Training for Rural
Firefighters: Motivators
and Impediments
Corydon Consultants Ltd
September 2008
The aim of this research was to investigate the factors that motivate New Zealand’s rural
firefighters and influence their attitudes towards training. The National Rural Fire Authority
is required to set minimum standards for training, and is seeking to introduce a requirement
for rural firefighters to undertake training modules. The research focused on the formal unitstandards based training undertaken by Rural Fire Authorities, not the regular practice
training sessions that are held.
New Zealand Fire Service Commission Research Report Number 84
ISBN Number 978-1-877349-72-0 (on-line)
ISBN Number 978-1-877349-73-7 (paperback)
© Copyright New Zealand Fire Service Commission
Training for Rural Fire Fighters: Motivators and Impediments Report for the New Zealand Fire Services Commission Corydon Consultants Ltd September 2008
Training for Rural Fire Fighters: Motivators and Impediments ____________________________________________ Report for the New Zealand Fire Services Commission Corydon Consultants Ltd September 2008
Acknowledgements The core of this report is based on interviews with volunteer rural fire­fighters, crew leaders, RFOs, and Principal or Deputy Rural Fire Officers from around New Zealand. We are indebted to all those who contributed to the research process. These include the twenty PRFOs and DPRFOs who participated in the interviews and facilitated contact with RFOs, crew leaders and other volunteers (100 in total) who took part. All of them are busy people. Many of the volunteers travelled considerable distances and gave a lot of time, often after work hours, to contribute to this research. This included many volunteers who are self­employed. Our thanks too, to the PRFOs who responded to the postal survey. We have tried hard to provide a balanced assessment of the collective contributions of volunteers and PRFOs, while reflecting the detail and diversity of insights they provided during the interviews. In the early stages of the process we conducted telephone interviews about volunteer training issues with key staff from two rural fire­fighting organisations in Australia. We received very helpful advice and information from:
· Queensland Fire and Rescue Authority: Andrew Hopkins (Manager Rural Fire Training) and colleagues Fergus Adrian, Winston Williams, and Corey Bock.
· From the Country Fire Service, South Australia: Arthur Tindall (Manager Infrastructure & Logistics) and Brenton Eden, Manager Training. We are grateful to NRFA staff, especially Gary Lockyer and Ian Millman, who provided essential information and guidance, and to FRSITO executives (Liz Hamilton and Bill Robertson) for expert advice on the qualifications system. We also acknowledge the huge and ongoing effort of volunteers in the New Zealand rural fire movement. Some of those we interviewed have been actively involved with rural fire forces for decades and the majority for at least ten years Their contribution as volunteers has included fund­raising for equipment, community education, regular practices, and formal training ­ all on top of responding to call­outs. In some localities, these call­outs include attending motor vehicle accidents, medical emergencies, and structural fires, as well as vegetation fires. The larger vegetation fires may take many days and nights to bring under control and damp down, putting a lot of pressure on family and work commitments. Overall, these volunteers, in providing a first response, are accepting responsibility for extremely challenging situations involving physical and other risks to themselves, and with no immediate back­up. In most cases the community is receiving a professional level of performance and commitment from people who get no financial reward and in fact incur private costs for their efforts. And it is not just local residents who benefit from this response capability.– but also visitors and those who own forests, farms, or other property in these localities, but live elsewhere. Corydon Consultants would not have been able to do this research without funding from the New Zealand Fire Service Commission – we are grateful for the opportunity to work on this topic. Finally, we acknowledge Elizabeth Grieve from the Commission who provided efficient and good­humoured advice and assistance throughout the research process. Dianne Buchan, Ian Duncan and Kirsty Austin
Training for volunteer rural fire­fighters: motivators and impediments i Contents Executive Summary ..................................................................................................... iv Background................................................................................................................. iv Research approach ..................................................................................................... iv Main findings ................................................................................................................ v 1. Introduction........................................................................................................1 1.1. Purpose of research ............................................................................................1 1.2. Methodology ........................................................................................................2 2. Rural fire­fighting in New Zealand ....................................................................3 2.1. Overview .............................................................................................................3 2.2. The NRFA ­ relationship to NZ Fire Service Commission.....................................5 2.3. Funding for rural fire­fighting................................................................................6 3. Unit standards and FRSITO ..............................................................................7 3.1. The National Qualifications Framework ...............................................................7 3.2. Fire and Rescue Services Industry Training Organisation (FRSITO) ...................8 4. Training and roles under NRFA legislative framework .................................10 4.1. Background .......................................................................................................10 4.2. Role of PRFOs and crew leaders in training ......................................................10 5. Profile of PRFOs and volunteer rural fire­fighters ........................................12 5.1. The research sample .........................................................................................12 5.2. Profile of PRFOs and DPRFOs..........................................................................13 5.3. Profile of volunteer rural fire­fighters ..................................................................14 6. Volunteer experiences ....................................................................................18 6.1. Motivation for joining..........................................................................................18 6.2. Difficulties encountered in being a volunteer......................................................19 6.3. The experience of being a volunteer rural fire­fighter .........................................21 7. Fire Force volunteer training .........................................................................24 7.1. Overview ...........................................................................................................24 7.2. Training levels achieved ....................................................................................25 7.3. Volunteers’ attitudes to training and factors influencing this ...............................27 7.4. Perceived advantages and disadvantages of formal training .............................28 7.5. PRFO perspectives on training ..........................................................................33 7.6. Issues about training..........................................................................................36 8. How outcomes can be improved ....................................................................41 8.1. Provide more administrative support..................................................................41 8.2 More flexibility in the way study and testing conducted ......................................42 8.3 Address leadership issues .................................................................................43 8.4 Acknowledgement of RFF and achievements of volunteers...............................44 8.5 Better communication of need for or advantages of unit standards....................44 8.6 Joint training sessions .......................................................................................45 9. Volunteer training in Australia........................................................................47 9.1 Interviews ­ Rural fire response services in Australia .........................................47 9.2 Research into volunteer training in Australia ......................................................50 9.3 Volunteer Summits in Australia..........................................................................52 10. New Zealand literature on volunteers ............................................................54 10.1 Volunteer motivation – general ..........................................................................54 10.2 New Zealand research on fire­fighting volunteers ..............................................55 11. Summary and Conclusions.............................................................................59 12. Sources ............................................................................................................61
Training for volunteer rural fire­fighters: motivators and impediments ii Training for volunteer rural fire­fighters: motivators and impediments iii
Executive Summary Background This research, funded by the New Zealand Fire Service Commission, was conducted by Corydon Consultants between May and August, 2008. Its aim was to identify the factors that motivate New Zealand’s volunteer rural fire fighters and influence their attitudes towards training. “Training” in Rural Fire Authorities comprises two main components. First, the regular practice sessions held by fire forces and second, more formal unit standards­ based training, assessment, and accreditation. The latter is the focus of our research. The National Rural Fire Authority (NRFA) is required (under legislation enacted in 2005) to set minimum standards for training. The new training specifications came into force on July 1, 2008. These supersede the Code of Practice Standards, and are intended to enhance performance standards and facilitate consistency and interoperability in the rural fire management sector. In the past there has been some resistance to training amongst rural volunteer fire fighters. 1 The objective of this research was to provide rigorous, nationwide information on:
· how wide­spread the resistance to training is
· the reasons behind this resistance and factors influencing uptake of training
· effective approaches to encourage volunteers to undertake formal training. Research approach Core data for this research was generated by face­to­face interviews with 20 Principal Rural Fire Officers (or Deputies) and with 100 volunteers from 43 volunteer rural fire forces (VRFFs) within these 20 Rural Fire Authorities (RFAs). This was supplemented by a postal questionnaire to 21 PRFOs who have volunteers within their Authorities. According to the NRFA website, there are an estimated 3,000 volunteer rural fire­fighters in New Zealand, within 190 VRFFs, and 87 RFAs. 2 Of the latter, only 52 have volunteer fire forces. In addition to these interviews we:
· Met with and gathered background information from representatives of the NRFA and FRSITO.
· Conducted telephone interviews with training executives from two of Australia’s rural fire response organisations.
· Reviewed a selection of New Zealand and Australian research focused specifically on volunteer motivation and volunteer training. 1 2 See for example “Rural fire fighters face more pressure.” www.stuff.co.nz, December 6, 2007. See NRFA website and VRFF survey research by Gavin Wallace.
Training for volunteer rural fire­fighters: motivators and impediments iv Main findings Context Our research found a wide variation in the social and geographical contexts within which the VRFFs operate which results in significant variations in the level and types of demands made on volunteers across localities. For example, some VRFFs operate within rural localities where the permanent population is small, and the pool of volunteers may be static or shrinking. Those who face significant vegetation fire risks and play a major first response role work closely with NZFS brigades, DOC fire­ forces, and other fire­fighters, but often this support is some distance and time away. Other VRFFs are located in peri urban areas, where rural land has been broken up into ‘life­style’ blocks. In these, vegetation fires are declining or are no longer major threats. Most call­outs are to other emergencies, such as motor vehicle accidents, medical emergencies, or structural fires. The research sample also included VRFFs based in urban centres with significant vegetation fire risk in the rural fringes. These have the advantage of access to large pools of ‘potential’ volunteers, in contrast to smaller rural communities. Volunteer motivations Almost all those surveyed were enthusiastic about their experience as volunteer fire­ fighters. Within the volunteer sample, the dominant motivating factor was a wish to contribute to the community. The other high ranking motivator was the challenge and excitement of fighting fires. The strong community contribution motive is related to the rural or semi­rural location of the fire­fighters. In some localities the VRFF is ‘it’ – if they don’t turn out there can be a long wait for the “cavalry to arrive” from elsewhere. For most emergencies, a speedy response is essential if the threat to people or property is to be contained. Many of the volunteers who were interviewed had been with the VRFF for years, in some cases, thirty to forty years. Given the collective amount of volunteer time and effort put into emergency response, practice, training, and fund­raising, the sense of ‘ownership’ and desire for local autonomy within each VRFF is no surprise. Difficulties facing the volunteers in continuing their work for fire­forces were noted. The most common difficulty was balancing volunteer time with family and work commitments. Volunteers and training The research indicated that most volunteers agreed with the existing training requirements and had completed at least the minimum standard. The responses from PRFOs showed that 68% of the volunteers in their forces had achieved the minimum training requirement, while many of the volunteers who were interviewed had also gone well beyond that. The RFAs with the highest percentage of volunteers with the basic training (unit standard 3285) were South Canterbury, Canterbury, Clutha, Franklin, Hutt, Waitakere, Kaikoura District, Rodney District and Wellington, all with 99­100%, The RFAs with the highest percentage of volunteers trained to crew leader standard were Kaipara (35%), and Hurunui and Auckland City (both 34%).
Training for volunteer rural fire­fighters: motivators and impediments v The PRFO responses also indicated a significant variation in the attainment levels between male and female volunteers with 72% of males having the basic field work qualification and 11.5% the unit standard for crew leader, while for female volunteers only 56% have the basic qualification and 4% the crew leader unit standard. The most common reasons cited by volunteers for supporting units based training was that it increased the safety of the operations and made the crews more efficient and effective. Seventy percent of volunteers interviewed felt that formal training made RFF operations safer. Within any group, there will always be a range of reactions to change, such as the move to the NRFA’s Minimum Training Standards from July 1, 2008. But our overall impression was that the majority of respondents accept the rationale for the change, and those who are resistant are in the minority. Further, we were only able to take a snapshot of attitudes as at mid­2008. But in general there seems to be a general shift towards acceptance or even enthusiasm for training, as the process beds down. Where there was resistance to formal training, it was concentrated among older volunteers and tended to reflect the nature of their occupations or skill sets. Farmers or other self­employed people were more likely to be reluctant to get involved in study and written tests, or found it hard to find the time to do so. However, this oversimplifies the picture as many of the volunteers who were interviewed fit that profile, but were in fact quite interested in formal training. There may still be a few cases where training requirements lead to loss of existing volunteers. In our view, that would be more likely to reflect poor process. leadership or communication within the RFA or VRFF, than the training itself. Reasons behind resistance Much of the reported resistance to training or low levels of training uptake reflected past process failures or current shortcomings in the planning and administration of training. This included the loss of training records or failure to submit results for accreditation which resulted in volunteers having to repeat unit standards. It also included limited notice of training days, and poor quality training materials. This conclusion was supported by the New Zealand literature we reviewed, and was a factor common to the Australian experience. There was some resistance or even hostility within a small number of VRFFs, based on the view that either the NRFA or the PRFO was imposing the Minimum Training Standards on volunteers. In these instances, the sense of compulsion was resented, especially in those VRFFs reliant on a very small volunteer pool, who felt that their particular circumstances had not been taken into account. Resistance to training also arose out of poor communication and lack of leadership support for training. For example, improvements to the way the Minimum Training Standards were ‘sold’ at the VRRF level was seen to be critical to achieving willing cooperation. The attitude of PRFOs in terms of their support and enthusiasm for training was found to be a significant factor influencing the attitudes of the volunteers towards standards based training. We concluded that resistance or poor training uptake often reflected constraints on the capacity of PRFOs to provide sustained leadership with respect to training. The majority of PRFOs are not dedicated to rural­ fire management, but have many other accountabilities to their employers (principally TLAs). Some of these officers find it difficult to do the detailed planning and management of volunteer training that the standards based training requires.
Training for volunteer rural fire­fighters: motivators and impediments vi Encouraging volunteers to undertake formal training One of the main findings from our research was the diversity of volunteers, and the wide range of circumstances in which the VRFFs are operating. With regard to training – there is no universally acceptable approach. And there is no ‘silver bullet’ that will readily deal with the barriers to lifting training attainment across those volunteers who have been doing the job for many years, but do not have all the appropriate credentials. In our judgement, some of the more generic problems reflect a convergence of time and resource constraints on PRFOs and time constraints on volunteers. Lifting the training achievement of volunteers requires a substantial planning, communication, and administrative effort. Additional resources to help address administrative back­ logs or to facilitate more forward­planning, would be valuable. Specific areas where more resources would help include providing assistance for PRFOs and crew leaders to establish individual training plans, organising qualified trainers and assessors, facilitating volunteer attendance, and keeping on top of the associated administrative workload. In addition, some volunteers thought that the boundary been practice and training was unnecessarily firm. They raised the possibility of using practice nights as opportunities to progress formal training and assessment, subject to the availability of the necessary qualified people. Most volunteers are primarily involved because they want to contribute to the local community. However, they do appreciate recognition for their efforts. Part of this may come through formal awards such as the distribution of FRFANZ medals and bars. But there may be other initiatives by the NRFA or TLAs which would give appropriate recognition and thereby motivate volunteers and encourage participation.
