U.S. Fire Administration/Technical Report Series

Special Report:

Security (Burglar) Bars

USFA-TR-138/February 2002

Homeland

Security

U.S. Fire Administration Fire Investigations Program

T

he U.S. Fire Administration develops reports on selected major fires throughout the country. 

The fires usually involve multiple deaths or a large loss of property. But the primary criterion 

for deciding to do a report is whether it will result in significant “lessons learned.” In some 

cases these lessons bring to light new knowledge about fire--the effect of building construction or 

contents, human behavior in fire, etc. In other cases, the lessons are not new but are serious enough 

to highlight once again, with yet another fire tragedy report.

The reports are sent to fire magazines and are distributed at National and Regional fire meetings. The 

International Association of Fire Chiefs assists USFA in disseminating the findings throughout the 

fire service. On a continuing basis the reports are available on request from USFA; announcements 

of their availability are published widely in fire journals and newsletters.

This body of work provides detailed information on the nature of the fire problem for policymakers 

who must decide on allocations of resources between fire and other pressing problems, and within 

the fire service to improve codes and code enforcement, training, public fire education, building 

technology, and other related areas.

The Fire Administration, which has no regulatory authority, sends an experienced fire investigator 

into a community after a major incident only after having conferred with the local fire authorities 

to insure that USFA’s assistance and presence would be supportive and would in no way interfere 

with any review of the incident they are themselves conducting. The intent is not to arrive during 

the event or even immediately after, but rather after the dust settles, so that a complete and objective 

review of all the important aspects of the incident can be made. Local authorities review USFA’s 

report while it is in draft. The USFA investigator or team is available to local authorities should they 

wish to request technical assistance for their own investigation.

For additional copies of this report write to the U.S. Fire Administration, National Fire Data Center, 

16825 South Seton Avenue, Emmitsburg, Maryland 21727 or via USFA Web page at http://www.

usfa.dhs.gov.

Special Report: Security (Burglar) Bars

Authored by: Jennifer Roberson

This is Report 138 of the Major Fires Investigation Project conducted 

by Varley-Campbell and Associates, Inc./TriData Corporation under 

contract EMW-97-CO-0506 to the United States Fire Administration, 

Federal Emergency Management Agency.

Homeland

Security

Department of Homeland Security

United States Fire Administration

National Fire Data Center

U.S. Fire Administration

Mission Statement

As an entity of the Department of Homeland 

Security, the mission of the USFA is to reduce life and economic losses due to fire 

and related emergencies, through leadership, advocacy, coordination, and support. 

We serve the Nation independently, in coordination with other Federal agencies, 

and in partnership with fire protection and 

emergency service communities. With a 

commitment to excellence, we provide public education, training, technology, and data 

initiatives.

Homeland

Security

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

CASE STUDIES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

PUBLIC EDUCATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Sources of Information. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

CODES AND LEGISLATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Codes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Legislation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Mississippi. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

California. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Texas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

TACTICS TO DEAL WITH BARS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

CONCLUSION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

APPENDIX A—USFA Fact Sheet: “FIRE SAFE AND SECURE: A FACTSHEET ON 

SECURITY BAR SAFETY”. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

APPENDIX B—State Farm Insurance Brochure: “Security bars stop criminals...

and possibly your escape from fire”. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

APPENDIX C—State of California Fact Sheet about Burglar Bars:

“Security/Burglar Bar Facts”. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

SOURCES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Burglar bars, also known as security or window bars, can be found on any type of structure 

– single-family home, apartment building, storefronts. The bars provide a visible sign of 

security serving as both a deterrent to potential burglars, and a reassurance to those who 

had the bars installed. However, burglar bars can also be dangerous, preventing residents and other 

occupants from escaping in the event of a fire and leading to fatalities.

Based on data obtained from the National Fire Incident Reporting System (NFIRS), on average about 

25 civilians are injured or die each year in fires where escape is compromised by unauthorized bars 

or gates. The actual numbers may be larger than that, due to the fact that the presence of burglar bars 

is not always collected in a way that is recorded by NFIRS (e.g., written in text but not coded). The 

most recent version of NFIRS, version 5.0, allows for the collection of data concerning burglar bars; 

however, data from the new version is not yet available.

Most fatalities/injuries involving burglar bars occur in residences, when people become entrapped 

by the very bars that are supposed to protect them. Children, the elderly, the mobility impaired, and 

firefighters are especially vulnerable. The bars also can hamper rescue efforts, especially the efforts 

of those who arrive before public safety personnel.

Due to the fire egress risk posed by burglar bars, most building codes regulate their installation/use. 

