U.S. Fire Administration

Four Years Later – A Second 

Needs Assessment of the U.S. 

Fire Service

A Cooperative Study Authorized by U.S. Public Law 

108-767, Title XXXVI

FA-303/October 2006

Homeland

Security

U.S. Fire Administration

Mission Statement

As an entity of the Department of Homeland 

Security, the mission of the USFA is to reduce 

life and economic losses due to fire and 

related emergencies, through leadership, 

advocacy, coordination, and support. 

We serve the Nation independently, in 

coordination with other Federal agencies, 

and in partnership with fire protection 

and emergency service communities. With 

a commitment to excellence, we provide 

public education, training, technology, and 

data initiatives.

Homeland

Security
A cooperative study between: 

US Fire Administration (USFA) 

Directorate for Preparedness 

Department of Homeland Security 

and 

National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 

NFPA Project Manager: John R. Hall, Jr., Ph.D. 

NFPA Senior Statistician: Michael J. Karter, Jr. 

USFA Project Officer: Mark A. Whitney 

This second needs assessment of the U.S. fire service used the unaltered survey 

instrument developed in the first needs assessment, with the aim of supporting valid 

timelines on all questions. Once again, America’s fire departments rose to the challenge, 

carefully reviewed their departments’ capabilities and described those capabilities in 

forms submitted to us for use in this study. 

We received essential comments at several stages from colleagues at NFPA and from the 

staff at USFA, and we greatly appreciate their insights. 

Lastly, we want to thank the administrative personnel at NFPA, whose painstaking 

attention to detail and extended hours of work were instrumental in transforming a set of 

questions and a stack of forms into a unique database and this analysis report: 

• John Baldi 

• John Conlon 

• Frank Deely 

• Norma Candeloro 

• Helen Columbo 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

The 2005 Fire Service Needs Assessment Survey was conducted as a stratified randomsample survey. (See Introduction for Notes to Reader and Survey Methodology) The 

NFPA used its own list of local fire departments as the mailing list and sampling frame of 

all fire departments in the US that report on fire incidents attended. 

In all, 15,545 fire departments – just over half the total in NFPA Fire Service Inventory 

(FSI) database, including all departments protecting communities of at least 50,000 

population – were mailed survey forms, and 4,709 responded, for a 30% response rate. 

Because of time constraints, this second survey limited its second mailing to larger 

departments and states with unusually low response rates, whereas the first survey in 

2001 had included a second mailing to all first-mailing non-respondents. This response 

rate is similar to the response rate in the 2001 survey’s first mailing and is sufficient for 

reliable results at the national and state levels, overall and by community size. The 

second mailing to small states with low response rates had minimal impact on national 

estimates. 

The content of the survey was developed by NFPA in the 2001 survey, in collaboration 

with an ad hoc technical advisory group consisting of representatives of the full spectrum 

of national organizations and related disciplines associated with the management of fire 

and related hazards and risks in the U.S. The survey form was used without modification 

in order to maximize comparability of results and development of valid timelines. 

The US Fire Service – Revenues and Budgets 

• Most of the revenues for all- or mostly-volunteer fire departments come from 

taxes, either a special fire district tax or some other tax, including an average of 

64-68% of revenues covered for communities of less than 5,000 population. 

• Other governmental payments – including reimbursements on a per-call basis, 

other local government payments, and state government payments – contributed 

an average of 11-13% of revenues for communities under 5,000 population. 

• Fund-raising contributed an average of 19% of revenues for communities of less 

than 2,500 population. 

• Used vehicles accounted for an average of 40% of apparatus purchased by or 

donated to departments protecting communities with less than 2,500 population. 

• Converted vehicles accounted for an average of 14% of apparatus used by 

departments protecting communities with less than 2,500 population. 

iii
Table ES-1. Number of Career, Volunteer, and Total Firefighters 

by Size of Community 

Population Protected 

Career 

Firefighters 

Volunteer 

Firefighters 

Total 

Firefighters 

1,000,000 or more 30,700 800 31,500 

500,000 to 999,999 31,700 4,150 35,850 

250,000 to 499,999 21,200 5,450 26,650 

100,000 to 249,999 45,800 4,500 50,300 

50,000 to 99,999 43,450 7,150 50,600 

25,000 to 49,999 44,850 28,000 72,850 

10,000 to 24,999 48,150 83,900 132,050 

5,000 to 9,999 14,400 119,100 133,500 

2,500 to 4,999 6,100 155,750 161,850 

Under 2,500 7,750 398,350 406,100 

Total 294,100 807,150 1,101,250 

Personnel and Their Capabilities 

• There are roughly 1.1 million active firefighters in the US, of which just under 

three-fourths (73%) are volunteer firefighters. Nearly half the volunteers serve in 

communities with less than 2,500 population. 

• The number of volunteers has been declining and the number of career firefighters 

has been increasing for several years. Part of the reason is that there has been a 

slight shift from all- or mostly-volunteer departments toward all- or mostly-career 

departments. 

• In communities with less than 2,500 population, 21% of fire departments, nearly 

all of them all- or mostly-volunteer departments, deliver an average of 4 or fewer 

volunteer firefighters to a mid-day house fire. Because these departments average 

only one career firefighter per department, it is likely that most of these 

departments often fail to deliver the minimum of 4 firefighters recognized by 

national standards as the necessary minimum for interior fire attack. 

• An estimated 79,000 firefighters serve in fire departments that protect 

communities of at least 50,000 population and have fewer than 4 career 

firefighters assigned to first-due engine companies. It is likely that, for many of 

these departments, the first arriving complement of firefighters often falls short of 

the minimum of 4 firefighters needed to initiate an interior attack on a structure 

fire, thereby requiring the first-arriving firefighters to wait until the rest of the 

first-alarm responders arrive. 

iv
• An estimated 214,000 firefighters, most of them volunteers serving in communities 

with less than 2,500 population, serve in departments that are involved in structural 

firefighting but have not formally trained all involved firefighters in those duties. 

• An estimated 128,000 firefighters, most of them volunteers serving in 

communities with less than 2,500 population, serve in departments that are 

involved in structural firefighting but have not certified any firefighters to 

Firefighter Level I or II. 

• An estimated 36% of fire departments are involved in delivering emergency 

medical services (EMS) but have not provided formal training in those duties to 

all involved personnel. 

• The majority of fire departments do not have all their personnel involved in 

emergency medical services (EMS) certified to the level of Basic Life Support 

and almost no departments have all those personnel certified to the level of 

Advanced Life Support. 

• An estimated 36% of fire departments involved in hazardous material response 

have not provided formal training in those duties to all involved personnel. 

• More than four out of five fire departments do not have all their personnel 

involved in hazardous material response certified to the Operational level and 

almost no departments have all those personnel certified to the Technician level. 

• An estimated 63% of fire departments involved in wildland firefighting have not 

provided formal training in those duties to all involved personnel. 

• An estimated 50% of fire departments involved in technical rescue service have 

not provided formal training in those duties to all involved personnel. 

• An estimated 737,000 firefighters serve in fire departments with no program to 

maintain basic firefighter fitness and health, most of them volunteers serving 

communities with less than 5,000 population. 

Fire Prevention and Code Enforcement 

• An estimated 67.0 million people (23% of the US resident population in 2005) are 

protected by fire departments that do not provide plans review. 

• An estimated 118.9 million (40%) are protected by departments that do not 

provide permit approval. 

• An estimated 128.9 million (44%) are protected by departments that do not 

provide routine testing of active systems (e.g., fire sprinklers). 

v
• Each of the above services may be provided by another agency or organization in 

these communities. 

• An estimated 103.6 million people (35%) are protected by fire departments that 

do not have a program for free distribution of home smoke alarms. 

• An estimated 120.8 million people (41%) are protected by fire departments that 

do not have a juvenile firesetter program. 

• An estimated 83.6 million people (28%) are protected by fire departments that do 

not have a school fire safety education program based on a national model 

curriculum. Moreover, independent data on the breadth of implementation of 

such curricula indicate that most fire departments reporting programs provide 

only annual or occasional presentations based on material from such a curriculum. 

• An estimated 20.3 million people (7%) live in communities where no one 

conducts fire-code inspections. Two-fifths of this population live in rural 

communities, with less than 2,500 population. 

Facilities, Apparatus and Equipment 

• Roughly 17,300 fire stations (36% of the estimated 48,400 total fire stations) are 

estimated to be at least 40 years old. 

• Roughly 26,000 fire stations (54%) have no backup power. 

• Roughly 35,000 fire stations (72%) are not equipped for exhaust emission control. 

• Using maximum response distance guidelines from the Insurance Services Office 

and simple models of response distance as a function of community area and 

number of fire stations, developed by the Rand Corporation, it is estimated that 

three-fifths to three-fourths of fire departments have too few fire stations to meet 

the guidelines. 

• Roughly 14,000 fire engines (pumpers) (17% of all engines) are 15 to 19 years 

old, another 15,700 (19%) are 20 to 29 years old, and 10,900 (13%) are at least 30 

years old. Therefore, roughly half (49%) of all engines are at least 15 years old. 

• Among fire departments protecting communities with less than 2,500 population, 

at least 14% of departments are estimated to have no ladder/aerial apparatus but to 

have at least one building 4 stories high or higher in the community. 

• An estimated 65% of fire departments do not have enough portable radios to 

equip all emergency responders on a shift. The percentage of departments that 

cannot provide radios to all emergency responders on a shift is highest for 

communities under 2,500 population. 

vi
• An estimated seven-tenths to three-fourths of fire departments have at least some 

portable radios that are not water-resistant. An estimated three-fourths to fourfifths of fire departments have at least some portable radios that lack intrinsic 

safety in an explosive atmosphere. The percentages are higher for small, rural 

communities. 

• An estimated 60% of fire departments do not have enough self-contained 

breathing apparatus (SCBA) to equip all firefighters on a shift. 

• Three-fifths (59%) of fire departments have at least some SCBA units that are at 

least 10 years old. 

• An estimated half (48%) of fire departments do not have enough personal alert 

system (PASS) devices to equip all emergency responders on a shift. 

• An estimated 8% of fire departments do not have enough personal protective 

clothing to equip all firefighters, most of them departments protecting 

communities with less than 2,500 population. 

• An estimated two-thirds (66%) of departments have at least some personal 

protective clothing that is at least 10 years old. 

Communications and Communications Equipment 

• Three-fifths to four-fifths of fire departments (64-77%, by size of community 

protected) say they can communicate at incident scenes with their Federal, state, 

and local partners. Of these, though, only one-third say they can communicate 

with all their partners. This means only about one-fourth of departments overall 

can communicate with all partners. 

• Roughly half of all fire departments have no map coordinate system. Most 

departments with a map coordinate system have only a local system. 

Interoperability of spatial-based plans, information systems, equipment, and 

procedures probably will not be possible under these circumstances, for multiple 

jurisdiction/agency catastrophic disaster response. The U. S. National Grid 

(USNG-NAD83) standard was adopted by the Federal Geographic Data 

Committee (12/2001) as the system best suited for eventual national 

standardization. (http://www.fgdc.gov/usng/index.html) 

• One-fourth (28%) of departments (37% of rural fire departments) have 911-Basic 

for telephone communication. Two-thirds to three-fourths (71%) have 911-

Enhanced, and only 1% have no special 3-digit number. 

vii
• Overall, one community in 16 (7%) has primary responsibility for dispatch 

operations lodged with the fire department, but that fraction rises to four-fifths for 

communities of at least 1 million population. 

• One-third (30%) of communities have primary dispatch responsibility lodged with 

the police department, and another two-fifths (39%) with a combined public 

safety department. 

• Two-fifths of departments (39%) lack a backup dispatch facility, including nearly 

half (46%) of departments protecting communities with less than 2,500 

population. 

• One-fourth (24%) of departments lack Internet access. 

Ability to Handle Unusually Challenging Incidents 

• 11% of fire departments can handle a technical rescue with EMS at a structural 

collapse of a building with 50 occupants with local trained personnel. 

3⁄4

3⁄4

3⁄4

3⁄4

One-third (34%) of all departments consider such an incident outside their 

responsibility. This 2001 survey reported 44% of departments considered 

such an incident outside their responsibility. 

11% can handle the incident with local specialized equipment. 

26% have a written agreement to direct use of non-local resources. 

All needs are greater for smaller communities. 

• 12% of fire departments can handle a hazmat and EMS incident involving 

chemical/biological agents and 10 injuries with local trained personnel. 

3⁄4

3⁄4

3⁄4

3⁄4

One-third (32%) of all departments consider such an incident outside their 

responsibility. The 2001 survey reported that 42% of departments considered 

such an incident outside their responsibility. 

10% can handle the incident with local specialized equipment. 

30% have a written agreement to direct use of non-local resources. 

All needs are greater for smaller communities. 

• 24% of fire departments can handle a wildland/urban interface fire affecting 500 

acres with local trained personnel. 

viii
3⁄4

3⁄4

3⁄4

3⁄4

l

One-fourth (27%) of all departments consider such an incident outside their 

responsibility. 

21% can handle the incident with local specialized equipment. 

Roughly half the departments that consider such an incident within their 

responsibility, and 40% overall, have a written agreement to direct use of nonocal resources. 

All needs for local resources are less for the largest and smallest communities, 

and the need for written agreements is greater for smaller communities. 

• 11% of fire departments can handle mitigation of a developing major flood with 

local trained personnel. 

3⁄4

3⁄4

3⁄4

3⁄4

The majority of departments (52%) consider such an incident outside their 

responsibility. 

9% can handle the incident with local specialized equipment. 

18% have a written agreement to direct use of non-local resources. 

All needs are greater for smaller communities. 

New and Emerging Technology 

• The majority of fire departments (55%) now own thermal imaging cameras, and 

the majority of those that do not have them now have plans to acquire them. The 

2001 survey reported only 24% of departments had such cameras and most that 

did not have them professed no plans to acquire them. 

• Only one department in 17 has mobile data terminals, only one in 31 has 

advanced personnel location equipment, and only one in 18 has equipment to 

collect chemical or biological samples for remote analysis. Most departments 

have no plans to acquire any of this equipment. 

ix
x
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Acknowledgements i 

Executive Summary iii 

Table of Contents xi 

List of Tables and Figures xii 

Introduction and Notes to the Reader 

Survey Methodology 

1 

The US Fire Service 7 

Personnel and Their Capabilities 17 

Fire Prevention and Code Enforcement 51 

Facilities, Apparatus and Equipment 59 

Communications and Communications Equipment 87 

Ability to Handle Unusually Challenging Incidents 99 

New and Emerging Technology 129 

Appendix: Survey Form 135 

xi
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES 

Table ES-1. Number of Career, Volunteer, and Total Firefighters iv 

Table M-1. Sample Size and Number of Fire Departments Responding by 

Community Size 

2 

Table 1. Number of Departments and Percent of U.S. Population 

Protected 

10 

Table 2. Department Type 11 

Table 3. Does Department Have a Plan for Apparatus Replacement on a 

Regular Schedule? 12 

Table 4. Does Department’s Normal Budget Cover the Costs of 

Apparatus Replacement? 13 

Table 5. For All- or Mostly-Volunteer Departments, Sources of Budget 

Revenue 14 

Table 6. For All- or Mostly-Volunteer Departments, Manner of Purchase 

of Apparatus 15 

Table A. Number of Career, Volunteer, and Total Firefighters 17 

Table B. Average Number of Career/Paid Firefighters per Department 

on Duty Available to Respond to Emergencies 18 

Figure 1. Estimated Percent of Firefighters Involved in Structural 

Firefighting Who Lack Formal Training 21 

Table C. Estimated Number of Firefighters Involved in Structural 

Firefighting Who Lack Formal Training 22 

Table D. Estimated Number of Firefighters Involved in Structural 

Firefighting Serving in Fire Departments Where No One is Certified 23 

Figure 2. Estimated Percent of Personnel Involved in EMS Who Lack 

Formal Training 24 

Table E. Estimated Percentage of Personnel Involved in EMS Who Lack 

Formal Training 25 

Table F. Estimated Percentage of Personnel Involved in Hazardous 

Material Response Who Lack Formal Training 26 

Table G. Estimated Percentage of Personnel Involved in Wildland 

Firefighting Who Lack Formal Training 28 

Table H. Estimated Percentage of Personnel Involved in Technical 

Rescue Service Who Lack Formal Training 29 

Figure 3. Estimated Percent of Firefighters Whose Fire Departments 

Have No Programs to Maintain Basic Firefighter Fitness and Health 30 

xii
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES (Continued) 

Table I. Estimated Number of Firefighters in Fire Departments With No 

Program to Maintain Basic Firefighter Fitness and Health 31 

Table 7. For All- or Mostly-Volunteer Departments, Average Number of 

Volunteer Firefighters Who Respond to a Mid-Day House Fire 33 

Table 8. For All- or Mostly-Career Departments, Number of Career 

Firefighters Assigned to an Engine/Pumper Apparatus 34 

Table 9. For All- or Mostly-Career Departments, Number of Career 

Firefighters Assigned to a Ladder/Aerial Apparatus 35 

Table 10. Does Department Provide Structural Firefighting? 36 

Table 11. For Departments That Provide Structural Firefighting, How 

Many Personnel Who Perform This Duty Have Received Formal 

Training? 37 

Table 12. For Departments That Provide Structural Firefighting, Level 

That Personnel Who Perform This Duty Have Been Certified to 38 

Table 13. Does Department Provide Emergency Medical Service 

(EMS)? 39 

Table 14. For Departments That Provide Emergency Medical Service, 

How Many Personnel Who Perform This Duty Have Received 

Formal Training? 40 

Table 15. For Departments That Provide Emergency Medical Service, 

Level That Personnel Who Perform This Duty Have Been Certified to 41 

Table 16. Does Department Provide Hazardous Material Response? 42 

Table 17. For Departments That Provide Hazardous Material Response, 

How Many Personnel Who Perform This Duty Have Received 

Formal Training? 43 

Table 18. For Departments That Provide Hazardous Material Response, 

Level That Personnel Who Perform This Duty Have Been Certified to 44 

Table 19. Does Department Provide Wildland Firefighting? 45 

Table 20. For Departments That Provide Wildland Firefighting, How 

Many Personnel Who Perform This Duty Have Received Formal 

Training? 46 

Table 21. Does Department Provide Technical Rescue Service? 47 

Table 22. For Departments That Provide Technical Rescue Service, How 

Many Personnel Who Perform This Duty Have Received Formal 

Training? 48 

Table 23. Does Department Have a Program to Maintain Basic 

Firefighter Fitness and Health? 49 

Table 24. Does Department Have a Program for Infectious Disease 

Control? 50 

xiii
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES (Continued) 

Table J. Number of Fire Departments and Estimated Total Population 

Protected by These Fire Departments Where Selected Fire Prevention 

or Code Enforcement Programs Are NOT Provided 51 

Table 25. Which Programs or Activities Does Department Conduct? 56 

Table 26. Who Conducts Fire-Code Inspections in the Community? 57 

Table 27. Who Determines That a Fire Was Deliberately Set? 58 

Table K. Number of Fire Stations With Characteristics Indicating 

Potential Need 59 

Table L. Estimated Percent of Fire Departments Lacking Sufficient Fire 

Stations to Achieve Specified Maximum Travel Distance 62 

Figure 4. Percent of Engines and Pumpers That Are At Least 15 Years 

Old 63 

Table M. Number of Engines in Service, Limited to Engines At Least 15 

Years Old 64 

Table N. Departments With No Ladder/Aerial Apparatus vs. 

Departments With No Buildings of At Least 4 Stories in Height 65 

Figure 5. Percent of Emergency Responders on a Shift Who Lack Radios 66 

Table O. Emergency Responders on a Shift Who Lack Radios and 

Radios Lacking Water-Resistance or Intrinsic Safety in an Explosive 

Atmosphere 67 

Figure 6. Percent of Firefighters per Shift Lacking Self-Contained 

Breathing Apparatus (SCBA) 68 

Table P. Firefighters per Shift Lacking SCBA and SCBA Units At Least 

10 Years Old 68 

Figure 7. Percent of Emergency Responders per Shift Lacking Personal 

Alert Safety System (PASS) Devices 69 

Table Q. Estimated Average Percent of Emergency Responders per Shift 

Not Provided With PASS Devices 69 

Figure 8. Estimated Percent of Firefighters Lacking Personal Protective 

Clothing 70 

Table R. Firefighters in Department Where Not All Firefighters Are 

Equipped With Personal Protective Clothing and Percent of Personal 

Protective Clothing That Is At Least 10 Years Old 71 

Table 28. Number of Fire Stations and Selected Characteristics 73 

Table 29. Average Number of Engines/Pumpers and Ambulances in 

Service and Age of Engine/Pumper Apparatus 74 

Table 30. Number of Ladders/Aerials In-Service 75 

xiv
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES (Continued) 

Table 31. Number of Buildings in Community That Are 4 or More 

Stories in Height 76 

Table 32. How Many of Department’s Emergency Responders on a 

Single Shift Are Equipped With Portable Radios? 77 

Table 33. What Fraction of Department’s Portable Radios Are WaterResistant? 78 

Table 34. What Fraction of Department’s Portable Radios Are 

Intrinsically Safe in an Explosive Atmosphere? 79 

Table 35. Does Department Have Reserve Portable Radios Equal to or 

Greater Than 10% of In-Service Radios? 80 

Table 36. How Many Emergency Responders on a Single Shift Are 

Equipped With Self-Contained Breathing Apparatus (SCBA)? 81 

Table 37. How Much of Department’s SCBA Equipment Is At Least 10 

Years Old? 82 

Table 38. What Fraction of Emergency Responders on a Single Shift Are 

Equipped With Personal Alert Safety System (PASS) Devices? 83 

Table 39. What Fraction of Emergency Responders Are Equipped With 

Personal Protective Clothing? 84 

Table 40. How Much of Department’s Personal Protective Clothing Is At 

Least 10 Years Old? 85 

Table 41. Does Department Have Reserve Protective Clothing Sufficient 

to Equip 10% of Emergency Responders 86 

Table 42. Can Department Communicate by Radio at an Incident Scene 

With Federal, State, or Local Partners? 89 

Table 43. For Departments That Can Communicate With Partners at an 

Incident Scene, What Fraction of Partners Can They Communicate 

With? 90 

Table 44. Does Department Have a Map Coordinate System to Help 

Direct Emergency Response Partners? 91 

Table 45. For Departments That Have a Map Coordinate System, What 

System Do They Use? 92 

Table 46. Does Department Have 911 or Similar System? 93 

Table 47. Who Has Primary Responsibility for Dispatch Operations? 94 

Table 48. Does Department Have a Backup Dispatch Facility? 95 

Table 49. Does Department Have Internet Access? 96 

Table 50. For Departments That Have Internet Access, What Kind of 

Access Do They Have? 97 

xv
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES (Continued) 

Table S. Percentage of Departments by Whether Incident Type is Their 

Responsibility and Where They Obtain Necessary Personnel With 

Specialized Training [Technical Rescue and EMS at Structural 

Collapse of a Building With 50 Occupants] 100 

Table T. Percentage of Departments by Whether Incident Type is Their 

Responsibility and Where They Obtain Necessary Specialized 

Equipment [Technical Rescue and EMS at Structural Collapse of a 

Building With 50 Occupants] 101 

Table U. Percentage of Departments by Whether Incident Type is Their 

Responsibility and Type of Plan for Obtaining Assistance From 

Others [Technical Rescue and EMS at Structural Collapse of a 

Building With 50 Occupants] 102 

Table V. Percentage of Departments by Whether Incident Type is Their 

Responsibility and Where They Obtain Necessary Personnel With 

Specialized Training [Hazmat and EMS for an Incident Involving 

Chemical/Biological Agents and 10 Injuries] 103 

Table W. Percentage of Departments by Whether Incident Type is Their 

Responsibility and Where They Obtain Necessary Specialized 

Equipment [Hazmat and EMS for an Incident Involving 

Chemical/Biological Agents and 10 Injuries] 104 

Table X. Percentage of Departments by Whether Incident Type is Their 

Responsibility and Type of Plan for Obtaining Assistance From 

Others [Hazmat and EMS for an Incident Involving 

Chemical/Biological Agents and 10 Injuries] 105 

Table Y. Percentage of Departments by Whether Incident Type is Their 

Responsibility and Where They Obtain Necessary Personnel With 

Specialized Training [Wildland/Urban Interface Fire Affecting 500 

Acres] 106 

Table Z. Percentage of Departments by Whether Incident Type is Their 

Responsibility and Where They Obtain Necessary Specialized 

Equipment [Wildland/Urban Interface Fire Affecting 500 Acres] 107 

Table AA. Percentage of Departments by Whether Incident Type is 

Their Responsibility and Type of Plan for Obtaining Assistance From 

Others [Wildland/Urban Interface Fire Affecting 500 Acres] 108 

Table AB. Percentage of Departments by Whether Incident Type is 

Their Responsibility and Where They Obtain Necessary Personnel 

With Specialized Training [Mitigation of a Developing Major Flood] 109 

Table AC. Percentage of Departments by Whether Incident Type is 

Their Responsibility and Where They Obtain Necessary Specialized 

Equipment [Mitigation of a Developing Major Flood] 110 

xvi
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES (Continued) 

Table AD. Percentage of Departments by Whether Incident Type is 

Their Responsibility and Type of Plan for Obtaining Assistance From 

Others [Mitigation of a Developing Major Flood] 111 

Table 51. Is Technical Rescue and EMS for a Building With 50 

Occupants After Structural Collapse Within the Responsibility of 

Department? 113 

Table 52. For Departments Where Technical Rescue and EMS for a 

Building With 50 Occupants After Structural Collapse Is Within 

Their Responsibility, How Far Do They Have to Go to Obtain 

Sufficient People With Specialized Training to Handle Such an 

Incident? 

114 

Table 53. For Departments Where Technical Rescue and EMS for a 

Building With 50 Occupants After Structural Collapse Is Within 

Their Responsibility, How Far Do They Have to Go to Obtain 

Sufficient Specialized Equipment to Handle Such an Incident? 115 

Table 54. For Departments Where Technical Rescue and EMS for a 

Building With 50 Occupants After Structural Collapse Is Within 

Their Responsibility, Do They Have a Plan for Working With 

Others? 

116 

Table 55. Is a Hazmat and EMS Incident Involving Chemical/Biological 

Agents and 10 Injuries Within the Responsibility of Department? 117 

Table 56. For Departments Where a Hazmat and EMS Incident 

Involving Chemical/Biological Agents and 10 Injuries Is Within 

Their Responsibility, How Far Do They Have to Go to Obtain 

Sufficient People With Specialized Training to Handle Such an 

Incident? 

118 

Table 57. For Departments Where a Hazmat and EMS Incident 

Involving Chemical/Biological Agents and 10 Injuries Is Within 

Their Responsibility, How Far Do They Have to Go to Obtain 

Sufficient Specialized Equipment to Handle Such an Incident? 119 

Table 58. For Departments Where a Hazmat and EMS Incident 

Involving Chemical/Biological Agents and 10 Injuries Is Within 

Their Responsibility, Do They Have a Plan for Working With 

Others? 

120 

Table 59. Is a Wildland/Urban Interface Fire Affecting 500 Acres Within 

the Responsibility of Department? 121 

Table 60. For Departments Where a Wildland/Urban Interface Fire 

Affecting 500 Acres Is Within Their Responsibility, How Far Do 

They Have to Go to Obtain Sufficient People With Specialized 

Training to Handle Such an Incident? 122 

xvii
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES (Continued) 

Table 61. For Departments Where a Wildland/Urban Interface Fire 

Affecting 500 Acres Is Within Their Responsibility, How Far Do 

They Have to Go to Obtain Sufficient Specialized Equipment to 

Handle Such an Incident? 123 

Table 62. For Departments Where a Wildland/Urban Interface Fire 

Affecting 500 Acres Is Within Their Responsibility, Do They Have a 

Plan for Working With Others? 124 

Table 63. Is Mitigation of a Developing Major Flood Within the 

Responsibility of Department? 125 

Table 64. For Departments Where Mitigation of a Developing Major 

Flood Is Within Their Responsibility, How Far Do They Have to Go 

to Obtain Sufficient People With Specialized Training to Handle 

Such an Incident? 126 

Table 65. For Departments Where Mitigation of a Developing Major 

Flood Is Within Their Responsibility, How Far Do They Have to Go 

to Obtain Sufficient Specialized Equipment to Handle Such an 

Incident? 

127 

Table 66. For Departments Where Mitigation of a Developing Major 

Flood Is Within Their Responsibility, Do They Have a Plan for 

Working With Others? 128 

Table 67. Plans to Acquire Thermal Imaging Cameras 131 

Table 68. Plans to Acquire Mobile Data Terminals 132 

Table 69. Plans to Acquire Advanced Personnel Location Equipment 133 

Table 70. Plans to Acquire Equipment to Collect Chemical/Biological 

Samples for Analysis Elsewhere 134 

Table A-1. Fire Departments Responding to Fire Department Needs 

Survey 132 

xviii
INTRODUCTION 

Notes to the Reader 

The following considerations should be kept in mind when using this report: 

• This is a fire department self-assessment survey. It defines needs by comparing 

self-reported resources to available standards or other guidance (which are 

identified where they are used) on what is needed to do a safe and effective job. 

These estimates may not be the same as would be produced by using DHS 

hazard/risk assessment methods or asking local authorities for their judgments of 

priority local needs. 

• This survey was sent out shortly after Hurricane Katrina, which probably affected 

response rates from those areas involved. 

• The response rates varied by stratum with departments protecting smaller 

communities responding at lower rates than those protecting larger communities. 

Lower response rates increase the risk for nonresponse bias in estimates. 

Weighting factors based on response rates and sampling fractions are used to 

combine results across strata. See the next section entitled ‘Survey Methodology’ 

for a breakdown of response rates by stratum. 

• Except for the first table with results stated in terms of population protected 

numbers (Table A), other estimates of population protected use a method in which 

percentages of departments within stratum having a characteristic are multiplied 

by the total population protected for the entire stratum per the NFPA Fire Service 

Inventory (FSI)*. An analogous method is used for estimates of numbers of 

firefighters after the initial tables. These methods introduce an additional source 

of variability and potential bias into those estimates. 

• Results from all surveys are subject to both sampling and non-sampling error. 

When a sample, rather than the entire population, is surveyed, there is a chance 

that the sample estimates may differ from the “true” population values they 

represent. This “sampling error” varies depending on the particular sample 

selected and is reflected in the “Margin of Error”. In addition, the survey data are 

also affected by non-sampling errors, which can occur for many reasons including 

failure to sample a segment of the population, inability to obtain information for 

all respondents in the sample, the inability or unwillingness of respondents to 

provide correct information, and errors made in the collection or processing of the 

data. 

1
Survey Methodology 

The 2005 Fire Service Needs Assessment survey was conducted as a stratified random 

sample by size of community. A stratified sample was selected with all larger 

departments (protecting over 50,000 population) included, and a random sample of 

departments protecting smaller communities was also selected. It was estimated that a 

response of approximately 4,500 fire departments would be sufficient to make reliable 

national estimates and state estimates as long as it included a good response from larger 

departments. 

