Community Risk AssessmentA GUIDE FOR CONDUCTING A COMMUNITY RISK ASSESSMENT
Version 1.5
Community Risk Assessment Guide
i
Community Risk Assessment A Guide for Conducting a Community Risk Assessment
Written & Developed by John A. Stouffer Contributors Martin M. King Meri-K Appy Greg Rogers Jennifer Schottke Kate Dargan Phil Schaenman Mike Senchyna Jim Crawford
Version 1.5 Rev. 02/16
Community Risk Assessment Guide
ii
Table of Contents
Preface ........................................................................................................................................................... 1 Community Risk Reduction ................................................................................................................................. 1 Importance of CRR .............................................................................................................................................. 2 Risk Defined ......................................................................................................................................................... 2 Degrees of Risk Assessment ................................................................................................................................ 2 Purpose of this Guide .......................................................................................................................................... 2 Useful Tools & Resources .................................................................................................................................... 3
Step 1: Identify Risks ....................................................................................................................................... 4 Step 1A: Acquire Data that Identifies Risks ........................................................................................................ 4 Fire Department Incident Data ........................................................................................................................ 4 Dispatch Center Data ....................................................................................................................................... 5 Other Data Sources .......................................................................................................................................... 5
Step 1B: Develop a Community Profile .............................................................................................................. 6 Demographic Data Sources ............................................................................................................................. 7 Community Partners ........................................................................................................................................ 8 Assessing Community Trends .......................................................................................................................... 8 Building the Community Profile ....................................................................................................................... 8 Using GIS Technology ...................................................................................................................................... 9 Using GIS in the Community Profile ................................................................................................................ 9
Step 1C: Identify Causal Factors & Populations at Greatest Risk ..................................................................... 10
Step 1D: Identify Target Hazards ...................................................................................................................... 11 Important Definitions .................................................................................................................................... 12 Target Hazard Data ........................................................................................................................................ 12 Using Fire Crews to Identify Target Hazards ................................................................................................. 12 GIS‐Based Target Hazard Analysis ................................................................................................................. 13
Step 2: Prioritize Risks ................................................................................................................................... 14 Step 2A: Describe Risk Attributes & Vulnerability ............................................................................................ 14
Step 2B: Rating (Scoring) Target Hazards ......................................................................................................... 16
Step 3: Putting It All Together ....................................................................................................................... 18 Community Risk Assessment Example .............................................................................................................. 19
References .................................................................................................................................................... 33
Appendices ................................................................................................................................................... 34 Appendix A: Building the Community Profile ................................................................................................... 35
Appendix B: List of Risk Assessment Resources ............................................................................................... 36
Community Risk Assessment Guide
1
Preface Community Risk Reduction Community Risk Reduction (CRR) is defined by Vision 20/20 as a process to identify and prioritize local risks, followed by the integrated and strategic investment of resources (emergency response and prevention) to reduce their occurrence and impact. Much of the current literature and training materials suggest that Community Risk Reduction programs use a six-step approach towards development. Figure 1 depicts these steps. Importance of CRR Community risk reduction is not a new concept for the fire service. Fire departments have been actively involved in fire prevention for many years through public education, building inspections and other activities. Although there is no specific blueprint for developing CRR plans in U.S. fire departments, there are some common and essential steps. Ultimately, the CRR plan will be unique to each fire department, based on the types of risks for that particular community. Essentially, the fire service exists not only to respond to emergency incidents, but also to proactively prevent or mitigate the impact of such incidents within their communities. CRR provides a more focused approach to reducing specific risks. In addition, a comprehensive CRR program involving community partners, firefighters, and other staff, can result in an organizational culture that recognizes the importance of reducing risks within a community. It is important that fire service leaders, their firefighters and other staff begin to shift their thinking towards reducing and mitigating risks, as this will ultimately be expected by their communities and elected officials. This will probably not be a simple or immediate change. As with any organizational culture—particularly within the fire service—there tends to be substantial resistance to what’s new, and a strong investment in the old ways of doing things.
Figure 1
Community Risk Assessment Guide
2
Risk Defined
Definitionsof“risk”canbefoundinavarietyofpublications,reportsandothersources.Onedefinitionis:
humanbehavior,systemsmalfunctions,oraneventthatresultsinanignitionorotherdetrimentalincident
leadingtoanegativeimpacttolife,propertyand/ornaturalresources.Anothersimpledefinitionis:the
potentialorlikelihoodofanemergencytooccur.A“riskassessment”simplyasks,“Howriskyisthe
situation?”
Risksthataffectacommunityonaregularbasiscanbehuman‐createdornaturallyoccurring.Examples
includepreventableinjuries,firesandfrequentlyoccurringformsofsevereweather.Examplesofmore
uncommonrisksthatmayoccurevery5–20years,mightincludedomesticterrorism,hurricanes,
earthquakes,andmajorhazardousmaterialsreleases.
Riskassessmentisbasicallytheidentificationofpotentialandlikelyriskswithinaparticularcommunity,andtheprocessofprioritizingthoserisks.Itisthecriticalinitialstepinemergencypreparedness,whichenablesorganizationstoeventuallymitigate(ifpossible),plan,prepareanddeployappropriateresourcestoattainadesiredoutcome.
Degrees of Risk Assessment
Thecommunityriskassessmentprocesscanbeascomplexanddetailedaslocalresourcespermit.Or,usingbasicskillsandresourcesavailabletomostorganizations,canbeamoresimplifiedprocessthatwillproducebasicinformationthatcanbeusedeffectivelyforaCRRprogram.Severalpeopleorasmallteammaybemosteffectiveincompletingtheassessment.Manycommunitieshaveaccesstoexpertsin
assortedoccupationsthatcanbeusefulintheprocess.Often,theseindividualsandorganizationsareverywillingtoprovideassistancetothelocalfiredepartment.Basedonindividualcapabilities,eachfiredepartmentandcommunitywillneedtodeterminetheextenttowhichtheywillconducttheirriskassessmentprocess.
Purpose of this Guide
ThisguidewillfocusontheCRRstepsinvolvedinidentifyingandprioritizingrisks,andtheprocessesrequiredforconductingariskassessmentinpreparationforpreventionandmitigationplanning.The
intentistoprovidesimpleandeasilyunderstoodguidelinesforfiredepartmentsand/orotheragencies
toconductariskassessmentoftheircommunity,withtheultimategoalofdevelopingalocalCRRprogram.
Community Risk Assessment Guide
3
Useful Tools & Resources
Therearesomeusefultoolsandresourcesthatshouldbeconsideredbeforeundertakingtherisk
assessmentprocess:
HumanResources—individualsbothwithinandoutsidethefiredepartmentcanbevaluableresources.
WhilefirefightersmaybetappedfortheirfireandEMSexpertise,theremaybeindividualswithinthe
departmentwithotheruniqueskills,suchaswriting,graphicdesign,experienceinstatisticalanalysis,
andotherabilities.Privateindividualsandgovernmentemployeeswithknowledgeandskillsindata
analysis,populationstudies(demographics),crimerates,andothertalents,shouldbesoughtout.
Word‐processingsoftware—anapplicationsuchasMicrosoftWord®willbenecessarytodocumentthe
resultsofyourassessmentinaformatthatcanbeeasilyreadandinterpretedbyothers,aswellasforcontinuingtheplanningprocess.Mostpopularword‐processorscanincorporateimages,createtables,andimportinformationfromspreadsheetapplications.
Spreadsheetsoftware—acomputerapplicationsuchasMicrosoft®Excelorsimilarspreadsheet‐typeprogramwillenabledetailedanalysisfromavarietyofdatasources.Afeaturefoundinsuchprogramsistheabilitytogeneratepivottablesfromtheinformationstoredinthespreadsheet.Amongotherfunctions,apivottablecanautomaticallysort,summarize,counttotals,orgiveaveragesofdata.Pivottablescanmakecalculatingandviewingdatamuchquickerandsimpler.Spreadsheetapplicationsare
usuallycapableofcreatingawidevarietyofchartsandgraphsthatcanbeusedintheanalysisandwrittenreports.Forthosewithlimitedornoexperiencewithspreadsheetapplications,itwouldbewellworththetimetotakeatrainingcoursetolearnthebasics,includingtheuseofpivottables.Orrecruitanexperiencedanalystfromwithinlocalgovernmentorfromapartnerorganization.
GISsoftware—ageographicinformationsystemapplication(GIS),suchasArcGIS®(Esri,Inc.),isanextremelyvaluabletoolforconductingariskassessment.Morethanjustgeneratingmaps,itprovidesthe
powertomanagedata,performadvancedanalysis,andmuchmore.GISapplicationscanimportincident
data,demographicinformation,andotherelectronicrecordstoproduceavisualperspectiveofactivitywithinyourservicearea.
GISsoftwaretypicallyrequiresadvancedtraininginordertoutilizeallofitsfeatures.Mostfire
departmentsdonothaveinternalstaffqualifiedtousesuchapplications.However,manylocal
governmentorganizationshaveGISdepartmentsorexpertsthatcanberecruitedforassistanceingeneratingusefulmaps.ForthosewhohaveaccesstoArcGIS®Online,Esriprovidesanadd‐intoolthat
willgeneratemapsusingMicrosoftExcel®and,ifdesired,copiedintoPowerPoint®forpresentations.
