Topical Fire reporT SerieS

U.S. Department of Homeland Security • U.S. Fire Administration 

National Fire Data Center • Emmitsburg, Maryland 21727 

www.usfa.fema.gov/statistics/

Volume 12, Issue 9 / August 2011

University Housing Fires (2007-2009)

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 (USFA’s) National 

Fire Incident Reporting System (NFIRS). 

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

■ An estimated 3,800 university housing fires occur each year in the United States.

■ Eighty-eight percent of university housing fires are cooking fires. Small, confined cooking 

fires account for 81 percent of university housing fires. However, cooking fires comprise only 

9 percent of nonconfined university housing fires.

■ University housing fires occur most frequently in the late summer and fall, peaking in 

September at 12 percent. Fires in September, October, and November account for 33 

percent of all fires throughout the year. 

■ The leading causes of nonconfined university housing fires are intentional (16 percent), other 

unintentional or careless actions (12 percent), open flame (11 percent), and other heat (10 

percent).

■ Smoke alarms were present in 85 percent of nonconfined fires in occupied university 

housing.

From 2007 to 2009, an estimated 3,800 university housing fires occurred in the United States each year. These 

fires account for approximately 1 percent of total residential building fires responded to by fire departments across 

the United States.1, 2, 3 University housing fires resulted in 

a yearly average of 0 deaths, 25 injuries, and $9 million in 

property loss. 

This topical report addresses the characteristics of university housing fires reported to the National Fire Incident 

Reporting System (NFIRS) between 2007 and 2009 and is 

an update to the topical report, University Housing Fires (Volume 

10, Issue 1, released June 2010). In NFIRS, university housing fires are considered to be fires in college and university 

residential buildings that include dormitories and fraternity 

and sorority houses.

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) 

reports an increase in dormitory and university housing fires in recent years. The number of university and 

dormitory housing fires increased from 1,800 per year in 

the late 1990s to 3,300 per year in 2005.4

 Students bring 

more items from home to make their college stays more 

comfortable, including high-powered electrical equipment 

and appliances. However, the equipment can be dangerous when used improperly or left unsupervised, especially 

in dormitory rooms. The CPSC reported that fires are 

more common during the evenings and weekends when 

most students are in residence halls. Most of the fires are 

cooking-related (hot plates, microwaves, portable grills, 

etc.), but the majority of deaths occur in bedrooms.5

 It 

should be noted, however, that the 1990’s university housing estimates are based on NFIRS Version 4.1 data, with 

recent estimates based on NFIRS Version 5.0 data. There 

are substantial differences between the two data collection 

systems, and as a result, the estimates from the two systems 

may not be comparable. Because the two NFIRS data collection systems captured the data differently, the increase in 

university housing fires shown by CPSC may not necessarily 

reflect a true trend change.

In a joint statement in 2007, the CPSC, the U.S. Fire 

Administration (USFA), the National Fire Protection 

Association (NFPA), and the University of Maryland’s Fire 

Marshal urged students, families, and school administrators across the Nation to be aware of the fire hazards and 

to take precautions.6

 In addition, the Higher Education 

Opportunity Act, passed by Congress in 2008, now requires 

universities and colleges to publish an annual fire safety 

report and maintain a fire reporting log. As part of this law, 

institutions must provide a description of each oncampus 

housing fire safety policy and sprinkler system as well as 

rules regarding fire safety education, training, and evacuation procedures in each residence. Along with this, universities must provide statistics on fire losses for each calendar 

year, as well as details on specific fire incidents.7

 
TFRS Volume 12, Issue 9/University Housing Fires (2007-2009) Page 2

Type of Fires

Building fires consist of two major categories of incidents: 

fires that are confined to specific types of equipment or 

objects (confined fires) and those that are not (nonconfined fires). Confined building fires are small fire incidents 

that are limited in scope and confined to noncombustible 

containers.8

 Confined fires rarely result in serious injury 

or large content losses, and are expected to have no significant accompanying property losses due to flame damage.9

 

Eighty-seven percent of university housing fires are confined fires, as shown in Table 1.

