JANUARY 2026
STANDARDS
OF COVER
CITY OF MANTECA, CA
ATTACHMENT 2
Manteca Fire Department
Manteca Fire Department
Focus Areas
1. The MFD should adopt
a system of measures
to ensure
accountability to the
desired performance
objectives.
2. The MFD should
establish a system of
measures to
transparently identify
system needs and
future investments in
personnel, fleet, and
fire stations.
3. Consider additional
staffing and stations to
meet the department’s
4-minute travel time
benchmark.
4. Establish a program
that uses fire managers
to reduce Turnout Time
to 90 seconds or less,
90% of the time, for all
calls for service.
5. Establish and monitor
expectations with the
Primary and
Secondary Public
Safety Answering
Points (PSAP/SPSAP)
to improve Call
Processing and
Dispatch Time.
Executive Summary
STANDARDS OF COVER
The City of Manteca, CA, Fire
Department (MFD) has
experienced significant
population growth, resulting in
increased calls for EMS, fire,
rescue, and other emergency
services.
As more citizens move into the
service area, often into newly
constructed multi-generational
single-family homes, public safety
services have not kept pace with
growth. One bit of good news is
that these new homes feature the
latest in residential life-safety
systems, especially fire sprinklers.
In addition to residential growth,
the City has seen the construction
of large commercial structures,
primarily logistics fulfillment
occupancies. These take
advantage of the City’s strategic
locations along important
transportation corridors.
City leaders understand the funding
challenges of meeting the needs of
a growing population, responding
to calls for service, and addressing
external community threats.
In 2024, the Council authorized
Measure Q, a 3/4 cent sales tax
increase, to be placed on the ballot
for voter approval. The community
expressed its support with the
passage of Measure Q. This sales
tax measure raises over $10 million
annually for critical city services.
The measure passed in November
2024, and the City has begun to
realize this new revenue.
For several years, impact fees did
not keep pace with the service
needs, including fire stations, fleet,
and personnel. Current City
leadership seeks to update impact
fees to reflect current costs. These
impact fees are intended for
infrastructure improvements,
including fire stations and
apparatus.
The City retained FITCH to evaluate
current community risk, MFD
performance, and deployment. This
evaluation supports the strategic
key priorities.
Evaluations and recommendations
in this study include a strategic
planning and recommendation
framework to provide the City with
a path forward, particularly
regarding the best use of new
revenue and whether to invest in
personnel, fleet, or facilities.
Finally, a comprehensive
assessment of the City's fire and
EMS service delivery was
completed using an objective,
data-driven process.
The City Council, staff, and the
MFD should be commended for
their dedication to the community
and its citizens, often with
constrained resources.
January 2026
ATTACHMENT 2
Manteca Fire Department
High-Level System
Description, Stakeholder
Feedback, Risk
Assessment,
Performance, and
System Resiliency
ATTACHMENT 2
Manteca Fire Department
The Manteca Fire Department (MFD) is a full-service municipal fire department providing all-hazards emergency response and community risk reduction services for the City of Manteca, California.
Services include fire suppression, emergency medical services (EMS), hazardous materials response, water rescue, emergency management, fire prevention, inspections, plan review, public education, code enforcement, and post-fire
investigation.
The City of Manteca is located in
San Joaquin County in California’s
Central Valley and encompasses
approximately 21.4 square miles.
The city serves an estimated
population of approximately 94,000
residents and has experienced
sustained growth over the past
decade. Manteca functions as a
rapidly developing suburban
community within the greater
Stockton–Lodi–Tracy regional
corridor.
Manteca’s terrain is generally flat,
with elevations below 100 feet above sea level, and reflects typical Central Valley conditions. The city experiences a Mediterranean climate characterized by hot, dry summers and cool, wet winters. Seasonal hazards include extreme heat, heavy rainfall, dense tule fog, and localized flooding, all of which can affect transportation systems, infrastructure, and emergency response operations.
Land use within the city includes residential neighborhoods, large-scale housing developments, commercial and retail centers, hospitality and entertainment venues, and light industrial and logistics facilities. Manteca is located at the intersection of major roadway, rail, and regional transportation corridors, contributing to a diverse emergency risk profile that includes high-occupancy structures, transportation incidents, and hazardous materials exposure.
The community is demographically diverse and family-oriented, with a median age of approximately 37.
Household sizes exceed the national average, reflecting multigenerational living patterns. Vulnerable populations include elderly residents, individuals with limited mobility or transportation access, and residents living in high-density or rapidly developing areas.
Manteca adds approximately 700 new households annually, resulting in continued demand for emergency services and infrastructure. Ongoing residential and commercial development, combined with environmental and transportation-related hazards, underscores the importance of a well-resourced and adaptable fire and emergency response system to protect life and property within a dynamic and growing community.
Documentation of Area Characteristics
ATTACHMENT 2
I
n the City of Manteca, EMS services are provided through a publicprivate partnership with Manteca District Ambulance Services (Manteca Ambulance). The County of San Joaquin authorizes Manteca Ambulance to serve Zone D for emergency medical services, including advanced life support (ALS) first response, assessment, treatment, and transportation to definitive care.
EMS services are also supplemented by the fire department’s basic life support (BLS) first response capabilities for assessment and treatment, and assistance with patient transportation when needed. EMS calls represents 84% of the fire department’s total volume. In 2024, the department, in conjunction with the San Joaquin EMS Agency, implemented a call-reduction program in which the MFD stopped responding to low-acuity EMS calls, including Alpha and Omega calls.
The public-private partnership is designed to maximize efficiency across two distinct EMS system models:
Readiness and Demand.
Readiness Model
In public policy, the costs of services in the public interest, such as essential public safety services, are generally funded by the public. In this example, the city’s general fund supports the fire department's readiness and availability to respond to all-hazards, including EMS. The cost of readiness includes the availability of resources, regardless of how often the public requests services. Therefore, in a readiness model, the fire department has a more robust resource allocation, with the capacity to respond to any citizen or visitor to the city as a public good or in the public interest. Readiness costs are typically higher due to limited production capacity.
Demand Model
In contrast, the utilization of patient transport services may be better categorized as an individual benefit.
For example, Mrs. Smith’s medical emergency, while very important, may not have a public utility as it is an individual benefit. Therefore, service costs are typically funded by the user rather than the public at large.
This allows the ambulance to allocate resources more closely aligned with service requests, resulting in a much better return on investment.
In combination, the public bears the burden of funding the system’s resource availability (fire department/ general fund), and individual users bear the cost recovery burden (user fees). The fire department’s capacity to respond to EMS calls, both by severity and as a safety net when ambulances are resource-constrained, moderates transport service costs and leverages the benefits of both models.
In other words, this is the framework for providing a valid first response, stop-the-clock, and/or treat and release charge master.
Aligning City Resources to Risks
Typically, in an integrated EMS system, such as in Manteca, reliance on fire department first responses is associated with the timeliness of the first response relative to the timeliness of transport-capable units. For example, if the service expectation was to arrive in 6 minutes, but the ambulance doesn’t arrive until 12 minutes, then there may be a more robust reliance on the fire department's first response to get to the patient’s side, assess, treat, and stabilize, prior to the ambulance arrival.
Manteca Fire Department
Overview of the Current EMS System Design
Recommendation
The city should have
considerable flexibility to
consider the number of fire
department resources
assigned to EMS calls by
clinical severity.
ATTACHMENT 2
Manteca Fire Department
Automatic/Mutual Aid
Legal Basis
The Manteca Fire Department (MFD) participates in automatic aid and mutual aid agreements to ensure effective emergency response for incidents that exceed local capabilities or occur near jurisdictional boundaries. These agreements support fire suppression, emergency medical services, rescue operations, hazardous materials incidents, and extended or complex emergencies.
