by heather stingley a paper submitted to the faculty of ... heather stingley a paper submitted to...

FIREFIGHTER STAFFING PER COMPANY: DOES COMPLYING WITH THE NATIONAL

GUIDELINE IMPROVE A FIRE DEPARTMENT’S PERFORMANCE ENOUGH TO

JUSTIFY THE COST?

By

Heather Stingley

A paper submitted to the faculty of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in partial

fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Public Administration.

SPRING 2011

This paper represents the work of a UNC MPA student. It is not a formal report of the School of

Government, nor the School of Government faculty.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In 2001 the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) passed Standard 1710, recommending a

minimum staffing of 4 firefighters per company. Local government managers opposed its passage,

calling it an expensive one-size-fits-all standard. This study analyzes detailed staffing data for a 2-week

period in September 2010 to assess 1710 compliance among North Carolina municipalities and the effect

of compliance on performance. Survey results show that few departments consistently comply with 1710

and the majority regularly staff companies with fewer than 4 firefighters. Furthermore, a relationship

between compliance and improved performance cannot be conclusively verified from these data.

1

INTRODUCTION

Fire remains a far larger threat in the United States than is often realized. Improvements in how we

prevent fires have reduced the overall fire risk faced by the nation, yet over the past 27 years the United

States has continuously had the fifth highest number of fire-related deaths per capita among industrialized

nations.1

The National Fire Protection Association’s Standard 1710 provides career fire departments with technical

guidelines and recommendations for response times, staffing, operational procedures and department

organization. This study is centered on the staffing recommendation made in 1710: engine and ladder

companies should be staffed with a minimum of 4 firefighters.2

Appropriate staffing levels are not a new concern; whether or not fire departments should adhere to a per

company staffing minimum has been debated and studied for over 40 years.3 However, heated debate

preceded the passage of 1710, because the minimum staffing guideline was a new and controversial

addition to NFPA standards.

Public administrators, especially those in local government, argued that a minimum staffing guideline is

an expensive one-size-fits-all standard that forces managers to redirect resources from equally important

functions.4 At the same time, the International Association of Firefighters (IAFF) widely supported a

universal minimum staffing guideline, and had advocated for one since 1992. The IAFF spent millions of

dollars and used its political strength to bring the staffing issue forward and ensure it passed.5 The

International City/County Management Association (ICMA) and the National League of Cities (NLC)

pushed to overturn the standard; it was appealed to the NFPA board of directors but ultimately upheld.6

It is important to note that the NFPA’s standards are not binding.7 However, they are taken seriously

because of the respect given to the NFPA in general, and more specifically in this case because local

governments are worried they will be liable for fire damage and injuries/fatalities if they are not meeting

the minimum staffing levels. Yet the actual degree of compliance with 1710 is largely unknown.

BACKGROUND

Despite the multitude of studies undertaken to determine the optimal per company staffing number and

the effect increased staffing has on performance, there remains little information about how fire

departments are actually staffing companies and the extent to which these staffing assignments affect

performance. Prior research has been almost exclusively based on time-to-task-completion experiments.

Done in a controlled environment, these experiments mimic what happens to single-family residential

structures during a fire and time how long it takes different-sized companies to complete a specific set of

tasks. In general these studies were oriented to specific communities and while their results have been

generalized, it is not clear that this is appropriate.

In April 2010, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) published results of the largest

fire services staffing study to date.8 That study was designed specifically to test the standards outlined in

NFPA 1710, and consisted of more than 60 experiments both within laboratories and on the scene of

manufactured structural fires. Like prior staffing studies, the NIST study was based on time-to-task-

completion experiments, and concluded that all of the studied tasks could be completed faster by four-

person companies than by companies comprised of fewer than 4 firefighters.

In the NIST study, repeated experiments measured the time it took companies of 2, 3, 4 and 5 to complete

22 fireground tasks. It concluded that 4-person companies could complete the full battery of tasks 5.1

2

minutes faster than 3-person companies and 7 minutes faster than 2-person companies. Some key

findings include:

4-person companies put water on a fire 6% faster than 3-person companies

4-person companies completed primary search and rescue 6% faster than 3-person companies

4-person companies completed laddering and ventilation 25% faster than 3-person companies

Unlike prior research, the NIST study does not focus on a specific municipality but acknowledges that it

still faces many of same shortcomings previous time-to-task-completion studies have, due to the fact that

it is impossible to account for the wide variety of structural fires firefighters face and other factors real

life presents.

