Public Fire Education Planning: A Five Step Process

For more information or copies of this publication, please contact:

Department of Homeland Security

U.S. Fire Administration

16825 South Seton Avenue

Emmitsburg, Maryland 21727

800-561-3356

www.usfa.dhs.gov

FA-219/June 2008

U. S. Fire Administration

Public Fire Education Planning

A Five Step Process

FA-219/June 2008

Public Fire Education Planning - A Five Step Process

U.S. Fire Administration

Mission Statement

We provide National leadership to foster a solid foundation

for local fire and emergency services for prevention,

preparedness and response.

To the Reader:

Public Fire Education Planning: A Five-Step Process describes a systematic approach to designing, im-

plementing, and evaluating community safety education programs.

This manual will help those of you who are new to community safety education understand

some of the basic concepts about how to get started with an organization’s community safety

education programs. It also will assist you with some hints and techniques on a variety of

topics, such as methods for locating partners to assist with community education or tech-

niques for locating resources for your safety programs.

Acknowledgment:

The contributions of the following subject matter experts are gratefully acknowledged:

Management Systems

Training & Technology Co.

1331 Pennsylvania Ave., NW

Suite 1415

Washington, DC

Ed Kirtley, Chief,

City of Guymon Fire Department

Guymon, Oklahoma

Mike Weller

Life Safety Education

Hagerstown Fire Department

Hagerstown, Maryland

USFA Project Team

John Cochran,

Fire Management Specialist

Kathleen Gerstner,

Public Fire Education Specialist

Gerry Bassett,

Training Specialist

Table of Contents

Public Fire Education Planning:

A Five-Step Process

Introduction

Chapter 1

Step 1: Conduct a Community Risk Analysis ............................................................................................ 1-1

Identify Data to be Analyzed ....................................................................................................................... 1-3

Develop a Community Risk Proﬁle ............................................................................................................ 1-14

Write a Problem Statement ....................................................................................................................... 1-16

Prioritize Issues ......................................................................................................................................... 1-17

Identify Target Areas and Populations ........................................................................................................ 1-19

Chapter 2

Step 2: Develop Community Partnerships ................................................................................................ 2-1

Identify Possible Partners ............................................................................................................................ 2-2

Interpret Community Risks and Problems................................................................................................... 2-3

Form a Community Planning Team ............................................................................................................. 2-4

Chapter 3

Step 3: Create an Intervention Strategy .................................................................................................... 3-1

Review Data about Risks and Target Populations ......................................................................................... 3-3

Identify Places for Intervention ................................................................................................................... 3-3

Identify Target Populations and Locations ................................................................................................... 3-4

Identify Interventions ................................................................................................................................. 3-7

Identify Resources Required ..................................................................................................................... 3-10

Develop the Evaluation Strategy ................................................................................................................ 3-12

Chapter 4

Step 4: Implement the Strategy ................................................................................................................. 4-1

Conduct Pilot of Intervention ..................................................................................................................... 4-3

Establish Responsibilities and Timetable ...................................................................................................... 4-4

Market Intervention Programs .................................................................................................................... 4-6

Initiate Activities.......................................................................................................................................... 4-8

Monitor Progress......................................................................................................................................... 4-8

Report Progress Periodically ........................................................................................................................ 4-9

Chapter 5

Step 5: Evaluate the Results ....................................................................................................................... 5-1

Collect Data ................................................................................................................................................. 5-2

Compare Data to Baseline............................................................................................................................ 5-3

Note Interventions as Necessary.................................................................................................................. 5-5

Modify Interventions as Necessary .............................................................................................................. 5-6

Report Results to Sponsoring Organization and Community ...................................................................... 5-7

Conclusion

Bibliography

Appendix

Five-Step Process Summary

Step 1: Conduct a Community Risk Analysis

A community risk analysis is a process that identiﬁes ﬁre and life safety problems and the

demographic characteristics of those at risk in a community.

Step 2: Develop Community Partnerships

A community partner is a person, group, or organization willing to join forces and address

a community risk. The most effective risk reduction efforts are those that involve the com-

munity in the planning and solution process.

Step 3: Create an Intervention Strategy

An intervention strategy is the beginning of the detailed work necessary for the development

of a successful ﬁre or life safety risk reduction process. The most successful risk reduction ef-

forts involve combined prevention interventions:

Education: Providing information (facts) about risk and prevention.

Engineering: Using technology to create safer products or modifying the environ-

ment where the risk is occurring.

Enforcement: Rules that require the use of a safety initiative.

Step 4: Implement the Strategy

Implementing the strategy involves testing the interventions and then putting the plan into

action in the community. It is essential that the implementation is well-coordinated and se-

quenced appropriately. Implementation occurs when the intervention strategy is put in place

and the implementation plan schedules are followed.

Step 5: Evaluate the Results

The primary goal of the evaluation process is to demonstrate that the risk reduction efforts

are reaching target populations, have the planned impact, and are demonstrably reducing

loss. The evaluation plan measures performance on several levels, outcome, impact, and pro-

cess objectives.

iii

Conduct a

Community

Risk

Analysis

Develop

Community

Partnerships

Create an

Intervention

Strategy

Implement

the

Strategy

Evaluate

the

Results

Identify Data

to be

Analyzed

Identify

Possible

Partners

Review Data

about Risks and

Ta rget Populations

Conduct Pilot of

Intervention; Revise

as Necessary

Collect

Data

Develop a

Community Risk

Proﬁle

Interpret

Community Risks

and Problems

Identify Places

for

Intervention

Establish

Responsibilities

and Timetable of

Activities

Compare Data

Baseline

Write a

Problem

Statement

Form a

Community

Planning Team

Identify Ta rget

Populations

and Locations

Market

Intervention

Programs

Note

Interventions

as Necessary

Prioritize

Issues

Identify

Interventions

Initiate

Activities

Modify

Interventions as

Necessary

Identify Ta rget

Areas and

Populations

Identify

Resources

Required

Monitor

Progress

Report Results

to Sponsoring

Organization and

Community

Develop the

Evaluation

Strategy

Report

Progress

Periodically

Introduction

Introduction - 1

The purpose of this guide

Today ﬁre departments use many terms for educational ﬁre and injury prevention programs.

Programs differ in size and approach, but the goals are the same: Change the behavior of the

public so that there are fewer dangerous situations, ﬁres, and injuries.

This guide uses a ﬁve-step planning process for developing and implementing successful ﬁre

and life safety public education programs. From identifying the ﬁre and injury risks in the

community, developing and implementing a program, and evaluating the results, planning

is the process that ensures that the program strategies and initiatives really address the prob-

lems. This guide takes you step by step through that planning process.

A successful program follows a ve-step process:

1. Conduct a community analysis.

2. Develop community partnerships.

3. Create an intervention strategy.

4. Implement the strategy.

5. Evaluate the results.

The temptation to “just get something implemented” is hard to resist. Unfortunately, this is a

trap. Yes, it’s easy to schedule some presentations at a school; pass out brochures, stickers, and

plastic helmets; and do some media interviews. But do those presentations address the com-

munity’s worst ﬁre or injury problems? Do the solutions being promoted really work? Is the

appropriate target audience even being reached? Are community groups working together?

Is the program being implemented in the best way?

A “ready, ﬁre, aim” approach will not hit the target. It can give the impression that the depart-

ment is out there educating the public, but may achieve little else. Successfully reducing ﬁres

and preventable injuries involves effective community planning. Notable public education

programs around the country always prove this to be true.

This updated guide recognizes that ﬁre prevention is now an important part of the larger

goal of preventing injuries and unsafe situations. Fire departments often provide emergency

medical services. Preventing injury, illness, and other unsafe situations is often part of the

mission of saving lives.

What is the history of public education?

America Burning

Public education as an important component of a ﬁre department’s mission came to the fore-

front when America Burning was published in 1973. This report of the National Commission on

Fire Prevention and Control, the forerunner of the United States Fire Administration (USFA),

provided both insight into the scope of the American ﬁre problem and possible solutions.

America Burning identiﬁed the need for public education as part of an overall prevention strat-

egy. “Public education about ﬁre has been cited by many Commission witnesses and others

as the single activity with the greatest potential for reducing losses.”

Motivational Psychology Fire Prevention Study

In 1974, Richard Strother published a report called “A Study of Motivational Psychology

Related to Fire Prevention Behavior in Children and Adults,” one of the ﬁrst scientiﬁc studies

to document the effectiveness of public education messages. It also demonstrated the impor-

tance of evaluation as an essential part of a public education program.

Public Fire Education Planning: A Five-Step Process

In 1977, the National Fire Prevention and Control Administration published a program for

public educators detailing an effective planning model. Public Fire Education Planning: A Five-Step

Process is a model that’s been used for years by public educators to develop and implement

ﬁre safety education programs. The basic approach is still applicable today; however, changes

in culture and the scope of problems require the updated planning model provided in this

guide.

Learn Not to Burn

In 1979, the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) introduced a new ﬁre safety cur-

riculum for use in elementary schools; Learn Not to Burn

was the ﬁrst nationally available

school-based curriculum to address ﬁre safety behaviors for young children. The curriculum

is based on research into the ﬁre problem, the needs and characteristics of the target audi-

ence, and the behaviors appropriate for the target audience. In other words, Learn Not to Burn

is the culmination of a public education planning process.

Reaching the Hard to Reach

In 1981, the TriData Corporation, in cooperation with the USFA, published Reaching the Hard

to Reach. This document emphasizes the need for local-level planning to identify the best ap-

proaches for reaching difﬁcult-to-reach target audiences.

Introduction - 2

National Commission on Fire Prevention and Control, America Burning: The Report of the National Commission on Fire

Prevention and Control (Washington: U.S. Fire Administration, 1973) 105.

Introduction - 3

National Safe Kids Campaign

A new public education era began in 1988 when SAFE KIDS Worldwide was initiated in Wash-

ington, DC. The campaign is a cooperative effort between the National Children’s Hospital

and Johnson & Johnson Corporation. The goal is to reduce preventable childhood injuries,

including those from ﬁre. Safe Kids focuses on two key messages. First, public education initia-

tives must be based on local problems and target the people at risk. Each community must

conduct its own planning process to identify speciﬁc problems and the best methods for

addressing them. Secondly, any local initiative must involve the entire community. One orga-

nization alone can’t make a big impact in preventing ﬁres and injuries. Fire departments are

recognizing that preventable injuries are as much of a problem in their communities as ﬁres.

Today, many ﬁre departments have accepted the concept of working with other organizations,

and have become key members of local Safe Kids coalitions.

Risk Watch

In 1995, the NFPA began working with the National Safe Kids Campaign to develop an all-risk

injury prevention curriculum called Risk Watch

. Again, effective planning proved to be a key

to the project’s success. Using the planning process, the NFPA was able to identify the major

risk areas for children, determine appropriate messages and behaviors, and develop success-

ful methods for teaching the behaviors and messages. Risk Watch

is now an effective public

education tool.

Lessons Learned

Since 1973, there have been many lessons learned about what constitutes effective public

education initiatives at the local level. Experience shows that successful programs have the

following characteristics:

• There is strong individual and organizational commitment to the public education

initiatives. The initiatives involve more than a few presentations and distribution of bro-

chures. Successful public educators understand the amount of effort involved and commit

themselves to a long-term approach. In addition, the organization’s leaders understand

that the program requires full organizational commitment that includes time for person-

nel to work on the program, resources required to buy materials and equipment, and

most importantly, visible program support from all department members and other local

decisionmakers.

• The program is based on a comprehensive planning process that identies commu-

nity re and injury problems, and the people most likely to be involved. Few, if any,

successful programs are haphazard. Organizations with successful programs have used a

planning process. In some cases this takes time. In other cases (for example, in a small

community with a speciﬁc problem) the process may be shorter. The complete planning

process should be used by organizations of all sizes.

Introduction - 4

• Partnerships are established so that the community as a whole is involved in the so-

lutions. Solutions to ﬁre and injury problems can be complex. Several local organiza-

tions should form a team and work together to solve community safety problems. This

approach brings a variety of resources to bear on the problem and reduces the cost to

any one organization. Everyone has a vested interest in the success of the program and in

improving the quality of life of the target audience.

• There is an evaluation of the program’s results and processes. Evaluation is crucial to

determining if a program’s goals have been achieved, and essential to planning future

programs. Evaluation identiﬁes what worked, what didn’t work, and what to do in the

future to be successful. The evaluation also provides the ammunition needed to market

the program to the community.

What has improved?

Public education, along with engineering and enforcement (the three E’s), have reduced ﬁres

and related deaths, burn injuries, and other types of preventable injuries. Consider the fol-

lowing ﬁre and injury statistics:

• From1995to2004,overallreincidentsdeclinedsteadilyby20percent.

• Thenumberofannualdeathsduetoredeclined21percentfrom1995to2004.Now

the annual average is fewer than 4,000 deaths each year.

• From1995to2004,thenumberofinjuriesfromresidentialresdecreasedby29per-

cent.

• Thedeathratefromreamongchildren14andunderdeclinedby68percentfrom1987

to 2005.

• Theoverall unintentional injury-relateddeathrateamongchildren14 and under de-

creased by 45 percent between 1987 and 2005.

However, additional statistics indicate that more work is needed. Consider some different

statistics:

• Thegreatestnumbersofredeathsoccurinthehome,withthemajorityinone-and

two-family dwellings.

• In2005, morethan1,400childoccupants(0-14)died inmotorvehiclecrashesand

nearly half were unrestrained. In the same year, 203,000 child occupants were injured.

