After-Action Reviews and Public Trust

Posted January 8, 2026

Fire departments routinely review their responses to significant incidents. The Minoa Fire Department has a formal policy that governs how such reviews are conducted. Commonly called an After-Action Report (AAR) or Post-Incident Analysis (PIA), these reviews are intended to strengthen emergency operations by examining incident management, identifying lessons learned, and improving future performance.

After-action reviews are not disciplinary documents. Their primary purpose is organizational learning — improving policies, training, communications, and coordination so that departments are better prepared for future emergencies.

Last year's wildfire disasters in Los Angeles provide a useful example of how after-action reviews can be interpreted in very different ways.

This article is presented as a tribute to the fire service’s commitment to learning from difficult incidents in order to serve the public better.

Los Angeles Wildfires: Official Findings

Following devastating wildfires in late 2024 and early 2025, Los Angeles County and the City of Los Angeles each commissioned official after-action reviews. These fires were among the most destructive in the region’s history, resulting in loss of life, widespread property destruction, and prolonged recovery efforts.

Independent County After-Action Review

Los Angeles County commissioned an independent review that examined both the Eaton Fire and the Palisades Fire. The report identified several systemic issues, including:

• Outdated alerting systems and policies that hindered evacuation warnings as fires spread rapidly.
• Inconsistent evacuation practices, with some communities receiving warnings only after fire conditions had worsened.
• Staffing shortages and resource limitations, including gaps within emergency management and law enforcement support.
• Communication and coordination challenges between agencies operating during fast-moving, complex incidents.

The county’s report emphasized that these were system-level problems, not the result of a single failure or individual decision. Officials noted that extreme weather conditions, stretched resources, and longstanding procedural limitations all contributed to the outcomes.

The City’s After-Action Review

The Los Angeles Fire Department (LAFD) issued its own after-action report focusing on the Palisades Fire. That review:

• Documented actions taken during the first 36 hours of the incident.
• Highlighted challenges such as extreme fire behavior, communications difficulties, and the complexity of operating in a dense urban environment.
• Stated its goal as improving readiness, training, and operational procedures going forward.

Taken at face value, the city and county reports describe the fires as the result of extraordinary conditions combined with system stresses, rather than intentional wrongdoing.

Criticism and Public Debate

Despite the official findings, the Los Angeles reports have been the subject of public debate. Some firefighters, report contributors, residents, and commentators have raised concerns about how the reports were finalized and presented.

Critics have argued that:

• Draft versions of the city’s report contained stronger language that was later revised or removed.
• The final report did not fully reflect earlier conclusions about certain operational decisions.
• Political review of the document raised questions about independence and transparency.
• The absence of clearly identified decision points or accountability has left affected residents frustrated.

As a result, the reports have been interpreted by some as emphasizing organizational learning while minimizing specific leadership or policy failures.

Why This Matters

After-action reviews play a critical role in the fire service. They must balance honest self-assessment, organizational improvement, and public accountability — a balance that is not always easy to achieve, especially following large-scale disasters.

The ongoing discussion surrounding the Los Angeles wildfires underscores how important transparency, clarity of purpose, and public trust are in the review process. It also illustrates why departments must clearly communicate what an after-action review is — and what it is not.

For the fire service as a whole, these events reinforce the importance of continuous evaluation, open communication, and a commitment to learning from every incident, no matter how challenging the circumstances.

How Minoa Conducts After-Action Reviews

The Minoa Fire Department conducts After-Action Reviews (AARs) in accordance with established department policy following significant or complex incidents. The purpose of these reviews is to strengthen operations, improve safety, and ensure the department continues to provide effective service to the community.

An after-action review typically includes:

• A factual review of the incident, including timelines, actions taken, and resources deployed.
• An examination of incident management, communications, coordination, and adherence to established procedures.
• Identification of strengths, highlighting practices that worked well and should be continued.
• Identification of improvement opportunities, focusing on training, equipment, policies, or coordination — not on assigning blame.
• Actionable recommendations, which may lead to updates in training, procedures, or operational planning.

After-action reviews are conducted in a constructive, non-punitive manner. Their goal is organizational learning and continuous improvement, not discipline or fault-finding.

When appropriate, lessons learned are incorporated into training programs, operational guidelines, and future planning to help ensure the Minoa Fire Department remains prepared to respond safely and effectively to emergencies.