FIREFIGHTER STAFFING PER COMPANY: DOES COMPLYING WITH THE NATIONAL
GUIDELINE IMPROVE A FIRE DEPARTMENT’S PERFORMANCE ENOUGH TO
JUSTIFY THE COST?
By
Heather Stingley
A paper submitted to the faculty of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in partial
fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Public Administration.
SPRING 2011
This paper represents the work of a UNC MPA student. It is not a formal report of the School of
Government, nor the School of Government faculty.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In 2001 the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) passed Standard 1710, recommending a
minimum staffing of 4 firefighters per company. Local government managers opposed its passage,
calling it an expensive one-size-fits-all standard. This study analyzes detailed staffing data for a 2-week
period in September 2010 to assess 1710 compliance among North Carolina municipalities and the effect
of compliance on performance. Survey results show that few departments consistently comply with 1710
and the majority regularly staff companies with fewer than 4 firefighters. Furthermore, a relationship
between compliance and improved performance cannot be conclusively verified from these data.
INTRODUCTION
Fire remains a far larger threat in the United States than is often realized. Improvements in how we
prevent fires have reduced the overall fire risk faced by the nation, yet over the past 27 years the United
States has continuously had the fifth highest number of fire-related deaths per capita among industrialized
nations.1
The National Fire Protection Association’s Standard 1710 provides career fire departments with technical
guidelines and recommendations for response times, staffing, operational procedures and department
organization. This study is centered on the staffing recommendation made in 1710: engine and ladder
companies should be staffed with a minimum of 4 firefighters.2
Appropriate staffing levels are not a new concern; whether or not fire departments should adhere to a per
company staffing minimum has been debated and studied for over 40 years.3 However, heated debate
preceded the passage of 1710, because the minimum staffing guideline was a new and controversial
addition to NFPA standards.
Public administrators, especially those in local government, argued that a minimum staffing guideline is
an expensive one-size-fits-all standard that forces managers to redirect resources from equally important
functions.4 At the same time, the International Association of Firefighters (IAFF) widely supported a
universal minimum staffing guideline, and had advocated for one since 1992. The IAFF spent millions of
dollars and used its political strength to bring the staffing issue forward and ensure it passed.5 The
International City/County Management Association (ICMA) and the National League of Cities (NLC)
pushed to overturn the standard; it was appealed to the NFPA board of directors but ultimately upheld.6
It is important to note that the NFPA’s standards are not binding.7 However, they are taken seriously
because of the respect given to the NFPA in general, and more specifically in this case because local
governments are worried they will be liable for fire damage and injuries/fatalities if they are not meeting
the minimum staffing levels. Yet the actual degree of compliance with 1710 is largely unknown.
BACKGROUND
Despite the multitude of studies undertaken to determine the optimal per company staffing number and
the effect increased staffing has on performance, there remains little information about how fire
departments are actually staffing companies and the extent to which these staffing assignments affect
performance. Prior research has been almost exclusively based on time-to-task-completion experiments.
Done in a controlled environment, these experiments mimic what happens to single-family residential
structures during a fire and time how long it takes different-sized companies to complete a specific set of
tasks. In general these studies were oriented to specific communities and while their results have been
generalized, it is not clear that this is appropriate.
In April 2010, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) published results of the largest
fire services staffing study to date.8 That study was designed specifically to test the standards outlined in
NFPA 1710, and consisted of more than 60 experiments both within laboratories and on the scene of
manufactured structural fires. Like prior staffing studies, the NIST study was based on time-to-taskcompletion experiments, and concluded that all of the studied tasks could be completed faster by fourperson companies than by companies comprised of fewer than 4 firefighters.