Community Risk Assessment Guide
4
Identify Risks
Step1intheriskassessmentprocessistoidentifythevariousriskstoyourcommunityand/orservice
area.Thisisaccomplishedbygatheringdata—inotherwords,acquiringinformationaboutwhatis
occurringwithinyourcommunity.Thedatawillbeusedtoidentifybothcurrentrisksandtrendsbased
onhistoricalinformation.Typically,therewillbealargenumberofresourcesfromwhichtoacquirethe
datanecessarytoidentifycurrentandpotentialrisks.
Step 1A: Acquire Data that Identifies Risks
Data Elements to Collect
Thereareanumberofdataelementsthatshouldbeconsideredforacquisition.Thesemightinclude:
Incidentdatesandtimes.
Incidenttypes.
Incidentlocations(address&anyotherlocationdata;preferably,latitudeandlongitude).
Causesofignitionoffires;heatsources;areasoforigin.
Mortalityrates(fire‐related;trauma;othermedically‐related).
EMSmechanismsofinjuryandcausesofillness;andEMSprovider“impressions”(i.e.,diagnosis).
Occupancyinformation.
Responsetimesofallunitsinvolved(“fractile”method;notaverages).
Rateofdollarlosstovalue.Youmaywanttoobtainmoreorlessdataelementsthantheonesabove.However,attheleast,youwillwanttocollectincidentdates,times,typesandlocationsinordertogetaminimalperspectiveofwhatis
occurringwithinyourservicearea.
Fire Department Incident Data
Manyfiredepartmentsnowdocumenttheiremergencyincidentselectronicallyusingcomputerized
recordsmanagementsystems(RMS).MostcommerciallyavailableapplicationshavebeendesignedtocollectincidentdatabasedontheNationalFireIncidentReportingSystem(NFIRS).TheUnitedStatesFire
Administration(USFA)begantheNFIRSin1975.Underthisprogram,localfiredepartmentssubmittheir
datatoastateorganizationwho,inturn,reportsthistotheUSFA.Ifyourincidentdataisnoteasily
accessiblelocally,youmaybeabletoobtaintheinformationfromyourstate,orobtainanaccountwith
theUSFA,whichwillallowyoutoacquirespecificreports.
Community Risk Assessment Guide
5
DependingonthetypeofRMSyouhave,yoursystemshouldbeabletogenerateprintedreportsor
exportsummaryinformationintheformofadatabaseorspreadsheet.Youshouldacquireaminimumof
3–5yearsofdata(more,ifinaverysmall,low‐volumecommunity),soastoensureyouhaveenough
informationtoprovideanadequateperspectiveofwhatisoccurring.Figure2isanexampleofapartial
sectionofaspreadsheet
containingfiredepartment
incidentdata.
Dependingonthetypeof
RMSyourorganizationuses,
andtheextentofthe
informationcollectedandenteredintoit,youwillneedtodeterminewhatdataelementstoextract(orwhat
reportstogenerate).
Dispatch Center Data
InmostcommunitiesthroughouttheU.S.,thelocalpublicsafetyansweringpoint(PSAP)and/ordispatchcentercollectsvaluabledatathroughcomplexandsophisticatedcomputer‐aideddispatch(CAD)systems.Althoughtheinformationcollectedvariesamongsystems,thedatatypicallyincludes:incidentlocations;dates;apparatusdispatchandarrivaltimes;incidenttype;andmuchmore.
Often,CADdataisdownloadedorintegratedintothefiredepartment’sRMS.Inthatcase,thenecessarydatamayalreadybeinyourRMS.Ifnot,mostCADsystemscanexportincidentrecordstoaspreadsheetorotherformattoenabledataanalysis.
Other Data Sources
TheNationalEMSInformationSystem(NEMSIS)Projectisanefforttocreateanationalemergencymedicalservices(EMS)database.ThecurrentNEMSISNHTSAVersion3Datasetdefinesover500
standardizeddataelementsthatcanbecollected.MoststateEMSagenciesareparticipatingtosome
degreeincollectingEMSincidentdatafromlocalagencies.IfyouragencysubmitselectronicEMSdatatoyourstateEMSoffice,youmaybeabletoobtainreportsorelectronicdatafromthem.Youmayalso
requestlocalEMSdata(withsomelimitations)fromNEMSIS(www.nemsis.org).
Figure 2
Community Risk Assessment Guide
6
Lawenforcementagencies(local,state,andfederal)havealonghistoryofcollectingandmaintaining
incidentrecordsandotherinformation.Theserecordsmayincludearsonreportsanddrug‐related
incidents,assaults,andotherinformationthatcanultimatelyimpactthefiredepartment.
TheFederalEmergencyManagementAgency(FEMA)(www.fema.gov)andDepartmentofHomeland
Security(DHS)(www.dhs.gov)websitescontainsubstantialinformationthatcanbeusefulinrisk
assessment—particularlyinnaturalandhuman‐causeddisasters.TheNationalWeatherService
(www.weather.gov)canalsoserveasasourceofinformationonweather‐relatedevents.
TheCentersforDiseaseControl&Prevention(CDC)websiteisanotherexcellentsourceforhealthand
injury‐relatedsourcesandmaterials.LocatedontheirwebsiteistheWeb‐basedInjuryStatisticsQuery
andReportingSystem(WISQARS™).Itisaninteractivedatabasesystemthatprovidescustomizedreportsofinjury‐relateddata.
Firefighterexperiencecanbeavaluablesourceofinformation.Theycanbeutilizedtoconductstation‐basedriskassessmentandpre‐planning.Informationfromtheseactivitiesshouldbedocumentedandrecorded(preferablyinanelectronicdatabaseformat).
Step 1B: Develop a Community Profile
Theriskassessmentshouldalsoincludeobtaininginformationonthepeoplewhoareimpactedby,orapartof,theproblem.Therefore,itwillbenecessarytoacquiredatatodevelopacommunitydemographic
profile.Riskisofteninfluencedbyeconomicandsocialissues.Therefore,thecommunityrisk‐reductionprocessmustaddresssocioeconomicissues.Thedemographiccompositionofacommunitytypicallyincludesthestatisticaldataofitspopulation.Thisshouldinclude:
Age
Gender
Income
Raceandethnicity
Socialandculturalinformation
Education
Housingtype,age,anddensity(optional)
Community Risk Assessment Guide
7
Demographic Data Sources
Formostcommunities,thisinformationisreadilyavailablefromavarietyofsources.Thisiswhere
involvingcommunitypartnerscanbeofsignificantvalue,astheywilloftenhavemorecomprehensive
informationregardingthelocalpopulation.Insomecases,acommunityprofilemayhavealreadybeen
completedbyanothergovernmentagencyororganization.Localandregionaldemographicsourcesmay
include:
City,state,&countygovernment ChambersofCommerce Schooldistricts/boardsofeducation Non‐profitorganizations Neighborhoodassociations Publichealth(state,local,&federal) GISdepartments
AsignificantsourceforcommunityprofiledatacanbefoundontheUnitedStatesCensusBureauwebsite1andtheAmericanFactFinderwebsite.2Itisbeyondthescopeofthisdocumenttoprovideacompletelistofthemanydataresourcesthatcanbefoundonthesewebsites,buttherearemany.Itiswellworththetimetoexploretheseforrelevant
information.
Thesewebsitescontainverypowerfultoolsandinstrumentsforobtainingawealthofinformationconcerningthedemographicsofyourcommunity.Althoughtheprocessforgatheringdatafromthesewebsitesmaybeintimidatinginitially,itcanbeeasilymasteredwithexperience.Youshouldconsiderspendingsometimeexploringeachofthesesitestodeterminewhatisavailableforyourcommunityandhowtoutilizethevarioustools.
TheCensusBureauwebsitecontainsavastquantityofdataregardingpopulation,businesses,geography
andotherinformation.Muchofthisislimitedtobroaderareassuchasstates,countiesand,insomecases,
cities.WithintheCensusBureau’swebsitearetwoothervaluablesourcesofdata:theAmericanHousingSurvey3andtheAmericanCommunitySurvey.4
TheAmericanFactFinderwebsitemayprovidethemostdetaileddemographicinformationaboutyour
communityorservicearea.Itprovidesdataonpopulation,age,businessandindustry,education,
housing,income,povertyandmuchmore.
Figure 3
Community Risk Assessment Guide
8
Figure4isanexampleofadatatablegeneratedthroughthe
AmericanFactFinderwebsite.Itisbasedontheemployment
rateoftheCityofVancouver,Washingtonbyage,raceand
otherfactors.Thesiteprovidessubstantialversatilitywhen
generatingdata.Tablescanbemodified,printedand
downloadedand,insomecases,mapscanbecreated.
Community Partners
Otherstateandlocalagenciesandorganizationscanbequite
usefulinthedevelopmentofyourcommunityprofile.
Typically,theywillhaveimportantinformationtoshareand
mayhaveabetterinsightintolosshistory,high‐riskgroups,localbusinessissues,andspecificdemographicsthroughoutthevariousneighborhoods.Itisstronglyrecommendedto
haverepresentativesfromthecommunity—especiallyfromgroupsatthehighestriskoffiresandotherinjuries—toserveonyourteam,sotheirinsightsarefullyintegratedintotheplan.
