Topical Fire Report Series

National Fire Data Center

16825 S. Seton Ave.

Emmitsburg, MD 21727

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

July 2021 | Volume 21, Issue 5

Cooking Fires in Residential Buildings 

(2017-2019)

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 firerelated 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 Each year, from 2017 to 2019, fire departments in the United States responded to an 

estimated average of 187,500 cooking fires in residential buildings. These fires caused an 

estimated annual average of 165 deaths, 3,325 injuries and $444 million in property loss.

ĵ Cooking was, by far, the leading cause of all residential building fires and injuries.

ĵ Cooking fires in residential buildings occurred most frequently in the late afternoon 

and evening hours from 4 to 9 p.m., accounting for 40% of the fires. Fires peaked from 

5 to 8 p.m. when many people were preparing the evening meal.

ĵ Residential building cooking fires peaked in November at 9% and declined to the lowest 

point during July and August.

ĵ Confined fires, those fires involving the contents of a cooking vessel without fire extension 

beyond the vessel, accounted for 93% of residential building cooking fires.

ĵ Oil, fat and grease (45%) were the leading types of material ignited in nonconfined 

cooking fires in residential buildings.

ĵ In 83% of nonconfined cooking fires in residential buildings, the fires were limited to 

the object or room of fire origin.

ĵ The leading specific factor contributing to ignition in nonconfined cooking fires in 

residential buildings was unattended equipment (37%).

ĵ Smoke alarms were present in 67% of nonconfined cooking fires in occupied residential 

buildings. 

ĵ Automatic extinguishing systems (AESs), including residential sprinklers, were present 

in only 9% of nonconfined cooking fires in occupied residential buildings.

Each year, from 2017 to 2019, fire departments responded to an estimated average of 187,500 cooking fires in 

residential buildings across the nation. These fires resulted in an estimated annual average of 165 deaths, 3,325 injuries 

and $444 million in property loss.1, 2, 3 The estimated annual average of 187,500 cooking fires in residential buildings 

declined by less than 1% from the previous 3-year period (2014 to 2016) when the estimated annual average of cooking 

fires was 188,800.4 The term “cooking fires” includes those fires that were caused by stoves, ovens, fixed and portable 

warming units, deep fat fryers, and open grills, as well as those fires that are confined to the cooking vessel.

5

From 2017 to 2019, cooking was, by far, the leading cause of all residential building fires and accounted for 51% of all 

residential building fires responded to by fire departments across the nation.6 Additionally, cooking was the leading 

cause of all residential building fire injuries.7 Annual estimates of residential building cooking fires and their associated 

losses for 2017 to 2019 are presented in Table 1.
TFRS Volume 21, Issue 5 | Cooking Fires in Residential Buildings (2017-2019)

2

Table 1. National estimates of residential building cooking fires and losses by year (2017-2019)

Year Residential building 

cooking fires

Residential building 

cooking fire deaths

Residential building 

cooking fire injuries

Residential building 

cooking fire dollar 

loss

2017 191,800 170 3,300 $434,800,000

2018 192,700 170 3,100 $460,000,000

2019 178,100 150 3,550 $435,900,000

Source: USFA, Fire Estimate Summary, “Residential Building Cooking Fire Trends (2010-2019),” April 2021, https://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/pdf/statistics/fireestimate-summary-series.pdf. 

Notes: 1. Fires are rounded to the nearest 100, deaths to the nearest 5, injuries to the nearest 25, and loss to the nearest hundred thousand dollars.

2. The 2017 and 2018 dollar-loss values were adjusted to 2019 dollars.

This topical report addresses the characteristics of residential building cooking fires as reported to the NFIRS from 

2017 to 2019.8 For this report, the term “residential cooking fires” is synonymous with “residential building cooking 

fires,” as residential cooking fires commonly mean those fires caused by cooking that occur in buildings. “Residential 

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

the full category, “residential building cooking fires.”

Type of fire

Building fires are divided into 2 classes of severity in the NFIRS: “confined fires” and “nonconfined fires.” Confined 

building fires are small fire incidents that are limited in extent to specific types of equipment or objects, staying within 

pots, fireplaces or certain other noncombustible containers.9 Confined fires rarely result in serious injury or large 

content loss and are expected to have no significant accompanying property loss due to flame damage.10 Nonconfined 

fires extend beyond certain types of equipment or objects. They are generally larger fires resulting in more serious 

injury and larger losses of property and content.

