organizational culture towards community risk reduction in...

ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE TOWARDS COMMUNITY RISK REDUCTION 1

Organizational Culture towards Community Risk Reduction in the

Richmond Fire & Emergency Services

Kevin Todd Spruill

City of Richmond Fire & Emergency Services, Richmond, Virginia


Certification Statement

I hereby certify that this paper constitutes my own product, that where the language of others is

set forth, quotation marks so indicate, and that appropriate credit where I have used the language,

ideas, expressions, or writings of another.

Signed: __ Kevin Todd Spruill___

Kevin Todd Spruill


Abstract

This research paper provided an introduction, background and significance, literature review,

procedures, results, and discussion sections to address the stated problem. The research method

for this paper was descriptive. The problem is that the Richmond Fire & Emergency Services

(RFES) does not know what the organizational culture is in regards to Community Risk

Reduction (CRR). The purpose of the Applied Research Paper (ARP) is to identify what the

organizational culture is and what CRR programs could be implemented. The research questions

that were answered in this paper are the following:

1. What is the organizational culture of personnel in the RFES?

2. What can be done to implement positive cultural changes towards CRR?

3. What programs could be implemented in the RFES?

The first question was answered using a survey to RFES personnel. The second question was

answered through the use of a survey that was distributed to Executive Fire Officer Program

students past and present. The third question wan answered from questions contained in both of

the above mentioned surveys and interviews. The author provided a detailed list of the

procedures used to gather information used in this applied research paper and answered the

questions relevant to the problem statement. The question answers were collected and shown in

the results section in various charts and then compared to the literature review findings in the

discussion section. Recommendation were then made to address the organizational culture

towards CRR in the RFES.


Table of Contents

Certification Statement....................................................................................................................2

Abstract............................................................................................................................................3

Table of Contents.............................................................................................................................4

Introduction......................................................................................................................................6

Background and Significance..........................................................................................................7

Literature Review...........................................................................................................................11

Procedures…..................................................................................................................................18

Results…........................................................................................................................................29

Figure 1.1.1 When Hired was CRR Emphasized for Your Job.……………..………..…30

Figure 1.1.2 Rank...………………………...……………………...……………...……...30

Figure 1.1.3 Years of Service ……...…...………………………...……………...……...30

Figure 1.2 Should Operational Personnel Do CRR Programs……………………..…….31

Figure 1.3 Will CRR Eliminate Firefighter Jobs……….…………… ……………,…....31

Figure 1.4 Stronger Advocate of CRR Today……………………...……………….…...32

Figure 1.5 Immediate Supervisor Supports CRR………………………..……..…….….32

Figure 1.6 Adequate Training To Deliver CRR Programs..…………..…………...….…33

Figure 1.7 Adequate Information on CRR……...………………………………...……...33

Figure 1.8 Spending on CRR Versus Fire Suppression……...………………....………..34

Figure 1.9 Administrations Views CRR as Important………………….....…....………..34

Figure 1.10 Are Current CRR Programs Effective…………………..………....………..35

Figure 2.1 Department Focus on CRR……………………... ………………………..….36

ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE TOWARDS COMMUNITY RISK REDUCTION 5 Figure 2.2 Should Operational Personnel Participate in CRR Programs……..…………36

Figure 2.3 Does Fire Administration Support CRR Programs………….…………,…....37

Figure 2.4 Do the Firefighter’s Embrace CRR Programs………………………………..37

Figure 2.5 CRR Programs in the Process of Implementation…………………..…….….38

Figure 2.6 Operational Personnel Training for CRR………………….…………...….…38

Figure 2.7.1 Assigned to Fire Prevention……….………………...……………...……...39

Figure 2.7.2 Rank...………………………...……………………...……………...……...39

Figure 2.7.3 Years of Service ……...…...………………………...……………...……...39

Figure 2.8 Fire Department Classification…………………...………………....………..40

Figure 2.9 Population of Jurisdiction……………………………………..…....….……..40

Figure 2.10 Number of Sworn Personnel in Department……………………....………..41

Discussion......................................................................................................................................44

Recommendations..........................................................................................................................52

References......................................................................................................................................54

Appendices

Appendix A: Richmond Fire & Emergency Services Organizational Chart…....………….…....56

Appendix B: RFD Internal Community Risk Reduction Survey…..…………….………………57

Appendix C: RFD Internal Community Risk Reduction Survey Letter.………………………...59

Appendix D: External Community Risk Reduction Survey ………………………………….....60

Appendix E: Fire Marshal Interview Questions..………………………………………………..62

Appendix F: RFD Internal Community Risk Reduction Survey Comments…………………….63

Appendix G: External Community Risk Reduction Survey Comments…………………………70


Organizational Culture towards Community Risk Reduction in the RFES

The protection of life and property from fire has been the mission of the fire service since

the beginning of an organized fire response force. Fire causes devastation every single day in the

United States and firefighters are dedicated to making those we serve safer from fires and other

areas of harm [Institute of Fire Engineers (IFE), 2008]. The question many fire departments

need to take a look at is much deeper seated than are we protecting life and property and lies

with are we doing everything that we can to prevent these tragedies from happening. Are we

educating the public on things to do before a fire occurs like practicing Exit Drills in the Home

(EDITH), changing batteries in smoke alarms at daylight savings time, and keeping matches and

lighters away from children? Are we advocating the need for residential sprinkler systems?

Have you yourself installed a residential sprinkler system in your home? Does your department

have a fall prevention program for older adults? Does your department teach Cardio Pulmonary

Resuscitation to the community; who better to keep the blood flowing than the first person there?

This applied research paper will look at the organizational culture towards CRR in the

City of Richmond and seek to address an important problem for the firefighters, citizens, and

government officials. The problem is that the Richmond Fire & Emergency Services (RFES)

does not know what the organizational culture is in regards to Community Risk Reduction

(CRR). The purpose of the Applied Research Paper (ARP) is to identify what the organizational

culture is and what CRR programs could be implemented. The research for this paper will be

descriptive. The research questions that were answered in this paper are as follows. 1. What is

the organizational culture of personnel in the RFES? 2. What can be done to implement positive

cultural changes towards CRR? 3. What programs could be implemented in the RFES?

This is a problem for firefighters, citizens, and government officials alike because when

ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE TOWARDS COMMUNITY RISK REDUCTION 7 citizens have a potential for injury, death, or loss of property this affects the fire department for

response to call for service and it affects the government for continual distribution of funding to

serve and protect. This research paper is divided into background and significance, literature

review, procedures, results, discussion, and recommendations sections to address the stated

problem. There is also an appendices section that is included at the conclusion of the references

to show important documents discussed in the applied research paper, but not included in the

text. The recommendations section will attempt to offer up a viable option for the RFES in

regards what the cultural awareness is and what CRR programs could be implemented.

Background and Significance

Community Risk Reduction is a risk reduction model aimed at determining what the

individual response district needs are that the local fire department can actively assist in making

the community safer. The background and significance of the organizational culture towards

CRR in the City of Richmond provides the reader where the department currently is. This

section will take a look at some of the background about the City of Richmond, a background of

the Richmond Fire & Emergency Services (RFES), the significance to the City and RFES, the

significance to the RFES master plan, the significance to the Executive Leadership course in the

Executive Fire Officer Program (EFOP), and the significance to the United States Fire

Administration (USFA).

The City of Richmond is located in central Virginia approximately 90 miles from

Washington DC, the Atlantic Ocean, and North Carolina. The City of Richmond is 62.5 square

miles and characterized by small rolling hills located between the Blue Ridge Mountains and the

sea level Tidewater region. There are two major interstates, I-95 that runs north and south and I-

64 that runs east and west. The James River divides the City of Richmond into a north and south

ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE TOWARDS COMMUNITY RISK REDUCTION 8 accounting for 2.5 square miles of the 62.5. There were over 98,000 housing units in the City of

Richmond and almost 6,000 businesses in 2011 (United States Census Bureau, 2013). There are

seven college campuses to include the Virginia Commonwealth University and the University of

Richmond which increases the number of residents significantly during the school year. The

estimated current population of the City of Richmond is over 212,000 people according to the

United States Census Bureau (2013).

The RFES provides numerous emergency services including fire suppression, hazardous

materials, technical rescue, swift water rescue, and first responder emergency medical services.

The RFES also provides special event operations, blood pressure screenings, fire prevention,

public education, child safety seat installations, Community Emergency Response Team (CERT)

training, smoke alarm installations, a customer service academy, and fire investigations. The

RFES became the 5th career fire department in the United States in 1858 when 102 firefighters

were hired to staff two ladder trucks and four engines. The total number of sworn and civilian

personnel today is 436 with 357 suppression personnel making up the three alternating 24 hour

shifts. The RFES organizational chart can be seen in Appendix A, RFES Organizational Chart.

After the chief there are two deputy chiefs that handle operations and support services, with

support services comprising safety, administration, fire prevention, and training and an the office

of emergency management. The fire prevention division is made up of a battalion chief, three

captains, eight lieutenants, two firefighters, and one civilian. The operations section chief

oversees four battalions with a total of 20 fire stations with 24 companies with incident responses

reaching over 33,000 in 2012.

In 2011 Fitch & Associates (2012) began working on a master plan for the RFES that

provided 57 recommendations and priorities for implementation ranging in the short term (6-12

ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE TOWARDS COMMUNITY RISK REDUCTION 9 months), medium term (12-24 months), and long term (greater than 24 months). There were five

recommendations that affected fire prevention and community risk reduction and two pertaining

directly to this applied research paper. Recommendation # 9 was to “actively pursue the proven

Community Risk Reduction (CRR) process for identifying and addressing key public safety

risk(s) within the City of Richmond”. This recommendation was set for medium term

implementation with a low cost impact to the organization. Recommendation # 43 addressed the

focus of the RFES moving from emergency response services to CRR. This recommendation

was also set for medium term implementation and was listed as a neutral cost impact on the

organization (Fitch, 2012). Both of these link directly to this research paper with organizational

culture towards CRR and an effort to reduce risks to both our internal and external customers.

The Executive Leadership (EL) course in the Executive Fire Officer Program (EFOP) is

linked directly to the problem statement of this paper. One link is that the EL course is intended

to prepare the student for the 21st century fire service. This involves organizational culture and

change where the mission has changed to be more proactive in terms of fire prevention. Another

link is that the EL course focuses on adaptive leadership and stepping outside of one’s authority.

The relevance is that in order to be a true advocate of CRR a person of authority, generally

referred to as a leader, has to exercise transformational leadership getting people to make the

necessary changes not because they have to, but because they want to. One final link to the EL

course is recognizing and understanding political relations in regards to leading adaptive change.

These are just a few of the specific links of the EL course in the EFOP to this applied research

paper addressing the problem statement.

The Executive Leadership class also links the problem statement the RFES does not

know what the organizational culture of the department is towards CRR to the United States Fire

ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE TOWARDS COMMUNITY RISK REDUCTION 10 Administration (USFA). The direct link in the USFA and the research paper revolves around

prevention. The USFA mission statement is to provide leadership nationally to fire and

emergency medical services in preparedness, prevention, and response. CRR involves analyzing

a community and determining what needs are present to reduce the risks to that community that

may or may not specifically address fire. CRR takes a very hands on approach to getting out in

the community and finding out the true risks that the citizens are facing through surveys, polls,

data, and statistics.

This applied research project is of importance to me personally because I was an assistant

fire marshal (AFM) for five years and now assigned to an engine company serving the same

inspection district. We are constantly looking for ways to justify our jobs; the answers may be

something very simple such as a car seat installation program, smoke alarm installations, or

reading to students in the local elementary school. My battalion is also conducting an

assessment on CRR programs and initiatives that are taken to the fire station where we determine

what best suits our community. I chose this research topic because it was relevant to my current

assignment, made use of my background as an AFM, and is an important subject in the RFES

with Battalion 1 currently exploring ways to reach out and make an impact through CRR.

Understanding the background and significance of CRR and the RFES is important to

know as you read this applied research paper. We as the fire service and specifically RFES must

find and sometimes expand on the ways we market ourselves. The background and significance

section provided a background about the City of Richmond, a background of the Richmond Fire

& Emergency Services (RFES), the significance to the City and RFES, the significance to the

Executive Leadership course in the Executive Fire Officer Program (EFOP), and the significance

to the United States Fire Administration (USFA) and how they relate to the problem statement.


Literature Review

The fire service is a constant yet ever changing, dynamic profession that is rich in noble

deeds, tradition, and is often referred to as a calling. We pit man and machinery in this

profession in opposition against a known enemy with an uncontrollable force, fire. The

traditional fire service mission has shifted in the last 20 years to include a wide variety of

deliverables to the people we are here to serve. The crucial link that will undoubtedly control the

future of the fire service is the cultural and attitudinal changes of the fire officer (Kline, 2009).