Several states have passed legislation specific to burglar or security bars. Generally, the codes and 

legislation require that burglar bars have some form of quick-release mechanism, enabling rapid 

escape in case of fire. Furthermore, the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Life Safety Code 

101 addresses the risk posed by unauthorized bars, stating that a window or other means of escape 

should be operable from the inside “without the use of tools, keys, or special effort.”

The cost of retrofitting or replacing existing burglar bars, along with a lack of awareness, has hindered the compliance to these regulations. The fear of burglary, theft, and/or physical attack presents 

a greater perceived risk with people than the threat of fire, especially among those who have been 

previously victimized.

Several fire departments have experienced success in reducing the presence of unsafe bars by actively 

working with the public to provide information about the devices. The public can be educated 

actively (door-to-door information), passively (websites, posters, etc.), and at points-of-sale. While 

pre-planning in neighborhoods, firefighters should note structures that have burglar bars on their 

windows/doors, and make a note of them for use in a response. They may also consider proactively 

providing safe practices information to the location noted.

While burglar bars may slow rescue they are not impenetrable. Fire departments have found success 

with a variety of strategies to gain entry, or prepare a route of egress, through burglar bars.
2

INTRODUCTION

Many people feel they have a greater risk of being robbed than of being trapped in a fire. Reports 

in the media tend to accentuate this fear, as robberies are generally more well-publicized than fires. 

According to the Uniform Crime Report compiled by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, over two 

million people, or 18 percent of the population reporting, were burglarized in 1998. According 

to information provided by NFIRS, that same year only 381,000 residential fires were reported. 

Figure 1. Burglaries vs. Residential Fires

Comparative information for burglaries and fires from 1995-1998 can be found in Figure 1.

Burglar bars are used as a visible reminder of security. In many cases where bars are used, residents 

have had personal experience as a victim of robbery, while having had little to no experience as the 

victim of a fire. The threat of being burgled or having their residence broken into is more real to them than the threat of 

being trapped in a fire. Burglar bars provide a quick, obvious, and relatively easy solution. The presence 

of non-compliant burglar bars-those not consistent with modern code-results in many difficulties. 

The hazards primarily affect those who live behind them, but can affect both civilian and fire department rescuers once a fire has started.

The installation of the bars leads to the creation of a prison-like condition-the occupants may feel 

safe, but they have severely limited their avenues of egress. By blocking windows with bars, they are 

ensuring that alternative escape paths through windows are no longer an option.

In addition to those who have recently installed unsafe burglar bars (not code-compliant), there 

are homes that have had burglar bars since before any legislation came into effect governing their 

installation and safety. Most legislation governing the installation/use of burglar bars was enacted 

after 1993; burglar bars installed prior to that year are mostly likely not complaint with current 

legislation. Despite the fact that such legislation is often retroactive, many homes are not retrofitted 

because of the cost involved in making existing installations complaint. It may cost up to $300 per 

window to either install complaint bars, or to retrofit existing ones. In contrast, the cost of installing 

unauthorized bars may be no more than $100 per window.
USFA-TR-138/February 2002 3

Enforcement of codes relative to burglar bars, while important, often is not a top priority for building officials or fire inspectors, and so property owners are often unaware of non-complaint with 

such laws. Most homes are not re-inspected once built, unless they undergo major renovation. 

Immediately after fires involving fatalities, enforcement of burglar bar codes often increases sharply. 

However, due to other demands on inspector’s time (e.g., new construction, public assembly properties), the enforcement of the laws often fades. While most legislation is drafted in the wake of multiple-fatality fires involving bars, public demand for the passing of such legislation often diminishes 

as the memory of the fire tragedy fades.

The occupant’s risk from the unsafe burglar bars is compounded greatly where there is no working 

smoke alarm. With the early warning provided by a working smoke alarm, people have a chance to 

extinguish an incipient fire or leave through exits. Anecdotal evidence suggest that when there are 

multiple fatalities due to burglar bar entrapment, there often is not a working smoke alarm. It should 

be noted that the model building codes will often require smoke alarms be installed in dwellings 

where security bars have been installed.

Several firms offer “aesthetically pleasing” burglar bars that have been treated or coated with a substance so that they do not detract from the overall appearance of the house. These aesthetic enhancements are designed to increase the appeal of burglar bars for property owners.

Just as burglar bars keep criminals out, they also keep rescuers out. Neighbors of victims entrapped 

by bars frequently state that they tried to rescue the people as they called for help, but were denied 

entry due to the presence of burglar bars. Pry bars, axes even car jacks have been known to be used 

by neighbors in an attempt to gain entry to assist victims prior to the arrival of fire department 

units... sometimes with success, often without. Regardless, the bars often significantly delay entry 

into the structure, and rescue, by neighbors.

