Third-Party Evaluation

Baltimore County Fire Department

FINAL REPORT

16 December 2022
This page left blank for double-sided printing.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................ 3
Key Findings............................................................................................................................3
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 6
Background .............................................................................................................................7
Risk Assessment .....................................................................................................................8
METHODOLOGY .......................................................................................................... 14
Literature Review ..................................................................................................................14
Interviews ..............................................................................................................................15
Focus Groups ........................................................................................................................15
Data Analysis ........................................................................................................................17
Standards Selection ..............................................................................................................17
Benchmarking .......................................................................................................................20
COMMAND ................................................................................................................... 22
Organizational Chart..............................................................................................................22
OPERATIONS .............................................................................................................. 30
Fire-EMS Operations .............................................................................................................30
Special Operations ................................................................................................................34
Community Risk Reduction ...................................................................................................36
Emergency Management.......................................................................................................37
PLANNING ................................................................................................................... 39
LOGISTICS ................................................................................................................... 41
Fleet ......................................................................................................................................41
Facilities ................................................................................................................................43
Equipment .............................................................................................................................43
Training .................................................................................................................................45
Safety and Health ..................................................................................................................48
ADMINISTRATION ....................................................................................................... 52
Finance .................................................................................................................................52
EMS Billing ........................................................................................................................54
Other Revenue Sources.....................................................................................................54
Human Resources .................................................................................................................55
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................................... 56

1
INDEX OF FIGURES
Figure 1. DHS UASI Allocations for Federal Fiscal Year 2021 (February 2022) ............. 8
Figure 2. FEMA NRI Risk Equation ................................................................................. 9
Figure 3. Overall FEMA NRI Risk Index for Baltimore County ...................................... 10
Figure 4. IPSDI FireCARES Rating for the BCoFD (February 2022)............................. 12
Figure 5. Distribution of U.S. and Maryland Communities by ISO Rating (March 2021) 13
Figure 6. Aggregated Feedback Wordcloud from BCoFD Listening Sessions .............. 16
Figure 7. BCoFD Organizational Chart (February 2022) ............................................... 22
Figure 8. BCoFD On-Duty Chief Officers’ Response Time Capability ........................... 24
Figure 9. On-Duty Chief Officer Dispatches .................................................................. 25
Figure 10. On-Duty Chief Officer Arrivals ...................................................................... 26

INDEX OF TABLES
Table 1. Natural Hazards Included in FEMA National Risk Index (NRI) .......................... 9
Table 2. Summary of MDEM 2021 HMP Risk Rankings for Baltimore County .............. 11
Table 3. BCoFD Budget Comparison to Selected Neighboring Fire Departments ........ 21
Table 4. BCoFD Operational Comparison to Selected Neighboring Fire Departments . 21
Table 5. BCoFD FY22 Operating Budget Comparison .................................................. 53

2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Baltimore County is the third largest jurisdiction in the State of Maryland, with a
population of 854,535 residents located across 598 square miles of land area. The
Baltimore County Fire Department (BCoFD) provides all-hazards fire protection and
emergency medical services (EMS) throughout the county, using a combination career
and volunteer workforce deployed from a total of 54 (25 career and 29 volunteer) fire-
EMS stations. In calendar year 2020, the BCoFD responded to 142,000 calls for
service, averaging 389 emergency calls per day.

FACETS Consulting, LLP (FACETS) was retained by Baltimore County in 2021 through
a competitive procurement process to conduct an independent, third-party evaluation of
the BCoFD. This study was scoped to focus primarily on the department’s overall
management and administrative functions; a comprehensive deployment analysis of
operational fire-EMS resources (i.e., front-line unit locations, response times, etc.) is
beyond the scope of this evaluation.

Key Findings

• The BCoFD lacks sufficient EMS response capacity to address the current and
projected service demands on the combined system, leading to reduced
operational effectiveness and an overwhelmed EMS workforce; EMS program
management is also understaffed and therefore unable to fully leverage the
strategic potential of mobile integrated healthcare-community paramedicine
(MIH-CP) for demand reduction and improved population health.
• While the BCoFD consistently deploys experienced first-line supervisors on
career-staffed front-line response units, the span of control for middle
management personnel (e.g., battalion chiefs and EMS officers) is unacceptably
high, with negative impacts on daily operational and administrative activities; the
department’s command staff is also under-resourced to effectively accomplish its
full range of executive functions serving the combined organization.
• The 29 independent volunteer fire companies (VFCs) are integral to the BCoFD’s
current fire-EMS service delivery model; while the fortunes of individual VFCs
vary widely, the overall volunteer system needs significant additional support

3
 from Baltimore County, across multiple program areas, if the current model is to
remain viable in the near-/long-term.
• Due to longstanding facility and staffing constraints at the existing Fire-Rescue
Academy, the BCoFD is unable to meet the essential training and educational
needs of the career/volunteer workforce; this situation negatively affects the
ability of the combined system to consistently deliver qualified personnel on front-
line response units.
• The BCoFD’s model of a “combined” organization—where 29 of its core service
delivery outlets are essentially independent entities—presents major challenges
for accomplishing the basic functions of public administration and management;
while not insurmountable by any means, effectively managing such a system
requires additional
resources for sustained
organizational
development, internal
communications,
strategic/operational
planning, logistics, etc.
• Recently expanded capital
investments in BCoFD
vehicles and equipment
have markedly improved the overall condition of the department’s fleet; additional
funding is needed to address remaining gaps and establish a regular
replacement schedule for capital items.
• The BCoFD’s health and safety programs require additional resources to address
the basic needs of the combined career/volunteer workforce; from initial medical
examinations, preventive medicine, and behavioral health, to ensuring
operational and incident scene safety.
• Improving diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging (DEIB) throughout the
combined BCoFD organization is an important goal that will require additional
resources to accomplish, including career/volunteer recruitment and retention,

4
 organizational climate assessment, fostering workforce dialogue, and providing
ongoing fair practices training.
• While a detailed examination of BCoFD facilities is beyond the scope of this
evaluation, the need to improve the physical condition of multiple fire-EMS
stations (career and volunteer) was frequently mentioned during listening
sessions and visually apparent from our limited observations.
• Maintaining professional standards is important in any organization, but
especially vital in those with a lifesaving mission and unfettered access to clients’
homes; additional resources are sorely needed for the BCoFD to properly
address internal/external complaints and provide assurance that professional
standards are being maintained throughout the combined career/volunteer
workforce.
• The BCoFD has extremely limited resources for community risk reduction (CRR)
activities, including fire/injury prevention, public education, and fire code
enforcement; enhancing these programs, and potentially returning fire cause
investigation to the department, holds great promise for improving outcomes from
emergency incidents and, in the long run, reducing fire-EMS service demand.
• Despite serving the largest jurisdiction in the Baltimore region, the BCoFD’s
annual operating budget is significantly less, by any measure, than its
neighboring fire-EMS departments.

Overall, the BCoFD lacks sufficient fiscal, physical, and human resources to accomplish
its core mission. Additional funding is required to consistently meet national standards
and—as importantly—the service-level expectations of Baltimore County residents,
businesses, and visitors.

5
INTRODUCTION
Baltimore County encompasses 598 square miles of land area, 35 square miles of
water, 232 miles of shoreline, and is the third largest jurisdiction in Maryland, with a
population of 854,535 residents according to the 2020 Census. Since 2000, the county’s
population has increased by almost 100,000 residents, with a 50,000-resident increase
since 2010. The built environment of Baltimore County ranges from large swathes of
rural farmland dotted with tracts of single-family homes, to dense clusters of garden
apartments, shopping centers, high-rise buildings, industrial corridors, and several
major transportation arteries.

Residents, businesses, and visitors across Baltimore County’s 29 communities are

provided with all-hazards fire protection and emergency medical services (EMS) by the
Baltimore County Fire Department (BCoFD). The BCoFD is a “combination”
organization that is jointly staffed by full-time career employees and part-time volunteers
located in separate fire-EMS stations (25 career and 29 volunteer), responding to
emergencies on separate response units. The overall BCoFD workforce numbers 1,124
career personnel and an estimated 2,500+ volunteers serving in both operational and
support roles. This type of “combination” career/volunteer fire-EMS system, while
common in other Maryland jurisdictions through the years, has been largely replaced—
in other suburban counties—with a more “hybrid” arrangement where career and
volunteer personnel are generally co-located in the same facilities, largely responding
on the same front-line units. Although FACETS heard many different perspectives on
the relative strengths and weaknesses of the current BCoFD approach, there does not
seem to be any desire to change the current combination staffing model.

Several organizational characteristics of the BCoFD were apparent throughout our

evaluation. In general, BCoFD members—career and volunteer—are dedicated to the
combined organization’s emergency response mission. BCoFD leadership is highly
committed and cognizant of the myriad challenges facing the organization; with realistic
plans—if not the available resources—to address many of them. The leadership of the
local union representing BCoFD’s uniformed career personnel, and the leadership of the
Baltimore County Volunteer Firefighter’s Association (BCVFA)—representing the 29

6
independent volunteer fire companies—also seem to understand the broader
challenges faced by Baltimore County and the BCoFD. The BCoFD maintains positive
and collaborative relationships with other county agencies and external stakeholders,
including mutual-aid partnerships with surrounding fire-EMS departments.

This report is loosely organized around the National Incident Management System,
Incident Command System (NIMS-ICS) structure, tailored to the BCoFD organization.
Recommendations are interspersed throughout the document and summarized in the
final section of this report.

Background
FACETS Consulting, LLP (FACETS) was founded in 2006 and has performed fire-EMS
management studies across the United States, in jurisdictions large and small, along
with work for multiple federal agencies and international organizations. Our team for this
engagement has significant first-hand experience in career, volunteer, and combination
fire-EMS systems.

