A cost analysis of a smoke alarm installation and fire safety education program

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsr.2006.05.006Get rights and content

Abstract

Introduction

While smoke alarm installation programs can help prevent residential fire injuries, the costs of running these programs are not well understood.

Method

We conducted a retrospective cost analysis of a smoke alarm installation program in 12 funded communities across four states. Costs included financial and economic resources needed for training, canvassing, installing, and following-up, within four cost categories: (a) personnel, (b) transportation, (c) facility, and (d) supplies.

Results

Local cost per completed home visit averaged $214.54, with an average local cost per alarm installed of $115.02. Combined state and local cost per alarm installed across all four states averaged $132.15. For every 1% increase in alarm installation, costs per alarm decrease by $1.32.

Conclusions

As more smoke alarms are installed, the average installation cost per alarm decreases. By demonstrating effective economies of scale, this study suggests that smoke alarm programs can be implemented efficiently and receive positive economic returns on investment.

Introduction

Deaths from fires and burns are the sixth most common cause of unintentional injury-related deaths in the United States (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], 2005). The U.S. death rate from fire ranks fourth among 25 developed countries (for which statistics are available) (International Association for the Study of Insurance Economics, 2004). The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) reports that in 2004 approximately 410,500 residential fires occurred, causing approximately 3,190 deaths and 14,175 non-fatal injuries, resulting in over $6 billion in property losses (Karter, 2005). Although these numbers have generally declined in the past 10 years, residential fires remain a substantial public health burden in terms of mortality, disability, and decreases in quality of life.

Most fires and associated injuries are preventable. Smoke alarms have been shown to be an effective, reliable, and inexpensive method of providing early warning in residential fires (Ahrens, 2004). A working smoke alarm reduces the risk of death from residential fire by at least 50% (Ahrens, 2004). Despite this, and although over 90% of homes report having smoke alarms, only about three quarters of U.S. households report having a functioning smoke alarm (Harvey et al., 1998, Neily et al., 1994). Households below the poverty level and households in rural areas are even less likely to have installed smoke alarms (Harvey et al., 1998). A systematic review of controlled trials of interventions to promote smoke alarm use estimates that indirect methods such as counseling and educational interventions had non-significant effects on the likelihood of owning an alarm or having a functioning alarm (DiGuiseppi & Higgins, 2000).

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), U.S. Fire Administration (USFA), Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), and other governmental and non-governmental organizations are collaborating to prevent residential fires in the United States with the goal of eliminating all residential fire-related deaths by 2020. In one of its efforts toward this goal, CDC's Injury Center (the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control) funds state health departments to deliver a smoke alarm installation and fire safety education program (SAIFE) in local communities at high-risk for residential fires.

This effort, which began in 1998, currently funds 16 states to participate and deliver the SAIFE program (Ballesteros, Jackson, & Martin, 2005). For each state, the program consists of intervening in a minimum of two communities, each with a high-risk population of 50,000 or less. High-risk is defined as having fire mortality and incident rates above the state and national averages, and a mean household income below the poverty line. The main activities of the program include staff driving into target neighborhoods, knocking on doors of each individual home on a street, and enrolling homes one-by-one (called “canvassing”); installing alarms; educating participants; and following up with evaluations on a proportion of program homes.

Some programs have attempted to accomplish something similar by distributing vouchers for free alarms or distributing actual free alarms, but these programs have not proven to be effective in getting working alarms into the home (DiGuiseppi et al., 2002, Douglas et al., 1998, Mallonee et al., 1996). Harvey et al. (1998) found that compared to homes that were given vouchers for free alarms, homes that had alarms actually installed were almost five times more likely to have functioning alarms after 6 to 12 months. Additionally, they found that approximately 90% of installation homes had functioning smoke alarms at follow-up, indicating that direct installation of alarms can be an effective means of getting working alarms into homes. The SAIFE program performs direct installations, which is consistent with the evidence described above. However, installation programs are time-consuming and costly. The costs of running these programs have never been studied in detail.

The purpose of this study was to conduct a cost analysis of typical SAIFE programs to assess the economic resources involved in delivering smoke alarm protection and fire safety education to eligible homes in selected communities. Such an analysis can provide information on the cost per alarm installed and how these costs differ across programs of varying size. Ideally, a community interested in implementing a smoke alarm installation program could estimate the program costs based on how many alarms are to be installed.

Section snippets

Methods

For this study, we conducted a retrospective cost analysis of the SAIFE program based on the following state-level criteria: funded since 1998; regular reporting to the National Fire Incidence Reporting System (NFIRS; U.S. Fire Administration, 2005); and geographic dispersion. Of the four states included in the analysis, two worked with two communities each, and two worked with four communities each, for a total of 12 local sites.

Annual program cost data for October 2002 through September 2003

Results

The resources required for implementing each local program and per unit cost data are presented in Tables 1 through 4. As shown in Table 1, the number of hours required to implement program activities by full-time personnel ranged from 170 hours (State B-site 1) to 3,760 hours (State D-site 1). One site had part-time employees involved in program activities for a total of 514 hours (State B-site 1). Volunteers were used in all but three sites, ranging from 812 (State C-site 3) hours to 3,850

Discussion

The results of this analysis indicate that on average it costs a community $59,351 to implement the SAIFE program. Adding in the average state costs, the cost to implement this program in a given community is $76,314, resulting in 585 smoke alarms being installed. A comparison of average local costs per alarm installed shows that as more smoke alarms are installed, the average cost of installing each alarm falls. This finding suggests that the SAIFE program is benefiting from economies of scale.

