Community Risk Assessment - strategicfire.org · Community Risk Assessment Guide 1 Preface...

Community Risk AssessmentA GUIDE FOR CONDUCTING A COMMUNITY RISK ASSESSMENT

Version 1.5

Community Risk Assessment Guide

i

Community Risk Assessment A Guide for Conducting a Community Risk Assessment

Written & Developed by John A. Stouffer Contributors Martin M. King Meri-K Appy Greg Rogers Jennifer Schottke Kate Dargan Phil Schaenman Mike Senchyna Jim Crawford

Version 1.5 Rev. 02/16


ii

Table of Contents

Preface ........................................................................................................................................................... 1 Community Risk Reduction ................................................................................................................................. 1 Importance of CRR .............................................................................................................................................. 2 Risk Defined ......................................................................................................................................................... 2 Degrees of Risk Assessment ................................................................................................................................ 2 Purpose of this Guide .......................................................................................................................................... 2 Useful Tools & Resources .................................................................................................................................... 3

Step 1: Identify Risks ....................................................................................................................................... 4 Step 1A: Acquire Data that Identifies Risks ........................................................................................................ 4 Fire Department Incident Data ........................................................................................................................ 4 Dispatch Center Data ....................................................................................................................................... 5 Other Data Sources .......................................................................................................................................... 5

Step 1B: Develop a Community Profile .............................................................................................................. 6 Demographic Data Sources ............................................................................................................................. 7 Community Partners ........................................................................................................................................ 8 Assessing Community Trends .......................................................................................................................... 8 Building the Community Profile ....................................................................................................................... 8 Using GIS Technology ...................................................................................................................................... 9 Using GIS in the Community Profile ................................................................................................................ 9

Step 1C: Identify Causal Factors & Populations at Greatest Risk ..................................................................... 10

Step 1D: Identify Target Hazards ...................................................................................................................... 11 Important Definitions .................................................................................................................................... 12 Target Hazard Data ........................................................................................................................................ 12 Using Fire Crews to Identify Target Hazards ................................................................................................. 12 GIS‐Based Target Hazard Analysis ................................................................................................................. 13

Step 2: Prioritize Risks ................................................................................................................................... 14 Step 2A: Describe Risk Attributes & Vulnerability ............................................................................................ 14

Step 2B: Rating (Scoring) Target Hazards ......................................................................................................... 16

Step 3: Putting It All Together ....................................................................................................................... 18 Community Risk Assessment Example .............................................................................................................. 19

References .................................................................................................................................................... 33

Appendices ................................................................................................................................................... 34 Appendix A: Building the Community Profile ................................................................................................... 35

Appendix B: List of Risk Assessment Resources ............................................................................................... 36


1

Preface Community Risk Reduction Community Risk Reduction (CRR) is defined by Vision 20/20 as a process to identify and prioritize local risks, followed by the integrated and strategic investment of resources (emergency response and prevention) to reduce their occurrence and impact. Much of the current literature and training materials suggest that Community Risk Reduction programs use a six-step approach towards development. Figure 1 depicts these steps. Importance of CRR Community risk reduction is not a new concept for the fire service. Fire departments have been actively involved in fire prevention for many years through public education, building inspections and other activities. Although there is no specific blueprint for developing CRR plans in U.S. fire departments, there are some common and essential steps. Ultimately, the CRR plan will be unique to each fire department, based on the types of risks for that particular community. Essentially, the fire service exists not only to respond to emergency incidents, but also to proactively prevent or mitigate the impact of such incidents within their communities. CRR provides a more focused approach to reducing specific risks. In addition, a comprehensive CRR program involving community partners, firefighters, and other staff, can result in an organizational culture that recognizes the importance of reducing risks within a community. It is important that fire service leaders, their firefighters and other staff begin to shift their thinking towards reducing and mitigating risks, as this will ultimately be expected by their communities and elected officials. This will probably not be a simple or immediate change. As with any organizational culture—particularly within the fire service—there tends to be substantial resistance to what’s new, and a strong investment in the old ways of doing things.

Figure 1


2

Risk Defined

Definitionsof“risk”canbefoundinavarietyofpublications,reportsandothersources.Onedefinitionis:

humanbehavior,systemsmalfunctions,oraneventthatresultsinanignitionorotherdetrimentalincident

leadingtoanegativeimpacttolife,propertyand/ornaturalresources.Anothersimpledefinitionis:the

potentialorlikelihoodofanemergencytooccur.A“riskassessment”simplyasks,“Howriskyisthe

situation?”

Risksthataffectacommunityonaregularbasiscanbehuman‐createdornaturallyoccurring.Examples

includepreventableinjuries,firesandfrequentlyoccurringformsofsevereweather.Examplesofmore

uncommonrisksthatmayoccurevery5–20years,mightincludedomesticterrorism,hurricanes,

earthquakes,andmajorhazardousmaterialsreleases.

Riskassessmentisbasicallytheidentificationofpotentialandlikelyriskswithinaparticularcommunity,andtheprocessofprioritizingthoserisks.Itisthecriticalinitialstepinemergencypreparedness,whichenablesorganizationstoeventuallymitigate(ifpossible),plan,prepareanddeployappropriateresourcestoattainadesiredoutcome.

Degrees of Risk Assessment

Thecommunityriskassessmentprocesscanbeascomplexanddetailedaslocalresourcespermit.Or,usingbasicskillsandresourcesavailabletomostorganizations,canbeamoresimplifiedprocessthatwillproducebasicinformationthatcanbeusedeffectivelyforaCRRprogram.Severalpeopleorasmallteammaybemosteffectiveincompletingtheassessment.Manycommunitieshaveaccesstoexpertsin

assortedoccupationsthatcanbeusefulintheprocess.Often,theseindividualsandorganizationsareverywillingtoprovideassistancetothelocalfiredepartment.Basedonindividualcapabilities,eachfiredepartmentandcommunitywillneedtodeterminetheextenttowhichtheywillconducttheirriskassessmentprocess.

Purpose of this Guide

ThisguidewillfocusontheCRRstepsinvolvedinidentifyingandprioritizingrisks,andtheprocessesrequiredforconductingariskassessmentinpreparationforpreventionandmitigationplanning.The

intentistoprovidesimpleandeasilyunderstoodguidelinesforfiredepartmentsand/orotheragencies

toconductariskassessmentoftheircommunity,withtheultimategoalofdevelopingalocalCRRprogram.


3

Useful Tools & Resources

Therearesomeusefultoolsandresourcesthatshouldbeconsideredbeforeundertakingtherisk

assessmentprocess:

HumanResources—individualsbothwithinandoutsidethefiredepartmentcanbevaluableresources.

WhilefirefightersmaybetappedfortheirfireandEMSexpertise,theremaybeindividualswithinthe

departmentwithotheruniqueskills,suchaswriting,graphicdesign,experienceinstatisticalanalysis,

andotherabilities.Privateindividualsandgovernmentemployeeswithknowledgeandskillsindata

analysis,populationstudies(demographics),crimerates,andothertalents,shouldbesoughtout.

Word‐processingsoftware—anapplicationsuchasMicrosoftWord®willbenecessarytodocumentthe

resultsofyourassessmentinaformatthatcanbeeasilyreadandinterpretedbyothers,aswellasforcontinuingtheplanningprocess.Mostpopularword‐processorscanincorporateimages,createtables,andimportinformationfromspreadsheetapplications.

Spreadsheetsoftware—acomputerapplicationsuchasMicrosoft®Excelorsimilarspreadsheet‐typeprogramwillenabledetailedanalysisfromavarietyofdatasources.Afeaturefoundinsuchprogramsistheabilitytogeneratepivottablesfromtheinformationstoredinthespreadsheet.Amongotherfunctions,apivottablecanautomaticallysort,summarize,counttotals,orgiveaveragesofdata.Pivottablescanmakecalculatingandviewingdatamuchquickerandsimpler.Spreadsheetapplicationsare

usuallycapableofcreatingawidevarietyofchartsandgraphsthatcanbeusedintheanalysisandwrittenreports.Forthosewithlimitedornoexperiencewithspreadsheetapplications,itwouldbewellworththetimetotakeatrainingcoursetolearnthebasics,includingtheuseofpivottables.Orrecruitanexperiencedanalystfromwithinlocalgovernmentorfromapartnerorganization.

GISsoftware—ageographicinformationsystemapplication(GIS),suchasArcGIS®(Esri,Inc.),isanextremelyvaluabletoolforconductingariskassessment.Morethanjustgeneratingmaps,itprovidesthe

powertomanagedata,performadvancedanalysis,andmuchmore.GISapplicationscanimportincident

data,demographicinformation,andotherelectronicrecordstoproduceavisualperspectiveofactivitywithinyourservicearea.

GISsoftwaretypicallyrequiresadvancedtraininginordertoutilizeallofitsfeatures.Mostfire

departmentsdonothaveinternalstaffqualifiedtousesuchapplications.However,manylocal

governmentorganizationshaveGISdepartmentsorexpertsthatcanberecruitedforassistanceingeneratingusefulmaps.ForthosewhohaveaccesstoArcGIS®Online,Esriprovidesanadd‐intoolthat

willgeneratemapsusingMicrosoftExcel®and,ifdesired,copiedintoPowerPoint®forpresentations.


