YFPM-Student Manual

Youth Firesetter Program 

Manager

1st Edition, 1st Printing-June 2016
Youth Firesetter Program Manager

FEMA/USFA/NFA

YFPM-SM

June 2016

1st Edition, 1st Printing
Youth Firesetter Program 

Manager

1st Edition, 1st Printing-June 2016

YFPM-Student Manual

This Student Manual may contain material that is copyright protected. USFA has been 

granted a license to use this material only for NFA-sponsored course deliveries as part of the 

course materials, and it shall not be duplicated without consent of the copyright holder. 

States wishing to use these materials as part of state-sponsorship and/or third parties 

wishing to use these materials must obtain permission to use the copyright material(s) from 

the copyright holder prior to teaching the course.
This page intentionally left blank.
YOUTH FIRESETTER PROGRAM MANAGER

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

Table of Contents .............................................................................................................................................. iii

Course Goal....................................................................................................................................................... v

Target Audience ................................................................................................................................................ v

Schedule ............................................................................................................................................................ vii

Firefighter Code of Ethics................................................................................................................................. ix

A Student Guide to End-of-course Evaluations................................................................................................. xi

UNIT 1: LEADING A YOUTH FIRESETTING PREVENTION AND

INTERVENTION PROGRAM...................................................................................... SM 1-1

Appendix: Readings

UNIT 2: PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT...................................................................................... SM 2-1

Appendix A: YFPI Program Task Force Flow Chart

Appendix B: Flow Chart for Youth Firesetting Intervention Services

Appendix C: Fire Stoppers of King County Youth Intervention Program Organizational Chart

Appendix D: Fire Stoppers Intake Form, King County, Washington

Appendix E: Juvenile Firesetter Prevention Program Intake Form, State of Colorado

Appendix F: Youth Firesetter Intervention Program Intake Forms, Glendale, Arizona

Appendix G: Washington Fire Stoppers Screening Tool

Appendix H: Comprehensive Firerisk Evaluation (Long Form)

Appendix I: Child and Family Risk Surveys (Short Form)

Appendix J: Oregon Office of State Fire Marshal Juvenile with Fire Screening Tool

Appendix K: Consent, Release, Refusal and Payment Arrangement Forms

Appendix L: Scarborough Fire Department Standard Operating Procedures

Appendix M: Mesquite Fire Department Standard Operating Procedures

Appendix N: Monroe Fire District 3 Standard Operating Procedures

Appendix O: Pierce County Examples

Appendix P: YFPI Program Budget Example

Appendix Q: Public and Private Support for Youth Firesetting Programs

UNIT 3: PROGRAM EVALUATION.......................................................................................... SM 3-1

Glossary/Acronyms
YOUTH FIRESETTER PROGRAM MANAGER

iv

This page intentionally left blank.
YOUTH FIRESETTER PROGRAM MANAGER

v

COURSE GOAL

Empower learners with the knowledge, skills and abilities (KSAs) to perform the job performance requirements

(JPRs) of a youth firesetter program manager as outlined in the National Fire Protection Association Standard 

(NFPA) 1035, Standard on Fire and Life Safety Educator, Public Information Officer, Youth Firesetter Intervention 

Specialist and Youth Firesetter Program Manager Professional Qualifications, 2015.

TARGET AUDIENCE

The target audience for this course is anyone who has or will have responsibility for developing and implementing a 

Youth Firesetting Prevention and Intervention (YFPI) program in their community. The audience could include 

volunteer and career firefighters, fire investigators, Fire and Life Safety Educators (FLSEs), and allied professionals 

from criminal justice, mental health, social services and juvenile justice.
YOUTH FIRESETTER PROGRAM MANAGER

vi

This page intentionally left blank.
YOUTH FIRESETTER PROGRAM MANAGER

vii

SCHEDULE

TIME DAY 1 DAY 2

8:00 - 9:20

Introduction

Activity I.1 Introductions

Unit 2: Program Development (cont’d)

Activity 2.2: Developing Draft YFPI Program 

Operating Procedures (cont’d)

9:20 - 9:30 Break Break

9:30 - 10:30

Unit 1: Leading a Youth Firesetting 

Prevention and Intervention Program

Activity 1.1: Your Local Youth Firesetting 

Problem and Solutions

Unit 2: Program Development (cont’d)

Activity 2.2: Developing Draft YFPI Program 

Operating Procedures (cont’d)

10:30 - 10:40 Break Break

10:40 - 12:00

Unit 2: Program Development 

Activity 2.1: Determine Stakeholders

Unit 2: Program Development (cont’d)

Unit 3: Program Evaluation

12:00 - 1:00 Lunch Break Lunch Break

1:00 - 2:15

Unit 2: Program Development (cont’d)

Activity 2.2: Developing Draft YFPI Program 

Operating Procedures

Unit 3: Program Evaluation (cont’d)

2:15 - 2:30 Break Break

2:30 - 5:00

Activity 2.2: Developing Draft YFPI Program 

Operating Procedures (cont’d)

Unit 2: Program Development (cont’d)

Activity 3.1: Developing an Evaluation Plan

Unit 3: Program Evaluation (cont’d)

Examination

Evaluation
YOUTH FIRESETTER PROGRAM MANAGER

viii

This page intentionally left blank.
YOUTH FIRESETTER PROGRAM MANAGER

ix
YOUTH FIRESETTER PROGRAM MANAGER

x
YOUTH FIRESETTER PROGRAM MANAGER

xi
This page intentionally left blank.
YOUTH FIRESETTER PROGRAM MANAGER

UNIT 1:

LEADING A YOUTH FIRESETTING 

PREVENTION AND INTERVENTION 

PROGRAM

TERMINAL OBJECTIVE

The students will be able to:

1.1 Summarize the overall job performance requirements (JPRs) of a Youth Firesetting Prevention and 

Intervention (YFPI) program manager.

ENABLING OBJECTIVES

The students will be able to:

1.1 Discuss desirable leadership traits of a YFPI program manager.

1.2 Describe current trends in youth firesetting.

1.3 Discuss the typologies of firesetting and common factors that influence firesetting behaviors.

1.4 Characterize the youth firesetting problem in their home community and strategies that have proven 

successful in addressing the problem.
LEADING A YOUTH FIRESETTING PREVENTION AND INTERVENTION PROGRAM

SM 1-2

This page intentionally left blank.
LEADING A YOUTH FIRESETTING PREVENTION AND INTERVENTION PROGRAM

SM 1-3

UNIT 1:

LEADING A YOUTH 

FIRESETTING PREVENTION 

AND INTERVENTION 

PROGRAM

Slide 1-1

ENABLING OBJECTIVES

• Discuss desirable leadership traits of a 

Youth Firesetting Prevention and 

Intervention (YFPI) program manager.

• Describe current trends in youth 

firesetting.

• Discuss the typologies of firesetting and 

common factors that influence firesetting

behaviors.

Slide 1-2

ENABLING OBJECTIVES 

(cont’d)

• Characterize the youth firesetting problem 

in their home community and strategies 

that have proven successful in addressing 

the problem.

Slide 1-3
LEADING A YOUTH FIRESETTING PREVENTION AND INTERVENTION PROGRAM

SM 1-4

I. LEADING A YOUTH FIRESETTING PREVENTION AND INTERVENTION 

PROGRAM

LEADING A YOUTH FIRESETTING

PREVENTION AND INTERVENTION 

PROGRAM

• A job performance requirement (JPR) of a 

program manager is the ability to develop 

and lead a local program.

Slide 1-4

A. A job performance requirement (JPR) of a program manager is the ability to 

develop and lead a local program. 

B. Leading a Youth Firesetting Prevention and Intervention (YFPI) program can be a 

challenging yet important and rewarding position.

C. The position carries tremendous responsibility because the manager often has 

authority (or co-responsibility with the youth firesetting interagency task force) to 

make final disposition of how youth firesetting cases are processed.

D. The job is both proactive and reactive in nature. While the ultimate goal is to 

prevent youth firesetting incidents, the program manager must ensure that policies 

and procedures are in place to handle all profiles of firesetting situations. This 

requires vision, leadership and mastery of a diverse set of skills.

E. The ultimate job of the YFPI program leader is to ensure that youth firesetting

risks in the community are addressed both efficiently and effectively.
LEADING A YOUTH FIRESETTING PREVENTION AND INTERVENTION PROGRAM

SM 1-5

LEADING A YOUTH FIRESETTING

PREVENTION AND INTERVENTION 

PROGRAM (cont’d)

• Managers must be competent in multiple 

roles.

– Program leader or administrator.

– Excellent organizer and communicator.

– Mentor.

– Politician.

– Problem-solver.

– Visionary.

Slide 1-5

F. The manager needs to have a professional skill set so that he or she is competent 

in the following roles:

1. Program leader or administrator.

2. Excellent organizer and communicator.

3. Mentor.

4. Politician.

5. Problem-solver.

6. Visionary.

G. As learned in the “Youth Firesetter Intervention Specialist” (YFIS) course, the 

most effective risk-reduction strategies are those that employ a broad-based,

integrated approach using a combination of prevention interventions.

H. The goal of using multiple interventions in parallel is twofold:

1. Prevent incidents from occurring.

2. When prevention fails, reduce (mitigate) the impact of the incident.

I. It is a JPR for the program manager to possess the knowledge, skills and abilities

(KSAs) to help design the interventions that will be used as part of the YFPI 

program.
LEADING A YOUTH FIRESETTING PREVENTION AND INTERVENTION PROGRAM

SM 1-6

LEADING A YOUTH FIRESETTING

PREVENTION AND INTERVENTION 

PROGRAM (cont’d)

Slide 1-6

The

Five E’s

Education

Engineering 

Enforcement Economic 

Incentives

Emergency 

Response

J. Prevention interventions include:

1. Education.

a. Public education builds the foundation for use of integrated 

prevention strategies.

b. However, if used as a stand-alone intervention, education can be a 

weak strategy.

c. Informing constituents of the youth firesetting issues that are 

impacting, or have potential to threaten, the local community.

d. Teaching the community how the risk develops and what they can 

do to help prevent it and/or mitigate its impact.

e. Creating a sense of urgency through the use of a fact-based 

rationale that explains why youth firesetting is serious and how a 

combination of preventive interventions can be used for 

prevention/mitigation.

f. Demonstrating the advantages of using a multifaceted approach to 

prevention and mitigation that ultimately results in a safer 

community.

2. Engineering.

a. Engineering can help create passive protection that requires no 

action on the part of people. 

b. Sprinkler systems, fire-resistive building construction and childresistive lighters are examples of passive equipment.
LEADING A YOUTH FIRESETTING PREVENTION AND INTERVENTION PROGRAM

SM 1-7

c. Public policy can mandate the use of engineering and technology 

so that prescribed preventive standards are met.

d. It can also require ongoing maintenance/servicing of equipment to 

ensure its effectiveness.

e. Investigating how a living environment could be modified so 

prevention and/or mitigation are accomplished is also an example 

of engineering.

f. Examples include:

- Presence of working smoke-detection systems.

- Integrated systems that automatically notify the emergency 

services when incidents occur.

- Automatic suppression systems.

- Reduction of combustible materials in high-risk situations.

g. Explore how technology can be used to enhance safety.

- Use of child-resistive lighters by parents.

3. Enforcement.

a. Enactment of public policy and its application/enforcement can be 

a very powerful prevention component because it can be mandated 

or prohibited.

b. Those who apply/enforce policy should be trained that they are 

public educators first, enforcers second.

c. Voluntary compliance of a policy or code should be the ultimate 

aim of an enforcement agency.

d. Voluntary compliance is the most effective proof that the 

community has developed buy-in to a policy because it 

demonstrates that people understand and approve its existence.

e. There is a definite place for enforcement when addressing blatant 

noncompliance with conditions set by a YFPI program or when 

acts of firesetting occur.
LEADING A YOUTH FIRESETTING PREVENTION AND INTERVENTION PROGRAM

SM 1-8

f. The mindset toward public policy of both the program manager 

and task force can set the tone for community trust and future 

successes in prevention/mitigation of youth firesetting.

g. Demonstrate professional enforcement practices that reflect 

positively on the YFPI program.

4. Economic incentives.

This entails working to incorporate incentives (both positive and negative) 

that support youth firesetting risk reduction.

a. Positive incentives reward constituents for proactive behavior or 

provide free/low-cost services to support life safety.

b. Negative incentives penalize people for infractions of adopted 

public policies and may include civil and criminal sanctions.

5. Emergency response.

a. Support the existence of an adequately staffed, equipped and 

trained group of emergency responders that can rapidly respond to 

incidents of firesetting.

b. This response team not only includes firefighters who respond to 

incidents, but also staff members such as investigators and allied 

agencies that support program referral/intake services.

K. It is the responsibility of the program manager to work with his or her 

organization and community to identify local youth firesetting priorities, and 

address them in a strategic manner.

II. DEVELOPING A LEADERSHIP MINDSET

DEVELOPING A LEADERSHIP 

MINDSET

• Program manager may come from:

– Fire service.

– Law enforcement or youth justice agencies.

– Mental health or social services.

– School system.

– Other allied agencies.

Slide 1-7
LEADING A YOUTH FIRESETTING PREVENTION AND INTERVENTION PROGRAM

SM 1-9

A. The program manager may come from one of several professions including, but 

not limited to:

1. Fire service.

2. Law enforcement or youth justice agencies.

3. Mental health or social services.

4. School system.

5. Other allied agencies.

B. Whatever the profession of the program manager, most who assume command of 

the YFPI program quickly realize that developing the right mindset is essential.

Slide 1-8

What leadership mindset (or 

attitudes) should a person 

who is about to lead a YFPI 

program possess?

DEVELOPING A LEADERSHIP 

MINDSET (cont’d)

• Mindset/Attitude should include:

– Follow a strategic process.

– YFPI is an elite responsibility.

– Cannot operate a YFPI program singlehandedly.

– Understand strengths and challenges of team.

– Budget preparation and management skills.

– YFPI programs can be “resource-challenged.”

Slide 1-9

C. The mindset/attitude of an effective and efficient program manager should 

include:
LEADING A YOUTH FIRESETTING PREVENTION AND INTERVENTION PROGRAM

SM 1-10

1. Effective and efficient risk reduction must follow a strategic process.

a. The leader of the prevention unit must visualize the “big picture” 

of community risk reduction.

b. The process begins with a comprehensive community risk 

assessment to identify and prioritize the local youth firesetting

problem.

c. It continues as the interagency task force defines the highest 

priorities and root causes of the local problem. A well-defined 

problem is a problem half-solved.

d. Interagency task force members should represent a diverse group 

of agencies (stakeholders) who bring various experiences and 

perspectives to the process. 

e. Once the magnitude of the local youth firesetting problem has been 

identified, risk sequencing is used to study how the various profiles 

of firesetting develop and occur. It is at this point that a discussion 

of what combination of prevention interventions to employ occurs.

f. As stated repeatedly, the most effective and efficient strategy 

entails the use of combined prevention interventions that have been 

suggested and are supported by the interagency task force.

2. The program manager must create an environment that portrays 

participating in the process of YFPI as an elite responsibility, and the 

program must be selective about who it chooses as members.

3. Effective leaders understand the strengths and challenges of their team 

members.

4. This attribute becomes very important when the program manager is 

supervising a group of intervention specialists.

Proficient leaders invest time to learn the interests and attributes of team 

members. They will help team members grow by facilitating continuing 

education and skill-building opportunities. 

5. Budget preparation and management skills are essential for building, 

sustaining and advancing a YFPI program.

a. Every program must have a budget.
LEADING A YOUTH FIRESETTING PREVENTION AND INTERVENTION PROGRAM

SM 1-11

b. Program managers, in cooperation with the interagency task force, 

are responsible for developing and managing a budget that 

supports the goals and objectives of the YFPI program.

c. Youth firesetting intervention specialists must have the basic tools 

that are needed to perform their duties safely, effectively and 

efficiently.

d. The organization and community’s budget cycle and spending 

procedures must be understood.

e. More information on budgeting will be provided in Unit 2.

6. Understand that YFPI programs can be “resource-challenged.”

a. The recent economic recession (crisis) proved that even important 

programs like YFPI efforts are not immune from staffing cuts, 

reductions in services provided, and even elimination.

b. Citizens demand basic services from their local government such 

as working public utilities, trash collection and police protection.

c. In an era of economic challenges, when pressed to prioritize 

funding of local government services, many decision-makers have 

had to make tough choices on spending priorities.

d. Not only did firefighters get laid off in some communities, but 

many departments also lost a portion (or in some cases all) of their 

prevention units.

e. Leaders of YFPI programs must embrace the mindset that we must 

do a better job of justifying the essential function of our services.

Slide 1-10

What strategies can help 

justify the essential function of 

a YFPI program?
LEADING A YOUTH FIRESETTING PREVENTION AND INTERVENTION PROGRAM

SM 1-12

- Program leaders, cooperatively with their interagency task 

force, must commit to developing a strategic evaluation 

plan so that every function of the program is measured for 

both impact and efficiency.

- The worth of YFPI must be proven, not just stated. This is 

best accomplished through a comprehensive program 

evaluation that begins the minute an idea for a prevention 

program is conceived and continues throughout its life 

cycle.

- It is important for key stakeholders in the community to be 

engaged in the YFPI program evaluation process. They are 

the clients who will influence the political decision of 

worth.

- The leader must understand the importance of investigating 

and pursuing creative methods of revenue generation to 

support his or her unit.

- The leader must also realize that service agencies like fire 

and police departments are often looked upon as an 

expense and not as a revenue-generating source.

- Again, the mindset: The YFPI program must prove that

they are saving the community money in property tax 

revenues through a reduction of incidents or events that 

occur with less severity because of proactive 

prevention/mitigation strategies.

DEVELOPING A LEADERSHIP 

MINDSET (cont’d)

– Participation in political process.

– Positive relationship with partner agencies, 

political leaders, government agencies and 

community groups.

– Commitment, integrity and ethical behavior.

– Professional development enhances 

knowledge, skills and abilities (KSAs).

Slide 1-11

7. Participation in the local political process is not only a reality, it is 

essential.
LEADING A YOUTH FIRESETTING PREVENTION AND INTERVENTION PROGRAM

SM 1-13

a. If an interagency task force proposes public policy or applies

specific sanctions, its leader must understand and be adept at 

participating in the local political process.

b. This requires understanding the local process of proposing policy 

and issue resolution.

c. It also requires a keen analysis of the local political environment 

and how to participate in an effective manner.

d. Political environments are dynamic and constantly changing/ 

evolving. The leader must be able to forecast, recognize and adapt 

to a changing environment. 

8. The program manager must have a positive working relationship with the 

chief administrators of partner agencies and political leaders, as well as 

administrators from other government agencies and community groups.

The ability to communicate, collaborate, negotiate and compromise are 

traits that have been mastered by those who lead effective YFPI programs.

9. Commitment, integrity and ethical behavior are essential.

a. A comprehensive YFPI program task force is often comprised of 

agencies/people who are responsible for enforcing fire, criminal 

and child-protective laws.

b. This responsibility brings with it the reality of liability in case 

ethics violations or acts of gross negligence take place. Failure to 

accept this responsibility and act accordingly may result in 

program derailment.

10. Professional development provides opportunities to enhance knowledge 

and skills so that the program leader is adequately prepared to address his 

or her JPRs.
LEADING A YOUTH FIRESETTING PREVENTION AND INTERVENTION PROGRAM

SM 1-14

III. TRENDS IN FIRESETTING AND THE KINDS OF FIRES SET BY YOUTHS

THE EXTENT OF THE PROBLEM

• Seventy-seven percent of fire incidents 

occur outside, but 92 percent of youth 

firesetting-related deaths are in homes.

• Lighters/Matches still greatest ignition 

source.

• Children under age 5 are more than eight 

times as likely to die in fires that they 

themselves cause. 

Slide 1-12

A. Youth firesetting facts.

1. According to NFPA, the majority of youth firesetting incidents (77 

percent) occur outdoors.

2. However, 92 percent of deaths associated with youth firesetting occur in 

home structure fires (Hall, 2010).

a. Most child-related home fires are started with lighters or matches. 

(Hall, 2010).

b. Almost half (42 percent) of child-related home structure fires begin 

in the bedroom. The most commonly lit items in these fires are 

mattresses, bedding and clothing (Flynn, 2009).

Slide 1-13

Do you think youth firesetting

may be underreported? 

Why or why not?
LEADING A YOUTH FIRESETTING PREVENTION AND INTERVENTION PROGRAM

SM 1-15

THE EXTENT OF THE PROBLEM 

(cont’d)

• Statistically speaking, youth between the 

ages of 11 and 14 are at the greatest risk 

for setting fires. 

• Boys are at the greatest risk for setting 

fires.

Slide 1-14

3. One very noteworthy fact is that, even though we have been discussing 

young children as firesetters, statistically speaking, youth between the 

ages of 11 and 14 are at the greatest risk for setting fires.

4. Boys are at the greatest risk for setting fires. Annually, 80 to 85 percent of 

the identified firesetters are male (Boberg, 2006).

THE EXTENT OF THE PROBLEM 

(cont’d)

Slide 1-15

Youth Fires by Time of Day

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Midnight to 12:59 a.m.

1:00 to 1:59 a.m.2:00 to 2:59 a.m.3:00 to 3:59 a.m.4:00 to 4:59 a.m.5:00 to 5:59 a.m.6:00 to 6:59 a.m.7:00 to 7:59 a.m.8:00 to 8:59 a.m.9:00 to 9:59 a.m.

10:00 to 10:59 a.m.11:00 to 11:59 a.m.

Noon to 12:59 p.m.

1:00 to 1:59 p.m.2:00 to 2:59 p.m.3:00 to 3:59 p.m.4:00 to 4:59 p.m.5:00 to 5:59 p.m.6:00 to 6:59 p.m.7:00 to 7:59 p.m.8:00 to 8:59 p.m.9:00 to 9:59 p.m.

10:00 to 10:59 p.m.

11:00 to 11:59 p.m.

P

e

r

c

e

n

t Home structure fires

Outside and other fires

5. Times, days and months of youth-set fires: 

a. There is no peak day for child-related home structure fires.

b. Both home structure and outside fires involving youth peak in the 

after-school hours before dinner time (Flynn, 2009).
LEADING A YOUTH FIRESETTING PREVENTION AND INTERVENTION PROGRAM

SM 1-16

THE EXTENT OF THE PROBLEM 

(cont’d)

Slide 1-16

• Youth-related fires peak 

during the month of July.

• One out of every four fires 

that occurred outside was 

in the month of July.

• More than two-thirds of 

outside and other youthrelated fires in July 

involved fireworks.

c. Youth fire incidents peak during the month of July.

d. One out of every four youth-related incidents that occurred outside 

was in the month of July.

e. More than two out of every three (67 percent) outside and other 

type of youth-related incidents in July involved fireworks (Flynn, 

2009).

Slide 1-17

What pattern may these 

statistics indicate?

Youth Fires by Month

6. Fireworks and fires.

a. The risk of fireworks injury was the highest for teens ages 15 to 19 

and children 5 to 9, both with at least 2 1/2 times the risk of the 

general population (Hall, 2010).

b. Two out of five (40 percent) people injured by fireworks were 

under the age of 15 (Hall, 2010).
LEADING A YOUTH FIRESETTING PREVENTION AND INTERVENTION PROGRAM

SM 1-17

Slide 1-18

What are the fireworks laws in 

your state?

THE EXTENT OF THE PROBLEM 

(cont’d)

Slide 1-19

• The good news:

– Youth firesetting-related home fires down over 

80 percent since 1980.

– Civilian deaths reduced by 84 percent.

– Injuries reduced by 61 percent.

– Property loss cut by 38 percent.

7. The good news about child-set fires: 

a. Since 1980, all child-related structure fires have decreased 79 

percent, and home structure fires have decreased 81 percent 

(Flynn, 2009). 

b. During the same period, civilian deaths caused by child-related 

fires have declined by 84 percent. Injuries have decreased by 61 

percent (Hall, 2010).

c. Property loss (adjusted to inflation) has declined by 38 percent 

(Hall, 2010).
LEADING A YOUTH FIRESETTING PREVENTION AND INTERVENTION PROGRAM

SM 1-18

THE EXTENT OF THE PROBLEM 

(cont’d)

Trend in Youth Fires, 1980-2008

Slide 1-20

d. Outside and other fires have decreased 95 percent since 1980 

(Flynn, 2009). 

THE EXTENT OF THE PROBLEM 

(cont’d)

• Outcome of the 1994 Consumer Product 

Safety Commission (CPSC) lighter 

standard:

– 2002 CPSC evaluation found a 58 percent 

reduction in fires caused by children younger 

than five.

Slide 1-21

8. In 1994, the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) set a 

mandatory safety standard requiring the manufacturing and importation of 

cigarette lighters to be child-resistant.

9. In a 2002 evaluation of the effectiveness of the 1994 CPSC lighter safety 

standard, CPSC found a 58 percent reduction in fires caused by children 

younger than five compared to children over the age of five (Smith and 

Greene, 2002). 
LEADING A YOUTH FIRESETTING PREVENTION AND INTERVENTION PROGRAM

SM 1-19

Slide 1-22

Why do you think that CPSC 

found a 58 percent reduction in 

fires caused by children younger 

than five as compared to 

children over five?

10. Youth firesetting and arson.

THE EXTENT OF THE PROBLEM 

(cont’d)

Slide 1-23

• The crime of arson has the highest rate of 

youth involvement compared to all other 

crimes.

• The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) 

identifies nearly half of all arson arrests in the 

United States as youth under the age of 18.

• Nearly one-third of those arrested were under 

the age of 15, and 5 percent were under the 

age of 10.

a. The crime of arson has the highest rate of juvenile involvement 

compared to all other crimes.

b. According to the FBI, nearly half of all arson arrests in the U.S. are 

of juveniles under the age of 18. Nearly one-third of those arrested 

were under the age of 15, and 5 percent were under the age of 10

(FBI, 2006).
LEADING A YOUTH FIRESETTING PREVENTION AND INTERVENTION PROGRAM

SM 1-20

THE EXTENT OF THE PROBLEM 

(cont’d)

Slide 1-24

• In 2008, there were an estimated 6,600 

youths arrested for arson in the U.S.

• Of those arrested, 56 percent were under 

age 15, and 12 percent were female.

c. In 2008, there were an estimated 6,600 juveniles arrested for arson 

in the U.S. Of those arrested, 56 percent were under age 15, and 12 

percent were female (OJJDP, 2009).

d. Following a 19 percent decline between 2006 and 2008, the 

juvenile arrest rate for arson in 2008 reached its lowest point since 

1980 (OJJDP, 2009).

11. School fires.

THE EXTENT OF THE PROBLEM 

(cont’d)

Slide 1-25

• Most deadly school fire in America:

– Chicago, 1958, Our Lady of the Angels 

parochial school.

– Three nuns and 92 students died.

– Fire started by a student.

a. The most deadly school fire in American history occurred on Dec. 

1, 1958, at Our Lady of the Angels parochial school on Chicago’s 

West Side. Three nuns and 92 students were killed.

b. The fire was started by an angry student.

12. Causes of school fires:
LEADING A YOUTH FIRESETTING PREVENTION AND INTERVENTION PROGRAM

SM 1-21

a. Structure fires in preschools and day care centers are 

predominantly due to cooking (64 percent), followed by heating (7 

percent) and electrical distribution (6 percent) (FEMA, 2007).

THE EXTENT OF THE PROBLEM 

(cont’d)

Slide 1-26

• Secondary school fires:

– Nearly half are incendiary or suspicious in 

nature.

– July is peak month.

– Lowest time (December to February).

b. The causes for fires in kindergarten or elementary schools mostly 

involve cooking (27 percent), incendiary or suspicious activity (25 

percent), and heating (12 percent) (FEMA, 2007).

c. The primary cause of fires in middle, junior or senior high schools 

is due to incendiary or suspicious activity (47 percent), followed 

by cooking (15 percent) and heating (7 percent) (FEMA, 2007).

13. Time, day and month of school fires.

a. According to the National Fire Data Center (NFDC), overall, the 

average peak month for school fires was July. The lowest 

incidence of school fires occurred between December and 

February (FEMA, 2007).

Slide 1-27

Why do you think July is the 

peak month for school fires?
LEADING A YOUTH FIRESETTING PREVENTION AND INTERVENTION PROGRAM

SM 1-22

THE EXTENT OF THE PROBLEM 

(cont’d)

Slide 1-28

• Elementary schools are summer targets.

• Secondary schools peak in fall/spring.

• Half of school fires occur between 8 a.m. 

and 5 p.m.

b. The NFDC states that the sharp increase in July school fires is 

driven by the number of elementary school fires. This suggests that 

elementary schools may be more attractive targets for incendiary 

or suspicious fires during the summer when fewer staff members 

monitor the school campuses (FEMA, 2007).

c. Middle, junior and senior high schools had more fire incidents in 

the fall and spring, which mark the beginning and end of the 

school year (FEMA, 2007).

14. Where school fires start:

a. The three leading areas where school fires begin are the bathroom, 

kitchen and small assembly areas (FEMA, 2007).

THE EXTENT OF THE PROBLEM 

(cont’d)

Slide 1-29

• Twenty-five percent of school fires originate 

in bathroom.

• Nearly 80 percent of school bathroom fires 

are in secondary schools.

• Need element of trust with school officials.

b. Twenty-five percent of all school structure fires begin in bathroom 

trash cans, and they are of incendiary or suspicious nature (FEMA, 

2007).
LEADING A YOUTH FIRESETTING PREVENTION AND INTERVENTION PROGRAM

SM 1-23

c. Seventy-eight percent of all school bathroom fires occur in middle, 

junior and senior high schools (FEMA, 2007).

15. It is very important that all YFPI program staff have a good working 

relationship with the schools and school district(s) in their community.

There has to be an element of trust formed between the youth firesetting 

intervention program and the school personnel, or the school personnel 

will be reluctant to contact the youth firesetting intervention program staff, 

the fire department, and law enforcement if there is a school fire situation.

Slide 1-30

Why do you think a school 

official may be reluctant to report 

a fire that has occurred in his or 

her school?

16. Many schools and school districts fear that if they report school fires, it 

will damage their reputation and cause the fear in their community that 

their school is a “bad” school, thus lowering the school’s or district’s 

rating. This might result in a loss of funding opportunities.

Slide 1-31

How many of you have rules 

that mandate school officials 

to report fires?

B. Youth use of explosive and pressure-creating devices.
LEADING A YOUTH FIRESETTING PREVENTION AND INTERVENTION PROGRAM

SM 1-24

1. Youth have experimented with constructing and using incendiary/ 

explosive/pressure-creating devices for decades.

2. Experimentation and purposeful acts of destruction have expanded 

dramatically as a result of easy access to information.

3. Youth have easy access to instructions on how to make/use devices.

4. Many websites provide visual examples of youth engaged in dangerous 

behaviors involving incendiary/explosive devices.

IV. TYPOLOGIES OF FIRESETTING

TYPOLOGIES OF FIRESETTING

Slide 1-32

• Curiosity/Experimentation.

• Crisis/Troubled/Cry-for-help.

• Thrill-seeking/Risk-taking.

• Delinquent/Criminal/Strategic.

• Pathological/Severely disturbed/Cognitively 

impaired/Thought-disordered.

A. From 2005 to the present, current youth firesetting researchers have expanded the 

typology categories to five because not all risk-taking firesetters fit into the 

category of troubled firesetting.

B. These additions are due to the advent of social media, the Internet and cellular 

telephones.

C. Today’s youth firesetting typology categories include: 

1. Curiosity/Experimentation.

2. Crisis/Troubled/Cry-for-help.

3. Thrill-seeking/Risk-taking.

4. Delinquent/Criminal/Strategic.
LEADING A YOUTH FIRESETTING PREVENTION AND INTERVENTION PROGRAM

SM 1-25

5. Pathological/Severely disturbed/Cognitively impaired/Thought-disordered.

D. The reason for the expansion of typology categories from three to five is because 

not all thrill-seeking firesetters fit into the delinquent category.

1. It is very common for adolescents to engage in risk-taking behavior that 

includes fire; however, they would not all be considered delinquent.

2. However, some firesetters set fires with willful intent to cause damage, 

conceal a crime or destroy evidence.

3. In the past, both of the above profiles of firesetters would have been 

categorized as troubled. The separation of willful intent from thrillseeking/risk-taking helps better clarify the motives behind the firesetting 

behaviors.

E. Curiosity/Experimentation.

1. Most children experience fire interest between the ages of 3 to 5.

2. It has been estimated that curiosity-motivated firesetting represents greater 

than 60 percent of all fires set by children (NFPA and USFA).

3. The curiosity-motivated firesetter is a child who is exploring his or her 

interest in fire through experimentation.

4. Curious and experimental firesetting refers primarily to young children, 

ages 2 through 10. The median (average) age of a curiosity-motivated 

firesetter is 5 years old (IFSTA, 2010).

F. Crisis/Troubled/Cry-for-help.

1. Intentional firesetting may be influenced by cognitive, psychological or 

social problems. It can also be exacerbated by environmental factors such 

as access to ignition materials, lack of adult supervision, and family 

dysfunction.

2. This type of firesetting is extremely dangerous because it often consists of 

a series of fire starts, both planned and/or spontaneous, that take place 

over several weeks, months or even years. The severity of fires may vary.

3. In some cases, there is intent to destroy or harm specific property and/or 

people. Once a fire is started, the firesetter may not make an attempt to 

extinguish his or her fire or seek help. The fire acts as a symbol of a 

problem and signals a cry for help in response to a stressful life experience 

or abuse.
LEADING A YOUTH FIRESETTING PREVENTION AND INTERVENTION PROGRAM

SM 1-26

G. Thrill-seeking/Risk-taking.

1. In contrast to curiosity, some adolescent firesetters try to duplicate forms 

of dangerous behaviors seen in various mediums such as in person, 

through video gaming or on the Internet.

2. Experimentation with fire, explosives and other pressure-creating devices 

(bottle bombs) can serve as the “ultimate” risk for adolescents engaging in 

thrill-seeking/risk-taking behaviors.

H. Delinquent/Criminal/Strategic.

1. What distinguishes the delinquent, criminal and strategic firesetters from 

thrill-seeking/risk-taking youth is the planned willful intent to cause 

destruction.

2. Purposeful destructive firesetting by adolescents often targets fields, 

mailboxes, dumpsters and abandoned structures.

3. Delinquent firesetters often set fires, discharge fireworks or falsely 

activate fire alarms because of peer pressure, boredom or to show off. In 

many major cities, delinquent juvenile firesetting is often used as a rite of 

initiation for joining a gang.

4. Criminal and strategic firesetters may use fire to conceal a crime that has 

been committed.

I. Pathological/Severely disturbed/Cognitively impaired/Thought-disordered.

1. Left unaddressed, youth firesetting behaviors can transcend into a 

pathology of continuous fire starting.

2. Pathological firesetting is very disconcerting because the perpetrator uses 

fire as a means for receiving gratification without regard to others.

3. A pathological firesetter may start hundreds of fires for a plethora of 

reasons. The term “pyromania” refers to a pathology whereby a person 

sets many planned fires for pleasure or to release stress.

4. Pathological firesetters may have a high IQ. Their fires are often 

sophisticated, cleverly set, and cause significant damage.

5. The fires will have a distinct pattern and may serve as a type of ritual for 

the firesetter.
LEADING A YOUTH FIRESETTING PREVENTION AND INTERVENTION PROGRAM

SM 1-27

Slide 1-33

Pathological

Delinquent/Criminal/

Strategic

Thrill-seeking/Risk-taking

Crisis/Troubled/Cry-for-help

Curiosity/Experimentation

TYPOLOGIES OF FIRESETTING 

(cont’d)

Slide 1-34

• Not all firesetters have cognitive, behavioral 

or learning disorders.

• Common four factors that influence 

firesetting:

– Easy access to ignition materials.

– Lack of adequate supervision.

– A failure to practice fire safety.

– Easy access to information on the Internet.

J. Not all firesetters have cognitive, behavioral or learning disorders.

1. Just because a youth firesetter has been diagnosed with a cognitive, 

behavioral or learning disorder does not necessarily mean that he or she is 

predisposed to set a fire or that the fire he or she set was caused by the 

disorder.

2. It is also important to remember that youth firesetting behavior can be 

influenced by the youth’s social, cultural and environmental 

circumstances.

K. Four common factors that influence firesetting behavior.

While social, cultural and environmental circumstances may influence firesetting 

behaviors, empirical evidence identifies four common factors that directly 

contribute to youth firesetting behavior. These factors impact all typologies of 

firesetters and include:
LEADING A YOUTH FIRESETTING PREVENTION AND INTERVENTION PROGRAM

SM 1-28

1. Easy access to ignition materials.

2. Lack of adequate supervision.

3. A failure to practice fire safety.

4. Easy access to information on the Internet.

V. UNDERSTANDING YOUR LOCAL YOUTH FIRESETTING PROBLEM

UNDERSTANDING YOUR LOCAL 

YOUTH FIRESETTING PROBLEM

Slide 1-35

• What are the demographics of your 

community?

• Who is setting fires in your community?

• What kinds of fires are being set by youth?

• What costs are associated with these fires 

(e.g., injuries, lives lost, property damage, 

loss of environmental resources, etc.)?

A. Understanding the youth firesetting problem in your community is the first step in 

developing your firesetting intervention program.

B. Collecting the available information on the youth firesetting problem in your 

community will demonstrate to the community the need for a firesetting 

intervention program and will answer the following questions:

1. What are the demographics of your community?

2. Who is setting fires in your community?

3. What kinds of fires are being set by youth?

4. What costs are associated with these fires (e.g., injuries, lives lost, 

property damage, loss of environmental resources, etc.)?

C. The pre-course assignment for YFPM required you to conduct research on the 

topics listed above.

D. Finding data on the occurrence and effects of youth firesetting at the local level 

may have been a challenging process.
LEADING A YOUTH FIRESETTING PREVENTION AND INTERVENTION PROGRAM

SM 1-29

E. As a program manager, you must have mastery understanding of the extent of 

your local youth firesetting problem.

F. You must create a factual rationale for why a YFPI is needed or why an existing 

program should be expanded.
LEADING A YOUTH FIRESETTING PREVENTION AND INTERVENTION PROGRAM

SM 1-30

This page intentionally left blank.
LEADING A YOUTH FIRESETTING PREVENTION AND INTERVENTION PROGRAM

SM 1-31

ACTIVITY 1.1

Your Local Youth Firesetting Problem and Solutions

Purpose

To compare your local youth firesetting problem and solutions with peers.

Directions

1. Please locate and review the information collected as part of your pre-course assignment.

There are five minutes allotted for this task.

2. Members of your table group should compare and contrast the following. There are 15 

minutes allotted for these tasks.

a. Scope of the youth firesetting problem:

- Incidents and their locations.

- Types of youth firesetting.

- Types of other incidents: explosives, fireworks, pressure-created devices.

- Common factors contributing to youth firesetting problem.

- Age distribution of firesetters.

- Gender distribution of firesetters.

- Injuries, deaths and property loss.

- Trends noticed in any of the above topics.

- Annual average number of youth arrests for fire or explosive-related 

incidents.

- State’s Age of Accountability Law.

b. Composition of the community:

- Demographics of community/neighborhoods (stable versus high-risk 

locations).

- Housing profiles (e.g., more owners than renters).

- Economic characteristics of the community.
LEADING A YOUTH FIRESETTING PREVENTION AND INTERVENTION PROGRAM

SM 1-32

- Size of the school system.

- Community growth or shrinkage.

c. Risk-reduction programs:

- What school- and community-based risk-reduction programs are offered 

by your organization?

- Do any of these programs contain content aimed at preventing the 

occurrence of youth firesetting? Why or why not? How much time and 

money is invested into preventing acts of youth firesetting?

d. Existing youth firesetting program:

- If your organization has a YFPI program, please briefly describe it. Please 

also identify what’s working well and what may need improvement.

3. As culmination to this activity, the class at large will be asked to predict future trends in 

youth firesetting behaviors that are likely to be experienced by interventionists. You will 

be expected to discuss how these trends impact the way intervention programs are 

developed and managed. There are five minutes allotted for this task.
LEADING A YOUTH FIRESETTING PREVENTION AND INTERVENTION PROGRAM

SM 1-33

VI. SUMMARY

• Program managers help lead YFPI 

programs.

• Address youth firesetting risks efficiently 

and effectively.

• Use strategic process, provide dynamic 

leadership.

• Five typologies of firesetting.

SUMMARY

Slide 1-37

• Many commonalities associated with 

youth firesetting.

• Managers need baseline information to 

plan/act.

• Manager's responsibility to collect 

baseline information needed to develop or 

enhance YFPI program.

SUMMARY (cont’d)

Slide 1-38
LEADING A YOUTH FIRESETTING PREVENTION AND INTERVENTION PROGRAM

SM 1-34

This page intentionally left blank.
LEADING A YOUTH FIRESETTING PREVENTION AND INTERVENTION PROGRAM

SM 1-35

REFERENCES

Boberg, J. (2006). An explanatory case study of the self-reported motivations of students who set 

school fire. Flagstaff, AZ: Northern Arizona University. 