Of the 2 classes of severity, confined fires accounted for 93% of residential cooking fires (Table 2). The larger, 

nonconfined fires accounted for the remaining 7% of residential cooking fires. By comparison, from 2017 to 2019, 

51% of all residential building fires were confined fires.11

Table 2. Residential building cooking fires by type of incident (2017-2019)

Incident type Percent

Confined fires 93.2

Nonconfined fires 6.8

Total 100.0

Source: NFIRS 5.0.

Loss measures

Table 3 presents losses, averaged over the 3-year period from 2017 to 2019, for residential cooking fires and all other 

residential building fires (i.e., excluding cooking fires) reported to the NFIRS.12 The average loss of fatalities, injuries 

and dollar loss for residential cooking fires was substantially less than those for all other residential building fires. 

This most likely is attributed to the fact that 93% of residential cooking fires are confined fires that result in little or 

no loss. As can be expected, the average losses associated with nonconfined residential cooking fires were notably 

high since nonconfined fires generally are large fires resulting in serious injury and large content losses.
TFRS Volume 21, Issue 5 | Cooking Fires in Residential Buildings (2017-2019)

3

Table 3. Loss measures for residential building cooking fires (3-year average, 2017-2019)

Measure

Residential 

building cooking 

fires

Confined 

residential building 

cooking fires

Nonconfined 

residential building 

cooking fires

Residential 

building fires 

(excluding 

cooking fires)

Average loss:

Fatalities/1,000 fires 0.4 0.0 6.3 7.1

Injuries/1,000 fires 12.5 7.1 86.2 32.5

Dollar loss/fire $1,510 $220 $19,300 $27,090

Source: NFIRS 5.0.

Notes:	 1.	 From 2017 to 2019, only 1 death in a confined fire was reported to the NFIRS. For this fire, the incident type was miscoded and should have been reported

using Incident Type Code 111. The resulting loss of 0.0 fatalities per 1,000 fires reflects only data reported to the 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. The 2017 and 2018 dollar-loss values were adjusted to 2019 dollars.

	 4.	The category “Residential building fires (excluding cooking fires)” does not include fires of unknown cause.

Property use

Table 4 presents the percentage distribution of residential cooking fires by property use (i.e., one- and two-family 

residential buildings, multifamily residential buildings, and all other residential buildings).13 Multifamily dwellings 

accounted for 46% of residential cooking fires, and one- and two-family residences accounted for an additional 44% 

of residential cooking fires. By contrast, one- and two-family residences represented 63% of all residential building 

fires, and multifamily dwellings accounted for 29% of residential fires for the same period.14

Table 4. Residential building cooking fires by property use (2017-2019)

Property use Percent of fires

Multifamily residential buildings 46.3

One- and two-family residential buildings 43.9

Other residential buildings 4.2

Dormitory-type residences 1.7

Boarding/rooming houses 1.4

Hotels and motels 1.1

Residential board and care, excludes nursing homes 1.0

Barracks 0.3

Sorority and fraternity houses 0.1

Total 100.0

Source: NFIRS 5.0.

When residential building cooking fires occur

As shown in Figure 1, residential cooking fires occurred mainly in the late afternoon and evening hours from 4 to 

9 p.m., peaking from 5 to 8 p.m. when many people were preparing the evening meal.15 This 3-hour peak period 

accounted for 27% of the fires. Residential cooking fires declined throughout the night and early morning and reached 

their lowest point during the morning hours from 4 to 6 a.m. Fires then steadily increased and plateaued over the 

lunch hours from noon to 2 p.m. The 5-hour period from 4 to 9 p.m. accounted for 40% of all residential cooking fires, 

and the 2-hour morning period from 4 to 6 a.m. accounted for only 2%. Small confined cooking fires dominated the 

alarm profile and produced the pronounced peaks and valleys; the number of larger, nonconfined fires, grouped by 

time of alarm, was only slightly less variable.
TFRS Volume 21, Issue 5 | Cooking Fires in Residential Buildings (2017-2019)

4

Figure 1. Residential building cooking fires by time of alarm (2017-2019)

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

10.0

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.

2.0 1.6 1.3

1.9

2.6

3.5

4.3

4.9

5.5 5.5 5.6 5.9

6.9

8.6

9.5

8.5

6.9

4.9

3.6

2.6

1.1 0.9 0.9 1.2

Percent of residential

building cooking fires

Time of alarm

Source: NFIRS 5.0.