The bars also provide a substantial challenge to fire suppression and rescue efforts. Entry by firefighters should be delayed until at least one set of bars has been removed on each level (and, ideally, 

each side) of the structure, providing an emergency escape route for occupants and responders. 

Command/safety officers should relay the location of the emergency egress points to interior attack 

crews and rapid-intervention teams.

Pre-planning is a crucial key to speeding up action on a fire ground. Anytime a unit is “on the air,” 

be it during driving training or an administrative function, personnel should try to pay attention to 

the buildings with security bars in their first due area. Any notation about burglar bars on a structure 

should be shared with all firefighting personnel responsible for responding to that structure, including second due and mutual aid companies. For example, information could be noted on dispatch 

cards and relayed to responding companies.

Having a coordinated plan for the removal of bars on a structure can result in speedier rescue and fire 

suppression. Notations about which structures are known to have burglar bars should be kept in a 

central, easily accessible location for ready reference when responding to an incident. Data collected 

might be stored in a computer-aided dispatch system, a map book, or a neighborhood information 

book. If possible, firefighting personnel should target the neighborhood surrounding a structure 

with burglar bars as an area for fire prevention and safety education, and as a location where smokealarm checks and installation should be performed.
4

Burglar bars should be specifically looked for during arrival and size-up on the fireground. Due 

to the hazards presented by the bars, firefighters need to be cognizant not only of the presence of 

bars on the fireground, but how the bars are assembled and attached to the building. Observing the 

characteristics of the bars and their installation will assist in deciding how best to remove them. It is 

important for responders to be aware of what is contained in some of these architectural touches as 

part of their pre-planning, so that rescuers are not facing unforeseen challenges when trying to gain 

entry to the structure on fire. Department training personnel or training officers should consider 

establishing standard operating procedures and training-related activities targeted at the removal of 

burglar bars using forcible entry tools.
USFA-TR-138/February 2002 5

CASE STUDIES

Despite the best efforts of fire department personnel and legislators, civilian fire fatalities as the result 

of burglar bars continue to occur. The burglar bars are just one of a series of factors contributing to 

the fire deaths; nevertheless, they often are the final step in a chain of events that led to preventable 

deaths. The following are some representative cases, including ones that occurred as this report was 

being written. Just these eight fires killed 19 people, and came close to killing more. They are all 

relatively recent, and be used to illustrate the need for enhanced vigilance by building/code officials, 

tactical consideration, and public education.

Case Study #1: Detroit, MI

Three Killed in Duplex – December 26, 2001

Three children were killed, and another three people were injured, after an early-morning fire 

broke out in their duplex. Burglar bars on the windows prevented escape, and thwarted any 

rescue attempts by neighbors.

The deceased, ages 17, 11, and 5 months, were siblings who were all trapped and killed by 

the fire. The survivors were a 15-year old girl and a 4-year-old girl, and the mother of the 

children. The mother, trapped on the roof of the duplex, threw her 4-year-old daughter 

down to rescuers, and then jumped from the roof. The 15-year-old girl was pulled from the 

fire by a neighbor.

The duplex, which housed two families, was heavily damaged; two neighboring houses were 

also damaged. At the time of this report, there was no indication of cause, or whether the 

duplex had working smoke alarms.

Case Study #2: Baton Rouge, LA

Three Children Injured – December 12, 2001

Three siblings were rescued from a house fire by a neighbor who pried burglar bars off the 

door to their house. The children, ages 6, 4, and 3, were home alone at the time of the fire, and 

were found unconscious in the rear of the house suffering from severe smoke inhalation.

Neighbors noticed the fire and, after calling 9-1-1, began attempting to rescue the children. 

One neighbor instructed the children to go to the rear of the house if the fire started to come 

near them, while another began to tear the burglar bars from the door of the house. By the 

time the fire department arrived, the bars had been pried off of the door, and the door kicked 

in. Fire department spokesmen credited the actions of the neighbors with saving the lives of 

the children. A cause was not given for the fire.
6

Case Study #3: Houston, TX

Four Killed in Single-Family Home – July 3, 2001

Four people were killed, and another five injured, after an early-morning fire broke out in a 

single-family house the day before the 4th of July. The home did not have a working smoke 

alarm, and several doors and windows of the house had been blocked with burglar bars. The 

bars were secured with a key, and did not have the quick-release mechanism required by City 

of Houston ordinance.