Consumer Product Safety Commission. (1993, June 3). CPSC issues final rule on child-resistant 

lighters. News from CPSC. Retrieved from 

www.cpsc.gov/CPSCPUB/PREREL/prhtml93/93080.html

Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2006). 2006 crime in the United States. Washington, DC.

FEMA/USFA/NFA. (2007, August). School Fires. Topical Fire Research Series, 8, 1-6. 

FEMA/USFA/NFA. (2012). Management of effective fire prevention programs. Retrieved from 

http://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads

Flynn, J. (2009, July). Analysis issues associated with children playing with fire. Quincy, MA: 

National Fire Protection Association.

Hall, J. R., Jr. (2010). Children playing with fire. Quincy, MA: National Fire Protection 

Association. 

Hall, J. R., Jr. (2010, June). Fireworks. Quincy, MA: NFPA Fire Analysis and Research 

Division. 

Puzzanchera, C. (2009, December). Juvenile arrests 2008. Office of Juvenile Justice and 

Delinquency Prevention. Retrieved from http://www.ncjrs.gov

Smith, L., Greene, H., & Singh, H. (2002). Study of the effectiveness of the U.S. safety standard 

for child resistant cigarette lighters. Injury Prevention, 8, 192-196.
LEADING A YOUTH FIRESETTING PREVENTION AND INTERVENTION PROGRAM

SM 1-36

This page intentionally left blank.
LEADING A YOUTH FIRESETTING PREVENTION AND INTERVENTION PROGRAM

SM 1-37

APPENDIX

READINGS
LEADING A YOUTH FIRESETTING PREVENTION AND INTERVENTION PROGRAM

SM 1-38

This page intentionally left blank.
LEADING A YOUTH FIRESETTING PREVENTION AND INTERVENTION PROGRAM

SM 1-39

A Brief History of Research on Juvenile Firesetting

The Elements of Arson

When a fire occurs it is the responsibility of the fire investigator to determine the cause of the 

fire. The fire investigator looks for three elements to determine if the fire can be considered the 

crime of arson. DeHaan (2002) identified these as follows:

• There has been a burning of property. This must be shown to the court to be actual 

destruction, at least in part, not just scorching or sooting (although some states include 

any physical or visible impairment of any surface).

• The burning is incendiary in origin. Proof of the existence of an effective incendiary 

device, no matter how simple it may be, is adequate. Proof must be accomplished by 

showing specifically how all-possible natural or accidental causes have been considered 

and ruled out.

• The burning is shown to be started with malice, which is with intent of destroying 

property (p. 508). 

The Early Years of Arson Motives

According to Wooden and Berkey (1984), “Arson itself is as old as civilization, but it was not 

until the nineteenth century that there appeared to be much concern about the motivations for it 

or about the psychological stability of arsonists” (p. 12). As already reported, in the 1800s and 

early 1900s, considerable emphasis was placed on arsonists suffering from pyromania. 

It was not until the mid-1960s that research on the motives of arsonists moved away from 

theories of a certain type of deviance. In 1966, McKerraccher and Dacre studied 30 adult male 

arsonists in a forensic psychiatric setting. They found that when compared with 147 adult nonarson offenders, the motives for the arsons were related to feelings of aggression rather than 

deviance. In support of McKerraccher and Dacre’s findings, Wolford (1972) reported that 

arsonists were unable to express their anger to others. Vreeland and Waller (1979) supported 

Wolford’s findings when their research found that arsonists could not confront the object(s) of 

their anger/aggression, and instead the arsonists displaced that anger/aggression against property 

by starting fires.

In addition to the literature that focuses on pyromania, more current discussions of arson revolve 

around criminality. The National Center for the Analysis of Violent Crime (NCAVC) has 

identified six major categories of arson motives:

• Profit

• Vandalism

• Excitement
LEADING A YOUTH FIRESETTING PREVENTION AND INTERVENTION PROGRAM

SM 1-40

• Revenge

• Crime concealment

• Extremism (DeHaan, 2002, p. 509)

According to DeHaan (2002), of these six categories, the vandalism category is most closely 

associated with juvenile and adolescent firesetting. The fires are “set when the opportunity 

arises, often after school or work or on weekends. Boredom and frustration among youths, 

sometimes lead to peer-group challenge to create some excitement” (p. 511).

O’Connor (1987) identified nine categories for the various motives for arson: (a) arson for profit, 

which would include insurance fraud and welfare fraud; (b) business-related fraud, which 

includes eliminating the competition and organized crime; (c) demolition and rehabilitation 

scams and building strippers; (d) revenge and prejudice fires; (e) vanity or hero fires; (f) crime 

concealment fires; (g) mass civil disturbances; (h) terrorism; and (i) juvenile firesetters and 

vandalism. Yet in focusing solely on juveniles, O’Connor stated that “a motive for juvenile 

firesetters is not always apparent” (p. 20), like it is with an adult. In support of O’Connor, 

Boudreau et al. (1977) stated, 

Vandalism is a common cause ascribed to fires set by juveniles who seem to burn property 

merely to relieve boredom or as a general protest against authority. Many school fires as well as 

fires in abandoned autos, vacant buildings and trash receptacles are believed to be caused by this 

type of arsonist (p. 19).

In other words, according to Boudreau et al. (1977), O’Connor (1987) and DeHaan (2002), 

unlike arson in general, the motive is not always apparent as to juvenile firesetting, and it could 

be just a symptom of boredom.

Juvenile Firesetting

In reviewing the literature that looks specifically at juvenile firesetting, four theoretical 

frameworks are evident: (a) Psychoanalytic Theory, (b) Social Learning Theory, (c) DynamicBehavioral Theory, and (d) Cycles of Firesetting Oregon Model. Each theory outlines the 

etiology for juvenile firesetting behavior based on the theoretical perspective of the researchers 

and three of the four are informed by a mental health perspective and have provided the 

foundation for the explanations of the motivations of firesetters to date.

Psychoanalytic Theory

Psychoanalytic Theory is a theory of human development that interprets human development in 

terms of motives and drives. Those that prescribe to Psychoanalytic Theory believe that human 

development is “primarily unconscious and heavily colored by emotion. Behavior is merely a 

surface characteristic, and it is important to analyze the symbolic meanings of behavior, and that 

early experiences are important to human development” (Berger, 2005, p. 35). Psychoanalytic 
LEADING A YOUTH FIRESETTING PREVENTION AND INTERVENTION PROGRAM

SM 1-41

Theory prescribes that firesetting is a child’s desire to have power over something that he or she 

is able to extinguish him or herself. 

Social Learning Theory

Bandura and Walters (1963) first introduced the Social Learning Theory as an extension of 

Miller and Dollard’s (1941) research on the behavioral interpretation of modeling. Bandura’s 

(1977) Social Learning Theory looked at the importance of learning through observation and 

modeling of behaviors, reactions and attitudes of others. Bandura (1977) stated,

Learning would be exceeding laborious, not to mention hazardous, if people had to rely solely on 

the effects of their own actions to inform them what to do. Fortunately, most human behavior is 

learned observationally through modeling: from observing others, one forms an idea of how new 

behaviors are performed, and on later occasions this coded information serves as a guide for 

action (p. 22).

Bandura (1973) believed that anger and aggression, just like other types of behaviors, were 

learned through observational learning. An individual’s observational learning comes from his or 

her family, cultural background, peer group, community and mass media. According to Gaynor 

and Hatcher (1987), aggressive children come from families where one or more members also 

demonstrate aggressive behaviors. Through modeling, children learn to exhibit aggressive 

behaviors. As a result, poor social skills begin to develop within the family and continue to occur 

outside the family, for example, with peers and in school. Hence the family, as well as the 

youngster’s other primary environments, reinforces the development of the socially deviant 

behavior of firesetting (pp. 46-47).

The link between Social Learning Theory and juvenile firesetting would come from a child 

seeing a family member or peer set a fire out of anger or aggression.

Current firesetter researchers Kolko and Kazdin (1986) drew on Social Learning Theory to 

develop a risk-factor model for juvenile firesetters. This model includes three domains: 

(a) learning experiences and cues, (b) personal repertoire and (c) parent and family influences 

and stressors. 

Learning experiences and cues would include the child’s early modeling and vicarious 

experiences, early interest and direct experiences, and the availability of adult models and 

incendiary materials. The personal repertoire would include cognitive components such as 

limited fire and fire safety awareness, behavioral components such as interpersonal 

ineffectiveness/skill deficits and antisocial behavior excesses, and motivational components. The 

parent and family influences and stressors would include limited supervision and monitoring, 

parental distance and noninvolvement, parental pathology and limitations, and stressful external 

events.
LEADING A YOUTH FIRESETTING PREVENTION AND INTERVENTION PROGRAM

SM 1-42

Dynamic-Behavioral Theory

Dr. Ken Fineman (1980) introduced the Dynamic-Behavioral Theory of firesetting in 1980 as a 

way to show that certain factors predispose a child to firesetting. These factors include (a) 

personality characteristics, (b) family and social situations and (c) environmental conditions (see 

Table 1 for a description of these factors).

Table 1

DYNAMIC-BEHAVIORAL THEORY OF FIRESETTING (FINEMAN, 1980)

Category Description

Personality characteristics Child’s exhibited behaviors, school adjustment, 

physical problems and organic dysfunctions.

Family and social situations Information about the family system, how the 

child gets along with family members, how 

discipline is meted out, and if there is an ongoing 

crisis within the family.

Environmental conditions The child receives encouragement to play with 

fire, models firesetting behavior identified in 

others, and deals with emotional distress, peer 

pressure and stress.

Fineman (1995) introduced his Juvenile Firesetter Child and Family Risk Survey as a way to 

determine the future risk of firesetting of a child already determined to be a firesetter.

Cycles of Firesetting

Based upon years of experience working with juvenile firesetters, the Oregon State Fire 

Marshal’s Office and the Oregon Treatment Strategies Task Force partnered to develop the 

Cycles Model of Firesetting. According to Stadolnik (2000), “The Cycles Model is visually 

represented by four concentric circles that represent the four dimensions of a juvenile’s internal 

and external world that are considered to be related to their likelihood of firesetting” (p. 19). The 

cycle includes four circles: (a) the emotional/cognitive cycle, (b) the behavior cycle, (c) the 

family/household cycle, and (d) the community/social cycle. The four circles are described in 

Table 2.
LEADING A YOUTH FIRESETTING PREVENTION AND INTERVENTION PROGRAM

SM 1-43

Table 2

CYCLES MODEL OF FIRESETTING (STADOLNIK, 2000)

Cycle Description

Emotional/cognitive Juvenile’s thoughts and feelings after his or her 

firesetting event.

Behavior Behaviors of the juvenile firesetter that coincide 

with his or her thoughts and feelings.

Family household How the family responds to the firesetting event 

and the emotional environment of the juvenile’s 

household.

Community/social Responses by the community to the firesetting 

and what level of support or restriction the 

firesetter and family receive.

A vast number of empirical studies have been informed by these four theoretical frameworks of 

youth firesetting. The following section discusses this research timeline, beginning with the

research of Dr. Helen Yarnell in the 1930s, through the current firesetter research of today. The 

chronology illustrates a move from studying institutionalized juvenile firesetters to the 

development of a series of typologies for non-institutionalized juvenile firesetters.

1930–1960

During 1937 and 1938, Dr. Helen Yarnell, working in the Psychiatric Division of Bellevue 

Hospital, undertook one of the very first studies on the phenomenon of juvenile firesetting. The 

reason for the study stemmed from her discovery that children who were referred to the 

Psychiatric Division of Bellevue Hospital for observation and firesetting tendencies showed a 

variation in their clinical firesetting background. Yarnell’s study team observed 60 children 

between the ages of 6 and 15. 60 percent were between the ages of 6 and 8 and 35 percent were 

between the ages of 11 and 15. Only two were girls, ages 6 and 7. The research team reviewed 

the children’s clinical history and completed interviews with each child. According to Yarnell 

(1940), the adolescent group’s findings were much different than that of the younger group; 

however, Yarnell’s study with the adolescent group was incomplete at the time of the printing of 

her monograph.

In the first column of Table 3 is a list of the findings on the children ages 6 through 8, with the 

exception of five children who were deemed to be mentally defective. In the second column of 

Table 3 is a list of the findings on the adolescents, ages 11 through 15. Yarnell found that 

children aged 6-8 started fires because of a deprivation of love and security at home, whereas 

older children viewed fire as exciting and entertaining. 
LEADING A YOUTH FIRESETTING PREVENTION AND INTERVENTION PROGRAM

SM 1-44

Table 3

Findings of Dr. Helen Yarnell’s 1937-1938 Study (Yarnell, 1940, pp. 272-286)

Ages 6 through 8 Ages 11 through 15

1. All of the children are of average to dull 

normal intelligence, but many had some 

special educational disability such as reading 

or arithmetic. This made their school 

adjustment difficult.

1. This group showed little anxiety 

or regret for their firesetting.

2. In every case, the child had been deprived of 

love and security in his/her home life.

2. Anxiety dreams were infrequent.

3. They set fires only when under stress in their 

home situation.

3. The fires were planned, set away 

from home, and many caused 

losses involving thousands of 

dollars.

4. The children set fires, with associated 

fantasies to burn some member of the family 

who had either withheld love from the child 

or become too serious a rival for the love of a 

parent.

4. The adolescents waited to see the 

fires and enjoyed the noise and 

excitement from the fire engines.

5. The fires are set in and around the home, 

cause little damage, and are usually put out 

by the child himself; significance is chiefly 

symbolic.

5. The boys tended to go in pairs, 

with the exclusion of all other 

friends. The pairs included an 

aggressive and passive member, 

suggesting homosexual 

association; however, the 

researchers never proved this.

6. The children show other types of asocial 

behavior such as running away from home, 

truancy, stealing and general hyperkinesis 

and aggression.

7. All children show acute anxiety and suffer 

from terrifying dreams and fantasies, 

including vivid attacks by the devil, ghosts 

and skeletons.

8. All children have some sexual conflicts and 

many tell of active masturbation, sodomy or 

fellatio; type of activity does not seem 

significant.

9. Enuresis was noted in only nine of the cases 

and seemed a part of the general picture 

rather than specifically associated with the 

fire motif.

10. A special group of children were orphans 

who had been placed in boarding homes but 

failed to make emotional adjustments.
LEADING A YOUTH FIRESETTING PREVENTION AND INTERVENTION PROGRAM

SM 1-45

In a second study begun shortly after Yarnell’s study of 1937-1938, Drs. Nolan Lewis and Helen 

Yarnell (1951) looked at a group of 238 child firesetters between the ages of 5 and 15. In this 

study, the case records were obtained from fire reports, insurance investigators, juvenile research 

centers and juvenile courts. The 1951 study included the 30 cases from Yarnell’s previous 1937-

1938 research study. In this study, Lewis and Yarnell reported a wide range of motivations for 

firesetting. These motivations included:

• With the exception of children who set fires against the school, the children’s intelligence 

ranged from low average to superior.

• Most of the fires occurred when the child was found to feel guilty over some type of 

sexual preoccupation.

• A number of the fires were symbolic and directed specifically toward one member of the 

family.

• Thirty-two percent of the firesetters set the fire because they liked fire and excitement.

• Twenty-two percent of the firesetters set the fire as revenge against a parent or foster 

home.

• Seventeen percent of the firesetters set the fire because they liked to see the fire engines.

• Fifteen percent of the firesetters set the fire out of revenge against their employer.

• Eight percent of the firesetters set the fire to be a hero.

• Six percent of the firesetters set the fire to cover or be associated with stealing.

Both the Yarnell (1940) and the Lewis and Yarnell (1951) studies were the first studies that 

looked specifically at the child and adolescent firesetter. These studies were the groundwork for 

future research on child and adolescent firesetting. Unfortunately, it was not until the 1970s, 

when research on juvenile firesetting resumed, that fire departments and mental health 

professionals began to notice the increasing numbers of child and adolescent firesetting 

incidents.

1960–1980

There was little research, aside from that of Lewis and Yarnell, throughout the 1940s and 1950s. 

It was not until the late 1960s and early 1970s that the fire service and mental health took notice 

of the large number of reported youth who were setting fires that were appearing in the fire 

service statistics of that time.

Macht and Mack (1968) began the resurgence in firesetting research in 1968. They studied four 

adolescent firesetters ages 16 to 18. In this study, they found that all four boys came from 

stressful home situations. The boys only set fires when they were away from their fathers, and 
LEADING A YOUTH FIRESETTING PREVENTION AND INTERVENTION PROGRAM

SM 1-46

each one of the boy’s fathers had some type of significant job involvement with fire. Macht and 

Mack concluded from their study that:

Fire had come to have a special and pleasurable meaning in the lives of these patients. . . . In an 

important sense, the firesetting represents a call from the overburdened adolescent to the absent 

father in order to bring him to the rescue. . . The activity in connection with fire served to 

reestablish a lost relationship with the father (p. 286).

Folkman and Siegelman (1971) undertook a pilot study to explore the firesetting behavior in 47 

randomly selected normal children ages 6 and 7. In this study, Folkman and Siegelman found 

that only two boys had come to the attention of the fire service for setting fires. However, 60 

percent of the boys and 33 percent of the girls were found to have an interest in fire, which was 

exhibited by either a self-report of previous firesetting or reporting they had asked to light 

matches. During this time, the focus expanded to identifying treatment options for juvenile 

firesetters. 

During a California State Psychological Association conference in 1975, a group of fire service 

personnel and psychologists met to discuss the issue of juvenile firesetting. The reason for this 

discussion was the fact that both fire service and mental health had been receiving referrals on 

juvenile firesetters, and neither group knew how to help these children. Out of this meeting, the 

Fire Service and Arson Prevention Committee was formed to design methods to work with the 

child firesetters. According to Gaynor and Hatcher (1987), this committee received a grant from 

the United States Fire Administration to begin work on designing and developing a method to 

classify juvenile firesetting behavior and to determine the risk of future firesetting in children 

who have been identified as firesetters. This committee’s work provided the basis for the 

evaluation and classification system used today with youth firesetters.

Bernard Levin (1976) wrote about the psychological characteristics of firesetters. The main focus 

of this article was on the adult firesetter; however, he did discuss children and fire by stating:

Most people are fascinated by fire. This fascination starts at an early age and manifests itself in 

young children playing with matches. While people may not outgrow their basic fascination with 

fire, normal children learn that playing with matches is not acceptable behavior and discontinue 

it by the age of five or six. A few children continue to play with matches or deliberately set 

destructive fires, and their chronic firesetting is an observable symptom of a psychological 

disturbance. (p. 38)

He went on to discuss two types of treatments used when working with chronic juvenile 

firesetters. The first treatment discussed by Welsh (1971) was stimulus satiation. This technique 

requires a firesetter to strike matches for an hour a day until the firesetter is sick of lighting the 

matches and stops match lighting and/or firesetting. The second treatment is through positive 

reinforcement that is accompanied with the threat of punishment by loss (Holland, 1969). This 

technique requires a child to bring any found match packages to his father, who would then give 

him a reward for his positive behavior. This treatment would cause the child to develop positive 

non-firesetting behaviors based on the positive reward.
LEADING A YOUTH FIRESETTING PREVENTION AND INTERVENTION PROGRAM

SM 1-47

The literature on juvenile firesetting from the 1940s through the 1970s focused either on 

diagnosis or treatment. During this time, Heath, Gayton and Hardesty (1976) reviewed the 

literature on juvenile firesetting and found only six journal articles that exclusively discussed 

juvenile firesetting and 17 articles on issues related to juvenile firesetting. Unfortunately, they 

were unable to get their literature review article published in the United States, so they relied 

upon the Canadian Psychiatric Association to publish the literature review in their journal. 

However, from the 1980s through today, the literature has proven to be ripe with research on 

juvenile firesetting, just not specific to the motivations of school firesetters or the phenomenon 

of school fires.

1980–Today

From the 1980s through today, there have been many different foci of youth firesetter research, 

including (a) the impact of the environment on the juvenile firesetter’s behavior (Fineman, 1980; 

Gaynor & Hatcher, 1987; Vreeland & Waller, 1979); (b) psychiatric disorders as the catalyst for 

juvenile firesetting (Fineman, 1980; Freud, 1932; Heath et al., 1976; Kolko & Kazdin, 1986; 

Kuhnley, Henderson, & Quinland, 1982; Lewis & Yarnell, 1951; Williams, 2005; Wooden & 

Berkey, 1984; Yarnell, 1940); (c) firesetting as a learned behavior (Gaynor & Hatcher, 1987; 

Kolko & Kazdin, 1986; Vreeland & Waller, 1979); (d) juvenile firesetter assessment and 

evaluation instruments (Fineman 1980, 1995; Gaynor & Hatcher, 1987; Sakheim & Osborn, 

1994; Slavkin, 2000; Stadolnik, 2000); (e) mental health and educational interventions 

(Bumpass, Fagelman, & Brix, 1983; Fineman, 1980, 1995; Kolko & Kazdin, 1986, 1991; 

Sakheim & Osborn, 1994; Stadolnik, 2000; Wooden & Berkey, 1984); and (f) juvenile firesetter 

motives and typologies (Cotterall, 1999; Fineman, 1980; Gaynor & Hatcher, 1987; Hall, 2006; 

Kolko & Kazdin, 1991; Meade, 1998; Sakheim & Osborn, 1994; Swaffer & Hollin, 1995; 

Terjestam & Ryden, 1996). Because the specific focus of this dissertation is on the self-reported 

motivations of students who set school fires, the following section focuses strictly on the 

literature regarding firesetter motives and typologies. While the typologies contain anywhere 

from three to nine categories of firesetter motives, they all range from the curious to the 

pathological firesetter.

School Fires and Firesetting

According to historical information on school fires, there have been three devastating school 

fires in the history of the United States. A synopsis of each of these school fires follows. The first 

school fire occurred on March 4, 1908 at the Lakeview Elementary School in Collinwood, Ohio. 

The cause of the fire was said to be wood joists coming in contact with an overheated steam pipe 

that started the fire. This fire killed 172 students and 2 teachers (Gottschalk, 2002). The second 

devastating school fire occurred on March 18, 1937 in New London, Texas. A disgruntled school 

employee who had been reprimanded for smoking and wanted to get back at the school 

administrators started the New London School fire. He tampered with the gas lines so as to run 

up the school gas bill. An explosion ensued which killed 294 students and staff (Gottschalk, 

2002). The third school fire occurred on December 1, 1958 in Chicago, Illinois at the Our Lady 

of the Angels School. A fifth grade student lighting a cardboard waste barrel in the school

basement started this school fire. The fire claimed the lives of 92 students and 3 nuns. 
LEADING A YOUTH FIRESETTING PREVENTION AND INTERVENTION PROGRAM

SM 1-48

All of these fires caused community devastation, millions of dollars in property loss, and the 

most precious loss of all, the loss of life. However, only the fire at Our Lady of the Angels 

School was started by a school student.

According to the National Fire Incident Reporting System (NFIRS) and the National Fire 

Protection Association (NFPA), in 2002, there were an estimated 14,300 fires in kindergarten 

through twelfth grade educational institutions, causing an estimated $103,600,000 in property 

damage and 122 injuries (FEMA, 2004). 

The leading cause of these school fires was incendiary/suspicious activity accounting for 37 

percent of all school structure fires. Fifty-two percent of all middle and high school fires have 

been attributed to incendiary/suspicious activity (FEMA, 2004). The NFIRS report stated that 78 

percent of all school fires occur during the school week, and 55 percent of these fires occur 

between the hours of 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. when youth are likely to be at school (FEMA, 2004). 

Today, deaths from school fires are rare, but injuries per fire are higher in school structure fires 

than nonresidential structure fires on average per the United States Fire Administration (2005). 

Also according to the USFA (2001), “Each year in the United States, there are an estimated 

1,300 fires in high schools, private and prep schools and college dormitories. These fires are 

responsible for less than 5 deaths, approximately 50 injuries and $4.1 million in property loss 

annually” (p. 1). But what about in Phoenix, Arizona?

In 2005, there were a total of 99 school fires occurring during school hours in K-12 educational 

institutions that were reported to the Phoenix Fire Department’s Youth Firesetter Intervention 

Program (2006). These reports over the past five years along with the fire at Our Lady of the 

Angels School prompted research on the motivations of students who set school fires. Are they 

troubled students who dislike school, as was the case with the fire set at our Our Lady of the 

Angels School? Do the motivations for student firesetters follow the motivation typologies found 

in previous research on firesetters? What does previous research say about school firesetters?

School Firesetters

In Lewis and Yarnell’s (1951) study in 1937–1938 of 238 child firesetters, 61 had set fires in 

either churches or schools (no differentiation between church or school was given). The reasons 

these firesetters gave for setting their school fires were predominately based on hatred, revenge, 

and the desire to destroy the school building, hoping that they would no longer have to attend 

school. Some of their other reasons included the following comments:

• “We didn’t like the looks of the teacher.”

• “I got a bad report card and thought I’d make a fire and blow it up.”

• “I was mad because I didn’t pass.”

• “I was tired of going to school.”

• “The teacher picked on me.” (p. 300)
LEADING A YOUTH FIRESETTING PREVENTION AND INTERVENTION PROGRAM

SM 1-49

Some of the secondary reasons these students gave for setting the school fires was to see the fire, 

see the fire engines, and be the hero that discovered the fire. The researchers went on to say that 

these children might also vandalize school property, steal from teachers and staff, leave obscene 

notes on the teacher’s desk, and mutilate the teacher’s clothing. Their classroom behavior and 

schoolwork was poor at best, and they showed a “predominately dull or borderline intelligence 

with special learning disabilities, and all of them were unable to compete in the classroom” (p. 

300). Lewis and Yarnell (1951) also stated that children under age 10 rarely set school fires and 

the most frequent age group of school firesetters is between 12 and 14 years of age. In Wooden 

and Berkey’s (1984) study, they found that the “greatest number of fires (37 percent) set by the 

delinquent firesetters” were school-related fires (p. 72). The motives for these school fires were 

found to be “revenge, spite, or disruption of classroom activities” (p. 77). The median age for the 

school firesetters in Wooden and Berkey’s (1984) study was 14 and the fires were most often set 

in the classroom, school closets, under the teacher’s desk, or in the wastebasket. They also found 

that most of the school firesetters were considered trouble-making students and the fires occurred 

after being punished by a teacher or school administrator. In the body of current literature, only 

two examples of differing motives appear.

In an article written by Jeff Meade (1998) titled Fire Power, while not a study about school 

firesetters but rather a compilation of information about school fires written for Education Week, 

Meade discussed school firesetting with juvenile firesetter researcher Paul Schwartzman. 

Schwartzman suggested that there was no one main reason juvenile firesetters target schools; 

however, he did suggest the following possible motives behind school firesetting:

• A prank

• To get out of final exams

• Peer pressure

• Seeking attention

Other possible motives behind school firesetting discussed by Meade (1998) include revenge, 

school disruption, anger, or no explanation at all. Hall (2006) reported that “deliberate fires in 

schools are often a result of mucking about which gets out of hand” (p. 2). However, according 

to Hall’s report, Dr. Jack Kennedy, a clinical forensic psychologist, reverted to a pathological 

explanation, asserting that there was a deeper reason for school fires. Kennedy stated,

For children, school is normally a focal point for their social world. So that’s where they’re 

going to be exposed to frustrations, to issues of tolerance and anger. And because they place 

social controls on children, schools—unfortunately—often annoy them, cause them to be 

disgruntled, or to feel hard done by. The results can be starting a fire to vent anger, or exact

revenge against the school, or against the teacher. It’s rare that there is not some sort of trail or 

story behind a fire at school. Fires may be like a friend to some of these children—the one thing 

they feel gives them some power (Hall, 2006, pp. 2-3).
LEADING A YOUTH FIRESETTING PREVENTION AND INTERVENTION PROGRAM

SM 1-50

As has been evidenced by the scant research that focuses specifically on school firesetters, little 

is known about the motivations behind school fires. In Lewis and Yarnell’s (1951) research, all 

of the school firesetters had “predominately dull or borderline intelligence with special learning 

disabilities and all of them were unable to compete in the classroom” (p. 300). In Wooden and 

Berkey’s study in 1984, all of the school firesetters were troubled students who set school fires 

after a teacher or school administrator had punished them. Meade and Hall speculated about the 

motives of school firesetters but undertook no actual research to support their hypotheses

(This information was taken from the following source: Boberg, J. (2006). An exploratory case

study of the self-reported motivations of students who set school fire. Flagstaff, AZ; NAU) 

(Chapter 2)
LEADING A YOUTH FIRESETTING PREVENTION AND INTERVENTION PROGRAM

SM 1-51

REFERENCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY

Achenbach, T. M., & Edelbrock, C. (1987). Manual for the youth self-report and profile.

Burlington, VT: University of Vermont.

American Psychiatric Association. (1994). The diagnostic and statistical manual of mental 

disorders (4th ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.

Arizona Revised Statute 13-1702, Title 13 Criminal Code, Arson. 

Arizona Revised Statute 13-1703, Title 13 Criminal Code, Arson. 

Arizona Revised Statute 13-1704, Title 13 Criminal Code, Arson. 

Bandura, A. (1973). Aggression: A social learning analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: PrenticeHall. 

Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. New York: General Learning Press.

Bandura, A., & Walters, R. (1963). Social learning and personality development. New York: 

Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Boudreau, J., Kwan, Q., Faragher, W., & Denault, G., (1977). Arson and arson investigation: 

Survey and assessment. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Bradford, J., & 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.

Bronowski, J. (1976). The ascent of man. New York, NY: Little Brown and Company.

Bumpass, E., Fagelman, F., & Brix, R. (1983). Intervention with children who set fires. 

American Journal of Psychotherapy. 37(3), 328-345.

Clark, D. (2004). Reflecting. Big Dog and Little Dog: Juxtaposition of performance, learning, 

leadership and knowledge. Retrieved June 6, 2006, from 

http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/

Coleman, J. (1961). The adolescent society. New York, NY: New York Free Press.

Cosgrove, B. (2002). Accident or arson? Danbury, CT: Rutledge Books, Inc.

Cotterrall, A. (1999). A survey of the disposition, affinity, interest, and experience with fire of 

students in the City of Greater Sudbury (University report). Retrieved September 8, 2006, 

from http://www.sosfires.com/student_fire_survey_-_sudbury.htm.

Cowan, D. (2001). Great Chicago fires. Chicago, IL: Lake Claremont Press.
LEADING A YOUTH FIRESETTING PREVENTION AND INTERVENTION PROGRAM

SM 1-52

Cowan, D., & Kuenster, J. (1996). To sleep with the angels. Chicago, IL: Ivan R. Dee.

DeHaan, J. (2002). Kirk’s fire investigation (5th ed). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Devoe, J., Peter, K., Kaufman, P., Miller, A., Noonan, M., Snyder, T., and Baum, K., (2004). 

Indicators of school crime and safety: 2004 (NCES 2005-002/NCJ205290). U.S. 

Department of Education and Justice. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing 

Office.

Dibble, C. (2006). Cath’s favorite research quotes. Retrieved October 20, 2006, from 

http://www.glue.umd.edu/~cdibble/cath/research.html.

Eder, D. (1995). School talk: Gender and adolescent culture. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers 

University Press. 

Edinburgh Youth Social Inclusion Partnership. (2004). Understanding Young Firesetters Project 

Final Report. Edinburgh, Scotland: Author.

Falls, D. (2006). A case of transition to an urban high school: Listening to the voices of freshman 

students. Ann Arbor, MI: Proquest/UMI 

Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2002). Crime in the United States 2002: Arson (Crime Index 

Offenses Report). Retrieved June 14, 2006, from 

http:www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_02/html/web/offreported/02-narson11.html.

FEMA. (2004). School fires. Topical Fire Research Series, 4(6), 1-4.

Fineman, K. (1980). Firesetting in childhood and adolescence. Psychiatric Clinics of North 

America. 3, 483-500.

Fineman, K. (1995). A model for the qualitative analysis of child and adult deviant behavior. 

American Journal of Forensic Psychology, 13, 31-60. 

Fineman, K., Brudo, C. & Brudo, E., and colleagues. (1979). Interviewing and counseling 

juvenile firesetters. Washington, DC: United States Fire Administration.

Folkman, W., & Siegelman, E. (1971). Youthful firesetters: An exploratory study in personality 

and background. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.

Freud, S. (1930). Civilization and its discontent. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc.

Gale, T. (2006, copyright). Encyclopedia of mental disorders. Retrieved June 14, 2006, from 

http://www.minddisorders.com/Py-Z/Pyromania.html.

Gaynor, J., & Hatcher, C. (1987). The psychology of child firesetting detection and intervention. 

New York: Brunner/Mazel, Inc.
LEADING A YOUTH FIRESETTING PREVENTION AND INTERVENTION PROGRAM

SM 1-53

Ghory, W. & Sinclair, R. (1980). Connecting teacher talents to student gifts. New York, NY: 

MacMillan and Company.

Golafshani, N. (2003). Understanding reliability and validity in qualitative research. The 

Qualitative Report, 8(4), 597-607.

Gottschalk, J. (2002). Firefighting. New York: DK Publishing, Inc.

Hall, M. (2006, May 7). I’m a fire starter. Independent on Sunday. Retrieved July 11, 2005, from 

http://wf2la2.webfeat.org/

Hall, R., & Brakhage, C. (Eds.). (1997). Introduction to fire origin and cause (2nd ed.). 

Stillwater, OK: Fire Protection Publications.

Hatch, J. (1995). Qualitative research in early childhood settings. Westport, CT: Praeger.

Heath, G., Gayton, W., & Hardesty, V. (1976). Childhood firesetting: A review. Canadian 

Psychiatric Association Journal, 21(4), 229-237. 

Holland, C. (1969). Elimination by the parents of firesetting behavior in a seven-year-old boy. 

Behavior Research and Therapy, 7, 135-137.

Hopkins, L. (2006). Native American sweat lodge. Retrieved June 9, 2006, from thewildrose.net: 

http://thewildrose.net/sweat.html.

Jeunesse, G. (1993). Le feuami on ennemi (Translated by Scholastic Inc), (Expert Reader Dr. 

Robert Carneiro), New York: Scholastic Inc.

Jinn According to Quran and Sunnah. (n.d.). In Islam awareness: Jinn. The different types (I. 

Barr, Trans.). Retrieved June 5, 2006, from Islamawareness.net:

Jones, R., Ribbe, D., & Cunningham, P. (1994). Psychosocial correlates of fire disaster among 

children and adolescents. Journal of Thematic Stress. 7, 117-122. 

Kaufman, I., Heins, L., & Reiser, D. (1961). A re-evaluation of the psychodynamics of 

firesetting. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 31, 123-136.

Kolko, D. J. (1985). Juvenile firesetting: A review and critique. Clinical Psychology Review, 5,

345-376.

Kolko, D. J. (1989). Firesetting and pyromania. In C. G. Last & M. Hersen (Eds.), Handbook of 

child psychiatric diagnosis (pp. 443-459). New York: Wiley and Sons.

Kolko, D. (1999). Firesetting in children and youth. In Van Hasselt & M. Hersen (Eds). 

Handbook of psychological approaches with violent offenders: Contemporary strategies 

and issues (pp. 95-115). New York: Plenum Press.
LEADING A YOUTH FIRESETTING PREVENTION AND INTERVENTION PROGRAM

SM 1-54

Kolko, D. J. (Ed.). (2002). Handbook on firesetting in children and youth. San Diego, CA: 

Academic Press.

Kolko, D. J., & Kazdin, A. E. (1986). A Conceptualization of Firesetting in Children and 

Adolescents. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 14(1), 49-61.

Kolko, D. J., & Kazdin, A. E. (1991). Motives of childhood firesetters: Firesetting characteristics 

and psychological correlates. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 32(3), 535-

550.

Kolko, D., & Kazdin, A. E. (1994). Children’s descriptions of their firesetting incidents: 

Characteristics and relationships to recidivism. Journal of the American Academy of 

Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 33(1), 114-122.

Koson, D. & Dvoskin, J. (1982). Arson: A diagnostic study. Bulletin of the AAPL, 10, 39-49.

Kuhnley, E., Henderson, R., & Quinland, D. (1982). Firesetting by children. Journal of 

American Academy of Child Psychiatry. 21, 560-563.

Levin, B. (1976, March). Psychological characteristics of firesetters. Fire Journal, 36-40.

Lewis, N., & Yarnell, H. (1951). Pathological firesetting (pyromania). New York: Coolidge 

Foundation Publishers.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, 

Inc.

Macht, L. & Mack, J. (1968). The firesetter syndrome. Psychiatry, 31, 277-288.

Madslien, J. (2004). Website explores the dangers of playing with fire. BBC News Online.

Internet Document. Retrieved October 20, 2006, from BBC News: 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3850119.stm

Martin, S. (Ed.). (2003). Arizona Criminal and Traffic Law Manual (2003-2004 ed.). 

Charlottesville, VA: LexisNexis Mathew Bender & Company, Inc.

McKerraccher, D., & Dacre, A. (1966). A study of arsonists in a special security hospital. British 

Journal of Psychiatry, 112, 1151-1154.

Meade, J. (1998). Fire power. Education Week, 18(11), 1-8.

Merriam, S. (1998). Qualitative research and case study application in education (Rev. ed.). San 

Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.

Miles, M., & Huberman, A. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage 

Publications. 
LEADING A YOUTH FIRESETTING PREVENTION AND INTERVENTION PROGRAM

SM 1-55

Miller, N., & Dollard, J. (1941). Social learning and imitation. New Haven, NJ: Yale University 

Press.

Milner, m. (2004). Freaks, geeks, and cool kids: American teenagers, schools and the culture of 

consumption. New York, NY: Routledge.

National Center for Children Exposed to Violence. (2006). Glossary of Terms. Internet 

Document. Retrieved August 11, 2006, from NCCEV Resources:

http://www.nccev.org/resources/terms.html.

Naylor, S. (1997, November). Agni. Encyclopedia Mythica. Retrieved June 9, 2006, from 

Encyclopedia Mythica: http://pantheon.org/articles/a/agni.html.

Ner Tamid. (2006). In Jewish Virtual Library (chap.). (R. Scheinerman, Trans.). Retrieved June 

7, 2006, from Jewish Virtual Library: 

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaism/ner_tamid.html.

Neufeldt, V. (Ed.). (1988). Webster's new world dictionary of American English (Third College 

Edition). Cleveland, OH: Simon & Schuster, Inc. (Original work published 1970)

O’Connor, J. J. (1987). Practical fire and arson Investigation. New York: Elsevier Science 

Publishing Company, Inc.

Olmstead, M. (2003). Adolescent vulnerability to addiction. In Research: More details about 

specific projects... Retrieved October 20, 2006, from Mary C. Olmstead, Ph.D. 

Department of Psychology, Queen’s University: 

http://psyc.queensu.ca/faculty/olmstead/research.html.

Patterson, G. (1982). A social learning approach (Vol. 1). Eugene, OR: Castilia.

Patton, M. (1987). How to use qualitative methods in evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage 

Publications.

Patton, M. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: 

Sage Publications.

Patton, M. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: 

Sage Publications.

Philbin, W. (2001, March 9). Two boys booked after fire forces school evacuation. The TimesPicayune, p. A1. 

Phoenix Fire Department. (2006). Youth Firesetter Intervention Program Database (Active 

Version) [Data file]. Phoenix, AZ: Phoenix Fire Department's Youth Firesetter 

Intervention Program.
LEADING A YOUTH FIRESETTING PREVENTION AND INTERVENTION PROGRAM

SM 1-56

Phoenix Fire Department’s Urban Services Division. (2001). Youth Firesetter Intervention 

Program [Brochure]. Phoenix, AZ: Author.

Poole, D., & Lamb, M. (1998). Investigative interviews of children. Washington, DC: American 

Psychological Association.

Prins, H. (1986). Dangerous behaviour, the law and mental disorder. London, England: 

Tavistock.

Prins, H. (1994). Fire-raising: Its motivation and management. London, England: Routledge.

Putnam, C., & Kirkpatrick, J. (2005, May). Juvenile firesetting: A research overview. Juvenile 

Justice Bulletin, 1-8. Washington, DC: United States Department of Justice, Office of 

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Reid, J. R. (1962, January 12). Interview with youth firesetter: Official documentation. Retrieved 

February 14, 2003, from Network Chicago.com: http://networkchicago.com/print.php.

Rigby, K. (2002). New perspectives on bullying. London, England: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.

Rubin, H., & Rubin, I. (1995). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data. Thousand 

Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Sakheim, G., & Osborn, E. (1994). Firesetting children: Risk assessment and treatment. 

Washington, DC: Child Welfare League of America.

Santrock, J. (2001). Child development (9th ed). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. 

