FA-116/July1992

A VIEW OF MANAGEMENT IN

FIRE INVESTIGATION UNITS

VOLUME II

ISSUES AND TRENDS

FOR THE ’90s

FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY.

UNITED STATES FIRE ADMINISTRATION
This document was scanned from hard copy to portable document format (PDF)

and edited to 99.5% accuracy. Some formatting errors not detected during the

optical character recognition process may appear.
A VIEW OF MANAGEMENT IN

FIRE INVESTIGATION UNITS

VOLUME II

Issues & Trends

for the 90’s

July 1992

This document produced by Tri-Data Corp. under Contract Number

EMW-90-C-3252. The opinions expressed in this document do not

necessarily reflect the positions of the United States Fire Administration

or the Tri-Data Corporation.
TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY i

FOREWORD -- CURRENT FIRE AND ARSON INVESTIGATION

PROJECTS OF THE U.S. FIRE ADMINISTRATION

1

Location of Project Sites 4

CHAPTER ONE -- BACKGROUND ON THE PROJECT

Project History

Site Selection Process

Methodology for Technical Assistance

Attachments

5

5

6

7

Information Background Sheet for Candidate Sites

Technical Assistance Plan -- Arson Unit Management

CHAPTER TWO -- OVERVIEW OF PARTICIPATING SITES 9

Figure 1: Comparison of Population

Figure 2: Comparison of Jurisdiction Type

Figure 3: Comparison of Geographic Location

Figure 4: Comparison of Full-Time vs Part-Time Investigators

Figure 5: Project Sites: Basic Profile

Figure 6: Project Sites: Outcome of Incendiary Cases

9

9

10

10

12

14

CHAPTER THREE -- POSITIVE FEATURES AND COMMON

STRENGTHS 15

Common Operational and Management Strengths 15

Snapshot of Selected Strengths from Each Site 17

Notable Programs and Procedures 21

1. Gainesville’s Standards for Investigations 21

2. Aurora’s Case Prioritization System 22

3. Pleasantville‘s Prosecutor Support 24

4. Garland’s Standard Operating Procedures 25

5. The Category Reporting System 25

CHAPTER FOUR -- COMMON PROBLEMS WITH FIRE INVESTIGATION

MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONS 33

Fire Investigation Data and Data Management 33

Lack of Central Management or Clear Coordination 34

Case Review and Quality Control 34
Workload Balance 35

Cooperation from Prosecuting Attorney 35

Juvenile Education and Intervention Programs 35

Training for Suppression Forces 36

Weapons and Power of Arrest 36

Written Standard Operating Procedures 37

CHAPTER FIVE -- IMPACT OF THE PROJECT’S MANAGEMENT

ASSISTANCE

Discussion

Summary of the Project’s Impact

Investigation Unit

Data and Report Management

Administration

Inter-Agency Coordination

Arson Prevention

Outcomes

Quotes from Local and State Participants

Key Results Site-By-Site

Attachment

Impact Assessment Form

38

38

39

40

4 2

43

44

45

46

47

50
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The United States’ Fire Administration and TriData Corporation of Arlington, Virginia

wish to thank the individuals we interviewed and with whom we worked in the fifteen project

sites. The candor and cooperation of the local and State officials made it possible to carry

out an objective assessment of how fire investigation is being managed, where help is needed

and what innovative strategies are being employed. The sites participating in this project

were: Gainesville, Florida; Kitsap County, Washington; Norfolk, Virginia; Asheville, North

Carolina; Mohave County, Arizona; Pleasantville, New Jersey; Imperial County, California;

Tennessee State Arson Unit; Aurora, Colorado; Baltimore County, Maryland; Humboldt

County, California; Columbia, South Carolina; Washington, D.C.; Nevada State Arson Unit;

and Garland, Texas. The United States Fire Administration/TriData project team included

the following individuals:

Tom Minnich - USFA Project Officer

Hollis Stambaugh - TriData Project Manager

TriData Consultants

Randolph Kirby -

Richard Crispen -

Daniel Carpenter -

Jack Yates

Richard Campbell -

Alexandria, Virginia

San Francisco, California

Charlotte, North Carolina

Broken Arrow, Oklahoma

Union, South Carolina

Darlene Harris served as the Project Secretary and TriData’s Arnold Phillips and

Carolyn Perroni assisted with the Final Report.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Fifteen fire investigation agencies from Maryland to Washington participated in a

U.S. Fire Administration project that provided management assistance on fire and arson

investigation. Earlier research funded by the U.S. Fire Administration indicated that many

local and state agencies responsible for arson control wanted hands-on assistance in defining

a better system for investigating and prosecuting incendiary fires. Many sites responded to

the U.S. Fire Administration’s invitation for applications and ultimately the following fifteen

were chosen:

Asheville, North Carolina

Aurora, Colorado

Baltimore County, Maryland

Columbia, South Carolina

Gainesville, Florida

Garland, Texas

Humboldt County, California

Imperial County, California

Kitsap County, Washington

Mohave County, Arizona

Nevada State Arson Unit

Norfolk, Virginia

Pleasantville, New Jersey

Tennessee State Arson Unit

Washington, D.C.

TriData Corporation of Arlington, as the contractor for the project, conducted

management “audits” for each of the sites and prepared individualized reports documenting

strengths and problem areas as well as what measures were recommended to improve overall

investigation procedures and capabilities, and to enhance coordination among investigation

agencies.

i
Noteworthy among the positive features found in the majority of sites were the

following strengths:

Good Leadership - Senior officers, department heads and elected officials

exhibited a strong commitment to improving arson control methods.

Qualified Investigators - The vast majority of investigators in the fifteen sites

were conducting good investigations and documenting cases well.

Investigators’ training and credentials were good.

Intra- and Inter-Departmental Cooperation -- Many of the sites enjoyed good

cooperation among the agencies having a role in the investigation and

prosecution of intentionally set fires. However, where such cooperation was

not evident, fire investigation suffered noticeably.

Facilities and Equipment - Investigation tools, office spaces, and computers

were generally adequate among the majority of sites.

The most common problems that were discovered with fire investigation management

and operations were:

Inadequate fire investigation data and data management.

Lack of central management or clear coordination among investigation

agencies.

Insufficient case review and quality control.

ii
Problems with workload balance -- too many cases per investigator for the

most part; too few cases in one case.

Inadequate level of cooperation and involvement from prosecuting attorney.

Insufficient juvenile education and intervention programs.

Legal and policy problems pertaining to weapons and power of arrest.

Gaps in adequate first-due company reporting to the investigator.

Poorly documented standard procedures.

Evaluations from the sites as to the value and impact of this technical assistance

clearly indicated that the assistance was highly successful in identifying solutions, and that

most of the sites quickly began implementing the recommendations. Changes in policy and

procedures were reported as early as one or two weeks following site visits.

iii
FOREWORD

Current Fire and Arson Investigation Projects

of the United States Fire Administration

“Arson is one of America’s largest, deadliest and most expensive fire problems. In

the NFIRS (National Fire Incident Reporting System) metropolitan departments, it is THE

deadliest and most expensive fire problem they face,” so states the recent United States Fire

Administration report, Arson in America, A Profile of 1989 NFIRS.

The United States Fire Administration (USFA) has been responding to the ongoing

problem of arson that persists in not just our big cities, but in smaller towns and rural areas

as well. For many years, USFA has conducted research programs and provided technical

assistance on the subject of arson. USFA also works closely with other Federal agencies and

with such organizations as the International Association of Arson Investigators, the National

Fire Protection Association and the National Association of State Fire Marshals to address

trends in arson and improve methods for investigating and prosecuting this crime. A sample

of current projects includes:

Update of Arson Information Management System (A.I.M.S.) -- This is a

computer software system designed to collect arson investigation case data and

produce special reports. A new, improved version of A.I.M.S. software is

now available. The program is more user-friendly and has been designed with

input from over 50 field investigators. Copies are available free from USFA.

Forum of Arson Investigators -- Periodically USFA convenes a forum on

arson and invites investigators from around the country to share their views

and concerns on arson.

1
Community-based anti-arson programs -- Every year USFA offers small

grants to non-profit community groups engaged in arson prevention and

control.

Arson Resource Center - This data and information center offers USFA

publications and copies of journal articles (past and present) on arson, and

includes on-line access to materials by way of an electronic bulletin board.

Publications - Recent publications include the “Curious Rids” public

education campaign lot, a Field Index Directory, a Fire Investigations Training

and Publications Inventory and a Fire Investigations Tools, Equipment and

Techniques Guide, which are all available free from USFA.

Vehicle Fire Investigation -- In this project USFA is creating a user’s guide

and videotape on the “how to’s” of investigating vehicle fires.

Juvenile Firesetter Counseling - USFA’s current program on this subject is

being conducted jointly with the U.S. Department of Justice and is a multiyear effort to identify the best elements of existing programs, create a model,

test the model and implement and evaluate the program in selected sites. Also

available from USFA is the three volume series of juvenile firesetter

counseling manuals that have been very popular for several years.