The deceased, ages 30, 16, 13, and 4, were found in a back bedroom of the house, and died 

of smoke inhalation. The 30-year old had initially escaped with two of her children, but 

returned to the house to try to save the other children. It appears that she became overcome 

trying to get back out of the house. The victims were found near a window, leading investigators to theorize that they were trying to escape that way, however, the window was blocked 

by burglar bars. The woman’s mother escaped with two other children.

Neighbors reported that they had tried to gain entry to the house, but heavy fire through the 

front door prevented entry via that route. Burglar bars blocked entry through windows. The 

fire, started by one of the children playing with a fireplace lighter, was quickly extinguished 

upon the arrival of firefighters.

As a result of the fire, firefighters went door-to-door throughout the neighborhood to check 

smoke alarms, warn residents of the dangers of burglar bars, and hand out fire safety information. Residents were advised to conduct Exit Drills in the Home, practicing opening burglar 

bars.

Case Study #4: Houston, TX

Three Killed in Single-Family Home – June 20, 2001

One person was injured and three killed after a fire broke out in their home at 3:00 a.m. A 65-

year-old female, a wheelchair-bound 70-year-old male, and a 42-year-old male all died from 

smoke inhalation, suffered after they were trapped in their home by burglar bars. A 44-yearold female survived, although she too suffered from smoke inhalation. The fire is reported to 

have spread rapidly through the house, which did not have working smoke alarms.

Neighbors reported hearing the family scream for help, but were unable to gain entry to the 

house due to heavy fire and burglar bars. One neighbor reportedly tried to pry the bars off, 

but was unsuccessful. The bars did not comply with city ordinances mandating quick-release 

bars. City officials canvassed the neighborhood in the wake of the fire, providing information 

on burglar bars and smoke alarms to neighbors of the victims.
USFA-TR-138/February 2002 7

Case Study #5: Tampa, FL

Two Injured in Residential Duplex – April 3, 2001

Two people were rescued by firefighters after fire broke out in their apartment. The front 

of the duplex was well-involved, with fire blocking the primary entrance to the building. 

Police officers reported that two people could be heard calling for help, leading firefighters 

to mount a rescue effort. Firefighters used a sledgehammer to break through burglar bars 

on the rear window of the apartment and gain entry to the building. The two victims, a 47-

year-old female and a 52-year-old male, were removed from the building and transported to 

the hospital.

The duplex did not have a working smoke alarm. Although both victims recovered, and were 

released from the hospital three days after the fire, this incident narrowly avoided another 

tragedy.

Case Study #6: Shreveport, LA

One Injured in Single-Family Home – April 1, 2001

Eight of nine residents escaped a house fire, which started in the front living room of the 

house. The ninth resident, a nine-year old boy, was trapped in the house by burglar bars. The 

boy’s father was able to pry the bars off of the window; however, by that time the boy succumbed to smoke inhalation, and burns to his face, upper body, and hands.

Firefighters arrived to find all occupants of the house out, but the house fully involved. The 

house did not have quick-release burglar bars, and lacked a working smoke alarm.

Case Study #7: Lafayette, LA

Five killed in single-family home – December 24, 2000

Five people, a 52-year-old female, a 21-year-old male, a 9-year-old male, a 7-year-old female, 

and a 4-year-old male were all killed due to a fire caused by the kitchen stove. The stove, 

which had two burners left on to provide heat for the house, caused the kitchen to catch fire; 

the fire then spread to the rest of the house. An adult male was rescued, although he suffered 

severe burns.

Security bars on the house were equipped with latches. The type of latch was unspecified in 

the investigative report. The family was unable to open them either due to panic or confusion. 

Neighbors were able to pry the bars off of the front door, resulting in the rescue of the adult 

male. Additionally, furniture was found to be blocking one of the windows of the house.

Firefighters arrived to find the house well involved, with heavy fire preventing rescuers from 

making entry into most of the house. There was no report of a working smoke alarm.
8

Case Study #8: New York City, NY

Two Killed in Apartment – December 23, 2000

Two children died of smoke inhalation, and their parents were critically injured, after the 

family Christmas tree caught fire. The family lived in an apartment whose window to the fire 

escape was blocked by a padlocked gate. The gate was non-compliant. The family and several 

of their neighbors had them installed to prevent burglars from entering from the fire escape.

Despite the fact that several laws had been proposed in New York City to reduce the number of 

locking window gates, none of the laws had been passed. Enforcement of the laws currently 

in use in New York is difficult, due to the fact that the tenants are often the ones installing the 

unauthorized bars.