FACETS was retained by Baltimore County in 2021 through an open competitive

procurement process to provide an independent, third-party evaluation of the Baltimore
County Fire Department. This study was scoped to focus primarily on the department’s
overall management and administrative functions; a comprehensive deployment
analysis of operational fire-EMS resources (i.e., front-line unit locations, response times,
etc.) is beyond the scope of this evaluation.

FACETS appreciates the wide range of public policy challenges facing counties today,
particularly in the wake of the continuing COVID-19 pandemic. From contemporary
experience, we understand the difficulties of reconciling competing policy priorities with
limited resources. The scope of our work in this engagement, however, was focused
solely on providing a third-party evaluation of the BCoFD.

Our work commenced in April 2021 with a kick-off meeting at BCoFD headquarters,
then proceeded through data gathering, site visits, listening sessions, analysis, and
delivery of an initial draft report in February 2022.

7
Risk Assessment
As the largest jurisdiction, by land area and population, in the Baltimore region,
Baltimore County is at relatively high to moderate risk from a wide range of hazards.
This section presents information from several sources describing Baltimore County’s
risk of, and readiness for, both “man-made” and natural hazards.

U.S. Department of Homeland Security

Urban Area Security Initiative
Baltimore County is the most populous jurisdiction in a region identified by the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS), for the past twenty years, as one of the
nation’s high-risk urban areas for a terrorist attack. While the specific criteria for
selection are not publicly available, in federal Fiscal Year 2021 the Baltimore region was
designated as one of only 31 (in FY21) U.S. metropolitan areas to receive funding under
the DHS Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI) program.

Figure 1. DHS UASI Allocations for Federal Fiscal Year 2021 (February 2022)

Source: https://www.fema.gov/grants/preparedness/homeland-security#

8
Federal Emergency Management Agency
National Risk Index for Natural Hazards (NRI)
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) National Risk Index for Natural
Hazards (NRI) is a relatively new product that is focused on U.S. communities’ risk from
the 18 natural hazards identified below in Table 1.

Table 1. Natural Hazards Included in FEMA National Risk Index (NRI)

Avalanche Landslide
Coastal Flooding Lightning
Cold Wave Riverine Flooding
Drought Strong Wind
Earthquake Tornado
Hail Tsunami
Heat Wave Volcanic Activity
Hurricane Wildfire
Ice Storm Winter Weather
Source: https://www.fema.gov/flood-maps/products-tools/national-risk-index

Using an extensive methodology that included multiple working groups, a

comprehensive literature review, and data from a wide range of sources, FEMA
developed a risk equation that incorporates a community’s social vulnerability, as
depicted in Figure 2.
Figure 2. FEMA NRI Risk Equation
1
Risk = Expected Annual Loss X Social Vulnerability X ------------------------------
Community Resilience

In its National Risk Index Primer, a companion document to the online NRI, FEMA notes
that:

“An overall composite Risk Index score and individual hazard Risk Index scores
are calculated for each county and Census tract included in the NRI. All scores

9
 are relative as each Census tract or county’s score is evaluated in comparison
with all other Census tracts or counties.”

Figure 3 presents the overall NRI risk index for Baltimore County, relative to the other
communities assessed by FEMA nationwide.

Figure 3. Overall FEMA NRI Risk Index for Baltimore County

Source: https://www.fema.gov/flood-maps/products-tools/national-risk-index

Maryland Department of Emergency Management

Maryland 2021 Hazard Mitigation Plan
In 2021, the Maryland Department of Emergency Management (MDEM) conducted a
detailed statewide process to identify hazards and recommend mitigation actions; this
effort resulted in publication of the Maryland 2021 Hazard Mitigation Plan (HMP).

According to MDEM’s HMP, relative to the other counties in Maryland and Baltimore
City, Baltimore County is at medium to high risk for all the hazards selected for analysis,
except wildland fires; these rankings are summarized in Table 2.

10
 Table 2. Summary of MDEM 2021 HMP Risk Rankings for Baltimore County
Hazard High Medium- Medium Medium- Low
Risk High Risk Risk Low Risk Risk
Coastal Hazards
Drought
Flood
Thunderstorm
Tornado
Wildfire
Wind
Winter Storm
Dam Failure
Extreme Temperatures
Human Caused
Hazards
Public Health
Emergencies
Soil Movement
Source: https://mdem.maryland.gov/Pages/publications.aspx

International Public Safety Data Institute

Fire-Community Assessment Response Evaluation System (FireCARES)
Developed over the past decade by a consortium of partners including, among others—
the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), The Urban Institute, the
United States Fire Administration (USFA), the International Association of Fire Fighters
(IAFF), Underwriters Laboratories (UL), and the International Association of Fire Chiefs
(IAFC)—FireCARES quantifies the relative risk of structure fires and fire-related
deaths/injuries in thousands of local jurisdictions across the United States.

The International Public Safety Data Institute (IPSDI) uses state-of-the-art data science
techniques, coupled with research performed by its many partners, to analyze “big data”

11
sets from a wide range of sources. The results of these analyses are depicted visually in
FireCARES and made available to fire chiefs and other community stakeholders. Figure
4 displays the top-line FireCARES community risk assessment for the BCoFD.

Figure 4. IPSDI FireCARES Rating for the BCoFD (February 2022)

12
Insurance Services Office (ISO)
Public Protection Classification (PPC) Rating
The origins of fire protection in the United States trace back to the development of the
insurance industry and its continued concerns about the provision of effective fire
protection in both urban and rural areas. The Insurance Services Office (ISO), a
business unit of Verisk, Inc., maintains a Public Protection Classification (PPC) rating
system for local fire departments in communities nationwide. Local fire departments’
“ISO (PPC) Ratings” are used to establish insurance rates for homeowners and
businesses in the area serviced by that department. All other things being equal,
insurance policyholders protected by fire departments with lower ISO ratings will pay
less in annual premiums than their counterparts in areas with higher ISO ratings.

The overall PPC rating for any jurisdiction is significantly influenced by its municipal
water infrastructure. Areas without municipal water connections (i.e., properties served
by well water or other means) will generally have higher ratings than areas with well-
supplied fire hydrants. Since Baltimore County has large areas without access to
municipal water infrastructure, it has a so-called “split” rating of 3 in areas where fire
hydrants are plentiful and 6 in areas without fire hydrants. (To reiterate: a lower ISO
rating is better than a higher ISO rating, all other things being equal.) Figure 5 displays
the overall distribution of ISO ratings across the U.S. and in Maryland.

Figure 5. Distribution of U.S. and Maryland Communities by ISO Rating (March 2021)

13
METHODOLOGY
To accomplish the goals of this independent third-party evaluation, FACETS used a
mixed methods approach, applying both quantitative and qualitative techniques to
identify organizational strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats.

Literature Review
During the study period, FACETS reviewed myriad documents and background
materials produced by county, state, federal, and other organizations; including, but not
limited to:

• Baltimore County Fiscal Year 2022 Budget

• Baltimore City Fiscal Year 2022 Budget
• Anne Arundel County Fiscal Year 2022 Budget
• Howard County Fiscal Year 2022 Budget
• Baltimore County Enterprise Strategic Plan, 2019-2022
• Baltimore County Fire Department Annual Report, 2020
• Maryland Department of Emergency Management, 2021 Hazard Mitigation Plan
• Baltimore County “BCSTAT” portal
• BCoFD Annual Performance Reports
• BCVFA website, multiple documents
• National Institute for Occupational Safety & Health (NIOSH) Fire Fighter Fatality
Investigation and Prevention Program Report F2011-02
• National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Staffing Studies
• UL Firefighter Safety Research Institute (FSRI), multiple studies
• National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), multiple studies
• International Association of Fire Chiefs, Volunteer & Combination Officers
Section, The Blue Ribbon Report: Preserving and Improving the Future of the
Volunteer Fire Service
• International Association of Fire Chiefs, Volunteer & Combination Officers
Section, The Red Ribbon Report: Leading the Transition in Volunteer and
Combination Fire Departments

14
Interviews
Multiple in-person meetings were conducted between FACETS consultants and
members of the BCoFD career and volunteer workforce, at all levels of the organization.

Working with the Baltimore County Volunteer Firefighter’s Association to identify a

reference sample, FACETS also conducted site visits and listening sessions with seven
BCoFD volunteer fire companies. Similarly, we visited seven BCoFD career stations to
gather input from rank-and-file firefighters, EMS providers, fire specialists, and other
front-line personnel.

Beyond visiting 14 Fire-EMS stations (volunteer and career), FACETS team members
also conducted site visits to key BCoFD facilities including the Fire-Rescue Academy,
Fire Supply, and Fire/Police Dispatch.

Focus Groups
Virtual and in-person meetings were held with key BCoFD stakeholders, internal and
external to the organization; including, but not limited to:

• Baltimore County Professional Fire Fighters Association, International

Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF) Local 1311
• Baltimore County Volunteer Firefighter’s Association
• Guardian Knights of Baltimore County
• Baltimore County Women in the Fire Service
• Baltimore County Office of Budget and Finance
• Baltimore County Health Department
• Baltimore County Police Department
• Baltimore County Vehicle Operations and Maintenance

To help ensure candid input and protect participants’ confidentiality, FACETS does not
identify specific locations of, or participants in, our listening sessions.

Figure 6 displays the results of a simple content analysis on the aggregated (raw)
feedback from all the interviews and focus groups performed during this evaluation.
Repeated words are in larger text to help identify common themes; the various colors
are selected at random, purely for ease of visualization.

15
Figure 6. Aggregated Feedback Wordcloud from BCoFD Listening Sessions

16
Interview and focus group participants, both career and volunteer, were extremely
candid and open in sharing their views about the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities,
and threats facing the BCoFD. While often viewed from different perspectives, there
were many common themes shared and a remarkable degree of consistency across all
our feedback mechanisms.

Data Analysis
Given the scope of this evaluation, limited fire-EMS response data were obtained from
the BCoFD’s computer aided dispatch (CAD) system.

