EAST MELBOURNE VIC 3002

EAST MELBOURNE VIC 3002
  • PO Box 453 Mt Waverley 3149
  • Unit 9, 24 Lakeside Drive Burwood East 3151
  • Tel 9886 1141
  • Fax 9886 1618
  • vfbv@vfbv.com.au Inc. A0043424H
  • ABN. 110 830 804 03 3rd August 2017 Keir Delaney Secretary Fire Services Bill Select Committee Parliament House, Spring Street EAST MELBOURNE VIC 3002 Dear Keir, Request for further information This letter is in response to the Fire Services Bill Select Committee (Committee) request (per email 1st August 2017) for VFBV to provide further information to the Committee relating to information provided to the Committee by CFA on 20th July 2017 and 27th July 2017, specifically with respect to the following questions:
  • VFBV’s commentary on the meaning and implications of the CFA data provided in response to an information request of the Committee;
  • VFBV’s commentary on the meaning and implications of how response times are monitored and the underlying methodology of how the data is collected;
  • VFBV’s commentary on how the dispatch system operates for CFA brigades responding: o within the mutual aid area with the MFB o outside the mutual aid area The Committee has requested this information by close of business 3rd August which is an unfortunately short time frame to analyse and comment on such an important issue. General comment In broadest terms, I do not believe the data provided by CFA can be used in its current form to draw any conclusion about the performance of CFA brigades against formally adopted standards. I urge the Committee to carefully understand the context of what exists currently in terms of formally adopted service standards and the confines of these; the pitfalls of representation of performance statistics inconsistent with the standards; and very real potential for incorrect or prejudiced representation and/or interpretation of both the performance standards and performance measures. The Victorian Auditor General’s report into Emergency Response Standards, March 2015 (VAGO Response Times Report) outlined some of the limitations and strongly advised that response times alone do not adequately describe emergency service performance and must be considered alongside information on outcomes, service quality, efficiency and cost effectiveness for emergency service to be understood.

Furthermore, any consideration of the relevance of the information requested by and/or provided to the Committee’s deliberation should contemplate the fact that the proposed legislation changes do VFBV RESPONSE TO DATA REQUEST 1 of 7

EAST MELBOURNE VIC 3002
  • 2 PO Box 453 Mt Waverley 3149
  • Unit 9, 24 Lakeside Drive Burwood East 3151
  • Tel 9886 1141
  • Fax 9886 1618
  • vfbv@vfbv.com.au Inc. A0043424H
  • ABN. 110 830 804 03 not provide any additional capacity, flexibility or resources than currently exists today via existing CFA and MFB legislation. Any gaps in service expectation are already able to be addressed under the current CFA legislation and service model provided adequate funding and resources are allocated. Bridging service gaps is a resource and funding issue and does not require legislative or restructure of the fire services. The first step in any future contemplation of service gaps must be to understand what the desired performance outcomes are, what service standards are required to achieve these outcomes and what resource support will be required to enable CFA brigades to achieve these expectations. Relationship between data requested/provided versus formally adopted standards I understand that the data provided by CFA is in response to specific questions posed to CFA by the Committee and as such is not necessarily a depiction of CFA performance against formally adopted standards. The Committee needs to be mindful not to draw conclusions about performance nor capability based on data that is not reporting against formally adopted standards. In simple terms, it is not appropriate to judge the performance of a brigade or a current service regime against a performance measure or standard that has not been adopted, articulated or specifically resourced and pursued.

It appears that a potential unintended consequence of the questions posed by the Committee to CFA is that the data provided and format has potential to misdirect analysis and lead to fundamentally flawed conclusions. In addition to the requirement for any analysis to be grounded against formally adopted standards it is also important that the Committee develop a full appreciation of the intricacies and pitfalls involved with how performance against that standard is measured. I note CFA’s advice that the data requested by the Committee has not been previously produced or published in the format requested/provided.

The CFA SDS performance has, for many years, been measured, reported and assessed as applying to the response received by ‘the customer’ regardless of which of the CFA brigades in CFA’s network responded to or was first to attend the scene. CFA resource allocation and service planning is based on CFA maintaining a network of brigades who collectively create an ability to achieve target response to the incident. Each CFA brigade has a primary response area and whilst there is data to show the response profile of the primary brigade’s fire appliance to an incident, CFA measures performance against the standards in terms of ‘customer performance’ (i.e.

the time it takes for a fire appliance to arrive at scene regardless of whether it is the primary brigade’s appliance or another brigade. This ‘service delivery to the customer’ was explained to the Committee by Emergency Management Commissioner during hearing held 25th July.

Comment on the data provided Following on from the comments above CFA’s ‘Attachment A’ column headed ‘Customer SDS percentage compliance for brigade area’ is the only data that is even closely relevant to an assessment against the existing standards. Even then CFAs ’Attachment A’ appears to be potentially flawed or at a minimum highlights potential that the interpretation and assignment of Hazard Class is fundamentally wrong. This is further explained below. If this is the case it will lead to fundamentally wrong performance analysis. The Committee should be extremely careful not to draw conclusion about the capability or performance of CFA brigades until there is robust clarity about what the formally adopted service standard is; how this standard is applied on the ground; how it is to be measured; and then how the data provided relates to this.

