Small-Scale Fire Prevention

The primary mission of a modern fire service organization is not response to an emergency, but mitigation of risk, doing the most possible to prevent the fire event from occurring. This makes economic sense for communities of any size as they mitigate the loss of housing stock and business revenue, but it also prevents injury and the psychological trauma that go along with the fire experience for the citizens we protect.¹

The U.S. Fire Administration (USFA) has found that rural fire departments using a more reactive service model have insufficient training and personnel to provide consistent effective emergency response, almost to the point that preventative services aren’t even thought of as part of the service delivery plan.² But if a fire department cannot guarantee an effective emergency response based on established national standards, they have a moral obligation to do everything else—anything else—possible in order to give their citizens the tools they need to protect themselves. This is done through code enforcement and public education tailored to the needs of the community. This article will address how these goals can be met by smaller volunteer and combination fire departments. 

Code enforcement

Many officers of smaller fire departments are surprised to find that even though their towns or districts have not adopted one of the model fire codes, they still hold legal responsibility for fire code enforcement due to state or county adoption of one of the codes. This legislation usually includes language tasking the local fire department with enforcement. For the departments that are aware of their role in code enforcement, there often is not dedicated staff to function as fire inspectors, nor adequate training in practical application of the fire code given to suppression personnel who may be assigned to perform a fire inspection.

NFPA 1021: Standard for Fire Officer Professional Qualifications (2014 edition) states that personnel meeting the requirements for Fire Officer I shall be able to “conduct inspections using the procedures of the authority having jurisdiction.” The problem with relying simply on the standard lies in the fact that many smaller departments have no established inspection procedures, nor experience in application of a code that may be unfamiliar to them. 

Another issue relates to authority to enforce the code. Some business owners simply refuse to believe that a fire department volunteer has authority over them, even to the point of denying them access to the building because “you’re just volunteers.” Of course, authority derives from the enabling legislation and is not a matter of compensation, but trying to explain it to an angry property owner may lead volunteer departments to become frustrated and abandon a fire inspection program before it even begins.

In my opinion, it is not practical for volunteer and combination departments that have trouble meeting the basic job performance requirements of NFPA 1021 and NFPA 1001: Standard for Fire Fighter Professional Qualifications to spend what little training time they have with line personnel trying to educate them on how to perform effective fire inspections. Having said that, how do small fire departments address this critical gap in their service delivery package? I believe that certified, paid staff—although not necessarily full-time staff—is the best course for such organizations. Paid inspectors will:

·      Establish credibility for the inspector and the organization (i.e., viewed as “professional” by the public);

·       Ensure consistency in inspections and continuity in a comprehensive fire prevention program; and

·       Serve as an experienced resource for fire personnel and business owners regarding matters of building safety and fire prevention, and offer volunteer or paid on call firefighters another career path or way to expand their skill sets.

If a small fire department sees the need for code enforcement but decides not to pursue an “in-house” solution, another way to achieve this goal is to engage a private company to perform the needed inspections. This solution is problematic in rural and suburban areas because these companies are usually located in large cities and often focus on specific occupancies as their marketable areas of expertise (e.g., industrial safety).

A group of private fire inspectors will almost certainly cost more than a staff of “part time, all the time” inspectors who live in and have a stake in their local communities, but if a fire department has the money to spend and there is no interest among volunteer or combination staff, engaging a private company remains an option.

Lastly, there is a trend in some areas toward building occupants performing fire inspections themselves and submitting a report to their local fire marshal’s office. While the intent is to maximize limited fire prevention resources and allow inspectors to make more use of their time, I am afraid in actuality there is a tendency to “pencil whip” these inspections, allowing for no quality control. Self-inspection is particularly dangerous for those departments starting an inspection program from scratch. If the fire department is inexperienced at enforcing the fire code, how can they expect building owners to be any more knowledgeable?