Acknowledgements

The authors extend their gratitude to the state and local program coordinators who donated their time and expertise. State coordinators include Steve Davidson, Robert McCool, Miriam McGaugh and Suzanne Syzdek. Local coordinators include Chief John Bays, Major Derrick Hall, Sue Patterson, Martina Pulliam, Chief J.D. Rice, Chief Roy Rice, Fred Rion, Chief James Switzer, Chief Jack Thompson, Chief Toni Tolbert, Randy White, and Chief Tim White. We sincerely thank them for all their help and

John E. Parmer is a research assistant in the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). He received his master's degree in Public Policy from the Georgia Institute of Technology.

References (24)

  • R.A. Shults et al.

    Evaluation of three smoke detector promotion programs

    Am J Prev Med

    (1998)
  • M. Ahrens

    U.S. experience with smoke alarms and other fire detection/alarm equipment

    (2004)
  • M.F. Ballesteros et al.

    Working toward the elimination of residential fire deaths: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Smoke Alarm Installation and Fire Safety Education (SAIFE) Program

    J Burn Care Rehabil

    (2005)
  • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC]. (2005). Web-based Injury Statistics Query and Reporting System...
  • C. DiGuiseppi et al.

    Systematic review of controlled trials of interventions to promote smoke alarms

    Arch Dis Child

    (2000)
  • C. DiGuiseppi et al.

    Incidence of fires and related injuries after giving out free smoke alarms: Cluster randomised controlled trial

    BMJ

    (2002)
  • M.R. Douglas et al.

    Comparison of community based smoke detector distribution methods in an urban community

    Inj Prev

    (1998)
  • International Association for the Study of Insurance Economics

    World fire statistics

    (2004)
  • A.C. Haddix et al.

    Cost effectiveness analysis of a smoke alarm giveaway program in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma

    Inj Prev

    (2001)
  • A.C. Haddix et al.

    Prevention effectiveness: A guide to decision analysis and economic evaluation

    (1996)
  • P.A. Harvey et al.

    Residential smoke alarms and fire escape plans

    Public Health Rep

    (1998)
  • M.J. Karter

    Fire loss in the United States during 2004: Abridged report

    (2005)
  • Cited by (18)

    • Do home fire and safety checks by on-duty firefighters decrease the number of fires? Quasi-experimental evidence from Southern Sweden

      2019, Journal of Safety Research
      Citation Excerpt :

      The implementation and cost of these activities and other prevention strategies vary. For example, ensuring that working smoke alarms are installed in homes can be accomplished by information and educational interventions or direct installation (Parmer, Corso, & Ballesteros, 2006). The home fire and safety check (HFSC) that has been undertaken by the local fire and rescue services (FRS) is one promising intervention with the potential to reduce the damages from residential fires (DiGuiseppi, Goss, & Higgins, 2001; Ta, Frattaroli, Bergen, & Gielen, 2006; Tannous et al., 2016; Tannous et al., 2017; Williams, Evans, Rogers, & Wright, 2009).

    • Socio-demographic predictors of residential fire and unwillingness to call the fire service in New South Wales

      2017, Preventive Medicine Reports
      Citation Excerpt :

      The extant literature reveals that most home fire-related injuries and deaths result from smoke inhalation and toxic fumes rather than burns (NSW Fire Brigades, 2009; Ahrens, 2009; Atiyeh et al., 2009; Edelman, 2007; Hsiung et al., 2007; Harpur et al., 2013). International research has established that the majority of residential fires and associated injuries are preventable, and that the use of functional smoke alarms is a crucial and inexpensive prevention method (Haynes, 2015; Ahrens, 2009; Ballesteros and Kresnow, 2007; Parmer et al., 2006; Tannous et al., 2016; Chubb, 2003; Thomas and Bruck, 2015). Studies in Australia have found that occupants in homes without smoke alarms face more than five times the risk of fire-related injury or death compared to homes with smoke alarms (Parmer et al., 2006; Tannous et al., 2016; Wright, 2013).

    • The evolution of geographical information systems for fire prevention support

      2014, Fire Safety Journal
      Citation Excerpt :

      However, there appears to have been a little if any research concerning the evolutionary development of geographical information systems, and in particular concerning the evolution of geographical information systems for fire prevention support. Fire prevention strategies [29,25] have played an important part in efforts to reduce fire incidence in many countries. Crawford [7] commented that continual reassessment and adjustment of fire prevention activities is necessary in order to attempt to provide a long term solution for reducing fire deaths, injuries and property damage.

    • Smoke alarm giveaway and installation programs: An economic evaluation

      2012, American Journal of Preventive Medicine
      Citation Excerpt :

      Additional sensitivity analysis explored the impact of lowering or increasing all unit costs by 15%. The average economic cost per completed home visit (i.e., a visit that resulted in an alarm installation) for the installation program was estimated at $192 (low: $135, high: $242), based on previous cost studies (Appendix C, available online at www.ajpmonline.org).10,35 Direct evidence for giveaway program costs was unavailable so the program was assumed to incur the same levels of supply and transportation costs as the installation program, and 50% of its labor cost.

    View all citing articles on Scopus

    John E. Parmer is a research assistant in the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). He received his master's degree in Public Policy from the Georgia Institute of Technology.

    Phaedra S. Corso is the senior health economist in the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control at CDC. Dr. Corso has worked at CDC for over a decade in the areas of economic evaluation and decision analysis, publishing numerous articles on the cost-effectiveness of prevention interventions and co-editing a book on economic evaluation and decision analysis methods for use in public health. She holds a Master's degree in public finance from The University of Georgia and a Ph.D. in health policy, decision sciences, from Harvard University.

    Michael F. Ballesteros is an epidemiologist in the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control at CDC. He has worked at CDC for five years conducting research on unintentional injuries. He holds a Master's degree in Preventive Medicince and a Ph.D. in epidemiology from the University of Maryland at Baltimore.

    Note: the findings and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

    View full text