Fire Investigation Management Assistance -- Local and state arson units

receive in-depth management reviews and technical assistance through this

project. (The subject of this report.)
Further information on the projects listed above can be obtained by contacting:

Mr. Tom Minnich

Project Officer

United States Fire Administration

16825 S. Seton Avenue, Room 311

Emmitsburg, Maryland 21727

3
LOCATION OF PROJECT SITES
Project History

CHAPTER ONE

BACKGROUND OF THE PROJECT

Various local and state agencies have been receiving assistance from the United States

Fire Administration in examining their efforts to control arson and in identifying how they

can improve their operation and programs. During the period 1989-1991, USFA provided

direct technical assistance to fifteen fire investigation agencies across the country as part of

the Arson Unit Management Assistance to the Field Project. Working together, USFA and

their contractor, TriData Corporation in Arlington, Virginia, first conferred with dozens of

fire and police investigators, fire marshals, senior police and fire officers, and prosecutors to

document the state of fire investigation management, and to ascertain the problems being

encountered. As part of that project four fire investigation agencies were visited in Orlando,

Florida; Wilmington, North Carolina; Rochester, New York; and Livingston County,

Michigan where the operations and management systems of these fire investigation units were

analyzed. The units were profiled in USFA’s report, A view of Management in Fire

Investigation Units: Issues and Trends for the 90’s.

Three communities then were selected from a group of applications to receive direct

technical assistance. The three sites, identified as “Phase I Sites”, were followed by seven

more in Phase II and five more in Phase III as follows:
PHASE I SITES

Gainesville, Florida

Kitsap County, Washington

Norfolk, Virginia

PHASE II SITES

Asheville, North Carolina

Aurora, Colorado

Baltimore County, Maryland

Imperial County, California

Mohave County, Arizona

Pleasantville, New Jersey

Tennessee State Arson Unit

PHASE III SITES

Columbia, South Carolina

Garland, Texas

Humboldt County, California

Nevada State Arson Unit

Washington, D.C.

Site Selection Process

With literally thousands of city and county fire investigation agencies and units

throughout the United States, the challenge of selecting fifteen in a 2-3 month time span was

one of quickly identifying a good cross-section of worthy sites that reflected a range of

population size, arson problems, and available resources. To aid in locating potential sites,

TriData contacted State Fire Marshals from numerous states and various State Directors of

the National Volunteer Fire Council. Press releases announcing the availability of USFA’s

no-cost management technical assistance were sent to fire service publications to reach a

wider audience. Interested fire investigation units were asked to contact TriData for

information on how to apply.

6
Each potential site was mailed a short, two-page application, “Information

Background Sheet for Candidate Sites,” a copy of which is shown at the end of this chapter.

The applications and accompanying letters or data were carefully reviewed for the following:

Type and extent of arson problem

Geographic location

Size of community/state served by unit

Reasons given for wanting the technical assistance

Willingness of key officials to accept an objective management “audit,” to

consider changes, and to cooperate with project personnel.

Potential for the project’s having an impact on the local/state arson situation.

A short list of most-suitable sites was prepared and USFA made the final selections.

Successful applicants were sent a list of data, documents, reports and procedures that were

needed by the consultant to begin assessing organizational and management details of each

site. This information combined with information from conversations between TriData and

the primary contact was used to formulate an individualized Technical Assistance Plan for

each site (see copy of form at the end of this chapter).

Methodology for Technical Assistance

Once the sites were selected, USFA-authorized investigators and management

consultants working under contract with TriData analyzed hundreds of pages of standard

operating procedures, data, reports, case filings and other material. They conducted over one

hundred on-site interviews with prosecutors, fire marshals, fire and police investigators,

sheriffs, elected and appointed officials, and others. Project personnel visited dozens of

facilities and toured arson-prone neighborhoods as part of their work. Fifteen separate,

comprehensive fire investigation management assessment reports were produced, outlining

local investigation management strengths and problem areas, and recommending actions that

could be taken to ameliorate areas of concern.

7
This report summarizes the findings and lessons learned from these fifteen sites for

the benefit of other local and state arson control agencies that are interested in knowing how

a selected sample of public safety organizations have been faring in attacking arson during

these recent years of serious budget cutbacks.

Chapter Two presents profiles of the fifteen sites to assist the reader in identifying

which ones most closely resemble his or her own in terms of population, size of fire

problem, investigation workload, characteristics of arson problem and so forth. The profiles

also will demonstrate how widely aspects of the arson problem and approaches to solving it

vary from site to site.

Chapter Three presents the most common positive features of arson unit management.

that were discovered, followed by a discussion in Chapter Four of the most prevalent

problems.

Finally, Chapter Five describes how the sites that received USFA’s technical

assistance used and benefitted from the management “audits.” All sites which participated in

the field work and received their final report by November 1991 completed a Project Impact

Assessment. Their evaluations of the project are summarized in the last chapter.
INFORMATION BACKGROUND SHEET

FOR CANDIDATE SITES
USFA FIRE INVESTIGATION MANAGEMENT PROJECT

Information Background Sheet for Candidate Sites

Please provide the following information:

1. Name of organization:

Address:

2. Type of organization:

_ Fire Department _ Police/Sheriff _ Other

_ Volunteer _ City

_ Paid _ County Please identify

_ Combination

3. Contact Person and Title:

Daytime Phone:

4. Population of area served:

(Check One) _ Urban _ Suburban _ Rural

5. Which departments or agencies are involved in investigating suspicious fires in your

jurisdiction?

6. Do you have an organized fire investigation team? _ Yes _ No

If yes, who makes up the team?

Name and Title of Unit Commander (or Chief Investigator)

7. Please provide the following data:

Total number of fires

1988 1989 1990 (YTD)

Total number of fire

investigations

Total number of fires

determined to be

incendiary

Number of incendiary cases

submitted to the

prosecutor

8. What arson-related problems are confronting your community and what has been the impact?

9. Please discuss briefly any organizational and management problems that are affecting your ability to

deal with arson fires and prosecute arsonists?

10. What would you like to accomplish if the USFA could provide fire investigation management

assistance? How could our project help you?

11. Would you be willing to participate in a 2-3 day USFA site visit; to implement reasonable

recommendations; and to cooperate with project personnel? _ Yes _ No
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PLAN
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PLAN

Arson Unit Management

community:

Contact Name and Phone:

1. Characteristics of Community’s Arson Problem (describe primary motives; types of perpetrators;

impact on community vis-a-vis deaths, injuries, dollar loss, disinvestment, etc.).

2. Existing Organizational and Management Problems (please check the areas where there appear to be

problems based on your review of the community’s data and on conversations with the site

coordinator).

_ Timeliness of investigations

_ Quality of investigations

_ Data

_ Reports

_ Training

_ Funding

_ Morale

_ Prevention and control

programs

_ Inter-agency coordination (police, fire and

D.A.)

_ Post investigation follow-up

_ Performance evaluation

_ Communications

_ Personnel management

_ Workload problems

_ Other

_ Other

3. Goals for Technical Assistance (identify what you plan to accomplish to improve the management

and organization of fire investigation work in the community and to improve the prosecution rate of

arson fires.

4. Proposed Methods for Providing Technical Assistance (identify how you will

accomplish the TA goals for this community).

5. Is a full management audit recommended? Yes _ No _

6. Personnel Assigned:

7. Dates of Scheduled Site Visit:
CHAPTER TWO

OVERVIEW OF PARTICIPATING SITES

communities. In the following paragraphs and figures we provide an overview of the sites.

figure 1. Comparison of Population

Population Category Number of Sites Percentage

10,000 - 50,000 2 13.3

50,000 - 100,000 2 13.3

100,000 - 250,000 5 33.3

250,000 - 500,000 3 20.0

500,000 and above 3 20.0

Total 15 99.9 (100%)

figure 2. Comparison of Jurisdiction Type

Jurisdiction Type Number of Sites Percentage

Rural County 4 26.6

Small City 1 6.7

Medium Size City 4 26.6

Large City 3 20.0

Urban/Metro County 6.7

State 2 l3.3

Total 15 99.9 (100%)

9
figure 3. Comparison of Geographic Location

Location Number of Sites Percentage

Northwest 1 6.7

Southwest 4 26.6

West Coast 2 13.3

south 6’ 40.0

Mid-Atlantic 1 6.7

Northeast 1 6.7

Total 15 100.0%

Figure 4. Comparison of Full-time versus Part-Time Investigators

Number of Sites Percentage

Full-Time Investigator(s) 12 80.0

Part-Time or Volunteer Investigators 3 20.0

Total 15 100.0%

As the preceding comparisons show, the bulk of the sites (over 25 percent) served a

population of over 100,000 residents dispersed throughout predominately medium-size cities

and rural counties and unincorporated rural portions of states. A majority of the sites were

located in the southern and southwestern regions of the country; sites in these regions also

produced the most applications for technical assistance. Eighty percent of the sites function

with at least one full-time investigator; three of the sites have only a part-time person

assigned to investigations or operate with on-call volunteers or paid investigators that respond

as part of a county-wide or regional team.

10
The figures on the following two pages offer a fuller profile of the sites. The first

shows each site by population, number of full-time investigators, composition of the fire

investigation unit and the number of investigations carried out in 1990. The second

compares the outcomes of incendiary cases among the sites.