4

Identify Risks

Step1intheriskassessmentprocessistoidentifythevariousriskstoyourcommunityand/orservice

area.Thisisaccomplishedbygatheringdata—inotherwords,acquiringinformationaboutwhatis

occurringwithinyourcommunity.Thedatawillbeusedtoidentifybothcurrentrisksandtrendsbased

onhistoricalinformation.Typically,therewillbealargenumberofresourcesfromwhichtoacquirethe

datanecessarytoidentifycurrentandpotentialrisks.

Step 1A: Acquire Data that Identifies Risks

Data Elements to Collect

Thereareanumberofdataelementsthatshouldbeconsideredforacquisition.Thesemightinclude:

Incidentdatesandtimes.

Incidenttypes.

Incidentlocations(address&anyotherlocationdata;preferably,latitudeandlongitude).

Causesofignitionoffires;heatsources;areasoforigin.

Mortalityrates(fire‐related;trauma;othermedically‐related).

EMSmechanismsofinjuryandcausesofillness;andEMSprovider“impressions”(i.e.,diagnosis).

Occupancyinformation.

Responsetimesofallunitsinvolved(“fractile”method;notaverages).

Rateofdollarlosstovalue.Youmaywanttoobtainmoreorlessdataelementsthantheonesabove.However,attheleast,youwillwanttocollectincidentdates,times,typesandlocationsinordertogetaminimalperspectiveofwhatis

occurringwithinyourservicearea.

Fire Department Incident Data

Manyfiredepartmentsnowdocumenttheiremergencyincidentselectronicallyusingcomputerized

recordsmanagementsystems(RMS).MostcommerciallyavailableapplicationshavebeendesignedtocollectincidentdatabasedontheNationalFireIncidentReportingSystem(NFIRS).TheUnitedStatesFire

Administration(USFA)begantheNFIRSin1975.Underthisprogram,localfiredepartmentssubmittheir

datatoastateorganizationwho,inturn,reportsthistotheUSFA.Ifyourincidentdataisnoteasily

accessiblelocally,youmaybeabletoobtaintheinformationfromyourstate,orobtainanaccountwith

theUSFA,whichwillallowyoutoacquirespecificreports.


5

DependingonthetypeofRMSyouhave,yoursystemshouldbeabletogenerateprintedreportsor

exportsummaryinformationintheformofadatabaseorspreadsheet.Youshouldacquireaminimumof

3–5yearsofdata(more,ifinaverysmall,low‐volumecommunity),soastoensureyouhaveenough

informationtoprovideanadequateperspectiveofwhatisoccurring.Figure2isanexampleofapartial

sectionofaspreadsheet

containingfiredepartment

incidentdata.

Dependingonthetypeof

RMSyourorganizationuses,

andtheextentofthe

informationcollectedandenteredintoit,youwillneedtodeterminewhatdataelementstoextract(orwhat

reportstogenerate).

Dispatch Center Data

InmostcommunitiesthroughouttheU.S.,thelocalpublicsafetyansweringpoint(PSAP)and/ordispatchcentercollectsvaluabledatathroughcomplexandsophisticatedcomputer‐aideddispatch(CAD)systems.Althoughtheinformationcollectedvariesamongsystems,thedatatypicallyincludes:incidentlocations;dates;apparatusdispatchandarrivaltimes;incidenttype;andmuchmore.

Often,CADdataisdownloadedorintegratedintothefiredepartment’sRMS.Inthatcase,thenecessarydatamayalreadybeinyourRMS.Ifnot,mostCADsystemscanexportincidentrecordstoaspreadsheetorotherformattoenabledataanalysis.

Other Data Sources

TheNationalEMSInformationSystem(NEMSIS)Projectisanefforttocreateanationalemergencymedicalservices(EMS)database.ThecurrentNEMSISNHTSAVersion3Datasetdefinesover500

standardizeddataelementsthatcanbecollected.MoststateEMSagenciesareparticipatingtosome

degreeincollectingEMSincidentdatafromlocalagencies.IfyouragencysubmitselectronicEMSdatatoyourstateEMSoffice,youmaybeabletoobtainreportsorelectronicdatafromthem.Youmayalso

requestlocalEMSdata(withsomelimitations)fromNEMSIS(www.nemsis.org).

Figure 2


6

Lawenforcementagencies(local,state,andfederal)havealonghistoryofcollectingandmaintaining

incidentrecordsandotherinformation.Theserecordsmayincludearsonreportsanddrug‐related

incidents,assaults,andotherinformationthatcanultimatelyimpactthefiredepartment.

TheFederalEmergencyManagementAgency(FEMA)(www.fema.gov)andDepartmentofHomeland

Security(DHS)(www.dhs.gov)websitescontainsubstantialinformationthatcanbeusefulinrisk

assessment—particularlyinnaturalandhuman‐causeddisasters.TheNationalWeatherService

(www.weather.gov)canalsoserveasasourceofinformationonweather‐relatedevents.

TheCentersforDiseaseControl&Prevention(CDC)websiteisanotherexcellentsourceforhealthand

injury‐relatedsourcesandmaterials.LocatedontheirwebsiteistheWeb‐basedInjuryStatisticsQuery

andReportingSystem(WISQARS™).Itisaninteractivedatabasesystemthatprovidescustomizedreportsofinjury‐relateddata.

Firefighterexperiencecanbeavaluablesourceofinformation.Theycanbeutilizedtoconductstation‐basedriskassessmentandpre‐planning.Informationfromtheseactivitiesshouldbedocumentedandrecorded(preferablyinanelectronicdatabaseformat).

Step 1B: Develop a Community Profile

Theriskassessmentshouldalsoincludeobtaininginformationonthepeoplewhoareimpactedby,orapartof,theproblem.Therefore,itwillbenecessarytoacquiredatatodevelopacommunitydemographic

profile.Riskisofteninfluencedbyeconomicandsocialissues.Therefore,thecommunityrisk‐reductionprocessmustaddresssocioeconomicissues.Thedemographiccompositionofacommunitytypicallyincludesthestatisticaldataofitspopulation.Thisshouldinclude:

Age

Gender

Income

Raceandethnicity

Socialandculturalinformation

Education

Housingtype,age,anddensity(optional)


7

Demographic Data Sources

Formostcommunities,thisinformationisreadilyavailablefromavarietyofsources.Thisiswhere

involvingcommunitypartnerscanbeofsignificantvalue,astheywilloftenhavemorecomprehensive

informationregardingthelocalpopulation.Insomecases,acommunityprofilemayhavealreadybeen

completedbyanothergovernmentagencyororganization.Localandregionaldemographicsourcesmay

include:

City,state,&countygovernment ChambersofCommerce Schooldistricts/boardsofeducation Non‐profitorganizations Neighborhoodassociations Publichealth(state,local,&federal) GISdepartments

AsignificantsourceforcommunityprofiledatacanbefoundontheUnitedStatesCensusBureauwebsite1andtheAmericanFactFinderwebsite.2Itisbeyondthescopeofthisdocumenttoprovideacompletelistofthemanydataresourcesthatcanbefoundonthesewebsites,buttherearemany.Itiswellworththetimetoexploretheseforrelevant

information.

Thesewebsitescontainverypowerfultoolsandinstrumentsforobtainingawealthofinformationconcerningthedemographicsofyourcommunity.Althoughtheprocessforgatheringdatafromthesewebsitesmaybeintimidatinginitially,itcanbeeasilymasteredwithexperience.Youshouldconsiderspendingsometimeexploringeachofthesesitestodeterminewhatisavailableforyourcommunityandhowtoutilizethevarioustools.

TheCensusBureauwebsitecontainsavastquantityofdataregardingpopulation,businesses,geography

andotherinformation.Muchofthisislimitedtobroaderareassuchasstates,countiesand,insomecases,

cities.WithintheCensusBureau’swebsitearetwoothervaluablesourcesofdata:theAmericanHousingSurvey3andtheAmericanCommunitySurvey.4

TheAmericanFactFinderwebsitemayprovidethemostdetaileddemographicinformationaboutyour

communityorservicearea.Itprovidesdataonpopulation,age,businessandindustry,education,

housing,income,povertyandmuchmore.

Figure 3


8

Figure4isanexampleofadatatablegeneratedthroughthe

AmericanFactFinderwebsite.Itisbasedontheemployment

rateoftheCityofVancouver,Washingtonbyage,raceand

otherfactors.Thesiteprovidessubstantialversatilitywhen

generatingdata.Tablescanbemodified,printedand

downloadedand,insomecases,mapscanbecreated.

Community Partners

Otherstateandlocalagenciesandorganizationscanbequite

usefulinthedevelopmentofyourcommunityprofile.

Typically,theywillhaveimportantinformationtoshareand

mayhaveabetterinsightintolosshistory,high‐riskgroups,localbusinessissues,andspecificdemographicsthroughoutthevariousneighborhoods.Itisstronglyrecommendedto

haverepresentativesfromthecommunity—especiallyfromgroupsatthehighestriskoffiresandotherinjuries—toserveonyourteam,sotheirinsightsarefullyintegratedintotheplan.

