MAINTAINING FIRE SAFETY EDUCATION BASICS WITHIN FIREFIGHTER I CERTIFICATION STANDARDS. By: Gordon Descutner. Alaska Fire Standards Council

Transcription

1 Running head: FIRE SAFETY EDUCATION BASICS 1 MAINTAINING FIRE SAFETY EDUCATION BASICS WITHIN FIREFIGHTER I CERTIFICATION STANDARDS By: Gordon Descutner Alaska Fire Standards Council Anchorage, Alaska An applied research project submitted to the National Fire Academy as it relates to the Executive Fire Officer Program January 2010

2 FIRE SAFETY EDUCATION BASICS 2 CERTIFICATION STATEMENT I, Gordon Descutner, hereby certify that this paper constitutes my own product, that where the language of others is set forth, quotation marks so indicate, and that appropriate credit is given where I have used the language, ideas, expressions, or writings of another. Signed:

3 FIRE SAFETY EDUCATION BASICS 3 Abstract The 2008 edition of the NFPA 1001 Standards for Professional Firefighter Qualifications eliminated the fire safety education component from the firefighter I certification requirements. The problem was that Alaska firefighter I personnel are often tasked with presenting fire safety education to their local communities, but with the adoption of NFPA edition there was no longer fire safety educator requirements to be certified as a firefighter I. The purpose of this action research was to identify (a) how would the development of basic fire safety educator skills at the firefighter I level impact community risk in Alaska, (b) what impact would the addition of fire safety education requirements have to the latest NFPA 1001 firefighter I certification requirements, (c) what fire safety education materials would be most effective for addressing community risk in Alaska, (d) how could fire safety education materials be effectively distributed for use in Alaska, and (e) what would the fiscal impacts of basic fire safety educator for firefighter I certification requirements be? Research procedures included review of: related literature, local and national surveys, Alaska fire statistics, personal interviews, and analysis of AFSC records. Results of the research indicated fire safety education for firefighters does impact community risk reduction and inclusion of Alaska specific certification requirements could be done without significant impact to the firefighter I requirements. Fire safety education materials related to regional statistics would be most effective and there were multiple distribution methods identified that involve little direct costs to fire department training programs. Recommendations from this project were the need for committee based standard reviews, inclusion of basic fire safety requirements for firefighter I, improvements to Fire and Life Safety

4 FIRE SAFETY EDUCATION BASICS 4 Educator certification programs, and consistent fire safety education testing requirements for future firefighter certification tests.

5 FIRE SAFETY EDUCATION BASICS 5 Table of Contents Abstract... 3 Table of Contents... 5 Introduction... 6 Background and Significance... 8 Literature Review Procedures Results Discussion Recommendations Appendix A Appendix B Appendix C Appendix D Appendix E Appendix F Appendix G... 61

6 FIRE SAFETY EDUCATION BASICS 6 Introduction Knowledge of basic fire safety education is a critical component to fire department community risk reduction activities. The importance of fire safety education programs has been highlighted in fire publications for many years and is a key element in achieving success within the 16 life safety initiatives outlined by the United States Fire Administration. This project has importance to the Alaska fire service because the more comprehensive the firefighter fire safety educator training is, the better prepared firefighter s will be in facing the challenges educating the public in his or her community (Kiurski et al., 1998, p. 133). The State of Alaska Fire Standards Council (AFSC) provides firefighter certification for various levels of fire service certification under the authority of Alaska Statute (AS) As the governing body in determining minimum fire standards for the Alaska fire service, the AFSC oversees all fire service testing and certification programs for the state. Currently, the AFSC is reviewing multiple existing certification programs to provide adoption of updates to the latest National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) standards. In preparation for adoption of the NFPA 1001 standard, the AFSC identified two significant changes in edition related to firefighter I certification requirements. The first was the addition of hazardous materials operations requirements and the second, specific to this research, was the relocation of fire prevention and public education to the firefighter II level. The problem is that personnel certified as firefighter I are often tasked with presenting basic fire safety education to members of their communities, but there are no longer fire safety education (fire prevention) core requirements in NFPA firefighter I certification standards. In strictly following core requirements, candidates would not be required to have basic fire safety educator

7 FIRE SAFETY EDUCATION BASICS 7 training or testing when the AFSC adopts the latest version of the NFPA 1001 standard. Without this requirement, firefighters will not be adequately prepared to assist with the fire safety education needs of their communities. The purpose of this research project is to analyze the effect that fire safety education has on community risk, and determine an effective approach towards enabling firefighter I candidates in Alaska with the skills necessary to positively impact community risks in their jurisdictions. An analysis of Alaska fire statistics and common fire causes will be conducted to identify likely topics for use in Alaska fire safety education. Action research will include a literature review and informal feedback instruments methods, and research questions for this project are (a) how would the development of basic fire safety educator skills at the firefighter I level impact community risk in Alaska, (b) what impact would the addition of fire safety education requirements have to the latest NFPA 1001 firefighter I certification requirements, (c) what fire safety education materials would be most effective for addressing community risk in Alaska, (d) how could fire safety education materials be effectively distributed for use in Alaska, and (e) what would the fiscal impacts of basic fire safety educator for firefighter I certification requirements be? The overall goal of this project was to maintain a level of community risk reduction through effective basic fire safety programs that minimize the fiscal impact to firefighter I certification requirements and maximize the effects of fire safety education throughout Alaska by linking regional community risk with targeted programs. Research will include literature review, local and national surveys, and personal interviews to assist in the identification and development of essential components for consideration on this project.

8 FIRE SAFETY EDUCATION BASICS 8 Background and Significance The State of Alaska Fire Standards Council (AFSC) provides firefighter certification for various levels of fire service certification under the authority of Alaska Statute (AS) Since September of 2001, the members of the AFSC operated on very limited funds and managed council functions almost entirely by donations of time and money from various Alaska donors. While the AFSC was the decision making body in regard to fire standards and certification, the administrative functions of certification issuance in Alaska was overseen by the Division of Fire Prevention (State Fire Marshal office). Due to limited resources and minimal funding this focused primarily on processing applications and certificate issuance but was not able to update and maintain all areas of testing and certification as changes to national standards took place. Although the AFSC approved a number of areas surrounding the fire certification process, it was not able to follow through on all motions carried by the AFSC due to a lack of dedicated administrative personnel. This was a particular challenge in the AFSC s ability to track changes to national standards before they occurred, and then implement NFPA standard updates after revisions were complete. After years of conducting business with no dedicated fiscal support, the AFSC was funded by the Alaska Legislature in A result of funding was that the AFSC was able to devote staff to the administration and management of fire service certification. In an effort to improve existing program requirements, the AFSC office has been working towards clarification of policy and procedures related to the certification process. Prioritization of the certification program elements and requirements has been a major objective in working towards improvement goals, and updates to 20 of 23 existing certification levels have been ongoing.

9 FIRE SAFETY EDUCATION BASICS 9 The mission of the AFSC is to provide fire service personnel within the state of Alaska realistic and attainable standards to safely and effectively serve Alaskan communities, but the AFSC ability to impact fire and life safety related to community risk is indirect through adoption of nationally recognized certification standards. However, a component of the AFSC vision is to maintain the highest level of professional standards for the safety and welfare for fire service personnel and their communities, enhance the capability and capacity of fire service response personnel, and preserve public confidence in fire service professionals. As such, the AFSC has a responsibility to its constituents, and communities throughout the state, to provide oversight in achieving effective results with regard to minimizing fire safety risks within Alaska. For most levels of fire certification in Alaska, the AFSC references and adopts standards developed by the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA). The NFPA is a non-profit international organization that was established in 1896, and their mission is to reduce the worldwide burden of fire and other hazards on the quality of life by providing and advocating consensus codes and standards, research, training, and education (National Fire Protection Association, n.d.). The NFPA provides fire service professional standards for fire department reference worldwide, and the organization reports itself to be the leading advocate of fire prevention and public safety. In review of pending changes to National Fire Protection Association 1001 standards, the AFSC identified a significant change in edition related to firefighter I certification requirements. The problem is that once the AFSC adopts the latest revision to this standard, the Alaska fire service will not have any requirement to test individuals for basic knowledge or skill in fire safety education before certification at the firefighter I level. Firefighter I personnel are often tasked with presenting this information to their communities, but in following the latest

