Research was prompted to find data that measured the effectiveness of juvenile
firesetter programs that was comparable to national statistics. The purpose was to
identify a means for using data with an evaluation system to determine measurable results
and long-term effectiveness regarding recidivism. This would provide justification for
on-going continuance of the program and funding.
Descriptive research was used to answer three questions:
- After a juvenile completes an intervention program, what follow-up is conducted to audit
for any reoccurrence of fireplay or firesetting?
- How long after completion of an intervention program is follow-up conducted and how many
follow-ups are done and for how long of a period (i.e., months, years) does it continue?
- What information is compiled to monitor and evaluate the program? Are there any national
models for monitoring a program?
The procedure to determine the results involved searching for information that
referenced setting up a Juvenile Firesetter Program (JFP) or summarized existing programs.
Due to limited literature available, a survey was sent to organizations and fire
departments that had a JFP. In order to locate programs, the Internet was used as well as
JFP’s referenced in literature.
The results of the literature search established that there was a national model for
frequency and length of time to follow-up with juveniles to audit for recidivism.
Additionally, a national model was found on data collection that could be used for
evaluation purposes related to recidivism. The national models were compared to survey
results.
Recommendations included revising existing data collection and increasing follow-ups to
pattern the national model. To compare results of the JFP to local, county, and state
statistics, the recommendation was to support the State Fire Marshal to implement a
statewide coalition. Comparing the JFP results nationally could be accomplished by
networking methods.
INTRODUCTION
"A juvenile firesetter program should be working toward a specific outcome,
through a well understood process. Without this, we will wander aimlessly about never
knowing if we have arrived at our destination" (Porth, October, 1992, p. 12).
In 1997, the Fire Chief of the Maple Grove Fire Department asked if a report on the
recidivism rate of the juveniles that had successfully completed our intervention program
could be provided. If so, for what period of time was the recidivism rates based on? He
also asked if the data the program tracked could be compared to national statistics.
A management information system (MIS) was in place that tracked case characteristics of
the firesetter and the firesetting incident, the services that were provided, and date of
occurrences. Other than the MIS at that time, the only follow-up that was conducted was a
questionnaire that was mailed to the juvenile’s parent’s six months after
completion of the program. Other than repeat fire incidents that the fire department
responded to, there was no other real documentation to back up the success of the program.
The significant purpose of this research is to provide support and national based
modeling for the Maple Grove Fire Intervention Commission. There is a need to implement a
means for summarizing and analyzing data that is comparable to national statistics. This
information, coupled with an evaluation system to determine measurable results and the
long-term effectiveness of the program in regards to recidivism, would provide
justification for on-going continuance of the program and funding.
This should be a concern for those in government service to continue to grow and
survive in today's competitive economy. "In today’s demanding fiscal climate,
all programs are under intensive scrutiny to prove their worth. Gone are the days when we
can say to the administration, ‘just trust me’" (Porth, 1992, p. 13). This
research may also be significant to other local and county fire departments that want to
improve the evaluation and professional image of their fire intervention programs.
Descriptive research was conducted to answer three questions:
- After a juvenile completes an intervention program, what follow-up is conducted to audit
for any reoccurrence of fireplay/firesetting?
- How long after completion of an intervention program is follow-up conducted and how many
follow-ups are done and for how long of a period (i.e., months, years) does it continue?
- What information is compiled to monitor and evaluate the program? Are there any national
models for monitoring a program?
BACKGROUND AND SIGNIFICANCE
"Early in the 1980’s, FBI statistics on the percentages of incendiary fires
started by children brought the problem of juvenile firesetting to the forefront"
(Treatment…, 1989, p. 10). On October 4, 1997 the FBI National Press Office in
Washington, DC released the Uniform Crime Report, 1996 Crime Statistics.
A total of 88,887 arson offenses was reported in 1996….Of the arson cleared by law
enforcement during 1996, 45 percent involved only people under the age of 18, a higher
percentage of juvenile involvement than for any other Index crime. (FBI, 1997, p. 4)
Programs that deal with juvenile firesetters have been around for many years. These
programs varied in the information that was kept, and how this information was used.
Recognizing the need for increased knowledge about how to reduce the problem of
juvenile firesetting, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP)
and the U.S. Fire Administration (USFA) funded an initiative from 1987 through 1993 known
as the National Juvenile Firesetter/Arson Control and Prevention (NJF/ACP) Program.
Through a nationwide assessment of juvenile firesetter programs, the NJF/ACP defined seven
components common to effective juvenile firesetter programs. Of these, "a monitoring
component to track the program’s identification and treatment of juvenile firesetters
was identified". (Garry, 1997, p. 3)
While many juvenile firesetter programs have developed some internal system to monitor
their caseloads, others simply maintain individual case files with no systematic way to
track cases, determine final dispositions, report to funding agencies, etc. Very few have
systems capable of being used for evaluation purposes. (NJF/ACP, Fire Service Guide, 1994,
p. 108)
Programs for juvenile firesetters usually begin in a community out of need and grow
with that need. The first priority is to help the child and then as the program grows,
usually out of necessity, the effectiveness of the program becomes a reality. In the
NJF/ACP Assessment Report, Executive Summary (Sept 1989), program effectiveness was
assessed of juvenile firesetter programs across the nation. The executive summary reports
that,
Most of the programs are essentially "home grown", developed in
trial-and-error fashion by one or two people committed to solving the problem of juvenile
firesetting in their communities. In some instances, the results have been very
impressive, in other cases, less so. (Cook, Gaynor, Hersch, Roehl, 1989, p. 13)
Many programs boast about low recidivism rates, but they do not follow-up on juveniles.