Assessing Community Trends

Inordertodoathoroughassessment,itwillbeimportanttonotjustevaluateyourcommunity’scurrentconditions,buttolookatitspastandprojectedfuture.Therearemanycomponentstothisprocess,anditcanbecomequitecomplex.Althoughacomprehensiveanalysistodeterminefutureprojectionsmaybebeyondthecapacityofmanyfiredepartments,thedatamayalreadybeavailable.TheU.S.CensusBureauassessespopulationtrends,andlocalplanningdepartmentsoftenhavecompletedprojectionsoncommunitygrowthandotheranticipatedtrends.

Building the Community Profile

Onceyouhavegatheredthenecessarydata,youcanthenbegintobuildanddocumentyourcommunity

profileandanswerspecificquestions.Abulletedsummarytablecanbeaneasywaytodescribethe

demographiccharacteristicsofyourservicearea.AppendixAliststhecategory,description,andvariousquestionstoanswerabouteachdemographictopic.

Figure 4


9

Using GIS Technology

TheuseofGIStechnologyhascontinuedtoproliferatethroughouttheU.S.FireService.Ithasprovento

benotonlyusefulinriskassessment,butothertypesofplanning,preparedness,andincidentresponse

andrecoveryactivities.Onceyouhavedeterminedandacquiredyourdatasources,youwillneedto

identifyavailableGISexpertiseandpotentialtrainingrequirements.ThismayincludeaGIS

analyst/technician;otherfiredepartmentsorgovernmentagenciesusingGIS;andtrainingsources.Itcan

alsobeusefultonetworkwithGISuser‐groupsinyourarea,aswellascollaboratewithotherlocalfire

departments.

WhileitwouldbeusefultogainabasicunderstandingofGIStechnology,itisnot

necessarytobecomeanexpertinthisfieldtoutilizeGISwhenconductingarisk

assessment.ManycityandcountygovernmentshaveGISexpertsthatareoftenwillingtoassistthefiredepartmentinbuildingaGISproject.IfyourjurisdictionhasaccesstoGISservices,theirpotentialvalueinriskassessmentcannotbeoverstated,

andyoushouldcultivatepositiverelationshipswiththeorganizationandstaff.

GISmapprojectsarecomposedoflayersofdata.Eachofthelayerscanbecreatedfromvariousdatasourcesandstoredinastandardrelationaldatabase.Inthisway,GISismuchmorethanamap—itisalocation‐awareinformationsystemthatallowscreating,managinganddisplayingrelevantdata.Becauseinformationcanbeorganizedbyaspecificgeographiclocation,itenablesyoutoseetherelationshipbetweenthevariousdatalayers.

Figure5isanexampleofamapshowingthefrequencyandlocationsoffiresthatoccurredduringasix‐yearperiod.Themapclearlyillustratesthehigh‐riskareasinacommunity,whichcanleadtothedevelopmentofactivitiesforpreventionandmitigation.

Using GIS in the Community Profile

GIStechnologyiswidelyusedbygovernmentagenciesfora

varietyofapplications.Localgovernmentagencies,suchas

planningorGISdepartments,usuallyhavesubstantialinformation

abouttheircommunities.Insomecases,theymayalreadyhaveacommunityprofiledocumentedinsomeformoranother.TheGIS

departmentmaybeabletogeneratemapsthatcanbeusedlaterin

theCRRprocess.

Figure 5


10

TheU.S.CensusBureauwebsitealsohastheability

togenerateavarietyofdemographicmapsofyour

community;whichcanbeprintedorcopiedandused

inyouranalysis.Figure6isanexampleofamap

generatedbytheCensusDataMapperontheCensus

Bureauwebsite.Itshowsthepercentageofthe

population65yearsofageandolderforaparticular

county.

Figure7isanothermapgeneratedthroughthe

CensusBureauwebsite.Itshowsthepopulation,by

censusgroups,foraparticularcity.Mapscanbegeneratedbypopulation,race,ethnicity,age,sex,andhousingstatus.

IfyourdepartmenthasaccesstoGIS,localcensus

datacanbeaccessedandutilizedtogeneratecustommaps.ArcGIS®byEsri®isanapplicationthatcanincorporatedemographic,incident,andotherdataintousefulmapsthatcanprovidemuchgreaterinsightintowhatrisksareoccurring,wheretheyareoccurring,andwithinwhattypesofpopulations.

Step 1C: Identify Causal Factors & Populations at Greatest Risk

Whenevaluatingfiredepartmentincidentdata,it

willbenecessarytoidentifythosefactorscontributingtotheseverityofthehazardsandthosepopulationsatgreatestrisk.Forexample,itwasdeterminedinonecommunitythatcookingfireswerea

leadingcauseofresidentialfires.Examinationofthecausalfactorsrevealedthatfoodleftunattendedon

astoveisacommoncause,andthatthesehomeshavenon‐workingsmokealarms.Residentsattempted

tofightthesefiresandwereunfamiliarwiththeproperproceduresforextinguishingsmallkitchenfires.

Figure 7

Figure 6


11

Inthepreviousexample,furtheranalysisofthepopulationwherethesefiresoccurred,demonstratedthat

mostoftheseincidentsinvolvedolder,Spanish‐speakingfemales.Therefore,U.S.CensusdataandGIS‐

mappingcanbeveryvaluableinidentifyingat‐riskpopulations.Importantandrelevantcommunity

partnersandstakeholderscanalsobevaluableresourcesatthispointintheprocess.Thepeoplemost

oftenaffectedbyfireandotheremergencyincidentsthemselves,willmakegreatpartnersincreating

strategiestopreventandmitigaterisks,andtoimplementthem.

Whenevaluatingcausalfactorsandat‐riskpopulations,considerthefollowing:

Socialfactorsandculturalinfluences

Economicfactors

Environmentalelements

Identifyriskfactorsinspecificpopulations: Children(age5&under) Olderadults(age65&older) Peoplewithdisabilities Peoplelivinginpoverty PopulationsthatspeaklittleornoEnglish

Understandingthecausalfactorsandpopulationsatgreatestriskwillcontributetodevelopingprogramstoaddresstheseproblems.Intheexampleabove,preventionactivitieswouldbedirectedtowardsmanagingsmallkitchenfires,installationofsmokealarms,anddirectedprimarilytowardsolderSpanish‐speakingindividuals.

Step 1D: Identify Target Hazards

Onecomponentofconductingacommunityriskassessmentistoidentifyspecifictargethazardswithinyourservicearea.Thesearesometimesreferredtoas“criticalfacilities.”Examplesofcriticalfacilities

mightinclude:

Hospitals Assistedlivingcenters Communityshelters Schools Airports Importantgovernmentoffices Emergencyoperationscenters Hazardousmaterialssites Roadways Water/sewagetreatmentfacilities Communicationssystems

Youshouldalsoconsiderforinclusionamongyourlistoftargethazards,buildingswithsubstantialvaluetothecommunity(economic,historic,other),andotherfacilitiesthat,ifdamagedordestroyed,would

haveasignificantnegativeimpactonthecommunity.


12

Important Definitions

Thedefinitionoftargethazardswillvaryamongjurisdictions,andwillbepartiallydefinedbyyour

organization.FEMAdefinestheseas:“facilitiesineitherthepublicorprivatesectorthatprovideessential

productsandservicestothegeneralpublic,areotherwisenecessarytopreservethewelfareandqualityof

lifeinthecommunity,orfulfillimportantpublicsafety,emergencyresponse,and/ordisasterrecovery

functions.”Inordertoconductaneffectivetargethazardassessment,somekeydefinitionsmustbe

understood:

Hazards:Knownphysicalfeaturesthatcanigniteandsustaincombustion,orexistingfeatures(naturalormanmade)thathavethepotentialtocausenegativeimpactstolife,propertyand/ornaturalresources.

Values:Communityassets,includinglife,propertyandnaturalresources.

Target Hazard Data

Inmostcommunities,thelocalassessor’sofficewillhaveadatabasethatincludesalistingofallthetaxparcelswithinacommunity.Taxparcelinformationincludesthepropertyboundaries,usedescription,

buildingarea,numberoffloors,assessedvalues,andmore.

Somefiredepartmentsmaintainoccupancydataintheirrecordsmanagementsystems.Typically,thisisacquiredfrominformationgatheredfromregularpropertyinspections.Suchsystemsmayprovidemuchmorecomprehensiveinformationforidentifyingtargethazards,andenableyoutogeneratedetailedreportsthatdescribesignificanthazards.Insomejurisdictions,propertyinspectionsareperformedbygovernmentorganizationsoutsideofthefiredepartment.Inthesecases,thiscanbeanothervaluabledatasourcetohelpinidentifyingyourtargethazards.

Using Fire Crews to Identify Target Hazards

Oneoptionthatcanassistindeterminingtargethazardsistoutilizefirecrewstoidentifyfacilitieswithin

theirstation’semergencyresponseserviceareas.Firefightersassignedtoaparticularstationoftenhave

goodinsightintocriticalstructuresandfacilitieswithintheirarea.Sometimesreferredtoasa

“windshieldsurvey,”companiescanbeassignedtodrivearoundtheirdistrictandidentifyvarioustarget

hazards.Ifpossible,theycanperformmorecomprehensiveinspectionsandpre‐incidentsurveys,and

documentimportantdetails.Thisinformationcanbecombinedwithothertargethazarddatatodevelopthefinalanalysis.