Table 1. University Housing Fires by Type of Incident (2007-2009)

Incident Type Percent

Nonconfined Fires 12.6

Confined Fires 87.4

Cooking fire, confined to container 81.3

Chimney or flue fire, confined to chimney or flue 0.3

Incinerator overload or malfunction, fire contained 0.2

Fuel burner/boiler malfunction, fire contained 0.9

Commercial compactor fire, confined to rubbish 0.1

Trash or rubbish fire, contained 4.7

Total Incidents 100.0

Source: NFIRS 5.0.

Loss Measures

Table 2 presents losses, averaged over this 3-year period, 

for residential building fires and university housing fires 

reported to NFIRS.10 The average number of deaths and 

injuries per 1,000 fires, as well as dollar loss per fire, in 

university housing are well below the same figures for residential building fires (excluding university housing fires). 

Table 2. Loss Measures for University Housing Fires (3-year average, 2007-2009)

Measures

Residential Building Fires 

(Excludes University 

Housing Fires)

University 

Housing Fires

Confined University 

Housing Fires

Nonconfined University 

Housing Fires

Average Loss:

Fatalities/1,000 Fires 5.6 0.4 0.0 3.1

Injuries/1,000 Fires 28.7 5.2 1.0 34.2

Dollar Loss/Fire $17,090 $1,970 $80 $15,130 

Source: NFIRS 5.0.

Notes: 1) No deaths were reported to NFIRS in confined university housing fires during 2007–2009; the resulting loss of 0.0 fatalities per 1,000 fires reflects only data reported to NFIRS. 

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

 3) When calculating the average dollar loss per fire for 2007–2009, the 2007 and 2008 dollar loss values were adjusted to their equivalent 2009 dollar loss values to account for inflation.

Table 3 presents the percentage distribution of property use 

for all university housing fires, confined university housing fires, and nonconfined university housing fires. Fires 

in dormitories and dormitory-type residences account for 

95 percent of all university housing fires. These fires also 

account for 96 percent of confined university housing fires 

and 87 percent of nonconfined university housing fires. 

While sorority and fraternity housing fires are not substantial in terms of the overall number of university housing 

fires, they play a bigger role in nonconfined fires. They 

account for 13 percent of fires in this category, while only 4 

percent in the confined category.

Table 3. Percentage Distribution of Property Use for University Housing Fires 

(3-year average, 2007-2009)

Property Use All University 

Housing Fires

Confined University

Housing Fires

Nonconfined University

Housing Fires

Dormitory and Dormitory-type residence 94.9 96.0 87.0

Sorority House, Fraternity House 5.1 4.0 13.0

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0

Source: NFIRS 5.0.
TFRS Volume 12, Issue 9/University Housing Fires (2007-2009) Page 3

When University Housing Fires Occur

As shown in Figure 1, university housing fires occur mainly 

in the early evening hours from 5 to 10 p.m., peaking from 

7 to 9 p.m., and then declining throughout the evening and 

into the early morning hours. The lowest point is from 

5 to 6 a.m.11 The distribution of fires by time of alarm is 

very similar to that of residential fires (excluding university 

housing fires), but there tend to be more fires in university 

housing in the evening hours. This may be due to when 

most students are in their residences and cooking evening 

meals. 

Figure 1. University Housing Fires by Time of Alarm (2007–2009)

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

11PM-Mid

10PM-11PM

9PM-10PM

1PM-2PM

2PM-3PM

3PM-4PM

4PM-5PM

5PM-6PM

6PM-7PM

7PM-8PM

8PM-9PM

12PM-1PM

10AM-11AM

11AM-12PM

9AM-10AM

Mid-1AM

1AM-2AM

2AM-3AM

3AM-4AM

4AM-5AM

5AM-6AM

6AM-7AM

7AM-8AM

8AM-9AM

Time of Alarm

Percent of University Housing Fires

3.7

2.5 2.8

2.1

1.5 1.2 1.4 1.7

2.4

4.0

8.5 8.3

6.3

5.5

4.5 4.6 4.6 4.8 5.1

6.7

7.7

4.4

Residential Building Fires

(excluding University

Housing Fires)

2.7

3.1

Source: NFIRS 5.0.