The current North Carolina study seeks additional insights on the issue and provides a broader analysis

using detailed staffing data over a 2-week period in September 2010 to do so.

METHODOLOGY

This study is based on past performance and staffing assignments. It primarily uses data obtained from

electronic surveys distributed to career fire departments in North Carolina. Surveys were distributed in

two phases: the first phase was to participants of the North Carolina Benchmarking Project and in the

second phase they were sent to all career fire departments not yet surveyed. Additional background

information and data were gathered from the U.S. Census, N.C. Benchmarking Project, NFPA, United

States Fire Association (USFA) and the North Carolina Fire and Rescue Commission.

The scope of this study is restricted to career fire departments, ladder and engine companies, and

structural fires. These guidelines were chosen in order to limit the study to only the situations and

characteristics pertaining to NFPA 1710.9 This study does not include fire departments outside of North

Carolina due to time constraints.

Phase I Survey: N.C. Benchmarking Group

The N.C. benchmarking group was surveyed in advance of a November 2010 conference about fire

services. This self-selected group participates in annual surveys that cover several facets of local

government service provision and this study’s survey was sent via email as a supplemental survey. The

Phase I survey was formatted and distributed like the annual benchmarking surveys and is included in

Appendix A.

Descriptive statistics were used to analyze survey results; main findings were presented at the November

conference. Survey design, questions and responses were reviewed and together with feedback from

respondents the survey was updated to improve clarity and eliminate questions deemed unnecessary

before it was distributed to the larger group.

Phase II Survey: North Carolina

The updated survey distributed in this phase was created to be as similar to the original survey as possible.

The main difference between this survey and the previous one is that two questions were removed and

two questions were added. Deleted questions were deemed unnecessary and additional questions were

needed to obtain data that in Phase I was already collected in the general benchmarking surveys. This

survey is included in Appendix B.

The list of fire departments surveyed in Phase II was compiled using the list of all fire and rescue

departments in North Carolina published by the state’s Fire and Rescue Commission. Internet research

3

and phone calls determined which of the departments are career fire departments and secured contact

information for each. An email was sent to each fire department with a link to the survey, created through

Qualtrics and hosted by UNC’s Odum Institute. A reminder email was sent to unresponsive recipients a

week later.

To increase the number of responses received, phone calls were made to the seven fire departments

serving cities of greater than 40,000 population that did not respond to the email request. Time

constraints made it impossible to engage in this level of follow up in smaller cities.

RESULTS AND ANALYSIS

In Phase I this study surveyed 13 fire departments and due to the nature of the group surveyed achieved a

response rate of 100%. The small sample size made it difficult to determine whether results could be

generalized more broadly. To increase the number of responses being analyzed, an additional 77 fire

departments were surveyed in Phase II. The response rate of the larger survey group was, as expected,

much lower; only 7 surveys were fully completed. This put the combined overall response rate at 23%.

While low for the entire set of municipalities surveyed, 66% of cities with a population of 40,000 or

greater responded.

1710 Compliance

The central component of this study is a set of staffing grids on which respondents were asked to report

how many firefighters actually served on each ladder and engine company e ach day of a 2-week period.

Respondents were instructed to enter staffing data only for the pre-selected time period but given the

opportunity to comment if they didn’t feel this gave an accurate picture of regular staffing assignments.

No responding fire department thought the time period was not indicative of regular staffing levels.

Of the fire departments surveyed, only 2 fully

complied with 1710. Both of these departments

had all but one of their companies staffed with 4

firefighters during the entire period so this study

considers them fully compliant. If compliance is

measured in a dichotomous fashion where

departments are only considered in compliance if

they always staff with 4+ firefighters, then only

10% of the responding departments complied with

1710 (Figure 1).

However, the staffing grids show that the majority

of respondents staffed companies with 4

firefighters some of the time and only 6 of the

departments never complied with 1710. In fact,

over the 2-week period, 7 departments had more

than half of their companies staffed with 4 or more

firefighters (Figure 2). Additionally, there are fire

departments that had companies with only 2

firefighters during this period. A breakdown by

municipality of how many companies were staffed

with 2, 3, and 4+ firefighters is shown in

Appendix C.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

0% 1-19% 20-39% 40-59% 60-79% 80-99% 100%

NumberofMunicipalies

PercentageofCompaniesInCompliance

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

Yes No


1710Compliance

Figure 1. Respondents were either in compliance or not

Figure 2. How often respondents reached minimum staffing

4

To better reflect the fact that of the 90% of

respondents not always meeting the national

guideline, some departments are closer to

compliance than others, a system was devised for

this study to give partial credit the closer they

were to the standard of 4 firefighters per company.