13

GIS‐Based Target Hazard Analysis

Targethazardsshouldbecontainedinlistingsand/ormaps(whichdistinguishtargethazardsfromother

structures)thatdepictthedetailsandlocationsofthevulnerableareasandcriticalstructuresand

facilities.ProbablythemosteffectivemethodofgeneratingatargethazardanalysisistheuseofaGIS‐

basedmodel.Asmentionedpreviously,GISisbeingwidelyusedamonglocalgovernmententities.

OliversuggeststhataGIS‐basedassessmentiscomprisedoffourelements:5

1. Identifying/classifyingcommunityhazards.

2. Identifyingriskfactors,potentialandprobability.

3. Identifying/classifyingcommunityassets/values.

4. Fusingalloftheelementsintoavisualdisplayoftheexistinghazards:theirpotentialimpactonvalues,andtheriskorlikelihoodofanunwantedevent.

DatasourcespreviouslymentionedwillbenecessarytoenableacompleteGIStargethazardanalysis.Thesedataelementsareavailableinmostcommunities,andwillbecriticalintheprocessofbuildingthetargethazardanalysis.Sourcesshouldinclude(butnotbelimitedto):

Utilitieslocations(electric,gas,etc.) Taxparcels

Previousfire&otherincidents Zipcodeboundaries

Watersupplies&hydrants Occupancydata

Streetlayers Hazmatpermits

Assessedvalue Blockgroups

Censustracts


14

Prioritize Risks

Onceyouhavegatheredandanalyzedallofyourdatasources,itwillbenecessarytoevaluate,quantify,

anddeterminetheconsequences;thenprioritizetherisks.

Step 2A: Describe Risk Attributes & Vulnerability

Atthispointitwillbeimportanttodescribethevariousattributesassociatedwiththerisksthathave

beenidentified.Therearevarioustoolsandmethodsthatcanbeutilizedinthisprocess.Table1isonecomponentofseriesoftoolsthatcanbeusedforprioritizingand“scoring”risk.Usethistodescribethelikelihoodofspecificrisksoccurring.

Qualitative Measures of Risk Likelihood

Level Description Characteristics

A Almost Certain Event is expected to occur. High level of recorded incidents and/or very strong anecdotal evidence. Strong likelihood event will re‐occur. Strong opportunity, reason, or means to occur.

B Likely Event will probably occur. Regular recorded incidents and strong anecdotal evidence. Considerable opportunity, reason, or means to occur.

C Possible Event should occur at some time.

Few infrequent, random recorded incidents or little anecdotal evidence.

Very few incidents in associated organizations or comparable facilities.

Some opportunity, reason, or means to occur.

D Unlikely Event could occur at some time.

No recorded incidents or any anecdotal evidence. No recent incidents in associated organizations or facilities. Little opportunity, reason, or means to occur.

E Rare Event may occur only in exceptional circumstances.

Source: City of Manningham (Victoria, Australia) Community Emergency Risk Management Plan (2009) Table 1


15

Vulnerabilityisthesusceptibilitytosufferlossorharmfromsometypeofincidentorevent.Thismay

varybasedonassortedfactors,suchaspreparednessandthecapabilitiesofthefiredepartmentand

otheremergencyservicesproviders.Acommunity’sabilitytoresisttheimpactsandeffectsofvarious

hazardsmustbedetermined.Table2isusedasaqualitativemeasuretodescribetheconsequencesor

impactofaparticularriskorevent.

Qualitative Measures of Risk Consequence or Impact

Level Description Characteristics

1 Insignificant No injuries or fatalities. Small number or no people displaced, and only for short duration. Little or no personal support required (support not financial or material).

Inconsequential or no damage. Little or no disruption to community.

No measurable impact on environment.

Little or no financial loss. 2 Minor Small number of injuries, but no fatalities. Minor medical treatment required. Some

displacement of people (less than 24 hours). Some personal support required.

Some damage. Some disruption (less than 24 hours).

Small impact on environment with no lasting effects.

Some financial loss.

3 Moderate Medical treatment required, but no fatalities. Some hospitalization. Localized displacement of people who return within 24 hours. Personal support satisfied through local arrangements.

Localized damage, which is rectified by routine arrangements. Normal community functioning with some inconvenience.

Some impact on the environment with no long‐term effects, or small impact on environment with long‐term effect.

Significant financial loss. 4 Major Extensive injuries, significant hospitalization, large number displaced (more than 24

hours duration). Fatalities. External resources required for personal support.

Significant damage that requires external resources. Community only partially functioning, some services unavailable.

Some impact on environment with long‐term effects.

Significant financial loss—some financial assistance required.

5 Catastrophic Large number of severe injuries requiring hospitalization. Significant fatalities. General displacement for extended duration. Extensive personal support.

Extensive damage. Community unable to function without significant support.

Significant impact on environment and/or permanent damage.

Huge financial loss—unable to function without significant support.

Source: City of Manningham (Victoria, Australia) Community Emergency Risk Management Plan (2009) Table 2


16

Usingtheresultsfromtheprevioustwotools(Tables1and2),alevelofriskcanbeassignedusingthe

matrixinTable3.

Qualitative Risk Analysis Matrix: Level of Risk

Likelihood

Consequences

Insignificant

1 Minor

2 Moderate

3 Major

4 Catastrophic

5

A (Almost Certain)

HR HR ER ER ER

B (Likely)

MR HR HR ER ER

C (Possible)

LR MR HR ER ER

D (Unlikely)

LR LR MR HR ER

E (Rare)

LR LR MR HR HR

Categories of Risk

Extreme Risk (ER) Detailed research and management planning required at senior levels. Action must be taken to reduce consequences or likelihood.

High Risk (HR) Chief officer or senior management attention required, further research might be required. Some action must be taken.

Moderate Risk (MR) Management responsibility must be specified, specific monitoring or response procedures required.

Low Risk (LR) Manage by routine procedures

Source: City of Manningham (Victoria, Australia) CERM Plan (2009) Table 3

Bycombiningthesethreetoolsandassigningascoretoeachofyourrisks,youcanbegintoprioritize

thosethatwillneedthemostattentionfordevelopingstrategiesandtacticsformitigation.Thisisagoodpointatwhichtoalsoincludecriticalcommunitypartnersandstakeholders.

Step 2B: Rating (Scoring) Target Hazards

Utilizingaratingorscoringsystemassignedtoeachpropertycanhelptodeterminewhichtargethazards

arethemostcritical.Onesimplemethodistoapplyacriticalityscorerangingfrom1–3:Low,moderate,

orhigh.SomeexpertsrecommendtheuseoftheOccupancyVulnerabilityAssessmentProfile(OVAP)scoreasamethoddetermineandcategorizeoccupancyrisks.OVAPcriteriacanbemoredetailedandrange

from1–5:5


17

Occupancy Vulnerability Assessment Profile Criteria

Criteria Name Description Score

Low Structures that consist of mainly fire‐resistive or noncombustible materials 1

Moderate Structures that consist of an ordinary mix of construction materials 2

High Structures that consist of significant wood‐frame or heavy timber materials 3

Very High Structures with combustible materials that share walls, attics, etc. 4

Moderate to Extreme Technological or hazmat exposure (CBRN) 5

Table 4

Occupancytypesassignedahigherscoreareconsideredtobemorecriticalthanthosewithalowerscore.

Ascoreshouldbeassignedtoeachofthefollowingcategories:

Numberofoccupants/lifesafety Buildingconstruction Impact(includingeconomic)tothecommunity Numberofstories Presencesofautomaticfiresuppression/detectionsystems Overallsize(squarefootage) Numberoffirehydrantsnearby Levelofhazard Buildingusage Figure8isanexampleofamapdepictingvariouslocationsoftargethazards,basedondefinedcriteriausingascoringsystem.Inthiscase,propertiesarecolor‐codedinaccordancewiththeirparticularscore,makingiteasiertoquicklyidentifythosewiththehighestlevelsofrisk.Anotheroptionwouldbetogenerateamapdepictingonlythosefacilitieswiththehighestlevelsofrisk,ratherthanallpropertiesandstructures.

Therearesoftwareapplicationsavailable

fordevelopingaGIS‐basedanalysis.

ArcGIS®byEsri®isaverypowerfulGISapplication.DepartmentsusingArcGISfor

DesktopcanobtaintheTargetHazard

Analysistool,whichhasbeenspecifically

designedforusebythefireserviceand

otherpublicsafetyagencies.

Figure 8


18

Putting It All Together

Afteryouhavecollectedandquantifiedyourdata,andprioritizedthevariousrisks,itwillbenecessaryto

distillitallintoalegibleanddecipherabledocument.Keepinmindthatthedocumentmaybereviewed

byindividuals,communitypartners,electedofficialsandotherswithouttechnicalexpertiseor

backgroundsinthefireserviceandriskassessment.