10 FIRE SAFETY EDUCATION BASICS 10 standard they will have no mandatory fire safety educator testing requirement and will likely lack the training to effectively address the fire prevention needs of their communities. Teaching basic fire safety concepts usually boils down to a few key points, and in an article on presenting basic fire safety concepts Kiurski (1999) notes that the more elementary a skill or given bit of knowledge is, the more valuable it is (pg 13) to the audience. Firefighters are often the public s only contact with the fire department, and firefighters need to have some level of understand of how to deliver fire safety information within their communities. According to the 2008 Fire In Alaska Report, residential fires the occurred in Alaska communities during 2007 resulted in 21 civilian deaths (14% increase from 2006), 57 civilian fire injuries (54% increase from 2006), 37 fire service injuries (137% increase from 2006), and 57 million dollars in property loss (71% of all reported fires) (Alaska Division of Fire and Life Safety, 2009). In 2008 there were 19 fire fatalities and in 2009 there were 22 fatalities, resulting in an average of 21 fire deaths per year for the last 5 years; a rate that is three times the national average. These statistics also indicate the leading causes of fire statewide have been heating equipment (39%), cooking related fires (35%), and other open flame, ember or torch (11%). Residential structure fires pose the greatest risk to civilians and fire service personnel, and any reduction in fires will likely result in decreased risk to both group statistics. The delivery of effective fire safety programs can have a significant effect in reducing the number of fires through a method that has minimal risk to fire and civilian personnel. Over the past few years, certification testing for firefighter candidates in Alaska has included the minimum testing elements related to basic fire prevention on written examinations, and there has been no examination emphasis from the AFSC on fire safety education skills for firefighters at any level. Some departments have placed greater importance on the need for fire

11 FIRE SAFETY EDUCATION BASICS 11 safety educator skills at the firefighter I level, but many others have covered only the minimum requirements for the academic knowledge and have not stressed additional training for this topic. With the latest change to the NFPA 1001 standard, the firefighter I fire safety educator requirements are now placed at the firefighter II level. A review of the Alaska fire certification database found that over the history of the certification program firefighter I certificates issued in Alaska have outnumbered firefighter II certificates nearly 4 to 1. With the current economic downturn and the challenges that many rural departments have in Alaska, the number of certified firefighter I personnel that are able to achieve firefighter II is dependent on many factors. This change in the NFPA standard could leave many Alaska firefighters without any level of training related to teaching fire safety education to member of their communities, although communities will likely still expect it from their firefighters. This applied research project was developed as a component to the National Fire Academy Executive Fire Officer Program, and was intended to utilize key concepts within the Executive Analysis of Community Risk Reduction (2009) course. This project has relevance to the USFA 5-year operational objectives including the reduction of risk at the local level through prevention and mitigation and an improvement of fire and emergency services professional status (EFOP Guideline, 2009, pg II-2). This project was important to the author because of his responsibility in development of organizational programs, and his agency s mission to provide fire service personnel with standards that will enable them to safely and effectively serve Alaskan communities. With its vision for a broad risk management approach to the fire certification process the AFSC has a wide reaching impact on fire safety in Alaska.

12 FIRE SAFETY EDUCATION BASICS 12 Literature Review This literature review was performed to locate and gather information for this project and establish the importance of fire safety educator skills for the Alaska firefighter certification process. The purpose of the review was to seek out credible and comprehensive information related to effective fire safety educator fundamentals for frontline firefighters from a variety of relevant perspectives. Research included an extensive review of articles and information through the National Fire Academy Learning Resource Center in Emmitsburg, Maryland, the University of Alaska Anchorage Consortium Library, and resources within the Alaska Department of Public Safety. In addition, internet resources were utilized to ensure that current articles and publications were referenced within the dimensions of this research. Historically, the fire service has programmed itself to react to events rather than take a proactive approach to preventing events from ever occurring (Bergel, 1997, p. 10). Fire departments have a responsibility to educate their communities about fire safety risks before a tragedy occurs, and the fire service needs to move beyond being a reactionary industry because it can save many more lives and increase its customer s quality of life by focusing its energy towards better fire prevention activities (Wallace, 2003, p. 62). Over the years, many studies have identified that fire loss in the United States is a national disgrace, yet Americans, the national media, and all levels of governments seem unaware or unable to recognize that the problem even exists (Diamantes, 2007, p. xiii). Highlighting the merits of public education programs is not a new concept, and the importance of this topic has been well known for decades. America Burning, presented by the National Commission on Fire Prevention and Control in 1973, was part of a national effort by the United States Fire Administration to reduce the life and property loss by destructive fire in

13 FIRE SAFETY EDUCATION BASICS 13 the United States. Many key points were identified in the report related to reducing fire loss in the United States including the need for more emphasis on fire prevention, better fire service training and education, and a stronger effort to educate the public about fire safety (p. X). A subsequent report was requested by the U.S. Fire Administration late in 1987 to evaluate the progress made since the original development of America Burning. The resulting report was America Burning Revisited, and its primary purpose was to establish a consensus on the existing fire problem in the US and to revise recommendations on further reductions of life and property due to fire. Although there were no major new problems identified, the 1987 report did highlight that the fire service had undergone significant changes in the interim between documents. These changes included greater fire department responsibilities, increasing concern about firefighter safety, and a greater awareness that a stronger effort must be made to increase the publics fire safety awareness. In the summer of 1999 the FEMA Director recommissioned America Burning panel and generated a report titled America at Risk: America Burning, Recommissioned. The updated report noted that although the original 1973 report was considered the seminal effort in systematizing our nation s efforts to address the fire hazard and the resultant loss of life and property, it was critical of the fact that more than one-third of the America Burning s recommendations have not been implemented and more than half were only partially implemented (p. 12). The America at Risk report reached 2 major conclusions associated with fire risk in America. The first was that the frequency and severity of fire in the U.S. was not due to a lack of fire service knowledge, but rather a failure to fund and implement effective loss reduction strategies (p. 12). The second conclusion supports a view shared by Bergel, Wallace,

14 FIRE SAFETY EDUCATION BASICS 14 and Diamantes with regard to the fire service ownership in the reduction of fires, and is consistent with this research topic. The responsibilities of today s fire departments extend well beyond the traditional fire hazard. The fire service is the primary responder to almost all local hazards, protecting a community s commercial as well as human assets and firehouses are the closest connection government has to disaster-threatened neighborhoods. Firefighters, who too frequently expose themselves to unnecessary risk, and the communities they serve, would all benefit if there was the same dedication to the avoidance of loss from fires and other hazards that exists in the conduct of fire suppression and rescue operations (p. 15) In April of 2007, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health produced a related report to the Home Safety Council that was based around a national survey on Fire and Life Safety Education (FLSE) activities among US fire departments. The report provided a clearer national picture of the status of fire and life safety activities in the U.S. fire service, and the results highlighted a number of barriers and facilitators to expanding and strengthening FLSE across the country that closely resemble America Burning report data listed above. The Hopkin s report found several barriers to conducting FLSE activities that included a lack of funding, a lack of time from FLSE personnel, and too many competing priorities among fire departments activities (Piver, McDonald, & Gielen, 2007, p. 5). In essence, each of these reports clearly identify that a significant problem that is still prevalent within the U.S. fire service is the lack of emphasis towards FLSE activities. This perspective rings true for many departments and in much of North America, including Alaska, FLSE programs receive far less funding than emergency operations. The problem is

15 FIRE SAFETY EDUCATION BASICS 15 compounded by the fact that when politicians (or local decision makers) are faced with a choice between the closure of a fire station or cutting fire prevention programs, they receive far more criticism for eliminating funding for fire stations than they do for fire prevention programs (Crawford, 2002, p. 111). In writing of fire service approach to fire safety education Bergel (1997) supported these same findings and noted that the future of fire safety education programs is largely up to the fire service, and as industry professionals fire service leaders must demonstrate the seriousness of the purpose of public education programs (p. 11). In speaking of cultural changes at the National Fire Academy Billy Hays (May, 2009), Advocate Program Manager for the Everyone Goes Home campaign, spoke about the difficulty that the culture of the fire service has had in valuing fire safety education. He shared his observations of the problem with the fire service culture in relation fire safety education efforts as follows: firefighter candidates are trained to fight fire and little, if any, time is given to prevention; Fire Officers carry over beliefs from their days as firefighters and do not support public education as a cultural value; Fire Chiefs have a hard time sustaining public education programs because books don t support it, standards for staffing don t support it, ISO doesn t support it, and NIOSH doesn t reference it in reports. His belief is that the fire service has not done enough to lead change in this area. An ongoing challenge with the fire industry has been the resistance to change, and leading organizational and community change for the fire service is often difficult. As noted in the Executive Analysis of Community Risk Reduction student manual (Unit 4), fire departments have a low tolerance to change, even when changes are needed to keep pace with social, cultural, and economic changes (p. SM 4-7). In writing about challenges with leadership, Heifetz and Linsky (2002) identified that most people find it easier to adopt an established belief than create