As shown in Figure 2, university housing fires occur 

most frequently in the late summer and fall, peaking in 

September at 12 percent. Fires in September, October, and 

November account for 33 percent of all fires throughout 

the year. This is primarily due to the fact that these months

constitute the beginning of the academic year for most 

students. From December to April, fires fluctuate between 

8 and 9 percent, accounting for 44 percent of fires for 

the year. Fires decline dramatically during the summer 

months, mainly because students are not in attendance at 

universities and student housing may be unoccupied. This 

is in contrast to residential building fires (excluding university housing fires), where fires occur most frequently in the 

winter months and dip in the summer months. 

Figure 2. University Housing Fires by Month (2007–2009)

Month of Year 

Percent of University Housing Fires

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

November

December

October

September

August

July

April

May

June

March

February

January

9.0 9.2 9.0

5.1

5.9

11.8

8.0 8.4

4.9

10.0

11.1

7.6

Residential Building 

Fires (Excluding 

University Housing Fires)

Source: NFIRS 5.0.
TFRS Volume 12, Issue 9/University Housing Fires (2007-2009) Page 4

Causes of University Housing Fires

Eighty-eight percent of all university housing fires are cooking fires as shown in Table 4. The next four causes account 

for 7 percent of all university housing fires: intentionally 

set fires (2 percent), heating (2 percent), open flame (1 percent), and other unintentional, careless actions (1 percent).12 

While candle fires, a subset of open flame fires, have been a 

major concern in university housing, they constitute half of 

1 percent of all university housing fires. This may be due 

to the fact that only a small number of these fires are actually reported to NFIRS. This lack of reporting could be due 

to campus regulations banning candles, combined with the 

lack of data from confined fires. 

Table 4. Leading Causes of University Housing Fires (2007-2009)

Cause Percent (Unknowns Apportioned)

Cooking 87.5

Intentional 2.2

Heating 1.7

Open Flame 1.3

Other Unintentional, Careless 1.3

Source: NFIRS 5.0.

Confined Fires

Confined fires are allowed abbreviated NFIRS reporting and 

many reporting details of the fire are not required and not 

reported. These fires are small in nature and often do not 

cause significant injury or damage. The three major areas 

where data are available—time of day, month, and cause—

confined fires dominate the overall university housing fire 

profile. Thirty-nine percent of confined university housing 

fires occur between 5 and 10 p.m., with the peak occurring between 7 and 8 p.m. Confined fires most often occur 

in the months of September, October, and November in 

the calendar year, and then decline throughout the rest of 

the academic year, with the lowest points in June and July. 

Cooking is the cause of 97 percent of confined university 

housing fires, which is not surprising given that cooking is 

the cause of 88 percent of all university housing fires.

Nonconfined Fires

The next sections of this topical report address nonconfined 

university housing fires, where detailed fire data are available, such as equipment involved in ignition, heat source, 

etc. While these fires are not as prevalent as confined fires 

in university housing, they often cause serious injury and 

property damage.

Causes of Nonconfined University Housing 

Fires

While cooking is the leading cause of university housing 

fires overall, it is only a small percentage of nonconfined 

university housing fires (9 percent). As shown in Figure 3, 

the leading causes of nonconfined university fires are intentional (16 percent), other unintentional, careless actions 

(12 percent), open flame (11 percent), and other heat (10 

percent).
TFRS Volume 12, Issue 9/University Housing Fires (2007-2009) Page 5

Figure 3. Causes of Nonconfined University Housing Fires (2007–2009)

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0

Unknown

Investigation with Arson Module

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 

University Housing Fires 

with Cause Determined

Percent of All Nonconfined 

University Housing Fires

15.7

12.4

0.8

0.6

5.5

4.4

4.2

3.3

9.0

7.2

9.4

7.5

5.9

4.7

10.8

8.6

10.3

8.2

1.0

0.8

2.3

1.9

2.1

1.7

9.7

11.5

9.1

1.8

1.5

7.7

20.5

Percent of Nonconfined University Housing Fires

Causes Source: NFIRS 5.0.