Using this system to calculate each department’s

compliance with 1710, staffing grid data were

weighted so that departments received full credit

for every company staffed with 4 or more

firefighters and partial credit for companies

staffed with fewer than 4 firefighters. For

example, a department with 3 firefighters per

company throughout the entire 2-week period would receive a score of 75%. A department having 4

firefighters on only 25% of its company days and 3 firefighters per company on all others would receive a

score of 83%.

The weighted compliance scores show how close each department is to compliance. The distribution of

scores is shown in Figure 3. Under this system the lowest score a responding department received is 50%

and reflects the fact that the particular fire department staffed every company with 2 firefighters during

the 2-week period. The majority of respondents were between 60% and 79% of the way towards

compliance.

Performance

The performance measures used in this study are not time-to-task-completion scores but instead three

outcome measures: percentage of fires contained to room or object of origin, per capita civilian fatalities,

and fire loss as a percentage of total property protected. Microsoft Excel was used to scatter plot the

relationship between each of these variables with the weighted percentage of compliance, and also used to

determine the correlation between each. The graphs can be referenced in Appendices D, E, and F.

The small sample yielded correlations that were not statistically significant. It is also important to note

that this study only used performance data for a 1-year period of time but the number and severity of fires

a municipality experiences fluctuates from year to year. The results found could be affected by the

specific year chosen.

Containment

Increased staffing does not positively correlate with a higher percentage of fires being contained to the

room or object of origin (r = -.05). Although it cannot be conclusively determined that there is no

relationship between staffing and fire containment, this study does not find evidence of any impact.

Fire Loss

A modest positive correlation between increased staffing and increased fire loss as a percentage of

property protected was found (r = .23). This finding seems to contradict the premise of NFPA 1710;

however, it is possible that the relationship indicates that when a community has a fire problem and

therefore is experiencing a high amount of fire loss, the government increases fire staffing to tackle this

problem.

Civilian Deaths

A modest negative correlation between increased staffing and per capita civilian deaths was found

(r = -.29). Although this study’s data suggest that increased staffing makes civilians safer, the correlation

is not statistically significant.

0

2

4

6

8

10

<60% 60-79% 80-89% 90-99% 100%


WeightedComplianceScore

Figure 3. How close to full compliance respondents were

5

Budget Implications

The main objection to a minimum staffing guideline expressed by mayors, managers, and other city

officials is that it can divert scarce resources from areas considered equally or more important to the

specific municipality. This study attempted to calculate the cost of compliance for each respondent but

was forced by data availability to limit analysis to the N.C. Benchmarking municipalities. To determine

the cost of compliance, the percentage of how close each municipality was to full compliance was used to

calculate the difference between current personnel costs and what personnel costs would be at 100%.

Only personnel costs attributed to firefighters were included in the calculation.

The further a municipality is from 100% compliance the more expensive it is to reach the national

guideline. The dollar amount needed to reach full compliance depends on the size of the municipality but

when this number is looked at as a percent of the total fire services budget it is easier to understand how

expensive complying with 1710 can be. It also makes it possible to compare municipalities of different

sizes. This information is shown in Figure 4 and can be found in Appendix G.

There is not a steady decline as you move from the

lowest average number of firefighters per

company to the highest but a general pattern

emerges when grouped by average per company.

For municipalities with an average of 3.5-3.99 it

will cost between 4% and 5% of the total

department budget to reach compliance, and for

those that average between 3.0-3.49 it will cost

17% to 19%. There is only one municipality with

an average of fewer than 3 but when you fall

below 3 it is much more expensive; in this case the

total department budget would have to be boosted

by 27% to achieve compliance.

CONCLUSIONS

This study found no conclusive evidence that increased staffing leads to a marked improvement in a fire

department’s overall performance results. However this does not mean that fire departments should no

longer pay attention to staffing levels and ignore NFPA 1710. Operating with limited resources forces

local government officials to make choices about the best use of taxpayer’s money. Complying with the

minimum staffing per company standard in 1710 is something many, if not all, managers and governing

body members would like to consider; but the reality is that increased staffing costs a lot of money and

this study finds that few career fire departments in North Carolina are in compliance.

