National Multicultural Community Fire Prevention Study

National Multicultural Community Fire
Prevention Study
Understanding Leads to Safety
Developed by FIRE 20/20
Written by Lou Piotrowski, Ph.D.

National Multicultural Community Fire Prevention Study
FIRE 20/20 is deeply appreciative to everyone who has contributed to this research study.
Sponsors
In Kind Sponsors
Acknowledgements
Lou Piotrowski Ph.D. Odessa Kawai
Author Statistic Administration
Larry Sagen Kami Higa

Editor Report Administration
Carol Remz, Ph.D. Reynie Shoemaker

Project Development Research Administration
The study was completed with support from the National Association of State Fire Marshals (NASFM), the
International Fire Marshals Association (IFMA), National Volunteer Fire Council (NVFC), Vision 20/20 and
Volunteer and Combination Officers Section of IAFC (VCOS).
2010-2012, FIRE 20/20 and Lou Piotrowski, Ph.D. i

Table of Contents
Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 3
Problem Statement ............................................................................................................................................................................................................... 4
Methodology............................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 5
Survey Findings............................................................................................................................................................................................... 7
A. Findings from all respondents ........................................................................................................................................ 7
B. Findings from Each of the Respondent Groups By Department Type .......................................................12
Discussion of Findings ...............................................................................................................................................................................22
A. Multicultural and High-Risk Communities Served ..............................................................................................22
B. Challenges in Providing Services in Multicultural and High-Risk Communities ..................................25
C. Needs that Would Help Improve the Effectiveness of Fire Prevention and Risk Reduction
Programs in Multicultural and High-Risk Communities...................................................................................28
Summary and Conclusions ......................................................................................................................................................................32
A. Summary of Study Findings ............................................................................................................................................32
B. Conclusions .............................................................................................................................................................................38
Recommendations .......................................................................................................................................................................................42
A. Challenges and Needs ........................................................................................................................................................42
B. General ......................................................................................................................................................................................43
C. Further Study.........................................................................................................................................................................43
Appendix A ......................................................................................................................................................................................................45
Appendix B ......................................................................................................................................................................................................48
2010-2012, FIRE 20/20 and Lou Piotrowski, Ph.D. ii

I. Introduction
In April 2006, the Department of Homeland Security awarded nonprofit FIRE 20/20 a Fire Prevention and
Safety Research Grant to conduct a study entitled the Multicultural Health and Safety Research Project
(MHSRP). The research was designed to examine the growing safety risks for fire/EMS personnel and
residents of multicultural communities in Seattle, Austin and Milwaukee. FIRE 20/20 received additional
funding from the International Association of Fire Chiefs (IAFC) and the City of Calgary to complete a
companion study in Calgary, Alberta.
FIRE 20/20 is dedicated to help first responders connect with their multicultural communities to increase
the reach and effectiveness of fire prevention and community risk-reduction programs.
For the purpose of the MHSRP study, the term

multicultural community was defined as a reflection
of the people in our world today and the range of
variations among them, age, country of origin, ethnic
background, gender, people with special needs, race,
religion, language, sexual identity, sexual orientation,
and socio-economic status.
Copies of the final MHSRP Report were sent to

Department of Homeland Security (DHS),
International Association of Fire Chiefs (IAFC),
International Association of Firefighters (IAFF), The
National Fire Academy (NFA), Maryland Fire Rescue
Institute (MFRI), National Fire Protection Association
(NFPA), National Fallen Firefighters Foundation
(NFFF), the Home Safety Council, International Fire
Service Training Association (IFSTA), Oklahoma State
University (OSU), International Association of Black
Professional Fire Fighters (IABPFF), National
Association of Hispanic Firefighters (NAHF), and
International Association of Women in Fire &
Emergency Services (iWomen).
Presentations of findings were offered at the following conferences: Metro Chiefs, Fire Rescue
International (FRI), IAFF Human Relations, IAFF EMS, Fire and Emergency Services Higher Education
(FESHE), National Fallen Firefighters State Coordinators, Firehouse World, Canadian Fire Chiefs, American
Burn Association, IABPFF, NAHF, iWomen, Washington Fire Marshals Roundtable and the Texas Fire
Marshals. Hardcopies of the report and online downloads have been requested by over 100 fire
organizations from the U.S., Canada, U.K., and Australia. An online copy of the complete written report
and associated videos are available from FIRE 20/20 at www.FIRE2020.org/download-resources/.
2010-2012, FIRE 20/20 and Lou Piotrowski, Ph.D. 3

Findings from the MHSRP study identified the following risks and challenges between first responders
and multicultural communities:
Bi-directional language barriers
Lack of trust
Knowledge gaps
Lack of proactive, non-emergency relationships
All contribute to the perplexity of providing effective fire prevention, risk-reduction and emergency
medical services to multicultural and high-risk communities.
The MHSRP data indicated these challenges were present in the four large cities studied. Based on
feedback from numerous departments and discussions with National Association of State Fire Marshals
(NASFM), the International Fire Marshals Association (IFMA), the National Volunteer Fire Council (NVFC)
and the Volunteer Chief Officers Section of IAFC (NVOS), FIRE 20/20 asked: Could the findings be
generalized to other urban, suburban and rural areas across the U.S.?
II. Problem Statement
The major problem is the absence of national demographic data regarding the delivery of fire and
emergency services to multicultural populations in urban, suburban and rural areas. Currently the best
data collection opportunity is the National Fire Incident Reporting System (NFIRS); however, such
demographic data is currently not a mandatory field in NFIRS and it is not collected or analyzed.
The following recommendation was offered by FIRE 20/20 in the MHSRP Final Report: Make NFIRS
demographic data fields concerning race, gender and age required entry fields in both the civilian and
firefighter casualty reporting modules. At the time of this writing, no action has yet been taken.
Thus, the purpose of this study is to gather and present data from a full national complement of fire and
emergency medical services departments across the U.S. regarding the:
Identity of multicultural and high-risk populations served
Challenges firefighters experience in providing services to multicultural and high-risk

communities
Needs firefighters identify that would help to improve the effectiveness of fire prevention and
risk-reduction programs within multicultural and high-risk communities
In this study, the term fire prevention is defined as: all activities taken in advance of, and designed to
avoid an outbreak of a fire, i.e., public education, personal contact and code enforcement.
Risk reduction is defined as: those programs, initiatives, and services that mitigate the risk of, or effects
from, fire, injuries, illness, natural disasters, hazardous materials incidents, acts of terrorism, etc.

III. Methodology
The staff of FIRE 20/20 developed a survey questionnaire consisting of three questions designed to
gather the data identified in Section II. Those questions were:
1. Which of these multicultural and high-risk populations do you serve?
2. Which of the following are issues for your department in providing services to multicultural and
high-risk communities?
3. What does your department need in order to establish more effective community risk-reduction
programs with multicultural and high-risk communities?
Each of the questions was followed with a listing of a limited number of response options from which
respondents could select. In Question 1, two Other option spaces were provided where respondents
could write-in two additional responses not listed in those offered. Questions 2 and 3 contained a single
Other write-in option space.
The survey questionnaire was hosted on the website of Survey Gizmo, an Internet survey research
company, from October 21, 2010 to January 7, 2011. During that period, the survey was available to all
members of the U.S. Fire Service who worked for a state fire marshals office, county or local fire
department or fire district including career, combination and volunteer departments. Because the survey
was hosted on a secure website, no additional software was necessary. No attempt was made to
randomize or stratify the population surveyed other than to classify the respondents into the following
five groups:
Departments with volunteer firefighters only (Volunteer Departments)
Departments with a combination of volunteer and career firefighters (Combo Departments)
Departments with <400 career firefighters (Career Departments)
Departments with 400 career firefighters (Metro Departments)
State Fire Marshals Offices
Extensive efforts were made by FIRE 20/20, IFMA, NASFM, NVFC and VCOS to market the survey
throughout their respective networks using word of mouth, website postings, and emails containing a
link to the survey. The goal was to reach as many fire marshals, firefighters and EMS personnel as
possible in metro, career, combination and volunteer departments and state fire marshals offices. In
addition, the Executive Director of FIRE 20/20 made personal phone calls to state and department fire
marshals, state fire chiefs associations and individual fire chiefs in all types of departments across the
nation to encourage survey participation.

Survey Gizmo provided a method to organize the data from respondents into a database that can be
searched and analyzed in various ways. The data was organized in the following manner:
A. Responses to the questions from all respondents
B. Responses to the questions from Volunteer Department respondents
C. Responses to the questions from Combination Department respondents
D. Responses to the questions from Career Department respondents (<400 paid firefighters)
E. Responses to the questions from Metro Department respondents (400 paid firefighters)
F. Responses to the questions from State Fire Marshal respondents
G. Responses to write-in categories to Question #1 - #3 for all respondents
H. Responses to the questions by all respondents in states where the State Fire Marshal responded
to the survey
A straight statistical analysis was employed to generate findings in this study.

IV. Survey Findings
A. Findings from all Respondents

The total number of respondents to the survey was 2,474 from all 50 states and the District of Columbia.
Firefighters and EMS personnel indicated online the type of department in which they worked: members
of Volunteer only departments, members of Combination departments with both career and volunteer
personnel, members of Career only departments with <400 personnel, members of Metro departments
with 400 personnel, and State Fire Marshals.1
Table No. 1 shows the total number of all respondents in each of the four department types and the State Fire
Marshal Office.
Table No. 1: Total Number of All Respondents by Type of Department N = 2474

TYPE OF DEPARTMENT COUNT PERCENTAGE
Volunteer Departments 1023 41.4%
Combination Departments 625 25.3%
Career Departments 612 24.7%
Metro Departments 185 7.5%
State Fire Marshals 29 1.2%
TOTAL 2474 1.001%
*Percentages were rounded-up and, thus, the total may be more or less than 100%.
Chart #1 shows the relative distribution of all respondents in terms of the department type and State Fire Marshal
Office to which they are attached.
Chart #1: Type of Department for all 2474 Survey Respondents
1%
8%
Volunteer Departments
Combination Departments
41%
25%
Career Departments
Metro Departments
State Fire Marshall
25%
1FIRE 20/20 identified one fire department type as Combination Departments. Since the data was collected, FIRE 20/20 learned that some others
further categorize Combination Departments into Mostly Career and Mostly Volunteer. This study does not reflect that level of specificity.

Table No. 2 contains the responses from 2,464 respondents to Question #1 in the survey: Which of these
multicultural and high-risk populations do you serve? This survey question offered 16 multicultural
population response categories from which respondents could select as many as were appropriate. In
addition, two Other categories were offered where respondents could write-in two multicultural groups
not identified in the original 16. For reporting purposes, the number of responses in both Other
categories have been summed.
Table No. 2: Multicultural and High-Risk Populations Served by All Respondents N = 2464
POPULATION CATEGORY COUNT PERCENTAGE
Hispanic 1639 66.5%
African-American 1403 56.9%
Disabled 1368 55.5%
Homeless 765 31.0%
Native American 571 23.2%
Chinese 506 20.5%
South Asian (Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi, etc.) 468 19.0%
Vietnamese 439 17.8%
Korean 432 17.5%
Muslim 425 17.2%
Japanese 373 15.1%
Russian 343 13.9%
Orthodox Jewish 321 13.0%
East African (Somalia, Ethiopia, Eritrea, etc.) 268 10.9%
West African (Ghana, Liberia, Mali, Nigeria, Senegal, etc.) 224 9.1%
Hmong 161 6.5%
Other2 590 23.9%
Chart #2 shows the responses to Question #1 identifying the multicultural populations that were selected by 10%
or more of all respondents.
Chart #2: Multicultural Populations Selected by More Than

10% of All Respondents N = 2464
Hispanic
Multicultureal Populations
Disabled
Other
Chinese
Vietnamese
Muslim
Russian
East African
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800
Number of Respodents
2This figure represents the sum of the responses to the two categories entitled Other where respondents could identify multicultural populations
not included in the original 16 response categories offered. For a listing of the write-in responses by all respondents, please see Appendix A.

