Fire Safe Student Housing: A Guide for Campus Housing Administrators 
Frederick W. Mowrer, Ph. D., P. E. 
Department of Fire Protection Engineering University of Maryland 
College Park, Maryland 20742 
February 1, 1999 

Fire Safe Student Housing: A Guide for Campus Housing Administrators ii 

Table of Contents 

Introduction......... 1 
Background........... 2 
The Elements of Fire Safe Student Housing .......... 8 
Prevention........... 8 
Occupant awareness and training...... 14 
Detection and Alarm .......... 16 
Suppression ..... 19 
Summary......... 24 
Acknowledgements....... 24 
Appendix A............. 25 
A1. INTRODUCTION ...... 26 
A2. IGNITION AND PROPAGATION VARIABLES ......... 28 
A3. CONSTRUCTION VARIABLES........... 31 
A4. OCCUPANT BEHAVIOR VARIABLES.... 33 
A5. PROVISION OF FIRE PROTECTION SYSTEMS........... 37 
A6. NFPA DATA ANALYSIS............... 41 
A7. FIRE PREVENTION STRATEGIES-PROGRAMS.......... 51 
A8. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ...... 55 
A9. SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY .......... 60 

Disclaimer 

References to websites of manufacturers of fire protection equipment are not 
intended as endorsements for the products of the manufacturers cited. They are 
meant only to serve as examples of resources available for further information 
regarding different types of fire protection equipment. 

Fire Safe Student Housing: A Guide for Campus Housing Administrators 1 

Introduction 

As a campus or fraternal housing administrator, you have the duty to provide a 
safe environment for the college students housed in your facilities. You are 
faced with a number of different issues competing for your attention and for the 
limited resources available to address them. You must decide how to best 
allocate available resources among competing demands and interests. To make 
these decisions wisely, you need to understand the risk factors involved, the 
alternatives available to you and the relative costs and benefits of the 
different options. 

Fire is one of the deadlier perils that threaten student safety. A fire in a 
student housing facility can quickly rage out of control if appropriate 
safeguards are not in place to stop it. While fatal fires in student housing are 
not an every day occurrence, they can and do happen, perhaps more frequently 
than you recognize. These fires do not make the headlines unless a number of 
students are killed, so it is easy to underestimate the risk of fire in student 
housing facilities. It is important for you to recognize that fire safe student 
housing does not just happen by chance, nor can it be taken for granted. It 
requires an ongoing commitment on the part of the community, the institution and 
the administration. Careful planning, implementation and maintenance are all 
essential ingredients of a successful fire safety program for student housing. 

The purpose of this report and the accompanying video is to provide campus 
housing administrators, fraternal organizations and others responsible for 
housing college students with an overview of the elements of fire safe student 
housing. The goal is to present a balanced approach that will permit housing 
administrators to make risk-informed decisions regarding the costs and benefits 
associated with different fire safety features and levels of fire protection. 
Additional resources that are available to help in the development of a 
comprehensive program for fire safe student housing are also identified. 

Ultimately, student-housing administrators need to seriously consider the 
installation of automatic sprinkler systems in the residential facilities they 
manage. These systems have an established record of preventing catastrophic 
fires in residential facilities, making sprinkler protection perhaps the single 
most effective weapon in the residential building fire safety arsenal. Over the 
past 15 years, the hospitality industry in the United States has embarked on an 
ambitious program to install sprinkler protection in most hotels and motels. As 
part of this effort, various technologies have been developed to reduce the 
costs, aesthetic impacts and inconveniences associated with the installation of 
automatic sprinklers in existing residential facilities. These technologies 
translate directly to both new and existing student housing facilities, 
providing the opportunity for college students to enjoy the same high level of 
fire protection as the traveling public. 

Fire Safe Student Housing: A Guide for Campus Housing Administrators 2 

Background 

On any one campus or in any one college community, building fires are relatively 
rare events. As a result, it is easy, perhaps even natural, to become complacent 
about fire safety, to confuse good luck with good practice. But when fires do 
occur, and they do, they can develop with incredible speed and have devastating 
consequences. When deaths and disfiguring burn injuries result, the consequences 
last forever, impacting on not only the victims and their families, but on the 
entire college community as well. For example, an arson fire that killed two 
students in a dormitory at Ohio State University in 1968 is still remembered - 
30 years later - as perhaps the worst tragedy to ever strike the OSU campus 
community. 

A fire in a fraternity house at the University of North Carolina on Mother's Day 
in 1996 further illustrates the type of devastation that fires on campus can 
wreak. Following a celebration during the spring graduation weekend, a fire 
developed in the basement recreation room of the fraternity during the wee hours 
of the morning. Fed by the combustible interior finish and furnishings, the fire 
reached hazardous proportions while residents slept. The fire swept through the 
structure, leaving five students dead and one student, the only survivor, 
injured in its wake. What had started as an annual spring celebration ended with 
a somber memorial service. 

The fire at the University of North Carolina is just one example of campus 
housing fires. Table 1 presents a summary of a review of student housing fires 
that received news media attention during the 20-year period from 1979 to 1998. 
Reports of these fires were obtained primarily from the Lexis-Nexis Academic 
Universe website. Unfortunately, these reports tend to be preliminary and 
sketchy. Nonetheless, as indicated in Table 1, multiple death fire scenarios are 
not very common in student housing; most fatalities occur by ones or twos. This 
is similar to the general population, where most fire fatalities occur by ones 
or twos in private residences. Table 1 also indicates, however, that fires in 
campus housing can displace many students at one time, creating a logistical 
problem during the middle of a school term. 

Dr. John L. Bryan, Professor Emeritus in the Department of Fire Protection 
Engineering at the University of Maryland, recently completed a detailed 
examination of selected college dormitory and fraternity house fires in 
connection with this project. Bryan selected fifteen fires, including nine 
dormitory and six fraternity house fires, from 1967 to 1996 for detailed 
analysis. These fire incidents were selected based on the occurrence of 
fatalities or injuries to occupants along with the availability of a published 
report for each incident. These fifteen fire incidents resulted in 44 reported 
fatalities and 143 reported injuries. Bryan's comprehensive report is attached 
as Appendix A to this report for reference. 

Fire Safe Student Housing: A Guide for Campus Housing Administrators 3 

Table 1. Student housing fires from 1979 to 1998 that received news media 
attention. 

University Date of Fire Housing Type Cause of Fire Property Loss ($) # Students 
Displaced Fatalities/ Injuries 

Nebraska Wesleyan Univ. Oct. 8, 1998 Off-Campus Apartment Cigarette 50, 000 6 1 
/ 0 

Alfred U. (NY) Oct. 10, 1998 Dormitory Light bulb NA 140 0 / 0 

Kalamazoo College (MI) Sept. 18, 1998 Dormitory Arson NA NA 0 / 0 

Murray State (KY) Sept. 18, 1998 Dormitory Arson NA +100 1 / 16 

Ohio State Univ. Sept. 2, 1998 Off-Campus Apartment Arson 28,000 +4 0 / 0 

Univ. of Buffalo (NY) July 26, 1998 Dormitory Unknown 100,000 25 0 / 0 

Univ. of Arizona July 14, 1998 Fraternity Arson NA 39 0 / 0 

Greenville College (IL) Dec. 9, 1997 Dormitory Unknown NA 40 1 / 7 

Johns Hopkins U. (MD) Aug. 31, 1997 Off-Campus House Cigarette NA +3 1 / 0 

Lindenwood College (IL) April 17, 1997 Dormitory Electrical 10,000 NA 0 / 0 

School of Visual Arts (NY) Feb. 21, 1997 Dormitory Cigarette NA +50 1 / 0 

U of C Berkeley (CA) Jan. 9, 1997 Fraternity Candle NA +15 0 / 2 

Central Missouri St. Univ. Jan. 3, 1997 Dormitory Arson NA NA 1 / 0 

Ohio Wesleyan U. (OH) Oct. 19, 1997 Fraternity Unknown NA NA 1 / 0 

Ohio State U. (OH) Aug. 13, 1996 Off-Campus Apartment Electrical 20,000 1 0 / 0 

William Jewell College (KS) Aug. 8, 1996 Fraternity Cigarette 500,000 +5 0 / 0 

Univ. of N. Carolina May 12, 1996 Fraternity Cigarette NA +10 5 / 3 

Mesa State (CO) Dec. 21, 1995 Off-Campus Apartment Unknown NA 3 1 / 3 

Fire Safe Student Housing: A Guide for Campus Housing Administrators 4 

University Date of Fire Housing Type Cause of Fire Property Loss ($) # Students 
Displaced Fatalities/ Injuries 

Marshall College (PA) Aug. 5, 1995 Fraternity Arson NA NA 0 / 0 

Univ. of Florida March 10, 1995 Fraternity Unknown NA +6 0 / 0 

Ohio State Univ Nov. 22, 1994 Fraternity Suspicious +20,000 +25 0 / 0 

U of C Berkeley (CA) Aug. 15, 1994 Fraternity Unknown 200,000 25 0 / 0 

Univ. of Wisconsin Oct. 26, 1993 Sorority Unknown +100,000 10 1 / 2 

Ohio State Univ May 1996 Fraternity Unknown 500,000 NA 0 / 1 

Drexel Univ. (PA) Feb. 18, 1993 Fraternity Unknown NA NA 0/ 1 

State Univ at Stony Brook Feb. 25, 1992 Dormitory Unknown NA 200 0 / 1 

San Jose State (CA) Oct. 19, 1990 Dormitory Unknown NA 178 0 / 20 

U of C Berkeley (CA) Sept. 1990 Fraternity Unknown NA NA 3 / 0 

Univ. of Washington July 20, 1990 Sorority Spontaneous Combustion 130,000 NA 0 / 
0 

Rutgers Univ. (NJ) * July 18, 1990 Fraternity Arson NA NA 0 / 0 

Northern Illinois Univ. (IL) Feb. 25, 1989 Dormitory Suspicious +1,000 +50 0 / 0 

Univ. of Mississippi Aug. 4, 1988 Fraternity Suspicious 100,000 NA 0 / 0 

Columbia Univ. Jan. 1, 1987 Fraternity Electrical NA +5 0 / 5 

Univ. of South Carolina Sept. 5, 1986 Fraternity Electrical 450,000 58 0 / 3 

Indiana Univ. Oct. 22, 1984 Fraternity Arson NA +30 1 / +30 

George Washington Univ. (DC) April 20, 1979 Dormitory Unknown NA +35 0 / 35 

*Represents a string of arson fires that occurred simultaneously in three 
fraternity houses on the campus. Fortunately there were no injuries reported 
from the incident. 

Fire Safe Student Housing: A Guide for Campus Housing Administrators 5 

Bryan analyzed a number of variables associated with these incidents, including 
ignition and propagation variables, construction variables, occupant behavior 
variables and fire protection system variables. He also analyzed two sets of 
data compiled by the National Fire Protection Association regarding dormitory, 
fraternity and sorority fires. The first set of data, published in 1955, was 
based on fires during the period from 1944 to 1954. The second set, published in 
1995, covered the period from 1990 through 1994. Bryan notes the significant 
social and cultural differences in the campus environment between these two 
surveys, particularly changes in the supervision of residential facilities and 
the restrictions placed on student residents. 

Some disconcerting trends arise from the data. Bryan notes that the occupant 
behavior activities of incendiary fire setting, cooking and smoking appear to be 
the primary causes of student housing fires, with alcohol consumption being a 
significant factor. Most troublesome is the increase in the incidence of 
incendiary and suspicious fires between the first and second data sets. Such 
causes constituted about 10 percent of the fires in the 1955 data, but jumped to 
almost 20 percent of the fraternity and sorority fires and 30 percent of the 
dormitory fires in the 1995 data. In 1955, incendiary or suspicious fires ranked 
fifth as a causative factor; in 1995, incendiary or suspicious fires ranked 
first. While arson can never be condoned, neither can it be ignored when it 
comes to fire safe student housing. 

Bryan further notes the significant role of highly combustible upholstered 
furniture in the student housing fires he analyzed. Upholstered furniture, 
predominately sofas, were the fuel material ignited first in seven of the 
fifteen fires he analyzed. Because of this, Bryan concludes that procedures 
should be initiated to regulate the inclusion of new highly combustible 
upholstered furniture into dormitories, fraternities and sororities. Based on 
his analysis, Bryan also concludes that procedures should be initiated to 
provide for the installation of smoke alarms in student rooms and automatic 
sprinklers throughout new dormitories, fraternities and sororities, as well as 
in existing facilities when they are renovated. 

Fatal fires are always difficult to accept; when they occur in student housing, 
they are particularly devastating. There are a number of reasons for this. Most 
college students, particularly those in campus or fraternal housing, are living 
away from the security of their parents' homes for the first time. Parents, 
sending their children off to college, do so with a mixture of pride and 
trepidation, but certainly with the expectation that the college community will 
provide a reasonably safe environment for their loved ones. 

On the part of the students, a certain sense of immortality seems to come with 
the territory as they embark on this exciting period of independence. Many 
students do not yet have the maturity or experience to recognize real threats to 
their personal safety; consequently, they sometimes indulge in foolish, even 
dangerous, behavior without realizing the risks or potential consequences. When 
it comes to fire safety, most students are uneducated; that is, unless they have 
been properly trained in fire prevention and response should a fire occur. 

