V2020 Project Update

Vision 20/20 Project Update – December 19, 2012 (PDF Version 708kb)

There has been a great deal of progress with the IFE VIsion 20/20 project in recent months.  We have been awarded (and are grateful for) another AFG grant, focusing on support of community risk reduction (CRR) efforts nationally.  Because we are finishing up previous grant activities, there are updates for what has already happened under each strategic direction with a veiw toward future action steps under the next grant.

The local partnerships we established under the last grant with cleveland OH; Washington, DC; Rosemount, MN; Alexandria, VA; nad Palm Beach County, Florida, are all continuing with their own version of CRR activities at the local level, providing us with invaluable information on what works, and what improvments we can make to be successful. (Click on the section titles below for more details.)

• Strategy 1 Prevention Advocacy
• Strategy 2 Prevention Marketing
• Strategy 3 Prevention Culture
• Strategy 4 Prevention Technology
• Strategy 5 Prevention Codes and standards
• Model Prevention Evaluation Measures Task Group
• Models in Fire Prevention Symposium
• Vision 20/20 Core Activities
• Models in Fire Prevention - A Continuum

• Alan Perdue (IAFC/FLSS) and Peg Carson (Vision 20/20 Operations Manager) are continuing work on updating the online training package: Fire Prevention Advocacy Tools – available at www.strategicfire.org. They are working with Strategy 1 task group members to gather ideas that will make the information more useful and relevant, given these difficult economic times and the challenges facing local prevention programs. This activity includes working with Peg Paul and Associates, the original vendor on the tool kit production. Currently the work envisioned would involve rearranging the materials, creating a new chapter and developing an online tutorial.
• A small sub-task group led by volunteers Mike Donahue and Ray O’Brocki conducted a survey to identify where cuts to prevention have produced negative results. Some preliminary results have been discussed with this sub-task group, and a report indicating next steps will likely be available sometime after the first of the year.
• Some members of the Strategy 1 task group will meet with other subject matter experts in January to discuss how data collection and analysis efforts can better inform CRR prevention strategies. This is relevant to other strategic areas, as well as prevention efforts generally.

 Strategy 2: Prevention Marketing

• The theme “Fire is Everyone’s Fight™” is being promoted through a national campaign headed by the U.S. Fire Administration. A webinar in partnership with Safe Kids Worldwide was held on December 4 explaining how fire departments and other partners can get involved, drawing more than 200 attendees. 
• California State Fire Marshal Tonya Hoover has agreed to champion and lead the Strategy 2 task group. Meri-K Appy is assisting Tonya as the task force facilitator, and they are developing a specific action plan for the next action steps. They held a web meeting of task group members on December 18 to update the status of the “Fire is Everyone’s Fight™” campaign; and to discuss the results of the latest study conducted by the social marketing firm Salter Mitchell to test educational messages with high risk audiences. Results of their work will be reported soon regarding smoke alarm messaging, and kitchen fire safety; but general consensus is that proper messaging for smoke alarms will be more difficult due to the number of issues and the variety of technology involved. In 2013 the Strategy 2 Task Force, funding permitting, will continue work with Salter Mitchell and review new smoke alarm research from partner organizations. The goal is to simplify and prioritize key smoke alarm messages to help focus public attention and action on behaviors with the greatest potential for positive change.
• Messaging for kitchen stove top fire safety may be much nearer consensus among task group members, and will be processed more in January. 

Strategy 3: Prevention Culture

• The 2010 IFE grant in support of Community Risk Reduction efforts locally is near completion, with a progress report due in late December of 2012. Generally, each jurisdiction faces its own challenges getting smoke alarms into high risk households, and the number of alarms needed for those who are deaf or severely hard of hearing may be smaller than we originally anticipated.
• We are awaiting the results of the sleep demonstration project in Palm Beach County under the guidance of Dr. Gerri Penney. It has been a challenge coordinating activity among different entities, but the report should be available before close-out of the new grant deadline in December – which can help indicate which types of alarms seem to work best for those who are deaf or hard of hearing.
• It appears that sufficient savings can be realized in this next grant to produce a table top display to go along with the CRR logo to help promote the concepts within the fire service of the U.S. We will look for opportunities to do so in 2013.
• Proposals to NFPA 1001 – Standard for Firefighter Professional Qualifications – were submitted and partially approved. 
• The model firefighter recruit training curriculum is completed in draft form and Nancy Trench (of Oklahoma State University Fire Protection Publications and the International Fire Service Training Association) is working with a few local jurisdictions to pilot test the training. She is also working with Chief Bill Peterson to provide input into the revision of NFPA 1452 which is a standard for home safety visits.
• The new grant includes funding to significantly increase efforts to promote CRR within the fire service. That includes:
• Conducting 10 one-day workshops across the nation for fire service leaders.   That project will include a continuation of the training for fire departments nationally in the CRR concepts – as well as a ‘train the trainer” class so that the concepts can be continued in each FEMA region with or without outside financial assistance.
• A “Quick Response Team” concept is being finalized in January by a task group led by Ed Comeau. It will involve use of subject matter experts who respond to select local tragedies in order to help with implementation of CRR concepts at the local level.
• Johns Hopkins University will be conducting key informant interviews to develop a guide that can be used to more effectively measure the results achieved by home safety visits.
• Phil Schaenman and TriData will be conducting a follow-up study to see how local home safety visits are holding up long-term. This will include some examination of whether or not smoke alarms are still working after being installed by local fire departments or their partners.
• A CRR online training program will be produced in partnership with the Beardon Company to make the one-day workshop training material available more widely. Beardon is the company that does work for the International Fire Service Training Association online training, where we are finalizing a partnership to house Vision 20/20 project training within their library so that it will be available long-term.
• Meri-K Appy is leading some additional study work on what constitutes “model” home safety visit activities. This report offering some guidance to local efforts will be distributed in 2013.