Schactel, E. (1943, November). On color and affect: Contributions to an understanding of 

Rorschach’s Test. Journal of the Biology and Pathology of Interpersonal Relations, 5(4), 

393-409. 

Scott, D. (1974). The psychology of fire: What fire can mean to certain people and how it can be 

exploited for money, power, or sexual gratification. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.

Scriven, M. (1991). Evaluation thesaurus (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Seidman, I. (1998). Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in education 

and the social sciences. New York: Teachers College Press.

Slavkin, M. (2000). What every professional who works with adolescents needs to know about 

firesetters. Adolescence, 35(140), 759-778.

Stadolnik, R. (2000). Drawn to the flame: Assessment and treatment of juvenile firesetting 

behavior. Sarasota, FL: Professional Resource Press.
LEADING A YOUTH FIRESETTING PREVENTION AND INTERVENTION PROGRAM

SM 1-57

Stake, R. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Stewart, L. (1993). Profile of female firesetters: Implications for treatment. British Journal of 

Psychiatry, 163, 248-256.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for 

developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Swaffer, T., & Hollin, C. R. (1995). Adolescent firesetting: Why do they say they do it? Journal 

of Adolescence, 18, 619-623.

Terjestam, P., & Ryden, O. (1996). Firesetting as normal behavior: Frequencies and patterns of 

change in behavior of 7-16 year old children. Research Report Swedish Rescue Services 

Agency, 21-147.

The History Channel. (1996-2006). History Hanukkah. In The History Channel Exhibits

(section). Retrieved June 1, 2006, from The History Channel: 

http://www.historychannel.com/exhibits/holidays/hanukkah/history.html

Thomas, S., & Pollio, H. (2002). Listening to patients: A phenomenological approach to nursing 

research and practice. New York: Springer Publishing Company.

United States Fire Administration. (2001). Dormitory fires. Topical Research Series, 14, 1-3.

United States Fire Administration. (2005). School fire facts. Retrieved May 3, 2005, from 

http://www.usfa.fema.gov/safety/campaigns/arson_week/school_fire_facts.shtm.

Vreeland, R., & Waller, M. (1979). The psychology of firesetting: A review and appraisal.

Washington, DC: United Sates Government Printing Office.

Welsh, R. (1971). The use of stimulus satiation in the elimination of juvenile firesetting 

behavior. In A.M. Graziano (Ed.), Behavior therapy with children (pp. 283-289). New 

York: Aldine-Atherton. 

Wiersma, W. (1995). Research methods in education: An introduction (6th ed.). Boston, MA: 

Allyn and Bacon.

William, G. (2000). Introduction to Aboriginal fire use in North America. Fire Management 

Today, 60(3), 8-12.

Williams, D. (2005). Understanding the arsonist: From assessment to confession. Tucson, AZ: 

Lawyers and Judges Publishing Company, Inc.

Wolford, M. (1972). Some attitudinal, psychological and sociological characteristics of 

incarcerated arsonists. Fire and Arson Investigator, 22, 1-30.
LEADING A YOUTH FIRESETTING PREVENTION AND INTERVENTION PROGRAM

SM 1-58

Wooden, W., & Berkey, M. (1984). Children and arson America’s middle class nightmare. New 

York: Plenum Press.

Yarnell, H. (1940). Firesetting in children. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 10, 272-286.

Yarrow, L. (1960). Interviewing children. In P. J. Mussen (Ed.), Handbook of research methods 

in child development (pp. 561-602). New York: Wiley.

Yin, R. K. (1984). Case study research: Design and methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage 

Publications, Inc.

Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research. Design and methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: 

Sage Publications.

Yin, R. K. (Ed.). (2004). The case study anthology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Zwiers, M., & Morrissette, P. (1999). Effective interviewing of children: A comprehensive guide 

for counselors and human service workers. Ann Arbor, MI: Edwards Brothers.
YOUTH FIRESETTER PROGRAM MANAGER

UNIT 2:

PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

TERMINAL OBJECTIVE

The students will be able to:

2.1 Develop a Youth Firesetting Prevention and Intervention (YFPI) program in their home community.

ENABLING OBJECTIVES

The students will be able to:

2.1 Analyze their department’s or agency’s mission to see if it supports a YFPI program.

2.2 Determine potential partners and interagency task force members.

2.3 Describe the roles of the coordinating agency and interagency task force.

2.4 Assess the administrative and program tools required to operate a successful YFPI program.

2.5 Develop a draft of YFPI program operating procedures.
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-2

This page intentionally left blank.
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-3

UNIT 2:

PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

Slide 2-1

ENABLING OBJECTIVES

• Analyze their department’s or agency’s 

mission to see if it supports a Youth 

Firesetting Prevention and Intervention 

(YFPI) program.

• Determine potential partners and 

interagency task force members.

• Describe the roles of the coordinating 

agency and interagency task force.

Slide 2-2

ENABLING OBJECTIVES 

(cont’d)

• Assess the administrative and program 

tools required to operate a successful 

YFPI program.

• Develop a draft of YFPI program 

operating procedures.

Slide 2-3
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-4

I. ORGANIZATIONAL MISSION STATEMENT

ORGANIZATIONAL MISSION 

STATEMENT

• Institutionalized support means an 

organization provides substantive 

resources:

– Time.

– Attention.

– People.

– Funding.

Slide 2-4

A. Most fire departments have a mission statement that drives the goals, objectives 

and services delivered by their organization.

B. If prevention is an institutionalized value of an organization, it will be included in 

the mission statement and supported by the department at large.

C. Institutionalized support for risk reduction means that an organization provides 

substantive resources in the form of time, attention, people and funding.

D. While it may not be specifically mentioned, youth firesetting intervention should 

be a component of the prevention strategies offered by an organization.

E. Developers of a Youth Firesetting Prevention and Intervention (YFPI) program 

should ensure that it corresponds with the mission of the organization.

F. If a YFPI program corresponds with the organization’s mission, it is more likely 

to be supported by all levels of the fire department and receive the support it 

requires.
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-5

II. DEVELOP A TASK FORCE

DEVELOP A TASK FORCE

• Program manager must be proficient at 

leading the development of a YFPI.

Slide 2-5

A. National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Standard 1035, Standard on Fire 

and Life Safety Educator, Public Information Officer, Youth Firesetter 

Intervention Specialist and Youth Firesetter Program Manager Professional 

Qualifications, calls for a program manager to exhibit proficiency at leading the 

development of a YFPI program.

Conduct 

Community 

Analysis

Identify 

Problem

Identify and 

Recruit 

Stakeholders

Develop and 

Implement 

Program

Deliver Program

Evaluate 

Program

Life cycle 

of YFPI 

Program

Slide 2-6

B. The leader must understand how a YFPI program is developed, implemented, 

operated and evaluated. The process is displayed in the following graphic:
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-6

DEVELOP A TASK FORCE (cont’d)

• Risk assessment is the first and most 

important step toward identifying the 

scope of a local youth firesetting problem.

• A community risk assessment explores 

problem- and people-related data.

Slide 2-7

C. Risk assessment is the first and most important step toward identifying the scope 

of a local youth firesetting problem.
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-7

• A good risk assessment will help:

– Identify who is setting fires, how, where and 

why.

– Identify target populations.

– Locate hidden, hard to reach or underserved 

groups.

– Identify high-risk occupancies, populations 

and neighborhoods.

– Build foundation to suggest use of five E’s.

DEVELOP A TASK FORCE (cont’d)

Slide 2-8

A good assessment will help:

1. Identify who is setting fires, how, where and why.

2. Identify logical target populations to receive services.

3. Locate hidden, hard to reach or underserved populations.

4. Identify high-risk occupancies, populations and neighborhoods.

5. Build a foundation to suggest use of integrated prevention interventions 

(five E’s).

D. A community risk assessment explores problem- and people-related data.

What types of youth firesetting

problem-related data should be 

examined as part of a risk 

assessment?

Slide 2-9
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-8

• Problem-related data:

– How often do incidents occur?

– Who, how, where and why?

– Are incident occurrences rising or falling?

– Where are incidents occurring?

– Who are the incidents affecting?

DEVELOP A TASK FORCE (cont’d)

Slide 2-10

1. Problem-related data evaluation examines the occurrence of incidents.

a. How often youth firesetting incidents occur (frequency).

b. Who is causing the youth firesetting problem, as well as how, 

where and why it is occurring.

c. Whether occurrences of incidents are rising or falling.

– When are incidents occurring?

– Are there specific youth firesetting trends?

– What are the physical threats (injuries, 

deaths)?

– What is the economic impact of incidents? 

DEVELOP A TASK FORCE (cont’d)

Slide 2-11

d. Where incidents occur and who they affect (geographic 

distribution).

e. When incidents occur (time, day, month).

f. Specific youth firesetting trends such as age, gender, special needs.

g. Physical threats from risk:
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-9

- Number of injuries.

- Loss of life to civilians and emergency service staff.

h. The economic impact of incidents, both to the community and 

emergency services.

i. An objective analysis of problem-related data will include a vast 

amount of quantitative data that has been collected over an 

extended period of time.

2. People-related data evaluation explores the human component of 

involvement and factors associated with vulnerability to juvenile firesetter 

incidents. It will include the demographics of the local community.

What types of people-related 

data should be explored when 

conducting a community risk 

assessment pertinent to youth 

firesetting?

Slide 2-12

• People-related data:

– Population size and distribution.

– Gender profiles and age distribution.

– Family size and structures.

– Distribution of races and ethnic groups.

– Emerging/Shrinking populations.

DEVELOP A TASK FORCE (cont’d)

Slide 2-13

Information to examine includes:

a. Population size of the community.
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-10

b. How the population is distributed throughout the community.

c. Gender profiles and age distribution of people throughout the 

community.

d. Family sizes and structures.

e. Distribution of racial and ethnic groups.

f. Emerging and/or shrinking populations.

– Income and education levels of population.

– Employment and school system 

demographics.

– Economic sources that support local tax 

base.

DEVELOP A TASK FORCE (cont’d)

Slide 2-14

g. Income and education levels of people.

h. Employment and school system demographics.

i. Sources that support the city/community’s tax base.

– Risk factors such as poverty, population 

transience and disabilities.

– Location and distribution of confirmed (or 

potential) high-risk populations, occupancies 

and neighborhoods.

DEVELOP A TASK FORCE (cont’d)

Slide 2-15

j. Risk factors such as poverty, population transience and disabilities.
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-11

k. Location and distribution of confirmed (or potential) high-risk 

populations, occupancies and neighborhoods.

• Upon determination that a YFPI program 

is needed, the fire department (or lead 

agency) should invite other community 

agencies to join a YFPI task force.

DEVELOP A TASK FORCE (cont’d)

Slide 2-16

E. Upon determination that a YFPI program is needed, the fire department (or lead 

agency) should invite other community agencies to join in the program design and 

implementation process.

F. This multidisciplinary approach will lend itself to ensuring the success of the 

program.

G. Many jurisdictions refer to their multidisciplinary team of stakeholders as an 

interagency task force.

H. It is important to identify/recruit a core group of primary stakeholders who may 

have interest in the issue of youth firesetting.

I. Stakeholders should have a strong interest in youth firesetting so that actions of 

the task force, and therefore the intervention program, are successful.

J. It may be appropriate to include community leaders who have influence or power 

or are part of the community’s political network.
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-12

This page intentionally left blank.
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-13

ACTIVITY 2.1

Determine Stakeholders

Purpose

To determine potential stakeholders who could serve on a task force to help build a YFPI 

program.

Directions

1. The class at large will be asked to determine stakeholders who may be essential to begin 

a YFPI program.

2. Upon developing the list, the class at large will be asked to reach consensus on agencies 

that may be considered primary stakeholders in starting a local youth firesetting program.

There are 15 minutes allotted for this task.
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-14

This page intentionally left blank.
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-15

III. THE COORDINATING AGENCY

A. There must be an agency that ultimately leads a YFPI task force.

B. All agencies on the task force must agree as to which is serving as the lead 

organization.

C. The agency that agrees to serve as lead must ensure that its leaders are supportive 

of this responsibility.

D. The other agencies represented on the task force must commit to support the lead 

agency as necessary. It takes all facets of the community to successfully intervene 

with firesetting behavior.

What might be the fire 

department’s role(s) as part of 

a YFPI interagency task 

force?

Slide 2-19

THE COORDINATING 

AGENCY

• Fire department’s role may include:

– Conduct interviews with youth and families.

– Provide firesetting education intervention.

– Make referrals to partner agencies.

– Interface with police and juvenile justice 

system.

Slide 2-20

E. Fire department’s role.

Whether or not the fire department serves as lead agency, its role and function 

should include:
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-16

1. Conducting interviews with youth firesetters and their families (following 

training in the use of approved forms and the screening process).

2. Providing firesetting education intervention.

3. Referring children and families to appropriate agencies according to the

team’s predetermined protocol.

4. Interfacing with police and the juvenile justice system.

THE COORDINATING AGENCY 

(cont’d)

– Maintain awareness of legal issues.

– Keep program visible to the community.

– Seek ongoing support for program.

Slide 2-21

5. Maintaining awareness of legal issues surrounding the program 

implementation.

6. Keeping the program visible to the community.

7. Seeking ongoing support and information through local, state and national 

networking.

What may be some of the 

responsibilities of the lead agency 

for a YFPI program?

Slide 2-22
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-17

• Responsibilities of lead agency may 

include:

– Obtain administrative approvals from partners.

– Provide program leadership.

– Identify, seek and allocate resources.

– Initiate and support interagency cooperation.

THE COORDINATING AGENCY 

(cont’d)

Slide 2-23

F. Responsibilities of the lead agency include:

1. Obtaining administrative approvals from all partner agencies.

2. Providing leadership in program development, implementation and 

expansion.

3. Identifying, allocating and helping to seek resources.

4. Initiating and supporting interagency cooperation and partnerships.

– Ensure that community has central point of 

contact.

– Ensure central location for data collection.

– Help with program marketing.

THE COORDINATING AGENCY 

(cont’d)

Slide 2-24

5. Ensuring that the community has a central point of contact for the 

program.

6. Ensuring that a secure central location for data collection and processing 

exists and is maintained.

7. Helping to market the program.
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-18

What are some of the roles of the 

interagency task force?

Slide 2-25

IV. ROLES OF THE INTERAGENCY TASK FORCE 

A. It is the responsibility of the interagency task force to build a YFPI program that 

serves the needs of its local community.

THE INTERAGENCY TASK 

FORCE

• Responsibilities of interagency task force:

– Identify and clarify scope of youth firesetting

problem.

– Review model programs from other 

communities.

– Consider use or adaption of other programs.

– Determine leadership structure for program.

Slide 2-26

B. When developing a youth firesetting program, typical duties of a task force 

include:

1. Identifying/Clarifying the scope of the youth firesetting problem through 

collection and analysis of local data.

2. Locating and reviewing existing youth firesetting program models from 

other communities.

3. Considering using/adapting the format of other youth firesetting program 

models or creating a model specific to local needs.
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-19

4. Determining a leadership and management structure for the program.

THE INTERAGENCY TASK 

FORCE (cont’d)

– Help develop a mission statement for 

program.

– Design an organizational chart.

– Specify relationship between partner agencies 

and services that will be offered.

– Identify community resources.

Slide 2-27

5. Developing a mission statement for the YFPI program that creates a 

foundation and direction for all program services.

6. Designing an organizational chart illustrating the operation of the 

program.

7. Specifying the relationship between organizations and the service delivery 

system that will be offered.

8. Identifying community resources such as the youth justice system, 

counseling services, and school- and community-based support services 

that will be included as part of the program.

– Establish referral mechanism for youth 

firesetting cases.

– Develop a plan for case follow-up.

– Determine legal aspects of the program.

– Create or adapt program tools.

– Determine staff training needs.

THE INTERAGENCY TASK 

FORCE (cont’d)

Slide 2-28

9. Establishing a referral mechanism for all organizations involved so each 

youth firesetting case is assessed appropriately.
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-20

10. Developing a plan so each youth firesetting case receives a follow-up 

evaluation.

11. Determining legal aspects of the program, such as confidentiality, parental 

consent, liability, mandated referrals, etc.

12. Creating or adapting the tools necessary for the program. This includes 

forms to be used for intake, interview, referral and follow-up services.

13. Determining training needs, especially for those who will be using the 

screening documents.

– Design a data collection system.

– Design a program evaluation process.

– Determine required resources and create an 

acquisition strategy.

– Design and implement a marketing campaign.

THE INTERAGENCY TASK 

FORCE (cont’d)

Slide 2-29

14. Designing a data collection system.

15. Designing an evaluation process for the overall program.

16. Determining required resources and a resource acquisition strategy.

17. Designing and implementing a marketing campaign to inform the 

community about the youth firesetting problem and program.
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-21

Slide 2-30

“LAUNCHING A COMMUNITY 

PREVENTION CAMPAIGN”
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-22

This page intentionally left blank.
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-23

ACTIVITY 2.2

Developing Draft YFPI Program Operating Procedures

Purpose

To develop draft-version YFPI program operating procedures that could be considered for use in 

your home community.

Directions

1. After each brief piece of lecture, you will be given the opportunity to complete a section 

of the assignment. There are eight parts to the activity.

2. Upon completion of the activity, you will have created a set of draft-version YFPI 

program operating procedures that could be considered for use in your home 

community.

Note: This activity is not designed to replace the collaboration of a local interagency task 

force that will ultimately create the official program policies Used by the locality. The 

activity is simply a starting point to consider what may work in your local community 

based on available resources.

3. If you represent a community that already has a YFPI program, process each section and 

suggest potential improvements or enhancements that could be performed to make your 

current program more effective/efficient.

4. All of the components included in Activity 2.2 are JPRs that should be mastered by a 

program manager.

5. The activity is an excellent opportunity for peer collaboration; this is especially true if 

communities have more than one person/agency represented in the course. Another 

option is to partner with peers from communities of similar composition to collaborate as 

a team, but record responses individually.

6. If you brought a laptop computer or other comparable medium, please use it to process 

the activity. A secondary option is to hand write the responses.

7. A worksheet template is located on the following pages of this activity. There is a 

separate section included in each part for those of you who have existing programs. If 

you have an existing program, you obviously only need to respond to that particular 

section.
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-24

8. The appendices of this unit have examples of documents currently in use by YFPI 

programs across the U.S. This material is for your perusal when considering options for 

your program.

Appendix A — YFPI Program Task Force Flow Chart.

Appendix B — Flow Chart for Youth Firesetting Intervention Services.

Appendix C — Fire Stoppers for King County Youth Intervention Program 

Organizational Chart.

Appendices D, E and F — Intake Forms.

Appendices G, H, I and J — Screening Tools.

Appendix K — Consent, Release, Refusal and Payment Arrangement Forms.

Appendices L, M and N — YFPI Program Operating Procedures.

Appendix O — Pierce County Examples.

Appendix P — YFPI Program Budget Example.

Appendix Q — Public and Private Support for Youth Firesetting Programs.

If you consider using or modifying any of the appendix materials that have been 

graciously provided by many agencies, please contact the respective agency as a courtesy 

to obtain their blessing for use or modification as part of your local program.

9. The actual processing time of this activity will vary based on the composition of this

course.

10. At the end of each part of the activity, you will be expected to provide a brief overview of 

your proposed actions.
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-25

Part 1 — The YFPI Interagency Task Force (15 min.)

1. Identify at least five, but no greater than 10, potential local agencies that you may 

consider including as part of your interagency task force.

2. What agency may be a logical lead agency for the task force, and why?

3. What role do you see your department playing in the development and operation of the 

YFPI interagency task force?
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-26

a. For departments with existing programs, what is the composition of your task 

force?

b. Is it serving your needs? If not, what modifications do you suggest?

Part 2 — The Intake Process (25 min.)

1. Identify at least five (hopefully more) potential points of entry for youth firesetters and 

their families into your program.
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-27

2. Identify at least five individuals (and their positions) from your department who would 

be logical contact people for the intake component of your program. For each person 

listed, note why they would be a logical choice.

3. For those of you with programs, who are your intake people, and does the process work 

efficiently? If not, how could it be enhanced?

4. Propose a “response time protocol” for contacting the parents or careproviders of a youth 

firesetter once your agency (or a task force member agency) has been requested to initiate 

service.
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-28

5. For those of you with programs, what is your protocol? Is it adequate? If not, how could 

it be improved?

6. Considering the resources available to your agency, describe your vision of how an intake 

process would be facilitated by your interagency task force. Your vision should simply be 

a summary to each of the following questions:

a. What type of intake form might you choose? (Might it be one shown as an 

example in the appendices or a custom form created specifically to fit the needs of 

your locality?)

Identify the agencies and people who could help you select or design an intake 

form to be used by your program.
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-29

b. Identify at least five agencies that may be logical candidates to perform a youth 

firesetting intake. For each agency listed, note why it would be a logical choice.

7. Propose a protocol of how youth firesetting cases would be prioritized by staff members 

who perform intake services.

8. Identify a logical person and agency that could be tasked with client management 

tracking.
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-30

9. For those of you with programs, how does your intake process function? Do you have 

task force agencies that assist? If so, what are they? If not, why do you not have them? 

What enhancements could be made to your existing intake process?

Part 3 — The Screening Process (30 min.)

1. Propose a screening protocol for your program. Suggest where screenings will be 

permitted to take place and actions that staff should initiate prior to the actual task taking 

place.

2. Propose a screening tool for use by your program. (It might be one shown as an example 

in the appendices or a custom tool created specifically to fit the needs of your locality.)
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-31

Identify the agencies and people who could help you design a screening process to be 

used by your program.

3. Identify at least three individuals (and their positions) from your department who

would be logical people to conduct the screening process for your program. For each 

person listed, note why they would be a logical choice.

4. For those of you with existing programs, what is your screening protocol? What 

screening tool is used and why? Who is currently performing screenings? What 

enhancements could be made to your protocol?
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-32

Part 4 — Educational Interventions (30 min.)

1. Identify at least three individuals (and their positions) from your department who

would be logical candidates to help you select or develop educational intervention 

strategies/materials for your program.

2. Propose the type of format(s), class length and schedule that may be appropriate for your 

program based upon the resources you have available. Note: It is certainly acceptable to 

have more than one delivery format.

3. For those of you with existing programs, what does your educational intervention 

strategy (program) entail? What type of format, class length and schedule are you using? 

How is the process evaluated? If it is not evaluated, why not? What enhancements could 

be made to your educational intervention component?
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-33

Part 5 — Referral to Support Agencies (15 min.)

1. Propose how you will integrate intervention services such as mental health, social 

services and justice system support for your program. Please identify the agency, the 

support they may be able to offer, and a contact person.

2. For those of you with programs, what are your current referral protocols? How are they 

currently performing? What enhancements could be made to the protocols?

Part 6 — Follow Up (15 min.)

1. Propose a follow-up protocol for your program.
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-34

2. For those of you with a program, what is your follow-up protocol? If you do not have 

one, why not? What enhancements could be made to your existing follow-up protocol?

Part 7 — Staff Training (15 min.)

1. Fire department representatives — Propose a strategy for the type(s) of training that will 

be needed by the fire department staff members who will likely comprise your YFPI 

team. Also, explain how you will facilitate obtaining and delivering the training to staff

members.

2. Other agencies — If you are a member of the mental health, social services, or juvenile 

justice system, please respond to the above directive on behalf of your agency.
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-35

3. For those of you with programs, what is your staff training protocol? Is it currently 

effective? Why or why not? What enhancements could be made to your staff training 

protocol?

Part 8 — Staff Recruitment (15 min.)

1. Identify at least three individuals (and their positions) from your department whom you 

believe would be good choices to serve as key members of a YFPI program. Please 

explain why you believe these people would be good choices and how they could best 

serve the program. Also, indicate how you will recruit them to serve with the program.

2. For those of you with programs, what is your staff recruitment protocol? What 

enhancements could be made to the existing process?
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-36

This page intentionally left blank.
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-37

V. PROGRAM COMPONENTS

PROGRAM COMPONENTS

• Program components/tools include:

– Mechanisms for identifying youth firesetters.

– Intake process.

– Screening process.

– Intervention strategy(s).

– Follow-up mechanism.

Slide 2-32

A. Oftentimes, it is the fire department that serves as lead agency for a YFPI task 

force.

B. Whoever the YFPI program manager may be, he or she must possess the 

knowledge, skills and abilities (KSAs) to lead the process of developing the 

program components needed to successfully operate a program.

C. The task force (often led by the program manager) is responsible for ensuring that 

the program components (and accompanying tools) are valid, used according to 

protocol defined by the task force, and working effectively/efficiently.

D. Program components/tools include:

1. Mechanisms for identifying youth firesetters.

2. Intake process.

3. Screening process.

4. Intervention strategy(s).

5. Follow-up mechanism.
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-38

VI. IDENTIFYING YOUTH FIRESETTERS

IDENTIFYING YOUTH 

FIRESETTERS

• Program managers help their task force 

develop protocol of how the identification of 

firesetters will occur.

– Recruit agencies onto the task force that will be 

likely partners to identify firesetting cases.

– This helps strengthen the task force.

Slide 2-34

A. There are multiple ways that children involved in fire incidents come to the 

attention of a youth firesetting program:

1. Parents/Caregivers.

2. Schools.

3. Law enforcement; juvenile justice; courts and attorneys.

4. Mental health agencies.

5. Social and child protective services.

6. Fire service.

B. Program managers are expected to possess the KSAs to help the task force 

develop protocol of how the identification of firesetters will occur.

1. When building a new program (or enhancing an existing one), a logical 

strategy is to recruit agencies onto the task force that will likely serve as 

partners to identify firesetters.

2. Using this approach helps build strength for the task force so it is prepared 

to handle the various profiles of firesetting behavior.
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-39

IDENTIFYING YOUTH 

FIRESETTERS (cont’d)

– Having a broad-based task force helps build a 

vested interest in the program from primary 

stakeholders.

– Youth firesetting problem becomes the task 

force’s or community’s issue and not just the 

fire department’s problem.

Slide 2-35

3. It also helps create a broad-based vested interest in the program from 

primary stakeholders.

4. The local youth firesetting problem becomes the task force’s (or 

community’s) issue in lieu of just the fire department’s problem.

C. Once a youth firesetter is identified, the circumstances surrounding the firesetting 

situation are assessed during what is called an intake process.

VII. DEVELOPING AN INTAKE PROCESS

DEVELOPING AN INTAKE 

PROCESS

• Intake is the process of collecting initial 

information about the youth firesetter, his or 

her family, and the incident(s) that brought 

the youth to the program.

Slide 2-36

A. The intake process formally initiates the involvement of the youth and his or her 

parent(s)/careprovider into the firesetting intervention program.

B. Intake is the process of collecting initial information about the youth firesetter, his 

or her family, and the incident(s) that brought the youth to the program (NFPA, 

2010).
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-40

DEVELOPING AN INTAKE 

PROCESS (cont’d)

• Consistent and reliable intake process.

– What to do when a parent/caregiver asks for 

help.

– How to process a request from a partner 

agency.

– How to contact and obtain information from a 

family after an incident has occurred.

Slide 2-37

C. A firesetting intervention program must have a consistent and reliable intake 

process that includes:

1. What to do when a parent/caregiver asks for help.

2. How to process a request for service from a partner agency.

3. How to contact and obtain information from a family after a fire incident 

has occurred.

D. Program managers are expected to possess the KSAs to help the task force 

develop protocol of how the identification of firesetters will occur.

• YFPI program must have an intake process 

that includes:

– Points of entry.

– Contact person(s).

– Reasonable response time.

– Intake forms.

– Prioritization of cases.

– Client management.

DEVELOPING AN INTAKE 

PROCESS (cont’d)

Slide 2-38

E. A successful youth firesetting intervention program must have an intake process 

that includes the following basic procedures:

1. Points of entry.
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-41

The mediums of how the youth enters the program.

a. Fire service — could include suppression staff, investigators, 

public educators or on-duty station/administrative personnel.

b. Partner agencies — could include juvenile justice, social services, 

mental health, schools or other groups.

c. All personnel that may have contact with the family of a youth 

firesetter must understand what to do if presented with a firesetting 

situation and how to initiate (or deliver) the intake component.

d. Some programs train partner agencies to conduct the intake 

process. Others direct all referrals to the lead agency. This process 

may vary based on the lead agency for the interdisciplinary team.

2. Contact person(s).

a. Intake personnel and their availability must be identified.

b. Who in the program will be responsible for taking requests for 

service and/or contacting families?

c. Will there be more than one person available to initiate the 

contact?

d. Some programs have one contact person assigned per day, while 

others have one contact person available on a half-time basis or on 

call.

e. It is the program manager’s responsibility to ensure that all 

personnel who have potential to interact with a youth firesetter and 

his or her family have basic understanding of the protocol for how 

a request for help is processed.

f. It is the program manager who helps the interagency task force 

develop such protocol.

g. This protocol becomes especially important when a parent or 

caregiver walks into a fire or police station asking for help with 

addressing a youth firesetting incident/situation.

3. Reasonable response time.

Once a firesetter has been identified, there is a significant (but sometimes 

short) window of opportunity to provide services for these at-risk youth.
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-42

a. The best window of opportunity to provide successful intervention 

is immediately after the fire.

b. The program should establish what contact window of time is 

appropriate.

c. Ideally, within 48 hours of initial contact, the youth firesetting 

program should make contact with the youth and his or her family. 

This may be either in person or by telephone.

d. The YFPI program must have a defined protocol identifying who is 

responsible for making contact with the family and encouraging 

their participation.

4. Intake forms.

a. Intake forms should be used for each referral or complaint of youth 

firesetting behavior. The form should be standardized for the 

jurisdiction and designed to gather basic information about the 

youth, his or her family, and the fire event/situation that led to the 

program referral.

b. Deciding upon use/adaptation of an existing process being used in 

another jurisdiction (or creating a custom process) to fit local needs 

is a JPR of a program manager.

c. Program managers must ensure that all staff members who may 

perform intake duties are provided with the training to perform this 

important aspect of the program.

d. Depending on available resources and program protocol, the intake 

process may be handled by firefighters on a scene, a fire 

investigator, a receptionist/administrative assistant or a member of 

the interagency task force.

e. Staffing requirements need to include key individuals who will 

provide the program’s intake mechanism. Depending on the needs 

of the community, this may be a 24/7 on-call type of responsibility.

f. Individuals who perform intake should be able to articulate the 

purpose of the program and how it works.

g. The program manager and interagency task force members should 

identify points of intake, who will be using the form, and what 

specific information is going to be obtained.
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-43

h. Intake forms may be in written or electronic format (or both).

i. When designing a format, it is important to consider not only who 

will be using the tool but what environment they will be working 

in when collecting information.

- A person collecting information via telephone may prefer 

to use a form.

- On-scene fire investigators or Company Officers (COs) 

may prefer an electronic medium to record information.

j. Regardless of the type of medium used, it must capture the same 

information.

k. In the case where an actual fire response or investigation was 

created by the firesetting incident, a departmental incident form 

should be attached to the intake form if it is available.

5. Prioritization of cases.

a. The intake protocol must also include directives for responding to 

urgent cases that require a more rapid intervention.

Examples of potential priority situations include:

- Prior history of firesetting.

- Multiple recent acts of firesetting.

- Firesetting in an occupied dwelling.

- High-risk profiles of firesetting.

- Special needs of firesetter and/or family.

- Severity of incident(s).

- Violation of criminal laws that mandate immediate action.

- Cases of suspected child abuse.

b. It is the responsibility of the program manager to lead the task 

force in creating guidelines for emergent actions and referral 

options.
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-44

c. There are special circumstances that can affect admission into a 

YFPI program.

d. If there is a violation of local, state or federal law, immediate 

referral to the local justice system may be mandatory.

e. The age of the child or youth involved must always be considered.

- Age of accountability is the minimum age at which state 

courts have ruled that a child is intellectually capable of 

understanding right from wrong and the consequences 

associated with inappropriate behavior (International Fire 

Service Training Association (IFSTA), 2010).

- Depending on the state, age of accountability may vary, but 

for most places this age is between 7 and 9, though it can 

be as old as 12. It is the responsibility of program personnel 

to ensure that they are familiar with their state’s age of 

accountability.

f. The nature and severity of the fire must be explored.

g. Firesetting acts that result in a large dollar loss and/or a loss of life 

may, by requirement, be referred to the juvenile justice system 

before any firesetting intervention takes place.

h. The firesetting history of the juvenile should be explored.

Many YFPI programs have strict guidelines on disposition of firsttime versus repeat firesetters.

6. Client management.

a. For every child or youth who enters the program, there must be a 

record created that documents the firesetter’s and family’s 

participation (or lack thereof) in the intervention program.

b. While the use of electronic databases has increased the efficiency 

of this process, someone must be responsible for this process.

c. Poor (or lack of) record keeping/secure file maintenance is not 

only unprofessional, but it can also create a liability issue for the 

program.
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-45

VIII. DEVELOPING A SCREENING PROCESS

DEVELOPING A SCREENING 

PROCESS

• Goals of the screening process are:

– Determine why firesetting is occurring.

– Satisfaction juvenile receives.

– Risk level for future events.

Slide 2-40

A. Once basic intake information about the youth firesetter, his or her family, and the 

fire incident (s) has been obtained, the next step is to perform a structured 

screening process.

1. A structured screening process that uses an approved screening instrument 

is a statistically reliable way to identify, record and evaluate factors 

contributing to a child’s or youth’s firesetting behaviors.

2. The ultimate goals of the screening process are to determine why 

firesetting is occurring, what satisfaction the juvenile receives from 

starting fires, and the risk level for future firesetting events.

3. The screening process entails interviewing the firesetter and his or her 

parents/caregiver(s).

4. The process allows for objective exploration of the factors that may have 

influenced the firesetting behaviors. 

5. It also provides information about attitudes, behaviors, demographics and 

experiences of the youth/family that may present obstacles to the 

introduction of appropriate interventions.

6. The screening process should not be used as a determining factor for legal 

action.

7. Screening helps the interdisciplinary team members understand why 

firesetting has occurred and what types of intervention to offer.
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-46

B. YFPI programs that fail to conduct an accurate screening of why an act of 

firesetting has occurred may miss discovery of information that is (or could be) 

relevant in deciding what type of intervention to provide.

Why may a YFPI program fail to 

provide accurate youth firesetting

assessments?

Slide 2-41

C. There are many reasons why accurate screenings (or any screening at all) may not 

occur:

1. Lack of time to perform the screening.

2. Lack of funding to compensate staff for the time required to perform 

screenings.

3. Lack of staff members who are willing to invest the time into learning 

how to conduct screenings and then conducting them.

4. Lack of training opportunities for staff.

5. Competing organizational priorities.

6. Fear of potential litigation against the organization/staff members who 

perform a screening.
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-47

DEVELOPING A SCREENING 

PROCESS (cont’d)

• Interagency task force approach to case 

assessment is an excellent way to ensure 

that a valid assessment of youth firesetting

cases takes place.

Slide 2-42

D. Developing and using an interagency task force approach to case assessment is an 

excellent way to ensure that a valid screening of youth firesetting cases takes 

place.

E. Because a task force is comprised of multiple agencies, it is often in a position to

share and distribute resources that a single agency may not be able to do when 

acting alone.

1. Fire investigators and police officers receive basic and often advanced 

levels of education on how to conduct interviews with people.

2. Mental health practitioners can help those who do screenings to better 

understand the cognitive and behavioral challenges being faced by many 

firesetters and their families.

3. Learning how to interview people and understanding the dynamics of the 

process is best accomplished through education and practice.

4. The interagency task force approach to firesetting intervention can help 

provide both education and mentoring opportunities for staff members to 

enhance their ability to assess firesetting situations.

F. When conducted by a trained intervention specialist, an approved screening 

process is the most effective way to obtain quantifiable indicators as to the risk for 

repeat acts of firesetting (recidivism).
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-48

• Screening instruments must be approved 

by:

– Qualified professionals.

– Interagency task force.

– Local authority having jurisdiction (AHJ).

• Helps ensure that information is obtained in 

a safe, ethical and reliable manner.

DEVELOPING A SCREENING 

PROCESS (cont’d)

Slide 2-43

G. Screening instruments must be approved by qualified professionals (experienced 

in the field of firesetting intervention), the interagency task force, and the local 

authority having jurisdiction (AHJ).

H. Use of an approved process helps to ensure that information is obtained in a safe, 

ethical and reliable manner.

I. The process is always coupled with the use of approved consent and waiver of 

liability forms.

• Screening process should occur in a timely 

manner according to program protocol 

directive.

• Protocol directs where screenings take 

place.

DEVELOPING A SCREENING 

PROCESS (cont’d)

Slide 2-44

J. The screening process should occur in a timely manner. Youth firesetting program 

personnel should contact the parents/caregiver(s) to arrange for a screening 

interview of the firesetter and his or her family according to the time frame stated 

in the program protocol directive.

K. The program manager must also lead development of protocol that directs where 

screenings take place. Options may include:
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-49

1. The office of program personnel or at a fire station.

2. The home of the firesetter.

a. If protocol is created that allows for home visits, those who 

conduct the screening may benefit by observing the youth and/or 

his family in their own environment.

b. A second benefit of home visitation is that it may help the 

individuals being interviewed feel more comfortable and 

potentially provide more information to the interviewer.

c. The primary decision of where to allow screenings rests with the 

program manager/interagency task force with provider safety being 

the ultimate consideration.

d. If home visits are permitted, protocol should mandate that staff 

members go in pairs.

e. Another consideration is to require staff to consult local law 

enforcement agencies about the safety of the specific 

neighborhood, call history to the firesetter’s home, and who may 

reside there.

L. If resources permit, a consideration may be to have a fire department staff 

member and representative from the interdisciplinary team (mental health 

practitioner, law enforcement representative, etc.) perform the screening as a 

team.

M. It is a JPR for a program manager to possess the KSAs to help his or her 

interagency task force develop a valid, safe and ethical screening process.
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-50

IX. THE SCREENING INSTRUMENT

THE SCREENING INSTRUMENT

• Program managers are responsible for 

helping the interagency task force select (or 

create) an approved screening tool that 

meets their local needs.

• Most screening tools assign potential risk 

for repeat firesetting into three categories —

some, definite and extreme.

Slide 2-45

A. There are a variety of instruments (also referred to as screening tools or forms) 

available to provide the structure needed for an effective screening.

B. Program managers are responsible for helping the interagency task force select (or 

create) an approved screening tool that meets their local needs.

C. Practitioners use the screening form to guide them through the process of 

interviewing the firesetter and his or her parents/caregiver(s).

1. Screening forms follow a format whereby the practitioner (interviewer) 

poses a series of questions to the interviewee.

2. Responses to the questions are assigned a numerical value and scored as 

indicated by the form.

3. Once scored, most screening tools assign the level of potential risk for 

repeat firesetting into one of three categories: some, definite and extreme.

D. It is important that screening forms are considered to be reliable. While “less”

may look better, that is not always the case.
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-51

THE SCREENING INSTRUMENT 

(cont’d)

• Information to include on form:

– Information about firesetting incident.

– History of previous fires.

– Information about the youth.

– Social information.

– Information about family.

Slide 2-46

E. Information on the screening forms should include:

1. Information about the firesetting incident and history of previously set 

fires.

2. Information about the youth: medical/mental health history, interests, 

developmental level, etc.

3. Social information, including behavior of the youth at home, school, with 

friends, etc.

4. Information about the family: activities, disciplinary practices, ability to 

relate with the youth, interest in the youth’s welfare, concern for the youth 

and supervision of the youth.

– Facts about home environment.

– Recent changes in youth’s immediate situation.

– Perceived rewards for firesetting.

THE SCREENING INSTRUMENT 

(cont’d)

Slide 2-47

5. Facts about the home environment: youth access to ignition materials, 

presence of life safety equipment and knowledge/practice of fire safety.
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-52

6. Recent changes in the youth’s immediate situation, such as a recent 

trauma, divorce in the family, death of family members or friend, crisis at 

school, etc.

7. The screening process may also identify the perceived rewards for the 

firesetting incident(s), such as peer attention, approval, money or 

gratification.

• Several options on which form to use:

– Form used successfully by another agency.

– Modify an existing form.

– Create a custom form.

THE SCREENING INSTRUMENT 

(cont’d)

Slide 2-48

F. Selecting a screening form.

1. The local jurisdiction has several options regarding which screening form 

to use:

a. Use (with permission) the format of a form being used successfully 

by an agency.

b. Modify the format of an existing form being used successfully by 

an agency.

c. Create a custom form for the local community.

2. Remember, regardless of the option selected, screening instruments must 

be approved by qualified professionals (experienced in the field of 

firesetting intervention), the interagency task force, and the local AHJ.

G. The decision of which form to use rests entirely with the youth firesetting 

intervention program and will depend on the program’s service goals, available 

resources and desired outcomes.
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-53

X. DESIGNING INTERVENTION STRATEGIES

DESIGNING INTERVENTION 

STRATEGIES

• The program manager and interagency task 

force are responsible for establishing 

intervention resources.