Note: Causes are listed in order of the USFA Cause Hierarchy for ease of comparison of fire causes across different aspects of the fire problem. Fires are assigned to 1 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.

Where Nonconfined University Housing 

Fires Start (Area of Fire Origin)

Nonconfined university housing fires occur in a variety of 

areas, but most start in either the kitchen or cooking area 

(24 percent) or the bedroom (18 percent). Fires that start in 

laundry areas (7 percent), bathrooms (7 percent), hallways 

and corridors (4 percent), and common rooms or dens (4 

percent) make up an additional 22 percent of nonconfined 

fires (Table 5).

Table 5. Leading Areas of Fire Origin in Nonconfined University Housing Fires (2007-2009)

Area of Origin Percent (Unknowns Apportioned)

Cooking Area, Kitchen 24.3

Bedrooms 18.4

Laundry Area 7.2

Bathroom 6.8

Hallway Corridor 4.1

Common Room, Den 3.5

Source: NFIRS 5.0.

For intentionally-set nonconfined fires, 19 percent are set in 

the hallways or corridors of the building, while 17 percent 

are first set in the bedroom. Intentionally-set nonconfined 

fires also occur in bathrooms (10 percent), the egress or exit 

areas of buildings (8 percent), common rooms or dens (5 

percent), and kitchens (5 percent).

The second leading cause of nonconfined university housing fires is other unintentional or careless actions, where 

the majority of these fires start in the kitchen or cooking 

area (44 percent). Fires in the bedroom account for an 

additional 24 percent of nonconfined other unintentional 

fires. 
TFRS Volume 12, Issue 9/University Housing Fires (2007-2009) Page 6

Fires involving open flame in bedrooms account for 34 

percent of the total of all nonconfined university housing 

open-flame fires. Open-flame fires also start in the kitchen 

or cooking area (14 percent) and the bathroom (8 percent), 

totaling 22 percent.

The majority of nonconfined university housing fires where 

the cause is “other heat” start mainly in the bedroom (22 

percent) or the cooking area/kitchen (22 percent). Other 

heat fires also start in the laundry area (6 percent) and on 

the exterior roof (6 percent). 

How Nonconfined University Housing Fires 

Start (Heat Source)

The heat source categories for nonconfined university 

housing fires are shown in Figure 4. Heat from operating 

equipment accounts for 51 percent of nonconfined university housing fires. This category includes heat from other 

operating equipment, which accounts for 19 percent of all 

nonconfined university housing fires, as well as radiated or 

conducted heat from operating equipment, which comprises 18 percent of these fires. The second-leading heat 

source category is heat from open flame or smoking materials, which totals 25 percent of nonconfined university 

housing fires. This category includes such heat sources as 

candles, cigarettes, lighters, and matches. The third largest 

category for heat source is hot or smoldering objects. This 

category can include such heat sources as hot ash or embers 

from fireplaces and heat sparked from friction, and accounts 

for 13 percent of these fires.

Figure 4. Sources of Heat in Nonconfined University Housing Fires by Major Category 

(2007–2009)

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0

Undetermined

Multiple Heat Sources

Explosives, Fireworks

Chemicals, Natural Heat Sources

Heat Spread from Another Fire

Other Heat Source

Hot or Smoldering Object

Heat from Open Flame or Smoking Materials

Operating Equipment

Percent of Nonconfined 

University Housing Fires 

with Heat Source

 Determined

Percent of All Nonconfined 

University Housing Fires

50.7

38.8

24.7

18.9

12.5

9.5

6.5

5.0

2.4

1.9

1.8

1.3

1.2

0.9

0.1

0.1

23.5

Percent of Nonconfined University Housing Fires

Source: NFIRS 5.0.

