assessing the training facility needs for norfolk fire-rescuenfa.usfa.fema.gov › pdf › efop ›...

Assessing the training facility 1

Running Head: ASSESSING THE TRAINING FACILITY NEEDS

Assessing the Training Facility Needs for Norfolk Fire-Rescue

Bruce L. Evans

Norfolk Fire-Rescue, Norfolk, Virginia

November 2009


CERTIFICATION STATEMENT I hereby certify that this paper constitutes my own product, that where the language of others is set forth, quotation marks so indicate, and that appropriate credit is given where I have used the language, ideas, expressions, or writings of another. Signed:__________________________


Abstract

The problem was Norfolk Fire-Rescue (NFR) did not have a training facility to provide

practical training to incumbent members; therefore NFR firefighters were inadequately prepared

for fire ground operations and could not be evaluated on proficiency in fire ground operations.

The research purpose was to identify and recommend a type of training facility to meet the

practical training needs of NFR. The descriptive research method using literature review,

feedback instruments, and an interview were used to answer four questions: a) what were the

practical training needs of NFR, b) what kind of training facilities did similar fire departments

use, c) what parcels of land were available to NFR for the construction of a training facility, and

d) what funding sources were available to NFR for the construction of a training facility? The

results showed that NFR was lacking in practical training facilities as compared to other fire

departments. A drill tower was identified as being the preferred training facility in use by fire

departments. Finally, land and budget funding existed within NFR for the possible construction

of a training facility. The recommendations revolved around constructing a drill tower and

securing future funding for expansion of NFR’s training facilities.


Table of Contents

Page

Certification Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Abstract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Table of Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Background and Significance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Literature Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Appendices

Appendix A: Fire Training Needs Feedback Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Appendix B: Fire Training Facilities Feedback Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Table of Figures

Figure 1 Fire Training Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Figure 2 Training Facility Construction Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20


Assessing the Training Facility Needs for Norfolk Fire-Rescue

The practical skills used by firefighters are demanding, technical, and require precise

execution. The performance of these skills is paramount to the success of a fire department. In

order to remain proficient in the delivery of these basic and advanced skills, the fire service must

be committed to training and evaluating its personnel. To adequately prepare firefighters for fire

ground operations requires a facility or training venue. The means to train and practice fire

ground skills are needed so that Norfolk Fire-Rescue (NFR) can continue to provide quality

service, protect its citizens, visitors, and firefighters.

The problem is Norfolk Fire-Rescue (NFR) does not have a training facility to provide

practical training to incumbent members; therefore, NFR firefighters are inadequately prepared

for fire ground operations and cannot be evaluated on proficiency in fire ground operations. The

research purpose was to identify and recommend a type of training facility to meet the practical

training needs of NFR. The descriptive research method using literature review, feedback

instruments, and an interview will be used to answer four questions: a) what are the practical

training needs of NFR, b) what kind of training facilities do similar fire departments use, c) what

parcels of land are available to NFR for the construction of a training facility, d) what funding

sources are available to NFR for the construction of a training facility?

Background and Significance

Norfolk Fire-Rescue is responsible for full-service fire based EMS delivery within sixty-

two square miles of dense urban environment. The department operates fourteen stations from

three battalions, which are comprised of 14 engines, 7 ladders, 2 heavy rescues, and 12 advanced

life support (ALS) medic units. Furthermore, NFR provides fire prevention and investigation

services, a training division, public affairs bureau, occupational health and safety bureau, special


operations bureau, and administrative services. The department provides these services through

522 highly capable and committed employees. The department responds to nearly 43,000

emergency calls annually and protects approximately 241,000 citizens who call Norfolk, VA

home. The ability to provide this level of service demands that NFR maintain a quality training

environment with an adequate venue for practical training and evaluation.

The City of Norfolk certifies recruit firefighters to the level of Fire Fighter I (FF-I) and

Fire Fighter II (FF-II) in accordance with the Virginia Department of Fire Programs (VDFP). In

addition, NFR firefighters are required to be certified as Emergency Medical Technician –

Enhanced (EMT-E) and be cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) certified. The criteria for FF-I

and FF-II are established by the VDFP in accordance with the National Fire Protection

Association (NFPA) 1001 Standard for Fire Fighter Professional Qualifications. The recruit fire

fighter training is accomplished as part of the Tidewater Regional Fire Academy (TRFA), and

the practical training facilities are provided by participating agencies within TRFA. At this time,

NFR can only offer educational classroom facilities to the TFRA. Because recruit firefighters are

not operationally released while in the TRFA, the logistics of using other jurisdiction’s facilities

is not problematic. Once a recruit successfully completes TRFA training and becomes certified

as FF-I and FF-II, the expectation is the certification will be maintained throughout the

firefighter’s career. The maintaining of FF-I and FF-II certification is based on both educational

updates and practical training. However, NFR does not have a practical training facility within its

training division or jurisdiction to practice or evaluate proficiency of these skills once a

firefighter leaves the TRFA.