• Everyyearmorethan5,000Americanchildrenages14andunderdiefromunintentional

injury

Introduction - 5

• Theelderly,theyoung,andthepoorcontinuetobeatasignicantlyhigherlevelofrisk

from ﬁre than the average person.

• WhileAfrican-Americansaccountfor13percentofthepopulation,theyaccountfor24

percent of the annual ﬁre deaths.

• Theamountofannualpropertylossduetoreeachyearaverages$11billion.

What needs to be done in the future?

The 2000 USFA report, America Burning Recommissioned, states, "There is wide acknowledgement

and acceptance that public education programs on ﬁre prevention are effective...no preven-

tion effort can succeed without a public education component."

Fire service leaders and public educators responsible for programs must use new educational

approaches, methods, and processes, such as the following:

• Greater organizational focus on prevention. Fire departments must continue to increase

the emphasis on prevention initiatives. Prevention is an important, cost-effective risk re-

duction tool. Fire chiefs, ﬁre marshals, public educators, and all ﬁre service leaders must

be advocates for these initiatives. They should be the national leaders in ﬁre and injury

prevention efforts.

• Improved data collection and analysis. This directly supports the need for better plan-

ning. Currently, information on ﬁres is available in most States through the National Fire

Incident Reporting System (NFIRS). However, there are voids in available information.

It is essential that each community gather data on ﬁres and preventable injuries. This re-

quires collaboration with agencies such as law enforcement, hospitals, burn units, health

departments, and State ﬁre marshals. Data analysis is part of the overall planning process,

as well as the development of an effective public education program.

• Integrated use of prevention interventions. The most effective prevention programs

incorporate education, code enforcement, and engineering interventions in one com-

prehensive prevention strategy. The three interventions working together hit the problem

from all sides so the ability to reduce deaths and injuries is improved dramatically.

• Improved technology. Safety technology is progressing rapidly. No longer are the smoke

alarm and automatic sprinkler system the only prevention tools available to the public

educator. New technologies include digital projectors, ﬁre detection systems that provide

building occupants with more time to escape from a ﬁre, and computers that increase the

ability of the public educator to reach others with prevention messages. These technolo-

gies must be part of the public educator's toolbox and be integrated into education and

prevention programs.

U.S. Fire Administration, America Burning Recommissioned (Washington: Author, 2000) 24.

Introduction - 6

• Higher level of prevention and public education training for emergency services per-

sonnel. Fireﬁghters and emergency medical technicians (EMTs) are routinely delivering

public education presentations and assisting with public education activities. They must

be adequately trained in educational methods. NFPA 1001, Standard for Fire Fighter Profes-

sional Qualiﬁcation requires new ﬁreﬁghters to have the skills to deliver a public education

presentation from a prepared lesson plan. NFPA 1021, Standard for Fire Ofﬁcers, speciﬁes

the requirement of the ability to deliver presentations and also to develop a department

public education program. These skills can be included in job descriptions and speciﬁed

as a prerequisite for promotion. Every emergency service provider is a public educator at

some level, and can beneﬁt from public education training.

• Changing the current paradigms about the causes of re and injuries. The term “ac-

cident” has been used for years to describe the cause of ﬁres and injuries. By deﬁnition,

an accident is an uncontrolled event—something that cannot be predicted or prevented.

When matches are left in the reach of a young child and that child starts a ﬁre with

them, it is not an accident. It is an incident that could have been prevented. When a ﬁre

occurs in a home without a working smoke alarm and the residents are killed, it is not

an accident. A working smoke alarm and education on home escape plans can prevent

these deaths. The public educator must teach the public that injuries and ﬁres are seldom

accidents. Rather, they are predictable events that can be prevented through education,

enforcement, and engineering initiatives.

Can I make a difference?

This is a question that many newly-appointed public educators ask. The answer is, without a

doubt, yes! Public education has proved itself over and over as an effective prevention strate-

gy. The SAFE KIDS Worldwidecampaignestimatesthat,onaverage,a$33smokealarmgenerates

$940inbenetstosociety,suchasmedicalcostsandothercostsassociatedwithresuppres-

sion and property loss. What a return on an investment of one dollar! Safe Kids also estimates

that as many as 90 percent of unintentional injuries to children can be prevented.

Community risk reduction uses prevention processes to reduce or eliminate hazards and risks

in the community, thus reducing the frequency and severity of ﬁres and injuries. This effort

requires planning. But the foundation for success is laid long before the planning step. First,

it’s important to have proactive individual and organizational attitudes about the community

education program, and a strong personal and organizational commitment to making the

program achieve its goals and objectives.

The community educator is the heart and the soul of the program. This person must motivate

others to be involved and support the program. A sound, rational argument for your commu-

nity education program is important. However, a positive attitude and strong commitment is

what actually convinces others that a program should be implemented.

Introduction - 7

Department and community members will assess the level of commitment on the part of the

department leadership. Does the ﬁre chief support community education? Is the ﬁre chief

providing money, time, and people for the program? Do the ﬁre chief and other senior of-

ﬁcers make community education part of day-to-day operations? When others see that com-

munity education is part of the department’s mission, they will lend their support. Commu-

nity involvement is needed to be successful.

What is my personal commitment?

Several speciﬁc actions are needed to build and maintain an effective planning process and a

successful community education program. These actions become a personal action plan.

Do the right things and do things right. It is important to have an understanding of the steps

that must be completed in order to establish a sound program. This includes completing a

planning process, gaining support of the department leaders, and developing a partnership

with the community. Take the time to do quality work. Short cuts seldom work and often

take more time to ﬁx than doing it right from the start. Be dependable and willing to do your

share.

Invest the required time and effort. Organizing successful community education initiatives

takes time, resources, and support. It takes time to build a community partnership and to

develop a relationship with the target audience.

Follow a proven successful process to identify and reduce community risk. This guide

provides a proven method for conducting a planning process. However, take the time to read

journal articles and textbooks on community education. If possible, attend the National Fire

Academy (NFA) community education courses, or similar courses taught at the State or local

level. It helps to learn several proven methods of planning community education and risk

reduction. Get insight into programs that have been less than successful and avoid falling into

the same traps.

Collect data and be objective. No one knows all the answers to solving ﬁre and injury prob-

lems. Be objective in your decisionmaking and in the use of educational methods. Before

guessing about the community’s problems and risks collect accurate data. Don’t rely on intu-

ition to determine solutions. Instead, meet with the target audience and the other members

of the community team. Get as much information as you can from them and then analyze

what the information means. If needed, get help in the analysis but don’t get stuck in ‘‘pa-

ralysis from analysis.’’ Step forward, make decisions, and move ahead.

It is easy to become protective of department initiatives and programs, even to the point

of excluding other agencies. Be willing to give up sole program ownership and encour-

age others to share ownership

Introduction - 8

Be a community education activist. In any great change effort there are always leaders who

step forward and lead the charge. That person, the public educator, becomes a cheerleader,

an organizer, a promoter, a recruiter, and a coordinator all in one. Get others excited about

the possibilities of reducing ﬁres and injuries through community education, and then chan-

nel that excitement into action and involvement. Enthusiasm will get others on the team.

Continually discuss community education programs with department leaders so they stay

committed.

The toughest task is winning the support of other department members. Take the time to

listen and consider their program recommendations and recruit assistance in marketing

the program to the community.

Why is organizational support so important?

Organizational commitment is essential for success. There may be some short-term victories

without organizational commitment, but long-term, community-changing results will not

be possible.

There are several tangible beneﬁts that come with organizational support. First, department

resources are available more readily. This includes the most valuable department resource—

its people.

Secondly, ﬁre department leaders will help make connections with other leaders in the com-

munity. Fire chiefs are active in the community and interact regularly with other leaders. The

chief will facilitate introductions to the other leaders so the public educator can promote the

community education initiative directly to decisionmakers. In short, the ﬁre chief can open

doors easily that otherwise might require a great deal of effort.

Finally, when the organization is supporting community education initiatives publicly it

sends a signal to other community organizations and agencies: Reducing ﬁres and injuries in

our community is important! When your department supports community education, other

community partners will get on board.

What department actions support community education?

Organizational commitment for community education is not a one-time thing. It’s an all-the-

time effort that becomes a part of the department culture. This level of commitment takes

strong leadership from the public safety educator. It is not easy to achieve. These points are

key: 1) Community education can reduce ﬁres and injuries effectively when used as part of

the department’s overall prevention strategy; 2) It may take months or years for community

education initiatives to be fully effective; 3) The community looks to the ﬁre department for

leadership; and 4) Effective community education requires a partnership.

Introduction - 9

Make sure the chief understands what community education is, and what is required to

have a successful education program. Educate the chief and other decisionmakers and

leaders about community education.

The following paragraphs discuss several organizational actions that are important in order

for a community education program to be effective and to achieve its goals.

Institutionalize community education as an organizational value. Fire suppression is a

program deeply ingrained as a department value. Fireﬁghters don't argue that ﬁre suppres-

sion is a key mission of the department. The same should be true for community education.

Community ﬁre and life safety education should be included in the mission statement. It

should be part of the department's budget. Job descriptions should include community edu-

cation as a required duty, and personnel should be trained as community educators. Com-

munity education should be part of the department's overall prevention strategy.

Commit department resources to the community education program. Community edu-

cation, just like any other department program, requires resources. Those resources include

money and people. Some community education initiatives require a multiyear commitment

from the department. For example, school-based education programs such as the NFPA's Risk

Watch must be used in the classroom over a period of years to be effective.

Identify the short- and long-term resources required for any community education program.

Make decisionmakers aware of all the resources required for the program when gaining their

support. This information allows decisionmakers to budget to meet ongoing needs.

The public demands that ﬁre suppression crews be staffed adequately and have the ap-

paratus and equipment necessary to put out ﬁres and respond to EMS emergencies. The

community educator should avoid demanding the same funding as suppression: This

will alienate the ﬁre chief and operational personnel. Rather, work with the ﬁre chief to

obtain the resources necessary for success while respecting the needs and roles of other

department programs, including suppression.

Community education is made a department activity. The ﬁre departments with the most

successful community education programs all share one common strategy: every person on

the department is a community educator. This includes ﬁreﬁghters, code inspectors, investi-

gators, and even administrative personnel. Everyone must be involved in the overall commu-

nity education program. When this happens a multitude of resources become available.

Introduction - 10

Decisionmakers and senior ofcers are taught the process of re and injury prevention.

Senior ofﬁcers should receive training on how to develop a prevention strategy which in-

cludes conducting a community risk analysis, identifying the appropriate strategies to reduce

the problems, and methods for involving the community in the prevention program.

Senior ofﬁcers and department leaders ﬁnd it difﬁcult to support what they don’t understand.

Identify training opportunities such as the NFA’s Community Education Leadership and Strategic

Analysis of Community Risk Reduction courses. Similar State and local training programs also may

be available.

Encourage the senior ofﬁcers and decisionmakers to take these classes as part of their

professional development. The lessons and skills they learn will be an asset to you and

the community education program.

Prevention strategies include adopting and enforcing up-to-date re safety codes and

standards, and building plans review. A comprehensive prevention program includes com-

munity education, adopting ﬁre and life safety codes, code enforcement, and building plans

review. Education alone will not be fully effective.

Expand prevention strategies to include injury prevention. In many communities the

greatest risk to the health of the public is not ﬁre, but rather more generally preventable in-

juries. Most departments provide some level of emergency medical services (EMS), so injury

prevention should be part of the department’s prevention mission.

The community educator should have a good relationship with the re chief. The educa-

tor must make a commitment to building and maintaining a good working relationship with

the chief. What does a good relationship involve? Here are some important considerations:

• Trust. Part of the relationship with the ﬁre chief is mutual trust. A ﬁre chief must be able

to trust the information being provided by an educator. Always be completely truthful,

even if it’s painful to do so.

• Mutual Respect. Respect the fact that there are more programs to consider than just com-

munity education. There are times that resources requested are not going to be available

because of other department priorities.

• Acting proactively. Look to the future and have at least a 2- to 3-year plan for the pro-

gram. Maintain a community planning process. Advanced planning helps to align depart-

ment resources more effectively for program support.

Introduction - 11

• Seek to understand before being understood. Take the time to learn about the rest of the

department’s programs and needs and then relate the education program’s needs in those

terms.

• Play by the rules. It is tempting to bend the rules and to go outside regular channels to

get things done. But this strategy breaks down mutual trust. There are always rules and

policies. Learn them and use them effectively.

• Do a few things well. Identify the highest priorities for the community through a plan-

ning process, and then attack those priorities with all the resources available so that the

program will be successful.

Summary

Success comes from building internal support for community education, understanding the

role the community educator plays in successful programs, and creating an organization that

is focused on prevention and community education. The community educator must be the

leader in this process, and be responsible for guiding and educating other people and groups.

The “ﬁve-step” process outlined in this guide is a key to success. It really works!

The public educator must complete the planning process by determining the most serious

ﬁre and/or injury problems facing the community and the best solutions. Then he or she

must be willing to reach out to the community and work with other agencies as part of a

community team. Finally, program results must be evaluated correctly.

This guide provides you with information to develop the skills for conducting a basic but ef-

fective planning process. Through the years, the lessons and processes have proved effective.

It’s now up to you to use the planning process as the foundation for your public education

Conduct a

Community

Risk

Analysis

Develop

Community

Partnerships

Create an

Intervention

Strategy

Implement

the

Strategy

Evaluate

the

Results

Indentify Data

to be

Analyzed

Develop a

Community Risk

Proﬁle

Write a

Problem

Statement

Prioritize

Issues

Identify Ta rget

Areas and

Populations

Step 1: Conduct a Community Risk Analysis

1-1

Chapter 1

Step 1: Conduct a Community Risk Analysis

Introduction

What is a community risk analysis? A community risk analysis is a process that identiﬁes ﬁre

and life safety problems and the demographic characteristics of those at risk in a community.

