Getting to the Heart of the Matter
CPAT and Performance Standards
How much longer can we postpone the
inevitable?
By Martha Ellis
Defining the
Real Problem.
There's
a problem in the fire service that has plagued us for years. It's been recognized, labeled, and
debated over kitchen tables and conference tables alike. It touches every aspect of what we, as
firefighters, do. It forces us
into early retirement (sometimes not early enough) and often times an early
grave. It can profoundly impact our ability to provide the services to the
public we are sworn to protect.
What is it? It's the lack
of firefighter fitness.
Everyday
this culprit threatens not only the well-being of those unfit members, but also
the lives and safety of the fit firefighter as well. Every year, fitness related issues lay claim to nearly 50%
of all firefighter fatalities.
If
we could save the lives of those firefighters by making well overdue
adjustments in the mind-set of the fire service, wouldn't it be worth it? If we brought the 21st
century 'professional' fire service up to speed with most any other profession,
requiring on-going performance assessments in the areas effecting productivity,
this problem could be greatly diminished.
Yet,
the most powerful organizations governing the fire service, the International
Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF) and the International Association of Fire
Chiefs (IAFC), refuse to commit to implementing performance standards that
would force firefighters to maintain a reasonable level of fitness. Instead, they've invested millions of
our union dues dollars on an entry-level test that is characterized by poor
organization and questionable intentions.
The distraction the CPAT has created, giving the illusion that some monumental problem has been solved with its conception, is mystifying. While we focus on getting fit firefighters in the entry-level positions (rarely a challenge), we continue to lose incumbents to fitness and nutrition related ailments at a staggering rate. Not to mention the individuals incapable of carrying there own weight, further taxing the system while others pick up their slack.
Granted,
developing an entry-level test has had its inherent heartaches, but does the
CPAT accomplish the objective of solving those problems, and why isn't the real
problem (unfit firefighters) addressed with as much fervor?
Is the CPAT
all it's cracked up to be?
The
two primary concerns when developing an entry-level fitness test are: will it be legally sound, and will it
yield the caliber of candidate desired?
While these are not exactly matters of life or death, does the CPAT
assure an affirmative response to these concerns?
The
most interesting aspect of trying to promote a CPAT alternative to adamant
union members is their unbridled, blind faith in the International's
creation. Their primary rationale
for wanting to use the CPAT is that the IAFF and the IAFC endorse the test for
candidates. "There are over 250
departments using it", they justify. That's okay if you want to rely on the
"safety in numbers" theory.
Unfortunately, in the legal world there's a bit more involved in
justifying your decision to use the CPAT than standing before the judge and
saying, "Everyone else was doing it." The fact is a jurisdiction is solely
responsible for proving the validity of the test they have selected for
candidate testing. Based on
the findings in the case of LaGault v. aRousso, 64 FEP Cases (BNA)(D.N.H. 1994), follow
the leader has been deemed an unreliable style of test selection.
Many are under
the misconception that the IAFF/IAFC is going to defend any challenges that may
occur against the CPAT. In reality
they would have little to say in its defense unless one of the cities involved
in its development was the defendant.
Any liability connected with the test's validity is assumed by a jurisdiction.
The legal bases for using the test is established with the required
transportability study.
The
International provides the required survey questions for the transportability
study. The questions are vague, allowing nearly any department in the country
to justify using the CPAT. But is
that enough to stand up in court? The questions ask only for general
firefighting information. There is nothing to quantify the firefighting
environment. That is, there are no questions defining required stair climbing
heights or equipment weights or dimensions. There is no personalized assessment of the department or the
district as a whole. None of that is required to get the IAFF/IAFC seal of
approval.
There are no requirements
defining the percentage of a department to be surveyed. The only instruction a department is
given is to survey a "diverse" group. The IAFF/IAFC doesn't review any
department's survey results. The
departments are simply instructed to keep the results on file. They are not even instructed on how to
interpret the results. This is your legal foundation for using the CPAT
- shouldn't it have a bit more relevance and significance?
The
abbreviated survey and complete lack of interpretive guidance should be a huge
warning flag for administrators considering the CPAT. If a candidate contests the validity of the test, the
results of the IAFF/IAFC's transportability study will be closely scrutinized.
Who will be liable? Not the IAFF/IAFC.
There are vast
variations in equipment weights, policies and procedures and building types and
heights among departments across the country. To assume that one test could be
legally defensible for all could be problematic. There is a reason that the courts place the burden of proof
of validation on each jurisdiction - specificity. In the CPAT manual it is clearly stated that the test may
not be suitable for all departments, yet how many departments have opted not to
use the CPAT because the transportability study results did not support its
use? None I'm aware of.
Bottomless
Coffers?