On June 15, 1945, a new Fire Station #9 was dedicated. The new station would

accommodate an engine, ladder, squad, battalion car, and a classroom for training. A parcel of


land next to the new station would include a new 6-story masonry training tower (NFPS, 1994,

p.74). The new training tower would provide a location for Norfolk firefighters to train and

practice the skills required of firefighters. The tower would be equipped with interior stairwells,

exterior fire escapes, windows on all sides, and an integrated standpipe system throughout the

tower. The facility provided a setting to conduct hose evolutions, ground and aerial ladder

operations, and search and rescue drills. Throughout the next 53 years, the training tower would

allow Norfolk firefighters a place to conduct training evolutions and to evaluate the proficiency

of its members. As the years passed and the tower’s structural elements began to deteriorate, the

tower became less used for training. Moreover, as the department continued to grow and its

mission evolved, the existing training tower had out lived its usefulness to Norfolk. Finally, the

tower was condemned for use in 1996 leaving firefighters without a facility to conduct practical

fire ground drills or training.

In 1998, NFR recognized the need for a training facility. Subsequently, an existing

church building was purchased and converted into the current training facility that is used by

NFR. The current facility consists of multiple educational classrooms, smaller technical

workrooms, an auditorium, a computer lab, a fire museum, library, administrative offices, locker

rooms and restrooms. The facility is equipped with state of the art electronic and computer

equipment. However, the facility does not provide a space for practical fire ground training or

proficiency evaluation of skills. Due to this fact, NFR fire officers are forced to be creative in

finding venues that will support practical fire ground operations training. A current practice is to

secure condemned buildings through the Existing Structures department. The training staff

serves as a liaison between NFR and the Existing Structures department and then offers the

buildings to company officers. However, the frequency of attaining these buildings cannot


support the operational needs of NFR. Furthermore, the buildings frequently come with

limitations of what can be done to the building. Finally, the practice is not consistent and does

not provide universal training or evaluation of all NFR members.

As the fire service continues to see a decline in the incidence of working fires, the need

and ability to provide fire ground training is becoming more important than ever. Two recent

attempts at department-wide training illustrate the problem. In August of 2007 NFR conducted a

fire ground operations evaluation of the entire operations division. To perform this evaluation

required the use of a practical training facility. A neighboring city allowed NFR to use their burn

building for the month of August. Each company was rotated through the facility and engaged in

live fire training revolving around routine fire ground operations, such as hose line advancement,

ladder operations, search and rescue, ventilation, and salvage and overhaul. The logistics of this

training required the training staff, evaluators, and all companies involved to travel

approximately 18 miles each way to the facility. The travel time resulted in less time being

dedicated to the actual drill, and companies were not immediately available if needed within the

city. The drill identified many deficiencies relating to fire ground operations, and the “cost of the

drill was estimated to $22,000.00” (personal communication, D.O. Dixon, 2009).

Next, a department-wide rapid intervention team (RIT) drill was held in October of 2008.

This drill was held in two locations within the city of Norfolk. The training division through the

Existing Structures department secured the buildings. One building had limitations in regards to

what forcible entry operations could be conducted. The other building had limitations due to

structural instability within certain areas of the building. However, the logistics of conducting

this drill were simpler than moving outside the city. Because the locations were within the city,

the drills could be longer in duration and could accommodate multiple training sessions on any


given day. Moreover, the units were immediately available for recall in the event of a significant

emergency incident. The results of this drill identified several deficiencies in NFR’s RIT

deployment strategy. However, the cost to conduct the drill was only “estimated to be

$10,000.00” (personal communication, D.O. Dixon, 2009).

The importance of conducting fire ground training is well documented. The ability to

routinely engage in fire ground training requires the use of a training facility. The lack of a

training facility and the inability to practice fire ground skills is a safety issue for NFR

firefighters. The issue of fire fighter safety is well documented. The United States Fire

Administration (USFA) shares the belief in fire fighter safety. By providing a training venue for

firefighters, NFR can assist the USFA in meeting one of its operational goals to “reduce the loss

of life from firefighters” (United States Department of Homeland Security, 2008, p. II-2).

Equally, the National Fire Academy’s (NFA) Executive Fire Officer Program (EFOP) supports

the need for fire fighter safety through its courses of instruction. A segment of the Executive

Leadership course deals with succession planning and the ability to “ensure that employees in a

particular organization are capable, competent, and willing to replace and/or succeed” (Federal

Emergency Management Agency, Executive Leadership, p. 7-3). By providing a facility to train

and evaluate firefighters, NFR will ensure that its employees are capable of providing fire

ground operations in a safe and proficient manner.

The ability to train and evaluate firefighters is paramount for NFR, so as to continue to

provide quality service to its citizens and visitors. The cost, logistics, and infrequency of

conducting practical fire ground training will result in less proficiency by NFR firefighters. This

lack of proficiency will result in increased fire losses, the inability to provide quality service,

civilian and fire fighter injuries, and possibly deaths. The future success of NFR depends on the


ability to train and evaluate its workforce. A practical training facility is needed for NFR. The

facility should be within Norfolk and capable of providing quality fire ground training and

evaluation of NFR firefighters.