MFD maintains local mutual-aid agreements with adjoining fire agencies, including the Lathrop-Manteca Fire District and the Ripon Fire District. The agreement with the Lathrop-Manteca Fire District was executed in 1995, and the agreements with the Ripon Fire District and French Camp Fire District were executed in January 2026.
These agreements provide for coordinated response, shared resources, and operational support when the closest or most appropriate unit is located outside city limits.
In addition to local agreements, MFD participates in the California Statewide Master Mutual Aid Agreement,
administered by the California Office of Emergency Services (CalOES). This system allows MFD to request and provide resources through the standardized statewide mutual aid framework during major incidents, disasters, or multijurisdictional events.
Since the 2023–2024 reporting period, Manteca has experienced a notable increase in the use of outside aid. The highest volume of assisted responses has been related to motor vehicle accidents, with Stations 242 and 243 receiving the greatest frequency of outside agency support. These trends highlight the operational importance of automatic and mutual aid agreements in maintaining effective response coverage Fire protection and emergency services within the City of Manteca are provided under the authority granted to general law cities by the California Constitution, the California Government Code, and the California Health and Safety Code. The Manteca Fire Department (MFD) is established by the City Council and operates under the administrative direction of the City Manager.
MFD’s authority includes fire suppression, emergency medical services, hazardous materials response, rescue operations, fire prevention, code enforcement, public education, and emergency management. Fire prevention and life safety activities are conducted in accordance with the California Fire Code, as adopted and amended by the City of Manteca Municipal Code, and enforced by the Fire Department.
Emergency medical services are provided pursuant to the California Emergency Medical Services Act and under the oversight of the San Joaquin County Emergency Medical Services Agency (EMS Agency). MFD personnel operate at approved certification levels and in compliance with state and county EMS protocols.
The City of Manteca is also authorized to enter into cooperative agreements with neighboring jurisdictions, counties, special districts, and state agencies to ensure effective delivery of emergency services and regional coordination.
ATTACHMENT 2
Manteca Fire Department
Summary of Stakeholder Feedback
Stakeholders were provided the opportunity to meet with the FITCH team on September 2 and 3, 2025. In total, eight group interviews were conducted with chief officers, the city manager, key city directors and staff, and the Manteca Professional Firefighters Executive Board.
FITCH used various techniques to gather feedback, including one-on-one and small-group interviews (both in-person and virtual), document review, and financial analysis. The interviews aimed to gather information and perspectives from fire agency staff and others who support the fire and EMS agencies.
Questions were designed to solicit background information, subjective and objective observations, ideas for efficiency improvements, and methodologies to better serve the City.
Fire Command Staf
Executive Board,
Manteca Professional
Firefefighters
City Manager, City
Manager’s Office Staf
Finance Department
Staf
Development
Services Staf
Economic
Development Staf Fire Prevention Staf Interim and new Fire Chief Observations
In total, 48 City and MFD
staff members from
multiple City
Departments provided
stakeholder input for
this process.
The SWOT analysis
below is an anonymous
summary of key themes.
ATTACHMENT 2
Manteca Fire Department
Variables of Risk
All variables measured at
the FDZ level
• Population density
• Square mileage of each
FDZ
• Median age of
residents
• Median household
income
• Unemployment rate
• Percentage of homes
greater than 55 years
old
• Community demand
• Call Concurrency
FDZs were utilized to assess each planning zone for risks that inform response time performance objectives. The risk assessment process utilizes socioeconomic variables, such as median household income and unemployment, as well as demographic variables such as population density and median age. Other variables considered included square mileage and the percentage of homes greater than 55 years old.
Community Risk Assessment
Recommendation
MFD should develop a
process to capture
occupancy-level risks
(building level) and
incorporate specific
occupancy ratings into the
overall risk assessment
process and risk matrices.
Socioeconomic and Demographic Risks
To study the unique features of Manteca, the department utilized a comprehensive two-part documented and adopted
methodology that organizes response areas into geographical planning zones. The first is by the department’s entire response area.
The second utilized a more gradual assessment of station demand zones (FDZ).
Each demand zone has a first-due department. These FDZs have specific resource allocation strategies based on calculated risks. From an emergency response standpoint, the department is divided into five FDZs, each with a dedicated fire department. The FDZs are not divided equally in terms of demographics and population density.
ATTACHMENT 2
Research has
demonstrated
a relationship
between age
and use of
EMS and fire
services, or
the events
leading to the need for EMS and fire services,
wherein use and need tend to be highest among older
adults, as compared to those in younger age groups.
Manteca Fire Department
The population for each first due station was evaluated for Manteca Fire Department. Station 243’s service boundary has the highest population density within the department. The lowest population density is in Stations 245’s service boundaries.
Economic and Demographic Assessment by FDZ
Recommendation
It is recommended that the
department continues to
monitor socioeconomic and
demographic variables
correlated with changes in risk.
Based on U.S. Census Bureau data for
2019-2023, adjusted for 2023 dollars, median
household income for the City of Manteca, CA
was $94,718.
For Example, older adults (e.g., 65 years and older)
or the elderly (e.g., 85 years and older) have been
found to experience higher rates of burns, falls, fires, and fire-related injuries or death, and have higher
rates of ambulance transport and use of EMS, in
general. The elderly are also one of the most
vulnerable groups during and following disasters
such as hurricanes, tornadoes, and earthquakes.
5-Station Configuration
ATTACHMENT 2
Manteca Fire Department
FDZ Level Risk - 5-Station Configuration
Fire Demand Zones (FDZs) were assigned an overall risk level classification of low, moderate, high, or maximum based on the resulting value of the risk matrices.
Ultimately, Stations 241-244 were classified as a moderate-risk stations (yellow). Station 245 was classified as a low-risk zone.
Finally, 3-dimensional models were created to evaluate each FDZs unique risk profile.
Recommendation
Stations 241 through 244 in
Manteca are rated
moderate-risk station
areas or fire demand
zones.
Station 245 is rated as low.
Therefore, from a riskbased viewpoint, the
policy group has
objective data to manage
where risk can be
reasonably assumed. 0
2 4
6 8
10 Demand
Call Concurrency Census
First Due Station 241
Moderate
0 2
4 6
8 10
Demand
Call Concurrency Census
First Due Station 242
Moderate
0 2
4 6
8 10
Demand
Call Concurrency Census
First Due Station 243
Moderate
0 2
4 6
8 10
Demand
Call Concurrency Census
First Due Station 244
Moderate
0 2
4 6
8 10
Demand
Call Concurrency Census
First Due Station 245
Low
ATTACHMENT 2
Research has
demonstrated a
relationship
between age and
use of EMS and
fire services, or
the events
leading to the need
for EMS and fire services, wherein use and need tend
to be highest among older adults, as compared to
those in younger age groups.
Manteca Fire Department
The population for each first due station was evaluated for Manteca Fire Department. Station 243’s service boundaries have the highest population density within the department. The lowest population density is in Stations 245 and 246 service boundaries.
Economic and Demographic Assessment by FDZ
Recommendation
It is recommended that the
department continues to
monitor socioeconomic and
demographic variables
correlated with changes in
risk.
Based on U.S. Census Bureau data for 2019-2023,
adjusted for 2023 dollars, median household
income for the City of Manteca, CA was $94,718.
For Example, older adults (e.g., 65 years and older) or the elderly (e.g., 85 years and older) have been found
to experience higher rates of burns, falls, fires, and
fire-related injuries or death, and have higher rates of ambulance transport and use of EMS, in general. The
elderly are also one of the most vulnerable groups
during and following disasters such as hurricanes,
tornadoes, and earthquakes.
6-Station Configuration
ATTACHMENT 2
Manteca Fire Department
FDZ Level Risk - 6-Station Configuration
Fire Demand Zones (FDZs) were
assigned an overall risk level
classification of low, moderate,
high, or maximum based on the
resulting value of the risk matrices.