In fact, many rely solely on whether a juvenile starts a fire that will require the
services of the fire department or if they are caught; therefore are then referred back to
the program. "Most programs report recidivism rates, and they are invariably quite
low, rarely exceeding 7%. The rates are subject to question, because so few programs
maintain accurate follow-up statistics" (Cook, et al., 1989, p. 13).
The NJF/ACP, Fire Service Guide to a Juvenile Firesetter Early Intervention Program
(1994) states, "Simple monitoring systems are recommended for all juvenile
firesetting programs regardless of size…" (p. 40). This guide explains that,
Monitoring systems serve different purposes, depending on the information they contain
and the uses to which they are put. At the most elemental level, a management information
system (MIS) is needed for case tracking, caseload analysis, and reporting of program
results…. Extending the MIS to include recidivism and other follow-up data provides
the basic building blocks for an evaluation system. (p. 40)
Programs across the U.S. continue to strive for effectiveness and justification for
juvenile firesetter programs. Don Porth, Juvenile Firesetter Program Manager of the
Portland (OR) Fire Bureau, quoted Mark Twain in a 1992 article, "Mapping Out A
Successful Juvenile Firesetter Program." "Supposing is good, finding out is
better" (p. 14). Porth goes on to say,
"Having a program and reaping the rewards that a program has to offer can provide
us with the following:
- Justification for program existence
- Justification for program expansion
- The ability to evaluate and judge program effectiveness
- Collection of useful information that can help us all better understand the juvenile
firesetter problem. (p. 14)"
This research is relevant to the Executive Development Course because it relates
directly to several units studied during the course including Organizational Change and
Development and Service Quality. The results of this research will actively apply the
course concepts in the real world.
LITERATURE REVIEW
The literature review encompassed reviewing manuals, handbooks and journal articles.
The literature review began by examining The Preadolescent Firesetter Handbook, Ages:
7–13, (1988). It is one of a three-volume sequence on juvenile firesetting
intervention developed for assisting the fire service and other agencies. Although these
handbooks were first available in 1988, they are still in use today and are currently
available upon request from FEMA-USFA (FEMA-120, 1997). Appendix 2 of this handbook has
one page of information on program monitoring and evaluation. The leading paragraph
states, "There are methods of determining the effectiveness of your program.
Monitoring (or documentation) lets you know whether you followed or are following your
program plan. Evaluation measures whether what you did had an effect on the problem"
(p. 117).
Examples are given of less formal methods that fire departments can use to determine
effectiveness of a program. One of the examples was to document the number of juvenile
recidivists (repeaters) but does not indicate clearly how to go about this. The other two
volumes did not have any information relating to follow-up or monitoring the status of a
juvenile in relation to recidivism or elements of what a monitoring system should include.
In an attempt to find data that had information specifically targeting recidivism and
nationally modeled information systems, the next step of the literature review was of the
NJF/ACP, Assessment Report, Executive Summary. "The report summarizes the results of
Stage I of a four stage program, the assessment of the incidence and dynamics of juvenile
firesetting and juvenile firesetter programs" (Cook, et al., 1989, Preface).
In order to develop a prototype, a national search was conducted to locate existing
programs. Then 70 programs were sent a two-stage mail survey. To fully examine the
programs, two-day site visits conducted by the Institute for Social Analysis (ISA) were
made to 13 of the programs (Cook, et al., 1989).
A monitoring system is one of seven elements identified to form a prototype program
manual to be developed in Stage II. The building blocks to develop the monitoring system
element include: "Building and maintaining systems for tracking the disposition of
cases, recidivism rates, and rates of juvenile firesetting" (Cook, et al., 1989, p.
11).
In October of 1993, an inaugural meeting took place consisting of a 25-member National
Fire Protection Association Task Force. The mission of this task force was to define the
needs in the area of juvenile firesetting. The group defined specific, prioritized
strategies for reducing the problem of juvenile firesetting. The group came up with areas
that posed the greatest barriers that communities faced on a local level. One of these
mega-themes (as it was titled by the task force), was the need to use data more
effectively. (Report of the NFPA Task Force on Juvenile Firesetting, Inaugural Meeting,
1993, pp. 2-4)
Specific recommended actions included:
- Develop common sense guidelines for the fire service and the mental health and education
communities on where to find and how to use available data appropriately. Identify the
limitations of various sources of data so that users can make good choices.
- Present data in summary form, using easy-to-understand graphics (perhaps in
‘one-pager’ format).