16 FIRE SAFETY EDUCATION BASICS 16 their own, and people will instinctively follow a dominant trend within an organization without critically questioning its merits. Fire department leaders need promote this belief and reinforce the importance of fire and life safety education and by setting the example and encouraging line personnel to support the fact that fire safety education is a critical element in the future of fire departments in the United States (Appy et al., 2001). As noted in the America at Risk report, methods to reduce fire losses and deaths are neither unknown nor arcane, and the primary goal of any effort in this area must be to prevent fires in the first place (p. 13). This goal can be achieved through a variety of methods and applications as indicated within FEMA s most recent 5-year Strategic Plan (2008). All levels of fire service personnel need to be involved in fire and life safety education and take responsibility in working jointly towards solutions. If the fire service cannot, or will not, support effective fire and life safety education could see erosion of what limited progress has been made in this area over the years, resulting in a population of Americans who will not have the knowledge or ability to protect themselves from fire and other dangers (Comoletti, 2004, p. 34) According to an NFPA report on fire loss in the US during 2008, the number of overall structure fires has been on the decline nationally since its peak in 1977 (Karter, Jr., 2009). At first glance these numbers seem promising and indicate that efforts towards fire prevention and code enforcement have been effective, but a look at the details indicates that decrease in structure fires has been primarily related to non-residential occupancies. In 2008, residential structure fires accounted for 78% of all structure fires, 87% of civilian fire fatalities, and 90% of all civilian injuries in the US (p. 7) A review of the Fire in Alaska statistics for 2008 found numbers consistent with national averages, with residential structures fires in Alaska accounting for 75% of all reported fires, 84%

17 FIRE SAFETY EDUCATION BASICS 17 of civilian fire fatalities, and 86% of civilian injuries. There were 70 civilian and 28 firefighter injuries reported, but the report noted that injury statistics for firefighters were difficult to capture because of inconsistencies in the reporting procedure. This report also indicated that the total number of fires set by juveniles was just 20%, and it was the first 5-year period in which there was a decrease in the juvenile fire setter category. Previous reports for this category in were 53%, and were 71%. Structure fire statistics are important to note in the residential setting, because the private home is not subject to code or inspection once it is built and the family moves in (Byrne, 2008, p. 44). If the fire service is intent upon reducing the number of civilian and firefighter exposure to injury or death related to fires, then something must be done to affect the volume of residential fires. In reference to the high incidence of residential structure and the fire service relationship to the problem, Byrne (2008) stated that the fire service needs to get aggressive o fire education; because its only education that will reach into the residential occupancy and ultimately lead to the prevention of fire and the saving of lives (p.42). This problem has existed for many years and Ronnie Colemen (1978) remarked long ago that educating the public should be an essential component to fire department services because citizens in the United States are apathetic towards fire and are generally uninformed about fire and life safety preventive measures (p. 39). A point that Byrne made is that if fire departments want to really have an impact on the safety of everyday citizens they need to put an effort into providing proper education and training directed at the needs of their communities so that citizens can prevent or survive fires (p.46). These efforts should start with the firefighters and Kiurski (1999) reinforces this point in highlighting that most firefighters are not expected to fire fires without adequate training, so, why are they

18 FIRE SAFETY EDUCATION BASICS 18 often sent into their community to distribute fire safety information without the least bit of education or training (p. 1)? Training department personnel is a fundamental element in any fire department prevention program, and any lack of adequate training for firefighters will inhibit fire education programs from reaching their full potential (Diamantes, 2005, p. 23). Firefighters need to understand local fire problems because it s the kind of information the public needs to hear, and the public expects it from firefighters (Kirtley, June 1993, p. 24). By involving firefighters in the fire education process fire departments can greatly increase their visibility within the community, and nearly all members of the public view uniformed firefighters as the experts in fire safety (Kirtley, Nov 1993, p. 20). Delivering fire and life safety messages to the community is the job the firefighter, and people will listen to the firefighters because they viewed by the public as the helpers and the heroes (Appy et al., 2001, p. 45). Byrne (2009) makes the point that the design for any fire safety message should be based on local needs that target specific community hazards, methods of prevention, and appropriately actions to take if an emergency does occur (p.42). Byrne goes on to note that if firefighters do not understand the fire problem because they are not educated on the problem, then how will they be able to educate the community on the problem (p. 44)? NFPA vice president Meri-K Appy (2001) remarked that future challenges of fire and life safety programs will be to increase the sophistication of the traditional programs through a multifaceted approach, and she suggests creating positive linkages between the educational environment (classroom) and the audience home (residence). Public fire safety programs must appeal to the audience in a way that they can identify with, so that they will invest the time and energy necessary to obtain the product (Diamantes, 2005, pg 159).

19 FIRE SAFETY EDUCATION BASICS 19 Bergel (1997) noted that for most fire service prevention programs deliveries we have no way of evaluating the effectiveness of what we have done (pg 10). A report written in 1980 by Dr. Keith Reisinger on the reduction of injury and death related to smoke alarms noted that the occurrence of home fire and subsequent injury is a function of many variables; the presence of fire hazards age of the occupants physical and mental condition of the occupants, and whether there have been fire drills (pg. 718). While the collection of data can provide evidence of measurable fire and life safety program results, someone has to make an effort provide programs that are needed in the community and then track the outcome of the program (Appy et al., 2001, p. 38). One example of efforts to measure the effect of broad based fire safety programs was found in an article that highlights the success of prevention efforts in Ontario, and notes that a common theme in successful prevention strategies is taking a comprehensive approach that includes good data for targeting and evaluation; partnerships to leverage resources; and multiple coordinated programs (Scheanman, 2009, p. 66). The article cites that Ontario s example of a multifaceted effort from fire officials and community members indicated there were significant reductions in civilian fire fatalities over a 25 year period. A review of the numbers highlighted in the article can be somewhat misleading, however, because the overall number of civilian injuries showed significant decreases in fire deaths for the US and UK during the same period (p. 69). This program is noted only for evaluation reference as it is well beyond the scope and fiscal resource of this research project. Life safety and protection of property are primary goals of the fire service, and the public health and livelihood are directly tied to economics and job preservation (Diamantes, 2005, p. xvii). It is much cheaper to deliver fire and life safety programs to the community than it is to

20 FIRE SAFETY EDUCATION BASICS 20 support fire suppression activities, and any reduction in the frequency and severity of fire through prevention has a positive impact on civilian and firefighter safety (Lacey, et. al, 2007, p. 102). Continuing to allocate a majority funds towards suppression activities with the knowledge that fire prevention is ultimately more cost effective is disruptive to collective expectations within a fire department, and all parties must take ownership and have a vested interest in developing solutions to better fire and life safety education (Crawford, 2008, p. 113). An organization must take into account the fiscal considerations for implementing or enhancing any program, but cost should not be the sole component driving the delivery of the program. Most fire and life safety education programs require some investment and can be a difficult goal to for some organizations to reach. However, Rielage (2009) notes that fire departments can accomplish these goals even in tough economic times (pg 18) by looking at annual statistics, determining what statistics to reduce, and utilizing free online material. A basic internet search can locate a number of fire and life safety materials that are available at little or no cost to firefighters. As part of their mission to educate Alaskans about local fire prevention and safety tips, the Alaska Fire Prevention office provides training and materials to fire departments throughout Alaska, and they have an online resource page that is accessible to anyone with a computer and internet connection. Other online resources are also available and include sites hosted by the US Fire Administration, the National Fire Academy, the Home Safety Council, and a number of others. All of the above sources had relevance to questions that were developed for this project. Many references were used for historical perspective and highlight how the fire service perspective towards residential fire safety has seen few changes despite evidence to the contrary. In review of a need to maintain basic fire safety educator skills for firefighters, the information in

