NFPA Technical Committee on Deployment and Organization of Fire Prevention Activities

Austin, TX

February 10-11, 2015

MEETING AGENDA

1. Chair Farr calls meeting to order on February 10, 2015 at 8:00 am.

2. Introduction of attendees.

3. Approval of the minutes of the September 16-17, 2014 Green Bay, WI meeting

(Attachment A).

4. Review purpose of meeting.

5. Task Group work and drafting of CRR document (Attachment B).

6. Old business.

7. New business.

8. Date and location of next meeting.

9. Adjournment.

ATTACHMENT A

1

NFPA Technical Committee on Fire Prevention Activities

Green Bay, WI

September 16-17, 2014

MINUTES

The meeting was called to order by Chair Farr on September 16, 2014 at 8:00 am.

Introduction of Attendees

Members Present:

Ronald Farr, UL, MI, Chair

Steven Sawyer, NFPA Staff Liaison

Michael Bodnar, Sereca Fire Consulting LTD, Alberta

William Bowman, Louisville Fire & Rescue, KY

Lisa Cockerill, Region of Peel, Canada

James Dawson, Chesterfield County Fire & EMS, VA

Connie Forster, Voting Alternate, IAFC, MN

Hugh Gibson, ISO, NJ

Michael Larsen, Amway Inc., MI

David Lynam, WA State Association of Fire Marshals, WA

Laura Mueller, National League of Cities, TX

James Munger, James Munger & Associates, Inc., AL

Kelly Nicolello, Alaska Department of Public Safety, AK

Colleen Pennington, Inspection Reports on Line, MI

Eugene Pietzak, IAAI, NY

Guy Santelli, WI Fire Inspectors Association, WI

Derrick Sawyer, NFPA's Urban Fire Safety Task Force, PA

Lynn Schofield, NFPA Ed Section, UT

Art Shaw, NAT&T, MI

Larry Willhite, Palm Beach County Fire Rescue, FL

Morgana Yahnke, CA Fire Chiefs Association, CA

Robert James, Alternate, UL, FL

Jack Keays, Alternate Bodner

Timothy Kerbrat, Alternate, IAFC, CA

Tim Knisely, Alternate, Paul Martin, PA

Catherine Spain, Alternate, National League of Cities, DC

John Verbeek, Alternate, Urban Fire Safety Task Force, ON

Guests Present:

Curt Floyd, NFPA

2

Marty King, West Aus FD, WI

Marcina Sunderhaus, AZ Fire Marshals Association, AZ

Members not present:

Gregory Chesser, US Department of the Air Force, WY

David Jacobowitz, NVFC, NY

Brett Lacey, IFSTA, CO

Frank Lamie, Canadian Association of Fire Chiefs, ON

Paul Martin, NY State Office of Fire Prevention & Control, NY

Randy Minaker, Port Coquitlam, BC

Kellie Sawyers, Oklahoma City FD, OK

Anthony Valdez, Fire Marshals Association of Colorado, CO

George Apple, Alternate, CA Fire Chiefs Association, CA

Keith Chambers, Alternate, Dawson

Richard Jones, Alternate, IAAI, LA

Thomas Wieczorek, Alternate, ICMA, DC

Motion made, seconded and accepted to approve the minutes of November 19-20,

2013, San Antonio, TX meeting.

Chair Farr and Staff Liaison Sawyer make opening remarks and reviewed the

purpose of meeting.

Public comments were reviewed and second revisions developed, see second draft.

Old business.

None.

New business.

The committee starting drafting the newly approved CRR document.

Task Groups were formed.

Motion made, seconded and approved to draft the new document as a

standard.

The next meeting will be held on February 10-11, 2015 in Austin, TX.

The meeting adjourned on September 17, 2014 at 4:00 pm.

Respectfully Submitted,

Steven F. Sawyer

Staff Liaison

ATTACHMENT B

NFPA 1300 Standard on Community Risk Assessment and Community Risk

Reduction Plan Development

Chapter 1 Administration

Scope. The document shall have primary responsibility for documents on the

process to conduct a Community Risk Assessment and develop, implement and

evaluate a Community Risk Reduction Plan.