- Use data to raise public and professional awareness of the juvenile firesetter issue.
(Report of the NFPA Task Force on Juvenile Firesetting, Inaugural Meeting, 1993, p. 13)
In September of 1995, a continuum of the inaugural meeting was held. This group had
some of the original participants but included new participants with a focus on experience
and skill. These participants came from across the U.S. and Canada and included a range of
disciplines that worked with juvenile firesetters. Twenty-two specific action items were
identified. Improved data collection was one of these. The participants agreed with the
necessity to "develop a minimum set of data elements needed for consistent national
data collection" (Report of the NFPA Juvenile Firesetter Practitioners’ Forum,
1995, pp. 9-10).
A recommendation was made to NFPA, "To provide assistance in designing a uniform
data collection tool to be used by local fire departments and juvenile firesetter
screening/intervention programs" (p. 14).
As a result of the NJF/ACP Assessment, ISA developed three program manuals that have
components that describe how to develop, implement and operate a juvenile firesetter
program (NJF/ACP, Fire Service Guide…," 1994). These manuals are: Guidelines for
Implementation, FEMA/USFA, FA-147/June 1994, The User’s Guide, FEMA/USFA, FA-145/
June 1994, and the Trainer’s Guide, FEMA/USFA, FA-149/ June 1994. In addition, Fire
Service Guide to a Juvenile Firesetter Early Intervention Program, FEMA/USFA, FA-146 /June
1994, was also developed which integrates part of the information in the Implementation
Guide and explains how to implement one type of the advocated programs. These manuals are
currently available upon request from the FEMA-US Fire Administration, FEMA Publications
Catalog, FEMA-20/July 1997.
The literature review of these manuals focused specifically on follow-up to audit for
any reoccurrence of fireplay or firesetting and what information is necessary to monitor
and evaluate a program.
The Trainer’s Guide provided curriculum content summary of the three major types
of monitoring systems: " The first is a Management Information System (MIS). An MIS
provides timely information on the number and types of cases handled by the program"
(NJF/ACP, Trainer’s Guide, 1994, p. 19).
The second type of monitoring system is an evaluation system. A program evaluation
system is an extension of a MIS in that it uses the data generated by the MIS to analyze
program operations and outcome. In addition to caseload information, an effective
evaluation system will include data on firesetting recidivism and follow-up information on
caseload disposition. (NJF/ACP, Trainer’s Guide, 1994, p. 19)
An incident reporting system is the third type of monitoring system. Its purpose is to
record basic information on all known juvenile firesetting incidents, regardless if the
firesetter is known or handled by the juvenile firesetter program (JFP). The basic data
needed to monitor jurisdiction-wide rates of juvenile arson, firesetting, and gauge the
effectiveness of education and outreach efforts of the program are provided by the data of
an incident reporting system (NJF/ACP, Trainer’s Guide, 1994 and NJF/ACP, Guidelines
for Implementation, 1994).
The User’s Guide "is a cookbook format that guides the reader from the
planning to the execution of an effective community program" (NJF/ACP, User’s
Guide, 1994, p. 3). This volume is designed to be a companion document to be used with the
other volumes. It highlights key information and then outlines decision elements. The
guide is set up in the same format as the other manuals so information can be easily and
quickly found in the other volumes (NJF/ACP, User’s Guide, 1994).
Having current and accurate data on program operation provides management with
information on the relative impact and effectiveness of the program. This information can
be invaluable when it comes time for sustaining or increasing the funding, staffing, and
general life of the program. (NJF/ACP, User’s Guide, 1994, p. 35)
Guidelines for Implementation, (NJF/ACP, Guidelines for Implementation, 1994) is based
on the seven different components which highlight the aspects of a program. The
information presented is detailed and comprehensive. The sixth component is comprised of
monitoring systems. "A Management Information System (MIS) should include case
characteristics of the firesetter and the firesetting incident, services rendered, dates
of key events, and the final disposition of the case" (NJF/ACP, Guidelines for
Implementation, 1994, p. 108).
An MIS provides the means for summarizing the program’s caseload (the number of
cases handled, case type, firesetter characteristics, number and type of services
rendered, etc.), and providing data for annual reports, evaluations, and funding agencies.
(NJF/ACP, Guidelines for Implementation, 1994, p. 108)
An evaluation system would contain all of the information above plus follow-up data on
firesetting recidivism and other problems such as delinquency, school or family problems,
etc. The evaluation is an extension of the MIS, rather than a separate system. Much of the
data in such an evaluation system may come form the program’s routine follow-up
contacts with families of firesetters and the referral agencies to which they are
referred. (NJF/ACP, Guidelines for Implementation, 1994, p. 108)
The management information and evaluation system may be kept manually, but since
personal computers have become increasingly prevalent in the workplace, computerization is
advised.…When a program reaches somewhere between 75 and 100 cases per year,
computerization is probably warranted. (NJF/ACP, Guidelines for Implementation, 1994, p.
112)
The Implementation Guide, (NJF/ACP, Guidelines for Implementation, 1994) includes
specific case information and other data to be kept in each of the proposed three
monitoring systems. This information can be found in the results of this research.
