National Fire Data Center

16825 S. Seton Ave.

Emmitsburg, MD 21727

https://www.usfa.fema.gov/data/statistics/

Topical Fire Report Series

One- and Two-Family Residential 

Building Fires (2013-2015)

June 2017 | Volume 18, Issue 2

These topical reports are 

designed to explore facets 

of the U.S. fire problem as 

depicted through data 

collected in the U.S. Fire 

Administration’s National 

Fire Incident Reporting 

System. Each topical 

report briefly addresses the 

nature of the specific fire or 

fire-related topic, highlights 

important findings from 

the data, and may suggest 

other resources to consider 

for further information. 

Also included are recent 

examples of fire incidents 

that demonstrate some 

of the issues addressed in 

the report or that put the 

report topic in context.

Findings

ĵ From 2013 to 2015, an estimated 243,700 one- and two-family residential building 

fires were reported to fire departments within the United States each year. These fires 

caused an estimated 2,175 deaths; 7,575 injuries; and $5.3 billion in property loss.

ĵ Deaths in one- and two-family residential building fires accounted for far more 

deaths in most years than all natural disasters combined.

ĵ One- and two-family residential building fires accounted for 64 percent of all residential 

building fires, representing the largest subgroup of residential building fires.

ĵ Cooking, at 37 percent, was the leading cause of one- and two-family residential 

building fires reported to the fire service. Of these cooking fires, 85 percent were 

small, confined fires with limited damage.

ĵ One- and two-family residential building fires occurred more often in the cooler 

months, peaking in January at 11 percent.

ĵ In 53 percent of nonconfined one- and two-family residential building fires, the fire 

extended beyond the room of fire origin. The leading causes of these larger fires 

were other unintentional, careless actions (17 percent); electrical malfunctions (14 

percent); open flames (11 percent); and intentional actions (10 percent).

ĵ Smoke alarms were not present in 23 percent of nonconfined fires in occupied 

one- and two-family residential buildings. This is a high percentage when compared 

to the 3 percent of households lacking smoke alarms nationally.

ĵ Automatic extinguishing systems (AESs) were present in only 1 percent of 

nonconfined fires in occupied one- and two-family residential buildings.

From 2013 to 2015, fire departments responded to an estimated 243,700 fires in one- and two-family residences 

each year across the nation.1,2 These fires resulted in an annual average of 2,175 deaths; 7,575 injuries; and $5.3 

billion in property loss. One- and two-family residential building fires accounted for 64 percent of all residential 

building fires and dominated the overall residential building fire profile. One- and two-family residential buildings 

include detached dwellings, manufactured homes, mobile homes not in transit, and duplexes.

From 2013 to 2015, 67 percent of all fire deaths in the nation occurred in one- and two-family dwellings. Because 

these fatalities occurred throughout the year and all over the country, they often did not make national headlines. 

Nevertheless, fire deaths in one- and two-family dwellings accounted for far more deaths in most years than all 

natural disasters combined.3

Most one- and two-family residential building fires (60 percent) were larger, nonconfined fires; they were not 

contained in pots, stoves, garbage containers or other types of noncombustible containers that confine them. 

Fires in all other types of residential buildings, by contrast, were mostly small and “confined” to noncombustible 

containers (69 percent).

One- and two-family residential building fires also differed from all other residential building fires in their cause 

profiles. While cooking accounted for 37 percent of all one- and two-family residential building fires, cooking 
TFRS Volume 18, Issue 2 | One- and Two-Family Residential Building Fires (2013-2015)

2

played a much larger role in all other types of residential building fires, accounting for 71 percent of fires. However, 

heating and electrical malfunctions, such as short circuits, arcing and the like, played a larger role in one- and 

two-family residential building fires than in all other types of residential building fires.

This current topical report is an update to the “One- and Two-Family Residential Building Fires (2012-2014)” (Volume 

17, Issue 2) topical report, which was released in June 2016. As part of a series of topical reports that address fires in 

the major residential building types, the remainder of this report addresses the characteristics of one- and two-family 

residential building fires as reported to the National Fire Incident Reporting System (NFIRS). The focus is on fires 

reported from 2013 to 2015, the most current data available at the time of the analysis.4

 This data is useful by itself 

and as a point of comparison with other residential building categories. Comparisons to multifamily residential 

building fires noted throughout the report are based on analyses from the “Multifamily Residential Building Fires 

(2013-2015)” (Volume 18, Issue 3) topical report.5

For the purpose of this report, the terms “residential fires” and “one- and two-family fires” are synonymous with 

“residential building fires” and “one- and two-family residential building fires,” respectively. “One- and two-family 

fires” is used throughout the body of this report; the findings, tables, charts, headings and endnotes reflect the full 

category, “one- and two-family residential building fires.”

Type of fire

Building fires are divided into two classes of severity in the NFIRS: “confined fires,” which are fires confined to certain 

types of equipment or objects, and “nonconfined fires,” which are fires that are not confined to certain types of 

equipment or objects. Confined building fires are small fire incidents that are limited in extent, staying within pots, 

fireplaces or certain other noncombustible containers.6

 Confined fires rarely result in serious injury or large content 

loss, and they are expected to have no significant accompanying property loss due to flame damage.7

Of the two classes of severity, nonconfined fires accounted for 60 percent of one- and two-family fires. The smaller, 

confined fires accounted for the remaining 40 percent. Cooking fires were the predominant type of confined fires in 

one- and two-family dwellings, as they were in most residential occupancies (Table 1).

Table 1. One- and two-family residential building fires by type of incident (2013-2015)

Incident Type Percent

Nonconfined fires 59.8

Confined fires 40.2

Cooking fire, confined to container 25.8

Chimney or flue fire, confined to chimney or flue 7.6

Incinerator overload or malfunction, fire confined 0.2

Fuel burner/boiler malfunction, fire confined 2.2

Commercial compactor fire, confined to rubbish 0.0

Trash or rubbish fire, contained 4.4

Total 100.0

Source: NFIRS 5.0.

