areas were defined, there was the occasional mutual aid department who would come in and refuse to follow orders from another agency. With the lack of clear and definitive laws and policies, many times those that were responding would have peeing contests to establish dominance over the incident. Some would use the mentality that this was their response area, while others would claim they knew how to better mitigate the situation than the original agency. While these were sometimes supported by other reasons given, the end result was usually the same. It usually caused anger, dismay, and verbal or physical altercations that essentially hampered the overall ongoing operations. If we dig into the history books, we can even see fights and even riots over agency response.
We only need to look back at the mid to late 1800s to see just how detrimental lack of protocols (and structure) can be. During that time, the local insurance companies only paid the first fire department to put water on the fire. Many urban volunteer fire departments would fight to defend the fire plug (or hydrant), and from historical stories, we see that sometimes two or more fire departments would break out into an all‐out brawl while the fire raged on behind them. It became such an issue, that local volunteer fire departments hired prize fighters and/or tough guys who would respond immediately to the fire plugs or hydrants nearest to the fire, in order to defend it for their agency.
In one specific instance, the brawls that broke out over who could first spray water on the fire was a good thing for public safety. In 1851, a riot was caused by volunteer fire companies fighting over the hydrant in Cincinnati. Firefighters who preferred to fight like thugs (rather than fight the major fire that raged on) caused the City of Cincinnati to begin looking at fixing the problem. After considerable thought and consideration around this matter, the city determined that they needed to purchase a steam fire engine. This steam fire engine would be owned and operated by the city. The results, as it pertains to IMS, was a set of protocols that hired firefighters and gave them a jurisdiction for which they were responsible. This trend soon caught on, and over a period 20 or so years, most urban cities implemented paid fire departments that had set protocols and policies that identified who was responsible (National Volunteer Fire Council [NVFC], 2012). In some cases, outside volunteer fire companies were not allowed to fight fire or even respond within city limits, to reduce the brawls that had been seen previously.
This trend was slow to catch on in most rural areas, but this inclination seemed to have a natural progression from the urban areas, to the suburban areas, and eventually the rural areas. Between the 1870s and the 1970s, more states, counties, and municipalities began creating protocols and policies in place which defined borders of fire districts. Along with those defined areas came the set responsibilities of each of the agencies involved.
In law enforcement, this issue was barely seen. It is believed that part of the reason that it was not an issue with law enforcement was that most police officers were employed (even if volunteer employment) by a government entity. In most instances, from the time they were hired, basic policies and procedures as well as a geographical response area was already in place. Of course, this is just one person's speculation, but it may have merit.
1.4.3 Conflicts and Egos
Conflicts and egos have been a problem since the first governmental entity had to work with the second governmental agency, and probably even before that time. Let us face it, most people who work in public safety are Type A personalities. Type A personalities (in theory) are those with personalities that can be more competitive and more ambitious. Type A personality individuals can easily become impatient, and they are usually extremely aware of their time management. They usually have a schedule or task they want to achieve in a set amount of time, and they do their best to meet that schedule. They also tend to be more aggressive than the other types of personalities.
When we look at Type A personality in a public safety context, it is important to remember that this type of personality is usually needed to outthink the criminals, to overcome a disaster, or to be able to put the fire out while keeping everyone safe. While a Type A personality is important to ensure that public safety personnel are the victor, that personality can also cause conflict, and feed into an ego.
In the past, and even still today, clashes occurred between fire chiefs, police chiefs, and others who assumed command. Sometimes these clashes occurred because someone felt like they should be in charge (usually at the local government level). While rare, there would occasionally be verbal arguments, the occasional fist fight, and in a few incidents, arrests were made because an agency did not want to give up what control they had or assumed they had. These conflicts and egos would lead to animosity. This would often build and eventually create a hostile environment between the agencies. Sometimes, this animosity would manifest after the event or incident was over, creating even more tension among local agencies. This too led to problems when managing an incident.
Keeping egos in check was perhaps one of the more difficult problems that needed to be overcome. Much like a horse‐drawn wagon, nobody got anything done without everyone pulling the same direction. Unfortunately, prior to an IMS method, this was a common problem that was seen, and sometimes still is seen in public safety today.
1.4.4 Integrating Multijurisdictional Response
Integration of multiple agencies from a myriad of local, state, and federal government entities often led to turf wars, or at the very least serious difficulties. This held especially true while in the response mode. Often, it could be attributed to the previously mentioned Type A personality. As more agencies would arrive on scene, the incoming agencies would often try to assert their authority, but at the same time wanted no part of command responsibility or liability. Not only would these individuals not take responsibility, but if something they suggested went wrong, they would often deny any responsibility because they were not “officially” in charge. This often led to distrust of, and among, other agencies.
In the aftermath of some incidents that went terribly wrong, there would sometimes be finger‐pointing and the blaming of another agency. The person or agency responsible for making a bad decision would rarely be identified and/or held accountable. This led to more distrust of incoming mutual aid help, and sometimes lead to the attitude by the initial agency that it was “My way or the highway.” This was not conducive when a collaborative effort was needed in an emergency.
1.4.5 No Collaborative Organizational Structure
Prior to the IMS methods, there would often be problems with incident wide organizational structures. This was because they were nonexistent in most instances. While each agency had their own chain of command, an overarching chain of command between agencies (especially on a major incident) typically was not part of the response protocols. Complicating the matter even more, there was usually no attempt made to form a collaborative organizational structure. More often than not, individuals responding to an incident would not collaborate to create a formal, or even an informal structure. They failed to recognize that this action would have increased collaboration, communication, and cooperation with each other.
The lack of collaboration, cooperation, and communication often led to freelancing of various agencies. Freelancing refers to agencies undertaking the actions that they felt were operationally necessary, while being oblivious to the needs (and tactics) of other agencies. These actions usually increased the risk to life safety for other first responders and led to taking longer to bring the incident under control. Moreover, the sense of accomplishment was not there. Sometimes agencies would do “their part” of the response and then feel as if other agencies did not do their part in bringing the incident under control. In some instances, the agency that accomplished their task first would chide, or even spitefully ask if they needed the other agency to do their job. As with most of the rest of the reasons for creating and IMS method, this created more conflict.
1.4.6