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

As expected, residential cooking fires were most prevalent during the months of major holidays, when the cooking of 

large holiday meals is most common (Figure 2). The incidence of cooking fires peaked in November at 9%. On average, 

the highest numbers of reported residential cooking fires occurred on Thanksgiving Day, Christmas Day, Christmas 

Eve, New Year’s Day, and New Year’s Eve, respectively. Fire incidence declined to the lowest point during July and 

August, corresponding to the assumption that there are decreased cooking activities in residential buildings during 

the summer. Generally, confined residential cooking fires followed this overall pattern of winter peaks and summer 

lows, while nonconfined fires were more uniform throughout the year, peaking slightly in January and March.

Figure 2. Residential building cooking fires by month (2017-2019)

6.5

7.0

7.5

8.0

8.5

9.0

9.5

November

December

October

September

August

July

April

May

June

March

February

January

8.9

7.9

8.5

8.0

7.6

7.8

8.0

8.5

9.1

8.7

8.5 8.5

Percent of residential 

building cooking fires

Month of year

Source: NFIRS 5.0.
TFRS Volume 21, Issue 5 | Cooking Fires in Residential Buildings (2017-2019)

5

Fire spread in residential building cooking fires

As shown in Figure 3, 92% of residential cooking fires were limited to the object of origin. An overwhelming majority 

of these fires were coded as confined fires in the NFIRS — 99% of residential cooking fires confined to the object of 

origin were coded as confined fires. Relatively few fires, 1%, extended beyond the room of origin.

Figure 3. Extent of fire spread in residential building cooking fires (2017-2019) Fire spread

Percent of residential building cooking fires

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 100.0

Beyond building of origin

Limited to building of origin

Limited to floor of origin

Limited to room of origin

Limited to object of origin 92.2

0.4

0.8

0.1

6.5

Source: NFIRS 5.0.

Confined fires

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

nor are they reported. (Not all fires limited to the object of origin are counted as confined fires.16) For example, a fire 

contained to a chair 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 pans, there is no container to stop the fire, even though the fire did not spread 

beyond the object of origin.

Confined residential cooking fires accounted for a large majority (93%) of residential cooking fire incidents and 

dominated the time of alarm profile. The numbers of confined fires were greatest during the hours of 5 to 8 p.m. 

when they accounted for 94% of all residential cooking fires that occurred during this period. Confined residential 

cooking fires peaked in November and were lowest during the summer months of June through August. 

Nonconfined fires

The next sections of this topical report address nonconfined residential cooking fires — the larger and more serious 

fires — where more detailed fire data are available, as they are required to be reported in the NFIRS.

Where nonconfined residential building cooking fires start (area of fire origin)

As would be expected, one area in the home — the cooking area or kitchen — accounted for nearly all (93%) 

nonconfined residential cooking fires. Most of the remaining fires occurred in outside areas adjoining residential 

buildings such as balconies, porches, patios and garages (Table 5).
TFRS Volume 21, Issue 5 | Cooking Fires in Residential Buildings (2017-2019)

6

These areas of origin do not include areas associated with confined residential cooking fires. As cooking was the leading 

cause of all residential fires at 51%, it is not surprising that kitchens were the leading area of fire origin. 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 is the case in most confined cooking fires), and some kitchen 

fires did not start due to cooking. In fact, only 36% of nonconfined residential fires that started in the kitchen were 

cooking fires. Other unintentional or careless actions accounted for 19% of kitchen fires, equipment misoperation or 

failure accounted for 11%, heat from other sources (such as flames/torches or hot materials) accounted for 9%, and 

appliances (such as freezers and refrigerators) accounted for 6% as did electrical malfunctions (6%).17

Table 5. Leading areas of fire origin in nonconfined residential building cooking fires (2017-2019)

Area of origin

Percent of nonconfined residential building

cooking fires

(unknowns apportioned)

Cooking area, kitchen 92.9

Exterior balcony, unenclosed porch 1.7

Courtyard, patio, terrace — includes screened-in porches 0.9

Vehicle storage area: garage, carport 0.8

Exterior wall surface 0.5

Source: NFIRS 5.0.