In the NIST study, repeated experiments measured the time it took companies of 2, 3, 4 and 5 to complete
22 fireground tasks. It concluded that 4-person companies could complete the full battery of tasks 5.1
1
minutes faster than 3-person companies and 7 minutes faster than 2-person companies. Some key
findings include:
4-person companies put water on a fire 6% faster than 3-person companies
4-person companies completed primary search and rescue 6% faster than 3-person companies
4-person companies completed laddering and ventilation 25% faster than 3-person companies
Unlike prior research, the NIST study does not focus on a specific municipality but acknowledges that it
still faces many of same shortcomings previous time-to-task-completion studies have, due to the fact that
it is impossible to account for the wide variety of structural fires firefighters face and other factors real
life presents.
The current North Carolina study seeks additional insights on the issue and provides a broader analysis
using detailed staffing data over a 2-week period in September 2010 to do so.
METHODOLOGY
This study is based on past performance and staffing assignments. It primarily uses data obtained from
electronic surveys distributed to career fire departments in North Carolina. Surveys were distributed in
two phases: the first phase was to participants of the North Carolina Benchmarking Project and in the
second phase they were sent to all career fire departments not yet surveyed. Additional background
information and data were gathered from the U.S. Census, N.C. Benchmarking Project, NFPA, United
States Fire Association (USFA) and the North Carolina Fire and Rescue Commission.
The scope of this study is restricted to career fire departments, ladder and engine companies, and
structural fires. These guidelines were chosen in order to limit the study to only the situations and
characteristics pertaining to NFPA 1710.9 This study does not include fire departments outside of North
Carolina due to time constraints.
Phase I Survey: N.C. Benchmarking Group
The N.C. benchmarking group was surveyed in advance of a November 2010 conference about fire
services. This self-selected group participates in annual surveys that cover several facets of local
government service provision and this study’s survey was sent via email as a supplemental survey. The
Phase I survey was formatted and distributed like the annual benchmarking surveys and is included in
Appendix A.
Descriptive statistics were used to analyze survey results; main findings were presented at the November
conference. Survey design, questions and responses were reviewed and together with feedback from
respondents the survey was updated to improve clarity and eliminate questions deemed unnecessary
before it was distributed to the larger group.
Phase II Survey: North Carolina
The updated survey distributed in this phase was created to be as similar to the original survey as possible.
The main difference between this survey and the previous one is that two questions were removed and
two questions were added. Deleted questions were deemed unnecessary and additional questions were
needed to obtain data that in Phase I was already collected in the general benchmarking surveys. This
survey is included in Appendix B.
The list of fire departments surveyed in Phase II was compiled using the list of all fire and rescue
departments in North Carolina published by the state’s Fire and Rescue Commission. Internet research
2
and phone calls determined which of the departments are career fire departments and secured contact
information for each. An email was sent to each fire department with a link to the survey, created through
Qualtrics and hosted by UNC’s Odum Institute. A reminder email was sent to unresponsive recipients a
week later.
To increase the number of responses received, phone calls were made to the seven fire departments
serving cities of greater than 40,000 population that did not respond to the email request. Time
constraints made it impossible to engage in this level of follow up in smaller cities.
RESULTS AND ANALYSIS
In Phase I this study surveyed 13 fire departments and due to the nature of the group surveyed achieved a
response rate of 100%. The small sample size made it difficult to determine whether results could be
generalized more broadly. To increase the number of responses being analyzed, an additional 77 fire
departments were surveyed in Phase II. The response rate of the larger survey group was, as expected,
much lower; only 7 surveys were fully completed. This put the combined overall response rate at 23%.
While low for the entire set of municipalities surveyed, 66% of cities with a population of 40,000 or
greater responded.
1710 Compliance
The central component of this study is a set of staffing grids on which respondents were asked to report
how many firefighters actually served on each ladder and engine company e ach day of a 2-week period.
Respondents were instructed to enter staffing data only for the pre-selected time period but given the
opportunity to comment if they didn’t feel this gave an accurate picture of regular staffing assignments.
No responding fire department thought the time period was not indicative of regular staffing levels.