VFBV RESPONSE TO DATA REQUEST 2 of 7

EAST MELBOURNE VIC 3002
  • 3 PO Box 453 Mt Waverley 3149
  • Unit 9, 24 Lakeside Drive Burwood East 3151
  • Tel 9886 1141
  • Fax 9886 1618
  • vfbv@vfbv.com.au Inc. A0043424H
  • ABN. 110 830 804 03 CFA ‘Attachment A’ lists, in the third column, numbers of ‘Hazard Class 2 emergency events’ for many CFA Class 1, 2 and 3 brigades. The data provided by CFA suggests many Class 1, Class 2 and Class 3 brigades service risk profiles that include Hazard Class 2 designation. This seems odd given that the CFA definitions for Hazard Class 2 is: “Significant urban areas, primarily residential areas involving commercial centres, clusters of industrial and/or institutional risk” ... and CFA Brigade Classification (refer attachment) defines Brigade Classifications as follows: “Brigade Classification 1 = Risks are predominately bushfire, grass or scrub; Structures are isolated houses and farm buildings, no township” “Brigade Classification 2 = Risks predominantly bushfire, grass and scrub; Structures include isolated houses and farm buildings. There is township with community buildings and/or significant agricultural buildings. Reticulated water may not be present” “Brigade Classification 3 = Even spread of structural and bushfire risks. Small township including community structures, small institutional risks. One or Two hazardous materials risks...” Whilst CFA does not operate nor intend for there to be a direct correlation between Brigade Classification and Hazard Class description, the data provided in CFA’s Attachment A should be rechecked to ensure the application of Hazard Class Standards is as formally intended by the standard. It appears that a Hazard Class 2 designation (requiring 8-minute target response) has been assigned to some areas that would be expected to see a Hazard Class 3 designation (requiring a 10-minute target response). The Committee should seek confirmation from CFA Chief Officer (accountable for delivery) and Emergency Management Commissioner (accountable for setting the Standards) on this matter before any conclusions or observations are be made about the data provided. If there are errors in Hazard Class designation, any conclusions or observations drawn based on the data provided may have significant flow on implications to future definition and application of standards, fire service resource requirements and accountabilities.

CFA Attachment 3 provides data regarding crew skills on scene within 8 minutes. Once again, any observation or conclusions drawn by the Committee with respect to this data should be done in the context of existing formally adopted standards. CFA’s explanation of the data provided in Attachment 3 suggests it does not indicate the combined skills profile or firefighters responding to an incident and as such this table does not provide a meaningful representation of the overall response provided to an incident and therefore is of limited meaning to the Committee. The implications of the Committee drawing any conclusions from this data are that it does not provide a composite reflection of the response to incidents; and it does not indicate the type of incident and therefore any assessment of what skill profile would have been appropriate; it does not give any indication of whether the time delay post 8 minutes was seconds or something longer.

Before drawing any conclusions or observations the Committee should also seek clarity from CFA Chief Officer and Emergency Management Commissioner about what the existing formally adopted standards define in terms of time based targets for crew composition per appliance or per incident. In addition, simply analysing pass/fail to be on scene within 8 minutes or 10 minutes is quite superficial. A better measure is to consider what time the fire service arrived on scene for 90% of fires (see Victoria’s 2016/17 Budget Paper – Service Delivery Budget Paper 3 (p 262) target). By way of example the NSW Fire and Rescue Annual Report 2015/16 (page 3) references “crews arrived at calls in 9 minutes and 58 seconds for 90% of calls to structure fires”.

My understanding is that the response target for the Greater area of Sydney is 10 minutes for 90% of fires.

VFBV RESPONSE TO DATA REQUEST 3 of 7

EAST MELBOURNE VIC 3002
  • 4 PO Box 453 Mt Waverley 3149
  • Unit 9, 24 Lakeside Drive Burwood East 3151
  • Tel 9886 1141
  • Fax 9886 1618
  • vfbv@vfbv.com.au Inc. A0043424H
  • ABN. 110 830 804 03 The NSW performance reporting highlights two important things the first being a more meaningful way of understanding time based performance and the second being the more serious question as to what logic has underpinned the Victorian Standard being an 8-minute response for urban areas and communities such as Ararat or Yarrawonga (refer CFA Attachment A) compared to the logic applied in NSW and Sydney metro area.

Furthermore, the committee needs to contemplate the inconsistency in analysing CFA brigade performance at a brigade by brigade level, and within this at an incident by incident dissection (and particularly given the Hazard Class assignment problems outlined above) when the current practice for MFB performance analysis is to aggregate and analyse response performance only at an overall organisational level. Has the Committee requested and analysed individual station by station performance data for MFB? It is inappropriate to make comparison of one agencies performance against the other if one agency is aggregating performance data (averaging out the performance of individual brigades) and the other agency is being analysed at a brigade by brigade level.

If the Committee intends to make any findings with regard to service standards I understand that work has already commenced within EMV on this matter and suggest the Committee seek detailed involvement of EMV and the Emergency Management Commissioner before any decisions are made. Finalisation of work on this matter will have direct implications for fire service resourcing, community expectations and will need to involve extensive consultation, stakeholder engagement and transparent impact analysis.