Fire Safe Student Housing: A Guide for Campus Housing Administrators 6 

Because of the relatively rare occurrence of building fires, few people outside 
the fire profession have the experience or knowledge to appreciate sometimes 
subtle differences between fire safe structures and those that will become 
hazardous when a fire occurs. Fewer still, even among fire professionals, fully 
appreciate the incredible speed with which fires can develop in buildings or how 
quickly escape routes can be blocked if appropriate fire safety features are not 
present or are compromised. Accidental fires in residential facilities can reach 
deadly proportions in less than three minutes after ignition, incendiary fires 
even faster! 

As a campus or fraternal housing administrator, you are probably aware of the 
local and state fire safety regulations that apply to your student housing 
facilities. These regulations impose specific minimum requirements with respect 
to the building fire safety features required by law. What you may not know is 
that the Hotel and Motel Fire Safety Act of 1990 (PL101-391) also applies to 
your campus if it is used for federally funded meetings and conferences. 

The Hotel and Motel Fire Safety Act of 1990 (PL101-391) was passed into law by 
Congress to save lives and protect property by promoting fire and life safety in 
hotels, motels and other places of public accommodation. The law encourages and 
eventually mandates that federal employees on travel must stay in public 
accommodations that adhere to the life safety requirements in the legislation 
guidelines. PL101-391 also states that federally funded meetings and conferences 
cannot be held in properties that do not comply with the law. 

PL101-391 is applicable to all places of public accommodation, and requires that 
such properties are equipped with: 

 hard-wired, single-station smoke detectors in each guestroom in accordance 
with the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) standard 72; 

 an automatic sprinkler system, with a sprinkler head in each guest room in 
compliance with NFPA standards 13 or 13R. 

Properties three stories or lower in height are exempt from the sprinkler 
requirement. 

Realistically, it can be difficult to obtain the resources to install fire 
protection systems if prevailing regulations do not require such systems. 
Therefore, if existing state and local regulations or the federal Hotel and 
Motel Fire Safety Act do not provide sufficient incentive, it may be necessary 
to pursue the local adoption of regulations requiring such systems. A number of 
communities have already instituted regulations requiring the installation of 
automatic sprinkler systems in college housing facilities. Many of these 
ordinances have been adopted in response to local tragedies, but the lessons 
learned should not be restricted to any one campus or community. 

Fire Safe Student Housing: A Guide for Campus Housing Administrators 7 

A number of resources are available to aid in the development and implementation 
of local ordinances for sprinkler protection. Some of these can be obtained at 
the following websites: 

 www. nfpa. org 
 www. nfsa. org 
 www. firesprinkler. org 

Many of the concepts discussed here are the same in principle as those contained 
in nationally recognized standards, but specific standards adopted by law should 
be consulted to assure at least a minimum level of regulatory compliance. 

Fire Safe Student Housing: A Guide for Campus Housing Administrators 8 

The Elements of Fire Safe Student Housing 

The fire safety of student housing can be considered in terms of four primary 
elements: 

 Prevention 
 Occupant awareness and training 
 Detection and alarm 
 Suppression 

Together, these four elements have the acronym "PODS." The PODS acronym is 
appropriate for student housing because the term connotes a protected living 
environment. The elements of the PODS concept are discussed. 

Prevention 

The first element of the PODS concept is prevention. Fires require three 
elements to occur: fuel, air and an ignition source. These three elements have 
traditionally been illustrated in terms of the "Fire Triangle" to show the 
relationship between elements. The prevention of fire requires that one or more 
of the elements of the fire triangle be removed. Since air is always present and 
available in the atmosphere, the prevention of fire generally requires control 
or elimination of either fuels or ignition sources, or separation of the two 
through appropriate safeguards. 

Potential fuels present in student housing take a myriad of forms, including: 

 Upholstered furniture, mattresses and bedding 
 Draperies, curtains and other free-hanging decorations 
 Combustible wall, ceiling and floor finishes 
 Desks, dressers and bookcases 
 Books, papers, notebooks and reports 
 Trash and recycling materials 
 Clothing 
 Stored commodities 

Upholstered furniture has been implicated in many serious fires in student 
housing facilities. Today, these products are typically padded with polyurethane 
foam. Once ignited, these products can burn with incredible speed and intensity. 
As a consequence of these hazardous burning characteristics, many authorities 
now require upholstered 

Fire Safe Student Housing: A Guide for Campus Housing Administrators 9 

furniture intended for commercial or institutional usage to be made of fire 
retardant materials and assemblies. Such products can greatly reduce the 
potential for the rapid fire development and hazardous conditions associated 
with non-fire retardant upholstered furniture. As noted by Bryan, consideration 
should be given to the specification of fire retardant upholstered furniture and 
mattresses for use in campus housing even if local regulations do not mandate 
such products. 

Mattresses, like upholstered furniture, are also typically padded with 
polyurethane foam. Once ignited, mattresses and bedding can also burn with 
incredible speed and intensity. Bunk beds, which are fairly popular in student 
housing, compound the problem because of the vertical stacking of the 
mattresses. While not traditionally required in residential facilities, fire 
retardant mattresses have been developed for institutional occupancies. Their 
usage is becoming more widespread. Even with fire retardant mattresses, however, 
the flammability of the bedding materials needs to be considered. 

Draperies, curtains and wall decorations, such as posters, represent thin fuels 
that can be relatively easy to ignite with small ignition sources, such as 
candles. Because of their relative ease of ignition and vertical orientation, 
these products can rapidly spread a fire beyond ready control. As a consequence 
of this potential for ignition and fire development, some regulations require 
draperies, curtains and other free-hanging decorations to be fire retardant. For 
example, the Life Safety Code (NFPA 101), a widely adopted standard, requires 
these products to be fire retardant in new and existing hotels and dormitories. 
Even if not mandated by law, regulation of the flammability of these products 
would make a difference for some fire scenarios. It would also require diligence 
on the part of the housing administrator to assure that only approved draperies, 
curtains and wall coverings were used. 

Wall, ceiling and floor finishes have a broad range of flammability 
characteristics. By virtue of the large areas covered by these finishes, 
combustible finishes all pose some risk of fire spread. The degree of this 
threat depends on a number of factors, including the flammability 
characteristics of the finish and the fire conditions to which it is exposed. 
Combustible wall and ceiling finishes have been implicated in the 
development of a number of serious fires, including the 1996 Mother's Day fire 
at the 

Fire Safe Student Housing: A Guide for Campus Housing Administrators 10 

University of North Carolina. Because of their location on the floor, 
combustible floor finishes are less likely to contribute to the early 
development of a fire. However, these same products can contribute significantly 
to a fully-developed fire. If safeguards, such as automatic sprinkler 
protection, are not in place to prevent fully-developed fire conditions, 
consideration should be given to regulating the flammability characteristics of 
floor coverings. Carpets and other soft floor coverings should never be used on 
walls or ceilings unless they have been specifically qualified for these 
applications by fire test. 

Paper products, including books, notebooks, trash and recycling, are common 
fuels in student housing facilities. These products will burn with a variety of 
intensities, depending in large part on the quantity and whether the paper is 
loosely or tightly packed. Trash and recycling paper, and the containers in 
which they are deposited, pose a particularly significant risk because the paper 
products are more likely to be loosely packed and there is a greater potential 
for ignition, from improperly discarded smoking materials for example. Trash 
receptacles have been implicated in enough fires that a simulated trash 
receptacle fire is used as the standard ignition source in a number of fire test 
methods. One way to reduce the incidence and intensity of trash and recycling 
fires would be through the use of covered metal or fire retardant waste and 
recycling containers. Such receptacles are currently required in some 
applications. 

Desks, dressers, bookcases and other casework have traditionally been made of 
fairly dense wood-based materials. Because of their high density, these products 
are more difficult to ignite than padded furniture or decorations, thus 
affording a higher degree of fire resistance than these other products. However, 
once ignited, these wood-based products can contribute a 
significant amount of heat to a developing fire, so their potential for 
contribution to a fire should not be ignored. Casework made of materials other 
than wood or steel should be carefully evaluated for its ease of ignition and 
potential contribution to fire development. 

When not strewn about a student's room, clothing is usually stored in a dresser 
or in a closet or wardrobe. Clothing stored in a closed dresser, closet or 
wardrobe is generally protected from early involvement in a developing fire. But 
fires that initiate in open closets or wardrobes can develop with surprising 
speed due to the types of fuel and confined geometries involved. 

Finally, stored commodities can run the gamut from innocuous to extremely 
hazardous. Particular care should be taken to assure that flammable gases and 
liquids are not stored in residential buildings without appropriate safeguards. 
Everyday products such as lawnmowers and gas-fired barbecue or camp grills are 
easy to overlook, but can represent significant sources of easy-to-ignite fuel 
if accidentally released. While not 

Fire Safe Student Housing: A Guide for Campus Housing Administrators 11 

common in dormitories, such products are more likely to be found in 
fraternities, sororities and off-campus housing. 


Potential ignition sources present in student housing also take a myriad of 
forms, including: 

 Smoking materials, including cigarettes, matches and lighters 
 Candles and incense 
 Cooking equipment and appliances 
 Electric lamps and appliances 
 Building services, including electrical and gas distribution and utilization 
equipment 
 Arson and other incendiary or suspicious devices. 

Careless disposal of smoking materials is the sixth ranked cause of reported 
residential fires, but is the leading ignition source for residential fire 
deaths. This difference in relative ranking can be attributed to two factors. Of 
primary importance, people sometimes fall asleep or pass out while smoking. When 
this happens, the smoker is frequently a victim if a fire develops because of 
the proximity to the fire. Secondly, fires ignited by smoking materials can 
smolder for extended periods of time before developing into hazardous fires. 
Such fires are more likely to go undiscovered than fires that develop 
immediately upon ignition. In the meantime, residents may go to sleep and fail 
to discover such a fire until roused by an alarm system or some other indicator. 
Depending on the nature of the fire, its location relative to the sleeping 
residents and the fire protection features in place, the time for escape between 
notification and the development of hazardous conditions may be very short, on 
the order of a few minutes or even less. 

Smoking in campus housing should be vigorously regulated, if not prohibited. 
Most public buildings, including college housing facilities, have become smoke-
free in recent years, but a sudden ban on smoking may be counterproductive by 
forcing smokers into the closet, both figuratively and literally. A better 
alternative may be to provide designated smoking areas that are properly 
equipped with suitable ashtrays and other fire protection features. 

Candles and incense are particularly popular in college residences. The use of 
such devices should be regulated through appropriate policies, if not prohibited 
outright as on many campuses. Students should be instructed to use appropriate 
candle and incense holders, to locate such holders away from other combustibles, 
such as draperies, and to never leave such devices burning unattended. 
Violations of such policies should be considered serious breaches of student 
housing rules. 

Fire Safe Student Housing: A Guide for Campus Housing Administrators 12 

Cooking is the leading cause of all residential fires, but only the sixth 
leading cause of fire deaths. The incidence of cooking fires in college 
dormitories will be lower because such housing units do not typically have 
kitchens. Nonetheless, such units frequently have cooking appliances like 
hotplates, coffee makers and hot water immersion heaters. In some respects, such 
devices pose an even greater fire risk because they are being installed in 
spaces not designed for such usage. Other campus housing units, such as 
apartments or group homes, do have kitchens and thus are prone to the same types 
of kitchen fires as residences in general. Such fires frequently result from 
unattended cooking or from wearing loose-fitting apparel when cooking. Electric 
lamps and other electric appliances generate heat. If this heat is not 
adequately dissipated, a fire can occur. Lamps can cause fires in a number of 
ways, including: 

 If a lamp is covered with a combustible material, such as an article of 
clothing, a towel or some other fabric, the fabric can ignite; 
 If a lamp tips over, the bulb can come in contact with a combustible material, 
such as bedding or upholstery, and cause it to ignite; 
 A bulb might explode, perhaps as a result of a lamp tipping over, permitting 
the hot filament to come in contact with an easily ignitable material. 

Torchiere lamps with halogen bulbs pose a particularly severe fire hazard. These 
halogen bulbs become much hotter than traditional incandescent bulbs. 
Recently, the Consumer Product Safety Commission has addressed the fire safety 
of these devices as a result of a number of fires caused by them. The CPSC has 
required manufacturers to distribute a wire guard for existing lamps to prevent 
fabrics from coming in contact with the halogen bulb. New lamps have an improved 
design that incorporates such a guard. Nonetheless, there are many such lamps 
without guards. Even with guards, there are scenarios where such lamps can cause 
ignition. Some campuses have banned the use of torchiere lamps in residential 
facilities. 

Electric appliances, including radios, stereos, televisions and computers, 
require adequate ventilation to prevent heat buildup. If the ventilation to such 
devices is restricted, overheating to the point of ignition is possible. Some 
devices have thermally-activated safety switches to prevent runaway overheating, 
but others do not. Despite the safety features in place, wherever electricity is 
utilized there is a possibility of a short circuit or other malfunction that 
could cause ignition under the right circumstances. 