What ignites first in nonconfined residential building cooking fires

The “organic materials” category accounted for 58% of the items first ignited in nonconfined residential cooking 

fires (Figure 4). This category includes cooking materials comprising edible materials for human or animal. At 17%, 

the second leading category was “furniture, utensils,” a category that includes items such as appliance housings or 

casings and household utensils, including kitchen and cleaning utensils. “Structural component, finish” and “general 

materials,” each at 6%, were the third and fourth leading categories of items first ignited, respectively.

Cooking materials (58%), appliance housing or casing (7%), cabinetry (5%), and household utensils (4%) were the 

specific items most often first ignited in nonconfined residential cooking fires.

Specifically, oil, fat and grease were the leading types of material ignited in nonconfined residential cooking fires (45%). 

This is not surprising as oil and grease are highly flammable and can splatter or spill during cooking. Plastics (14%), such 

as appliance casings or cooking utensils, and foods or starches (9%) were the next most common materials ignited.
TFRS Volume 21, Issue 5 | Cooking Fires in Residential Buildings (2017-2019)

7

Figure 4. Item first ignited in nonconfined residential building cooking fires by major category (2017-2019) Item first ignited

Percent of nonconfined residential building cooking fires

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0

Undetermined

Adornment, recreational

 material, signs

Soft goods, wearing apparel

Other item first ignited

Storage supplies

Liquids, piping, filters

General materials

Structural component, finish

Furniture, utensils

Organic materials 51.3

6.0

5.3

5.5

4.8

4.8

4.2

2.4

2.1

16.9

58.4

3.7

3.3

2.1

1.9

0.2

0.2

12.1

14.9

Percent of nonconfined residential building 

cooking fires with item first ignited determined

Percent of all nonconfined residential building 

cooking fires

Source: NFIRS 5.0.

Note:	 Total percent of all nonconfined residential building cooking fires does not add up to 100% due to rounding.

Equipment involved in ignition of nonconfined residential building cooking fires

Three types of equipment lead to the ignition of 86% of nonconfined residential cooking fires. These leading types of 

equipment involved in ignition of nonconfined residential cooking fires, as shown in Table 6, were ranges or kitchen 

stoves (71%), heating stoves (8%), and ovens including rotisseries (7%).18 Of interest, grills or barbecues were involved 

in igniting only 4% of nonconfined residential cooking fires, and microwave ovens also accounted for another 4%.

Table 6. Leading equipment involved in ignition of nonconfined residential building cooking fires (2017-2019)

Equipment involved in ignition Percent of nonconfined residential building 

cooking fires

Range or kitchen stove 71.3

Heating stove 7.7

Oven, rotisserie 6.5

Source: NFIRS 5.0.

Fire spread in nonconfined residential building cooking fires

The majority of nonconfined residential cooking fires, 83%, were limited to the object or room of fire origin (Figure 5). 

The fire spread profile for nonconfined residential cooking fires was much different than the fire spread profile for all 

nonconfined residential fires with only 50% of these fires being limited to the room or object of origin.19
TFRS Volume 21, Issue 5 | Cooking Fires in Residential Buildings (2017-2019)

8

Figure 5. Extent of fire spread in nonconfined residential building cooking fires (2017-2019) Fire spread

Percent of nonconfined residential building cooking fires

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0

Beyond building of origin

Limited to building of origin

Limited to floor of origin

Limited to room of origin

Limited to object of origin 17.1

5.6

10.5

0.9

65.9

Source: NFIRS 5.0. 

Factors contributing to ignition in nonconfined residential building cooking fires

Table 7 shows the categories of factors contributing to ignition for nonconfined residential cooking fires. “Operational 

deficiency” was the leading category contributing to ignition in 57% of nonconfined residential cooking fires and 

includes factors such as unattended equipment, equipment accidentally turned on or not turned off, and failure to 

clean equipment. “Misuse of material or product” was the second leading category in 31% of residential cooking fires, 

and “electrical failure, malfunction” was the third leading category in 7% of the fires.20 These 3 categories played a 

role in 94% of nonconfined residential cooking fires.21

Careless cooking activities are typically responsible for cooking fires. When a factor was noted as contributing to the 

ignition of the fire, unattended equipment, such as people leaving food on the stove or in the oven and forgetting 

about it, accounted for 37% of nonconfined residential cooking fires. Unattended equipment was, by far, the leading 

specific factor contributing to ignition and was nearly 3 times greater than the second leading specific factor, heat 

source too close to combustibles (13%). Equipment that was accidentally turned on or not turned off accounted for 

an additional 12% of nonconfined residential cooking fires.