Found in Kline’s (2009) article Creating a better fire department through cultural change

he notes that organizational culture as noted in the business dictionary from the

University of North Carolina is defined as “The values and behaviors that contribute to

the unique social and psychological environment of an organization. (It)…includes an

organization’s expectations, experiences, philosophy, and values that hold it together, and

is expressed in its self-image, inner workings, interactions with the outside world, and

future expectations.” (p. 1)

Organizational culture can be shown in several ways. The first is how the organization treats its

community, customers, and employees and conducts business. The second is the extent of

freedom allowed in developing new ideas, decision-making, and personal expression. The third

is how the information and power travel through the chain of command. The fourth and final

way is the commitment level of employees towards the collective objectives (Crawford, 2013).

Organizational cultural changes must be made for an organization to meet new

challenges, thrive, and survive, often times like the old saying do more with less. While

emergency response is the primary function of the fire service, firefighters need to understand

ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE TOWARDS COMMUNITY RISK REDUCTION 12 that it is not the only tool that can be used to provide for public safety. Employing education,

enforcement, and engineering programs may be more effective and more efficient to making the

public safer (Crawford, 2013). Crawford (2013) indicates that there are six steps to changing

organizational culture: 1) recruitment, 2) hiring, 3) training, 4) visioning, 5) modeling, and 6)

rewarding.

When looking at organizational culture it is important to note that while there is a

difference in the ability everyone has to do something, there is also a motivation or willingness

to do something that is also different. The strength of the motive depends on the individual

motivation. The motives are often defined as impulses, wants, needs, or drives from inside an

individual that are set toward goals either conscious or subconscious. According to Victor

Frankl (1963) “striving to find meaning in one’s life is the primary motivation of man.” It is

important to note that motives are the whys of behavior that prompt an individual to action

(Hersey, Blanchard, & Johnson, 2008). A half century ago, Maier (1955) provided the equation

of “ability x motivation = job performance.” An integral part of training is motivation which

if the employee does not have will result in the loss of resources, money, and time for the

organization. One of the core competencies of leadership is being able to motivate employees.

The effective leader of an organization must be able to inspire employees to exert effort and to

persist in the attainment of the mission, vision, and values of the organization (Latham, 2007).

Measurement of success will be done through looking at harm prevention to the citizens

through targeted education and prevention programs. According to Strategies For Marketing

Your Fire Department Today and Beyond (1998) fire prevention programs while not something

new in the fire service look to have a major evolution in the future. In order to continue

receiving community support the fire department must branch out becoming the community

ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE TOWARDS COMMUNITY RISK REDUCTION 13 leader in preventing harm and damage not only to the community, but also ourselves with a

targeted approach to education and prevention (FEMA, 1998). Fire protection as a national plan

has a common theme to increase fire prevention efforts as shown in such documents like the

1947 Report on Fire Prevention from President Truman, the 1973 America Burning, and others

that continually show fire safety as a problem in the United States. Today fire safety efforts are

still under-staffed and under-funded in nearly all fire departments across the country resulting in

greater property damage, more loss of life, and more fires. The latest rendition of the a fire

prevention plan was established by the Fire Engineers United States Branch which involves all

areas of fire prevention, other advocates, and stakeholders to reach recommended outcomes for

the national plan, Vision 20/20. Vision 20/20 has benchmarks and documentation of specific

actions to support efforts (Vision 20/20, 2014b).

Risk prevention is the anticipation of potential hazards in a community with facilitation

of interventions to stop the occurrences. Intervention forms that have proven to be effective

include education, engineering, and enforcement all introduced by President Truman in 1947 and

economic incentives and emergency response (FEMA, 2013). William Lofquist (1983) said that

“prevention was an active process of creating conditions and fostering personal attributes that

promotes the well-being of people.” An activity that reduces morbidity or mortality from disease

is the medical definition of prevention. Public health uses primary, secondary, and tertiary

prevention as risk mitigation strategies in their industry. Primary prevention is programs such as

education, school based, home safety surveys, and public service announcements. Secondary

prevention is the identification of candidates that are of high-risk for certain conditions such as

older adults and falls, people living in poverty, diabetics, the young and old, minorities, and

ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE TOWARDS COMMUNITY RISK REDUCTION 14 people with disabilities. Tertiary prevention involves things to reduce the negative impact of

injury or disease such as rehabilitation (FEMA, 2013).

Considerable planning is necessary to handle the varied spectrum of emergency needs

presented to the fire service. The planning has to include government, voluntary, and private

agencies to assist in a coordinated and comprehensive way (Owen, 2014). Likewise the planning

and development of risk-reduction initiatives is an important part of the risk-reduction section of

a fire department. This includes the planning and development of the support components

needed to make the program successful. Everyone in the agency is able to know the focus of the

strategy towards risk-reduction and their role in the process when a specific risk-reduction

strategy has been identified and conveyed to everyone from the fire recruit to the upper

management. The risk-reduction strategy involves having program goals, design methodologies,

implementation, evaluation, and appropriation of resources. The strategy should use educating

the community for the foundation and follow up with engineering, enforcement, economic

incentive, and emergency response as part of the prevention strategy (FEMA, 2013). Vision

20/20 seeks to build on the success of current efforts to provide a sustained, collaborative plan in

an effort to reduce fire loss, and involve other organizations and agencies with commitment and

expertise in reduction of fire loss (IFE, 2008). There are six parts that must be followed for

successful risk reduction programs through the development, implementation, and evaluation to

include:

• Building support for Community Risk Reduction

• Preparation for risk reduction

• Assessment of community risk

• Identification of intervention strategies


• Implementation

• Evaluation [International Fire Service Training Agency (IFSTA), 2011].

The first part of a successful risk reduction program is building support for CRR which

starts with having the support of the community and the organization to be successful (FEMA,

2013). This starts with building equity in the organization by leading by example and

empowering others with what they need to become a champion to the reduction of risk in the

community. Resources that support the overall risk reduction process include getting attention

from the decision makers, having time committed to risk reduction, having people perform the

services, and getting money to support the process (IFSTA, 2011). Some of the concepts

explored in the Vision 20/20 project include modeling the highly successful programs and

concepts of CRR implemented in Australia and the United Kingdom. One such program is home

fire safety education visits beyond installing a simple smoke alarm that seek to get firefighters

involved in their communities taking on a sense of responsibility to educate. It is important to

have front-line firefighters promoting a safer environment in the communities they directly serve

targeting high-risk homes. (Vision 20/20, 2014a).

Once risk reduction has been embraced as a core value of the organization the community

can be involved in the solution process. This starts with the identification of community

stakeholders with common interests in local risk issues (FEMA, 2013). The stakeholders are

then educated to gain a vested interest in risk mitigation. A planning team can then be organized

with decision makers, stakeholders, organizational representatives, and the risk-reduction

advocates to prioritize risks and intervention strategies for the long-term (IFSTA, 2011).


The second part of a successful risk reduction program involves preparing for risk

reduction by creating a committed champion for the advancement of risk reduction in their

community. There are five steps to follow to prepare for risk reduction (FEMA, 2013). The first

step is understanding risk reduction and that it is a process that requires more than one person for

risk factors in a community to be successfully lowered through vision, planning, interventions,

evaluation, and resources. Here training and higher education are needed for a successful risk

reduction process where subordinates are given these opportunities to empower them with the

skills needed to lower risk. The second step is accepting personal responsibility for making sure

that the risks affecting the community are identified, sequenced, and prioritized. The reward

comes through the documented program outreach, impact measurement, and the reduction of loss

in the community (FEMA, 2013). The third step is developing a personal vision of thinking

ahead to determine what a safe community would look like and the actions needed to accomplish

that vision. Before this can be accomplished the following questions should be considered to

include current risk issues, the population affected, internal departmental support, barriers to

success, factors acting as a catalyst to success, and the current actions to reduce risk. The fourth

step is the evaluation of authority and politics towards risk reduction in the organization and the

community. Institutionalizing prevention as a core value is a journey, not a defined destination

and has challenges that require adjustments to strategies to meet some needs. The fifth step is

developing a project plan which involves seeking approval to move forward, the meeting of

representatives from the organization and the community to serve on the initiative team long-

term, identification of the stakeholder group, and outlining a planning schedule (IFSTA, 2011).

This step will involve assistance for training of department personnel and others to be

involved in CRR as a way to make a safer community to live in. IFSTA ResourceOne is a

ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE TOWARDS COMMUNITY RISK REDUCTION 17 training partnership program that provides a successful station-based CRR plan through giving

motivation along with an understanding of risk reduction practices. The course will guide the

individual through the process of looking in the response district and identifying life safety risks

and can be found free of charge by creating an account with a username and password at

https://r1.ifsta.org/login/index.php (Vision 20/20, 2014c).

The third part of a successful risk reduction program is identifying intervention strategies

which promotes the development of the strategy defining how the process of risk reduction will

be conducted (FEMA, 2013). The first step in this process is to identify potential strategies to

interrupt the chain of events leading to an identified risk such as economic, cultural, or social

factors. The second step is analyzing cost versus benefit where focus must be placed on finding

long-term sustainable solutions to an identified risk. The third step is selecting risk reduction

strategies with an intervention that includes lessons, programs, activities, and initiatives with a

measurable impact. The fourth step is developing an evaluation strategy to see if the objectives

of the risk reduction program are met (IFSTA, 2011).

The fourth part of a successful risk reduction program involves taking action such as

when implementation will take place, what resources are needed, and who is responsible for

completion of the task. Policy approvals will be needed for two important risk reduction

strategies. The first is departmental internal policies are needed to promote behaviors that

support CRR. The second approval needed is to gain public policy that supports the risk

reduction strategy identified (IFSTA, 2011). Creation of a Quick Response Team available to

work with the community after a significant incident as a teachable moment is a critical

partnership for showing how to avoid similar tragedies when the eyes of the community are upon

the fire department (Vision 20/20, 2014a).

https://r1.ifsta.org/login/index.php


The fifth part of a successful risk reduction program is evaluation of the program defining

how it will be evaluated and what should be done with the results. The evaluation of the

program outcome, impact, and activity provides the most accurate determination of if the

strategy to providing the desired results. Ongoing results from subordinates are needed to show

the progress of prevention initiatives that are being done. The modification of risk reduction

initiatives is also important in order to create a more effective outcome, process, or impact

(IFSTA, 2011).

The final part of a successful risk reduction program involves creating partnerships for

successful initiatives. Achievement of the goals of any CRR program involves collaborative

partnerships. These partnerships create meaningful relationships between organizations and

agencies in the community that are committed to reducing risk and have a mission that connects

to the initiative. (IFSTA, 2011). The Community Tool Box is a resource provided free of charge

from the University of Kansas to help build healthier communities and bring social change. The

Community Tool Box was created with the vision that people are better prepared locally to work

together to change the conditions that affect their life. The mission of the group is to promote

community health and development by connecting resources, people, and ideas. There are over

300 different sections that provide a step-by-step guide towards community building skills

(Community Tool Box, 2014). Schools, social services, and other agencies can provide the fire

department with partnerships that to assist in outreach programs (Vision 20/20, 2014a).

Procedures

The start of the applied research paper began at the National Fire Academy (NFA) in

Emmitsburg, Maryland on October 12th, 2014 during the Executive Leadership class. The

problem, purpose, and questions were determined by the author after several peer reviews and

ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE TOWARDS COMMUNITY RISK REDUCTION 19 discussion with the Fire Chief trying to determine a topic that would be a benefit to the RFES

and meet the parameters of the Executive Leadership class. The following questions were then

identified and refined to be answered in this applied research paper.

Research Question #1

The procedures for answering question # 1 “ what is the organizational culture of

personnel in the RFES?” was conducted through a survey of sworn members of the RFES. It

was determined that it was unclear what the organizational culture of the RFES was towards

CRR. The procedure for creating the RFD Internal Community Risk Reduction Survey,

Appendix B, started with the author having a discussion with the Fire Marshal in RFES. From

that discussion a list of potential survey questions was assembled to ask members of the RFES.

The survey was then created using Survey Monkey at www.surveymonkey.com to allow

sworn members of the RFES to record the results and take it anonymously. I then had a choice

to either create an account or go to Sign up with Google or Facebook account, which I choose

the second option since a Google account already existed. After clicking on that field I had to

accept the terms and conditions and click OK and then click on Create Account. Once that was

done a message appeared that stated an email will be sent and to click on Create a Survey within

the email to get started. Once directed to the website I then clicked on Create a Survey and then

to get started entered the title name RFD Internal Community Risk Reduction Survey and for the

category entered Other from scroll down, and Continue. The survey questions were now added

into the survey by clicking +Add Question to open up a new window.