Figure 1. Respondents were either in compliance or not
18
Number of Municipali es
Of the fire departments surveyed, only 2 fully
complied with 1710. Both of these departments
had all but one of their companies staffed with 4
firefighters during the entire period so this study
considers them fully compliant. If compliance is
measured in a dichotomous fashion where
departments are only considered in compliance if
they always staff with 4+ firefighters, then only
10% of the responding departments complied with
1710 (Figure 1).
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Yes
No
Number of Municipali es
1710 Compliance
However, the staffing grids show that the majority
of respondents staffed companies with 4
firefighters some of the time and only 6 of the
Figure 2. How often respondents reached minimum staffing
departments never complied with 1710. In fact,
over the 2-week period, 7 departments had more
6
than half of their companies staffed with 4 or more
5
firefighters (Figure 2). Additionally, there are fire
4
departments that had companies with only 2
firefighters during this period. A breakdown by
3
municipality of how many companies were staffed
2
with 2, 3, and 4+ firefighters is shown in
1
Appendix C.
0
0%
1-19%
20-39%
40-59%
60-79%
80-99%
100%
Percentage of Companies In Compliance
3
Number of Municipali es
To better reflect the fact that of the 90% of
Figure 3. How close to full compliance respondents were
respondents not always meeting the national
10
guideline, some departments are closer to
compliance than others, a system was devised for
8
this study to give partial credit the closer they
6
were to the standard of 4 firefighters per company.
Using this system to calculate each department’s
4
compliance with 1710, staffing grid data were
2
weighted so that departments received full credit
for every company staffed with 4 or more
0
firefighters and partial credit for companies
<60%
60-79%
80-89%
90-99%
100%
staffed with fewer than 4 firefighters. For
Weighted Compliance Score
example, a department with 3 firefighters per
company throughout the entire 2-week period would receive a score of 75%. A department having 4
firefighters on only 25% of its company days and 3 firefighters per company on all others would receive a
score of 83%.
The weighted compliance scores show how close each department is to compliance. The distribution of
scores is shown in Figure 3. Under this system the lowest score a responding department received is 50%
and reflects the fact that the particular fire department staffed every company with 2 firefighters during
the 2-week period. The majority of respondents were between 60% and 79% of the way towards
compliance.
Performance
The performance measures used in this study are not time-to-task-completion scores but instead three
outcome measures: percentage of fires contained to room or object of origin, per capita civilian fatalities,
and fire loss as a percentage of total property protected. Microsoft Excel was used to scatter plot the
relationship between each of these variables with the weighted percentage of compliance, and also used to
determine the correlation between each. The graphs can be referenced in Appendices D, E, and F.
The small sample yielded correlations that were not statistically significant. It is also important to note
that this study only used performance data for a 1-year period of time but the number and severity of fires
a municipality experiences fluctuates from year to year. The results found could be affected by the
specific year chosen.
Containment
Increased staffing does not positively correlate with a higher percentage of fires being contained to the
room or object of origin (r = -.05). Although it cannot be conclusively determined that there is no
relationship between staffing and fire containment, this study does not find evidence of any impact.
Fire Loss
A modest positive correlation between increased staffing and increased fire loss as a percentage of
property protected was found (r = .23). This finding seems to contradict the premise of NFPA 1710;
however, it is possible that the relationship indicates that when a community has a fire problem and
therefore is experiencing a high amount of fire loss, the government increases fire staffing to tackle this
problem.
Civilian Deaths
A modest negative correlation between increased staffing and per capita civilian deaths was found
(r = -.29). Although this study’s data suggest that increased staffing makes civilians safer, the correlation
is not statistically significant.
4
Budget Implications
The main objection to a minimum staffing guideline expressed by mayors, managers, and other city
officials is that it can divert scarce resources from areas considered equally or more important to the
specific municipality. This study attempted to calculate the cost of compliance for each respondent but
was forced by data availability to limit analysis to the N.C. Benchmarking municipalities. To determine
the cost of compliance, the percentage of how close each municipality was to full compliance was used to
calculate the difference between current personnel costs and what personnel costs would be at 100%.