Literature Review

The literature review process began while at the NFA in April of 2009. A search of the

NFA’s Learning Resource Center found many EFOP research papers dealing with fire service

training and facilities. A search of the public library revealed numerous books that dealt with

employee development and training. A search of the Internet uncovered numerous articles that

dealt with the training of firefighters and the need for appropriate training facilities. In addition,

there are many magazine and journal articles dedicated to the need and importance of fire service

training. Finally, the NFR library was searched and several training books and manuals

emphasized the need for a consistent approach to the training of firefighters and the proper use of

training facilities.

The training and development of employees can affect the success of any agency.

Often, the ability of an agency to perform can be attributed to the amount of time and money

dedicated to employee training and development. Determining what skills and knowledge are

required is principal to the success of any training program. Similarly, understanding and

appreciating the methods by which firefighters learn will enhance the learning experience and

help with retention of the learned skills. Finally, a proper training environment is essential in the

overall success of a training program.

The fire service is strongly committed to the training of its firefighters. With the decline

in incidents of fire, the fire service must remain devoted to practical fire ground training. The

International Fire Service Training Association (International Fire Service Training Association


[IFSTA], 2008) is the cornerstone of fire service training. The Essentials of Fire Fighting is a

manual that provides a detailed outline of practices, procedures, and performance measurement

for entry-level and incumbent firefighters. The manual is geared towards preparing and

maintaining the practical skills needed of firefighters. The manual is also helpful in preparing

firefighters for the certification process associated with the National Fire Protection

Association’s (NFPA) Standard 1001, Standard for Fire Fighter Professional Qualifications.

While IFSTA produces many fire service training manuals, the Essentials manual has become

the foundation of all fire service related training programs.

Equally, the NFPA is an organization dedicated to the training and performance of

firefighters. The NFPA produces industry-recognized standards on all topics related to the fire

service. There are many standards with relevance to practical training, but two have specific

significance to the topic of firefighting skills and knowledge. First, NFPA 1001 (2008) is a

standard that outlines the core fire-ground functions needed of a firefighter. The standard details

the necessary skills and competencies used by firefighters in order to perform effectively during

training and emergency scenarios. Finally, the standard helps prepare entry-level firefighters for

the process of certification to the level of Firefighter I and II and for maintaining incumbent

firefighters at the same level. Next, NFPA 1410 (2005), Standard on Training for Initial

Emergency Scene Operations provides the framework for measuring adequate performance of

skills need during initial scene operations. This standard outlines the skills to be evaluated, the

logistics needed, and the appropriate performance measurement considered to be acceptable. The

standard also provides pre-designed scenarios associated with certain skills to be evaluated. The

standard provides guidance in the development of benchmark evaluation of firefighting skills.


The issue of training is not just reserved for firefighters, but is an issue that managers of

city government have a vested interest in as well. The International City/County Management

Association (International City/County Management Association [ICMA], 2002) highlights this

fact with a chapter in the book entitled Managing Fire and Rescue Services. The chapter

provides guidance in the steps to be taken in developing, implementing, and maintaining a fire-

training program. The chapter places emphasis on the program development, the need for

dedicated and properly trained instructors, and the importance of a suitable training venue.

Finally, the importance of compliance with local, state, and national standards is emphasized

throughout the book.

The skills needed by firefighters are well documented and cannot be understated, but

understanding how firefighters learn and retain these skills is equally important. This researcher

found two documents directly related to the topic of learning by fire service personnel. First,

Crandell (2004) published research on the learning actions of firefighters. The goal of the study

was to identify the learning actions and resources of firefighters. The study focused on a group of

Montana firefighters known for using best practices in the training of firefighters. The study

revealed that many learning actions and resources are available to firefighters. Also, firefighters

tend to learn through a myriad of learning actions and resources. However, the study concluded

practice was an important learning action of firefighters. Next, Klingensmith (2006) conducted

research on the learning styles preferred by emergency responders. The study focused on four

learning styles that included visual, aural, read/write, and kinesthetic (VARK) instruments. The

research goal was to identify the environment and learning styles that afford emergency

responders the best opportunity for learning and retention of skills and knowledge related to

emergency response. The research concluded the use of all the VARK styles was useful in the


learning environment; however the kinesthetic style was ranked above the other three in

optimizing the learning process. The study recommended a curriculum that includes all the facets

of the VARK model with particular emphasis to be placed on practicing the learned skills and

knowledge.

The environment in which firefighters learn is vital to the success of the training. The

basic skills used by firefighters are predominantly physical and require practice in order to be

effective. The ability to demonstrate proficiency and practice these learned skills are necessary if

firefighters are to continue to provide these skills with efficacy. There has been much written

about the need to train firefighters in basic firefighting skills and the appropriate venue for

conducting this training. In a recent article in the trade journal Fire Engineering, Lombardo

(2009) writes about the need for discipline and training in the fire service. The article

summarizes the importance of maintaining discipline towards training in the basic skills of

firefighting. The writing expounds on the effects discipline and training have on firefighter safety

and survivability. The piece of writing emphasizes the role the training facility plays in the

overall training experience. Finally, the article discusses the limitations of training facilities

within North America.