There is an adage for new fire officers regarding how they manage their crews: “Start tight, go light.” In effect, it means that the new officer should scrupulously observe all rules, regulations and supervisory practices of their organizations until they are satisfied that the firefighters show good ability to take direction when needed and competency in their work. This also applies to a new fire inspection program. For the first several years, the fire department may have to be fairly strict in their enforcement in order to demonstrate that 1) the program is “for real” and 2) fire inspections are not going away. It would be impossible to meet these goals by starting your program with a system of self-inspection for local businesses.

Public education

The second aspect of a fire prevention strategy for small communities is arguably more important than the first—educating the public on fire safe behaviors in their homes. Fifty-six percent of all structure fires occur in homes—occupancies exempted from fire inspection by both of the model codes.² In a sense, fire officials have to become salespeople and teachers in order to create interest, buy-in and an environment conducive to learning in order to become effective public educators. This is difficult even in large, career fire departments, and the difficulties in acquiring those different skills are magnified in smaller communities, to the point that, according to NFPA, 54 percent of fire departments are providing no public education at all.² 

The lack of public fire education in rural areas is especially troubling, as USFA has found that rural populations have a higher rate of fire death than those in urban areas.² The need is greater, but the public education problem is perhaps more solvable than the problems surrounding code enforcement.

According to NFPA 1001, line firefighters should know the value of life safety initiatives in support of the fire department mission as well as fire and life safety initiatives, preparedness and maintenance, and perform fire safety surveys and present fire safety information to the public. Additionally, NFPA 1021 notes that their supervisors should be competent in communicating fire prevention education programs. 

These requirements serve for the delivery of a fire safety education program, but not for the development and administration of that program. For that, fire departments starting a fire prevention system need personnel trained to NFPA 1035: Standard for Fire and Life Safety Educator, Public Information Officer, Youth Firesetter Intervention Specialist and Youth Firesetter Program Manager Professional Qualifications. Again, additional responsibilities and training in this area can provide another career path for volunteers and combination personnel; it may also be preferable for fire departments, if the personnel are willing, to make life safety education a part of the work being done by the paid fire inspectors. While this may entail slightly more cost to the fire department, it gains in that they maintain a cadre of educated, experienced and involved personnel able to provide high-quality, all-around fire prevention services.

As with the fire inspection program, rural and suburban life safety begins with an analysis of risk. Determining the level of fire risk can be done by reviewing the department’s National Fire Incident Reporting System (NFIRS) data for at least the previous three years.³ 

Across many population areas, cooking is typically the leading cause of home fires, followed by malfunctioning or improperly used heating equipment and “careless actions,” such as smoking.³ The elderly and children are particularly vulnerable groups, but adult men are almost twice as likely to die in a fire as adult women, highlighting another difficulty for rural and suburban fire departments. 

A critical gap in fire and life safety program delivery is the adult learner, a homeowner who feels he or she does not need to hear safety information or that fire prevention lessons are something “for kids.” In practice, this point of view is not entirely incorrect, since the most common form of public education performed by rural fire departments is school visits during Fire Prevention Week.² 

Researchers attached to the Institution of Fire Engineers Vision 20/20 project have found that a proven intervention to address this gap is the home fire safety visit.⁴ However, there are several issues to address before deciding to offer home safety visits to the community. 

There are the perennial troubles surrounding lack of funding and trained personnel,² but also unique to smaller communities is the question of trust. USFA found that rural homeowners were much less likely to let fire department personnel into their homes for a safety survey either because they were generally mistrustful of strangers or they believed it was an unwanted form of government intrusion into a private home.² 

In a separate report, the USFA cites a strategy that has led to consistent success over the last 40 years: Fire department life safety educators must be “cheerleaders, promoters and recruiters all in one.”³ Just as building rapport with building occupants is important in ensuring fire code compliance, it is key when asking homeowners for permission to perform a fire safety survey. These people must trust that your department genuinely takes their home safety to heart, but also believe that fire officials are teaching safe behavior instead of telling or forcing. For many firefighters in departments of all sizes, this is a learned skill and, unfortunately, sometimes one that is not learned quickly. 