Table No. 3 contains the responses from 2,463 respondents to Question #2 in the survey: Which of the
following are issues for your department in providing services to your multicultural and high-risk
communities? This survey question offered eight issues from which the respondents could select as
many as were appropriate. In addition, a write-in option entitled, Other was also offered in the list of
responses.
Table No. 3: Departmental Issues Related to Multicultural and High-Risk Populations Served by All
Respondents N = 2463
ISSUE CATEGORY NUMBER PERCENTAGE
Language barriers 1531 62.2%
Communitys lack of knowledge about basic life safety and fire
1242 50.4%
prevention
Communitys lack of knowledge about fire department services
1185 48.1%
Fire department not understanding cultural practices and how
612 24.8%
this impacts service delivery
Fire departments lack of proactive relationships with the
488 19.8%
community
Communitys misuse of 9-1-1 476 19.3%
Communitys fear of people in uniform 432 17.5%
Communitys distrust of the fire department 173 7.0%
3
Other 232 9.4%
Chart #3 shows the relative importance of the issues all respondents faced when serving multicultural and high-risk
communities.
.
Chart #3: All Respondents Ranking of Issues Related to Serving Multicultural
Communities N = 2463
Issues Serving Multicultural Communities
Language barriers
Communitys lack of knowledge about basic life safety and prevention
Fire department not understanding cultural practices and how this

impacts service delivery
Fire departments lack of proactive relationships with the community
Communitys misuse of 9-1-1
Communitys fear of people in uniform
Other
Communitys distrust of the fire department
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

Percentage of Respondents
3This figure represents the responses to the category entitled Other where respondents could identify department issues not included in the
original 8 response categories offered. For a listing of the write-in responses by all respondents, please see Appendix A.

Table No. 4 contains the responses from 2,466 respondents to Question #3 in the survey: What does your
department need in order to establish more effective community risk-reduction programs with
multicultural and high-risk communities? This survey question offered ten needs from which the
respondents could select as many as were appropriate. In addition, a write-in option entitled, Other was
also offered in the list of responses.
Table No. 4: Departmental Needs Related to More Effective Fire Prevention and Risk-Reduction
Programs within Multicultural and High-Risk Populations by All Respondents N = 2466
NEEDS CATEGORY NUMBER PERCENTAGE
Greater community knowledge about fire prevention 1224 49.6%
Greater community knowledge of fire department services 1115 45.2%
Multilingual skills 1096 44.4%
Additional Resources to develop and implement programs 1069 43.3%
Knowledge about multicultural communities (cultural cooking, 821 33.3%
religious use of candles, traditional medical practices, orientation to family,
authority, how decisions are made, trust issues with people in uniforms,
gender issues, using children as translators, etc.)
Materials in other languages 812 32.9%
Evaluation tools to measure impact 632 25.6%
Higher priority given to prevention in my department 627 25.4%
Model programs from other departments 622 25.2%
Proactive relationships with multicultural and high-risk 319 21.0%
community leaders
Other4 152 6.2%
4This figure represents the responses to the category entitled Other where respondents could identify department needs not included in the

Chart #4 contains all (N=2466) of the respondents choice of relative importance of departmental needs as they
relate to more effectively serving multicultural and high-risk communities.
Chart #4: Departmental Needs to More Effectively Serve Multicultural

Communities from All Respondents N = 2466
Greater community knowledge about fire prevention

Departmental needs to more effectively serve multicultural communities
Greater community knowledge of fire department

services
Multilingual skills
Additional Resources to develop and implement

programs
Knowledge about multicultural communities
Materials in other languages
Evaluation materials to measure impact
Higher priority given to prevention in my department
Model programs from other departments
Proactive relationships with multicultural and high-risk

community leaders
Other
0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0%

Precentage of Respondents

B. Findings from Each of the Respondent Groups by Department Type

1. Volunteer Departments
Table No. 5 contains the responses from 1,022 respondents from Volunteer Departments to Question #1
in the survey: Which of these multicultural and high-risk populations do you serve? This survey question
offered 16 multicultural population response categories to which respondents could select as many as
were appropriate. In addition, two Other categories were offered where respondents could write-in two
multicultural groups not identified in the original 16. For reporting purposes, the number of responses in
both Other categories have been summed.
Table No. 5: Multicultural and High-Risk Populations Served by Respondents from Volunteer
Departments N = 1022
TYPE OF POPULATIONS NUMBER PERCENTAGE
Hispanic 507 49.6%
Disabled 438 42.9%
Homeless 119 11.6%
Chinese 92 9.0%
Korean 65 6.4%
Japanese 61 6.0%
Muslim 54 5.3%
Russian 53 5.2%
Vietnamese 52 5.1%
Hmong 18 2.1%
Other5 291 25.9%

in the survey: Which of the following are issues for your department in providing services to your
multicultural and high-risk communities? This survey question offered eight issues from which the
respondents could select as many as were appropriate. In addition, a write-in option entitled, Other, was
Table No. 6: Departmental Issues Related to Multicultural and High-Risk Populations Served by
Respondents from Volunteer Departments N = 1023
ISSUES NUMBER PERCENTAGE
Communitys lack of knowledge about fire department services 494 48.8%
Communitys lack of knowledge about basic life safety and 442 43.2%
prevention
Fire departments lack of proactive relationships with the 142 13.9%
community
Fire department not understanding cultural practices and how 117 11.4%
Other 148 14.5%
in the survey: What does your department need in order to establish more effective community risk-
reduction programs with multicultural and high-risk communities? This survey question offered ten
needs from which the respondents could select as many as were appropriate. In addition, a write-in
option entitled, Other, was also offered in the list of responses.
Table No. 7: Departmental Needs Related to More Effective Risk-Reduction Programs with
Multicultural and High-Risk Populations Served by Respondents from Volunteer Departments
N = 1022
Knowledge about multicultural communities (cultural cooking, religious 165 16.1%
use of candles, traditional medical practices, orientation to family, authority, how
decisions are made, trust issues with people in uniforms, gender issues, using children as
translators, etc.)
Other 96 9.4%
community leaders

2. Combination Departments, with both Volunteer and Career Personnel
Table No. 8 contains the responses from 624 respondents from Combination Departments to Question #1
in the survey: Which of these multicultural and high-risk populations do you serve? This survey question
offered 16 multicultural population response categories to which respondents could select as many as
were appropriate. In addition, two Other categories were offered where respondents could write-in two
Table No. 8: Multicultural and High-Risk Populations Served by Respondents from Combination
Departments N = 624
Hispanic 473 75.8%
Disabled 336 53.8%
Homeless 189 30.3%
Chinese 120 19.2%
Muslim 97 15.5%
Korean 93 14.9%
Russian 92 14.7%
Vietnamese 90 14.4%
Japanese 87 13.9%
Hmong 30 4.8%
Other6 121 19.4%

Table No. 9 contains the responses from 623 respondents from Combination Departments to Question #2
in the survey: Which of the following are issues for your department in providing services to your
multicultural and high-risk communities? This survey question offered eight issues from which the
respondents could select as many as were appropriate. In addition, a write-in option entitled, Other, was
Respondents from Combination Departments N = 623
prevention
community
Other 35 5.6%
Table No. 10 contains the responses from 623 respondents from Combination Departments to Question
#3 in the survey: What does your department need in order to establish more effective community risk-
reduction programs with multicultural and high-risk communities? This survey question offered ten
needs from which the respondents could select as many as were appropriate. In addition, a write-in
option entitled, Other, was also offered in the list of responses.
Multicultural and High-Risk Populations Served by Respondents from Combination Departments
N = 623
community leaders
Other 26 4.2%

3. Career Departments
Table No. 11 contains the responses from 612 respondents from Career Departments with less than 400
uniformed firefighters to Question #1 in the survey: Which of these multicultural and high-risk
populations do you serve? This survey question offered 16 multicultural population response categories
to which respondents could select as many as were appropriate. In addition, two Other categories were
offered where respondents could write-in two multicultural groups not identified in the original 16. For
reporting purposes, the number of responses in both Other categories have been summed.
Table No.11: Multicultural and High-Risk Populations Served by Respondents from Career
Departments with <400 Uniformed Firefighters N = 612
Hispanic 489 79.9%
Disabled 353 57.7%
Homeless 286 46.7%
Chinese 172 28.1%
Korean 158 25.5%
Muslim 151 24.7%
Japanese 127 20.8%
Russian 117 19.1%
Hmong 65 10.6%
Other7 136 22.2%
7 This figure represents the responses to the category entitled Other where respondents could identify department needs not included in the
original 10 response categories offered. For a listing of the write-in responses by all respondents, please see Appendix A
.

uniformed firefighters to Question #2 in the survey: Which of the following are issues for your
department in providing services to your multicultural and high-risk communities? This survey question
offered eight issues from which the respondents could select as many as were appropriate. In addition, a
write-in option entitled, Other, was also offered in the list of responses.
Respondents from Career Departments with <400 Uniformed Firefighters N = 610
prevention
community
Other 46 7.5%
uniformed firefighters to Question #3 in the survey: What does your department need in order to
establish more effective community risk-reduction programs with multicultural and high-risk
communities? This survey question offered ten needs from which the respondents could select as many
as were appropriate. In addition, a write-in option entitled, Other, was also offered in the list of
responses.
Multicultural and High-Risk Populations Served by Respondents from Career Departments with <400
Uniformed Firefighters N = 612
translators, etc.)
community leaders
Other 26 4.2%

4. Metro Departments
Table No. 14 contains the responses from 185 respondents from Metro Departments with 400 or more
uniformed firefighters to Question #1 in the survey: which of these multicultural and high-risk
populations do you serve? This survey question offered 16 multicultural population response categories
to which respondents could select as many as were appropriate. In addition, two Other categories were
offered where respondents could write-in two multicultural groups not identified in the original 16. For
reporting purposes, the number of responses in both Other categories have been summed.
Table No. 14: Multicultural and High-Risk Populations Served by Respondents from Metro
Departments with 400 Uniformed Firefighters N = 185
Hispanic 175 94.6%
Disabled 155 83.8%
Homeless 153 82.7%
Chinese 110 59.5%
Muslim 109 58.9%
Korean 107 57.8%
Japanese 88 47.6%
Russian 72 38.9%
Hmong 46 24.9%
Other8 37 20.0%

uniformed firefighters to Question #2 in the survey: Which of the following are issues for your
department in providing services to your multicultural and high-risk communities? This survey question
offered eight issues from which the respondents could select as many as were appropriate. In addition, a
write-in option entitled, Other, was also offered in the list of responses.
Respondents from Metro Departments with 400 Uniformed Firefighters N = 185
prevention
community
Other 6 3.2%
uniformed firefighters to Question #3 in the survey: What does your department need in order to
establish more effective community risk-reduction programs with multicultural and high-risk
communities? This survey question offered ten needs from which the respondents could select as many
as were appropriate. In addition, a write-in option entitled, Other, was also offered in the list of
responses.
Multicultural and High-Risk Populations Served by Respondents from Metro Departments with 400
Uniformed Firefighters N = 185
translators, etc.)
community leaders
Other 8 4.3%

5. State Fire Marshals
Table No. 17 contains the responses from 29 State Fire Marshal respondents to Question #1 in the
survey: Which of these multicultural and high-risk populations do you serve? This survey question offered
16 multicultural population response categories to which respondents could select as many as were
appropriate. In addition, two Other categories were offered where respondents could write-in two
Table No. 17: Multicultural and High-Risk Populations Served by State Fire Marshal Respondents N = 29
Hispanic 25 86.2%
Disabled 18 62.1%
Homeless 18 62.1%
Muslim 14 48.3%
Vietnamese 14 48.3%
Chinese 13 44.8%
Korean 11 37.9%
Japanese 10 34.5%
Russian 9 31.0%
Hmong 7 24.1%
9
Other 10 34.5%
9 This figure represents the responses to the category entitled Other where respondents could identify department needs not included in the

survey: Which of the following are issues for your department in providing services to your multicultural
and high-risk communities? This survey question offered eight issues from which the respondents could
select as many as were appropriate. In addition, a write-in option entitled, Other, was also offered in the
list of responses.
State Fire Marshal Respondents N = 29
prevention
community
Other 2 6.9%
survey: What does your department need in order to establish more effective community risk-reduction
programs with multicultural and high-risk communities? This survey question offered ten needs from
which the respondents could select as many as were appropriate. In addition, a write-in option entitled,
Other, was also offered in the list of responses.
Multicultural and High-Risk Populations Served by State Fire Marshal Respondents N = 29
community leaders
Other 1 3.4%