Ultimately, Stations 241-244 were
classified as a moderate-risk stations
(yellow). Stations 245 and 246 were
classified as low-risk zones.
Finally, 3-dimensional models were created to evaluate each FDZs unique risk profile.
Recommendation
Stations 241 through 244 in
Manteca are rated
moderate-risk station
areas or fire demand
zones.
Stations 245 and 246 are
rated as low.
Therefore, from a riskbased viewpoint, the
policy group has
objective data to manage
where risk can be
reasonably assumed.
0 2
4 6
8 10
Demand
Call Concurrency Census
First Due Station 241
Moderate
0 2
4 6
8 10
Demand
Call Concurrency Census
First Due Station 242
Moderate
0 2
4 6
8 10
Demand
Call Concurrency Census
First Due Station 243
Moderate
0 2
4 6
8 10
Demand
Call Concurrency Census
First Due Station 244
Moderate
0 2
4 6
8 10
Demand
Call Concurrency Census
First Due Station 245
Low
0 2
4 6
8 10
Demand
Call Concurrency Census
First Due Station 246
Low
ATTACHMENT 2
Research has
demonstrated
a relationship
between age
and use of
EMS and fire
services, or the events leading to the need for EMS
and fire services, wherein use and need tend to be
highest among older adults, as compared to those in
younger age groups.
Manteca Fire Department
The population for each first due station was evaluated for Manteca Fire Department. Stations 242 and 243’s service boundaries have the highest population density within the department. The lowest population density is in Stations 245 and 246 service boundaries.
Economic and Demographic Assessment by FDZ
Recommendation
Only the 7-station configuration
will achieve the Department’s
and NFPA 1710 4-minute travel
time benchmark.
It is recommended that the
department continues to monitor
socioeconomic and
demographic variables
correlated with changes in risk.
Based on U.S. Census Bureau data for
2019-2023, adjusted for 2023 dollars, median
household income for the City of Manteca, CA
was $94,718.
For Example, older adults (e.g., 65 years and older) or the elderly (e.g., 85 years and older) have been found
to experience higher rates of burns, falls, fires, and
fire-related injuries or death, and have higher rates of ambulance transport and use of EMS, in general. The
elderly are also one of the most vulnerable groups
during and following disasters such as hurricanes,
tornadoes, and earthquakes.
7- Station Configuration
ATTACHMENT 2
Manteca Fire Department
FDZ Level Risk - 7-Station Configuration
Fire Demand Zones (FDZs) were assigned an overall risk level classification of low, moderate, high, or maximum based on the resulting value of the risk matrices.
Ultimately, Stations 241-244 and 247 were classified as a moderaterisk stations (yellow). Stations 245 and 246 were classified as a lowrisk zones (green).
Finally, 3-dimensional models were created to evaluate each FDZs unique risk profile.
Recommendation
Five of the Manteca stations
are rated moderate-risk
station areas or fire demand
zones.
Two are rated as low risk.
Therefore, from a risk-based
viewpoint, the policy group
has objective data to manage
where risk can be reasonably
assumed. 0
2 4
6 8
10 Demand
Call Concurrency Census
First Due Station 241
Moderate
0 2
4 6
8 10
Demand
Call Concurrency Census
First Due Station 242
Moderate
0 2
4 6
8 10
Demand
Call Concurrency Census
First Due Station 243
Moderate
0 2
4 6
8 10
Demand
Call Concurrency Census
First Due Station 244
Moderate
0 2
4 6
8 10
Demand
Call Concurrency Census
First Due Station 246
Low
0 2
4 6
8 10
Demand
Call Concurrency Census
First Due Station 247
Moderate
0 2
4 6
8 10
Demand
Call Concurrency Census
First Due Station 245
Low
ATTACHMENT 2
Manteca Fire Department
Categorizing and Classifying Risk
We obtained data files from Manteca Fire Department
spanning July 1, 2022 through June 30, 2025. Based on
the date range of data provided, the three most recent
calendar years of data (i.e., 2022-23 through 2024-25) were utilized for baseline analysis in this report.
In coordination with department leadership, incident type values from the data file were classified into the program areas of EMS, fire, hazmat, rescue and unknown.
Recommendation
The department should develop
a process for the periodic
assessment and validation of the
risk categorization and
classification processes.
The department is also
encouraged to consider
outcome measures in the
periodic reassessment of the
risk categorization and
classification process.
ATTACHMENT 2
Manteca Fire Department
Risks may be divided into correlated and uncorrelated risks. All previous risk analyses have been primarily based on
uncorrelated risks such as single unique events for EMS or a single property
structure fire.
Risks were
calculated based
on socioeconomic
and demographic
factors that may
contribute to
unique events. All
previous analyses
utilized a robust
quantitative
approach to
leasing risk using a
3-axis, 3-
dimensional Heron
formula.
However,
correlated risks
occur with much less frequency and were assessed using a 2- dimensional probability and consequence model. Example of correlated risks would include more regional or system wide events such as natural hazards and pandemics.
Results of the correlated risk assessment process are provided below. The data represent the prioritized risks identified by the agencies and are included in the 2023 San Joaquin County Hazard Mitigation Action Plan.
Correlated Risks Performance Indicator 2A.6
Recommendation
The department is encouraged
to continue to annually review
risk severities that are more
appropriately defined by the
two-dimensional risk
assessment process.
At least annually, MFD should
assess the potential impact of
external influences that can
significantly impact its
performance and operations.
Low Risk Moderate Risk High Risk
Land Subsidence Flood, Excessive Rain Levee Break
Terrorism, WMD Tornado, Thunder Storms Hazardous Materials Wildland Fire Ground Contamination Weather: Heat, Dense Fog Dam Break Climate Change Animal Pests
Drought
ATTACHMENT 2
Manteca Fire Department
Historical Service Demands
Historical service demands were evaluated by calendar year and classified by program areas of Fire, EMS, Hazmat, Rescue and Unknown.
Considering all calls that occurred within Manteca as well as all calls that Manteca agencies provided to areas outside of Manteca, the total call volume has averaged between 28.4 and 29.8 calls per day.
In total call volume, the
equivalency was between 10,375
incidents and 10,873 incidents.
Consistent with the national
experience, the majority of
incidents occurred within the
Emergency Medical Services
(EMS) program area. In 2024-25,
EMS accounted for 9,226 of the
10,873 total unique incidents, or
84.9%.
Conversely, the fire program
accounted for 1,444 incidents out
of the 10,873, or 13.3%.
The hazardous materials, rescue
programs and unknown
collectively account for less than
2% of the overall incidents. This
is a consistent finding compared
to other like agencies.
Observations
Evaluating calendar years
2020-2024, the number of daily
calls averaged between 28 and
30 calls per day.
EMS accounted for 84.9% of all
incidents with Fire accounting
for 13.3%.
Hazmat and Rescue accounted
for less than 2%.
Reporting Period1
CAD Program and Call Type2 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25
EMS 8,664 8,872 9,226
Breathing Problem 909 796 910
Cardiac and Stroke 910 950 1,004
Fall and Injury 1,548 1,581 1,720
Illness and Other 2,336 2,442 2,373
Lift Assist 462 522 597
MVA 659 626 625
Overdose and Psychiatric 370 338 269
Seizure and Unconsciousness 1,091 1,232 1,252
Transfer 379 385 476
Fire 1,546 1,461 1,444
Dumpster Fire 43 49 34
Fill Quarters 0 0 2
Fire Alarm 542 480 480
Fire Other 107 81 85
Grass Fire 75 97 170
Hazardous Condition 182 144 135
Outdoor Fire 275 283 237
Public Assist 198 192 180
Structure Fire 74 74 74
Vehicle Fire 40 54 45
Unknown 10 7 2
Hazmat 161 233 188
Hazmat 161 233 188
Rescue 4 14 14
Rescue 4 14 14
Unknown 0 0 1
Unknown 0 0 1
Total 10,375 10,580 10,873
Average Calls per Day3 28.4 28.9 29.8
YoY Growth N/A 2.0% 2.8%
ATTACHMENT 2
Manteca Fire Department
Distribution Study
Response time elements are evaluated by FDZ. All of the FDZs provide a travel time between approximately 5.6 to 8.9 minutes at the 90th percentile. The shortest travel time was at Station 244 at 5.6 minutes.