Slide 2-50

A. Once a level of firesetting risk has been determined, an appropriate intervention 

strategy can be developed.

B. Both intervention specialists and program managers must have mastery 

understanding of the three recognized levels of firesetting risk that ascend in the 

following order: some, definite and extreme.

C. The program manager and interagency task force are responsible for establishing 

intervention resources so that firesetting cases can be resolved in a safe, ethical, 

legal and effective manner.

DESIGNING INTERVENTION 

STRATEGIES (cont’d)

• There are several categories for 

interventions:

– Educational intervention.

– Mental health and/or social services referral.

– Youth justice system referral.

Slide 2-51

D. There are several categories for interventions that need to be developed by 

program leaders:

1. Educational intervention.
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-54

2. Mental health and/or social services referral.

3. Youth justice system referral.

XI. EDUCATIONAL INTERVENTION

EDUCATIONAL INTERVENTION

• Four common factors that influence 

firesetting behavior:

– Easy access to ignition materials.

– Lack of adequate supervision.

– Lack of practice of fire safety in the home.

– Easy access to information on firesetting and 

explosive construction on the Internet.

Slide 2-52

A. A JPR of the intervention specialist is to select and deliver the appropriate type of 

educational intervention to a youth firesetter and his or her family.

B. It is the responsibility of the program manager to help facilitate the selection of 

(or even help develop) the educational materials that will be used by intervention 

specialists.

C. When considering the selection (or development) of educational intervention 

strategies that will be used by intervention specialists, remember:

1. Punishment alone does not teach a child about the dangers of fire.

2. All children, youth, adolescents and adults benefit from the receipt of fire 

safety education.

3. Program protocol should direct that educational intervention strategies 

attempt to include all members of the household where the firesetter 

resides.

D. If you are leading the development of an educational intervention process, always 

consider the four common factors that influence firesetting behavior:

1. Easy access to ignition materials.

2. Lack of adequate supervision.
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-55

3. Lack of practice of fire safety in the home.

4. Easy access to information on firesetting and explosive construction on the 

Internet.

EDUCATIONAL INTERVENTION 

(cont’d)

• Program manager facilitates the selection of 

(or helps develop) educational materials.

• Educational interventions should include:

– Fire safety.

– Fire science.

– Consequences of firesetting.

– Personal responsibility.

– Good decision-making.

Slide 2-53

E. Educational interventions should include the following topics:

1. Fire safety — the basic rules of fire prevention and what to do if an 

incident occurs.

2. Fire science — how fire behaves and why it can quickly get out of control.

3. Consequences of firesetting — explanation of the local penalties that 

youth (and perhaps families) will face.

4. Need for personal responsibility — clear expectations for both the youth 

and family so repeat firesetting does not occur.

5. Need for good decision-making — explanation of cause and effect 

relationships with regard to firesetting.
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-56

• When developing strategies, the program 

manager must consider these factors:

– Educational goals.

– Needs of target group(s).

– Potential format(s).

– Teaching materials.

EDUCATIONAL INTERVENTION 

(cont’d)

Slide 2-54

F. When developing educational intervention strategies for use by intervention 

specialists, the program manager must consider these important factors:

1. Educational goals to be accomplished by the intervention.

2. Specific needs of target group(s) to be served.

3. Potential format(s) of the learning environment.

4. Teaching materials that will be employed.

DELIVERING EDUCATIONAL 

INTERVENTIONS

• Considerations:

– Age and abilities of the youth(s).

– Abilities of the parents/care providers.

– Potential communication challenges.

– Culture of the family environment.

Slide 2-55

G. A successful YFPI educational intervention will include the following types of 

resources:

1. Instructional materials appropriate for the firesetter’s age, cognitive 

abilities and type of firesetting incident(s).

2. Support materials that are educationally and behaviorally sound.
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-57

3. Support materials that are culturally sensitive and adaptable to fit special 

needs.

4. Staff that can engage all age ranges of target populations in the 

educational process.

5. Interactive learning experiences that help instructors engage target groups 

in the educational process.

6. An adult education component that mirrors the education that the youth 

receives.

7. Extension activities that parents can use at home with children.

DELIVERING EDUCATIONAL 

INTERVENTIONS (cont’d)

• Formats for program:

– One-on-one with youth and parent(s).

– One-on-one with youth without adult present.

– Group setting of youth and adults together.

– Two groups: youth in one, adults in other.

-- If at all possible, have a separate adult group.

Slide 2-56

H. YFPI program formats.

1. It is the responsibility of the program manager and interagency task force 

to determine the format for delivering the educational component of a 

youth firesetting intervention program.

2. The formats made available depend on the types and amount of resources 

available to your program.

3. Here are a wide range of options for educational intervention:

a. A one-on-one intervention with the youth firesetter and his or her 

parents/caregivers.

b. A one-on-one intervention with the youth firesetter separate from a 

one-on-one session with the parents/caregivers/guardians.
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-58

c. Group sessions with multiple youth firesetters of similar ages 

and/or cognitive abilities and their parents/caregivers/guardians.

d. Group sessions with multiple youth firesetters of similar ages 

and/or cognitive abilities and a separate group for parents/

caregivers/guardians.

e. If resources permit, it is recommended to separate the parents/

caregivers from the firesetters.

f. Reasons for having separate education sessions include:

- Parents/Caregivers may dominate the conversation.

- Parents/Caregivers may condemn other students when 

interacting with them in a group setting.

- Parents/Caregivers may overpower the class and intimidate 

the students.

- Youth should feel at ease to learn without the influence of 

the parents/caregivers.

g. There is no set type of format that has been deemed better than 

others. 

h. The effectiveness of a program often depends on the interest, 

education, and experience of the firesetter intervention specialist 

and how the YFPI program is structured/delivered.

• Class length:

– A course with multiple sessions of one to three 

hour programs.

– A one-time class lasting for two to six hours.

– Both formats have been used successfully.

DELIVERING EDUCATIONAL 

INTERVENTIONS (cont’d)

Slide 2-57

I. Class length.
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-59

The length of time for a youth firesetting intervention also varies depending upon 

available resources:

1. The intervention could be a program consisting of multiple one- to threehour sessions, or it could be a one-time class lasting for two to six hours.

2. Youth firesetting intervention specialists have used both formats with 

great success, depending on the resources they have available.

3. Determining factors are going to be the resources available to the 

intervention specialist and the availability of the parents or caregivers.

• Class schedule:

– One-time program.

– Weekly meeting.

– Monthly program.

– Individualized services.

DELIVERING EDUCATIONAL 

INTERVENTIONS (cont’d)

Slide 2-58

J. Class scheduling.

There are several ways that educational interventions are scheduled:

1. Monthly basis on a set day and time.

2. As needed when the intervention specialist receives a youth firesetting 

referral.

3. Some programs have multiple sessions scheduled on a specific day and 

time, on a weekly, biweekly or monthly basis.

4. Some classes are scheduled on the availability of the youth firesetter and 

his or her family.

5. Individualized services for younger children and their families are often 

offered due to the age of the child.

K. The sooner that a youth firesetter and his or her family receive services, the 

greater the likelihood of successful intervention.
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-60

1. If an extended period of time exists between the firesetting incident and 

intervention (and there is no repeat firesetting), then parents, caregivers or 

guardians may feel that the child has learned his or her lesson and doesn’t 

need to attend the program.

2. The more convenient it is for the youth firesetter and family to obtain 

services, the more likely they are to attend the program.

3. There are several ways of notifying and reminding parents/caregivers of 

the youth firesetting intervention class:

a. Telephone call the night before the class.

b. A letter sent the week before the class to remind the parents/ 

caregiver of the date, time and location.

c. An email reminding the parents/caregiver of the scheduled class.

d. Whatever medium is used, it is very important to remind the family 

of the scheduled class.

XII. CLINICAL AND SOCIAL SERVICE REFERRAL

CLINICAL AND SOCIAL SERVICE 

REFERRAL

• Firesetting beyond curiosity or 

experimentation (or repeat firesetting) might 

require referral for mental health support.

• Program manager works in tandem with the 

practitioner to initiate referral.

– Mental health.

– Social services.

Slide 2-60

A. When firesetting goes beyond curiosity or experimentation (or if there is repeat 

firesetting), it might be necessary to refer the family for mental health support.

B. When intervention specialists encounter potential high-risk situations, protocols 

should direct immediate consultation with the program manager.
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-61

C. It is the responsibility of the program manager to work in tandem with the 

intervention specialist to initiate a referral — in this case, to mental health 

professionals.

D. The same action would occur if an intervention specialist suspects child neglect or 

that an abusive situation is occurring. The referral in this case would be to a social 

services agency.

E. Social services agencies can often provide families with training in 

parenting/caregiving skills, anger management, or dealing with a particular loss or 

change in lifestyle. Clinical staff may be able to help with referrals for these 

services.

F. Child protective services (youth and family services) or whatever the unit is called 

that handles child abuse/neglect situations should be a partner that collaborates 

with youth firesetting cases.

G. Parents and careproviders will often respond rapidly to the offer of intervention 

services when an enforcement-related division of the social system becomes 

involved.

H. High-risk situations demand immediate attention; this is where interagency 

agreements become so important and will display their effectiveness.

XIII. JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM REFERRAL

JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM 

REFERRAL

• Invoking legal sanctions can help ensure 

that firesetters and their families participate 

in the YFPI program.

Slide 2-61

A. Employing the strategy of invoking legal sanctions can help ensure that firesetters 

and their families participate in the YFPI program.
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-62

B. While referral to a youth justice system may sound like a simple process, how 

(and when) it can be used will depend upon the laws and ordinances of the local 

jurisdiction.

C. Sometimes the decision to recommend legal sanctions may not be in the control 

of the YFPI program.

JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM 

REFERRAL (cont’d)

• Decision to take action may depend upon:

– Violations of laws.

– Deaths, injuries or property loss.

– Local operating procedures.

– Age of accountability.

– Firesetting history.

Slide 2-62

D. The decision to take this action may depend upon:

1. Violations of local or state laws.

2. Deaths, injuries or property loss associated with the firesetting.

3. Local operating procedures of the fire department.

4. Age of accountability.

5. Firesetting history of the youth.

E. It is the responsibility of the interagency task force (that hopefully includes a 

member(s) of the youth justice system) to develop a protocol for when and how to 

initiate legal action.

F. Once legal action is initiated, the defendant’s civil rights must be recognized and 

honored. This means that the families must be informed of the decision, and 

juvenile Miranda rights must be read. 

1. Miranda rights can only be legally performed by an authorized official.

2. Some fire departments are staffed with fire marshals who may have police 

powers; others may not have this capability and will require support from 

a law enforcement agency.
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-63

G. The interagency task force must consult with the local district attorney regarding 

the protection of a juvenile’s legal rights and to identify the agency(s) that will be 

available to initiate supportive actions.

XIV. FOLLOW UP

FOLLOW UP

• Protocol should direct that follow-up contact 

be made with each family that participates 

in a youth firesetting intervention program.

• Primary follow-up after four to six weeks 

and secondary follow-up after six to 12 

months.

Slide 2-64

A. It is the responsibility of the program manager to ensure that a follow-up 

mechanism is built into his or her program.

B. Protocol should direct that follow-up contact be made with each family that

participates in a youth firesetting intervention program.

C. A primary follow-up should occur four to six weeks after completion of the 

program. A secondary follow-up can take place six to 12 months after close-out of 

the file.

D. The protocol on how follow-up is conducted is often dependent on the level of 

resources available to the program. Options can include:

1. Telephone calls, which are the most cost-effective and least timeconsuming.

2. Written contacts, including postcards, letters, surveys and electronic 

communication.

3. Home visits — these require the most resources but allow for a direct reassessment of the firesetting problem.

E. While follow-up takes time and effort, it helps to reinforce program information 

and demonstrates that the youth firesetting team is truly interested in the wellbeing of the youth and his or her family.
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-64

XV. STAFF TRAINING

STAFF TRAINING

• Every person who is approved to provide 

program services must possess the 

knowledge, skills and abilities (KSAs) 

commensurate to the specific job 

performance requirements (JPRs) for his or 

her assigned duties.

Slide 2-66

A. It is the responsibility of the program manager to ensure that an adequate number 

of trained staff members are in place to deliver program services.

B. Every person who is approved to provide program services must possess the 

KSAs commensurate to the specific JPRs for his or her assigned duties.

C. Obviously, a person whose duties are limited to providing intake services would 

require a different set of KSAs as compared to an intervention specialist who

conducts youth firesetting screenings or provides technical level interventions.

D. The program leader (in cooperation with the interagency task force) must 

understand the duties, JPRs and expected KSAs of each staff member.

E. The program manager must also remain abreast of each staff member’s level of 

training, experience and current capabilities so that continuing education 

opportunities and practical skill development can be orchestrated.

STAFF TRAINING (cont’d)

• Examples of ongoing training:

– Program operation procedures.

– Intake protocols.

– Interpersonal skills and rapport building.

– Interviewing.

Slide 2-67
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-65

F. Examples of training topics include, but are not limited to:

1. Ensuring that all staff has mastery understanding of program operating 

procedures.

2. Staff responsible for interacting with families must understand how 

firesetting is identified and the intake process is performed. This includes 

use of intake forms.

3. Those who work with firesetters and their families should receive training 

in interpersonal skills and rapport-building. 

4. Staff members who will conduct screenings must become proficient in 

interviewing/conversing with people without constantly reading from the 

screening instrument. This skill requires practice and mentoring from 

those experienced in the process.

• Staff members who provide specific types of 

intervention services should be certified to 

at least the minimum standard pertinent to 

their specific JPR.

STAFF TRAINING (cont’d)

Slide 2-68

5. Staff members who provide specific types of intervention services should 

be certified to at least the minimum standard pertinent to their specific 

JPR.

6. The type of program staff and their levels of certification are often 

commensurate to the resources available to the program.
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-66

XVI. STAFF RECRUITMENT

STAFF RECRUITMENT

• While having an adequate amount of staff 

members is essential, equally important is 

having the right staff.

Slide 2-70

A. A YFPI program is only as good as its staff makes it. While having an adequate 

amount of staff members is essential, having the right staff is equally important.

B. Working with youth firesetters and their families can be a challenging but very 

rewarding task.

C. Due to the sensitive (and legal) nature of working with youth firesetting cases, a 

program manager must invest considerable thought into who would make a good 

YFPI staff member.

What are desirable traits that 

you would look for when 

recruiting staff members for a 

YFPI program?

Slide 2-71

D. Desirable traits may include but are not limited to:

1. Superlative moral and ethical character.

2. Ability to communicate well with children, youth and adults.
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-67

3. Nonjudgmental character and the ability to embrace diversity of cultures.

4. Good emotional intelligence.

a. Emotional intelligence is the ability to identify, manage and use 

one’s emotions to communicate effectively and have a positive 

impact on the relationships in life.

b. This definition can be simplified to mean the ability to meet, 

understand and communicate with people at their personal level 

and place in life.

5. Ability to maintain confidentiality.

E. As discussed earlier, a YFPI program should be a well-trained elite unit with a

staff that possesses exemplary KSAs to effectively address/resolve youth 

firesetting situations.

F. The wise program manager (and interagency task force) will develop a dynamic 

recruiting strategy that includes a comprehensive screening process to ensure that

quality staffing levels are maintained.

XVII. BUDGET

BUDGET

• Program manager must lead the process of 

estimating the start-up costs of providing 

services.

• When program is online, review the ongoing 

expenses to maintain (and potentially 

expand) program services.

Slide 2-73

A. Once an interagency task force has been created, the program manager must lead 

the process of estimating the start-up costs of providing services.

B. When the program is online, he or she must review the ongoing expenses to 

maintain (and potentially expand) program services.
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-68

What budget items must be 

considered prior to developing 

a YFPI program?

Slide 2-74

BUDGET (cont’d)

• Budget consideration:

– Financial needs will be greatest during start-up.

– Training costs will be ongoing.

– May need overtime or ability to backfill staff 

positions.

– Program costs, such as personnel.

Slide 2-75

C. To accomplish these tasks, several items must be considered:

1. Financial needs will be greatest during the program start-up.

2. Training costs will be ongoing.

3. There may need to be funding for overtime or the ability to backfill staff 

positions when YFPI staff need to perform specific tasks related to the 

program, not just for the fire department but also for other agencies that 

are involved in the program.

4. Program costs, such as personnel, need to be considered.
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-69

• Personnel costs:

– Wages and benefits.

– Firefighters, mental health professionals and 

clerical staff.

– Track percentages of staff’s time spent on YFPI 

program activities.

BUDGET (cont’d)

Slide 2-76

D. Personnel costs may include:

1. Wages and associated benefits (i.e., health insurance, retirement 

contributions, payroll taxes, etc.).

2. Firefighters, mental health professionals and clerical staff.

3. It is important for all task force agencies to track percentages of their 

staff’s time spent on YFPI program activities. This data will be helpful 

when time allocation needs to be justified to management or additional 

program funding must be sought.

• Program operational costs:

– Office supplies.

– Copying costs.

– Computer expenses.

– Fuel costs.

– Program materials.

BUDGET (cont’d)

Slide 2-77

E. Program operational costs include the items necessary to sustain the day-to-day 

operations of the program. Some examples include:

1. Office supplies.

2. Copying costs.
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-70

3. Computer expenses.

4. Fuel costs.

5. Program materials such as DVDs, brochures, educational materials, etc. 

• Accurate estimate of the cost of running a 

YFPI program.

– Line-item budget.

– Budget is a planning tool.

– Important when seeking outside funding 

sources.

BUDGET (cont’d)

Slide 2-78

F. An accurate estimate of the cost of running a YFPI program is critical to 

convincing decision-makers of the value of the program to the community.

1. A line-item budget, specifying the program costs and revenues anticipated, 

must be developed.

2. A budget is a planning tool that program managers can use to help 

evaluate the YFPI program’s impact and level of efficiency.

3. The presence of a budget is important when seeking outside funding 

sources.

• The YFPI program manager must also 

understand the jurisdiction’s budget cycle.

• Budgets normally follow either a calendar or 

fiscal year cycle.

BUDGET (cont’d)

Slide 2-79
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-71

G. The YFPI program manager must also understand the jurisdiction’s budget cycle.

H. Budget cycles are the time allotted to expend the resources dedicated to a specific 

budget.

1. Budgets normally follow either a calendar or fiscal year cycle.

a. A calendar year budget cycle follows the calendar year (e.g., the 

budget year 2017 starts Jan. 1, 2017).

b. A fiscal year cycle starts on a fixed date in the preceding year. 

fiscal year cycles typically start on July 1 preceding the calendar 

year through the following June (e.g., fiscal year 2017 begins July 

1, 2016). Regardless, local governments generally follow the same 

process.

2. Budget criteria: Approximately six months prior to the beginning of the 

budget year, government departments receive guidance from the 

budgeting authority on constructing the following year’s budget 

submission. Priorities and constraints are communicated at this time.

3. Department (or program) requests: Individual departments prepare their 

budget requests according to the guidance received and submit them to the 

budgeting authority.

XVIII. FUNDING SOURCES

FUNDING SOURCES

• Once the budget is estimated, the next task 

is to seek funding for the program.

Slide 2-80

A. Once the youth firesetting program budget is estimated, the next task is to seek 

funding for the program. The operation of an intervention program depends on 

many factors including the availability of resources.
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-72

What sources of revenue or 

services would you consider 

for use in supporting the 

development/operation of a 

YFPI program?

Slide 2-81

FUNDING SOURCES (cont’d)

• Sources of revenue/services may include: 

– The community’s municipal budget.

– Grants.

– Donations.

– Private foundations.

– Local businesses.

– Community or service organizations.

Slide 2-82

Sources of revenue/services may include:

1. The community’s municipal budget.

2. Grants.

3. Donations.

4. Private foundations.

5. Local businesses.

6. Community or service organizations.
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-73

– Community development/improvement fund.

– A per student fee for intervention services.

– Fundraising.

FUNDING SOURCES (cont’d)

Slide 2-83

7. Community development/improvement fund.

8. A per student fee for intervention services.

9. Fundraising.

B. Because the problem of youth firesetting and arson affects the entire community, 

private companies, community organizations and service groups are often willing 

to support juvenile firesetting prevention and intervention programs.

C. The support may be through a financial contribution or it may come in the form of 

donations or in-kind contributions. Some examples include:

1. Companies who donate their program planning advice, management 

expertise, public relations assistance and fundraising services.

2. Donations and in-kind contributions can take the form of office supplies 

and materials, computer equipment, and printing or mailing costs.

3 Community organizations such as the Boys and Girls Clubs, Big 

Brothers/Big Sisters, Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts, and service groups such 

as Rotary, Lions, Kiwanis and Shriners all have become involved in YFPI 

programs.

4. Private companies to look to for support include the insurance industry.

D. It is important to inform supporters that reducing juvenile involvement in 

firesetting reduces property loss and saves lives. Supporters are then more likely 

to lend their assistance in making their community a safer place in which to live, 

work and play (point out “what’s in it for them”).
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-74

E. Another option to fund the program is to charge a per student fee to help offset 

intervention and educational services. If the youth firesetter has court 

involvement, the court can order a portion of restitution be paid to cover the YFPI 

program fee.

F. Other options to cover the youth firesetting course fee include having the student 

obtain a job after school or during the summer months, providing community 

service in lieu of an actual cash payment.

G. Local departments of social services or children/family services may sometimes 

have funding dedicated to services for at-risk youth/families.

H. It is recommended that YFPI programs consider a strategy that combines both 

public and private resources.

I. A combination of private and public funding sources allows for a number of 

different organizations to lend a helping hand toward building and maintaining a 

YFPI program for the community.

XIX. DATA MANAGEMENT

DATA MANAGEMENT

• Youth firesetting program must document its 

day-to-day operations.

• Policies and procedures should describe 

this documentation process.

Slide 2-84

A. A YFPI program must document its day-to-day operations.

B. Program policies and procedures should describe this documentation process, and 

all those working with the intervention program should be familiar with these 

procedures.
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-75

Why is accurate documentation 

of YFPI program services an 

important task?

Slide 2-85

C. Accurate documentation of the intervention program is a valuable practice for 

several reasons:

1. The data can be used to sustain or increase the program’s budget.

2. The information can be used to categorize the individuals receiving 

services from the program for targeting efforts.

3. It can also be used to identify future audiences for primary fire and life 

safety education programs within the community.

4. Information from the data management system can help:

a. Monitor caseloads.

b. Track cases.

c. Determine final dispositions.

d. Provide valuable information about the successes of the program 

for evaluation purposes.

D. It is the responsibility of each agency involved in the program to provide 

information about its involvement with the youth participating in the program.
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-76

DATA MANAGEMENT (cont’d)

• The data collection process should not be 

burdensome.

• At intake, each case should be assigned an 

identifying case number.

• Using case numbers also aids in 

maintaining confidentiality.

Slide 2-86

E. The data collection process should not be burdensome. Simple reports can be 

developed for case tracking and disposition.

F. At intake, each case should be assigned an identifying case number. This will 

allow each individual file to be tracked through the system, similar to a fire 

department’s incident response report number. This will also allow for easy 

accounting of the number of cases presented during a specific time period.

G. Using case numbers also aids in maintaining the confidentiality of those involved 

in the program. A confidential master file will need to be maintained that crossreferences the case number with the name of the firesetter and his or her family.

• Data management should include two 

categories of information: demographic and 

case management.

DATA MANAGEMENT (cont’d)

Slide 2-87

H. Data management should include two categories of information.

1. Demographic information is data that reports the general circumstances of 

an event and information about the participants. Demographic data cannot 

be connected back to one individual.
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-77

• Demographic information:

– Source of referral.

– Age, sex, race, family status of the firesetter.

– Name of school attended by the firesetter and 

the grade level.

– Details of the firesetting incident.

– Prior firesetting incidents.

– Initial assessment after screening (level of risk).

DATA MANAGEMENT (cont’d)

Slide 2-88

Demographic data that is pertinent to the YFPI program includes:

a. Source of referral.

b. Age, sex, race, family status of the firesetter.

c. Name of school attended by the firesetter and grade level.

d. Details of the firesetting incident.

e. Prior firesetting incidents.

f. Initial assessment after screening (level of risk).

• Case management information:

– Names, case numbers.

– Addresses.

– Specific incident numbers.

– Any other information that would identify the 

firesetter or family.

DATA MANAGEMENT (cont’d)

Slide 2-89

2. Case management information is data that is specific to an individual 

firesetter and his or her family. This might include:

a. Names and case numbers.
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-78

b. Addresses.

c. Specific incident numbers.

d. Any other information that would identify the firesetter or the 

family.

I. This information is certainly critical in tracking the individual case through the 

program. However, collection and maintenance of this information must be done 

carefully as it has the potential to breach confidentiality requirements if shared 

outside of the program.

• Information management system should 

answer:

– Cases handled this year relative to last year.

– Individual and family characteristics of the 

juveniles.

– Characteristics of the fires.

– Referral agencies used.

– How long, on average, juveniles and families 

are in treatment.

DATA MANAGEMENT (cont’d)

Slide 2-90

J. An information management system should be able to provide answers regarding 

the following questions:

1. How many cases have been handled this year relative to last year?

2. What are the individual and family characteristics of the juveniles who 

were assessed?

3. What are the characteristics of the fires that were set by the juveniles 

involved in the program?

4. Which referral agencies are used the most?

5. How long, on average, are juveniles and families in treatment?

K. There may be additional information that is needed by an individual jurisdiction. 

Just as with the screening tools and other forms, the management information 

system can be tailored to meet the needs of the local jurisdiction.
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-79

L. With these differences in mind, it becomes easier to understand and distinguish 

between the two sets of information so they can be used appropriately. It also 

clarifies the information-sharing boundaries needed for each program to operate 

appropriately.

M. The local firesetting intervention task force should be in agreement about the 

necessary data to be collected, and the legal AHJ over the program should be 

consulted.

XX. COMMUNITY OUTREACH/MARKETING THE PROGRAM

COMMUNITY OUTREACH/ 

MARKETING THE PROGRAM

• Educate the community on the extent of the 

firesetting problem.

• Inform the community that a program exists.

Slide 2-91

A. The success of any YFPI program is measured by the support the program has 

from its community.

B. If community members do not know a program exists, the extent of the firesetting 

problem, or the importance of youth firesetting intervention, the program will not 

be successful.

C. Community outreach involves advertising the program and the services that it 

provides.

D. The purpose of the community outreach program is two-fold.

1. One purpose is to educate the community on the extent of the firesetting 

problem.

a. Many individuals are unaware that there is a problem.

b. There may be myths and misunderstandings about what can 

happen to a child when parents/caregivers seek assistance.
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-80

c. Many individuals may not understand what interventions are 

needed to effectively address and stop the firesetting behavior.

2. The second purpose is to inform the community that a program exists to 

assist with the firesetting issue. The youth firesetting task force has a 

responsibility to the community to inform them that an intervention 

program is available to assist youth firesetters.

3. At minimum, YFPI programs should have a simple brochure to describe 

the program and provide contact information for parents/caregivers and 

other community members.

4. The material should be simple, and it should briefly highlight the service 

of the program and how individuals can avail themselves of this service.

5. These brochures can be distributed to daycare centers, preschools, 

pediatricians, social services, and all community organizations and 

agencies that work with children.

E. Posters can be designed and placed in strategic locations in the community.

1. Posters can be developed as a means of advertising the program and even 

as a means for encouraging fire safe behaviors.

2. Posters can be placed in schools, municipal buildings, government offices, 

retail establishments and fire stations.

F. Other forms of marketing include community presentations, letters of 

introduction, and partnerships with local businesses and community 

organizations.

What strategies are you using to 

“market” your YFPI program?

Slide 2-92
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-81

G. An excellent way to let the community know about the program, its availability 

and successes is to partner with the local media. Some examples of media outlets 

include:

1. Broadcast TV stations.

2. Newspapers.

3. Community access TV.

4. Cable TV.

5. Radio stations.

H. The task force cannot wait for the news media to come to it.

1. The group must be proactive and aggressive in seeking out those media 

representatives to assist with advertising the intervention program.

2. Visits to the radio and television stations, telephone calls to reporters, 

editors and producers are ways to get the attention of the media.

3. The task force will have to sell the story, and it is imperative that the task 

force develop a fact sheet or clear, consistent messages about the program.

I. The department/agency’s website is another option for marketing a youth 

firesetting program. In addition, social networking mediums can be used as a lowcost means of informing constituents about the program.

XXI. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

• Issues that should be addressed include:

– Liability.

– Confidentiality issues.

– Mandated reporting of child abuse and neglect.

– Juvenile justice referrals.

– Medical information security (Health Insurance 

Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) 

protocols).

Slide 2-93
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-82

A. Legal issues must be considered when designing a multidisciplinary approach to 

youth firesetting intervention.

B. The involvement of the local jurisdiction’s legal counsel and a representative 

from the juvenile justice system is of the utmost importance in making sure that 

the policies and protocols of the program do not violate any laws or ordinances 

relating to juvenile rights.

C. Some of the issues that should be addressed include:

1. Liability.

2. Confidentiality issues, ranging from names to security of documentation.

3. Mandated reporting of child abuse and neglect.

4. Juvenile justice referrals.

5. Medical information security (Health Insurance Portability and 

Accountability Act (HIPAA) protocols).

LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS 

(cont’d)

– Caregiver rights.

– Child protective laws.

– Reading of juvenile Miranda rights.

– Use of consent forms.

Slide 2-94

6. Caregiver rights.

7. State child protective laws.

8. Reading of juvenile Miranda rights (or when to call for law enforcement)

— especially if a voluntary case turns suspicious or additional fires are set.

9. Use of consent forms.
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-83

• Confidentiality of information:

– Only authorized staff should have access to 

files.

– If a person or agency requests the records, 

specific procedures must be followed. 

– If a court subpoenas files, program must 

comply.

LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS 

(cont’d)

Slide 2-95

D. Confidentiality of information.

1. Only authorized program staff should have access to YFPI program files.

2. If a person or agency outside the program requests the records, specific 

procedures must be followed before they are released. 

3. If a court of law subpoenas files, then the program must comply by turning 

over the records.

4. Because these are records of minors, disclosing information from their 

records should be discussed with their parents/caregivers.

5. Because laws regarding the sharing of juvenile files vary from state to 

state, it is important for the staff of each YFPI program to consult with the 

local district attorney.

6. Be careful when discussing firesetters and their families with anyone. (An 

exception could be made when abuse is suspected.)
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-84

XXII. FORMALIZING PROGRAM OPERATING PROCEDURES

FORMALIZING PROGRAM 

OPERATING PROCEDURES

• Standard operating procedures (SOPs) —

series of specific procedures that outline 

exactly how a job is to be performed.

• Standard operating guidelines (SOGs) —

similar, but more flexible in nature.

Slide 2-96

A. Fire departments and agencies should have in place some kind of SOPs and SOGs 

that direct how the organization functions.

1. SOPs are a series of specific procedures that outline exactly how a job is 

to be performed. SOGs are similar, but they generally are more flexible in 

nature.

2. A YFPI program should establish operating procedures that clearly state 

how the program is to function. The procedures should include directives 

that clarify personnel functions and to what standard these functions are to 

be performed.

What is the purpose of SOPs?

Slide 2-97
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-85

FORMALIZING PROGRAM 

OPERATING PROCEDURES (cont’d)

• Purpose of SOPs:

– Clarify the roles and responsibilities of team 

members.

– Document the way activities are to be 

performed.

– Specific to the YFPI program.

Slide 2-98

B. The purpose of SOPs.

1. The development and use of SOPs is to provide team members with the 

information to perform a job properly.

2. SOPs clarify the roles and responsibilities of team members.

3. SOPs detail the regularly recurring work processes conducted within an 

organization.

4. SOPs document the way activities are to be performed to facilitate 

consistency.

5. SOPs should be specific to the YFPI program to maintain quality and to 

comply with organizational and governmental requirements.

What are the benefits of 

SOPs?

Slide 2-99
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-86

• Benefits of SOPs:

– Minimizes variation of program services.

– Promotes quality through consistent program 

services.

– Personnel training.

– Minimize opportunity for miscommunication.

Slide 2-100

FORMALIZING PROGRAM 

OPERATING PROCEDURES (cont’d)

C. The benefits of SOPs.

1. Development and use of SOPs minimizes variation of program services.

2. Use of SOPs promotes quality through consistent implementation of 

program services, especially if there are temporary or permanent personnel 

changes.

3. SOPs can be used as part of personnel training since they should provide 

detailed work instructions.

4. SOPs minimize the opportunity for miscommunication and can address 

safety concerns.

• Writing style of SOPs:

– SOPs should be written in a concise, step-bystep, easy-to-read format.

– Information not overly complicated.

– Active voice and present verb tense.

Slide 2-101

FORMALIZING PROGRAM 

OPERATING PROCEDURES (cont’d)

D. Writing style of SOPs.

1. SOPs should be written in a concise, step-by-step, easy-to-read format.
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-87

2. Information should be unambiguous and not overly complicated.

3. The active voice and present verb tense should be used.

– Term “you” should not be used.

– Not be wordy, redundant or overly lengthy.

– Simple and short.

– Conveyed clearly.

– Flow chart is helpful.

Slide 2-102

FORMALIZING PROGRAM 

OPERATING PROCEDURES (cont’d)

4. The term “you” should not be used, but it should be implied.

5. The document should not be wordy, redundant or overly lengthy.

6. Keep it simple and short.

7. Information should be conveyed clearly and explicitly to remove any 

doubts as to what is required.

8. A flow chart to illustrate the process is helpful.

• SOP preparation:

– Written by individuals knowledgeable with 

program.

– Team approach.

• SOPs should be written with sufficient detail 

so that someone with limited experience 

with or knowledge of the procedure can 

successfully reproduce the procedure when 

unsupervised.

Slide 2-103

FORMALIZING PROGRAM 

OPERATING PROCEDURES (cont’d)

E. SOP preparation.
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-88

1. SOPs for a YFPI program should be written by individuals knowledgeable 

with the program’s intended activities and the program’s internal structure.

2. A team approach can be followed, especially for multitasked processes 

where the experiences of a number of individuals are critical.

3. SOPs should be written with sufficient detail so that someone with limited 

experience or knowledge of the procedure can successfully reproduce the 

procedure when unsupervised.

• SOP review and approval:

– Reviewed or validated by individuals with 

appropriate training and experience.

– Draft SOPs are tested before finalized.

– Approved by YFPI program.

Slide 2-104

FORMALIZING PROGRAM 

OPERATING PROCEDURES (cont’d)

F. SOP review and approval.

1. SOPs should be reviewed or validated by one or more individuals with 

appropriate training and experience with the process.

2. It is especially helpful if draft SOPs are actually tested by individuals 

other than the original writer before the SOP is finalized.

3. The finalized SOP should be approved as described by the YFPI program.

4. Signature approval indicates that an SOP has been both reviewed and 

approved by management.
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-89

• Frequency of revisions and reviews.

– SOPs should be systematically reviewed on a 

periodic basis (e.g., every one to two years) to 

ensure that policies and procedures remain 

current and appropriate.

Slide 2-105

FORMALIZING PROGRAM 

OPERATING PROCEDURES (cont’d)

G. Frequency of revisions and reviews.

1. To be useful, SOPs need to remain current. 

2. Whenever procedures are changed, SOPs should be updated and reapproved. The review date should be added to each SOP that has been 

reviewed.

3. SOPs should be systematically reviewed on a periodic basis (e.g., every 

one to two years) to ensure that policies and procedures remain current 

and appropriate.

4. If an SOP describes a process that is no longer followed, it should be 

withdrawn from the current file and archived.

Source: United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Guidance 

for Preparing Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) EPA QA/G-6. 

EPA/600/B-07/001, April 2007. Retrieved Jan. 3, 2011, from 

http://www.epa.gov/quality/qs-docs/g6-final.pdf.
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-90

XXIII. YFPI PROGRAM OPERATIONS HANDBOOK

YFPI PROGRAM OPERATIONS 

HANDBOOK

• Purpose of handbook:

– Documentation of policies and procedures.

– Training resource for new personnel.

– Ensure documents are available for review.

– Step-by-step guide of how to deliver program 

services.

Slide 2-106

A. A YFPI program operations handbook provides the user with examples of each 

document used by the program.

B. The purpose of an operations handbook is to:

1. Develop written documentation of the program policies and procedures.

2. Use as the primary training resource for new personnel as they join the 

program.

3. Ensure that all documents used by the program are available for review.

4. Provide an informal step-by-step guide of how to deliver program 

services.

YFPI PROGRAM OPERATIONS 

HANDBOOK (cont’d)

• Components of operations handbook 

include:

– Identification procedures.

– Intake procedures and forms.

– Screening procedures and forms.

– Intervention strategies defined.

– Procedures for making referrals.

– Follow-up/Evaluation of the firesetter.

– Closeout of the case.

Slide 2-107
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-91

C. While an operations handbook may vary from program to program, depending on 

available resources and the number of referrals into the program, there are some 

items that are necessary for inclusion in this document. These include:

1. Identification procedures.

2. Intake procedures and forms.

3. Screening procedures and forms.

4. Intervention strategies defined.

5. Procedures for making referrals.

6. Follow-up/Evaluation of the firesetter.

7. Closeout of the case.

D. The operations handbook should be distributed to all agencies and people who

will play a role with the YFPI program.

XXIV. RESOURCES DIRECTORY

RESOURCES DIRECTORY

• Contains the names, addresses, phone 

numbers and email addresses of agencies 

that work with youth firesetters and their 

families.

Slide 2-108

A. A YFPI program resources directory contains the names, addresses, phone 

numbers and email addresses of agencies that work with youth firesetters and 

their families. 

B. The resource directory is most useful to the YFPI program when referring youth 

and their families for services outside the program.
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-92

C. The directory can include information about local, county and statewide agencies. 

It can also provide referral information, cost information, insurance coverage and 

the like.

D. Resource information can be obtained by communicating with local or 

countywide fire departments, mental health agencies, and social services.

E. This resources directory is most useful when referring youth and their families for 

services that the program does not provide.

XXV. SUMMARY

• First step — examine department’s 

mission statement.

• Upon identifying need for YFPI program, 

a task force should be formed.

• Broad base of resources is necessary.

• Every program should be governed by 

SOPs.

• Every program should have an operations 

handbook.

SUMMARY

Slide 2-109
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-93

APPENDIX A

YFPI PROGRAM TASK FORCE FLOW CHART
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-94

This page intentionally left blank.
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-95

YFSPI Program Task Force

Fire Department

Family Court Mental Health 

Agencies

Police 

Department 

Youth Service

Social 

Services

Placement 

Resources

Child 

Protective 

Services

Schools Research Community 

Neighborhood 

Groups

Outreach 

Counseling

Probation

Criminal 

Court

Schools

Outreach 

Counseling

Fire Department

Family Court Mental Health 

Agencies

Police 

Department 

Youth Service

Social 

Services

Placement 

Resources

Child 

Protective 

Services

Schools Research Community 

Neighborhood 

Groups

Outreach 

Counseling

Probation

Criminal 

Court

Schools

Outreach 

Counseling
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-96

This page intentionally left blank.
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-97

APPENDIX B

FLOW CHART FOR YOUTH FIRESETTING 

INTERVENTION SERVICES
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-98

This page intentionally left blank.
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-99
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-100

This page intentionally left blank.
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-101

APPENDIX C

FIRE STOPPERS OF KING COUNTY YOUTH 

INTERVENTION PROGRAM ORGANIZATIONAL 

CHART
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-102

This page intentionally left blank.
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-103

Fire Stoppers of King County

Youth Intervention Program

King County Fire and Life Safety Association

Arson Alarm Foundation

Bellevue Community Services/CoHear

Funding

KC Fire Marshal’s Office

Grants

Insurance Agency

Arson Alarm

Co-Pay

Fire Departments

Community/Civic

Training

Interview Techniques

Documentation

Educational Strategies

Referral Process

Communication Skills

Linking with Resources

Train the Trainer

Referral Sources

Parents/Caregiver

Fire Service

Schools

Mental Health

Law Enforcement 

Juvenile Justice

Fire Department

Identify, Interview,

Education, Referral

Reactionary

Educational and Psychological 

Intervention

Curiosity 

Educational Intervention

Delinquent

Psychological Intervention

Fire Department

Provides Education

Followup

CoHear

Psychological

Treatment

Data Collection

Feedback 

Link to Other Services
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-104

This page intentionally left blank.
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-105

APPENDIX D

FIRE STOPPERS INTAKE FORM, KING COUNTY, 

WASHINGTON
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-106

This page intentionally left blank.
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-107

FIRE STOPPERS INCIDENT REFERRAL FORM

Incident Number ______________________Incident Date ___________________________

Referring Officer: Name ___________________ Employee number __ __ __

Incident Address: Street__________________________________________________________

City_________________________________State____________Zip_______________ 

Fire Investigator: ________________________Investigator’s Incident # _____________

Youth Information 

Name: _______________________________ Sex: M (__) F (__) DOB ______________

Address: Street ___________________________________________________________

City_____________________________State_____________________Zip___________ 

School currently attending: _______________________________ Grade_____________

Mother/Guardian: _________________________________________________________

Wk phone (_ _ _) __ __ __-__ __ __ __Home phone: (_ _ _) __ __ __-__ __ __ __

Father/Guardian: ______________________________________________________________

Wk phone (_ _ _) __ __ __-__ __ __ __Home phone: (_ _ _) __ __ __-__ __ __ __

Where did the incident/fire occur?_________________________________________________

Items ignited: _________________________________________________________________

Source of ignition: matches (__) lighter (__) other (__) 

Others involved in incident?

