In 2019–2020 the US National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) challenged seven volunteer Firewise USA neighbourhoods to have owners of a chosen group of adjacent homes complete wildfire mitigation work within 30 feet of each house, with US$2,000 per site. The pilot tested whether already engaged communities would accept more specific, home-by-home goals than the programme normally sets.
Map
Firewise USA Sites of Excellence
General Information
ISIG
A two-year pilot in which seven US neighbourhoods worked home by home to reduce wildfire risk, with most households taking part.
NFPA’s Firewise USA programme ran the pilot, called Sites of Excellence, from 2019 in seven states: Washington, Utah, Colorado, Arizona, Texas, Virginia and Wisconsin. Each site, all of them organised through a homeowners’ association (HOA), chose a group of adjacent homes and aimed for every owner to complete the tasks that an individual risk assessment set within 30 feet of the house. NFPA gave each site US$2,000, and state foresters and local firefighters supported the work. At the five sites that report participation, between about 65 and 96 percent of households took part, and leaders at all seven planned to stay in Firewise USA. The evidence comes from the sites’ own reports and 27 interviews carried out for NFPA a year after the pilot.
Firewise USA is a voluntary, community-based wildfire preparedness programme run by NFPA, with the USDA Forest Service and the state foresters’ association as co-sponsors. To be recognised, a neighbourhood of 8 to 2,500 homes sets up a resident committee, obtains a written risk assessment, writes an action plan, holds an outreach event and records the hours and money it spends on mitigation. In 2022 more than 1,800 communities were active sites. Recent wildfires that destroyed many homes showed the dangers of weak protection in the first 30 feet around a house, the “home ignition zone”, where embers and flames can ignite a building. NFPA therefore wanted to find out whether its most engaged sites could meet more ambitious goals.
Two goals applied to each Site of Excellence: full participation of owners in a chosen pilot area, designed as up to 100 adjacent homes, and completion of the mitigation tasks identified for each home within 30 feet of it. The seven sites were:
- Forest Highlands, Arizona (Flagstaff): 744 homes, more than 2,000 residents, mostly second homes, with strict HOA building standards. 81 of the 85 homes in the chosen zone took part.
- Red Rock Ranch, Colorado (Monument): 195 homes and about 600 residents, many of them retired, next to a national forest. 19 of the 23 chosen properties took part.
- 7-R Ranch, Texas (Gordon): 125 homes in a gated community, about half of the lots occupied. 120 homes took part.
- Summit Park, Utah: about 600 built lots in a forest at 6,500 to 8,500 feet, mostly year-round residents. 45 households took part.
- Coal Bank Ridge, Virginia (Blacksburg): a wooded community next to a national forest. 37 households took part, about 65 percent.
- Flowery Trail, Washington (Chewelah): 48 cabins and homes on leased state land at about 4,000 feet, mostly vacation homes. All 48 were included, and the participation rate is not given.
- Crystal Lake Club, Wisconsin (Wautoma): 75 households, mostly lake and vacation homes. 48 households (65 percent) agreed to a fire safety check, and 18 of them reported finishing all the recommended work by the end of the pilot.
All seven sites had been active in Firewise USA for years before the pilot. The COVID-19 pandemic limited meetings and in-person activity in 2020.
Hazard Type
Geographical Scope - Nuts
Geographical Scope
Population Size
Population Density
Needs Addressed
Wildfire can spread from one home to the next, so protecting a single house does little unless its neighbours act too. The pilot addressed three linked problems:
- Work in the wrong places. Before the pilot, many sites concentrated on shared land, chipping days and yard clean-ups and gave little attention to the area immediately around each house.
- Voluntary action that stops short. Firewise recognition has minimal requirements, and one respondent said that a Firewise sign does not show that a neighbourhood is protected.
- Weak buy-in. Residents often resist clearing vegetation because they value trees, privacy and shade, and some distrust government involvement.
The pilot did not target specific groups. Several sites are mostly retired residents, and at Red Rock Ranch, Colorado, the leaders changed their approach because earlier community days were hard for an ageing community to take part in. Volunteers there also cleared an elderly widow’s overgrown lot.
NFPA designed and coordinated the pilot, with the Forest Service and the state foresters’ association as Firewise co-sponsors. At each site the HOA and a resident committee led local work, with the state forestry agency and the local fire service providing assessments, grants, training and advice. In Washington and Wisconsin the state natural resources department decides which communities can become Firewise sites. HOA powers differed: Forest Highlands can require wildfire standards and charge residents for work they fail to do, while Red Rock Ranch has voluntary dues and relies on encouragement.
All seven sites already had a committee, a risk assessment and an action plan as active Firewise sites, and each was served by a fire district or volunteer fire department. Beyond the Firewise requirements, the report describes specific measures at some sites. Red Rock Ranch made its own evacuation maps and brochure and held a practice evacuation with three nearby communities in September 2021. Summit Park worked with the county emergency manager on exit routes and replaced locked gates with breakaway gates. Coal Bank Ridge planned an evacuation drill that the pandemic delayed. The pilot itself concerned prevention around individual homes, and the rating varies from site to site.