Assessing Community Trends
Inordertodoathoroughassessment,itwillbeimportanttonotjustevaluateyourcommunity’scurrentconditions,buttolookatitspastandprojectedfuture.Therearemanycomponentstothisprocess,anditcanbecomequitecomplex.Althoughacomprehensiveanalysistodeterminefutureprojectionsmaybebeyondthecapacityofmanyfiredepartments,thedatamayalreadybeavailable.TheU.S.CensusBureauassessespopulationtrends,andlocalplanningdepartmentsoftenhavecompletedprojectionsoncommunitygrowthandotheranticipatedtrends.
Building the Community Profile
Onceyouhavegatheredthenecessarydata,youcanthenbegintobuildanddocumentyourcommunity
profileandanswerspecificquestions.Abulletedsummarytablecanbeaneasywaytodescribethe
demographiccharacteristicsofyourservicearea.AppendixAliststhecategory,description,andvariousquestionstoanswerabouteachdemographictopic.
Figure 4
Community Risk Assessment Guide
9
Using GIS Technology
TheuseofGIStechnologyhascontinuedtoproliferatethroughouttheU.S.FireService.Ithasprovento
benotonlyusefulinriskassessment,butothertypesofplanning,preparedness,andincidentresponse
andrecoveryactivities.Onceyouhavedeterminedandacquiredyourdatasources,youwillneedto
identifyavailableGISexpertiseandpotentialtrainingrequirements.ThismayincludeaGIS
analyst/technician;otherfiredepartmentsorgovernmentagenciesusingGIS;andtrainingsources.Itcan
alsobeusefultonetworkwithGISuser‐groupsinyourarea,aswellascollaboratewithotherlocalfire
departments.
WhileitwouldbeusefultogainabasicunderstandingofGIStechnology,itisnot
necessarytobecomeanexpertinthisfieldtoutilizeGISwhenconductingarisk
assessment.ManycityandcountygovernmentshaveGISexpertsthatareoftenwillingtoassistthefiredepartmentinbuildingaGISproject.IfyourjurisdictionhasaccesstoGISservices,theirpotentialvalueinriskassessmentcannotbeoverstated,
andyoushouldcultivatepositiverelationshipswiththeorganizationandstaff.
GISmapprojectsarecomposedoflayersofdata.Eachofthelayerscanbecreatedfromvariousdatasourcesandstoredinastandardrelationaldatabase.Inthisway,GISismuchmorethanamap—itisalocation‐awareinformationsystemthatallowscreating,managinganddisplayingrelevantdata.Becauseinformationcanbeorganizedbyaspecificgeographiclocation,itenablesyoutoseetherelationshipbetweenthevariousdatalayers.
Figure5isanexampleofamapshowingthefrequencyandlocationsoffiresthatoccurredduringasix‐yearperiod.Themapclearlyillustratesthehigh‐riskareasinacommunity,whichcanleadtothedevelopmentofactivitiesforpreventionandmitigation.
Using GIS in the Community Profile
GIStechnologyiswidelyusedbygovernmentagenciesfora
varietyofapplications.Localgovernmentagencies,suchas
planningorGISdepartments,usuallyhavesubstantialinformation
abouttheircommunities.Insomecases,theymayalreadyhaveacommunityprofiledocumentedinsomeformoranother.TheGIS
departmentmaybeabletogeneratemapsthatcanbeusedlaterin
theCRRprocess.
Figure 5
Community Risk Assessment Guide
10
TheU.S.CensusBureauwebsitealsohastheability
togenerateavarietyofdemographicmapsofyour
community;whichcanbeprintedorcopiedandused
inyouranalysis.Figure6isanexampleofamap
generatedbytheCensusDataMapperontheCensus
Bureauwebsite.Itshowsthepercentageofthe
population65yearsofageandolderforaparticular
county.
Figure7isanothermapgeneratedthroughthe
CensusBureauwebsite.Itshowsthepopulation,by
censusgroups,foraparticularcity.Mapscanbegeneratedbypopulation,race,ethnicity,age,sex,andhousingstatus.
IfyourdepartmenthasaccesstoGIS,localcensus
datacanbeaccessedandutilizedtogeneratecustommaps.ArcGIS®byEsri®isanapplicationthatcanincorporatedemographic,incident,andotherdataintousefulmapsthatcanprovidemuchgreaterinsightintowhatrisksareoccurring,wheretheyareoccurring,andwithinwhattypesofpopulations.
Step 1C: Identify Causal Factors & Populations at Greatest Risk
Whenevaluatingfiredepartmentincidentdata,it
willbenecessarytoidentifythosefactorscontributingtotheseverityofthehazardsandthosepopulationsatgreatestrisk.Forexample,itwasdeterminedinonecommunitythatcookingfireswerea
leadingcauseofresidentialfires.Examinationofthecausalfactorsrevealedthatfoodleftunattendedon
astoveisacommoncause,andthatthesehomeshavenon‐workingsmokealarms.Residentsattempted
tofightthesefiresandwereunfamiliarwiththeproperproceduresforextinguishingsmallkitchenfires.
Figure 7
Figure 6
Community Risk Assessment Guide
11
Inthepreviousexample,furtheranalysisofthepopulationwherethesefiresoccurred,demonstratedthat
mostoftheseincidentsinvolvedolder,Spanish‐speakingfemales.Therefore,U.S.CensusdataandGIS‐
mappingcanbeveryvaluableinidentifyingat‐riskpopulations.Importantandrelevantcommunity
partnersandstakeholderscanalsobevaluableresourcesatthispointintheprocess.Thepeoplemost
oftenaffectedbyfireandotheremergencyincidentsthemselves,willmakegreatpartnersincreating
strategiestopreventandmitigaterisks,andtoimplementthem.
Whenevaluatingcausalfactorsandat‐riskpopulations,considerthefollowing:
Socialfactorsandculturalinfluences
Economicfactors
Environmentalelements
Identifyriskfactorsinspecificpopulations: Children(age5&under) Olderadults(age65&older) Peoplewithdisabilities Peoplelivinginpoverty PopulationsthatspeaklittleornoEnglish
Understandingthecausalfactorsandpopulationsatgreatestriskwillcontributetodevelopingprogramstoaddresstheseproblems.Intheexampleabove,preventionactivitieswouldbedirectedtowardsmanagingsmallkitchenfires,installationofsmokealarms,anddirectedprimarilytowardsolderSpanish‐speakingindividuals.
Step 1D: Identify Target Hazards
Onecomponentofconductingacommunityriskassessmentistoidentifyspecifictargethazardswithinyourservicearea.Thesearesometimesreferredtoas“criticalfacilities.”Examplesofcriticalfacilities
mightinclude:
Hospitals Assistedlivingcenters Communityshelters Schools Airports Importantgovernmentoffices Emergencyoperationscenters Hazardousmaterialssites Roadways Water/sewagetreatmentfacilities Communicationssystems
Youshouldalsoconsiderforinclusionamongyourlistoftargethazards,buildingswithsubstantialvaluetothecommunity(economic,historic,other),andotherfacilitiesthat,ifdamagedordestroyed,would
haveasignificantnegativeimpactonthecommunity.
Community Risk Assessment Guide
12
Important Definitions
Thedefinitionoftargethazardswillvaryamongjurisdictions,andwillbepartiallydefinedbyyour
organization.FEMAdefinestheseas:“facilitiesineitherthepublicorprivatesectorthatprovideessential
productsandservicestothegeneralpublic,areotherwisenecessarytopreservethewelfareandqualityof
lifeinthecommunity,orfulfillimportantpublicsafety,emergencyresponse,and/ordisasterrecovery
functions.”Inordertoconductaneffectivetargethazardassessment,somekeydefinitionsmustbe
understood:
Hazards:Knownphysicalfeaturesthatcanigniteandsustaincombustion,orexistingfeatures(naturalormanmade)thathavethepotentialtocausenegativeimpactstolife,propertyand/ornaturalresources.
Values:Communityassets,includinglife,propertyandnaturalresources.
Target Hazard Data
Inmostcommunities,thelocalassessor’sofficewillhaveadatabasethatincludesalistingofallthetaxparcelswithinacommunity.Taxparcelinformationincludesthepropertyboundaries,usedescription,
buildingarea,numberoffloors,assessedvalues,andmore.
Somefiredepartmentsmaintainoccupancydataintheirrecordsmanagementsystems.Typically,thisisacquiredfrominformationgatheredfromregularpropertyinspections.Suchsystemsmayprovidemuchmorecomprehensiveinformationforidentifyingtargethazards,andenableyoutogeneratedetailedreportsthatdescribesignificanthazards.Insomejurisdictions,propertyinspectionsareperformedbygovernmentorganizationsoutsideofthefiredepartment.Inthesecases,thiscanbeanothervaluabledatasourcetohelpinidentifyingyourtargethazards.
Using Fire Crews to Identify Target Hazards
Oneoptionthatcanassistindeterminingtargethazardsistoutilizefirecrewstoidentifyfacilitieswithin
theirstation’semergencyresponseserviceareas.Firefightersassignedtoaparticularstationoftenhave
goodinsightintocriticalstructuresandfacilitieswithintheirarea.Sometimesreferredtoasa
“windshieldsurvey,”companiescanbeassignedtodrivearoundtheirdistrictandidentifyvarioustarget
hazards.Ifpossible,theycanperformmorecomprehensiveinspectionsandpre‐incidentsurveys,and
documentimportantdetails.Thisinformationcanbecombinedwithothertargethazarddatatodevelopthefinalanalysis.