1.1.3 This standard contains minimum requirements of a community risk

assessment (CRA), adequate program selection, managing resources, records

management, training, communications, and health and safety.

1.1.4 This standard addresses the strategic and policy issues involving the

organization and deployment of a fire prevention programs and does not address

methods for carrying out specific fire prevention services, activities and programs.

1.2 Purpose

1.2.1 The purpose of this standard is to specify the minimum criteria addressing the

??.

1.2.2 Nothing herein is intended to restrict any jurisdiction from exceeding these

minimum requirements.

1.3 Conflicts. The provisions of this standard shall not be deemed to nullify any

provisions of local, state, provincial, tribal or federal law.

1.4 Equivalency. Nothing in this standard is intended to prohibit the use of

systems, methods, or approaches of equivalent or superior performance to those

prescribed by this standard. Technical documentation shall be submitted to the

authority having jurisdiction to demonstrate equivalency.

Chapter 2 Referenced Publications

2.1 General. The documents or portions thereof listed in this chapter are referenced

within this standard and shall be considered part of the requirements of this

document.

2.2 NFPA Publications.

National Fire Protection Association, 1 Batterymarch Park, Quincy, MA 02169-

7471.

2.3 Other Publications.

Chapter 3 Definitions

3.1 General. The definitions contained in this chapter shall apply to the terms used

in this standard. Where terms are not included, common usage of the terms shall

apply.

3.2 NFPA Official Definitions.

3.2.1* Approved. Acceptable to the authority having jurisdiction.

3.2.2* Authority Having Jurisdiction (AHJ). An organization, office, or individual

responsible for enforcing the requirements of a code or standard, or for approving

equipment, materials, an installation, or a procedure.

3.2.3 Shall. Indicates a mandatory requirement.

3.2.4 Should. Indicates a recommendation or that which is advised but not required.

3.2.5 Standard. A document, the main text of which contains only mandatory

provisions using the word “shall” to indicate requirements and which is in a form

generally suitable for mandatory reference by another standard or code or for

adoption into law. Nonmandatory provisions shall be located in an appendix or

annex, footnote, or fine-print note and are not to be considered a part of the

requirements of a standard.

3.3 General Definitions.

Chapter 4 General

4.6 Community Risk Assessment (CRA)

4.6.1 The FPO shall conduct a CRA. (see Chapter 5)

4.6.2 The CRA shall be reviewed at a minimum of once every 5 years or more

frequently when changes take place that affect the original assessment.

4.6.3 The CRA shall be distributed to agencies, departments, and employees having

responsibilities designated in the plan.

4.6.4 A record shall be kept of all holders of the CRA.

4.6.5 A system shall be implemented for issuing all changes or revisions of the CRA

to all holders.

Chapter 5 Community Risk Assessment

5.1 Scope: This chapter shall establish a process to identify and analyze

community risks that impact the services outlined by in section 4.

5.2 Purpose. The purpose of a CRA is to assist in the development and

implementation of a Community Risk Reduction (CRR) Plan and programs to

reduce, mitigate or eliminate the community’s risks.

5.3 A Community Risk Assessment (CRA) shall be conducted to identify the needs

and the circumstances of the community and to establish the level of community

risk reduction activities.

5.3.1 The Community Risk Assessment shall be conducted every five (5) years or

more frequently based on community need. An annual review of CRA shall be

conducted to identify emerging trends, which may impact the current CRR Plan and

risk reduction programs.

5.3.2 The Community Risk Assessment shall include the following profiles to

describe the community:

(1) Demographic

(2) Geographic

(3) Building stock

(4) Emergency services response

(5) Non-emergency organizations and agencies

(6) Hazards

(7) Economic

5.3.3 Data collected as a result of incident investigations shall be incorporated into

the CRA.

