U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of Justice Programs 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention 

J. Robert Flores, Administrator May 2005

Of fice of Justice Pr ograms • Par tnerships for Safer Communities • www.ojp.usdoj.gov 

for constructive discussion about existing 

perspectives. 

tration, 1997, 2004). 

In 2002, the National Association of State 

advance an understanding of the mechanics and dynamics of child and adolescent 

In the hands of children, fire can be a 

In 2002, the National Association of 

State Fire Marshals (NASFM) began 

which this Bulletin is based. 

the NASFM project, 

outlines 

can better understand the dynamics of 

following project goals. First, review the 

existing research literature on juvenile firesetting behavior and offer a distillation of 

that literature. Second, convene a conference of researchers and fire, justice, and 

clinical professionals to provide a forum 

and future research. Third, deliver a report 

to NASFM in April 2003 outlining pressing 

areas of new research that would directly 

benefit the professional community. 

A Justiceworks research team reviewed 

the existing social science literature to 

identify thematic elements of current firesetting knowledge. In addition, research 

and professional colleagues in the field 

were consulted to identify a wide range 

of research. A compendium of the research 

literature covering approximately the past 

30 years was assembled in a 2-month period. The project’s principal investigators 

reviewed the assembled literature, sorting 

out its thematic elements, strengths, and 

weaknesses from theoretical and applied 

A conference of 14 researchers and professionals from the fire, justice, and clinical communities was held in February 

2003 at the University of New Hampshire 

to promote a broad discussion of the 

existing research as it relates to the immediate needs of the various professional 

Juvenile Firesetting: 

A Research Overview 

Charles T. Putnam and John T. Kirkpatrick 

The consequences of juvenile firesetting 

can be tragic and costly. In a typical year, 

fires set by children and youth claim the 

lives of approximately 300 people and 

destroy more than $300 million worth of 

property. Children are the predominant 

victims of these fires, accounting for 85 

of every 100 lives lost (U.S. Fire AdminisA thorough understanding of juvenile 

firesetting—including why children and 

youth set fires—is key to curbing this 

destructive behavior. By examining research literature on juvenile firesetting 

and making recommendations for further 

research, this Bulletin offers an overview 

of the terms and theoretical formulations 

common to juvenile firesetting studies and 

identifies ways to enhance future research. 

Background 

Fire Marshals (NASFM) contracted Justiceworks at the University of New Hampshire 

to develop a research agenda that would 

firesetting behavior. NASFM expressed 

particular interest in developing applied 

research initiatives that would help working professionals address firesetting behavior. NASFM charged Justiceworks with the 

Access OJJDP publications online at www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ojjdp 

A Message From OJJDP 

destructive force. Each year, fires set 

by youth claim hundreds of lives and 

destroy millions of dollars’ worth of 

property. 

By understanding how and why juveniles set fires, professionals and policymakers can make informed decisions 

about how best to address this harmful 

behavior. 

developing applied research initiatives 

to help professionals curtail juvenile 

firesetting. The project included a 

review of the research literature, a 

conference of researchers and professionals involved in preventing juvenile 

firesetting, and a final report, upon 

Drawing on information gathered by 

Juvenile Firesetting: A Research Overview 

existing research and theories related 

to juvenile firesetting and identifies limitations of the existing research. It also 

recommends strategies for curbing 

juvenile firesetting, such as conducting 

a national juvenile firesetting survey, 

constructing a firesetting classification 

system, and identifying and evaluating 

promising intervention and treatment 

programs. 

Combating a problem as serious and 

persistent as juvenile firesetting requires the aid of the research community. Using sound research, the field 

juvenile firesetting, determine the types 

of juveniles involved, and establish 

best practices to protect children and 

families from fires set by youth. 
communities. Conference topics included 

the link between juvenile firesetting behavior and aggression and the existing 

firesetting literature. Discussions focused 

on feedback from the fire, justice, and clinical professionals. The final two sessions 

of the conference were devoted to identifying new research directions. Using a 

group technique to ensure participation 

by all conferees, a set of research questions was designated for consideration by 

NASFM. 

Finally, Justiceworks helped identify areas 

in the field of juvenile firesetting in need of 

additional research. The contributions of 

conference participants were analyzed and 

compared with existing gaps in the empirical literature to identify those areas. 

This Bulletin is the product of the work 

conducted by NASFM and Justiceworks. 

It provides a structure to frame existing 

research and theoretical formulations of 

juvenile firesetting behavior, identifies 

gaps in current knowledge about juvenile 

firesetting, and proposes a set of empirical 

questions most crucial to the professional 

communities for researchers to address. 

Firesetting Literature: 

Terms and Concepts 

Charting new directions in the firesetting 

research requires establishing a baseline 

of existing knowledge culled from empirically based literature. Before doing so, it 

is helpful to define terms and concepts 

that commonly appear in the juvenile firesetting literature. 

A review of the research reveals an apparent distinction between fireplay and 

firesetting behavior. Both behaviors may 

produce varying degrees of damage and 

injury, but they differ in their levels of 

intent and malice. Fireplay is often used 

to convey a low level of intent to inflict 

harm and an absence of malice. Especially 

among children and adolescents, fireplay 

involves elements of curiosity and fascination. Fireplay damages are viewed as collateral and not maliciously inspired. 

Firesetting is decidedly different. Although 

the degree of malice may vary in firesetting behavior, the level of intent is higher 

than in fireplay. Juvenile firesetters are 

viewed as willful actors who consistently 

use fire as an instrument of purposeful 

action. Moreover, the literature suggests 

that firesetting may be more conducive 

to repetition and chronic behavior than 

fireplay. 

The clear implication is that firesetting 

behavior is a greater threat to public safety than fireplay. At the same time, more 

juveniles may engage in fireplay than in 

firesetting behavior. (The literature also 

makes a distinction between “fire interest” 

and “fire involvement.” Fire interest suggests a generalized preoccupation with 

fire but an absence of direct participation 

with fire. In contrast, fire involvement suggests fire activity that could include both 

fireplay and firesetting.) 

The literature also distinguishes between 

child and adolescent firesetting. This is an 

important thematic element that defines 

current thinking and responses to fireplay 

and firesetting behavior. Child firesetting is 

restricted to children age 12 or younger. 

Adolescent firesetting includes those 13 

years old to the age of majority, which 

varies by state. This distinction arises from 

the impact of development and maturation 

on behavior. As children mature, society 

holds them increasingly responsible for 

their behavior. Responses to delinquent 

behavior among the very young differ 

markedly from responses to offenses committed by those in their mid-teens. Moreover, adults receive different treatment in 

the criminal justice system than juveniles. 

Such developmentally based considerations may explain why firesetting research 

is generally oriented toward treatment 

rather than punishment. Because of their 

age, even the most hardened of juveniles 

may be perceived as less culpable for their 

actions and more amenable to treatment 

than adults. These age-based distinctions 

are implicit in the terms “firesetter” and 

“arsonist.” 

The literature suggests that the use of fire 

by juveniles may indicate that fire can be 

both an instrument of power and serve 

as a weapon, as opposed to merely being a product of curiosity (Cox-Jones et 

al., 1990; Karchmer, 1982; Sakheim and 

Osborn, 1986; Swaffer and Hollin, 1995). 

Children’s status in society and their 

developmental maturity place them in 

less powerful positions than adults. For 

example, the ability to legally drink alcohol, use tobacco, drive a motor vehicle, 

and vote is determined by age. Although 

access to firearms and other weapons 

is restricted, matches and lighters are 

relatively accessible to youth inclined to 

act in harmful ways. In the hands of an 

errant, reckless, or careless youth, a pack 

of matches can be a formidable weapon 

used to act out expressive or instrumental 

behaviors. 

The concept of expressive and instrumental behavior addresses motivations of firesetting. Expressive firesetting behavior 

suggests that the behavior is an expression of psychopathology or unresolved 

trauma. In contrast, instrumental firesetting suggests that the fire was set to 

achieve an established goal. These terms 

are used more frequently in discussions 

of firesetting than fireplay because fireplay often involves lesser degrees of intent and malice. The distinction between 

expressive and instrumental firesetting 

behaviors has implications for treatment 

and intervention strategies and reflects 

a general focus on the medical rather 

than the criminal models in the firesetting 

literature. Most likely, considerable overlap exists between expressive and instrumental behavior. The juvenile firesetting 

literature, however, tends to focus on expressive elements even in instrumental 

firesetting behavior. 

Finally, the literature contains implicit 

references to external and internal origins 

of firesetting behavior. External origins 

include social and cultural influences that 

promote the use of fire by juveniles. Certain elements of a juvenile’s experiential 

world may encourage or otherwise abet 

fire usage. These elements may involve 

family dynamics, peer reinforcement, or 

representations in the media of the use 

and effects of fire. Such influences may 

encourage constructive and destructive 

fire usage, as youth can be taught and encouraged to use fire safely or recklessly. 

Internal origins point to something within 

the firesetter, biochemically, neurologically, or psychologically, that compels him 

or her to use fire. The table on page 3 

illustrates the salient thematic emphases 

in the literature. 

In many instances, these thematic emphases overlap in the literature, providing a 

matrix of possibilities to address juvenile 

behavior involving fire. Fireplay, for example, can be a behavior engaged in by an 

adolescent out of curiosity to see if the 

lighting of an improvised bonfire will 

impress a prospective girlfriend, since he 

had seen such a ruse work in a teen film 

he recently saw. Similarly, an 8-year-old 

victim of sexual abuse by a relative may 

intentionally set her own bed on fire as 

a catharsis, or call for help, and as an 

exercise of control over a situation in 

which she feels powerless. 

2 
Dichotomous Thematic Emphases 

Thematic Emphasis Dichotomy 

Intent Fireplay/firesetting 

Age Child/adolescent 

Vehicle Curiosity/power (weapon) 

Motivation Expressive/instrumental 

Origin Environmental/individualistic 

Typologies 

Classification schemes, or typologies, are 

used to aggregate common elements of 

shared behavior patterns, event characteristics, or psychological profiles. All 

of these typologies appear in some form 

in the juvenile firesetting literature. 

Because most existing research comes 

from the clinical and psychological sciences, a clear emphasis on psychological and individual-level classification 

Literature Review: 

Research and Theory 

Juvenile firesetting literature can be classified under four broad headings: measurement, typologies, etiology, and intervention, control, and treatment. Any effort 

to impose a structure on the scientific 

literature presents certain challenges. 

Other strategies for structuring information exist, and categories of research are 

not mutually exclusive of one another. 

A single piece of research is apt to fall 

under more than one heading. Nevertheless, offering a framework that incorporates broad and prevailing thematic 

elements can help order wide-ranging 

research efforts. 

Measurement 

Most firesetting research strategies involve convenience samples, i.e., they use 

study subjects that are readily available 

or easily identifiable. In the case of juvenile firesetters, many studies involve samples drawn from known firesetters who 

have been identified through official agencies, such as the fire, law enforcement, or 

clinical communities, as having engaged 

in fire-related behavior. Although studies 

using convenience samples can produce 

useful knowledge, study findings may not 

accurately capture and reflect the characteristics of all firesetting behavior or the 

traits of the entire population of firesetters. 

For example, one should not draw generalized conclusions about juvenile delinquency from studies that use only juveniles in 

custody at a detention facility as significant 

delinquent behavior may be committed 

by juveniles who are never committed or 

detained. Similarly, a significant representation of juvenile firesetting behavior may be 

unmeasured in studies that rely on convenience samples only, thereby compromising 

the comprehensiveness and reliability of 

their findings. Moreover, convenience samples are not large enough to ensure stable 

characteristics for an entire population. 

For example, if detained firesetters are 

selected as a sample of the total firesetter 

population, other types of firesetters, such 

as those not caught or detained, are excluded. Notable exceptions to this methodological problem exist, and their findings 

can be viewed with greater confidence.1 

Useful applications of convenience samples 

in the existing literature typically involve 

within-group comparisons. By noting a 

sample’s limitations, comparisons can be 

made based on differences in event or individual characteristics. Some studies (Kolko 

and Kazdin, 1986; Sakheim and Osborn, 

1986, 1999), for example, parse out differences in personality traits among certain 

types of firesetters. Other studies make 

comparisons of sample subjects by age 

of onset or recurrence (Kolko and Kazdin, 

1986; Kolko, 1992; Bradford and Dimock, 

1986; Cox-Jones et al., 1990). Still others 

may differentiate by firesetting event characteristics (Bumpass, Fagelman, and Brix, 

1983; Karchmer, 1982; Swaffer and Hollin, 

1995). All of these methods are useful in 

identifying salient differences within a 

convenience sample. 

Finally, some minor attempts have been 

made to assess the prevalence and incidence of juvenile firesetting behavior 

(Webb et al., 1990; Franklin et al., 2002; 

Raines and Foy, 1994; Kazdin, 1986; Slavkin, 

2001). In most instances, these studies are 

confined to local rather than national estimates. Importantly, some studies indicate 

that perhaps only 40 percent of juvenile 

firesetting behavior is reported. Of course, 

the true incidence and prevalence of fireplay behavior among juveniles is unmeasured. (“Incidence” refers to the number 

of new cases occurring during a given time 

period. “Prevalence” refers to the number 

of cases present in the population at any 

given time.) 

1 Stickle and Blechman, 2002. 

schemes exists. 

Some research has produced typologies 

that speak to common elements in firesetting behaviors and event characteristics, 

but that research is quite limited. The firesetting behavior typologies have been 

created based on co-occurring behaviors 

such as aggression, antisocial behavior, 

delinquency, and substance abuse (Heath 

et al., 1985; Kazdin, 1986; Sakheim and 

Osborn, 1999; Slavkin, 2000). Research 

studies attempt to identify the correlates 

of firesetting behavior and to isolate the 

risk factors that may promote it. Age, gender, marital status of parent or guardian, 

fire involvement history, and smoking 

behavior are among these correlates. 

Typologies of event characteristics may 

include differentiation by severity of 

damage, frequency, environment, and the 

number of juveniles involved (Showers 

and Pickrell, 1987; Bradford and Dimock, 

1986; Raines and Foy, 1994). Importantly, 

these studies point to the environmental 

origins of firesetting behavior. 

Classification of psychological profiles 

among juvenile firesetters is a common 

emphasis in research efforts. These typologies reflect individualistic origins of 

firesetting. They also reflect greater participation of psychologists and clinicians in 

firesetting research than of sociologists 

and anthropologists. Perhaps the most pervasive psychological typology is a classification scheme built from clinical assessments of known firesetters (Kolko, 2002). 

This psychological typology identifies 

four subtypes of firesetter: curious, pathological, expressive, and delinquent. These 

subtypes involve differences mostly in 

motivation but often implicate other individual and environmental characteristics 

related to firesetting. The curious firesetter uses fire out of fascination, the pathological out of deep-seated individual dysfunction, the expressive as a cry for help, 

and the delinquent as a means to antisocial 

or destructive ends. Importantly, these categories are not always mutually exclusive. 

3 
A firesetter, for example, may use fire for 

expressive and delinquent reasons simultaneously. In any case, references to psychological typology, or slight variations on it, 

appear widely in the literature. 

It is difficult to know how widely typology 

is used to describe juvenile firesetting in 

the professional community, how useful 

it is to those professionals, or its precise 

implications for intervention, control, and 

treatment programs. 

Etiology 

Most theory in behavioral and social science seeks to explain and predict behavior. 

Research, then, is designed to test a theory’s explanative and predictive powers. 

At present, assessing the strengths of theoretical formulations of juvenile firesetting 

behavior is difficult because a comprehensive national research strategy has yet to 

be designed and implemented. For the 

moment, several theoretical formulations 

of firesetting behavior can be gleaned from 

the existing literature. 

Etiology refers to causes and origins. 

Identifying possible causes of behavior 

is worthwhile because some causes suggest certain remedies and not others. If, 

for example, we knew that certain materials caused unwanted combustion, then we 

could develop strategies to minimize the 

possibility of their combustion. Similarly, 

understanding how certain characteristics 

or circumstances influence juvenile firesetting may lead to targeted efforts that 

can address those characteristics and 

prevent firesetting behavior. 

Distinguishing between correlation and 

cause, however, can be difficult. Correlation involves a relationship between two 

variables that simply appear and fluctuate together in some way. Cause, on the 

other hand, involves a direct cause-andeffect relationship, clearly indicating that 

one variable causes another. Given this 

caveat, the theories of firesetting etiology 

(see sidebar) represent a range of theoretical approaches for explaining juvenile 

firesetting. 

At times, these theoretical elements are 

embedded unnoticeably in the assumptions about juvenile behavior patterns. 

At other times, they are overtly stated 

and tested by research studies. Whether 

explicitly identified or not, these theories 

of the etiology of juvenile firesetting represent current thinking within the field. 

Intervention, Control, 

and Treatment 

Remedial efforts to address problematic 

behavior usually are based on a notion 

about why the behavior occurs. For example, prevention programs that emphasize 

community outreach, in-school instruction, 

and media campaigns will most likely suppose that firesetting is a learned behavior. 

If a youth learns to be a firesetter, then he 

4 

Motive Origin Etiological Theme 

Kazdin, 1986). 

Social acceptance 

Societal reaction 

Risk assessment 

Theories of Firesetting Origins 

Theory 

Opportunity theory Expressive and External Firesetting is a product of the open and relatively 

instrumental unrestricted access to fire as an instrument and/or 

weapon (Cohen and Felson, 1979). 

Learning theory Expressive and External Firesetting is a behavior learned through association 

instrumental with family, peers, and subcultural forces that wittingly 

or unwittingly abet inappropriate fire use (Kolko and 

Expressive trauma Expressive Internal Firesetting is a manifestation of preexisting childhood 

theory trauma and is used to vent frustration with victimization 

or other life circumstances (Lowenstein, 1989). 

Stress theory Expressive and External and Firesetting is a behavior that releases accumulating 

instrumental internal stress or seeks stress or danger in an uneventful life. 

It is often closely related to vandalism, shoplifting, and 

graffiti among juveniles (Lyng, 1990). 

Power association Instrumental External and Firesetting is a means for juveniles who are otherwise 

theory internal disempowered to attain power over people and/or the 

environment (Sakheim and Osborn, 1986). 

Expressive and External and Firesetting is motivated by the desire to gain acceptance 

theory instrumental internal by a peer or a peer group (Swaffer and Hollin, 1995). 

Instrumental External and Firesetting is behavior produced in large part by the 

theory internal firesetter’s knowledge that it will produce a substantial 

reaction or response from the wider society, such as 

the arrival of police and fire departments (Macht and 

Mack, 1968). 

Expressive and External and Firesetting is a behavior that develops as a juvenile 

theory instrumental internal matures and either co-occurs with or is produced by 

other individualistic and/or environmental circumstances 

(Kolko and Kazdin, 1986). 
or she can be taught about or persuaded 

of the dangers of firesetting. On the other 

hand, psychological counseling and treatment programs generally assume that firesetting is a manifestation of a personality 

or behavioral disorder, wherein fire usage 

is an expression of inner turmoil. Fire, justice, and clinical professionals engaged in 

firesetting intervention, control, and treatment tend to recognize the assumptions 

about firesetting origins that support their 

remedial efforts. However, juvenile firesetting likely has multiple causes, and firesetters may be of many different types. What 

works with members of one group may not 

work with members of another because 

their behaviors may have discrete origins. 

Fortunately, the firesetting research literature clearly recognizes that successful 

intervention, control, and treatment involve multiple strategies that respond to 

firesetting’s multiple origins. Despite this 

rather complicated scenario, defining the 

current state of research-based remedial 

efforts is possible. Some of these efforts 

are described below. 

Risk factors. Risk factor identifiers are 

used for predictive purposes. If the risk 

factors associated with firesetting are 

known with some certainty, then the professional community might be able to 

determine the types of juveniles in greatest jeopardy of engaging in firesetting 

behavior. At present, analyses of risk 

factors for firesetting are inadequately 

developed, and confidence in existing 

applications is low. 

Education programs. Media campaigns 

targeting fire prevention have a longstanding history. The Smokey the Bear 

campaign, for example, has been used 

for decades. More recently, local agencies 

have implemented their own campaigns, 

including those offered within primary, 

middle, and secondary schools. Some 

new education programs target only 

those juveniles who have been identified 

as fire-involved in one way or another. 

Two observations are important: First, 

some confusion exists regarding the target 

audience. Are these programs designed 

with an age group in mind or with an 

eye to the difference between fireplay 

and firesetting or fire interest and fire 

involvement? Second, rigorous evaluation 

of the outcomes of the prevailing educational efforts is relatively scarce. 

Intervention. Intervention strategies are 

designed to interrupt firesetting behavior. 

In most cases, these strategies are intended to respond quickly the moment 

a juvenile engages in inappropriate fire 

usage. Although systematic evaluations 

of intervention strategies are rare, the 

literature suggests that the more successful local efforts involve a multisystemic response from the fire, school, 

law enforcement, and mental health communities. Comparatively little research 

exists that addresses the efficacy of intervention efforts delimited by age of 

firesetter, type of firesetter, or event 

characteristics—all of which are important for determining best practices in 

firesetter interventions. 

Treatment. The research literature addresses two broad types of treatment 

strategies: pharmacological and psychological or clinical. Pharmacological 

remedies to firesetting are typically implemented when fire usage co-occurs with 

another behavior pattern, such as hyperactivity, neurological disorders, or maladaptive conduct disorders. Although 

drug therapies are prescribed in some 

clinical trials, mixed evidence supports 

their effectiveness in addressing firesetting. The dearth of comprehensive research on drug therapies renders assessing their application with confidence 

problematic. Psychological or clinical 

treatment programs, in contrast, dominate 

the existing literature, even though treatment programs generally attend to only 

those juveniles known to have engaged in 

inappropriate fire usage. Juveniles who 

escape attention or reporting are not 

often treated in this context. 

Numerous types of psychological and 

clinical treatment programs exist. Some 

address the mental health needs of individual firesetters, whereas others address 

the broader needs within the firesetter’s 

family and school. Still others address 

the needs of the juvenile resident within 

a mental health institution or juvenile 

detention center. Two conclusions are 

reached in the clinical literature. First, 

successful treatments are hand-tailored to 

the needs of individual juveniles. Second, 

successful treatments often employ multisystemic approaches, involving the firesetter’s family, school, ongoing clinical 

counseling and care, and the participation 

of local fire and law enforcement officers. 

Limitations of the 

Research Literature 

The body of firesetting theory and the 

research that tests it to date are considerable. The literature shows that there is 

no single profile of the juvenile firesetter 

nor is there a single cause of firesetting 

behavior. The research literature reveals 

that fireplay and firesetting are two different behavior sets, although a developmental relationship may exist between 

the two. In some cases, firesetting may be 

likely to co-occur with other behaviors, 

such as aggression, risk-taking, antisocial 

behavior, and substance use. Finally, the 

literature reveals that some prevention, 

intervention, and treatment programs 

show promising results. 

Gaps in the research literature remain. 

Most apparent is the lack of a sufficient 

systematic assessment of the scope of 

juvenile firesetting over time. Although 

some municipalities, counties, and states 

have made efforts to measure the occurrence of firesetting, most have not. Many 

fire professionals consider firesetting to 

be underreported. Existing studies suggest that the majority of reported cases 

are identified by the medical, clinical, 

and education communities rather than 

the fire and law enforcement communities 

that have limited investigation budgets 

and are constrained by juvenile protection statutes. In fact, a considerable number of fireplay and firesetting incidents 

may escape the attention of the medical, 

clinical, and education communities 

because the incidents are handled within 

families and outside the notice of others. 

The development and implementation of a 

periodic, nationwide survey of households 

could address this shortcoming and provide useful information to policymakers 

and decisionmakers. 

The literature presents several systems 

for classifying firesetting behavior and 

individuals. In many cases, however, 

these taxonomies have been built from 

convenience samples. Some studies fail 

to provide control or comparison groups 

to ensure the reliability and validity of 

findings, although more recent studies 

have taken steps to address this shortcoming. Clearly, more research using 

larger representative samples and control 

groups should be encouraged to identify 

risk factors associated with firesetting, to 

discern co-occurring behavior sets, and 

to understand the developmental process 

that may link fireplay and firesetting. The 

professional communities that deal with 

juvenile firesetting have expressed a need 

for reliable classification systems, taxonomies, and typologies. That reliability 

should be fostered through ongoing research and development. 

5 
Finally, many prevention, intervention, and 

treatment programs have been designed 

and implemented to address juvenile firesetting, protect public safety, and meet 

the therapeutic needs of firesetters. The 

NASFM leadership and membership have 

identified juvenile firesetting as a priority 

in the hope of minimizing its occurrence 

and the destruction and tragedy it brings. 

Many juvenile prevention, intervention, 

and treatment programs for juvenile firesetters have been put in place with allocated resources but without sufficient 

means to evaluate program efficacy. Without evaluation components, determining 

which programs are effective and assessing whether program benefits justify their 

costs are difficult. Although building program assessment and evaluation components into the design of new programs 

may be beneficial, it is an expensive proposition. Evaluation costs are generally 

about 10 to 15 percent of the total program budget. Evaluation is a sound investment, however, because it is more likely 

that resources will be well spent, resultsoriented programs will prosper, and, ultimately, that juvenile firesetting will be 

addressed in a cost-effective manner. 

Recommendations 

for Research 

Through the collaborative process of 

the Justiceworks project, NASFM and 

colleagues in the fire, justice, and clinical 

communities worked together to articulate their concerns. Gaps in the existing 

research literature have been identified 

and suggestions have been made to bridge 

them. Involving practitioners and professionals provided an opportunity to ensure 

that the questions brought forth would 

result in the answers that are needed. 

The following recommendations are presented for research in child and adolescent firesetting. The recommendations 

have two sources: existing gaps in firesetting research and the input of working 

professionals. Considerable effort was 

made to find points of convergence between the two. Three directions for future 

research follow, in order of consensus. 

Conduct a National Juvenile 

Firesetter Survey 

One of the first tasks facing researchers 

is to determine and better describe the 

scope of the challenge posed by adolescent firesetters. Much of the research conducted to date on adolescent firesetters is 

based on convenience samples of persons 

determined to be firesetters by parents, 

law enforcement officials, or clinicians. 

Samples drawn from identified firesetters, 

however, may overemphasize some characteristics of firesetting behavior and obscure others. A scientifically constructed 

national survey would allow practitioners 

and policymakers to better understand the 

scope of the problem. It would also give 

researchers a basis for comparing the results of their research with firesetters identified from a nationwide sample. 

Such a survey should provide reliable 

data along a number of lines of inquiry, 

allow data to be correlated in a variety of 

ways, and address such questions as the 

following: 

◆ How often do youth engage in fireplay 

and firesetting? 

◆ What is the distribution of fireplay by 

age group, and which groups are most 

at risk for recurrence? 

◆ What are the characteristics of youth 

fireplay and firesetting and the resulting fires? 

◆ What distinctions in youth fireplay and 

firesetting emerge among geographic 

regions of the country and among 

rural, suburban, and urban areas? 

◆ What correlations exist between fireplay and firesetting and indicators of 

economic status, gender, age, and 

event characteristics? 

Analyses from the survey would allow 

practitioners, policymakers, and researchers to better understand and 

respond to the problems of fireplay and 

firesetting. Precedents exist for conducting nationwide community surveys of 

children and adolescents, which could 

be used as models. 

Construct a Firesetting 

Classification System 

Participants in the Justiceworks research 

conference repeatedly emphasized the 

need for a classification scheme to reliably describe and systematically categorize firesetting behavior and its risks. 

For instance, both practitioners and 

researchers understand that some kinds 

of fireplay and firesetting behavior are 

relatively benign, impose relatively little 

risk of serious fire loss, and respond 

well to simple, low-cost interventions. 

It appears equally clear that other kinds 

of firesetting behavior are associated 

with serious human pathologies and 

increased risk of tragic outcomes. 

Communities would benefit from a clear, 

scientifically based classification system 

for firesetting. Such a system should 

accommodate the various types of juvenile firesetting, age of onset and recurrence, event characteristics, and offender traits. The classification system 

should allow practitioners, policymakers, 

and researchers to reliably distinguish 

firesetting that entails a high risk of escalation or repetition from behavior that 

entails a low risk and to target enforcement, treatment, and scientific resources 

to high-risk behaviors. 

Current classification schemes do not 

adequately distinguish adolescent firesetting from child firesetting. Although 

research supports making such a distinction, further research is needed to elucidate the relationship between age and 

firesetting. Several participants in the 

Justiceworks research conference asked 

whether identifiable career paths exist 

for some types of firesetting behavior 

and whether some kinds of behavior or 

offender characteristics suggest which 

children or adolescents are at greatest 

risk. Insights into these issues would 

help practitioners, policymakers, and 

researchers target their efforts more 

effectively to youth who manifest 

various types of behavior. 

An additional reason for developing a 

reliable classification system is that 

youth may be stigmatized as firesetters 

regardless of the level of risk that they 

present for recurring behavior. Participants in the research conference repeatedly stressed that any new classification 

system should reflect a sensitivity for 

the lasting effects of the stigmatization 

of youth. 

Identify and Evaluate 

Promising Intervention 

and Treatment Programs 

As previously noted, a significant body 

of scientific inquiry exists regarding the 

treatment of youthful firesetters and the 

psychological characteristics of firesetting youth. This research has contributed 

to an understanding of important aspects 

of firesetting behavior, especially the relationship between aggression, conduct 

disorders, and firesetting. A number of 

promising avenues for future research in 

this area exist, including the identification 

and evaluation of promising intervention/ 

treatment programs and an investment 

in basic research on the pathology of firesetting behavior. The distinction between 

6 
clinical and abnormal psychology is somewhat arbitrary in this context, however. 

Research in each field is likely to be useful 

to the other, but some research may be 

better accomplished in the clinical setting 

or may draw on theoretical frameworks 

that go beyond the field of psychology. 

Several conference participants expressed 

the hope that research could identify 

which interventions work best, especially in treating high-risk firesetters. Participants posed the following clinical 

questions: 

◆ Which kinds of interventions can be 

delivered efficiently and effectively by 

teachers and fire services professionals? By psychotherapists? Which can 

only be delivered by specialized professionals in specialized treatment 

settings? 

◆ How important is it for clinicians to 

think of firesetting behavior as a separate problem rather than as a manifestation of problems for which they have 

already developed treatments? 

◆ What are the optimal strategies for firesetting prevention efforts? 

◆ Do the differences in the two types of 

behavior (impulsive and deliberate firesetting) arise at different times in the 

development of the individual or the 

onset of firesetting? 

◆ To what extent is juvenile firesetting 

associated with antisocial behavior? 

◆ To what extent is firesetting unique and 

to what extent is it like other conduct 

and personality disorders? 

Research that addresses these questions 

could clarify whether resources to combat 

firesetting should be focused on specialized interventions and treatments. 

Conclusion 

Past research on juvenile firesetting provides a foundation on which to build new 

research initiatives that will require resources and expertise across the social, 

behavioral, and health sciences. The understanding of juvenile firesetting in 2004 

may be comparable to the understanding 

of child abuse more than 25 years ago, 

when concern about the victimization of 

children grew from the law enforcement, 

clinical, and medical professionals who 

witnessed the damages of child abuse. 

These professionals looked to the research community where social, behavioral, and health scientists developed 

research initiatives to explore the epidemiology, correlates, and causes of the 

physical, sexual, and emotional abuse 

of children. The incidence and prevalence 

of child abuse in the United States are 

lower today than they were a quarter century ago. This decrease may be attributable to research initiatives that led to 

improved prevention and intervention 

programs. 

Juvenile firesetting is a serious and persistent problem. Enlisting the aid of the 

research community will help the field to 

better understand how and why juvenile 

firesetting occurs, to determine the types 

of juveniles involved in firesetting, and to 

establish the best practices to combat it. 

References 

Bradford, J., and Dimock, J. 1986. A comparative study of adolescents and adults 

who willfully set fires. Psychiatric Journal 

of the University of Ottawa 11(4):228–234. 

Bumpass, E., Fagelman, F., and Brix, R. 

1983. Intervention with children who set 

fires. American Journal of Psychotherapy 

19(3):186–194. 

Cohen, L.E., and Felson, M. 1979. Social 

change and crime rate trends: A routine 

activity approach. American Sociological 

Review 44:588–608. 

Cox-Jones, C., Lubetsky, M., Fultz, S., 

and Kolko, D. 1990. Inpatient psychiatric 

treatment of a young recidivist firesetter. 

Journal of American Academy of Child and 

Adolescent Psychiatry 29(6):936–941. 

Franklin, G., Pucci, P., Arbabi, S., Brandt, 

M., Wahl, W., and Taheri, P. 2002. Decreased juvenile arson and fire setting 

recidivism after implementation of multidisciplinary prevention programs. Journal 

of Trauma: Injury, Infection, and Critical 

Care 53(2):260–264. 

Heath, G., Hardesty, V., Goldfine, P., and 

Walker, A. 1985. Diagnosis and childhood 

firesetting. Journal of Clinical Psychology 

41(4):571–574. 

Karchmer, C. 1982. Juvenile Firesetter and 

School Arson Prevention Programs. Aetna 

Arson Prevention Series. Washington, DC: 

U.S. Department of Education. 

Kazdin, A. 1986. Parent psychopathology 

and family functioning among childhood 

firesetters. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology 14(2):315. 

Kolko, D. 1992. The emergence and recurrence of child firesetting: A one-year 

prospective study. Journal of Abnormal 

Child Psychology 20(1):17–37. 

Kolko, D., ed. 2002. Handbook on Firesetting in Children and Youth. Boston, MA: 

Academic Press. 

Kolko, D., and Kazdin, A. 1986. A conceptualization of firesetting in children and 

adolescents. Journal of Abnormal Child 

Psychology 14:49–61. 

Lowenstein, L. 1989. The etiology, diagnosis, and treatment of the fire-setting 

behavior of children. Child Psychiatry 

and Human Development 19:186–194. 

Lyng, Stephen. 1990. Edgework: A social 

psychological analysis of voluntary risktaking. American Journal of Sociology 

95:851–886. 

Macht, L., and Mack, J. 1968. The firesetter 

syndrome. Psychiatry 31:277–288. 

Raines, J., and Foy, C. 1994. Extinguishing 

the fires within: Treating juvenile firesetters. Families in Society 78(10):595–607. 

Sakheim, G., and Osborn, E. 1986. A psychological profile of juvenile firesetters in 

residential treatment: A replication study. 

Child Welfare 65(5):495–502. 

Sakheim, G., and Osborn, E. 1999. Severe 

vs. nonsevere firesetters revisited. Child 

Welfare League of America 78(4):411–434. 

Showers, J., and Pickrell, E. 1987. Child 

firesetters: A study of three populations. 

Hospital and Community Psychiatry 

38(5):495–501. 

Slavkin, M. 2000. What every professional 

who works with adolescents should 

know about firesetters. Adolescence 

35(140):759–774. 

Slavkin, M. 2001. Enuresis, firesetting, and 

cruelty to animals: Does the ego triad 

show predictive validity? Adolescence 

36(143):461–466. 

Stickle, T.R., and Blechman, E.A. 2002. 

Aggression and fire: Antisocial behavior 

in firesetting and nonfiresetting juvenile 

offenders. Journal of Psychopathology and 

Behavioral Assessment 24(3):177–193. 

Swaffer, T., and Hollin, C. 1995. Adolescent 

firesetting? Why do they say they do it? 

Journal of Adolescence 18(5):619–623. 

U.S. Fire Administration. 1997. Juvenile 

Firesetters: What You Can Do! Washington, 

DC: Federal Emergency Management 

7 
U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of Justice Programs 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention *NCJ~207606* 

PRESORTED STANDARD 

POSTAGE & FEES PAID 

DOJ/OJJDP 

PERMIT NO. G–91 

Washington, DC 20531 

Official Business 

Penalty for Private Use $300 

Bulletin NCJ 207606

Acknowledgments 

Charles T. Putnam, J.D., and John T. Kirkpatrick, Ph.D., are Codirectors of Justiceworks at the University of New Hampshire. 

The authors would like to thank their colleagues at Justiceworks and the members 

of the Justice Studies Program at the University of New Hampshire for their assistance in preparing this Bulletin. 

Agency, U.S. Fire Administration. Retrieved May 10, 2004, from the Web: 

www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/pdf/ 

publications/l-240.pdf. 

U.S. Fire Administration. 2004. Juvenile 

Arson—Youth Firesetting Facts. Fact Sheet. 

Washington, DC: Federal Emergency Management Agency, U.S. Fire Administration. 

Retrieved May 10, 2004, from the Web: 

www.usfa.fema.gov/fire-service/arson/ 

arson-aaw3.shtm. 

Webb, N., Sakheim, G., Towns-Miranda, L., 

and Wagner, C. 1990. Collaborative treatment of juvenile firesetters: Assessment 

and outreach. American Journal of 

Orthopsychiatry 60(2):305–309. 

For Further Information 

To contact the National Association of 

State Fire Marshals, send an e-mail to 

projectmanager@firemarshals.org. 

This Bulletin was prepared under grant number 

1999–JS–FX–0005 from the Office of Juvenile 

Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice. 

Points of view or opinions expressed in this 

document are those of the authors and do 

not necessarily represent the official position 

or policies of OJJDP or the U.S. Department 

of Justice. 

The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 

Prevention is a component of the Office of 

Justice Programs, which also includes the 

Bureau of Justice Assistance, the Bureau of 

Justice Statistics, the National Institute of 

Justice, and the Office for Victims of Crime.