How Often Should Fire Department SOPs and SOGs Be Reviewed?

For many fire departments, SOPs and SOGs are documents that everyone knows exist, but they may not receive much attention until something forces the issue. A policy gets questioned after an incident. New apparatus or equipment changes the way the department operates. Leadership changes. A standard is updated. New research changes the way we understand fireground operations. Or someone finally opens the manual and realizes portions of it no longer reflect what the department is actually doing.

That raises an important question: How often should a fire department review its SOPs and SOGs?

There is not one review schedule that fits every department, but allowing policies to sit untouched for years is asking for problems. Just as importantly, policies should be reviewed whenever changes in operations, equipment, staffing, regulations, standards, or fire service research affect the way the department does business.

A good SOP/SOG review process is not about changing documents just to say they were updated. It is about making sure the written expectations of the department still match current operations, current guidance, and what members are actually being trained to do.

How Often Should SOPs and SOGs Be Reviewed?

As a practical baseline, FSAS recommends that fire departments conduct a formal review of their SOPs and SOGs at least annually. That does not mean every policy needs to be rewritten every year. It means someone should intentionally verify that each document is still accurate, applicable, and consistent with the way the department operates.

An annual review gives department leadership an opportunity to identify outdated language, responsibilities that have changed, references that are no longer current, and procedures that no longer match department operations or training.

The calendar, however, should never be the only thing that triggers a review. A department should also revisit affected policies whenever there is a significant change in equipment, apparatus, staffing, organizational structure, regulations, recognized standards, training, or operational practices. Significant incidents, near misses, and lessons learned during after-action reviews can also expose areas where written procedures deserve another look.

The goal is not to constantly rewrite policy. The goal is to make sure the policy members are expected to follow still reflects the department they are actually working for.

Don't Wait for the Annual Review

An annual review is a good baseline, but some changes should put an SOP or SOG back on the table immediately. If the way your department operates has changed, the documents guiding those operations may need to change with it.

New apparatus, equipment, or technology. A new engine, SCBA platform, hose load, communications system, accountability system, or piece of specialized equipment can change how members are expected to operate. If an existing policy describes equipment or procedures the department no longer uses, it is time to take another look.

Changes in applicable requirements, adopted standards, or recognized guidance. Laws, regulations, consensus standards, manufacturer guidance, and fire service research continue to evolve. When a requirement applicable to your department changes, or when the department adopts a revised standard or operational practice, the policies affected by that change should be reviewed. Credible new research or guidance that may affect department operations should also prompt leadership to take another look at the applicable policies.

Changes in training or operational practices. What we teach and what we expect firefighters to do on the street should not contradict what is written in department policy. As fireground research and training continue to evolve, departments should make sure their written procedures keep pace with the operational practices they have adopted.

Significant incidents and near misses. After-action reviews are not only about discussing what went well or what went wrong. They can identify gaps in policy, unclear expectations, or situations the existing SOPs and SOGs simply did not address. When an incident exposes one of those gaps, leadership should take the opportunity to review it.

Organizational changes. Staffing models, command structures, mutual-aid relationships, response assignments, and departmental responsibilities change over time. Policies written around an organizational structure that no longer exists can create unnecessary confusion when members need clear direction the most.

A policy does not become outdated simply because it is old. It becomes outdated when it no longer accurately supports the department's operations, responsibilities, hazards, or expectations.

What Should You Look for During an SOP/SOG Review?

Opening the manual, changing the revision date, and calling it reviewed does not accomplish much. A meaningful SOP/SOG review should determine whether the document is still accurate, relevant, understandable, and consistent with how the department expects its members to operate.

Does the policy match current department operations?
Start with what your members are actually doing. Apparatus assignments, staffing, command structure, response models, mutual aid agreements, equipment, terminology, and operational practices all change over time. If the written procedure describes a department that no longer exists, it needs attention.

Does it align with current training?
Members should not be trained to perform a task one way while department policy tells them to do something different. When training or operational practices change, the applicable SOPs and SOGs should be part of that conversation. Research-based changes deserve the same consideration. If the department adopts a new tactic or operational concept, the written procedure, training, and implementation should support one another.

Are regulatory and standards references still current?
Look closely at references to OSHA regulations, NFPA standards, state requirements, local ordinances, manufacturer guidance, and other documents used to support the policy. Standards are revised, regulations change, and document numbers or titles may be updated. A reference that was correct when the policy was written may not remain correct forever.

Are responsibilities clearly assigned?
A member reading the document should understand what is expected and who is responsible for carrying it out. Watch for outdated rank structures, vague responsibilities, conflicting assignments, or language that leaves too much room for interpretation when clear direction is needed.