GIS analyses validated that a fivestation configuration can achieve ~93% coverage within 5-minutes
travel time.
The current Manteca Fire
Department Station Bleed Map for
5-Minute Travel Time – All Calls
Any successively darker shades of
green indicate that more than one
station can service the area within
5 minutes.
5-Minute Travel Time
Observation
A five-station
configuration can
achieve ~93% coverage
within 5-
minutes travel time.
A two-station
configuration can
achieve ~97% coverage
within 8-minutes
travel time.
0 2
4 6
8 10
12 14
241 242 243 244 245 MFD Unknown Total
Time (Minutes)
Demand Zone
(First Due Station)
Dispatch Time Turnout Time Travel Time Response Time
ATTACHMENT 2
Manteca Fire Department
Concentration Study
I
ncidents were geocoded and mapped to illustrate where incidents were both distributed throughout the communities as well as identify concentrations of incidents. As expected, at 84.9% of the total requests for service, the EMS incidents had multiple areas of higher concentrations (below). At a high-level the highest concentrations of EMS incidents are in the center of the city.
The concentration of fire incidents
(left) follows an expected pattern
where the majority of incidents
occur within the developed areas
and specifically in the center of
the city and the northern border.
Overall, the distribution of
incidents would require a similar
number of station locations to
cover both Fire and EMS
incidents. However, the
concentration of incidents allows
the county to tailor the
concentration of resources to
meet the community demand.
Observations
The distribution of incidents
would require a similar number
of station locations to cover both
Fire and EMS incidents.
However, the concentration of
incidents allows the city to tailor
the concentration of resources
to meet the community demand.
ATTACHMENT 2
Manteca Fire Department
Overlapped or simultaneous calls are defined as another call being received in a jurisdiction or demand zone while one or more calls are already ongoing for the same jurisdiction or demand zone. For example, if there is an ongoing call in a jurisdiction wherein all units have not yet been cleared, and one or more requests for service subsequently occur in the jurisdiction, the subsequent call or calls would be captured as overlapping.
Understanding the percentage of overlapped calls may help to determine the number of units to staff to meet the needs of each demand zone. In general, the larger the call volume for a demand zone, the greater the likelihood of overlapped calls occurring.
The distribution of the demand throughout the day will impact the chance of having overlapped calls. Additionally, the duration of a call plays a significant role; the longer it takes to clear a request, the greater the likelihood of having an overlapping request.
Assessing System Resiliency
Recommendations
Continue planning for fire station
locations and infrastructure to
meet the demand of a growing
community.
Increases in population density
and locations may serve to
eventually require a greater
concentration and distribution of
resources to meet the demand.
Any zones with greater than or
equal to 30% call concurrency
rates should have at least two
resources assigned.
Demand Zone
(First Due Station) Overlapped Calls Total Calls Percentage of Overlapped Calls 241 187 2,131 8.8
242 404 3,188 12.7
243 258 2,766 9.3
244 90 1,636 5.5
245 51 1,053 4.8
During 2024-25, Station
242’s demand zone
experienced the highest
percentage of overlapped
calls at 12.7%, followed by
Station 243’s demand zone
at 9.3%.
ATTACHMENT 2
Manteca Fire Department
Unit Hour Utilization (UHU) is an objective measure of time on task for deployed resources. The county is as busy as other similarly sized departments that provide first response EMS, Fire, Hazmat, Rescue and Unknown.
Unit response volume and busy time analyses included all Manteca Fire Department (MFD) units designated by the MFD leadership team as valid units. UHU calculations are also reported for all MFD station areas, assuming a single 24-hour resource for each station area.
This assessment was completed in this manner to overcome challenges in the data collection regarding apparatus that are temporarily assigned to stations other than their “home” station. In other words, the the UHU values below are for all activity within the first due response zone regardless of which units ran the call. This best reflects the personnel’s workload and utilization regardless of which apparatus was utilized at the time.
Additional staffed stations, and greater depth of resources, will have a positive impact and cost avoidance benefit of reinvesting strictly due to workload.
Assessing System Resiliency
Observation
FITCH recommends that an
upper unit utilization threshold of
approximately 0.15, or 15%,
would be considered best
practice for large apparatus.
All MFD units and cross-staffed
teams had UHU values <.15
during 2024.
Adding units for Stations 6 and 7
in the future has a positive
impact on UHU and will insulate
the city from reinvestment
strictly due to workload.
ATTACHMENT 2
Manteca Fire Department
The call
density
analysis
calculates the
relative
concentration of
incidents based
on approximately
0.5 geographic
areas and at
least half of the
adjacent 0.5
grids. The
assessment is
based on call
density and not
population. The
red areas are designated as high-density
service areas and green areas are lowdensity.
Commensurate Risk Model and Projected Growth
The available data set included three
reporting periods of data,
representing FY 2023-24 to2024-25.
Calls for MFD services increased by
an average growth rate of 3.9% per
year. The figure depicts observed
call volume during the last five-year
reporting periods and various
hypothetical growth scenarios
through 2034-35.
Recommendation
It is recommended
that the department
continue to monitor
changes in the
environment related
to population
growth and
increased
community
demand.
Population growth projections through
2034-35 were evaluated by FDZ. Station 245
is projected to have positive growth of up to
45.4%. Station 243 has the least projected
growth (-2.2%-6.2%). The departments
station planning efforts are well-aligned with
projected growth.
0 2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
16,000
18,000
20,000
22,000
2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 2026-27 2027-28 2028-29 2029-30 2030-31 2031-32 2032-33 2033-34 2034-35 Number of Calls
Reporting Period
Low 2.0% High 6.0% CAGR 3.9%
ATTACHMENT 2
Manteca Fire Department
The Cascade of Events
The cascade of events is the sum of the individual elements of time beginning with a state of normalcy and continuing until normalcy is once again restored through the mitigation of the event. The elements of time that are important to the ultimate outcome of a structure fire or critical medical emergency begin with the initiation of the event. For example, the first onset of chest pain begins the biological and scientific time clock for heart damage, irrespective of when 911 is notified.
Similarly, a fire may begin and burn undetected for a period of time before the fire department is notified.
The emergency response system does not have control over the time interval for recognition or the choice to request assistance. Therefore, the department utilizes quantifiable “hard” data points to measure and manage system performance. These elements include dispatch time (or call processing time), turnout time, travel time, and total response time.
Dispatch Time (or call processing time) is the element of time measured between when 911 answers the 911 call (or call received date and time), processes the information, and subsequently dispatches departmental units.
Turnout Time is the element of time that is measured between the time the unit is dispatched to the emergency incident, and the time when the unit is en route to the call.
Travel Time is the element of time between when a unit went en route, or began to travel to the incident, and the unit’s arrival on scene.
Total Response Time is the total time required to arrive on scene beginning with 911 answering the phone request for service and the time that the unit arrives on scene.
Measuring Response Time Performance
ATTACHMENT 2
Manteca Fire Department
A sensitivity to response time has long been a primary driver of EMS system design and resourcing. The prevailing result is an institutional belief that faster is better, where patient outcomes positively correlate with response times. A 1979 study out of King County, Washington, became a foundational piece for developing NFPA 1710 and the CFAI Accreditation Standards. The study concluded that BLS delivered in 4 minutes and ALS delivered within 8 minutes, which positively correlated with patient outcomes. Thus, this set the bar for the standards still influencing system design today.