Table 7. Factors contributing to ignition for nonconfined residential building cooking fires by major 

category (where factors contributing to ignition were specified, 2017-2019)

Factor contributing to ignition category Percent of nonconfined residential building 

cooking fires (unknowns apportioned)

Operational deficiency 56.9

Misuse of material or product 30.5

Electrical failure, malfunction 6.9

Mechanical failure, malfunction 4.2

Other factors contributing to ignition 3.8

Fire spread or control 1.4

Natural condition 0.6

Design, manufacture, installation deficiency 0.5

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; total will exceed 100%.
TFRS Volume 21, Issue 5 | Cooking Fires in Residential Buildings (2017-2019)

9

Alerting/suppression systems in residential building cooking fires

Fire fatalities and injuries have declined over the last 40 years, partly due to new technologies to detect and extinguish 

fires. Residential sprinklers have gained support from the fire service and many residential communities.

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

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

the analyses are performed separately. The data presented in Tables 9 and 10 show the raw counts from the NFIRS 

data set. These counts are not scaled to national estimates of smoke alarms in residential cooking fires. In addition, 

the NFIRS does not allow for the determination of the type of smoke alarm (i.e., photoelectric or ionization) or the 

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

Smoke alarms in nonconfined residential building cooking fires

Smoke alarms were reported as present in 67% of nonconfined residential cooking fires (Table 8). In 16% of 

nonconfined residential cooking fires, there were no smoke alarms present. In another 17% of these fires, firefighters 

were unable to determine if a smoke alarm was present. Therefore, smoke alarms were missing in 16% to potentially 

33% of these fires with the ability to spread and possibly result in fatalities.

Table 8. Presence of smoke alarms in nonconfined residential building cooking fires (2017-2019)

Presence of smoke alarms Percent

Present 66.9

None present 15.9

Undetermined 17.1

Total 100.0

Source: NFIRS 5.0.

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

While only 2% of all nonconfined residential cooking fires occurred in residential buildings that are not currently or 

routinely occupied, these buildings — which are 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 35% of all nonconfined cooking fires in unoccupied 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 cooking 

fires in occupied residential buildings only.

Smoke alarms in nonconfined cooking fires in occupied residential buildings

Smoke alarms were reported as present in 67% of nonconfined cooking fires in occupied residential buildings (Table 

9). In 16% of nonconfined cooking fires in occupied residential buildings, there were no smoke alarms present. In 

another 17% of these fires, firefighters were unable to determine if a smoke alarm was present; unfortunately, in 

19% of the fires where the presence of a smoke alarm was undetermined, either the flames involved the building of 

origin or spread beyond it. Since the fires were so large and destructive, it is unlikely the presence of a smoke alarm 

could be determined.

When smoke alarms were present (67%) and the alarm’s operational status is considered, the percentage of smoke 

alarms reported as present consisted of:

ĵ Present and operated — 49%.

ĵ Present but did not operate — 11% (alarm failed to operate, 7%; fire too small, 4%).

ĵ Present but operational status unknown — 8%.22
TFRS Volume 21, Issue 5 | Cooking Fires in Residential Buildings (2017-2019)

10

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 72% of the incidents and failed to operate in 10%. In another 6% 

of this subset, the fire was too small to activate the alarm. The operational status of the alarm was undetermined in 

11% of these incidents.23

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, 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.html.

Table 9. NFIRS smoke alarm data for nonconfined cooking fires in occupied residential buildings (2017-2019)

Presence of 

smoke alarms

Smoke alarm 

operational status Smoke alarm effectiveness Count Percent

Present

Fire too small to activate 

smoke alarm 909 4.3

Smoke alarm operated

Smoke alarm alerted occupants, 

occupants responded 8,116 38.0

Smoke alarm alerted occupants, 

occupants failed to respond 319 1.5

No occupants 978 4.6

Smoke alarm failed to alert occupants 164 0.8

Undetermined 781 3.7

Smoke alarm failed to operate 1,486 7.0

Undetermined 1,601 7.5

None present 3,358 15.7

Undetermined 3,628 17.0

Total reported 

incidents 21,340 100.0

Source: NFIRS 5.0.