The
cost of implementing a program should be one of the primary concerns of any
administrator. The equipment alone is going to set your city back $20,000 to
$50,000! Part of the reason for
the high cost is that you have very limited options available for shopping
around. The IAFF requires that you
purchase the equipment from their designated vendors.
The machines require
calibration and maintenance by qualified technicians, as well. You'll be relying on mechanical
equipment with an undetermined life expectancy when you could simply use a good
flight of stairs and equipment that most departments already have in their
stations or training facilities.
A
cost that will never go away will be the excessive overtime checks you'll be
writing. You're required to host an orientation 8 weeks prior to administering
the actual test. Based on the CPAT manual, you'll need at least 14 people on
the course for test day. That does not address the support personnel you will
need. Those additional personnel will bring your numbers up closer to 20
required individuals. For a
moderately paid department those costs can range from $6,000 to $8,000 per day
in overtime! (Figures bases on 2
Captains, 8 Specialists, and 10 Firefighters for an 8-10 hour day. Obviously these numbers will vary
greatly depending on pay scales and work duration.) Most custom made tests
utilize the department's existing equipment and require half, or less, the
manpower required for the CPAT.
Does the CPAT
standard meet your standard?
The
way the 10 minute and 20 second cut off time was established should be raising
questions. First of all, the
sample runs utilized for the pacing study were erratic, with most of the runs
clustered in the 10 to 11 minute range. To get an accurate evaluation the times
should be evenly spaced throughout a broad range of times. Secondly, the panel members were well
acquainted with the test. Stacking the sample times in the slower ranges and
allowing the raters knowledge of the test affects the credibility of the study,
leading to questionable results.
With the grouping of
sample times in the 10 to 11 minute time frame one would wonder if the IAFF was
trying to target a slower cut off time.
Why would the IAFF want to aim for a lax cut off time? One answer could be that they were
hoping to make the test favorable to women, the group most likely to make a
legal issue of a test's validity.
If you develop a valid standard that accurately reflects the rigors of
the job, discrimination will not be an issue. Tests are designed to discriminate between the capable and
incapable. If they did not, why
test. The challenge comes in
assuring the discrimination is fair.
Wouldn't
it make sense to develop a test that has been thoroughly validated for your
department, using your own pacing study and subject matter experts to establish
a cut off time? The courts think
so.
The Test
Itself
The candidate is
required to climb the equivalent of 12 stories on a mechanical stair machine.
While on the stair climber each candidate must wear an additional 25-pounds
(two 12.5-pound pads, one on each shoulder). That weight represents the weight
most of the departments reported for 50 feet of 1 1/2 inch hose of hose. However, eight of the ten original CPAT
cities indicated that their actual high-rise packs weighed an average of 51
pounds! Testing with these lighter loads in the CPAT could cause problems down
the road when you start loading these individuals with the heavier "real-world"
weights on real stairs.
Another area of the test that can cause problems is the maze crawl. Testing a candidate's ability to crawl is simple. Crawling under or over obstructions can be tested without putting the candidate in a dark maze with obstacles. The CPAT's crawl could easily be demonstrated as being skill-based by subpoenaing department training records. How many hours does your department spend training individuals to operate in a blacked out environment? The objective of the physical ability test is simply to test the candidate's physical ability, not to have them demonstrate that they can perform a trained firefighting skill.
Getting a large number of
departments to conduct a program of this complexity in a consistent, defendable
manner, without clear direction from the IAFF/IAFC is like trying to herd
cats. That became apparent two
plus years ago when they had to revoke everyone's licenses and start all
over. Legal precedence has been
completely disregarded, counting on lax requirements and endorsements to keep
departments out of court. The CPAT
is not immune to legal attack.
Protecting us
to a fault.
Despite several of
its shortcomings, the CPAT itself is not the real problem, however. As the IAFF/IAFC continues to tout the
fire service as one of the most physically demanding professions, too much
attention is being directed to the typically fit entry-level fire fighter when
the obvious fitness problem is with our incumbents. It is clearly stated that
the CPAT is not to be used to evaluate incumbents or make any human resources
decisions. Why not?
The Fire Service Joint Labor Management Wellness/Fitness
Initiative has some
seemingly honorable goals. The
main components of the initiative are listed below.
When, however, does taking action against a physically incapable
firefighter stop being punitive and become just plain smart? Everyone throws
around the word "punitive" like a hot potato. The first step is to define punitive. Being taken out of
combat after exhausting all options to produce a passing score on a valid test
is a good judgment call on the part of the Chief. The problem is, how many departments can afford to have
several people working in days for any give period of time. Sooner or later the ultimate decision
has to be made. If you can't do
the job you need to find another line of work.