Community Risk Assessment Guide
13
GIS‐Based Target Hazard Analysis
Targethazardsshouldbecontainedinlistingsand/ormaps(whichdistinguishtargethazardsfromother
structures)thatdepictthedetailsandlocationsofthevulnerableareasandcriticalstructuresand
facilities.ProbablythemosteffectivemethodofgeneratingatargethazardanalysisistheuseofaGIS‐
basedmodel.Asmentionedpreviously,GISisbeingwidelyusedamonglocalgovernmententities.
OliversuggeststhataGIS‐basedassessmentiscomprisedoffourelements:5
1. Identifying/classifyingcommunityhazards.
2. Identifyingriskfactors,potentialandprobability.
3. Identifying/classifyingcommunityassets/values.
4. Fusingalloftheelementsintoavisualdisplayoftheexistinghazards:theirpotentialimpactonvalues,andtheriskorlikelihoodofanunwantedevent.
DatasourcespreviouslymentionedwillbenecessarytoenableacompleteGIStargethazardanalysis.Thesedataelementsareavailableinmostcommunities,andwillbecriticalintheprocessofbuildingthetargethazardanalysis.Sourcesshouldinclude(butnotbelimitedto):
Utilitieslocations(electric,gas,etc.) Taxparcels
Previousfire&otherincidents Zipcodeboundaries
Watersupplies&hydrants Occupancydata
Streetlayers Hazmatpermits
Assessedvalue Blockgroups
Censustracts
Community Risk Assessment Guide
14
Prioritize Risks
Onceyouhavegatheredandanalyzedallofyourdatasources,itwillbenecessarytoevaluate,quantify,
anddeterminetheconsequences;thenprioritizetherisks.
Step 2A: Describe Risk Attributes & Vulnerability
Atthispointitwillbeimportanttodescribethevariousattributesassociatedwiththerisksthathave
beenidentified.Therearevarioustoolsandmethodsthatcanbeutilizedinthisprocess.Table1isonecomponentofseriesoftoolsthatcanbeusedforprioritizingand“scoring”risk.Usethistodescribethelikelihoodofspecificrisksoccurring.
Qualitative Measures of Risk Likelihood
Level Description Characteristics
A Almost Certain Event is expected to occur. High level of recorded incidents and/or very strong anecdotal evidence. Strong likelihood event will re‐occur. Strong opportunity, reason, or means to occur.
B Likely Event will probably occur. Regular recorded incidents and strong anecdotal evidence. Considerable opportunity, reason, or means to occur.
C Possible Event should occur at some time.
Few infrequent, random recorded incidents or little anecdotal evidence.
Very few incidents in associated organizations or comparable facilities.
Some opportunity, reason, or means to occur.
D Unlikely Event could occur at some time.
No recorded incidents or any anecdotal evidence. No recent incidents in associated organizations or facilities. Little opportunity, reason, or means to occur.
E Rare Event may occur only in exceptional circumstances.
Source: City of Manningham (Victoria, Australia) Community Emergency Risk Management Plan (2009) Table 1
Community Risk Assessment Guide
15
Vulnerabilityisthesusceptibilitytosufferlossorharmfromsometypeofincidentorevent.Thismay
varybasedonassortedfactors,suchaspreparednessandthecapabilitiesofthefiredepartmentand
otheremergencyservicesproviders.Acommunity’sabilitytoresisttheimpactsandeffectsofvarious
hazardsmustbedetermined.Table2isusedasaqualitativemeasuretodescribetheconsequencesor
impactofaparticularriskorevent.
Qualitative Measures of Risk Consequence or Impact
Level Description Characteristics
1 Insignificant No injuries or fatalities. Small number or no people displaced, and only for short duration. Little or no personal support required (support not financial or material).
Inconsequential or no damage. Little or no disruption to community.
No measurable impact on environment.
Little or no financial loss. 2 Minor Small number of injuries, but no fatalities. Minor medical treatment required. Some
displacement of people (less than 24 hours). Some personal support required.
Some damage. Some disruption (less than 24 hours).
Small impact on environment with no lasting effects.
Some financial loss.
3 Moderate Medical treatment required, but no fatalities. Some hospitalization. Localized displacement of people who return within 24 hours. Personal support satisfied through local arrangements.
Localized damage, which is rectified by routine arrangements. Normal community functioning with some inconvenience.
Some impact on the environment with no long‐term effects, or small impact on environment with long‐term effect.
Significant financial loss. 4 Major Extensive injuries, significant hospitalization, large number displaced (more than 24
hours duration). Fatalities. External resources required for personal support.
Significant damage that requires external resources. Community only partially functioning, some services unavailable.
Some impact on environment with long‐term effects.
Significant financial loss—some financial assistance required.
5 Catastrophic Large number of severe injuries requiring hospitalization. Significant fatalities. General displacement for extended duration. Extensive personal support.
Extensive damage. Community unable to function without significant support.
Significant impact on environment and/or permanent damage.
Huge financial loss—unable to function without significant support.
Source: City of Manningham (Victoria, Australia) Community Emergency Risk Management Plan (2009) Table 2
Community Risk Assessment Guide
16
Usingtheresultsfromtheprevioustwotools(Tables1and2),alevelofriskcanbeassignedusingthe
matrixinTable3.
Qualitative Risk Analysis Matrix: Level of Risk
Likelihood
Consequences
Insignificant
1 Minor
2 Moderate
3 Major
4 Catastrophic
5
A (Almost Certain)
HR HR ER ER ER
B (Likely)
MR HR HR ER ER
C (Possible)
LR MR HR ER ER
D (Unlikely)
LR LR MR HR ER
E (Rare)
LR LR MR HR HR
Categories of Risk
Extreme Risk (ER) Detailed research and management planning required at senior levels. Action must be taken to reduce consequences or likelihood.
High Risk (HR) Chief officer or senior management attention required, further research might be required. Some action must be taken.
Moderate Risk (MR) Management responsibility must be specified, specific monitoring or response procedures required.
Low Risk (LR) Manage by routine procedures
Source: City of Manningham (Victoria, Australia) CERM Plan (2009) Table 3
Bycombiningthesethreetoolsandassigningascoretoeachofyourrisks,youcanbegintoprioritize
thosethatwillneedthemostattentionfordevelopingstrategiesandtacticsformitigation.Thisisagoodpointatwhichtoalsoincludecriticalcommunitypartnersandstakeholders.
Step 2B: Rating (Scoring) Target Hazards
Utilizingaratingorscoringsystemassignedtoeachpropertycanhelptodeterminewhichtargethazards
arethemostcritical.Onesimplemethodistoapplyacriticalityscorerangingfrom1–3:Low,moderate,
orhigh.SomeexpertsrecommendtheuseoftheOccupancyVulnerabilityAssessmentProfile(OVAP)scoreasamethoddetermineandcategorizeoccupancyrisks.OVAPcriteriacanbemoredetailedandrange
from1–5:5
Community Risk Assessment Guide
17
Occupancy Vulnerability Assessment Profile Criteria
Criteria Name Description Score
Low Structures that consist of mainly fire‐resistive or noncombustible materials 1
Moderate Structures that consist of an ordinary mix of construction materials 2
High Structures that consist of significant wood‐frame or heavy timber materials 3
Very High Structures with combustible materials that share walls, attics, etc. 4
Moderate to Extreme Technological or hazmat exposure (CBRN) 5
Table 4
Occupancytypesassignedahigherscoreareconsideredtobemorecriticalthanthosewithalowerscore.
Ascoreshouldbeassignedtoeachofthefollowingcategories:
Numberofoccupants/lifesafety Buildingconstruction Impact(includingeconomic)tothecommunity Numberofstories Presencesofautomaticfiresuppression/detectionsystems Overallsize(squarefootage) Numberoffirehydrantsnearby Levelofhazard Buildingusage Figure8isanexampleofamapdepictingvariouslocationsoftargethazards,basedondefinedcriteriausingascoringsystem.Inthiscase,propertiesarecolor‐codedinaccordancewiththeirparticularscore,makingiteasiertoquicklyidentifythosewiththehighestlevelsofrisk.Anotheroptionwouldbetogenerateamapdepictingonlythosefacilitieswiththehighestlevelsofrisk,ratherthanallpropertiesandstructures.
Therearesoftwareapplicationsavailable
fordevelopingaGIS‐basedanalysis.
ArcGIS®byEsri®isaverypowerfulGISapplication.DepartmentsusingArcGISfor
DesktopcanobtaintheTargetHazard
Analysistool,whichhasbeenspecifically
designedforusebythefireserviceand
otherpublicsafetyagencies.
Figure 8
Community Risk Assessment Guide
18
Putting It All Together
Afteryouhavecollectedandquantifiedyourdata,andprioritizedthevariousrisks,itwillbenecessaryto
distillitallintoalegibleanddecipherabledocument.Keepinmindthatthedocumentmaybereviewed
byindividuals,communitypartners,electedofficialsandotherswithouttechnicalexpertiseor
backgroundsinthefireserviceandriskassessment.
Mostspreadsheetordatabasesoftwareapplicationsarecapableofgeneratingmanydifferenttypesofbar
graphs,piechartsandlinegraphs.Wordprocessingsoftwaretypicallyenablesthecreationofsimpleorsophisticatedtablesthatcanbeincorporatedintoyourdocument.Asmentionedpreviously,GIScanbeveryvaluablebygeneratingmapstoillustratelocationsandtrendsofincidents,hazards,andoccupancies.
Theuseoftables,graphs,chartsandmapsshouldbeusedtoillustratetheresultsofyourassessment.WhatfollowsisanexampleofasimpleriskassessmentofafictionalcommunityintheUnitedStates.Itincludesanumberofmaps,tablesandchartsasexamplesofpresentingyourdatavisually.
Community Risk Assessment Guide
19
EXAMPLE: Results of a Community Risk Assessment of Bolton, Washington
Withsupportfromcommunityleaders,citymanagement,andlocalelectedofficials,theCityofBolton
FireDepartment(BFD)conductedacommunityriskassessmentusingasystematicapproachtothe
process.Ultimately,theresultsofthisassessmentwillbeutilizedtocreateacompleteCommunityRisk
Reduction(CRR)planthatwillincludestrategiesandtacticstomitigateriskstothecommunity.
Twoprimarycategorieswereexamined:servicedemandandcommunityrisks.Servicedemandconsisted
ofaretrospectiveanalysisoffiveyearsoffiredepartmentincidentdatafrom2009through2013.Data
wasacquiredfromthedepartment’srecordsmanagementsystem(RMS)andcomputer‐aideddispatch
(CAD)recordsfromthecommunicationscenter.
Aswithallothercommunities,theCityofBoltonhaspotentialrisks.Suchriskscanbehuman‐caused(e.g.,preventableinjuries,fires)ornaturallyoccurring(e.g.,frequentlyoccurringsevereweather;earthquakes,hurricanes).Duringthisprocess,BFDidentifiedandprioritizedpotentialandlikelyrisks,andsubsequentlyprioritizedthem.
Demographic Profile
TheCityofBoltonhasanestimated2013populationof93,257,withalandareacomprisingjustover27squaremiles.Thereareanapproximate3,350personspersquaremile.Table3‐1liststhepercentageof
agedistribution,genderandracial/ethnicitycompositionofthecity.Morethan16%ofresidentsareforeignborn;themajoritybeingfromLatinAmerica.Thepopulationhasincreasedby29.6%since2000.
City of Bolton Population Percent of Population
Persons under 5 years 8.6%
Persons under 18 years 28.3%
Persons 65 years & over 13.1%
Female persons 50.7%
Caucasian only 67.1%
Black or African American only 1.7%
American Indian & Alaska Native only 2.0%
Asian only 1.5%
Pacific Islander only 0.1%
Two or more races 4.4%
Hispanic or Latino 41.3%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau Table 3‐1
Community Risk Assessment Guide
20
Figure3‐1isamapdepictingpopulationdistributionbylocation.Itshowsthattheeastsideofthecityis
comprisedpredominatelyofHispanic/Latinopersons,whilethewestsideconsistsmostlyofCaucasians.
Otherracesrepresentaverysmallpercentageofthepopulation.
Figure 3‐1
Social Characteristics
Forallpersonsage25orgreater,74%haveahighschooleducationorgreater,and18%haveaBachelor'sdegreeorhigher.Thereare33,226householdsaveraging2.67personsperhousehold.The
per‐capitacrimerateinBoltonfor2013was544/100,000persons.
Economic Characteristics
Medianhouseholdincomeduringtheperiod2008–2012was$40,569.Percapitaincomeduring2013was$20,516.Approximately23%ofthepopulationisconsideredbelowthepovertylevel.Mediangross
rentpermonthis$760.Currentunemploymentrateis14.4%.
Community Risk Assessment Guide
21
Themostcommonindustriesformalesisconstructionat10%,followedbyagriculture(8%),groceries
andmerchantwholesalers(6%),healthcare(6%),andaccommodationandfoodservices(6%).For
females,healthcareleadsat19%,followedbyeducationalservices(14%)andaccommodationandfood
services(9%).
Housing Profile
Thereare34,829housingunits,withahomeownershiprateof54.3%.Medianvalueofowner‐occupied
homesis$157,200.Justover30%ofhousingunitsaremulti‐unitstructures.
Bolton Fire Department Resources & Service Areas
BFDoperatesfiveType1enginesandtwoidentical100‐footladdertrucksoutoffivestrategicallylocated
firestations(Stations91–95)withinthecity.Eachapparatusisfullystaffed24hoursperday,sevendaysperweek.Thereisoneenginelocatedateachstation,withonetrucklocatedatStation91andanotheratStation93.Themajorityoflocationswithinthecitycanbereachedwithin4minutesofeachfirestation.
Figure 3‐2
Community Risk Assessment Guide
22
Thefivestationsservesevenfiremanagementzones(FMZ);withStations93and94eachhavingtwo
FMZs.Eachstation’sFMZrepresentsthosegeographicalareasthataretheclosest—intermsofresponse
times—tothatparticularstation(seeFigure3‐2).
EachapparatusisstaffedwithatleastonecertifiedEMT‐Paramedic,andfullyequippedwithadvanced
lifesupport(ALS)equipmentandsupplies.Eachtruckcompanycarriesextricationequipmentanda
hydraulictoolforheavyrescue.
BFD Service Demand
Duringthe60‐monthperiodofJanuary1,2009throughDecember31,2013,theBoltonFireDepartment
wasdispatchedtoatotalof45,931incidents—oranaverageof9,186callsannually.Ofthese,2,351
(5.12%)wererecordedas“Dispatchedandcanceledenroute.”Excludingthosecallsinwhichnoapparatusarrived,thetotalnumberofincidentsevaluatedwas43,580.However,thisnumberdoesincludemultipleincidentsrecordedasfalsealarmsandas“noincidentfoundonarrival.”
Incident Types
Call(incident)typeswerebasedontheNationalFireIncidentReportingSystem(NFIRS)Version5.0standarddefinitions,asdevelopedthroughtheU.S.FireAdministration,NationalFireDataCenter.“IncidentType”isdefinedasthesituationfoundbyemergencypersonnelonarrivalatthescene,andincludesthefullspectrumoffiredepartmentactivitiesfromfirestoEMStopublicservice.NFIRSincidenttypesareorganizedintonineseries.Withineachoftheseareadditionalcodesthatdefinetheincidentmorespecifically.Theprimaryincident‐typesarelistedinTable3‐2,withthetotalvolumeofeachfor2009–20013:
NFIRS Incident Type Series Code/Title Total BFD Incidents
100—Fires 1,982 (4%)
200—Overpressure Rupture, Explosion, Overheat (No Fire) 42 (<1%)
300—Rescue & Emergency Medical Service (EMS) Incidents 34,012 (74%)
400—Hazardous Condition (No Fire) 699 (2%)
500—Service Call 2,403 (5%)
600—Good Intent Call 3,994 (9%)
700—False Alarm and False Call 2,722 (6%)
800—Severe Weather and Natural Disaster 13 (<1%)
900—Special Incident Type 64 (<1%)
Note: Includes all calls dispatched, including cancelled en route. Table 3‐2
Community Risk Assessment Guide
23
Figure3‐3depictsannualincidentvolumesbytypeandyear.Incidenttypeswereplacedinthree
categories:fires,EMS,andothers.Thedatashowthatoveralldemandforservicehasdeclinedby14.7%
since2009.MuchofthiscanbeattributedtoachangeintheEMSdispatchprotocol.Beginningin2013,
BFDwasnolongerdispatchedtocertainrequestsfor“emergency”medicalcareinwhichitwas
unnecessaryforafiredepartmentresponse.Incidentsoffiresandothercallshaveremainedrelatively
steadyoverthelast60months.
AdditionalanalysisofBFD’sincidentsshowednosignificantstatisticaldifferencesincallvolumeswhen
consideringday‐of‐weekormonth‐of‐year.Theconclusiondrawnisthatthedepartment’scallvolumeby
incidenttyperemainsconsistentthroughouttheyear.Thefrequencyofincidents,byhour‐of‐the‐day,isanalyzedforthepurposeofpredictability.ThebusiestperiodsforBFDisbetweenthehoursof0800
(8:00am)and2000(8:00pm)daily.Thesetimesareconsistentamongallincidenttypes.
438 383 413 348 400
7,1807,563
6,256
7,247
5,766
2,100 2,0541,774 1,889
2,120
9,718
10,000
8,443
9,484
8,286
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Bolton Fire DepartmentINCIDENT VOLUMES BY TYPE & YEAR
2009–2013
Fires EMS Others ALL INCIDENTS
Figure 3‐3
Community Risk Assessment Guide
24
Fire Incidents
AnanalysisoffireincidentscategorizedwithintheNFIRS100serieswasconductedtodetermineamore
detailedinsight.Table3‐3liststhetopfivemostfrequentfire‐relatedincidents,byyear,during2009–
2013.Asshown,buildingfires,cookingfires,andpassengervehiclefireswerethethreemostcommon.
Five Most Frequent Fire‐Related Incidents by Year
NFIRS Incident Type 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 TOTALS
111–Building fires 132 126 103 89 104 554
113–Cooking fires (no extension) 71 64 58 35 46 274
142–Brush or brush‐and‐grass mixture fires 27 28 36 37 45 173
131–Passenger vehicle fires 22 30 68 26 25 171
100–Fires, other 9 7 49 36 32 133
Annual Totals: 261 255 314 223 252 1,305
Table 3‐3
Nearly70%ofbuildingfiresoccurredin1‐or2‐familydwellingsormultifamilydwellings.About60%oftheseoriginatedinthekitchenareaandextendedtootherrooms.Theother30%ofbuildingfiresoccurredinawidevarietyofpropertytypes.
Figure 3‐4
Community Risk Assessment Guide
25
AsshowninFigure3‐4,themajorityofbuildingfiresoccurredinthenortheasternportionofthecity,
withinFireManagementZone91.
Cookingfireswithoutextension(NFIRS113)representedthesecondmostfrequenttypesoffires.When
combinedwithbuildingfiresoriginatinginthekitchen,cooking‐relatedfiresrepresentthemost
significanttypesoffireswithintheCityofBolton.Figure3‐5illustratesthatthemajorityoftheseoccur
withintheeasternandnortheasternportionsofthecity,primarilyinhouseholdswithamedianincome
oflessthan$24,000annuallyorbetween$24,000and$39,000annually.
FurtherGISanalysisshowedthatthemajorityofcookingfires(withoutextension)occurred
predominatelyinHispanic,Spanish‐speakingresidencesamongmedianagesof27.1–35yearsand27yearsoryounger.Theseresultsareconsistentwithbuildingfiresoriginatinginthekitchen.
Inapproximately55%ofcookingfireswithoutextension,andbuildingfiresoriginatinginthekitchen,
thatasmokealarmwaseithernotfunctioning,didnotalerttheoccupants,ornonewereinstalledintheresidence.
Figure 3‐5
Community Risk Assessment Guide
26
Thefrequencyofbrushfires(NFIRS142)andpassengervehiclefires(NFIRS131)overthepreviousfive
yearsareapproximatelythesame,andrepresentthethirdandfourthhighestnumberofincidents.
However,whencombiningthenumberofbrushfireswithotherincidentscategorizedaswildland‐types
(grassfires;forest,woods,orwildlandfires;grassfires;naturalvegetationfires),theincident‐count
increasestosubstantially.Thus,wildland‐typefireswerethesecondmostfrequentfire‐relatedincidents.
Ofallthecombinedwildland‐typefires,themajority(26%)occuraround1‐or2‐familydwellings;20%
inopenlandsorfields;and15%invacantlotswithinresidentialneighborhoods.Figure3‐6illustrates
thedensityofwildland‐typefiresbylocation.Themapshowsthatmostoccurintheeasternand
northeasternportionsofthecity,intheresidentialneighborhoodsofFMZ91and95,followedbyFMZ93.
Figure 3‐6
Community Risk Assessment Guide
27
EMS Incidents
Incidentrecordsindicatedthatduring2009–2013,therewereatotalof41,706patientencounters
(consistingof34,012separateincidents);resultinginanannualaverageof8,341.Patientgender
consistedof54%males,and46%females.
Agesrangedfromlessthan1to105years,withanaverageof54(mean55).Femalepatientsaveraged56
years,andmales52.Individualsaged16oryounger,comprised7.4%ofthepatients.
TheNFIRScategoriesgiveaverybroaddescriptionofmostEMSincidents,butareinadequatein
describingmorespecificdetailsofillnessesandinjuries.Forexample,themajorityofEMSincidentswere
categorizedas321–EMScall(includespatientrefusals).Inordertogetamorecompleteperspectiveof
EMS,itwasnecessarytoexaminepatientrecordsgreaterdetail.Thiswasdonebyevaluatingtheprimaryimpressionsandcausesofeachcase.
Traumatic Injuries27%
Chest Pain14%
Respiratory Distress13%
Altered LOC11%
Abdominal Symptoms8%
Seizures7%
Syncope6%
EMS Incidents: Top Ten Most Frequent Primary Impressions2009–2013
Figure 3‐7
Community Risk Assessment Guide
28
Figure3‐7showsthatthemostfrequentprimaryimpressioninvolvedtraumaticinjuries(27%);followed
bychestpain(13%),alteredlevelofconsciousness(11%),andabdominalsymptoms(8%).Thedata
showedthat28%oftraumaticinjurieswerearesultofafall.Ofthese,themajoritywereground‐level
fallsinvolvingfemalepatients62yearsofageorolder.
Percent of Injuries from Falls by Age Group & Gender 2009–2013
Age Range Females* Males*
0–17 years 6% 6%
18–28 years 4% 5%
29–39 years 1% 8%
40–50 years 7% 12%
51–61 years 7% 4%
62–72 years 13% 6%
73–96 years 16% 5%
*Percent of all documented falls (percentages rounded) Table 3‐4
Non‐traumaticcardiopulmonaryarrestcasesrepresentedarelativelysmallnumberofEMSincidents.Mostoccurredathome,andapproximately25%presentedwithaninitialrhythmofventricular
fibrillation.About20%ofallarrestsoccurredinpubliclocations.However,therewerenocasesinwhichanautomatedexternaldefibrillatorwasavailableordeployed.
Other Incidents
Afterexcludingfires(NFIRS100)andEMS(NFIRS300),theremainingtypeswereplaceinthe“OtherIncidents”category.Table3‐5liststheseinorderofquantity.
Other Incident Types Total BFD Incidents
600—Good Intent Call 3,994
700—False Alarm and False Call 2,722
500—Service Call 2,403
400—Hazardous Condition (No Fire) 699
900—Special Incident Type 64
200—Overpressure Rupture, Explosion, Overheat (No Fire) 42
800—Severe Weather and Natural Disaster 13
Table 3‐5
Community Risk Assessment Guide
29
Thetopthreeotherincidents(NFIRS600,700,500)represented20%ofallincidenttypesinwhichBFD
wasdispatchedoverthelastfiveyears.WithineachoftheNFIRScategoriesaresubcategoriesthat
provideamorespecificdescriptionoftheincident.
ThemostcommontypeswithintheNFIRS600–GoodIntentCallcategorywere:
611–CallsDispatched&canceledenroute(53%)
622–Noincidentfoundonarrivalatdispatchaddress(20%)
651–Smokescare,odorofsmoke,notsteam(15%)
WithintheNFIRS700–FalseAlarm&FalseCallcategory,745–Alarmsystemactivation(nofire),
unintentionalrepresentedthemostcommon.Falsealarmsoccurredmostfrequentlyinsingle‐andmulti‐
familyresidences(35%),followedbypublicschools(9%),andhotels/motels(6%).
Figure3‐8isamapillustratingtheconcentrationofnon‐residential(primarilycommercial)falsealarms
withinthecity.ThemajorityoftheseoccurredwithinFMZ91,andinthedowntownarea.
Figure 3‐8
Community Risk Assessment Guide
30
WithintheNFIRS500–ServiceCallcategory,themostcommontypeswere:
554–Assistinvalidwasthemostfrequent(36%)
510–Personindistress,other(33%)
551–Assistpoliceorothergovernmentalagency(7%)
Asubstantialpercentageofthe“assistinvalid”incidentsoccurredinnursinghomesandretirement
facilitiesthatprovide24‐hourcareand/orassistance.
Target Hazard Analysis
BFD’sOfficeoftheFireMarshaliscurrentlyconductingacitywideinspectionprogramofalloccupancies.
ThisprocesswillincludeassigninganOccupancyVulnerabilityAssessmentProfile(OVAP)scoreforall
occupancieswithinthecity.DatafromthiswillenableacomprehensiveGIS‐basedanalysisandidentificationofthevarioustargethazardslocatedinBolton.
Inthemeantime,othermajortargethazardshavebeenidentified,asdepictedinFigure3‐9.Theseincludenursinghomes,high‐riseandotherbuildings(consistingofthreefloorsorgreater),allpublic
schools,bothhospitals,andlocationsofhazardousmaterialssites.Thisinformationwillassistin
determiningwherebesttolocatefiresuppressionandotherspecialtyresourcesforeachFMZ.
Figure 3‐9
Community Risk Assessment Guide
31
Community Risk Priorities
BasedontheassessmentofincidentanddemographicdatafromtheCityofBolton,thetopthree
prioritiesforcommunityriskhavebeenidentified.Thesearepotentialrisksthatcanultimatelybe
mitigatedthroughvariousstrategies;whichwillbeaddressedthroughacomprehensivecommunityrisk
reductionplan.
Priority 1: Cooking Fires
Therehasbeenasteadyincreaseincookingfiresoverthelastfiveyears.Someconfinedtothekitchen
area,andothersoriginatinginthekitchenandextendingintootherrooms;eventuallyresultingin
buildingfires.AsignificantnumberofthesefiresoccurinhomeswithpredominantlySpanish‐speaking
residentsundertheageof35years.Mostoftheresidentshadnoneornon‐workingsmokealarms,and
theinability(absenceofafireextinguisherorothermeans)orunfamiliaritywithproceduresforproperlysuppressingcooking‐relatedfires.DuringtheCRRplanningprocess,itwillbenecessarytoconsideraplanthattargetsspecificneighborhoodswithbotheducationalmaterials(inbothSpanishandEnglish)
andaprogramofhomevisits.Thisshouldincludeinstallationofsmokealarmsandpropermethodsofextinguishingcooking‐relatedfires.
Priority 2: Ground‐Level Falls
EMS‐incidentdatashowedthatthemajorityofground‐levelfallsoccurredamongfemalesaged62yearsandolder.Thetypesofinjurieswereusuallyhipandlower‐extremityfractures.Whilesuchinjuriescanbesignificantinyoungerpersons,theyareoftenmuchmoredevastatingintheelderly.Theyfrequentlyresultinlong‐termfunctionalimpairment,nursinghomeadmissionandincreasedmortality.
Ground‐levelfallsarepreventableinmanycasesbymakehomessaferbyreducingtrippinghazards;improvedlighting;andaddinggrabrailsinbathrooms.Inaddition,regularexercisetoimprovestrengthandbalance;annualeyeexams;takingcalciumandVitaminDsupplements;andensuringthatany
medicinestheyaretakingdonothavesideeffectssuchasdizzinessordrowsinesscanallhelptoreduce
thepotentialforfalls.
Priority 3: Wildland‐Type Fires in Residential Areas
Whentakingintoaccountallwildland‐typeincidents,theyrepresentthesecondmostcommonfire‐
relatedincidents—themajorityoccurringatoraroundresidentialareas.Thefrequencyofthesefireshasincreasedby255%overthepreviousfiveyears,andwillcontinuetoriseasthecityexpandsits
boundariestotheeastandwest.Wind‐drivenembers,notflamesfromthewildfire,tendtobethebiggest
threattoresidentialpropertiesduringwildfires.
Community Risk Assessment Guide
32
Thereareanumberofoptionsthatcanhelphomeownerstopreventandminimizewildlandfiresfrom
progressingintoresidentialstructurefires.Creatingadefensiblespacearoundthehomebymodifying,
reducing,orclearingpotentialwildfirefuelmaterialsorvegetationtocreateabarriercanslowthe
spreadofwildfire.Agooddefensiblespacealsoallowsroomforfirefighterstofightfiresmoresafely.
Theuseoffire‐resistantbuildingmaterials(particularlyfire‐resistantroofing);reducingflammable
materialsorfuelsoutsidethehome;andlandscapingwithfire‐resistantplantsareotherpreventative
measures.
Conclusion
Utilizingtheresultsofthisriskassessment,theBoltonFireDepartmentwillbeginthenextstepsinthe
CommunityRiskReductionplanningprocess.Thiswillstartwiththedevelopmentofstrategiesandtacticstomitigaterisks,followedbythepreparationandimplementationofaCRRplan.Afterimplementation,thedepartmentwillmonitor,evaluateandmodifytheplanasnecessary.
(Note:ThemapsusedinthepreviousriskassessmentexamplerepresentanactualgeographiclocalitywithinWashingtonState;includingfirestationlocations.However,thisisintendedforillustrativepurposesonly,anddoesnotrepresentauthenticincidentsordata‐analysisresultsfromthatparticularcommunity.)
Community Risk Assessment Guide
33
References
1. UnitedStatesCensusBureau:www.census.gov
2. AmericanFactFinder:http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml
3. AmericanHousingSurvey:http://www.census.gov/programs‐surveys/ahs/
4. AmericanCommunitySurvey:http://www.census.gov/acs/www/
5. Oliver,D.(2011,November).FireRescueMagazine,42–47
6. Esri:http://www.esri.com
7. Vision20/20:http://www.strategicfire.org
Community Risk Assessment Guide
34
APPENDICES
Community Risk Assessment Guide
35
Appendix A: Building the Community Profile CATEGORY DESCRIPTION QUESTIONS TO ANSWER
Demographical (people‐related information
Population, distribution, age, ethnicity & cultures
Total community population?
Population of each census tract?
Which census tracts have the greatest concentration of high‐risk populations:
Children under 5 years? Older adults? People in poverty? People with disabilities? People who speak little or no English?
Social Characteristics Education levels & family profiles What are the demographics of education levels throughout your community?
What census tracts include the greatest populations of the following:
Single‐parent homes? Two‐parent homes? People living alone? Older adults living alone?
Economic Characteristics Employment profile & rates; income levels
What is the employment profile?
Types of jobs? Work in community or commute? Major local employers? Unemployment rate? Income‐level ranges?
Housing Profile Age of homes & occupants; types of residential occupancies; home ownership vs. rental properties; transience among residents
What is the overall housing profile of your community?
Average age of homes? New (or recent) construction? Homes with automatic detection and suppression equipment? Types of residential construction? Types of residential properties (single, family, duplex, multi‐unit)? Renter vs. owner occupied? Transience (how often do people re‐locate)?
Growth Trends Past & future population growth trends (consider using the U.S. Census Bureau website to obtain this information)
How has the population changed in the previous 20 years?
What will the profile look like in 10 years?
Source: Leadership Strategies for Community Risk Reduction–VIP Pre‐Course Materials; FEMA, National Fire Academy
Community Risk Assessment Guide
36
Appendix B: List of Risk Assessment Resources
Training Programs
CommunityRiskIssues&PreventionInterventions(W0347)U.S.FireAdministration(apps.usfa.fema.gov/nfacourses/catalog/details/146)
This2‐daycourseisdesignedforstudentswhoworkinthefieldofprevention.Studentslearnabasicoverviewofthe"threeE's"ofprevention‐‐education,engineering,andenforcement.Thecourseconcludesthatthemosteffectivewaytocombatcommunityriskissuesistodevelopstrategiesthatuseall"threeE's."Coursecontentincludesevaluationofthetypesandlevelsofcommunityprevention;howinjuries,fires,andburnscanbeprevented;strategiesandcountermeasurestohelppeopleunderstandtheinjury,fire,orburneventandreducetheloss;and*preventionapproaches—behaviorchanges,legislation,andenforcementandengineering.ExecutiveAnalysisofCommunityRiskReduction(R0274)U.S.FireAdministration(apps.usfa.fema.gov/nfacourses/catalog/details/707)
This10‐daycourseisthesecondcourseintheExecutiveFireOfficerProgram(EFOP).Thecourseisamixtureofphilosophyandapplication‐‐thevalueofthecommunityriskreductionandtheprocessofapplyingriskreductiontothecommunity.Itinvolvesdevelopingpartnershipswiththecommunitytoimplementprograms,initiatives,andservicesthatpreventand/ormitigatetheriskofhumancausedornaturaldisasters.Traditionalfirepreventionprogramsareaddressed.LeadershipStrategiesforCommunityRiskReduction(R0833)U.S.FireAdministration(apps.usfa.fema.gov/nfacourses/catalog/details/10441)
This6‐daycourseisdesignedtoenhanceknowledgeandskillsnecessarytolead,manageandapplyfirepreventionstrategiesandcommunityriskreductioninitiativesatthelocallevel.Thiscoursewillgivestudentstoolsandtechniquestoraisethelevelofimportanceforpreventionwithintheirorganization.Thecoursewilldemonstratehowfirepreventionandotherriskreductioninitiativescanbenefitthemdirectlyandindividually.CulturalCompetenceinRiskReduction(R0394)U.S.FireAdministration(apps.usfa.fema.gov/nfacourses/catalog/details/10493)
Thisnewsix‐dayNFAcourseseekstoimproveculturalandlinguisticdeterminantswithintheapplicationofriskreductionstrategies.Thiscourseaimstoconnectfire/EMSpreventionpersonnelwithdiverseandculturalgroupswiththecommunity(s)theyserve,specificallytoincreasethereachandeffectivenessoffire/lifesafetypreventionservicesandprograms.CCIRRisdesignedforavarietyofpreventionspecialistssuchaspublicfireandlifesafetyeducators,inspectors,juvenilefiresetterinterventionspecialists,firemarshalsandcodeenforcers.
Community Risk Assessment Guide
37
ConductingLocalRiskReductionbyCompanyOfficers(R0186)U.S.FireAdministration(apps.usfa.fema.gov/nfacourses/catalog/details/10503)
Thisnew6‐dayNFAcourseseekstoimprovetheskillsofCompanyOfficers(COs)toleadandconductrisk‐reductionactivitieswithintheserviceareaoftheirstation/community.ThecourseisbothfortheCOwhoiscurrentlyengagedinrisk‐reductionactivitiesandtheCOwhodesirestolaythefoundationtostartcommunityriskreduction.AdvancedTechnologyforCommunityRisk/StandardsofCoverCenterforPublicSafetyExcellence(CPSE)(www.publicsafetyexcellence.org/development‐training/workshops.aspx)
DesignedforaccreditationmanagersandtheirGISspecialists,thisone‐dayseminar(orfive‐weekwebinar)focusesonusingGISandrelatedtoolstoconducttheanalysisrequiredtocompletetheCFAICommunityRiskandStandardsofCover(SOC)process.TheworkshopcoversthedatanecessarytouseGISandExcelsoftwareandproducetheexhibitsnecessaryforadefendableCommunityRisk/SOCstudy.