To extend the MIS to become an evaluation system, follow-up activities must take place
with a number of key agencies to determine the long-term effectiveness of the intervention
strategies in terms of recidivism. For evaluation purposes, a program needs to know about
juvenile delinquency, continued problems at school or home, etc. Quarterly contacts should
be made with the family and key agencies for a year or two after the precipitating
incident to inquire about recidivism and related problems. (NJF/ACP, Guidelines for
Implementation, 1994, p.114)
Parents are probably the best single source of follow-up information, if sufficient
rapport has been built to enable the parents to report any additional delinquent behaviors
or other problems. Telephone contact should be made with the parents rather than sending
an impersonal form. (NJF/ACP, Guidelines for Implementation, 1994, p.114)
A review of the Fireproof Children Handbook (Bills, Cole, Crandall, Schwartzman,
1990) found that there was some reference to collecting data. This data collection was
targeted more to starting a new program to justify the need. Sample forms are included in
the handbook and some of these could be used for ongoing data collection. There was no
specific information or instruction in the handbook regarding follow-up after intervention
activities to audit for recidivism.
A review of Playing with Fire: A Deadly Game, A Companion Manual (Pinsonneault,
1991) found that this manual was primary for setting an interagency juvenile firesetter
intervention program. There was no specific information or instruction in the manual on
data collection or follow-up after intervention activities to audit for recidivism. The
sample forms that were included were not related to a MIS or evaluation.
PROCEDURES
Initial research began at the Learning Resource Center (LRC), Emmitsburg, MD, to look
for articles in journals, reports, and periodicals that related to juvenile firesetting.
Using the words juvenile firesetter as a starting point, sources were searched looking for
information. The information that was found was narrowed down to those articles or reports
that had reference to setting up an intervention program, what other fire departments with
juvenile firesetter programs (JFP) reported, and those that reported or summarized
existing programs.
Accessing the World Wide Web and using the LRC’s online card catalog continued the
literature search. A local library was used to borrow materials through interlibrary loan.
The limitations found in searching for information through the LRC was that the
information obtained was not recent. There were limited recent articles in journals and
periodicals. The local library had very little information.
To find out current information that fire intervention programs across the U.S. are
compiling to monitor and evaluate their programs, as well as how the program is tracking
recidivism rates, a survey was conducted. The findings of the survey showed how JFP’s
are evaluating recidivism and what statistics they are reporting. This is covered in
detail in the Results section of this research.
The World Wide Web was used to search for fire departments and organizations throughout
the U.S. to send out the survey. When a fire department or organization was located,
information was collected such as the address, phone number and fax number, if available.
Not all web sites provided this information, so e-mail was used to send surveys. Reference
lists included in handbooks and manuals were also a source of fire departments and
organizations with programs. Because many of these were not recently published, most of
the contact persons were no longer in that particular department or at times employed with
the organization.
The surveys were sent out to the random fire departments and organizations, as they
were located. The only criterion that was used was that the fire department or
organization had a JFP. The surveys were sent out over a span of several months. Follow-up
phone calls were made to those departments and organizations that did not return the
surveys. The surveys were sent out by several different methods including mail, facsimile,
or electronic mail. Forty-one surveys were sent. Twenty-six or approximately 63.4% of
these were completed and returned. A sample of the survey letter can be found in Appendix
A, followed by the answers from the individual JFP surveys. These can be found in Appendix
B.
DEFINITIONS
Fireplay: "Child ‘fireplay’ incidents typically involve children who are
too young to understand the danger of their actions" (Reardon, 1990, p.68).
Firesetting: "Juvenile firesetting…is a deliberate act typically committed by
children old enough to understand the dangers of their behavior" (Reardon, 1990, p.
70).
RESULTS
The results of the research project come from the comprehensive examination of all of
the data from manuals, handbooks, and journal articles and the completed survey. From the
26 or 63% of the surveys that were returned, in few instances was the information returned
from different JFP’s worded in the same way. Because of this, the process required
dissecting the information in the returned surveys to correlate the results. This
information is then compared to the results of the research from the manuals, handbooks,
and journal articles. The results of this project have been grouped and summarized in text
and table form.
Research Question One
After a juvenile completes an intervention program, what follow-up is conducted to
audit for any reoccurrence of fireplay or firesetting?
Nineteen or 73% of the JFP’s surveyed answered yes to question one. One of these
JFP’s answered no to question one, but reported some follow-up based on time allowing
in question two. Seven or 27% answered no. To clarify this, one of the programs said that
although they did not conduct follow-up, they do monitor fire calls and reports for cases
that involve youth.
Research Question Two
How long after completion of an intervention program is follow-up conducted and how
many follow-ups are done and for how long of a period (i.e., months, years) does it
continue?
Of the 26 surveys that were returned, 18 JFP’s report that that they conduct
follow-up with juveniles after they complete the program. One other JFP reports that
follow-up is based on time allowing. Of the JFP’s that conducted follow-up, only a
set of two programs follow the same time frequency and regularity. Of these four programs,
two conduct follow-up at one month after the juvenile completes the program and then again
at six and 12 months. The method of follow-up was not reported. The other three conduct
only one follow-up at six months. One program uses an evaluation card and the other
conducts a progress report on the client’s written goals.