Mostspreadsheetordatabasesoftwareapplicationsarecapableofgeneratingmanydifferenttypesofbar

graphs,piechartsandlinegraphs.Wordprocessingsoftwaretypicallyenablesthecreationofsimpleorsophisticatedtablesthatcanbeincorporatedintoyourdocument.Asmentionedpreviously,GIScanbeveryvaluablebygeneratingmapstoillustratelocationsandtrendsofincidents,hazards,andoccupancies.

Theuseoftables,graphs,chartsandmapsshouldbeusedtoillustratetheresultsofyourassessment.WhatfollowsisanexampleofasimpleriskassessmentofafictionalcommunityintheUnitedStates.Itincludesanumberofmaps,tablesandchartsasexamplesofpresentingyourdatavisually.


19

EXAMPLE: Results of a Community Risk Assessment of Bolton, Washington

Withsupportfromcommunityleaders,citymanagement,andlocalelectedofficials,theCityofBolton

FireDepartment(BFD)conductedacommunityriskassessmentusingasystematicapproachtothe

process.Ultimately,theresultsofthisassessmentwillbeutilizedtocreateacompleteCommunityRisk

Reduction(CRR)planthatwillincludestrategiesandtacticstomitigateriskstothecommunity.

Twoprimarycategorieswereexamined:servicedemandandcommunityrisks.Servicedemandconsisted

ofaretrospectiveanalysisoffiveyearsoffiredepartmentincidentdatafrom2009through2013.Data

wasacquiredfromthedepartment’srecordsmanagementsystem(RMS)andcomputer‐aideddispatch

(CAD)recordsfromthecommunicationscenter.

Aswithallothercommunities,theCityofBoltonhaspotentialrisks.Suchriskscanbehuman‐caused(e.g.,preventableinjuries,fires)ornaturallyoccurring(e.g.,frequentlyoccurringsevereweather;earthquakes,hurricanes).Duringthisprocess,BFDidentifiedandprioritizedpotentialandlikelyrisks,andsubsequentlyprioritizedthem.

Demographic Profile

TheCityofBoltonhasanestimated2013populationof93,257,withalandareacomprisingjustover27squaremiles.Thereareanapproximate3,350personspersquaremile.Table3‐1liststhepercentageof

agedistribution,genderandracial/ethnicitycompositionofthecity.Morethan16%ofresidentsareforeignborn;themajoritybeingfromLatinAmerica.Thepopulationhasincreasedby29.6%since2000.

City of Bolton Population Percent of Population

Persons under 5 years 8.6%

Persons under 18 years 28.3%

Persons 65 years & over 13.1%

Female persons 50.7%

Caucasian only 67.1%

Black or African American only 1.7%

American Indian & Alaska Native only 2.0%

Asian only 1.5%

Pacific Islander only 0.1%

Two or more races 4.4%

Hispanic or Latino 41.3%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau Table 3‐1


20

Figure3‐1isamapdepictingpopulationdistributionbylocation.Itshowsthattheeastsideofthecityis

comprisedpredominatelyofHispanic/Latinopersons,whilethewestsideconsistsmostlyofCaucasians.

Otherracesrepresentaverysmallpercentageofthepopulation.

Figure 3‐1

Social Characteristics

Forallpersonsage25orgreater,74%haveahighschooleducationorgreater,and18%haveaBachelor'sdegreeorhigher.Thereare33,226householdsaveraging2.67personsperhousehold.The

per‐capitacrimerateinBoltonfor2013was544/100,000persons.

Economic Characteristics

Medianhouseholdincomeduringtheperiod2008–2012was$40,569.Percapitaincomeduring2013was$20,516.Approximately23%ofthepopulationisconsideredbelowthepovertylevel.Mediangross

rentpermonthis$760.Currentunemploymentrateis14.4%.


21

Themostcommonindustriesformalesisconstructionat10%,followedbyagriculture(8%),groceries

andmerchantwholesalers(6%),healthcare(6%),andaccommodationandfoodservices(6%).For

females,healthcareleadsat19%,followedbyeducationalservices(14%)andaccommodationandfood

services(9%).

Housing Profile

Thereare34,829housingunits,withahomeownershiprateof54.3%.Medianvalueofowner‐occupied

homesis$157,200.Justover30%ofhousingunitsaremulti‐unitstructures.

Bolton Fire Department Resources & Service Areas

BFDoperatesfiveType1enginesandtwoidentical100‐footladdertrucksoutoffivestrategicallylocated

firestations(Stations91–95)withinthecity.Eachapparatusisfullystaffed24hoursperday,sevendaysperweek.Thereisoneenginelocatedateachstation,withonetrucklocatedatStation91andanotheratStation93.Themajorityoflocationswithinthecitycanbereachedwithin4minutesofeachfirestation.

Figure 3‐2


22

Thefivestationsservesevenfiremanagementzones(FMZ);withStations93and94eachhavingtwo

FMZs.Eachstation’sFMZrepresentsthosegeographicalareasthataretheclosest—intermsofresponse

times—tothatparticularstation(seeFigure3‐2).

EachapparatusisstaffedwithatleastonecertifiedEMT‐Paramedic,andfullyequippedwithadvanced

lifesupport(ALS)equipmentandsupplies.Eachtruckcompanycarriesextricationequipmentanda

hydraulictoolforheavyrescue.

BFD Service Demand

Duringthe60‐monthperiodofJanuary1,2009throughDecember31,2013,theBoltonFireDepartment

wasdispatchedtoatotalof45,931incidents—oranaverageof9,186callsannually.Ofthese,2,351

(5.12%)wererecordedas“Dispatchedandcanceledenroute.”Excludingthosecallsinwhichnoapparatusarrived,thetotalnumberofincidentsevaluatedwas43,580.However,thisnumberdoesincludemultipleincidentsrecordedasfalsealarmsandas“noincidentfoundonarrival.”

Incident Types

Call(incident)typeswerebasedontheNationalFireIncidentReportingSystem(NFIRS)Version5.0standarddefinitions,asdevelopedthroughtheU.S.FireAdministration,NationalFireDataCenter.“IncidentType”isdefinedasthesituationfoundbyemergencypersonnelonarrivalatthescene,andincludesthefullspectrumoffiredepartmentactivitiesfromfirestoEMStopublicservice.NFIRSincidenttypesareorganizedintonineseries.Withineachoftheseareadditionalcodesthatdefinetheincidentmorespecifically.Theprimaryincident‐typesarelistedinTable3‐2,withthetotalvolumeofeachfor2009–20013:

NFIRS Incident Type Series Code/Title Total BFD Incidents

100—Fires 1,982 (4%)

200—Overpressure Rupture, Explosion, Overheat (No Fire) 42 (<1%)

300—Rescue & Emergency Medical Service (EMS) Incidents 34,012 (74%)

400—Hazardous Condition (No Fire) 699 (2%)

500—Service Call 2,403 (5%)

600—Good Intent Call 3,994 (9%)

700—False Alarm and False Call 2,722 (6%)

800—Severe Weather and Natural Disaster 13 (<1%)

900—Special Incident Type 64 (<1%)

Note: Includes all calls dispatched, including cancelled en route. Table 3‐2


23

Figure3‐3depictsannualincidentvolumesbytypeandyear.Incidenttypeswereplacedinthree

categories:fires,EMS,andothers.Thedatashowthatoveralldemandforservicehasdeclinedby14.7%

since2009.MuchofthiscanbeattributedtoachangeintheEMSdispatchprotocol.Beginningin2013,

BFDwasnolongerdispatchedtocertainrequestsfor“emergency”medicalcareinwhichitwas

unnecessaryforafiredepartmentresponse.Incidentsoffiresandothercallshaveremainedrelatively

steadyoverthelast60months.

AdditionalanalysisofBFD’sincidentsshowednosignificantstatisticaldifferencesincallvolumeswhen

consideringday‐of‐weekormonth‐of‐year.Theconclusiondrawnisthatthedepartment’scallvolumeby

incidenttyperemainsconsistentthroughouttheyear.Thefrequencyofincidents,byhour‐of‐the‐day,isanalyzedforthepurposeofpredictability.ThebusiestperiodsforBFDisbetweenthehoursof0800

(8:00am)and2000(8:00pm)daily.Thesetimesareconsistentamongallincidenttypes.

438 383 413 348 400

7,1807,563

6,256

7,247

5,766

2,100 2,0541,774 1,889

2,120

9,718

10,000

8,443

9,484

8,286

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Bolton Fire DepartmentINCIDENT VOLUMES BY TYPE & YEAR

2009–2013

Fires EMS Others ALL INCIDENTS

Figure 3‐3


24

Fire Incidents

AnanalysisoffireincidentscategorizedwithintheNFIRS100serieswasconductedtodetermineamore

detailedinsight.Table3‐3liststhetopfivemostfrequentfire‐relatedincidents,byyear,during2009–

2013.Asshown,buildingfires,cookingfires,andpassengervehiclefireswerethethreemostcommon.

Five Most Frequent Fire‐Related Incidents by Year

NFIRS Incident Type 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 TOTALS

111–Building fires 132 126 103 89 104 554

113–Cooking fires (no extension) 71 64 58 35 46 274

142–Brush or brush‐and‐grass mixture fires 27 28 36 37 45 173

131–Passenger vehicle fires 22 30 68 26 25 171

100–Fires, other 9 7 49 36 32 133

Annual Totals: 261 255 314 223 252 1,305

Table 3‐3

Nearly70%ofbuildingfiresoccurredin1‐or2‐familydwellingsormultifamilydwellings.About60%oftheseoriginatedinthekitchenareaandextendedtootherrooms.Theother30%ofbuildingfiresoccurredinawidevarietyofpropertytypes.