However, the King County study only focused on non-traumatic sudden cardiac arrest (SCA), yet its standards were extrapolated to all call types. A follow-up study by Weaver et al. (1984) became the foundation for the 90th percentile standard of 8 minutes 59 seconds adopted by the American Ambulance Association (AAA). Again, this study focused on witnessed SCA presenting with V-Fib, yet the standard was extrapolated to all call types.
Much has changed in EMS since these studies, including an expanded body of research regarding the influence of response time on patient outcomes. Empirical research has expanded the scope to include a much wider representation of call types and responses while still considering response times compared to patient outcomes. The culmination of the research indicates that the threshold for response time to influence patient outcome resides around the 5-minute mark. In other words, if a system cannot respond in less than 5 minutes, they are unlikely to positively influence patient outcomes by purchasing any level of performance that cannot meet 5 minutes. However, it is important to recognize that the 5-minute threshold is associated with high-acuity incidents that account for a small proportion of the total calls. A summary of the relevant research is provided below.
Additional research has examined the
efficacy of emergency, or lights and sirens,
responses. While emergency responses do
produce statistically quicker responses and
transports, very few have clinical implications
for patient outcomes. Studies also found that
emergency responses were warranted in less
than 10% of ambulance transports, and
hospitals didn’t utilize the time savings
created upon arrival to the emergency
department. At the same time, community
risk increases with emergency responses as
units navigate against the established traffic
practices. Research has shown that most
accidents involving emergency vehicles occur
while they are responding lights and sirens.
Observations
Evidenced-based clinical
research coalesces around a
response time of 5 minutes or
less to have a statistically
significant impact on the risk of
mortality for the small proportion
of high-acuity incidents.
Response time changes above 6
minutes have limited clinical
return on investment and are
largely a policy decision.
Efficacy of Response Time Objectives
ATTACHMENT 2
Historical Response Time Performance
An assessment was completed to compare the current
performance experienced within Manteca to the national
consensus guidelines from the National Fire Protection
Association (NFPA), the Commission on Fire Accreditation International (CFAI), and our observed national best practices.
Overall, the performance is challenged to meet national best practices and but has opportunities for incremental improvement.
Specifically, the
department is
encouraged to better
align turnout time with
the national
recommendations of
1.0 minutes for EMS incidents and 1.5 minutes for all
non-EMS incidents. Overall, a best practice would be
1.5 minutes or less for 90% of all incidents. This level of improvement is generally under management’s control
and is a low to no-cost option to improve.
While the travel time performance is not specifically aligned with either the NFPA standard or the CFAI guidance, the response time performance is contextually reasonable with national best practices.
As reinforced throughout this report, there is considerable flexibility in the policy group’s freedom to establish local expectations for service and the adoption of any national standards.
Recommendation
The Manteca Fire Department
should measure all elements
of the response time
continuum at the 90th
percentile for each program
area.
The department should adopt
operations and performance
objectives for the system.
Manteca Fire Department
ATTACHMENT 2
Manteca Fire Department
Station Location
Analyses Utilizing the
Current Five Station
Configuration and A
6-Station and 7-Station
Configuration
ATTACHMENT 2
Manteca Fire Department
Comprehensive analyses were completed regarding fire and rescue station locations for various travel time alternatives.
These strategies provided the department with the greatest flexibility to transparently establish the desired service levels and plan for the investment to accomplish operational initiatives.
Analyses within this study have validated that the department has utilized a well-developed station location process that has resulted in fire station locations that are reasonably well-aligned with risks.
The GIS report provided location analysis that included configurations for all calls in Fire Demand Zones and Staffed Stations, for the following travel times: 4, 5, 6, and 8 minute travel times.
Five Fire Station Locations Study - 4 Minutes
Observation
Results suggest that with 5
staffed stations, ~80% of
calls can be responded to
within 4 minutes or less of
travel time.
The Commission on Fire
Accreditation International
(CFAI) historically had
recognized a 5-minute and 20
second travel time for urban
populations.
5-Station Configuration
GIS analyses
of the efficacy
of a 4-minute
travel time
confirms that
79.65% of
the incidents
could be
covered
within 4
minutes from
a 5 Manteca
Fire
Department
staffed
station
configuration.
ATTACHMENT 2
Manteca Fire Department
5-MINUTE
TRAVEL
TIME
An
assessment
of the
efficacy of a
5-minute
travel time
confirms that
93.36% of the
incidents could be covered within 5 minutes from
the 5 Manteca Fire Department staffed stations.
6-MINUTE TRAVEL TIME
An assessment of the efficacy of a 5-minute travel
time confirms that 98.13% of the incidents could
be covered within 5 minutes from the 5 Manteca
Fire Department staffed stations.
As resources are constrainted, a three station
configuration could maintain the 6-minue travel
time for ~91% of the incidents.
8-MINUTE TRAVEL TIME
An assessment of the efficacy of an 8-minute travel
time confirms that ~99% of the incidents could be
covered within 8 minutes from a 5 Manteca Fire
Department staffed station configuration.
As resources are drawn down, a two station
configuration could maintain the 8-minutes at 97%.
Recommendation
The department should adopt
a desired performance
objective and plan for the
capital and human resources
necessary for implementation.
Five Fire Station Locations - 5-, 6-, and 8-Minutes
ATTACHMENT 2
Manteca Fire Department
Comprehensive analyses were completed regarding fire and rescue station locations for various travel time alternatives.
These strategies provided the department with the greatest flexibility to transparently establish the desired service levels and plan for the investment to accomplish operational initiatives.
Analyses within this study have validated that the department has utilized a well-developed station location process that has resulted in fire station locations that are reasonably well-aligned with risks.
The GIS report provided location analysis that included configurations for all calls in Fire Demand Zones and Staffed Stations, for the following travel times: 4, 5, 6, and 8 minute travel times.
Six Fire Station Location Study - 4 Minutes
Observation
Results suggest that with 5
staffed stations, ~83% of
calls can be responded to
within 4
minutes or less travel time.
The Commission on Fire
Accreditation International
(CFAI) historically had
recognized a 5-minute and 20
second travel time for urban
populations.
6-Station Configuration
GIS analyses
of the
efficacy of a
4-minute
travel time
confirms that
82.75% of
the incidents
could be
covered
within 4
minutes from
a 6 Manteca
Fire
Department
staffed
station
configuration.
ATTACHMENT 2
Manteca Fire Department
5-MINUTE
TRAVEL
TIME
An
assessment
of the
efficacy of a
5-minute
travel time
confirms that
95.01% of the
incidents could be covered within 5 minutes from
the 6 Manteca Fire Department staffed stations.
6-MINUTE TRAVEL TIME
An assessment of the efficacy of a 6-minute travel
time confirms that 98.42% of the incidents could
be covered within 6 minutes from the 6 Manteca
Fire Department staffed stations.
As resources are constrainted, a three station
configuration could maintain the 6-minue travel
time at ~91%.
8-MINUTE TRAVEL TIME
An assessment of the efficacy of an 8-minute travel
time confirms that ~99% of the incidents could be
covered within 8 minutes from a 6 Manteca Fire
Department staffed station configuration.
As resources are drawn down, a two station
configuration could maintain the 8-minutes at 97%.
Recommendation
The department should adopt
a desired performance
objective and plan for the
capital and human resources
necessary for implementation.
Six Fire Station Locations - 5-, 6-, and 8-Minutes
ATTACHMENT 2
Manteca Fire Department
Comprehensive analyses were completed regarding fire and rescue station locations for various travel time alternatives.
These strategies provided the department with the greatest flexibility to transparently establish the desired service levels and plan for the investment to accomplish operational initiatives.
Analyses within this study have validated that the department has utilized a well-developed station location process that has resulted in fire station locations that are reasonably well-aligned with risks.
The GIS report provided location analysis that included configurations for all calls in Fire Demand Zones and Staffed Stations, for the following travel times: 4, 5, 6, and 8 minute travel times.