11
teams

64,000

12

FlGURE 5. PROJECT SITES: BASIC PROFILE

Site Population

1. Gainesville, FL 84,800

2. Kitsap County, WA 189,700

Number of Full-Time

Investigators

2

1

Composition of Unit

Fire Department Investigator

County Fire Marshal’s lead

investigtor with cause and

origin assistance in Fire

Districts

Number of Investigations

(1990)

140

104

3. Norfolk, VA 261,230 6

4. Baltimore County, MD 687,000 10

Fire investigators cross-trained,

headquarted in Fire

Department.

Five 2-person Fire/Detective

263

499

5. Asheville, NC 1 Fire Department Investigator;

Additional investigator position

in process; County Task Force

in process

128

6. Aurora, CO 230,000 4.5

7. Pleasantville, NJ 20,000 1.5

Fire Department Investigators

Fire Department Investigators.

Participate in County Task

Force

320

62

8. Mohave County, AZ 102,000 0 On-call volunteers and some

paid personnel from over one

dozen Fire, Police, and

Sheriff’s agencies

State investigators divided

among three regional offices

60

9. State of Tennessee 5,000,000 19 978
FIGURE 5. PROJECT SITES: BASIC PROFILE

Site

10. Imperial County, CA

Population

31,550

(unincorporated area)

Number of Full-time Composition of Unit

Investigators

0 1 part-time chief investigator +

6 designated cause and origin

investigators from shifts.

Sheriff’s Office and State FMO

assist

Number of Investigations

(1990)

10

11. Columbia, SC 298,000 2 Fire Department investigator

aided by police on occasion

62

12. Garland, TX 185,000 2 Fire Department investigators;

second position just added.

Team of trained firefighters do

initial c/o.

157

13. Humboldt County, CA 118,000 0 County Team, comprised of

First Sheriff investigator and

D.A.‘s office.

108

14. State of Nevada 750,000

(14 rural counties)

5 State fire investigators operate

from single state capitol office

location. Assisted by local

volunteers in areas of

jurisdiction.

58

15. Washington, D.C. 626,000 16 Eight fire investigators, 1 Fire

Lieutenant and 6 Police

Detectives and 1 Police

Sergeant. C/O by company

officers.

866

(Estimated)

13
FIGURE 6. PROJECT SITES: OUTCOMES OF INCENDIARY CASES

Site Number of Investigations Number of Cases Percent of Investigated Number of Cases Token Number of Convictims

(1990) Determined Incendiary Fires Ruled as Arson by Prosecutors

1. Gainesville, FL 140 39 28% 6 6

2. Kitsap County, WA 104 39 38 4 2

3. Norfolk, VA 263 177 67 40 38

4. Baltimore County, MD 499 321 64 34 2

5. Asheville, NC 128 38 30 3 3

6. Aurora, CO 320 233 73 233 61

7. Pleasantville, NJ 62 14 23 0 0

8. Mohave County, AZ 60* 20* 33 4* NA

9. State of Tennessee 978 649 66 123 108

10. Imperial County, CA 10* 4* 40 3* 1*

11. Columbia, SC 62 33 53 2 0

12. Garland, TX 157 116 74 116 NA

13. Humboldt County, CA 108 75 69 5 NA

14. State of Nevada 58 26 45 14 13

15. Washington, D.C. 866* 174 20 13 NA

NA = Not Available

* = Estimated

14
CHAPTER THREE

POSITIVE FEATURES AND COMMON STRENGTHS

Common Operational and Management Strengths

One of the goals of this project was to identify and document what was noteworthy

about the operations and management of the fire investigation units studied, and to share any

exceptional procedures or programs among the sites. While no two sites were the same,

there were a number of positive features that were found fairly consistently. Most of the

sites shared these strengths:

Good Leadership - Perhaps it is not surprising that so many of the sites

exhibited strong leadership among the senior officers and department heads

and a commitment to improving arson control methods; each locale had sought

out the project’s management assistance and competed to be selected. Fire

Chiefs, State Fire Marshals’ Offices and Fire Investigation Commanders

content with the status quo would not have elected to participate.

Nevertheless, it was satisfying to find that the vast majority of officials

participating were leaders committed to discovering or confirming what was

not working and to fixing their problem areas. With these clear signals from

the top that fire investigation and arson prosecution were important, the

likelihood of investigation improvements and greater success against arsonists

was enhanced.

Qualified Investigators - For the most part the individuals assigned to the task

of investigating fires had received good training and were involved in on-going

training sessions (usually local, in-house). Their investigation reports

demonstrated knowledge of investigation procedures, techniques, and case

documentation. Where there were exceptions to this rule, the problem

15
stemmed from inadequate funding or low priority given to fire investigator

training by public safety managers or elected officials, not from lack of

interest on the part of the investigators.

Intra- and Inter-Departmental Cooperation -- Many sites in this project could

count on a reliable support system both from within the fire agency and from

“outside” organizations (defined as other than the primary investigation

agency). Police and Sheriffs detectives in these several sites could be counted

on to cooperate in follow-up investigation work; the prosecuting attorneys

provided at least some support; fire inspectors and public fire educators from

the Fire Marshal’s Office helped when called upon for their expertise; and

suppression forces generally showed cooperation with fire investigators and in

some cases volunteered to be trained in preliminary origin and cause work.

It should be noted that where such cooperation was lacking, there was a

serious negative impact on the quality and quantity of investigations, and

investigators typically were hamstrung in their efforts to investigate and pursue

arson cases.

Facilities and Equipment - Though none of the sites had the luxury of a full

range of the latest equipment in plentiful supply and extensive office space

with state-of-the-art communications, most were well enough equipped to do a

credible job of investigating fires and documenting their findings. A

surprising number of sites either had, or obtained shortly after the project,

computer capabilities to assist with the management of fire investigation data.

They also had someone on staff with computer skills who could, once an

adequate amount of data was generated (see the next chapter for more

discussion of this); set up an information management system.

16
Many of the sites equipped each investigator with basic investigation tools

rather than consolidating all equipment into an arson van or truck.

A snapshot of the particular strengths found at each site is presented below. This

may help readers identify places to contact for ideas, In the final section of this report, we

highlight a few exceptional programs and features we discovered that other communities may

wish to replicate.

Snapshot of Selected Strengths from Each Site

Each of the fifteen sites displayed a number of positive features. They included:

1. Gainesville, Florida

Strong management with notable academic, management and teaching

background

Good computer equipment and expertise available

Good cooperation from police

Excellent standards for investigator qualifications

2. Kitsap County, Washington

Good leadership and support among three District Fire Chiefs

Progressive and cooperative County Prosecutor

Mutual aid between County Fire Marshal’s Office investigators and Fire

District investigators

17
3. Norfolk, Virginia

Good management information on investigations and utilization of monthly

reports

Excellent in-house training capability from Unit Commander

Work performance goals used in annual evaluations

Excellent documentation of witness statements responsible for many successful

prosecutions

4. Baltimore County, Maryland

An especially well-trained supervisor

Investigators with excellent credentials

Good equipment and facilities

Fire suppression training in origin and cause improving accuracy of cause

determination

New fire and police investigation teams

Good standard operating procedures and reports

5. Asheville, North Carolina

New multi-agency county arson task force

Progressive Fire Chief and cooperative Sheriff and District Attorney

Lead investigator with excellent credentials

Quality investigations

6. Aurora, Colorado

Good leadership

Good training programs, both before and while one is certified as an

investigator

Use accelerant-certified canine as supplement to mechanical equipment

Instituted case prioritization system to triage large number of cases

18
Excellent computer capabilities and good support staff

7. Pleasantville, New Jersey

Good facilities and equipment

Investigators with excellent credentials

Excellent case documentation and reports

Unusually good prosecutor support (County) which has its own arson unit

Juvenile counseling program initiated by Pleasantville using County Mental

Health Department

8. Mohave County, Arizona

Enthusiastic and cooperative volunteers in Task Force

Good qualifications among investigation specialties represented

Good standard operating procedures and report formats

Good support from State, police, and juvenile intervention program

9. Tennessee State Arson Unit

Very good commitment to job among investigators despite lack of equipment,

large response area and relatively low pay.

Good standard operating procedures

10. Imperial County, California

Good leadership for change

New training program which teaches origin and cause to one suppression

member from each shift

Good cooperation from Sheriff’s Office and State Fire Marshal’s Office.

11. Columbia, South Carolina

Good leadership for change

19
Police and fire safety teams conduct public safety presentations to citizens

(includes arson prevention)

Good cooperation between police and fire

12. Garland, Texas

Good leadership and commitment

New group of origin and cause investigators formed from suppression

personnel

Unusually comprehensive and clear standard operating procedures

Good effort treating juvenile firesetters; additional program improvements

underway

Good cooperation among fire, police and District Attorney

Computer equipment and personnel available for automated information

management system

Good personnel evaluation procedures used by management

13. Humboldt County, California

Good commitment from largely volunteer-based task force

Police and Fire Chiefs from Arcata and Eureka providing special support and

leadership for task force

Supportive District Attorney, e.g., assigned staff to be task force coordinator

14. Nevada State Arson Unit

Good leadership; managers have excellent credentials

Well-trained investigators

Good dedication to job among investigators despite large service areas, many

adjunct responsibilities, and relatively low pay

Good state-run origin and cause training program for local fire personnel, most

of whom are volunteers

20
(THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK)

21
15. Washington, D.C.