Now, more than ever, it is important for decision-makers to look at all of the available information when

determining where to allocate resources and why, because local governments have to do less with less.

Time-to-task completion studies show that for a number of crucial tasks, 4-person companies can operate

faster than those with fewer. Presumably this should lead to improved performance results. However this

study failed to detect evidence that increased staffing resulted in improved outcomes during the time

period examined. Given the cost of adding firefighters and the absence of data linking 1710 compliance

to improved outcomes, it will be difficult for cash-strapped municipalities to make 1710 compliance a

priority.

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

2.8 3 3.2 3.4 3.6 3.8 4

CosttoComply

Average#ofFirefightersPerCompany

Figure 4. The cost to comply with NFPA 1710

6

ENDNOTES

1 U.S. Fire Administration Report. “Fire in the United States 2003 - 2007.” Published by FEMA, The

U.S. Department of Homeland Security, October 2009. 2 National Fire Protection Association Publication. NFPA 1710: Standard for the Organization and Deployment of Fire Suppression Operations, Emergency Medical Operations, and Special Operations to the Public by Career Fire Departments. NFPA International, 2010. 3 Cortez, Lawrence. “Fire Company Staffing Requirements: An Analytic Approach.” Fire Technology 37, 2001.

Maximus. “Analysis of Fire Services, City of Scottsdale, Arizona.” Study by Maximus for Scottsdale, AZ, March 2002.

McManis Associates. “Dallas Fire Department Staffing Level Study.” Report for the Dallas Fire Department, June 1984.

Morrison, Richard C. “Manning Levels For Engine and Ladder Companies in Small Fire Departments.” Report for Westerville, OH Fire Department, 1990. 4 Erwin, Joe. “Firefighters See Red.” Public Management, January 1993.

Hansell, Jim. “My Dad and NFPA 1710.” Public Management, July 2001. 5 Schaitberger, Harold. “Union United.” Fire Chief, February 2004. 6 Elliott, Timothy. “NFPA 1710: Facts, Fallacies and Fallout.” Fire Chief, August 2001. 7 Greenblatt, Alan. “Fired Up Over A New Standard.” Governing Magazine, July 2001. 8 Averill, Jason D., Lori Moore-Merrell, Adam Barowy, Robert Santos, Richard Peacock, Kathy A. Notarianni, and Doug Wissoker. “NIST Technical Note 1661: Report on Residential Fireground Field Experiments.” Report published by the NIST and U.S. Department of Commerce, April 2010. 9 NFPA 1710 specifically says in 1.1.1 and 1.2.1 that the standard pertains to career fire departments. This differentiates is from similar standards that have a wider scope and administration.

7

SOURCES REFERENCED Averill, Jason D., Lori Moore-Merrell, Adam Barowy, Robert Santos, Richard Peacock, Kathy A.

Notarianni, and Doug Wissoker. “NIST Technical Note 1661: Report on Residential Fireground

Field Experiments.” Report published by the NIST and U.S. Department of Commerce, April

2010.

Bryson, William. “It’s Time to Peer Into the 1710 Looking Glass.” Fire Chief, August 2002.

Cortez, Lawrence. “Fire Company Staffing Requirements: An Analytic Approach.” Fire Technology 37,

2001.

Cushman, Jon. “Report to Executive Board: Minimum Manning as Health & Safety Issue.” Report for

Seattle, WA Fire Department, 1981.

Elliott, Timothy. “NFPA 1710: Facts, Fallacies and Fallout.” Fire Chief, August 2001.

Erwin, Joe. “Firefighters See Red.” Public Management, January 1993.

Fahey, Rita F., Paul R. LeBlanc and Joseph L. Molis. “What’s Changed Over the Past 30 Years?”

Publication by the Fire Analysis and Research Division of NFPA, June 2007.

Flynn, Jennifer D. “Fire Service Performance Measures.” Publication by the Fire Analysis and Research

Division of NFPA, November 2009.

Greenblatt, Alan. “Fired Up Over A New Standard.” Governing Magazine, July 2001.

Hansell, Jim. “My Dad and NFPA 1710.” Public Management, July 2001.

Maximus. “Analysis of Fire Services, City of Scottsdale, Arizona.” Study by Maximus for Scottsdale,

AZ, March 2002.

McManis Associates. “Dallas Fire Department Staffing Level Study.” Report for the Dallas Fire

Department, June 1984.

Mirkhah, Azarang. “Impetus for Change.” Fire Chief, January 2007.

