and the citizens they serve:
The National Fire Academy serves as the national focal point for advancing the
professional development of fire service personnel engaged in fire prevention and
control activities. Volunteer and career fire service professionals are provided
access to the most recent advances on technology and management perspectives and the NFA also offers education for allied professions—code enforcement,
architecture, city management and administration, planning, and emergency medical services.
Recommendation # 1: The Panel endorses the mission statements of both FEMA
and the USFA regarding their sensitivity to the nation’s fire problem, but suggests
that the National Fire Academy 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 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.

9

P.L. 93-498 was subsequently amended, but not significantly so, in 1984, 1990 and 1992.

Blue Ribbon Panel Review of USFA

13

Even though the Panel was satisfied with FEMA’s mission statement, it 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.

A review of Public Law 93-498 concluded that the law which created the United
States Fire Administration and its National Fire Academy is still reflective of the work each
performs. Although two areas of responsibility created by Congress have been dropped
as national goals—the creation of community master plans, and public awards—the
Panel concluded that P.L. 93-498 is not in need of revision at this time.

II. Organizational Structure

In this case, organizational structure refers both to the organizational location of
the fire programs, and to aspects of relationships between the fire programs and FEMA.
Several of the letters to the Director questioned whether the United States Fire
Administration and its National Fire

USFA Administrator

Academy should remain located
under the direction of the Federal
Emergency Management Agency. It
had been suggested by some that
since FEMA had ignored the fire programs, they should be moved again.

Deputy USFA
Administration

Superintendent
National Fire Academy
Deputy
Superintendent

MOSS

FMTP

Present USFA Senior Leadership Reporting System

Blue Ribbon Panel Review of USFA

14

The Panel concluded, however, that there are no substantial reasons to remove
the fire programs from FEMA and, in fact, they stand the greatest chance of maturing
under FEMA, if allowed to reach their full potential. Structurally, the USFA and NFA at the
Associate Director level are where they should be, considering FEMA’s role as an agency
which responds to disasters and major emergencies.
This is not to suggest, however, that structural clarification between FEMA and
the USFA would not occasion major improvements. Also, reporting relationships between
the leaders within the USFA need to be analyzed and improved. The Panel urges that
the issues of empowerment, delegation of authority, and accountability be clarified by the
Director of FEMA for the USFA Administrator, the Deputy Administrator

and

Superintendent of the NFA. Throughout discussions with leadership, the Panel noted
that empowerment of the Deputy and the Superintendent would permit the Administrator
more time to focus on other areas of strategic leadership.

Recommendation #3: The panel recommends that the reporting relationships
between the United States Fire Administrator, the Deputy Fire Administrator, and
the Superintendent of the National Fire Academy 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 USFA should demonstrate a willingness and eagerness to reconfigure
reporting relationships if they are not understood or not working efficiently.

III. Management and Leadership
During its discussions, and in responding to the letters received by Director Witt,
the issue of leadership of the USFA was of great interest and concern and therefore a
high priority for examination. Specifically, the Panel sought to determine if problems at

Blue Ribbon Panel Review of USFA

15

the highest level of USFA were affecting programmatic effectiveness, management at
lower levels, and general morale throughout the Fire Administration.

The letters of

commentary and discussions with USFA officials demonstrated to the Panel that there
indeed exists a wide chasm between what the USFA was intended to do and how it has
actually performed within the last decade, and that much of this discrepancy has to do
with leadership.
The United States Fire Administration has four programmatic areas over which it must
establish priorities, manage resources, and determine success and failure.10 These include:

•

Fire Data Collection and Analysis performed by the National Fire Data Center

•

Fire Research and Technology

•

Public Fire Awareness and Education

•

Training and Education for Fire Service and Allied Professions at the
National Fire Academy

What the Panel discovered is that due to poor leadership, especially in the area
of advocacy for resources, each of these program areas has suffered. Two programs, in
fact—Research and Public Awareness and Education—are almost to the point of
extinction.

That these programs have apparently not been justified during budget

negotiations, nor managed properly when scarce resources were available, is extremely
unfortunate, directly affecting the
health and safety of citizens and
firefighters.
The Panel noted further
that leadership and accountability
problems exist throughout all levels of the USFA and its four programs, including the National Fire Academy. Effective leadership is blocked at every
level of management. While it’s obvious that leadership at the head of USFA needs to
make dramatic and sustained improvements, it is equally clear that FEMA leadership
must also exert the kind of interest in USFA that will encourage accountability, loyalty, and
guardianship of its programs by staff and at all levels of management.

There are actually five major organizational activities if one includes the operation of the National Emergency Training
Center at Emmitsburg, but these four programs represent the structure by which activities get accomplished.

10

Blue Ribbon Panel Review of USFA

16

Recommendation # 4: The current United States Fire Administration does not have
the confidence of the fire and emergency services. The Panel recommends that
the FEMA Director and/or the Fire Administrator take the following actions:

4.1 Demonstrate a higher and sustained level of understanding about fire
and emergency services issues through an advocacy 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 the
Washington, D.C., headquarters of FEMA in order to be a constant advocate of fire
issues, especially during budget and resource negotiations. The Panel suggests,
however, that the staff of the National Fire Academy 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.

The Panel’s discussion regarding leadership also noted that FEMA’s intense
focus on the emergency management of large-scale natural disasters has created a
culture within FEMA that tends to view the fire programs as secondary. This has had
disastrous effects on the fire programs. The Panel hopes that the leadership of FEMA
can direct an organizational sea change in the agency in the recognition that fire/ EMS

Blue Ribbon Panel Review of USFA

17

provide the backbone of emergency preparedness and response in every community in
America. All specialized emergency management relies upon this fire/EMS infrastructure.

FEMA’s Project Impact—Building a Disaster Resistant Community, for
instance, is substantially built upon the fire prevention
model of identifying and reducing known risks in the
environment, yet the fire service community has not
been elevated to the partnership level it deserves in this
important FEMA initiative.

Recommendation # 5: The leadership and organizational culture of FEMA must
change by altering its views of fire & 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 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.

Blue Ribbon Panel Review of USFA

18

Throughout the Panel’s discussions, management and leadership issues at lower
levels of the USFA/NFA were also discussed.