First for question 1 insert text “when you were hired was Community Risk Reduction

part of your job responsibilities?” and then click on Question Type and select multiple choice

(only one answer). Then on separate lines insert yes and no to be answered. Then Add “other”

http://www.surveymonkey.com/

ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE TOWARDS COMMUNITY RISK REDUCTION 20 or comment field was selected with “Please indicate your Rank and Years of Service.” Then a

single line of text box was checked with up to 50 characters wide selected to allow an answer.

After this is completed select Save and Add Next Question to move on to the next question. For

question 2 insert the text “Do you believe Operational personnel should be involved in

Community Risk Reduction programs?” and then click on Question Type and select multiple

choice (only one answer). Then on separate lines insert yes and no to be answered. Then Add

“other” or comment field was selected with “If No why do you feel this way?” Then a

paragraph of text box was checked with 5 lines and up to 50 characters wide selected to allow

an answer. After this is completed select Save and Add Next Question to move on to the next

question. For question 3 insert text “Do you believe Community Risk Reduction will eventually

eliminate firefighter jobs?” and then click on Question Type and select multiple choice (only one

answer). Then on separate lines insert yes and no to be answered. Then Add “other” or

comment field was selected with “If Yes why do you feel this way?” Then a paragraph of text

box was checked with 5 lines and up to 50 characters wide selected to allow an answer. After

this is completed select Save and Add Next Question to move on to the next question. For

question 4 insert the text “Do you feel that you are a stronger advocate for Community Risk

Reduction efforts today than you were when you began your career?” and then click on Question

Type and select multiple choice (only one answer). Then on separate lines insert yes, no, and

same to be answered. Then Add “other” or comment field was selected with “If Yes why do you

feel this way?” Then a paragraph of text box was checked with 5 lines and up to 50 characters

wide selected to allow an answer. After this is completed select Save and Add Next Question to

move on to the next question. For question 5 insert the text “Do you believe that your immediate

supervisor is a strong advocate of our department’s Community Risk Reduction efforts?” and

ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE TOWARDS COMMUNITY RISK REDUCTION 21 then click on Question Type and select multiple choice (only one answer). Then on separate lines

insert yes, no, and neutral to be answered. After this is completed select Save and Add Next

Question to move on to the next question.

For question 6 insert the text “Do you believe that you have received adequate training in

Community Risk reduction and have the necessary skills to deliver programs to the community?”

and then click on Question Type and select multiple choice (only one answer). Then on separate

lines insert yes and no to be answered. Then Add “other” or comment field was selected with “If

No what specifically do you feel you lack in?” Then a paragraph of text box was checked with 5

lines and up to 50 characters wide selected to allow an answer. After this is completed select

Save and Add Next Question to move on to the next question. For question 7 insert the text “Do

you believe you are getting adequate information on Community Risk Reduction to be more

effective in your station’s response area?” and then click on Question Type and multiple choice

(only one answer). Then on separate lines insert yes and no to be answered. After this is

completed select Save and Add Next Question to move on to the next question. For question 8

insert the text “Do you believe that it is more economical in the long run to spend money on

Community Risk Reduction efforts than it is to increase spending on fire suppression?” and then

click on Question Type and select multiple choice (only one answer). Then on separate lines

insert yes and no to be answered. After this is completed select Save and Add Next Question to

move on to the next question. For question 9 insert the text “Do you believe that administration

views Community Risk Reduction as an important function of the department?” and then click

on Question Type and select multiple choice (only one answer). Then on separate lines insert yes

and no to be answered. After this is completed select Save and Add Next Question to move on to

the next question. For question 10 insert the text “Do you believe that the programs the

ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE TOWARDS COMMUNITY RISK REDUCTION 22 department currently has in place are effective in making the community safer?” and then click

on Question Type and select multiple choice (only one answer). Then on separate lines insert yes

and no to be answered. Then Add “other” or comment field was selected with “If No what

program and what do you think would make them more effective?” Then a paragraph of text box

was checked with 5 lines and up to 50 characters wide selected to allow an answer. After this is

completed select Save and Close to finish creating the survey.

After completing the ten questions and answering Save and Close the author was returned

to the creating a survey screen. Then click on the Review Survey to proof read the survey and

then close out the link which automatically returns to the Edit Survey page. On this page click

on the Send Your Survey which will provide a link to copy and paste into the letter to distribute,

Appendix B. The link that was provided to take the survey was

https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/JWSRSTB

The link to Appendix B was then included in an email to the sworn members of the

Richmond Fire & Emergency Services totaling approximately 375 members. The email

distributed had an explanation about the author and his intent, a copy of the survey, the survey

deadline, and the author’s contact information. This sampling was chosen because the intent was

to determine what sworn firefighters in the RFES felt about CRR. The survey is designed to get

feedback on where RFES was in regards to CRR and not to solicit opinions or bias. There was

an open dialogue box where members could express their personal feelings on some of the

questions. Appendix C contained a link to https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/JWSRSTB that is

the RFD Internal Community Risk Reduction Survey seen in Appendix B.

In Appendix C there was a deadline provided of Friday, November 21st, 2014 provided to

allow approximately three weeks for the survey to be completed. The deadline was chosen to



ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE TOWARDS COMMUNITY RISK REDUCTION 23 prevent the surveyed participants from forgetting about it while ensuring ample time was also

allowed to complete gathering any information needed for it. At the end of the time frame the

information was retrieved through www.surveymonkey.com by signing into the author's account.

Active surveys then appear and the RFD Internal Community Risk Reduction Survey is clicked

on to allow the tabs to appear to collect responses and analyze results. Once on this page click on

the Open tab and a message will appear in a text box and select Stop Collecting Now to close out

the survey. The analyze results tab should then be clicked to review the results of the questions

by respondent. The findings were then entered into various graphs to be able to be displayed in

the results section of this applied research paper.


The procedures for answering question #2 “what can be done to implement positive

cultural changes towards CRR?” was the creation of an online survey determined to be

distributed to Executive Fire Officer Program students past and present. The procedure for

creating the External Community Risk Reduction Survey, Appendix D, started with the author

having a discussion with the Fire Marshal in RFES. From that discussion a list of potential,

relevant survey questions was assembled to ask members involved in the EFOP.

The survey was then created using Survey Monkey at www.surveymonkey.com to allow

Executive Fire Officer participants past and present to record the results and take it anonymously.

I then had a choice to either create an account or go to Sign up with Google or Facebook

account, which I choose the second option since a Google account already existed. After

clicking on that field I had to accept the terms and conditions and click OK and then click on

Create Account. Once that was done a message appeared that stated an email will be sent and to

click on Create a Survey within the email to get started. Once directed to the website I then



ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE TOWARDS COMMUNITY RISK REDUCTION 24 clicked on Create a Survey and then to get started entered the title name External Community

Risk Reduction Survey and for the category entered Other from scroll down, and Continue. The

survey questions were added by clicking +Add Question to open up a new window.

First for question 1 insert text “Does your department have programs focusing on

Community Risk Reduction ?” and then click on Question Type and select multiple choice (only

one answer). Then on separate lines insert yes and no to be answered. Then Add “other” or

comment field was selected with “If Yes what program?” Then a paragraph of text box was

checked with 5 lines and up to 50 characters wide selected to allow an answer. After this is


insert the text “Do you believe Community Risk Reduction programs are something the

operational side of the fire service should be participating in?” and then click on Question Type

and multiple choice (only one answer ). Then on separate lines insert yes, no, and undecided to

be answered. Then Add “other” or comment field was selected with “If you answered No why

not?” Then a paragraph of text box was checked with 5 lines and up to 50 characters wide

selected to allow an answer. After this is completed select Save and Add Next Question to move

on to the next question. For question 3 insert text “Does the fire administration in your

department support Community Risk Reduction programs?” and then click on Question Type and

select multiple choice (only one answer). Then on separate lines insert yes, no, and undecided to

be answered. Then Add “other” or comment field was selected with “If No why do you feel they

do not?” Then a paragraph of text box was checked with 5 lines and up to 50 characters wide

selected to allow an answer. After this is completed select Save and Add Next Question to move

on to the next question. For question 4 insert the text “Do you feel the firefighters in your

department embrace Community Risk Reduction programs?” and then click on Question Type

ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE TOWARDS COMMUNITY RISK REDUCTION 25 and select multiple choice (only one answer). Then on separate lines insert yes, no, and

undetermined to be answered. Then Add “other” or comment field was selected with “If No why

do you feel they do not?” Then a paragraph of text box was checked with 5 lines and up to 50

characters wide selected to allow an answer. After this is completed select Save and Add Next

Question to move on to the next question. For question 5 insert the text “Are there any

Community Risk Reduction programs that are in the process of being implemented in your

department?” and then click on Question Type and select multiple choice (only one answer).

Then on separate lines insert yes and no to be answered. Then Add “other” or comment field

was selected with “If Yes what programs?” Then a paragraph of text box was checked with 5

lines and up to 50 characters wide selected to allow an answer. After this is completed select

Save and Add Next Question to move on to the next question.

For question 6 insert the text “Is there any specific training that is provided to your

Operational personnel in regards to Community Risk Reduction?” and then click on Question

Type and select multiple choice (only one answer). Then on separate lines insert yes and no to be

answered. Then Add “other” or comment field was selected with “If Yes what is provided?”

Then a paragraph of text box was checked with 5 lines and up to 50 characters wide selected to

allow an answer. After this is completed select Save and Add Next Question to move on to the

next question. For question 7 insert the text “Have you ever been assigned to or in charge of fire

prevention (inspections, code enforcement, or public education)?” and then click on Question

Type and select multiple choice (only one answer). Then on separate lines insert yes and no to be

answered. Then Add “other” or comment field was selected with “What is your Rank and Years

of Service?” Then a paragraph of text box was checked with 5 lines and up to 50 characters

wide selected to allow an answer. After this is completed select Save and Add Next Question to

ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE TOWARDS COMMUNITY RISK REDUCTION 26 move on to the next question. For question 8 insert the text “How would you classify your

department?” and then click on Question Type and select multiple choice (only one answer).

Then on separate lines insert urban, suburban, and rural as a single potential answer. After this is


insert the text “What is the population in your jurisdiction?” and then click on Question Type and

select multiple choice (only one answer). Then on separate lines insert 0-50,000, 50,001-

100,000, 100,001-200,000, 200,001-300,000, and 300,001-up as a single potential answer. After

this is completed select Save and Add Next Question to move on to the next question. For

question 10 insert the text “How many personnel does your department have?” and then click on

Question Type and select multiple text boxes. Then on separate lines insert sworn, civilian, other,

and total for each to be answered. After this is completed select Save and Close to finish

creating the survey.

After completing the ten questions and answering Save and Close the author was returned

to the creating a survey screen. Then click on the Review Survey to proof read the survey and

then close out the link which automatically returns to the Edit Survey page. On this page click

on the Send Your Survey which will provide a link to copy and paste into the letter to distribute,

Appendix E. The link that was provided to take the survey was

https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/JSNQBM3.

The link to Appendix D was then included in an email to the International Association of

Fire Chiefs EFO section with a distribution to present and past EFOP students and members

totaling approximately 450 members. The email was sent with an explanation about the author, a

link to the survey, Appendix D, the survey deadline, and the author’s contact information, to be

distributed to all members providing the link listed above to the survey. This sampling was

https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/JSNQBM3

ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE TOWARDS COMMUNITY RISK REDUCTION 27 chosen because the intent was to determine what other fire departments across the United States

are doing for CRR. The survey is designed to get feedback on what is going on and not to solicit

opinions or bias. Appendix C contained a link to https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/JSNQBM3

that is the External Community Risk Reduction Survey seen in Appendix D.

In Appendix E there was a deadline provided of Friday, November 21st, 2014 provided to

allow approximately three weeks for the survey to be completed. The deadline was chosen to

prevent the surveyed participants from forgetting about it while ensuring ample time was also

allowed to complete gathering any information needed for it. At the end of the time frame the

information was retrieved through www.surveymonkey.com by signing into the author's account.

Active surveys then appear and the External Community Risk Reduction Survey is clicked on to

allow the tabs to appear to collect responses and analyze results. Once on this page click on the

Open tab and a message will appear in a text box and select Stop Collecting Now to close out the

survey. The analyze results tab should then be clicked to review the results of the questions by

respondent. The findings were then entered into various graphs to be able to be displayed in the

results section of this applied research paper.


