文章基本信息

标题：Grassroots Movement Building and Preemption in the Campaign for Residential Fire Sprinklers
本地全文：下载
作者：Mark Pertschuk ; Robin Hobart ; Marjorie Paloma 等
期刊名称：American journal of public health
印刷版ISSN：0090-0036
出版年度：2013
卷号：103
期号：10
页码：1780-1787
DOI：10.2105/AJPH.2013.301317
语种：English
出版社：American Public Health Association
摘要：Home fires account for 85% of fire deaths in the United States, the majority in 1- or 2-family homes lacking fire sprinklers. Since 1978, however, a grassroots movement has successfully promoted more than 360 local ordinances mandating sprinklers in all new residential construction, including 1- and 2-family homes. The homebuilding industry has responded by seeking state preemption of local authority, a strategy previously used by other industries concerned about protecting their profits. From 2009 through 2011, 13 states adopted laws eliminating or limiting local authority over residential fire sprinklers. This study of the residential sprinkler movement adds to our understanding of grassroots public health movements and provides additional evidence that preemption can have a negative impact on public health and safety. On March 25, 1911, a fire in the Triangle Shirtwaist factory in New York City killed 146 workers. Although an effective fire sprinkler had been patented in 1874, the building did not have sprinklers. The commission that convened to study the fire recommended that, in the future, sprinklers be installed “in all factory buildings over seven stories or 90 feet in height in which wooden floors or wooden trim are used.” 1 ^(p44) Although an increasing number of jurisdictions mandated sprinklers in commercial structures following the Triangle Shirtwaist fire, it was not until the 1970s that advocates initiated a successful campaign for local laws requiring sprinklers in all new residential construction, including 1- and 2-family homes. 2 Concerned about the success of the grassroots sprinkler movement, trade associations representing homebuilders began lobbying for state laws limiting or eliminating local authority over residential fire sprinklers, a strategy known as “preemption.” Preemption occurs when a higher level of government (federal or state) limits the authority of lower jurisdictions (state or local) over a given matter. 3 For practical purposes, the effect of state preemption is the same as federal preemption: if laws at higher and lower levels conflict with one another, the higher level laws will typically prevail. 3,4 Among public health practitioners (and most researchers), the term “preemption” usually refers to “ceiling preemption,” by which higher jurisdictions limit the power of lower jurisdictions to adopt stronger protections. 5 On the other hand, setting minimum federal or state public health standards, which can be referred to as “floor preemption,” is rarely controversial in the public health community. According to the Institute of Medicine, “the presumption should be that ‘floor’ preemption is the more appropriate option in the area of public health.” 4 ^(p50) Therefore, we use the term “preemption” to signify ceiling preemption and recommend that, for the sake of clarity, other public health practitioners and researchers use this nomenclature as well. Advocates working on numerous different public health issues, including alcohol policy, 6 gun violence prevention, 7 obesity prevention, 8 tobacco control, 9,10 and illegal drugs policy, 11 have expressed concerns about preemption. 3,5 Preemption can halt state or local innovation, 11 eliminate the flexibility to respond to the needs of diverse communities, 7 undermine grassroots movements, 6 prevent or delay changes in social norms, 10 and concentrate the power of industry lobbyists in Washington and the state capitals. 12 Of course, there are circumstances under which federal or state preemption in public health is either necessary or a valid option. However, these circumstances are rare. 3 According to the Institute of Medicine, In a few areas of public health, federal preemption seems highly appropriate. For example … the federal ban on smoking on airplanes—the interstate nature of airline flight makes this area ideally suited to federal preemption. 4 ^(p49) The valid desire to implement strong, consistent national standards can usually be achieved by adopting minimum standards (i.e., floor preemption) without abrogating state or local authority to adopt stronger public health or safety protections. We have focused on residential fire sprinklers for 2 reasons: (1) from 1978 until the present, there has been a growing grassroots movement for residential fire sprinkler mandates; and (2) between 2009 and 2011, 13 states passed preemptive legislation to hinder the grassroots sprinkler movement. We studied the factors that led to success in the fire sprinkler movement and the impact of state preemption on that movement. Preemption in this case appears to fit a historic pattern in which industries have used preemption to thwart public health or safety movements. 3,6,12 Public health innovations and reforms in the United States often rely on grassroots efforts. 13,14 A grassroots public health movement is a type of social movement formed to address threats to the health and safety of the community, led by activated individuals and organizations that devote resources to building grassroots capacity. A grassroots movement is typically built around a single issue or concern that energizes individuals who join together in a common cause 13–15 and can be focused on policy change at any level of government. Social movement theory suggests that grassroots public health movements are most likely to succeed when entrepreneurs in the movements are able to take advantage of political opportunities, have available institutional structures that will support action, and can frame their issues in ways that facilitate a shared understanding of the problem and that motivate action. 16 The existence of structural opportunities for “concerted political action” creates the possibility for mobilization to influence policy. 17 To move an issue through the political process, however, advocates must frame their issue in such a way that they are reflecting, influencing, or activating public opinion. 18 Thus, successful grassroots efforts either are supported by majority opinion or are advocating in a field in which the majority of people do not yet hold strong opinions. In the latter case, the social movement, if it is visible in its efforts, can educate the public to adopt the movement’s understanding, or framing, of an issue. 19 One of the most accessible points for health advocacy in the US political system is at the local level. 3,12 At the local level, an informal network of those desirous of policy change—often volunteers—can work together more readily. Their voices are more likely to be heard at the local level, because they may have a personal connection with local decision makers, whereas state or national interest groups may be perceived as outsiders and thus are less likely to be able to capture local government. 20 In addition, the framing of an issue can be local and personal and thus more salient to community residents. 21 At higher levels of government, the advantages enjoyed by public health advocates diminish in relation to their generally better funded and better connected opposition. 12 Groups that can afford paid lobbyists and make campaign donations are more likely to achieve their goals at higher levels. 22 These groups frame preemption as a necessary antidote to inconsistent local ordinances that stifle business, 9 with few competing voices to point out that local problems need local solutions. Public health advocates have generally lacked the access and resources needed to counteract these better funded and organized interests at higher levels of government. 3 Thus, preemption serves as a repressive force, eliminating local opportunity for “concerted political action.” 17 For powerful interest groups, the advantages of preemption are clear. Preemption forces public health legislation into the venues where the institutional structures and political opportunities favor those with money and professional lobbying operations. At higher levels of government, consistency and uniformity are used to argue for preemption. What is lost is the ability of local communities to serve as laboratories of innovation where they can develop and test tailored solutions to address local problems. Only when the array of solutions is tested can an informed discussion on a single standardized set of rules begin. Issue frames that emphasize the importance of a consistent or standardized set of rules make more sense at higher levels, whereas those that emphasize local solutions do not. 3 In the early 1970s, it was estimated that fires in the United States killed nearly 12 000 people, caused 300 000 injuries, and resulted in property damage of more than $11 billion annually. To accurately assess the extent of the human costs and property damage associated with fires and recommend solutions, Congress created the National Commission on Fire Prevention and Control in 1971. 23 America Burning , a report published by the commission in 1973, energized fire prevention efforts, especially in the fire service. 2,24 Although fire deaths and injuries have declined since the 1970s, most residential fire deaths and injuries are preventable. 25 In 2010, fires in the United States caused 3120 deaths (exclusive of firefighters), 17 720 injuries, and $11.6 billion in property loss. Approximately 85% of all fire deaths occur in 1- and 2-family homes. 26 The Federal Emergency Management Agency has concluded that automatic fire sprinklers are the “most effective fire loss prevention and reduction measure with respect to both life and property” 25 ^(p17) Sprinkler systems are relatively inexpensive to install, especially in new construction. On average, the installation of sprinklers in new homes costs $1.61 per square foot (and as low as $0.55 in some cases), and the presence of fire sprinklers can lower the cost of fire insurance. 27–29 Retrofitting existing homes with fire sprinklers is more expensive than is installing them in new home construction, although communities have considered lower cost retrofitting options. 30 In 1896, the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) published the first installation standard for automatic sprinkler systems, which ultimately evolved into NFPA Standard 13. In 1975, the NFPA published a standard specifically developed for 1- and 2-family homes and mobile homes: NFPA 13D. At a 2008 meeting of the International Code Council (a membership association that develops model building and fire prevention codes, including the International Residential Code [IRC]; most US jurisdictions rely on the IRC in updating their building codes), a requirement for fire sprinklers in all new 1- and 2-family dwellings was added to the 2009 edition of the IRC. 31 The IRC is a model code, and not a statute or regulation, and must therefore be adopted by state or local jurisdictions to carry the force of law.