A thorough risk analysis provides insight into the worst ﬁre and life safety problems and the

people who are affected. The analysis results create the foundation for developing risk reduc-

tion and community education programs.

Conducting a community risk analysis is the ﬁrst step toward deciding which ﬁre or injury

problem needs to be addressed. Risk analysis is a planned process that must be ongoing, as

communities and people are constantly changing.

Why conduct a community risk analysis? Fire and rescue departments must use facts in

order to correctly identify leading safety risks that need attention. A community risk analysis

will provide these data.

Consider this: A group of people decide to plan a trip. How will they know the best route to

take without knowing where their starting point is? Likewise, it is important to know where

a community is before beginning a community education program that will reach a risk re-

duction goal.

Too often, an objective and systematic community risk analysis is a step that is overlooked in

the community education process. Many emergency service organizations address risks based

on a perceived need for service that isn’t really there. An educator may want to teach people

about something that is not a problem, perhaps just because a particular subject is interesting.

First, it will be hard to get people to participate in an unnecessary program. Second, nothing

actually will be accomplished. This approach can be costly in terms of misdirected resources,

continued property loss, injuries, and deaths.

Examples

• An organization reads about a high occurrence of electrical ﬁres in a neighboring com-

munity and decides to begin a campaign to address these types of ﬁres.

However, a data analysis of its own community’s ﬁre occurrences reveals that it has very

few electrical ﬁres. What it does have is a large number of unattended cooking ﬁres.

Result: Because its campaign is misdirected to electrical ﬁres, cooking ﬁres and related

injuries continue.

1-2

• An organization located in the northeastern United States reads of swimming pool drown-

ings occurring in the southwestern part of the country. The organization begins a safe

swimming campaign.

If this organization looked carefully at community data, it would identify that only two

swimming pool drownings had occurred in the prior 10 years. Further study would have

revealed a large number of child pedestrian injuries and deaths.

Result: Because its campaign is misdirected toward deaths by drowning, child pedestrian

injuries and deaths continue.

It is easy to become distracted from local issues by big media splashes about national hap-

penings. Don’t let that happen. Stay focused! Invest the time to conduct an objective com-

munity risk analysis. Having facts about the leading causes of risk and the people being

affected will set the stage for a successful risk reduction process.

Objectivity means using reliable data to make conclusions based on facts, not beliefs.

What does a community risk analysis include? A community risk analysis includes ﬁve

important activities:

1. Identify data to be analyzed.

2. Develop a Community Risk Proﬁle.

3. Write a problem statement.

4. Prioritize issues.

5. Identify target areas and populations.

The analysis provides a factual overview of the risk issues, using the information obtained,

and should be used to develop a risk reduction proposal. This will produce a picture of what

is wrong and who is at risk.

1-3

Identify Data to be Analyzed

What is problem-related information?

Problem-related information identiﬁes three things:

1. The leading causes of community risks.

2. Where problems are occurring.

3. Who is being affected by the risk.

Problem-related information is obtained by conducting research, asking questions, and mak-

ing comparisons based on quality data.

COMMUNITY ANALYSIS

PEOPLE PROBLEM

Ta rget Audience

Characteristics of

Audience

Relationship of

Audience to Problem

Nature of Fire/Injury

Problem

People Affected by Problem

Cause of Problem

Solution to Problem

Figure 1: Community Analysis.

How do you locate problem-related information?

Here is an example. A ﬁre department in Safe City, USA, wants to examine the leading cause(s)

of ﬁre in the community

1-4

The ﬁre department locates valid data sources to identify the leading causes of ﬁre in Ameri-

ca. Sources include the NFPA and the USFA. National injury data also can be sought from the

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the National Safe Kids Coalition. Na-

tional sources are sought so a comparison can be made to State and local data. The National

Fire Data Center Web site provides community educators with published statistical informa-

tion on the national ﬁre problem.

Figure 2: U.S. Fire Administration Web site.

A community educator can log onto the Internet, go to the USFA and NFPA Web sites, and

instantly review a proﬁle of the national ﬁre problem.

These organizations are reviewing data regularly from NFIRS. This allows them to build a

national proﬁle of how many ﬁres and other incidents occur, note their causes, and indicate

where they occur and who is affected. A copy of one page of the NFIRS report form is on the

next page.

LOCAL STATE FEDERAL

1-5

Figure 3: NFIRS Form.

1-6

The ﬁre department locates data sources to identify the leading causes of ﬁre in the State.

State data, usually available from the State ﬁre marshal’s ofﬁce, should be used to make a

comparison to national and local data.

Some examples of State data include a comparison of your State’s ﬁre deaths to those of the

whole United States. This information will provide an indicator of the magnitude of the

problem in your State. The bar chart in Figure 5 illustrates such a comparison.

25+ Deaths per Million Population

18-25 Deaths per Million Population

11-18 Deaths per Million Population

Under 11 Deaths per Million Population

Note: 1995 data from Indiana and Nevada are

incomplete. 1994 data are shown.

Sources: State Fire Marshals and the United States

Fire Administration.

Fire Death Rate by State in 1995

Figure 4: Death Rates by State.

1-7

86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95

100

86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95

NEVADA NEW HAMPSHIRE

PENNSYLVANIA RHODE ISLAND

Fire death rate

per 1,000,000

population

Average U.S.

re death rate

per 1,000,000

population

10- Year Fire Death Rate by State

Compared to National Average

Figure 5: Comparison of State and

National Fire Deaths by Year.

1-8

The ﬁre department examines local ﬁre/injury experience data to identify the extent and

leading causes of community ﬁre/injury. Sources include ﬁre department incident records,

local hospital records, and local health department records. Additional injury data may be

available from other community organizations, such as the local Safe Kids Coalition.

It is most important to identify the leading causes of risk at the local level. Local issues may

be different from those at the State and national level. Local data are by far the most impor-

tant source of information. It is through local data that speciﬁc risks in your community are

identiﬁed.

Figure 6 gives an example of local data compared to State and national data on injuries by

cause of injury.

Figure 6: Local Injuries by Cause.

The goal is to identify the leading causes of ﬁre/injury at the national, State, and local level.

It is important to examine all levels so that comparisons can be provided to potential partners

from the local community.

If an organization does not have a formal data collection system, it is never too late to start

one! Potential sources to assist with learning how to collect data are listed at the end of this

section.

Injuries by Cause

How much local problem information is needed?

Quite a bit of information is required in order to draw accurate conclusions. Even though

national and State information is available, it is critical to develop the same type of proﬁle at

the local level.

Examine at least 3 years (more if possible) of data. This will allow the identiﬁcation of a

baseline (average) of how many times a speciﬁc incident occurs annually. The smaller the

community, the further the history search should be extended.

Leading Causes of Home Fires and Deaths

1993-1997 Annual Averages

Figure 7: Annual Average Comparison of Home Fires and Deaths.

It is easy to create a simple database from existing run sheets. This allows the ﬁre department

to identify ﬁre and injury causes and their occurrences.

For example the following activity report can be used to study the ﬁre problem in your city.

1-9

Susp.

Dist.

Playing

1-10

Aug.

2001

Aug.

2000

Year to

Date

2001

Year to

Date

2000

SUPPRESSION

Total Incidents 150 156 1,218 1,102

Estimated Loss 6,102 265,905 854,642 657,654

Multiple Alarm Fires 0 1 1 2

Average Number of Firefighters Per Incident 7 7 8 7

Average Response Time 2:41 2:24 2:38 2:44

Average Time Spent Per Incident 19:16 23:38 22:36 26:56

Civilians Injured 0 1 7 5

Civilian Fatalities 0 0 0 0

Civilians Rescued/Revived 0 0 0 1

TRAINING

Monthly In-House Training Hours Provided 0 0 20.5 26.5

Firefighters Injured 0 0 6 2

Firefighter Fatalities 0 0 0 0

INVESTIGATIONS

False Alarms 6 4 48 40

False Alarm Arrests 0 0 1 2

False Alarm Convictions 0 0 1 2

Incendiary Fires/Fireworks 5/0 6/0 30/0 23/0

Arson Arrests/Fireworks 1/0 6/0 21/0 17/0

Arson Convictions/Fireworks 1/0 2/0 19/0 10/0

INSPECTIONS

Total Inspections 84 125 711 848

Site and Building Plans Reviewed 28 22 164 174

Citizen Complaints Received about Fire Violations 1 0 6 6

Number of Appeals 0 0 0 1

Legal Action Taken 0 0 0 0

PREVENTION/EDUCATION

Free Smoke Detectors Installed 15 6 215 236

Public Education Programs

(Children’s Village - 1; School - 0; Other 1) 9 11 134 131

People in Attendance

(Children’s Village - 30; School - 0; Other - 30) 450 340 5,890 4,935

Media Articles/Programs 6 15 74 90

’

Figure 8: Local Activity Report.

Activity Report for August 2001

Fire Department

Safe City Example

The Safe City, USA, ﬁre department responds to 100 structure ﬁres each year. The ﬁre

department decides to examine 10 years of structure ﬁre experience data to identify the

leading structure ﬁre cause in Safe City.

The Safe City Fire Department discovers it has responded most often to ﬁres resulting

from unattended cooking: 400 such calls over a 10-year period. To determine the aver-

age number of cooking ﬁres per year, divide the total number of cooking ﬁres in the

10-year study (400) by the number of years in the study (10). The result: Safe City Fire

Department experiences an average of 40 cooking ﬁres per year.

These data can be restated as 40 cooking ﬁres per 100 yearly structure ﬁres (40/100, or

40 percent.

Safe City Fire Cause

Although 40 cooking ﬁres each year may not seem like a large number, comparing the occur-

rence with all other ﬁre causes identiﬁes it to be the leading structure ﬁre problem. Cooking

ﬁres also are a frequent cause of burn injuries.

By completing this data analysis, Safe City Fire Department has identiﬁed the following in-

formation:

1-11

Safe City Fire Cause

Cooking

Other

• Theleadingcauseofstructurereisunattendedcooking.

• Theredepartmentismostlikelytodecreasethenumberofstructureresinitscom-

munity by developing a campaign to reduce cooking ﬁres.

• ThebaselineaveragenumberofcookingresinSafeCityis40peryear.Bycomparing

next year’s incidence of cooking ﬁres to this baseline number, the ﬁre department will be

able to evaluate the progress of its campaign to reduce unattended cooking.

1-12

Examining at least 3 years of data (more if possible) will provide a more accurate

prole of leading risk issues.

Examining less than 3 years of data will not provide an accurate prole of leading

risk issues, and the real issues may be overlooked.

What type of local problem-related information is needed?

To conduct an objective risk analysis, the following types of local information must be ob-

tained:

•  typesofincidents(res,falls,etc.);

•  rootfactorsleadingtoincident(howdoesatypicalincidenthappen?);

•  howoftentheincidentsoccur;

•  locationoftheincidents(geographicdistribution);

•  whenincidentsoccur(time,day,month);

•  costoftheincidents(expense,injuries,lossoflife);and

•  typesofincidentshappeningmostfrequently.

This type of local information can be displayed like the examples on the following page in

order to analyze the information and make decisions about local problems.

1-13

Figure 9: Examples of Local Data Displays.

0.9

2.7

11.4

46.5

38.6

01020304050607080

Other

Vehicle

Residential

Percent

0 10 20 30 40

Unknown

Exposure

Natural

Other Equipment

Other Heat

Open Flame

Appliances

Electrical Distribution

Cooking

Heating

Careless Smoking

Children Playing

Incendiary/Suspicious

678910 11 12 123 45 6 7 8910

Cooking Fires

Non-cooking Fires

AM PM

Dollar Loss By Property Type

Causes of Fires

When Incidents Occur

Nonresidential

Outside

Percent

1-14

Conducting a comprehensive analysis of risk helps to ensure selection of the “pri-

ority” issues.

Examining only one area (such as expense) may not provide enough information

to make an objective decision on what issue to address.

What is a community risk prole?

A community risk proﬁle is an overview of the information gathered about the

community. It can serve as an introduction to a problem statement. A community

proﬁle should include the following information:

• demographicdescriptionofcommunity;

• demographicdistributionofhigh-riskpopulations;

• briefdescriptionofselectedre/injuryriskissue;

• publicperceptionoftheproblem;

• existingmythsabouttheproblem;

• politicalsupportfortheissue;and

• resourcescurrentlyavailabletoaddresstheriskissue;

Develop a Community

Risk Prole

A community proﬁle does not have to be a lengthy report. A paragraph or two for each sec-

tion is enough. The community proﬁle leads a reader to the problem statement. Several pro-

ﬁles may need to be developed, one for each targeted risk selected.

Data collected for the local area can be summarized in charts that represent a demographic

proﬁle. The following chart details the demographics for one county in terms of age, sex,

and income.

1-15

Prole of Health Status Indicators

Figure 10: Local Demographics Example.