The NFPA used its own list of local fire departments as the sampling frame of all fire 

departments in the U.S. In all, 27,166 fire departments were listed on the NFPA FSI*. 

The following table includes sample size and number of fire departments responding by 

community size. 

Table M-1. Sample Size and Number of Fire Departments 

Responding by Community Size 

Population of

Community

(1) 

Number of 

Fire Departments

on FSI

(2) 

Number of 

Fire Departments

in Sample

Number of 

Fire 

Departments

Responding

Response

Rate (% of 

Sample)

1,000,000 or more 15 15 10 67

500,000 to 999,999 38 38 28 74

250,000 to 499,999 54 54 46 85

100,000 to 249,999 217 217 169 78

50,000 to 99,999 448 448 300 67

25,000 to 49,999 1,073 845 440 52

10,000 to 24,999 2,939 2,000 888 44

5,000 to 9,999 3,764 2,961 923 31

2,500 to 4,999 4,868 3,967 937 24

Under 2,500 13,750 5,000 968 19

Total 27,166 15,545 4,709 30 

1. The NFPA FSI file was the sampling frame. 

2. Stratified random sample. 

Response rates were quite similar to response rates achieved from the first mailing 

of the 2001 Fire Service Needs Assessment Survey (the final response rate in the 2001 

survey was 46%) and annually achieved in the annual NFPA Fire Experience Survey. 

Response rates varied considerably by size of community protected, with larger 

communities responding at a rate of 67% to 85%, medium sized communities at a rate of 

44% to 52%, and smaller communities (less than 10,000) responding at a rate of 19% to 

2
31%. Low response rates for smaller departments (comprised mostly of volunteers) occur 

for a number of reasons, including lack of personnel to complete surveys. 

Response rates of larger communities were bolstered by a second mailing to all 

departments that protect communities of 50,000 or more that had not responded to the 

initial mailing. Also, states with unusually low response rates were sent a second mailing. 

Approximately 300 departments responded to the second mailing to small states, and this 

had minimal impact on national estimates. A second mailing was not sent to all 

nonrespondents from the first mailing due to the time constraints of the project. 

The national results presented in this report are based on 4,709 fire departments, or 30% 

of the sample, that responded to the 2005 Fire Needs Assessment Survey. The overall 

total response was sufficient for reliable results at the national and state levels, overall 

and by community size. Total national results in the survey report were made by 

summing up the weighted estimates for each stratum, and the stratification methodology 

adjusted for response rates by community size. 

Most of the results in this report are for a proportion (e.g., percent of fire departments that 

provide EMS services). The results in this report are based on standard statistical 

methodology for a stratified random sample.** In general, the margin of error will not 

exceed +/-2% for national results (It will be smaller for proportions close to zero or one). 

Results for individual community size strata have larger margins of error that range 

between about +/-10% to +/-19% for communities with over 500,000 population to about 

+/-6% for communities of 250,000 to 499,999, and about +/-3% to +/-4% for smaller 

communities.*** This margin of error accounts for sampling variability but not for other 

issues, e.g., bias due to non-response or other non-sampling errors. 

* The NFPA Fire Service Inventory (FSI) file is a listing of all known fire departments in the U.S. The file is 

continuously maintained by a three year cycle survey which surveys one third of the country each year. The 

survey is also updated by review of fire marshal listings by state, other NFPA mailings, and other data 

sources. 

** William G. Cochran, Sampling Techniques, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY, 1977. 

*** Because a census was conducted of communities over 50,000, there is technically no “sampling error” 

per se. However, as noted in the previous table, not all of the departments responded, so there is 

uncertainty in how well the sample estimate reflects the true population value due to weighting and 

potential bias. To estimate potential error for estimates by strata, we computed the margin of error if all of 

the respondents for these communities were in fact the random sample selected from that population (with 

finite population corrections applied). The margins of error for the other strata reflect standard 

calculations. 

3
FEMA Survey Project on Needs of the US Fire Service 

The report that follows presents results based on data from US local fire departments 

participating in a needs assessment survey. 

The questionnaire principally involved multiple approaches to answering the question 

“what does the fire department need?”. Most of the questions were intended to determine 

what fire departments have, in a form that could be compared to existing standards or 

formulas that set out what fire departments should have. Some of the questions asked 

what fire departments have with respect to certain cutting-edge technologies for which no 

standards yet exist and no determinations of need have yet been proposed. 

The questionnaire also sought to define the emergency-response tasks that fire 

departments considered to be within their responsibility. For such tasks the survey asked 

how far departments would have to go to obtain the resources necessary to address those 

tasks or an illustrative incident of that type. Clearly, if departments believe the resources 

they would need are only available from sources separated from them by great distance – 

and the associated likelihood of significant delay in attaining those resources, then there 

may be a need for planning, training, or arrangements for equipment that can be more 

quickly accessed and deployed, to assure timely and effective response. 

See Appendix for a copy of the questionnaire. 

Glossary 

Here are standard definitions for some of the specialized terms used in this report: 

Advanced Life Support. Functional provision of advanced airway management, 

including intubation, advanced cardiac monitoring, manual defibrillation, establishment 

and maintenance of intravenous access, and drug therapy. [from NFPA 1710, Standard 

for the Organization and Deployment of Fire Suppression Operations, Emergency 

Medical Operations, and Special Operations to the Public by Career Fire Departments, 

2001 edition.] 

Basic Life Support. Functional provision of patient assessment, including basic airway 

management; oxygen therapy; stabilization of spinal, musculo-skeletal, soft tissue, and 

shock injuries; stabilization of bleeding; and stabilization and intervention for sudden 

illness, poisoning and heat/cold injuries, childbirth, CPR, and automatic external 

defibrillator (AED) capability. [from NFPA 1710, Standard for the Organization and 

Deployment of Fire Suppression Operations, Emergency Medical Operations, and 

Special Operations to the Public by Career Fire Departments, 2001 edition.] 

Emergency Medical Care. The provision of treatment to patients, including first aid, 

cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), basic life support (EMT level), advanced life 

support (Paramedic level), and other medical procedures that occur prior to arrival at a 

hospital or other health care facility. [from NFPA 1581, Standard on Fire Department 

4
Infection Control Program, 2000 edition] In this report, reference is made to “EMS” or 

“emergency medical service,” which is the service of providing emergency medical care. 

First Responder (EMS). Functional provision of initial assessment (i.e., airway, 

breathing, and circulatory systems) and basic first-aid intervention, including CPR and 

automatic external defibrillator (AED) capability. [from NFPA 1710, Standard for the 

Organization and Deployment of Fire Suppression Operations, Emergency Medical 

Operations, and Special Operations to the Public by Career Fire Departments, 2001 

edition.] 

Hazardous Material. A substance that presents an unusual danger to persons due to 

properties of toxicity, chemical reactivity, or decomposition, corrosivity, explosion or 

detonation, etiological hazards, or similar properties. [from NFPA 1500, Standard on 

Fire Department Occupational Safety and Health Program, 1997 edition.] 

Structural Fire Fighting. The activities of rescue, fire suppression, and property 

conservation in buildings, enclosed structures, aircraft interiors, vehicles, vessels, aircraft, 

or like properties that are involved in a fire or emergency situation. [from NFPA 1500, 

Standard on Fire Department Occupational Safety and Health Program, 1997 edition.] 

Technical Rescue. The application of special knowledge, skills, and equipment to safely 

resolve unique and/or complex rescue situations. [from NFPA 1670, Standard on 

Operations and Training for Technical Rescue Incidents, 1999 edition.] 

Wildland/Urban Interface. The line, area, or zone where structures and other human 

development meet or intermingle with undeveloped wildland or vegetative fuels. [from 

NFPA 295, Standard for Wildfire Control, 1998 edition] 

5

THE US FIRE SERVICE 

Career and Volunteer Fire Departments 

Most US fire departments are volunteer fire departments, but most of the US is protected 

by career firefighters. Tables 1 and 2 (pp. 6-7) provide summary overviews of US fire 

departments. 

Roughly three of every four US fire departments (73%) are all-volunteer fire 

departments, but only one of every four US residents (23%) are protected by such a 

department. Only one in 15 fire departments is all-career, but roughly two of every five 

US residents (43%) are protected by such a department. Fire departments split roughly 

7.5-to-1 between the all- or mostly-volunteer departments vs. the all- or mostly-career 

departments, but population protected splits roughly 3-to-2 the other way. 

From 2001 to 2005, the all-career departments changed slightly from 6% to 7% of 

departments and from 40% to 43% of population protected. At the other end, the allvolunteer departments changed from 76% to 73% of departments and from 26% to 23% 

of population protected. 

Volunteers are concentrated in rural communities, while career firefighters are found 

disproportionately in large communities. The all- or mostly-career departments account 

for all of the fire departments protecting communities of at least 1 million population and 

for more than 90% of the fire departments protecting communities of 250,000 to 999,999 

population. All- or mostly-career departments still account for a majority of departments 

down to communities of at least 25,000 population. 

Rural communities, defined by the US Bureau of Census as a community with less than 

2,500 population, are 99% protected by all- or mostly-volunteer departments and account 

for over half (57%) of all the all- or mostly-volunteer departments in the US. 

Community size is related to the US fire service not only in terms of the relative 

emphasis on career vs. volunteer firefighters but also in terms of the challenges faced by 

local departments. However, it is possible to exaggerate those differences. Even a rural 

community can have a large factory complex, a large stadium, or even a high-rise 

building, with all the technical complexities and potential for high concentration of 

people or valued property that such a property entails. Even a large city can have a 

wildland/urban interface region and exposure to the unique fire dangers attendant on such 

an area. 

It is likely that every fire department will need to have some familiarity with every type 

of fire and every type of emergency, if not as part of protecting their own community, 

then at least in their role as a source of mutual aid or a component of regional or even 

national response to a major incident. 

7
In any community, fire burns the same way in open or in enclosed spaces. Fire harms 

people and property in the same ways. And the resources and best practices required to 

safely address the fire problem – or any other major emergency – tend to be the same 

everywhere. What may differ is the defined scope of responsibility of the local fire 

department and the quality and quantity of resources available to the department to 

perform those responsibilities. 

Budgets and Revenue Sources 

The first questions of the Needs Assessment Survey focused on big-picture budget and 

revenue issues. Table 3 (p. 12) asked whether the department has a plan for apparatus 

replacement on a regular schedule. This is the kind of long-range, capital-budget type of 

plan that might be more likely in a community with established, institutionalized sources 

of revenue for the fire department, as one would expect to see in with a career fire 

department. The overall percent of departments with such plans was 38% in the latest 

Needs Assessment Survey. 

Table 3 shows that above a population of 25,000, which is the dividing line for the 

majority of departments being all- or mostly-career vs. all- or mostly-volunteer, at least 

three-fourths (74%) of departments in every community-size group have such plans. 

Below 10,000 population, the majority of departments do not have such plans, and among 

rural communities, only one department in four has such a plan. 

Table 4 (p. 13) addresses the related question of whether the department’s normal budget 

covers the costs of apparatus replacement or whether the department must seek funds in a 

more ad hoc fashion, such as seeking a special appropriation for such a purchase. Above 

a population of 50,000, at least 57% of the departments in each population interval cover 

apparatus replacement in their normal budget. For communities of 25,000 to 49,999 

population, half the departments (49%) cover apparatus replacement in their normal 

budget. The percentage with apparatus replacement covered in normal budgets drops to 

33% for communities of 10,000 to 24,999 population; to 23% for communities of 5,000 

to 9,999 population; to 17% for communities of 2,500 to 4,999 population; and to 10% 

for communities of less than 2,500 population. Because most departments are small allvolunteer departments serving a rural population, this last figure dominates the results for 

the US fire service as a whole, where only 19% of departments have apparatus 

replacement covered by the normal budget. 

The remaining questions in the “Budget Information” section of the survey were asked 

only of all- or mostly-volunteer fire departments and were designed to further refine the 

picture of where their revenue comes from and how such departments acquire apparatus. 

Tables 5 and 6 (pp. 10-11) provide those results. These questions were analyzed only for 

communities of less than 50,000 population, which is the maximum community size for 

which at least one-third of departments are all- or mostly-volunteer. 

8
Table 5 shows that most revenues for all- or mostly-volunteer departments are covered by 

taxes, either a special fire district tax or some other tax. The share of revenues 

contributed in this way was 72-81% for communities of 5,000 to 49,999 population and 

64-68% for communities of less than 5,000 population. Other governmental payments – 

including reimbursements on a per-call basis, other local government payments, and state 

government payments – ranged from 9% of revenues for communities of 25,000 to 

49,999 population up to 13% of revenues for communities under 2,500 population. Most 

of the rest was obtained through fund-raising, which ranged from 8% to 9% of revenues 

contributed for communities of at least 10,000 population up to 19% of revenues 

contributed for communities of less than 2,500 population. 

Table 6 shows that the smaller communities, with less certain sources of revenue, are 

more likely to obtain their apparatus either used or converted from a non-fire-department 

design and use. Vehicles that were purchased or, less often, donated used accounted for 

an average of 6% of apparatus for departments protecting communities with at least 

25,000 population but an average of 40% of apparatus for departments protecting 

communities with less than 2,500 population. 

The smaller the community, the higher the converted-vehicle percentage was. More 

specifically, converted vehicles accounted for an average of 3% of apparatus for 

departments protecting communities with at least 25,000 population but an average of 

14% of apparatus for departments protecting communities with less than 2,500 

population. 

Because converted vehicles were not originally designed for fire department use, it can be 

especially challenging to assure that they are safe and effective, but it essential that any 

vehicle, converted or not, be evaluated for its compliance with applicable standards, in 

order to avoid undue hazard or risk to the firefighters who operate it. A starting point for 

such an evaluation can be NFPA 1912, Standard for Fire Apparatus Refurbishing. 

9
10

Table 1 

Number of Departments and Percent of US Population Protected 

by Type of Department 

(Q. 1, 7, 8) 

 Percent of 

 US Population 

Type of Department Number Percent Protected 

All Career 1,842 6.8% 42.6% 

Mostly Career 1,304 4.8% 18.6% 

Mostly Volunteer 4,105 15.1% 16.3% 

All Volunteer 19,915 73.3% 22.6% 

Total 27,166 100.0% 100.0% 

Source: FEMA US Fire Administration 2005 

Survey of the Needs of the US Fire Service 

Type of department is broken into four categories. All-career departments are comprised of 

100% career firefighters. Mostly-career departments are comprised of 51 to 99% career 

firefighters, while mostly-volunteer departments are comprised of 1 to 50% career firefighters. 

All-volunteer departments are comprised of 100% volunteer firefighters. 

The above projections are based on 4,672 departments reporting on Questions 1, 7 and 8. 

Numbers may not add to totals due to rounding. 

Q. 1: Population (number of permanent residents) your department has primary responsibility to 

protect (excluding mutual aid areas) 

Q. 7: Total number of full-time (career) uniformed firefighters 

Q. 8: Total number of active part-time (call or volunteer) firefighters 
11

Table 2 

Department Type, by Community Size 

(Q. 1, 7, 8) 

Population of Community

All 

Career 

Number 

Depts Percent

Mostly 

Career 

Number 

Depts Percent

Mostly Volunteer Number Depts Percent

All 

Volunteer 

Number 

Depts Percent 

NumbeDepts 

1,000,000 or more 11 73.3% 4 26.7% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 15 

500,000 to 999,999 24 63.0 13 33.3 1 3.7 0 0.0 38 250,000 to 499,999 26 47.7 22 40.9 6 11.4 0 0.0 54 100,000 to 249,999 175 80.5 32 14.6 9 4.3 1 0.6 217 

50,000 to 99,999 320 71.6 78 17.3 42 9.3 8 1.7 448 25,000 to 49,999 477 44.4 241 22.5 241 22.5 114 10.6 1,073 10,000 to 24,999 599 20.4 532 18.1 1,110 37.8 698 23.8 2,939 

5,000 to 9,999 128 3.4 227 6.0 1,218 32.3 2,191 58.2 3,764 2,500 to 4,999 32 0.6 74 1.5 736 15.1 4,027 82.7 4,868 

Under 2,500 57 0.4 86 0.6 728 5.3 12,879 93.7 13,750  Total 1,841 6.8 1,304 4.8 4,105 15.1 19,915 73.3 27,166 Source: FEMA US Fire Administration 2005 

Survey of the Needs of the US Fire Service 

Type of department is broken into four categories. All-career departments are comprised of 100% career firefighters. Most

are comprised of 51 to 99% career firefighters, while mostly-volunteer departments are comprised of 1 to 50% career firefigdepartments are comprised of 100% volunteer firefighters. The above projections are based on 4,672 departments reporting on these questions. Numbers may not add to totals due Q. 1: Population (number of permanent residents) your department has primary responsibility to protect (excluding mutual Q. 7: Total number of full-time (career) uniformed firefighters Q. 8: Total number of active part-time (call or volunteer) firefighters 
Table 3 

Does Department Have a Plan 

for Apparatus Replacement on a Regular Schedule? 

by Community Size 

(Q. 3) 

 Yes No Total 

Population 

of Community

Number 

Depts Percent

Number 

Depts Percent

Number 

Depts Percent

1,000,000 or more 12 80.0% 3 20.0% 15 100.0%

500,000 to 999,999 36 94.7 2 5.3 38 100.0 

250,000 to 499,999 47 87.0 7 12.9 54 100.0 

100,000 to 249,999 185 85.3 32 14.7 217 100.0 

50,000 to 99,999 352 78.6 96 21.4 448 100.0 

25,000 to 49,999 793 73.9 280 26.1 1,073 100.0 

10,000 to 24,999 1,724 58.7 1,215 41.3 2,993 100.0 

5,000 to 9,999 1,742 46.3 2,022 53.7 3,764 100.0 

2,500 to 4,999 1,897 39.0 2,971 61.0 4,868 100.0 

Under 2,500 3,485 25.4 10,265 74.7 13,750 100.0 

 Total 10,276 37.8 16,890 62.2 27,166 100.0 

Source: FEMA US Fire Administration 2005 

Survey of the Needs of the US Fire Service 

The above projections are based on 4,531 departments reporting on Question 3. Numbers may 

not add to totals due to rounding. 

Q. 3: Do you have a plan for apparatus replacement on a regular schedule? 

12
Table 4 

Does Department’s Normal Budget 

Cover the Costs of Apparatus Replacement? 

by Community Size 

(Q. 4) 

 Yes No* Total 

Population 

of Community

Number 

Depts Percent

Number 

Depts Percent

Number 

Depts Percent

1,000,000 or more 12 80.0% 3 20.0% 15 100.0%

500,000 to 999,999 30 78.9 8 21.1 38 100.0 

250,000 to 499,999 36 66.7 18 33.3 54 100.0 

100,000 to 249,999 149 68.7 68 31.3 217 100.0 

50,000 to 99,999 257 57.4 191 42.6 448 100.0 

25,000 to 49,999 528 49.2 545 50.8 1,073 100.0 

10,000 to 24,999 967 32.9 1,972 67.1 2,939 100.0 

5,000 to 9,999 847 22.5 2,917 77.5 3,764 100.0 

2,500 to 4,999 847 17.4 4,021 82.6 4,868 100.0 

Under 2,500 1,431 10.4 12,319 89.6 13,750 100.0 

 Total 5,105 18.8 22,061 81.2 27,166 100.0 

*”No” means the department must raise or seek funds to cover some or all expenses. 

Source: FEMA US Fire Administration 2005 

Survey of the Needs of the US Fire Service 

The above projections are based on 4,537 departments reporting on Question 4. Numbers may 

not add to totals due to rounding. 

 

Q. 4: Does your normal budget cover the costs of apparatus replacement? 

13
14

Table 5 

For All- or Mostly-Volunteer Departments 

Sources of Budget Revenue 

by Share (%) of Revenue and Community Size 

(Q. 5) 

Fire 

 District Other 

Population of

Community

or Other 

 Tax 

Payment 

per Call 

Local 

Payment 

State 

Government 

Fund 

Raising Other Total

 

25,000 to 49,999 80.5% 1.1% 5.4% 2.8% 7.8% 2.4% 100.0%

10,000 to 24,999 76.3 1.8 6.6 3.7 9.4 2.1 100.0 

5,000 to 9,999 72.4 1.7 5.9 3.2 13.2 3.7 100.0

2,500 to 4,999 68.3 1.5 5.3 4.3 16.8 3.8 100.0

Under 2,500 63.9 1.4 6.1 5.9 18.7 3.9 100.0

Source: FEMA US Fire Administration 2005 

Survey of the Needs of the US Fire Service 

The above projections are based on 3,005 departments reporting on Question 5. Numbers may not 

add to totals due to rounding. 

Q. 5: What share (%) of your budgeted revenue is from [each of the listed alternatives]? 
Table 6 

For All- or Mostly-Volunteer Departments 

Manner of Purchase of Apparatus 

by Share (%) of Apparatus and Community Size 

(Q. 6) 

Population of Purchased Donated Purchased Donated Converted

Community New New Used Used Vehicles Other Total 

25,000 to 49,999 91.2% 0.1% 5.5% 0.6% 2.5% 0.0% 100.0%

10,000 to 24,999 84.2 0.3 9.5 1.5 3.7 0.6 100.0 

5,000 to 9,999 76.1 0.6 13.5 2.7 5.8 1.2 100.0 

2,500 to 4,999 62.9 0.7 21.4 3.6 10.4 0.8 100.0 

Under 2,500 43.5 1.0 33.3 7.0 13.7 1.7 100.0 

Source: FEMA US Fire Administration 2005 

Survey of the Needs of the US Fire Service 

The above projections are based on 2,967 departments reporting on Question 6. Numbers may not add 

to totals due to rounding. 

Q. 6: What share (%) of your apparatus was [each of the listed alternatives]? 

15
16
PERSONNEL AND THEIR CAPABILITIES 

Number of Firefighters 

Table A indicates the number of career, volunteer, and total firefighters, by the size of the 

community their fire department protects. These numbers will be used repeatedly 

throughout the report to convert survey responses phrased in terms of the fraction of a 

department’s firefighters having a characteristic into estimates of the number of 

firefighters having that characteristic. 

Table A. Number of Career, Volunteer, and Total Firefighters 

by Size of Community 

(Q. 1, 7, 8) 

Population Protected 

Career 

Firefighters 

Volunteer 

Firefighters 

Total 

Firefighters 

1,000,000 or more 30,700 800 31,500 

500,000 to 999,999 31,700 4,150 35,850 

250,000 to 499,999 21,200 5,450 26,650 

100,000 to 249,999 45,800 4,500 50,300 

50,000 to 99,999 43,450 7,150 50,600 

25,000 to 49,999 44,850 28,000 72,850 

10,000 to 24,999 48,150 83,900 132,050 

5,000 to 9,999 14,400 119,100 133,500 

2,500 to 4,999 6,100 155,750 161,850 

Under 2,500 7,750 398,350 406,100 

Total 294,100 807,150 1,101,250 

The above projections are based on 4,675 departments reporting on 

Questions 7 and 8. Numbers are estimated to the nearest 50 and may 

not add to totals due to rounding. 

Q. 1: Population (number of permanent residents) your department has primary 

responsibility to protect (excluding mutual aid areas) 

Q. 7: Total number of full-time (career) uniformed firefighters 

Q. 8: Total number of active part-time (call or volunteer) firefighters 

Table A data on the number of firefighters by community size can be combined with 

needs-assessment survey results on the percent of firefighters, by community size, who 

have some need-related characteristic. The result is an estimate of the number of 

firefighters, by community size, with that need-related characteristic. 

Table B indicates the average number of career/paid firefighters per department who are 

on duty available to respond to emergencies, by size of community the department 

17
protects. These figures do not indicate the average number of firefighters per department 

on duty, because volunteers are not included and every community-size interval has some 

departments that are not all-career departments. 

Table B. Average Number of Career/Paid Firefighters per Department 

on Duty Available to Respond to Emergencies, by Size of Community (Q. 9) 

Population Protected # of Firefighters 

1,000,000 or more 387.4 

500,000 to 999,999 221.6 

250,000 to 499,999 105.6 

100,000 to 249,999 55.3 

50,000 to 99,999 26.0 

25,000 to 49,999 12.5 

10,000 to 24,999 5.5 

5,000 to 9,999 2.0 

2,500 to 4,999 0.8 

Under 2,500 0.5 

The above projections are based on 3,029 

departments reporting on Question 9. 

Q. 9: Average number of career/paid firefighters on duty 

available to respond to emergencies. 

Adequacy of Number of Firefighters Responding 

Tables 7-9 (pp. 29-31) provide statistics on numbers of firefighters responding to fight 

fires under certain circumstances (e.g., as volunteer or career firefighters, to a certain type 

of fire or with a certain type of apparatus). 

These indicators of response profiles can be compared to recently adopted standards 

regarding the minimum complement of firefighters to permit an interior attack on a 

structural fire with adequate safeguards for firefighter safety. The comparisons are 

complicated, however, because many fire departments have both career and volunteer 

firefighters, while Questions 10-12 asked only about responses by career firefighters 

alone or volunteer firefighters alone. 

Also, in considering the results below, keep in mind that “adequacy” is being assessed 

here relative to only one of the several objectives of a fire department confronted with a 

serious fire – the protection of the firefighters themselves from unreasonable risk of 

injury or death. Relative success in meeting this objective will not necessarily imply 

anything about the department’s ability to reliably achieve the other departmental 

suppression objectives, whether those are preventing conflagrations, preventing fire from 

18
involving an entire large structure, or intervening decisively before the onset of flashover 

in the room of fire origin. Other analyses will address measures that are more related to 

those questions. 

In addition, success in meeting any of these objectives involves more than a sufficiency 

of personnel. Equipment of many types is also needed, as are skills and knowledge, as 

achieved through training and certification. Each of these areas of need is addressed in 

different parts of the survey. 

 Volunteer Firefighters 

Table 7 provides statistics on the average number of volunteer firefighters who respond 

to a mid-day house fire, for only the all- or mostly-volunteer fire departments in 

communities under 50,000 population. Note that a “mostly-volunteer” department might 

respond with some career firefighters as well, and those numbers are not included in 

Table 7. 

NFPA 1720, Standard for the Organization and Deployment of Fire Suppression 

Operations, Emergency Medical Operations, and Special Operations to the Public by 

Volunteer Fire Departments, calls for a minimum of 4 firefighters on-site before an 

interior attack on a structure fire is begun. There are difficulties in applying these 

standards to Table 7. As noted, responding career firefighters from mostly-volunteer 

departments are not shown, the statistics shown are average numbers responding rather 

than minimum numbers responding, and the threshold number of 4 is combined with 

averages from 3 to 4 in the questionnaire. Nevertheless, some limited observations are 

possible. 

Departments that deliver an average of 1-2 volunteers to a mid-day house fire almost 

certainly fall below the minimum of 4 firefighters in most responses, at least for 

departments protecting communities with less than 5,000 population, because Table B 

indicated that those departments average only 1-2 career firefighters on duty for the 

department. Departments that deliver an average of 1-2 volunteers (and an unknown 

number of career firefighters) to a mid-day house fire constituted 3% of departments 

protecting communities with less than 2,500 population and 3% of departments 

protecting communities with 2,500 to 4,999 population (see Table 7). 

Departments that deliver an average of 3-4 volunteers may fall below the minimum 

number of 4 firefighters in some responses. Departments that deliver an average of 4 or 

fewer volunteers to a mid-day house fire constituted 21% of departments protecting 

communities with less than 2,500 population. Because roughly 8% of the US resident 

population live in communities of this size, this suggests roughly 2% of the US 

population is protected by fire departments that average fewer than 4 firefighters 

responding to a mid-day house fire and so may often fail to achieve the minimum 

standard response to initiate an interior attack. (The 2% is calculated as 8% of 21%.) 

19
 Career Firefighters 

Table 8 provides statistics for only the all- or mostly-career fire departments in 

communities with 10,000 or more population, on the number of career firefighters 

assigned to an engine or pumper. Note that a “mostly career” department might also 

respond with some volunteers, and those numbers are not reflected in Table 8. NFPA 

1710, Standard for the Organization and Deployment of Fire Suppression Operations, 

Emergency Medical Operations, and Special Operations to the Public by Career Fire 

Departments, requires a minimum of 4 firefighters on an engine or pumper. 

The percentage of departments with fewer than 4 career firefighters assigned to an engine 

or pumper is 75% for departments protecting 10,000 to 24,999 population, 77% for 

departments protecting 25,000 to 49,999 population, 71% for departments protecting 

50,000 to 99,999 population, 59% for departments protecting 100,000 to 249,999 

population, 44% for departments protecting 250,000 to 499,999 population, 27% for 

departments protecting 500,000 to 999,999 population, and 10% for departments 

protecting at least a million population. 

Because Table A indicates that communities with less than 50,000 population have a 

substantial number of volunteer firefighters, it is appropriate to focus on departments 

protecting communities of 50,000 population or more as the ones where the number of 

responding career firefighters will tend to be the same as the number of responding total 

firefighters. 

This translates into an estimated 79,000 career firefighters serving in fire departments 

where the community protected has at least 50,000 population and fewer than 4 career 

firefighters are assigned to an engine. (This figure is calculated as the sum over all 

community sizes of 50,000 population or more of [number of career firefighters in a 

community size interval, from Table A] times [percentage of all- or mostly-career fire 

departments in that interval that assign fewer than 4 people to an engine, from Table 8].) 

Table 9 provides statistics comparable to those in Table 8 but for ladder apparatus. There 

is no comparable simple formula to use in assessing the adequacy of these numbers, so 

the table is presented without comment. 

20
Extent of Training and Certification, by Type of Duty 

Structural Firefighting 

Table 10 (p. 36) indicates whether structural firefighting is within the responsibility of the 

fire department. Less than 1% of departments say no, nearly all of them in rural 

communities serving less than 2,500 population. 

Table 11 (p. 37) asks how many of the personnel responsible for structural firefighting 

have received formal training. Answers were solicited in the form of: All, Most, Some, 

and None. 

Figure 1. Estimated Percent of Firefighters in Departments 

That Are Involved in Structural Firefighting But Where Not 

All Involved Firefighters Have Formal Training

42%

71%

49%

39%

21%

12%

7%

3%

4%

0%

0%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

All

Under 2,500

2,500 to 4,999

5,000 to 9,999

10,000 to 24,999

25,000 to 49,999

50,000 to 99,999

100,000 to 249,999

250,000 to 499,999

500,000 to 999,999

1,000,000 or more

Population

Percent

Table C indicates what percentage of departments perform structural firefighting and 

either (a) do not have all firefighters involved in structural firefighting trained or (b) only 

have some or none of involved firefighters trained. The first percentages identify 

departments with some need, because all involved firefighters should be trained. The 

second percentages identify departments with substantial need, because all such 

departments have only some or none of their involved firefighters trained. Figure 1 

shows the same percentages, but the percentage for all fire departments is weighted by 

the total number of firefighters in each community size group. Therefore, Figure 1 

indicates the estimated percentage of firefighters working in departments where not all 

involved firefighters have been trained. 