As a broad comment, any analysis of the data provided to the Committee by CFA or others should be undertaken with extreme care and only if there is thorough understanding of the intricacies inherent within the standards; the potential pitfalls of incorrect or superficial analysis; and the limitations of only examining response time data in isolation information on outcomes, incident type and other data. I am concerned that the some of the information requested by the Committee and provided by CFA, if used beyond its meaning, could lead to inappropriate assessment of CFA performance against standards that do not exist; have not been communicated; and are not maintained with adequate resource and support allocation.

  • Understanding the formally adopted standards Assessment of the information requested by the Committee of CFA and the information provided by CFA in response to this request must be evaluated in the context of the current formally adopted service standards. Given the short time available to respond to the Committee I offer the following brief background to explain the current formally adopted standards. This information should be verified with the Emergency Management Commissioner who has the legislated responsibility to establish and communicate standards for emergency responder agencies such as CFA and MFB.
  • Responsibility for determining operational standards for emergency sector responder agencies rests with the Emergency Management Commissioner (EM Act 2013, Sections 32, 48, 49, 64). Section 49(1) of the EM Act requires that these standards be published on the EMV website. The ‘Emergency Service Standards’ published on the EMV website (refer attached, Emergency Management Performance Standards, version 2 Dec 2016), this document does not prescribe any further detail relating to response standards, targets or expectations. This document does reference a Capability and Response Standards (p 41) supposedly released on 1st January 2016 but this document cannot be located on the EMV website nor through any internet document search and I am not aware of anyone who has seen it.

Beyond this fairly general document published on the EMV website, it would appear that the most formal genesis for the service standards applying to CFA are as documented in Victoria’s 2016/17 VFBV RESPONSE TO DATA REQUEST 4 of 7

  • 5 PO Box 453 Mt Waverley 3149
  • Unit 9, 24 Lakeside Drive Burwood East 3151
  • Tel 9886 1141
  • Fax 9886 1618
  • vfbv@vfbv.com.au Inc. A0043424H
  • ABN. 110 830 804 03 Budget Paper – Service Delivery Budget Paper 3 (p 262) which sets out a Department of Justice and Regulation (DJR BP3) departmental objective - ‘Reduce the impact of, and consequences from natural disasters and other emergencies on people, infrastructure, the economy and the environment’;
  • The DJR BP3 further sets out a major outputs and deliverables for CFA being ‘Emergency response times meeting benchmarks – structural fires’ and requiring 90% of structural fires to meet ‘target’. The target is not spelled out in DJR BP3.
  • Beyond the DRJ BP3 standards, within CFA the publicised and CFA Board approved ‘target’ is referenced by a CFA Service Delivery Standard (SDS) and it is this target that CFA communicates as the expectation to CFA brigades and measures performance against. The CFA SDS target (refer attached) sets out the response target for ‘medium urban’ hazard classes as being an 8-minute vehicle response time. The definition of a medium urban risk is ‘Significant urban areas, primarily residential areas involving commercial centres, clusters of industrial and/or institutional hazards’. The CFA SDS performance has, for many years, been measured, reported and assessed as applying to the response received by ‘the customer’ regardless of which of the CFA brigades in CFA’s network responded to or was first to attend the scene. CFA resource allocation and service planning is based on the network of brigade’s ability to achieve target response to the incident.
  • The Committees request for data and the data provided by CFA must be considered in the context of the current formal standard and the compliance achieved for ‘the customer’. With regard to the information provided by CFA to the Committee in Attachment A (27th July letter) the only measure relevant to the achievement of current standards is the right-hand column of each table, being ‘Customer SDS percentage compliance’ Requested commentary on how the dispatch system operates for CFA brigades The Fire Services Dispatch system is a complex, networked, interagency and fully redundant system designed to provide a flexible, timely and risk based response to emergency incidents. This system has served Victoria very well, and has resulted in the network consistently providing responses in line with fire service standards comparable with all other Australian State and Territories. By its nature, the dispatch system is governed by interrelated Agency Standard Operating Procedures, Interagency Memorandum’s of Understanding, contractual arrangements between the agencies and ESTA, Business Rules, data mapping and escalation tables. Primarily, dispatch is handled by CAD (Computer Aided Dispatch) and done through a centralised call taking system managed by ESTA. (Emergency Service Telecommunications Authority) VFBV assumes the committee is not requesting a technical explanation of how the systems operate but rather a summary of how the arrangements work, and some of the elements that may not be so obvious to those outside the emergency services. In our view, some of the key points to note are:
  • CAD and ESTA are not a control and command system in the true sense. All dispatch is done by CAD and ESTA in accordance with pre-determined systems and protocols supplied by the agencies, using evidence based analysis using data and mapping, including road modelling.
  • CFA operates 2 main response categories, referred to internally as a “Code 1” response, and a “Code 3 response”. In its simplest terms, Code 1 response is for incidents requiring a time critical response, and includes responses that include elements involving a threat to human life, or a fire threatening a building, structure or vehicle. Generally, multiple Brigades are dispatched to Code 1 calls, to ensure a network of response is initiated for both weight of attack, and redundancy against delay, such as traffic or other disruptions. Fire appliances generally travel to these events using lights and sirens to encourage a timely response. Whilst lights and sirens do provide a more timely response in most instances, it does place both firefighters and the general public at a higher risk of accident. (e.g. proceeding through red lights etc). Crew Leaders perform a dynamic risk assessment at all times whilst travelling to an incident, and it is not uncommon for responses to VFBV RESPONSE TO DATA REQUEST 5 of 7
  • 6 PO Box 453 Mt Waverley 3149
  • Unit 9, 24 Lakeside Drive Burwood East 3151
  • Tel 9886 1141
  • Fax 9886 1618
  • vfbv@vfbv.com.au Inc. A0043424H
  • ABN. 110 830 804 03 be downgraded to “code 3” if the risk between travelling under code 1 conditions becomes unreasonably hazardous, or provides no tangible benefit. (stuck in traffic that cannot move etc). Motorist behaviour around emergency vehicles traveling under emergency conditions is unpredictable, and sometimes erratic – so crew leaders and drivers regularly re-assess the need for code 1 responses throughout the journey.