Leaving their content aside for the

moment, the White Paper to the NFA Board of Visitors (written by the Program Chairs of
the National Fire Academy) and Building a Fire Safe America: The Campaign for a
Stronger USFA (submitted by Local 1983, American Federation of Government
Employees, FEMA) indicate serious internal problems regarding the confidence levels of
staff in their leadership. The White Paper, for instance, cites FEMA’s “organizational culture” as a contributing factor to NFA being in “critical condition.” The Panel questions why
these papers have a clandestine nature, and why people needed to go outside the official channels to be heard.
Both the White Paper and Campaign for a Stronger USFA were considered carefully by the Blue Ribbon Panel, as were commentary and reaction to each by officials of
the USFA/NFA (including a report of the Board of Visitors of the NFA sent to the Director
this past July). The Panel recognizes the efforts which went into each document, and
appreciates the data and insights presented in each. It is the Panel’s hope, however, that
as improvements are made in USFA, the publication of papers such as these will not be
necessary.
Recommendation # 6: The Blue Ribbon Panel urges the Fire Administrator to carefully consider the recommendations made by the Program Chairs of the National
Fire Academy and Local 1983 of FEMA regarding the U.S. Fire Administration and
its four program areas. It is recommended that management participate in ongoing dialog to enhance positive labor/management relations.

IV. Funding and Resource Management
Throughout its deliberations, the
Panel expressed consistently its belief
that if the federal fire programs administered by FEMA through the USFA are
to be of any benefit or value, they must
be properly funded. The current situation whereby fire programs are the
USFA Portion of FEMA
FY 1999 Budget

Blue Ribbon Panel Review of USFA

recipient of only 5% ($28.2 million) of

19

FEMA’s operating budget must be re-examined.11 Equally important, however, is the Blue
Ribbon Panel’s determination that additional funding must be tied to effective leadership
and management. How well, for instance, would current leadership of the USFA prepare
for substantial increases, given past performance, especially in the area of planning?
Repeatedly it was noted by Panel members that “money fixes” produce short-term
improvements. What is sought are long-term managerial improvements which will affect
how program funds are utilized to the greatest potential.
The members of the Panel are convinced, nonetheless, that due to the momentum created by the Director last April at the Old Executive Office Building, that sufficient
leadership and managerial changes will occur to justify budget enhancements.
Therefore, the Panel suggests that the following series of recommendations be used as
a starting point for funding reform of the USFA and its four program missions. A complete
budget increase recommendation summary is attached to this report as Appendix D.
As has been stated previously, all four program areas under the direction of the
USFA have been impacted by under-funding.

Three programs in particular, Data

Collection, Public Education and Awareness, and Research and Technology, have virtually no impact on the nation’s fire problem because they are mere shadows of what they
should be. The National Fire Academy, the jewel in USFA’s crown, has survived under
budget constraints due to the dedication and loyalty of management and staff. But, even
the Academy seems to be at a breaking point where “doing more with less” is now impossible. The following suggestions, therefore, are intended to resuscitate the fire programs
to a point where they are once again effective and trustworthy partners in the fire service
community.

Data Collection Mission of USFA

An important responsibility of the federal government under the Fire Prevention and Control Act of

New
NFIRS 5

1974 is the public funding of a national fire data collection and analysis program. Its purpose is to monitor the
fire problem in America and to aid decision makers in
planning fire prevention and control priorities at the federal, state, and local levels and within private sector
organizations.
11
FY 1999 FEMAbudget request: Funding by Budget Activity. This figure does not include $2.6 billion to support
FEMA’s Disaster Relief Fund.

Blue Ribbon Panel Review of USFA

20

This federal mandate resulted in development of the National Fire Incident
Reporting System (NFIRS). This system and its resulting data have provided invaluable
information on fire causes and contributing factors that have helped guide our nation’s
response to the fire problem. NFIRS data, for example, defined the need for more childresistant cigarette lighters, demonstrated the value of home smoke alarms and sprinklers, revealed the jump in heating equipment home fires after the oil crisis of the late
1970s, and documented the even larger drop in those fires in response to widespread
and intensive public education programs.
From its beginning, NFIRS has been dependent upon a strong federal, state, and
local partnership, with state and local fire service agencies and federal agencies like the
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, aided by private sector input and support
from organizations such as the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA).
Unfortunately, USFA financial support for NFIRS has not kept up with current
needs.

Renewed financial support to the states and to local fire departments (the

sources of the data) is needed to shore up existing state participation, to regain states
which have dropped out of NFIRS, to reinforce badly eroded quality control provisions,
and to convert hardware/software capabilities at the state level to handle a recently
developed, more modern "Version 5" NFIRS system.
In addition, USFA should enter into cooperative agreements with existing public
and private sector sources to analyze NFIRS data and report on the nation’s fire problem.

USFA should review proposed plans to expand USFA fire analysis staff. If out-

sourcing were achievable, this would avoid possible pointless duplication while allowing
scarce USFA resources to be spent on improving and preserving NFIRS, the source of
the data and the one element where USFA’s role is most irreplaceable. Additional statisticians and economists at USFA would not be the best use of taxpayers money if
NFIRS is allowed to continue to deteriorate. The services of statisticians can be "outsourced" easily enough through cooperative agreements, grants, and contracts.

Recommendation # 7: Increase USFA support (allocate resources and staffing) for
new NFIRS Version 5 as follows:
7.1 Increase USFA assistance and quality assurance to new and existing

Blue Ribbon Panel Review of USFA

21

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 USFA would process and quality-control incoming data, generate state
reports, and compile and distribute the annual data base.

7.3 Increase budget for NFIRS support at USFA 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.

7.5

12

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. 13

7.6 Regulation should be introduced 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.

7.8 The Panel recommends that an additional $2 million per year be put
toward state grants for the marketing, training, and creation of incentives to ensure
100% NFIRS 5 participation.

A similar grant program was administered by USFA during the original formative years of NFIRS.
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.
12

13

Blue Ribbon Panel Review of USFA

22

Research and Development Mission of USFA

An important responsibility of the federal government under the Fire Prevention
and Control Act of 1974 is the public funding of Research and Development (R&D) to
advance the "state of the art" of fire safety.
In its first decade and a half, USFA sponsored numerous R&D projects to advance the
state of the art. The subjects of this research
included firefighter protective clothing and equipment, fast response residential sprinkler technology, and affordable smoke alarms, to mention
only a few. The concept worked well and many
USFA-sponsored R&D efforts resulted in substantial improvements in our nation’s codes and
standards, firefighter safety, and health and builtin fire protection, with a resulting reduction in fire
fatalities and losses. In recent years, however, R&D has not been a priority at the USFA
and, in fact, has been zero-funded. Many of the original goals identified for the USFA in
America Burning and P.L. 93-498 depended on an active research and development
agenda.