Yes (__) list names on reverse side of this form 

No (__) 
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-108

When applicable 

Were smoke alarms present? 

Did they activate? Yes (__) No (__) (if no why) ______________________________

(When appropriate, test all smoke alarms and provide a new detector/battery.) Done________

If matches and lighters are accessible to children, please ask parents/caregivers to remove them 

immediately. You will want to explain some about our program and that the parents/caregivers 

can expect a call from the Prevention Division to extend these services and explain the 

intervention program in greater detail. 

Comments 
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-109

APPENDIX E

JUVENILE FIRESETTER PREVENTION 

PROGRAM INTAKE FORM, STATE OF 

COLORADO
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-110

This page intentionally left blank.
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-111
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-112

This page intentionally left blank.
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-113

APPENDIX F

YOUTH FIRESETTER INTERVENTION PROGRAM 

INTAKE FORMS, GLENDALE, ARIZONA
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-114

This page intentionally left blank.
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-115

Glendale Fire Department

Youth Firesetter Referral Form

Parents/Caregiver/Guardian Interview: Intake 

Officer:___________________________Date:_________________Time:_____________ 

Referring person/agency/telephone and fax numbers: 

________________________________________________________________________

Child’s Name :(Last)________________________(First)__________________________

DOB:_______ Age:_____ Sex:______ Race:____________________ 

School________________________ School District_____________________Grade________

Who lives in home/siblings names and 

ages?_________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

Parents/Caregiver _______________________________________Relationship_____________

Address______________________________________________

City________________________________________State_____________Zip________

Home phone: (_ _ _) __ __ __-__ __ __ __ Work phone: (_ _ _) __ __ __-__ __ __ __

Message/Cellular phone: (_ _ _) __ __ __-__ __ __ __

Has there been a recent stressful event in the family? ____Yes ____No

If so, what?__________________________________________________________________

Is child ADD/ADHD/Other diagnosis? _____Yes _____No

Is child in counseling? ___Yes ____No

How did you hear about the YFS Program?__________________________________________
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-116

INCIDENT INFORMATION

Did the fire department respond? _____Yes _______No

Incident #:___________________________

Date_____________ Time___________ Fire Co/Inv._______________________________

Ignition source________________ Location of incident_______________________________

Was child alone or with others in the fire incident? ______Alone ______Others

Does child have a history of playing with matches or lighters? ____Yes ____No 

(If Yes) How long? ______________________

Has child set previous fires? _____Yes ____No 

(If Yes) How many? __________ When?___________________________________________ 

Has child attended a previous YFS class? ____Yes ____No 

(If Yes) When_______________ Where____________________________________________

Does the residence have a working smoke alarm? ____Yes ____No ____Unknown

Is there a smoker in the residence? ______ Yes _______No _________Unknown 

Synopsis of incident:

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-117

SCHOOL REFERRAL FORM

Fax Completed Form to Glendale Fire Department 623-847-5313

Date: ____________

Referring School: ____________________ School District: ______________________

Contact Person: ____________________ Phone # ____________ Fax # ____________

Child’s Name: __________________________________________________________

DOB: ______________ Age: __________ Sex:___________ Grade in School: _______

Parents/Caregiver/Guardian: __________________________________ 

Relationship: __________

Mailing Address: ________________________ City: _______________ Zip: _______

Phone (H): ________________ (W): _______________ (Message): _______________

Does Child Have ADD or ADHD or other mental health issue? ________________

Was Parents/Caregiver/Guardian Notified? _____ By Whom? _______________ 

When? __________

Was The School Counselor/Intervention Specialist Notified? ____ When? _________

Was the School Resource Officer (SRO) Notified? ______ Is There a SRO? _______

What Type of School Discipline Will the Child Receive? _______________________

Is Mandatory Attendance At a Firesetter Class Part of That Discipline? ____________

Fire Incident Information

What Was Used To Start the Fire? (Matches, Lighter, etc.)______________________

How Did the Child Obtain These Items? _____________________________________

Location of Incident: ___________________Date: __________Incident# ___________

Was Child Alone or With Others in Fire Incident? _____________________________

Names of Others Involved: ________________________________________________

Were The Others Referred to the Firesetter Program? __________________________

How Was the Incident Brought To Attention of School? ________________________

Signature of School Official Making Referral: _________________________________

I am the Parents/Caregiver/Guardian of ______________________________ and I Give 

Permission For ___________________________ School to Release This Information to the 

Phoenix Fire Department, for enrolling my child in the Firesetter Educational program. 

(Parents/Caregiver’s Signature) _______________________________________ 

Date__________

Synopsis of Incident

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-118

This page intentionally left blank.
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-119

APPENDIX G

WASHINGTON FIRE STOPPERS SCREENING 

TOOL
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-120

This page intentionally left blank.
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-121
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-122
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-123
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-124
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-125
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-126
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-127
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-128

This page intentionally left blank.
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-129

APPENDIX H

COMPREHENSIVE FIRERISK EVALUATION 

(LONG FORM)
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-130

This page intentionally left blank.
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-131

INSTRUCTIONS FOR USING THE COMPREHENSIVE FIRERISK FAMILY AND 

CHILD EVALUATION

Kenneth R. Fineman, Ph.D.

General Instructions

The Comprehensive FireRisk Evaluation was developed to help you acquire the information you 

need to determine risk—specifically, the determination of little risk, definite risk or extreme risk, 

relative to the prediction of future firesetting, and especially dangerous firesetting. To 

accomplish this you must have a child or family member answer your questions honestly and 

completely.

The parent questionnaire and the child and family interview forms are constructed so you can 

score most responses as C-1, C-2, C-3, P-1, P-2, or P-3. A C-2 or -3 or a P-2 or -3 response 

suggests that the child or parent answered in a way consistent with those who are pathological

firesetters or recidivist firesetters. C-2 or -3 or P-2 or -3 responses may also suggest the presence 

of emotional or behavioral dysfunction. Positioning a C or P response in column 2 of a 3 column 

matrix indicates definite risk for further and dangerous firesetting. Positioning a C or P in 

column 3 suggests extreme risk (due either to the child’s focus on fire, the likelihood of 

emotional or behavioral dysfunction, or both).

When a child is given a C-1 or a parent is given a P-1, this indicates that the child or parent is 

engaging in a behavior that is quite normal or a behavior that is indicative of curiosity firesetting 

and is not correlated with recidivistic firesetting. It is important that a C-1 or P-1 not be assigned 

without good reason since doing so signifies the normalcy of a response. If a response is not 

normal and it is assigned a C-1 or P-1, the statistics upon which prediction of risk is based 

becomes distorted.

Some questions are for general information only and are not scored. Some are geared toward 

setting the groundwork for the questions to follow that are scored. Sometimes there will be many 

responses that are correct. When this happens mark all that are accurate. However, when it 

comes time to score the response on the profile sheet, only score (i.e., give credit for) the most 

severe response. When narrative information is required and you run out of room, use the back of 

the form.

For some questions you are offered the option of a C-1, C-2, or C-3, and/or a P-1, P-2, or P-3 

response. When offered only C responses to choose from, only one C response is required. (In 

other words, it’s either C-1, a C-2, or a C-3.) When offered only P responses, only one P 

response is required (P-1, P-2, or P-3). However, when given an option such as C-1, C-2, or C-3, 

and/or a P-1, P-2, or P-3 you are given the opportunity to choose two responses, one from each 

category. You may also choose only one response, from either the C category or the P category. 

It is only appropriate to choose two responses, one from each category, if the answer to an item 

suggests some degree of concern for both the child (C) and the parent (P) or family (P).

Fineman, K. (1996). Comprehensive Fire Risk Assessment Instructions
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-132

When Opposite Responses Can Both Get a C-1 or P-1

It is important to think of a C-1 or P-1 response as signifying appropriateness, and C-2 or -3 and 

P-2 or -3 responses as signifying inappropriateness. By this we mean that the choice of one 

response over the other must be thought of in terms of the overall context in which the child lives 

and functions.

As an example, spending what appears to be enough time with a child, while usually being 

scored a P-1 may actually require a P-2 if the child is being ill treated by the parent. A child 

staying to watch a fire or choosing to run away (seemingly opposite responses) can both generate 

a C-1 if you judge that those behaviors are appropriate responses under the circumstances that 

you uncover.

Clarifying Your Choices

As an interviewer, you have the option to obtain more information on any question when you 

feel it is necessary to help you make a C-1/-2/-3 and/or P-1/-2/-3 decision. Within the limits of 

the time you can allow for an interview, the more information you get the better. Also, when you 

choose to give a C or P based on a parent of child’s “other” response, please elaborate on what 

“other” means for greater clarification in the future. When you are unsure if a response falls 

more into a column 1 vs. 2, or a column 2 vs. 3, have the interviewee explain his answer.

If a child is being home schooled, answer only questions 1, 3, and 4 on the child interview and 

evaluation form in the school section.

When you answer questions that deal with whether a structure was or was not occupied at the 

time of the fire, answer the question in terms of what was actually set on fire as opposed to what 

the juvenile says he intended. As an example, an occupied structure is one that had people in it at 

the time of the firestart, and an unoccupied structure is unoccupied if it had no one in it at the 

time of the firestart, even if it usually does. A vacant structure is one that not only did not have 

occupation at the time of the fire, but is generally believed not to, such as a structure in the 

process of being built.

When answering questions concerning where a child got his firesetting material, consider the 

most appropriate answer, not the most obvious. Thus, determine the sequence of how the child 

got his matches before you decide which response to circle.

Clarifying the Child or Family’s Choices

If after you have asked the question exactly as it is written and you feel that the child or parent 

does not understand it (either because of the way it is phrased or because they don’t understand a 

word), you have the option to change the way the question is stated to make it clear to the child 

or parent. You also have the option to substitute more understandable words.

In order for the questionnaires to be applicable to all ages, it has been necessary to insert optional 

language. As an example, you might want to talk to a younger child about his teacher but to an 
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-133

older child about his classes or subjects. Thus a question may give you a choice of words such as 

teacher/subject and it is up to you to use the correct word or phrase depending upon the age of 

the child.

The Format of the Interview Forms and the Parent Questionnaire

Both the original assessment tools in the FEMA manuals as well as the present updated tools are 

based on the dynamic-behavior theory of firesetting (Fineman, 1980, 1995). The original forms 

were less structured and less complex. The present forms have greater structure and at the same 

time provide wider latitude for the fire evaluator to explore the factors that lead to higher risk for 

future firesetting. The dynamic-behavioral model suggests that past history of dysfunctional 

behavior coupled with poor supervision and training in fire safety generates an at-risk child. Add 

to this a traumatic event to lessen the child’s inhibitions and increase his impulsiveness, and we 

are poised for a firestart.

The model further suggests that certain thoughts and feelings that occur before, during and after 

the fire should be investigated, as that information will help us understand the motivation for the 

firesetting and provide very specific information for the referral source that will provide the 

therapy for those assessed as definite and extreme risk. The present instruments are set up in 

such a manner as to allow the evaluator to more clearly understand the sequence of thoughts, 

feelings and behavior that lead to and maintain firesetting.

You may use the number of column 2 or 3 responses on each of the three instruments, or their 

additive value as represented on the structure category profile sheet, to understand the sequence 

as well as to assess risk. Probably the easiest method will be to calculate the percentages on the 

forms, as discussed below.

On some occasions you may not be able to interview the family, as only the child will be 

available for the interview. In those situations, use the first sheet of the family interview form 

with the child in order to get as much information about the family and living arrangements as 

possible.

The Child Evaluation

This interview form is divided into eight content sections plus demographics. As you interview, 

circle C or P responses and write in narrative information that you want to remember. When the 

interview is completed, count up all C-1 responses and enter that number in the appropriate 

square on the small summary box that is included at the end of each of the eight sections. Repeat 

this process for C-2 through P-3. When complete, transfer that information to the large summary 

box at the end of the interview form. Then total each column and record that sum in the 

appropriate square. Once you have all totals recorded, use the total score for each of the columns 

to calculate the percentage of risk for child, family and total risk according to the following 

formula.

Child Risk C2+C3 = %

C1+C2+C3

Family Risk P2+P3 = %
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-134

P1+P2+P3

Total Risk C2+P2+C3+P3 = %

C1+P1+C2+P2+C3+P3

Does a child see fire as having special, miraculous or spiritual powers? And if he does, how do 

we know if it’s a C-2 or C-3 response? The evaluation that you are conducting, though yielding

an eventual numerical result, is still very much of a qualitative assessment. Thus, we must take 

all aspects of a child or parent’s response into consideration. When you believe that a child’s 

belief system concerning fire deviates considerably from the typical it should be rated C-3.

The Family Interview Form

This interview form is divided into nine content sections plus demographics. When the interview 

is completed, count up all C-1 responses and enter that number in the appropriate square on the 

Family FireRisk Summary Sheet. Repeat this process for C-2 through P-3. When complete, total 

each column and record that sum in the appropriate square. Once you have all totals recorded, 

use the total score for each of the columns to calculate the percentage of risk for child, family 

and total risk according to the above formula.

The observation section of the questionnaire is filled out when you observe the family at their 

home. It is possible that you will choose not to interview at the home. If this is the case, skip the 

observation section.

It is sometimes difficult to determine when a question should receive a C-3 as opposed to a C-2 

score. As an example, how long does a child have to stay and watch a fire before the behavior 

goes from C-2 to C-3? The answer is a function of the context. It is up to you to judge the level 

of dysfunction, based on your years of experience. When the length of time watching (i.e., 

extensive), the facial expression (i.e., transfixed), the behavior manifested (i.e., taking pictures), 

and general attitude suggest a “very” atypical response, you are generally warranted in giving a 

C-3 score.

The Parent Questionnaire

This questionnaire form is divided into eight sections. When the interview is completed, using 

the transparency scoring sheet, count up all C-1 responses and enter that number in the 

appropriate square on the Parent Questionnaire Summary Sheet. Repeat this process for C-2 

through P-3. When complete, total each column and record that sum in the appropriate square. 

Once you have all totals recorded, use the total score for each of the columns to calculate the 

percentage of risk for child, family, and total risk according to the above formula.

A parent may ask for clarification on certain questions. When a parent assesses the 

appropriateness of a child’s reaction to fire, the overall context is examined. Thus, watching the 

fire, running away, panicking or not, may all be C-1 responses, i.e., those responses that provide 

for the safety of the child as well as for others, within the child’s developmental ability to 

provide for the safety of others. When evaluating eye contact, consider whether that behavior is 

appropriate to the child’s culture. Severe behavior difficulties refer to extraordinary problems 
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-135

that a parent admits are beyond his or her ability to control. Chewing odd things has to do with 

those children who put things in their mouth to suck on or chew that are inappropriate 

considering the age of the child. Phobias refer to specific and severe fears such as heights, 

spiders, closed places and snakes. General fears refer to non-specific fears.

What are excessive parental absences? A parent may ask you to elaborate on this subject. This is 

a subjective judgment and depends on what is normal, not so much in one family, but on what is 

accepted in society in general. Thus, asking whether the parent is absent from their children more 

than other parents in the neighborhood might be helpful.

The Structured Category Profile Sheet

At the conclusion of the interviews, transfer all individual and total scores from the Parent 

Questionnaire and the two evaluation forms to the Category Profile Sheet. The total scores from 

the summary sheets are placed in the respective subtotal columns on the structured category 

profile sheet. When complete, add all the columns and place the result in the total column at the 

bottom of the page. Next, transfer the total numeric score to compute percentages from the 

formula for the Child Risk, Family Risk, and Total Risk. Follow the numeric format for 

computing percentages from the formula. From the computation of these percentages, the child 

and family can be classified into risk levels.

The following criteria are used to classify the juvenile and family into risk level.

Little Risk Total Risk Score is equal to or less than 20%.

Definite Risk Total Risk Score is between 21% - 66%.

Extreme Risk Total Risk Score is equal to or greater than 67%.

The above criteria also can be used to classify the child and family individually into their 

respective risk levels; however, it is suggested that the Total Risk Score be used for the overall 

classification and recommendation for intervention and referral.

References

Fineman, K. R. (1995). A model for the qualitative analysis of child and adult fire deviant 

behavior. American Journal of Forensic Psychology, 13, 31-60.

Fineman, K. R. (1980). Firesetting in children and adolescents. In B. J. Blinder (Ed.), Psychiatric 

Clinics of North America Vol. 3. Child Psychiatry: Contributions to diagnosis, treatment, and 

research (pp. 483-500). Philadelphia/London/Toronto: W. B. Saunders.

PARTICIPATION RELEASE

The uses the youth firesetting screening program developed by 

the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the United States Fire Administration to 

evaluate the child that has been involved in a fire incident or has been referred to the City by a 

parent or another entity or agency.
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-136

Based on the results of the evaluation, your child’s tendencies will place him/her in one of the 

following areas of concern:

Little Risk - needs educational intervention

Definite Risk - needs referral for evaluation to a mental health agency or to a licensed 

psychologist or psychiatrist and education intervention

Extreme Risk - needs immediate referral for evaluation by a licensed psychologist or 

psychiatrist

If educational intervention is indicated, the program will offer further 

educational activity for your child.

Depending on the circumstances regarding an individual case, other agencies such as the school 

your child attends, local law enforcement, social services departments, etc. may become 

involved.

The questions asked in this evaluation may be viewed prior to signing this release upon request.

I, , have read the previous statement and do hereby grant permission 

for my child, , to participate in the 

Intervention Program and hereby authorize to release information regarding my child to such 

other governmental entities and agencies as it may deem appropriate.

Parent/Guardian Date/Time

Juvenile Witness
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-137

COMPREHENSIVE FAMILY FIRERISK INTERVIEW FORM

(Questions to be asked of Parents of Children 3 to 18 Years of Age)

CONTACT FORM DEPT. NAME Inc. Census Tract County

INCIDENT-DATE NO. TIME CR. NO

INCIDENT ADDRESS: Street City ZIP

Multiple Juveniles Y N # Ignition Source: Match Lighter Other Flammable Liquid/Accelerant 

Used

Est. Loss: $ Intentional: Y N Injuries: Y N # Death: Y N #

Hospitalizations: Y N # Describe Injuries/Deaths 

Location of Fire: Outside-Location of Origin Inside/ Inside-Occupied Room of Origin

Referral Source Name: Agency/Address: Phone: 

Caregiver School Law Enforcement Mental Health Fire Service Juvenile Justice

Parent Other/Describe 

Caregiver/Parent Smokes Y N Did the home meet community standards for health/welfare of the child? Y N

Was the child supervised by a person 12 years of age or older at the time of the incident? Y N

Description of Incident and Pertinent Information:

Report by: 

 Printed Name Signature

Juvenile Information

Last Name: First Name: M.I. DOB / /

Sex M F Race: White Asian African Am. Native Am. Hispanic Other

Age: Grade in School School Currently Attending 

Soc. Sec. #: - -

Home Address: Phone: 

Adult No. 1 Residing With The Child Adult No. 2 Residing With The Child

Name: Name:

Address: Address: 

Phone: H W Phone: H W 

Employed: Y N Employed: Y N

Marital Status: Married Separated Marital Status: Married Separated

 Divorced Remarried Widowed Divorced Remarried Widowed

Relation to Juvenile: Natural Step Relation to Juvenile: Natural Step

Others Residing With The Child

Name: Relationship: 

Name: Relationship: 

Name: Relationship: 

Name: Relationship: 

Fineman, K, (1996). Comprehensive FireRisk Assessment. Published in Poage, Doctor, Day, Rester, Velasquez, Moynihan, Flesher, Cooke, and Marshburn, (1997). 

Colorado Juvenile Firesetter Prevention Program: Training Seminar Vol. 1, Denver, CO, Colorado Division of Firesafety. Comprehensive Family FireRisk 

Interview Page 1 of 7
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-138

SCORE ALL ANSWERS BELOW THAT APPLY

C-1 C-2 C-3 P-1 P-2 P-3

HEALTH HISTORY

1. What medical or physical problems does you child have? 

Professionally diagnosed No Yes By whom 

2. Has your child taken any medication in the past 3 months? If so, what? 

3. Has your child been diagnosed with any impulse control conditions, such as ADHD/ADD 

(hyperactivity)? Diagnosis Yes No

4. Is your child currently in counseling or has he/she been seen by a counselor before?

For what Yes (C-2) No (C-1)

With whom 

5. Is any other family member currently in counseling or have they been seen before?

By whom Yes (P-2) No (P-1)

For what reason 

6. Are there smokers in your home? Yes (P-2) No (P-1)

Health History Subtotal

COMMENTS:

FAMILY STRUCTURE/ISSUES

7. How long have you rented or owned at present location? 

If less than 1 year score (P-2); if more that 5 years score (P-1)

8. Do you think that you or your spouse/partner may be overprotective of the child?

always (P-3) usually (P-2) sometimes (P-1) rarely (P-1) never (P-3)

9. Is mother/female caregiver available to the child as much as the child needs her?

always (P-1) usually (P-1) sometimes (P-2) rarely (P-2) never (P-3)

10. Is father/male caregiver available to the child as much as the child needs him?

always (P-1) usually (P-1) sometimes (P-2) rarely (P-2) never (P-3)

11. Do you feel you spend enough time with your child?

always (P-1) usually (P-1) sometimes (P-2) rarely (P-2) never (P-3)

12. Are there significant conflicts between this child and other members of the family?

always (P-3) usually (P-2) sometimes (P-2) rarely (P-1) never (P-1)

13. Do you believe that you have adequate influence and control over your child?

always (P-1) usually (P-1) sometimes (P-2) rarely (P-2) never (P-3)

14. What do you discipline your child for? 

How often? 

15. How do you normally discipline your child? 

16. Is there a history of emotional abuse the family?

Yes (P-2) or (P-3) or (C-2) or (C-3) No (P-1) Who? 

Relationship? Currently in the home? 

17. Is there a history of physical abuse the family?

Yes (P-2) or (P-3) or (C-2) or (C-3) No (P-1) Who? 

Relationship? Currently in the home? 

18. Is there a history of sexual abuse in the family?

Yes (P-2) or (P-3) or (C-2) or (C-3) No (P-1) Who? 

Relationship? Currently in the home? 

Family Structure/Issues Subtotal

COMMENTS:

Fineman, K, (1996). Comprehensive FireRisk Assessment. Published in Poage, Doctor, Day, Rester, Velasquez, Moynihan, Flesher, Cooke, and Marshburn, (1997). 

Colorado Juvenile Firesetter Prevention Program: Training Seminar Vol. 1, Denver, CO, Colorado Division of Firesafety. Comprehensive Family FireRisk 

Interview Page 2 of 7
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-139

C-1 C-2 C-3 P-1 P-2 P-3

PEER ISSUES

19. Does your child interact normally with peers? Yes (C-1) No (C-2)

20. Does your child get into fights frequently? Yes (C-2) No (C-1)

21. Does your child frequently get picked on by other children? Yes (C-2) No (C-1)

22. Does your child frequently play/stay alone rather than with other children?

Yes (C-2) No (C-1)

23. Do you think his friends are a bad influence? Yes (C-2) No (C-1)

Peer Issues Subtotal

COMMENTS:

SCHOOL ISSUES

24. Is your child in the age appropriate grade? Yes No

If no..... [Is your child ahead (C-1) or behind (C-2)]

25. How does your child perform academically?

Well (C-1) Average (C-1) Poorly or below expectation (C-2)

26. Have there been any recent negative changes in your child’s academic performance?

Yes (C-2) No (C-1)

27. Does your child have any special educational (special ed.) learning needs?

Yes [learning disabled, mentally retarded, or developmentally disabled] (C-2) No (C-1)

28. Have there been any discipline problems at school within the last year? Yes (C-2) No (C-1)

School Issues Subtotal

COMMENTS:

BEHAVIOR ISSUES

29. Has your child been in trouble outside of school for non-fire related behaviors?

What? Yes (C-2) No (C-1)

30. Does your child frequently say no when he/she is asked to do something?

Yes (C-2) No (C-1)

31. Has your child ever stolen or shoplifted? Yes (C-2) No (C-1)

32. Has your child ever lied excessively? Yes (C-2) No (C-1)

33. Has your child ever used drugs/alcohol/inhalants? Yes (C-2) No (C-1)

34. Has your child ever beat up or hurt others? Yes (C-2) or (C-3) No (C-1)

Behavior Issues Subtotal

COMMENTS:

Fineman, K, (1996). Comprehensive FireRisk Assessment. Published in Poage, Doctor, Day, Rester, Velasquez, Moynihan, Flesher, Cooke, and Marshburn, (1997). 

Colorado Juvenile Firesetter Prevention Program: Training Seminar Vol. 1, Denver, CO, Colorado Division of Firesafety. Comprehensive Family FireRisk 

Interview Page 3 of 7
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-140

C-1 C-2 C-3 P-1 P-2 P-3

FIRE HISTORY

35. What were you doing when the fire occurred? appropriate supervision (P-1)

not home, asleep, or other indication of inappropriate supervision, score (P-2)

36. Are matches or lighters readily available to the child in the home? Yes (P-2) No (P-1)

37. How did you teach your child about fire? appropriate supervision (P-1)

inappropriate (P-2) e.g. has the parent directed and demonstrated proper use of fire?

38. Have any other members of the family engaged in inappropriate fire behavior?

Who? Yes (P-2) No (P-1)

39. If you had to describe your child’s curiosity about fire, would you say it was:

absent (C-1) mild (C-1) moderate (C-2) extreme (C-3)

40. How many times has your child used fire inappropriately? No other times (Assess no score, 

skip question #41.) 1 time (C-1) 2-4 times (C-2) more than 4 times (C-3)

Fire History Subtotal

41. Tell me what you know about all the fires that he/she started before this one.

[Use a common time frame, i.e., Christmas, school starting, etc. to help parent describe when 

fires were started or fireplay initiated] INFORMATION ONLY

What Set Date Set Where Set With Whom Ignition Source Accelerant if 

used

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Others.

COMMENTS:

CRISIS OR TRAUMA

42. Has anything bad happened in the family or in your child’s life within the last year?

What? Yes (C-2) or (P-2) No (C-1)

43. Has there been an ongoing (chronic) crisis/problem in your child’s life or in the family?

Yes (C-2) or (P-2) No (C-1)

44. Did the fire/fireplay occur after: No crisis (No score) family fight (C-2)

being angry at sibling (C-2) being angry at boss (C-2) being angry at school authority (C-2)

recent move (P-2) being angry with another (C-2) other crisis (C-2) or (C-3) or (P-2) or 

(P-3)

Crises or Trauma Subtotal

COMMENTS:

Fineman, K, (1996). Comprehensive FireRisk Assessment. Published in Poage, Doctor, Day, Rester, Velasquez, Moynihan, Flesher, Cooke, and Marshburn, (1997). 

Colorado Juvenile Firesetter Prevention Program: Training Seminar Vol. 1, Denver, CO, Colorado Division of Firesafety. Comprehensive Family FireRisk 

Interview Page 4 of 7
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-141

C-1 C-2 C-3 P-1 P-2 P-3

CHARACTERISTICS OF FIRESTART OR FIREPLAY\

[circle all that apply but only score the most severe response for each question]

45. Materials used to set the fire or fireplay: matches lighter flammable liquid/aerosol

fireworks other (butane torch, flare, stove, pilot light) What? 

46. How did the child get material to start fire or engage in fireplay? found it (C-1)

went out of his way to acquire it (C-2) from his hidden/saved incendiary supplies (C-2)

readily available at home (P-2) or (C-1) another child had material (C-1)

47. Where was the fire set or where did the fireplay occur? home-occupied at the time (C-3)

other residence-occupied at the time (C-3) school-occupied at the time (C-3)

other structure-occupied at the time (C-3) home-unoccupied at time (C-2)

school-unoccupied at time (C-2) other structure-unoccupied at time (C-2)

other residence-unoccupied at time (C-2) dumpster (C-2)

vacant structure (C-2) outside (C-2) wildland (C-2) or (C-3) vehicle (C-2)

48. What was set on fire? (e.g., if the object of value was intentionally set on fire, score a C-3.)

object of little of no value (C-1) or (C-2) object of value to child (C-2) or (C-3)

object of value to others (C-2) or (C-3) part of a building (C-2)

people, animals, self (C-3) flammable liquids/aerosols (C-3)

wildland-unintentional (C-2) or intentional (C-3) fireworks (C-2) or (P-2)

paper, tissue, cardboard, twigs (C-1) or (C-2) bedding/bed-child’s own (C-2)

bedding/bed-someone else’s (C-2) clothing-child’s own (C-2)

clothing - someone else’s (C-2) toys (C-2)

furniture (C-2) trash, leaves, grass (C-2)

animals (C-3) insects (C-2)

matches only (C-2) or (P-2) lighter only (C-2) or (P-2)

49. What did he/she do after the fire started? (If the response is appropriate based on the

circumstances, score a C-1; if not, score a C-2 or C-3.)

put it out (C-1) or (C-2) called for help (C-1) ran away [if appropriate] (C-1) if not (C-2)

stayed and watched (C-2) or (C-3) panicked (C-1) tried to extinguish (C-1) or (C-2)

didn’t try to extinguish (C-1) or (C-2) other (C-1) or (PC-2) or (C-3)

50. Did child lie about involvement?

total denial, minimizing (C-2) denial at first and then confess (C-1)

51. Did child act alone? Yes (C-2) No (C-2)

List names 

52. Was child pressured or coerced into firesetting or fireplay behavior by his/her peers?

Yes (C-2) No (C-2) Child was instigator (C-3)

53. Did the child respond to the fire or fireplay as if it were a positive or humorous experience?

Yes (C-2) or as a negative (remorseful) experience (C-1)

54. Does the child believe that fire has spiritual qualities or extraordinary powers?

Yes (C-2) or (C-3) No (C-1)

55. Is there an impulsive quality to the child’s firesetting/fireplay? Yes (C-2) or (C-3) No (C-1)

56. Did your child set the fire or play with fire intentionally? Yes (C-2) No (C-1)

57. What did you do to the child in response to the fire or fireplay?

grounded/restricted (P-1) physical punishment (P-1) or (P-2) nothing (P-1) or (P-2)

talked/lectured (P-1) or (P-2) sought outside help (P-1) yelled (P-1) or (P-2)

abused (P-2) or (P-3) other (P-1) or (P-2) Explain

Characteristics of Firestart Subtotal

COMMENTS:

Fineman, K, (1996). Comprehensive FireRisk Assessment. Published in Poage, Doctor, Day, Rester, Velasquez, Moynihan, Flesher, Cooke, and Marshburn, (1997). 

Colorado Juvenile Firesetter Prevention Program: Training Seminar Vol. 1, Denver, CO, Colorado Division of Firesafety. Comprehensive Family FireRisk 

Interview Page 5 of 7
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-142

C-1 C-2 C-3 P-1 P-2 P-3

OBSERVATIONS KEEP SEPARATE - NOT FOR PARENTAL REVIEW!

58. How does the mother act towards the child?

appropriately concerned (P-1) inappropriately concerned (P-2) hostile or indifferent (P-3)

59. How does the father act towards the child?

appropriately concerned (P-1) inappropriately concerned (P-2) hostile or indifferent (P-3)

60. Does the mother show appropriate self-care? Yes (P-1) No (P-2)

61. Does the father show appropriate self-care? Yes (P-1) No (P-2)

Observations Subtotal

COMMENTS:

FINEMAN, K, (1996). COMPREHENSIVE FIRERISK ASSESSMENT. PUBLISHED IN POAGE, DOCTOR, DAY, RESTER, VELASQUEZ, MOYNIHAN,

FLESHER, COOKE, AND MARSHBURN, (1997). COLORADO JUVENILE FIRESETTER PREVENTION PROGRAM: TRAINING SEMINAR VOL. 1, 

DENVER, CO, COLORADO DIVISION OF FIRESAFETY. COMPREHENSIVE FAMILY FIRERISK INTERVIEW PAGE 6 OF 7
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-143

COMPREHENSIVE FAMILY FIRERISK INTERVIEW SCORE SHEET

Transfer the information from the Subtotal Boxes into the table below; then total each column 

for the Total at the bottom.

SECTION SUBTOTALS C-1 C-2 C-3 P-1 P-2 P-3

Health History

Family Structure/Issues

Peer Issues

School Issues

Behavior Issues

Fire History

Crisis or Trauma

Characteristics of Firestart

Observations

TOTAL

These totals will be used to compute the Total Risk after all interviews are complete.

Fineman, K, (1996). Comprehensive FireRisk Assessment. Published in Poage, Doctor, Day, Rester, Velasquez, Moynihan, Flesher, Cooke, and Marshburn, (1997). 

Colorado Juvenile Firesetter Prevention Program: Training Seminar Vol. 1, Denver, CO, Colorado Division of Firesafety. Comprehensive Family FireRisk 

Interview Page 7 of 7
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-144

This page intentionally left blank.
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-145

COMPREHENSIVE CHILD FIRERISK INTERVIEW FORM

(Questions to be asked of Children 3 to 18 Years of Age)

AGENCY COUNTY 

INTERVIEWER DATE 

JUVENILE’S NAME 

SEX DOB ETHNICITY/RACE 

ADDRESS PHONE

SCHOOL GRADE 

DEVELOPMENT OF RAPPORT

The purpose of this section is to make the child comfortable with you. The more at ease you can 

make him, the greater the likelihood that he will answer all of your questions. If the following 

questions aren’t enough, add your own. Questions or language can be modified throughout this 

form to accommodate the age of the child or adolescent.

A. [Introduce yourself] I’m What’s your name?

B. How old are you? 

C. What school do you go to? What grade are you in? 

D. Do you like your school? Are there nice/okay teachers at your school?

E. What classes/subjects do you like/not like? 

F. What do you do for fun? Do you have hobbies? 

G. Who’s you best friend? 

H. What do you like to play/do with your friend? 

I. What do you watch on TV and/or what videos do you watch? 

J. What is your favorite person/show on TV? 

K. What is your favorite video/computer game? 

L. What do you like about that game? [Is there extreme interest in violence or fire?] 

[When rapport is established, determine level of understanding if the child is under 7 or appears 

to have problems communicating.]

Fineman, K, (1996). Comprehensive FireRisk Assessment. Published in Poage, Doctor, Day, Rester, Velasquez, Moynihan, Flesher, Cooke, and Marshburn, (1997). 

Colorado Juvenile Firesetter Prevention Program: Training Seminar Vol. 1, Denver, CO, Colorado Division of Firesafety. Comprehensive Child FireRisk Interview 

Page 1 of 7
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-146

DETERMINE LEVEL OF UNDERSTANDING

It is often difficult to determine if a young child really understands you. (These instructions may be skipped if you 

are interviewing an older child.) There may be an age barrier, a language barrier, a learning problem, or sub-normal 

intelligence. It is fruitless to go through an entire interview unless you are first assured that the child has enough 

understanding to complete the interview. There are several ways to gauge whether you are on the same “wave 

length” as the child. The following are suggested ways to do so:

a. Obtain information from rapport section above:

By paying close attention to the manner in which a young child responds to the 11 questions above, you 

can estimate whether he can understand and respond to the other questions in this instrument.

b. Using crayons/paper as a tool:

You can ask the child to draw pictures of common objects, favorite toys, houses, trees, and people. Then 

ask child to describe the drawing(s). Clear explanations of drawings and the action taking place in some of 

those drawings will tell you something about the child’s vocabulary and ability to understand.

c. Using toys and games:

Have toys of the appropriate developmental level of the child available. Engage the child in a game with 

the toys or allow the child free play with the toys. After a while ask the child about the toys and the game 

he/she is playing. Inquire about the rules, the purpose, etc. Estimate the child’s vocabulary in terms of 

his/her ability to complete the interview.

d. Using puppets:

Have hand puppets available. Allow the child to set the interaction, with the child playing all parts or with 

you playing some of the parts. Quiet children can become quite verbal with this approach. Focus on the 

child’s ability to understand your questions during the puppet play and determine if this level of 

communication is sufficient for continued interviewing.

If you are satisfied that the child has adequate understanding, proceed with the interview.

SCORE ALL ANSWERS BELOW THAT APPLY

C-1 C-2 C-3 P-1 P-2 P-3

SCHOOL ISSUES (If home schooled, skip question #2)

1. Do you like school/learning? Yes (C-1) No (C-2)

2. Do you listen to your teacher(s) most of the time: Yes (C-1) No (C-2)

3. Have there been any recent problems with your school performance within the last year?

Yes (C-2) No (C-1)

4. Have you gotten in trouble at school? Yes (C-2) No (C-1)

School Issues Subtotal

COMMENTS:

PEER ISSUES

5. Do you get along with most of your friends? Yes (C-1) No (C-2)

6. Do you get picked on? Yes (C-2) No (C-1)

7. Do you have as many friends as you want? Yes (C-1) No (C-2)

8. Do you want to be alone or with other kids? Alone (C-2) Kids (C-1)

9. Do you think your friends are a bad influence on you? Yes (C-2) No (C-1)

Peer Issues Subtotal

COMMENTS:

Fineman, K, (1996). Comprehensive FireRisk Assessment. Published in Poage, Doctor, Day, Rester, Velasquez, Moynihan, Flesher, Cooke, and Marshburn, (1997). 

Colorado Juvenile Firesetter Prevention Program: Training Seminar Vol. 1, Denver, CO, Colorado Division of Firesafety. Comprehensive Child FireRisk Interview 

Page 2 of 7
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-147

C-1 C-2 C-3 P-1 P-2 P-3

BEHAVIOR ISSUES 

10. Do you get in trouble frequently at school? Yes (C-2) No (C-1)

11. Do you usually not do things that you are asked to do? Yes (C-2) No (C1)

12. Have you ever stolen or shoplifted? Yes (C-2) No C-1)

13. Have you ever frequently lied? Yes (C-2) No (C-1)

14. Have you ever used drugs, alcohol, or inhalants? Yes (C-2) No (C-1)

15. Have you ever beat up or hurt others? Yes (C-2) or (C-3) No (C-1)

Behavior Issues Subtotal

COMMENTS:

FAMILY ISSUES

16. Do you like going home? Yes No Why?

17. How well do you get along with your mother (female caregiver)?

always get along (P-1) usually get along (P-1) sometimes get along (P-2)

don’t get along very often (P-2) never get along (P-3)

18. Do you fight or argue with your mother?

always (P-3) usually (P-2) sometimes (P-1) rarely (P-1) never (P-1)

19. Are you afraid of your mother?

always (P-3) usually (P-2) sometimes (P-2) rarely (P-1) never (P-1)

20. How well do you get along with your father (male caregiver)?

always get along (P-1) usually get along (P-1) sometimes get along (P-2)

don’t get along very often (P-2) never get along (P-3)

21. Do you fight or argue with your father?

always (P-3) usually (P-2) sometimes (P-1) rarely (P-1) never (P-1)

22. Are you afraid of your father?

always (P-3) usually (P-2) sometimes (P-2) rarely (P-1) never (P-1)

23. Do your mother and father fight? [If the parents fight, have the child elaborate on the fights]

always (P-3) usually (P-2) sometimes (P-1) rarely (P-1) never (P-1)

24. Tell me about your brothers and/or sisters. How well do you get along with them?

(If there is a variability in the relationship among siblings, rate the most serious.)

always get along (P-1) usually get along (P-1) sometimes get along (P-2)

don’t get along very often (P-2) never get along (P-3)

25. Do you see your mom as much as you’d like? Yes (P-1) No (P-2)

26. Do you see your dad as much as you’d like? Yes (P-1) No (P-2)

27. What do you do that gets you into trouble at home? 

28. What happens at home when you get in trouble?

grounded him/her (P-1) physical punishment (P-1) or (P-2) nothing (P-2)

talked/lectured (P-1) or (P-2) sought outside help (P-1) yelled (P-1) or (P-2)

abused (P-2) or (P-3) other (P-1) or (P-2) Explain

29. Do you get spanked/punished too much? Yes (P-2) No (P-1) If so, by whom

Family Issues Subtotals

COMMENTS:

Fineman, K, (1996). Comprehensive FireRisk Assessment. Published in Poage, Doctor, Day, Rester, Velasquez, Moynihan, Flesher, Cooke, and Marshburn, (1997). 

Colorado Juvenile Firesetter Prevention Program: Training Seminar Vol. 1, Denver, CO, Colorado Division of Firesafety. Comprehensive Child FireRisk Interview 

Page 3 of 7
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-148

C-1 C-2 C-3 P-1 P-2 P-3

CRISIS OR TRAUMA (Probe for severity)

30. Within the last year has anything bad happened in your life?

Yes (C-2) or (P-2) No (C-1) What?