Only personnel costs attributed to firefighters were included in the calculation.
The further a municipality is from 100% compliance the more expensive it is to reach the national
guideline. The dollar amount needed to reach full compliance depends on the size of the municipality but
when this number is looked at as a percent of the total fire services budget it is easier to understand how
expensive complying with 1710 can be. It also makes it possible to compare municipalities of different
sizes. This information is shown in Figure 4 and can be found in Appendix G.
Cost to Comply
There is not a steady decline as you move from the Figure 4. The cost to comply with NFPA 1710
lowest average number of firefighters per
30%
company to the highest but a general pattern
25%
emerges when grouped by average per company.
For municipalities with an average of 3.5-3.99 it
20%
will cost between 4% and 5% of the total
15%
department budget to reach compliance, and for
10%
those that average between 3.0-3.49 it will cost
17% to 19%. There is only one municipality with
5%
an average of fewer than 3 but when you fall
0%
below 3 it is much more expensive; in this case the
2.8
3
3.2
3.4
3.6
3.8
total department budget would have to be boosted
Average # of Firefighters Per Company
by 27% to achieve compliance.
4
CONCLUSIONS
This study found no conclusive evidence that increased staffing leads to a marked improvement in a fire
department’s overall performance results. However this does not mean that fire departments should no
longer pay attention to staffing levels and ignore NFPA 1710. Operating with limited resources forces
local government officials to make choices about the best use of taxpayer’s money. Complying with the
minimum staffing per company standard in 1710 is something many, if not all, managers and governing
body members would like to consider; but the reality is that increased staffing costs a lot of money and
this study finds that few career fire departments in North Carolina are in compliance.
Now, more than ever, it is important for decision-makers to look at all of the available information when
determining where to allocate resources and why, because local governments have to do less with less.
Time-to-task completion studies show that for a number of crucial tasks, 4-person companies can operate
faster than those with fewer. Presumably this should lead to improved performance results. However this
study failed to detect evidence that increased staffing resulted in improved outcomes during the time
period examined. Given the cost of adding firefighters and the absence of data linking 1710 compliance
to improved outcomes, it will be difficult for cash-strapped municipalities to make 1710 compliance a
priority.
5
ENDNOTES
1
U.S. Fire Administration Report. “Fire in the United States 2003 - 2007.” Published by FEMA, The
U.S. Department of Homeland Security, October 2009.
2
National Fire Protection Association Publication. NFPA 1710: Standard for the Organization and
Deployment of Fire Suppression Operations, Emergency Medical Operations, and Special Operations to
the Public by Career Fire Departments. NFPA International, 2010.
3
Cortez, Lawrence. “Fire Company Staffing Requirements: An Analytic Approach.” Fire Technology
37, 2001.
Maximus. “Analysis of Fire Services, City of Scottsdale, Arizona.” Study by Maximus for Scottsdale,
AZ, March 2002.
McManis Associates. “Dallas Fire Department Staffing Level Study.” Report for the Dallas Fire
Department, June 1984.
Morrison, Richard C. “Manning Levels For Engine and Ladder Companies in Small Fire
Departments.” Report for Westerville, OH Fire Department, 1990.
4
Erwin, Joe. “Firefighters See Red.” Public Management, January 1993.
Hansell, Jim. “My Dad and NFPA 1710.” Public Management, July 2001.
5
Schaitberger, Harold. “Union United.” Fire Chief, February 2004.
6
Elliott, Timothy. “NFPA 1710: Facts, Fallacies and Fallout.” Fire Chief, August 2001.
7
Greenblatt, Alan. “Fired Up Over A New Standard.” Governing Magazine, July 2001.
8
Averill, Jason D., Lori Moore-Merrell, Adam Barowy, Robert Santos, Richard Peacock, Kathy A.