21
From Table C and Figure 1, it may be seen that 53% of fire departments, with an 

estimated 42% of firefighters, do not have all involved firefighters trained. Also, 20% of 

fire departments only have some or none of involved firefighters trained. 

In the largest cities, there were no departments with reported need, and the percentage 

without all involved firefighters trained was less than 10% for communities down to 

50,000 population. By contrast, 71% of rural fire departments, protecting communities of 

less than 2,500 population, did not have all involved firefighters trained, and 31% did not 

have all or most involved firefighters trained. 

Table C. Estimated Percentage of Fire Departments 

That Are Involved in Structural Firefighting 

But Where Not All Involved Firefighters Have Formal Training 

by Size of Community Protected (Q. 13b) 

Population Protected 

Not All Involved 

Firefighters 

Have Formal 

Training 

Only Some or 

None of Involved 

Firefighters Have 

Formal Training 

1,000,000 or more 0% 0% 

500,000 to 999,999 0% 0% 

250,000 to 499,999 4% 2% 

100,000 to 249,999 3% 1% 

50,000 to 99,999 7% 1% 

25,000 to 49,999 12% 1% 

10,000 to 24,999 21% 4% 

5,000 to 9,999 39% 7% 

2,500 to 4,999 49% 14% 

Under 2,500 71% 31% 

Total 53% 20% 

The above projections are based on 4,616 departments 

reporting yes on Question 13a and reporting on 

Question 13b. “Not All” means Most, Some, or None. 

See Tables 10 and 11. 

Q. 13b: If [structural firefighting is a role your department 

performs] how many of your personnel who perform this duty have 

received formal training (not just on-the job)? All, Most, Some, 

None. 

Table 12 (p. 38) indicates what levels of certification are held by some or all of the 

firefighters who perform structural firefighting, by department. An estimated 128,000 

22
firefighters are estimated to serve in fire departments where no certification of firefighters 

as Firefighter Level I or II has taken place. 

None of these firefighters were in fire departments protecting populations of 250,000 or 

more. Most of the firefighters in departments with no certification for structural 

firefighting were in rural fire departments and so were almost certainly volunteer 

firefighters. 

Note that there may be other firefighters – possibly many other firefighters – who lack 

certification serving in departments where some firefighters are certified. These 

firefighters are not reflected in the 128,000 figure cited above. Conversely, some 

departments where no one is certified may be providing a local equivalent of 

certification. The breakdown by community size is shown in Table D. 

Table D. Estimated Number of Firefighters Involved in 

Structural Firefighting Serving in Fire Departments 

Where No One is Certified, by Size of Community Protected (Q. 13c) 

Population Protected 

Estimated 

Firefighters 

Lacking 

Certification 

1,000,000 or more 0 

500,000 to 999,999 0 

250,000 to 499,999 0 

100,000 to 249,999 3,000 

50,000 to 99,999 2,000 

25,000 to 49,999 3,000 

10,000 to 24,999 6,000 

5,000 to 9,999 10,000 

2,500 to 4,999 20,000 

Under 2,500 84,000 

Total 128,000 

Percent of total firefighters 12% 

The above projections are based on 4,671 

departments reporting yes on Question 13a and 

reporting on Question 13c. Numbers are 

estimated to the nearest 1,000 and may not add to 

totals due to rounding. See Tables 10 and 12. 

Q. 13c: [If structural firefighting is a role your department 

performs,] have any of your personnel been certified to any 

of the following levels? Firefighter Level I and II. 

 

23
Emergency Medical Service 

Table 13 (p. 39) asks whether emergency medical service (EMS) is within the 

responsibility of the fire department. Roughly one-third (33%) of departments say no, 

mostly in smaller communities. However, even for rural fire departments, protecting 

fewer than 2,500 population, most fire departments (60%) now provide EMS. 

Table 14 (p. 40) asks how many of the assigned personnel in departments responsible for 

EMS have received formal training. The breakdown by community size is given in 

Figure 2 and Table E, in terms of percent of departments performing this duty where not 

all involved personnel (or only some or none of involved personnel) have formal training. 

For communities of 100,000 population or more, no more than 10% of departments are 

involved in EMS but fail to have formal training for all personnel involved in EMS. For 

rural communities of less than 2,500 population, two-fifths (41%) of departments are 

involved in EMS but do not have all involved personnel formally trained. 

Figure 2. Estimated Percent of Departments 

That Are Involved in EMS But Where 

Not All Involved Personnel Have Formal Training

36%

41%

38%

35%

24%

16%

12%

10%

4%

0%

0%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

All

Under 2,500

2,500 to 4,999

5,000 to 9,999

10,000 to 24,999

25,000 to 49,999

50,000 to 99,999

100,000 to 249,999

250,000 to 499,999

500,000 to 999,999

1,000,000 or more

Populatio

n

Percent

Table 15 (p. 41) indicates certification of personnel who perform EMS. The question 

asked whether any personnel had been certified to any of several possible levels. The 

columns of Table 15 are defined by combinations of the four levels of certification. 

Because the four levels are progressive, with each level incorporating the skills and 

knowledge of the previous level, it is reasonable to assume that a combination answer 

(e.g., First Responder and Basic Life Support) indicates that some personnel in the 

24
department are certified to one of the levels and other personnel are certified to another 

level. By contrast, a department that responds with only one level presumably has all its 

certified personnel certified to that one level. In every case, it is possible that some 

assigned personnel are not certified to any level. 

Table E. Estimated Percentage of Fire Departments 

That Are Involved in EMS But Where 

Not All Involved Personnel Have Formal Training 

by Size of Community Protected (Q. 14b) 

Population Protected 

Not All Involved 

Personnel Have 

Formal Training 

Only Some or 

None of Involved 

Personnel Have 

Formal Training 

1,000,000 or more 0% 0% 

500,000 to 999,999 0% 0% 

250,000 to 499,999 4% 2% 

100,000 to 249,999 10% 2% 

50,000 to 99,999 12% 1% 

25,000 to 49,999 16% 2% 

10,000 to 24,999 24% 7% 

5,000 to 9,999 35% 13% 

2,500 to 4,999 38% 18% 

Under 2,500 41% 23% 

Total 36% 18% 

The above projections are based on 3,431 

departments reporting yes on Question 14a and 

reporting on Question 14b. “Not All” means Most, 

Some, or None. See Tables 13 and 14. 

Q. 14b: If [emergency medical services (EMS) is a role your 

department performs], how many of your personnel who 

perform this duty have received formal training (not just onthe job)? All, Most, Some, None. 

Table 15 indicates that almost no departments performing EMS are completely lacking in 

certified personnel. Conversely, no departments reported that all their certified personnel 

were certified to the level of Paramedic, the highest level of certification, and very few 

departments reported that all their certified personnel were certified to the level of 

Advanced Life Support, the second highest level of certification. 

25
Hazardous Material Response 

Table 16 (p. 42) asks whether hazardous material response is within the responsibility of 

the fire department. Roughly one-fifth (20%) of departments say no, and the ones saying 

no are mostly smaller communities. Even for rural fire departments, protecting fewer 

than 2,500 population, seven out of ten (71%) fire departments now provide hazardous 

material response. 

Table F. Estimated Percentage of Fire Departments 

That Are Involved in Hazardous Material Response But Where 

Not All Involved Personnel Have Formal Training 

by Size of Community Protected (Q. 15b) 

Population Protected 

Not All Involved 

Personnel Have 

Formal Training 

Only Some or 

None of Involved 

Personnel Have 

Formal Training 

1,000,000 or more 0% 0% 

500,000 to 999,999 0% 0% 

250,000 to 499,999 4% 2% 

100,000 to 249,999 10% 2% 

50,000 to 99,999 12% 1% 

25,000 to 49,999 16% 2% 

10,000 to 24,999 24% 7% 

5,000 to 9,999 35% 13% 

2,500 to 4,999 38% 18% 

Under 2,500 41% 23% 

Total 36% 18% 

The above projections are based on 3,990 

departments reporting yes on Question 15a and 

reporting on Question 15b. “Not All” means Most, 

Some, or None. See Tables 16 and 17. 

Q. 15b: If [hazardous materials response is a role your 

department performs], how many of your personnel who 

perform this duty have received formal training (not just onthe-job)? All, Most, Some, None. 

Table 17 (p. 43) asks how many of the assigned personnel in departments responsible for 

hazardous material response have received formal training. Requirements of the US 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the US Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration (OSHA) specify that all assigned personnel must have formal training. 

Table 17 indicates only 29% of departments are compliant with these requirements, 

26
including two-thirds or more of departments protecting communities of at least 50,000 

population – where most departments are all- or mostly-career – and one-sixth of 

departments protecting rural communities. 

The breakdown of lack of training by community size is given in Table F, in terms of 

percent of departments performing this duty where not all involved personnel have 

formal training, by size of community protected. 

Table 18 (p. 44) indicates certification of firefighters who perform hazardous material 

response. The columns of Table 18 are defined by combinations of the three levels of 

certification. Since the three levels are progressive, with each level incorporating the 

skills and knowledge of the previous level, it is reasonable to assume that a combination 

answer (e.g., Awareness and Technician) indicates that some personnel are certified to 

one level and other personnel are certified to another level. By contrast, a department 

that responds with only one level presumably has all its certified personnel certified to 

that level. In every case, it is possible that some assigned personnel are not certified to 

any level. 

Except for rural communities, almost no departments performing hazardous material 

response are completely lacking in certified personnel (less than 4% of departments in 

each population interval, except for 6% for communities of less than 2,500 population). 

At the other end, almost no departments (3% of departments) have all involved personnel 

certified to the highest level, which is Technician, and only one-fifth (20%) have all 

involved personnel certified to at least the second highest level, which is Operational. 

 Wildland Firefighting 

Table 19 (p. 45) asks whether wildland firefighting is within the responsibility of the fire 

department. Roughly one-seventh (15%) of departments say no, with the percentage 

falling to 9% in smaller communities and at least 30% for departments protecting 

communities of at least 25,000 population, excluding departments protecting 

communities of 100,000 to 249,999 population, where the percentage saying no was 

21%. Even for the most urban fire departments, at least two-thirds of fire departments 

provide wildland firefighting. However, one cannot determine from available data how 

many of the departments where wildland firefighting is reported as outside the 

department’s responsibility are departments protecting communities with no significant 

wildlands to protect. 

Table 20 (p. 46) asks how many of the assigned personnel in departments responsible for 

wildland firefighting have received formal training. The breakdown of lack of formal 

training by community size is summarized in Table G, in terms of percent of departments 

performing this duty where not all involved personnel have formal training, by size of 

community protected. 

Table G indicates roughly three-fifths of departments are involved in wildland 

firefighting but do not have all involved personnel formally trained. The percent of 

27
departments is larger for smaller communities, which are also more likely to provide 

wildland firefighting as a service. 

Table G. Estimated Percentage of Fire Departments 

That Are Involved in Wildland Firefighting But Where 

Not All Involved Personnel Have Formal Training 

by Size of Community Protected (Q. 16b) 

Population Protected 

Not All Involved 

Personnel Have 

Formal Training 

Only Some or 

None of Involved 

Personnel Have 

Formal Training 

1,000,000 or more 20% 20% 

500,000 to 999,999 39% 13% 

250,000 to 499,999 35% 17% 

100,000 to 249,999 24% 16% 

50,000 to 99,999 27% 17% 

25,000 to 49,999 37% 23% 

10,000 to 24,999 43% 24% 

5,000 to 9,999 55% 27% 

2,500 to 4,999 66% 34% 

Under 2,500 72% 37% 

Total 63% 33% 

The above projections are based on 3,598 

departments reporting yes on Question 16a and 

reporting on Question 16b. “Not All” means Most, 

Some, or None. See Tables 19 and 20. 

Q. 16b: If [wildland firefighting is a role your department 

performs], how many of your personnel who perform this 

duty have received formal training (not just on-the-job)? All, 

Most, Some, None. 

 Technical Rescue 

Table 21 (p. 47) asks whether technical rescue is within the responsibility of the fire 

department. Two-fifths (43%) of departments say no, mostly in smaller communities. 

However, even for rural fire departments, protecting fewer than 2,500 population, nearly 

half of fire departments (47%) now provide technical rescue. 

Table 22 (p. 48) asks how many of the assigned personnel in departments responsible for 

technical rescue service have received formal training. The breakdown of lack of training 

by community size is given in Table H, in terms of percent of departments performing 

28
this duty but not having formal training for all involved personnel, by size of community 

protected. 

Table H. Estimated Percentage of Fire Departments 

That Are Involved in Technical Rescue Service But Where 

Not All Involved Personnel Have Formal Training 

by Size of Community Protected (Q. 17b) 

Population Protected 

Not All Involved 

Personnel Have 

Formal Training 

Only Some or 

None of Involved 

Personnel Have 

Formal Training 

1,000,000 or more 47% 7% 

500,000 to 999,999 37% 21% 

250,000 to 499,999 57% 46% 

100,000 to 249,999 60% 39% 

50,000 to 99,999 58% 39% 

25,000 to 49,999 63% 37% 

10,000 to 24,999 61% 40% 

5,000 to 9,999 56% 37% 

2,500 to 4,999 55% 38% 

Under 2,500 44% 32% 

Total 50% 35% 

The above projections are based on 3,067 

departments reporting on Question 17b. “Not All” 

means Most, Some, or None. See Tables 21 and 

22. 

Q. 17b: If [technical rescue is a role your department 

performs], how many of your personnel who perform this 

duty have received formal training (not just on-the-job)? All, 

Most, Some, None. 

Except for communities with at least 500,000 population, half or more of departments in 

any community size interval were performing this duty but did not have formal training 

for all involved personnel. 

Programs to Maintain and Protect Firefighter Health 

Table 23 (p. 49) indicates whether departments have a program to maintain basic 

firefighter fitness and health, such as is required in NFPA 1500, Standard on Fire 

Department Occupational Safety and Health Program. 

29
Only one-fourth of fire departments (24%) indicate that they have such a program, 

although half or more of communities with at least 50,000 population report programs. 

Figure 3 estimates what percentage of firefighters, career or volunteer, are in departments 

without such programs. 

In the largest communities, those with populations of 500,000 or more, only 13% of 

firefighters are estimated to work in fire departments without programs to maintain basic 

firefighter fitness and health. 

In the smallest communities, those with populations of less than 5,000, at least four-fifths 

of firefighters are estimated in serve in fire departments without such programs. 

Figure 3. Estimated Percent of Firefighters Whose Fire Departments 

Have No Programs to Maintain Basic Firefighter Fitness and Health

82%

81%

73%

64%

47%

45%

34%

37%

13%

13%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%

Under 2,500

2,500 to 4,999

5,000 to 9,999

10,000 to 24,999

25,000 to 49,999

50,000 to 99,999

100,000 to 249,999

250,000 to 499,999

500,000 to 999,999

1,000,000 or more

Population

Percent

Table I estimates how many firefighters, career or volunteer, are in departments without 

such programs. 

Because such a large share of total firefighters serve as volunteers in smaller 

communities, which are the same communities where most fire departments do not have 

programs to maintain basic firefighter fitness and health, the estimated total of 792,000 

firefighters without such programs represents roughly two-thirds of the estimated total 

number of firefighters. 

Table 24 (p. 50) indicates that nearly two-thirds of fire departments have programs for 

infectious disease control, including more than 95% of departments protecting 

communities with at least 50,000 population. 

30
Table I. Estimated Number of Firefighters in Fire Departments 

With No Program to Maintain Basic Firefighter Fitness and Health 

by Size of Community Protected (Q. 18) 

Population Protected 

Estimated 

Firefighters Without 

Program to Maintain 

Fitness 

1,000,000 or more 4,000 

500,000 to 999,999 5,000 

250,000 to 499,999 10,000 

100,000 to 249,999 17,000 

50,000 to 99,999 23,000 

25,000 to 49,999 34,000 

10,000 to 24,999 85,000 

5,000 to 9,999 97,000 

2,500 to 4,999 130,000 

Under 2,500 331,000 

Total 737,000 

Percent of total 

firefighters 67% 

The above projections are based on 4,636 

departments reporting on Question 18. Numbers 

are shown to the nearest 1,000 and may not sum 

to totals due to rounding. See Table 23. 

Q. 18: Does your department have a program to maintain 

basic firefighter fitness and health (e.g., as required in NFPA 

1500)? 

31

Table 7 

For All- or Mostly-Volunteer Departments 

Average Number of Volunteer Firefighters Who Respond to a Mid-Day House Fire 

Percent of Departments by Community Size 

(Q. 10)

Average Number of Volunteer Firefighters Responding 

Population 

of Community 1-2 3-4 5-9 10-14 15-19 

20 or 

More Total 

25,000 to 49,999 6.5% 10.1% 29.7% 24.7% 10.9% 18.1% 100.0%

10,000 to 24,999 5.1 14.8 31.8 26.8 11.2 10.5 100.0 

5,000 to 9,999 3.3 11.6 40.7 27.9 10.6 6.0 100.0 

2,500 to 4,999 3.3 13.5 43.9 26.6 9.3 3.5 100.0 

Under 2,500 3.3 17.9 46.4 22.9 7.8 2.3 100.0 

Source: FEMA US Fire Administration 2005 

Survey of the Needs of the US Fire Service 

A mostly-volunteer department might respond with some career firefighters as well, but this question 

asked only about volunteers responding. 

The above projections are based on 3,346 departments reporting on Question 10 and comprised of all- or 

mostly-volunteer firefighters. Numbers may not add to totals due to rounding. 

Q. 10: Average number of call/volunteer personnel who respond to a mid-day house fire (blank for actual 

number). 

33
Table 8 

For All- or Mostly-Career Departments 

Number of Career Firefighters Assigned to an Engine/Pumper Apparatus 

Percent of Departments by Community Size 

(Q. 11) 

Population 

of Community

Number of Career Firefighters Assigned to Engine/Pumper 

1-2 3 4 5 or More Total 

1,000,000 or more 0.0% 10.0% 80.0% 10.0% 100.0%

500,000 to 999,999 0.0 26.9 65.4 7.7 100.0 

250,000 to 499,999 7.7 35.9 53.8 2.6 100.0 

100,000 to 249,999 5.1 54.1 38.7 1.9 100.0 

50,000 to 99,999 7.1 63.8 26.8 2.4 100.0 

25,000 to 49,999 14.8 62.5 19.8 2.8 100.0 

10,000 to 24,999 32.7 42.7 20.6 3.9 100.0 

Source: FEMA US Fire Administration 2005 

Survey of the Needs of the US Fire Service 

The above projections are based on 1,113 departments reporting on Question 11 and 

comprised of all- or mostly-career firefighters. Numbers may not add to totals due to rounding. 

Q. 11: Number of on-duty career/paid personnel assigned to an engine/pumper (answers given 

as ranges shown). 

34
Table 9 

For All- or Mostly-Career Departments 

Number of Career Firefighters Assigned to a Ladder/Aerial Apparatus 

Percent of Departments by Community Size 

(Q. 12)

Number of Career Firefighters Assigned to a Ladder/Aerial 

Population 

of Community 1-2 3 4 

5 or 

More 

Not 

Applicable Total 

1,000,000 or more 0.0% 10.0% 70.0% 20.0% 0.0% 100.0% 

500,000 to 999,999 0.0 30.8 50.0 19.2 0.0 100.0 

250,000 to 499,999 10.5 34.2 47.4 2.6 5.3 100.0 

100,000 to 249,999 11.0 38.7 43.2 5.2 1.9 100.0 

50,000 to 99,999 17.0 43.5 26.9 2.8 9.9 100.0 

25,000 to 49,999 35.6 36.0 14.2 3.8 10.4 100.0 

10,000 to 24,999 52.3 11.8 7.7 0.6 27.6 100.0 

Source: FEMA US Fire Administration 2005 

Survey of the Needs of the US Fire Service 

The above projections are based on 1,100 departments reporting on Question 12 and comprised of 

all- or mostly-career firefighters. Numbers may not add to totals due to rounding. 

Q. 12: Number of on-duty career/paid personnel assigned to a ladder/aerial (answers given as 

ranges shown). 

35
36

Table 10 

Does Department Provide Structural Firefighting? 

by Community Size 

(Q. 13a) 

 Yes No Total 

Population 

of Community

Number 

Depts Percent

Number 

Depts Percent

Number 

Depts Percent

1,000,000 or more 15 100.0% 0 0.0% 15 100.0% 

500,000 to 999,999 38 100.0 0 0.0 38 100.0 

250,000 to 499,999 54 100.0 0 0.0 54 100.0 

100,000 to 249,999 217 100.0 0 0.0 217 100.0 

50,000 to 99,999 448 100.0 0 0.0 448 100.0 

25,000 to 49,999 1,073 100.0 0 0.0 1,073 100.0 

10,000 to 24,999 2,939 100.0 0 0.0 2,939 100.0 

5,000 to 9,999 3,755 99.8 9 0.2 3,764 100.0 

2,500 to 4,999 4,868 100.0 0 0.0 4,868 100.0 

Under 2,500 13,636 99.2 114 0.8 13,750 100.0 

 Total 27,043 99.5 122 0.5 27,166 100.0 

Source: FEMA US Fire Administration 2005 

Survey of the Needs of the US Fire Service 

The above projections are based on 4,674 departments reporting on Question 13a. Numbers may 

not add to totals due to rounding. 

Q. 13a: Is [structural firefighting] a role your department performs? 
37

Table 11 

For Departments That Provide Structural Firefighting 

How Many Personnel Who Perform This Duty Have Received Formal Training? 

by Community Size 

(Q. 13b) 

Population of Community

All 

Number 

Depts Percent

Most 

Number 

Depts Percent

Some 

Number 

Depts Percent

None 

Number Depts Percent

Numbe

Depts 

1,000,000 or more 15 100.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 15 

500,000 to 999,999 38 100.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 38 250,000 to 499,999 52 96.3 1 1.9 1 1.9 0 0.0 54 100,000 to 249,999 211 97.2 5 2.3 1 0.5 0 0.0 217 

50,000 to 99,999 418 93.3 26 5.8 4 0.9 0 0.0 448 25,000 to 49,999 940 87.6 119 11.0 14 1.4 0 0.0 1,073 10,000 to 24,999 2,310 78.6 502 17.1 127 4.3 0 0.0 2,939 

5,000 to 9,999 2,306 61.4 1,178 31.4 267 7.1 4 0.1 3,755 2,500 to 4,999 2,463 50.6 1,702 35.0 677 13.9 26 0.5 4,868 

Under 2,500 3,940 28.9 5,451 40.0 3,809 27.9 436 3.2 13,636  Total 12,691 46.9 8,984 33.2 4,902 18.1 467 1.7 27,043 Source: FEMA US Fire Administration 2005 

Survey of the Needs of the US Fire Service 

The above projections are based on 4,616 departments reporting yes to Question 13a and also reporting on this question. may not add to totals due to rounding. Q. 13b: If [structural firefighting is a role your department performs], how many of your personnel who perform this duty haformal training (not just on-the-job)?
Table 12 

For Departments That Provide Structural Firefighting, 

Level That Personnel Who Perform This Duty Have Been Certified to 

Percent of Departments by Community Size 

(Q. 13c) 

Population 

of Community

No 

Certification

Firefighter

Level 1

Firefighter 

Level 2

Both 

Levels

Total 

Departments

1,000,000 or more 0.0% 10.0% 50.0% 40.0% 100.0% 

500,000 to 999,999 0.0 7.6 23.0 69.3 100.0 

250,000 to 499,999 0.0 11.4 27.3 61.3 100.0 

100,000 to 249,999 5.9 7.7 29.0 57.4 100.0 

50,000 to 99,999 3.0 5.4 36.2 55.4 100.0 

25,000 to 49,999 4.4 8.1 36.9 50.7 100.0 

10,000 to 24,999 4.5 9.4 26.7 59.4 100.0 

5,000 to 9,999 7.6 17.9 20.0 54.5 100.0 

2,500 to 4,999 12.6 27.9 14.3 45.2 100.0 

Under 2,500 20.9 36.4 12.3 30.4 100.0 

 Total 15.6 27.0 16.6 40.7 100.0 

Source: FEMA US Fire Administration 2005 

Survey of the Needs of the US Fire Service 

The above projections are based on 4,663 departments reporting yes to Question 13a 

and also reporting on Question 13c. Numbers may not add to totals due to rounding. 

Q. 13c: Have any of your personnel been certified to any of the following levels? 

Firefighter Level I, II 

38
39

Table 13 

Does Department Provide Emergency Medical Service (EMS)? 

by Community Size 

(Q. 14a)

 Yes No Total 

Population 

of Community

Number 

Depts Percent

Number 

Depts Percent

Number 

Depts Percent

1,000,000 or more 15 100.0% 0 0.0% 15 100.0% 

500,000 to 999,999 38 100.0 0 0.0 38 100.0 

250,000 to 499,999 54 100.0 0 0.0 54 100.0 

100,000 to 249,999 212 97.7 5 2.3 217 100.0 

50,000 to 99,999 421 94.0 27 6.0 448 100.0 

25,000 to 49,999 932 86.9 141 13.1 1,073 100.0 

10,000 to 24,999 2,331 79.3 608 20.7 2,939 100.0 

5,000 to 9,999 2,724 72.4 1,040 27.6 3,764 100.0 

2,500 to 4,999 3,254 66.9 1,614 33.1 4,868 100.0 

Under 2,500 8,216 59.8 5,534 40.2 13,750 100.0 

 Total 18,199 67.0 8,967 33.0 27,166 100.0 

Source: FEMA US Fire Administration 2005 

Survey of the Needs of the US Fire Service 

The above projections are based on 4,671 departments reporting on Question 14a. Numbers 

may not add to totals due to rounding. 

Q. 14a: Is [emergency medical service] a role your department performs? 
Table 14 

For Departments That Provide Emergency Medical Service 

How Many Personnel Who Perform This Duty Have Received Formal Training? 

by Community Size 

(Q. 14b) 

Population of Community

All 

Number 

Depts Percent

Most 

Number 

Depts Percent

Some 

Number 

Depts Percent

None 

Number Depts Percent

Nu

De

1,000,000 or more 15 100.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 

500,000 to 999,999 38 100.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 250,000 to 499,999 52 96.2 1 1.9 1 1.9 0 0.0 100,000 to 249,999 191 90.0 17 8.0 4 1.9 0 0.0 

50,000 to 99,999 367 87.2 50 11.9 4 1.0 0 0.0 25,000 to 49,999 759 81.4 151 16.2 22 2.4 0 0.0 10,000 to 24,999 1,628 69.9 493 21.1 210 9.0 0 0.0 

5,000 to 9,999 1,400 51.4 838 30.8 482 17.7 4 0.2 2,500 to 4,999 1,397 42.9 979 30.1 878 27.0 0 0.0 

Under 2,500 2,651 32.3 2,404 29.3 3,132 38.1 29 0.4  Total 8,498 46.7 4,932 27.1 4,734 26.0 33 0.2 1Source: FEMA US Fire Administration 2005 

Survey of the Needs of the US Fire Service 

The above projections are based on 3,431 departments reporting yes to Question 14a and also reporting on this question. add to totals due to rounding. Q. 14b: If [emergency medical service is a role your department performs], how many of your personnel who perform this d

formal training (not just on-the-job)? 

40
41

Table 15 

For Departments That Provide Emergency Medical Service 

Level That Personnel Have Been Certified to 

For Departments by Community Size (Percent) 

(Q.14c) 

 First

Population

of Community None

First 

Responder

Basic Life

Support 

 First 

Responder

Basic Life

Support 

Responder Basic

Basic Life Support

Life Support Advanced 

Advanced Life Support

Life Support Paramedic

First 

Responder

Advanced 

Life Support

 Paramedic

Ad

Lif

 Pa

1,000,000 or more 0.0% 10.0% 0.0% 0.0% 50.0% 40.0% 0.0% 

500,000 to 999,999 0.0 0.0 3.9 7.6 57.7 23.0 0.0 250,000 to 499,999 0.0 8.7 4.3 4.3 34.8 41.3 0.0 100,000 to 249,999 1.8 4.2 8.5 9.7 29.1 38.8 0.6 

50,000 to 99,999 0.4 3.2 8.5 10.0 31.7 38.4 0.7 25,000 to 49,999 0.8 3.2 9.5 10.1 29.4 35.2 2.1 10,000 to 24,999 0.6 5.3 11.0 15.8 31.6 28.8 1.3 

5,000 to 9,999 1.2 6.1 13.3 24.5 29.5 20.2 1.4 2,500 to 4,999 1.8 10.8 11.6 24.6 31.6 14.5 2.9 

Under 2,500 2.8 17.1 11.5 36.0 19.4 7.9 3.3  Total 1.9 11.3 10.3 26.1 22.1 12.7 2.4 Source: FEMA U.S. Fire Administration 2005  Survey of the Needs of the U.S. Fire Service The above projections are based on 3,464 departments reporting yes to Question 14a, and also reporting on this question. totals due to rounding. Q. 14c: If [emergency medical service is a role your department performs], have any of your personnel been certified to an
42

Table 16 

Does Department Provide Hazardous Material Response? 

by Community Size 

(Q. 15a) 

 Yes No Total 

Population 

of Community

Number 

Depts Percent

Number 

Depts Percent

Number 

Depts Percent

1,000,000 or more 15 100.0% 0 0.0% 15 100.0%

500,000 to 999,999 38 100.0 0 0.0 38 100.0 

250,000 to 499,999 54 100.0 0 0.0 54 100.0 

100,000 to 249,999 210 96.8 7 32.2 217 100.0 

50,000 to 99,999 434 96.9 14 31.1 448 100.0 

25,000 to 49,999 1,019 95.0 54 5.0 1,073 100.0 

10,000 to 24,999 2,690 91.5 249 8.5 2,939 100.0 

5,000 to 9,999 3,293 87.5 471 12.5 3,764 100.0 

2,500 to 4,999 4,128 84.8 740 15.2 4,868 100.0 

Under 2,500 9,769 71.0 3,981 29.0 13,750 100.0 

 Total 21,652 79.7 5,514 20.3 27,166 100.0 

Source: FEMA US Fire Administration 2005 

Survey of the Needs of the US Fire Service 

The above table projections are based on 4,672 departments reporting on Question 15a. 

Numbers may not add to totals due to rounding. 