Loss measures

Table 2 presents losses, averaged over the three-year period from 2013 to 2015, of reported one- and two-family fires 

and all other residential fires.8 The average number of fatalities per 1,000 fires and average dollar loss per fire for 

one- and two-family fires were about two times as high as the same loss measures for all other residential building 

fires. In addition, all of the average loss measures associated with nonconfined one- and two-family fires were 

notably higher than the same loss measures for confined one- and two-family fires. This can be expected, however, 

as nonconfined fires are generally larger fires that often result in serious injuries and more content loss.
TFRS Volume 18, Issue 2 | One- and Two-Family Residential Building Fires (2013-2015)

3

Table 2. Loss measures for one- and two-family residential building fires (three-year average, 2013-2015)

Measure

One- and 

two-family 

residential 

building fires

Confined oneand two-family 

residential 

building fires

Nonconfined oneand two-family 

residential 

building fires

Residential 

building fires 

(excluding oneand two-family)

Average Loss

Fatalities/1,000 fires 7.0 0.0 11.6 3.0

Injuries/1,000 fires 25.8 5.9 39.2 26.9

Dollar loss/fire $19,730 $230 $32,820 $11,660

Source: NFIRS 5.0.

Notes:	 1.	Average loss for fatalities and injuries is computed per 1,000 fires; average dollar loss is computed per fire and rounded to the nearest $10.

2. The 2013 and 2014 dollar-loss values were adjusted to 2015 dollars.

When one- and two-family residential building fires occur

As shown in Figure 1, one- and two-family fires occurred most frequently in the early evening hours, peaking during 

dinner from 5 to 8 p.m., when cooking fire incidence was high.9,10 Cooking fires, discussed later in the “Causes of 

one- and two-family residential building fires” section, accounted for 37 percent of one- and two-family fires. Fires 

then declined throughout the night, reaching the lowest point during the early morning hours from 4 to 7 a.m.

Figure 1. One- and two-family residential building fires by time of alarm (2013-2015)

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

11 p.m. - Mid

10 - 11 p.m.

9 - 10 p.m.

1 - 2 p.m.2 - 3 p.m.3 - 4 p.m.4 - 5 p.m.5 - 6 p.m.6 - 7 p.m.7 - 8 p.m.8 - 9 p.m.

12 - 1 p.m.

11 a.m. - 12 p.m.

10 - 11 a.m.

9 - 10 a.m.

1 - 2 a.m.2 - 3 a.m.3 - 4 a.m.4 - 5 a.m.5 - 6 a.m.6 - 7 a.m.7 - 8 a.m.8 - 9 a.m.

Mid - 1 a.m.

3.0 2.7 2.5 2.6

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

4.9 5.2 5.2

5.6

6.1

7.0 7.1

6.6

5.7

4.7

3.9

3.3

2.4 2.1 2.0 2.2

Percent of one- and two-family 

residential building fires

Time of alarm

Source: NFIRS 5.0.

Note: Total does not add up to 100 percent due to rounding.

Figure 2 illustrates that one- and two-family fire incidence was higher in the cooler months, peaking in January at 11 

percent. Winter peaks are often explained by the increase in heating fires. The increase in fires in the cooler months 

may also be the result of more indoor activities in general, as well as more indoor seasonal and holiday activities. 

During the spring and summer months, the fire incidence generally declined, reaching a low in September.
TFRS Volume 18, Issue 2 | One- and Two-Family Residential Building Fires (2013-2015)

4

Figure 2. One- and two-family residential building fires by month (2013-2015)

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

November

December

October

September

August

July

April

May

June

March

February

January

11.1

9.4

7.8

7.1 7.4 7.0 6.7

7.5

9.2 9.1 9.3

8.2

Percent of one- and two-family 

residential building fires

Month of year

Source: NFIRS 5.0.

Note: Total does not add up to 100 percent due to rounding.

Causes of one- and two-family residential building fires

Cooking was the leading cause of one- and two-family fires and accounted for 37 percent of all one- and two-family 

fires, as shown in Table 3.11 Of these cooking fires, 85 percent were small, confined fires with limited damage.

Heating, at 16 percent, was the second leading cause of one- and two-family fires. The next four causes combined 

accounted for 27 percent of one- and two-family fires: fires caused by electrical malfunctions, such as short circuits 

and wiring problems (8 percent); other unintentional, careless actions, a miscellaneous group (8 percent); open flames 

that resulted from candles, matches and the like (6 percent); and intentional actions (5 percent).12

Table 3. Leading causes of one- and two-family residential building fires (2013-2015)

Cause Percent

(unknowns apportioned)

Cooking 37.3

Heating 15.9

Electrical malfunction 8.4

Other unintentional, careless 7.6

Open flame 5.5

Intentional 5.2

Source: NFIRS 5.0.

There was a striking difference between one- and two-family and all other residential occupancies in the prevalence 

of cooking as a fire cause. While cooking accounted for 37 percent of one- and two-family fires, it accounted for 74 

percent of multifamily residential building fires and 58 percent of other residential building fires.13 The most persuasive 

explanation for this difference may be that the smaller, confined fires in one- and two-family dwellings are not reported 

as often to fire departments. They are small and contained, and they often do not cause much damage. In addition, if it 

is activated, only the residents hear the smoke alarm. However, these same confined fires in multifamily residences may 

be reported if someone else in the complex hears the alarm or smells the smoke. Alternatively, if it is a newer complex, 

the alarms may be connected to the building alarm system, and the fire department may automatically be called.
TFRS Volume 18, Issue 2 | One- and Two-Family Residential Building Fires (2013-2015)

5

Heating and electrical malfunctions played a larger role in one- and two-family fires than in multifamily fires. One 

reason for this may be that many one- and two-family residential buildings have fireplaces, chimneys and fireplacerelated equipment that most other types of residential properties do not have.14

A strong relationship between housing age and the rate of electrical fires has been observed, with housing over 40 

years old having the strongest association with electrical distribution fires.15,16 As of 2015, the median age of one- and 

two-family housing was over 35 years. With more than half of the housing stock older than 35 years, electrical issues 

are an increasingly larger player in residential fires.17 In addition, a 2008 study concluded that there are three major 

areas in older properties that contribute to compromised electrical systems: the effects of aging on the wiring itself, 

misuse and abuse of the electrical components, and noncode-compliant installations.18 Codes, including the National 

Electrical Code®, are comprehensive and standard in nearly every community. “Noncode” improvements or changes, 

however, are difficult to track and, therefore, difficult to enforce.