V. Discussion of Findings
The purpose of this study was to respond to three questions by surveying a full complement of urban,
suburban and rural firefighters and state fire marshals from across the nation through the use of a simple
survey questionnaire posted on the Internet.
Below are the three questions from which this study gathered data:
1. What multicultural and high-risk populations are being served by firefighters in communities
across the country?
2. What challenges do firefights experience in providing service to those multicultural and high-risk
communities?
3. What needs do firefighters identify that would help improve the effectiveness of fire prevention
and risk-reduction services within multicultural and high-risk communities?
The discussion of the study findings regarding those three questions are followed by a conclusion for
each.
A. Multicultural and High-Risk Communities Served
Table No. 20 indicates the wide variety of multicultural and high-risk populations identified by the 2,464
respondents to Survey Question #1, including those from the two write-in options. The figures below
represent the combining of Table No. 2 in Survey Findings, Section IV, and Table No. 26 in Appendix A.
Table No. 20: Multicultural and High-Risk Populations Served by All Respondents Integrated with
Write-in Responses in Both Other Categories for Question #1 N = 2464
MULTICULTURAL & HIGH-RISK POPULATION COUNT %-AGE
Hispanic 1658 67.3%
Disabled 1385 56.2%
Homeless 765 31.0%
Chinese 506 20.5%
Korean 432 17.5%
Muslim 425 17.2%
Japanese 373 15.1%
Russian 343 13.9%
Hmong 161 6.5%
Elders (aging, assisted living, nursing homes) 114 4.6%
Not Applicable and None 87 3.5%

MULTICULTURAL & HIGH-RISK POPULATION (cont.) COUNT %-AGE

Caucasian 61 2.5%
Serve Everyone (all, citizens, visitors, residents} 40 1.6%
Eastern European (Bosnian, Polish, Albanian, Ukrainian, Czech, Slavic) 35 1.4%
Poor and Low Income 28 1.1%
Diverse demographics (mixed races, large multicultural population) 28 1.1%
Americans 23 0.9%
Rural (farmers, small communities, Amish, Mennonites) 22 0.9%
Western European (French, Irish, Portuguese, German, Spanish, Italian) 20 0.8%
Pacific Islander (Polynesian, Tongan, Samoan, Micronesian) 18 0.7%
College Students, Student Housing 8 0.3%
Filipino 7 0.3%
Children & Youth 6 0.2%
State Agency Fire Marshals (respondents) 5 0.2%
Not Considered High-Risk and Have No Problem 4 0.2%
French Canadian 4 0.2%
Military, Veterans 3 0.1%
Motor Cycle Clubs/Gangs 2 0.1%
Drug Issues 2 0.1%
Fixed Income 2 0.1%
Industrial Areas 2 0.1%
Other (Items identified only once) 8 0.3%
The findings indicate that urban, suburban and rural fire departments and State Fire Marshals from all
around the nation serve multicultural and high-risk populations. The only difference appears to be the
degree to which the respondents identified each of the multicultural and high-risk populations their
departments serve.

The data presented in Table 21 compares the top10 multicultural and high-risk populations among 2,445
respondents from the four separate types of fire departments surveyed (Volunteer, Combination, Career
<400, and Metro 400). The data show a very high level of agreement. The following multicultural and
high-risk population groups, e.g., Hispanic, African-American, Disabled, Homeless, Native American,
Chinese, Korean, Muslim and South Asian, appear in the top-ten lists from each of the four types of fire
departments, with an agreement level of 90%, meaning that four out of five groups had agreement on all
but five items in the top ten list.
Table No. 21: The Top-Ten Multicultural and High-Risk Populations Served by Respondents from the
Four Types of Fire Departments N = 2445
VOLUNTEER FIRE COMBINATION FIRE CAREER FIRE METRO FIRE
#
DEPARTMENTS DEPARTMENTS. DEPARTMENTS DEPARTMENTS
1 Hispanic 49.6% Hispanic 75.8% Hispanic 79.9% Hispanic 94.6%
African- African- African- African-
2 46.9% 55.1% 70.3% 92.4%
American American American American
3 Disabled 42.9% Disabled 53.8% Disabled 57.7% Disabled 83.8%
Native
4 15.9% Homeless 30.3% Homeless 46.7% Homeless 82.7%
American
Native
5 Homeless 11.6% 22.6% Chinese 28.1% Vietnamese 64.9%
American
6 Chinese 9.0% Chinese 19.2% South Asian 27.5% Chinese 59.5%
South
7 8.1% South Asian 16.8% Vietnamese 26.6% Muslim 59.5%
Asian
Native
8 Korean 6.4% Muslim 15.5% 26.0% Korean 58.9%
American
9 Japanese 6.0% Korean 14.9% Korean 25.5% South Asian 53.0%
Native
10 Muslim 5.3% Russian 14.7% Muslim 24.7% 50.8%
American
Given the general movement from left to right in Table 21 corresponds with a growth in the size of the
community served, from rural through small and mid-size communities to metropolitan areas, an
additional tendency emerges.
In general, the greater the size of the community, the higher the percentage of multicultural and high-risk
populations served by respondents. For instance, while the South Asian grouping appears on the
Volunteer respondents list at position number 7, the same group drops to position 9 on the Metro
respondents list. However, only 8.1% of the Volunteer respondents identified serving that group, while
53% of the Metro respondents indicated they served South Asians.
Conclusion: Volunteer, Combination, Career (<400) and Metro firefighters ( 400) are all serving a wide
variety of multicultural and high-risk community members. A larger percentage of firefighters in larger
communities indicate they generally serve multicultural and high-risk populations.

B. Challenges in Providing Services in Multicultural and High-Risk Communities
Table No. 22 indicates the challenges and issues the 2,463 respondents indicated facing when attempting
to provide service to multicultural and high-risk populations in the responses to Survey Question #2,
including those from the write-in Other option. The figures below represent the combining of Table No. 3
in the Survey Findings, Section IV, and Table No. 27 in Appendix A.
Table No. 22: Issues Identified by All Respondents When Attempting to Provide Services to
Multicultural and High-Risk Communities Integrated with Write-in Responses in the Other Category
for Survey Question #2 N = 2463
DEPARTMENTAL ISSUE CATEGORY COUNT %-AGE
Communitys lack of knowledge about basic life safety and fire prevention 1245 50.5%
Fire department not understanding cultural practices and how this impacts 517 21.0%
service delivery
Fire departments lack of proactive relationships with the community 492 20.0%
Department has no such problems or issues 125 5.1%
Lack of funding/staff 22 0.9%
Problems that are within the community not the department 15 0.6%
Lack of funding for public outreach/education 13 0.5%
Lack of access and time 7 0.3%
Housing of transient and migrant populations 6 0.2%
Problems are within the department 4 0.2%
Inadequate training 3 0.1%
Elder population/nursing homes 3 0.1%
Dealing with community members with special needs 3 0.1%
Community members on drugs 2 0.1%
Don't know 2 0.1%
Not a fire department (State Fire Marshal respondents) 2 0.1%
Other (items identified only once) 11 0.4%
Ninety-five percent of the respondents indicated that they experienced challenges as they attempted to
deliver services to multicultural and high-risk populations in their respective communities. Nearly 50% or
more of the respondents identified these three major issues:
Language barriers
Communitys lack of knowledge about basic life safety and fire prevention

The data presented in Table 23 compares the findings from the four separate fire departments (excluding
the 29 fire marshals), surveyed regarding the issues identified by 2,445 respondents in their efforts to
provide service to multicultural and high-risk communities. An examination of the top five selections
within the different departments indicates an 80% level of agreement.
Table No. 23: Issues Respondents from the Four Types of Fire Departments Identified as
Experiencing When Attempting to Provide Services to Multicultural and High-Risk Communities
N = 2445
VOLUNTEER COMBO FIRE CAREER FIRE METRO FIRE
ISSUE CATEGORY FIRE DEPT DEPT %-AGE DEPT %-AGE DEPT %-AGE
%-AGE
Language barriers 40.1% 73.2% 77.5% 91.9%
Communitys lack of knowledge
about basic life safety and fire 43.2% 49.3% 55.2% 72.4%
prevention
Communitys lack of knowledge
about fire department services 48.8% 46.7% 45.9% 59.5%
Fire department not

understanding cultural practices
11.4% 28.6% 35.4% 48.6%
and how this impacts service
delivery
Fire departments lack of
proactive relationships with the 13.9% 17.8% 26.4% 36.2%
community
Communitys misuse of 9-1-1 17.2% 19.9% 17.9% 34.6%
Communitys fear of people in
uniform 6.2% 20.7% 25.6% 40.0%
Communitys distrust of the fire

department 6.2% 5.6% 8.0% 16.2%
Given that the general movement from left to right in Table 23 corresponds with a growth of the size of
the community served, from rural through small and mid-size communities to metropolitan areas, three
additional tendencies stand out.
The first is the huge jump in the importance of language barriers to communication between first
responders and multicultural and high-risk community members in rural areas compared to the urban
communities served by metro firefighters. The percentage of volunteers identifying language barriers
was more than doubled by the Metro department firefighters.
Second is the indication of the importance of understanding the cultural practices of multicultural and
high-risk communities and how they impact service delivery to those groups moving again from the rural
areas to the urban communities. The greater the size of the community served, the more firefighters
identify the impact of a lack of understanding of cultural practices when delivering services. The data
suggests that the more experiences firefighters have with different multicultural and high-risk groups, the
more they seem to realize what they dont know.

Third, as the communities served get larger in population and, thus, generally contain more multicultural
and high-risk community members, the degree of fear of people in uniform increases.
Conclusion: Rural, suburban, urban and metro firefighters all experience at different levels the following
challenges or issues when attempting to provide service to multicultural and high-risk community
members:
Communication with multicultural and high-risk community members is often impaired or
delayed by language differences.
Lack of knowledge in multicultural and high-risk communities regarding basic life safety and fire
prevention often interferes with the delivery of effective fire and EMS services.
Lack of knowledge in multicultural and high-risk communities about fire department services
often causes a strain on the resources of fire departments.
Lack of knowledge on the part of firefighters regarding the cultural practices of multicultural and
high-risk community members can negatively impact the delivery of timely fire and EMS services.