Demographics

Males Females

COUNTY

# ALL

RACES

WHITE

AFRICAN-

AMERICAN

NATIVE

AMERICAN

ASIAN

COUNTY

# ALL

RACES

WHITE

NATIVE

AMERICAN

ASIAN

ALL AGES 2,961 98.5 0.1 1.3 0.0 ALL AGES 2,964 98.2 0.1 1.6 0.1

< 1 41 93.9 0.7 5.4 0.0 < 1 33 98.3 1.0 0.0 0.7

1 to 4 147 93.5 0.5 6.0 0.0 1 to 4 154 93.2 1.1 5.2 0.5

5 to 9 246 98.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 5 to 9 203 97.0 0.0 3.0 0.0

10 to 14 280 99.3 0.0 0.7 0.0 10 to 14 268 98.9 0.0 1.1 0.0

15 to 19 217 97.7 0.0 2.3 0.0 15 to 19 198 98.0 0.0 2.0 0.0

20 to 44 935 98.2 0.2 1.5 0.1 20 to 44 886 97.5 0.2 2.2 0.1

45 to 64 657 99.8 0.0 0.2 0.0 45 to 64 648 98.9 0.0 1.1 0.0

65 to 74 243 99.6 0.0 0.4 0.0 65 to 64 294 99.7 0.0 0.3 0.0

75 + 195 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 75 + 279 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

STATE

# ALL

RACES

WHITE

NATIVE

AMERICAN

ASIAN

STATE

# ALL

RACES

WHITE

NATIVE

AMERICAN

ASIAN

ALL AGES 1,586,887 83.0 7.7 8.1 1.2 ALL AGES 1,666,742 82.9 7.7 8.1 1.3

< 1 21,371 78.4 10.1 10.0 1.5 < 1 20,090 76.8 10.4 10.4 2.4

1 to 4 100,081 78.0 10.3 10.0 1.7 1 to 4 96,344 77.5 10.6 10.3 1.6

5 to 9 122,245 77.6 10.1 11.1 1.2 5 to 9 116,596 77.3 10.2 11.1 1.4

10 to 14 132,867 77.9 9.3 11.5 1.3 10 to 14 124,696 77.1 9.7 11.8 1.4

15 to 19 123,129 78.9 9.3 10.5 1.3 15 to 19 116,201 78.6 9.6 10.5 1.3

20 to 44 590,427 82.5 8.2 7.6 1.7 20 to 44 589,875 82.0 8.4 7.9 1.7

45 to 64 317,486 87.8 5.2 6.2 0.8 45 to 64 340,946 86.9 5.6 6.4 1.1

65 to 74 109,361 89.8 4.3 5.5 0.4 65 to 74 133,876 89.0 4.9 5.6 0.5

75 + 70,141 90.0 4.5 5.3 0.2 75 + 128,773 90.0 4.6 5.2 0.2

Income/Poverty

Income Levels County

Number

State

Number

County

Rate

State

Rate

Income < 100%

Poverty

523 527,088 8.8% 16.25%

Income < 150%

Poverty

1,170 884,987 19.7% 27.2%

Income < 185%

Poverty

1,646 1,070,444 27.8% 32.9%

Income < 200%

Poverty

1,895 1,242,886 32.0% 38.2%

Poverty by Age Groups

Age 0-17 162 189,553 9.7% 21.7%

Age 18-64 243 247,597 7.5% 14.2%

Age 65-74 31 32,837 5.9% 13.5%

Age 75 + 100 58,620 21.2% 24.1%

Income

Per Capita Income $18,667 $17,610 -- --

Median Family Income $31,279 $28,554 -- --

Unemployment

Unemployment Rate 67 57,867 2.4% 3.6%

Household

# Female-Headed

Households

74 87,945 -- --

Nursing Facilities County Number State Number

Beds per 1,000 Elderly (Age > 75 yrs) 131 185

Patient Rate per 1,000 Elderly (Age > 75 years) 115 144

AFRICAN-

AMERICAN

AFRICAN-

AMERICAN

AFRICAN-

AMERICAN

1-16

What is a problem statement?

A problem statement provides a fact-based overview of the problem and who is af-

fected by it. It also provides a vision of what the organization proposes to do about

the problem.

Here is an example of a problem statement developed in Safe City:

Write a Problem Statement

Safe City Example

Community Risk Prole

Safe City, USA, population 20,000, is a small but densely populated community located

in the southeastern United States. The town grew from a small village to its present size

beginning in the early 1900s. Most homes are more than 30 years old and are of ma-

sonry construction.

Although the railroad industry once thrived in Safe City, most residents now commute

to larger cities for work.

Safe City is an aging community, in terms of both people and properties. A signiﬁcant

percentage (30 percent) of Safe City’s citizens are retired. Many reside in city-owned

housing units. A signiﬁcant portion of the older adult population has difﬁculty with

mobility, hearing, or sight. Most live on a ﬁxed income.

Unattended cooking is the leading cause of ﬁre and ﬁre-related injury in Safe City: 40

percent of both structure ﬁres and related injuries are caused by this risk. Half of the

ﬁres (an average of 20 each year) occur in the homes of older adults living in city-

owned housing units.

During a recent survey conducted by the ﬁre department, only 10 percent of the older

adult population could identify (or guess) that cooking was the leading cause of ﬁres in

Safe City. Most of the older adults stated they were safe from ﬁre while in their homes.

The community of Safe City is very supportive of its older adult population. Although

progress on issues related to the elderly is sometimes slow, the local housing authority

plans, in response to projected community demographics, to double the number of

housing units for older adults over the next 15 years.

1-17

Safe City Example

Problem Statement

Unattended cooking causes 40 percent of ﬁres and ﬁre-related injury in our communi-

ty. Half of these cooking ﬁres (an average of 20 each year) occur in the homes of older

adults who reside in city-owned housing units. Interviews with ﬁre victims identify

that most ﬁres occur because the cooking process has been left unsupervised.

The Safe City Fire Department proposes the development of a community-based cam-

paign to address cooking ﬁres among the older adult population living in city-owned

housing units. This proposal is based on the following factors:

• Thereisahighoccurrenceofcookingresandre-relatedinjuriesatthecomplex.

• Thecommunityandhousingauthorityaresupportiveoftheolderadultpopulation.

• Thereisarealisticpossibilitythatsuchaninterventionwillbesuccessful.

• Asuccessfulcampaigncanserveasamodelforfuturecitywideefforts.

Done well, the community risk proﬁle and problem statement will provide a factual

rationale of why the selected risk issue should be addressed.

Share the document with the community and convince others to join the team! A

poorly written problem statement (lacking facts) may damage your organization’s

credibility and result in less support for your proposed effort.

Prioritize Issues

How should the priority risk issue be decided?

Making an objective decision on which risk issue to address is a process that takes

time, effort, and patience. It is a decision that must be governed by local need. Fol-

lowing an organized process leads to selecting the risk issue that most needs atten-

tion as the priority risk issue.

These factors can inﬂuence a ﬁre department’s decision to select a particular risk

issue:

1-18

• highinjury/fatalitystatistics;

• highdollarloss;and

• rapidincreaseinfrequencyofoccurrence.

Once an idea has developed about a particular risk issue. It is time to examine the

second phase of community risk analysis: people and community information.

Relying solely on problem-related data wouldn’t provide enough information to

formulate a risk reduction campaign. Additional factors should be considered.

What is people- and community-related information?

People- and community-related information is based on demography. Simply stated, demog-

raphy is the study of people and their environments.

Examples of demographic information:

• housinginformation:numberofhomesinthecommunity;typesofproperties;owner 

occupied/rental units; general condition of structures; age of homes, etc.;

• peopleinformation:numberofresidents;populationdensity;age/gender/educationlev-

els; family structures; disability types, etc.; and

• economicinformation:familyincomes;individualmedianincome;overallcommunity

economic projections; number of people in poverty; number of people getting ﬁnancial

assistance, reduced rent, or free or reduced lunch.

Demographic information can be gleaned from both formal and informal sources.

Formal sources may include local planning and community development ofﬁces, the Census

Bureau, the Chamber of Commerce, economic development ofﬁces, hospitals, and health

departments.

Informal sources may include local schools and Head Start centers, women’s shelters, assisted

living facilities, day care centers, community associations, social services, and reports by

clergy and established community leaders.

Comparing problem-related information with community demographics helps identify who

is most at risk, what factors place them at risk, and where a risk reduction campaign should

be directed.

1-19

Safe City Example

Safe City, USA, identiﬁed these facts about its cooking ﬁre problem:

• Mostcookingres(50percent,infact)occurinthehomesofolderadultswith

limited incomes who reside in city-owned housing units.

• Mosthousingunitsarelocatedinthecenterportionofthecommunity.

Invest the time and effort to learn about the community. Find out who is most at

risk from the selected risk issue. The success of the program will depend upon it.

Omitting this step (or not performing a quality analysis) can result in future ef-

forts not being directed at the correct target population.

What factors place people at greater re/injury risk?

Some population types have a disproportionately higher rate of morbidity and mor-

tality. (Morbidity refers to injuries and mortality refers to deaths.) Several factors

increase the risk level of a population segment:

• Age:childrenunderage5andadultsoverage65.

• Disability,includingcognitiveanddevelopmental,mobility,visual,andhearing.

• Socioculturalandeconomicstatus.

• Gender:Maleshistoricallyexhibithigherreandinjurymorbidityandmortality

rates.

• Languageandcommunicationsbarriers.

Identify Target Areas and

Populations

1-20

Several national organizations have conducted research on high-risk populations.

Apply their conclusions to your community. References are listed at the end of this

section.

Making assumptions about high-risk populations can be a dangerous strategy. Guess-

ing which interventions will work among various groups of people may result in

the inability to reach this audience effectively.

A disability can affect a person’s ability to react and respond effectively to an emergency in

progress. Disabilities can affect any population.

Cognitive and developmental disabilities refer to a person’s inability to process information.

Mobility refers to a person’s ability to move about. Vision and hearing refer to the ability to

process sight and sound. Poverty generally increases the risk of ﬁre and injury.

Social and cultural diversity are realities in all communities. Changing family structures, peer

inﬂuences, and language diversity are all examples of social and cultural issues that must be

considered when planning to address risk.

A person’s vulnerability to risk can dramatically increase when several of the above-listed

factors apply to that person.

Example: A visually-, mobility-, and hearing-impaired older adult living in poverty will be at

substantially increased risk of unintentional injury or ﬁre.

Once a speciﬁc risk issue has been identiﬁed, the affected populations proﬁled, and the loca-

tion of occurrences plotted, the next logical step is to learn why the risk exists.

This is the time to consider the sequence of events and root factors that led to the existence

of the selected risk event.

1-21

Why examine the events and root causes that led to the problem?

An effective risk reduction intervention requires investing the time to obtain facts about what

is causing the local risk in order to create an objective community proﬁle and problem state-

ment.

Event sequencing and root factor exploration can be conducted in two ways:

1. If a good incident reporting system is available, the data may be obtained there.

Example: NFIRS 5.0 reporting software includes a section for human actions contribut-

ing to an event.

2. If reporting system data are not available, an organization may decide to conduct post-

incident interviews with victims to determine actions that led to an event.

Interviewing people who have experienced a ﬁre or injury provides valuable insight into

why it is occurring.

Effective research is accomplished by asking the question “Why?”

1-22

Safe City Example

The Safe City Fire Department found that older adults who left food cooking unat-

tended on the stove caused most cooking ﬁres. The ﬁre department interviewed 25

older adults who had experienced this type of ﬁre.

A proﬁle of the typical sequence of events and root factors leading to the local cooking

ﬁre problem identiﬁed the following elements:

• Apersonbeginsthecookingprocess,usuallyonthestovetop,andturnstheheat

on high. Why? Poor eyesight causes the person to have trouble seeing the control

setting.

• Thepersonleavesthekitchenwhilecookingforvariousreasons(telephone,tele-

vision, bathroom, etc.). Why? The person leaves the room intending to come right

back but gets sidetracked and forgets the stove is on (e.g., starts watching televi-

sion or talking on telephone).

• Theunattendedpanignitesonstovetop.Why?Heatissetathightemperature.

• Thesmokealarmalertsthepersontothere.Why?Thealarmisinworkingcondi-

tion and the person hears the alarm.

• Thepersonreturnstokitchenandrespondsinappropriatelybyremovingtheam-

ing pan from the stove and carrying it away. Why? The person does not know the

appropriate response to a stovetop ﬁre, which is to turn off the heat and cover the

pan with a lid.

• Thepersonisburned.Why?Thepersondropstheamingpanathis/herfeetand

spills the burning food.

• Theredepartmentisnotied.Why?Thepersonishurtandrealizesthereis

now out of control.

1-23

Fire and injury prevention can be studied using a scientiﬁc approach. The process of develop-

ing a sequence of events and identifying the root cause shows how and why risk events are

understandable, predictable, and preventable.

Summary

A community risk analysis identiﬁes ﬁre and life safety problems and the demographic char-

acteristics of those at risk in a community. A risk analysis provides insight into the most

signiﬁcant ﬁre and life safety problems and the people who are affected by them. The results

create the foundation for developing risk reduction and community education programs.

Conduct a

Community

Risk

Analysis

Develop

Community

Partnerships

Create an

Intervention

Strategy

Implement

the

Strategy

Evaluate

the

Results

Identify

Possible

Partners

Interpret

Community Risks

and Problems

Form a

Community

Planning Team

Step 2: Develop Community Partnerships

Chapter 2

Step 2: Develop Community Partnerships

Introduction

There are many reasons for developing community partnerships. The main reason should be

obvious. Consider this example: There is a major forest ﬁre in a remote area. A single ﬁre

department is sent to ﬁght it with one engine unit and one ﬁreﬁghter. No matter how much

effort is expended, the ﬁre is just too big to be affected in any signiﬁcant way without addi-

tional help. The same is true when attacking a signiﬁcant community ﬁre or injury risk. One

person or organization will ﬁnd it impossible to make a positive change without assistance.

Just like ﬁre suppression, public education aimed at reducing community ﬁre and injury risk

is serious business. When suppressing ﬁres, most departments rely on mutual aid from other

organizations. The same strategy should be applied to community risk reduction programs.

