SMOKE DETECTOR SURVEY
FIRE PROTECTION
Determining the level of public awareness regarding smoke detectors can help fire departments better target their fire prevention programs.
Smoke detectors have been universally touted as the best thing since sprinklers for reducing fire destruction and deaths. However, unwanted fire still levies a terrible toll in death and property loss across America and, according to the U.S. Fire Administration, a sizable portion of the country’s dwelling units still are not protected by smoke detectors.
Sparked by that concern, the fire educators of the Bethany, Conn., Volunteer Fire Department decided to investigate the status of smoke detector use in local homes. The investigative method devised and the results obtained from the survey point out how easily data can be developed for an individual department’s fire prevention and/or suppression efforts.
Once the Bethany department determined the need to look into the use of smoke detectors, a plan of action had to be devised and carried out. The first step was to define what type of information would be of value to the department in planning future education programs. In other words, what did the public already know about smoke detectors and escape planning and where was knowledge lacking? With this information, the department would be better able to target its educational efforts. Maren Ives, the department’s public education specialist, led the program and with the help of others devised a questionnaire targeted at three general areas of concern.
The first section of the questionnaire was to learn what percentage of homes had smoke detector protection. Coupled closely with this question, questions aimed at determining if residents had taken positive action to purchase a detector were used to estimate the level of concern for fire safety the townspeople exhibited.
The second section tried to determine what the respondent knew about detector maintenance and escape planning Obviously. a smoke detector is of no value if it doesn t function properly under fire conditions; and its value is seriously limited if occupants don’t know the proper procedure to evacuate the fire building.
The third section tried to establish how effective present methods of reaching the public have been and if alternate methods should be used.
One thousand smoke detector surveys were mailed, covering about 70 percent of the town’s households. While the results staggered in over a period of three months, 315 completed surveys (31.5 percent) were ultimately returned. The high return rate can be interpreted as strong interest on the part of the public concerning fire safety.
The results, in general, were very positive. Two hundred seventy-eight respondents (88 percent) indicated that they had smoke detectors in their homes, while 37 (12 percent) did not. One of those without detectors indicated that occasional downdrafts in his chimney caused his wood stove to spew smoke into the house, which would raise “holy cain” with smoke detectors.
Of those homes protected by detectors, 285 (91 percent) had them because some household member had taken positive action to purchase and install them. Only 25 homes (8 percent) had smoke detectors when the present owner moved in.
Only 21 homes (7 percent) were equipped with smoke detectors by the landlord or builder, but 55 homes (17 percent) received detectors as gifts. This tends to indicate that, barring legislative action, landlords and builders will not install smoke detectors as a matter of course. (Connecticut law now requires installation of smoke detectors in all new residential construction, and a retroactive provision mandates smoke detector protection in all multiple-family dwellings of three or more units.) Interestingly, almost one in five families had received a smoke detector as a gift, again indicating a genuine concern on the part of people for the safety of their loved ones.
When questioned about the purchase of new smoke detectors over the next year, 65 of the 287 homes with smoke detectors (23 percent) indicated that they were considering purchasing additional detectors. Twenty of the 37 homes without smoke detectors (54 percent) indicated that they might purchase detectors over the next year. While it would be very rewarding to see the level of protection increased in homes already with smoke detection, it is more important to note that over half of the respondents in homes without detectors were considering their purchase. Therefore, educational efforts would need to address the “no detector” audience to motivate them to carry through on their installation intentions.
Moving to the area of detector maintenance and escape planning, 216 families (69 percent) indicated that they did have an escape plan, while 87 (28 percent) did not. It is interesting to note that roughly twothirds of all respondents had prepared an escape plan, but only a little more than one-third of those with plans practiced them. (One respondent indicated that the only time the family practiced the escape plan was when his house was struck by fire.) Certainly, considerably more work must be done to convince town residents of the necessity of a prepared and practiced escape plan.
The question of testing smoke detectors produced some rather unsettling data. When asked how often family members tested their detectors, 10 percent answered weekly, 29 percent monthly, 24 percent every three months, 17 percent every six months, and 8 percent annually. Only 39 percent in total tested their detectors monthly or more frequently, and fully one-quarter tested them on a sixmonth or less frequent basis. One respondent stated that he didn’t know how frequently testing should be done; another didn’t know testing was necessary; and still a third stated that because his detectors were new, he felt testing wasn’t necessary.
The responses to these questions point out that while people are concerned about the need for smoke detectors, they are unaware of the need to maintain them and the need to practice a prepared escape plan.
It’s obvious that smoke detector campaigns have been quite effective in selling detectors, but there is still the need to teach people habits and skills that will maximize their potential to escape a fire unscathed.
The final section of the questionnaire was aimed at determining how best to reach the public with fire education messages. When asked if the family had children in elementary or junior high schools, 106 of the families with detector protection (38 percent) had children in at least one school, whereas six of the families without detectors (16 percent) had children in school. This information was helpful, but it left many questions unanswered. For example, it’s uncertain whether a higher percentage of families with children in school had smoke detectors because of a fire safety message brought home from a school program or whether there is no correlation between the presence of detectors in the home and school efforts. A few responses to previous questions seem to indicate that at least some households without detectors are single people or couples without children living at home. If there is a relationship between the lack of children at home and the lack of detectors in the home, it may be because adults have a false sense of security in relation to saving themselves from fire.
It was asked also how many families had attended the fire department’s annual fire prevention open house and if a program on smoke detectors and fire survival would be of interest. Only 14 percent of all respondents had ever attended an open house, yet 57 percent responded favorably to a smoke detector/survival program. While there is an interest in a formal course, the small percentage turnout for the open house would indicate that people may not make a special effort to attend a program devoted solely to fire safety. A more effective approach might be made by having presentations at other functions held by churches, service organizations, and so forth.
This simple survey provided a wealth of information and also generated numerous questions. The responses have given the department some indication of where educational efforts need to be concentrated, and it has raised issues that must still be explained.
The survey was developed through the efforts of concerned fire department members. None were teachers, psychologists, statisticians, or professional surveyors of any sort. The questionnaire could not stand the rigors of testing for validity. But despite these limitations, a tremendous amount of valuable information was gained about the knowledge level and attitudes of the people. In addition, the residents of Bethany have been made aware that the fire department genuinely cares about their safety. A little work, combined with a good dose of common sense, has given the Bethany Volunteer Fire Department vital information to help it make the town a more fire-safe community.