C. Needs that Would Help Improve the Effectiveness of Fire Prevention and Risk-Reduction Programs in
Multicultural and High-Risk Communities
Table No. 24 reveals the wide variety of departmental needs that would assist firefighters to establish
more effective fire prevention and risk-reduction programs within multicultural and high-risk
communities identified by 2,463 respondents in response to Survey Question #3. The table also includes
the write-in responses to the Other option. The figures below represent the combining of Table No. 4 in
Survey Findings, Section IV, and Table No, 28 in Appendix A.
Table No. 24: Departmental Needs Identified by All Respondents that Would Help Establish More
Effective Fire Prevention and Risk-Reduction Programs in Multicultural and High-Risk Communities
Integrated with Write-in Responses in the Other Category for Survey Question #3 N = 2466
DEPARTMENTAL NEED CATEGORY COUNT %-AGE
Knowledge about multicultural communities (cultural cooking, religious use of
candles, traditional medical practices, orientation to family, authority, how decisions are
made, trust issues with people in uniforms, gender issues, using children as translators, etc.) 821 33.3%
Proactive relationships with multicultural and high-risk community leaders 323 13.1%
Not applicable to department/No problems/issues 68 2.8%
Increased Funding/More staffing 32 1.3%
More education opportunities for community members 6 0.2%
Materials development for better marketing/educating 3 0.1%
Needs assessment and tools to help 3 0.1%
Residential code enforcement 3 0.1%
Tools and Supplies 3 0.1%
Improve use of 911 2 0.1%
Firefighter training 2 0.1%
Must speak English 2 0.1%
Not sure 2 0.1%
Other (items mentioned only once) 17 0.7%

The data presented in Table 25 compares the top ten departmental needs that would assist firefighters
to develop more effective fire prevention and risk-reduction programs within multicultural and high-risk
communities from the four types of fire departments surveyed. The results from 2,442 respondents
show a 60% level of agreement, meaning that all of the departments identified three of the same items in
their top-five ranked needs.
Table No. 25: Departmental Needs Identified by All Respondents That Would Help Establish More
Effective Fire Prevention and Risk-Reduction within Multicultural and High-Risk Communities
Integrated with Write-in Responses in the Other Category for Survey Question #3 N = 2442
VOLUNTEER FIRE COMBO FIRE CAREER FIRE METRO FIRE
NEEDS CATEGORY
DEPT %-AGE DEPT %-AGE DEPT %-AGE DEPT %-AGE
Greater community knowledge

about fire prevention 47.5% 45.9% 52.8% 61.6%
Greater community knowledge of

fire department services 49.4% 42.7% 39.5% 50.8%
Multilingual skills 26.1% 52.8% 56.2% 75.1%

Additional Resources to develop
and implement programs 36.9% 43.7% 47.5% 61.1%
Knowledge about multicultural

communities (cultural cooking, religious use
of candles, traditional medical practices,
orientation to family, authority, how decisions
16.1% 37.1% 47.7% 61.6%
are made, trust issues with people in uniforms,
Materials in other languages 16.4% 37.9% 46.7% 58.4%

Evaluation tools to measure impact 15.5% 27% 31.5% 53%
Higher priority given to prevention
in my department 17.5% 22.5% 35% 48.1%
Model programs from other

departments 17.3% 28.3% 29.1% 42.7%
Proactive relationships with

multicultural and high-risk 8.9% 23.1% 28.1% 54.6%
community leaders
A notable pattern emerges from the data presented in Table 25. In almost every case, the more
firefighters work directly with multicultural and high-risk community members, the larger the percentage
of respondents that selected the needs listed in the survey. For instance, in Line 5 above, Knowledge
about multicultural communities, the lowest percentage of respondents selecting that need was among
Volunteer respondents, while the highest percentage was chosen by Metro respondents. The Combo
and Career firefighters simply form intermediate steps. Of the ten needs listed above, only the first two,
Greater community knowledge about fire prevention and Greater community knowledge of fire
department services, do not follow that same pattern.

Another pattern occurs within the respondents from Metro departments. Eight of the ten needs listed
were selected by more than 50% of the Metro respondents. It would seem that what Metro firefighters
have learned from experience could be of some benefit to the other three types of departments, as the
data would appear to indicate an increasing distribution of multicultural and high-risk populations moves
into smaller communities and rural areas.
All four departmental respondents had multilingual skills either first or second, with the exception of the
Volunteer respondents who ranked that need fourth. There were some suggestions from the write-in
responses that seem worthy of consideration on that topic. Those revolved around the use of smart
phones or iPads with translation apps in the field when encountering a situation where a language barrier
exists.
Other write-in responses concerned the need for marketing materials and education for community
members who are unclear about the services of the fire department, the use of 911 and general
principles of fire prevention. Television and radio are often important sources of information within
multicultural and high-risk communities and the use of those media may offer benefits.
Survey Question #3 tested the interest in evaluation tools to measure the impact of the programs in
multicultural and high-risk communities. Some write-in respondents identified the importance of needs
assessment tools to aid them in program development.
Another small group of firefighters identified the importance of fire code enforcement, especially in
residential dwellings and apartment buildings.
The importance of training firefighters was identified as a need, though by a very small percentage.
Perhaps a listing of that topic in the options available in Survey Question #3 for selection by the
respondents might have given a better measure of how widespread the need for training is in order to
effectively deliver programs to multicultural and high-risk community members.
The number of respondents who indicated that the needs identified in Survey Question #3 were not
applicable to their departments primary service area or that additional funding and more staffing could
address these difficulties, numbered 100. However, in relation to the overall picture, that group
amounted to only 4.1% of the 2466 respondents.
Conclusion: Respondents from each of the separate types of fire departments offered some agreement
regarding the departmental needs in relation to establishing more effective fire prevention and risk-
reduction programs for the communities they serve.
However, when it comes to needs that help firefighters to interact more effectively with multicultural
and high-risk community members, the most critical seem to arise from those with the greatest
experience, firefighters in Metro departments. The following are needs that appear the most critical and
applicable to all firefighters:
Multilingual skills developing strategies and methods of communicating with community

members whose language is other than English.
Knowledge about multicultural communities learning about cultural norms of the different
multicultural and high-risk community members in the departments primary service area.

Greater community knowledge about fire prevention helping community members of different
cultures learn the basic principles of preventing fires.
Additional resources to develop and implement programs redeploying, or attracting additional
resources to design and conduct community outreach and education programs within
multicultural and high-risk communities.
Materials in other languages creating materials that can help firefighters communicate with
community members whose language is other than English, and materials that can be effectively
used in outreach or education programs within multicultural and high-risk communities.

VI. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
A. Summary of Study Findings
The purpose of this study was to gather and present data from a full national complement of fire
organizations across the U.S. regarding:
Identification of multicultural and high-risk populations served.
Challenges firefighters experience in providing services to multicultural and high-risk
communities.
Needs firefighters identify that would help to improve the effectiveness of fire prevention and
risk-reduction programs within multicultural and high-risk communities.
The findings associated with the above issues are summarized below.
1. Distribution of Respondents by Group
There were 2,474 fire organization personnel from 50 states and the District of Columbia and 29 State
Fire Marshals that responded to this survey. They were divided into five mutually exclusive groups.
Table 26 identifies the groups, number of respondents in each, and the corresponding percentages.
Table No. 26: Distribution of Respondents into the Five Groups
Respondent Groups Number of Respondents Percentage
All Respondents (total) 2474 100.1%*

Volunteer Department Respondents 1023 41.4%
Combination Department Respondents 625 25.3%
Career Department Respondents 612 24.7%
Metro Department Respondents 185 7.5%
State Fire Marshal Respondents 29 1.2%
*Percentages were rounded-up and, thus, the total may be more or less than 100%.
The table shows a majority ( 41%) of the respondents were from Volunteer Departments. Combination
and career departments less than (<) 400 personnel comprised 50% of the study. A limited number of
respondents came from Metro departments with more than () 400 firefighters and a small
representation were from State Fire Marshals offices.

2. Summary of Multicultural Communities Served by Respondents
Three of the 16 multicultural and high-risk populations were served by a majority (55%) of all survey
respondents. Table 27 identifies the highest ranked populations served by all respondents and the five
groups with associated percentages.
Table No. 27: Three Highest Ranked Multicultural and High-Risk Populations Served by Respondent Groups
Respondent Groups Hispanic African-American Disabled
All Respondents 66.5% 56.9% 55.5%

Volunteer Department Respondents 49.6% 46.9% 42.9%
Combination Department Respondents 75.8% 55.1% 53.8%
Career Department Respondents 79.9% 70.3% 57.7%
Metro Department Respondents 94.6% 92.4% 83.8%
State Fire Marshal Respondents 86.2% 72.4% 62.1%
Table 28 identifies the next highest populations by all respondents and the five groups with associated
percentages.
Table No. 28: Rankings 4, 5 and 6 of Multicultural and High-Risk Populations Served by Respondent Groups
Respondent Groups Homeless Native American Chinese

Volunteer Department Respondents 11.6% 15.9% 9.0%
Combination Department Respondents 30.3% 22.6% 19.2%
Career Department Respondents 46.7% 26.0% 28.1%
Metro Department Respondents 82.7% 50.8% 59.5%
State Fire Marshal Respondents 62.1% 51.7% 44.8%
Variations among the ranking of the five respondent groups serving the identified populations were
minimal. However, the percentages in all cases increased from Volunteer to Metro Departments. The
involvement of State Fire Marshal respondents with multicultural and high-risk communities was similar
to those of Metro Department respondents.

3. Summary of Challenges Respondents Experienced in Providing Services to Multicultural and High-Risk

Communities
More than half of all respondents experienced challenges in providing services to multicultural and high-
risk communities in at least three of the eight survey items. Table 29 identifies those highest ranked
challenges for all the respondent groups.
Table No. 29: Three Highest Ranked Challenges Faced During Providing Services to Multicultural and
High-Risk Populations as Selected by Respondent Groups
Community's Lack of
Community's Lack of
Language Knowledge About Basic
Challenges Knowledge About Fire
Barriers Life Safety and Fire
Department Services
Prevention
Volunteer Department
40.1% 48.8% 43.2%
Respondents
Combination Department
73.2% 49.3% 46.7%
Respondents
Career Department
77.5% 55.2% 45.9%
Respondents
Metro Department
91.9% 72.4% 59.5%
Respondents
State Fire Marshal
82.8% 75.6% 44.8%
Respondents
Volunteer Department respondents were the only grouping that failed to rank Language Barriers as a
number one priority. They ranked it third.

Table 30 identifies three additional challenges, identified by about 20% of all respondents.
Table No. 30: Rankings 4, 5 and 6 of Challenges Faced During Providing Services to Multicultural and
High-Risk Populations as Selected by Respondent Groups
Fire Department Not
Understanding Cultural Fire Department's Lack of Community
Challenges Practices and How They Proactive Relationships Misuse of
impact the Delivery of with the Community 9-1-1
Services
11.4% 13.9% 17.2%
Respondents
Combination
Department 28.6% 17.8% 19.9%
Respondents
Career Department
35.6% 26.4% 17.9%
Respondents
Metro Department
48.6% 36.2% 34.6%
Respondents
State Fire Marshal
41.8% 31.0% 13.8%
Respondents
Some differences in ranking and percentages existed between respondent groups, especially in
comparing Volunteer Departments with the other four groups. For example, Volunteer Department
respondents ranked the challenge, Fire Department Not Understanding Cultural Practices and How They
impact the Delivery of Services, sixth on their list, while a larger percentage of other group respondents
ranked it higher. These differences would seem consistent with the overall lower percentage of
multicultural and high-risk community members being served by respondents in Volunteer Departments.
Fire Marshal responses were consistent with Metro Department respondents in all areas except in the
question about misuse of 9-1-1. This is understandable because state fire marshals are not generally
involved with 9-1-1 calls.

4. Summary of Needs Respondents Selected to Help Improve the Effectiveness of Fire Prevention and
Risk-Reduction Programs Within Multicultural and High-Risk Communities
More than 40% of respondents in all five groups identified four of the ten Needs items that would
improve the effectiveness of fire prevention and risk-reduction programs in multicultural and high-risk
communities. Table 31 identifies the four highest ranked Needs. Of note, Volunteer Departments scored
higher than Combination Departments in wanting Greater Community Knowledge About Fire Prevention
and higher than Combination and Career Departments in wanting Greater Community Knowledge About
Fire Department Services.
Table No. 31: Four Highest Ranked Needs to Help Improve the Effectiveness of Fire Prevention and Risk-
Reduction programs Within Multicultural and High-Risk Communities as Selected by Respondent Groups
Additional
Greater Greater Community
Resources to
Community Knowledge About Multilingual
Needs Develop and
Knowledge About Fire Department Skills
Implement
Fire Prevention Services
Programs
All Respondents 49.6% 45.2% 44.4% 43.3%

47.5% 49.4% 26.1% 36.9%
Respondents
45.9% 42.7% 52.8% 43.7%
Respondents
Career Department
52.8% 39.5% 56.2% 47.5%
Respondents
Metro Department
61.6% 50.8% 75.1% 61.1%
Respondents
State Fire Marshal
65.5% 58.6% 58.6% 55.2%
Respondents

Table 32 identifies five of the remaining six survey items. The percentages were consistent with the
other questions, with volunteer departments tending to score lower than the other groups. Of note, The
State Fire Marshal respondents scored second lowest (20.7%) in the Higher Priority Given to Fire
Prevention in my Department.
Table No. 32: Next Five Highest Ranked Needs to Help Improve the Effectiveness of Fire Prevention and Risk-
Reduction programs Within Multicultural and High-Risk Communities as Selected by Respondent Groups
Knowledge Higher Priority Model

Materials in Evaluation
About Given to Fire Programs from
Needs Other Tools to
Multicultural Prevention in Other
Languages Measure Impact
Communities my Department Departments
All Respondents 33.3% 32.9% 25.6% 25.4% 25.2%
Volunteer
Department 16.1% 16.4% 15.5% 17.5% 17.3%
Respondents
Combination
Department 37.1% 37.9% 27.0% 22.5% 28.3%
Respondents
Career Department 47.7% 46.7% 31.5% 39.5% 29.1%

Respondents
Metro Department 61.6% 58.4% 53.0% 48.1% 42.7%

Respondents
State Fire Marshal 65.5% 48.3% 51.7% 20.7% 41.4%

Respondents
The five respondent groups showed greater variations on Survey Question #3 than any of the previous
questions. Volunteer departments may not have the financial or human resources to focus on services
other than emergency response.