Seven Fire Station Locations Study - 4 Minutes
Observation
Results suggest that with 5
staffed stations, ~89% of
calls can be responded to
within 4
minutes or less travel time.
The Commission on Fire
Accreditation International
(CFAI) historically had
recognized a 5-minute and 20
second travel time for urban
populations.
7-Station Configuration
GIS analyses
of the
efficacy of a
4-minute
travel time
confirms that
88.88% of
the incidents
could be
covered
within 4
minutes from
a 7 Manteca
Fire
Department
staffed
station
configuration.
ATTACHMENT 2
Manteca Fire Department
5-MINUTE
TRAVEL
TIME
An
assessment
of the
efficacy of a
5-minute
travel time
confirms that
96.9% of the
incidents could be covered within 5 minutes from
the 7 Manteca Fire Department staffed stations.
6-MINUTE TRAVEL TIME
An assessment of the efficacy of a 6-minute travel
time confirms that 98.88% of the incidents could
be covered within 6 minutes from the 7 Manteca
Fire Department staffed stations.
As resources are constrainted, a three station
configuration could maintain the 6-minue travel
time at ~91%.
8-MINUTE TRAVEL TIME
An assessment of the efficacy of an 8-minute travel
time confirms that ~99% of the incidents could be
covered within 8 minutes from a 7 Manteca Fire
Department staffed station configuration.
As resources are drawn down, a two station
configuration could maintain the 8-minutes at 97%.
Recommendation
The department should adopt
a desired performance
objective and plan for the
capital and human resources
necessary for implementation.
Seven Fire Station Locations - 5-, 6-, and 8-Minutes
ATTACHMENT 2
Manteca Fire Department
Concentration Study Revisited for ERF
The previous analyses for first due coverage of the 5-, 6-, and 7- station configurations also consider the current call volume that exists in each fiire station area. Therefore, one limitation to the assessment is if new development is occuring, or is planned to occur, but hasn’t caused a commensurate increase in calls yet.
This analysis revisits the concentration study and compares a hypothetical 15-person Effective Response Force (ERF) to cover the geography, irrespective of the call volume, across the various station configurations.
As discussed previously, NFPA 1710
identifies the desired first due response
time at 4-minutes travel time to 90% of
the incidents or more. It is anticipated
that a 7-station configuration will
achieve 90% coverage once fully
implemented. A 6-station configuration
is estimated to achieve approximately
83% coverage.
In addition, NFPA 1710 identifies that
the desired ERF (or balance of the first
alarm) should arrive within 8-minutes
travel time to 90% of the incidents.
Analyses provided
below demonstrates a
significant improvement
in the ability to achieve
an ERF at all time
increments with the 6th
and 7th stations. The
90th percentile is
achieved at 12-minutes
with a 7-station
configuration and at
both a 6 and 7 station
configuration at 14-
mintues.
Observations
A seven station configuration
can achieve a 15-person ERF
within 12 minutes travel time at
the 90th percentile.
The six and seven station
configurations significantly
approve ERF capabilities.
ATTACHMENT 2
Manteca Fire Department
ISO
Considerations
for Improvement
ATTACHMENT 2
Manteca Fire Department
State and National ISO Comparisons
The Insurance Services Organization (ISO) provides some comparison for the frequency with which agencies are classified across the various Public Protection Classifications (PPC). It is recognized, that there are nuances to the ultimate PPC rating in each community, the summary provided by ISO does provide some comparative value to communities to understand their overall PPC rating versus the national experience and within Connecticut.
Willington’s current PPC rating is a 3/3Y. For these comparison purposes we will refer to it as a 3. Class 5 is the most frequently assigned classification across the United States.
Comparing Manteca’s ISO’s
PPC rating of 3 within
California, revels that the
most frequently assigned
PPC rating is a Class 3.
Within California, 53% of the
departments rated were a Class 3 or
better. Independently, a Class 2
represents 24% of the rated
departments.
Finally, 47% of the departments that
were rated within California were
rated lower than Manteca.
Observations
Within the State of
California, Manteca’s
Class 3 rating is the
most frequently
assigned.
Fifty-three percent of the
departments rated in
were a Class 3 or better
in California.
Independently, a Class 3
represents 24% of the
rated departments.
ATTACHMENT 2
Manteca Fire Department
ISO Considerations for Improvement
The PPC rating from ISO includes 10 points for Emergency Communications, 50 points for the Fire Department, and another 40 points for Water Supply. Two adjustments are then made where an agency can earn up to 5.5 additional points for Community Risk Reduction activities and a negative “Divergence” value based on the relative difference between the Fire Department and Water Supply scores. Considering the PPC rating provided in the most recent 2025 evaluation, the fire department had a total of 73.88 points out of a possible 105.5, equating to a Class 3/3Y rating.
At 73.88 points, Manteca’s score is 6.12 points from the threshold of moving to a Class 2/2Y at 80 points. Conversely, the rating has the capacity to absorb up to 3.89 points before regressing to a 4/4Y. Therefore, it is recommended that Manteca focus on areas that have the greatest return on investment.
Addressing the municipal water supply, especially fire hydrant inspection and water flow testing, may be a long-term solution due the costs and other competing demands. However, several areas were identified where the fire department could benefit is outlined below.
If the policy choice is to maximize opportunities to improve the ISO rating, the following summary identifies areas that may have the greatest return on investment. The department may benefit from reevaluating the utilization of Quint apparatus to improve the credit for ladder service and the credit for reserve ladder service. The goal is to have a ladder truck withing 2.5 miles of needed fire flows greater than 3,500 gpm and/or 3 story buildings.
Similarly, the credit for deployment analysis can be improved with the opening of new stations and the utilization of additional ladder service to ensure that the deployment analysis has improved results. The credit for training has an
opportunity for improvement
that is typically utilize low
investment strategies to
maximize points.
Specifically, the greatest
area of improvement is in
pre-fire planning.
The credit for company
personnel would be
improved by opening of the
two new stations. Currently,
ISO is providing credit for 16
personnel per day.
Observations
The fire department has
opportunities for
improvement within the
most recent PPC
Summary Rating Report.
The opening of
additional stations and/
or utilizing additional
ladder-capable
apparatus will improve
multiple independent
rating areas.
ATTACHMENT 2
Manteca Fire Department
All-Hazards
System
Assessment
ATTACHMENT 2
Manteca Fire Department
Assessment of the Current Deployment
The fire station location study presented previously demonstrated that the current 5-station configuration is well positioned to deliver a 5- minute travel time to ~93% of the incidents. However, if the goal is to meet the NFPA 1710 recommendation of a 4-minute travel time, then additional staffed stations are required.
However, the
department is actually
performing at 6.4
minutes at the 90th
percentile. This is ~1.5
minutes longer than
the station locations
should be providing
due to the depth of
the available
resources. In other
words, the lean
resource allocation is
insufficient to fully realize the desired return on
investment of the current fixed facilities.
Understanding that the average demand throughout the
peak of the day is approximately 1.8 calls per hour, the net available resources (5 units - 2 calls per hour = 3 available units) may be as low as 3 fire suppression units throughout the peak of the day without considering other management directed activities that impact availability.
The following staffing to demand assessment considers
the current staffing to demand to meet a 5-minute travel time, and the actual call durations throughout each day of the week. The RED line indicates the deployed
resources and the BLUE line indicates the combined
demand for both response time compliance and the
demand for resources. Results demonstrate that the resources are insufficient to both respond to calls and to deliver the desired response time throughout the peak of the day, every day of the week.
Recommendation
The department should
consider additional
resources to meet both the
desired response time and
the average call demand.
The all-hazards
deployment is not
sufficiently resourced to
maintain response times
that are aligned with the
response time capabilities
afforded by the number
and locations of fire
stations.