21 FIRE SAFETY EDUCATION BASICS 21 found in journals, books, online resources, and interviews indicate the importance of this project goal. Procedures The primary basis for this research project was a result of changes to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) firefighter I standard. Industry information was reviewed including national professional fire standards, trade books, journal articles, internet web sources, and reference to other local and national agency procedures related to this topic. The intent of the research was to focus on the significance of minimum fire safety educator requirements for firefighter I certification, and there are a number of professional views and various resources that helped explain why this research was important. Literature reviewed was intended to target the role that firefighter s can have in the fire and life safety educator process. Additional material was actively reviewed to gauge what impact the fire safety education material has within the firefighter I program and look at how the firefighter can impact community risk. Research was also conducted through review of archival information from previous AFSC work related to standards review and adoption. In addressing the need for better analysis of changes to NFPA standards, the AFSC discussed an effective approach to addressing this challenge during its semi-annual meeting in September of A result of this discussion was the determination that the AFSC had no process for a detailed analysis of each certification level and related standard. With this in mind, the AFSC formed 10 independent committees with a goal to provide oversight related to specific standards. Each committee was appointed a designated lead and committee guidelines were drafted. The committee list included the NFPA 1001 and NFPA 1035 committee, both of which

22 FIRE SAFETY EDUCATION BASICS 22 have a direct relationship to this research. Further discussion among the AFSC also found that there was no clear guideline for evaluating and reporting standards or programs, and the AFSC requested a template be generated to better identify key elements of review and adoption for use in Alaska. To gather additional research information two survey questionnaires were developed. Survey questions were developed and uploaded into Surveymonkey.com, which allowed for rapid distribution electronically with an automated collection of responses. Survey number one (Appendix A) was intended to gather information from fire constituents in Alaska, and a local state survey was also generated and distributed to 42 accredited Alaska fire departments. This survey was sent electronically via on November 28, Questions were formulated to assess the impact that changes to the FLSE firefighter I requirement would have on fire departments in Alaska. The survey was targeted towards department Training Officers because of their role in managing department training programs. The first question asked if the department considered basic fire and life safety educator programs to be an important component in addressing community risk in their jurisdiction. The second question asked if existing firefighter I training provided candidates with material other than what was in the firefighter curriculum. If yes, a supplement question (2a) asked what other fire safety educator resources were utilized. The third question asked if firefighter I candidates were required to perform hands-on activities to present fire safety materials to the community. If yes, a supplement question (3a) asked what types of activities candidates were required to do. The fourth question asked if their department focus on fire and life safety education needs specific to their community or jurisdiction (for example, local fire statistics). If yes, a supplement question (4a) asked how the department evaluated their local community's fire and

23 FIRE SAFETY EDUCATION BASICS 23 life safety education needs. The fifth question asked if the department had a position dedicated to fire and life safety education. If yes, a supplement question (5a) asked what level of line staff on their department provides this position with assistance presenting basic fire and life safety information to the public most frequently. If no, a supplement question (5b) asked what level line staff delivered fire safety information to the public most frequently. The sixth question asked the responded if their department would support the continuation of fire safety skills at the firefighter I level if it was not required by NFPA Of the 42 accredited fire departments that were contacted, responses were received from 25. A review of response comment details helped to determine answers to research questions. The AFSC is a member of the International Fire Service Accreditation Congress (IFSAC), which is a peer driven, self governing system, that accredits both public fire service certification programs and higher education fire-related degree programs (IFSAC, 2009). Other member agencies have similar responsibility to the AFSC in regard to standards and certification, and analyzing what these agencies had done to address the change to firefighter I certification provided a good resource for information. Survey number two for this project was developed and sent nation wide via to 65 IFSAC accredited agency representatives on December (Appendix B). Questions were formulated to assist in determining the alternatives for the research problem in Alaska, and were intended to give reasonable comparison data for this project. The survey questions were independent of the research questions, but were intended to assist in the collection of related information. The first question asked if the agency has adopted NFPA edition. If yes, a supplement question (1a) asked if the agency included a FLSE requirement for firefighter I. If yes, a supplement question (1b) asked how the requirement was referenced. The second question

24 FIRE SAFETY EDUCATION BASICS 24 asked if the agency addressed fire and life safety education material outside of the NFPA 1001 standard. Of the 65 accredited agencies/entities contacted, responses were received from 23 agencies. After survey responses were collected, personal interviews were conducted with several program directors to clarify responses to the survey questions. Changes to the NFPA 1001 standard were reviewed to evaluate the impact that additional material could have to the current firefighter I core requirements. Addendums to national standards could likely require materials outside the auspices of the AFSC. In terms of answering what FLSE materials could be most effective in Alaska and how best to deliver the material to the fire service, the Division of Fire and Life Safety Training and Education Bureau (TEB) was identified as a key local resource for the AFSC. A meeting was conducted with TEB in December of 2009 to develop a draft plan for fire safety education materials for firefighter I programs. Additionally, informal discussions were held with fire service personnel across the state to get a sense of how significant fire safety education for firefighters was to regional training groups. This included discussion with Fire Chiefs, Fire Training Officers, Fire Safety Educators, and firefighters. The information gathered from the literature review, surveys, and personal interviews will provide background and support for the future of the firefighter I program requirements. The material generated and gathered through this research will be reviewed by the 1001 committee for a final decision before the next AFSC meeting schedule for March 6-7, There were limitations found with this research project. While there are a number of articles written on prevention and fire life safety education, much of it is broader than the intent of this research and does not specifically target the firefighter certification training. It was difficult to find conclusive fire safety educator statistical data that measures the effect the

25 FIRE SAFETY EDUCATION BASICS 25 firefighter I has on prevention results, so a determination of impact to community risk is primarily theoretical, but it is likely to positively affect community risk reduction. The national survey was intended to identify what other agencies have done to address the change to the firefighter material and solicit some alternative delivery methods. However, no new or significant information from other state programs was discovered through the national survey. Many states reported that they conduct FLSE training to firefighter I candidates, however, most are conducting combined firefighter I/II academy and cover the material as listed in the latest NFPA 1001 requirements. In terms of how this change has impacted other certification agencies, there was little evidence found for use by the AFSC. Resolving some of questions during this research was difficult without the assistance of a standing committee. With the formation and development of committee policy and procedure, future research of this nature will likely proceed with greater efficiency. Results For this research, five questions were developed to provide direction in formulating potential solutions for this project. Determining the importance of fire safety educator skills for firefighter I personnel, and the impact to related certification programs, was essential to the desired outcome of this research. Action research was utilized to develop procedural steps in analyzing changes to the NFPA standards, and to develop a pilot program to address the problem statement for this project. The first question addressed in this research was: How would the development of basic fire safety educator skills at the firefighter I level impact community risk in Alaska? Research of related reports and articles indicate a likely outcome of basic fire safety education at the

26 FIRE SAFETY EDUCATION BASICS 26 firefighter I level is a reduction in the incidence of residential structure fires. A review of America Burning, America Burning Revisited, and the Johns Hopkins report indicate community risk reduction is possible if the fire service can accurately assess and target populations at risk. Much of the material reviewed highlights that the primary goal of any effort to reduce fire losses and deaths on the part of the fire service must be to prevent fires in the first place. Survey answers from the Alaska fire service found that 100% consider fire and life safety education to be an important component in addressing community risk, and 84% already provide candidates with information other that what is in the firefighter I curriculum. Information from the TEB office indicates past programs targeted towards juvenile fire setters did result in a reduction of fires started by juveniles, and that the fire service can have an impact on elements of community risk in Alaska with delivery of targeted information. In partnering with TEB, the development of material specific to Alaska statistics is likely to result in community risk reduction. In discussing NFPA changes with the TEB Southeast Alaska Fire Training Specialist Todd Kollar, he remarked that firefighters maintain an important connection to the community when delivering fire safety education, and delivering this information provides benefits to the firefighter and the community that cannot achieved through any other means. In his view the removal of fire safety educator requirements from NFPA standard takes a critical element out of structured training and does nothing to reduce the hazards firefighters are expected to face within their communities (personal communication, November 20, 2009). As America at Risk highlighted, citizens and firefighters would all benefit if there was the same dedication to the avoidance of loss from and other hazards that exists in the conduct of fire suppression and rescue operations (p. 15). In reference to community risk Byrne (2008) noted that residential fires