Other data points were gleaned from existing BCoFD reports and the annual budget
documents for Baltimore County and surrounding jurisdictions.

Limited geographical information system (GIS) analysis was performed to illustrate the
need for additional management resources, as described later in this report.

Standards Selection
Decisions about how to provide fire
protection and EMS are local public
policy decisions. The variety of
organizational structures and delivery
models is almost limitless across the
U.S. and one can find an example for
almost every type of emergency
response system and performance
metric.

Despite the wide range of potential system configurations, a number of voluntary,

consensus-based standards exist to help guide communities’ fire-EMS investment
decisions. While these standards do not hold the force of law unless adopted by state or
local ordinance, they are helpful in benchmarking and defining key service delivery
characteristics.

The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) develops a host of standards relevant
to the BCoFD. While NFPA standards and recommended practices are not regulations

17
per se, they form a de facto standard of care for providing safe and effective fire, EMS,
and related operations.

Key standards selected for application to BCoFD management and administration

included the following:

• NFPA 1001—Standard for Fire Fighter Professional Qualifications

• NFPA 1002—Standard for Fire Apparatus Driver/Operator Professional
Qualifications
• NFPA 1006—Standard for Technical Rescue Personnel Professional
Qualifications
• NFPA 1021—Standard for Fire Officer Professional Qualifications
• NFPA 1030—Standard for Fire Prevention Program Positions
• NFPA 1031—Standard for Professional Qualifications for Fire Inspector and Plan
Examiner
• NFPA 1037—Standard on Fire Marshal Professional Qualifications
• NFPA 1072—Standard for Hazardous Materials/Weapons of Mass Destruction
Emergency Response Personnel Qualifications
• NFPA 1201—Standard for Providing Fire and Emergency Services to the Public
• NFPA 1250—Recommended Practice in Fire and Emergency Service
Organization Risk Management
• NFPA 1300—Standard on Community Risk Assessment and Community Risk
Reduction Plan Development
• NFPA 1500—Standard on Fire Department Occupational Safety, Health, and
Wellness Program
• NFPA 1521—Standard for Fire Department Safety Officer Professional
Qualifications
• NFPA 1581—Standard on Fire Department Infection Control Program
• NFPA 1710—Standard for the Organization and Deployment of Fire Suppression
Operations, Emergency Medical Operations, and Special Operations to the
Public by Career Fire Departments

18
 • NFPA 1720—Standard for the Organization and Deployment of Fire Suppression
Operations, Emergency Medical Operations, and Special Operations to the
Public by Volunteer Fire Departments
• NFPA 1730—Standard on Organization and Deployment of Fire Prevention
Inspection and Code Enforcement, Plan Review, Investigation, and Public
Education Operations
• NFPA 1901—Standard for Automotive Fire Apparatus
• NFPA 1911—Standard for the Inspection, Maintenance, Testing, and Retirement
of In-Service Emergency Vehicles
• NFPA 1915—Standard for Fire Apparatus Preventive Maintenance Program
• NFPA 1917—Standard for Automotive Ambulances
• NFPA 1971—Standard on Protective Ensembles for Structural Fire Fighting and
Proximity Fire Fighting
• NFPA 1981—Standard on Open-Circuit Self-Contained Breathing Apparatus
(SCBA) for Emergency Services
• NPFA 3000—Standard for an Active Shooter/Hostile Event Response (ASHER)
Program
While meeting the national standards
identified above is voluntary, for the
most part, the BCoFD is required to
follow applicable state and federal
regulations for certain types of response
operations and administrative activities.

EMS training/certification and many

EMS operational characteristics are
regulated by the Maryland Institute for Emergency Medical Services Systems
(MIEMSS); while EMS billing practices are regulated by the federal Centers for
Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). Hazardous materials training and emergency
response practices must comply with federal regulations promulgated by the U.S.
Department of Transportation (USDOT) and the Environmental Protection Agency

19
(EPA). Technical rescue training and operations (e.g., confined space, trench, building
collapse, high-angle, etc.) must be conducted according to relevant safety standards
promulgated by the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA);
administered in the State of Maryland by Maryland Occupational Safety and Health
(MOSH). A host of additional MOSH regulations are applicable to the BCoFD, including
those addressing respiratory protection, hearing conservation, chemical safety,
infectious disease exposure protection, etc.

As an employer, Baltimore County—

and by extension the BCoFD—is also
subject to state and federal
employment regulations, including the
Affordable Care Act (ACA), Family and
Medical Leave Act (FMLA), and Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA), to name
just a few. Since many of the VFCs
hire part-time employees to help staff
ambulances, they are also subject to
the same federal/state requirements
as any other employer.

Benchmarking
Given the high degree of variability in local governments’ service delivery models and
funding sources for fire and EMS systems, it can be difficult to compare departments on
equivalent terms. At the same time, benchmarking can provide some useful insights
around peer jurisdictions’ relative performance inputs, outputs, and outcomes.

Tables 3 and 4 reflect an effort using available, but not necessarily equivalent, data
comparing the BCoFD with neighboring fire-EMS departments in the Baltimore region.

20
 Table 3. BCoFD Budget Comparison to Selected Neighboring Fire-EMS Departments
Land Area1 Number of FY22 Operating FY22 Capital
Department Population 1
(sq mi) Housing Units 1
Budget2 Budget2
Baltimore City, MD* 585,708 80.94 313,519 $304,217,551 $1,500,000
Baltimore County, MD 854,535 598.00 239,116 $112,174,887 $7,700,000
Howard County, MD 332,317 250.74 114,170 $151,330,010 $3,368,020
Anne Arundel County, MD 588,261 414.90 209,814 $150,066,600 $6,614,300

Table 4. BCoFD Operational Comparison to Selected Neighboring Fire-EMS Departments

Total Career Number of Number of Number of Number of
2 3 3 3
Department Strength Stations Engines Ladders Ambulances3 Total Calls3
Baltimore City, MD* 1,732 48 35 17 24 337,159
Baltimore County, MD 1,124 54 71 11 57 134,442
Howard County, MD 610 14 22 5 21 43,635
Anne Arundel County, MD 987 47 31 10 43 82,429

*Career-only.
1: United States Census Bureau Quick Facts - April 1, 2020 Census Population & 2015-
2019 for all other data (www.census.gov/quickfacts)
2: Adopted Budgets (FY22) published on current budget/finance office websites. Total
career strength does not include the following volunteers: Baltimore Co. (2,500),
Howard Co. (489), and Anne Arundel Co. (1,652 total; 753 operating)
3: Annual Reports (FY19-FY21) published on current fire department websites. Total
stations, apparatus, and calls include both career & volunteer. Apparatus/vehicle figures
do not include reserves. Ambulances include BLS and ALS.

21
COMMAND
The term “command” is used here to define the strategic leadership and policy aspects
of the BCoFD; in private-sector terms, the “c-suite” of the organization. Fire Chief
Joanne Rund was appointed in 2019 after a distinguished 32-year career in a
neighboring fire-EMS department.

Organizational Chart
For a 1,124-person agency with a 24x7x365 mission, the BCoFD is understaffed at the
executive level with only two assistant chiefs and the fire chief to provide overall
strategic direction and management oversight for the combined organization. Adding
the approximately 2,500 volunteers across the 29 independent VFCs—for whom the
BCoFD is responsible for providing operational coordination, system integration, and
support services—exacerbates this situation and has overloaded the command staff.

Figure 7. BCoFD Organizational Chart (February 2022)

22
FACETS recommends adding two more assistant chief-level positions to reduce
management span of control and help address the current overload situation at
the executive level of the combined organization.

The administrative “overhead” and back office functions of the BCoFD are also under-
resourced for the size and scope of the organization. Many basic functions rely on one
or two key people, or have no dedicated staffing at all (with responsibilities assigned to
operational positions as additional duties).

Since there is so much variation in size, structure, and workload, benchmarking is not
particularly helpful in selecting the most efficient operational to support staff ratio for
local fire-EMS departments; along with the fact that many agencies have historically
prioritized their limited resources to hire front-line personnel, versus rear echelon staff.

As a point of comparison, however, a private sector firm operating with 10 percent

overhead might be considered “lean;” in that view, the BCoFD is even “leaner,” with only
71 administrative positions supporting the career department (approximately 6 percent
“overhead”). Adding the need to help support the 2,500+ volunteers, even a
conservative estimate of the desired ratio of administrative to front-line operational staff
would suggest the BCoFD needs many additional full-time equivalent positions (FTEs)
dedicated to the combined organization’s overall administration and management.

FACETS recommends adding 50-60 administrative support positions

(uniformed/non-uniformed), distributed across multiple program areas, to
consistently address the basic functions of public administration and
management for the combined BCoFD organization.

The BCoFD is woefully understaffed at the middle management level. These are the on-
duty deputy chiefs (DCs) and battalion chiefs (BCs) who have primary responsibility for
managing the 24x7x365 operational responses and combined career/volunteer
workforce. The lack of staffing at the chief officer level was repeated frequently
throughout FACETS engagement in Baltimore County. Every chief officer we met talked
about their on-call responsibilities and we saw first-hand, on every site visit, the
response of “off-duty” middle management personnel to emergency incidents. While

23
these employees are proud of their ability to work “around the clock” and keep the
organization running, the stress from overwork and understaffing is palpable.

While this evaluation was not scoped for a full-scale deployment analysis, the need for
additional battalion chiefs is immediately evident and supported by GIS analysis.

Figure 8 reflects the current response time capabilities for the three on-duty BCoFD
chief officers (2 battalion chiefs and 1 deputy/battalion chief).

Figure 8. BCoFD On-Duty Chief Officers’ Response Time Capability

24
Given the size of Baltimore County and the limited number of on-duty chief officers, it is
not surprising that most emergencies are handled start-to-finish by first-line supervisors
(captains and lieutenants) managing multiple units, even during complex incidents.