Recommendation # 8: USFA should focus on a number of critical 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. These include specifically:

8.1 The role of 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:

Blue Ribbon Panel Review of USFA

23

a.

firefighter health and safety

b.

advanced information technologies for fire management

c.

advanced technologies for fire prevention and protection

d.

advanced firefighting technologies

e.

burn care and rehabilitation 14

8.3 Provide leadership for the fire safety community in the transition to
performance-based codes and standards. This role could include:

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 use of performance-based
regulations and standards

c. Support of research needed to address public interest concerns/issues
associated with such codes and standards

Research in support of fire safety is central to USFA’s mission. The key is USFA’s
role as the federal government’s focus on fire safety. USFA is not the only user of fire
safety research and is not a principal source of research, but USFA is uniquely qualified
to help bridge the gap between research users and researchers, the latter being led by
the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) fire program. NIST specifically has repeatedly and continuously urged that this leadership role be re-established. Last
year, the State Fire Marshals raised this issue in Congressional hearings, which resulted
in a revised M.O.U. between NIST and USFA. But little has happened since that time.
The potential for synergy between the missions of these agencies is tremendous, but the
history is one of repeated missed opportunities.

It is the Panel’s hope that burn prevention research be coordinated with fire prevention research in an effort to reduce
injury to the public and firefighters.

14

Blue Ribbon Panel Review of USFA

24

Recommendation # 9: 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 the state of the art of fire
safety in the nation.

Both NIST and the USFA have expressed a commitment to development of a
National Agenda for Fire Research. It cannot be done by them alone. It cannot be done
meaningfully by the fire services alone. The "National Fire Research Agenda" should be
developed within the next six months in an open process resulting in recommended priorities for USFA, NIST, and other public and private sector interests in fire safety. Only
then can the potential benefits and costs of the needed research be known and a meaningful effort to set priorities be undertaken. A step toward this occurred in October 1997
when a group of fire researchers met at the National Emergency Training Center to discuss and promulgate a National Fire Research Agenda.15 Their subsequent report identified research subjects and areas which, in the opinion of these experts, require support
for on-going research (see Appendix E).

Recommendation # 10: The Panel recommends funding $10 million per year to
carry out these R&D initiatives plus an additional $2 million for research grants to
academic and other allied institutions.

Public Education & Awareness Mission of the USFA

Public Education and Awareness efforts by the USFA have, sadly, eroded to the
point where this mission virtually no longer exists. Through partnerships and special initiatives, the USFA was mandated to assist the fire service, the media, other federal agencies and private sector safety interest groups in the “development and delivery of fire
safety awareness and educational programs.” Furthermore, these programs are to be
targeted to communities most vulnerable to fire and those individuals at the greatest risk
to be killed or injured in a fire-related incident. Public Education efforts have been

15

USFA Fire Research Agenda Meeting, Final Report, October 10, 1997.

Blue Ribbon Panel Review of USFA

25

reduced to the distribution of documents and, although some of these are very good and
very important, the USFA’s role in public education should be much more proactive, leveraging limited resources through partnerships with public and private sector organizations.16 Even though 1.2 million documents were distributed last year, this is an insufficient demonstration of commitment to the Public Education mission and lacks any
method of measuring the effectiveness of such documents.
The Panel concluded
that because the feed-back
loop from data collection is
operating at a sub-par level,
this has had negative consequences for public education efforts. Because there
is so much at stake, the
Panel urges USFA take
immediate steps to ensure
that the National Fire Data Center can collect fire data from all states and local jurisdictions. The Panel urges USFA to accept nothing less that 100% participation by all states
in NFIRS 5.
Public Education and Awareness initiatives by the USFA , as delineated in P.L .
93-498, are to focus especially on “those groups who are particularly vulnerable to fire
hazards, such as the young and the old,” and in communities with populations under
2,500.17 A number of USFA budget documents indicate that funding for programs to work
in these areas has virtually been eliminated since 1995. The Panel urges that any redevelopment of public education and awareness begin with attention to vulnerable communities and populations.

See, for example, Fire Stops With You, Emergency Procedures for Employees with Disabilities in Office Occupancies,
and fire prevention efforts targeted at Native Americans.

16

The primary target audiences which correspond to this mandate include communities with populations under 2,500,
children 0-9 years, seniors over 60, and African Americans. Source: Building a Fire Safe America: Campaign for a
Stronger USFA.
17

Blue Ribbon Panel Review of USFA

26

Recommendation #11: It is recommended that the USFA increase its awareness of
how diversity and multi-culturalism 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 to develop new pathways for delivery.

11.2 Develop relationships
with minority-owned corporations
to

co-develop

fire

Unintentional Residential Fire & Flames
Fatalities Victims by Age, 1991-1995

prevention

campaigns designed specifically for at-risk groups.

Recommendation #12: The Panel recommends that 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 & Safety Educators over the next three
years with a focus on states with a documented high life loss history.

Training Mission of the USFA

The National Fire Academy, as has been demonstrated to the Blue Ribbon Panel,
has been doing more with less for over a decade; it is now doing less with less. The
National Fire Academy is grossly under-funded if it is to make the necessary
improvements in staffing and programs which would truly impact on how fire service
professionals in the United States are trained and educated at this level, in addition to
serving other stakeholders as mandated in public law. The Academy is struggling with a

Blue Ribbon Panel Review of USFA

27

number of major issues, including the development and delivery of its programs and
services to the greatest number of students, and its continuing relationship with the
Emergency Management Institute (EMI).
The Panel is satisfied with, and accepts in general, the data presented in the
White Paper and in comments made regarding the White Paper by reviewers, that there
exist serious staffing and funding issues which are interfering with the training mission
of USFA.18

However, at the same time,

there exist differing opinions on how the
challenges facing the training mission of
USFA should be solved. The Panel urges
the USFA and NFA to reach consensus as
to the appropriate number of staff and faculty to carry out its mission.
While the Panel recognized its
responsibility to make suggestions regarding the National Fire Academy, it strongly recommends that Director Witt allocate the
resources and staffing necessary to conduct a separate in-depth study regarding future
directions for the National Fire Academy, particularly focusing on curriculum development, co-location with EMI, and service delivery systems. This effort should include a
great deal of input from the State Fire Training Directors, universities, metropolitan fire
training academies, and other major users of the National Fire Academy. Such a study
should thoroughly explore the following problem areas, among others:

•

Should EMI and NFA continue to share the Emmitsburg Facility? Are there more
advantages or disadvantages to co-location?

•

Why are over 3,300 students turned away on a yearly basis for resident courses?

•

What are the advantages of a rigid two-week schedule for resident courses for
NFA and one week courses for EMI when this creates housing difficulties for the
entire institution?

•

Are there other facility options, such as moving EMI to the Mt. Weather
Emergency Assistance Center (Round Hill, VA)?

18

See the Report of the Board of Visitors for the National Fire Academy (July 22, 1998).

Blue Ribbon Panel Review of USFA

28

•

Is the model currently utilized to hire instructors advantageous or
disadvantageous to securing the best instructors?

•

How could course development and review cycle be shortened and improved?

•

Could more formal partnerships with colleges and universities expand NFA
influence upon how the fire problem is studied in the United States.