ATTACHMENT 2
Manteca Fire Department
Improving Resource Allocation Strategies
Understanding the relationship that the resource allocations strategies have on the response time performance, availability, and limited return on the investment of the fixed facilities, analyses here focused on improvement.
A recommended solution to the current deployment is to add an additional staffed resource to Station 242. This will add the depth of resources to allow the station locations currently provided to perform as designed, at 5-minutes travel time.
In concert with the ISO assessment, having a second resource with aerial capability may provide a multi-faceted benefit to the department.
Adding One Additional Fire Suppression Resource (Aerial Capability) This assessment was to add the minimum solution to improve the availability of fire suppression resources to realize an improved response time. This would require 6 staffed resources per day. This strategy would remain as a lean deployment, but provides for a reasonable assumption of risk. The system UHU would be 10.9% and would not need any near term reinvestment.
Resource Allocation for a 6-Station Deployment Model (Aerial Capability) This assessment was to add the minimum solution to improve the availability of fire suppression resources to realize an improved response time. This would require 7 staffed resources per day. This strategy would remain as a lean deployment, but provides for a reasonable assumption of risk. Similar to the previous alternative, the department may want to consider Quint apparatus with aerial capability if the desire is to improve ladder coverage through the ISO lens. The system UHU would be 9.4% and would not need any near term reinvestment.
Recommendation
The department is
encouraged to consider
deploying one more
resource than the station
coverage.
In addition, if improving
ISO ladder coverage is
desired, the additional
resources should have
aerial capabilities.
ATTACHMENT 2
Manteca Fire Department
Considerations for Meeting NFPA 1710
The fire station location study presented previously demonstrated that a 7-station configuration is well positioned to deliver a 4-minute travel time to ~89% of the incidents. Understanding that the GIS planning utilizes average road speeds and the department may exceed average road speeds and utilize alternative driving patterns, it is expected that the department outperform the GIS planning.
Resource Allocation for a 7-
Station Deployment Model
(Aerial Capability)
This assessment was to add
the minimum solution to
improve the availability of fire
suppression resources to
meet NFPA 1710’s 4-minute
travel time.
This would require 8 staffed resources per day. This strategy would remain as a lean deployment, but provides for a reasonable assumption of risk. Similar to the previous alternative, the department may want to consider Quint apparatus with aerial capability if the desire is to improve ladder coverage through the ISO lens. The system UHU would be 8.2% and would not need any near term reinvestment.
Recommendation
The department is
encouraged to consider
deploying one more
resource than the station
coverage.
In addition, if improving
ISO ladder coverage is
desired, the additional
resources should have
aerial capabilities.
The 7-station configuration
will meet the NFPA 1710
coverage for first arrivals.
ATTACHMENT 2
Manteca Fire Department
System
Administration,
Process
Considerations,
and Implementation
Strategies
ATTACHMENT 2
Manteca Fire Department
I
n addition to setting goals or benchmarks related to impact or outcome measures, systems typically set goals or benchmarks related to outputs or process measures due to the presumed or evidence-based relationship between the two measures. For example, it is assumed that a faster response time would be beneficial for structure fires.
Outputs or process measures are typically more easily evaluated, as the system exerts direct influence over their outputs and processes, and can oversee related data collection and management. Impact or outcome measures become more difficult to evaluate when data collection and management are outside the purview of the system, and interpretation of data must account for other intervening factors.
Beginning to consider outcome measures allows the agency to desensitize some of the assumed output and process measures. For example, if structure fires are held to the room of origin at the desired percentage of time, then department may not have to act immediately if the response time increased by 30 seconds over the previous year. It provides greater flexibility for the policy group to attempt to understand which variables are contributing and their root causes.
Nevertheless, systems are encouraged to move beyond goal setting or benchmarking and evaluation related to outputs or process measures, and consider ways that impact or outcome measures can be evaluated. (Example provided below)
Considerations for Outcome Measures
ATTACHMENT 2
Manteca Fire Department
Research has shown that the best opportunity to reduce loss of life and property destruction is to prevent these events before they occur. The term Community Risk Reduction
(CRR) is an evolution and expansion of the core principles learned since the 1970s in fire prevention.
In fact, the department offers various programs to educate the public on risk reduction.
The table below provides an example list of the types of CRR and prevention process efforts that all contribute to reducing risk in the community. This is intended to demonstrate the general depth and breadth of the types of things to measure and link to outcomes when available. However, it is not intended to be overly prescriptive as the department should evaluate what elements would provide the greatest synergy between operational, fiscal, and strategic planning goals.
Community Risk Reduction Strategies
Recommendation
The department should adopt
and codify community risk
reduction and other prevention
process efforts.
The department should
consider adopting a set of
community risk reduction and
other preventative process
efforts.
ATTACHMENT 2
Manteca Fire Department
However, it is still important to measure and manage the efficiencies of a well-run operation using a system of measures as presented in the table below. In this manner, the daily management continues in place, but the strict adherence to system design performance is secondary to the outcomes measures. For example, if response time increases and there is no change in outcomes then it would be purely a policy choice to act. Conversely, if the outcomes change, then the department leadership will turn to the system of measures and attempt to discern which of the variables or combination of variables may be contributing to the change in outcomes.
The summary of measures provided below include all aspects of time, apparatus staffing by type, relative risk ratings, and system resiliency measures such as reliability, call concurrency, workload, and unit hour utilization. For example, reliability should be at least 70% for each station and only if the reliability drops below the 70% threshold before considering a mitigation reaction. Similarly, call concurrency is credible until the call concurrency reaches 70%. In other words, only 30% of the calls are overlapping. Call concurrency is suggested as a per unit threshold unless the majority of calls are multi-unit responses. For example, if there are two units assigned to a station, the station level call concurrency can perform well at 60% or less for single unit responses. Finally, the cross-staffed strategy applies to an upper call volume threshold of no more than 1,500 calls per year (4 calls per day) and a call concurrency of 15% or less. Under these conditions, units can typically be cross-staffed.
The system of measures provided are not intended to be overly prescriptive. The department should adopt the system performance objectives internally and update as needed.
Adopting a System of Measures - Staffed Resources
Recommendation
The department should adopt
a system of measures to ensure
accountability to the desired
performance objectives.
Performance objectives are
intended for any staffed
resources.
In addition, the department
should utilize a system of
measures to transparently
identify system needs and
future investments.
ATTACHMENT 2
Manteca Fire Department
The Compliance Team will consist of the following department members (TBD) and will have the responsibility of continuously monitoring changes in risk, community service demands and department performance in each program area, fire department demand zone, and/or risk category. • Chair — Fire Chief or Designee
• Member – Community Risk Reduction
• Member – Operations
• Member – Administration
• Member – Finance
This SOC document is designed to guide the department to continuously monitor performance, seek areas for
improvement, and to clearly articulate service levels and performance to the community we have the privilege of serving.
Therefore, the Fire Chief has established a Compliance Team to continuously monitor elements of this SOC and make
recommendations for system adjustment or improvement quarterly.
Compliance Team and Responsibilities
Continuous Improvement and Annual Appraisal
This SOC document is designed to guide the Department to continuously monitor performance, seek areas for
improvement, and to clearly articulate service levels and performance to the community we have the privilege of serving.
Therefore, the Fire Chief has established a Compliance Team to continuously monitor elements of this SOC and make
recommendations for system adjustments or improvement
quarterly.