31. Has there been an ongoing (chronic) crisis/problem in your life or in the family? 

Yes (C-2) or (P-2) No (C-1) What?

32. Was the fire set after: No crisis (no score) family fight (C-2)

being angry at sibling (C-2) being angry with boss (C-2) being angry with school 

authority (C-2) being angry with another (C-2) recent move (P-2)

other crises, such as stress, death, depression (C-2) or (C-3) or (P-2) or (P-3)

What?

Crisis or Trauma Subtotal

COMMENTS:

FIRE HISTORY

33. Do you like to look at fire for long periods of time? Yes (C-2) or (C-3) No (C-1)

34. Do you dream about fires at night? Yes (C-2) or (C-3) No (C-1)

35. Do you think about or daydream about fires in the day? Yes (C-2) or (C-3) No (C-1)

36. Number of past (inappropriate) fires or fireplay incidents No other times (Assess no score, 

skip question #37.) 1 time (C-1) 2-4 times (C-2) more than 4 times (C-3)

37. Tell me about all the fires that you started or your fireplay before this one. [Use a common 

time frame, i.e., Christmas, school starting, etc. to help child describe when fires were started 

or fireplay occurred] INFORMATION ONLY

What Set Date Set Where Set With Whom Ignition Source Accelerant if used

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Others.

38. If there is more than one fire ask questions #38 and #39.

Do you feel the need to set fires over and over again? Yes (C-2) or (C-3) No (C-1)

39. Do you always set your fires in exactly the same way? Yes (C-2) or (C-3) No (C-1)

Fire History Subtotals

COMMENTS:

Fineman, K, (1996). Comprehensive FireRisk Assessment. Published in Poage, Doctor, Day, Rester, Velasquez, Moynihan, Flesher, Cooke, and Marshburn, (1997). 

Colorado Juvenile Firesetter Prevention Program: Training Seminar Vol. 1, Denver, CO, Colorado Division of Firesafety. Comprehensive Child FireRisk Interview 

Page 4 of 7
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-149

C-1 C-2 C-3 P-1 P-2 P-3

CHARACTERISTICS OF FIRESTART OR FIREPLAY 

[circle all that apply but only score the most severe response for each question]

40. Tell me about how you think the fire/fireplay started?

admits/confesses (C-1) denies or minimizes (C-2) denial then truth (C-1)

41. What do you think made you want to start the fire or the fireplay/what happened?

to express anger (C-2) or (P-2) to see it burn (C-2) bored (C-2)

to show power or control (C-2) or (C-3) didn’t want to (accident or curiosity) 

(C-1)

reaction to stress (C-2) or (P-2) from peer pressure (C-2)

to destroy something (C-2) or (C-3) or (P-2) to hurt self (C-3) or (P-2)

to hurt others (C-2) or (P-2) to get attention (C-2) or (P-2)

don’t know (C-2) rebellion - was told not to do so (C-2) or 

(P-2)

42. What did you use to set the fire or start the fireplay? matches lighter

flammable liquid/aerosol fireworks flarestove pilot light other

43. How did you get the (above igniter) to start the fire or the fireplay?

went out of way to acquire (C-2) found it (C-1) hidden stockpile (C-2)

readily available at home (P-2) or (C-1) another child had material (C-1)

44. What was set on fire? (e.g., if the object of value was incidental to the fire score a C-2; or if 

purposely set on fire score a C-3.)

object of little or no value (C-1) or (C-2) object of value to child (C-2) or (C3)

object of value to others (C-2) or (C-3) part of a building (C-2)

people, animals, self (C-3) flammable liquids/aerosols (C-3)

wildland intentional (C-2) or intentional (C-3) fireworks (C-2) or (P-2)

paper, tissue, cardboard, twigs (C-1) or (C-2) bedding/bed-child’s own (C-2)

bedding/bed-someone else’s (C-2) clothing-child’s own (C-2)

clothing-someone else’s (C-2) toys (C-2)

furniture (C-2) trash, leaves, grass (C-2)

animals (C-3) insects (C-2)

matches only (C-2) or (P-2) lighter only (C-2) or (P-2)

45. Where was the fire set or where did the fireplay 

occur? home-occupied at the time (C-3)

other residence-occupied at the time (C-3) school-occupied at the time (C-3)

other structure-occupied at the time (C-3) home-unoccupied at time (C-2)

school-unoccupied at time (C-2) other structure-unoccupied at time (C-2)

other residence-unoccupied at time (C-2) dumpster (C-2)

vacant structure (C-2) outside (C-2) wildland (C-2) or (C-3) vehicle (C-2)

46. Did you intend to set the fire? Yes (C-2) No (C-1)

47. Did you drink or take any drugs before, during, or after the fire/fireplay

Yes (C-2) No (C-1)

48. What did you do after the fire started? (If the response is appropriate based on the 

circumstances, score a C-1; if not, score a C-2 or C-3.)

put it out (C-1) or (C-2) called for help (C-1) ran away [if appropriate] (C-1) 

if not (C-2)

stayed and watched (C-2) or (C-3) panicked (C-1) tried to extinguish (C-1) or (C-2)

didn’t try to extinguish (C-1) or (C-2) other (C-1) or (PC-2) or (C-3)

49. How do your parents punish you?

grounded/restricted (P-1) physical punishment (P-1) or (P-2) nothing (P-1) or (P-2)

talked/lectured (P-1) or (P-2) sought outside help (P-1) yelled (P-1) or (P-2)

abused (P-2) or (P-3) other (P-1) or (P-2) Explain 

Fineman, K, (1996). Comprehensive FireRisk Assessment. Published in Poage, Doctor, Day Rester, Velasquez, Moynihan, Flesher, Cooke, and Marshburn, (1997). 

Colorado Juvenile Firesetter Prevention Program: Training Seminar Vol. 1, Denver, CO, Colorado Division of Firesafety. Comprehensive Child FireRisk Interview 

Page 5 of 7
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-150

C-1 C-2 C-3 P-1 P-2 P-3

50. Did the fire(s) or fireplay you started make you happy or make you laugh? Yes (C-3)

No (C-1)

51. Can fire do magical, special, or miraculous things? Yes (C-2) or (C-3) No (C-1)

Explain 

52. After the fire how did you feel?

happy (C-2) nervous (C-1) sad (C-1) powerful (C-3) angry (C-2)

hateful (C-2) vengeful (C-2) scared (C-1) remorseful (C-1) elated (C-3)

guilty (C-1) ashamed (C-1) excited (C-3) curious (C-1) or (C-3)

aroused sexually (C-3) aroused sensually (C-3)

Characteristics of Firestart Subtotal

COMMENTS:

OBSERVATIONS KEEP SEPARATE - NOT FOR PARENTAL REVIEW!

53. Are child’s behaviors and mannerisms:

normal (C-1) troubled (C-2) very troubled (C-3)

54. Is the child’s mood:

normal (C-1) troubled (C-2) very troubled (C-3)

55. Is the child’s way of thinking:

normal (C-1) troubled (C-2) very troubled (C-3)

56. Are there signs of abuse? Yes (P-2) or (P-3) No (P-1) Explain

57. Are there signs of neglect? Yes (P-2) or (P-3) No (P-1) Explain

Observations Subtotal

COMMENTS:

Fineman, K, (1996). Comprehensive FireRisk Assessment. Published in Poage, Doctor, Day Rester, Velasquez, Moynihan, Flesher, Cooke, and Marshburn, (1997). 

Colorado Juvenile Firesetter Prevention Program: Training Seminar Vol. 1, Denver, CO, Colorado Division of Firesafety. Comprehensive Child FireRisk Interview 

Page 6 of 7
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-151

Comprehensive Juvenile Fire Risk Interview Form Score Sheet

Transfer the information from the Subtotal Boxes into the table below; then total each column for the Total at the bottom.

SECTION SUBTOTALS C-1 C-2 C-3 P-1 P-2 P-3

School Issues

Peer Issues

Behavior Issues

Family Issues

Crisis or Trauma

Fire History

Characteristics of Firestart

Observations

TOTAL

These totals will be used to compute the Total Risk after all interviews are complete.

Fineman, K., (1996). Comprehensive FireRisk Assessment. Published in Poage, Doctor, Day, Rester, Velasquez, Moynihan, Flesher, Cooke, and Marshburn, (1997). 

Colorado Juvenile Firesetter Prevention Program: Training Seminar Vol. I., Denver, CO, Colorado Division of Firesafety Comprehensive Child FireRisk 

Interview Page 7 of 7
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-152

COMPREHENSIVE PARENT FIRERISK QUESTIONNAIRE

for the child 3 to 18 years of age

Respondent Agency County Date 

PARENTS: Please complete this form. Mark the answer under “rarely to never,” “sometimes,” or “frequently” that 

best describes your child for each question. When marking the form, consider all parts of the child’s life (at home, at 

school, etc.) where the events below might occur. If an item does not apply, leave it blank. If you do not understand 

a term or question, make a mark next to it in the left margin and ask the interviewer for clarification.

ITEM RARELY TO 

NEVER

SOMETIMES FREQUENTLY

Hyperactivity at school

Lack of concentration

Learning problems at school

Behavior problems at school

Impulsive (acts before he thinks)

Impatient

Fantasizes (daydreaming)

Likes school

Listens to teacher(s)/school authorities

Shows age appropriate interest in future 

school/jobs/career

Truant/school runaway

Convulsions, seizures, “spells”

Need for excessive security

Need for affection

Loss of appetite

Excessive weight loss

Excessively overweight

Knows what is moral

Feels good about self

Comfortable with own body

Likes overall looks

Stuttering

Wets during the day (after age 3)

Night time bed wetting (after age 3)

Soiling (after age 3)

Participates in sports

Fineman, K., (1996). Comprehensive FireRisk Assessment. Published in Poage, Doctor, Day, Rester, Velasquez, Moynihan, Flesher, Cooke, and Marshburn, (1997). 

Colorado Juvenile Firesetter Prevention Program: Training Seminar Vol. I., Denver, CO, Colorado Division of Firesafety Comprehensive Parent FireRisk 

Questionnaire Page 1 of 5
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-153

Fineman, K., (1996). Comprehensive FireRisk Assessment. Published in Poage, Doctor, Day, Rester, Velasquez, Moynihan, Flesher, Cooke, and Marshburn, (1997). 

Colorado Juvenile Firesetter Prevention Program: Training Seminar Vol. I., Denver, CO, Colorado Division of Firesafety Comprehensive Parent FireRisk 

Questionnaire Page 2 of 5

ITEM RARELY TO 

NEVER

SOMETIMES FREQUENTLY

Injury prone

Shyness

Tries to please everyone

Relationships are socially appropriate

Physically fights with peers

Withdraws from peers/group

Destroys toys/property of others

A poor loser

Shows off for peers

Easily led by peers

Plays with other children

Shows appropriate peer affection

Plays alone (not even with adults)

Picked on by peers

Has many friends

Is good at sports

Is a loner (few friends)

Lies

Excessive and uncontrolled verbal anger

Physically violent

Steals 

Cruel to animals

Cruel to children

Is/was in a gang

Expresses anger by damaging the property 

of others

Destroys own toys/possessions

(if child is age 3-6)

Destroys own toys/possessions

(if child is age 7-18)

Disobeys

Severe behavior difficulties (past or 

present)

Expresses anger by hurting others’ things

Has been in trouble with police
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-154

RARELY TO

NEVER SOMETIMES FREQUENTLY

Uses drugs or alcohol

Jealous of peers/siblings

Temper tantrums

Unacceptable showing off

Sexual activity with others

Stomach aches

Nightmares

Sleeps too deep or has problem waking up

Anxiety (nervousness)

Has twitches (eyes, face, etc.)

Cries

Bites nails

Vomits

Aches and pains

Chews odd/unusual things

Extreme mood swings

Depressed mood or withdrawal

Constipation

Diarrhea

Self-imposed unnecessary or excessive 

diets

Sleepwalking

Phobias

General fears

Curiosity about fire

Plays with matches/lighters

Plays with fire (singeing, burning)

Was concerned when fire got out of 

control

Was proud or boastful regarding fireplay 

or firestart

Stares at fire for long periods (fire

fascination)

Unusual look on child’s face when he/she 

stares at fire(s)

Daydreams or talks about fires

Fineman, K., (1996). Comprehensive FireRisk Assessment. Published in Poage, Doctor, Day, Rester, Velasquez, Moynihan, Flesher, Cooke, and Marshburn, (1997). 

Colorado Juvenile Firesetter Prevention Program: Training Seminar Vol. I., Denver, CO, Colorado Division of Firesafety Comprehensive Parent FireRisk 

Questionnaire Page 3 of 5
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-155

ITEM RARELY TO 

NEVER

SOMETIMES FREQUENTLY

Fear of fire

Other(s) in family set fire(s) (past or 

present)

Set occupied structure on fire

Appropriate reaction to fire(s) he/she set

Extensive absences by father

Extensive absences by mother

Family has moved

Runs away from home

Has seen a counselor/therapist

Other family member has seen a 

counselor/therapist

Makes attempts at age appropriate

independence from parents

In trouble at home

Parent or sibling with serious health

problem

Marriage is unhappy

Mother’s discipline is effective

Father’s discipline is effective

Fighting with siblings

Conflicts in family

Unusual fantasies

Strange thought patterns

Bizarre, illogical, or irrational speech

Out of touch with reality

Strange quality about child

Expresses anger by hurting self or

something he/she likes

Destroys own property

Was/is in a cult

Severe depression or withdrawal

Poor or no eye contact

Fineman, K., (1996). Comprehensive FireRisk Assessment. Published in Poage, Doctor, Day, Rester, Velasquez, Moynihan, Flesher, Cooke, and Marshburn, (1997). 

Colorado Juvenile Firesetter Prevention Program: Training Seminar Vol. I., Denver, CO, Colorado Division of Firesafety Comprehensive Parent FireRisk 

Questionnaire Page 4 of 5
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-156

PARENT QUESTIONNAIRE SCORE SHEET

Transfer the information you obtained above to the table below; then total each column for the Total at the bottom.

C-1 C-2 C-3 P-1 P-2 P-3

School

Health/Developmental

Peers

Antisocial Behavior (BEHAVIOR)

Symptoms of Anxiety or Depression (ANXIETY)

Fire History

Family Issues (FAMILY)

Severe Dysfunction (OTHER)

TOTAL

These totals will be used to compute the Total Risk after all interviews are complete.

Fineman, K., (1996). Comprehensive FireRisk Assessment. Published in Poage, Doctor, Day, Rester, Velasquez, Moynihan, Flesher, Cooke, and Marshburn, (1997). 

Colorado Juvenile Firesetter Prevention Program: Training Seminar Vol. I., Denver, CO, Colorado Division of Firesafety Comprehensive Parent FireRisk 

Questionnaire Page 5 of 5
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-157

COMPREHENSIVE PARENT FIRERISK QUESTIONNAIRE

for the child 3 to 18 years of age

VISUAL KEY

RARELY TO

NEVER SOMETIMES FREQUENTLY

SCHOOL

Hyperactivity at school C-2

Lack of concentration C-1 C-1 C-2

Learning problems at school C-2 C-2

Behavior problems at school C-1 C-2 C-2

Impulsive (acts before he thinks) C-1 C-1 C-2

Impatient C-1 C-1 C-2

Fantasizes (daydreaming) C-2

Likes school C-2 C-1 C-1

Listens to teacher(s)/school authorities C-2 C-1

Shows age appropriate interest in future 

school/jobs/career

C-2 C-1 C-1

Truant/school runaway C-2 C-3

HEALTH/DEVELOPMENTAL

Convulsions, seizures, “spells” C-2 C-2

Need for excessive security C-2 C-1 C-2

Need for affection C-2 C-1 C-2

Loss of appetite C-2

Excessive weight loss C-2 C-2

Excessively overweight C-2

Knows what is moral C-2 C-1

Feels good about self C-2 C-1

Comfortable with own body C-2 C-1

Likes overall looks C-2 C-1

Stuttering C-2 C-2

Wets during the day (after age 3) C-1 C-2 C-2

Night time bed wetting (after age 3) C-1 C-2 C-2

Soiling (after age 3) C-2 C-2

Participates in sports C-2 C-1

Fineman, K., (1996). Comprehensive FireRisk Assessment. Published in Poage, Doctor, Day, Rester, Velasquez, Moynihan, Flesher, Cooke, and Marshburn, (1997). 

Colorado Juvenile Firesetter Prevention Program: Training Seminar Vol. I., Denver, CO, Colorado Division of Firesafety Comprehensive Parent FireRisk 

Questionnaire Key Page 1 of 4
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-158

Fineman, K., (1996). Comprehensive FireRisk Assessment. Published in Poage, Doctor, Day, Rester, Velasquez, Moynihan, Flesher, Cooke, and Marshburn, (1997). 

Colorado Juvenile Firesetter Prevention Program: Training Seminar Vol. I., Denver, CO, Colorado Division of Firesafety Comprehensive Parent FireRisk 

Questionnaire Key Page 2 of 4

RARELY TO 

NEVER

SOMETIMES FREQUENTLY

Injury prone C-1 C-2

Shyness C-1 C-2

Tries to please everyone C-2

Relationships are socially appropriate C-2 C-1

PEERS

Physically fights with peers C-1 C-2

Withdraws from peers/group C-1 C-2

Destroys toys/property of others C-1 C-2 C-2

A poor loser C-1 C-2

Shows off for peers C-2

Easily led by peers C-1 C-2 C-3

Plays with other children C-2 C-1

Shows appropriate peer affection C-2 C-1

Plays alone (not even with adults) C-1 C-2

Picked on by peers C-1 C-2

Has many friends C-2 C-1 C-1

Is good at sports C-2 C-1

Is a loner (few friends) C-1 C-2 C-3

BEHAVIOR

Lies C-1 C-2

Excessive and uncontrolled verbal anger C-1 C-2 C-3

Physically violent C-1 C-2 C-3

Steals C-1 C-2 C-3

Cruel to animals C-2 C-3

Cruel to children C-2 C-3

Is/was in a gang C-2 C-3

Expresses anger by damaging the property 

of others

C-2

Destroys own toys/possessions

(if child is age 3-6)

C-2

Destroys own toys/possessions

(if child is age 7-18)

C-2 C-3

Disobeys C-1 C-2

Severe behavior difficulties (past or 

present)

C-2 C-3

Expresses anger by hurting others’ things C-2 C-3

Has been in trouble with police C-2 C-3
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-159

RARELY TO

NEVER SOMETIMES FREQUENTLY

Uses drugs or alcohol C-2 C-3

Jealous of peers/siblings C-1 C-2

Temper tantrums C-1 C-2

Unacceptable showing off C-1 C-2

Sexual activity with others C-3 C-3

ANXIETY

Stomach aches C-2

Nightmares C-1 C-2

Sleeps too deep or has problem waking up C-2 C-2

Anxiety (nervousness) C-1 C-2

Has twitches (eyes, face, etc.) C-2 C-2

Cries C-2

Bites nails C-2

Vomits C-2

Aches and pains C-2

Chews odd/unusual things C-2

Extreme mood swings C-2 C-2

Depressed mood or withdrawal C-2 C-3

Constipation C-2

Diarrhea C-2

Self-imposed unnecessary or excessive 

diets

C-2

Sleepwalking C-2 C-2

Phobias C-2 C-3

General fears C-1 C-2

FIRE HISTORY

Curiosity about fire C-1 C-2

Plays with matches/lighters C-1 C-2 C-3

Plays with fire (singeing, burning) C-1 C-2 C-3

Was concerned when fire got out of 

control

C-3 C-2 C-1

Was proud or boastful regarding fireplay 

or firestart

C-3 C-3

Stares at fire for long periods (fire

fascination)

C-2 C-3

Unusual look on child’s face when he/she 

stares at fire(s)

C-2 C-3

Daydreams or talks about fires C-2 C-3

Fineman, K., (1996). Comprehensive FireRisk Assessment. Published in Poage, Doctor, Day, Rester, Velasquez, Moynihan, Flesher, Cooke, and Marshburn, (1997). 

Colorado Juvenile Firesetter Prevention Program: Training Seminar Vol. I., Denver, CO, Colorado Division of Firesafety Comprehensive Parent FireRisk 

Questionnaire Key Page 3 of 4
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-160

RARELY TO 

NEVER

SOMETIMES FREQUENTLY

Fear of fire C-2 C-1

Other(s) in family set fire(s) (past or 

present)

P-2 P-3

Set occupied structure on fire C-3 C-3

Appropriate reaction to fire(s) he/she set C-3 C-2 C-1

FAMILY

Extensive absences by father P-1 P-2 P-2

Extensive absences by mother P-1 P-2 P-2

Family has moved P-2

Runs away from home C-1 C-2 C-2

Has seen a counselor/therapist C-2 C-2

Other family member has seen a 

counselor/therapist

P-2 P-2

Makes attempts at age appropriate

independence from parents

C-2 C-1 C-1

In trouble at home C-1 C-2

Parent or sibling with serious health

problem

P-2 P-2

Marriage is unhappy P-1 P-2

Mother’s discipline is effective P-2 P-1

Father’s discipline is effective P-2 P-1

Fighting with siblings C-1 C-2

Conflicts in family P-1 P-2

OTHER

Unusual fantasies C-2 C-3

Strange thought patterns C-2 C-3

Bizarre, illogical, or irrational speech C-3 C-3

Out of touch with reality C-3 C-3

Strange quality about child C-2 C-3

Expresses anger by hurting self or

something he/she likes

C-3 C-3

Destroys own property C-2

Was/is in a cult C-2 C-3

Severe depression or withdrawal C-3 C-3

Poor or no eye contact C-2 C-2

Fineman, K., (1996). Comprehensive FireRisk Assessment. Published in Poage, Doctor, Day, Rester, Velasquez, Moynihan, Flesher, Cooke, and Marshburn, (1997). 

Colorado Juvenile Firesetter Prevention Program: Training Seminar Vol. I., Denver, CO, Colorado Division of Firesafety Comprehensive Parent FireRisk 

Questionnaire Key Page 4 of 4
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-161

THE STRUCTURED CATEGORY PROFILE SHEET

COMPREHENSIVE FIRERISK ANALYSIS

Transfer the values from the “TOTAL” line for the family interview, parent questionnaire, and 

the child interview to the table below; add the columns for a “GRAND TOTAL.” Use these 

totals to compute the percentages according to the formula below the table.

C-1 C-2 C-3 P-1 P-2 P-3

Family Interview TOTAL

Parent Questionnaire

TOTAL

Child Interview TOTAL

GRAND TOTAL

Child Risk (Use the values from the Grand Total Line)

%

1 2 3

2 3 = + ++

− − −

− −

C C C

C C

Family Risk (Use the values from the Grand Total Line.)

%

1 2 3

2 3 = + +

+

− − −

− −

P P P

P P

Total Risk (Use the values from the Grand Total Line.)

%

1 1 2 2 3 3

2 2 3 3 = + + + + +

+ + +

− − − − − −

− − − −

C P C P C P

C P C P

Fineman, K., (1996). Comprehensive Fire Risk Assessment. Published in Poage, Doctor, Day, Rester, Velasquez, Moynihan, Flesher, Cooke, and Marshburn, (1997). 

Colorado Juvenile Firesetter Prevention Program: Training Seminar Vol. 1. Denver, CO, Colorado Division of Firesafety Comprehensive FireRisk Analysis 

Page 1 of 1
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-162

This page intentionally left blank.
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-163
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-164
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-165
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-166
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-167
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-168
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-169
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-170
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-171

RELEASE OF LIABILITY

I do hereby release, indemnify, and hold harmless the 

Juvenile Firesetter Intervention Program, all its employees and volunteers against all claims, 

suits, or actions of any kind and nature whatsoever which are brought or which may be brought 

against the Juvenile Firesetter Intervention Program 

for, or as a result of any injuries from, participation in this program.

Parent/Guardian Date/Time

Juvenile Witness
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-172

RELEASE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION

Juvenile’s Name D.O.B. 

Release to/Exchange with:

Name 

Address 

Phone 

Information Requested 

I consent to a release of information to and/or an exchange of information with the

 Youth Firesetting Intervention Program. I understand that this 

consent may include disclosure of material that is protected by state law and/or federal 

regulations applicable to either mental health or drug/alcohol abuse or both.

This form does not authorize re-disclosure of medical information beyond the limits of this 

consent. Where information has been disclosed from records protected by Federal Law for 

drug/alcohol abuse records or by State Law for mental health records, federal requirements 

prohibit further disclosure without the specific written consent of the patient. A general 

authorization for release of medical or other information is not sufficient for these purposes. 

Civil and/or criminal penalties may attach for unauthorized disclosure of drug/alcohol abuse or 

mental health information.

A copy of this Release shall be as valid as the original.

Parent/Guardian Date/Time

Juvenile Witness
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-173

RISK ADVISEMENT

I have been informed that the FEMA/USFA Youth Firesetting Evaluation indicates that my 

child, , has a serious risk of continued involvement with fire 

setting activity.

I have also been informed by the Youth Firesetting Intervention 

Program of the serious risk of injury and property damage that may continue to exist until the 

problem is resolved.
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-174

This page intentionally left blank.
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-175

APPENDIX I

CHILD AND FAMILY RISK SURVEYS (SHORT 

FORM)
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-176

This page intentionally left blank.
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-177

Child and Family Risk Surveys

Description and Instructions

Colorado Juvenile Firesetter Prevention Program

Survey Development

In September 1995, the Colorado Department of Public Safety/Division of Fire Safety was awarded a 

grant to design and test the applicability and effectiveness of the Juvenile Firesetter/Arson Control and 

Prevention Program model for statewide dissemination. Funding for this program was provided by the 

Federal Emergency Management Agency, U.S. Fire Administration (EMW-95-S-4780), under P.L. 103-

254, the Federal Arson Prevention Act of 1994. Also, the Adam and Dorothy Miller Lifesafety Center, 

Inc. (dba Miller Safety Center) was awarded a grant in 1991 to develop a pilot program based upon the 

model produced by the Institute for Social Analysis for the Bureau of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice 

and Delinquency Prevention and the U.S. Fire Administration under Cooperative Agreement #JN-CXK002, “The National Juvenile Justice Firesetter/Arson Control and Prevention Program.”

The Miller Safety Center determined that the fire service needed a risk assessment tool that was accurate 

for predicting future risk of firesetting in juveniles yet offered a reduction in the length of time needed to 

conduct the evaluation. The Colorado Project’s primary objective was to develop a juvenile fire risk 

survey for the fire service. Kenneth Fineman, Ph.D., the primary author of the U.S. Fire Administration’s 

juvenile firesetter evaluation which was first published in the 1970’s and updated throughout the 1980’s, 

offered his most current, unpublished version of this instrument as the basis for the Colorado Project. In 

the fall of 1995, Fineman and members of the Colorado Project (Marion Doctor, LCSW; Joe B. Day;

Larry Marshburn; Kenneth Rester, Jr.; Cheryl Poage; Paul Cooke; Carmen Velasquez; Michael 

Moynihan, Ph.D., and Elise Flesher, Ph.D. candidate), met to revise the juvenile firesetter evaluation so 

that it could be used for research purposes. The result was the Comprehensive Fire Risk Assessment, 

published in the Colorado Juvenile Firesetter Prevention Program. Training Seminar. Volume 1.

In 1998, using the Comprehensive Fire Risk Assessment, Moynihan and Flesher conducted a study to 

develop the Child and Family Risk Surveys. The method and results of this study are reported in detail in 

their research paper (1998) cited in the reference list. From the Comprehensive Fire Risk Assessment, 

Moynihan and Flesher identified a subset of statistically valid questions to comprise the Risk Surveys. 

Hence, the questions on the Risk Surveys are derived directly from the questions on the Comprehensive 

Fire Risk Assessment. The Risk Surveys represent a shortened version of the Comprehensive Fire Risk 

Assessment.

Survey Use

The Child and Family Risk Surveys offer an accurate means to assess the risk of future firesetting in 

juveniles. They are comprised of two sections, the Child Risk Survey (for the juvenile) and the Family 

Risk Survey (for the parent). The Risk Surveys take about thirty minutes to administer. It is recommended 

that the Risk Surveys be conducted in an interview format with the juvenile and at least one parent. The 

Risk Surveys do not release the fire service from the need to properly conduct cause and origin 

investigations, case documentation, obtain proper parental releases to interview a child, network 

community referral resources, and provide intervention education when appropriate.

When using the Risk Surveys, the following procedures are recommended:

• Develop rapport with the family.

• Explain to the juvenile and parents the purpose of the interview.

• Obtain written permission from the parent or legal guardian to conduct the Child Survey.

• Complete all the demographic information.

• First conduct the Family Survey without the child present.
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-178

• If possible, conduct the Child Survey without the parents present in the same room.

• Begin the Child Survey with the Development of Rapport section.

• Ask all the questions exactly as they are written, to conform to the validated protocol.

It is also recommended that both the Family and Child Surveys be conducted. The highest degree of 

accuracy will be achieved if both surveys are used. The Family Survey can be conducted over the phone 

with the child’s parent; however, the Child Survey must be conducted in person and only after the proper 

parental release has been signed. It is also recommended that a fire or police incident report be placed in 

the file whenever possible.

While the questions on the Child and Family Surveys must be asked as they are written, there may be 

circumstances in individual cases where additional information is obtained. Please be sure to write notes 

in the case file regarding any information that is offered during the interview, even if the information is 

not scored.

Survey Scoring

Total the numerical weights assigned to the answers received during the interview. The following table 

shows how the total scores on the Child and Family Surveys correspond to the levels of firesetting risk 

and related methods of intervention.

Risk Level Source Score Intervention

Little Family Survey <429 Education

Little Child Survey <511 Education

Definite Family Survey 429<457 Referral and Education

Definite Child Survey 511<540 Referral and Education

If the Child Risk Score is equal to or greater than 511, but less than 540, and/or the Family Risk Score is 

equal to or greater than 429, but less than 457 consider conducting the Comprehensive Fire Risk 

Evaluation both the child and the parents or refer to a mental health professional.

Extreme Family Survey >457 Referral 

Extreme Child Survey >540 Referral 

There are discretionary areas where it may be advisable to conduct the Comprehensive Fire Risk 

Evaluation initially. The Comprehensive Fire Risk Evaluation is recommended for cases which may 

involve the following factors: 

• When the family is referred by social services, mental health, probation, or in some 

cases, juvenile diversion.

• When a resistant or uncooperative child or parent has been encountered.

References

Moynihan, M. and Flesher, E. Locating a Risk Cut-Off Level Based on Key Variables in the Regression 

Equation. Child Interview. Parent Interview. Boulder, CO: Department of Psychology, University 

of Colorado, 1998.

Poage, C., Doctor, M., Day, J.B., Rester, K., Velasquez, C., Moynihan, M., Flesher, E., Cooke, P., 

Marshburn, L. (1997). Colorado Juvenile Firesetter Prevention Program: Training Seminar. Vol. 

1. Denver, CO: Colorado Division of Firesafety.
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-179

PARTICIPATION RELEASE

The used the screening program developed by the Federal 

Emergency Management Agency and the United States Fire Administration to evaluate the child that has 

been involved in a fire incident or has been referred to the City by a parent or another entity or agency.

The evaluation tries to assess the risk of involvement in future firesetting behavior. To do this, six areas 

describing individual characteristics are evaluated (demographic, physical, cognitive, emotional, 

motivation, and psychiatric).

Based on the results of the evaluation, your child’s tendencies will place him/her in one of the following 

areas of concern:

Little Risk - needs educational intervention

Definite Risk - needs referral for evaluation to a mental health agency or to 

a licensed psychologist or psychiatrist and educational intervention

Extreme Risk - needs immediate referral for evaluation

by a licensed psychologist or psychiatrist

If educational intervention is indicated, the program will offer 

further educational activity for your child.

Depending on the circumstances regarding an individual case, other agencies such as the school your 

child attends, local law enforcement, social services departments, etc. may become involved.

The questions asked in this evaluation may be viewed prior to signing this release upon request.

I, , have read the previous statement and do hereby grant 

permission for my child, , to participate in the 

Intervention Program and hereby authorize to release information regarding my child to such other 

governmental entities and agencies as it may deem appropriate.

Parent/Guardian Date/Time

Juvenile Witness
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-180

This page intentionally left blank.
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-181

COMPREHENSIVE FAMILY FIRERISK INTERVIEW FORM

(Questions to be asked of Parents of Children 3 to 18 Years of Age)

CONTACT FORM DEPT. NAME Inc. Census Tract County

INCIDENT-DATE NO. TIME CR. NO

INCIDENT ADDRESS: Street City ZIP

Multiple Juveniles Y N # Ignition Source: Match Lighter Other Flammable Liquid/Accelerant 

Used

Est. Loss: $ Intentional: Y N Injuries: Y N # Death: Y N #

Hospitalizations: Y N # Describe Injuries/Deaths 

Location of Fire: Outside-Location of Origin Inside/ Inside-Occupied Room of Origin

Referral Source Name: Agency/Address: Phone: 

Caregiver School Law Enforcement Mental Health Fire Service Juvenile Justice

Parent Other/Describe 

Caregiver/Parent Smokes Y N Did the home meet community standards for health/welfare of the child? Y N

Was the child supervised by a person 12 years of age or older at the time of the incident? Y N

Description of Incident and Pertinent Information:

Report by: 

Printed Name Signature

Juvenile Information

Last Name: First Name: M.I. DOB / /

Sex M F Race: White Asian African Am. Native Am. Hispanic Other

Age: Grade in School School Currently Attending 

Soc. Sec. #: - -

Home Address: Phone: 

Adult No. 1 Residing With The Child Adult No. 2 Residing With The Child

Name: Name:

Address: Address: 

Phone: H W Phone: H W 

Employed: Y N Employed: Y N

Marital Status: Married Separated Marital Status: Married Separated

 Divorced Remarried Widowed Divorced Remarried Widowed

Relation to Juvenile: Natural Step Relation to Juvenile: Natural Step

Others Residing With The Child

Name: Relationship: 

Name: Relationship: 

Name: Relationship: 

Name: Relationship: 

Moynihan, Flesher, and Colorado Juvenile Firesetter Prevention Program Staff 06/29/98 Family Risk Survey
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-182

FAMILY RISK SURVEY Date Survey Conducted: 

This Family Risk Survey is designed to be given to parents who have concerns about their child’s fire play or 

firesetting behavior or whose child has set a fire which has come to the attention of a fire department, police agency 

or other community agencies. The Family Risk Survey is intended for use only as a preliminary screening tool and 

should be used with the Child Risk Survey to assess the child’s suitability for fire intervention education or mental 

health referral.

The Family Risk Survey may be administered to parents over the phone or in person. The Child Risk Survey should 

be administered to the child in person and separate from their parents only after the parents or guardians have 

provided written informed consent for the child’s participation in the survey.

Prior to administering the Family Risk Survey, please provide the following incident and demographic information.

I. Incident #: Incident Date: / / Incident Location: CR #: 

Incident Description: 

II. Child’s Last Name: First Name: M.I. D.O.B. / /

Child’s Address:__________________________________________________ Home Phone: 

School Child Attends:______________________________________________ Grade: _________________

III. Name of parent/guardian providing information: 

Address if different from child’s: Work Phone: 

IV. Referral Source if not a fire call (Name/Agency): 

Agency’s Address: Phone: 

V. Interviewer’s Name: Phone: 

Interviewer’s Affiliation: 

Interviewer’s notes and/or comments: 

Moynihan, Flesher, and Colorado Juvenile Firesetter Prevention Program Staff 06/29/98 Family Risk Survey

*Original questions appear in Fineman, (1996), Comprehensive Fire Risk Assessment, Published in the Colorado Juvenile Firesetter Prevention 

Program: Training Seminar Vol. I, (1997).
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-183

FAMILY RISK SURVEY Date Survey Conducted: 

To administer: Ask the question as written, check the response, place the appropriate constant weight in the score 

column, and add the scores to determine the Total Family Risk Score. Please substitute the child’s name in questions 1-5.

Questions* Constant Score

1. If you had to describe (child’s name) curiosity about fire, would you say it was 

absent, mild, moderate, or extreme?

absent 0

mild 99

moderate 198

extreme 297

2. Has (child’s name) been diagnosed with any impulse control conditions, such as 

Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD) or Attention Deficit Disorder with 

Hyperactivity (ADHD)?

yes (Diagnosis) 28

no 0

3. Has (child’s name) been in trouble outside of school for non-fire related 

behavior?

yes (What?) 90

no 0

4. Has (child’s name) ever stolen or shoplifted?

yes 14

no 0

dk/na 0

5. Has (child’s name) ever beat up or hurt others?

yes 14

no 0

dk/na 0

6. Besides this fireplay or firesetting incident, how many other times has your child 

played with fire, including matches or lighters, or set something on fire?

1 (current) 84

2 (current + 1) 168

4 (current + 2-4) 336

6 (current + 5) 504

7. Is there an impulsive (sudden urge) quality to your child’s firesetting or fire play?

yes 71

no 0

dk/na 0

TOTAL FAMILY RISK SCORE

Question (8) is for informational purposes and does not score.

8. Is there a history of emotional, physical, or sexual abuse in the family? Yes No 

Who Relationship Currently in the home 

If there are indications of abuse or neglect, consult with social services or law enforcement immediately

A. The Cut Off Score For Mental Health Referral For the Family Risk Survey Is 457 or Above. If either the Family 

Risk Survey is equal to or greater than 457 and/or the Child Risk Survey is equal to or greater than 540, the child should 

be referred to a mental health professional.

B. If either the Family Risk Score is equal to or greater than, 429, but less than 457 and/or the Child Risk Score is equal to 

or greater 511, but less than 540 consider conducting the comprehensive firesetter risk assessments for both the child 

and the parents or refer to a mental health professional.

C. AN INTERVENTION EDUCATION PROGRAM is appropriate if the Family Risk Score is less than 429 and/or the 

Child Risk Score is less than 511.

Moynihan, Flesher, and Colorado Juvenile Firesetter Prevention Program Staff 06/29/98 Family Risk Survey

*Original questions appear in Fineman, (1996), Comprehensive Fire Risk Assessment, Published in the Colorado Juvenile Firesetter Prevention 

Program: Training Seminar Vol. I, (1997).
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-184

CHILD RISK SURVEY Date Survey Conducted: 

This Child Risk Survey is designed to be given to children (with their parent’s written informed consent) who have 

played with fire or who have set a fire which has come to the attention of a fire department, police agency or other 

community agencies. The Child Risk Survey is intended for use only as a preliminary screening tool and should be 

used with the Family Risk Survey to assess the child’s suitability for fire intervention education or mental health 

referral.

The Family Risk Survey may be administered to parents over the phone or in person. The Child Risk Survey should 

be administered to the child, in person, and separate from their parents only after the parents or guardians have 

provided written informed consent for the child’s participation in the survey.

Prior to administering the Child Risk Survey, please provide the following incident and demographic information if 

it has not already been provided in the Family Risk Survey section.

I. Incident #: Incident Date: / / Incident Location: CR #: 

Incident Description: 

II. Child’s Last Name: First Name: M.I. D.O.B. / /

Child’s Address: Home Phone: 

School Child Attends: Grade: 

III. Name of parent/guardian providing information: 

Address if different from child’s: Work Phone: 

IV. Referral Source if not a fire call (Name/Agency): 

Agency’s Address: Phone: 

V. Surveyor’s Name: Phone: 

Surveyor’s Affiliation: 

Surveyor’s notes and/or comments: 

Moynihan, Flesher, and Colorado Juvenile Firesetter Prevention Program Staff 08/17/98 Child Risk Survey
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-185

CHILD RISK SURVEY Date Survey Conducted: 

INFORMATIONAL ACTIVITY FOR THE CHILD

Have the child draw a picture of the fire or fireplay incident and/or write a paragraph describing why they are in 

your office today while you are conducting the Family Survey with the parents.

DEVELOPMENT OF RAPPORT

The purpose of this section is to make the child comfortable with you. The more at ease you can make him, the 

greater the likelihood that he will answer all of your questions. If the following questions aren’t enough, add your 

own. Questions or language can be modified in the Development of Rapport section only; all other questions 

should be asked as written. This section was developed by Kenneth R. Fineman Ph.D., and is reprinted from 

Comprehensive Fire Risk Assessment as published in the Colorado Juvenile Firesetter Prevention Program: Training 

Seminar Vol. I.

1. [Introduce yourself] I’m What’s your name?

2. How old are you? 

3. What school do you go to? What grade are you in? 

Do you like your school? Are there nice/okay teachers at your school? 

4. What classes/subjects do you like/not like? 

5. What do you do for fun? Do you have hobbies? 

6. Who’s your best friend? 

7. What do you like to play/do with your friend? 

8. What do you watch on TV and/or what videos do you watch? 

9. What is your favorite person/show on TV? 

10. What is your favorite video/computer game? 

11. What do you like about that game? [Is there extreme interest in violence or fire?] 

[When rapport is established, determine level of understanding if the child is under 7 or appears to have problems 

communicating.]