•

How could the NFA develop a strategy to diversify its student population?

Regardless of whether this separate study goes forward, funding the NFA must
increase.

Additional funding must be sought to increase student capacity at the

Emmitsburg facility, to ensure the continuation of student manual support, and to develop improved delivery pathways via the state training programs, universities, metro training academies, schools of architecture and other professional avenues. Currently, the
states train many more students locally than the NFA does directly at Emmitsburg.
Several individual states, as a matter of fact, train a greater number of students annually and have more faculty and staff than the National Fire Academy.
In FY 1997, 5,301 individuals attended NFA courses and 5,179 attended EMI
courses at the National Emergency Training Center in Emmitsburg. Additionally, in FY
1997, NFA reached 10,199 individuals with training provided by the Academy and sponsored by state and local fire training agencies. For each of the last four fiscal years (19941997), an average 3,300 qualified individuals per year have been unable to attend a
requested course at the NFA because the course was full.
What is interesting is that the student capacity at NETC is evenly divided between
NFA and EMI—approximately 220 rooms each. However, the population of potential students for the fire courses (1.2 million) is substantially greater than for EMI courses. Fire
students are restricted to one program per year, while EMI students have the opportunity to attend on multiple occasions. It appears that FEMA admission and facility policies
favor the needs of the EMI students above those of the NFA. Resident program space
should be allocated based upon demonstrated need and demand.
It cannot be overemphasized how important the partnership is between the state
training programs, universities and other stakeholders and the NFA. For example, more
than a few state training agencies only teach NFA courses. It is critical that delivery sys-

Blue Ribbon Panel Review of USFA

29

tems to the states be more efficient and that courses reach the states in a shorter time
period. For the NFA to maintain the role envisioned by America Burning, all new federally funded initiatives that involve training firefighters for any function including USAR, terrorism, etc. should be coordinated with USFA/NFA.

Recommendation #14: The Panel recommends that the NFA budget be increased
in order 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 staff of the National Fire Academy
through continuation of the student manual support and utilization of the
resources at the Learning Resource Center (LRC).
14.1 The Panel recommends that an additional 110 rooms (plus supporting
facilities) be made available for resident program students of the NFA. This can be
accomplished by a capital construction project or relocate EMI to another FEMA
facility, thereby freeing up 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 their 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.

Blue Ribbon Panel Review of USFA

30

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 those focusing on the introduction of new ideas into the fire service.

Recommendation # 16:

State and local fire training programs are an integral

component of the training and educational services of the NFA. In order 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 - (.5 FTE) to coordinate delivery of NFA programs at the state and
local level and to provide for the management and accountability of NFA courses.

This will allow for the state training programs to conduct more NFA courses per
year and encourage student participation. This is especially important for volunteer firefighters who may not have the opportunity to attend the resident courses at the NFA due
to work commitments. Additionally, this may relieve some of the demand for NFA resident courses.
In addition, the Panel urges the management of FEMA/USFA and NFA to recognize the NFA Board of Visitors (BOV) as a valuable resource to support this mission of
the United States Fire Administration. The Board should be actively involved in providing meaningful counsel in its areas of responsibility. If the direction of the Board were
sought early and regularly, decision making by FEMA/USFA management could be more
informed on NFA issues.

Blue Ribbon Panel Review of USFA

31

Public Law 93-498 created a Board of Visitors to oversee the operations of the
NFA and to issue an annual report to Congress. Until recently, the BOV met four times
a year. However, this was reduced to two meetings recently which has greatly reduced
the Board’s ability to review programs and procedures of the National Fire Academy. This
is a serious problem underlying BOV-NFA relations, among others.
For instance, BOV travel funds come from NFA’s travel budget, competing with
travel money that staff would be able to use of educational enhancements. This creates
a conflict at the organizational level as to what is more important: staff travel to improve
performance, or BOV travel to evaluate the work of the NFA staff.
Perhaps because of this conflict, or others, the Board of Visitors has had difficulty obtaining the most complete information needed to make informed decisions. Many
times this information has been filtered by staff prior to reaching the Board of Visitors.

Recommendation # 17: The Panel recommends to the Director that he evaluate
policies currently affecting the Board of Visitors to ensure that the BOV 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 USFA.

17.3 The Board should be funded for a minimum of four meetings per year.

V. Planning

In order for any organization to travel forward in an effective and efficient manner,
there must exist a strategic plan which provides a map to the destination of organizational goals. Said more simply, "How can you know you've arrived if you don't know
where you are going?" The strategic planning effort must engage in an inclusive process

Blue Ribbon Panel Review of USFA

32

of stakeholders in a desire to reach consensus not only on goals and objectives, but also
consensus on the methodology for reaching those achievements. Further, the synergy
of stakeholder planning can and should propel an organization forward through the challenges of limited resources because the process encourages creative solutions and the
prioritization of activities.
The strategic plan for the Federal Emergency Management Agency, "Partnership
for a Safer Future," encompasses planning from FY 1998 through FY 2007, with
Operational Objectives through FY 2003. While the document is exemplary with regard
to a comprehensive approach to disaster management, it is deficient with respect to planning regarding response to the nation’s fire and EMS problems. Indeed, only two of the
5-Year Operational Objectives, out of thirty-six objectives, were assigned to the United
States Fire Administration.19 Although the document only minimally mentions planning
issues for fire and EMS, it does acknowledge that the cumulative loss of life and property from fire "far exceeds that of all other natural disasters combined" and that "the United
States historically has had one of the highest fire loss rates of the industrialized world—
both in fire deaths and dollar loss.” (Page 6, Partnership for a Safer Future). These statements are incongruent given the absence of fire/EMS
emphasis in the plan. It is perhaps this lack of integration of fire and EMS issues that led to the original
absence of first responders in the planning for Project
Impact and may have detracted from other initiatives
as well.

Recommendation #18:

The Panel recommends

that planning within FEMA 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.

The first is to reduce “by 5% the rate of loss of life and property from fire and fire-related hazards.” and the second is
to “improve by 15% the efficiency with which USFA delivers its services.”
19

Blue Ribbon Panel Review of USFA

33

A strategic plan is needed for the USFA and the NFA that works in concert with
planning at FEMA. Planning submitted to FEMA from the USFA and NFA should be well
coordinated between the organizations so that it is not segmented nor duplicative. The
USFA and NFA strategic plans should value and include extensive stakeholder input.
When stakeholder input is solicited and then ignored, a sense of frustration will likely be
experienced among the stakeholders.

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 which will be sought directly.