Building services, including the electrical distribution system and gas 
appliances, also present some potential to act as ignition sources. The 
installation of such building services is generally regulated, but older 
buildings may have substandard installations relative to current standards and 

Fire Safe Student Housing: A Guide for Campus Housing Administrators 13 

usage. In particular, the electrical service provided in older buildings may not 
have the capacity for the range of modern electrical equipment now in everyday 
use. Without upgrade, such systems may be overloaded, with students resorting to 
the use of extension cords and power splitters to get the power they need where 
they need it. Such practices increase the potential for fire. 

Finally, incendiary and suspicious fires constitute the third leading cause of 
all residential fires, the second leading cause of fire deaths and the leading 
cause of property loss. Incendiary and suspicious fires have been identified as 
the leading cause of campus housing fires, constituting between 20 and 30 
percent of all fire causes in such facilities. While such intentional fires are 
difficult to prevent completely, other fire protection measures can be used to 
reduce the potential for and impact of arson fires. 

This fairly lengthy discussion of potential fuels and ignition sources should 
make it clear that complete elimination or control of potential fuels and 
ignition sources is not practical. Other safeguards are also needed to provide a 
reasonable level of fire safety. This does not mean that efforts to control the 
flammability characteristics of potential fuels and the presence and safe use of 
potential ignition sources are for naught. While such efforts may not be 
completely effective, they can contribute to a significant reduction in fire 
incidents and losses. Unfortunately, measuring this reduction is difficult, if 
not impossible, particularly in the short term. While it is possible to measure 
changes in the numbers of fires and associated losses over time as a gauge of 
fire prevention effectiveness, it is hard to know how many fires may have been 
prevented by a particular strategy. 

Most campuses have prepared fire safety standards and regulations. Many campuses 
now publish these standards online as a service to the campus community. Some of 
these websites are identified below. These and other resources useful for 
identifying the elements and implementation of a fire prevention plan include: 

 www.usfa.fema.gov/safety/
 www. pp. okstate. edu/ ehs/ 
 www. inform. umd. edu/ CampusInfo/ Departments/ EnvirSafety/ fire/ fire/ 
campus. html 
 www. inform. umd. edu/ CampusInfo/ Departments/ EnvirSafety/ fire/ greek/ 
index. html 
 www. cco. caltech. edu/~ safety/ fpp. html 
 http://www-ehs.ucsd.edu/fire.htm 
 www. rci. rutgers. edu/~ zuccare/ reshall. html 
 www. ou. edu/ oupd/ fireprim. htm 

Fire Safe Student Housing: A Guide for Campus Housing Administrators 14 

Occupant awareness and training 

The second element of the PODS concept is occupant awareness and training. There 
are two aspects to this element: 

 Fire prevention training 
 Fire response training 

Fire prevention training should include instruction on what can be done to 
reduce the potential for ignition. The issues discussed previously with respect 
to fire prevention need to be conveyed to students to make them more fire aware. 
Students should be trained to recognize potentially hazardous situations, such 
as smoking in bed, careless use of candles and cooking, use of excessive 
flammable decorations, poor housekeeping practices and blockage of exit paths. 

Fire response training should include clear instruction on what residents should 
do in the event of a fire. The first decision a resident must make is whether to 
fight the fire, notify other residents or evacuate immediately. Because of the 
rapidly changing nature of many building fires, this decision will depend in 
large part on the location and state of the fire when it is discovered, which in 
turn will depend on the fire safety features of the building. Relatively small 
fires can be fought successfully with portable fire extinguishers. If residents 
are expected to fight small fires, however, they need to be trained in the 
location and operation of portable fire extinguishers, as well as how to 
recognize when a fire is too large to attack. 

Evacuation behavior should be rehearsed. Residents should know at least two ways 
out of the building, a primary path and a secondary path. Paths should be 
checked for safety before proceeding; doors should be felt for heat before 
opening them, then they should be carefully cracked open to check conditions on 
the other side. People should stay low, where the air is generally less smoky, 
and proceed with deliberate speed to the exit and out the building. Once 
outside, residents should not reenter the building for clothing, valuables or 
pets. These rules for safe evacuation behavior should be practiced periodically. 

Whether they are going to fight or flee, residents need to understand how 
dangerous fires behave. This includes an appreciation of how fast building fires 
can develop and familiarity with the phenomenon of flashover. Flashover is a 
brief period of transition in a fire when virtually every combustible in a room 
ignites and the room becomes engulfed in fire. Conditions within the room cannot 
be survived 

Fire Safe Student Housing: A Guide for Campus Housing Administrators 15 

beyond flashover and conditions in other parts of the building will deteriorate 
rapidly as large quantities of heat, smoke and carbon monoxide are pumped from 
the fire room after flashover. Without intervention, the time from ignition to 
flashover can be as brief as a few minutes in many realistic fire scenarios. 

Residents also need to understand the fire safety features of the building. Do 
rooms have self-closing doors? What is the purpose of the self-closing feature? 
How are the exits arranged? What are the primary and secondary egress paths? 
What should be done if the egress paths cannot be used? Does the building have a 
fire detection and alarm system? If so, how is the alarm system activated and 
what does the fire alarm sound like? Does the alarm system automatically notify 
the fire department or must the fire department be notified by phone? Does the 
building have an automatic sprinkler system? What does the sprinkler system 
alarm sound like? These features and issues need to be discussed with residents 
in a way that educates without overwhelming. 

Residents should be instructed not to tamper with the building fire protection 
features, either intentionally or accidentally. Smoke detectors should not be 
covered or have the batteries removed. Sprinklers should not be heated or 
subjected to physical abuse, such as from thrown articles like frisbees or 
footballs. Objects should not be stored in exitways, including hallways, 
corridors and stairways, where they could obstruct the egress path or serve as 
potential fuels for a fire. Doors to rooms and exits should not be blocked open. 
In the event of a fire, doors should be shut to hinder the progress of the fire 
and the spread of smoke. Severe sanctions should be imposed on students who 
violate these rules. 

The resources identified at the end of the Prevention section also contain 
valuable information regarding occupant awareness and training. In addition, the 
Eau Claire Fire Department has produced a videotape and accompanying literature 
under US Fire Administration sponsorship. This videotape, entitled "Get Out - 
Stay Out," is intended for students to view. Contact the USFA (www. usfa. fema. 
gov) to obtain this information package. 

Fire Safe Student Housing: A Guide for Campus Housing Administrators 16 

Detection and Alarm 

The third element of the PODS concept is detection and alarm. Automatic fire 
detection is a key fire safety feature in any residential building, from 
detached single family houses to modern high rise apartments or dormitories. In 
particular, smoke alarms installed throughout a building permit early detection 
and notification of incipient fires, particularly while residents sleep. 
Different fire safety regulations have somewhat different requirements with 
respect to fire detection and alarm systems. 

There are three basic types of fire detection and alarm systems suitable for use 
in residential facilities. These include: 

 Single-and multiple-station smoke alarms 
 Zoned fire detection and alarm systems 
 Addressable fire detection and alarm systems 

An approved, single-station smoke alarm should be installed in every sleeping 
room as well as in every living area within a suite of rooms. At least one smoke 
alarm should be provided on each level of multi-level units. Nationally 
recognized fire safety codes and standards typically require this level of 
protection at a minimum. 

Battery-operated single-station smoke alarms are generally permitted in existing 
buildings, but it must be recognized that these devices require regular battery 
replacement, typically at least annually. Furthermore, the batteries used in 
these devices are usually the 9-volt batteries used in many consumer 
electronics, so "borrowing" of smoke alarm batteries is a fairly common problem 
in student housing. These factors reduce the reliability of battery-operated 
smoke alarms and demand a relatively high level of ongoing maintenance. A survey 
sponsored by the Consumer Product Safety Commission determined that 
approximately one-third of battery-operated smoke alarms are not operational; 
this can leave residents with inadequate protection and a false sense of 
security. 

A better alternative to battery-operated devices is "hard-wired" single-station 
smoke alarms. These devices receive their primary power from a 120-volt 
electrical circuit in the building. This arrangement is typically required in 
new buildings, where it is a relatively simple matter to provide electric power 
to the smoke alarms. The Hotel and Motel Fire Safety Act of 

Fire Safe Student Housing: A Guide for Campus Housing Administrators 17 

1990 also requires "hard-wired" smoke alarms, even in existing buildings. An 
even higher level of protection is achieved if hard-wired smoke alarms are 
provided with a battery as a secondary power supply; such devices will continue 
to operate in the event of a power outage, which might be caused by a fire 
itself. As these pictures show, however, it may be difficult for an untrained 
person to tell the difference between a battery-operated and a hard-wired smoke 
detector. You should be aware of the types of devices installed in your 
facilities and of the maintenance issues related to their 
reliable operation. 
 
In new construction, smoke alarms within a living unit or suite of rooms 
typically must be arranged so that operation of any smoke alarm within the 
living unit will cause all smoke alarms within the living unit to sound. This 
feature is valuable in large living units, whether new or existing, because a 
smoke alarm operating in a remote part of the unit may not be audible in the 
sleeping areas. This multi-station arrangement does not extend to smoke alarms 
in individual dormitory or fraternity rooms, but would apply to multi-room 
suites with common living areas. 

The purpose of single-and multiple-station smoke alarms is to notify people in 
the immediate living unit of the alarm condition. They can also be used to 
provide remote annunciation of an alarm condition at a monitored location, 
although this is not generally required. Single-and multiple-station smoke 
alarms are not intended to actuate the building fire alarm system; some 
nationally recognized codes actually prohibit actuation of the building fire 
alarm system by these devices. This prohibition is due to the 
relatively high incidence of nuisance alarms associated with smoke detection 
systems. 

Historically, smoke detection systems have produced more nuisance alarms than 
real alarms. Various estimates suggest that for every actual alarm there have 
been 10 to 20 nuisance alarms. These nuisance alarms are typically caused by 
non-fire sources, such as cooking or steam from a bathroom, that are 
misinterpreted as fire signatures. Many of these nuisance alarms can be avoided 
through appropriate system design. Regardless of the cause or remedy, however, 
this "crying wolf" syndrome has caused many people to routinely ignore fire 
alarms in buildings without independent confirmation of actual fire signatures, 
such as the smell of smoke. In large buildings, such independent confirmation 
may not occur until the fire has developed to a hazardous point. In the 
meantime, valuable time is wasted. 

The technology of fire detection and alarm systems has advanced in recent years 
to reduce the incidence of nuisance alarms. Where old technology fire detectors 
were either on or off, the sensitivity of new, analog detectors can be monitored 
and adjusted. 

These detectors can even identify when they need to be cleaned. Where old alarm 
systems were typically zoned to indicate the general area of detector operation, 
new systems are addressable so they can pinpoint the specific location of an 
operating 

Fire Safe Student Housing: A Guide for Campus Housing Administrators 18 

detector. These two features tremendously increase the reliability of fire 
detection and alarm systems, particularly for difficult applications like 
dormitories. Now, for example, if a detector activates in a particular room, the 
room can be identified immediately and contacted by phone to determine if the 
source of the smoke is an actual fire or a nuisance source. If a fire is 
confirmed, or if there is no answer to the call, appropriate actions can be 
initiated. New detectors can also be programmed to recognize certain signal 
patterns from nuisance sources as being distinct from fire smoke. This 
discrimination further increases the reliability of such systems. 

Costs for fire detection and alarm systems and components range from less than 
ten dollars for individual single-station battery-operated smoke alarms to 
thousands of dollars for complete addressable analog systems. Individual 
detectors typically cost between $100 and $150 in commercial systems and control 
panels typically cost up to a few thousand dollars, depending on the size of the 
system. Including installation and control panel costs, a total cost of 
approximately $300 per detector is sometimes used for estimating purposes. 

Additional information on current fire detection and alarm technologies is 
available at the websites of the manufacturers. Websites for some manufacturers 
of fire detection and alarm equipment are identified below: 

http://www.cerbpyro.com/ http://www.firstalert.com/ 
http://www.notifier.com/nfs_home.htm 
http://www.simplexnet.com/products/fire/ 
http://www.worldelectronics.com/ 

In summary, fire detection and alarm systems are an essential element of a fire 
protection program for a residential building. These systems provide early 
notification of fire development. In cases of relatively slow fire development, 
these systems usually provide sufficient warning to permit effective 
intervention or evacuation. Regardless of the type of fire alarm system that is 
installed, however, these systems do nothing by themselves to alter the 
development of a fire. Consequently, in cases of relatively fast fire 
development and in cases where people may not hear or react to an alarm signal, 
fire alarm systems have limited value. Unfortunately, many fires develop too 
fast for effective suppression by the fire department before they become 
hazardous, even with prompt detection and notification. In these cases, 
automatic fire suppression is desirable. 

Fire Safe Student Housing: A Guide for Campus Housing Administrators 19 

Suppression 

The final element of the PODS concept is suppression. The best weapon for 
controlling a fire in its early stages, before it becomes too hazardous, is the 
automatic sprinkler system. An automatic sprinkler system is an integrated 
system of underground and overhead piping connecting one or more automatic water 
supplies, such as a city water main, with automatic sprinklers. While a 
sprinkler system may appear to be a fairly ordinary plumbing system, it is not. 
An automatic sprinkler system is a specialized 
system requiring professional skills for design, installation and maintenance in 
conformance with recognized standards. 