Case Study #9: Chicago, IL

Three Killed in Single-Family Home – October 20, 1999

A woman and her two grandchildren were killed after the woman ran back into her home to 

save the children. The fire, reported to have been caused by candles burning in the basement 

and a faulty boiler, spread rapidly through the house, preventing neighbors from entering 

through the door. Windows were covered with burglar bars, which neighbors unsuccessfully 

tired to remove in a rescue effort. The burglar bars lacked quick-release mechanisms and 

objects in the house may have also blocked egress.

Case Study #10: San Antonio, TX

Two killed in single-family home – September 28, 1998

Two people died and three more were seriously injured after being trapped by burglar bars. 

Neighbors were unable to rescue a three-year-old male and a twenty-three month old infant 

due to heavy fire and burglar bars. An adult male, also trapped in the house, survived although 

he was seriously burned over fifty percent of his body.

A teen-age female and a five-month old female, also trapped by burglar bars, were rescued 

after a neighbor used a sledgehammer to gain entry through the back door of the house. 

Both suffered from smoke inhalation, but otherwise were not seriously injured.

The burglar bars did not have quick-release mechanisms; there was no report of a working 

smoke alarm.

Despite the dangers presented by unsafe burglar bars, they continue to be installed across the country. Fearful residents see them as a saving grace against having possessions stolen, or being assaulted 

in their home. However, residents often fail to see the fire-related danger presented by these bars until 

it is to late. Even if residents do see the danger, the fear of having their home robbed often outweighs 

their fear of fire. The next section addresses what can be done to deal with the problems illustrated 

by the case studies.
9

PUBLIC EDUCATION

Burglar bars are a common security measure taken by homeowners and tenants across the country. 

Although building codes and many states and municipalities have strict codes governing the sale 

and installation of burglar bars, they continue to be a problem because of a lack of education of the 

public about the units, and the alternatives available.

Despite the best efforts of fire personnel to educate the public through the Internet, pamphlets, and 

face-to-face discussions, many citizens remain unaware of the hazards associated with unsafe burglar 

bars and the laws regulating them. Departments should consider developing a citizens awareness 

program, incorporating not only the fire department but local building code and fire inspection 

officials, to increase the public’s awareness of these dangers.

Public education and enforcement of existing codes and legislation must continue to be the focus 

of firefighters in their efforts to reduce fire injuries and death as a result of burglar bars. Effective 

pre-planning, and familiarity with the most effective ways to remove burglar bars to gain entry, can 

also work to reduce the number of deaths.

Sources of Information

The United States Fire Administration (USFA) and the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 

both provide public education information and materials on the dangers of burglar bars. The USFA 

offers a document entitled “Fire Safe and Secure: A Factsheet on Security Bar Safety.” The fact sheet 

lists six tips to help reduce the number of fire injuries and deaths associated with security bars on 

windows and doors preventing escape. The tips include using quick-release devices on barred windows or doors, retrofitting current bars, and being aware of issues resulting from the presence of 

security bars during fire escape drills. A copy of the fact sheet is provided in Appendix A and may be 

ordered by contacting the USFA at http://www.usfa.dhs.gov.

The NFPA’s Center for High-Risk Outreach has publish a report on burglar bars, and offers a community information packet on their risks. Information can be obtained by visiting the NFPA’s website 

at http://www.nfpa.org.

Professional organizations representing manufacturers and sellers of burglar bars provide information 

on the hazards associated with burglar bars on their web pages. For example, the National Burglar and 

Fire Alarm Association (NBFAA) includes information on the dangers of burglar bars under its statistics 

section (http://www.alarm.org/Industry/Statistics_Burglar_Bar/burglar_bars.html).

Some local fire departments such as Houston, TX, and Los Angeles, CA, have taken information contained on the above web pages and added it to their own websites. Included as part of their information on fire safety, the pages provide a brief yet comprehensive overview of the primary dangers 

associated with the presence of unsafe burglar bars. These web pages also provide information to the 

public on local laws governing the types of burglar bars.

The American Red Cross offers information on the dangers of burglar bars under the disaster services 

section of its website (http://www.redcross.org/services/disaster/). Bearing in mind that many 
10 U.S. Fire Administration/Technical Report Series

people do not have access to the web, fire departments should consider other ways to educate the 

public. Providing information at an annual open house is one method for doing this, although it 

relies upon citizen-driven initiative. A more proactive strategy would be to utilize door-to-door 

information campaigns in conjunction with smoke alarm programs or home fire safety programs in 

high-risk areas.