Strategic Plans for USFA and NFA can balance the quest for excellence, while
acknowledging the budget realities of downsized government. Efficient planning should
enhance resource utilization and reduce waste. (For example, better planning at the
National Fire Academy could reduce the waste incurred when EMI classes lasting only
one week leave vacant a block of rooms for the second week because the NFA classes
run for two weeks.)
Efficient strategic planning is based on the ability to prioritize and then actually
emphasize the attainment of goals in the high priority zone. In addition to focus on
priorities, there must be developed a methodology for accepting fast track assignments,
so that the demand for new subject matter and course material will not precipitate a
crisis in resources and staffing, nor shut down other projects.

Recommendation # 20: Effective Strategic Plans have to be realistic, measurable
and achievable. USFA should ensure that it can meet the two goals established in
FEMA strategic plan regarding the fire programs (see footnote 19).

In addition to planning within the USFA, planning between FEMA and the USFA
needs to be harmonized at all points of contact. The Panel suggests that the leadership
of FEMA seek opportunities for joint project development and implementation. Shared
decision making and planning should also decrease fear and anxiety among staff by
increasing the trust they need to have in their own agencies and through the development
of policies with respect to human resource requirements for staff.

Blue Ribbon Panel Review of USFA

34

Research is also intended to support fire service organizations in their critical role as first
responders. They also need the technologies to effectively support businesses and
building owners at the local level in applying available and new disaster and terrorism mitigation technologies. This is a major Presidential initiative and there are specific budgetary proposals in the FY99 budgets.
Very importantly, the fire service must be elevated in terms of policy decisions
regarding terrorism planning and in all response efforts more generally. There is currently a great deal of confusion about the coordination of terrorism response policy, as well as
a very fragmented approach regarding the funding of terrorism research.

The

Departments of Justice and Defense, as well as FEMA, are important players in this arena,
yet there is little coordination and much duplication of effort. While money is becoming
available for this effort, there appears to be no logical method for making funds available
where they would do the most good—at the state and local levels. This coordinated effort
must include first responders as well as law enforcement and post-disaster contingents.
The Blue Ribbon Panel strongly urges the Director of FEMA to ensure that the fire service
is at the table when terrorism strategies are discussed and coordinated at the federal level.
This is only one example of appropriate opportunities for USFA partnership with
allied organizations on larger problems that include fire, such as unintentional injuries, hazardous material and emergency medical incidents, and the already noted natural disasters.

Recommendation # 21: The USFA needs to be an active partner and have a proactive role in the National Disaster & Terrorism Response effort. The Panel recommends that $15 million be appropriated for this effort.

VI. Personnel and Human Resource Issues

During its deliberations, the Panel was the recipient of letters and position papers
regarding personnel issues at USFA and its Fire Training Academy which caused great
concern. When examined closely, it appears that staffing shortages, particularly at NFA
lie at the root of many difficulties. Allowing for the fact that all agencies in federal government were directed to become smaller (via the National Performance Review and the
Government Performance and Results Act of 1993), it’s still hard to understand how

Blue Ribbon Panel Review of USFA

35

staffing at the NFA has shrunk to its recent number of 39 FTEs. That one individual is
responsible for management of the current NFIRS system plus the development of
NFIRS 5 demonstrates an institution under a debilitating staffing shortage.20

Recommendation # 22: The Panel recommends that staffing levels at the NFA be
established at the appropriate level, through the adoption of the budget recommendations made in this report, and in a separate study regarding NFA.

The Panel further suggests that the staff of the USFA not be transferred when
shortages occur at FEMA, as seems to be suggested in several of the documents
reviewed, without being replaced with temporary employees, when appropriate.
Likewise, the assignment of additional duties to NFA staff on the magnitude of the
National Arson Prevention Initiative and the curriculum for terrorism courses without the
addition of FTEs is unacceptable. Currently, the NFA staff has reached its capacity, and
to suggest that it, in addition, prepare for major initiatives (e.g. designing a new regional
delivery system for NFA courses) should be reviewed. Again, the Panel asks Director
Witt to consider that the NFA customer base includes members of over 32,000 U.S. fire
departments (1.2 million firefighters).
Aside from staffing shortages, the Panel was asked to consider several internal
staffing problems that seem to exist at USFA/NFA. For instance, at several points during
its meetings, it became apparent that more emphasis on conflict resolution and creative
problem-solving would help both the USFA and its National Fire Academy move forward.
It often appears that important players in the FEMA/USFA/NFA triad are not effectively
communicating and resolving their differences in a timely manner.

20

Local 1983 report.

Blue Ribbon Panel Review of USFA

36

Recommendation #23: The Panel recommends that an interest-based conflict resolution system be developed and used by
these three groups during points of
impasse and during all negotiations about
the

future

concerning

mission

and

resource allocation.

As well as determining a mechanism for resolving conflicts, the USFA must confront the issue of decision making for the organization at large. Internally, it appears to
employees that decisions about the future are made only when a crisis is imminent. It
would appear that the Fire Administration has no agreed-upon format for discussing programmatic goals and for making choices about how to implement objectives. Having a
model for introducing information onto the USFA agenda would be enormously helpful for
the entire organization and provide it with a shield when unanticipated requests are
made.

Recommendation # 24: The Panel recommends that the staff of the USFA develop
a decision making model which is well-integrated throughout the Fire
Administration.

The Panel urges that staff increases to USFA and its National Fire Academy proceed quickly and that present and future employees be given the proper environment in
which to achieve success. In addition, the Panel also advocates that the introduction of
new management techniques and professional development be made available to
USFA/NFA through the creation of training opportunities.

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.)

Blue Ribbon Panel Review of USFA

37

VII. Advocacy and Partnership

Blue Ribbon Panel members were impressed with the level
of commitment displayed throughout its review period by both
USFA staff, employees and other stakeholders. In addition,
several letters reached the Panel, hoping to influence the creation of a better and stronger USFA.
Central to its re-creation will be USFA’s ability to reclaim the
trust and loyalty of its fire service constituents. It can do this
first and foremost through the design of products and services
which will be of genuine use to first responders. Information about the nation’s fire problem coming from the National Fire Data Center must be available in a timely manner.21
Likewise, the USFA and its National Fire Academy must make use of technology and
incorporate it into both its products and service delivery systems. Headway has already
been made in this direction as evidenced by USFA’s excellent web site. This is a fine
source of information for those interested in learning more about the fire problem. In a
similar vein, the availability of the Learning Resource Center catalog on-line is enormously helpful to fire researchers and students.

Recommendation #26: The Panel recommends that the USFA continue outreach
programs for the dissemination of information about fire problems in the United
States and that it strive to ensure that all data is current and presented in userfriendly format.

The USFA should utilize existing public and private sector

resources wherever possible through partnership agreements to achieve this
objective.