The distinguishing feature of an automatic sprinkler system is the automatic 
sprinkler itself. Automatic sprinklers are closed nozzles that hold back water 
under pressure within the pipes, much like a faucet does when it is closed. 
Special sprinklers have been designed for residential occupancies. These devices 
are more sensitive than traditional sprinklers used in commercial and industrial 
buildings; they are designed to respond before life-threatening conditions 
develop within the room where the fire starts and thus provide protection even 
for people sleeping in that room. 

Contrary to popular portrayals in the media, sprinkler systems do not activate 
when somebody pulls the fire alarm or when a smoke detector activates. Nor do 
all sprinklers open simultaneously when the first one activates. Each sprinkler 
has its own heat sensitive element that must be heated to its activation 
temperature of about 165 F before the sprinkler will operate. This heat 
sensitive element holds a cap in place over the sprinkler's orifice. 

Fire Safe Student Housing: A Guide for Campus Housing Administrators 20 

Once activated, a sprinkler discharges water at a rate of approximately 20 
gallons per minute in a fairly uniform spray pattern throughout the room. This 
water spray cools the fire environment while wetting fuels surrounding the fire 
source to prevent or retard their ignition. In this way, the fire is held in 
check until the fire department can respond and complete extinguishment of the 
fire. 

Typical dormitory and fraternity sleeping rooms only require the installation of 
a single sprinkler for protection. Special sidewall sprinklers can be installed 
near the entrance to each room, just off the corridor. This simplifies the 
installation process, while minimizing the aesthetic impact. The only part of 
the system evident in a room is the sprinkler itself. 

With this arrangement, supply pipes can be installed at the ceiling along the 
length of each corridor to serve every room. These pipes also serve sprinklers 
in the corridor. The supply pipes in the corridor can then be enclosed to 
minimize the aesthetic impact of the installation. Special covers have been 
designed and developed for this purpose. These covers simply snap in place to 
cover the pipes while providing convenient access when needed. 

Fire Safe Student Housing: A Guide for Campus Housing Administrators 21 

Delivery of water to each corridor is via "riser" pipes. These risers are 
typically installed, along with drainage pipes and system test assemblies, in 
exit stairways, where aesthetics are not as important. In many buildings, 
standpipes are already located in the stairways and can be converted to combined 
sprinkler-standpipe risers. 

Large common areas in student housing, including living and dining rooms, may 
require the installation of more than one sprinkler for proper coverage. 
Regardless of the number of sprinklers installed in a space, however, the vast 
majority of residential fires are controlled by the operation of only one or two 
sprinklers; less than 10 percent of residential fires require the operation of 
more than four sprinklers. Thus, the vast majority of fires in sprinklered 
residential buildings will be controlled with a water flow rate of less than 50 
gallons per minute. 

Compared with the 150 to 250 gallons per minute discharged by a single fire 
department hose stream, concerns about water damage from sprinkler operation 
during a fire are put into proper perspective. Sprinklers respond much earlier 
than the fire department possibly can and they concentrate water delivery where 
it is needed. Fires remain much smaller with sprinkler protection, such that the 
combined effects of fire and water damage are generally much lower than in 
unsprinklered buildings. Recovery after a fire is typically much quicker as 
well. 

Fire Safe Student Housing: A Guide for Campus Housing Administrators 22 

Sprinkler leakage is a potential cause of water damage that raises concern among 
facilities managers. Accidental leakage from sprinklers or piping is extremely 
rare, about the same as for the other plumbing systems in a building, but 
sprinklers can be mechanically damaged to cause leakage. Unfortunately, student 
horseplay is a fairly common cause of such damage in student housing facilities. 
At the University of Maryland, for instance, campus safety authorities have come 
to fear the 3 F's -Freshmen, Footballs and Frisbees -because of the occasional 
sprinkler that has been struck and activated by students playing "catch" in the 
halls. Students sometimes use sprinklers to hang clothing or decorations as 
well, activities that must be discouraged. Certain features can be designed into 
a sprinkler system to minimize the potential for such damage, including the use 
of concealed sprinklers, but students should be made aware of the consequences 
of their actions. Some universities hold students financially accountable for 
damages caused by inappropriate activities. 

Ultimately, the decision to install automatic sprinkler systems in student 
housing should be based on a number of factors, including the costs and benefits 
associated with the installation of such systems. However, not all these factors 
are tangible, while others are difficult to quantify, so the decision to install 
sprinklers may not be based purely on an economic analysis. 

In general, the costs and inconveniences associated with the installation of 
sprinkler systems are lower in new construction than in retrofit applications. 
Current nationally recognized fire safety codes and standards generally require 
the installation of automatic sprinkler systems in new dormitories and 
apartments, so such installations would be prudent even if not yet mandated by 
local regulations. This discussion will focus on retrofit applications. 

Direct costs associated with automatic sprinkler systems include initial design 
and installation costs as well as ongoing inspection and maintenance costs. The 
design and installation of sprinkler systems in retrofit applications generally 
costs in the range of $2.00 to $3.00 per square foot, depending on locale and 
conditions. For comparison, this is similar to the cost of installing wall-to-
wall carpeting in a building. These costs 
can be reduced if the installation is coordinated with a major building 
renovation. 

Sprinkler systems are fairly rugged mechanical systems that do not require a lot 
of maintenance, but it is important that they be inspected regularly in 
accordance with recognized standards to assure they are ready to operate in the 
event of a fire. Sprinkler system inspection and maintenance typically costs 
between about $250 per year and $1,000 per year, depending on the size of the 
building. Smaller facilities, such as fraternity houses, would be near the low 
end of the scale, while large facilities, such as high-rise dormitories, would 
be near the high end. Annual testing of fire pumps typically costs about $500 
per pump. 

Some buildings, particularly high-rise dormitories, may require the installation 
of a fire pump to boost the pressure of the incoming water supply because water 
pressure decreases inversely with building height. Space for the pump and its 
associated equipment will need to be provided, typically in a basement or 
utility space. Fire pumps contribute significantly to the cost of a sprinkler 
system, with installed costs in the neighborhood of $25,000 fairly common for 
this equipment. 

Fire Safe Student Housing: A Guide for Campus Housing Administrators 23 

Indirect costs associated with the installation of sprinkler systems include 
items such as water connection fees and property taxes. Different jurisdictions 
have different requirements regarding these fees, so it is difficult to 
generalize about them. Some jurisdictions do not impose these fees for automatic 
sprinkler protection as one way to encourage the use of sprinklers in buildings. 

Direct benefits associated with the installation of automatic sprinkler systems 
in student housing include lower risks of life loss and property damage from 
fire. These benefits may translate into reduced insurance premiums as well, 
helping to defray the costs of sprinkler protection. In some cases, these 
reduced premiums translate into payback periods of 5-to 10-years, so that the 
sprinkler protection eventually pays for itself. 

Less tangible but very real benefits include the good will and peace of mind 
associated with providing students with this high level of fire safety. When a 
fire inevitably does occur, clean up is also much easier so down time and 
student displacement are minimized after a fire. This can be an important factor 
in the middle of the school year. 

Once the decision is made to install sprinklers in your student housing 
facilities, it is necessary to procure professional design and installation 
services to complete the job. Only properly qualified and certified fire safety 
professionals should be entrusted with this job. Competition in the sprinkler 
industry tends to be strong, so it will usually be in your best interest to 
obtain multiple bids for a job. But your selection of a contractor should not be 
based on cost alone; references, reputations, credentials and insurance should 
also be considered to assure that a contractor is capable and qualified to 
complete your job. 

The contractor will obtain appropriate permits and approvals from the authority 
having jurisdiction before proceeding with the installation. Your insurance 
representative should also be involved in the review process to assure maximum 
credit on your fire insurance premium. 

The primary inconvenience associated with retrofitting sprinklers into an 
occupied building is the installation process itself. Fortunately, the 
hospitality industry has already addressed this issue and has developed 
installation materials and techniques that can minimize this impact. Scheduling 
the installation during a major building renovation or during a period when the 
building is not occupied, such as during winter or summer breaks, can further 
minimize this impact, but even when a building is occupied, the installation can 
proceed smoothly. In the hospitality industry, it is not unusual for systems to 
be installed while the building is occupied. With the installation techniques 
described above, most of the work is in the stairways, corridors and other 
public areas of a building; the installation time required in individual rooms 
is only about an hour or two. 

When the installation is completed, the contractor must test the system in 
accordance with recognized standards. This testing should be conducted after 
notification of the authority having jurisdiction and the owner's representative 
so these parties can be present to witness the testing if they desire. Once the 
authority having jurisdiction and the owner have accepted the installation, 
responsibility for maintaining the system transfers to the owner or operator of 
the building. Proper maintenance requires periodic inspection and testing of 
system components in accordance with recognized standards. 

Fire Safe Student Housing: A Guide for Campus Housing Administrators 24 

Qualified employees or independent agencies can perform these activities. The 
contractor who installed the system may provide such services under an annual 
service contract. Otherwise, many fire safety professionals are qualified to 
perform these essential services. 

Summary 

There are many issues vying for the attention of, and limited resources 
available to, campus housing authorities and fraternal organizations. Rational 
decisions need to be made with respect to allocating these limited resources to 
best serve the students and the campus community. Keys to the decision-making 
process include a clear understanding of the risk factors involved, the 
different risk reduction methods and strategies available, and the costs and 
benefits of the different options. The purpose of this report has been to 
introduce an integrated approach to fire safe student housing comprised of 
Prevention, Occupant awareness and training, Detection and alarm, and 
Suppression. You can remember these elements by the acronym "PODS." 

Serious fires in student housing wreak almost unimaginable devastation and 
disruption; this potential warrants careful consideration of fire safety 
options. In particular, automatic sprinkler systems should be considered as a 
viable option; they have established an impressive record of preventing 
residential fire catastrophes, particularly in the hospitality industry. With 
technologies developed specifically for residential applications, automatic 
sprinkler systems are now commonplace in hotels and motels, where they afford 
the traveling public with a high level of fire safety. College students deserve 
this same high level of protection - and their parents expect it. 

In closing, it is reiterated that fire safe student housing does not just 
happen; it requires careful planning, coordination, implementation and diligence 
on the part of campus housing and safety administrators. 

Acknowledgements 

This work was sponsored by the United States Fire Administration of the Federal 
Emergency Management Agency under Contract No. EME-97-CA-0333. Thanks to Mr. 
Larry Maruskin, the Project Manager for the USFA, for his guidance on this 
project. 

Special thanks to Mr. Phil Friday, a graduate student in the Department of Fire 
Protection Engineering at the University of Maryland, for stepping in and 
looking after the details to bring this project to completion. The videotape 
that accompanies this report was developed under the direction of Ms. Sonya 
Sezun and Mr. Mac Nelson of the Video Production unit of the University 
Marketing department at the University of Maryland. Some of the still images in 
this report were obtained from the website maintained by the Building and Fire 
Research Laboratory of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (www. 
bfrl. nist. gov). 

Fire Safe Student Housing: A Guide for Campus Housing Administrators 25 

Appendix A 

AN EXAMINATION AND ANALYSIS OF SELECTED COLLEGE DORMITORY AND FRATERNITY HOUSE 
FIRES 

By 
Dr. John L. Bryan 
Professor Emeritus 
Department of Fire Protection Engineering 
University of Maryland 

December 5, 1997 

Fire Safe Student Housing: A Guide for Campus Housing Administrators 26 

A1. INTRODUCTION 

Nine college dormitory and six fraternity house fires for a total of fifteen 
fire incidents that occurred from April 5, 1967 until May 12, 1996 were selected 
from the review of literature for specific analysis and study. These fraternity 
and college dormitory fire incidents were selected based on the criteria of the 
availability of a published report and the occurrence of fatalities or injuries 
to the occupants. Thus, college dormitory and fraternity house fires illustrated 
in published reports without occupant fatalities or injuries are not included in 
this examination. 

These fifteen fire incidents involved a range of facilities relative to their 
locations varying from large metropolitan areas to rural areas and thus the type 
of public fire protection available. Four fire incidents occurred in facilities 
located in large metropolitan areas with career fire departments including: 
Washington, D. C. (3), Providence, RI (6) and Columbus, Ohio (12) (19). Five 
fire incidents occurred in facilities located in suburban or small city areas 
with career or combination fire departments including: Amherst, MA (1), 
Baltimore County, MD (4), Berkeley, 
CA (9), Chapel Hill, NC (10)( 22), and Cambridge, MA (11). 

Six fire incidents occurred in facilities located in small town or rural areas 
with combination or volunteer fire departments including: Dover, DE (5), 

Fire Safe Student Housing: A Guide for Campus Housing Administrators 27 

Farmville, VA (5), Cayuga Heights, NY (7), Saratoga Springs, NY (13), Baldwin 
City, KS (14), and Bloomsburg, PA (21). 