Fire spread in one- and two-family residential building fires

In 46 percent of one- and two-family fires, the fire was limited to the object of origin (Figure 3). Included in these fires are 

those coded as “confined fires” in the NFIRS. Additionally, 32 percent of the fires extended beyond the room of origin.

Figure 3. Extent of fire spread in one- and two-family residential building fires (2013-2015)

8.3

Fire spread

Percent of one- and two-family residential building fires

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0

Beyond building of origin

Limited to building of origin

Limited to floor of origin

Limited to room of origin

Limited to object of origin 46.4

21.6

5.7

22.4

4.0

Source: NFIRS 5.0. 

Note: Total does not add up to 100 percent due to rounding.

Confined fires

The NFIRS allows abbreviated reporting for smaller, confined fires, and many details of these fires are not required to 

be reported. It is important to note that not all fires where the extent of fire spread is limited to the object of origin 

are counted as NFIRS confined fires.19 For example, a fire in which the fire spread is limited to a mattress or clothes 

dryer is not defined as a “confined fire” in the NFIRS because of the greater potential for spread. Unlike fires in pots 

or chimneys, there is no container to stop the fire, even though the fire did not spread beyond the object of origin.

As previously discussed, however, it is known that confined fires accounted for 40 percent of all one- and two-family 

fires. Cooking fires — those cooking fires confined to a pot or the oven, for example — accounted for 64 percent of 

these confined fires (Table 1).
TFRS Volume 18, Issue 2 | One- and Two-Family Residential Building Fires (2013-2015)

6

In addition, the number of confined one- and two-family fires was greatest from 5 to 8 p.m.; these fires accounted 

for 53 percent of the one- and two-family fires in this time period. Moreover, confined cooking fires accounted for 68 

percent of the confined fires and 36 percent of all fires that occurred from 5 to 8 p.m. in one- and two-family buildings.

Confined one- and two-family fires peaked in January, then declined through the spring and reached the lowest 

incidence in June and August.

Nonconfined fires

This section addresses nonconfined one- and two-family fires — the larger and more serious fires that are not 

confined to noncombustible containers — where more detailed fire data are available, as they are required to be 

reported in the NFIRS.

Causes of nonconfined one- and two-family residential building fires

While cooking was the leading cause of one- and two-family fires overall, it was the third leading cause of all 

nonconfined one- and two-family fires, and it only accounted for 10 percent of these fires (Figure 4). At 15 percent, 

electrical malfunction was the leading cause of nonconfined one- and two-family fires. The second leading cause of 

nonconfined one- and two-family fires was other unintentional, careless actions (14 percent).

Figure 4. Causes of nonconfined one- and two-family residential building fires (2013-2015) Causes

Percent of nonconfined one- and two-family residential building fires

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0

Unknown

Cause under investigation

Other unintentional, careless

Equipment misoperation, failure

Exposure

Natural

Other equipment

Other heat

Open flame

Appliances

Electrical malfunction

Cooking

Heating

Smoking

Playing with heat source

Intentional

Percent of nonconfined one- and 

two-family residential building fires 

with cause determined

Percent of all nonconfined oneand two-family residential building fires

7.9

5.8

1.0

0.7

3.5

2.6

7.1

10.0

7.3

15.4

11.3

8.9

6.5

9.8

7.2

6.9

5.0

1.8

1.3

3.9

2.9

4.6

3.4

2.6

1.9

13.8

10.2

2.7

2.0

26.6

5.2

Source: NFIRS 5.0.

Notes:	 1.	 Causes are listed in order of the U.S. Fire Administration (USFA) Structure Fire Cause Hierarchy for ease of comparison of fire causes across different aspects of the

fire problem. Fires are assigned to one of 16 cause groupings using a hierarchy of definitions, approximately as shown in the chart above. A fire is included in the

highest category into which it fits. If it does not fit the top category, then the second one is considered, and if not that one, the third, and so on. For example, if the

fire is judged to be intentionally set and a match was used to ignite it, it is classified as intentional and not open flame because intentional is higher in the hierarchy.

	 2.	Total percentages of nonconfined one- and two-family residential building fires with cause determined and all nonconfined one- and two-family residential

building fires do not add up to 100 percent due to rounding.
TFRS Volume 18, Issue 2 | One- and Two-Family Residential Building Fires (2013-2015)

7

Where nonconfined one- and two-family residential building fires start (area of fire origin)

Nonconfined one- and two-family fires most often started in cooking areas and kitchens (18 percent), as shown in Table 

4. Bedrooms (12 percent) and family rooms or living rooms (7 percent) were the next most common areas of fire origin 

in the home. Smaller but not minor percentages of fires started in attics and vacant spaces (6 percent); exterior wall 

surfaces (5 percent); vehicle storage areas, such as garages and carports (5 percent); and laundry areas (5 percent).

Note that these areas of origin do not include areas associated with confined fires. Cooking was the leading cause 

of all one- and two-family fires at 37 percent, and it is not surprising that kitchens were the leading area of fire 

origin. However, the percentages were not identical between cooking and kitchen fires because some cooking fires 

started outside the kitchen, some areas of origin for cooking fires were not reported (as in most confined cooking 

fires), and some kitchen fires were not due to cooking. In fact, only 49 percent of nonconfined one- and two-family 

fires that started in the kitchen were cooking fires. Other unintentional, careless actions accounted for 13 percent, 

and appliances, such as freezers and refrigerators, accounted for an additional 9 percent of nonconfined one- and 

two-family fires that started in the kitchen.