Publications & Other Documents
RHAVEandCommunityRiskAssessmentforVolunteerFireDepartmentsRonnyJ.Coleman,SeniorFireProtectionConsultantAshortpaperdiscussingtheRisk,Hazard,andValueEvaluation(RHAVE)tools.GuidefortheEvaluationofFireRiskAssessments,2013Edition(NFPA551)NationalFireProtectionAssociation(NFPA)(nfpa.org)Thisdocumentidentifiesvarioustypesoffireriskassessmentmethodsanddescribesthepropertiesthesemethodsshouldpossess.FundingAlternativesforEmergencyMedicalandFireServices(FA‐331/April2012)U.S.FireAdministration/FEMA(www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/pdf/publications/fa_331.pdf)Thepurposeofthismanualistoidentifythevariousgrantsandinnovativefundingalternativesavailableforemergencymedicalservices(EMS)andfireprotectionservices.Whereappropriate,adiscussionoftheprosandconsofaparticularfundingsourcearediscussed.Insomeinstances,examplesaregiventoillustratehowalternativefundingisbeingsuccessfullyimplementedinEMSagenciesandfiredepartmentsacrossthecountry.AddressingCommunityWildfireRisk:AReviewandAssessmentofRegulatoryandPlanningToolsTheFireProtectionResearchFoundationandNationalFireProtectionAssociation(NFPA)(www.nfpa.org/~/media/files/research/research%20foundation/rfwuiregulatoryassessment.ashx)Astudythatwasconductedtoreviewandassesstheeffectivenessofregulatoryplanningtoolsdesignedtoaddresscommunitywildfirerisk,andtocommunicatelessonslearnedtocommunitiesconsideringsuchregulation.TheprojectdeliverablesdefinetheWUIregulatorylandscapethroughtheidentificationofregulatorytools,categorizationofthesetools,andtheirevaluationtoclarifytheireffectiveness.
Community Risk Assessment Guide
38
ManagingFire&RescueServicesICMA(bookstore.icma.org/PreviewPacks/pp42813.pdf)Includesachapteroncommunityriskassessmentandmanagement.FirewiseToolkitNationalFireProtectionAssociation(www.firewise.org/~/media/Firewise/Files/Pdfs/Toolkit/FirewiseToolkit.pdf)ContainsvariousinformationandtoolsconcerningtheNFPA’sFirewiseprogram.Roles&ResponsibilitiesoftheChief,MunicipalOfficials,&CitizensinToday’sProtectionEnvironmentNationalFireProtectionAssociation(NFPA)(www.riskinstitute.org/peri/images/file/RolesandResponsibilitiesPERISymposiumPaper.pdf)Ashortpaperdiscussingtherolesandresponsibilitiesofpublicofficialsincommunityriskanalysis.RiskAssessmentWorksheet:AToolforCompanyOfficers&FirePreventionInspectorsJohnKobarda,LondonFireServices,Ontario,CanadaAresearchpaperdevelopedtoprovideariskassessmentworksheetforthefireservice.FireRiskAssessmentFormFireRiskAssessment.comSimpleformfordocumentingpotentialfirerisks.BasicsofRiskAssessmentU.S.FireAdministrationAone‐page“coffeebreak”documentdiscussingthebasicsofriskassessment.RiskAssessmentforCRREffortMikeSenchynaAsynopsisofmethodspromotedintheNFA’s“ConductingLocalRiskReductionbyCompanyOfficers.”Internet Resources
U.S.FireAdministration/FEMA,FirePrevention&PublicEducation:www.usfa.fema.gov/fireservice/prevention_education/Containsawidevarietyofinformationandresourcesoncommunityriskassessment.CenterforPublicSafetyExcellence:www.publicsafetyexcellence.orgProvidesacommunityriskandstandardsofcovercourse.Aspartoftheaccreditationprocess,outlinesstandardsforcommunityriskanalysis.NationalFireProtectionAssociation(NFPA):www.nfpa.orgWebsitehasanumberofpublicationsfordownloadonriskassessment;particularlyonwildfires,andotherpublicationsthatmustbepurchased.NFPAFirewiseCommunities:www.firewise.org
Community Risk Assessment Guide
39
TheFirewiseCommunitiesProgramwasdevelopedin1986inresponsetotherealizationthattheproblemofhomedestructionfrombrush,grassandforestfireswasoneofnationalscope.Theprogramteachespeoplehowtoadapttolivingwithwildfireandencouragesneighborstoworktogetherandtakeactiontopreventlosses.FireRiskAssessment,FireRiskAssessmentGuide:www.fire‐riskassessment.com/fire‐risk‐assessment.htmlAwebsitethatlistsastep‐by‐stepguidetodoingariskassessment,alongwithotherresources.Itaimstoprovidebusinessownersandmanagerswithonlineinformationandadviceonarangeofworkplacesafetyissuesthataffectallbusinesspremises.Thissitedoesnotsellanyproductorservice,sotheinformationprovidedwillbeunbiasedaswellasfree.Theinformationisprovidedasafreeresource,notfromtheviewpointofthefireauthority.PublicRiskManagementAssociation(PRIMA):www.primacentral.orgThewebsiteofanassociationdedicatedtopromoteeffectiveriskmanagementinthepublicinterestasanessentialcomponentofpublicadministration.InternationalCity/CountyManagementAssociation(ICMA):icma.orgProvidesalistofassortedfireservicedocumentsandresources.CentersforDiseaseControl&Prevention(CDC),Injury&ViolencePrevention:www.cdc.gov/injury/index.htmlHasawidevarietyofinformationandstatisticsconcerningtraumaticinjuriesandviolence.Alsoincludesinformationonburninjuriesandfiredeaths.Otherwebpagesincludesubstantialinformationonheartdisease,strokeandotherdiseases.ItcontainstheWISQARSTM(Web‐basedInjuryStatisticsQueryandReportingSystem);aninteractivedatabasesystemthatprovidescustomizedreportsofinjury‐relateddata.NationalWeatherService:www.weather.govIncludesaweathersafetywebpage,alongwithweather‐relatedstatisticsconcerningvariousweatherfatalitiesandinjuries.FederalEmergencyManagementAgency(FEMA):www.fema.govContainsawidevarietyofinformationondisasterplanningandotherdisaster‐relatedissues.U.S.EnergyInformationAdministration:www.eia.govInformation,statisticsandpublicationsoncommercialbuildings;includingbuildingenergyconsumption.Mesonet:www.mesonet.orgReal‐timeweatherreportingforOklahomaonly.Hasaspecificpageforpublicsafetyofficials.
Community Risk Assessment Guide
40
NationalEMSInformationSystem(NEMSIS):www.nemsis.orgTheNEMSISProjectisanefforttocreateaNationalEMSDatabase.Thedatabasewillcontaindatafromlocalandstateagenciesfromacrossthenation.NationalCenterforEducationStatistics,CommonCoreofData(CCD):nces.ed.gov/ccdAprogramoftheU.S.DepartmentofEducationthatannuallycollectsfiscalandnon‐fiscaldataaboutallpublicschools,publicschooldistrictsandstateeducationagenciesintheUnitedStates.UnitedStatesCensusBureau:www.census.govDemographicdataavailableforspecificcities,townsandcommunities.Numerousotherdataonbusiness,economicsandhousing.Intterra:http://www.intterragroup.comCompanyhasmultipleresourcesthatcanhelpwithriskassessment;especiallyconcerningwildfireissues.OtherCensusBureauwebpagesAmericanHousingSurvey:www.census.gov/housing/ahs/AmericanCommunitySurvey:www.census.gov/acs/www/AmericanFactFinder:factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/Computer Software & Applications
GeographicInformationSystem(GIS)forPublicSafetyEsri(http://www.esri.com/industries/public‐safety/fire‐rescue‐ems)Thecompanyprovidesanumberoftoolsandapplicationsthatcouldbepotentiallyusefulinplanningandcommunityriskanalysis.TargetHazardAnalysisEsri(http://solutions.arcgis.com/local‐government/help/target‐hazard‐analysis/)Usedtoidentifyandquantifypropertiesthatshouldbetargetedforpre‐incidentplanningtomitigatesuchaloss.RequiresArcGISforDesktop(StandardorAdvanced).Lifestyles‐EsriTapestrySegmentationEsri(www.esri.com/data/esri_data/tapestry)VISIONRiskAssessmentEmergencyReporting(www.emergencyreporting.com/products/vision.html)Enablesfireandemergencyserviceagenciestoanalyzeandcategorizecommunityrisksandhazards.Therearethreedifferentversionswithvariousfeatures.
Community Risk Assessment Guide
41
FirehouseAnalyticsFirehouseSoftware,Inc.(www.firehousesoftware.com/products/fh‐analytics.php)Amulti‐directionaldataanalysistooltoevaluatethedatacollectedfromallmodulesofFirehouse(FH)Software.MusthaveFHsoftwaretoutilizethismodule.ImageTrendFireDepartmentManagementSystemImageTrend,Inc.(www.imagetrend.com/products/eds/fire‐bridge)Fireservicesoftwarethathasadd‐onmoduleswithanadvancedvisualanalysisandreportingsystem,andamappingandreportingsystem.Requiresthebasicsystemtoutilizetheadd‐onmodules.StatsFDAnimatedData,Inc.(www.statsfd.com)FormerlyNFIRS5Alive,thesoftwareutilizesexistingrawNFIRSdatatogenerateavarietyofreportsandanalysesofcommunityrisks(basedonoccupancyandoperationaldata)andoperationalperformance.Generatesheatmapsand3Dgeographicmodels.FireView™DashboardTheOmegaGroup(www.theomegagroup.com/fire/omega_dashboard_fire.html)Allowsuserstoanalyzedatabyprovidingasnapshotofrecenteventsdisplayedintheformofmaps,chartsandreports.Itisabrowser‐basedsolutionthatcanbecustomizedtomeettheneedsofeachuser.