5.3.4 Stakeholders shall be identified and an inclusive process shall be employed to

solicit input on the risks facing the community.

5.3.5 The identified risks shall be categorized on their probability and impact.

5.3.6 A needs analysis on the risks and identified strategies shall be conducted and

be included in a Community Risk Reduction (CRR) Plan.

5.4 A CRR Plan shall be developed that:

(1) Identifies programs and resources priorities that will reduce a community’s

risks.

(2) Is approved by AHJ.

High Impact

(3) Allocates resources for risk reduction programs.

5.5 The performance of the risk reduction programs shall be assessed on an ongoing

basis to evaluate efficiency and effectiveness and modify programs accordingly.

5.6 Process Method. The process used to conduct a CRA shall follow the

systematic approach of the scientific method, as applicable to the task.

5.6.1 Recognize the Need. Recognizing the need to conduct a CRA and develop a

risk reduction plan based on the CRA.

5.6.2 Define the Problem. The potential risks must be identified and programs

must be developed that are appropriate to mitigate the identified risks that fall

within the available resources.

5.6.3 Collect Data. Data must be collected regarding the community’s

demographics, building stock profile, geography, past loss history, and potential

likelihood or anticipated future events. This is empirical data because it is capable

of being verified or known to be true.

5.6.4 Analyze the Data. All data collected must be analyzed. This is an essential

step that must take place before the development of the CRA.

5.6.5 Develop a CRA . Based on the data analysis, an initial CRA shall be

developed. This process is referred to as inductive reasoning and must be based

solely on the empirical data that has been collected through a statistical analysis.

.

5.6.6 Validating the CRA. The validation of the CRA is done by the principle of

deductive reasoning, which means that a comparison of the findings of the CRA

shall be completed to ensure that they are consistent with the community’s level of

acceptable risk, capabilities and resources and the acknowledgement that not all

risks may not be covered under the CRA.

ANNEX A information to be edited

A.5.1.1 Conducting a risk assessment is a practical data gathering and analyzing

exercise.

A.5.2.1 There are numerous methodologies and approaches for identifying

community risks. See Appendix B for guidance on conducting a Community Risk

Assessment.

A.5.2.2 The assessment is a critical piece of FESO management. This process is

necessary to properly identify targets of opportunity for program development and

overall community risk reduction.

A.5.2.3 A Demographic Profile describes the composition of the community’s

population using various categories such as age, gender, cultural backgrounds,

language barriers, educational attainment, socioeconomic makeup, transient

populations and other considerations specific to a local community.

A Geographic Profile describes the physical features of the community. Consider

the nature and placement of features such as waterways, highways, canyons,

railroads, wild-land interface, landforms, and bridges.

A Building Stock Profile describes the various occupancy classification types and

numbers of buildings including mixed occupancies in the community to classify

their hazard risk category.

A Fire Profile describes the community’s past fire experience and trends and how

the community’s experience compares to statewide and national trends. Data on fire

deaths, injuries, cause and dollar loss are important components of a fire profile.

State and national statistics may assist in providing data.

A Response Profile describes the types of emergencies to which the organization

responds.

A Hazard Profile describes the natural, human-caused, and technological hazards.

An Economic Profile describes the economic sectors affecting the community that

are critical to its financial sustainability.

A.5.2.6 A risk assessment matrix classifies a community’s risks based on

probability and impact. This is a tool that can be used to create a visual

representation of the risks in the community.

A.5.2.7.1 The needs analysis consists of: (1) characteristic factors (such as existing

resources, competencies, performance levels) of the present FESO programs, (2) a

list of factors required to reduce, eliminate or mitigate the identified risks and (3)

identification of the gaps that exist and need to be filled.

Chapter 6 Community Risk Plan Development

6.1 Scope. This chapter establishes the process for developing a Community Risk

Reduction Plan based on the risks identified in the community risk assessment.

6.2 Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to identify root causes for risk, define

goals and objectives, coordinate with strategic partners, and develop programs that

address the risks identified in the community risk assessment.