Table 4. Leading areas of fire origin in nonconfined one- and two-family residential building fires (2013-2015)

Areas of fire origin Percent

(unknowns apportioned)

Cooking area, kitchen 18.4

Bedrooms 12.2

Common room, den, family room, living room, lounge 6.7

Attic, vacant spaces 5.8

Exterior wall surfaces 5.4

Vehicle storage area: garage, carport 5.3

Laundry area 5.0

Source: NFIRS 5.0.

How nonconfined one- and two-family residential building fires start (heat source)

Figure 5 shows sources of heat categories for nonconfined one- and two-family fires. Heat from powered equipment 

accounted for 48 percent of nonconfined one- and two-family fires. This category includes electrical arcing (17 

percent); radiated or conducted heat from operating equipment (13 percent); heat from other powered equipment 

(13 percent); and spark, ember or flame from operating equipment (5 percent).

Heat from hot or smoldering objects accounted for 16 percent of nonconfined one- and two-family fires. This category 

includes miscellaneous hot or smoldering objects (7 percent) and hot embers or ashes (7 percent).

The third largest category pertained to open flame or smoking materials (16 percent). This category includes items 

such as miscellaneous open flame or smoking materials (4 percent), cigarettes (4 percent), lighters and matches 

(combined, 3 percent), and candles (3 percent).
TFRS Volume 18, Issue 2 | One- and Two-Family Residential Building Fires (2013-2015)

8

Figure 5. Sources of heat in nonconfined one- and two-family residential building fires by major category 

(2013-2015)

Percent of nonconfined one- and two-family residential building fires

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0

Undetermined

Multiple heat sources including

 multiple ignitions

Explosives, fireworks

Chemical, natural heat source

Other heat source

Heat spread from another fire

Heat from open flame or

 smoking material

Hot or smoldering objects

Heat from powered equipment

39.3

0.5

0.9

0.5

0.9

2.1

3.5

3.8

6.3

5.7

9.4

9.6

15.7

9.6

15.9

28.8

47.5

Percent of all nonconfined one- and 

two-family residential building fires

Percent of nonconfined one- and 

two-family residential building fires 

with heat source determined

Source: NFIRS 5.0.

Note:	 Total percentages for each distribution of nonconfined one- and two-family residential building fires do not add up to 100 percent due to rounding.

Fire spread in nonconfined one- and two-family residential building fires

Figure 6 shows the extent of fire spread in nonconfined one- and two-family fires. In 47 percent of the nonconfined 

fires, the fire was limited to the object or room of fire origin — in 34 percent of nonconfined fires, the fire was limited 

to the room of origin; in another 12 percent of fires, the fire was limited to the object of origin.20

In 53 percent of nonconfined one- and two-family fires, the fire extended beyond the room of origin. The leading 

causes of these larger fires were other unintentional, careless actions (17 percent); electrical malfunctions (14 percent); 

open flames (11 percent); and intentional actions (10 percent).

Figure 6. Extent of fire spread in nonconfined one- and two-family residential building fires (2013-2015)

8.3

Fire spread

Percent of nonconfined one- and two-family residential building fires

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0

Beyond building of origin

Limited to building of origin

Limited to floor of origin

Limited to room of origin

Limited to object of origin 12.3

34.4

9.5

37.2

6.6

Source: NFIRS 5.0. 
TFRS Volume 18, Issue 2 | One- and Two-Family Residential Building Fires (2013-2015)

9

Factors contributing to ignition in nonconfined one- and two-family residential building fires

Table 5 shows the categories of factors contributing to ignition in nonconfined one- and two-family fires. The leading 

category was the misuse of material or product (35 percent). In this category, the leading specific factors contributing 

to ignition were a heat source too close to combustible materials (13 percent of all nonconfined one- and two-family 

fires) and abandoned or discarded materials, such as matches or cigarettes (10 percent of all nonconfined one- and 

two-family fires).

Electrical failures and malfunctions contributed to 24 percent of nonconfined one- and two-family fires. Operational 

deficiency was the third leading category at 14 percent. Unattended equipment was the leading factor in the 

operational deficiency category and accounted for 6 percent of all nonconfined one- and two-family fires.

Table 5. Factors contributing to ignition for nonconfined one- and two-family residential building fires by 

major category (where factors contributing to ignition are specified, 2013-2015)

Factors contributing to ignition category Percent of nonconfined one- and two-family 

residential building fires (unknowns apportioned)

Misuse of material or product 35.4

Electrical failure, malfunction 24.1

Operational deficiency 13.6

Fire spread or control 11.9

Mechanical failure, malfunction 7.3

Other factors contributing to ignition 5.9

Natural condition 4.3

Design, manufacture, installation deficiency 2.3

Source: NFIRS 5.0.

Notes:	 1.	Includes only incidents where factors that contributed to the ignition of the fire were specified.

	 2.	Multiple factors contributing to fire ignition may be noted for each incident; the total will exceed 100 percent.

Alerting/Suppression systems in one- and two-family residential building fires

Fire fatalities and injuries have declined over the last 35 years, partly due to new technologies to detect and extinguish 

fires. Smoke alarms are present in most homes. In addition, the use of residential sprinklers is widely supported by 

the fire service and is gaining support within residential communities.

Smoke alarm data is available for both confined and nonconfined fires, although for confined fires, the data is very 

limited in scope. As different levels of data are reported on smoke alarms in confined and nonconfined fires, the 

analyses are performed separately. Note that the data presented in Tables 6 through 8 are the raw counts from the 

NFIRS dataset and are not scaled to national estimates of smoke alarms in one- and two-family fires. In addition, the 

NFIRS does not allow for the determination of the type of smoke alarm — that is, if the smoke alarm was photoelectric 

or ionization — or the location of the smoke alarm with respect to the area of fire origin.