COMPARISON OF THE ORIGINAL AND REVERSE ORDER VERSIONS OF THE INCIDENT

For children age nine and older, consider asking the following prior to proceeding:

Have the child describe their involvement in the incident from some point in time prior to some point in time 

after the incident. At the end of the interview ask the child to repeat this description in reverse order.

The average child whom is at least nine years old should be able to relate incident details in reverse order if the 

original version of his/her account of the incident was truthful. If the order is significantly different in the order.

Moynihan, Flesher, and Colorado Juvenile Firesetter Prevention Program Staff 08/17/98 Child Risk Survey
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-186

CHILD RISK SURVEY Date Survey Conducted:

DETERMINE LEVEL OF UNDERSTANDING (Under 7)

This section was developed by Kenneth R. Fineman, Ph.D., and is reprinted from the 

Comprehensive Fire Risk Assessment as published in the Colorado Juvenile Firesetter 

Prevention Program: Training Seminar Vol. I.

It is often difficult to determine if a young child really understands you. (This section may be 

skipped if you are interviewing an older child). There may be an age barrier, a language barrier, a 

learning problem, or sub-normal intelligence. It is fruitless to go through an entire interview 

unless you are first assured that the child has enough understanding to complete the interview. 

There are several ways to gauge whether you are on the same “wave length” as the child. The 

following are suggested ways to do so:

a. Obtain information from rapport section above:

By paying close attention to the manner in which a young child responds to the 11 

questions above, you can estimate whether he can understand and respond to the other 

questions in this instrument.

b. Using crayons/paper as a tool:

You can ask the child to draw pictures of common objects, his favorite toys, houses, 

trees, and people. Then ask him to describe what he has drawn. Clear explanations of his 

drawings and the action taking place in some of those drawings will tell you something 

about the child’s vocabulary and his ability to understand.

c. Using toys and games:

Have toys of the appropriate developmental level of the child available. Engage the child 

in a game with the toys or allow the child free play with the toys. After a while ask the 

child about the toys and the game he is playing. Inquire about the rules, the purpose, etc. 

Estimate the child’s vocabulary in terms of his ability to complete the interview.

d. Using puppets:

Have hand puppets available. Allow the child to set the interaction, with the child playing 

all parts or with you playing some of the parts. Quiet children can become quite verbal 

with this approach. Focus on the child’s ability to understand your questions during the 

puppet play and determine if this level of communication is sufficient for continued 

interviewing.

If you are satisfied that the child has adequate understanding, proceed with the interview.

Moynihan, Flesher, and Colorado Juvenile Firesetter Prevention Program Staff 08/17/98 Child Risk Survey
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-187

CHILD RISK SURVEY Date Survey Conducted 

To administer: Ask the question as written, check the response, place the appropriate constant weight in the 

score column, and add the scores to determine the Total Child Risk Score.

Questions* Constant Score

1. Do you have any brothers or sisters?

yes 0

no (If no, skip to Q. 3) 0

2. How well do you get along with them?

always get along 28

Score only one 

response, using 

the one with the 

highest risk value.

usually get along 56

sometimes get along 84

don’t get along very often 112

never get along 140

3. How well do you get along with your mother?

always get along 10.5

usually get along 21

sometimes get along 31.5

don’t get along very often 42

never get along 52.5

4. Do you fight or argue with your mother?

never 10.5

rarely 21

sometimes 31.5

usually 42

always 52.5

5. Do you see your father as much as you’d like?

yes 0

no 60

too much 60

6. When you are asked to do something, do you usually do it?

yes 0

no 17.5

7. Do you lie a lot?

yes 17.5

no 0

8. What happens at home when you get in trouble?

grounded physical punishment 0.0

talked/lectured sought outside help 0.0

abused** other/nothing 0.0

yelled at 32

9. Has there been an ongoing (chronic) crisis or problem in your life or in your family?

yes (What?) 62

no 0

Moynihan, Flesher, and Colorado Juvenile Firesetter Prevention Program Staff 06/29/98 Child Risk Survey

*Original questions appear in Fineman, (1996), Comprehensive Fire Risk Assessment, Published in the Colorado Juvenile Firesetter Prevention 

Program: Training Seminar Vol. 1, (1997).
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-188

CHILD RISK SURVEY Date Survey Conducted 

10. Besides this fireplay or firesetting incident, how many other times have you played with fire, including matches 

or lighters, or set something on fire?

1 (current) 32

2 (current +1) 64

4 (current +2-4) 128

6 (current +5) 192

11. What did you do after the fire started?

put it out called for help 0,0

ran away didn’t try to run 0,0

panicked tried to extinguish 0,0

other didn’t try to extinguish 0,0

stayed and watched 40

12. Did you intend to play with fire or set the fire, that is, did you play with or set the fire on purpose?

yes 187

no 0

If the surveyor has evidence of intent, the surveyor may override the youth’s denial

13. Where did you set the fire?

(If any type of structure was involved as a target or a location, 

score:)

47

 0

other 

14. Do you like to look at fire for long periods of time?

yes 250

no 0

TOTAL CHILD RISK SCORE

Question (15) is for informational purposes and does not score.

15. How did you get the ignition source (match/light/other) used in the fire/fireplay?

** If there are indications of abuse or neglect consult with social services or law enforcement immediately.

If the child is at least nine years old, ask the child to repeat, in reverse order, the description of the incident.

How does this compare to the original description?

A. The Cut Off Score For Mental Health Referral For The Child Risk Survey Is 540 or Above. If either the Child Risk 

Survey is equal to or greater than 540 and/or the Family Risk Survey is equal to or greater than 457, the child should be 

referred to a mental health professional.

B. If the Child Risk Score is equal to or greater than 511, but less than 540, and/or the Family Risk Score is equal to or greater 

429, but less than 457 consider conducting the comprehensive firesetter risk assessments for both the child and the parents 

or refer to a mental health professional.

C. AN INTERVENTION EDUCATION PROGRAM is appropriate if the Child Risk Score is less than 511 and/or the 

Family Risk Score is less than 429.

Moynihan, Flesher, and Colorado Juvenile Firesetter Prevention Program Staff 06/29/98 Child Risk Survey

*Original questions appear in Fineman, (1996), Comprehensive Fire Risk Assessment, Published in the Colorado Juvenile Firesetter Prevention 

Program: Training Seminar Vol. 1, (1997).
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-189

RELEASE OF LIABILITY

I do hereby release, indemnify, and hold harmless the 

Youth Firesetting Intervention Program, all its employees and volunteers against all claims, suits, 

or actions of any kind and nature whatsoever which are brought or which may be brought against 

the Youth Firesetting Intervention Program for, or as a result 

of any injuries from, participation in this program.

Parent/Guardian Date/Time

Juvenile Witness
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-190

RELEASE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION

Juvenile’s Name D.O.B. 

Release to/Exchange with:

Name 

Address 

Phone 

Information Requested 

I consent to a release of information to and/or an exchange of information with the 

Youth Firesetting Intervention Program. I understand that this 

consent may include disclosure of material that is protected by state law and/or federal 

regulations applicable to either mental health or drug/alcohol abuse or both.

This form does not authorize re-disclosure of medical information beyond the limits of this 

consent. Where information has been disclosed from records protected by Federal Law for 

drug/alcohol abuse records or by State Law for mental health records, federal requirements 

prohibit further disclosure without the specific written consent of the patient. A general 

authorization for release of medical or other information is not sufficient for these purposes. 

Civil and/or criminal penalties may attach for unauthorized disclosure of drug/alcohol abuse or 

mental health information.

A copy of this Release shall be as valid as the original.

Parent/Guardian Date/Time

Juvenile Witness
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-191

RISK ADVISEMENT

I have been informed that the FEMA/USFA Youth Firesetting Evaluation indicates that my 

child, has a serious risk of continued involvement with fire 

setting activity.

I have also been informed by the Youth Firesetting 

Intervention Program of the serious risk of injury and property damage that may continue to exist 

until the problem is resolved.

I have been advised to seek an evaluation by a licensed psychotherapist or psychiatrist.

Parent/Guardian Date/Time

Witness
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-192

This page intentionally left blank.
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-193

APPENDIX J

OREGON OFFICE OF STATE FIRE MARSHAL 

JUVENILE WITH FIRE SCREENING TOOL
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-194

This page intentionally left blank.
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-195
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-196

This page intentionally left blank.
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-197
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-198
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-199
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-200

This page intentionally left blank.
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-201
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-202
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-203
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-204
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-205
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-206
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-207
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-208

This page intentionally left blank.
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-209
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-210

This page intentionally left blank.
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-211
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-212
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-213
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-214

This page intentionally left blank.
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-215
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-216

This page intentionally left blank.
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-217
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-218

This page intentionally left blank.
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-219
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-220
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-221

APPENDIX K

CONSENT, RELEASE, REFUSAL AND PAYMENT 

ARRANGEMENT FORMS
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-222

This page intentionally left blank.
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-223

JUVENILE FIRE INTERVENTION PROGRAM

Consent for Screening Interview Waiver of Rights and Acknowledgement of NonConfidentiality

I, ____________________________________ and __________________________________

 Child’s name and D.O.B. parent/guardian

Both agree to the following: 

We give our consent to the ______________ Juvenile Fire Intervention Program to be screened 

for suitability for this program, for which we authorize 

_____________________________________ to conduct a screening interview of this child and 

his family to collect information and records pertaining to this child.

______We understand that authorizing the screening of our child for the JFIP does not guarantee 

acceptance in the JFIP, nor can the JFIP guarantee that any specific services it may recommend 

will be provided. 

______We agree to hold the JFIP, its agents and volunteers harmless from any liability or 

damage that may arise from the screening or participation in the JFIP. We understand that 

completion of the educational class does not necessarily prevent our child from future firesetting. 

We understand that fire education is sometimes just a portion of a child’s treatment.

_____We understand that the burning of property may be a criminal offense. We hereby 

understand that the program representatives may report to the appropriate authorities, including 

but not limited to, the District Attorney’s Office, the State Fire Marshal, local fire and police 

departments, and DSS, any information they receive regarding the setting of fires 

by________________ or anyone else.

_____We understand that the _________________ JFIP representatives are mandated by the 

state law to report to DSS any situations where a child is at risk, including neglect and/or any 

form of abuse.

_____We understand that by participating in this program we hereby waive our child’s rights of 

confidentiality regarding evaluation and treatment. We understand that whatever is told an 

interviewer who is part of my treatment program is neither privileged nor private. If any such 

rights of confidentiality exist by statute or rule of law, we hereby waive any and all such rights 

on behalf of our child. 

______________________________________ _________________________________

 signature of child signature of parent/guardian

______________________________________________________

 signature of RVJFIP person/witness
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-224

RELEASE OF LIABILITY

I do hereby release, indemnify, and hold harmless the ________________________________ 

Juvenile Fire Intervention Program, all its employees and volunteers against all claims, suits, or 

actions of any kind and nature whatsoever which are brought or which may be brought against 

the ______________________ Juvenile Fire Intervention Program for, or as a result of any 

injuries from, participation in this program. 

Parent/Guardian Date/Time

Juvenile Witness

______________________ Juvenile Fire Intervention Program
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-225

AUTHORIZATION FOR RELEASE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION

(In the case of a minor child) I, ____________________________________(parent/guardian) 

hereby authorize representatives of the _________________ __ Juvenile Fire Intervention 

Program to obtain records of:

Child’s name:_______________________________ D.O.B. _____________________________

Address:______________________________________________________________________

Phone:__________________________________ Contact person: ________________________

I authorize the following individual or agency: (include name and phone number) 

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________

including records of:

 yes  no family history

 yes  no educational reports

 yes  no alcohol/drug treatment

 yes  no mental health services

 yes  no medical/psychiatric treatment

 yes  no other: ______________________________________

I understand that this release allows the _________________ Juvenile Fire Intervention Program 

to discuss this child’s case with the “triage team” before, during, and at the conclusion of the 

program in order to determine the best form of treatment and follow-up care. I understand the 

“triage team” consists of members of the __________________ JFIP Task Force, including 

mental health clinicians, firefighters, and probation officers, trained to help children with their 

firesetting behaviors. I understand that the “triage team” will maintain confidentiality at all 

times, and not discuss this child’s case with anyone outside of the _____________________

JFIP.

NOTICE: I understand this consent can be revoked at any time except to the extent that disclosure made in 

good faith has already occurred in reliance on this consent. If not previously revoked, this consent will expire 

automatically ninety (90) days from the date signed, or will terminate thirty (30) days after completion of the 

____________________ JFIP program.

I understand that my records are protected by state and local law and cannot be disclosed without my written 

consent except as otherwise specifically provided by law. Furthermore, I understand that if my records 

involve alcohol or drug abuse, they are also protected under Federal Regulation (42 CFR Part 2), 

Confidentiality of Alcohol and Drug Abuse.

The reason for disclosure of information is to facilitate adequate treatment for stated child due to 

firesetting incident(s). I have read carefully, understand the above statements, and do herein 

expressly and voluntarily consent to disclosure of the above information to those 

persons/agencies named above.

_____________________________________________________________________________
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-226

Signature of Parent/Guardian Date

______________________________________________________________________________

Signature of Witness Date
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-227

AGENCY NAME ____________________________________

JUVENILE FIRE INTERVENTION PROGRAM REFUSAL FORM

 I acknowledge that the program offered by the _______________ Juvenile Fire Intervention 

Program was explained to me, and I was given an outline of the program.

 I understand the __________________ JFIP has been established to help educate children 

who have played with fire, and this program educates children about the “dangers of fire and fire 

safety”.

 I acknowledge that the Fire Intervention Program was offered to me and at this time, I do not 

want my child to participate in the program.

 I will not hold any member of the _________________ JFIP liable or responsible for any 

further actions of my child, in regards to play with, or setting fires.

_____________________________________________________________

Signature of parent or guardian date______________

_____________________________________________________________

Witness date______________

City/Town
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-228

JUVENILE FIRE INTERVENTION PROGRAM

PAYMENT CONTRACT

I, __________________________________________________ parent/guardian 

of _____________________________________________(participant), agree to pay

the _____________________ Juvenile Fire Intervention Program the sum of $275.00 for 

attending the education classes. Please make check payable to: ____________________.

I agree to the following:

_____________________________ ____________________________

 Signature parent Signature witness

________________________

 Date
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-229

APPENDIX L

SCARBOROUGH FIRE DEPARTMENT 

STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-230

This page intentionally left blank.
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-231
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-232
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-233
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-234
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-235
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-236

This page intentionally left blank.
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-237
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-238

This page intentionally left blank.
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-239

APPENDIX M

MESQUITE FIRE DEPARTMENT STANDARD 

OPERATING PROCEDURES
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-240

This page intentionally left blank.
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-241
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-242
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-243
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-244
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-245
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-246
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-247
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-248
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-249

APPENDIX N

MONROE FIRE DISTRICT 3 STANDARD 

OPERATING PROCEDURES
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-250

This page intentionally left blank.
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-251
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-252
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-253
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-254
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-255

APPENDIX O

PIERCE COUNTY EXAMPLES
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-256

This page intentionally left blank.
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-257
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-258

This page intentionally left blank.
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-259
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-260
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-261
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-262
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-263
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-264

This page intentionally left blank.
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-265
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-266

This page intentionally left blank.
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-267
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-268
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-269
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-270

This page intentionally left blank.
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-271

APPENDIX P

YFPI PROGRAM BUDGET EXAMPLE
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-272

This page intentionally left blank.
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-273

Example of a YFSPI Program Budget

Object Description Cost Potential Source

Employee Salary FD staff time dedicated 

to YFSPI program

__,000.00 Departmental 

budget

Marketing Materials

– Printed

Brochures _,000.00 Donation from

printing company

Marketing Materials

- Broadcast

Production/Airing for 

PSAs

_,000.00 Donation from 

broadcasting 

company

Training Materials Supplies to support 

training for FD and other 

partner agencies

_,000.00 Task Force agencies 

collaborate to 

provide in-kind 

support

Intervention 

Services

Intervention Services 

(education, clinical, 

social services and 

justice system)

Each agency 

estimates the 

value of staff 

time invested 

into the 

program 

annually

Task Force agencies 

collaborate to 

provide in-kind 

support

Program Delivery 

Materials

Office supplies, copying, 

computer/software 

purchase, vehicle fuel, 

program materials, etc.

__,000.00 Combination of 

departmental 

budget, task force 

support and in-kind 

contributions

Total projected 

annual budget:

__,000.00

This is just one example of how a YFSPI program budget may appear. The important point is 

that all YFSPI programs should have a dedicated budget. Each YFSPI program should develop 

their own format based upon the local program needs.
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-274

This page intentionally left blank.
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-275

APPENDIX Q

PUBLIC AND PRIVATE SUPPORT FOR YOUTH 

FIRESETTING PROGRAMS
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-276

This page intentionally left blank.
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-277

The following is a partial list of national, State, and local organizations that have a stake in 

supporting the efforts of youth firesetting programs. Many of these organizations can offer 

different types of help to youth firesetting programs, including training workshops, data 

collection, in-kind contributions, public awareness support, contracts, and grants.

NATIONAL SUPPORT

Public Sector

• American Red Cross – www.redcross.org;

• Arson Alarm Foundation – www.arsonalarm.org;

• Guidestar – www.guidestar.org; 

• Home Safety Council (The) – www.homesafetycouncil.org;

• Idea Bank (The) – www.theideabank.com;

• International Association of Arson Investigators – www.firearson.com;

• International Association of Black Professional Fire Fighters – www.iabpff.org;

• International Association of Chiefs of Police – www.theiacp.org;

• International Association of Fire Chiefs – www.iafc.org;

• International Association of Fire Fighters – www.iaff.org; 

• National Association of State Fire Marshals – www.firemarshals.org; 

• National Association of Town Watch – www.nationaltownwatch.org;

• National Crime Prevention Council – www.ncpc.org; 

• National Education Association – www.nea.org; 

• National Fire Academy (NFA) - www.usfa.dhs.gov/nfa;

• National SAFE KID’s Coalition – www.safekids.org; 

• National Sheriff’s Association – www.sheriffs.org;

• National Volunteer Fire Council – www.nvfc.org; 

• Shriners Burn Institutes – www.shrinershq.org; 

• SOS Fires – www.sosfires.com; 

• United States Fire Administration (USFA) – www.usfa.dhs.gov; 

• United Way – www.national.unitedway.org

National Nonprofit Foundations 

(awarding grants to programs for at-risk youth)

• Carnegie Corporation of New York

437 Madison Avenue

New York, NY 10022

(212) 371-3200

www.carnegie.org
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-278

• John S. and James L. Knight Foundation

Wachovia Financial Center, Suite 3300

200 South Biscayne Blvd.

Miami, FL 33131-2349

(305) 908-2600

www.knightfdn.org

• Lilly Endowment, Inc.

2801 N. Meridan St.

Indianapolis, Indiana 46208-0068

(317) 924-5471

• Open Society Institute

Center on Crime, Communities and Culture

400 W. 59th St.

New York, New York 10019

(212) 548-0600

www.soros.org/crime/

• Robert Sterling Clark Foundation, Inc.

135 E. 64th St.

New York, New York 10021

(212) 288-8900

www.rsclark.org

• The George Gund Foundation

1845 Guildhall Bldg.

45 Prospect Ave., W

Cleveland, Ohio 44115

(216) 241-3114

www.gundfdn.org
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-279

• W.K. Kellogg Foundation

1 East Michigan Avenue

Battle Creek, Michigan 49107-4012

(269) 968-1611

www.wkkf.org

• Liberty Mutual Insurance Company

175 Berkeley Street

Boston, MA 02116

www.befiresmart.com

www.libertymutual.com

Private Sector

• Aetna Life and Casualty

• Allstate Insurance Company

• Children’s Television Workshop

• Factory Mutual Insurance Company

• Insurance Committee for Arson Control

• Insurance Information Institute

• Laborers International Union

• National Fire Protection Association (NFPA)

• State Farm Insurance Company

• The Idea Bank

• Walt Disney Enterprises
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-280

State and Local Support

Public Sector--Community Organizations

• Children’s hospitals and burn units

• Health and social services

• Members of the television, radio, and print media

• Parks and recreation

• Red Cross, local chapters

• Service clubs, such as the Freemasons, Lions Clubs, and Elks Clubs

• Youth organizations, such as the Boys’ and Girls’ Clubs, Boy Scouts/Girl Scouts, 

YWCA, and YMCA

Public Sector--Education

• Head Start

• Parent-Teacher Associations (PTA’s)

• Parent-Teacher Organizations (PTO’s)

• Preschool and daycare providers

• School boards

• Special education

Public Sector--State and Local Officials

• Board of Supervisors or City Council

• Mayor’s Office

• National Governor’s Association

• National League of Cities

• Office of State House/Assembly Representatives
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SM 2-281

• Office of State Senators

• Regional Governor’s Association

• State Fire Academies

• State Fire Marshal’s Office

Public Sector

• Automobile clubs and associations

• Chambers of Commerce

• Local branches of insurance companies

• Merchants associations

• Private daycare, preschool, elementary, middle, and high schools
This page intentionally left blank.
YOUTH FIRESETTER PROGRAM MANAGER

UNIT 3:

PROGRAM EVALUATION

TERMINAL OBJECTIVE

The students will be able to:

3.1 Demonstrate how to evaluate a Youth Firesetting Prevention and Intervention (YFPI) program.

ENABLING OBJECTIVES

The students will be able to:

3.1 Articulate why evaluation is an integral component of a YFPI program.

3.2 Define the three stages of program development.

3.3 Analyze the four stages of program evaluation.

3.4 Demonstrate how to use the stages of program evaluation to measure the development, implementation and 

operation of their YFPI program.
PROGRAM EVALUATION

SM 3-2

This page intentionally left blank.
PROGRAM EVALUATION

SM 3-3

UNIT 3:

PROGRAM EVALUATION

Slide 3-1

ENABLING OBJECTIVES

• Articulate why evaluation is an integral 

component of a Youth Firesetting 

Prevention and Intervention (YFPI) 

program.

• Define the three stages of program 

development.

• Analyze the four stages of program 

evaluation.

Slide 3-2

• Demonstrate how to use the stages of 

program evaluation to measure the 

development, implementation and 

operation of their YFPI program.

Slide 3-3

ENABLING OBJECTIVES (cont’d)
PROGRAM EVALUATION

SM 3-4

I. PURPOSE OF EVALUATING A YOUTH FIRESETTING PREVENTION AND 

INTERVENTION PROGRAM

• Program evaluation determines if program 

components are:

– Appropriate.

– Adequate.

– Effective.

– Efficient.

Slide 3-4

PURPOSE OF EVALUATING A 

YFPI PROGRAM

A. Evaluation of a Youth Firesetting Prevention and Intervention (YFPI) program.

1. Determines whether the program or aspects of the program are:

a. Appropriate.

b. Adequate.

c. Effective.

d. Efficient.

2. Is our road map for:

a. Program planning.

b. Good management practice.

c. Informed decisions.

B. Evaluation can provide information to support decision-making pertinent to the 

management of a YFPI program.

C. Program evaluation can provide essential information for performance planning 

and assessment.
PROGRAM EVALUATION

SM 3-5

Slide 3-5

What can a well thought-out 

and executed program 

evaluation do for a YFPI 

program?

D. A well thought-out and executed program evaluation can be used to:

1. Communicate program strategy and value.

2. Describe the impact of services on the community, especially target 

groups.

3. Promote services in the community.

4. Decide how to fund and allocate (or reallocate program resources) to best 

achieve program outcomes.

5. Eliminate activities that have proven ineffective and drop components that 

are not cost-effective.

6. Revise program goals, objectives and strategies.

7. Revise objectives to make them more realistic.

8. Target new or different audiences and allies.

9. Modify, refine or redesign an activity or program.

10. Identify whether to modify or make timely adjustments to the program 

design or implementation to improve the rate of program achievement 

relative to the resources committed.

11. Decide how best to improve program operations (e.g., add new 

technology, increase efficiency of operations via streamlining, refining or 

redesigning).

12. Decide whether to continue the program or specific program elements.
PROGRAM EVALUATION

SM 3-6

Slide 3-6

PURPOSE OF EVALUATING A 

YFPI PROGRAM (cont’d)

• Plan to evaluate.

– Planning/Evaluation done in tandem.

– Start when program idea is conceived.

– Continue evaluation throughout program.

– National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 

Standard 1035, Standard on Fire and Life 

Safety Educator, Public Information Officer, 

Youth Firesetter Intervention Specialist and 

Youth Firesetter Program Manager 

Professional Qualifications.

II. SUGGESTIONS FOR CONDUCTING PROGRAM EVALUATION

• Suggestions on evaluation:

– Base evaluation on goals and objectives.

– Identify information to be collected.

– Select suitable methods for data collection.

– Design collection instruments.

– Collect and evaluate data.

– Share results; modify program as needed.

Slide 3-7

SUGGESTIONS FOR CONDUCTING 

PROGRAM EVALUATION

A. Define the evaluation based on the YFPI program’s goals and objectives.

B. Identify the types of information to be collected.

C. Choose suitable methods for collecting the information.

D. Design instruments to collect information.

E. Collect and analyze information.

F. Analyze and interpret findings of the evaluation.

G. Communicate results.

H. Implement changes.
PROGRAM EVALUATION

SM 3-7

What are potential challenges 

to performing evaluation?

Slide 3-8

III. CHALLENGES TO PROGRAM EVALUATION

A. A long-standing challenge to our industry has been a tendency to develop and 

operate prevention programs without consideration of how they will be evaluated.

B. YFPI programs are not immune from this challenge.

C. Failure to properly evaluate a YFPI program can lead to misdirected resources 

and a lack of program effectiveness.

D. Practical problems in conducting evaluations of YFPI and community riskreduction programs in general:

1. Limited amounts of data (small numbers).

2. Rare occurrences of specific events.

3. Inaccurate collection or processing of data.

4. Limited time frame to collect data.

5. Community mobility (people move a lot).

6. Limited resources (time/money).

7. Lack of confidence or trained people.
PROGRAM EVALUATION

SM 3-8

IV. LIFECYCLE OF A PREVENTION PROGRAM

• Lifecycle:

– Planning.

– Implementation.

– Effects.

Slide 3-9

LIFECYCLE OF A PREVENTION 

PROGRAM

A. Prevention programs (including YFPI programs) mature and change over time. A 

program’s stage of development reflects its maturity.

B. There are three stages of program development:

1. Planning.

a. Program activities are untested at this stage.

b. The goal of evaluation at this stage is to create and refine plans.

2. Implementation.

a. Program activities are being field-tested and modified. 

b. The goal of evaluation at this stage is to:

- Characterize real-world, as opposed to ideal, program 

activities.

- To improve operations, perhaps by revising plans.

3. Effects.

a. Enough time has passed for the program’s effects to emerge. 

b. The goal of evaluation is to identify and account for both intended 

and unintended effects of a program.
PROGRAM EVALUATION

SM 3-9

V. FOUR STAGES OF PROGRAM EVALUATION

• Four stages of program evaluation:

– Formative — planning and implementation.

– Process — program activity and outreach.

– Impact — intermediate changes.

– Outcome — long-term results.

Slide 3-10

STAGES OF PROGRAM 

EVALUATION

There are four stages of program evaluation. Each has its own purpose and value in 

assessing a program.

A. Formative stage — conducted during the planning and implementation stages of a 

program or when an existing program is having difficulties.

B. Process stage — performed once the program has been implemented and showing 

signs of activity/outreach into the community.

C. Impact stage — conducted during the intermediate stages of a program to measure 

if the program is helping to increase knowledge levels, change behaviors or 

modify living environments/lifestyles.

D. Outcome stage — done over the long term to measure if a program has reduced 

incidents, saved lives/property, or improved the quality of life in a community.

Slide 3-11
PROGRAM EVALUATION

SM 3-10

Learning

• Awareness

• Knowledge

• Attitudes

• Beliefs

• Behaviors

Community

analysis

Target

Populations

Materials 

development, 

Focus groups, 

Training, Pilot 

testing

Goals 

Objectives

Interventions

Resources

Budget

Activities

• Presentations

• Classroom 

instruction

• Skills training

• Inspections

• Home surveys

• Meetings

Action

• Behavior 

change

• Environmental 

change

• Policy/

Legislation/

Adoption/

Enforcement

• Correction of 

hazards

• Change in 

practice

• Decisionmaking

Condition

• Death

• Injuries

• Responses

• Loss reduction

• Quality of life

• Social

• Environmental

• Civic

• Political

• Cultural

• Economic

Formative evaluation

Planning

Process evaluation

Implementation

Impact evaluation

Effects

Outcome evaluation

VI. STAGES OF EVALUATION

• Formative evaluation.

– Development of new program.

– Existing program being modified.

– Problems with existing program.

– Program used in new setting/population.

– Program targeting new problem or behavior. 

Slide 3-12

STAGES OF EVALUATION

A. Stage 1: Formative evaluation.

1. Used:

a. During the development of a new program.
PROGRAM EVALUATION

SM 3-11

b. When an existing program is being modified or has problems with 

no obvious solutions.

c. When a program is used in a new setting with a new population.

d. When a program is targeting a new problem or behavior.

2. Main purpose is to strengthen or improve the development/delivery of a 

program.

Unfortunately, formative evaluation is a step often overlooked or 

underused by program developers.

3. With respect to a new program, formative evaluation allows programs to 

make revisions before the full effort begins, thereby maximizing the 

likelihood that the program will succeed.

Slide 3-13

• Questions to answer — formative 

evaluation:

– Does program seek to impact a risk issue 

identified through objective analysis of 

accurate data?

– Do you have the correct stakeholders 

involved?

– What do stakeholders know about the risk 

issue?

STAGES OF EVALUATION 

(cont’d)

4. The following are questions to answer during the formative evaluation 

stage for a new program.

a. Address local needs: Does the program seek to impact a local risk 

issue that has been identified through objective analysis of accurate 

data?

b. Appropriate stakeholders: Are people/groups who have a vested 

interest in the risk issue involved in the program planning process?

c. Knowledge levels: What do stakeholders know about the risk 

being addressed by the program?
PROGRAM EVALUATION

SM 3-12

Slide 3-14

– When is the best time to introduce program?

– Are proposed plans realistic?

– Are time frames realistic?

– Do you have adequate resources?

– Do resources support program’s goals/ 

objectives?

STAGES OF EVALUATION 

(cont’d)

d. Introduction: When is the best time to introduce the program or 

modification to the target population?

e. Plans and strategies: Are the proposed plans/strategies realistic and 

likely to succeed? Are time frames for development and 

implementation present and realistic?

f. Resources: Are adequate resources (time, people, money) available 

to develop, implement and sustain the program? Do resources 

support the goals and objectives of the program?

Slide 3-15

– Are implementation plans feasible?

– Has market research been done on target 

groups?

– What are your best strategies to reach 

groups?

– Are program activities suitable for target 

groups?

STAGES OF EVALUATION 

(cont’d)

g. Methods for implementing program: Are the proposed methods for 

implementing program plans, strategies and evaluations feasible, 

appropriate and likely to be effective?
PROGRAM EVALUATION

SM 3-13

h. Ability to reach target populations with market research: How do 

people in the target population get information? What are the best 

mediums for communication? (Is it television, newspaper, radio, 

Internet, word of mouth or a combination of sources?)

i. Program activities: Are the proposed activities suitable for the 

target population?

- That is, are they current, meaningful, barrier-free, culturally 

sensitive and related to the desired outcome? For example, 

is the literacy level appropriate?

Slide 3-16

– Are program scheduling and locations 

appropriate?

– Are staff members comfortable with their 

roles?

– Are there beliefs that may work against 

program?

STAGES OF EVALUATION 

(cont’d)

j. Logistics: Are program scheduling and locations appropriate?

- For example, would scheduling program hours during the 

normal workday make it difficult for some people in the 

target population to use the program?

k. Acceptance by program personnel: Is the program consistent with 

the staff’s values? Are all staff members comfortable with the roles 

they have been assigned?

- For example, are they willing to learn what to do if a parent 

shows up at a firehouse stating that their child is 

experimenting with fire in the home? Has the staff been 

adequately trained to perform their prospective duties?

l. Barriers to success: Are there beliefs among the target population

that work against the program?

- For example, do some people believe that it is a natural 

phase of growth for children to experiment with fire?
PROGRAM EVALUATION

SM 3-14

Slide 3-17

• Who you ask to participate in formative 

evaluation depends on the evaluation’s 

purpose.

• If pilot testing materials for a new program, 

ask people from target population to 

participate.

• When exploring customer satisfaction, or 

problems, ask those who your program 

has served.

STAGES OF EVALUATION 

(cont’d)

5. Who you ask to participate in formative evaluation depends on the 

evaluation’s purpose.

a. For example, if you are pilot testing materials for a new program, 

select people or households at random from the target population 

who share characteristics of the proposed target populations.

b. If you want to know the level of consumer satisfaction with your 

program, select evaluation participants from people or households 

who have already been served by your program.

c. If you want to know why fewer people than expected are taking 

advantage of your program, select evaluation participants from 

among people or households in the target population who did not

respond to your messages.

What can be done with the 

results of a formative 

evaluation?

Slide 3-18

6. How to use results of formative evaluation.
PROGRAM EVALUATION

SM 3-15

a. Well-designed formative evaluation shows which aspects of your 

program are likely to succeed and which need improvement.

b. It should also show how problem areas can be improved.

c. It can be used to modify the program’s plans, materials, strategies 

and activities to reflect the information gathered during formative 

evaluation.

Slide 3-19

• Formative evaluation is an ongoing 

process.

– Continues throughout life of program.

– Create mechanisms to obtain feedback.

STAGES OF EVALUATION 

(cont’d)

7. Formative evaluation is a dynamic ongoing process. 

a. Even after the prevention program has begun, formative evaluation 

should continue.

b. The evaluator must create mechanisms (e.g., customer satisfaction 

forms to be completed by program participants) that continually 

provide feedback to program management from participants, staff, 

supervisors and anyone else involved in the program.

Slide 3-20

• Process evaluation.

– Is program being delivered as intended?

– How well is program being delivered?

– Are outreach projections being met?

– Unexpected results or problems?

STAGES OF EVALUATION 

(cont’d)
PROGRAM EVALUATION

SM 3-16

B. Stage 2: Process evaluation.

1. Should answer the following question: Is the program being delivered as 

intended?

a. This is a very important question to answer because even the bestdesigned program may not produce intended results if it is not 

delivered properly.

b. The methods for tracking process evaluation (forms, surveys, 

databases, etc.) should be designed during the formative stage of a 

program’s development.

2. Often referred to as “program monitoring.” This begins as soon as the 

program is put into action and continues throughout the life of the 

program.

3. Process evaluation examines how well a program is being delivered.

a. Identifies when and where programs occur.

b. Identifies who delivered services and how well they did.

c. Examines how well the program is reaching its intended target 

populations.

4. Keeping track of the following information is considered process 

evaluation.

a. Program activity level, such as:

- Training sessions for staff.

- Meetings to organize program outreach.

- Materials purchased for program.

- Number of programs presented.

- Locations of presentations.

- Number of people who attended presentations.

- Number of materials distributed.

- Number of home surveys conducted.
PROGRAM EVALUATION

SM 3-17

b. Program/Staff performance levels, such as:

- Participant satisfaction with program.

- Performance of staff who deliver programs.

Slide 3-21

– Useful because it can help identify problems 

early.

– Adjustments can be made to program before 

weaknesses become entrenched.

– Can help set up a pattern for ascending levels 

of program success.

STAGES OF EVALUATION 

(cont’d)

5. Process evaluation is useful because it identifies early on any problems 

that are occurring in reaching the target population.

a. Allows programs to evaluate how well their plans, procedures, 

activities and materials are working and to make adjustments 

before logistical or administrative weaknesses become entrenched.

b. Allows one to understand why a program may or may not have 

influenced short- or long-term changes.

c. For example, poor attendance may explain why a well-designed 

educational activity did not influence a target group’s knowledge.

d. If process evaluation identifies unexpected problems with a 

program, especially if it shows you are not reaching as many 

people in the target population as you expected to, conduct 

additional formative evaluation to figure out why.

6. Done well, the process stage of evaluation sets up a pattern for ascending 

levels of program success.

Much of the information gathered during the process stage will be used as 

a foundation for impact and outcome evaluation when you will be 

calculating the effect your program has had on the target population.
PROGRAM EVALUATION

SM 3-18

7. Some components of process evaluation are similar to those performed in 

a program’s formative stage of development.

8. The main point to remember is to start evaluating the minute you begin 

thinking about a program and keep doing it throughout its lifespan.

Slide 3-22

• Impact evaluation.

– Is program meeting intermediate goals?

– Knowledge gained?

– Behavioral change?

– Modification of environments/lifestyles?

STAGES OF EVALUATION 

(cont’d)

C. Stage 3: Impact evaluation.

1. Impact evaluation reveals the degree to which a program is meeting its 

intermediate goals. It measures two important levels of performance: 

learning and action.

a. Learning.

Did the program influence any of the following among the target 

population?

- Awareness.

- Knowledge levels.

- Attitudes and/or beliefs.

- Skill levels.

- Action.

b. Did the program change any of the following?

- Target population behavior or lifestyle change.

- Change within a targeted physical environment.
PROGRAM EVALUATION

SM 3-19

- Public policy, legislation, adoption or enforcement.

- Hazard reduction.

- Change in practice.

- Decision-making process.

Slide 3-23

– Often least used but most important stage.

– Requires baseline measurements.

– Usually uses some type of assessment 

instrument.

STAGES OF EVALUATION 

(cont’d)

2. It is often the least used, but the most important stage of evaluation.

A major contributing factor to its lack of use is that impact evaluation 

requires time, skill, planning and effort.

3. Requires that baseline measurements are taken before the program is 

delivered and after it has been completed.

4. Compares conditions that existed before a program was delivered to those 

present after it was completed.

5. Impact evaluation mechanisms should be designed during the 

development phases of a program.

Knowledge, attitudes and beliefs are almost always measured by some 

type of assessment instrument.

a. The instrument could be a test, survey or questionnaire.

b. Evaluators might also observe group discussions to watch and 

listen for signs of change among participants’ knowledge, attitudes 

or beliefs.
PROGRAM EVALUATION

SM 3-20

c. Physical, environmental and lifestyle changes are usually assessed 

by direct observation. 

- For example, an observer might check to see that smoke 

alarms are installed appropriately or that adults are keeping 

ignition tools from being accessed by children.

6. Conducting impact evaluation is important because it allows management 

to modify materials or move resources from a nonproductive to a 

productive area of program.

7. If the results of impact evaluation are positive, they can be used to justify 

continuing a program.

8. If the results are negative, they can help justify revising or discontinuing a 

program.

9. In addition to providing tangible evidence to evaluators, impact data can 

be used to show stakeholders and potential funders that a program is 

working.

10. In the case of a program experiencing challenges, impact evaluation can 

be used to help justify support for adjustments.

Slide 3-24

• Outcome evaluation.

– Measures changes over long term.

– Reduction of incidents, losses.

– Anecdotal evidence/testimony.

– Quality of life improvements.

STAGES OF EVALUATION 

(cont’d)

D. Stage 4: Outcome evaluation.

1. Demonstrates the degree to which the program has met its ultimate goals.

2. Measures change over an extended period of time within the community.

3. Outcome evaluation seeks to provide:
PROGRAM EVALUATION

SM 3-21

a. Statistical proof that the risk-reduction program is reducing risk in 

the specified areas. Program success is proven by a reduction of 

deaths, injuries, property and medical costs in the target area.

b. Valid anecdotal proof (such as personal testimonials) that verify 

outcomes. Anecdotal proof is used frequently to measure outcome 

of social-oriented risk-reduction initiatives.

c. In some circumstances, outcome can be demonstrated by 

improvement in the target population’s health and quality of life.

d. Cultural change can be a measurement of outcome because it often 

leads to sustained levels of behavioral change.

Slide 3-25

• Both impact and outcome evaluation 

require baseline measurements of existing 

conditions before a program is 

implemented. Why?

STAGES OF EVALUATION 

(cont’d)

4. Just like impact evaluation, measuring outcome requires baseline data 

about conditions that exist prior to the start of a program, initiative or 

strategy.

a. It is difficult at best and often impossible to prove outcome unless 

baseline data is in place.

b. This is especially true when attempting to measure changes in 

morbidity, mortality, and economic and social conditions.

5. When seeking to perform outcome evaluation on a specific program, the 

following strategy is recommended:

a. Outcome evaluation should be used for ongoing programs (e.g., 

YFPI program) at appropriate intervals throughout the program’s 

offerings.
PROGRAM EVALUATION

SM 3-22

b. For ongoing programs (e.g., a series of fire safety classes given 

each year in elementary schools), conduct outcome evaluation as 

soon as enough people or households have participated in the 

program to make outcome evaluation results meaningful.

c. Depending on the extent of your youth firesetting problem (and the 

number of programs you deliver), you could conduct outcome 

evaluation, for example, every year, every three years or every five 

years to find out how well the program’s effects are sustained over 

time.