Core Competencies - 2C.7, 2D.3, 2D.6,
and 2D.7
Performance Indicators - 2D.2, 2D.4, 2D.8
and 2D.9
Discussion on Maintaining and Improving
Response Capabilities as it Relates to
Criterion 2D
Compliance Team and Responsibilities
Performance Evaluation and Compliance Strategy
Review
Performance
Measures and SOC
Evaluate Current
Performance
Identify
Opportunities for
Improvement
Design and
Communicate
New Elements
Monitor Desired
Performance
Make System
Adjustments
The Compliance Team will consist of the following department members (TBD) and will have the responsibility of continuously monitoring changes in risk, community service demands, and department performance in each program area, fire department demand zone, and/or risk category. • Chair – Fire Chief’s Designee
• Member – Operation
• Member – Fire Prevention and Risk Reduction
• Member – EMS
• Member – Planning
The compliance team will evaluate system performance
by measuring first due unit performance at the 90th
percentile quarterly and annually. In addition, the
Department will evaluate first due performance by each
individual SDZ and by program area. Measures for the
ERF by each program area, SDZ, and risk category will be evaluated annually. Annual reviews will be conducted in January of each year regarding the previous year. All
response performance monitoring will exclusively evaluate emergency responses.
The Compliance Team will determine the strengths,
weaknesses, opportunities, and challenges of the system performance annually and make recommendations for
system adjustments to the Fire Chief. Finally, the team will annually update and evaluate the risk assessment
matrices for relevancy and changes in community risk.
Ultimately, it is recommended that outcome measures are adopted and serve as the primary evaluation tool and that the traditional performance objectives and measures
presented previously are utilized primarily as a
management tool. In this manner, the Department will not be overly sensitized to incremental changes in
performance criteria if the outcomes continue to be met.
City of Santa Fe Fire Department
The Compliance Team will evaluate system performance
by measuring first due unit performance at the 90th
percentile quarterly and annually. In addition, the
department will evaluate first due performance by each
individual FDZ and by program area. Measures for the
ERF by each program area, FDZ, and risk category will be evaluated annually. Annual reviews will be conducted in January of each year regarding the previous year. All
response performance monitoring will exclusively evaluate emergency responses.
The Compliance Team will determine the strengths,
weaknesses, opportunities, and challenges of the system performance annually and make recommendations for
system adjustments to the Fire Chief. Finally, the team will annually update and evaluate the risk assessment
matrices for relevancy and changes in community risk.
Ultimately, it is recommended that outcome measures are adopted and serve as the primary evaluation tool and that the traditional performance objectives and measures
presented previously are utilized primarily as a
management tool. In this manner, the department will not be overly sensitized to incremental changes in
performance criterial if the outcomes continue to be met.
Performance Evaluation and Compliance Strategy
Continuous Improvement and Annual Appraisal
Recommendation
The department adopt an annual
appraisal process committed to
continuous improvement.
ATTACHMENT 2
Manteca Fire Department
Community Driven Strategic Planning
Best practices support the concept that the fire department would benefit from a focused strategic planning exercise to help guide the next five-year period. Therefore, it is recommended that the fire department create a strategic plan for the fire department that would include results found in the CRA and SOC.
In FITCH’s experience, the most successful strategic planning processes typically include a high level of involvement from key leaders, both formal and informal, from within the organization, such as the fire chief and labor group leadership, and external stakeholders and community members. While their participation is not required at each and every step, their buy-in along the way provides the highest chances of a successful planning effort for all stakeholders in the end.
At a high level, the process is intended to answer the following main questions:
An integral part of the
strategic planning process is
the completion of a SWOT
analysis. SWOT stands for
Strengths, Weaknesses,
Opportunities, and Threats
(SWOT).
The process is a broadbased stakeholder gap
analysis where the
Opportunities and Threats
are more focused on external
origins and Strengths and
Weaknesses are more
focused in internal origins.
The strategic planning process will assist the
department in focusing on key initiatives for
the next 5-year period.
Why Do We Exist?
Where Are We Now?
Where Do We Want To Be?
How Do We Get There?
How Do We Measure Our Progress/Impact?
Recommendation
It is recommended that the
department conduct a
community-driven strategic
planning process to help
guide the next three to five
years that, at a minimum,
include the results from this
study.
ATTACHMENT 2
Manteca Fire Department
Summary of Recommendations
The following recommendations were developed to maintain and improve capabilities, address gaps, and provide opportunities to improve service delivery. These are provided in order of convenience and are not represented by priority. All substantive recommendations were specifically identified throughout the report.
Recommendation 1 Adopt a system of measures to ensure accountability to the desired performance objectives.
Recommendation 2 Establish a system of measures to transparently identify system needs and future investments in personnel, fleet, and fire stations.
Recommendation 3 Consider additional staffing and stations to meet the department’s 4-minute travel time benchmark.
Recommendation 4 Establish a program that uses fire managers to reduce Turnout Time to 90 seconds or less, 90% of the time, for all calls for service.
Recommendation 5
Establish and monitor expectations with the Primary and Secondary Public Safety Answering Points (PSAP/SPSAP) to improve Call Processing and Dispatch Time.
Recommendation 6
Develop a process to capture occupancy-level risks (building level) and incorporate specific occupancy ratings into the overall risk assessment process and risk matrices.
Recommendation 7 Monitor socioeconomic and demographic variables correlated with changes in risk.
Recommendation 8 Develop a process for the periodic assessment and validation of the risk categorization and classification processes.
Recommendation 9 Consider outcome measures in the periodic reassessment of the risk categorization and classification process.
Recommendation 10 At least annually, assess the potential impact of external influences that can significantly impact its performance and operations.
Recommendation 11 Continue planning for fire station locations and infrastructure to meet the demand of a growing community.
Recommendation 12 Measure all elements of the response time continuum at the 90th percentile for each program area.
Recommendation 13 Adopt a desired performance objective and plan for the capital and human resources necessary for implementation.
Recommendation 14 Opening additional stations and/or utilize additional ladder-capable apparatus to improve multiple independent rating (ISO) areas.
Recommendation 15 Consider additional resources to meet both the desired response time and the average call demand.
ATTACHMENT 2
Manteca Fire Department
Summary of Recommendations
Recommendation 16 The department should adopt and codify community risk reduction and other prevention process efforts.
Recommendation 17 The department adopt an annual appraisal process committed to continuous improvement.
Recommendation 18
It is recommended that the department conduct a community-driven strategic planning process to help guide the next three to five years that, at a minimum, include the results from this study.
ATTACHMENT 2
Manteca Fire Department
Appendices - Supporting Documents
I
ncremental investments and policies over the years will serve the City well as it considers future investments by providing a more measured long-term implementation plan. Recognizing the need for a long-term pathway, the following incremental
strategies are presented for
policy consideration.
The proposed stair-stepped
implementation plan would
include milestone investments
that are relatively consistent
across both the timeline and
the additional general fund
expenditures.
If adopted, the first milestone
would be to increase impact
fees to align with the
community's and the fire
department's capital needs.
Overall, the short-, mid-, and
long-term implementations are
providing a baseline of services
to support 4-minute travel
times.
The effectiveness of each
milestone should be evaluated
to ensure the desired return on
investment.
Recommendation
The City should consider
a stair-stepped longterm implementation
strategy to provide
consistent and reliable
services to the
community that meet
adopted service
expectations.
ATTACHMENT 2
Manteca Fire Department
The community risk assessment (CRA) is presented as a
supporting document to provide greater detail and
transparency into the risk assessment process.
This summary report provided the high-level substantive results of the community risk assessment. However, if greater detail is desired, please refer to the Community Risk
Assessment report provided in the appendices.
The comprehensive quantitative data analysis is presented as a supporting document to provide greater detail and
transparency into the historical performance of the fire department.
This summary report provided the high-level substantive results of the comprehensive data analysis. However, if greater detail is desired, please refer to the Data Analysis report provided in the appendices.
The comprehensive geospatial analysis (GIS) is presented as a supporting document to provide greater detail and
transparency into the response time and fire station
location study.
This summary report provided the high-level substantive results of the comprehensive data analysis. However, if greater detail is desired, please refer to the GIS Analysis report provided in the appendices.
Appendices - Supporting Documents
ATTACHMENT 2
Manteca Fire Department
ATTACHMENT 2