Smoke alarms in nonconfined fires

Overall, smoke alarms were reported as present in 39 percent of nonconfined one- and two-family fires (Table 6). In 

29 percent of nonconfined one- and two-family fires, there were no smoke alarms present. In another 33 percent of 

these fires, firefighters were unable to determine if a smoke alarm was present.21 Thus, smoke alarms were potentially 

missing in 29 to 62 percent of fires with the ability to spread and possibly result in fatalities.
TFRS Volume 18, Issue 2 | One- and Two-Family Residential Building Fires (2013-2015)

10

Table 6. Presence of smoke alarms in nonconfined one- and two-family residential building fires (2013-2015)

Presence of smoke alarms Percent

Present 38.6

None present 28.9

Undetermined 32.5

Total 100.0

Source: NFIRS 5.0.

While 18 percent of all nonconfined one- and two-family fires occurred in residential buildings that are not currently 

or routinely occupied, these occupancies — buildings under construction, undergoing major renovation, vacant and 

the like — are unlikely to have alerting and suppression systems that are in place and, if in place, that are operational. 

In fact, only 6 percent of nonconfined fires in unoccupied one- and two-family residential buildings were reported 

as having smoke alarms that operated. As a result, the detailed smoke alarm analyses in the next section focus on 

nonconfined fires in occupied one- and two-family residential buildings only.

Smoke alarms in nonconfined fires in occupied one- and two-family residential buildings

Smoke alarms were reported as present in 44 percent of nonconfined fires in occupied one- and two-family residential 

buildings (Table 7). In 23 percent of nonconfined fires in occupied one- and two-family residential buildings, there 

were no smoke alarms present. In another 33 percent of these fires, firefighters were unable to determine if a smoke 

alarm was present. Unfortunately, in almost half (51 percent) of the fires where the presence of a smoke alarm was 

undetermined, either the flames involved the building of origin or spread beyond it. These fires were so large and 

destructive that it is unlikely the presence of a smoke alarm could be determined. 

When smoke alarms were present (44 percent) and the alarm operational status is considered, the percentage of 

smoke alarms reported as present consisted of:

ĵ Present and operated — 25 percent.

ĵ Present, but did not operate — 11 percent (fire too small, 6 percent; alarm failed to operate, 5 percent).

ĵ Present, but operational status unknown — 8 percent.

When the subset of incidents where smoke alarms were reported as present was analyzed separately as a whole, 

smoke alarms were reported to have operated in 57 percent of these incidents. The alarms failed to operate in 12 

percent of these incidents, and the fire was too small to activate the alarm in another 14 percent. The operational 

status of the alarm was undetermined in an additional 17 percent of these incidents.

Nationally, only 3 percent of households do not have smoke alarms.22 Here, at least 23 percent of nonconfined fires 

in occupied one- and two-family residential buildings had no smoke alarms present — and perhaps more if fires 

without information on smoke alarms were also taken into account.23 A large proportion of reported fires without 

smoke alarms may reflect the effectiveness of the alarms themselves: Smoke alarms do not prevent fires, but they 

may prevent a fire from being reported if it is detected at an early stage and extinguished before the fire department 

becomes involved. Alternatively, fires in homes without smoke alarms may not be detected at an early stage, causing 

them to grow large, require fire department intervention, and thus be reported.24

Properly installed and maintained smoke alarms provide an early warning signal to everyone in a home if a fire occurs. 

Smoke alarms help save lives and property. The USFA continues to partner with other government agencies and fire 

service organizations to improve and develop new smoke alarm technologies. More information on smoke alarm 

technologies, performance, disposal and storage, training bulletins, and public education and outreach materials 

can be found at https://www.usfa.fema.gov/prevention/technology/smoke_fire_alarms.html. Additionally, the USFA’s 

position statement on smoke alarms is available at https://www.usfa.fema.gov/about/smoke_alarms_position.htm.
TFRS Volume 18, Issue 2 | One- and Two-Family Residential Building Fires (2013-2015)

11

Table 7. NFIRS smoke alarm data for nonconfined fires in occupied one- and two-family residential 

buildings (2013-2015)

Presence of 

smoke alarms

Smoke alarm 

operational status Smoke alarm effectiveness Count Percent

Present

Fire too small to activate 

smoke alarm 15,008 6.0

Smoke alarm operated

Smoke alarm alerted occupants, occupants 

responded 44,803 17.9

Smoke alarm alerted occupants, occupants 

failed to respond 1,605 0.6

No occupants 8,474 3.4

Smoke alarm failed to alert occupants 1,719 0.7

Undetermined 6,885 2.8

Smoke alarm failed to operate 13,583 5.4

Undetermined 18,730 7.5

None present 57,843 23.1

Undetermined 81,387 32.5

Total reported incidents 250,037 100.0

Source: NFIRS 5.0.

Notes:	 1.	 The data presented in this table are raw data counts from the NFIRS dataset summed (not averaged) from 2013 to 2015. They do not represent national

estimates of smoke alarms in nonconfined fires in occupied one- and two-family residential buildings. They are presented for informational purposes.

2. Total does not add up to 100 percent due to rounding.

Smoke alarms in confined fires

Less information about smoke alarm status is collected for confined fires, but the data still give important insights 

about the effectiveness of alerting occupants in these types of fires. The analyses presented here do not differentiate 

between occupied and unoccupied residential buildings, as this data detail is not required when reporting confined 

fires in the NFIRS. However, an assumption may be made that confined fires are fires in occupied housing, as these 

types of fires are unlikely to be reported in residential buildings that are not occupied.