Notarianni, and Doug Wissoker. “NIST Technical Note 1661: Report on Residential Fireground
Field Experiments.” Report published by the NIST and U.S. Department of Commerce, April 2010.
9
NFPA 1710 specifically says in 1.1.1 and 1.2.1 that the standard pertains to career fire
departments. This differentiates is from similar standards that have a wider scope and
administration.
6
SOURCES REFERENCED
Averill, Jason D., Lori Moore-Merrell, Adam Barowy, Robert Santos, Richard Peacock, Kathy A.
Notarianni, and Doug Wissoker. “NIST Technical Note 1661: Report on Residential Fireground
Field Experiments.” Report published by the NIST and U.S. Department of Commerce, April
2010.
Bryson, William. “It’s Time to Peer Into the 1710 Looking Glass.” Fire Chief, August 2002.
Cortez, Lawrence. “Fire Company Staffing Requirements: An Analytic Approach.” Fire Technology 37,
2001.
Cushman, Jon. “Report to Executive Board: Minimum Manning as Health & Safety Issue.” Report for
Seattle, WA Fire Department, 1981.
Elliott, Timothy. “NFPA 1710: Facts, Fallacies and Fallout.” Fire Chief, August 2001.
Erwin, Joe. “Firefighters See Red.” Public Management, January 1993.
Fahey, Rita F., Paul R. LeBlanc and Joseph L. Molis. “What’s Changed Over the Past 30 Years?”
Publication by the Fire Analysis and Research Division of NFPA, June 2007.
Flynn, Jennifer D. “Fire Service Performance Measures.” Publication by the Fire Analysis and Research
Division of NFPA, November 2009.
Greenblatt, Alan. “Fired Up Over A New Standard.” Governing Magazine, July 2001.
Hansell, Jim. “My Dad and NFPA 1710.” Public Management, July 2001.
Maximus. “Analysis of Fire Services, City of Scottsdale, Arizona.” Study by Maximus for Scottsdale,
AZ, March 2002.
McManis Associates. “Dallas Fire Department Staffing Level Study.” Report for the Dallas Fire
Department, June 1984.
Mirkhah, Azarang. “Impetus for Change.” Fire Chief, January 2007.
Morrison, Richard C. “Manning Levels For Engine and Ladder Companies in Small Fire Departments.”
Report for Westerville, OH Fire Department, 1990.
National Fire Protection Association Publication. NFPA 1710: Standard for the Organization and
Deployment of Fire Suppression Operations, Emergency Medical Operations, and Special
Operations to the Public by Career Fire Departments. NFPA International, 2010.
National Fire Protection Association Report. “Four Years Later – A Second Needs Assessment of the
U.S. Fire Service: North Carolina.” Published with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
Schaitberger, Harold. “Union United.” Fire Chief, February 2004.
7
TriData Corporation Report. “The Economic Consequences of Firefighter Injuries and Their Prevention.
Final Report.” Published by the NIST, U.S. Department of Commerce, March 2005.
U.S. Fire Administration Publication. “Firefighter Injuries.” USFA Topical Research Series 2:1, July
2001.
U.S. Fire Administration Publication. “Firefighter Injuries in Structures.” USFA Topical Research Series
2:2, August 2001.
U.S. Fire Administration Report. “Fire in the United States 2003 - 2007.” Published by FEMA, The U.S.
Department of Homeland Security, October 2009.
U.S. Fire Administration Report. “Fire-Related Firefighter Injuries in 2004.” Report published by
FEMA, The U.S. Department of Homeland Security, February 2008.
U.S. Fire Administration Report. “Structure Fire Response Times.” Report published by The U.S.
Department of Homeland Security, August 2006.