Two other programs report three follow-up frequencies. The first program reported
follow-ups at three months, six to nine months and at 12 months, using the phone contact
as the follow-up method. If a phone was not available, then mail is used. The other
program reports follow-up at three months, six months and 12 months. The method of
follow-up is not reported.
Four JFP’s reported follow-ups that are structured according to the risk factors
of the individual juvenile. The first program conducts one follow-up at one month after
completion of the program. If the juvenile is referred for counseling or therapy, then
follow-up is done at three-month intervals for at least two years on average. A phone call
or visit is the method used to follow-up. The second program conducts two follow-ups at
three months and again at six months after completion of the program for higher risk
juveniles, but conducts one follow-up at six months for lower risk juveniles. Method of
follow-up is not reported. The third program has somewhat less formalized follow-up
procedures. An initial follow-up is conducted at one week after completion of the program.
Depending on each individual juvenile and their circumstances including such things as age
and risk level, the follow-ups are continued on a weekly basis for four to six months. The
method of follow-up is not reported. The last program conducts follow-up at two and six
weeks, but depending on the incident, may continue to follow-up more or less.
Four JFP’s conduct two scheduled follow-ups. The first program at six and 12
months with a mailed questionnaire. The second program at one and five months, with a
phone call at one month and a program evaluation mailed at five months, and the third
program at one and 12 months with a phone call or by mail. The fourth program conducts
follow-ups at two and six weeks. The method of follow-up is not reported.
Four programs report one follow-up. The first at three months with a letter mailed,
another program at four months with a phone call or by mail, the third program conducts
follow-up three months after appearance in court. The follow-up is conducted by
Children’s Hospital. If any are missed, follow-up is then conducted one to two months
later. The last JFP reports one follow-up conducted at six months, but this was based on
time allowing.
Including the JFP that does follow-up as time permits, 37% of the programs does one
follow-up after completion of the program. Twenty-one percent of the programs conduct
follow- ups that are structured according to the risk factors of the individual juvenile.
Twenty-one percent of the programs conduct two follow-ups and 21% conduct three
follow-ups. A table outlining these results can be found in Appendix C.
The results of the literature review show that there is a national model for frequency
of follow-up with juveniles to audit for recidivism. The national model, Guidelines for
Implementation, indicates that,
Quarterly contacts should be made with the family and key agencies for a year or two
after the precipitating incident to inquire about recidivism and related
problems….Telephone contact should be made with the parents rather than sending an
impersonal form. (NJF/ACP, Guidelines for Implementation, 1994, p. 114)
The survey results were compared to the national model. Of the JFP’s surveyed, one
program conducts quarterly follow-ups for one to two years. The JFP continues follow-up at
three month intervals for at least two years on the average when the individual is
referred for counseling or therapy. Six or approximately 2.3% of the JFP’s continued
follow-ups for one year.
Research Question Three
What information is compiled to monitor and evaluate the program? Are there any
national models for monitoring a program?
The answers to Question 3 found in the 26 surveys, is consolidated into an alphabetical
list to determine the frequency of identical statistics. Two hundred and forty different
statistical items are recorded. These items are located in Table D1, All Statistical
Information From All Surveys in Appendix D. Only 11 statistical items or approximately
4.5% of the total items were found in the 26 surveys that are stated identically. To
clarify the results, the three JFP’s that used the Massachusetts State-Wide Juvenile
Firesetter Program Coalition form are not included unless another program also uses the
same statistic. These statistics and the number of times they were found are as follows:
Table 1
Frequency of Identical Statistics
Statistical Information
Fa
Address
2
Age
5*
Grade
4*
Marital Status
2
Number of injuries
2
Race
3
Referral source
3
School name
2
Sex
5*
Total dollar loss
2
Zip Code
2
________________________________________________________________________
Note. Fa represents the number of times a statistic is found in more
than one survey with identical wording. The three JFP’s that used the Massachusetts
State-Wide Juvenile Firesetter Program Coalition form are not included unless another
program also used the same statistic found in the surveys.
*= Three of these are used in the JFP’s who use the Massachusetts State-Wide
Juvenile Firesetter Program Coalition form.
Although there are only 11 identical statistics found in the 240 statistical items,
many of the items have the same intent or are related. The statistical items are then
arranged into nine different categories. This allows the information to be grouped that
has the same intent or that is related. The first category, Table E1, Information Relating
to the Juvenile, found in the appendix, has 35 different statistical items. Five or
approximately 14.3% of the statistical items have the same intent or are related with a
frequency in at least four other cases. These statistical items and the frequency to
others are shown as follows:
Table 2
Frequency of Related Information for Juvenile
Statistics Relating to Juvenile
Fa Fc
Age
5
10
Sex
5
6
Grade
4
5
ADHD? (Yes or No)
3
4
History of
fireplay (Yes or No)
1
14
________________________________________________________________________
Note. Fa represents the number of times a statistic is found in more
than one survey with identical wording. The three JFP’s that used the Massachusetts
State-Wide Juvenile Firesetter Program Coalition form are not included unless another
program also used the same statistic found in the surveys. Fc represents the
statistical items that have the same intent or were related to other statistics with a
frequency in at least 4 other instances.