This examination and analysis will review in the first section the factors 
identified in the investigations to have been significant in the ignition of the 
fire and the propagation of the fire resulting in the fatalities or injuries to 
the occupants. The second section of this report will examine the construction, 
age and height variables of the facilities with the number and arrangement of 
the exit stairways. The third section of this analysis will examine the 
characteristics of the occupant population and the human behavior variables of 
the occupants identified as contributing to the fire ignition, the fire 
development, the fatalities and injuries and jumping behavior. The fourth 
section of this report will review the information from the investigation 
reports relative to the arrangement of the fire protection systems in the 
facilities. The fifth section of the report will review additional NFPA data on 
college dormitory and fraternity house fires. The final section of this report 
will provide a summary of the physical, psycholgical and cultural factors with 
the recurring variables that appear to be significant in the college dormitory 
and fraternity house fires. This final section will also include an examination 
of the similarities and the differences in the fire incidents in these two 
unique and specific occupancies housing college age occupants. 

Fire Safe Student Housing: A Guide for Campus Housing Administrators 28 

A2. IGNITION AND PROPAGATION VARIABLES 

The nine dormitory fire incidents and the six fraternity house fires are 
identified in Table 1 by the name of the educational institution operating the 
dormitory facility or from which the students were members of the fraternity. 
Nine of these educational institutions were private facilities: Amherst College 
(1), Baker University (14), Cornell University (7), George Washington University 
(3), Longwood College (5), Massachusetts Institute of Technology (11), 
Providence College (6), Skidmore College (13), and Wesley College (5). In 
addition to these nine private institutions there were five state supported 
institutions involved in the remaining six fires with Ohio State University 
having two fires in this study population: Bloomsburg State College (21), Ohio 
State University (12)( 19), University of Maryland Baltimore County (4), 
University of California Berkeley (9) and The University of North Carolina (10). 

The six fraternity house fires involved students from Amherst College, Baker 
University, Bloomsburg State College, Ohio State University, University of 
California Berkeley and the University of North Carolina. Thus, the fraternity 
house fires involved students from two private institutions and four state 
supported institutions. The nine dormitory fires occurred on the campuses of 
Cornell University, George Washington University, Longwood College, 
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Ohio State University, Providence 
College, Skidmore 

Fire Safe Student Housing: A Guide for Campus Housing Administrators 29 

College, University of Maryland Baltimore County and Wesley College. These 
dormitory fires occurred on the campuses of seven private institutions and two 
state supported institutions. 

It is also of interest as indicated in Table 1, that of these fifteen fire 
incidents thirteen, or 86 percent of the fires occurred in the early morning 
hours between 1: 00 am and 7: 00 am. Only two of these fires both in dormitories 
occurred outside this time frame, one at 11: 24 am and the other at 10: 59 p. m. 
(11)( 19) 

Relative to the ignition factors the predominate factors appeared to be 
incendiary and smoking materials. Five of these fire incidents were attributed 
to incendiary actions, four involving college dormitories (3)( 4)( 5)( 19) and 
one involving a fraternity house. (9) Four of these fire incidents were 
identified as involving smoking materials, all of these identified smoking 
caused fires involved fraternity houses. (1)( 10)( 14)( 21) In four of these 
fire incidents the investigators could not determined the ignition source. The 
remaining two fire incidents were determined to be caused by burning decorations 
in a fireplace (12) and an overloaded extension cord. (5) 

Upholstered sofas were the most predominate fuel immediately ignited in 
seven of the fire incidents, contributing to the rapid fire propagation in fires 
involving five fraternity houses (1)( 9)( 12)( 14)( 21) and two college 
dormitories. (7)( 19) The second most readily involved fuel material consisted 
of trash being 

Fire Safe Student Housing: A Guide for Campus Housing Administrators 30 

ignited in three of the fire incidents, involving two college dormitories (4)( 
11) and one fraternity house. (10) Wood paneling was identified as one of the 
principal factors contributing to the fire propagation in five of the fire 
incidents involving four fraternity houses (1)( 9)( 10)( 14) and one college 
dormitory. (7) Paper decorations and wall coverings were identified as 
increasing the fire propagation in four fire incidents involving three college 
dormitories (6)( 11)( 13) and one fraternity house. (12) Fire propagation was 
accelerated by carpeting in two college dormitory fire incidents. (3)( 4) 

A construction aspect presented in Table 2 relative to the fire propagation of 
flame and smoke spread to the upper floors was enhanced by open stairways or 
enclosed stairs with the doors blocked opened or removed in seven of these fire 
incidents. These seven fire incidents involved all six fraternity houses and one 
college dormitory. (7) In addition, one fraternity house fire spread was aided 
by the operation of a large fan in the basement providing a mechanical draft up 
the single open stairway. The construction variables of the fifteen dormitory 
and fraternity house structures involved in the study population will be 
examined and analyzed next involving the stairways and stair enclosures. 

Fire Safe Student Housing: A Guide for Campus Housing Administrators 31 

Table 1 

Facility Date & Time Ignition Factors Propagation Variables 

Cornell University Dorm. (7) 4-5-67 0400  Undetermined, source in basement 
lounge area Plywood paneling & sofas 

Ohio State University (19) Dorm. 5-22-68 2259 Incendiary in living room of suite 
1140 Sofa, spread into room 1142  through open door 

Amherst College (1) Frat. 2-2-75 0559 Smoking & wastebasket to sofa in living 
room Sofa, oak paneling & open 1st. floor & stairs 

Mass. Inst. of Tech. (11) Dorm. 7-22-75 1124 Undetermined, trash in hall by 
trash chute Trash in hall & vinyl wall covering 

Ohio state University (12) Frat. 1-8-76 0202 Burning decorations in fire-place 
ignited trash & sofas Paper decorations, trash &  sofas 

Skidmore College (13) Dorm. 4-5-76 0400 Undetermined, in trash closet on 1st. 
floor Vinyl Wall covering 

Baker University (14) Frat. 8-29-76 0306 Smoking on a sofa in TV room Wood 
paneling from TV room to open stair 

Providence College (6) Dorm. 12-13-77 0257 Undetermined, in room 406 Christmas 
decorations on walls & doors 

George Washington U. (3) Dorm. 4-19-79 0345 Incendiary, flammable liquid on hall 
carpet Carpet & flammable liquid  in hall on 5th. floor 

U. of MD. Balt. County (4) Dorm. 2-3-80 0359 Incendiary, trash in hall & trash 
room, 2nd. floor Trash & carpet in 2nd. floor hall 

Wesley College (5) Dorm. 4-12-87 0233 Incendiary, smoke bomb in room 206 Room 
furnishings 

Longwood College (5) Dorm. 4-28-87 0650 Overloaded extension cord in 3rd. floor 
room Hanging bed linens 
 
U. Cal. Berkeley (9) Frat. 9-8-90 0100 Incendiary, lighter on sofa in living 
room Wood paneling throughout including stairs 

Bloomsburg State C. (21) Frat. 10-21-94 0502 Smoking on sofa Sofa believed out & 
placed on porch & open stair 

U. North Carolina (10) Frat. 5-12-96 0607 Smoking material & trash Under bsmt. 
bar Wood paneling in bsmt. open doors & fan in bsmt. 

A3. CONSTRUCTION VARIABLES 

The construction variables relative to the nine college dormitory and six 
fraternity house buildings are presented in Table 2, consisting of the type of 
construction, the age and height of the building, the number and enclosure of 
the stairways. The age of the buildings at the time of the fire was not reported 
for 

Fire Safe Student Housing: A Guide for Campus Housing Administrators 32 

three fraternity houses and for one college dormitory. The range of age for the 
eleven reporting facilities involved in these fire incidents varied from 70 
years to 9 months, with a mean age of 29.7 years. The range of age for the seven 
college dormitories varied from 39 years to 9 months with a mean age of 15.5 
years while the age range for the four reporting fraternity houses varied from 
33 to 70 years with a mean age of 54.7 years. Thus, the fraternity houses when 
comparing mean ages were more than three times as old as the college 
dormitories. 

Relative to the height of the structures as would be expected the college 
dormitories were the taller structures varying in height from 2 stories and 
basement to 24 stories, with a median height for the nine college dormitories of 
9.1 stories. The six fraternity houses varied in height from 2 stories to 3 
stories and basement, with a mean height of 2.5 stories as would be expected, 
since many of the fraternity houses were converted single or multi-family 
residential structures. 

There was also a definite difference in the construction of the college 
dormitory buildings compared to the fraternity houses. Eight of the college 
dormitories were of fire resistive construction and one was of protected 
noncombustible construction. (6) Two of the fraternity houses were of frame 
construction, (9)( 21) three were of ordinary construction (10)( 12)( 14) and 
one was of protected noncombustible construction. (1) All of the fraternity 
houses were located off campus and all of the college dormitories were located 
on campus. 
Fire Safe Student Housing: A Guide for Campus Housing Administrators 33 

Table 2 

Facility Age-Years Exit Stairways Height-Construction 
Cornell University Dorm. (7) 14 2 enclosed stairs, doors removed & open 2 
stories & bsmt.,  fire resistive 

Ohio State U. Dorm. (19) 0.75 2 enclosed stairs 24 stories, fire resistive 

Amherst College Frat. (1) 57 3 open stairs 2 stories & bsmt., prot. 
Noncombustible 

Mass. Inst. of Tech. Dorm. (11) Not reported 2 enclosed stairs 24 stories, fire 
resistive 

Ohio State U. Frat. (12) Not reported 1 open stair, fire escape-2nd. floor 2 
stories & attic, ordinary 

Skidmore College 10 Dorm. (13) 2 enclosed stairs, 1 enclosed conv. stair 3 
stories & bsmt., fire resistive 

Baker University Frat. (14) 59 1 enclosed stair-open  doors & 1 open stair 2 & 3 
stories & bsmt., ordinary 

Providence College Dorm. (6) 39 3 enclosed stairs 4 stories, Prot.  
noncombustible 

George Wash. U. Dorm. (3) Not reported 2 enclosed stairs 9 stories & bsmt., 
 fire resistive 

U. of MD. Balt. Cty. Dorm. (4) 10 3 enclosed stairs 3 stories & bsmt., fire 
resistive 

Wesley College Dorm. (5) 18 2 enclosed stairs 3 stories & bsmt.,  fire resistive 

Longwood College Dorm. (5) 17 Not reported 10 stories & bsmt.,  fire resistive 

U. Cal. Berkeley Frat. (9) 33 3 enclosed stairs-open doors 3 stories & bsmt., 
wood frame 

Bloomsburg St. C. Frat. (21) Not reported 1 open stair, 2 stories, woodframe 

U. North Carolina Frat. (10) 70 1 open stair, 2 fire  escapes-2nd. & 3rd. fls. 3 
stories & bsmt., ordinary 

A4. OCCUPANT BEHAVIOR VARIABLES 

These nine college dormitory and six fraternity house fires were selected from 
the criteria that each fire resulted in occupant fatalities or injuries. Six of 
the college dormitory fires resulted in fatalities in a range from 1 to 10, with 
a total of 24 fatalities. Five of the fraternity house fires resulted in 
fatalities in a range from 

Fire Safe Student Housing: A Guide for Campus Housing Administrators 34 

2 to 5, with a total of 20 fatalities. The injuries to the occupants in the nine 
college dormitory fires varied in a range from 0 to 60, with a total of 133 
occupants suffering medically treated injuries. One college dormitory fire 
resulted in a single fatality and no injuries. The injuries to the occupants in 
the six fraternity house fires varied from 0 to 4, with a total of 10 occupants 
suffering medically treated injuries. In two of the fraternity house fires, each 
resulting in 5 occupant fatalities, there were no medically treated occupant 
injuries. 

Occupants jumping from the windows has been identified as a phenomenon of the 
occupant behavior during college dormitory and fraternity house fires. Two of 
the occupant fatalities resulted from jumping and six of the occupant injuries 
were identified as resulting from jumping behavior. A total of 17 occupants were 
identified as having engaged in jumping behavior with jumps varying from the 
second, third, fourth and fifth floors.( 3)( 4)( 6)( 7)( 9)( 10)( 12)( 14) 
Additional occupants were reported to have jumped from windows in one fraternity 
house fire and one dormitory fire. (1)( 13) Jumping behavior was reported to 
have occurred in five or 55 percent of the college dormitory fires and in five 
or 83 percent of the fraternity house fires. Occupants were rescued from windows 
with fire department ladders in three of the college dormitory fires, (3)( 5)( 
6) and in two of the fraternity house fires. (1)( 9) 

Fire Safe Student Housing: A Guide for Campus Housing Administrators 35 

The total number of occupants in the facility at the time of the fire was often 
difficult for the investigators to obtain due to the transient nature of the 
occupants in both the college dormitories and the fraternity houses. However, 
the reported number of occupants was generally larger in the dormitories due to 
the larger size of the facilities. The number of occupants for the seven college 
dormitories reporting varied from 84 in a 3 story dormitory to 1,950 occupants 
in a 24 story dormitory. The number of occupants in the four reporting 
fraternity houses at the time of the fire varied from 9 to 39 occupants. The 
gender of the occupants in the six college dormitories reporting this data were 
mixed in four of the six dormitories with two dormitories having all female 
occupants, resulting in all female fatalities. (6)( 13) All six of the 
fraternity house fires reported the gender of the occupants at the time of the 
fire. In these six fraternity houses there were all male occupants in two of the 
houses at the time of the fire. (1)( 14) Four of the fraternity houses contained 
male and female occupants with both male and female fatalities. (9)( 10)( 12)( 
21) 

Occupant behavior involved with the alerting of the other occupants of the 
facility was reported in 14 of the 15 fire incidents. This behavior consisted of 
shouting, knocking on doors and activation of the manual fire alarm stations. 
Occupant fire fighting behavior occurred in only two fraternity house fire 
incidents. In one case a occupant attempted to utilize a fire extinguisher 

Fire Safe Student Housing: A Guide for Campus Housing Administrators 36 

unsuccessfully and in the other case a couch believed to have been extinguished 
was moved to an outside porch, where it later reignited. (12) (21) This occupant 
behavior is summarized in Table 3. 