8
APPENDIX A: PHASE 1 SURVEY (SENT TO THE N.C. BENCHMARKING GROUP)
FIRE SERVICES STAFFING SURVEY
Municipality:
STAFFING GRID
Please use actual staffing records from September 1 – September 14, 2010 to complete the grid below. For
each day, record how many companies were staffed with the number of firefighters designated in the lefthand column. If firefighters were assigned to a company but not present on a specific day, and no
replacement was called in, they should not be counted. If you feel this two-week period is not indicative of
your Department’s regular staffing levels, please explain (there is space at the end for comments).
Number Of
Firefighters
Per
Company
Number of Companies Staffed With Designated Number
Of Firefighters For Week 1 (September 1 – September 7, 2010)
Sept.
1
1
2
3
4
5
>5
Number Of
Firefighters
Per
Company
Sept.
2
Sept.
3
Sept.
4
Sept.
5
Sept.
6
Sept.
7
Number of Companies Staffed With Designated Number
Of Firefighters For Week 2 (September 8 – September 14, 2010)
Sept.
8
Sept.
9
Sept.
10
Sept.
11
Sept.
12
Sept.
13
Sept.
14
1
2
3
4
5
>5
Comments about your department’s staffing levels (optional)
STAFFING QUESTIONS
1. Does your department consistently pay overtime or take other
steps to avoid falling below a minimum staffing level when absences
occur?
□
Yes
□
No
9
- If yes, what is the minimum number that would trigger this action?
2. Has your city passed any sort of policy to ensure compliance with
NFPA 1710?
- If yes, when was it passed?
□
Yes
□
No
(MM/YYYY)
- If yes, please describe the policy or guidelines below
3. Do companies comprised of four or more firefighters always travel
to structural fires on one apparatus?
- If fewer than 4 firefighters arrive on the first apparatus, can the
firefighters that arrive first commence operations upon arrival or
must they wait for the second apparatus to arrive?
□
□
Yes
Begi
n
□
□
No
Wait
PERFORMANCE QUESTIONS
1. In FY 2010, how many structure fires necessitated the rescue of building
occupants? (provide #)
2. How many firefighter fatalities occurred in structure fires in FY 2010? (provide #)
3. How many civilian fatalities in structure fires occurred in FY 2010? (provide #)
10
APPENDIX B: PHASE 2 SURVEY (SENT TO ALL CAREER FIRE DEPARTMENTS IN N.C.)
FIRE SERVICES STAFFING SURVEY
Municipality:
STAFFING GRID
Please use actual staffing records from September 1 – September 14, 2010 to complete the grid below. For
each day, record how many companies were staffed with the number of firefighters designated in the lefthand column. If firefighters were assigned to a company but not present on a specific day, and no
replacement was called in, they should not be counted. If you feel this two-week period is not indicative of
your Department’s regular staffing levels, please explain (there is space at the end for comments).
Number Of
Firefighters
Per
Company
Number of Companies Staffed With Designated Number
Of Firefighters For Week 1 (September 1 – September 7, 2010)
Sept.
1
Sept.
2
Sept.
3
Sept.
4
Sept.
5
Sept.
6
1
2
3
4
5
>5
Number Of Number of Companies Staffed With Designated Number
Firefighters Of Firefighters For Week 2 (September 8 – September 14, 2010)
Per
Sept.
Sept.
Sept.
Sept.
Sept.
Sept.
Company
8
9
10
11
12
13
1
2
3
4
5
>5
Comments about your department’s staffing levels (optional)
STAFFING QUESTIONS
1. Does your department consistently pay overtime or take other steps
to avoid falling below a minimum staffing level when absences occur?
□
Yes
Sept.
7
Sept.
14
□
No
- If yes, what is the minimum number that would trigger this action?
2. Has your city passed any sort of policy to ensure compliance with
NFPA 1710?
- If yes, when was it passed?