Excellent manpower and resources available

Well-trained police and fire investigation supervisors with good credentials

Good computer capabilities available

Notable Programs and Procedures

A few of the local programs and procedures uncovered deserve special mention

because they are particularly good examples that might be valuable to other communities. In

fact, as we came upon these we passed them along to other project sites, as appropriate, to

begin the process of information sharing.

1. Gainesville’s Standards for Investigators

It is not uncommon for fire investigation agencies to recruit personnel with fire

suppression and/or inspection experience and then to set in motion some level of

investigation training after they are hired. Sometimes the training is limited to “ride-along”

instruction for a period of time with the help of a senior investigator. In other cases a more

formal training program is applied. Clearly, the better qualified and more experienced a new

investigator is, the more quickly he or she can make a viable contribution-to making good

cases and bringing arsonists to justice.

Gainesville goes beyond this norm and requires extensive educational achievements

for one to become a fire investigator. An applicant must meet or exceed the ‘following high

standards:

Certification as a state of Florida law enforcement officer;

Certification as a firefighter, fire investigator, and fire inspector; and

College degree in the field of fire science or criminal justice.

22
2. Aurora’s Case Prioritization System

Aurora’s system for establishing priorities among cases is an excellent management

tool, especially useful in circumstances where the number of arson cases continues to be high

while budget cuts and attrition threaten to reduce manpower. Following is a synopsis of

Aurora’s system.

CASE PRIORITIZATION AND MANAGEMENT

Identification of Solvability Factors

Establishing case priorities requires an analysis of solvability factors. Solvability

factors are defined as information about a crime that can provide the basis for determining

the person(s) responsible for committing the crime. Not all incendiary fire cases can be

solved, no matter how much investigative effort is put forth. Fire investigation resources

are limited, therefore, it makes sense that the effectiveness of investigations will be

increased only if resources are allocated to those incidents which have a chance of being

solved. Following the determination of an incendiary act, solvability factors can provide a

valuable guide to the allocation of limited investigation.

Solvability Factors include:

1. Witness(es) to the crime

2. Suspect name and location

3. Suspect description

4. Suspect opportunity

5. Existence of significant modus operandi, i.e., pattern, arsonist, or bomber

6. Presence of physical evidence

23
7. Identification of a suspect vehicle

8. Belief that a crime may be solved with public information and/or support

At the conclusion of the investigation, the investigator must feel secure that all

solvability factors have been identified.

Case Prioritization

The following is a scale utilizing solvability factors, and the department’s priorities for

a criminal case:

Priority Solvability Factors and Departmental Priorities

A-l I. Arrest made, suspect in custody for crime, case filing within 48

hours

II. Danger to community by known arsonist/bomber

A I. Known suspects observed committing the crime

II. Physical evidence linking suspects (5 day follow-up of factors

identified)

A. License plates of suspect vehicle

B. Full name of suspect and suspect seen, i.e.,

1. Suspect with gas can

2. Suspect in building/structure within 30 minutes of

incendiary fire

3. Statements of suspect observing fire

III. High priority fire/explosions

A. Large dollar loss

B. Deaths

C. Public outcry - media inquiries, impact on community

D. Discretionary privilege - Investigations Lieutenant assigns

24
B

C

I. Suspect(s) identified by partial I.D., i.e., First name only, last name

only, etc.

II. Low dollar loss - under $200 to unoccupied structure or vehicle

Fire/Explosion

I. No suspect information

II. No leads

III. Does not meet A or B criteria

IV. Low dollar loss

V. Bomb threats - without witnesses

Singular call to victim

3. Pleasantville‘s Prosecutor Support

More than a decade ago, the State of New Jersey took an unusually aggressive stand

against arson. The State mandated that the Prosecutor’s Office in every county serve as the

organizational center of an arson task force, providing assistance to all communities within

their jurisdictions. An example of how important a strong commitment from the prosecutor

can be is found with Pleasantville, a small city in Atlantic County.

The Atlantic County Prosecutor’s fire and arson investigation unit provides superb

expertise in all areas of fire investigation. The procedures they follow to handle incendiary

cases are among the best we observed during the course of this project. A Captain of

Investigations from the Prosecutor’s Office oversees the work of a sergeant and an

investigator, both of whom specialize in fire investigation. These individuals review fire

cases regularly throughout the county, assisting local communities with suggestions for

enhancing case quality. In addition, they routinely participate in fire investigations in the

county.

25
Arson cases going to trial from Pleasantville and elsewhere in Atlantic County are

usually successful.

4. Garland’s Standard Operating Procedures

The standard operating procedures we reviewed from the project sites varied greatly

from no written procedures, to two pages of a procedures outline, and ultimately to the

comprehensive well-written and well-organized procedures prepared by Garland’s lead

investigator. Garland’s procedures stand out in part because they actually are based on

standard police procedures for criminal investigation as adopted to fire department

procedures in arson cases. The procedures manual covers everything from communications

to the handling of evidence and suspects. Too lengthy to include in this report, the manual

could, we suggest, be borrowed for reproduction from either the United States Fire

Administration or the City of Garland, Texas Fire Marshal’s Office.

5. The Category Reporting System

In several sites, Project Consultant Richard Crispen shared a system he used while

Director of San Francisco’s Arson Unit. The Category Reporting System was developed to

assure consistent and complete reporting of all narrative investigative information. He found

that prosecutors liked this system because it organized the case in a manner that facilitated

preparation for court and prosecution. It is reproduced on the following pages for any

community interested in establishing a new narrative report format or revising an existing

one.

26
The Category Method of Reporting consists of nine (9) categories in the following

sequence:

I. Summary

II. Exposures

III. Witnesses

IV. Investigation

V. Conclusion

VI. Evidence

VII. Injuries and/or Deaths

VIII. Suspects/Arrests

IX. Insurance

I. Summary

The summary shall be a concise and accurate explanation of what occurred, including

the type of incident, how response was made, or who requested the response, and the time of

request or time of arrival, if significantly different from the time of the incident. For a fire,

indicate the area of origin, extent and manner of fire spread and the damage to building and

contents. Communication to adjacent building(s) or structures should also be included and

the damage described.

Example: This Unit responded automatically to a second alarm for a fire in a building.

The second alarm was struck approximately forty minutes ‘after the first alarm

due to a natural gas explosion in the rear of the building. The fire originated

at the front of the building in the tradesmens’ entrance and extended via the

wooden siding to the rear of the building and upwards, making entry at the

second and third floors through the

27
windows. Damage to both building and contents was moderate. The fire

extended to the adjacent building to the north and caused minor damage to the

exterior rustic siding. (See “Exposures” below).

II. Exposures

This category shall be used when a fire extends from the original to another building;

or if damages are sustained as a result of firefighting operations. It is not necessary to

specify exact damages, other than area damaged, only total building damages.

Examples: 1. 236 Howard Street, 3-stories/type 5, apartments, rustic siding, moderate

damage.

2. 226 Howard Street, l-story/type 1, machine shop, roof damage, minor

damage.

* If necessary, the extent of damage may be more fully described in

Category I, “Summary. ”

III. Witnesses

Witness will be listed by last name, first and middle name (or initial), and listing shall

include in the following order: race, sex, age or D.O.B., residence address, residence phone,

business address and business phone, and the relationship of. the witness to the incident, i.e.

passerby, friend of victim, neighbor, etc. Note: Listed witnesses shall be mentioned in VII,

“Investigation,” along with their comments/statements.

Include in this section firefighters and police officers with badge/star numbers and

unit designation.

28
Examples: Smith, Patrick Louis, WM, 06/02/20, 220 Hugo St., (415) 664-8787, 770

Frederick St., (415) 664-8900, passerby.

Jordan, Arthur John, SFPD #64, Park Station

Murphy, Harry, SFFD #1213, Battalion 5.

IV. Investigation

This category should be written from the point of view of the first person. “This

unit” can be used in place of “I” or “We.”

The investigation into the origin and cause of fire is determined through a process of

observation, examination and interview. The writer of the report should strive toward the

basic qualities of expository style: clarity and brevity.

This category should describe in detail what was observed, what was examined, and

include statements made by witnesses. The investigator is an instrument of justice and his

point of view should be objective and impartial. The information given should be relevant.

Everything relevant to the proof or disproof of the cause of fire must be included.

This category should be used to record all investigative facts established. Strive for

accuracy and completeness and clarity. A thorough investigation leads to a logical

conclusion.

V. Conclusion

The conclusion shall be directed at the cause of the fire and shall include a source of

ignition, the combustible material first ignited and an event.

29
Example:

Example:

Eample:

Example:

Based upon the above investigation, it is the opinion of this Unit that

this fire was probably initiated by the water heater pilot light, or burner

igniting flammable vapors.

Based upon my observation and information provided by witnesses, and

pending further information and/or investigation, this Unit is listing this

fire as probably caused by discarded smoking material igniting

combustibles.

It is the opinion of this Unit that this fire was of incendiary origin.

Based upon the above investigation and the lack of an apparent source

of ignition in the area of fire origination, the cause of this fire is

incendiary.

VI. Evidence

The investigator shall describe and itemize all physical evidence gathered at the scene.

He will indicate the location where the evidence was found, by whom it was found, and the

chain of custody. He shall state the whereabouts of the evidence at the time of the report

and plans, if any, for analysis or further examination.

Photos of the scene shall be handled essentially the same and entered in this section.

