Reducing Community Risk through a Residential Smoke Alarm Testing ProgramReducing Community Risk through a Residential Smoke Alarm Testing Program
Leading Community Risk Reduction
BY: Kenneth S. Chudy Battalion Chief Muskegon Fire Department Muskegon, Michigan
An applied research project submitted to the National Fire Academy
as part of the Executive Fire Officer Program
December 2004
Certification Statement
I hereby certify that this paper constitutes my own product, that where the language of others
is set forth, quotation marks so indicate, and that appropriate credit is given where I have used
the language, ideas, expressions, or writings of another.
Signed____________________________________________
3
Abstract
The problem was that Muskegon Fire Department personnel have responded to a
considerable number of fire related incidents where smoke alarms did not alert residents. The
purpose of this descriptive research project was to assess and implement a residential smoke
alarm testing program administered by Muskegon Fire Department personnel that would
decrease the number of times smoke alarms fail to alert residents. The research questions were:
1. What are the national recommendations for residential smoke alarm use?
2. What residential smoke alarm programs do other fire departments use to help reduce
community risk?
3. What strategies should be adopted by the Muskegon Fire Department (MFD) towards a
residential smoke alarm-testing program?
The procedures involved an extensive search of related literature as well as a search of
historical records. Data from the Muskegon Fire Department Sun Pro computer software
containing response records for the National Fire Reporting System (NFIRS) was tabulated for
comparison. Research into fire prevention programs was performed and interviews with local
fire department leaders from communities neighboring City of Muskegon were conducted.
The results revealed that residents within the community are not being warned in a timely
manner by smoke alarms which may be due to improper installation, lack of maintenance, or
removal of batteries. The research identified ways the MFD could introduce a smoke alarm
program aimed at reducing community risks.
The recommendation, based on this study, was to inform the MFD Deputy Director, Public
Safety Director, city administrators, and city politicians of the options available to them, begin a
“Push the Button” campaign, and better serve the citizens of the community.
4
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page Abstract ………………………………………………………………………………… 3 Introduction ……………………………………………………………………………. 5 Background and Significance ………………………………………………………….. 5 Literature Review ………………………………………………………………………. 9 Procedures ………………………………………………………………………………. 18 Limitations ……………………………………………………………………………… 20 Definition of Terms …………………………………………………………………….. 21 Results ………………………………………………………………………………….. 21 Discussion ……………………………………………………………………………… 34 Recommendation ……………………………………………………………………….. 40 References ………………………………………………………………………………. 42 Appendix A Question form……………………………………………………………… 46
5
Introduction
The problem is that Muskegon Fire Department personnel have responded to a considerable
number of fire related incidents where residential smoke alarms did not alert residents.
The purpose of this descriptive research project is to assess and implement a residential
smoke alarm testing program, administered by Muskegon Fire Department personnel that would
decrease the number of times smoke alarms fail to alert residents. In order to do so, three
questions shall be addressed, these questions being:
1. What are the national recommendations for residential smoke alarm use?
2. What residential smoke alarm programs do other fire departments use to help reduce
community risk?
3. What strategies should be adopted by the Muskegon Fire Department (MFD) towards a
residential smoke alarm-testing program?
Background and Significance
The City of Muskegon is located on the southwestern side of Michigan within Muskegon
County and is bordered by Lake Michigan to the west and Muskegon Lake to the north.
In 1873, the Muskegon Fire Department was established and continues to be the largest
career department along the eastern shore of Lake Michigan. The current department consists of
39 suppression personnel split between three shifts, a fire marshal, a fire inspector, an executive
secretary, and a Deputy Director of Fire and Inspection Services. A Public Safety Director
oversees the operations of police, fire, and inspections.
There are various industries, businesses, and housing complexes within the borders of the
city. Heavy industries include that of a coal fired power facility, a paper manufacturing plant,
and a steel fabrication foundry. The central area of the city has county and city governmental
6
offices as well as several high-rise structures that house limited income individuals and the
elderly and is referred to as downtown [italics added]. Other target hazards include three
hospitals, three prisons, a shopping mall, an industrial park, several schools, two college
campuses, up scale condominiums, numerous apartment complexes, private adult care facilities,
and several marinas. The shoreline of Muskegon Lake and Lake Michigan that are within the
city limits and associated water activities further add to the responsibility of the fire department.
Demographics indicate that the approximately 40,000 residents that live inside its 19.5
square miles consist of:
48% rental properties and 52% owner occupied homes. The racial composition is 65%
white, 30% Afro-American, 3% Hispanic, 1% Asian, and 1% American Indian. The
average household income is $31,241.00. Family structure consists of 35% single parent
and 45% two parents. Those 65 years of age or older make up 35% of the population
while 23 % are children under the age of 14. (Muskegon Fire Department [MFD], 2002,
p.1)
During the 1950's and 1960's, the department employed the highest number of personnel
in its history which consisted of 86 fire suppression personnel, two inspection personnel, a
departmental secretary, and the chief. Classes on fire prevention activities were given by fire
personnel and the department was regarded as a leader in reducing fire risks to the community.
This leadership was recognized in April 1965 when the National Fire Protection Association
(NFPA) awarded the MFD top honors in the State of Michigan and second best in the nation for
cities its’ size for fire prevention and safety activities presented by the department. The number
one ranking was determined by the Chamber of Commerce of the United States and presented in
Washington D.C. at the 42nd annual National Inter-Chamber Fire Safety Contest banquet. At that
7
time the success of the MFD was “unprecedented, inasmuch as the Muskegon program won the
top Class V award in 1958 and again in 1960, and has been an honor award winner as a runnerup
every year since it was first entered in the program many years back” (Woodruff, 1965, p.25).
The focus of the competition was to “recognize coordinating local community efforts to achieve
a maximum for fire safety and prevention effort” (Woodruff, 1965, p.25).
The national recession that began in the 1970’s affected the budget, services of the
city, and ultimately the operation of the fire department. Like other city departments, the MFD
was not able to fill empty staff positions created by retirements, fire prevention programs were
reduced, and the remaining staff had to do more with less. In 1980, a municipal income tax was
proposed that would generate up to 1.5 million dollars a year for city services. However, citing
“distrust in city government” (Reindl, 1980, p.1) voters rejected the proposal on September 31,
1980. Then city manager, William Gleason met the setback with quick action and stated, "the
city is set to reduce its police force to 53 and its fire department to 41” (Reindl, 1980, p.1). The
layoffs of personnel and the closing of two stations in December of 1980, was addressed by the
Muskegon Fire Fighters Union that “issued a ‘statement of concern’ because…they were
concerned about the safety of the citizens and their property and said the city had a policy of
undermanning the department” (McCourt, 1976). It also caused a change of fire fighting
methods and fire prevention activities by the MFD that still exist to the present day.
Staffing continued to be reduced during the late 1980’s and early 1990’s until MFD had
only a total of 33 suppression personnel, one fire inspector, a secretary, and the chief. Fire safety
programs were held only in conjunction with the designated national fire protection program
period and any extra programs were eliminated. In April of 1993, another municipal income tax
was proposed and narrowly passed by voters that allowed hiring of additional police and fire
8
personnel. With the additional tax revenue, staffing of the MFD increased to 14 suppression
personnel per shift, a fire marshal, a fire inspector, an administrative secretary, and the chief.
Fire prevention activities were again held throughout the year with a result of increased public
contact.
Presently, with revenue sharing reduced from the State of Michigan, the city has again
the begun the process of cutting services to its citizens as previously happened in the 1970’s,
1980’s, and early 1990’s. Empty staff positions throughout all city departments, created by
retirements or resignations of personnel are reviewed by the city manager and other leaders as to
the necessity of refilling the position left vacant. Duties of positions not refilled are distributed
to the remaining staff thus increasing the workload of the individuals.
Staffing for the MFD has been reduced to 13 per shift, a fire marshal, a fire inspector, and
a departmental secretary. The position of fire chief has been eliminated and leadership now
comes from a deputy director in charge of the fire and inspection services. That position is
overseen by a public safety director in charge of the police, fire, and inspection departments of
the city. Reduced fire staffing has resulted in limited personnel available for fire prevention
programs that were established before the budget cuts and still held during the national fire
prevention time period.