Code 3 responses are generally for non-time sensitive incidents such as alarms that have been restored to normal prior to dispatch, confirmed false alarms, motor vehicle accidents where there is no immediate threat of fire or injury, rubbish bin fires that are not near a structure, animal assistance calls, and requests for smoke detector battery changes etc. Generally, fire appliances trave to these incidents under normal road conditions (NO lights and sirens) and obey all traffic rules. Code 3 responses tend to be limited to only the primary brigade, and generally supporting brigades are not dispatched by default unless needed.

  • This flexibility and delineation between urgent and non-urgent calls provides considerable public safety advantages, as it ensures firefighters and the general public (pedestrians and motorists) are only exposed to the increased risks of lights and siren responses, in cases assessed as being necessary. It also ensures the weight of response is guided by the actual risk and type of incident, which reduces unnecessary responses and dispatches.
  • Where Brigades are dispatched, ESTA and CAD monitor the status of brigade response based on predetermined decision points that are time based. ESTA will monitor any failure of a brigade to respond to a dispatch request, and respond additional brigades as per pre-determined deployments tables. Responding appliances and OIC’s (officers in Charge) from the primary response area are advised by ESTA if supporting brigades have failed to respond, and the OIC’s of responding appliances can request ESTA respond additional appliances, or cancel additional brigades being responded, as appropriate. Levels of response can also be predetermined to cater for things like planned absences like training exercises or vehicle maintenance.
  • CFA is responsible for ensuring each brigade has submitted mapping and response tables to ESTA for each of their response areas. CFA manages this process through its Chain of Command, with CFA Operations Officers and Operations Managers specifically required to approve any requests by brigades to alter or update their response tables.

Response tables are generally prepared for each of the main event types, the time period of the response (day, night, weekend and hot day response etc), each of the dispatch codes (Code 1 and Code 2) and to what level of response is required. Level of response works on an alphabetical system, with an ‘A’ response meaning one brigade will respond, a ‘B’ response meaning two brigades, and a ‘C’ response meaning three brigade response etc. The response tables then lay out the order of brigades to be responded out to approximately 30 brigades. This creates a cascade table, that can cater for appliances being offline, out of are, engaged at other calls etc.

Brigades in cooperation with their catchment officer (Operations Officer), use local knowledge, road modelling, availability and a risk assessment in determining the priority of brigades responded via the response table. Road modelling is the principal driver of priority (i.e.- the closest brigade) however exceptions are made to deal with local factors such as if there are weight limited bridges or roads in the area that would prevent a heavy vehicle for responding into that area or cause a long detour, the existence of a specialist capability in a neighbouring brigade and/or the suitability of the appliance for the local topography or environment (light tanker – vs heavy tanker, or pumper vs talker etc).

Any changes or exceptions made in the response tables, must be authorised by the CFA Operations Officer and Operations Manager, before ESTA are allowed to enter it into CAD.