The setting for training is as important to the learning experience as the actual skill to be

learned. As a result, the NFPA 1402 (2007), Guide to Building Fire Service Training Centers

provides a detailed process for the design, building, and use of training centers. The standard

details the types and uses of the different training buildings. The standard provides guidance on

the dimensions, architecture, engineering, and needs of a training facility. The standard provides

a comprehensive resource for the design, construction, implementation, and use of a training

facility for any fire department. Likewise, the fire service trade journals have printed many


articles relating to training centers and options for training venues. With increasingly tighter

budgets, the fire service must look for creative ways to accomplish the training of firefighters. A

recent article in Fire Chief addressed this need directly. Wilmoth (2009) describes that many

departments are incorporating basic training into the design of new fire stations. The article

implies the cost of building the station with training in mind is more cost-effective than

retrofitting an existing station. The writing continues to outline the importance of continued

training in the harsh economic times of today. Finally, the article cites several examples of

incorporating design into the station and displays examples of the types of training that can be

conducted through creativity. Similarly, a recent commentary in Fire Rescue, by Tim Sendlebach

(2009), highlighted several training centers from around the country. The piece illustrates the

varied approach to the training of firefighters by several fire departments. Also, the article

emphasizes the need in evaluating the training needs of the organization into the style and type of

training facilities. Finally, another article in the same magazine illustrates the need for a creative

approach to the training of firefighters. Sendelbach (2009) displays ten training props that can be

used to train firefighters. The props vary from basic firefighting skills to aircraft firefighting to

technical and specialized training. Individual fire companies at a relatively low cost can build the

props. The article demonstrates the creative side of training and satisfies the need for operating in

strained economic times and tight budgets.

The review of literature demonstrates the skills firefighters need, the ways in which

firefighters learn, and the facilities that are needed to train firefighters. The review of literature

and the problem facing NFR clearly justify the current research project. Knowing what

firefighters need to learn, the way firefighters learn best, and providing the necessary facilities to

aid in this training are vital to the success of NFR. As the incident of fire decreases and


prevention efforts increase, the fire service must remain vigilant towards the training of

firefighters. The lean economic times and limited resources available will emphasize the need for

creativity and capitalizing on every opportunity to conduct realistic training that will allow

firefighters to continue to provide quality and efficient service to its customers.

Procedures

The research for this project was conducted through two feedback forms, a research of

the City of Norfolk’s Parcel Information System database, an interview, and a review of

literature. The first research question was answered using a Fire Training Needs Feedback Form.

The population chosen was all the NFR captains and lieutenants. The population was selected

using TeleStaff®, a staffing program currently in place within NFR. The respondents were given

approximately three weeks to complete the feedback form. The commercially available

SurveyMonkey® software was used to administer the feedback form. The feedback form was

returned via electronic means and consisted of seven questions that focused on the current

training needs of NFR. The purpose of the feedback form was to establish what the current

training needs are of NFR suppression forces. Using the SurveyMonkey® software, the results

were compiled, analyzed, and used in the results section of this research project. A copy of the

feedback form is included as Appendix A.

The second research question was answered using a Fire Training Facilities Feedback

Form that was sent electronically to a sample population of metro-size fire departments with a

similar size and scope to that of NFR. The sample was selected using the National Directory of

Fire Chiefs and EMS Administrators. The respondents were given approximately three weeks to

complete the feedback form. The commercially available SurveyMonkey® software was used to

administer the feedback form. The feedback form was completed via electronic means and


consisted of ten questions that related to the jurisdictions fire training facilities. The purpose of

the feedback form was to learn what training facilities similar size fire departments are currently

using. Using the SurveyMonkey® software, the results were compiled, analyzed, and used in the

results section of this research. A copy of the feedback form is included as Appendix B.

The third research question was answered by conducting a search of the City of Norfolk’s

Parcel Information System database. The research was conducted electronically through the City

of Norfolk’s website. The purpose of the search was to identify parcels of land, in Norfolk, that

are available for the construction of a training facility for NFR.

The fourth research question was answered through literature review and an interview

with NFR Business Manager Kim Boone. An active search of the Internet was conducted to

identify potential funding sources for the construction of a training facility for NFR. Likewise,

the interview with Kim Boone was meant to identify funding sources immediately available to

NFR for the construction of a training facility. The questions were a) what funding is

immediately available to NFR for the construction of a training facility, and b) is there any

funding allocated for the construction of a training facility for NFR? The interview was

conducted over the phone on September 22, 2009 at a time convenient with Ms. Boone. The

phone interview lasted approximately 20 minutes in length.

There were several limitations in the research. First, the research of NFR’s training needs

should have included all members of NFR, with special emphasis placed upon the NFR Training

Division. Next, the return rate for feedback forms sent internally to NFR captains and lieutenants

was 58.1% and the return rate on the feedback forms sent to other fire departments was 47.2%.