Of the causes for nonconfined university housing fires, 39 

percent specifically involve equipment of some fashion.13 In 

these cases, the leading heat source is heat from operating 

equipment, accounting for 84 percent of these fires. Of the 

24 percent of fires that start in the cooking area or kitchen 

(Table 5), 31 percent of these fires are started by heat from 

powered equipment, 30 percent are started by radiated or 

conducted heat from operating equipment, and 6 percent 

are started by a spark, ember, or flame from operating 

equipment. 

As shown in Table 5, 18 percent of nonconfined university housing fires start in the bedroom. Of these fires, 11 

percent are started by heat from operating equipment, 17 

percent are started by radiated or conducted heat from 

operating equipment, and 8 percent are started by electrical arcing. Although candles are strictly prohibited in 

residences by many schools, they still make up 14 percent 

of nonconfined university housing fires that start in the 

bedroom.
TFRS Volume 12, Issue 9/University Housing Fires (2007-2009) Page 7

Fire Spread in Nonconfined University 

Housing

Fire spread in nonconfined university housing is generally 

contained to the object of origin (43 percent), or to the 

room of origin (41 percent), as shown in Figure 5. When 

these statistics are combined with the implied fire spread 

for confined fires (that is, confined fires are implied to be 

confined to the object of origin), 92 percent of all university housing fires are found to be confined to the object of 

origin.

Figure 5. Extent of Fire Spread in Nonconfined University Housing Fires (2007–2009)

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0

Beyond building of origin

Confined to building of origin

Confined to floor of origin

Confined to room of origin

Confined to object of origin

Percent of Nonconfined University Housing Fires

43.0

40.7

5.4

8.5

2.4

Source: NFIRS 5.0.

Factors Contributing to Ignition

Table 6 shows the leading factors contributing to ignition 

of nonconfined university housing fires. Abandoned or 

discarded materials or products were the leading factors 

contributing to ignition at 15 percent, with placing a heat 

source too close to combustibles at 14 percent. These two 

factors, coupled with a general misuse of material or products at 12 percent, accounted for 40 percent of all nonconfined university housing fires.14 Equipment left unattended 

was a factor contributing to ignition in an additional 10 

percent of the nonconfined university housing fires.

Table 6. Leading Factors Contributing to Ignition for Nonconfined University Housing Fires 

(Where Factor Contributing Specified, 2007-2009)

Factors Contributing to Ignition Percent of Nonconfined University Housing Fires

(Unknowns Apportioned)

Abandoned or discarded materials or products 14.8

Heat source too close to combustibles 14.1

Misuse of material or product, other 11.5

Equipment unattended 9.6

Source: NFIRS 5.0.

Notes: Indicates only incidents where factors that contributed to the ignition of the fire were specified. Multiple factors contributing to ignition may be noted for each incident.

Alerting/Suppression Systems in 

University Housing Fires

Technologies to detect and extinguish fires have been a 

major contributor to the drop in fire fatalities and injuries 

over the past 30 years. Smoke alarms are now present in 

the majority of residential buildings, including university 

housing. In addition, the use of residential sprinklers is 

widely supported by the fire service, and based on NFIRS 

data, is more common in university housing than in any 

other residential property type. 

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

limited in scope. As different levels of data are collected 

on smoke alarms in confined and nonconfined fires, the 
TFRS Volume 12, Issue 9/University Housing Fires (2007-2009) Page 8

analyses are performed separately. Note that the data presented in Tables 7 to 9 are the raw counts from the NFIRS 

data set and are not scaled to national estimates of smoke 

alarms in university housing fires. In addition, 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

Because of various avenues of fire notification in university 

housing, the detailed smoke alarm analyses in this section 

focus on all nonconfined fires in university housing.15

Smoke alarms were reported as present in 82 percent of 

nonconfined fires in university housing (Table 7). In 9 percent of nonconfined fires in university housing, there were 

no smoke alarms present. In another 9 percent of these 

fires, firefighters were unable to determine if a smoke alarm 

was present. 

When smoke alarms were present (82 percent) and the 

alarm operational status is considered, the percentage of 

smoke alarms reported as present consists of:

•	 smoke alarms present and operated—63 percent; 

•	 present but did not operate—13 percent (fire too small, 

9 percent; alarm did not operate, 4 percent); and

•	 present, but operational status unknown—6 percent. 