Notes:	 1. The data presented in this table are raw data counts from the NFIRS data set summed (not averaged) from 2017 to 2019. They do not represent national

estimates of smoke alarms in nonconfined residential building cooking fires. They are presented for informational purposes.

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

Smoke alarms in confined residential building cooking 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. It is especially important to look at the limited 

information provided for these fires since a large majority (93%) of residential cooking fires were confined 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 53% of the reported confined residential cooking fires (Table 10). In other words, 

residents received a warning from a smoke alarm in more than half of these fires. 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 
TFRS Volume 21, Issue 5 | Cooking Fires in Residential Buildings (2017-2019)

11

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 13% of the confined fires.24 In 34% of these confined fires, the smoke 

alarm effectiveness was unknown.

Table 10. NFIRS smoke alarm data for confined residential building cooking fires (2017-2019)

Smoke alarm effectiveness Count Percent

Smoke alarm alerted occupants 159,627 53.4

Smoke alarm did not alert occupants 38,393 12.8

Unknown 101,072 33.8

Total reported incidents 299,092 100.0

Source: NFIRS 5.0.

Note:	 The data presented in this table are raw data counts from the NFIRS data set summed (not averaged) from 2017 to 2019. They do not represent national estimates

of smoke alarms in confined residential building cooking fires. They are presented for informational purposes.

Automatic extinguishing systems in nonconfined cooking fires in occupied residential buildings

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

limited in scope. In confined residential building fires, an AES was present in 1% of reported incidents.25 In addition, 

the following AES analyses focus on nonconfined cooking fires in occupied residential buildings only, as even fewer 

AESs are present in unoccupied housing (occupied housing accounted for 98% of reported nonconfined residential 

cooking incidents with full AESs).

Residential sprinklers are the primary AES in residences but are not yet widely installed. In fact, AESs were reported 

as present in only 9% of nonconfined cooking fires in occupied residential buildings (Table 11). Table 11 shows the raw 

counts from the NFIRS data set. These counts are not scaled to national estimates of AESs in residential cooking fires.

Table 11. NFIRS automatic extinguishing system data for nonconfined cooking fires in occupied residential 

buildings (2017-2019)

AES presence Count Percent

AES present 1,838 8.6

Partial system present 97 0.5

AES not present 18,787 88.0

Unknown 618 2.9

Total reported incidents 21,340 100.0

Source: NFIRS 5.0.

Note:	 The data presented in this table are raw data counts from the NFIRS data set summed (not averaged) from 2017 to 2019. They do not represent national estimates

of AESs in nonconfined cooking fires in occupied residential buildings. They are presented for informational purposes.

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

uninsured property losses. Despite these advantages, 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.26
TFRS Volume 21, Issue 5 | Cooking Fires in Residential Buildings (2017-2019)

12

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 is available 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.

Examples

The following are recent examples of residential cooking fires reported by the media:

ĵ March 2021: An accidental cooking fire in a single-family home in Fairfield, California, resulted in the death of 

a 27-year-old man. Another man was transported to a local hospital where he was treated for minor smoke 

inhalation injuries. The fire started just before 6:25 p.m. Upon arrival on scene, firefighters found the house to 

be fully involved with the victim trapped inside the burning home. The blaze resulted in an estimated $275,000 

in property damage with another $25,000 in contents loss. A neighboring home was also damaged by heat. No 

other injuries were reported.27

ĵ April 2021: An unattended cooking fire severely damaged a mobile home in Dade City, Florida. Fire crews responded 

to the fire at 7:23 p.m. Upon arrival, firefighters found heavy smoke coming from the roof and eaves of the 

manufactured home. A pot of oil left unattended on the stove caught on fire and spread into the cabinets and 

attic area. No injuries were reported because of the blaze. The home, however, was deemed a total loss.28

ĵ April 2021: An unattended cooking fire injured a man as he tried to extinguish the fire in his hotel room in Portland, 

Oregon. Firefighters were called to the scene around 1:30 a.m. where they found smoke in the hotel’s corridor, 

smoke alarms sounding, and sprinklers running. The smoke was traced to the kitchen area of 1 of the rooms 

where the man was working to put out the blaze. The fire was extinguished before reaching any of the other 

rooms. Water from the sprinklers, however, flowed into the hallway and several rooms. The man suffered minor 

burns to his hands and legs, but he refused medical treatment. No other injuries were reported.29

For home cooking fire prevention tips and information, visit the USFA’s cooking fire safety outreach materials webpage 

at https://www.usfa.fema.gov/prevention/outreach/cooking.html.