Training for volunteer rural fire­fighters: motivators and impediments vii 1. Introduction The New Zealand Fire Service Commission provided funding for Corydon Consultants to undertake research into the factors that motivate volunteer rural fighters and their attitudes to training. The research primarily involves interviews and surveys of Principle Rural Fire Officers and volunteer fire­fighters from across New Zealand. The research also draws on previous studies of New Zealand’s fire­fighters and Australia’s experiences of rural fire services. The purpose and approach to this research is set out below. 1.1. Purpose of research The aim of this research project is to identify the factors that motivate New Zealand’s volunteer rural fire fighters and, in particular, influence their attitudes towards training. Some of these factors may encourage participation in training, others may act as barriers. Implicitly, we also consider if, and to what extent, training obligations may either encourage or discourage volunteering. “Training” comprises two main components. First, the regular practice sessions held by fire­forces, and second, more formal unit standards­based training, assessment, and accreditation. It is the second which has been the focus of our research, and which we refer to henceforth as ‘training’. Over the last 20 years and more, volunteer rural fire fighters, crew leaders, Rural Fire Officers (RFOs), Principal Rural Fire Officers (PRFOs) and their Deputies have worked with various forms of training and assessment. The National Qualifications Framework was established in New Zealand in 1991 and unit standards for rural (and urban) fire­fighters were introduced shortly afterwards. In the early 1990s, the National Rural Fire Authority (NRFA) established the Rural Fire Management Code of Practice training standards. Most recently, the NRFA has been required (under legislation enacted in 2005) to set minimum standards for training and the new specifications for this came into force on July 1, 2008. These supersede the Code of Practice Standards, and are intended to enhance the measurement of quality and facilitate consistency and interoperability in the rural fire management sector. In the past there has been some resistance to training amongst rural volunteer fire fighters. 3 The objectives of the research are to provide rigorous, nationwide information on:
· how wide­spread the resistance to training is
· the reasons behind this resistance and factors influencing uptake of training
· effective approaches to encourage volunteers to undertake formal training. The NZFS Commission, through the NRFA, is seeking to raise the effectiveness and safety of volunteer rural fire­fighters. Our research can be seen as part of an evaluation of a series of regulatory changes aimed at achieving this. The risk or potential cost of lifting training standards is that some current volunteers will be lost, or potential recruits discouraged. This in an environment where there is a shortage of volunteers, and especially younger or more physically active volunteers, 3 See for example “Rural fire fighters face more pressure.” www.stuff.co.nz, December 6, 2007.
Training for volunteer rural fire­fighters: motivators and impediments 1 in many parts of New Zealand. This is a serious challenge not just for the rural fire service, but also for other emergency response organisations reliant on volunteers. 4 1.2. Methodology Core data for this research was generated by face­to­face interviews with 20 Principal Rural Fire Officers (or Deputies) and with 100 volunteers from 43 volunteer rural fire forces (VRFFs) within these 20 Rural Fire Authorities (RFAs). This was supplemented by a postal questionnaire to 21 PRFOs who have volunteers within their Authorities. In total, there are an estimated 3,000 volunteer rural fire­fighters in New Zealand, within 190 VRFFs, and 87 RFAs. 5 Of the latter, only 52 have volunteer fire forces. In addition to these interviews we:
· met with and gathered background information from representatives of the NRFA and FRSITO.
· conducted telephone interviews with training executives from two of Australia’s rural fire response organisations.
· reviewed a selection of New Zealand and Australian research that focused specifically on volunteer motivation and volunteer training. 4 “We note that in some areas there are flagging levels of volunteer ambulance officers and volunteer fire fighters.” Executive Summary, Report of Health Committee Inquiry into Ambulance Services. July 2008, P.5. 5 See NRFA website and VRFF survey research by Gavin Wallace.
Training for volunteer rural fire­fighters: motivators and impediments 2 2. Rural fire­fighting in New Zealand 2.1. Overview The National Rural Fire Authority is responsible for coordinating rural fire management activities in New Zealand. Rural fire fighting in New Zealand is carried out by a force of about 3,000 volunteers and part­time fire­fighters. 6 The part­timers are employees of such organisations as the Department of Conservation, local authorities, forestry companies, and the defence forces. Fire­fighting is included in their job descriptions. These volunteers and part­time fire­fighters belong to about 190 volunteer rural fire forces registered in 52 of a total of 87 Rural Fire Authorities. According to an officials’ report in 2003: 7
· Rural fire services cover around 97% of New Zealand’s land area. Within this area the Rural Fire Authorities have the responsibility to safeguard life and property against fire in forest and rural areas and other areas of vegetation.
· Rural fire forces do not have a legislative mandate to assist with the wider range of emergency services, and are not legally protected if they undertake this work. 8
· Fire Authorities provide the fire management and fire­fighting services, and these are sometimes contracted out, including to the New Zealand Fire Service. The NRFA is an organising group – not a parent organisation. Liabilities,(such as OSH requirements, are with Rural Fire Authorities (RFAs). Rural fire regions have organising committees which pool resources to coordinate training in their region. The RFAs may be based in Department of Conservation regional offices (for state areas), the New Zealand Defence Force (for most of its own land), Rural Fire District committees (for specially Gazetted areas) and Territorial Local Authorities (for all other areas). Members of the RFAs sit on the 14 Regional Rural Fire Committees (RRFCs). The RRFCs promote regional co­ordination and co­operation, and provide advice and assistance for the activities of the NRFA. The following table, compiled by officials, provides some comparative data, as at 2003, on the three main components of the RFA. 6 In addition, there are estimated to be about 3,000 other helpers, staff, and contractors. Department of Internal Affairs, November 2003, p.8. 8 “Medical emergency fears grow: Firefighters called on more often as ambulances struggle.” The Dominion Post, Tuesday, June 3, 2008. Page A3. (NB This and other reports refer to volunteers from “fire brigades” but volunteers from rural fire forces face similar challenges.)
7 Training for volunteer rural fire­fighters: motivators and impediments 3 Source: Department of Internal Affairs, November 2003, p.9.
Training for volunteer rural fire­fighters: motivators and impediments 4 2.2. The NRFA ­ relationship to NZ Fire Service Commission The Fire Service falls under the control of the New Zealand Fire Service Commission (NZFSC), a Crown Entity that reports to the Minister of Internal Affairs. The following diagram shows the relationship between the NFRA and the NZFSC and outlines the main elements of the NRFA and its training structure. Minister of Internal Affairs Council Chief Executive Principal and Deputy Rural Fire Officers (PRFOs) Rural Fire Officers (RFOs) VRFF Controllers Volunteers 12 Regional Rural Fire Coordination Committees 87 Rural Fire Authorities ­Territorial Local Authorities ­Rural Fire Districts ­Dept of Conservation ­ Defence Force Pool resources to provide courses Pay training providers Volunteer Rural Fire Forces (VRFFs) About 190 community­ based teams Source: Corydon Consultants – adapted from NZFS and NRFA material. NRFA Rural fire forces and NZFS urban fire brigades are subject to quite different structures and training regimes. In the rural system only the PRFOs (and deputy PRFOs) are paid employees, and training can be ad hoc. In the urban brigades, paid fire­fighters are given 12 weeks training before they go into the field to fight fires, and urban volunteers get 7 days training. In addition, urban fire­fighters (paid and volunteers) have access to professional trainers, whereas rural fire­fighters may be trained by other volunteers. In the 52 RFAs with volunteer fire forces, only about 12 PRFOs are dedicated to rural fire­fighting full­time and those that are, tend to cover large areas and have a larger number of VRFFs to manage. There are big differences between RFAs and thus between the rural fire responsibilities of PRFOs in different regions. These differences include the numbers of VRFFs and volunteers – some RFAs have only 1 VRFF with say 15
Training for volunteer rural fire­fighters: motivators and impediments 5 volunteers. But several have 10 or more VRFFs and 150­200 volunteers. Also, there can be huge differences within each RFA in the demands placed on individual VRFFs. Some face ongoing risks from vegetation fires or other incidents and experience large numbers of call­outs each years. Others are much less active. This may be because climate or changing land use reduces the risk of vegetation fire, or because the area is well­covered by other fire response organisations. 2.3. Funding for rural fire­fighting Most costs for rural fire fighting are met by a Rural Fire Fighting Fund (RFFF) grant. Claims for fire fighting costs are assessed and a grant provided by the NRFA. In order to receive a RFFF grant, the RFA must have an operative fire plan and meet the requirements of the Fire Service Act and Forest and Rural Fires Act. 9 The NZFS Annual Report shows that in 2006/07 the NZFS received $268 million through the Levy, of which $3.5 million went to the Rural Fire Fighting Fund. This contribution to the Fund is approved by the Minister of Internal Affairs. The Fund also receives a grant from the Department of Conservation, to cover the cost of suppressing fires on Conservation estates 9 NRFA website ­ http://nrfa.fire.org.nz/Firenet/Regions/Rural/
Training for volunteer rural fire­fighters: motivators and impediments 6 3. Unit standards and FRSITO This section describes the National Qualifications Framework and the role of the Fire and Rescue Services Industry Training Organisation (FRISTO) which is the industry training organisation and standard setting body for the fire and rescue industry. 3.1. The National Qualifications Framework Since 1990, the New Zealand Qualifications Authority has been responsible for overseeing the development and implementation of a national qualifications system in New Zealand. It does this in consultation with other educational organisations within New Zealand and internationally. 10 The National Qualifications Framework (NQF) was officially launched in November 1991. The Industry Training Act 1992 links industry based training and assessment to the standards and qualifications registered on the NQF. Qualifications on the NQF are based on ‘units of learning’ with a standard format and a national catalogue. Since 1993, the units of learning have been known as ‘unit standards’. The first unit standards were registered in February 1993. A Record of Learning (RoL) was to be kept for all learners gaining credit on the NQF, with the Qualifications Authority being responsible for maintaining the RoL in a central computer database. Every learner gaining credits on the NQF receives a RoL that lists all the NQF standards and qualifications they have achieved regardless of where they were achieved. The first RoL was issued in August 1993. The NQF was designed to achieve a range of interlinked objectives discussed by Sir Neil Waters (Board Chair) in a paper entitled The Vision for the National Qualifications Framework, July 1996. We have highlighted the objectives which seem particularly relevant to the subject of this research.
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
10 create a single, co­ordinated framework of qualifications;
provide a consistent basis for the recognition of educational achievement wherever that achievement occurs;
extend recognition to a wide range of achievements;
encourage the integration of ‘academic skills’ with applied skills, and to bring together theory and practice;
enable and encourage diversity among providers of education and training, and to recognise academic freedom;
reform assessment practices in education and training;
raise progressively the standards of educational achievement;
shift the practice of teaching to student­centred learning;
provide quality assurance for qualifications;
enable qualifications to evolve and develop;
recognise the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi;
provide a rational system of nomenclature for qualifications;
provide a system of credit accumulation and transfer;
enable qualifications that are flexible;
encourage a wider range of educational settings; and
provide incentives to increase individual and collective investment in education and training http://www.nzqa.govt.nz/news/featuresandspeeches/docs/nqf­background.pdf
Training for volunteer rural fire­fighters: motivators and impediments 7 3.2. Fire and Rescue Services Industry Training Organisation (FRSITO) FRSITO is the industry training organisation and standard setting body for the fire and rescue industry. In partnership with industry, it develops unit standards and qualifications to meet the needs of all sectors as their education and training partner. FRSITO is responsible for setting national standards and facilitating training and assessment for the industry, as well as moderating internal and external training provision. 11 FRSITO training programmes support the NRFA, the NZFS, and the following other sectors and employers: Department of Conservation; Local Authorities; Industrial Brigades; Airport Companies and New Zealand Defence Forces. Key aspects of FRSITO’s role in relation to unit standards training for the NRFA are as follows:
· The Fire and Rescue Services industry Training Organisation has developed unit standards to cover the skills, knowledge and experience required within the fire and rescue services industry.
· The standards are developed by experts in their field 12 and registered on the NQF.
· Every unit standard has a statement of learning outcomes and performance criteria against which assessment judgments are made, i.e. what you need to know and do, and to what level of competency this is required.
·
·
Each unit standard is also assigned a credit value. Credits refer to the time it normally takes a learner to achieve the outcomes of a unit standard in learning, practice, and assessment. One credit equals approximately 10 ­12 hours of learning, practice, and assessment. All unit standards are reviewed at regular intervals to ensure they are up to date with current trends and skills.
FRSITO has developed assessment guides for each unit standard to assist trainees with their learning. These guides outline typical activities that would lead to sufficient experience to be ready for assessment. FRSITO has also developed a range of Structured Training Programmes (STPs) for the rural/vegetation sector. These STPs are targeted at full­time and volunteer fire­ fighters and fire managers. Each STP includes a balance of compulsory and elective units. STPs range from an elementary one­year programme at Level 2 of the Qualifications Framework through to a three year National Diploma in Vegetation Fire­Fighting Management at Level 6. 13 There are some differences between the roles and objectives of FRSITO and the NRFA with respect to training. As recently as June 2008 there were calls for NRFA unit standard training packages to align with FRSITO unit standard qualification requirements. 14 Examples of specific points included: 11 http://www.frsito.org.nz/index.html For example, the FRSITO Board comprises representatives of the NRFA and all other relevant organisations, and FRSITO has established a Training Advisory Group which uses industry stakeholders in an advisory capacity 13 FRSITO brochure Making your training count. 14 Remit by the Greater Wellington Regional Fire Committee to Regional Rural Fire Committee Chairpersons Conference, Wellington, June 26, 27, 2008. P.37, Pre­Reading Booklet.
12 Training for volunteer rural fire­fighters: motivators and impediments 8 ·
·
Training delivered using NRFA training packages may not provide trainees with the relevant Unit Standard when assessed under FRSITO requirements.
NRFA standards are based around roles while FRSITO standards are based around tasks. This fundamental difference needs to be rectified.