Does this policy conflict with another policy?
SOPs and SOGs should function as a system, not as a collection of unrelated documents. A change made to one procedure can unintentionally contradict another. Cross-reference related policies during the review and make sure they work together.

Can your members reasonably understand and follow it?
A policy can technically be accurate and still be ineffective if nobody can make sense of it. Overly complicated language, undefined terminology, unnecessary repetition, and procedures buried inside pages of administrative language can make a document harder to use. Clear does not mean less professional. It means members can understand what is expected of them.

Finally, ask one simple question: If we handed this document to a new member today, would it accurately explain how we expect this department to operate?

If the answer is no, the review has already identified something worth fixing.

Who Should Be Involved in the Review?

SOP and SOG review should have clear leadership and accountability, but that does not mean it should happen in a vacuum. The people responsible for approving department policy need to be involved, but so do the members who understand how that policy works in the field.

The right group will look different from department to department. A large career department may have a formal policy committee with representatives from several divisions. A smaller combination or volunteer department may only have a few people available to work through the manual. Either approach can work.

Chief Officers and department leadership should provide direction, ensure proposed changes fit the department's mission and expectations, and ultimately oversee the approval process.

Company officers bring an important operational perspective. They are often the link between department policy and what actually happens at the company level, which puts them in a good position to identify procedures that are unclear, outdated, or difficult to apply.

Firefighters and other end users should not be overlooked. The members expected to follow a procedure may identify problems that are easy to miss from an administrative perspective. That does not mean every policy change needs to be decided by committee, but meaningful input from the people doing the job can make the finished document stronger.

Subject-matter experts should be brought in when the policy requires specialized knowledge. EMS, hazardous materials, technical rescue, apparatus operations, communications, training, fire prevention, and other specialized areas may require input from the people who understand those responsibilities best.

Depending on the subject matter and the department's governing structure, human resources, risk management, legal counsel, labor representatives, municipal administration, or other stakeholders may also need to be involved before a policy is adopted.

The objective is not to get as many names around the table as possible. It is to get the right people involved.

A good review process combines leadership oversight with operational experience. The final policy still needs clear ownership and approval, but the people expected to carry it out should have a reasonable opportunity to identify problems before that policy becomes the department's written expectation.

A Policy Isn't Finished When the Rewrite Is Finished

Finishing the review and approving the revisions is only part of the process. A policy does not accomplish much if the updated version gets uploaded to a folder and nobody talks about it again.

Once changes are approved, make sure members know what changed, why it changed, and what is expected moving forward. Remove or clearly archive outdated versions so there is no question about which document is current. When revisions result in significant changes to operational expectations, members should receive the information and training necessary to understand and safely implement those changes before the revised procedure is placed into operational practice.

This is especially important when policy changes affect fireground operations. Research may help drive a change, but updating the written document alone does not change behavior. Leadership, communication, training, and implementation have to support the policy as well.

Finally, document the revision. At a minimum, the department should be able to identify when the policy was reviewed, when it was revised, who approved it, and which version is currently in effect.

The goal is simple: the policy on paper, the training being delivered, and the expectations in the field should all tell your members the same thing.

Keep the Policy Manual Working for Your Department

SOPs and SOGs should never become documents that are written once, placed on a shelf, and forgotten. They should grow with the department.

Build a review process your organization can realistically maintain. Put the annual review on the calendar. Assign responsibility for it. Keep track of revision dates and approvals. Most importantly, do not wait for the annual review when an incident, equipment change, new standard, updated training practice, or organizational change gives you a reason to look at a policy sooner.

You do not need to rewrite the entire manual every year. You need to know that the documents your members are expected to follow are current, understandable, and consistent with how your department actually operates.

A strong policy manual will not replace good leadership, sound training, or experienced firefighters. It supports all three.

That is also part of why Fire Service Administrative Solutions exists. The administrative side of the fire service does not always get the same attention as operations and training, but it has a direct impact on how a department functions. Chiefs and officers already have enough on their plates, and keeping hundreds of pages of policies, forms, records, and other administrative documents current can easily become one more project that gets pushed down the list.

FSAS was built to help departments tackle that work with an understanding of the fire service behind it. Whether a department handles everything internally or brings in outside assistance, the objective should be the same: build administrative systems and documents that actually support the organization and the people doing the job.

If it has been a while since your department took a hard look at its SOPs and SOGs, start with one question:

Do our written policies accurately reflect the department we are today?

If the answer is no, you know where to start.