Pamphlets continue to be a useful tool in public education and information campaigns, especially 

when produced in several languages and made readily available to the public. The Metropolitan 

Tenants Organization in Chicago, IL provides information on burglar bars in a pamphlet provided to 

renters. The pamphlets inform tenants of their rights and responsibilities regarding security mechanisms, and are available in several languages.

Information may also be available from insurance companies. State Farm Insurance Company also 

offers pamphlets outlining the risks involved in the use of unsafe burglar bars (Appendix B).
USFA-TR-138/February 2002 11

CODES AND LEGISLATION

Awareness of the dangers posed by burglar bars has increased over the past decade, in part due to 

several multiple-fatality fires. Various building codes address the installation of burglar bars, and 

several states and municipalities have passed legislation concerning the bars.

Codes

Several model building and fire codes address the dangers posed by the installation of unsafe security 

bars. Table 1 lists these codes, their edition, and the location of the relevant section.

Table 1. Model building and fire codes

Model Code Edition Section

Standard Building Code 1997 1005.5

Standard FirePrevention Code 1997 802.1.6.1

Uniform Building Code 1997 310.4

Uniform Fire Code 1997 1206

BOCA National Building Code 1997 1010.4

BOCA National Fire Prevention Code 1997 F-609.3

International Building Code 2000 1009.4

International Fire Code 2000 1009.4

International Code Council Performance Code for Buildings and Facilities 2001 1901

Unobstructed means of egress are also addressed in NFPA 101, the Life Safety Code. Chapter 24.2, 

Section 24.2.2.3, Secondary Means of Escape, states, “[the means of escape] shall be an outside 

window or door operable from the inside without the use of tools, keys, or special effort and shall 

provide a clear opening of not less than 5.7 ft2.”

Legislation

Several states have recognized the importance of legislation governing where and what types of 

burglar bars may be used. State building regulations have long referenced the model codes. Many 

states are concerned enough about the problem to have taken the step of creating a separate code 

governing burglar or security bars, since the model codes are not mandatory and may not be in effect 

everywhere in their state. In addition to the state laws, come cities have enacted their own regulations. Based on building codes for cities, these regulations frequently echo the language found in 

state codes. Examples of state legislation on burglar bars are given below.

Mississippi

In 1993, the State of Mississippi passed House Bill 1678. The bill came about as the result of a fire in 

Bruce, MS, where seven people were killed due to entrapment by burglar bars. Mississippi Code, title 

45, Chapter 11 Fire Protection Regulations, Fire Protection and Fire Safety in Buildings, cites the Standard Building 

Code while addressing the sale of burglar bars. Specifically, § 45-11-71 states, “In the interest of 
12 U.S. Fire Administration/Technical Report Series

public safety, any person who engages in the sale of burglar bars to the public shall comply with 1105.7 

of the Standard Building Code of the Southern Building Code Congress International, as revised.”

Section 45-11-73 provides the State Fire Marshal with the authority to promulgate rules and regulations concerning the sale of burglar bars. However, the section also provides an exception by stating, 

“These rules and regulations shall apply except in any county or municipality which has adopted the 

Standard Building Code of the Southern Building Code Congress International, with standards not 

less stringent than the Mississippi Fire Prevention Code.”

Finally, in § 45-11-75, the State provides for a penalty for violation. Upon conviction of a violation 

of the regulations governing the sale of burglar bars, the violator is to be fined no more than $1,000. 

However, the section goes on to state, “[I] n the case of continuing violations without reasonable 

effort on the part of the defendant to correct such violations, each day of violation thereafter shall 

be a separate offense.”

Mississippi’s codes, while brief, provides a flexible framework in which to regulate the sale of burglar bars.

California

The current California law was introduced as a direct result of a fatal Oakland house fire in 1995, 

in which five children died. The resulting law, found in California Health and Safety Code, Section 

13113.9 references the California Building Standards Code’s requirements for fire safety, but also 

includes further requirements for those selling or installing burglar bars:

13113.9 (c) Burglar bars shall not be sold in California at wholesale or retail unless the 

burglar bars are either labeled or their packaging contains the warning information specified in the regulations adopted pursuant to subdivision (b).

13113.9 (d) Any contractor or installer of burglar bars shall provide the owner of the 

residential dwelling a copy of the warning information required pursuant to subdivision 

(b) prior to installing burglar bars.

In California Health and Safety Code, Section 13114.1, the State Fire Marshal is given the authority 

to “[P]repare and distribute for use by local agencies, community groups, and private firms, public 

education materials about the dangers of unsafe burglar bars.” The materials are to be provided in a 

variety of languages and formats, including “Braille, 18-point type, cassette tape, and computer disk 

for those who are print impaired.” An example of public education material prepared by the State 

can be found in Appendix C of this document.