B. Conclusions
In September 2007, FIRE 20/20 released the Multicultural Health and Safety Research Project (MHSRP)
Report. The research was funded through a FEMA Fire Prevention & Safety Research Grant. The study
was conducted in Seattle, Austin, Milwaukee and Calgary and included focus groups, interviews and
written/online surveys with firefighters and members of respective multicultural communities. The
MHSRP Report identified the four key findings that impacted risks and challenges between first
responders and their multicultural communities:
Bi-directional language barriers
Lack of trust
Gaps in cultural knowledge
Lack of proactive, non-emergency relationships
The question in this National Multicultural Community Fire Prevention Study is: Are those same issues
also prevalent when first responders interact with multicultural and high-risk populations regardless of
the size of the community or the type of fire organization?
A presentation of the relevant findings to each of the issues appears below followed by a short discussion
and a brief statement concerning the degree to which the findings of this study support the MHSRP
findings.
1. Bi-directional Language Barriers
Table 33 identifies respondents groups selecting Language Barriers and the corresponding ranking on
their respective lists.
Table No. 33: Percentage and Ranking of Language Barriers by Respondent Groups
Challenge: Language Barriers Percentage List Ranking
All Respondents 62.2% 1
Volunteer Department Respondents 40.1% 3
Combination Department Respondents 73.2% 1
Career Department Respondents 77.5% 1
Metro Department Respondents 91.9% 1
State Fire Marshal Respondents 82.8% 1
Language barriers ranked first among all survey respondents regarding issues related to providing
services to multicultural and high-risk populations. It was also first among all respondent groups, with
the exception of Volunteer Departments, where it ranked third.
Conclusion: The study findings clearly support that language barriers are viewed as a major issue when
all survey respondents attempt to provide fire and emergency medical services to multicultural and high-
risk populations.

The researchers suspect that it may be perceived as less of a problem for volunteer departments because
fewer immigrant and refugee groups live in rural communities. Another explanation may be that
residents speaking languages other than English remain more invisible to fire and emergency services
because of issues like lack of trust for people in uniform or government agencies as described below in
the Lack of Trust subsection. Generally, volunteers live in the area the department serves and tend to
know the local residents. Finally, volunteer departments overall provide fewer prevention programs,
where language barriers may be a major issue.
2. Lack of Trust
Lack of Trust relates to the following indicators in survey question #2:

Communitys fear of people in uniform
Communitys distrust of the fire department
Table 34 identifies respondents by group selecting Communitys Fear of People in Uniform and
Communitys Distrust of the Fire Department, along with the corresponding ranking on their respective
lists. An average percentage combining both indicators is provided in column 6.
Table No. 34: Ranking of Lack of Trust Indicators by Respondent Groups

Lack of Trust Community's Fear of People in Community's Distrust of the
Indicators Uniform Fire Department
Average
Percentage List Ranking Percentage List Ranking
Percentage*
All Respondents 17.5% 7 7.0% 8 12.3%
Volunteer
Department 6.2% 7 5.1% 8 5.6%
Respondents
Combination
Department 20.7% 5 5.6% 8 13.2%
Respondents
Career
Department 25.6% 6 8.0% 8 16.8%
Respondents
Metro
Department 40.0% 5 16.2% 8 28.1%
Respondents
State Fire Marshal 34.5% 5 24.1% 7 29.3%

Respondents
* Average percentage is calculated by dividing the number of respondent selections by the number of respondents and further dividing that
quotient by the number of categories selected.
Communitys Fear of People in Uniform was a bigger issue for Metro department respondents.
Community's Distrust of the Fire Department was a bigger issue for state fire marshal respondents.

Conclusion: The study findings generally support that survey respondents experience a lack of trust
between multicultural and high-risk populations as they deliver fire and emergency medical services.
However, those first responders from volunteer and combo departments, experiencing less involvement
with these populations, reported a lower degree of awareness of a lack of trust.
When these two issues were identified in FIRE 20/20s MHSRP Study, data was collected from both fire
department and community focus groups, interviews and online/written surveys. The findings in the
National Multicultural Community Fire Prevention Study as presented in Table 34 only reflect responses
from the five fire groups. The researchers suspect that based on data found in Table 36 below, about
limited proactive relationships with multicultural communities and their leaders, indicate that fire
organizations may not be aware or understand some of the concerns customers have about trust.
3. Gaps in Cultural Knowledge
Three indicators regarding the gaps in cultural knowledge were found in Questions #2 and #3:
Fire Department Not Understanding Cultural Practices and How This Impacts Service Delivery
(Question #2)
Knowledge About Multicultural Communities (Question #3)
Table 35 identifies respondents by groups selecting the two indicators of Gaps of Cultural Knowledge,
along with the corresponding ranking on their respective lists. Finally, there is an average percent that
combines the two indicators.
Table No. 35: Ranking of Gaps in Cultural knowledge Indicators by Respondent Groups
Fire Department Not
Gaps in Cultural Understanding Culture and Knowledge About
Knowledge Indicators How It Impacts Service Multicultural Communities
Delivery
List List Average
Percentage Percentage
Ranking Ranking Percentage*
All Respondents 24.8% 4 33.3% 5 29.1%
11.4% 6 16.1% 8 13.8%
Respondents
28.6% 4 37.1% 6 32.8%
Respondents
Career Department
35.4% 4 47.7% 3 41.6%
Respondents
Metro Department
48.6% 4 61.6% 3 55.1%
Respondents
State Fire Marshal
41.4% 4 65.5% 1 53.4%
Respondents

Consistent with other findings, volunteer departments responses scored lower than the other
respondent groups in this area. State fire marshals work less directly with multicultural and high risk
communities, yet identified Knowledge of Cultural Issues as their number one ranking and the percentage
of respondents was higher than all other groups.
Conclusion: The study findings support the 2007 MHSRP findings identifying gaps in cultural knowledge
for all groups as a priority.
4. Lack of proactive, non-emergency relationships
Indicators for a lack of proactive, non-emergency relationships were found in Questions #2 and # 3:
Fire departments lack of proactive relationships with the community (Question #2)
Proactive relationships with multicultural and high-risk community leaders (Question #3)
Table 36 identifies the percentage of respondents by group and their respective ranking of importance
for the two indicators relating to proactive relationships with multicultural and high-risk communities
and with their leaders.
Table No. 36: Ranking of Lack of Proactive, Non-Emergency Relationship Indicators by Respondent Groups
Lack of Proactive, Non- Fire Department's Lack of Proactive Relationships with
Emergency Relationships Proactive Relationships With Multicultural and High-Risk
Indicators the Community Community Leaders
List List Average
Percentage Percentage
Ranking Ranking Percentage*
All Respondents 19.8% 5 12.9% 10 16.4%
13.9% 5 9.4% 11 11.4%
Respondents
17.8% 7 23.1% 9 20.5%
Respondents
Career Department
26.4% 5 28.1% 10 27.3%
Respondents
Metro Department
36.2% 6 56.6% 6 45.4%
Respondents
State Fire Marshal
31.0% 6 37.9% 8 34.5%
Respondents
The revealed trend showed that the more involvement the respondent groups had in serving
multicultural and high-risk populations, the higher the percentage of respondents were that selected
issues and needs that indicated the lack of proactive, non-emergency relationships with these groups. All
five fire organizations, with the exception of the Metro department respondents, ranked the
importance of proactive relationships with leaders as being less important than relationships with the
community. The metro respondents ranked both of equal importance, in sixth place.

Conclusion: The study findings support that survey respondents experienced a lack of proactive, non-
emergency relationships within multicultural and high-risk communities. Volunteer Departments
identified a lack of these relationships to a lesser degree.
In summary, the findings from this National Multicultural Community Fire Prevention Study generally
support the MHSRP findings among the five groups of fire personnel that were surveyed, with two
exceptions. Both of these involve Volunteer department respondents who reported less involvement
with multicultural and high-risk populations in their local communities. Only 5.6% of the respondents
from Volunteer departments reported experiencing lack of trust as they encountered multicultural and
high-risk community members in the delivery of their services and only 11.4% reported issues related to
the lack of proactive, non-emergency relationships with those same populations during service delivery.
IV. Recommendations
A. Challenges and Needs:

The three highest ranked challenges faced by first responders
when providing services to multicultural and high-risk
populations as selected by all five respondent groups were
Language Barriers (62%), Community's Lack of Knowledge
About Basic Life Safety and Fire Prevention (50.4%), and
Community's Lack of Knowledge About Fire Department
Services (48.1%).
First responders identified the same topics, though in a

different order, when answering the next question about
what they would need to improve the effectiveness of fire
prevention and risk-reduction efforts with multicultural and
high-risk communities. Those needs were Greater Community
Knowledge about Fire Prevention (49.6%), Greater Community Knowledge About Fire Department Services
(45.2%) and Multilingual Skills (44.3%).
Recommendation 1. Add bilingual language proficiency to the list of first responder qualifications
and make it a hiring priority.
The most cost-effective strategy to address language barriers is to include bilingual proficiency as a job
skill and hiring priority. By hiring people who speak the languages of the community, the department will
reduce risks to both first responders and the public. Language fluency continues to raise the standards of
the department. This practice has been successful in law enforcement, government, education, the
military, and the private sector. Many of these sectors view this practice as a priority and some offer
language-proficiency pay incentives.
Recommendation 2. Outfit emergency response teams with a smart phone that can be used for
limited language translation in emergency situations.
Technology for emergency response language translation continues to improve. Smart phone and tablet
applications can help first responders to communicate simple concepts such as where is the pain? or is
there anyone else in the building? These translators are not effective however, for activities such as
relationship building, communicating to people about prevention, or translating written materials when
it is critical to convey cultural understanding, not just the translation of a few words.