Figure 9 illustrates the number of battalion chief (BC/DC) dispatches; versus their actual
arrivals at incidents, displayed in Figure 10.

Figure 9. On-Duty Chief Officer Dispatches

25
 Figure 10. On-Duty Chief Officer Arrivals

From an operational standpoint, the lack of timely incident command response at the
chief officer level was identified in the National Institute for Occupational Safety and
Health (NIOSH) report on the line-of-duty-death (LODD) of a volunteer BCoFD
lieutenant during a 2011 apartment fire. Additionally, the NIOSH report recommends the

26
provision of command aides for chief officers, an oft-repeated recommendation in other
LODD reports by that agency.

From an administrative standpoint, the workload for every chief officer is extraordinary.
Beyond working their assigned shifts, battalion chiefs (BCs) and deputy chiefs (DCs)
are assigned to help manage administrative programs and are also expected to respond
to emergencies during their off-duty time.

Even a conservative span-of-control

estimate of 5-6 direct reports per BC
suggests the BCoFD should roster a
minimum of 4-5 battalion chiefs for just
the 25 career stations. Since the career
BCs are also responsible for managing
the critical onscene activities of
personnel from the 29 volunteer fire
companies, a better estimate of
required BC staffing is 9-10 battalions
per shift. Given the size of Baltimore County and resulting response times, an
organization of 10 battalions and 2 deputy chiefs per shift would provide the appropriate
span of control for the entire BCoFD organization of an estimated 2,500-3,000 total
personnel (career and volunteer).

FACETS recommends adding 32 new operational BC positions and 4 new field

deputy chiefs, distributed across Baltimore County, to address the basic
functions of incident command and personnel management safely and effectively
for the combined BCoFD organization, 24x7x365.

The BCoFD is generally well-staffed in the supervisory ranks, with two first-line
supervisors assigned to career fire suppression units on each shift. This approach helps
ensure that a captain or lieutenant is available for each career engine and ladder
company when employees use their earned leave benefits or are otherwise unavailable
to work their assigned shift.

27
While we heard from, and met, some very competent and capable company-grade
officers (lieutenants and captains), the circumstances of the 2011 LODD demonstrate
the need for timely incident command from chief-level officers who do not have
immediate task-level priorities on a rapidly changing fireground. Beyond the incident
scene, many of the challenges we heard from first-line supervisors and rank-and-file
members relate directly to the lack of capacity in the middle management ranks to
accomplish, in a timely/coordinated fashion, the routine functions of personnel
administration, internal communication, multi-unit training, logistics, etc.

Given sufficient staffing at the chief officer level, FACETS recommends that the
BCoFD evaluate roles, responsibilities, and guidelines throughout the
supervisory, management, and administrative ranks of the organization; with the
aim of empowering employees to make routine decisions at the appropriate
level(s), while identifying non-routine
situations that may require higher-level
intervention through the chain-of-command.

The current organizational climate in the BCoFD

was cited as a challenge by many of our
interview participants, career and volunteer,
regardless of rank or position. Many of the
specific complaints we heard during our
interviews ultimately related back to the
department’s chronic lack of the resources
required to provide the level of service expected,
and in most cases needed, by its internal
customers. Beyond the issues arising from
decades of “getting by” without sufficient
resources, there seem to be some deep-seated issues with the historic organizational
culture and management practices.

28
FACETS recommends an immediate and ongoing investment in an intensive
organizational and leadership development effort that will help foster positive
relationships, enhance internal communication, and promote effective
leadership—at all levels—throughout the combined BCoFD workforce.

From a policy standpoint, FACETS heard many different perspectives on the relative
strengths and weaknesses of the current BCoFD “combination” career/volunteer
operational staffing model. This approach, while common in other Maryland jurisdictions
through the years, has been largely replaced—in other suburban counties—with a more
“hybrid” arrangement where career and volunteer personnel are generally co-located in
the same facilities, largely responding on the same front-line units. Although there does
not seem to be any desire to change the current combination staffing model, we heard
from BCoFD, IAFF Local 1311, and BCVFA leadership that the opportunity exists to
refine and formalize the relationship(s) between the BCVFA, individual VFCs, and the
overall BCoFD.

FACETS recommends that BCoFD and BCVFA leadership, with input from various
stakeholders, jointly review the overall responsibilities, authorities, and
relationship(s) between the BCoFD and individual VFCs; with the goal of
developing formal guidance documents (i.e., memoranda of
agreement/understanding, service level agreements, contracts, etc.) that
recognize the contemporary issues facing the overall department and clearly
establish shared/independent roles.

29
OPERATIONS
The operations domain of the BCoFD encompasses the direct, community-facing
functions required to address all hazards across Baltimore County, including:

• Fire-EMS Operations
• Special Operations
• Community Risk Reduction
• Emergency Management

This section will describe the operational components of the BCoFD, from an
overarching administration and management viewpoint.

Fire-EMS Operations
The scope of this engagement does not include a comprehensive deployment analysis
of front-line fire-EMS response units (e.g., engines, ladders, ambulances, etc.), career
or volunteer.

During our research and site visits it

quickly became apparent, however,
that the BCoFD has a chronic shortage
of EMS transport units. This challenge
is not unique to Baltimore County, as
the entire Baltimore region—like many
other major urban areas—is
experiencing extended hospital wait
times coupled with a high level of
service demand. The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic is clearly exacerbating the situation
in Baltimore County.

FACETS recommends that Baltimore County commission an in-depth deployment

analysis and standards of cover assessment to help identify existing gaps in fire-
EMS coverage and determine BCoFD needs for additional front-line resources
(career and/or volunteer) to address current/future service demand.

30
In 2020, almost 70% of the BCoFD’s total calls for service were EMS-related. Despite
representing the majority of the department’s workload, by volume, and generating
substantial revenues from ambulance transport billing, EMS program administration is
severely understaffed, with only three assigned FTEs; one bureau chief, one captain,
and a public health nurse. Despite this limited staffing, and building off its successful
“ICARE” program, the BCoFD has developed an Office of Integrated Health to start
providing Mobile Integrated Healthcare-Community Paramedicine (MIH-CP) services,
as called for in the Baltimore County Enterprise Strategic Plan.

FACETS recommends an immediate

infusion of 10-12 new FTEs for EMS
program administration, allowing
enhanced quality assurance/quality
improvement (QA/QI), improved
support of EMS field providers
(career/volunteer), and giving BCoFD
the bandwidth to further explore
opportunities for providing MIH-CP
across Baltimore County.

While the topic arose multiple times during our listening sessions, any examination of
opportunities for consolidating volunteer fire companies was not within the scope of this
third-party evaluation. The topic of consolidation was central in a 2015 report
commissioned by the BCVFA and performed by the consulting arm of VFIS. From our
discussions with BCVFA leadership and some of the independent volunteer fire
companies, it appears that opportunities for merging some of the VFCs are still being
assessed.

From an operational standpoint, career and volunteer personnel generally reported that
coordination—on the incident scene—is typically smooth and without any major issues.
We heard several times about the value of joint training and drills that involve career
and volunteer members working side-by-side, just as they do on many incidents, albeit
less frequently than desired by many interview participants, both volunteer and career.

31
Given sufficient staffing in the middle-management ranks (described previously),
and at the Fire-Rescue Academy (described later in this report), FACETS
recommends that the BCoFD and BCVFA collaborate to develop a regular joint
exercise schedule that will involve multiple career and volunteer units performing
critical tasks (e.g., rural water supply, structure fire deployment, vehicle
extrication, water rescue, etc.).

Without the benefit of a comprehensive

deployment analysis, it is difficult to
accurately assess the effectiveness of the
combined career/volunteer system at
delivering the required resources (i.e.,
engines, ladder trucks, rescue squads,
ambulances, etc.) for various types of
emergency responses. However, FACETS
heard repeatedly that it is often difficult for
responders to make operational decisions
without knowing the specific resource types,
staffing levels, and operational capabilities
of the front-line response units comprising a
given fire, EMS, or rescue assignment.

Based on what we heard during multiple listening sessions, the actual number of
volunteer personnel who are fully trained, certified, and credentialed to fill operational
fire-EMS roles is probably less than the advertised “2,500-3,000” volunteers; the
number of volunteers qualified to perform interior structural firefighting duties is
estimated at less than 1,000.

The challenges to operational volunteer staffing seem largely related to a variety of

factors, including:

• Recruitment and retention

• Medical/physical examinations

32
 • Logistical difficulties
• Training and certification

Volunteer recruitment and retention is a national issue for non-profit organizations in

general; fire-EMS departments are no exception. Myriad ideas for addressing the
shortage of operationally-qualified volunteers were offered during our listening sessions.

FACETS recommends that BCoFD and BCVFA leadership jointly commission an

in-depth study of volunteer recruitment and retention opportunities specific to
Baltimore County, with a particular emphasis on recruiting diverse candidates.

Since the recruitment and retention of diverse fire-EMS providers is also an issue for
addressing career staffing demands, it was suggested several times, and one can easily
envision, a more integrated approach to recruiting candidates for service in the BCoFD
and/or its constituent VFCs. Regardless, both the BCoFD and the VFCs would benefit
from additional staffing dedicated to recruitment.

FACETS recommends an additional 5-6 FTEs dedicated to the joint recruitment of

a diverse career/volunteer workforce for the BCoFD; this commitment appears
necessary to sustain the career workforce at existing levels, while helping to fill
the ranks of operationally-qualified members serving in the VFCs.

Challenges with volunteer retention were often related to issues where additional
investment is needed to support both the BCoFD career and volunteer workforce.

For volunteers with other “day jobs,” accessing BCoFD services can be a real
challenge. We heard numerous examples where prospective or incumbent volunteers
are required to take time off from their regular employment to accomplish tasks required
for their volunteer service. Frequent examples were medical/physical
examinations/testing, obtaining personal protective equipment (PPE), and attending
infrequent—but mandatory—training classes leading to certifications necessary for
becoming a qualified fire-EMS provider(s). The investments recommended to improve
internal customer service in these areas—health and safety, logistics, and training—are
described elsewhere in this report and calibrated to support a combined
career/volunteer workforce of approximately 3,000 personnel.