Section 13114.2 (a) directs the State Fire Marshal to “adopt regulations and standards to control the 

quality and installation of burglar bars and safety release mechanisms.” Section 13114.2 (b) further 

states, “[N]o person shall install, market, distribute, offer for sale, or sell burglar bars and safety 

release mechanisms for emergency escape/rescue windows or doors in this state unless the burglar 

bars and safety release mechanisms have been approved by a testing laboratory recognized by the 

State Fire Marshal.”

Section 13114.3 of the California Health and Safety Code limits the installation of burglar bars on 

buildings owned or leased by a public agency (defined as a state agency, department, board or commission; the University of California; and a local agency). Specifically, “[N]o burglar bars shall be 

installed or maintained on any residential dwelling that is owned or leased by a public agency, unless 
USFA-TR-138/February 2002 13

the burglar bars meet current state and local requirements, as applicable, for burglar bars and safety 

release mechanisms.”

Finally, § 13114.5 allows, “The governing body of any city or county [to] enact ordinances or laws 

imposing restrictions greater than those imposed by Sections 13113 and 13114.”

Texas

Like California, Texas has a thorough state code governing burglar bars or, as they are called in the 

Texas code, security bars. Found in Chapter 756 of the Health and Safety Code, Subchapter F clearly 

delineates the regulations governing the installation of security bars on bedroom windows and 

doors.

Section 756.082, Security Bars on Residential Dwelling, states,

A person may not install security bars on a door or window of a bedroom in a residential 

dwelling unless:

(1) the security bars on at least one door or window in the bedroom have an interior 

release mechanism; or

(2) at least one window or door from the bedroom to the exterior may be opened for 

emergency escape or rescue.

Like California, Texas has a labeling requirement for security bars. Per Section 756.083, security 

bars sold in the state must be labeled, “in accordance with rules adopted by the State Fire Marshal. 

The required label must state the requirements of Section 756.082.” Section 756.083 further states, 

however, “A person who is not regularly and actively engaged in business as a wholesale or retail 

dealer may sell or offer to sell security bars in this state provided that proper written notice of the 

requirements of section 756.082 is provided to the buyer in a form approved by the State Fire 

Marshal.”

Subchapter F of Chapter 756 also addresses the recommended release mechanism for the security 

bars. Under § 756.084 (a), “The State Fire Marshal or a testing laboratory under conditions and 

procedures approved by the State Fire Marshal may recommend an interior release mechanism that 

has been shown to be effective.” Section 756.084 (b) adds, “The State Fire Marshal shall adopt rules 

to implement this section.”

❖❖❖

Despite the presence of legislation and building codes, burglar bars still present a challenge to firefighters. The next section addresses common tactics for the removal of burglar bars on the fire 

ground.
14 U.S. Fire Administration/Technical Report Series

TACTICS TO DEAL WITH BARS

Burglar bars are designed to prevent entry, even by forcible means. This limits the tools that can be 

used to effect quick entry into a structure. Traditional forcible entry tools (flathead axe, Halligan bar) 

might be used, but they require a significant amount of time and effort to be successful.

The Fourth Edition of Essentials of Firefighting, published by the International Fire Service Training 

Association (IFSTA), addresses the challenge posed by burglar bars. Chapter 8, ‘Forcible Entry,’ states 

“Forcible Entry through burglar bars is a difficult and time-consuming task.” The book then suggests 

three methods for the removal of burglar bars:

• Using a flat-head axe and a Halligan-type bar to shear off the bolt heads of the bar assembly 

(if the bolt heads are visible)

• Using a circular saw to cut either the bar assembly or its attachments

• Using an oxyacetylene torch to cut the bar assembly

Shearing off the bolt heads securing the bars to a structure can be accomplished using forcible entry 

tools. By using the blade of the axe as a wedge, and the Halligan bar as the hammer to force the 

wedge between the bolt head and the wall, the bolts holding the bars to the wall can be removed. 

While effective, this method can be time consuming. The difficulty lies in how the bars are mounted 

to the exterior wall of the structure in question.

Another effective method for the removal of the bars is to utilize a circular cut-off saw, outfitted with 

a carbide-tip or metal-cutting blade rated for fire/rescue work. Firefighters can use the saw to cut 

through the bars. This process also takes time.

The use of an oxyacetylene torch is faster than the methods presented above, but most first-line 

firefighting apparatus do not carry the necessary equipment. If a fire department does carry a torch 

on its apparatus, firefighters need to be familiar with its use in cutting through burglar bars for that 

approach to be effective.