While the return rate is viewed as adequate, the intended populations were not fully achieved.

Another limitation noted was the sample size of other fire departments. Since training effects all


departments, the population could have been expanded to include any size department in order to

achieve a broader perspective. Finally, the 6-month completion time limit imposed by the NFA

was a limitation as well.

Results

The first research question was answered using a Fire Training Needs Feedback Form.

The results of the feedback identify that NFR officers are aware of the training needs of their

personnel. The respondents admitted to conducting practical fire training with their personnel

91.9%; however 8.2% do not conduct training with their personnel. The participants were asked

to rank seven fire ground skills in order of importance to needing training on. The first priority

fire ground skill requiring training on was the use of personal protective equipment and self-

contained breathing apparatus (PPE/SCBA). Second, was the need to practice rapid intervention

team (RIT) operations. Third, was the practical application of hose streams. Fourth, were

ventilation operations. Fifth, were ladder company operations. Next, was hose loads and layouts,

and the last skill identified was water supply operations. Beyond the skills identified above, the

officers included many other skills and tasks as important to NFR. The additional skills listed

were initial size-up, building construction, fire ground safety, search and rescue, origin and cause

determination, thermal imaging camera use, forcible entry techniques, radio communications,

and coordinated fire attack procedures. Regarding where the training is currently being

conducted, the top four venues were the fire station, existing structures, parking garages, and the

NFR training center. The participants identified the most common training venue as the fire

station 93.9% of the time. Next, the use of existing structures arranged through NFR was

acknowledged 79.6% of the time, and parking garages were used 42.9% of the time. Finally, the

NFR training center was identified as being used by 30.8% of the respondents. The remaining


options were used by less than 30% of the participants and included built mock-ups, a smoke

building, motor vehicle driving range, live fire training structure, drafting pit, drill tower, and

hazardous materials/decon training area. However, no respondents listed using an

observation/control tower or flammable liquids/gas training area as a training venue. While

30.8% of respondents listed the NFR training center as a training venue, 85.7% stated the

training center was not meeting their practical training needs. As for training facilities that would

help accomplish their training needs, the participants identified the top choice as a live fire

training structure 77.6% of the time. A drill tower or smoke building was equally recognized

next by 67.3% of the respondents to the survey. When asked about routine evaluation on the

proficiency of their personnel, the officers identified monthly at 28.6% of the time. Next, the

participant’s identified a weekly evaluation of personnel 20.4% of the time and a daily

evaluation 10.2% of the time. An annual evaluation was only recognized by 6.1% of the

respondents. Interestingly, 20.4% of the participants acknowledged rarely evaluating their

personnel and 6.1% of participants acknowledged never evaluating their personnel.

The second research question was answered using a Fire Training Facilities Feedback

Form. The results identified that 82.4% of fire departments surveyed have their own fire training

facilities. As shown in figure 1, the type of training facilities in use varied, but most participants

identified the classroom and drill tower as the most common.


Figure 1. Fire Training Facilities

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Dril

l Tow

er

Cla

ssro

om

Live

fire

trai

ning

stru

ctur

e

Smok

e bu

ildin

g

Dra

fting

pit

Flam

mab

lelig

uids

/gas

trai

ning

area

Haz

ardo

usm

ater

ials

/dec

ontra

inin

g ar

ea

Mot

or v

ehic

ledr

ivin

g ra

nge

Obs

erva

tion/

cont

rol

tow

er

Fire Training Facility

The results demonstrate that 71.4% of fire departments conduct routine evaluation of practical

fire ground skills using their facilities; however, 28.6% do not. Also, 92.9% of departments

allow fire companies to perform routine drills at their facilities and only 7.1% do not.

The results varied regarding the land size on which training facilities were constructed,

but greater than 5 acres were identified the most at 42.9%. Next, was 2-4 acres by 35.7% of

departments. One to two acres was identified by 14.3% of participants and less than 1 acre was

identified by only 7.1%. Similarly, the cost of construction varied amongst participating

departments; however the majority of departments spent less than $500,000.00. Figure 2 shows

the construction costs by the departments that participated in the survey.


Figure 2. Training Facility Construction Cost

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

< 50,000 50,000-100,000

100,000-300,000

300,000-500,000

> 500,000

Construction Costs

Dep

artm

ents

The annual operating costs of training facilities were shown to be less than $50,000 by 35.7% of

respondents. Approximately 21.4% expend between $50,000-$100,000 and greater than

$500,000 on operating costs. Next, operating costs of $100,000-$300,000 were acknowledged by

14.3% of participants answering the question. Finally, 7.1% acknowledged budgeting between

$300,000 and $500,000 as annual operating cost of their training facilities.

On compliance to NFPA standards, the results recognized that 64.3% of training facilities

complied with NFPA 1402; however 21.4% did not and 14.3% were unsure about compliance

with N.F.PA. 1402. Finally, the results identified the most common population served by

participating departments was 250,000-399,000 (35.3%). A population of greater than 500,000

was served by 29.4% of departments. Twenty-three and a half percent serve a population of less

than 100,000, and 11.8%, serve a population of 100,000-249,000. No departments serving a

population of 400,000-500,000 participated in the survey.