Figure 3‐4


25

AsshowninFigure3‐4,themajorityofbuildingfiresoccurredinthenortheasternportionofthecity,

withinFireManagementZone91.

Cookingfireswithoutextension(NFIRS113)representedthesecondmostfrequenttypesoffires.When

combinedwithbuildingfiresoriginatinginthekitchen,cooking‐relatedfiresrepresentthemost

significanttypesoffireswithintheCityofBolton.Figure3‐5illustratesthatthemajorityoftheseoccur

withintheeasternandnortheasternportionsofthecity,primarilyinhouseholdswithamedianincome

oflessthan$24,000annuallyorbetween$24,000and$39,000annually.

FurtherGISanalysisshowedthatthemajorityofcookingfires(withoutextension)occurred

predominatelyinHispanic,Spanish‐speakingresidencesamongmedianagesof27.1–35yearsand27yearsoryounger.Theseresultsareconsistentwithbuildingfiresoriginatinginthekitchen.

Inapproximately55%ofcookingfireswithoutextension,andbuildingfiresoriginatinginthekitchen,

thatasmokealarmwaseithernotfunctioning,didnotalerttheoccupants,ornonewereinstalledintheresidence.

Figure 3‐5


26

Thefrequencyofbrushfires(NFIRS142)andpassengervehiclefires(NFIRS131)overthepreviousfive

yearsareapproximatelythesame,andrepresentthethirdandfourthhighestnumberofincidents.

However,whencombiningthenumberofbrushfireswithotherincidentscategorizedaswildland‐types

(grassfires;forest,woods,orwildlandfires;grassfires;naturalvegetationfires),theincident‐count

increasestosubstantially.Thus,wildland‐typefireswerethesecondmostfrequentfire‐relatedincidents.

Ofallthecombinedwildland‐typefires,themajority(26%)occuraround1‐or2‐familydwellings;20%

inopenlandsorfields;and15%invacantlotswithinresidentialneighborhoods.Figure3‐6illustrates

thedensityofwildland‐typefiresbylocation.Themapshowsthatmostoccurintheeasternand

northeasternportionsofthecity,intheresidentialneighborhoodsofFMZ91and95,followedbyFMZ93.

Figure 3‐6


27

EMS Incidents

Incidentrecordsindicatedthatduring2009–2013,therewereatotalof41,706patientencounters

(consistingof34,012separateincidents);resultinginanannualaverageof8,341.Patientgender

consistedof54%males,and46%females.

Agesrangedfromlessthan1to105years,withanaverageof54(mean55).Femalepatientsaveraged56

years,andmales52.Individualsaged16oryounger,comprised7.4%ofthepatients.

TheNFIRScategoriesgiveaverybroaddescriptionofmostEMSincidents,butareinadequatein

describingmorespecificdetailsofillnessesandinjuries.Forexample,themajorityofEMSincidentswere

categorizedas321–EMScall(includespatientrefusals).Inordertogetamorecompleteperspectiveof

EMS,itwasnecessarytoexaminepatientrecordsgreaterdetail.Thiswasdonebyevaluatingtheprimaryimpressionsandcausesofeachcase.

Traumatic Injuries27%

Chest Pain14%

Respiratory Distress13%

Altered LOC11%

Abdominal Symptoms8%

Seizures7%

Syncope6%

EMS Incidents: Top Ten Most Frequent Primary Impressions2009–2013

Figure 3‐7


28

Figure3‐7showsthatthemostfrequentprimaryimpressioninvolvedtraumaticinjuries(27%);followed

bychestpain(13%),alteredlevelofconsciousness(11%),andabdominalsymptoms(8%).Thedata

showedthat28%oftraumaticinjurieswerearesultofafall.Ofthese,themajoritywereground‐level

fallsinvolvingfemalepatients62yearsofageorolder.

Percent of Injuries from Falls by Age Group & Gender 2009–2013

Age Range Females* Males*

0–17 years 6% 6%

18–28 years 4% 5%

29–39 years 1% 8%

40–50 years 7% 12%

51–61 years 7% 4%

62–72 years 13% 6%

73–96 years 16% 5%

*Percent of all documented falls (percentages rounded) Table 3‐4

Non‐traumaticcardiopulmonaryarrestcasesrepresentedarelativelysmallnumberofEMSincidents.Mostoccurredathome,andapproximately25%presentedwithaninitialrhythmofventricular

fibrillation.About20%ofallarrestsoccurredinpubliclocations.However,therewerenocasesinwhichanautomatedexternaldefibrillatorwasavailableordeployed.

Other Incidents

Afterexcludingfires(NFIRS100)andEMS(NFIRS300),theremainingtypeswereplaceinthe“OtherIncidents”category.Table3‐5liststheseinorderofquantity.

Other Incident Types Total BFD Incidents

600—Good Intent Call 3,994

700—False Alarm and False Call 2,722

500—Service Call 2,403

400—Hazardous Condition (No Fire) 699

900—Special Incident Type 64

200—Overpressure Rupture, Explosion, Overheat (No Fire) 42

800—Severe Weather and Natural Disaster 13

Table 3‐5


29

Thetopthreeotherincidents(NFIRS600,700,500)represented20%ofallincidenttypesinwhichBFD

wasdispatchedoverthelastfiveyears.WithineachoftheNFIRScategoriesaresubcategoriesthat

provideamorespecificdescriptionoftheincident.

ThemostcommontypeswithintheNFIRS600–GoodIntentCallcategorywere:

611–CallsDispatched&canceledenroute(53%)

622–Noincidentfoundonarrivalatdispatchaddress(20%)

651–Smokescare,odorofsmoke,notsteam(15%)

WithintheNFIRS700–FalseAlarm&FalseCallcategory,745–Alarmsystemactivation(nofire),

unintentionalrepresentedthemostcommon.Falsealarmsoccurredmostfrequentlyinsingle‐andmulti‐

familyresidences(35%),followedbypublicschools(9%),andhotels/motels(6%).

Figure3‐8isamapillustratingtheconcentrationofnon‐residential(primarilycommercial)falsealarms

withinthecity.ThemajorityoftheseoccurredwithinFMZ91,andinthedowntownarea.

Figure 3‐8


30

WithintheNFIRS500–ServiceCallcategory,themostcommontypeswere:

554–Assistinvalidwasthemostfrequent(36%)

510–Personindistress,other(33%)

551–Assistpoliceorothergovernmentalagency(7%)

Asubstantialpercentageofthe“assistinvalid”incidentsoccurredinnursinghomesandretirement

facilitiesthatprovide24‐hourcareand/orassistance.

Target Hazard Analysis

BFD’sOfficeoftheFireMarshaliscurrentlyconductingacitywideinspectionprogramofalloccupancies.

ThisprocesswillincludeassigninganOccupancyVulnerabilityAssessmentProfile(OVAP)scoreforall

occupancieswithinthecity.DatafromthiswillenableacomprehensiveGIS‐basedanalysisandidentificationofthevarioustargethazardslocatedinBolton.

Inthemeantime,othermajortargethazardshavebeenidentified,asdepictedinFigure3‐9.Theseincludenursinghomes,high‐riseandotherbuildings(consistingofthreefloorsorgreater),allpublic

schools,bothhospitals,andlocationsofhazardousmaterialssites.Thisinformationwillassistin

determiningwherebesttolocatefiresuppressionandotherspecialtyresourcesforeachFMZ.

Figure 3‐9


31

Community Risk Priorities

BasedontheassessmentofincidentanddemographicdatafromtheCityofBolton,thetopthree

prioritiesforcommunityriskhavebeenidentified.Thesearepotentialrisksthatcanultimatelybe

mitigatedthroughvariousstrategies;whichwillbeaddressedthroughacomprehensivecommunityrisk

reductionplan.

Priority 1: Cooking Fires

Therehasbeenasteadyincreaseincookingfiresoverthelastfiveyears.Someconfinedtothekitchen

area,andothersoriginatinginthekitchenandextendingintootherrooms;eventuallyresultingin

buildingfires.AsignificantnumberofthesefiresoccurinhomeswithpredominantlySpanish‐speaking

residentsundertheageof35years.Mostoftheresidentshadnoneornon‐workingsmokealarms,and

theinability(absenceofafireextinguisherorothermeans)orunfamiliaritywithproceduresforproperlysuppressingcooking‐relatedfires.DuringtheCRRplanningprocess,itwillbenecessarytoconsideraplanthattargetsspecificneighborhoodswithbotheducationalmaterials(inbothSpanishandEnglish)

andaprogramofhomevisits.Thisshouldincludeinstallationofsmokealarmsandpropermethodsofextinguishingcooking‐relatedfires.

Priority 2: Ground‐Level Falls

EMS‐incidentdatashowedthatthemajorityofground‐levelfallsoccurredamongfemalesaged62yearsandolder.Thetypesofinjurieswereusuallyhipandlower‐extremityfractures.Whilesuchinjuriescanbesignificantinyoungerpersons,theyareoftenmuchmoredevastatingintheelderly.Theyfrequentlyresultinlong‐termfunctionalimpairment,nursinghomeadmissionandincreasedmortality.