Training for volunteer rural fire­fighters: motivators and impediments 9
4. Training and roles under NRFA legislative framework This section describes the legislative framework for the rural fire service training regime, the background to its implementation and the purpose behind the requirements. It also describes the role of the PRFOs and crew leaders in relation to the training requirements. 4.1. Background Prior to 1999 there was no formal recognition of training for the rural fire service. In sharp contrast, the unit standard approach introduced since 1999 involves a strict assessment process. This requires additional time commitments from the trainee over and above the practice nights. The timing of the training depends on the availability of suitably qualified trainers or assessors. FRSITO and NZQA require written documentation of both training and assessment. Under the Fire Service Act 1975, the functions and powers of the NZFSC and the NRFA are to set, in consultation with Fire Authorities, minimum standards for Fire Authorities in relation to the following matters: 15 i. the training, equipping, and clothing of Fire Officers (as defined in section 2 of the Forest and Rural Fires Act 1977) and any other persons required by a Fire Authority to attend a fire ii. achieving timely responses to fires iii. fire weather observation iv. assessing fire hazards. Aside from the 1975 Act, other relevant statutes are the Forest and Rural Fires Act 1977, Resource Management Act 1991, and the Health and Safety in Employment Act 1992. Key regulations are the Forest and Rural Fires Regulations 2005. A Fire Authority must record in its fire plan, under the heading “Readiness”, the policies and procedures that the Fire Authority has in relation to readiness for a fire­ fighting event in its district. 4.2. Role of PRFOs and crew leaders in training The main positions in the Rural Fire Service are as follows:
· Principal Rural Fire Officer
· Deputy Principal Fire Officer
· Rural Fire Officer
· Fire Force Controller
· Deputy Fire Force Controller
· Crew Leader
· Firefighter The PRFO contributes to the formulation of policies in line with legislation. The PRFOs role is to develop strategy and to manage personnel and resources. The PRFO is also responsible for ensuring the Authority’s Fire Plan is adopted and complete. 15 http://nrfa.fire.org.nz/Firenet/Regions/Rural/Legislation/
Training for volunteer rural fire­fighters: motivators and impediments 10 This can involve different levels of management depending on the size and risk of each RFA. So PRFOs:
· may be involved in detailed operational matters
· may delegate authority and tasks to others while remaining responsible
· may have a number of warranted RFOs responsible to them. A Crew Leader is the person in supervisory charge of usually four to eight fire­ fighters and responsible for their performance, safety and welfare. Specific responsibilities and tasks are set out in the following extract from NRFA training notes. Crew Leader Responsibilities ·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
Understanding legislative & RFA policy requirements
Leadership and supervision of crew members to ensure that fire control action is carried out:
· Safely
· Effectively
· Efficiently
Ensure crew follow safe working practices and use the appropriate safety equipment
Know fireground command, control and communication functions (CIMS)
Know how to receive and act on an Incident Action Plan (IAP) from a supervisor
Know the processes for responding to a report of fire and for carrying out fire suppression operations
Supervise crew and provide leadership
Maintain quality control on work done
Appraise crew members on their performance
On­the­job training
Crew Leader Tasks
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
Get a briefing from the Sector Supervisor on the incident and the specific crew assignment (strategy and tactics)
Ensure the safety and welfare of firefighters working in assigned crew
Brief the crew on the assigned task, ensure Lookouts, Awareness, Communication, Escape Routes and Safety Zones (LACES) are identified, understood and maintained
Obtain the necessary equipment and supplies as required for the task
Keep the Sector Supervisor informed of the status and progress of the assigned task
Consider and recommend to the Sector Supervisor any changes to tactics as conditions and fire behaviour require
Account for all equipment drawn by the crew
Utilise allocated resources and crew in the most effective manner
Maintain records of crew time and status
Training for volunteer rural fire­fighters: motivators and impediments 11 5. Profile of PRFOs and volunteer rural fire­fighters Interviews were undertaken with 20 PRFOs or DPRFOs and volunteers across New Zealand. These interviews were supplemented by a postal survey of an additional 21 PRFOs to provide greater representation. This section provides a profile of the volunteers and PRFOs / DPRFOs who were interviewed. The purpose is to document the range of people who contribute to the RFF and their depth of experience. This section is followed by a detailed analysis of the interview and survey results relating to volunteer motivations and experiences as rural fire­fighters (section 6) and training matters (section 7). 5.1. The research sample There are 87 RFAs in New Zealand, encompassing about 190 registered fire forces and about 3,000 volunteer fire­fighters. Fifty two of these RFAs include volunteer fire forces, as shown in the table below. Rural Fire Authorities in New Zealand Total Rural Fire RFAs with Authorities (RFAs) Volunteer Rural Fire Forces (VRFFs) Conservancies* TLAs with RFAs Rural Fire Districts Defence Force RFSs Number of VRFFs 10 50 19 8 3 38 11 5 127 58 Total 87 * Net of 2 that are part of RFDs 52 190 Source: National Rural Fire Authority The field work included 20 interviews (mostly face­to­face) with PRFOs or their deputies. The purpose of these interviews was to collect baseline data on volunteer numbers, as well as to collect their views and experiences of training. We also surveyed the PRFOs in an additional 21 RFAs to expand the sample of baseline information. Altogether the interviews and surveys of PRFOs comprised PRFOs from 41 RFAs. Within these RFAs there are:
· 2,634 volunteers across 138 VRFFs
· About 10% of these volunteers are female
· About 68% of volunteers have unit standard 3285 (Minimum Fireground Entry Standard)
· Around 10% have unit standard 3291 (Crew Leader). One hundred volunteers from 43 VRFFs in 20 RFAs around New Zealand were interviewed. Some of these VRFFs had as few as 4 active volunteers, others reported volunteer numbers in the mid­thirties.
Training for volunteer rural fire­fighters: motivators and impediments 12 Only current volunteers in the NRFA were interviewed, not former volunteers or those who may be considering volunteering. So, for the latter two groups, we have no direct observation of the impact of the training requirements on their attitudes to volunteer rural fire­fighting. There are numerous factors which potentially influence decisions about volunteering – training is just one of these. The research did not cover comparable groups such as volunteers in urban fire brigades, or volunteers in other emergency response organisations such as civil defence, ambulance, or search and rescue. Data on comparable groups is relevant to conclusions about, for example, the influence of the organisational context on volunteer attitudes to training. 16 Characteristics that the researchers considered could have some influence on the uptake of training and attitudes to training were identified and data collected on these characteristics during interviews. Potentially influential characteristics included age, type of employment, family status, sex, ethnicity, experience in the VRFF and other volunteer experience, and level of educational attainment. 5.2. Profile of PRFOs and DPRFOs Twenty in­depth interviews were undertaken with PRFOs (or their deputies). Eighty percent of these interviewees were employees of Territorial Local Authorities. More than half of the interviewees had been in PRFO roles for at least six years. The range in the length of service is shown in the table below. Length of experience as a PRFO Less than 1 year 2 1 – 2 years 3 – 5 years 6 – 10 years 1 5 8 More than 10 years 4 PRFO time allocated to rural fire duties varied widely across the sample, ranging from less than 20% of their paid time to full­time. This variation is illustrated in the table below. Those who were not involved in rural fire duties on a full­time basis were often assigned civil defence management roles as well. Most PRFOs emphasised that in practice their hours and the actual allocation of them varied widely through the year. During the fire season the proportion of time allocated to rural fire duties could expand considerably when they can be heavily involved in leading fire responses. Proportion of paid time allocated to PRFO duties Less than one One day a week 1 to 2.5 days a day a week week 4 1 3 More than 50% Full time 6 6 16 For research across emergency service volunteers as a whole refer NZIER (2008) “Volunteer­related training in emergency services – improving training outcomes. Findings from qualitative research. Report to FRSITO July 2008. http://www.frsito.org.nz/newsletters/frsito_reports.html
Training for volunteer rural fire­fighters: motivators and impediments 13 5.3. Profile of volunteer rural fire­fighters A demographic profile of the 100 volunteers who were interviewed is shown in the following tables. 5.3.1 Age The volunteer sample ranged in age from sixteen to late sixties, with the majority between the ages of forty and sixty. Only a small proportion were under thirty years of age. Volunteers by age 16 – 20 20 ­ 30 31 ­ 40 41 ­ 50 51 ­ 60 Over 60 Total 1 6 21 31 25 16 100 5.3.2 Employment The volunteers were evenly divided between self­employment and employee status. Self employed included farmers. Six volunteers who were interviewed had retired from the workforce. Volunteers by employment status Self employed Employee (full­time) Employee (part­time) Retired Unemployed Other 47 42 6 6 0 4 ‘Other’ included casual and still at school. The table totals more than 100 because some volunteers responded in more than one category 5.3.3 Dependent children Less than half (44%) of the interviewees had dependent children. The ages of the children were fairly evenly spread from pre­schoolers to secondary school and tertiary students. Less than 5 yrs old Total number of children by age group (44 respondents) Total number of respondents with children in each age group 5 – 10 yrs old 10 – 15 yrs old Over 15 yrs old 16 19 19 44 13 12 14 21
Training for volunteer rural fire­fighters: motivators and impediments 14 5.3.4 Sex We specifically asked the PRFOs to include women in the sample they selected for interview. As a consequence, 13% of the volunteers we interviewed were female while women make up only 10% of RFA volunteers across the country. 5.3.5 Ethnicity or country of origin Ninety­one percent of the volunteers interviewed were Pakeha. Other ethnicities represented in the sample included Maori or Maori/Pakeha (3%), UK migrant (4%) and Other European migrant (2%). 5.3.6 Educational qualifications Just over 50% of the volunteers interviewed had some form of tertiary qualification. The educational profile of the sample is as follows. Highest Educational Qualification No school qualifications High school qualification Trade cert/vocational diploma or training (includes police training) University Still at school Total 11 34 37 17 1 100 5.3.7 Volunteer experience in the VRFF Fifty three percent of the volunteers interviewed had some degree of seniority within the force ranging between crew leaders and a status equivalent to Rural Fire Officer. Forty percent were fire­fighters and 7% were solely classed as drivers, operational support, or training officers. Over 70% reported more than 6 years experience in the VRFF and 46% had more than ten years experience. Their span of operational experience is indicated in the following table.
Training for volunteer rural fire­fighters: motivators and impediments 15 Operational experience in the VRFF No. of respondents No practical experience Vegetation fires: less than 10 Vegetation fires: 10 – 19 Vegetation fires: 20 – 49 Vegetation fires: 50 – 100 Vegetation fires: more than 100 Vegetation fires – don’t know how many Total with vegetation fire experience Structural fires: none Structural fires: 1 – 5 Structural fires: 6 – 10 Structural fires: more than 10 Total with structural fire experience Vehicle fires: none Vehicle fires: 1 – 5 Vehicle fires: 6 – 10 Vehicle fires: more than 10 Total with vehicle fire experience Road accidents: none Road accidents: 1 – 5 Road accidents: 6 – 10 Road accidents: more than 10 Total with road accident response experience Other 8 13 9 27 19 13 19 92 46 28 15 11 54 72 16 4 8 28 44 21 12 23 56 29 “Other” included ambulance assistance, and responding to medical alerts, flood events, search and rescue, rubbish fires and responding to alarms. Structural Fire Training
Training for volunteer rural fire­fighters: motivators and impediments 16 Seventy three of the volunteers were able to provide estimates of the total number of incidents they had attended. More than one third (38%) of these had attended more than 50 incidents. The distribution of experience was as follows. No. of incidents Fewer than 10 10 – 20 21 – 50 51 – 100 101 – 150 More than 200 No. of respondents 12 15 18 13 8 7 5.3.8 Other volunteer experience To test the extent to which the fire fighters had a culture of volunteering we asked the volunteers about their volunteer history. Of the 97 who answered this question, 44 (45%) also volunteered for other organisations while 53 were not currently volunteering for other organisations although some had done so in the past. The most common “other” organisations the fire fighters were currently volunteering for or had previously done so were Search and Rescue, community hall committees and School Boards of Trustees or some other school­based activity. To a large extent this level of volunteering reflects the rural communities with small populations that many of the volunteers live in. One volunteer described how at the end of the VRFF meetings, the position of chair and secretary changed and the same participants became a meeting of the hall committee and then with a further change a meeting of the Civic Defence or Search and Rescue committee! Ngatimoti VRFF ­ Preparing for a fire training exercise with Fire Service
Training for volunteer rural fire­fighters: motivators and impediments 17 6. Volunteer experiences – interview results This section sets out the motivations of the volunteers for joining the RFF and the difficulties they encounter in being a volunteer fire fighter. In the final section, fire fighter’s describe their experiences as a RFF member. 6.1. Motivation for joining Volunteers were asked what motivated them to join the RFF. The twenty PRFOs interviewed were asked what they thought were the reasons for volunteering for the RFA. The range of motivations noted by volunteers and PRFOs is shown in the following table. Some respondents listed several reasons. Motivations for volunteering Community contribution Challenge of fire­fighting Experience of a fire personally or through family/friends Contact with an existing member Increase employment opportunities Extension of current or previous employment Personal development (social contacts, get fit, learn skills etc) Volunteers PRFOs 87 32 17 6 14 28 19 4 0 0 2 4 7 12 ‘Community contribution’ was the most commonly stated motivation by both the volunteers and PRFOs. This is consistent with the findings of previous research on volunteering in New Zealand, and within the fire service in particular (refer section 10). Over half the PRFOs thought that gaining social contacts and sense of camaraderie were significant motivators, whereas less than 10% of the volunteers thought this was a factor. About a third of the volunteers and PRFOs stated that the challenge of fire fighting was a motivator. Having contact with someone who was already a member of a fire force was a motivator for about a third of the volunteers but none of the PRFOs interviewed recognised this as a factor. Comments from volunteers about their motivations for volunteering included: Community service “This far away if you don’t volunteer you don’t have a fire service.” “Volunteering is part of living in a rural community, eventually it could be your own place.” “I get a kick out of helping people.” “The satisfaction of knowing I am saving lives and property.” “I saw a need and had the skills, I’d been a fire­fighter in the Army”. (Volunteers from Police and Forestry Service also responded in like ways) Previous experience of a fire “I joined just after the Wither Hills fire. There was an advert in the paper for people to volunteer because that fire had showed there was a need for a rural fire force in Blenheim.” “There was a large grass fire in our district. It made me realise the importance of fire service volunteers.”
Training for volunteer rural fire­fighters: motivators and impediments 18 Blenheim VRFF working on the Pukaka Road fire – (commercial forestry block) Contact with existing members “I met people from VRFF through my work in the forestry industry. I had to do fire training there so when I met these people I decided to join them.” “I knew the CFO and what he did so I knew what I was getting myself into.” “I’ve been doing burnoffs on farms all my life and been on the fringes of fire fighting. I knew people who were fire fighters and eventually decided to join them.” Personal Development “I felt I needed to have experience with the VRFF to do a better job in my role as a manager.” “I was home with a young child and needed to do something outside the home and more social contact. My husband was very supportive. The guys were really welcoming and showed a lot of respect for me and each other. I get a real sense of being part of a team.” “It was a new challenge – something not many people do.” “As a new­comer it was a way to meet people in my community.” “I wanted to get fit. I sit in an office all day and needed something active to do.” For 23 of the respondents, being in the VRFF was either an extension of their paid work (as farmers, forestry workers, police etc) or was a way of adding value to their CV which they hoped would increase their opportunities in the job­market. 6.2. Difficulties encountered in being a volunteer Several potential barriers to volunteering were identified in the interview guide and the volunteers were asked whether and to what extent these factors presented difficulties for them. The factors were unsupportive employers, taking time off work (for self­employed people), family demands and the distance to travel to training. About one­third of the volunteers did not have any difficulties to overcome in being a volunteer fire­fighter. Of the rest (65), the two most common difficulties were family commitments (28) and getting time off work (23). These two difficulties are also commonly noted in previous research of volunteers in the emergency sector (refer section 10).