6.3 Community Risk Reduction Plan. Each community risk reduction plan shall

be reviewed regularly and revised to reflect a community’s current risks. A

community risk reduction plan shall include strategies for mitigation of identified

risks and the prevention of potential risks, as well as timeframes for implementation

of the plan.

6.4 Prioritize Risks. Evaluate risks based on their probability and impact.

6.4.1 Categorize the risks based on the evaluation.

6.4.2 Prioritize the risks.

High Impact

6.4.3 Identify which risks to include in the root cause analysis based on priority.

A6.4.1

A risk assessment matrix can be used to prioritize a community’s risks based on

probability and impact. This is a tool that can be used to create a visual

representation of the community’s risks. Scores can be assigned based on a

combination of the probability and impact level of each risk. Consider past events

as well as information from experts, future demographic and environmental

modeling, and other information and factors that could affect future risks.

A6. Prioritization can also include other factors including resources, overall impact

to the community regardless of severity, political issues, and other legal

requirements.

Example for Matrix:

6.4 Identify Root Causes for Risk. Determine the root causes of the selected

risks.

6.4.1 Conduct a root cause analysis.

6.4.2 Use root causes to develop the goals and objectives of the risk reduction plan.

A6.4 Identify causal factors contributing to the risks: physical, economic,

environmental, demographic, natural, human-caused.

A6.4.1 Determine the problem and the goal. Examples of analysis can include:

fishbone (cause and effect) diagram, the five whys analysis

Example A: Fishbone Diagram

Example B: Five Whys

Risk: Rise in individuals having fire related injuries.

Why? People are staying in homes too long while it’s burning.

Why? Smoke alarms are not alerting individuals early enough about fires within the

home.

Why? Because the batteries were missing.

Why? Because the batteries are being used for other electronics within the home.

Solution: Strategy for risk reduction. Example strategy: Replace existing smoke

alarms with ten year batteries that cannot be removed.

6.5 Define Goals and Objectives. Develop goals and objectives based on risks

identified in the community risk assessment and prioritized.

6.5.1 Determine goals to mitigate or eliminate each risk selected through the

prioritization and root cause analysis.

6.5.2 Create objectives that accomplish each specific goal.

A6.5.2: Tool for determining goals and objectives. Example A: SMART: Specific,

Measurable, Attainable, Relevant, Time-based.

Example B: SWOT Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats

FROM VISION 20/20

Five E 's framework which looks at: emergency response, engineering,

education,

economic incentives, and enforcement. Ask yourself:

Emergency Response: Would changes in our emergency response protocols

help?

Engineering: Are there engineering/technology solutions that could help?

Education: Would educating the public help – if so who, what, when, how?

Economic Incentives: Could economic incentives improve compliance

and/or raise

awareness?

Enforcement: Is stronger enforcement required?

For some risks, work in all of these areas may be called for (although not

necessarily

feasible); for others, work in only one or two areas may be necessary.

Policy advocacy or legislative work may also be needed. Are there

mandates, model codes,

tax differentials, appropriations, penalties/fees that would enable the fire

department to better

use the 5 Es to mitigate risk?

6.6 Develop Strategic Partnerships. Identify strategic partners based on the goals

and objectives created to mitigate and eliminate risks determined in the community

risk assessment.

A6.6 Strategic partners should include other AHJs with overlapping jurisdiction,

industry and commercial entities within the community, professional associations,

medical providers, charities, nonprofit associations, community groups and

individuals, elected and appointed officials, and others with complementary

resources and common interests.

6.6.1 Engage identified strategic partners and identify the common goals and

objectives among the AHJ and strategic partners.

A6.6.1 Relationships with strategic partners should be continuous and should include

discussions of risks, goals, objectives, and the needs of the community as viewed by

the partners as well as the AHJ. Each strategic partner may have its own goals and

objectives, as well as priority of risks, that should be considered as the goals and

objectives are prioritized and the programs and plan is created. They should also be

engaged in implementing the programs and plans based upon mutual interests and

resources.