33
Special Operations
The term “special operations” in this context describes a range of services that are
expected by the community and regularly, if not as frequently as the majority of fire
suppression and EMS incidents, addressed by the BCoFD. In Baltimore County, the
BCoFD is the primary response agency to special operations incidents including
hazardous materials
emergencies, water rescues,
and technical (i.e., structural
collapse, confined space, trench
collapse, and rope/high-angle)
rescues.

By their very nature, these

incidents are low-frequency,
high-risk events and responding
units must have highly
trained/certified personnel and
specialized equipment for safe and successful resolution. The BCoFD responds to
approximately 4,100 such incidents annually, with hazardous materials and rescue
incidents comprising the largest cohorts.

The BCoFD routinely rosters career personnel with specialized training, equipment, and
vehicles for responding to hazardous materials and technical rescue incidents. While
on-duty, these personnel “cross-staff” their specialized functions with front-line fire-EMS
units; if the front-line unit is already committed to an incident when a special operations
call occurs, then response of the specialized capability will be delayed. Without results
from the comprehensive deployment study recommended previously in this report, it is
not possible to understand the frequency or duration of any such delays, although
FACETS heard several anecdotes during our listening sessions. Regardless, the need
for these services across such a wide geographic area, along with the frequency of
complicated vehicle extrication incidents and working fires, suggests the BCoFD’s

34
operational effectiveness would benefit from additional dedicated special operations
resources.

FACETS recommends the BCoFD consider deploying 1-2 career-staffed heavy

rescue companies (“rescue squads”) that would add depth to the existing
HAZMAT and technical rescue (“ATR”) programs, while providing a dedicated
rapid intervention team (RIT) capability on working fires and complementing the
rescue squads deployed by the VFCs.

According to the Maryland Department of Natural Resources, the BCoFD is responsible

for protecting 35 square miles of inland water area and 232 miles of shoreline along the
Chesapeake Bay and many of its tributaries. At present, water rescue boats, equipment,
and trained personnel are primarily provided by the VFCs. While we cannot estimate
response time to water rescue incidents without the results of a deployment analysis,
the need for a timely and skilled response, coupled with the sheer amount of water
covered by the BCoFD, appears to require additional investment in marine fire-rescue
capability. The ongoing development of the Tradepoint Atlantic complex, with a
commensurate increase in large vessel traffic of all types, increases the risk of fire-EMS
incidents occurring on vessels while they are pier-side and the responsibility of the
BCoFD.

FACETS recommends the BCoFD develop a full-time marine firefighting and

water rescue capability with dedicated career staffing to complement the existing
resources deployed to water-related incidents by the VFCs.

35
Community Risk Reduction
Community risk reduction (CRR)
encompasses many aspects of the
BCoFD’s fire prevention and injury
reduction mission; CRR is largely
organized within the Fire Marshal’s
Office (FMO).

Staffing in the FMO consists of 17

FTEs: one bureau chief, 3 lieutenants,
one fire apparatus driver operator, 8
fire specialists, one EMT, one EMT-
firefighter, one account clerk, and one
office administrator.

Given the size of Baltimore County, the number of existing buildings, and the rapid
growth occurring county-wide, the BCoFD requires additional dedicated staff to fully
meet its current CRR program requirements, while expanding outreach to diverse and
vulnerable communities.

FACETS recommends the addition of 20-30 dedicated staff (uniformed and non-
uniformed) to augment and enhance the BCoFD’s CRR program to meet existing
requirements and create opportunities for expanded/equitable outreach, as
contemplated in the Baltimore County Enterprise Strategic Plan.

The BCoFD has successfully applied for Fire Prevention and Safety grants from the
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to support its programs. These
grants, however, are limited in scope and do not provide a sustainable funding source
for the FMO across its mission areas, especially given the current backlog in fire safety
inspections and the depth of outreach contemplated for future engagement.

FACETS recommends the BCoFD conduct an in-depth review of its fire

prevention fee schedule to determine if the current fee structure is equitable and
aligned with contemporary market factors across Baltimore County.

36
Responsibility for investigating fire cause and origin is, at present, entirely within the
purview of the Baltimore County Police Department (BCoPD). This bifurcated
responsibility removes a vital feedback loop to both fire-EMS operational components
and the BCoFD’s CRR programs.

FACETS recommends an additional 10-12 dedicated BCoFD staff to perform

cause-and-origin investigation of fires and provide the Fire Department’s
contribution to a joint Fire Investigation Team in partnership with the BCoPD.

Emergency Management
The responsibility for implementing Baltimore County’s comprehensive emergency
management program rests within the BCoFD.

Four FTEs are dedicated to this

function: one bureau chief, one
lieutenant, one emergency
management planner, and one
office coordinator. For a jurisdiction
with the size, complexity, and risk
exposure of Baltimore County, a
substantial number of additional
staff are necessary to properly
resource the full range of
emergency management functions through mitigation, planning, preparedness,
response, and recovery activities.

FACETS recommends an additional 10-12 FTEs dedicated to the BCoFD

emergency management program. Potential roles include emergency/disaster
planning, grants management, emergency operations center (EOC) coordination,
critical infrastructure planning, resource coordination, continuity-of-operations
planning, long-term recovery planning, access and functional needs planning,
etc.

37
With the expanded funding opportunities now available from FEMA (through MDEM) for
mitigation and resilience-related planning/projects (e.g., Building Resilient Infrastructure
and Communities—BRIC), it is likely that Baltimore County will realize a significant
return on its investment in additional emergency management staffing.

38
PLANNING
Planning in this context describes a range of functions, often performed at the upper
echelons of the BCoFD, to maintain organizational alignment with the external operating
environment.

The Baltimore County Enterprise Strategic

Plan, 2019-2022, contains several mentions
of the BCoFD, excerpted below:

Goal 1. Vibrant Communities

Strategy 1. Integrate existing and

create new resources to assist
vulnerable populations to thrive in the
community.

Create an Office of Integrated

Health in the Fire Department

Strategy 4. Reduce crime and

increase the positive perception of
public safety in all communities.

Create an Office of
Community Outreach in the Fire Department to develop programs and
deliver education regarding threats to the community

Strategy 6. Enhance enforcement of laws, codes and regulations regarding

buildings, property, fire, safety, and health.

Complete the annual Fire Code update process

Goal 3. Equitable Decision-Making

Strategy 5. Establish, strengthen, and implement diversity-focused hiring,

recruitment and outreach/education practices within public safety (Fire
Department, Police Department, and Department of Corrections)

39
 Establish comprehensive agency plans to review the hiring and recruitment
practices within the Department of Corrections, Fire Department, Police
Department, and 911

Implement and evaluate comprehensive plans to increase diverse recruitment

and hiring practices within the Department of Corrections, Fire Department,
Police Department, and 911

Strategy 6. Identify and implement best practices for advancing diversity and
inclusion within County government and with external stakeholders

Develop a strategic plan within the Fire Marshall’s [sic] Office that includes
diverse and vulnerable populations

Update the public on the status of diversity and inclusion within the Department
of Corrections, Fire Department, Police Department, and 911

The lack of sufficient executive/administrative staffing, and the workload issues

described previously, have limited the BCoFD’s ability to conduct strategic and tactical
planning activities at the department level.

FACETS recommends the addition of 3-5 dedicated FTEs to establish a robust

Planning Section within the Office of the Fire Chief.

A dedicated and properly resourced planning function would allow the BCoFD to
expand its use of data analytics, provide additional information for program-based
budgeting, harmonize data collection schemes across the department, and potentially
support the independent VFCs’ organizational planning activities. As a first step:

The BCoFD should develop—in concert with the BCVFA, Local 1311, and other
stakeholders—a participative strategic planning process incorporating input from
across the combined organization to chart/communicate a course for the next 3-5
years with ongoing opportunities for continual updates/adjustments.

40
LOGISTICS
The term “logistics” in this report describes a range of support functions required to
sustain 24x7x365 emergency response operations across the entire BCoFD,
including—in some areas—the 29 independent VFCs. This section describes our
findings around several facets of BCoFD logistics:

• Fleet
• Facilities
• Equipment
• Training
• Health and Safety

Overall, it appears that the BCoFD and VFCs would benefit from consolidating,
standardizing, and streamlining logistical processes.

Perhaps not unexpectedly, given the decentralized nature of the broader organization
and independent status of the VFCs, many of the administrative and management
processes required for daily operations were described by interview participants as
being inordinately complicated. The organizational “friction” created by these processes
is exacerbated by the BCoFD’s longstanding resource/capacity shortages and creates a
host of challenges; including reported negative effects on recruitment/retention,
operational capability, and morale of the combined workforce.

These challenges are not insurmountable with the provision of sufficient overhead
resources to effectively manage logistics and improve internal customer service across
the combined career/volunteer system.

Fleet
Specification, procurement, and maintenance of the BCoFD vehicle fleet, including
specialized fire apparatus, is the responsibility of the county’s Vehicle Operations and
Maintenance (VOM) Department, a division of the Baltimore County Office of Budget
and Finance. BCoFD career personnel operate the fire-EMS fleet and work in concert
with VOM to ensure vehicle specifications meet the Fire Department’s requirements.

41
Feedback on the timeliness and quality of VOM’s preventive maintenance and repair
work was largely positive. The primary identified issue is the relatively remote location of
the Equipment Maintenance Division’s service facility.

Over the past few years, the

BCoFD has replaced a significant
portion of its front-line fleet, with an
investment of more than $27
million dollars in 2020 alone. While
this may sound like a lot of money,
considering the price of fire
engines (~$735,000 each), aerial
apparatus (~$1.5 million each), and
medic units (~$365,000 each), additional resources are clearly required to complete a
long-delayed overhaul of the BCoFD fleet.