The procedures for answering question #3 “what programs could be implemented in the

RFES?” was addressed by conducting an interview about programs in the RFES. The procedure

for creating the Fire Marshal Interview Questions, Appendix E, was created by looking at

questions asked in Appendices B and D as determined through a discussion held with the Fire

Marshal. Research Question #3 was answered in an interview with the Fire Marshal of the

RFES, Battalion Chief David Creasy. The questions were asked to ensure that I had the most

up to date information on current and planned CRR initiatives in the department. The questions

https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/JSNQBM3


ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE TOWARDS COMMUNITY RISK REDUCTION 28 were also asked to compare any findings from the literature review. The questions were also

adjusted as needed during the face to face interview based on previous answers in an attempt to

stay on track and remain relevant.

Limitations and Assumptions

There is an assumption that all authors used for citation in the literature review conducted

objective research and that data and information obtained from those sources is accurate. It is

further assumed that the responses provided by the RFES personnel in the RFD Internal

Community Risk Reduction Survey, Appendix B, are assumed to have responded with truthful

and accurate information about their thoughts on current CRR programs being used in the RFES.

There is a limitation of the research starting with the creation of the survey questions for

both the RFD Internal Community Risk Reduction Survey and the External Community Risk

Reduction Survey. The questions to be asked were created by reviewing previous surveys on

CRR and a discussion with the Fire Marshal for the RFES and did not represent a statistical

sampling of the total expertise of fire prevention or CRR programs in the fire service. The

individuals that were selected for the process were chosen because of their perspectives,

expertise, judgment, and attitudes toward being progressive in CRR. There is potential for bias

in the questions because all of the individuals asked to comment on the survey questions were in

the fire prevention division in RFES.

The actual survey for the RFD Internal Community Risk Reduction Survey and the

External Community Risk Reduction Survey was limited because of the selected questions and

answer format with limited dialogue between the respondent and the author. The questions may

have been too broad or limiting for the respondents to answer completely for valid results. The

number of fire departments reached for the survey was also limited to those departments that

ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE TOWARDS COMMUNITY RISK REDUCTION 29 participate in the NFA EFOP. The author was also limited to the respondent’s answers and not

getting all information that was available from other departments that were not surveyed and

may have had input on their CRR efforts. The Fire Marshal Interview Questions were limited

because of personal bias that may have been applied to answer the questions being asked. There

may have been other potential CRR programs that may have been useful and effective in RFES.

Overall the information and data obtained within this paper is assumed to be accurate and

factual in order to provide me with organizational culture towards CRR in the RFES is and what

other fire departments are doing. This information will be used to see if adjustments need to be

made to better serve our community by ensuring that are personnel are adequately trained, have

input into the programs, and feel connected to the CRR programs through outreach in their

community.

Results

The results will be displayed in subsections located in this section showing responses to

the problem statement questions. The first subsection will present the results from research

question #1 in 10 separate charts. The results of research question #2 will be displayed in

multiple charts to show the responses to the ten questions. The results of research question #3

are shown as responses from an interview.

Research Question #1 Results

Research question #1 was “What is the organizational culture of personnel in the RFES?”

This question was answered in the form of a survey to sworn members of the Richmond Fire &

Emergency Services. The questions contained in the survey were asked to determine what all

sworn ranks felt about CRR programs in the RFES through a ten question survey’s being

answered. There were a total of 84 respondents that answered the survey that was distributed by

ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE TOWARDS COMMUNITY RISK REDUCTION 30 email to approximately 375 members of the RFES.

Question 1 in the survey was “when you were hired was Community Risk Reduction

emphasized as an important part of your job?” This question was asked to determine if the

respondent was hired with some aspects of CRR being part of their job description or at least

lectured in certification training. Figure 1.1 shows the answers provided by 84 respondents that

answered the question.

20

64

Figure 1.1 When Hired was CRR Emphasizes for Your Job

Yes No

There was also a second part of the question which asked for the respondents rank and

years of service with 73 responses. This was asked to determine if there were any trends

noticeable by rank or by the number of years in the fire service. Figure 1.2 shows the rank of the

73 respondents and Figure 1.3 shows the years of service of the same 73.

47

13 7 6 0

204060

Firefighter Lieutenant Captain Battalion ChiefRes

pond

ent

Rank

Figure 1.2 Rank of Respondents

14 19

14 5

10 11

01020

1.-5 6.-11 11.-15 16.-20 21.-25 26+

Res

pond

ent

Years of Service

Figure 1.3 Respondent Years of Service


Question 2 of the survey was “do you believe Operational personnel should be involved

in Community Risk Reduction programs?” Figure 1.2 shows the 84 respondents that answered

the question. This question was asked to determine what the majority of the personnel in the

RFES felt about operational personnel’s involvement in CRR. There was also a second part to

the question that asked “if no why do you feel this way?” with 11 responses that can be seen in

Appendix F, Question 1.2.

74

10

Figure 1.2 Should Operational Personnel Do CRR Programs

Yes

No

Number of Responses

Question 3 was “do you believe Community Risk Reduction will eventually eliminate

firefighter jobs?” This question was asked to determine if firefighters believe this to be true.

Figure 1.3 shows the 84 respondents that answered the question. There was a second part of the

question that asked “if yes why do you feel this way?” with 10 responses that can be seen in

Appendix F, Question 1.3. This part was asked to determine the reasons for this thought.

10

74

Figure 1.3 Will CRR Elininate Firefighter Jobs

Yes

No


Question 4 was “do you feel that you are a stronger advocate for CRR efforts today than

you were when you began your career?” This question was asked to determine if the respondent

felt that they had embraced the CRR culture. Figure 1.4 shows 84 respondents that answered.

The second part of the questions asked “if yes why do you feel this way?” with 34 responses that

can be seen in Appendix F, Question 1.4.

41

16

27

Figure 1.4 Stronger Advocate of CRR Today

Yes

No

Same

40

12

32

Figure 1.5 Immediate Supervisor Supports CRR

Yes

No

Neutral

Question 5 was “do you believe that your immediate supervisor is a strong advocate of

our department’s CRR efforts?” This question was asked to determine how subordinates

envisioned their supervisors towards CRR. Figure 1.5 shows the 84 respondents that answered

the question.

ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE TOWARDS COMMUNITY RISK REDUCTION 33 Question 6 was “do you believe that you have received adequate training in CRR and

have the necessary skills to deliver programs to the community?” This question was asked to

determine if the respondents felt they had received adequate training in CRR. Figure 1.6 shows

the answers provided by 84 respondents that answered the question. The follow up question

was answered by 29 respondents and can be seen in Appendix F, Question 1.6.

41 43

0 Figure 1.6 Adequate Training To Delivery CRR Programs

Yes No

Question 7 was “do you believe you are getting adequate information on CRR to be more

effective in your station’s response area?” This question was asked to determine if the

respondents felt they were receiving adequate information on CRR to be effective in their

station’s response area. Figure 1.7 shows the answers provided by 84 respondents that answered

the question.

28

56

Figure 1.7 Adequate Information on CRR

Yes

No

ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE TOWARDS COMMUNITY RISK REDUCTION 34 Question 8 of the survey was “do you believe that it is more economical in the long run to

spend money on CRR efforts than it is to increase spending on fire suppression?” This question

was asked to general thoughts on the spending towards CRR. Figure 1.8 shows the answers

provided by 84 respondents that answered the question.

32

52

Figure 1.8 Spending on CRR Versus Fire Suppression

Yes

No

Number of Responses

Question 9 of the survey was “do you believe that administration views CRR as an

important function of the department?” This question was asked to determine the general

impression of whether it is believed that administration views CRR as important. Figure 1.8

shows the answers provided by 84 respondents that answered the question.

68

16

Figure 1.9 Administration Views CRR as Important

Yes

No


Question 10 of the survey was “do you believe that the programs that the department

currently has in place are effective in making the community safer?” This question was asked to

general thoughts on the current CRR programs being offered in the department. Figure 1.8

shows the answers provided by 84 respondents that answered the question. The follow up

question had 21 responses and can be seen in Appendix F, Question 1.10.

62

22

Figure 1.10 Are Current CRR Programs Effective

Yes

No


Research question #2 was “What can be done to implement positive cultural changes

towards CRR?” This question was answered in the form of a survey to fire leadership across the

United States that were students in the EFOP. The questions contained in the survey were asked

to determine what the other fire departments were doing and what makeup the department was to

show diversity in the survey’s being answered. There were a total of 67 respondents that

answered the survey that was distributed by email to approximately 450 members of the IAFC

EFO section.

Question 1 in the survey was “does your department have programs focusing on

Community Risk Reduction?” This question was asked to determine if the respondent‘s

department participated in CRR programs. Figure 2.1 shows the answers provided by 67

ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE TOWARDS COMMUNITY RISK REDUCTION 36 respondents that answered the question. The second part of the question was “if yes what

programs?” This was asked to determine potential programs that the RFES was currently not

using. There were 49 responses to this part and can be seen in Appendix G, Question 2.1.

51

16

Figure 2.1 Programs Focusing on CRR

Yes

No

Question 2 was “do you believe Community Risk Reduction programs are something the

operational side of the fire service should be participating in?” This question was asked to

determine if the respondent felt that operational personnel should be doing CRR programs with a

follow up question of “if you answered No why not” to determine why they felt this way. Figure

2.2 shows the 67 respondents answered the question. There were three additional comments to

this question that were all yes and were not relevant to the question.

66

0 1

Figure 2.2 Should Operational Personnel Participate in CRR Programs

Yes No

Undecided


Question 3 of the survey was “does the fire administration in your department support

Community Risk Reduction programs?” This question was asked to determine if the

respondent’s department believes that CRR programs are supported. Figure 2.3 shows the

answers provided by 67 respondents to the question. The follow up was “if No why do you think

they do not support them? There were five responses to this question that can be seen in

Appendix G, Question 2.2.

55 4

8

2.3 Does Fire Administration Support CRR Programs

YesNoUndecided

Question 4 of the survey was “do you feel the firefighters in your department embrace

your Community Risk Reduction programs?” This question was asked to determine the

firefighter’s feeling towards CRR in the respondent’s department. Figure 2.4 shows the answers

provided by 67 respondents that answered the question. The second part of the question asked

“if No why do you feel they do not” was done to compare similarities or differences to RFES.

There were 30 responses to this question that can be seen in Appendix G, Question 2.4.

27

24

16

2.4 Do the Firefighter's Embrace CRR programs

Yes No

Undetermined


Question 5 was “are there any Community Risk Reduction programs that are in the

process of being implemented in your department?” This question was asked to determine CRR

programs in the process of implementation in the respondent’s department. Figure 2.5 shows the

answers provided by 67 respondents that answered the question. The second part of the question

“if Yes what programs” was asked to look at possibilities for RFES in Appendix G, Question 2.5.

19

48

Figure 2.5 CRR Programs in the Process of Implementation

YesNo

Question 6 was “is there any specific training that is provided to your Operational

personnel in regards to Community Risk Reduction?” This question was asked to determine any

training that was being delivered to the operational personnel. Figure 2.6 shows the answers

provided by 67 respondents that answered the question. The follow up question was “if Yes

what is provided” was asked to explore options for RFES. There were 26 responses that can be

seen in Appendix G, Question 2.6.

26

41

Figure 2.6 Operational Personnel Training for CRR

Yes

No


Question 7 was “have you ever been assigned to or in charge of fire prevention?” This

question was asked to determine if the respondent had a background in CRR. Figure 2.7 shows

the answers provided by 67 respondents.

38

29

Figure 2.7.1 Assigned to Fire Prevention

Yes No

The follow up question asked “what is your rank and years of service” to see if there was

any correlation between the two. Figure 2.7.2. shows the rank of the respondent while Figure

2.7.3 shows the years of service of the respondent.

3

8 7

5

3

11

1

3

1

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

FireMarshal

Fire Chief DeputyChief

AssistantChief

DivisionChief

BattalionChief

Captain Lieutenant Firefighter

Figure 2.7.2 Respondent Rank

Rank

4 5 3

1

9

20

0

5

10

15

20

25

0-5 6.-10 11.-15 16-20 21.-25 26+

Figure 2.7.3 Respondent Years of Service

Years of Service

ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE TOWARDS COMMUNITY RISK REDUCTION 40 Question 8 was “how would you classify your department?” This question was asked to

determine the type of community served by the respondent’s department. Figure 2.8 shows the

answers provided by 67 respondents that answered the question.

21

33

13

Figure 2.8 Fire Department Classification

Urban

Suburban

Rural

Question 9 was “what is the population in your jurisdiction according to the U. S. Census

Bureau?” This question was asked to determine the population served by the respondent’s

department. Figure 2.9 shows the answers provided by 67 respondents that answered the

question.

