NFIRS Users Look to Data Analysis For Practical Applications of Facts
The national fire incident reporting system (NFIRS), a baby of the National Fire Data Center that was born four years ago with receipt of the first reports from two states, is rapidly approaching adulthood with an objective of making practical use of the columns of figures.
This became evident at the conference of representatives from states in the NFIRS program. The reporting of fire data is in operational good condition, and now the users want to make practical applications of that storehouse of facts and figures in the National Fire Data Center, a part of the United States Fire Administration headed by Phil Schaenman as associate administrator.
Talk of the need to analyze data to make it useful in real life was heard frequently during sessions of the NFIRS Conference at the Blockade Runner Motel in Wrightsville Beach, N.C., April 19 to May 1. Conference participants talked of how training in data analysis could be conducted, how a state could compare its fire data with that of other states to develop ways of better combatting the fire problem, and how quality control could be improved to develop more accurate data.
Application of data
The feeling was that with 35 states and the District of Columbia in NFIRS, the organizational hurdle had been cleared and emphasis now should be directed toward jumping into the application of the collected data.
To develop objectives that could assist the National Fire Data Center in expanding the usefulness of NFIRS, the conference conducted workshops on five topics. Each workshop had a succession of three discussions with every conference member participating in one of the discussions in each workshop.
The principal problem cited by the workshop on putting data into action was the need to train people on the local level to analyze the output of the national data system. Members of the workshop, coordinated by Harold Holloway of North Carolina, voiced frustration at the collection of data without an active program to make practical use of the data to meet fire service and fire protection problems.
The workshop’s answer to this problem was to schedule a workshop at next year’s conference that would give groups of no more than four persons each some practical experience in developing solutions to half a dozen or so fire problems raised by fire incident data. It was suggested that this type of hands-on training could develop the data analysis capability of the participants.
Workshop members also proposed that the USFA develop a model format for state fire incident reports and that each state display at next year’s conference samples of its NFIRS report data readouts and forms.
Possibility of data use grant
Addressing the demand for data analysis, Tom Wright, director of the fire data system division of the National Fire Data Center, announced that the data center hopes to provide a grant to states in NFIRS for the fourth year to assist them in the development of data use.
He also said that the data center is working on an NFIRS modular training package which can be presented in two, three, four, five or six-hour segments and will include a fire scene analysis section. He said that other plans include the development of a total management fire data system, an EMS model for data in Washington state, and models for fire investigation and wildfires.
“We’d like to have feedback from you on our plans,” Wright invited.
He also said that limited grant programs for fire incident reporting are being offered to metropolitan cities of over 500,000 population.
Training program
A three-part training program for the NFIRS program is being developed by the National Fire Academy, Wayne Powell of the academy staff said. He explained that the first part of the package is about fire scene examination and the hope is that this part will be ready by Oct. 1. He added that the second part of the package will concern fire reporting and the third part will be on the use of fire data.
The training workshop, led by Everett Ignagni of Rhode Island, recommended that training for NFIRS programs be done by the states, individual fire departments, junior colleges and state fire academies. The training itself should be conducted by the fire marshal’s office and fire department training officers and, the workshop continued, the training should start about a month before a fire department begins transmitting reports. The workshop suggested that training should be held at a central state location, at individual fire departments and any other compatible location.
As for who should receive training, the workshop participants recommended that training be given to all fire service personnel and those involved in data processing. It was recommended that the training should be delivered through special training classes conducted by National Fire Academy adjunct faculty or state training instructors.
The workshop on technology for improving NFIRS saw a lack of control and poor quality in data processing which, it said, also showed a lack of compatibility of data systems in a state.
At the opening session of the conference, Wright announced the institution of a third-year grant “specifically for quality control.” He said that a draft copy had been developed for quality control training on both state and local levels.
The technology workshop also recommended that the USFA fire data systems place a microcomputer connected to the Washington data center computer, in the office of each state NFIRS administrator. The estimated $3 million cost appeared to be a formidable barrier to this idea.