6. Preparation for outcome evaluation begins when the program is being 

designed.

The type of data (and their sources) must be considered carefully. To be 

considered reliable, data must be collected from valid sources in a 

systematic, unbiased manner.

7. In general, measuring changes in morbidity (injuries) and mortality 

(deaths) is not so easy.

a. For example, you can measure the change in helmet-wearing 

behavior of children who participated in a safety training class

soon after the class is over.

b. Measuring the reduction in morbidity and mortality as a result of 

those same children’s change in behavior is more difficult, and 

results take much longer to appear.

c. Documenting changes in morbidity and mortality that are a direct 

result of a program to reduce most unintentional injuries requires a 

vastly larger study population than does documenting changes in 

attitudes, beliefs and behaviors.

d. In addition to a large study population, documenting changes in 

morbidity and mortality requires a long-term study, which can be 

time-consuming.

8. You can use positive results of outcome evaluation as even stronger 

evidence than the results of impact evaluation to justify continued funding 

for your program.
PROGRAM EVALUATION

SM 3-23

Feature Measure Type of Evaluation Examples of Evaluation Measures

Instruments and 

Methods to 

Measure Change

1. End result Outcome Number of deaths, injuries, dollar loss, number of 

calls

Injury/Loss statistics

Saves attributed to program Anecdotes

2. Public policy Impact Passage of legislation ordinances and codes Legislation

3. Behavior Impact Percent of parents who have isolated fire tools in 

their home

Observational survey

Percent of adolescents who can state the penalties 

of repeat firesetting

Questionnaire

Children who can do stop, drop and roll Skill testing

4. Environment Impact Percent of homes with updated smoke alarm 

protection 

Home visit

5. Knowledge Impact Percent of public that knows how to maintain 

smoke alarms

Pretest/Post-test

self-report survey

6. Extent of program Process Percent of public receiving prevention materials Calculating number of 

people attending 

presentations

7. Appeal and usage Formative Percentage of teachers who think materials meet 

state objectives and use them

Pilot testing of forms, 

questionnaire, 

personal interviews, 

focus groups

8. Institutional change Formative Introduction of safety curriculum Letter of agreement, 

adoption of 

curriculum

Funding for programs Budget

Forming/Joining coalition Minutes of meeting

EVALUATION MEASURES FOR COMMUNITY RISK REDUCTION

Slide 3-26
PROGRAM EVALUATION

SM 3-24

Evaluation Measures

Feature 

Measure

Type of 

Evaluation

Examples of 

Evaluation 

Measures

Instruments and 

Methods to 

Measure Change

1. End result Outcome Number of deaths, 

injuries, dollar loss, 

number of calls

Injury/Loss statistics

Saves attributed to 

program

Anecdotes

2. Public policy Impact Passage of legislation 

ordinances and codes

Legislation

3. Behavior Impact Percent of parents 

who have isolated fire 

tools in their home

Observational survey

Percent of adolescents 

who can state the 

penalties of repeat 

firesetting

Questionnaire

Children who can do 

stop, drop and roll

Skill testing

4. Environment Impact Percent of homes with 

updated smoke alarm 

protection 

Home visit

5. Knowledge Impact Percent of public that 

knows how to 

maintain smoke 

alarms

Pretest/Post-test

self-report survey

6. Extent of 

program

Process Percent of public 

receiving prevention 

materials

Calculating number of 

people attending 

presentations

7. Appeal and 

usage

Formative Percentage of teachers 

who think materials 

meet state objectives 

and use them

Pilot testing of forms, 

questionnaire, 

personal interviews, 

focus groups

8. Institutional 

change

Formative Introduction of safety 

curriculum

Letter of agreement, 

adoption of 

curriculum

Funding for programs Budget

Forming/Joining task 

force

Minutes of meeting
PROGRAM EVALUATION

SM 3-25

VII. WHAT IS AN EVALUATION PLAN?

Slide 3-27

• Describes in precise, measurable terms 

how a program is to be developed, 

implemented, operated and monitored.

• Includes desired levels of outreach, impact 

and outcome.

• The foundation of an evaluation plan is its 

goals and objectives.

WHAT IS AN EVALUATION 

PLAN?

A. The evaluation process should begin when the idea for creating a program is 

conceived. Evaluation should continue throughout the lifespan of the program.

B. An evaluation plan describes in precise, measurable terms how a prevention 

program is to be developed, implemented, operated and monitored.

It also describes the intended levels of outreach, impact and outcome that the 

program seeks to achieve.

C. The foundation of an evaluation plan is its goals and objectives.

Slide 3-28

What is the difference between 

goals and objectives?
PROGRAM EVALUATION

SM 3-26

Slide 3-29

• Goals.

– Overall statement of what program seeks to 

accomplish.

– Broad and general statement.

– Summarized expected results/outcomes.

WHAT IS AN EVALUATION 

PLAN? (cont’d)

1. Goals.

a. Without clear goals and well developed objectives, it is virtually 

impossible to assess and evaluate where we are making a 

difference in community risk reduction. 

b. A goal is a statement that overall explains what the program seeks 

to accomplish. It sets the fundamental, long-range direction of the 

program.

c. Typically, goals are broad, general statements. A goal summarizes 

expected results and outcomes rather than program methods and 

activities.

Slide 3-30

• Objectives.

– Concise statement of desired outcome.

– Challenging but achievable.

– What’s to be done, how, by whom, and to 

what degree.

WHAT IS AN EVALUATION 

PLAN? (cont’d)

2. Objectives.

a. Without objectives, the fundamental components of the program 

cannot be developed (i.e., specific interventions).
PROGRAM EVALUATION

SM 3-27

b. An objective is a concise statement of the desired product of the 

risk-reduction initiative.

c. Provide realistic steps to attain goal.

d. Good objectives are challenging but achievable.

e. Must relate to the mission of the organization and the goals of the 

governing authority.

f. Focus on what’s to be done and how to do it.

g. Objectives are tied to what we want to measure and evaluate. What 

do we want to know about our program?

Slide 3-31

• SMART objectives:

– Specific — what will be done and with or for 

whom.

– Measurable — quantifiable with baseline.

– Achievable — time frame/climate/resources.

– Relevant — scope/logical/support mission.

– Timeframed — when it will be achieved.

WHAT IS AN EVALUATION 

PLAN? (cont’d)

D. SMART objectives refer to an acronym designed around the five leading 

indicators of a solid program.

1. Specific: What precisely is going to be done, and with or for whom?

a. The program states a specific outcome or a precise objective to be 

accomplished in concrete terms.

b. The outcome is clearly defined in numbers, percentages, 

frequency, etc. The objective is defined clearly.

c. An action is described. The verb is important, especially in process 

objectives.

d. Verbs such as “provide”, “train”, “publish”, “purchase” or 

“schedule” indicate clearly what will be done. Verbs like 

“partner”, “support”, “facilitate” and “enhance” are vague.
PROGRAM EVALUATION

SM 3-28

e. Action may be described by something completed such as a code 

adopted or by the amount of injuries or fires reduced (e.g., 50 

percent reduction in occurrence).

2. Measurable: Is it quantifiable, and can it be measured?

a. The objective can be measured and the measurement source is 

identified.

b. Collection of the data is feasible for your program or partners.

c. Baseline data is basic information that must be identified before a 

program begins so that impact and outcome can be measured.

d. A baseline measurement is required to document change (e.g., to 

measure percentage increase or decrease).

e. If the baseline is unknown, indicate in the objective as “baseline to 

be determined” with the source and year.

f. All activities should be measurable at some level.

3. Achievable: Can we get it done in the proposed time frame/in this political 

climate/for this amount of money/with resources and support available?

a. The objective or expectation of what will be accomplished must be 

realistic given the time period, resources allocated, and political 

and economic conditions.

b. The objective should not only be achievable but challenging as 

well.

4. Relevant: Will the objective have an effect on the desired goal or strategy?

a. Does it address the scope of the problem and propose reasonable 

programmatic steps?

b. The outcome or results of the program directly support the mission 

of the agency’s long-range plan or goal.

5. Timeframed: When will the objective be achieved?

a. A specified and reasonable time frame should be incorporated into 

the objective.

b. Take into consideration the environment where the change is 

expected, the scope of the change, and how it fits into the work 

plan.
PROGRAM EVALUATION

SM 3-29

IMPLEMENTATION/EVALUATION PLAN

Cleveland Park Fire and Life Safety Coalition

Youth Firesetting Prevention and Intervention Program

Problem Statement: The problem is the Cleveland Park Fire/Rescue Service responds to a 

high rate of firesetting incidents by youths between the ages of 12 to 17 compared to similar 

communities.

Goal: To decrease youth firesetting in Cleveland Park.

Outcome Objectives

As compared to baseline data, the following changes will have occurred:

By December 31, 2021, the program will have reduced the injury rate from firesetting from 7.4

to 3.4 per 10,000 persons. Evaluation methods: Emergency medical services (EMS) reports, 

hospital records, statistical evidence, and anecdotes.

By December 31, 2021, the program will have reduced by 50 percent the number of incidents 

involving firesetting by youths ages 12 to 17. Evaluation methods: Fire reports, police reports.

By December 31, 2021, the program will have reduced by 40 percent the fire loss attributed to 

youth firesetting in ages 12 to 17. Evaluation method: Fire reports.

Impact Objectives

As compared to baseline data, the following changes will have occurred:

By July 1, 2016, Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs) will be adopted among agencies 

handling youths involved in firesetting. Evaluation method: Adoption of MOUs. Interventions: 

Education and Enforcement.

By January 1, 2017, the city council will have adopted a novelty light ordinance. Evaluation 

method: Passage of law. Interventions: Education, Engineering, and Enforcement.

By June 30, 2017, there will be a 25 percent increase in youths ages 12 to 17 who can name at 

least three ways an arson arrest can affect them and their families. Evaluation methods: Selfreport surveys, pretests, and posttests. Intervention: Education.
PROGRAM EVALUATION

SM 3-30

By June 30, 2017, there will be a 25 percent increase in youths ages 12 to 17 who know the age 

juveniles can be arrested in their State. Evaluation methods: Self-report surveys, pretests, and 

posttests. Intervention: Education.

By June 30, 2017, there will be a 25 percent increase in youths ages 12 to 17 who can name at 

least two of the State’s arson laws. Evaluation methods: Self-report surveys, pretests, and 

posttests. Intervention: Education.

By December 31, 2017, there will be a 95 percent increase in homes of youths ages 12 to 17 

admitted to the program having working smoke alarms according to State law in their homes.

Evaluation methods: Observational surveys and self-report surveys. Interventions: Education, 

Engineering, and Enforcement.

By December 31, 2017, there will be a 25 percent increase in the number of parents/caregivers 

who can name three ways they can prevent firesetting. Evaluation methods: Pretests and 

posttests. Intervention: Education.

Process Objectives

Starting January 1, 2017, the project coordinator will monitor changes in the prevalence, 

incidence, and severity of youths ages 12 to 17 injured from firesetting by collecting and 

analyzing data from city EMS run report data, the county’s medical examiner’s logs on 

fatalities, trauma registry data on children treated in three hospital emergency rooms and local 

clinics, fire reports, and policy reports. Evaluation methods: Injury/loss statistics and 

anecdotes. Intervention: Education.

By January 1, 2017, the committee will have drafted legislation restricting novelty lighters in 

Cleveland Park. Evaluation method: Drafting of legislation. Interventions: Education, 

Engineering, and Enforcement.

By April 1, 2017, the project coordinator will have implemented a media campaign to raise 

awareness about youth firesetting. Evaluation methods: Counting number of hits to website. 

Intervention: Education.

By May 1, 2017, the project coordinator will begin offering the educational component of the 

youth firesetting prevention and intervention program to youths and their families referred to 

the program as often as needed to meet demand. Evaluation method: Counting. Intervention: 

Education.

By December 31, 2017, each member of the committee will have made at least three 

presentations to a community group about the problem of youth firesetting in the community. 

Evaluation method: Counting. Intervention: Education.
PROGRAM EVALUATION

SM 3-31

Formative Objectives

By March 1, 2016, the Youth Firesetting Prevention and Intervention Committee will start 

program planning based on escalation of youth-set fires from analysis of the community risk 

assessment of Cleveland Park.

By May 31, 2016, the Youth Firesetting Prevention and Intervention Committee will identify 

core stakeholders in the Cleveland Park District to join the youth firesetting prevention and 

intervention committee.

By July 1, 2016, the Fire and Life Safety Coalition will develop goals, interventions, and 

objectives for the youth firesetting prevention and intervention program.

By January 1, 2017, the project coordinator, with the help of the committee, will have 

developed a lesson plan on State arson laws for use in the elementary and middle schools in 

Cleveland Park. Evaluation method: Development of curriculum.

By January 1, 2017, MOUs will be developed by the committee on how youths will be handled 

by various agencies. Evaluation method: Development of MOUs. Interventions: Education, 

Engineering, and Enforcement.

By March 1, 2017, the Youth Firesetting Prevention and Intervention Committee will have 

drafted standard operating procedures (SOPs) for the fire department on how youths who set 

fires are handled. Evaluation method: Development of procedures.

By April 1, 2017, the project coordinator, with the help of the Youth Firesetting Prevention and 

Intervention Committee, will design the educational component for youths and their families 

referred to the program. Evaluation method: Development of education component.

By June 1, 2017, the project coordinator will have trained all firefighters in the Cleveland Park 

Stations on how to refer youths to the youth firesetting prevention and intervention program. 

Evaluation method: Counting. Intervention: Education.

By October 31, 2017, the project coordinator will have trained teachers in the pilot school to 

use the lesson plans about arson laws in the State. Evaluation method: Counting.

By November 30, 2017, the project coordinator will have received permission from school 

board of Cleveland Park to instruct teachers in elementary and middle schools about the lesson 

plans pertaining to arson laws and how they pertain to youth ages 12 to 17 years. Evaluation 

methods: Letter of agreement and adoption of curriculum.
PROGRAM EVALUATION

SM 3-32

This page intentionally left blank.
PROGRAM EVALUATION

SM 3-33

VIII. DEVELOPING AN EVALUATION PLAN

Slide 3-32

• Evaluation plan.

– There are four types of objectives used in 

developing and evaluating a program plan:

-- Formative.

-- Process.

-- Impact.

-- Outcome. 

– These objectives are tied to how the program 

will be evaluated.

DEVELOPING AN EVALUATION 

PLAN

A. Development of an evaluation plan is best handled as a group exercise among the 

YFPI program partners/leadership team.

B. This strategy allows the team to be involved in planning, implementation and 

management of the program.

1. Allows opportunity to weigh different perspectives.

2. Consensus on what signals success.

3. Better chance of support for program.

4. Nothing for us without us.

C. There are four types of objectives used in developing and evaluating a program 

plan: formative, process, impact and outcome. These objectives are tied to how 

the program will be evaluated.
PROGRAM EVALUATION

SM 3-34

IX. TYPES OF EVALUATION OBJECTIVES

Slide 3-33

• Formative objectives.

– Call for the following actions to take place:

-- Rationale for program (community analysis).

-- Formation of planning team.

-- Exploration of target populations.

-- Establish baselines.

-- Develop a program.

TYPES OF EVALUATION 

OBJECTIVES

A. Formative objectives.

1. Formative objectives are SMART objectives written during the planning 

stage of a program. These objectives help define how the program is to be 

developed, pilot-tested and implemented.

2. Formative objectives call for explanation of why the program is needed. 

Calling for a community risk analysis can be stated in a formative 

objective.

3. Formative objectives also can call for exploration of general knowledge, 

attitudes and behaviors of your target audience before the program is 

developed, while it is being tested, and throughout implementation.

4. Good formative objectives can guide a planning team to discover strengths 

and weaknesses of a program as it is developing and before huge resource 

investments are made.

5. Formative objectives help establish baselines for your efforts to be 

measured. They examine the early stages of the program’s development 

concerning:

a. Community risks.

b. Target populations.

c. Stakeholders.

d. Existing knowledge, attitudes and beliefs.
PROGRAM EVALUATION

SM 3-35

e. Material development.

f. Developing goals and objectives.

g. Testing procedures.

h. Resources needed.

6. Formative objectives also call for the development of a program.

Slide 3-34

– By August 2016, the program manager, with 

assistance from the task force, will design the 

educational component for youth and their 

families who are referred to the YFPI 

program.

-- Evaluation method: development of educational 

component.

TYPES OF EVALUATION 

OBJECTIVES (cont’d)

7. Examples of formative objectives:

a. By August 2016, the program manager, with assistance from the 

task force, will design the educational component for youth and 

their families who are referred to the YFPI program.

- Evaluation method: development of educational 

component.

b. By September 2016, the task force will have drafted SOPs for the 

fire department (and partner agencies) on how youth who set fires 

are handled.

- Evaluation method: SOPs.
PROGRAM EVALUATION

SM 3-36

Slide 3-35

• Process objectives.

– Describes anything having to do with program 

activities, procedures and materials.

– Calls for the projected number of 

presentations, number of people to be 

reached, amount of service delivered.

– Assigns responsibility to people/groups so 

that program benchmarks can be measured.

TYPES OF EVALUATION 

OBJECTIVES (cont’d)

B. Process objectives.

1. Process objectives describe anything having to do with program activities, 

procedures and materials.

2. The number of intended presentations, attendance and material 

distribution can be described in process objectives.

3. Process objectives can also describe the intended quality of the service 

being delivered.

4. They are written using action verbs to show accountability: “monitor”, 

“coordinate”, “plan”, “write” or “publish” (rather than “know”, “learn”

and “feel”).

5. Process objectives are normally developed after the interventions have 

been selected and decisions are made based on who is going to do what 

when.

6. Process objectives assign responsibility for activities to be completed by 

specific dates.

7. These objectives are an important component of an evaluation plan 

because they can indicate who will be responsible for doing what and 

include a deadline of when tasks are to be accomplished.
PROGRAM EVALUATION

SM 3-37

Slide 3-36

– By December 2017, the program manager will 

begin offering the educational component of 

the youth firesetting intervention program to 

youth and their families referred to the 

program as often as needed to meet demand.

-- Evaluation method: program presentation records.

TYPES OF EVALUATION 

OBJECTIVES (cont’d)

8. Examples of process objectives:

a. By December 2017, the program manager will begin offering the 

educational component of the youth firesetting intervention 

program to youth and their families referred to the program as 

often as needed to meet demand.

- Evaluation method: program presentation records.

b. By October 2017, each member of the task force will have made at 

least three presentations to a community group about the problem 

of (and solutions to) youth firesetting in the community.

- Evaluation method: program presentation records.

Slide 3-37

• Impact objectives.

– Call for the changes in the following:

-- Knowledge gained.

-- Behavioral change.

-- Environmental modifications.

-- Lifestyle changes.

TYPES OF EVALUATION 

OBJECTIVES (cont’d)

C. Impact objectives.
PROGRAM EVALUATION

SM 3-38

1. Impact objectives are SMART objectives written to describe the 

following:

a. Who will be affected by the program.

b. What results are expected.

c. How large a change is necessary to demonstrate success.

d. How much time is required for the change to occur.

2. Impact objectives are written to show desired changes in attitudes, 

knowledge, behavior, physical environment or public policy that will be 

created by the program in a relatively short term (one to five years).

3. Baseline data is required so that current knowledge levels, attitudes, living 

conditions, use of safety equipment, etc. can be compared to those that 

exist after a program has been operating for a designated time period.

4. Impact objectives answer the question: What do you want to know in the 

short-term about your program?

Don’t forget — Baseline data must be obtained before impact and 

outcome can be measured.

Slide 3-38

– By June 2017, (as compared to baseline 

data), there will be a 25 percent increase in 

youth ages 12-17 who can name at least two 

of the state’s arson laws.

-- Evaluation method: self-report surveys, pretests 

and post-tests.

TYPES OF EVALUATION 

OBJECTIVES (cont’d)

5. Examples of impact objectives:

a. By June 2017 (as compared to baseline data), there will be a 25

percent increase in youth ages 12-17 who can name at least two of 

the state’s arson laws.

- Evaluation methods: self-report surveys, pretests and posttests.
PROGRAM EVALUATION

SM 3-39

b. By December 2017 (as compared to baseline data), there will be a 

25 percent increase in the number of parents/caregivers that 

attended the YFPI who can name three ways they can prevent acts 

of youth firesetting.

- Evaluation methods: pretests and post-tests.

c. By December 2017 (as compared to baseline data), there will be a 

95 percent increase in the number of working smoke alarms 

located in the homes of families that have attended the YFPI 

program.

- Evaluation methods: observational surveys and self-report 

surveys.

Slide 3-39

• Outcome objectives.

– Call for a reduction in the number of incidents, 

deaths, injuries and property loss.

– Include anecdotal stories of program 

successes.

TYPES OF EVALUATION 

OBJECTIVES (cont’d)

D. Outcome objectives.

1. An outcome objective is a SMART objective written to show the intended 

long-term implications of your program. It describes expected outcomes

for the community.

2. Outcome objectives describe the intended effect of the program (usually to 

reduce the occurrence of a condition).

3. Outcome objectives may be related to personal, social, economic, 

environmental or health conditions.

4. Outcome objectives usually call for a long-term reduction in deaths, 

injuries, property loss and emergency responses. They should be tied to 

evaluation, support your goal, and state conditions you ultimately want to 

achieve.
PROGRAM EVALUATION

SM 3-40

Slide 3-40

– By December 2021, as compared to baseline 

data, there will be a 50 percent reduction in 

the number of firesetting incidents involving 

youth ages 12-17.

-- Evaluation method: fire and police reports.

TYPES OF EVALUATION 

OBJECTIVES (cont’d)

5. Examples of outcome objectives.

a. By December 2021 (as compared to baseline data), there will be a 

50 percent reduction in the number of firesetting incidents 

involving youth ages 12-17.

- Evaluation methods: fire and police reports.

b. By December 2021 (as compared to baseline data), there will be a 

40 percent reduction in fire loss attributed to firesetting incidents 

involving youth ages 12-17.

- Evaluation methods: fire reports.
PROGRAM EVALUATION

SM 3-41

ACTIVITY 3.1

Developing an Evaluation Plan

Purpose

To give you experience in developing an evaluation plan to address a youth firesetting problem 

that is occurring in a simulated community.

Directions

1. This is an instructor-led large group activity.

2. First, you will view a video vignette that is part of the PowerPoint presentation. It 

describes the youth firesetting problem that exists in the fictitious community of 

Redwood County.

3. Next, peruse the written summary of the problem in Redwood County. (It is the video 

script.) You will have five minutes for this task.

4. Next, based upon the information given, the instructor will lead the class to develop a 

(miniature) evaluation plan for addressing the youth firesetting problem. Students will 

have 45 minutes for development of the (miniature) evaluation plan. The plan should 

include the following:

a. Vision.

b. Problem statement and goal.
PROGRAM EVALUATION

SM 3-42

c. One outcome objective.

d. Two impact objectives that, if accomplished, would support the outcome 

objective.

e. Four process objectives. Two that support each impact objective.

f. Four formative objectives that support the development of the overall youth 

firesetting program.
PROGRAM EVALUATION

SM 3-43

Note: What is being developed is only a partial evaluation plan. In real-world application, the 

plan would be much more detailed and include many more impact, process and formative 

objectives. This activity is merely to give you practice with a skill that you should employ upon 

returning home.

Case Study

Redwood County is a small but densely populated county located 35 miles from a major United 

States city. The county enjoys a strong tax base that supports emergency services, mental health, 

social services, the justice system and schools.

While residents of Redwood County enjoy a relatively stable economic climate, the community 

is not without challenges. The adults in most families work outside the home. Many work long 

hours and commute to the nearby large city, which adds the stress of additional hours away from 

home. Adolescents often lack after-school supervision and end up “hanging out” with peer 

groups in a variety of settings.

Most families are technologically savvy and equipped with the latest communication mediums. 

While there are several recreational complexes in the county, there are no neighborhood 

associations. Transience is common, as families often relocate after about five years in Redwood 

County to move further away from the city and traffic.

The police department was the first agency to notice a rise in the number of youth firesetting 

incidents, specifically the manufacture and use of bottle bombs by adolescents. Fireworks were 

also noted as a problem. Examination of data revealed that 80 percent of arrests related to 

malicious burning involved youth between the ages of 11 and 14. This age group also accounted 

for 90 percent of arrests for manufacturing or detonating incendiary devices.

The juvenile justice office and the mental health authority were second to contact the fire 

department. Both cited a rise in the number of parents asking for help with juveniles (ages 11 to

14) who were “out of control and experimenting with all sorts of dangerous things.” Many 

parents said their children needed counseling because they had become disconnected with the 

family.

Social services was the next agency to inquire about the issue. At a service club meeting, the 

director of social services approached the fire chief to inquire if there was an intervention 

program in the county for bomb makers. When the chief replied no, the director advised, “You 

really should consider starting one because many families have children who are experimenting 

with fire and explosives.”

Last but not least, the vice principal from one of the middle/senior high schools called the fire 

department inquiring about the presence of an intervention program for juveniles who 

experiment with fire and bombs. When informed there was no such program, the vice principal 

said she was going to call the school superintendent to see if maybe a task force could be created 

to develop one.
PROGRAM EVALUATION

SM 3-44

The fire department called a meeting of agencies that they believed to be primary stakeholders 

on the topic. The first task they agreed to do was examine five years of local data that was 

available on youth firesetting, most specifically, firesetting and incendiary device usage among 

the age group 11-14. The data identified the following:

1. An average of 100 annual fire incidents can be attributed to adolescents experimenting 

with either fire or explosive devices.

2. The average property loss associated with the problem is $900,000.

3. There are 50 injuries a year as a result of the problem.

4. No deaths have been reported.

5. The police department responds to an average of 200 calls per year for youth setting fires, 

discharging fireworks or experimenting with incendiary devices.

6. The police department/juvenile justice office charges an average of 40 youths each year 

for fire or explosive-related offenses.

7. There are approximately 70 incidents related to youth firesetting or incendiary devices in 

schools each year.
PROGRAM EVALUATION

SM 3-45

X. SUMMARY

• Evaluation is an integral component of a 

YFPI program.

• There are three stages of program 

development.

• There are four stages of program 

evaluation.

• Program evaluation can help measure the 

development, implementation and 

operation of a YFPI program.

• Can help keep program on track. Slide 3-43

SUMMARY
PROGRAM EVALUATION

SM 3-46

This page intentionally left blank.
PROGRAM EVALUATION

SM 3-47

REFERENCES

FEMA/USFA/NFA. (2012). Demonstrating your fire prevention program’s worth. Retrieved

from http://apps.usfa.fema.gov

Thompson, N. F., & McClintock, H. O. (1998). Demonstrating your program’s worth: A primer 

on evaluation for programs to prevent unintentional injury. Atlanta, GA: Centers for 

Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control.
This page intentionally left blank.
YOUTH FIRESETTER PROGRAM MANAGER

- 1 -

GLOSSARY/ACRONYMS
YOUTH FIRESETTER PROGRAM MANAGER

- 2 -

This page intentionally left blank.
YOUTH FIRESETTER PROGRAM MANAGER

- 3 -

GLOSSARY

Anxiety and 

Depression

When a person has a depressive and/or anxiety disorder, it interferes 

with daily life, normal functioning, and it causes pain for both the 

person with the disorder and those who care about him or her. There 

are a variety of anxiety disorders, including but not limited to Panic 

Disorder, Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder (OCD), Post-Traumatic 

Stress Disorder (PTSD), and Social Anxiety Disorder. The same is 

true with depression. Types include Major Depressive Disorder, 

Dysthymic Disorder, Psychotic Depression, and Seasonal Affective 

Disorder.

Arson The FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program defines arson as 

“any willful or malicious burning or attempt to burn, with or without 

intent to defraud a dwelling house, public building, motor vehicle or 

aircraft, personal property of another, etc. Only fires determined 

through investigation to have been willfully or maliciously set are 

classified as arson” (FBI, 2002).

Attention-Deficit 

Hyperactivity 

Disorder (ADHD)

One of the most common cognitive disorders that develops in 

children. Children with ADHD often struggle to pay attention and/or 

control their behavior. The principal characteristics of ADHD are 

inattention, hyperactivity and impulsivity.

Authority Having 

Jurisdiction (AHJ)

The people/group(s) responsible for setting and enforcing local public 

policy.

Autism The most common condition in a group of developmental disorders 

known as the Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASDs). Autism is 

characterized by impaired social interaction, problems with verbal 

and nonverbal communication, and unusual, repetitive or severely 

limited activities and interests.

Autism Spectrum 

Disorders (ASDs)

Include Asperger’s syndrome, Rett syndrome, childhood 

disintegrative disorder, and Pervasive Developmental Disorder-Not 

Otherwise Specified (usually referred to as PDD-NOS).

Bipolar Disorder Characterized by mood cycling between periods of intense highs and 

lows. In children, bipolar disorder often seems to be a rather chronic 

mood disregulation with a mixture of elation, depression and 

irritability. Youth with bipolar disorder experience unusually intense 

emotional states that occur in distinct periods called “mood 

episodes.”

Budget Cycle The time allotted to expend the resources dedicated to a specific 

budget.
YOUTH FIRESETTER PROGRAM MANAGER

- 4 -

Case Management 

Information

Information that is specific to an individual firesetter and his or her 

family.

Community 

Outreach

Advertising (marketing) the Youth Firesetting Prevention and 

Intervention (YFPI) program and the services that it provides.

Community Risk 

Assessment

In the context of youth firesetting, a good risk assessment will

identify who is setting fires, how, where and why; identify logical 

target populations to receive services; locate hidden, hard to reach or 

underserved populations; identify high-risk occupancies, populations 

and neighborhoods; and build a foundation to suggest use of 

integrated prevention interventions (five E’s).

Coordinating 

Agency

This is the agency that ultimately leads a youth firesetting prevention 

and intervention task force. All agencies on the task force must agree 

who is serving as the lead organization. The agency that agrees to 

serve as lead must ensure that its leaders are supportive of this 

responsibility.

Crisis/Troubled/

Cry-for-help 

Firesetting

A typology of firesetting whereby the youth is attempting to 

communicate a level of need for attention from adults.

Curiosity/

Experimental 

Firesetting

The most common typology of firesetting; the child is exploring his 

or her interest in fire through experimentation.

Definite Risk Firesetting behaviors that have progressed to repeated and intentional 

events. Upon investigation, underlying psychological or social 

problems and issues may be discovered as factors influencing the 

firesetting. These types of fires are deliberate and may include the 

gathering of fuels and the possible selection of a target to be affected 

by the fire. The fires may be set for different reasons including anger, 

revenge, attention getting, malicious mischief, concealment of a 

crime, problem-solving, an intent to harm people or destroy property

or to make something or someone go away.

Delinquent/

Criminal/Strategic 

Firesetting

A typology of firesetting whereby there is a planned and willful intent 

by the perpetrator to cause destruction.

Demographic Data 

(firesetters and 

their families)

Data that reports the general circumstances of an event and 

information about the participants. Demographic data cannot be 

connected back to a specific individual.
YOUTH FIRESETTER PROGRAM MANAGER

- 5 -

Economic 

Incentives

This form of intervention entails enhancing safety measures through 

incentives. One example would be providing economic incentives to 

builders who install sprinkler systems. Another type of economic 

incentive may be in the form of a negative incentive, such as the 

payment of fines, fees, and/or restitution for acts of firesetting.

Educational 

Intervention

The goal of educational interventions is to provide awareness, change 

behavior, and eliminate risky behavior. This medium can be used to 

teach both youth and careproviders the basics of fire safety and the 

ramifications associated with repeat acts of firesetting. Nearly all 

firesetters and families can benefit from fire safety and prevention 

education.

Emergency 

Response

This intervention entails having an adequately staffed, equipped and 

trained cadre of responders to mitigate emergency incidents when 

they occur. It also includes being able to respond to youth firesetting 

situations with supportive resources that can prevent future acts of 

firesetting.

Enforcement 

Intervention

This entails enforcing or obtaining compliance with fire laws and 

codes. For firesetting situations, this means involvement of the legal 

system or action from a social services child protective division to 

assist in mitigating future firesetting events.

Engineering 

Intervention

Entails modification of an environment to enhance safety. This type 

of intervention can be used to ensure that the homes of firesetters are 

equipped with working smoke alarms and that child-resistant lighters 

are used as needed.

Evaluation Plan Describes in precise measurable terms how a prevention program is 

to be developed, implemented, operated and monitored.

Extreme Risk A firesetter ultimately included in this category may reflect the same 

aspects as listed in the definite risk level. The extreme risk firesetter’s 

behaviors usually involve more severe forms of firesetting influenced 

by psychological, social and environmental factors. These youth 

generally reflect a small subgroup of firesetters, but they are often 

considered at-risk for engaging in future firesetting incidents.

Follow-up Contact from youth firesetting program staff that should take place 

with each family who participates in a youth firesetting intervention 

program. A primary follow-up should occur four to six weeks after 

completion of the program. A secondary follow-up can take place 

between six to 12 months after close-out of the file.
YOUTH FIRESETTER PROGRAM MANAGER

- 6 -

Formative 

Evaluation

Conducted during the planning and implementation stages of a 

program or when an existing program is having difficulties.

Goals A statement that explains overall what the program seeks to 

accomplish. It sets the fundamental, long-range direction of the 

program. Typically, goals are broad, general statements. A goal 

summarizes expected results and outcomes rather than program 

methods and activities.

Impact Evaluation Conducted during the intermediate stages of a program to measure if 

the program is helping to increase knowledge levels, change 

behaviors, or modify living environments/lifestyles.

Intake The process of collecting initial information about the youth 

firesetter, his or her family, and the incident(s) that brought the youth 

to the program (National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), 2010).

Intake Forms Should be standardized for the jurisdiction and designed to gather 

basic information about the youth, his or her family, and the fire 

event/situation that led to the program referral.

Interagency Task 

Force

A team of representatives from stakeholder organizations that can 

help guide the development, implementation and operation of a YFPI

program.

IRONIC An easy to remember method that identifies the procedures involved 

in conducting a screening and determining the facts of the event. 

IRONIC is an acronym that stands for Introduction, Rapport, Opening 

Statement, Narrative, Inquiry and Conclusion.

Knowledge, Skills 

and Abilities 

(KSAs)

The knowledge base and demonstrable skills/abilities a person must 

possess to complete job performance requirements (JPRs).

Learning 

Disabilities

A disorder that diminishes a person’s capacity to interpret what he or 

she sees and hears and/or to link information from different parts of 

the brain.

Life Cycle of a 

YFPI Program

Includes performing the following actions: conducting a community 

risk assessment, identifying the firesetting problem, identifying and 

recruiting stakeholders, developing and implementing a program, 

delivering the program, and evaluating the program.

Mental Health 

Intervention

The act of referring a family to a qualified mental health practitioner 

who can help identify the root causes contributing to firesetting 

behaviors.
YOUTH FIRESETTER PROGRAM MANAGER

- 7 -

NFPA Standard 

1035

The NFPA standard that outlines the JPRs and KSAs expected from 

Fire and Life Safety Educators (FLSEs), Youth Firesetter Intervention 

Specialists (YFISs), and Youth Firesetter Program Managers

(YFPMs).

Objectives A concise statement of the desired product of the risk-reduction 

initiative. Objectives should be written in a format that follows the 

acronym SMART. Objectives should be Specific, Measurable, 

Achievable, Relevant and Timeframed.

Organizational 

Mission Statement

Drives the goals, objectives and services delivered by their 

organization.

Outcome 

Evaluation

Conducted over the long term of a program to measure if a program 

has reduced incidents, saved lives/property, or improved the quality 

of life in a community.

Pathological/

Severely Disturbed/

Cognitively 

Impaired/Thoughtdisordered 

Firesetting

A typology of firesetting whereby the perpetrator uses fire as a means 

for receiving gratification without regard to the safety of others.

People-related 

Data

Explores the human component of involvement and factors associated 

with vulnerability to juvenile firesetting incidents. It will include the 

demographics of the local community.

Prevention 

Interventions

Forms of interventions that are designed to prevent or mitigate youth 

firesetting events. Interventions include Education, Engineering, 

Enforcement, Economic incentives, and Emergency response to 

incidents.

Primary 

Prevention

Designed to teach individuals what to do so that an event that could

cause property damage, injury or death does not happen at all.

Problem-related 

Data

Examines the occurrence of incidents.

Process Evaluation Performed once the program has been implemented and showing 

signs of activity/outreach into the community. It measures program 

outreach, distribution of materials, and performance of those 

conducting program delivery.

Program Budget The expenses required to develop, implement and maintain (and 

potentially expand) youth firesetting program services.
YOUTH FIRESETTER PROGRAM MANAGER

- 8 -

Program 

Operations 

Handbook

Provides the user with examples of each document used by the YFPI 

program.

Recidivism Acts of repeat firesetting.

Resources 

Directory

Contains the names, addresses, phone numbers and email addresses 

of agencies that work with youth firesetters and their families.

Screening Form A form (also can be called tool or instrument) that uses numeric 

scoring process to identify, record and evaluate factors contributing to 

a child or youth’s firesetting behaviors. The form must be developed 

and validated by professionals who are qualified to develop such 

instruments.

Screening Process The goal of the screening process is to determine why firesetting is 

occurring, what satisfaction the juvenile receives from starting fires, 

and the risk level for future firesetting events.

Secondary 

Prevention 

Seeks to change or modify events and/or behaviors that reduce the 

severity of the event.

Social Services 

Intervention

The act of referring a family to the local Department of Social 

Services so supportive services such as parent mentoring, 

transportation to intervention programs, and other pertinent actions 

can take place. Many social service agencies also include a children 

and youth or child protective services division that handles child 

abuse/neglect issues. Youth firesetting can be viewed as a form of 

child neglect.

Some Risk This is the most common and lowest level of risk for repeat 

firesetting. The child (or youth) has engaged in at least one 

unsupervised fire motivated by curiosity. Fires resulting from these 

incidents are often unintentional and generally do not create a 

significant fire event. Curiosity and experimentation with lighters and 

matches is the most common motive of children involved in 

unsupervised firesetting.

Stakeholders Agencies/People who have a vested interest in the impact of youth 

firesetting on the community.

Standard 

Operating 

Procedures (SOPs)

Define what the program is to do and the actions to be taken by 

whom, when, where, how, why, and to what degree. SOPs/guidelines 

help ensure that the program offers services that are safe, ethical, 

legal and comply with the local AHJ.
YOUTH FIRESETTER PROGRAM MANAGER

- 9 -

Tertiary 

Prevention

Seeks to reduce a negative impact of an event over a long-term span 

of time. Its goal is to prevent complications and/or work with case 

management/rehabilitation regarding an event.

Thrill-seeking/

Risk-taking 

Firesettting

A typology of firesetting whereby adolescents are attempting to 

duplicate forms of dangerous behaviors observed in various mediums 

such as in-person, through video gaming, or on the Internet.

Typologies of 

Firesetting

Explain the types and motivations of youth firesetting.

Youth Firesetter

Intervention 

Specialist

The intervention specialist provides services at the program delivery 

level. He or she may help identify firesetters, conduct intakes, provide 

screenings, deliver educational interventions, perform follow-ups, and 

evaluate program services/results.

Youth Firesetter

Program Manager

The program manager must be proficient in all of the skills required 

for an intervention specialist. In addition, he or she needs the skills to 

develop, implement, lead and evaluate a YFPI program.

Youth Justice 

System 

Intervention

The act of referring a youth and his or her family to the youth justice 

system so legal action(s) will take place that will (hopefully) help 

mitigate future acts of firesetting. In many states, this referral is 

mandatory once a child has reached the age of accountability 

(culpability).
YOUTH FIRESETTER PROGRAM MANAGER

- 10 -

This page intentionally left blank.
YOUTH FIRESETTER PROGRAM MANAGER

- 11 -

ACRONYMS

AHJ authority having jurisdiction

CDC Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

COs Company Officers

CPSC Consumer Product Safety Commission

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

FBI Federal Bureau of Investigation

FLSE Fire and Life Safety Educator

HIPAA Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act

IFSTA International Fire Service Training Association

JFIS Juvenile Firesetting Intervention Specialist

JFS juvenile firesetter

JPRs job performance requirements

KSAs knowledge, skills and abilities

MOU Memorandums of Understanding

NFA National Fire Academy

NFDC National Fire Data Center

NFPA National Fire Protection Association

PIO Public Information Officer

SM Student Manual

SMART Specific, Measureable, Achievable, Relevant and Timeframed

SOGs standard operating guidelines

SOPs standard operating procedures
YOUTH FIRESETTER PROGRAM MANAGER

- 12 -

USFA U.S. Fire Administration

YFIS “Youth Firesetter Intervention Specialist”

YFPI Youth Firesetting Prevention and Intervention

YFPM “Youth Firesetter Program Manager”