Examples: A five (5) gallon container partially filled with flammable liquid (as

determined by field test) was found in the rear of the building by Lt. Smith, E36. Precise location was near the rear (west) fence. Smith posted the can for

our review. Photos were taken of the can and some are presently in

possession of this Bureau. The can was taken by investigator L. Wright to the

S.F.P.D. Crime Laboratory for print analysis and will then be transported to

30
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms Laboratory at Treasure Island for

determination of liquid type.

A badly burned lighter fluid can was found in the debris of the fire room.

This can was discovered by Investigator Desmond and is being retained by this

office. Tagged and marked; no further plans of analysis due to burned

condition.

VII. Death/Injury

List and describe as for witnesses. If previously listed as owner, occupant, reportee,

manager, witness or suspect, again list by last name (CAPITALS), first name and middle

initial, and relationship. If an injury: describe the injury; include name of hospital and

attending physician if treated, also names/numbers of ambulance personnel and station. If a

serious injury with the good probability of a later fatality, space should be left for an update.

In the case of a death; include carbon monoxide percentage, alcohol content, drugs, date and

cause of death. (As indicated in coroner’s register).

Examples:

Injury: Carter, Willie Andrew, BMA, occupant, broken leg, head

lacerations, inhalation, to San Francisco General Hospital,

treatment by Dr. R. Silva.

Death: Carter, Willie Andrew, BMA, occupant, 3rd degree/75% of

body. C.O.-55% Alcohol .12%. Drugs NEG. (or N/L (not listed)).

Death 07/09/79. Cause of Death: Thermal Cutaneous Burns.

VII. N/A

- or -

31
VIII. Suspects/Arrests

The individual(s) shall be listed with “suspect” or “arrest” prior to the name. If the

name is unknown, the word “unknown” shall be written after. the designation suspect or

arrest. In the case of an unknown suspect, the investigator should endeavor to obtain as

much information as available (including the modus operandi) and put it down. This is also

true in the case of a known suspect, but not necessarily so in the case of an arrest as this

information should show on the police report which will be attached to the report. The

report, in this category, should list the information necessary to retrieve some once it goes

into the computer. The booking charge should be included in this spot.

As for witnesses the information after the name should include in the same order:.

Race, Sex, Age or D.O.B,, residence address, residence phone, business address, business

phone, height, weight, build, hair (color & style), eyes (color & glasses?), complexion,

physical defects. Clothing (color, style, condition). Identifying numbers, modus operandi,

caution.

Example:

suspect: Carter, Willie Andrew, BM, Appr. 40 164 Turk ST., N/P, unemployed, 510,

165# medium build, black hair, brown eyes, no further description. SF No.

116788, Assault on Peace Officer, road flare in debris box.

suspect: Unknown, BM, appr. 25/30, 60, 250#, heavy build. No further description.

Sets fire to debris/rubbish under rear exterior stairs.

Arrest: Brown, Marcus Louis, BM, 10/22/21, 315 Divisadero St., N/P unemployed,

507, 145#, Black hair, Brown eyes, swarthy complexion, no apparent physical

defects, SF No. S149630, Prior arrests for Arson, Sets fire to mattresses, etc.

Heavy drinker.

VIII. N/A

- or -

32
IX. Insurance

The following items not covered in B.F.I. Form I should be included in your report:

1. Adjusters

2. Coverage

3. Type of Policy

4. Settlement

Note: Insurance is listed last so that it can be updated as the information is made available

to the investigator.

Examples:

Adjuster: The claim is being handled by ABC Adjusting Bureau. Mr. John Jones,

Phone No. 777-7777, is the adjuster assigned this loss.

Coverage: The insured is covered for $100,000 fire insurance on the building and

contents, and $5,000 per month for business interruption, for a maximum of 6

months, or $30,000.

Policy

Information: The policy was issued June 1, 1978, for $60,000 and increased June 1, 1979,

to $100,000.

Public

Adjuster: Name, address, and phone number of the adjuster representing the insured.

Settlement: The insured was paid $40,000 under the fire insurance coverage, and $7,500

under the business interruption policy.

33
CHAPTER FOUR

COMMON PROBLEMS WITH FIRE

INVESTIGATION MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONS

The fifteen sites in this study differed in many respects. Despite their population and

geographic differences, however, the locales shared a surprising number of similar problems.

(Only a few of the areas needing improvement were found exclusively in one site or

another.) Following is a discussion of the major problems discovered among the sites.

Fire Investigation Data and Data Management

Every site in the project exhibited problems with collecting an adequate amount of

fire and arson investigation data. In one site it was a matter of adding several categories of

data to a generally adequate data system and then improving the management and use of the

data. However, in fourteen of the fifteen sites the problems with data were more serious

and/or more numerous. Some of the problems included:

Little if any consistent data collected and reported on investigated fires;

No single data collection source where multiple agencies are involved in

investigations. Separate and unlike data are kept by different investigation

departments (usually police and fire) handling the same cases;

Failure to share data;

(For states and counties) No standard data reporting and fire investigation

format; jurisdictions report different amounts of information (or none at all) in

different ways;

No information on the disposition of cases;

Incomplete data on details of investigation, basic elements of the case, and

suspects; and

34
No data on juvenile firesetters and the extent of their responsibility for a

jurisdiction’s arson problem.

The problems with data are widespread and have serious consequences. Without a

good base of information on fire investigations, it is impossible to detail the extent of the

local or state arson problem; it is impossible to evaluate the success of arson control

initiatives; it is difficult to determine the productivity and effectiveness of individual

investigations and of a unit (consequently, at budget-slashing time managers have little to go

on to defend staffing levels); it is hard to know where and how to direct arson prevention

and control programs; and the good work accomplished by competent investigators goes

undocumented, resulting in poor morale and high turnover.

Lack of Central Management or Clear Coordination

The second most frequently uncovered problem was the lack of a centrally directed

fire investigation unit. Rather, it was common to find fire investigators reporting to fire

managers and police investigators reporting to police managers with limited coordination.

Typically, fire personnel handled the preliminary investigation, but then had to refer the case

forward to law enforcement for the criminal investigation. In many of the sites this resulted

in investigation delays, lost confessions, missed opportunities for witness statements,

compromised physical evidence and contamination of the scene. Ultimately these cases went

nowhere and failed to qualify for prosecution. The lack of a single manager or clearly

articulated (and followed!) procedure for coordination was found to be extremely detrimental

to effective fire investigation.

Case Review and Quality Control

More than half the sites were doing a poor job of regularly reviewing incendiary

cases and overseeing quality control. More often than not, managers were not checking the

35
quality of cases periodically or tracking the status of investigations over time. As a result,

some cases were getting lost in the shuffle, including cases that should have been pursued.

Workload Balance

Only a handful of sites had what could be considered a reasonable workload per

investigator. Either investigators were tasked with too many cases to handle properly

(generally, more than 75 cases per year for full-time dedicated investigators), had too many

other assignments, had too large a geographic area for the number of cases, or, in a few

situations, had too few cases.

Cooperation from Prosecuting Attorney

Despite generally reported gains in cooperation between the designated Prosecutor’s

Office and fire investigators, most sites in this project had problems obtaining consistently

reliable assistance from prosecutors. However, it was also true that once this problem was

identified and discussed with prosecutors, they were quick to respond in correcting the

situation. The three most common problems were:

Failure to accept any but, the most clear-cut., winnable cases;

Failure to use or confer with the primary investigator during case development

and trial; and

Failure to communicate back down the line as to the ultimate disposition of

arson cases.

Juvenile Education and Intervention Programs

Given the strides made in the last ten years with the development of juvenile firesetter

counseling programs, it was surprising to find that very few of the sites had established their

36
own intervention programs to deal with juveniles setting intentional fires. Not only were inhouse programs or referrals to other agencies (e.g. usually, mental health agencies) hard to

find, but many sites kept no records of juvenile involvement in firesetting, and did not know

to what extent this problem existed in their community or state.

Training for Suppression Forces

All but a few sites need to establish or reconvene arson detection courses for

suppression forces to improve the quantity and quality of first-due company reporting to the

investigator, and to reduce the problem of premature overhaul at the scene.

Moreover, it was found that overtime and burnout for investigators could be reduced

if some basic origin and cause training were provided to selected, interested firefighters on

each shift, to company commanders and to volunteer departments relying on mutual aid from

paid, investigators in neighboring jurisdictions, or from the State Fire Marshal’s Office.

Basically, investigators were being called out all too frequently to fires that quickly were

determined to have an accidental fire cause. Many of the sites need to extend training

programs to include origin and cause for personnel who can rule on causes without calling

out the investigators for almost every incident.

Weapons and Power of Arrest

More than a few sites were discovered to be in the process of resolving legal and

procedural problems pertaining to arming fire investigators and authorizing them with power

of arrest. There appears to be a trend away from allowing fire investigators to carry

weapons, and some sites had taken the step of removing this authority from the investigators.

There have been repercussions. If fire investigators can no longer make arrests or protect

themselves while investigating a fire, then law enforcement personnel must pick up the slack

and handle arrest and protection responsibilities. Unfortunately, sometimes prior consent

37
was not sought or obtained from police detectives and sheriffs deputies before these changes

in weapons policy were instituted, and law enforcement was not taking over the cases.

Written Standard Operating Procedures

The majority of sites had very limited or no written procedures for everything from

how and when investigators are called out to how to handle a suspect. As a result,

investigators often remarked that they each had their own way of responding to calls or

operating on the scene, or preparing reports. New recruits followed the lead of whoever did

most of their field training, and the lack of clear rules and guidelines made managing

operations and reporting difficult. Written standard operating procedures are valuable and

necessary. Most of the sites were advised to upgrade theirs.

38
CHAPTER FIVE

IMPACT OF THE PROJECT’S MANAGEMENT ASSISTANCE

Discussion

From the beginning of this project, the USFA was interested in knowing not only how

much technical assistance was provided to the participant and what aspects of management

and organization were in most need of improvement, but what changes were implemented as

a result of the project staffs’ efforts. It is the impact of the assistance and the new initiatives

that it stimulates that ultimately proves the relative success of any technical assistance

project. Another measure is the usefulness of the published results to communities that read

the report.

To document our extent of success in each locale, we prepared an Impact Assessment

Form covering all potential areas of change. Not all categories applied to all sites, but each

category applied to at least one site. A copy of the Assessment is found at the end of this

chapter. The Assessment was organized according to the following sections and the results

are presented in the same order:

SECTION 1 - INVESTIGATION UNIT

Training

Operating Procedures

Staffing Changes

SECTION 2 - DATA AND REPORT MANAGEMENT

Investigation Reports

Data Processing

Statistics

Case Tracking

39
SECTION 3 - ADMINISTRATION

Workload Issues

Personnel Management

Scheduling

SECTION 4 - INTER-AGENCY COORDINATION

Fire and Law Enforcement

Mutual Aid

Prosecutor

Insurance Industry

SECTION 5 - ARSON PREVENTION

General Awareness and Prevention Efforts

Juvenile Firesetter Counseling Program

GENERAL QUESTIONS SECTION

Summary of the Project’s Impact

The United States Fire Administration’s Fire Investigation Management Assistance

Project had a ‘positive impact in sites participating in the project, according to the fourteen

participants that documented the changes brought about at least in part because of the

technical assistance. One site -- the District of Columbia had not yet completed the Impact

Assessment Form at the time of this report. This was the last site to receive technical

assistance and they did not have an opportunity to organize a response to our

recommendations prior to the report deadline.

40
Investigation Unit

All respondents reported making changes or scheduling future changes in their

investigation unit’s makeup, training or operating procedures as a result of the technical

assistance and recommendations made during the project.

Most of the participants have augmented or improved fire investigation training

programs. For half of the respondents, this included initiating or repeating basic fire

investigation training for their suppression units. Several of the participants also added new

local fire investigation courses or pursued admission to more courses offered by their

respective States, the National Fire Academy, and others. For example, Gainesville Fire

Rescue has added a computer/word processing course at the local level and courses from the

regional and state International Association of Arson Investigator Schools. Mohave County

has made arrangements to make Arizona’s state-level fire investigation course available to

local investigators, and Asheville has taken steps to enroll one of its investigators in the

Advanced Arson-For-Profit course at Glynco, Georgia.

Based on the recommendations from the technical assistance site team during the

project, the Tennessee State Fire Marshal has recommended that jurisdiction over the State

Fire School be transferred from the Board of Regents to the State Fire Marshal’s Office.

Two investigators from the Aurora Fire Department have received vocational training

credentials. This makes them candidates for “train-the-trainer” courses conducted by state

fire academies and others. In addition, it legitimizes the in-house courses they teach and

enables these courses to be credited in investigators’ resumes.

More than half of the participants have developed or revised standard operating

procedures for handling fire investigations and made some staffing changes as a result of the

project. The magnitude of changes varied among departments as would be expected. The

creation of an Arson Task Force in Asheville stands out as the most comprehensive. This

41
was one of the major recommendations following the technical assistance site visit during the

project.

Five departments changed call-out procedures based on the technical assistance site

visit and report.

Some departments also made specific assignments of investigators more specialized.

In Mohave County, for example, district boundaries were altered to coincide with those used

by the local Sheriff’s Office, and a District, Coordinator was assigned to supervise and serve

as liaison with the Arson Task Force. In Kitsap County, a lead investigator position was.

established, and Aurora designated one investigator to specialize in cases involving juveniles

and to handle arson-related public education.

Asheville, Baltimore County, Garland, Humboldt County and the Tennessee State

Fire Marshal’s Office have initiated or completed a restructuring of their investigative units.

In Asheville, this involved setting up a rotation of investigators on-call from 6:00 p.m. to

6:00 a.m. and throughout the weekend. Baltimore County designated three Senior

Investigators to lead investigations and assist supervisors, while Humboldt County began the

process of adding more law enforcement personnel to the unit.

The Tennessee State Fire Marshal’s Office is considering creation of five teams each

consisting of one Investigator and one Detective. This would involve bringing aboard a new

Detective and reducing the number of Investigators currently assigned. In addition, the

TSFM Office is considering adding one Lieutenant to the unit to handle false alarms and its

juvenile firesetter programs.

In Garland, one additional investigator was selected from the Fire Department’s cause

and origin group and assigned as a full-time arson investigator. The assignment is classified

as “temporary” due to the lack of position funding in the Fiscal Year 1991-92 budget for the

department; funding for the 1992-93 budget year is to be considered by the Garland City

42
Council. Even so, the assignment has provided valuable on-the-job training for the

individual assigned. In addition, the arrangement has provided the department with an

available and on-call investigator to back up Garland’s regular arson investigator. The

Garland Fire Department also has rewritten the job description for the Fire Marshal position,

based on recommendations made during the project. The position, which is appointed by the

City Manager, was expected to be filled sometime in early 1992.

The State of Nevada was dealt a serious budget cutback by the State’s Budget Office

just a few weeks after our technical assistance visit. As a result, many of the initiatives they

had hoped to pursue have had to be put on hold. They actually have lost staff due to

attrition and illness.

Data and Report Management

All sites submitting project assessments indicated they have made changes in their

data collection, case tracking and investigation reports as a result of technical assistance

provided during the project. Six departments -- Aurora, Baltimore County, Imperial County,

Humboldt County, and Kitsap County and the State of Nevada -- have successfully changed

from manual systems to computerized data processing, and the majority of participants have

taken steps to install and use the new version of the Arson Information Management System

(AIMS) software.

Several departments have expanded their use of investigation and arson statistics.

This includes, analyzing data and monitoring trends more frequently than they did before the

project and including data in periodic reports to local legislators and other government

officials as well as superiors within the Department. The Tennessee State Fire Marshal’s

Office and Imperial County also are using trend data to help them make decisions about

program resources and investigation management.

43
The majority of the participants have standardized the format of investigation reports

as a result of the project. Gainesville and the Tennessee State Fire Marshal’s Office have

expanded the types of fire and arson data that are routinely collected. Gainesville’s report

format has been expanded as well, to include such information as motive, dollar loss,

jurisdictional boundary, suspect names and arrests made.

In addition to substantive changes in investigative reports, three departments --

Norfolk, Asheville, and Kitsap County -- have set tighter deadlines for submission of reports

to ensure that fire incidents and investigations are thoroughly documented while information

is freshest, and to ensure timely follow-up work.

Administration

The majority of participating departments have implemented administrative changes

related to workload, scheduling and personnel management as a result of the project.,

In most cases this involved adjusting the number of cases assigned to individual

investigators. For example, Imperial County, Mohave County and the Tennessee State Fire

Marshal’s Office re-assigned cases so that all investigators have approximately the same

number. Asheville, Aurora and Kitsap County chose to increase the number of cases per

investigator. Several departments also established a system for prioritizing cases, to allow for

greater focus on more important cases.

Other administrative changes involved personnel management and staffing issues.

Norfolk and the Tennessee State Fire Marshal’s Office made changes in personnel

management policies. Both took steps to improve their performance review systems,

including writing individual goals for each investigator. Norfolk also adjusted shift work

hours to correct scheduling problems and reduce overtime that resulted after the loss of one

of its investigators.

44
The Tennessee State Fire Marshal’s Office also established a 37.5-hour work week,

with flexible schedules Sunday through Saturday. This helps reduce overtime and provides

more available on-case time per unit member. Baltimore County is investigating the

possibility of adjusting investigators’ schedules to match those of detectives, so that

investigators and detectives can work in two-person teams.

Inter-Agency Coordination

All participants noted progress in improving coordination among agencies -- fire and

law enforcement officials, prosecutors and the insurance industry -- involved in successful

resolution of cases.

The majority have improved communications between police and fire agencies,

including the exchange of data and reports. Other improvements include setting up new or

strengthening existing joint fire and police investigation teams, assuring completion of UCR

Reports for all incendiary fires and requiring that reports be forwarded, and increasing the

participation of law enforcement personnel in investigations. Norfolk also has succeeded in

establishing a closer pre-trial exchange of case information with the Commonwealth

Attorney’s Office. The State of Nevada instituted cross-training in the field for police and

fire investigators.

Almost all of the departments have improved coordination related to mutual aid as a

result of the project. In most cases this involves formalizing or improving mutual aid

agreements with neighboring jurisdictions for investigation assistance. In addition,

Gainesville has improved inter-agency coordination by utilizing cross coverage by

investigators from the Florida State Fire Marshal and County Fire Marshal offices and

providing arson dog services throughout North Florida. Norfolk is improving its mutual-aid

related coordination with other agencies by participating in the regional response team

concept and providing assistance on out-of-jurisdiction major fires. Pleasantville has

45
established an investigators association to foster the exchange of information and training

among agencies.

Nine departments have made strides in improving coordination with prosecutors. In

most cases, the departments have succeeded in getting earlier and better support on arson

cases from the prosecutors’ offices, and in about half of these sites, the prosecutor’s office

has become a participant in the local arson task force. Several also have facilitated

participation by prosecutors in arson training classes, and Gainesville has succeeded in

getting two Assistant State Attorneys trained at FLETCO and equipped to respond to fire

scenes. The City of Columbia/Richland County has succeeded in opening communications

channels between the fire chief and the prosecutor’s office which had not existed prior to the

project.

The project has assisted nearly half the participants in improving coordination with

the insurance industry. Gainesville, Kitsap County, Mohave County and the Tennessee State

Fire Marshal’s Office have succeeded in getting better cooperation from the insurance

industry on arson prevention programs. In addition, Gainesville, Imperial County and the

Tennessee State Fire Marshal’s Office have seen increased sharing of information on pending

arson cases. Gainesville even received funding from a national insurer to support training of

an arson dog and handler.

Arson Prevention

A majority of the reporting participants have taken steps to increase public awareness

of arson and encourage prevention efforts as a result of the project.

New arson tipster hotlines have been established in Imperial County and Mohave

County. Gainesville and the Tennessee State Fire Marshal’s Office have established

undercover operations and a system of informants as well as set, up hotlines. In addition to

initiating the use of undercover operators and informants, Aurora has created new

46
neighborhood programs aimed at improving general arson awareness and prevention efforts.

Some of the participants also have succeeded in getting lessons on the dangers of firesetting

incorporated into elementary school fire safety curricula.

Seven of the participants also ‘have seen improvements in their juvenile firesetter

counseling programs. Aurora, Baltimore County, Kitsap County and Pleasantville run inhouse programs within the fire department, with Aurora and Kitsap County also using

outside counselors and agencies. Humboldt County and the Tennessee State Fire Marshal’s

Office use outside counselors and agencies exclusively. The State of Nevada has expanded

its network of referring agencies to include schools, police, social workers, and so forth.

As a result of the project, Aurora also has made significant strides in its juvenile

firesetter program. It has expanded its network of referring agencies to include schools,

police, line companies, social workers and others in the community. In addition, it has

developed a Juvenile Arson Mitigation Task Force that includes investigators, the local

prosecutor, the social service agency, state and local school counselors and representatives of

the state probation and education systems. Aurora also has succeeded in developing a means

of evaluating the impact of its counseling program.

Outcomes

While the ultimate measure for participants of the success of efforts initiated as a

result of the project would be reductions in the number of confirmed arson fires and a

commensurate increase in the numbers of cases with arrests and convictions, it is too early in

most cases to see such results. Some departments feel that the number of arson fires

continues to increase and a variety of fiscal and other problems have been encountered by

departments as they attempt to implement recommendations from the project.

47
However, most participants credit the project as the catalyst for enabling them to

begin the necessary steps to achieve real reductions in the arson problem. Here are a few

quotes describing the impact of the project:

Quotes From Local and State Participants

Pleasantville - “Since your report the Police Department’s Detective Bureau has been

very cooperative. ” “Your visit brought this unit some recognition from city officials.”

Kitsap County - “I thank you for all that you have done . . . . the seed has been

planted . . . we do have involvement of law enforcement to the point that a detective will be

attending the Fire/Arson class at the National Fire Academy.”

Gainesville - “The principal way in which the management assistance project assisted

us was to provide an array of methodologies by which other communities have solved some

of the problems that we were encountering.”

“(We have had) some success . . . most notably in the area of obtaining the

cooperation and assistance of the local state attorney who assigned specific prosecutors who

specialize in arson. They have now been through their first phase of training and are being

equipped to respond to arson scenes so they can see firsthand the evidence which they will be

presenting in court. This relationship has already proven fruitful in that arson is being seen

more seriously, not just by these prosecutors but by others in their offices as well. We’ve

also been successful in approaching the private sector in our community in getting donations

so that completely without public funding we were able to implement the use of an arson

accelerant detection dog (canine program). A regional office of Nationwide Insurance

donated the funds for acquiring and training the dog and handler and a local veterinarian has

volunteered to care for the dog. The use of this dog is available on a region-wide basis and

that use is currently increasing as more and more neighboring jurisdictions make use of it.”

48
“As mentioned previously, one of the home-grown ideas which came from the visit of

the USFA management assistance project was that of having the Division Manager become

certified as a police officer so he would better understand the process of investigation and the

types of results which could be expected from a well-functioning arson team. The additional

credibility with police agencies and fellow arson investigation agencies throughout the State

has been an added plus.”

Baltimore County - “Both Police and Fire are (pursuing) the team concept based on

the site study, which is involving personnel changes, work schedule changes along with case

assignment. Furthermore, additional criminal investigative training for investigators is being

pursued. The study also has been used in justification for upgrading data collection and case

management with the unit acquiring a computer.”

Aurore -- “GREAT PROGRAM. . . . The review was a catalyst for a new

computer, report format changes, and increased support for a juvenile education program.

When USFA comes across unusual tools, techniques, etc., could a profile pamphlet detailing

such be printed?”

Asheville - “(We have received) a commitment from the District Attorney to

spearhead an . . . . arson task force for Buncombe County.

District Attorney Moore has received the endorsement of the Buncombe County Board

of Commissioners, the Asheville City Council and the Buncombe County Firefighters

Association. We are now in the process of preparing a proposal for initiating a permanent

task force, and for funding of an additional arson investigation position. We have been

informally advised that this additional position will be granted by the county’s Board of Commissioners.”

49
“As far as we’re concerned, the money invested in this technical assistance program

has already generated a sizable ‘return on investment.’ I’d also like to note that the internal

recommendations proposed as a result of the study have been implemented.”

“I hope that other communities will be able to benefit from the opportunity that we

had via this program.”

“If there is any point where anyone calls you for information on the value of this

project, or on the conduct of the project itself, please do not hesitate to refer those callers to

me.”

Garland - “The City of Garland and Garland Fire Department wish to thank the

United States Fire Administration and TriData for the audit of the Fire/Arson Investigation

Section. The Fire Department has rewritten the job description for the Fire Marshal position

outlining the desired qualities and qualifications in the draft report . . . . The Department

has chosen to use the AIMS program supplied by USFA (and) the Department plans to form

an Arson Investigation Committee in the near future.”

Imperial County - “We thank you for the Fire Investigation study; we feel it was

most beneficial. However, due to. our budgetary constraints it could be a year or so before

we can implement (your recommendations).”

State of Tennessee - “The USFA management assistance project helped (by giving

us) outside, unbiased support of (our) arson investigation control and management projects.”

Columbia - “We very much appreciate the work that you did for us. I believe that

your efforts have produced a high quality report that realistically plots a direction for our

program, and we intend to follow your recommendations closely. Your project has laid the

50
groundwork for a good working relationship at the organizational-, rather than just the

individual level.”

Key Results Site-By-Site

The preceding section summarized the changes and improvements made among the

fourteen sites reporting. Here we present a synopsis of the key results by site. This is not a

comprehensive accounting of all the changes noted by these sites, but, is an itemization of

the most significant changes made to date by those participants reporting.

Site Project Impact

Aurora, CO Added specialized function to handle juvenile cases.

Purchased computer and began using A.I.M.S.

Baltimore County,

MD

Created regional arson task force.

Restructured fire investigation unit; created five police/fire

teams for greater coverage at lower cost.

Acquired computer to implement A.I.M.S.

Asheville, NC

Improved training.

Improved coordination with prosecutor.

Established formal metropolitan task force.

Succeeded in getting District Attorney to head up task force and

to designate assistant D.A. to handle arson cases.

Added training courses.

Revised SOP’s for investigation.

Restructured assignments; District Chiefs now responsible for

C&O.

51
Gainesville, FL Expanded training.

Revised SOP’s.

Expanded and improved arson data collection and management.

Implemented A.I.M.S.

Strengthened law enforcement skills of investigators.

Improved police/fire communications on arson cases.

Formalized mutual aid agreement.

Two prosecutors now trained and prepared to respond to fire

scenes.

Obtained insurance industry cooperation in arson control

programs.

Created arson prevention education programs.

Established undercover operations.

Pleasantville, NJ Improved training records

Implemented A.I.M.S.

Now receive better cooperation from police on investigations.

Established Investigators Association to exchange information

and training.

Organized formal, in-house juvenile firesetter program.

Kitsap County, WA Initiated basic arson awareness training for suppression units.

Created new SOP’s county-wide.

Established lead investigator position.

Standardized reports and established 24-hour notice form for

suppression company use.

52
Changed to computerized data management; reduced delays in

report processing.

Established joint fire/police investigation team.

Formalized mutual aid.

Obtained prosecutor commitment to assign Assistant to all arson

cases.

Improved data sharing and communications.

Mohave County, AZ Added local investigation courses.

Norfolk, VA

Improved investigation SOP’s,

Restructured assignments; added staff.

Standardized reporting.

Implementing A.I.M.S.

Strengthened joint police/fire teams; formalized mutual aid.

Added prosecutor to local task force.

Established hotline/tipster program.

Standardized report formats; set tighter deadlines for

submission.

Reduced data processing delays, implemented A.I.M.S.

Established regional response team.

Generated better support from D.A.

State of Tennessee Made major recommendation to transfer State Fire School from

Board of Regents to State Fire Marshal’s Office.

Restructured the unit; now have three senior investigators to

lead investigations and assist the supervisors.

53

Improved training records.
Implemented A.I.M.S.

Standardized report format and expanded data collection. use

data now for analysis of arson problem and trends.

Instituted case prioritization system.

Better performance reviews.

Changed scheduling to flextime to reduce overtime.

Strengthened joint fire and police investigation teams.

Better support from prosecutor.

Established arson hotline and improved prevention and uncover

efforts.

Imperial County, CA New SOP’s for investigation

Changed call-out procedures

Strengthened law enforcement authority and skills of

investigators.

Now use trend data to determine program resources and

investigation management.

Equalized workload among investigators.

Improved mutual aid for investigation assistance.

Obtained better cooperation from insurance industry.

Humboldt County,

CA

Improved training records and pursuing more courses.

Implementing new county-wide fire investigation form.

Restructured unit by adding more law enforcement personnel.

Securing a computer.

Improved tracking of cases.

54
Strengthened police/fire team.

Garland, TX Rewrote Fire Marshal’s job description.

Added one additional full-time investigator position.

Expanded role of origin and cause investigator.

Improved case tracking.

Re-designed and strengthened juvenile education counseling

program.

Implementing A.I.M.S.

Plan to form Arson Investigation Committee.

Columbia, SC Improved training records and training opportunities.

Developed better call-out procedures to prevent overuse of

investigator(s).

Budgeting for State Constable Commission for investigator.

Added investigation staff.

Expanded investigation report format.

Changed to computerized, A.I.M.S. system.

Use arson statistics for trend data and more reporting.

Established case tracking system.

Instituted case prioritization system.

Strengthened law enforcement skills of investigators and

improved communications.

Established communications with prosecutor’s office.

55
IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM
FIRE INVESTIGATION MANAGEMENT ASSISTANCE PROJECT

IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM

Please Read Carefully

Please answer the following questions as best you can pertaining to any changes that you

may have made to your fire investigation procedures and or management system since participating

in the U.S. Fire Administration’s fire investigation unit management technical assistance project.

We are trying to identify and quantify the impact that this project has had in the

participating sites, and to document how the on-site technical assistance and written report

assisted you. We ask about potential impact in six areas: the investigation unit, data

management, administration, inter-agency coordination, arson prevention, and outcomes.

Under each of these sections we present a list of possible actions you may have taken or

results you may have obtained. Just check all that apply. If you have implemented

changes other than those listed, please note them under the category, “other” and describe.

We also strongly encourage you to add narrative statements and comments to provide more details.

Thank you very much for helping us to evaluate this project. The approach here

may even raise ideas that help you to evaluate your own efforts further. Your cooperation

is needed and is appreciated. If you have any questions, please contact Hollis Stambaugh

at TriData (703) 351-8300.

community:

Primary Contact:

Person Completing this Assessment: (Name and Title)

Phone:

Date(s) of On-Site Technical Assistance:

Date of Final Field Report:

8/91
Please check any of the following you have implemented since the USFA technical assistance site

visit and report. ONLY NOTE CHANGES OR NEW INITIATIVES.

SECTION 1 - INVESTIGATION UNIT

Training

_ Initiated or improved training records.

_ Added new local fire investigation courses. (Please identify)

_ Expanded the frequency or availability of courses.

_ Pursued more state-level courses.

_ Pursued more National Fire Academy courses.

_ Initiated or repeated basic fire investigation training for

suppression units.

_ Other; please describe:

Operating Procedures

_ New or revised written SOP’s for handling fire investigations.

What did you add or change?

_ Restructured specific assignments of investigators.

_ More specialized? Please elaborate.

_ Less specialized? Please elaborate.

_ Changed call-out procedures.

_ Other; please describe:

2
Staffing Changes

SECTION 2 - DATA AND REPORT MANAGEMENT

_ Strengthened law enforcement authority and skills of fire

department investigators.

_ Added investigation staff.

_ Decreased number of investigation staff.

_ Restructured unit. How?

_ Other; please describe:

Investigation Reports

_ Expanded the types of fire investigation and arson data

that are routinely collected.

_ Standardized the report format.

_ Expanded the report format.

What new sections were added?

_ Set tighter deadlines for submission of reports.

_ Other; please describe:

Data Processing

_ Changed from manual system to computerized data management

_ Reduced delays in report processing

_ Implemented the new version of AIMS

_ Added administration staff to handle data processing

_ Other; please describe:

3
Statistics

_ Increased frequency of data analysis (e.g. from quarterly to monthly reports).

_ Now prepare periodic analysis of investigation and arson experience and

monitor trends.

_ Use trend data to make decisions about program resources and investigation

management.

_ Now utilize data in monthly and annual reports to Chief of Department, local

legislators, Mayor or County Commissioner, City Manager, etc.

_ Other; please describe:

Case Tracking

_ Established/improved system for tracking status of cases.

_ Monitor status of cases to check for unusual delays or other problems.

_ Update case records as new information is obtained.

_ Other; please describe:

SECTION 3 - ADMINISTRATION

Workload Issues

_ Altered workload per investigator.

(Please check one) _ fewer cases per investigator.

_ more cases per investigator.

_ equalized number of cases among investigators.

_ Added administration staff to reduce administrative tasks for investigators.

_ Instituted case prioritization system to allow focus on more important cases.

_ Other; please describe:
Personnel Management

_ Instituted better system of periodic and annual performance reviews,

including writing individual goals for each investigator.

_ Other; please describe:

Scheduling

_ Changed shift work hours to correct scheduling problems and to reduce overtime.

Please describe:

_ Other; please describe:

SECTION 4 - INTER-AGENCY COORDINATION

Fire and Law Enforcement

_ Established or strengthened joint fire and police investigation team.

_ Instituted greater participation in investigations by law enforcement.

_ Instituted cross-training for police or fire investigators.

_ Strengthened law enforcement authority and skills of fire department investigators.

_ Improved communications and transfer of data and reports between

police and fire agencies.

_ Assure completion of UCR Report for all incendiary fires and require forwarding of

Report.

_ Other; please describe:

5

Mutual Aid

_ Formalized or improved mutual aid agreement with neighboring

jurisdictions for investigation assistance.

_ Other; please describe:
Prosecutor

_ Succeeded in obtaining earlier and better support on arson cases

from the prosecutor’s office.

_ Succeeded in having designated prosecutors assigned to arson cases.

_ Added the prosecutor’s office to the local arson task force.

_ Facilitated prosecutor participation in arson training classes.

_ Other; please describe:

Insurance Industry

_ Obtained better cooperation from insurance industry on arson prevention

programs.

_ Obtained better cooperation from insurance industry in sharing

information on pending arson cases.

_ Added insurance representatives to local task force.

_ Other; please describe:

SECTION 5 - ARSON PREVENTION

General Awareness and Prevention Efforts

_ Created new neighborhood arson prevention program(s).

_ Established arson tipster hot line.

_ Incorporated lessons on the dangers of firesetting into elementary

school fire safety curricula.

_ Established undercover operations and system of informants.

_ Began teaching arson awareness and prevention to occupants of

high-rise commercial and residential buildings.

_ Other; please describe:

6
Juvenile Firesetter Counseline Programs

_ Organized or improved formal juvenile firesetter program.

_ In-house program within fire department?

_ Use outside counselors and agencies?

_ Have means of evaluating impact?

_ Expanded network of referring agencies to include schools, police,

line companies, social workers, etc.

_ Other; please describe:

SECTION 6 - OUTCOMES

One of the most conclusive means of documenting the success of your operational and

program changes in fire investigation and arson prosecution is to examine the bottom line: the

change in your arson statistics. Please complete the following to the best of your ability. You

may need to consult with the police department or the prosecutor’s office for some of this data.

Provide what information you can, even if not all is available.

7
Data Item

1. No. of fires

a. Structure fires

b. Vehicle fires

c. Other

2. No. of fires investigated

3. No. of cases ruled as:

a. Accidental

b. Incendiary

c. Undetermined

4. No. of cases with arrests

5. No of cases cleared

6. No. of cases accepted by

prosecutor

7. No. of cases with

convictions

YEAR

‘88 ‘89 '90 ‘91 (through 6/30)

GENERAL QUESTIONS

1. What problems have you encountered recently (since we visited) and how did you

overcome them?

8
2. Are there any other ways that the USFA management assistance project helped your

community assess and improve your fire investigation and arson control work?

Please explain:

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE:1992-625-281/60509

3. Are there any other ways that the USFA management assistance project could assist

your community in fire investigation and arson control work? Please explain:

THANK YOU! PLEASE CALL IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.

FEEL FREE TO INCLUDE ANY DOCUMENTATION THAT WOULD

SUBSTANTIATE OR ELABORATE YOUR ANSWERS AND WHICH

WOULD CONTRIBUTE TO THE FINAL REPORT.

9