Q. 15a: Is [hazardous materials response] a role your department performs? 
Table 17 

For Departments That Provide Hazardous Material Response 

How Many Personnel Who Perform This Duty Have Received Formal Training? 

by Community Size 

(Q. 15b) 

Population of Community

All 

Number 

Depts Percent

Most 

Number 

Depts Percent

Some 

Number 

Depts Percent

None 

Number Depts Percent

Tota

Number 

Depts P

1,000,000 or more 14 93.3% 0 0.0% 1 6.7% 0 0.0% 15 

500,000 to 999,999 34 89.5 1 2.6 3 7.9 0 0.0 38 250,000 to 499,999 45 83.3 2 3.7 7 13.0 0 0.0 54 100,000 to 249,999 167 79.9 21 10.0 21 10.0 0 0.0 209 

50,000 to 99,999 297 68.4 65 15.0 72 16.6 0 0.0 434 25,000 to 49,999 627 61.5 207 20.3 185 18.2 0 0.0 1,019 10,000 to 24,999 1,409 52.3 719 26.8 559 20.7 2 0.1 2,690 

5,000 to 9,999 1,150 35.0 1,076 32.7 1,034 31.4 33 1.0 3,293 2,500 to 4,999 954 23.1 1,378 33.3 1,754 42.5 42 1.0 4,128 

Under 2,500 1,665 17.0 2,745 28.1 4,994 51.1 365 3.8 9,769  Total 6,360 29.4 6,214 28.7 8,630 39.9 444 2.0 21,652 Source: FEMA US Fire Administration 2005 

Survey of the Needs of the US Fire Service 

The above projections are based on 3,990 departments reporting yes to Questions 15a and also reporting on this questionNumbers may not add to totals due to rounding. Q. 15b: If [hazardous materials response is a role your department performs], how many of your personnel who perform th

have received formal training (not just on-the-job)? 

43
44

Table 18 

For Departments That Provide Hazardous Material Response 

Level That Personnel Who Perform This Duty Have Been Certified to 

Percent of Departments by Community Size 

(Q. 15b) 

Aw

Population

of Community None Awareness Operational Technician

Awareness

Operational

Awareness

Technician

Operational

 Technician

Op

 Te

1,000,000 or more 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 

500,000 to 999,999 0.0 0.0 3.9 7.6 0.0 0.0 26.9 250,000 to 499,999 0.0 2.3 2.3 9.1 2.3 2.3 11.4 100,000 to 249,999 1.8 2.5 3.1 11.7 5.5 1.8 23.9 

50,000 to 99,999 2.8 2.8 7.2 6.6 6.9 6.9 0.3 25,000 to 49,999 1.9 4.8 12.6 10.1 10.9 1.0 15.5 10,000 to 24,999 1.4 9.2 13.6 5.1 21.6 1.1 10.5 

5,000 to 9,999 3.1 15.8 12.3 2.5 29.6 1.5 5.6 2,500 to 4,999 3.6 25.5 11.2 2.9 33.0 1.3 1.9 

Under 2,500 6.3 37.2 12.2 1.5 29.6 1.6 0.9  Total 4.6 27.0 12.3 2.9 28.4 1.5 4.4 Source: FEMA US Fire Administration 2005 

Survey of the Needs of the US Fire Service 

The above projections are based on 4,025 departments reporting yes to Question 15a and also reporting on this question. to totals due to rounding. Q. 15c: If [hazardous material response is a role your department performs], have any of your personnel been certified to a

levels? 
45

Table 19 

Does Department Provide Wildland Firefighting? 

by Community Size 

(Q. 16a) 

 Yes No Total 

Population 

of Community

Number 

Depts Percent

Number 

Depts Percent

Number 

Depts Percent

1,000,000 or more 10 66.7% 5 33.3% 15 100.0% 

500,000 to 999,999 27 70.4 11 29.6 38 100.0 

250,000 to 499,999 43 79.1 11 20.9 54 100.0 

100,000 to 249,999 137 63.9 80 36.1 217 100.0 

50,000 to 99,999 244 54.5 204 45.5 448 100.0 

25,000 to 49,999 648 60.4 425 39.6 1,073 100.0 

10,000 to 24,999 2,018 68.7 921 31.3 2,939 100.0 

5,000 to 9,999 3,048 81.0 716 19.0 3,764 100.0 

2,500 to 4,999 4,364 89.7 504 10.3 4,868 100.0 

Under 2,500 12,499 90.9 1,251 9.1 13,750 100.0 

 Total 23,039 84.8 4,127 15.2 27,166 100.0 

Source: FEMA US Fire Administration 2005 

Survey of the Needs of the US Fire Service 

The above projections are based on 4,658 departments reporting on Question 16a. Numbers 

may not add to totals due to rounding. 

Q. 16a: Is [wildland firefighting] a role your department performs? 
46

Table 20 

For Departments That Provide Wildland Firefighting 

How Many Personnel Who Perform This Duty Have Received Formal Training? 

by Community Size 

(Q. 16b) 

Population of Community

All 

Number 

Depts Percent

Most 

Number 

Depts Percent

Some 

Number 

Depts Percent

None 

Number Depts Percent

Num

Dept

1,000,000 or more 7 70.0% 0 0.0% 2 20.0% 1 10.0% 1

500,000 to 999,999 12 44.4 10 37.0 5 18.5 0 0.0 2250,000 to 499,999 24 55.8 10 23.3 8 18.6 1 2.3 4100,000 to 249,999 85 62.0 17 12.4 27 19.7 8 5.8 13

50,000 to 99,999 125 51.3 42 17.1 59 24.0 19 7.6 2425,000 to 49,999 248 38.2 153 23.6 205 31.7 42 6.6 6410,000 to 24,999 742 36.8 567 28.1 568 28.1 141 7.0 2,01

5,000 to 9,999 983 32.2 1,037 34.0 840 27.6 188 6.2 3,042,500 to 4,999 1,147 26.3 1,559 35.7 1,342 30.8 317 7.3 4,36

Under 2,500 2,658 21.3 4,716 37.7 4,234 33.9 891 7.1 12,49 Total 6,030 26.2 8,110 35.2 7,290 31.6 1,608 7.0 23,03Source: FEMA US Fire Administration 2005 

Survey of the Needs of the US Fire Service 

The above projections are based on 3,598 departments reporting yes to Question 16a and also reporting on this question. not add to totals due to rounding. Q. 16b: If [wildland firefighting is a role your department performs], how many of your personnel who perform this duty havtraining (not just on-the-job)? 
47

Table 21 

Does Department Provide Technical Rescue Service? 

by Community Size 

(Q. 17a) 

 Yes No Total 

Population 

of Community

Number 

Depts Percent

Number 

Depts Percent

Number 

Depts Percent

1,000,000 or more 15 100.0% 0 0.0% 15 100.0%

500,000 to 999,999 38 100.0 0 0.0 38 100.0 

250,000 to 499,999 52 96.3 2 3.7 54 100.0 

100,000 to 249,999 204 94.0 13 6.0 217 100.0 

50,000 to 99,999 394 87.9 54 12.1 448 100.0 

25,000 to 49,999 873 81.3 200 18.7 1,073 100.0 

10,000 to 24,999 2,151 73.2 788 26.8 2,939 100.0 

5,000 to 9,999 2,469 65.6 1,295 34.4 3,764 100.0 

2,500 to 4,999 2,935 60.3 1,933 39.7 4,868 100.0 

Under 2,500 6,418 46.7 7,332 53.3 13,750 100.0 

 Total 15,548 57.2 11,618 42.8 27,166 100.0 

Source: FEMA US Fire Administration 2005 

Survey of the Needs of the US Fire Service 

The above projections are based on 4,635 departments reporting on Question 17a. Numbers 

may not add to totals due to rounding. 

Q. 17a: Is [technical rescue] a role your department performs? 
48

Table 22 

For Departments That Provide Technical Rescue Service 

How Many Personnel Who Perform This Duty Have Received Formal Training? 

by Community Size 

(Q. 17b) 

Population of Community

All 

Number 

Depts Percent

Most 

Number 

Depts Percent

Some 

Number 

Depts Percent

None 

Number Depts Percent

To

Number 

Depts Percent

1,000,000 or more 8 53.3% 6 40.0% 1 6.7% 0 0.0% 15 

500,000 to 999,999 24 63.2 6 15.8 8 21.0 0 0.0 38 250,000 to 499,999 21 40.4 6 11.5 24 46.2 1 1.9 52 100,000 to 249,999 74 36.3 45 22.1 85 41.6 0 0.0 204 

50,000 to 99,999 132 33.6 85 21.6 176 44.8 0 0.0 394 25,000 to 49,999 199 22.8 274 31.3 393 45.0 7 0.9 873 10,000 to 24,999 361 16.8 627 29.2 1,123 52.2 40 1.9 2,151 

5,000 to 9,999 355 14.4 714 28.9 1,349 54.7 50 2.0 2,469 2,500 to 4,999 281 9.6 791 27.0 1,788 60.9 74 2.5 2,934 

Under 2,500 437 6.8 1,586 24.7 3,988 62.1 408 6.4 6,418  Total 1,891 12.2 4,140 26.6 8,936 57.5 581 3.7 15,548 Source: FEMA US Fire Administration 2005 

Survey of the Needs of the US Fire Service 

The above projections are based on 3,067 departments reporting yes to Question 17a and also reporting on this question. may not add to totals due to rounding. Q. 17b: If [technical rescue is a role your department performs], how many of your personnel who perform this duty have rformal training (not just on-the-job)? 
Table 23 

Does Department Have a Program 

to Maintain Basic Firefighter Fitness and Health? 

by Community Size 

(Q. 18) 

Yes No Total 

Population 

of Community

Number 

Depts Percent

Number 

Depts Percent

Number 

Depts Percent

1,000,000 or more 13 86.7% 2 13.3% 15 100.0%

500,000 to 999,999 33 86.8 5 13.2 38 100.0 

250,000 to 499,999 34 63.0 20 37.0 54 100.0 

100,000 to 249,999 143 65.9 74 34.1 217 100.0 

50,000 to 99,999 247 55.1 201 44.9 448 100.0 

25,000 to 49,999 565 52.7 508 47.3 1,073 100.0 

10,000 to 24,999 1,045 35.6 1,894 64.4 2,939 100.0 

5,000 to 9,999 1,034 27.5 2,730 72.5 3,764 100.0 

2,500 to 4,999 945 19.4 3,923 80.6 4,868 100.0 

Under 2,500 2,534 18.4 11,216 81.6 13,750 100.0 

 Total 6,594 24.3 20,572 76.4 27,166 100.0 

Source: FEMA US Fire Administration 2005 

Survey of the Needs of the US Fire Service 

The above projections are based on 4,636 departments reporting on Question 18. Numbers 

may not add to totals due to rounding. 

Q. 18: Does your department have a program to maintain basic firefighter fitness and health 

(e.g., as required in NFPA 1500)? 

49
Table 24 

Does Department Have a 

Program for Infectious Disease Control? 

by Community Size 

(Q. 19) 

Yes No Total 

Population 

of Community

Number 

Depts Percent

Number 

Depts Percent

Number 

Depts Percent

1,000,000 or more 15 100.0% 0 0.0% 15 100.0%

500,000 to 999,999 38 100.0 0 0.0 38 100.0 

250,000 to 499,999 53 98.1 1 1.9 54 100.0 

100,000 to 249,999 209 96.3 8 3.7 217 100.0 

50,000 to 99,999 431 96.2 17 3.8 448 100.0 

25,000 to 49,999 981 91.4 92 8.6 1,073 100.0 

10,000 to 24,999 2,523 85.8 416 14.2 2,939 100.0 

5,000 to 9,999 2,946 78.3 818 21.7 3,764 100.0 

2,500 to 4,999 3,329 68.4 1,539 31.6 4,868 100.0 

Under 2,500 7,192 52.3 6,558 47.7 13,750 100.0 

 Total 17,717 65.2 9,449 34.8 27,166 100.0

Source: FEMA US Fire Administration 2005 

Survey of the Needs of the US Fire Service 

The above projections are based on 4,588 departments reporting on Question 19. Numbers may 

not add to totals due to rounding. 

Q. 19: Does your department have a program for infectious disease control? 

50
FIRE PREVENTION AND CODE ENFORCEMENT 

Some of the greatest value delivered by the US fire services comes in activities that 

prevent fires and other emergencies from occurring or that moderate their severity when 

they do occur. 

Questions 20-22 provide information on a number of such programs, all of which were 

recognized as candidates for Federal assistance under the Assistance to Firefighters 

program. 

Table 25 (p. 56) indicates what percentage of fire departments, by community size, 

reported having each of six specific fire prevention or code enforcement programs. 

Table J indicates the number of fire departments lacking these programs and estimates 

the number of people living in communities protected by fire departments that do not 

conduct such programs. 

Table J. Number of Fire Departments and Estimated Total Population 

Protected by Those Fire Departments Where 

Selected Fire Prevention or Code Enforcement 

Programs Are NOT Provided, by Size of Community Protected (Q. 20) 

1. Plans Review 

Population Protected 

Number of 

Departments Without 

Program 

Population Protected by 

Departments Without 

Program 

1,000,000 or more 5 9,500,000 

500,000 to 999,999 3 1,800,000 

250,000 to 499,999 1 400,000 

100,000 to 249,999 17 2,600,000 

50,000 to 99,999 26 1,800,000 

25,000 to 49,999 115 4,000,000 

10,000 to 24,999 644 10,300,000 

5,000 to 9,999 1,415 10,200,000 

2,500 to 4,999 2,638 11,800,000 

Under 2,500 8,690 14,700,000 

Total 13,553 67,000,000 

Percent of US total 50% 23% 

The above projections are based on 4,213 departments reporting on Question 

20. Population estimates are shown to the nearest 100,000 and may not add to 

totals due to rounding. See Table 25. 

51
2. Permit Approval 

Population Protected 

Number of 

Departments Without 

Program 

Population Protected by 

Departments Without 

Program 

1,000,000 or more 5 9,500,000 

500,000 to 999,999 4 2,600,000 

250,000 to 499,999 6 2,000,000 

100,000 to 249,999 36 5,600,000 

50,000 to 99,999 87 6,100,000 

25,000 to 49,999 364 12,600,000 

10,000 to 24,999 1,525 24,400,000 

5,000 to 9,999 2,687 19,400,000 

2,500 to 4,999 3,992 17,800,000 

Under 2,500 11,124 18,800,000 

Total 19,830 118,900,000 

Percent of US total 73% 40% 

The above projections are based on 4,213 departments reporting on Question 

20. Population estimates are shown to the nearest 100,000 and may not add to 

totals due to rounding. See Table 25. 

3. Routine Testing of Active Systems (e.g., sprinkler, detection/alarm, 

smoke control) 

Population Protected 

Number of 

Departments Without 

Program 

Population Protected by 

Departments Without 

Program 

1,000,000 or more 5 9,500,000 

500,000 to 999,999 5 3,500,000 

250,000 to 499,999 12 4,100,000 

100,000 to 249,999 67 10,400,000 

50,000 to 99,999 126 8,800,000 

25,000 to 49,999 376 13,000,000 

10,000 to 24,999 1,593 25,500,000 

5,000 to 9,999 2,627 18,900,000 

2,500 to 4,999 3,778 16,900,000 

Under 2,500 10,863 18,400,000 

Total 19,451 128,900,000 

Percent of US total 72% 44% 

The above projections are based on 4,213 departments reporting on Question 

20. Population estimates are shown to the nearest 100,000 and may not add to 

totals due to rounding. See Table 25. 

52
4. Free Distribution of Home Smoke Alarms 

Population Protected 

Number of 

Departments Without 

Program 

Population Protected by 

Departments Without 

Program 

1,000,000 or more 5 9,500,000 

500,000 to 999,999 4 2,600,000 

250,000 to 499,999 7 2,400,000 

100,000 to 249,999 50 7,800,000 

50,000 to 99,999 126 8,800,000 

25,000 to 49,999 313 10,800,000 

10,000 to 24,999 1,220 19,500,000 

5,000 to 9,999 1,905 13,700,000 

2,500 to 4,999 2,906 13,000,000 

Under 2,500 9,075 15,300,000 

Total 15,611 103,600,000 

Percent of US total 57% 35% 

The above projections are based on 4,213 departments reporting on Question 

20. Population estimates are shown to the nearest 100,000 and may not add to 

totals due to rounding. See Table 25. 

5. Juvenile Firesetter Program 

Population Protected 

Number of 

Departments Without 

Program 

Population Protected by 

Departments Without 

Program 

1,000,000 or more 0 0 

500,000 to 999,999 0 0 

250,000 to 499,999 9 3,300,000 

100,000 to 249,999 49 7,600,000 

50,000 to 99,999 114 7,900,000 

25,000 to 49,999 406 14,000,000 

10,000 to 24,999 1,734 27,700,000 

5,000 to 9,999 2,887 20,800,000 

2,500 to 4,999 4,128 18,400,000 

Under 2,500 12,416 21,000,000 

Total 21,743 120,800,000 

Percent of US total 80% 41% 

The above projections are based on 4,213 departments reporting on Question 

20. Population estimates are shown to the nearest 100,000 and may not add to 

totals due to rounding. See Table 25. 

53
6. School Fire Safety Education Program Based on a National Model 

Curriculum 

Population Protected 

Number of 

Departments Without 

Program 

Population Protected by 

Departments Without 

Program 

1,000,000 or more 6 12,700,000 

500,000 to 999,999 8 5,300,000 

250,000 to 499,999 14 4,900,000 

100,000 to 249,999 46 7,200,000 

50,000 to 99,999 122 8,500,000 

25,000 to 49,999 249 8,600,000 

10,000 to 24,999 770 12,300,000 

5,000 to 9,999 1,080 7,800,000 

2,500 to 4,999 1,460 6,500,000 

Under 2,500 5,803 9,800,000 

Total 9,558 83,600,000 

Percent of US total 35% 28% 

The above projections are based on 4,213 departments reporting on Question 

20. Population estimates are shown to the nearest 100,000 and may not add to 

totals due to rounding. See Table 25. 

Q. 20: Which of the following programs or activities does your department conduct? 

The program with the highest reported participation was school fire safety education 

programs based on a national model curriculum, where roughly two-thirds (65%) of US 

fire departments reported conducting such a program. This is one of the few programs in 

this section where there is some independent information regarding participation, and that 

information would suggest that implementation of a school-based fire safety curriculum 

following a national model is closer to 5-10% of fire departments than the reported 65%. 

This large discrepancy may be a matter of interpretation. For example, many fire 

departments provide presentations to schools (e.g., puppet shows) in which the content is 

based on the content of some national model fire safety curriculum. Such presentations 

would qualify as a program of the sort asked about, but they would in practice have little 

educational value. Therefore, considerable caution should be shown when considering 

the reported practices for this particular program. 

Table 26 (p. 57) indicates which of several groups conduct fire-code inspections in the 

community. For communities of 50,000 population or more, at least 91% report the use 

of full-time fire department inspectors. The percentage drops to 74% for communities of 

25,000 to 49,999 population, to 48% for communities of 10,000 to 24,999 population, to 

20% for communities of 5,000 to 9,999 population, to 10% for communities of 2,500 to 

4,999 population, and to 4% for communities with less than 2,500 population. 

54
55

The next most commonly cited resource for conducting fire-code inspections was 

firefighters in-service. About 70% of departments protecting communities of 1 million or 

more population cited the use of in-service firefighters. Then, 64% of communities of 

500,000 to 999,999 population cited their use, falling to 46-54% for communities of 

25,000 to 499,999, to 38% for communities of 10,000 to 24,999, to 23% for communities 

of 5,000 to 9,999, and to 12-17% for communities with less than 5,000 population. 

Building department inspectors were cited by 4-25% of departments by community size, 

and separate inspection departments were cited by 0-15%. “Other” inspectors – such as 

those from a state fire marshal’s office – were cited mostly by smaller communities and 

were the principal inspection resource for communities with less than 10,000 population. 

Of greatest concern were those departments that reported no one conducted fire-code 

inspections in their community. Roughly 6,900 fire departments reported this situation, 

nearly all of them departments serving rural communities (less than 2,500 population). 

These 6,900 departments protect an estimated 20.3 million people, with two-fifths of that 

population located in rural communities. 

Table 27 (p. 58) indicates which of several parties determines that a fire was deliberately 

set. Multiple answers were permitted. For communities of 50,000 population or more, 

fire department arson investigators were cited by at least 89% of departments in each 

population interval, and no one else was cited by more than 46% of departments. 

In communities of 25,000 to 49,999 population, 81% of departments cited fire 

department arson investigators, 50% cited state arson investigators, 30% cited incident 

commanders, 26% cited the police department, and 22% cited regional arson task force 

investigators. Multiple agency involvement is commonplace for these communities. 

Communities of 10,000 to 24,999 population were the only ones in which two different 

agencies were each cited by a majority of departments – fire department arson 

investigators (63%) and state arson investigators (60%). Also, incident commanders 

were cited by 34% of departments and police departments by 25% of departments. 

For communities of less than 10,000 population, state arson investigators were cited by at 

least 71% of departments in each population interval and were by far the principal 

resource for determination of intentional firesetting in those communities. Incident 

commanders were still frequently cited in those communities as well. Fire department 

arson investigators were cited by 42% of departments in communities of 5,000 to 9,999 

population, by 29% of departments in communities of 2,500 to 4,999 population, and by 

16% of departments in communities of less than 2,500 population. 
Table 25 

Which Programs or Activities Does Department Conduct? 

by Community Size 

(Q. 20) 

Routine Free School 

 Population  of Community

Plans 

Review

Permit 

Approval 

Testing of

Active

Systems 

Distribution

of Smoke

Alarms

Juvenile

Firesetter

Program

Fire Safety

Education

Program

Other 

Preve

Progra

1,000,000 or more 70.0% 70.0% 70.0% 70.0% 100.0% 60.0% 20.0

500,000 to 999,999 92.9 89.3 85.7 89.3 100.0 78.6 21.4 250,000 to 499,999 97.8 89.1 78.3 87.0 82.6 73.9 30.4 100,000 to 249,999 92.3 83.4 69.2 76.9 77.5 78.7 22.5 

50,000 to 99,999 94.3 80.5 71.8 71.8 74.5 72.8 22.8 25,000 to 49,999 89.3 66.1 65.0 70.8 62.2 76.8 21.6 10,000 to 24,999 78.1 48.1 45.8 58.5 41.0 73.8 21.5 

5,000 to 9,999 62.4 28.6 30.2 49.4 23.3 71.3 23.7 2,500 to 4,999 45.8 18.0 22.4 40.3 15.2 70.0 21.3 

Under 2,500 36.8 19.1 21.0 34.0 9.7 57.8 20.9 

Total 50.1 27.0 28.4 42.6 20.0 64.0 21.5 

Source: FEMA U. S. Fire Administration 2005 

Survey of the Needs of the US Fire Service 

The above table breakdown is based on 4,213 departments reporting on Question 20. Departments were asked to circle aapply, so departments could select multiple responses. Numbers may not add to totals due to rounding. Q. 20: Which of the following programs or activities does your department conduct? Plans review; permit approval; routine testing of active systems (e.g., fire sprinkler, detection/alarm, smoke control); free distribution of home smoke alarms; juvenfiresetter program; school fire safety education program based on a national model curriculum; other prevention program. 

56
Table 26 

Who Conducts Fire-Code Inspections in the Community? 

by Community Size 

(Q. 21) 

Full-Time 

Populationof Community Fire 

 Department

Inspectors

In-Service

Firefighters

Building

Department

Separate

Inspection

Department Other No One 

1,000,000 or more 100.0% 70.0% 10.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 

500,000 to 999,999 92.9 64.3 3.6 3.6 0.0 0.0 250,000 to 499,999 100.0 54.3 10.9 0.0 2.2 0.0 100,000 to 249,999 97.0 49.7 12.4 2.4 1.2 0.0 

50,000 to 99,999 91.0 51.8 14.7 4.0 4.0 1.0 25,000 to 49,999 74.0 46.0 19.3 3.4 13.6 1.6 10,000 to 24,999 47.6 37.9 22.3 7.9 19.5 4.3 

5,000 to 9,999 20.4 22.8 24.6 10.3 28.7 13.8 2,500 to 4,999 9.6 17.3 19.7 14.3 28.3 23.7 

Under 2,500 4.0 11.6 13.0 14.5 25.2 36.6 

Total 17.3 19.5 17.1 12.4 24.5 25.2 

Source: FEMA U. S. Fire Administration 2005 

Survey of the Needs of the US Fire Service 

The above table breakdown is based on 4,610 departments reporting on Question 21. Departments were asked to circle all that apply, so departments could select multiple responses. Numbers may not add to totals due to rounding. Q. 21: Who conducts fire code inspections in your community? 

57
58

Table 27 

Who Determines That a Fire Was Deliberately Set? 

by Community Size 

(Q. 22) 

Populationof Community

Fire Regional Department Arson State

Arson Task Force Arson

Investigator Investigator Investigator

 Incident 

Commander

Police 

 Department

Contract

Investigator

Insuran

Investig

1,000,000 or more 100.0% 10.0% 0.0% 40.0% 0.0% 0.0% 20.0% 

500,000 to 999,999 89.3 10.7 17.9 35.7 10.7 3.6 0.0 250,000 to 499,999 91.3 19.6 34.8 45.7 10.9 0.0 8.7 100,000 to 249,999 95.2 13.2 22.8 19.8 0.0 0.0 5.4 

50,000 to 99,999 95.3 19.7 35.8 34.8 24.1 1.3 7.0 25,000 to 49,999 81.3 19.6 50.1 30.3 26.3 1.6 9.0 10,000 to 24,999 62.7 21.9 59.7 33.9 25.0 1.7 12.1 

5,000 to 9,999 41.9 19.1 70.5 36.0 18.9 1.4 14.7 2,500 to 4,999 29.2 14.4 76.9 33.5 16.1 0.0 15.3 

Under 2,500 15.6 12.4 77.2 30.6 13.5 1.4 14.1 

Total 31.6 15.1 71.9 32.1 16.1 1.4 13.8 

Source: FEMA U. S. Fire Administration 2005 

Survey of the Needs of the US Fire Service 

The above table breakdown is based on 4,659 departments reporting on Question 22. Departments were asked to circle a

departments could select multiple responses. Numbers may not add to totals due to rounding. 

Q. 22: Who determines that a fire was deliberately set? “Incident commander” includes other first-in fire officer. 
FACILITIES, APPARATUS AND EQUIPMENT 

Fire Stations 

Table 28 (p. 73) describes the average number of fire stations per department by size of 

community. Note that a community may have two or more fire stations, and each fire 

station may have two or more firefighting companies, each attached to a particular 

apparatus, such as an engine/pumper. Table 28 also describes the fraction of stations 

with characteristics that indicate potential needs, specifically age of station over 40 years, 

a lack of backup power, or a lack of exhaust emission control equipment. Table K 

converts these figures to total numbers of fire stations with those needs, by size of 

community and overall. 

Table K. Number of Fire Stations With Characteristics Indicating 

Potential Need, by Size of Community Protected (Q. 23) 

Total Number of Fire Stations With Indicated 

Characteristics in Communities of This Population Size 

Population Protected 

Over 40 

Years Old 

No Backup 

Power 

Not Equipped for 

Exhaust Emission 

Control 

1,000,000 or more 485 578 10 

500,000 to 999,999 462 466 566 

250,000 to 499,999 340 375 573 

100,000 to 249,999 724 667 877 

50,000 to 99,999 713 568 829 

25,000 to 49,999 1,102 1,037 1,633 

10,000 to 24,999 2,281 2,056 3,571 

5,000 to 9,999 2,157 2,721 4,376 

2,500 to 4,999 2,490 4,141 6,029 

Under 2,500 6,524 13,388 16,481 

Total 17,279 25,999 34,944 

Percent of US total 36% 54% 72% 

The above projections are based on 3,721 departments reporting on all four parts 

of Question 23. Numbers may not add to totals due to rounding. See Table 28. 

Q. 23: Number of fire stations, number over 40 years old, number having backup power, number 

equipped for exhaust emission control (e.g., diesel exhaust extraction). 

In addition to needs associated with the condition of fire stations, there are also questions 

about needs with respect to the number and coverage of fire stations. The number and 

coverage needed are those required to achieve response with sufficient fire suppression 

59
flow within a target period of time. The information contained in the Needs Assessment 

Survey is not sufficient to perform such a calculation, but a simplified version is possible. 

The Fire Suppression Rating Schedule of the Insurance Services Office includes a 

number of guidelines and formulas to use in performing a complete assessment of the 

adequacy of fire department resources, but for this simplified calculation on adequacy of 

number of fire stations, Item 560 has a basis: “The built-upon area of the city should 

have a first-due engine company within 1-1⁄2 miles and a ladder-service company within 

2-1⁄2 miles.”*

 For this simplified calculation, we can use these two numbers as a range for 

the maximum distance from any point in the community to the nearest fire station. 

NFPA 1710 states its requirements in terms of time, specifically, a requirement that 90% 

of responses by the initial arriving company shall be within 4 minutes. If the firstresponse area is considered as a circle with the fire station in the middle, and if 

emergency calls are evenly distributed throughout the response area, then 90% of 

responses will be within 95% of the distance from the fire station to the boundary of the 

response area.** If the average speed of fire apparatus is 21 mph, as it might be in the 

downtown area of a city, then the 4-minute requirement corresponds to a 1.5-mile 

requirement. If the average speed of fire apparatus is 36 mph, as it might be in a 

suburban or rural area, then the 4-minute requirement corresponds to a 2.5-mile 

requirement. In a very rural community, the average speed could be even higher, and the 

allowable distance would be even greater. 

Note the limitations in this assumption: Item 560 implies that a larger maximum distance 

is acceptable for parts of the community that are not “built-upon”; this will be especially 

relevant for smaller communities. This larger maximum distance may or may not be on 

the order of the 2 1⁄2 miles cited for ladder-service companies responding in the built-upon 

area, so the use of 2 1⁄2 miles as an upper bound for calculation is done for convenience 

rather than through any compelling logic. Item 560 does not reflect variations in local 

travel speeds or the need for adequate fire flow by the responding apparatus; those issues 

are addressed elsewhere in the Fire Suppression Rating Schedule. This guideline is not a 

mandatory government requirement or a consensus voluntary standard. 

To use this guideline with the data available from the Needs Assessment Survey, it is 

necessary to have a formula giving the maximum distance from fire station to any point 

in the community as a function of data collected in the survey. The Rand Institute 

developed such a formula for expected (i.e., average) distance as part of its extensive 

research on fire deployment issues in the 1960s and 1970s.*** 

* Fire Suppression Rating Schedule, New York: Insurance Services Office, Inc., August 1998, p. 28. 

** If r is the distance from station to boundary, then the size of the response area is πr

2

, and the radius of a 

circle with area equal to 0.9πr

2

 will be r√0.9 or approximately 0.95r. 

*** Warren E. Walker, Jan M. Chaiken, and Edward J. Ignall, eds., Fire Department Deployment Analysis, 

Publications in Operations Research series of the Operations Research Society of America, New York: 

Elsevier North Holland, 1979, pp. 180-184. 

60
The formula has been developed and tested against actual travel-distance data from 

selected fire departments for both straight-line travel and the more relevant right-angle 

travel that characterizes the grid layout of many communities. It has been developed 

assuming either a random distribution of fire stations throughout the community or an 

optimal placement of stations to minimize travel distances and times. 

The formula is called the square root law: Expected distance = k √(A/n) 

 where k is a proportionality constant 

 A is the community’s area in square miles 

 n is the number of fire stations 

Note the limitations of this approach, cited by the Rand authors: Most importantly, it 

ignores the effect of natural barriers, such as rivers or rail lines. It assumes an alarm is 

equally likely from any point in the community. It assumes a unit is always ready to 

respond from the nearest fire station. 

