The Social Network & Community JUST for Firefighters
Will fire prevention strategies used in other countries work in the U.S.?
Foreign Concepts: Will fire prevention strategies used in other countries work in the U.S.?
By Jim Crawford
A great deal of attention is being given to the latest studies from Tri-Data and the Centers for Disease Control & Prevention on fire prevention efforts around the world (free download), and rightly so. But the results of the studies should be no surprise to the U.S. fire service, because quite simply, the rest of the industrialized world does a far better job of preventing fires than we do.
The United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Sweden and many others are devoted to a concept called integrated risk management. This simply means that there’s more than one way to mitigate the risks associated with fire. U.S. fire prevention personnel aren’t unfamiliar with the concept, but these other nations implement it more successfully—with measurable results. In some cases, fire deaths are more than 40 percent lower in these countries than in the United States.
Them & Us
We’ve made tremendous progress since the landmark report “America Burning” was released in 1973. At the time, the United States was losing more than 12,000 people each year to fire. Now our annual rate is closer to 3,500. But we know from other countries’ experience that we’re capable of 40 percent below that—which begs the question: How can we get there?
Differences in U.S. culture contribute to the challenge. We have a greater tendency to rely on the premise that insurance will cover our losses, only to find out that’s not the case when we’ve lost irreplaceable items, or worst of all, loved ones, in a fire. Few in the United States think that a fire is going to happen to them, or that it’s something for which they should prepare in advance.
Other nations reach out to their high-risk audiences, visiting them where they live. Home-safety visits aren’t a new concept to us in the States. In fact, the first instance I’ve been able to identify happened in 1914 in Portland, Ore., brought about by the fire marshal at the time. But few departments conduct home-safety visits with the thoroughness of our overseas colleagues.
These nations routinely partner with community agencies, working with housing providers to install smoke alarms, with home health agencies to spot vulnerable seniors, and with law enforcement to reduce cases of arson. Home visits are performed on those properties identified as having the highest incidence of fires and fire deaths and injuries. That’s an oversimplification, but I think it captures the heart of what we should try in the United States—and we will.
Testing It Out
The AFG program is funding just such an effort in the United States, by awarding a grant to the Washington State Association of Fire Marshals and a coalition of national partners to implement these types of programs. Portland, Ore.; Wilmington, N.C.; Dallas, Texas; and my department, Vancouver, Wash., are among the fire departments experimenting with this “new” concept.
It will be challenging to be sure, because unlike some other nations, the call volume for U.S. first responders includes EMS, which can put a strain on our ability to do anything other than respond to emergencies. The use of volunteers, like FireCorps (www.firecorps.org), may be necessary for crews too busy to do any door-to-door work themselves.
The heart of the effort will include what some departments, Dallas included, have already been trying: assessing high-risk areas, creating proactive mitigating strategies and following through on them. No doubt it will involve a more stringent look at smoke alarms, but as we know, that’s not the only way to deal with the fire problem.
Over the long term, our efforts will focus on increasing the installation of fire sprinklers, which are still the most efficient way to suppress fires where they begin. But the current non-sprinklered housing and building stock demands more immediate attention. Thus, our efforts must also include educating people about how to prevent the fires from occurring in the first place, not just making sure their safety devices work properly.
There will be some surprises, but we’re confident that if nothing else, we’ll be able to learn how these types of programs might be more widely used in the United States, where we tend to be oriented much more toward suppression and emergency response than prevention. Tough economic times demand new ways of thinking. Getting our firefighters to embrace a job description that actually (not just in theory) includes proactive thought and action centered on fire prevention will be a long process.
A Little Attention…
This effort aligns with Strategy 3 of Vision 20/20. If you’re interested in more frequent updates on Vision 20/20, check out the Web site, www.strategicfire.org. What encourages me is that the effort to get the fire service to more thoroughly embrace the value of prevention is receiving a great deal of attention. And through the efforts of this study, as well as concurrent activities like those being conducted by the Institution of Fire Engineers and the National Fallen Firefighters Foundation, we’ll be able to learn what works and what doesn’t for U.S. fire departments.
Jim Crawford is a deputy chief and fire marshal with the Vancouver (Wash.) Fire Department and is chair of the NFPA technical committee on professional qualifications for fire marshals. He has written “Fire Prevention: A Comprehensive Approach,” published by Brady, and has also written a chapter on fire prevention in “Managing Fire and Rescue Services,” published by the International City/County Managers Association. Crawford is a past president of the International Fire Marshals Association and has served on the NFPA’s Standards Council. He is a member of the IAFC.