FACETS recommends that Baltimore County continue the current fleet upgrade
effort and establish/fund a multi-year vehicle replacement plan to ensure that
BCoFD front-line and reserve vehicles meet the relevant NFPA standards for
safety and reliable operation; keeping the fleet in proper condition also reduces
maintenance costs and downtime.

Generally speaking, the independent VFCs specify, purchase, maintain, and operate
their own vehicles, including specialized fire apparatus and ambulances. We heard from
multiple interview participants that the continually rising cost of procuring, outfitting, and
maintaining fire-EMS vehicles is a major financial challenge for many of the VFCs. From
the FACETS team’s direct observations, the vehicles operated by the VFCs vary widely
in terms of their designs, manufacturers, and vintages. The BCVFA administers a
revolving loan program, funded by Baltimore County, to help constituent departments
with purchasing fire apparatus according to guidelines developed in conjunction with the
BCoFD. We heard several times that this fund is insufficient to meet the demand for
needed VFC vehicle replacements and/or the requirements imposed by the county
inhibit some VFCs from requesting support.

42
Reserve BCoFD ambulances are provided to the VFCs when needed and available,
although we heard that sometimes those requests are denied to maintain reserve
capacity for career-operated medic units. Given this existing arrangement, one can
envision an effort to create a standardized pool of ambulances supporting the entire
BCoFD, both career- and volunteer-staffed. The potential benefits of a standardized
fleet are myriad including expanded purchasing power, easier driver training, improved
road safety, and multiple maintenance efficiencies; removable placards could be used
to identify the career station or VFC operating the unit at any given time.

Facilities
A detailed examination of BCoFD facilities is beyond the scope of this evaluation. From
the FACETS team’s first-hand observations of a limited set of career and volunteer fire-
EMS stations, the condition of facilities varies widely. We heard numerous anecdotes
about the challenges of maintaining and improving the 25 career fire-EMS stations, of
various vintages and construction types.

FACETS recommends the BCoFD commission a comprehensive facilities master

plan, with the aim of developing a multi-year capital improvement plan (CIP) to
accelerate needed health, safety, and equity projects in Department facilities, with
cooperation/funding from the Office of Budget and Finance; this effort could be
co-sponsored by the BCVFA to help characterize the condition of VFC-operated
fire-EMS stations, as well.

With respect to the several fire-EMS stations we visited that are maintained and
operated by independent VFCs, conditions ranged from state-of-the-art facilities, to
stations with obvious safety deficiencies and unhealthy conditions for volunteer
personnel inhabiting the facility. Many interview participants identified the quality of VFC
facilities, positive or negative, as a factor in the successful recruitment and retention of
operational volunteers.

Equipment
Overall, BCoFD responders, career and volunteer, appear to be furnished with
appropriate and serviceable tools, appliances, EMS supplies, and personal protective
equipment (PPE).

43
The BCoFD has a Fire Supply facility that is responsible for providing equipment and
supplies across the organization. The FACETS team was impressed by our visit to Fire
Supply; it appears to be a well-organized and managed unit. Like other aspects of the
BCoFD, Fire Supply is understaffed for the scope and scale of the combined
career/volunteer organization. In particular, it is difficult for volunteers to access Fire
Supply during normal business hours, since they have their own full-time jobs and need
to take time off from work to visit this relatively remote facility for PPE fittings, etc.

FACETS recommends the addition of 5-7 new FTEs (uniformed and non-
uniformed) in Fire Supply to provide regular night/weekend availability for both
volunteers and career personnel on shift work schedules.

Fire Supply is also constrained by the limitations of the available BCoFD operating
budget to procure required resources, including PPE for the combined workforce. The
issue of structural firefighter protective clothing (SFPC) (i.e., “turnout gear”) was a
recurring topic during our interviews and focus groups. Expanded awareness of
firefighters’ occupational exposures and resultant chronic diseases, along with the
requirements of relevant NFPA standards, has created an expectation that all
firefighters will be provided two (2) complete sets of SFPC, virtually ensuring access to
a clean set of gear, while the “dirty” (post-fire exposure) gear is cleaned to help remove
toxic products of combustion. Due to overarching fiscal constraints, the BCoFD has
been unable to procure sufficient SFPC to meet this expectation across the entire
career/volunteer operational workforce.

FACETS recommends that the BCoFD is provided sufficient funding to procure

and sustain a basic issue of two SFPC ensembles per operational member, career
and volunteer; given the potential cost of this recommendation, it is important
that the BCoFD and BCVFA develop a shared definition and census of
“operational” personnel.

The types of commodities and equipment provided by Fire Supply differs between
career fire-EMS stations and (even among) the VFCs. For example, some VFCs desire
to purchase SFPC that is different from the BCoFD specification and do so directly. The
VFCs also directly purchase tools, appliances, medical devices, and other equipment

44
for VFC-owned/-operated vehicles. The costs of outfitting specialized fire-EMS
response units can be very high, ranging from $50,000 to $100,000+ per vehicle,
depending on type and desired capabilities. The ever-increasing cost of required
equipment and supplies was often cited as a fiscal challenge by BCoFD personnel and
the VFCs alike. At the same time, there were several opportunities identified where the
BCoFD and/or (some/all of) the VFCs could collaborate to achieve better pricing, realize
economies of scale, or simply reduce complications in delivering the right commodities,
to the right place, at the right time.

FACETS recommends that the BCoFD and BCVFA, on behalf of the VFCs,
collaborate to clarify and rationalize the procurement process(es) for all
commodities to help achieve cost savings through effective group purchasing
and economies of scale; the current “system” of provisioning the VFCs appears
cumbersome, time-consuming, and inefficient.

Training
The existing level of resources available for the BCoFD’s training function is woefully
inadequate to support even the basic requirements of the combined career/volunteer
workforce.

Structural firefighting in the 21st Century remains a dangerous and complex endeavor.
Research from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), Underwriters
Laboratories (UL), and other
organizations reinforces what many
firefighters have experienced: structure
fires are burning hotter and faster than
ever before, as synthetic materials and
building products have replaced natural
products over the past decades.

Based on these findings, fire

departments around the globe are changing their longstanding tactics for structural
firefighting, even as their ancillary missions continue to expand in scope and complexity.

45
With a reported 710 structure fires in 2020, the BCoFD relies heavily on training to
maintain proficiency and operational readiness for these high-risk, high-impact
incidents.

Pre-hospital medicine is also an extremely complicated endeavor; the expected

standard of care has continually changed over the past decades, as evidence-based
medicine has informed EMS agencies’ scope of practice. Given the sheer volume of
EMS calls—96,723 in 2020—handled daily by career and volunteer BCoFD members,
using both fire suppression and medic units, delivering EMS training and mandatory
continuing education is a major challenge for the combined organization.

The continual advancement of

knowledge in the BCoFD’s core
mission areas requires a
commensurate commitment in
training and education to ensure
the latest tactics, techniques, and
procedures are employed during
emergency incident responses
across Baltimore County, by
career- and VFC-staffed units alike.

The BCoFD burn building is relatively new and appears serviceable, although the
balance of the Fire-Rescue Academy complex at Sparrows Point is severely undersized
and under-equipped to meet even the basic training demands of the combined
organization. For instance, the on-site facilities do not even provide showers for trainees
to use after participating in live-burn evolutions where they are exposed to the toxic
byproducts of burning Class A fuels!

FACETS recommends that Baltimore County commission a master planning

process for a new Fire-Rescue Academy with sufficient space and facilities to
support the combined career/volunteer workforce of approximately 3,500 fire-
EMS personnel; given the county’s large geography and resulting dispersion of

46
fire-EMS stations, we further recommend the BCoFD evaluate options for
delivering mobile training and/or modular training at smaller sites around the
county, as part of a comprehensive training/certification system.

Full-time Fire-Rescue Academy staffing includes a bureau chief, two captains, two
lieutenants, one paramedic, one paramedic-firefighter, one fire apparatus driver-
operator, one fire specialist, one EMT, and two office coordinators for a total of 12
assigned personnel. Considering just the 1,124 BCoFD career employees, this
represents an approximately 1:100 ratio of training staff to operational personnel;
adding the estimated 2,500 volunteers, the ratio approaches 1:300. While part-time
adjunct instructors can be used to help support recruit academies or special training
initiatives, providing the necessary capacity for the combined organization requires a
much larger full-time staff—and is likely more cost-effective than paying overtime to
sustain core capacity.

As facilities allow, at Sparrows Point or elsewhere, FACETS recommends the

addition of 20-25 FTEs (uniformed and non-uniformed) dedicated to expanding
basic/advanced fire-EMS training opportunities for career and volunteer
personnel.

The negative effects of the current limitations, both facility- and staffing-related, on
training capacity ripple throughout the county’s entire fire-EMS system.

Oft-repeated examples from our listening sessions include:

• Career recruit academies are smaller than necessary to cover normal attrition,
causing front-line minimum staffing, and other, vacancies that must be covered
using overtime
• New volunteers are unable to obtain basic skills training in a timely fashion,
causing them to become disinterested or frustrated and leave their VFC before
becoming operationally qualified
• Incumbent career and volunteer EMS providers are unable to readily accrue the
required continuing education hours for recertification and/or upgrading their
certification(s)

47
 • Fire Apparatus Driver Operator (FADO) courses are infrequent and difficult to
attend on a volunteer and/or career shiftwork schedule
• Mandatory courses in hazardous materials awareness/operations, bloodborne
pathogens, and other required topics are offered infrequently and sometimes
only available at select VFCs using volunteer instructors/facilities

Safety and Health

At present, the BCoFD has a total of three FTEs devoted to its safety and health
programs; one bureau chief, one safety officer, and one office administrator.