It should also be understood that for the home safety survey intervention to be effective, it cannot be tried once, or even intermittently. Like inspections, it must be done over a period of years and evaluated for effectiveness. To overcome potential problems with trust, it may be worthwhile to create partnerships with religious or civic organizations, or even have fire personnel take responsibility for life safety education in their neighborhoods. In this way, fire departments overcome the “government intrusion” argument, countering by showing homeowners that instead it’s their friends and neighbors who are concerned for their home’s safety.

Another way small fire departments try to address the time and personnel gaps in fire and life safety education is through the use of social media. While the intent is laudable, the effectiveness of this type of outreach is questionable given that many small fire departments will clutter their feed with humorous fire service memes, memorials or various photos of apparatus, making it easy for posts with educational messages to get lost in the shuffle. 

Another issue is lack of internet access in rural households, cited by USFA and Vision 20/20. Social media can be an excellent supplement to life safety education initiatives, but any department relying solely on social media is setting themselves up for failure. Social media outreach by a volunteer or combination fire department should be controlled and monitored by designated personnel trained in public information and guided by an operating policy. For example: “It shall be the policy of the Anytown Fire Department to maintain a social media presence across a variety of platforms and evaluated periodically in order to assess the effectiveness of social media outreach. Social media account access will be controlled and monitored by senior department staff, and content will be limited to dissemination of emergency and other life safety information to the public as it affects public safety and quality of life in Anytown.”

Final thoughts

The problems surrounding funding, understaffing and lack of training and strategic planning in volunteer and combination departments are well documented and ongoing. Volunteer and combination fire departments are not able to schedule emergencies so that their response is timely and correctly staffed, but they are able to recognize the utility and cost-effectiveness of fire inspection and life safety education programs in preventing fire events and minimizing their impact on their communities. 

The major obstacle for fire prevention advocates in smaller towns will be in convincing fire department members of the need to significantly alter their existing service model. As stated in Public Fire Education Planning: A Five Step Process, USFA researchers note that “senior officers find it difficult to support what they don’t understand,”¹ and if prospective fire prevention personnel overwhelm their managers with numbers, tables and best practices without explaining how change will directly benefit the public the department serves, they might find themselves stonewalled.

When department leadership begins exploring processes to reduce the number of fires, they may become a regressive and reactive force against the change, even if they understand the inadequacies surrounding their emergency response capability. This is why experience tells me that implementing a program of “part-time, all the time” fire inspectors and life safety educators as a shared resource will be an achievable, effective way for volunteer and combination fire departments to address this gap in service without adversely affecting either budget or emergency operations. Mutual-aid systems are in place for 83 percent of rural fire departments, and both Vision 20/20 and USFA raise the valid question of why the idea of sharing resources can’t be extended to fire prevention services.

Whether volunteer and combination firefighters like it or not, the rural and suburban fire services are being drawn inexorably toward greater professionalization. The idea of “strong backs and willing hearts” is fine for a T-shirt but is dangerously out of date as an organizational philosophy. Time and training, as well as potential liability on behalf of the fire department, are leading these organizations either to add paid, trained staff or outsource tasks, such as pump and hose testing, hydrant maintenance, upkeep of facilities, and respiratory protection. The addition of a fully trained and compensated core of fire prevention professionals should be the next logical step as small, progressive rural fire departments continue to evolve.

References

^1. USFA. “Fire in the United States, 2006-2015.” 2017. FEMA, Emmittsburg, MD. usfa.fema.gov/downloads/pdf/publications/fius19th.pdf.

^2. Gramache, S., Hall, Jr., JR, Ahrens, M, et al. “Mitigation of the Rural Fire Problem: Strategies Based on Original Research and Adaptation of Existing Best Practices.” 2007. FEMA, Emmittsburg, MD.

