NATIONAL SURVEY OF PUBLIC FIRE EDUCATION MANAGERS ATTITUDES TOWARD PREVENTION MATERIALS AND HOME SAFETY VISITS

Transcription

1 NATIONAL SURVEY OF PUBLIC FIRE EDUCATION MANAGERS ATTITUDES TOWARD PREVENTION MATERIALS AND July 2015 Visin 20/20 Institutin f Fire Engineers-USA Branch

2 Natinal Survey f Public Fire Educatin Mangers Attitudes Tward Preventin Materials and Hme Safety Visits Prepared fr: Institutin f Fire Engineers- USA Branch Visin 20/20 Prject 35 Hrner Street Warrentn, VA inf@strategicfire.rg Submitted by: Philip Schaenman, President TriData

3 This reprt was dne under a DHS Fire Preventin and Safety Grant awarded t the Institutin f Fire Engineers- USA Branch, Visin 20/20 Prject. It was prepared by TriData. Institutin f Fire Engineers- USA Branch, Visin 20/20 Prject 1

4 Executive Summary A survey f 374 public educatin managers in U.S. fire departments fund that half had a prgram they cnsidered as cmmunity risk reductin (CRR). But nly abut 10% f their departments were making hme visits systematically, as ppsed t respnding t the ccasinal request. The main reasns fr nt having a hme visit prgram were nt having smene t manage it, and being cncerned abut liability. Abut 93% f the respndents said they were using sme natinally available preventin materials. The leading reasns given by these and the ther managers r nt using available free materials was Cncern abut their cst (ften misperceived); and Desire t use materials with their wn lg. Other reasns given included: T many materials t use all Dn t cver relevant tpics Nt targeted t the right audience Difficulty in dwnlading them Difficulty in reprducing them in mass quantity The cver t much in ne dcument Schls say they are t busy t use the materials. Intrductin In 2014 tw preventin- related surveys were develped under a grant frm the Assistance t Firefighters Grant (AFG) Prgram that was awarded t the Institutin f Fire Engineers (IFE) Visin 20/20 prject. One survey was t determine firefighter attitudes tward preventin. 1 ; The secnd survey, the subject f this reprt, was t assess pinins f public fire educatin managers tward the natinally available preventin materials, and t find ut if their cmmunities had cmmunity risk reductin prgrams, whether they used hme fire safety visits. POPULATION SURVEYED A request t participate in this survey and links t it were disseminated t fire service rganizatins natinally, using the fllwing resurces: Visin 20/20 list FEMA Assistance t Firefighter Grants Prgram mailing list CRRNet EPARADE and NFLSE, tw grups fcusing n life safety and cde issues Fire Service trade media Natinal Vlunteer Fire Cuncil (NVFC) n- line newsletter State fire assciatins Scial media 1 The firefighter survey was reprted in a separate reprt t IFE Visin 20/20 prject, dated May Institutin f Fire Engineers- USA Branch, Visin 20/20 Prject 2

5 State fire marshals (sme f whm passed n the survey request t their wn mailing lists) Abut a third f the respndents said they heard f the survey via Visin 20/20; the rest were spread acrss the ther surces. The respndents were a brad natinal sample, but nt a purely randm sample. They self- determined their participatin. The respndents entered their answers n- line via a Survey Mnkey questinnaire that als was used t tally the results. The survey tk abut 5-10 minutes t cmplete. The data frm the respnses is summarized belw. RESPONDENT PROFILE- While this was nt a pure randm sample, the respndents were well distributed demgraphically. Of the 450 respndents wh answered the first questin, n hw they heard abut the survey, nly 66 did nt g further in the survey. There were respndents wh answered the ther questins; depending n the questin. Of these, 374 were public fire educatin managers, which was the target audience. In the sectins belw, respndents mean the nes wh went beynd the first questin. The respndents came frm 302 fire departments and 12 state fire marshal ffices r ther agencies in 42 states. While we requested that just the persn serving as the manager f public educatin respnd fr their department, there were 49 departments fr which tw r mre peple respnded. It is pssible that in sme departments, there may indeed be mre than ne persn respnsible fr public educatin wh did nt knw the ther was answering, such as a head f public educatin wh reprted t a fire marshal wh als respnded. The multiple respnses give a little mre weight t the respnses f 15% f the departments surveyed. Califrnia had the mst respnses, as expected based n ppulatin. There were n public educatr manager respndents frm eight states: Luisiana Nrth Dakta Nebraska New Mexic Rhde Island Utah Vermnt West Virginia The fact that there were n respnses frm these states shuld nt be interpreted as a lack f interest r activity. Since this was nt a randmized survey, it culd be simply that the infrmatin abut the Institutin f Fire Engineers- USA Branch, Visin 20/20 Prject 3

6 survey was nt widely distributed in these states. Sme states had disprprtinately lw participatin relative t ppulatin (e.g. New Yrk and New Jersey.) Sme had much higher than expected participatin (Kentucky, Nrth Carlina, New Hampshire.) Observatins frm the survey include: All ppulatin sizes were represented, frm metr cities t small twns and rural districts. Almst half f the respnses (49%) were frm career departments, with 40% frm cmbinatin departments and 12% frm vlunteers. Half (49%) f respndents were battalin chiefs r higher; a fifth (21%) were civilian. Institutin f Fire Engineers- USA Branch, Visin 20/20 Prject 4

7 Public educatin management was entrusted t experienced persnnel in mst f the agencies respnding; 57% had mre than 20 years f service, 26% had years. A quarter f respndents were female, three- quarters male. (This was nt surprising, because a much higher percentage f public fire educatin managers are female than managers f ther fire department functins.) Tw- thirds f respndents said their primary assignment was preventin; ne- quarter said it was management. Presumably many f thse listing management had preventin under them, thugh we did nt ask that explicitly, and perhaps shuld have, in retrspect. Institutin f Fire Engineers- USA Branch, Visin 20/20 Prject 5