Morrison, Richard C. “Manning Levels For Engine and Ladder Companies in Small Fire Departments.”

Report for Westerville, OH Fire Department, 1990.

National Fire Protection Association Publication. NFPA 1710: Standard for the Organization and

Deployment of Fire Suppression Operations, Emergency Medical Operations, and Special

Operations to the Public by Career Fire Departments. NFPA International, 2010.

National Fire Protection Association Report. “Four Years Later – A Second Needs Assessment of the

U.S. Fire Service: North Carolina.” Published with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

Schaitberger, Harold. “Union United.” Fire Chief, February 2004.

8

TriData Corporation Report. “The Economic Consequences of Firefighter Injuries and Their Prevention.

Final Report.” Published by the NIST, U.S. Department of Commerce, March 2005.

U.S. Fire Administration Publication. “Firefighter Injuries.” USFA Topical Research Series 2:1, July

2001.

U.S. Fire Administration Publication. “Firefighter Injuries in Structures.” USFA Topical Research Series

2:2, August 2001.

U.S. Fire Administration Report. “Fire in the United States 2003 - 2007.” Published by FEMA, The U.S.

Department of Homeland Security, October 2009.

U.S. Fire Administration Report. “Fire-Related Firefighter Injuries in 2004.” Report published by

FEMA, The U.S. Department of Homeland Security, February 2008.

U.S. Fire Administration Report. “Structure Fire Response Times.” Report published by The U.S.

Department of Homeland Security, August 2006.

9

APPENDIX A: PHASE 1 SURVEY (SENT TO THE N.C. BENCHMARKING GROUP)

FIRE SERVICES STAFFING SURVEY Municipality:

STAFFING GRID Please use actual staffing records from September 1 – September 14, 2010 to complete the grid below. For each day, record how many companies were staffed with the number of firefighters designated in the left-hand column. If firefighters were assigned to a company but not present on a specific day, and no replacement was called in, they should not be counted. If you feel this two-week period is not indicative of your Department’s regular staffing levels, please explain (there is space at the end for comments).

Number Of Firefighters Per Company

Number of Companies Staffed With Designated Number Of Firefighters For Week 1 (September 1 – September 7, 2010)

Sept. 1

Sept. 2

Sept. 3

Sept. 4

Sept. 5

Sept. 6

Sept. 7

1

2

3

4

5

>5



Sept. 8

Sept. 9

Sept. 10

Sept. 11

Sept. 12

Sept. 13

Sept. 14

1

2

3

4

5

>5

Comments about your department’s staffing levels (optional)

STAFFING QUESTIONS

1. Does your department consistently pay overtime or take other steps to avoid falling below a minimum staffing level when absences occur?

□ Yes

□ No

10

- If yes, what is the minimum number that would trigger this action?

2. Has your city passed any sort of policy to ensure compliance with NFPA 1710? □

Yes

□ No

- If yes, when was it passed? (MM/YYYY)

- If yes, please describe the policy or guidelines below

3. Do companies comprised of four or more firefighters always travel to structural fires on one apparatus? □

Yes

□ No

- If fewer than 4 firefighters arrive on the first apparatus, can the firefighters that arrive first commence operations upon arrival or must they wait for the second apparatus to arrive?

□ Begin □

Wait

PERFORMANCE QUESTIONS

1. In FY 2010, how many structure fires necessitated the rescue of building occupants? (provide #)

2. How many firefighter fatalities occurred in structure fires in FY 2010? (provide #)

3. How many civilian fatalities in structure fires occurred in FY 2010? (provide #)

11

APPENDIX B: PHASE 2 SURVEY (SENT TO ALL CAREER FIRE DEPARTMENTS IN N.C.)

FIRE SERVICES STAFFING SURVEY Municipality:

STAFFING GRID Please use actual staffing records from September 1 – September 14, 2010 to complete the grid below. For each day, record how many companies were staffed with the number of firefighters designated in the left-hand column. If firefighters were assigned to a company but not present on a specific day, and no replacement was called in, they should not be counted. If you feel this two-week period is not indicative of your Department’s regular staffing levels, please explain (there is space at the end for comments).



Sept. 1

Sept. 2

Sept. 3

Sept. 4

Sept. 5

Sept. 6

Sept. 7

1

2

3

4

5

>5



Sept. 8

Sept. 9

Sept. 10

Sept. 11

Sept. 12

Sept. 13

Sept. 14

1

2

3

4

5

>5

Comments about your department’s staffing levels (optional)

STAFFING QUESTIONS

1. Does your department consistently pay overtime or take other steps to avoid falling below a minimum staffing level when absences occur?