Recommendation 3. Prioritize and initiate a concerted effort to build positive, proactive, non-
emergency relationships with leaders in multicultural and high-risk
populations for the purpose of developing effective methods for sharing
information regarding fire department services and delivering basic life
safety and fire prevention information.
Both of these challenges are impacted by fire organizations priority and ability to build positive,
proactive, non-emergency relationships with multicultural and high-risk communities. Through these
working relationships the community will take more ownership and work in partnership with their local
fire department to provide opportunities to learn more about basic life safety, fire prevention and
knowledge about their local fire department services. In that process, first responders will gain a greater
understanding of the cultures of the groups they serve.
FIRE 20/20s Partnering For Prevention ONLINE Training Program will be available beginning in October
2012. The program was developed through a FEMA Fire Prevention and Safety Grant and is hosted by
Fire Engineering University. The training is provided without cost to the fire service and is designed for
fire prevention personnel, fire marshals, and fire leadership. The purpose is to help participants build
relationships with multicultural and high-risk communities, acquire cultural understanding and develop
strategies to develop partnerships for prevention.
B. General:
Recommendation 4. Require additional demographic fields to be complete in the National Fire
Incident Reporting System (NFIRS).
Require demographic fields in NFIRS to be completed. This recommendation was part of the 2007
MSHRP funded by FEMA. However, the U.S. Fire Administration did not embrace the
recommendation. As a result, another five years has passed with valuable data not being collected and
analyzed that will save lives and properties. This data is even more important with the increased
demographic changes in our country and the substantial investment FEMA is making in the Vision 20/20
Fire Prevention Initiative, as well as the Federal grant dollars available for fire prevention efforts each
year.
C. Further Study:
Recommendation 5. Develop a study to explore budget-cutting options that would not negatively
affect programs oriented toward Fire Prevention.
Explore budget-cutting options that do not penalize outreach, educational and other prevention efforts
by fire departments. Fire prevention and community risk-reduction efforts are the most cost-effective
strategy to save lives and property. This is even more important if firefighting capacity is being reduced.
Recommendation 6. Develop a study to access the attitude of first responders to Fire Prevention
and associated programs designed to reduce risk.
An examination of firefighter attitudes toward prevention, and their view of it as mission critical as
emergency response is, has never been conducted. If the fire service is going to elevate the value of
prevention, it is critical to understand the mindset of firefighters toward this mission. A longitudinal
social research based study measuring and evaluating firefighter attitudes toward prevention efforts
from volunteer, combination, career and Metro departments could be integrated into Vision 20/20s
Strategy 3: RAISE THE IMPORTANCE OF FIRE PREVENTION WITHIN THE FIRE SERVICE. Additional

outcomes could include validated tools that departments could use for both entry-level and promotional
testing to measure candidates skills, knowledge and attitudes.
Recommendation 7. Develop a follow-up study that adds the category of elders to the list of
multicultural groups.
This study did not include seniors and elderly as one of the multicultural groups. According to the
Administration on Aging, senior population growth is expected to grow from 39.6 million in 2009 to 72.1
million in 2030. This will create a significant impact on fire and emergency services in the following areas
of service: emergency medical, fire suppression, fire prevention and life safety, and disaster planning and
management. A follow-up similar to this online survey to identify current risk factors and attitudes about
providing services (specifically fire prevention and life safety) to seniors would provide useful information
for more effectively assisting this fast-growing and critical population group.
Recommendation 8. Develop a study to explore the particulars related to Volunteer Departments

and their specific issues with serving multicultural and high-risk
communities.
Volunteer Departments reported the lowest interactions with multicultural and high-risk communities.
At the same time, Kenneth M. Johnson at the University of New Hampshires Carsey Institute recently
published a report indicating significant racial and ethnic minority migration into rural areas. First
responders from Volunteer Departments appear to have little experience with such population groups
and even lesser degree of cultural understanding. These volunteer organizations also may not have the
financial and human resources to provide these groups adequate services. A national study focusing on
the issues and needs regarding this migration would be very helpful in preparing volunteer first
responders and their departments. Dr. Johnson at Carsey Institute would be an excellent potential
collaborator on this research study.
http://carseyinstitute.unh.edu/sites/carseyinstitute.unh.edu/files/publications/IB-Johnson-Rural-
Demographic-Trends.pdf

APPENDIX A RESPONSES TO WRITE-IN CATEGORIES IN QUESTIONS 1 - 3
QUESTION NO. 1
The following table identifies the 590 write-in responses in the two Other response options found in Survey
Question #1: Which of these multicultural and high-risk populations do you serve? This survey question offered
16 multicultural population response options to which respondents could select as many as were appropriate.
In addition, two Other option fields were offered where respondents could add two write-in groups not
identified in the original 16. The write-in responses from all survey respondents are presented in categorized
form in Table No 37.
TABLE NO. 37: RESPONSES FROM ALL RESPONDENTS TO BOTH OTHER WRITE-IN CATEGORIES IN QUESTION
#1 REGARDING MULTICULTURAL AND HIGH-RISK POPULATIONS SERVED N=590
POPULATION CATEGORY COUNT %-AGE

Elders (aging, assisted living, nursing homes) 114 19.3%
Not Applicable and None 87 14.7%
Caucasian 61 10.3%
Serve Everyone (all, citizens, visitors, residents) 40 6.8%
Eastern European (Bosnian, Polish, Albanian, Ukrainian, Czech, Slavic) 35 5.9%
Poor and Low Income 28 4.7%
Diverse demographics (mixed races, large multicultural population) 28 4.7%
Americans 23 3.9%
Rural (farmers, small communities, Amish, Mennonites) 22 3.7%
Western European (French, Irish, Portuguese, German, Spanish, Italian) 20 3.4%
Latino/Hispanic (Mexico, Caribbean Islands, Brazil) 19 3.2%
Pacific Islander (Polynesian, Tongan, Samoan, Micronesian) 18 3.1%
Special Needs (hearing impaired, mentally challenged, uneducated) 17 2.9%
College Students and Student Housing 8 1.4%
Filipino 7 1.2%
Asian 7 1.2%
Children & Youth 6 1.0%
Western Asian (Indian, Kurds, Iraqi, Sikh) 6 1.0%
State Agency Members 5 0.8%
Southeast Asian (Burma, Cambodia, Myanmar) 5 0.8%
Not Considered High-Risk and Have No Problem 4 0.7%
French Canadian 4 0.7%
Military and Veterans 3 0.5%
Motor Cycle Clubs/Gangs 2 0.3%
African 2 0.3%
Drug issues 2 0.3%
Fixed Income 2 0.3%
Industrial Areas 2 0.3%
Other (Items identified only once) 8 1.4%
TOTAL 590

QUESTION NO. 2
The following table identifies the 232 write-in responses in the Other response category found in Survey
Question #2: Which of the following are issues for your department in providing services to your multicultural
and high-risk communities? This survey question offered eight issues from which respondents could select as
many as were appropriate. In addition, an Other field was offered where respondents could add one write-in
issue not identified in the original eight. The write-in responses from all survey respondents are presented in
categorized form in Table No. 38.
TABLE NO. 38: RESPONSES FROM ALL RESPONDENTS TO THE OTHER WRITE-IN CATEGORY IN QUESTION #2
REGARDING DEPARTMENTAL ISSUES RELATED TO MULTICULTURAL AND HIGH-RISK POPULATIONS SERVED
N=232
ISSUE CATEGORY COUNT %-AGE
None/No problems or issues 96 41.4%
Not Applicable 29 12.5%
Lack of funding/staff 22 8.6%
Problems that are within the communities being served 15 6.5%
Lack of funding for public outreach/education 13 5.6%
Housing of transient/migrant population 6 2.6%
Political relationships and tax base related 4 1.7%
Lack of Access 4 1.7%
Problems within fire department 4 1.7%
Lack of time 3 1.3%
Inadequate training 3 1.3%
Elder population/nursing homes 3 1.3%
Dealing with community members with special needs 3 1.3%
Lack of understanding volunteer firefighters by community members 3 1.3%
Apathy within the community 3 1.3%
Community members on drugs 2 0.9%
Misuse of 911 services 2 0.9%
Distrust of Government 2 0.9%
Don't know 2 0.9%
Not a fire department (State Fire Marshal respondents) 2 0.9%
TOTAL 232

QUESTION NO. 3
The following table identifies 152 the write-in responses in the Other response category found in Survey
Question #3: What does your department need in order to establish more effective community risk-reduction
programs with multicultural and high-risk communities? This survey question offered ten needs from which
respondents could select as many as were appropriate. In addition, an Other field was offered where
respondents could add one write-in need not identified in the original ten. The write-in responses from all
survey respondents are presented in categorized form in Table No. 39.
TABLE NO. 39: RESPONSES FROM ALL RESPONDENTS TO THE OTHER WRITE-IN CATEGORY IN QUESTION #3
REGARDING DEPARTMENTAL NEEDS RELATED TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF EFFECTIVE RISK-REDUCTION
PROGRAMS WITH MULTICULTURAL AND HIGH-RISK POPULATIONS SERVED N=152
DEPARTMENTAL NEEDS CATEGORY COUNT %-AGE
No problems/issues 46 30.3%
Not Applicable to my department 22 14.5%
Increased funding 16 10.5%
Additional staffing 16 10.5%
Additional education opportunities for community members 6 3.9%
Improving methods for field translation 5 3.3%
Improving political and community relationships 4 2.6%
Marketing materials for improving education of community 3 2.0%
More Tools and Supplies for firefighters 3 2.0%
Tools to help assess community needs 3 2.0%
Improving residential code enforcement 3 2.0%
Improving use of 911 by community members 2 1.3%
Additional firefighter training 2 1.3%
All community members must learn to speak English 2 1.3%
Not sure 2 1.3%
TOTAL 152

APPENDIX B SELECTED STATE DATA TABLES FOR STATE FIRE MARSHALS
The following tables contain respondent data on Survey Questions 1 3 from the states where State Agency Fire
Marshals responded to the survey. The selected states (presented in alphabetical order) and the associated
number of respondents are indicated in the heading and the questions appear in each table along with the
respective findings.
1. The State of Alaska 27 Respondents
AK TABLE No. 40: WHICH OF THESE MULTICULTURAL AND HIGH-RISK POPULATIONS DO YOU SERVE?
N = 27
MULTICULTURAL AND HIGH-RISK POPULATIONS SERVED COUNT %-AGE
Disabled 17 63.0%
Other 14 51.9%
African American 12 44.4%
Hispanic 12 44.4%
Homeless 12 44.4%
Russian 9 33.3%
Chinese 8 29.6%
Korean 8 29.6%
Vietnamese 7 25.9%
Hmong 6 22.2%
Japanese 6 22.2%
Muslim 5 18.5%
AK TABLE No. 41 WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING ARE ISSUES FOR YOUR DEPARTMENT IN PROVIDING SERVICES
TO YOUR MULTICULTURAL AND HIGH-RISK COMMUNITIES? N = 27
ISSUES IN PROVIDING SERVICES TO MULTICULTURAL AND HIGH-RISK
COUNT %-AGE
COMMUNITIES
Community lack of knowledge about fire department services 15 55.6%
Community lack of knowledge about basic life safety and prevention 13 48.1%
Other 9 33.3%
Fire department not understanding cultural practices and how this impacts service
8 29.6%
delivery
Community fear of people in uniform 7 25.9%
Fire department lack of proactive relationships with the community 5 18.5%
Community distrust of the fire department 4 14.8%
Community misuse of 9-1-1 3 11.1%

AK TABLE No. 42: WHAT DOES YOUR DEPARTMENT NEED TO ESTABLISH MORE EFFECTIVE COMMUNITY
RISK-REDUCTION PROGRAMS WITH MULTICULTURAL AND HIGH-RISK COMMUNITIES? N = 27
DEPARTMENT NEEDS FOR ESTABLISHING EFFECTIVE PROGRAMS IN
COUNT %-AGE
MULTICULTERUAL AND HIGH-RISK COMMUNITIES
candles, traditional medical practices, orientation to family, authority, how
13 48.1%
decisions are made, trust issues with people in uniform, gender issues, using
children as translators, etc.)
Additional resources to develop and implement programs 12 44.4%
Other 3 11.1%
2. The State of Arizona 47 Respondents
AZ TABLE No. 43: WHICH OF THESE MULTICULTURAL AND HIGH-RISK POPULATIONS DO YOU SERVE?
N = 47
MULTICULTURAL AND HIGH-RISK POPULATIOS SERVED COUNT %-AGE
Hispanic 42 89.4%
Disabled 30 63.8%
Homeless 24 51.1%
Vietnamese 12 25.5%
Muslim 11 23.4%
Chinese 10 21.3%
Korean 9 19.1%
Russian 9 19.1%
Japanese 8 17.0%
Other 8 12.8%
Hmong 3 6.4%

AZ TABLE No. 44: WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING ARE ISSUES FOR YOUR DEPARTMENT IN PROVIDING
SERVICES TO YOUR MULTICULTURAL AND HIGH-RISK COMMUNITIES? N = 47
COUNT %-AGE
COMMUNITIES
17 37.0%
delivery
Other 3 6.5%
AZ TABLE No. 45: WHAT DOES YOUR DEPARTMENT NEED TO ESTABLISH MORE EFFECTIVE COMMUNITY
DEPARTMENT NEEDS FOR ESTABLISHING EFFECTIVE PROGRAMS WITH
COUNT %-AGE
MULTICULTURAL AND HIGH-RISK COMMUNITIES
18 38.3%
Other 7 14.9%

3. The State of California 105 Respondents
CA TABLE No. 46: WHICH OF THESE MULTICULTURAL AND HIGH-RISK POPULATIONS DO YOU SERVE?
N = 105
Hispanic 95 90.5%
Disabled 66 62.9%
Homeless 55 52.4%
Vietnamese 54 51.4%
Korean 49 46.7%
Chinese 47 44.8%
Muslim 40 38.1%
Japanese 35 33.3%
Hmong 34 32.4%
Russian 29 27.6%
Other 22 21.0%
CA TABLE No. 47: WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING ARE ISSUES FOR YOUR DEPARTMENT IN PROVIDING
COUNT %-AGE
COMMUNITIES
37 35.2%
delivery
Other 9 8.6%