Training for volunteer rural fire­fighters: motivators and impediments 19 6.2.1 Employer attitudes We asked the forty­eight volunteers who were employees (rather than self­employed) if their employer had been supportive of their participation in a rural fire force. Only three said that their employers were not supportive. These people had to take annual leave to attend training courses during the week and were not allowed to attend fires in work­time. However, the vast majority of employees reported good levels of support. The ways by which employers demonstrated their support are shown in the following table. Type of Support from employers Given paid time off work to attend fires or recover from fire fighting Given paid time off work for training Employer sponsors FF /attends FF functions Full time Part time Total 35 23 3 3 1 0 38 24 3 Having employer support did not necessarily mean there was not a problem juggling employment with the demands of being a volunteer fire fighter, especially in cases where the fire continued over a prolonged period. “It’s hard to find people to cover for me at work over longer periods.” “Getting time off work as a specialist person in a small local business is difficult.” Twenty percent of those with dependent children said that getting time off work was a problem compared to 15% of those without dependent children. For those who are self­employed, the main difficulties encountered are illustrated by the following quotes: “As I’m self­employed, if I don’t work I don’t get paid.” “When I’m busy at harvest time or in the shearing season work comes first.” Several other farmers mentioned the difficulty they had taking time away from the farm at crucial periods of the production cycle. 6.2.2 Family commitments Twenty eight volunteers (34% of those with dependent children) said the demands of family life posed a difficulty at times. Representative quotes included: “My family are supportive but I sometimes feel guilty going away”. “Getting time away from home isn’t a problem with the family but it means I can’t get jobs done around the house.” “When the kids were younger it was difficult to get time to do the unit standards.” “Balancing family, farm and lifestyle against the demands of fire fighting can be a challenge.” Interestingly, 21% of the fifty­two respondents who did not have dependent children also found family commitments to be a barrier which indicates that a person’s stage in the family life­cycle is not a significant influence on availability for service and training. 6.2.3 Travelling distances
Training for volunteer rural fire­fighters: motivators and impediments 20 For a very small proportion of the 100 volunteers interviewed, travel requirements were a problem both for training and for attending fires. These included those who had to travel long distances (in one case 200km) for training, sometimes using their private vehicle. Similar findings have been noted in previous research of volunteer fire­fighters, where travel distances have created time and financial pressures (refer section 10.2). Representative quotes include: “Travelling long distances adds to our cost for training”. “I have to travel 1.5 hrs to go to training sessions. Although my employer is supportive, it makes for a long, rushed day”. “I am usually late attending a fire due to distance so I don’t go unless I know it is a big one”. “I work all over the region and find I am usually not in the right place at the right time.” 6.2.4 Socialising difficulties A few volunteers said they found having to work as part of a team or that being expected to socialise with the other volunteers was a difficulty for them. One of the youngest volunteers said he found it difficult working with volunteers in the older age group who had been there for a long time. “They can be quite hard on new people when they make mistakes. I don’t have a lot in common with them, normally I wouldn’t socialise with them.” Another said he found it difficult “learning to face people and work as a team.” 6.2.5 Changing demands and expectations One important difficulty faced by volunteers results from the changing nature of demands for their fire fighting services. In some localities there has been a marked shift away from fighting vegetation fires, towards attending motor vehicle accidents, medical emergencies, and structural fires. One volunteer commented that he didn’t think the changing demands on the RFF were adequately recognised and provided for by management. “There’s a pronounced lack of support from those in authority, starting with central government. In particular, a lack of a clear mandate to go about our activities needed to provide the services to our community and the resources to do so.” This matter was previously raised in research on rural fire­fighters in Northland. A recommendation of that research was to develop training that enabled volunteers to combat all fires, including structural and vehicle fires (refer section 10.2). 6.3. The experience of being a volunteer rural fire­fighter Almost all those surveyed were enthusiastic about their experience as volunteer fire­ fighters. A large proportion of the volunteers talked about the camaraderie and social contacts they get from being a volunteer fire fighter. Some recognised that their work in the fire force had helped them to grow as a person. Many also mentioned the huge sense of satisfaction they got from serving their community in this way. “We are like a big family – you get to know them as friends as well as colleagues. I would trust the others with my kids. It’s been a good experience so far – a bit of a learning experience and really worthwhile.” “I really enjoy it ­ fronting up to a fire and not knowing what you’re going to have to deal with. You’ve got to plan ahead ­ it’s a real challenge. Being a woman it’s great
Training for volunteer rural fire­fighters: motivators and impediments 21 to be part of the team, treated as an equal, feeling confident about doing heaps of things.” “The camaraderie is very important. We get together once a month for drinks. Every three months we have family get­togethers. We also visit each other’s houses for coffee.” “The social side is very important. Down here there’s not a lot of opportunities to socialise.” “There has been a big change in me since I joined three years ago. When I first joined I was very much waiting to be told what to do. Now I’m much more confident, even in telling others what to do as a crew leader.” “I’ve been here since the beginning and gained a hell of a lot of experience. I’ve made friends with people from all walks of life and from other areas ­ people I wouldn’t meet otherwise”. “It has been very worthwhile. It has expanded my horizons – taken me out of my comfort zone occasionally. It’s been a great way to get involved in the community. For someone like me who works alone most of the time, it’s been good to be involved in team activities.” “I’ve enjoyed it. There’s been times when I’ve wondered what I’m doing but then I think about various fires I’ve been to and think “we did a good job there”, and I think back to the Wither Hills fire and it’s good to know if that happened again I could help­ do something about it. “It’s been a great experience. A good way of giving back to the community and a great way to meet like­minded people” “It’s giving something back to the community. In a little community people know what you do and there’s a real appreciation for what we do.” “It’s been really good – lots of challenges, lots of times I felt like walking away but then the siren goes and away you go. Working as a team is awesome, with people I would never choose to be with and that’s a wonderful thing.” Wellington City VRFF – Community Event
Training for volunteer rural fire­fighters: motivators and impediments 22 The quality of the leadership provided by the PRFO and crew leaders was also a factor influencing the enjoyment and satisfaction volunteers’ gained from their role. “The lack of organisational and communication skills of the CFO is a problem. It’s that which puts me off being a volunteer rather than the training. He’s full of promises that don’t eventuate.” “It’s rewarding but as a crew boss, dealing with the bureaucracy can be frustrating.” “It’s been good because we have a supportive council, a good PRFO and a good team to work with.” “We have been lucky, our PRFO has set very high standards and makes sure we comply. That adds to the safety and efficiency. When the pager goes we become a team, we know what to do.” Getting instructions before a training exercise
Training for volunteer rural fire­fighters: motivators and impediments 23 7. Fire Force volunteer training This section describes the types of training provided for volunteers, the levels of training achieved across the RFAs. The attitudes of the volunteers towards training, the factors affecting that and volunteers’ perceptions of the advantages and disadvantages of training are then outlined along with the perspectives of the PRFOs on training. Finally the section sets out the range of issues related to training that were identified in the interviews with the volunteers and PRFOs. 7.1. Overview One of the core responsibilities of each VRFF (via RFOs and crew leaders) is to improve the safety and effectiveness of all fire­fighting activities by:
· Training, to the FRSITO competencies, all personnel involved in fire control (staff and volunteer fire­fighters)
· ongoing maintenance and upgrading of fire equipment
· integration, where appropriate, with outside fire authorities. This responsibility is reflected in the approach to training which comprises:
· regular practice sessions to check serviceability of equipment and familiarise volunteers with it. (In some VRFFs there are weekly practice sessions, in most others they are either held fortnightly or monthly.)
· formal training requiring individual book learning, training by a qualified trainer and then testing and assessment by a qualified assessor. Depending on the topic and level of the qualification sought, training may be delivered “on­job” or “off­job” i.e. in special evening or weekend sessions. The FRSITO website sets out the objectives and process for each type of training. On­job training: Most unit standards are developed with the job role in mind and therefore training can take place on­the­job, or through drawing on experience gained in the course of normal work­based activities. A training record book is used to document the trainee's involvement in aspects of workplace activities and this can be used to provide evidence to assist the assessor in making decisions about a trainee's competence. The trainee is responsible for keeping the workbook up to date and writing in details of his/her training activities. Off­job training: This ensures the on­the­job training outcomes are relevant to the workplace and best practices. On some occasions the training is provided by trainers from outside the workplace who have a specific expertise not readily available in the workplace.
Training for volunteer rural fire­fighters: motivators and impediments 24 Wellington VRFF Monsoon bucket filling 7.2. Training levels achieved The volunteers were asked about the number of unit standards they had completed. As indicated earlier, most volunteers interviewed have been in a VRFF for at least six years and some considerably longer i.e. around 40 years. Because of the length of time they have been involved and the difficulty of recalling the details, many interviewees were not able to cite the number of unit standards, STPs, and higher qualifications they had completed. In most of these cases the information was provided by the PRFO or Deputy drawing on their training records. Process failures in the transition from one training approach to another also created some difficulty in obtaining a complete record of the qualifications held by a few of the volunteers. Altogether, seventeen volunteers were not able to answer this question with any degree of accuracy. In spite of these difficulties we believe that the information collected gives a reasonably accurate picture of the achievement of unit standards among the volunteers. The following table shows the wide variation in the number of units obtained across the 83 volunteers who answered this question. Level of training among volunteers Less than 10 units 10 – 19 units 20 – 29 units 30 – 39 units 40 – 49 units 50+units Total No. of respondents 42 21 15 3 1 1 83
Training for volunteer rural fire­fighters: motivators and impediments 25 The forty­one PRFOs interviewed or surveyed were asked about the achievement levels for unit standards among their volunteers. The results are shown in the following table. Training levels obtained by volunteers across the surveyed RFAs Interviewed PRFOs Surveyed PRFOs Total Total number of volunteers in RFAs covered 1532 No with US 3285 % of No. with % of volunteers US 3291 volunteers 1026 67% 129 8% 1102 761 69% 147 13% 2,634 1,787 68% 276 10% One RFA was unable to provide any figures on the number of volunteers and three were not able to provide figures on the number with unit standards. The responses showed that of the 2,634 volunteers in their combined forces, 1,787 (68%) have the minimum training requirement (unit standard 3285) and of these 276 (10%) have the minimum training standard for a crew leader position. Comparing unit standards attainment according to the sex of the volunteer shows a significant variation in the level of accreditation as illustrated in the following table. While 72% of males had the basic standard for field work only 56% of females had this unit standard and only 4% of females had crew leader qualifications compared to 11.5% of males. Cutting fire lines for access or to backburn from
Training for volunteer rural fire­fighters: motivators and impediments 26 Training levels obtained by volunteers across the surveyed RFAs by sex No. of No. & % males in of males RFAs with US 3285 Interviewed 1378 689 PRFOs Surveyed 990 950 PRFOs Total 2,368 1,639 (72%) No. & % of males with US 3291 125 No. of females in RFAs 154 No. & % females with US 3285 76 No. & % females with US 3291 4 140 112 72 7 265 (11.5%) 266 148 (56%) 11 (4%) The RFAs with the highest percentage of volunteers with the basic training (unit standard 3285) were South Canterbury, Canterbury, Clutha, Franklin, Hutt and Wellington all with 100%, Rodney (99%), Rotorua (93%) Kaipara and Ashburton (90%), Blenheim, Central Otago, Hurunui and Wairoa all between 80% and 90%. The RFAs with the highest percentage of volunteers trained to crew leader standard were Kaipara (35%), Hurunui and Auckland City (both 34%) and Wellington and Wairarapa (both over 20%). The responses from the PRFOs and volunteers show that the training ethos and volunteers’ progress in gaining qualifications varies widely both within and across RFAs. There are several important reasons for these differences which we explore later in the report. 7.3. Volunteers’ attitudes to training and factors influencing this Attitudes to training and training achievement varied widely across the volunteer sample, and depended to some extent on the age of the individual and the local context in which they volunteered. The resources available for training in the RFA, and the importance and therefore priority RFO’s and crew bosses accord to training were also influential factors. The enthusiasm and energy which RFO’s and crew leaders put into training was, in our view, the most influential factor. 7.3.1 Relationship between attitude and personal characteristics Participants were asked what they thought of the requirements for volunteers to undertake formal training. Seventy five completely agreed with the training requirement and many were able to proudly cite the actual units, or at least the number of units, they had achieved. Eleven disagreed with the requirement either totally or in part. This quote is representative of the comments made by those who disagreed with the training: “The training should be practical – you can do a lot of “formal” training and still not know how to do the job. There’s qualifications and then there’s knowledge.” Three other respondents agreed that limited training was a good thing ­ “just the basics” ­ but thought the current training requirements went too far.
Training for volunteer rural fire­fighters: motivators and impediments 27 The following table indicates that age is the only personal characteristic affecting attitudes to training. Those under forty were all in favour of training while those over forty were more likely to disagree with training or be neutral towards it. The level of formal education appears to have no effect on volunteers’ attitudes and neither does the sex of the volunteer. Volunteers’ attitudes to training by age, education and sex Volunteer characteristic Age 16 – 20 Age 20 – 30 Age 31 – 40 Age 41 – 50 Age 51 – 60 Age Over 60 Total No school qualifications High school qualification Trade cert/vocational diploma or training University Still at school Total Male Female Total Agree 1 6 21 23 16 11 78 9 26 (100%) (100%) (100%) (70%) (64%) (65%) 29 13 1 78 66 12 78 (76%) (76%) (100%) Disagree Neutral Total 0 0 0 4 6 4 14 1 6 0 0 0 6 3 2 11 2 3 1 6 21 33 25 17 103 12 35 38 5 2 0 14 13 1 14 4 2 0 11 8 3 11 (75%) (74%) (76%) (75%) 17 1 103 87 16 103 The volunteers were asked if they had been encouraged to undertake training and if so, by whom. Almost all had been encouraged to undertake training either by an RFO or crew leader as indicated in the table below. Only one volunteer had not been encouraged to undertake training. Sources of encouragement for volunteers to undertake training Encouraged by RFOs Encouraged by crew leader(s) Encouraged by spouse or other family member Encouraged mainly other fire force members Not encouraged by anyone Total No. of respondents 72 26 6 9 1 100 7.4. Perceived advantages and disadvantages of formal training The volunteers were asked why they agreed or disagreed with the units based training requirements. They were also asked if the units based training requirements had been an advantage or disadvantage to them personally. Their responses are recorded in the following sections.
Training for volunteer rural fire­fighters: motivators and impediments 28 7.4.1 Advantages for the RFA The reasons given for considering units based training to be an advantage or disadvantage to the RFA are summarised in the following table. The most common reason for supporting units based training was because they considered it increased the safety of the operations and made the crews more efficient and effective in fighting fires. Consistency in approach between RFAs was also seen to be an important outcome of national training. Positive impacts of training on the RFA No. of responses Increases safety Increases effectiveness Keeps standards up Ensures consistency across RFAs Makes clear what’s required for the job Reduces amount of equipment damaged from misuse Helps keep volunteers motivated Has helped strengthen middle management 70 63 55 11 3 3 2 2 Comments made elaborating on the positive effects included: “I agree totally, national standards are good for consistency across the country when going to another district the PRFO knows he is getting value for money.” “It helps with consistency. On a crew it is important they are all on a similar level so you can call on anyone to do anything.” “It heightens awareness and prepares us for situations that we haven’t actually experienced.” “Some people have a tendency to panic but with training they don’t because they know what to do.” “It stops bad practices being passed on.” “It provides a national standard that everyone can identify with – everyone is on the same playing field. Formal decision­making increases the chance that the right decisions will be made – how to ration water supply, which flank to start fighting first, when to call in heavy machinery.” “As a crew boss it gives me confidence in the people who turn up to a fire. If you are working with helicopters and machinery you need to know that they aren’t going to do something silly.” “It gives fire fighters an understanding of how to look after themselves and others – how to use gear properly, awareness of dangerous situations.”
Training for volunteer rural fire­fighters: motivators and impediments 29 Waimea RF District VRFFNZ Fire Service Brigades combined training day US3288 Load Water & Water Additives for Aerial Operations. 7.4.2 Disadvantages for the RFA Fourteen volunteers thought the training had a negative effect on the RFA. For some it was all negative, for others the disadvantages were mixed with advantages. The disadvantages they noted are summarised in the following table. Negative effects of training on RFA No. of responses Doesn’t increase ability to fight fires A barrier for existing volunteers and to recruitment Not relevant for tasks required 6 5 4 The following quotes illustrate the negative effect that some volunteers believe training has on the recruitment and retention of volunteers: “Paper­based learning is a barrier to existing volunteers and new ones.” “For some crews with older members, people have left the fire force as a result of the training requirements. It will take a huge effort to get the others through the basic units.” One volunteer noted the negative impact on the crew as a whole if not all volunteers are trained: “The trouble is those who don’t want to do the training have to be supervised. That requires more people on the ground. It can put extra pressures on the crew in different situations.”