Table 3 

Facility No. Gender Fat. Inj. Jumping 

Cornell University Dorm. (7) 69 No report 9 2 Several from 2nd. floor 

Ohio State U. Dorm. (19) 1,940 Mixed 2 1 None 

Amherst College Frat. (1) 39 Male 0 4 6 from 2nd. floor 

Mass. Inst. of Tech. Dorm. (11) No report Mixed 1 0 None 

Ohio State U. Frat. (12) 22 Mixed 2 1 2 from 2nd. floor 

Skidmore College Dorm. (13) 84 Female 1 60 Numerous from all 3 floors 

Baker University Frat. (14) No report Male 5 0 1 from 3rd. floor 

Providence College Dorm. (6) 41-4th. fl. Est. 160 Female 10 12 2 from 4th. 
floor 

George Wash. U. Dorm. (3) 898 Mixed 0 37 2 from 5th. floor 

U. of MD. Balt. Cty. Dorm. (4) 312 Mixed 0 2 1 from 2nd. floor 

Wesley College Dorm. (5) 180 No report 1 4 None 

Longwood College Dorm. (5) No report No report 0 15 None 

U. Cal. Berkeley Frat. (9) 10 Mixed 3 2 1 from 2nd. floor 

Bloomsburg State C. Frat. (21) 9 Mixed 5 0 None 

U. North Carolina Frat. (10) No report Mixed 5 3 2 from 3rd. floor 

Total 3,723 44 143 17+ 

Fire Safe Student Housing: A Guide for Campus Housing Administrators 37 

A5. PROVISION OF FIRE PROTECTION SYSTEMS 

None of the nine college dormitories or the six fraternity houses were 
completely equipped with an automatic sprinkler system. Two of the college 
dormitories that were high-rise structures were partially sprinklered. One of 
these dormitories had sprinklers provided in the storage and service areas. (11) 
The other dormitory had a complete suite arrangement, with the suite's living 
rooms, kitchens and corridors sprinklered, and the student's sleeping rooms non 
sprinklered. (19) Two of the fraternity houses had partial sprinkler systems. 
One of the fraternity houses had sprinklers throughout the basement of the 
facility. (1) The other fraternity house had a single sprinkler at the top of 
the trash chute and at the top of the laundry chute. (9) 

Eight of the college dormitories had a local fire alarm system with manual 
stations and one college dormitory had no fire alarm system. (7) The fire alarm 
system at one of these dormitories was connected directly to the fire department 
(6) and two were connected directly to campus communication centers.( 11)( 19) 
Of the eight fires involving college dormitories with alarm systems, the systems 
were activated in six of the fires. The system failed to operate in one 
dormitory fire and the system was turned off in another dormitory at the time of 
the fire. (5) 

Fire Safe Student Housing: A Guide for Campus Housing Administrators 38 

In one college dormitory fire the manual station was activated by the fire 
exposure (11) and in another college dormitory fire the system was deactivated 
by the fire exposure following the initial activation. (3) 

Considering the six fraternity houses in this study population, only two of 
the houses had fire alarm systems. The manual fire alarm system was not 
activated in one of the fires (9) and in the other fire the thermal detectors 
connected to the system activated the system. (1) The fire alarm system in this 
fraternity house had rate-of-rise and fixed-temperature detectors installed 
throughout the house and the fire alarm system activation was transmitted 
directly to the fire department. (1) 

Five of the college dormitories were reported as having either smoke or thermal 
detectors installed in portions of the buildings. Two of the college dormitories 
had smoke detectors in each students room. (4)( 5) In the fire in one of these 
dormitories the smoke detector failed to operate in the room of fire origin, and 
subsequent investigation determined that 85 percent of these detectors in the 
dormitory were inoperative. (5) One of the college dormitories had thermal 
detectors of the combination rate-of-rise fixed-temperature type in each 
students room and the basement trash room, the fire started in the first floor 
trash room. (13) One college dormitory had thermal detectors of the rate-of-rise 
fixed-temperature type installed at the top of each stairway. (6) One college 
dormitory had smoke detectors in all the trash rooms and at the top of the trash 
chutes and exhaust ducts. 

Fire Safe Student Housing: A Guide for Campus Housing Administrators 39 

(11) Considering the six fraternity houses involved with fires in this study, 
two of the houses had no detectors as well as no alarm system.( 12)( 14) Two of 
the fraternity houses had partial installations of smoke detectors, one with 
single-station detectors in some sleeping rooms. (9) The other fraternity house 
had thermal detectors in the basement mechanical room and smoke detectors in the 
basement stairway and the second and third floor corridors. (10) One fraternity 
house was reported to have had both thermal and smoke detectors which apparently 
failed to operate at the time of the fire incident. (21) One fraternity house 
was completely protected with thermal detectors of the rate-of-rise fixed-
temperature type and smoke detectors at the top of the stairs connected directly 
to the fire department which activated in the fire incident. (1) The facilities 
fire protection systems are summarized in Table 4. 

Fire Safe Student Housing: A Guide for Campus Housing Administrators 40 

Table 4 

Facility Alarm System Detectors Sprink.-Standp. 

Cornell University Dorm. (7) None None None 

Ohio State U. Dorm. (19) Manual, sprink. act. to campus PD None Standp.-stairs, 
stor. & ser. areas sprink. 

Amherst College Frat. (1) Manual, detectors & sprink. act. to FD Smoke-stairs, 
thermal throughout Basement-sprink. 

Mass. Inst. of Tech. Dorm. (11) Manual, detectors & sprink. act to Con. C Smoke-
top of exh.,trash chutes & rooms Suite ex. stud. rms. trs. chs. standp-strs. 

Ohio State U. Frat. (12) None None None 

Skidmore College Dorm. (13) Manual, detectors act. bldg. alarm Thermal-bsmt. 
trash rm. & student rooms None 

Baker University Frat. (14) None None None 

Providence College Dorm. (6) Manual, detectors act. to FD Thermal top of stairs 
None 

George Wash. U. Dorm. (3) Manual No report Standp. -stairs 

U. of MD. Balt. Cty. Dorm. (4) Manual Smoke -student rooms Standp. -stairs 

Wesley College Dorm. (5) Manual None None 

Longwood College Dorm. (5) Manual Smoke -student rooms Standp. -stairs & hose 
cabinets 

U. Cal. Berkeley Frat. (9) Manual Smoke-some student rooms Standp. -hose 
cabinets 

Bloomsburg State C. Frat. (21) None Smoke & thermal detectors None 
 
U. North Carolina Frat. (10) None Thermal-bsmt. rm. smoke-stair & hall None 

Fire Safe Student Housing: A Guide for Campus Housing Administrators 41 

A6. NFPA DATA ANALYSIS 

The National Fire Protection Association has published data identifying the 
established causes of the fires from a review of 260 college dormitory, 
fraternity and Sorority house fires in 1954. (17) In 1995 the NFPA published 
data relative to the established causes of the fires in college dormitories 
separately from the fraternity and sorority house fires for the fires reported 
from 1990 through 1994. (16) It should be recognized the causes of the fires 
published in 1954 were based on the ten year time period from 1944 through 1954. 

Although there are obviously significant social and cultural differences in 
both the institutions and the students, a comparison of the fire cause data 
between this approximate 40 year interval appeared to be at least of historical 
value. In the 1940's and 1950's there were more restrictions on the student's 
behavior in both college dormitories and the fraternity and sorority houses with 
hour limitations and adult supervision consisting of "house directors" being the 
norm. It should also be remembered in both 1944 and 1945 a large percentage of 
the college age population were in the military service, and in the late 40's 
and early 50's this population was in college providing a culturally different 
population from the college students of the early 90's. There would also appear 
to be some construction differences with the use of high-rise dormitories, since 
the 1970's with enclosed stairways and fire resistive construction. Obviously, 
smoke 

Fire Safe Student Housing: A Guide for Campus Housing Administrators 42 

detectors were not available until the early 1960's for residential occupancies. 
Table 5 presents the causes of the college dormitory, fraternity and sorority 
house fires as published by the National Fire Protection Association in 1954. 
(17) 

Table 5 

NFPA 1954 Data Causes of Fires Percentage of Fires 

Smoking and matches 24.2 
Misuse of electricity 22.7 
Defective chimney 10.0 
Heating equipment, defective 9.6 
Incendiary or suspicious 9.6 
Spontaneous ignition 6.2 
Kitchen hazards 5.8 
Open fireplaces 5.3 
Lightning 0.8 
Exposure 0.8 
Explosion 0.8 
Miscellaneous 4.2 
Total 100.0 

The National Fire Protection Association has presented the data separately 
for college dormitory, fraternity and sorority house fires for the period from 
1990 to 1994. This data is also developed in the form of an annual average for 
the five year period estimated from both NFPA and NFIRS (National Fire Incident 
Reporting System) data. It should be remembered the NFIRS data is generated by 
the incident reports of the fire department agencies involved in each fire 
incident. Thus, fire incidents not reported to a fire department would be 
excluded. Table 6 presents the causes of fire data with the dollar loss as 
developed and published by the NFPA for fraternity and sorority houses in 1995. 
(16) 

Fire Safe Student Housing: A Guide for Campus Housing Administrators 43 

Table 6 

NFPA 1995 Data 
Causes of Fires No. % Dollar Loss % 

Incendiary, suspicious 33.89 19.5 497,497.00 20.1 
Cooking 25.93 14.9 15,759.00 0.6 
Electrical distribution 16.90 9.7 822,738.00 33.3 
Smoking 15.62 9.0 126,790.00 5.1 
Other Equipment 12.04 6.9 12,729.00 0.5 
Other heat, flame, spark 10.25 5.9 156,178.00 6.3 
Open flame, ember, torch 9.35 5.4 19,463.00 0.8 
Heating 8.96 5.2 296,958.00 12.0 
Appliances, air conditioning 8.46 4.9 54,364.00 2.2 
Natural causes 1.78 1.0 179.00 0.0 
Children playing 0.90 0.5 354.00 0.0 
Exposure 0.89 0.5 0.00 0.0 
Unknown 28.53 16.4 466,528.00 18.9 
Total 173.49 100.0 2,469,538.00 100.0 

Table 7 presents the identical fire cause categories as Table 6 with the NFPA 
1995 fire cause and dollar loss data for college and University dormitories. 
(16) 

Table 7 

NFPA 1995 Data 
Causes of Fires No. % Dollar Loss % 

Incendiary, suspicious 428.92 29.9 2,231,154.00 40.0 
Cooking 225.06 15.7 116,815.00 2.1 
Smoking 155.54 10.8 188,031.00 3.4 
Other equipment 86.42 6.0 262,063.00 4.7 
Appliances, air conditioning 85.13 5.9 663,876.00 11.9 
Electrical distribution 77.16 5.4 520,370.00 9.3 
Open flame, ember, torch 73.03 5.1 78,778.00 1.4 
Other heat, flame, spark 70.48 4.9 210,223.00 3.8 
Heating 35.69 2.5 251,368.00 4.5 
Exposure 8.52 0.6 3,887.00 0.1 
Natural causes 7.16 0.5 63,422.00 1.1 
Children playing 7.13 0.5 3,834.00 0.1 
Unknown 176.30 12.3 980,059.00 17.6 
Total 1,436.54 100.0 5,573,879.00 100.0 

Comparing the 1995 NFPA data for fraternity and sorority houses to the identical 
data for college and university dormitories identifies some interesting 
differences and similarities. As can be noted, the greatest causes of fires in 
both occupancies are "incendiary, suspicious" and "cooking" accounting for 34.4 

Fire Safe Student Housing: A Guide for Campus Housing Administrators 44 

percent of the fires in fraternity and sorority houses and 45.6 percent of the 
fires in the college dormitories. "Smoking" is the fourth leading cause of fire 
in the fraternity and sorority houses following "electrical distribution" as the 
third leading cause. When these four leading causes of fire are considered they 
account for 53.1 percent of all the fires during this 1990 through 1994 period 
as reported by the NFPA and thus, should be the focus of the fire prevention 
efforts in these occupancies. 