27 FIRE SAFETY EDUCATION BASICS 27 continue to have the greatest hazards for citizens and firefighters so the fire service needs to get aggressive in educating the public, and Diamantes (2005) pointed out that firefighters must have fire educator skills to enable these prevention programs to reach full potential (p. 23). The second question addressed in this research was: What impact would the addition of fire safety education requirements have to existing NFPA firefighter I certification requirements? The information within the America Burning documents and the Johns Hopkins report establish that many fire departments are already facing challenges with funding, training time, and prioritization of existing requirements. Adding testing and certification requirements to core requirements within the firefighter I program will add to these challenges. In discussing this with representatives of the Alaska fire service throughout this research, many expressed concern with any addition of training time to previous NFPA 1001 requirements would create a burden on many smaller fire departments, and could impact their ability to maintain firefighter I certification requirements. However, the review of materials for this research indicates that the cost for fire safety education can be far less than costs related to a residential structure fire. To provide better oversight of the review process, and to clarify impacts that programs such as this can have, this research project involved the formation of advisory committees (Appendix C), the development of a committee report form (Appendix D), and the creation of a public comment form (Appendix E) to assist the AFSC with this project. The intent of the committee process and public comment format was to identify key changes within NFPA standards and generate AFSC discussion on how changes could impact or affect the Alaska fire service. The final written committee report for this project is not anticipated until March of 2010, but the initial discussion points indicated that the fire service is presently much more

28 FIRE SAFETY EDUCATION BASICS 28 concerned with the NFPA decision to add hazardous materials training requirements than the change to public education components for firefighter I candidates. To determine what the NFPA 1001 technical committee position was on their adjustments to the standard NFPA staff liaison Frank Florence was contacted (November 30, 2009). When this researcher posed the question as to why the public education components were moved from the NFPA 1001 chapter 5 (FFI) to chapter 6 (FFII), his reply was that the 1001 committee felt that the public education components were better suited to the level of firefighter II, and with their decision to add hazardous materials operations pre-requisites the NFPA committee felt it had to make some adjustment to compensate for the additional time departments would need to cover the hazardous materials content. The 1001 committee also took the position that firefighter I personnel had a greater risk during hazardous materials incidents than when they were providing fire and life safety education programs within the community, and therefore this was an appropriate change in core requirements due to the personal risk to firefighters at hazardous materials incidents. Additionally, the technical committee concluded that not only did OSHA regulations (q) (6) (ii) bind departments to an operations level response, there was an expectation from the public that firefighters would actually do something during hazardous materials incidents and should have the necessary level of training. In terms of the impact to the NFPA 1001 requirements,the hazardous materials change was a major factor in this project as the public education was moved from firefighter I certification specifically to reduce the additional time needed for firefighters to complete training. As noted in the Johns Hopkins report competing priorities within the fire service are significant impediments to reducing fire related deaths, and this particular change is a good

29 FIRE SAFETY EDUCATION BASICS 29 example of how changes in NFPA standards can perpetuate this problem within the time constraints of fire certification programs. In review of answers from the local fire department survey found that 84% of respondents have provided more than the minimum fire safety education materials to past firefighter I candidates, and 96% of respondents said they have included hands-on activities. Fire service support for continuation of basic fire safety education certification requirements was 80% with suggestions to develop material that is not repeated for the firefighter II certification. A comment against support was related to the time needed to meet the added hazardous materials requirements. TEB Fire Training Specialist Kollar noted that if firefighter I candidates aren t required to know this for certification then where else will they get this information, because basic fire safety education isn t really taught anywhere else (personal communication, November 20, 2009)? The national survey answers found that over 90% of accredited certification agencies have adopted the latest NFPA 1001 standard. Of that group, 86% have elected to leave the fire safety educator requirement at the firefighter II level. In follow up to the other 14%, it was found that only Virginia had developed a program specifically targeted for firefighter I candidates, but it only required the candidates that took classes directly from the state to complete this material, and several agencies other than the state of Virginia provide firefighter I training within Virginia. Most responding agencies reference the NFPA 1001 firefighter II material and were covering the material through combined firefighter I/II courses, and joint firefighter courses are not currently conducted in Alaska. The third question addressed in this research was: What fire safety education materials would be most effective for addressing community risk in Alaska? Information to answer this

30 FIRE SAFETY EDUCATION BASICS 30 question was derived from several sources. As is clearly highlighted in much of the referenced material, the greatest effect on community risk is through the delivery of targeted information. An excellent source for this information was the Alaska Division of Fire and Life Safety, which tracks annual statistical data on fire in Alaska. These statistics provide a significant amount of information for use by local fire departments, and include the total number of fires, fire deaths, fire injuries, property damage, and common sources of fires. Critical information for firefighters include the leading causes of fire, and in the 2007 Fire in Alaska report the leading cause of residential structure fires in Alaska was related to heating equipment (39%), followed by cooking fires (35%), and open flame/ember/torch (11%). Other available statistics includes fire by region, smoke alarm presence and performance, structure fires by month and time of day, and information related to juvenile fire setters. One question asked in the Alaska survey was what sources fire departments used for fire and life safety materials, and 60% indicated they used information from the state TEB. However, when respondents were asked if their department focused on targeting the specific needs of their community, only 52% indicated they based education activities on their local fire statistics. This was a critical piece of information for this research as it provided a starting point for identifying what materials will be useful for continued development of this program. With this information the AFSC and TEB offices will be able to formulate a basic fire and life safety educator module that could provide firefighters with links and information on how to locate data to target public education programs in their jurisdiction. With regard to effective prevention efforts Byrne (2009) noted that the first thing you need to do is to determine what the top two causes of fire are in your community along with the statistics to accompany it ( 7).

31 FIRE SAFETY EDUCATION BASICS 31 Through joint work with TEB, the creation of supplement skill prerequisite (Appendix F) and continued development of an online module (Appendix G) could minimize the time and cost related to the firefighter I while providing links to material that targets local problems. These resources also offer a compromise in continuing some fire safety education without burdening firefighter programs with additional time requirements and cost for materials. As noted previously, Alaska statistics did reveal that averages for fire set by juveniles has dropped significantly. Follow up data from TEB indicate the reason for this decrease is likely the result of juvenile fire setter programs distributed through the fire service in 2002 and 2003 (J. Hettrick, personal communication, January 5, 2010). Although is difficult to find a clear linkage, it does point toward evidence of a local program delivery that had an effect in decreasing fires set by juveniles. The fourth question addressed in this research was: How could fire safety education materials be efficiently distributed for use in Alaska? To answer this, research consisted of available sources for the information needed to address common hazards in Alaska. The Alaska Division of Fire and Life Safety Training and Education Bureau Public Fire Education office was again a valuable resource. In discussing the availability of materials, Public Education Coordinator Mahlon Greene stated that there are a number of item that fire departments can request through his office (personal communication, January 5, 2010). For departments in smaller communities the public education office can provide information and materials for a number of Alaska programs, and often the material is shipped to departments through the USPS at no cost to departments. For departments that have a need for a large volume of materials, the Public Education office can network with other agencies, such as the Center for Disease Control, and assist

32 FIRE SAFETY EDUCATION BASICS 32 departments with how to capitalize on other state or federal support, including grants for public education programs. It is important to note that many of the larger programs are well outside of the scope of the role of the firefighter certification programs, and are typically associated with fire department programs that have a dedicated fire safety educator. There are also a number of resources available through national agencies, and many provide access to free publications and materials. These include information accessible through the internet from the US Fire Administration, the National Fire Protection Association, the Home Safety Council, Safe Kids Worldwide, and many others. In support of this project the AFSC office can provide a resource link through its webpage to assist fire departments in locating appropriate material for their community. Effective fire safety education materials can be accessed easily through electronic sources, and Rielage (2009) pointed out that there are many ways to utilize free online material (p. 18). A basic internet search can locate a number of fire and life safety materials that can be downloaded at no cost. An intended component toward further development of the online module will include links to appropriate resources. The fifth question addressed in this research was: What would the fiscal impact associated with the implementation of basic fire safety educator for firefighter I certification requirements be? Literature research found little information specific to costs related to firefighter I certification programs, but there was some anecdotal data found that helped with defining an answer to this question. A key factor in fiscal impacts fire safety education can have to community risk was identified by Lacey and Valentine who note that for the fire service, it is still much cheaper to prevent a fire from occurring than to combat it (2007, p.102). Fiscal impacts are complex in that it is difficult to quantify the savings of effective fire prevention.