 

If one further assumes that response areas can be approximated by circles with fire 

stations at the center, then expected distance equals one-half of maximum distance. If 

response areas are more irregularly shaped, expected distance will be a smaller fraction of 

maximum distance. 

With these assumptions, the number of fire stations will be sufficient to provide 

acceptable coverage, defined as a maximum travel distance that is less than the ISObased value, if the following is true: 

 A - 1⁄2 (n)(Dmax)

2

/(k2) < 0 

 where 

 A is the community’s area in square miles 

 n is the number of fire stations 

 Dmax is the maximum acceptable travel distance (1-1⁄2 miles or 2-1⁄2 miles) 

k is the Rand proportionality constant, which is assumed to be for rightangle travel and is 0.6267 for random station location and 0.4714 for 

optimal station location 

Table L gives the estimates of need based on the four calculations (i.e., two possible 

maximums for travel distance times two possible location protocols for fire stations). 

It may be appropriate to use the shorter maximum distance for larger communities and 

the larger maximum distance for smaller communities. In fact, as noted, if the average 

speed achievable by fire apparatus is well above 36 mph, an even larger maximum 

distance is justified under NFPA 1710. Note also that NFPA 1720, the standard for 

volunteer fire departments, has no speed of response or distance requirement, reflecting 

the fact that very low population densities in the smallest communities mean the number 

of people exposed to long response times may be very small. 

Also, while few if any communities will have optimal station locations, it is likely that 

most will have placements that are considerably better than random. If these two 

61
approaches are used, then Table L suggests that in every population interval, roughly 

three-fifths to three-fourths of fire departments have too few stations to provide the 

indicated coverage. (Specifically, if 1.5 miles is used for communities of 10,000 or more 

and 2.5 miles is used for smaller communities, with optimal location used for both, then 

Table L indicates that 61-75% of departments have too few stations, except for 

communities of at least 500,000 population, where the percentage is 82-90%.) 

Table L. Estimated Percent of Fire Departments Lacking Sufficient Fire 

Stations to Achieve Specified Maximum Travel Distance 

by Size of Community Protected, Maximum Travel Distance Specified, 

and Assumption Regarding Optimality of Fire Station Placement (Q. 2, 23) 

Estimated Percent of Departments 

With Too Few Stations 

Random station location Optimal station location 

Population Protected 

Maximum 

distance of 

1.5 miles 

Maximum 

distance of 

2.5 miles 

Maximum 

distance of 

1.5 miles 

Maximum 

distance of 

2.5 miles 

1,000,000 or more 100.0% 60.0% 90.0% 20.0% 

500,000 to 999,999 89.3% 64.3% 82.1% 25.0% 

250,000 to 499,999 87.4% 54.3% 69.6% 39.1% 

100,000 to 249,999 91.1% 34.3% 68.0% 18.9% 

50,000 to 99,999 88.6% 30.2% 60.7% 14.4% 

25,000 to 49,999 91.5% 56.2% 74.8% 30.5% 

10,000 to 24,999 91.4% 61.9% 73.9% 45.2% 

5,000 to 9,999 93.7% 76.5% 82.6% 65.4% 

2,500 to 4,999 94.4% 83.1% 86.5% 74.3% 

Under 2,500 92.5% 81.5% 84.4% 73.9% 

The above projections are based on 4,652 departments reporting on Questions 2 

and 23. 

Q. 2: Area (in square miles) your department has primary responsibility to protect (exclude 

mutual aid areas) 

Q. 23: Number of fire stations 

Remember the many limitations of this calculation procedure, however; a more complete 

calculation should be performed before drawing conclusions with regard to any particular 

community. 

62
Apparatus 

Table 29 (p. 74) characterizes the size of the engine/pumper fleet inventory, overall and 

by age of vehicle. Using the statistics from Table 2 on departments by population 

interval, one can identify the number of engines whose ages raise questions about the 

need for replacement. The breakdown by community size is shown in Figure 4 in terms 

of percent of apparatus and in Table M in terms of the number of apparatus. 

Figure 4 indicates that in larger communities, those with at least 50,000 population, onesixth to one-fourth (17-25%) of engines are at least 15 years old, except for communities 

of 500,000 to 999,999 population, where the percentage is only 12%. In smaller 

communities, those with less than 5,000 population, roughly one-half to two-thirds (52-

65%) of engines are at least 15 years old. Table M indicates there are more than 40,000 

engines in use that are at least 15 years old, including nearly 11,000 that are at least 30 

years old. Most of these engines aged 15 years old or more are in use in smaller 

communities, with less than 5,000 population, but hundreds are in use in departments for 

every community size. 

Vehicle age alone is not sufficient to confirm a need for replacement, but it is indicative 

of a potential need, which should be examined. 

Figure 4. Percent of Engines and Pumpers

That Are At Least 15 Years Old

65%

52%

47%

40%

34%

24%

25%

17%

12%

22%

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

Under 2,500

2,500 to 4,999

5,000 to 9,999

10,000 to 24,999

25,000 to 49,999

50,000 to 99,999

100,000 to 249,999

250,000 to 499,999

500,000 to 999,999

1,000,000 or more

Population

Percent

Table 29 also indicates the average number of ambulances or other patient transport 

vehicles per department, by community size. Communities of less than 25,000 

population average less than one such vehicle per department; and communities with 

25,000 to 99,999 population average less than two. Averages are calculated over all 

departments, but larger shares of small communities have departments that do not 

provide EMS; this partially explains their lower numbers of ambulances per department. 

63
Table M. Number of Engines in Service, Limited to 

Engines At Least 15 Years Old 

by Age of Equipment and Size of Community Protected (Q. 24) 

Total Number of Engines in Service of This Age in Fire 

Departments Protecting Communities of This Population 

Population Protected Size 

15 to 19 Years 

Old 

20 to 29 Years 

Old 

30+ Years Old 

1,000,000 or more 135 131 2 

500,000 to 999,999 166 18 0 

250,000 to 499,999 141 47 15 

100,000 to 249,999 523 109 61 

50,000 to 99,999 511 202 22 

25,000 to 49,999 1,073 579 139 

10,000 to 24,999 2,057 1,470 588 

5,000 to 9,999 2,033 2,108 1,129 

2,500 to 4,999 2,142 2,775 1,606 

Under 2,500 5,225 8,250 7,288 

Total 14,006 15,688 10,851 

Percent of US total 17% 19% 13% 

The above projections are based on 4,545 departments reporting on all parts of 

Question 24. Numbers may not add to totals due to rounding. See Table 29. 

Q. 24: Number of engines/pumpers in service. Total, 0-14 years old, 15-19 years old, 20-29 

years old, 30 or more years old, unknown age 

Table 30 (p. 75) provides information on the percentage of departments with ladder/aerial 

apparatus. This type of apparatus is of use for buildings at least four stories in height, 

although it can also be used for shorter buildings with access problems for ground 

ladders. 

Therefore, it is useful to compare the percentage of departments, by community size, 

having no ladder/aerial apparatus with the percentage having buildings 4 stories high or 

higher. (See Table 31, p. 76.) If the percentage of departments without ladder/aerial 

apparatus is greater than the percentage of departments with no buildings of at least 4 

stories in height, then the difference is a measure of the minimum percentage of 

departments that could justify acquiring a ladder/aerial apparatus but do not have one. 

Table N provides that comparison. 

Table N indicates that at least 2% of departments (4% minus 2%) protecting communities 

of 250,000 to 499,999 population have ladder/aerial apparatus but have no building tall 

64
enough to justify such apparatus. This is also true for at least 1% of departments 

protecting communities of 100,000 to 249,999 population and at least 1% of departments 

protecting communities of 25,000 to 49,999. These percentage differences are too small 

to be given much significance. In the other direction, the minimum percentage of 

departments having no ladder/aerial apparatus but having at least one building tall enough 

to justify such apparatus is 2% for departments protecting communities of 50,000 to 

99,999 population; 2% for departments protecting communities of 10,000 to 24,999 

population; 14% of departments protecting communities of 5,000 to 9,999 population; 

13% of departments protecting communities of 2,500 to 4,999 population; and 14% of 

departments protecting communities of less than 2,500 population. 

Table N. Departments With No Ladder/Aerial Apparatus vs. 

Departments With No Buildings of At Least 4 Stories in Height 

Percent of Departments, by Size of Community Protected (Q. 25) 

Population Protected 

No Ladder/Aerial 

Apparatus 

No Buildings 

At Least 4 Stories in 

Height 

1,000,000 or more 0% 0% 

500,000 to 999,999 0% 0% 

250,000 to 499,999 2% 4% 

100,000 to 249,999 2% 3% 

50,000 to 99,999 7% 5% 

25,000 to 49,999 11% 12% 

10,000 to 24,999 28% 26% 

5,000 to 9,999 62% 48% 

2,500 to 4,999 84% 71% 

Under 2,500 95% 81% 

Total 75% 64% 

The above projections are based on 4,601 departments reporting on 

the first part of Question 25 and 3,884 reporting on the second part. 

See Tables 30-31. 

Q. 25: Number of ladders/aerials in service. Number of buildings in community that 

are 4 or more stories in height. None, 1-5, 6-10, 11 or more 

Personal Protective Equipment and Clothing 

Table 32 (p. 77) indicates what percentage of emergency responders on a single shift are 

equipped with portable radios. Tables 33 and 34 (pp. 78-79) indicate what fractions of 

those radios are water-resistant and intrinsically safe in an explosive atmosphere, 

respectively. Finally, Table 35 (p. 80) indicates whether departments have reserve radios 

at least equal to 10% of the in-service radios. 

65
Figure 5 and Table O translate the results of Tables 32-34 into estimated percentages of 

departments where not all emergency responders on a shift have radios and where not all 

radios have water-resistance or intrinsic safety in an explosive atmosphere. 

For communities of 1 million population, only 7% of departments do not have radios for 

all emergency responders on a shift. For communities of 10,000 to under 1 million 

population, roughly one-third to two-fifths (29-43%) of departments do not have radios 

for all emergency responders on a shift. The percentage rises to three-fourths for 

communities with less than 2,500 population. 

Figure 5. Percent of Departments Where Not All 

Emergency Responders on a Shift Have Radios

Population

1,000,000 or more 7%

500,000 to 999,999 32%

250,000 to 499,999 41%

100,000 to 249,999 31%

50,000 to 99,999 29%

25,000 to 49,999 37%

10,000 to 24,999 43%

5,000 to 9,999 59%

2,500 to 4,999 71%

Under 2,500 74%

All 65%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

Percent

Table 35 is considered to speak for itself, without conversion. 

Overall, 71-75% of departments have some radios that are not water-resistant and 75-

82% have some radios that are not intrinsically safe in an explosive atmosphere. From 

Table 35, two-fifths to three-fifths of departments in communities with at least 25,000 

population have sufficient reserve radios to replace at least 10% of in-service radios. 

This fraction falls with community size, reaching one-fifth for communities with less 

than 5,000 population. 

Table 36 (p. 81) estimates how many emergency responders on a shift or otherwise onduty are equipped with self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA). 

Table 37 (p. 82) estimates what fraction of the SCBA units are at least 10 years old. 

66
The breakdown of need by community size is given in Figure 6 and Table P, in terms of 

percent of departments where not all personnel on a shift have SCBA and percent where 

some SCBA units are at least 10 years old, both by size of community protected. 

Table O. Departments Where Not All Emergency Responders 

on a Shift Have Radios and Radios Lacking Water-Resistance 

or Intrinsic Safety in an Explosive Atmosphere 

by Size of Community Protected (Q. 27a, 27b, 27c) 

Departments Where Only 

Some or None of Radios 

Population Protected 

Departments Where 

Not All Emergency 

Responders on a 

Shift Have Radios 

Have 

Water 

Resistance 

Have Intrinsic 

Safety in 

Explosive 

Atmosphere 

1,000,000 or more 2% 40% 27% 

500,000 to 999,999 12% 38% 42% 

250,000 to 499,999 19% 40% 41% 

100,000 to 249,999 13% 51% 51% 

50,000 to 99,999 12% 42% 45% 

25,000 to 49,999 17% 51% 61% 

10,000 to 24,999 20% 58% 65% 

5,000 to 9,999 30% 67% 71% 

2,500 to 4,999 39% 74% 77% 

Under 2,500 43% 77% 83% 

Total 36% 71% 75% 

The above projections are based on 4,664 departments reporting on Question 

27a, 4,637 reporting on Question 27b, and 4,619 reporting on Question 27c. See 

Tables 32-34. 

Q. 27a: How many of your emergency responders on-duty on a single shift can be equipped with 

portable radios? All, Most, Some, None 

Q. 27b: How many of your portable radios are water-resistant? All, Most, Some, None 

Q. 27c: How many of your portable radios are intrinsically safe in an explosive atmosphere? All, 

Most, Some, None 

For communities with at least 50,000 population, at most 5% of departments do not have 

enough SCBA units to equip all emergency responders on a shift. 

This percentage rises to three-fourths for departments protecting communities with less 

than 2,500 population. 

For larger communities, roughly one-fourth to one-third of departments have at least 

some SCBA units that are at least 10 years old. For smaller communities, the percentage 

rises to two-thirds. Overall, the percentage of departments with at least some SCBA units 

that are at least 10 years old is three-fifths (59%). 

67
Figure 6. Percent of Departments Where Not All 

Firefighters on a Shift Have

Self-Contained Breathing Apparatus (SCBA)

60%

77%

67%

47%

23%

11%

5%

2%

4%

0%

0%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

All

Under 2,500

2,500 to 4,999

5,000 to 9,999

10,000 to 24,999

25,000 to 49,999

50,000 to 99,999

100,000 to 249,999

250,000 to 499,999

500,000 to 999,999

1,000,000 or more

Population

Percent

Table P. Departments Where Not All Firefighters on a Shift Have SCBA and 

Where At Least Some SCBA Units At Least 10 Years Old, 

by Size of Community (Q. 28a, 28b) 

Population Protected 

Departments Where Not 

All Firefighters on a Shift 

Are Equipped With SCBA 

Departments Where At 

Least Some SCBA Units 

Are At Least 10 Years Old 

1,000,000 or more 0% 27% 

500,000 to 999,999 0% 18% 

250,000 to 499,999 4% 26% 

100,000 to 249,999 2% 31% 

50,000 to 99,999 5% 32% 

25,000 to 49,999 11% 40% 

10,000 to 24,999 23% 45% 

5,000 to 9,999 47% 53% 

2,500 to 4,999 67% 60% 

Under 2,500 77% 67% 

Total 60% 59% 

The above projections are based on 4,662 departments reporting on Question 

28a and 4,617 reporting on Question 28b. “Don’t Know” responses to Question 

28b are proportionally allocated. See Tables 36-37. 

Q. 28a: How many emergency responders on-duty on a single shift can be equipped with selfcontained breathing apparatus (SCBA)? All, Most, Some, None 

Q. 28b: How many of your SCBA are 10 years old or older? All, Most, Some, None 

68
Figure 7. Percent of Departments Where Not All 

Emergency Responders on a Shift Have 

Personal Alert Safety System (PASS) Devices

48%

62%

54%

35%

19%

9%

4%

5%

4%

0%

0%

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

All

Under 2,500

2,500 to 4,999

5,000 to 9,999

10,000 to 24,999

25,000 to 49,999

50,000 to 99,999

100,000 to 249,999

250,000 to 499,999

500,000 to 999,999

1,000,000 or more

Population

Percent

Table Q. Estimated Average Percent of Emergency Responders per Shift 

Not Provided With PASS Devices, by Size of Community (Q. 29) 

Population Protected 

Emergency 

Responders per Shift 

Not Provided with 

PASS Devices 

1,000,000 or more 0% 

500,000 to 999,999 0% 

250,000 to 499,999 4% 

100,000 to 249,999 5% 

50,000 to 99,999 4% 

25,000 to 49,999 9% 

10,000 to 24,999 19% 

5,000 to 9,999 35% 

2,500 to 4,999 54% 

Under 2,500 62% 

Total 48% 

The above projections are based on 4,664 

departments reporting on Question 29. See Table 

38. 

Q. 29: How many of your emergency responders on-duty on 

a single shift are equipped with Personal Alert Safety 

System (PASS) devices? All, Most, Some, None 

69
Table 38 (p.83) indicates what percentage of emergency responders on a single shift are 

equipped with Personal Alert Safety System (PASS) devices. The breakdown of need is 

given in Figure 7 and Table Q, in terms of percent of departments where not all 

emergency responders on a shift have PASS devices, by size of community protected. 

For communities with populations of 50,000 or more, at most 5% of departments have 

insufficient PASS devices to equip all emergency responders on a shift. This rises to one 

in five for communities with 10,000 to 24,999 population, one-third for communities 

with 5,000 to 9,999 population, over half for communities with 2,500 to 4,999 

population, and three-fifths in the departments protecting communities with less than 

2,500 population. 

Table 39 (p. 84) indicates how many emergency responders are equipped with their own 

personal protective clothing. 

For communities with at least 10,000 population, 3% or less of departments are estimated 

not to have personal protective clothing for all firefighters. 

For communities of less than 2,500 population, the percentage is 16%. 

The overall percentage is 8%. 

Figure 8. Estimated Percent of Departments Where Not 

All Firefighters Have Personal Protective Clothing 

8%

16%

9%

6%

3%

2%

2%

1%

0%

0%

0%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20%

All

Under 2,500

2,500 to 4,999

5,000 to 9,999

10,000 to 24,999

25,000 to 49,999

50,000 to 99,999

100,000 to 249,999

250,000 to 499,999

500,000 to 999,999

1,000,000 or more

Population

Percent

Nearly all of the firefighters in departments estimated not to have personal protective 

clothing for all firefighters serve in fire departments that protect communities with less 

than 10,000 population. Seven out of ten are in communities with less than 2,500 

population. 

70
Two-thirds of departments have at least some personal protective clothing that is at least 

10 years old. (See Table R.) For departments protecting at least 25,000 population, 

fewer than half of departments have at least some personal protective clothing that is at 

least 10 years old. 

Table 41 (p. 86) describes the extent to which departments have reserve protective 

clothing sufficient to equip 10% of responders. 

Half or more of departments protecting communities of 10,000 or more population have 

reserve clothing sufficient to equip 10% of responders. 

This falls to just over one-third for communities with less than 5,000 population. 

Table R. Firefighters in Departments Where Not All Firefighters 

Are Equipped With Personal Protective Clothing and 

Percent of Personal Protective Clothing That Is At Least 10 Years Old 

by Size of Community (Q. 30a, 30b) 

Population Protected 

Estimated Firefighters in 

Departments That Do 

Not Have Personal 

Protective Clothing for 

All Firefighters 

Estimated Percent of 

Departments With At Least 

Some Personal Protective 

Clothing That Is 

At Least 10 Years Old 

1,000,000 or more 0 20% 

500,000 to 999,999 0 16% 

250,000 to 499,999 0 41% 

100,000 to 249,999 0* 32% 

50,000 to 99,999 1,000 32% 

25,000 to 49,999 1,000 45% 

10,000 to 24,999 4,000 53% 

5,000 to 9,999 8,000 63% 

2,500 to 4,999 15,000 68% 

Under 2,500 64,000 72% 

Total 93,000 66% 

* Rounds to zero but is not zero 

The above projections are based on 4,682 departments reporting on Question 

30a and 4,655 reporting on Question 30b. Numbers are shown to nearest 1,000 

and may not sum to totals because of rounding. See Tables 39-40. 

Q. 30a: How many of your emergency responders are equipped with personal protective 

clothing? All, Most, Some, None 

Q. 30b: How much of your personal protective clothing is at least 10 years old? All, Most, Some, 

None 

71

Table 28 

Number of Fire Stations and Selected Characteristics 

by Community Size 

(Q. 23) 

Population 

of Community 

Average 

Number 

of Stations 

Percent 

Stations Over 

40 Years Old 

Percent Stations 

Having 

Backup Power 

Percent Stations 

Equipped for 

Exhaust Control 

1,000,000 or more 75.83 42.6% 49.2% 99.1% 

500,000 to 999,999 35.89 33.9 65.8 58.5 

250,000 to 499,999 20.20 31.2 65.6 47.5 

100,000 to 249,999 10.83 30.8 71.6 62.7 

50,000 to 99,999 5.49 29.0 76.9 66.3 

25,000 to 49,999 3.39 30.3 71.5 55.1 

10,000 to 24,999 2.07 37.5 66.2 41.3 

5,000 to 9,999 1.50 38.2 51.8 22.5 

2,500 to 4,999 1.39 36.8 38.8 10.9 

Under 2,500 1.30 36.5 25.1 7.8 

 Total 1.78 36.5 38.9 17.5 

Source: FEMA US Fire Administration 2005 

Survey of the Needs of the US Fire Service 

The above projections are based on 3,721 departments answering all four parts of Question 23. 

Numbers may not add to totals due to rounding. 

Q. 23: Number of fire stations, number over 40 years old, number having backup power, number 

equipped for exhaust emission control (e.g., diesel exhaust extraction). 

73
74

Table 29 

Average Number of Engines/Pumpers and Ambulances* in Service 

and Age of Engine/Pumper Apparatus 

by Community Size 

(Q. 24, 26) 

Population 

of Community

Average 

Number of 

Engines

Engines 

0-14 

Years Old

Engines 

15-19 

Years Old

Engines 

20-29 

Years Old

Engines 

30 or More 

Years Old

Average 

Number of 

Ambulances*

1,000,000 or more 83.13 65.25 9.00 8.75 0.13 24.20 

500,000 to 999,999 39.67 34.81 4.37 0.48 0.00 10.93 

250,000 to 499,999 22.28 18.51 2.62 0.87 0.28 4.98 

100,000 to 249,999 12.88 9.71 2.41 0.50 0.28 3.23 

50,000 to 99,999 6.73 5.10 1.14 0.45 0.05 1.84 

25,000 to 49,999 4.87 3.20 1.00 0.54 0.13 1.16 

10,000 to 24,999 3.49 2.09 0.70 0.50 0.20 0.80 

5,000 to 9,999 2.98 1.59 0.54 0.56 0.30 0.40 

2,500 to 4,999 2.60 1.27 0.44 0.57 0.33 0.17 

Under 2,500 2.33 0.83 0.38 0.60 0.53 0.07 

 Total 2.99 1.50 0.51 0.58 0.40 0.34 

* “Ambulances” include other patient transport vehicles. 

Source: FEMA US Fire Administration 2005 

Survey of the Needs of the US Fire Service 

The above table breakdown, except for the last column, is based on 4,545 departments answering all 

parts of Question 24. The last column is based on 7,968 departments answering Question 26. 

Numbers may not add to totals due to rounding. 

Q. 24: Number of engines/pumpers in service, number 0-14 years old, number 15-19 years old, number 

20-29 years old, number 30 or more years old, number unknown age. 

Q. 26: Number of ambulances or other patient transport vehicles. 
Table 30 

Number of Ladders/Aerials In-Service, by Community Size 

(Q. 25) 

For Departments Protecting Populations of 250,000 or More, Percent of Departments With 

No 20 or More 

Population ofCommunity

Ladders/ 

Aerials

1-5 Ladders/

 Aerials

6-9 Ladders/

 Aerials

10-19 Ladders/ 

 Aerials

Aerials/ 

Ladders Total 

1,000,000 or more 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 60.0% 40.0% 100.0%  500,000 to 999,999 0.0 17.9 32.1 42.9 7.1 100.0%  250,000 to 499,999 2.3 63.5 29.5 4.5 0.0 100.0% For Departments Protecting Populations of Less Than 250,000, Percent of Departments With 

No 5 or More 

Population ofCommunity

Ladders/ 

 Aerials

1 Ladder/

Aerial

2 Ladders/ 

Aerials

3-4 Ladders/

 Aerials

Ladders/ 

Aerials Total 

 100,000 to 249,999 2.4% 17.7% 27.4% 39.6% 12.8% 100.0% 

 50,000 to 99,999 7.1 35.7 34.6 21.9 0.7 100.0%  25,000 to 49,999 11.4 64.4 21.4 2.9 0.0 100.0%  10,000 to 24,999 28.2 64.9 6.5 0.5 0.0 100.0%  5,000 to 9,999 61.7 36.9 1.5 0.0 0.0 100.0%  2,500 to 4,999 84.4 14.9 0.3 0.3 0.0 100.0% 

Under 2,500 94.7 4.3 0.9 0.1 0.0 100.0% Source: FEMA US Fire Administration 2005  Survey of the Needs of the US Fire Service The above table breakdown is based on 4,601 departments reporting on Question 25. Numbers may not add to totals due to rounding. Q. 25: Number of ladders in service 

75
Table 31 

Number of Buildings in Community That Are 4 or More Stories in Height 

by Community Size 

(Q. 25) 

 None 1 to 5 6 to 9 10 or more Tot

Population of Community

Number Depts Percent

Number Depts Percent

Number Depts Percent

Number Depts Percent

Number Depts Pe

1,000,000 or more 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 15 100.0% 15 

500,000 to 999,999 0 0.0 1 2.6 0 0.0 37 97.4 38 250,000 to 499,999 2 3.7 5 9.3 3 5.6 44 81.5 54 100,000 to 249,999 7 3.2 19 8.8 26 12.0 165 76.0 217 

50,000 to 99,999 24 5.4 81 18.0 60 13.3 284 63.4 448 25,000 to 49,999 133 12.4 365 34.0 205 19.1 370 34.5 1,073 10,000 to 24,999 777 26.4 1,081 36.8 579 19.7 502 17.1 2,939 

5,000 to 9,999 1,793 47.6 1,261 33.5 387 10.3 323 8.6 3,764 2,500 to 4,999 3,446 70.8 1,103 22.7 208 4.3 111 2.3 4,868 

Under 2,500 11,142 81.0 2,164 15.7 303 2.2 141 1.0 13,750  Total 17,323 63.8 6,081 22.4 1,771 6.5 1,991 7.3 27,166 Source: FEMA US Fire Administration 2005  Survey of the Needs of the US Fire Service The above projections are based on 3,884 departments reporting on Question 25. Numbers may not add to totals due to r

76
Table 32 

How Many of Department's Emergency Responders 

on a Single Shift Are Equipped With Portable Radios? 

by Community Size 

(Q. 27a) 

 All Most Some None Tot

Population of Community

Number Depts Percent

Number Depts Percent

Number Depts Percent

Number Depts Percent

Number Depts 

1,000,000 or more 14 93.3% 1 6.7% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 15 

500,000 to 999,999 26 68.4 10 26.3 2 5.3 0 0.0 38 250,000 to 499,999 32 59.3 14 25.9 8 14.8 0 0.0 54 100,000 to 249,999 149 68.7 51 23.5 17 7.8 0 0.0 217 

50,000 to 99,999 319 71.2 99 22.1 30 6.7 0 0.0 448 25,000 to 49,999 678 63.2 248 23.1 145 13.5 2 0.2 1,073 10,000 to 24,999 1,687 57.4 725 24.7 521 17.7 7 0.2 2,939 

5,000 to 9,999 1,544 41.0 1,100 29.2 1,091 29.0 29 0.8 3,764 2,500 to 4,999 1,418 29.1 1,339 27.5 2,032 41.8 79 1.6 4,868 

Under 2,500 3,585 26.0 3,182 23.1 6,551 47.6 432 3.1 13,750  Total 9,450 34.8 6,769 24.9 10,398 38.3 549 2.0 27,166 Source: FEMA US Fire Administration 2005  Survey of the Needs of the US Fire Service The above projections are based on 4,664 departments reporting on Question 27a. Numbers may not add to totals due to Q. 27a: How many of your emergency responders on-duty on a single shift can be equipped with portable radios? 

77
Table 33 

What Fraction of Department’s Portable Radios Are Water-Resistant? 

by Community Size 

(Q. 27b) 

All Most Some None Don’t Know 

Population of Community

Number Depts Percent

Number Depts Percent

Number Depts Percent

Number Depts Percent

Number Depts Percent

1,000,000 or more 9 60.0% 0 0.0% 1 6.7% 5 33.3% 0 0.0% 

500,000 to 999,999 23 60.5 7 18.4 5 13.2 2 5.3 1 2.6 250,000 to 499,999 31 57.4 9 16.7 7 13.0 5 9.3 2 3.7 100,000 to 249,999 99 45.6 31 14.3 25 11.5 47 21.7 16 7.4 

50,000 to 99,999 242 54.0 59 13.2 44 9.8 73 16.3 29 6.5 25,000 to 49,999 500 46.6 145 13.5 150 14.0 225 21.0 53 4.9 10,000 to 24,999 1,120 38.1 514 17.5 404 13.7 639 21.7 262 8.9 

5,000 to 9,999 1,129 30.0 625 16.6 592 15.7 1,030 27.4 389 10.3 2,500 to 4,999 1,098 22.6 824 16.9 856 17.6 1,413 29.0 677 13.9 

Under 2,500 2,638 19.2 1,903 13.8 2,537 18.5 4,295 31.2 2,378 17.3  Total 6,888 25.4 4,117 15.2 4,621 17.0 7,732 28.5 3,808 14.0 Source: FEMA US Fire Administration 2005  Survey of the Needs of the US Fire Service The above projections are based on 4,637 departments reporting on Question 27b. Numbers may not add to totals due to rounding.Q. 27b: How many of your portable radios are water-resistant? 

78
79

Table 34 

What Fraction of Department’s Portable Radios 

Are Intrinsically Safe in an Explosive Atmosphere? 

by Community Size 

(Q. 27c) 

All Most Some None Don’t Know 

Population of Community

Number Depts Percent

Number Depts Percent

Number Depts Percent

Number Depts Percent

Number Depts Percent

1,000,000 or more 11 73.3% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 4 26.7% 0 0.0% 

500,000 to 999,999 21 55.3 4 10.5 7 18.4 4 10.5 2 5.3 250,000 to 499,999 31 57.4 4 7.4 10 18.5 8 14.8 1 1.9 100,000 to 249,999 96 44.2 31 14.3 34 15.7 36 16.6 20 9.2 

50,000 to 99,999 219 48.9 49 10.9 56 12.5 73 16.3 50 11.2 25,000 to 49,999 377 35.1 160 14.9 170 15.8 265 24.7 102 9.5 10,000 to 24,999 891 30.3 366 12.4 521 17.7 772 26.3 389 13.3 

5,000 to 9,999 885 23.5 499 13.3 590 15.7 1,039 27.6 751 20.0 2,500 to 4,999 817 16.8 522 10.7 764 15.7 1,391 28.9 1,375 28.3 

Under 2,500 1,450 10.6 1,291 9.4 1,464 10.7 4,178 30.4 5,367 39.0  Total 4,798 17.7 2,924 10.8 3,617 13.3 7,770 28.6 8,058 29.7 Source: FEMA US Fire Administration 2005  Survey of the Needs of the US Fire Service The above projections are based on 4,619 departments reporting on Question 27c. Numbers may not add to totals due to 

Q. 27c: How many of your portable radios are intrinsically safe in an explosive atmosphere? 
80

Table 35 

Does Department Have Reserve Portable Radios 

Equal to or Greater Than 10% of In-Service Radios? 

by Community Size 

(Q. 27d) 

 Yes No Don’t Know Total 

Population 

of Community

Number 

Depts Percent

Number 

Depts Percent

Number 

Depts Percent

Number 

Depts Percent

1,000,000 or more 9 60.0% 6 40.0% 0 0.0% 15 100.0%

500,000 to 999,999 23 60.5 15 39.5 0 0.0 38 100.0 

250,000 to 499,999 23 42.6 27 50.0 4 7.4 54 100.0 

100,000 to 249,999 107 49.3 103 47.5 7 3.2 217 100.0 

50,000 to 99,999 194 43.3 239 53.3 15 3.4 448 100.0 

25,000 to 49,999 418 39.0 647 60.3 8 0.7 1,073 100.0 

10,000 to 24,999 903 30.7 2,006 68.3 30 1.0 2,939 100.0 

5,000 to 9,999 768 20.4 2,889 76.8 107 2.9 3,764 100.0 

2,500 to 4,999 882 18.1 3,860 76.3 126 2.6 4,868 100.0 

Under 2,500 2,536 18.4 10,765 78.3 449 3.3 13,750 100.0 

 Total 5,862 21.6 20,559 75.7 745 2.7 27,166 100.0 

Source: FEMA US Fire Administration 2005 

Survey of the Needs of the US Fire Service 

The above projections are based on 4,646 departments reporting on Question 27d. Numbers may not add 

to totals due to rounding. 