VFBV RESPONSE TO DATA REQUEST 6 of 7

  • 7 PO Box 453 Mt Waverley 3149
  • Unit 9, 24 Lakeside Drive Burwood East 3151
  • Tel 9886 1141
  • Fax 9886 1618
  • vfbv@vfbv.com.au Inc. A0043424H
  • ABN. 110 830 804 03 How the dispatch system operates for the Mutual Aid Area The Mutual Aid area is where CFA and MFB brigades along the interface support each other, and frequently respond into each other’s area as part of an integrated mutual response. These responses are governed by the CFA/MFB Joint Operational Activities Memorandum of Understanding which provides the framework for each agency to cooperate with the other. In general, this MOU provides that:
  • CFA Members and CFA Appliances can respond into the Metropolitan Fire District and that MFB members and MFB appliances can response into the Country Area of Victoria. During these responses, all members may exercise the powers of their respective Chief Officer.
  • One of the main differences between CFA and MFB response, is MFB generally don’t operate a Code 3 response, or an A response, and dispatch a minimum of two appliances lights and sirens to all incidents regardless of the risk assessment or time sensitivity of the incident. CFA crew leaders are required to adapt and use their discretion on how to proceed to the call (lights and sirens) based on their risk assessment and further information from ESTA, knowing they will be one of multiple appliances proceeding to each call.
  • Under the MOU, the Command arrangements on the fire ground change depending on whose primary area the incident occurs. For example, if a CFA Brigade is dispatched to an incident inside the Metropolitan Fire District, and they are the first to arrive on scene, the CFA Crew Leader assumes the role of the Incident Controller. However, upon the arrival of an MFB crew or appliance, there is generally a “transfer of control” and the CFA Crew Leader transfers incident control to an MFB member, and the CFA member now assumes the role of the “Agency Commander”. The Agency Commander reports to the MFB Incident Controller, and liaises between the incident controller and the CFA crews. The same works in reverse.
  • All brigades who regularly respond into the mutual aid areas are equipped with both CFA radios, and MFB radios. Agencies will turn out using the radio of the agency whose area the incident resides. i.e. If the incident is in a CFA area, the MFB will turnout using the CFA radio, and talking to the CFA dispatcher at ESTA (VicFire vs VKN8) and vice versa. Members are trained to adapt to the slightly different radio protocols used by each agency, and conform with the primary agencies procedures when using their networks.

MFB and CFA use different escalation procedures for requesting additional resources to an incident that are above and beyond what is dispatched by CAD. MFB use a system called GARS (Greater Alarm Response System) which is a pre-determined fixed configuration of appliances that will be responded (i.e. 2 pumpers, an aerial and a commander etc). CFA incident controllers use a more flexible approach and only request the additional appliances they need, by type. For example; make tankers 10 – and ESTA will then respond the next 10 tankers as per the response tables.

Yours Sincerely, Andrew Ford Chief Executive Officer (Ref: 478/17) VFBV RESPONSE TO DATA REQUEST 7 of 7

VFBV ATTACHMENT 1 CFA BRIGADE CLASSIFICATION 1 of 1

Emergency Management Performance Standards Version 2.0 December 2016 VFBV ATTACHMENT 2 EM PERFORMANCE STANDARDS 1 of 48

Emergency Management Performance Standards TRIM ID: CD/16/433401* Version 2.0 30/12/2016 PAGE 2 Contents Foreword ___ 4
SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION ___ 5
Background ___ 5
Process of Development ___ 6
Purpose of the Document ___ 6
Intent of the Standards ___ 6
Scope ___ 7
Review ___ 8
Application ___ 8
SECTION 2: CONTEXT ___ 9
Victoria’s Emergency Management Foundations ___ 9
Elements of Emergency Management ___ 9
Emergency Management Performance Standards ___ 10
The Role of Performance Standards ___ 10
SECTION 3: STANDARDS ___ 13
Structure of Standards ___ 13
ELEMENT – RISK & RESILIENCE ___ 14
Function 1: Community Connection ___ 14
Function 2: Understanding and reducing risk ___ 16
Function 3: Emergency Management Planning ___ 18
Function 4: Critical Infrastructure Resilience ___ 20
Function 5: Consequence Management ___ 21
ELEMENT – CAPABILITY & RESPONSE ___ 24
Function 1: Capability Development ___ 24
Function 2: Readiness and Response ___ 26
Function 3: Public Information ___ 28
ELEMENT - RELIEF & RECOVERY ___ 31
Function 1: Relief ___ 31
VFBV ATTACHMENT 2 EM PERFORMANCE STANDARDS 2 of 48

Emergency Management Performance Standards TRIM ID: CD/16/433401* Version 2.0 30/12/2016 PAGE 3 Function 2: Context and Complexity ___ 33
Function 3: Community Capacity Building ___ 34
Function 4: Sector Coordination and Capacity ___ 36
Function 5: Communication ___ 38
SECTION 4: PERFORMANCE ASSURANCE ___ 40
Assurance Activities ___ 40
Performance Measures ___ 41
Reporting ___ 41
Reporting actions ___ 41
Reporting measures ___ 41
Attachment 1 – Relevant Legislation ___ 43
Document information ___ 45
VFBV ATTACHMENT 2 EM PERFORMANCE STANDARDS 3 of 48

Emergency Management Performance Standards TRIM ID: CD/16/433401* Version 2.0 30/12/2016 PAGE 4 Foreword The Emergency Management Sector strives for the shared vision of “safer and more resilient communities” by reducing the likelihood and consequences of emergency events on the community and assets the community values, for example in built and natural environments. The Emergency Management Commissioner’s central purpose is to foster a sustainable and efficient emergency management system to achieve this vision. To support this purpose, Section 48 of the Emergency Management Act 2013 requires that the: Emergency Management Commissioner must develop, and review from time to time, operational standards in relation to the performance by responder agencies of their functions1 .

The Victorian Emergency Management Performance Standards provide Emergency Management Victoria and responder agencies with objectives and minimum requirements for the emergency management functions they collectively undertake and clarify how these functions contribute to the shared vision of ‘safer and more resilient communities’. In November 2015, the Emergency Services Leadership Group endorsed the Emergency Management Performance Standards for Capability and Response. They were developed in collaboration with, and form part of the operational approach for the following responder agencies:  Country Fire Authority  Metropolitan Fire Brigade  Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning  Victoria State Emergency Service.