Smoke alarms alerted occupants in 35 percent of the reported confined one- and two-family fires (Table 8). In other 

words, in about one-third of fires in these types of homes, residents received a warning from a smoke alarm. The 

data suggest that smoke alarms may alert residents to confined fires, as the early alerting allowed the occupants 

to extinguish the fires, or the fires self-extinguished. If this is the case, it is an example of the contribution to life 

safety and the ability to rapidly respond to fires in early stages that smoke alarms afford. Details on smoke alarm 

effectiveness for confined fires are needed to pursue this analysis further.

Occupants were not alerted by smoke alarms in 21 percent of confined one- and two-family fires.25 In 44 percent of 

these confined fires, the smoke alarm effectiveness was unknown.
TFRS Volume 18, Issue 2 | One- and Two-Family Residential Building Fires (2013-2015)

12

Table 8. NFIRS smoke alarm data for confined one- and two-family residential building fires (2013-2015)

Smoke alarm effectiveness Count Percent

Smoke alarm alerted occupants 70,959 34.8

Smoke alarm did not alert occupants 43,205 21.2

Unknown 89,462 43.9

Null/Blank 1 0.0

Total reported incidents 203,627 100.0

Source: NFIRS 5.0.

Notes:	 1.	 The data presented in this table are raw data counts from the NFIRS dataset summed (not averaged) from 2013 to 2015. They do not represent national

estimates of smoke alarms in confined one- and two-family residential building fires. They are presented for informational purposes.

2. Total does not add up to 100 percent due to rounding.

Automatic extinguishing systems in nonconfined fires in occupied one- and two-family residential buildings

AES data is available for both confined and nonconfined fires, although for confined fires, the data is also very limited 

in scope. In confined residential building fires, an AES was present in less than 1 percent of reported incidents.26 In 

addition, the following AES analyses focus on nonconfined fires in occupied one- and two-family buildings only, as 

even fewer AESs are present in unoccupied housing.

Residential sprinklers are the primary AES in one- and two-family residences and are not yet widely installed. In fact, full 

or partial AESs were reported as present in only 1 percent of nonconfined fires in occupied one- and two-family buildings 

(Table 9). This was the lowest reported presence of sprinklers in nonconfined fires in any occupied residential occupancy. 

Residential sprinkler systems help to reduce the risk of deaths and injuries, homeowner insurance premiums, and 

uninsured property losses. Yet many homes do not have AESs, although they are often found in hotels and businesses. 

Sprinklers are required by code in hotels and many multifamily residences. There are major movements in the U.S. fire 

service to require sprinklers in all new homes. At present, however, they are largely absent in residences nationwide.27

The USFA and fire service officials across the nation are working to promote and advance residential fire sprinklers. 

More information on costs and benefits, performance, training bulletins, and public education and outreach materials 

regarding residential sprinklers can be found at https://www.usfa.fema.gov/prevention/technology/home_fire_

sprinklers.html. Additionally, the USFA’s position statement on residential sprinklers is available at https://www.

usfa.fema.gov/about/sprinklers_position.html.

Table 9. NFIRS automatic extinguishing system data for nonconfined fires in occupied one- and two-family 

residential buildings (2013-2015)

Automatic extinguishing system presence Count Percent

Automatic extinguishing system present 2,984 1.2

Partial system present 104 0.0

Automatic extinguishing system not present 226,049 90.4

Unknown 20,900 8.4

Total reported incidents 250,037 100.0

Source: NFIRS 5.0.

Note:	 The data presented in this table are raw data counts from the NFIRS dataset summed (not averaged) from 2013 to 2015. They do not represent national estimates

of AESs in nonconfined fires in occupied one- and two-family residential buildings. They are presented for informational purposes.
TFRS Volume 18, Issue 2 | One- and Two-Family Residential Building Fires (2013-2015)

13

Examples

The following are some recent examples of one- and two-family fires reported by the media:

ĵ March 2017: Four people were displaced after an early evening duplex fire in Burke, Wisconsin. Flames were 

coming from one of the duplex’s units as firefighters arrived on scene. While all four occupants of the duplex 

were able to escape without injury, one firefighter was injured and treated on scene. Two-thirds of the duplex 

received an estimated $150,000 in fire and smoke damage. The cause of the fire remained under investigation.28

ĵ February 2017: A fire caused over $30,000 in damage to a single-story house in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, and 

also damaged two vans parked in the home’s driveway. Upon arrival to the late morning fire, firefighters found 

heavy smoke and flames coming from the side of the house. Crews were able to extinguish the fire from inside 

the home and determined the cause of the fire was a candle left burning on a bed-side table. There were no 

occupants inside of the house at the time of the fire.29

ĵ February 2017: Improper cooking caused an accidental, late morning house fire in Shreveport, Louisiana. A 

man inside was cooking when he noticed smoke filling the house but was able to make it out safely before the 

fire department arrived. The majority of the one-story house received smoke and water damage. In addition, 

investigators reported that there were no working smoke alarms present at the time of the fire.30

NFIRS data specifications for one- and two-family residential building fires

Data for this report were extracted from the NFIRS annual Public Data Release files for 2013, 2014 and 2015. Only 

Version 5.0 data were extracted.

One- and two-family fires were defined using the following criteria:

ĵ Aid Types 3 (mutual aid given) and 4 (automatic aid given) were excluded to avoid double counting of incidents.

ĵ Incident Types 111 to 123 (excluding Incident Type 112):

Incident Type Description

111 Building fire

113 Cooking fire, confined to container

114 Chimney or flue fire, confined to chimney or flue

115 Incinerator overload or malfunction, fire confined

116 Fuel burner/boiler malfunction, fire confined

117 Commercial compactor fire, confined to rubbish

118 Trash or rubbish fire, contained

120 Fire in mobile property used as a fixed structure, other

121 Fire in mobile home used as fixed residence

122 Fire in motor home, camper, recreational vehicle

123 Fire in portable building, fixed location

Note: Incident Types 113 to 118 do not specify if the structure is a building.