CA TABLE No. 48: WHAT DOES YOUR DEPARTMENT NEED TO ESTABLISH MORE EFFECTIVE COMMUNITY
COUNT %-AGE
64 61.0%
Model programs from other departments 43 41%
Other 7 6.7%
4. The State of Delaware 20 Respondents
DE TABLE No. 49: WHICH OF THESE MULTICULTURAL AND HIGH-RISK POPULATIONS DO YOU SERVE?
N = 20
African American 18 90%
Hispanic 17 85%
Disabled 7 35%
Native American 6 30%
Homeless 6 30%
South Asian (Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi, etc.) 5 25%
Chinese 5 25%
Vietnamese 4 20%
Muslim 4 20%
Korean 4 20%
Japanese 4 20%
Orthodox Jewish 3 15%
East African (Somalia, Ethiopia, Eritrea, etc.) 2 10%
Russian 2 10%
Other 2 10%
West African (Ghana, Liberia, Mali, Nigeria, Senegal, etc.) 1 5%

DE TABLE No. 50: WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING ARE ISSUES FOR YOUR DEPARTMENT IN PROVIDING
COUNT %-AGE
COMMUNITIES
Language barriers 17 85%
Community lack of knowledge about basic life safety and prevention 10 50%
Community lack of knowledge about fire department services 9 45%
7 35%
delivery
Fire department lack of proactive relationships with the community 6 30%
Community misuse of 9-1-1 6 30%
Community distrust of the fire department 4 20%
Community fear of people in uniform 4 20%
DE TABLE No. 51: WHAT DOES YOUR DEPARTMENT NEED TO ESTABLISH MORE EFFECTIVE COMMUNITY
COUNT %-AGE
Multilingual skills 15 75%
Greater community knowledge about fire prevention 12 60%
Greater community knowledge of fire department services 9 45%
Additional resources to develop and implement programs 9 45%
Materials in other languages 8 40%
7 35%
Proactive relationships with multicultural and high-risk community leaders
6 30%
Evaluation tools to measure impact 5 25%
Higher priority given to prevention in my department 4 20%

5. The State of Florida 97 Respondents
FL TABLE No. 52: WHICH OF THESE MULTICULTURAL AND HIGH-RISK POPULATIONS DO YOU SERVE?
N = 97
Hispanic 82 84.5%
Homeless 51 52.6%
Disabled 47 48.5%
Other 30 30.9%
Chinese 29 29.9%
Muslim 27 27.8%
Vietnamese 23 23.7%
Korean 21 21.6%
Japanese 17 17.5%
Russian 16 16.5%
Hmong 8 8.2%
FL TABLE No. 53: WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING ARE ISSUES FOR YOUR DEPARTMENT IN PROVIDING
COUNT %-AGE
COMMUNITIES
29 29.9%
delivery
Other 5 5.2%

FL TABLE No. 54: WHAT DOES YOUR DEPARTMENT NEED TO ESTABLISH MORE EFFECTIVE COMMUNITY
COUNT %-AGE
52 53.6%
32 33.0%
Other 3 3.1%
6. The State of Georgia 38 Respondents
GA TABLE No. 55: WHICH OF THESE MULTICULTURAL AND HIGH-RISK POPULATIONS DO YOU SERVE?
N = 38
Hispanic 33 86.8%
Disabled 22 57.9%
Homeless 13 34.2%
Vietnamese 11 28.9%
Chinese 11 28.9%
Korean 11 28.9%
Muslim 9 23.7%
Japanese 9 23.7%
Other 4 10.5%
Russian 3 7.9%

GA TABLE No. 56: WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING ARE ISSUES FOR YOUR DEPARTMENT IN PROVIDING
COUNT %-AGE
COMMUNITIES
19 50.0%
delivery
Other 1 2.6%
GA TABLE No. 57: WHAT DOES YOUR DEPARTMENT NEED TO ESTABLISH MORE EFFECTIVE COUNITY RISK-
REDUCTION PROGRAMS WITH MULTICULTURAL AND HIGH-RISK COMMUNITIES? N = 38
COUNT %-AGE
25 65.8%
9 23.7%
Other 1 2.6%

7. The State of Idaho 9 Respondents
ID TABLE No. 58: WHICH OF THESE MULTICULTURAL AND HIGH-RISK POPULATIONS DO YOU SERVE?
N=9
Disabled 7 77.8%
Hispanic 5 55.6%
Homeless 4 44.4%
Russian 3 33.3%
Muslim 2 22.2%
Chinese 2 22.2%
Japanese 2 22.2%
Korean 1 11.1%
Other 1 11.1%
ID TABLE No. 59: WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING ARE ISSUES FOR YOUR DEPARTMENT IN PROVIDING
ISSUES IN PROVIDING SERVICE IN MULTICULTURAL AND HIGH-RISK
COUNT %-AGE
COMMUNITIES
3 33.3%
delivery
Other 1 11.1%

ID TABLE No. 60: WHAT DOES YOUR DEPARTMENT NEED TO ESTABLISH MORE EFFECTIVE COMMUNITY
COUNT %-AGE
6 66.7%
3 33.3%
8. The State of Kansas 18 Respondents
KS TABLE No. 61: WHICH OF THESE MULTICULTURAL AND HIGH-RISK POPULATIONS DO YOU SERVE?
N = 18
Hispanic 13 72.2%
Disabled 8 44.4%
Homeless 4 22.2%
Vietnamese 3 16.7%
Muslim 3 16.7%
Russian 3 16.7%
Chinese 2 11.1%
Korean 2 11.1%
Japanese 2 11.1%
Other 2 11.1%
Hmong 1 5.6%

KS TABLE No. 62: WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING ARE ISSUES FOR YOUR DEPARTMENT IN PROVIDING
COUNT &-AGE
COMMUNITIES
4 22.2%
delivery
KS TABLE No. 63: WHAT DOES YOUR DEPARTMENT NEED TO ESTABLISH MORE EFFECTIVE COMMUNITY
COUNT %-AGE
7 38.9%
7 38.9%

9. The State of Massachusetts 4 Respondents
MA TABLE No. 64: WHICH OF THESE MULTICULTURAL AND HIGH-RISK POPULATIONS DO YOU SERVE?
N=4
Hispanic 3 75%
Homeless 2 50%
Disabled 2 50%
Other 2 50%
African American 1 25%
Vietnamese 1 25%
Hmong 1 25%
Muslim 1 25%
Chinese 1 25%
Korean 1 25%
Japanese 1 25%
Russian 1 25%
MA TABLE No. 65: WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING ARE ISSUES FOR YOUR DEPARTMENT IN PROVIDING
COUNT %-AGE
COMMUNITIES
2 50%
delivery
Other 1 25%

MA TABLE No. 66: WHAT DOES YOUR DEPARTMENT NEED TO ESTABLISH MORE EFFECTIVE COMMUNITY
DEPARTMENT NEEDS FOR ESTABLISHING EFFECTIVE FOR MULTICULTURAL AND
COUNT %-AGE
HIGH-RISK COMMUNITIES
1 25%
1 25%
Higher priority given to prevention in my department 1 25%
10. The State of Maryland 95 Respondents
MD TABLE No. 67: WHICH OF THESE MULTICULTURAL AND HIGH-RISK POPULATIONS DO YOU SERVE?
N = 95
Hispanic 69 72.6%
Disabled 51 53.7%
Homeless 43 45.3%
Chinese 22 23.2%
Korean 22 23.2%
Vietnamese 21 22.1%
Muslim 18 18.9%
Other 17 17.9%
Japanese 15 15.8%
Russian 13 13.7%
Hmong 3 3.2%

MD TABLE No. 68: WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING ARE ISSUES FOR YOUR DEPARTMENT IN PROVIDING
COUNT %-AGE
COMMUNITIES
24 25.3%
delivery
Other 6 6.3%
MD TABLE No. 69: WHAT DOES YOUR DEPARTMENT NEED TO ESTABLISH MORE EFFECTIVE COMMUNITY
DEPARTMENT NEEDS FOR ESTABLISHING MORE EFFECTIVE PROGRAMS FOR
COUNT %-AGE
MULTICULTURAL AND HIGH-RISK POPULATIONS
34 35.8%
26 27.4%
Other 3 3.2%

11. The State of Maine 1 Respondent
ME TABLE No. 70: WHICH OF THESE MULTICULTURAL AND HIGH-RISK POPULATIONS DO YOU SERVE?
N=1
Vietnamese 1 100%
Hmong 1 100%
Hispanic 1 100%
Homeless 1 100%
Disabled 1 100%
Muslim 1 100%
ME TABLE No. 71: WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING ARE ISSUES FOR YOUR DEPARTMENT IN PROVIDING
COUNT %-AGE
COMMUNITIES
1 100%
delivery
Fire department lack of proactive relationships with the community 1 100%

ME TABLE No. 72: WHAT DOES YOUR DEPARTMENT NEED TO ESTABLISH MORE EFFECTIVE COMMUNITY
RISK REDUCTION PROGRAMS WITH MULTICULTURAL AND HIGH-RISK COMMUNITIES? N = 1
DEPARTMENT NEEDS FOR ESTABLISHING OF EFFECTIVE PROGRAMS FOR
COUNT %-AGE
1 100%
1 100%
Evaluation tools to measure impact 1 100%
12. The State of Michigan 28 Respondents
MI TABLE No. 73: WHICH OF THESE MULTICULTURAL AND HIGH-RISK POPULATIONS DO YOU SERVE?
N = 28
Hispanic 17 60.7%
Disabled 13 46.4%
Muslim 8 28.6%
Homeless 5 17.9%
Chinese 5 17.9%
Russian 4 14.3%
Korean 3 10.7%
Japanese 3 10.7%
Other 3 10.7%

MI TABLE No. 74: WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING ARE ISSUES FOR YOUR DEPARTMENT IN PROVIDING
COUNT %-AFE
COMMUNITIES
12 42.9%
delivery
Other 3 10.7%
MI TABLE No. 75: WHAT DOES YOUR DEPARTMENT NEED TO ESTABLISH MORE EFFECTIVE COMMUNITY
COUNT %-AGE
9 32.1%
Other 1 3.6%

13. The State of Minnesota 32 Respondents
MN TABLE No. 76: WHICH OF THESE MULTICULTURAL AND HIGH-RISK POPULATIONS DO YOU SERVE?
N = 32
Hispanic 22 68.8%
Disabled 18 56.3%
Hmong 11 34.4%
Russian 11 34.4%
Other 8 25.0%
Muslim 7 21.9%
Vietnamese 6 18.8%
Homeless 6 18.8%
Chinese 5 15.6%
Korean 5 15.6%
Japanese 4 12.5%
MN TABLE No. 77: WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING ARE ISSUES FOR YOUR DEPARTMENT IN PROVIDING
COUNT %-AGE
COMMUNITIES
10 31.3%
delivery
Other 4 12.5%

MN TABLE No. 78: WHAT DOES YOUR DEPARTMENT NEED TO ESTABLISH MORE EFFECTIVE COMMUNITY
COUNT %-AGE
12 38.7%
7 22.6%
Other 3 9.7%
14. The State of Montana 6 Respondents
MT TABLE No. 79: WHICH OF THESE MULTICULTURAL AND HIGH-RISK POPULATIONS DO YOU SERVE?
N=6
Homeless 4 66.7%
Disabled 4 66.7%
Hispanic 3 50.0%
Hmong 2 33.3%
Russian 2 33.3%
Muslim 1 16.7%
Korean 1 16.7%
Japanese 1 16.7%

MT TABLE No. 80: WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING ARE ISSUES FOR YOUR DEPARTMENT IN PROVIDING
COUNT %-AGE
COMMUNITIES
2 33.3%
delivery
Other 1 16.7%
MT TABLE No. 81: WHAT DOES YOUR DEPARTMENT NEED TO ESTABLISH MORE EFFECTIVE COMMUNITY
COUNT %-AGE
3 50%
2 33.3%