Having one or more partners makes sense in terms of having more minds, bodies, and re-

sources to tackle the problem. Sharing the tasks of targeting the problem, developing a plan,

and implementing the solution is more productive in terms of creativity, credibility, and

overall effectiveness. The most successful risk reduction efforts are those that involve the

community in the planning and solution process.

What community resources are needed for risk reduction?

When the term “resources” is used, many people immediately think of money. It is true that

ﬁnancial funding is needed to reduce most risks. However, money alone will not accomplish

anything. A broader spectrum of resources is required to conduct a successful risk reduction

effort. Examples of additional important resources include the following:

Knowledge: Knowledge of the problem and possible solutions, including a factual descrip-

tion of the community and its associated risks, is very important. Such knowledge is needed

for an accurate community risk analysis.

There are always many people and groups that will be able to offer insight into the communi-

ty, the people who live and work in the community, and the risks found in the community.

Think teamwork! As with reghting, and even baseball, community risk reduction

is best done by a group working together.

The work of a single organization aimed at reducing risk will cost a lot over the long

haul in terms of money, time, and effort spent, with little to show for all the effort.

2-1

It is up to the community educator to identify them and work with them to reduce the

risks.

In-kind support: This involves resources provided in lieu of money, including equipment,

printed materials, supplies, and personal effort. Donated professional services such as con-

sultations, program evaluations, and graphic design work are all examples of in-kind re-

sources.

Political support: Support for the risk reduction process from elected ofﬁcials is very helpful

to ﬁnding success. The public educator should discuss any plans or ideas with elected ofﬁcials

who have a stake in the program outcome. These people may know how additional resources

can be obtained, and often will have information important to program development.

Community support: Partnerships with people and organizations in the community can

identify risks, planning measures, and resources required to get the risk reduction process

started and the program implemented.

Emphasis is often placed on nances, but additional resources are equally important.

Identify Possible Partners

What is a community partner?

A community partner is a person, group, or organization willing to join

forces and address a community risk. It is important to identify a group of

partners who have a stake in the success of the risk reduction program.

How does the public educator nd help?

An easy way to start ﬁnding help is to just start networking and talking to people you know.

In addition, the use of the Internet and telephone directory is an easy way to start. A logical

ﬁrst step is to ﬁnd out which groups might be interested in a speciﬁc risk reduction effort or

already are addressing the selected risk issue. It is important to avoid duplication of effort.

Think about what part of the population needs to change in order to reduce the risk. Con-

sider which groups are already providing services to these people. Think about those in the

community who care about the risk issue and the people it is affecting.

These people may be the best ones to deliver the message. Another approach is to ﬁnd out

who has the resources needed to address the problem.

2-2

Bottom line questions: Which people are the movers and shakers in the community who

will help get the effort started and the job done? Who can offer leadership, skills, credibility,

contacts, inﬂuence, and resources?

These are some possible community partners;

• groupsalreadyinterestedoraddressingthesameorasimilarriskissue;

• membersofthepopulationwhoareaffectedbytheriskissue;

• people/groups who feel thenancial impact of therisk issue(insurancecompanies,

property owners, American Red Cross disaster services);

• groupsalreadyprovidingservicestothepopulationaffectedbytheriskissue;

• communityserviceandadvocacygroups;and

• groupsthatcanhelpdelivermessages(media,clergy,schools,marketingorganizations).

2-3

Recruit a core group of primary stakeholders who will share the responsibilities of

developing and implementing a quality risk reduction effort.

Working alone may seem like a good idea; however, failure to obtain the perspec-

tive of, and creative input from, others will limit risk reduction efforts.

Interpret Community Risks

and Problems

Don’t expect everyone in the community to recognize instantly that a par-

ticular problem exists. Instead, expect them to be part of the solution pro-

cess by educating them about the problem. Use the community proﬁle and

problem statement as the powerful tool that it is. This work provides a good

rationale for why others should consider partnering. Share the vision of the

plan and possible solutions with community leaders.

The most effective risk reduction efforts are those that involve the community in the planning

and solution process. The community needs to understand and agree that there is a problem

and that it can be solved. Sharing the information you have collected in a professional man-

ner will be important. Be sure to explain how and where the information was obtained. Then

work with others to continue the process of interpreting the community risk problem.

Discuss your organization’s intention of forming a planning team to reduce

the risk problem. Explain what resources your organization can provide.

• Askthepersonorgroupifhe/she/itwilljointheplanningteamtoad-

dress the issue.

• Solicitsuggestions frompeopleandgroupsaboutotherswhowill make

good partners.

2-4

Form a Community

Planning Team

Allow others the opportunity to provide suggestions.

Trying to state your proposed solution as the only solution will prevent others from

offering important insights and suggestions.

Additional benets of community planning teams

Community planning teams often lead to the development of formal coalitions. A coalition is

a group of people with different interests who come together to work on a common problem

or issue.

Examples of coalitions that exist in many communities:

• localchapteroftheNationalSafeKidsCoalition;

• localchapterofMothersAgainstDrunkDrivers;

• localCrimeStoppers/SolversCoalition;and

• neighborhoodassociations.

Coalitions usually include a broad representation of people from the community and lend

themselves well to the advancement of political issues. Using integrated prevention interven-

tions to reduce ﬁre and injury risks often requires extensive community and political sup-

port.

2-5

Summary

Community partnerships are needed in order to reduce any signiﬁcant ﬁre or injury risk. It is

impossible for one person or organization to reduce a serious community ﬁre or injury risk

alone. Fire and rescue departments generally rely on mutual aid from other organizations for

ﬁre suppression efforts. The same strategy should be applied to community risk reduction

programs.

Conduct a

Community

Risk

Analysis

Develop

Community

Partnerships

Create an

Intervention

Strategy

Implement

the

Strategy

Evaluate

the

Results

Review Data

about Risks and

Ta rget Populations

Identify Places

for

Intervention

Identify Ta rget

Populations

and Locations

Identify

Interventions

Identify

Resources

Required

Develop the

Evaluation

Strategy

Step 3: Create an Intervention Strategy

3-1

Chapter 3

Step 3: Create an Intervention Strategy

Introduction

What is an intervention strategy?

An intervention strategy is the beginning of the detailed work necessary for the development

of a successful ﬁre or life safety risk reduction program. The strategy should include what

will be done, where it will be implemented, how the implementation will occur, and who

will conduct the program once it is developed. It also should include an evaluation compo-

nent that measures the effectiveness of the process and the program. Creating an intervention

strategy requires a carefully thought-out plan of action developed through a group effort.

Why develop an intervention strategy?

Consider these questions:

• Would a pro football coach send a team to the Super Bowl game without an action

plan?

• Wouldthecommander-in-chiefoftheU.S.militarysendalliedforcesintobattlewithout

a plan of attack?

The answer to both questions: Of course not! Yet too many times an emergency service orga-

nization will try to address a community risk without an organized plan of action. Just as in

the two examples above, money and lives are at stake.

Developing an intervention strategy is as important as conducting pre-emergency planning

for high-hazard occupancies within a community. Taking the time needed to design a quality

intervention strategy will help gain long-term risk reduction success.

An organized sequence of events should guide the development of the strategy. These events

can be described as follows:

• convenethecommunityplanningteamandreviewthecommunityproleandtheprob-

lem statement;

• identifyplacesforintervention;

• identifypotentialtargetpopulationsandthephysicallocationsforinterventionopportu-

nities;

• identifyspecicinterventions;

• identifyrequiredresources;and

• developanevaluationplan.

3-2

The planning team

A community planning team is comprised of a core group of individuals who have a primary

stake in the community risk issue or can offer key resources to the intervention process.

Safe City Example

Safe City selected the following planning team members:

• thecommunityeducator(andpossiblyselectstaff)fromtheSafeCityFireDepart-

ment;

• membersofthepopulationaffectedbythecookingres(olderadultswhoresideat

the housing units);

• thepropertyowner(cityhousingauthority)ofthestructuresbeingdamagedbythe

ﬁres;

• communityserviceproviders(foodandhealthservices)whoservetheolderadult

population;

• familymembers(children)oftheolderadultpopulation;

• thepresidentoftheHousingUnitTenantAssociation;

• media(TV,radio,newspaper)representatives;

• arepresentativefromthelocalCommissiononAging;

• aprofessionalexperiencedinmarketresearch;and

• aprofessionalexperiencedinorganizingandperformingprogramevaluations(op-

tional).

Community

Planning Team

Market

Research

Property

Owners

Family

Members

Fire Dept.

Program

Evaluator

Affected

Population

Media

Service

Providers

3-3

Review Data about Risks

and Target Populations

The planning team must review the community proﬁle and the prob-

lem statement so that everyone on the team has a factual description

of the community and the problem. It is also important for the team

to review the sources of the information used to develop the com-

munity proﬁle and problem statement.

Develop a goal

A goal is a broad statement about the problem and the new condition

the planning group would like to create.

Safe City Example

Problem: A high number of cooking ﬁres are occurring within the homes of older

adults residing in city-owned housing units.

Goal: Decrease the number of cooking ﬁres occurring within the homes of older adults

residing in city-owned housing units by 25 percent in the ﬁrst year, and then continue

decreasing that number by an additional 25 percent in the 2 succeeding years.

Here is an example of a goal developed by the Safe City planning team in response to the

cooking ﬁre problem:

Identify Places

for Intervention

Review the analysis of the selected risk

Once the planning team has established a goal, the sequence of how

and why a typical incident occurs should be revisited.

The planning team also should review the sequential analysis of a

typical incident so that a broad range of prevention interventions can

be considered. Consider the following possibilities:

• Apersonbeginsthecookingprocessonastovetop.Theheatis

turned on high because the person has trouble seeing the con-

trol setting.

3-4

Identify Target

Populations and Locations

Initial targeting efforts were started during the community risk

analysis section. It is now time to pinpoint as exactly as possible

what efforts will be addressed, to whom, and where.

It is critical for the planning team to identify very carefully who the

risk affects most often and where it happens.

A target population is the group from which knowledge gain, be-

havior, and environmental modiﬁcations are being sought.

Example: The community planning team with the cooking ﬁre

problem already has identiﬁed these important facts:

• Thecookingreproblemmostoftenaffectstheolderadultpopulationresidingindepen-

dently within city-owned housing units.

• Knowledge gain, behavior, and environmental modications must take place in these

households if successful risk reduction is to occur.

• Thehousingunitsrepresentalogicalplacetodirectinitialeffortsbecausesupportfrom

both tenants and city ofﬁcials is a realistic possibility.

Where the risk most often occurs is related to the population affected by the risk. In the above

case the housing units represented a logical place to direct efforts. Another way to character-

ize where the risk occurs is to look at the geographic distribution of the risk in the city or

• Apersonforgetsthestoveisonandleavestheroomtowatchtelevisionortalkonthe

telephone.

• Anunattendedpanignitesonstovetopbecausetheheatissettoohigh.

• Thesmokealarmdoesn’talertapersontoarebecausethealarmisnotinworkingcon-

dition.

• Apersonreturnstothekitchenandperformsinappropriateactions(forexample,car-

rying a ﬂaming pan from the home) because the person doesn’t know the appropriate

response to a stovetop ﬁre.

Each of these scenarios has different implications for the most effective intervention.

3-5

county. In Chapter 1: Conduct a Community Risk Analysis the geographic component of the

analysis process is discussed.

Once the team has identiﬁed all of the possible interventions, the primary population seg-

ment affected, and where the risk occurs most often, it is time to conduct market research.

Conducting market research

Market research is the process of learning about a population from that population. It in-

volves direct communication with members of the target group. The goal is to gain insight

into how risk reduction efforts should be designed and conducted.

Market research can be accomplished through direct interviews with people or by holding

a focus group meeting. A focus group meeting includes people from the target population.

These individuals offer insight into how their peers best receive and respond to information

and requests. They also can provide important information about social and cultural issues

speciﬁc to the group.

It is possible to enlist the services of a professional who specializes in market research. Per-

haps this person or group may provide some services as an in-kind contribution to your

organization.

Market research is a critical step in the risk reduction process that must not be overlooked.

Do not assume you know everything about the target population. Seek information about a

group’s social, cultural, and political climate from members of the group.

If members of the proposed target population are not involved in the planning and solution

process, the group may reject any intervention strategy that you attempt to implement. Don’t

take that chance!

Successful risk reduction efforts are more likely to be effective when the members of the

target population:

• areawareoftheproblem;

• understandtheproblemandthefactorsthatcontributetoit;

• believethemselves,ortheirlovedones,tobepersonallyatrisk;

• believethattheriskisunacceptableandserious;

• understandthatsolutionstotheproblemexist;

Remember: people generally do not like having things done to them. Getting peo-

ple to accept new ideas and make behavior changes can be a challenging process.

Working with people from the target community from the beginning is vital to the

success of the project.

3-6

• believethatchangingtheirbehaviorwillreducetherisk;

• believethatthebenetstochangeoutweighthebarriers;

• believethattheyarecapableofmakingtheexpectedbehavioralchange;

• areinvolvedwiththeprocessfromthebeginning;and

• haveanopportunitytoprovideinputandsuggestions.

Remember: the people from whom you are asking advice will offer valuable infor-

mation about what may or may not work. Listen to them!

Failure to heed advice from the community may result in the creation of a risk re-

duction strategy that is rejected by the target population.

Let’s look at a successful effort:

Safe City Example

Safe City conducted interviews with older adults at the housing units. A local market re-

search professional also helped conduct a focus group meeting. This is what was learned

about their older adult population through market research:

• Theirolderadultpopulationwasunawareoftheexistingcookingreproblem.Results

of a survey conducted by the housing authority revealed that only 10 percent of resi-

dents could identify cooking as the leading cause of ﬁre.