NFIRS data specifications for residential building cooking fires

Data for this report were extracted from the NFIRS annual Public Data Release files for 2017, 2018 and 2019. Only 

Version 5.0 data were extracted.

Residential building cooking fires were defined using the following criteria:

ĵ Incident Types 111, 113, 118, 120 to 123:30

Incident Type Description

111 Building fire

113 Cooking fire, confined to container 

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 and 118 do not specify if the structure is a building.

ĵ Incidents with Aid Types 3 (mutual aid given) and 4 (automatic aid given) were excluded to avoid counting a single 

incident more than once.
TFRS Volume 21, Issue 5 | Cooking Fires in Residential Buildings (2017-2019)

13

ĵ Property Use Series 400, which consists of the following:

Property Use Description

400 Residential, other

419 One- or two-family dwelling, detached, manufactured home not in transit, duplex

429 Multifamily dwelling

439 Boarding/rooming house, residential hotels

449 Hotel/motel, commercial

459 Residential board and care

460 Dormitory-type residence, other

462 Sorority house, fraternity house

464 Barracks, dormitory

ĵ Structure Type:

Ý For Incident Types 113 and 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.

ĵ The USFA Structure Fire Cause Methodology was used to determine residential building cooking fire incidents 

(i.e., cause code = ‘05’).31

ĵ Heating fire incidents involving heating stoves and food were believed to be cooking fires. As a result, fires with 

equipment involved in ignition code 124 (stove, heating) and item first ignited code 76 (cooking materials; includes 

edible materials for man or animal; excludes cooking utensils) were included in this analysis.

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 21)” (https://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/pdf/

statistics/data-sources-and-national-estimates-methodology-vol21.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: http://www.usfa.fema.gov/contact.html. Provide feedback on this report.
TFRS Volume 21, Issue 5 | Cooking Fires in Residential Buildings (2017-2019)

14

Notes:

1

National estimates are based on 2017 to 2019 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: http://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, http://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/pdf/statistics/

national_estimate_methodology.pdf. For detailed information regarding the NFPA’s survey methodology, see the NFPA’s “Methodology used 

in calculating national estimates from NFPA’s fire experience survey,” August 2020, https://www.nfpa.org/-/media/Files/News-and-Research/

Fire-statistics-and-reports/US-Fire-Problem/Methodsfirelossandothers.ashx. In this topical report, fires are rounded to the nearest 100, deaths 

to the nearest 5, injuries to the nearest 25 and dollar loss to the nearest million dollars. Additionally, deaths and injuries refer to civilian casualties 

only and do not include firefighters who die or are injured as a result of a fire.

2In NFIRS Version 5.0, a structure is a constructed item of which a building is 1 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 the 

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.

3The term “residential buildings” includes what are commonly referred to as “homes,” whether they are one- or two-family dwellings or 

multifamily buildings. It also includes manufactured housing, hotels and motels, boarding houses or residential hotels, dormitories, sorority/

fraternity houses, assisted living facilities, and halfway houses — residences for formerly institutionalized individuals (patients with mental 

disabilities, drug addicts or those formerly incarcerated) that are designed to facilitate their readjustment to private life. The term “residential 

buildings” does not include institutions such as prisons, nursing homes, juvenile care facilities, or hospitals, even though people may reside in 

these facilities for short or long periods of time.

4USFA, Topical Fire Report Series, “Cooking Fires in Residential Buildings (2014-2016),” Volume 19, Issue 9, December 2018, https://www.usfa.

fema.gov/downloads/pdf/statistics/v19i9.pdf.

5For this analysis, residential building cooking fires are defined as those residential buildings (defined above) for which the cause of the fire 

was determined to be cooking. However, for the confined fire portion of residential building fires, only those with Incident Types 113 and 118 

were included. From 2017 to 2019, there were 7 reported residential building cooking fire incidents with Incident Type Codes 115 or 117. These 

incidents appeared to have been miscoded but were determined to be nonconfined cooking fires. For this analysis, these incidents were assigned 

an Incident Type Code 111 and a Structure Type Code 1.

6USFA, Topical Fire Report Series, “Residential Building Fires (2017-2019),” Volume 21, Issue 2, May 2021, https://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/

pdf/statistics/v21i2.pdf.