The pilot did not need new infrastructure. The sites relied on existing fire districts and forestry agency support. Some had more: Flowery Trail installed a larger water main, hydrants and an 80,000-gallon tank and was then taken into the local fire district, Summit Park and its partners extended a shaded fuel break over 165 acres, and the golf course at Forest Highlands acts as a firebreak. Crystal Lake Club widened driveways and improved signs for emergency vehicles.
To make residents and their neighbourhood groups the main actors in reducing the fire risk around their homes, with agency support, and to find out whether they would accept demanding targets.
HOA letters, emails and door-to-door visits to introduce the pilot (Red Rock Ranch); fliers and online posts (7-R Ranch); a kick-off meeting, neighbour invitations and a personal mitigation plan with each owner and quarterly progress updates (Coal Bank Ridge); free chipping days and brush collections; community work days; reduced HOA fees at some sites for households that helped; presentations at annual meetings (Crystal Lake Club); and trained residents carrying out home assessments (Forest Highlands). NFPA gathered site leaders in San Antonio, Texas, in 2019, and a second meeting planned for 2020 was cancelled because of the pandemic.
Each site chose its own pilot area, assessed its homes and decided how to spend its US$2,000, as one government employee said, by making leaders "think, prioritize". NFPA set the overall design: full participation inside the area, a limit of about 100 homes, a time limit of two years and work within 30 feet of each home. The report does not say whether residents helped set these rules, and some sites' pilot areas were larger than 100 homes.
Forest Highlands has residents trained and nationally certified to carry out home assessments, so the fire district does few inspections itself. Sites built stronger working links with state and local agencies, such as the county blue-ribbon committee in Summit Park. Participants said the pilot strengthened neighbourhood cohesion and understanding of risk, and all seven leaders planned to remain Firewise sites.
Vulnerable Groups
Governance
Emergency Preparedness
Infrastructure Readiness
Engagement Level
Empowerment Level
Implementation
The pilot gave neighbourhoods a measurable target for a defined group of adjacent homes within a fixed time, instead of the general good practice that Firewise normally encourages. Tasks came from an individual home risk assessment, which several sites carried out with the state forest service or fire district. The US$2,000 grant and a sign recognising each site as a Site of Excellence added motivation. In Texas the state forest service’s assessment app produced reports and a colour-coded risk map. A university researcher, Dr Rebecca Miller of the University of Southern California, evaluated the pilot through interviews and site reports.
English
NFPA, through its wildfire division and the Firewise USA programme, with the Forest Service and the state foresters’ association as co-sponsors. At each site the HOA and its Firewise committee carried out the work, supported by the state forestry agency and local fire service.
NFPA is a long-established US fire and life safety standards body. It has run Firewise USA since 2002, and in 2022 the programme had more than 1,800 active communities. It also has a dedicated wildfire division. The seven pilot sites were chosen because they were already highly engaged.
NFPA; the USDA Forest Service; the state foresters’ association; state forestry or natural resources agencies; local fire districts and volunteer fire departments; the seven HOAs and their Firewise committees; homeowners; local organisations that gave grants or help, such as a church and an environmental coalition at Red Rock Ranch; and Dr Rebecca Miller of the University of Southern California, who evaluated the pilot.
- NFPA selects seven active, HOA-based Firewise sites that volunteer for the challenge.
- Site leaders meet NFPA and each other (San Antonio, 2019) and agree the two goals: full participation in a chosen area and work within 30 feet of every home.
- Each site chooses its pilot area of adjacent homes and recruits owners through letters, meetings, door-to-door contact and neighbours.
- Each home gets a risk assessment, carried out by the state forestry agency, the fire district or trained residents, with recommended actions.
- Owners carry out their tasks, supported by chipping days, brush collections, work days and incentives, and sites spend their US$2,000.
- Sites send annual progress reports and records of hours and spending to NFPA.
- An outside researcher reviews the pilot through site reports and interviews (November 2021 to January 2022), and NFPA publishes the findings in May 2022.
Human resources: resident leaders and volunteers, homeowners’ own time and money, forestry and fire service staff for assessments, chipping crews.
Financial resources: NFPA gave each site US$2,000. Sites added HOA funds, local and state grants and in-kind help. Examples are US$3,000 from the Red Rock Ranch HOA, US$3,325 of in-kind help from the Wisconsin natural resources department for 18 households, and US$14,000 in homeowner incentives from the Summit Park HOA in 2020. The 7-R Ranch grant did not cover its brush collections, so participants paid the rest.
The pilot ran for 24 months from 2019. Sites filed annual reports and records of hours invested, and NFPA commissioned an evaluation based on 27 conversations with 31 leaders, state and local government staff and NFPA staff, held between November 2021 and January 2022. The report was published in May 2022. The pandemic delayed assessments and meetings in 2020.