6.6.2. Public Input. To include a public participation process, identify, select

advisory group, identify public input process. Integrate the public as strategic

partners.

6.7 Develop Programs. Create programs that implement mitigation and

prevention strategies to reduce and prevent the risks identified with consideration of

the goals of strategic partners, intended service areas and populations, regulatory

issues, available resources and data, time constraints, and the need to address

uncertainties.

6.7.1 Coordinate with strategic partners to develop program options based on goals

and objectives for mitigating and eliminating risks determined by the community risk

assessment.

6.7.2 Determine organizational structure for implementation of each program.

Identify the leaders as well as the departments, divisions, groups, individuals,

strategic partners, and agencies responsible for each goal and objective.

A6.7.2 Organizational structure should identify an individual or organization is who

is responsible for the overall program.

6.7.3 Identify needed resources to accomplish goals and objectives developed to

prevent or mitigate risks established in community risk assessment.

NOTE to group: where does planning end and implementation begin???

6.7.4 Determine target groups or areas that will be benefitted by each program.

6.7.5 Determine what services or resources should be provided in each program.

Determine who will provide each service or resource whether the AHJ, outside

agencies, strategic partners, or others.

6.7.6 Determine an overall time line to accomplish the programs, goals, and

objectives.

6.7.7 Determine and address any challenges and limitations to implementation.

Annex

A6.7.1 Templates and tools to create a program can be found at

Example of Program chart:

Goal Objectives Activities Impact

Root cause

reduction strategy

Specific tactics to

achieve goal

Services provided to

meet objectives

Measurable risk

reduction

Goal Objectives Activities Impact

Reduce fires due to

unattended

cooking

Public education

training

Presentation to 300

residents

Increase their

knowledge of fire

prevention

Reduce carbon

monoxide exposure

Working carbon

monoxide alarm in

every residence

Home safety

inspection and

install carbon

monoxide alarms

Decrease in CO

poisoning visits

to the hospital

Example of Decision Tree:

Chapter 7 Community Risk Plan Implementation and Evaluation

7.1 Scope: This chapter shall establish the processes for implementation and

evaluation of a Community Risk Reduction Plan outlined in section 6.x.

7.2 Purpose: The purpose of this chapter is to assist in the implementation and

evaluation of a Community Risk Reduction Plan to reduce, mitigate or eliminate the

community’s risks.

7.x Plan approval: The CRR Plan shall be approved by the AHJ.

7.x Timeline: Each plan shall be implemented and reviewed within an established

timeline.

7.x Pilot implementation (proof of concepts?): Pilot programs shall be permitted to

evaluate process and impact measurements before full implementation.

7.x Plan elements: Programs based on identified community risks identified in

Chapter 5 (redundant with Ch 6?))

7.x Partnerships: Identify and recruit other partnerships to assist in program

implementation and delivery.

A7.x – Partnerships: These include government agencies, community based

organizations, schools, private companies, or person(s) with a common

purpose and goal of reducing community risk.

7.x Resources: The AHJ shall assign resources as needed to implement the specific

programs identified in the CRR Plan.

A7.x Resources: Resources committed to accomplish the goals of the CRR

Plan include but are not limited to:

Funding

Staffing

Technology

Equipment

Real property

Mutual aid

7.x.x Resource Limitations: When resources are not adequate to meet the goals of

the CRR Plan, the Plan shall be revised based on the available resources.

7.x Communications and marketing: The CRR Plan and specific programs shall be

communicated or marketed to the target audience identified in the Plan or program.

7.x Evaluation: The CRR Plan and programs shall be evaluated based on specific

goals of the CRR Plan

7.x Evaluation Plan: Data collection and evaluation planning shall be defined in the

CRR Plan in accordance with Chapter 6

A7.x Evaluation Plan: The evaluation of the CRR Plan is an ongoing process

that involves short term on-going evaluation of process and impact measures

during the term of the CRR Plan. The CRR Plan will outline interim

evaluation steps for the overall plan and specific programs.