15. The State of New Hampshire 59 Respondents
NH TABLE No. 82: WHICH OF THESE MULTICULTURAL AND HIGH-RISK POPULATIONS DO YOU SERVE?
N = 58
Disabled 34 58.6%
Homeless 20 34.5%
Hispanic 19 32.8%
Other 18 31.0%
Chinese 13 22.4%
Vietnamese 10 17.2%
Japanese 7 12.1%
Muslim 6 10.3%
Korean 5 8.6%
Russian 4 6.9%
Hmong 2 3.4%
NH TABLE No. 83: WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING ARE ISSUES FOR YOUR DEPARTMENT IN PROVIDING
COUNT %-AGE
COMMUNITIES
13 22.0%
delivery
Other 8 13.6%

NH TABLE No. 84: WHAT DOES YOUR DEPARTMENT NEED TO ESTABLISH MORE EFFECTIVE COMMUNITY
COUNT %-AGE
21 35.6%
7 11.9%
Other 5 8.5%
16. The State of New York 258 Respondents
NY TABLE No. 85: WHICH OF THESE MULTICULTURAL AND HIGH-RISK POPULATIONS DO YOU SERVE?
N = 257
Disabled 137 53.3%
Hispanic 115 44.7%
Other 98 38.1%
Homeless 52 20.2%
Chinese 42 16.3%
Japanese 35 13.6%
Russian 35 13.6%
Muslim 34 13.2%
Korean 33 12.8%
Vietnamese 27 10.5%
Hmong 11 4.3%

NY TABLE No. 86: WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING ARE ISSUES FOR YOUR DEPARTMENT IN PROVIDING
COUNT %-AGE
COMMUNITIES
42 16.3%
delivery
Other 38 14.7%
NY TABLE No. 87: WHAT DOES YOUR DEPARTMENT NEED TO ESTABLISH MORE EFFECTIVE COMMUNITY
RISK REDUCTION PROGRAMS WITH MULTICULTURAL AND HIGH-RISK COMMUNITIES? N = 258
COUNT %-AGE
51 19.8%
36 14%
Other 31 12%

17. The State of Oklahoma 46 Respondents
OK TABLE No. 88: WHICH OF THESE MULTICULTURAL AND HIGH-RISK POPULATIONS DO YOU SERVE?
N = 46
Hispanic 34 73.9%
Disabled 23 50.0%
Homeless 17 37.0%
Vietnamese 13 28.3%
Muslim 10 21.7%
Chinese 10 21.7%
South Asian 9 19.6%
Korean 9 19.6%
Japanese 9 19.6%
Russian 4 8.7%
Other 2 4.3%
Hmong 1 2.2%
OK TABLE No. 89: WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING ARE ISSUES FOR YOUR DEPARTMENT IN PROVIDING
ISSSUES IN PROVIDING SERVICES TO MULTICULTURAL AND HIGH-RISK
COUNT %-AGE
COMMUNITIES
8 17.8%
delivery
Other 3 6.7%

OK TABLE No. 90: WHAT DOES YOUR DEPARTMENT NEED TO ESTABLISH MORE EFFECTIVE COMMUNITY
COUNT %-AGE
13 28.3%
Other 1 2.2%
18. The State of Oregon 87 Respondents
OR TABLE No. 91: WHICH OF THESE MULTICULTURAL AND HIGH-RISK POPULATIONS DO YOU SERVE?
N = 86
Hispanic 77 89.5%
Disabled 49 57.0%
Homeless 40 46.5%
Russian 16 18.6%
Other 15 17.4%
Japanese 13 15.1%
Chinese 11 12.8%
Vietnamese 10 11.6%
Korean 8 9.3%
Muslim 4 4.7%
Hmong 2 2.3%

OR TABLE No. 92: WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING ARE ISSUES FOR YOUR DEPARTMENT IN PROVIDING
COUNT %-AGE
COMMUNITIES
19 22.1%
delivery
Other 3 3.5%
OR TABLE No. 93: WHAT DOES YOUR DEPARTMENT NEED TO ESTABLISH MORE EFFECTIVE COMMUNITY
COUNT %-AGE
28 32.2%
10 11.5%
Other 3 3.4%

19. The State of South Carolina 34 Respondents
SC TABLE No. 94: WHICH OF THESE MULTICULTURAL AND HIGH-RISK POPULATIONS DO YOU SERVE?
N = 34
Hispanic 28 82.4%
Disabled 19 55.9%
Homeless 10 29.4%
Chinese 6 17.6%
Vietnamese 3 8.8%
Korean 3 8.8%
Japanese 3 8.8%
Russian 3 8.8%
Muslim 3 8.8%
Other 2 5.9%
SC TABLE No. 95: WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING ARE ISSUES FOR YOUR DEPARTMENT IN PROVIDING
COUNT %-AGE
COMMUNITIES
6 17.6%
delivery

SC TABLE No. 96: WHAT DOES YOUR DEPARTMENT NEED TO ESTABLISH MORE EFFECTIVE COMMUNITY
COUNT %-AGE
12 35.3%
9 26.5%
20. The State of Utah 42 Respondents

TABL: WHICH OF THESE MULTICULTURAL AND HIGH-RISK POPULATIONS DO YOU SERVE? N = 34
UT TABLE No. 97: WHICH OF THESE MULTICULTURAL AND HIGH-RISK POPULATIONS DO YOU SERVE?
N = 42
Hispanic 34 81.0%
Disabled 19 45.2%
Homeless 13 31.0%
Other 9 21.4%
Chinese 6 14.3%
Vietnamese 5 11.9%
Japanese 5 11.9%
Korean 4 9.5%
Russian 4 9.5%
Muslim 3 7.1%
Hmong 2 4.8%

UT TABLE No. 98: WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING ARE ISSUES FOR YOUR DEPARTMENT IN PROVIDING
COUNT %-AGE
COMMUNITIES
8 19.5%
delivery
Other 3 7.3%
UT TABLE No. 99: WHAT DOES YOUR DEPARTMENT NEED TO ESTABLISH MORE EFFECTIVE COMMUNITY
DEPARTMENT NEEDS FOR ESTABLISHING OF MORE EFFECTIVE PROGRAMS FOR
COUNT %-AGE
13 31.7%
8 19.5%
Other 1 2.4%

21. The State of Virginia 154 Respondents
VA TABLE No. 100: WHICH OF THESE MULTICULTURAL AND HIGH-RISK POPULATIONS DO YOU SERVE?
N = 153
Hispanic 105 68.6%
Disabled 79 51.6%
Homeless 44 28.8%
Muslim 29 19.0%
Vietnamese 26 17.0%
Chinese 25 16.3%
Korean 25 16.3%
Japanese 21 13.7%
Other 21 13.7%
Russian 14 9.2%
Hmong 4 2.6%
VA TABLE No. 101: WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING ARE ISSUES FOR YOUR DEPARTMENT IN PROVIDING
COUNT %-AGE
COMMUNITIES
37 24.0%
delivery
Other 7 4.5%

VA TABLE No. 102: WHAT DOES YOUR DEPARTMENT NEED TO ESTABLISH MORE EFFECTIVE COMMUNITY
COUNT %-AGE
45 29.4%
31 20.3%
Other 11 7.2%
22. The State of West Virginia 233 Respondents
WV TABLE No. 103: WHICH OF THESE MULTICULTURAL AND HIGH-RISK POPULATIONS DO YOU SERVE?
N = 230
Disabled 134 58.3%
Other 79 34.3%
Hispanic 61 26.5%
Homeless 30 13.0%
Chinese 16 8.3%
Japanese 16 7.0%
Korean 11 4.8%
Vietnamese 10 4.3%
South Asian 9 3.9%
Muslim 9 3.9%
Russian 4 1.7%
Hmong 1 0.4%

WV TABLE No. 104: WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING ARE ISSUES FOR YOUR DEPARTMENT IN PROVIDING
COUNT %-AGE
COMMUNITIES
Other 44 19.2%
17 7.4%
delivery
WV TABLE No. 105: WHAT DOES YOUR DEPARTMENT NEED TO ESTABLISH MORE EFFECTIVE COMMUNITY
COUNT %-AGE
Other 24 10.5%
21 9.2%

National Multicultural Community Fire Prevention Study

Cargado por

Información del documento

Derechos de autor

Formatos disponibles

Compartir este documento

Compartir o incrustar documentos

Opciones para compartir

¿Le pareció útil este documento?

¿Este contenido es inapropiado?

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

National Multicultural Community Fire Prevention Study

Cargado por

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

National Multicultural Community Fire

Developed by FIRE 20/20

Written by Lou Piotrowski, Ph.D.

Larry Sagen Kami Higa

Carol Remz, Ph.D. Reynie Shoemaker

2010-2012, FIRE 20/20 and Lou Piotrowski, Ph.D. i

2010-2012, FIRE 20/20 and Lou Piotrowski, Ph.D. ii

For the purpose of the MHSRP study, the term

Copies of the final MHSRP Report were sent to

2010-2012, FIRE 20/20 and Lou Piotrowski, Ph.D. 3

Bi-directional language barriers

Lack of proactive, non-emergency relationships

II. Problem Statement

Identity of multicultural and high-risk populations served

Challenges firefighters experience in providing services to multicultural and high-risk

2010-2012, FIRE 20/20 and Lou Piotrowski, Ph.D. 4

Departments with volunteer firefighters only (Volunteer Departments)

Departments with a combination of volunteer and career firefighters (Combo Departments)

Departments with <400 career firefighters (Career Departments)

Departments with 400 career firefighters (Metro Departments)

State Fire Marshals Offices

2010-2012, FIRE 20/20 and Lou Piotrowski, Ph.D. 5

A straight statistical analysis was employed to generate findings in this study.

2010-2012, FIRE 20/20 and Lou Piotrowski, Ph.D. 6

IV. Survey Findings

A. Findings from all Respondents

Table No. 1: Total Number of All Respondents by Type of Department N = 2474

Chart #1: Type of Department for all 2474 Survey Respondents

2010-2012, FIRE 20/20 and Lou Piotrowski, Ph.D. 7

Chart #2: Multicultural Populations Selected by More Than

2010-2012, FIRE 20/20 and Lou Piotrowski, Ph.D. 8

Communitys lack of knowledge about basic life safety and prevention

Communitys lack of knowledge about fire department services

Fire department not understanding cultural practices and how this

Communitys misuse of 9-1-1

Communitys fear of people in uniform

Communitys distrust of the fire department

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

2010-2012, FIRE 20/20 and Lou Piotrowski, Ph.D. 9

2010-2012, FIRE 20/20 and Lou Piotrowski, Ph.D. 10

Chart #4: Departmental Needs to More Effectively Serve Multicultural

Greater community knowledge about fire prevention

Greater community knowledge of fire department

Additional Resources to develop and implement

Materials in other languages

Evaluation materials to measure impact

Higher priority given to prevention in my department

Model programs from other departments

Proactive relationships with multicultural and high-risk

0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0%

2010-2012, FIRE 20/20 and Lou Piotrowski, Ph.D. 11

B. Findings from Each of the Respondent Groups by Department Type

2010-2012, FIRE 20/20 and Lou Piotrowski, Ph.D. 12

2010-2012, FIRE 20/20 and Lou Piotrowski, Ph.D. 13

2. Combination Departments, with both Volunteer and Career Personnel

2010-2012, FIRE 20/20 and Lou Piotrowski, Ph.D. 14

2010-2012, FIRE 20/20 and Lou Piotrowski, Ph.D. 15

2010-2012, FIRE 20/20 and Lou Piotrowski, Ph.D. 16

2010-2012, FIRE 20/20 and Lou Piotrowski, Ph.D. 17

2010-2012, FIRE 20/20 and Lou Piotrowski, Ph.D. 18

2010-2012, FIRE 20/20 and Lou Piotrowski, Ph.D. 19

5. State Fire Marshals

2010-2012, FIRE 20/20 and Lou Piotrowski, Ph.D. 20

2010-2012, FIRE 20/20 and Lou Piotrowski, Ph.D. 21