The third research question was answered by searching the City of Norfolk’s Parcel

Information System database. The results revealed several parcels of land that could be used for

development of a fire training facility for NFR. Of the parcels of land available, there are three

that are currently owned by Norfolk. The remaining parcels of land would need to be purchased

and acquired by Norfolk. The results identified a vacant lot next to a current fire station as the

top location for a fire training facility. Depending on the parcel selected, the site may require a

zoning change to allow for the construction of a fire training facility. All of the sites would

require upgrading and improvements in order to accommodate a training facility.

The final research question was answered by conducting a review of literature and an

interview with NFR Business Manager Kim Boone. A review of the Internet identified several

options for funding the construction of a fire training facility for NFR. The Federal Emergency

Management Agency (FEMA) provides several options for grant funding. First, the Assistance to

Firefighters Grant (AFG) is available to all fire departments and can be used for the construction

of training facilities. In addition, due to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009

(ARRA), a special Station Construction Grant (SCG) was created and is available for the

construction or upgrade of fire stations and training facilities. Another important document found

was a FEMA manual that details alternative funding options, and provides assistance in the

process and procedure for submitting a grant application.

The interview with Kim Boone revealed two options for funding the construction of a

training facility. First, the Virginia Department of Fire Programs (VDFP) allocated $646,000.00

to NFR during fiscal year (FY) 2010 as funding for various fire service projects. According to

Mrs. Boone, “a portion or all of this money could be used to construct a training facility”

(personal communication, K. Boone, September 22, 2009). Next, during FY-06, the city


allocated $268,000.00 towards the construction of a regional burn building with a neighboring

city. The project was never completed; however the money allocated is still in the budget and

could be used towards construction of training facility for NFR. More importantly, this funding

could be joined with the VDFP funding for a larger funding source. Finally, Ms. Boone

confirmed that no capital improvement project (CIP) money has been allocated for construction

of any fire department buildings during FY-10. Furthermore, the prospect of seeing CIP funding

in the future is unlikely.

The results clearly identify that training is important to NFR. Equally, the NFR officers

have prioritized the training needs of their personnel. However, the results clearly identified a

deficiency in the ability to conduct this training due to the lack of an appropriate practical

training venue. The results show that similar departments have a practical training venue for the

purpose of training and evaluation of personnel. Finally, NFR has the funding and land available

to construct a practical training facility for the training and evaluation of their personnel.

Discussion

The fire service, like other technical professions, is judged on its ability to deliver its

services when needed. Furthermore, the dynamic nature of fire service work demands that

firefighters be current in their training practices, as well as, remaining proficient in traditional

fire fighting skills. Lombardo (2009) supports this idea by writing, “we need to practice our most

basic skills and constantly update our knowledge” (p. 102). The capacity to maintain this level of

training requires not only didactic skills, but is rooted in having the ability to practice and

demonstrate a mastery of learned skills. A training venue lies at the heart of being able to

practice and demonstrate proficiency in these skills.


The research demonstrates that NFR officers understand the need to maintain proficiency

and practice fire fighting skills. Furthermore, the results show that NFR understands the need to

prioritize training and has identified its areas of weakness. The areas noted are aligned with the

NFPA 1001standard and other fire departments. The issue of training firefighters and

maintaining skills proficiency is important to all fire departments. The NFPA (2008) affirms this

notion by stating, “these job performance requirements can be used in any fire department in any

city, town, or private organization throughout North America” (p. 1). The NFPA’s statement

acknowledges that NFR’s training needs are similar to that of other fire departments. However,

the results show that NFR is lacking in its ability to provide training venues that meet the needs

of the department.

The NFR officers noticeably state that the current NFR training facility does not meet

their practical fire training needs. This finding is not specific to NFR and is substantiated by

Lombardo (2009) who wrote, “Many firefighters in this country are afforded few or no training

facilities. Across the United States, many large counties have no training facilities of any kind”

(p. 103). While this may be true, the research results show that 82.4% of departments, in similar

size and scope to NFR, have practical training facilities. The results show that other fire

departments are predominantly using a drill tower for their practical fire training. Similarly, the

research identified that a drill tower was selected by NFR officers as a training facility that

would be helpful in achieving their training goals. The NFPA (2007) supports these findings on

using a drill tower and writes, “there are many potential purposes for a drill tower” (p. 14).

The jurisdictions having training facilities do allow for routine training by fire companies, and

periodically use their facilities for proficiency evaluation in basic skills. The ability to allow


firefighters a chance to practice what has been learned is essential in being able to demonstrate

proficiency in a skill.