The second category, found in Table E2, Information Relating to Parent or Guardian and
Residence or Environment, included in the appendix, has 30 different statistical items.
Two or approximately 6.7% of the statistical items have the same intent or are related
with a frequency in at least four other cases. These statistical items and the frequency
to others are shown as follows:
Table 3
Frequency of Related Information to Parent or Guardian and Residence or Environment
Statistics Relating to Parent or Guardian
and Residence or Environment
Fa
Fc
Marital status
2
8
Number of smokers in home
1
4
________________________________________________________________________
Note. Fa represents the number of times a statistic is found in more
than one survey with identical wording. The three JFP’s that used the Massachusetts
State-Wide Juvenile Firesetter Program Coalition form are not included unless another
program also used the same statistic found in the surveys. Fc represents the
statistical items that have the same intent or were related to other statistics with a
frequency in at least 4 other instances.
In the third category, Table E3, Information Relating to Fire Incident, located in the
appendix, has 33 different statistical items. Three or approximately 9.4% of the
statistical items have the same intent or are related with a frequency in at least four
other cases. These statistical items and the frequency to others are shown as follows:
Table 4
Frequency of Statistics Relating to Fire Incident
Statistics Relating to Fire Incident
Fa Fc
Ignition source
1 7
Incident date and time
1 7
Most common place for firesetting
1 7
________________________________________________________________________
Note. Fa represents the number of times a statistic is found in more
than 1 survey with identical wording. The 3 JFP’s that used the Massachusetts
State-Wide Juvenile Firesetter Program Coalition form are not included unless another
program also used the same statistic found in the surveys. Fc represents the
statistical items that have the same intent or were related to other statistics with a
frequency in at least 4 other instances.
The fourth category, Table E4, Information Relating to Program, Services, and
Education, located in the appendix, has 60 different statistical items. Six or 10% of the
statistical items have the same intent or are related with a frequency in at least four
other cases. These statistical items and the frequency to others are shown as follows:
Table 5
Frequency of Statistics Relating to Program, Services, and Education
Statistics Relating to Program, Services,
and Education Fa
Fc
Assessment determination
1 4
Most common age
1 8
Sex, Number of males, females
1 9
Number of students in program
1 9
Number of hours involved in each case
1
4
Program evaluation
1
4
________________________________________________________________________
Note. Fa represents the number of times a statistic is found in more
than 1 survey with identical wording. The 3 JFP’s that used the Massachusetts
State-Wide Juvenile Firesetter Program Coalition form are not included unless another
program also used the same statistic found in the surveys. Fc represents the
statistical items that have the same intent or were related to other statistics with a
frequency in at least 4 other instances.
In the fifth category, Table E5, Information Relating to Referral or Other Agencies,
located in the appendix, has 29 different statistical items. All of these statistical
items have the same intent or are related in some way. These items related to the agencies
that referred or were referred to.
In the sixth category, Table E6, Information Relating to Fire Department Information,
located in the appendix, has five different statistical items. All of these statistical
items have different intent or relation. These items each specifically relate to
information that is specific to fire departments such as name and address, reporting, etc.
In the seventh category, Table E7, Information Relating to Injuries, Deaths, and
Damages, located in the appendix, has 30 different statistical items. Three or 10% of the
statistical items have the same intent or are related with a frequency in at least four
other cases. These statistical items and the frequency to others are shown as follows:
Table 6
Frequency of Statistics Relating to Injuries, Deaths, and Damages
Statistics Relating to Injuries, Deaths, and
Damages Fa
Fc
Number of injuries
4 12
Number of deaths
1 7
Total dollar loss
2 13 ________________________________________________________________________
Note. Fa represents the number of times a statistic is found in more
than 1 survey with identical wording. The 3 JFP’s that used the Massachusetts
State-Wide Juvenile Firesetter Program Coalition form are not included unless another
program also used the same statistic found in the surveys. Fc represents the
statistical items that have the same intent or were related to other statistics with a
frequency in at least 4 other instances.
Category 8, Table E8, Miscellaneous Information, located in the appendix, has 18
different statistical items. One or approximately 5.6% of the statistical items have the
same intent or are related with a frequency in at least four other cases. This statistical
item and its frequency to other is shown as follows:
Table 7
Frequency of Miscellaneous Information
Miscellaneous Statistics
Fa Fc
Number of fires involving children playing
with fire 1
6
________________________________________________________________________
Note. Fa represents the number of times a statistic is found in more
than one survey with identical wording. The 3 JFP’s that used the Massachusetts
State-Wide Juvenile Firesetter Program Coalition form are not included unless another
program also used the same statistic found in the surveys. Fc represents the
statistical items that have the same intent or were related to other statistics with a
frequency in at least 4 other instances.