• Membersofthegroupbelievedtheywereverysafefromreintheirhomes.

• Oncetheyweremadeawareoftheproblem,thegroupbelievedtheycouldbeatrisk.

They were most concerned about those with mobility, vision, and hearing difﬁcul-

ties.

• Groupmembersbelievedthattheirpeerswouldhelpwithpreventionefforts,once

they became aware of the problem and its potential solutions.

• Thegrouprespectsthelocalemergencyservicesasacrediblesourceforriskandpre-

vention information.

• Whenreceivinginformation,groupmemberspreferdirectcontactwithpeoplethey

know and trust. Examples: service providers, housing management, and ﬁre depart-

ment.

3-7

Once market research has been conducted and analyzed, the planning team must make some

important decisions about what speciﬁc interventions will be pursued.

• Thegroupenjoysandrespondswelltoguestspeakersattenantassociationmeet-

ings.

• Uponreviewingthecommunityprole,problemstatementandsequentialanalysis,

the group believes the risk is serious enough to pursue an organized prevention effort.

Identify Interventions

Combined prevention interventions

At this early stage of planning, it is very important to be creative

and attempt to identify as many interventions as possible that

could be applied to each problem noted

This is an important brainstorming session for the plan-

ning team.

If this work is not performed, an important intervention

that may prove to be effective may be overlooked.

Most successful risk reduction efforts make use of combined prevention interventions. If the

planning team with the cooking ﬁre problem simply sends out a brochure about cooking ﬁre

prevention that urged older adults to be more careful, the cooking ﬁre problem will not drop

signiﬁcantly. Combined prevention interventions include

• Education: Providing information (facts) about risk and prevention.

• Engineering: Using technology to create safer products or modifying the environment

where the risk is occurring.

• Enforcement: Rules that require the use of a safety initiative.

3-8

Treat risk reduction as a science. Community partners and target populations

must understand why risk occurs and how it can be prevented.

Let’s examine how to use combined interventions to address the cooking ﬁre problem in Safe

City for each possible scenario (the sequence of how and why a typical incident occurs).

Safe City Example

A person begins the cooking process on a stovetop. The heat is turned on high because

the person has trouble seeing the control setting.

Intervention Ideas:

Education: Teach the older adults to cook with lower heat.

Engineering: Modify heat settings on stoves; provide better lighting at stovetops; make

temperature dials easier to read.

Enforcement: Require modiﬁcations to stoves and stovetops.

A person forgets the stove is on and leaves the room to watch television or talk on the

telephone.

Intervention Ideas:

Education: Educate the older adults to stay in the kitchen when using the stove.

Engineering: Relocate the TV and telephone to the kitchen area and/or install an alarm

on the stove that sounds a warning that the device has been left unattended.

Enforcement: Require the TV and telephone to be near the kitchen area; require an

alarm on stove; institute a penalty for people having an unattended cooking ﬁre.

An unattended pan ignites on stovetop because the heat is set too high.

Intervention Ideas:

3-9

Education: Teach the older adults to stay in the kitchen and cook with lower heat.

Engineering: Create a stove that uses lower temperatures; install a stovetop ﬁre sup-

pression system; install ﬁre-resistant building materials at the stove area.

Enforcement: Require installation of the above-listed equipment/materials.

The smoke alarm doesn’t alert a person to a ﬁre because the alarm is not in working

condition.

Intervention Ideas:

Education: Reinforce the importance of working smoke alarms.

Engineering: Hard-wire smoke alarms and alarm systems into home electrical sys-

tem; upgrade alarms to add enhanced audiovisual warnings.

Enforcement: Require updated smoke alarms and alarm systems; institute penalties

for nonworking alarms.

A person returns to the kitchen and performs inappropriate actions (for example, car-

rying a ﬂaming pan from the home) because the person doesn’t know the appropriate

response to a stovetop ﬁre.

Intervention Ideas:

Education: Educate the older adults about what to do if a stovetop ﬁre occurs.

Engineering: Install an automatic stovetop ﬁre extinguishing system.

Enforcement: Require the installation of an automatic extinguishing system.

Do not cut corners with this step! Time and effort are required to consider and

plan for the use of combined interventions. Used alone as an intervention, educa-

tion may not produce the desired level of risk reduction.

After many intervention ideas have been identiﬁed, begin isolating speciﬁc and realistic areas

within the sequence to intervene.

3-10

Identify Resources Required

By following an organized process, the planning team develops an

idea of what risk interventions might work and how best to get the

job done. The next step is to identify the types of interventions that

will be pursued and the supporting resources they will require.

Although it is important to aim high and pursue the use of com-

bined interventions, be realistic when designing the intervention

strategy. Not every intervention identiﬁed during the sequencing

process can possibly be implemented.

Using the community proﬁle, problem statement, market research,

and resources available the planning team should select interven-

tions that have a reasonable chance of success.

Education intervention resources must be tailored to meet the needs of the local community.

Materials must target the population and focus only on the key program messages. They must

be created after your target injuries, population, intervention strategies, and implementation

methods are established. Consult with your target audience and potential users concerning

materials. They can tell you whether the materials do what you want them to do and how to

revise them if necessary.

“Off the shelf” materials that have been developed by organizations such as the NFPA or the

USFA can be useful in addressing local needs. It may be necessary to create local materials

in order to address the speciﬁc needs of your community. If “off the shelf” materials do not

have copyright restrictions then they can, in some cases, be modiﬁed to meet local needs.

As an example, let’s look at the interventions that Safe City decided to pursue. Also included

is the rationale for selecting each intervention and the resources that will be needed.

Safe City Example

Educational intervention: Provide awareness education about the cooking ﬁre problem

and proposed solutions to those who often interact with the older adult population re-

siding in city-owned housing units.

Rationale: Those who frequently interact with the older adult population have the capa-

bility of delivering and reinforcing safety messages.

3-11

Resources needed: Consultation, collaboration, and support will be needed from all

groups that are represented on the planning team.

Educational intervention: Provide awareness education about the cooking ﬁre prob-

lem and proposed solutions to the older adult population residing in city-owned hous-

ing units.

Rationale: This is the population directly responsible for the occurrence of the problem.

Their homes are catching ﬁre! Behavior change is needed in this group.

Resources needed: Direct delivery of the message and political support of the proposed

combined interventions.

Engineering intervention: Modiﬁcation of the older adults’ kitchens, including:

Short term:

• improvelightingnearstove;

• installstoveknobswithlarger-printsettings;

• installatelephoneinthekitchen;and

• locatetelevisionwithinsight/hearingdistanceofstove;

Long term:

• installre-resistantwallcoveringnearstovearea;

• installautomaticreextinguishingsystemoverstovetop;

• upgrade smoke alarms and alarm system, including enhanced audiovisual warings;

and

• replaceagingstoveswithnewunitsthatshutdownpriortoignitiontemperature.

Rationale: Relying on education as a single intervention may not produce a signiﬁcant

drop in cooking ﬁres, injuries, and property losses. Modiﬁcations to the kitchen envi-

ronment and equipment should result in a safer food preparation area.

Resources needed: Employing engineering interventions and environmental modiﬁca-

tions will take time, planning, and support. Funding, in-kind services, and political sup-

port must be sought from the groups represented on the planning team—in this case

speciﬁcally, the city, housing authority, and tenants.

To sum it up: There must be a clear understanding of your community, its risks, the people,

and the political climate to construct an effective intervention strategy.

3-12

The use of combined interventions often requires extensive political support.

Obtaining such support will take time and effort but is well worth it. Now is the

best time to start planning for the future.

Develop the

Evaluation Strategy

The planning team has more work to do. Development of an evalu-

ation component is critical so that the effectiveness of the program

can be determined. This component is called the evaluation plan.

The evaluation plan is a critical component of the intervention strat-

egy. The plan outlines the following:

• Specictaskstobeperformed.

• Timelineforcompletionofthetasks.

• Benchmarksthatwillbeusedtomonitortheprogressandsuc-

cess of the intervention strategy.

Benchmarking is the comparison of various measures of effectiveness, performance, and cost

to relevant standards, or benchmarks. The term comes originally from the ﬁeld of surveying,

where the benchmark is the topographical high point that serves as the point of reference

against which all other elevations are measured. In the ﬁre service the benchmark might be

the ﬁre rate for the State as a whole, or the national average, or the average of all those com-

munities that local citizens and politicians see as equivalent to their jurisdiction.

One of the most useful benchmarking techniques is to calculate the average of a group of

appropriate comparable communities. Therefore, the community will have a higher or lower

ﬁre rate, death rate, or injury rate than the average for communities of its size or composition.

The comparison also can be made to the State or national average in the relevant categories.

To measure that to a more exact standard, it is very easy to ﬁgure percentage comparisons to

the average.

Why develop an evaluation plan?

Everyone has been involved with a project that failed because people or committees didn’t

follow through on what they promised to do.

Far too many times, a group starts out with the best intentions of completing a task only to

have the effort fail because the group lacked an organized plan to keep things on track.

3-13

Adding an evaluation plan to the intervention strategy will help keep the risk reduction effort

on track to reach the intended goal.

What is included in an evaluation plan?

An evaluation plan includes the problem statement, goal, and a series of objectives that sup-

port the goal. The objectives allow the evaluation of three levels of performance: outcome,

impact, and process.

Here is an explanation of the three levels of evaluation:

• Theoutcomeportionoftheevaluationmeasuresendresults.Examplesincludechanges

in the occurrence of the speciﬁc risk issue, dollar loss, and the number of injuries and

death.

• Theimpactportionoftheevaluationmeasuresknowledge,behavior,andenviron-mental

changes and also tracks changes in policy and legislation.

• Theprocessportionoftheevaluationmeasurestheeffectivenessoftheprogramactivity,

the outreach effort, and the team members.

Why write objectives?

Having speciﬁc objectives will clearly identify

• whatisgoingtobedone;

• whoisgoingtodoit;

• whenitisgoingtogetdone;and

• whatthespecicprogrambenchmarksare.

Characteristics of well-written objectives

Well-written objectives have the following characteristics:

• Theobjectivesarespecic:theyclearlyidentifywhatwillbedone,whowilldoit,and

when.

• Theobjectivesaremeasurable:theyincludeabenchmarkofwhatlevelofperformanceis

being sought.

• Theobjectivesareachievable:themeasurementofdesiredperformanceisrealisticbased

on local factors such as characteristics of the target population, social issues, and political

climate.

• Theobjectivesareconsistentwiththegoal:theydirectallactivityandperformanceto-

ward achieving the overall goal.

3-14

How do you create an evaluation plan?

The ﬁrst and most important step in developing an evaluation plan is to understand that

creating the evaluation plan is relatively simple. The hardest work (the intervention strategy)

already has been completed.

The evaluation plan is created based on the intervention strategy. It simply involves ﬁnding

out where the community is statistically (baseline) and plotting where the community wants

to be (benchmark). In the case of outcome and impact objectives, a baseline measurement is

required, so that existing conditions can be compared with future performance.

Let’s look at the interventions the Safe City, USA, team decided to pursue, and look at the

evaluation plan it prepared.

Safe City Example

Educational interventions:

• Provideawarenesseducationaboutthecookingreproblemandproposedsolu-

tions to those who often interact with the older adult population residing in city-

owned housing units.

• Provideawarenesseducationaboutthecookingreproblemandproposedsolu-

tions to the older adult population residing in city-owned housing units.

Engineering interventions: Make short-term and long-term modiﬁcations in older

adults’ kitchens.

Enforcement interventions: Require the city to proceed with the identiﬁed engineer-

ing interventions and environmental modiﬁcations.

Here’s an evaluation plan for the intervention strategies selected by the Safe City plan-

ning team.

Evaluation Plan

Problem: A high number of cooking ﬁres occur within the homes of older adults re-

siding in city-owned housing units.

Goal: A signiﬁcant decrease in the number of cooking ﬁres occurring within the

homes of older adults residing in city-owned housing.

Outcome Objective: Within 4 years, the number of cooking ﬁres that occur in homes

3-15

of older adults residing in city-owned housing units will be reduced by more than 50

percent.

Recall that Safe City Fire Department learned in its community risk analysis that one

half of its yearly average of 40 cooking ﬁres occurred in older-adult housing units. The

baseline for measurement is therefore 20 cooking ﬁres per year.

Note: An evaluation plan usually has one outcome objective. The reason: Outcome

measures the bottom line–the degree to which the program has reduced occurrence

of risk, dollar loss, and injuries or deaths. Outcome objectives are usually expressed 3

to 5 years in advance. Impact objectives can be expressed within 1 to 3 years. Process

objectives can be expressed within a timeframe of 6 months to 2 years.

Method of evaluation: Annual response statistics.

Group responsible: Fire department staff and the planning team, led by a community

educator.

The following impact objective and four-process objectives support the educational

interventions outlined in the intervention strategy:

Impact Objective: Within 2 years, 70 percent of older adults living in city-owned

housing will identify cooking as the leading ﬁre cause and state appropriate preven-

tion/reaction strategies

The baseline for measurement is 10 percent. Recall that the planning team asked the

housing authority to survey older adults and seek opinions on the leading cause of ﬁre.

Only 10 percent of residents identiﬁed cooking as the leading cause.

Method of evaluation: The results of a second housing authority survey conducted after

completion of educational interventions.

Group responsible: Fire department and housing authority staff; planning team mem-

bers.

Process Objective 1: By the end of 6 months, 100 percent of the planning team

members will have conducted cooking ﬁre awareness training with their organiza-

tion’s staff.

Method of evaluation: The organization’s record of training.

Group responsible: Planning team members.