Multiple studies and the experiences of peer fire-EMS departments suggest that safety-
and health-related investments pay immediate and long-term dividends by reducing the
frequency, severity, and cost of employee injuries, illnesses, and other casualties.

Given the size of the combined BCoFD career and volunteer workforce, the
department’s safety and health programs are inadequately resourced to effectively
accomplish even mandated functions across the combined organization.

The consequences of these resource limitations take many forms:

• Inability of volunteers to schedule physical examinations with the BCoFD’s

contracted occupational medicine provider beyond Monday-Friday daytime hours
means prospective/incumbent volunteers must miss work for these required
appointments, negatively affecting recruitment/retention
• Reported lack of trust in the existing BCoFD contracted occupational medicine
provider, potentially due to capacity- and/or communication-related challenges
• Limited opportunities exist for both career and volunteer personnel to access
fitness, health, and wellness-related programming with promise to help reduce
injuries and illnesses
• The widespread prevalence of unmitigated behavioral health issues across the
combined BCoFD workforce was frequently mentioned in our listening sessions,
sometimes attributed to the limited capacity and efficacy of existing employee
assistance programs

48
 • Post-injury return-to-work clearances take longer than expected due to staffing
and scheduling challenges

FACETS recommends the addition of 10-12 new FTEs (uniformed and non-
uniformed) to support the BCoFD’s safety and health programs; this will allow the
department to reinforce incident scene safety, better manage existing
occupational health and return-to-work services, expand behavioral health
offerings for first responders exposed to post-traumatic injuries, provide
additional fitness, wellness, and nutrition coaching, etc.

In 2011, a Baltimore County volunteer

firefighter was killed during a garden
apartment fire. The National Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)
investigated this tragic incident and
produced a report as part of its Firefighter
Fatality Investigation and Prevention
Program.

NIOSH delivered eighteen

recommendations in its report, excepted
and summarized below:

• Recommendation #1: Ensure the

first-due arriving officer considers establishing a Command Post or transfers
“Command” to the next arriving officer based upon the needs of the incident.
• Recommendation #2: Fire departments should consider providing battalion chiefs
with a staff assistant or chief's aide to help manage information and
communication.
• Recommendation #3: Fire departments should increase staffing during the use of
an Incident Command Team to ensure command and fire fighter safety during
emergency operations.

49
• Recommendation #4: Fire departments should ensure that a separate Incident
Safety Officer, independent from the Incident Commander, is appointed at each
structure fire.
• Recommendation #5: Fire departments should ensure fire fighters are trained in
the procedures for searching above the fire.
• Recommendation #6: Fire departments should ensure that fire fighters
communicate interior conditions and progress reports to the incident commander.
• Recommendation #7: Fire departments should ensure that interior search crews
means of egress are protected by a staffed hoseline.
• Recommendation #8: Fire departments should ensure that staffed backup
hoselines are utilized to protect the means of egress for the primary attack and
search crews.
• Recommendation #9: Fire departments should ensure that truck companies
announce the placement of egress ladders over the radio.
• Recommendation #10: Fire departments should ensure that fire fighters are
trained and retrained on Mayday competencies.
• Recommendation #11: Fire departments should ensure that fire fighters and
officers understand the capabilities and limitations of thermal imaging cameras
(TIC) and that a TIC is used as part of the size-up process.
• Recommendation #12: Fire departments should ensure fire-fighting tactics do not
increase hazards on the interior.
• Recommendation #13: Fireground tactics need to include effective ventilation to
prevent fire spread.
• Recommendation #14: Fire departments should ensure that a rapid intervention
team (RIT) is established and available to immediately respond to emergency
rescue incidents.
• Recommendation #15: Standard-setting organizations and authorities having
jurisdiction should consider developing more comprehensive training
requirements for fire behavior to be required in NFPA 1001 Standard for Fire
Fighter Professional Qualifications and NFPA 1021 Standard for Fire Officer
Professional Qualifications, and states, municipalities, and authorities having

50
 jurisdiction should ensure that fire fighters within their district are trained to these
requirements.
• Recommendation #16: Research and standard-setting organizations should
conduct research to more fully characterize the thermal performance of facepiece
lens materials of self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA) and components of
other personal protective equipment (PPE) to ensure SCBA and PPE provide an
appropriate level of protection.
• Recommendation #17: Code-setting organizations and municipalities should
require the use of sprinkler systems in commercial structures, especially ones
having high fuel loads and other unique life-safety hazards, and establish
retroactive requirements for the installation of fire sprinkler systems when
additions or renovations to commercial buildings increase the fire and life safety
hazards.
• Recommendation #18: Additionally, radio manufacturers and authorities having
jurisdiction should identify issues regarding capacity of radio systems to function
during high-volume incidents and emergency traffic.

The recommendations arising from this 2011 tragedy are repeated here, 11 years later,
since FACETS heard multiple times during our engagement that many of them have still
not been addressed. While some of these issues are well beyond the purview of the
BCoFD, others reinforce the need for additional organizational capacity to finally resolve
identified training, operational, prevention, and safety-related recommendations.

FACETS recommends the BCoFD revisit the above-listed items and create a
detailed action plan for addressing any remaining recommendations, given
sufficient staffing and funding.

51
ADMINISTRATION
As described previously in this report, the BCoFD does not have sufficient staffing to
effectively perform the core functions of administering a public agency, especially an
organization with a critical mission that operates around the clock.

Similarly, administrative issues were frequently cited as challenges facing the

independent VFCs; during their interactions with the BCoFD and/or county government,
or in administering their own volunteers, part-time employees, finances, facilities, etc.

Many of the volunteers

identified areas where
administrative services could
be shared among the VFCs,
achieving economies of scale
and providing the added
benefit of consistency across
the broader organization.
Examples included payroll,
group purchasing, and
equipment maintenance.

It was also suggested that the BCoFD could provide these services to the VFCs,
handling many of the routine back office functions while the volunteer organizations
maintained control of their own resources.

Finance
From a financial perspective, the BCoFD is underfunded to accomplish its assigned
missions. While it can be difficult to accurately compare fire-EMS departments’ budgets
on a true “apples to apples” basis, a simple assessment of the BCoFD operating budget
versus that of its closest neighbors suggests that substantial additional funding is
needed to provide service according to regional expectations.

The BCoFD General Fund operating budget for FY22 is approximately $112 million.
Neighboring Howard County funds its fire-EMS department at approximately $150

52
million in FY22 and nearby Anne Arundel County is funded at approximately $122
million dollars in FY22. Both peer fire departments operate combination career-
volunteer systems, albeit with a different configuration than the BCoFD, and serve a
smaller population across a smaller land area.

On a per capita basis, Baltimore County funds fire and EMS services at a significantly
lower level than its closest peer jurisdictions, as reflected in Table 5.

Table 5. BCoFD FY22 Operating Budget Comparison

FY22 Operating Land Housing Career Budget Budget per Budget per Budget per
Fire-EMS Department Budget Pop. Area Units Employees per Capita Sq. Mile Housing Unit Employee
Baltimore City $ 304,217,551 585,708 81 313,519 1732 $ 519 $ 3,758,556 $ 970 $ 175,645
Baltimore County $ 112,174,887 854,535 598 239,116 1124 $ 131 $ 187,583 $ 469 $ 99,800
Howard County $ 151,330,010 332,317 251 114,170 610 $ 455 $ 603,534 $ 1,325 $ 248,082
Anne Arundel County $ 150,066,600 588,261 415 209,814 987 $ 255 $ 361,693 $ 715 $ 152,043

In fact, by any measure, Baltimore County spends less on fire protection and EMS than
its neighboring city and counties.

Keeping in mind that both Anne Arundel and Howard Counties maintain combination
career/volunteer systems, the historical rationale for this funding disparity seems to be
rooted in an idea that the volunteer fire companies will “make up the difference” through
their independent fundraising efforts and by providing volunteers to fill front-line service
delivery positions at a significant reduction in cost (versus salaried county employees)
to county residents and businesses. While volunteer-staffed response units undoubtedly
contribute millions of dollars in fire-EMS service to Baltimore County annually,
volunteers are not “free” per se and the VFCs require substantial support from the
BCoFD.

The small sample of VFCs that we visited reported widely varying levels of financial
strain, depending on their own fundraising capabilities and level of county support.
Beyond the previously described support services provided by the BCoFD to the
independent VFCs, Baltimore County also provides some direct financial support
through a complicated system of subsidies, stipends, grants, and payments for
achieving specified performance targets. The total amount of direct support provided to
the VFCs by Baltimore County was estimated at $10.1 million in 2020. Several of the

53
VFCs have been successful in competing for federal Assistance to Firefighters Grant
(AFG) program funding.

During our listening sessions, FACETS heard that many of the Baltimore County VFCs
fulfill their EMS response requirements—for one of the BCoFD-administered funding
programs—by independently employing certified EMTs to staff their ambulances. In
some cases, it appears, these EMTs are off-duty career BCoFD employees.

FACETS recommends that BCoFD leadership, in collaboration with the BCVFA,

jointly conduct a fiscal needs assessment of the independent VFCs, with the goal
of identifying critical funding gaps/opportunities, streamlining available financial
support programs, and securing additional funds to sustain the current
combination fire-EMS deployment model through the county’s operating and
capital budget programs.

EMS Billing
As with many jurisdictions, payments collected from patients who were provided EMS
care are routed to the county’s general fund. While the volunteer fire companies receive
funding from Baltimore County based on the hours they provide staffed EMS units for
service county-wide, there was a consistent sentiment that these payments are
insufficient to cover to the cost of providing the service, and do not provide sufficient
incentive for the VFCs to staff their ambulances with part-time paid and/or volunteer
personnel.

Other Revenue Sources

Fundraising strategies and outcomes vary widely among the VFCs. Some companies
have ongoing fundraising operations, like bingo and hall rental, that appear quite
lucrative. Other VFCs have benefited from private philanthropic contributions, while
others have conducted successful direct mail campaigns. Some of the VFCs still raise
funds through hosting community breakfast or dinner events.