Ground‐levelfallsarepreventableinmanycasesbymakehomessaferbyreducingtrippinghazards;improvedlighting;andaddinggrabrailsinbathrooms.Inaddition,regularexercisetoimprovestrengthandbalance;annualeyeexams;takingcalciumandVitaminDsupplements;andensuringthatany

medicinestheyaretakingdonothavesideeffectssuchasdizzinessordrowsinesscanallhelptoreduce

thepotentialforfalls.

Priority 3: Wildland‐Type Fires in Residential Areas

Whentakingintoaccountallwildland‐typeincidents,theyrepresentthesecondmostcommonfire‐

relatedincidents—themajorityoccurringatoraroundresidentialareas.Thefrequencyofthesefireshasincreasedby255%overthepreviousfiveyears,andwillcontinuetoriseasthecityexpandsits

boundariestotheeastandwest.Wind‐drivenembers,notflamesfromthewildfire,tendtobethebiggest

threattoresidentialpropertiesduringwildfires.


32

Thereareanumberofoptionsthatcanhelphomeownerstopreventandminimizewildlandfiresfrom

progressingintoresidentialstructurefires.Creatingadefensiblespacearoundthehomebymodifying,

reducing,orclearingpotentialwildfirefuelmaterialsorvegetationtocreateabarriercanslowthe

spreadofwildfire.Agooddefensiblespacealsoallowsroomforfirefighterstofightfiresmoresafely.

Theuseoffire‐resistantbuildingmaterials(particularlyfire‐resistantroofing);reducingflammable

materialsorfuelsoutsidethehome;andlandscapingwithfire‐resistantplantsareotherpreventative

measures.

Conclusion

Utilizingtheresultsofthisriskassessment,theBoltonFireDepartmentwillbeginthenextstepsinthe

CommunityRiskReductionplanningprocess.Thiswillstartwiththedevelopmentofstrategiesandtacticstomitigaterisks,followedbythepreparationandimplementationofaCRRplan.Afterimplementation,thedepartmentwillmonitor,evaluateandmodifytheplanasnecessary.

(Note:ThemapsusedinthepreviousriskassessmentexamplerepresentanactualgeographiclocalitywithinWashingtonState;includingfirestationlocations.However,thisisintendedforillustrativepurposesonly,anddoesnotrepresentauthenticincidentsordata‐analysisresultsfromthatparticularcommunity.)


33

References

1. UnitedStatesCensusBureau:www.census.gov

2. AmericanFactFinder:http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml

3. AmericanHousingSurvey:http://www.census.gov/programs‐surveys/ahs/

4. AmericanCommunitySurvey:http://www.census.gov/acs/www/

5. Oliver,D.(2011,November).FireRescueMagazine,42–47

6. Esri:http://www.esri.com

7. Vision20/20:http://www.strategicfire.org


34

APPENDICES


35

Appendix A: Building the Community Profile CATEGORY DESCRIPTION QUESTIONS TO ANSWER

Demographical (people‐related information

Population, distribution, age, ethnicity & cultures

Total community population?

Population of each census tract?

Which census tracts have the greatest concentration of high‐risk populations:

Children under 5 years? Older adults? People in poverty? People with disabilities? People who speak little or no English?

Social Characteristics Education levels & family profiles What are the demographics of education levels throughout your community?

What census tracts include the greatest populations of the following:

Single‐parent homes? Two‐parent homes? People living alone? Older adults living alone?

Economic Characteristics Employment profile & rates; income levels

What is the employment profile?

Types of jobs? Work in community or commute? Major local employers? Unemployment rate? Income‐level ranges?

Housing Profile Age of homes & occupants; types of residential occupancies; home ownership vs. rental properties; transience among residents

What is the overall housing profile of your community?

Average age of homes? New (or recent) construction? Homes with automatic detection and suppression equipment? Types of residential construction? Types of residential properties (single, family, duplex, multi‐unit)? Renter vs. owner occupied? Transience (how often do people re‐locate)?

Growth Trends Past & future population growth trends (consider using the U.S. Census Bureau website to obtain this information)

How has the population changed in the previous 20 years?

What will the profile look like in 10 years?

Source: Leadership Strategies for Community Risk Reduction–VIP Pre‐Course Materials; FEMA, National Fire Academy


36

Appendix B: List of Risk Assessment Resources

Training Programs

CommunityRiskIssues&PreventionInterventions(W0347)U.S.FireAdministration(apps.usfa.fema.gov/nfacourses/catalog/details/146)

This2‐daycourseisdesignedforstudentswhoworkinthefieldofprevention.Studentslearnabasicoverviewofthe"threeE's"ofprevention‐‐education,engineering,andenforcement.Thecourseconcludesthatthemosteffectivewaytocombatcommunityriskissuesistodevelopstrategiesthatuseall"threeE's."Coursecontentincludesevaluationofthetypesandlevelsofcommunityprevention;howinjuries,fires,andburnscanbeprevented;strategiesandcountermeasurestohelppeopleunderstandtheinjury,fire,orburneventandreducetheloss;and*preventionapproaches—behaviorchanges,legislation,andenforcementandengineering.ExecutiveAnalysisofCommunityRiskReduction(R0274)U.S.FireAdministration(apps.usfa.fema.gov/nfacourses/catalog/details/707)

This10‐daycourseisthesecondcourseintheExecutiveFireOfficerProgram(EFOP).Thecourseisamixtureofphilosophyandapplication‐‐thevalueofthecommunityriskreductionandtheprocessofapplyingriskreductiontothecommunity.Itinvolvesdevelopingpartnershipswiththecommunitytoimplementprograms,initiatives,andservicesthatpreventand/ormitigatetheriskofhumancausedornaturaldisasters.Traditionalfirepreventionprogramsareaddressed.LeadershipStrategiesforCommunityRiskReduction(R0833)U.S.FireAdministration(apps.usfa.fema.gov/nfacourses/catalog/details/10441)

This6‐daycourseisdesignedtoenhanceknowledgeandskillsnecessarytolead,manageandapplyfirepreventionstrategiesandcommunityriskreductioninitiativesatthelocallevel.Thiscoursewillgivestudentstoolsandtechniquestoraisethelevelofimportanceforpreventionwithintheirorganization.Thecoursewilldemonstratehowfirepreventionandotherriskreductioninitiativescanbenefitthemdirectlyandindividually.CulturalCompetenceinRiskReduction(R0394)U.S.FireAdministration(apps.usfa.fema.gov/nfacourses/catalog/details/10493)

Thisnewsix‐dayNFAcourseseekstoimproveculturalandlinguisticdeterminantswithintheapplicationofriskreductionstrategies.Thiscourseaimstoconnectfire/EMSpreventionpersonnelwithdiverseandculturalgroupswiththecommunity(s)theyserve,specificallytoincreasethereachandeffectivenessoffire/lifesafetypreventionservicesandprograms.CCIRRisdesignedforavarietyofpreventionspecialistssuchaspublicfireandlifesafetyeducators,inspectors,juvenilefiresetterinterventionspecialists,firemarshalsandcodeenforcers.


37

ConductingLocalRiskReductionbyCompanyOfficers(R0186)U.S.FireAdministration(apps.usfa.fema.gov/nfacourses/catalog/details/10503)

Thisnew6‐dayNFAcourseseekstoimprovetheskillsofCompanyOfficers(COs)toleadandconductrisk‐reductionactivitieswithintheserviceareaoftheirstation/community.ThecourseisbothfortheCOwhoiscurrentlyengagedinrisk‐reductionactivitiesandtheCOwhodesirestolaythefoundationtostartcommunityriskreduction.AdvancedTechnologyforCommunityRisk/StandardsofCoverCenterforPublicSafetyExcellence(CPSE)(www.publicsafetyexcellence.org/development‐training/workshops.aspx)

DesignedforaccreditationmanagersandtheirGISspecialists,thisone‐dayseminar(orfive‐weekwebinar)focusesonusingGISandrelatedtoolstoconducttheanalysisrequiredtocompletetheCFAICommunityRiskandStandardsofCover(SOC)process.TheworkshopcoversthedatanecessarytouseGISandExcelsoftwareandproducetheexhibitsnecessaryforadefendableCommunityRisk/SOCstudy.