□
Yes
□
No
(MM/YYYY)
11
- If yes, please describe the policy or guidelines below
PERFORMANCE QUESTIONS
1. In FY 2010, how many structure fires did you have?
2. In FY 2010, how many structure fires necessitated the rescue of building occupants?
(provide #)
3. How many firefighter fatalities occurred in structure fires in FY 2010? (provide #)
4. How many civilian fatalities in structure fires occurred in FY 2010? (provide #)
5. How many structure fires were contained to the room or object of origin in FY
2010? (provide #)
6. What was the dollar amount of fire damage in FY 2010?
7. How many professional firefighters does your department employ?
8. How many volunteer firefighters does your department employ?
9. How many people does your department serve?
Please provide contact information:
Name_________________
Municipality____________
Email_________________
12
APPENDIX C: PER COMPANY STAFFING BREAKDOWN BY MUNICIPALITY
How Often Companies Were Staffed With 4, 3 and 2 Firefighters Over a 2-Week Period
A
B
99.9%
0.9%
C
99.1%
19.9%
D
80.1%
22.2%
E
77.8%
26.7%
F
73.3%
40.0%
G
H
Municipality
60.0%
46.7%
53.3%
57.1%
I
42.9%
65.2%
J
34.8%
83.3%
K
16.7%
85.7%
L
87.1%
M
9.3%
97.6%
O
100.0%
P
100.0%
Q
100.0%
R
14.3%
S
3 Firefighters
12.9%
90.7%
N
2 Firefighters
14.3%
2.4%
4+ Firefighters
85.7%
15.8%
84.2%
T
100.0%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
The Percentage of Companies Staffed With X Number of Firefighters
13
APPENDIX D: FIRE CONTAINMENT GRAPH
Increased Staffing per Company Has Practically No Affect on Fire Containment
90.0%
Percentage of Fires Contained to Room of Origin
80.0%
70.0%
R² = 0.00293
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
70.00%
75.00%
80.00%
85.00%
90.00%
95.00%
100.00%
Weighted Compliance Score
14
APPENDIX E: FIRE LOSS GRAPH
Increased Staffing Slightly Leads to Higher Property Loss
0.12%
Property Loss as Percent of Total Property
0.10%
0.08%
R² = 0.05122
0.06%
0.04%
0.02%
0.00%
70.00%
75.00%
80.00%
85.00%
90.00%
95.00%
100.00%
Weighted Compliance Score
*Including the outlier point does not affect the relationship found
15
APPENDIX F: CIVILIAN FATALITIES GRAPH
Increased Staffing per Company Slightly Reduces Civilian Deaths
0.50
0.45
0.40
Civilian Deaths per 1,000 Popula on
0.35
0.30
0.25
0.20
R² = 0.08513
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
70%
75%
80%
85%
90%
95%
100%
Weighted Compliance Score
*Including the outlier point does not affect the relationship found
16
APPENDIX G: COST TO COMPLY WITH NFPA 1710
Municipality
Average Staffing # per
Company
Personnel Cost to Comply
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
2.84
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.02
3.09
3.13
3.35
3.53
3.6
3.73
3.8
3.99
3.99
$5,244,431
$1,776,254
$1,591,654
$613,955
$1,561,207
$5,194,929
$3,426,105
$3,978,237
$1,789,928
$321,467
$985,150
$1,496,954
$13,751
$21,085
Cost to Comply as
Percentage of Total Fire
Services Budget
27.31%
19.05%
10.40%
18.40%
21.68%
19.96%
18.13%
14.42%
8.73%
5.38%
4.72%
3.55%
0.15%
0.02%
Notes
Personnel Cost to Comply - Personnel costs do not include training, uniforms, or other costs associated
with employing additional firefighters. The portion of each department’s personnel costs attributed to
firefighters was calculated using the number of authorized firefighters and total number of authorized
FTEs.
Cost to Comply - The cost to comply was calculated by determining the dollar amount that personnel
costs would need to increase by to reach 100% compliance. A department’s compliance percentage was
calculated using the number of firefighters that were staffed during the 2-week period and the number of
firefighters the department needed to staff every company with 4 firefighters.
17