In addition to reclaiming its constituent partners, USFA must reach out to institutional stakeholders for support and cooperative advancement. As was noted previously,
more NFA courses are taught through state fire training agencies than in Emmitsburg.
Yet, a recent conflict over the distribution of student manuals to the state users threatened the viability of training on the state level. Similarly, there are dozens of college and
university programs offering degrees or certificates in fire science or fire management.

21

The latest reference book on the fire problem is from 1995.

Blue Ribbon Panel Review of USFA

38

These institutions are looking toward the USFA/NFA for course development and program content. All U.S. fire service agencies need leadership from the national fire programs on both content and direction for their programs. In the words of a former America
Burning Commission member, the USFA “needs to be a beacon, not a taillight.” If the
USFA does not provide leadership, parts of its mission will be assumed by other interest
groups and organizations, but essential elements such as the collection of NFIRS data
cannot be met by any other existing organization.

Recommendation #27: The Panel urges the USFA and its
National Fire Academy 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.

Many constituent groups in the fire service community believe that USFA has abdicated
its important role as an interpreter and defender of fire/EMS issues. This perception
comes at great expense to USFA because it will continue to loose the respect of its constituency if deterioration of programs proceed at the current pace. As has been mentioned previously in the sections of this report concerning Mission and Planning, the belief
that FEMAhas abandoned the fire programs will be a strong perception to overcome. But
this core problem must be addressed by both USFA and FEMA if either wishes to move
the fire agenda forward.

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. 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, the
Panel urges that the FEMA Director sponsor an annual meeting of representative
stakeholder interests regarding fire concerns and issues similar to that conducted
on behalf of the emergency management community.

Blue Ribbon Panel Review of USFA

39

To ensure that USFA is the voice of national fire service concerns and positions,
the Panel urges the USFA to take a more active role in disseminating information to the
public, beyond traditional public education efforts. Currently, fire service leaders, from
fire department managers to the directors of professional organizations, do not turn to the
USFA for information and guidance.

Recommendation # 30: The Panel recommends that FEMA/USFA 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 to fire leaders in the field and
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 USFA developments at the local level, the Panel urges the creation of a federal grant/local matching programs to enable fire/EMS departments to acquire training resources, new
technology, specialized equipment and safety resources.

Recommendation # 32: Ensure 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, provide commentary, provide data, interpretation and analysis in
support of local fire authorities.

As well as disseminating information, the USFA should be doing more on the
international scene to promote the programs and activities it develops and distributes.
International partnerships between the USFA and the official fire agencies of other countries would improve program design in the United States through the introduction of new
ideas and materials. For example, the exporting of technology and equipment to Latin
America would create opportunities for American manufacturers as well as improve fire
protection systems in those nations.

Blue Ribbon Panel Review of USFA

40

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.

VIII. Concerns About the Future

Virtually all of the issues raised in the letters to Director Witt regarding the future
of the USFA have been addressed in this report. Individuals questioning the usefulness
of the USFA/NFA in the future were concerned about the soundness of leadership, the
availability of resources, and whether or not FEMA was sufficiently attached to the fire
programs to provide the care and guidance they need to sustain transformation. The fire
service is speaking with one voice—USFA and NFA represent the federal emphasis
placed on fire service challenges at the national level. This emphasis must be elevated
and the central importance of the fire service recognized throughout all segments of the
federal government responsible for public safety.

The Panel is confident that the majority of key issues regarding the future of the
FEMA/USFA/NFA relationship have been explored, whether or not all levels of concern
are expressed in this particular report. It was the Panel’s belief, in almost all cases, to
leave implementation steps towards a new USFA to the people who have the greatest
responsibility for its success—its managers, employees, and direct stakeholders.22 The
future in this case, as in every case, has been left to the people who will live it. This Panel
has concerned itself with the provision of tools in order to make a better future possible
for the USFA. If this opportunity passes without substantial improvement, then the FEMA
Director, USFA Administrator, and the fire programs they manage will have allowed a historic reinvention opportunity to pass.

In addition to the recommendations cited in this report, the USFA is responsible for meeting its Government
Performance and Results Act (GPRA) goals. USFA GPRA goals for FY 2000 are attached as Appendix F.

22

Blue Ribbon Panel Review of USFA

41

Conclusion
A recurring theme during the discussions of the Blue Ribbon Panel was anxiety
that this report would focus solely on negative aspects of the fire programs while taking
for granted all the positive contributions the USFA has made to our society. In particular,
the Panel would like to note that:

•

In large part, the improvements which have occurred in this country’s fire profile

have been due to the early research and data collection efforts of the United States
Fire Administration. Every American who has a smoke detector in his home or who
stays in a fire-safe hotel while away from home is indebted to USFA.

•

Every firefighter, fire officer, and allied professional who has been trained at the

National Fire Academy or who has taken an NFA course at a state training agency is
better prepared to fulfill his/her duties.

•

Every firefighter in the United States is safer on the job due to the research and

technological advancements made by the USFA in personal protective equipment.

•

As a memorial to firefighters who lost

their lives in the line of duty, the USFA
founded

a

permanent

remembrance

through the National Fallen Fighter’s
Memorial located on the NETC campus in
Emmitsburg where a memorial service is
held every October. The Memorial is now
maintained by the National Fallen Fire Fighters Memorial Foundation.

•

Fire researchers throughout the United States use the resources located in the

Learning Research Center and Technical Reports obtained from the National Fire
Data Center, all of which have been of inestimable value. The USFA’s Internet presence is growing and should be an important factor to all research efforts in the future.

Blue Ribbon Panel Review of USFA

42

•

Thousands of volunteer firefighters across the United States have benefited from

State weekend programs and the NFA Volunteer Incentive Program.

The Panel urges the USFA to take the lead in a study to understand the nature of
the fire problem in the United States at the beginning of the next and to renew its emphasis on addressing the loss of life and property from destructive and often unnecessary
fires. This important data could be used as input for retooling the federal fire programs
in their quest to serve the American people, and in an increased understanding regarding the ever-expanding roles of local fire authorities. It is the Panel’s wish that as soon
as data begins to flow into the Administration, that judicial use be made of it—beginning
with a fire safety campaign featuring the FEMA Director. If the Director were to become
recognized as this nation’s fire prevention leader, opportunities for dramatically reducing
the fire problem in the United States would be greatly enhanced.

Recommendation #34: As a starting point for rebuilding, the Panel requests that
the Director, Congress and President of the United States create a commission to
continue the work begun in America Burning. Due to the continuing seriousness
of the fire problem in the United States, the Blue Ribbon Panel suggests this body
begin its work in Washington, D.C. in June of 1999 and complete its work in eighteen months time.