At the time of endorsing the Standards for Capability and Response, the Emergency Services Leadership Group decided that ideally performance standards should, wherever practicable, extend to the broader Emergency Management Sector and not just responder agencies. Hence, in 2016 the Standards for Risk and Resilience and Relief and Recovery have been drafted with this in mind. They have been developed with input from a broad cross section of the Emergency Management Sector. The Capability and Response Standards will be expanded upon in the near future and updated to take the broader view.

All Standards are to be reviewed and revised annually and it is recognised that the areas of focus may change over time dependent on the areas of improvement identified.

They are a key tool for defining and measuring performance, which helps to foster an environment of continuous improvement in the delivery of services to the community. Craig Lapsley PSM Emergency Management Commissioner 1 Emergency Management Act 2013, Section 48(1) VFBV ATTACHMENT 2 EM PERFORMANCE STANDARDS 4 of 48

Emergency Management Performance Standards TRIM ID: CD/16/433401* Version 2.0 30/12/2016 PAGE 5 SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION Background The Review of the 2010-11 Flood Warnings and Response: Final Report identified a void that existed in the emergency management (EM) arrangements at the time, defined as an absence of any overarching strategy or enabling policy framework to drive reform of the EM Sector (see Figure 1). This void reflected a ‘siloed’ approach where agencies focused on specific hazards with a lack of peripheral vision to consider whole of sector EM capability enhancement. One aspect of this void was a lack of performance standards “with which to hold control agencies to account, or for such agencies to aspire to”2 .

Figure 1: The emergency management framework void3 . To address this void, the then Fire Services Commissioner (FSC) authorised and published two ‘Interim’ Performance Standards relating to ‘Incident Management’ and ‘Information and Warnings’ in October 2012. These ‘Interim’ Performance Standards were replaced in December 2015 by the Emergency Management Performance Standards (Standards) December 2015. The development of performance standards was identified as a project within the Fire Services Reform Action Plan 2013-16 (required by the Fire Services Commissioner Act 2010), under its strategic theme: Information and operational interoperability.

The purpose was to develop standards to support organisational, information, operational and service interoperability with the outcome being to ensure that expectations are formalised, clear, fit for purpose and owned. 2 Comrie, 2011, Review of the 2010-11 Flood Warnings and Response: Final Report, page 46 3 ibid VFBV ATTACHMENT 2 EM PERFORMANCE STANDARDS 5 of 48

Emergency Management Performance Standards TRIM ID: CD/16/433401* Version 2.0 30/12/2016 PAGE 6 When the Emergency Management Act 2013 (EM Act 2013) repealed the Fire Services Commissioner Act 2010, the requirement for the Emergency Management Commissioner (EMC) to develop performance standards for responder agencies was enshrined in legislation. EMC must develop, and review from time to time, operational standards in relation to the performance by responder agencies of their functions (EM Act 2013, S48(1)). The EM Act 2013 and other relevant legislation (relevant sections included in Attachment 1) requires the responder agencies to use their best endeavours to carry out their functions in accordance with the operational standards.

The need for standards relating to all hazards is also reflected in the Victorian Emergency Management Strategic Action Plan Update #1 2016-2019 (SAP), within the Governance theme. SAP Action E4: Develop performance standards to guide effective and efficient governance and enable the sector to measure its performance. (Victorian Emergency Management Strategic Action Plan Update #1, 2016-2019, p. 10). The SAP is a three year rolling plan that outlines state-wide strategic priorities, with corresponding actions, to support Victoria in achieving its vision of safer and more resilient communities.

It is the overarching plan that will guide all-hazard, all-agency reform and gives the community confidence that progress is being made.

Process of Development In order to effectively and efficiently meet the requirements of the applicable legislation and progress the development of the Standards, working groups have been formed comprising representatives of the EMC, responder agencies and Inspector-General for Emergency Management (IGEM). The initial working group established the structure of the standards and determined the functions. Where required, elements of the standard were delegated to and developed by multi-agency subject matter expert groups.

In accordance with the EM Act 2013, these Standards have been developed in consultation with the responder agencies, in a manner that is reasonable and with regard to the resources available to the organisation(s) in the performance of any functions to which the standard relates.

Responder agencies have cooperated with the EMC in this consultation, consistent with the relevant subsections of legislation (see Attachment 1). Purpose of the Document The purpose of this document is to outline the standards for the key emergency management functions performed by the Victorian responder agencies and broader EM Sector, as applicable. This document represents a collaborative commitment by the sector to interoperability and continuous improvement.

The audience for this document is the Minister for Emergency Services, EMC, IGEM, State Crisis and Resilience Council (SCRC), Responder Agencies, the broader EM Sector, and the community. Intent of the Standards The Standards provide EMV and responder agencies with objectives and minimum requirements for the emergency management functions they collectively undertake and clarify how these functions contribute to the shared vision of ‘safer and more resilient communities’. For the purpose of this document, a standard is defined as: A document that defines the minimum requirements for products or services that are provided or delivered to the community.