25

23

11

2

6

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0-50,000

50,001-100,000

100,001-200,000

200,001-300,000

300,001-greater

Respondents

Popu

latio

n

Figure 2.9 Population of Jurisdiction

ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE TOWARDS COMMUNITY RISK REDUCTION 41 Question 10 of the survey was “how many personnel does your department have?” This

question was asked to determine what size of fire department the respondent represented. Figure

2.10 shows the answers provided by 67 respondents that answered the question.

7

16

13 15

3 4 1

5

02468

1012141618

Num

ber

of P

erso

nnel

Department Size

Figure 2.10 Number of Sworn Personnel in Department



towards CRR?” This question was answered in the form of an interview with the Fire Marshal

of the RFES, Battalion Chief David C. Creasy (personal interview, November 25, 2014) to

ensure that I had the most up to date information on current and planned CRR initiatives in the

department. The questions can be viewed in Appendix E, Fire Marshal Interview Questions. I

used the interview to assist with recommendations made to address the problem statement

identified in the applied research paper.

The first question was “what are current CRR programs that the RFES have in place that

are well known by the firefighters and community?” His response started with the Rest Safe in

RVA initiative that involves an inspection of and training for hotels and their staff to teach them

ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE TOWARDS COMMUNITY RISK REDUCTION 42 how to get the occupants out of the hotel and their responsibilities during a fire. Geographic

Information Systems (GIS) mapping is being used to identify problem areas where fire continues

to be a major concern such as the low income housing. There continues to be high rise

inspections where while working with operations and the building management coordinated

evacuation drills are being conducted with firefighters move into position and assume

assignments if it were a true emergency. December brings on another program specifically to get

citizens attention during the holidays. The Keep the Wreath Green program places a red bulb in

the wreath each time a fire company has a first due fire with over $500 damage to keep the

community abreast with the fire problem locally. The fire department continues to utilize and

advertise fire safety messages through the local bus line message boards, Flying Squirrels

baseball programs, Facebook, Twitter, utility vehicle message boards, and public safety

announcements around all national holidays (D.C. Creasy, personal interview, November 24,

2014).

The second question was “what are the CRR programs that the RFES have had in place

that are not well known?” His response listed several areas of focus for CRR efforts in the City

of Richmond. One was the utilization of a bike team on Belle Island during the months of the

year where people are visiting the James River. The staff distributes water safety brochures and

documents the number of customer contacts. Another focus has been on outreach through the

Multicultural Agency in the City of Richmond where a Spanish customer academy, public safety

announcements through Spanish radio and newspapers, smoke alarm canvasses with Spanish

interpreters, and translation of nine fire safety brochures are making an impact on a part of the

community that otherwise was disenfranchised. (D.C. Creasy, personal interview, November 24,

2014). The RFES has also partnered with the Richmond Redevelopment and Housing Authority

ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE TOWARDS COMMUNITY RISK REDUCTION 43 to install over 4000 pairs of dry chemical fire stop cans over kitchen ranges in all of the

government subsidized housing where data through FDM indicated a significant number of

kitchen fires.

The third question was “what are CRR programs that are new to the City of Richmond?”

(D.C. Creasy, personal interview, November 24, 2014). His response was the ESRI yearlong

project involving the RFES and three other fire departments across the United States to develop a

CRR program that could be patented nationwide. The program involves the four departments

meeting in various locations in a work group utilizing GIS as a primary focus to addressing

CRR. The project has been working with the Department of Public Utilities for pinpointing

buildings, hydrants, and water mains.

The fourth question was “what do you feel needs to take place for CRR programs in the

City of Richmond to be more effective and efficient? His response was that the first step to take

was to develop a plan of what the program is, why we are doing it, and what the outcomes we are

looking for are. There needs to be a footprint of the program available for all department

members to utilize. Once the program is started it needs to follow the course so that in the end it

can be evaluated with data and a conclusion met (D.C. Creasy, personal interview, November 24,

2014).

The fifth and final question was “what are some obstacles that you foresee as being a

hindrance to Community Risk Reduction programs in the City of Richmond?’ His response was

that improved communications was needed at all levels of the department so that a clear intent is

conveyed to everyone. Another obstacle he noted was insufficient staffing to meet needs of fire

prevention to meet performance criteria. Another obstacle noted was diversity in terms of trying

to meet the needs of the most people (D.C. Creasy, personal interview, November 24, 2014).


Discussion

The discussions will be displayed in subsections located in this section showing

comparison or contrast to material presented in the literature review section to the results section

and my personal opinion on from those findings. The first subsection will present the discussion

from research question #1 addressing each of the 10 questions asked in Appendix B, RFD

Internal Community Risk Reduction Survey. The discussion of research question #2 will be

presented in the second subsection addressing each of the 10 questions asked in Appendix D,

External Community Risk Reduction Survey. The discussion of research question #3 are shown

as responses from an interview.

Discussion for Question #1

Research question #1 was “What is the organizational culture of personnel in the RFES?”

Ten questions were asked with an online survey distributed to sworn members of the Richmond

Fire & Emergency Services. This was the RFD Internal Community Risk Reduction Survey that

can be seen in Appendix B.

Question 1 in the survey was “when you were hired was Community Risk Reduction

emphasized as an important part of your job?” Figure 1.1 showed that 64 respondents answered

no with an additional 20 respondents answering yes. Looking at Figure 1.3 the years of service

shows 33 respondents with under 10 years of service. There was also a second part of the

question which asked for the respondents rank and years of service. The literature review

discussed that the crucial link that would control the fire service was cultural and attitudinal

changes of the fire officer and that the mission of the fire service has shifted in the past 20 years

(Kline, 2009). This questions shows how these attitudinal and cultural changes have occurred

and are occurring today as a result of training requirements that entry level firefighters receive

ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE TOWARDS COMMUNITY RISK REDUCTION 45 now in their certification classes of Firefighter I and Firefighter II.

Question 2 in the survey was “do you believe Operational personnel should be involved

in Community Risk Reduction programs?” Figure 1.2 showed that the majority of the

respondents, 74 believe that operational personnel should do CRR programs with only 10 saying

no they should not. The second part to the question asked “if no why do you feel this way?”

saying no often citing in the comments that it was a fire prevention thing. There are 11

comments can be seen in the Appendix F. The literature review identified that the fire service is

a dynamic and ever changing profession that is referred to by many as a calling (Kline, 2009).

This leads way into the shifting of beliefs towards CRR mainly using the number one priority in

the fire service of life safety as the all-important foundation to drive home the need for the CRR

programs.

Question 3 in the survey was “do you believe Community Risk Reduction will eventually

eliminate firefighter jobs?” Figure 1.3 showed that 74 respondents did not think CRR would

eliminate firefighter jobs with 10 citing that it would. The second part of the question asked “if

yes why do you feel this way?” There were 10 comments that are included in in the Appendix F.

The literature review speaks to organizational culture and helping firefighters understand that

public safety is yet another tool that we can use to ensure that our communities and safe reaching

out with education, enforcement, and engineering programs to shift our job responsibilities

(Crawford, 2013).

Question 4 of the survey was “do you feel that you are a stronger advocate for CRR

efforts today than you were when you began your career?’ Figure 1.4 showed that 41 believe

they are stronger CRR advocates today, 27 felt that their position was the same, and 16 did not

agree at all. The second part of the questions asked “if yes why do you feel this way?” There

ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE TOWARDS COMMUNITY RISK REDUCTION 46 were 34 comments that are included in in the Appendix F. The literature review identified that

organizational cultural changes must be made to survive, thrive, and meet new challenges of

many times doing more with less (Crawford, 2013). The fact that the majority of the respondents

in the survey answered yes to being a stronger advocate shows the shift in the organizational

culture of the fire service.

Question 5 was “do you believe that your immediate supervisor is a strong advocate of

our department’s CRR efforts?” Figure 1.5 showed that 40 respondents felt that their immediate

supervisor supports CRR, 32 were neutral in the decision, and 12 did not feel they supported

CRR. As seen with Question 1, the literature review discussed that the crucial link that would

control the fire service was cultural and attitudinal changes of the fire officer (Kline, 2009). This

shows that we still need to reach out to and gain the support of the senior officers in the

organization if we are to embrace CRR as an organizational change.

Question 6 was “do you believe that you have received adequate training in CRR and

have the necessary skills to deliver programs to the community?” Figure 1.6 showed that 41 of

the respondents felt they had received adequate training to delivery CRR programs and 43

believing they had not received adequate training. There were 29 comments that are included in

in the Appendix F. The literature review discusses empowering the organization with the

necessary tools to become a champion of CRR to the citizens we are here to serve (IFSTA,

2011). This is an obstacle that has to be addressed for any department to be able to move

forward and fully embrace CRR programs. There has to be adequate training as well as

communication throughout the organization if the entire department is expected to fully embrace

the CRR mindset.

Question 7 was “do you believe you are getting adequate information on CRR to be more

ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE TOWARDS COMMUNITY RISK REDUCTION 47 effective in your station’s response area?” Figure 1.7 showed that 28 respondents believe they

are getting adequate information about CRR and 56 do not believe they are getting adequate

information. The literature review also mentions that support has to be built to begin the CRR

process which involves planning and specific risk reduction strategy and each person’s personal

role in the process (FEMA, 2013). The majority of the respondents felt that they were not

getting adequate information to be effective in their community. Many respondents were that

they did not even know what CRR was specifically and they felt a lack of inclusiveness in the

process.

Question 8 was “do you believe that it is more economical in the long run to spend

money on CRR efforts than it is to increase spending on fire suppression?” Figure 1.8 showed

that 52 respondents did not believe that spending should be spent towards CRR instead of fire

suppression and 32 felt that it should be spent. The literature review discusses that

institutionalizing prevention as a core value was more of a journey as opposed to a set

destination (IFSTA, 2011). This is an area that additional work is needed to show firefighters the

value of the programs that we are doing with hard data and statistics along with the added

support from the community which in turn can obtain new resources and funding for the

department.

Question 9 was “do you believe that administration views CRR as an important function

of the department?” Figure 1.7 showed that 68 of the respondents felt that administration views

CRR as important and only 16 thinking that they did not. The literature review identifies that

risk reduction has to be embraced as a core value of the department so that the community can be

involved in the solution process (FEMA, 2013). Embracing the core values of the department

and identifying CRR as part of our mission is crucial in gaining buy-in from the organization and

ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE TOWARDS COMMUNITY RISK REDUCTION 48 having them see that administration if in full support of the CRR efforts.

Question 10 of the survey was “do you believe that the programs that the department

currently has in place are effective in making the community safer?” Figure 1.10 showed that 62

respondents believe that current CRR programs are productive and 22 do not believe they are

productive. The literature review discusses the importance of evaluating a program and what is

to be done with the results (IFSTA, 2011). This is where there is an opportunity to show

members within the department as well as the citizens and City of Richmond leadership how we

are actually making the community safer.

Discussion of Research Question #2

Research question #2 was “what can be done to implement positive cultural changes

towards CRR?” Ten questions were asked with an online survey distributed to Executive Fire

Officer Program students past and present. This was the External Community Risk Reduction

Survey that can be seen in Appendix D.

Question 1 in the survey was “does your department have programs focusing on

Community Risk Reduction?” Figure 2.1 showed that 51 respondent’s had programs focusing

on CRR in their department. The second part of the question was “if yes what programs?”

There were 49 comments that are included in in the Appendix G. The literature review suggests

that educating the community should be a primary strategy for risk reduction efforts in a

community followed by engineering, enforcement, economic incentives, and emergency

response (FEMA, 2013). With so many departments having CRR programs, the fire service is

meeting the educational piece towards reducing risks in a community. While there can always be

more done in the fire service’s attitude towards CRR, the fact that most departments are

embracing the concept is a positive for the citizens we are here to protect.


Question 2 in the survey was “do you believe Community Risk Reduction programs are

something the operational side of the fire service should be participating in?” Figure 2.2 showed

that 66 respondents felt that operational personnel should be involved in CRR programs with

only one thinking they should not be involved. The literature review suggests that to become a

champion of CRR equity must be built up in the organization through empowering others and

leading by example (IFSTA, 2011). Based on the responses the respondents that answered the

survey have participating in building up equity in their organizations and have embraced the

concept of using operational personnel to reach out to the community and offer CRR programs.

Question 3 in the survey was “does the fire administration in your department support

Community Risk Reduction programs?” Figure 2.3 showed that 55 respondents believe that

their administration supports CRR programs, eight were undecided, and four did not believe they

supported CRR programs. The second part of the question asked “if No why do you think they

do not support them?” There were 5 comments that are included in in the Appendix F. The

literature review discusses leading by example and empowering others to be champions of risk

reduction (IFSTA, 2011). This is the first part of a successful risk reduction program which leads

to the buy-in of the rest of the department or not depending upon the actions or inactions of the

administration towards their views on CRR.