Experience of the Implementing Organisation in DRM
Target Audience
Resources Required
Timeframe & Phases
Participation Results
Interviewees most often named close coordination with state and local agencies (23 of 27), HOAs that give structure and leadership (19), a sense of community cohesion (18) and neighbours talking to neighbours (16) as the reasons the pilot worked. Leaders recommended having several leaders and a committee rather than one champion (20), educating residents repeatedly, seeking local media attention and persisting through setbacks. Specific, measurable goals and a two-year deadline sped up work that sites might have done more slowly. NFPA’s wildfire director reports that the required work was completed across adjacent properties, but the site data are mixed and the evidence of lower fire risk is limited. At 7-R Ranch the average home risk score fell only from 53.7 to 53, with 36 homes improving and 12 getting worse, and at Crystal Lake Club 38 percent of assessed households reported finishing all recommended work. One site leader said much of what NFPA asked for was already being done, and the neighbouring Lake Palo Pinto community, which was not in the pilot, stayed passive even after assessments.
The report’s interviewees named four main challenges:
- Buy-in (17 of 27 interviewees). Residents wanted to keep trees, privacy and shade, and some felt nothing would happen to their home. Sites answered with education, neighbour-to-neighbour conversations and a shared, specific goal.
- Privacy and government oversight (9 of 27). Some residents feared assessments would be reported to insurers or lead to regulation. Interviewees suggested bringing the agency staff member to the neighbourhood in person and letting neighbours explain.
- Mitigation effectiveness (11 of 27). Recognition alone does not make a site safe, and sites can pick tasks that do little to reduce risk. Coordinating with fire services and forestry agencies on where to work was the suggested remedy.
- Funding (16 of 27). Grants can be hard to obtain, and the US$2,000 helped sites decide priorities. Some sites cut HOA fees for helpers, and agencies helped to find grants.
The pandemic limited meetings, and the second assessment at 7-R Ranch was done from the roadside. Other site-specific problems included unwilling absent owners at Red Rock Ranch and no one responsible for empty lots at 7-R Ranch.
The case report links specific risks to specific measures: low buy-in to education, neighbour contact and incentives; distrust of government to in-person agency contact and neighbour voices; weak mitigation to home assessments and work within 30 feet; funding gaps to grants, fee discounts and agency help; leader burnout to committees with several leaders. It does not give a formal risk plan for the pilot itself.
Risk & Mitigation Plan
Scalability and Sustainability
The pilot’s gains are maintained mainly through the Firewise USA framework and the HOAs. To stay in good standing, a site renews each year, holds an outreach event and records at least one volunteer hour or its money value per dwelling, and reviews its action plan every three years and its risk assessment every five. The HOAs provide leadership, meetings and funds, and agencies provide assessments and grants.
The pilot ran in seven states with different forests, terrain, housing and HOA powers, and results were broadly similar in participation, which suggests the method travels among engaged communities. The report concludes that comparable communities could take on the same challenge. What scales is the target: a defined group of adjacent homes, tasks based on each home’s assessment and a fixed time. What needs adapting is the local fire risk, the tasks (for example leaves in Virginia, grass in Texas), the HOA’s powers, and the support available from state and local agencies. Limits are that all seven sites were self-selected, HOA-based and already highly engaged. The Lake Palo Pinto community in Texas, which was not in the pilot, showed little interest even after assessments. Respondents also asked for region-specific tools and for ways to share lessons between sites.
Technology played a supporting role. The Texas A&M Forest Service app produced home risk reports and a colour-coded map for 7-R Ranch, communities used Facebook pages, newsletters and email, and Forest Highlands tracks household measures over time.
NFPA gave each of the seven sites US$2,000 and a sign. Site spending reported in the evaluation includes US$3,000 and US$310 for volunteer insurance from the Red Rock Ranch HOA; two brush collections at 7-R Ranch that the grant did not fully cover; US$14,000 in homeowner incentives from the Summit Park HOA in 2020; and US$3,325 of in-kind help from the Wisconsin natural resources department for 18 households. No public information on staff costs for NFPA or total pilot cost was found.
NFPA’s US$2,000 was a one-off tied to the pilot, and 16 of 27 interviewees called funding an ongoing challenge, noting that most sites receive no start-up money.
No consolidated figure on ongoing costs was found. They include the annual volunteer-hour or money equivalent that Firewise sites must record, chipping and brush collection, newsletters and events, and upkeep of cleared areas by homeowners.
All seven site leaders planned to remain Firewise sites. Interviewees said sites last when leadership is shared, because Firewise sites often lapse when no one takes over. They also said HOAs help with fees, grant applications and communication, and that agencies should not spread themselves too thin. Funding remains a continuing concern, with requests for mini-grants and insurance discounts. Respondents suggested a tiered Firewise USA programme with higher levels like the pilot, more sharing of regional good practice, and a wrap-up event that the pandemic prevented.