In the college dormitories "smoking" is the third leading cause of fires 
followed by "other equipment" as the fourth leading cause of fires. Thus, in the 
college dormitories these four causes of fire account for 62.4 percent of all 
the fires. However, since the "other equipment" cause accounts for only 6 
percent of the fire causes, the remaining three leading causes of fire 
consisting of "incendiary, suspicious", "cooking" and "smoking" account for 56.4 
percent of all the fires in college dormitories. Obviously, for both the 
fraternities and sorority houses and the college dormitories the principal 
causes of fire are the human behavior related categories of "incendiary, 
suspicious," "cooking" and "smoking" and these are the causes of fire that 
should be alleviated by the fire prevention related efforts of both education 
and enforcement. The final two sections of this report will contain specific 
suggestions for the development of programs and efforts in these areas. 

Fire Safe Student Housing: A Guide for Campus Housing Administrators 45 

When one compares the NFPA data on fire causes reported in 1954 as illustrated 
in Table 5 with the leading causes from the 1995 data presented in Tables 6 and 
7 there appear to be some definite differences. It must be 
remembered of course that the 1954 data is a compilation of both college 
dormitory fires and fraternity and sorority house fires so the compilation and 
presentation of the data is basically different from the 1995 data. However, 
there are some interesting similarities and differences in the fire causes as 
reported with this forty-year difference. 

The category of "incendiary or suspicious" in the 1954 data was the fifth 
leading cause of fires accounting for only 9.6 percent of all the fires. While 
in the 1995 data for the fraternity and sorority houses and the college 
dormitories this was the leading cause of all the fires accounting for 29.9 
percent of the fires in the college dormitories and 19.5 percent of all the 
fires in the fraternity and sorority houses. This is an increase of at least 100 
percent in the fraternity and sorority houses and approximately 200 percent in 
the college dormitories during this forty-year 
period. In the 1954 data the category of "misuse of electricity" was the second 
leading cause of fires accounting for 22.7 percent of all the fires. While in 
the 1995 data the category of "electrical distribution" was the third leading 
cause of fires in the fraternity and sorority houses it only accounted for 9.7 
percent of all the fires in these occupancies. The 1995 data for college 
dormitories indicated the 

Fire Safe Student Housing: A Guide for Campus Housing Administrators 46 

category of "electrical distribution" was the sixth leading cause of fire 
accounting for only 5.4 percent of all the fires in college dormitories. It 
appears the higher ranking of electrical fires in the 1954 data may be a result 
of two variables. First, as previously indicated the 1954 data included the 
fraternity and sorority house data with the college dormitory data, and as the 
1995 data confirms electrical caused fires are still the third leading cause of 
fires in fraternity and sorority houses. It may be there is still more 
utilization of unapproved electrical modifications and extensions in the 
fraternity and sorority houses than in the college dormitories which in general 
appear to have newer structures and more supervision. Secondly, it should be 
recognized the determination of fire cause has become more technical and 
sophisticated during the forty-year period from 1954 to 1995, and with the 
development of the NFIRS reporting system the overall validity of the 
identification of the fire causes has probably improved. 

The 1954 data indicated the categories of "defective chimney" and "heating 
equipment, defective" as the third and fourth leading causes of fire, with the 
"defective chimney" category accounting for 10 per cent of the fires and the 
"heating equipment, defective" category accounting for 9.6 per cent of the 
fires. Thus, the chimney and heating equipment categories together were 
identified as the causes accounting for 19.6 per cent of all the fraternity, 
sorority and college dormitory fires in the 1954 data. However, the 1995 data 
for fraternity and 

Fire Safe Student Housing: A Guide for Campus Housing Administrators 47 

sorority house fires indicated the category of "heating" was the eighth leading 
cause of fires accounting for only 5.2 percent of all the fires. While, for the 
1995 data concerning college dormitories the "heating" category was the ninth 
leading cause of fire accounting for only 2.5 percent of all the fires. It would 
appear the decline of the heating related causes of fire including the defective 
chimneys between the 1954 and the 1995 data might be related to the decline in 
the use of solid fuel heating devices and systems prevalent in the 1940's and 
1950's to the use of the fluid fired heating devices and systems that are 
prevalent in the 1990's. 

It should be noted that all of these comparisons relative to the 1954 NFPA data 
and the 1995 data are limited by the different procedures used in the 
collection, compilation and analysis of the data, including the different 
identification of the fire cause categories. Thus, it might appear to be valid 
to relate the "open fireplaces" category in the 1954 data to the "open flame, 
ember, torch" category of the 1995 data. It would appear the 1995 category is 
broader and could include other sources in addition to "open fireplaces." 
However, it is interesting to note the category of "open fireplaces" in the 1954 
data was identified as the eighth leading cause of the fires accounting for 5.3 
per cent of all the fires. While in the 1995 data for the fraternity and 
sorority houses the category of "open flame, ember, torch" was the seventh 
leading cause of fires accounting for 5.4 percent of all the fires. The 1995 
data for the college dormitories indicated the 

Fire Safe Student Housing: A Guide for Campus Housing Administrators 48 

category of "open flame, ember, torch" was also the seventh leading cause of 
fires, accounting for 5.1 percent of all the fires. 

The National fire Protection Association has also prepared a summary of all 
the fraternity and sorority house fires reported to them involving occupant 
fatalities from March 16, 1975 through May 12, 1996. (16) This summary also 
includes the reported property loss involved in the fire when that information 
was reported to the FIDO (Fire Information Data Organization) of the National 
fire Protection Association. This twenty-one year summary includes fatal fires 
in nineteen fraternity house fires and one sorority house fire. This data 
summary would tend to provide credibility to the following statement by Isner 
relative to the predominance of fatal fraternity house fires in his report on 
the Fraternity House fire of May 12, 1996 in Chapel Hill, North Carolina: (10) 

"Since the NFPA began compiling data on fire losses in the early 1970s, all of 
the catastrophic life-loss fires (involving five or more deaths) in fraternity 
or sorority housing have occurred in fraternity houses." p. 36. 

This NFPA summary includes five of the fraternity house fires that were included 
in the six fraternity house fires studied extensively in the first four sections 
of the this report with their data presented in Tables 1 through 4. (9)( 10)( 
12)( 14)( 21) This National Fire Protection Association 1996 summary of twenty-
one years of fatal fires in fraternity and sorority houses is presented in Table 
8. (16) 

Fire Safe Student Housing: A Guide for Campus Housing Administrators 49 

Table 8 

Date Facility & Location Fat. Inj. Dollar Loss 

3/ 16/ 75 Frat., Burlington, VT. 1 1 100,000.00 
1/ 08/ 76 Frat., Columbus, OH. 2 6 No report 
8/ 29/ 76 Frat., Baldwin City, KS. 5 2 No report 
1/ 14/ 78 Frat., University Park, TX. 1 2 525,000.00 
4/ 05/ 80 Frat., Eugene, OR. 1 1 60,000.00 
9/ 09/ 82 Frat., Philadelphia, PA. 1 8 No report 
5/ 28/ 83 Frat., Bridgewater, MA. 1 1 75,000.00 
12/ 11/ 83 Frat., Austin, TX. 1 1 335,000.00 
1/ 06/ 84 Frat., Thibodaux, LA. 1 0 No report 
4/ 11/ 84 Frat., Lexington, VA. 1 0 420,000.00 
10/ 21/ 84 Frat., Bloomington, IN. 1 30 100,000.00 
12/ 20/ 84 Frat., Geneseo, NY. 1 0 No report 
3/ 03/ 85 Frat., San Jose, CA. 1 1 117,000.00 
4/ 19/ 86 Frat., Danville, KY. 1 0 No report 
9/ 08/ 90 Frat., Berkeley, CA. 3 2 2,100,000.00 
12/ 08/ 90 Frat., Erie, PA. 1 4 No report 
2/ 13/ 92 Frat., California, PA. 1 0 70,000.00 
10/ 24/ 93 Sor., LaCrosse, WI 1 2 No report 
10/ 21/ 94 Frat., Bloomsburg, PA. 5 0 70,000.00 
5/ 12/ 96 Frat., Chapel Hill, NC. 5 3 475,000.00 
Total 35 64 4,447,000.00 

As indicated in Table 8, there were a total of 35 occupant fatalities in these 
nineteen fraternity house fires and one sorority house fire in this twenty-one 
year period. Three of the fraternity house fires had the maximum of five 
fatalities in each fire, [Baldwin City, KS. (14); Boomsburg, PA. (21) and Chapel 
Hill, NC. (10)] one fraternity house fire had three fatalities, [Berkeley, Ca. 
(9)] and one had two fatalities, [Columbus, Oh. (12)]. The remaining fourteen 
fraternity houses and the one sorority house fire all resulted in a single 
occupant fatality. 

There were a total of 64 reported occupant injuries in these nineteen fraternity 
house fires and one sorority house fire. Almost fifty percent of the injuries, 
involving thirty occupants occurred in the single fraternity house fire in 

Fire Safe Student Housing: A Guide for Campus Housing Administrators 50 

Bloomington, Indiana on October 21, 1984. The remaining four largest injuries 
consisted of eight injuries in the fraternity house fire of September 9, 1982 in 
Philadelphia, Pa., six injuries in the fraternity house fire of January 8, 1976 
in Columbus, Ohio and four injuries in the fraternity house fire of December 8, 
1990 in Erie, Pa. The fraternity house fire of May 12, 1996 in Chapel, NC (10) 
in addition to the five fatalities had three injuries. There were three 
fraternity house fires with two injuries each, and five fraternity house fires 
with a single injury in addition to the fatalities. There were five fraternity 
house fires with a single fatality and no injuries and one fraternity house fire 
with five fatalities and no injuries [Bloomsburg, PA. (21)]. It should be noted, 
the single sorority house fire of October 24, 1993 in LaCrosse, WI. resulted in 
one occupant fatality and two occupant injuries. It is apparent from a review of 
Table 8 that the fire caused life loss problem in fraternity and sorority house 
fires is definitely a fraternity house fire problem. 

Twelve of the nineteen fraternity house fires had an identified and reported 
dollar loss from the fire incident with the range of reported losses varying 
from $60,000 in the Eugene, OR. fire of April 5, 1980 to $2,100,000 in the 
Berkeley, CA. fire of September 8, 1990. The total dollar loss from these twelve 
fraternity house fires as indicated in Table 8 was $4,447,000.00 and the mean 
dollar loss for the twelve facilities was $370,583.00. 

Fire Safe Student Housing: A Guide for Campus Housing Administrators 51 

A review of the National Fire Protection Association Fire Journal and NFPA 
Journal "Firewatch" sections as published by the Association in 1995 provided 
additional listings of college dormitory, fraternity house and sorority house 
fires. (16) These listing were from the twenty-five year period from 1971 
through 1995 and identified eighteen college dormitory fires, five fraternity 
house fires and one sorority house fire. Two occupant fatalities were identified 
in these twenty-four fires. One fatality occurred in a single student room fire 
which occurred in a 13 story fire resistive dormitory. The other occupant 
fatality occurred in a 3 story frame fraternity house fire reportedly caused by 
electrical wiring in a second floor wall. 

A7. FIRE PREVENTION STRATEGIES-PROGRAMS 

It is apparent from a review of the fire cause data previously presented in 
Tables 5, 6, and 7, indicated the leading causes of fires in both fraternity 
houses and college dormitories to be the occupant related causes of "incendiary 
or suspicious" "cooking" and "smoking". Tables 3 and 8 appear to indicate 
relative to the occurrence of occupant fatalities and injuries that fraternity 
houses pose the most severe life safety problem for the past two decades. The 
college dormitory fire problem relative to single fire multiple occupant 
fatalities and injuries appeared to have peaked in the 1960's and 1970's. 

Fire Safe Student Housing: A Guide for Campus Housing Administrators 52 

David Breen, while at Harvard University surveyed nine private institutions 
relative to their fire evacuation drill procedures and frequency in the student 
residence dormitories. (2) In 1979 at the time of this survey three of the nine 
universities, one-third of the population conducted no evacuation drills in 
their college dormitories. One university conducted two drills per year, one at 
the beginning of each semester. Three universities conducted four drills per 
year and two universities conducted five drills per year. Of the six 
universities conducting evacuation drills, three conducted them only in the 
evening hours and three conducted their drills in both a. m. and p. m. hours. 
Four of the six institutions conducting evacuation drills included unannounced 
drills in their procedures. Breen also reported that in 1979 New York State Law 
required four evacuation drills per year, and in Rhode Island the State Law 
required two evacuation drills per year. 

Nygren (18) has indicated the unique problems involved with a high-rise college 
dormitory of 28 stories in two wings with 1,100 students in each wing. The 
dormitory has a suite arrangement as is prevalent with high-rise college 
dormitories with four suites each with 12 residents per floor for a total of 48 
residents per floor in each wing. This style of high-rise housing involved two 
of the college dormitories (11)( 19) with three fatalities, in the analysis of 
the nine college dormitory fires in Tables 1-4. The evacuation procedures 
followed in the 

Fire Safe Student Housing: A Guide for Campus Housing Administrators 53 

evacuation drills for this 28 story dormitory involved the residents moving 
upward and downward within the section of five floors and not to totally 
evacuate the building, unless directed by fire department personnel over the 
public address system. Thus, the fire floor of one wing and two floors above and 
below the fire floor would be evacuated with the activation of the fire alarm 
system. This is an evacuation procedure followed in many high-rise buildings of 
residential, commercial and mercantile occupancy. 