Question 4 of the survey was “do you feel the firefighters in your department embrace

your Community Risk Reduction programs?’ Figure 2.4 showed that 27 respondents believe that

the firefighters in their department embrace CRR programs, 24 do not believe they support CRR

programs, and 16 were undetermined. The second part of the questions asked “if No why do you

feel they do not?” There were 30 comments that are included in in the Appendix G. The

literature review talks about the importance of having front-line firefighters promoting a safer

ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE TOWARDS COMMUNITY RISK REDUCTION 50 community in which they directly serve (Vision 20/20, 2014a). This is a still an area that many

departments struggle to get the support from the firefighter ranks. As cited in the comments

communication is often a common denominator as to why this fails, specifically identifying what

the goal of the program is and how we are going to get there.

Question 5 was “are there any Community Risk Reduction programs that are in the

process of being implemented in your department?” Figure 2.5 showed that 48 respondents did

not have any CRR programs in the process of development and 29 did have programs in

development. The second part of the questions asked “if yes what programs?” There were 34

comments that are included in in the Appendix F. The literature review states that it is important

to identify intervention strategies to promote the development of the risk reduction process

interrupting the chain of events that leads to the risk factor identified (FEMA, 2013).

Question 6 was “is there any specific training that is provided to your Operational

personnel in regards to Community Risk Reduction?” Figure 2.6 showed that 41 respondents

did not provide specific training about CRR programs to their operational personnel. The second

part of the questions asked “if yes what is provided?” There were 26 comments that are included

in in the Appendix F. The literature review expresses the need for some type of training to

department personnel and others involved in the CRR programs to be implemented in the

community (Vision 20/20, 2014c). In the internal interview many employees stated that they did

not feel they had received adequate training to be effective delivering CRR programs to their

community. It is important to remember that not all people are the same and many are

uncomfortable speaking in front of a group or people or to someone they do not know.

Question 7 was “have you ever been assigned to or in charge of fire prevention?” Figure

1.7 showed that 38 respondents had been assigned to fire prevention and 29 had no. The second

ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE TOWARDS COMMUNITY RISK REDUCTION 51 part of the questions asked “what is your rank and years of service?” The answers to these

questions can be seen in Figure 2.7.2 and Figure 2.7.3. Questions 7 was simply asked to show

the number of respondents that had been in fire prevention, rank, and years of service.

Question 8 was “how would you classify your department?” Figure 2.8 showed that 21

respondents were from urban, 33 were from suburban, and 13 were from rural departments.

Questions 8 was simply asked to show diversity in the respondents’ department make-up.

Question 9 was “what is the population in your jurisdiction according to the U. S. Census

Bureau?” Figure 2.9 showed that 25 respondents served a population of less than 50,000, 23 up

to 100,00, 11 up to 200,000, two up to 300,000, and six greater than 300,000. Questions 9 was

simply asked to show diversity in the respondents’ department population.

Question 10 of the survey was “how many personnel does your department have?”

Figure 2.10 showed the number of personnel that each respondent’s department have. The

majority of the answers were from 26-100 personnel comprising 16 responses. 15 respondents

had between 101 and 200 personnel. Thirteen respondents had 51-100 and seven respondents

had 0-25. The remaining population breakdowns were three for 201-300, four for 301-500, one

for 501 and 1000 and five for over 1000 personnel. Questions 10 was simply asked to show

diversity in the respondents’ department size.

Discussion of Research Question #3


towards CRR?” An interview with the Fire Marshal of the RFES, Battalion Chief David C.

Creasy (personal interview, November 25, 2014) was conducted to ensure that I had the most up

to date information on current and planned CRR initiatives in the department. The questions can

be viewed in Appendix E, Fire Marshal Interview Questions. I used the interview to assist with

ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE TOWARDS COMMUNITY RISK REDUCTION 52 recommendations made to address the problem statement identified in the applied research paper.

The answers provided are self-explanatory and do not need any further discussion except to point

out that only one person was interviewed because of their relevance and ownership of the CRR

programs in the City of Richmond.

Recommendations

This research paper provided an introduction, background and significance, literature

review, procedures, results, and discussion sections to address the stated problem. The research

method for this paper was descriptive. The problem was that the Richmond Fire & Emergency

Services (RFES) does not know what the organizational culture was in regards to Community

Risk Reduction (CRR). The purpose of the Applied Research Paper (ARP) was to identify what

the organizational culture was and what CRR programs could be implemented. The research

questions that were answered in this paper are as follows. 1. What is the organizational culture

of personnel in the RFES? 2. What can be done to implement positive cultural changes towards

CRR? 3. What programs could be implemented in the RFES?

Recommendation #1 is educate the entire fire department on community risk reduction

following an existing program like IFSTA ResourceOne or another similar existing fire

department educational program about the concept. This is needed to get the initial buy-in to

move to the next recommendation.

Recommendation #2 is to determine what types of programs as a whole could be

implemented in the City of Richmond based on community risk analysis.

Recommendation #3 is to seek out partnerships with other agencies and organizations in

the City of Richmond that have a need for or willingness to participate in various CRR programs.

This can be done for the RFES as a whole and through the respective fire districts.


Recommendation #4 is to allow each fire station to reach out to their respective

communities and determine which of the programs in Recommendation #2 are relevant and

needed.

Recommendation #5 is to use the existing Records Management System (RMS) Fire Data

Management (FDM) to document all CRR programs and initiatives to be able to evaluate

effectiveness.

It is imperative that the RFES starts off with educating the entire department. There are

many different CRR programs being implemented across the nation that could be evaluated to

see if they would work in the City of Richmond. Based on the majority of responses by

department members there is a desire to do more to help the communities being served, we just

have to reach out and show what can be accomplished with their assistance. Communication

will be an important aspect in this process just like in any newly implemented initiative. This

ARP in no way is a definitive answer to the problem, but offers several recommendations along

with an all-important planning process to benefit from the want and desire to do more to make

our citizens safer in all aspects of life and not just fire safety.


References

Community Tool Box. (2014). About the toolbox. Retrieved from http://ctb.ku.edu/en/about-

the-tool-box

Crawford, J. (2013, December). Making a cultural change altering the organization’s values and

vision. Fire-Rescue Magazine, 31, 62-63.

Federal Emergency Management Agency/ United States Fire Administration. (1998, July).

Strategies for marketing your fire department today and beyond, (Report No. FA 182).

Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

Federal Emergency Management Association. (2013). Executive Analysis of Community Risk

Reduction. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

Fitch & Associates. (2012, December). Comprehensive master plan for City of Richmond Fire

& Emergency Services. Platte City, MO: Fitch & Associates, LLC.

Frankl, V. E. (1963). Man’s search for meaning. New York, NY: Washington Square Press.

Hersey, P., Blanchard, K. H., and Johnson, D. E. (2008). Management of emotional

organizational behavior leading human resources, 9th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ:

Pearson Prentice Hall.

Institute of Fire Engineers. (2008). Vision 20/20 national strategies for fire loss prevention.

Retrieved from http://strategicfire.org/08report.pdf

International Fire Service Training Agency. (2011). Fire and life safety educator, 3rd ed.

Stillwater, OK: Fire Protection Publications.

Kline, D. K. (2009, October). Creating a better fire department through cultural change: are you

prepared to prevent a line of duty death? Health & Safety, 20, 1-3

http://ctb.ku.edu/en/about-the-tool-box

http://ctb.ku.edu/en/about-the-tool-box

ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE TOWARDS COMMUNITY RISK REDUCTION 55 Latham, G. P. (2007). Work motivation, history, theory, research and practice. Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage Productions.

Owen, C. Ed. (2014). Human factors challenges in emergency management. Burlington, VT:

Ashgate Publishing.

United States Census Bureau. (2013). State & county quick facts, Richmond city, Virginia.

Retrieved from http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/51/51760.html

Vision 20/20. (2014a). CRR. Retrieved from http://strategicfire.org/page.cfm/go/ccr

Vision 20/20. (2014b). History of vision 20/20. Retrieved from

http://strategicfire.org/page.cfm/go/about-us-sub-page-one

Vision 20/20. (2014c). V2020/IFSTA training. Retrieved from

http://strategicfire.org/page.cfm/go/Community-Risk-Reduction-for-Fire-Service-Leaders

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/51/51760.html

http://strategicfire.org/page.cfm/go/ccr

http://strategicfire.org/page.cfm/go/about-us-sub-page-one

http://strategicfire.org/page.cfm/go/Community-Risk-Reduction-for-Fire-Service-Leaders


Appendix A

RFES Organizational Chart


Appendix B

RFD Internal Community Risk Reduction Survey


Appendix C

RFD Internal Community Risk Reduction Survey Letter

Greetings,

I am reaching out to you for assistance on a research paper that I am doing for completion of my Executive Fire Officer designation through the National Fire Academy. This is a four year nationally recognized program that requires attendance on campus for four times for two weeks each as well as a total of four research papers on various topics.

Below is a link to a 10 question survey that will take less than 10 minutes to complete. It would be greatly appreciated if you would take this anonymous survey and respond with your honest feedback on the subject of Community Risk Reduction in our department. The findings will be submitted to the Fire Chief and other executive staff members.


Thanks in advance and stay safe,

K. Todd Spruill Richmond Fire & Emergency Services Lieutenant Engine 1-A (804) 646-4229 Office (804) 357-8022 Mobile [email protected] 308 North 24th St Richmond, VA 23223 www.rfdva.com

https://webmail.richmondgov.com/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/JWSRSTB

mailto:[email protected]

https://webmail.richmondgov.com/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://www.rfdva.com/


Appendix D

External Community Risk Reduction Survey


Appendix E

Fire Marshal Interview Questions

1. What are current Community Risk Reduction programs that the Richmond Fire &

Emergency Services have in place that are well known by the firefighters and

community?

2. What are the Community Risk Reduction programs that the Richmond Fire & Emergency

Services have had in place that are not well known?

3. What are Community Risk Reduction programs that are new to the City of Richmond?

4. What do you feel needs to take place for Community Risk Reduction programs in the

City of Richmond to be more effective and efficient?

5. What are some obstacles that you foresee as being a hindrance to Community Risk

Reduction programs in the City of Richmond?


Appendix F

RFD Internal Community Risk Reduction Survey Comments

Question 1.1, 49 responses

1.Juvenile Fire Setters Free residential smoke alarm installations by request Free smoke alarm installations through neighborhood canvasses Age appropriate fire education to every elementary class during prevention week Hoarding prevention/elimination Station tours Engine Visits to pre-schools Safety messages on various topics such as bicycle helmets and trick or treating Since it didn't limit to public education: Plan reviews for new buildings Residential Sprinkler advocates Occupancy Fire Inspections Fire Investigation cause, origin, and case preparation Arson Task Force

2. fire safety

3. Fall Prevention Program Smoke Alarm Distribution Program

4. Citizen SAFE (Smoke Alarm Fire Education). Citizen SAFE is a door to door fire safety program that provides

a smoke alarm evaluation and installation of smoke alarms, home safety surveys, general fire and safety education, and proper addressing of the home.

5. school programs senior citizen programs

6. Fire Safety House Pub-Ed programs (schools, station tours and birthday parties with a fire safety message)

Home safety inspections Company level inspections Fire Clown Program Partnerships with local business, fire and home safety (Home Depot)

7. Over 60 program Smoke detector program with Red Cross &afire safety education

8. Smoke Alarms Cooking Fires Exit Drills (EDITH) Ready, Set, Go (WUI) Drowning Prevention At-risk youth

programs Junior Fire setter Program Fuel Modification Vegetation Management

9. Home Safety Inspections as requested. Normal Fire Inspection programs for business and multi-family housing. Slips/Trips/broken Hips - Falls Prevention/Home Safety Various Public Education Events

10. 1. Survival Kids a fourth grade based program that is taught by firefighters in three schools. 2. Senior Citizen

program. 3. Industry fire extinguisher program. 4. Fire Station tours with lecture for kids.

11. Public fire and life safety education programs including teaching children in the schools about fire and life safety; elderly fall and fire safety education; open house events; other fire and life safety education to various groups as requested.