Training for volunteer rural fire­fighters: motivators and impediments 30 Some volunteers viewed the use of theoretical training negatively, as indicated by the following comments: “Ninety percent of fire fighting is common­sense. You can’t educate people about that. Making people get qualifications is just protecting the backs of people in Wellington. The best training is in the paddock with the equipment – practical training.” “I didn’t join to do a lot of theory. The quickest way to learn is to do it.” 7.4.3 Personal benefits derived from training Most (88%) of the volunteer fire­fighters interviewed who had undertaken some units based training thought they had benefitted personally from the training. Some thought it had been a benefit in some respects but a disadvantage in others. The disadvantages are set out in section 7.4.4. Three volunteers had not yet received any training. The following table summarises the benefits of unit based training cited by respondents. Personal benefits gained from training No. of respondents Increases own safety Good to be able to demonstrate expertise Increased learning for personal development Improved own performance in field Has provided a framework for practical experience Increased confidence/self­esteem Added to skills needed for employment Transferable to other RFAs and can be deployed overseas Provides goals to aspire to Provides opportunity to socialise and think about something other than work 48 42 14 10 9 9 6 4 2 1 About a third of the respondents valued the training because it had enhanced their skills or increased their confidence and self esteem. Two volunteers with no previous qualifications said the training had improved their ability to learn and retain information. Another said “it gives you respect from others.” One PRFO noted “Training is empowering. Especially for the ones who don’t have any qualifications”. Others saw the units based training as a necessary addition to the practical training. “It complements the practical training and provides the rationale for why things are done the way they are.” For some, the unit qualifications had helped them with their paid employment or their employment prospects. “The NZQA units from volunteering can provide cross­credits for gaining employment in some industries such as forestry.” “My present employer recognises the National Certificate and pay is set on the number of Certificates gained. It takes the place of Trade Certs that don’t exist any more.” “We do a lot of log burning on the farm so knowing how fires develop and change and when it’s out of control is a big help to my work.”
Training for volunteer rural fire­fighters: motivators and impediments 31 “My training record has assisted me with paid employment and the operational experience helped improve my management effectiveness.” Four volunteers specifically referred to the fact that gaining unit standards opened up opportunities for overseas travel because it made them eligible for recruitment to fight fires in other countries. As one volunteer said “Going to Aussie was a good opportunity to learn about things and get experience that I wouldn’t get here.” 7.4.4 Personal disadvantages of training Fifteen volunteers thought that the formal training requirements actually disadvantaged them in some way. Some were concerned about the number of units they were required to study that were not directly applicable to the type of work that their Fire Force was involved with. This is discussed further in section 7.6. While they supported training that enhanced their safety, they thought it was a disadvantage when “excessive” time was required to train in aspects of fire fighting that they considered were not relevant. The range of disadvantages cited by volunteers is shown in the following table. Reasons for training being a personal disadvantage No. of respondents Time required (away from family, off from work) Reduces enthusiasm for being a volunteer Already know what to do – waste of time Draws attention to learning difficulties 7 6 8 4 The problems or disadvantages noted by the fifteen volunteers are explained further through the following responses: “Some of our fire fighters have never trained – labourers, farmers. The written stuff is a real problem for them, it undermines their confidence. These people have far more confidence with practical knowledge and oral answers. We need these people, we complement each other to work as a team.” “Training becomes a burden – rather than being able to use the training that I have done over a long period of time. I haven’t hurt anybody and haven’t failed anybody. There are a lot of people who would leave if they were made to do formal training.” “Some people don’t accept the value of accreditation because they think that they know it all anyway, and most probably do. You can’t put a value on common sense but for me, formal training is important. Those most resistant to training tend to be men not used to having accreditation: the older group. Young people are used to having accreditation requirements. The anti­attitude to unit standards comes first and then on top of that is the threat of the written material to their image – they feel threatened by how it might affect how others see their intelligence.” In our view, these perspectives are at the heart of much of the controversy about training within the NRFA. They are especially salient to RFAs and VRFFS in rural areas where the core membership tends to comprise people who are more interested in practical competencies than desk­based training and who, because of their age or their farm­based employment do not see that being able to cite unit standards, will advantage their employment opportunities. Some of these people have contributed for many years to their community through the rural fire­fighting and other emergency response activities. They need to be convinced of the need for units based training. Since they tend to be strongly loyal to their fellow fire officers, understanding the
Training for volunteer rural fire­fighters: motivators and impediments 32 extra pressures on the team when non­qualified fire fighters are in the crew, could be one way to convince them of the value of training. Four fire fighters specifically mentioned the difficulties they encountered in dealing with book­based learning and written assignments because they were dyslexic. Six PRFOs also mentioned learning difficulties as an issue for some of their fire fighters. This matter is discussed below (7.6). 7.5. PRFO perspectives on training PRFOs were asked a series of questions on the training requirements, including:
· what they want from the training regime
· the importance placed on formal training
· their view on volunteers’ attitudes to training
· what difficulties, if any, they had experienced in implementing training. 7.5.1 Outcomes sought from formal training When questioned about what PRFOs want from the training regime, most indicated that increased safety was the outcome that they sought, as indicated in the table below. Another common response was to have more trained and experienced volunteers. Outcomes sought from formal training Increased safety More trained and experienced volunteers More explicit understanding of standards required Increased status for volunteers Reduced turnover, increased commitment No. of responses 13 9 6 4 3 NB: There are 35 responses in total because some PRFOs provided more than one response Training obligations are incorporated in the Constitution of each VRFF, which means that the interview process together with the Constitution provides an important filtering opportunity – both for the VRFF and the volunteer. It provides an opportunity for both to test whether the commitment to training will be there once the new volunteer is accepted. However, for those who joined fire forces without being fully aware of the training obligations, training can be a turn­off, and some may leave as a consequence. Three PRFOs sought a reduced turnover and increased commitment as an outcome of the training. Although most PRFOs were supportive of the need for formal training, there was a broad spectrum of views about how far it should be taken. The varying perspectives usually reflected the local setting in which the PRFO was operating. For example: “We don’t live in an ideal world in terms of volunteer pool. NZFS can determine its own destiny (with professional crews). But with 100% volunteers each with its own local context, no one size fits all.” “The Pack test is a rigorous gauge of fitness/strength. But we need to think about its relevance to actual roles, such as older volunteers who start up appliances and operate pumps. In fact very few RFD participants have completed the Pack test. So this is a good parallel with training in general. It’s a guideline and recommendation and only a literal view of OSH requirements would say it should be enforced. That is not realistic in practice.”
Training for volunteer rural fire­fighters: motivators and impediments 33 Several PRFOs referred to difficulties they were experiencing with ‘inherited’ crew leaders who in the PRFOs view, had done a good job over many years, but were not up to the new standards. These PRFOs had to find a way to deal with the situation while minimising the loss of volunteer loyalty to the VRFF. “When you are dealing with volunteers ­ you have to make the best of what you’ve got.” 7.5.2 Importance of formal training The PRFOs who were interviewed were asked about the importance they personally attached to formal training, and the reasons for their response. Most PRFOs responded that they thought training was ‘very important’ or ‘important’. None felt that it is not important at all, as indicated in the table below. Importance attached to formal training Very important Important Not very important Not important at all No. 8 8 4 0 Reasons given for each of these rankings are as follow: Very important: “In this day and age with Health and Safety and the Employment Act, if they are not skilled we could be liable. Skilled workers can suppress fires a lot quicker.” “Training builds teamwork, improves effectiveness. They know the system for managing fires and the hierarchy of command at fire site.” “It’s high on my priority. We set the requirement for training at least once a month – it’s a slow drawn out process over many years to change the culture.” Important: “It depends on the currency of the qualification. For example, a volunteer may have attained a standard but it may not be current. VRFFS have agreed to standards – if you want to join now you have to have 3285 before progressing.” “They are important – it is more a question of how they implemented. 3285 is useful as an explicit benchmark.” “It is easy to implement for young ones – there’s more resistance from the older ones. We need to check on the currency of skills and there’s always room for updating with Health and Safety”. Not very important: “To me I want the guys that can do the job well rather than those that have a pile of unit standards and then pack up on the job. I had two or three like that – you don’t know until the crunch comes.” “It’s of some relevance only. The importance is on having competent staff more than having a Unit Standard on paper.” “Not very. I expect though they will be of significant value for Health & Safety legislation compliance. It can also be useful to know people’s competence.”
Training for volunteer rural fire­fighters: motivators and impediments 34 There was limited time in the interviews to explore the reasons underlying each assessment. Clearly, one important influence on the rankings given was differing views on the link between formal credentials and practical competencies. Although the PRFOs surveyed by postal questionnaire were not asked this question, one took the opportunity to express concerns about the training requirements. “Too much is expected in the NRFA training requirements for volunteers who want nothing more than to serve their community. There is too much emphasis on unit standards training – they don’t teach actual fire ground realities. It’s not until you have a fire­ground experience that you learn. All you need is competent leaders.” Two other PRFOs were unable to provide the number of volunteers who had Unit Standard 3825 (the minimum training requirement for field work) nor the number of volunteers qualified as crew leaders which could be an indication that these PRFOs also did not place much value on unit standard training. Hira VRFF training US21417 – Operate light portable pumps in a vegetation fire environment 7.5.3 Volunteer attitudes to training The twenty PRFOs who were interviewed were asked for their views on volunteers’ attitudes to the training requirements. Most felt that the volunteers were either enthusiastic or accepting of the requirements. PRFOs indicated that poor attitudes to training were generally a result of their leaders’ views, the lack of time volunteers had to undertake training and their views on the value of theoretical, as opposed to practical training. Comments illustrating these points are as follows: “Sixty percent have a positive attitude and 30% are accepting. Poor attitudes come from poor leadership; they think they know everything and don’t see why they should have to prove it. The 10% that are resentful have been in a fire force for a long time prior to Unit Standards. The trouble with volunteer fire­fighters and training is when
Training for volunteer rural fire­fighters: motivators and impediments 35 it’s not supported from the top, for example by the PRFO or the employers (TLA or DOC conservators). The PRFO may not be able to put the time in that’s required and doesn’t have the funding to do the job properly either.” “Their attitude comes from a mixture of time availability and their view on theoretically­based assessors. Many don’t like book work and core aptitudes differ across individuals.” “There is a very limited pool of volunteers. Most are experienced and have a huge pool of practical experience and are not interested in credentials. You also need to bear in mind the local context. Most of the district is covered by NZFS volunteer brigades so VRFFs may have a limited role – first response or clean up.” “Time constraint is a key factor and a lack of confidence/ability with the amount of paperwork. Most are doing this for the community and reflect a feeling that unit standards are a burden.” 7.5.4 Difficulties in implementing training The twenty PRFOs were asked about the difficulties they had in implementing training. The most common response was the time constraints experienced by volunteers. This was also the main challenge that the Queensland Fire and Rescue Service encountered in implementing changes to its training requirements (refer section 9.1.1). Other difficulties noted by the PRFOs are set out in the table below. Difficulties implementing volunteer training Volunteers find it hard to make time for training PRFO finds it hard to find time to organise training Inadequate funding Training on offer is not practical/suitable Difficulty getting trainers 12 5 4 4 3 NB: 28 responses in total because some PRFOs provided more than one response The following quotes help to illustrate two of these difficulties “Our two unit leaders have the least amount of formal training but they are our most experienced fire fighters. One was an NZFS volunteer. It’s just that they are both self­ employed and are exceptionally busy people and when their work is “in season” they can’t leave it other than for emergencies.” “It’s a one man band here. I rely on other managers to put in ‘volunteer time’ to help organise training. The PRFO has lots of duties other than training.” 7.6. Issues about training As discussed earlier in the report, the majority of volunteers were positive about training and there were many favourable comments about the benefits gained from the training and the acquisition of unit standards. However, a number of areas for improvement emerged from our interviews with both PRFOs and volunteers. Some of the criticisms related to the actual requirements and their relevance (i.e. questioning the value it adds to the learning gained from hands­on experience). Others however, stemmed from the processes surrounding the delivery of training, the assessment of knowledge, and the associated paper trails.
Training for volunteer rural fire­fighters: motivators and impediments 36 7.6.1. Training delivery and administration The responsibility for training administration and delivery lies primarily with RFOs but also to a lesser extent with crew leaders. Some of the strongest complaints we heard from volunteers were about process failures either in transition from one training system to another, or the loss of training records subsequent to a change in personnel (e.g. PRFO or crew leader). One PRFO thought this had had a profound effect on the willingness of his volunteers to undertake training. “Training is a non­event – the last controller forgot to do the paperwork. Recently I made 26 phone calls and only got two to do the training. Several volunteers who had undertaken training had been waiting for three or more months to receive their accreditation. Another issue for some was the limited amount of notice given for training days and lack of consultation on the timing of the courses. This made attendance difficult when employment and family responsibilities needed to be juggled. ”Some members have been put off because of the short notice of training and also the inconvenient timing of the courses.” ‘The training time needs to be standardised and we need to stick to that time. Otherwise it’s hopeless.” However, some felt that the quality of the administration and training materials were improving. “When the unit standards were introduced 10­15 years ago, there was no coherent approach to training. Only now are we starting to see some sensible groupings.” 7.6.2 Changing standards – increasing standards Comments from some volunteers indicated that the justification for units based training has not been well communicated from the centre and more of a ‘selling effort’ is needed when a change such as the Minimum Training Standards, is being implemented. A counterview is that this particular change was initiated about three years ago, and there has been a lot of consultation within the NRFA over that time. So at least in theory, there should have been some adjustment or pre­planning in RFAs prior to the formal implementation date of July 1, 2008. Some comments from volunteers suggested that the level of attainment was set too high, bearing in mind the way fire­fighting happens in practice and especially how fire­fighters are managed on the ground. For example: “We are volunteers, not full­time firemen. We need to know the basic stuff, but full­ time fire service training is over the top. If they bring in fitness testing, that will cancel a lot of us out. The level of first aid is also over the top.” “Ninety percent of fire fighting is common­sense and you can’t educate people about that. Making people get qualifications is just protecting the back of people in Wellington. The best training is in the paddock with the equipment – practical.” “I agree with formal training but support a flexible approach. You need two or three people trained as crew leaders who can take charge. For the rest, they should have the basic safety (3285) but they don’t need all others. You can’t expect them to train with radios if they’re not interested.” But there was also some acknowledgement that the RFAs do have a degree of flexibility about how they respond to training requirements. One volunteer noted “Our
Training for volunteer rural fire­fighters: motivators and impediments 37 PRFO tailors training to meet our needs, keeps formality at a minimum and keeps the paperwork down. Whereas another RFA I’ve been in was over the top – very formal with no assistance.” Flexibility in the way training is implemented was identified in an Australian summit of volunteers as an important factor in achieving training outcomes (refer section 9.3). 7.6.3 Changes to units and requirements to repeat course work Some of the responses were critical of the requirement to repeat some learning when ‘the goalposts keep getting shifted’. “I feel really annoyed about the unit standards getting changed and having to re­sit them and I know most of our fire­force feel the same way. It invalidates what we have done. I think it is important to do periodic reviews of unit standards. If the information is so different it should be a new unit standard or a supplement to the unit standard already completed.” One person commented on the process for recognition of prior learning.: “The recognition of prior learning process is cumbersome. You have to rediscover course content, who was involved, when it was done etc. It’s almost easier to repeat the course.” 7.6.4. Quality of teaching materials and tutors Some of the criticisms made were about quality of the teaching materials, the quality of tutorials and the assessment processes. The following improvements to the materials were suggested:
· be more simple and to the point – cut out the surplus material
· improve structure of the units
· make the units more interesting
· make the materials more user­friendly
· increase relevance to what is expected of fire fighters. According to one volunteer, “lots of the units are driven by OSH and ACC but they are just common sense.” One person was highly critical of the way the questions in the unit standards were worded: “The NZQA stuff is pretty hard to understand – questions are worded in a way that makes it looks as if they are trying to catch you out rather than assess your knowledge. I have been a trainer and written a training course so I’m aware that the unit standards and the questions they ask could be better and more accurately worded.” Another said: “Amongst various Fire Authorities there are three different draft versions of the training booklet for one unit standard. So some training groups end up using the wrong sources.” The quality of the tutors was seen to be highly influential in the level of enthusiasm for units based training as illustrated by the following comments. “We need good tutors who have an interesting teaching style.” “The leaders and trainers need to be highly motivated and enthusiastic.” “Trainers have to be enthusiastic – they have to believe in what they are doing, that’s the most important thing.”
Training for volunteer rural fire­fighters: motivators and impediments 38 7.6.5 Reading/writing difficulty amongst volunteers For some current volunteers or potential volunteers, reading and writing difficulties are significant barriers to formal training. We do not have enough data to indicate how significant this problem is relative to the volunteer population as a whole. However, in interviews with RFOs, crew leaders, and a number of volunteers, this issue often arose. Some PRFOs are adapting their teaching methods to accommodate these people. For example, some allow the person to answer the questions orally and then write the answer for them. In these cases, an outside assessor is used. Appleby VRFF setting up portable dam
Training for volunteer rural fire­fighters: motivators and impediments 39 7.6.6. Matching training requirements to context We mainly received favourable responses to our question, “was the units­based training a good match with your needs?” There were however a number of comments about the ways in which training content could be enhanced to better match the demands placed on rural fire­fighters. There were two main aspects to this. First, the desire for a closer match between material taught and the practicalities of fire­fighting ­ there is a strong perception in some RFAs or VRFFs that there is a reality gap between those on the ground and those setting the standards as illustrated by the following comments. “Training needs to be suitable to area, e.g. we are in a remote hill community with little water.” ‘We are volunteers not full­time firemen. We need to know the basic stuff but full­time fire service training is over the top.” “There is a major problem with those setting the current requirements demonstrating a real lack of understanding of how fire­forces such as ours operate and the culture that they have. These requirements need to be approached far more holistically and not with the mindset that one size fits all.” A second aspect was to adjust the training requirements to reflect those areas where vegetation fires were infrequent, but other emergency responses (vehicle accidents, medical emergencies, structural fires) were growing. Wellington VRFF Controlled burn
Training for volunteer rural fire­fighters: motivators and impediments 40 8. How outcomes can be improved The 100 volunteers and the 20 PRFOs interviewed were asked what would help to increase volunteer participation in unit standard­based training and assessment. The most common suggestions from volunteers were to make training more task­ focussed, to hold training sessions in the local area, and to employ trainers who had time to run the training. The table below provides a summary of the volunteers’ responses. Volunteer perspectives on factors that would increase training participation Make training more task­focussed (cut out the extras) Deliver training in the local area instead of centralising it Trainers having time to run the training More delivery options (to provide choice when to put in extra time) Good quality/enthusiastic trainers Make course material more relevant/interesting More public recognition of individual fire­fighter’s unit standard qualifications (as opposed to the national award for the best crew) Better provision for those with learning difficulties Better time tabling of courses Make courses more fun/sociable/multi­crew training More practical, less paperwork Reduce cost of travel and time­off 28 24 21 17 5 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 The most common response from PRFOs was that a better matching of courses to practical challenges would be the best means of improving training outcomes. This is consistent with Australian research into volunteer workforces in the emergency sector, which found that volunteers’ enthusiasm for training increased when the training was directly relevant to their practical roles (refer section 9.2.2). Other suggestions from the PRFOs on how to increase training participation are set out in the table below. PRFO perspectives on increasing training participation Better matching of courses with practical challenges More help with training provision and administration Better communication of need for training More recognition for volunteers who do the training Quality/accuracy of course material 6 5 3 3 3 The sections below expand on some of these suggestions on how to improve training outcomes. 8.1. Provide more administrative support Interviews with PRFOs and Deputies highlighted variations in the administrative and management capacity available to implement training. For example, some RFAs were already achieving the NRFA’s Minimum Training Standards when it came into
Training for volunteer rural fire­fighters: motivators and impediments 41 force on 1 st July 2008. Whereas in other RFAs there were no plans to implement recent changes to the training requirements. These variations were due to competing priorities and time constraints on PRFOs, which limited their capacity to implement any changes rather than their attitudes to training. This issue partly reflects the hybrid nature of the positions. For example, most of the PRFOs interviewed for this research were employees of territorial local authorities (e.g. District Councils) who could devote less than 50% of their time to rural fire responsibilities. This is in contrast to the administrative support for training available in Western Australia, as illustrated by the quote below. “In New Zealand, PRFOs have to put in a lot of time initiating and managing training and doing all the paperwork, such as time­intensive procurement, because there is no one else there to do it. Western Australia has professional people organising and pushing through training from the outside.” Some RFO’s are trying to carry out their RFF responsibilities on top of many other tasks . only 8 of the 20 people interviewed are full­time RFOs. A further 8 had 40% or more of their time allocated to this work. But for the remaining 4 they had only about 8hrs a week in which to carry out their RFO duties. Most of those who were less than full­time RFOs said that in fact they put in many hours over and above their paid time to full­fill their PRFO duties. For those struggling to meet the demands of the job, the training component can be neglected with limited opportunities provided for training and sometimes poor processing and record keeping of unit standard achievements. The following quotes illustrate how PRFOs believe that they could be assisted with training and administration: “The problems would be largely addressed by getting someone else to do the administration.” “Provide an assistant. I’m too busy with reactive stuff to do the strategic work associated with training.” For some RFOs the administration associated with training is seen as an added burden. “Having an organisation that puts all the paper work together, registers units achieved, gets accounts out, organises the participants would help relieve pressure on PRFOs – especially those who are not full­time on this job.” “There is a significant layer of extra work imposed by FRSITO requirements for assessment and documentation. This is a further load diverting principal or deputy RFOs from core training or other duties.” “It’s rewarding but as a crew boss, dealing with bureaucracy can be frustrating. The Fire Service and National Rural Fire Authority need to be one service which would eliminate TLAs. We need a system managed by fire fighters not bureaucrats.” “OSH has become a big part of accountabilities for PRFOs. But no OSH manual or hazard identity manual has been produced. This leaves PRFOs, Chief Fire Officers, and possibly Council exposed.” 8.2 More flexibility in the way study and testing conducted There were several comments about the difficulties in finding a time for formal training and assessment that suited all members of a VRFF. Respondents suggested that this could be addressed by using some of the regular practice nights as opportunities for formal training and assessment.
Training for volunteer rural fire­fighters: motivators and impediments 42 “We have lots of practice nights but no training/assessment in the formal sense. Why not combine training and assessment of skills with regular practice – as in forestry/timber processing? In FITEC for example the assessor is in the plant so people are progressively accumulating unit standards. That’s better than having 30­ 40 people being squeezed through an assessment all on one night.” “At present it is disjointed between course work and experience. There needs to be a more flexible approach to assessment. For example, outdoor education also offers on­the ground assessment. Why not couple practice nights more closely to training and assessment?” “It’s a question of why the supervisor can’t do continuous observation rather than just a one­off. Qualifications should reflect actual experience as signed off by the crew boss. This would need continuous reinforcement of competency.” “The biggest problem is getting crew leaders trained and that’s because the courses are during the week and so it’s hard for them to get time off work or to replace a $30 an hour job with $12 an hour which is what the District Council pay for training.” Another suggestion came from a volunteer who had worked under the ETITO system. This volunteer favoured greater emphasis on self­paced learning, for example through allowing individuals to access training materials off the website and to push ahead without relying on trainers to initiate it. “The system needs to allow for individual ability and preferences and to respect their other commitments. We would have more volunteer rural fire­fighters if there was less emphasis on formal training.” 8.3 Address leadership issues Effective leadership can benefit RFAs in a number of ways. In particular, respondents noted that good leadership can influence the way in which crews work as a team in the field as well as their attitude to training. A number of volunteers noted the benefits of having leaders that are good at their job as illustrated by the following comment: “We have been lucky. The PRFO has very high standards and makes sure we comply. That adds to the safety and efficiency. When the pager goes we become a team – we know what to do.” Respondents highlighted the influence that those in leadership positions can have on their crews. “I was a marker of unit standard for people sitting for Rural Fire Officer qualifications from all areas. Two fire fighters answered the questions in a highly offensive manner so much so that I refused to mark the papers. The people concerned were the controller and deputy controller of that Fire Force. In a business situation they should have been fired but being volunteers they are still in those positions. I expect that their Fire Force would not be very effective because of the quality of the leadership.”
Training for volunteer rural fire­fighters: motivators and impediments 43 “The lack of organisational and communication skills of our CFO is a problem. It’s that which puts me off being a volunteer rather than the training. He’s full of promises that don’t eventuate.” 8.4 Acknowledgement of RFF and achievements of volunteers Some volunteers felt that the VRFF needed a higher profile ­ partly so other members of the community understood their role, and partly to avoid being overshadowed by NZFS brigades. “We need more press coverage of the RFF that gives recognition to what it does and how important it is that we are all trained. We could use this as a tool for public education as well – parallel to Fire Service advertisements. The Fire Service thinks they are superior to us. This needs to be addressed by building up the credibility of the RFF.” Public recognition and celebration of RFF achievements, for example at some form of civic function, was suggested as a way of acknowledging the work of the RFF in general and the achievements of individual fire fighters. Blenheim FFR – Fire and Rescue Services (Vegetation) Level 2 Awards presentation (Mayor Harrison front row on far left) 8.5 Better communication of need for or advantages of unit standards Several volunteers emphasised the need for clear communication of the rationale for changes in the training regime, such as the recently introduced Minimum Training Standards. As noted by one volunteer: “It’s unfortunate that some older members are leaving because of the training requirements – it’s hard to replace that experience. They would be the instructors for their crews, so it’s more than just losing the volunteer capacity. If someone told me I had to do unit standards to continue doing my job, my nose would be put out of joint. The way the need for
Training for volunteer rural fire­fighters: motivators and impediments 44 training is presented is wrong.” Communicating the need for formal training was also identified as one of the major challenges that the Queensland Fire and Rescue Service faced when implementing significant changes in the 1990s (refer section 9.1.1). The poor communication of the need for unit standards appears to stem to some extent from individuals in leadership positions who do not agree with the training requirements, as illustrated by the comments below: “Initially there was resistance to training. Much of that went back to the previous PRFO (a council employee) who was resistant himself. He told the fire fighters not to worry about the new requirements – that it would all blow away.” “A number of years ago, the predecessor of one of the current RFOs tried to force our crew into doing unit standards and if they didn’t, they weren’t wanted on the fire ground. This killed our crew. Since then the current RFO has worked on rebuilding the crew.” “If it had to been put to the volunteers properly in the beginning with a programme put in place for the 8 year lead­in time then there wouldn’t have been such problems. The two commanders in charge of the RFF told the PRFO not to bother coming over to give the training because they weren’t interested. They eventually resigned and things have improved since then. There is still a bit of resistance from a few – usual rural attitude­ suspicious of change. But now most are pleased they have certificates to show their achievements.” “The key factors are management and team ownership of the training process e.g. now doing three year training plan. The PRFO takes every opportunity to “sell” training and the need for consistency across individuals and teams. The process is very demanding of administration time.” 8.6 Joint training sessions A number of VRFFs reported efforts to coordinate practice and formal training with neighbouring groups, sometimes from within the NRFA, but in other cases with NZFS or DoC teams. Some volunteers said they enjoyed these sessions as they exposed them to different levels of expertise and experience, made the training more interesting and sociable and also helped develop a greater sense of the RFF team across the region. “We are part of the Rural Fire Network, which is a professional organisation that has brought together the RFAs from Tasman District, Nelson and the forest companies. We have combined training sessions with the Fire Service, volunteers and permanent staff to work towards the national standards.” “We need joint, practical training sessions with enthusiastic fire­fighters, so their enthusiasm for training rubs off and those poorly trained could see the difference.” “Join units together especially for small crews so you have a mix of accomplished and those not doing so well. It will inspire them to raise standards through training and help to develop a sense of being part of a bigger team.
Training for volunteer rural fire­fighters: motivators and impediments 45 “The training has met with my expectations but I do feel that it could be improved. For example, joint training sessions with other RFFs, more social contact with other RFFs, and more practical training with DoC and other professional fire brigades.” “Part of this VRFFs practice is done with NZFS but that’s not recognised for unit standard purposes. Why not?” Central Otago VRFF, Fire Service and DOC ­ Joint training session
Training for volunteer rural fire­fighters: motivators and impediments 46 9. Volunteer training in Australia A brief review of Australian literature and interviews with Australian rural fire organisations was undertaken to determine whether some aspects of the training environment for volunteers in Australia could be relevant to the New Zealand context. Like­with­like comparisons between the two countries is not possible because the rural fire­fighting structures of the two are so different. For example, All New Zealand’s RFAs are land management agencies, but Australia’s are response agencies. Australian land management equivalents do not tend to have volunteers. However, the research indicated that there are some parallels and perhaps lessons for New Zealand as set out in this section. 9.1 Interviews ­ Rural fire response services in Australia Interviews were undertaken with two Australian fire services: the Queensland Fire and Rescue Service and Country Fire Service (South Australia). The purpose of the interviews was to determine:
· the role and responsibility of volunteers in comparison to New Zealand volunteers
· the main forms of training available to volunteers
· the principal objectives of this training
· any significant changes in the approach to volunteer training that have been implemented or are to be implemented
· the volunteer responses to training or anticipated changes to training. 9.1.1 The Queensland Fire and Rescue Service The Queensland Fire and Rescue Service (QFRS) is a division of the Queensland Government Department of Emergency Services and the primary provider of fire and rescue services throughout Queensland. The QFRS is divided into seven regions, with Regional Assistant Commissioners holding overall operational and financial responsibility for their region. Each region is divided into a number of geographical areas each headed by an Area Director, who is responsible for the operational and financial management of the fire stations in that area. The Rural Fire Service is a division of the QFRS and consists of a network of 1,500 volunteer Rural Fire Brigades. The Service is divided into 17 Areas grouped within seven regions. The regions are managed by Regional Managers who hold the rank of Superintendent. Rural Operations administers Queensland’s volunteer Fire Wardens and the Rural Fire Service to provide rural fire management to the communities of Queensland. The QFRS also employs both full­time and part­time (auxiliary) fire­fighters to staff its more than 240 urban fire and rescue stations. The role of the volunteers The QFRS is divided into three sections:
· Career (urban) fire­fighters for brigades in major centres
· Retained volunteers or auxiliary fire­fighters – these people are paid for undertaking training and call­outs
· Unpaid volunteers, responsible for coverage of 93% of the land area of Queensland and mainly responsible for fighting bush fires and grass fires. (Some of the bigger brigades also attend structural fires and road accidents).