Blue Ribbon Panel Review of USFA

43

Appendix A

Funding Appropriated in Public Law for the National Fire Prevention and
Control Administration/United States Fire Administration, 1980-1992*
Fiscal Year
Public Law
Appropriation

1975
10,000,000

1976
15,000,000

1977

1978

15,000,000

20,000,000

1979
24,352,000

Actual

1980
25,210,000
24,341,000

Fiscal Year

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1987

Public Law
Appropriation

23,814,000

20,.815,000 23,312,800

15,720,000

20,983,000

18,300,000

Actual

18,183,000

17,596,000

15,023,000

19,097,000

15,502,000

Fiscal Year

1989

Public Law
Appropriation

17,039,000

Actual

15,994,000

1990

13,310,000

1991

1992

17,737,000

18,464,000

25,550,000

16,583,000

21,898,000

23,800,000

1993
26,521.000

1994
27,529,000

* FEMA reorganized in 1993. As part of that reorganization, FEMA streamlined the budget submission process and several line items were eliminated. Due to the streamlining
process, the USFA budget has been submitted by divisions rather than down to the
branch level, therefore, with less detail. USFA program officers have not tracked the budget to the Branch level since 1993. USFA was unable to provide the actual funding figures from 1975-1979.

The point remains, however, that the USFA has not received adequate funding.
Moreover, it has rarely received the full amount of the funds appropriated.

Blue Ribbon Panel Review of USFA

44

Appendix B

List of Recommendations
Recommendations about Mission
Recommendation # 1: The Panel endorses the mission statements of both FEMA and
the USFA regarding their sensitivity to the nation’s fire problem, but suggests that the
National Fire Academy 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 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.

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.

Recommendation about Organizational Structure
Recommendation #3: The panel recommends that the reporting relationships between
the United States Fire Administrator, the Deputy Fire Administrator, and the
Superintendent of the National Fire Academy 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 USFA should demonstrate a willingness and eagerness to reconfigure reporting relationships if they are not understood or not working efficiently.

Recommendations about Leadership and Management
Recommendation # 4: The current United States Fire Administration does not have the
confidence of the fire and emergency services. The Panel recommends that the FEMA
Director and/or the Fire Administrator take the following actions:
4.1 Demonstrate a higher and sustained level of understanding about fire and
emergency services issues through an advocacy at the federal level of those challenges

Blue Ribbon Panel Review of USFA

45

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 the
Washington, D.C., headquarters of FEMA in order to be a constant advocate of fire
issues, especially during budget and resource negotiations. The Panel suggests, however, that the staff of the National Fire Academy remain in Emmitsburg.
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: The leadership and organizational culture of FEMA 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 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 Blue Ribbon Panel urges the Fire Administrator to carefully
consider the recommendations made by the Program Chairs of the National Fire
Academy and Local 1983 of FEMA regarding the U.S. Fire Administration and its four pro-

Blue Ribbon Panel Review of USFA

46

gram areas. It is recommended that management participate in ongoing dialog to
enhance positive labor/management relations.

Recommendations about Funding and Resource Management
Recommendation # 7: Increase USFA support (allocate resources and staffing) for new
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 USFA would process and quality-control incoming data, generate state
reports, and compile and distribute the annual data base.
7.3 Increase budget for NFIRS support at USFA 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.
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.
7.6 Regulation should be introduced 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 The Panel recommends that an additional $2 million per year be put toward
state grants for the marketing, training, and creation of incentives to ensure 100% NFIRS
5 participation.

Recommendation # 8: USFA should focus on a number of critical 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. These include specifically:
8.1 The role of 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.

Blue Ribbon Panel Review of USFA

47

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
e. burn care and rehabilitation
8.3 Provide leadership for the fire safety community in the transition to
performance-based codes and standards. This role could include:
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 use of performance-based regulations
and standards
f. Support of research needed to address public interest
concerns/issues associated with such codes and standards

Recommendation # 9: 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 the state of the art of fire safety in the nation.

Recommendation # 10: The Panel recommends funding $10 million per year to carry
out these R&D initiatives plus an additional $2 million for research grants to academic
and other allied institutions.

Recommendation #11: It is recommended that the USFA increase its awareness of how
diversity and multi-culturalism 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 to develop new pathways for
delivery.
11.2 Develop relationships with minority-owned corporations to co-develop fire
prevention campaigns designed specifically for at-risk groups.

Blue Ribbon Panel Review of USFA

48

Recommendation #12: The Panel recommends that 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 & Safety Educators over the next three years with a focus
on states with a documented high life loss history.

Recommendation #14: The Panel recommends that the NFA budget be increased in
order 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 staff of the National Fire Academy through continuation of the
student manual support and utilization of the resources at the Learning Resource Center
(LRC).
14.1 The Panel recommends that an additional 110 rooms (plus supporting
facilities) be made available for resident program students of the NFA. This can be
accomplished by a capital construction project or relocate EMI to another FEMA facility,
thereby freeing up 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) whenever students are on campus.
14.5 The NFA shall recognize the benefits of having a diverse student population
participate in their 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 those focusing on the
introduction of new ideas into the fire service.

Blue Ribbon Panel Review of USFA

49

Recommendation # 16: State and local fire training programs are an integral component of the training and educational services of the NFA. In order 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 - (.5 FTE) to coordinate delivery of NFA programs at the state and local
level and to provide for the management and accountability of NFA courses.

Recommendation # 17: The Panel recommends to the Director that he evaluate policies currently affecting the Board of Visitors to ensure that the BOV 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 USFA.
17.3 The Board should be funded for a minimum of four meetings per year.

Recommendations about Planning
Recommendation #18: The Panel recommends that planning within FEMA 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 which will be sought directly.

Recommendation # 20: Effective Strategic Plans have to be realistic, measurable and
achievable. USFA should ensure that it can meet the two goals established in FEMA’s
strategic plan regarding the fire programs.
Recommendation # 21: The USFA needs to be an active partner and have a proactive
role in the National Disaster & Terrorism Response effort, and that $15 million be appropriated for this effort.

Blue Ribbon Panel Review of USFA

50

Recommendations about Personnel and Human Resource Issues

Recommendation # 22: The Panel recommends that staffing levels at the NFA be
established at the appropriate level, through the adoption of the budget recommendations made in this report, and in a separate study regarding NFA.

Recommendation #23: The Panel recommends that an interest-based conflict resolution system be developed and used by these three groups during points of impasse and
during all negotiations about the future concerning mission and resource allocation.

Recommendation # 24: The Panel recommends that the staff of the USFA 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.)

Recommendations about Advocacy and Partnership
Recommendation #26: The Panel recommends that the USFA continue outreach programs for the dissemination of information about fire problems in the United States and
that it strive to ensure that all data is current and presented in 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 Panel urges the USFA and its National Fire Academy 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. Congressional liaison from FEMAto Congress must develop a feed-back
loop to the fire service.