When the subset of incidents where smoke alarms were 

reported as present are analyzed separately and as a whole, 

smoke alarms were reported to have operated in 77 percent 

of the incidents. The alarms did not operate in 16 percent 

of the incidents (in 5 percent of the incidents, the alarm 

failed to operate; in 11 percent, the fire was too small to 

activate the alarm). The operational status of the alarm was 

undetermined in 7 percent of these incidents.

Table 7. NFIRS Smoke Alarm Data for Nonconfined University Housing Fires 

(NFIRS, 2007-2009)

Presence of 

Smoke Alarms Smoke alarm operational status Smoke Alarm Effectiveness Count Percent

Present

Fire too small to activate smoke alarm 87 9.0

Smoke alarm operated

Smoke alarm alerted occupants, occupants responded

Smoke alarm alerted occupants, occupants failed to respond

No occupants

514

37

32

53.3

3.8

3.3

Smoke alarm failed to alert occupants 5 0.5

Undetermined 18 1.9

Smoke alarm failed to operate 41 4.3

Undetermined 53 5.5

None present 90 9.3

Undetermined 87 9.0

Total Incidents 964 100.0

Source: NFIRS 5.0.

Notes: The data presented in this table are raw data counts from the NFIRS data set. They do not represent national estimates of smoke alarms in nonconfined university housing fires. They are presented for informational purposes. Total may not add 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. Smoke alarms alerted occupants in 85 percent of 

the reported confined university housing fires (Table 8). In 

other words, in about 85 percent of fires in these buildings, 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 overall 

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 only 3 

percent of confined university housing fires.16 In 12 percent 

of these confined fires, the smoke alarm effectiveness was 

unknown. 
TFRS Volume 12, Issue 9/University Housing Fires (2007-2009) Page 9

Table 8. NFIRS Smoke Alarm Data for Confined University Housing Fires (NFIRS, 2007-2009)

Smoke Alarm Effectiveness Count Percent

Detector alerted occupants 5,713 85.3

Detector did not alert them 186 2.8

Unknown 796 11.9

Total Incidents 6,695 100.0

Source: NFIRS 5.0.

Notes: The data presented in this table are raw data counts from the NFIRS data set. They do not represent national estimates of smoke alarms in confined university housing fires. They are presented for informational 

purposes. 

Automatic Extinguishing Systems in Nonconfined 

University Housing Fires

Automatic extinguishing system (AES) data are available for 

both confined and nonconfined fires, although for confined 

fires, the data are also very limited in scope. In confined 

university housing fires, an AES was present in only 2 percent of reported incidents.17 Note that the data presented in 

Table 9 are the raw counts from the NFIRS data set and are 

not scaled to national estimates of AESs in university housing fires. 

Full or partial AESs are reported as present in 43 percent 

of nonconfined university housing fire incidents (Table 9). 

The presence of suppression systems—sprinkler systems 

most likely—was higher in nonconfined university housing 

fires than in any other residential property type, possibly as 

a result of code requirements. Fifty-two percent of university housing fires had no AES present, and the presence of 

an AES was undetermined in 5 percent of the fires.

Table 9. NFIRS Automatic Extinguishing System (AES) Data for Nonconfined University 

Housing Fires (NFIRS, 2007-2009)

AES Presence Count Percent

AES Present 401 41.6

Partial System Present 9 0.9

AES not present 505 52.4

Unknown 49 5.1

Total 964 100.0

Source: NFIRS 5.0.

Notes: The data presented in this table are raw data counts from the NFIRS data set. They do not represent national estimates of AES in nonconfined university housing fires. They are presented for informational 

purposes. 

Examples

The following are some recent examples of university housing fires that were reported by the media:

•	 February 2011: Firefighters were called to a possible 

arson fire at a residence hall’s dining room on the 

campus of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in Troy, NY. 