3-16

Process Objective 2: By the end of year one, 80 percent of the organizations repre-

sented by planning team members will be conducting cooking ﬁre awareness efforts

among the older adult population residing in city-owned housing units.

Method of evaluation: The organization’s record of staff activity.

Group responsible: Planning team members.

Process Objective 3: By the end of year one, the ﬁre department will have presented

cooking ﬁre awareness programs at all city-owned older-adult housing units.

Method of evaluation: Fire department staff activity records.

Group responsible: Fire department staff, led by a community educator.

Process Objective 4: By the end of 18 months, the ﬁre department (supported by

members of the planning team) will have made direct in-home contact with 50 percent

of older adults living in city-owned housing to discuss cooking ﬁre awareness.

Method of evaluation: Fire department record of visitations.

Group responsible: Community educator, ﬁre department staff, and planning team

members.

Why this intervention and evaluation strategy will be successful

Safe City has set itself up for a successful risk reduction outcome. Its intervention and evalu-

ation strategy will lead to success because:

• Thestrategyisbasedonfacts.Thecommunityproleandproblemstatementarebasedon

information obtained through a close examination of the local community.

• Thestrategyisspecic.Thestrategyfocusesontheleadingriskissue(cooking)and 

population (older adults) most affected by the risk.

• Thestrategyisrealistic.Thestrategyfocusesonolderadultslivingincity-ownedhousing.

It is realistic because the core group of primary stakeholders is relatively small.

This strategy is a good starting point for gaining the political support needed to promote and

use combined prevention interventions.

3-17

• Thestrategyiscommunity-based.Theredepartment,planningteam,olderadults,and

housing authority will take part in the problem-solving process.

• Thestrategywillbeimplementedovertimeandwillreceiveperiodicevaluations.

• Evaluationwillbeanongoingprocesssothatactivitiescanbemonitoredandadjustedas

needed.

Summary

Creating an intervention strategy involves detailed work and a team approach in order to de-

velop a successful risk reduction effort. The strategy must include what will be done, where

it will be done, how the implementation will occur, and who will conduct the program. An

evaluation component measures the effectiveness of the process and the program. Creating

an intervention strategy requires a carefully thought-out plan of action based on a review of

the risk data, the target population, locations, and available resources.

Develop an evaluation plan with assistance from the planning team. Base the plan on

information from the community prole, problem statement, and market research.

Conduct a

Community

Risk

Analysis

Develop

Community

Partnerships

Create an

Intervention

Strategy

Implement

the

Strategy

Evaluate

the

Results

Conduct Pilot of

Intervention; Revise

as Necessary

Establish

Responsibilities

and Timetable of

Activities

Market

Intervention

Programs

Initiate

Activities

Monitor

Progress

Report

Progress

Periodically

Step 4: Implement the Strategy

4-1

Chapter 4

Step 4: Implement the Strategy

Introduction

Implementing the strategy puts the plan into action

Implementing the strategy involves testing the interventions and then putting the plan into

action in the community. Sometimes modiﬁcations are made to the program as the result of

a pilot implementation. In a real sense, the implementation step is where “the rubber meets

the road.”

Think about the interventions developed by the Safe City, USA, Fire Department for the cook-

ing ﬁre problem. The interventions included an awareness education program for the older

adults and for those whose provide services to the older adults. Other interventions included

modiﬁcations of the kitchens of older adults. The implementation plan identiﬁes the steps to

take to bring those interventions into the community.

The implementation plan outlines the steps for implementing the program in the commu-

nity and provides the following details:

• Howtheprogramwillbeimplemented,includingwhen,howlong,where,etc.

• Itidentiestherolesandresponsibilitiesoftheprogramimplementationteam.

• Theprocessforthepilottestimplementation.

• Provisionsformakinganymodicationstotheprogrambasedontheresultsofthepilot

implementation.

• Apredeliverychecklistidentifyingtasksthatmustbedonepriortotheimplementation.

• Adescriptionofpotentialimplementationproblemsandcontingencies.

An action plan is a step-by-step outline of work that needs to be done in order to meet the

stated objective. Each objective requires its own action plan. An Action Planning Chart is a

useful tool that can be used in planning the implementation as well as in monitoring prog-

ress.

4-2

Action Plan

Goal: Objective:

Date:

Step#

Action

To Be

Completed By

Person

Responsible

Resources

Needed

Date

Completed

Figure 11: Action Planning Chart.

The actions in the implementation step:

1. Conduct pilot of intervention; revise as necessary.

2. Establish responsibilities and timetable of activities.

3. Market intervention program.

4. Initiate activities.

5. Monitor progress regularly.

6. Report progress periodically.

Develop the implementation plan by working together with the community team and rep-

resentatives from the target audience. The implementation plan simply identiﬁes the best

approach for putting the interventions into action.

4-3

There is a temptation just to put the program into action without an implementation plan.

Take the time to develop a step-by-step implementation plan. An essential element of the im-

plementation plan is the identiﬁcation of the roles and responsibilities of each team member.

One of the most common problem areas during implementation is the confusion surround-

ing who should be doing what, and when it should be done. The implementation plan clearly

spells out individual and group tasks, authority, and overall responsibility.

Some people actually will deliver the presentations. Some will assist with scheduling the

presentations and making connections with the older adults. Others will be involved in the

evaluation process. The implementation plan should describe what is to be accomplished by

each task, and when each task will be completed.

Match people with tasks that suit them well, and that they are prepared to complete.

Conduct Pilot of

Intervention; Revise as

Necessary

Why spend time on a pilot test?

The purpose of the pilot test is to identify and resolve problems

with the program. It is easy to believe that all the problems have

been worked out during the development process, but there are

always problems and challenges that occur when the program

is implemented with the target audience. The pilot program

provides an opportunity to identify problem areas, make the

needed changes, and then be prepared to complete the imple-

mentation with a proven program.

Evaluating of the pilot program involves the evaluation of two different areas: the program

results and the pilot implementation process. The implementation process includes how to

gather data, the methods to be used to interpret the data, and the people who will do the

evaluation. The information gathered as part of this process is used to modify the program

prior to full implementation.

The pilot program offers an opportunity to conduct the evaluation of the program on a small

scale. This allows more interaction with the target audience and with those conducting the

program. The evaluators should provide an objective review of the program. Remember,

evaluation is a key part of every program. If it is worth doing it is worth evaluating.

4-4

The success of the overall program may depend on the effectiveness of the pi-

lot implementation. A representative of the target audience should be involved

throughout the pilot test to provide feedback directly to the development team.

Modifying the program

The evaluation of the pilot program should provide information on what worked and what

didn’t work. Be careful not to make drastic changes without solid justiﬁcation. Also, keep the

target audience representative closely involved in the modiﬁcations. Finally, ensure the modi-

ﬁcations do not take away from the strengths of the program.

Establish Responsibilities

and Timetable of Activities

Predelivery checklist

It is essential that the implementation be well coordinated and

appropriately sequenced. The predelivery checklist lists all the

tasks that must be completed prior to the program’s full deliv-

ery and implementation. Think of the predelivery checklist as

a checklist for success. The checklist identiﬁes the following in

order of completion:

• Thepeopletonotifyabouttheimplementation.Thismay

include program team members, the target audience, the

media, or other groups with an interest in the program.

• Theequipmentandmaterialsrequiredfortheimplementa-

tion; this might include audiovisual equipment, brochures,

etc.

• Appointments and meetings that must be scheduled in-

cluding presentations to the target audience.

• Transportationandothersupportrequirements.

The checklist is a road map for the tasks that must be completed in order to implement the

program. However, the checklist isn’t foolproof. Expect additional needs to arise in the pro-

cess.

The Safe City predelivery checklist below provides an example of some of the tasks that must

be completed as part of the implementation of this intervention.

4-5

Safe City Example

Predelivery Checklist

Contact managers of the city-owned housing units to schedule a 1-hour

presentation to the residents.

Recruit personnel to deliver the presentations.

Send the handout materials and videotapes to the presenters.

Contact the media with a news release about the program.

Implementation problems

Seldom is there a community education initiative that doesn’t experience problems during

implementation. However, some common and expected problems can be identiﬁed and pre-

pared for with a contingency plan.

To address potential problems, bring the development team together with the representative(s)

of the target audience and brainstorm potential problems and appropriate solutions. It is

especially helpful to involve educators and community leaders who have been involved in

similar programs in the brainstorming process. Their experience is invaluable in identifying

potential problems.

4-6

Market Intervention

Programs

Marketing the results

Always inform the community, especially the target audi-

ence, of the results of the program. Many will have a keen

interest in the results of the program, including:

• membersofthecommunityplanningteam;

• electedofcials;

• programsponsors;

• fundproviders;

• organizationalleaders;

• membersofthetargetaudience;

• thegeneralpublic;and

• themembersoftheimplementationteam.

The purpose of marketing the results of the program is to inform people about the effective-

ness of the program in reducing ﬁres, injuries, etc. Let the community know the program

works! Future programs may depend on how well you market the results of the current

program.

What kind of information should be communicated?

The information communicated to the community may include

• theeducationalgaininthetargetaudience;

• thedetailsofprogramactivities,includingthenumberofpresentationsconducted;

• anecdotesofthoseinvolvedintheprogram,includingmembersofthetargetaudience;

and

• reportondecreaseinthenumberofres,injuries,etc.

It is easy to disseminate information that doesn’t mean a thing to the public.

Always use terms that are easy to understand, and make statistics simple and easy to

grasp. Have someone who has not been involved look at the materials to see if they

make sense.

4-7

How to get information out

Some of the more common methods of disseminating information are provided below.

• Local media—Using local media is the best way to reach the general public. This includes

news stories, articles, and features. The local media can be reached through phone calls,

news releases, or news conferences.

• Newsletters—Newsletters generally have speciﬁc audiences. A story in a newsletter may

reach a target audience that otherwise would be difﬁcult to reach.

• Direct mailing—If the program involves a speciﬁc geographic area, a direct mailing may

be effective. Address lists often are available through the county clerk’s ofﬁce; the local

Chamber of Commerce; utility departments; etc.

• Meetings—To reach members of the coalition and development team, meetings are the

fastest and most effective way to disseminate the information.

Consider recruiting a marketing professional to assist with marketing. This person

will have experience with reaching specic groups with information.

Team recognition

Successful programs are the result of hard work by people who are committed to making

things better in their communities and who are willing to make a personal sacriﬁce to bring

that change to reality.

You should recognize anyone who has been involved in the development and implementa-

tion of the program. Of course, those who contribute the most should receive the highest

recognition. There are many ways to recognize the efforts of the team; some of those meth-

ods are listed below.

• certicatesofappreciation;

• giftcerticatestolocalbusinesses;

• itemsthatcanbeusedathomeorwork;

• lettersofappreciationbylocalofcials;and

• appreciationdinnersorotherevents.

Regardless of the recognition method selected, ensure that the recognition is sincere and

meaningful. Recognition of the team members says, “Thank you for a job well done.” It sends

the message that the sacriﬁce and hard work had meaning to you and to the community. It

4-8

tells people that they are important and the mission of the program is important. Without

recognition people may feel taken advantage of. The importance of their efforts may be mini-

mized in their minds and in the mind of the community.

Initiate Activities

Once the ﬁnal program is developed and in place, it must be

fully implemented. Everything developed by the planning

team should be put to use. Follow the intervention plan and

the implementation strategy. Often plans are put into place

and then not followed. This creates confusion and problems

within the planning team. Follow through with responsi-

bilities and schedules.

Monitor Progress

Remember to monitor the progress of the risk interven-

tion by following the evaluation plan. Everything needed

to monitor the program effectively should be developed.

Follow through is all that is needed.

4-9

Report Progress Periodically

When the program is underway it is essential to prepare

reports periodically that detail whether or not the goal and

objectives of the intervention plan are being met. These re-

ports provide an opportunity to report successes and ana-

lyze problem areas. It may be necessary to make revisions to

the plan based on the results of the progress reports.

Summary

Implementing the strategy involves pilot testing the interventions and then putting the plan

into action in the community. Modiﬁcations are sometimes made to the program. Marketing

the program is an important part of implementation that should not be overlooked. Monitor-

ing the progress of the program implementation and preparing regular progress reports also

are important.

Conduct a

Community

Risk

Analysis

Develop

Community

Partnerships

Create an

Intervention

Strategy

Implement

the

Strategy

Evaluate

the

Results

Collect

Data

Compare Data

Baseline

Note

Interventions

as Necessary

Modify

Interventions as

Necessary

Report Results

to Sponsoring

Organization and

Community

Step 5: Evaluate the Results

5-1

Introduction

Why evaluate the risk reduction process?

The primary goal of the evaluation process is to demonstrate that risk reduction efforts are

reaching target populations, have the planned impact, and are demonstrably reducing loss.

With so much at stake, why guess if risk reduction efforts are being successful? Prove it!

Some organizations skip evaluations

While there are many reasons why an organization may not evaluate a risk reduction effort,

here are the three big ones:

1. Fear of working with statistics.

Many people believe that evaluation involves complex mathematical formulas. Not so. It’s

all about identifying existing conditions, determining future desired performance levels,

making comparisons, and reaching conclusions. The use of simple math (addition, sub-

traction, multiplication, and division) will get the job done.

2. Fear that a good evaluation may identify shortcomings in program efforts.

3. Lack of knowledge about evaluation.

Many organizations are simply not sure how to perform evaluation. This situation can be

handled rather easily by seeking help. Consider these sources:

• USFA;

• NFPA;

• otheremergencyserviceorganizationsthathaveexperiencewithevaluation;

• teachersandschoolofcials;

• publichealthofcials;

• counselorsandmentalhealthofcials;

• planninganddevelopmentofcials;

• CensusBureau;and

• communitycollegesanduniversities.

