Evidence-based decision making begins with gathering data (evidence). By listening to the data, as opposed to hunches, agendas and egos, we stand to make more rational decisions. This concept isn’t new, but it does bear repeating. And repeating. And repeating …
Enter Ego
We all like to be recognized for good work, and many of us like to be out in front, showing what’s possible in fire prevention. We believe there’s a better way than the status quo and that we are integral to the solution. And that may be part of the problem: We all have egos.
Early in my career I was thrilled with being on local television–yes, there were television sets back then–explaining how the hazards of gasoline could be mitigated. I was quite impressed with myself because it was my first time as a small fire department public information/education officer on television.
My chief was pleased that our name was getting mention in the media because he saw this as a means to connect with taxpayers. I saw that value too–I remember going door to door on my off-duty time to convince voters to support our operating levies–but as a public education officer, I was really driven to make people safer. Television was a great way to do it.
I also developed brochures and produced a quarterly newsletter that we mailed to every household in our fire district. I thought these were great ways to reach people and teach them to be fire safe. I gave presentations on fire safety and could hardly wait to get up in front of a group to demonstrate my vast knowledge on safety. In short, I could hardly wait to show my prevention stuff.
And then, in the late 1970s, I went to a training session sponsored by the U.S. Fire Administration about evaluating prevention programs. It was there I learned that as good as all my showmanship felt, I had no evidence to support the claim that my programs were actually doing any good. For all I could tell, everyone might have been asleep and learned absolutely nothing.
Getting Data
I began to investigate ways to determine if my prevention efforts were having an impact by collecting data. The same principle is espoused by smarter people than me, among them Dr. Mick Ballesteros of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and Phil Schaenman of Tri-Data Division/System Planning Corporation, who argue that we shouldn’t support programs because we feel they’re good; we should instead gather evidence to demonstrate that our programs improve public safety. Further, we must promote, refine and compare our documented results.
I was particularly impressed by efforts in Edmonds, Wash., in the late 70s and early 80s that documented an astounding 62-percent reduction in their fire-loss rates by hiring part-time employees to go door to door to conduct voluntary home-safety inspections, similar to what is happening now in parts of the United Kingdom. Results were documented and demonstrated, not just talked about.
I have at different times in my career tried to emulate those evidence-based efforts, but it can be a very difficult transition. For example, evidence of fire losses might indicate we should abandon regular fire-code compliance inspections because the fire-loss rates are low for commercial occupancies. It’s a tough call, because the potential for multiple fire deaths in commercial occupancies has been demonstrated throughout our history–we know they are low-frequency, high-risk events. In short, we must weigh two data sets–probability of fire vs. potential for damage in the event of fire–to arrive at a sound conclusion.
Thankfully, other instances are clearer. For example, data might suggest we increase public education efforts for one- and two-family dwellings where evidence suggests a greater likelihood of fire and fire deaths. There is no guesswork here.
If we are critical of fire chiefs who continue to fund suppression efforts heavily while knowing that prevention is more cost-effective, we in prevention must be prepared to face our own difficult choices. In tight budget times, we all need to reflect on what the evidence tells us, not about how we feel.
Conclusion
Nowadays, I don’t get to do much “showing off” about new and exciting programs I’ve developed, so instead I take pride in demonstrating the prevention programs that others produce–as long as the evidence supports their claims.
To Learn More
Visit Vision 20/20’s Web page at www.strategicfire.org. Select the “Support Materials for Attendees” link and navigate to the report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention prepared by Schaenman and Dr. Ballesteros.
This important report makes the case for evidence-based decision making as a global fire prevention strategy.
