1980

Research Nate

So-262

Effectiveness of Forestry Agency Personnel

as Fire Prevention Contactors

M.L. Dooiittle

SUMMARY

A major responsibility of county forest rangers

in North Carolina is fire prevention. Personal

contact with the public is essential to the successful performance of this function. A survey

of 50 North Carolina rangers revealed that

the degree of success for each ranger was

directly related to the specific effort put forth

as a contactor.

Additional keywords: Most effective, least

effective, contact, noncontact.

The benefits of personal contact over impersonal contact for influencing others are well

established. However, the results of either a

single contact or a comprehensive program can

vary widely. Many factors determine the outcome of contacting, but the characteristics of the

contactor usually is the one most easily altered

(Doolittle, Kootsher, Mercer, 1975; Doolittle

1979). This paper describes the results of a

study to identify a successful contactor.

CONTACTORS

Contactors in this study were 50 county rangers with the North Carolina Division of Forest

Resources. County rangers are responsible for

numerous programs. including fire prevention.

However, each ranger has great latitude in

deciding how to fulfill responsibilities. We studied

the rangers’ working hours and compared results

with the degree of success each was judged to

achieve as a contactor. In this way, we hoped

to get some idea of what distinguished the

successful contactors.

VARIABLES

The dependent variable was each ranger’s

degree of success as a personal fire prevention

contactor. We relied primarily on the frequency

of wildfire in each ranger’s county over a 5-year

period. By dividing the number of fires in each

county during the first 2 years into the number

during the last 2 years, we computed a fire

occurrence ratio. Our assumption was that the

counties served by the more effective rangers

would have lower ratios, and vice versa.

Southern Forest Experiment Station/T-l0210 U.S. Postal Services Bldg.. 701 Loyola Avenue, New Orleans, La. 70118

Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Serving Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana. Mississippi. Eastern Oklahoma Tennessee, Eastern Texas.
We also looked at prevention effectiveness

by employing a scale designed for use by

contactor’s supervisors. Scores on this scale

are weakly associated with other effectiveness

measures in test applications.

The independent variable was the way in which

the ranger spent his workday. The Division of

Forestry provided a detailed activity record of the

50 rangers for ten 8-hour workdays (randomly

selected) during the spring 1978 fire season.

Daily activities were classified as follows:

1. Forest land management.

2. Pest control.

3. Fire control.

4. General information and education.

5. Paper work.

6. Internal operations.

7. Maintenance.

8. Travel.

9. Other.

Each activity was recorded as either “contact”

or “noncontact” except paper work, internal

operations, and maintenance, all of which were

“noncontact.” Also, some time could not be classified because of vagueor ambiguous recording.

The records also showed the number and identity

of contactees and the purpose, place, initiator,

and consequences of each contact.

RESULTS

The rangers utilized their time in many different ways (table 1). However, the means clearly

show where most time was spent: Land management contacts, 19.9 percent; paperwork, 10.7

percent; maintenance, 9.3 percent; and noncontact land management, 8.6 percent. In fact

both categories of land management (28.5 percent) and administration (26.5 percent) took

more than half of the rangers’ time during this

2-week period. Travel took another 14.4 percent.

When administrative tasks are deducted, the

rangers spent 23.6 percent of their time in

noncontact activities compared with 37.9 percent spent in contacting. Ranger “P” spent the

least time contacting -5.8 percent or about 4%

hours-while Ranger “J” spent the most-73.7

percent or nearly 59 hours. An important question is whether a correlation exists between the

time spent making contacts and fire prevention

effectiveness. The product moment correlation

coefficient (r) between hours spent in contact

activities and fire prevention effectiveness as

indicated by the supervisor scale scores was

-0.23. Although this coefficient approaches

significance at the .05 level of confidence, it is

not in the expected direction’.

The same computation using the fire occurrence ratio as the indicator of effectiveness

yielded an r = -0.212. This coefficient is in

the expected direction (the higher the ratio the

less the effectiveness), but it is not significant.

Computation of r for correlations between each

category of contact activity and prevention effectiveness failed to produce any of greater value.