ĵ Property Use 419:

Property Use Description

419 One- or two-family dwelling, detached, manufactured home, mobile home not in transit, duplex
TFRS Volume 18, Issue 2 | One- and Two-Family Residential Building Fires (2013-2015)

14

ĵ Structure Type:

Ý For Incident Types 113 to 118:

f 1—Enclosed building, or

f 2—Fixed portable or mobile structure, or

f Structure Type not specified (null entry).

Ý For Incident Types 111 and 120 to 123:

f 1—Enclosed building, or

f 2—Fixed portable or mobile structure.

The analyses contained in this report reflect the current methodologies used by the USFA. The USFA is committed 

to providing the best and most current information on the U.S. fire problem and continually examines its data and 

methodology to fulfill this goal. Because of this commitment, data collection strategies and methodological changes 

are possible and do occur. As a result, analyses and estimates of the fire problem may change slightly over time. 

Previous analyses and estimates on specific issues (or similar issues) may have used different methodologies or data 

definitions and may not be directly comparable to the current ones.

Information regarding the USFA’s national estimates for residential building fires, as well as the data sources used to 

derive the estimates, can be found in the document, “Data Sources and National Estimates Methodology Overview 

for the U.S. Fire Administration’s Topical Fire Report Series (Volume 18),” https://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/pdf/

statistics/data_sources_and_national_estimates_methodology_vol18.pdf. This document also addresses the specific 

NFIRS data elements analyzed in the topical reports, as well as “unknown” data entries and missing data.

To request additional information, visit https://www.usfa.fema.gov/contact.html. To comment on this specific 

report, visit https://apps.usfa.fema.gov/contact/dataReportEval?reportTitle=One-%20and%20Two-Family%20

Residential%20Building%20Fires%20(2013-2015).

Notes:

1National estimates are based on 2013 to 2015 native Version 5.0 data from the NFIRS, residential structure fire loss estimates from the National 

Fire Protection Association’s (NFPA’s) annual surveys of fire loss, and the USFA’s residential building fire loss estimates: https://www.usfa.

fema.gov/data/statistics/order_download_data.html. Further information on the USFA’s residential building fire loss estimates can be found 

in the “National Estimates Methodology for Building Fires and Losses,” August 2012, https://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/pdf/statistics/

national_estimate_methodology.pdf. For information on the NFPA’s survey methodology, see the NFPA’s report “Fire Loss in the United States 

During 2015,” September 2016, http://www.nfpa.org/news-and-research/fire-statistics-and-reports/fire-statistics/fires-in-the-us/overall-fireproblem/fire-loss-in-the-united-states. In this topical report, fires are rounded to the nearest 100, deaths to the nearest five, injuries to the 

nearest 25, and dollar loss to the nearest $100 million.

2In NFIRS Version 5.0, a structure is a constructed item of which a building is one type. In previous versions of the NFIRS, the term “residential 

structure” commonly referred to buildings where people live. To coincide with this concept, the definition of a residential structure fire for 

NFIRS 5.0 includes only those fires where the NFIRS 5.0 structure type is 1 or 2 (enclosed building and fixed portable or mobile structure) with 

a residential property use. Such structures are referred to as “residential buildings” to distinguish these buildings from other structures on 

residential properties that may include fences, sheds and other uninhabitable structures. In addition, confined fire incidents that have a residential 

property use but do not have a structure type specified are presumed to occur in buildings. Nonconfined fire incidents that have a residential 

property use without a structure type specified are considered to be invalid incidents (structure type is a required field) and are not included.

3National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Weather Service, Summary of Natural Hazard Statistics for 2015 in the U.S. (http://

www.nws.noaa.gov/om/hazstats/sum15.pdf).

4Fire department participation in the NFIRS is voluntary; however, some states do require their departments to participate in the state system. 

Additionally, if a fire department is a recipient of a Fire Act Grant, participation is required. From 2013 to 2015, 67 percent of the NFPA’s annual 

average estimated 1,294,500 fires to which fire departments responded were captured in the NFIRS. Thus, the NFIRS is not representative of 

all fire incidents in the U.S. and is not a “complete” census of fire incidents. Although the NFIRS does not represent 100 percent of the incidents 

reported to fire departments each year, the enormous dataset exhibits stability from one year to the next, without radical changes. Results 

based on the full dataset are generally similar to those based on part of the data.

5Multifamily residential buildings include structures such as apartments, town houses, row houses, condominiums and other tenement properties.

6In the NFIRS, confined fires are defined by Incident Type codes 113 to 118.
TFRS Volume 18, Issue 2 | One- and Two-Family Residential Building Fires (2013-2015)

15

7The NFIRS distinguishes between “content” and “property” loss. Content loss includes losses to the contents of a structure due to damage by 

fire, smoke, water and overhaul. Property loss includes losses to the structure itself or to the property itself. Total loss is the sum of the content 

loss and the property loss. For confined fires, the expectation is that the fire did not spread beyond the container (or rubbish for Incident Type 

code 118), and hence, there was no property damage (damage to the structure itself) from the flames. However, there could be property damage 

as a result of smoke, water and overhaul.

8The average fire death and fire injury loss rates computed from the national estimates do not agree with average fire death and fire injury loss 

rates computed from NFIRS data alone. The fire death rate computed from national estimates is 1,000 x (2,175/243,700) = 8.9 deaths per 1,000 

one- and two-family residential building fires, and the fire injury rate is 1,000 x (7,575/243,700) = 31.1 injuries per 1,000 one- and two-family 

residential building fires. 

9For the purposes of this report, the time of the fire alarm is used as an approximation for the general time at which the fire started. However, 

in the NFIRS, it is the time at which the fire was reported to the fire department.

10USFA, “Cooking Fires in Residential Buildings (2008-2010),” Volume 13, Issue 12, January 2013, https://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/pdf/

statistics/v13i12.pdf.

11The USFA Structure Fire Cause Methodology was used to determine the cause of one- and two-family residential building fires. The cause 

methodology and definitions can be found in the document “National Fire Incident Reporting System Version 5.0 Fire Data Analysis Guidelines 

and Issues,” July 2011, https://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/pdf/nfirs/nfirs_data_analysis_guidelines_issues.pdf. 