Crews initially went to the wrong location, but soon 

after were directed by a college dispatcher to the correct 

location. A suspect intentionally lit three separate fires 

in the men’s bathroom of the dining hall. However, the 

fires were minor and no injuries were reported.18

•	 November 2010: Gainesville Fire and Rescue determined that an early morning fraternity house fire at 

the University of Florida in Gainesville, FL, was started 

when a hookah pipe tipped over and lit a mattress on 

fire. The residents of the house first tried to put the fire 

out by flipping the mattress. They then pulled the mattress out of the room and used a fire extinguisher to put 

out the fire. No one was injured in this incident.19

•	 July 2010: Firefighters responded to a fire at a fraternity house at the University of Arkansas in Fayetteville, 

AR. Firefighters responded to the blaze at 3:45 a.m. on 

Saturday and quickly extinguished it, and no injuries 

were reported. The Fayetteville Fire Department, as well 

as the University of Arkansas Police Department, considered the fire “suspicious” and declared it an arson.20

•	 June 2010: A 3-alarm fire was reported in the early 

morning hours at a residence hall at the University of 

California in Berkeley, CA. Many students had to be 

evacuated and no immediate injuries were reported 

from the incident. The fire was determined to have 

started in the garbage room of the dormitory. 21
TFRS Volume 12, Issue 9/University Housing Fires (2007-2009) Page 10

NFIRS Data Specifications for University 

Housing Fires

Data for this report were extracted from the NFIRS annual 

Public Data Release (PDR) files for 2007, 2008, and 2009. 

Only version 5.0 data were extracted.

University housing fires were defined as:

•	 Aid types 3 (mutual aid given) and 4 (automatic aid 

given) were excluded to avoid double counting of 

incidents.

•	 Incident types 111–123: 

Incident 

Type Description

111 Building fire

112 Fires in structure other than in a building

113 Cooking fire, confined to container

114 Chimney or flue fire, confined to chimney or flue

115 Incinerator overload or malfunction, fire contained

116 Fuel burner/boiler malfunction, fire contained

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 a fixed residence

122 Fire in motor home, camper, recreational vehicle

123 Fire in portable building, fixed location

Note that incident types 113–118 do not specify if the 

structure is a building. 

Incident type 112 is included prior to 2008 as previous 

analyses have shown that incident types 111 and 112 are 

used interchangeably. As of 2008, incident type 112 is 

excluded.

•	 Property use 400–464: 

Property Description Use

460 Dormitory-type residence, other

462 Sorority house, fraternity house

464 Barracks, dormitory

•	 Structure type:

– For Incident Types 113–118:

▪ 1–Enclosed building;

▪ 2–Fixed portable or mobile structure; and

▪ Structure type not specified (null entry).

– For Incident Types 111, 112, and 120–123:

▪ 1–Enclosed building; and

▪ 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 information on the United States 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.

To request additional information or to comment on 

this report, visit http://www.usfa.fema.gov/applications/

feedback/index.jsp

Notes: 

1 National estimates are based on 2007–2009 native version 5.0 data from the National Fire Incident Reporting System 

(NFIRS), residential structure fire loss estimates from the National Fire Protection Association’s (NFPA’s) annual surveys of 

fire loss, and the U.S. Fire Administration’s (USFA’s) residential building fire loss estimates. Fires are rounded to the nearest 

100, deaths to the nearest 5, injuries to the nearest 25, and loss to the nearest $million.

2 University housing consists of college and university residential buildings that include dormitories and barracks (a combined category), sorority houses, and fraternity houses.

3 In the National Fire Incident Reporting System (NFIRS), version 5.0, a structure is a constructed item of which a building 

is one type. In previous versions of 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 has, therefore, changed to 

include 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 fires are referred to as “residential buildings” to distinguish these buildings from 

other structures on residential properties that may include fences, sheds, and other uninhabitable buildings. In addition, 

confined fire incidents that have a residential property use, but do not have a structure type specified are presumed to be 

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.
TFRS Volume 12, Issue 9/University Housing Fires (2007-2009) Page 11

4 “News from CPSC, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission: Increase in College Dorm Fire Prompts Officials to Issue 

Warning,” cpsc.gov, August 21, 2007. http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07279.html (accessed April 7, 2011).