In extreme circumstances, such as a firefighter entrapment, burglar bars can be removed from a 

structure using a piece of apparatus (truck) and a chain or cable. However, there are several related 

safety hazards associated with this tactic-it should only be employed when there is an immediate life 

safety risk, and not enough time to remove the bars through alternate means. This method poses 

a danger to the fire department personnel operating on the scene, as the bars are removed in an 

uncontrolled manner. Safety officers and other personnel operating near the bars should be cognizant of the hazards associated with the force used to remove the bars and the likely recoil; there is a 

risk of partial structural collapse due to the stress exerted on the building. In addition, this method 

possesses the likelihood of damaging the structure and/or the apparatus used. Furthermore, there 

often is not enough room for the apparatus to operate in, or the bars are located on an upper story 

of a building. Special care needs to be taken to ensure that appropriate safety precautions are 

followed when this potentially hazardous method is used.
USFA-TR-138/February 2002 15

CONCLUSION

Burglar bars continue to constitute a deadly problem across the nation, presenting a variety of challenges to building officials, public fire education initiatives, and tactical response. So long as unsafe 

burglar bars are found on structures, they present a danger to firefighters and occupants alike.

Firefighters can protect themselves by pre-planning their response area, and by practicing efficient 

methods for removing bars. Firefighters can protect the citizens in their first-due area by working 

to educate the residents. Passive means, such as websites, can be used to provide a readily accessible 

information point on legislation, building codes, and dangers. Proactive measures, such as door-todoor tours of the neighborhood, can be used to provide information to those who do not have access 

to the web. Citizen groups, either existing or newly created, could incorporate fire department, 

building codes, and fire inspection personnel to educate their members of the dangers of unauthorized burglar bars.

The best weapons against unsafe bars are effective pre-planning, targeted public information, and 

aggressive code enforcement.

17

APPENDIX A

USFA Fact Sheet

“FIRE SAFE AND SECURE: A FACTSHEET ON SECURITY BAR SAFETY”

USFA-TR-138/February 2002 19

21

APPENDIX B

State Farm Insurance Brochure

“Security bars stop criminals...and possibly your escape from fire”

USFA-TR-138/February 2002 23
24 U.S. Fire Administration/Technical Report Series
USFA-TR-138/February 2002 25

27

APPENDIX C

State of California Fact Sheet about Burglar Bars

“Security/Burglar Bar Facts”
28 U.S. Fire Administration/Technical Report Series
USFA-TR-138/February 2002 29

31

SOURCES

1. Essentials of Fire Fighting, Four Edition, International Fire Service Training Association, 1998. Fire 

Protection Publications, Oklahoma State University

2. “Security Bars Stop Criminals...and Possibly Your Escape from Fire!” State Farm Insurance 

Company, http://www.statefarm.com, Bloomington, IL.

3. “Houston mother, 3 kids killed in house fire” The Associated Press, http://www.ap.org, July 4, 

2001

4. “Four People Perish in House Fire” KPRC Channel 2, http://Click2Houston.com, July 4, 2001

5. “Burglar bars blamed for trapping mom, children in fatal house fire” The Houston Chronicle, 

http://www.chron.com, July 5, 2001

6. “3 Killed in Houston House Fire” KPRC Channel 2, http://Click2Houston.com, June 20, 2001

7. “Burglar bars prove deadly in house fire” The Associated Press, http://www.ap.org, June 20, 

2001

8. “Burglar Bars Trap Child at House Fire” Shreveport Fire Department Press Release, http://www.

ci.shreveport.la.us, April 1, 2001

9. “Stove Starts Louisiana Blaze”: Acadianow.com, http://www.acadianow.com, December 27, 

2001

10. “Fatal Fire Revives Criticism of Padlocked Window Gates: The New York Times, http://www.

newyorktimes.com, December 25, 2000

11. “Woman, 2 children she tried to save die in fire” Chicago Sun-Times, http://www.suntimes.

com, October 31, 1999

12. “Burglar bars prevent firefighters from reaching two small children”: Abilene Reporter-News, 

http://www.reporternews.com, September 28, 1998

13. National Fire Protection Association Life Safety Code, May 2000 edition, National Fire Protection 

Agency, http://www.nfpa.org

14. Fire fatality data based on 1996-1998 data from the National Fire Incident Reporting System and 

the National Fire Protection Association’s annual survey, Fire Loss in the United States.

15. Burglary data based on 2000 Uniform Crime Report Data, Federal Bureau of Investigation, 

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm