PROJECT ARSON: AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE

TRUE ARSON RATE IN THE UNITED STATES

A Joint Scholastic Research Effort between

David J. Icove Thomas K. Hargrove

The University of Tennessee and Scripps News Washington Bureau

PRELIMINARY QUESTION?

• What is the true arson rate in the United States?

• Do you perceive that the resources (staffing, funding, training) of your fire/arson investigation unit linked to the arson rate?

• Have your resources been recently threatened?

ABSTRACT

• It is often thought that the true arson rate in the United States is far higher than is reported.

• Approaches to better estimate arson rates in the United States were uncovered during a nationwide audit by a national news service partnering with a major university.

• A recent arson rate study focused on building and vehicle fire data from during 2006-2012 from the National Fire Incident Reporting System (NFIRS) combined with geographic, socioeconomic, mortgage, and foreclosure data.

GOALS OF THE STUDY

• To evaluate the present accuracy of reporting the true arson rates using NFIRS program data;

• To explore new correlations among arson incidents with financial and socioeconomic data;

• To determine if serial arson cases can be detected on a national basis using pattern recognition algorithms; and

• To demonstrate the value of the NFIRS data.

DISCOVERING “HIDDEN” ARSON CASES IN NFIRS DATA USING THE “REASONABLE SUSPICION”

STANDARD OF CARE

• Arson cases previously unrecognized in public databases (or fires not thoroughly investigated in the first place) requires a logical framework

• Fires classified as arson normally require a thorough investigation to determine their origin and cause

• We used the reasonable suspicion standard of care in this framework

• This approach allows for the later discovery of potential criminal acts where the initial case facts fall short of probable cause – the legal standard for making arrests and obtaining warrants.

REASONABLE SUSPICION STANDARD

• Reasonable suspicion is evaluated using the reasonable person or reasonable officer standard

• Test: Whether an individual placed in the same circumstances could reasonably suspect a person has been, is, or is about to be engaged in criminal activity.

• Depends upon the totality of all circumstances, and can result from a combination of particular facts, even if each is seemingly innocuous.

PATTERN ANALYSIS OF FIRE INCIDENT DATA CAN RAISE THE THRESHOLD

• The analysis of fire incident data can, in some cases, elevate what appears to be innocuous and unlinked data, which when combined, raises the threshold level of reasonable suspicion to probable cause.

• During this analysis, pattern recognition algorithms can identify cases worthy of further review.

• These patterns are often based upon sound analytical principles of forensic science and investigation.

FEDERAL CASE #1 – RECOGNIZING PATTERNS IN ARSON-FOR-PROFIT SCHEMES

• An experienced fire investigator applied his advanced knowledge, training, and experience to detect unrecognized arson cases in fire incident data.

• Concluded 55 insurance claims were: (1) indicators of an arson-for-profit scheme and (2) a concerted effort involving multiple parties to fraudulently obtain insurance proceeds

• Used his experience, training, and scientific literature to recognize the patterns the fraudulent arson-for-profit scheme

Fire Patterns Cited Using Fire Incident Data

• Fire losses occurring shortly after the policy inception date

• Multiple fire loss claims by the same individual or among related individuals

• Fire loss claims that are disproportionate to the insureds’ financial status

• Fires occurring at a vacant or unoccupied home

• Repeated small fires at the same address or at other properties owned or associated to the insured

• Multiple points of origin for individual fires

• Fires caused by unintentional or unidentified causes such as cooking, smoking, electrical, or candles

• Numerous fires occurring within close proximity in a financially depressed location

• The insured was experiencing financial hardship, such as a pending or anticipated foreclosure of the property.

FEDERAL CASE #2 – USING PROBABILITIES DERIVED FROM NFIRS DATA

• “Unlucky” owners appear in the NFIRS and other public databases.

• Defendant charged with an arson-for-profit scheme between December 1991 and May 2009

• Defendant had financial interests in 10 residential properties and 1 commercial property which were damaged by arson

• Federal prosecutors had an expert witness determine the statistical probabilities of an individual’s investment property becoming the victim of several arson fires

Question Posed to the Expert Witness

• Question: “What is the probability of the random (or independent) occurrence of “X” number of serious fires in properties owned by the same individual over a “Y” month time period, running from January 1990 to December 2007?”

• Answer: The likelihood of the random occurrence of 10 or more serious fires in the residences is 1 in 225,180,000,000,000 (or 1 in 225 trillion).

CONCLUSIONS FROM FEDERAL CASES #1 & #2

• Exploratory data analysis of public source information from NFIRS can be useful

• These analyses, when properly performed, may pass the reasonable suspicion test often needed by investigators to justify a second look at an unknown or a misclassified fire incident that actually may be an intentionally set fire

PROJECT ARSON: AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE TRUE ARSON RATE IN THE UNITED STATES

• Several major findings were identified in this study through audits and analysis/correlation of the NFIRS data for several jurisdictions.

• Scripps News Washington Bureau investigative reporters, armed with case listings of NFIRS data (2006-2011), approached several major cities

• The reporters’ goal was to perform an independent audit of the true cause attributed to the fire incident

MISSING ARSON DATA ABOUNDS IN THE U.S. THAT ARE NOT REPORTED TO NFIRS • Detroit reported arson accounted for 14 percent of the city’s building fires

• Chicago reported 61 building arsons when it had at least 192.

• Houston said it had 25 intentional fires when it really had 224.

• Indianapolis reported no arsons whatsoever, when it should have reported at least 216.

• New York identified just 11 arsons, instead of the 1,347 it actually experienced.

• Colorado Springs Fire Department discovered a software error shown NFIRS data that all 677 building fires from 2009 to 2011 were reported as “cause undetermined after investigation.” The city arson investigators had actually identified at least 273 intentionally set fires during this period.)

MAJOR FINDINGS FROM THE AUDIT

• Arson reporting to NFIRS is erratic where many departments indicate arson rates of 2 percent or less of their building fires, which they admit are in error.

• Some major fire departments show arson rates of 30 percent or greater because they have policies requiring updating of NFIRS reporting upon completion of fire investigations.

• Most cases of arson detected by major city fire investigators go unreported to NFIRS reporting system because officials do not require their reporting be updated upon completion of a fire investigation

AN ALGORITHM TO IDENTIFY FIRES HAVING AN ELEVATED PROBABILITY OF ARSON

• 1. Buildings that had two or more fires reported from 2006 to 2011.

• 2. Building fires were compared against a foreclosure list and calculated the days between foreclosure and the date of the fire.

• 3. Fires that were not reported to be arson, but found to have multiple points of origin

• 4. Fires that occurred in vacant or abandoned buildings

1. MULTIPLE FIRES AT THE SAME ADDRESS

• The algorithm found that 61,691 fires (6 percent of all fires) occurred at “unlucky” buildings that had multiple fires over the six-year period

• Arson was the reported cause at 11 percent of these “unlucky” building fires, significantly more than the 7 percent arson rate at all other fires. But there were still 54,860 fires that were not reported to be arson that might bear further investigation or, at least, updating of NFIRS records upon completion of an arson investigation.

No Yes

Count 880,176 64,525 944,701

Percentage 93.20% 6.80% 100.00%

Count 54,860 6,831 61,691

Percentage 88.90% 11.10% 100.00%

Count 935,036 71,356 1,006,392

Percentage 92.90% 7.10% 100.00%Total

Table 1 – “Multiple Fires at Same Address?” By “Was Fire Reported as

Arson?”

Was Fire Reported as

Arson? Total

Were There

Multiple Fires

at Same

Address?

No

Yes

2. FIRES A FORECLOSED PROPERTIES

• With the assistance of RealtyTrac, more than 47,300 fires were identified at properties that experienced a completed court-ordered foreclosure during the six-year period.

• About 10 percent of these were reported to be arson.

3. FIRES WITH MULTIPLE POINTS OF IGNITION

• This test also produced the highest rate of reported arson, since 51 percent were reported to be intentionally set.

• More than 3,500 fires that would merit further investigation

4. FIRES AT VACANT PROPERTIES

• More than 100,600 fires at vacant buildings were reported to NFIRS during the six year period.

• 23 percent were reported as arson, well above the national building arson rate of 7 percent.

• Some fire departments have a policy of categorizing so-called “warming fires” as non-intentional.

5. FREQUENCY OF FIRES WITHIN CENSUS TRACTS

• U.S. Census Bureau in 2010 defined 73,415 tracts that are designed to be relatively homogeneous units with respect to population characteristics, economic status, and living conditions.

• Tracts currently average about 4,000 inhabitants.

• Tracts average 13.7 fires during the six-year period studied when the total number of fires is divided by the total number of tracts

Finding: Suspicious fire rate increases as number of fires increase

• Tracts with 1-4 fires in six years totaled 13% suspicious fires

• Tracts with 100 or more fires totaled 41% suspicious fires

• Pattern holds for all types of suspicious fire

Fires Per Tract # Tracts

Total Fires

Total Suspicious

Percent Suspicious

0 6570 0 0 0

1-4 17386 42778 5693 13.3

5-9 17570 120392 18749 15.6

10-19 19142 262669 46184 17.6

20-29 7362 175265 35521 20.3

30-39 2959 99733 22639 22.7

40-49 1274 55724 14231 25.5

50-59 556 29973 8252 27.5

60-69 265 16975 4892 28.8

70-79 134 9903 3485 35.2

80-89 54 4551 1594 35.0

90-99 41 3865 1647 42.6

100 or More 95 12147 5034 41.4

Camden, NJ – The Nation’s Highest Concentration of Suspicious Fires

• The worst fire rate (when the Witch Creek fires are removed) was in downtown Camden, N.J.

• 205 fires were reported in an area of about 25 city blocks.

• Although only about 5 percent of Camden’s fires were reported to be arson, the algorithm found that 66 percent appear to be suspicious.

CONCLUSIONS

FINDING #1

• This study demonstrates that a recognition of patterns in fire incident data, much of it contained in the existing NFIRS database, can point to fires whose undetermined or misclassified cause merit further examination as potential arson cases.

• These patterns are often based upon recognized forensic analysis principles, documented historical studies, and peer reviewed literature.

CONCLUSIONS

FINDING #2

• Geographic analysis shows specific areas/neighborhoods that have experienced fire incidents at many times the national average.

• When this analysis is made in conjunction with a close review of NFIRS data, neighborhoods with a high probability of future arson fires can be identified and proactively addressed.

• Local authorities do not always recognize or acknowledge the possibility of elevated arson activity in these neighborhoods.

CONCLUSIONS

FINDING #3

• The national estimates of arson rates are woefully inaccurate and arson as a crime in this country is significantly underreported.

• The true arson problem cannot be recognized and effectively addressed until the problem itself is accurately identified.

• Arson is much more common than has been officially reported or acknowledged. It will remain so until reliable data can be collected to support the commitment of resources necessary for a proper response.

CURIOUS ABOUT YOUR DEPARTMENT?

Go to: www.tinyurl.com/suspectfires

To see how this algorithm reviewed all fires reported by your department from 2006 to 2011

Questions, Comments, Encouragement?