7USFA, Fire Estimate Summary, “Residential Building Fire Injury Causes (2010-2019),” April 2021, https://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/pdf/

statistics/fire-estimate-summary-series.pdf. 

8Fire 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 2017 to 2019, 68% of the NFPA’s annual average 

estimated 1,309,800 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% 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.

9In the NFIRS, confined fires are defined by Incident Type Codes 113 to 118.

10The 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.

11USFA, Topical Fire Report Series, “Residential Building Fires (2017-2019),” Volume 21, Issue 2, May 2021, https://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/

pdf/statistics/v21i2.pdf.

12The 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 (165/187,500)) = 0.9 deaths per 1,000 

residential building cooking fires, and the fire injury rate is (1,000 x (3,325/187,500)) = 17.7 injuries per 1,000 residential building cooking fires.

13“One- and two-family residential buildings” include detached dwellings, manufactured homes, mobile homes not in transit, and duplexes. 

“Multifamily residential buildings” include apartments, town houses, row houses, condominiums and other tenement properties. “Other 

residential buildings” include boarding/rooming houses, hotels/motels, residential board and care facilities, dormitory-type residences, sorority/

fraternity houses, and barracks.

14USFA, Topical Fire Report Series, “Residential Building Fires (2017-2019),” Volume 21, Issue 2, May 2021, https://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/

pdf/statistics/v21i2.pdf.

15For 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.
TFRS Volume 21, Issue 5 | Cooking Fires in Residential Buildings (2017-2019)

15

16As noted previously, confined building fires are small fire incidents that are limited in scope, are confined to 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.

17USFA, Topical Fire Report Series, “Residential Building Fires (2017-2019),” Volume 21, Issue 2, May 2021, https://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/

pdf/statistics/v21i2.pdf.

18In the NFIRS, the term “heating stove” refers to heating equipment and is generally classified as a heating cause; however, for some cooking 

fire incidents, it was determined that the “Equipment Involved in Ignition” data element was coded erroneously as a “heating stove” rather than 

a “range or kitchen stove.” For all of these incidents, the “Item First Ignited” data element was coded as cooking materials. Additionally, 99% of 

the “heating stove” fires occurred in the kitchen.

19USFA, Topical Fire Report Series, “Residential Building Fires (2017-2019),” Volume 21, Issue 2, May 2021, https://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/

pdf/statistics/v21i2.pdf.

20The “misuse of material or product” category includes factors contributing to ignition such as heat source too close to combustibles and 

abandoned or discarded materials.

21Total does not add up to 94% due to rounding.

22Total does not add up to 67% due to rounding.

23Total does not add up to 100% due to rounding.

24In 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.

25As confined fires 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.

26U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 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/library/

publications/2013/demo/h150-11.pdf (accessed May 11, 2021).

27Hansen, Todd R., “Coroner IDs victim in Sunday fire as 27-year-old Fairfield man,” www.dailyrepublic.com, March 30, 2021, https://www.

dailyrepublic.com/all-dr-news/solano-news/fairfield/coroner-ids-victim-in-sunday-fire-as-27-year-old-fairfield-man/ (accessed May 18, 2021).

28Wannen, Kenneth D., “Cooking fire results in total loss of home,” www.hernandocounty.us, April 6, 2021, https://www.hernandocounty.us/Home/

Components/News/News/6042/18?fbclid=IwAR3DCK9C-hGNOt9JYXsmRpb6pe02I0YAqiqnQOhscpwHAqHhJcbJ6GACyTA (accessed May 18, 2021).

29“Unattended cooking fire sets off sprinkler at Hillsboro hotel,” www.koin.com, April 20, 2021, https://www.koin.com/local/washington-county/

cooking-fire-sets-off-sprinkler-at-hillsboro-hotel/ (accessed May 18, 2021).

30Incident Types: 114, 115, 116 and 117, by definition, are not cooking fires. From 2017 to 2019, there were 7 reported residential building cooking 

fire incidents with Incident Type Codes 115 or 117. These incidents appeared to have been miscoded but were determined to be nonconfined 

cooking fires. For this analysis, these incidents were assigned an Incident Type Code 111 and a Structure Type Code 1.

31The USFA Structure Fire Cause Methodology was used to identify fires for which the cause was cooking. 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, http://

www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/pdf/nfirs/nfirs_data_analysis_guidelines_issues.pdf.