Training for volunteer rural fire­fighters: motivators and impediments 47 Volunteer rural brigades raise funds to buy equipment and pay for ongoing expenses and maintenance. Rural Operations supplements the brigade funds according to the brigade classification, role, function and identified risk. Until the early 1990s the organisation structure for rural fire and emergency was fragmented with Fire Boards having their own legislation and being part of local government. Now they form a part of a broader State Government function with the DES having its own Minister. Depending on the location in Queensland, there may be no auxiliary or full­time staff, and fire and state emergency services (SES) volunteers may share the same premises. It is not uncommon to have separation between the two parts of the building even though some of the personnel might be common to both groups. For example, 10 volunteers may be dedicated to rural fire only, 10 to SES and 5 serving both rural and SES. Volunteers have a role in pre­fire management with 2,200 designated as fire wardens, authorised to issue permits to light fires. Approximately 12,000 active volunteer fire­fighters are available for fire response roles across Queensland out of a total volunteer membership of approximately 35,000. Training is primarily focused on this group. Volunteer training There is a sequential framework for fire­fighter training, which is divided into six groups:
· Recruit and trainee fire­fighter (Fire­fighter Minimum Skills – 6 Cert II units)
· Fire­fighter (aim to complete Certificate II level)
·
·
·
Senior fire­fighter (targeting Cert III level units)
Crew leaders and officers (aim to complete Cert III level)
Crew captain (1 st Officer) – (targeting Cert IV level)
· Group officers – (aim to complete Cert IV level). Training is not compulsory but is encouraged, with workplace health and safety as one of the factors dictating the need for training. The Service has been going through a transition since the introduction of competency based training about five years ago, leading to an improved uptake in training which has become most noticeable over the last 18 months. The training framework is applied in a flexible way through training or recognition of prior experience, with sign­off for those at appropriate levels who have established proven competency. Training objectives and approaches The focus of volunteer training is mainly on specific roles and is needs­based. When the fire services were restructured in the 1990s, the principal objective of the restructuring was to move to a ‘whole of department’ approach, combining SES, EMQ, QAS and the Fire Service. This was to improve efficiencies, build on commonality and maximise resource allocation and the response function. The overarching objective for the changes in organisational structure and training strategy were to support the government’s mission for a ‘Safer Queensland’ in response to rising community expectations. Health and safety became one of the means for persuading people of the need for minimum training standards.
Training for volunteer rural fire­fighters: motivators and impediments 48 Response to training approach In 1999­2000 the QRFS rolled out a business plan for volunteer training, and in 2002 the first of the public safety training materials were promulgated. At first it was greeted with alarm because of the apparent amount of work. The initial uptake of training was described by those interviewed as “ordinary”. However, over the last 18 months they noted that there has been a material increase in uptake. The service now has a different group of volunteers who have more formal education than previous volunteers, and they see the value of additional training. Those interviewed noted two factors that may have influenced the uptake in training. Firstly, throughout the transition the QRFS was flexible in its approach. If a volunteer could show evidence of skills and experience then he/she was signed­off at an appropriate level and could move on to the next. The interviewees indicated that the volunteers have come to the view that training is not as hard or time­consuming as it first appeared to be. Secondly, many of the volunteers come from industries where skills training is ongoing so they understand the need for training in the fire service context. Challenges in implementing training The interviewees noted two main challenges that have been encountered in implementing the changes to the training requirements:
· the time required to undertake training ­ QRFS staff may have overestimated the volunteers’ ability to take on board the new training with competing priorities from other aspects of their lives.
· the process used to communicate the training requirement to volunteers can be critical. In a large area like Queensland is was difficult to reach everyone. In comparison, Tasmania is smaller and more compact and a team of six people were able to travel around, meet with most of the volunteers and explain the new training framework and the need for training. 9.1.2 Country Fire Service, South Australia The Country Fire Service (CFS) is entirely volunteer in terms of fire­fighters, but is supported by 106 paid administrators. There are no part­timers or ‘retained staff’. (These are used in small metropolitan centres. They are paid to be on call but not career fire­fighters.) There are 423 brigades (i.e. discrete organisational units) in CFS with 10,800 operational fire­fighters and 5,000 operational support people. Training objectives and approaches Volunteers are only accepted into the fire­brigades if they are trained to a standard mandated by the CFS. The minimum standard at present is ‘Basic Fire­fighter 1’ which involves around 24 hours of training. The volunteer is expected to complete this training within six months of joining or they revert back to non­operational status. This qualification comprises 13 discrete units of which only seven are nationally accredited (i.e. from within the public safety qualification). Nationally accredited courses are delivered and assessed at the national level. The CFS is only concerned with volunteers completing the basic units. However, some individual volunteers continue their training to collect units which count towards broader qualifications. Much of the CFS focus in training is on the safety and effectiveness of the use of equipment. Equipment varies across brigades according to their specialisation. Other than for SES incidents, the CFS is an all­risk service with brigades that specialise in the use of breathing apparatus, fires involving hazardous substances, road trauma, scrub fires and structural fires outside of metropolitan areas.
Training for volunteer rural fire­fighters: motivators and impediments 49 Response to training approach The CFS encounters strong views from volunteers about training, but these are not consistent. Some want accreditation, whereas others want the bare minimum of training needed to become safe and effective. Challenges in implementing training The main challenge for the CFS is how best to deliver courses to volunteers given the need for qualified training staff and the cost of providing courses. In evaluating which nationally accredited units to include, CFS considers:
· what volunteers need to know and the level of detail, such as the equipment specified in the training relative to the equipment actually held and used by the brigades
· the practicality of delivering the unit. For example, if the national unit specifies seven weeks but the CFS can only accommodate a few hours, then the CFS will not consider the unit to be appropriate. The current approach to training places enormous reliance on having sufficient numbers of trainers and assessors. These are volunteers who have to be nationally accredited at Certificate 4 level. As an example, one person in the CFS manages 59 breathing apparatus trainers/assessors and an equal number of course support volunteers. Volunteers have high expectations for course content and delivery. Each course has a chief assessor and CFS works on a ratio of 1:2 for trainers/assessors. A lot of management time is involved in setting up courses at the right time and to the required standard. The CFS is always working 12 months ahead so that courses are available to volunteers who are committed to ongoing training. (This can be seen as an important way in which the CFS on behalf of the wider community gives recognition to the volunteers). Much of the training budget goes into transportation (trainers to trainees or vice versa), provisioning, and accommodation. CFS would like to move to more on­line learning for some training components, such as the pre­course materials, while maintaining the focus on competency­based training. A stumbling block is obtaining permission for volunteers to access government IT sites. 9.2 Research into volunteer training in Australia The Australian literature of most relevance to our research is a 2001 report funded by Emergency Management Australia ­ Training of Part­Time and Volunteer Workforces: A look at training from the perspective of emergency service organisations. 17 The purpose of the study was to investigate the training loads on part­time and voluntary workforces in the emergency services. It considered the effect of training on volunteer morale and competence, responses of volunteers and part­timers, and the effectiveness of the training in enhancing performance. This study comprised desk research and group interviews with the training management sector and training recipients (part­timers and volunteers in each participating organisation) such as NSW Fire Brigades, Queensland Rural Fire Service, Queensland State Emergency Service South Australian Country Fire Service, Victorian Country Fire Authority, Victorian State Emergency Service. A summary of relevant findings is set out below: 17 David Chamings, 2001
Training for volunteer rural fire­fighters: motivators and impediments 50 9.2.1 Impact of the volume of training The impact of the volume of training on morale and competence was assessed. A positive relationship between morale and the amount of training was identified, especially if the training was seen as relevant to tasks required and was of a practical nature. However, training managers reported a clear distinction between the effects of training on those in urban centres and those in rural areas. The positive relationship between training and morale was evident for those in the urban areas. Training recipients in the remote areas of their states saw training as more of an imposition and did not often actively seek opportunities to participate. In these cases, more training often resulted in a decline in morale. The study also found that the number of callouts, and thus the opportunity to reinforce new skills, was a factor in building competence and morale. 9.2.2 Enthusiasm for training and retention of volunteers Responses from training recipients indicated that a great deal of enthusiasm existed amongst volunteers for learning opportunities directed towards skills used in a response role especially if the sessions were of a practical nature. The training managers surveyed supported this, with reports of a difficulty in keeping up with demand. All of the organisations surveyed present training courses outside of the normal training periods and experienced no difficulty in filling vacancies. However, the responses did not distinguish between urban and rural volunteers. It is possible that a divergence in attitudes to training between urban and rural volunteers, as noted earlier, would also apply here. Most organisations surveyed had voluntary attendance at training sessions. This was considered to be a positive factor as it allowed volunteers to vary their study load to suit their needs and circumstances. None of the organisations surveyed conducted exit interviews so findings on the effect of training on the retention of staff was based on anecdotal evidence. The organisations surveyed did not believe that their respective training programs adversely affected retention rates in their organisations. However, they acknowledged that the volume of training had the potential to affect retention rates. This affect was reported as likely to be in relation to too little as well as too much training. 9.2.3 Effectiveness of the training in achieving outcomes The training recipients reported that training goes a long way in preparing them for their tasks. Respondents reiterated the need for training to be practical and hands on to ensure that they are prepared for the real life situations they encounter. 9.2.4 Training loads Training loads represent anywhere from 25% of the total time spent undertaking organisation­related tasks, through to as much as 60%. While this figure varied substantially, the average time spent training varies between three and six hours per week.
Training for volunteer rural fire­fighters: motivators and impediments 51 9.3 Volunteer Summits in Australia Volunteer summits were held in Australia in 2001 and 2005.. Extracts on training from the proceedings of these summits are reproduced below and summarised as follows:. 18
· volunteer organisations must develop and implement competency­based training regimes
· opposition to training largely stems from a lack of understanding of its relevance and a lack of funds to implement it
· training and assessment must be user­friendly and flexible to ensure its relevance, to recognise existing experience and to reduce time implications. The Executive Summary for the 2001 Summit Proceedings noted (pp 6, 7) that:: “Volunteers can no longer be amateurs; they must be trained to rising standards and are required to devote more and more time to becoming competent with increasingly sophisticated equipment.” “As expected, training proved to be a major issue and there appears to be a level of opposition to the introduction of competency­based training, due largely to a lack of understanding of it and the lack of funds to implement it. There is a real need to ensure that all volunteers develop a good understanding of the new training system and its benefits, particularly the value of national qualifications which are universally recognised and therefore portable not only within the emergency sector, but to their outside employment. National qualifications are particularly valuable to volunteers as they enhance their credibility within the emergency industry and to the wider community they serve.” The Summit stressed that there must be user­friendly systems developed for the recognition of existing qualifications or the volunteers will not commit themselves to competency­based training. It was suggested that the Australian National Training Authority should be approached for funding to develop marketing and communication strategies. Concern was also expressed about the increased time which volunteers must spend on training and that this was having an adverse effect on recruitment and retention of both volunteers and trainers. The key to solving this problem was seen as developing increasingly flexible approaches to training and assessment. To achieve this it was suggested that a network of trainers would need to be established to allow them to share innovative ideas.” Recommendations on training emerging from the Summit included:
· State Governments should provide funding to enable volunteer organisations to implement competency­based training.
· Emergency sector volunteers should, where appropriate, be classified as trainees so they gain access to additional training funds. 18 “Value your volunteers or lose them” A national summit for volunteer leaders/managers, Canberra 11–12 October 2001. Summit Report and “Value your volunteers” Emergency Management Volunteers Summit Held 6­7th April 2005, Canberra. Summit Report. http://www.ema.gov.au/agd/EMA/
Training for volunteer rural fire­fighters: motivators and impediments 52 ·
All levels of government should examine incentives for volunteers, including tax deductions for out­of­pocket expenses, State and Local Government charges and fire service levies. The Executive Summary of the 2005 Summit Report stated that: “Delegates regarded national qualifications as being particularly valuable for the sector in order to ensure that volunteers are credible both to the community and to their paid counterparts. But the level of understanding of competency­based training was not high, and considerable effort would be required to obtain the full support of the volunteers for it. “They expressed concern at the potential cost of introducing competency­based training, and the level of recognition of current qualifications. There was support for inclusion of emergency volunteers in trainee schemes to open up more funding, and for State governments to assist the sector to introduce competency­based training.” Recommendations on training included: “Volunteer organisations must develop robust and flexible training regimes to ensure that high quality training is readily available to all their volunteers, particularly those in rural areas.”
Training for volunteer rural fire­fighters: motivators and impediments 53
10. New Zealand literature on volunteers A review of New Zealand literature on volunteers was undertaken to assist in determining factors that motivate New Zealand’s volunteer rural fire­fighters and influence their attitudes towards training. This review builds on previous research for the NZFS Commission that identified that the commitment, rewards and risks of being a volunteer fire­fighter are distinct (at least in some respects) from those involved in many other forms of volunteering. The main motivators for volunteering were identified as:
· the satisfaction gained from contributing to the community
· an opportunity to develop skills and knowledge. The main factors affecting the retention of volunteers were:
· changing responsibilities, and hence time and financial commitments, at home and work
· a lack of training opportunities or irregular training opportunities. The main factors influencing perceptions of training were identified as:
· the perceived gap between book­based learning and the reality of the practical work environment
· additional time required to meet the training requirements
· financial costs, particularly for volunteers in rural areas. The findings from the literature review indicate that a requirement to participate in additional training may be a two­edged sword in attracting or retaining volunteers. Additional training and accreditation may be attractive to those for whom human capital investment is a major motivator. It will be less attractive for those whose time is constrained through work or family commitments or who may not be in a financial position to undertake it. These matters are outlined further in the remainder of this section. 10.1Volunteer motivation – general The main sources of literature covering volunteer motivation in general include publications on the website of The Office for the Community and Volunteer Sector (OCVS within the Ministry of Social Development) and previous work by Corydon 19 on the role of and motivations for volunteering. The literature highlights various benefits to individuals who volunteer. Most commonly the benefits arise from participating and contributing to the community, in addition to rewards from developing their own skills and knowledge. The OCVS summarises the benefits as “volunteers can gain a sense of contributing and belonging, which in turn assists social cohesion. They can learn new skills and knowledge which are transferable to other paid or unpaid positions.” 20 19 Rush M and Buchan D, November 2005, Take Care Programme, Evaluation undertaken for the Greater Wellington Regional Council; Buchan D, August 2001, Partnerships in Wellington’s Regional Parks: Fostering volunteerism in management and operations, Undertaken on behalf of the Greater Wellington Regional Council; Cosslett C, 1997, Volunteer Involvement in Practical Conservation Work, Unpublished paper for ENV1504 Victoria University 20 OCVS working paper 1 ­ Volunteers and volunteering policy project: Paper one – recognition and valuing of volunteering. OCVS paper to Cabinet Social Policy Committee.
Training for volunteer rural fire­fighters: motivators and impediments 54 Other relevant points made in the literature are:
·
·
The concept of community is likely to be very specific in many cases, particularly in isolated rural areas. In these locations, a strong motivating factor to volunteer may be to protect their own property as well as those of immediate neighbours, because if they don’t, no one else will.