The workshop also saw a need for the orientation and retraining of data processors by the federal government. Concern was expressed about which feedback reports should go to fire departments and it was recommended that reports be evaluated for clarity for the local fire departments. The workshop also saw a need for an information manual on what other states are doing in their NFIRS programs and it was urged that the information manual include laymen’s definitions of technical words.
The workshop suggested that the inclusion of EMS reports in the NFIRS program be considered. It also was proposed that the USFA data newsletter be published quarterly and that technical bulletins from the data center be sent to both the NFIRS administrator and the computer leader.
Flexible grant proposed
The technology workshop, which was led by David Pingree of Utah, also urged that orientation and retraining should be provided.
A one-time grant of $50,000 to $100,000 that could be expended in any one or all of the first three years of a state’s NFIRS program was proposed by the funding and budgeting workshop coordinated by Ray Crouch of Tennessee. Each state would decide how it would receive the money for use in an area of the NFIRS project that the individual state regarded as in the greatest need of funding.
Another proposal was that the NFIRS grant formula be based on population, geographical area, number of fire departments, number of incidents, the appropriateness of the projects, the transferability of the project results and the state’s contribution.
—Staff photos.
A need for a transfer of information from the experienced NFIRS states to those new in the system was cited by the workshop on state and federal roles. To make the NFIRS system work at its best, the feds should produce a “show and tell” catalog to include the name of each state administrator, sample data forms, and data processing training progress in each state. The fire data center was urged to make a survey and compile such a document for distribution.
The workshop coordinator, Gordon Brunton of Alaska, reported that the workshop felt that there was a federal responsibility to provide for the professional development of all NFIRS administrators through EDP training. The workshop also saw a need for improving the interface with all other segments of the USFA.
The states also should have the ability to compare their data with that of other states from day to day, the workshop found. Other concerns were an expedited development of methodology for wildfire reporting and the need for states to tell fire departments what they expect from the state reporting system.
Code changes discussed
There was lengthy discussion of the proposed edition of the NFPA Standard 901, which has been completed by the committee and will come up for adoption at the May 1981 NFPA annual meeting. Nancy Stephens, a West Virginia assistant fire marshal and chairman of the NFIRS conference’s committee that reviewed the proposals, discussed the recommended changes in the fire reporting forms. Objections were voiced that the states would not change forms that already were in use because of the increased training that would be needed to teach people how to use them. Stephens commented that the code changes reflected users’ desires.
During the conference, the NFIRS users formally organized as the National Association of NFIRS States and elected a board of directors. The first action of the directors was to name Stephens as chairman of a committee to receive comments on the proposed NFPA 901 changes by June 1. Her committee will then present the membership comments to the NFPA for consideration.
Representatives of some states voiced objections to changing their NFIRS program to conform to the 1981 edition of NFPA 901, and this raised the question of how the National Fire Data Center would react.
Wright said that the data center will switch to the 1981 edition of NFPA 901, if it is adopted as expected, and will provide a training package and software to conform to the changes. He said that the standard would go into effect on Jan. 1, 1982.
Data will be accepted
Wright expressed his view that there is a reasonable approach to the 1981 code. He said that if a state does not switch to the ’81 code, “this does not mean we will not accept their data. We will continue to accept their data.”
Directors of the new organization were elected by regions as follows; Region 1—Everett Ignagni, Rhode Island; Thomas Broumel, Maryland; Ben Roy, Delaware. Region 2—Nancy Stephens, West Virginia; Ray Crouch, Tennessee; Ken Farmer, North Carolina. Region 3—Don Ryan, Ohio; Wally Collins, Minnesota; Myron Franks, Michigan. Region 4— Ed Seits, California; David Pingree, Utah; Paula McMann, Arizona.
The conference was sponsored by the USFA and hosted by the North Carolina State Fire Commission, a part of the Department of Crime Control and Public Safety, with assistance from the North Carolina Police Information Network of the Department of Justice.
