Arson in schools and colleges has an impact on people’s lives as well as on scarce resources and it’s a problem which just won’t go away. Peter Lackey UK fire product marketing manager for ADT and an active member of the BFPSA and FETA marketing groups, considers how an integrated approach – combining fire protection and security measures – can have a real impact.
The BFPSA and FETA are constantly looking at different areas of the commercial and domestic arenas, the effects fire has on them and how to address the threat. Education is one such sector where the life safety issue is only too apparent, but where the hidden costs of fire – particularly when viewed in terms of what resources those losses could otherwise provide – make stark reading.
In 2001, school fires cost the nation GB pound 100m. If Local Education Authorities could stamp out the very real and regular threat posed by arson to our education system, the result would not only be safer schools, but the associated cost savings could fund an additional 45 primary schools, or an extra 3,750 teachers.
Unfortunately, we are faced with the reality of 2000 schools damaged by fire each year with 70% started deliberately, often while pupils are in class and usually caused by their fellow pupils. As a result, everyone with responsibility for school or college security must be aware of the threat, and what measures are available to remove or manage the risk posed by arsonists.
Most people, when asked to profile an arsonist, would not put students on that list, though they might include children from a ‘prank’ perspective. The typical arsonist falls into the category of either emotionally disturbed, disgruntled ex-employee, malicious activist or criminals destroying evidence or making fraudulent insurance claims. In schools the prank or dare often has darker and deeper roots, and may lead to a tragic consequences. Apart from the threat to life, cost and disruption that an uncontrolled fire poses, the long term emotional distress to staff and pupils can impact on life away from school as well.
An assessment of the risk is the logical starting point, coupled with dividing land and buildings into zones. Each zone will contain different levels of risk (determined by ignition potential, fuel potential, access, life safety potential etc) which will, in turn, require to be dealt with separately.
For example, the perimeter of an inner city or rural school will be identified by a fence with gates, but a university campus will be open and sprawling. Within this zone we will probably find wheelie bins which will need to be secured, and rubbish areas and outbuildings, with perhaps a boiler house and fuel storage as well – all of which must be secured.
Moving away from the perimeter, we enter the main buildings which will be a mix of teaching areas, common access zones (probably with unrestricted movement), kitchens and administration zones. Each of these must be evaluated for risk potential and that risk level will also vary within these zones. Administration areas should be off limits to students, apart from a reception point. Halls of residence or residential accommodation in boarding establishments, by their very nature, offer particular high life safety risks.
Examine the risk
A good, detailed risk assessment will allow a facilities manager, teacher or other appointed responsible person to learn more about their buildings and processes than ever before.
The risk assessment must cover a broad range of topics and arson is just one of these. Other considerations include the threat posed by fire generally, security of people and property from physical attack or theft, and access for disabled students, visitors and staff. Another consideration is the reliability of systems and their immunity from false alarms. Certainly for fire alarm systems, false alarms caused by poorly designed or badly serviced installations have been running at over 280,000 per annum, costing the UK taxpayer approximately GB pound 1 billion per annum in brigade call outs and lost productivity.
A good security system is essential for deterring arsonists out of hours. Most modern systems offer excellent detection capabilities, sequential alarm confirmation of a real situation and automatic links to manned 24 hour alarm receiving centres. CCTV cameras can not only deter but also capture usable evidence of crime. But, as we have seen, most arson attacks in schools occur during school hours and are caused by pupils. Here, an access control system coupled to the correct type of fire detection system – well designed to offer early, reliable detection – are further uses of electronic systems. A good access control system should offer the flexibility of free travel for staff but restrict access to unauthorised individuals.
Access control is many things to different people. Typically though, an access control system involves a computer network on which people’s access rights to certain areas are controlled by programming. Another feature of access control is timing: student and staff movements can be controlled by area during pre determined time blocks. So cloakrooms, for example, may be freely accessed during break times but off limits when pupils are in class.
In some cases it may not be enough to just lock a door. Other physical building changes may be required, such as fitting metal containers inside letter boxes and reducing gaps under doors, to prevent the unchecked spread of burning liquids.
Whatever security systems are in place, it is vital that the risk assessment also allows for the fact that somebody could be in a position to commit arson. In such a situation, the role of first aid fire-fighting equipment – typically fire extinguishers and in certain cases hose reels – can prove invaluable. The nature of the risk will dictate which type of fire extinguisher will be required: a dry powder or wet chemical extinguisher is likely to be recommended for a kitchen area, while a water or foam extinguisher will be used to protect a common area such as a corridor or classroom.
Confidence in specifying
The choice of supplier needs to provide confidence that life safety, building protection, false alarm management and design are as good as it can get. To this end there are a number of independent third party accreditation schemes where suppliers are regularly tested for competence. In fire for example, all members of the British Fire Protection Systems Association will need to obtain either LPS1014 or SP203 as marks of competence in the design, installation, commissioning and maintenance of fire detection and alarm systems.
Any fitted system must be regularly maintained to ensure reliable, fault free and false alarm free operation. Similarly, regular maintenance of fire extinguishers and hose reels is necessary to ensure they are in optimum working order should they be required.
What of the future when planning against arson in schools? Technology clearly has an important part to play and we may yet see a whole series of biometric access control measures employed. System integration with automatic links to remote monitoring centres, training of staff, risk assessment and disaster recovery planning and good maintenance, coupled with taking into account disabled students, are all critical to the success of countering fire risk.
But probably the most important measure in the long term, is to include arson and fire awareness as part of the teaching curriculum. Teachers and facilities managers can take advantage of free advice from the fire industry and fire prevention officers – people who can talk about fire with authority, having seen its awesome anger. And if we make everyone in schools and colleges more aware of fire, they can then take that awareness home and keep safe in all walks of life, as fire knows no boundaries.