Chapter 5

Step 5: Evaluate the Results

5-2

Don’t be intimidated by evaluation. Seek help from others who do it on a regular basis.

Failure to evaluate may result in a failed risk reduction process.

How can evaluation prove that the risk reduction process is on track?

A good evaluation process can prove that an intervention program is effective by validating

that the goal of the intervention is being met by citing objective data. Evaluation is all about

measuring performance.

Collect Data

When tracking risk experience, make sure those who do

the data entry follow a standard process. Strive to obtain a

broad base of data. Here are some examples:

• Rootfactorsleadingtoincident,(Howdoesatypical

incident happen?)

• Howoftentheincidentsoccur.

• Locationofthetypesofincidents(res,falls,etc.).

• Incidents(geographicdistribution).

• Whenincidentsoccur(time,day,month).

• Costoftheincidents(expense,injuries,lossoflife).

• Whatarethefastestgrowingincidents?

Put extra effort into objectively identifying the root factors that lead to the occur-

rence of an incident.

When building a database, limit the number of people who perform the actual

data entry. This helps reduce the chance of bias.

When using a survey instrument or a questionnaire, make sure it is designed to seek infor-

mation in an objective manner.

5-3

Asking a question that leads a person to a specic response is likely to produce a

biased answer.

Evaluation drives the risk reduction process. The most effective risk reduction efforts are

those led by people willing to modify program strategies based on the results of ongoing

evaluation.

Compare Data to Baseline

If evaluation is done well and begun early, it can help pro-

vide the framework that sets up a successful risk reduc-

tion effort. A starting point (baseline) is established and a

destination (benchmark) is identiﬁed.

Baseline data can include

• Anannualaverageofthedatayouwant.

• Measurementssuchasnumberofincidents,damage,

injuries, or deaths.

• The knowledge a population has about a specic

topic. Example—the current number of people who

know that unattended cooking is the leading cause of

ﬁre.

• Existingbehaviorsthatoccur.Example—theaverage

number of people who cause a ﬁre because they left

food unattended.

• Existingenvironmentalconditions.Example—theav-

erage number of homes lacking smoke alarm protec-

tion.

Example—You want to ﬁnd out if people know the leading cause of ﬁre in the community.

Ask—What do you believe is the leading cause of ﬁre in the community?

Instead of—Do you think unattended cooking is the leading cause of ﬁre in the commu-

nity?

5-4

The benchmark is the desired level of change. Let’s look at an example from Safe City that

identiﬁes baseline and future data needed to make conclusions regarding the success of the

risk reduction effort. There is also an examination one of their objectives for each level of

performance—outcome, impact, and process.

Safe City Example

Cooking Fire Problem in Safe City, USA

Outcome Objective: By the end of year one there will be a 50 percent reduction in

the number of cooking ﬁres that occur in homes of older adults residing in city-owned

housing units.

What’s the baseline? 20 cooking ﬁres per year.

What is the benchmark? Cut annual cooking ﬁre occurrence in the homes of older adults

living in housing to 10 per year.

How was the benchmark decided? The ﬁre department is targeting the older adult hous-

ing unit because they believe it represents a realistic area where risk reduction will be

successful. The ﬁre department wants to decrease cooking ﬁres by 50 percent over a

2-year period (20/2=10).

How is progress being monitored? Review of annual response statistics.

Impact Objective: By the end of year one, 70 percent of older adults living in city-

owned housing will identify cooking as the leading ﬁre cause and state appropriate pre-

vention/reaction strategies.

What’s the baseline? Baseline measurement is 10 percent.

How was the baseline determined? Before the impact objective was developed, the hous-

ing authority surveyed older adults and sought opinions on the leading cause of ﬁre. One

hundred responses were obtained. Only 10 residents said cooking.

What is the benchmark? The benchmark is 70 percent.

How was the benchmark decided? During the initial survey, only 10 percent of the older

citizens knew the correct answer.

How can progress be monitored? During the next survey (to be done after the educa-

5-5

tional interventions) 70 out of 100 older adults must identify cooking as the leading

ﬁre cause.

Process Objective: By the end of 6 months, the ﬁre department (supported by mem-

bers of the planning team) will have made direct in-home contact with 50 percent of

older adults living in city-owned housing to discuss cooking ﬁre awareness.

What’s the baseline? In this case, the baseline is zero because the ﬁre department has

not performed any previous door-to-door visitation at the older adult housing unit.

What is the benchmark? The benchmark is 50 percent.

How was the benchmark obtained? The ﬁre department will visit 100 homes within

the housing unit. They project that a successful contact (person at home) will take

place on 50 visits.

How can progress be monitored? A record of visitations.

Important facts to remember about evaluation

Evaluation must span the risk reduction process. It begins with analyzing and planning to ad-

dress risk. It continues through implementation. Modiﬁcations to program activity are made

according to evaluation results.

By creating and following a well-written evaluation plan, the speciﬁc progress of the risk

reduction effort can be monitored and adapted according to need.

Note Interventions as

Necessary

Evaluation offers tangible proof that populations are

responding to risk reduction efforts or interventions.

Both short and long-term progress can be monitored.

While program activity begins almost immediately, sta-

tistical, behavioral, and environmental changes usually

take time.

It is important that members of your organization,

5-6

planning team, and community be able to see steady progress being made toward reaching

the set goal.

Often, the myth that prevention cannot be measured has prevented organizations from at-

tempting to conduct quality evaluation efforts. Prevention efforts can be measured quite well

so long as the organization makes a commitment to do so in the three levels outlined in this

text.

Outcome and impact evaluation depend upon measuring before and after the intervention.

Compare the baseline data to data collected during and after risk reduction efforts have been

done. The data then are compared to the benchmark set in the evaluation plan.

Safe City Example

Safe City Performance Measurements

Knowledge: The percent of a population who know the leading cause of ﬁre in the

community.

Behavior Change: The percent of a population that stay in the kitchen when cooking

food.

Environmental Change: The percent of homes that have a working smoke alarm.

Legislative Change: A law is enacted that requires smoke alarms in all homes.

Modify Interventions as

Necessary

Monitoring progress is important. That is why an evalu-

ation plan measures performance at several levels: out-

come, impact, and process objectives. Following through

with each level can provide tangible proof that the risk

reduction effort is moving toward the goal of reducing

the identiﬁed risk. However, in some cases interventions

will need to be modiﬁed in order to meet the risk reduc-

tion goal.

5-7

Evaluation takes time

Outcome evaluation is long term. While annual statistics are used to monitor changes in risk,

it may take 3 to 5 years (or longer) to realize major progress.

The results of impact evaluation may be seen a bit more quickly, but not overnight! While

changes in knowledge can be realized over a relatively short term, behavior and environmen-

tal change generally take more time.

Evaluation must be valid and objective. If it is valid, it measures exactly what you want it to

measure. If it is objective, it will not be affected by bias. Bias occurs when the attitude or ex-

pectation of the evaluator (or person being evaluated) inﬂuences the data being collected.

Report Results to

Sponsoring Organization

and Community

Share results of evaluation with the planning team, your

ﬁre service organization, the target population, commu-

nity political leaders and decisionmakers, and the com-

munity at large. Once the initial conclusions from the

evaluation have been developed, provide the information

to the planning team. In fact, it is best to hold a team

meeting to review results.

If a revision of the program is desired, it is important that everyone involved in conducting

the program understands the reasons for changes.

Once the program is over, it is time to report the results of the program to the target audi-

ence, the organization, and the community. The conclusions from the evaluation process are

the basis for this report.

Summary

Some essential steps must be taken to create a successful evaluation. First, make a commit-

ment to do the evaluation well. Realize that the process will take time and effort to produce

tangible results. Then, seek help. Ask someone who performs evaluation on a regular basis to

help you get started.

Work hard to ensure all evaluation is done in a valid and objective manner. Keep an open

mind and be prepared to make adjustments according to the ﬁndings of your monitoring

and evaluation efforts.

Conduct a

Community

Risk

Analysis

Develop

Community

Partnerships

Create an

Intervention

Strategy

Implement

the

Strategy

Evaluate

the

Results

Identify Data

to be

Analyzed

Identify

Possible

Partners

Review Data

about Risks and

Ta rget Populations

Conduct Pilot of

Intervention; Revise

as Necessary

Collect

Data

Develop a

Community Risk

Proﬁle

Interpret

Community Risks

and Problems

Identify Places

for

Intervention

Establish

Responsibilities

and Timetable of

Activities

Compare Data

Baseline

Write a

Problem

Statement

Form a

Community

Planning Team

Identify Ta rget

Populations

and Locations

Market

Intervention

Programs

Note

Interventions

as Necessary

Prioritize

Issues

Identify

Interventions

Initiate

Activities

Modify

Interventions as

Necessary

Identify Ta rget

Areas and

Populations

Identify

Resources

Required

Monitor

Progress

Report Results

to Sponsoring

Organization and

Community

Develop the

Evaluation

Strategy

Report

Progress

Periodically

Conclusion

Conclusion - 1

Community educators commonly have the misconception that once a program is imple-

mented the work is over. Nothing could be further from the truth. The linear ﬁve-step plan-

ning process illustrated here represents the beginning and the end.

The education process never ends

The community education process is a never-ending cycle of analysis and revision. It is a se-

ries of ﬁve-step planning processes that overlap and continue through time.

Why is this a continual process? Communities and cultures change over time. The ﬁre and

injury problems facing communities today are different from those of 30 or 20 or even 10

years ago, in some cases. This community change process always will continue. Our educa-

tional programs also must reﬂect these changes.

To keep up with—and be ahead of—changing community problems, the educator must

“close the loop” on the ﬁve-step planning process by connecting the evaluation step with the

analysis step.

The information gathered through evaluation—the good and the bad about the program

results—is the information that is used to begin another community analysis. This is a con-

tinual cycle that is designed to ensure that you and your community team are always aware

of the ﬁre and injury problems in the community. From this information current programs

can be revised to meet the changes. In some cases new programs can be designed. In addi-

tion, the information can be used to help plan budgets and forecast future educational and

operational needs.

Restarting the planning cycle

How often should the planning process be repeated? That question can be answered only by

each individual community. Smaller communities that have fewer residents, neighborhoods,

and socioeconomic/sociocultural groups will see a slower change in ﬁre and injury problems

and may require a community analysis only every 5 to 8 years. Larger communities composed

of numerous cultures and groups will change at a faster pace and may require a community

analysis every 2 or 3 years. In any event, it is up to the community team to determine how

often a planning process is needed and then to see that the process is implemented.

However, this doesn’t mean that a constant eye shouldn’t be on ﬁre and injury statistics.

Regularly analyze available data on causes of ﬁres, location of ﬁres in the community, chang-

ing demographics and economic conditions, and types of injuries. Reviewing these data leads

community educators to be proactive instead of reactive to community problems. In other

words, watching for trends and patterns can help you identify problems early and put a pro-

gram in place prior to the problem escalating. This should be the objective.

Conclusion

Conclusion - 2

It all begins with you

Sound impossible to achieve? It may be at ﬁrst. But after the ﬁrst planning process is complete

it will be easier to believe. The results of the process can be amazing. Hundreds of communi-

ties all over the country have completed successful planning processes and have thereby re-

duced the number of ﬁres and injuries in the community. Any community can be successful

in reducing ﬁres and injuries through the use of the ﬁve-step planning process. It all begins

with you.

Bibliography

U.S. Fire Administration. America Burning: Recommissioned. Washington: Author, 2000.

National Commission on Fire Prevention and Control. America Burning. Washington: U.S. Fire

Administration, 1973.

National Safe Kids Campaign. Childhood Injury. Washington: Author, 2000.

_____. Motor Vehicle Occupant Injury. Washington: Author, 2000.

_____. Residential Fire Injury. Washington: Author, 2000.

_____. Rural Injury. Washington: Author, 2000.

National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion. Youth Risk Behavior

Trends: 1991—1999. Atlanta: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2000.

_____. Fire in the United States: 1987-1996. 11th ed. Washington: Author.

Kirtley, Ed. Risk Watch: A Leaders Guide to Preventing Childhood Injury in the Community. Quincy:

National Fire Protection Association, 1998.

International Fire Service Training Association. Fire and Life Safety Educator. 2nd ed. Stillwater:

Author.

Turnock, Bernard J. Public Health: What It Is and How It Works. Gaithersburg: Aspen Publishers,

1997.

A-1

Appendix

Sources of Additional Training and Information

Noted below are several sources that you may ﬁnd helpful as you develop a comprehensive

community education program for your ﬁre service organization. Federal Emergency Man-

agement Agency (FEMA) publications are available through the FEMA Web site at www.fema.

gov

Readings

1. Self-Study Course for Community Educators (National Fire Academy).

2. Short Guide to Evaluating Local Public Education Programs (U. S. Fire Administration).

3. Solutions 2000: Advocating Shared Responsibilities for Improved Fire Protection.

4. Fire Risk Series (U.S. Fire Administration).

5. Reaching High Risk Groups: The Community-Based Fire Safety Program (Rossomando & Associates).

6. Reaching the Hard to Reach (TriData).

7. Proving Public Fire Education Works (TriData and U. S. Fire Administration).

8. Community Tool Box: An Internet Resource (University of Kansas).

Training

The following National Fire Academy courses support the information provided in this

guide:

1. Community Education Leadership.

2. Discovering the Road to High Risk Audiences.

3. Presenting Effective Public Education Programs.

4. Developing Fire and Life Safety Strategies.

5. Strategic Analysis of Community Risk Reduction.

6. Leading Community Fire Prevention.