This research is important for the City of Muskegon for three reasons. First, it will
review the national standards that govern residential smoke alarm use. Although there are other
alarm classifications including protected premises and supervised station fire alarm systems, the
focus of the research is directed towards residential smoke alarms. Second, it will evaluate what
other departments are doing to help reduce risks in the community. Finally, it will recognize the
9
strategies that should be adopted by the Muskegon Fire Department (MFD) towards a smoke
alarm testing program.
This Applied Research Project (ARP) is relevant to the Leading Community Risk
Reduction course taught at the National Fire Academy (NFA). The recommendations may help
reduce community risks by decreasing the number of times smoke alarms fail to operate and
warn citizens. It adheres to the course goal set in the Introduction of the Leading Community
Risk Reduction Student Manual to “develop leaders in comprehensive multihazard community
risk reduction” (National Fire Academy [NFA], 2003, p. sm. 0-15). By providing a program that
would increase the effectiveness of smoke alarm operation within the community, it will relate to
the United States Fire Administration (USFA) operational objective “to promote within
communities a comprehensive, multi-hazard risk reduction plan led by the fire service
organization” (NFA, 2002, p. II-2).
Literature Review
In order to decrease the number of times smoke alarms fail to alert residents, three key
questions are addressed to help identify options that would assess and implement a smoke alarm
testing program administered by Muskegon Fire Department personnel. The first question
relates to national recommendations for residential smoke alarm use. The second question
reviews what residential smoke alarm programs other fire departments use to help reduce
community risk. Finally, strategies are explored that should be adopted by the Muskegon Fire
Department (MFD) towards a residential smoke alarm-testing program.
First, what are the national recommendations for residential smoke alarm use?
The fire service, cities, and other businesses follow standards set by the National Fire
Protection Association (NFPA) in day to day operations through a blend of requirements that are
10
used “world wide to deal with life safety issues on many fronts” (Bokman, 2003, p.1).
Numerous corporations or agencies such as the Insurance Services Office Inc. (ISO), National
Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), United States Consumer Product Safety
Commission (CPSC), and insurance companies like that of State Farm, make safety
recommendations to businesses and homeowners based on NFPA standards. States and cities
form and adopt codes for private builders, contractors, and residents following NFPA standards
in an effort to build safer structures, increase personal safety, and reduce fire related risks.
In 1993, the NFPA combined identical or similar standards of alarm codes into NFPA 72,
National Fire Alarm Code. Those consolidated standards of guides included NFPA 71, Standard
for the Installation, Maintenance, and Use in Signaling Systems for Central Station Service,
NFPA 72, Standard for the Installation, Maintenance, and Use of Protective Signaling Systems,
NFPA 72E, Standard for Automatic Fire Detectors, NFPA 72G, Guide for the Installation,
Maintenance , and Use of Notification Appliances for Protective Signaling Systems, NFPA 72H,
Guide for Testing Procedures for Local, Auxiliary, Remote Station, and Proprietary Protective
Signaling Systems, and NFPA 74, Standard for the Installation, Maintenance, and Use of
Household Fire Warning Equipment. Updates to the NFPA 72 standard are done on a three year
cycle with the last recommended changes taking place in 2002.
The purpose of NFPA 72 was to “define the means of signal initiation, transmission,
notification, and annunciation; the levels of performance; and the reliability of the various types
of alarms” (National Fire Protection Association [NFPA], 1999, p. 72-13). NFPA 72 set the
standard for the fundamentals of fire alarm systems, initiating devices, protected premises fire
alarm systems, notification appliances for fire alarm systems, supervising station fire alarm
systems, public fire alarm reporting systems, fire warning equipment for dwelling units,
11
inspection, testing, and maintenance. Those buildings built before the enactment of NFPA 72
were not affected by the requirements unless a “distinct hazard to life or property” (NFPA, 1999,
p. 72-13) was determined by the local authorities having jurisdiction. Although NFPA standards
are only recommendations “the failure to adopt and comply … could expose municipalities to
significant potential liability clams and lawsuits (“Proposed NFPA Standards”, 2001).
NFPA 72 includes language concerning the definition, placement, and types of smoke
alarms for residences or commercial use. By definition a smoke alarm is “a single or multiple
station alarm responsive to smoke” (NFPA, 1999, p. 72-19). When properly installed, smoke
alarms provide reliable early warning smoke detection systems for the protection of life and
property. The importance of this type of detection system was discussed for the International
Association of Electrical Inspectors (IAEI) by Mark Campbell (2001) who at the time was the
vice president of engineering for Global Fire and Safety, an installation design and consulting
fire-alarm Company. He stated:
“Fire codes have been written with the blood of people’s lives!” These ten simple words
hold a truism I hope becomes a part of our daily thought processes….Smoke detectors are
designed and installed to provide reliable early warning smoke detection systems for the
protection of life and property.
An organization that does not set mandatory national standards for fire departments or
other businesses, but sets “a useful benchmark that helps fire departments and other public
officials measure the effectiveness of their efforts and plan for improvement” (“ISO’s PPC
program”, 1996) is the ISO. Homeowner policy rates are based a numerical grading call the
Public Protection Classification (PPC) which is developed using the Fire Suppression Rating
Schedule (FSRS). This “schedule measures the major elements of a community’s fire-
12
suppression system” (“Fire Suppression”, 1996) which consists of three elements: fire alarm and
communication systems, water supply, and fire department operations. Fire alarm systems
account for 10% of the overall grade, water supply makes up 40% of the grading, and fire
department operations comprise 50% of the grading according. After the data is collected, a
numerical grading is issued called the Public Protection Classification (PPC) that incorporates
“nationally recognized standards developed by the National Fire Protection Association” (“ISO’s
PPC program”, 1996). Insurance companies then are able to “establish fair premiums for fire
insurance – generally offering lower premiums in communities with better protection” (“Fire”,
1996).
Insurance companies also help foster the idea of reducing risks in the community. The
mission of State Farm is similar to other insurance companies, which is to “help people manage
the risks of everyday life, recover from the unexpected and realize their dreams” (“Our mission”,
2002). “That’s why, for almost a century, U.S. property insurance companies have funded key
initiatives aimed at fire prevention and fire mitigation” (“Fire”, 1996). In regards to fire safety,
this is accomplished through the publication of fire prevention material suggesting alarm
selection, proper installation procedures, maintenance of smoke alarms, and preparation in case
of a fire. Although community home fire rates are based on the PPC of the ISO, discounts to
policy holders are also given if the homeowner follows the suggestions made by the insurance
company towards fire prevention preparedness.
Since 1901, the mission of the NIST has been “to develop and promote measurement,
standards, and technology to enhance productivity, facilitate trade, and improve the quality of
life (“Technology administration”, 2004). NIST uses four cooperative programs to fulfill its
mission. First, NIST laboratories provide measurements and standards for industries in the
13
Baldridge National Quality Program. Third, technical and business assistance is provided to
small manufacturers by the Manufacturing Extension Program. Finally, the NIST partners with
private sector developers of broad based technologies through the Advance Technology
Program. These cooperative programs along with continuous testing and rating upgrades of
safety equipment are aimed at providing lower risks to the community.
The CPSC “is charged with protecting the public from unreasonable risks of severe injury
or death from more than 15,000 types of consumer products” (“Test all smoke alarms”, 2004).
It is estimated that consumer product incidents resulting in death, injury, or property damage cost
those in the United States billions of dollars per year. In 2003, fires alone “caused an estimated
loss of $12.3 billion” (Badger, 2004) as fire departments in the United States responded to
1,584,500 fire related calls. “Many of them were small with little or no property damage
reported” (Badger, 2004).
The smoke alarm recommendations of the CPSC are only part of a process that help
reduce community risks caused by fire, electrical, chemical, or mechanical failures from
products used throughout the United States.
Second, what smoke alarm programs do other fire departments use to help reduce
community risk?