The last category, Table E9, Information Relating to Recidivism, located in the
appendix, has four different statistical items. All of the statistical items have the same
intent or are related with a frequency in at least four other cases. The items are all
related to recidivism in some way.
The results of the literature review show one national model for evaluation purposes to
determine effectiveness as it relates to recidivism rates. The national model is located
in the Guidelines for Implementation and Fire Service Guide to a Juvenile Firesetter Early
Intervention Program. These manuals and two others were supported by a grant awarded to
the ISA by OJJDP and USFA. (FA-147, 1994). This initiative took place from 1987 through
1993 and is known as the NFP/ACP (Garry, 1997, pp. 3-4). The national model, Central
Elements of the Monitoring Systems, MIS includes the following:
Management Information System (MIS). There are four categories of data included in an
MIS:
I. Case characteristics
- Source of referral
- Age, sex, race, family status of firesetter
- Details of the firesetting incident—motive, presence of others, location of fire,
materials used, damage estimate, injuries, deaths
- Past firesetting incidents
- Initial assessment after screening (e.g., little, definite, or extreme risk)
II. Services rendered
- Dates, content, and length of educational sessions; dates, purposes, and agencies of
referral(s); number and type of counseling sessions; details of other services (mentor
pairing, restitution, community service, visits to burn units, etc.)
III. Case disposition
- Dates and outcomes of all services rendered, gathered through routine reporting by all
cooperating agencies or direct follow-up
- Status of case in criminal justice system
IV. Program Activities
- Education/prevention activities, school-based or community or other – type, number,
attendance, content
- Training for others in the field – type, curriculum, number trained
- Resource/materials development
- Other – media coverage, Task Force participation, etc.
- (NJF/ACP, User’s Guide, 1994, pp. 109-110; NJF/ACP, Fire Service Guide, 1994, pp.
41-42)
The survey results were compared to the national MIS model. Seven out of 11 or
approximately 64% of the statistical items located in the results of the Frequency of
Identical Statistics are also located in the national MIS model.
The case characteristics of the national MIS model are compared to the following tables
noted elsewhere in this research report: Frequency of Related Information for Juvenile,
Frequency of Related Information to Parent or Guardian and Residence or Environment,
Frequency of Statistics Relating to Fire Incident, Frequency of Statistics Relating to
Program, Services, and Education, Information Relating to Referral or Other Agencies, and
Information Relating to Injuries, Deaths and Damages. These tables consist of 20
statistical items. Of the 20 items, 14 or 70% of the items are located in the national MIS
model.
DISCUSSION
The research results showed that there is little information on specific instruction or
national modeling for conducting follow-up to audit for any reoccurrence of fireplay or
firesetting or what information should be used to monitor and evaluate a program. Several
sources indicate the need for this. Among these are the NFPA Task Force on Juvenile
Firesetting, and NFPA Juvenile Practitioners’ Forum. Both of these recognize the need
to have consistent national data collection, but no specific publications or software can
be found as a result of this endeavor. Don Porth of the Portland Fire Bureau (Porth,
1992), offered considerable insight on developing an effective program. In fact, as an
individual who is not selling his product, he offers this information based on knowledge
and experience. As one of the organizations surveyed for this research paper, the answers
to the three questions in the survey, is contained in a two part annual report. This
report was impressive to say the least. This JFP most closely resembles the national model
found in NFJ/ACP series (FA-146, 1994, FA-147, 1994, FA-145, 1994, and FA-149, 1994). The
limitations of this JFP for many jurisdictions might be the time and staff needed to
dedicate to this type of extensive data collection, analysis, and reporting. The Fireproof
Children Handbook (Bills, et al., 1990), and Playing with Fire: A Deadly Game, A
Companion Manual (Pinsonneault, 1991) are excellent resources for setting up a JFP and
working with juvenile firesetters. But like the FEMA/USFA companion handbook series
(FEMA/USFA, FA 83, 1988, FEMA/USFA, FA 82, 1988, FEMA/USFA, FA 80, 1988), these manuals
and handbooks do not give specific instruction or modeling for follow-up or data
collection for evaluation purposes. These FEMA/USFA handbooks would not be considered
recent publications, but are still available today, and have not been revised. Many
organizations and fire departments rely on these handbooks as the foundation of the
programs in their communities. This author’s JFP is an example of a program that used
the handbooks as a foundation.
The Massachusetts State-Wide Juvenile Firesetter Program Coalition and the State of
Illinois Youthful Firesetter Program are included in the survey of JFP’s, and show a
state-wide effort for consistent data collection. Through the analysis of the surveys
returned, it becomes apparent that many programs base follow-up and data collection
according to individual needs and budgetary constraints.
The challenge to a jurisdiction or organization is to strive to develop a program
within the constraints of a limited budget and resources and at the same time strive to
emulate national modeling. One can understand quickly the implications of an adequate JFP
that covers the spectrum of necessary parts of an entire program. Thus, the results of
programs that begin small, are homegrown, and grow as the program necessitates (Cook, et
al., 1989).