Strategy 4: Prevention Technology

• The training program drafted to educate local Authorities Having Jurisdiction (AHJs) on how the product testing/listing process works, and how to manage it locally is moving forward. Feedback has been requested from Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratories (NRTLs), NFPA and ICC to see if anything is incorrect or missing from the training. The material will then be field-tested for refinement and future distribution – including free webinars or online training. We are trying to set up a field-test of the material for February in the Portland, Oregon area.
• Eastern Kentucky University has completed work on a study of fires with select stove-top appliances. That includes electric coil top, ceramic top, cast iron and high end heat regulating technology. That report is being reviewed by the Strategy 4 task group leadership and will be distributed among task group members before being released more widely. The information in the report will help with future research and prevention efforts through its examination of fire incidence and heat release properties of these cooking technologies.
• Strategy 4 members Mike Love and Richard Taylor are gathering information on smoke alarm technologies, and to some extent the behaviors associated with non-working or absent alarms for use by the Strategy 2 task group.
• The long-term plan for this task group includes identifying steady funding to provide small annual mini-grants for focused technology related research projects. 

• The International Association of Firefighters (IAFF) is continuing to move forward with their efforts to promote more involvement and understanding of the codes and standards development, adoption and enforcement process by the fire service. Their project includes online training materials and a working group that includes NFPA and ICC, led by Sean DeCrane, a Chief Officer with Cleveland Fire.
• The original task group for Strategy 5 will be contacted in 2013 by Dan Uthe with specific action ideas from their previous work plan that can be accomplished within the year.

• The online training for model evaluation measures which was developed by BlueVolt is available now via a link on our web page (www.strategicfire.org). We are pursuing a partnership with the IFSTA online learning center to house this training and promote it over the long-term. A simple revision to the course is being conducted with grant savings.
• Monica Colby (Rapid City Fire in South Dakota) is leading an effort to refine the case study format we’ve been using to capture “models” in prevention, and to revise our current case studies for posting on the Prevention and Public Education Exchange at the USFA, our web page and the National Fallen Firefighters web page. 
• The next grant includes funding to offer 10 additional one-day workshops promoting model evaluation measures across the nation. Don Porth is coordinating this effort among the existing instructors. Later in the grant cycle a “train the trainer” workshop will be conducted with a goal of establishing at least one instructor for each FEMA region so that classes can continue for minimal expense – and perhaps be self-sustaining.

Models in Prevention Symposium:

• Peg Carson is wrapping up the reports from the Model Performance Symposium conducted this year in Reston Virginia. It will include a summary of participant evaluations, the reach of information disseminated by state representatives, and suggestions for how we can improve future efforts. The feedback received from participants was very positive and encouraging for future participation. The programs are soon to be available on our web site (www.strategicfire.org).
• The next AFG grant cycle is now open and we are putting together a much smaller proposal to conduct another symposium on Models in Prevention. We envision adding a process step to revisit the original Vision 20/20 plan, involving as many people from across the nation as possible. A handout explaining the continuum between model evaluation measures, the training and the models in prevention symposium is attached.

• The Steering Committee will meet January 23 and 24 near the Baltimore-Washington airport, discussing the long-term plan to institutionalize the IFE Vision 20/20 project. We will also be discussing the establishment of an Industry Advisory Council that can provide sustained funding in small amounts, as well as critical input into shaping national prevention efforts.
• The latest financial audit of Vision 20/20 activities was conducted, and a few minor suggestions made for improvement which Carson and Associates have already implemented. 

• Formative Evaluation: the measures that describe the formative research done to help us focus our prevention efforts. That can include a needs or a risk assessment which tells us things like fire incident rates, age, race and income of people so we know who is at highest risk.
• Process Evaluation: the measures that tell us how the programs were developed and implemented so we can measure how well we stayed on track, whether or not we needed to change our programs so we know what worked well and what did not. Commonly we look at outputs – or the numbers of things done in this category of evaluation.
• Impact Evaluation: the measures that tell us how much our programs helped to change the risks of our intended audiences. In our prevention programs that is measuring things like gains in knowledge, or changes in behaviors.
• Outcome Evaluation: the measures that tell us if our ultimate goals of public safety have been reached by documenting changes in fire incidence, dollar losses, injuries or deaths. We need to note that looking at changes in the outcome measures needs to be done over time, because numbers can change from year to year anyway just due to random chance.