^3. USFA. “Public Fire Education: A Five Step Process.” 2008. FEMA, Emmittsburg, MD.

^4. Vision 20/20. “Rural Fire Prevention in Kentucky: Quick Response Team Report.” 2014. Institution of Fire Engineers, U.S. Branch. Warrenton, VA.

 

Sidebar for this Code Enforcement Section

Breaking Down the Costs

Cost is usually cited as an obstacle to starting a fire prevention program. Even in large, paid fire departments, the prevention division is often underfunded and understaffed. It costs money to earn and maintain fire inspector certifications, as well as adding to the department’s facilities costs and equipment appropriate for good, safe fire inspections. Critics of fire prevention in small departments will often argue that their towns are small enough that fire prevention just isn’t worth the time and money. However, with a little creative thinking, small fire departments can pool resources and reap big dividends with a shared code enforcement program. 

Consider three small farming communities, each located a few miles apart and already sharing a school district and, owing to difficulties in keeping members and staffing safe emergency response, participating in an automatic-aid agreement. For the sake of experiment, we’ll say all three chiefs have come around to acknowledging their responsibility for enforcing the fire code, but are uneasy about the cost and have agreed to try and share the load among their departments.

The first step is assessing the three communities’ needs; that is, how many of what kinds of occupancies need a fire inspection? A quick census reveals that the three towns have:

·       36 business occupancies

·       4 industrial occupancies

·       14 assembly occupancies

·       3 schools

There are 57 occupancies among the towns requiring inspection, including 17 that would count as higher-than-normal hazard given that they have higher occupancy loads and represent a larger life hazard.

Given the results of their assessment, the chiefs decide that the inspections should be done by personnel trained to NFPA 1031: Standard for Professional Qualifications for Fire Inspector and Plan Examiner. Because this duty will require more time and more professional education of the new inspectors, the chiefs decide to form a fire prevention working group consisting of one inspector from each department who has volunteered for the work and understands the commitment needed. Fifty-seven inspections works out to about 19 inspections per person—a manageable number spread over 12 months. If we assume on average one hour per inspection, perhaps seven hours for potential re-inspections and five hours for paperwork, etc., each inspector will work approximately 31 hours per year. Now that these fire departments have acknowledged the need and determined the scope of their fire inspection program comes the more difficult question: How much will it cost?

Fire inspectors are certified in a similar way to those who hold an emergency medical license; there is an initial test for certification, and inspectors are required to earn a certain amount of continuing education points in order to maintain certification during a 3-year period. For the sake of simplicity, it costs about $400 per inspector for the initial certification and two or three classes the first year counting toward continuing education, totaling $1,200. The inspectors are paid $23.70 per hour while performing their prevention duties (10 percent less than the current national average, according to the Department of Labor), for a total salary payout of $2,204.10. Assuming other costs related to record-keeping, literature and safety equipment for the inspectors, it is possible for these three small fire departments to maintain a fire code enforcement capability in line with national standards for $5,000–$7,000 per year.

Critics will say that even an expense of $7,000 is burdensome to small departments, but the three departments have combined budgets of $402,000. In order to make the code enforcement program more attractive, the three agree to a proportional financial contribution to the program: The largest contributes 49 percent ($3,430), the next 30 percent ($2,100), and the smallest 21 percent ($1,470). Lastly, for those who balk at any expense not directly related to emergency response, we will note that the worst-case $7,000 figure represents only 1.7 percent of the combined fire department budgets. 

Model Annual Fire and Life Safety Schedule

January–February

Focus on: carbon monoxide; fall hazards related to winter weather.

March–April

Focus on: outdoor fire safety; grilling; canvassing for home safety visits

May–June

Focus on: fireworks safety; home safety surveys

July–August

Focus on: home safety surveys

September–October

Focus on cooking; Fire Prevention Week annual message

November–December

Focus on: holiday fire hazards and heating and chimney safety