Q. 27d: Do you have reserve portable radios equal to or greater than 10% of your in-service radios? 
Table 36 

How Many Emergency Responders 

on a Single Shift Are Equipped With 

Self-Contained Breathing Apparatus (SCBA)? 

by Community Size 

(Q. 28a) 

Population of Community

All 

Number Depts Percent

Most 

Number Depts Percent

Some 

Number Depts Percent

None 

Number Depts Percent

Tota

Number Depts P

1,000,000 or more 15 100.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 15 

500,000 to 999,999 38 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 38 250,000 to 499,999 52 96.3 2 3.7 0 0.0 0 0.0 54 100,000 to 249,999 212 97.7 5 2.3 0 0.0 0 0.0 217 

50,000 to 99,999 424 94.6 21 4.7 3 0.7 0 0.0 448 25,000 to 49,999 960 89.5 88 8.2 25 2.3 0 0.0 1,073 10,000 to 24,999 2,267 77.1 538 18.3 127 4.3 7 0.2 2,939 

5,000 to 9,999 1,980 52.6 1,335 35.5 449 11.9 0 0.0 3,764 2,500 to 4,999 1,603 32.9 2,187 44.9 1,062 21.8 16 0.3 4,868 

Under 2,500 3,204 23.3 5,718 41.6 4,612 33.5 215 1.6 13,750  Total 10,756 39.6 9,895 36.4 6,277 23.1 238 0.9 27,166 Source: FEMA US Fire Administration 2005  Survey of the Needs of the US Fire Service The above projections are based on 4,662 departments reporting on Question 28a. Numbers may not add to totals due to Q. 28a: How many emergency responders on-duty on a single shift can be equipped with self-contained breathing apparat(SCBA)? 

81
Table 37 

How Much of Department’s 

SCBA Equipment Is At Least 10 Years Old? 

by Community Size 

(Q. 28b) 

 All Most Some None Don’t Know Population of Community

Number 

Depts Percent

Number 

Depts Percent

Number 

Depts Percent

Number 

Depts Percent

Number 

Depts Perce

1,000,000 or more 0 0.0% 2 13.3% 2 13.3% 11 73.3% 0 0.0% 

500,000 to 999,999 0 0.0 3 7.9 4 10.5 31 81.6 0 0.0 250,000 to 499,999 0 0.0 4 7.4 10 18.5 40 74.1 0 0.0 100,000 to 249,999 11 5.0 6 2.8 47 21.7 150 69.6 3 1.4 

50,000 to 99,999 26 5.8 29 6.4 84 18.8 306 68.1 3 0.7 25,000 to 49,999 102 9.5 107 10.0 216 20.1 649 60.4 0 0.0 10,000 to 24,999 247 8.4 288 9.8 783 26.6 1,620 55.1 0 0.0 

5,000 to 9,999 378 10.0 461 12.2 1,133 30.1 1,789 47.5 4 0.1 2,500 to 4,999 534 11.0 715 14.7 1,624 33.4 1,963 40.3 32 0.7 

Under 2,500 2,574 18.7 1,899 13.8 4,444 32.3 4,674 34.0 158 1.2 

Total 3,873 14.3 3,512 12.9 8,347 30.7 11,234 41.4 200 0.7 

Source: FEMA US Fire Administration 2005  Survey of the Needs of the US Fire Service The above projections are based on 4,617 departments reporting on Question 28b. Numbers may not add to totals due to Q. 28b: How many of your self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA) are 10 years old or older? 

82
Table 38 

What Fraction of Emergency Responders on a Single Shift 

Are Equipped With Personal Alert Safety System (PASS) Devices? 

by Community Size 

(Q. 29) 

Population of Community

All 

Number of Depts Percent

Most 

Number of Depts Percent

Some 

Number of Depts Percent

None 

Number of Depts Percent

Numof De

1,000,000 or more 15 100.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 

500,000 to 999,999 38 100.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 250,000 to 499,999 52 96.3 2 3.7 0 0.0 0 0.0 100,000 to 249,999 207 95.4 6 2.8 0 0.0 4 1.8 2

50,000 to 99,999 428 95.5 14 3.1 0 0.0 6 1.3 425,000 to 49,999 977 91.1 56 5.2 32 3.0 7 0.7 1,010,000 to 24,999 2,387 81.2 388 13.2 117 4.0 47 1.6 2,9

5,000 to 9,999 2,444 64.9 785 20.9 362 9.6 173 4.6 3,72,500 to 4,999 2,243 46.1 1,443 29.7 931 19.1 251 5.2 4,8

Under 2,500 5,272 38.3 2,961 21.5 3,235 23.5 2,282 16.6 13,7 Total 14,063 51.8 5,656 20.8 4,676 17.2 2,770 10.2 27,1Source: FEMA US Fire Administration 2005  Survey of the Needs of the US Fire Service The above projections are based on 4,664 departments reporting on Question 29. Numbers may not add to totals due to rQ. 29: How many of your emergency responders on-duty on a single shift are equipped with Personal Alert Safety System devices? 

83
Table 39 

What Fraction of Emergency Responders 

Are Equipped With Personal Protective Clothing? 

by Community Size 

(Q. 30a) 

Population of Community

All 

Number Depts Percent

Most 

Number Depts Percent

Some 

Number Depts Percent

None 

Number Depts Percent

Tota

Number Depts 

1,000,000 or more 15 100.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 15 

500,000 to 999,999 38 100.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 38 250,000 to 499,999 54 100.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 54 100,000 to 249,999 216 99.5 1 0.5 0 0.0 0 0.0 217 

50,000 to 99,999 439 98.0 6 1.3 0 0.0 3 0.7 448 25,000 to 49,999 1,056 98.4 15 1.4 2 0.2 0 0.0 1,073 10,000 to 24,999 2,885 97.2 60 2.0 17 0.6 7 0.2 2,939 

5,000 to 9,999 3,534 93.9 205 5.5 21 0.5 4 0.1 3,764 2,500 to 4,999 4,419 90.8 402 8.3 

 11.

 31 0.6 16 0.3 4,868 

Under 2,500 11,592 84.3 1,558 3 529 3.9 71 0.5 13,750  Total 24,219 89.1 2,247 8.3 600 2.2 101 0.4 27,166 Source: FEMA US Fire Administration 2005  Survey of the Needs of the US Fire Service The above projections are based on 4,682 departments reporting on Question 30a. Numbers may not add to totals due to Q. 30a: How many of your emergency responders are equipped with personal protective clothing? 

84
85

Table 40 

How Much of Department’s Personal 

Protective Clothing Is At Least 10 Years Old? 

by Community Size 

(Q. 30b) 

 All Most Some None Don’t Know Population of Community

Number 

Depts Percent

Number 

Depts Percent

Number 

Depts Percent

Number 

Depts Percent

Number 

Depts Perce

1,000,000 or more 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 3 20.0% 12 80.0% 0 0.0

500,000 to 999,999 0 0.0 0 0.0 6 15.8 32 84.2 0 0.0 250,000 to 499,999 0 0.0 1 1.9 21 38.8 32 59.3 0 0.0 100,000 to 249,999 9 4.1 4 1.8 53 24.4 143 65.9 6 2.8 

50,000 to 99,999 8 1.8 11 2.5 125 27.9 299 66.7 6 1.3 25,000 to 49,999 15 1.4 56 5.3 414 38.6 583 54.3 5 0.5 10,000 to 24,999 84 2.9 262 8.9 1,206 41.0 1,370 46.6 17 0.6 

5,000 to 9,999 148 3.9 461 12.2 1,740 46.2 1,399 37.2 16 0.4 2,500 to 4,999 195 4.0 794 16.3 2,329 47.8 1,535 31.5 16 0.3 

Under 2,500 1,667 12.1 2,399 17.4 5,718 41.6 3,851 28.0 115 0.8 

Total 2,125 7.8 3,991 14.7 11,614 42.7 9,257 34.1 180 0.7 

Source: FEMA US Fire Administration 2005  Survey of the Needs of the US Fire Service The above projections are based on 4,655 departments reporting on Question 30b. Numbers may not add to totals due to Q. 30b: How much of your personal protective clothing is at least 10 years old? 
Table 41 

Does Department Have Reserve Protective Clothing 

Sufficient to Equip 10% of Emergency Responders? 

by Community Size 

(Q. 30c) 

Yes No Don’t Know Total 

Population 

of Community

Number 

Depts Percent

Number 

Depts Percent

Number 

Depts Percent

Number 

Depts Percent

1,000,000 or more 9 60.0% 3 20.0% 3 20.0% 15 100.0% 

500,000 to 999,999 29 76.3 8 21.1 1 2.6 38 100.0 

250,000 to 499,999 41 75.9 11 20.4 2 3.7 54 100.0 

100,000 to 249,999 135 62.2 75 34.6 7 3.2 217 100.0 

50,000 to 99,999 288 64.3 151 33.7 9 2.0 448 100.0 

25,000 to 49,999 590 55.0 468 43.6 15 1.4 1,073 100.0 

10,000 to 24,999 1,468 49.9 1,448 49.3 24 0.8 2,939 100.0 

5,000 to 9,999 1,535 40.8 2,188 58.1 41 1.1 3,764 100.0 

2,500 to 4,999 1,768 36.3 3,021 62.0 79 1.6 4,868 100.0 

Under 2,500 5,491 39.9 7,898 57.4 360 2.6 13,750 100.0 

 Total 11,353 41.8 15,271 56.2 542 2.0 27,166 100.0 

Source: FEMA US Fire Administration 2005 

Survey of the Needs of the US Fire Service 

The above projections are based on 4,637 departments reporting on Question 30c. Numbers may not add to 

totals due to rounding. 

Q. 30c: Do you have reserve personal protective clothing sufficient to equip 10% of your emergency 

responders? 

86
COMMUNICATIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT 

Table 42 (p. 89) indicates what fraction of departments can communicate by radio at 

incident scenes with their Federal, state or local partners. Interestingly, need does not 

steadily increase as community size decreases, unlike most other measures of need in this 

report. Specifically, three-fourths of departments serving communities of 100,000 or 

more population and of departments serving communities with less than 2,500 population 

can communicate with partners. This falls to two-thirds for communities with 5,000 to 

49,999 population. 

Table 43 (p. 90) indicates what fraction of partners departments can communicate with, 

for those departments that indicated in the previous question that they can communicate 

with partners. Responses were similar for all community sizes below 250,000 

population, with 30-39% saying they can communicate with all partners, 42-50% saying 

they can communicate with most partners, and 13-23% saying they can communicate 

only with some partners. For larger communities, responses were much more volatile. 

Tables 44 and 45 (pp. 91-92) collectively address the ability of fire departments to access 

a map coordinate system with sufficient standardization of format to provide effective 

functionality in directing the movements of emergency response partners. 

Table 44 indicates that roughly half of all fire departments have no map coordinate 

system. This is a problem particularly for smaller communities, less than 50,000 

population. About one-fifth of communities with at least 250,000 population have no 

map coordinate system. The overall percentage with no map coordinate system (after 

proportional allocation of “don’t know” responses) was 50%. There are some indications 

that national authorities are more supportive of the need for standardization in this area, 

particularly in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, but there is no evidence of progress at 

the local level. 

Table 45 indicates that the vast majority of departments with a map coordinate system 

have only a local system, which means the system they have is unlikely to be usable with 

global positioning systems (GPS) or familiar to, or easily used by, non-local emergency 

response partners, such as Urban Search and Rescue Teams, the National Guard, and 

state or national response forces. Moreover, interoperability of spatial-based plans, 

information systems, equipment, and procedures will likely be rendered impossible 

beyond the local community under these circumstances. This reliance almost exclusively 

on local systems exists across-the-board, in all sizes of communities. 

The U. S. National Grid (USNG-NAD83) standard, based on the grid system used by 

U.S. military units and National Guard forces around the world, was adopted as the 

system best suited for eventual national standardization. 

(http://www.fgdc.gov/usng/index.html) 

87
Table 46 (p. 93) indicates the use of 911 type telephone communication systems. Onequarter (28%) of departments have 911 Basic (37% of rural fire departments, protecting 

less than 2,500 population). Between two-thirds and three-fourths (71%) have 911 

Enhanced (61% of rural fire departments). Less than 1% have some other, unspecified 3-

digit system. And 1% have no system with a special 3-digit number (2% of rural fire 

departments). The 1% of departments with no system represents a huge improvement 

(decrease) from the 6% reported in the 2001 survey. 

Table 47 (p. 94) indicates who has primary responsibility for dispatch operations. 

Overall, only one department in 16 (7%) has that responsibility lodged with the fire 

department, but the percentage goes up sharply with the size of the community. It is only 

5-6% for communities with less than 10,000 population but rises to 80% for communities 

of at least 1 million population. 

Just under one-third (30%) have responsibility lodged with the police department, and 

that is fairly consistent for communities with less than 100,000 population. Overall, 1% 

have responsibility lodged with a private company. 

Another two-fifths (39%) have responsibility lodged with a combined public safety 

agency, and that is fairly consistent until the size of community reaches 250,000 or more, 

where the percentage drops. And the other one-fourth of departments overall (24%) have 

some other arrangement. 

Table 48 (p. 95) indicates whether there is a backup dispatch facility. Two of every five 

departments (39%) say no. The percentage without such a facility is 46% for 

departments protecting less than 2,500 population, 36% for departments protecting 2,500 

to 4,999 population, 29-33% for departments protecting 5,000 to 99,999 population, and 

24-29% for the larger communities, except for those protecting 1,000,000 or more 

population, where the percentage without was only 7%. 

Table 49 (p. 96) indicates whether there is Internet access for the department. The 

overall percentage of departments with access is 76%, but the percentages are much 

higher for departments protecting 5,000 or more population. 

Table 50 (p. 97) indicates what kind of access departments have. Roughly half (53%) of 

departments with access have it at the department’s only fire station. Another 18% have 

individual access for all personnel. Another 9% have access at each of their several fire 

stations, and 12% have access only at headquarters despite having multiple fire stations. 

The rest (8%) have some other arrangement. 

88
Table 42 

Can Department Communicate by Radio at an Incident Scene 

With Federal, State or Local Partners? 

by Community Size 

(Q. 31a) 

Yes No Don’t Know Total

Population Number Number Number Number 

of Community of Depts Percent Depts Percent Depts Percent Depts Percent

1,000,000 or more 11 73.3% 1 6.7% 3 20.0% 15 100.0%

500,000 to 999,999 27 71.1 10 26.3 1 2.6 38 100.0 

250,000 to 499,999 41 75.9 13 24.1 0 0.0 54 100.0 

100,000 to 249,999 168 77.4 47 21.7 2 0.9 217 100.0 

50,000 to 99,999 321 71.7 109 24.3 18 4.0 448 100.0 

25,000 to 49,999 688 64.1 348 32.4 37 3.5 1,073 100.0 

10,000 to 24,999 1,965 66.9 864 29.4 110 3.8 2,939 100.0 

5,000 to 9,999 2,558 68.0 947 25.1 259 6.9 3,764 100.0 

2,500 to 4,999 3,415 70.2 1,165 23.9 288 5.9 4,868 100.0 

Under 2,500 10,621 77.2 2,282 16.6 847 6.2 13,750 100.0 

Total 19,814 72.9 5,785 21.3 1,567 5.8 27,166 100.0 

Source: FEMA US Fire Administration 2005 

 Survey of the Needs of the US Fire Service 

The above projections are based on 4,659 departments reporting on Question 31a. Numbers may not add to 

totals due to rounding. 

Q. 31a: Can you communicate by radio on an incident scene with your federal, state and local emergency 

response partners (includes frequency compatability)?

89
Table 43 

For Departments That Can Communicate With Partners at an Incident Scene 

What Fraction of Partners Can They Communicate With? 

by Community Size 

(Q. 31b) 

All Most Some Total 

Population 

of Community

Number 

Depts Percent

Number 

Depts Percent

Number 

Depts Percent

Number 

Depts Percent

1,000,000 or more 0 0.0% 8 72.7% 3 27.3% 11 100.0% 

500,000 to 999,999 15 55.6 9 33.3 3 11.1 27 100.0 

250,000 to 499,999 11 26.8 24 58.5 6 14.6 41 100.0 

100,000 to 249,999 59 35.1 84 50.0 25 14.9 168 100.0 

50,000 to 99,999 125 38.9 154 48.0 42 13.1 321 100.0 

25,000 to 49,999 218 31.7 334 48.4 136 19.6 688 100.0 

10,000 to 24,999 637 32.4 886 45.1 441 22.5 1,964 100.0 

5,000 to 9,999 779 30.4 1,260 49.3 519 20.3 2,558 100.0 

2,500 to 4,999 1,156 33.9 1,531 44.8 728 21.3 3,415 100.0 

Under 2,500 4,057 38.2 4,492 42.3 2,072 19.5 10,621 100.0 

 Total 7,056 35.6 8,782 44.3 3,976 20.0 19,814 100.0 

Source: FEMA US Fire Administration 2005 

 Survey of the Needs of the US Fire Service 

The above projections are based on 3,258 departments reporting yes to Question 31a and also reporting on 

Question 31b. Numbers may not add to totals due to rounding. 

Q. 31b: If [you can communicate by radio on an incident scene with your federal, state, and local emergency 

response partners], how many of your partners can you communicate with at an incident scene? 

90
91

Table 44 

Does Department Have a Map Coordinate System 

to Help Direct Emergency Response Partners? 

by Community Size 

(Q. 32a) 

 Yes No Don’t Know Total 

 

Population 

of Community

Number 

Depts Percent

Number 

Depts Percent

Number 

Depts Percent

Number 

Depts Percent

1,000,000 or more 14 93.3% 1 6.7% 0 0.0% 15 100.0% 

500,000 to 999,999 30 78.9 8 21.1 0 0.0 38 100.0 

250,000 to 499,999 42 77.8 12 22.2 0 0.0 54 100.0 

100,000 to 249,999 157 72.4 59 27.2 1 0.5 217 100.0 

50,000 to 99,999 266 59.4 177 39.5 5 1.1 448 100.0 

25,000 to 49,999 492 45.9 564 52.5 17 1.6 1,073 100.0 

10,000 to 24,999 1,157 39.4 1,732 58.9 50 1.7 2,939 100.0 

5,000 to 9,999 1,545 41.0 2,115 56.2 104 2.8 3,764 100.0 

2,500 to 4,999 2,274 46.7 2,463 50.6 131 2.7 4,868 100.0 

Under 2,500 7,363 53.6 5,970 43.4 416 3.0 13,750 100.0 

 Total 13,338 49.1 13,103 48.2 725 2.7 27,166 100.0 

Source: FEMA US Fire Administration 2005 

 Survey of the Needs of the US Fire Service 

The above projections are based on 4,644 departments reporting on Question 32a. Numbers may not add to 

totals due to rounding. 

Q. 32a: Do you have a map coordinate system you would use to help direct your emergency response 

partners to specific locations?
Table 45 

For Departments That Have a Map Coordinate System 

What System Do They Use? 

by Community Size 

(Q. 32b) 

 State

 Longitude/  Latitude Local

 Military

Grid 

Plane 

Coordinate Other 

Population of Community

Number 

Depts Percent

Number 

Depts Percent

Number 

Depts Percent

Number 

Depts Percent

Number 

Depts Perce

1,000,000 or more 3 21.4% 9 64.3% 0 0.0% 2 14.3% 0 0.0% 

500,000 to 999,999 7 23.3 22 73.3 0 0.0 1 3.3 0 0.0 250,000 to 499,999 8 19.0 30 71.4 1 2.4 1 2.4 2 4.8 100,000 to 249,999 15 9.6 131 83.4 0 0.0 4 2.5 7 4.5 

50,000 to 99,999 21 7.9 234 88.0 0 0.0 2 0.8 9 3.4 25,000 to 49,999 51 10.4 378 76.8 8 1.6 10 2.0 46 11.4 10,000 to 24,999 96 8.3 945 81.7 10 0.9 14 1.2 92 8.0 

5,000 to 9,999 146 9.4 1,280 82.8 12 0.8 21 1.4 86 5.5 2,500 to 4,999 202 8.9 1,886 82.9 38 1.6 42 1.9 106 4.7 

Under 2,500 480 6.5 6,243 84.8 58 0.8 131 1.8 451 6.1  Total 1,028 7.8 11,157 83.6 127 1.0 228 1.7 799 6.0 Source: FEMA US Fire Administration 2005  Survey of the Needs of the US Fire Service The above projections are based on 2,183 departments reporting yes to Questions 32a and also reporting on Question 32badd to totals due to rounding. Q. 32b: If [you have a map coordinate system you would use to help direct your emergency response partners to specific ldo you use? “Local system” includes map grid, street address, and box alarm number. 

92
Table 46 

Does Department Have 911 or Similar System? 

by Community Size 

(Q. 33) 

Yes – 911 Basic

Yes – 

911 Enhanced

Yes – Other 

3-Digit System No Tota

Population of Community

Number Depts Percent

Number Depts Percent

Number Depts Percent

Number Depts Percent

Number Depts P

1,000,000 or more 0 0.0% 15 100.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 15 

500,000 to 999,999 0 0.0 38 100.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 38 250,000 to 499,999 4 7.4 50 92.6 0 0.0 0 0.0 54 100,000 to 249,999 22 10.1 194 89.4 0 0.0 1 0.4 217 

50,000 to 99,999 47 10.5 401 89.5 0 0.0 0 0.0 448 25,000 to 49,999 115 10.7 948 88.4 0 0.0 10 0.9 1,073 10,000 to 24,999 407 13.8 2,512 85.5 0 0.0 20 0.7 2,939 

5,000 to 9,999 695 18.5 3,024 80.3 4 0.1 41 1.1 3,764 2,500 to 4,999 1,175 24.1 3,625 74.5 10 0.2 58 1.2 4,868 

Under 2,500 5,119 37.2 8,373 60.9 57 0.4 201 1.5 13,750  Total 7,585 27.9 19,180 70.6 71 0.3 330 1.2 27,166 Source: FEMA US Fire Administration 2005  Survey of the Needs of the US Fire Service The above projections are based on 4,673 reporting on Question 33. Numbers may not add to totals due to rounding. Q. 33: Do you have 911 or similar system?

93
94

Table 47 

Who Has Primary Responsibility for Dispatch Operations? 

by Community Size 

(Q. 34a) 

 Fire Police Private Combined Public  Department Department Company Safety Agency Other Population of Community

1,000,000 or more 

Number 

Depts 

12

Percent

80.0% 

Number 

Depts 

0 

Percent

0.0% 

Number 

Depts Percent

0 0.0% 

Number 

Depts 

3 

Percent

20.0% 

Number 

Depts

0 

Perce

0.0% 

500,000 to 999,999 22 57.9 4 10.5 0 0.0 11 28.9 1 2.6 250,000 to 499,999 24 44.4 11 20.4 0 0.0 13 24.1 6 11.1 100,000 to 249,999 68 31.3 53 24.4 0 0.0 77 35.5 19 8.8 

50,000 to 99,999 76 17.0 133 29.7 1 0.2 187 41.7 51 11.4 25,000 to 49,999 148 13.8 359 33.5 13 1.2 407 37.9 146 13.6 10,000 to 24,999 327 11.1 1,062 36.1 37 1.3 957 32.6 556 18.9 

5,000 to 9,999 238 6.3 1,175 31.2 42 1.1 1,476 39.2 834 22.2 2,500 to 4,999 270 5.6 1,326 27.2 80 1.6 1,850 38.0 1,342 27.6 

Under 2,500 666 4.8 3,966 28.8 101 0.7 5,514 40.1 3,502 25.5 

Total 1,851 6.8 8,089 29.8 273 1.0 10,495 38.6 6,457 23.8 

Source: FEMA US Fire Administration 2005  Survey of the Needs of the US Fire Service The above table breakdown and projections are based on 4,613 reporting on Question 34a. Numbers may not add to total

Q. 34a: Who has primary responsibility for dispatch operations? 
Table 48 

Does Department Have a Backup Dispatch Facility? 

by Community Size 

(Q. 34b) 

Yes No Total 

Population 

of Community

Number 

Depts Percent

Number 

Depts Percent

Number 

Depts Percent

1,000,000 or more 14 93.3% 1 6.7% 15 100.0%

500,000 to 999,999 27 71.1 11 28.9 38 100.0 

250,000 to 499,999 40 74.1 14 25.9 54 100.0 

100,000 to 249,999 164 75.6 53 24.4 217 100.0 

50,000 to 99,999 317 70.8 131 29.2 448 100.0 

25,000 to 49,999 721 67.2 352 32.8 1,073 100.0 

10,000 to 24,999 2,091 71.1 848 28.9 2,939 100.0 

5,000 to 9,999 2,591 68.8 1,173 31.2 3,764 100.0 

2,500 to 4,999 3,128 64.3 1,740 35.7 4,868 100.0 

Under 2,500 7,456 54.2 6,294 45.8 13,750 100.0 

 Total 16,548 60.9 10,618 39.1 27,166 100.0 

Source: FEMA US Fire Administration 2005 

 Survey of the Needs of the US Fire Service 

The above projections are based on 3,786 departments reporting on Question 34a. Numbers 

may not add to totals due to rounding. 

Q. 34a: Who has primary responsibility for dispatch operations?

95
96

Table 49 

Does Department Have Internet Access? 

by Community Size 

(Q. 35a) 

Yes No Total 

Population 

of Community 

Number 

Depts Percent

Number 

Depts Percent

Number 

Depts Percent

1,000,000 or more 15 100.0% 0 0.0% 15 100.0% 

500,000 to 999,999 38 100.0 0 0.0 38 100.0 

250,000 to 499,999 54 100.0 0 0.0 54 100.0 

100,000 to 249,999 217 100.0 0 0.0 217 100.0 

50,000 to 99,999 446 99.5 2 0.5 448 100.0 

25,000 to 49,999 1,068 99.5 5 0.5 1,073 100.0 

10,000 to 24,999 2,856 97.2 83 2.8 2,939 100.0 

5,000 to 9,999 3,409 90.6 355 9.4 3,764 100.0 

2,500 to 4,999 4,010 82.4 858 17.6 4,868 100.0 

Under 2,500 8,533 62.0 5,217 38.0 13,750 100.0 

 Total 20,646 76.0 6,520 24.0 27,166 100.0 

Source: FEMA US Fire Administration 2005 

 Survey of the Needs of the US Fire Service 

The above table breakdown and projections are based on 4,665 departments reporting on 

Question 35a. Numbers may not add to totals due to rounding. 

Q. 35a: Does your department have Internet access?
97

Table 50 

For Departments That Have Internet Access 

What Kind of Access Do They Have? 

by Community Size 

(Q. 35b) 

All Personnel One Access Point One Access Access atHave Individual Access 

per Station –

Multiple Stations 

Point at the

Only Station 

Headquarters – 

Multiple Stations Other 

Population of Community

Number 

Depts Percent

Number 

Depts Percent

Number 

Depts Percent

Number 

Depts Percent

Number 

Depts Perce

1,000,000 or more 8 53.3% 5 33.3% 0 0.0% 1 6.7% 1 6.7% 

500,000 to 999,999 13 34.2 19 50.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 6 15.8 250,000 to 499,999 27 50.0 19 35.2 0 0.0 6 11.1 2 3.7 100,000 to 249,999 104 47.9 79 36.4 1 0.5 22 10.1 11 5.1 

50,000 to 99,999 197 44.3 179 40.2 5 1.1 52 11.7 14 3.1 25,000 to 49,999 451 42.2 339 31.7 60 5.6 184 17.3 35 3.3 10,000 to 24,999 930 32.6 537 18.8 659 23.0 581 20.3 149 5.2 

5,000 to 9,999 713 20.9 248 7.3 1,694 49.7 576 16.9 179 5.3 2,500 to 4,999 493 12.3 182 4.5 2,672 66.6 434 10.8 230 5.7 

Under 2,500 715 8.4 248 2.9 5,907 69.2 569 6.7 1,094 12.8 

Total 3,649 17.7 1,852 9.0 10,997 53.3 2,425 11.7 1,722 8.3 

Source: FEMA US Fire Administration 2005  Survey of the Needs of the US Fire Service The above projections are based on 3,939 departments reporting yes to Question 35a and also reporting on Question 35b. totals due to rounding. Q. 35b: If [your department has Internet access], describe the access you have. 

ABILITY TO HANDLE UNUSUALLY CHALLENGING INCIDENTS 

Questions 36-39 were designed to check the capabilities of fire departments, in 

communities of various sizes, to handle unusually severe and challenging incidents, only 

one of which involved a fire. These have to do with the increasingly important first 

responder role of fire departments. 

In addition to asking whether such incidents were within the department’s responsibility, 

the survey asked whether fire departments could handle such incidents with local 

personnel and equipment and whether a plan existed to support effective coordination 

with non-local resources and partners. 

Technical Rescue and EMS for a Building With 50 Occupants After Structural 

Collapse 

Table 51 (p. 113) indicates whether a technical rescue with EMS at a structural collapse 

of a building with 50 occupants is within the responsibility of the department. 

Affirmative answers become less likely as the size of the community decreases, so that 

less than half the fire departments protecting rural communities (less than 2,500 

population) answered affirmatively, while all of the largest departments (those protecting 

at least 500,000 population) did. 

Tables 52-54 (pp. 114-116) address, for the departments that consider such a rescue 

within their responsibility, how far they have to go for specially trained people and 

specialized equipment and what type of plan they have for obtaining assistance, 

respectively. 

By combining Table 51 with Tables 52-54, one can obtain an even better indication of 

different types of department needs to address such incidents, as seen in Tables S to U. 