8 Overall, this was a very gd distributin f respndents, withut any majr skewing, even thugh nt a randm sample. Institutin f Fire Engineers- USA Branch, Visin 20/20 Prject 6

9 FINDINGS- 1. Cmmunity Risk Reductin (CRR) Prgrams: Slightly mre than half f the respndents (51%) said their department had a CRR prgram. 40% said n. Only 3% said they did nt knw what CRR is (which suggests that the cncept is at least recgnized by the majrity). There might be a bias here in that thse mtivated t take the survey might be mre aware f CRR. Still, that level f awareness amng hundreds f respndents is encuraging. 2. Hme Fire Safety Visits: Almst three quarters (69%) said their departments made hme visits. Hwever, the majrity did them nly upn request, nt practively. Institutin f Fire Engineers- USA Branch, Visin 20/20 Prject 7

10 Only 14% f thse departments making hme visits said they made them as part f a regular hme visit prgram, which is abut 10% f the ttal respndents. Hwever, that the majrity f departments did at least sme hme visits may make it easier fr them t establish an expanded prgram the ice has been brken. Three- quarters f the cmmunities making hme visits used at least sme preventin staff fr making them hme visits, but tw- thirds (64%) als said they used line firefighters fr making at least sme f the visits. S, while hme safety visits are nt yet widely used within mst cmmunities, precedent exists in a majrity f them t have firefighters d at least sme f the visits. Again, the ice has been brken, and that prvides a ptential base t build upn t get mre firefighters invlved. Why n hme visits? The leading reasn given fr nt making mre hme visits) was lack f sufficient preventin staff t manage the prgram (reprted by 64% f the cmmunities lacking a hme visit prgram. Institutin f Fire Engineers- USA Branch, Visin 20/20 Prject 8

11 There are several appraches t vercme this real r perceived barrier. First make clear just what level f effrt is needed t manage a hme visit prgram, s it is nt visualized as mre than what it actually takes. Secnd, increase awareness f the free Visin 20/20 guide ( n hw t run the prgram, which will make it easier and require less time t manage the prgram, by nt having t figure ut fr yurself ut the steps t run the prgram. Other things t cnsider fr increasing CRR prgrams are reviewing ther preventin tasks t determine their relative effectiveness and pririty; and the ptential imprtance f adding ne persn in preventin t manage a hme visit prgram. Institutin f Fire Engineers- USA Branch, Visin 20/20 Prject 9

12 The secnd leading reasn given fr nt making hme visits (in 40% f the departments withut them) was a cncern abut liability. This is a perceptin that is imprtant t knw and underscres the need fr cmmunicatin frm Visin 20/20 and thers t infrm the fire service that there has nt been a liability prblem with hme visits, and that it can be further assuaged by having the resident sign a waiver abut the free smke alarms given t their husehld. It als may be pssible t btain inexpensive insurance against such lawsuits, hwever unlikely. 3. Shuld yur department d mre r less preventin? Nt surprisingly, 85% f public educatin managers thught their department shuld be ding mre preventin. Only 13% thught the current level was abut right.. 4. Use f natinal preventin materials. A ttal f 92% f the public fire educatin managers said they used natinally available preventin materials frm NFPA, USFA, Red Crss r thers. Almst three- furths, 74%, said they als develp their wn materials, which is addressed by the new Visin 20/20 tl (planned fr release in September 2015) fr generating lcally custmized materials. Existence f the new kit might als be cmmunicated t the 26% f the public educatin managers wh said they dn t make their wn materials; mre might develp materials tailred t their cmmunity if it were easier and cheaper t d s. The majrity (abut 55%), said there were several natinal materials that were highly useful in their cmmunities. Mre than a quarter f the public fire educatin heads said that they fund many natinal preventin materials useful. Only 15% said few are useful. Institutin f Fire Engineers- USA Branch, Visin 20/20 Prject 10

13 When asked fr the reasns they d nt use sme f the natinally available materials, almst half (45%) said it was because f cst. That suggests that USFA, NFPA, Red Crss and thers might better advertise which materials are free r inexpensive, s their lack f use is nt due t a misperceptin that the materials are expensive. This als suggests that rganizatins charging fr preventin materials might cnsider their cst elasticity the tradeff between lwer cst and selling mre. The secnd mst cmmn reasn fr nt using sme f the natinal materials is a preference t create materials with the department s wn lg. This suggests that natinal rganizatin shuld make clear when it is OK t add the lcal lg, and t facilitate ding s. Institutin f Fire Engineers- USA Branch, Visin 20/20 Prject 11

14 Other reasns fr nt using sme natinal materials include: There are t many t use all They dn t cver relevant tpics They are nt targeted the right audience There is difficulty in dwnlading them, r difficulty in reprducing them in quantity They cver t much in ne piece Fr schl- riented materials, sme schls say they are t busy t use the materials. Institutin f Fire Engineers- USA Branch, Visin 20/20 Prject 12

15 Sme illuminating cmments belw were written in t the survey questinnaire: Peple dn t read much printed material anymre Many natinal materials are dated Peple react better when ur lg is n the material Dn t like having t use passwrds t dwnlad As a vlunteer, dn t have time t use the materials We hpe that with these added insights, mre public educatin mangers can be persuaded t use hme safety visits, and that thse wh develp natinally used preventin materials can make them mre useful. Institutin f Fire Engineers- USA Branch, Visin 20/20 Prject 13