The final correlation examined was that between the two “measures” or indicators of prevention effectiveness. Although it went in the

predicted direction, the correlation was not

significant at the .05 level. (r = -0.15). One

obvious problem with this scale is the large

number of maximum scores (233.0) it produced.

Close examination of the fire occurrence

ratios in table 1 reveals that occurrence declined

in only six counties during the 5-year period:

C, L, CC, FF, GG and QQ. At the other extreme,

seven counties had at least a threefold increase:

B, S, W, EE, JJ, RR, and XX (table 2).

Several rather sharp differences appear between the two groups. First, the six rangers with

low occurrence ratios received higher scores

by their supervisors than the other seven

received from theirs-223.6 to 196.3. Although

this difference is not significant at the .05 leve13,

it is amplified by two facts: (1) Four of the six

“most effective” rangers received maximum

scores from their supervisors as opposed to

only two of the seven “least effective” rangers

‘A value of 0.24 is required for significance at the .05 level.

2The deduction of travel time from the total time did little

to change the correlation; r was computed to be -0.22.

3We used a “difference of means” test and computed the

value oft with 11 degrees of freedom to analyze differences

between the two groups of rangers (Blalock 1960).

M.L. Doolittle is Research Forester, Forestry Sciences Laboratory, Southern Forest Experiment Station, Forest Service-USDA

Starkville, Miss., in cooperation with Mississippi State University. This study was done in cooperation with the North

Carolina Experiment Station, North Carolina State University, Raleigh. Contributions of Dr. Charles Mercer and Mr. Vie James

are gratefully acknowledged.

2
receiving the maximum; and (2) the lowest scale

score among the 50 rangers (98.3) is included

among the seven “least effective” rangers as

indicated by occurrence ratios.

The “most effective” rangers spent an average

of 43.3 hours (54.1 percent of 80) in contact

activities compared with 28.5 hours (35.6 percent of 80) by the “least effective” rangers. This

difference is significant at the .05 level (t = 2.20).

Furthermore, the “most effective” rangers spent

5 times more than the “least effective” rangers

in fire control contacts (8.5 percent or 6.8 hours

versus 1.7 percent or 1.36 hours). In fact, this

category is the only one in which the difference

between the two groups is statistically significant

at the .05 level. The “most effective” rangers

each averaged 8.2 fire control contacts during

the two weeks compared with the 2.0 average

of the “least effective” rangers.

It can be theorized that the “most effective”

rangers spent more time on fire control contacts

simply because of a greater need in their counties

than in counties served by the “least effective”

rangers. In the 10 years preceeding the study the

six “most effective” rangers’ counties averaged

37 fires per year each; in the seven counties

served by the “least effective” rangers, the

average was 30 fires per county per year.

A majority of the “most effective” rangers’ contacts were with local organizations-schools,

women’s clubs, rural fire departments, etc.

The rangers’ each averaged 17.3 such contacts

during the 2 weeks compared with only 3.1

per ranger for the “least effective” group.

(This difference is significant at the .05 level.)

Neither group spent much time with other

government employees, local businessmen, or

other county residents.

Although the “most effective” rangers spent

slightly more time in land management contacts

than the “least effective” rangers (26.9 percent

and 21.7 percent, respectively), the former spent

considerably less time in noncontact land management activities (4.4 percent versus 12.2 percent; t = -2.44, pc.025). The time the “most

effective” rangers spent in noncontact travel

also was significantly less than that spent by

the “least effective” rangers (2.4 percent versus

12.3 percent; t = -2.83, pc.01 ).

Differences between the two groups of rangers

in the three administration categories (paper

work, internal operation and maintenance) were

not statistically significant at the .05 level. The

relatively large mean for maintenance time (16.5

percent or 13.2 hours) for the “most effective”

group was caused primarily by two rangers.

(See table 2).

The most effective fire prevention contactors

spent more time making contacts that were

specifically related to the fire protection job.

Furthermore, the one noncontact activity that

took up most of the time of the “least effective”

rangers was forest land management. These

findings parallel those of an earlier preliminary

study and suggest that some rangers are what

might be called “people oriented,” whereas

others are more “forest oriented.”

We thought that an item-by-item comparison of

the two groups on the supervisor’s scale might

provide some evidence of a “people-versusforest” orientation. However, the “most effective” and “least effective” groups received identical scores on ability to communicate, respect

by contactees, tact, etc. There were slight differences on some items. For example, the “most

effective” rangers seemed to have slightly more

persistence, sense of responsibility, positive

self-image, desire for self-improvement, desire

for achievement, community involvement, and

dependability than the “least effective” rangers.

Yet none shed light on the orientation question.

Obviously, the search for attributes of effective

fire prevention contactors must continue.

Blalock, Hubert M.

1960. Social statistics. 465 p. McGraw-Hill

Book Co., New York.

Doolittle, M. L.

1979. A scale for rating fire prevention contactors. U.S. Dep. Agric. For. Serv. Res.

Note SO-249, 2 p. South. For. Exp. Stn.,

New Orleans, La.

Doolittle, M. L., M. H. Kootsher, and C. V. Mercer.

1975. Relationship of personnel characteristics to fire prevention effectiveness. U.S.

Dep. Agric. For. Serv. Res. Note SO-191,

3 p. South. For. Exp. Stn., New Orleans, La.

3
Table 1. -Fire occurrence ratios, supervisor scale scores and time spent in various activities for fifty county rangers

Rangers

Fire Supervisor

occur. scale

Contact activities

(Percent of observation time)

ratios scores Land Pest Fire

mgmt. control control I&E

A 1.74 233.0 1.6

6 3.40 233.0 20.7

C 0.62 233.0 14.9

D 1.23 233.0 54.8

E 1.33 233.0 12.9

F 1.49 204.0 13.3

G 1.39 213.6 20.1

H 1.79 233.0 16.3

I 1.13 233.0 11.0

J I .2a 98.7 9.5

K 2.24 233.0 16.7

L 0.67 223.1 17.0

M 2.09 197.1 32.1

N 1.97 223.0 14.1

0 1.68 118.6 6.2

P 2.84 165.8 3.7

Q 2.57 207.0 7.1

R 1.47 233.0 7.0

S 4.38 164.6 25.2

T 1.53 214.1 7.4

U 1.25 174.1 38.9

V 2.60 206.0 9.8

W 3.23 98.3 34.5

X 1.35 177.1 30.7

Y 2.07 223.3 6.7

AA 1.54 212.8 a.5

BB 1.60 233.0 19.0

c c 0.88 186.6 37.8

DD 1.86 154.9 17.0

E E 4.00 213.4 28.7

FF 0.29 233.0 31.4

GG 0.71 233.0 25.4

H H 1.36 196.9 16.5

II 1.43 193.6 22.8

JJ 5.15 233.0 17.5

KK 1.95 214.1 21.3

LL 1.73 233.0 31 .o

M M 1.29 223.3 20.3

NN 2.39 186.3 29.7

0 0 1.21 223.3 21.9

PP 1.07 223.3 a.7

QQ 0.47 233.0 34.6

RR 4.44 215.9 8.6

s s 1.12 197.0 26.6

TT 1.78 233.0 10.1

u u 1.94 214.2 30.0

v v 2.05 233.0 25.2

w w 1.14 233.0 30.6

x x 3.33 215.7 16.9

w 1.68 233.0 l 21 .2

Means(x) I .a8 208. i 19.9

1.2

0.6

ii.8

10.9

‘ii’

0.7

is

0.2

a.2

1.8

‘ii5

1.2

. .

.

‘ii

ii.7

1.2

‘2.2

2.8

0.9

.

‘ii

‘4.b

1.7

4.8

1.4

4.7

5.2

1.0

2.1

30.4

6.7

22.7

0.6

11.2

4.0

‘1’6

5.2

5.3

‘&I

0.4

a.4

0.4

ii

12.0

0.2

3.6

1.8

‘ii

a.9

2.4

4.9

0.5

4.1

6.0

0.9

0.4

4.6

‘&I

‘ii?

5.3

‘ii

74

3.3

1.5

1.3

0.4

2.6

4.2

2.6

‘i.7

25.6

‘ii

4.8

4.9

4.3

2.0

4.4

1.1

4.3

6.0

‘ii

6.3

2.3

1.3

‘2.3

‘Total may not equal exactly 100% because of rounding.

-

4

Other

3.3

2.3

'1.3

1.3

7.6

5.6

12.6

‘ii

‘ii

‘&I

‘ii’

7.4

.

‘3.4

.

15.3

1.2

1.8

ii

6.9

1’6.5’

‘ii

3.7

iii’

2.1

Travel

1.5

Subtotal

6.4

7.6

5.2

10.9

5.9

10.9

10.7

2.1

4.5

22.4

7.6

13.4

7.8

12.0

9.5

2.1

5.0

4.6

12.8

3.2

6.8

a.9

9.5

a.3

0.9

3.9

11.9

12.0

5.2

a.8

14.3

3.4

9.4

6.9

7.5

14.5

4.9

7.8

4.7

3.1

15.7

10.1

2.8

12.5

3.4

21.5

7.8

4.6

6.4

7.9

34.6

21.8

70.5

26.5

30.2

42.0

25.3

17.6

73.7

49.4

65.7

40.5

47.7

23.7

5.8

la.9

15.8

52.9

18.1

45.7

57.6

47.7

46.4

7.6

20.4

31.3

65.8

27.0

37.5

45.7

67.6

53.9

41.7

32.6

44.2

41.7

43.5

36.4

29.4

47.9

57.9

21.7

48.9

14.5

64.1

36.3

41.5

21.9

28.1

37.9
Non-contact activities Un- Total

(Percentofobservationtime) classified observ.

time time

Land Pest Fire I&E Other Travel Paper Internal Maint- Sub- (%) (%I'

mgmt. control control work operation enance total

11.2

8.0

0.5

'ii3

ib

6.9

4.7

36.1

29.2

28.8

18.1

6.4

13.4

2.t

10.2

9.9

34.1

25.2

9.6

12.0

3.3

5.0

13.6

4.8

13.3

2.4

11.9

10.7

6.8

9.1

6.7

'3.8

11.3

22.2

22.3

8.6

Y.7'

0.6

6.0

0.2

3.9

‘ii

18.6

4.5

3.6

7.2

0.5

ii

'2.3

1.0

7.6

10.5

10.2

3.2

4.4

8.2

6.5

3.4

5.0

9.4

7.9

9.1

6.0

10.9

8.8

7.0

7.2

6.2

8.1

10.7

11.3

7.5

5.5

9.8

0.6

4.4

7.9

9.6

6.6

5.7

8.0

1.3

'8.6

6.0

7.7

8.1

6.5

9.8

8.3

6.3

1.1

5.3

4.4

7.6

8.5

9.1

5.4

9.8

7.0

‘ii

0.5

ii.;'

5.8

iii'

1.9

6.8

3.3

20.0

12.3

16.2

9.3

9.8

2.5

2.6

11.2

6.3

11.8

2.6

12.1

4.0

6.6

6.4

0.7

3.7

11.9

11.4

15.9

3.6

8.5

5.3

10.8

3.7

7.4

25.1

0.4

10.9

10.6

1.1

3.5

18.3

6.8

6.5

38.0

3.6

15.9

18.9

33.6

24.5

6.0

9.7

3.5

1.7

9.2

20.5

23.4

10.9

13.5

6.4

13.5

3.5

15.3

14.3

'ii

4.1

27.3

8.7

9.1

6.0

6.0

15.5

7.1

11.0

0.4

1.8

12.0

4.9

17.5

13.3

22.0

19.9

6.5

7.7

4.5

7.5

7.9

5.2

9.6

8.9

10.7

1.1

'8.2

8.9

26.0

36.0

12.9

6.7

3.9

2.3

6.9

10.9

3.1

10.1

8.0

'ii

6.0

'ii

4.1

2.4

2.3

12.0

21.3

11.8

16.9

'ii

'ii

'ii

6.5

13.4

3.9

5.9

27.6

5.0

0.8

'&

ii.9

3.1

11.9

14.1

11.5

3.5

13.9

5.3

4.6

1'2.6

15.7

4.9

23.5

13.4

1'2.6

21.8

10.7

18.0

0.9

47.9

.

6.9

21.8

'4.3

2.2

17.8

'3.3

11.1

18.4

1.1

8.5

'ii

9.3

57.9

70.7

29.7

34.0

53.4

47.4

52.6

60.6

25.1

41.3

30.2

46.4

55.2

71.9

94.1

54.9

73.7

47.2

71.1

54.3

25.0

52.5

48.2

92.3

26.7

53.2

29.8

64.2

54.0

54.3

30.6

46.1

31.3

67.3

33.6

48.6

35.5

50.1

70.5

48.7

38.6

44.5

29.5

72.6

35.6

26.8

17.8

55.5

55.8

50.1

7.5

7.5

39.5

16.4

10.6

22.1

21.8

1.2

9.3

4.1

13.1

'4.4

2fi.2'

10.5

l'd.8

17.4

5.4

52.9

15.4

4.5

8.8

8.5

1.9

27.b

22.2

9.7

20.9

13.5

'3.3

3.4

33.8

21.6

12.9

0.3

36.9

40.7

22.6

16.1

12.1

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100
Table 2.-Fire occurrence ratios. superwsorscale scores and t/me spent in various actrvhes for six "effectwe" rangers

Rangers

Fire SupervIsor

occur. scale

ratios scores Land

mgmt.

Contact actwities

(Percent of observation time)

-_____

Pest Fire

control control I&E Other Travel Subtotal

C 0.62 2330 14.9 1.7 5.2 21.8

L 0.67 233.1 17.0 22.7 12.6 13.4 65.7

c c 0.88 1866 37.8 8.4 4.2 3.4 12.0 65.8

FF 0.29 233.0 31.4

G G 071 233.0 25.4 'ik '9.3 '6.;' 1;.i

14.3 45 7

3.4 67 6

QQ 0.47 233.0 346 8.9 4.3 10.1 57.9

iT 0.61 2236 26.9 'i.2' 8.5 2.5 '5.2' 9.7 54.1

------------------------------------------------------lneffective------------------------------------------------------

I3 3.40 233.0 20.7

S 4.38 164.8 25.2

w 3.23 98.3 34.5

EE 4.00 213.4 28.7

J J 5.15 233.0 17.5

R R 4.44 215.9 8 6

29 3.33 215.7 16.9

X 3.99 196.3 21 7

'8.2

4.0 2.3

5.2 1.5

2.6 1.1

."'

ii;

'd.2' 5.6 1.8

2.4 6.0 1.2

'ii

0.4

1.7 'ii '0.9

7.6 34.6

12.8 52.9

9.5 47.7

8.8 37.5

7.5 32.6

2.8 21.7

4.6 21.9

7.7 35.6

‘Total may not equal exactly 100% because of rounding
and seven “ineffective” rangers

Non-contact activities

(Percent of observation time) Un- Total

classified observ

Land Pest Fire Paper Internal Maint- Sub- time time

mgmt. control control I & E Other Travel work operation enance total (%I (%I’

8.0 ‘3.9 10.5 6.3 3.6 42.3 70.7 7.5 100

7.9

2.0

9.2 ‘ii 5.32 30.2 4.1 100

9.6 7.9 6.0 2.3 29.8 4.5 100

5.7 0.7 ii:9 54.3 ” 100

.9.1 6.3 8.0 3.7 6.5 7.1 13.4 11.8 ii.3 30.6 38.6 ‘li9 3.4 100 100

4.4 0.6 7.7 ’ 2.4 5.4 5.2 16.5 42.4 3.6 100

------------------------------------------------------lneffective------------------------------------------------------

11.2

18.1

10.2

3.3

13.6

6.7

22.0

12.2

7.6

‘i.1 6.2 7.5

‘2.0 6.6 8.6

. ’ 1.1

‘ii 6.1 5.4

‘ii

11.2

6.4

15.9

25.1

18.3

12.3

38.0 1.1

3.5 10.1

3.9 6.0

15.5 21.3

1.8 3.6

7.7 3.9

9.6

11.4 ‘i6

57.9

ii.6 47.2 52.5

0.9 54.0

21.8 67.3

44.5

‘5.0 55.5 54.1

7.5 100

100

100

8.5 100

ii8

100

100

22.6 100

10.3 100

7