12. Drowning prevention, rip tide prevention, smoke detector installation.

13. Annual Fire Inspections Juvenile Fire Stopper program

14. Remembering when - Senior fall reduction Junior Fire Marshal - learn about fire service career Start Safe -

EDITH, firefighters are my friends, heating equipment safety Alarm for life - smoke alarm installation Complimentary Home Evaluations - Cooking safety, smoke alarm safety, home escape plans, heating equipment safety Fire Extinguisher training Fire station tours

15. NFPA campaigns School Public Education Programs Elderly Care Facilities and Assisted Living Smoke

Detectors Inspections Community CPR Fall prevention Booths and tables at Civic events Public speaking engagements

16. Risk Watch No Home with Smoke Alarm

17. It's called the Safe program for kids and Senior Safe for the seniors. State grant funded.

18. Commercial inspections, public education programs for school aged children and older adults, juvenile fire

setter, smoke detector installation

19. EDITH drills, smoke alarm education, smoke alarm distribution, and school visits.


20. Fire prevention and education Ocean safety videos and brochures

21. Various outreach programs. CPR-Home Safety-Injury prevention and more

22. Clown Programs for the school children. Neighborhood smoke detector checks, Juvenile fire setter program

23. Fire Education

24. Smoke detector installation

25. Fire Inspections Child Passenger Safety Seat Home Inspection Remembering When Operation ARM "Smoke Alarm" Medication Management

26. Wild land urban interface Senior hazards in the home

27. We conduct general Fire Marshal programs and Emergency Management has basic plans as well as CERT.

28. Fire Prevention Division and Safety in Our Community Smoke Alarm distribution

29. wildfire mitigation, senior living facility risk reduction, false alarm mitigation

30. Public education and outreach.

31. CPR training Fire extinguisher training Fire safety inspections Plans review Fall prevention

32. Smoke detectors Citizen Safe Inspections Investigations Pre-fire planning Plans review

33. Smoke alarm program Community Emergency Response Teams HAM radio classes open to public

34. We have several programs that includes the operations division developing individual risk reductions plans for

their first-in response area. We have two educators who coordinate various educational events ranging from fire drills, extinguisher training, and scheduling tours. We also partner with Cape Fear Safe Kids with Child Passenger Safety Seats. Other partnerships include home health care agencies and a nonprofit who works with the economic disadvantaged.

35. We have a mass notification program, as well as pub Ed and smoke detector programs. These are not based

on any hard data however. We will be undertaking a community risk assessment at the beginning of the year to drill down on specific, verifiable risks and needs.

36. Ready-set-go Wild land program

37. Babysitting Fire Safety (taught by FLS Educator) The Fire & Life Educator will present helpful residential

safety tips for teenagers. This class is available for groups of 20 or more. Campus Fire Safety (taught by FLS Educator w/assistance by Suppression) Fire safety instruction for RA’s and students while on campus may be arranged with the Fire & Life Safety Educator. Program includes dorm room safety, interactive games, fire extinguisher instruction, and a mock dorm room fire situation. Career Fair (handled by Recruitment Team) Members of the Greensboro Fire Department Recruitment Team are available to set up an informational booth at career fairs. Firefighters will speak about educational and training requirements, as well as provide information about the application process. Car Seat Installation (refer to Dana Ratliff if you are unavailable to handle) Installation of car seats is by appointment only. Residents may fill out the request form or may contact Dana Ratliff at 373-2177 to schedule a time. Citizen Ride-Along Program (Age 18+) Residents are allowed to ride along with a fire company to see firsthand what it's like to be a firefighter. During that time, you would stay at a station and see what life at the station entails. If an emergency call comes in, you have the opportunity to jump on the truck with the fire company and ride the call. Riders are not allowed to participate or interfere in any way with the duties of the fire company. Interested residents should visit the fire station of their choice and speak with the Captain to schedule a date at least two weeks in advance, fill out an application that will be approved/disapproved by the Greensboro Police Department, and sign a waiver releasing the department and the City of any liability. Community Emergency Preparedness (Age 18+) (taught by Suppression) Classes may be scheduled Mondays through Saturdays for groups of 25 adults or more. Classes are 90 minutes in length. Firefighters will teach an informative and interesting program outlining how to make a plan, prepare a kit, and take other steps to prepare for emergency situations. Community Health Fair (handled by Suppression) Fire engines are available to attend community-wide, health-focused events. Firefighters will show fire apparatus, offer free smoke alarm installation sign up, and hand out appropriate fire & life safety materials. Dusty the Dragon (Age 3-7) (taught by FLS Educator) Dusty the Dragon is an interactive puppet program appropriate for ages 3-7. Dusty assists the Educator in teaching children the hazards of house fires by packaging six crucial messages in a fun and creative way. Some of the tips include: warning against hiding


and reentering burning buildings; how to dial 911; how to stay low and crawl to a quick escape; and having a designated meeting place. The program begins with the Educator reading a book called “No Dragons for Tea: Fire Safety for Kids”. Dusty then makes his appearance for a seven minute fun and educational message designed to heighten the children’s awareness without causing distress. Elderlinks Program (Age 55+) (Suppression) Elderlinks is an awareness program sponsored by United Services for Older Adults. If fire department personnel are tending to an elderly resident and see needs such as medical issues, nutritional problems, visitation needs, or general maintenance of their residence, referrals can be made to United Services for Older Adults for assistance in these and other areas. Fire Extinguisher Classes (Businesses Only) (Age 18+) (handled by Suppression or FLS Educator) Fire extinguisher instruction classes for area businesses are available Mondays through Fridays, beginning at 9 am. Classes consist of a short, five-minute DVD and Q&A session, followed by hands-on instruction outside. The length of class is determined by the number of participants. Businesses are responsible for providing a meeting room, DVD machine, and fire extinguishers. Firefighters Are Our Friends (Grades K-2) (taught by Suppression) these classes are available for Guilford County Schools and are appropriate for grades K-2. Firefighters will show the fire apparatus, put on their turnout gear while discussing what each piece is for, and handout appropriate educational materials. Fire Safety Class (Age 18+) (taught by Suppression) Often civic groups, churches, and businesses have gatherings for which they need public speakers. Firefighters can address a variety of fire & life safety topics and will provide appropriate handouts to the group. Fourth Grade Fire Science (taught by FLS Educator) The Fire & Life Safety Educator is available to teach at Guilford County Schools. She will speak about the science of fire: what causes it, how to prevent it, as well as speak about the basics of becoming a firefighter. Parade Participation (handled by Suppression) The Greensboro Fire Department is available to participate in community-sponsored parades. Event fees must be waived for fire engine participation. Preschool Reading Program (Children age 6 & under) (handled by FLS Educator) The Fire & Life Safety Educator presents story time. The Educator has a variety of fire & life safety books for children under age 6. RA Dorm Safety (handled by FLS Educator with assistance from Suppression) Please refer to Campus Fire Safety. Seniors Fire & Fall Prevention Class (Age 55+) (taught by FLS Educator) A fire and fall prevention program for older adults centered around 16 key safety messages – 8 fire prevention & 8 fall prevention. The program begins with a short trivia game and then continues with a group presentation. Signal 3 (Suppression) Signal 3 is a program offered to residents within Greensboro city limits that identifies families who may need extra care during emergencies. Simply put, the Signal 3 program lets firefighters “know before they go.” To participate in the program, simply call the Community Affairs office at 336-574-4088 and provide your name, address, and phone number. Your neighborhood fire station will then contact you to schedule an appointment for a home visit. During this visit, firefighters will ask about your family's special needs, such as if there is an elderly resident or someone confined to a wheelchair, or if oxygen tanks are needed in your home. Firefighters make a diagram of your residence with identifying notations. This documentation is kept on file with the fire department and Guilford Metro 9-1-1. In the event of a medical or fire emergency, firefighters are prompted with this information before they arrive, which allows them to assist you more quickly. Smoke Alarm and/or Battery Installation (Suppression) after your request is received, firefighters from your closest neighborhood fire station will contact you to schedule a time for installation. Smoke alarm and/or battery installation is provided free of charge. A local contact number is required. Station Tours (Suppression) Tours may be scheduled beginning at 9am Mondays through Saturdays. Firefighters are available to put on turnout gear while a speaker discusses each item and its safety aspect. Each fire apparatus and its special equipment are shown. Attendees may sit in the apparatus, but must be supervised by an adult.

38. A residential safety program that targets owner occupied houses with a voluntary home inspection and 10

year lithium smoke alarm installation. We are lacking in the areas of EMS prevention...

39. The department offered a discounted chimney cleaning service, a smoke alarm check service, a community fire extinguisher check service.

40. Though we do many risk reduction activities, we do not have a formal program that requires a certain number

of visits - either geographically or by appointment. The closest formal program we have to a true Risk Reduction program is Child Safety Seat Inspections

41. Military installations are heavily regulated as it pertains to CRR. Think of the people and we probably have it.

For instance, they cannot ride a motor cycle without having completed a mandatory safety course and the gear worn is much more than most state laws. Another such program requires mandatory safety briefings prior to holiday weekends (risk is up during these periods). There are programs where the community members can report safety hazards and the community fire protection regulation is mandatory for all. In fact, workers cannot even weld without a fire safety permit, where a pre and post inspection by firefighter is mandatory. Again, heavily regulated and as a result, fire loss is low.

42. 1. Inspect every business annually. 2. Fall prevention program. 3. Inspect residences prior to adoptions

43. We currently taking over building and fire code enforcement.


44. School based programs- pretty simple. Limited install of smoke detectors. Rotating electronic message sign with safety messages. Free CPR training.

45. Reducing careless discarding of smoking material in businesses and multifamily dwellings. Free Smoke

detector program for residential properties. Fire safety trailer for school aged children.

46. BP clinics 4th grade fire prevention program Grant funded smoke / CO detector program smoke alarm installation Home safety survey Fire inspections Open houses Fire & Life safety presentations (e.g. fall prevention, signs and symptoms of MI, home generator safety, etc.)

47. CERT Local Disaster Preparedness committee Fire Wise Local Wellness Committee (discuses in MI, Stroke

Prevention, Benefit Education, etc.) Falls Reporting - (Form completed on scene & forwarded to their Primary Care MD for a Rx to Physical Therapy)

48. Something like 83 programs. The personnel hours spent on community risk reduction is over 50%.


1. The administration says they do but their actions say different. Additional staffing remains elusive, even though light duty and overtime. Funds have been taken from prevention to support operations. Funds approved for a large piece of prevention equipment was utilized for fire apparatus and operational overtime.

2. Yes and no. On one hand we understand the need to analyze run data to find where our community's risk is. On

the other hand, it is doing it and selling it to our organization.

3. Although the programs exist they receive little to no funding or personnel.

4. They believe in call volume and operations only. They believe the staff supports the line personnel. No emphasis on Fire Prevention or community risk reduction.

5. The administration would support more, but the issue is having time


1. They feel it is not their job even though fire prevention consists of JPR's and NFPA standards. They feel their only job is response, not prevention.

2. The culture

3. Clearly some members do not see the value of these programs. Probably about 30%.

4. There is a core group of educators that value the program, however none of the newer firefighters have taken an

active role in participating in the programs.

5. More undecided than undetermined. Same as comments above.

6. The culture is slowly shifting, but the main reason for the lag in commitment is a former lack of importance placed on CRR by the former administration.

7. Too busy running alarms due to lack of resources.

8. It is a mix, most of them don't understand CRR

9. Some clearly do, some clearly don't. Age and individual motivation appear to be a factor.

10. Some do Some don't

11. Without the resources to run the program, the firefighters recognize the lack of management support.


12. No training provided

13. Perceived not to be part of primary operational mission

14. They like to run calls and generally try to avoid public service events.

15. Lies outside of traditional duties. not focused on comprehensive customer service

16. They are getting better at embracing it. It's a culture shift that was required.

17. It really depends on who you ask. Some get it and some don't.

18. It would take effort and time away from the "down" time.

19. Not trained and zero focus so it is not embraced

20. Some do, but many feel they are there for the response aspect of our job only.

21. Believe it cannot happen in their own community and therefore consider it busy work

22. They only care about fire operations. Most guys focus on rescue operations (rope, trench, confined space, structural collapse, Hazmat etc.)

23. The department is volunteer and we created a group called Volunteers in Preventions (VIP) to work on Community

Risk Reduction. Some are firefighters in the organization.

24. There is not 100% buy-in. There is a lot, but not all.

25. However, some aren't as pleased as they ought to be. 26. They are too busy running calls and training.

27. Misunderstanding of importance- believe it is "someone else’s job"

28. I feel they support some of them but find it to be more of an assignment then a want to do program.

29. It’s not 100%, but I'd estimate a 50/50 split

30. They do not believe it is there job

Question 1.5, 18 responses 1. Unsure. We have a full-time public educator that is always working to implement new programs to meet the risks.

2. We are moving toward installing radio frequency smoke alarms. The installation of these types of alarms allows

alarms to activate all at once throughout the home versus only the alarm activated by smoke, providing additional escape time for residents.