12Fires caused by intentional actions include, but are not limited to, fires that are deemed to be arson. Intentional fires are those fires that are 

deliberately set and include fires that result from the deliberate misuse of a heat source and fires of an incendiary nature (arson) that require 

fire service intervention. For information and statistics on arson fires only, refer to the Uniform Crime Reporting Program arson statistics from 

the U.S. Department of Justice, FBI, Criminal Justice Information Services Division, https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/ucr.

13Other residential buildings include boarding houses (e.g., shelters), hotels/motels (i.e., residential and commercial), residential board and care 

facilities (e.g., long-term care and assisted living facilities), dormitories, sorority and fraternity houses, and barracks.

14The American Housing Survey does not indicate the number of fireplaces, chimneys and fireplace-related equipment per se. It does collect data 

on fireplaces, etc., as the primary heating unit, which applies to this analysis. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and 

U.S. Census Bureau, 2015 American Housing Survey – Table Creator, select “2015 (Year) National (Area) Housing Unit Characteristics (Table); Units 

by Structure Type (Variable 1),” https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/ahs/data/interactive/ahstablecreator.html#?s_areas=a00000&s_

year=n2015&s_tableName=Table1&s_byGroup1=a1&s_byGroup2=a1&s_filterGroup1=t1&s_filterGroup2=g1 (accessed March 27, 2017).

15Smith, Linda E. and Dennis McCoskrie, “What Causes Wiring Fires in Residences?” Fire Journal, January/February 1990.

16Dini, David A., “Residential Electrical System Aging Research Project,” Fire Protection Research Foundation, Quincy, Massachusetts, July 1, 

2008, http://www.nfpa.org/research/fire-protection-research-foundation/projects-reports-and-proceedings/electrical-safety/aging-electricalsystem-performance (accessed March 27, 2017).

17The American Housing Survey does not have a category for one- and two-family residences that conforms to the definition used by NFIRS. 

Housing age given here is an estimate based on the information presented for single-family attached and detached housing. HUD and U.S. 

Census Bureau, 2015 American Housing Survey — Table Creator, select “2015 (Year) National (Area) Housing Unit Characteristics (Table); Units 

by Structure Type (Variable 1),” https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/ahs/data/interactive/ahstablecreator.html#?s_areas=a00000&s_

year=n2015&s_tableName=Table1&s_byGroup1=a1&s_byGroup2=a1&s_filterGroup1=t1&s_filterGroup2=g1 (accessed March 27, 2017). 

18Dini, David A., “Residential Electrical System Aging Research Project,” Fire Protection Research Foundation, Quincy, Massachusetts, July 1, 

2008, http://www.nfpa.org/research/fire-protection-research-foundation/projects-reports-and-proceedings/electrical-safety/aging-electricalsystem-performance (accessed March 27, 2017).

19As noted previously, in the NFIRS, confined building fires are small fire incidents that are limited in scope, are confined to specific noncombustible 

containers, rarely result in serious injury or large content loss, and are expected to have no significant accompanying property loss due to flame 

damage. In the NFIRS, confined fires are defined by Incident Type codes 113 to 118.

20Total does not add up to 47 percent due to rounding.

21Total does not add up to 100 percent due to rounding.

22Greene, Michael and Craig Andres, “2004-2005 National Sample Survey of Unreported Residential Fires,” Division of Hazard Analysis, Directorate 

for Epidemiology, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, July 2009.

23Here, at least 23 percent of nonconfined fires in occupied one- and two-family residential buildings had no smoke alarms present — the 23 

percent that were known to not have smoke alarms and some portion (or as many as all) of the fires where the smoke alarm presence was 

undetermined.

24The “2004-2005 National Sample Survey of Unreported Residential Fires,” however, suggests that this may not be the case. It is observed 

that “if this conjecture is true, it would suggest that the percentage decrease in fire department-attended fires would have been greater than 

unattended fires in the 20 year period between the surveys.”

25In confined fires, the entry “smoke alarm did not alert occupants” can mean no smoke alarm was present; the smoke alarm was present but 

did not operate; the smoke alarm was present and operated, but the occupant/s was already aware of the fire; or there were no occupants 

present at the time of the fire.

26As confined fire codes are designed to capture fires contained to noncombustible containers, it is not recommended to code a fire incident as 

a small-, low- or no-loss confined fire incident if the AES operated and contained the fire as a result. The preferred method is to code the fire as 

a standard fire incident with fire spread confined to the object of origin and provide the relevant information on AES presence and operation.
TFRS Volume 18, Issue 2 | One- and Two-Family Residential Building Fires (2013-2015)

16

27HUD and U.S. Census Bureau, American Housing Survey for the United States: 2011, September 2013, “Health and Safety Characteristics-All 

Occupied Units (National),” Table S-01-AO, https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/programs-surveys/ahs/data/2011/h150-11.pdf (accessed 

March 29, 2017).

28March, Joshua, “4 Displaced After A Duplex Fire in Town of Burke,” www.channel3000.com, March 19, 2017, http://www.channel3000.com/

news/four-people-displaced-after-a-duplex-fire-in-town-of-burke/404650568 (accessed March 28, 2017).

29Enchassi, Nadia Judith, “Fire Causes Thousands of Dollars in Damages to House, 2 Vans in Oklahoma City,” kfor.com, Feb. 18, 2017, http://kfor.

com/2017/02/18/fire-causes-thousands-of-dollars-in-damages-to-house-2-vans-in-oklahoma-city/ (accessed March 28, 2017).

30Cook, Nancy, “Cooking Leads to Queensborough House Fire,” www.arklatexhomepage.com, Feb. 13, 2017, http://www.arklatexhomepage.com/

news/local-news/queensboro-fire/655409190 (accessed March 28, 2017).