The fire service, whether on an international, national, or local scale is perceived as being
the leader in reducing fire related loss. The effectiveness of a department’s fire prevention
program is determined by the backing of their community or country. In a 1999 report for Injury
Prevention magazine, an observation was made concerning support for fire prevention programs
suggesting “that governments and legislators take seriously their responsibility to protect the
14
public from hazards of residential fires….The implementation of effective smoke detector
legislation has the potential to make a substantial contribution to reducing fire deaths” (Iscaip
Smoke Detector Legislation Collaborators, 1999).
International examples include that of the fire departments in England, Australia, and
Canada. In 1997, London, England developed a smoke alarm give away program in an effort to
help prevent residential fires and fire related injuries. The objective was to “quantify the
effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the door-to-door distribution of free smoke alarms to
prevent residential fires and fire-related injuries” (“Project: ICH smoke”, 2003). This program
was set in the most under privileged area of inner London that had an estimated 23,500 homes
without alarms and had the greatest risk of fire and fire related danger.
Due to the low number of residential smoke alarms, the Australian New South Wales Fire
Brigades (NSWFB) initiated a program in 1994 known as the Smoke Alarm and Battery
Replacement for the Elderly (SABRE) where residents invite fire fighters into their home for
safety tips and installation of smoke alarms. Follow up maintenance by the fire brigades help
make sure that the smoke alarms work.
The Canadian fire prevention programs are overseen by the Fire Marshal’s Public Fire
Safety Council of Ontario. Citizens are reminded through public safety messages and over the
Internet that smoke alarms are not only a good idea but are required by law and must have the
Underwriters Laboratories of Canada (ULC) label affixed to the alarm. The Windsor Fire and
Rescue Service (WFRS) located in Ontario, helps residents to comply with Canadian law by
installing smoke alarms free of charge to homes if the owner cannot afford one.
Smoke alarm programs in the United States are generally associated with local fire
departments efforts to help their community and reduce fire related loss. The Winter Park Fire
15
Department of Florida announced the initiation a smoke alarm program in 2004, because they
wanted those in the community “to be prepared in case of a fire in your home. Seconds can mean
the difference between life and death” (“Smoke alarm program”, 2004). Their program provides
smoke alarms for any resident that does not currently own one. Residents viewed the program as
“indicative of one of the things that is provided by the city of Winter Park to ensure that we not
only live in a beautiful but also a safe place” (“Smoke alarm program”, 2004).
After 24 fire related deaths between 1994 and 1999, the Louisville Fire & Rescue
Department (LFRD) developed a plan and had legislation passed at the city level targeting the
removal of batteries from smoke alarms by residents. Businesses such as Lowe’s Home
Improvement Center became involved with the effort established by the LFRD and assisted fire
personnel with the goal to install alarms and inform residents of alarm programs. A
representative from Lowe’s stated, “We are pleased to have joined efforts in meeting the
department's ultimate goal of ‘zero’ fire fatalities in the first year of the new millennium and
hope to do so into the future” (Bowman, 2002). The program also attempted to decrease the
amount of time between visits by the suppression force to replace or install smoke alarms which
could be accomplished using a ten year non-removable lithium battery.
Since 1993, the Lacey Fire District Three located in Lacey, Washington and the Lacey
Sunsetters Kiwanis Club have teamed up for a door-to-door campaign of checking for smoke
alarms. Each year, they identify a geographical area encompassing 300 to 350 residences and
notify the residents in the area when the survey will take place. The teams consisting of
Kiwanians and fire personnel make personal visits for smoke alarm checks. The alarms are
inspected, batteries are replaced if needed, or alarms are replaced if they are over 10 years old.
16
Literature on smoke alarm placement and cleaning is also distributed. Data on the program is
compared to the previous years of the program to track their success.
Locally, the MFD and neighboring fire departments have banded together and established
a fire prevention night held once a year at a local mall in order to showcase their equipment and
present fire protection programs. Chief Dave Glotzbach of the Muskegon Township Fire
Department (MTFD) stated, “Although there are fire education programs within the county and
they are doing a good job, it needs to be expanded to more than once a year” (personal
communication, September 29, 2004). Each department also has an open house within their
community usually during fire prevention month. These various actives have raised fire
prevention awareness to the citizens, increased public relations with the communities, and have
caused a reduction of fire related injuries over the past five years.
Finally, what strategies should be adopted by the Muskegon Fire Department (MFD)
towards a smoke alarm-testing program?
Basic fire fighter training includes the knowledge that “Effective fire prevention and
public education programs are the best way to minimize the hazards of fire in the community”
(International Fire Service Training Association [IFSTA], 1993, p. 519). However, individuals
entering the fire service generally only think of fire suppression as the main activity. This
attitude was discussed by author Jim Crawford (2004a) when he stated “Firefighters signed on to
fight fire. They don’t really have too much fun being the cheerleading squad for prevention
activities”.
article for Fire Engineering by Mark Chubb (1999). He stated:
17
Fire safety strategies, like fire ground strategies, are achieved by deciding on and
implementing an appropriate suite of tactics. Understanding and implementing the five
‘I’s’ of safety tactics will lead to strategic success in the three ‘E’s’: engineering,
education, and enforcement. The five ‘I’s’ are as follows:
• Develop and use information.
• Foster innovation
• Leverage resources through integration
• Promote commitment through involvement.
Following this advice, the MFD set a goal to “reduce fire incidents attributed to the target
group by 10% annually each year for the next five years, then to maintain this benchmark”
(MFD, 2002). An application was submitted to the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) grant program targeting the delivery of fire prevention activities to children under 14
and senior over 65 years of age. The strategy was to reduce the fire incidents through the use of
computerized programs that were accessible via the Internet, combining with other area
departments in providing fire prevention activities, a smoke alarm give away program, and using
fire education programs that targeted young children and the elderly. Having proper funding
enabled MFD personnel to continue the strategy set in the grant throughout the year, increase
public contact, personnel morale, and public support.
In summary, based on this review, fire services, communities, and corporations have
adopted standards in order to reduce community risk. After NFPA 72 was constructed by
combining different NFPA standards, the fire service, business corporations, and communities
were given a standard by which there could be an increase of public safety within the
18
community. Although some standards are challenged or disregarded, there is still a
responsibility to comply. The smoke alarm requirements provided in NFPA 72 have been
accepted for two reasons, the effectiveness shown in reducing fire related risks and cost of an
alarm. A review into the various ways agencies, corporations, or cities promote smoke alarm use
has also shown a relationship to fire related risks. Finally, it is encouraging that the bordering
fire departments and the MFD have recognized that fire prevention programs are important to the
community and should be expanded to a continuing basis and not just during fire prevention
month.
Procedures
Procedures for this research focused on three areas. First, standards that apply to
residential smoke alarms were examined. Second, programs that other fire departments provide
towards a residential smoke alarm program were reviewed. Finally, the strategies that the MFD
has adopted towards a residential smoke alarm program were inspected as to how the MFD is
providing a safer community.
Research for this project was begun at the Learning Resource Center (LRC) located at the
National Fire Academy in Emmitsburg, Maryland. Information was gathered from publications
such as the NFPA standards, FEMA research, USFA reports, and U.S. Consumer Product Safety
Commission reports. Other Executive Fire Officer (EFO) research papers with similar subject
matter were reviewed and their references noted as to where additional information could be
obtained. Various Internet web sites and search engines, such as www.google.com, were used to
gather articles and reports relating to the authors’ subject matter. Access to some website like
that of Firehouse.com., was accomplished using the MFD password and may not be available to
those that do not have a membership to that website.
Local fire chiefs or leaders of departments that are neighbors to the City of Muskegon
were interviewed using a questionnaire form (see Appendix A for question form) developed by
the author and used as a reference to provide consistency. All were responsive and cooperative
when interviewed. Replies to the questions helped establish insight into neighboring
department’s fire prevention activities and community risks. The interviewed fire chiefs or
leaders were: Michael Healy, Captain of the Norton Shores Fire Department (NSFD), Rick Lifer,
Captain of the Fruitport Township Fire Department (FTFD), David Glotzbach, Chief of the
Muskegon Township Fire Department (MTFD), David Alves, Acting Chief and Lieutenant of the
Muskegon Heights Fire Department (MHFD), and Robert Phillips, Chief of the White Lake Fire
Department (WLFD).
The NFIRS data on the MFD responses for the years 2001, 2002, 2003, and part of 2004
was compiled using the MFD computers that have the Sun Pro software for fire reports.
Customized data was defined after extracting the information using an advanced query builder
and exporting it to the Microsoft Excell program. Custom output fields were used in the
following manner: under the heading table, the word incident was used, under the heading field,
detector operation was used, under the heading comparison, the equal sign was used for three
areas. Those areas were that the detector did alert, the detector did not alert, or unknown.
Generalized data was obtained in the following manner: under the heading of reports, incidents
were used, then incident type count report, then date range, then incident type response by
station, and then incident type. Under incident type the number one was used to gather fire
related reports. Only those responses to the inside of residential structures where a smoke alarm
would be present were used for the count. Other incidents such as grass fires, car fires, or
rubbish fires were not used in the data.
20
Review of the MFD FEMA application was done to acquire the strategies of the
department concerning fire prevention. Ordinances that guide construction within the city limits
were obtained from the fire marshals’ office and reviewed. Information on past and present fire
prevention activities of the MFD and other area fire departments were examined at the research
area of the Hackley Public Library located in Muskegon and the limited library of the MFD.
Limitations
There were several limitations on records needed for this report. Prior to 2001,
information on responses was recorded written forms and did not include information on smoke
alarms. In 2001, a computer program from the Sun Pro System was purchased and used to
organize fire department data, providing a more efficient reporting system. However, failure to
establish data entry guidelines by the fire department leaders, resistance to computer usage by
some personnel, and not completing the entire run report created problems in data gathering
efforts for comparison purposes. In 2002, additional guidelines of entering data were
implemented rendering a more accurate picture of conditions of a home upon arrival by MFD
units.
The NFIRS program used by the MFD has data entry limitations on functioning alarms.
The three choices of the MFD NFIRS program being used are: detector did alert residents,
detector did not alert residents, and unknown. This differs from the six listed by the USFA
which are; in room, operated; not in room, operated; in room, did not operate; not in room, did
not operate, fire to small to activate, no alarms present. Having all six titles in the MFD NFIRS
program and following the examples used by the USFA would have provided a more accurate
picture of detector operation than the limited ones now being used. If for instance, the resident
was not home at the time of a fire it would be listed as did not alert by MFD standards instead of
21
not in room, operated. Another failure is the unknown wording used in the MFD NFIRS data.
An alarm could have functioned but because it was not heard or damaged in a fire, it is listed as
having an unknown operation. Not having the choices used by the USFA may skew the data of
alarm operation.
Results
This author found that NFPA 72 which includes smoke alarm requirements, is one NFPA
standard that was been readily accepted by the public and fire service. Internationally,
nationally, or locally, it has been viewed as a step towards decreasing fire related risks and
improving survivability. Inclusion of this particular standard can be found in numerous reports,
summaries, codes, and articles like that from the CPSC, ISO, NIST, and insurance corporations.
Literature with written suggestions encouraging compliance to the smoke alarm requirements
distributed by these organizations indicates the importance to those industries.
Research also indicated that acceptance of NFPA standards has not always been easy. A
few standards have been challenged for various reasons while others such as NFPA 1710 have
been disregarded by city leaders claiming they are too costly to implement. An example of an
objection to standards and their authority came from the Texas Municipal League (TML) in a
legislative update to its’ members regarding NFPA 1710, Standard for the organization and
development of fire suppression operations, emergency medical operations, and special
operations to the public by career fire departments. They stated:
NFPA is not a governmental agency, nor is it empowered to impose any standards or
regulations on any fire department in the State of Texas. It is an association only, just as
22
the Texas Municipal League or Future Farmers of America is an association…. these
proposed standards are, in many instances, impossible to achieve or prohibitively
expensive, given all the other demands on municipal revenue (“What city officials”,
2002).
The National League of Cities (NLC), whose purpose is “to strengthen and promote cities
as centers of opportunity, leadership, and governance” (“Proposed NFPA Standards”, 2001),
responded to a question concerning the liability of a city if NFPA standards are not met by
stating, “failure to adopt and comply…could expose municipalities to significant potential
liability clams and lawsuits…cities will face financial exposure in labor contract negotiations and
arbitration judgments if they do not adopt the NFPA standards” (“Proposed NFPA Standards”,
2001).
An instance involving a death of a rookie fire fighter, injury of two others, and the
training officer being charged with negligent homicide at a live fire drill in the State of New
York, added verification to what could happen if NFPA standards are not followed. According to
the report:
The prosecutor cited NFPA Standard #1403 Standard on Live Fire Training Evolutions
as the model that should have been followed when conducting the drill. The training
officer’s defense was that he didn’t know about the standard and that it hasn’t been
adopted in the state of New York as a law. He was convicted of a lesser charge of
criminally negligent manslaughter and received a suspended sentence and probation.
This marked the first time in the U.S. history that a fire fighter was convicted in criminal
court with an NFPA standard that had not been adopted as law, setting a precedent.
(Dunn, 2003).
23
“Cost and effectiveness of operation are key issues when promoting the installation and
use of smoke alarms” (“Smoke alarms”, 2004) when encouraging homeowners to follow smoke
alarms requirements set in NFPA 72. The effectiveness can be seen in the statistics provided by
groups such as the United States Fire Administration (USFA), NFPA, and U.S. Consumer
Product Safety Commission as to the reduction in fire related deaths, injuries, and property
damage. According to statistics, since the introduction of residential smoke alarms that began in
the 1970’s, fire deaths in the United States have been reduced by 50 percent. “Smoke detector
use in residential housing increased from 5% in 1970 to 67% in 1982” (“Interventions to
increase”, 2000) and is presently at 95%. Fire department prevention programs, insurance
carriers, building code updates, and legislation have all played a factor in the increased use of
smoke alarms. After reviewing a deadly house fire in Florida in which six people were killed,
United States Fire Administrator R. David Paulson referred to the importance of having
residential smoke alarms stating:
Data collected by USFA shows clearly there can be deadly consequences when fires
occur at night in houses without functioning smoke alarm….Smoke alarms are
inexpensive and easy to install, and easy to check and keep operational. They are the
closest thing to having a firefighter on duty in your home 24 hours a day. (“FEMA review
of deadly”, 2004).
A five-year operational objective established in 2000 by the United States Fire
Administration (USFA) was to, “reduce the loss of life from fire by 15 percent through targeted
reductions of 25 percent for high-risk populations: children under 14 years and below, adults 65
years and above, and firefighters” (“H.R. 2692”, 2003). Additionally, the USFA was to “develop
a comprehensive multi-hazard risk-reduction plan for 2,500 communities, led by or including the
24
local fire service” (NFA, 2003, p. sm 0-5). This was to be accomplished through programs such
as the Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program which awards grants to fire departments to
supplement their needs and the USFA’s National Fire Data Center which gathers and analyzes
data from fire departments to identify problems for prevention strategies. Following the posting
of the operational objectives, the USFA issued a report in December 2001 stating:
• Smoke alarms save lives and money.
• 38% of residences had an operable alarm during a fire, but these fires accounted
for only 8% of total property loss.
• Only 6% of U.S. homes are not equipped with smoke alarms, yet 40% of
residences with fire had no installed alarm.
• Alarms operate with more frequency in apartments than those in one- and two-
family homes. The reason may be that professional property managers are
generally responsible for maintaining the alarms, not the apartment dwellers.
• Multiple-fatality fire are less likely to have working smoke alarms. (“Smoke
alarm performance”, 2001).
The percentage of homes having smoke alarms cited by the USFA report has shown an
increase from the International Association of Fire Chiefs and the American Burn Association
1991 report which pointed out that 80 percent of American homes had only one smoke alarm.
This report is also in sharp contrast to the 1970’s in which only five percent of homes had smoke
alarms and the 1960’s when the alarms did not exist.
In a 2003 study by the NFPA, the statistics and recommendations on smoke alarms
almost mirror that of the USFA 2001 report. The information indicates that:
• 19 of every 20 homes (95%) in the U.S. have at least one smoke alarm.
25
• More that half of home fire deaths result from fires in the 5% of homes with no
smoke alarms.
• Homes with smoke alarms (whether or not that are operational) typically have a
death rate that is 40-50% less that the rate for home without alarms
• In one-quarter of the reported fires in homes equipped with smoke alarms, the
devices did not work. Households with non-working smoke alarms now
outnumber those with no smoke alarms.
• Why do smoke alarms fail? Most often because of missing, dead or disconnected
batteries. (“Smoke alarms make”, 2004, p. 1).
The NFPA also encourages having a home escape plan and practicing that plan with
emphasis placed on children or older adults who fail to be awakened when a smoke alarm is
activated. To help those individuals it is suggested to assign someone in the household to make
sure that those persons are warned and get out safely.
The CPSC considers the best protection and least expensive way to prevent injury from a
fire is the installation and maintenance of smoke alarms. In 2002, the CPSC reported that,
Fire is the second leading cause of unintentional death in the home. Each year nearly
3,200 people die in residential fires, and there are more than 390,000 residential fires
serious enough to be reported to fire departments….However, a CPSC survey found that’
smoke alarms in 20 percent of those households…were not working, mostly because of
the battery was dead or missing. (“CPSC warns”, 2000).
Like other organizations, the CPSC recommends that detectors are tested at least once a
month, battery replacement is done at least once a year, all alarms have Underwriters Laboratory
Inc. (UL) approval, and alarms are completely replaced after 10 years. Research results showed
26
that the active participation of the CPSC in regards to safety and reducing risks has resulted in a
decrease of 30 percent in the rate of deaths and injuries over the last 30 years.
Since the passage of NFPA 72 in 1993, revisions have been made every three years in an
effort to upgrade to the new advances in building construction and technology. These changes
include the increasing the recommended number of smoke alarms in the home from the
previously recommended one alarm installed per floor. Approved changes to the standard
regarding smoke alarms now include an alarm in all sleeping rooms of one and two family
dwellings, outside of each separate sleeping area, and on each level of the dwelling unit,
including basements. The fire alarm system must also be able to be heard in all areas of the
house and when one alarm activates, all alarms activate. Power source must be from household
electrical current with a battery backup and alarms should be hard wired with a battery backup
that is able to operate the alarm for 24 hours under normal conditions. For those with hearing
impairments it is recommended that a strobe light is activated.
The International Organization of Standardization is the world’s largest developer of
technical standards that have important social and economic effects. A current requirement
under development by this organization known as ISO 8201, emphasizes the need for the same
audible emergency evacuation signal to be used for all smoke alarms. This will enable those
who hear the alarm signal to recognize it as a smoke alarm no matter where it is heard. This
organization also sets the standardization on how smoke alarms are supposed to function, their
test methods, their performance, and manufacturer’s instruction that is to be included with all
smoke alarms. Their requirements for fire detection and fire alarm systems, “provides
manufacturers with a common set of functions - along with requirements, test methods,
performance criteria and manufacturer's instructions – that are provided on all smoke alarms”
27
(“New website for kids”, 2004). Having the same set of common functions on all alarms has
enabled manufacturers the ability to reduce costs to customers.
Insurance companies establish the premiums they charge to homeowners based on the
Public Protection Classification (PPC) of the ISO and the homeowner’s personal preparation.
“By offering substantial economic benefits to communities that earn better Public Protection
Classification, the program encourages improvements and helps fire departments plan for,
budget, and justify expenditures that reduce property damage from fires” (“When a community”,
2004). Generally, insurance costs in a community with a good PPC are lower that a community
with a poor PPC. Insurance premiums are also reduced up to 10% if homeowners install smoke
alarms or other safety devices in the homes. State Farm and other insurance organizations echo
the guidelines set in the NFPA standard of one per room, one per level of the house, and outside
of sleeping areas. Although the ISO evaluates the fire department, water supply, and fire
dispatch of a community, insurance companies hold the view that “the ISO’s PPC program
provides a significant incentive for communities…as an effective way of improving safety and
reducing fire losses” (“90% of fire chiefs”, 2001).
Following its mission to test and upgrade safety equipment, the National Institute of
Standards and Technology (NIST) reported in 2004 that residents of houses had an average of
three minutes to exit a building after activation of a smoke alarm. The time allotted is an
upgrade from a NIST study done in 1970 that gave a window of 17 minutes to exit a building.
The main reason for the reduction of time according to the report is that “fires today seem to
burn faster and kill quicker because the contents of modern homes (such as furnishings) can burn
faster and more intensely” (“Commerce’s NIST”, 2004). The research also concluded that, “even
28
with a three-minute warning, smoke alarms still offer enough time to save your life”
(“Commerce’s NIST”, 2004).
Cost of an alarm is the second reason for the increased smoke alarm installation.
Development of smoke alarms began in the early 1960’s and in 1969 the first battery powered
smoke alarms designed by BRK Electronics received UL approval. Continued development in
the 1970’s “produced a series of high quality, affordable, battery and AC powered and system
smoke alarms” (“Invention facts”, 2002). The popularity of smoke alarms increased after 1974
when Sears, Roebuck and Company began to sell the BRK electronic battery powered alarms
and caused other manufacturers to enter the residential smoke alarm market. When smoke
alarms were first introduced in the 1970’s, the cost to professionally install alarms, according to
standards, for a three bedroom house was approximately $1,000.00. As development and
standardization of alarms increased the price decreased. Most smoke alarms now cost
approximately $10.00 with many fire departments and cities having give-away programs that
provide an alarm at no cost.
Internationally, nationally, or locally, fire departments have had great success in reducing
fire related losses through fire prevention activities, especially when fire departments installed
the alarms and followed with a check of the alarm. The results of the smoke alarm give-away
program in England in which alarms were just handed out to the public found that it “did not
increase the number of installed or functioning alarms, nor did it reduce fire-related injuries.
This was most likely because installation was left to the residents and was often not carried out”
(“Project: ICH”, 2003).
In contrast, the Australian prevention program not only provided free smoke alarms but
established the SABRE program to install them, provide a follow up check, and furnish fire
29
prevention tips. Since 1994, all new homes built in New South Wales have installed
electronically wired smoke alarms and in 1996, the NSWFB Department of Housing commenced
a program to install alarms in all its housing. “Consequently, installation of smoke alarms has
increased substantially from 24 % in 1994 to 64% in 1998…in 2002, 72.9 per cent of NSW
residents reported that they had a smoke alarm or detector installed in their home” (“Report of
the New South”, 2004). Of those with smoke alarms in the home, less than four percent had an
activation from a fire and almost 76 % of the fires were extinguished without calling for
emergency help.
Before the Windsor Fire and Rescue Service of Canada began its smoke alarm program
in 1995, numerous fire deaths were reported especially in the city’s west end. After the program
began, “fire loss in that area dropped by 70% and there were no fire fatalities” (“Smoke alarms”,
2004). The program has been so successful that fire vehicles now carry smoke alarm on them so
they can be installed in homes of people in need when requested.
A study conducted by the LFRD found that the city’s current smoke alarm program,
enacted in 1977, was inadequate. Recommendations to upgrade the program began with Fire
Marshal Donald D. Cummins’ report to Chief Gregory W. Frederick and support from
Louisville's Mayor David L. Armstrong. Smoke alarm legislation at the city council level was
changed and became effective October 1, 2000. The changes required smoke alarms with 10-
year tamperproof lithium batteries in single-family dwellings. A Mayor's Neighborhood
Enhancement Team (MNET) was created with the goal of smoke alarm installation in all
residences and providing residents with fire prevention tips. The team consisted of members of
the department's Fire Prevention Bureau and suppression forces working in partnership with
other city agencies. The success of the program resulted in the installation of approximately
30
1,700 of the 10-year tamperproof lithium battery smoke detectors in the five targeted
neighborhoods consisting of 5,000 homes. An effect of the program also resulted in the
recognition by the citizens that fire prevention is not just the work of the LFRD but that of the
entire community.
Since 1993, the Smoke Detector Check-up Campaign made available by the Lacey Fire
District Three and Kiwanis Club has provided nearly 3,500 residents with a smoke alarms.
Using compiled data from previous years and measured with that of state and national statistics,
the community showed an increase in working smoke alarms. As the partnership continues, their
goal is to increase, “by 5 percent each year the number of homes protected by working
alarms….providing alarms to people with low incomes, and older adults…also focus on
distributing alarms with strobe lights for people with hearing impairments” (“NFPA Honors
Lacey”, 2003).