Change
will come when we finally realize that refraining
from taking the necessary action to truly correct this trend becomes punitive
for every member of the department and a danger to the citizens who expect us
to be able to do our jobs.
I've seen too many
people hang their "resistance to change" hats on those two bulleted items. In that respect, the IAFF is still
standing in the way of progress.
Recognizing that one of the primary goals of the IAFF is job preservation,
one has to wonder if safety is the price we'll pay.
Living with
double standards.
If firefighters are
not going to be held accountable to a measurable physical ability standard once
on the job, why not drop the entry-level standard all together. To have one without the other is
to assume "once capable, always capable", and we all know that is frequently
not the case.
The
obvious answer is money. There are any number of ways an ineffective individual
in your work force can drain your coffers -worker's compensation claims, wasted
training dollars on candidates who wash out midway through recruit training,
and overtime to fill positions emptied by injury or illness.
Any fire department expecting their firefighters to engage in fire fighting activities should be implementing annual job performance standards for both entry-level and incumbent firefighters according to NFPA 1500. Those standards should accurately reflect the anticipated rigors of the fire service. They should also be the same standard for everyone, another complication to utilizing the CPAT. Departments wishing to us CPAT and an incumbent performance standard are forced to have two standards for the same job! That is dangerous legal ground to tread.
Taking
action.
Implementing an
education program and conducting fitness assessments is not going to help the
truly unmotivated. So what do we
do? If a pumper is unable to pass
an annual pump test it is addressed immediately, yet everyday in our country
firefighters, our brothers and sisters are being sent into hazardous, life
threatening situations ill equipped physically. The time has come to make some serious changes.
Did we not all signed
onto this job with the expectation to maintain performance throughout our
careers regardless of age or gender?
I find it hard to believe that any incumbent firefighter would ever say
to me, "Yeah, I knew I had to be fit to get on the job, but no one ever said
I'd have to maintain an acceptable fitness level throughout my entire
career." When you commit to
firefighting, you commit to being fit.
The IAFF does have a
responsibility to protect its members from irrational decisions and poorly
implemented programs. I feel, however, that by including the first two bulleted
items in the Fitness Initiative (noted earlier) they are shirking their
responsibility to help department implement some type of a valid standard. The Fitness Initiative only
addresses half of the solution. Is
it doing some good? Absolutely, but your hands are still tied when it comes to
making important HR decisions.
So
where do we go from here?
Developing an incumbent performance standard should be as meticulously
executed as that for an entry-level test.
An incumbent standard needs to be as legally sound as your entry-level
test standard. If the evolutions you select are purely designed to measure
physical ability and reflect what the Americans with Disabilities Act calls the
"essential functions" of the job, there is no reason why the test couldn't be
used in both applications. Just
test the incumbents on air. There needs to be documented data collection to
support the selected evolutions and a scientifically sound means of determining
the time to successfully complete the test. Research your options.
Performance
standards are the obvious answer to keeping all of your work force at
the fitness level needed to maximize performance, minimize injury, increase
productivity, preserve life and, hopefully, provide long, happy retirements. It is only a small part of the entire
package, however. Your
fitness/wellness program needs to incorporate education, qualified support
personnel trained in fitness and nutrition, annual fitness assessments to
measure the five components of fitness, and a progressive implementation of a
performance standard. This type of
progress doesn't happen over night Ð it takes time, planning, resources and
commitment.
There
is an expectation that firefighters will be able to complete the necessary
tasks on a fire ground in a timely manner. The problem is many haven't taken the time to clearly define
the standard and assure they are being met. It is difficult at best to pull someone out of combat
because they are not able to do the job without defining your standard.
There
are some brave visionaries in the fire service who have embraced this notion,
like Los Alamos Country Fire in New Mexico. The average age of incumbent firefighters when they began
their program was 45 years old.
With time, patience and a well thought out long-term plan, all of their
members are currently able to meet their established standard.
Chief
Douglas MacDonald of Los Alamos Fire states, "Our fitness program is site
specific, validated, has been challenged all the way to the 10th US Circuit
Court and we prevailed. It has
successfully met a Department of Energy review, successfully met a New Mexico
Congressional review, meets or exceeds all the fitness standards governing
firefighters and, most importantly, improves the health and safety of our
firefighters. Frankly and probably selfishly, I believe in our comprehensive
program and suggest others should give us a look. Our program is very
comprehensive and yes, it does include incumbents and has a time-based
performance standard component."
To
some the answer is clear. Setting
a standard that each member can expect to meet annually is the only way to
assure that your fitness program is working and the entire department is where
it needs to be. Being able to
recognize firefighters with potential fitness problems and address those
problems before we have to bury the member may seem harsh and "punitive." But just ask the wives, husbands and
children of those members which they would prefer. It's time to start making a difference.