There’s an ongoing debate about fire code compliance inspections. It’s a battle over emphasis: Is it better to perform many quick inspections or few in-depth inspections? To put it simply, what’s more important, quality vs. quantity? I don’t expect the debate to end anytime soon, but a new report shines some light on it and we should be paying attention.
The folks at the Research Foundation of the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) recently received a grant from the Department of Homeland Security to explore these questions. Together with a literature review, survey work in the field and the suggestions of subject-matter experts, they’ve produced a report on their findings. The report lays out parameters for a comparison of the work of those less trained for inspections (e.g., engine company inspectors and self-inspectors) with the work of those better trained (e.g., designated staff inspectors). I encourage readers to take a look at the report at www.nfpa.org/foundation.
Preliminary Qualifications
A study of this scope must tread cautiously. Defining the parameters of research is daunting enough. Are we measuring the impact of code-enforcement inspections in terms of preventing fires from happening or from killing people when they do occur? Or both?
As we consider these questions, we must remember our goals for conducting the inspections in the first place: We’re not trying to catch people doing wrong; our goal is to reduce the risks and, ultimately, the losses that would result from noncompliance. Further, fire prevention isn’t the sole purview of code, which exists in some cases to mitigate the damage of fire. Examples include smoke detectors, fire sprinklers, fire extinguishers and exit codes.
Equipment malfunction or human error can cause fire in places where the code has been followed diligently. Even when the code is enforced, the outcome of fire can be tragic. Code-compliant exits, for example, only work if people use them. A person’s tendency is to leave the way they came, which leads to panic as the common entrance becomes quickly overwhelmed as the exit. We saw this at the 2003 Station Nightclub fire in Rhode Island.
Finally, we must consider the role of education. Is the quality of the inspection solely a measure of how many hazards are identified and abated? Perhaps the inspector who notes little, but educates business owners about hazards, actually leaves a more lasting impact.
What Can be Said
My own interests brought me to a 1978 study conducted by the Urban Institute that examined the methods of success for fire code inspections. Dr. John Hall, who worked on the current study, was one of the principal authors of that 1978 study. The conclusions drawn from that study were not definitive in Dr. Hall’s estimation. There was some evidence to support the conclusion that the cities that inspected most properties each year using in-service inspections for most of the workload had lower fire rates than cities that didn’t reach all properties annually but where all inspections were done by full-time inspectors. In other words, something was better than nothing. Duh. But the basic question of quantity vs. quality of inspections was not answered.
Even in the latest study I don’t see a definitive answer to this most basic question, but I do see promise. Parameters for measuring success have been identified, and an extensive literature search demonstrates that we don’t have much evidence of the impact of inspections. The report shows us, more than anything, how little we actually know.
Conclusion
We know we need inspections. The question is: How much of an impact do they have? And how are they most effective?
As you might expect, I have my own biases in the quality-vs.-quantity debates. But I have no evidence to back up my position. This kind of research is therefore very valuable. It’s the missing link in our understanding of the outcomes our inspections actually produce. For those who need to justify the expense of prevention efforts, this level of scientific study will be critical in providing evidence that our time and taxpayer money are not being wasted.
If you agree that more research is needed, e-mail Casey Grant at the NFPA Research Foundation (cgrant@nfpa.org) to voice your support of the effort. Together, we’ll keep it moving forward.
