Tennessee - Fire Service Department Type
Fire Service Information - Fire Service Department Types - Fire Service Personnel
National Fire Incident Reporting System. Reporting by Responserack Fire Department NFIRS RMS.
Tennessee Fire Department Types
The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) definition of department type is as follows:
| Department Type | Definition |
|---|---|
| Career | All firefighters are career / paid firefighters |
| Mostly Career | More than half of the firefighters are career / paid firefighters |
| Mostly Volunteer | More than half of the firefighters are volunteer / un-paid firefighters |
| Volunteer | All of the firefighters are volunteer / un-paid firefighters |
The information below is based solely upon fire departments that have registered with the National Fire Service Registry. If you have not registered your fire department, please do so, it is free and contributes to a complete picture of the fire services. Check out some Quick Facts from the registry.
Need to replace your Fire RMS?
- Learn about Responserack - Fire Department Software.
Middle-of-the-night simple NFIRS reporting your firefighters will love.
Department Type
NOTE: In the USFA National Fire Service Registry data for Tennessee there are 2 departments NOT classified, and so NOT included in these statistics. Departments should register as Career, Mostly Career, Volunteer or Mostly Volunteer but we do not have it for these 2 departments .
Departments Types of Tennessee
Percentages are intentionally rounded for simplicity not precision, so please use them as insights only.
| County | Career | Mostly Career | Mostly Volunteer | Volunteer | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Anderson | 12% | 12% | 25% | 50% | 8 |
| Bedford | - | 33% | 33% | 33% | 3 |
| Benton | - | - | 14% | 86% | 7 |
| Bledsoe | 12% | - | - | 88% | 8 |
| Blount | 33% | 33% | - | 33% | 6 |
| Bradley | 50% | - | 50% | - | 2 |
| Campbell | - | 11% | 22% | 67% | 9 |
| Cannon | - | - | - | 100% | 4 |
| Carroll | - | - | 38% | 62% | 8 |
| Carter | 12% | - | - | 88% | 8 |
| Cheatham | - | - | 67% | 33% | 6 |
| Chester | - | - | 67% | 33% | 3 |
| Claiborne | - | - | 12% | 88% | 8 |
| Clay | - | - | - | 100% | 7 |
| Cocke | 25% | - | - | 75% | 8 |
| Coffee | - | 29% | - | 71% | 7 |
| Crockett | - | - | - | 100% | 6 |
| Cumberland | - | 33% | 33% | 33% | 3 |
| Davidson | 67% | 33% | - | - | 3 |
| Decatur | - | - | 17% | 83% | 6 |
| Dekalb | - | - | 25% | 75% | 4 |
| Dickson | 9% | - | 18% | 73% | 11 |
| Dyer | 12% | - | 12% | 75% | 8 |
| Fayette | - | - | 36% | 64% | 11 |
| Fentress | - | - | - | 100% | 3 |
| Franklin | - | 7% | 7% | 86% | 14 |
| Gibson | 18% | 18% | 9% | 55% | 11 |
| Giles | - | - | 20% | 80% | 5 |
| Grainger | - | - | - | 100% | 5 |
| Greene | 7% | - | - | 93% | 15 |
| Grundy | - | - | - | 100% | 8 |
| Hamblen | 20% | - | - | 80% | 5 |
| Hamilton | 21% | - | 29% | 50% | 14 |
| Hancock | - | - | - | 100% | 5 |
| Hardeman | - | - | 12% | 88% | 8 |
| Hardin | - | - | 67% | 33% | 3 |
| Hawkins | - | - | 17% | 83% | 12 |
| Haywood | - | - | 50% | 50% | 2 |
| Henderson | - | - | 67% | 33% | 3 |
| Henry | 11% | - | - | 89% | 9 |
| Hickman | - | - | - | 100% | 3 |
| Houston | - | - | 33% | 67% | 3 |
| Humphreys | - | 20% | - | 80% | 5 |
| Jackson | - | - | - | 100% | 8 |
| Jefferson | - | - | 12% | 88% | 8 |
| Johnson | - | - | - | 100% | 6 |
| Knox | 33% | 33% | 33% | - | 3 |
| Lake | - | - | 100% | - | 2 |
| Lauderdale | - | 14% | - | 86% | 7 |
| Lawrence | - | 7% | - | 93% | 15 |
| Lewis | - | - | 50% | 50% | 2 |
| Lincoln | - | 50% | - | 50% | 2 |
| Loudon | 17% | 17% | - | 67% | 6 |
| Macon | - | - | 50% | 50% | 2 |
| Madison | 50% | - | 50% | - | 2 |
| Marion | - | - | 7% | 93% | 15 |
| Marshall | - | 17% | - | 83% | 6 |
| Maury | 18% | - | 9% | 73% | 11 |
| McMinn | - | 11% | 11% | 78% | 9 |
| McNairy | - | - | 10% | 90% | 10 |
| Meigs | - | - | - | 100% | 2 |
| Monroe | 7% | - | 13% | 80% | 15 |
| Montgomery | 50% | - | 50% | - | 2 |
| Moore | - | - | - | 100% | 1 |
| Morgan | - | - | - | 100% | 8 |
| Obion | 17% | - | 17% | 67% | 6 |
| Overton | - | - | 9% | 91% | 11 |
| Perry | - | - | - | 100% | 7 |
| Pickett | - | - | - | 100% | 1 |
| Polk | - | - | - | 100% | 3 |
| Putnam | 25% | - | 25% | 50% | 4 |
| Rhea | - | - | 20% | 80% | 5 |
| Roane | 9% | 9% | 27% | 55% | 11 |
| Robertson | 11% | 11% | 33% | 44% | 9 |
| Rutherford | 30% | 10% | 20% | 40% | 10 |
| Scott | - | - | - | 100% | 6 |
| Sequatchie | - | - | - | 100% | 6 |
| Sevier | 10% | 10% | 30% | 50% | 10 |
| Shelby | 70% | 20% | - | 10% | 10 |
| Smith | - | - | - | 100% | 6 |
| Stewart | - | - | - | 100% | 4 |
| Sullivan | 23% | - | - | 77% | 13 |
| Sumner | 25% | - | 8% | 67% | 12 |
| Tipton | - | 10% | 50% | 40% | 10 |
| Trousdale | - | - | - | 100% | 1 |
| Unicoi | - | - | 25% | 75% | 4 |
| Union | - | - | - | 100% | 4 |
| Van Buren | - | - | - | 100% | 4 |
| Warren | 14% | - | - | 86% | 7 |
| Washington | 12% | - | 12% | 75% | 8 |
| Wayne | - | - | - | 100% | 7 |
| Weakley | - | 10% | 10% | 80% | 10 |
| White | - | - | 11% | 89% | 9 |
| Williamson | 22% | 11% | 11% | 56% | 9 |
| Wilson | 33% | 33% | 33% | - | 3 |
Firefighter / Personnel Numbers of Tennessee
Here the personnel numbers by county for volunteer and career agencies within Tennessee.
Looking for NFIRS FDIDs?
Here are the fire department identifiers (FDIDs) for agencies within Tennessee. NFIRS FDIDs are required for submitting NFIRS reports with mutual aid or automatic aid with those departments.
Need to replace your Fire RMS?
Responserack provides innovative middle-of-the-night firefighter-simple volunteer fire department software and NFIRS incident reporting software. Learn how Responserack helps your volunteer fire department.Need more NFIRS help?
Need more help with NFIRS, or not yet found what you are looking for? Please see if these help …