Copyright © Elsevier Inc., a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
SUBSCRIBE to FIRERESCUE
Add a Comment
-
Comment by Berni on December 10, 2009 at 8:22am
-
Hello everyone! I want to tell you a few words about fire prevention in Austria (Europe). We have a very high level (and also a large number) of technical and construction standards. Every electric device, tool, construction component (and so on) must be tested by a authority or an authorized bureau. Many work must be performed by trained professionals (.. a professional worker has to learn 3-4 years on school and in companys, before he is allowed to work alone or on critical systems..). Furthermore buildings, plants and so on have to use required fire protection devices (hydrants, smoke detectors, automatic fire alarm systems to the next fire departments, sirenes,.. ) and the are regularly testet by government agencies . That is cheaper than repair or rebuild buildings destroyed by fires. In one year we have an average of 7 fire victims per Million inhabitants. And if the prevention does not help, we have over 332.000 volunteer firefighters who are able to reach each point in our country in less then 10 minutes. I hope, you find some interested things in my statement - for more information, send me a short message. Best regards, Bernd Krems
-
Comment by Vic Silverfish on December 4, 2009 at 9:27pm
-
Excellent column. John Crabbe, I very much enjoyed your comments as well. If I can give a view from both sides of the Pacific:
I don't know if the Europe/Asia approach will work as well in the US for a variety of reasons. The thought of government officials (firefighters) inspecting citizen's houses will not sit well, especially in the US's highly charged political climate. Improved building codes, educating children, smoke detector campaigns are all good, and I think they have saved a lot of lives. I'm not sure there is much more you can do in the US.
Interesting note: smoke detectors were not mandatory in single-family dwellings in NSW until about a year ago! Welcome to the 1970s, Australia!
-
Comment by John Crabbe on December 2, 2009 at 12:03am
-
we tend to be oriented much more toward suppression and emergency response than prevention. Tough economic times demand new ways of thinking. Getting our firefighters to embrace a job description that actually (not just in theory) includes proactive thought and action centered on fire prevention will be a long process.
Awhile back I attended the NFA for a public ed course and prior to going we had an assignment and was basically the same stuff here with prevention programs in Europe etc and why can't we do the same. I'll address this with how I addressed that assignment. First and foremost what needs to be taken into account is the way we live is different. In America we are more spread out in our communities and majority of people live in a type V constructed home. In other countries people are closer together and live in more fire resistive buildings and you don't see as much lightweight construction in other countries as you do here. What does that have to do with prevention? Nothing, but it has everything to do with response and suppression. It means we face challenges just in the very buildings we encounter fire in than do other countries and we still have to address those issues.
In home inspections may be a novel concept, but again we face challenges here you generally don't see overseas, a big one is distance. In areas covered by volunteer departments, it is difficult enough to get someone to even do prevention talks during fire prevention week, let alone go door to door. In municipal departments, you see staffing issues as it and on top of responses, you still have inspections of public buildings and businesses, as well as training for those challenges we do face here. Having companies go door to door would be a challenge at best. Then there is the simple fact the homeowner doesn't even let you in, we have seen such issues with a smoke alarm campaign.
In some countries a person spends time in a fire prevention role before becoming a company officer. OK, novel idea and people come back to the floor with a prevention minded attitude. Issue here in many departments how many prevention officers do you typically see? Not enough to fill roles for those looking to be company officers and the other thing is come budget time, most prevention areas are nice to haves, vs what we may need. Coming down to numbers it is easier to say we had xx calls in this district and here and we need to add personnel here, vs prevention being proactive, is difficult to really say how eefective some programs are.
Now this does not mean I am against education or fire prevention, just pointing out differences. The thing is even the best education is only as good as the person receiving it, meaning we can teach a person to be the safest they can, but you can't make them adhere it. In terms of even such safety initiatives like sprinkler requirements, etc, you see more enforcement overseas, whereas here you see resistance, especially from home builders because it cuts into profits.
Yes, getting firefighters to embrace a job description focused on proactive thought will be a challenge, but it can be obtained. When it comes to comparing such things though there are still many challenges we face here in the states that other countries don't. While we can strive for increased prevention roles, we can't ignore the training necessary for when fires do happen. We can't keep cutting firefighters and also increase the workload on them on prevention. We can't really make comparisons without looking at the differences either.
© 2024 Created by Firefighter Nation WebChief.
Powered by
You need to be a member of My Firefighter Nation to add comments!
Join My Firefighter Nation