Each individual will have their own mix of motivating factors with distinct weightings. These findings were supported to a degree by our survey responses. In making decisions to volunteer, most people will have some perception of the costs to them, which can generally be related to the value they place on the time they are giving up in order to fulfil their commitments as volunteers. In most cases they will need to take into account the effects on others (e.g. family, their farm or other business, employers and colleagues) of their volunteer commitments. 10.2 New Zealand research on fire­fighting volunteers The comments above apply to volunteers in general, but volunteering can vary across a wide spectrum of risks, responsibilities and time commitments. In examining motivators and impediments and the reaction of volunteers to additional training requirements, it is important to focus on the specific context ­ fire service volunteers and particularly those in the NZRFS. There are various ways of classifying volunteers, for example, in terms of their legal status, and responsibilities. One important benchmark is their accountabilities and performance standards relative to paid professionals. Paton (2006) applies the term ‘statutory volunteers’ to fire­fighters working with Crown entities, in contrast to independent volunteers working for voluntary organisations. 21 The NZFS Commission has previously funded several studies pertaining to volunteers in the fire service (urban and rural). In the remainder of this section we summarise the objectives and approaches of these studies and set out the findings specific to volunteer motivation and training. Developing a Strategy to Nurture, Enhance, and Expand the Volunteer Fire Brigade UMR Research, October 2001. Fire Service Report 23. 22 The primary objectives of this study were “to develop a profile of volunteers in the NZFS and to provide direction for strategies that will nurture, enhance and expand the volunteer fire brigade movement, including increasing the number of Maori and female volunteers.” The quantitative phase of the research consisted of a telephone survey of 500 volunteer fire fighters, including 300 urban volunteers, 150 rural volunteers, and 50 volunteers from composite brigades. A representative sample of urban volunteers was selected from the eight New Zealand Fire regions: Northland, Auckland, Bay of Plenty/Waikato, Eastern, Western, Arapawa, Transalpine, Southern. 21 “Community ­ Government partnering to support volunteering in New Zealand.” Kathryn Paton is an Analyst, with the New Zealand Office for the Community and Voluntary Sector, administered by the Ministry of Social Development. 22 http://www3.fire.org.nz/cms.php?page=15057&section=517)
Training for volunteer rural fire­fighters: motivators and impediments 55 According to the Executive Summary of the Report: Overall, New Zealand’s volunteer fire fighters rate their time spent as volunteers highly, and they say they would recommend the experience to family and friends. Volunteers are proud of the services they fulfil as fire fighters. They value the contributions they make to their communities and the professionalism with which they fulfil their responsibilities. Changing responsibilities at home, work, and from the fire service, however, blunt the volunteer experience. These competing pressures are clearly the greatest threat to retaining volunteer membership. This report sets out the experience of, and reactions to training requirements and opportunities, and allows a comparison between the responses of urban and rural volunteer fire­fighters. As with any such research, there can be a wide range of responses, and it is not always possible to identify a “typical” position. However, for urban volunteers, some major issues were:
· the amount and scheduling (often in weekends) of training modules and impact on the ability of volunteers to attend courses they wanted to
· variations across brigades in the importance given to training
· the repetitive nature of some training
· travel, time, and other costs of attendance. For rural volunteers the research focused on the impact of the NZQA training standards which were newly introduced at the time. The main messages included:
· the gap between the impression of fire­fighting from the book­based learning and the physical challenges of fighting fires
·
the additional time required to gain the credentials, especially for those who already had extensive practical experience
·
the element of compulsion and potential negative impacts on recruitment and retention. The research also noted that “work pressures and family commitments rank well above other factors (training for example) as influences on decisions to cease volunteering.” The New Zealand Volunteer Fire Service in Three Rural Communities in Northland, University of Auckland, March 2002. Fire service report 34. 23 This project looked at rural volunteer fire services in three relatively isolated communities on Northland’s east coast. It examined the social and administrative structure within which they operate, as well as issues affecting rural fire services generally. It outlines ways in which these services might be strengthened. The majority of fire service volunteers in these communities are Maori and about three­quarters of them joined their respective rural fire units at the invitation of whanau members already participating in the units as volunteers. Almost half of the volunteers in the study were also involved in other voluntary work, which is a common feature of communities with small populations. Training issues were canvassed and from the perspective of one unit, the main problem was the lack of regular training. Responses from another unit were dominated by a lack of motivation to undertake training. 23 (http://www3.fire.org.nz/cms.php?page=15057&section=517)
Training for volunteer rural fire­fighters: motivators and impediments 56 A lack of regular training was indicated by the Ngaiotonga and Rawhiti volunteers. Volunteer training comes with a financial cost for volunteers in rural areas. 24 Due to travel distances and high levels of unemployment, volunteers may not be in a financial position to attend scheduled training. Previous volunteers of the Ngaiotonga service stated this concern as being a major challenge in fulfilling their roles as volunteers. In reality, rural fire units are not just expected to respond to vegetation fires but also to structural fires, with implications for training needs and insurance. These needs were reflected in some of the report’s recommendations including:
· adequate training on a regular basis should be implemented and fully funded by local councils, including regular out­of­district training
·
training should be part of ‘capacity building’ to allow volunteers to combat all fires (including structural and vehicle fires)
·
all­cover accident insurance for volunteers should be a local council responsibility. Insurance cover should increase as volunteers’ up­skill to vehicle and structural fire training. Recruitment and retention of women volunteers within the Fire Service, UMR Research, March 2003 Fire Service Report 36 25 The primary objectives of this study were to:
• develop a profile of female volunteers in the New Zealand Fire Service
•
provide direction for strategies which will aid the recruitment and retention of women in the fire service. The study consisted of both qualitative and quantitative research. Analysis of training issues was covered in two categories – local training with a specific brigade or unit and national training. . The study found that the overriding theme driving participation in volunteer work was the satisfaction from making a contribution to the community. Other factors included personal links with a particular volunteer organisation, often from past experience or family affiliation, and using or learning new skills. Training and learning new skills were key motivators for becoming a volunteer fire fighter. A majority of volunteers were happy with the level of training they received, particularly the training provided by local brigades and fire forces. One point of interest during focus groups was the need to standardise training across all brigades and fire forces, and possibly nationally. Overall there was a high degree of approval of the national training material, with 85% of urban and 96% of rural women volunteers expressing satisfaction. Most considered that the males found basic training as hard as the women. The NZFS national training courses and Fire Industry (ITO) Unit Standards Programme were rated highly by both urban and rural volunteers for their content and professionalism. Volunteers were asked for the main reason they thought women left the brigade or fire force. Family responsibilities were clearly viewed as the overriding reason, with the second most nominated being a lack of acceptance by male volunteers. 24 Ministry of Social Development, (2002). Volunteers and Volunteering Policy and Project: Summary of Submissions. Wellington: Ministry of Social Development. 25 (http://www3.fire.org.nz/cms.php?page=15057&section=517)
Training for volunteer rural fire­fighters: motivators and impediments 57 Recorded at much lower levels were the pressure of work commitments, the tough physical conditions, and relocation to another area. Difficulty coping with the training was cited as a non gender­specific challenge. Rural volunteers rated the training programme highly, with 87% agreeing with the statement ‘the training courses provided are professional and of a high standard’. This was consistent with the views of urban volunteers. While most also rated the course material highly, the proportion or rural volunteers agreeing with this rating was lower than for urban volunteers. Thirty percent of rural volunteers felt that they did not receive enough financial support for training compared to 22% of urban volunteers who felt this way.
Training for volunteer rural fire­fighters: motivators and impediments 58 11. Summary and Conclusions The aim of this research project was to identify the factors that motivate New Zealand’s volunteer rural fire fighters and, in particular, influence their attitudes towards training. The research was based upon interviews with volunteers and PRFOs in 43 VRFFs. The data was supplemented by interviews with training executives from two of Australia’s rural fire response organisations and a review of New Zealand and Australian literature on volunteer motivation and training. The context in which New Zealand rural fire­fighters operate is as follows: 1. Rural fire­fighting in New Zealand is coordinated through the NRFA and a series of committees, with resources available to each PRFO being heavily dependent on the local authority in question. 2. Like some other emergency response services, such as ambulance, civil defence, and search and rescue, rural fire­fighting is heavily dependent on volunteers. 3. Being reliant on volunteers, some aspects of management are more complex than in more conventional organisations such as the police or the army. In particular, effecting change and achieving consistent standards are more challenging in a volunteer organisation. 4. The replacement of the Code of Conduct with the Minimum Training Standards (from July 1, 2008) is a significant change. There has been extensive consultation about the change since 2005, so it can be assumed that all RFOs have been made aware that this change was on its way. 5. The change to the training regime is in response to legislative requirements,rather than to a unilateral initiative by the NRFA. Occupational Safety and Health has been a major catalyst for this development. Despite the diversity of volunteers and wide range of circumstances in which the VRFFs operate, the motivating factors for being a volunteer were similar. The most common motivating factor was a wish to contribute to their community. Other motivational factors were:
· the challenge and excitement of fighting fires
· knowing existing fire­fighters
· camaraderie
· opportunities to learn new skills. The PRFOs who were interviewed indicated that 68% of the volunteers in their forces had achieved the minimum training requirement, while many of the volunteers who were interviewed had gone well beyond that level. The majority of PRFOs and volunteers who were interviewed understood and were generally supportive of the need for formalised training. The actual degree of support varied widely across the volunteer sample, and amongst PRFOs. The uptake of training and the views on training were principally influenced by:
· past process failures – many negative comments resulted from various administrative errors which resulted in volunteers having to repeat unit standards in order to receive the credentials
· the attitudes of PRFOs and individual crew leaders to training and accreditation
· the capacity of PRFOs to plan for and manage volunteer training requirements
Training for volunteer rural fire­fighters: motivators and impediments 59 ·
·
·
the perception of the relevance of the training in comparison to gaining practical experience
the quality of trainers and the training material
time available to undertake training (including travel time from more remote areas).. By mid­2008, when we conducted our research, volunteers in some RFAs were at or above levels prescribed by the new Minimum Training Standards and had in place training plans for all volunteers. But in others, for a variety of reasons, the new minimum training standards represented more of a challenge especially for PRFOs and their deputies. Our impression from our visits and interviews is that the differences in ‘capacity’ to plan for and manage training, reflect a wide array of different circumstances across RFAs and PRFOs. The figure below indicates some the factors underlying these differences. Measures to improve training outcomes were identified through the interviews with PRFOs, volunteers and Australian counterparts. In our view, the priorities for the NRFA are to:
· support PRFOs, (through liaison with territorial local authorities) to plan and manage their training requirements
· improve communication at all levels on the purpose and benefits of training
· reduce the time implications of training by concentrating training on the core tasks, delivering it locally and incorporating at least some of it into practice evenings
· foster consistency in training standards by encouraging joint training sessions between RFAs and with other organisations such as the Department of Conservation.
Training for volunteer rural fire­fighters: motivators and impediments 60
12. Sources New Zealand and international reports Bilodeau, Marc and Al Slivinski (2004) “Toilet cleaning and department chairing: Volunteering a public service.” Department of Economics, Sherbrooke University, Quebec, Canada. May. Chamings, David (2001) “A look at training from the perspective of emergency service organisations.” Report funded by Emergency Management Australia. NZIER (2008) “Volunteer­related training in emergency services: Findings from a literature review.” Report to FRSITO (final version). April 2008. NZIER (2008) “Volunteer­related training in emergency services – improving training outcomes: Findings from qualitative research.” Report to FRSITO (final version) July 2008. Summit Report (2001) “Value your volunteers or lose them” A national summit for volunteer leaders/managers, Canberra 11–12 October 2001. Summit Report and Summit Report. (2005) “Value your volunteers” Emergency Management Volunteers Summit Held 6­7th April 2005, Canberra. http://www.ema.gov.au/agd/EMA/ Wallace, Gavin (2006) “Volunteer rural fire service survey” for Forest and Rural Fire Association of New Zealand Inc. Official New Zealand documents and reports Department of Internal Affairs (2003) “Fire management in New Zealand: A background paper prepared by officials from Central Government and Local Government New Zealand.” November 2003. Forest and Rural Fires Regulations 2005. (See Regulations of New Zealand). House of Representatives (2008) “Inquiry into the provision of ambulance services in New Zealand. Report of the Health Committee. Forty­eighth Parliament (Sue Kedgley, Chairperson). July 2008. Presented to the House of Representatives. National Rural Fire Authority (2005) “National Rural Fire Authority Circular 2005/11 – Draft Training Standard, Release for Consultation. 30 September, 2005. National Rural Fire Authority (2005) “National Rural Fire Authority Circular 2005/15 – 2005 Update on Rural Fire Training Resources”, 20 December, 2005. National Rural Fire Authority (2006) “National Rural Fire Authority Circular 2006/07 – Schedule of national training programmes July 2006 to June 2007.” 03 March 2006. National Rural Fire Authority (2007) “National Rural Fire Authority Circular 2007/02 – Schedule of National Training Programmes July 2007 to June 2008.” 28 March 2007. National Rural Fire Authority (2008) “National Rural Fire Authority Circular 2007/02 – NRFA Minimum Training Standards for Crew Leader, Firefighter and Fire Ground Entry.” 9 January 2008.
Training for volunteer rural fire­fighters: motivators and impediments 61 National Rural Fire Authority (2008) “Rural Fire Management Directory.” January, 2008. New Zealand Fire Service Commission (2005) “Strategic Plan 2005­2010. Office for the Community and Voluntary Sector (2005) “Briefing to the Incoming Minister: Paton, Kathryn (2006) “Community ­ Government partnering to support volunteering in New Zealand.” Kathryn Paton is an Analyst, with the New Zealand Office for the Community and Voluntary Sector, administered by the Ministry of Social Development. OCVS (2005) “Volunteers and volunteering policy project: Paper one – recognition and valuing of volunteering” September, 2005. OCVS (2005) Supporting the Community and Voluntary Sector for the Wellbeing of all New Zealanders.” Office for the Community and Voluntary Sector Ministry of Social Development. September, 2005. Newspapers Dominion Post (2008): “Medical emergency fears grow.” Tuesday, June 3 rd , 2008. Page A3. Nelson Mail (2007) “Rural firefighters face more pressure.” www.stuff.co.nz December 6, 2007. Wairoa Star (2002) “Rural firefighters opt to undertake unit standards.” Extract from QA News, February/March 2003, Issue 44. http://www.nzqa.govt.nz/ Websites Emergency Management Australia ­ http://www.ema.gov.au/ Fire and Rescue Service Training Organisation (FRSITO) ­ http://www.frsito.org.nz/ Forest and Rural Fire Association of New Zealand – http://www.frfanz.org.nz/ National Rural Fire Authority ­ http://nrfa.fire.org.nz New Zealand Fire Service ­ http://www.fire.org.nz/ New Zealand Qualifications Authority ­ http://www.nzqa.govt.nz/ Office for the Community and Voluntary Sector ­ http://www.ocvs.govt.nz/ Queensland Fire and Rescue Service ­ http://www.fire.qld.gov.au/ Regulations of New Zealand – http://www.legislation.govt.nz/ South Australian Country Fire Service ­ http://www.cfs.org.au/ Volunteering New Zealand – http://www.volunteeringnz.org.nz/
Training for volunteer rural fire­fighters: motivators and impediments 62