The concept that firefighters learn through practicing a skill is supported in research by

Barbara Klingensmith and Brian Crandell. Both stress the importance of learning through a

myriad of sources. Crandell (2004) found that “participants indicated that they were in a

constant state of learning from their experiences and they learned regularly from the practice of

their work” (p. 101). Likewise, Klingensmith (2006) found that emergency responders learn best

through a kinesthetic learning process (p. 131). However, the study did support a diverse

approach to emergency responder learning. “While the k was clearly the most preferred style, the

subsequent choices may support the idea of multi-modal preferences being a strong 2nd choice

for emergency responders” (p.131). Yet, the research shows that NFR is challenged in providing

this approach to learning by lacking a practical training venue. What's more, the results show that

NFR is inadequately evaluating their personnel’s basic fire ground skills. In addition, 20.4%

acknowledged “rarely” evaluating personnel and 6.1% acknowledged “never” evaluating

personnel. The inability to perform and evaluate these basic skills is a detriment to NFR and its

citizens.

Surprisingly, the results indicate that NFR officers are attempting to overcome this

training venue deficiency through creative efforts. Many respondents identified using the fire

station, built mock-ups, and parking garages as ways of combating this dilemma. The literature

supports the use of creativity towards training. Sendelbach (2009) supports this idea in a recent

article that showcased ten training props designed to assist with firefighter training. Furthermore,

he continues to write that, “the following article is designed to provide an overview of just a few

ideas and concepts being employed by fire departments/academies across the country” (p. 50).


This notion acknowledges that many departments are faced with a similar training dilemma to

that of NFR.

The research results indicate that funding is a problem for the development and

construction of a training facility for NFR. The interview with Kim Boone revealed that no CIP

budget funding is allocated now or will be in the foreseeable future. However, there is some

funding available that could be used towards a training facility or upgrade of a current facility.

The literature identified the fire station as an acceptable training venue. The idea of incorporating

more training into the design of the station is gaining momentum across the country. The fire

station was identified by NFR officers as being regularly used to practice fire ground skills.

Wilmoth (2009) agrees and ties training and funding together by writing, “The budgetary

pressures faced by many departments, which are exacerbated by the current economic downturn,

are causing fire chiefs and officers to turn to public-safety architects to design accessible and

economical training facilities into their stations” (p. 40). Likewise, the constraints of conducting

training are recognized by the ICMA (2002) by stating, “Given the limited time and resources

available, departments must take advantage of all opportunities to train effectively and

efficiently” (p. 289). The issues effecting training will not go away and NFR must find ways to

achieve a desired level of training within these constraints.

Regarding the land needed for a training facility, the literature on this topic is vague at

best. Most of the literature states that size of the land will be dictated by the needs of the agency.

The NFPA (2007) offers further assistance by stating:

The size of the site should be ample for planned buildings, training structures and props,

parking, and future expansion. Adequate separation should be planned between buildings,

training structures and props for safety, vehicular movement, and instructional purposes.


In some cases, it might be better to conserve on the size of structures than to overcrowd

limited land (p. 9).

However, the results identified that departments are using >5 acres of land for their training

facilities. The research revealed several parcels of land that would accommodate a facility within

Norfolk. The parcels of land will not meet the 5 acre criteria, but would meet the needs of the

organization. In a few cases, the land would need to be acquired or rezoned by the city for the

purposes of a training facility. The prime location identified in the results should meet the needs

of the organization and comply with the NFPA’s recommendation.

This researcher believes that NFR is behind other departments in its ability to train and

evaluate its firefighters. Furthermore, the NFR officers need a training venue. While NFR has a

good educational training facility, it lacks the ability to capitalize on the learning experience by

having a practical training venue or facility. The literature demonstrates that a training facility

would foster the learning environment and improve mastery and retention of basic skills. This

researcher believes many opportunities to train and evaluate firefighters are lost due to lacking a

practical training facility. Yet, the resources to provide for a training facility are in place within

NFR. The land and funding exist at some level to move this project forward. While the current

logistics may not be optimum, the current training situation is inadequate and needs addressing.

The ability to train and evaluate basic firefighter skills is important in continuing to

provide quality, efficient, and safe emergency services. The two recent department-wide drills

showed the effects of not having a training facility to practice and evaluate these skills. While the

NFR officers are making an attempt to overcome this problem, the effects of this problem cannot

be hidden. If the training facility needs of NFR are not addressed, the problem will continue to

manifest itself into greater deficiencies, increased fire ground injuries, and possibly increased


dollar loss. A venue to introduce new skills, practice old skills, and routinely evaluate the skills

of firefighters is needed in Norfolk. A department of Norfolk’s size should have its own training

facilities. The City of Norfolk and NFR must address this infrastructure deficiency. The service

delivery demands placed on NFR are contingent upon having good quality basic skills. The

ability to continue to provide these services is directly related to the ability to train and practice

these skills.

Recommendations

The result of this research project concludes in four recommendations. First, the

administration of NFR needs to make the development, construction, and implementation of a

training facility a priority for NFR. Next, the fire chief should begin to take steps to secure the

property adjacent to fire station #9 for the construction of a drill tower for NFR. Third, the

administration should allocate a portion of the VDFP FY-10 funds together with the FY-06 funds

to move the drill tower construction forward. Finally, the administration must submit and lobby

for the inclusion of CIP funding in future budgets for future expansion of NFR’s training

facilities.