Results from interviews with local fire department leaders, found that all departments had
prevention programs and offered some type of smoke alarm give away program. As of
September 29, 2004, the distribution of smoke alarms by departments has ranged from low of 30
to a high of over 1000. Five of six departments provide installation but only the MTFD has a
smoke alarm check program scheduled six months after the alarm is installed. Interview results
indicated that when the NSFD responds to a residence, a smoke alarm check is made with
permission of the owner, thus providing an additional service. Five of the six departments
present fire prevention activities that continue throughout the year targeting the young at schools,
elderly in senior housing, and business, with FTFD the only one that does not. The NSFD has
established a relationship with the Home Depot building supplies store by having a static display
of equipment and fire prevention information available at various time of the year. A positive
31
gain to the prevention programs is that most departments have found a decrease in fire related
damage, injuries, or death within their community. However, two deaths were attributed to a
non-working smoke alarm by those department leaders that were interviewed. Finally, all
leaders agreed that a more proactive approach must be undertaken to reduce community risks
which can be done using a “more aggressive fire education program and more aggressive smoke
alarm program” (personal communication, Mike Healy, September 29, 2004).
Finally, what strategies should be adopted by the Muskegon Fire Department (MFD)
towards a smoke alarm-testing program?
The mission statement of the MFD states in part that it “is charged with fire suppression,
fire prevention, public education.…through a balanced program of customer awareness,
personnel training, and service delivery….in the most effective and efficient manner possible”
(MFD, 1997). This part of the mission statement was aided in 2003 when the MFD was
awarded a Federal Emergency Management Act (FEMA) grant to be used for the delivery of fire
prevention activities that would help reduce fire incidents, deaths, and injuries to the citizens
within the city and neighboring communities.
There were four strategies included in the application of the grant. The first was to use
the State of Michigan’s “Safe Home” and the National Fire Protection Association’s
“Remembering When” programs that targeted school age children and the elderly. Using these
programs fire personnel held fire prevention classes at high rise buildings housing the elderly and
conducted school visits during the year. This combination helped reduce calls for assistance and
decreased emergency responses to fire related calls in the home. (see Table 1) The second
strategy was to use digital technology, public service announcements, and other electronic media
to help prepare and produce custom fire safety programs. After receiving the grant, interactive
32
computer generated programs were made with the cooperation of the Information Technology
(IT) department of the city and the MFD fire prevention bureau. A national server was
contracted that would broadcast the website by the IT department. During fire prevention talks
at schools this website address was distributed so that the children could continue to receive fire
prevention information at home.
Table 1.
Incident Type Response Summary ____________________________________________________________ Year TDI TFRI TFRIB ____________________________________________________________ 2001 3817 277 174 2002 3889 313 190 2003 3653 275 153 2004* 3116 204 157 ___________________________________________________________________________ Note. TDI = Total of Department Incidents; TFRI = Total of Fire Related Incidents; TFRIB= Total of Fire Related Incidents in a Building; * = Data Is From January1, 2004 to September 30, 2004
The third strategy was a smoke alarm give-away program which provides free smoke
alarms to city residents upon request. Approximately 1000 free alarms have been handed out as
of September 30, 2004. However, installation was not provided nor a check up program initiated
in order to verify that the alarms were installed correctly or that the alarms went to the residences
that were stated on the application. Despite the failure to have a smoke alarm installation and
check program, the strategy adopted by the MFD proved to be successful. NFIRS data (see
Table 2) clearly shows that there was an increase of residents being alerted to smoky conditions
in 2003 after the program began. Although not complete, the current statistics for 2004 reflect
the same. Yet, data also shows there are incidents of alarms not alerting residents, which may be
33
a result of residents not following the recommendations of changing the batteries, checking the
smoke alarm itself, or the failure of the MFD to have an existing smoke alarm installation and
check program.
Table 2.
Smoke Alarm Activation ____________________________________________________________ Year DAR DNAR UNK ____________________________________________________________ 2001 26 17 37 2002 41 65 86 2003 51 50 54 2004* 68 41 48 ___________________________________________________________________________ Note. DAR = Did Alert Residents; DNAR = Did Not Alert Residents; UNK= Unknown; * = Data Is From January1, 2004 to October 30, 2004
Establishing whether or not an existing residence in the city has a working smoke alarm
can prove to be difficult. In an interview with the MFD Fire Inspector, Scott Hemmelsbach,
concerning existing ordinances, he stated:
The only way that smoke alarms are assured to be in the homes is if there is new
construction that needs to be checked or if residents pull a permit for construction during
remolding, otherwise it is not known if smoke alarms are present in the homes (personnel
communication, September 9, 2004).
The final strategy that was to use MFD personnel along with the fire prevention bureau
and neighboring fire department personnel to increase fire prevention program contacts was and
continues to be successful. The cooperation has resulted in the development of an annual county
wide fire prevention night held at a local mall attracting numerous citizens of nearby
34
communities and providing them with fire prevention material, exposure to fire fighting
equipment, and a smoke house [italics added] trailer owned by the MFD which continues to be
used during the year by other area departments. The goal is to “focus the public’s attention on
fire safety and leave a lasting impression” (Medendorp, 2000)
Research has indicated that due to continued MFD budget cuts, staff and services to the
citizens of the community have been reduced, including some of the programs that were started
during or before the time of the FEMA grant. For instance, the computerized programs were
eliminated when the city could not pay the fee being charged by the server to present the
computer programs. Classes for the elderly and young children have been reduced and are now
generally conducted by the fire inspector or fire marshal who already have increased duties due
to budget cuts. Finally, free smoke alarms are still being distributed to residents that have
resulted in an increase of alarms warning residents. However, alarm installation and follow up
checks are still not provided, jeopardizing the MFD goal to reduce fire incidents and then
maintain that rate.
Discussion
“The mission of the fire service must be to prevent harm in the community” (NFA, 2003,
p. sm 0-17). The importance of reducing community risks and prevent harm should never be
forgotten by fire service members even though most sign on with the anticipation of fighting fire.
This author agrees “Effective fire prevention and public education programs are the best way to
minimize the hazards of fire in the community” (IFSTA, 1993, p. 519).
The national standards and programs that have been developed and then adopted by
communities or fire departments impact community risk reduction. However, “a standard only
becomes mandatory if a government entity adopts it” (Bokman, 2003, p. 2). The International
35
City/County Management Association (ICMA) who “believe that the standards assume a defacto
‘one-size-fits-all for fire departments’” (Firey, 2001) have challenged the standards. Yet, as it
was shown New York State, noncompliance to standards has had serious consequences even
though they are not laws.
Standards set by NFPA 72 have provided the basics of fire safety within a community
while fire services continue fire prevention efforts based on the standard. The acceptance of
NFPA 72 and the smoke alarms requirement allows the “local government to gain influence in
the community by demonstrating its proactive commitment to the safety and well being of its
citizens” (FEMA, 2003a).
Development of residential smoke alarms “has been one of the most important life safety
advances to date” (Corbett, 1995, p. 991). These simple devices that were introduced in the early
1970’s provide a continuous tool against the effects of smoke and fire if they are installed and
maintained properly. The “smoke detector give away programs have proven successful when
high risk areas are targeted….successful programs have had one specific goal, installation of
working smoke detectors” (“Smoke detector”, 2004). Studies and reports from government or
private organizations are in agreement that prevention programs and smoke alarms have reduced
fire related deaths, injuries, and property damage by over 50% since the inception of smoke
alarms. Yet fires continue to happen worldwide and statistics indicate that smoke alarms have
failed to work largely due to batteries being removed or improper maintenance.
Since the inception and promotion of smoke alarms, various studies and reports all relate
to the success these simple devices have had in reducing fire related deaths and injuries. Smoke
alarms have benefited residents by affording a window of opportunity which has decreased due
to the usage modern furnishings. The cost for smoke alarms has continued to decrease to a point
36
that they are sometimes provided for free by local fire departments. Further development of
these early warning systems includes strobe lights for those with hearing impairments and in the
future may incorporate other means of detection, activation, and notification for those with
physical handicaps.