7.x Data Collection: Statistically significant data shall be used to evaluate the

effectiveness of the Plan and specific programs

A7.x. Data Collection: Methods of data collection will vary depending on the

Plan component or program being delivered. Typical data collection methods

include but are not limited to:

Counting numbers of attendees of a program

Counting numbers of inspections conducted

Pre and posttest comparisons

Random quality assessment surveys

Customer or participant surveys

Presenter evaluation from attendees

7.x. Data Collection Frequency: Data shall be collected in accordance with the plan

in a frequency and quantity to obtain a statistically relevant evaluation of the Plan

or program.

A7.x Based on the total number programs presented, a sample can be

evaluated to determine the overall condition in the entire population of the

sample. Free web based software such as Raosoft

(www.raosoft.com/samplesize.html) can be used to calculate the sample

needed in order to obtain a statistically significant assessment.

7.x Process Evaluation Data: Data shall be collected to evaluate the frequency or

quantity of functions performed. It may also include the percentage or total number

of a target audience reached with a specific effort or program.

7.x Process Evaluation Data Analysis: Collected data shall be compared to the

target goal outlined in the plan. When process data do not meet the Plan,

adjustments in the implementation of the Plan shall be made.

A7.x As an example, thousands of homes may need to be relocated from an

identified flood plain in a community. The goal may be to relocate 10% of the

residents each year. The process measure would indicate how many of the

residents are relocated from the flood plain each year and over the life of the

Plan.

A7.x.x Data should also be evaluated when process data exceed the target

outlined in the goal. The initial target may have been established too low,

other workloads may have allowed for the increase, or other variables may

have influenced the measure. When this is discovered, a revised target may

need to be established for future evaluations based on further analysis.

A7.x.x Process data evaluation is an ongoing process that takes place

frequently on a planned cycle within the overall CRR Plan.

7.x Impact Evaluation Data: Data shall be collected to evaluate changes in

behavior, attitudes, knowledge retained or risks reduced as a result specific Plan

elements.

7.x Impact Evaluation Data Analysis: Collected data shall be compared to the goal

outlined in the plan. When impact data do not meet the desired goal for the Plan,

adjustments in the implementation of the Plan shall be made.

A7.x Impact data may include pre and post testing comparable results for

education programs, numbers of fire prevention code violations corrected,

prevalence of children wearing bicycle helmets, number of residents with

flood insurance, …..

A7.x.x Data should also be evaluated when impact data exceed the target

outlined in the goal. The initial target may have been established too low.

When this is discovered, a revised target may need to be established for

future evaluations based on further analysis.

A7.x.x Impact data evaluation is an ongoing process that takes place

frequently on a planned cycle within the overall CRR Plan, typically on a less

frequent basis and following process data evaluation since inadequate process

may have a negative influence on the impact data.

Outcome Evaluation

7.x Outcome Evaluation Data: Data shall be collected to evaluate the effectiveness

of the CRR Plan.

A7.x Outcome Evaluation Data: These data are longer term data points are

collected on an on-going basis and the outcome results may take years to illustrate

improvements in the overall risk of a community. These

7.x Outcome Evaluation Data Analysis: Collected data shall be compared to the goal

outlined in the plan.

A7.x Outcome data may include fire frequency reduction between the start of

the program some other point in time, dollar loss due to fire from year to

year, or changes in rolling averages over longer periods of time.

A7.x.x Outcome data evaluation is long term process. The final outcome

evaluation of a CRR Plan may not occur until the next scheduled Community

Risk Assessment as noted in Chapter 5.

7.x Community Risk Reduction Plan Modification: Once analyzed, the Plan shall be

reviewed and modified as needed based on the outcome measures.

A7.x The Plan or specific programs should be reviewed periodically over the

term of the Plan to ensure all of the objectives are being met and any changes

implemented to achieve the goals and objectives of the Plan.

APPENDIX B,C,D Ideas

Dashboard programs to identify trends in the short term

Vision 20/20 components

Annex A

Annex B