The Standards establish the objectives and minimum requirements expected to be provided in order to: VFBV ATTACHMENT 2 EM PERFORMANCE STANDARDS 6 of 48

Emergency Management Performance Standards TRIM ID: CD/16/433401* Version 2.0 30/12/2016 PAGE 7  Ensure that minimum requirements for products and services are provided or delivered to the community  Establish clear and consistent expectations that focus on achieving key outcomes to drive improvement  Support agencies and the EM Sector to regularly monitor performance and demonstrate progress towards the shared vision.

The process of defining and measuring performance helps to foster an environment of continuous improvement in the delivery of services to the community.

Scope In Scope This document specifies the Standards developed by the EMC for the operational performance of key emergency management functions by EMV and responder agencies in Victoria, in accordance with the EM Act 2013. As per the EM Act 2013, responder agencies are defined as:  Country Fire Authority (CFA)  Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (DELWP)  Metropolitan Fire and Emergency Services Board (MFB)  Victoria State Emergency Service (VICSES)  any other agency prescribed to be a responder agency. This document uses the term ‘EM Sector’ in the minimum requirements for each function.

In this context, ‘EM Sector’ refers to Responder Agencies (i.e. CFA, DELWP, MFB and VICSES) and Emergency Management Victoria (EMV) as a collective. Therefore, the Standards describe the minimum requirements for these organisations collectively, which reflects the integrated and coordinated nature of delivering emergency management services to the community. The Standards apply to the functions performed by the EM Sector within the following scope:  Operational activity relating to the functions performed by responder agencies relevant to the Capability & Response element of emergency management  Operational activity relating to the functions performed by the EM Sector relevant to the Risk & Resilience and Relief & Recovery elements of emergency management  Activity relating to hazards for which the responder agencies are the control agency, including all Class 1 emergencies (e.g.

fire, flood, rescue, storm, tsunami, hazmat and earthquake)  Emergencies of all sizes and complexities  All tiers of emergency (e.g. local, incident, regional and state levels). Out of Scope The following aspects are out of scope, although they may be influenced by these Standards and/or EM Sector operational performance:  Non-operational or non-service delivery activity (e.g. human resources management)  Hazards for which the responder agencies are not the control agency, including all Class 2 emergencies (e.g. transport, health, and security emergencies).

While not within the direct scope of this document, all communities, government, and business organisations have a role in emergency management. The critical contribution of these organisations may be influenced by the requirements outlined and has been recognised throughout this document where appropriate. VFBV ATTACHMENT 2 EM PERFORMANCE STANDARDS 7 of 48

Emergency Management Performance Standards TRIM ID: CD/16/433401* Version 2.0 30/12/2016 PAGE 8 Over time, the Standards will be expanded beyond responder agencies and developed with key partner organisations to better reflect the broader approach taken to emergency management in Victoria.

The Risk & Resilience and Relief & Recovery Standards included in this document have been written with this future intent. Review These Standards will be reviewed regularly to ensure they remain contemporary and meet the needs and expectations of the emergency management sector and the community. They will be reviewed on an annual basis or at the discretion of the EMC.

In accordance with the relevant legislation, these Standards will be reviewed in consultation with the responder agencies and broader EM Sector as appropriate, in a manner that is reasonable and with regard to the resources available to a responder agency in the performance of any functions to which the standard relates. Application The Country Fire Authority Act 1958, Metropolitan Fire Brigades Act 1958, Victoria State Emergency Service Act 2005, and the Forests Act 1958 respectively, specify that each responder agency must use its best endeavours to carry out its functions in accordance with these Standards.

All responder agencies are encouraged to actively share innovative ideas and knowledge with other agencies to ensure consistent application and achieve objectives specified within the Standards. These Standards are implemented on a ‘without prejudice’ basis to support overall performance standards development, including the development of robust performance criteria and measures. The application of these Standards is one part of a broader continuous improvement process, including adoption, compliance, monitoring and reporting arrangements. These Standards do not replace the requirement for responder agencies to perform their legislated functions.

Performance against these Standards is not intended to be used to the detriment of the responder agencies. Notwithstanding this, the ‘best endeavours’ requirement remains applicable to these Standards.

The Standards are intended to be read and applied in conjunction with:  relevant legislation (relevant sections included in Attachment 1)  Emergency Management Manual Victoria (EMMV)  Monitoring and Assurance Framework for Emergency Management  Emergency Management Performance Framework  relevant government policy and procedures  any other documents specified in the standards. The Standards are effective as of the date of authorisation, Capability & Response became effective on 1 January 2016, the Risk & Resilience and the Relief & Recovery Standards will be applicable to responder agencies as of 1 January 2017, with application across the broader sector to be determined.

Noting that some elements of the requirements are subject to the finalisation of specific documentation (e.g. Emergency Management Community Resilience Framework). VFBV ATTACHMENT 2 EM PERFORMANCE STANDARDS 8 of 48

Emergency Management Performance Standards TRIM ID: CD/16/433401* Version 2.0 30/12/2016 PAGE 9 SECTION 2: CONTEXT Victoria’s Emergency Management Foundations The EM Sector strives for the shared vision of “safer and more resilient communities” by reducing the likelihood and consequences of emergency events on the community and assets the community values (e.g. built and natural environments). The shared vision provides a description of the future state for the sector and acts as a direction for all other activity.