Although homeowner insurance policies are based on the PPC set by the ISO which
measures how well the community is prepared to mitigate fire loss, insurance organizations such
as State Farm, provide homeowners with rate discounts if smoke alarms are installed. Using the
PPC, fire chiefs and city administrators prepare budgets affecting the performance of a fire
department. Reducing fire losses not only can be accomplished by the preparation the fire
departments make to put out the fire, but also the effort to reduce risk or prevent fire. Second
thoughts should also be given to the cutting of the budget for fire prevention activities which
affect the mission of a fire department or the fire service.
Internationally, nationally, or locally, the success of a fire prevention smoke alarm
program established by a fire service or a community seems to be tied to whether or not there is
an installation and a follow up program in place. Providing smoke alarms without providing
installation and a follow up check program could mimic the results of London where no
appreciable increase in smoke alarm effectiveness resulted. Successful programs that include
installation and check programs like that of Louisville, Kentucky or Lacey, Washington, provide
a reduction of community risk while increasing a positive perception of the fire department.
These programs are viewed as low risk, high return to community and fire service leaders.
Fire prevention education to the public is a basic duty of the fire fighter that is introduced
to a new firefighter at the beginning stages of training. The Fire Fighter Essentials handbook
points out that, “Firefighters must direct their efforts at reducing known hazardous conditions or
37
preventing dangerous acts before tragedy strikes” (IFSTA, 1998, p. 655). Acceptance of fire
prevention delivery programs by fire service members in the United States is unlike that of other
countries. In the United Kingdom, “most members of the fire service are now expected to be
involved in the delivery of public fire prevention” (North American Coalition for Fire and Life
Safety Education, 1999, p.17). This is in contrast to the United States where few resources and
personnel are allotted for public education efforts. As a result of staffing and budget cuts, greater
demands now placed on the fire service, producing the necessity to increase participation in fire
prevention and education activities in order to reduce fires and fire related injuries.
Understanding what has happened in the past will enable fire departments to be better prepared
for the future. Crawford (2004b) stresses that:
Many firefighters need to be convinced that having a role in prevention won’t take away
their job security. And it will help improve public safety. This is true for three simple
reasons. First, we will never prevent all the fire from occurring. Second, the firefighters
are in the best position to meet people right where they live. And third, they are the most
credible source for prevention information the fire service has.
The banding together of neighboring departments in presenting fire education programs
for local citizens has resulted in the decrease of fire related incidents. With fewer personnel and
budget cuts this group effort has enabled those who participate in presenting programs the ability
to reach out to a greater number of citizens.
. “Fire safety programs have been designed, implemented, and evaluated by a select few
individuals within the fire prevention bureau. Involving the whole department in the effort to
reduce the frequency and consequences of fire is the first step to obtaining the support and
commitment of the entire community to fire safety” (Chubb, 1999, p. 4). Although the MFD has
38
adopted a strategy for reduce community risks, this author feels that more must be done. Within
the Leading Community Risk Reduction Process presented by FEMA, a five step process is
established in which community or fire department leaders can follow towards risk reduction.
Not only is there importance placed on community involvement but change of attitude and
commitment of fire department members as well. In the Learning Community Risk Reduction
student manual provided by the National Fire Academy (2003) states “An EFO is assumed to be
a champion of fire safety within the community. It is a challenge, then, to become a ‘champion’
of community risk reduction” (sm.p.1-88). In order to accomplish this, the use of the steps that
have been developed by FEMA as a community risk reduction model should be utilized. Those
steps are:
Step I, Getting Ready…a clear understanding of the community risk reduction philosophy
and process; its benefits and challenges to the community….
Step II, Assessing Community Risk…a list of the most common risk issues in the
community….
Step III, Identifying Intervention Strategies…a series of strategies designed to eliminate
hazards or reduce their impacts to the community and its citizens, OR, decrease the
community’s vulnerability to the hazards….
Step IV, Taking Action…a comprehensive list of resources required to implement
intervention strategies….
Step V, Evaluating the Program… information on how well each risk reduction objective
has been achieved, and the impact made in the community. (2003b).
Using this guide, a clear path is set for methods to overcome the challenges to implement
risk reduction not only for an EFO student but a fire department or community as well. “By
39
building relationships with their neighbors and engaging in cooperative enterprises that benefit
the whole community, fire officers can foster opportunities to forge fire safety conditions”
(Chubb, 1999, p.3).
Education, enforcement, and engineering are the three E’s of fire prevention and should
be included in risk reduction. A fire smoke alarm installation program with follow up checks not
only can reduce the size and amount of fires but this free service should enhance the relationship
between the MFD, leaders of the city, and the residents of the community. An indirect effect
could be the support of the public towards the fire department’s budget, recruitment, and
retention of personnel. If the department has a positive image within the community it may help
acquire the funds necessary for the department to operate effectively and efficiently.
The mission statement of the MFD is an important path that the fire department must
embark upon. It gives guidelines that should be followed by the members, while emphasizing to
the leaders the need to address the issue of reducing community risks. As budget cuts continue,
the MFD may be faced with additional reduction in staffing and a cut in program activities
including fire prevention. “When a fire department has been suffering through cutbacks for a
year or two and has been offering less service that the firefighters know that they are capable of
providing, serious erosion of morale and motivation may occur” (Lewis, 2002, p.15). Taking
this into account “The fire department should strive to provide superior customer service and to
surprise the public with the amount and quality of the service that they receive” (Lewis, 2002,
p.52). Current involvement with the community by all personnel has been compromised by the
reduction staffing and decreasing budget. In order to decrease risk reduction, MFD leaders and
fire suppression personnel must take part in fire prevention activities on continuous basis and not
just once a year during fire prevention week or month. Since laws, regulations, and ordinances
40
cannot provide installation of smoke alarms in homes, an effort should be made by MFD
members to provide this service.
Recommendations
In order to reduce the amount of times smoke alarms fail to warn the citizens of
Muskegon and alert them to fire related dangers, several steps should be taken.
First, set a goal to increase by 50 % over the next five years the number of times
residential smoke alarms properly function and alert residents.
Second, follow the guidelines established by FEMA in the Leading Community Risk
Reduction Manual. This program, if followed, provides communities, fire department leaders,
and EFO students a blueprint to reduce community risk.
Third, meet with the leadership of the fire department to convince them of the benefits to
initiate a program aimed a reducing community risk, gaining better public perception of the fire
department, and fulfilling the mission of the department.
Fourth, inform and convince the union leadership and membership that taking part in
program that reduces community risk will not jeopardize their employment but enhance it and
that risk reduction is the primary goal of the department and members.
Fifth, introduce a Push the Button campaign conducted during the entire year targeting all
households in the city of Muskegon and sponsored by the MFD. This campaign can be modeled
after the Lacey or Louisville Fire Departments and become part of a five year plan to improve
community relationships. Fire suppression personnel would test the alarms in the targeted area if
they are allowed to enter the residence. Batteries or alarms would be replaced, if necessary, with
new ones. This low risk-high return five year program would enable the fire fighters to be more
visible to the community and follow the recommendations made by Lewis.
41
Sixth, communicate with city leadership on the benefits of the “Push the Button”
campaign to gain their support and involvement. This may help with the perception of the
department members and enhance the credibility of the program with city leaders.
Seventh, communicate the new campaign to the public through the local newspaper or
public service announcements, including how they can help and what the members of the MFD
hope to accomplish.
Finally, while the existing supply of smoke alarms is being depleted, search and apply for
grants to help pay for the smoke alarms with 10 year non-removable lithium batteries or find a
sponsor that would provide smoke alarms or batteries at no cost.
42
References
Badger, S. (2004, November/December). Large-loss fires for 2003. NFPA Journal, 98(6), 48. Bokman, L. (2003, September 26). Linking nfpa 1600 with ansi and iso technical committee 223.
Retrieved August 28, 2004, from http://www.riskinstitute.org/symposiumdocs /LinkingNFPA and ISO.pdf
Bowman, W. (2002, May). Louisville’s smoke detector program. Fire Engineering. Retrieved
September 26, 2004, from http://fe.pennnet.com/Articles/Article_Display.cfm? Section=Archi &Subsection=Display&P=25&ARTICLE_ID=146081 &KEYWORD =smoke%20detectors
Campbell, M. (2001, July/August). The electrical inspector and fire alarm systems. IAEI News.