3. Fire Safe Communities

4. We are looking at Smoke detector/battery programs as well as a citizen’s fire academy.

5. Rip-Tide Awareness

6. Safe Step Risk Watch No Home without Smoke Alarm

7. All sore continually re-invented, based on need

8. Senior "elderly" safety & risk reduction day.

9. Updated preplanning process and wellness in our community

10. fall prevention canal safety school presentations

11. wildfire mitigation, senior living facility risk reduction, false alarm mitigation


12. WUI Hydrant location markers Cooking safety at UNC Wilmington (developed videos) Fire lanes regulations Hotel safety

13. We have a mass notification program, as well as pub Ed and smoke detector programs. These are not

based on any hard data however. We will be undertaking a community risk assessment at the beginning of the year to drill down on specific, verifiable risks and needs.

14. Hiring more fire inspectors to cover the workload and in this, re-instituting support of programs like Read Across America and programs like community fire extinguisher training and offering smoke alarm inspection and test training in the military housing areas.

15. Community Paramedic Program

16. The fire department recently took over code enforcement to support it risk reduction program.

17. We are currently working on fall prevention program and a program to reduce fires in elderly homes.

18. Fall prevention


1. Instruction on methods, messages, and programs

2. CCR training is scheduled sporadically. It is not considered important.

3. smoke detector installation car seat installation 4. NFPA pub-end Clown school

5. all of the above

6. Some limited info presented by the Fire Prevention Division. This is an area we need to improve on.

7. Observation, then team teaching then standalone teaching.

8. In order to participate in the events, personnel must attend a 40 hour public fire and life safety educator course.

Personnel who have attended the training are given preference for events before being filled by others.

9. Water rescue training.

10. Juvenile Fire Stopper program requires training

11. Yearly grant funded state conference.

12. Some members are allowed to go and get a state fire educator/NFPA cert if they are interested.

13. Yes, but very little.

14. How and where to install smoke detectors,

15. Classroom session outlining the program, goals, target audience, and technical aspects of smoke detector installation.

16. Basic WU I hazard assessment

17. we provide an overview of the program before engaging them in the public

18. Public education officer pre-games them before pub Ed events

19. CPR Training Car Seat installations Basic fire prevention for school age children

20. We provide training based on Vision 20/20's (www.strategicfire.org) one-day class on how to develop station risk

reduction plans. We will be providing training for three stations the week on November 17th. The class provides a framework for the shifts to develop their own risk reduction plan based on the hazards in their first-in response area. If you would like more information contact Asst. Chief Frank Blackley 910-343-3939 or 910-470-2137 [email protected]


21. All crews have been trained and audited on the residential safety program.

22. Company officers are required to hold basic certifications of a fire inspector and where some firefighters tend to call fire prevention to report violations the company might discover, the company officer is required to deal with the hazard themselves and mostly, on the spot. Crews also attend briefings so they will be up to speed and mostly, participate in CRR programs alongside of the fire inspectors.

23. Quarterly training presented by the prevention bureau to all operational staff.

24. The safety trailer program has a refresher class each year. All of the crews have been educated on identifying

careless smoking incidents and areas of concern.

25. How to perform a home safety survey.

26. Pub-Ed techniques, inspection processes, etc.


Appendix G

External Community Risk Reduction Survey Comments


1. It's a prevention function

2. Fire prevention should have positions especially for that area

3. I have no problem with being a part of it, however it seems to be more of a priority then conducting daily training drills and doing any sort of pre-planning, causing performance to suffer.

4. Interaction with the public is a good thing for us to do. However, we are overloading companies with tasks other

than normal duties. Something is going to end up suffering because of this. I feel there needs to be a limit on the extra responsibilities that we are being appointed

5. Yes, but not for the reason you may think. We in the RFD suppression staff maintain a 96% external customer

service approval rating, yet WE have zero input in the program. We send our command staff to California on how to do this But don't ask the men and women in our suppression staff on how WE maintain a 96% rating year after year.

6. No clue what this is

7. We need to be involved in mastering our craft.

8. It is also dependent on department makeup and size. In a metro department with a designated fire Marshall's

office, the need by operations personal is much lower than their need to maintain job performance. Only because there are enough other personnel to accomplish the task at a higher level.

9. Yes but not all the time.

10. It's a prevention assignment


1. Yes because with less call volume there will be less need for personnel so fewer people will be staffing fire apparatus

2. Poverty brings fire, As long as the city is poor we will have fires

3. We have other aspects of our occupation to keep us busy.

4. Fires in this city are down considerably and EMS calls are up. We will eventually become a cheap, in-effective

insurance policy.

5. Accidents will still happen........fires will still happen.......people will still get hurt or sick......

6. because down town is all about stupid numbers

7. Citizens will eventually follow all fire safety precautions which will eliminate hazards, which will reduce call volume, which will reduce staffing on apparatus, which reduce jobs.

8. If we do a good enough job, our actions will reduce call volume which in turn will eventually cost jobs.

9. That's just the way that it has been. FD prevents fires so well that they don't have any fires to fight


1. I have a better understanding of my role in the community.


2. don't want to see another person’s property damaged

3. Because I am more aware of how community knowledge plays a factor in community safety

4. Realize that our efforts can affect change in the community.

5. Do to the nature of our jobs we get to see the cause and effect of the incidents we respond to. As such we are perfect advocates of the "20/20 Hindsight" train of thought - our insights and experiences are the perfect building blocks for a credible CRR program.

6. More involved during calls

7. The current position that I hold is geared toward that behavior, but I started just prior to this being a nationwide

push. I saw the need to look at risks and we could better address them.

8. I see the need more and more everyday seeing that it justifies our positions.

9. I know more today than I did when I came in. There is still work to do but we are better today.

10. Part of our job. It still should rely mainly with fire prevention but it should be part of the firefighter’s job. Firefighter’s main objectives should be district knowledge, fire hydrant maintenance & locations, training, smoke detectors and other community functions that allow time. It’s a fine line not to get leaders to focused on community functions and forget about knowing our job and keeping our fire and ems skills up.

11. maturity

12. Experience

13. For our administration it is about some kind of stupid program or flashy name that counts. It is about customer

service, personal pride in your job and wanting to honestly help others.

14. Even though we teach citizens how to prevent fires. They still figure out how to have fires in their homes. Emergency services are services designed to help people in an emergency whether accidental or by ignorance.

15. I enjoying fighting fire and this career but at the same time I seen a lot of citizens lose all they have due to a

mistake, so I wouldn't wish that on anyone so I help by being a prevention person.

16. More awareness of risk factors, more familiarity with the communities we serve, more knowledge of resources.

17. Because I have seen first-hand the effects

18. Experience

19. It protects the community and that is what we are paid to do

20. After seeing tragedies due to no or none working smoke detectors, no community training, no community education on evacuation plans, what to do in the event of fires, retrofitting old commercial buildings to new fire codes, etc. you begin to buy into the idea of community risk reduction by risk/hazard analysis of all your fire district. It has helped increase on the job knowledge of building construction, hazards in buildings you wouldn't think there are hazards. Hazardous chemicals, toxic waste. Etc. In addition by being in the community and going business to business or home to home, you realize one) that owners truly want to make their businesses/homes safe for all occupants AND firefighter in the event. And two) the community begins to feel safe and trust in the fire department and what we are trying to accomplish.

21. I’m now in Fire Prevention, but overall efforts in our department has shifted to risk reduction.

22. I am more informed on the CRR topic. Initially, as an entry level firefighter, you are less likely to feel empowered to

develop programs. In my opinion the company officer was where I felt the ability to make decisions/recommendations. The more of a voice we give firefighters the earlier they will feel that their ideas can be implemented.

23. Prefer to correct problems before disaster.

24. Better organizational emphasis on the subject.


25. When I began my career the term itself was never used, at least not in my presence, therefore since it has become a part of our current regimen my efforts have increased to advocate for it.

26. It wasn't something we were really made aware of when I first came in.

27. The initial hype of wanting to fight fire all the time is beginning to diminish and while I still enjoy the primary

objective of my job, we also need to realize that we are here to prevent these things from occurring. I suppose that more and more nowadays that I tend to put myself in the citizens shoes.

28. Through experience and years of service to the community.

29. I feel like our department pushes us to get out in the community and inform and educate the public on home

safety.

30. Learned lots since started as firefighter 37 years ago. Then mostly following, learning, & reactive. Past 27 years in prevention more pro-active & towards public education.

31. Better knowledge of the effects of emergencies on the community lends itself to wanting to reduce the risk to the

community

32. It justifies what we do and why. It allows us to utilize real data to make efficient decisions.

33. Too new to know otherwise

34. Through the growth and awareness in understanding our demographic


1. Would be nice to have a specific course to attend in order to review the department's policy or program communication

2. The actual training.

3. There has been little or no training offered for this subject. 4. Never had any training in CRR 5. Need to educate communities on risk and benefits

6. Material to hand out,

7. Fire prevention/ordinances/child education

8. If CRR is merely just about putting up detectors, then I'm well versed.

9. I have yet to hear the plan explained

10. I think I am good at what I do as a leader, supervisor, mentor, etc......However, I am not a public speaker. I will help

anyone with any type of problem but I do not like to speak in front of a group. Because of this my message being delivered suffers

11. I don't believe our down town leaders real know what this really means. For them it’s all about checking a box.

(Zoil, center learn. DMV complains)

12. Especially just additional training on the concept. 13. No clue what this is

14. More education on what the City is trying to accomplish and the end goal would be beneficial so we could explain

to the citizens why we are doing this instead of just saying " we are learning our buildings to keep us safe"

15. More teaching, helping, coaching on fire prevention and more participation from our community 16. 1 17. No training at all. No set programs for individuals in the field to administer to various age groups or demographics.

Basically being done as to what the company feels like doing at any given time.

18. We need more training on how to conduct public events such as statistics and talking points. If Prevention or Admin could push out monthly information and encourage areas to focus on with groups based on age level.


19. I have received information but not a tangible curriculum on how to deliver programs.

20. There should be ongoing training on how to deal directly with residents specifically in the area of prevention.

21. There is a HUGE gap between fire prevention and fire suppression, we in the field do not know of all fire prevention programs.

22. Not yet fully informed of "Community Risk Reduction" specifics; mostly vague references.

23. I hear the term used over and over. However the specific goals of that program have not been broadcast to the

department. Nor has training.

24. A department stated objective for risk reduction

25. I feel that my employer has not given us any direction or materials to present the citizens or businesses.

26. Department priorities and objectives, lack of same from executive level

27. Statistics. Focus areas

28. It's a term we hear every day but no one can actually pinpoint what it is or how you do it. It used to be simply called fire prevention.

29. Everything

Question 2.10 20 Comments

1. I am not sure how to answer this question, because I am not sure what all of the programs the department has and or are implementing currently

2. The budget is a finite resource and our expenditures thus far have been a less than effective use of resources and

cash. I do believe that we could effectively address both Operational and CRR funding efforts concurrently with the proper spending controls in place.

3. Not sure we have anything in place.

4. I believe this dept. believes in community risk reduction but does not increase funding for education in that area.

Nor has it provided ways for each station to develop specific plans or areas to improve for each individual district

5. Installing free smoke detectors and car seat installs-yes.

6. the smoke detector program is effective - I do not believe we can plot trends for fires and ems calls the way RPD can plot crime trends

7. Again, for our administration it’s all about checking a box to make themselves look better, not about suppression

nor our community.

8. The city needs to reinstate programs to encourage individual motivation to increase training level and experience.

9. Utilize suppression staff more efficiently. Quit making us do the same surveys over and over and actually utilize and appropriate software system that integrates with our current system. Not two separate systems.

10. You cannot help incompetent people, they are still going to leave food on the stove and use their open ovens to

heat the house during the winter

11. Effective yes only in the fact that at the minimum some information is disseminated to the general public. It could be expanded to give better info to the demographics that need specific info.

12. More inspections by AFM were there is some enforcement to correct issues. We in the field aren't versed enough

to make proper recommendations.

13. I think landlords and property owners need attention and an emphasis on them. The majority of our fires occur in low income, tenant-lease properties. Cleanliness is not emphasized enough from the tenants and landlords do little to nothing to ensure their properties are up to code or safe for at least five years or so.


14. Entire department involvement.

15. Depends on the goal of the department

16. But could be more effective in the hands of a fire Marshall's office.

17. More requirements of c

18. More and updated programs. Current program(s) are dated, limited and have not changed in more than 15 years.

19. Training for employees instead of it being just a buzzword.

20. For the most part.

organizational culture towards community risk reduction in...

Documents