RECOMMENDATIONS
To justify the worth and effectiveness of a JFP within budgetary constraints, the
following recommendations are suggested:
The existing data collection system or MIS should be compared to the national model
found in the NFJ/ACP series (FA-146, 1994, FA-147, 1994, FA-145, 1994, FA-149, 1994), and
revised to include the necessary elements that are not currently included. This would
involve improving the current computer database and forms. To implement these changes it
is important to make it as user friendly as possible to ensure that information retrieval
is accomplished. This retrieval also needs to be efficient to make the most of staff time.
Follow-up frequency with juvenile firesetters and their families should be increased to
parallel the national model found in the NFJ/ACP series (FA-146, 1994, FA-147, 1994,
FA-145, 1994, FA-149, 1994). To accomplish this, the MIS should be formatted to provide
on-going information relevant to the juvenile firesetter. A method should be provided to
easily receive or acquire reminders or ticklers to follow-up on the numerous different
cases that are current. And as a result of this follow-up plan, a procedure should be
drafted to deal with juveniles when follow-up indicates reoccurrence of fireplay or
firesetting.
To compare the results of the JFP first to local state statistics and recidivism rates,
the need arises for improved reporting and evaluation from the other local fire
department, county-based task force organizations, and on a state level. The challenge in
this recommendation is the ability of a small volunteer fire department to provide a JFP
with budget constraints, staff and time limitations, as well as recognizing the need.
Unless the need is recognized, the probability of a county level task force is not as
attainable. The recommendation is to encourage and support the State Fire Marshal to
implement the education, training, and structure to implement a statewide coalition.
Comparing local JFP results nationally requires locating the individuals throughout the
U.S. who have statistics and results for JFP’s on a statewide scale. Networking is a
valuable tool to accomplish this. Using the World Wide Web can serve as an invaluable
tool. This has been shown by the survey results conducted for this research project, in
which most of the JFP’s were found using the World Wide Web. Contacting resources
found in handbooks and manuals is also a good resource, but one must recognize that the
contact person, address, and phone number may not be up-to-date. These resources may also
be limited in number.
A recommendation on a national level is for the FEMA/USFA to develop a
generic computer program that is flexible and can be tailored to a JFP as needed. This
would provide the initiative to encourage data collection and evaluation based on a
national model.
REFERENCES
Adolescent Firesetter Handbook: Ages 14-18. (1988). (Item No. 5-0091; FA-080)
Federal Emergency Management Agency, United States Fire Administration.
Cook, R., Gaynor, J., Hersch, R., Roehl, J. (1989). The National Juvenile
Firesetter/Arson Control and Prevention Program: Assessment Report, Executive Summary
Institute for Social Analysis, Washington, D.C.
Federal Bureau of Investigation. (1997, October). Uniform crime report 1996 crime
statistics. FBI Press Release [On-line]. Available:
http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/ucr/ucr.htm
Garry, E. (January, 1997). Juvenile firesetting and arson. U.S. Department of
Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Offfice of Juvenile Delinquency and Prevention, Fact
Sheet #51
[On-line]. Available: http://www.ncjrs.org/txtfiles/fs9751.txt
Porth, D. (1992, October). Mapping out a successful juvenile firesetter program.
American Fire Journal, 44, 12-14.
Preadolescent Firesetter Handbook: Ages 0-7. (1988). (Item No. 5-0106; FA-083)
Federal Emergency Management Agency, United States Fire Administration.
Preadolescent Firesetter Handbook: Ages 7-13. (1988). (Item No. 5-0107; FA-82)
Federal Emergency Management Agency, United States Fire Administration.
Reardon, K. (1990, August). Juvenile firesetters, a current perspective. Firehouse,
68-71.
Report of the NFPA Juvenile Firesetter Practitioners’ Forum. (1995,
September). National Fire Protection Association, Quincy, MA.
Report of the NFPA Task Force on Juvenile Firesetting; Inaugural Meeting. (1993,
September). National Fire Protection Association, Quincy, MA.
The National Juvenile Firesetter/Arson Control and Prevention Program. (1994). Fire
Service Guide to Juvenile Firesetter Early Intervention Program (Item No. 6-0517;
FA-146) Federal Emergency Management Agency, United States Fire Administration.
The National Juvenile Firesetter/Arson Control and Prevention Program. (1994). Users’
Guide (Item No. 6-0516; FA-145) Federal Emergency Management Agency, United States
Fire Administration.
The National Juvenile Firesetter/Arson Control and Prevention Program. (1994). Guidelines
for Implementation (Item No. 6-0518; FA-147) Federal Emergency Management Agency,
United States Fire Administration.
The National Juvenile Firesetter/Arson Control and Prevention Program. (1994). Trainers’
Guide (Item No. 6-0515; FA-149) Federal Emergency Management Agency, United States
Fire Administration.
The National Juvenile Firesetter/Arson Control and Prevention Program: Executive
Summary (1994). (Item No. 6-0514; FA-148) Federal Emergency Management Agency, United
States Fire Administration.
Treatment for the juvenile firesetter. (1989, July/August). Record, 9-14.