The recommendations stated above will have a positive outcome for NFR. If successful,

NFR will have a venue to conduct training and evaluation of its firefighters. Finally, NFR can

continue to learn new skills and hone basic skills to continue to provide quality service to its

citizens and visitors. Future research should focus on studies related to the proficiency of

firefighters that have training facilities. In addition, an evaluation of the different types of

training facilities and how they relate to the proficiency of fire departments should be

undertaken. Finally, research should focus on evaluating the injury rate and dollar loss of fire

departments with and without training venues.


References

Crandell, B.M. (2004). Learning actions of firefighters using best practices. Unpublished

doctoral dissertation, Montana State University.

International City/County Management Association. (2002). Managing fire and rescue services.

Washington, DC.

International Fire Service TrainingAssociation. (2008). (5th ed.). Essentials of firefighting.

Oklahoma, OK: Oklahoma State University.

Klingensmith, B.L. (2006). Learning styles of emergency responders. Unpublished doctoral

dissertation, Walden University.

Lombardo, M. (2009, June). Training and discipline for a safer fire service. Fire Engineering,

101-104.

National Fire Protection Association. (2008). Standard for fire fighter professional

qualifications. (NFPA 1001). Quincy, MA: Author.

National Fire Protection Association. (2007). Guide to building fire service training centers.

(NFPA 1402). Quincy, MA:

National Fire Protection Association. (2005). Standard on Training for initial emergency scene

operations. (NFPA 1410). Quincy, MA: Author.

Norfolk Fire and Paramedical Services. (1994). Norfolk, VA: Teagle & Little, Inc.

Sendelbach, T.E. (2009, August). In the spotlight. Fire Rescue, 50-56.

Sendelbach, T.E. (2009, August). Giving props to props. Fire Rescue, 60-61.

United States Department of Homeland Security, United States Fire Administration, National

Fire Academy (2005). Executive fire officer program, operational policies and

procedures applied research guidelines. Emmitsburg, MD: Author.


United States Department of Homeland Security, United States Fire Administration, National

Fire Academy (2005). Executive leadership. Emmitsburg, MD: Author.

Wilmoth, J. (2009, April). Training by design. Fire Chief. 40-47.


Appendix A

FIRE TRAINING NEEDS FEEDBACK FORM

1. Do you conduct practical fire ground training with your personnel? Yes No 2. Please rank the following choices of fire training from highest to lowest (1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc…)

priority to you?

Hose loads/layouts Ladder operations Water supply

PPE/SCBA use Ventilation operations RIT operations

Hose stream operations 3. Other than the skills listed in the previous question, what is the practical fire ground training needs of NFR from your perspective? 3. What facilities do you currently use to conduct practical fire ground training? (Check all that apply) Built mock-ups Fire station

Parking garage Existing structures through NFR NFR training center Drill tower Live fire training structure Observation/control tower Smoke building Flammable liquid/gas area Flashover simulator Drafting pit Hazardous materials/decon area Motor vehicle driving range Other

5. Does NFR’s training center meet your practical fire ground training needs?

Yes No 6. Which of the following training facilities would help accomplish your practical fire ground training needs?

Drill tower Live fire training structure

Observation/control tower Smoke building Flammable liquid/gas area Flashover simulator Drafting pit Hazardous materials/decon area Motor vehicle driving range Other


7. How often are your personnel evaluated on proficiency in basic fire grounds skills?

Daily Weekly Monthly Quarterly Annually Rarely Never


Appendix B

FIRE TRAINING FACILITIES FEEDBACK FORM

1. Does your department have its own fire training facilities?

Yes No (Go to question #9)

2. What type of fire training facilities does your department have?

Drill tower Live fire training structure Observation/control tower Smoke building Flammable liquid/gas area Classroom Drafting pit Hazardous materials/decon area Motor vehicle driving range Other

3. Does your department conduct routine evaluations of practical fire ground skills at your

training facilities? Yes No 4. Can fire companies conduct routine drills at the training facilities?

Yes No 5. What is the approximate size of the land that your training facility(s) are on? < 1 acre 1-2 acres 2-4 acres

> 5 acres 6. What was the approximate cost of the land acquisition and construction of your training facility(s)? < 500,000 500,000-1,000,000 1,000,000-3,000,000 4,000,000-6,000,000 7,000,000-10,000,000 > 10,000,000 7. What is the approximate annually budgeted operating costs of your training facility(s)?

< 50,000 50,000-100,000 100,000-300,000 300,000-500,000 > 500,000 8. Is your training facility(s) compliant with NFPA 1402?

Yes No Unsure


9. What is the approximate population served by your department?

< 100,000 100,000-249,000 250,000-399,000 400,000-500,000 > 500,000 10. If you would like a copy of the results please provide the following information. Name: Company: Email:

assessing the training facility needs for norfolk fire-rescuenfa.usfa.fema.gov › pdf › efop ›...

Documents