5 “News from CPSC, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission: Increase in College Dorm Fire Prompts Officials to Issue 

Warning,” cpsc.gov, August 21, 2007. http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07279.html (accessed April 7, 2011). 

6 “News from CPSC, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission: Increase in College Dorm Fire Prompts Officials to Issue 

Warning,” cpsc.gov, August 21, 2007. http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07279.html (accessed April 7, 2011). 

7 “Higher Education Opportunity Act – Fire Safety,” Harvard University, University Operations Services. http://www.uos.

harvard.edu/ehs/fire_safety/heoa.shtml (accessed April 7, 2011). 

8 In NFIRS, confined fires are defined by Incident Type codes 113–118.

9 NFIRS distinguishes between “content” and “property” loss. Content loss includes loss 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 property loss. For confined fires, the expectation is that the fire did not spread 

beyond the container (or rubbish for Incident Type 118) and hence, there was no property damage (damage to the structure 

itself) from the flames. There could be, however, property damage as a result of smoke, water, and overhaul.

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

death and fire injury loss rates computed from NFIRS data alone. The fire death rate computed from the national estimates would be (1,000*(0/3,800)) = 0.0 deaths per 1,000 university housing fires and the fire injury rate would be 

(1,000*(25/3,800)) = 6.6 injuries per 1,000 university housing fires. 

11 For the purposes of this report, the time of the fire alarm is used as an approximation for the general time the fire 

started. However, in NFIRS, it is the time the fire was reported to the fire department.

12 The USFA cause hierarchy was used to determine the cause of university housing fire incidents. The cause hierarchy is 

designed for structure fires of which buildings are a subset. The cause definitions can be found at http: //www.usfa.fema.

gov/fireservice/nfirs/tools/fire_cause_category_matrix.shtm.

13 These causes are: heating, cooking, electrical malfunction, appliances, other equipment, and equipment misoperation. 

Other causes may also have had equipment involved. 

14 Percentages cited in the text may not add up due to rounding.

15 The discussion in the “Smoke Alarms in Nonconfined Fires” section of this report includes nonconfined fires that occur 

in both occupied and unoccupied university housing. There are two principal reasons for including both states of occupancy 

in the analysis. First, requirements that smoke alarms be interconnected in university housing are being included in an 

increasing number of local building codes. As result, interconnected alarms may be present in more recently constructed 

university residential buildings in many jurisdictions. Second, in all university housing, the proximity or closeness of the 

group quarters or occupants’ rooms to one another heightens the possibility that an occupant would hear an alarm, smell 

smoke, or see flames coming from a neighboring room. So, even though a fire may start in an unoccupied room, it is possible that a fire department will be notified either automatically or by an occupant in a neighboring room, who may become 

alerted to the presence of a fire either by the sounding of an interconnected alarm or by other physical cues. 

16 In 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 was already aware of the 

fire, or there were no occupants present at the time of the fire.

17 As 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 automatic extinguishing system (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 12, Issue 9/University Housing Fires (2007-2009) Page 12

18 James Franco, “Troy Police investigating arson at RPI’s Burdett Avenue Residence Hall,” troyrecord.com, February 8, 2011. 

http://www.troyrecord.com/articles/2011/02/08/news/doc4d51e305b011e211486901.txt (accessed April 8, 2011). 

19 Karen Voyles, “Fire at fraternity house blamed on hookah pipe,” Gainesville.com, November 17, 2010. http://www.

gainesville.com/article/20101117/ARTICLES/101119499/1118%3FTitle=Fire-at-fraternity-house-blamed-on-hookah (accessed 

April 8, 2011).

20 Todd Gill, “City and university looking for frat house arson suspect,” fayettevilleflyer.com, July 16, 2010. http://www.

fayettevilleflyer.com/2010/07/16/city-and-university-looking-for-frat-house-arson-suspect/ (accessed April 8, 2011).

21 “UC Berkeley dorm evacuated after fire,” sfgate.com, June 26, 2010. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/

baycitynews/a/2010/06/26/dorm26.DTL (accessed April 8, 2011).