Shared vision: Safer and more resilient communities. A major factor determining whether an emergency event has longer-term consequences is the level of ‘resilience’ of the community, which is the extent to which the community can anticipate the event, identify and mitigate the risks, respond to the event and recover after the event.

Communities, government, agencies and business work in partnership to build community resilience through programs that reduce the likelihood, severity and consequences of emergencies. This is reflected in the shared goal, which describes the long-term outcomes required to achieve the vision of the sector.

Shared goal: A sustainable and efficient emergency management system that reduces the likelihood, effect and consequences of emergencies. This shared goal can be broken into three more specific and measurable sub-goals: 1. Reduction in ‘likelihood’ of emergencies, where likelihood is defined as the chance that an emergency will occur 2. Reduction in effect of emergencies, where ‘effect’ is defined as the direct and immediate effect of an emergency in the ‘during’ or ‘response’ phase 3. Reduction in consequence of emergencies, where ‘consequence’ is defined as the indirect and longer term effects of emergencies in the ‘after’ or ‘recovery’ phase.

Communities, government, agencies and business share the responsibility of undertaking Victoria’s emergency management functions to achieve the shared vision and goal.

Responder agencies are one important element of the sector and perform a range of functions that contribute to the shared vision and goal. The measurement of responder agency performance must be understood in the context of this broader shared responsibility. Elements of Emergency Management Emergency management activities are undertaken before, during or after an emergency. The structure of the sub-committees to the SCRC reflect these three phases of the emergency management system, while also broadly aligning with the concepts of prevention, response and recovery. The sub-committees are the peak advisory bodies to the SCRC on emergency management matters relating to the following elements:  Capability & Response  Relief & Recovery  Risk & Resilience Each element has an objective and can be divided into key functions that describe a set of operational activities, as shown in Figure 2.

While the functions are categorised into the elements for clarity and simplicity, all the functions are linked and overlap with each other; this integration is critical to achieve the shared vision of the sector. Each function has a desired outcome that describes how it contributes to the shared vision.

VFBV ATTACHMENT 2 EM PERFORMANCE STANDARDS 9 of 48

Emergency Management Performance Standards TRIM ID: CD/16/433401* Version 2.0 30/12/2016 PAGE 10 Emergency Management Performance Standards The structure of the operational performance standards aligns with these elements. Aligning the Standards with the structure of the SCRC and sub-committees will allow for cross-government ownership and accountability for the Standards. In addition, evaluation of performance against the Standards can inform the ongoing development and delivery of the SAP, which is the responsibility of the SCRC in conjunction with the sub-committees.

Figure 2: Structure of performance standards across the elements of emergency management FUNCTIONS AND DESIRED OUTCOMES PERFORMANCE MEASURES EM DIRECTION EM ELEMENTS AND OBJECTIVES The Role of Performance Standards Performance standards are one component of a broader context of continuous improvement across the EM Sector, which can be described as a Plan – Do – Check – Adjust cycle (see Figure 3). The Monitoring and Assurance Framework for Emergency Management, developed by the IGEM in accordance with the Emergency Management Act 1986 (EM Act 1986) and EM Act 2013, describes these four phases as:  Plan – determining the objectives, clarifying roles and responsibilities and establishing success factors  Do – organising activities to deliver on the objectives of the plan and implementing the plan  Check – measuring performance against pre-determined success factors and reviewing to determine successes and areas for improvement  Adjust (or Act) – taking action on lessons identified to drive continuous improvement.

In the ‘Plan’ phase, the vision establishes the direction of all emergency management activity. Goals indicate what long-term outcomes are required in order to achieve the vision. Goals are specific and VFBV ATTACHMENT 2 EM PERFORMANCE STANDARDS 10 of 48

Emergency Management Performance Standards TRIM ID: CD/16/433401* Version 2.0 30/12/2016 PAGE 11 measurable. Objectives are the high-level statements that describe the activities that need to be implemented to achieve the goals. Standards describe the minimum requirements that are expected in order to show that the objective is being met. They also provide criteria that provide a basis for the measurement and assessment of performance. Strategies, plans and doctrine specify how resources will be used to meet the performance standards and, therefore, deliver on the objectives and contribute to the goals.

EM Sector organisations are responsible for developing plans, strategies and doctrine that align with the Standards and demonstrate a clear contribution to the overall EM Sector vision and goal. . In this sense, the Standards are not prescriptive and do not define how the EM Sector is to meet the required objectives. Initiatives and programs include the delivery of the SAP and the development of common doctrine, including standard operating procedures.

Performance criteria determine how performance will be evaluated to show whether the plans and strategies are achieving the intended results (i.e. the goals). This establishes the basis of the ‘Check’ phase, where the performance that occurs in the ‘Doing’ phase can be evaluated against the plans and adjusted where areas for improvement are identified. VFBV ATTACHMENT 2 EM PERFORMANCE STANDARDS 11 of 48

You can also read
Next part ... Cancel