□ Yes

□ No

- If yes, what is the minimum number that would trigger this action?

2. Has your city passed any sort of policy to ensure compliance with NFPA 1710? □

Yes

□ No

- If yes, when was it passed? (MM/YYYY)

12

- If yes, please describe the policy or guidelines below

PERFORMANCE QUESTIONS

1. In FY 2010, how many structure fires did you have?

2. In FY 2010, how many structure fires necessitated the rescue of building occupants? (provide #)

3. How many firefighter fatalities occurred in structure fires in FY 2010? (provide #)

4. How many civilian fatalities in structure fires occurred in FY 2010? (provide #)

5. How many structure fires were contained to the room or object of origin in FY 2010? (provide #)

6. What was the dollar amount of fire damage in FY 2010?

7. How many professional firefighters does your department employ?

8. How many volunteer firefighters does your department employ?

9. How many people does your department serve?

Please provide contact information: Name_________________ Municipality____________ Email_________________

13

APPENDIX C: PER COMPANY STAFFING BREAKDOWN BY MUNICIPALITY

How Often Companies Were Staffed With 4, 3 and 2 Firefighters Over a 2-Week Period

100.0%

15.8%

14.3%

84.2%

85.7%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

97.6%

90.7%

87.1%

85.7%

83.3%

65.2%

57.1%

46.7%

40.0%

26.7%

22.2%

19.9%

0.9%

2.4%

9.3%

12.9%

14.3%

16.7%

34.8%

42.9%

53.3%

60.0%

73.3%

77.8%

80.1%

99.1%

99.9%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

T

S

R

Q

P

O

N

M

L

K

J

I

H

G

F

E

D

C

B

A

ThePercentageofCompaniesStaffedWithXNumberofFirefighters

Municipality

2Firefighters

3Firefighters

4+Firefighters

14

APPENDIX D: FIRE CONTAINMENT GRAPH

Increased Staffing per Company Has Practically No Affect on Fire Containment

R²=0.00293

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

70.00% 75.00% 80.00% 85.00% 90.00% 95.00% 100.00%

PercentageofFiresContainedtoRoomofOrigin


15

APPENDIX E: FIRE LOSS GRAPH

Increased Staffing Slightly Leads to Higher Property Loss

*Including the outlier point does not affect the relationship found

R²=0.05122

0.00%

0.02%

0.04%

0.06%

0.08%

0.10%

0.12%

70.00% 75.00% 80.00% 85.00% 90.00% 95.00% 100.00%

PropertyLossasPercentofTo

talProperty


16

APPENDIX F: CIVILIAN FATALITIES GRAPH

Increased Staffing per Company Slightly Reduces Civilian Deaths

*Including the outlier point does not affect the relationship found

R²=0.08513

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

0.40

0.45

0.50

70% 75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 100%

Civilian

Deathsper1,000Popula

on


17

APPENDIX G: COST TO COMPLY WITH NFPA 1710

Municipality Average Staffing # per Company

Personnel Cost to Comply Cost to Comply as Percentage of Total Fire

Services Budget

A 2.84 $5,244,431 27.31%

B 3.0 $1,776,254 19.05%

C 3.0 $1,591,654 10.40%

D 3.0 $613,955 18.40%

E 3.02 $1,561,207 21.68%

F 3.09 $5,194,929 19.96%

G 3.13 $3,426,105 18.13%

H 3.35 $3,978,237 14.42%

I 3.53 $1,789,928 8.73%

J 3.6 $321,467 5.38%

K 3.73 $985,150 4.72%

L 3.8 $1,496,954 3.55%

M 3.99 $13,751 0.15%

N 3.99 $21,085 0.02%

Notes

Personnel Cost to Comply - Personnel costs do not include training, uniforms, or other costs associated

with employing additional firefighters. The portion of each department’s personnel costs attributed to

firefighters was calculated using the number of authorized firefighters and total number of authorized

FTEs.

Cost to Comply - The cost to comply was calculated by determining the dollar amount that personnel

costs would need to increase by to reach 100% compliance. A department’s compliance percentage was

calculated using the number of firefighters that were staffed during the 2-week period and the number of

firefighters the department needed to staff every company with 4 firefighters.

by heather stingley a paper submitted to the faculty of ... heather stingley a paper submitted to...

Documents