Following the fraternity house fire in Chapel Hill, North Carolina on May 12, 
1996 with five fatalities and three injuries the Chapel Hill Town Council on 
November 11, 1996 enacted fire prevention ordinances requiring the installation 
of automatic sprinkler systems. (8)( 10) These ordinances require the complete 
automatic sprinkler protection in all new fraternity or sorority houses, and the 
retrofitting of complete sprinkler protection in all existing fraternity and 
sorority houses within five years. 

Sactor (20) has reviewed an inspection program for off campus fraternity and 
sorority houses which was initiated in 1972 between the University of Maryland, 
the City of College Park and the Prince George County Fire Department. This 
program utilizes the University's safety personnel in the annual inspection and 
the first follow-up inspection of the facilities with the City personnel. The 
University and City personnel issue the Fire Department correction 

Fire Safe Student Housing: A Guide for Campus Housing Administrators 54 

notices on the first inspection and if corrections are not made by the follow-up 
inspection the enforcement of the notices is administered by the Fire Department 
with fines and even withdrawal of the County Occupancy Permit, thus closing the 
facility to student occupancy. For the twenty-two fraternity and sorority houses 
on campus a similar inspection program is followed by the University personnel 
with enforcement involving the University's Judicial Programs Office and for 
students may involve suspensions, fines or community service. For the 
organization enforcement may also involve fines, restrictions on activities and 
even revoking of the lease by the University. 

Evacuation drills are conducted at both on and off campus fraternities and 
sororities once a semester under University personnel supervision and failed 
drills are repeated. Criteria of failure are less than 100 percent participation 
and lack of notification of the fire department. Morris has emphasized this type 
of sharing of the education and enforcement efforts in his 1965 article in the 
following manner: (15) 

"Firesafety in student housing is literally a matter of life and death, and a 
responsibility that ought to be shared by the college, the local or state 
enforcement agency, and the organization owning or operating a residence. Each 
should make certain that its segment of responsibility has been properly carried 
out." p. 27. 

Isner in the conclusion of his report on the fraternity house fire in Chapel 
Hill, North Carolina of May 12, 1996 resulting in 5 fatalities and 3 injuries 
emphasizes the importance of fire prevention inspections of fraternity houses, 
due 

Fire Safe Student Housing: A Guide for Campus Housing Administrators 55 

to the older types of construction, lack of maintenance and occupant behavior 
that is inherent in these facilities: (10) 

"Fire prevention inspections are key in reducing the fire risk in fraternity and 
sorority housing. Fire inspectors need to remain diligent with regard to typical 
inspection items such as fire extinguishers, fire detection and alarm equipment, 
general housekeeping, building maintenance, and storage of combustible 
materials. Moreover, fire inspectors need to enforce all requirements of local 
codes such as the Life Safety Code because these codes regulate interior finish, 
protection of vertical openings, detection and alarm systems, egress system 
components, etc. Given the difficulty of maintaining good housekeeping practices 
in some fraternity and sorority houses combined with historical occupant 
behavior, the installation of state-of-the-art fire detection equipment and fire 
alarm systems is essential, as a minimum, and the installation of automatic 
sprinklers is strongly recommended." p. 37. 

A8. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 

Table 1 indicated that of the fifteen college dormitory and fraternity house 
fires, thirteen or 86 percent occurred in the early morning hours between 1: 00 
am and 7: 00 am. This table also indicated in confirmation with Tables 5, 6, and 
7 that the leading cause of fire ignition was incendiary fire setting. Table 1 
also indicated this occupant behavior was prevalent with five incidents and four 
of the incidents or 80 percent of the incendiary behavior occurred in college 
dormitories, (3)( 4)( 5)( 19) with one incident in a fraternity house. (9) Four 
of these incendiary fire incidents or 80 percent occurred between the hours of 
1: 00 a. m. and 4: 00 a. m. (3)( 4)( 5)( 9) The second leading cause of fires 
for the college dormitory and fraternity house population in Table 1 was smoking 
and all four of the fires ignited 

Fire Safe Student Housing: A Guide for Campus Housing Administrators 56 

from smoking materials occurred in fraternity houses. (1)( 10)( 14)( 21) 
Upholstered furniture, predominately sofas were the fuel material immediately 
ignited in five of the fraternity house fires (1)( 9)( 12)( 14)( 21) and two of 
the college dormitory fires reviewed in Table 1. (7)( 19) 

Sactor has indicated the fire safety problems with fraternity and sorority 
houses involve the construction of the facilities, the lack of maintenance and 
the occupant behavior as follows: (20) 

"The ordinary, wood frame, or even balloon construction of many of the older 
buildings can contribute to fire and smoke spread. Open stairways can also be 
found. Multiple additions, sometimes unauthorized, create concealed spaces for 
fire to develop and may also change exit and egress patterns and may include 
combustible interior finishes." 

"General poor upkeep results in unrepaired holes in walls and broken 
stairwell and bedroom doors which contribute to smoke and heat spread. Fire 
protection systems, emergency lighting, and exit signs when in place can be in 
disrepair or out of service." 

"Large social events and rough treatment of the facilities causes damage or 
excessive wear and tear. Poor fire safety awareness of occupants may result in 
blocked exits, flammable decorations, unsafe use of combustibles and smoking 
materials, and tampering with fire protection equipment." p. 18. 

Table 2 involving the construction variables in the nine college dormitories and 
the six fraternity houses emphasizes the difference in the ages of the 
structures between the college dormitories and the fraternity houses. Seven 
college dormitories were involved with reporting the age of the structure with a 
range of 39 years to 9 months at the time of the fire with a mean age of 15.5 
years. While 

Fire Safe Student Housing: A Guide for Campus Housing Administrators 57 

the four reporting fraternity houses had an age range from 33 years to 70 years 
with a mean age of 54.7 years. Thus, when comparing the means ages of the 
fraternity houses and the college dormitories, the fraternity houses appear to 
be more than three times as old as the college dormitories. As indicated by 
Sactor (20) there is also a difference in construction as well as age for the 
fraternity houses. Table 2 indicated that eight of the nine college dormitories 
were of fire resistive construction and one was of protected noncombustible 
construction. (6) While one of the fraternity houses was of protected 
noncombustible construction, (1) three were of ordinary construction (10)( 12)( 
14) and two were of frame construction. (9)( 21) Table 2 also indicated that 
four of the six fraternity houses had open stairs and the two with enclosed 
stairs had open doors. 

Sactor has identified occupant behavior and organizational differences which may 
explain the lack of a sorority house in the Tables 1-4 study population and the 
inclusion of only one sorority house fire compared to nineteen fraternity house 
fires in Table 8, as follows: (20) 

"There are differences between fraternities and sororities which effect the 
condition of the facilities. Based on experience at UMCP, sororities often have 
stronger ties to their nationals and closer involvement of house corporations 
than fraternities. Sororities always have house directors and cleaning services 
and do not have parties which include alcohol in their facilities." p. 20 

From a review of the relevant published literature and the fire record for 
fraternity, sorority houses and college dormitories from the years of 1944 
through 

Fire Safe Student Housing: A Guide for Campus Housing Administrators 58 

1954, (17) and 1990 through 1996 (16) the following conclusions appear 
reasonable: 

1. The primary causes of fraternity House and college dormitory fires 
appear to be the occupant behavior activities of incendiary fire setting, 
cooking and smoking. 
1. A. It would appear occupant educational and enforcement procedures should be 
focused on the alleviation of these primary fire causes. 
1. B. The current educational activities in these occupancies appear to be 
generally limited to practice evacuation drills. The educational activities 
should be extended to orientation sessions with appropriate visual aids relative 
to fire ignition and fire/ smoke propagation variables affecting life safety for 
the residents and resident assistants in the dormitories and the house directors 
and the members in the fraternities and sororities. 
2. The Greek organizations fire life loss problem currently appears to be a 
fraternity fire problem, often preceded by social events. 
3. Fire prevention inspections of college dormitories, fraternity and sorority 
houses should be thorough with the adoption and enforcement of current codes and 
standards. The enforcement procedures should impact on the residents and the 
organizations for continued uncorrected facility features or unsafe occupant 
behavior. Such behavior should include false alarms, tampering with fire 

Fire Safe Student Housing: A Guide for Campus Housing Administrators 59 

protection equipment (including detectors and extinguishers), and open flame 
ignition behavior. 

3. Procedures should be initiated to regulate the inclusion of new highly 
combustible upholstered furniture into both dormitories and fraternity, sorority 
houses. 
4. Procedures should be initiated to provide for the installation of smoke 
detectors in students rooms and automatic sprinkler systems throughout new 
fraternity, sorority houses and college dormitories. When existing facilities 
are renovated these fire protection systems should be installed. 
4. A. The national fraternal organizations should be more involved in providing 
for the financing of fire protection systems during the renovation of fraternity 
or sorority houses. 
4. B. The national fraternal organizations should be more involved in providing 
for education and enforcement activites to reduce the occupant behavior 
involving excessive use of alcohol at the social events which apparently 
preceded the fire incidents in numerous cases. 

Fire Safe Student Housing: A Guide for Campus Housing Administrators 60 

A9. SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY 

1. Best, Richard, "Fire in a Fraternity House Amherst, Massachusetts," Fire 
Journal, 69, 6, (November 1975), 30-33, 105. 
2. Breen, David E., Fire Evacuation Drills at Other universities. Cambridge, MA: 
University Health Services, Harvard University, March 21, 1979. 
3. Bryan, J. L., J. A. Milke and P. J. DiNenno, An Examination and Analysis of 
the Dynamics of the Human Behavior in the Fire Incident at Thurston Hall on 
April 19, 1979. College Park, MD: Department of Fire Protection Engineering, 
University of Maryland, July 31, 1979. 
4. Bryan, John L. and James A. Milke, An Examination and Analysis of the 
Dynamics of the Human Behavior in the Fire Incident at Chesapeake Hall on 
February 3, 1980. College Park, MD: Department of Fire Protection Engineering, 
University of Maryland, June 30, 1980. 
5. Carpenter, Daniel J., Jr., College Dormitory Fires in Dover, Delaware and 
Farmville, Virginia. Washington, D. C.: U. S. Fire Administration, Federal 
Emergency Management Agency, 1987. 
6. Demers, David P. "Ten Students Die in Providence College Dormitory Fire," 
Fire Journal, 72, 4, (July 1978), 59-62, 103. 
7. Gaudet, Robert E., "Dormitory Fire Kills Nine, "Fire Journal, 61, 4, (July 
1967), 5-9. 
8. Graham, D'Arcy L., "Getting the Message Out and Getting Things Done," 
Sprinkler Age, 16, 8, (August 1997), 10-13. 
9. Isner, Michael S., Fraternity House Fire, Berkeley, California, September 8, 
1990. Quincy, MA: National Fire Protection Association, Fire Investigation 
Report, 1990. 
10. Isner, Michael S., Fraternity House Fire, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, May 
12, 1996. Quincy, MA: National Fire Protection Association, Fire Investigation 
Report, 1996. 

Fire Safe Student Housing: A Guide for Campus Housing Administrators 61 

11. Lathrop, James K., "Nineteenth-Floor Dormitory Fire Kills One Student," 
Fire Journal, 70,3, (March 1976), 77-79. 
12. Lathrop, James K., "Two Die in Fraternity House Fire," Fire Journal, 70, 5, 
(September 1976), 5-7, 66. 
13. Lathrop, James K., "Dormitory Fire Leaves One Dead Twenty-three 
Hospitalized, Saratoga Springs, New York," Fire Journal, 70, 6, (November 1976), 
5-7, 13. 
14. Lathrop, James K., "Five Die in Fraternity House Fire Baldwin City, Kansas," 
Fire Journal, 71, 3, (May 1977), 21-22, 109-110. 
15. Morris, John, "Off-Campus Housing-A college Fire Problem," Fire Journal, 59, 
6, (November 1965), 26-27. 
16. National Fire Protection Association, Special Data Information Package 
Dormitories and Fraternity and Sorority Houses. Quincy, MA: Fire Analysis and 
Research Division, 1995. 
17. National Fire Protection Association, Occupancy Fire Record College 
Dormitories, Fraternities and Sororities. Quincy, MA: FR 54-8, 1954. 
18. Nygren, Ronald G., "Alarm Signaling and Evacuation in a High-Rise University 
Residence Hall, " Fire Journal, 66, 2, (March 1972), 5-6, 11. 
19. Peterson, Carl E., "Ohio State University Fires, Morrill Tower and Lincoln 
Tower," Fire Journal, 62, 6, (November 1968), 19-23. 
20. Sactor, Alan, Fire Inspection Program for Greek Facilities at the University 
of Maryland at College Park, A Model of University and Community 
Cooperation. Monograph No. 58, paper presented at 42nd. Annual International 
Conference on Campus Safety, University of Hawaii at Manoa, June 9-14, 1995. 
21. Trembly, Kenneth J., "Catastrophic Fires of 1994," NFPA Journal, 89, 5, 
(September/ October 1995), 60. 
22. Wolf, Alisa, "Fraternity Fire Kills Five," NFPA Journal, 90, 5, (September/ 
October 1996), 61-64.