Discussing this any further with you is pointless.
So to summarize, increases in fires are due to poor education and prevention but have nothing to do with education and prevention. Also, arson is not preventable so juvenile fire setting prevention is useless. Got it.
Also, I see a lot of the word "we" in your response so that signifies to me that it has no basis in the real world. When you realize things are much different everywhere else, you'll realize how stupid your blanket statements are.
The personnel responsible for prevention and education look at the run data and determine what is causing the fires. The personnel responsible for prevention and education come up with a stragety including target audience, meesage and delivery to address the identified problems. They deliver the programs. they evalaute the results. If there is no change in data, they develop a alternative stragety and implement it.
That is basic public education planning and management.
Any community and any department - career, combo or volunteer - can do it as long as they are willing to dedicate staff, time and some money towards it. And make it committmentn that it IS as important as supression and that it will make a difference.
If you don't have anyone in your department that wants to head it up contact the schools and see if there is somebody with an educational background to head it up. Advertise in the community for volunteers interested in delivering the message. If you in a college town, contact the college and see if they are interested in having the student teachers involved.
The fact is the development and management of a public education p[rogram does requires specilaized training beyond FFI/FFII. It requires time and effort and a lot of departments, and a lot of firefighters, simply don't want to do that. A lot of departments do and it shows in their fire stats. And yes, an aggressive public education program can have a significant impact on fire activity in most communities.
As far as juvenile firesetting, most juvenile firesetting is a behavior and can be stopped through education, consueling, and punishment such as restitution, community service and school suspensions. Less than 1% of all juvenile firesetters fall into the patholigical catagory that display and physical and/or pscyologocal need for fire.
And most juvenile firesetting is not classified as arson.
this thread is like a bad accident to the public....just can't stop looking. :cool:
SO. . . . . .. .. .. . . . since he does not care if he influences anyone and he is a fire prevention/educator then he must only care about a paycheck and his own health and welfare. :D
Our city is being hit hard with fires. It has nothing to do with our lack of being pro-active in prevention and education and everything to do with the socioeconomic climate we're working in. That is a prevalent factor in 99% of the departments with an increase in calls.
I would really love for you to walk into a department or fire house and tell the men there that they're seeing more fire because they're not working hard enough to teach the public. Please, I'll give you my paycheck from both of my departments for you to spend one day in my district going door to door and attempting to teach prevention and fire safety. I'll be sure to call LE and have them shadow you for the inevitable slap you receive upside your head. Pass by my firehouse, explain to my men that with a severe shortage of manpower we need more people dedicated solely to prevention instead of the 21 line positions that need to be filled desperately. Then go to my neighboring department that is looking at brownouts and layoffs and tell the men there to reinstate the budget for P&E they had cut in half to save men on the line. You really need to get your head out of your ***, prevention is important but extinguishment is our duty. As much as I love going to fires, I don't want to see anyone lose their lives or property but you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about when it comes to priorities.
Look at it this way. If you start at 14 you can retire at 39..........Right?............J/K.
As already mentioned, coloring books, training props and good intentions don't put out fires. Staffed, equipped and trained companies do.
So if you were sick and only had the money to choose between medicine that COULD prevent more illness or one that WOULD FIX your illness.... Ah nevermind, I forget how stupid you are.
And asked, i think most people would rather not have a fire than to have a staffed fire department show up and limit the damage, if possible. The fact is there is still damage.
If we had delivered the message before the fire and the fire never occurred, that would obviously be the best outcome.
Most rational people will listen to fire prevention messages if they are made relevant to their situation and delivered effectively. The fact that more than one poster has equated fire prevention to coloring books shows either 1) How limited their knowledge of what effective fire prevention is or 2) How limited their department's fire prevention and education program is.
You have your idea of the effectiveness of prevention. I have mine, based on both the effectiveness of prevention in one of my current and past situations, as well as the results in several other departments. And if that's the way you feel, cool.
Some messages are easier to design and deliver than others, but every message can be delivered and fires can be prevented either through education, engineering or enforcement.
It's just a question of how much effort the department wants to put into preventing the fires.
I don't think anyone is talking about gutting suppression to staff prevention, but there are those here that would like to gut prevention to staff prevention, even though in larger department it likely represents less than 1% of the force.
I can point out situations where a family has been alerted to a fire by a smoke detector that wasn't there before the fire occurred, and they installed a detector because of a prevention presentation. I can tell you about people that put out a small fire with an extinguisher that wasn't there before they bought one because of a presentation.
But sorry, I can't tell you about a fire that never occurred because of prevention. I know they have .... but can't tell ya about one.
To me influencing them is trying to change their behavior or thought pattern when tey already are performing a specific skill or tactical procedure - examples may be trying to get them to adopt a new technique such as using 2 1/2" lines for commercial fires instead of 1 3/4"'s, or trying to convince them to adopt 4" supply hose instead of 3".
When I talk about drawing thier own conclusions I am saying that I may be giving them alternatives, but trying not to influence if they choose the alternative to what they are currently doing. That would not be applicable if I was instructing them on set/standard procedures or techniques.
Teaching them skills is just that .. teaching them skills. I am referring to skills that they must learn to pass a course, such as FFI or our rookie check sheet. In those situations they do not have alternatives as they do not have an option as to how they can perform the skills - they must perform them in THIS way.
Even when I am teaching my RIT classes, as an example, I offer alternatives but I am very careful not to endorse any of the alternatives as better than the others, or the current department SOP.
There is a difference between providing information and trying to affect an attitude or behavior, which is what "influencing" is.
I provide much more information, as a rule, then is on the powerpoint, but it's not my intent when teaching a basic procedure or skills-oriented class to affect their attitudes about the topic. I am not there to lecture them as to why they should train more, or eat better. i am there in that situation to provide them with the technical information required for them to perform.
As I said, even when teaching self-developed courses, especially if I am teaching to another department, such as Rapid Intervention or reading Smoke, I give them plenty of alternatives as to how to perform a task, but it's not my job to influence their choices as to which one is best. That is up to the officers of that department to influence them which way they would prefer to see it done. up to the department
This is a discussion that will never have a end. Consistently declining fires, especially if the decline is significantly more than neighboring, similiar departments, do show the effectiveness of public education and fire prevention. You disagree.
I could ask the same of you. Show me where a 4-man company has saved more lives an property than 3-man companies. And I'm not talking about simulated fires that have demonstrated that they can perform more tasks or the same tasks quicker..... Where is some actual statistical data showing less fire loss and a greater number of life saves?
FDNY has been reducing staffing yet fewer civilians died in a fire in NYC this year than in any other year. Why? If you want to connect staffing to effectiveness, please explain that piece of data.