In Tables S to U, the rightmost column reproduces the “No, not within responsibility” 

statistics from Table 51. The other columns are produced by multiplying the columns 

from Tables 52-54, respectively, by the “Yes, within responsibility” statistics from 

Table 51. 

Overall, 11% of departments reported they were responsible for such an incident and had 

enough specially trained people locally. Another 55% said this was within their 

responsibility but they would need specially trained people from outside their local area, 

and 34% said such incidents were outside their responsibility. The 2001 survey reported 

44% of departments considered such an incident outside their responsibility. 

Only communities of 500,000 or more population had a majority of departments report 

both that they were responsible for such an incident and that they had enough local 

specially trained personnel. Among departments saying such incidents were within their 

responsibility protecting communities of less than 100,000 population, by population 

interval, the number of departments saying they did not have enough local specially 

99
trained personnel outnumbered the number of departments saying they had enough local 

specially trained personnel by factors of 3-to-1 up to 6-to-1. 

Table S. Percentage of Departments by Whether Incident Type is Their 

Responsibility and Where They Obtain Necessary Personnel With 

Specialized Training, by Size of Community (Q. 36b) 

Is Technical Rescue with EMS at Structural Collapse of a Building 

with 50 Occupants Within the Department’s Responsibility? 

Population Protected 

Responsible and 

Local Specially 

Trained People 

Would Be Enough 

Responsible But Local 

Specially Trained 

People Would 

Not Be Enough 

Incident 

Not Within 

Department’s 

Responsibility 

1,000,000 or more 73% 27% 0% 

500,000 to 999,999 63% 37% 0% 

250,000 to 499,999 41% 56% 4% 

100,000 to 249,999 26% 71% 2% 

50,000 to 99,999 19% 77% 4% 

25,000 to 49,999 13% 78% 10% 

10,000 to 24,999 10% 76% 14% 

5,000 to 9,999 10% 69% 22% 

2,500 to 4,999 11% 59% 30% 

Under 2,500 10% 44% 47% 

Total 11% 55% 34% 

The above projections are based on 4,661 departments reporting on Question 36a and 3,548 

reporting on Question 36b. See Tables 51 and 52. 

Q. 36a: Is technical rescue and EMS for a building with 50 occupants after structural collapse 

within your department’s responsibility? 

Q. 36b: If [technical rescue and EMS for a building with 50 occupants after structural collapse is 

within your department’s responsibility], how far would you have to go to obtain enough people 

with specialized training for this incident? 

Overall, 10% of departments reported they were responsible for such an incident and had 

enough specialized equipment locally. Another 56% said this was within their 

responsibility but they would need specialized equipment from outside of their local 

community. 

Relative to the 2001 survey, this represented a decrease from 44% to 34% in the 

percentage of departments declaring such incidents outside their responsibility, but no 

increase in the percentage of departments that said such incidents were within their 

responsibility and local specialized equipment would suffice. In other words, the 

increased percentage of departments saying such incidents were their responsibility all 

showed up under the percentage of departments saying local specialized equipment 

would not be enough. Only communities of 500,000 or more population had a majority 

of departments report both that they were responsible for such an incident and that local 

100
specialized equipment would be enough. For departments saying such incidents were 

within their responsibility protecting communities of less than 100,000 population, the 

number of departments saying local specialized equipment would not be enough 

outnumbered the number saying local specialized equipment would be enough by factors 

of 5-to-1 up to 9-to-1, depending on the population interval. 

Table T. Percentage of Departments by Whether Incident Type is Their 

Responsibility and Where They Obtain Necessary Specialized Equipment, 

by Size of Community (Q. 36c) 

Is Technical Rescue with EMS at Structural Collapse of a Building 

with 50 Occupants Within the Department’s Responsibility? 

Population Protected 

Responsible and 

Local Specialized 

Equipment 

Would Be Enough 

Responsible But Local 

Specialized Equipment 

Would Not Be Enough 

Incident 

Not Within 

Department’s 

Responsibility 

1,000,000 or more 87% 13% 0% 

500,000 to 999,999 55% 45% 0% 

250,000 to 499,999 39% 57% 4% 

100,000 to 249,999 23% 75% 2% 

50,000 to 99,999 16% 80% 4% 

25,000 to 49,999 13% 78% 10% 

10,000 to 24,999 9% 77% 14% 

5,000 to 9,999 9% 70% 22% 

2,500 to 4,999 10% 61% 30% 

Under 2,500 9% 44% 47% 

Total 10% 56% 34% 

The above table breakdown and projections are based on 4,661 departments reporting on 

Question 36a and 3,534 reporting on Question 36c. See Tables 51and 53. 

Q. 36a: Is technical rescue and EMS for a building with 50 occupants after structural collapse 

within your department’s responsibility? 

Q. 36c: If [technical rescue and EMS for a building with 50 occupants after structural collapse is 

within your department’s responsibility], how far would you have to go to obtain enough 

specialized equipment to handle this incident? 

Overall, including departments which reported local personnel and equipment were 

enough, 24% of departments reported such an incident was within their responsibility and 

they had a written agreement for obtaining non-local resources to respond. 

Another 33% said this was within their responsibility and they had a plan but did not 

characterize the plan as a written agreement, and 7% said they had no plan though such 

incidents were within their responsibility. 

Above 50,000 population, more departments with responsibility have written agreements 

than do not. 

101
Table U. Percentage of Departments by Whether Incident Type Is Their 

Responsibility and Type of Plan for Obtaining Assistance From Others, 

by Size of Community (Q. 36d) 

Is Technical Rescue with EMS at Structural Collapse of a Building 

with 50 Occupants Within the Department’s Responsibility? 

Population Protected 

Responsible 

With Written 

Agreement 

Responsible 

With Informal 

or Other Plan 

Responsible 

But With No 

Plan 

Incident 

Not Within 

Department’s 

Responsibility 

1,000,000 or more 100% 0% 0% 0% 

500,000 to 999,999 84% 16% 0% 0% 

250,000 to 499,999 87% 9% 0% 4% 

100,000 to 249,999 68% 26% 4% 2% 

50,000 to 99,999 60% 33% 4% 4% 

25,000 to 49,999 54% 32% 4% 10% 

10,000 to 24,999 39% 42% 5% 14% 

5,000 to 9,999 34% 37% 8% 22% 

2,500 to 4,999 25% 38% 8% 30% 

Under 2,500 18% 28% 7% 47% 

Total 26% 33% 7% 34% 

The above table breakdown and projections are based on 4,661 departments reporting on 

Question 36a and 3,495 reporting on Question 36d. See Tables 51 and 54. 

Q. 36a: Is technical rescue and EMS for a building with 50 occupants after structural collapse 

within your department’s responsibility? 

Q. 36d: If [technical rescue and EMS for a building with 50 occupants after structural collapse is 

within your department’s responsibility], do you have a plan for obtaining assistance from others 

on this type of incident? 

Hazmat and EMS for Incident Involving Chemical/Biological Agents 

and 10 Injuries 

Table 55 (p. 117) indicates whether hazmat and EMS for an incident involving chemical/ 

biological agents and 10 injuries is within the responsibility of the department. (Note that 

casualty counts of 100 to 1,000 are not unusual in chemical/biological agent weapons of 

mass destruction.) 

Affirmative answers become less likely as the size of the department shrinks, so that only 

56% of the fire departments protecting rural communities (less than 2,500 population) 

indicated that such incidents were within their responsibility, while nearly all of the 

largest departments (those protecting at least 250,000 population) did. 

Tables 56-58 (pp. 118-120) address, for the departments that consider such a rescue 

within their responsibility, how far they have to go for specially trained people and 

specialized equipment and what type of plan they have for obtaining assistance, 

respectively. 

102
By combining Table 55 with Tables 56-58, one can obtain an even better indication of 

different types of department needs to address such incidents, as seen in Tables V to X. 

In Tables V to X, the rightmost column reproduces the “No, not within responsibility” 

statistics from Table 55. The other columns are produced by multiplying the columns 

from Tables 56-58, respectively, by the “Yes, within responsibility” statistics from Table 

55. 

Table V. Percentage of Departments by Whether Incident Type is Their 

Responsibility and Where They Obtain Necessary Personnel With 

Specialized Training, by Size of Community (Q. 37b) 

Is Hazmat and EMS for an Incident Involving Chemical/Biological 

Agents and 10 Injuries Within the Department’s Responsibility? 

Population Protected 

Responsible and 

Local Specially 

Trained People 

Would Be Enough 

Responsible But Local 

Specially Trained 

People Would 

Not Be Enough 

Incident 

Not Within 

Department’s 

Responsibility 

1,000,000 or more 93% 7% 0% 

500,000 to 999,999 76% 21% 4% 

250,000 to 499,999 76% 24% 0% 

100,000 to 249,999 48% 49% 2% 

50,000 to 99,999 35% 63% 2% 

25,000 to 49,999 24% 68% 8% 

10,000 to 24,999 16% 71% 13% 

5,000 to 9,999 13% 66% 21% 

2,500 to 4,999 12% 61% 27% 

Under 2,500 7% 48% 44% 

Total 12% 56% 32% 

The above table breakdown and projections are based on 4,661 departments reporting on 

Question 37a and 3,619 reporting on Question 37b. See Tables 55 and 56. 

Q. 37a: Is hazmat and EMS for an incident involving chemical/biological agents and 10 injuries 

within your department’s responsibility? 

Q. 37b: If [hazmat and EMS for an incident involving chemical/biological agents and 10 injuries is 

within your department’s responsibility], how far would you have to go to obtain enough people 

with specialized training for this incident? 

Overall, 12% of departments reported they were responsible for such an incident and had 

enough specially trained people locally. Another 56% said this was within their 

responsibility but they would need specially trained people from outside their local area, 

and 32% said such incidents were outside of their responsibility. The 2001 survey 

reported that 42% of departments considered such an incident outside their responsibility. 

Only communities of 250,000 or more population had a majority of departments report 

both that they were responsible for such an incident and that local specially trained 

103
people would be enough. For departments saying such incidents were within their 

responsibility protecting communities of less than 50,000 population, the number of 

departments saying local specially trained people would not be enough outnumbered the 

number saying local specially trained people would be enough by factors of 3-to-1 up to 

7-to-1, depending on the population interval. 

Table W. Percentage of Departments by Whether Incident Type is Their 

Responsibility and Where They Obtain Necessary Specialized Equipment, 

by Size of Community (Q. 37c) 

Is Hazmat and EMS for an Incident Involving Chemical/Biological 

Agents and 10 Injuries Within the Department’s Responsibility? 

Population Protected 

Responsible and 

Local Specialized 

Equipment 

Would Be Enough 

Responsible But Local 

Specialized Equipment 

Would Not Be Enough 

Incident 

Not Within 

Department’s 

Responsibility 

1,000,000 or more 93% 7% 0% 

500,000 to 999,999 76% 21% 4% 

250,000 to 499,999 76% 24% 0% 

100,000 to 249,999 47% 50% 2% 

50,000 to 99,999 31% 67% 2% 

25,000 to 49,999 24% 68% 8% 

10,000 to 24,999 14% 73% 13% 

5,000 to 9,999 11% 68% 21% 

2,500 to 4,999 10% 63% 27% 

Under 2,500 6% 50% 44% 

Total 10% 58% 32% 

The above projections are based on 4,661 departments reporting on Question 37a and 3,609 

reporting on Question 37c. See Tables 55 and 57. 

Q. 37a: Is hazmat and EMS for an incident involving chemical/biological agents and 10 injuries 

within your department’s responsibility? 

Q. 37c: If [hazmat and EMS for an incident involving chemical/biological agents and 10 injuries is 

within your department’s responsibility], how far would you have to go to obtain enough 

specialized equipment to handle this incident? 

Overall, 10% of departments reported they were responsible for such an incident and had 

enough specialized equipment locally. Another 58% said this was within their 

responsibility but they would need specialized equipment from outside of their local 

community. 

Only communities of 250,000 or more population had a majority of departments report 

both that they were responsible for such an incident and that local specialized equipment 

would be enough. For departments saying such incidents were within their responsibility 

protecting communities of less than 100,000 population, the number of departments 

saying local specialized equipment would not be enough outnumbered the number saying 

104
local specialized equipment would be enough by factors of 2-to-1 up to 8-to-1, depending 

on the population interval. 

Overall, including departments which reported local personnel and equipment were 

enough, 30% of departments reported such an incident was within their responsibility and 

they had a written agreement for obtaining non-local resources to respond. Another 33% 

said this was within their responsibility and they had a plan but did not characterize the 

plan as a written agreement, and 5% said they had no plan though such incidents were 

within their responsibility. 

Table X. Percentage of Departments by Whether Incident Type Is Their 

Responsibility and Type of Plan for Obtaining Assistance From Others, 

by Size of Community (Q. 37d) 

Is Hazmat and EMS for an Incident Involving Chemical/Biological 

Agents and 10 Injuries Within the Department’s Responsibility? 

Population Protected 

Responsible 

With Written 

Agreement 

Responsible 

With Informal 

or Other Plan 

Responsible 

But With No 

Plan 

Incident 

Not Within 

Department’s 

Responsibility 

1,000,000 or more 93% 7% 0% 0% 

500,000 to 999,999 89% 8% 0% 4% 

250,000 to 499,999 91% 9% 0% 0% 

100,000 to 249,999 79% 18% 1% 2% 

50,000 to 99,999 75% 22% 1% 2% 

25,000 to 49,999 68% 23% 2% 8% 

10,000 to 24,999 46% 38% 3% 13% 

5,000 to 9,999 37% 37% 5% 21% 

2,500 to 4,999 29% 38% 7% 27% 

Under 2,500 19% 31% 6% 44% 

Total 30% 33% 5% 32% 

The above projections are based on 4,661 departments reporting on Question 37a and 3,570 

reporting on Question 37d. See Tables 55 and 58. 

Q. 37a: Is hazmat and EMS for an incident involving chemical/biological agents and 10 injuries 

within your department’s responsibility? 

Q. 37d: If [hazmat and EMS for an incident involving chemical/biological agents and 10 injuries is 

within your department’s responsibility], do you have a plan for obtaining assistance from others 

on this type of incident? 

Wildland/Urban Interface Fire Affecting 500 Acres 

Table 59 (p. 121) indicates whether a wildland/urban interface fire affecting 500 acres is 

within the responsibility of the department. A majority of all sizes of communities say 

such incidents are within their responsibility. It is not possible to determine from 

105
available data which departments among those declaring such incidents outside their 

responsibility have no nearby wildland/urban interface areas in their communities. 

Tables 60-62 (pp. 122-124) address, for the departments that consider such a rescue 

within their responsibility, how far they have to go for specially trained people and 

specialized equipment and what type of plan they have for obtaining assistance, 

respectively. 

By combining Table 59 with Tables 60-62, one can obtain an even better indication of 

different types of department needs to address such incidents, as seen in Tables Y to AA. 

In Tables Y to AA, the rightmost column reproduces the “No, not within responsibility” 

statistics from Table 59. The other columns are produced by multiplying the columns 

from Tables 60-62, respectively, by the “Yes, within responsibility” statistics from Table 

59. 

Table Y. Percentage of Departments by Whether Incident Type is Their 

Responsibility and Where They Obtain Necessary Personnel With 

Specialized Training, by Size of Community (Q. 38b) 

Is a Wildland/Urban Interface Fire Affecting 500 Acres 

Within the Department’s Responsibility? 

Population Protected 

Responsible and 

Local Specially 

Trained People 

Would Be Enough 

Responsible But Local 

Specially Trained 

People Would 

Not Be Enough 

Incident 

Not Within 

Department’s 

Responsibility 

1,000,000 or more 27% 53% 20% 

500,000 to 999,999 24% 34% 42% 

250,000 to 499,999 24% 46% 30% 

100,000 to 249,999 18% 42% 40% 

50,000 to 99,999 14% 32% 55% 

25,000 to 49,999 12% 41% 47% 

10,000 to 24,999 16% 44% 40% 

5,000 to 9,999 21% 49% 30% 

2,500 to 4,999 24% 51% 25% 

Under 2,500 29% 51% 21% 

Total 24% 49% 27% 

The above projections are based on 4,658 departments reporting on Question 38a and 3,128 

reporting on Question 38b. See Tables 59 and 60. 

Q. 38a: Is a wildland/urban interface fire affecting 500 acres within your department’s 

responsibility? 

Q. 38b: If [wildland/urban interface fire affecting 500 acres is within your department’s 

responsibility], how far would you have to go to obtain enough people with specialized training for 

this incident? 

106
Wildland/urban interface fires have a much different profile from the first two types of 

major incidents. A large share of departments in every community-population interval do 

not consider such incidents to be their responsibility. 

Overall, 24% of departments reported they were responsible for such an incident and had 

enough specially trained people locally. Another 49% said this was within their 

responsibility but they would need specially trained people from outside their local area, 

and 27% said such incidents were outside of their responsibility. 

Table Z. Percentage of Departments by Whether Incident Type is Their 

Responsibility and Where They Obtain Necessary Specialized Equipment, 

by Size of Community (Q. 38c) 

Is a Wildland/Urban Interface Fire Affecting 500 Acres 

Within the Department’s Responsibility? 

Population Protected 

Responsible and 

Local Specialized 

Equipment 

Would Be Enough 

Responsible But Local 

Specialized Equipment 

Would Not Be Enough 

Incident 

Not Within 

Department’s 

Responsibility 

1,000,000 or more 27% 53% 20% 

500,000 to 999,999 18% 39% 42% 

250,000 to 499,999 20% 50% 30% 

100,000 to 249,999 12% 47% 40% 

50,000 to 99,999 12% 33% 55% 

25,000 to 49,999 11% 42% 47% 

10,000 to 24,999 15% 46% 40% 

5,000 to 9,999 17% 53% 30% 

2,500 to 4,999 20% 55% 25% 

Under 2,500 26% 54% 21% 

Total 21% 52% 27% 

The above projections are based on 4,658 departments reporting on Question 38a and 3,122 

reporting on Question 38c. See Tables 59 and 61. 

Q. 38a: Is a wildland/urban interface fire affecting 500 acres within your department’s 

responsibility? 

Q. 38c: If [wildland/urban interface fire affecting 500 acres is within your department’s 

responsibility], how far would you have to go to obtain enough specialized equipment to handle 

this incident? 

Overall, 21% of departments reported they were responsible for such an incident and had 

enough specialized equipment locally. Another 52% said this was within their 

responsibility but they would need specialized equipment from outside of their local 

community. 

The US Forest Service has applied considerable effort to create formal networks through 

written agreements to move resources to wherever they are needed if a major 

107
wildland/urban interface fire occurs. Their efforts appear to have borne fruit, because the 

current state of planning is also much different for these incidents – and specifically 

much better. 

Table AA. Percentage of Departments by Whether Incident Type Is Their 

Responsibility and Type of Plan for Obtaining Assistance From Others, 

by Size of Community (Q. 38d) 

Is a Wildland/Urban Interface Fire Affecting 500 Acres 

Within the Department’s Responsibility? 

Population Protected 

Responsible 

With Written 

Agreement 

Responsible 

With Informal 

or Other Plan 

Responsible 

But With No 

Plan 

Incident 

Not Within 

Department’s 

Responsibility 

1,000,000 or more 73% 7% 0% 20% 

500,000 to 999,999 55% 3% 0% 42% 

250,000 to 499,999 57% 13% 0% 30% 

100,000 to 249,999 47% 12% 1% 40% 

50,000 to 99,999 32% 12% 1% 55% 

25,000 to 49,999 36% 15% 2% 47% 

10,000 to 24,999 36% 22% 2% 40% 

5,000 to 9,999 41% 27% 2% 30% 

2,500 to 4,999 39% 33% 3% 25% 

Under 2,500 41% 35% 3% 21% 

Total 40% 31% 3% 27% 

The above projections are based on 4,658 departments reporting on Question 

38a and 3,099 reporting on Question 38d. See Tables 59 and 62. 

Q. 38a: Is a wildland/urban interface fire affecting 500 acres within your department’s 

responsibility? 

Q. 38d: If [wildland/urban interface fire affecting 500 acres is within your department’s 

responsibility], do you have a plan for obtaining assistance from others on this type of incident? 

Overall, including departments which reported local personnel and equipment were 

enough, 40% of departments reported such an incident was within their responsibility and 

they had a written agreement for obtaining non-local resources to respond. Another 31% 

said this was within their responsibility and they had a plan but did not characterize the 

plan as a written agreement, and 3% said they had no plan though such incidents were 

within their responsibility. 

Mitigation of a Developing Major Flood 

Table 63 (p. 125) indicates whether mitigation of a developing major flood is within the 

responsibility of the department. Tables 64-66 (pp. 126-128) address, for the 

departments that consider such a rescue within their responsibility, how far they have to 

108
go for specially trained people and specialized equipment and what type of plan they 

have for obtaining assistance, respectively. By combining Table 63 with Tables 64-66, 

one can obtain an even better indication of different types of department needs to address 

such incidents, as seen in Tables AB to AD. In Tables AB to AD, the rightmost column 

reproduces the “No, not within responsibility” statistics from Table 63. The other 

columns are produced by multiplying the columns from Tables 64-66, respectively, by 

the “Yes, within responsibility” statistics from Table 63. 

Table AB. Percentage of Departments by Whether Incident Type is Their 

Responsibility and Where They Obtain Necessary Personnel With 

Specialized Training, by Size of Community (Q. 39b) 

Can the Department Handle 

Mitigation of a Developing Major Flood? 

Population Protected 

Responsible and 

Local Specially 

Trained People 

Would Be Enough 

Responsible But Local 

Specially Trained 

People Would 

Not Be Enough 

Incident 

Not Within 

Department’s 

Responsibility 

1,000,000 or more 53% 33% 13% 

500,000 to 999,999 24% 21% 55% 

250,000 to 499,999 19% 57% 24% 

100,000 to 249,999 11% 56% 33% 

50,000 to 99,999 10% 50% 40% 

25,000 to 49,999 9% 56% 34% 

10,000 to 24,999 9% 47% 44% 

5,000 to 9,999 10% 46% 44% 

2,500 to 4,999 11% 41% 48% 

Under 2,500 11% 30% 59% 

Total 11% 38% 52% 

The above projections are based on 4,622 departments reporting on Question 39a and 2,472 

reporting on Question 39b. See Tables 63 and 64. 

Q. 39a: Is mitigation (confining, slowing, etc.) of a developing major flood within your 

department’s responsibility? 

Q. 39b: If [mitigation (confining, slowing, etc.) of a developing major flood is within your 

department’s responsibility], how far would you have to go to obtain enough people with 

specialized training for this incident? 

It is not possible to determine from available data which departments declaring such 

incidents outside their responsibility have no nearby body of water capable of a major 

flood. 

Overall, 11% of departments reported they were responsible for such an incident and had 

enough specially trained people locally. 

109
Another 38% said this was within their responsibility but they would need specially 

trained people from outside their local area, and 52% said such incidents were outside of 

their responsibility. 

Table AC. Percentage of Departments by Whether Incident Type is Their 

Responsibility and Where They Obtain Necessary Specialized Equipment, 

by Size of Community (Q. 39c) 

Can the Department Handle 

Mitigation of a Developing Major Flood? 

Population Protected 

Responsible and 

Local Specialized 

Equipment 

Would Be Enough 

Responsible But Local 

Specialized Equipment 

Would Not Be Enough 

Incident 

Not Within 

Department’s 

Responsibility 

1,000,000 or more 53% 33% 13% 

500,000 to 999,999 24% 21% 55% 

250,000 to 499,999 15% 61% 24% 

100,000 to 249,999 7% 60% 33% 

50,000 to 99,999 9% 51% 40% 

25,000 to 49,999 8% 58% 34% 

10,000 to 24,999 7% 49% 44% 

5,000 to 9,999 8% 48% 44% 

2,500 to 4,999 9% 43% 48% 

Under 2,500 9% 31% 59% 

Total 9% 39% 52% 

The above projections are based on 4,622 departments reporting on Question 39a and 2,464 

reporting on Question 39c. See Tables 63 and 65. 

Q. 39a: Is mitigation (confining, slowing, etc.) of a developing major flood within your 

department’s responsibility? 

Q. 39c: If [mitigation (confining, slowing, etc.) of a developing major flood is within your 

department’s responsibility], how far would you have to go to obtain enough specialized 

equipment to handle this incident? 

Overall, 9% of departments reported they were responsible for such an incident and had 

enough specialized equipment locally. Another 39% said this was within their 

responsibility but they would need specialized equipment from outside of their local 

community. 

Overall, including departments which reported local personnel and equipment were 

enough, 18% of departments reported such an incident was within their responsibility and 

they had a written agreement for obtaining non-local resources to respond. Another 24% 

said this was within their responsibility and they had a plan but it wasn’t written, and 6% 

said they had no plan though such incidents were within their responsibility. 

110
Combined with the results on local resources, this suggests that, of the four reference 

major incidents included on the Needs Assessment Survey, mitigation of a major flood is 

the one that most combines a high percentage of departments with responsibility but 

without enough local specially trained people and/or enough local specialized equipment 

with a high percentage of departments with responsibility but without a written 

agreement for obtaining assistance of others. 

Table AD. Percentage of Departments by Whether Incident Type Is Their 

Responsibility and Type of Plan for Obtaining Assistance From Others, 

by Size of Community (Q. 39d) 

Can the Department Handle 

Mitigation of a Developing Major Flood? 

Population Protected 

Responsible 

With Written 

Agreement 

Responsible 

With Informal 

or Other Plan 

Responsible 

But With No 

Plan 

Incident 

Not Within 

Department’s 

Responsibility 

1,000,000 or more 87% 0% 0% 13% 

500,000 to 999,999 45% 0% 0% 55% 

250,000 to 499,999 54% 22% 0% 24% 

100,000 to 249,999 43% 20% 4% 33% 

50,000 to 99,999 37% 18% 5% 40% 

25,000 to 49,999 35% 26% 4% 34% 

10,000 to 24,999 22% 26% 8% 44% 

5,000 to 9,999 21% 27% 8% 44% 

2,500 to 4,999 17% 28% 7% 48% 

Under 2,500 15% 22% 4% 59% 

Total 18% 24% 6% 52% 

The above projections are based on 4,622 departments reporting on Question 39a and 2,422 

reporting on Question 39d. See Tables 63 and 66. 

Q. 39a: Is mitigation (confining, slowing, etc.) of a developing major flood within your 

department’s responsibility? 

Q. 39d: If [mitigation (confining, slowing, etc.) of a developing major flood is within your 

department’s responsibility], do you have a plan for obtaining assistance from others on this type 

of incident? 

111

113

Table 51 

Is Technical Rescue and EMS for a Building 

With 50 Occupants After Structural Collapse 

Within the Responsibility of Department? 

by Community Size 

(Q. 36a) 

 Yes No Total 

Population 

of Community

Number 

Depts Percent

Number 

Depts Percent

Number 

Depts Percent

1,000,000 or more 15 100.0% 0 0.0% 15 100.0% 

500,000 to 999,999 38 100.0 0 0.0 38 100.0 

250,000 to 499,999 52 96.3 2 3.7 54 100.0 

100,000 to 249,999 212 97.7 5 2.3 217 100.0 

50,000 to 99,999 431 96.2 17 3.8 448 100.0 

25,000 to 49,999 970 90.4 103 9.6 1,073 100.0 

10,000 to 24,999 2,528 86.0 411 14.0 2,939 100.0 

5,000 to 9,999 2,953 78.5 811 21.5 3,764 100.0 

2,500 to 4,999 3,424 70.3 1,444 29.7 4,868 100.0 

Under 2,500 7,323 53.3 6,427 46.7 13,750 100.0 

 Total 17,945 66.1 9,220 33.9 27,166 100.0 

Source: FEMA US Fire Administration 2005 

 Survey of the Needs of the US Fire Service 

The above projections are based on 4,661 departments reporting on Question 36a. 

Numbers may not add to totals due to rounding. 

Q. 36a: Is [technical rescue and EMS for a building with 50 occupants after structural 

collapse] within your department’s responsibility? 
Table 52 

For Departments Where Technical Rescue and EMS For a Building 

With 50 Occupants After Structural Collapse Is Within Their Responsibility, 

How Far Do They Have to Go to Obtain Sufficient People 

 With Specialized Training to Handle Such an Incident? 

by Community Size 

(Q. 36b) 

 Local Regional State National TotaPopulation of Community

Number 

Depts Percent

Number 

Depts Percent

Number 

Depts Percent

Number 

Depts Percent

Number 

Depts 

1,000,000 or more 11 73.3% 3 20.0% 1 6.7% 0 0.0% 15 

500,000 to 999,999 24 63.2 13 34.2 1 2.6 0 0.0 38 250,000 to 499,999 22 42.3 25 48.1 5 9.6 0 0.0 52 100,000 to 249,999 57 26.9 119 56.1 31 14.6 5 2.4 212 

50,000 to 99,999 85 19.7 255 58.9 84 19.5 7 1.6 431 25,000 to 49,999 135 13.9 607 62.6 213 22.0 15 1.5 970 10,000 to 24,999 292 11.5 1,552 61.4 654 25.9 30 1.2 2,528 

5,000 to 9,999 368 12.5 1,809 61.2 735 24.9 41 1.4 2,953 2,500 to 4,999 559 16.3 2,036 59.5 791 23.1 37 1.1 3,424 

Under 2,500 1,331 18.2 4,356 59.5 1,564 21.3 72 1.0 7,323 

Total 2,882 16.1 10,776 60.0 4,079 22.7 208 1.2 17,945 

Source: FEMA US Fire Administration 2005  Survey of the Needs of the US Fire Service The above projections are based on 3,548 departments reporting yes to Question 36a and also reporting on Question 36b. Numbers may not add to totals due to rounding. Q. 36b: If [technical rescue and EMS for a building with 50 occupants after structural collapse is within your department’s responsibility], how far would you have to go to obtain enough people with specialized training for this incident? 

114
Table 53 

For Departments Where Technical Rescue and EMS For a Building 

With 50 Occupants After Structural Collapse Is Within Their Responsibility, 

How Far Do They Have to Go to Obtain Sufficient 

Specialized Equipment to Handle Such an Incident? 

 by Community Size 

(Q. 36c) 

 Local Regional State National TotaPopulation of Community

1,000,000 or more 

Number 

Depts

13

Percent

86.7% 

Number 

Depts

1 

Percent

6.7% 

Number 

Depts

1 

Percent

6.7% 

Number 

Depts Percent

0 0.0% 

Number 

Depts

15

500,000 to 999,999 21 55.3 15 39.5 2 5.3 0 0.0 38 250,000 to 499,999 21 40.4 25 48.1 6 11.5 0 0.0 52 100,000 to 249,999 49 23.1 118 55.7 37 17.5 8 3.8 212 

50,000 to 99,999 73 16.9 247 57.3 100 23.2 11 2.5 431 25,000 to 49,999 138 14.2 561 57.8 251 25.9 20 2.0 970 10,000 to 24,999 275 10.9 1,430 56.6 745 29.5 78 3.0 2,528 

5,000 to 9,999 324 11.0 1,593 53.9 977 33.1 58 2.0 2,953 2,500 to 4,999 471 13.8 1,958 57.2 958 28.0 37 1.1 3,424 

Under 2,500 1,281 17.5 4,004 54.7 1,893 25.8 146 2.0 7,323 

Total 2,666 14.9 9,952 55.4 4,971 27.7 356 2.0 17,945 

Source: FEMA US Fire Administration 2005  Survey of the Needs of the US Fire Service The above projections are based on 3,534 departments reporting yes to Question 36a and also reporting on Question 36c. Numbers may not add to totals due to rounding. Q. 36c: If [technical rescue and EMS for a building with 50 occupants after structural collapse is within your department’s responsibility], how far would you have to go to obtain enough specialized equipment to handle this incident? 

