Community Fire Safety Innovation Fund Evaluation

1
Community Fire Safety Innovation Fund Evaluation
Elizabeth Towner, Mariana Brussoni, Jane
Powell University of the West of England Michael
Hayes Child Accident Prevention Trust Denise
Kendrick, Caroline Mulvaney University of
Nottingham Heather Ward, Sandy
Robertson University College London
www.dorsetforyou.com
2
Background

• Those living in socially deprived areas are most
  at risk of fire
• (Lyons, 2003 Hippisley-Cox, 2002 Roberts,
  1997).
• Changing culture of the Fire and Rescue Service
  (FRS)
• (Bain Report, 2002).
• Our Fire and Rescue Service (White Paper) 2003
  strategy for reducing fires and saving lives
• Accidental fires in the home largest single
  cause of deaths and injuries. Growing trend in
  deliberate fires an increase of gt 25 since
  1996.
• 43m invested into Community Fire Safety and
  Arson Reduction programmes.

3
Community Fire Safety Innovation Fund

• The Fund was established in 2003 to encourage
  fire prevention activity.
• Aims of the fund
• assist in drive to reduce fires and fire related
  casualties
• reduce the level of inequality in the incidence
  of fire and fire related casualties
• identify successful local community fire safety
  approaches that can be rolled out across England
  and Wales

4
Community Fire Safety Innovation Fund
Funds allocated to fire and rescue authorities
(FRA) with highest death rates 2003/4 11 FA
1m 2004/5 7 FA 1.5m 2005/6 8 FA 2m

• Typical interventions
• Home fire risk assessments
• Community fire stations
• Youth fire safety innovations
• Hard to reach

www.cumbria.gov.uk
5
Community Fire Safety Innovation Fund Evaluation

• Overall aim
• to assess first 2 years of CFSIF
• Phase I
• Survey of projects funded in first 2 years
• (conducted in house)

6
Community Fire Safety Innovation Fund Evaluation

• Phase II
• Overall evaluation focus on implementation and
  process issues
• e.g. working in partnerships, training
• Impact on the number and type of fire incidents
• Impact on inequalities in incidence of fire and
  fire related casualties
• Costs and benefits

7
Design and methods
A controlled before and after study of 12 FRA
using 12 comparison FRA.

• 12 intervention FRA
• Receipt of funding
• Size of funding
• Urban/rural mix
• Performance ratings (Audit Commission)

8
Methods

• 12 comparison FRA chosen on
• Fire casualty rates prior to funding
• Deprivation
• FRS family grouping
• Completeness of geographical data

9
Methods

• Fire incidents and casualties ODPM.
• Population data Office for National Statistics.
• Each LA was assigned to the appropriate FRS,
  summed populations by age and gender. This was
  used to estimate person years for calculating
  casualty rates.

10
Methods

• Data on the Index of Multiple Deprivation 2004
  (IMD2004)
• Summarised at Super Output Area level
• (SOA smallest level of neighbourhood statistics)
  
• Used to describe the level of deprivation at the
• level of the FRA

11
Analyses

• Assessed 3 main outcome measures
• fire casualty rates
• accidental fire casualty rates
• accidental fire rates
• a further 9

For each outcome we compared rates between
intervention and comparison areas post funding,
adjusted for baseline rates and deprivation
12
Analyses 12 outcomes

• All fires
• Fire casualty rates
• Fire non fatal casualty rates
• Fire fatal casualty rates
• Fire rates
• Type of property
• Dwelling fire casualty rates
• Dwelling fire rates
• Motive
• Accidental fire casualty rates
• Accidental fire rates
• Malicious/deliberate fire casualty rates
• Malicious/deliberate fire rates
• Unknown intent fire casualty rates
• Unknown intent fire rates

13
Results
Fire casualty rates (per 100,000 person years)
pre and post funding for intervention and
comparison brigades
Post-funding rates IRR (CI) 1.07 (0.88 to
1.30) P value 0.51 adjusted
for pre-funding fire rates and deprivation
14
Results
Casualty rates (per 100,000 person years) pre and
post funding by quarter for intervention and
comparison FRA.
........ Comparison Intervention
Annual rate of change Pre Post funding
funding Intervention -1
-9 Control -2 -11
IRR Pre-funding 1.02 (0.86 to 1.22) Post-funding
1.09 (0.81 to 1.48)
15
Results
Fire casualty rates by deprivation quartile pre
and post funding for intervention and comparison
FRA.
P 0.22 comparing change in deprivation
gradients pre and post funding between
intervention and comparison FRA.
16
Conclusions

• Aims of the fund
• to reduce the number of fires and fire related
  casualties
• reductions in fires and fire related casualties
  in intervention and comparison FRA
• reduce the level of inequality in the incidence
  of fire and fire related casualties
• no reductions in level of inequalities

17
Final thoughts

• Short time period between funding and evaluation
• Ideally, evaluation designed at the start of the
  funding
• Innovation Fund introduced at a time of change in
  the FRS
• difficult to isolate the effect of the fund from
  on-going fire safety initiatives
• Economic evaluation fund money was spent on
  capital investments with medium to long term
  benefits
• Process evaluation personnel found the
  experience rewarding