Retrieved September 13, 2004, from http://www.iaei.org/magazine/01_d/campbell.htm Chubb, M. (1999, February). Five tactics for achieving fire safety success. Fire Engineering.
Retrieved October 12, 2004, from http://fe.pennnet.com/Articles/Article_Display.cfm? Section+Archi&Subsection=Display&P=25&ARTICLE_ID= 60814&keyword =fire%20prevention%20strategies
CPSC warns that smoke alarms in about 16 million homes do not work. (October 26, 2000).
Retrieved September 19, 2004, from http://www.cpsc.gov/CPSCPUB/PREREL /prhtml01/ 01020.html
Commerce’s NIST reports current smoke alarms save lives if properly used. (2004, February,
26). Retrieved September l, 2004, from http://www.www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/ smoke_detectors.htm
Corbett, G. (1995). Fire protection systems. Fire chiefs handbook, (5th ed.). Saddle Brook, NJ:
PennWell Publishing Co. Crawford, J. (2004a, July 5). Prevention from a comprehensive point of view. Firehouse.
Retrieved October 12, 2004, from http://cms.firehouse.com/content/article /article.jsp?id= 32430&sectionld=42
Crawford, J. (2004b, August 17). Firefighter’s role in prevention. Firehouse. Retrieved
October,12, 2004, from http://cms.firehouse.com/content/article/article.jsp?sectionId= 42&id =34199
Dunn, M. (2003, June/July). That standard doesn’t apply to me!. Advanced Rescue Technology,
8(3), 45-47. Federal Emergency Management Agency. (2003a, June). Leading community risk reduction. Emmitsburg, MD: Author.
Federal Emergency Management Agency. (2003b, June). The community risk reduction process. Emmitsburg, MD: Author.
FEMA review of deadly Florida house fire reflects importance of working smoke alarms. (2004,
March 5). Retrieved September 6, 2004, from http://fe.pennnet.com/ Articles/Articles_Display.cfm?Section=Archi&Subsection=Display&ARTICLE_ID=200 0087&KEYWORD=smoke%20alarms
Fire. (1996). Retrieved August 10, 2003, from http://www.iso.com/studiesanalyses/ppcprogram /index.htm Fire suppression rating schedule (FSRS). (1996). Retrieved October 10, 2004, from
http://www.iso.com/studies_analyses/index.html Firey, C. (2001, May,9). NFPA 1710 ready for vote. Firehouse. Retrieved September 19, 2003,
from http://www.firehouse.com/news/2001/5/9_nfpa.html H.R. 2692, United States Fire Administration Authorization Act of 2003. (2003).
Retrieved October 26, 2004, from http://commdocs.house.gov/committee/science /hsy88232.000 /hsy88232_0.htm
International Fire Service Training Association. (1993). Essential of Fire Fighting. (3rd. ed.).
Stillwater, OK: Fire Protection Publications. International Fire Service Training Association. (1998). Essential of Fire Fighting. (4th. ed.).
Stillwater, OK: Fire Protection Publications. Interventions to increase smoke detector use. (2000). Retrieved September 1, 2004, from
http://depts.washington/edu/hiprc/practices/topic/fireburns/use.html Invention facts and myths. (2002, August). Retrieved August 21, 2004, from
detector legislation. Injury Prevention. Retrieved on September 19, 2004, from http://ip.bmjournals.com/cgi/content/full/5/4/254
ISO’s PPC Program accurately measures the quality of public fire protection in 45,000 fire
districts across the country. (1996). Retrieved September 30, 2003, from http://www.iso.com/studies_analyses/ppc_program/index.html
Lewis, B. (2002). Managing in a cutback environment (1st ed.) Stillwater, OK: Fire Protection
Publications. McCourt, D. (1976, July 31). Public safety question is key to Muskegon – fireman row.
The Muskegon Chronicle, p.1-b.
44
Medendorp, L. (2000, October, 6). Fire prevention week goal: to focus on fire safety. The Muskegon Chronicle, p.1b.
Muskegon Fire Department. (1997). Muskegon fire department mission statement. Muskegon, MI: Author. Muskegon Fire Department. (2002). FEMA grant application 2002. Muskegon, MI: Author. National Fire Academy. (2002, June). Executive fire officer program operational policies and
procedures applied research guidelines. Emmitsburg, MD: Author. National Fire Academy. (2003, August). Leading community risk reduction. Emmitsburg, MD:
Author. National Fire Protection Association, (1999). National fire alarm code (NFPA 72). Quincy, MA:
Author. New website for kids’ ISO 14000 programme. (2004). Retrieved September 13, 2004, from
http://www.sai-global.com/newsroom/tgs/2004-05/newsbrief/newsbrief.htm NFPA honors Lacey, Wash., smoke alarm campaign with Jensen award. (2003, May 21).
Retrieved September 26, 2004, from http://firechief.com/news/firefighting_nfpa_honors_ lacey/index.html
90% of fire chiefs say ISO program is important to help them save lives and property, survey
shows. (2001). Retrieved on October 10, 2004, from http://www.iso.com/press_releases /2001 /02_21.html
Our mission, our vision, and our shared values. (2002). Retrieved October 23, 2004, from
http://statefarm.com/about/mission.htm Project: ICH smoke alarm give-away programme. (2003, October, 10). Retrieved
September 19, 2004, from http://www.rmd.odpm.gov.uk/project.asp?intProjectID=10830 Proposed NFPA standards 1710 and 1720 frequently asked questions. (2001). Retrieved
September 19, 2004, from http://www.nlc.org/nlcorg/site/policylegislation/ nfpa proposed_standards /index.cfm?&printable=1
Reindl, J. (1980, October 1). City faces reduction in services. The Muskegon Chronicle, pp.1-2. Report of the New South Wales health survey program. (2004). Retrieved September 19, 2004,
from http://www.health.nsw.gov.au/public-health/survey/hs02/prodout/_hard%20copy/ prelims/..%5C..%5Cproduct%Ctoc%5Cimjprev.htm
1, 2004, from http://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/pdf/tfgs/v1i25.pdf
http://www.nfpa.org/categoryList.asp?categoryID=278&URL=Research% 20&%20Reports/Safety%20fact%20sheets/Fire%20protection%20equipment/ Smoke%20alarms
Smoke detector- intervention to increase smoke detector use. (2004, August). Retrieved
September 19, 2004, from http://www.smartrisk.ca/ContentDirector.aspx?Prp=y &tp=1712
Technology administration NIST overview. (2004, July 21). Retrieved October 10, 2004, from
http://www.technology.gov/Menu_NIST.htm Test all smoke alarms (detectors) and annually replace batteries develop and rehearse an escape
plan. (2004). Retrieved June 23, 2004, from http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/pubs/5077. html
United States Fire Administration. (2000). Advocating shared responsibilities for improved
protection – solutions 2000. Emmitsburg, MD: Author. What city officials should know about senate bill 382 and nfpa 1710. (2002, February, 2).
Retrieved September 19, 2004, from http://tml.org/legisupdate 20202c_fire1710.htm When a community improves its fire protection, everyone benefits. (1996). Retrieved
October 10, 2004, from http://www.iso.com/studies_analyses/ppc_program/docs/p7.html Woodruff, C. (1965, April 1). Fire department’s safety effort best in state, nation. The Muskegon
Appendix A
Question form
1. Did your fire department or does your fire department participate in a smoke alarm give away program?
2. What were the requirements to received a smoke alarm? 3. How many smoke alarms have been distributed during the program?
4. Does your department have a smoke alarm check program? If so, how does it work?
5. Does your department install smoke alarms in residences? If so, how is it done?
6. Has you department experienced an increase or decrease in residential fires over the last fire years?
7. Does your department provide fire prevention education activities throughout the year to
your community, not including fire prevention week? If so, what are they?
8. Were there any fire related deaths or injuries in your community related to the lack of a working smoke alarm?
9. In you opinion, how can the fire departments in the county lessen community risks?
Abstract
Introduction