115
116

Table 54 

For Departments Where Technical Rescue and EMS for a Building 

With 50 Occupants After Structural Collapse Is Within Their Responsibility, 

Do They Have a Plan for Obtaining Assistance From Others? 

by Community Size 

(Q. 36d) 

Yes – Written Yes – Yes – 

 Agreement Informal Other No TotaPopulation of Community

Number 

Depts Percent

Number 

Depts Percent

Number 

Depts Percent

Number 

Depts Percent

Number 

Depts 

1,000,000 or more 15 100.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 15 

500,000 to 999,999 32 84.2 4 10.5 2 5.3 0 0.0 38 250,000 to 499,999 47 90.4 4 7.7 1 1.9 0 0.0 52 100,000 to 249,999 147 69.3 46 21.7 10 4.7 9 4.2 212 

50,000 to 99,999 267 61.9 116 26.9 30 7.0 18 4.2 431 25,000 to 49,999 577 59.4 282 29.1 64 6.6 47 4.9 970 10,000 to 24,999 1,147 45.4 1,004 39.7 217 8.6 159 6.3 2,528 

5,000 to 9,999 1,261 42.7 1,167 39.5 233 7.9 292 9.9 2,953 2,500 to 4,999 1,199 35.0 1,516 44.3 322 9.4 387 11.3 3,424 

Under 2,500 2,461 33.6 3,168 43.3 692 9.5 1,002 13.7 7,323 

Total 7,152 39.8 7,307 40.7 1,572 8.8 1,915 10.7 17,945 

Source: FEMA US Fire Administration 2005  Survey of the Needs of the US Fire Service The above projections are based on 3,495 departments reporting yes to Question 36a and also reporting on Question 36d. Numbers may not add to totals due to rounding. Q. 36d: [If such incidents are within department responsibility] do you have a plan for obtaining assistance from others on rescue and EMS for a building with 50 occupants after structural collapse]? 
117

Table 55 

Is a Hazmat and EMS Incident Involving Chemical/Biological Agents 

and 10 Injuries Within the Responsibility of Department? 

by Community Size 

(Q. 37a) 

 Yes No Total 

Population 

of Community

Number 

Depts Percent

Number 

Depts Percent

Number 

Depts Percent

1,000,000 or more 15 100.0% 0 0.0% 15 100.0% 

500,000 to 999,999 37 96.4 1 3.6 38 100.0 

250,000 to 499,999 54 100.0 0 0.0 54 100.0 

100,000 to 249,999 212 97.7 5 2.3 217 100.0 

50,000 to 99,999 439 98.0 9 2.0 448 100.0 

25,000 to 49,999 985 91.8 88 8.2 1,073 100.0 

10,000 to 24,999 2,560 87.1 379 12.9 2,939 100.0 

5,000 to 9,999 2,970 78.9 794 21.1 3,764 100.0 

2,500 to 4,999 3,574 73.4 1,294 26.6 4,868 100.0 

Under 2,500 7,661 55.7 6,089 44.3 13,750 100.0 

 Total 18,507 68.1 8,659 31.9 27,166 100.0 

Source: FEMA US Fire Administration 2005 

 Survey of the Needs of the US Fire Service 

The above projections are based on 4,661 departments reporting on Question 37a. Numbers 

may not add to totals due to rounding. 

Q. 37a: Is [hazmat and EMS for an incident involving chemical/biological agents and 10 

injuries] within your department’s responsibility? 
Table 56 

For Departments Where a Hazmat and EMS Incident 

Involving Chemical/Biological Agents and 10 Injuries Is Within Their Responsibility 

How Far Do They Have to Go to Obtain Sufficient People 

 With Specialized Training to Handle Such an Incident? 

by Community Size 

(Q. 37b) 

Local Regional State National Tota

Population of Community

Number Depts Percent

Number Depts Percent

Number Depts Percent

Number Depts Percent

Number Depts Pe

1,000,000 or more 14 93.4% 1 6.7% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 15 1

500,000 to 999,999 29 78.4 7 18.9 1 2.7 0 0.0 37 1250,000 to 499,999 41 75.9 12 22.2 1 1.9 0 0.0 54 1100,000 to 249,999 105 49.5 94 44.3 10 4.7 3 1.4 212 1

50,000 to 99,999 158 36.0 231 52.6 44 10.0 6 1.4 439 125,000 to 49,999 260 26.4 597 60.6 120 12.2 7 0.8 985 110,000 to 24,999 469 18.3 1,618 63.2 449 17.5 24 0.9 2,560 1

5,000 to 9,999 499 16.8 1,760 59.3 694 23.4 17 0.6 2,970 12,500 to 4,999 598 16.7 2,060 57.6 868 24.3 48 1.3 3,574 1

Under 2,500 1,018 13.3 4,536 59.2 2,021 26.4 87 1.1 7,661 1 Total 3,191 17.2 10,915 59.0 4,209 22.7 191 1.0 18,507 1Source: FEMA US Fire Administration 2005  Survey of the Needs of the US Fire Service The above projections are based on 3,619 departments reporting yes to Question 37a and also reporting on Question 37b. Numbers may not add to totals due to rounding. Q. 37b: If [hazmat and EMS for an incident involving chemical/biological agents and 10 injuries is within your department’s responsibility], how far would you have to go to obtain enough people with specialized training for this incident? 

118
Table 57 

For Departments Where a Hazmat and EMS Incident 

Involving Chemical/Biological Agents and 10 Injuries Is Within Their Responsibility 

How Far Do They Have to Go to Obtain Sufficient 

Specialized Equipment to Handle Such An Incident? 

by Community Size 

(Q. 37c) 

Local Regional State National Tota

Population of Community

Number Depts Percent

Number Depts Percent

Number Depts Percent

Number Depts Percent

Number Depts Pe

1,000,000 or more 14 93.3% 1 6.7% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 15 1

500,000 to 999,999 29 78.4 7 18.9 1 2.7 0 0.0 37 1250,000 to 499,999 41 75.9 12 22.2 1 1.9 0 0.0 54 1100,000 to 249,999 103 48.6 98 46.2 8 3.8 4 1.9 212 1

50,000 to 99,999 137 31.2 243 55.3 52 11.8 8 1.8 439 125,000 to 49,999 254 25.8 568 57.8 148 15.0 15 1.5 985 110,000 to 24,999 426 16.6 1,547 60.4 564 22.0 24 0.9 2,560 1

5,000 to 9,999 420 14.1 1,757 59.2 748 25.2 46 1.5 2,970 12,500 to 4,999 512 14.3 2,006 56.1 987 27.6 69 1.9 3,574 1

Under 2,500 813 10.6 4,382 57.2 2,351 30.7 116 1.5 7,661 1 Total 2,746 14.8 10,621 57.4 4,859 26.2 281 1.5 18,507 1Source: FEMA US Fire Administration 2005  Survey of the Needs of the US Fire Service The above projections are based on 3,609 departments reporting yes to Question 37a and also reporting on Question 37c. Numbers may not add to totals due to rounding. Q. 37c: If [hazmat and EMS for an incident involving chemical/biological agents and 10 injuries is within your department’s responsibility], how far would you have to go to obtain enough specialized equipment to handle this incident? 

119
120

Table 58 

For Departments Where a Hazmat and EMS Incident 

Involving Chemical/Biological Agents and 10 Injuries Is Within Their Responsibility 

Do They Have a Plan for Obtaining Assistance From Others? 

by Community Size 

(Q. 37d) 

Yes – Written Yes – Yes – 

Agreement Informal Other No Tota

Population of Community

Number Depts Percent

Number Depts Percent

Number Depts Percent

Number Depts Percent

Number Depts P

1,000,000 or more 14 93.3% 1 6.7% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 15 1

500,000 to 999,999 34 91.9 3 8.1 0 0.0 0 0.0 37 1250,000 to 499,999 49 90.7 3 5.6 2 3.7 0 0.0 54 1100,000 to 249,999 171 80.7 34 16.0 4 1.9 2 0.9 212 1

50,000 to 99,999 336 76.5 75 17.1 25 5.7 3 0.7 439 125,000 to 49,999 725 73.6 205 20.9 37 3.8 17 1.8 985 110,000 to 24,999 1,339 52.3 886 34.6 237 9.3 98 3.8 2,560 1

5,000 to 9,999 1,378 46.4 1,176 39.6 232 7.8 185 6.2 2,970 12,500 to 4,999 1,410 39.4 1,528 42.8 313 8.8 324 9.0 3,574 1

Under 2,500 2,578 33.7 3,794 49.5 469 6.1 821 10.7 7,661 1 Total 8,033 43.4 7,705 41.6 1,318 7.1 1,451 7.8 18,507 1Source: FEMA US Fire Administration 2005  Survey of the Needs of the US Fire Service The above projections are based on 3,570 departments reporting yes to Question 37a and also reporting on Question 37d. Numbers may not add to totals due to rounding. Q. 37d: [If such incidents are within department responsibility] do you have a plan for obtaining assistance from others on and EMS for an incident involving chemical/biological agents and 10 injuries]? 
121

Table 59 

Is a Wildland/Urban Interface Fire Affecting 500 Acres 

Within the Responsibility of Department? 

by Community Size 

(Q. 38a) 

 Yes No Total 

Population 

of Community

Number 

Depts Percent

Number 

Depts Percent

Number 

Depts Percent

1,000,000 or more 12 80.0% 3 20.0% 15 100.0%

500,000 to 999,999 22 57.9 16 42.1 38 100.0 

250,000 to 499,999 38 70.4 16 29.6 54 100.0 

100,000 to 249,999 130 59.9 87 40.1 217 100.0 

50,000 to 99,999 204 45.5 244 54.5 448 100.0 

25,000 to 49,999 570 53.1 503 46.9 1,073 100.0 

10,000 to 24,999 1,773 60.3 1,166 39.7 2,939 100.0 

5,000 to 9,999 2,649 70.4 1,115 29.6 3,764 100.0 

2,500 to 4,999 3,654 75.1 1,214 24.9 4,868 100.0 

Under 2,500 10,888 79.2 2,862 20.8 13,750 100.0 

 Total 19,940 73.4 7,226 26.6 27,166 100.0 

Source: FEMA US Fire Administration 2005 

 Survey of the Needs of the US Fire Service 

The above projections are based on 4,658 departments reporting on Question 38a. Numbers 

may not add to totals due to rounding. 

Q. 38a: Is [a wildland/urban interface fire affecting 500 acres] within your department’s 

responsibility? 
Table 60 

For Departments Where a Wildland/Urban 

Interface Fire Affecting 500 Acres Is Within Their Responsibility 

How Far Do They Have to Go to Obtain Sufficient People 

 With Specialized Training to Handle Such an Incident? 

by Community Size 

(Q. 38b) 

Local Regional State National Tota

Population of Community

Number Depts Percen

Number Depts Percent

Number Depts Percent

Number Depts Percent

Number Depts Pe

1,000,000 or more 4 33.3% 8 66.7% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 12 1

500,000 to 999,999 9 40.9 9 40.9 4 18.2 0 0.0 22 1250,000 to 499,999 13 34.2 16 42.1 9 23.7 0 0.0 38 1100,000 to 249,999 39 30.0 63 48.5 27 20.8 1 0.8 130 1

50,000 to 99,999 61 29.9 98 48.0 43 21.1 2 1.0 204 125,000 to 49,999 133 23.3 260 45.6 165 28.9 12 2.1 570 110,000 to 24,999 474 26.8 838 47.3 434 24.5 27 1.5 1,773 1

5,000 to 9,999 797 30.1 1,208 45.6 623 23.5 21 0.8 2,649 12,500 to 4,999 1,174 32.1 1,564 42.8 869 23.8 47 1.3 3,564 1

Under 2,500 3,940 36.2 4,885 44.9 1,919 17.6 145 1.3 10,888 1 Total 6,645 33.3 8,948 44.9 4,092 20.5 256 1.3 19,940 1Source: FEMA US Fire Administration 2005  Survey of the Needs of the US Fire Service The above projections are based on 3,128 departments reporting yes to Question 38a and also reporting on Question 38b. Numbers may not add to totals due to rounding. Q. 38b: If [wildland/urban interface fire affecting 500 acres is within your department’s responsibility], how far would you hato obtain enough people with specialized training for this incident? 

122
Table 61 

For Departments Where a Wildland/Urban 

Interface Fire Affecting 500 Acres Is Within Their Responsibility 

How Far Do They Have to Go to Obtain Sufficient 

Specialized Equipment to Handle Such An Incident? 

by Community Size 

(Q. 38c) 

Local Regional State National Tota

Population of Community

Number Depts Percent

Number Depts Percent

Number Depts Percent

Number Depts Percent

Number Depts Pe

1,000,000 or more 4 33.3% 8 66.7% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 12 1

500,000 to 999,999 7 31.8 11 50.0 4 18.2 0 0.0 22 1250,000 to 499,999 11 28.9 15 39.5 12 31.6 0 0.0 38 1100,000 to 249,999 27 20.8 70 53.8 30 23.1 4 3.1 130 1

50,000 to 99,999 54 26.5 101 49.5 48 23.5 1 0.5 204 125,000 to 49,999 114 20.0 260 45.6 183 32.1 13 2.3 570 110,000 to 24,999 427 24.1 811 45.7 505 28.5 30 1.7 1,773 1

5,000 to 9,999 648 24.5 1,188 44.8 776 29.3 37 1.4 2,649 12,500 to 4,999 982 26.9 1,558 42.6 1,056 28.9 58 1.6 3,654 1

Under 2,500 3,513 32.3 5,029 46.2 2,186 20.1 160 1.5 10,888 1 Total 5,787 29.0 9,048 45.4 4,801 24.1 304 1.5 19,940 1Source: FEMA US Fire Administration 2005  Survey of the Needs of the US Fire Service The above projections are based on 3,122 departments reporting yes to Question 38a and also reporting on Question 38c. Numbers may not add to totals due to rounding. Q. 38c: If [wildland/urban interface fire affecting 500 acres is within your department’s responsibility], how far would you hato obtain enough specialized equipment to handle this incident? 

123
Table 62 

For Departments Where a Wildland/Urban 

Interface Fire Affecting 500 Acres Is Within Their Responsibility 

Do They Have a Plan for Obtaining Assistance From Others? 

by Community Size 

(Q. 38d) 

Yes – Written Yes – Yes – 

Agreement Informal Other No Tota

Population of Community

Number Depts Percent

Number Depts Percent

Number Depts Percent

Number Depts Percent

Number Depts P

1,000,000 or more 11 91.7% 0 0.0% 1 8.3% 0 0.0% 12 1

500,000 to 999,999 21 95.5 1 4.5 0 0.0 0 0.0 22 1250,000 to 499,999 31 81.6 6 15.8 1 2.6 0 0.0 38 1100,000 to 249,999 102 78.5 22 16.9 3 2.3 3 2.3 130 1

50,000 to 99,999 145 71.1 50 24.5 6 2.9 3 1.5 204 125,000 to 49,999 391 68.6 140 24.6 22 3.9 17 3.0 570 110,000 to 24,999 1,059 59.7 528 29.8 122 6.9 64 3.6 1,773 1

5,000 to 9,999 1,539 58.1 880 33.2 138 5.2 92 3.5 2,649 12,500 to 4,999 1,894 51.8 1,359 37.2 235 6.4 166 4.5 3,654 1

Under 2,500 5,678 52.2 4,098 37.6 761 7.0 351 3.2 10,888 1 Total 10,870 54.5 7,084 35.5 1,289 6.5 696 3.5 19,940 1Source: FEMA US Fire Administration 2005  Survey of the Needs of the US Fire Service The above projections are based on 3,099 departments reporting yes to Question 38a and also reporting on Question 38d. Numbers may not add to totals due to rounding. Q. 38d: [If such incidents are within department responsibility] do you have a plan for obtaining assistance from others on 

[wildland/urban interface fire affecting 500 acres]? 

124
Table 63 

Is Mitigation of a Developing Major Flood 

Within the Responsibility of Department? 

by Community Size 

(Q. 39a) 

Yes No Total 

Population of Community

Number Depts Percent

Number Depts Percent

Number Depts Percent

1,000,000 or more 13 86.7% 2 13.3% 15 100.0% 

500,000 to 999,999 17 44.7 21 55.3 38 100.0 250,000 to 499,999 41 75.9 13 24.1 54 100.0 100,000 to 249,999 145 66.8 72 33.2 217 100.0 

50,000 to 99,999 268 59.8 180 40.2 448 100.0 25,000 to 49,999 706 65.8 367 34.2 1,073 100.0 10,000 to 24,999 1,642 55.9 1,297 44.1 2,939 100.0 

5,000 to 9,999 1,119 56.3 1,645 43.7 3,764 100.0 2,500 to 4,999 2,529 52.0 2,339 48.0 4,868 100.0 

Under 2,500 5,605 40.8 8,145 59.2 13,750 100.0  Total 13,084 48.2 14,082 51.8 27,166 100.0 Source: FEMA US Fire Administration 2005  Survey of the Needs of the US Fire Service The above projections are based on 4,622 departments reporting yes on Question 39a. Numbers may not add to totals du

Q. 39a: Is [mitigation (confining, slowing, etc.) of a developing major flood] within your department’s responsibility? 

125 
Table 64 

For Departments Where Mitigation of a Major Flood Is Within Their Responsibility 

How Far Do They Have to Go to Obtain Sufficient People 

 With Specialized Training to Handle Such an Incident? 

by Community Size 

(Q. 39b) 

Local Regional State National Tota

Population of Community

Number Depts Percent

Number Depts Percent

Number Depts Percent

Number Depts Percent

Number Depts Pe

1,000,000 or more 8 61.5% 5 38.5% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 13 1

500,000 to 999,999 9 52.9 5 29.4 2 11.8 1 5.9 17 1250,000 to 499,999 10 24.4 12 29.3 14 34.1 5 12.2 41 1100,000 to 249,999 24 16.6 65 44.8 46 31.7 10 6.9 145 1

50,000 to 99,999 44 16.4 106 39.6 106 39.6 12 4.5 268 125,000 to 49,999 101 14.3 331 46.9 244 34.6 30 4.2 706 110,000 to 24,999 262 16.0 685 41.7 635 38.9 60 3.7 1,642 1

5,000 to 9,999 387 18.3 887 41.9 765 36.1 80 3.8 2,119 12,500 to 4,999 541 21.4 1,066 42.1 827 32.7 95 3.8 2,529 1

Under 2,500 1,493 26.7 2,485 44.3 1,464 26.1 163 2.9 5,605 1 Total 2,879 22.0 5,645 43.1 4,104 31.4 457 3.5 13,085 1Source: FEMA US Fire Administration 2005  Survey of the Needs of the US Fire Service The above projections are based on 2,472 departments reporting yes to Question 39a and also reporting on Question 39b. Numbers may not add to totals due to rounding. Q. 39b: If [mitigation (confining, slowing, etc.) of a developing major flood is within your department’s responsibility], how fa

you have to go to obtain enough people with specialized training for this incident? 

126
Table 65 

For Departments Where Mitigation of a Major Flood Is Within Their Responsibility 

How Far Do They Have to Go to Obtain Sufficient 

Specialized Equipment to Handle Such An Incident? 

by Community Size 

(Q. 39c) 

Local Regional State National Tota

Population of Community

Number Depts Percent

Number Depts Percent

Number Depts Percent

Number Depts Percent

Number Depts Pe

1,000,000 or more 8 61.5% 5 38.5% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 13 1

500,000 to 999,999 9 52.9 2 11.8 5 29.4 1 5.9 17 1250,000 to 499,999 8 19.5 12 29.3 16 39.0 5 12.2 41 1100,000 to 249,999 15 10.3 67 46.2 51 35.2 12 8.3 145 1

50,000 to 99,999 40 14.9 106 39.6 106 39.6 16 6.0 268 125,000 to 49,999 87 12.4 297 42.0 282 39.9 40 6.7 706 110,000 to 24,999 212 12.9 668 40.7 684 41.7 78 4.7 1,642 1

5,000 to 9,999 317 14.9 853 40.2 844 39.8 106 5.0 2,119 12,500 to 4,999 447 17.7 1,012 40.0 969 38.3 101 4.0 2,529 1

Under 2,500 1,283 22.9 2,449 43.7 1,696 30.3 177 3.2 5,605 1 Total 2,427 18.5 5,469 41.8 4,654 35.6 535 4.1 13,085 1Source: FEMA US Fire Administration 2005  Survey of the Needs of the US Fire Service The above projections are based on 2,464 departments reporting yes to Question 39a and also reporting on Question 39c. Numbers may not add to totals due to rounding. Q. 39c: If [mitigation (confining, slowing, etc.) of a developing major flood is within your department’s responsibility], how fayou have to go to obtain enough specialized equipment to handle this incident? 

127
128

Table 66 

For Departments Where Mitigation of a Major Flood Is Within Their Responsibility 

Do They Have a Plan for Obtaining Assistance From Others? 

by Community Size 

(Q. 39d) 

Yes – Written Yes – Yes – 

Agreement Informal Other No Tota

Population of Community

Number Depts Percent

Number Depts Percent

Number Depts Percent

Number Depts Percent

Number Depts Pe

1,000,000 or more 13 100.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 13 1

500,000 to 999,999 17 100.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 17 1250,000 to 499,999 29 70.7 10 24.4 2 4.9 0 0.0 41 1100,000 to 249,999 94 64.8 39 26.9 4 2.8 8 5.5 145 1

50,000 to 99,999 165 61.6 69 25.7 12 4.5 22 8.2 268 125,000 to 49,999 380 53.8 243 34.4 35 5.0 48 6.8 706 110,000 to 24,999 649 39.5 635 38.7 137 8.3 222 13.5 1,642 1

5,000 to 9,999 802 37.8 874 41.3 158 7.4 286 13.5 2,119 12,500 to 4,999 819 32.4 1,193 47.2 159 6.3 357 14.1 2,529 1

Under 2,500 1,933 35.6 2,593 46.3 420 7.5 599 10.7 5,605 1 Total 4,959 37.9 5,656 43.2 927 7.1 1,543 11.8 13,085 1Source: FEMA US Fire Administration 2005  Survey of the Needs of the US Fire Service The above projections are based on 2,422 departments reporting yes to Question 39a and also reporting on Question 39d. Numbers may not add to totals due to rounding. Q. 39d: [If such incidents are within department responsibility] do you have a plan for obtaining assistance from others on 

[mitigation (confining, slowing, etc.) of a developing major flood]? 
129 

NEW AND EMERGING TECHNOLOGY 

Tables 67-70 (pp. 131-134) address the ownership and planned purchase of four types of 

relatively new technologies. 

A majority (55%) of fire departments now own thermal imaging cameras, and another 

one-fourth have plans to acquire them. (See Table 67.) The 2001 survey reported 24% 

of departments had such cameras, and the majority of those without such cameras said 

they had no plans to acquire one. 

Only one department in 17 has mobile data terminals (6% of departments, up from 4% in 

2001), though the majority of fire departments protecting at least 100,000 population 

have them. Most departments without mobile data terminals (69% overall) still have no 

plans to acquire them. (See Table 68.) 

Only one department in 31 has advanced personnel location equipment, though onefourth of the fire departments protecting communities of at least 500,000 population have 

them. Plans to acquire them vary considerably by department size, but three-fourths of 

departments overall have no plans. The survey did not provide details on what 

constituted advanced personnel location equipment, which raises the possibility that 

departments differed in their views of the kind of equipment that would qualify as such. 

(See Table 69.) 

Only one department in 18 has equipment to collect chemical or biological samples for 

remote analysis, though most of the fire departments protecting communities of at least 

100,000 population have such equipment. Only one department in 14 overall has plans to 

acquire such equipment. (See Table 70.) 
130 
Table 67 

Plans to Acquire Thermal Imaging Cameras 

by Community Size 

(Q. 40) 

Plan to Have Plan to Have No Plans

Now Own in One Year in Five Years to Acquire Total 

Population of Community

Number 

Depts

Percent

Number 

Depts

Percent

Number 

Depts 

Percent

Number 

Depts 

Percent

Number 

Depts

Percent

1,000,000 or more 15 100.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 15 

500,000 to 999,999 37 97.4 0 0.0 1 2.6 0 0.0 38 250,000 to 499,999 53 98.1 1 1.9 0 0.0 0 0.0 54 100,000 to 249,999 213 98.2 1 0.5 3 1.4 0 0.0 217 

50,000 to 99,999 434 96.9 9 2.0 2 0.5 3 0.7 448 25,000 to 49,999 1,044 97.3 7 0.7 15 1.4 7 0.7 1,073 10,000 to 24,999 2,604 88.6 116 4.0 126 4.3 93 3.2 2,939 

5,000 to 9,999 2,836 75.4 275 7.3 402 10.7 250 6.7 3,764 2,500 to 4,999 2,818 57.9 413 8.5 988 20.3 648 13.3 4,868 

Under 2,500 4,798 34.9 845 6.2 3,452 25.1 4,655 33.9 13,750 

Total 14,852 54.7 1,668 6.1 4,989 18.4 5,657 20.8 27,166 

Source: FEMA US Fire Administration 2005  Survey of the Needs of the US Fire Service The above projections are based on 4,681 departments reporting on Question 40. Numbers may not add to totals due to rQ. 40: Do you have any [thermal imaging cameras] now or plan to acquire any? 

131 
Table 68 

Plans to Acquire Mobile Data Terminals 

by Community Size 

(Q. 41) 

Plan to Have Plan to Have No Plans

Now Own in One Year in Five Years to Acquire Total 

Population of Community

Number 

Depts Percent

Number 

Depts Percent

Number 

Depts Percent

Number 

Depts Percent

Number 

Depts 

1,000,000 or more 14 93.3% 1 6.7% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 15 

500,000 to 999,999 31 81.6 1 2.6 6 15.8 0 0.0 38 250,000 to 499,999 30 55.6 11 20.4 12 22.2 1 1.9 54 100,000 to 249,999 118 54.4 34 15.7 46 21.2 19 8.8 217 

50,000 to 99,999 186 41.5 91 20.3 111 24.8 60 13.4 448 25,000 to 49,999 240 22.3 200 18.7 398 37.1 235 21.9 1,073 10,000 to 24,999 337 11.5 417 14.2 1,000 34.0 1,186 40.4 2,939 

5,000 to 9,999 220 5.9 337 8.9 1,047 27.8 2,160 57.4 3,764 2,500 to 4,999 158 3.2 268 5.5 921 18.9 3,521 72.3 4,868 

Under 2,500 273 2.0 331 2.4 1,697 12.3 11,449 83.3 13,750 

Total 1,606 5.9 1,691 6.2 5,237 19.3 18,632 68.6 27,166 

Source: FEMA US Fire Administration 2005  Survey of the Needs of the US Fire Service The above projections are based on 4,653 departments reporting on Question 41. Numbers may not add to totals due to rQ. 41: Do you have any [mobile data terminals] now or plan to acquire any? 

132
Table 69 

Plans to Acquire Advanced Personnel Location Equipment 

by Community Size 

(Q. 42) 

Plan to Have Plan to Have No Plans

Now Own in One Year in Five Years to Acquire Total 

Population of Community

Number 

Depts Percent

Number 

Depts Percent

Number 

Depts Percent

Number 

Depts Percent

Number 

Depts 

1,000,000 or more 4 26.7% 3 20.0% 3 20.0% 5 33.3% 15 

500,000 to 999,999 9 23.7 0 0.0 10 26.3 19 76.3 38 250,000 to 499,999 8 14.8 7 13.0 13 24.1 26 48.1 54 100,000 to 249,999 29 13.4 16 7.4 67 30.9 105 48.4 217 

50,000 to 99,999 32 7.1 25 5.6 153 34.2 238 53.1 448 25,000 to 49,999 62 5.8 60 5.6 326 30.3 626 58.3 1,073 10,000 to 24,999 139 4.7 115 3.9 807 27.5 1,879 63.9 2,939 

5,000 to 9,999 130 3.4 134 3.6 949 25.2 2,551 67.8 3,764 2,500 to 4,999 143 3.0 133 2.7 893 18.3 3,699 76.0 4,868 

Under 2,500 306 2.2 350 2.5 2,068 15.0 11,026 80.2 13,750 

Total 861 3.2 842 3.1 5,290 19.5 20,173 74.3 27,166 

Source: FEMA US Fire Administration 2005  Survey of the Needs of the US Fire Service The above projections are based on 4,593 departments reporting on Question 42. Numbers may not add to totals due to rQ. 42: Do you have any [advanced personnel location equipment] now or plan to acquire any? 

133
134

Table 70 

Plans to Acquire Equipment to Collect Chemical/Biological Samples for Ana

by Community Size 

(Q. 43) 

Plan to Have Plan to Have No Plans

Now Own in One Year in Five Years to Acquire Tota

Population of Community

Number 

Depts

Percent

Number 

Depts 

Percent

Number 

Depts 

Percent

Number 

Depts

Percent

Number 

Depts

Percent

1,000,000 or more 15 100.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 15 

500,000 to 999,999 35 92.1 2 5.3 0 0..0 1 2.6 38 250,000 to 499,999 43 79.6 2 3.7 4 7.4 5 9.3 54 100,000 to 249,999 132 60.8 16 7.4 15 6.9 54 24.9 217 

50,000 to 99,999 222 49.6 20 4.5 40 8.9 166 37.1 448 25,000 to 49,999 299 27.9 74 6.9 96 9.0 603 56.2 1,073 10,000 to 24,999 340 11.6 94 3.2 296 10.1 2,209 75.2 2,939 

5,000 to 9,999 147 3.9 75 2.0 428 11.4 3,114 82.7 3,764 2,500 to 4,999 100 2.1 58 1.2 269 5.5 4,441 91.2 4,868 

Under 2,500 175 1.3 29 0.2 655 4.8 12,892 93.8 13,750 

Total 1,508 5.5 371 1.4 1,801 6.6 23,485 86.5 27,166 

Source: FEMA US Fire Administration 2005  Survey of the Needs of the US Fire Service The above projections are based on 4,612 departments reporting on Question 43. Numbers may not add to totals due to rQ. 43: Do you have any [equipment to collect chem/bio samples for analysis elsewhere] now or plan to acquire any? 
APPENDIX: SURVEY FORM 

The next four pages contain the Needs Assessment Survey form. 

It was printed on legal size paper (8-1/2” x 14”) but has been shrunk to fit letter size 

paper here. 

135