33 FIRE SAFETY EDUCATION BASICS 33 However, for the purpose of this project the impact is limited to the firefighter I testing and certification criteria. Basic information and publication materials are available at no cost through a variety of sources including the TEB, the US Fire Administration, and related firefighter curriculum. To assist in targeting Alaska based statistics, work between the TEB and the AFSC can provide Alaska specific material through the AFSC website. The ongoing development of this program would allow firefighters to access this information through an active internet connection and complete it outside of a class schedule. In reference to fire safety education with limited funds, Rielage (2009) found that effective fire safety education can be delivered with little direct cost by looking at local statistics, determining which statistics can be reduced, and utilizing the multitude of online material. In terms of the AFSC ability to analyze the overall process of standards adoption for questions within this research, this project highlighted the need for improvements in the spectrum of how the AFSC comes to final decision these matters. The result was the formation of advisory committees and development of a structured report for use by the AFSC. Although a final committee report for the topic of this research will not be complete until March of 2010, preliminary findings indicate committee member views on this topic are consistent with the research findings, and there will be strong support of fire safety education for firefighter I certification if the AFSC can create a program specific to local requirements. Discussion Since its formation, the AFSC has addressed many topics related to standards and certification, including the adoption of NFPA 1001 and NFPA The goal of this project

34 FIRE SAFETY EDUCATION BASICS 34 was to provide fire service personnel with opportunities to affect community risk reduction in the firefighter I certification progress. As stated by Bergel (1997), the fire service has been programmed to be reactive and to respond to events rather than prevent events from taking place (p. 10). In looking at the overall prevention model a primary goal is that any reduction of fires through fire safety education will result in reduced firefighter and civilian injury, and thus have an impact to community risk reduction. In review of information for this project, there are strong indications as to why that the United States, including Alaska, continues to exhibit one of the worst fire and preventable injury problems. A common thread found between the America Burning and John s Hopkins reports is that the reduction of fire related injury/death is ongoing, and the significant factors related to this research are: a) lack of commitment to prevention, and b) changing needs in an evolving fire service and failure to accurately assess and target populations at risk. The recent change to NFPA 1001 only seems to exacerbate what this research has determined to be an ongoing problem, and certifying agencies are left to make their own determination of what is best for their constituents in the area of basic fire safety education. The NFPA change appears counterintuitive to much of what has already identified as a profound problem with fire service operations and seems to contradict the NFPA s own claim to be the leading advocate of fire prevention and public safety. Based on the information found through this research, the NFPA removal of core fire safety education requirements from the firefighter I standard is a step in the opposite direction for instilling prevention fundamentals with candidates. The intent of this project was to focus the role a firefighter I personnel has as a fire safety educator and how the AFSC could impact fire safety education though the certification process. Ideally, each fire department would have someone on staff to work exclusively on fire

35 FIRE SAFETY EDUCATION BASICS 35 prevention and fire and life safety educator goals, but local survey results found even departments with fire prevention personnel must assign firefighter personnel for fire safety public contacts. This is important to note for this project because, as Kiurski, Deadman, & Olsen (1998) pointed out, the more comprehensive the public safety educator training is the better prepared a firefighter will be in facing the challenges educating the public in his or her community. In identifying the importance of prevention and fire and life safety education, Wallace (2003) suggested that fire departments focus on fire safety education programs and treat then as a priority from the time that recruits walk through the door (p. 62). Byrne (2008) noted that the fire service needs to get aggressive o fire education; because it s only education that will reach into the residential occupancy (p.42), and these efforts should start with the firefighters (p. 46). In speaking of the importance to of fire safety in the community Kiurski (1999) made a critical point that highlights the importance of this research; firefighters aren t expected to fire fires without training yet in some departments, they are sent into the community to teach fire safety without the least bit of educational training (p. 1). Karter s (2009) report indicated the national statistics for residential structure fires is not decreasing, and these fires create the greatest number of injury and death to civilians and firefighters. Alaska statistics for residential structure fire percentages mirrored national averages in 2008, and resulted in 70 civilian and 28 reported firefighter injuries. Anecdotal data from the TEB indicated that delivery of juvenile fire setter materials from may have resulted in the current reduction of fires set by juveniles by nearly 50%. With a goal to target local risk factors the AFSC and TEB offices could work jointly to arm fire service personnel with information that is specific to their risk factors.

36 FIRE SAFETY EDUCATION BASICS 36 In America Burning Revisited (1987), the report indicates that correlating emergency response to injury and loss can provide a means to isolate and target critical areas. In addressing community risk in Alaska this could be facilitated through the AFSC webpage through cooperative work with TEB. This could include a basic fire safety online module geared towards how to locate specific regional statistics, that is available through the internet, and locate materials and information that correspond with targeted risks. The Alaska survey results found that although many departments do some fire safety focused on their community, nearly 50% use canned programs. Appy (2001) indicated that future challenges of fire safety programs will involve sophistication of traditional programs, and Diamantes (2005) recommends that fire safety programs appeals to the audience in a way that they can identify with. Through use of online resources the AFSC could apply the use of a sophisticated technology and target local fire safety information so that the fire service and their community gets the programs that affect them. In an effort to establish TEB as a shareholder and partner with another agency on this project, a meeting was held on December 3, 2009 with TEB Supervisor Jodie Hettrick, Rural Fire Training Specialist Steve Schreck, and Public Education Coordinator Mahlon Greene. The meeting focused on the NFPA changes and how to address these change once adopted by the AFSC. TEB personnel felt that firefighters had a significant role in influencing community risk reduction and pledged their support to help the AFSC with development of a program to support this project. An outcome of this meeting was the draft of a basic fire safety program for use as an online module for firefighter candidates and the development of a JPR for use in training record documentation. Additional developments for this project are slated for February of 2010.

37 FIRE SAFETY EDUCATION BASICS 37 In examination of the impact to past Alaska programs, it was apparent that the AFSC has not been very effective in developing a local fire prevention and life safety strategy related to fire service personnel at any level. As the governing agency responsible for fire service certification, the AFSC has not placed any emphasis on past requirements for testing firefighter personnel. Additionally, this project revealed that even the Public Fire and Life Safety Educator certification process has not done enough to enable fire constituents to achieve success in leading fire safety efforts statewide. Although the PFLSE program was approved and adopted by the AFSC in 2005, there are still many applications that have gone unprocessed because the related test elements were not fully developed to meet all NFPA standard requirements. As a result, many of the contacts for community public fire and life safety have come from firefighters who have had limited exposure to fire safety education concepts. As Crawford (2005) pointed out, firefighters and fire prevention personnel have similar goals and, and firefighters that have the knowledge to educate the public can be the most credible sources within the community. They are also the best eyes and ears for preventable fire problems within the community and the public will listen to them when they talk because they respect their opinions (p. 142). In addressing fire service leaders at the National Fire Academy Billy Hays (2009) stated that the lack of fire safety education is a cultural problem that continues to be perpetuated by the fire service and in the Executive Analysis of Community Risk Reduction student manual (Unit 4) it was noted that that fire departments will resist change, even when it is proven to be necessary. Heifetz and Linsky (2002) made the point that with good leadership, people will go along with change without critically questioning its merits. Schumacher (2001) emphasized that fire department leaders need promote fire safety education, and thus, encourage line personnel to place fire safety education as the primary role of the fire service.