Recommendation #29: In order to promote loyalty and demonstrate advocacy, the
Panel urges that the FEMA Director sponsor an annual meeting of representative
stakeholder interests regarding fire concerns and issues similar to that conducted on
behalf of the emergency management community.

Blue Ribbon Panel Review of USFA

51

Recommendation # 30: The Panel recommends that FEMA/USFA 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 to fire leaders in the field and give senior USFA
personnel regular input from local leaders on needs, perceptions, ideas and problemsolving. 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 USFA developments at
the local level, the Panel urges the creation of a federal grant/local matching programs to
enable fire/EMS departments to acquire training resources, new technology, specialized
equipment and safety resources.

Recommendation # 32: Ensure 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, provide commentary, provide data, 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.

Recommendation about the Future
Recommendation #34: As a starting point for rebuilding, the Panel requests that the
Director, Congress and President of the United States create a commission to continue
the work begun in America Burning. Due to the continuing seriousness of the fire
problem in the United States, the Blue Ribbon Panel suggests this body begin its work in

Blue Ribbon Panel Review of USFA

52

Washington, D.C. in June of 1999 and complete its work in eighteen months time.

Appendix C
Documents provided by USFA for Blue Ribbon Panel Review

1.

FEMA budget documents for 1997-1998, including FY 1998 Allocations,
Staffing & Expenses

2.

USFA Organizational Chart

3.

NETC Personnel Report

4.

FEMA Organizational Chart

5.

USFA Mission Statement

6.

FEMA Manual, Chapter 18: USFA

7.

Public Law 93-498 and all subsequent updates

8.

FEMA Fire Statutory Authority as of June 1998

9.

Service Indicators for USFA and NFA for last three fiscal years and
projections for the current year

10.

1996 USFA Annual Report

11.

1997 USFA Annual Report

12.

Significant accomplishments of USFA/NFA last three years

13.

Significant program challenges that affect USFA and NFA

14.

“Partnership for a Safer Future,” FEMA’s Strategic Plan for FY 1998 through FY 2007

15.

FEMA “Annual Performance Plan,” FY 1999

16.

Stakeholders Meeting: FEMA/USFA/NFA July 20-21, 1997

17.

Final Report: USFA Fire Research Agenda Meeting, October 10, 1997

18.

America Burning

19.

“The White Paper to the National Fire Academy Board of Visitors,”
submitted by the NFA Program Chairs, January 29, 1998

20.

Response to the NFA White Paper by Carrye B. Brown

21.

“Building a Fire Safe America: The Campaign for a Stronger USFA,”
presented by the American Federation of Government Employees (Local 1983)
FEMA, March 13, 1998

22.

EMI Superintendent Response to the White Paper

23.

Recommendations of the Workload Task Group

24.

MOSS Administrator’s Memo regarding the White Paper

Blue Ribbon Panel Review of USFA

53

Appendix D
Budget Recommendations

Recommendation

Area of Expense

7.3

NFIRS

7.4

State Grants for NFIRS

7.5

Outsource
Data Analysis

7.7

NFIRS Incentives to states

10

Research and Development
Initiatives
Research grants

11

National Disaster
and Terrorism
Mitigation

13

Community outreach for
Hazard Assessment

15.1

NFA Residence room
construction

15.2

NFA Operations, faculty
and staff, course
development, delivery
costs, student stipends

17

State and local training
grants
Deliver NFA
courses
Coordinate
delivery of courses
Total

Grand Total

Operating Budget

Research & Dev.

FTE

Increase
$2,000,000/year
$200,000/year
$10-20,000/state
$250,000/year

$2,000,000
$10,000,000/year
$2,000,000
$7,500,000

$7,500,000

$4,000,000

TBD
$2,500,000

$100,000/state
($5,000,000)
$75,000
$25,000
$17,200,000

$23,750,000

$2,000,000

$42,950,000

Blue Ribbon Panel Review of USFA

54

Appendix E
USFA Fire Research Agenda Meeting, October 10, 1997

Suggested Areas and Topics for a National Fire Research Agenda

1.

The need to revitalize the national fire research effort.

2.

The development and use of a national strategy for fire research.

3.

Increased research to improve firefighter safety during firefighting and research
investigations of all firefighter line of duty deaths.

4.

Increased funding for fire research.

5.

Improved computer fire modeling and improved fire training through validated
computer modeling simulation.

6.

Increased research into fire protection systems with appropriate system
cost justifications.

7.

Structural fire resistance.

8.

Increased research into the occurrences of fires by small appliances.

9.

Application of newer building climate control and security technologies toward
fire safety, occupant evacuation, and fire suppression.

10.

Improved wildfire computer prediction modeling, both for theoretical training
and incident command.

11.

Improved PASS designs and applications.

12.

Research to improve limited area sprinkler systems and limited water
supply sprinkler systems for residential applications.

13.

Validation of fire scene burn patterns investigative techniques.

14.

Increased research into the development and application of
performance-based codes.

15.

Research into the development and use of less combustible home products
and materials.

16.

Improved portable fire extinguishers for home occupant use and appropriate
public educational programs to support use of the same.

17.

Development of effective home smoke alarms allowing for adjustment to
eliminate false alarms while maintaining basic smoke detector protection.

Blue Ribbon Panel Review of USFA

55

Appendix F
USFA Government Performance and Results Act Goals for FY2000 *

Annual Performance Goal M.4.1 Using most recently collected incident data, update
the understanding of the national fire problem. Analyze, publish and disseminate related
data and information that supports the professional decision-making by fire and emergency managers and first responders. Use data as a a basis for identifying appropriate
targets for the expansion of Project Impact and a subsequent measure of the effectiveness of fire-related Project Impact efforts.

Annual Performance Goal M.4.2 Increase the public awareness of fire hazards and
educate public on fire prevention and mitigation. Integrate those strategies and messages into the Project Impact initiative.

Annual Performance Goal M.4.2 Develop solutions and strategies for addressing the
Nation’s fire problem and topical issues such as terrorism through a program of research
and technology transfer to enhance the effectiveness and professionalism of emergency
managers and first responders.

Annual Performance Goal P.2.1 Enhance professionalism of the nation’s fire service
and allied professions through comprehensive training and education, with special
emphasis on emergency response to terrorism.

Annual Performance Goal CS.1.1 Increase levels of internal and external customer
satisfaction with FEMA services.

* GPRA goals are established by each agency as in accordance with the Government
Performance and Results Act of 1993. GPRA mandates that waste and inefficiency in
federal programs are the result of inadequate information on program goals and performance. Each agency, therefore, is required to develop and update annual performance
plans (including validated tools for measuring success) which include performance goals
and performance budgets. Strategic performance reports are due from each agency on
an annual basis indicating success or under-performance for each goal.

Blue Ribbon Panel Review of USFA

56