Publications & Other Documents

RHAVEandCommunityRiskAssessmentforVolunteerFireDepartmentsRonnyJ.Coleman,SeniorFireProtectionConsultantAshortpaperdiscussingtheRisk,Hazard,andValueEvaluation(RHAVE)tools.GuidefortheEvaluationofFireRiskAssessments,2013Edition(NFPA551)NationalFireProtectionAssociation(NFPA)(nfpa.org)Thisdocumentidentifiesvarioustypesoffireriskassessmentmethodsanddescribesthepropertiesthesemethodsshouldpossess.FundingAlternativesforEmergencyMedicalandFireServices(FA‐331/April2012)U.S.FireAdministration/FEMA(www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/pdf/publications/fa_331.pdf)Thepurposeofthismanualistoidentifythevariousgrantsandinnovativefundingalternativesavailableforemergencymedicalservices(EMS)andfireprotectionservices.Whereappropriate,adiscussionoftheprosandconsofaparticularfundingsourcearediscussed.Insomeinstances,examplesaregiventoillustratehowalternativefundingisbeingsuccessfullyimplementedinEMSagenciesandfiredepartmentsacrossthecountry.AddressingCommunityWildfireRisk:AReviewandAssessmentofRegulatoryandPlanningToolsTheFireProtectionResearchFoundationandNationalFireProtectionAssociation(NFPA)(www.nfpa.org/~/media/files/research/research%20foundation/rfwuiregulatoryassessment.ashx)Astudythatwasconductedtoreviewandassesstheeffectivenessofregulatoryplanningtoolsdesignedtoaddresscommunitywildfirerisk,andtocommunicatelessonslearnedtocommunitiesconsideringsuchregulation.TheprojectdeliverablesdefinetheWUIregulatorylandscapethroughtheidentificationofregulatorytools,categorizationofthesetools,andtheirevaluationtoclarifytheireffectiveness.


38

ManagingFire&RescueServicesICMA(bookstore.icma.org/PreviewPacks/pp42813.pdf)Includesachapteroncommunityriskassessmentandmanagement.FirewiseToolkitNationalFireProtectionAssociation(www.firewise.org/~/media/Firewise/Files/Pdfs/Toolkit/FirewiseToolkit.pdf)ContainsvariousinformationandtoolsconcerningtheNFPA’sFirewiseprogram.Roles&ResponsibilitiesoftheChief,MunicipalOfficials,&CitizensinToday’sProtectionEnvironmentNationalFireProtectionAssociation(NFPA)(www.riskinstitute.org/peri/images/file/RolesandResponsibilitiesPERISymposiumPaper.pdf)Ashortpaperdiscussingtherolesandresponsibilitiesofpublicofficialsincommunityriskanalysis.RiskAssessmentWorksheet:AToolforCompanyOfficers&FirePreventionInspectorsJohnKobarda,LondonFireServices,Ontario,CanadaAresearchpaperdevelopedtoprovideariskassessmentworksheetforthefireservice.FireRiskAssessmentFormFireRiskAssessment.comSimpleformfordocumentingpotentialfirerisks.BasicsofRiskAssessmentU.S.FireAdministrationAone‐page“coffeebreak”documentdiscussingthebasicsofriskassessment.RiskAssessmentforCRREffortMikeSenchynaAsynopsisofmethodspromotedintheNFA’s“ConductingLocalRiskReductionbyCompanyOfficers.”Internet Resources

U.S.FireAdministration/FEMA,FirePrevention&PublicEducation:www.usfa.fema.gov/fireservice/prevention_education/Containsawidevarietyofinformationandresourcesoncommunityriskassessment.CenterforPublicSafetyExcellence:www.publicsafetyexcellence.orgProvidesacommunityriskandstandardsofcovercourse.Aspartoftheaccreditationprocess,outlinesstandardsforcommunityriskanalysis.NationalFireProtectionAssociation(NFPA):www.nfpa.orgWebsitehasanumberofpublicationsfordownloadonriskassessment;particularlyonwildfires,andotherpublicationsthatmustbepurchased.NFPAFirewiseCommunities:www.firewise.org


39

TheFirewiseCommunitiesProgramwasdevelopedin1986inresponsetotherealizationthattheproblemofhomedestructionfrombrush,grassandforestfireswasoneofnationalscope.Theprogramteachespeoplehowtoadapttolivingwithwildfireandencouragesneighborstoworktogetherandtakeactiontopreventlosses.FireRiskAssessment,FireRiskAssessmentGuide:www.fire‐riskassessment.com/fire‐risk‐assessment.htmlAwebsitethatlistsastep‐by‐stepguidetodoingariskassessment,alongwithotherresources.Itaimstoprovidebusinessownersandmanagerswithonlineinformationandadviceonarangeofworkplacesafetyissuesthataffectallbusinesspremises.Thissitedoesnotsellanyproductorservice,sotheinformationprovidedwillbeunbiasedaswellasfree.Theinformationisprovidedasafreeresource,notfromtheviewpointofthefireauthority.PublicRiskManagementAssociation(PRIMA):www.primacentral.orgThewebsiteofanassociationdedicatedtopromoteeffectiveriskmanagementinthepublicinterestasanessentialcomponentofpublicadministration.InternationalCity/CountyManagementAssociation(ICMA):icma.orgProvidesalistofassortedfireservicedocumentsandresources.CentersforDiseaseControl&Prevention(CDC),Injury&ViolencePrevention:www.cdc.gov/injury/index.htmlHasawidevarietyofinformationandstatisticsconcerningtraumaticinjuriesandviolence.Alsoincludesinformationonburninjuriesandfiredeaths.Otherwebpagesincludesubstantialinformationonheartdisease,strokeandotherdiseases.ItcontainstheWISQARSTM(Web‐basedInjuryStatisticsQueryandReportingSystem);aninteractivedatabasesystemthatprovidescustomizedreportsofinjury‐relateddata.NationalWeatherService:www.weather.govIncludesaweathersafetywebpage,alongwithweather‐relatedstatisticsconcerningvariousweatherfatalitiesandinjuries.FederalEmergencyManagementAgency(FEMA):www.fema.govContainsawidevarietyofinformationondisasterplanningandotherdisaster‐relatedissues.U.S.EnergyInformationAdministration:www.eia.govInformation,statisticsandpublicationsoncommercialbuildings;includingbuildingenergyconsumption.Mesonet:www.mesonet.orgReal‐timeweatherreportingforOklahomaonly.Hasaspecificpageforpublicsafetyofficials.


40

NationalEMSInformationSystem(NEMSIS):www.nemsis.orgTheNEMSISProjectisanefforttocreateaNationalEMSDatabase.Thedatabasewillcontaindatafromlocalandstateagenciesfromacrossthenation.NationalCenterforEducationStatistics,CommonCoreofData(CCD):nces.ed.gov/ccdAprogramoftheU.S.DepartmentofEducationthatannuallycollectsfiscalandnon‐fiscaldataaboutallpublicschools,publicschooldistrictsandstateeducationagenciesintheUnitedStates.UnitedStatesCensusBureau:www.census.govDemographicdataavailableforspecificcities,townsandcommunities.Numerousotherdataonbusiness,economicsandhousing.Intterra:http://www.intterragroup.comCompanyhasmultipleresourcesthatcanhelpwithriskassessment;especiallyconcerningwildfireissues.OtherCensusBureauwebpagesAmericanHousingSurvey:www.census.gov/housing/ahs/AmericanCommunitySurvey:www.census.gov/acs/www/AmericanFactFinder:factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/Computer Software & Applications

GeographicInformationSystem(GIS)forPublicSafetyEsri(http://www.esri.com/industries/public‐safety/fire‐rescue‐ems)Thecompanyprovidesanumberoftoolsandapplicationsthatcouldbepotentiallyusefulinplanningandcommunityriskanalysis.TargetHazardAnalysisEsri(http://solutions.arcgis.com/local‐government/help/target‐hazard‐analysis/)Usedtoidentifyandquantifypropertiesthatshouldbetargetedforpre‐incidentplanningtomitigatesuchaloss.RequiresArcGISforDesktop(StandardorAdvanced).Lifestyles‐EsriTapestrySegmentationEsri(www.esri.com/data/esri_data/tapestry)VISIONRiskAssessmentEmergencyReporting(www.emergencyreporting.com/products/vision.html)Enablesfireandemergencyserviceagenciestoanalyzeandcategorizecommunityrisksandhazards.Therearethreedifferentversionswithvariousfeatures.


41

FirehouseAnalyticsFirehouseSoftware,Inc.(www.firehousesoftware.com/products/fh‐analytics.php)Amulti‐directionaldataanalysistooltoevaluatethedatacollectedfromallmodulesofFirehouse(FH)Software.MusthaveFHsoftwaretoutilizethismodule.ImageTrendFireDepartmentManagementSystemImageTrend,Inc.(www.imagetrend.com/products/eds/fire‐bridge)Fireservicesoftwarethathasadd‐onmoduleswithanadvancedvisualanalysisandreportingsystem,andamappingandreportingsystem.Requiresthebasicsystemtoutilizetheadd‐onmodules.StatsFDAnimatedData,Inc.(www.statsfd.com)FormerlyNFIRS5Alive,thesoftwareutilizesexistingrawNFIRSdatatogenerateavarietyofreportsandanalysesofcommunityrisks(basedonoccupancyandoperationaldata)andoperationalperformance.Generatesheatmapsand3Dgeographicmodels.FireView™DashboardTheOmegaGroup(www.theomegagroup.com/fire/omega_dashboard_fire.html)Allowsuserstoanalyzedatabyprovidingasnapshotofrecenteventsdisplayedintheformofmaps,chartsandreports.Itisabrowser‐basedsolutionthatcanbecustomizedtomeettheneedsofeachuser.

Community Risk Assessment - strategicfire.org · Community Risk Assessment Guide 1 Preface...

Documents

Transcript of Community Risk Assessment - strategicfire.org · Community Risk Assessment Guide 1 Preface...