38 FIRE SAFETY EDUCATION BASICS 38 The AFSC serves as the leadership with regard to fire service standards and certification, and has a responsibility to take a lead role on this issue and provide direction to the Alaska fire service when it is reasonable to do so. The local survey results show that Alaska fire departments do consider fire safety critical to community risk reduction, and over 80% have are provided some training to firefighter I candidates. The national survey results found that many other certifying agencies have chosen to follow the NFPA 1001 changes as written, and several follow up survey calls found that this was primarily due to the additional time needed to address the hazardous materials operations requirements. Based on the information found throughout this research it seems evident that a program developed locally could provide firefighters with local statistics and targeted materials to better address their community needs. Additionally, the AFSC should actively work towards improving more advanced Fire and Life Safety Educator programs to enhance the fire service ability to provide better fire safety education at all levels. Information gathered from the local fire department survey shows a strong support for fire safety programs and identified a need to provide some guidance for how to target programs at the local level. Recommendations Within this applied research project the author was able ascertain that basic fire safety education skills for firefighters is an important component to a fire departments ability to distribute information within their community, and this information can have an impact to community risk in Alaska. Although additional requirements beyond national referenced standards has impacts to firefighter certification requirements that include additional training time, without adequately trained personnel fire departments are limited in their ability to

39 FIRE SAFETY EDUCATION BASICS 39 positively impact community risks within their jurisdiction. In identifying community risks, fire departments can use local statistics and target programs to meet the needs of their jurisdiction and gather materials online that are available through numerous resources, including materials available for the needs of the Alaska fire service. Fiscal impacts for basic fire and life safety programs include an investment of training hours, but in many cases the actual cost of the material can limited to printing and distribution to target audiences. Based on the research for this project, there are several recommendations for the AFSC in moving forward with support of the fire safety education needs of the state. The first is a recommendation that the AFSC maintain dedicated standing committees to analyze the adoption of NFPA standards and provide program oversight and evaluation through use of the template drafted for this project. In particular, question four on the committee report should be thoroughly reviewed for any standard the AFSC utilizes to ensure that the AFSC is taking a lead role in addressing the need for programs that better impact community risk reduction. As part of the committee process, the AFSC can regularly monitor Alaska fire statistics to ensure that there is reoccurring consideration towards how certification efforts affect civilian and fire service injury. The second recommendation is that the AFSC maintain a basic fire safety educator requirement for firefighter I and continue to partner with the TEB office to advance this project through a comprehensive basic fire safety module that can be accessed and completed online. This module will use current Alaska fire statistics and direct users towards resources that target fire hazards for their community or region and should be available everyone. Firefighter I personnel will have the option to complete this material outside of the classroom and practical training environment if time is a factor. The associated skill sheet requirement can also be

40 FIRE SAFETY EDUCATION BASICS 40 conducted without dedicated course hours allowing candidates to be exposed to fire safety information without adding time to the firefighter I class schedule. Both the online module and skill sheet can be utilized as a requisite component to certification as an Alaska firefighter I, and should also be considered as a requirement for those individuals seeking reciprocity for Alaska certification. The third recommendation is that the AFSC office complete updates to the Fire and Life Safety Educator (NFPA 1035) certification program. This research found that this program has been poorly monitored, but it is an essential component in supporting fire safety education statewide. In facilitating the testing and certification for fire safety educator a greater number of personnel can use related information and support community risk reduction at all levels of fire department operations. Individuals certified as FLSE can provide local firefighters with assistance and can serve as subject matter support for future considerations by the AFSC committees. With an increased focus on the fire safety educator program, the AFSC provides a leadership example for the Alaska fire service to follow. The fourth and final recommendation from this project is that the AFSC include fire safety education test elements in every examination test for the firefighter II program as specified by national standards. Fire safety education material was previously in the firefighter I program, but the AFSC has had minimal test requirements for the fire safety education during previous years. In moving forward with updates to the firefighter programs a mandatory inclusion within the test environment will ensure this material is prioritized appropriately within the firefighter certification program.

41 FIRE SAFETY EDUCATION BASICS 41 References Alaska Division of Fire and Life Safety. (2009). Civilian fire fatality statistics (Annual Report). Anchorage, AK: State of Alaska. Alaska Division of Fire and Life Safety. (2009). Fire in Alaska 2008 (Annual Report). Retrieved from: Appy, M., Kenyon, S., Knudtzon, J., Rhodes, T., & Schumacher, D. (2001, October). Essentials of public education. Fire Chief, 45(10), Bergel, P. T. (1997, May). Public fire safety education; Is the fire service headed in the right direction. Responder, 4(5), Byrne, D. (2008, January). Public safety education and residential occupancy fire. Firehouse, 33(1), Byrne, D. (2009). A tale of saving lives: You write the ending. Retrieved September 24, from Coleman, R. J. (1978). Management of fire service operations. North Scituate, MA: Duxbury Press. Comoletti, J. (2004, July/August). Life-safety messages linked to FIRE act funding. NFPA Journal, 98(4), 34. Crawford, J. (2002). Fire prevention: A comprehensive approach. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Crawford, J. (2008). Prove it! Evidence-based decisions are sound decisions. FireRescue Magazine, 26(7), 113.

42 FIRE SAFETY EDUCATION BASICS 42 Diamantes, D. (2005). Principles of fire prevention. Clifton Park, NY: Thomson Delmar Learning. Diamantes, D. (2007). Fire prevention: Inspection and code enforcement (3 ed.). Clifton Park, NY: Thompson Delmar Learning. Everybody Goes Home. (n.d.). 16 firefighter life safety initiatives. Retrieved September 24, 2009, from Heifetz, R. A., & Linsky, M. (2002). Leadership on the line: Staying alive through the dangers of leading. Boston, MA: Harvard School Press. Karter, M. J., Jr. (2009). Fire loss in the United States 2008 (FLX08). Quincy, MA: National Fire Protection Association. Kirtley, E. (1993, November). Public education: Taking it to the line. American Fire Journal, 45(11), Kiurski, T. (1999). Creating a fire-safe community: A guide for fire safety educators. Saddle Brook, NJ: Fire Engineering Books and Video. Kiurski, T., Deadman, R., & Olsen, N. (1998, June). Training the next generation of fire safety educators. Firehouse, (23), Lacey, B., & Valentine, P. (2007, November). Fire prevention: It s not just for one week a year. Firehouse, 32(11), National Fire Protection Association. (2002). NFPA 1001: Standard for fire fighter professional qualifications. Quincy, MA: Author. National Fire Protection Association. (2005). NFPA 1035: Standard for professional qualifications for public fire and life safety educator. Quincy, MA: Author.

43 FIRE SAFETY EDUCATION BASICS 43 National Fire Protection Association. (2008). NFPA 1001: Standard for fire fighter professional qualifications (2008 edition). Quincy, MA: Author. Piver, J., McDonald, E. M., & Gielen, A. C. (2007). Fire and life safety education in U.S. fire departments:results of a national survey, final report to the home safety council. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Center for Injury Research and Policy. Reisinger, K. S. (1980, April). Smoke detectors: Reducing deaths and injuries due to fire. Pediatrics, 65, Rielage, R. R. (2009, October). Fire-safety education on a shoestring. Fire Chief, 53(10), Schaenman, P. (2009, August). Oh, Canada. Fire Chief, 53(8), U.S. Fire Administration. (2009, October). Executive fire offier program guideline (Policy and Procedure). Emmitsburg, MD: Author. United States Fire Administration. (1973). America burning: The report of the national commission on fire prevention and control (FA-264). Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. United States Fire Administration. (1987). America burning revisited. Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. United States Fire Administration. (2002). America at risk: America burning recommissioned (FA-223). Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. United States Fire Administration. (2008). Public fire education planning: A five step process (FA-219). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. United States Fire Administration. (2009, February). Executive analysis of community risk reduction (Student Manual). Emmitsburg, MD: Author. Wallace, T. (2003, September). Take the fire fight home. Fire Chief Magazine, 47(9),

44 FIRE SAFETY EDUCATION BASICS 44 Appendix A ALASKA ACCREDITED FIRE DEPARTMENT SURVEY Greetings, The Alaska Fire Standards Council is gathering information to assist in reviewing updates to existing certification programs. We are seeking input from Training Officers related to basic fire and life safety education for firefighter I certification (only one response per department). This information is being gathered as a component to a National Fire Academy Executive Fire Officer course Applied Research Project by the Author. Please follow the link below to complete a short online survey by the close of business December 4, The survey will take approximately 5-minutes to complete, and each participating department will be entered into a drawing to have AFSC fees waived for 5 certification applications. Regards, Gordon Descutner Alaska Fire Standards Council Executive Director 5700 E. Tudor Rd Anchorage, AK Phone: (907) Fax: (907) Questionnaire The Alaska Fire Standards Council is reviewing changes to NFPA edition in preparation for adoption, and is seeking your input related to these changes. You have received this request to complete a brief survey because you are a representative of a fire department accredited by the state of Alaska. Please review the following questions and answer them as they relate to your fire department. 1. Does your department consider basic public fire and life safety education programs to be an important component in addressing community risk in your jurisdiction? Yes No 2. During firefighter I training, has your public fire and life safety education training provided candidates with information other than what is in your FFI curriculum? *Yes No a. *Other than the material in your FFI curriculum, what other fire and life safety sources are utilized? -State fire education materials -Federal fire education office -Other:

45 FIRE SAFETY EDUCATION BASICS During firefighter I training, does your department have candidate s complete hands-on activities to present fire and life safety information to your community? (i.e. station tours, school programs, or other community programs) *Yes No a. *What sort of fire and life safety education hands-on activities does your department require firefighter I candidates to do? 4. During firefighter I training, does your department focus on fire and life safety education needs specific to your community or jurisdiction? (For example, based on fire statistics from your community) *Yes No a. *In terms of deciding what programs will best target the needs of your department's community, how do you evaluate your local community's fire and life safety education needs? -Local run reports/anfirs -State fire statistics for your region -Other: 5. Does your department have a position dedicated to public fire and life safety education? *Yes **No a. *What level of line staff on your department provide assistance presenting basic fire and life safety information to the public most frequently (for example: station tours, schools presentations, residential home safety visits, etc.)? Firefighter I Firefighter II Captain/Lieutenant Chief Officer Other: b. **Without a dedicated fire and life safety educator, what level of line staff on your department present basic fire and life safety information to the public most frequently (for example: station tours, schools presentations, residential home safety visits, etc.)? Firefighter I -Firefighter II -Captain/Lieutenant -Chief Officer Other: 6. Previous versions of NFPA 1001 had public fire and life safety (fire prevention) knowledge and skill requirements at the firefighter I level, but the 2008 edition has removed these requirements from firefighter I. Would your department support the continuation of a basic public fire and life safety education requirement for firefighter I certification in Alaska? Yes No Additional comment: Thank you for completing this survey.

46 FIRE SAFETY EDUCATION BASICS 46

47 FIRE SAFETY EDUCATION BASICS 47

48 FIRE SAFETY EDUCATION BASICS 48

49 FIRE SAFETY EDUCATION BASICS 49

50 FIRE SAFETY EDUCATION BASICS 50 Appendix B ACCREDITED AGENCY SURVEY (NATIONAL/INTERNATIONAL) Greetings, The Alaska Fire Standards Council (AFSC) is currently reviewing changes to NFPA edition in preparation for adoption, and we are seeking information from other IFSAC accredited agencies. The link below is to a short survey related to NFPA changes to the basic fire prevention requirements for firefighter I. Within the survey there is one question related to how many firefighter I and II certificates were issued by your agency in For example, in 2008 the AFSC issued 162 FFI certificates and 114 FFII certificates. If you are able to provide this information and it is available before you link to the survey, it will limit the survey completion time to just a couple of minutes. This survey link will close at 12:00 am on December 12. Thanks in advance for your help! Regards, Gordon Descutner Alaska Fire Standards Council Executive Director 5700 E. Tudor Rd. Anchorage, AK Phone: (907) Fax: (907) Questionnaire The Alaska Fire Standards Council is reviewing changes to NFPA edition in preparation for adoption, and is seeking information related to changes in the standard. This feedback instrument was prepared by the author as part of an applied research project for the Executive Fire Officer Program through the National Fire Academy. The purpose of this project is to asses the impact of basic public fire and life safety certification requirements within the Alaska firefighter I testing and certification program. All survey participants will

51 FIRE SAFETY EDUCATION BASICS 51 be entered into a random drawing to win an embroidered polo shirt from the Alaska Fire Standards Council. 1. Has your agency adopted the NFPA 1001 (2008) Standard for Professional Firefighter Qualifications for firefighter certification testing requirements? *YES **NO a. *In reference to NFPA edition, does your agency's firefighter I certification test include basic fire and life safety education job performance requirement (formerly referenced in NFPA 1001 [2002 edition] section and 5.5.2)? *YES **NO b. *How is the Firefighter 1 fire and life safety education testing component referenced? i. Reference to requisite Prevention/Preparedness skills identified in NFPA 1001 (2008) section 6.5 ii. Referenced to requisite job performance requirements (JPR) specified by my agency iii. Other: 2. **Other than certification programs specific to NFPA 1035 Professional Public Fire and Life Safety Educator and requirements currently identified in NFPA 1001 (2008) section 6.5, does your agency address basic fire and life safety education skills for the firefighter I level through any other method? *YES NO a. *What other methods does your agency uses to address basic fire and life safety education skills for firefighters? i. Comment: Thank you for your assistance in answering this questionnaire.

52 FIRE SAFETY EDUCATION BASICS 52

53 Appendix C FIRE SAFETY EDUCATION BASICS 53

54 FIRE SAFETY EDUCATION BASICS 54

55 FIRE SAFETY EDUCATION BASICS 55 Appendix D STATE OF ALASKA DEPARTMENT of PUBLIC SAFETY FIRE STANDARDS COUNCIL This form shall be used for committee reporting to the Alaska Fire Standards Council (AFSC). Please attach supplement support documents such as change matrices or other relevant information. NFPA Standard/Certification Program: Date of Final Report: Committee Member List: Contact Number Contact Designated Lead : Mark the YES/NO box and comment as appropriate. Yes No 1. Has the committee found any significant or potential challenges in meeting the minimum core requirements of this standard/program within Alaska? If yes, list NFPA section and specific concern(s) (use additional pages as necessary): Committee recommendation above points: 2. Are there Sections/Chapters that are not applicable to the Alaska fire service? If yes, what are they (specific reference): Committee recommendation to AFSC on the above points: Yes No 3. Are there other referenced programs that will be affected or required (pre-requisites, other referenced standards)? If yes, what are they (specific reference): Committee recommendation to AFSC on the above points: Yes No

56 FIRE SAFETY EDUCATION BASICS Will this standard/program have a direct impact towards firefighter safety or community risk in Alaska? What is the impact (positive/negative): Committee recommendation to AFSC on the above points: Yes No 5. Are there other references to consider (statutory, legal, medical requirements, OSHA, backgrounds, etc)? If yes, what are they (specific reference): Committee recommendation to AFSC on the above points: Yes No 6. Are there impacts to IFSAC accreditation (changes that involve prerequisites or other significant modifications for continued accreditation)? If yes, what are they (specific reference): Committee recommendation to AFSC on the above points: Yes No 6. Will this standard/program have a direct impact towards firefighter safety or community risk in Alaska? What is the impact (positive/negative): Committee recommendation to AFSC on the above points: 7. Are there anticipated challenges for certification field testing (equipment, technical challenges, time, feasibility)? If yes, what are they (specific reference): Committee recommendation to AFSC on the above points: Yes No 8. Are there other concerns or suggestions for AFSC discussion (rural adaptability, recertification, technical needs)? If yes, list: Committee recommendation to AFSC on the above points: Yes No 9. Were other subject matter experts, groups, or organizations consulted in the development of this committee recommendation? If yes, who was consulted and what was their opinion (detail): Committee recommendation to AFSC on the above points: Yes No

57 FIRE SAFETY EDUCATION BASICS List specific changes to standard (updates only). Use additional sheet as necessary List NFPA section references: Committee recommendation to AFSC on the above points: Fire Standards Council Administration Use Only (Not for Committee Use) Public *Comment/Testimony *List Numerically- Include Who is commenting; What comments are pertinent to this program; and Date Final Council Action AFSC Final Decision Approved *Declined *Conditional Date: *List detail for Decline/Conditional decisions: AFSC Executive Director Signature AFSC Chairman Signature AFSC Vice Chairman Signature Date Date Date

58 Appendix E FIRE SAFETY EDUCATION BASICS 58

59 FIRE SAFETY EDUCATION BASICS 59 Appendix F ALASKA FIRE STADARDS COUNCIL PILOT PROGRAM

60 ALASKA FIRE STADARDS COUNCIL PILOT PROGRAM FIRE SAFETY EDUCATION BASICS 60

61 FIRE SAFETY EDUCATION BASICS 61 Appendix G Fire Safety Online Module Draft

62 FIRE SAFETY EDUCATION BASICS 62