54
Human Resources
As identified previously in the Command section of this report, additional staff are
required to help accomplish basic human resources (HR) administration for the
BCoFD’s 1,124 career personnel. Given sufficient resources, one can also envision the
department offering expanded HR services to the independent VFCs.

The Baltimore County Enterprise Strategic Plan

contains several goals for the BCoFD around
improving diversity, equity, inclusion, and
belonging (DEIB). Enhancing DEIB across the
combined BCoFD organization is an important goal
that will require additional resources to accomplish,
including career/volunteer recruitment and
retention, organizational climate assessment,
fostering workforce dialogue, and providing
ongoing fair practices training.

FACETS recommends the addition of 3-5 new FTEs (uniformed/non-uniformed) in

the Office of the Fire Chief to directly support internal DEIB initiatives throughout
the combined BCoFD workforce.

Maintaining professional standards is important in any organization, but especially vital

in those with a lifesaving mission and unfettered access to clients’ homes; additional
resources are sorely needed for the BCoFD to properly address internal/external
complaints and provide assurance that professional standards are being maintained
throughout the combined career/volunteer workforce.

FACETS recommends the BCoFD establish a dedicated professional standards

(i.e., “internal affairs”) office to provide timely and consistent investigations of
internal/external complaints regarding the conduct of both career and volunteer
personnel. This office must be provided with sufficient full-time staffing and
authority to sanction all personnel associated with the BCoFD; subject to the Fire
Chief’s discretion, relevant BCoFD and VFC policies, and consistent with
applicable federal, state, and county regulations.

55
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
• FACETS recommends adding two more assistant chief-level positions to reduce
management span of control and help address the current overload situation at
the executive level of the combined organization.
• FACETS recommends adding 50-60 administrative support positions, distributed
across multiple program areas, to consistently address the basic functions of
public administration and management for the combined BCoFD organization.
• FACETS recommends adding 32 new operational BC positions and new 4 field
deputy chiefs, distributed across Baltimore County, to address the basic
functions of incident command and personnel management safely and effectively
for the combined BCoFD organization, 24x7x365.
• Given sufficient staffing at the chief officer level, FACETS recommends the
BCoFD evaluate roles, responsibilities, and guidelines throughout the
supervisory, management, and administrative ranks of the organization; with the
aim of empowering employees to make routine decisions at the appropriate
level(s), while identifying non-routine situations that may require higher-level
intervention through the chain-of-command.
• FACETS recommends an immediate and ongoing investment in an intensive
organizational and leadership development effort that will help foster positive
relationships, enhance internal communication, and promote effective
leadership—at all levels—throughout the combined BCoFD workforce.
• FACETS recommends that BCoFD and BCVFA leadership, with input from
various stakeholders, jointly review the overall responsibilities, authorities, and
relationship(s) between the BCoFD and individual VFCs; with the goal of
developing formal guidance documents (i.e., memoranda of
agreement/understanding, service level agreements, contracts, etc.) that
recognize the contemporary issues facing the overall department and clearly
establish shared/independent roles.
• FACETS recommends that Baltimore County commission an in-depth
deployment analysis and standards of cover assessment to help identify existing

56
 gaps in fire-EMS coverage and determine BCoFD needs for additional front-line
resources (career and/or volunteer) to address current/future service demand.
• FACETS recommends an immediate infusion of 10-12 new FTEs for EMS
program administration; allowing enhanced quality assurance/quality
improvement (QA/QI), improved support of EMS field providers
(career/volunteer), and giving BCoFD the bandwidth to further explore
opportunities for providing MIH-CP across Baltimore County.
• Given sufficient staffing at the middle-management ranks and the Fire-Rescue
Academy, FACETS recommends the BCoFD and BCVFA collaborate to develop
a regular joint exercise schedule that will involve multiple career and volunteer
units performing critical tasks (e.g., rural water supply, structure fire deployment,
vehicle extrication, water rescue, etc.).
• FACETS recommends that BCoFD and BCVFA leadership jointly commission an
in-depth study of volunteer recruitment and retention opportunities specific to
Baltimore County, with a particular emphasis on recruiting diverse candidates.
• FACETS recommends an additional 5-6 FTEs dedicated to the joint recruitment
of a diverse career/volunteer workforce for the BCoFD; this commitment appears
necessary to sustain the career workforce at existing levels, while helping to fill
the ranks of operationally-qualified members serving in the VFCs.
• FACETS recommends the BCoFD consider deploying 1-2 career-staffed heavy
rescue companies (“rescue squads”) that would add depth to the existing
HAZMAT and technical rescue (“ATR”) programs, while providing a dedicated
rapid intervention team (RIT) capability on working fires and complementing the
rescue squads deployed by the VFCs.
• FACETS recommends the BCoFD develop a full-time marine firefighting and
water rescue capability with dedicated career staffing to complement the existing
resources deployed to water-related incidents by the VFCs.
• FACETS recommends the addition of 20-30 dedicated staff (uniformed and non-
uniformed) to augment and enhance the BCoFD’s CRR program to meet existing
requirements and create opportunities for expanded/equitable outreach, as
contemplated in the Baltimore County Enterprise Strategic Plan.

57
• FACETS recommends the BCoFD conduct an in-depth review of its fire
prevention fee schedule to determine if the current fee structure is equitable and
aligned with contemporary market factors across Baltimore County.
• FACETS recommends an additional 10-12 dedicated BCoFD staff to perform
cause-and-origin investigation of fires and provide the Fire Department’s
contribution to a joint Fire Investigation Team in partnership with the BCoPD.
• FACETS recommends an additional 10-12 FTEs dedicated to the BCoFD
emergency management program. Potential roles include emergency/disaster
planning, grants management, emergency operations center (EOC) coordination,
critical infrastructure planning, resource coordination, continuity-of-operations
planning, long-term recovery planning, access and functional needs planning,
etc.
• FACETS recommends the addition of 3-5 dedicated FTEs to establish a robust
Planning Section within the Office of the Fire Chief.
• The BCoFD should develop—in concert with the BCVFA, Local 1311, and other
stakeholders—a participative strategic planning process incorporating input from
across the combined organization to chart/communicate a course for the next 3-5
years with ongoing opportunities for continual updates/adjustments.
• FACETS recommends that Baltimore County continue the current fleet upgrade
effort and establish/fund a multi-year vehicle replacement plan to ensure that
BCoFD front-line and reserve vehicles meet the relevant NFPA standards for
safety and reliable operation; keeping the fleet in proper condition also reduces
maintenance costs and downtime.
• FACETS recommends the BCoFD commission a comprehensive facilities master
plan, with the aim of developing a multi-year capital improvement plan (CIP) to
accelerate needed health, safety, and equity projects in department facilities, with
cooperation/funding from the Office of Budget and Finance; this effort could be
co-sponsored by the BCVFA to help characterize the condition of VFC-operated
fire-EMS stations, as well.

58
• FACETS recommends the addition of 5-7 new FTEs (uniformed and non-
uniformed) in Fire Supply to provide regular night/weekend availability for both
volunteers and career personnel on shiftwork schedules.
• FACETS recommends that the BCoFD is provided sufficient funding to procure
and sustain a basic issue of two SFPC ensembles per operational member,
career and volunteer; given the potential cost of this recommendation, it is
important that the BCoFD and BCVFA develop a shared definition and census of
“operational” personnel.
• FACETS recommends that the BCoFD and BCVFA, on behalf of the VFCs,
collaborate to clarify and rationalize the procurement process(es) for all
commodities to help achieve cost savings through effective group purchasing
and economies of scale; the current “system” of provisioning the VFCs appears
cumbersome, time-consuming, and inefficient.
• FACETS recommends that Baltimore County commission a master planning
process for a new Fire-Rescue Academy with sufficient space and facilities to
support the combined career/volunteer workforce of approximately 3,500 fire-
EMS personnel; given the county’s large geography and resulting dispersion of
fire-EMS stations, we further recommend the BCoFD evaluate options for
delivering mobile and/or modular training at smaller sites around the county, as
part of a comprehensive training/certification system.
• As facilities allow, at Sparrows Point or elsewhere, FACETS recommends the
addition of 20-25 FTEs (uniformed and non-uniformed) dedicated to expanding
basic/advanced fire-EMS training opportunities for career and volunteer
personnel.
• FACETS recommends the addition of 10-12 new FTEs (uniformed and non-
uniformed) to support the BCoFD’s safety and health programs; this will allow the
Department to reinforce incident scene safety, better manage existing
occupational health and return-to-work services, expand behavioral health
offerings for first responders exposed to post-traumatic injuries, provide
additional fitness, wellness, and nutrition coaching, etc.

59
• FACETS recommends the BCoFD revisit the NIOSH recommendations from the
2011 LODD report to create a detailed action plan for addressing any remaining
recommendations, given sufficient staffing and funding.
• FACETS recommends that BCoFD leadership, in collaboration with the BCVFA,
jointly conduct a fiscal needs assessment of the independent VFCs, with the goal
of identifying critical funding gaps/opportunities, streamlining available financial
support programs, and securing additional funds to sustain the current
combination fire-EMS deployment model through the county’s operating and
capital budget programs.
• FACETS recommends the addition of 3-5 new FTEs (uniformed and non-
uniformed) in the Office of the Fire Chief to directly support internal DEIB
initiatives throughout the combined BCoFD workforce.
• FACETS recommends the BCoFD establish a dedicated professional standards
(i.e., “internal affairs”) office to provide timely and consistent investigations of
internal/external complaints regarding the conduct of both career and volunteer
personnel. This office must be provided with sufficient full-time staffing and
authority to sanction all personnel associated with the BCoFD; subject to the Fire
Chief’s discretion, relevant BCoFD and VFC policies, and consistent with
applicable federal, state, and county regulations.

60